ML20238A531
| ML20238A531 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 07/10/1986 |
| From: | Westerman T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237F760 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8708210002 | |
| Download: ML20238A531 (256) | |
Text
i
,, UhntD STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOB ;- .
y IN THE MATTER OF: DOOGT NO:
INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW -
9
- i l:
'}. l 0 -
j O J
"s LOCATION: ARLINGTON, TEXAS FAGES: 1 - 254 (
O I .
i
[ DATE: THURSDAY, JULY 10,198d I
l
. 1 l
l'
' Ae-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
444 Etd5reet W hin 3.C.20001 4
)347 3700 )
mmma em 82 { hOBQ 00 PD G
Attachment D l
. . l
i l'
SWORN STATEMENT OF TOM WESTERMAN VOLUME I July 10, 1986 10:00 a.m., C.D.T.
l ()
LOCATION: NRC Region IV Arlington, Texas TAKEN BY: George Mulley !
l l
1 l
1 i
g TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 i
l
1 . _ . . .
I l
P R 0 erE nI wag l
2
, 3 MR. MULLEY: The ti,mt is 4 9:35 a.m. on the 10th of July, 1986. )
We are at i 5
the headquarters of Region IV Nuclear Regulatory
! 6 l Commission in Arlington, Texas.
7 l
Present is Mr. Tom Westerman, who is a 8
! Region IV employee, myself, George Mulley, who is .
9 the assistant director for investigations, Office
~
10 of Inspecting Auditor, Steve Goldberg, who is a
,_ 11 i technical advisor detailed to OIA from I&E, and 12 the court reporter, Ms. Trish Sims.
( 13 We're here today to discuss information 14 that Mr. Westerman may have concerning Region IV's 15 management of the Comanche Peak plant.
l 16 17 TOM wEsTrnMAN.
18 being first duly sworn by the notary, testified as 19 follows:
20 I l
21 EXAMINATION 22 23 Q. (BY Mr. Mulley) Mr. Westerman,6before we 24 start, I would like to advise you formally that 25 I'm an investigator with the Office of Inspecting i
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' ~~
_ _ _ - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - -- ~
2
\ '
.. I and Auditor. !
2 .
3 One of my functions is to investigate the
^
I possibility of violations of both lawiand <
4 regu.lations.
5 You're going to be asked a' number of 6
specific questions concerning the performance of 7
your official duties.
8 You have a duty to reply to these 9 .A questions,
~ and agency disciplinary proceedings f 10 resulting
~ in your discharge may be initiated as a 11 \
result of your answers.
12 Bowever, neither your answers or any .. i
{
4 13 information which is gained by reason of such 14 15 statements can be used against you in.any criminal proceedings.
16 You're subject 17 to dismissal if you refuse to answer or fail to respond truthfully and full y 18 to any questions. j 19 Do you understand those rights?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Mr.
Westerman, before we start, could you 22 i
briefly provide us with a synopsis of your 23 background? 1
\
6 '
24 A. Sure.
Well, I'm graduate of the 25 University of Yexas.
I majored in math and i I
i I
1 physic..
I graduated in 1962 1 2
I was also commissioned into the Navy. I -
3 was in the ROTC program since the 4
school. I went time [I was in into the nuclear Navy in 1962, and 5 I was there for approximately five 'and a half 6 years.
7 I spent three years onboard the RSS 8 Enterprime.
I was in the repair division. I was I 9
a repair division officer. My last duty WY the l
10 h699V En4+epf4se-wa s i n 19 6 7.
11 I was discharged from the
_ Navy. i l
12 I went to work at General Dynamics in
( 13 Fort Worth as a nuclear engineer.
14 I did a number of engineering
' and nuclear engineering related 15 acitivities. ;
16 I was in the operations group with 17 General Dynamics.
18
-I did a number of things there i including engineering type work related to heat 19 transfer. I helped write the --
in fact, I wrote 20 the --
SPea: I was in charge of the part of the 2 Ih 21 poet that we had to write the safety limits in 22 heat transfer.
23 I left GD in '69.
24 Region I went to work for !'
I.
I was a project inspector for 25 construction in Region I. I was there for '
l J 1
a ~
1 opprox.mately three.yoors in construction. I was 2
the team leader on a number of the initial QA 3 inspections that were done at all of t.he 4
facilities then under Region I in the construction 5 phase.
6 I can remember having up to, I guess, 7 eight construction facilities assigned to me at 8
one time. I was in my later stages assigned to !
9 most all Ihe trouble plants. By that, I mean
~
10 plants that were in enforcement type problems.
_ 11 I can recall some of the kind of things I 1 i
12 did as a construction inspector that are of
( 13 significance.
For example, Calvert Cliffs, it was 14 s my item that I identified in that the diesel fuel 15
. oil storage Pn HiNq tanks weren't missle protected. That 16 W f. pill. !
led to pulling those tanks a(nd 111&g boxes l 17 essentially with 3 foot of concrete to protect 18 them from missles.
19 i It j was my unresolved item that led to the 20 discovery of the voiding under the tendon {
21 i buttresses of about 75 percent of the tendon I 22 buttresses. \
23 I 24 left Region I in about 1972 apd went to Gulf States Utilities. I was the director of j 25 quality assurance for Gulf States Utilities. I j
l l l
1
- -_- A
5 i
1 worked directly for the senior vice-president.
2 At Gulf States, I established a QA 3
^
program for that company. I wrote the; manual and 4 procedures. I was in the-process of hiring a 5 staff.
I had about three onboard. -
6 At the time I was there, I did a number 7
of things at Gulf States including audits of all 8
the NSSS and A/E type folks, pre-award surveys.
9 I can say the more laudable audit.
10 el findings was ia.GE. at I When I did_sy audits ia.GE, 11 &
na discovered that the Model Vt reactor was being-12 based on nwVied the product 69 line, that the only design
( 13 change of vtev that was occurring at that time was '
14 of the Delta change between the 69 product line 15 I
and the Model VI.
16 As a result of that, Al Breed who was the 17
! GE QA manager came"all the way down to Gulf States 18 to talk about 19 the corrective action which led to a C
complete design review of the Model TT-GE 20 reactor.
21 I l
also did a number of other kind of 22 audits.
For example, Stone and Webster, I can 23 i remember the first audit there. It was homething 24 like eighteen pages of deficiencies.
25 I came back to Region I. After
6 hsd '
1 Regiot.
I, -t soved f rom Newark, New Jersey. At 2 that time, )
3 I became principal inspector at Calvert
. Cliffs.
4 I
can recall during that time frame !
5 6
probably the most significant issue I developed at j that time was the fact 7
rehbf that there was no NDT 4+4+e*+
B
~ valve installed on the commercial reactor plants.
9 I
can recall that at Calvert Cliffs, we 10 reli did install an NDT .4010:eeG y-11 valve capability. I \
~ l 12 would note f/wethat later on an individual by the na me l o f M r . F+ete),9 e- who left the Commission, identified
{' 13 the NDT release valve as an unresolved safety 14 issue. Mr. F4494 fla a sc was the junior nuclear engineer 15 at Calvert Cliffs at the time.
16 In 1975, I came to Region IV. Primarily 1
17 they were looking for an experienced princi pal 18 inspector for the Fort,St.
19 Vrain facility.
On about 20 the'second inspection that I made at Fort St. Vrain, we shut 21 the facility down i I
for nine months based on electrical separati ons l 22 problems.
23 I can recall that prior to my inhpection 1 24 and discovery, I guess, of 25 their electrical p/socu/
separations that )
they had Svaryhedy-in NRR ;
l 1
7 t ,
1 i Region IV, even a notarized audit-signed b y who is 2
now president 3
of the company, saying that all 4
electrical equipment at Fort St. Vrain had been installed properly. 'I 5
I 6
can recall at Fort St. Vrain having looked at the reserve shut down system, 1 7 which this is nwr an operating plant, -
i 8 commenting that that system $
was seismic; and indeed it 9 was not seismic.
That led to Fort St. Vrain looking at a 10
_ 11 n' umber of other systems and finding also they hadn't been analyzed or designed seismic i 12 .
{, 13 I can remember looking at fire stops at Fort St.
Vrain and found that almost 75 to 14 80 percent (
15 o f t h os e fi r e s t ops . we r e n ' t e,: w. . etc+ \
designed. !
16 I don't 17 remember the exact date time frame I picked up Arkansas. i; 18 I had Arkansas Unit II for start-up testing.
19
, I was the first senior resident inspector at Arkansas. !
20 During the start-up testing phase, I 21 took it up through 25, t 40 percent power when I was there.
22 1 can remember probably the most 23 significant '
borde gaa/ issue developed at I 24 Arkansas Was the Lt..icea relief valve issue. You can go back and 25 look at the 50.55(e) that Arkansas wrote and
8 l
1 you'll find that they said that they wrote that i 2
50.55(e) at the direction of the inspector. i 3
I was also involved in the des aded power 4
incident at Arkansas.
5 I.was at the site for about a week gathering all 6
the data that was involved in that incident. I came back to'NRC headquarters; 7
and rather than have the utility come in and spend 8
two days trying to review it, I made the 9
presentation to NRR.for about 1 10 three hours worth. (
~
As I can recall I had gone through all of 11 that incident, j and the meeting came off pretty 1 j
12 well, I thought.
In fact, I got high praises for
{ 13 the conduct of the meeting. hd A I 4++4s4 A r k a n s a s -and.
14 also identified what I 15 called some of the TMI transit k precursors that determined that the 16 pres'surizer level was lost on a full scram.
17 18 I had tried. to obtain assistance on looking at the transients. I had gone to 19 headquarters, to NRR project management. I had 20 gone over to the instrument control folks. In 21 fact, at one 22 time I had scheduled for the training assistant out of IE to come down to site and go 23 through the transients. f 24 Subsequently, he canceled.his travel.
25 t Utility presented me with calculations to show
9 l l
J dor -
1 that there was still proper erder inventory in the 2
plant even though they didn't have a pressurizer -
3 level; and the issue was closed. .*
4 I would have liked to have had more time 5 probably to looked into that thing or had more {
6 assistance; but I believe it might have been an 7 earlier insight into TMI.
8 I came b.ack in 1979 to Region IV as a 9 section chief. I would point out that through all 10 this time I turned down a number of chances for .
l- (
Il promotions out of Region IV. I chose not leave i
12 Region IV.
( 13 In '79, I was section chief. I.had all '
14 the operating teactors in Region IV assigned to 15 me. When the TMI incident came along, I can 16 recall that headquarters called to Region IV to 17 ask that I head upone'of the teams. I was going 4
' 4 18 to go investigate TMI.
19 At the time,
/>?a dCe d lGse \
, , Gl e n Metese and -Ce z a -l '
20 - m .fr! &[6] f or-b we r e rtoelu letc tme a ngo.
t They said I 21 was more valuable at the Region.
22 I was involved in the initial start of 23 the Comanche Peak ALSB hearing starting In 1982.
j 1
24 I was then chosen by Mr. Collins to be the 25 enforcement officer. I did not volunteer for that i
5
oc t
1 position. I was asked to take the position.
2 I was the enforcement officer in 3
Region IV for 19 83 to 1985.
I handledfdll the 4
enforcement cases in Region IV.
5 I think I handled them on an impartial, fair, professional basis.
6 I can recall being the lone guy sitting i I
7 at the end of t'he table on a number of times 8
saying -- for example, Fort Calhoun. I think it 9
was probab'ly myself and Mr.
Brown were the only j l
10 t~wo folks that said the issue was material.
_ 11 I was the one that then brought about 12 ;be.4 OI going into investigate and making sure
{' 13 sure it wasn't intentional. This was our normal 14 practice at that time. ,
15 In 1985 in June, I was asked to head up 16 ,
the. Comanche Peak group of Region IV. I would !
17 indicate again I didn't volunteer for that job. I 18 would say that in that position there's been a 19 number of things that'we've done with our group 20 that's there. i 21 More significant issues found by my group 22 would be like the electrical penetrations 23 associatedISwith Comanche Peak for which the 24 utilities 1 of 4 n process 1M4+ replacing all 420. I 25 think that is the total number. I
11 1
I can remember my folks coming in and 2 saying there's a short splice we found on a 1 3
penetration assembly on a valve isola (ion tank.
4 At the time I asked to go out to go look
'5 at where there might be other penetration 1
'6 assemblies, l and that's that when we went into 7
containment.
That's when we found short splices 8 that {
were inside the containment.
9
' We found splices both inside and outside 10 the containment that had not been analyzed.
I
_ 11 think I'm the one that climbed up and found one of -
12 the big junction box that was unsealed.
( 13 As a result of the EPA issue, we proposed 14 civil penalty for which I was instrumental in 15 j writing most of that package, Mr. Ian Barnes 16 also. We did approach it to look at programmatic 17 18 issues that came ou't of that and found that there were vendor drawings with neat little notes {'
19 written on them that were in the permanent records 20 vault 21 for which the utilities initiated the whole action to go back 1
22 and look at all vendor drawings and also to look at the review and approval of 23 vendor designs.
I 24 ,
We went back and looked at things like 25 the program, the vendor inspection program. We
\
1 found on those EPA's, for example, that shop l 2
inspection had been waived.
, 3 We have the utility now back looking through that whole isigue. We 4 found tha. the receipt inspection had'a number of {
5 issues N/A.
We have utilities back looking at j 6
that issue. 1 7 .l Physic' ally they're going to be going out 8
in the plants and inspecting in the vendor area.
9 We also have them going back and 3 coking at a 1 10 {
sample of the EQ program as result of the EPA's.
11 I guess what I'm saying here is that is a 12 programmic type approach to the problems. I.was
(, 13 j 14 involved in an issue for which we issued a civil i penalty action.
15 As a matter of fact, I took the notes-16 from the consultants and wrote the inspection 17 report and then sent that inspection report to the 18 folks involved to sign.
19 That also resulted as a part of the civil penalty that was issued to 20 Comanche Peak.
21 I can say that I 22 don't know I've ever had any appraisal that 23 I wouldn't consider highly complimentary.
As a matter of fact, I ddn't have 24 1 any problem giving my last appraisal.
25 Q.
Would you like to have this entered into I
i i
l
)
a
13 1 1
I the record?
2 A. Sure.
3 MR. MULLEY: Thisafpraisal is 4
dated March the.Oth, 1985; and'I will 5 .
mark this as-Exhibit 1.
6 (Whereupon the document was 7
marked for identification as Exhibit i 8 ',
No. 1.) I 9 A.
~
I guess my' job history would indicate 10 I've always dealt
~ fairly and professionally with 11 all issues. Normally when I sign a document, I
12 stand behind it.
{ 13 I believe the NRC has to function as a 14 team.
I've done my best to coordinate that with !
15 all parties at Comanche Peak.
16 I've tried to build up, I think, confidence in the Region IV's I
17 capability, professional capability of the people i 18 we have at Comanche Peak.
19 Q. Okay. Tom, several months ago we had 20 several Region IV inspectors come to OA with 21 concerns that they were having regarding alleged 22 pressure, harassment, and intimidation that they 23 were receiving from Region IV management.while 6
.24 they were inspecting out at Comanche. Peak and I 25 while they were preparing the inspection reports.
1 i
i
14
,, 1 2
These inspectors said they were being pressured to change inspection 1 reports and other 3
documents generally to make TUGC0 look'better .
4 !
They also alleged that 5
draft inspection reports were being changed to delete or down g'rade <
6 violations. ;
i 7
One of the inspectors asserted that be 8
was being intimidated to the point where he felt 9
he should ask Regio,n IV what 10
~
to document on. draft inspection reports instead of just writing a n 11 independent inspection report based on his 12 inspection. I
( 13 These inspectors are also concerned'over 14 the fact that they felt that Region IV was not 15 properly regulating Comanche Peak and that the i
16 inspection program certainly was inadequate 17 .
18 While I wa's be'ing given these concerns by these inspectors, your name came up specifically i
19 as one of the people in Region IV management who 20 they felt was exerting pressure on them and 21 intimidating them.
22 23 They then proceeded to give me examples of several inspection reports that 24 they felt would illustrate what they were saying, 25 -
and they-reviewed some of ti.'
recent Region IV inspection
15 i
I history and showed areas where they felt Region IV 2 l was deficient. . !
3 .,
I For this reason, I'm talking fto you I 4 today.
i I'd like to say that in certain areas your 5
name cane'up as being a person who was. harassing 3 and intimidating.
I 7
Now, in other areas when we're talking 8
about the adequacy of the Region IV inspection 9
program at Comanche Peak, naturally that doesn't 10 involve you as a subject of anything.
_ 11 What I would like to talk to you about as 12 Region IV management, you know, some of the
( 13 inspection procedures, inspection programs and, 14 ;
you know, all the history; and some of this goes )
15 back before you were even involved with Comanche 16 Peak. So, naturally I would like to get the 17 information from you and what you know about 18 Comanche Peak since you've been involved with 19 !
Comanche Peak for some time.
20 >
This is kind of like a two-part type 21 interview.
Some areas you were specifically named 22 as being a subject, and other areas just Region IV '
23 management and Region IV as a wholes andfI'll be 24 specific when I talk to you about the parts that 25 you are mentioned.
a
1 1
I'll cay that they ocid you horassed and 2
intimidated them; but in other areas where Region
( , 3 IV didn't ~
! perform certain special procpoures, well, naturally you're not 3
) 4 responsible.for that j 5 persona.1.ly.
6 You mentior.3d earlier that there were 7 several things 'that you vented to get on the 8 !
. record and discuss before we actually started.
9 A. \
Id like to review overall the things you 30 k'ind of talked about. I would intend to go through 11 probably the same reports that these folks say 12 have identified to you, 1 l
( 13 I have gone through them. l I. feel that I 4
14 can demonstrate that what's in the reports or what i 15 these folks were proposing to put in the reports 16 caused a great l
deal of interaction between myself 17 and the individuals'.
18 One can interpret intimidation, 19 harassment or pressure any way. There are a 20 number of ways to interpret that.-
21 I know that it resulted in a great deal of interaction between 22 myself and, in particular, Mr. Phillips in trying 23 1 to arrive at what I consider a professionally 24 competent report that had the proper technical 25 issues, that we were not writing violations for
17 1
issues that weren't violations.
2 I think 3 there 's a number of times when I talked with Mr. .
' i 4
Phillips I would'tell'him that a )
particular issue was not a vi ola t ion . {
5 I.didn't duck the issue.
6 report.
The issue is still in the :
It's in the report.sometimes as 7
unresolved items, 8
sometimes as open items. \
1 9
Many times it probably she.$1dn't have even been an unresolved item; 10 but because I didn't d'uck the issue, it's there. ;
11 So, at some point in time it's got 12 to be closed and closed in a proper fashion, be that
( 13 a violation, be that be a closure- 8 of the item, or whatever 14 transpires from that.
15 It's hard to be a supervisor and try to deal with the kind of reports 16 that I was trying to >
deal with that were coming particularly out of my l 17 construction inspector's trailer. 1 18 I will hand 19 1pu those as we get into it.
You can see that two reports represent 20 about three i and a half or four inches of paper.
21 represent Those all trips back and forth to Mr. Phillips' 22 trailer trying to get it 23 into proper prospective the issues that were being written Iwikigo. k 24 over very clearly those issues as we get 25 Q. into it.
That's what j I would like to do. I would 1
I
7
'\
18 I
1 1 like to get your general ,
2 comments up front, and '
then we will address -- as you obvious 1y ha ve a 3 feel for what has been happening, we'll address.
4 each inspection report as a separate item.
5 I've got certain issues that I'll ask you 6 about and; l 7
then based on what you have and.your knowledge of what happened, you can provide se 8
with your replies.
9 If you would at 10
~ this point like to address in general 11 format some of the allegations and issues that 12 I just presented to you, that would good.
( 13 A. At some point I would like-to go over 14
'some of the folks I think you need to talk to in 15 conjunction with these things that have been 16 brought in very general nature. i 17 There are several kinds of things that probably need to be 18 established. ,
19 20 You probably have most of those people scheduled, but 21 I would like to at least get on the record their names.
22 Q. Right.
23 A.
I have looked at 24 that I a number of the folks think you ought to interview. I think 25 you're go{ng to have to interview every member of
! 80 I I my group. Okay.
That goos beyond Mr. Phillips, 2 of course.
My team leader as I call him at the '
3 time when I went to Comanche is now tbs present ^
4 chief of the Comanche Peak group, Ian Barnes. He 5'
was formerly a GS-15 paying grade.
Be'was a vendor 6
section chief. Be's been in vendor inspection in 7
this country, I believe, since about '69.
8 9
Be 's been ir volved in the review of each of these reports.
.The reason that he probably 10 didn't have the interaction with Mr. Phillips that 11 I did, I was first line supervision and took it 12 upon myself to go to Mr.
Phillips rather than try
( 13 to put Mr.
Barnes in who was not truly in a 14 management type position, although I was using him 15 as a manager.
16 I think you probably also -- when you 17 talk to Barnes, you' can talk him about the 18 interaction on the reports :
and the kind of 19 products that we saw.
20 I think you have to look at the kind of
( 21 product
' that we were getting is the kind of reason 22 we were having the problem we were having. I 23 think Mr. j Barnes can also probably talk to the Q 24 j performance of Tom Young who was over in our 25 trailer initially.
1 l l
20 1
Barnes is the one I've heard Dick hhd$
2 3
describe that Barnes said that if there was j wrong-doingorsomethingimproper,hehould 4
investigate it.
That's what he said.
5 There is Cliff Bale who is my team leader 6
on QA/QC issues. {
He has right now two consultants 7
working under him full-time working up QA/QC 8
programmatic issues at Comanche Peak.
9 I
~
think Cliff can probably talk about his k 10 interf ace with Shannon's TRT and in particular i~
11 8432. {
8432 happens to be TRT type issues which \
12 Mr. j Phillips wrote up in his inspection report .
\
{ 13 I think Cliff can shed some light on 14 where even Shannon got 15 some of his initial l findings that came in 8482 {
4 16 I think Cliff Bale is f also the one you want to talk to about 17 Mr.
Phillips' current findings in regard to i 18 I Brown & Root audits.
19 Be has reviewed his current report. I 20 would indicate that that initially came j over to us in management 21 as two Level III violations and "X" 22 number of other violations in the Brown & Root audit program. a 23 At that time, 24 the best Ian Barnes and I (ecided way was to put Mr.
25 Hale in between us and Mr. Phillips and tell Mr. Phillips to talk to 1
m 9
1 Mr. Ha40 first becauso Mr. Phillips was into come 2 of the ISAP's which were assigned to Mr. Hale. -
3 Q. What report number is this? s' 4 A.
Let me see what that comes out to be. I 5
believe that's 8608, 8606. -
6 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) What does ISAP for?
7 A.
That's Issues Specific Action Plan.
8 Comanche Peak's response team program plan has in 9 it
~
two different methods of handling issues that j
- 10 were developed during the TRT inspections that
- _ II were done and also addresses other external 12 issues.
(, 13 They have what they cell issues specific 14 action plan which may address programmatic QA 15 i
issues as well as hardware issues for which 16 l
they've developed a plan that they've submitted to 17 the Commission as t'o how they're going to go out 18 )
and look at different , things that were found or 19 1
have been otherwise identified.
20 It was also within that discipline 21 specific action plans and that deals with 22 5 engineering area 4 for which they are going back and l 23 doing representative sampling of all design I 24 k efforts at Comanche Peak. }
25 j One of the issues specific action plan,
}
t
, , . 22 g >
_4_. - _
1 ')b C , <
2 is specifically a sample reinspection of all construction work at Comanche Peak, ,
3 is which probably the one we spent i 4 any. as much of our tide on as i 5
6 We were also -- it was a resp'onsibility 7
of our group to follow through the implementationn . x {
{
8 of all the ISAP's in our program plan as well as -- for example, 9
Bale and his work-is looking at 1 the overall programs of CPRT's on site He's .
10 l'ooking at TUGCO.
_ 11 He's got two consultants '
assigned to him full-time.
12 I don't
( 13 have the initial draft that came over with the two Level III's. I could get it if 14 you thought you wanted it.
15 Q.
(By Mr. Mulley) 16 now.
Well, no, not right 1
17 A. i I
16 gave you'the inspection report number. k Q. Yes. {
, \
19 A. '
I would indicate that I think probably 20 ]
Cliff Bale is the best person to talk to.
1 21 Q.
t (By Mr. Goldberg) !
22 He was acting for t Barnes in the last h beV 1 23 three weeks, and then Barnes was on vacation in. I 24 A. <
Be initially looked at this thing.
25 Now, what we've agreed to with IE is that we will give s
<\
l k _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
7 F
23 q[-_
1 6 them -- the first line supervisor will initially 2'
go through this report and provide our comments, 3
. which we haven't done yet. E 4
Bale has had the first cut at it. Ee's 5 the most knowledgeable person to talk a' bout it.
6 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) You mentioned IE.
How 7 d o3 s I.E g e t into it?
8 A.
]It's an agreement made in a letter from 9
S t e ll ojw' t o , I believe, the chairman which stated
~
10
~
that uniil this OIA inspection is completed that 11 IE will integrate in the review of our inspection 12 reports; and basically there's a letter that
{ 13 addresses that, that we've drawn the line that 14 first line management will save the original copy 15 as submitted by the individual.
16 First line'2anagement will then act on 17 that report as they Would normally act on it, and 18 then we're going to package that up and send it
^
to i 19 IE headquarters. M r ., Le e -Op.f G e%cerd j ise+4 has been 20 assigned to that responsibility.
21 Q. Okay.
22 A.
Cliff Bale can also talk to Tom Young's
, 23 performance.
Tom Young was initially assigned i
24 under Cliff Eale. So, as I indicated, Ian Barnes 25 can talk about Tom Young.
1 ~
_ _ _ _ - ~
[y 1
- f. 4
'24
_'.- J 1 < I Other folks are Lee E11erchaw. He harf .
(
2 mf 3
'the civil mechanical area for all'CPRT .. ;
a ci ti vi tes . E' 4
I will probably reference.his going into some of these reports. s You can talk to him 5 about ;
a particular code or standard. He cane out' 6 -
of the vendor program. a L He's very e.xpertenedd in ,3>
7 g codes and standards. '
4 8
i CliffBa'ewasalsoprevichsayser$1'on l
[ ,/#
9 e t
chief in the vendor' inspection brarc,yh. He's a d b /r.,I 10 m <
.< i GS-15 payLat grade. i 1 ll ' ' ,
11 did all Be was over the'W section that i f )
j
.p' the QA audits of NSSS suppliers and AE's ' ,
'l 12 !
when he was in the vendor group. t
( 13 e.
f
! 14 The other fellow in the tra ler that formed VC 4 the Comanche Peak group is Phil Wagner 15
- b+r have already talked to Mr. Wagner.
16 However(
you should talk to Mr. Wagner along.the lines of 17 , .
I guess, his interface with me, how we've handled 18 the EPA issues, how we've handled other issues a s' l
19 far as violations, unresolved items, that kind ofE 1
l 20 thing. _y 1 21 Dennis Kelly is senior resident for 1 22 operations. .)
_r -
23 I've asked him to be in tomorrow.
You can ask him, primarily, about I guess the 0 !
24 interface with me and how: inspection findings hav e 25 been handled and whatnot.
, ' i
- ' e 4
I '# {
4; Word Smith eho 10 now in Rogion !! has !
2 1 and continues to function on alliof the' testing of-3 ISAP's. I f interfaced with him $11 of bds earlier 4
I reports that he wrote at comanche Peak.
5 /*'
I believe also to entablish, I guess, 1 i
a
,, '6 primarily frost the standpoint ~of credibility, you 7
l y.. -
need to talk to several other'past management
, i 8
folks that have dealt with Phillips.
9
~
Doy1'o usacicutt,-who was Phillips' l 10 .
previous section chief, you can talk to him 11 {
particularly about performance. I know that 12 there's a number of things that's been said. j
( 13 I know -chat the previous division 14 Girector even came to Mr. Runnicott and asked him 15 to take the job as senior resident at Comanche l'6 '
priorfto Phillips going so that he could select 17 h5 someone more senio[ to'Phillips so there wouldn't I i
18
' beiany arguments as to ailection.
\
19 I'm suie Mr. Runnicutt can talk about 20 Phillips' performance. I'm not going to dwell on l'1 that.
You need to talk to L.. and Jim 22 Gagliardo.
4 I think -- I don't know whether you 23 talked to any of those folks yesterday. II think 24 1 you did.
L- .J 25 You need to talk to him about
1 Mr. Phillips' perforcanco. I think thore's Ditto blJis 2
_____.... and1-3 yIdis
__ t: 54 %14.fC
- t ;b . .y;S was the branchkchief for 4
the vendor inspection branch company.for which 5 Mr. Phillips was section chief.
_ _gwho 6 was division director, had that vendor branch 7 under'him. I think the performance and type of 8
reports written b'y the individual, you can' talk to 9 those folks.
10 I think Bill Crossman, who is no longer a
11 in Region IV. . I don't know whether you're going q
12 to be able to track him down or not. There's also "
SsMlei
{ 13 mill 03 0 11 who is a previous branch chief who had 14 south Texas at the time Mr. Phillips was in south 15 Texas.
16 Also Mr. Crossaan was the section chief 17 at the time he was .with South Texas. We've also 18 got Chip Foster who was had interface with 19 Mr. Phillips with regard previous to a promotion !
20 issue and may choose to go back to Region III' .
i 21 For Region III management, there's Bob 22 Belskhsan, Lee Op. $ pts.ee+4.
5eut 'c/
I'll leave that at 23 that. 4 24 Q. Let me say a few words about what I think 25 our role here as CIA is and as an investigator
l 27 l 1
I I 1
what I think my role is. Number one, we 're not a 2
court of law; and we're not the people who decide 3
! what's going to happen here.
4 What we've been presented with by some of 5 these people, and Shannon Phillips being one, is 1 k 6 some specific instances of things that they feel 7
were inappropriate in some specific reports.
8 What
- 9 I would like to do is I will talk to l anybody that
~
has information concerning those 10 iN instances as to what happened, but I don't 11 envision this as a you-against-Shannon-Phillips 12 type thing.
( 13 I'm not reviewing your management style.
14 You see what I'm saying?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Other than as regards to these 17 instances.
18 A.
I guess the reasons I have brought up, I 19 think you've got to understand the credibility of 20 both sides of this issue.
21 Q. Right.
22 A.
You have to look at the performance of 23 the individual in the past. I'm not spekking to 24 that, and I am not an expert on it. I know that 25 when I got into discussions with Mr. Phillips, he
28 a
I would say,
'Nobody else ever had any problems with 2 zy work."
I )
. 3 Q. Yeah. '
P 4 A.
Well, at.one point in time, I went back 5
and started talking to folks to find out, bey, 6
what was going on with Mr. Phillips.
7 Q. Right.
8 A.
\
'I got very negative reactions from them. !
9 .All I can say is, you know, I went down there with 10 eyes opened. I treated Mr. Phillips as I would \
11 any other senior resident inspector to start, and 12 ,
i things just developed as they went along.
( 13 Q.
I guess if I were investigating whether 14 or not anybody else has any problem with 15 Mr. Phillips, I would go back and talk to all the 16 previous supervisors.
17 ,
I guess in'particular instances, it's a 18 little bit different even with credibility because
'19 what we have, most ' <
l of these things are documented, 20 you know.
21 1 Like you mentioned earlier, he's got 22 draft reports.
You've got draft reports. Be's
! 23 )
got documented findings; and, so, it's k#nd of, in 24 many respects, an issue that we've.got some "
25 substantiation already.
j l- \
L _ _
29 4
1 i
You know, whether inspection procedures 2 have or have not been done is a matter of record. j L 3 A. Yes. ,
i i l 4 Q. You see what I'm saying?
5 A.
It's a matter of record, but there are 6
other records.
7 Q. Right.
I 8 A.
l I will address that when we get to that.
9 Q. Right.
That's exactly what I'm talking 10 a'b o u t .
II A.
1 I still think if you hear one side, you 12 ought to at least --
there ought to least be some
( 13 history on both sides.
14 1811 be willing for you to talk to 15 anybody I ever worked for, anything I've ever 16 done.
17 Q.
~
Well, during my investigation, I have not 18 gone into your background and I've not gone into 19 his.
20 A.
Only reason I say that, it sheds light on 21 why I'm having a problem, why I've had a problem.
22 I think it sheds light on that.
23 There's one other individual, Dpn 24 Tomlison. I think he's got some interaction that 25 came from an alleger whom Mr. Phillips went to.
1 .Q. I will interview come of these peopio, 2 and I have already interviewed some of these I 3 people.
To be honest, when I talk to phese 4 people, some of the people think you're the 5 greatest thing that walked on water and some 6 people don't.
7 some of the people think that Shannon 8.
Phillips is the greatest thing that has walked on 9 water and some people don't. I,think it almost 10 6epends -- it's kind of breaking down as to the
_ 11 l inspection philosophy that these people share.
- 12 They almost line up.
( 13 People with a strong QA background and 14 feel QA is extremely important think Shannon is l 15 great.
People of a more hardware orientation 16 think that Shannon isn't great. People who feel 17 hardware is important in looking at what's being 18 built
~
and what's being constructed think you're !
19 terrific. '
20 It 4 seems to be breaking down and lining I 21 up more or less on an inspection philosophy type 22 thing, and that's why I think I can-interview a 23 hundred people both ways and I'm going tp get 50 24 people think this way and I'm going to get 50 25 people who think the other way.
31 i
1 That's really not the issue.
I think the 2
issue is, you know, what happened; and I think
- l 3
you've certainly did not make decisions on any of 4 these inspection reports or have a reason to do 5 it. i
}
6 !
You know, you have support for what you i 7 did. That's really what I'm after here. You made 8 a decision. You wrote an inspection report. You 9
sent it out a certain way, and some of these times
~
10 you disagreed with the inspectors.
11 I'd like to get from you, you know, why 12 you did what you did and then have someone
( 13 decide. 1 i
14 A.
I'm willing to go through the details. j 15 O. Yes.
16 A. I don't know how many or who you've 17 talked to.
~
18 Q. Right.
19 A.
I guess what I'm saying is these folks 20 were given prospective. They're the folks that 21 dealt directly with management, with Mr. Phillips 22 as to his performance and the kind of issues that 23 he developed.
4 24 Q.
I guess what I'm saying, Shannon Phillips 25 could be the worst inspector that ever came down
\
1 in NRC e history or whether he could have been 2
lucky in one or two instances and found some 3
really good violations.
4 So, it really depends on what happened on 5
i those two instances. Another analogy is if I got 6 some drunk, the town drunk comes walking into me 7 and says,
'I just saw a dead body behind a tree,"
8 my first reaction is going to be, 'Well, I don't i 9
believe this guys but I think 10
~ I'll walk behind the tree and look." That settles it, you know. l Is 11 there a body there or not. 1 12 In this one here, I feel, hey, we 'll just "
( 13 go right to this issue.
14 I have talked to a lot of these people that
- you mentioned that do have 15 information that pertains to what we're looking 16 at.
I have talked to them, 17 and we'll talk to several others that you mentioned to get their 18 input on what we're talking about. )
19 A. j I'll reserve any judgment 20 this investigation goes as until I see how 21 to whether I think i these folks also ought to be interviewed.
22 Q.
I I think that's fair, but I just want to 23 let you know that we're not trying to assassinate
, 24 neither you nor Shannon Phillips.
25 A.
I'm not out to assassinate anyone.
l I u_____--_------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
t I
wont a fair investigation; and if looking into 2
peformance from past people, experience in dealing .
3 with certain things is worthwhile, that';s,,what I 4 would like to do. \
5 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) !
Mr. Westerman, you '
6 said fair. I think you're right in that sense.
7 There are two aspects. One is what you're 8
describing and your presentation; but also' equally j 9 fair is to look at the specific issues on the 10 t~able and to give a fair accounting of those
= 11 issues to understand what they are, understand 12 what happened and understand their disposition.
( 13 That's the other side of the coin.
14 A. Sure. Sure. We will go through the 15 specific issues. I'm well prepared to do that, l 16 starting from A through E.
17 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) ,
I'm not saying --
19 A. There's a prospective that has to be l
- 19 understood, and that's the performance and 20 particularly -- all my issues have come from the l 21 construction trailer site. You have to understand 22 that individual's part to understand the kinds of 23 things, the problems I've had. -
g 24 Q. I'm not saying I'm refusing to interview 25 the people you would like to have interviewed and i
i L I
r 1 i I havo .nterviewed o lot. I kind of know where 2 (
the focus of the investigation is, and you say <
3 have it more broad than it really is. g, 4 A. Right.
5 Q.
Some of the people you'd like.to have 6
interviewed on certain areas really -- although 7
they may be able to provide information that you 8~
think is important, really we're not investigating 9 that at al'. I 10 I guess wh'at I'm saying, this
_ 11 investigation may be a lot more specific'than, you 12 know, what you may think; and that's the point I .
{ 13 was trying to make. )
14 We're talking about specific instances, i 15
! and you could have the greatest guy and greatest 16 inspector or the worst inapector, either way, and 17 l
still have the same instances.
18 It's not meant to assess your overall 19 management style or Phillips' overall ability as 20 an inspector.
21 A. Uh-huh.
22 Q. You know what I'm saying?
23 A. Right.
6 24 Q.
He may be right in every single one of 25 these instances and still not be a good inspector
1 1
1 or he a be wrong and you coy 1 tright and otill !
2 it is not going to change the overall history.
3 A. Correct.
4 Q.
Did you have some general, as'I' discussed 5 8 with you on the phone and here, allegations also 6 in_a general sense?
{
7 A.
I have some and I guess what I would like i 8
! to talk a little bit about, you know, I guess in 9
general, well, I think we've gotten where we've 10 gottent but I think.part of the things that have 11 gotten me hera have been my dealings with I 12 Mr. Phillips.
13 l
{~ I think I may be the first supervisor 14 that really squared off against him and indicated 15 to him that I didn't consider his work 16 acceptable.
I think the individual knows that. I 17 know he knows that.
18 {
I would indicate that he's been 19 disruptive to our eff6rt that we've had there. I 20 think that he even tried to solicit my consultants !
21 to allege that there are violations being covered 22 up and they just don't know it.
23 Be's a senior resident inspector. He's 24 in a management role. As a matter of fact, I have i
25 documents to show Mr. Phillips molicited one of my
1 I
consultants to talk to on outoide group outside of 2
the NRC1 and, in fact, I would like to give you !
i 3 that if I might.
E' 4 Q. Okay.
5 A. l There was Cliff Bale's initial memo which l 6 indicated that one of our folks had been !
7 approached by Mr. Phillips. There's a signed l 8 statement from the man who was approached.
9 Q. Let me kind of put this issue to bed. i 10 o
f've discussed this before with Mr. E hdband 11 the Commission. This conversation did occur just 12 like it's documented.
( 13 A. Uh-huh.
14 Q.
The person that Shannon Phillips was 15 referencing to was me.
I'd been contacted that 16 there was a consu1 tant out here in the area. I 17 was going to be in" Arlington and was going to meet' 18 {
your people; and Mr. Phillips referenced that 19 person to me, that th person had concerns that 20 there's a guy coming from outside of Region IV 21 that you could talk to. !
22 !
! So, this person that he was talking about 23 during that time period was me.
4 24 A. All I can say --
25 ,
Q. You actually don't know --
1 A. I con say the individual -- he did say 2
very specifically that the person was outside of '
3 the NRC.
- i' 4 Q. Okay.
5 A. I asked that individual that-question 6 several times.
7 Q. Okay. Okay. Let me, if I could, take 8
these two and mark them as Exhibit 2. Both 9 I I
documents will be marked as Exhibit 2.
I 10 ~
(Whereupon-the documents were 11 marked for identification as Exhibit 12 No. 2.)
( 13 A. I'd like to know who's talking to who. I 14 wouldn't expect a management employee to be 15 talking to GAP or somebody else, which is very i 16 auch the fear I've had.
17 I would say with regard to Mr. Phillips, 18 his reports required inordinate amounts of time to 19 review both technically and grammatically. 'I 20 think Ian Barnes is probably a very excellent man 21 to talk to when you talk to him on that particular S
22 inc&e:eck i nt.
23 Q. All right.
4 24 A. The general kind of things, I guess, that 4 25 you brought up. I went back and I've talked to
^
i,
I several olks. I think Bob Toy 1.) was the 2
previous senior resident at the site and had a 3 long history there.
4 When I talked to Taylor about why E' some of 5
these 766 things had been closed out, Taylor 6
related to ne that it was in about '81 that we 7 went to Priority I, II, and III inspection j 8 program.
~
9 From about '81 until '84 sometime, 10 mlnagement made a decision in Region IV that we h
11 would go to Priority I and'II.
i- -
Therefore, Mr.
12 Taylor indicated that he went back and looked at
{, 13 the inspection modules and those modules that had 34 l
Friority III type items, he closed them out if '
15 that was all that was left or he closed that 16 portion of the module out based on'what was 17 l
l acceptable in the IE inspection program. !
l 18 I think there was some other questions on 19 766. The only other. person I know is 20 Mr. Stewart. I've been back to talk to him a 21 couple of times.
22 Mr. Stewart indicated to me on 766 there 23 wassomecaseswherehewenttodoaningpection 24 and there had been some inspection perhaps 25 previously done during that time frame. Be went
i 1 to one. It was closed.
2 So, therefore, the module was closed .
. 3 out. Be couldn't go back and witness an- e 4
installation of some particular component. That 5 component was already in place. .
1 6
There have been some previous.looking at
, 7 that site. ~ say, for example, Mr. Taylor on this i 8
l basis closed out some of those 766's. s 9 I think those two people are primarily
! 10 t'he two. If you want to discuss 766, that's who 4' N 11 you need talk to.
) 12 Q. During our investigation'we've looked
,(} 13 into the 766, the whole problem, and found an >
14 awful lot of the problems that the whole system 15 has. 1 16 A. l The 766, I don't know how many times we 17 keep getting -- you-'d be surpised how many ways
! 18 you can make errors on that system.
19 l I remember a's a section chief it used to l 20 come back to me, you know, periodically with all 21 i kinds of red marks on it and we'd go back and try !
22 to do whatever it took almost just to make the 23 computer happy.
g 24 There were changes made to it. There 25 were certain ways you could enter stuff and i
4 1
certain ways you couldn't ontor otuff. I don't 2
think folks have really spent a lot of time in 3 filling out 766.
Although I think theidata is
{
4 generally pretty good there. l l
5 I have used it some from the standpoint 6 of when I wanted to go-back and look at past 7
violations at a particular facility. I've used 8- 1 that kind of data or maybe total inspection time 9 spent.
I've gone and looked at that kind of data 10 off 766's.
11 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) Keeping in mind that 12 it might not be accurate?
{ 13 A.
Bow accurate can it be? You got to say 14 it's a good ball park. Anything you do on there 15 is a ball park.
The guy says it's 80 percent 16 complete.
It's just not an accurate science to l 17 say, hey, I've done' 80 percent of the system of an 18 IE manual chapter.
19 The IE manua5 chapter of the inspection i 20 i module is used as a guidance to inspect by, You 21 know, I'm going to try to inspect the issues that 22 are there, you know.
23 I'm not sure every time every Idne item 24 b is looked at. There may not be any way of 25 looking. :
1 Q. i Thet brings up a good pwint. .You're 2-saying that the requirement section of the 3
IE manual, the requirement section of procedures, 4 'that's guidance? In other words -- i' 5 A.
There's a Guidance Section III to what to j 6
look at in Section II.
7 Q. Right.. !
j 8 A.
In the normal you would try to inspect 9
everything in Section II of the inspection 10 ptocedure if it's available.
A number of times 11 it's not available. 1 12 l
l Q. So, what do you do?
l{ 13 A. You can't inspect something that's 14 already past.
One would have to close it at 15 50 percent complete. It may show 50 percent, and 16 it may show closed. In the past time where the l 17 inspection was ds I cut of the region, you sent a
18 regional inspector 'out.
19 .
l Depending upon how well things were 20 programmed, he may not have done everything in the 21 line item in Section II. It may~not be possible.
22 Q.
Do you expect there to be documentation 23 that the inspector would write when he dpean't 24 complete those line items?
25 A. I don't know how -- well, the
1 documen tion would be like 50 p.2 cont complete 2 and closed. Now, that's the guidance. That thing 3 is varied.
! V-4 You can close one with any-percentage 5 shown.
If I saw one that showe.d-closed and had 6
a 50 percent number-by it, then I would-know they 7 didn't inspect all the modules.
- 8. Q. I'm not referring to 766. I'm referring 9 to the inspection report itself. Are you saying 10 tMat the inspector could leave an inspection 11 procedure and not write down in the report why he 12 couldn't see certain things and why be couldn't I
( 13 complete?
i 14 A.
He wouldn't write down what he didn't 15 look at.
16 .Q. You're saying he doesn't have to write l 17 down what he doesn't lo.ok at, even if he wanted to 18 look at it and wasn~'t able to look at it?
19 A. That is correct.
20 Q. So, in other words, there would not be a.
21 document trail of things which were closed but
- 22 could not be completed because either the' facility 23 had gone too far into construction or a variety of 24 other ressons? 6 25 You're saying there would.not be a
.1 43 l
1 records trail of that? j 2 A. That's correct. Now, back in Comanche 3 days, they used to have a master line sign off for ,
l 4 every item ever inspected that was set up by Bill j 5 Crossman.
6 I've never been back by to see how well 1
7 that's working. We were very conscientious back l 4
8 in the earlier days to try to set up and have a
( 9 line sign off for every time in the Section II 10 inspection procedures.
Il 'Q. When you proceed to the point where you I
12 determine licensability of a plant, how do you 13 know what was accomplished and what wasn't?
14 A. I don't understand.
l 15 Q. In other words, when you write your --
16 A. Well, I have --
17 Q. --
9400 modules and you're ready to I l
18 decide on the operating license, how do you know
- 19 what you've completed in the inspection program?
l 20 A. The project inspector should know that i
l !
21 the IE inspection program was complete.
22 Q. How does he know that without the 23 documentation that you're saying does not exist?
24 A. He knows that from the 766.
25 Q. You're saying the 766 would say t
~
I 44 50 porcent?
2 A. 1 3 And closed.
Q. But .-
s 4 A. they would not know wh 5
Possib1'y no. y it wasn 't?
anything Th e r e 's no
- there 's requirement in 6
like Mr. nothing kept.
7 and Taylor when he got Its kind of 1 8 III program which cam e the Priority I, I I ,-
back and out in 1981 ,
9 looked at Be went t parts the module. t 10 [II of oi the module when you did They'd deleted 11 the inspection progra m. n't do' Priority could get It was only if.you 12 to it, you might do it .
{ 13 so, he went back and closed parts of 14 modules based on what ority I, Pri 15 would allow him. The re 's II, and III The r e 's no document trail. ,
16 no way to go through that
\ documented trail. from a 17 Q. You 18 again. missed my~ point.
You've Let me try it 19 already said that there was no 20 documentation to tell wh k 21 not gone was closed even thy-a procedure'if you had complete. ough 50 percent 22 ( .--
How does a project 23 "
readiness to operate if h inspector know his 24 ,
25 behind certain line numb e doesn't know the completed?
\ reaso er items that were not'
\n \
45 !
l I
1 A. Well, it depends upon what line items 2 you're concerned with. If I'm concerned;vith the V \
3 fact that I inspected every line item on the !
4 installation of a reactor vessel and maybe I l
5 didn't see it when it was put in place, I went l l
6 back and looked at the records associated with -- )
.q 7 not observing installation, but maybe I went back 8 and looked at records on what did they do, what i
9 did they look at, you know.
10 I might close that module with 50-percent 11 and I didn't witness that reactor vessel going 12 into place. I don't feel that I could not --
I as 13 a project inspector would know what and where I i 14 stood.
15 Mr. Taylor is the one I brought up on 16 766. He is project inspector. He's working on J 1
17 South Texas. I don't have a project group any 18 more. I've been out of projects. I'm not sure 19 what they do now.
! 20 Q. Are you suggesting on th.is issue of 21 completion of modules and what should have been 1 22 looked at and not looked at, you're not the right 23 person to thik to? It should be somebody else?
24 A. I would say if you want what's currently 25 being done, you ought to talk to the project
i l 1
inspector; and that's Mr. Toylor. i I
2 Q.
We're not concerned as much about'what is 3
currently done as.much as how one knows,% hat was 4
done and not done over a long period of time --
5 let me finish for a moment. l l
6 For a project inspector to know in 1986 7 what happened over a ten-year period is very 8 difficult without. documentation establishing what 9
had been completed and what was not completed and 10 et, cetera.
\
Il What I'm saying to you is -- and I'm net 4 12 sure I'm asking the right person -- with the l 13 {
( absence of not knowing what happened, why certain 14 line items were not completed or why certain 15 i
procedures were not completed in a certain period 16 l of time and there's no documentation and you're 1 i
17 saying there's no documentation that will tell you 18 that, I sense a difficulty for making a decision IP or determination in 1586 about writing on a 20 particular reactor without not knowing this kind 21 of information.
1 22 A. I guess I don't feel that same -- I don't 23 feel that same concern.
24 Icantellyoupn Comanche what we did. I had Mr. Phillips go 25 through and give me a percentage of completion on
t I
overy o..s of the modulos for whion I think he 2
probably also used the master status thing that 3
was set up back in the days of Taylor an,,d Bill e
4 Crossman and he came up with a total percentage of 5 each that thing had been inspected.
6 We came out with the total number of 7
construction modules on Unit I somewhere in the 8
90 percent complete bracket and that construction 9
was 100 percent complete, and that was far as we 10 were going to go with that program.
11 Now, that's how I could tell you where I ;
12 I stood as far as construction modules on Unit
(' 13 No. I.
14 Q. Why we're bringing this issue up, we've 15 been told there are gaps. You can take these 16 numbers any way you want. Let's put the numbers 17 aside for a moment.
18 I'm totally uninterested in numbers. I'm 19 interested in what specific requirements were not 20 completed in the program, you know, line item by 21 line item. Okay?
22 A. I don't think that history -- I think' 23 that history pretty well at Comanche on Unit I --
24 I think that' history is pretty well there.
25 Q. It may very well be.
1 A. BAY IE has never btte a requirGOont to do 2
that anywhere, but we did it. The only thing that 3
really gives you the status is, again, 766 maybe 4 on other plants.
5 Q. Okay. Let me go back to the issue 6 again.
We've been told that certain procedures 7 \
either were'not covered or were not covnrad in the 8, detail that was required or were not completed or j
9 l
were not done on a timely basis. There may be 10 '
three or four different scenarios. !
21 In order for one to get an understanding i
12 of that issue, the 766 is one place to get 13 information?
i
( I 14 A. That's right. I 15 Q. But there may be other places such as
{
l 16 inspection reports, et cetera? I j
17 A. Right. .
)
18 Q. What I'm trying to get is some i i
19 understanding of whatIt ook place during this l 20 period of time.
21 A. A particular module are the 3500 22 modules. I think if you look at some of those 23 3500 modules that weren't done, you would find 24 that those came out sometime in '80. In '81, we 25 vent to Priority I, II, and III program. 'l Those l
L _ - _ _ _ - - - _ - - - - _ - - - - --
49 i 1 didn't have to be done. We picked them back up.
2 Sometime in '84, the program changed again and 3
said we 're back now to do these modulesi.
4 I think you would find that we have 5 attempted to pick up those modules, at least since l 6 I've:been there. I came there in June of~'85. i 7 , Mr. Bale has been assigned those modules, and we
)
8 picked up on those modules.
) 9 The kinds of things that probably we 10 region IV ought to go back and do and we haven't 11 done is a number of special inspections that have 12 been done at Comanche Peak which are not put in 13
( the 766.
! 14 We can probably go back and take credit 15 for those modules, the Region II QA inspection 16 that was done, the. Region IV -- it was a thing
' f 17 called the regional assessment team, all the TRT i
f i
18 inspection of the QA program.
19 All of that kind of sthff does not get 20 into the 766. Most of the areas in those modules 1 21 are covered, and even some of those are picked up 1
{'
22 today in a number of different ways. :
.- i 23 WN/W IE is.looking at that under Don 4 Nc:::tt.
{
24 Id QAP branch is assisting him. They're also !
, 25 looking at the QA program that applies to the l
l !
u 1 s
, t "i I t third . arty effort. ' ;
h 2
We're looking at the third pargy QA1 I 3 efforts. I have three people assigned full-t!.me 4 looking for i the third party QA efforts of ERC's, 5 CPRT program, and as well as their pic, king up 6
these modules. 1 7
We're picking up a particular module that 8 I think Mr. Phillips may have referenced.
9 1 don't~ feel uncomfortable about those 10 W'odules today.
I think since I have been there, I 11 have assigned folks to go do it.
12 Q. )
It seems.from what you have described,- j
{
13 somebody should sit down on a piece of paper'and \
14 j figure out where all this comes together.
15 A. Oh, yes, that's true.
16 I have looked at '
the inspection history. I made.a presentation to 17 .(
IE when they were here sometime ago. That was, 18 k probably in Novembe'r and December, and I went back; s i
19 and looked at i 20 the kind of data that exists even with 766; but there were something like 274 l 21 inspections, 22 As I said, there was 90 percent or so of. i 23 the 2512 program that was completed on Unit I just 24 6 looking at-766 percentage of complete and what 25 have you.
4 1 ,
J Y !
\
b k i
- ~
ig 4
1 Unit'1I, that 2512 progrom 10 otill in 2 progress. It is.probably getting pretty close to 3 100 percent on it.
There's been over 30,,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> 4
i of inspections<>by Region IV for theaphlicant's.
5 construction and testing program. .
6
\ 1 When you go through and do any of the IE 7
insp,ection modules, you'll find that right up 8
front if you look at GA procedures and sanual --
9
! every .xtimy you go'out'there and do an inspection I- 10 it a particular area, you're back to doing those
_ 11 t kinds of things.
12 Q. When you say that -- I just want to make
{ 13 a poinc here -- you have somebody. bach in the p 14 i
\
office who has the capability of coming in the 15 766 I've.done it through my work on TVA. We do 16 the comparisons, for example, between M111 stone's I
17 Unit III and CP-I and we found some. differences.
i 18 We found that, for example, in Inspection 19 ProcedureSp073that62hourswerespent at 20 Comanche Peak Unit I. Millstone had p 21 252 hours0.00292 days <br />0.07 hours <br />4.166667e-4 weeks <br />9.5886e-5 months <br />. That's an issue of safety of 4
x 22 mechanical components.
23 It's haid for me to know why the 24 differences. There may be real differences &
for 25 it.
You have to be careful with numbers. When l
l l
1 you cop 45' percent of the progrom was complete ~,
2 l
you begin to' wonder about that.
3 A.
You're going to find differences when you ;
e 4
' start comparing what one region had done on a- 1 5
module to what another has done. ,
6 l l
You're going to find an amazing amount.of l 7 differences. We are set up to do the pre-service 8
in-service inspection modules of 2512 at I 9
Comanche. "We're going to hhve a ecntescher to 1C come in and do it.
, 11 We went back to look.to what some other 12 regions have done on those particular modules, and.
( 13 i we couldn't believe that they could have even 14 gotten started for the nomber of hours they 15 recorded to close the modules.
16 i We can.get into the 766. We've done 17' that.
That's very-hard to -- I can say as far as 1 i 18 l
the 2512 program, we really covered the 2512 19 program at Comanche Peak.
! The whole effort we got 20 going under 7-C is a percentage inspection of 21 every construction activity that ever went on at 22 Comanche Peak.
I 23 We are pulling between two and 3,000 s 24 #
hours a month of which probably 2,000 of those l 25 !
hours are lotking at the construction-in Unit I i
l 1- and partially in Unit II. I don't know what the -
f i
l 2 percentage is of Unit II, but we are looking a t' 3' Unit II. i 4 I have assigned two consultants out of a
5 our trailer under Phil Wagner. They're out therc ,
i 6 inspecting the electrical modules in Unit II.
7 That's where the activity is right now. We need 8 to get on with it. I have put them onte --
9 Q. The question is not so much necessarily 10 the time and effort spent as much as the timing of l
11 the efforts which should have been done when work 12 was in progress and when it's more appropriate to i
13 do the inspection, for example, the audits done at.
l 14 the corporate TUGCO office and when that took 15 place.
16 A. I can only talk about the period of time 17 when I've been involved, I know Mr. Hale has been 4
18 to corporate office since I've been down there.
19 I don't know how many different trips 20 they've been at the corporate office. I can only i '
21 talk about that. I can tell you that in 1982 when 22 I took over Comanche, I had Comanche for a year as 23 a section chief. We went right into a hearing. <
24 It was a contested hearing. I had one senior 25 resident and one man in this region assigned, and !
1 it was impossiblo to. keep up.
2 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) We'll get back to that.
3 Let me say once again and remind you, a,s'far as 4
these inspection procedures, for example, 5 5
corporate office, these aren't allegations against 6 you.
7 This is the region performance; and just 8*
like you said, some of the stuff happened long I 9
}
before. So, please don't think that, okay, we're I 10 nbw trying to hold you accountable for the p 11 region's inspection history.
12 A.
I will also indicate that I think there
'( 13 was a number of inspections done that are not in 14 766 which cover most of the module areas we're IS talking about.
I 16 I would also point out, again, the ones 17 that Mr. Phillips C-up until 1980, there were 18 only three modules in QA and construction. One of 19 those was an as-required module, which means you 20 may never do it.
c 21 As far as I know, the other modules, I 22 think -- I don't -- I haven't been back to look at I l
23 the data. l I don't see how you can hold gegion IV 24 responsible for those modules.
25 I think most of that was done. '80 came 1
l l
l l
55 l
I l
1 on along, and IE changed their program. They had i 2 at least the 3500 model. I don't know th5 t that's 3 even been there a year. IE comes along and goes i
j 4 to the Priority I, I I, and III system.
l l 5 These modules during Priority I and II l
i 6 which is where most folks -- since we had a senior l i 7 resident at Comanche, we would go Prior'ity I and I l 8 II. Those modules aren't required to be done,
! l 9 again, until 1984.
10 Then they came out again with a program l 11 that picked those modules back up, and some of l
l l
! 12 those have been done since. There's been a lot of I
13 special inspections done in that period of time, j 14 which I think probably more than cover those 15 particular QA modules.
16 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) Let me see if I can 17 understand what you're driving at. Are you 18 '
saying, then, that the IE program has changed?
19 You mentioned at least three changes occurred 20 during that time frame?
l 21 A. Yes, sir.
l 22 Q. That made it df.fficult for you to do the 23 implementation in the fashion that could be more 24 easily spaced out or planned or scheduled or
- 25 whatever you want to call it. By virtue of these
~
56
]
, 1 1
)
a rapid changes in the IE program made it more 2 difficult f
to implement some of these things? .,
I j
3 A. .?
Until 1980, there ware only three
! i 4 modules. I think the program -- there were only 5
three QA modules, as I recall. That's my 6
recollection.
In 1981 or 1980, then, they added a 7
bunch of modules.
8 I think'they had been there may be a 9
year, not even a year, and came along with a 10
~
c'hange to the progtem which said -- are you 11 familiar with Priority I, II, and III which gave I 1
12 you the option of determining what you were going
( 13 to do?
They said we're going to cut back on these 14 inspections at Comanche Peak because we had a 15 senior resident inspector for construction 16 assigned.
I can remember the decision was nada 17 that we won't do but Priority I and II.
18 Under Friority III,,they dropped these QA 19 modules. You would have to go back and look at l
) 20
! the numbers of them, but it dropped a lot of those 21 back out.
22 It wasn't, again, until '84 sometime that 23 you come back and add them in. I 24 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) We have to talk i
25 specifics on this issue. I suggest we wait on a
57 ,
1 this until later.
I On the 766 data, let me ask you a '
3 question. We have seen that the data is' 'I 4 inaccurate. "
l 5 A. Ch-huh. ~
6 Q. Do you feel that it's inaccurate because 7 the inspectors in many cases don't know how to i 8
fill it out and the problems with the system that 9 you talked about earlier?
4
~
10
~
Bas there ever been any indication that 11 an inspector was trying to cover for inspection i 12 work that be should have done'and didn't do,
{ 13 because naturally that's the flip side of the 14 coin?
l 15 !
, You can start closing things out as 16 100 percent *amplete when, in fact, they haven't 17 been. .
18 Earlier you said you can close out 19 inspection procedures. You can close them out, 20 and st131 there's 50 percent and that's 21 inappropriate; however, it's not appropriate to 22 close out an inspection procedure if you have done 23 50 percent of the work and close it out pt 24 100 percent complete.
25 We've seen some, examples of that. You I
i i
______ - _ _ _ 2
. I can cit thero and coy, hoy,.that coer. guy is 2
trying to ssy he's done the inspection work when 3 he really hasn't. .'
e 4
Bave you seen in your time here any 5 indication of that happening? .
6 A. I'm not aware of any time that anybody 7
would intentionally try to show some data for 8 which he didn't do an inspection. Now, again,
~
j 9
it's been a kind of an unclear history as to what !
~
10 you do to make the computer happy on 766.
11 Q. Right.
12 A. An individual might decide they have to .
{ 13 make it 100 percent complete regardless if they've 14 done only 50 percent so they can get it past the 15 computer upstairs and so that it doesn't kick the 16 766 back.
17 I don't know that that might not occur, 18 and I don't know how clear the directions will be 19 as to how you fill ou't a 766 form. My practice 20 had been, as I said, if we got through a module 21 i
and had done 75 percent of it and were past the 22 time frame for completing that module, then you 23 would leave it at 75 percent and compiege, close 24 it. They closed it on the program plan as far as 25 the IE manual and the 766 data. .
SD i
1 Q.
One other' question on the 766 data. When 2
you were reviewing this data and an inspector had 3
taken credit for working on a certain module and 4
he said he's completed up to maybe 50 percent, 5
would you go back to the inspection reports and 6 see what was documented in that report in regard 7 1 to what he did in that procedure? {
8 A. {
Back when I was a section chief, normal.ty i 9
we would look at the 7tG data uhen I got the
~
10 report and that was one of the things that was set Il ,
into our program so that we make sure we try to 12 pick up as many of the errors as we could before
( 13 we sent it upstairs and so we wouldn't get it 14 back. ,
15 I would look at that. I wouldn't say 16 that I tried to ballpark maybe the percentage. Xt 17 would not be accura'te nor would I knew that the 18 man put down so many hours. There's no way 2 i
19 could tell whether he put those many hours or i
20 whatever; but I would look at all that kind of 21 data when I l looked to the 766 as section chief.
22 Q.
Would you expect to see in the inspection 23 reports some documentation to show that ge looked 24 at that procedure or he did work in that procedure 25 to support the 7667 1 1
i
60 1
A. Not'necessarily.
2 you might There were times when update the 766 and a particular 3
inspection for something you might not have d one 4
5 on a previous inspection and I know the case, as.I 6
told you, I talked to Mr. Stewart and Nr. Taylor 7 and there's a case where he wanted to do some investigation -- and 8
' I didn't get into specifics 9
with him -- but he went to do an inspection and it was past 10
~
the time like the installation of the reactor vessel were already installed.
11 12 Be went back and found that Mr. Taylor had looked at some of that at some point in time;
{ 13 and there was some documentation of previous 14 inspection, of course.
15 '
.Mr.
Stewart closed that issue out showing !
16 '
17 zero' time, and he may have even done something .
He may have charged,some time because he a htod go 18 find out what 19 was the status, but there wouldn't be anything in the inspection reports.
20 Q.
Okay.
21 Q. What about 22 the support documents to the i
inspection report that the inspector would h ave,7 23 The inspector prepares an inspection repoIt ,but 24 I'm sure he has notes and things like that that 25 aupport ;
the inspection report.
i
f I
Would information like that be in thoro?
2 A. No. I never ask for notes, only if I -
3 .have a question. Then I expect him topro dig his- i l
! 4 notes out and give se an answer for something he l 4
5 couldn't answer from the report. -
6 0. So, in a case like this with the 766 i l
4 7
containing information that's not supported by the 8
inspection report,, that wouldn't raise a question 9 in your mind then? You would just accept it?
10 -
A.
I taink I would probably have questioned 1
11 it if I had come across it, but I would have an 12 answer. Like I said; there's nothing to be 1
( 13 inspected here. There's nothing to document on 14 the inspection report. {
I would have accepted
{
35 that. j
.16 MR. MULLEY: Why don't we take 17 a break?
1 18 (short recess.)
.~
19 A. I'd like to talk about some general 20 stuff.
Again, most of my -- I'm not just picking 21 Phillips -- but most of my interaction in all this 22 has come out the construction trailer.
23 I found, I guess, what I would pay is the 24 general approach from that vide -- and I'll show 25 you that when we get into the raports -- has been 1
i I
that cleost overy. issue has to be written as o i
2 violation.
3 That's done a lot of times jus,t on 4
limited facts for which'we may end up with 5 multiple violations.- I'll show you what I say in 6 the reports.
7 I would indicate -- I don't remember the 8
total -- I probab.ly spent 50 percent of my time l 9 working'on Phillips' issues. l
~
10 O'. So, in general, are you saying that' you 11 don't believe he provides enough information? !
12 ]
A. That's correct. I can show you'that it's .
( 13 either not enough or it's incorrect.
1 14 Q. Okay. Good.
j 15 l
A. We'll. discuss that as we go. Talking 16 about some general kind of statements Shannon has I 17 made, you may have" heard them from some other 18 directions, he made the statement to me.a number 19 of times that he was'looking for a job outside of 20 Region IV.
- 21 1
I never encouraged him one way or the l
! 22 other. i I know Phillips made the statement to me- ;
23 I several times that
- Region IV managemen4 doesn't 24 vant me to write violations."
1 25 I never said to Mr. Phillips, 'You cannot
'i l
l l
l 1
l <
l
,_ 1 writo violations.. Don't write violations." I had 2
lots of interaction with him when we_would get -
3 into an issue that wasn't a violation o/-I said to 4
bim a number of times a violation is a violation 5
and that I didn't duck issues. .
6 I think you will see that those issues 7 are in the report, whether it was a violation as
! 8 Mr. Phillips starteJ off with or not. .
9 Mr. Phillips sie day said to me after we 10 h'a d - - i n f a c t , it was probably in December --
, "I L' 11 should never have stayed in Region IV. I should 12 have gone to IE headquarters."
( 13 I gave him an honest answer, "fou're 14 probably right, Shannon.' I felt that, I guess, 15 af terwards the man was pa shre;ty trying to entr ap i 16 me to say, ' Hey, Phillips, you ought to leave 17 Region IV."
- 18 I never told Phillips that. I would 19 indicate that there was an incident when Jim 20 Gagliardo and Eric Johnson came down to the site, 21 and Jim Gagliardo toured Shannon Phillips out into 22 the facility. I didn't request that.
23 I understand Mr. Gagliardo has pone that 24 at any number of sites.
When he took Shannon out 25 into the aux building he asked him to take him to i
I I
l
1 the reactor building and the foodbeck I had was 2
that Phillips couldn't find the reactor building
~
3 from the auxiliary building af ter 'havind" been 4
senior resident inspector out there for two 5 years. -
1 6
I know-that I've heard that comment made j i
7 from Doyle Runnicutt, that Shannon didn 't know the 8 plant. I know following that, I guess Phillips 9 threatened me, in essence. \
10
- Mr. Phillips was very irate about the 1 11 fact that they were there. Be threatened to make i 12 it tough.
Be threatened he knew how to do it. I
{ 13 told him I had nothing to do with Gagliardo or 14 Johnson coming. I indicated to him that I was 15 going to talk to Johnson, and I did. !
i 16 My conversation with Johnson would be j 17 that the man is stirred up enough, you know, just j I
18 by my going over there and workinr on these 19 reports. I didn't n.$ed anything else to make the 20 man any more unstable than he already appeared to 21 me. l 22 Q. Phillips was upset ove' r.he fact that l
23 several Region IV management people had come to !
4 ]
24 look at the site? i 25 A. They came to the site. As a part of that s
j
, {
1 I
tour ori the eito, they took Phillips out. In 2
fact, Jim Gagliardo came to the site. Be went 3
over to the operation site, and he had fthe 4
operations resident take him out and toured him 5
around, asked him questions about what's this, 6
what's this, and what's this. Okay. ,
7 S/de-Be came over to Mr. Phillips ' Witt and 8 ask Mr. Phillips to take him out on the 9
construction site'of Unit II. As a result of 10 that --
I don't know what other things. I think 11 l there was probably some exchange between Johnson 12 and Phillips as a result of that tour, but the
( 13 only feedback I had was that when Phillips got him 1 14 out in the auxiliary building, Gagliardo said, 15
" Hey, let's go up to the reactor building" and 16 Phillips hadn't been able to find the reactor 17 building. ^
'IB In fact, Gagliardo indicated be had 19 enough knowledge to kbow how to get over there. I 20 know there's probably been some conversation 21 between Johnson and Phillips, and I don't know 22 what else came of that. I know Mr. Phillips was 23 very upset as a result of that.
6 24 Again, I say, I had nothing to do with 25 that.
\
I didn't invite them down there. I do know l
l
m i
I that Gosliardo has gone to all the other Sites 2
doing the same kind of thing, taking a resident 3 :
out, having them walk around,.asking them 4
questions about "What's this, this and this?"
5 Q. Is this sort of visit in any way unusual >
6 that it would have-upset Fhillips?
7 A. Well, he perceived it that way. I think l 8
he perceived it as management was after him, you I' 9 know. All I can say is, you know, all I had was 10 t'he feedback. I did go talk to Johnson.
_ 11 I told Johnson, for whatever reas6n, we l 12 didn't want the man disturbed any more. I was i
\
{ 13 having enough conflict trying to get reports 14 done. I think I told Phillips later, I asked him' l 15 to leave him alone. )
My conversation with Johnson I 16 was just ve4/
to let him settle out because '='t been i 17 through two months / November and December, reports 18 which are the more controversial, I guess.
19 I was trying'to let things -- to see if I \
20 had done any good in talking with the man. I 21 don't know that I've ever made any threats to 22 him.
I never told him he couldn't write 23 violations. I told him something he wrope as 24 violations weren't violations.
25 I think he understood very clearly where
67 I he stood with me. My problem was with his reports 2 and the kind of information he was putting in 1
3 .them. That's the general comments I got. l 4 Q. O,kay. Let's begin our discussion on some 5 of the specific instances that have been brought )
6 up with discussing inspection report 84-32/11.
7 A. Okay. l l
8 Q. Are you familiar with that inspection 9 report generally? l J
10 A. I'm familiar with it generally. <
11 Q. What was the purpose of the inspection
)
12 report? Do you recall that?
13 A. I believe that Phillips had been involved I
{ *
]
14 in miscellaneous -- I'm not -- it was done when I i
15 was not part of 8432. I had nothing to do with 16 8432. i 17 My understanding is it was done as a IB follow-up as part of miscellaneous allegations 19 which Region IV had been assigned which were being 20 performed,on site as part of the TRT activities.
1 21 Q. Do you recall what the result of the 22 inspection were?
23 A. Well, I had some side involvement in it.
24 I remember that the report when it went out ihlhb OweMt J$ue 25 Ms. Di :c;;;d wrote a Ictter to h Axelrad
1 4 I 1 saying, 'Why wasn't this o Lovel I!! violation?" 1 I
2 I 4 also remember she took some issue, *Why 3
are you writing this report when it's s1'1 a part 4
of the TRT activities? I 5 k I had had some interaction with Azelrad '
6 in that she wanted me to provide her with a 7
response as to why it wasn't a Level III. I
{
8 basically, as I r.ecall, got backed out of the l t
9 issue and it was left to ,
and others I
10 -
who came up with the response that was given back f 12 j
to Jane.
I 4
12 Q. Do you recall the nature of the -
( 13 violation?
14 'A.
The violation dealt with audits that were 1
15 TUGCO audits. I do know a number of things
'16 inv'olved along with this thing. I know, for l 17 example -- "
18 (short break.) 4 19 A.
These were a 1 similarly TRT issues that 20 the Comanche Peak response plan addresses. The 21 audit issue is one specific issue. One specific 22 action plan in the Comanche Peak response program '
23 are the audits which pick up the 8432 issues, as 24 l
well as whatever -- the TRT also hoe made these 25 particular findings.
i
1 Q. Is thoro cny problem with tho duplicaton?
2 A. We are running into a litt3e bit now.
3 Mr. Phillips is back out trying to fo1}o,,w up on 4 8432 when I have got the Comanche Peak response 5 group also following up on the audits issues and 6 since all of this started, I really haven't tried 7 to solve that problem.
8 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) Are you familiar with 9 45.2 and the requirements for audits?
~
10 A. I haven't been back at it in a little
'~
11 while but, yeah.
12 Q. There was some question about the way the
{ 13 TUGC0 audits were conducted at Brown & Root, 14 whether they fulfilled 45.2.
15 A. That Brown & Root audits are conducted?
16 Q. Yeah.
17 A. That woul'd have to be a subject of this I 18 current report. I would say talk to Cliff Bale
\
19 about it. He's the only one in our group that's 20 really done a detailed look at that Brown & Root 1
21 issue.
l 22 Now, as far as back on 8432, there is an 1
i 23 issue specific action plan that dealt sprictly
! 24 witn a third-party look at the programmatic I
25 aspects ef the TUGC0 audit program.
1 1
y 70 l
1 The way 8432 was written indicated that i 2
they could respond by referencing the Comanche 3 Peak responte plan which is what IbeIIevethe 4
response to 8434 or 8432 does.
5 It references that we will respond to !
6 that )
through our issues specific action plan that 7 we've deveJoped.
8 Q. (By Mr. M'ulley) When did you become 9
involved with Comanche Peak and, therefore, become
~
10 involved with that inspection report?
11 A.
Well, as I said, I got involved with it 12 indirectly when I was an enfor 1%l lies 0&rde cement officer when
{ 13 aillegard wrote to Axelrad and said, "Why isn't 14 this a Level III violation? These are all TRT 15 issues. Why are you addressing this now in some 16 inspection report?'
17 Q. Okay.
18 A.
But as I said, I backed out of that end 19 of it.
The next time I become involved in this 20 8432 is when I took over in June of '85 as the 21 chief of Comanche Peak group and only then from-22 the standpoint that we decided who was going to do '
23
> what and 8432 was going to come over and Ibe looked ,
24 at by Cliff Bale.
25 In fact, I think Cliff can te33 you. !
n
= -
1
'Be's go. some documentation that probobly will 2 show that that was the initial agreement.
3 O. By that time the inspection report had 4 already been issued? l 5 A. The inspection report had been out for a 6 long time.
7 Q. Did you have any problems with the 8
inspection report on the findings that were 9
discovered during'the inspection report? i
, 10 -
A.
- $ handed I never -- I think I went back and talked Il to-Gen about how did we rate and who wrote it. I
(
12 had some background information that came from
{ 13 Doyle Bunnicutt which would indicate that Darwire 14 l Hunter went down to the site and spent from about 15 9:00 o' clock one day to 7:30 one night supposedly i
16 Pewriting this report. '
17 I can onip go'on hearsay, that it came 18 out much more negative than was ever intended. .I 19 think Phillips told th that. I went over and 20 asked him some background on this thing as well as 21 having had some from Bunnicutt.
22 I knew it was there because I had seen it 23 when I was an enforcement officer. Beyope that, 1 24 hadn't really tried to do anything more than know 25 that that report is assigned over to Cliff Bale.
n e
A
1 I did ve come discussion with )hillips about o
2 what did you do on thir report
- and he indicated 3 that he andI
~}hadrewrittenit, tpathewas 4
saving all of his drafts because he thought he was 5 going to have to defend that at sosie point in 6 time.
7 The report is written in a very negative
- 8. fashion.
Beyond that, that's all I can really say 9 about that.
10
- Q.
Did it see~m to you to be excessively 11 negative as far as Comanche Peak and TUGCO were 12 concerned?
{ 13 A.
I haven't looked at it for a while. I 14 know, for example, the Westinghouse service group 15 hadn't been audited by TUG 00 up through, whatever 16 it was, '82, '83 They were audited thereafter.
17 Really the utility picked up they.ueren't auditing 18 Westinghouse servic'e group somewhere along the 19 line. I They must have edded thra on there just 20 looking at the report. My lock'ing at the report, 21 it would indicate, yeah, they picked it up and 22 added it the audit program.
23 0. (By Mr. Goldberg)
Really the gpestion 24 ist shouldn't the audit inspector have noticed 25 that earlier?
- 73 1
1 A. From my past experience, I would wonder j 2
how many NSS service organizations are audited by I 3 any utility. E' 4 Normally Westinghouse service 5 organization on site is kind of like a' super QA.
Obse-e v 6 They're there to pr;;e sve whatever utility is 7 doing to make sure that the warranty on their 8 equipment is validated.
j 9 I haven't been to look at it. I would 10 k~1nd of wonder. I wouldn't say -- I'm not saying 11 that you shouldn't audit them. I wonder how many 12 utilities have the expertise to be auditing that
{ 13 group. The paper thing can be done certainly, but 14 how much expertise the utility might have to -- I
- 15 know that from my experience at Gulf States and 16 having been a utility before and knowing the 17 caliber of some of the kind of people, how would !
18 they go to an NSSS and audit a big NSSS supplier 19 and do a real meaningful audit.
20 90 I take a competent design engineer 21 with me when I go and does he look at how their --
l 22 not on3y does he look at how the design contro3 23 works, but does he look a little bit an4 see, hey, 24 what's the basis of the calculation, check the 25 calculations.
I 74 1 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) You're saying, !
2 therefore, the effectiveness of audits done by 3 utility types is not that strong?
4 A. My experience in the past would be and my 5 opinion is that they do audits, but how effective f .
6 those audits are for, like, NSSS would be very 7 questionable.
i, l 8 Q. Well, isn't that the whole thing about 9' this? We're really talking about two fosues. One l 10 is that the audits should be conducted based on
. l 11 the requirements of the QA manual or QA program.
12 Second of all, once the audit is conducted, those 13 audits should be effective because the auditors 14 are trained under 45223 and would be conducting 15 audits that they've been trained to conduct or i i
16 they have experience in this kind of area. ;
17 A. I'm saying a lot of that audit is paper.
16 Eov does design - ,for example, if I went'to an ;
19 NSSS, I would look at the design change process 20 and see if all those pieces of paper that need to .
21 be done were' generated.
22 We're not looking at how effective that 23 design is being performed. I don't know if 24 utilities have a trained mechanical engineer that 25 goes out and even looks at that. '
i
75 t
1 Q. We33, I think you are opening the 2
question issue that has to do with the quality of -
3 the audits that are being conducted by k'UGCO i 4
people, for example, and that is an issue that NPC 5 should be concerned about. ~
6 I don't think you couJd eas3Jy throw your 7
hands up and say it's not worth pursuing. You 6 have to pursue it.
9 A. I never said that.
10 -
Q. You have to pursue it.
If they're not 11 ef f ecti ve , they should be effective.
12 A. I never said.
( 13 Q.
But the lack of attention to the matter 14 cannot be excused by the fact that you don't.have 15 qualified auditors.
16 A. I don't know what lack of -- we got an 17 ISAP on the TDGCO audit with an individual 18 assigned forthis time following through and even 19 going back to corporate and looking. I don't know 20 what that final --
how that final result report 21 comes out or what the final conclusions are drawn .
22 as to the effectiveness, but that certainly has 23 been looked at. It has been looked at gy a third 24 party at Comanche.
25 Q. If a utility does not conduct timely
I audits, do you considor that on icsue of i 2 non-compliance?
~
3 A. What do you mean? l It dependsfuron what )
4 the time limit is.
5 Q. They don't do it based on -- they're not 6 in conformance with the requirements with 4522. )
7 A. I could quote those requirements.
1 8
There's no violation in the notes.
9 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) Do you. recall that as a
~
10 result of this inspection that.was conducted by 11 Phillips, he discovered that Region IV itself had l l
12 been negligent in completing certain quality
- 1 I
13
( assurance audits of TUGCo? I 14 For example, apparently the region had
$5 not conducted QA audits of Tugco headquarters 4
1' 6 since 1974.
1 17 Do you recall findings like that coming 18 out in this inspection, not documented findings, 19 but during the inspection information like this 20 starting to surface?
21 A. I know that sale who has been assigned to 22 me since I've been there since '85 has been to 23 corporate several times to look at theig audit 24 books in the past. I think we went through the 25 modules.
L
1 &
o
- )%,9 IMAGE EVALUATION d$g
- \ @[ (# //g % jd f 4 #4, k///7 TEST TARGET (MT-3)
( 'W & %,,,
1.0 lf 2 Ea 5 lff IWllE u P ll!IE ll%
l.25 1.4 lu
4 150mm >
< 6" >
Of L k
4(8% #p ~
/ .
d4
' ' j
yy 1
2 Again, until 1980 there were only three QA moduits at Comanche Peak. The preconstruction 3
.v and initial QA inspection was done. l 4 fhere was a t mid-term QA inspection done.
5 I think all the kinds of things were being done. -
6 Now, between 1981 and 1984, again, your 7 Priority I, II,
! 8 and III program came into effect.
You know, 9
I can't account for -- how many i 10 corporate audits were or weren't down or how often
~
we went to corporate.
11 Q.
The audits you're talking about 12 that Bale did or the inspections that Bale did i{ 13 these documented in any way?
, were any of 14 A. Yes.
15 They would be in my inspection reports coming up. 4 16 You can talk to Bale about how much involvement he had.
17 Q.
18 I'm talking about previous years. You said that Bale had been out 19 corporate.
there and looked at 20 A.
I think at that I 21 '84, time when TRT started in 22 I don't know how much TRT went to corporate then. I know that 23 the issues that Mr. Phillips i developed were also issues that TRT had .I 24 25 so, you'd have to talk to Bale on that. :
I really don't recall.
I don't know. i I
1 l
l l
J
z-1 Q. I guoos I'm tolking about between 1974 I 2 and 1984, if information was gathered by Phillips 3
to indicate that the region never had.dgne a e
4 corporate audit of QA at TUGCO.
5 A. I don't know. . \
6 Q. I was wondering if you had any i l
7 information to dispute that or had the region, in i
8 f
l fact, done an audit on corporate headquarters.
. 1 9 A. I can recall in '82,
'83 we even had the 10 1 Vendor groups over'at corporate headquarters I!
11 looking at their vendor program. It was a vendor 12 branch.
( 13 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) You're saying this one 14 procedure, 35060, licensing management of QA 15 activities which is the issue we're discussing, 16 are.you saying that this procedure, that you 17 haven't done it? -
18 A.
I would have to go back and look at it.
19 I don't recall.
I know there was some holes. I 20 know that when Priority I, II, and III came out.-
21 there's a number of those procedures that didn't l 22 stay in effect.
23 Q. The question is: A, was this ip effect 24 before 1980? B, after 1980, what priority did it 25 have? And, C, were there inspections that you
79.
1 1
could take credit for prior to 1984 which covered 2 this module?
3 Those are the three questions"that 4 obviously float out of this issue. l 5 A. I believe based on what I have' here, when 6
I went back and looked at all this program, made 7
some presentations to'IE when they came up here as i
8 to what had been/done at corporate, I do not 9
believe that prior to 1980 that module existed. {
10 Q. Okay.
11 Q. That module came out in 1980, and it was i 12 to be done on an eighteep-month basis.
{ 13 Q. Right.
14 A. I think Phillips did it for the first i
- 15 time in 1984.
16 Q. It says here -- Chapter 2512 states that i 17 this inspection should be performed six months 18 after CP issuance and eighteen months after that; 19 and even if it was issued in 1980, why did it take 20 five yeaus before it got picked up?
21 A. Well, four years, right. In 1984 it was 22 done.
23 i
Q. I counted over four years, but$that's i
24 okay.
I 25 A. In between that time, again, we got into l
i
, I the hearing in '82, o contostod hocring in '82 2
I'm going to say there was, at least the year I 3 was there, I had nothing -- I had no t$me for 4
anything almost except that hearing and following 5
up allegations and doing this and this. j 6
Let's go back to this thing on 3506. If )
7 I was looking at other things, we probably should 8
take cr.tdit for with the 766 which I believe were 9
not shown, in 1983 there was an IE CAT audit. I 10 i Vould believe that they probably went to 11 corporate.
I haven't gone back to verify that.
12 l In 1983, there was also a Region IV .
( 13 regional assessment team audits and then in 1984, 1 j
! 14 separate from Shannon Phillips, there was a 15 ,
Region II special QA inspection done at Comanche 16 Peak.
! 17 In '84, M'r.
Phillips went to corporate ;
18 and reported what he was doing at TRT.
i I can't 19 speak fcr Bale and Berb Livermore, who were QA/QC
- 20 folks on TRT, how much they would have done on the 21 audit.
22 Q.
I'm just trying to understand something.
23 If this procedure wasn't effective unti41980, 24 what was there before, because I think there was 25 seme coverage of audits that should be done by NRC
1 at corporate office. I don't know for sure i
2 myself.
3 A ., I have to go back. I know there's an I 4 initial QA inspection. The data as I looked at 5 it -- I can't speak how accurate my data is -- but 6 there were five pre-construction initial QA type 7~ inspections in the '73 '74 time frame.
8 Q. What happengd after '747 9 A. Those are the initial QA's. There's a 10 mid-tern QA inspection report on 35200, which was
~
11 only required once; and that was done like in i
l' 2 '78. I don't know that that went to corporate.
l
( 13 The program up until 1980, I believe, was largely 14 equipment oriented.
15 Q. You hit the nail on the head. That 35200 16 ins'pection may have been the procedure that got 17 superceded by 35060', which is the issue we're 18 talking about.
19 A. It was called a mid-term QA inspection.
20 It was done once, and it was done in 1978.
21 Q. I understand only forty hours were 22 expended. How could they complete all the QA 23 areas in 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br />?
4 !
24 A. I couldn't defend that. That was before 25 sy time.
e I'm looking at the tract here.
1 Q.
j 2 A.
You would have to go look at the modules.
3 Q. Forty hor;s doesn't give you (' heck of a l 4
lot of time to do a lot of things.
5 A. Yes, sir. -
6 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) Well, it's seems, 7
although there may have been some effort in this 8
area of auditing. corporate QA, the specific module 9 that we're talking about apparently was not done.
10 -
I Do I have that correct?
{~ 11 A. I think entry in the 766, there's no 12 data.
i I would say, again, I think if we went back-1
( 13 and looked and wanted to take credit for other I 14 things which we were allowed to do which evidently 15 '
we didn't do, we had the IE CAT inspection in l
16 1980. i 17 t We had a Eegion IV regional assessment i
18 team inspection.
I don't recall what all that got ,
19 into.
That was done in 1983 and 1984. Then in 20 1984, a Region II special QA program inspection 21 was done.
22 I haven't gone back to see if they went 23 to corporate necessarily, but they certa $nly 24 probably went to audit.
25 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) If you think you can
-- 83 t
I take crodit for come of those things that 2 are not '
obvious by reading 3
the documents from our side, maybe someone should sit down on your dide and 4
write this down.
5 A. I 6
think maybe that would be a" good thing !
to do. In fact, 7
on a number of the procedures, a number of these QA module procedures, there 's a 8
lot of things that 9
we should -- I had here at one time some good indications of what we could or 10 should or would be able to do.
11 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) Let me ask a question.
12 !
Coming from a novice point of view, the IE manual
{ 13 had an inspection procedure that was required to 14 be done in 1930 and then every eighteen months 15 later on.
i '
16 Is it l
the same for us ir, 1986 now? To go 17 back and review our history of what we did out 18 there and try to take credit for an inspection 19 procedure, does that 20 answer the deficiency that that inspection procedure was not done?
21 Q.
(By Mr. Goldberg) Let me try to answer.
22 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) ,
23 It seems we have an omission. Okay.
That's fine. We might de able 24 to cover our omission now, but i 25 that doesn't answer the fact that something was omitted. g l
_==~__
1 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) Lot me try to answer.
2 Not from a Comanche Peak prospective, but from a 3
general prospective, as I understand ig'these 4
procedures are basically ones that can be covered 5 not just by regional-based people but by other !
6 people, NRC people as well. It's very possible 7 that other insp'ection efforts like Region II or 8
Region V.or whatever other regional people coming i
9 like QA,
~
may have covered these procedures as well '\
10 as a CAT team or something else.
11 When they finished doing their work, they 12 should at that time write down what procedures
( 13 they had covered.
14 This is what I generally do when I come 15 out.
IE will write down what procedures were 16 covered.
If they had not written down at that 17 time, it makes it More' difficult to figure it out: '
18 but it's still possible that one could do it.
It 19 makes it more difficu t if they had not done it at 20 that time.
21 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) The question I'm asking, 22 Mr. Westerman, ist From what I can gather from \
23 reading everything I've read and talkingito people 24 the fact that IE had a procedure that required 25 that Region IV audit the corporate headquarters in I
1 85 1
1980 and 1982 again and in 1984, the fact that !
2 that procedure was supposed to be completed was 3
not considered at the time. i^
4 What we're looking at now and I 5
understand what you're saying, what were saying 6 is that in 1986 we can satisfy that procedure.
7 So, we're covered as far as our regulation of 8
Comanche Peak. We've done the right things.
We 9 can cover. So, ther.e's no omission as far as 10 regulation at Comanche Peak.
11 Bowever, in any mind that doesn't satisfy 12 the problem within the management of the region.as 1 I 13 A. to why nobody picked out that procedure and said, 14 hey, let's get something done on it. J 15 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) It gets back to the 16 issu'e of whether the CAT team,and these other 17 people actually wrote down when they finished 18 l
their inspection that they covered those
~
19 procedures within the eighteen-month period versus l 20 doing it in 1986.
21 A.
The one you're worried about is 35060.
22 Q. 35060. Did you go back and look at the 23 Priority I, II, and III program?
- 24 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) I personally did not.
25 I believe it was looked et.
86 l l !
1 A.
I think you might want to go back and i
2 look at the Priority I, II, and III program.
You 3
might find that that module came out in 1980. In 4
1981 we come along and said go to Priority I, II, l 5 and III.
I 6
Therefore, we did not perform that module 7
as allowed under the inspection manual; and then 8
in 1984, we came'out and did away with the t 9 Priority I, II, and III system.
I 10 -
35060 was then put back in place. Okay.
11 Then whatever it was, '84 '85, whenever that 12 inspection was done, 85-32/11, we picked it back
( 13 up.
14 Q.
i You made two points which I think are (
i 15 well taken.
1 One is to go back prior to 1980 and !
16 see if the substance of this module is picked up 17 by an earlier moduie which I think is 35200. '
18 A.
That's a one-time module.
19 Q. I understand, but the substance of it is 20 is it picked up there; and, number two, check to 21 see if the priority that was given in 1981 through 22
'84 could explain this dead time in that period.
23 We will do that. I don't have that infgreation at 24 my finger tips, but we will do that.
25 A. .The previous data that I had when I went l
l
1 back and looked at it would indicato that it come i l
2 l about in 1980. 1981 it was dropped as far as we - I l
3 !
went to Priority I and II, and then it;came back 1 4 into being in 1984.
5 Q. Let me give -- that's one issue. There's 6
a second issue I'm trying to explain to you. I I
1 l
7 don't think it's appropriate to, just like a l 8 Monday morning quarterback, take credit for 9
certain activities now versus when the CAT team -- !
)
10 the CAT team should have sat down and put down o
11 what modules they were taking credit for at that i i
12 time, not in '86 or '84.
'( 13 A. That's 1983.
A That's even during the l 14 period of time when it would have been in 15 the Priority I, II, and III system.
16 Q. Irrespective of that, whether it's done 17 by a regional guy ~dr resident or by an IE guy, he 18 should sit down and determine what procedures he 19 has taken credit for'at that point in time.
20 A. Yes, sir.
21 ' O. (By Mr. Mulley) I guess that's the point 22 I'm driving at.
23 A. I think that's part of the attgntion 24 being paid to 766 and how important that really is 25 to somebody who wants to come back and look at it i
88-I later on. You're going to use 766 as your sole 2
basis for saying how well was the inspecffon 3 program performed.
4 Q. .With all these procedures and stuff as an 5 inspector, we may be able to do things now to ;
6 cover the inspection effort, but to draw analogies 7 like the barn door and the horse, if the horse 8 gets out, it's too late to close the barn door 3 j 1
9 My problem is the ho;;e may have stayed 10 in the barn, but the door was still left open. I 11 want to know why the door was left open. We may -
i 12 be able to cover ourself with subsequent 13 inspections, but why wasn't the original !
14 inspection done? That is what I'm driving at.
15 A. Well, what I just told you is that it 16 came in 1980 on an eighteen-month basis. We 17 turned around in '81 and dropped it. We might not 18 have got it done.
19 If it wasn't picked up again in '84 as 20 far as the-program, then -- '
21 Q. If that's what h a pp er4 e d , that's a very 22 reasonable explanation; and that's exactly what 23 I'm driving at, to come to an explanation why some 24 of these weren't done.
25 A. That's where you have to look at Priority
89 1 I, II, and'III. That threw a monkey wrench in the 2 whole program right in the middle of it.f-3 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) We've agreed that 4 we'll go back and look at that.
i 5 Q. (By Mr. Nulley) As a result of finding 6 that developed or as a result of the information 7 that Shannon Phillips developed concerning the f 8 possibility that the. region may not have conducted l
9 all the inspection modules, he conducted under the
.-y 10 direction of, an analysis, a trend
- s. - .
. _J 11 analysis, of the region's past inspection history 12 and what inspection modules, QA modules, that l r 13 Region IV had or had not done. .
14 Are you familiar with that?
l 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. He provided this information to I believe 17 it was by menor and as a result, he has 18 come up with some special procedures that he could 19 find no records having been completed.
20 I would like, if we could, tu go through 21 them and get your responses to that.
22 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) The easier way is, I 23 have it right from the meno itself, Enclosure V.
24 That would make it' easier than going through a
25 here.
90 I
1 A. Do you want to put any of these in the 2 record? l l
3 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) Do you have omething 4 that applies? ,
5 O. (By Mr. Goldberg) Yes.
- 6 A.
gn I-mhave the, I believe, meno that went 7 from I to Johnson.
L- e4 8
MR. MULLEY: I'll label this as 9
Eshibit 3.
10 (Whereupon the document was la marked for identification as Eshibit 12 Mo. 3.)
( 13 t Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) Do you have a response 14 to each line ites?
15 A.
16 I don't know if it's a line ites. What I did basically was write a meno from myself to 17 Mr. Johnson. I had Bob Taylor look at 18 Mr. Phillips' analysis since Mr. Taylor was 19 intimatelyfamiliarwkththehistoryofthe766.
20 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) What was Mr. Taylor's 21 position?
22 A.
Be was senior resident inspector at 23 Comanche Peak.
I don't know how many yepts, 24 several years.
You want me to read it in the 25 record or what do you want me to do?
91 1 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) Make that part of the 2 exhibit you just included.
3 MR. MULLEY: I'm going to label 4 .-
this memorandum from Mr. Westerman to 5
Mr. Johnson as Exhibit 3-A.
6 !
(Whereupon the document was I 7
. marked for identification as Ezhibit i 8 No. 3-A.)
9 RR. GOLDBERG: From my review,
~
10 George, of the first page, it's somewhat 11 repetitive of what we've discussed 12 earlier, such items as only three QA I
{ 13 modules between 1975 and 1980 and then l
14 they're have been five changes and four 15 modules added since 1984. We've 16 discussed that.
17 A. I think you have got to go to 18 Mr. Taylor 's analysis where he's gone through it. I 19 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) Okay. Mr. Taylor's 20 analysis goes in and looks at specific hardware 21 modules. ,
22 A. Be looked at, I think,# --
23 MR. GOLDBERG: My soggestion, 4 24 George, is that we study this a little 25 bit and compare it with what.information
92 I we have.
2 I don't think time would be served l 3
by debating over the comparisons until 4
we've looked at this memo.
l 5
MR. MULLEY: Right.
! 6 MR. GOLDBERG: Would that be 7 okay?
! I think that would be the better 8 way.
9 A. I'd also like Mr. Taylor in on that.
~
10 0. (By Mr. Mulley) )
Let me say something.
11 OIA is certainly not going into an analysis of .I 12 Region IV's inspection program at Comanche Peak.
{ 13 We're not in business to do that.
j 14 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) Nor do we have the 15 capability to do that.
16 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) I Right. If you provided 17 documentation to address --
18 A. There's a piece of documentation that I l
19 don't have. When I first went down there in June I
20 of '85, as I recall, I picked up "who's going to 21 do what."
22 I assigned Mr. Bale these 3500 modules 23 for which we started to pick up some of those 4 24 modules.
I don't know where we are as far as 25 being complete on them. I know he's been to
I corporate several times. I know he's doing other-2 things. -
)
3 1 I
also wrote a memo even af ter,' T got all 4 this. I wrote a memo back to Barnes. Ian Barnes 5
had said make sure that Bale does these modules. )
6 Well, I've got.that memo, too, just to show you I 7 that I put it -- I had it in a list that was 8
established almost within the month I walked on 9 site back in July o.f last year to make sure we
~
10 were going to pick it up; and I subsequently wrote
> 11 another memo down to Barnes saying, hey, pick y 12 i these things up.
j
{ 13 MR. GOLDBERG: I think the 14 issue, George, is more geared to the 15 past, the more distant past, in terms of 16 going back over long periods of time.
17 I think this memo may be more 18 valuable. It gives more prospective over 19 a long period'of time. Most of the ;
20 issues that were raised here are over a l
21 longer gariod of time.
l 22 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) I realize that we have 23 resident inspectors on site. For examp)e, 24 Mr. Taylor was at Comanche Peak who did a lot of 25 inspection work.
1 The work that he did in connection to 2
this memo, he would like to take some credit for performing some of these modules.
3 4
Is'that work documented? Could we go 5
back and get a record, not we meaning CIA, but can 6
NRC go back and get a record of what he did?
7 A. The 7667 8 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) No. George is asking 9
are there inspection reports that will describe 10 t'he work that was conducted that he can take 11 credit for?
12 A. Sure. '
{ 13 Q. That you could take credit for?
14 A. Sure. Likewise, there's the CAT which we 15 didn't take credit for. There's inspection 16 rep' orts there.
i Toe TRT, you'd have to search and 17 take credit for whit's'in the SSER's. t 18 Q.
1 I noted in Mr. Taylor's meno he's talking 19 about l
some of the work that Shannon Phillips 20 aparently wasn't aware of.
I 21 A. May very well be.
22 Q. I am wanting to know when Taylor was out 23 doing this work, was there a monthly inspection 24 report that was prepared that contained what he 25 did?
1 A. Yes,. sir.
2 Q. Okay. I guess that's what I was i 3 thinking.
Let me ask another questionfa bout some 4
of these QA inspection modules that may have been 4
5 missed, per se, ;
even though we may have something 6
now to fill in the gaps.
7 Do you feel that it's possible at this 8
point in time since a lot of the construction has 9
been completed to go back and adequately inspect i
~
10 some of the things we might have missed back in 11 1981 or 1982 or 19787 12 l (Off the record discussion.) !
{ 13 Q. fBy Mr. Mulley) Is there any way that 14 Region IV, NRC can recoup some of these missed i 15 1
inspection procedures; or in some areas, is it 16 just too late?
For example, if you talk about 17 inspecting the installation of some component,
- 18 that module wasn't completed, can we go back now 19 at this point in time and pick up what we missed i
20 or is it just too late for that area?
21 A.
You can pick up -- depending upon what 22 the module asked you to do. If the module asked 23 you to witness the installation of sometging, you 24 can't witness that.
25 You can go back and look at that l
l
96 i
1 installation. There may be some things that are !
2 non-recreatable. so, you have to go look at a 3
record to see that somebody did inspect the weld I
4 root or joint or whatever.
5 I'll point oct this 7-C ISAP program i 6
going on at Comanche Peak is a sample of every_
7 I construction activity that occurred in that plant. '
8 Q.
From what I discovered in this inspection 9
l l report, 84-32/11, apparently there was some !
I
! 10 l d' deficiencies with the Tugco QA program.
'- i 11 !
If NRC has missed-certain QA modules, it 12 has to go back to the records that you just
(, 13 mentioned to see what was done; and we're not 14 certain that we can rely on the records that TUGCO 15 had.
How do we make up for that shortcoming?
i 16 A. l I'm not
! sure when -- you're talking about 17 audits now. An audit is a management tool.
How 18 good that audit is performed is, again, a i
! 19 management -- it is not the inspection of the 20 hardware that's there. An audit is strictly, '
5 21 again, a management tool.
22 It would give management indications that 23 activities weren't being conducted propelly, but 24 it's not the end to all as to whether a component i 25 or hardware is installed properly in the plant.
1 That's. inspected under the QC programt and that'o, 2
again, the very effort we're looking at in detail 3
{
, at Comanche today, previous inspections.'of the e
4 plant.
5 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) So, I guess t.he bottom 6
line, though, is if we missed certain inspections, 7
like you talked about the installation of things, 8
we didn't do involving installation of a certain 9
component, we have to rely on the records that the 10 d'tility maintains and go back to those records? 4
_ 11 A. Correct. You still accomplish that part 12 of the module. If you didn't witness the I l
(, 13 installation, you would still accomplish that part )
14 of the module that dealt with the installation i 15 records and everything that went with it. i 16 If you don't witness the setting of the i' 17 reactor vessel, you would go back and look at the i 18 records that went along with the setting of the t i
19 reactor.
20 Q. So, let me ask you this:
1 Bringing up 21 that specific example, if we didn't witness the 22 setting of the reactor vessel and if TUGCO wasn't 23 there and TUGCO's records -- apparently from what 24 I understand, there was some question about the 25 adequacy of TUGCO records and how those records l
l- - ___ ___ ___ _ _
98 1 were generated involving installation of the 2 v reactor vessel. i 3 A. I'm ready to talk about that in very much 4 detail. That's 850705. I can sure show you.the
5 Westinghouse installation documents. I can show 6 you the traveler and the traveler that was 7 prepared, and I can show you the changes made to 8 the traveler.
9 Q. (By Mr.'Goldberg) You also have the 10 design specs? l l
11 A. I don't have the design specs, but I can 1
12 show a letter from Westinghouse that says, "We 13 looked at it and everything in<here is well within 14 any design."
15 Q. Did you check to see if the design 4 16 spec -- I just want to divert for one second 17 here -- is at the plant as a quality record as a j 18 safety laid structure? '
19 A. No, sir. That design spec is probably 20 not at the plant now. There is no requirement '
21 that that design spec be at the plant. If you'll 22 get into Westinghouse, you find a large percentage 23 of all Westinghouse design documents never.come to 24 the utility. '
25 In fact, they're carted off to the
- j i l 1
mountain thero up.there in Monrooville end otored.
2 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) What happens if 3 sometime, say, nine years from now thejNlant has 4
operated and they do a modification to some part 5 of that vessel, where are they going to find the 6 spee?
7 A.
They're going to have to bring 8 Westinghouse back in. Westinghouse will have the 9
records, and Westin,ghouse maintains that record 10 for the life of the plant.
11 Q.
If Westinghouse is not out of business by 12 then. If they are out of business --
{ 13 A.
Then they better go after Westinghouse to 14 get that record. '
)
15 Q. ;
The question is whether this should be a l 16 safety record that should be maintained at the 17 plant.
We're goins to talk about that.
18 I
A.
I think you will find that most 19 utilities, they do not have the detailed design 20 records from the NSSS supplier at the plant.
21 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) In the event that -- I 22 took this as an example -- in the event that the 23 licenseehadinadequaterecords,theNRg.isstuck 24 with reviewing --
25 A. It depends on what we're talking about.
i 100 1 l
1 Okay. If we're talking about an installation l 2
criteria provided by Westinghouse and the 3 ' ,
. documents that they provide the utility company 1 l
4 for which Westinghouse reviews that document, it 5 ,
concurs in a procedure that is generated as a i 6 j result of that document, how much is a enough that
{ 7 t hat utility has to have to be able to do their 8 job? \
l 9 !
Q. I guess the point I'm trying to make, it l
~
10 j would seem to me that if NRC misses an inspection .
)
11 !
module like an installation, we have to rely on 12 the utility's records; and, hopefully, the
( 13 utility's records are going to be good. If 14 l they're not, we're kind of stuck.
t 15 A. Anywhere else, you are.
16 We don't inspect everything in that_ plant likewise.
17 Q. ,
Tha t 's trde.
18 A. There's some things that the program i 19 might call that you should look at.
20 I don't even know whether it's manditory.
21 I have know whether that IE manual chapter says you should witness a 22 certain number of component installations, that 23 thou shall look at the reactor. We-may got look 24 at reactor vessels. We don't look at every steam 25 generator that's installed.
We don't look at
. _ _ _ _ ___.-___m - - _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _
beB.
I ovary proosuriser installod.
2 Coo kNf We don't look at !
every reactor fuel pump installed.
3 There's a lot of things we don't look at. I' 4 Q.
If there is an inspection procedure 5
l t
though that does require you to look at them --
6 A. I don't know.
7 I'd have to look at the one on the reactor vessel.
F I think based on some conversation I had with Bob Taylor ~~ I haven't 9
had a chance to research it, lo but at one time I
! don't know that you'd even look at vessel
!_ 11 internals. I think that's something that --
12 there's something particular about this one on
( 13 reactor vessel and internals that is changed from the 14 what it was at one time. There's some problem.
15 16 Bob Taylor probably can talk to you about !
that.
I haven't been to look at the procedure.
17 Q. Do you fe'il at 18 this point in time that 1 the Region IV inspection program is adequate to 19 pick up some of these areas that we may have 20 missed in the past?
~21 Do you think we're doing a suitable job now?
22 A.
So far you have talked about QA modules 23 Q. Right.
I 24 A.
25 Again, we've talked about whether they were or weren't required at the time. l I think the i
k L
102 I hardware in a plant has been looked at and I think 2 by Shannon's own numbers, 90 percent of the IE i
3 manual chapter was completed on Unit I.
4 I would anticipate we will probably 5 complete a higher number on Unit II.
6 Q. In going back to this reported failure to 7 inspect TUGCO corporate headquarters' QA program, i 8 do you see any far-reaching impact if, in fact, 9 the suspected module was not done in 1980 or 1984 10 for the site itself? Let's say we did miss it. l 11 A. Again, I told you that an audit program ,
12 is a management tool. The management might have 13 problems. The audit certainly doesn't catch i 14 everything, and an audit is not the in to what's 15 out there. The in to what's out there is the 16 equipment that's installed, and the QC program was 17 employed.
18 I don't know that because the audit 19 program didn't function, they may have been able ,
20 to correct things that were programmatic from 21 their audit.
22 Each one of those -- each inspection 23 procedure that we look at has a QA part in the 24 filing. If it tells you on the electrical, you go 25 back and look at all the procedures and coverage
203 I
that's done for electrical installation, cables .
t 2
and what have you. )
3 That's been looked at any numb r of times 4
at Comanche Peak. !
5 Q.
Are you aware of the trend anakysis that 6
was also conducted in which Phillips looked at the 7
past violations and unresolved items that were 8 , issued up there?
9 A. I Yes. .
~
10 Q. What
~ are your feelings about that 4 i
11 analysis?
Do you think it was a valid analysis?
l 12 Did it produce any valuable information? .
( 13 A. Not particularly for me.
I though that 3 14 it was a rehash of the TRT in some part, and we'll 15 get into this in the report; but what was put into 16
- the report was monitored in the analysis .
It was 17 just we found there were so many violations of 1 18 j this, so many violations here and so many 19 violations there.
20 ;
It didn't draw any true trend in the 21 sense of a trend analysis.
22 There were a lot of Criterion V violations. We used to have an 23 >
enforcement officer here and every violation was b 24 written against criterion V. Everything you do 25 out i there is a violation of Criterion v. You
104 1
1 either didn't have adequate procedure or you 2 didn't follow it.
3 So, to look at that trend analh' sis and 4
say how vital it was, I didn't spend a lot of time 1 1
5 looking at the trend analysis. '
6 .Q. Did you discern any adverse trends as a 7 result of that?
8 A. I didn't see anything that really 9
surprised me that I.wouldn't find at some other 1 L
10 tacility.
~
11 Q.
1 Was there anything there that you thought i 12 should be further investigated or further i
( 13 inspection efforts done?
14 A. I felt that most of that was pretty well 15 covered by the TRT activities that had gone on.
16 The TRT did it-in much more detail to look at.
17 Again, we get into this 850705 report. The NRR 18 fellow, Mr. Baughny, who is a consultant, 3 coked
{
19 :
at what was in the inspection reports and one of !
20 his notes to me was, "This is not a trend 'I 21 analysis ' I agreed with him.
22 0. so, to summarize, there's nothing in 23 whatever Phillips provided you in the fois of a i 24 trend analysis that gave you any cause for alarm? !
25 A.
It's not any different than the part.
i 1 0.
Do you rocall over tak.}g issue with 2
Phillips on a face-to-face, one-on-one basis over 3
inspection report 84-32/117 4 A. b' We had discussions with Shannon. I don't 5 know what you mean.
As I said earlier e I did !
6 discuss 8432 with Shannon. I wanted to learn 7 )
about the history of it, where did it come frosa.
8 1t was at that point that I had got involved in 9 it.
Again*, it wa's as an enforcement officer.
10 It was more out of curiosity any
, 11 conversation I had with Phillips as to why was it 12 written like that.
13 It seems to me to be rather '
( negative.
14 That's where Phillips got lato telling l
15 se that he saved/ all his q drafts that went with that report, that 16 had been to the site and had helped his rewrite its and I guess he felt he I
17 was going to have to defend why be rewrote it, you 18 know.
19 .
The biggest
~hl attack I saw on that report 20 waswrittenby?.jth:;Me She-
.1 t:6. se said, 'Why are you J
)
21 writing this?
22 This is all covered on the TRT.' !
It was a TRT issue. That's true.
23 Br. Rale went over to Shannon and discusged it and 24 when they found out that Shannon and 'a couple of 25 consultants had been goirig into corporate looking i i
__.____.___..____________m___._____m __
106 i
1 at the audit, Bale went over there and gave him 2
almost a walking list of the things they had come 3 up with on the TRT for which at the tind'-- I 4
think Bale indicated when he was talking to folks, 5 he didn't have the impression that Phillips even 6 had any significant findings until be went over 7 and talked to bim.
8 0. Well, do you recall ever defending as a 9
result of your connection with this report
~
10 previous Region IV's actions, Mr. Taylor's 11 actions, things like that when he discussed things 12 like certain inspection modules not being
( 13 completed in the par,t?
14 A. No. We've had discussions. It was 15 obvious that Phillips hadn't gone back like Taylor 16 to f'ind out what was the basis lor doing some of i 17 the things done on the modules. se seemed to get 18 certain facts and then start off with them rather 19 than -- my approach was always to go back to the 20 folks to see, hey, how come with a module like 21 this, why did we miss something.
22 Be did come over and talk to me on some 23 ~7 modules,andIhadsomediscussionswitb{
24
_ when he came over to the site. Again e I 25 went back to Taylor and Bob Stewart; and we talked
107 e
1 about some of these things.
2 Like I said, Stewart indicated on one of 3
these things -- I forget the specific b e -- but
- 4
\ he said, "When I got there, the activity was over j 5 l
with. So, I closed the module.' -
6 In my mind that was not -- he went back 7
and found that Taylor had done some previous 8
{
inspections. i 9 Q.
~
Did you ever threaten Phillips over
! 10 t
inspection report 84-32/11 by stating that 11 Region IV management would never forget this i 12 inspection?
{ 13 A. No, sir.
14 Q.
Threaten by saying the region will never 15 forget this inspection?
16 A.
i That's a conclusion Mr. Phillips has 17 drawn. Mr. Phillips may have made that '
18 statement. I don't recall ever saying Re; ion IV 19 will never forget this.
i In fact, I've heard 20 Mr.
Phillips make that statement before.
21 I would indicate to you a lot of times 1
22 i
Phillips makes statements, which he made the wrong 23 conclusion. I agreed with the statement 6 24 Q. I think Phillips was saying that since 25 the inspection report was critical of TUGCO, that i
i 1
you were-upset over the fact thot the rogion cent 2
out such a critical report of TUGCO and was going 3
to cause TUGCO some problems and, therifbre, the 4
region was not going to forget.
5 A.
I wasn't worried about eny concern that 6
it caused TUGCO problems.
I will give you my 7 assessment. I looked at the report.
I thought 8
the report was overly critical.
9
~
I'm not one that says -- if there were 10 violations, there were violations; and I never 11 stopped anybody from writing a violation.
12 For example, I indicated to you like on *
{ 13 the Westinghouse service organization, if the 14 utility had picked up and was now auditing 15 Westinghouse service, then it's only fair to give 16 them credit that, hey, we 're audited. We picked 17 it up.
Our program' rec'ognized we had a problem 18 here. That's only fair.
19 Whereas'when you read it -- and I can 20 shov you in the report -- if you only take it- to 21 one side, you don't ever explain the rest and 22 somebody reads that report and gets all kinds of 23 impressions, such as TUGCO never had an eudit 24 program.
TUGCO had an audit program. Was it the 25 world's best? Probably not.
Was it effective?
i 109 i
1 It may not have been. They did have an audit 2 program.
3 I think if you read the report, it would 4
sound like it had no audit program. It very well 5 much did.
6 Q. I think we briefly' hit upon this before 7 about the fact of Phillips mentioning to you that 8
he was trying to get to another region because of-9 the pressure.
~
10
. Do you recall a conversation like that 11 where you suggested it may be a good idea that he 12 went to another region?
{ 13 A. Again, Mr.
Phillips brought up a number 14 of times that he was looking for a job outside of 15 4 Region IVs and after we had interchange for some 16 period of time, I ,
remember one day -- it probably 17 4 was in December -- I walked into Phillips' trailer 18 and we got {
into some discussion-on something. ,
19 Mr. Phillips said, i
'I'd been better off if I had 20 never come 6.o Region IV, if I had gone to t 21 -headquarters." i 22 ,
I gave the man a very honest answer, 23
'Maybe you would have been't but I neverftold 24 Phillips, 'You better leave Region IV.'
25 Q.
Did you ever -- was this ever intended as M
. . . _ . . Od0 1 o throot?
2 A. No, sir, not as a threat. l' 3
i (Off the record disc'ussion.)
4 MR. MULLEY: I'm going to break 5
now for lunch. Maybe we can.come back I 6
after lunch and pick up with 8705 The 7
way you would like to do it sounds 8
perfectly good to me.
9 ,
I'll introduce the reports and ask 10
- you to go through your sequence of events \
t
_ 11 from your prospective and then based on i 12 that, if there's any questions left, then
(
13 we can just do it that way.
14 MR. WESTERMAN Sure.
15 (Lunch recess.)
16 i i 17 (Off the recu a discussion.)
Q.
There was one.more question that I wanted 18 to ask about what we were just talking about.
19 A. Sure. '
20 Q. From what 21 I understand from Shannon when he was doing the inspection, he went to TUGCO 22 management and asked for copies of any audit 23 '.
reports that had been done. .
6 24 A. Uh-huh.
25 Q.
And apparently they had not given him .
1 onythir and coverci contho act '; on, they came 2
up as a result of an information act with 6 3 report. .
4 iv A. That was discovery. i 5 Q. Is that what it was?
6 A.
Which they don't provide it at the time, 7 !
for which they subsequently then provided it. '
8 Q.
I guess that was an audit of TUGCO itself I 9
\
and one audit of Brown & Root.
10 ~
A. MW I believe that Brown & Root had Week do ,
11 audits. M &c.
I don't know that TUGCO had Meet. do 12 audits of Brown & Root. I don't know about that. {
( 13 MM- -
I do know that TUGCO had M*+A come in and look at 14 l
TDGCO, whatever time frame that was.
15 Q. Apparently, there's been some information 16 developed since that time that TUGCO may have 17 known that they had.tha.t audit when it didn't give i* 10 it to Phillips.
19 A.
3 Well, there's been an OI ir.<estigation of 20 the whole Ihreports.
21 Q.
That's what I'm getting to right now.
22 A. That's being looked at from the 23 standpoint of, you know, whatenforcemengaction 24 may be taken from that.
25 Q.
So, this matter was, in fact, referred to
l' 112 2 OI?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. I just wanted to get the resol ' tion of 4 that. That takes care of that report. I 5 A. To get back, again, you asked 'me my 6 impression of it. I said I thought it was a 7 negative type report.
l I want to make sure that l 8 we're clear. \
l l
9 We ought to write fair, objective reports 10 w' hen we write inspection reports.
- It should not
{
11 be one-sided or shouldn't paint the picture like ;
12 it's the end of the world or the world is coming
{ 13 to an end.
14 Q. We're talking about 8432?
15 A. That one in particular. Again, to give 16 H you some names of folks to talk to, Don Tomigson 17 is one of them. Th,e reason I want you to talk to 18 W
Tomligon is, again, the crediblity or background .
19 of the individual.
20 I know that Mr. Phillips made statements 21 that were alleged to have been made by an alleger 22 d that came to Mr. Tomligon while he was in South 23 Texas, I believe, that Phillips had told $him he 24 !
was going to shut down Waterford just like he had Shut !
25 down South Texas. 1
f l
. 113 1
l I
1 I hadn't been involved. I just knew 2
there were some side issues. That's how come I 3 thought that j if a man always takes thak approach 4 in life,
! that's not really what we're here for. '1
! 5 Q.
l So, in reading this report, it was your l 6 impression that the report was something else .
7 other than an objective recital of facts?
8 A. Yes, sir..
9 Q. Okay. i
~
Let's now discuss inspection 10 report 85-07/05.
~
I understand that you're very 11 familiar with this report.
12 A. I am.
{- 13 Q.
Would you for me go through from your 14 prospective the sequence of events and how you '
15 were involved in this report?
16 A. Okay.
Let me first say this inspection 17 was done in the April I through June 21 time frame 18 of 1985.
19 It appeared on the division director's 20 desk sometime, I'm guessing, late August, early 21 September.
22 It was one of a number of pieces of 23 paper, I guess, that had kind of log $anked on 24 this side of the office. When I got my hands on 25 the report, I took a look at it. I had Ian Barnes
114 1
1 and Lee Ellershaw also review this and comment on 3 2 it.
i 3 (By Mr. Goldberg)
Q. Can you telk'us the 4 names again?
5 A. Well, I would say at that time'just for j 6
the technical and of it, I asked Ian Barnes, as I 7
recall, and also Lee Ellershav to look at it and 8
give me some comments on the technical contents of 9
the report, particularly in the areas that dealt 10 with codes and standards and what have you, 11 i
knowing their background with regard to the code.
12 I took that report to Shannon Phillips. *
{
( 13 The initial report was given to Shannon Phillips: I 1
14 and, as I recall, at the time I told Shannon 15 Phillips, who was senior resident for 15 construction, that I held his responsible for the 17 ~
construction report that I got.
18 I think he stated at the time that he 19 hadn'twrittenallthereport,thatJimCumminh 20 and Doyle sunnicutt had some part of it. My 21 recollection is that the part that was done by be 22 and ]hewasgoingtotakecareofit.
23 That's what I did when I left him with tAis-report 24 with my comments, and I'll go over the particulars 25 because the changes that came about from my i
115 i
I comments, I want to go over those.
2 What I would like to do, this is the l 3 draft thatI'mawareofthatcametone'after{
4
'forEricJohnsonatthetime. That is the 5 original draft. ~
6 NR. MULLEY: Let me mark the 7 original draft as Ezhibit 4.
8 (Whereupon the document was 9 l marked for-identification as Ezhibit
~
10 3o, 4.)
11 A. When I looked at the report, it raised 12 the question in my mind with regard to the .
( ?. 3 violation that was in here on failure to retrieve 14 records. I believe that was Item 10.
15 As I recall, I also had run across with 16 the TUGC0 folks I believe a fellow by the name of 17 W-e-1-c-b that had some of the follow-up that was 18 being done.
19 The documentation that had been requested 20 for which the violation had been written against 21 was there. It had been my esperience that TOGC0 22 might not have the fastest retrieval system, but 23 they've always been able to come up with6 24 documentation.
25 I don't know what all the problems were
I
.1 the initial tice in obtaining the documents.
2 However, if I
~
came across information before I put {
3 an inspection report out which would sey'to me 4 that, yeah, the documents are there and that's no 5
longer a-valid violation, I would certainly remove
~ i 6 that from the inspection report.
f 7
I believe that was part of the comments 8 that were passed..
9 Q. When did you go to check on this 10 d'ocument?
11 A. I don't know whether it was before or 12 after I took the report over to Shannon. Some of i
( 13 them I may have taken before and some after.
14 As things went on, sometimes I just went 15 3 back to see different things. As this thing l
16 developed, I'd look at l
another item and say that 17 looks a little fishy. I'm going to look and see 18 what are the facts. ,
19 Q.
When did you first get the report? Do 20 you remember that?
21 A.
That's what I said earlier. I thought 22 that ;
was late August or early September.
23 Q. When was this inspection done? 6 24 A. April to June.
25 Q.
Let me ask a couple of questions. Do you
117 1 have that in front of you, the CMTR?- Do you have .
2 it?
3 A. Do I have a copy? l 4 Q. Yes.
]
5 A. No, I don't have a copy of it. I will ,
6 tell you that, _forMr.Phillipswentback 7 and looked at that'CMTR. They looked at the 8 documentation that was-there.
9 Q. Wa's it the utility who found the CMTR, or 10 did you go back and look for it?
11 A. The utility found it. I've had some 12 problems with Mr. Phillips' trailer with 13 communication over th,e utility where it appeared 14 there was a failure to go to the right folks to l 15 get documentation.
16 I think Ian Barnes can probably talk a q l
17 little bit about that.
18 Q. Let me see if I understand. Usually a QC '
19 guy when he comes in for a receipt will receive 20 the CMTR's and then it goes l'nto procurement :
21 records?
22 A. It depends upon how it's filed .n i that 23 record is how you are going to retrieve it. It 24 depends who you went to or what you got to get it 25 or what stage it was in.
118 1
If it was an in-process record, you might
{
2 not find that record. TUGC0 has a system of paper 3 .- k
. flow group out in the work area for which '
4 documentation comes through. It might still have 5
been in the process at the time the inspectors 6 were asking for it.
7 Q.
The critical item here is: When was the 1 8
item received on' site? I 9 A. The CMTR?
~
10 Q. No.
Usually the.CMTR comes in as part of 11 )
a procurement package because the procurement spec '
12 includes a requirement to have a CMTR available.
( 13 A.
I'm sure it came in at the time it was 14 received.
15 Q.
When was the ites received at the plant?
16 A. I don't know.
l 17 Q. Okay. .
18 A. That really wasn't the question. The i
I 19 question was the violation. And the question of 20 the violation was the fact that they didn't 21 produced the CMTR at the time the inspector aske'd 22 for it.
23 Q.
The question'is you said it's p6ssible 24 that it was still in process.
25 A.
It may have been a part of a package. I
A 1
didn't go look to oee how it wao -- what package 2
it came out of. I'm telling you they have a paper 3
flow group operation at that site.
They have a 4
traveler which may be the documentation traveler 5
which has all the pieces of paper that~goes with 6 it.
7 Q.
On that traveler?
8' A. .I don't,know.
4 9
All I know is when I went over and asked, the documentation'was there. The 10 1"n'spectors went over and saw it. The 11 documentation was there. I don't know whether 12 it's important.
{ 13 The fact that 14 the documentation is there is really what was the thing in question. At the 15 time, I didn't go try and interrogate why it 16 couldn't be found.
17 Q.
One of the issues -- it's not really an 18 issue, that the record was or was not there, but 19 the retrievability of the record, that is the 20 question here.
21 A.
I would say if they went to the 22 regulations, it doesn't say readily retrievable.
23 It says retrievable, and what is the time frame?
24 One day? One month? Two months?
25 I don't know.
You'd have to look at what was the stage
120 i
l 1
of what was going on.here
{ 2 and even -- I don't know that ,
the folks even went to the right people to d 3
ask for the record. p' 4
I
\
l can tell you that, for example, we_got 4 5 ~
into the same issue on some CB&I records.
6 Mr. McCluskey, who was working for
,7 Mr.
Phillips -- and this Mr. Barnes can pass on to 8
you -- had spentLa couple of. weeks trying to find 9
some penetration records that dealt with CBsI.
~
10
~ At the time, Mr. McCluskey came by and 11 talked to Mr. Barnes and said, " Hey, I can't-find 12 these records." Barnes went .
over and talked to
{ 13 Tom Brant who is the head of the QE group, who 14 within four hours or maybe two hours had the 15 records that they had been going through 16 grudgingly for several weeks looking for them, 1
t 17 It depends upon how you go. If you go to 18 ,
a records clerk and ayk for records, if you don't !
19 know how or where or if you don't understand the 20 records system, l you may not be able to find that 21 record immediately.
22 i
I don't know what all was going on with 23 this.
I know that Mr. Barnes asked Mr. McCluskey 24 why didn't he go talk to Tom Brant, and 25 Mr. McCluskey. told him that Shannon Phillips told l
\
, I him not to go csk Brent.
2 3
Ian said he later asked Phillips, "Why did you tell him not to go talk to Brah't?" He 4
acted like he didn't know what Barnes was talking i 5 about. '
6 i 7 I've had a number of issues here and !'
another one that we'll into in one part of this !
8 report, this being able to go get the records.
9
~
I don't know that there's'anything that 10 says how retrievable a record has to be.- It's
_ 11 there.
12 My experience has said there's never been many cases where we couldn't find the record
(
13 Q.
The issue might 14 not so much be whether or not non-compliance is involved here, but rather 15 some discussion should be in.the report that 16 there's a delay in obtaining these records 17 .
18 I understa d there's no discussion at all in the final report in,this area.
19 A. I'm telling you that I 20 took this report over at this point 21 the things that for this ites and it was one of 22 I gave to Phillips with comments 23 for which I don't know where the wording went from here.
I 24 Q.
The final report does not 25 discuss the
! issue of unavailability of CMTR's.
1.
122
)
1 A. I'm up to the point now that 1 I get this i
2 l
report back from Shannon. I don't recall why or 3
what was happening to the words in this part of 4 the report.
5 Q. It seems to me, though, in te'ms r of 6 records, there are many issues that we're going to 7 be into, other records issues and I think that 8 maybe the best
, thing to do is try and save this 9
issue and put it back in with the other issues 10 b"ecause records comes up again and again and 11 again, either records retention on site, off site, 12 primary contractor, et cetera.
{ 13 A. Sure.
14 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) I intend to keep that --
15 A.
I think this record, the record is 16 the're.
The man went back and looked at it. As 17 '
far as I know, between Mr. Phillips and 18 Mr. Norman, they made the change. ,
19 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) There's a relationship 20 here.
I want to make that point, and maybe it 21 shows my prospective.
The CMTR's generally are 22 kept as quality records; and are duplicate copies 23 kept in the storage vault, generally spelking? 1 24 You 're shaking your head.
25 A.
I don't know that that's always the case. i I
i
1 Q. I didn't say always, but generally.
2 We're going to get to the storage vault issue. -
3 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) The concern t,hnt was 4
raised concerning this particular finding was that 5 during the time of the inspection up to.the exit
) 6 briefing, they coudin't find the report.
7 It was acknowledged by Phillips and 8
Norman or whoever later on that the report was 9 discovered.'
10 A. I don't know who, when I went back with 11 the issue, who they went back and talked to. I 12 don't know the circumstances.
{, 13 Q. Okay. But they're saying that as far as 14 the inspection is concerned, they couldn't find 15 the records; and, therefore, they felt that the 16 finding --
17 A. I never re' ally went back and made an .
18 issue. I don't know who they went to to try to 19 find the record from. I'm saying, again, I found 20 some cases since where if they had gone to the.
21 right person to ask for the record, they could 22 have found a record for them.
23 If you go to the records clerk pr some 24 engineer or somebody who might not be familiar, 25 you might not find a record. I don't know that
1 makes it right to cite comebody.
2 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) You're sayinrj the I
3 communication between the inspector an{-the l 4
utility was such they may not have gone to the !
5 right person?
6 A.
I didn't look into all those 7
circumstances when I found there was a record in 8
existence but I am saying that my experience has 9
been that in most cases they have the record and !
~
10 they can come up with record.
Il Q.
Was there an exit conference held before 12 i this report was written where the utility war put
( 13 on notice that this record was not found? l 14 A. Yes, sir. I think they found the record 15 as a result of that.
16 Q.
When was the exit conference held?
17 A. It sounds"like it was a couple of places, 18 May 10 and June 10.
19 Q.
When was the record found by the utility?
20 A.
I don't know whether I have a record of 21 that or not. I don't know.
22 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) Did you find it 23 immediately when you went to check on 147 24 A. When I went to check, they had the 25 record.
I
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ^ - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - ~ -
2RG i
1 Q. They had it imoodiotely Gvoilcble?
2 A. As I 3
recall, when I got this report I i vent to ;he site. I don't 4 I went recall if 4t was before to Phillips or after I went to Phillips 5
because I would have raised the question right off 6 the top of my head that, hey, I have not had a 7
problem with these folks being able to find a record other than they're slow. They have an 9
antiguidated record system.
10 The system always Vorks.
_ 11 Q.
(By Mr. Goldberg) 12 The issue is retrievability and the function of whether the
{. 13 utility was put on notice and when they were aware 14 that they were able to retrieve the record 15 .
Yhat's the issue.
16 I From what you're describing, \
- 17 how readily or none I can't tell i I
i 18 readily or retrievable it is because we don't know the time the utility was put 19 on notice that 20 they didn't have the record to the time that the record was discovered.
21 A. You got 22 to know who they went to, if they went to the right folks to get that record.
23 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) 24 If we don't knpv that information, 25 would it have been appropriate to drop the violetion out?
I
\
126 ;
3 I
1
\
I guess I can understand if we went and 2 -
checked it and Phillips and .
3
,hadn't gone to the right people, we know that, well,;t' hen it's 4
our fault.
5 You see what I'm saying? -
6 A. Uh-huh.
7 Q.
~
8 But if we don't know, they may have gone to the right people. 3 9
Apparently, it was towards 1 the end of the year. !
l
~
10 A. !
Yeah.
11 Q.
They may have had up to six months to 12 find it.
{ 13 A.
I doubt that.
- 14 Q.
15 I'm not raying it took that long. I don't know hon long.
16 A.
The record was there. We're back on the 17 records isst o. ~
]
18 Q.
Yeah.
19 A.
Whether there was anything to be gained 20 21 by writing the violation, I don't know what we're going to gain out of that violation. The record 22 was there.
23 24 Retrievability is not defined'1h time 25 frame in anything, any standard or any regulatory requirement.
It says the record should be
127 i
1 retrievable. )
2 Q. Okay.
3 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) Okay. We'he gone as 4
far as we can on that one.
5 A. Okay.
The next one dealt with -- and, 6
again, I don't know that I had anything to do with 7 j how the words were changed as far as that l 8
particular item was in this report because they 9
took that over and left it with Mr. Phillips. )
10
(
O. (By Mr. Mulley) This report I have with 11 me has not been signed by anybody.
12 A. No, sir. .
That's the one that came up on
( 13 Mr. Denise's desk in September or August.
14 Q.
I got another report though that --
15 A.
I'll go through the whole chronology of 16 the reports.
17 Q.
Go to the_next one.
18 A. The next item on that report as I recall 19 when I looked at it, I went to Phillips and said, 20
- Why are you writing a violation for failure to i 21 audit the reactor vessel installation?"
22 We're back to the 19 -- which one is 23 that? That's No. 8. Okay. I think Parkofthe 24 conversation would have gone along the lines of 25 where's the requirement to audit the reactor
_,____,,_-__m_----
128 l l
l 1 installation? How far do we carry audits? Should {
l' 2 we audit all steam generators, all four of them?
i 3 Should we audit the pressurizer? Do we audit 3
4 every concrete placement? )
1 5 I think you have to decide what did they l 6 or did they not comply with in not auditing the 1 l
7 reactor vessel installation.
8 Now, we're also talking about in the
- 9 earlier time frame, I believe. I don't recall 10 whether the vessel was set. It must have been '81 l
11 or '82. There was an ISAP, again, that deals with 12 TRT findings that goes right along with 8432, 13 which required the utility to go back in a third 14 party and look at their audit program to see why l
15 thers had been problems with whatever problems 16 with their audit program.
17 This violation was nothing but --
I don't 18 want to characterize it. This issue was related i
19 back to what has already been identified under TRT ;
20 which there was an ISAP 8432; and, so, in our l 21 discussion, I indicated that I wanted to make that l
22 an unresolved item pending whatever the utility 23 does as a result of the ISAP.
24 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) Question is: In the 25 audit plan, was there specific equipment listed or l
i
_ _ _ _ - - _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - . _ _ - - _ - - - - - - - - - J
1 129 I structures --
2 A. Not that I'm aware, not that they l i I 3 documented in this report.
4 Q. Now, I don't understand. Usually an 5 audit plan gives structures as well as systems 6 which you will audit. .
7 A. I'm saying this report doesn't reflect 8 they went and saw the utility had scheduled an 9 audit to look at the reactor, nor does the FSAR in l
10 its description'of audits to be performed say that .
l 11 this was so.
12 There's not an absolute regulatory 13 requirement that you audit this piece of equip.nent 14 and this piece of equipment. You should audit the l
15 aspects of your program. You should probably 16 audit mechanical installation. Whether I have to .
17 do specifically this piece of equipment or this 18 piece of equipment, I don't know that there's any i
19 regulatory requirement that says TUGCO shall audit l
l 20 the reactor vessel.
21 Q. It's hard for me to understand this 22 without knowing what the audit plan is for this 23 area. What does the audit plan say? That's what 24 will tell us if it's required or not.
25 If it doesn't say anything, if it just
130 1
talks about structures, that's a different story.
2 A. I didn't go look at that. I can only 3
base it on what I looked at, what the eport had 4 in it.
The report certainly -- you got the 5 initial draft.
That does not indicate that that 6
was a scheduled activity.
7 Q.
~
Did you ask the Anspector to search out 8
the audit plan to see what the audit plan said?
9 A. No.
~
10 Q. That t seems to be the controlling factor l 11 here. k l
12 A.
I would expect the inspector to come back
( 13 to me if he had some other facts that these folks 14 have this scheduled to be done and they didn't do 15 it.
That's another case. That's something else.
16 If there is some document they have submitted to 17 l the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that says, 'I'm 18 going to audit the reactor vessel" and they didn't 19 audit it, then, yes.
20 Q.
What generally happens is they would 21 develop an audit plan. QA develops an audit 22 plan.
The audit plan would depict or identify the 23 points to be audited as well as the sysSeas or 24 structures and the schedule.
25 A.
I would expect the inspector to come back
1 l
1 132' i
1 to me if -- I certainly would go out to look at i 2
all that detail on everything.
3 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) You didn' 'suggest 4 to the inspector to go dig up the audit plan?
5 A. No.
6 He drew his conclusion based on what he thought the utility ought to do.
7 Q.
In this area, you didn't suggest the 8
inspector do any. additional work to substantiate 9
this issue?
~
10 A. I 11 indicated he should look to-see if there were not audits, maybe, in the mechanical 12 i installation area. Maybe there was something
(_ 13 there. Okay. I l
14 mean, we related to the same kind of things as the installation of the reactor 15 vessel. ,
16 There may be a. basis for citation. It 17 was left unresolved based on that comment plus the 18 !
fact that there's an issues specific action .
19 Q.
There may be a more basic issue than this 20 audit of the vessel. There say be an inadequate 21 plan behind.all this.
22 Maybe the audit plan is in question.
23 A.
That's why there's a specific astion 24 plan.
25 The TRT reached the conclusion that the utility was asked to go look at their audit 4
i
132 program.
1 2 Q.
Are you anying that this work is 3
duplicative of the TRT work? :<
4 A. Yes, sir, this 5
'81 '82 time frame of the reactor vessel. .
6 Q.
Part of the problem you're seeing here, 7 you feel that this inspection really is picked up 8
by another activity going on simultaneously?
9 A. Yes, sir.
10 Q. I 11 now.
think I understand a little bit better 12 Q. (By Mr. Mulley)
If there were no
( 13 specific audits necessary, do you believe TUGCO 14 should have some QA coverage of this activity, 15 what was being done?
16 A.
There was full QC coverage for the 17 .
reactor vessel installation. It was a QC 18 inspected program.
There was full QC coverage on 19 everything that went on out there on this reactor.
20 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg)
You see the audit 21 adding any more to the quality of the work?
22 A.
An audit is a management tool which would 23 come back to management and say we need so improve 24 this.
We might do something different in our 25 inspection.
We might be missing something in
_ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - " " - " ^ ~ ~ ~ ' - '
F 1 i 133
~
i 1 inspection. 2 An audit is an audit. It is strictly 2 a management tool that you use to improve, maybe, 3 your program. !
\
4 Q.
I will try to ask the question l 5 differently:
If in the audit plan they didn't 6
\
cover this area, but it was fully QC covered, do 7
you feel with reasonable assurance that the work 1 8 !
going on on that system is adequate if it had full l 9
QC coverage but didn't have an audit schedule?
~
~
10 A.
I would have ospected that they would 11 have in their audit program covered mechanical \
12 .
i installation in some aspect. \
( 13 Q.
Although not necessarily?
14 A. i Not necessarily that 15 reactor vessel.
Q
.. You would feel 16 that would be sufficient?
A. Yes, sir. ..
17 Q. (By Mr. Muiley) should TUGC0 be required s,.
18 19 to show some sort of evidence of the involvement of QA? i 20 A.
\
21 On the reactor vessel installation?
Q. Yeah. '
V 22 A.
I don't necessarily think so. ..,
< :Ji 23 I think QA ,
would probably be involved. i 24 We wil2-1st to that s S
'i in a minute when we talk about the mis c ell aneous,,',
s wsi ) j 25
installations. I think you will find Qa Wirried s N
+
k.
e3 , $
.n
134 e
1 off on the traveler.
2 Q.
So, there is some documented evidence 3
that QA was involved when that thing.w,as being 4 installed?
- 5 A.
There's enough folks standing.around, you 6 normally don't have room for someone to come down 7
and do an audit. There's all kinds of folks 8
l watching, including QA. There was the 9
t Westinghouse field repr.esentative who is certainly
~
10 there looking out for Westinghouse. Be's not 11 looking out for TUGCO.
12 In my dealings with them, if there was
( 13 anything that was not being done right in the 14 installation of the vessel, Westinghouse's field 15 engineer would say, " Bey, your warranty is no good-16 on this piece of equipment.' That's his job in 17 life.
There was that kind.of coverage.
18 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) You 'll have to point b 19 out to me the QA sign'ature. It's probably here.
I \w 20 I can't find it.
21 I A.
I'll have to look at it in a minute. l 22 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) ;
Wasn't that thing 23 installed, the installation of that remokor .I
[ s ., 24 vessel, 42 degrees off?
i
/ \ 25 A. ."When it
! i was received on site, it was 1
1 l . .
4.
_-_______--_______--___a
1sb 1 orient i 2
J -- it was a disorientation in the initial design on it. i It had r.othing to do with the 3 site. It was an interface problem between 4
- Westinghouse and, I guess, Brown & Root.
5 Q.
It had nothing to do with installation?
6 A. No, sir.
{ 7 Q.
Apparently that was corrected ahead of 8 ti me ?
9 A.
I don't know whether it was. I don't 10 re c all .
i You'd have to go back to the inspector on 11 site, Mr. Taylor. I think they may have tried 12 to -- they may have brought the vessel in and
( 13 discovered it when they went to put the vessel in 14 place that there was a nozzle rotation or 15 something.
16 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) 17 You said it's either currently covered or was covered by the TRT, and 18 principally who with the TRT 19 team is looking in that area? .'
- 20 A.
l Cliff Bale. l 21 Q. }
Does he have any support? '
22 A.
I He has two consultants.
! 23 i Q. Who?
24 Joe Birmingham and DickWsuszd A.
tente l.l 25 Q. s When did that commence, that activity?
l I
___-________~
136 1 A.
That's been going on ever since the 2
program plan came out.
3 Q, What date, approximately? Is'that prior 4
to this inspection that was conducted at this 5 time? .
6 A.
7 There's been all kinds of versions of the program plan.
8 I don't recall when the first part of the program plan came out.
9 Q.
The reason I'm asking the question --
10 A.
Some would have come out very near to
!- 11 i this same kind of time frame as far as the program 12 plan.
The program plan didn't come out until all
{ 13 the SSER's.
14 Q.
You made the statement that you thought i 15 this area had been covered by the TRT group. The 16 reason I'm asking is that I'm seeing a 17 relationship when }hillips did his work at this 18 time and the work of the TRT team. 1 I
19 A. Well, the TRT team came out ~~ I think 20 they commenced before this.
, 21 Q.
Before January -- April 1st of '857 22 A.
They started in '84.
23 Q. Looking at the QA audits -- p 24 A. Yes, sir.
25 I don't know whether --
there's the index cut of the CPRT plan.
7784 is
137 l
1 the audit program and auditor qualifications. You 2 can see QA/QC issues that are listed there for the I 2
3 ISAP's. There are all kinds of programmatic areas 4 being looked at as a result of the TRT.
5 O. The question is: When did this commence 6 beginning, the activity of the IEAP's in this 7 . area?
8 A. Well, I don't know. When I got down 9 there, we had the plan when I went on site in July 10 of '85.
11 Q. Of '857 f l 12 A. Yeah.
' l 13 Q. But this inspection occurred before 14 that?
15 MR. GOLDBERG Why I'm raising 16 the question, George, it's conceivable 17 that Phillips' input would have been 18 useful to the ISAP's. He could actually 19 have been an input into their work.
20 A. They left the issue unresolved until the 21 inspection report was received by the utility.
22 They agreed to look at any external issues. It's 23 just another mark. When we go back to close 24 unresolved items, we'll see where that comes out.
25 Q. You're saying that this is now an
138 1
unresolved item we're discussing now? \
2 A. Yes, sir.
Wait a minute now. Wait a 3 minute. On the audit, it's unresolved 4 Q. You left it unresolved for what reason, 5 again?
6 A.
Well, several things. I gave them an 7
opportunity to go see if there weren't some i 8 1 other -- if they hadn't audited the mechanical 9
area for one thing; and, number two, because of 10 t'h e ISAP's.
11 We were really going back and dealing i I
with TRT type issues for which the utility is 12 supposed to have an issues specific action plan to' l
{' '13 address the audit plan and auditor qualifications.
14 Q.
I don't see this to be that mysterious.
15 .
Could I just ask a question?
16 Couldn't an inspector go through the QA office, pull out the 17 audit plan to find'out'the answers to those two 18 questions in fifteen minutes?
19 A. Probably not.
They might not as far as 20 the CPRT and the action plan.
21 Even beyond that, I left 22 it unresolved because I told the man a number of times that I don't duck issues.
23 24 because I'm not sure it's even a valid citation I have no regulatory requirement which 25 says I'm going to go audit the reactor or you 1
l l
l
I l
139 '
I shall at your utility audit the reactor unless I 2
have a commitment and something that would get me 3 there.
k-
~
i 4
Q. You may be right. The question could he 5
answered very easily, I feel, if you took that ewe 6
more step and dug out the audit plan and find out 7
whether it was specified in the audit plan or not 8
to be done.
9 >
That's all you need. That can be done, I 10 t'hink,
- on site in about fifteen minutes. Am I 11 saying something that's incorrect?
12 !
A.
What I'm saying, I didn't see anything in ,
(. 13 this report that said that.
That wasn't even the 14 basis of the citation.
15 The Lasis of the citation is the man thought it ought to be.
16 'O.
Did you explain to him -- did you give 17 him any suggestions on how he could move it from ;
18 an unresolved item to an item of non-compliance, 19 what things he could do?
20 A. Without looking to see if there weren't 21 1
22 some other surveillance and there weren't other things for him to look at in the mechanical 23 installation, I did talk about that with(
24 Mr. Phillips.
25 Q.
What was his answer to that?
p 't h
1 140 I I
1 A. I think he acknowledged that. )
I don't 2
know if he ever did anything.
3 Q. I guess the context that you N'ssumed, it 4
requires additional information if you read the i 5
inspection IE manual; and it seems on'this 1 6
particular issue the amount of additional 7
information is not a lot, nor the time to get it 8
doesn't appear to be that long, which means to }
t 9
l se -- I guess _I'm asking the question: Wouldn't 4 l
10 i~t have been possible to take that unresolved item
~
11 \
to a clear cut determination of what to do with it I 12 in a short period of time? i I
(' 13 A.
I don't think if you had to wait to look 14 1
at the ISAP results, which is a result report i
15 which is just now coming out, you could have done 16 that. 4 17 Q. Do we have input now on the ISAP on this 3
18 issue?
19 A. We should be coming out with a results 20 report, if it hadn't -- I "c h recall right off 21 the top. I think we may have the results report 22 Doba')
on the 144. We may have just recently gotten it.
23 Even beyond that, I would go bpck. I t
24 don't l know whether there is a clear regulatory 25 requirement that tells the utility that you shall
141 I
audit the reactor vessel. That's the inspector 2
that says, 'Well, I think we ought to."
3 That'saveryimportantevoldthon. They i l
4 should have audited it in the mechanical area.
5 That might be an aspect I can find in the +FL 4C .*L-6 series of the audit requirements.
7 j
Unless the man comes and says, hey, they 8
had scheduled to audit the reactor vessel and they 9
didn't do it, then that's submitted to the 10 C'ommission.
~
11 Q.
It might be necessary for myself to i 12 understand this more. I can understand there
( 13 could be two sides of the story here.
14 The audit plan must be available, the one 15 that they were working on at that time.
16, A. Sure.
17 Q.
I've seen audit plans, and I'm sure one 18 could get the necessary information based upon 19 looking at that audit plan.
20 A. I didn't stop the man from doing that.
21 In fact, !
that was part of where I headed him, not \
3 22 necessarily to see if the reactor vessel was on 23 the schedule, but one of the things we Wdght pick 24 on is the mechanical area being looked at from the 25 audit standpoint.
i w '^
see i
1 MR. GOLDBERG: Go ahead, 2 George.
l 3 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) In the violation that is 4 written, the inspector does cite certain 5 requirements. Appendix B as implemented by TUBCO 6
QA plan, Section 18, Revision II, dated July 31st, 7
1984, requires that a comprehensive system of 8 planned and periodic audits be carried out to 9
verify compliance with all aspects of the quality
~
10 assurance program.
p 11 Now, for some reason the inspector 12 considered the installation of the reactor vessel !
{- 13 to be part of this.
14 A. It says all aspects. It doesn't say 15 every piece of equipment I install out there I do 16 an audit. That's a QC function.
17 Q. Is the installation of the reactor I 18 l
vessel, would that not be significant enough for 19 them to -- once again, I'm not an engineer. I 20 don't know how significant that installation is.
21 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) The key of it is --
22 and it goes back to I don't think we can answer 22 i that question in this room at this timeg-- is to 24 go back and find out what the plan of the utility 25 was and what they were going to audit and the e
I l
143 1 areas 6 nd that's told by the audit plan.
2 That will tell you whether this was on 3
schedule, irrespective of what was done, what was 4
scheduled to be done.
5 be done, If it is not scheduled to then you have to figure out whether the 6
audit plan satisfies Criterion 18 of Appendix B 7
and the QA program.
It goes back to the plan.
& A.
I think that'a part of what was being 9
looked at under TRT, which is a result of the ISAP
~
10 for which I believe the escalating enforcement
_ 11 action covered the fact of the adequacy of the 12 program.
{ 13 In fact, there's an enforcement action 14 that went out here not long ago with a civil 15 penalty on it 16 for which the whole action plan came 17 as .a result of all the TRT activities. That doesn't i say I go back and write another --
18 Q. That's true. If what you're saying is 19 true, thenitsays1[not timely enforcement was 20 taken on TUGC0 because he may have unlocked on 21 something earlier in time that, in fact, the issue 22 was back on the table in '85, 23 A.
24 The CTRP plan was back probabig before this report, even before this report.
25 Q. j I understand.
I don't know if it is or
- t 4 )
144 I not. .t 2
may be a situation here where this could .
i
. 3 have been resolved sooner and corrective on acti I I
4 taken by the utility sooner if they wpre able t o get this out earlier.
5 A.
First, you have to establish.it was a 6
violation.
I'm back to any to you again, I don't 7
know of any requirement
'8 that says, 'Thou shall i 9
audit the reactor vessel" for the utility.
j I mean, if it lo was on a schedule, the i~nspector should have brought it up.
_ 11 Q. ;
12 Are there any specific structures or \
components to be audited?
(, 13 A.
i I don't believe so.
14 Q.
In the absence of that, 15 in its own right would the utility 16 usually schedule certain structures and components to be audited 17 periodically from your' experience? i 18 A.
There are all aspects.
19 .-
You have to look 20 at your program and see how am I covering &1l !
aspects.
That gets to be very subjective.
21 Q.
22 Going back in your years of experience ,
23 wouldn't you expect when the utility finds out it's audited, 24 it would put down on its ppan 25 specific structures or components that it would audit from time to time?
145 1 A. It might.
2 Q.
~
Would you generally say yes or no to the 3 question? E' 4 A. Depending upon the utility.
5 Q. Your utilty, Gulf States, did they do :
6 that?
7 A. I was not there when we got that far. '
8 Q. When you were working with Calvert 9 Cliffs, did they do that?
~
10 A.
~
I don't recall whether they did an audit i 11 on the reactor vessel installation. I 12 Q. I'm asking that question. When they do '
13
(_ an audit
-- we established that FSAR generally 14 does not identify the components and structures to l 15 look at.
16 Generally when the audit plan is written, 17 does the utility sit down and figure out what \
18 systems or structures it gerierally wants to audit 19 over a period of time?
20 A. Well, they probably go more by 21 activities.
22 Q.
Beyond the activities, I agree with you <
23 they will show disciplines, but will thgy also 24 show what structures or components they would like 25 to look at from time to time?
4 n
146 1 A They would maybe, pernaps, through the ;
2 vendor end of it where they would say I'm going i to !
3 audit !
the vendor shop and certain components.
I 4
They would have a vendor audit schedule 1 j
5 of what vendors they are going to go to, and they '
l 6 hold would probably establish 4444L points.
7 Q. Would it identify structures and 8 components? j
~
9 A.
From the vendor standpoint, yes. What i 10 i would I have done at Gulf states with this? I had 11 a surveillance program.
It's a whole different j 12 situation here, but I was going to have a
{ 13 surveillance group on site who would be going out 14 there every day looking at all this stuff with the 4 15 reports. i 16 So, whether I would have had that I
i 17 I
specific component, I'vould think that I probably l
18 would have gone and done a surveillance on the 19 reactor vessel; but $ still have to make it a .
20 violation. I have to have requirements that 21 somebody didn't meet to make it a violation.
22 Q.
Well, what's interesting -- here are the 23 words that you use in the violations 24 The citations, again, are indicative of comprehensive
! 25 l
and completes and then you get to what is l
l
147 1l comprehensive and complete, and you can't tell i
2 from one item whether it is or isn't.
3 A logical next step would be ,te look at 4
what comprehensive document there is to look at to 5
see if, in fact, it's there or not, which I don't 6
know is a big deal or not.
7 So, the question is really whether you 8
had as a supervisor asked the inspector to take 9
the next step or not and look at the program.
10 ~
A. I indicated one of the things to look at 11 would be to see what else had been done in the 12 mechanical area.
13
( MR. MULLEY: Let's take about 14 two-minute recess.
15 A. Also indicated, I wasn't sure, absolutely 16 sure, they asked if you have any documentation 17 surveillance. Ta~ey themselves didn't go check.
18 They had the utility bring it over here.
19 MR. MULLEY: Let's take a 20 recess.
21 (Short recess.)
22 MR. MULLEY: Back on the 23 record.
4 24 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) Why don't we go to the 25 next one?
1
.i 148 i
i 1 A. What we're going over are the changea i' 2
made to this initial draft that came to me.
3 9.
Which I marked as Ezhibit d. i' I 4 A.
There was an item in here that had been 5
called an unresolved ites pending slerification of 5
code requirements with NRC headquarters. That was !
7 at the bottom of page 27 and item No. 3.
1 8
- Best I recall, I had Mr. Barne'k and i 9 Mr. 311orshaw look ,at that. It was brought to my j
10 altention that that was not a proper 11 interpretation.
It could not be an unresolved 12 ites, that that was the standard practice in the
(* 13 code for which Mr. Barnes had been f avolved in !
14 Vendor laspection and code work since 1969, 15 Mr. Barnes indicated that the inspector 16 oribspectors or whoever were technically 17 iacorrect and didnYt anderstand the code. I know
,e -
It that this was worked ,oa by; and Shannon 19 . -- .a Phillips because they had, based om discussion 20 with Shannon, Brown a Root code folks over in 21 shanaoa's trailers and they had clearly indicated 22 to the gentleman that it was an acceptable 23 practice.
f' d 'S, 24 The fact that Phillips antl'-'t ::- 45se \
25 %
both together over in his trailer working on the
i
~ 149 i
1 2 Brown a Root code folks would tend a orateto coll b 3 the fact that I've indicated when Ithis took report and gave it Ve '
4 would work with e to Shannon f and Shannon said be
~ .. - y ~x 5 i W on his issues and
- i
...,\ issues. . L i i
6 7 so, the basis of what was done was taken I
out as an unresolved item. It was not left ;
8' 9 unresoleed in the nest version of the reportath t comes up.
10 Q.
s (By Mr. Mulley) 11 And to summarise, you felt that --
12 A.
It was acceptable what
{ 13 acceptable to eci;i.t W*N they did.
It was 14 the hydro in the field. It 15 was a piping sub-assembly, not a component n er u d the code. I 16 Therefore, you don't have to do the hydro in the shop.
17 It can be done as part of the 18 systemonceit'spuhtogetherinthefield .
i Q. E I see where A,sMX --
19 A.
i I went through ~~ now, I will just tell 20 you the basis.
21 Initially I went over and gave them these comments.
22 I'm sure there was probably 23 some discussion with Barnes and Phillips I .
don't know.
That's what I gave them.
24 25 on that basis, they then went and worked on this. They had the Brown & ,
Root code folks in l
1
150 e
1 Shannon Phillips' trailer. Again, I don't recall' 2 who crossed out what on this version of the draft !
b' 3 because to my recollection this was over in 4 Shannon Phillips' trailer until I went back and t 5 got it, until it came forward up here for typing.
6 Q. "Right. I'm just saying on the report 7 that you gave me, Exhibit No. 4, the inspector 8 outlines in some detail ASME Section 13.
9 A. You can talk to Ian Barnes and Lee 10 Ellershaw on the code, and they can quote you back 11 the code. I will show you going through this 12 chronology of where I even went as f ar as having 13 . Mr. Bosnick on the phone, who is head of the 14 mechanical engineering branch, who tried to 15 explain it to ~lagain.
G lhas an
'4 g -
1) 16 enormous hard head.
17 Q. So I can understand, you do not feel that 18 what he was writing here was technically correct l 19 and applied to the situation?
l 20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) You say you spoke with 22 NRR, Mr. Bosnick?
23 A. Mr. Bosnick with m,echanical engineering.
24 Q. Who else?
25 A. Xan Barnes and Lee E11ershaw.
151 4 1 Q. (By Mr. Nulley) In a situation like this 2 I where there's some discussion over interpretation '
3 of the code, would it be appropriate $ go to the 4
people that wrote the code .and ask them?
5 A. Well, if everybody that has any knowledge q
5 of the code says that's not a proper l 7
interpretation that the man is taking, what do you )
j 8 vant to'do? Do'you want to write ASN57 1 don't i
9 think that was necessary.
10 -
)
I don't know if Mr.} .which '
- -L- -J j 11 this was his issue, was that experienced in the 12 code. You have folks like Ian Barnes who, as I .
{ 13 said, had done the vendor inspection end of it I 14 since 1969 as I recall. Be's been in the --
15 having been in the vendor branch, he's been with 16 1
mo'st pipe manufacturers in the country.
l 17 If the m'a}n asys that's not the proper 18 interpretation of the code, I tend -- if I was 19 another individual, I would be willing to accept a t
20 that.
21 Q. (Wy Mr. Nulley) Okay.
i 22 Q. (My Mr. Goldberg) Go on. l j
23 A.
West one is there was a violation on i 24 spool piece loop traceability. That's No. 9. i 25 0. What page are you on? '
152 )
i 1 A. The violation section up front. Again, I 2
believe that when Mr. Barnes or Mr. Ellershaw 3 '
looked at this thing and pointed out diearly that 4
it is acceptable to mark a spool piece and it 's 5
acceptable within the code and that th's spool 6
piece numbering on Brown & Root's drawing, that 7
there could be -- that you could achieve 8 traceability. (
- . j 9
~
I think Mr., _ Nr. shannon 10
~
Phillips -- I don't know if Phillips went back and 11 {
found that was true, and they dropped that !
12 violation. It was technically incorrect. .
f 1
{- 13 Q. When talking to these people, I 14 underst'and that during the inspection, they went 15 out and they looked for the marking and it wasn't 16 there. Several months later, TUGC0 came and said, 37 hoy --
i 18 A. I don't reca11. That may be the case.
19 Maybe the marking did appear.
l i
20 Q.
That's what they're claiming. i 21 A.
My initial reaction was, hey, having a 22 spool y'iece marked -- that doesn't say that the 23 spool piece marking wasn't there. It adio that it 24 hasn't been marked with material specification.
25 1 don't know that that spool piece
+
153 !
1 4
1 marking wasn't there all along.
2 Q. Okay.
1 3 A. Okay. The spool piece marking'and the 4
Brown & Root drawing number, some way they knew 5 that's what that piece was. With that.
6 information, you could find traceability of 7
material; and it was not necessary to mark it with (
8 material specification grade best number or heat 1
9 code material.
10 Now, I don't know if they went out and
~
11 found there was a marking on there. 'That's 12 something else. I think the initial reaction I
{, 13 had when we looked at it was the fact that if it 14 had that on there, there was traceability.
15 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) Apparently there was no 16 number on it. The number they were looking for 17 originally was noE on'the piece. i 18 A. I don't recall. You're back to something 19 that I don't recall. i I
20 Q. They're saying it took several months. I l
21 They came in well after the inspection was done 22 and asked them to come back out and look.
23 A. Again, I'm going to tell you that if 1
24 before an inspection report goes out the utility l 25 comes back to se and finds information such as 4
l l
154 1
marking on a spool piece, 2
I have no reason to believe that that 3
marking wasn't a proper marking,-
4 that we didn't find it the first timek out.
If I hadn't 5
issued the inspection report, I would certainly drop or correct 6 it to make it technically correct before I'm going to issu e it.
7 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) would you ask the 8
inspector to verify that what the utility is 9
telling you is correct?
~
10 A. Oh, certainly.
11 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) Next one.
12 A. Okay. I think at that point in time,
{ 13 think this was then the input I
14 next report that went to the that was typed, whatever one that is.
15 O. (By Mr. Goldberg) 16 We have some technical issues that are involved in that inspection 17 report, I guess.
1B Q. (By Mr. Mulley) 19 Yes, although there is one question I would like to ask.
20 A.
For this draft?
21 Q. No.
22 This is something that's different from the draft.
23 Did Phillips and the crew exit this inspection with the utility? I 24 A. Yes, they did.
25 Q.
Were you present during the exit?
_ m--
155 i
1 A. No.
2 Q.
Are you aware of any dissension that 3
TUGCO voiced concerning the' findings ht 4
the exit or anything like that?
5 A.
No, sir.
6 Q. So, then, 7
to the best of your knowledge i TUGCO wasn't
- fighting'any of these findings?
8 A.
Not that I was aware of. 1 9 Q.
t
~
What does.that mean? They've accepted i 10 the findings as being valid?
11 What does that mean? l A.
I mean you made the statement to them.
12 Maybe they haven't had a chance to go look at it.
( 13 At the time, they have to accept it.
14 A utility might 15 assume a lot of things.
They might assume an inspector has done all his 16 homework and has an air-tight case and off they 1 17 go. !
18 If you look at them on the surface, they 19 might sound, you know -- I know TUGCO is usually 20 pretty quiet, has been in the past, 21 At at the exits.
22 the time they get around the exit, you're going to read them, " Bey, this is what I 23 found.'
24 i
25 And exit is not or has ever been historically a great time for a lot of discussion
156 1
as to the merit of what you found. If you found 2 it, they might want to know where you found what 3 you found or whatever.
There is not I lot of 4
discussion about what you found, 5 Q.
i So, when would we normally have this 6
discussion if they disagreed? Let's say there's
,7 as violation involving audits of the reactor 8
installation vessel, and they disagree with the 9 finding.
If they don't do it at exit briefing, >
10
~
w' hen does the utility come back and say, "We 11 disagree'?
12 A. This in their reply.
{ 13 Q.
Then you would assess the written reply?
14 A.
We would assess their written reply.
15 Q.
l And then take it out,~right?
16 A.
I wouldn't take it out.
17 Q.
, If they were right.
18 A.
They are going to reply to the report. I 19 i
have to say I either acknowledge or don't 20 acknowledge or I agree with your response to my 21 notice of violation or not.
22 Q. So, everything stays. It's just you 23 agree with what theutilityissayingakdno 24 action is taken on the violation? Do I have that 25 right? I'm trying to understand.
157 1 A. That's correct. That's one -- like I 2
! said, again, before I put a report on the street, 3 -<
if the man -- if they come up with issues that 4
show I'm in error or there's other information, 5
then I believe up to the time of the report, I ,
i 6 want to put out a technically factual report.
7 I don't want to create unneeded, for 8
example, , violations that they've got to reply, 9
that I got to look at and that I got to see if I
~
10 accept.
- I'm just creating things I don't want to i l
11 do. 1 12 Q.
As a novice, the only question I have is "
( 13 that then the ability of the licensee to reply is l 14 a function of how fast we get out our reports? i l
15 A. That's correct. i 16 Q.
If we are in a good month and we get out 17 the report i in two. weeks, he's only got two weeks 18 to get something taken care of. Whereas this 19 report took five or six months.
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. He got a longer time?
22 A. That's right.
The ones we're working on 23 down there are very long reports and ark taking 24 quite awhile to get them out.
i 25 Q.
In that respect, the licensee is given pp p DPf 4 T'W'E
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - -
i j
158 )
l I 1
1 extra time to report?
2 A. Until that report goes out, if phere is 3 factual information, I have no problem with that.
4 Q. Next one. !
1 5 A. That report came back -- come in here to 6 be typed -- I don't know that everything was 7 marked or who marked what. I don't recall that I 8 did a lot of marking.on this report. It was 1 9 brought.in and typed.
10 The reason it was taken back to the site, 11 at the time I took it back, I took it to Shannon
- 12 Phillips who signed it for himself and for 13 I '
l 14 Also Doyle Bunnicutt signed it for Jim 15 Cummings snd also approved it as section chief.
16 Q. Who typed this?
17 A. The region typed it. ,
,18 Q. So, the changes made on the first draft 19 went back to the region?
20 A. Came back to the region, was typed, and 21 then taken back down to the inspectors, or in this 22 case, Bunnicutt here; and these changes were 23 looked at and typed and signed.
24 If it had not been issued, the letter 25 hadn't been.si-gned and we started the
159 i
2 concurrence -- I'm into something I really wasn't 2
- aware of all the different folks that were going 3 k' to be commenting on these reports, which included ,
4 NRR and ELD. They sent this report, as I recall, 5
forward to Mr. Noonan.
6 NR. NULLEY: Let me mark this I 7 as Exhibit 4-A. '
s .
(Whereupon the exhibit was 9
marked fo'r identification as Exhibit 10 No. 4-A.)
11 A. Nr. Phillips signed that with no 12 reservation. Ne never said anything to me about
( 13 having any reservations of signing that report for {
14
~
15 (off the record discussion.)
16 A. There's t,he final report. This one came 17 to me Y'^in the mail in the last week from 18 Mr.-Me"R;Of_whohaditathisprivate s1 19 establishment.
20 Ne was reviewing it for NRR and made some 21 comments, and I was lucky enough that he kept the 22 draft.
23 Q.
So, these comments on this rep 6rt --
24 A. These comments on the report are 25 Nr. Ranghny and Mr. Trammel, Charley Trammel. Be
1 160 1
is the NRR project manager -- well, I 2
guess, super i
- project manager of Comanche Peak for NRR.
3 Q. !
(By Mr. Mulley) &
This report that I 4 I have in my hand now, 5
is this the way that the final i report went out?
6 A. No, sir.
7 Q. k
. What changes were made?
8 A.
That's what I'm going to go over next. ,
9 Q. Okay.
~
10 A.
~
I'm going to point out from this point 11 on 12 every change that went out after it was signed by Mr. Phillips, Mr.
13 Hunnicutt, it was reviewed with
( inspectors.
There was no change made that they 14 weren't aware of what the change was going to be.
15 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) 16 Let me ask you a very important question.
17 At this stage, before it went out to MRR and ELD, were you happy with the 18 report?
19 In other worys, were you -- although you haven't signed it yet, was the report acceptable 20 to you?
21 A.
I was going to get the report out. I 22 wouldaa t have signed the report 23 and sent it out.
Like I said, I wasn't 24 aware of all the f Iks that were going to be involved in looking and 25 commenting on the report.
t k s
141
'O >% <
1 I x s ..
took my broad lorush,1 andiI thinklye got 2 the issues that just came rigNt to,the top. ,
l 3 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) Okay; Do y .!a n t to go~;
4 over the changes? 1
\ ,; s l u.
5 A.
There was no change to dhe violation that " i with mixer blades with the esdeption that 1 6 dealt 1 ,
)
4 7 .s I -- in the letter that J forwarded,'vSich is i
8 management's prerogative, I decidedtha[didnot l
! 9 {
need a reply.
~
It was a Level V violation for lo l
something that the utility had said that they were 11 ,
inspecting the mixer blades, but hadn't documented 12 it. '
q
, s .
13
{ When I asked Mr. Phillips tt look and "g s 14 find out . e ,
what was the requireakntf on the mi'er'.,
t z (
15 blades, I think he found thati ierna i was only a 16 yearly requirements and yet their procedure had 17 required it to be guarterly.
18 Q. Okay.
3 ,;s. .A(x i
~
,, ,X 19 A. I g, e '
"s think the N.RR comments'was whether they s
4 %
20 wanted to drop'the it.em.
I didn't. I wouldn't 21 drop it.
It wis'a violation.
- 22 violation.
It was clearly a .
3-
']( 4 4
I didn't see anything to be gained by 23 \
t 1 having a reply, particularly since therefbad b,een )
24 no problem identified in loching at the blades.
25 00, I
,[
indicated tc[Kr., Phillips that I
, \ i
' 4 3
, -t ,
, 6
,. ' i- !
g ,;
-U
re ,
I - ;l' \
\ 1sy us ;
q- y' .
't l
c I
was soing to make it a no-reply violation. I f (
'2
- g i, think,Phillips' remark to me was that he would
[' -'
1l,3 i
g have had the utility review all constrgption and
.a 4
inspect,lons tha't were performed at that fweility s
f- to Ja'si sure they were documented for, which 1 6
didn't see a Level V violation warranted that kind 7
of action in any kind of reply that would have 8
t come back to this. specific item. 1 9
i t
O. (By Mr..Goldberg) Getting to the issue
~
10 of sample size, were there other indications that !
Il things were okay here in the issue of periodic 12 inspections?
{ 13 A. What the inspector did was take a fairly 14 comprehensive inspection list to go look at the ,!
15 quali,fications for which he found out -- all of 16 i
thht 6ffert was a question dealing with he didn't
! 17 > document these inspections.
(
\ 18 '
O. How many different pieces of equipment 19 did be look at? ,
i .
20 A. I don't know how many. Ne described to 21- we that he used a fairly comprehensive batch plant ;
i 22 inspect. ion check-out list, that out of that, this 23 is the one item he came up with, s 24 Q. so, you don't know how many -- one of out 25 many it is?
You don't know what the total is?
1
)i ,., ,.
a T ',
'9 j
. 4 g
4 x *:2 -
4, w r{. , j (_
163
~
1 A. I'd say a couple of pages of checklists. 1 1
2 Q.
- You don't have a record of what the total 3 is? :-
4 A. No, sir. Again, we 're talking about a 5
i I
Level V document inspection which the n'tility man 6 says, "
Yeah, I'm doing these inspections. I just 7-didn't document it," which even their procedures 8 made it tighter. They made it quarterly instead ,
I 9
of the yearly as required in the ACI.
~
10 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) Isn't the fact that they 11 didn't document these inspections over a long '
12 period of time, eight or nine years, whatever it '
{ 13 was, isn't that a QA problem even though maybe in-
{
14 this case they were fortunate nothing was done 15 wrong as far as the concrete?
16 Isn't there still a problem, the failure 1 4
i 17 to document inspections that were required and all 18 that?
19 A.
Like I say, it was indicated that -- the 20 fellow indicated, 'We did do the inspections. We 21 just didn't document them."
22
. There are other things that would enter 23 into that. Have there ever been any :udge.sksv.9+h
- '. -+ r ! =f 24 concrete? Have there been any indications -- what ,
25 do you inspect the blades for if you inspect them I
a
164 1 for wear?
2 An indication of that would come out in 3
anyofthenumberofthings,probablybb'adewear.
4 There would be other things that come along.
5 There were other checks and balances that were 6 being done.
7 Q. Isn't a QA procedure important enough?
8 A. I know what you're saying. The 9
inspection requirements was in their procedures.
~
10 It was not documented.
11 Q. I know what you're saying. I understand 12 what you're saying. *
{ 13 A.
And that's a Level V violation. There's 14 no safety significance.
15 Q.
\
I understand what you're saying. The t 16 concrete appaared to be good and the sizer blades 17 weren't excessively' worn and all that; but once 18 again, there was a QA, procedure in place that 19 required these things to be documented, inspected 20 and which hadn't been done in all those years.
21 A.
Procedure didn't require it to be 22 documented. The procedure did not require it to l
23 be documented.
i I
24 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) What procedure are you 25 referring to?
i 165 1 A.
Brown & Root's procedure, 35-1195-CPP10, 2 Revision V. In fact, it said here -- dated 3
December 4, 1980 -- requires that the contral and E
4 truck mixer blades be checked quarterly.
5
]
Q. Are those blades safety blades? ls 6 A. Only from the standpoint that they're j 7
there to mix the concrete. They're'not a part of i
8 the facility. They're just a batch plant that 9
mixes concrete, nothing permanently installed in 10 t'he facility.
11 Q. QA have oversight over --
12 A.
To pour class I concrete, the batch plant 13
{ comes under the QA program.
14 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) But when inspections are 15 done, if it's a QA oversight, aren't inspections 16 supposed to be documented?
17 A.
I'm not sure here whether it was the 18 inspector or the guy, the batch plant operator, 19 that was supposed to do the quarterly check. j
{
20 Quarterly check is what he has worded here. .
21 The violation still stood. The violation 22 is still on the record. The violation is still in 23 the 766 history. 1 I !
24 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) I Beiro an enforcement 25 <
coordinator, is it frequent or infrequent where
t 166 1
-you would write a violation up and not ask for a 2
licensee to respond?
3 A. .
What was significant to whad'I had, if 1 4
all the corrective actions had been taken, then I 5
could write a no-response violation if I was 6
satisfied with the actions.
7 Q. Okay.
8 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) Okay.
9 A.
10 The next one deals with the reactor vessel installation for which they bad written a i 11 i Criterion III violation.
12 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) Could we just -- I had 1
( 13 one question that was left over from our )
14 discussion we had earlier.
15 On the traveler, you said there was some 16 QA. coverage.
17 A.
1B We'll look at that in a minute.
Q. Okay.
19 !
A. i That would be the better way to say for )
20 sure there's QC coverage. There's QC inspections i
21 done of the installation. In fact, I think QC 22 probably signed off on the traveler. Let's see 23 what the original violation was.
i 4
24 A.
Original violation was Item 6 in the 25 first exhibit.
1 i
167 i
1 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) Okay.
2 A. First off, Westinghouse had provided to 3 the site proprietary Class II documents entitled 4 Procedure for Setting Major NSS Components; and i
5 that document stated that the contractor should 6 provide a detailed setting-procedure for review by l 7 Westinghouse site personnel. In this document it 8 gave the recommended, installation criteria for the l 9 reactor vessel installation.
10 Q. Okay.
11 MR. MULLEY: I'm going to mark 12 this as Exhibit 4-B.
13 (Whereupon the document was 14 1 marked for identification as Exhibit 15 No. 4-B.)
16 A. I think probably what caused me to go 17 back and look at this was Mr. Haug hf[y 's comment 18 that wasn't a traveler the same as a detailed 19 procedure. That's on page three.
20 The second violation is also still there, 21 but that's on page three of that same report.
22 Isn't a traveler a form of instruction? That 23 doesn't have anything to do with it.
24 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) Isn't a traveler a 25 form of instruction? That was the answer to the m_- _ __ _ ____- _._-m.._m ___-m ___m. - - _ - - _ - _ _ _
168 1 question? ,
2 A. Yes, in my view. I went back tp'l o o k at
- 3 it. In fact, Westinghouse in that proprietary 4 Class II document requires that -- or it doesn't 5 require -- it suggested that you provide the 6 procedure and you have Westinghouse site personnel 7 review it. There's the traveler.
8 L -Q. I think I have a copy of that.
9 A. You'll note at the top up there ;
i 10 Westinghouse review, Mitchel Lesfield. I believe 11 that is how -- I'm not sure that's exactly what 12 the last name is. ;
13 Q. Yeah.
14 MR. MULLEY: This traveler is 15 marked as Exhibit 4-C.
16 A. Did you get the installation criteria?
17 When I went and looked, it looked to me like it !
l
\
18 was a fairly detailed traveler. '
19 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) Does it control the
- 20 setting of the critical NSSS components?
21 A. This one controls the setting of the 22 reactor vessel.
23 Q. Does that include the --
a 24 A. This one is strictly written for the 25 reactor vessel which is what the question is about i
. .. ~,
aos 1 at this time. I don't know. I haven't gone to 2
look at the other travelers.
3 .-
Q. What about shim surface contict? i '
Does it 4
give criteria for shim service contact?
5 A. That wasn't what I was looking -- I was 6 looking at the gap.
7 Q. You said it wasoan instruction. If it's t
i an instruction,'it would control setting critical 9 components.
I'm asking for one of the critical
~
10 c'omponents.
11 A. It may have both in there.
{
12 Q. Can you show if it does or doesn't?
l I
(' 13 A. You're wanting to know -- !
14 Q.
i What the number is.
15 A. For what?
i L 16 Q. contact.
17 A. Shim surface $wP It gives a shim clearance.
18 Q. No. This is something different. I )
19 understand Unit I th number is 75 percent, and 20 Unit II it doesn't specify it.
21 A. I don't know. I'd have to research that 22
- awhile because that's not what I'm dealing with 23 here.
Iwasdealingwiththegapclea%fnce.
i 24 Q. I understand, but you made a point that 25 this serves as an instruction which is an issue I
1 t -
,_. ,v,.- . . - - -
)
170 I that hinges on the resolution of this issue.
2 A. I see. k 3 Q. Do you understand what I'm driving to?
4 An instruction has to specify just about 5 everything, all the critical components, which we 6 determine.
7 I'm asking for one of the critical t
8 components, whether, in fact, it specifies it or 9 not.
10 A. I don't know. I didn't look at that part 11 of it. I looked to see if'they had taken the 12 installation criteria provided by Westinghouse and 13 transmitted it into detailed procedure.
14 Q.
- The question is: Is.it a detailed 15 procedure or not?
16 A. I don't know.
17 -Q. It appears to be a difference of 18 opinion.
19 A. It is certainly detailed compared to 4
20 other travelers that would say, for example, do 21 step such-and-such in accordance with 22 umpty-ump-umpty-ump and then sign off for_doing 23 it. .
24 This tells you step by step what to do, 25 what to measure. It doesn't refer you to some en e s a -1
- 171 1
other document. It's complete within itself.
2 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) Is a traveler, intended 3 to be a procedure?
4 A. You can do any way you want to. It's not 5
any different.than a test. It's like'a procedure 6
with sign-offs for doing it in some cases. It can l 7
be a very general kind of thing. For example, it 8
can reference something else you have to do and 9 then sign off c1 that traveler.
~
10 This traveler is written, in general, 11 complete within itself. It tells you what to 12 check, "that to do. It doesn't reference you to go
(, 13 to some other document to see how to do it or what 14 to do to it.
It's in this traveler. 4 15 Q.
Page five, it appears to me we have some 16 r e vi si on s .
17 A. Tha t 's correc't.
18 Q.
Are these revisions appropriately i 19 documented?
20 A.
To the best of my knowledge, they are.
21 Q. Are the appropriate signatures here?
22 A. Yes, sir.
23 Q.
Onceagain,I'manoviceinthys. Is 24 this the way you change?
25 A. Next step.
This here is the traveler
172 !
I change procedure.
2 Q. !
(By Mr. Goldberg) \
3 exhibit. This should be another 4 copy?
I think this is your copy.; Is this your 5 A. !
No.
Bere 's one. -
6 MR. MULLEY: I'm going to mark 7
this as Exhibit 4-D.
F 9
(Whereupon the exhibit was 3
10
~
marked for identification as Exhibit No. 4-D.)
_ 11 A.
This talks about 12 changes. traveler revisions and I also point out on the traveler, again i
{ 13 Westinghouse signed off as that being 14 an 15 acceptable procedure for installation of their reactor vessel.
16 Q.
(By Mr. Mulley) 17 Does QA sign off any place on this revision on this traveler 7 18 A.
19 I'd have to.go back and find out what --
it says on the top he're " Reviewed by Iren \
20 ,
4/10/79," who is a QA/QC engineer. j
\
21 Q.
(By Mr. Goldberg) 22 It's not clear that he 23 reviewed the original or the changed or modified i 24 version of this traveler because there die modifications.
25 A. I think I
these other changes, these I i
- i
_ _ _ _ , _ _ , _ _ - - - - - ' - - ~ - - - - -
173 t
l' revisions.here, 1 2
are all signed I believe by we
\
can go back and check you find -- Richard Ison i 3
I 4
signed down here again where there wss a change s made.
5 Q. I t
6 I see one initial QB on 6/5/79 and then I l don't see Mr. -- well, you're right.
7 A. It depends upon what 3 8 the revision is whether they both sign to it.
9 Q. '(By Mr. Mulley) 10
~ Was Ison in QA at the t1me he was doing this?
11 A. He signed 12 that,
- I didn't go research all but I know that's where it shows he signed
( 13 here.
You 're asking some questions, I'd need 14 to --
15 Q.
Where does he sign taht he's in QA?
16 That's the part I'm looking for.
l 17 A. k 18 Look on t$e first page of the traveler "R. C. Ison, II, ,
19 4/10/79 QA/QC engineer, EEI.*
20 any further.
I haven't had time to look at this thing 21 Q.
1 Show me again.
22 I haven't found what \
you're talking about yet. .
23 Q.
(By Mr. Goldberg) 24 Are there a(f, I l guess, DCN's, design control modifications ,
25 if there are changes?
m_______.____.___._ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
i
~
174 4 i
i L
1 A. It was changed to design type documents, 2
and then there would be'a need to have a[4CA.
3 Q. Is this a design type document?
4 A. It depends-on what we got in there that l 5 we're looking. If we got a number in here that l
6 comes off of a design drawing, that's a hard fast 7 number, then I wouldn't change it here without 8 having done a DCA.
9 If I have.an installation criteria, then 10 that's a different ball game. Where our written l
11 procedure says go do it in such-and-such -- which -
)i 12 then has a mechanism for changing it, for which --
13 when the change was made, the Westinghouse
]
14 representative came back and-signed it, again 15 saying, "I agree that that change or as written is 16 acceptable to Westinghouse,' who is the 17 Westinghouse field engineer,.who's the same as the 18 designer being on site and they did it according 19 to the change procedure allowed with the !
20 construction traveler.
21 Q. So, a DCA-in'this case was not necessary? i 22 A. I didn't think it was necessary because 23 we're talking about installation criteria.
24 Q. Was t.n NCR necessary?
25 A. No, sir. I'could change the procedure in
-m mas ~ % n
175 1
accordance with -- it's like -- I guess, they view 2
it the same as when I run a test. I'm out here 3 running a test. I run into a step I c$n't do and I 4
I make a change to the test. As long as I change 5 that test procedure within my procedure 1 6
limitations, then it's acceptable.
7 Q. Does QA have to concur before you run a
~8 test on it? 4 9 A.
I'd have.to sit and go back and look at 4 10
~
t'his traveler change some more to tell who cr what 11 signed.
12 Q. i It's unclear, at least to me, maybe to
( 13 George also, exactly the process here. I see a 14 final document with changes, but I'm not sure I 15 can track through to find out what was started, 16 what ended, who signed what and when.
17 A.
You probably have to have a utility 18 person to explain it.
19 Q. You can't tell by reading this?
20 A.
He can tell me what each signature was 21 and who did it.
22 Q.
But if a DCA were written, you could 23 easilydeterminethatbecausetheDCAgiveyou 24 dates?
25 A. If I had a design change, yes.
sna_p 9 6
- 176 1 Q. Why do you say this is not a design 2 change?
3 A.
It is installation criteria.E' 4
{
Q. But you're changing tolerances?
5 A.
I'm changing installation tolerances, 6
which Westinghouse has agreed is acceptable.
7 Q. What was the original design? Did it 8 specify the tolerance?
9 A.
I'm sure if you went back to the design 10 documents, you could probably find that
~
11 tolerance. I guess when I looked at it as an 12 installation tolerance, I don't view that as a '
l
( 13 design change. 1 14 Q. That's true.
- 15 A.
If I'm Westinghouse and give somebody an 16 installation tolerance, I'd probably make it 1 17 tighter.
I 18 Q.
Is it within the bounds of design?
19 A. (By Mr. Mulley) ,
I think this is really i 20 the major issue here, right, whether or not these 21 changes are design changes or installation 22 changes?
23 A.
Bereisalettersayingthatthat 24 tolerance has no effect and I believe --
25 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) This is the
i i
1 concurrence. l 1
2 A. This is the letter sent /N Westinghouse, f
3 Westinghouse even had some saying any one 4 measurement instead of averaging all four, which 5 is really what they're referencing. ,
6 MR. MULLEY: I'm marking this 7 exhibit as 4-E.
8 (whereupon the exhibit was 9 marked for identification as Exhibit 10 No. 4-E.)
11 A. Also said that they reviewed the data l l
12 time table and found it acceptable. I would say
{ 13 the utility did this after inspection, but still 14 before the inspection report.
15 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) There are two issues J
l 16 here. One is the issue George brings up and that 17 is whether the change ~was a design change or just 18 an installation change, and the second issue 19 involves when a chan'ge is made to traveler 20 documents, how that is evidenced in the 21 documentation.
22 Now, those are the two issues.
23 A. The change is documented in tge trave 3er 24 change. Back in the traveler, it shows when the 25 change was made, what was agreed to, and even
l- 178 1 West .ghouse concurs that change.
2 Q.
(By Mr. Mulley) {
3 There 's another question !
that might be very -- we did write a violatio n on {
4 this?
5 A.
That's correct. .
6 Q. >
7 And we're writing a violation for what violation?
8 A. (
I- wrote two, one because they said there 9
need to be those design documents on site for
~
i 10 11 which I say Westinghouse provided a procedure on 12 the setting of the components, don't necessar il y have to have that kind of --
(_ 13 Q.
14 I'm lost, because right now all I see I
deleted on the draft is the part about the 15 design.
16 I still see a violation here.
A. Where?
17 Q.
On the draft. report.
18 A. The final' report?
19 i O.
(By Mr. Goldberg) 20 report. We don't have a final 21 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) 22 We haven't got to the final report.
23 A.
24 When you get to the final, thak will not be in there as a violation. ,That will be an 25 I unresolved item.
)
179 i
1- Q. But at this point, it's still a ,
J 2 violation? l 3 A. That's correct. I l
4 Q. Well, I guess to synopsize all this, the 5 reason that you decided there was an unresolved i 6 item was?
7 A. Okay. I indicated that if they wanted to l I
8 go back and look at it further to convince me, 1 1 9 fine.
q 10 Q. Convince you of what? I i
11 A. That it was a violation.
12 Q. Of what?
13 A. Of whatever. I don't care. I left it 14 unresolved. I did indicate to them, as I recall, 15 that if somebody can show me that it violates
( 16 Westinghouse's design criteria, then we go after 17 them with as big as club as we get.
18 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) You' don't know what 19 design criteria is because the design spec was not l
20 at the plant?
21 A. I give them the opportunity to go see if ;
l 22 we could get that information. That's why the )
'I 23 thing was left unresolved. -
24 So far, all I've seen is this letter.
25 They came back and said there's nothing there 1 4
180 1
that's of any significance as far as design. If i
2 \
folks wants to go back to Westinghouse and look, j 3 fine. i g
4 Q. George raises a good question. Is the i
i 5
ball back in our court or the utility's court? Do !
6 we have to do mor'. work, or they do more work?
7 A.
I think we have to do more work,;and they 8
have to do more work. We have to tell them what 9 we want.
~
10
~
If they want from them design, more 11 detail design than what's in this letter, then 12 fine.
I haven't been back to try to work on this '
{- 13 issue.
14 Q.
So, the ball is in our court?
15 A.
If we think we need more information.
16 Q.
Do you think we need more information?
17 A.
I'm not too unhappy with this letter, but 18 I'm going to leave it to my inspector.
19 Q. So, at this point, you don't see -- this 20 very well could go away?
21 A. Yes, sir.
22 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) You also -- in regards 23 to this violation, there's some concernfabout i how 24 the changes were documented.
25 A. What do you mean changes were
~
l
)
181 1 documented?
2 Q. Changes in the traveler, they weren't 3 '
transferred to any sort of Comanche Phak procedure 4 or anything like that.
5 A. I don't know what you mean by that. I've i 6 shown you the traveler. I've shown you the 7
documents that show you how to change the
'8 f
traveler. I%Nveshownyouthechangesinthe 9 traveler. 1 Westinghouse concurred in the change.
10 I"'m not sure where else it's going to get
'~
3 11 transferred.
12 Q.
There's no utility procedures or anything
{ 13 like that that have to be podified?
14 A. The traveler is the utility procedure.
15 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) 1 That's the key.
16 A. That's the key. This traveler is 17 written -- this traveler is written complete in 18 itself.
19 Q, (By Mr. Mulley) (
So, you see no -- that's 20 my question to you.
21 A. No. I might do something different, but 22 l I don't put my druthers on the utility company.
23 Q. Right.
Myquestiontoyou--h 24 A. There's all kinds of ways to bandle 25 things.
I 182 i
. 1 Q.
My question to you, though, is the way i 2
they handled this, the way they documented the 3
changes is satisfactory to you? i' 1
I 4 A. Yes.
5 l Q. That's all I want.
6 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) Are we finished? We 7
haven't seen the final.
8 A.
Next issue deals with reactor coolant, 9
loops, codes and standards, page 17 of the initial l
~
10 report.
11 Let's see. Jump over here, page eighteen 12 of the second report that I gave you, which is the- !
{, 13 one signed by Phillips.
14 This item was an unresolved item, FSAR 15 commitment is SME, Section 1974 edition to l 16 Summer 1974; and this discrepancy is unresolved 17 '
pending the applic' ant's evaluation to determine if 18 material non-conformance exists.
19 *:
That's the one the individual went out i
20 and looked out at the report for the pipe. It was 'I 21 certified to be through winter of 1975. As I i 22 recall, that would be an ELD comment. They said, 23 *Why isn't it a violation?"
g l 24 So, I went back to look at that one. I 25 found that the FSAR and the footnotes of that
183 1 addenda was applicable. I also had a ccpy of the 2 NRR letter to TUGCO.
3 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) Which of I e ASME 4 requirements is more restrictive?
5 A. The le$ker code.
~
In the winter of 1974 6
is when we went into all the QA requirements being 7
placed on fabrication of Section III components.
8 If I was going to choose a code, I would 9 certainlytakethelehtercode. It's probably
~
10 more expensive because they have to have a full QA 11 program that's now required under Section III of a
12 the lekter code. Okay.
13 This is the $UtR lett,er, which is the
{
14 first thing I laid my hands on. It says that the 15 most recent version of 10 CFR 50.55(a), dated 16 March 30, 1984, approved the edition of Section 17 IIIofASMEboilekpressurecodethroughthe1980 18 edition and addenda through summer 1982 and is 19 only applicable to code Class I, II and III '
20 component.
I 21 What we were talking.about here is a code 22 Class I. I forgot there was a code Class I, II, 23 and III pipe. I don't recall. k 24 It looks like it's the reactor cooling 25 unit. So, it's a code Class I. Also Mr. Phillips
)
184 i
1 and Mr. Norman were sitting at 2 the table and going 1
over this issue'with me.
3 9. (sy Mr. Nulley) 4 A.
what was th,/ir responae?
5 Later comments from Shannon, he thought they were in general agreement on th'ese, how we 6
handled this.
7 ~
On the previous one, Mr.
& '~lsaid, 9
'I don't know that I fully agree with taki ng these things on the reactor vessel installati on and 10 making them unresolved."
11 12 50 wever, if that's management's decisi on, that satisfied him.
(. 13 That was his ites. That was bis consents to me.
14 I had no reason to believe 15 that he had any problem with what I did to at. th 9.
(By Mr. Goldberg) 16 on this last one, it 17 looks as though there was a meeting of the minds and some agreement. .
18 A. !
I thought'there was, Tes.
19 ay again in a minute This will pop 20 I don't know whether they're still anhappy with it or not .
21 NR. MULLEY:
22 This letter dated 23 July 3rd,1985, will be marked 4-F .
1 i
24 (whereupon the exhib(p was i
25 marked for identification as Exhibit No. 4-F.)
o i
1 A.
I would indicate this .s another one' of 2 the things. -
3 when I interviewed ( 2 put him on the phone with Bob Bosnick at NRR to talk 4 b' about this with him.
5 -
6 The next item that I recall that we made a change to in this first draf t or against the 7
second draft to, the final report dealt with the 8
voids behind the reactor building's stalsless 9
steel liner. '.
10
- 11 That was Mr. Runnicott's ites. ELD had
~
requested how we had -- ~how come we were 12 inspecting that particular issue, for which I
(' 13 talked to Doyle sunnicutt, which I believe when 14 you see the final report,, the words that I added 15 in there were some words. that were previous TRT 16 type allegations.
17 18 I don't think there's any controversy at all with that change.
19 Q. (By Mr. Gold' herg) 20 Where'is this? I don't think it's an issue.
21 A, well, I'm telling you all the changes and 22 ,
also indicating I talked to every inspector for 23 every change that was made after it was igned.
24 Q.
I think that's appropriate. Now, if you j 25 could just give a reference, that's all you need
___,,_______A------ " ^ - - ^ -----
i 186 1 to do here.
2 A.
It's paragraph five in your second report 3 that I gave you. I guess the next toitte last 4
item dealt with the trend review.
5 Again, you'll find it was triggered by 6
comments I had from NRR, page twenty, paragraph 7 item No. 18, s'econd report. Comments I got from 8
NRR was, "This paragraph does not describe a trend 9 review."
i
~
10 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) Let me ask a question 11 concerning these comments on the margins of the 12 report. - 4
{ 13 A.
They were either written by Mr. Baughny '
1 14 or'Mr. Trammell.
l 15 Q. Mr. Baugh9 'was a consultant?
16 '
A.
He was concultant to NRR who was looking 17 at the reports. ~
18 Q. o He was hire,d to look at the region 19 reports?
l 20 A. Mr. Noonan had -- he was approving all 21 reports. He had Mr. Baugh and Mr. Trammell, who 22 was the NRR project manager, both looking at the 23 reports. O I believe Mr. Baugh {9 was a dgevious NRC 24 employee.
25 Q. These reports before they went out were
187 Mh, i
I e I reviewed by Mr. Baugh 9y. and then came back down 2 i for final signature?
3 A. That's correct. Now, when-2 went over to 4
Mr. Phillips on trending, I asked 1bia why were we
/
5 putting this in an inspection' report. (
6 Mr. Phillips' words.tc me were he wanted
~
~
7 to account for his time on the 766. That's the 8 man's reason. I asked him if it? had$2nythingLto 9
do with the IE manual chapter or any other 10 p' articular thing we were gaining from'doing q it.
11 I indicated that part of my disc (anion 12 i with the MAR folks had been, "What does this add, s
{ 13 where are'we going, do you have enough information .
14 to be able to back this upiand defend it.in 15 hearing and that kind of thing, because every one 1 16 of these things are going to go'to ASLB.*
l ' i 17 It was a. rehash, in essence, in my mind 18 of what TRT had alte,ady done in back issues. It's i i
19 nothing that the man couldn't'have put in the back 20 i of his head and teed it in his inspection program 21 fn back there, fines but as far as ne,eding.to have 22 this kind of thing in inspection reports, I'say '
23 the reason the man save'me, *I wanted (c record my 1
24 time on the 766.' i 25 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) q Did you ever make a !
i 3p , p 6,
}W'%
__,_-__--.------.,--,,-----------------_----------------a -
1 1
I cost it to Mr. Phillips that .se reason you wanted-2 it out of the report was that all it would do is 3
open NRC to lots of embarrassing questions? 1 4 A. kr ~
I didn't say embarrassing questions. I j 5 i indicated it would be the subject 6
in the ALSB for 3 which there be a lot of needless questions. I 7
don't know that it's embarrassing, just needless 8
questions to have to go through.
9 IThe same as saving every copy of every 10 draft of every report.
11 Q. s
~
So, you felt that this based on what he 12 told you the reason why he wanted it in and based
( 13 on the information in this paragraph, you did not l
14 feel was appropriate to be put in this report and 15 added to the report?
16 A.
Nothing in the IE manual that calls for 17 something the man,had done on the side, maybe at 18 19 the direction of his branch chief at the time .
There was nothing toYbe gained from it. Again, 20 needless questions at the hearing.
21 Last issue, 22 I upgraded vloistion No. 1 in Appendis A of this report from Level V to 23 Level IV.
24 Q. N (by Mr. Goldberg) What page?
25 A.
In the notice of violation in the letter i
- - _ _ _ _ -__-_____---w
V}s t
3 .
)t i 7 i i,
i i s t
',k l.,, s
- 4 1
- a. = - _a 1 189 . .
s4 1 y of second report, Appendix A,,JP,Rf.i. ,
\
2 Q. Okay. '
h Level IV, is that you? ,
q -
3 A.) That was me. That comme rit , tbat's i *
\
W. 3 s
- 4 Mr. Raughn 's 'cournen t , I guess. I took'a look at ,
5 it and said it's'righN x
As a matter of fact, I s 1 j 6
11 vent back ar.d'Ioot.ed adievery one of these 7
violations and went back and'1ooked at this s .*
8 violation. This.fm probadly as hard fist ,
a
- t .: a 9
violatiornas we got inithe whole repor,t. A i
. i ,
\
10 ,
.s ; 5 It'.c a goed VAolation. s
. Incidentally, it Il case from an unrecolved item, as I' recall. In L.
3, s i T i. , s ,
12 fact, I went thrdad,b quite an exercise ih utility, l s $
(
13 ,
when they came back with .,c their initial reply,( ,, t 14 saying, 'There'"s no prob,it,u because we have>abne w
- n. ,
- g> i 3
s a, 15 all these corrective actions.". ?s s , s %)
16 s s They did all the cetdoctive actions, but 9 x
17 a only after the inspectdr'Adentified theh."as 1' 18 1 unresolved items to begin with. ,
, (f 19 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) digy. ' %
' si
?,0 2 4 [ !
A. ',
As I atated several times, every c!cange, i
21 -
- made to that report fror the tirrl Mr.'Phillips i
! 22 , !
signed it on October. ,1. ' and 2 was reviewed with tha C
23 inspectors. , ,
They knew exactly what wa4 going' to' 24 be done to the report. <
25 I So, I don't think there 's any question I
I
~
]
s <
J
~
e
. r 5
\
8 [ \. !
'l ,0 "
190 a p
,y \
1 the el nger.: vere made to that y1 report that they j teren't aware of or what I was going l
'i J-i .
to' do with it '
t rhen I br,.,ought'it back i
in and made those changec
's s!id had it retyped, which is the final report. I
{
5 have the copy.
6 i (Short recess.)
"'y 7 I ,
(Whereupon the exhibit was B '
9 omrived 'for identification as Exhibit Mei) . 4 ~ G . ) .
j
. l 10 Q. \
I have the final report.
11 It reflects all l the changes td' at we just discussed for which I ,
i 12 l l again, will stata each inspector was aware of each l
{ 13 l
' change made from the time Mr. Phillips signed the 13L V spes.nd report until such time I made the changes 15 h that are in this report.
O '
The cover sheet on that, I did sign for 1
i 17 ibillips on a conedtrence. The best of my {
l 18 recollection, I had asked Phillips if he wanted to 19 see this report anymore, which I believe he 20
, answered he had seen enough of it.
21 ,0. (By Mr. Mulley) Let me ask you a 22 question.
23 A. Yes, sir.
24 k Q.
On the report itself, the cover sheet of 25 the report --
(
191 1 A.
I didn't go back and change the cover i 2 sheet.
' < I 3 Q. Right. The first 6 question we have is 4
that you have nineteen paragraphs, and then the 5
following report only contains eighteen.
6 A. ,Uh-huh.
7 Q. Why is that?
8 A.
~
There was a probably a paragraph that was 1 9 ,
i dropped from the issues that we talked about. You
~ I 10
~ can go back and look at the reports and figure out 11 {
which one went where. It's all part of what we 12 talked about. 1
{ 13 Q.
So, it's just talking about an 14 administrative error?
15 A. i Yeah.
16 Q.
second question I have is: Although this 17 report was sent out in February, we have 18 signatures dating bagk to October by the
- 19 inspectors. l 20 A.
Tha t 's correct.
21 Q.
But then Runnicutt's signature on the 22 second page, that was changed.
23 A.
That page was changed. So, thafi page had <
24 to be redone.
25 Q.
So, this is a valid way of doing this?
i 192 6
1 A.
I don't know if this is the most ideal 1 2 way, but for the time and as late as the report '
1 3
had been, based on the fact that I had discussed 4
every change to the best of my knowledge with the 5
inspectors, what exactly was going to be' done to 6
the reports, when I put the concurrence on there, 7
I put en there the names of the folks that 8
initially signed 1.t, that being Phillips 9 Eunnicutt, Westerman.
~
10 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) Bunnicutt signed for 11 himself on the concurrence?
12 A. That's corrett. .
( 13 Q.
So, the or.ly person you signed for was 14 Phillips, but he s. greed?
15 A.
To the beat of my knowledge.
16 'Q. He told --
17 A.
You say to"the'best of your knowledge.
]
18 A.
The words he said to me is he'd seen the 19 report enough.
20 Q.
l That wasn't a derisive ters?
21 A. Sir?
22 Q.
Be wasn't being smart when he said that, 1 23 was he, or was he?
24 k
A. No.
25 Q. Okay.
- 2. -__ ._________m_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
19J 1 A. Now, I would indicate that --
2 (short recess.)
3 A. I would indicate that my initipis on 4
there, I would stand behind that report, that it's 5
technically and professionally correct.-
6 Q. (By Mr. Kulley) One other question, on '
7
~
page two of.the report, the areas inspected, I 8 there's a sentence that talks about status and 9
review of violations / unresolved items status.
10 What was that referring to? Do you see 11 it? It's right here.
12 A. Where are you pointing to?
{ ', 13 Q. Here, unresolved items.
14 A. Okay. Let me look. Looked at previous 15 violations and previous unresolved items. That is 16 part of this inspection. I guess I don't see --
17 there were previous"unr'e solved items.
18 Q.
Does that sentence talk shout the trend 19 analysis paragraph?
20 A. No, sir.
21 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) I have one question.
22 A. The first section- normally in every 23 reportyouhaveanapplicant'sactionongprevious 24 NRC inspection findings which are unresolved 25 items, violations,.and open items. I guess when I 4
_ .__-_-- ----~
194 i
1 read that, that's what I take it to mean.
2 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) Looking at the paragraph 3
on the trend analysis which was takenioute that 4 , paragraph is titled ' Review of 5
Violation / Unresolved Items status."
6 A. Right.
7 Q. I guess when I read that --
8 A. I guess when I read that I assumed we 9
were talking about previous unresolved items, open 10 items. Even now, I guess -- even looking at it I 11 now because at the top it says up here action on 12 previous inspection items.' l I guess that's part -
(. 13 of the summary, we didn't catch that when we --
14 before we sent it out. It may well be the 15 paragraph that came out.
16 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) Go back to the date of 17 the signature.
tee thing that is confusing to me, 18 you got Doyle Bunnic,utt's approving this document 19 on January 28, 1986.
20 A. That's because there was a change made on 21 that page.
22 Q. Then he signed again on 10/2/857 23 A.
That's the original cover shedp.
24 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) Now, going back to that 25 signature page, in Octotsr, it looks like we have
195 i __
I three inspectors and two supervisors signing this 2 :
~
report as agreeing with what was in it.
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q.
And naturally the report has been changed 5 since then?
6 A. Right.
I've indicated that every change 7
made was thoroughly discussed with every inspector 8 involved.
9 9.
That's ay question. <
10 A. Yes, sir.
~ When we went through the 11 k changes, we went through the one that was signed 12 to what we've got here. That's just the last --
(; 13 that's the last item we went through.
14 0.
And to your best of your belief these 15 i people agreed to the changes?
16 A. Agreed or, like I said, s ._
17 indicated, *1 may not fully agree with do rading 18 the violation on the,. reactor vessel to en 19 unresolved item's however, if that's what i
20 management wanted to do, then he concurred. Be 21 had no problem.
That was his esact words. 1 22 0. Okay.
23 A.
Now, I would indicate Nr. Phil Aps case 24 along later and provided me with a meno. se says 25 oven if he signed it, it only meant that he I
! 196 !
1 concL_ red that management 2 changes.
had the right to make 3
I guess I don't know what his signature would even mean on a report.
4 That's not any way I ever signed a report.
5 A.
(By Mr. Goldberg) Are inspectors i 6
required to sign reports?
7 A. Yes, sir.
It is not clearly written down 8, what
~
it means when they sign it.
9 To me it means j as a professional I accept 10 what's in that report i a'nd I'm willing to defend what's there. I think {
11 it's technically and professionally correct 12 Q.
(By Mr. Nulley) Okay.
13 hers Are you saying
{
l 14
-- this November, 1985, inspection report is 85075; is that correct?
15 A. Yes, sir.
16 That's correct. Be said, I would have made them -- some of those things I f 17 would have made a violation." Okay, 18 i
Be didn't'say, i
19 -
'I disagree to the point 20 I'm going to give you a differing professional opinion.
I think it's completely wrong. It's !
21 technically wrong." It's his preference.
22 There's all kind of ways you can do 23 things.
24 You can write violations that gight not be a violation if you want 4 25 to wait for the licensee then to write you back to tell you why it l
l
l 197 !
1 isn't a violation and I really don't want that on 2
Comanche Peak being in an ASLB process with a 3
contested hearing to have a bunch of Ituff in the 4 records, correspondence back and forth between 5
this region and the licensee, where I might have 6
technically incorrect violations.
7 I don't intend to portray that. I don't 8
intend -- I might on some other plant take more 9
liberty in the violations I might write, but I'm 10 j
~ going to be very tight in the violations on this 1
11 plant to make sure they're absolutely correct.
12 Q.
How does that affect your ASLB7 Bow did
{ 13 that affect NRC7 3
\
! 14 A.
You got every lawyer looking at what 's in 15 these reports, from the intervener to the utility 16 to our own lawyers.
17 Q.
If a violation is written, like I say, 18 you're going to be very tight with these 19 violations? ;.
20 A. I'm going to be tight. I want to make 21 sure that they're correct, technically correct'and
! 22 proper.
I don't want to just write a violation 23 24 because I think I want to write a violad $on or because I think it ought to be done this way and 25 not this way.
i 198 l 1
1 want to write it based on what 2
are the requirements, what haven't we met. That's my 1 3 approach.
! P 4
Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) 5 Like we talked about k earlier, we write a violation and require the l 6
utility to respond back. If it wasn't a proper 7
violation, there 's a lot of --
8 A.
i It makes unnecessary paperwork. I think 9 it
~
also leaves a question -- they may even lo question your technical competency in. writing
_ 11 violations, that you just wait for the utility to 12 respond, knowing it's probably not a violation.
(
13 Q.
Things like this cause problems with 14 ASLB7 15 A. I haven't any idea when I get on a 16 hearing stand what ~
the attorneys or whoever would 17 ask questions regarding a violation of the utility 18 comes back and says, you know, we don't know what 19 you're talking about. I think it might not lend 20 to my credibility as a witness.
, 21 Q.
From a NRC prospective, is there any 22 problem with that though?
23 If we send a violation over and it comes back and they say we Ipund some '
24 documentation and it's not a violation, does that 25 l
present a problem to NRC7
199 1 A.
It may be if it's -- that's kind of 2
something that, hey, we found documentation, that 3
type of violation may not be a problest but 4
another one can come back and same, 'We don't
.i 5
agree with you technically. You don't have a !
6 proper understanding of the code," that kind of 7 thing.
8 I don't want to get into those kind of 9 contests.
~
We don't want that on this' facility.
10 Q. I guess the question is: Why? I'm 11 trying to understand the process. l 12 A.
Again, I say credibility as to Region IV
( 13 as a witness.
14 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) A witness in what 15 respect?
16 A. In the ASLB hearing.
17 Q. As a proponent of the license?
18 A. No, just as,a testifier. Bey, my 19 credibility is when I write a violation, it's a 20 violation. I think we will see it very clear when i 21 we get into the next set of reports.
i 22 MR. MDLLEY: I would like to 23 mark for the record the memo dkom Mr.
24 Phillips to Mr. Westerman dated April 4, '
25 1986, as Exhibit 5.
200 i
1 (whereupon the exhibit was 1
2 marked for identification as Exhibit l 3 No. 5.) i 4 A. I will say that I do not believe it 5
professional to say that I'm signing' e report 6
because my supervision has a right to make 7 changes.
l 8 0. (By Mr. Nulley) Did any other inspectors 9 \
say that to you or relay that sentiment to you?
~ j 10 A. No.
N 11 9. . -
1 for nobody else? l 12 A. 'only said, 'I don't fully agreet I
% _ l
( 13 however, if that's what management wants to do l l
14 fully, that's acceptable to me.'
l 15 '
O. The other people? f 16
{
A.-
Nunnicutt said, 'Any changes you make is 17 fine with me.'
18 I would ray that since this report, 2 19 have tearned a lot of lessons from who all was i 20 going to comment on it and all changes are made to 21 the report.
However many evolutions it takes, I 22 it's been through all . hat. Then it's sent down 23 there to be signed, but not until tha$ point in 24 time. ,
25 This is the first one I got involved in.
\
201 t
1 3 was not fully aware of everybody that was 2 going to be commenting on it.
3 \
- 0. (By Mr. Nulley) 4 so now - 'i' A.
5 I would say from this point on, every 6
report tbst has been'sent down there'for fins!
7 report signature, the only change would be like a 8
typo, a comma, or capitalization that might come 9
hack; but nothing else major is done to a eport. r Q.
Af ter it's been signed?
10 A.
After it's been signed.
_ 11 9.
12 But at the time, once again to repeat, you had the concurrence, at least verhally
( 12 these people were happy and knew whatngwas goi
, that i 14 on?
15 A. Yes, sir.
15 I went through every violation 17 from the time it was initially signed to th e time 18 2 issued the final report with every ins pector involved.
19 -
20 I think somewhere along here, Nr.( !
then must have seen the report and raised 21 22 questions with why changes had been made to the i report.
23 24 There was a subsequent meeting $1a Eric 25 Johnson's office y
to discuss that. Be re 's Mr.
prepared notes which we went over in
202 1 that Jeeting.
2 9.
WhydidMr.}[ ) raise questions about 3 this report?
4 What role was he actingrin?
A.
5 Other than the fact that Mr. ~
,was a previous branch chief and had been involved 6
{ 7 somewhat on what went on here, I think he took it i spon himssif.to look at the report. ,
8 Q. !
Was he involved in the inspection? )
9 A.
10 Ne had been the branch chief at the tine. We may have.
11 No was probably down at the
{
site some, but I took over the responsibility for 12 the report.
( 13 0. (By Mr. Goldberg) I have a question.
1 14 I didn't see him in the concurrence change .
15 A.
No, sir, he was not.
- 16. inspection. Se didn't do any I did not do any inspection. 1 17 Q.
18 Was he in.volved in the trend analysis that Phillips did?
19 A. I think Mr. ~
20
,,is one that asked Mr. Phillips to write the trend analysis or look 21 at the trend analysis. {
22 Q.
23 Would he he present at the exit of this thing? l 24 g A. Who?
25 Q.
q
)
1 i ,
t 203.
i 1 A.-
I don't know. I don't recall.
2 NR. NULLEY:- I'm marking as 3
~-
4 Embibit 6 the handwritten n6tes dated 2/21/86 5 .
6 (whereupon the sahibit was i marked for identification as Sahibit i
7 No. 6.)
8 Q.
(By Mr, Nulley) l * .
m j
These notes are written 20 A.
11 I would indicate, again, we talked about 12 this piping subassembly that was changedack b in the first report.
( 13 with the persons involved, Again, Mr.
r-Barnes went over m .
14 and
{
15 + the reasons why that was not in the repo t from which r 16
- 'the best of my knowledge , it was 17 taken out during the time that report was over in
\
Shannon Phillipspos ession.
- 18 19 Again, we went - through what the code says I
20 that the requirements are, why it was notproper, l 21 why it was technically incorrects and when you 22 talk to Mr. Barnes, he'll go over it agai n.
k 23 reactorA pu/. 4The next one we talked about was the 24 mp,codeandstandardsissuedhadicated to them -- it 25 was ELD's comments, the reason I vent back and looked at it. I had gone back over l
L E i I
i
. )
eve I
1 it again.
TheitR1ettersaidthefact 2 r.
" that Amendment 57 to the fea had been.jssued 2
showing easetly what the code was for' the reactor 4 pump loop.
5 ~
At that point in the meetlag, I tblak 6 what was agreed was that '
wesid write 7 Bob at and get it la writing fr
,. -. NRR. To my 8
knowledge, Mr.k ,- aever followed through with 9 what was agreed to.
10
_ 2 thtak we did talk about just la 11 general -- there weren't really questless that ,
i la they had about the five saresolved items or' five
( 13 violations. We talked la passing about the 14 signatures on the report, the dates, differences 15 and that klad of thing.
16 w. . . y
, When that me.eting broke, came 17 ,
'L - -
back la the room.. Eric Johnson was sitting here,
,p. -
18 myself, and Barnes. I 19 x s- -- - ~~astated that he did aot ask for it to be escalated, the issues. I 20 think he said he felt he was belag put la the 21 I niddle of this whole situation. 'Eg felt that '
22 Nr.'{ _ [wasprobablythedrivingforce.
23 9.
What was Mr. Jobeson's reactiqp7 ;
24 A. To what?
25 9. The changes in the report, things like
205 e
1 that?
i 2 A.
I don't believe Mr. Johnson had any 3 particular problem.
I went over it ytth bin very 4 clearly.
5 Q. I,
! You went over these changes?
6 A. Be had seen this. Ne and I sat down.
7 Q.
No. 'I'm saying before the fact, while !
~8 the changes were being made, while you were !
9 processing the report. I 10 A. I can't recall. I think I talked in l
11 general about the things that I had done to the 12 report about the fact when I first saw the 1
{ 13 report--Idon'trememberifitwas{~
14 f
l or Johnson, I mentioned that right off the surface 15 I saw some things that bothered me. i i 16 0.
l Okay.
17 A.
Subseque'ntly, we interviewed some folks 18 on site when it looked like some had concerns and 19 I got directions fr$m Mr. Johnson to go back to 20 everybody involved to see who had what concerns.
21 This was a meno I wrote when I did that.
22 NR. NULLEY: This meno is dated 23 April 3rd,1986,fromMr.Wedgermanto 24 Nr. Johnson.
25 (Whereupon the exhibit was 4 se "
I
__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - - - - - - ~~
1 l
206 1 , i 2 marked for identification as Embibit No. 7.)
3 A.
4 I would indicate that as far,as I know the copies of all reports up through December have i 5 !
been sent to Mr. -
5 strike that -- 2 think probably through November, because I'm not sure 7
whether he was in the December report.
8 ,
I 9
2 ka'ow that all reports which he was a party torhave been sent to him. I did get Bob 10 sofab on the ph'one and had his talk to '
11 {
12 .
L ,a
- still at that time even after.
( 13 Bob so -
in writing Mr.went So over said be would like to have ',
14 15
's statements stating that 16 he would like to see the approved Amendment 57 to 17 AR which would include the code for which the 18 reactor fuel pump,,was, fabricated and installed on i '
- 0. (By Mr. Nulley) Did you ever get this?
l 19 A. No.
Subseq'aently, 2 understand from 20 discussion between he and Eric, Eric said it was 21 not any need to go any further with this at this 32 time, 23 Something in writing, you know, what ar'e we galaing?
24 Everybody has talked with the man, and nobody is trying to hide anything. We can't 25 believe he was correct. Row far do'you go?
l
sua 1 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) The last sentence of 2
this memo, I don't understand this. Who is the i 3
'he' referred to in that sentence? Y-i 4 A. Basically if he had an issue we would 5
bring it to the forefront by, hey, put in the 6
report and bring it up at the exit and have them 7 respond to it.
8 Q. The word 'be*," who is "he" here?
9 A. Cliff Eale.
10 Q. So, if I read the sentence --
11 A.
- What he's saying, he would come up with 12 an issue and talk to either myself and Barnes
{ 13 verbally and we would say, " Cliff, let's go on 14 with this thing.'
15 He might say, 'Well, I'd like to put it 16 i off and wait and add more on the next month's 17 report."
18 \
And what we would say to Cliff sale, 19 "Let's go ahead ahead.with it. It's a good 20 issue.'
21 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) Cliff sale said 22 something else. I'm trying to understand the 23 sentence.
g 24 A.
What Cliff sale -- he said that, if 25 anything, it sometimes caused him to bring issues
i 20E I
to the forefront before he thought he might be 2 ready, j that he would like maybe a little more
, 3 time. .
4 .
Based on looking at the issue, what we're 5
saying, hey, we didn't say, " Forget'about this 6 issue." We said, "Let's pursue this thing. You !
7 got an issue that looks important.' !
8 Q. Okay.-
9 A.
l ~
That was everybody at the time I 10 l
interviewed that I thought had been involved .
_ 11 A.
12 That's all the 8705 I have unless you got other questions. i
({ 13 Q.
At this time, do you have any questions 14 on that report?
15 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) 16 Has the licensee submitted anything in response to this? l 17 A.
Yes.
18 Q.
Can we see it?
19 A.
I'll give you a copy of it. Do you want 20 a copy of that?
l 21 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) Yes.
22 23 (off the record discussion.)
Q. (By Mr. Mulley) 24 Let's 90 on go the next inspection report.
25 A. This is 8514/8511.
This is the stack of
i I
1 documents which Mr. Phillips has forwarded to be 2 put on our docket file.
3 It provides a matrix ofthepifferences 4
that he thinks has occurred. This report is from 5
what the inspectors had done as they'went along.
6 Nave you seen that matriz? It includes 7 comments such as violation as drop per direction, 8 violation drowngraded, violation dropped l 9 unresolved, unresolved item dropped.
10
- One comment I did not realize was dropped 11 from the the report until the matrix was made.
12 Q. This is the matriz you're talking about '
( 13 right here?
14 A. Well, let's see what you got. There are l 15 several pages. I got three pages. These are 16 identified as the major differences that 17 Mr. Phillips saw in this report, the reason why he 18 wanted all these drafts maintained in our docket l 19 file. '
20 What I'm prepared to do is give you 21 that. Any draft report) Region IV has not. released 1
22 under FOIA as it being a part of the deliberative 23 process, we have not got a FOIA yet c this 24 report.
t 25 Q. These appear to'be drafts --
e____________________-
210 1
1 A. There are all series of drafts, all 2
marked up, shows the changes made and;the 6
3 different times that it was revised. The matrix 4
shows the different ones .that were changed, which 5 version.
6 I think the only way you can get a true 7
prospective of that report is to go through each 8 one of those. I don't think we can just take one 9 of Mr. Phillips' issues. You have got to look at
~
10
_ the thing in its entirety to understand what had 11 to be done to that report.
12 Q. Okay. This is the report that deals --
( 13 A. Primarily the records area.
14 Q.
-- with the records area. Since that 15 area was the area that was brought up to us by the 16 inspectors, what,I would do then is discuss with i
17 you some of the records.
18 A. I would like to go through each one of 19 these things on the matriz because you only see 20 from that the quality of the report that the man 21 was preparing and giving to me that I had to act 22 on.
23 Q. You are going to go through (hat? .
24 A. Yes, sir.
I would ~~ before Mr. Barnes 25 went off on vacation, I didn't think that he was
i 664 1 I going to be here and I asked him to give me a 2
summary of his comments on this report.
3 I would like to read at least his general cga'ments.on 4
having gone through the report.
5 I also have his specific comments, but 6
I'm going to use those for reference as we go 7 through it. !
'I think Mr. Barnes ' general comments l 8
were that 'It',s been my understanding that it has 9
always been our practice and management guidance 10 t' hat an inspector should, one, perform thorough 11 i use of assigned subjects: two, establish specific 12 commitments and regulatory requirements on
{
13 subjects; three, evaluate compliance in a balanced 14 impartial, manner; four, document findings in a 15 fairly succinct manner which should not be 16 construed by reader as having any questionable 17 i aspect regarding factuality of report's contents 18 or manner in which information is presented. ,
19 ' Reports s're required to be presented to 20 management in a format that requires little 21 revision.
From the review of multiple versions of p 22 Appendix D of the subsequent report which is 23 Mr. Phillips', it would appear in my j dgment 24 that, one, the information has been originally 25 documented in an espose fashion without attemptto
~ < psp -,3mi er-1-
212 1 crisply state what are the issues. Limited 2
subjects were attempted to be used for multiple 3
areas of citation and an apparent insensitivity to 4 due process, i.e.,
impinging TUGC0 management by 5
including alleged statements from junior J j
6 j positioning employees as TUGC0 management policy l 7
anor four, it would appear that many citations l j
8 were proposed without even attempting to get full 9
possession of the facts or contact of appropriate
~
10 applicant personnel."
11 l
MR. MULLEY: This exhibit will !
12 be marked Exhibit 8. I
( 13 (Whereupon the exhibit was l 14 i l marked for identification as Exhibit 15 No. 8.) l 16 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) Do you have an extra i 17 copy?
18 A. I would in,dicate that Ian Barnes was 19 section chief in the vendor inspection branch, a 20
-t W- l GS-15 pay 4a9 grade. 1 i
21 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) I Be he reviewed this i 22 report in what capacity?
23 A.
Be reviewed this report in th j
24 capacity -- I called him -- I had him as my team 25 or group leader.
Group leader is his title; and, I
l j
..s 1 again, 4 say, he was not at that time given a '
2 management position description. Therefore,
, 3 everything that came from comments tha) 1we might
( 4 have done in writing this report, I took it upon 5
myself to go over to Mr. Phillips to try to 6
straighten this out.
7 MR. MULLEY:
8 .
What I would like !
to do is mark as an exhibit the Phillips l 9 l to Westerman memo, dated May the lat.
10 -
That will be Exhibit No. 9. i
_ 11 {
(Whereupon the exhibit was 12 marked for identification as Exhibit
( 13 No. 9.)
- 14 A. }
Are you going to go through every one of I 15 those. j 16 .Q. (By Mr. Mulley) No, I'm not.
17 A. l Are you going to attach the rest of these l l 18 documents to it, j or are you going to keep the rest
[ 19 of these documents? ['m going to refer, for 20 example, 2-A when I go through and indicate what 21 the man was originally writing was the problem and 22 what was looked at and what was done with it, 23 24 which is the basis for 2-A, probably thegpore significant reference here; but he's indicated 25 where the changes occurred, at least in his mind.
l
214 1 Q. As we-go through the documents, I'll mark 2 them for exhibits.
3 A. I'm only going to talk abou6 the one. If 4
one wants to look at the whole thing and the 5
matrix, they got to have that whole package. It's 6 easier for me to go through the one.
,7 Bowever, as I said, it takes that whole 8
stack to see what originally went through in l 9 trying to do the report.
i 10 Q.
The stack will be retained with our 11
! papers as supporting back up documents; but as far 12 as an exhibit to your testimony right here, we'll !
( 13 just try to stick with the 2-A and the matrix.
l 14 A. You'll need to pull 2-A out cf that.
15 MR. MULLEY: What I will do is 16 l
l mark as Exhibit No. 10 draft inspection l 17 report 85-24/11 2-A.
38 (whereupon the document was 19 l marked for identification as Exhibit 20 No. 10.)
l
! l 21 J; MR. GOLDBERG: You have to get 22 se a copy of that.
l 23 A. I would point out that therel pere a 24 number of record areas looked at, including 25 procedures, the record vaults, handling of the
215 e __
1 t 2
changes o,r missing procedures with procedures records that in process' t' 3 Q.
(By Mr. Goldberg) 4 Can you kive us the dates on this?
5 A. .
In fact, 6
I'll give you -- I took these out of SSER 11. Okay.
7 Q.
(By Mr. Goldberg) 8 When was the work done for this area?
9 A. sg4,
~
10 Q.
Did it precede or~ proceed?
11 A.
12 They precede anything that was done here. .
They're a part of the tTaings that I looked
{ 13 at when I got into this thin 9 14 Q.
(By Mr. Mulley) 15 So, you used this for I
some of the decisions you made?
16 A. Yes.
~
MR. MULLEY:
18 Mark this as 19 Exhibit No.c,11, the excerpt free SSER '
No. '
Il concerning QA/QC records. i 20 !
21 (whereupon the document was 22 marked for identification as Exhibit !
No. 11.)
23 A.
24 There are a number of differegg ones here.
25 Q. Okay.
l l
216 1 A.
You've got several there.
2 through it, If you go just you 'll i 3 find one -- for example, there 's QA. 6 4
Q.
Several allegations.
5 A. ;
6 137, AQ 49, AQ 74, AQ 125, AQ 45, AQ 129 AD 816 ,
7 Q. Yesh. Right. !
J A. \
9 I'd like to make some genersi kind of -
\
10 beyond these particular documents whichould
~ w !
11 indicate TRT looked at the records at theareas th 12 IE QA branch'was on site and did a compl ,
ete review of the applicant's commitment
( 13 to the SAR, to their review plan for QA programs submitt 14 ed both 15 for the time frame in which the yutilit submitted
{
their original SSAR of the QA program 16 and records \
17 as'well as look at its against what is toda y 's program requirements. )
IB Q.
(By Mr. Goldberg) 19 A. i. Did this group -- 1 20 As far as I know, the area of records ,
they did not end up with any particula 21 r -- they \
22 had some issues with standardsofand the some i 23 other areas where they weren't all refenenc e n di today's type QA program review 24 g
25 area. As far as I know records was a clean
?
i
1 '
>Q -.
y gti t
% { ;. i'17 f 3 a Q
\
4
, 1 Q. -(By Mr. Goldberg) Did this . g r oup,"whe't j
~.
4(
'2 1, i they did the review, did they;look .
just aC'the i
i 3
program, how the program se developed,h h l t ;
4 .\ l or were they looking for program implemen..s'ktion t as 4 *
.i i
5 s well? .i 3 h 6 A. .They wer,e; O looking 6
at submitted r.BAR k -)
7 5 l' \
description of the QA program and tht.t-would- {
8 -
3n y Q include records, QA records, Sect (Or,(17 'of FSAR.
-s 9 Q. u.'g s . t
.s
~
Regarding this particularfinJpection ?-F-\,(1 .N 10 report, are we Isoking at.the yrogra dde?ent.or h ~'
F 11 )
program implementation? -
s ,
f (
12 A. ,
We got both' things in tSi's repors,. .
's
(
13 n Mr. Phillips has indicated and the first [de will 14 go will be one where Mr. Phillips dai'd they 15 violated -- that they don't describe sVery' thing.in '
16 s sect' ion 17 to deal with records.E .
s' 17 . L\ s,, \
Q.
There is a. difference between{the two q in j 18 the case of the QA and IE review? t k i 19 A. Yes, sir.
The IE review was the program '
20 4
.t t- 3 as written in the FSAR. The commitments is' s 1 21 33 inadequate for either tha, ttime and the day.c As- \
r 22
\-
far as an adequate program, i.y we wer e- to re view ,
'N !
23 it, it would have suffi cient dept.h,in th) PSAP.
6: i 6 to 24 :
satisfy today's requirements. 'y -
25 8 ? y Now, ther looked at that for tie bid -- p 3
1 i
. ~.
P' s h'
,,_,...y..~. - .--e ,
a ;
, ,. . I' , t
. a.;- -
1[ t 418 1 i for "
2 tr. this FSAR was submitted in total ased b to tho best of my knowledge based on an FSAR.
For 3
todayjs type program, Uhlig they looked to,see what the 4
at=_i
- s 5 had in their FSAR as well as implementing II ,
6 procedures to see if they could. find commitment .
-' ' . the kinds of things.they would look at, a )
7 g\ 8 they weut. through and did a normal IE/QABranch b
i 9
review of , licensee submittal for a QA plan .
Q. But 10 they did not consider imp 1'ementation?
ssGE A.
No.
1 11 OTAT.- 11, TRT looked at implementation of records program.
I 12 -Q.
{ 13 Who looked at the implementation of TRT7 A.
I 14 The deputy or person that was in charge s
15' of QA/QC issues was Berb Livermore. Bis deputy was C11ff Bale,
, If .
who is now my lead QA/QC man who 17
~was also -- who is now also at the time wearing a 18 new hat as now TRT type interface with Mr .
Noonan.
19 20' There are a' number of consultants that worked under he'these folks.
21 Q.
22 You wou2d suggest on these issues that 23 Cliff Hale would be the appropriate pers on to contact?
1
' 24 A. Yes. k 25 I would say that this report, again, was signed by Shannon Phillips.
1.
The final 4
m m.- --
s '
Y! Y %
1 -
1 1 of th' 2
report was signed by b..annon Phillips.
Q. (By Mr. Mulley) The 3 A.
inspection report?
Yes, 4
the inspection report itself was signed with no changes made, ' .
5 other than signature and other than typographical. -
6 85-14/85-11. 1 7 developed, In fact, as this thing \
}
8 each draft was sent back to [
Mr. {
Phillips being marked and either' items 4 9
10 discussed with him in some great length or ust j s'a r k e d and s en t b ac'k . i 11 A.
~ I would say that 12 I didn't have enough I
hours in the day to really respond to all of th ese
( 13 issues as they were coming over to me.
i 14 Q. Okay.
15 A.
16 Let's start with the first one.
A.
I believe the first one Mr. Phillips said 17 was a violation tha.t was down graded, I believe, 18 was left as an unresolved item. 1 19 Basically, the violation as written by 20 Mr. Phillips initially that came over to me was 21 that
/7olo/7 22 failure to revise FSAR Section 17117 as . -
23 described and reflected the currentQA records system is a violation of 10 CFR 50.34(a)7 24 .
Now, what Mr. f 25 Phillips was basing that on was the fact that the utility did not describe 1
-- _ -- -----_ - _Y
I tempor. y storage of records such as they have in 2 ,
the paper flow group or satellite storage area 3
interim records vault. Even permanent plant 4
records and procurement records storage, all those 5 are temporary areas.
6 I \
l do not believe that the standard view 7
plan for section 17.1 of FSAR would require that 8'
detail to be in the FSAR. I also point out that 9
since IE QAB branch had been down and gone through 10 their whole section 17.1, I'm not even sure it was i
, 11 basis for being unresolved. It's page twenty and 12 starts with Item 5.
13
{ Q. Okay.
So, basically you don't believe 14 that FSAR was that detailed 7 15 A. I don't think it's required to be in this 16 detailed basis on the standard view plan. The IE 17 ;
QAB branch had also" looked at that same program 1 18 an6 had no problem with it.
19 What Mr. Phillips was concerned with was 20 i temporary storage areas not being described in the ;
21 FSAR.
Again, you wonder how far do you carry.it.
22 There are other areas -- every vendors 23 out in the vendor shops, ones not on sit 9, all you 24 have to do is have adequate commitment toK45,44- 45. 2 AF' as 25 far as how you're going to handle the records and l
l 1 the der iption. ,
2 I do not believe it's necessary to 3
describe every temporary records storage 4 .-
facility. Okay. I down graded that to an 5
unresolved item.
6 I would say I'm not even sure it should 7
have been that.
8 Q.
Let me ask you a question about that.
9 A.
The only reason I did that, I didn't duck 10 i~ssues.
i_ 11 Q.
The unresolved item means that there's a 12 possible violation there, but we don't have enough ,
{ 13 information; is that correct?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. Now, this instance where you didn't feel 16 that there was going to be a violation anyway --
17 A. Did I it t4 keep from ducking the issue.
18 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) Could you have taken 19 it out completely? '
20 A. )
I think so.
The next one is that the QA !
21 manual did not address 45.29 requirements, 22 commitments.
He called that a violation l 23 Criterion V. Let's see where that one starts. '
24 That starts on page 21 and 22. f'I would 25 first off believe if I reference 45.2J, how
, pe u
- l .._______.___________________
\ _
1 detai (. S. $
d I get into describing 49744- i s n o t 2 necessary.
3 Q. .
Was TUGCO f ollowing <Vf.L9
! . E7 4 A. b' 5
There's no violations here that I know of on this matrix where they weren't made to 45.29 6 Q.
(By Mr. Goldberg) They clearly 7 4C.1. T referenced 4374KL as part of the. research 8 procedure?
9 A. That's what the man said here, 10 that they
[eferenced it; but'they didn't la go through and
_ describe everything in detail. Talking about ,
12 in-process records and AQ 49, AQ 74, AQ 125 Page
(} 13 099, the TRT conclusion and staff position was 14 that TOGCO and Brown &
15 Root procedures governing permanent 16 QA records accountability preservation found them to be in compliance with ASME codes 17 ,
Appendix B and 45.2.
18 You'll find that AQ 45, which is page 19 20 0103 and 0104 and states again the same kinds of things.
In fact, on page 104, the statement is 21 that TRT determined that both vault procedures 22 l
were in compliance with the requirements 23 prescribed by in FSAR Section 17.1 and ,gf.29 s.24.
24 Q.
This is governing?
25 A. bir?
l v e
T (By Mr. Mulloy) 1 O. Okay. Let me got this 2
right. at they're saying here .s that TRT 3
evaluated two procedures governing permanent QA/QC 4
records for accountability and preservation and i, 5 found them to be in compliance?
6 A. That's correct. I 4
7 Q. Is that the finding that' he's writing 8 here? It seems to be he's talking about z
9 . procedures to control shipments? !
I 10 , A. Were not'there, yet.
11 Q. We're not?
{
4
)
_ 12 A. You're looking at his violations.
13 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) Where are we? -
14 A. )
They said accountability. I don't know 15 whether -- okay. I agree. He's talking about 16 shipment of records. Shipment of records is not 17 clearlyaddressedin$4 h other than receipt 18 control you have to bave, m de doesn't say how 19 you ship records. That's not even the proper 20 reference that the man's got. gr.z e
.5.?P=doesn't talk 21 about prohibition of food and drink.
22 TRT looked at how they handled records 23 c.2. ,
l and found them in conformance with y!_19. Now, . I 24 left this unresolved, again, as I recall rather l 25 than ducking the issues.
l g 4 % % "e#'
1
- indicoto that I left t is thing 2 unresolved. I believe what he was trying to do 3
was in conflict with what the TRT found.
4 Q. We're on what paragraph? s' 5 A. You're at the bottom of paragraph A,.page $
6 102-A? i 7 Q. So, this is paragraph 5-A of the draft 8 report?
9 A. Yeah. Let's see what I did with his 10 m'atix. If you wil2 look, fail to have procedures 11 -- excuse me. I QA manual did not address ANS(
\- JC.24 l 12 45T11 requirement for commitment, violation of j
13 Criterion V. That's what he's talking about.
14 Q. Right. Okay. And you're using SSER 11, i 15 page 99.
16 A. Yes, sir, and page 101 of AQ 45 and 0104 17 of AQ 45.
18 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) Repeat those 19 references. 099, 0104 and what was the other one?
20 A. 0105. i f
21 Q. So, basically --
22 A. There's enough conflict bere that I 23 certainly wouldn't have made a violation.
24 Q.
So, basically there's enough in(ormation 25 in the SSER to state that this manual does, in i
I l
I
~
1 fact, codeoss 97 2 A.
I didn't have-enough hours in the day to 3
try to check out everything Phillips brought over 4 to me.
5 Q. Okay.
6 (Off the record discussion.)
7 A. I think basically he said they didn't 8 A LS talk about each item in 40.2G. Nothing was ever 9
established, that they.didn't have detailed procedures that implemented all ofJCL9
~
10 .;.29 11 requirements.
Again, there 's lots of ways to 12 write a QA manual.
f 13 Q. Okay.
u 14 A. Let's see. Again, next item on the 15 matrix la paragraph 5-A, TUGCO failed to use 16 procedures to control shipments of original i
{
17 records to New York, considered a violation of 18 Criterion v. He said violation is down graded. ,
i 19 I don't quite, understand, you know, that I 20 terminology because in the inspection report, the i 21 violation Item D states that Criterion V of i 22 I Appendix B of 10 CFR 50 is implemented by TUGCO i 23 i QAP, section 50.110, dated July 31, 1984, requires !
24 i thatactivitiesforinspectionofdocumegtsshal1~
25 be described by document instruction procedures or j i
l i
I
l 1 drawin, of the type appropriate to the-2 circumstances and shall be accomplished in 3
accordance with inspection procedures and 4 drawings. =
5 / 7. /. / 7 section F7117 -of that safety analysis 6
report, Volume 14, Amendment 50, dated July 13, 7
1984, commitments to procedures require that 8 -
records be controlled and accounted for during 9
transfer between organizations, contrary to the 10 above.
Original sole source copied design records 11 on October 16, 1985, to be shipped to 12 Stone-Webster, to the main corporation in New 13
{ York, without the establishment and implementation 14 of procedures that are addressed required control 15 and inventory matrix. :
16 .Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) Do you have a copy of 17 the final report, an extra copy?
18 A. That's my copy.
19 Q. But that is s-20 A.
That's the public document that's in the 21 public docket room.
22 Q.
And there's a severity Level IV 23 violation?
24 A. That's true. I have a problem ith the 25 matrix.
I l
l
227 I
1 Q. The violation was --
2 A. They failed to have or use procedures to 3 control shipment of original register to'Itone 4 Webster New York. He said the violation was down 5 graded. In fact, 444 says, 'Someone other than 6 inspectors dropped the finding and advised 7 inspectors after dropping.'
8 I'm saying that that violation is very 9 clearly what was written.
10 O. (By Mr. Mulley) I don't even see where 11 in the draft report there's a violation level 12 assigned?
13 A. No. It would have to be in notice.of 14 violation. There's another draft notice of the 15 violation.
16 Q. Okay. So, I don't know where that came
'17 from. Did you offer any resistance to that 18 finding to Shannon or t'o I guess there was a 19 consultant involved in this? Tom Young was 20 involved in this report?
21 A. Yeah, Tom Young. I didn't go directly to 22 Tom Young on anything. I assigned Tom Young to 23 work for Shannon Phillips. AnythingIofd, I went 24 to Shannon Phillips. It would have been probably 25 a number of discussions.
i 228 1 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) What was the nature of 2 the discussions?
3 A. Well, if there was not to be a violation, 4 then there was quite a bit of discussion. If 5 there was to be a violation, then quite a bit of 6 limited discussion.
7 Q. Did you go out to the site?
8 A. I was at the site usually every Tuesday 9 through Friday.
- 10 Q. What was Phillips' reception to your 11 comments about this report? How would you 12 characterize his replies?
13 I really -- I know that Phillips at one
{ A.
- 14 point after we had been at this on and on, he 15 said, 'I just'can't go on with this."
16 I said, "You're not. making it any easier 17 on se, Phillips.".
18 Q. Do you recall /any lengthy discussions 19 with him over this inspection report in his 20 trailer?
21 A. Every time I got something he wrote up, I 22 went back and discussed it with him.
23 Q. And what basis did you use when,you h 24 discussed it with him?
25 A. I would normally tell him there's no
829 I requirement. You can't interpret it that way, 2 45.29. I don't interpret it that way.
E' 3 Q. And his reply would be that his 1 4 interpretation is different than yours? .
5 A. If he didn't go over'it, he come right 6 around and write it again. 1 I
7 -
Q. Would you characterize these discussions 8 as friendly discussions?
i 9 A. As far as of office, friendly in the j
~
10 beginning and he said, "Let me go back:and rework 11 this thing again" and they kept on and on and on.
12 Q. In the report there's a sentence, the 13 final report, Region IV is pursuing with IE 14 headquarters QA branch protection should be 15 afforded records and shipments.
16 Bave you got"something like that?
17 A. I had Shannon's meno. I wrote a memo
'i 18 firse for Mr. Johnson to send just as with no 19 comments on it. I wrote a second memo which l l
20 Mr. Johnson has. I don't know if he's ever put a 21 cover with it and sent it forward.
22 We got into all this turmoil. We got to 23 a point in time of holding onto everything that's I
24 going on until we can figure out how to resolve 25 the issues.
- rSO k
I 230 1
1 1
1 Q. It seems from the tenor of your 2 discussion, there's somewhat a difference o,i i e
3 opinion on records in a temporary location or in 4 transit. .
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. You have an opinion relative to the lack 7 of definitiveness on the r part of the LfC 0.20.
2o9
! 8 A. We're talking about the paper flow. We l
9 haven't got to that one. That's one he has down I 10 here.
I 11 Q. We're referring to this? l l
I 12 A. We're talking about procedures to control l 13 shipment to Stone Webster. I'm saying we cited l 14 them for not having -- ;
1 l 15 Q. It's not a violation?
16 A. -- used prodedures to control shipments.
l 17 They did have have. It turned out they did have.
18 Again, Mr. Phillips or'whoever didn't go through 19 and get everything that was available. It's 20 turned out in their reply to this notice of 21 violation that there is a TUGCO Procedure AD-4 3
22 which would saw with design records you keep a i
There was a procedure.
23 copy here and ship a copy.
24 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) So, then, the violation 25 would be they didn't follow the procedure?
. ,~.
231 1 A. I didn't know that based on what 6065 )
2 Mr. Phillips pbringing me. I was being told they 3 didn't have a procedure. The one I was s8own 4 looked like it.had expired. There was a, procedure 5 that looked like it had expired.
6 So, the feedback I was getting was there 7 wasn't any kind of control.
8 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) The sentence here --
9 A. I acted based on that.
~
10 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) The sentence here 11 is -- I'm just reading -- failure to have site 12 procedures to maintain and control accountability 13 of shipment of records is a violation.
14 Does that mean there was no precise l
15 procedure to maintain and control?
16 A. The utility replied there was a 17 procedure.
18 .Q . At this time, there wasn't? I 19 A. Yes, sir. There was one at that time.
20 I'm saying that, for whatever reason, that was not 21 brought to our attention. The inspector either 22 didn't get all the facts -- they have a general 23 tendency to grab one little fact and go dun with 24 it. I find a procedure, and it was expired. I go 25 run with it.
-m.,. . . . _ .
l l 232 1 Q. So, what we're saying, they had a 2 procedure in place; but they did not follow, their 3 procedure? j 4 A. That's what their response was to the 5 notice of violation. l 1
6 Q. The procedure was adequate?
7 A. They said that they had a procedure in i
8 place. They just didn't follow it. You're {
i 9 interested in the response to Item D. {
l I
10 Q. This violation and the report didn't 11 address the concern that Phillips and Young had 12 over the lack of inventory of these records being l i
13 sent off to another installation.
In fact, l 14 A. Yes, sir, I believe it does.
15 that's the citation, I believe. 'Without 16 establishment and implementation of procedures 17 that address required control and inventory 18 measures.* .
! 19 Q. What are you reading?
l 20 A. The violation that was sent, Item D.
l 21 Q. Item D.
22 A. In the paragraph, it's grouped together 23 in one place. f 24 A. Look at his matrix, see how he separated 25 the items out.
, ..~ -.__. .
l
233 i
1 Q. It appears that the matrix doesn't 2 exactly match.
3 A. As near as I could match'it, I tIied.
4 Q. Okay. ,
5 A. I would like to say that when I got into 6 this thing, my real concern was the fact that 7 these were records in the ASLB process. They were 8 part of discovery. Pipe support records is an 9 issue in the hearing process, and I was not
~
10 comfortable with the fact that they were shipping 11 them off the Stone Webster. I didn't see any 12 contro'1. I didn't know what kind of control-Stone 13 Webster had once they got, that they would be 14 preserved for the ASLB process.
15 I believe there were commitments that i 16 they would be available for the intervener to look
'17 at in their office; in Stone Webster and scattered i
18 out amongst four or fiv'e different places. With j 19 no commitment to actually preserve them, I was 20 very concerned with them. )
21 Other than the fact that it is their 22 pr ote:du re requirement that they keep copies, I 23 believe they could have shipped these tobSt one '
24 Webster; and had Stone Webster done the final 25 design records of calculatations, that's all that
234 i i
yt.2q[
1 would have been required under ,$.0,.
. 2 So, I think sole source records co,,uld be 3 shipped.
4 Q. I'm listening. .
5 A. Well, when we get to the next one, it t 6 will cover that again.
7 Q. Did you present this argument or your 8 beliefs to Phillips?
9 A. Well, you'll see this next one.
~
10
~
Q. It's the next issue that comes forth?
11 Okay.
12 A. Mr. Phillips has what I would call the 13 thought that if that record is on site, it never 14 leaves that site. If it leavees that site, it has 15 to have a back-up copy. I told him over and over
! 16 again, that's not any absolute requirement.
1
' I 17 The next one is records were shipped in 18 cardboard boxes without sak.ing a back-up copy. I l 19 think the violation states that sole source -
20 records were shipped without procedure or 21 inventory control. That is the one we just went 22 over, Item D in the notice of violation.
23 I do not see any citation for sdipping 1 24 them in cardboard boxes. I can't find anything in 25 thfLT wa.ew that prohibited them from being shipped in
~
'*#" ,as<*
6 #4.+=t .
a% s
t l
1 235 l i
' t./
In fact,-4,J.h9 1 cardboard boxes. .2;.doesn't even i
2 address how you ship records. !
gc.t.9 3 There's no requirement in 5.20 gr' other u
4 regulatory requirements that I'm aware of that ]
5 requires me to make a back-up copy if I'm going to 6 ship a sole source record.
I 7 ,
Q. Right. h does not address shipment 8 of records. -
l 9 A. Right.
~
_ 10 A. I also believe that I could ship sole 11 source records at my risk. I don't think there's 12 yi.L.9 anything in _5.39 that precludes that.- -
I f 13 I also discussed that with John Gilray in 14 the IE QAB branch who to my understanding would 15 agree,with me, that there's no regs controlling 16 the. method for shippi.ng sole source records.
17 Q. (By Mr. Mull'ey) Bu t N.f. 0'2 .) d o e s t a l k 18 about protection of records during restorage, 19 right? l 20 A. What is it in shipment? t 21 Q. Would it not be temporary storage?
22 A. No. It's in) process. Again, temporary 23 storage was up there. (
24 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) You say you talked to 25 John Gilray?
l 236 ,
I
'l 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. I gather he renders the opinion of, ,
- l 3 interpretation of standards to the QA? l 4 A. He's in the QAB. branch. I tried to the 5 to -- in fact, I did not go back to any of those 6 folks-to talk to them. I figured'somebody was 7 going to have to be a judge and jury on this thing i
'l 8 and without undue influence on folks, I just 9 wanted to -- I did it without trying to go back 10 and back it up.
11 Q. Under 5.3-it says here this procedure, i
12 I which is a procedure for storing records, shall 13 include the following as a minimum; and then under ,
14 6 are methods for maintaining control of 15 accountability of records removed from storage 16 facilities?
17 A. I believe they have that. In this case 18 as part of this violation, I said they didn't, you 19 know, because we didn't see proper inventory l
20 control for these records. They didn't follow the 21 procedures. That's the reply back. We said we 22 didn't see the procedure.
l 23 Q. The key is control?
24 A. Yes, sir.
25 Q. The word control?
e % , s w .,
i j 237 4
i 1 A. Yes, sir.
i
. 2 Q. The question is whether the standard of 3 control includes not just what goes on at'[he i 4 utility site, but also includes records in
- j R
5 transit, safeguarding of records in transit?
6 A. Yes, sir..
7 Q. And the question is whether the 8 application of qc.za, ,0.. includes that part of the 9 process as well.
~
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. And what you're saying -- let me clarify 12 what you're saying -- records in transit, the storage of those records in transit, in your I 13 l*
14 opinion, do you feel t}{a2 ;[ is applicable?
15 A. I believe that </f, ..2J, is s ile n t in t he 16 method of shipment.
17 Q. Well, that's the method of shipment. I'm 18 talking about the envit'onmental condition of the j 19 shipment of those records. In other words,_does 20 it have to be free of any problem associated --
21 A.
~
I don't believe that .$$ 29 -- again, I S.23 t
22 think ,/4,Lej
- 0. ,is silent on the shipment of records.
23 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) You don't cons der that 24 the shipment of records is temporary storage, to 25 be the same as temporary storage?
, , ~ , ,
838 1 A. No, sir, I do not. In fact, I think I
]
2 can call that records back in process. It',,s in the' process of going to its final permanent I 3
4 storage. ,
5 Q. It would seem to me, once again as a 6 novice, if we require such stringent protection of 7 records while on the. site and even in temporary 8 storage, that in the area where they're most 9 vulnerable of something happening --
10 A. Only a very short period of time you're 11 going to have this in shipment. It's not like 12 leaving them someplace for a period of time, 13 months, days or years or whatever. You're only i
14 talking about a day or two or three, whatever it !
15 takes.to ship the records.
16 J l'. I guess in that. respect, you're right. !
17 In that respect, it would make sense; but then, 18 again, though you are only talking a' day or two, !
19 the risk seems to me to be the greatest while in 20 shipment of something happening.
21 A. Well, I think there's always a risk when j l
22 it's out and somebody's pulled it out and taken it j i
23 back to his office.or the plant to do sodething 24 with it. I can go back and pull a final record,,
25 and it goes back in process then.
u___
l l
239 I
1 once they take it back out of permanent
. 2 storage and it's back in process, I'm going to go Vf h9 >
3 do something with it. 45_?! doesn't get Iown to 4 the point of saying if I take a record out of 5 storage, out of permanent records storage vault, ;
6 what I have got to do with it. \
l l 8
l 7 A man could take it and put it on his I I
8 desk and work'on it. Be has to turn it back in.
9 Otility can not afford not to have those records. I 10 when it's all over with, that's their liability, j 11 0. What we have here is that the licensee l 12 did have a procedure in place? f i
13 A. Just didn't follow it. , 4 14 Q. And we cited them. They didn't inventory 15 them,'the records. Afterwards, it looks likes
]
16 they had. -
'17 All I was -- I'm basing it on what the 18 inspectors were giving# se. It looks like they may 19 have had sort of an inventory. They sent a letter 20 along with it that was stamped ' received by Stone 21 Webster,' but it was not a detailed inventory.
22 I think Mr. Phillips and' Ior 3 23 q l Nr. Young, they wanted almost a page count of 24 every page. I don't know how we dictate 25 specifically to the utility how to run an l
m ..4.- . $ e*** =
- 240 t
1 inventory control.
~
2 Q. We cited them for not having a prosedure 3 in place; and we, NRC, cited the utility for lack 4 of inventory? ;
5 A. Yes.
l )
6 Q. We did say there was no inventory?
l 7 A. Yes.
8 Q. We cited them for not following the l 9 procedure?
~ I lo A. We cited them for not having a procedure J 11 in place, right, and then consequently the fact 12 that there was no back-up?
( 13 A. The citation says that they sent sole 14 source of records without proper inventory and 15 control.
16 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) It seems like based on i
l 17 the action that was finally taken on the j 18 violation, that the scope of the violation dealt 19 with the records as they were handled on site ir.
20 terms of inventory and in terms of issues 21 involving on site.
22 In terms of records in transit, the 23 preservation of records in transit -- f 24 A. I did not cite them.
25 Q. You did not cite them on that?
l
1 241 l l
1 A. I did not cite for shipping in cardboard I l
2 boxes. ,)
- i 3 Q. I want to make it clear. You did not? l 4 A. That we left unresolved. I know we left l
5 it. Then we would go to IE headquarters and see i 6 what their interpretation was. I not going to 7 eite them for shipment of records in cardboard
~
l 8 boxes. {
1 9 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) You did cite them for no 10 inventory?
11 A. That's correct? ,
12 A. I didn't cite them for not making back-up l l
- 13 copies.
l 14 Q. You didn't cite them for making back-up i
15 copy?
16 A. I don't believe'that's a requirement. I 17 cannot find that i n ,5 . 0.SFeither.
' In fact, it 18 doesn't talk about sole source. It doesn't go 19 that far.
20 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) Going back to the 21 words we had before, the method of maintaining 22 accountability for records removed from a storage 23 i
facility, in your opinion, you don't believe you 24 need a back-up copy to maintain control and 25 accountability?
n
.m_---_-_______-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ - _ . - _ _ _ _ . - . _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ - _ . _
l 44J i
)
)
1 A. No, sir. I can go to the permanent 2 records vault and check out the permanent record. ;
3 It's the only copy they got. That record.nao to 4 be returned. The utility has to have that record, q 5 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) Do you believe that the 6 failure to inventory the records --
7 A. No. I cited them for not having 8 inventory records. I don't believe they had 9 inventory records. They don't know what they a I
- 10 shipped, particularly on these records.
~
]
j 11 They have to under QC29
,5.25 have a receipt !
12 for control of records for what they shipped and j l
13 what was received. They have a likewise program i
l 14 for received.
15 Q..
Shipped in cardboard boxes, you could not 16 find nothing? .
17 A. I don't believe there's anything that 18 prohibits that. c 30 Q. The fact they didn't make a back-up 20 copy --
21 A. I don't believe anything prohibits that.
22 They did violate their own procedure which said 23 you will have a back-up copy. In other fords, 24 they're going to maintain a copy one place or 25 another when they ship a record. I would cite l
l l
r .. --
F 243 i
i 1
1 them. If I had that procedure in hand, I would l 2 cite them for not following thair own procedure.
3 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) But not necessarily in 3
r v f. 7 9 4 non-conformance with M. 97 ,
5 A. Just for their own internal procedure.
6 In fact, even the storage requirements commences
~
)
7 at the time of commercial operation from the
$ records have to be stored forever how long they're .
'i 9 kept, for a lifetime, six months, two years, l l
10 whatever. time of 1 It doesn't startec. until,the
- e. '
11 commercial operation under-45.22.
12 Q. Okay. Let me just clarify that. That 13 doesn't necessarily mean you have quality records
]
14 and you're still in an NTOL plant. You have some 15 freedom to deal with those records between N?OL 16 and'zero time of the commercial operation? fl 17 A. Normally the time I issue a license, they !
l l
18 should have the records that they're supposed to. ,
19 Q. NTOL doesn't have the f reedom to dispose 20 of its records between the time to create those '
' records and the time they get their license.
21 22 A. I don't believe. Irregardless, the 23 record has to be somewhere available and 1 24 established who is going to keep it, be that stone 25 Webster, be that Westinghouse. There always has i
J
_ _ _ _ _ __m__ -I._ _ %A -
244 l
l 1 to be control of records.
~
2 Q. For example, a record has a one-ye.ar l
-d 3 retention requirement. Effectively that means l 4 from what you're saying -- I'm just trying to 5 clarify.
4 A. At the time of commercial operation, if 1 they want to then get rid of it, that's one year 8 down the line. It's the NTOL. It's only after I !) they get in commercial operation, and one year
~
10 from that then they can throw the records away.
11 Q. If they create the record now and they l
12 got their license a month from now and it has a l 13 one-year retention requirement, effectively they 14 would have 13 months?
15 A. That's correct. More than that because j 16 it's a commercial operation. That's usually about 17 six or seven sonths down the line.
1 18 ~Q. (By Mr. Mulley) What does this have to I 19 do with the problem of storage and stuff.
20 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) It is a retention t 6 2A requirement that's the basis for ,}0.20. That's 21 22 the whole basis.
f 23 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) That's when you. talk 24 about when the calendar starts ticking off.
25 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) Be was just 4
._-______._J
! 245-l , g
~ '
I t
s .n l
1 describing -- ,
i 2 A. I was describing when a record, for
-l 3 example, can b.e taken and destroyed. Ee .er a s ')
l
'
- j J
( 4 asking how long would I have to have l
5 accountability of reco :ds. -
l 6 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) 1'h a t ' y Lil we're {
i 7 talking about. .,
QC Z9 ,
8 A. I'm talking about what 45.20 says. .
s , ,.
9 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) tokay. I'm just '
~
~
10 following up on his points I wasnft going'to ask \
11 a question until he raised that' question about his *
')
gc. 2. cy '
z 12 statement that was made regarding 1!.20.
13 (Short recess.)
14 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) Okay. For the record, 15 please summarise those portions of these several 16 violations concerning'the shipw.snt of records that 17 you agreed with and these portions that you did
^
I 18 not feel were violationn. ,
19 A. I did not believe that there was a 20 violation for shipping the records in cardboard 21 boxes without making a back up' copy. I l
i s
22 Q. And the teason you don't feel this was a {
5 ., *!
23 violation? '
j
$E~ 9 l 24 A. Because I think at the t.4.me h t+-is l i
T !
25 silent on the method of shipment end tho.
,#.o i 4 . '
\ e, l
7 see l
l 1 requirement to make a back-up copy. ,
l 2 Q. Argument has been made that although j3 hEfhissilent concerning the shipment of- 1 4 records, it provides requirements for the 5 protection of records during temporary storage.
- 6 A. Okay, j i
7 Q. Why do you not consider the shipment to 8 be temporary storage?
9 A. I go to the basis, that you can call.them
~
10 1n** process. If they're in-process, then they l l
11 don't have any. requirements on the storage 12 requirements flor the temporary time that they're l
l 13 in process from A to B. )
I
)
14 Q. Now, did the licensee call these records l 15 in-process records?
l 16 . A. No. The licensee's procedure, which they violaited, required there to be a copy maintained I 17 18 st TUCCO before they sh'ipped them. l 1
19 Q. Okay.
20 A. I'm saying to you that I think this ]
21 utility from all the stuff we got into on these 22 records is.)ust about at the point of declaring 23 all records in-pro'ess c up to the point add the 24 time they go in. the permanent records vault.
L 25 Q. Did you cite the utility for having w.m 4
e , . .. -
^ - A
1 l
247 I violated their procedure?
2 A. I cited them for not having proper 3 inventory and control of the records that were 4 shipped to Stone Webster.
5 Q. Now, since the utility had a procedure 6 that required them to have a back-up copy when ;
7 t' hey ship recprds --
8 A. I would have cited them for not following 9 their procedure had I known that. I would have 10 cited them for non-compliance with their procedure l 11 as far as making a back-up copy and whatever 12 inventory control. I haven't been to look at 13 that.
14 Q.. Didn't you tell me that they had a i l
15 procedure that requir,ed a back-up copy?
16 A. I said I would cite them against their 17 procedure for not makin.g that back-up copy. I 16 would cite them against their procedure.
19 Q. But did you? l 1
20 A. I didn't, no. The inspector never 1
21 identified to me that they had this procedure. l 22 Q. Okay. Now, it's clear.
f 29 A. Our citation said they didn't ha've a 24 procedures and, besides that, they didn't have 25 inventory control.
- -.- . .....~. . . . . .
248 1
L 1 Q. When the inspector was writing the l
2 report, he was citing against the wrong - .he had 3 not gone out to find out all the facts.
4 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) So, the bottom line is 5 he cited against criterion 5 instead of citing l 1
6 against criterion 177
)
7 A. Sure. j 8 Q. They didn't follow procedure.
l 9 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) At the time, when this
. . \
10 inspection report was going through your ]
1 11 supervision and review, you had no knowledge and 12 the inspector did not tell you that there was a ,
13 procedure?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. In fact, the. violation was against 5 for 1
17 not having a procedures and for not shipping. I i'
18 Q. So, basically we cited them for not 19 having a procedure when, in fact, they did have a 20 procedure?
21 A. We also cited them for not having control 22 and inventory for the records they shipped, which f
23 was really the basis for the citation.
24 Q. And we could have cited them for 25 violating a procedure?
I l
l _
i l
U___.-___________________
249 1 A. If we had known it.
If he had known they had a procedu,re?
2 Q.
ah 3 A. Yes.
4 (Off the record discussion.)
5 A. The next one deals with failure to 6 account for QA design records, transfer cite to
. ZOI 7 Stone Webster, New York, Criterion 14; and what 8 was stated here -- the matrix was changed from 9 Criterion 17 to Criterion 5, but do not recall
~
10 being coordinated.
11 I would point out that, again, all these 12 drafts went back and forth between Mr. Phillips.
. 13 In fact, the typing on these drafts were done on i
14 the computer that's over in Mr. Shannon Phill.ips' j l
l l 15 trailer.
16 Mr. Barnes sould indicate to me -- and l l
! 17 you can talk to him again -- that the NOV, Item D, i
18 was given to Phillips to review and comment after 19 it had been re1ritten. No comment was iven to Mr. Barnes by Mr. Phillips for changing S
t o 1%
20 21 Document 4-A, which is in that package on 22 the front of that document, was a handwritten f
statement on the cover page from Mr. Barnes to 23 24 Mr. Phillips requesting any comments from I
25 Mr. Phillips prior to my submitting the edited 1
I 250 i
1 Version. No comments were ofrered to Mr. Barnes 2 by Mr. Phillips. So, coordinated, I don't know.
3 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) The substanct i of this, 4 quite apart from the go-between the two parties, 5 what are we talking about?
6 A. It's an argument whether it should be 7 Criterion or It wasn't coordinated. I'm 8 saying the document was sent over and asked to be 9 commented on.
10 Q. Is the issue failure to follow procedures 11 or failure to have a procedure?
12 A. Failure to have a procedure.
13 Q.~ (By Mr. Mulley) Do you feel that the I 14 rsason no comments came back from Mr. Phillips to 15 be as a result of the argument that you and he had 16 previously over this inspection report?
17 A. I don't even remember him making any 18 comments. We didn't ha've any discussion on vs.
19 5 at all.
20 Q. I'm talking about the whole general 23 inspection. report.
22 A. I don't know.
23 Q. There was quite a bit of discusdion.
24 A. I would say he was given full opportunity 25 to review and if he had a real problem of making
- **
- w
i 251 1 y ~t G \
1 it a Criterion A violation from a l1Lto bring up .
. /
2 any comments.- In fact, Mr. Barnes gave him ample 3 opportunity to make any comments he wante8'on it.
4 Q. Information that was reported was that 5 you felt that these violations when they first 6 came up they weren't really violations and that 7 you sided with the utility and that you attempted l
8 to pressure Young and Phillips into deleting or 9 changing the violations, downgrading them.
~
l- 10 A. I didn't side with utility. I did try to l i
11 give the utility the opportunity to tell 12 Mr. Phillips they didn't agree with him, and they l- 13 did to some extent.
{
l 14 In fact, I had a meeting over there with i
! 15 one of the vice-presidents of TUGC0 and their QA l
16 manager at the time and I gave' them -- and 17 Mr. Phillips -- gave the utility the opportunity 18 to speak back, and they did speak on some; but I 19 was giving them the opportunity to voice their own l
20 voices, not what I voice here as mine, not 21 anything to do with the utility.
22 Q. Do you think that someone could get the 23 perception by arranging these meetings tdat you 24 were siding with them?
25 A. I wouldn't think so. I arranged that O
ce%9
252 i
1 meeting so that be could clearly state what his 2 problems were, to give the utility an op ortunity 3 to respond. ;
4 Q. Do we have an exit briefing on this 5 inspection report?
6 A. Yes, we do.
7 Q. What was the utility's response on these 8 violations?
9 A. We would not have gone over these
~ ~
10 v1olations -- wait a minute. We probably talked 11 about these issues, and it's in here in this
)
12 document I gave your but I think by that time we 13 got them down, because I acted up front, we got 14 them down to the -- we're going to carry it as
\
15 unresolved or whatever rather than say, bey, this j
.. J 16 is a violation and this is a violation. j 17 Q. So, you became involved during the 18 inspection itself not sfter the fact?
19 A. Because I was on site. I 20 Q. Now, the next one deals with the fact 21 that the individual made the statement that the 22 design records were shipped without making back-up 23 I
copies because it cost too much, and Mr.'PhilliPs 24 indicated he thought this related to the cause of 25 violation; and I think it also stated it was the
l 293
- 1 1 company's policy to proceed on risk.
2 I would indicate that Mr. Phillips or
-s' l 3 Mr. Young or whoever -- I got both names here on j l
4 the matrix -- talked to the first level .
5 supervisors and if we're going to present a report 6 like that on TUGCO's management position on 7 r-ecords that's not true -- ]
8 Q. (By M 'r. Goldberg) Uh-huh.
JC I 9 A. 44 s went to the next level of supervision J
. A-
~
10 or Mr. Fenner/km said to me, 'I went back just to ;
l Il see how come we did ship them like that." It was l I
12 a matter of expediency to get the records because 13 because they didn't know what kind of time frame 1
14 they had. I don't think he was aware that they 15 had a' procedure. l l
16 Q. You said tha't these discussions and stuff 17 you had with Phillips, they continued for quite l 18 some time. Do you reca'11 any discussions right 19 after this going on for half a day?
20 A. Probably on this record, quite a bit of 21 time.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. It's taken us how long togoovfrit so 24 far today.
25 MR. MULLEY: We'll stop at this L-__-_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _______.____m._ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
254 1 point.
2 .
3 (whereupon the deposition 4 was recessed at 6:30 p.m. until' Friday, 5 July 12, 1986.)
6 7
8
, 9 i
10 11 12 13 I 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 f
23 .
24 25
1 STATE OF .EXAS
- 2 COUNTY OF HARRIS
- 3 4 I, Trisha Sims, a certified shoikhand reporter and notary public, in Barris County for 5 the State of Texas, certify that the facts stated in the caption hereto are true; that the' witness 6 named herein personally appeared before me and, after being by me first carefully cautioned and 7 sworn to tell the truth, was examined by counsel for the respective parties heretor that the 8 testimony of said witness was taken down in shorthand by me, later reduced to typewriting 9 under my direction as a true and correct record of the testimony.
~
10 I further certify that I am neither 11 attorney or counsel for, nor related to or employed by, any of the parties to the action in '
12 which this deposition is taken and, further, that I am not a relative or employee of any counsel 13 employed by the parties hereto, or financially interested in the action. '
14 GIVEN UNDER MY BAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE on 15 this the 13th day of July, 19,86.
16 s i
~
/ Ad P P)1 9 17 Notary Public in and for Harris County, T E X A S i 18 -
Certification Number: '2035 19 Date of Expiration of Current Certification: 12/31/86 20 21 -
22 .
23 f 24 25 l
- *i -
_ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ . . . . . _ . -