ML20238A542
| ML20238A542 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 07/11/1986 |
| From: | Westerman T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237F760 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8708210005 | |
| Download: ML20238A542 (182) | |
Text
-- - -- - --
I l
UNu tO STATES l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
- 1 t
l IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO:'
INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW a .
q.
LOCATION: ARLINGTON, TEXAS FAGES: 257-411 l
I DATE: FRIDAY, JULY 11, 1986 1
l 1
s i ACE-FEDERAL REPORERS, INC. .
, E Street
~w-.. -
d)M7-3700 NATIONWIDE CCMutM2
\
8708210005 870819 PDR ADOCK 05000445 'l G PDR '
. I i
SWORN STATEMENT OF
$TOMWESTERMANp VOLUME II July 11, 1986 9:30 a.m., C.D.T.
LOCATION: NRC Region IV l
Arlington, Texas TAKEN BY: George Mulley j o l I
i e
e TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
?
I _m _ ,
[ g p. 257' !
1 PROCEEDINGS.
2 Thereupon, 3 ,
i fTOM WESTERMAN 4 resumed the stand and, having been previously duly 5 cautioned and sworn l testified further upon his o'ath as .
6 follows:
7 FURTHER EXAMINATION 8 By Mr. Mulley:
9 Q We're back on the r'ecord. It's 9:30 a.m., July 10 the lith. Present is George Mulley, Steve Goldberg, Tom 11 Westerman and a new court reporter, Pat Tate.' I'd like to 12 remind you, Tom, that you are still under oath. It's just
( 13 a continuation of yesterday's interview.
14 A Yesterday, we were talking about the traveler, 15 which is ME79248-5500, dealt with reactor vessel 16 installation. There were questions about whether QA had-17 approved it, whether QC had inspected. And so I went back 18 and looked at several things including the procedure that I 19 gave you that dealt with the traveler control and how 20 they're changed and who signs and who approves.
21 I pointed out, I think the other day,.that on the ;
22
.I front cover, it's the signatures of " reviewed by Richard !
23 Ice," may be it's the second, who is a Brown & R80t QE.
24 We then had some questions about inside the 25 traveler, if QC had inspected or verified or what have you.
TATP MEPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
258 ;
i 1 And If you will look in the second column on the j 2 traveler -- do you still have a copy? You go to Page 2, 3 second column at the_ top there, you'll see "QCV," that 4 means the QC verifies those conditions.
5 0 (By Mr. Mulley) QA and QC, are they the same?
6 A You know, you can talk QA/QC, but what that f 7 really means, they're.hard to separate. QC is normally the I
j 8 inspection function. QA is normally an over -- over the ,
f 9 overall program.
~
10 Q So I guess the question is when we have QC f -
i 11 people --
l 12 A I think from this site it's kind of hard to .
separate what -- a quality engineer, now what is that? Is 13 14 *he quality assurance or quality control.
15 I'm showing you what the steps in here are. QCV 16 means QC verified, means a man that was qualified to
. 1 17 inspect went out and inspected it.
O 18 Q (By Mr. Mulley) .I guess the question I'm asking, 19 by having this QC verified, are we saying the QA was 20 involved in the setting of the installation of the reactor 21 vessel?
22 A QA was involved. In fact, QA signed off on the 23 front. Richard Ice. I will show you a place inshere where l 24 actually TUGCO QA did apparently witness some of the f 25 operation. .
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
-_----_--_-__...__---------_I
- .x >
359 1 On this next page which is three of eight, l
2 there's a "QCW," that means QC witnessed that operation.
3 There's a signature on the right hand side over there where 1
4 the QA/QC engineer signs; again means that a qualified I 5 inspector witnessed that operation, which is. Operation 6 No. 2 on the traveler. ,
1 7 If you will turn over to page four of eight, you l 8 will see in Step No. 11 there where TUGCO QA asked to be 9 notified when we got ready to lift the vessel and check for
_ 10 surface contact between the top of the shim plates and the 11 bottom of the support pads; 75 percent contact is required.
12 on the right hand side over there by the name of -
( 13 I see "Mr. C. Bufkin." To the right of his name right 14 there is initials showing that he's the one that put the 15 note in there.
16 On the right hand side in the column is says 17 "QA/QC Engineering," that second sign off there is 18 Mr. J. Hawkins, is my understanding, and that he'is -- was 19 the TUGCO QA manager. Some title equivalent to that.
20 Did that answer the kind of questions you -- I 21 would point out over on the one that is, as far as on the 1
22 one that we're getting into the question about whether the l l
23 change in, where the change in the shims and what have you, 1
l 24 was a proper change per the procedure. If you will look on l 25 page seven of eight, and if you also look -- if you looked TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
260-1 attheproceduregoverningthechangest[thetraveler,you 2 would find that Mr. C. -- I don't know -- I don't know 3 exactly, I think it's C. Hart, initialed, that the 4 Westinghouse rep Paul Thomas initialed, that the second 5 Westinghouse rep, Mr. CWS, I believe I was told this 6 morning that that's samaney; that Mr. Richard Ice, who's 7 Q,A/QC , initialed. And it's my understanding that would :
8 meet the acceptable change procedure requirements for 9 making a change to the traveler.
10 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) I guess it gets back to the I
11 issue of whether a traveler is considered to be a procedure 12 in structure or not. It all gets back to that issue. ,
(. 13 A Well, I think I could -- I think I could say it 14 ' depends on how you write it as to what you do with it.
15 This one is written fairly complete as a procedure. And it 16 was accepted by Westinghouse as an acceptable procedure by ,
- i 17 their signature on the f.ront of this traveler package.
18 Q And to clarify it one more step, when we got the 19 Page 7 of 8, which is the code clearance issue, you are 20 stating that this is a installation change, not a design 21 change?
- !2 A Yes, sir.
23 Q And stays within the margin of design?
24 A Yes, sir. . ,
i 25 Q. And you are predicating that on the concurrence TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
- = _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
i 1
i 361 !
I
_j 1 of Westinghouse? ,
1 2 A Concurrence of Westinghouse, plus I provided you j i
3 a letter yesterday from where Westinghouse went back and 4 looked at it and said that those clearances were acceptable
~
5 in their design. l i
6 Q (By Mr. Mulley) Now, when all this was out f 7 briefed in the exit, the utility had no -- when the
]
8 original report was briefed in the exit by the --
1 1
9 A You normally go -- are you through?
~
1
\
- 1 l _,
10 0 Well, when the inspection report was briefed in 0
11 the exit, did TUGC0 have any questions about what had been 12 written down? {
( 13 A Since I wasn't -- since I wasn't there, I don't 14 know what, if any questions. I know when I went back to 15 discuss this, that there seemed to be quite a bit of j l
16 questions..
l 17 Q okay. So you --
6 18 A And I didn't even initially tackle this one until 19 I got the NRR comment from Mr. Haughney that said that he, ,
20 to me a traveler looked like a detailed procedure, some of I
21 the ones he'd seen in his procedure. :
22 Q (By Mr. Mulley) So that's an interesting point, 23 then. A lot of the -- the genesis of some of th6se changes 24 resulted from a review by NRR, Mr. Haughney. Is that 25 correct?
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l 362' 1 A That came as a result of his comment, that caused 2 me to go back and look to.see, you know.
3 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) You said he was a consultant 4 to NRR, he's not a employee of the NRC7 5 A He's a previous employee of the NRC, I believe.
J 6 Q But currently he's not at NRC--
7 A No, sir. But he was reviewing this in 8 conjunction with Mr. Tramme , who is the NRR, I guess we 9 call him the super project manageer.
_ 10 Q So to make this very clear, you're using a 11 consultant to -- as a reviewer of inspection reports?
12 A I am not using a consultant. NRR has
( 13 Mr. Haughney reviewing the inspection report along with 14 'ltr. Trammel based en the f act that Mr. Haughney was 15 previous NRC employee, who I believe was in IE headquarters 16 on the --
17 Q But currently he's not an NRC employee; is that c
18 correct?
I 19 A He's only an NRC employee due to the fact that 20 they use him as a consultant.
21 Q Is he being paid by the NRC as an employee to the i 1 22 NRC at this time?
5 23 A As a consultant, yes, sir. -y i
l 24 Q As a consultant. That's different than as an <
25 employee, though? ,
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713)1222-7177 I'
263' ;
i.
1 A There's no difference to using a consultant, I 2 believe, to go out and do inspections. ,
3 o sut wait a minute. Let me try to ask the 4 question to you. Do you know of any other occasions where 5 Region IV has used a consultant to review, to help in the l
6 management review of inspection reports?
7 A Region IV has not used any consultants in the 8 review, other than to review what they have written that
~
I' 9 they put into an inspection report.
~
10 Q Don't you think it's u usual to have a consultant 11 be in the chain of review?
l 12 A The man who gives the concurrence is Mr. Noonan.
( 13 And you will find that it's his concurrence on the front of 14 the inspection report.
l 15 0 (By Mr. Mulley) That's NRR doing, anyway, right?
16 A Well, they based that on whatever discussions go 17 on between Mr. Haughney,.Mr. Noonan and Mr..Tramme .
18 Mr. Haughney normally briefs Mr. Noonan, I believe, on 19 everything that's in the report and indicates to him the WT i 20 particular significant things. It's my understand that he 1
21 ought to be aware of what all is in the report. NRR is --
22 has not been in the inspection report business.
23 Q (By Mr. Mulley) Did this report originally go 24 through you on its way up to NRR7 25 A Yes.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
1 264 1
1 Q So you reviewed the report in its' original state 2 before Mr. Haughney got it?
3 A Yes, sir, I did.
4 0 when you reviewed it, did you have any problems !
5 with what you had seen?
6 A I didn't try to go back and go through everything 7 ie this report to'see, you know. The issues that I talked 8 to about initially that just struck me that I ought to look 9 at -- I mean, by just looking at it didn't -- either I 10 looked at it or I got some feedb ck from Mr. Barnes or ;
j 11 Mr. E11ershaw that they didn't look technically correct or j
i -
)
{ 12 there was a problem there, where the ones we initially went
]
(- 13 back on. And then when I got subsequent questions, then I u
1 14 went back to check out those questions.
15 MR. MULLEY: For the record --
16 A -- because I thought the questions were 17 legitimate.
18 MR. MULLEY: For the record, to clarify the 19 record, I would like to say we're talking about inspection 20 report 85-07/05.
21 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) So your changes to this issue 22 stemmed from the comments that came back frca NRR7 23 A Yes. The man asked me, 'Isn't it a det%iled 24 procedure?" I went to look at it and I said, "Yes, it-
- 25. looked to me like it was a detailed procedure." And then I l . TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (71'3) 222-7177 3
t L___u_-______----...--__ - - - _ -
265 I went into looking at what was there. And that's how, you 2 know, that's how I got into it.
3 ,
I wasn't trying to clean this whole report up 4 when I -- I was going to try to get the report out as 5 timely as I could get it. When I first looked at'it, I had 6 problems with it.
7 Q But your changes didn't ensue until after the NRR 8 comments came back?
9 A well, initial changes. Those first changes I 10 showed you up to the time that Mr. Phillips signed on the 11 report were the ones that stemmed from my review and 12 others, not -- I don't know that -- I don't believe I had I
( 13 any input from NRR at that time. j 14 '
Q But on this particular issue, your changes didn't
{
15 occur until after the NRR input came in?
]
16 A The second set of changes, the changes to the I 17 report after it was signed, that's correct; NRR and ELD. l 6 l 18 Incidentally the issue on the codes and standards rules '
\
19 that we went through, that came from ELD what I was going 20 to do with that was reviewed with Mr. Gary Mizuno at ELD.
21 Q (Dy Mr. Mulley) What I would like to do, if vc '
22 could, is because this inspection report was a significant l i
23 part of the total reason we're here and because the 24 allegations concerning, you know, the violations of the 25 reactor vessel was such a significant part of this
, TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
e 266 i
1 inspection report, and I have a lot of testimony, you know, 2 from previous people on that. I just want to make sure 3 tih at while you're here I get everything.
4 And this might be a little bit repetitive but at 5 least I know -- I'm going through now some testimony -- so 6 I'll know exactly how you're answering some of these issues 7 that are dropped, or raised by some of the inspectors.
8 Concerning the violation on the allegation 9 concerning, you know, changes'being made on the traveler,
~
10 your response to that is, you considered the traveler, or 11 you consider the traveler to be in effect a procedure.
12 A That's correct.
( 13 Q Is that correct?
14 -
A Also indicated that Westinghouse concurred l'n 15 that traveler, which was also a part of the Westinghouse 16 proprietary class two document provided the utility which 17 recommended that the Westinghouse field representative 18 review the procedure that they write.
19 0 okay. The violation concerning clearances I-20 between the reactor vessel support brackets and support 21 shoes were not within the tolerance stated in the 22 construction operation traveler and the condition was not 23 reported in a nonconformance report. '
. l 24 A okay. I viewed that as an installation criteria t 25 that an appropriate change was made to the traveler in
, TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
i i
1
. 1 267 1 l 1
i 1
1 accordance with the traveler governing procedure for 2 administrative control of travelers.
3 ,
O It says that the other one is that there's no 4 evidence that TUGC0 had audited either the vessel tool .)
5 installation specifications, placement procedures, actual 6 hardware placement or as built records.
Do we really want to go through that one again?
7 A 8 Q Well, I just want to --
9 A Because we went on and on on that one.
_ 10 Q No, he said, apparently your reason that you )
d 11 provided to the inspector was, "Well, they don't have to, .
4 l
12 they don't have to audit that." Is that accurate?
( 13 A. I believe we had a discussion on whether they 14 have to audit every component that's in the plant. And i
15 unless somebody provided me something that said they had a
! 16 commitment to audit the reactor vessel installation, that I 17 didn't see that that was a requirement. I think when I l 18 talked at the time was to g'o back at to look to see if 19 there weren't surveillance, okay. 4 20 And in my view and I don't remember how -- how 21 far we get into the discussion. In my view, that there 22 was -- if they hadn't audited, for example, in the 23 mechanical area, it might be a basis for violation.
[
24 However, we're back again looking at '81, '82 25 time frame, which is covered under TRT, which is covered
.. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
l
I 368 1 6
l' 1 under an ISAP, for which, you know, enforcement action has 1
2 been taken, which the response plan is only a part of that, j 1
3 ,' In fact, the response -- the response as to that f i 4 violation or if it had been written would be -- would 5 address that via our Comanche Peak response plan.'
6 Q In the fact that the installation of the reactor 7 vessel appears to be a significant component and even 8 though it wasn't required to be audited, should have been. l 9 A Again, after having' looked at this traveler, I
_ 10 don't know what was documented. But I do see on here that
{
11 TUGCO QA required to be notified and that Mr. Hawkins was 12 notified, that Mr. Hawkins went to the plant, and he C. 13 signature is over here it looks like.on the right hand side 14 bf the traveler, on Page 4 of 8. What he did there and why 15 he documented it, I don't know. It may not have been an 16 audit, but it looks to me like QA, TUGCO QA went to the 17 site again.
18 Q Were you aware of the information on this l 19 traveler at the time that the decision was made to not cite ;
1 l
20 TUGco?
l
]
I 21 A What kind of information on the traveler.
22 Q The stuff on this --
23 A The question -- no -- oh, as far as thd audit? , l
. 1
[ 24 Q Yeah, yov know you're --
1 25 A That's part of what the discussion was to go back 1
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177- l l
l
269- ;
1 1 to see what had been, if there was some -- an opportunity ,
2 to go see if there had been surveillance or what have you.
3 I didn't, when I locked at this traveler, look at that 4 particular aspect. I'only -- I noted that when I started 5_ looking at it this morning. I would expect the i'nspector 6 to have gone through this traveler in. detail at the time he 7 did his inspection.
8 Q Well, I guess that's my question. If the I
9 inspector went through the-traveler as he should have and l
__ 10 you're stating things now that indicate that certain things-11 were done.
12 A Yes.
13 Q. What is your explanation for that?
14 A I can't say how thorough, how thorough a job that 15 the inspector did, or effort that he went through.
5 16 Q But at the time that you were discussing this --
17 A At the time I discussed it, I did not see that O
18 you cited them for not auditing every component in the 19 plant, because they said how far would you carry that down.
20 Pretty soon you've got QA doing QC inspections.
21 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) Do you know the difference.
22 between a surveillance and an audit?
23 A A surveillance, it depends. Different6 people do 24 different, have surveillance different ways.
25 0 okay. The QA signatures that are shown here, are TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
- j
y
' af i 270' ')
1 these shown to be audit reviews or surveillance?
.. 2 A I don't know. I just noticled that signature 3 this morning,' so I don't know what was documented other ;
4 than the fact that --
5 Q what would.you expect it to be, these signatures A
6 as.they're shown here, would you expect them to be in the
.i 7 (ashion of surveillance that had been conducted or audits?
8 A I woul'd probably think that's a surveillance.
9 Q And according to Appendix B, are you aware that
- 10 there are differences between what a surveillance is and I 11 what an audit is? ..
y l
12 A Yes, sir, I am. j
- k. 13 Q Does a surveillance substitute for age audit, in 14 your mind? q 15 A No. I think -- but it's another mark, it's a a q.
16 management tool similar to an audit. It just doesn't have 17 the formality normally that an audit would have.
18 Q In other words, surveillance, you wouldn't 19 necessarily take credit for it in an audit?
20 A ch, I think -- yeah, I think if TUGC0 made some 21 'very easy changes to what they do for surveillance they I
22 }couldprobablymakeanauditoutofit. But, no, sir, it's i 23 not per se an audit per the ANSI standards. ',
24 0 (By Mr. Mulley) But bottom line on this specific 25 violation, the chief reason that you didn't feel it was l' _-
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713)B272.7177 7
i
l Il I.
4 i
271- '
, l
} ]
I appropriate is that they weren't required and you didn't 2 see any reason --
3 A They're not required to audit every component t, 4 that goes in that plant. !
5 Q As far as I'm concerned that takes care' of that 6 inspection report and we can go back to 85-14/11, where we !
7 left off.
8 MR. GOLDBERG: A suggestion might be to go to the' 9 issue that we had added, which was what happened to the N - 10 violation in terms of the response of the licensee.
I 11 Q (By Mr. Mulley) I reviewed that, the licensee 12 did correct that situation. We're talking about the -- ,
( 13 A Records?
14 -
Q Yes, that even though the --
15 A violation said they didn't have a procedure and 16 they didn't have inventory control and -- okay.
t
) 17 Q They responded adequately that they would follow I' o l
18 their own procedure, too. ,
19 A That's correct.
20 Q okay.
21 A okay. The next. item is off of the matrix that 22 you have, on inspection reported 85-14 and 85-11, that
( 23 Mr. Phillips has provided, states that ' Site reecrds of -l 24 Chicago Bridge 4 Iron were shipped to Houston in cardboard 25 boxes, originals subjected to little protection without l
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 I
272' I retaining backup copy at the site, in violation of
! 2 Criterion 17."
c./f,2 7 3 The only thing in LE2&-on the shipment of reports 4 would be proper shipmerit control from on site from Chicago 5 Bridge & Iron shipping those records. That's not'what's '
6 cited here. I do not believe that shipping the records, 7 whether it was cardboard or wooden boxes, to Chicago Bridge 8 & Iron without making backup copios, violates Criterion 17, 9 In fact, criterion 17 says almost nothing about ~- in fact, 10 I don't think it says anything abcut shippiny records. I 11 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) At this time were the records 12 in the control of TUGCO or Chicago Bridge & Iron?
(. 13 A No, sir, the records were in centrol of Chicago j 14 Bridge & Iron.
15 Q Did Chicago Bridge & Iron have a DA program? 4 16 A Yes, sir, they did.
17 Q Did they treat.these as quality records?
o 18 A Yes, sir, they did.
- /4;29 1 19 Q Under what version of ANSI &&&5 were they under? >
20 A I do not know.
21 Q Did you look at the OA procedures for records ,
Sfor m7 e- l 22 chcrtage at Chicago Bridge & Iron? ,
h 23 A I haven't looked at those. The inspectors were .
I 24 going to look at those.
25 Q Did they look at -- did they give you any input TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 t
~- ~
4 . , ,
- .s n
.s W
, 273 I l
1 1 on those?
y i 2 .A That'was one of the things that, I think, that i
i 3 'w left'that.the inspectors were going to look at, as I !
4 i reher.ber, in the report. I know they did look at some 5 procedures, too. . And I didn't go look at them. I.didn't.
o.
6' .have -- again, I'm not going to.go check out every item l
7 that - 'the issue here was shipping them'in boxes with l 8. little protection without maintaining a backup copy.
9 And I don't -- I have found that the records'were
_ 10 shipped back to Houston.for inve tory and reproduction, 11 .same as Chicago Bridge & Iron did with the records from the 12 Birmingham shop. They were combined with the records from
( 13 the site and then were sent back to the site. The l
1 14 Birmingham records were also reproduced and inventoried at 15 Chicago Bridge & Iron, Houston.
l 10 Q Did you view this issue as somewhat similar to 17 the issue with Stone & Webster, in the sense of the I 1
Isn't there --
18 's'hipment control of records' during transit.
i 19 going b'ck a to yesterday's discussion, do you have -- is 20 your opinion based on.what you said yesterday on this 21 issue, d h and Appendix B are not clear on this issue? l 1
22 A Are not clear on this issue, yes, sir, that's j J
23 correct. ', I i
24 0 Is that -- !
25 A And I also said -- but, you know, like I say, I
. . I TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l i
4
(
i 274 l 1 could say I could view these as in-process if I'm going to
,' 2 take them and then be inventoried and combined with other 3 records.to make one complete package for which I'm then 4 going to provide back to the utility. And I did indicate
~
5 _that I talked John Gilray and I QAB about --
6 Q Did you rely on John Gilray? ,
1 7 A I relied -- well, I think I talked to John Gilray ]
8 after the fact',' as a support of my original conclusion.
9 0 so you had already determined to be a_ unresolved
-- 10 item before you talked to John Gilray? l 11 A Correct, that's correct.
12 Q (By Mr. Mulley) Now, the fact that there are
( 13 various -- seems to be requirements for protection of these 14 records while on site for all these years --
C.2. 9 15 A I can tell you again that , there's nothing d
16 there on shipment of records.
17 0 so I guess there's -- would it be appropriate, o th", &o1 18 even though there's nothing in6 that covers shipment of 19 the records,.the fact that the spirit of the law is to 20 protect' records, the spirit of the regulation --
21 A I think we also thought that shipment of records
'l 22 was going to be a very short duration period of time, in 23 transit, to where they're going, you know. And6it's a 24 risk; that's casI's risk.
25 0 so you don't feel -- ,
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
275' i
1 A If the record- -- as f ar- as the regulatory, the 2 end product that the NRC would be concerned in, is that on 3 site, TUGCO, or wherever TUGCO has those records designated 4 to be kept, has the records required by the regulations for 5 the containment liner or whatever other work that CB&I had i f
6 done. On that basis they wouldn't get a license if they )
7 didn't have those records.
8 0 In your mind, there's no really inconsistency
~
then between the fact that they have requirements while
_ 10 it's on the site and the fact that there's no requirement 11 while in transit?
12 A Because it's a very short duration shipment.
( 13 Again, we're into, you know, what I can declare in-process, 14 back again, I could take a record make it in-process, and 15 then I'm almost back to no requirements as far as storage.
16 I think it's only prudence that says you -- that you take 17- care of your records. I think in most cases, you know, I '
18 think they did protect the , records, you know, what with the 19 reasonable extent.
20 0 Let me ask you something, as far as, you know, 21 your belief that these are really the records, the records 22 belong to the company, it's their records, and it's up to 23 them to protect them. Is that a unique concept?'
24 A What do you mean.
25 Q Only to you? I mean do other --
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
- 276' i
1 A I wouldn't think anybody else -- I don't know of 1 i
2 anyone else that has the other views, other than the folks 3 that are involved here.-
4 The CB&I records were in CB&I's. control for the 5- whole time they were on site. I don't believe it's any 6 different than what CB&I has done at any other site.
l 4'[* L 1 7
0 (By Mr. Goldberg) The phrase in 4529, I just 8 want to clarify something that we said yesterday, in 45. in 9 5.3, subchapter 6, it says here, " Method for maintaining l ~
_ 10 control of records remove'd from he storage facility." In l
11 your mind, what kind of a method are they talking about .
l 12 here?
13 A Receipt control, you know, what was taken out so 14 that the proper record got returned.
15 Q Does the control also include the control of 16 records during transit? ,
17 A I would say that's what receipt control, because 18 4529 talks about receipt control.
19 Q I understand.
20 A For a record if -- in fact the verd, where it 21 talks about a transfer from record from one group to 22 another group is that you have a proper receipt control for 23 doing that. ',
24 Q I'm not talking about receipt control. Take that 25 aside. I'm talking about the actual movement of the I
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
377' !
'l
. i 1 records, the control of the records during movement, 2 during -- before receipt.
-i 3 In other words, records that have gone from point i
4 A to point B but not have arrived at. point B. Does'-- is ;
5 that covered under this statement, a method for m'aintai'ning 6 control of records removed from the storage facility?
7 A That control, again, is having a proper, in my 8 mind, is having a proper receipt, inventory-control of what 9 I've got out.
_ 10 Q You're not answering a question. I'll ask it 11 again. Does the control -- does this statement include the ]
l 12 control of records before receipt, not including receipt, .
]
( 13 during transit, a method for maintaining control of records 14 removed from the storage facility? Does that require the 15 licensee to have something in place to control records 16 during transit, before receipt?
17 A The licensee, or chicago Bridge & Iron?
o GC 2, 7 l 18 Q To have the person who is.-- who is under 45tt, 19
~
W. z:9 the individual under-4&e9.
20 A-Qbh *f CB&I I would have a requirement to meet fW9,
)
i 21 yes.
22 O Okay. We're debating semantics. Let's go back j 23 to the issue at hand. You're not answering the estion.
24 I'll try it again.
25 A Okay. ,
, TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
~. .
278 ;
A method for maintaining control of records j 1 Q 2 removed from the storage facility, the person, the group V 4F. L9 3 that's under +&&A, did they have to have control of records '
4 during transit? Does this mean that they have to have 5 control of records during transit? Yes or no. Yes or no.
6 A Well, yes.
7 . MR. MULLEY: You can continue.
8 A ( continue'd ) But let me say again, I would 9 interpret that to mean that I'know what I've shipped or
_ 10 what I've got out or where they re or what I have to have, 11 they have control, I have proper inventory and control of 12 what is out; what I ship, what I receive on the other end.
- k. 13 What I don't receive on the other end, then I'm liable for, 14 if I do not receive everything I shipped.
15 0 (By Mr. Goldberg) Not received, we're talking 16 more about preservation of records and environmental 4C. *1.9 l 17 control, the other parts.cf 4434.
18 A Yeah, but again a ,
l 19 Q Does that --
20 A If I decisrad that record in-process when I i
21 started shipping it, then I'm out from under all -- ,
1 22 Q Did TUGco declare these records in-process? {
I J
23 A I don't know.
1 -
24 Q Did they call them QA records; did the inspector 25 tell you that they called them QA records?
l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
)
i
l l l-
, '279 1 A I don't know.
-2 Q You don't know if'he did or didn't? Did~the 3 inspector call them --
I 4 A Well they are QA records --
~
l 5 Q Then they cannot be in-process records if they're i
l 6 QA records. They can't be two things at once. QA records M
l l 7 'are not covered by Criterion 141 is that correct or not?
8 A Go back to what-is a QA document or a QA record.
l 9 Q If it's declared a QA record, is it under l
_ 10 Criterion 177 11 A A QA document is under Criterion L3n .
12 Q Then is a record that has to be in conformance f
- f. b V -
l t 13 with criterion ibt and ; is that correct?
14 A Yes.
QC1,9 .
I 15 Q So if it's under ($29, then is it under 16 comformance to the statement I just read to you; is that 17 correct?
e y.2 9 18 A The document is uhder LE19 - .the records are 19 under 4529. .
l I 20 Q okay. Therefore it's --
! 21 A We're into how you interpret tits or shipment-of l l l
22- records. And I'm say:ng that it is silent on the controls !
l 23 that I have to have for shipment of records. ',
24 Q You just told me that --
25 A It is, it is required to be controlled in TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 L-___-_______
l 280- ;
4s .2.9 4c.z.9 1 accordance with 43tt. Now, 4&t9, I'm saying, is silent on
. 2 what those controls have to be --
3 O .You just told me earlier --
4 A -- beyond receipt controls.
5 0 You just told me earlier the statement '"a method i l
l 6 for maintaining control of records removed from the storage 7 facility" includes control of records during transit. !
8 A That's correct.
9 0 okay.
l .
- 10 A Now, I go to the records vault and I check a 11 record out to go look at it; I take it back to my office, I 12 set it on my desk. It's not in a fireproof container, it's l
(. 13 not in e fireproof room, you know, I have to use some l 14 judgments as to what does all that mean.
l 15 And again, what I say is, when I check it out of 16 the vault, they know exactly what I checked out and that 17 I'm responsible to return that back to them. And that's 18 controlled. But that again does not -- I don't take l 19 it -- I don't have to go into a fireproof room now, to go 20 read this record. I may check out a whole bunch of records I have to return those l 21 and take them back to my office.
22 records, but you've got to use some reason to what is l i i
23 required for that record. 6
)
24 Q It goes back to the issue of that statement that 25 I'm trying to read you as best I can., You're saying that TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 1
l
__ _ _.__.________C
f i
1
~
1 that statement does include contro1 of records during
. 2 transit? )
I 3 ,
A Right.
4 Q skay.
., t/f. * .9 ;
5 A But again, I say, the primary thing I see in 4%& ]
6 is receipt control on'both ends for those records.
7 The next item was-that "TUGCO failed to inventory j 8 CB&I records sent to Houston, therefore they cennot 9 determine records that must be returned." It's also got
-. 10 over here "Did net realize this violation was dropped from I
11 the report until matrix was made." ,
12 No. 1, those records were not under the control )
i
( 13 of TUGCO. TUGCO did not have any requirement that I know 14 bf to inventory the CB&7. records before they were shipped 15 off site. The records that TUGCO will have to have will be i
16 those records necessary ,to meet regulatory requirements.
17 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) What were these records? j 18 A Basically it was just containment liner, they 19 erected the containment liner.
20 0 It's interested, you approach this differently 21 than you did in the case of the SWEC records, the SWEC 22 records, the failure to inventory you cited them for that.
I b
l 23 A Those records were under TUGCO's control.
l 24 Q In the CB&I records you said they weren't under 25 TUGCO's --
- TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 N - _- _ _____ _
82[
1 A That's correct.
2 0 -- TUGCo's control? You have'to clarify that. I 3 don't understand that.
4 A CB&I had their own QA/QC, did their own thing in 5 erecting the vessel. The records that they made,'they put, 6 they had'them under their control.at all times while they J'
7 were on site. The other records we're talking about, the 8 design cales of. stone & Webster en the pipe supports were a
9 under TUGCo's control, either'TUGCO's control or Gibbs & l 10 Hill's control.
1: Q so what you are saying is, CB&I had their own l 12 procedures for control of their records when they were on
( 13 the TUGC0 site?
14 A That's correct.
15 0 so the real critical thing, this goes back to an 16 earlier question I had, was the CB&I procedures for control 17 of their records. ,
O 18 A I'm told that they had control. I did not look i !
19 at them.
20 Q Do you know if they were in violation of their 21 procedures, like TUGeo was? 3 l
22 A That is not what was determined here. I do not 6
23 know that.
24 Q Did you ask the inspector to determine that?
25 A That was one'of the things I.believe we were TATE REPORTING SERVICE,.(713) 222-7177
^ "
l- . _
l i 283' l 1 going to look at. ;
}
. 2 Q Didn't appear to be taking that much time. One 3 could -- those procedures probably are on site?
4 A- The inspectors wouldn't accept, to begin with, 5 thatTUGCOdidn'thaveaproceduretogoinventerh*those l 6 records.
I 7 0 But if you said that they were under the control 8 of CB&I, CB&I's QA program --
9 A They wouldn't accept' it.beyond the fact,.TUGCO -- '
i
-- 10 you know, they're saying, TUGCO -- Mr. Phillips has a whole I 11 different view on the records. If a record's generated on .
12 site, then it can't ever leave the site. I don't read that l l
1
(. 13 anywhere in the regulation; I don't read has anywhere in l 14 4529. j 15 MR. MULLEY: Let's take a minute recess.
16 (Brief recess.), i 17 0 (By Mr. Goldberg) The records that we're talking 18 about are records of the containment liner; is that 19 correct?
20 A That's correct. J I
21 Q Containment liner associated with the Comanche 22 Peak Plant; is that correct?
23 A That's correct. .
24 0 Is Chicago Bridge & Iron a -- was it a contractor 25 or --
.. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
I 284' 1 A It's a contractor.
l ,
2 O I want to read you a sentence that's in Part 50, l
3 Appendix B, Criterion 1. It states, "The applicant," I 4 guess the applicant in this case would be TUGCO?
5 A Yes, sir.
6 Q -- "may delegate to others such as contractors, 7 agents or consultants to work or establish in executing the 8 quality assurance program or any part thereof but shall 9 retain responsibility therefore."
10 A That's correct.
l l 11 Q Okay. It appears here that -- correct me if I'm 12 wrong -- that TUGC0 delegated to Chicago Bridge & Iron the
( 13 work associated with the containment liner.
1 14 A That's correct.
15 Q And there were records generated from that work. i 4
l 16 A That's correct.
17 0 okay. Who has responsibility for those records; o
18 that's the question. l 19 A okay.
20 Q In your mind, who has responsibility?
, 21 A TUGC0 has ultimate responsibility to obtain those 22 records at whatever point, you know, at a point in time so
&&22 23 that they're maintained in accordance with +EEP-der 24 whatever, if they're permanent records for duration or 25 whatever, okay? That's TUGCO's responsibility, and they TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 L________ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
285 ;
'i 1 have an ultimat'e responsibility.
, 2 As a contractor to TUGCO with essentially a i 3 turnkey-type contract, CB&I had the responsibility to 4 produce those records and'.then to turn them over to.TUGCO
~
5 'at an appropriate time having put all appropriate controls-6 on those records while they were in CB&I's --
7 Q so in your view TUGCO would have those records.
l 8 TUGCO -- j 9 A Eventually.
. \
-. 10 Q Eventually?
11 A Yes, sir. It's no different than work done in a ,
12 vendor shop, which is then turned over at a point in time
( 13 to the customer per contract. 'l 14 '
Q The question is whether TUGCO had an ownership or 15 control of those records while they were being generated on i
16 their site or not?
17 A No, sir, I don't think so. They have a I 18 contractual -- I believe a.hd I haven't gone looked at the 19 contract, but I've been told that the contract said "To be 20 turned over on completion of the project."
21 Q Did you look over that contract before you made j t
22 this determination with the --
23 A when I found out that they were in CB&I'.s control ) ;
2 24 for the whole time they were on site, you know, I didn't go 4
25 look at the contract. I only can go with what I was told l J
.. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222*7177 j
, 286 1 that the contract required.to be' turned over at the end of
. 2 the project. ,
3 Q I fail to see the difference between the CB&I 4 records and the SWEC records. I guess.we go back to that 5 issue. ,
6 A The SWEC records were under TUGCO's control in 7 TUGCO's records vault.
8 Q .By wh"y wouldn't '
these records be under TUGCO's.
9 control in TUGCO's record vault?
_ 10 A Because they weren't. This was a turnkey job for 11 which CB&I maintained responsibility for those records up .
12 until the time that they turned them over to TUGCo. It's l ( 13 no different than any vendor out there --
14 -
Q But that's not what this statement says. This 15 statement says --
16 A says TUGCo has,the. ultimate responsibility.
17 Q- It retains the responsibility -- shall retain 18 responsibility. l 19 A That's.right.
20 Q So whan those records are in CB&I's records area 21 that's still TUGCO's records?
22 A ~That's right and when-they're out in a vendor.
23 shop, they're still TUGC0's records and TUGCO's responsible 24 for those records to see that the vendor has a proper
. 25 records program. .
TATE REPORTING. SERVICE,-(713) 222-7177
i l
287 ; .
1 Q If you were responsible for something, would you )
i 2 let things go off your site?
i 3 A Certainly. ]
4 0 Quality records?
5 A certainly.
6 0 You would let them go off your site?
7 A Depends on what -- you know, it's whatever the 8 records arrangement that I had with a contractor.
9 Q says here 'shall retain responsibility l 10 therefore."
11 A Let me ask you. Why would a vendor shop, what l 12 is -- is TUGeo supposed to go up there and take those under l 13 their control? How do you control them out in a vendor 14 ' shop? They're responsible there, too. Your same, your 15 same interpretation applies out in a vendor shop, then.
16 Q It just seems, let me try this, that the l
l 17 preservation and the qua.lity of the records and their o
18 retention, there seems to be a difference in the way TUGCO, 19 at this point in time, had its retention and when Chicago 1
20 Bridge & Iron took records?
)
21 A I don't know what you mean.
22 Q From what I understood, Chicago Bridge & Iron l
23 took these records, they put them in some very N imsy boxes .
1 t
24 and --
25 A For in-transit shipment -- l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
- --___.__a-__ : ._
E
288 )
t 1
1 0 Yes.
1 2 A -- to Houston.
3 0 Yes. And we've already established in the C. Lo9 l 4 earlier discussion. under Paragraph 6, that covers 1 5 in-transit, control --
6 A All I said --
7 -
Q -- records when removed from the site.
8 A I don't think it's defined what that clearly 1
9 means as far as that in-transit. ]
I 10 Q so if they're retaining responsibility, it 11 doesn't appear that they're doing a very good job in I
12 retaining that responsibility; if they're allowing somebody '
L C.2e9 k 13 to take records and in-transit and not being under f]544
! 14 Paragraph 6, it looks like they're not retaining the 15 responsibility that's described here in Appendix B, 16 Criteria 1.
17 A I guess I can't agree with you.
I 18 0 Well, tell me whylyou can't agree with me. f 19 A I said again, TUGCC has the ultimate 20 responsibility. And Cs&I is delegated responsibility by 1 21 TUGC0 for the records while they're in CB&I's possession, j 1 ll 22 okay? Which at some point in time they're going to be, in ,
23 the ultimate responsibility, TUGC0 is to have thdse records 24 turned to them or to make arrangements on where th'ese 25 records are going to be stored permanently so that they i
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 i
)
3 1
1 289' l gT.%9
.1 meet-t321 for the life of the plant. 1 2 MR. GOLDBERG: Do you want to pick up on j 3 something, George? j 4 MR. MULLEY: Are you satisfied?
k 5 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) I'll finish up. I t, ink that j I
6 one has to look at -- let me ask the last question. Did ,
l 7 you look at criteria 1 in your deliberations?
8 A I'm aware of criterion 1, I didn't look at 9 Criterion 1 in -- because, you know, my experience has 10 never given me the feel that,-if the record was in the 11 contractor's control, that TUGCO had to have separate 12 controls on those records until such time as those records k 13 are turned over by the contractor or whoever, to the 14 licensee or applicant.
15 MR. GOLDBERG Okay. .j 16 0 (By Mr. Mulleyl Le.t me get your bottom line 17 here. Your statement'here where it says, "Shall retain ]
O 18 responsibility therefore," you're treating this sort of 19 like in a vendor shop orientation where records --
.)
20 A I view it as a vendor, but I view it that TUGCO )
21 has the ultimate responsibility. That is that those ,
1 22 records will be in the end maintained for the life of this Vf,L 9 4 23 plant in accordance with TS2t and that they have . .i 24 responsibility to assure that CB&I, for the time that they Qs1 L 9 25 were in CB&I's possession, complied with the'TF2%or TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 1
l I
290' :
{
l 1 Criterion 17 requirements.
2 Q But this responsibility does not' include Xerox 3 copies to be made before CB&I shipped them off site?
4 A No, sir.
l 5 Q Does not include not' allowing CB&I to put them in i'
6 flimsey boxes? i 1
1
~
7 A No, sir.
- \
8 o okay. 4 9
A No different than if. disallows me to go over to I
-- I 10 CB&I when they were on site and check out that record and ;
11 take it over to my office and look at its maybe take a .
12 whole box of them out over to my office and look at them.
( 13 What kind of controls do you put on that?
l 14 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) on what? l i
15 A Taking a record out of a permanent record i 16 storage. . ,
f 17 Q We're not talking about that. We're talking 18 about records in-transit.
19 A I've checked them out at one place and I've sent -
20 them someplace else.
21 0 There's a difference between going hundreds of 22 miles versus walking them in your hand from one effice to '
6 - I 23 another. Do you see a difference between'those two? f 24 A It depends on where I took it. I may walk out 25 through the plant, I may be more jeopardized with it.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
391 1 1 MR. GOLDBERG: You can go on, George.
l -
2 MR. MULLEY: Yeah, okay.
3 A I want to say, I don't think it's the practice l
4 that has not been only in the past. I don't know that it's 5 ever been an exception taken to that practice. I believe )
6 that CB&I has done this in every site, as well as probably 7 others. Probably some records generated on site may not 8 even be turned over to TUGCO, maybe some Westinghouse.
9 Westinghouse audits are probably not turned over to TUGCO.
~
~~
10 They may be available for them t look at, but they're not ,
11 given to TUGCO. ,
12 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) Westinghouse records, records
( 13 of the plant?
i 14 A Records of an audit.
1 15 0 Audits, for example, but records --
16 A They're a lifetime record; which the NRC will 17 keep for a lifetime. They may not be --
, J 18 Q But Westinghouse records of procurement or design 19 or inspection or testing, those records would be retained 20 at TUGCO? , j 21 A Most all of them that I'm aware of are provided 22 to TUGCO at some point in time. i 23 Q (By Mr. Mulley) Okay.
24 A The next one was that "TUGCO audited CB&I, 25 Houston, scope of reports and stated that" - "TUGCO TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
b 292-I 1 audited CB&I,. Houston," it's got "and in scope."
, 2 I would like to go back to this other one first.
3 The statement that he had "Did not realize this j i
4 item was dropped from the report until this matrix was 5 made." Again, if you will look on the front of d'ocument 6 4-A, which I provided you yesterday, where Mr. Phillips was 7 isked to comment prior to final revision of the transmitted 8 document from the site, was -- and in addition, the 9 transmitted document from the' site was not included in this
-. 10 list of drafts he has, which would have' demonstrated the 11 text of the report was actually typed on site under q
. l 12 Mr. Phillips' control. ,
( 13 The text in the report was typed on site over in.
14 'Mr. Phillips' trailer. I would also point out that in the 15 text of the report, the inspector failed to address, or in 16 explanatory comments of being informed by TUGCO management 'l 17 that they had not taken possession of CB&I records at the 18 time of this inspection and that the records had been 19 shipped off site for duplication. It would appear that i
20 this was a factual statement in there there would be a l 21 precursor event before turning over contract required 22 records to the owner. Those were comments of Mr. Barnes. ;
23 Okay. The next one that we started wds "TUGCO 24 audited CB&I, Houston, and in scope of the report stated it 25 included Criterion 17 QA records but did not document the TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
293' 1 audit of records." And it stated that as a violation of
. 2 Criterion 18.
3 ,
As I recall, TUGeo provided a subseqent memo to ;
4 file after this was identified by the -- from the auditor, 5 stating that he had looked at it and had found'no problems 6 in looking at the records control system.
7 0 (By Mr. Goldberg) Do you have a document that 8 shows that?
9 A I could get it for you.
~
10 Q We need that.
11 A It will take me maybe the 21st, 22nd or 23rd when 12 you come back I'll provide it to you.
. 13 MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. We'll need that document, 14 George.
I 15 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) When did they discover that 16 they had done it; how far soon after this inspection was 17 over? ;
18 A well, I guess they went back, the QA manager, j l
19 Mr. Wells, as I recall at the time, went back through his l l
20 folks that hsd been involved in the audits and I guess 21 that's where they arrived at who had- done it, who had ,
i 22 looked at records and what had he looked at, and he 23 evidently failed to just document what he looked'at. ;
24 Q Was this discussed at the exit meeting at the 25 time with the inspector that there may have been documents .
- TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
---x--. _- . . , _ . _ _ _ . _ . _
294 ; ,
I l
1 that were not --
2 A It was not identified at the time of the exit 3 meeting, I don't believe.
\
I get the feeling there were a lot of things that !
4 0 5 are not identified at the exit meeting suddenly gets ,
1 6 surfaced over a period of time.
7 A well, it's a matter of communications, of timely J i
8 communications.' You've got to realize we had about at this 9 point in time, a 3,000 man hour inspection going and we 10 were running the poor licensee r gged for the issues that 11 were coming his way. And to get the proper < folks focused .
12 on getting the proper response, you know. l 13 Q Are you sure that this licensee was conducted 14 prior to the conduct of the NRC inspection effort?
15 A Yes, sir.
8 16 Q The audit of the records, I should say.
17 A To the best of'my knowledge, it was. I was e
18 trying to remember how we l' eft this item up.
I 19 I think one of the things you asked me about !
20 whether we were going to look at how the procedures were 21 handled and whatever. I think it says in here "It is the i
22 CB&I practice to ship off all records off site for copying, j 23 this matter is considered unresolved." ',
24 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) This is an earlier issue, 25 isn't it?
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
I 1
i 295 J 1 A No , sir. This is the one we just got through
~
2 talking about.
3 ,
Q Repeat tha't again.
4 A It is an earlier issue, I'm sorry. It ;is an 5 earlier issue.
6 0 okay.
7 A And again the utility has indicated the receipt 8 of records from CB&I handled in the same manner as the 9 receipt of records from any vendor,. Region IV will inspect-n ~
10 the receipt of vendor records and this.. matter is considered 11 an open item. -
12 0 okay. We're back to the issue of the audit that
( 13 was conducted of records. You're saying that you're going 14 to get us a copy of that?
l 15 A You want the audit and the memo that I --
l 16 0 Yes. -
17 A Okay.
18 Q How soon after -- but you're not sure how soon 19 this was established after the inspection was over?
20 A I didn't know.
21 0 Did you have this available to you at the time of ;
I i 22 your determining this not to be a violation? '
6 23 A Not at the initial time, but I think it'came in 24 there before the' report was ever issued.
25 0 Well, why -- what was your criteria that you-used TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
296' 1 that you didn't think this was a violation if you didn't
. 2 know that there was an audit conducted in the area of 1
3 records?
4 A There was an audit conducted.
J 5 Q But you just said that you found this out {
l 6 after --
7 - A 1 also asked them to look, you know, they were i 8 looking'at the audit. The audit did document that it was 9 in the scope that they did audit. There was not a record,
- 10 at least of what Mr. Phillips had at the time. I asked to 11 look into it further to find out and that's what we were in 12 the process of doing.
( 13 0 2 don't understand that. Are you saying that 14 'they did not, at that time, know what --
15 A I asked did they or did they not audit records, 16 they said they did in the scope, I was looking to see did 17 they or did they not audit.
1B Q I see, the issue :was that there was no document l
19 to prove it?
20 A Yes.
21 Q But the applicant stated that they had done it 22 but they did not find it, had not found a document at that 23 time? ',
24 A At the time of that, the scope of the document --
25 0 You kept it as unresolved until they could I
.. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ - - _ - - - - - - - - a
i
- 297 1 determine whether there was a document or not?
2 A That's correct.
3 Q okay. )
)
4 A okay. The next one is " Failure to preclude rain 5 from entering QA records vault over several years time."
6 We're talking about the interim records vault.
7' The licensee had made numerous efforts to - ,
8 1 everytime -- they have a leak, they have, you know, it's a, l
9 it's not an uncommon practice', I guess. 'Part of the
- i l -
10 problem had been the forced ventilation system that they 1
11 put in there so they could maintain humidity and -
12 temperature control in the records vault. The ANSI $
(. 13 only says that you should -- the facility should have 14 controls which preclude extreme variations in temperature 15 and humidity. The licensee had taken that precaution; they did have a forced , air.
16 .
17 >
Q Where are you reading from, sir? ,
. 4C.28 i 18 A Draft eleven of ANSI-$529 ,5.2 -- or 5.6, l 19 facility. says, " Extreme variations in humidity and 20 temperature."
21 Q okay. But there's also an earlier part -- yes --
22 earlier part of the statement talks about record -- we're ;
6 .
23 still reading from 5.6, " Records storage facility shall be 1
24 so constructed and located as to protect contents from 25 possible destruction by causes such as," and one of the TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
1 398 l
?>
I causes is flooding.
2 A Yes.
3 Q Do you consider a heavy rain to be flooding?
4 A Not the kind of flooding out there.
5 Q What is " flooding" then? What is flooding caused 6 by, rain? l
~
7 A Rain. I mean it was -- there was e roof there, 8 it was a roof with slope, but it was designed to preclude i i
9 from flooding. They did meet'the, you know, they did meet f 4
1
_ 10 the letter or the intent of the requirement. l
{
11 Q What exactly did the structure look like, so we ]
. l 12 can get an understanding if rain could enter into the ]
( 13 facility. What was the roof like? Do jou have a picture?
14 - A No, I don't. If you wanted to see that you'd )
15 have to go to the site. It was partly described in the 16 T S A'A , Secthon 17.1, but I don't think it says that it i
17 described what the roof looked like. j i
s ,
18 Q How was this reso'1ved?' What did you do to this?
19 A Huh? ,
20 0 Did you -- I don't have the matrix in front of me 21 so I don't know.
22 A I believe it was left as,an open item.
open item?
' l 23 0 -
24 A An open item, yes, sir.
25 0 Why did you do that?
~
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
)
]
299 )
/
l 1 A Because I did not see it to be a violation.
2 0 What does an "open item" mean to you there?
3 A It means that I think the licensee -- well, 4 several things. We're going look at this to see what they 5
doabouttheleakintheroof;withtheintentthhtwego 6 back and follow up what they do about the leak in the roof.
7 0 so there was a leak in the roof 7 8 A Yes, sir. i.
'l 9 Q How do you know?
10 A Infact--andIalsoYilltellthatyouthe 11 licensee just recently replaced the whole roof. It wasn't .
12 the licensee was just leaving the leak, every time they got ,
i .
( 13 a leak, wasn't that they just left it. They were trying to i i 14 take actions to correct it. The, you know, they had i
15 identified it, they were trying to take actions to correct f
, J '
16 the occurrence. .. ,
17 0 Let me get an understanding here. This records 18 storage facility, was thisla permanent storage facility or l 4
19 an interim storage facilities?
20 A I believe the leak was in the interim records, ,
21 which is a -- all records that go into the permanent records facility storage come through the interim storage l
22 l 6
23 facility. .
24 Q So this would be part of the entire facility, ;
25 though, considered the storage facility? It's a part of TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 I.
7
" ~
300 <
t i
1 it? ' i It's just the irterim area that
- 2 A A part of it. [)I l
l 3 they come into where they process them to go over to --
l
! 4 Q Let me ask you, a hard rain storm in the midd1'e 1 1 > ,
5 of this Texas area, would it rain on these records; would 6 the records be -- t 7 A No, sir. Only if you.had a, you know, 11 you had '
8 a leak someplac6, you know, you might get s' leak, I have:a 9 roof on my house to keep from getting a l'eak, but I ,
)
I
'~
10 sometimes, when I had a shingle roof, I had a -- you know, )
+
11 something beyond, when the wind blew kone particular -- .
l 12 there is a roof there designed to, preclude rain-from
(. 13 entering that records' facility. /
I 14 .
Q (By Mr. Mulley) The violation says, "Tailuru to' l
15 preclude rain from entering QA recordd vault over several j
16 year's time." , ,.
17 A And again I'm say'ing they had -- that the ,
18 licensee had been working o'ver a period of time on othair --
19 they had been, this had occurred before, okay? And they ,
20 had gone out and repaired, to the best of my kncwledge, l 21 each time.
22 O That would be new leais showing up? .
I 23 A Then something else showed up. Now, tkis .f 24 facility that we're talking about, n!though f.t's. called the permanent plant records facilities.tnd the ihterim records 4
25 l
~
~
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, 1713) 222-7177
= = .
, r.
- c. .e 301.
- I t., i j 1 facility is not going to be the final resting place for
\ .
2 <
those records. They're going to go over to the operations 3 records for final permanent storage.
4 Q (By Mr. Goldberg)
At this point it says 5 ~ "f acilit'y," this is his f acility as it is now con'strued?
6 A Right now, it is an interim facility before it l
l 7 Soes over to the -- it had a roof on it to preclude rain 3 from entering the building. It had a forced air
! 9 circulation system to prevent extreme variations in
- 10 temperature .sr.1 humidity.
l 11 ER. GOLDBERGr Go on to the next one.
12 Q (By Mr. Mulley) Okay.
_- 13 A' "railurg to preclude food, coffee pot, fire 14 .hazzard from QA records vault." That was again a Young, 25 Phillips -- these others are either Young, Phillips or 16 s Normsn that we've been going over.
17 The inspector stated the violation was dropped.
18 I don't see in 4529 what precludes what we found.
It's not 19 a good practice.
20 The licensee immediately acted on it as soon as e
hbl. 2,9 21 the inspector identified it. 45fs-says it shall be 22 constructed to be rodent proof, not automatic -- if the 23 records ~ storage clerk took her sandwich in therd and ate it l 24 in the records vault or whatever.
- 15) same paragraph we were looking at in 5.6, "Shall TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-717/
1 302 4 I
I be constructed and located."
2 Q (By-Mr. Goldberg) Possibly destruction by causes 3 such as insects and rodents? i 4 A Yes, sir.
5 Q And you don't think this is --
6 .A The facility was certainly constructed and 7 15cated. It's also described in section'17.1 of the FSAR.
l 8 0 It's not constructed. I mean, it says here --
9 okay, you are right, "Shall be constructed and located."
~
10 so if there's deterioration over time, you don't think this 11 is covered, under this? ,
12 A What do you mean " deterioration"?
. 13 Q During its -- after construction and-during 14 its -- I don't want to use " operation." During its_use, 15 people bringing food and beverages in there and they do a 16 poor job, you don't think it's covered under 5.67 17 A No, sir.
18 Q What about housekeeping, do you know about l ,
19 housekeeping at these sites?
20 A I don't know what you mean.
i 21 0 There are criteria -- there are standards for o
]
'22 housekeeping. t l
1 4 i 23 A Yes, sir. '
{
l J
24 Q Do you consider this to'be an area that should 25 have good housekeeping? ,
i TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
i 2
6 303 I
1 A Do you think this plant and construction is 2 committed to -- what housekeeping requirement do you think j 3 this plant is committed to? l 4 0 I don't know. I'm asking you the question. I l
5 A I don't believe that they're committed to the 6 housekeeping standard on the Unit I construction site.
i 7 Q You don't believe that.
8 A I know that's a -- I know that from the fact the 9 controls that we have out in the construction site are not the ANSI standardcontrolsforckeanliness,becausethey're
~
10 11 not committed to it. '
1 I don't know myself. I'll have to check that. I i 12 Q
( 13 would suggest that somebody check that, because 14 . housekeeping is an issue. Did yo'u raise the housekeeping 15 issue at all to the inspectors 7 16 A No, sir. ,
i 17 Q okay. If they were committed under housekeeping, 18 then this would be a diffe. tent situation, wouldn't it?
f 19 A It would depend on what housekeeping we're i 1 20 talking about and how that affects the records vault. I j 21 would have to go back and look at that.
I 22 Q Are you familiar with the housekeeping standards?
23 A I have looked at the housekeeping staddards. I ,
24 haven't looked at them in awhile now. But I do not recall 1
25 whether that would even affect a records vault. i j
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 1
1
I l
304 i
1 O And you are -- f i
2 A I don't see, there was nothing, you know, there ]
l l
( 3 were some food crumbs that the inspector saw. They l
4 automatically draw a conclusion that that's rodents.
5 There's a coffee pot, that's a fire hazard. I 6 I would agree that those things shouldn't be in j
~
7 the records vaults and the licensee agreed. And the
\
8 licensee immediately took it out. But I don't think that 9 they violated anything by having somebody, whatever it was, 10 cake or sandwich, that they ate in the interim, we're l 11 talking about the interim vault, which the records come ,
t 12 through before they go to the permanent vault which is on 13 the other side of the wall.
l \
14 -
Q But the bottom line is, you don't think the plant )
15 is covered to the housekeeping standards?
16 A Not,on a construction site, no, sir.
17 Q Unit 1. i 18 A Not construction site. Construction Unit 1 or 2.
19 17.1 covers construction.
20 I would again indicate in SSER 11, that they 21 looked at the procedures controlling the records in the 1
- 22 vault and whatever. And those ones that were looked at and 6
23 I guess the controls were there, I don't know whether it 24 addressed, didn't look to see what all they looked at.
25 0 Are there procedures on the. control of -- are l
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
1 4
l g 305 1 there any housekeeping controls in the vault?
2 A I don't know. I do not know. All I know is that 3 SSER-11 said that they had adequate --
(
4 Q Did you ask the inspectors to check the vault .
5 procedures or did you ask them to go back and check those ]
i 6 procedures to see if there was a procedure that covered 7 .this area? -
45.39 l 8, A No, I did not. I looked at 4529 and based on i 4./I ,1.
9 looking at M ,1they said it'was constructed and located -
\
~
10 as to be rodent proof.
11 Q (By Mr. Mulley) In this area of cleanliness, -
12 speaking to a consultant, he said that when he looked at --
( 13 he went to a millright shop, which is different from, this 14 is off this specific issue, okay? Put it is a concern that 15 came up and we might as well cover it here. That's why I'm 16 bringing it up at this point.'.
17 He said he went' to the.millright' shop and inside 18 the building the garage doo' rwas open and he could see, he i
19 could see into the shop and he said everything was filthy.
20 And I quote from his testimony. "You could see i 21 that from ten or fifteen feet away and that there were 22 some, they were grinding disks and a grinding disk that had ,
4 23 been marked for use with stainless steel was just lying on 24 the ground and I don't know whether that was, you're not 25 supposed to contaminate stainless steel, so I don't know if i
TATE REPORTING SERVICE,-(713) 222-7177
1 1
306 I 1 somebody was just able to pick that up and use it or what.
2 But it wasn't a good situation.
3 "I walked in and looked at, it was a stai'nless 4 steal shroud, cooling shroud for the control rod drives, l 5 and there was animal waste, there was hair, there was bees 6 nests, there was all kinds of -- and this was supposed to 7 be a warehouse storage. And I asked, and I asked them and 8 I said, 'Now, where did you get this?' I asked the 9 millrights, I asked them, 'Where did you get this,' and 10 they said, 'Oh, it just came from, it was from Warehouse 11 B.' And I was curious because there was, here was -
l 12 something that was supposed to be in warehouse storage, l
1 l k. 13 supposedly being checked on a regular basis by somebody and I 14 .it was just filthy. So I raised the concern about that end ;
)
15 it got pushed aside." I 16 And I asked: "Whoudid you raise the concarn 17 with?"
o 18 And he said, "Ian and Westerman. And they told l 19 me, they simply took me off of it. They said, ' Don't worry l
20 by it, it's only cleanliness.' But I said, you know, 'It's .I
! 21 an idea of a sampling program. If we go back to any 22 quality program, you can't inspect everything.'" f
' l 23 Did you recall any incident such as this where a l
l 24 concern --
l l 25 A I recall it had been brought up. And I know that l
! l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
307
.I I whatever, the handling of that, you'd have to talk to 2 Mr. Barnes and probably Mr. Hale, because.it never came up 3 as an issue as'far as I recall in a report. I remember
- l 4 that the issue came up.
5 0 (By_Mr. Goldberg) Did the records issue that 6 we'd been discussing now for a day and-a-half, Mr. Barnes 7 or Mr. Hale, did they provide input to you prior to your 8 deliberation on these issues?
9 A Mr. Barnes would have.
~
10 0 Mr. Barnes?
11 A Yes. ,
12 O So we should be talking to Mr. Barnes also about
( 13 some of these things?
l 14 -
A Yeah. He looked at -- he's reviewed the reports.
l 15 He's a part of the review. As I said, you know, Mr. Barnes 1 16 reviewed it, I reviewed it, I did not -- and Mr. Barnes 17 isn't in contact generally with Mr. Phillips because I felt l l
18 that was my responsibility as first line supervisor. )
19 The next one is "railure to provide temporary or !
20 permanent storage facility for records commingled with 21 in-process documents in the paper flow group."
22 Q Does this have to do with the issue of the fire l 6 <
23 rated cabinets -- .
I 24 A Yes, sir.
25 0 -- installation of fire rated cabinets?
l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
i 308-1 A Yes, sir. I would Iead you from SSER 11, Page 2 0103, you have it right there.
l I 3 Q Exhibit 11.
1 4 A Yes, sir. AQ 45 is the allegation number; it l
5 states in SSER 11 that, " ANSI doesnotaddrehs 6 protection of incomplete or in-process record documents.
7 If these documents are destroyed or lost, the TRT has 8 determined that it is the utility contractor's 9 re'sponsibility to reconstruct'them. It should be noted 10 that the records are sometimes retrieved from the permanent 11 plant records vault in order to r'ecord modifications to ,
12 previously accepted hardware. At this. point the record !
( 13 becomes in-process records which are not covered by ANSI f*.3,9 14 ,0EES until they return to the PPRV.*
15 0 What's the PPRV7 ,
16 A That's the permanent plant records vault.
17 Q So let me ask you this: These records, are these 18 QA records?
s 19 A These are QA documents.
1 20 Q okay. Is QA documents, are they covered under 21 Criterion 17 of Appendix B7 ,
22 A Yes, sir.
6 I 23 Q okay. So they would require records retention, i 24 then?
25 A Yes, sir.
TATS REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 w_-_-____-__-__________________________ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
i 309:
. I 1 O okay. And under records retention, does that 2 include putting them into fire rated cabinets?
3 A Not if I got it -- I've just read you here what's 4 in-process. If I dsclare it in-process, what the TRT 5 conclusions was, is that I take it out, they're declaring
- 6 that those are in-process records and they're not covered 4C.2 9 7 by ANSI 4921, as in-process records --
8 Q Are they --
9 A -- protection.
10 Q Are they incomplete also? 'I don't understand 11 what you mean by "in-process records," I'm having. ,
12 difficulty understanding. Why are these in-process records, the records that we're talking about here. Can
( 13 14 you describe what they are?
15 A Well, I don't know all the, you know, the one . .
16 what I've just talked about. ,
Let me go ahead and read this 17 next paragraph and then I'll come back, how's that?
18 Q Okay. .'
1 I 19 A "In November 1983, Brown & Root established paper 20 flow groups, PTG's, to initiate, distribute,-maintain and 21 store in-process documents. The paper flow group facility 22 is protected from fire by overhead sprinkling systems and 23 from vandalism by alarm systems. For additional.
24 protection, documents are stored in lockable fire proof 25 cabinets. however, there is no requirement that these i
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
, 310' 1 in-process documents be treated according to record storage 2 requirement of ANSI 4529."
3 0 You're reading about records that were --
4 A I'm reading about records that were --
5 0 Are these the same records that were -- I'm 6 totally confused. I don't know if the records that were 7 discussed here are the same records that are discussed 8 here. You'll have to define what the records art- in as 9 much detail as you can.
10 A The records discussed here are the records that 11 are in the paper flow group. -
12 Q What are those records? I don't know what they
( 13 are.
l 14 A They can be all kinds of records.
. 15 Q You have to define to me, identify what those 16 records are. .
17 A Well, there are different, you know, I'm not --
18 Mr. Hale is probably the oni you want to talk to tomorrow f 19 or whenever you come back. He was a part of the TRT, he 20 was intimately looking at that area. !
21 Now, I know from discussions with my folks what 22 some of the things that are there. The utility has f
23 determined, has decided that in order to get everything ' l 24 together at one. time when they finally to go put the record 25 into permanent storage, they had a traveler for documents TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
I I 1
l 311 ,
1 'and this is one of the things that's out there. j t . . f 2 They will, they have all the dif ferent documents 3 that go into that making up that final traveler, all -
l 4 listed. Now, it is a completed piece of paper; however, in 5 order to be completed on the whole component for which they j 1
1 6 are, for which, in my understanding calling an in-process I l
! 7 record, they do not have all the documents that go to some l 8 particular component under the control of that traveler.
9 Q Let me try and understand --
. 1
~ l 10 A We're also talking --
l l 11 Q Let me go back to something. I think we're ,
i l I 12 really not -- you're not answering the question. It says k 13 here in the TRT document, that "The alleger identified 14 *several instances in which permanent records were in an 15 environment that was a potential fire hazard." Are we l
16 talking the same exact instances the alleger is identifying i 17 to what Mr. Phillips is ' identifying?
18 A Yes, sir. We're talking about the same paper 19 flow group storage areas.
20 0 Okay, it's not so much storage areas. Are we ;
1 l 21 talking about the same records?
t l
22 A We're talking about the same paper flow group i
! 6 ,
1 23 records. These are the records that are under the control l l
24 of the paper flow group.
l 25 O They were in standard office trailers?
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l ____--___ -
312 1
1 A Yes, sir. l
. . i 2 Q And where were these office trailers at the site? !
u 3 A Taey're located out at different locations.
4 Q Okay. The TRT is talking about in-process
! 5 records, records that are at a stage in the work c'ycle 1
6 between initiation of the record and final sign off by l 7 quality control personnel. Is that Mr. Phillips' records, ,
8 are these the same records?
I 9 A I believe those are'the same records Mr. Phillips 7
- 10 is concerned with. J 11 Q Well, you can believe it but can we determine
! 12 that to be the case? )
1 . l k- 13 A The same paper flow group, the same paper flow j 14 locations, and I'm saying to you to ask Mr. Hale today.
15 Q You have to see the records that we're talking j 16 about. Are these records that have not been signed as yet 17 by -- had final QC sign off?
6 l 18 A What I described to you is that one of the things .
I 19 that I understand that were out there is a traveler.
20 Q Right.
21 A For which it says, in order to complete this traveler which is a final record, I will have all of these ,' l l 22 I l l l l 23 various documents associated with that traveler.', i I 24 Now, I take Mr. Phillips feels that those 1
You cannot put them back out and l 25 documents are the record. ,
l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-/A//
313 1 call them in-process until'I gather all of those records,-
. 2 which he's calling them or documents, to a final traveler
'l; 3 which As,then signed off, which would then become a final 4 4 record. ;
5 We're into the semantics discussion, which would 6 then go back to the interim vault, to the permanent plant.
l 7 vault for permanent storage until such time as they go over 8 to the other final records vaults. l 9 Q Let's go back to his draft report, that's the way j
_ 10 we've got to go back.
11 O (By Mr. Mulley) Let me first ask a question !
. l 12 concerning, what is the issue? You mentioned -- i 1
k 13 A I believe that the issue is that Mr. -- well, it 3 14 says' Young here. Mr. Phillips maybe it is, but it says 15 Mr. Young -- is concerned because they have documents which ]
16 he considers to be in themselves a record. Which I'm 17 saying that these folks have developed travelers for which l e 18 they gather'all of these things together under a traveler, j i
19 which they call a final record.
20 We're into a legal interpretation of what is a, l
21 the final record, that then has to go to the permanent 1 l
22 records vault. I think the utility has the leeway to )l 23 define how they handle or what they can classify 4their ,
24 records as. I don't think we can go do that for them.
25 Q so there was no -- there was no -- these' records TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
1
)
I 314' ;
5 f
1 were not kept in fire protected areas? I i
2 A Some were, some were in fire rated cabinets, all J 3 were in trailers with water sprinklers.
4 Q And I guess the contention here is that utility 5 has decided that these records are in-process records?
6 A That's correct.
~
7 Q Not the NRC, but the utility decided this, and 8' the utility is calling these records in-process. Is that 9 correct? i 10 A Yes. Tothebestofafknowledge,yes.
11 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) There'c another issue here, ,
12 though.
(, 13 Q (By Mr, Mulley) Now, you are basing --
14 -
A And I base my conclusion based on looking at this 15 SSER and discussions with Mr. Hale as to what and why the 4 16 TRT made these determination.
17 Q And you had this available to you at the time 18 that you decided not to cit'e?
19 A That's correct. I think Mr. Phillips said to me, 20 "They don't know what a record is, I do."
21 Q I'm beginning to understand this a little bit 22 better. The word that I think is key is " commingle," and j 6
23 what I understand now is happening, there are records that l
24 did get through QC sign off, there were mechanical and 25 electrical QA records that were removed from the permanent i
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
315' , l l
l 1 storage area and returned to the field and thereby j l
2 commingled with these in-process documents. Is that 3 correct?
4 A That's correct. But not, but again, that's -- we l l
5 get into the definition of what is the true record. The j 6 utility is saying, "I'm going to add a traveler, which is 7 my final record for which on this traveler I have all the 8 various pieces that go to this final record traveler." ,
l 9 Q The question is: Would those records that were 10 removed from the permanent storage area, do they require 11 proper protection under 45 -- are they -- ,
12 A No, sir, they're -- i
( 13 0- -- under -- still under 45297 14 -
A They require 4529 protection, but that they are 15 in-process records and therefore they are not, you know, i
16 the protection -- the protection portion, it does, the 17 protection of incomplete'or in-process records.
18 Q TRT says an in-pr'ocess record is a record that 19 has been initiated but has not had final sign off by 20 quality control personnel. We're talking about records i 21 that --
f 22 A That's the final traveler, sir, that has all of l l -
6 23 these attached to it. .
l 24 O Those are in-process records. But we're talking 25 about records that have been removed from the permanent TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
316 -
i 1 storage area that have already had QC sign off.
2 A That's what this talks about. It says, "It 3 should be noted that the records are sometimes retrieved 4 from permanent plant records vault in order to record 5 modifications to previously accepted hardware."
6 Q But that's not an in-process record. !
~
7 A There are also -- I don't know whether --
8 Q I'm not saying this is correct.
9 A I'm also saying --
10 Q I'm not trying to defend what's here, I'm trying 11 to ask questions about it. -
l 12 A I'm saying that again, that there is a traveler
( 13 record which the utility considers the final record package 14 which a document that may have come out of the permanent 15 plant records vault is back out with that traveler so that ;
16 when they finish they say, "We have a final records package 17 which is signed off but QA and QC."
18 Q The key part of this, let's go back. A record 19 that was in the permanent storage facility and taken out of 20 the permanent storage facility and put somewhere else, 21 whether it's put in with these other records or with -- l 22 somewhere else in the plant, should they be put in f
23 fireproof cabinets? f 24 A Not in the case where we have them in the paper 25 flow group, not with the definition that's there and how I
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l 317*
t 1 1 they're being treated, no, sir.
2 Q But they are permanent records we're talking 3 about, aren't --
'4 A All records are permanent records.
^
5 Q But.we're talking about records that are'not 6 in-process records?
7 A Well, I'm again telling you that they're 8 considered, they're considering the traveler in the 9 in-process record for which this document is a part of the
_ 10 traveler.
11 Q (By Mr. Mulley) Let me go back to this TRT, 12 because I don't understand this, either. The TRT says
. f
( 13 that, " Record completion was signified by the final QC sign 14 off at which time the record was considered complete, i.e.,
15 no longer in-process. Completed records are then-16 transmitted to a storage facility as described in the i 17 records management manual."
18 A When that traveler is signed off, then the 19 record, then that document with "X" number of documents 1
20 attached to it goes to the permanent plant records storage. i 21 Q We're assuming that the word " record" means f !
22 traveler here. Now, is says, "It should also be noted," 3 23 reading from the TRT again, "that records are soAetimes," l
! i 24 sometimes, " retrieved from the permanent plant records l 25 vault in order to record modifications,to previously TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
r-.
l 388 -
I l 1 accepted hardware," They're being very specific here.
2- A Yes.
! 3 0 "At this point, the records again become
' sl C . 2,1 4 in-process records, which are not covered by. ANSI 9tEkk 5 until they return to the PPRV." Are we saying that the 6 records that shannon is talking'about are records that are- .
l l 7 sometimes taken out to record modifications to previously .
8 accepted hardware? -l l
9 A They may be both.
10 Q May be is one thing. hutit'ssayinghere-- l l
11 A I don't know. Mr. Phillips didn't list exactly, j l
~
12 the exact records that he has, okay?
( 13 0 I guess the problem I have --
14 . A But I will say to you again, the record -- part 15 of the records that are out in the paper flow group that 16 are a part of those travelers had to have come out of the
- 17 permanent plant records vault.
18 0 The question I have, then --
19 A And they'rs a document for which the utility does ,
20 not completely consider the record complete until that ;
I
, 21 traveler is complete with all of the different documents 22 that have to go into it. 1 23 0 Well, to be f rank, the question I'm asking here is, you know, Mr. Phillips wrote a violation up. I'm going i 24 25 back to the TRT that you, yourself, provided as
^
l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 1 l
1 u
l
i 8
319 8
1 justification and I see, you know, some exceptions here.
2 And I'm asking you a question -- you know, the TRT gives an
! 3 . exception, it says that sometimes records are retrieved in 4 order to record modifications to previously accepted 5 hardware. I understand that. I accept that. I'm asking I
6 you -- J l
7 A I'm also telling you that when I talked to i I
8 Mr. Hale, I understood that there are documents out there l 9 that are a part of these travelers that came out of --
10 they're not ones that we just went out to a have a i
11 particular modification done to a record or something ,
l 12 else -- that in addition to those records, there are these l .
1
( 13 records that are part of this traveler which came out of 14 .the plant -- permanent plant records vault which are a part 15 of the traveler for which everything has not been finally 16 done and put into the traveler and then signed off and then 17 sent to go then as a final record to the permanent plant 18' records vaults. >
19 Q What I'm saying is, is that Mr. Phillips is the 20 one that came up with the deficiency, the violation,
! i 21 potential violation. What records were Mr. Phillips l
l 22 talking about?
23 A Tothebestofmyknowledge--Ididn'k. seethe l l 24. records.
25 Q Well, it seems to me, though, you dropped the TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
( .
330 i
1 violation from the report, but you're telling me now that 2 you don't know what records he was talking about. I 3 understand talking to Mr. Hale and --
4 A I'm telling you my understanding of the records 5 he's talking about are the ones that are a part of the 6 traveler, okay, for which that traveler has not been 7 completed and signed off and sent back.
8 Q Did Mr. Phillips tell you that is what --
9 . A That was my understanding of what those folks
_ 10 were talking about.
11 Q Your understanding based on what?
12 A My discussion with Phillips. ,
( 13 0 okay. So that's what Phillips told you, those 14 are the records he was talking about?
15 A From my discussions with him, that's what I drew 16 in conclusion.
17 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) Did he send you an example of 18 one of these records?
19 A No, sir, he did not.
20 Q (By Mr. Nulley) I can understand your questions 21 to him and I can understand -- 1 9
22 A I'm also drawing the broader conclusion that the 23 records that are out in the paper flow group are considered f
24 in process. That is definitely looked at by the TRT from A 25 to Z.
i TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
331 '
i 1 Q But the TRT does say, in the documents you're l 2 quoting from, it cites these records Mr. Phillips is citing l
3 and it says these are completed records with the one 1
4 exceptionsthat sometimes these records are removed --
~
5 MR. GOLDBERG: For modifications.
6 Q (By Mr. Mulley) -- for modifientions. Now, if i ,
7 'these are the records that Mr. Phillips is talking about, 8 the ones removed of modifications, they're in-process. But i
9 other than that, even the TRT'says they're completed
~
10 records.
11 Q .(By Mr. Goldberg) In other words, what George is l 12 asking, is how did you differentiate between those two
( 13 categories? What basis did you know that it was in fact an 14 in-process record.
)
15 Q (By Mr. Mulley) If there was some action taken 16 to show that the records that were pulled and the ones that 17 Mr. Phillips was referring to are the ones that we've taken 18 out for modification and I agree and it seems evident that l ,
i 19 those were in-process records. But minus that sort of i
20 assurance, seems to me, based on what you're showing me 21 here, the TRT thought that those were in fact completed !
22 records.
23 A I've tgld you, once again, that until the final 24 records traveler was signed off, all of the documents that 25 were a part of that traveler were considered in-process as l ,
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
? ?.2 1 a part of that. The traveler was considered in-process and 2 that the final sign off on the records traveler was then 3 what the record, what record was sent to the permanent 4 plant records vault.
5 And those records that are with that trhveler i 6 came out of, a great deal of them, came out of the 7 permanent plant records vault so they could set this whole l
8 operation up. And it's exactly what TRT looked at. l 9 0 (By Mr. Goldberg) I guess what we need to really l
. .. l 10 understand is this: Is an example of one of those records l 11 because it's unclear to both George and myself, where it )
12 fits. If we -- and again with the assumption that TRT is
( 13 right, which is an assumption. But if we assume that, then 14 we don't know which category.
15 A I certainly wouldn't make it a violation having 16 this in hand without something further resolving it.
17 Q (By Mr. Mulley). I mean it would seem to me
. i 18 that --
19 'A I will tell you that right now -- I don't -- when 20 it finally comes out, I would not make it a violation )
< 1
' l 21 having this in hand l
22 Q I can see where you are coming from in that. But 4 1 23 the question is: Why did you -- you know, Phillips comes ,
i t
)
24 up with a potential violation and you've got questions, it 25 would seem to me you'd ask Phillips, " Hey, what records are TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 1
J I
l
, 323 1 you talking about?"
2 A I went over there and I talked to Mr. Phillips, 3 and I told Mr. Phillips, said, "They don't know what 4 they're talking about, I know what a record is." , I l
5 0 And did you ask him for any examples, " Bring some 1 6 of these records."
7 A We talked about what he saw, and the best as I 8 can recall what he described was a part of the things that 9 were a part of one of these travelers.
10 Q okay.
11 MR. GOLDBERG: Go on. .
12 A When you talk to Mr. Hale, you ought to talk
( 13 again on this issue.
14 -
okay. The last one is, " Weld rod not identified, 15 main distribution, distribution station violation." He 16 indicates the violation was dropped in the final report and 17 that someone other than the inspectors dropped finding and j 1
18 advised inspectors after it was dropped.
19 0 (By Mr. Mulley) Excuse me, I got -- let me go 20 back. As far as -- did the licensee ever make a commitment 21 to get these records into a --
22 A The licensee is looking at doing that. I believe f 4
23 they have ordered the cabinets. I think they're statement 24 to me has been, "If it will solve this issue and there will 25 be no more conflict, we will put them in fire. rated l
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
324 ;
t 1 cabinets, it's only a matter of a few bucks."
2 O It's only --
3 A Not that they're admitting that it's a violation, 4 but that if it will solve this issue and everybody will be 5 happy, they'll put them in fire rated cabinets.
6 0 You say it's only going to cost a few dollars.
I 7 Were you at the exit briefing?
8 A Yes.
)
9 0 was a comment made by one of the TUGeo 1
~ \
~
10 representatives that, "Well if we have to put all these ]
l 11 things in fire rated cabinets, it's going to cost us a lot ,
j l
l 12 of money"? . j j
k 13 A May have been. But I also remember the statement 14 sade, "If we put them all in fire ra'ted cabinets, we're f 15 going to sink the trailers." But I don't recall. It could 16 have been said. Certain,1y wasn't keying in on that.
17 Q Did you tell -- did you tell Phillips that, you I
18 know, you had, had made a d'eal with the --
19 A Made a deal? There was no deal. I said we had 20 discussed it with them and they were considering.
21 Q Now, concerning that consideration, have they now 22 changed their mind?
23 A I don't think so. They'restilllookikgat, I 24 think they're on order, as a matter of fact.
25 Q okay. I have information that, you know, you TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
4 e 325 I told Phillips that they decided not to put them in, that 2 they've changed their mind.
3 A At one time they did change their mind because- .
4 they got so many months of -- you know, they were going to 5 stand on their laurels, I guess.
-6 Q Now, they've gone back --
7 A As I understand right now, they're still planning 8 to order those cabinets and put them in here, not that it's 9 a violation.
l ~
10 0 okay. That's all I ha e to clarify that.
11 A okay. As we started on this last issue, which -
12 indicates a violation was dropped in the final report, also (m 13 indicates that someone other than the inspectors dropped 14 the finding and advised the inspectors after it was 15 dropped. I have for you a memo that I had Mr. Barnes write 16 se who had been involved in this issue.
17 Do you want me to read it into the record or do 18 you want to just attach it?
19 0 I'll attach as an exhibit, this meno dated June 20 the 10th, 1986, from Ian Barnes through Tom Westerman Eric j 21 Johnson, will be marked as Exhibit 12.
l 22 (Exhibit 12 marked for identification.) f I &
l 23 Q (By Mr. Mulley) Why don't you just summarize 24 what Ian is saying in the memo.
25 A I think I'd rather just read.it.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
336 '
. +
1 O Well --
2 A It's a memo to me dated June 10th, from Ian 3 Barnes -- well, it's a memo to Eric Nohnson, actually, f rom 4 Ian Barnes through me after I brought it to his attention 5 the statement that was in the matrix.
6 Mr. Barnes states: "It was brought to ny 7 a'ttention by Tom Westerman that Shannon Phillips had 8 asserted that someone other than the inspectors had dropped 9 the violation recording weld rod centrol from paragraph'7 i
~
i 10 of Appendix D of the subject report. In that I was the 11 reviewer apparently alluded to in this assertion, I believe .
12 it is appropriate that I respond relative to actual
(. 11 circumstances that led to the dropping of the citation.
l 14 -
"One: on review of the report submitted by l
15 shannon Phillips, I noted that he had closed out previous 16 unresolved item on veld. rod control (446/8502-01), based on 17 (a) extensive review of tihe' subject by NRC Technical Review.
18 Team and (b) a Region IV inspection in the report ,
19 inspection period which identified no violations or +
20 deviation. See document 3 identified by Shannon Phillips as 21 3.b, page 57," of the packsge that I gave you earlier.
22 When I reached paragraph'7 in my review, I noted a l 6.
23 violation was identified regarding loose and missi-ng labels l 24 on canisters of.Sandvik electrodes. See page 81 in i t.
25 document identified by Mr. Phillips as.3.b. ,
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 L____.______________.______.____.________ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _
1 i
g 327- -
1 "I contacted shannon Phillips and inforavd hia ;
that the report was unacceptable on this subject.
~
2 An )
3 example: Closing out an unresolved item on weld rod 4 control based in part upon a current Region IV inspection ,
1 5 showing no findings and then have a proposed violation in '
6 the same subject in the very same report. During this
~
7 conversation, I told shannon Phillips that either his 4
8 unresolved iten be left open if a violation was truly l 9 believed to exist or the violation be dropped. In
~
10 addition, I informed Shannon Phillips that I believed the M
I 11 proposed violation was somewhat questionable in that the ,
=
12 RegionIVinspector( ) stated'inthereportthe
('
13 material was still ident!.fiable. Sharinon Phillips informed 14 sethathewoulddiscussthematterwith( iand get 15 back to me.
16' "shannon Phillips contacted me later and stated 17 thathehaddiscussedthesubjectwit( arid that
- 18 he had decided to drop the v' iolation.
I told Shannon at l
19 that time that I did not want the subject dropped in that .
! 20 labels should not be coming loose from electrode canisters.
21 2 recommended that the matter be referred to Brown & Root f 22 Welding Engineering for follow-up. This referral was then 1 *
' 6 j 23 documented in the report. Subsequent to issue of.the 24 report, I checked with shannon Phillips to assure myself -
k '
25 that he had contacted Brown & Root on ,the subject. Be N
, TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 j
l
-_ .___A
yr -
4
.*f
} 328' ,
)
1 answered in the affirmative.
~
2 "In summary, the violation was not dropped by ,
3 'someone other than she inspectors,' but rather by Shannon 4 Phillipswiththeapparent/agreementof[ I 5 personally did not discuss the r.ubject with( at 6 any time." signed Ian aard$si chief Region IV, comanche j
'{ i 7 Feak Task Group. ;
- 8. And I really don't h.nys much sorc information. i 9 than what 2 just read youa A i
~
10 Q (sy Mr. Goldberg),'You are suggesting us talk to ..
~
11 Mr. Barnes about this' issue'?
12 A Yes, sf.r. f
' 1 k 13 0' (By Mr. ?!ulley lL'etmeaskyouaquestion,on f 14 this inspection report. What was your involvement at the ,
timetheinspectionwasonitoinj?
l 15 16 A You mean involvement -- I was at the site fout 17 days a week.
}
18 Q Were you actuall participating in the ,
sj 19 inspection? ,
20 A 1 was normally the sorter of what issues came up 21 as to, you know, with an idea of what vas going on, what we ,
I 22 were finding, where to go. /
4 i 23 For example, when f got inte the Stone i Webster, ;
24 issue with the shipping of records, you know, I made seme f 25 management type ek11s to -- I mada e'c,all to Mr,. Noonan, TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713} 222-7177 1 . - _ . -
p -
)
329' l 1 , who,then contacteid Mr. Counsil, who then immediately 2
stcapped any shipping of Stone & Webster records off site.
y 3 And so'I was invo2ved to that kind of an extent.
I was' setting up means of communications with the 4
}
S utility company, with the NRC folks that we were inspecting I C-6 so we vere communicating back and forth with inspection .
I l i
I' 7 findings.
8 Q When you say "we"?
l A That means the group, all inspectors on site; 9
And one of the. things I indicated
~
10 including Mr. Phillips.
11 to you was that even on this, report, had set .a meeting up i 12 with TUGCO for which;he went over these kinds of things l
~
13 with them.
t Q
So you arranged for meetings between TUGC0 and 14 ,
15 Phillips and the other inspectors?
A Normally TUGCO or whoever, whatever it took, 16 17 wherever we needed the" interface to make sure that our 18 findings were getting prope'rly, you know, identified to try j
19 to get proper action out of them, to get responses back so 20 that we could, you know, have an accurate record when we l
21 got through and the in the inspection reported.
0 Was the purposes of these meetings to get more 22 23 information from the utility?. ! j A
Normally get more information to commitments, 'I 24 25 discussion on the issues, give them the opportunity to try i e
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 s 4 ^ ^ ' ' - ^ - - " - ~ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ ,
330
)
1 to give us, you know, whatever else there was that, you 2 know, perhaps we were not looking at the proper 1
f 3 perspective.
4 0 Is this normal -- would be the normal way an 5 inspection was done? -
6 A The normal way of inspection. I would not expect l
7 when I came to an exit time to have any surprises for a 8 utility when I'was doing a'n inspection.
9 Q Did you, in any way; try to justify the utility's
~
-- 10 responses to the inspectors, or to assist the utility in 11 justifying their actions so that violation could be 12 resolved?
13 A other than, you know, provide us with the facts 14 that resolve the item, got to look at the fact and see if 15 it resolves the item.
16 Q Now, you are a manager at the the region level.
17 Would this be a normal practice for Region IV management -- l 6
18 A At the time of this report, I was the chief of 19 Comanche Peak Region IV group. I did not become a I
' thrnNwh .
20 -vse+-chief until following this time.
21 Q so this is certainly within your purview?
22 A Yes, sir.
23 0 Who was responsible for getting the inkpection 24 report together?
25 A I delegated a lot of that to Mr. Barnes, to TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 22:2-7177
___m . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________m. _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ .
331' ;
i l
1 finally put the final report together, get all the 2 comments, to get it written. Each provided their inputs.
3 Mr. Phillips would provide his input, at the time they were 4 issuing, I believe, an overall report for everybody on 5 site,-including the operations folks, we. issued one report, i ops M tons 6 got the input from Mr. Relly who is the c:::t;;;ti:n
~c
? resident, and then we got the inputs from all of our folks 8 in the trailer, difrirent areas that they were looking at.
9 Q But inspection report 84-14/11, whose report is 10 that, is that your report?
11 A What do you mean'"my report"?
12 0 I mean -
f
( 13 A It's the Comanche Peak Region IV group's report;
! 14 it's the NRC report. I reviewed it and concurred it.
l 15 0 so I guess it's not a Shannon Phillips' i
16 inspection report? -
17 A No, sir. .
O 18 Q It's not the one he normally puts out every 19 month. ,
i 20 A It was incorporated into this, as one part of it.
21 It is an appendix, it's an appendix to this overall report 22 that we put out, under a single cover letter, notice of 6
23 violation and notice of deviation. ,
l 24 0 Which.was the appendix, his monthly report or 25 was -- ,
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
_----_..__-----.-- _ _ - -._ _ _ A
332*
1 A I believe it covered more than a one month 2 period, I would have to take a look at that one.
n-3 o secause I look at the cover sheet, this 4 Appendix D. Now is this the report we're talking about? !
5 A Yes, sir. -
6 C It's signed by Phillips as.the inspector, Kelly M
~
7 andI '
8 A Yes. And it identifies the particular paragraphs 9 that they were responsible for. Mr. Phillips was 10 responsible for his and the consultants that worked under 11 him.
12 Q so for the-paragraph that he was responsible for, *
( 13 did you arrange for meetings with Phillips and TUGCO 14 1:encerning some of the violations like shipment of records 15 and things like that? j
{
16 A Yes, sir. Some - 'we have one as I remember, one J 17 meeting with the folks on site, including the senior 18 vice-president of quality assurance and licensing -- not i
1 19 senior, but vice-president of quality assurance and 20 licensing; the QA manager, Mr. Wells.
21 0 would that be normal for somebody in your 22 position to be arranging meetings with the inspector and 4
23 the utility over the inspector's own findings? ,
i 24 A It would be if I was on site. I don't think that-l l 25 would be abnormal. ,
t
, TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 223 7177 l
l
333 1 Q And did you interject --
2 A And I might if an inspector called me in the 3 middle of a month inspection period and say, "We've got 4 this thing going" and I might, you know, I might look at, 5 " Hey let's," this - "I'll come down there and let's take a 6 look at this."
7 Q Do you do this with other inspectors other than 8 Phillips? ,
9 A We had -- in fact, we have had numerous meetings, 10 or not meetings, but discussions of inspection findings as
~
11 we went on a week-by-week basis, with whoever the 12 applicable folks were. So that they were aware of the
(, 13 findings, as I said earlier, at the time we come to the 14 exit interview, there was not to be any surprises.
15 Q But I'm talking about, you did same with the 16 other inspectors?
=
17 A Yes, I did.
18 0 With the other fellows there?
19 A Yes, sir.
20 Q Before Phillips wrote his draft report, did you ]
1 I
21 interface with him and discuss his violations and whether l
22 or not they were applicable? >
23 A I don't think -- well, there was int'erface, I .
l 24 can't recall. I think most of what he initially wrote was 25 he wrote it. Then we discussed it and then he wrote it and
~
l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (114) gaz-/Asi j
3 334* .
1 then we discussed it.
. 2 O so we have a draft inspection report?
3 A several draft inspection reports.
4 0 Draft inspection reports. I'm asking before that 5 draft inspection report was written, had you aire dy 6 interfaced with Phillips concerning whether or not he had a 7 violation or not?
8 A some of the things -- I'm sure some of the things 9 we had discussed.
10 - Q (By Mr. Goldberg) George is making some good 11 points here because if you were so intimately involved, why , _
4 12 weren't you helping him get some of the documentation?
( 13 A What do you mean, " documentation."
14 -
0 (By Mr. Mulley) We're talking about,-for 15 example, the question we just had over the records --
16 A Yes. ,
17 Q -- and things like that where, you know, Phillips 18 has a violation concerning whether records are in-process 19 and properly stored or whether their completed. records are 20 properly stored. And if you were arranging meetings and 21 getting involved at that stage, why -- you know, somebody 22 else say, " Hey, let's look at records and see if we have 33 violation." 4' ,
'l 24 A Like I said, there's some 17 folks going at the 25 ,same time. I'm spending about 50 pereent of my~ time with. )
i ,
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 O - _ _ - _ . . . - . . _ . . _ _ . _ . _ . _ . - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ ______ __ w
I 335 1 Phillips. I spend as much time as I could afford.
2 Q Could you have asked Phillips to go get the ,
'1 3 records and bring them to you?
4 A That inspector's got to do something on,his own I i
5 initiative.
6 Q But if he has --
7 A If I have to go down there and direct'that man 8 who's'a senior resident. inspector on every step of what he 9 should do out there --
10 0 Well, the man thinks he has a violation, he 11 writes it down, you disagree with his violation. .
12 A If he doesn't agree with it, then he should go j
( 13 get it and bring to me what he thinks makes it a violation.
14 -
Q If he's sure he understands why you're deleting 15 the violation. I mean, if he doesn't really understand why 16 you're deleting it -- !
17 A Well, it's like on the in-process records, I 18 think he clearly understood'why it wasn't a violation.
19 If he would have thought that still was, he 20 should have gone and brought whatever he thought I needed 21 to look at. 1 22 Q I asked you a little while ago what type of I j 23 records he was talking about and you said you di n't know.
24 A I did.not personally see -- I only know from 25 discussions with him the kind of records I thought he was TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 )
} 336 1 talking about. okay? And I went into a lot of description
~
2 what I thought those records were.
3 o .But you made a decision'to drop the violation and 4 you really weren't clear about what he was talking about 5 and since you are approving the reports and especially.
6 since you were involved with the report, it would'seem to 7 me, you know, to resolve would - "Okay, Phillips, go get .
~
]
8 se some of these records, let se see what you're talking 1 9 about."
~
10 A Again, I tell you ther wasn't enough hours-in 11 the day. -
l 12 MR. GOLDBERG: Same with with Chicago Bridge & s
. \
0 13 Iron, the QA procedures for records storage, you could have 14 said to Mr..Phillilps, "Go get those procedures, see if 15 they violated their own procedures?"
16 A If I have to -a'again, he's a senior resident l
17 inspector of construction,.he's got to have some his own s
. s 18 initiatives.
19 MR. MULLEY: Off the record. 1 I
20 (A luncheon recess was had.)
l 21 22 23 24 ,
25
~~
l ,
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
337 i !
1 ATTERNOON SESSION 2 MR. MULLEY: Back on the record.
3 THE WITNESS: As I've said several times earlier, 4 I didn't try to duck any issues here. I might not have I 5 agreed with Mr. Phillips in his findings, but I certainly 6 didn't try to duck issues.
~
7 Now, on this issue we talked about shipping l 8 records in cardboard or wooden boxes or whatever, I believe l
9 .I' offered Mr. Phillips to write a memo, go to headquarters,
~
to get a position from the NRC b fore we proceeded in an
~
10 l 11 area where it didn't appear that there is adequate or clear .
12 guidance. ,
I 13 That memo was written by Phillips. I've written 14 two memos. I wrote one which was simply forwarded, I gave 15 it to Eric Johnson. I got directed then by Eric Johnson to 16 go back and write a memo giving my position ~on what 17 Mr. Phillips had stated,'and I wrote that. Mr. Johnson f 18 still has that, that memo. "I don't know whether it has 19 sbeen shipped out or not because it's been caught up in all j 20 of the things that are ongoing at this time. <
! i 21 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) You said that you wanted 22 Mr. Phillips to write a meno. Did that memo get to develop prior to this being determined to be an unresolydd item?
~
23 l
]I 24 A That memo was developed following -- that was s s 25 what I, in our discussion with Phillips like how to handle 9
i TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
338 I )
1 this, was that I wanted to get -- I wanted something -- I I 2 wanted a position from somebody as to whether it was or 1
)
wasn't a problem, beyond what he ar.d my discussions, okay?
~
3 4 Q The question is: Did'you originate that action 5 prior to or af ter the -- your determination this tio- be an 6 unresolved item?
As a-part of and as a part of the reason for'it 7 A 8 being left as an item to be followed. If we come back with 9 guidance which says, " Yeah, it's improper to ship them like 10 that," then we'll go write a violation. .
l 11 Q You decided to make it and unresolved item and 12 about the s.ame time, you said, "Let's get an opinion from 13 the folks up in Washington."
14 .
A That's what I said, in lieu of making it a 15 violation, I wanted an opinion first. I think you will 16 find that on many of the,-- most all of the issues that we l 17 talkOc about Luday.
18 MR. MULLEY: Go off the record for a second. I 19 (Discussion off the record.)
20 THE WITNESS: And again about'your question about 21 did CB&I have procedures or not have procedures, it's an l
-)
22 open item in the report which I've indicated that we would 23 do follow up inspection to determine where we ark.
24 Q (By Mr. Goldberg), But isn't that a very simple i 25 thing of somebody going walking over to CB&I?
l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
[ .
J i
339 i
l 1 A CB&I is off site. There may be some CB&I -- I 2 don't know what's left of CB&I on site. I don't know at 3 this point in time. )
4 Q No, at the time when this issue arose. ~
I 5 A I don't know what CB&I was on site, I really I
I know that they did go over and they did have some l 6 don't.
7 procedures. I know that they quoted -- I believe it was l l
8 quoted in the report -- I don't knew whether it's still 9 there or not -- where they talk about the fact that CB&I
~
10 had some procedures that talked about shipping records, 11 that if they were valuable records or whatever, to ship .
12 them air express or, you know, I don't remember all the
' 13 exact words. But CB&I did have records, procedures on 14 controls for their records, to say how they should be 15 transmitted from the site to CB&I. j
. 4 16 Q That's really the key because if those procedures 17 were of such -- it was determined that they weren't 18 following their procedurea'then there would be a definite !
}
19 issue here.
20 A But the inspector had those procedures in hand. i i
21 Q Did,you ask them to show you the procedures?
A I never looked at the procedures. You know, we-22 23 got into this what did I do on this site. I hadI pbout 24 seventeen folks. You know, I had a whole program on the 25 other side which had the majority of these folks, which TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 .
l
l i
I 340 .I I wasn't even a preteribed IE manual chapter or anything l 2 else. We were setting up a prograni to verify the 3 implementation of the comanche Peak response plan. That I 4 took a great deal cf my time. ,
l 5 My folks, the folks,.for example, leads like Hale j 1
6 or Elershaw or even Wagner, I don't know whether Wagner was -
1 1 7 there at the time. They take the issues most of the issues 1 8 they got an "X" number of consultants working for them, I
9 they get the issues, they develop them, you know, to the 10 point in time then I become aware of them. And then we 11 make some determination which direction to go with them. )
12 It's like in electrical penetration assemblies.
L 1
13 You know, that came out very -- that came out -- when that 14 came out, I immediately reacted to that one because I 15 understood the significance of it. I went out in the field 16 even on that one. -
17 But I certainly didn't spend lot time going field 18 or trying to go back behind'every'inspe; tor to figure out 19 whether he was doing it right or wrong. I expected the i
20 inspectcr, particularly in the case of a senior resident .I 21 inspector for construction, to be able to handle his 22 findings in a factual manner, professionally.
6- !
23 Like I said, I believe most everything that we've
=
24 talked about today, whether the violations were dropped or 25 ,otherwise or some way through with, as, indicated, I wasn't TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
341 l
1 ducking any issues. If somebody will show me something, i
5 whatever the facts are whatever you come up with, I'm not 3 one that says, "We won't go write violations." But I've l 4 got to have more than what I had.
5 0 (By Mr. Mulley) These conversations during this l 6 inspection report that you had with Phillips on site, how 7 would you characterize them, the meetings that you had in 8 his trailer and' things like that?
l 9 A Just discussions, you know. No more than the ,
i
.. I
~
10 discussion here.today.
11 Q Were they heated 7 i j
We got heated today
~
12 A I don't know how heated.
I 13 sometimes, sometimes we weren't. You know, they were 14 . discussions.
l 15 Q But they were -- were the same -- taking for l 16 example what we've talked about today, were they the same 17 type of discussions, were you debating technical issues?
18 A Yes. I would say there was nothing anymore --you 19 know, I was trying -- as a matter of fact, a lot of what I i 20 had said was, you know, I've heard the term calibrate, I 21 was trying to calibrate the man somewhat, tc talk about, 22 you know, "How do you go with this thought process."
23 0 Was there any, what you would considerg, pressure 24 or intimidation on him just to drop the violations?
25 A No, sir. We didn't drop anything. We might not-TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-/1//
- ~ . - . - _ _ _ _ _ _
8 342 I have made it a violation, but there was no pressure saying, 2 "Phillips, you're going to drop this issue altogether."
3 If you call pressure the fact I say, "Phillips, I 4 don't agree with that being.a violation," that's not saying 5 we dropped it, because the issues are still here in the 6 report. I didn't prevent the man from presenting the 7 issue. I don't know how many different unresolved or open 8 items there are" in this section 5 of the report, but you 9 can go through and --
10 0 Well, we had --
11 A -- 5 and 6 in this report.
12 Q Phillips' first draft contained two violations,
(, 13 one of which had two parts; one deviation and eight 14 unresolved items for Unit 1; and six violations,'one 15 deviation and nine unresolved items for Unit 2.
l 16 Now, the final ~ report contained one deviation, 17 eleven unresolved items and two open items for Unit 1; and s
18 three violations and twelve' unresolved items and two open 19 items for Unit 2. And it seemed that the violations were 20 dropped in favor of, you know, writing unresolved items. f 21 A Because the inspector and myself could not reach 22 an agreement on the items. I would like to indicate also, 23 I made it very clear back to regional management'.'
24 o What role did Mr. Johnson play in this inspection 25 report?
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
L 343 1 A This report, he would have seen the report after
. 2 it was written.
3 0 (By Mr. Goldberg) What inspection are- you 4 referring to now?
5 A Still referring to the one on records.
- 6. Now, the next one, after having gone through this I
7 one on him, I did bring the draft back and give it to )
8 Mr. Johnson so he could see what we were -- difficulties I 9 felt that I was encountering. )
~
- 10 Q (By Mr. Mulley) When you briefed this inspection
. i l 11 report, this 85-14/11 with Mr. Johnson, what feedback did -
l
\
12 you get from him?
( , 13 A I don't think he had any problem report with the 14 report as written.
15 se had no problem with the report as written.
16 okay. I never got anythi,ng from Mr. Johnson, "I don't 17 agree or disagree with this report."
18 Q (By Mr. Goldberg)l And no comments, in other 19 words?
20 A There was no comments and he concurred on it.
21 And his signature is on the front of the' cover letter that 22 goes with the report.
23 Q (By Mr. Mulley) Did Mr. Johnson ever de's the 24 draft versions of this report?
25 A No, sir. A lot of that was , discussed, the kinds TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 8
344 1 of things, the findings, the. kinds of conclusions that were 2 being drawn by the inspector, certainly were discussed.
3 Q And what was the response to?
4 A' I think in most cases, I got nothing that said I 5 don't, or he disagreed with my positions that I was_taking.
6 Q Was Phillips present when any of these 7 discussions --
8 A No, sir, sure wasn't. -I came back in here every l 9 Monday, in fact, came in this' office every Sunday, spent ;
10 all of my Sunday, spent Monday, and different discussions,.
11 and a 9:00 o' clock phone call every Monday morning to
\
12 Mr. Noonan, trying to keep him. appraised of the project
( 13 status. I normally briefed the regional administrator J 14 every Monday.
15 Q Do you want to go into the next --
16 A I wanted to talk about one issue that came up.
17 Phillips got into looking at the HVAC system. And I even l
\
18 sat down and tried to explain to him the difference between 19 seismic category I and seismic category'II and what was 20 safety related and what wasn't safety related. !
21 And I guess even after we went through all that, 22 I got the report and Mr. Phillips was again calling the 23 BVAC system nonsafety related. And I just, you know, I.
24 documented - .that got to the point that I just documented 25 it in a memo. I changed the report and sent it back to TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
1 l
,. 345 )
i him, it was 85-18, 85-15. But what I have in my -- what I 1
- 2 have in my memo attached to it was a page I took out of the .
3 r e p o'r t .
'l 4 MR. MULLEY: I'm going to mark this memo from 5 T.F. Westerman to S.H. Phillips dated May the 22nd, 1986, i 6 as Exhibit 13.
7 (Exhibit.No. 13 marked for identification.)
8 YHE WITNESS: You will see that at the top of the
! 9 first page there, he had that-the containment ventilation
~ It is l
10 system is Seismic category II and nonsafety related.
11 non-nuclear safety, and that's the definition out of the .
12 utility's FSAR, which says that that part of the HVAC
( 13 system doesn't have to function, but the fact that it's 14 Seismic category II is the whole essence all the inspection 15 that was being done out there on the. box and HVAC supports 16 because Seismic Category,II, you do not want a failure of that system which could interfere with other systems. And 17 1 J
18 it is definitely safety relate.
19 Q (By Mr. Mulley) For my information, what is the i
20 difference between nonsafety related and non-nuclear safety 21 related? ,
22 A "Non-nuclear safety related" means that it does 1 23 not have to function in the event of an accidentp *
- safety flo W-24 related" means it has - 4 safety related has .the concept 25 that it's -- you don't need it at all, or that even if it TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 b
c 346 1 fails, it's not going to cause a condition that's ;
l 2 unacceptable.
3 The HVAC system is in the containment, is set, is j l
4 seismic category II and it is considered that because of 5 its failure, its failure could lead to other systems 1
6 becoming inoperative.
1 7 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) You knew it was safety related
]
8 because of what you use at your --
9 A Just my own knowledge of what seismic category: I 10 II, and seismic -- the two are things that we've done for 11 years. I would think that any senior resident inspector .
12 for construction would have that ki~nd of knowledge. ,
(, 13 Q Let me pursue this one more step. You're saying 14 you knew based on your general knowledge that seismic l 15 Category II is safety related.
~
! 16 A Yes, sir.
17 Q But did you check to see if in fact that the 18 plant is handling the systeh is safety related through its 19 control documentation?
20 A I'm telling you -- yes, sir, it is safety l
l 21 related. That's the whole issue we have in the 22 NSON(Phonetic) m RVAC support area. We're talking about 23 all seismic Category II ventilation' supports. I-
! 24 0 so you pulled some documentation to verify that 1
4 25 the system, that the way they used it,,they used it as a
~
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
)
i i
E _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _
347 1 safety related system? .
2- A No. I'm saying there's a whole inspection 3 program ongoing looking at all of the ventilation support 4 that is Seismic Category II. I don't know what I'm going 5 to pull.
6 Q There are two issues here. One is how it's 7 defined to be treated in the FSAR, and the second is how 8 the plant is actually using the system when they do any --
9 A That's correct. -
~
10 Q And you're saying -- I'm not sure what you're 11 saying.
12 A I'm saying that the plant, defines it as seismic
( 13 Category II systems. And that's what even was said right 14 here. And I'm showing you that the man said it's nonsafety j 15 related. And I'm saying that's not proper, it is safety 16 relates. ,
17 Q The plant defines it as safety related Category 18 II and it's being used as o Category II safety related 19 system? !
20 A That's correct. ;
21 Q In other words, QA reviews any work done on this 22 system? ,
23 A That's correct. There's full QC inspeltion and 24 QA coverage and whatever.
25 0 And when procurement is done, it's done with l
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 P
4
1 -348-1 qualified vendors.
2 A Yes, sir.
3 o And let me go one more step. And when audits are 4 conducted, the audits will review this system? ,
5 A Yes, sir, that's what we're -- in fact, that's 6 the whole thing that's been ongoing. In fact, it's even a l
j 7 subject of a 50.55(e) report to the Region.
8 85-16', 85-13. Again, Mr. Phillips furnished a 9 matrix as well as the copies of all the drafts and notes l 10 and whatever that went with that. I believe I gave those 11 to you yesterday. No, I didn't. Maybe I didn't. There ,
12 are some extra matrixes in here.
13 MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Let me label as Exhibit 14, 14 e matrix of drafts for report 85-16/13, by E.S. Phillips, )
15 dated May the 12th, 1986.
16 (Exhibit No. 14 marked for identification.)
17 THE WITNESS: I think the first -- I wanted to
- i
)
18 just make some general comments about handling of 19 50.55(e)'s and IE bulletins. I think that it has always j 20 been my position that there will be no operating license 21 until we are satisfied that all the 50.55(e)'s and IE j ,
bulletin issues are properly resolved and closed by Region
~
j 22 ;
23 IV inspection. I' 24 I think that the draft report that-I have here, 25 which is document 1-A, is everything but direct and TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
349 1 succinct. It was also my position as we went in to do the 2 whole inspection not to piecemeal the effort, but to come 3 up with a comprehensive resolution of the issues dealing 4 with 50.55(e)'s and IE bulletins. .
i 5 As in all other reports, I would again indicate 1
6 that Mr. Phillips did sign the front of this report. He 7 signed the front cf the previous report that we discussed.
- )
8 And that was after the report was completed with no other 9 changes made.
10 Q- (By Mr. Mulley) Is there any indication, going 11 back to hi,s signature on these reports, did Mr. Phillips 12 sign these reports because he just through in the towel, so
( 13 to speak and he got tired of fighting? Did he ever say 14 that to you?
l 15 A I think Mr. Phillips made the statement one time 16 that we cannot continue Vith all this interaction. I think 17 my statement to Mr. Phillips was, "You're not making it any 18 easieronmethanitisonhou."
19 I, as the supervisor, have the responsibility to f 20 go through the issues as they came up.
1 l 21 okay. The first item we have is, "TUGC0 failed 22 to develop / implement a procedure to show or reference 6
23 objective evidence that deficiencies were corrected in i
24 violation of Criterion 5, procedures and instructions and {
l 25 drawings, 10 CFR 50 Appendix B." It was a Phillips-l I
I TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 )
L_ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ .
i R H
l 1 350-1 McKlusky finding, Phillips wrote the violation.
2 Now, it was my position and it still is my 3 position that there's no requirement in 50.55(e), or a 4 procedure, that having a procedure to cover 50.55,(e) is not
)
5 an Appendix B requirement. 50.55(e) is a reporting 6 requirement which is placed on to the utility via the code l I
1 7 di regulations.
8 The documents that are necessary to show closure 9 of a 50.55(e) are documents which the QA program does
~
~
10 encompass. These are the nonconformance reports; these 11 are, for example, TDDR's, TUGCO design deficiency reports; -
i j
12 these may be DCA's or whatever. The permanent plant
( 13 documents that are actions taken to resolve 50.55(e)'s are i
14 a part of the QA program. And those documents are j 15 maintained and they do go to the records vault, f
16 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) 50.55(e) reports generally, 17 let me ask these questions, stem from nonconformance 6
r i 18 reports that reach a certai'n level of safety threshhold, 19 that they become reportable to the NRC7 l 20 A Reportable to the NRC.
21 Q Based on the construction deficiencies?
22 A Yes, sir.
l 23- 0 Okay. These are nonconformance reportd' generated ,
24 by plant personnel or --
25 A That's correct.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
351 t
-1 0 -- many by the QA organization?
1 -
2 A Yes.
3 Q When they do generate these, they put them on 3 4
4 various sheets and get elevated to various levels of 1
5 management for consideration?
l 6 .A Yes, sir.
l l 7- Q okay. Are there procedures for identification, l
t 8 documentation and notification of affected organizations --
l 9 A Yes, sir.
10 0 --fornonconff(mingitems?
11 A' Yes, sir.
12 O okay. Arewetalkingabgutthathere?
(, 13 A Not -- well, what we're talking about that i 14 Mr. Phillips wanted, was for the utility to have a status 15 in a file for each 50.55(e) which he could go over to and 16 look in that file and close out a 50.55(e). And I'm saying I 17 I don't know of any requirement that would say the utility 18 would have to have those in'a file for the convenience of ;
19 the Commission. Those records are there; they are !
20 maintained; they are part of the permanent. Now, if I'm a 21 prudent licensee, I will have that kind of a system. i 22 Q Did they have a system, not for 50.55(e), it's --
Yes, sir.
f 23 A -]
24 0 -- it's a bigger issue of nonconformances?
25 A Yes, sir, they have a nonconformance system.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
1 1
352--
1 Q They include status and close out?
2 A of all nonconformance reports, yes, sir.
3 0 .And who's responsible for that?
4 A -QA. .
5 Q So you're saying that they do have a procedure 6 that shows and references objective evidence of how and 7 when deficiencies were~ corrected. You're saying that there 8 is a procedure at the plant?
9 A There is for nonconformances, there are for 10 TDDR's, there are for DCA's. You know, a nonconformance 11 report in itself is a status. It's not closed out until -
12 the issue has been corrected.
( 13 Q No, it's not just the report, itself. Do they 14 have a piece of paper which shows the status of all plant 15 nonconformances; where they are, who's closed them out and 16 why they're not closed o0t and what corrective action is 17 required? I 18 A I don't know whet'her they have all the things 19 you're talking about, but I think there is.
20 Q How do they keep track of nonconformances in the 21 plant if they don't have it?
22 A The best of my knowledge, they.do have status of 23 nonconformances. -
24 Q Did you ask Mr. Phillips that question?
25 A No, sir.
That was not what Mr. Phillips asked TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 3
1 i 353 1 for. Mr. Phillips was asking for a status for each i l
2 50.55(e) so that he could go over to a file and close it ,
1
~
3 out. !
4 Q Well, it's more than 50.55(e); the issue is:
j 5 nonconformances.
6 A But that is not what the violation that he wants 7 to write is for. He's not writing a violation because they ]
. \
8 don't properly disposition nonconformance reports or 9 maintain status of nonconformance reports or maintain 10 status of TDDR's. .
I 11 Q (By Mr. Mulley) Is there another violation that -
1 12 he should have written instead of the one-he did? l J
( 13 A No, sir, I don't believe so. I did, 14 incidentally, on this, talk to Jane Axelrad.
15 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) Before you wrote it up?
l f
l 16 A No, sir, after thel fact.
l 17 Q After the fact.
i 18 A She would concur'with me. l l
19 Q (By Mr. Mulley) When you say after the fact, l
20 when was that?
I 21 A Two or three weeks ago.
22 0 Well, you just mentioned something about
~
0" 23 nonconformance reports --
24 A I'm saying the records necessary to close out the
(
l l 25 50.55(e)'s vere over there. They are,in the permanent TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
.\
,l 354 t
i l 1 record. They were not in a. nice convenient place for the 1 I 2 NRC to go.
1 3 ,
Q '(By Mr. Goldberg) To me, the issue is: Could )
I 4 Mr. Phillips go over to a pier; of paper, and not,just on ,
5 50.55(e)'s, on any nonconformance, and determine the i
6 status? ,
7 A Yes, sir, I beliNdt he could.
. !' i 1 8 Q He's saying he can't'even do that on 50.55(e)'s.
9 If he can't do it on 50.55(e)'s, how can he do it for the l 10 other things? 1
< t
)
~
11 i A Becaust those documents are part of the -- -
)
12 Q It's got a documents, it's a document. - It's a
( 13 status of --
x.
14 A There are documents that may make up the closure '
15 of a 50.55(e). There may be several -- \
16 Q I think we're Mot communicating. I'm talking 17 about a stat'us document,. singular, which shows for the' l i l 18 plant, the status of nonconformances? l 19 A Yes, sir, i
20 0 DCA's, material deficiencies from the. receipt 21 inspection, the whole array'of nonconformances.
22 A Yes, sir. 3 b
23- Q Can he go to a piece of paper and find the status-
- 24 of that, one piece of paper?
l j 25 A To the best of my knowledge,.he can"do that.
i
.. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713)i222-7177 s.
_ _ _ _ - - _ - - = - _ __
1 0 So if he can't do it for 50.55(e)'s, how 2 being able to do it for everything in the plant?
3 ,
A Because those are on a status.
4 Q So you're saying he could do it and he didn't do e 5 it. Is that what you're saying?
6 A Yes, sir. If he wanted to take the time, in fact 7 it's documented in this draft, the' licensee stated to him, N 8 "If you want to take these one at a time, you want to come 9 over here, I will -- we will walk you through each one af 10 these. It may take you a week to do, or two or three days 11 :.o do a 50.55(e), but we will find you every piece of paper '
12 that you need to show the closure of that 50.55(e)."
13 0 I guess we're not communicating. I'm talking 14 & bout within two and-a-half minutes being able to'tell 15 you --
16 A I don't know an'y regulation that says I have to 17 do that.
1B Q The status of the nonconformance, not of the --
19 A In you knew what the nonconformance -- if you 20 knew what the nonconformance was that you wanted to look 21 for, then you could do it.
2 Q Does the plant keep a log or a st.atus of all i ._
nonconformances?
~
2 24 A Yes, sir, to the best much my knowledge, they do.
25 Q But if they did,,then he could find that very
(
.. TATF REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
y
> l 356 1 ;
e ',
1 quickly?
2 A I believe he could.
3 Q But you're saying it would takt him a week.
i 4 A He wanted thera to produce it on c, little piece of l 5 paper and list out the nonconformances that went with t.41s 6 50.55(e). He wanted them to put on.a little piece of paper 7 ind list out what every other little document that he ' ,
- I 8 needed to go look at to close out the 50.55(el'.
9 O Does the plant have'such a document? ,
i 1
i 10 A They have a list of n neonformance rtzports.
l 11 0 Do they show what the status is? . {
12 A Yes, sir. <
( 13 Q Soit'stheko,4 then? i 1
14 -
A Yes, sits {
I 15 0 You're saying the plant has it?
16 A But he' wanted'It all -- wait a minute now, he J
17 wanted it all pulled together in one nice package for each 50.55(e). r -
18 19 Q Well, a 50.55(e) is a nonconformance, it started 20 out as a nonecnformance and became a 50.55(e). .
\
21 A It doesn't nece,ssariliy always have to be:a f' {
22 nonconforme ne report. It may be a T R, may be a TUGC0 t i
I- j 23 design deficiency report.
l 24 0 Well, in the generic sense sort of way, 7'm 25 calling nonconformances, deviations, the whole, bitned on
TATE KCPO*. TING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
-Q i
-_--- a-
e ,
i 357 l
1 the definition of Appendix B7
? A I would tell you that in the past, inspectors-j 3 have closed out the 50.05(e)'s. And I went back and talked 4 to at least two,-Mr. Hunnicut and Mr. Cummins. It's not an .l 5 easy job to do, but it can be done, because there's no case 6 where the record vasn't there.
7 Q I'm not questioning about a record -- I'm asking 8 whether there is a piece of paper that you can get to very 9 easily which r, hows the status of plant nonconformances?
10 A Yer, sir.
11 MR. HULLEY: Why don't you read this testimony .
l 12 quickly, Steve, so --
(. 13 MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. We will go off the record.
14
-(Discussion off the record.)
15 - Q (By Mr. Goldberg) What I'm talking about, the i 16 issue.I'm talking about-is probably one step beyond the 17 issue here, because we're talking about plant 18 nonconformances of which some of them become 50.55(e)'s. l t ;
19 And the issue is whether, whether an NRC inspector, a plant I
! 20 manager, a QA inspector, a QA auditor, can go to a record, 21 go to a piece of paper -- a record could be a lot of pieces 1 l
22 of paper -- go to a piece.cf paper, and quickly identify 1 A-23 the status of plant nonconformances?
24 A Yes, sir, I believe it can.
25 0 (By Mr. Mulley) How long would this take for TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
i 358 l 1 somebody to be able to go to do this?
Depending on how long the list was. You know, 2 A 3 you've got into the thousands of nonconformance reports.
l 4 0 (By Mr. Goldberg) If you know the number of the 5 plant nonconformance, you should be able to get it.very 6 quickly?
7 A Yes, sir, within minutes if you knew the number.
I 8 Q so 50.55(el's to know the plant nonconformance 9 number, that's not that difficult, is it, to go from the --
~~
10 A No, that's the little harder part, you've got to 11 go find out what the nonconformance was. -
12 O Does the plant identify, have a system and 1
( 13 identify 50.55(e)'s to the specific nonconformance it came 14 from?
15 A They had some, I guess, but they did not have an 16 easy way to get there.
17 Q Well, it says in the regulations under Appendix 18 B, criteria, I believe it's Criteria 15 --
19 A Yes.
20 Q -- that the measure shall include as appropriate 21 procedures for identification of nonconformances.
22 A They do have.
23 Q Wouldn'tidentificationincludebeingkbleto 24 identify a 50.55(e) --
25 A No, sir.
I TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l.
l 1
1 l
l 1 Q -- to a particular plant nonconformance? q t
i 2 A No, sir, I don't'believe so.
3 I believe that's also in the statement that j i
4 Mr. Johnson made, that a record for convenience of the NRC 5 is not a requirement.
6 0 According to this, section 15.0 of the TUGCO QA 7 plan -- now, we do not have -- let me ask you this 8 question. Did you review the QA plan, the top tier 9 procedures and various procedu'res to determine that you had 10 a case with Mr. Phillips before you made your position 11 known? Did you review the plant procedures?
! 12 A No. !
t . ;
i
(_ 13 O According to Section 15-0 nonconforming items,
! 14 Rev. II, 21880 of the TUGCO QA plan, it requires that j l
l 15 "50.55(e) matters be documented on a nonconformance or l 16 deficiency report. It mGst be available for inspection."
17 A They are and they are available for inspection. , .
l 18 Q Question is, whet'her that the 50.55(e) issue, the > j
- 19 question really is, does 50.55(e) items have a code ,
1 20 identification which is a plant nonconformance icentifier? ; i i
21 That's really what we're talking about.
22 A You'd have to go look at the nonconformance 6
23 reports to see how --
24 Q If it has an identifier, then you would be able 25 to quickly find out the status, i
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 *
! 360' l
t.
1 A If you went to look at nonconformance reports, 2 you would clearly be able to identify whether it was a 3 50.55(e) item.
4 0 Therefore, the identifier will carry you into the a
j 1
5 plant and give'you that kind of information?
6 A You've lost me now, what do you mean?
7 Q If you had an identifier, a identification 8 number.
9 A If I had a NCR number, I could go find it.
10 Q on this matter, it seems to me what we need to 11 determine are the procedures fer nonconformance reporting 12 at the plant.
( 13 A There are procedures for nonconformance reporting 14 at the plant.
15 Q (By Mr. Mulley) If I look at on the matrix, 16 we're talking about subparagraph small "a," that.one is 17 "TUGCO failed to develop / implement a procedure, or to show 18 referenced objective eviden'ce that deficiencies were .
l 19 corrected." Am I right to say that we're talking about, in 20 this proposed violation, we're talking about the procedure, i
l 21 itself? ,
22 A There were procedures for 50.55(e).
23 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) Didtheyhaveaprofe'durefor 24 taking --
~
25 A The procedure didn't carry it to the point that TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713') 222-7177
l 361 ;
~
I made the connection between a 50.55(e) fi1e to the NCR.
2 You have to go to the NCR to get back to the 50.55(e).
3 ,
Q (By Mr. Goldberg) Therefore, it's conceivable 4 that the QA plan is not implementing criteria 15 correctly, s
l 5 because it says here --
6 A They are.
7 Q -- Criteria 15 is in identification of l l
8 nonconformances. .
9 A All nonconformances are identified.
10 0 Well -- 1 l
11 A A 50.55(e) report is a nonconformance that has to . l 12 be reported to the Commission under the regulations of <
13 50.55(e).
I 14 Q But if you are questioning a 50.55(e) and you i
15 vant to know the status or if corrective action was 16 taken -- . I 17 A I'd have to go'to the NCR's to look to find that 18 50.55(e). -
q 19 Q Eow do you do it without an identification 20 number?
21 A You look at the NCR's. i 22 O But that's going to take quite a bit of time.
23 A It's still retrievable. I.
24 0 (By Mr. Mulley) But retrievable, isn't there ,
25 some sort of a time limit on --
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
i i>
, 362 l
1 A No, sir. :l
-- retrievability, it has to be reasonable?
j 2 0 l 3 A There's no time limit on.retrievability. ]
I i Q (By Mr. Goldberg) I'm questioning whether it's.
5 in fact identifiable. We go back to the issue. It's like 6 you get a piece of equipment from a vendor and you don't 7 have a heat number or a lot number and he says, "Well, go ,
8 back to my records, you might find it." I mean, you've got 9 to carry --
It's not "you might find it," you will find it
~
~
10 A 11 and it has been found. I don't know of any case where a .
12 record of a 50.55(e) was not previously found by the
( 13 inspectors who went down and looked for it.
It was not es.
14 simple a task as what Mr. Phillips wanted to make it.
15 Q 'How many 50.55(e)'s are written at this plant ) '
i 16 every month? -
17 A ch, we haven't gotten very many here of late.
6 18 But we were probably getting three or four or five a month.
19 Q so you could possibly get 50, 60 a year? l 20 A Sure. l 21 Q It's conceivable that it would be difficult to i
L 22 match your nonconformances with 50.55(e)'s.
! 23 A Sure. 4-i 24 Q And without a identification number, you may have ;
t 25 some question about where.it came from?
i TATE REPORTIITG SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l !
363 i I
i 1 A You might.
Therefore -- l 2 Q l
3- A But I'm telling you again, what I said to them,
. i.
4 we will close out ever 50.55(e) in this plant before we 5 license it.
6 Q Therefore, you don't know if you can or 1f you 7 cannot and without an identification number. I don't think 8 it's issue of of retrievability, it's an issue of ,
9 . identification back to Criteria
~
10 A I'm telling you 50.55(e) does not fall under !
11 Criterion 15. The nonconformance that is identified falls ,
302 . There was a nonconformance report.
12 under criterion 14.
( 13 Q The nonconformance system, doesn't that include :
14 the reporting of nonconformances to the NRC7 Are-there 15 anything in the procedures that describe the NRC as part of 16 the implementation of criteria 157 17 A They have in their nonconformance procedure which 18 is a logical place anybody. puts it, a requirement to look 19 to see if it was reportable under 50.55(e).
20 Q Therefore, NRC is part of criteria 157 21 A No, it's a part of their procedure.
22 O Which means it's part of Criteria 15, since it's ;
23 parts of their procedure. 6 j i
24 A Okay.. And the record is there. I get the 25 nonconformance record. It says, "This nonconformance is a TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
i
1 364 ;
1 50.55(e)."
2 Q The question really comes, revolves around 3 whether the plant has an identification procedure --
4 A To get from a 50.55(e) -- ,
5 0 -- to know what the status of what nonconformance 6 items are if you're starting from the position of what the 7 50.55(e) number is. And the question is whether they can 1 8 identify that to a particular nonconformance report.
9 A That's correct.
10 Q That's the question.
11 A That's correct.
( 12 Q And from what you're describing, they cannot?
( 13 A They cannot -- l l 14 -
Q They cannot because they have to dig?
~
15 A It can be done.
16 O By digging and* sorting?
17 A That's correct.
18 0 But it cannot be 'done by identification numbers?
19 A No, sir.
20 Q (By Mr. Mulley) Okay. Mr. Phillips says that 21 they had given TUGC0 months to come up with the records and 22 they could not come up with the --
23 A Again,.if you will read in the report, the man 24 said, "If you want to.take them one at a time, we'll take t
25 you out there and go through and find you the records TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
{
' 365 l i
I necessary to close out these 50.55(e)'s."
2 I will tell you that previous inspectors have 3 down and closed out 50.55(e)'s in a similar manner. When i
! 4 we brought this issue up, as I said at the beginning, I 5 wanted to tackle it as a comprehensive thing, okay?
6 We even came to the site and had a meeting with 7 them, for which Eric Johnson was present, okay? What the 8 utility commited to do was to come up with a very easy j I
9 status that the NRC could, the NRC and themselves could d 10 show each 50.55(e) and any documentation that was necessary J
~ !
11 to go close it out. It was a matter of convenience.
12 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) I don't think we're talking l )
( 13 convenience here.
We are.
14 A
I 15 0 We're talking whether they are in compliance with 16 Criteria 15. That's what we're talking about.
17 A You're correct.
b 18 Q And if they are referencing in their procedures, 19 nonconformance reporting to the NRC and procedures l
20 applicable to 50.55(e), then criteria 15 is part of that in j 21 in the system of identification. f 22 A And that nonconformance is handled exactly within I l
J I'
23 the requirements of --
24 0 so criteria 15 is applicable here?
25 A For the nonconformance that initially identified l
l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-717'/
)
l 4
. 366 !
d i
l 1 the item. 1 2 Q ror the nonconforming system? l 3 A Yes, sir.
4 Q Which includes the reporting to the NRC7 5 A No, sir. I'm telling you, if I'm a prudent l
6 licensee, I have to put it into my procedures to make sure 7 I neet the reporting requirements of the NRC. It is not in 8 Criteria 15 that I report to the NRC 50.55(e)'s.
9 Q No, it isn't. ;
10 A Nobody can tell you.
i 11 Q But the procedures they use to implement their ,
12 top tier procedures, that implements Criteria 15, if it
( 13 includes reporting to the NRC then your entire j
14 nonconforming system encompasses that part of the reporting 1 15 system. I 16 A There is a place th'at you put it in' order to meet 17 50.55(e). And the source of identifying it comes out of l
18 the nonconformance system,'comes out of a TDDR, it comes I '
19 out of many places.
20 Q What we're trying to establish is the issue of 1
21 the convenience to the NRC is, you know, is not the issue.
l l
22 The issue is whether the nonconformance system includes 23 reporting to the NRC.
j 24 A That's correct.
! 25 Q okay.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE,.(713) 222-7177 e
i I !
357' 1
1
]
1 A I do not believe that 15 says anything about -l
..- l 2 reporting to the NRC. j 3
Q The procedures say in implementing criteria 15 I 4 reporting to the NRC -- -
5 A Now, there again, when I.have a regulation 6 requirement which says you w!,11 report it, I have to put it
}
7 somewhere. So I put it in the procedure where it best 4 i
8 fi,t s . {
9 Q And where is that?
10 A That is a nonconformance procedure. ,
il Q And what is that implementing, what criteria? l 12 What criteria, where in the regulations? l 1
( 13 A You know, that implements the nonconformance 14 requirements of the criteria, but that puts a step beyond 15 what 15 requires.
I 16 Q But if the uti5ity did that, then they have 17 committed themselves to go that one step beyond? ,
j )
18 .A All of them are riequired to make reporting under i 19 50.55(e). That is a regulation.
20 Q But where they put the procedure is generally l
21 where? Where do they generally -- I l
22 A I would normally put it in the nonconformance ;
1 g 23 procedure. But that does not make the nonconformance --
24 that does not make it a requirement of Criterion 15 to 1 l
I 25 report. It is 50.55(e) that makes it a requirement to )
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177.
- 4 l
l 1
I 368 1 1 report.
2 O I'm not disagreeing with it. I'm talking about 3 the implementation, not in the licensing of the plant, the 4 report to under 50.55(e). I'm talking about how the plant 5 implements that. We're talking implementation. 1
]
6 A I'm implementing 50.55(e) reporting requirements. 1 7 Q By having including in the plants nonennforming, ;
4 8 system?
9 A Yeah, but that doesn't have any -- that doesn't
~ ~
10 have anything to do with how I handle a nonconformance
~
11 under criterion 15.
1 l
l 12 O It does if you have procedures under criteria 15
( 13 that your implementing which includes how you report to the 14 WRC.
15 A I guess I could pass on to this thing, I talked 16 to Jan Axelrad, enforcement director, and asked her, "Does 17 50.55(e) fall under Appendix B7" ,
18 Q No, it does not.' But when you went to explain to 19 her how the utility implements --
20 A How would you think that they would meet the 21 recording requirements of 50.55(e)?
22 Q I don't know. Every utility does its own way.
23 A I'dhavetodoitbyreviewingnoncon/ormance l 24 reports. Still I've got to review -- that is the 25 mechanism, that's one of the mechanisms for identifing an
, TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l I '
369 ; q 1 issue which I might report to the Commission.
2 -Q (By Mr. Mulley) To summarize, then, this first 3 paragraph on the matrix, the reason you dropped the. .j i
4 violation was because TUGCo in fact did have a procedure in 5 place.
6 A Yes, that did not keep the status that 7 Mr. Phillips thought it ought to keep. 1 j
8 Q And this procedure was,--
9 A It was just a status that I could go and pick up l 10 file and be able to close out the 50.55(e).
11 Q And in fact TUGCo had what sort of procedure?
12 A They had a procedure that r'equired reporting, j
( 13 talked about how to repcrt. They had a number of 14 procedures that talked about that.
15 0 And then from what I understand, that to go back 16 to a 50.55(e) report, you had to refer back to the 17 nonconformance report and go --
18 A You'd have to go back through and find the 19 records to cloce it out. And I'm saying that past I
20 inspectors have done that. And I would indicate in J 21 response to this item, the utility agreed to go back and 22 set up all these, to set up files which would very easily 6
23 .
allow the NRC and the utility to be able to show that every <
r ;
24 50.55(e) had been closed.
25 Q Well, if the utility has agreed to take the-TATE REPORT NG SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
370 1 corrective action --
2 A Doesn't make it a viloation.
3 MR. MULLEY: Off the record, j 4 (Discussion off the record.)
i 5 (The last-above question and answer were 6
~
read back by the court reporter.)
~
7 THE WITNESS: I believe it's still also an 8 open -- an issue in the report that they're going to do.
9 0 (By Mr. Goldberg) set me ask a question to
~
10 fo1 low up. We're back on the re ord. Did the licensee 11 report its corrective action once it -- that the corrective ~
12 action was completed back to the NRC at any time on these
. I
(. 13 issues? ,
14 -
A What do you mean, on 50.55(e)'s?
l 15 Q Yes.
l 16 A Yes, they makea final 50.55(e)-report. ]
~
17 Q We have some 50.55(e)'s in this arek. Did you 18 want to discuss --
1 I 19 A We're going to get into it. There's some more :
20 issues.
21 Q Okay. We will get into them.
i 22 A Yes, sir.
4 23 I believe you will find in the report that that 24 was left as an unresolved issue, the one we just got
\
25 through discussing; in fact, the whole issue on 50.55(e) l l ,.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 t
371 4 j
)
I 1 reporting. Incidentally,.the violation that Mr. Phillips 2 was writing was against Criterion 5.
3 Q Well, let me comment on that. That could be J l l 4 possible if there is no procedure developed by the licensee i j 5 to provide status of nonconforming reports of which l
! I l 6 50.55(e), based on their procedures they have in the plant, j i i
! 7 could be considered a nonconforming report. So it's not 8 inconceivable. That is potentially possible, that's what j 4
j 9 I'm saying.
.. l
~
10 A But if every -- the nonconformance reports do i
11 have procedures and do have status. .
12 Q I think we've discussed this over a period of l l
( 13 time. l 1
14
- A Yes. Again, the next issue that I believe is )
l 15 raised, let me find this, is that TUGCO failed to revise 16 implementing procedures before corporate NEO procedure CSI i
17 was implemented resulting in conflict with five other !
l 18 procedures, in violation of Criterion 6, document control.
19 Phillips wrote the violation.
l 20 Again, I did not consider 50.55(e) as an Appendix l 21 B required procedure in the reporting requirement of the 22 regulations. We have in no case identified that any of 23 these procedures, including HEO procedure CS1, viblated 1
24 50.SE(e).
25 Q Let me ask you a question here. Do you consider TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 I
i
.i 372 I 1 NEO CS1 and the~fi've other' procedures as QA procedures?
2 Have you looked at these procedures?
3 A Yes. I have seen NEO CS1.
l_ 4 Q Have you seen the other procedures that are 5 related to it? Let me -- well, probably -- let me just
( 6 talk about those. They are CPQP 16.1, Rev. 6, January
- 7 16th, 1985; TNE AD5, Rev. 3, 6-21-84; DQP QA 12, Rev. 2, 8 9-9-85; and CPQP 15.6, Rev. 3, 1-16-85. Have you seen 9 these procedures?
~
10 A Not all of them.
l l 11 Q If they're signed off by QA when they're .
- \
12 approved, would they be considered'QA procedures? j
14 -
Q If there were problems with these procedures, if l 15 there are in inconsistencies among these procedures, would that be not in conforman,ce with criteria 67 j 16 l 17 A Again, as I said before, I view that 50.55(e) was 1
- 18 not an Appendix B requirement. s l
4 l
19 Q These are QA procedures, if there are conflicts !
20 among these procedures, would that be covered under :
1 21 Criteria 67 Forget 50.55(e) for a moment.
22 A Well, I'm giving you the answer that the l 23 rationality is that those procedures were not required 24 by -- or not required by Appendix B, that 50.55(e) 25 procedures did not come necessarily under 50.55(e).
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
i 1 373 1 Q It says here something else. It says TUGCO failed to revise implementing procedures before corporate
~
2 3 NEO procedure CS1 was implemented resulting with conflict l 4 with other, five procedures, violation of Criteria 6, ,
5 document control. Doesn't mention 50.55(e) here.
6 A Yeah, but I'm also indicating to you, there was )
~
7 no violation of 50.55(e) even in the existing procedures as >
8 far as reporting.
9 Q But there may be a v'iolation of Criteria'6 here.
~
10 A If you consider that the 50.55(e) is an Appendix 11 B requirement.
12 Q No, we're not -- it doesn't -- what we're stating
(, ' 13 here -- maybe I've -- I don't see words 50.55(e) written .
14 here. I'm stating there are conflicts between or among, 15 excuse me, NEO procedure CS1 and the' procedures I-just gave 16 you, in terms of various parts of it, various things about
! 17 it, whether it's authority or other aspects to it. The 18 question is whether we're in an area called Criteria 6, 19 document control, or not.
t i 20 A Can you tell me that that would have an effect on l
l 21 the quality of the plant that's there? Can you tell me 22 anywhere that these. procedures, the report under 50.55(e)
~
23 has any affect on the quality of the plant?
24 Q If there are inconsistencies --
25 A The only problem would be if.they failed to 4
- TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l t
374- !
1 report to the Commission, then they would be in violation.
2 of 50.55(e) --
3 0 sir, are these QA documents? Do they require ]
4 document control, the plant procedures? ,
5 A They do have document control, yes, sir. I 6 ,
O okay. So they require document control. If j 7 they're inconsistencies among procedures, is that good' 1
8 document control? f i
9 A That is not good document control,
~ ~
10 Q okay. If it isn't, s ouldn't one address that l
11 issue? .
I 12 A I'm no't sure it's a violation in this case, j
( 13 Whether-I report a 50.55(e) or not, does not affect the -
4 14 quality of the plant that's there. It says, " Activities l W
1 15 affecting quality are covered under the QA program." I i may, as a utility, choose to'put more' issues, I may cover
~
16 j
17 other things in my program, but I guess I am hesitant to 18 try to go out and cite a ut'ility for something that is 19 beyond, I. guess, what I consider an activity affecting 20 quality.
21 Q If are they're QA procedures, wouldn't they be ]
22 activities involving quality? l 23 A Not -- we're only talking about the po'rtion that 24 deals with reporting under 50.55(e).
25 0 Well, if QA --
l
.. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 d 'e -. --..._.._.--__N_--
375- J 1 A Now --
2 0 -- is involved in signing these procedures, then 3 you would think there would be a QA -- it would be i
I 4 activities affecting quality and they signed the whole i
5 procedure. I guess maybe I don't understand TUGCO's l 6 procedures. But when QA procedures --
7 A I can. cover things under my QA program that do l
l 8 not affect quality.
9 Q In this procedure, it has flow chart on Part 21
~ ~
10 . deportability, flow chart in par 50.55(e) reporting, 11 reporting requirements. You're saying these are not . l l
12 activities affecting quality.
f
( 13 A' That's correct. They're reporting requirements )
l 14 in the regulations for which, if I'm a utility, I will have j l 15 procedures to meet those reporting requirements. If you go l I 16 to 50.55(e) or Part 21,'well's 50.55(c), let's talk about !
! 17 that. You can look at 50.55(e) and tell me if in 50.55(e) 18 it says you have to have piecedures.
19 Q okay. Based on what you're saying, the title of 20 this NEO SCSI is evaluation of reporting of items and under 21 Part 21 and 50.55(e). Are you saying that QA should not 22 have signed this procedure since it's not an activity 1 23 affecting quality? I-24 A I have no problem with them putting that 25 procedure into their QA program.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
- , 376 i 1 O once that's part of the QA program then it 2 becomes controlled by QA, which includes Criteria 6.
3 A Well, I guess I'm drawing a line at -- before I 4 go and write a violatio.3, I ha've to have an activity 1
5 affecting quality. I do'not disagree that the utility l 6 ought to make their procedures agree and that we identify
~
7 the issue to them and that they take action on it. But I l
8 don't necessarily view it as something I want to write a !
9 violation for.
~
10 And the utility in thi case is taking action to .j 11 make their procedures consistent. The procedures that are .
12 there do not violate 50.55(e) in any reporting requirement.
i
( 13 They have not failed to report under 50.55(e). They have 14 put into their QA program beyond what's, I think, called 15 for under my decision under Appendix B. And I could do I 16 that. I can put other things.in my QA' program.
17 Q Well, to get back to the issue of whether these-18 in fact are QA procedures or not, and if they are 19 procedures then they have to be controlled as QA 20 procedures, which includes, as I understand it, and correct 21 me if I'm wrong, not to have any inconsistencies among i
22 procedures. .f 23 A You go back and look at criterion 5, for 24 examples, activities affecting quality,.you read what.
25 Criterion 5 says. I don't view that 50.55(e)-reporting is TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
377J l ,
1 an activity affecting quality.
2 Q Therefore if you don't view it that way, then QA 3 should not have signed the' procedure because this is the --
4 A I do not have a problem with a utility putting i
5 that in their QA procedure. i l
6 0 (By Mr. Mulley) I guess the question I have, is, 7 although you may not view it, it seems the utility has 8 viewed it. The utility has put it in.
9 A The utility may put other tic ys in their QA
~ l
_ 10 program which are not a part of the regulations or
]
11 requirements.
12 Q once they do that, aren't they.then accepting -- 1
( 13 A That does not necessarily make it -- for example,-
14 I may cover -- the spent fuel liner, here's a good example.
15 The spent fuel liner has welds that,are in it, okay? At l
16 the time that they worked onlthat-spent fuel liner, they
[ 17 considered it safety rElated. They subsequently found that 18 they do not have to'considsr those welds to be safety 19 related. -
20 I would weigh what I was doing on looking at 21 those welds since.they're no longer safety related if they
( 22 didn't have proper documentation. We are looking at that. l l'
l 23 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) Maybe we should talM',to j 24 substance about this. I think we're talking to some degree-l 25 a little bit of process. I think the issue anybe is who, j j
LTATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 J 1
i 378' l
{
1 if you were NRC and you wanted to talk to somebody at the 2 utility about reporting 50.55(e) or Part 21, where do you 3 go?
4 A I start at the top procedures. ]
5 o what's that?
l j
6 A I always start at the top procedure or I go find 7 out who is responsible for reporting.
8 Q But in o'ne procedure it says that the licensing 9 coordinator is responsible for verbal notification of the .
10 NRC, and then it says that the TUGCO manager of quality 11 assurance is ultimately responsible for deportability. .
12 A very short order you would probably find out who
( 13 was responsible if you started looking for --
14 -
Q Shouldn't the procedure tell you that?
15 A I agree. I don't disagree with that. I don't i
16 disagree. It's kind of like.fn the -- in a -- in the
! 17 previous -- there are so'me previous enforcement criteria i
i 18 that deal with, for example, radiation control procedures, l E
19 okay? If I make my radiation control procedures more 20 strict than the regulation requirements, and it is in my }
l 21 procedure, and I, the NRC, go out and inspect them and find 22 that their radiation control procedures are more strict j 23 than the regulation, the guidance, the enforcement guidance 24 that's out, as I recall, does not require me to write --
25 well, ir does not say that I would write a violation if TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l 4
) 379
] ,
I they have -- if they have imposed more stricter 2 requirements on themselves th'an there are the requirements
.3 of if regulation. -1 1
- 4 Q (By Mr. Mulley) But if they don't follow these {
l 5 requirements, do you write a violation?
6 A That that's what I'm saying. I.f they, for 7 example, had exposure limits that were over what their i
l 8 administrative controls, which are covered under the QA 9 pr'ograms, operations or whatever, if they had' controls --
~
10 if they had been imposed controls on themselves that are 11 more stiret than the regulation, the enforcement, the -
12 enforcement guidance that's out, I would say that that's
( 13 not a violation.
14 -
Q I understand if they improve --
15 A I guess that's what I weighed when I looked at i
16 this. -
17 Q If they impose more strict requirements, it's not l 18 a violation, I understand. 'But if they fail to follow l 19 their own requirements --
20 A No, if they impose and fail to meet the more 21 strict requirements that they imposed, that there 22 enforcement guidance which I weighed when I looked at this, 23 I don't know that there's good -- I only know of g'uidance I 24 in that area that's been promulgated out of the office of 25 enforcement, okay? When I looked at this, I weighed that.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - - - - - _ _ _ - - - d
' 380' j 1 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) But let me ask you a question.
2 You've been to a lot of utilities and maybe some vendor j 3 sites. Do they normally have a QA procedure for reporting I I
4 under Part 217 ,
5 A Wherever they put it, they have to have it a --
6 Q Is it normally a procedure approved by QA7 1 7 A I don't know if that's the case. It may be an 8 administrative --
9 Q You said that they -- I'm going back to your
~
10 issue that you. vere talking abou George on, and that is they went one step beyond what's required by the 11 12 regulations. Do the regulations require that they have a j
- 1
( 13 QA procedure for reporting under Part 217 14 -
A Let's look at Part 21 before I answer that i 15 question. f 16 O' (By Mr. Mulley) Ib seems to me that right now we
( ~
17 might be going into more detail than is required. I think, 18 Tom, you've told us why you'did what you did at that point I
19 in time. And I think you've explained exactly what you 20 felt. j 21 A What my rationale was and why I used that 22 rationale.
23 Q AndIunderstand,youknow,whyyoudid'it. .
l l 24 A I look at Part 21 and again I don't see a word in 25 Part 21 that says, 'Thou shalt have a procedure." You i ,
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
i 381' l 1 would have a hard time implementing Part 21 without having 2 some procedures, j 3 0 okay. We will go to the next one. .
l 4 A okay, the next one is that TUGCo failed to 5 maintain 50.55(e) files, QA records, he calls it, that were
~
6 retrievable, i.e., .
does not produce records in almost a 7 month, violation of criterion 17, QA records. .McClesky /
8 finding, Phillips wrote the violation.
9 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) Is that simil.ar to A?
~
10 A That's very similar to A. It's all that 11 discussign that we had in that whole area.
12 Q (By Mr. Mulley) That's a question that I asked
( 13 earlier. ,
14 -
A What I said -- and one of the things I said was 15 that the utility representative said, "If you want to take
~
16 these one at a time, come over and we'll go do them. It 17 may take a day, it may take -- you know, to do each one.
18 But we will go" -- what they asked for was time and that 19 happened in the meeting we had on site.
20 What they asked for was time to put it all !
I 21 together in one big package so it could all be done-at one j I
22 time, rather than try to go piecemeal them one at a time. )
V 1 23 It wasn't that there weren't records available, it was that l l
24 they wanted to put it together into one package so that .;
25 they could looking at ten or fifteen or however fast you TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 I
j
.r g---
\332*
y \
1 needed to look at them.f The man said, "If you want to.come
. n 2 over.here, we will go through them one at a time."
3
'O I'd like to, for my own inforuption. The first' 4 one, small "a," talked about a failure to develop.and [l 5 implement a procedure.
I
- 6. A Yes.
~
7 Q And "c" talks about the failure to retrieve the 8 records in a. suitable an'ount of time. So there is,
\ \
9 although we discussed both -- ,'
l 10 A~ Yes.
~
11 0 -- aspects of this, there is a distinction f 12 between findings.
( 13 A I'm again saying that the utility indicated, "If 14 you want to come over and take these one at a time, we will h 15 ge take you through them,;' a man assighed that L
16 responsibility. But the also asked for time to pub N 17 together a comprehensive
- package, package.per package, and 18 they were working on ainumber of them at one. ,ime,Nothat 19 you could go over and^ $1ose them all out at on'ca a d make-l 1
20 the best use of our folks. 1
.1 1
21 'O Before this inspecti'en was completed, were the i 22 inspectors able.to look at the hardware and compare it to.
23 the records?
24 A I don't know what you mean " hardware to records."
l 25 Q rrom what I understand, they. wanted the records,
.. TATE REPortTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 N /..
L __ __- _ - _ _ .
(, \<l[T7
~
i 383' i 1 and I quote, "We were simply asking for the files of the 2 construction deficiencies t'o have sufficient information to 3 lead us to the hardware that had been corrected so we could 4 affirm that indeed the hardware had been corrected."
t 5 A I'm telling you again, that the utility 6 indicated, "If you want to come over and.take these one at q
7- a time, we will take you through them."
8 Q And my question is --
~
9 A They asked for time to put -- and that was a task 10 force of six to eight folks that have been assembled, those 11 records are since essentially being put together. All of -
12 the open items -- in fact, I checked on it last week, those
( 13 files on all open SDR's are' ready for NRC or whoever else 14 to look at. They have found no case where there was'not a 15 record necessary to close out a 50.55(e).
16 I thought it was a' reasonable request of the I 17 utility for time to put it all together in one effort l .
l 18 rather than try to go out h'ere and piecemeal this 'tffort.
I' 19 Q I guess what I am saying though, is from what I 20 understand of the purpose of the inspection, it involved 21 looking at hardware to see if the corrections or the q 22 changes had been made in accordance with the --
23 A onceyouhadtherecord,thenyouwoulk*golook I l 24 at the hardware. !
25 O So from what you're telling me then, the j
l
,1 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l i _ _ __ _ ________ ____.
_,r _ _ __ - - _ _ - - - - - _ - - _ _
t} '
384 i <
r 1 inspectors were not able,;te complete the inspe: tion that 2 the -- !
3 ,
A The. hardware was certainly out there. ,
4 Q But couldn't go to the hardway's with the
+
i )
documents.
5 l' ; r 6 A They could have gone over to the records vaults I e 7 andgottherecordsassociatedwdihthat. hardware,andthdy j 1, t .
8 w'ould have had more, to the best of my knowledgU.th'e '$
,e 9 documentation necessary to close out the 50.Vi(e).
10 Q Did they do that? j 11 A No, not that I'm aware of. .
12 Q Why didn't they do that?
( 13 A Because they wanted the utility to perform, 14 provide them with'a list of all the documentation that they i
~15 could walk over and put their hands on. .J l
16 O So then, from what I understand, the purpose of j 17 this inspection was not completed?
{ '
But it was also part of the --
18 A That's correct. l l
19 left on an unresolved item to put all these records 20 together. There was no urgency for the record, there was 21 no operating license. The plant is not going to start up 22 tomorrow, it's not like a plant that I's, I've got a great i 23 urgency to have that record ready right now. I. 1 24 Q You just mentioned that they recently came to you j l'
25 and said that they found -- they've got all the records?
i TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
,5 '
q, a
i
.m 385 1 A The records on any open'SDR.that has not been.
y ,'2 ' closed out in an inspection report, are available.
3 ,
O And.when did they come to you with this?
i,'
4 A I-checked on it last week or the week before to
.s ,
c' ,.7 5 find out that that was indeed the case. And they're also hl *, ,
' MI ' I 6 working on. going back t'o all of the previous closed.
6 -
'7 50.55(e)'s which have been inspected and closed and.the l 8 documentation found to provide again a record of all those 9 so you can go over and pull a' file and find out every piece.
~ ~
10 of paper that closes a particular 50.55(e).
~
11 Q Now this inspection was done in November, right? .
12 A Yes, sir. Again, I tell you, they said, "If you
( 13 want to take these one at a time," and we've done it in the 14 past and we've inspected it, you could talk to previous 15 inspectors, Mr. Cummins, Mr. Hunnicut were the last ones to 16 got involved in looking'at SDR's, they went and they fou'nd 17 the records that were necesseiy to close the 50.55(e)'s.
I 18 It was not a pret'ty easy -- you know, wasn't just 19 an easy task to walk over, but they took the time to do it.
20 The records are there, the records are retrievable. You 21 can find the records to close the 50.55(e)'s.
i (By Mr. Goldberg) 22 O Some of the issue of 23 retrievabilitygetsbacktotheissueoftheidekt[ification s 24 process.
25 A Yes, sir, i
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7277 l
I t 386 1 ,
"TUGCO failed to report the" -- the next issue is 2 "TUGCO failed to report to the NRC the corrective action 3 actually taken and changes to commitments regarding 4 corrective action reporting to NCR -- to the NRC,.a 5 violation of 50.55(e)," McClesky/Phillips finding, Phillips 6 wrote the violation. l 7 There are several things we got into on this one. l l.
l l 8 No. 1, Mr. Phillips took the words that " corrective action I
9 taken" means that you cannot f'ile a final report on a 10 50.55(e) indicating the actions will be taken, that will be '
11 taken, okay.
12 Now, I consider a 50.55(e) complete, which would
(' 13 say to me that "We've done our analysis, we consider it a 14 50.55(e), we've done all these kinds of things and our 15 final action is to replace two valves, three valves, by j l
.. I, 16 certain time." {
17 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) In the corrective action )
l 18 portion of the 50.55(e), it gives dates.and actions to be 19 taken.
20 A We will get to the dates in a minute. But I'm i 21 just talking about what constitutes a final 50.55(e) f 22 report. If I've done everything that needs to be done to f f
23 analyze it to decide what actions I have to take,'and I'm 24 simply telling the commission that I'm going to do certain 25 things, then I think that's all that's.necessary for a
.1 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
)
- 387 1 final 50.55(e).
t 2 I weuld indicate that I discussed that all the J
'3 way up to Mr. Martin, who's the regional administrator.-
4 And that is the guidance that I gave Mr. Phillips and 5 company.
6 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) The question - I guess the 1 7 question is,'I'm still not clear of the specifics because I 8 would like to go through the 50.55(e) in question here to 9 figure;out what that we're talking about here. What 1 10 specifically -- j 11 A You want a number. Got a CP 83-22. . l l
12 0 83.
. 1
(, 13 A CP 83-22.
14 Q I don't have it. i 15 A CP 83-21.
16 0 I have '85's and - .
17 A CP 83-20. CP 83-18. CP 83-17.
18 Q (By Mr. Mulley) These are all '83's.
19 A I have '85's and '84's.
20 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) The ones I got were based i 21 on --
22 A The ones listed in the. draft of this report.
(By Mr. Mulley) Yes, right. f-23 0 24 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) It makes it easier if we could 25 talk specifics here. .
l
- TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - -
388' 1 A I gave you the specific -- I'm just stating what 2 I went back and passed to Mr. Phillips was that if they 3 have sufficient information in a 50.55(e), says 'We've done 4 all the analysis, we've made'all these conclusions: and 5 these are our conclusions; the only thing left is the 6.- action we're going to take, is we're going to repJ ece two l
7 valves, three valves," that's sufficient for a complete 8 50.55(e), as far as I'm concerned.
9 0 (By Mr. Mulley) In'Phillips draft report, does
~
10 he specifically reference --
i 11 A Yes, sir, he does. -
12 O Which ones were they that' he referenced?
b 13 A The ones I just read off.
14 -
Q (By Mr. Goldberg) Do you have the draft report? ,
15 A Page 3-6, document la.
16 Q (By Mr. Mulley) I'm reading something from one 17 of the documents you gave me, apparently written _by 18 Phillips. Says it's a draft document, document 2a Revision 19 1, prior to this inspection, the NRC inspected the 20 applicant system for handling inspection and enforement, IE ,
k l 21 bulletins and documented these inspections in NRC reports, 22 numbers, and are these the ones you pulled?
23 MR. GOLDBERG: No,wepulled--Idon'k'knowwhy 24 he didn't pull those. I pulled others. We got -- the ones 25 1 got were from a more recent listing.. I don't know why we TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 I
, 389' ,
l 1 have these more recent onces. I know these are the ones we.
. 1 2 got that evening. It's interesting. There's a discrepancy J
3 here.
4 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) The thing is, do you.have the ;
1 5 actual nonconformance reports with you? l 6 A I didn't make copies of them. I-have looked.at 7 them. I went back just to check them.
8 Q Those are the ones, yes. That was the one.
9 Q (By Mr. Mulley) There's some other notes here-10 talking, in the draft report, the inspectors found that in i
11 several reports, CP 84-29, CP 85-13 and CP 85-05, a 12 description of corrective action gave no date when >
. l
( 13 corrective action was to be completed. In.the other cases, 14 corrective actions dates were given and later changed.
18 A That's another subject. Not talking about dates, 16 I'm talking about statements,' action will be taken versus l 17 action taken. That's the first part of-it.
b 18 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) Okay. I guess there are two 19 groups, it appears, of 50.55(e) reports. We have the_
l 20 second group, we don't have'the first.
21 A The next one deals with the condition was found 22 that some reports gave no corrective action date. Also, -
4' 23 that the date or schedule given in the report was later --
24 or the schedule or date given in the report had not been 25 met. .
- TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 ~
l
) 390' l 1 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) Let's go to the first group.
2 We are somewhat handicapped that we don't have the 50.55(e) 3 reports in front us, but let's what we can do with the 4 first group. The ones where you were talking - ,
5 A What we're here discussing is whether a report is 6 considered final or an interim. The first part of this, 7 you've got an example of one. When you would not consider i 8 to be an acceptable final report, that's what we need to 9 discuss.
l I
10 Q Why did you decide not to -- again, why did you ]
1 j 11 decide not to carry that as a violation? What was your -
12 rationale, again?
f
( 13 A Well, I indicated -- what we were talking were 14 the words " corrective action taken," " correction action 4
15 will be taken." I looked at at again at what was, what the l 16 report would have that I~would consider final.
17 A report that had all of the analysis and things i
18 that they looked at and the' conclusions they had drawn and l 19 the corrective actions that will, or -- let's see, 20 corrective action, yesh, that will be taken. When we're 21 down to the final thing which says we're going to replace 22 two valves, three valves and schedules the replacement of 23 those done, that's sufficient. Idonotseethek' coming 24 back with another report saying, "All the valves have been 25 replaced." ,
.- TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
391' i
1 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) In this issue we're going to 2 have to get a copy or two of -- we don't have that group of 3 reports.
4 MR. MULLEY: You understand Mr. Westerman's .
5 rationale? ,
6 MR. GOLDBERG: I understand, but --
~
7 MR. MULLEY: Okay.
8 MR. GOLDBERG: -- I can't further understand it i
9 withoutseeingwhathe'ssayin}g. _
MR. MULLEY: I'm just interested to make sure 10 11 that Mr. Westerman's rationale is clear to you. ,
12 MR. GOLDBERG: It's only clear if one had in
! ( 13 front of them -- the word "taken" or "to be taken" is a 14 function of what it says in that paragraph.
15 Q (By Mr. Mulley) From what I understand, then, 16 you're saying that when the licensee submits a report of a 17 corrective action, and they tell the NRC what they're going G
to do and they give you a schedule, you see no requirement 18 !
19 for them to come back --
20 A I want them down to a schedule that says what the 21 final hardware correction has to be, j 22 O You see no reason why they have to come back j 23 three months later -- 6 24 A If I can look at that and say, "If they make that 25 hardware correction, is that going to be adequate to e
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
__m__ . _ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ ._ _ _ _ _ . _
I 392 1 correct the" --
2 Q And you see no reason for the utility to come l
3 back to the NRC three months later and say, "By the way, we j 4 did what we told you we were going to do.'- -
I 5 A That's correct.
6 , Q (By Mr. Goldberg) Do you know what the l
7 particular corrective action of - .can you describe --
8 A Torekample, I'll give you one. Like "We went !
9 through and did this and we le'oked at it and we decided we 10 were going to replace three valves, and the schedule.for c 11 replacing those three valves will be certain dates."
12 Q (By Mr. Mulley) As far as you're concerned,
- 1
( 13 that's the end of it for that particular --
14 -
A As far as a final report to the Commission. Now, l l
! 15 I am going to go verify each 50.55(e) on that plant and any 16 other plant.
17 Q You as a NRC inspector?
18 -A Me as an NRC inspector. Region IV will at 19 Comanche Peak do that.
20 Q You see no reason why the utility has to go back 21 three months from now -- you see no reason why the utility-22 has to come back a couple of months later and say, "We've.
23 done it."
24 A That's correct.
25 Now, the next issue we're down to is some reports 1
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 '
i 393 )
i 1 didn't have the corrective action dates.
2- Q (By Mr. Goldberg) Yes.
3 A There were the several reports with dates. The I
, 1 I
4 action was actually going to be corrected later than --
5 Q The date indicated.
6 A -- the date indicated.
7 Now,'the IE manual chapter, which is 927 --
l 8 inspection procedure 92700, which covers these kinds of l 9 issues, 023.02H, states in part: "The threshhold of- l
)'
10 significant errors including omissions above which a 11 corrected report is required involves inspector judgment 12 and should agree with considerations for citing licensee
( 13 for failure to report. Errors of. lesser significance 14 should be discussed with the licensee for accuracy of 15 future reports."
I 16 Now, I guess i my' view, I didn't view dates for 17 50.55(e)'s, which I am going to subsequently follow through .
1 18 to make sure the corr ective' action was completed, a 19 significant -- I viewed it as an error of lesser 20 significance.
21 Q That appears to be a function of the -- ,
22 A And I think that -- that the utility will 6*
23 probably come back after they've looked at all of their 24 reports and give us a thing that says, "These issues, these 25 items will be corrected prior to fuel load."
I TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
l'
394 1 O When you determined significance, did you look at 2 the actual 50.55(e) reports and make a safety determination l
3 on significance?
4 A I . looked at what the man was saying. He said j 5 there was no corrective action date. He said this one was 1
'6 three months, okay? I didn't go look at the-actual report.
~ l 7 I looked at what was in this document here. 1 8 0 would you say that the significance of the 9 50.55(e) is based on what-its --
- A Yes, sir. j 10 1
11 0 -- what's its issue is, what they're trying to-l 12 correct? ,
i l( 13 A Yes, sir, not the date that they're going to have 14 something corrected.
15 Q Well, the date significance is a function of what 16 has to be done at a certain time, though.
17 A Has to be done prior to fuel load.
18 .Q okay. If the utility commits itself to a date 19 and doesn't meet the date, do you consider that l
20 significant?
21 A I didn't consider that significant. I could, if 22 I wanted to, write a deviation, if I thought there was a 23 large problem. Itisnotaviolation,it'sa'dediationto 24 a commitment.
25 Q The only question I have, George, is did you look TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713)-222-7177
3 395 ,
1 at these specific 50.55(e)'s before you made your
. i 2 determination? <
l 3 A I looked at enough here which says what the 4 difference in dates were, okay? ,
5 Q Did you look at any of the 50.55(e)'s, 6 themselves?
7 A No, sir. For example, states here that the 8 containment spray header isolation valves for Unit 1 will 9 be corrected no lat7r than July 31st, 1935. And as of i
10 November '85, they hadn't been corrected. i J
11 Didn't view that as any major problem. Again, -
l 12 all 50.55(e)'s will be completed bifore that facility is I
( 13 licensed. That was the critical date. :
14 0 (By Mr. Mulley) was Phillips technically-15 correct, then, in this violation?
! J 16 A No, I think it would have been a deviation to a j
! 17 commitment.
, e 18 0 (By Mr. Goldberg)' Why don't we use the word 19 " noncompliance" here, because that covers both areas. l l
20 would a noncompliance be possibly --
1 21 A He could have wrote a deviation, yes, sir.
l 22 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) Why do you say a " deviation,"
23 if it's --
24 A It's a deviation to a commitment to have '
25 something done by some time in correspondence to the NRC, TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
~
I L d l . _ _ - -
, 396 1 normally how I would handle anything that deals with that.
2 0 (By Mr. Mulley) Do you want to'go on to the next 3 one?
4 A The next one is, "TUGC0 failed to'have a 5 procedure. This violation of Criterion 5 was changed to an unresolved item in le, Revision 4, Paragraph 3, Phillips." l 6
7 We're still back to the same procedure requirement.
8 Again, we're back to this procedure of having a l
9 file over there that I could pick'up and close out each j
~
~
~10 50.55(e). Your identification number.
11 Q (By Mr. Mulley) Was that a repeat? 'Seems to me - j
)
12 like that's a repeat -- 1
( 13 A' It is, yes, sir.
14 Q Was that appropriate, to cite twice in one ,
l 15 report? l 16 A It's one of the problems with this report.
I 17 Q There's a comment on the side that says, 18 " Management changed finding to a positive statement about 19- TUGC0 action. TUGC0 never discussed this commitment with 20 inspectors before this change was made to report." .]
21 What does that comment mean?
'2 A That is discussions that I had had with TUGCo.
23 zelated to what they were going to do on the 50.%5(e) 24 issue.
25 0 (By Mr. Goldberg) What's the positive statement TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 i
397 1 he's referring to? I 2 A You've got me on that. As I recall, it was 3 something that went along the line that TUGC0 has assembled 4 a task force and are in the process of upgrading their 5 50.55(e)-program.
6 (Discussion off the record.)
~
7 THE WITNESS: The statement that I wrote was, i
8 "TUGCO has indicated that although the files do not provide 9 an auditable trail, actions are being taken to identify
~ ~
10 that all records necessary to close out open files. This 6
11 action is to be ccmpleted by March 1, 1986."
12 In fact, in here is the statement where I'd made i
(~ 13 before, one of two TUGC0 individuals who were responsible 14 for files and tracking stated that he could direct the NRC 15 to TUGCO engineers who either performed the evaluation or 16 who knew about the corrections in deficiencies, but did i
17 agree that the files did not contain sufficient 18 information.
19 MR. GOLDBERG: Off the record.
20 (Discussion off the record.)
2 ?. MR. GOLDBERG: It's possible that there are two ,
i 22 procedures that are being referred to here; two different 23 procedures. One is a procedure involving how nob ~onforming c
24 items get. identified as being a 50.55(e) items. The second j 25 type of a procedure is one in which action is taken by TATE REPORTING EERVICE, (713) 222-7177
t 398 1 TUGCO to close out these files and determination of actions 2 to be completed on specific 50.55(e) reports.
3 MR. GOLDBERG: Off the record.
4 (Discussion off the record.) -
5 MR. MULLEY: Let's go on to the next item.
6 .
THE WITNESS: Let me ask that we decide what it 7 is that -- can we decide what it is?
8 MR. GOLDBERG: I can't determine the words, these 9 words, are the same'words that are here.
10 THE WITNESS: I can show you the insert, which we l 11 saw here. I can show you where it went. It doesn't track l
12 with Mr. Phillips' matrix.
I i
( 13 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) That's what I can't track t 14 either.
15 A Because it says "TUGCO failed to have a 16 procedure, this violation of' criteria 5 was changed to an 17 unresolved statement and" -- okay. He's saying in la, if 18 you went back to la, was changed to unresolved statement. l 19 And then Revision 4, Paragraph 3, I put the insert in place 20 of his unresolved item that he wrote, which I thought 21 pretty well captured everything he said, okay? My insert ,
22 captured the words of this whole paragraph here in a lot 6'
23 shorter more succinct words without quoting who said what, 24 to how or where. ,
j) 25 0 Do you have his original words?
i TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 j
- - _ - - _ - - _ - - - _ - - - - - - _ - . _ . - _ 1
R
.l
-l 399 l
1 A They're here. That's what I replaced. One TUGC0 2 man said something, another TUGCo made said something else. j i
3 MR. MULLEY: Okay. ]
4 MR. GOLDBERG: Let's go on. I can't make heads .
5 or teils of it. '
6 THE WITNESS: I would again say that the item i
7 remained unresolved. And my statement that I wrote, I
[
8 thought captured what he had written in many words, in few 9 words.
~
10 Again, Mr. Phillips signed this report with the 11 words that I put in it without taking any -- let'me get 1
^
12 something right along here. If this man had a differing
( 13 profess'ional opinion, then he shou.1d come through 14 management with that? I would never, if I didn't agree to 15 what's in a report, I would go, if I had to all the way 16 back to the Commissioners. But I would come up the 17 management chain, which is the professional way.
18 0 (By Mr. Mulley) Re felt that the --
19 A The man, I don't believe ever came to Eric 20 Johnson; the man certainly never went to Bob Martin;-if_the 21 man wasn't happy with what Bob Martin had to say, then I'm
.22 sure that Bob Martin would have sent him on to Mr. stello.
23 Ifhewasn'thappenwithwhatMr.Stellohadtoda~y,the-24 next man he would have talked to would probably be the 1
25 commissioners.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 i
--______-_---__--_2__-_-_-______. . _ _ _ : _L - _ - - - ._. _ _ - _ _ _ - _ -
t 400 l
1 Q (By Mr. Mulley) Weren't there discussions at the 2 Region involving these reports and the changes and stuff? 1 1
3 A There were discussions in the Region on the i 1
4 reports, yes, sir. That does not preclude Mr. Phillips 5 from saying -- ir. fact, if I wes Mr. Phillips, I would 6 refuse to sign. Nobody made Mr. Phillips sign a report.
~
7 Q But was he present during these meetings with,-
l 8 were these things were discussed. I 1
9 A What do you mean " discussed." ;
~
10 0 Well, you know, these inspection findings and 11 stuff like that, were there discussions involving, you -
12 know, you --
( 13 A Those findings, you know --
14 Q Not in this --
15 A When we finally got to this report here, I showed 16 you this earlier draft which.I brought back and handed it 17 to Eric Johnson, which has his notes on the front of it.
l ,
i 18 It was discussed with Eric' Johnson. He wrote his words l 19 here and even sent these and gave them back to Mr. Phillips i
I 20 who has them. But that didn't preclude Mr. Phillips, at 21 any time, from coming to NRC management with his problems.
22 Q The question I'a asking is: We've discussed 6
23 three or four inspection reports where Mr. Phillips had 24 problems with some of the violations, whether they were 25 dropped, deleted. My question is: Were there conferences i j _ _ , -
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
401 l 1
l l
1 or meetings here at the headquarters involving Phillips, 1
2 you, other inspectors, to discuss what was being done with 1 3 the reports? ,
4 A There were discussions in passing as to.what was 5 happening with the inspection reports. Okay. With 6 management here; this is the first time I brought the- !
7 report in and showed it, at least what the draft that we j
! 8 vere having to work with, to management here. I showed it
! 9 to Eric.
~
]
10 0 And that report is a draft of -- !
11 A That is a draft of this report'we're talkine i 12 about.
( 13 0 which is? ,
( 14 A 16 and 13. Okay. Nobody at any time ever 15 precluded Mr. Phillips from coming to whatever level in the 16 managemen't chain he wanted to. Even including if he wanted 17 to write a differing professional opinion, which is, if I 18 felt that strong, then thah s where I would go.
19 0 so basically, then, the discussions that he was i
20 having were with you? l 1
21 A That's correct. If Mr. Phillips had said, "I 22 want to go talk to Mr. Johnson or Mr. Martin," I offered 6-23 him every opportunity to go wherever he wanted to go. l 24 Q And then Mr. Johnson's first involvement directly 25 in the report was this one right here?
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
402 1
1 A This is the first one that Mr. Johnson saw, yes, 2 sir. I showed him this one. I didn't normally bring all l 3 these back here, but I brought this one back because it ]
4 was --
5 0 85-16/137 ]
l 6 A Yes, sir. I never at any time stopped 7 Mr. Phillip: from going back to management, the regional 8 administrator; nobody stopped him from coming to the 9 regional administrator. He never offered to write a
~
10 differing professional opinion, which is the professional way I think it ought to have been handled.
~
11 12 O Okay.
I ,
( 13 A' The next one is, "TUGCO files were not auditable 14 with respect to corrective action in violation of 10 CFR 15 part 50.'55(e) and many TUGCO letters which stated records l
16 available, change from viola' tion to strong paragraph, 17 management dropped paragraph and substituted paragraph for 6
18 TUGCO admit ed violation, but was taking, but was taking l 19 action." I don't think TUGCO ever admitted anything.
20 TUGCO did not admit to a violation, to my l 21 knowledge, of 50.55(e). They did commit to provide files l l
l 22 which referenced all documents to the NRC and TUGCO !
t S.
i j
l 23 personal would need to demonstrate close out. And it was 24 never shown that those records didn't exist. And it l
l 25 doesn't compute with what my discussions with previous past l l $
i TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 i l
4
i 403 1 inspectors who looked at 50.55(e).
2 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) So from your point of view, 3 they did have auditable. records? ,
4 A Yes, sir. I could find them.
5 Q (By Mr. Mulley) How long would it take you to 6 find them? i
~
7 A I don't know, I never tried. Talk to j
~k 8 Mr. Cummins or Mr. Hunnicut. They were the last ones I .1 9 kriow that were involved in looking at it.
I guess the key is auditable
~
10 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) 11 with respect to corrective action. . You could go in there -
12 and determine --
( 13 A I could find -- there were always records to show 14 corrective action. It wasn't a nice, one nice little file, i
15 but you could find the record. It's again.your number.
16 identification, I think we've talked about. l 17 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) I guess you based it on your 6
18 knowledge of other inspecto'rs going into the files and 19 being able to be able to perform --
20 A- Plus the discussion with the licensee, that -- in 21 draft that we previously looked at, where they stated that 22 there were records, they just weren't in a file that you go put your hands on. I* l 23 1
24 0 (By Mr. Mulley) But when you have discussions l 25 with the licensee, and it results in a violation being TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
}
l 1
404 L
1 dropped, do they support it with anything, I mean, you 2 know, if you talked to them they said, " Yeah, we do have 3 the records."
4 A The commitment -- do I support it with anything?
I 5 I can support it with my previous inspection report done by I 6 Mr. Cummins and Mr. Hunnicut which shows they went out and 7 closed that 50.55(e).
When was this inspection report done? The one 8 0 9 you're referencing, Hunnicut and Cummins?
10 A Back in the time of the TRT; must have been in l l
11 '84.
1 l 12 (Discussion off the record.) I
( ,.
13 Q (By Mr. Mulley) So I guess I'm asking you, you 14 vent to the utility and asked them some questions about ,
I 15 this proposed violation and they come to you and said, "We i
/
16 do have the records." Did they provide any support to you 17 other than them just saying they had the records?
b 18 A other than my, as'I said, previous knowledge of f 19 what we had done in the past. They didn't question that i
20 there weren't records.
21 I have since gone and found that am I said, 22 they've gone through all of the open ones and that hadn't 6- l that had not been closed in an NRC inspection report. And ,
23 J 24 those records are there and they have listed them out so 25 one can go over there and in one swoop and look at
]
TATE REPOR"i.NG LERVICE, (713) 222-7177
i 405 1 everything.
- 2 0 And when did you do this?
3 A The last couple of weeks. I went back just to 4 check when I found -- you know, before you folks ,got here, 5 I've got to know where I stood with that.
6 If there had been records they couldn't find, l
7 then I believe they were violations.
l 8 Q What seems to me, you've got an inspector and a 9 consultant saying something that's in existence today that i
~
10 they're having problems with finding some records.
11 A That was again with, you know, we're going to 12 handle it rather than one piece at a time, you get the, you
( 13 take it one big. I want the program on 50.55(e) squared 14 away at that plant.
15 I did look in support of that that they have some 16 way for an easy closure'of the 50.55(e) from our audit and 17 their standpoint. But I didn't see that that was a 18 mandatory requirement.
19 However, if I'm a prudent licensee, I'm certainly 20 going to do it. And I used my judgment in talking with the .
21 licensee and we had a meeting on site. As a matter of 22 fact, when Mr. Johnson brought this, I believe, when had 23 broughtthisdocumentbackandgaveittoShannedtherewas 24 a meeting on site talking about how they were handling 25 50.55(e)'s and reporting and IEB's and circulars, which TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
1 1
w,
! 406 I i parts of these commitments that were given like we will 2 have this done by like harch of whatever, were reconfirmed.
3 Q (By Mr. Mulley) I can see where there's going to 4 be a minimum of breakdown of communication between you and 5 the inspector or there's going to be some cause, because,
. 6 you know, he's seeing it a certain way and then you're l 7 csing your philosophy and your judgment and other things 8 that you have at your disposal I guess that the inspector's 9 not looking at --
l .
~
l 10 A Yes.
11 0 -- s o I can see where, you know, there could be -
12 cases where you're not going to see eye-to-eye on some of r
(, 13 these things.
14 A I believe -- I can't recall if this is the time 15 when this meeting went on whether Mr. Phillips was, I 16 believe may have been with Mr. Gagliardo walking out in the 17 plant on tour.
18 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) You weren't sure whether 19 Mr. Phillips was in at the meeting or not?
20 A 2 don't believe Mr. Phillips was. His consultant 21 Mr. McKlusky was there. j 22 Q One more thing to amplify George's question. I 23 were there discussions at all on the specific 50f.~55(e) 24 reports that the consultant or Mr. Phillips could not 25 easily get their hands on? Were there questions to the i
~
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 i I
u________ __
I l
407 I
1 licensee about "We couldn't find such and such"? j 2 A We had opened that we wanted to find the records l
3 on these particular reports that hadn't been closed out yet !
l 4 in the NRC inspection reports.
5 Q And what was the response to the licensee at that 6 point?
! 7 A The licensee committing to form a task force of 8 % folks, to put those records in ._ convenient place for l
9 everybody to go look at or identify them so it was very !
i -
10 convenient for everybody to go look at them.
i
~
11 0 So in other words, at that time, when you were 12 talking with them, he had to go anch develop this task force 13 which would take some time to be able to do some more work l 14 on the records?
15 A That was a matter of going and sorting where 16 these records, you know,-it's NCR umpty-ump, it's DCA
]
1 17 umpty-ump and make the old lists. Now you go K to the l
18 records files and say, "Give me NRC umpty-ump, give me DCA l 19 umpty-ump. I can close this 50.55(e)." '
20 0 So at that particular' time would you consider 21 them to be auditable records, if they had to develop a task 22 force?
6-23 A I could go find the record, it is auditable. I 24 go over to the engineer over there in charge of the 25 reporting requirement, reporting and I say, "okay. I want TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
I 408 1 to take this 50.55(e). And let's go find the records t'o 2 close it." And we would find them. And no doubt that we 3 couldn't have done that.
But it would have taken a while !
4 Q (By Mr. Mulley) 5 to do it?
6 A It might take a day.
7 Q Well, they only gave, from my understanding, the B inspectors only gave five or six reports and they're )
9 claiming that after several months --
~
10 A But they were working on a number. They were
_. l 11 working on all the open at one time. Rather than trying. to -
12 work on these five, or whatever, they were working at a
(,[. 13 number of them. More than five. .
14 0 Who's "they"?
15 A They this task force, they the utility. {
16 Q I'm talking about the inspectors went to the 3
17 utility with five or six reports and asked them to give us l
?
j 18 the records. ,
19 A They brought up five or six. But I'm saying, in 20 the meanwhile, the things that had gone on was the utility l j
21 was going to put it together for everybody and they were 22 trying to work it all in one time rather than just go concentrate on five particular ones. $'
23 24 Q But it would seem to me if the utility, although 25 they've got this project ongoing, has got an NRC inspection TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l
, 409 1 underway and the inspectors want five reports, it would 2 seem to me that would have caused the utility to go --
3 A I may have overriden that by my discussions with 4 TUGCo in a "Go develop the files and then tell us when l 5 you're going to have them and then we're going to'come look 6 at them."
7 . Q (By Mr. Goldberg) The bottom line in this whole B discussion we've had for quite some time now on these files 9 for 50.55(e) reports, you've kind of felt that the. system i
10 they had, although clumsy and awkward and all this, was not 11 -- was still with in the regulations? -
l 12 A Yes, sir.
(. 13 Q (By Mr. Mulley) Do you have anything else you 14 would like to add about this portion of inspection report 15 85-16/137 16 A Not that I'm aware of.
17 Q flow about terminating this portion of the 18 interview at this point. It's a good break off point.
19 A Can I bring up -- deal with one other little --
20 Q Yes, you can.
21 A I brought up to you earlier the issue on at least f 22 one of my consultants being solicited by Mr. Phillips to f 23 come talk to an outside, okay. I also believe ih'that same l
'24 week there were other than yourself in the area, okay? I 25 have since been a case where we had an alleger coming from TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
410 i
1 an outside intervenor who appeared,'who;was supposed to 2 have come over and talked to us. That alleger appeared in 3 Mr. Phillips' trailer. He did not bring him over. He took 4 a.pho e number to a motel where the man was supposed to be 5 located.
6 We tried then to contact the man from our side so 7 we could go interview the fellow. We never were able to 8 connect with it". We went back then to try to find thic 9 individual. As a matter of fact, I had Mr. Phillips go 10 ov'er and pull the' site computer printouts on folks on site.
l
-11 We couldn't find this fsllow in therP for whatever reason. ' i 12 Mr. Phillip indicated he' thought he could I, 13 probably find him. I don't know, probably a week later, he 14 came-back with a telephone number'for the individual. As I 15 recall, he indicated'that he'd hhd a note or something that 16 he had put the man's work n' umber-en c'nd had just crumpled 17 it up and found i,t and subseg'uently found the apn.
t 18 Mr. 57tamerson went out to talk to the ' man.
19 Discussion came up about, you know, Phillips trailer,.what 20 was the purpose of going to Phillips trailer.- The man
\
I 21 indicated he was told by Billie Garde to go to Phillips' (
22 trailer, that Phillips was a straight shooter,,'So all this
'i.
23 is a landmark. I reallydon'tknowifthere'sahhthing 24 more to it than that. But you know, things keep popping up 25 as we go along.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
411 1 So I'm really not trying to downgrade 2 Mr. Phillips, but I just see things that keep popping up.
3 (Recess at 3:15 p.m., C.D.T.) i i
l 4 l 5 6
I have reviewed the foregoing transcript of the interview conducted
< 7 l ~o f me by OIA on July 10 and 11, 1986, and have made corrections I 8
believe necessary for a complete understanding of my comments. T,he 9 information I have provided is true and accurate to the best of my 10 knowledge.
11 .
. Signed: 2 [ [hjA Date: 7 /1 M [6 14 /
15 16 17 18 .
19 20 21 22 23 &.
24 25 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
i
)
413 1 THE STATE OF TEXAS:
2 COUNTY OF HARRIS:
3 4 I, R. Patrick Tate, Certified Shorthand Reporter and 5 Notary Public in and for the State of Texas at large, do l 6 hereby certify that the facts as stated by me in the
~
7 csption hereto are true; that the above and foregoing 8 gnswers of the witness to the Interrogatories is indicated 9 were made before me by the said witness after being first I
10 duly cautioned and sworn to testify the truth, the whole l 11 truth and nothing but the truth, and the same were -
12 t.hereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under my r
g 13 direction and supervision.
14 I further certify that the above and foregoing l
15 svorn statement, as set forth in typewriting is a full, 16 true and correct transcript of the proceedings had at the 17 time of taking of said sworn statement and that I am I r. neither counsel for nor enployed by any party hereto.
19 In testimony whereof, witness my hand, this 13dth 20 day of July, 1986.
21 1 My Business address is: .
T1- 2: " h 1712 Esperson Buildings R. Patrick Tate, CSR 41730 24 Houston, Texas 17002 Notary Public in and for My current certification the State of Texas
'25 expires: 12-31-86 My Commission Expires: 06-27-89 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 L____________
l 1
l A liArAnvh W
' tuas m-m
- I(WI frey) l l
l I
, 4
{
I l
1 :
1 1
i I
l l
3 4
l l
- I i
)
1 ~^ '
" - - - - ~ _ _ _
1 l 11 i .
4 a.ac po e au v.a.=w- .ase.Lfo.rv - peern e s tro , o .- . .. W
".c . .
EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE APPMA13A1. SUMMAAY I"""**" i (Nom SE3 Ememyss.e/
- n. . =c = e 4
. . . . - . . . - .. aansas.1 . . .u.a.
- 'o*
i ~ ...
4 -*****'" in. ... - a" ;
.c orna = ._..= - - , 1071./8'. '9/30/35 (-
WESTEPJiA,N. Thc=as F. l .o.ri. mu je g Enforcement Officer - CCJ804-15.. '. . {,o.rn os.cnnc. = .A r -. nc. .o , - . _ . 4 q rv.aru. [ !
Office of the Regional Administrator ,
Arlington. Tex'as 0 1 t _ . wu.a ro. pe.--. au ..a n..m u.o sri-- n. _ . m 1
.o ner ~ j rr.e a e rrru ,
,, . . Iang . ..
a-
@M Paul S. Check Deputy Regional Administrator r~ .
- ** e e. N 4-I obere D. Martin. ."
......_.r__......____ , !
l,
! R'etional Adm inistrator -
S'.
m T_"", a".E."".* '" """**"""'""""
' Thomas F. Westerman
_7. _N. , _ . . _ _
t- m Enforcement Officer *
. . _ . __ __ _ __ ~~ __ _ . _ _ __
_ _ . . . _ _ _ _,,, no. _ _
,. _ . ~ .-__m _ _ - - _.. ,
. . _ _ . _ -. _- _=.
...-_z_ _ . _ . . .
- t. u.c A e. 41st. pm e, e.,
as erne m ano.
a a . -- e. y.A n *
- m. ._ . . - - - . -
^7'~~' -
. )
\ .
- 2 a ~. a x.. . . . '. . . ,
. .....*..w -..-~ - ,e -
, 4jf f '
I I
En.s rg ,s a m-
- - _ _ _ _ _ . jrr.us e rena p
[ a.wres co rrs
"'** "8 -
- ** g g lr"sca*=-.outu .
.. . . . . . . .. lean"" .
--^ h h W , /fh (
T'.'.***"
- 4 ^
SUMMARY
'/
I i
u.a .evcau nww cons coi.su:ssson l
$",c, comu e EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL i weew sisi (Nort SES Employees /
rauw j rc ;
turtovata =Aus n.nr. int. m ueev e " " " , l10/1/84 9/30/85 WESTERMAN, Thomas F. A4nwa Compow the Performance Pian ibetwns and 5:arcaroni et the % o# r. reung penixi Las and nurteer aer.n part cac.a e
- . nor.4teg e a ceumn ce trie fj hooncmrJ bewester, tesow, fonow ,,gh ine partormerce standertysl for twt ansvet. Sanow te performance s1andardisi fee seen buri erther "C" - Cnutas or "N" To enme r s a3empt atmcs for the narrstme 'steg. you may i enement, ineve ed* cont tsana acacast for tw hr'Tme rstmg to be comparted at ye end of the re rig ponod w on mitre pave for escn - m. with as m=tod stannarthsl and the beurs seemst for tw narr1 rove rvang Comsmels the performance accra M st ew wid of the evtno permd Prowule a nor'stive reang for each enament drecer beow the erarcenssi to which st aoones l
i mammit, mecate e e couwm on s r nona. re rmag that a connaient mein om nerere.,
to ====ew performance standeres the neves "T" (8- Standard) Poir .narse on an edMouds cnoc.at or noncnacal esmane of the kb wouch coriasswivy e=<===
rupnement an unus sey hegn ir.es of pertornunce typsas cd escapoonef ernpaowse on tw partnear cruncas/noncrescal essmarit.
N' (Meets Stancard) Pwsar,nerus en ei rum.gh.at entrJ or noncmmal seament whsch meem thi, estatne r ed pe4mmence sundersat The leaf reprenams performance educh e asustactory.
- f" (Fans to Meet Sunders: Portarmance on si esswk.af crars or noncretzal saweisst at to po .# wen Asas at asser em anutdehest petonnance stamse tas ENFORCEMENT OFFICER 8 ad 8 ano C m' MRfoAMMeCS ELIMENTS STAMoARD4 AMo APPRALLAL 2 X ELEMENT:
Advises the Office of the Regional Administrator and Division Directors on the appropriate enforcement action to be taken in specific cases.
STANDARD:
Coordinates the handling of escalated enforcement cases to assure that enforcement actions taken or initiated by the Regional Office are consistent with IE policye
\
Periodically audits overall Regional enforcement actions to assure consistency and adherence to policy.
l Acoraisal! -w l4W A
ym l
i t
i h
I F
)
i I
1 l
'w'= = =acs - aiu . e, u 4 i n neon uu.c na ri,,a y, ,, _ ,,,, _ ,,,,,w,,,,
- .l r so-
""C.,'**'"" APPRAISAL l
i
l ys.av m a nacog,rca,ccua,53,g ,
oc Foaw enA n oi. EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
*C"" (Non SES Empaorwesi awetonrs mama w erre, a=xar evini m g Aanno
""** , l 10/1/84 g 9/30/85 WESTERMAN. Thomas F.
Gemseres tw Pwtorwunca two Womens and Statusertmi ei w eerwvmg of tw trmo ownsd Las erus awetar each % % ow+ ant. recatrg ei e e on in, tsN ester "C" - Cats:mi er "N" - nearr'mc4 Wev ednetsrv coow. 6 ado., me eu penurwuncs esaw>rtms) 6ar that eacmani seno. ,, pergrmance stanmeroisi for each elimurti, harwe entMu:aarvi tearm acecas) br fte nortWDwe retrg te tie Corr 431M8d of $8 ANd GI IW 'WFG 5181Dd IO WM 8d83848 W8CW har fee furfftree retrg, yg,e may ime en enere sege for esen somsni, we ns asaoceusd standen>st and Ihe tsare spacets) tot the renug faire ;
Cangenes em performance sopreess et to ed of the reune penod Provide e ny,voo some for asch enemern especoy tesow yue samnesotal to mesch a septmas For asen ,
simuru, ruhesie in a counn en ye rigni, rw renne yet a conessant oath the nemumme
- E" Ne Sanneerdi Per%rmance cm an ane.eAul cremes # or narcr'ecal atenurn of she fub whsce commuuris'r e- to W pertarmance esonema, nu, i,,,, (
ftpremmes en nanammey high towel of portormursa tvincel of oncennonst enwovens sus pu partiemmer crmcad/tmecrescer asemani. l "ht" Odeses Staneerd Performanos on an inevuswel cruzal or noncrecal aiss'une maich einsa vie esmetured pertomunce sierusytan. rhu n,.us repr enes pe,,,,m.ne,
- 8u86 8 88uu8ectorv
- T* IFeen no heest simdere Perforwurce en an berususf cnocal or nonenace emmes of te pat > e us so ausst to =='N pr9anverce ammonras MAFoAMANCE ELEMaffTS 57AAe3ARDS A.pdo APP 9LAt&AL , y , !
ans C e 3 X ELEMENT:
Identification and resolution of safety-significant issues within assigned program area. i STANDARD:
Provides evaluation of the safety significance of issues and reasonably assures that the response is appropriate in forms of timeliness, level of response, and resources available. Identifies, in a reasonable fashion, the significance of safety issues for subordinate staff.
Recommended solutionni and based on f actual information, and in majority of Oases, reccc:mendations are accepted. Keeps upper level management )
advis of the situation. '==-
{
F Appraisal: _ . ,,,
)-l(
' w j
/ J f
l
(:,I _#
I 1 l
1
[
11' ll I .
i l
l l
l
- ae sea -* aac s-. ca . . no : .e.,,
PinFoauAmect RAnno n.ne e s .eo,-i APPRAISAL r.g. e.
E" '
l 1
v.t ,sucuAm .itouwony cow e45 ca 6eic..
- o. Poam
- EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
- cu assi gyon.$ES gmj senetorta s mama amt et. a=== r===i *aou rc, WESTERMAN, Thomas F. aanno
, l10/1/84 l9/30/85 c i, v. ein ww rw a.m-i. .no s. ,i m of = r ion um ia nw.aw s, -== .- i. recen et a ca ,mn on e.
tuoi ame "C" - Crash a "8d" - honcnir.sf irrsvuemmy home, so6ow emeh tu per%rawum pertereal ter pies alp'ere Smow We pr'%raience eienderest for seen annumreL terve wMicaont tere enerunal for to Ferryerse roarig to to omregarted et to wed of We req parest To asumare menome space ter es nonsove rowig. ,im, era, ime an erurs page for asce asempft. use se annocEW enruner$si arid Was tape spacedal ter fie surmuue sumig Casuistuum We per%rerunne esprunel en em auf of #is em inrad Provide e currswee m ter ancn abysuset M butsuu See susnderetti e ashah a aggaus For each EAervenum, eutsses et e ocksmri on Fis rp, to reurig twt a curuunurit aussi Wie novvehe
'T" Emommen Serunwdl Poiannmes en an rus tems crinced or norunmad anernou of eu po mench sonummener enemme sie esiseenfed pe%rmance snandants. The toi.e seguemmes an wtanse#y Pugh is=uf of priorwurus tyqucA of escapersi emplagues e We gurucutar snucaUnenertend elemerR.
- v' gamou Standardi Portormance on an pusnenhasp onacal or nononacA ansvest so uch mese en asnetwing parensamins senerils. The level vapremens performance whmch a esculacury "F" WeAs as Most Serieerdi Partewerce on en autvednesi anage a rerunmcas esmee of We he uhus ames as meer Was enseinfed per8mmunes standres ses c a PERFo4MANCE ELAMENTS STAMOAADS Aaec APPinAasAL 8 w e 4 I ELEMENT:
Responding to specific request from higher level management.
STANDARD:
Provides satisfactory response to specific request. If necessary, renegotiates with requestor to modify or change suspense date or response. Is reasonably able to differentiate between critical and routine requests as to properly prioritize work assignments. Identifies the need for and recoc:::iends appropriate establistunent or modification of
[ policies and practices regarding enforcement and investigative activities.
N Appraisal: g
\q \
'I l J L -
l l
l l
i i
1 suas ass ==== emc e.rm se s = newes snee. 3
- 4. sie s pgnpomatA8pCE RAftfe4 (Te es sensweems to eman essa sweimus AppgAlsoAL e=e' ='
ame nauw aw sen,
i U 4 wcw aawuToav cowudssion EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE APPRAl8AL !
macu am INon SES &npooM taarwys a mAus tem w tr=am a=*i enmi j r c,,
WESTERMAN, Thomas F. ",
aAnsee l10/1/849/30/85 Ca* game ce Pytcenerse Pgan (Easmwiss and $iarwserans at tre beauveg of We resw persad usi and rmareer esca pr%rneres sawww. emacatmo m a cememn on the ten muher "C" - Cr'uch er "W" - peancners wrvnechaiwy emp=. euta= we. re par %rmance sameures) tw that anw'wu Susaw We oweswwce swsi for enen easmant. mswo m#cuat tsare anacost ter to tw4 tree fourg in ins esconsund et to eral of pis reme partes To wwne esmose spese ear vie terumme toerg. you me, esse en eiere page for each eartrit. smeth an sumocated serular$si drid Pe tdert spenstal ter W4e twmene reestg l
Carsgeses sie portarwures ausrenal at eu eral of Wie retmo pwund Pgvels e nervecho reeng ter easm adenwa emcey bensur Wie sayugems; to unham a sogans po, esen sammern, subcate m o coharnn et We ngrn, pis seeng Ni e conesamt ush We narregue "E" (taammes Simeerdt Performance on et rus==had cremai er noncisacar saureuru si em pie, aman emamerwy asemme se em sweernonce ennemen The nr.e4 supresune an wrtasefy regn level of portarmanas typed of encapuanaf eugdevens on to pergsader crescad/nonsstacas sammoqL
- W (Masu Stansuf) Perfornwice on at rup.gpusi cnucal or nonenecal stumme ufuch snare te essedshed automanos sannewes. The Inwel requemune portermance menusi e asessariory "T" lFaen to blest Standell Per%mence en an putwebel crencaf or twisrtuced stunent of se )st educh hAs 19 detuur ete esameshed partenerus supM aun C a PERPORMApeC4 ELIMENTS STAAf0AADS A40 APPRA8 SAL s en a 5 X ELDfENT:
Representation of NRC/ Region to licensees NRC Headquarters and e
officess ACRSe public.
STANDARD:
Presents issues needing resolution in understandable and satisfactory manner. Presents inspection conclusion, and IE position in a reasonably clear and objective manner.
Appraisal: ,m
% W' ,
1 I
h s* '
I I
1 i
i i
)
i.
l i
-me...__...__,.., . .A .A ,, .,e ,r . _ . . _ . _ . ,
anc some a aer
- oen APPRAISAL
W4 NWGkIAA ,4IGU6.ATOAy coMMi&&#GPw l hmC POAM SQA j O*a EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE APPRA! SAL
- "' INon SES Ernobyeen)
- m. io aneptovas s mams aan. .v,. a.se n i l VESTERMAN. Thomas F.
AAnno l 10/1/849/30/85 i
o tan == = _ a.m p.c=m - - .. ran.e e e cowin on i.,.
camme e e .- ic. ewi teww. .e sw.w , , e. -,-,e a e. ,
.: w ewi m.== s c. p.va-=nce wi swwii. me .
c~
we.>
,*c cu . v - m i. w c.,i
, no com a m -.i y n, .
, , v. -
.e an en.,e pese to, esca - _. .sei e W _ is) er.d v. te.e spec.(s) tu, v. sure
- e. n.
e se e. , wie e.
s te s are a en.w. mace to ei , ,=w. ,.mo ,n.,
- .ce,neo. v. ==.w.m.i= cnn e.,e.c, cam m. e.p.+ - s. se e. no ee e,.,, e ienr cn ele ='t. #iGc898 bi 4 enhavin en vue 84,4. Wie ,W rg ewi . so,tese.4 .edt ete no,,s.u.
T (tas a sene,o ewe .n .wn,.m., cn . n ncri.w ,n of e. > .n.n rer . e e. ene.e w.m nc. no . % i,,,,
fue,emmt en mauspy 4 4.,si of partemen.e rysucal of ame.p nsi .'.sovens on wie es,.mde, sr caf/,.ac' is ehr.nr.
een.s n wies,. %
v~ inh s ie.e e ., w , , ,,,,c, s .n.n e. ,,,, n. .,,,,,,c,
.mem a ns.seec.,, I v treen = en s.,w.,e e .n ., e c, ., nonc, , n .# e. > n.n hai m e v. nmaw.e nc. n ,=
pensonnancs stzuswTs sTANDAmps AMo APPRAasAL ; y ( an . g
- h. e .
6 X E1.EMENT -
Performs the management functions of planning, organizing, staff development, and use and working toward EE0 and Affirmation Action goals.
STANDARDf Develops satisfactory annual goal plan for staff. Assigns tasks in a reasonably equitable manner for the accomplishment of these goals.
Holds at least two staff' meetings per month. Meets with each subordinate at least once each quarter to review progress and performance.
Development and Utilization of Staff Reviews staffing plan at least once each quarter to determine personnel status.
Appraisal:
ic - '__
- < a-m .,mme n : z .m.m.,,,,
pung N #, X 4 % *4 11 3 9 3 5 V M E E @J g 239 - 5 l
l l
,c., ,,,
=== =a==. .ac *w e ua . . -s sw 2, a 4 i n n,oasaAmeg nAnno n. ,,,,, ,, ,,,,
ec e
- ~*^*""' APPRAISAL
vV~ .** Y 9 4 k C $" 9 VV $
- hs"* b'h .T k QCCa.$tc L l, a. w e..s k --.u P.,b.e s N.r \.c u P <,v,4 of ~ C< ..a 1 local. J. LG r sn es . w k l,. a ~ v w e so.k L - y .eco c ,
l z e la J. b .sl e a .] lalk be .ur Pl.. H, ps, a s eu e c~u-n nri q -. s r< s s .e l w w. Fk:0.hs aw a<< d %c. - s. ~ wk -
l g ib.L.I ak , .) :s , & L . , v. e.g.c. .s a_d N,. c.ae9 5,.< 40.5 JL.y .L 1 ve ,.n J d 4L ny,.- w .m v. . a.] JL.s ved r m J L r L.3 ~ s 3 so- M r. 9.e y . A4c.~.L._ M '
i w -s ~ Ja.,c.-u--s L. .
(J] vus aus hL.es as s u e -r bsp.- p woefc ak CPda 5 7 Law k .l o e e u si o u le w l. s C..-- b .a L - we. b \lsks b C C .c .+,
a - c. s..:., u . ., u.s w c~~.L. s -,4e c. 4.0,,. l r - . A o e L G ., c ~ a a a.L - , . e w u.e , - , - s , 1 .), a e l
~ LQ w e ks up.1-s % G a <<es a L wJ a J, , I,% .l. -
w ,d u-<q,,, ,v p-esa al auelaJ y wa. 7.- u.nsln , /). - .au .-
J o ., 4 s, - u A .-- v.,.s. wM..:7 < s e.,_,,-
x,J o f v . e-~ 5 cc - c. e&csL ,. n -.l. 2 LLs.c C .s-sa c . J , - ,. 4 L -v e ss.J L , L l 4 40d . k s LJm ~ ,,. el , w ~ L 7 e,.4 '
~ .G. - 4L. cu 7. %. y n., at .L -sh w ae 4 e. .m .b a s r w-s Ltd Lr w . ri.U,p, L.O s~. c2 LD.- g ebt. CJay ws.L. Lv
-ys /C a .I 4L .4L.- c .iLL w . w ~ , a ,. ,.i J L e y . , l=.,
a J un J.J i k , iL s rsl~ w (/ ~.,y i 4 k , L w ,1 w-z k.a,,e y. mc..- 9 .l$ , en m 4a.s, x .L/L J w,i2 w . eL,\\.es JLe s.. ~ a., .c w. a a e .c w c-~ik. L - we c .-s Lu, r a. a -
4.4 4L e,cM, wJ.z , L oo w Ld r a .L w.4 a L < - . c. bo./. r- 4 of.isa c .~-s.L,6 - PL'.\\ Jr xm s.s J L.3 Ll.4 4Ad L,.
c - s.,/ L L & L .I w . 4 ,./ . G . k c b._1 t, l.d 7o L e ~ .,
L k 1.C- J J.. ~ v u.-c...c.~. ,e~J:4.: s u W - AL L u
- a,ed.L em,~s.
1 c - k . ~ -. A *.\\; p ,. m J .L /,,I
%n l l . l~ .I J . , p , L .. u 4c_rLc_1L,, m . 1 u w _ a _
b~y LLa h.<. 2 ,, w . w , J L c. w ,aC L c _ s i ~
- . ebles aLL.4 L, 40, G.J- 4M L. L./ 44._ ,4,r, 4 .//~,;4, 1
%, u;Av J. A 4L c.-..i.L.'.s JLi L,. C~.*.1 kLtu b..
. l l cps a .s, uJ G .c~ r I,Cl -u k% u k:..J. ~ .a.(. c l.t. .
Ll w M L: a .a..~g~s L$a oC s euL,L ey.aee L u l L.s x I.t u k . u w & a.y s e v & we u? s N : pkal.e L n fr 0 T G s & L.< .s a.A s , <- s- u a .> w d , ~. a IL t m .). v . lu a./ . k < ux s $ /b g .,l.<, u.sa ld 7 vaus h.e. ,~ y Sa.&b Y e- I
% o u Y -AY . b ayne y 6 d4. . ! > $ evh s, I e W 's/2C a-~ -I
% ~ J.e e ba .b l-$. MRc . s . .
.. I i
<. . ., .e . > .
, i * ,
' 4 ,
e ,
zA '
. ' 2 .iv G .sut b b . .
. 4. - 3 .s c. .
?a +. . ' ' . * * . . , . *
- e e e. . . , . ,
)
b . * .**
- 3 g ,. .
- - =
i l E>k b,+ s r.
p'** * '% UNITED STATS 5 ' I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[,
,, 'g
- - - 3' l ' REol0N IV I
!' i 411 RYAN PLAZA DRIVt SufTE 1000 l
% ,,,,,* ARLINGTON. TEXAS 75011 SAN 131996 MEMORANDUM FOR: E. H. Johnson, Acting Director, DRSP !
FROM: -
l
SUBJECT:
NRC INSPECTION PROGRAM AT COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION (CPSES)
I \
!- The CPSES group performed a quick review of the CPSES inspection program status j including, implementation (Enclosure 1), inspection regarding QA between 1974-84 '
l (Enclosure 2),-general review of the inspection program documentation _ ;
(Enclosure 3), and a general review of the historical unresolved and '
i noncompliance items'(Enclosure 4). The details of the general program review (Enclosure 5) and the review of the historical unresolved and noncompliance '
items (Enclosure 6) are enclosed.
i The reviews identified a number of items which should be given consideration by 1 management regarding the inspection program implementation at CPSES, QA inspection at CPSES, inspection program documentation, and the handling of' unresolved items at CPSES.
The enclosed information represents a number of hours work and was performed in order to better understand the CPSES QA and technical problems, the inspection program documentation and status, and the general handling and status of j previously identified findings. The information is being provided solely for 2 your information and consideration and includes some recommendations.
Consideration should be given to utilizing the enclosed information during the continuing inspections of the CPSES facility (TRT followup and routine inspection program). Consideration should also be given to evaluating the information relative to the IE inspection program and program implementation at CPSES to determine if IE program changes may be necessary to strengthen our l inspection and followup of safety issues.
l l
L Ci<
n^^%
J-LXJO(OTT~
. n ( -. u i
i i ' " * ^
I 1
l
. J
'(a Memo for E. H. Johnson l
'l
.. If you have further questions, pl ose contact H. S. Phillips (CPSES SRI-C at (817) 897-2201 or me (FT5 728-8103).
\
\
cc:
L H. S. Phillips T. F. Westerman D. M. Hunnicutt J. E. G.sgliardo l
l l
l 1
1 l
l l
l ;
l l'
i j'
__ .__-______-___a__~
I ENCLOSURE 1 NRC INSPECTION PROGRAM AT CPSES 1 - IMPLEMENTATION A quick review of the NRC inspection program at CPSES relative to the activity implementing procedures and records revealed the possible need to address certain areas during the final inspections of CPSES 1. .
I NOTE: Also the review revealed the need to commence the required inspections ;
. of CPSES 2 expeditiously in order to adequately complete the required 'j inspection program. j The following areas may require additional emphasis regarding-CPSES 1: l
- Structural Steel Supports (480638 - report documentation weak)
- Safety Related Components (500738 - additional inspection needed)
- Instrumentation Components / Systems (52054" - report documentation weak)
- Containment Structural Steel (55063B - additional inspection needed)
- Reactor Vessel (50055 - additional inspection needed)
- Safety - Related Structural Steel Welding (55065 - additional inspection needed)
- Electrical Components and Systems (510558 - additional inspection needed)
I 1
l l
t l
l e
r . . , e
1 r
ENCLOSURE 2 j NRC INSPECTION PROGRAM AT CPSES 1 & 2 REGARDING OVERALL OA BEWEEN 1974-84 The quick review of the NRC inspection program implemented at CPSES 1 & 2 regarding QA revealed that between 1974 and 1984 the RIV QA inspections were weak at best. The following attributes did not appear to be adequately addressed in the routine inspection program:
- Initial Corporate Office QA Program and Implementation (Once - 1984) l
- Mid-QA Inspection (36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br />)
- Vendor QA Program (completed prerequisites only in 1978, but the inspection was not performed)
- Annual Construction QA Review Meeting (Once - 1980)
- Routine Review of QA Program Implementation and Effectiveness - Design, Procurement, and Construction (Once - 1984)
- Audit of Site QA/QC Work Activities (Once - 1983, CAT)
- Annual Procurement, Receiving and Storage (Once - 1983, CAT)
- Review of Contractor QA Manuals Notwithstanding, supplemental and additional NRC inspections were performed at l
- CPSES which provided some assurance that the licensee's QA Program was 1 acceptable, including the CAT in 1983, the SRT in 1984, the RIV. inspection in I 1984, and the TRT in 1984. These inspections did not identify an overall l breakdown in the CPSES QA Program; and the specific areas of concern identified i appear to be salvageable - at this time. The final word on QA should evolve !
from the full implementation of the CPRT Progr M an and other special !
inspection activities. l l
The QA Program inspections need to be performed, at tnis time, for CPSES 2 to ensure continuing acceptable QA practices.
I i
l 1
. --._- ___'_X_T X _ L- :__ __ _ __ __ _ -_:_ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ .___..2. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ ,
ENCLOSURE 3 I
GENERAL REVIEW 0F THE NRC INSPECTION PROGRAM IMPLEMENTED AT CPSES In general, review of the NRC inspection program implemented at CPSES revealed some apparent problems which may need review by management to provide j inspection program improvements. The'following matters were noted during the i review of inspection reports and data: 1
- In many instances, report documentation was not adequate to demonstrate ,
that the inspection procedure (line items as a minimum) were inspected. l 1
- The percentage complete determination, in some instances, was not fully supported by the report documentation.
Additionally, the use of unresolved and open items, when deviations or violations should have/could have been utilized, degraded the NRC program to some degree. The NRC - and utility management do not routinely evaluate unresolved and open items; and therefore, are not aware of " findings" handled
~
at that level. Further, the corrective action taken by the licensee were generally specific to the identified issue, rather than generic to identify the cause and prevent recurrence of the problem.
NOTE: The NRC does not generally consider unresolved and open items in SALP evaluations.
i
- _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - . _ . _. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____=__
0 1'
ENCLOSURE 4 GENERIC TREND OF CPSES UNRESOLVED ITEMS AND VIOLATIONS l A very general trend uf the' frequency of violations and unresolved items as-l 1. hey relate to Appendix B to 10 CFR_50 was performed by the CPSES' project to .
. identify any areas where additional . inspection effort might be warranted.-'The 3 attached trend identified two areas which are presently included in the CPRT 1 Program Plan - 1) Desigiv0esign Control (Criterion III), and 2) Inspection i (Criterion X). The third area the trend identified was Purchasing (Criterion VII), and this area may need to be given additional consideration by the project to provide additional inspection effort.
It is noteworthy that a large number of issues were identified as unresolved in the area of purchasing and only a few findings were cited as violations. This practice may indicate ineffective corrective actions in-the area by the licensee /
The general trend also included a cursory review of the items to note whether the unresolved item was probably a violation. Based on available information it was concluded that without a significant amount of additional effort it
, could not be determined which items were definitely violations. Those assigned to the project determined that the additional effort was not justified at this
! time, and also the data was not absolutely essential for the inspection of l CPSES.
l The review, both unresolved items and violations, revealed findings in the l areas of design / design control, procedures, purchasing, special processes, l inspections, and records. However, a definite lack of findings was noted in !
the areas of procurement control, document' control, material traceability, l ccrrective actions, and audits. This matter, both in the areas where findings l were identified and areas where findings were not identified, may be very important when the_ findings of the TRT are considered and may need evaluation and consideration. 1 l
1 l
~
1
]
I l
l i
ENCLOSURE 5 l GENERAL INSPECTION PROGRAM REVIEW
- 1. The NRC inspection program at Comanche Peak relative to quality assurance between 1974 and 1984 was weak. That is the IE inspection program to inspect the applicant's QA program was-less than adequate based on the following:
- a. After the construction' permit was issued in December 1974, no comprehensive inspection of the corporate aanagement was performed until August 1984. As a result, there was no evaluation at corporate l offices to determine how effectively the Comanche Peak QA Program has i been implemented. Also, the applicant's QA Program and QA Audit Program, which was implemented by corporate auditors only, were in i noncompliance with their commitments and Criterion XVIII (failure to j audit) and Criterion II (failure to assess the status and adequacy of l the QA Program) from 1974-84, respectively. J
- b. The mid-QA inspection, as required by Manual Chapter (MC) 2512 and l Inspection Procedure 352008 was neither comprehensive nor in sufficient depth to properly evaluate whether or not the applicant's program was effectively implemented (when construction is about 50-60% completed). ,
1 Usually, this inspection is performed by the project inspector.and i three discipline inspectors over several weeks (2 weeks preparation, l one week inspection at site, followed by a final week of inspection I at the corporate QA offices). The mid-QA inspection at Comanche Peak '
was conducted by two NRC inspectors during the period December 18-20, 1978, and 36 inspector hours were recorded under IP 35200B. Less than a manweek was expended versus the usual 5-8 manweeks; and further, it appears that the electrical discipline I was not inspected adequately. '
- c. Audit of Applicant's Surveillance of Contractor QA/QC I Activities 35020B - As a result of Vendor Branch IE Inspection Report 9990524/78-01 (which stated that the applicant's QA Program concerning vendor control activities appeared to be breaking down),
an inspection was conducted and documented in IR-78-07 by the resident inspector.
Other than reviewing a list of vendors and status of vendors' QA l program and manufacturing (documented in IR 78-09), no further inspection occurred to :ssure that the applicant's Ontrol of vendors fully complied with Appendix B requirements.
l h- _ _ . i
In 1984 two NRC inspections identified potential, and subsequently upgraded, violations concerning control of vendors. The applicant's control of vendors has remained in question since 1978.
The Region IV inspection did not acertain whether the applicant's QA Prog ~ ram relating to surveillance of contractors assured proper control of vendor and corrective action concerning an apparent QA program breakdown. l l
- d. Management Meeting - Construction Quality Review IP 30051B - This annual requirement to discuss: (1) quality of construction, (2) QA program implementation, (3) QA/QC staffing, (4) preplanning for complex work activities was held in October 1980; however, it was not done and/or documented in 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1984.
- e. Audit of the Applicant's management of the QA Program 350608 - This inspection of the applicant's management was required every 18 months since August 1980. The purpor,e of inspection was to evaluate the effectiveness in implementing the corporate (A Program for ongoing activities of design, procurement, and construction.
This inspection should have been performed twice between August 1980 and June 1983, but was not performed until August 1984 when the RIV Task Force performed the inspection.
- f. Audit of Site Work Activity and the QA/QC Program 35061B - This annual inspection of site work activity and the QA/QC program was to assure that safety related work was properly controlled. This inspection should have been accomplished in 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1984. The NRC CAT Team accomplished the equivalent of 30% in 1983 and the Region IV Task Force performed this inspection in mid-1984, but there was very little work in progress on Unit No. 1. Unit No. 2 was not inspected.
The inspection of as built drawings versus plant configuration in one j electrical and mechanical area identified violations; i.e., drawings did not match configuration and inspection did not identify these departures from drawings and specified tolerances.
- g. Procurement, Receiving, and Storage 350658 - This inspection 4 (required by MC 2512 annually since 1980) of site procurement, i receiving, and storage was not inspected under the routine program in 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83, or 1983-84.
1 l The CAT team inspection in 1983 covered 30% of the required inspection and the Comanche Peak Special Review Tealn inspection may
- be counted toward the 1983-84 inspection of procurement.
- h. Review of QA Manuals 351008 - This inspection procedure requires that cach contractor's QA/QC Manual be reviewed and evaluated once in
l l
l ,
conjunction with NRC review of civil, electrical, and mechanical procedures 1
which control work activities.
IE inspection reports document such reviews for all contractors on site except Bahnson (reviewed selectively).
The above paragraphs describe inspections that were missed for Unit No. 1 l and the opportunity to inspect is lost; however, the following special l inspections have occurred and provide assurance that these or similar inspections were performed to assure that the applicant's QA program was and is adequate or identify deficiencies.
i Special Inspection Construction Assessment IP 35061 - 30% per IE letter dated April 27, 1983 Team - January 24 through ID 35065 - 80% same letter February 4,1983 NOTE: Not in 766 data Comanche Peak Special This report dated July 13, 1984, documents an Review Team Report extensive review of QA/QC activities relating to April 3-13, 1984 design, procurement, and construction. The line l l items of IP 35061B and 350658 were inspected during i this comprehensive inspection. )
NOTE: Not recorded in 766 data l l
Region IV Task Force Inspection Report 84-22/07 documents the inspection ]
Inspection - July 9 of IP 35061B. Also, a number of QA manuals were I through Mid-October 1984 reviewed.
IR 84-32/11 documents the inspection of IP 35060B and 35020B. The scope of 35020B was limited to site l construction, j i
NRC Technical Review This inspection by over 100 engineers and technical !
Team - July 9 through specialist thoroughly covered the QA/QC function and l Mid-October 1984 may be counted toward and satisfy IP 30051B, 35061B, 35065B, and 35100B inspection requirements for present and past work.
- 2. Manual Chapter 2512 Inspection Program of Site Work Activities - This program requires NRC inspections to: (1) review specific QA/QC implementing procedures, (2) observe current /past work, and (3) review of I records pertaining to civil, electrical, and mechanical work activities on site. The program accepts the premise that all inspec^. ion procedures may not be completed. The 766 data run dated October 1984 was used to evaluate the inspection procedure line items inspected and documented in inspection reports. The follnwing are the results:
- a. RIV inspection reports document the review of inspection procedures such as safety related piping (49061B) and other similar procedures; however, the following procedures reviewed were either not recorded .
- - - - . - _ _ . . . s.&&
in the 766 data system or were'not completely inspected and/or documented in inspection reports: ;
(1) The October 1984 data run for 766 information did not include inspection procedures 450618, 46051B, 470518, and 55051B but, reports were found indicating these inspections were performed but were not recorded on a 766 form or in one case the data group failed to enter the item.
(2) The following review of procedures were either not completed or-documented in inspection reports: 45051B, 500518, 500618, 500718 and 550818. Procedures 50051, 50061, and 50071B were reported 100% inspection of line items, but reports document inspection cf 50% of line item procedures.
- b. RIV ?.spection reports document the observation of work activity on I site for the following areas as follows:
l (1) Site preparation - 766 data form, IR 78-04 reports 80% completed but the report does not document observed work. Only procedures ;
and records inspected. l l
(2) Lakes, dams - inspection completed (IC)
(3) Foundations - IC (4) Concrete - 766 data run shows no entries for 47053B, yet, !
IR 76-06 shows 766 form - 100% and plant progress 11.7% Unit 1 and 1.5% Unit 2.
Also found documentation of inspection in RPT 75-12, 75-11, 75-10, but not in 766 data.
47054B - IC (5) Containment Steel - IC (6) Structural Steel supports 48063B - Report 766 form reports 100%
but reports document 20%.
48064B - IC (7) Reactor Coolant 'ressure Boundary Piping 49053B - IR 82-11 reports 100%, but all linn items were not complete / documented in the report. IR 79-25 showed 93%
490548 - IR 80-19 and 82-11 report 30%.
(3) Safety Related Piping - 49063B - IR 80-26 reports 100% but kupports documents 80%.
NOTE: Considering all resident inspection may consider 100%.
(9) Safety Related Piping Welding - IC (10) Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Pipe Welding 550738 - IC I l
550748 - 90% completed j (11) Reactor Vessel - IC !
(12) Reactor Vessel Internals - IC (13) Safety Related Components 500738 - 60% completed 50074B - Approximately 80% completed (14) Pipe Supports - IC (15) Fuel Storage Racks 500958 - 60% but understand D. Hunnicutt recently completed.
(16) Containment Penetrations - IC (17) Containment Penetrations - IC (18) Containment Structural Steel Walding 55063B - 100% reported but reports s:pport document 20%.
.I 55064B - Ditto above 100% vs. 70% completed / documented. l l
(19) Electrical Components / Systems )
510538 - 70% completed.
51054B - 90% reported - 50% documented.
1 (20) Electrical Cables / Terminations - IC l (21) Instrumentation (Components / Systems) 52053B - IC I 520548 - 90% reported 766 - 50% documented.
(22) Instrumentation Cables - IC (23) Preservice Inspection - IC
___.._._-_mm._.____-_-- ..-M
I l
- 3. The overall observation of work appears to be adequate with.a few exceptions. Not all of the inspection procedure line items were 100%
inspected and completed; however, the Manual Chapter recognizes and allows that all procedures may not be completed. ,
l Considering this allowance the following percentage completed appears to !
be too low: (1) structural steel supports - 20%; (2) reactor coolant pressure boundary piping (490548) - 30%; (3) containment structural steel (550638) - 20%.
The major problems found during this review were as follows: 5
- a. Reports in many instances failed to document the inspection to demonstrate that inspection procedure line items were inspected,
- b. The percentage complete determination requires some judgement; however, some judgements appear to have less basis than needed. ;
NOTE: This is also true of review of procedures and records.
These slight weaknesses appear to be well compensated for by work observed and documented in the special inspections previously referenced in paragraph 1 above.
- c. RIV inspection reports document the NRC review of QA records. The !
review of records for all discipline procedures was completed and '
adequate except as follows:
(1) The 766 data shows 0% complete for 450558.
(2) For concrete 470558, the 766 reports 100% but the reports do not document the inspection of line items. The same is true of 470568 i.e., the last accurate report was 70% but 79-04 report of 100% was not documented.
(3) Containment Steel - 100% inspection of.line items reported - 70%
documentation (4) Structurt.1 Steel Supports - 100% reported - 10% documented.
(5) Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary (55075) - 100% reported - line item on nonconformances only 10 of 14 nonconformances reported.
(6) Reactor Vessel 50055 - 100% reported - 60% documented (7) Safety Related Structural Steel Welding - 100% reported - 20% of line items inspected documented for 550658. 100% reported on 55066B - 70% documented. Nonconformances and audits line item t not completed and/or documented.
np ,ra . - P -
\
i l
l (8) Electrical Components and Systems - 100% reported - 20% i documented for 51055B. 4 90% reported - 20% documented for inspection of line items of 510560.
i The records review and review of procedures appear to be the weakest area
! i.e. , NRC review of procedures, observation of work, and review of QA records.
l l
l 1
i 5
l 1
ve, m -
4,n
- m. WWW C l W
l l
>=4
>=8 XWX C
> 0 X *e 4J f5 peg O
spu*
>==
> 3XWXWWWWWWX :>
X 80 h
M aC M 80 W *> 4 l CM: X C (
w p
s=
.. Q,, I w W Cr' >= 8 V > C X XW X 3 CO X I
- cn C e=4 >
Z N ==4 w O X l CL CL ::3 -
l CC 6 !
.c::
i C >== m W M XXWXW c=4 >-4 CM: O X w C U Q s
C r=4 ,
l M M
- u. -
O X 1 >= = i l O l C E 1 w i I
>== M M i
- C U X XWWXXWWXW X
.J 90 W L l M &
W I X XWWWXWWWX3XWXX33XWXWW W
- ") M W E m os m ee X M M X3WXWWWWWWWX Q
w "O 1 >a o>
l >
1 O M i A "O m i w m M I
M Q) *> '
Z b Q C D
w l C M
> XWWWWXWWWXXWWWXXXXWWWXWWWXWWWX
, >=
U
! Z w
D Cf M w
ct:
> WW W
> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXWX33WWWWWX3XXWWXXXWWWW l
l >
M l
WXXWWWXWWXWWWWXXXWWWWWWWXWWXXXXXXXWXXW
.1 4
M NWEWW w X * .
l l , . I L____-___-_-_ _ - _ - - _ _ . _ _ _ -
A -
.e w, -
LO 1 m.
xxxxxx i O I 66
==e
>"O m
.xx 6 x
>. I ae x j
> ]
x .
=
> x
> x 0
x xxx 3 l
\
] m
}
M N
.-w
) O x 3
L
.C
) & m
)
M W
ee xxxxx O x
> O I O e
) P=4 I e=.e 6 M x x O
) Z
)
.lms M
, V tg x xxx
)
) b
)
e x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
) th
) E
) @
) +J 3*'
)
- =4 >=* xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
) "O l >
> - m
) O -
a-o x i
) in '
, b
) C D
i w I'
>=e x
> I
?
i i
/ >=e
! > xx
> xeaeaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
~
i l
e 8'"8 NxE M Xxxxxxxxxxxx .
)
~ !
M xxxxxxxxx !
e xx
- 8 i '6
.--_-..--:_____ .J
i
/$+$$>
Q k IMAGE EVALUATION [jj// f 8g
////7 % $ d// TEST TARGET (MT-3) s["4 #g, 9,,,,9 /Q,,,,
l.0 if 2 L'd a m Op=z
'm c
l,l [U2 ESS 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 4 150mm >
4 -
6" >
44y%,'l, ,%
f4h4 i
%O 7/
C
++f%u ,
1
- h*4v 0{t l l .
" :mo a r +.--r-___.
tk O
,ch*'(b$%b*
$$ IMAGE EVALUATION d*# ,
//// 4
//o/ k/ TEST TARGET (MT-3) / ,
l 1.0 L8 Na ll21
.. !! n*: ER l,l ["* lOl!N
_l.8 l.25 l11c 1.4 pm.6 l
< 150mm >
- 6" >
'*ed %zzzzz /f4%
%W;;>$
4V*/,br y 1
op J
. 22. m-s a va_..:--.-_-_ _22 f_ .___,_ _____ . __a
4 E xh A t B ct 3 de.i l MEMORANDUM FOR: E. H. Johnson, Director, Division of Reactor Safety and !
Projects I FROM: T. F. Westerman, Chief, Reactor Safety Branch
SUBJECT:
CPSES U.3PECTION PROGRAM ;
I have reviewed your memorandum of April 15, 1986, keeping in mind the scope of the CPTG inspections that have been conducted and those planned.
I also had Bob Taylor review th .
_c
. January 13,19 .,, memorandum.
A copy of his review is attache 1 tend to egree with Taylor's analysis. I believe that all the changes made in the IE program and, in particular, the prioritization established in the September 15, 1981, revision of MC2512 make it impractical to draw any conclusions without taking such aspects into consideration. The IE MC2512, 766 data provides no method to account for IE program changes.
I earlier reviewed the MC2512 QA modules and found that from 1975 to 1980, there were only three QA modules and one of these was to be perfonned only once.
Since 1980, there has been five changes and four QA modules added. The 1981 l l
prioritization dropped three of these four QA modules as well as many parts of {
the other MC2512 modules. Prioritization was in effect through 1984. l Overall, there were over 30,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of inspection perfonned at CPSES through 1985 of the applicants construction testing program. This compares favorably to any of our other sites. A significant part of this toutine inspection effort was to review QA/QC related controls and work activities, i L
I do not intend to be argumentative. I have, by memo to Ian Barnes, requested that we inspect certain of the MC2512 QA program modules in 1986. We will also followup on the status of all the MC2512 modules. We intend to take credit for our inspections of CPRT activities where appropriate.
p.v:.9rignedtM' i,'f.;kssiman T. F. Westerman, Chief Reactor Safety Branch Attachment RIV:RSB TFWestennan:gb
$/SS/86 Q 7f)Q /1/X// / 7/ / Ie
& i vu CnW I / ~/ }' ^
=