ML20238A720

Partially Withheld Rept of Interview W/Gs Keeley Re Clarification of Info Contained in 831019 Rept Prepared by R Spangler Re Alleged Intimidation of QA Audit Group by Util QC Site Manager.Related Info Encl

ML20238A720
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	09/03/1987
From:	Keeley G TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:
Shared Package
ML20238A433	List: IA-86-378, Informs of J Beck 841031 Telcon Re Investigation by Texas Utils Generating Co (Tugco) of Potential Misbehavior of Tugco Vendor Audit Group.Ofc of Investigations Will Followup on Matter ML20238A431 ML20238A484 ML20238A514 ML20238A569 ML20238A615 ML20238A672 ML20238A692 ML20238A720 ML20238A726 ML20244D109
References
FOIA-86-378 NUDOCS 8709090397
Download: ML20238A720 (4)

Text

_ __ -- - 84-050

% %%c6% REPORT OF INTERVIEW Gv o With Gilbert S. KEELEY On February 27, 1985, Gilbert KEELEY, a Texas Utilities Generating Co.

(TUGCO) Principal Engineer in TUGC0 Engineering and Administrative Services, was interviewed by NRC Investigator H. Brooks GRIFFIN in the TUGC0 corporate offices in Dallas, Texas. KEELEY was interviewed for the purpose of obtaining clarification on some of the infonnation contained in an August 19, 1983, report prepared by Robert SPANGLER, TUGC0 Senior Engineer, and himself on the subject of alleged intimidation of a QA audit group by the T0600 Quality Control (QC) site manager.

When at the Comanche questioned about Peak Steam Quality ElectricAssurance Station CPSES)in1983,KEELEYsaid (QA)(auditors' audit activities he was aware that field verifications had been added to the QA auditors' duties. KEELEY was asked to review page 10,-item 7, of his investigative report which is as follows:

~~

"The person accused of intimidation (Ron TOLSON) believes that if QA  !

personnel are expected to do field verification they either need '

help from QC people or have to be better qualified in the area they are verifying."

KEELEY said he interpreted TOLSON's statement to mean that the auditors

, ^ should be provided with the proper tools and should be accompanied by qualified QC personnel to show them how to perform field verification i W

inspections. KEELEY said he did not get the impression during his discussion with TOLSON that TOLSON was saying QC concurrence was -

necessary before an auditor could report a finding. KEELEY said he believed TOLSON was concerned that craft employees might interpret auditor's findings as a request for rework.

KEELEY was also questioned about a portion of his report (item 8 on page10)whichisasfollows:

"Of the five people in the QA group who were present during the discussion, two believed that the remarks were made in an intimidating manner. The other three indicated that the manner in ,

which the statements were made was consistent with the individual's '

personality. The three also basically indicated that the discussion has not impacted their activities and that they will still contact construction people but will be more careful what they say to them so there will be no misinterpretation by crafts that the QA group is giving direct orders."

KEELEY stated it was his belief that all five auditors that were interviewed had interpreted TOLSON's statement the same. KEELEY said j that TOLSON's reference to physical hann related to auditors potentially

-being hanned if they confronted craft employees. KEELEY said he interpreted TOLSON's statements relating to political hann to mean that if auditors reported deficiencies that were invalid, their QA supervisors

sight question their audit abilities.

)

Inforniation lithis iRisRaTdelele1 8709090397 070903 in accordance with the Fr e m of Information PDR FOIA PDR Act,eXe tions 7, gxg}gg7(4)

GARDEB6-378 E0lA- 'S78

-4

[ 4 -

4-84-050 KEELEY was also questioned about item 10 on page 10 of his report which contained the sentence:

"QA supervision does not feel that overall, it was intimidating to QA personnel." '

'g KEELEY confirmed that it was s e 1ef that the .,,

statements ma e y TOLSON had not intimidated the QA auditors, nor had -

TOLSON intended to intimidete'the auditors. I 3

, f Og i

O 4

4 1

9

'} I) u- ,

l EXHIBIT (4)

0- )

7 TELEPHd,41C CONTACT WITH RON TOLSON AND REVIEW 0F TOLSCH's JULY 13, 1984, ASLB DEPOSITION on On April 8,1985, Ron TOLSON, the fonner Texas Utilities Co. (TUGCO) site Quality Control (QC) Manager at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station L

( dCPSES),'was' telephonically contacted by NRC Investigator H. Brooks

" ' GRIFFIN. An interview was requested with TOLSON regarding his involvement in the incident with the Quality Assurance (QA) auditors in 1983. TOLSON' declined to be interviewed by the Office of Investigations.

• citing that his testimony on the subject was contained in a deposition dated July 13,19M. for the CPSES Atomic Safety Licensing Board (ASLB).

TOLSON offered to answer any clarifying questions related to his earlier testimony on the subject, but icdicated he believed the "all parties"

, deposition covered his testimony on the subject.

TOLSONs ASLB deposition was reviewed by the reporting investigator and paraphrased as follows:

.. TOL50N stated he had not seen the TUGC0 investigative report dated August 23, 1983, on the alleged intimidation incident. TOLSON said that when he entered the QA audit office on site, he asked, "Who is the team leader?" TOLSON confirmed that he told the

{ ' .i auditors he did not want QA personnel telling craft to initiate W repairs. TOLSON said be also told the auditors that they should work through QC in dish cases. TOLSON said that his statements were

nade in his " everyday" voice. TOLSON said his initial concern over

~

the incident had been his belief that QA auditors had directed craft to repair a hanger. TOLSON said he had an existing agreement with Tony VEGA, the QA Supervisor, that auditors would work through QC or wocid simply write a nonconformance report (NCR) on such conditions.

INVESTIGATOR'S NOTE: Because of an agreement among the parties to the A5LB relative to the confidentiality granted to the auditors durin the ut 's inte 1 invest tion LSON did not cal i

by name.

TOLSON sai an relatively new at his audit job and was not famili the policies and operating agreements between QA and QC. TOL se ted that his remarks in the QA audit office were j addressed to nly. TOLSON said that when he asked who was the team, leader, o>le responded. TOLSON said that was n he found out tha l {

as the i auditor invo t-to the su r n cuestion. s he also recalled tha engage n en gument with 4

'- b' TOLSONsaidtha old him about his involvement with the support and appr the ituati .

hed m again after lunch TOLSON said he recalled from further explain explanation /

[L that ad discussed the support with exper ced QC

,.. insp or o ite(notfurtheridentified). [

' Information in this re~ cord wai deleted in a:cordance with the ftpedqm of Inf0fmtllH A:L canctions '7 f b 3 F0lA .Atc@g _

EXHIBIT (10)

. 4 4-84-050 g l ,

I TOLSON said that his reference to physical harm was unintended and

~ was an unfortunate statement on his part. When questioned about his reference to political harm, TOLSON said he was referring to his potentially reporting auditor's invalid findings to their QA supervisors which could result in the auditor's abilities being l questioned by their supervisors. TOLSON said he had not made any such referrals to QA managers. TOLSON said he believed there was potential physical danger to the auditors by confronting craft with alleged deficiencies. TOLSON stated William CLEMENTS. TUGC0 Vice l President-Nuclear, had indicated to him that he (CLEMENTS)

I considered his (TOLSON's) conduct "out of line" during this incident.

• +

J' EXHIBIT (10)

- _ - - - _ _ - _ - _ - - - - _ _