ML20238A802
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:i
. 1 l
1
- UN11tD STATES 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i I
J DOCKET NO: IN THE MATIER OF: } 'l l INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW ., i l l l
)
i q l
.1
.g i
l 1
. i ARLINGTON, TEXAS PAGES: ;5 L4-707 LOCATION:
I DATE: WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 1986 As-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. us N c Yapse=e NIG@n, D.C. 20001 (202)347-3700 8708210087 070919 gDR ADOCK 0500 5 , \ NAMONWIDE COVERAG
i 514 o 4 SWOERN STATEMENT TOM WESTERMAN July 23, 1986 V NRC Region IV lleadquarters Arlington, Texas 1 j 10:40 a.m., C.D.T. ' l TAKEN BY: George Mulley REPORTED BY: R. Patrick Tate TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 ___ ___._n___.___-__--u------- 3
x (!p
, 515 )
1 ! TOM WESTERMAN l 2 called as a witness , having been first duly cautioned and 3 sworn, testified upon his oath as follows: 4 EXAMINATION I 5 sy Mr. Mulley: 6 Q The time is 10:40 a.m. on July the 23rd; we are 7 now reopening the record concerning the interview of 8 Mr. Tom Westerman and beginning where we'left off on the 9 evening of July 21st. 10 Mr. Westerman, we were discussing inspection l 11 report number -- . 12 A 85-14, 85-11.
..- 13 O And we are talking about the draft that was i
14 labeled -- 15 A 2-A, in Phillips' matrix. 16 okay. Q And would you now discuss with us some of 17 the concerns that you had with that draft report? 18 A okay. Other than the ones, you know, we've 19 already gone over-at least a couple of examples, but we get 20 into mo're into the report. - 21 There are a couple in here that Mr. Phillips , 22 -! didn't put in his matrix which went from what were termed
- I 23 violations to, I think there was an open item even. It's
~~
24 _- dealt with on page 19 of this document, where -- and I 25 h. i. . .r. .... . .h. .r.t. thi. p.rt. Wh.. th.,..r. ..t
- \
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
I
, 516 1
in the paper flow group area, Mr. Young indicated that 2 the - .that they had some internal uncontrolled guidelines 1 j 3
-that at least they were doing some instruction that had
{ 4 i
.been given out in the paper flow group. l 5 1 one of those dealt with the fact that" the method l t
6 used to issue drawings from the satelites in the field I 7 crafts and QC was not' addressed in DCP 3. However, what 8 actually was occurring there was that the document control 9 person signed receipt for-the documents as issued and the 10 recipient signed for the documents as issued. 11 And I guess the question comes is how far would 12 one go with procedures, whether that was a reasonable kind 13 of a thing. It was controlled in an internal guideline; 14 the paper flow group had been looked at very closely by the 15 TRT, because that's a large part of what is in the SSER 11. 16 In fact it talks about the amount of training and what -- i I ' i 17 that they even looked at that was given those folks to make 18 sure that they properly handled documents and what have 19 you. 1 20 l When we got to this one, it ended up'being, I 1 j 21 believe, j an open item in the final report and I guess I 1 22 didn't'see-it would be a violation against Criteria 6 as.to 23 we're getting awful specific as to"how detailed one_has to 24 write things in procedures. 25 I could take criteria 5 and go out and watch what 1 l 1 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222 7177 ) l
- _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ . ~ . _ _ _ . _ - __.
}
- 517 t
- 1 somebody is doing, every step they make, I ask them if I 2
that's in the procedure, then I don't think it intends to l 3 write a violation for every time I take the step here or ) 4 4 step there; and I believe again the training was given I 5 these folks, and the look at by TRT, didn't in my mind make 6 it a violation. 7 The second one dealt with a lack of instructions, 8 or, lack of a detailed hold process of how dtcuments were 9 statused, and this was done with a computer program. As 10 far as I know, it's,a user friendly computer type inputs, 11 which again, TRT looked at, when they looked at the paper 12 flow group. They did have some internal guidelines that 13 talked about, about this area. And as I recall, this did l 14 end up being an open item. I It wasn't in his matrix but I 15 i wanted to make sure it was straight on the record because 16 it is an item here. l 17 Now we get into little bit more of -- 18 MR. GOLDBERG: Can I go off the record for a . 19 second? 20 (Discussion off the record.) 21 THE WITNESS: On page 24 of this draft, we've 22 talked a little bit about, you know, you ought to just tell 4 23 Phillips you can't write a violation or did I have I l 24 discussions with Phillips on the basis of whether an item 25 would be a violation, 24 is an example of where there was TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 L_______._____ - - _ -
I i 518 i 1 probably a lot of discussion between Phillips and myself. j i 2 And the violation as initially kcitten here and l I 3 I'll read what's in the type, not what's been crossed out 4 and handwritten in, "This failure to provide minimum 1 5 protection from fire, water and other possibly detrimental 6 conditions during shipment, is a violation of 10 CFR 50, 7 Appendix B." l 8 . I think what's then been crossed out and written 9 in here clearly shows that there had been discussion with 10 myself and Phillips for which I didn't direct him what to 11 do, but we had enough discussion that Phillips wrote in ! 12 here in his own handwriting, "During shipment" -- I will i 13 read the whole thing in context. 14 What he has now put in place of that sentence I j 15 just read, he's now, either crossed out and added to the I 16 l following, " Protection from fire, water and other possible 17 detrimental conditions during shipment is not directly l 18 addressed in ANSI 45.2.9 or Appendix B, but common sense i 19 dictates that such large numbers of records many times 20 } which could not be reconstructed, be protected at all , 21 times; this item is unresolved pending review and a
- l 22 decision by NRC headquarters," which is the basis that I 5 l
23 had Phillips then write a memo and that was the decision 24 with Phillips, i 25 He wrote a memo which was going to go forward TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
519' L 1o
- 1 v444L headquarters which has never gotten there yet because 2 we got tied up in what we've got on going now.
3 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) Tom, weald you have liked, in 4 your opinion, would you.have liked to have seen the memos
' (
5 going forward to headquarters prior to you rendering a 6 judgment on this issue; in other words, if you had your I 7 druthers at this point, would you have liked to have seen 8 an opinion coming out of QAB prior to this inspection 9 report being issued? 10 A well/ if I had my druthers, I certainly would 11- have had like to have had that opinion. However, I did 12 discuss it a little bit with Mr. Spraul and -- what's-the ; 13 other gentleman? 14 Q Belke. 15 A -- Belke was on site, and I didn't get a real 16 direct answer. 17 But one of the methods was certainly open to a 18 ( manager and it's his prerogative is to treat an-issue which l 19 seems to have some conflict to it, you know, as an i 20 unresolved item for which we will then go get a rendering, 21 and it's a normal kind of a thing we do in any kind of a-22 inspection process, for which we will go forward and ask 23 for some guidance on before we took any action on it. So 24 it's not an unusual thing to handle it in this manner. 25 It's completely acceptable. 3 l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 I I
l . I 520 1 I would like to have seen IE QAB had a position 2 already out that I could have gone and put my hands on but 3 there wasn't any such position out for me. And I found 4 them very cautious in just right off the top of their head 5 wanting to render a decision. Okay? 6 I did subsequently talk this thing with Gilray 7 but that was that was after the report, as I had indicated 8 earlier. l And he was a little more open I guess with the 9 kind of information that we, you know, would flow, in that 10 John said that they didn't see in the regulation, you know, 11 or in 45.2.9 how it specified how one shipped records and 12 the kinds of projections or what have you one would have on i 13 records that were shipped. 14 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) I What you're saying, these are i 15 Phillips' own words. i 16 ! A These are Phillips' own words. 17 Q So he, from reading it, at face value, seems to i 18 k agree with the position, keep it unresolved until an 19 ' opinion is rendered from QAB. 20 A Yes, sir. 1, i And I'm getting to the point in the i 21 ! matrix, that I directed him that, I directed him this, you 22 know, not everything is written in, understand not { 23 everything in this draft is written because of discussions 24 with me, because it's hard for me to, but I know some of 25 the specific things I can point to. And I know they came i
- TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 I
a
, . . - . . . .. .m. . ...,.;.. . .
521 ; I i 1 from discussions.
}
2 I guess at the bottom of this page, just showing 3
.you another, there was discussions, the supervisor was 4
asked why copies were not made and the response.was that 5 task was so large and costly they decided-to proceed at j 6 . risk. 7 And any discussion there would have been, you 8 know, that's not a proper kind of a, you know, like I 9. indicated the other day, I go to the next supervisor up; j i 10 from this supervisor and he said cost doesn't enter.into 11 that, it was the timeliness of getting the record to Stone 'I j 12
& Webster that entered into that.
i 13 And then if I go to the next level of management, 14 you know, I may get a different answer. In fact when I did ] 15 l find out, what they did was contrary to their procedure 16 which is really where we should have -- really where we 1 17 should have been, we have should have gone and found out 18 the procedure that covered it. 19 I would only indicate on page 25 of this draft 20 that the inspectors were aware of the CB&I procedures for t 21 records, including shipment of records. And it's clearly 22 shown in here that that was the case. 23 I think this paragraph on page 25, might in part 24 play with the conclusion that was drawn that the records 25 [were shipped in corregated boxes, which is not the case, ' TATE REPORTING SERVICE,'(713) 222-7177
1 522 1 actual case. It does not appear that the inspector ever l 1 2 went back to really find out how the records were truly l shipped by CB&I. 3 4 Q (By Mr. Mulley) When you made the decision on 5 this write up, at that time, did you know how the records , 6 were actually shipped? - 7 A No, sir. l I 8 Q So you made the decision Nased on -- 9 A I The fact that I did not feel that it had been a 10 clear requirement of either Appendix B or 45.2.9 as to how 11 one' shipped records, what protection was required. l 12 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) George's question was the 13 exact question I was going to ask, you didn't check back in 14 l ! the plant to check actually how the records at this point 15 in time were actually shipped? 16 A No. Again, as I indicated, as a supervisor, I'd 17 expect that from my inspector. 1B Q (By Mr. Mulley) From what I understand, though, 19 you didn't really care how they were shipped, you didn't
*0 feel there was a requirement anyway? -
21 A on top of that, that's really -- that's true. 22 Well, I was willing to go the step of saying, 23 !
"Okay, let's write back and find out what is the 24 requirements for shipment of records." And I've got that, 25 I could -- I think I have Phillips memo if you're ,
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
)
i 9 523 l 1 interested, that gives his description; I initially was 2 going forward with that memo in whole just without any 3 ' comment on it, back to headquarters. ; 4 As things evolved, Eric Johnson indicated to me 5 that he wanted me to at least take a position on the issues 6 so that when we sent it to headquarters, they would know 7 how at least the management felt or myself, and I did that. 8 And then before we got any'further along; I think this 9 investigation had started. 10 Q You have a. memo written by Phillips -- 1 11 A Yes. 12 Q -- describing how the records were shipped by ., 13 CB&I. ! 14 A Right.
~
15 Q I would like to see that.
- j a
16 A There are three memos there; there's my final 17 memo that I gave to Eric which he's been holding. ihere is 18 ( the first memo that I wrote sending it without taking any ' i 19 position, for which -- I wrote it for Eric to. forward it to 20 headquarters, my concurrence on the bottom of.it. And then 21 there's Phillips' April 29th, 1986 memo. 22 (By Mr. Goldberg) Q There's a related issue that's i l 23 not records related, but in general, when we spoke with 24 p Mr. Johnson yesterday, he spoke about Mr. Phillips t , 25 l occasionally tried to get opinions outside the management (. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
'I
__Z_1___1______________________ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ I
1 l l J 524 1 chain, going into headquarters to talk to people or to find I 1 2 out what things are about. And he felt that it would have
]
3 been better that it goes up the management chain. l 4 What's your opinion on just having your J .. 5 inspectors go pick up the phone and write correspondence to 6 headquarters to get opinions on things? 7 A I think if you're going to write for a 8 headquarters guidance on a particular item, it ought to { 9 come in writing through the region. 10 If the man wants to pick up the phone and talk to 11 somebody in the IE QAB branch, I wouldn't discourage that i - 12 at all. In fact I did that quiet frequently when1I was an 13 1 inspector to make sure that I had proper positions on i 14 '! things that I was taking to get some concurrence out of the 15 folks that were back in the program area. 16 Q Was this memo on April 29th written after the 17 handwritten comments were made on that inspection report by 18 Phillips? I 19 A Ch, yes, sir, this handwritten comments were way 20 back in early part of writing this report, in the early 21 drafts of the report. 1 1 22 Q Did you ask him to write a memo to you to set up 23 the -- 24 A That was the agreement, we would write back to 25 headquarters to. set it up. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 i I
525 1 Q Was this the'first attempt, the April 29th. memo? i 2 A That was the first memo. In' fact, I went back 3 several times to Phillips to ask him to put that thing in i 4 writing so that we could get it back to headquarters. And
~
5 it took, you know, several efforts to get this written. 6 Q Did you recall when he gave.you-the handwritten 7 comments on the inspection report? 8 A. It would have been back in the time it wa's being 9 written; probably, you know, ;;;17 or late '85, you know, 10 the report -- same time as the report period. 11 Q (By Mr. Mulley) Let me ask you a question since 12 Steve just hit on it, Shannon Phillips wrote a memo l 13 concerning the bisco issue. I 14 A We'll get those at the end of this, we're going 15 to go back and pick up that report, I've got, some-copies 16 of that. I don't know how many copies there were because 17 we went through several evolutions to finally get a' memo to i 18 sent out on that. 19 Q The question doesn't really have to do with-the l 20 content of the memo but to the protocol issue, in what 21 we're talking about, memos being sent through the region to ] 22 the headquarters. 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q Do you recall the memo that Phillips wrote on the i 25 '25th of November concerning the BISCO issue? TATE REPORTING SER'VICE,'(713) 222-7177'
l I j 526 3 e e. Ac]hk (p 1 A There was a series of memos, you just kind of 2 remind me what the memo -- - 3 Q The question I'm asking is that apparently f rom-
)
4 what I was told, initially the memo was written by Shannon 5 through Johnson to the headquarters. It was then returned i 6 by you to Shannon with instructions to write it directly to l t 7 the headquarters. Do'you recall that at all? ( 8 A I think any conversation I would have ever had 9 with Phillips that would have been we need to write a memo 10 to the vendor branch on this issue. Okay? I never told 3 11 Shannon that any specific pers'o'n to write it to or that he I 12 was to sign it. 1 13 Now, the normal protocol when I'm writing a 14 branch chief N IE headquarters would not be for the 1 15 inspector to send a memo to him. - 16 Q Could Phillips have misunderstood? 17 A He could have misunderstood. I did not give him 18 explicit instructions on to sign the memo and who to write . 19 it to. If I would recall, it would have been, "We need to 20 write a memo to the vendor branch, okay, because we want to : 21 forward this issue on the BISCO problem to" -- that's the 22 appropriate group that needs to look at it. 23 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) I guess we will pick up BISCO 24 later? 25 A I'll pick them -- I've got a couple. I've got TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 L _T__ _ __ _ _ __ = _ __ _
l
. l 527 1
the first, I don't know whether it is the first one, one of 2 the first menos he wrote me which I took issue with where 4 i 3 he's trying to .tell everybody what they ought to go do. 4 And I guess as a manager, I felt we ought to present the 5 facts to the folks that shduld go look at it and then let 6 them draw the conclusions as to what they ought to do with 7 the -- I 8 Q (By Mr. Mulley) Like I said the only comment I l 9 had was the protocol of the memo and not the contents. 10 A It's like I've dealt for years, you know, if we i i 11 write a memo to Vince Ntonan, I will write it for Eric j 12 Johnson to send to Vince Noonan. I write the memo, I've 1 13 been told to write the memo. But I'm not going to sign the 14 memo to Vince Noonan, i 15 I might write somebody lesser such as being a 16 , branch chief. I write somebody like Charlie Trammel who's 17 a project manager. But not even on that case, normally on 18 Comanche Peak.we would write it to Vince Noonan with Eric 19 being the signer on it. That's the normal protocol. 20 When I was an enforcement officer, I would write 21 memo to Jane Axelrad because I was the enforcement officer >
'I 22 and that was my normal chain.
23 If Bob Martin, for example, asked me to write a 24 memo to Jim Taylor or somebody else, I didn't write it and 25 put my name beside it. I certainly put Bob Martin's on TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
528 1 there to sign it, with my concurrence for having written { 2 it. t q i 3 0 (By Mr. Mulley) Going back to this memo that ( 4 Phillips wrote to you concerning shipment of the CB&I l e 5 l records. This memo is dated the 29th of April, 1986, I see 6 here where Phillips is saying that and I quote, "These 7 records were shipped in paper boxes." 8 A He's drawing that conclusio,n, as I indicated 9 i earlier, probably from the procedure which would say you l 10 I may ship them in c6rregated boxes on a small shipment. I ! 11 would even question, L don't how small or how large, it l 12 might have been even been in a wooden box. But I can only 13 assume he probably drew that conclusion from this. 14 I believe if you'll go back and look at the CB&I 15 i procedure, even if you do, in a corregated box, you vrap it l 16 in plastic to protect it from moisture. So CB&I does have 17 concerns with protection, even if they did ship it in a 18 small shipment in a cardboard box. l 19 Even further, and it's quoted right here in this t 20 draft, in the procedure, the further states that shipping 21 I by air freight, air express or UPS is required for ! 22 shipments containing documents difficult or impossible to 23 replace. 24 Q So CB&I had a procedure in place -- 25 A Yes, sir. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 MW- & @
, l j
529 ! 1 Q -- which Phillips acknowledges in his draft? 1 2 A That's correct. 3 0 so I guess the point you're saying is if-L 4 anything, theyshouldhave\itedforfailuretofollow 5 their procedure?
~
6 A If indeed they didn't follow their procedure. 7 Q Right. Let me ask you, you mentioned earlier 8 that you found out after the fact that the records were 9 shipped in a pickup truck in a fire-rated cabinet? 1 10 A Yes, sir, i 11 Q Do you know if these records were placed in the 12 cabinet in cardboard boxes or how they were placed? Do you 13 have any further details? 14 A Well, I gave you the name of the individual and I 15 welcome you folks to call him. 16 Q Right. 17 A He, having been on site and having been CB&I and ! 18 ! their office being in Houston, made trips back to Houston. 19 He indicated to me in his interest, you know, knowing the i 20 customer always wants these records as soon as possible, 21 had taken them back when he made trips back, in a truck, in 22 what he described as a one drawer fire rated filing cabinet 23 with a one hour fire rating; which he indicated he had 24 the -- whatever is required by procedure , an inventory 25 "which he took back when he took them back and he took them TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
. i
530 1 back a shipment at a time. 2 He personally escorted them from the site back to l 3 CB&I; asked him if he did it all the same day, he said yes. { 4 I think if anybody had of gone as far as to ask the
]
5 licensee how were they really shipped, I think they would { 6 have gotten an answer. 7 l The man was'en site, been on site, you know I 8 l wasn't aware th'at the man was still on -- now the man 9 that's still on site indicated he had been on site back at j 10 the time the records were taken. 11 0 okay, good enough. 12 A Again, along with this memo I've just shown you, 13 on page 26 of this draft, it's very clear that there was 14 discussion between myself and Mr. Phillips and that he 15 original wrote here "this failure to transmit records in t 16 accordance without" -- okay, "This failure transmit records 17 in accordance with a procedure and afford protection in 18 f transit equal to the temporary storage requirements are 19 I additional examples of violations identified in paragraph 20 above."
- l 21 He rewrote it in the following manner. "The 22 transmittal of records without a procedure and affording 23 !
protection in transit equal to temporary storage 24 requirements is an unresolved item pending review by NRC 25 h' headquarters." Now, that change came about from # f TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 1 1
-. .,,+n
531 1 discussions with myself and Phillips. I 2 o so -- 3 A In ocher words, this memo shows that that's very 4 clear was what his understanding and that we had agreed to )
+J 5 do that.
6 ! Q So we're talking about an agreement in fact, and ! 7 l not something that he'is doing because you're directing him } 8 to write it that way? - 9 A We had discussions on this area. And when we got i 10 to the end of those discussions, that's.the direction we-11 were going to go in. Okay? Now whether he was in full ) 12 ! agreement with that, I'm being, I'm second guessing that. 13 But I do know that based on discussions, he did write l 14 what's here. I didn't write it. 15 Q I guess what I'm saying, did he give.you words to 1 16 the effect, "Well, I don't agree with you but if that's the 17 I way you want it, I will do it that way," or did he say, you { 18 know, "okay, I see where you're coming from, and you 19 know" -- 20 A I don't know that he'd ever clearly admit he sees 21 where I'm coming from. Okay? I 22 Q How close did he come to admitting that, I mean 23 even at all? 24 A As near that he would write over here~that 45.2.9 25 or Appendix B, you know, that during shipment.is not i l' TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
% , - + ,-
i i i
~
t i 532 1 directly addressed in 45.2.9 and 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, it 2 would seem that he did not demonstrate anything in 45.2.9 ; 3 i(1 or Appendix B that would talk about how to ship records. ! 4 Now whether -- s 5 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) I think the word that is 6 important here is " clearly," or he used the word that is 7 important to consider here -- okay, in my reading this, it i 8 looks like it's - "is not directly addre'ssed." The word 9 "directly," I think is critical there. - 10 And there may be reading between the lines here, t 11 it may be one could interpret it one way and someone can 12 interpret it another way. 13 < And I think if this is what his writing is, I i s i 14 think the intent might be of needing to know what the- ! 15 actual words mean, because the word is that I think is 16 clearly understood here is "not directly addressed." i It i 17 could have been addressed in a general sort of way, but 18 "directly addressed" gives you the conotation of specific 1 19 language. 20 A Yes. 21 Q Is that correct? 22 A That's probably correct. 23 You know, well, you know, one can -- one in the 24 old days used to interpret Appendix B. One now has ANSI 25 ' standards which you normally would go to to try to get some. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 ( - -
1
\
i I 533 1 l clarification of what a particular criteria might mean such
; 2 as records. I would to go 45.2.9. I believe even now with l
3 45.1,9 it'd not directly addressed. ' 4 Q The word "directly" I think is the crux of that 5 sentence, though. ' a d 6 Q (By Mr. Itulley) I'm not trying to debate what is ' 7 written. The point I'm trying to get to is that Phillips , 8 wrote this as a result of some sort of an' accord he reached 9 with you or is he writing this because he's throwing'up his 10 hands and raying, " Hey, listen, you are the boss, if.you 11 l want me to write it that way, I'll write it that way, I 12 don't agree." And in what you remember of the conversation i 13 l I'm trying to get a feel for that. 14 A 1 I don't think the man ever said, you know, "I'm 1 15 just writing it but I don't agree." It was based on a, you l l 16 know, I don't know how much discussion went on on this 17 thing. 18 Q Did you have to -~ f 19 A I think I might have said to Shannon, "I want to 20 handle this in the following fashion, I would like handle 21' i this as an unresolved item and we will go to headquarters 22 l and we will get guidance before we take an action on 23 something which is not very clear;" it's certainly very 24 gray, 25 Q so basically you're pulling rank on him, in the
.s 1
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 t s . gd.1 - '___________,a_ .,
.. +
I
.- l t
- 534 a
1 final?
]
2 A But I think it's a management prerogative to. l 3 Okay? But I want to show thati it very clearly was
)
4 discussed at some length with the man and that l i 5 what's written here is what he wrote based on our ,,' 6 discussion. And I indicated to him the way I would to r 7 handle it and that's what he has here. 8 But I don't see -- I don't have anything that 9 says, "I really disagree with that." And I g' ave the man 10 the proper channel to take care of. I let him then prepare 11 a memo to go to headquarters to take care of an' issue which 12 is the proper way to handle something like this. 13 Q I'm not at all questioning management's right, 14 you know, to give direction and instructions to an employee 15 as to how to handle an issue. I just want to make sure 16 I've got the correct flavor as to what happened. 17 A All right. ,
'I 1B Q That's all.
19 A Incidently, again on page 26, the transmittals of 20 records as he's changed it without a procedure 'is, he's 21 referring to the fact that TUGCO didn't have a procedure 22 for CB&I records, which was indicated earlier was not TUGCO i i 23 responsibility at this time, the records were still under I 24 the control and responsibility for the handling of those 25
' records with the ultimate' responsibility still being that 1 I
TATE REPORTING SERNICE, (713) 2'22-7177 5
~l
('** -_--______'----- i
f -
\
~
< .)
535 1 of TUGrp, that they will receive there records and that 2 they will have those records for the life ot the plant in 3 accordancewir.hwq.a,t45.2.9 requirements would be. l 4 Yoti lost me a little bit there. Q I think you i
)
5 didn't mear, go say what you said? . l 6 y A Well, we earlier got into this in a very long 7 lengtn Q scussion, you'll remember. We 'rtnt around on 8 s this several times in earlier discussion 'alaut what is 9 who's responsibility, when would TUGC0 be responsible for 10 CB&I records and when would, yeah, when would CB&I be 11 responsible and when would TUGC0 be responsible. 12 MR. MULLEY: Could you read back, could you just 13 read back to Mr. Westerman the statement he just made to 1 14 make sure that he means what he just said. } ' l 15 (The last-above answer was read back, l 16 by the esporter.) 17 THE Wi",HESS : I'd like to make, clear that the I 18 responsibility at this time for those records was CB&I's; 19 it was their responsibility to have e. procedure that i 20 covered the shipment of thos e records sad the shipment of {
'21 those records was'their responsibility.
22 Q (By Mr. Mulley) And CB&I did in fact have a j 23 procedure? 24 A :And CB&I did have a procedure. 25 Q okay, t
& b ( '~*'
__-..__x-:- .
- ~
- r
[ n.- 536 1 A On pace 27, Mr. Phillips has quoted a 2 conversation that he had with a -- as he described it, 3 l TUGCO manager; let me just read it; " Subsequent to l 4 contacting this auditor, a TUGCO CA manager contacted the [ l-l 5 NRC inspector and stated he had met with two other TUGCO l 6 personnel to discuss this issue and he stated that the i
, 7 TUGCO decision to send records-to CB&I was at TUGCO's own 8 risk."
i 9 lt I went back to the individual that I believe that 10 Mr. Phillips is talking about, it was Bob Spangler, who was 11 a TUGCo employee, and since this all came about, I wanted 12 to see f/'the validity of this statement. I asked him did 13 'ne say to Mr. Phillips that TUGCO decision to send records j 14 to CB&I was at TUGCO's own risk. 15 And the man says, I don't remember exact words he 16 would have used. But he said, "If I was going to say ' 17 something, I would have said that it was CB&I's decision to l 18 send the records back to CB&I was their risk." l 19 He again went into this ultimately that TUGCO had I
- 20 ultimate responsibility to receive those records, but the 21 statement here, again, reflects the, I think the 22 inipector's feel that those records were still, were 23 TUGCO's responsibility as far as shipment. !
24 (Discussion off the record.) 25 Q- (By Mr. Mulley) Okay, before we continue i I TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 s e _ n~- 4
1 i 537 1 further, what I think we'll do is enter as exhibits into I 2 the record, these memos that transpired concerning the 3 shipment of the CB&I records. 4 As Exhibit A, we will enter the meme from Tom 5 Westerman to Eric Johnson, subject: 1 Inspection of QA 1 1 6 records; this memo is undated, with two attachments, memo 7 from Johnson to Partlow, subject CBSES records issues; this I 8 memo is also undated; and an April 29th, 1986 memo from l 9 Phillips to Westerman, subject ir. gection of QA records. I 10 For identification purposes, the second memo 11 CPSES records issues, has a concurrent date of 5-21-86. l 12 A The next item I wanted to talk about is the TUGCO 13 records center which is discussed in page 28 of this draft. 14 And which the inspectors had gone back and looked at the 15 facility to see how it conformed with the utilities 16 commitments. 17 It would appear that th.at was done against ANSI 18 45.2.9; there's not any particular reference to which draft 19 or revision was being used. And it gets into the fact that 20 TUGCo had installed a sprinkler system which was not one of 21 the -- not one of the items identified in ANSI 45.2.9. 22 What I would point out is that there was I i 23 discussion here. As a matter of fact, that's how we got 24 into NFP 232, because I was aware of their commitment to
, I*VY 25 reg guide h TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
~ ~
538 1 And I guess beyond that, I want to indicate that J 2 that was a part of what the discussion went on with , 3 Mr. Phillips, und in my trying to assure that he reached I 4 the proper conclusion because in what he's written here, he ]
)
5 says their failure to install a system as described in 1 6 45.2.9, or described an alternate method for suppressing 7 fire and protecting records is a deviation from JSAR 8 commitments and Appendix 1AB in FSAR, section 17.1.17. 9 He's also added in 17.2.17 does not describe the 10 TUGCO records center. There's a number of interesting 11 issues which come out of that. I do have a copy of 17.2 of 12 the FSAR, 17.2.17; that document clearly states that 13 quality assurance records are stored in a specially. 14 constructed storage facility at CPSES, to prevent their 15 destruction, deterioration or theft. 16 The CPSES record storage facility construction is ) 17 consistent with the applicable requirements of the l 18 regulatory guides referenced above. Access to the recordi 19 facility is controlled so that only authorized personnel 20 have access to the records area. - l 21 And I believe that that description is consistent 22 with what a reviewer such as IE QAB would find to be . 23 acceptable for description of a records facility. 24 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) The question is not "believe." 25 'The,quer. tion is, did they accept that statement? TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
~
C__-__ r _dT 1 E'i' _--------- _----- -----'
539 1 1 A Yes, sir. 2' MR. MULLEY: Let me mark that FSAR, section 3 17.2.16, as Exhibit B. l 4 (Exhibits A and B were marked for 5 identification.) . 6 MR. GOLDBERG: Can I go off to record? 7 (Discussion off the record.) 8 A Also in 17.2.17, it does state that these I : 9 l requirements are consistent with provisions of regulatory t.3 3 1.Ft 10 guides LLk and 996-as discussed in Appendix 1AB. 11 , I guess the problems here are, you know, have an 12 inspector writing things that -- it's not apparent he's 13 going back and looking at the documents he's quoting. He's 14 written an improper statement. 15 Q (By Mr. Mulley) When did you dig out these FSAR 16 sections? 17 A well, for the purposes of this discussion, came 18 back with these in the last day or two. I know that in 19 trying to go back and trying figure out in the drafts that 20 i' were changed, and I know there was discussion on reg guide I.[rf 21 r&&1 and I had looked at 17.1, I can't recall how clearly I 22 had gone and looked at 17.2 at the time. But again, I have , 23 to go on what an inspector writes. I can't go back and 24 check everything that he does. . 25 I do know that in the process of review, whether TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 22247177
. - _ _ _ ___]
i 540 1 it was Mr. Barnes who sent it over to the operations 2 residents who read what was in, I think, Mr. Phillips; and 3 I .PP I did n?t checx it -- I did catch the reg guide tet-and 4 that's how we got the fact that the sprinkler system, you 4 5 know, you can have a sprinkler system in accordance with 6 188 if you go to NFP23'2, which I did bring a copy to the 7-site or had a copy brought to the site by the IE QAB branch 8 that came on site and I gave a copy of that to j 9 Mr. Phillips. 10 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) When was this inspection 11 conducted?
. I did notice the revision to 17.1 is July 19th, 12 1985.
i Was this inspection done within the time period of l 13 that? 14 A Wait a minute now, you don't have a bar. l 15 Q 17.17, down at the bottom of the page? 16 A I'm just looking at 17.2 now we haven't got to l 17 17.2. 18 Q I'm just curious to know whether the inspection 19 occurred. 20 A Inspection occurred tinwuyh October 1st, '85 21 through October 31st of '85. The report was not issued 22 until March 6th, of 1986. So all that time was in review 23 kind of a process. 24 MR. GOLDBERG: Okay, you've answered my question. 25 THE WITNESS: Now, in the -- what transcribed, is TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
- ' ^
I 541 1 1 I what I was trying to describe, I think the operations j 2 residents also got involved in this when they looked at I l 3 what is draft 4-A, and pointed out that there's problems in 4 j the way, in things that are written that are not properly j 5 quoted, l j 6 ! And if I go from draft 4-A, page 11, to the final f 7 report, it drops out; 'my problem is its -- I don't know < 8 I whether this N 17.2.17 was added in here'on the page 29, 9 but'I don't, you know, I don't know that I saw that. - 10 Q -(.y B Mr. Goldberg) The question I have is, if he 11 added that in there, why didn't you question him 12 immediately since -- do you know that 17.2 is for ops; j 13 e section of an FSAR and 17.2 is designed for construction? 14 A I don't know whether -- I don't know when that ! 15 got put in there. In other words, this is a marked up' 16 i thing, this is a marked up copy that Phillips kept, some of 17 which was probably all notes in it at one time; I don't . { 18 know that I ever saw it with that in there.
?
19 Q Now, I'm not tracking you -- 20 A I'm just saying, Phillips, this is the thing that 21 he marked up that ended up being typed up again to go to 22 the next draft.
}
23 Q The earlier part you said you did see because you 24 were. talking in terms of -- 25 A 1]r
, I did talk to him in terms of reg guide r&& and
, TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 .
e ,
f f 542 1 the fact that the sprinkler, that this added in down here, l 1 2 I don't have a time track on that. 3 0 Okay, but the question -- l 4 A I would have known had I seen that and really 5 been '. coking at it, that the records center would have been 1 l 6 described in 17.2, I would have known that. 7 Q I had a diffecent question. Any citation to 8 l 17.2, wouldn't you have immediately said,to Mr. Phillips or i 9 anybody else who brings in 17.2 "That's out of bounds, 10 that's not a part of our deal here, it's 17.2.is an ops I { 11 part of the FSAR, not a construction design portion"? j 12 A Well, when we got into the records issue, they l 13 went out and looked at all the records facilities. They 14 went to everywhere there was a records facilities on site, 15 everything that was on site was what -- that doesn't 16 preclu'de Mr. Phillips from going over and looking at it 17 just because it's -- it is in actuality, that is the 18 final -- that is the final storage place for all records on l 19 this site, they're all going to end up over in that I 20 facility. At least that's my understanding. 21 Q You're saying the scope of this inspection 22 I included both the review of operations records and I l 23 construction and design records; is that what you're 24 saying? 25 A Well there are construction records that will go
, TATE REPORTING SERVIdE, (713) 222-7177
543 1 1 over to the records controls center. { 2 Q well -- l { 3 A Whien is the one described in 17.2, which is the 4 final resting place for records on this site. They're d 5 being microfilmed and whate'er over there; I haven't been - 6 and looked at any detail as to what all that operation, but 7 8'that's my understanding, that will been the final' resting 8 place for all records on this site. ' 9 So I didn't see that that's out of the scope -- 10, in fact, as the chief the Comanche Peak group, I had both 11 the operations and a construction; I wouldn't have 12 precluded from going and looking at.
-. 13 Q I wasn't clear about the scope of the review.
14 A Okay. We talked a little bit about how one 15 presents which sides of the arguments there are and when 16 you write a report that you be objective and that you quote I 17 fully what ought to be there. 18 And I'm just looking here and then having gone 19 back now I just want to show some flavor for that kind of 20 thing. I didn't go into that detail when I looked at the 21 report or whether I looked at this draft, but I've 22 i' subsequently looking at the kind of thing that Mr. Phillips 23 writes, for the kind of a flavor for the kind of thing he 24 had written. 25 Q (By Mr. Mulley) You went over with that' draft TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 2-22-7177
.L::: ~. _
1 544 1 and talked to some of-the inspectors at Unit 1, concerning 2 some of of this FSAR? ! ! 3 A In this review, in the review pass, the 4 operations residents, who had, you know, Unit 1, Unit 2, as { 5 1 far as you know, what is being turned over for testing, 6 they'd have Unit 2; now whether -- I think Mr. Barnes 7 probably was a part of sending this over to them, so { 8 .
'\
that's how part of this got picked up when it finally came 9 out in the final report. 10 Q once you determined that there were inaccuracies t 11 between what Phillips was writing and what was actually in 12 the FSAR, did everybody sit down with Phillips and point
. 13 out, " Hey, you know, here's the documen.t and you're wrong?"
14 A I don't know what all discussions went on. I 15 think Ian Barnes can maybe shed a little light on that, 16 Dennis Kelly who's the operations resident at the site, can 17 shed a little light on -- you know, he looked at that and 18 took exception with it. 19 Q so I guess absent that sort of a discussion, ! 1 20 where you sit down with Phillips and say, "Shannon, you're 21 misquoting, your reference is wrong," that he may still'be 22 left with the impression that what he wrote was appropriate 23 and that it was arbitrarily changed? 24 A I believe that was discussed, not by myself but I 25 'believe the operations residents even came over and had TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
. t 545 i
1 some discussion with Phillips on this. thing. 2 And again, whether discussion, the final change , J 3 that came would have still.came through Phillips, even-the
)
4 4 A copy would have gone, and we're missing a. draft that I 5 would like to have had, which is the o'ne that got further < 6 revision in it. I don't know where that is. I'm missing i 1 7 'a -- I ca'n't reconstruct that. 8 L Q I guess, you know, the point I',a trying to make
)
9 is if we had shown Phillips some pcsitive information that 10 what he was saying was inaccurate, he would have been-11 possibly more willing to accept the change. t 12 If you had developed stuff on the side and 13 Phillips doesn't get the feedback, if in fact he didn't, 14 I'm not saying -- I don't know if-he'did or didn't, I'm 15 coming from vell, maybe that's where he's coming from, the 16 stuff been changed, he doesn't know why, and maybe'that's 17 Vmare -- 18 A I know that even up to the final part of the 19 reports and Barnes and I, I believe that Barnes and I 20 picked up and I'm not sure which one, there was~ discussions 21 back to Phillips, even he was still trying to quote no 22 description in 17.2 and that was, that was discussed with 23 Phillips. 24 Now I can't -- I think probably Ian'Barnes is the 25 'one that discussed it with him. We made one last change in TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 __ _ .~
546 1 that whole arena, kept trying to pick up all of the-things
- 2 that had to be swept out so that it was a finally actual 3 factual report.
4 What I wanted to show, now, talking about 5 presenting things in an objective clear, fair, fashion, 6 okay, Phillips in this draft, for example, wrote in here 7
"The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) dash 1982, 8
states that filing equipment shall be non-combustible 9 throughout, all records shall be stored in fully enclosed 10 non-combustible containers." That certainly presents a 11 very one sided view of what it actually says. There were
.. 12 i some documents in filing cabinets in the records control 13 center.
14 The statement in NFP 232-38 states; "All records 15 ! shall be stored in fully enclosed containers as far as ! 16 possible. If complete enclosure of certain records is 1 17 ! impractical, shelving having only the front end open may be ' ( 18 used, but loose paper shall not be filed on open shelving." . 19 The description that I understand of the filing 20 cabinets, there are some files, but it is a closed top 21 filingcabinetwithsomerecordsstoredinthed,inthe # 22 records control center. 23 0 (By Mr. Goldberg) Are we talking the permanent 24 record center?
~
25 A We're talking about the final permanent records TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
2 l l 547 1 control center. 2 Q So this is where the National Fire Protection 3 Standard would apply? ! 4 A Yes, cir. 5 . Q Ar.d we ' re into 17. 27
, 6 A Yes, sir.
7 0 okay. So we're now talking interpretations of a 8 standard? 9 A Yes, sir. i
- 10
- Q okay, so you're point is?
11 A At least to go on as far as to say all recc.ds 12 shall be stored in fully enclosed non-combustible 13 l l containers as far as possible, rather than to say all 14 records shall be stored in enclosed non-combustible 15 containers. He's really not saying everything that the 16 standard says. TUGCo had some records in the filing, in a 17 filing, filing cabinet, but in book cases, but they were l 18 closed. l 19 Phillips did in the final report, you know, we 20 did leave in the words that,that's not the most ideal way 21 to do business, and that if there is a water sprinkler that 22 there is a possibility that water will enter and will 23 likely deteriorate the record. And T didn't duck the 24 issue. But I'm not sure that that would make it a -- 25 Q Do you have reg guide 188 with you?- TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
. ==1__-_. _ _ _
i 548 1 A Yes, sir, 2 Q okay. i 3 A In fact, in the final report, I think what was 4 here, it was left unresolved. 5 The statssent is this presents a concern because 6 those plant records which are stored in folder or binders, 7 op\en faced cabinets wi11 be deluged with water and likely i 8 \ deteriorate and additional consideration that records 9 stored in a maalla folder may be washed out and possibly 10' the drains of this facility leading to flooding of the i 11 facility. ' 12 .- Wow, this ites is considered unresolved .; . pending
- 13 applicant poview of the facility with re'spect 7td#t.he above
, z..
14 observations. And that's us'and t&es both4 -NK%f(' 15 , - . ;4w::&k. < lGet a final, what I would',hav;Qone .at a;ggi,ag,,4a,. 16
~ time would have brought somebody like Nhi
~
l 17 Region ZY who's our QA' man at the M and had, g'onh)L- ; la through all this. Again, the investigation's kind of tekee *ee it 19 that out of my hands.
~
20 "O - (By Mr. Goldberg) was loose papeta filed on open ! 21 shelving at all in this? i
. e
'22 A I That's not what he's talking about; there. wore 23 records --
24 0 I know that's not what he's talking about, but 25 '
'were in fact,' at the plant, loose papers filed in open TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 e M es
A 549 1 shelving? 2 A I asked the senior' resident inspector for 3 construction, Mr. Kelly, to-go over and look at that 4 because I wanted, I saw a manila folder I wanted to make
]
5 absolutely sure how that was and he indicated those are in 1 6 there with little clips, normally they're not loosely in 7 manila folders. 8 Q Are contents of individual compartments in a 9 volume of no less than, of not more than 10 cubic feet? i 10 A That was not determined. That's again a part of 11 the baais for, you know,.a management determination to 12 leave unresolved, let's go back, I want to send somebody l 13 back to look at the facts. 14 Q You didn't ask the question with some indication , 15 that there may be a problem here; I understand what you're l 16 saying, you're taking *.he words as it's face value but this 17 all guidance. And if you read this standard, you get a 18 picture of how one does business in an orderly sort of way.
~
19 And if there was indications that maybe things 20 aren't as good as they should be, did you ask the inspector 21 to go on and ask these two questions? In other words, did 22 you ask them following questions: Did they have any open 23 shelving of loose papers? And two, were the contents 24 having a volume of no more than 10. feet? Did you go on and 25 ask them.those two questions? - TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 22'2-7177
,, ga sd- YT#-OL U $ ._ g.-ww=>aJ .
_..,-M._ "
- r,I . -
l 550 1 A I didn't go any further with'it. In fact, what I 2 was trying to do at that' point in time was just get a feel 3
'for what the records, what were we into at records at 4 comanche peak. '
5' I didn't real'1y Ean* ay resident inspector tied *
- 1
~ . . . . . . . m 4 .
up for almost a montlClooking at records facilities when
- L N-
. . - .> u -
7 . .
.E'd rather have,him'out ,c'.-
looking.at;the: plant. And I was
~
* ;,.* . . ;< p . . \
.. .s S
trying to idek*thingsLback, just'let's.get, okay, identify
. 1 it' and ..:". @go . %on.:%"A.iss%&.+iWW .
,let*a
~
9
- z. ~; c.ac.,<.w m- put'let's' don't just keep ^on and and
- ~
on and on,'a.W. T'11.,s..W. '.;;m..w.. .%. :' giv,e tiii's thingR 'a.s. s . M.4% u.J He ~. A ' 7M
' 10 '. . y. e +
1
- wh d *w).'1. s. . ;..-ie'to cool,'you.
1$8 '
. . . ' x.. .,w -- .. . ~.: .. .a.,fu . ; . . .nr . -
. know', ~ in my. idea. Nu,ld. .
' ain%r.+ l. m" a san who'wo
. .1 m.w.. g.:; gwsi.wC+9@@De %- c to g#?%?",down,. :. ' .wan -* *- ? l'uld.go .
.. '12[. , ' through 'these. Jak.ts* (like we 'just"salkedImbout,' and go look
~
n .c a :. : s;&.p..
.f t - :p.13" '.:he-it.and vcome.b.s %, ,%gnch'and~give se an,agtval . .
- t. -
'av'
.. e ,.-
;w...gn.2,<
W. p+ p. b s e/3.~,pc.. 14' +, , . 2 a p=.:m - .m. representation. o 't inhat*p;gN,.wwa the 9 ,~1.W. re.
- .r ,a %' . ,4>.,., w, w .<.. m% -
g 3:. c.s+;, www . - - g." ' P
. . .m i:.:. < .
.2:e n,~ ~ . ~M.u&~m%RiMWOWWW W '"
. " 18 - tin fact, he'.s almost like a bull dog and r wouldi"%ist 2"can ~
&%. . . .w 3. y . +?%. :O.M MW "
17 live with his facts because
. q: . . . .~ ...
he will.- base'it on facts. u
. 5
- . ,y,'s .. .
18: 0, , .
. .y. , . . .; ..~
-so tell se~, Tom,d i.r.
m . : und.e. rs,t.a.nd what 1*a J
. . n+ . ..y.
. g8. , s .v.:...mb .
19f: hearing.jou'resayingthat.,yousorh.EeE.sashtogethim., ,
.e p. - j.'.g.
~,.,- y . , gu..w3.g%qq.y. m
.-j. , . . ,
- s. . .c.
29 - l
.- away fros this area and' move",onriaite'!the" c
plant and'have.-
.y,.... ,n.
21 . ( r somebody elsIlpse'kkt .ap and not .have him "'
- u . .
~ . 22- pursue' it any further;.u;han
.t.e .;.n.p.w s.. ., -
. /, c#
c, . mwwhat'he 7didt;$n ,-. , ~2 ~ '. ,x
.e u. ~ f 23 g%g. -A . v .s s m ..:mye.w;, .sa e 4 %w.:s P.e.:>
- That's correct 6that's correct. l.q'4e;y%, pun ~ l 2 - -:: .
24 s QQ' hRkE.Q'W%% d . Q Rven'if he a. . took another1two ,w : . minutes to ask his 25 ? .y.d, ;y. -. r.s ..g . two questionst s .$;/ e. :. %... . ..~
? M $ .' 7 5 ' .. ..
7 9 3t g g / 7 Y W ig M fi.[. , ' TATEREPORTINGjsERVICENd713);222-7177 4* -
;Q.yj ml,q
- w. ..". . n.p.e. 9.kk, njf * :.'..
y g y g..'gs'et.;,
' '.s. 9 .zv..yga.<. NhMian -
. * .un r.
'.c - .. ~
551 1 A Well, then but.we would probably have gone back 2 and looked some more to try to answer that question. 3 Q You may have had an answer to that question on 4 the spot. l Without asking him you never would have known? 5 A No, sir, I didn't ask him. Llke I say, I've got 6 r a limit to what -- I provide the inspector with a copy of 1 i 7 NFP 232. I think a normal inspector would follow it I 8 through to the end without a supervis,or h'aving to come say o 9 "Did you follow it through to the.end." 10 He's a GS'15 paying grade in a 14 position, he's ' 11 a senior resident inspector. I expect him -- I would-12 expect him to sort these kinds of issues without me having
- 13- to go after him to do it.
14 Q Okay. l l 15 A The next one I wanted to get into is what's I 16 called the permanent plant records vault which he starts on 17 page 29 of this draft, goes to page 30 of t'his draft. 18 Mr. Phillips took exception that there is no fire 19 supression system inside the vault; that there were two 20 hand held fire extinguishers and a two inch fire hose 21 located outside the vaults and one hand held fire 22 extinguisher located inside the vault. There were fire 23 detectors and alarms'inside to alert the on site fire 24 department if a fire occurs. I 25_ We also got into if a two inch fire-hose is used TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 2'22-7177 l 1 = ===== = _ - _ = = = = = = _ - - = = - ~ ^ -~ l
552 ; 1 to exstinguish the fire and no drains and the floor is not j 2 sloped, therefore water could enter the bottom of the 3 cabinet drawers, and I guess what I just read is in part 4 what he had handwritten some changes there. 'l 5 Based on our discussions, again to show that l j 6 there were discussions, what Mr. Phillips added in here is 7 that this failure to install a fire sprinkler system, 8 drains and a sloped floor, appears to be in --'and I l 9 believe in deviations from FSAR appendix 1AB, it's not very , l 10 clear to me, I'm just reading the in deviations -- which , 11 Vs'.39 1 commits to ANSI-45.29.without exception. However this item 12 is unresolved because this facility is described in FSAR I ] 13 section 17.i and is unresolved pending a written response s 14 from NRC headquarters. Something else,' acceptability. 15 Q That goes back --
- i j
16 A That goes back to that memo that we've talked ) 17 about, because in the second part of that-he's back in, you 18 know, we're talking about it. And that was, there was a 19 lot of discussion on this, on this whole arena, in fact, 20 even more than I thought was really necessary.- 21 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) What was your' reason for 22 objecting here, Tom? I don't know if we covered this two 1 1 23 weeks ago or.not, I forget now. Your objection here was j 24 based on what? 25 A well, on this? TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 ..a. - - .: -. . .
. ..-. . . 1
553 t 1 Q Yes. Why it was not a non-compliance. 2 A well, first of all, I don't think we really got ! 3- into it. There's several things here. First of all, the 4 system,'it is exactly as described in the FSAR as approved, t 5 again by NRR, I believe, probably at the time this thing
/ 7. /, / 7 6 was submitted and it1 states ' clearly in this JJLJ-44 of the i 7
FSAR, that, for example, dry chemical or fire extinguishers 8 are provided. And that's what they did provide, they 9 provided two at the door entrance and one inside. t 10 Q I understand what you're saying, that the TSAR 11 describes that. But in terms of implementation, what 12 actually is in the vault, I don't think NRR does that, 13 that's the region's responsibility to determine : 14 implementation. 15 A And it may be that way since day one, there have l 16 been all kinds of folks that have looked at'this whole 17 records thing; and for example, on most hand held fire 18 extinguishers, I didn't see that that's anything different i 19 than what was put into the FSAR, they didn't deviate from < 20 what they put into the FSAR. - l 21 Q Who determined that, who -- you said someone had 22 determined that they did not deeviate from what was in the 23 FSAR. 24 A Well, I just quoted you what the'-- the FSAR says 25 ' dry, chemical or gas, it says extinguishers are provided. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
554 1 It's been that way since day one. 2 O Yeah, but again it's a question of compliance or 3 implementation, whatever you want to use the term. Did 4 anyone go out and check? I haven't gone to try to figure out how many
. 5 A 6 inspections have ever been done of that records vault. I 7
know that a number of folks icoked at that records vault 8 including the paper flow group -- or the.TRT group which I 9 showed you in the SSER 11, and they stated that they 10 thought that the vault and the procedures were in 11 comformance with 45.2.9 and 17.' of the FSAR. s 12 Q When was the SSER issued? SSER 11, when was that i 13 issued? 14 A I could give you -- get you the date. 15 Q Did it precede or proceed the inspection effort? 16 A It preceded the inspection effort. And then 17 earlier than that, there was the Region II group that came , 18 down and looked at this thing. And earlier than that, 19 there was all the other inspections. 20 Q- So there were inspections going on there in the 21 vault room? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q That's what I was trying to ask you. 24 A Yes.
,, Now, the second part of that, he's taking 25 ' exception with the fire extinguishing system, the second
~~~
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
..--2..- . . - . . . . -
.l 555 1
part of it which Mr. Phillips was taking' exception to. j 2 I Q (By Mr. Mulley) Let me ask you about the fire 3 extinguishers. Is he taking exception to fact of the fire 1 4 extinguishers or where they're located? ! 5 A Well, there were two outside and one inside. So , 6 they're located in both places. 7 Q And that's what he's saying.in his report? ' 8 A And it says in the reg guide, or not in the reg, 9 ANSI 45.2.9, it says, "The following-features shall be. 10' considered in design of the;per,manent storage facilities," 11 and it says dry chemical or gas fire protection system. 12 And I believe the licensee did consider and what they did 13 provide was the hand held fire extinguishers. 14 Q And these -- 15 A I'm not going to pass judgment, now, in my 16 judgment, that may or may not be the best way, that might-17 be my druthers, but I guess -- does it really not comply j 18 with what the FSAR had in it, I guess is part of the l 19 question. 20 Q I guess I'm just;trying to accurately 21 characterize his concern, you know, whether Phillips' 22 concern with the number of fire extinguishers or whatever 23 or where the fire extinguishers were located are and whether 24 or not.they would be able to do the job. 25 A Well, in this draft, he goes back to the NFPA, a TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
i 556 1 ~ and NFPA at least and I haven't gone there, he states that 2 the total dependence on combination.of smoke detection and. 3 hand held fire extinguishers still leaves'the. facility 4 subject to a' major disaster. But that's not, you know,. 5 that's not what this facility is committed to,.it's not 6 commited to reg guide . 1 7 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) Now I'm confused, which 8 facility, the permanent facility? , 9 A The permanent records facility. 10
/.#P Q Is not committed to 1bt&7 l 11 A No, sir.
. 12 Q But you said it was -- ~
13 A The TUGCO records center which is an operations R l 14 side is, that is 17.2. 15 Q Right. 16 A The permanent plant records center is 17.2. 17 Q Okay. You have to distinguish, I.think it's 18 harder for me to picture and maybe for George it is. Say 19 it again so I understand it completely. I'm now confused. 20 What we're talking about is what part of the plant, what -- 21 when you talk about fire' extinguishers and so forth, hand 22 held, are we talking about the permanent records system? ' 23 A We're talking about what is titled thel Permanent i 24 Plant Records Facility, which is on the construction side 25 'of.the plant. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
..me. ._p s ..
)
557 Q okay. 1L ! 2 A And it is commited to 45.2.9 draft 11. 3 Q Right. 4 A The TUGCO records center which is 17.2 of the , 5 12 1 N FSAR is committed to reg guide 146, for example, as well as 6 ANSI 45.2.9.
)
7 Q So right now we're talking about reg guide 8 45.2.9, 1973 version, draft? 9 A well, draft 11, yes, sir. t 10 Q okay. I understand. l, 11 A okay. Now, the next part of this that we got 12 into extended discussions, and I think it was in part of 13 the discussions maybe we had over the licensee with l 14 Phillips there, was the statements that, statement that 1 15 there is no fire drains in the floors, not sloped to 16' prevent flooding, therefore water could enter the bottom of l 17 the cabinet drawers. I i 18 This is a -- this is an addition to this hand 19 held fire extinguisher, as in any fire, there is a two inch 20 fire hose which is normally the way you'd backup any fire. 21 Is at the outside of this vault. 22 Now, 45.2.9 states that and again, we are at, it-23 says, "The following features shall be considered in the 24 design of the permanent storage facility." "Shall be 25 ' considered." TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
I
. I a *
' i 558 l
1 And the statement in 45.2.9 is that concrete i 2 floor and roof with sufficient slope for drainage; if a 3 floor drain is provided, a non-return check valve 4 (or equal), shall be included. e
~
5 Now, I've taken the term " concrete floor and roof 6 with sufficient slope for drainage" and played it by a
]
7 number of folks. There is a roof with sufficient slope for 8 drainage; you got into the discussion of Phillips, where 9 that also would mean that you had sufficient slope on the 10 floor which he's drawing a conclusion that he also had to 1 11 slope the floor. 12 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) It begs the question, you had 13 agreed on the other two areas that we had discussed in- ' l.4 - terms of the boxes, and the shipment off site of the ! 15 condition of those boxes as will as the issue of the' fire 16 i suppression equipment, to go one more step and ask for 17 assistance from QAB and you went asking for meno. Why in 18 this area did you not do that? I Seems like there's a need 3 19 for clarity here also? I
\
20 A If you will go back to my meno that you have, you ' 21 look at the last part of Mr. Phillips, my meno as well as 22 his meno, you will find that issue. i { 23 Q okay, this is here also; I saw two issues; I l 24 didn't know there was a third issue. ; 25 A This is where we're talking about. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
-. C : _ __ . ._ -
l l 559 1 Q ch,.okay. 2 A TUGCO records facility, construction. This is 3 the whole discussion that we're into now. 4 Q Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. You're right. i l I i 5 Q (By Mr. Mulley) Let me -- 6 A so I did write back to headquarters, I mean it 7 was going back to headquarters, even with my position on l
- 8 #
l how I felt about it. ! 9 Q (By Mr..Mulley) So if I get'this right then, l 10 this whole discussion is centered around the fact of 11 whether or not and I quote " Concrete floor and roof with , 12 sufficient slope for drainage," close quote, is talking i 13 about whether or not the "and".means the concrete floor and I 1.4 roof should have slope for drainage or whether or not just 15 the roof should have slope for drainage; is that correct? < 16 A That's correct. 17 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) And you think it's just the 18 roof? k 19 A well, let's go a little bit further, the 20 discussion that'ba went on on all this thinn, was also of 21 whether it was slope in the floor or not, was that normally i 22 in the scenario where I'm going to get water into this 23 records vault room would be if I had a fire that I didn't, 24 when the fire alarm went off, if I went up there and if I 25 couldn't put it out with a hand held fire extinguishers,
. _ ~ . .__
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
. 560 1 \
with an on site fire department, I might to, bring the fire 2 hose in. ! l ! 3 If I bring the fire hose in, I'm going to open j 4 the door, which is the drainage out, and I may, you know, 5 and I would be very limited, I think, in how I use that l 6 fire hose in that records vault. . 7 Q (By Mr. Mulley) Was there a sprinkler system? 8 A No, sir. t l 9 Q Okay, so the only water that's going to go in in .l I 10 case a fire -- i 11 A Would come frog the fire hose. 12 Q Okay. And the fire hose would be operated by -- i j l
. 13 A Fire department. On site fire department.
14 Q Now, what about a flood. ' I 15 Q (Dy Mr. Goldberg) That's the other issue, tihere l 16 you had water coming from another source? I i 17 A Well, again we identified these issues and left 18 them lying an the table for a period of time. About four t 19 weeks ago, I guess discussion with Mr. Streeter, TUGCO QA 20 manager, who's been back looking at all these issues, they ; 21 know we're going to come back and look 'at them at some 22 point in time, have surveyed that room and they believe 23 that there is sufficient slope for drainage. 24 Q (By Mr. Mulley) How much slope is there, do you 25 'know? TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
~
3 l . - W.
, ~
,I b-
\
- !o- 561 s
t,
, e p'
1 x A I didn't try to evaluate that. Y
'v 2 Q (By Mr.1 Goldberg)' Does it give, George, a slope?
.t, 3 Q ( By ht'.t . Mulley)- No, it doesn't. But I guess, t
j 4 what I go back to is the bevanc',ng of this paragraph, 5.6, H 5 and it says, and I quote " Records storage facilities shall 6 be so constructed and located as to protect contents from 1 7 l possible destruction, by causes such as fire, flooding, j 8 etcetera," the rest doesn't apply to wate,r. 9 It would seem'to me by reading that that the l 1,o .
.)
10 "and" when we talk aboutscinerate floor andb 9roof. s with 11 sufficient slope for drginage is certainly os far as I ' h 12 s. flooding is concerned, that the sufficient slope for f , ,s 13 drainage would -- drainage would apply to the floor, too.~x l
$4 Regardless of what I think, it would seem to Ae s 4 j 15 t ito be a pretty simple --
! ( 16 Q Yeah, it was pretty simple and they've have gone 17 back to look and I haven't gone back.to look anymore, I j' , n 18 accept when they did this. But let me go beyond. f 19 Part of the argument the utility -- or 20 discussion, let's say, tthe utility would offer, .was say, 21 "shall consider." V And I don't know whether this man was , U Y22 just' talking off the stop of his head, but he said, "We q' q 23 considered whether that was necessary in this rcom where we " 24 'EL 1 didn't have a sprinkler system," and for whatever, whethe'r ' 25 their basis was'right or wrong, they didn't -- they said 1-
- y I '.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 1
.-.,.~,..Z . _ _ - , Q l s 1g .- - - *
< c..- .; = ;,:.: . .
- ~ .- ..L .. . .
.. .. =. . --... . -- -..:. ...
562-1 that at.the time,-they didn't'-- you know, that that should'- 2 satisfy, whether there's a' slope there or whether there's a l l 3 drain there, they did consider. 4 Q (By Mr. Mulley) That's my next question. What 5 'do you interpret the word " consider" to mean? And once 6' again, I do agree that's a nebulous term but what's your'
- l. {
7 interpretation of " consider"? 8 A I think if they could present me with a l 9 reasonable argument as to how they did consider that \ i 10 7tatement, I'd have to certainly, you know, give that, I 11 guess, due consideration. ' 12 Q So I guess in your interpretation, if they 13 considered and dismissed as long as it was done for good 14 cause, would satisfy this provision of ANSI? Like you 15 said, if they gave you a good argument that they did~ 16 consider drainage and they dismissed it for good reason? 17 A Yes. 18 Q And not necessarily, " consider" doesn't mean that 19 they should. consider it as far as the ANSI: requiring that 20 these things be included in the structure,-itself? . 21 A Yes. But I also went a step further that I said 22 we'll go back to IE QAB branch and we'll'get some further 23 interpretation. ' 24 The. statement, the statement, itself, is gray. I 25 'went te Bill. Brown who's our attorney here and. had his read TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
4 %
.] , [] ,
' _ l.- , 7 ' .
563 i l 1 that statement, and he would, you know, he would say it's a i 1 2 certainly gray statement as to how you would interpret it. ! i 3 Q (By dr'. Goldberg) Going back to George's point, 1 1 4 " consider,? and I understand your point. But consider when 1
, I
)
=
5 you ha vo got an argument, was that argument,that you were + 1 6 going to get on the spot or an argument that sh5ulf, havi f 7 been written in the record as being someone who had lodkad. 8 downthelistandwhattheydecidednotteNaveabToped , 9 for the drain, that 'there be something in writing f rom an < l l 10 engineer of the reasons why the drain slope was not put in? l
~
11 Which way are you loo, king at this? , I l 12 A Well, this facility 11Eback, we're talking about l
. 13 a '74 construction permit. ~There may be, but nobody I l
t 14 produced anythino in writing. And ny druthers.would be to l 15 have something in writing from an enginear;that showed4 1
~
l 16 where wo did it and how we did it and why we did it. l 17 But the age of this facility. I'9 not'sure you're 18 going to find that kind of a record. Being',.taking a fair l ) 19 appraisal of what the folks did hare. Back to talking to a l 20 man that's been there for a long g for a long.long time. 21 I don't think -- I don't knor.that there's 22 anything in writing. My preference would be to show as:in 23 some design spec, how you built this buildinc, ycu. went '
. 1 i
24 through and you consider.ed all these things. .
~
25 Q (By Mr. Mu119y) Let me ask a question-now.. 'J TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 # [ l f' ' 5
m __. V ~ . j i 564 1' Wculd it have been improper for Region IV, since this was i j 2 i so nebulous and since they're usir.g words like " consider" 3, 1 1 and " drain and roof," to go back in the form.of violation, i 4 and ask them to come back formally and in respense as to J
'5 how they did consider and how they interpret the ANSI?
6 It seems to me that you know we've taken the step 7
'and provided, it's a decent argument, I'm not saying it's 8
not,'but we've provided a decent argument for the 6tility 9 as to how to avoid the violation. 10 A Seems to me that with the information I had, from 11 both the TFT'and clearly looked at that facility and 12 written it:as being in conformar.ce with 45.2.9, and with 13 any of the, previous inspections-that had on gone, as'a 14 manQer I did not want to go to a utility and say, "Now I 15 think you're in violation." 16 I would rather it be worked out amongst NRC 17.' raanagment as to what, you know, what really is the 18 requirement here before I started trying to put in it a 19 ) violation for the utility to try to respond to. 20' Q So you're saying that the NRC over the period of 21 ! years has given it's blessing to the storage building and 22 now we're kind of changing towards the end of the-line to j l 23 say, no, it's not acceptable; is that, do I get the gist of 1 24 what you are saying? 25 A That is correct, in the most recent time that had-TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 a L = =_= == = __ =:=_= _ = -- :- - - - -
=
e 565 1 been looked at and documented was in the SSER 11, which you
- 2 know, as a manager'I didn't think that'I wanted to go with 3 a violation.
t 4 Q So in this instance, then, you felt that the 5 < burden, since we are now apparently changing our opinion in 6 midstream, it would be incumbent en us then to justi.fy our 7 change of position more than requiring the utility to ! ! 8 rejustify something we've already approved? 9 A Yes, sir, yes, sir. ! i 10 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) Okay, what gets back to the 11 bottom line issue is and that is the condition of that room 12 from the first place. Did you know in your mind when you 13 had looked at this at the floor, that the floor slope 14 either was reasonable or the flooding, if it occurred, l 15 would not be a major risk to the storage of records in that 16 facility? I mean the key part of this whole thing 17 beyond -- 18 A It we had a rain deluge, for which, when I look 19 at flood, I think I'm going to flood the .yround around, you 20 know, and have I got a facility located in an area where 21 there's drainage such that I'm not going to have it 22 standing in five foot of water for which I may flood my 23 k records up; the case that we had in hand was where there 24 was a leak in a roof for which water dripped in of about 25 two to three gallons. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 . _ _ ::r:rrrr ~=_ _ : :_ __ _____ ____ ___-_-___ -___ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _. . _ _ _ ._____-___a
i l 566 1 I don't know that'I would normally try to 2 l anticipate that I might have a roof leak that would flood-3
. my records. I do know that, for example, it takes, I think .
! 4 it's four inches of water in there to get to the bottom of 5 the cabinets. ' 6 Even if the floor was flat,-in fact, I said in my 7 memo, it might be an advantage for it to be flat because it 8 would hold a lot more volume of water before it ever got up 9 to the point of the records. And that's from the 10 standpoint if I went in there with a fire hose, I got the 11 door open, the water is going to run out. If I have too 12 much slope, I m'ight get too much water down at one end of 13 this vault and I might then do just the oppo, site of what I I 14 intending to do. 15 Q okay. We understand we're in Texas not in 16 Arizona, and water does come down at high rates of speed 17 here, from time to time. The question really goes back to ' 18 whether in practicality terms, whether this facility is -- 19 can handle a large flood if a flood occurs. 20 A You'd have to have a source for that' flood to get 21 inside, because the building is located up. You'd have to 22 have considerable amount of water to flood. In fact, you'd 23 flood probably Granbury before you'd flood the records 24 vault, if you are talking in terms of flood, from a natural 25 disaster in that area. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 221-7177 l
, 567 1 Q (By Mr. Mulley) I think for our purposes, we've 2 gone into this far enough. You did send a memo up to the 3 headquarters; is that correct?
4 A It's right here. Eric is sitting on it. This 5 investigation has stopped, you know. I intended, -- I had
- 6 my first memo written, he had April 29th, by May 21st, I 7 had put with a straight thing just to go out. Okay?
8 Q And then -- j i 9 A And then I got direction to go back and at least {
. \
10 take a position on what was there, so we at least give our !
\
11 position and we'd have the inspector's position and it i 12 would have gone then to IE headquarters for interpretation. 13 Q Of ANSI?
\
14 A Of ANSI. And I don't know how much more I could 15 do. Probably goes along with the slope but it is also got 16 in here there's no fire drains. Now, 45.2.9 only says, 17 says if a floor drain is provided, a non-return check valve 18 or equal shall be included. It's not even a mandatory 19 requirement. 20 Q (By Mr. Mulley) But in your opinion.none of 21 these are mandatory requirements? 22 A No, I believe that facility is acceptable. 23 Q I'm talking about as far as going back to ANSI, 24 you just made the comment that the floor drain is not a i 25 mandatory requirement because they used the word "If"? TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
. I 568 1 A Yes, sir.
2 Q In your interpretation with " consider," leaves 3 open -- I 4 A Leaves some leeway for the licensee to go through 5 and -- ideally, I said I would have a design spec that i 6 would show me, well, they went through and what the 7 determinations were on each one of the items. 8 THE WITNESS: I Go off the record. j 9 i t I (Discussion off the record.) l 10 k THE WITNESS: You know, I can't say absolutely l 11 that that's why this notqs in here, but I believe the note { l 12 that's added here that says, because Mr. Phillips is also 13 on as far as this 17.2 records permanent records facility, 14 quoted NFPA, that there is a statem?nt that was added in 15 here that said, " Note, the NFPA sections quoted above are 16 not commitments but are quo'ted to demonstrate the current Y 17 practices supporting ANSI 45.2.9." 18 1 That was -- come out of discussions of to make it l 19 clear that that facility was not an NFPA requirement for 20 that facility. 21 The next page is Page 32, and on the side, 22 there's a note written by Mr. Phillips which he's talking 23 about the paper flow group records, for which the statement i 24 is there findings in supplementary safety evaluation report 25 SSER No. 11 which is on page 0103 of NUREG 0797, the NRC TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713).222-7177 _ , . . . en
569 2 1 1 ! inspector contacted the TRT member who was responsible for i l 2 i ! this SSER and found that the TRT member considered storage ' 3 in this area adequate because at the time it was his 4 understanding that the completed documents as defined by 5 ) j ANSI 45.2.9 were stored in fire rated file cabine'ts. 6 Now, I had Mr. Hale, who is my lead for QA/QC 7 issues, go back and talk to'Mr. Winsel who is the i 8 consultant, in fact he will be on site tomorrow, as to is i 9 this what he told Mr. Phillips. 10 And what he indicated to me was what he told 11 Mr. Phillips that the completed documents was one which 12 still' lacked or which I guess the documents -- the 13 documents he were talking about were the ones that still 14 1 lacked the final N-5 certification. And that he did not 15 t tell Mr. Phillips that there were as defined by ANSI f 16 45.2.9. l 17 I guess for the flavor, that's probably enough. 18 Q Okay. Let me ask you a question now, going back ! 19 to the matrix that Phillips, you know, attached to his 20 May 1st, 1986 memo, concerning this report, he indicates by i i l 21 I three stars next to these different proposed violations, 22 that the violations were dropped per direction and by four 23 ! stars that somebody other than the inspectors dropped 24 findings and advised inspectors after dropped. 25 i As we have already discussed, you know, you had
- i TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
l------
- _. . 1 570 1
discussions with Phillips and I've been asking the question i 2 as to whether or not, in your opinion, Phillips was making i 3 these changes to the report because you told me him to do I 4 it and he didn't agree at all. And then on several other l 5 violations here as to whether or not, you know, he thought 6 these should have been downgraded. 7 Now, he indicates on his matrix that he didn't 8 agree, he was directed to do some of these things / and in 9 other occasions, he didn't even know they were done until 10 after tue fact? 11 A I think we went over some of those things, you 12 know. We talked about, let's talk about this after the 13 fact thing. We we talked about the weld rod control issue, l 14 which Mr. Barnes is the one you need to talk to about that. 15 Q Right, i 16 A I don't know that that's necessarily really the 17 case. The case on the CB&I records, I think he indicates 18 that was -- didn't realize that was dropped. ! 19 Q Right. 20 A well, I clearly showed you in discussion we've 21 just gone through where we had a lot of discussion on that l 22 particular. j 23 Q And you're saying that his words are actually in l 24 there showing where he was aware because he wrote the new 25 words? l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l = ::. - - . . . . - -
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -_ _ __ __ -__ :A
- i 1
571
*1 A The words, the words yeah. Now whether he wrote 2
the exact words there, you know, I'm saying I am missing a 3 draft here, so I don't know what transpired in all of that. 4 But he was very well aware of the fact that, as 5 k far as CB&I records we were going to try to some j 6 clarification before we proceeded anywhere on that whole i 7 issue. 1 1 I 8 Q Because' at least with the draft 2-A, he was s 9 writing words in the draft to indicate -- I 10 A That he knew we were going to go back to IE 11 headquarters to get some interpretations on how to handle 12 CB&I records, l l l 13 Q okay. As far as the violations where he i 14 l indicates that they were dropped per direction, am I to - 15 understand that as we discussed a little while ago, that in 16 t some cases you told him how to write it-and you were using 17 your management prerogative in those cases? , 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q so I guess that's it for this inspection report. 20 A Yes. 21 MR. MULLEY: 4 We will terminate this portion of-l 22 the interview now. And this goes back -- so that we ,
'I 23 !
haven't lost track, this goes back to our previous 24 interview in July 10th and lith, and this corrects the 25 record and makes appropriate additions to the record TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
572 1 concerning the initial July the 10th and lith interview. 2 We will then continue after lunch with.new topics 3 concerning the rest of these allegations i 4 (Statement recesses at 12:15-p.m., C.D.T.) l 5 l 1 6 7 x i 9 10 11 12 13 14 I i 1 l 15 i i l 16 l 17 18 l 19 20 l 21 l 22 23 24 l 25 1 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 i
573 ' 1 1 AFTERNOON SESSION i 2 l p July 23, 1986 3 Thereupon, ' 4 TOM WESTERMAN, ' l f 6 resumed the stand and, having been first duly 7 cautioned and sworn, testified under his oath as , { I 8 follows: 9
-l 10 EXAMINATION -
1 11 BY MR. MULLEY: I 12 Q. The time is 1:40 p.m. We're continuing 13 our interview of Mr. Tom Westerman. Present are j 14 Mr. Westerman, myself George Mulley, Steve l 15 Goldberg,and Trisha Sims, the court reporter. ; 16 Just to remind you, Tom, you're still 17 under oath. I guess we'll pick up now on the i 18 actual continuation of our interview of July 10 l; 19 and 11 with some of the additional inspection 20 reports that Phillips rose as an' issue. 21 I guess we left off with 85/16-13; and on 22 the lith of July, we had pretty much gone through 23 half of Phillips' comments. 24 So, we'll pick up with the matrix where 25 we left off, which I believe is Applicant's Action 9
** e m___ ___.__.-____t - ,_mm.-_-______I . - . _ _ _ .A.-_m.m __ A
574 a 1 l on IE Bulletin, paragraph four, which is on.page { 2 three of the matrix prepared by Phillips on ! 3 May 12, 1986. 4 A. Okay. i I think maybe a little background 5 as far as IE bulletins and why we were looking'at' 6 IE bulletins, I had asked Phillips as a part.of
^
! 7 the construction site responsibility to look at 8 the licensee's response to bulletins and to ensure 9 that any of those that were still opan had been ; 10 inspected with the intent that we would look at
.q 11 the licensee's response on all IE bulletins and <
12 had done the inspections, 1 q 13 I think.Mr. Phillips in looking at this a 14 made or drew a conclusion that hardware had not 15 been looked at in all bulletins. 16 So, he had gone back and pulled out some 17 old bulletins which he felt in'particular dealt 18 with' hardware, which he then wanted to go out and 19 inspect. 20 I would say at the time I really I didn't 21 question that. I do know that he started out into ! 22 that arena and did make statements in the report, 23 for example, on page 4-4 of this draft which he i' 24 labeled Document 1-A. 25 Q. For the record, we have entered -- N 0
,..,w w ....r.,....&-w..e = . * * "
__-e-.- y n " -- - ' ~ -
~
575 1 A. You've entered the matrix. I don't know 2 that you've entered this draft 1-A. We've been l l 3 talking out of it. I don't know that the last l 4 time we were here that we entered that particular 5 document or not. 6 (Off the record discussion.) ! I l 7 (Whereupon the exhibit was ! 8 marked for identification by the reporter 9 as Westerman Exhibit No. 15.) 10 MR. MULLEY: We will mark this 11 as Exhibit No. 15, a draft inspection 12 report on 85/16-13 prepared by Phillips. i 13 This document is marked 1.a. l 14 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) Okay. What page are we 15 on? , j 16 A. Page 4-1. In particular the issue I'm 17 talking about is the statement'here made by 18 Phillips that " corrective actions in most cases 19 were verified by reviewing the documentation which 20 supported hardware replacements or repairs." , 21 In going back through that, I had again 22 Mr. Taylor who was in the region last week go 23 through and look at these reports that are -- in 24 fact, I think he even got a list of reports that 25 he looked at, 83-51, 84-12/06, 84-07, 84-29/10, et
,,,.,LL-.... . .
~
576
- 1 cetera.
2 I asked Taylor to go through and look and 3 see if indeed we had looked at hardware; and in 4 going back through and looking at that, it was at 5 least Taylor's view from having. looked at those 6 back reports that perhaps only 84-07 might appear 7 from reading it that there was no field 8 inspection. 9 I have a couple of those reports I 10 believe that are referenced there because I took 11 the cover page off of them and copied the page 12 that pertains to what we did on an inspection and 13 I guess i nspection of I&E bulletins. 14 The statement is in here that it would be 15 difficult to read from the -- from what was 16 documented in the inspection report, it would be 17 hard to draw the conclusion that Mr. Phillips had 18 drawn. 19 As a matter of fact, the statement in the 20 reports, both of them are typical statements, such ! 21 as NRC inspectors reviewed licensee's files for 22 each of the IEB discussed below and performed 23 inspections where required to verify that the 1' 24 licensee had conducted an adequate review to
~
25 determine if the IEB was applicable'with a CPS
-----l-__ - - - - -_ -- -- u * ' J'%-- A OA._- - - - _ n - - - - -
I- -1 d l' a, , . i 1 facility and to verify that the licensee had taken 2 the required actions on behalf of the IEBs. Then - 3 thenLit goes into'descript. ion of the particular ! 1 4 IEBs that were looked at. 5 I'll be willing to provide you with both J 6 '84-34/13. It's the only' copy I have.got. Also, I i 1 7 have 84-29, 84-10. That is very terse as to what 8 was really was looked at other than the fact that 9 we looked at a bulletin and either closed the 1 l 10 action that the-licensee had'taken based on i 11 inspection done. I 12 Now, the next step that I went through ) 13 was I went back and talked to the. inspectors 14 involved. I believe paragraph five here is Jim 15 Cummings. Also paragraph -- also Hunnicutt was on 16 site when it was going on. ! 17 I aske,d Mr. Cummings did they look at the 18' hardware when they looked at bulletins; and he j 19 indicated that where it was appropriate, they l 20 looked at hardware. This is kind of a preamble to , 21 get into 79-14. 22 Q. So, the point we're making here -- it 23 seems to me what you're saying is what is in 24 agreement with what ~ is written here. 25 A. What I'm saying here is the corrective
~ . --
9 4,, .. .. --p """ ~ ' ' ' ' "'
= ', w We++7 '8't***"4'***- # '
s _ ._g ._ - - - - - - - - - - - -' - - - - - - - ' * -
578 1 action did include inspection of-hardware. i 2 0. By the utility? 1 4 3 A. By our inspector. Mr. Cummings, for 4 example,.is the primary inspector involved here, e 5 at least on these two> reports I've given you. i 6 I have called him on the telephone just l 7 to confirm what he did and to show also that 8 Mr. Phillips did not go back to any previous l 9 inspectors before he drew the conclusions he drew. 10 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) Mr. Phillips is 11 concentrating on 79-14 and 79-28. I 12 A. But if you look in the paragraph up l 13 above, it's almost an accusation against l 14 Region IV, that he reviewed these reports and that I 15 he's got.a statement that says corrective actions ! i 16 in most cases were verified by reviewing the 17 documentation which supported hardware replacement i 18 or repair. l 19 I don't believe that's exactly true. 20 Q. I see what you're saying. You're ; 21 saying -- I 22 A. That's those inspection reports 1 23 I referenced up above did indeed include looking at 24 hardware. 25 Q. You're saying the corrective action that TWh' L__j____._- -- '
l t i 1 Phillips is talking about in this paragraph has to 2 do with corrective action by the' region? 3 A. No. The corrective action referred to in 4 t' hat paragraph was corrective action that he is 5 i asserting.here was done by reviewing _the 6 documentation only'and not inspecting the 7 hardware. 8 Q. And.you're saying that these two 9 inspection reports that you've given as examples 10, show that the utility --
'll A. No. Show that the inspector, Mr.
12 Cummings, did have a statement in there as 13
- inspected as required," that the inspection i 14 report is probably pretty-terse as to what he 15 really did or didn't do or what he went out and 16 looked at.
17 He went out and looked at a lot of 18 things. I know, for example, on the EPA issue'he l 19. was out looking at the EPA. In fact, he probably } .- 20 looked at every EPA indicated and-thought he' 21 probably had looked at most all safety-5 elated 22 EPAs and had.been to the warehouse and what have 23 you. 24 So, I'm just saying I don't think - .I 25 guess what I would say is if I.had taken the time
% h e m-6++
.g.
I p # ____ ___ _ ___ _ - - -- - - - -
buu
- i 1 to go'back and find out if he really looked at 2 hardware --
I took Mr. Phillips at his word -- I 3 .probably would have stopped any of this running 4 -back and looking at stuff that's already.been l 5 inspece.ed and had been closed on the inspection' - 6 report. 7 The man, without actually going back to 8 any of the folks that were involved to find.out 9 what did we do, drew the conclusion he did and 10 went out and. started. inspecting bulletins that 11 were'already -- had already been lookedoat in some 12 fashion, and they did indeed include hardware. 13 Q. Okay. But going back to.that last 14 sentence, corrective action.in most cases -- 15 A. It's saying it was verified by the NRC 16 inspector by reviewing the documentation only 17 which supported hardware replacement and~ repair. 18 What I'm saying is that if the man had 19 gone back and talked to the inspectors who had 20 been involved in previous inspections, he might 21 have found a different conclusion than what he 22 drew. 23 Q. So, you're saying that the sentence by 24 Phillips in his draft report has to do with NRC's ..; 25 action and'not the licensee's' action? J
- 1 * , - . . - - - , w. .~,
581
- i 1 A. That's correct. You start at the top.
2 He's saying that prior to this inspection, NRC 3 inspected the appli'c an t 's system for handling l
)
4 inspection and enforcement IE bulletins and 5 documented these inspections under those 6 inspection' reports referenced. 7 Then he goes on to say these inspections, 8 which are NRC inspections, c' concentrated on this 9 part and that the corrective action that was 10 looked at was doneEby only verifying' documentation 11 which supported hardware replacement or repair. 1
'12 Q. I guess I don't read that.it'way. If you 13 go to the sentence earlier, "These inspections 14 concentrated on IE bulletin applicability, l l l 15 distribution, assignment and corrective a'ction-16 planned or taken," that seems'to me that'the NRC
.17 is looking at at the NRC's action on the bulletins 18 and that this involves bulletin applicability, l 19 distribution, assignment correction by the~ l l
20 licensee that's planned or.taken; and then he 21 takes that corrective action planned or taken by 22 the licensee to say that corrective action in most 23 cases were verified. It seems to me he's i 24' t a l k i n g --- ' I 25 A. We verif.ed by NRC by reviewing the. '
. ~ , . . . _ , . - . - - - . . _ _ .
./
( --- _ _ i
I < 582 l 1 documentation which supported hardware replacement l l 2 or repair. I'm saying that's how come if you'll 3 find he started out with 79-14 and the next 4 bulletin is 79-28, which is already_a previously 5 inspected IE bulletin, without ever going to -- < 6 the statement is again -- I believe Region IV did j 7 'do what the IE manual chapter called for, and I~ 8 believe we did inspect hardware. 9 Q. I know what you're saying. I see where 10 you're coming from. I guess when I read that I 11 read that corrective action to mean corrective 12 action by the licensee was verified by the ! 13 licensee by only reviewing documentation and never 14 looking at the hardware. 15 A. The corrective action that the licensee I
- 16 took had to include hardware. The corrective ;
l l 17 action that we would look at was how far did we go I l l 18 to look to see what corrective action the licensee l 19 took; and what is being said here that we, ! l 20 Region IV, or previous inspectors had only done 21 that by looking at documentation. i 22 Q. Okay. 23 A. If I would have spent more time going l 24 back to the inspectors involved, I would probably l 25 put a stop to this before we ever got started off i l A
F t 583 1 into it. 2 Q. I Well, certainly at a minimum this could ' 3 h. ave been more clearly written because you and I 4 are reading the same thing and obviously there is S 5 a misinterpretion between us as to what it means. I 6 A. I also had the benefit of some of the 7 discussions with Mr. Phillips as what we were out 8 there doing this for. 9 Q. Okay. See b b 10 A. The one we started off in is 79-14, and I j 11 guess the statement was "TUGCO never responded to 12 all aspects of IEB 79-14. Unresolved items l 13 pending further review." Then there is the I'll 14 statement, " Statement dropped. Unresolved item 15 dropped per direction. l 16 First, let me say 79-14 was issued, I 17 believe, in July of 1979, July 2. When that was i 18 initially issued, I had a lot of discussion with 19 Mr. Phillips on 79-14. 20 It was initially issued when Comanche 21 l Peak was just in the early stages of any kind of I 22 pipe support work and, therefore, made it very l l 23 difficult for them to even give a proper response q
\
24 to this bulletin until they decided what their 25 program would be. i l
\
l i
. zz___ _-
bB4
- 1 I.have the chronology of 79-14 if you 2
think it's something.we want to put in the 3 record. I bave the initial bulletin. I have the 4 subsequent revision. The initial bulletin went 5 out July 2 and the subsequent revision was 6 July 18 and another revision on August 15 of '79 7 and another supplement went out on September 7 of 8 '79. t 9 Q. I don't think we havd-to en.ter that into 10 the record officially. Probably it goes into a ! 11 lot more detail. l 12 A. You have to understand what his concern 13 was. Let's get back to the matrix. He said TUGCO 14 -never responded to all aspects of 79-14. l ! 15 Q. l What does he base that conclusion on? 16 A. Well,. I can only judge that in part by l 17 going and looking at some words that are in this 18 draft on 4-2 and thet it'said that TUGCO's j ! 19 response did not indicate that all seismic j 20 category I, II, and III piping, regardless of 21 size, would be evaluated to the action items in IE r 1 22 bulletin if it was dynamically analyzed'by ( 23 computer and non-conformances were not reported to i 24 the NRC as required by pages one and two.
~
25 Q. I'm reading this differently. I'm g w a. . he m *eum wiW= h'
- W eGa$s M MW4PE'8'tW* #P- '* * 'N J .
- . *. _* *
- W
ses - l 1 reading it to say, "i.e., the TUGCO responses did 2 not indicate that all seismic category I piping." 3 Am I reading the same thing you are on 4 page 4-27 5 A. "Did not indicate that all seismic l 6 category I." - 7 Q. Not II and III. 8 A. Category I. I'm sorry. I'm trying to 9 read it. 10a Q. Okay. So, you have a problem with this 11 statement? 12 A. I have a problem with that statement. 13 Q. What problem did you have? 14 A. First of all -- TUGCO's initial responses 15 again, as I indicated, because they were still in
- 16 the phase of just gett.ing started in pipe support, 1
1 17 were that they would ask for a waiver and that 18 they would provide a subsequent reply, which they 19 did; and the reply says all safety Class I pipe -- 20 okay -- category I. He's also maybe implying all 21 seismic category I. ' 22 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) Has anybody confirmed 23 the statement? Has it been verified? 24 A. Let's say that these replies came in and 25 a lot of folks looked at that reply including e *,,MAa-misqi mea me -.
"QI
___t.____. E. -L---- 2 - * ' ' ~
l 300 -
)
l u r!me 1 there was than IS task force. I'm sure there was 2 probably even an IE temporaryTTJ that was in on 3 this. There was a number of folks looking at all suen %L 4 these responses and what the licensee 44 TUGC0 had 5 6 Q. I guess the key question -- 7 A. I don't know that anybody ever come up 8 with a question as to whether that was -- again, 1 i cu sc 9 79-14 wasn't even discussed in the hearing. 10 I haven't gone to research that to see
\
11 what all -- there was was also discussion at the 12 top of the hearing, whether the licensee had or l l t 13 hadn't replied or whether that was adequate. 14 The only thing I can from reading that, I l i 15 think that possibly he may be getting at the fact 16 that the low energy lines smaller than two and a 17 half inches were, as far as this engineer, not 18 ones that were dynamically analyzed and,
}
19 therefore, would not have been included in what 20 was being asked for. i 21 Now, the next part, non-conformances were 22 not reported to NRC as required by pages two and l } i 23 three of the bulletin. ! 24 Again, this bulletin is issued for an
%Is c 25 operating --
well, it says construction { but it's o a_ mon 4 - M =
. _ . . . . I =_____-:___ _:--__ ._ ._: - + _ . - -~.
I I 587 - i 1 1 rather clumsily written when it comes to a j 2 construction site where the supports weren't even j 3 installed; end if you look into the bulletin, you 4 will find even some words about the j 5 non-conformances that they're talking about where ! i 6 seismically analyze it by analysis. 7 It's the non-conformance that's 8 identified by the AE that would be reported for 9 this kind of' program that TUGCO had. 10 I went back to John Fair'e. who was one of 11 the persons on the 79-14 task force. I asked him 12 if the at a construction site the 50.55(e) 13 reporting requirements were met -- I can only 14 judge that they were met -- that that was adequate 15 to meet the non-conformance reporting requirements 16 in this bulletin. . 17 Mr. Fair \e indicated that was his 18 understanding. That's the way that I woul'd read 19 what one would have to do to reply to 20 non-conformances on the bulletin. 21 What my action was on'this, knowing that 22 there had been a lot of things going on on this 23 79-14 -- in fact, we're back at a whole new 24 program under the CPRT activity, which Stone & \
]
25 Webster is back going through this whole arena ! j t l l
.m , - . J
588 l
'd 1 again. l i-2 Where we went with that, I.said, j 3
"Shannon, I want to leave this as an open items:
and I'd like to see the utility perhaps come back
~
4 t i 5 back in with another letter to.say, hey, this is 6 'not closed." You know, 79-14 at one point in-time 7 'were utility's response were closed andE now'we're 8 into'a whole new -- Stone & Webster are looking;at i j i i 9 it and a whole lot of folks looking at Stone & j i l 10 Webster's efforts which relate to 79-14. That is, l q 11- the NRR folks are looking at Stone.& Webster out ) 12 of Vince Noonan's group. 13 Q. Go back to '82, you showed us.an '82 -d i 14 letter. It's not-clear that.they completed their l 15 verification program or they completed the action. 16 on the bulletin. At the.very end it says, "In 17 conclusion, we are confident that the ongoing l 18 verification program at CPS SES fully satisfies 19 all bulletin requirements." 20 A. I think we got swept into where we are 21 with the hearing with the issues that came up with Doyle 22 -Lidall Walch, the. issues that came out of SIGMA 23 for which Stone & Webster, for example, is back 24 looking and has now taken'over responsibility for L 25 all pipe supports at the plant; and at the: end of w a y s q *t. " T~
K DGW
- 1 this effort, Stone & Webster is'now party to --
2 there will be a: final design from Stone & Webster 3- and conclus.4on as to whether chis facilitj does or i 4 doesn't comply with 79-14 for which -- to my ' ' 5 knowledge this is part of what NRR folks are s 3
%.wwo 6 looking at.
Dave deroqi from NRR 33 a part of that s 7 group and is looking at that. v , 8 (, 3, Q. Did 79-14 ever geth closeduout by A V q 91 a Region IV insp,ector before, Phillips got into it? 10 A. Probably was closed out in inspection. I 11 don't know'that you would ever find the wordt in 12 an inspection report t'h t t said it was fully 13 closed, but let's -- vait a minute. Let's see. J. 14 can read what's in the inspection report. i
)
15 It's hard to say. I don't see how we 16 could ever ccmpletely close it because we're still o 17 back into it. I don't know that you eyor,could i
]
18 i drav that final conclusion; but what the inspector l 19 said in report 82-05, which was and inspection 20
, performed by the regional folks, Dick Brickley. I 21 believe ac that time he was at tpe vendor-branch s 22 and on the task force assigned looking'at this
) I 23 whole thing. .
24 There was an individual byiche name of i 25 the Claudia Johnson who is now senior resident at ' l~
\
___--._a--__ -- _ _ . - -- -L
I i 590 .- l i 1 South Texas that made the statement in paragraph 2 five. 3 Q. This program appears to conform with the 4 conditions of IE bulletin 79-14. It looks as 5 though they're pointing to an ongoing program as J 6 opposed to a completion. 7 A. I'll agree. I don't think that I could 8 close it out, but I certainly wouldn't go back and 9 try to start from scratch with whether what they 10 were doing in 79-14 and whether there was i 11 response. 12 Q. How would this appear in the records 13 trail? When you go down the list of bulletins, 14 "would this appear prior to the Phillips' 15 inspection as a close out or more work is - 16 required? 17 ! A. I don't know what kind of list that 18 , that -- I don't know where that list was. I don't 19 know -- I know -- again, on 79-14, my discussion , 20 with Phillips, this is the whole issue being l (y l 21 looked at12 NRR, 79-14, as far as Stone & 22 Webster. 23 l Uhat's done in the past is the past, and l 24 let's go where we're going. We got folks that are
~
- 25 looking at the 79-14 area.
r L . u_..___=___-
, . . _ . . . . . - ~
. _ . - - _ _ _ _ _ __m.-. - - -
; y x ,
'/.
' i f
1 'Q Iso issues, e n'e is that Phillips is into t-2 it in1/ the flrst place nnd the reasons he'r'into j 3 it. Second whether or not, in fact, thih, ;' l 4 bulletin was ever closed out in the f i r s t' p'l a c e . l
.)
5 Second issue is after he does work, what he should l
.I , 0 6 do with the findings. I think there are'two '<
>s-t i 7 separate issues in that' sense.
8 It 's not c1;4 a[ readird ) that. It afght 9 have been shown to be' closed out; b'ut reading 10 'that, it doesn't appear that it satisfi>es the 11 requirements. ( ?
). ('
' l 12 I was just reading the IS procedure j
i 13 9-27/03. They're talking about program reviewing, 14 and that doesn't seem to tur consistent with what 15 the manual says. 16 A. What program? 17 Q. If you read that paragraph it talks about 18 ongoing program that's going on. It's not clear 19 by reading that paragraph that it meets the ! 20 necessary. requirements for cloes out of a review 21 of an IE bulletin based on the IE manual. 22 Do you follow me there? ' 23 A. What part are you referring to? i 24 Q. 9-27/03. The first page under inspection 25 requirements. 1 'P weenW - Me& O- - 4 Ww M4-'w--96 twemW,, _ ____ _ _ _ _ ? * .
592 . l I 1 A. Okay. Several things: Number one, I 2 think you would have to get back into what this
? task force group did and look at all responses.
1 4 This effort didn't follow a straight 9-27/03 1 i 5 ?
, bulletin review chain. j
\
6 This is one of those where a bulletin 7 l came out and I don't have the TI. I believe there j 8 was a TI that said here's what we're going to do l 9 and here's how it's divided up. , 10 Q. When was the TI issued? l 11 A. Probably would have been in '79. As I 12 remember there was -- the focus of most of those 13 fo1ks was immediately on operating plants, but I 14 don't think -- the bulletins also applied to 15 construction plants. 16 Q. Well, I don't think it's going to be 17 difficult for us to L~1w from the discussion here 18 what -- this is such a complicated issue, I think, I i l 19 where pipe support and it may very well be more 1 1 20 going on in this area. l j l 21 Q, (By Mr. Mulley) Let me see, i 22 A. Let me point out that as a result of when j 23 we brought thing up on 79-14 is where I as 24 management -- I don't mean to interrupt you -- I 25 as a manager felt where I wanted to go. .- I wanted
..L.i_ _m - u- - # '
593 i 1 to see utility coming in with something more to 2 say that we're still pursuing this thing of 79-14; 3 and as matter of fact on April 3rd of 1986, we got 4 a letter from TUGCO which really leaves it where I 5 wanted to leave it. 6
}
Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) I think what you need i 7 to do -- why don't you read into the record the 8 critical sentence that you would like, that you 9 want to read in the record. 10 A. Okay. April 3rd, 1986, letter to 11 Mr. Martin, Region IV, from Mr. Counsil. It 12 refers back to the earlier TUGCO letter, i 13 It says, " Texas Utility's letter l 14 TXX-3597, dated December 3rd, 1982, describes the 15 CPS as; built verification program initiated in 16 response to bulletin 79-14, specifically items 2 17 and.3 of the bulletin, required inspection of j 18 safety-related piping systems and verified that ! i 19 drawings accurately reflected the as-built 20 condition." 21 (Off the record discussion.) i 22 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) \ Back on the record. 23 A. Re-ask your question. 24 Q. Do you want to read some more of this 25 into the record? o
.. . ~ , - . + . =
.e-
,.,4 4e .Wpe Gd4= " * '
am 4 S
i l 594 ' l 1 A. Well, okay. Part of the question was why ; ; 1 2 non-conformances and why there was an internal 3 TUGCO letter that says, "Well, we need to address l i 4 that. We're not reporting non-conformances." 5 0. In Phillips' write-up on the draft on / l 6 page 4-2, he seems to take issue with the fact 7 that he found an internal TUGCO letter, CPPA 8 No. 24,163, dated October the 22nd, 1982, in which l j 9 the engineering manager stated, "The recording of, 10 non-conformances is an area of the IE bulletin 11 which we must take exception, and we will not 12 identify non-conforming conditions." 13 Phillips then says, "However, this ' 14 exception was not stated in the final report to 15 the NRC." Therefore, Phillips felt that the action 16 on the bulletin was incomplete, and the file was 17 closed out prematurely basically because the 18 utility was taking exception and was not going to l 19 state the exception to the NRC. 20 A. I indicated in,my discussion with John 21 Fair \that the kind of reporting requirement that 22 a utility in the construction phase like this one i l' 23 would have, that that reporting requirement was 24 met by the submission of 50.55(e) and indeed an 25 as-built condition was sent back to the architect k % /
595
- i 1 engineer who seismically analyzed and found that 2
the system wasn't' acceptable and a non-conformeace 3 would exist for.which a 50.55(e) report would be ) 4 made. 5 So, I believe that the TUGCO engineer
, 2 l 6 here didn't have proper interpretation of what i
7 l 79-14 requirements were and how the utility could I 8 meet those requirements. 9 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) i 1 Okay. So, the question ' 10 I have now is: Although you're maybe right 11 concerning whether or not he improperly ' 12 interpreted this, it seems to me that the 13 engineering manager is taking a position in - 14 writing that even though he's got something from 15 the NRC which requires something, he's not going 16 to do it and, therefore, he's closing out his 17 file. 18 Now, even though after we analyze this 19 thing, by mistake he's probably right. Is it 20 appropriate to do something like thAt and just 21 close out the file? 22 A. Now, the file that -- they didn't close 23 out the action being taken on the 79-14. It's 24 never been closed yet. The file that Mr. Phillips 25 is talking about is an IEB file which was being me mre*94me- e m m ye .e ewe-a &W6 l ** '
*Y '
a a_. . O- ' " "
-596 i
1 maintained, which based on the fact that they had 2 written a letter back to the NRC describing all 3 the actions that they were going.to1take on the 4 bulletin, that file was closed on that basis. 1 5 That is the file that Mr. Phillipsfis 6 calling was closed. That file is not a status
.7 file. That file the utility used that simply to '
8 say,'"NRC sent us a bulletin. We. looked at it. 9 We sent.the NRC back a letter saying these are the 10 actions that we're going to take"; and on that 11 basis that file was closed. 12 The actions on 79-14 have been ongoing i 13 ever since. i l 14 Q. So, you feel it's appropriate even though 15 the utility has gone down in writing to say that 16 on one part of this bulletin they're not going to 17 comply with? Yet'they're not going to tell us 18 about it. They're not going to ask us for a l 19 waiver, that even though they made the decision, 20 it's still all right to close the file 7~ 21 A. l' I guess what I'm saying is that the 22 reporting requirement that the engineer was 23 concerned with is met by the 4 hking of 24 50.55(e), which the utility has a responsibility 25 to do.
-h*0-Nw, pes simm_w
,,pq ebe.sa me spr-+ew ,7; *pW W6'**'6A- Y'#}
m__m__h__L.m.m * ' _._Aj_i__m..____m.__._i_.__.m *'_n'
.i___m.m.....
.m _am (_. - m m _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ __
I 597 I j 1 I didn't take a letter that was dated ! 2 back in 1982 to try to go back and straighten out i 3 the engineering manager. We had a lot of things
)
4 going. I left the 79-14 issue in the report as I i l 5 open. i 6 ,l've indicated that the licensee did l 7 subsequently provide a letter which shows there's f I still ongoing action with regard t. o 79-14. 1 9 Q. As far as reporting requirements? 10 A. And reporting requirements. As a matter 11 of fact, they filed a 50.55(e) as a result of the 12 ongoing work, which is exactly what I looked for l 13 to comply with this bulletin. l I 14 Q, Is it appropriate or is it legitimate for ' 15 the NRC in this IE bulletin to have a requ'irement 16 that duplicate the 50.55(e)? 17 Let's take for granted there is a 18 50.55(e) reporting requirement. If the IE i 19 bulletin also establishes a reporting requirement, 20 is that wrong of the NRC to do that or can they i 21 have duplicate requirements like that? 22 What if the NRC had a valid reason for 23 wanting -- i 24 A. There could be duplicate reporting. 25 Again, what satisfies what the bulletin needs or u______-_ me .- . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ - ______.___._.________-_Sa, ___.-__.A _
598 i 1 wanted was the 50.55(e) reporting. I would be ! ( 2 satisfied with one report rather than two l 3 reports. 4 I wouldn't require the utility to give me 5 two separate reports. ) i 6 Q. Hypothetically, I&E came up Jwith a 7 bulletin that asks something to be reported to 8 them and apparently the guys that. wrote the 9 bulletin are also aware of 50.55(e). 10 What if they had some reason, another 11 need for a separate report? Would it be 12 legitimate for'NRC to ask for that? 13 A. You're getting into the legalistic thing 14 of the paperwork act and all that. I'm not the 15 one to tell you. 16 Q. I don't want to get into that. 4 17 A. I did go back to the man on the task 18 force as to how much exact responsibility he had l J 19 in writing this bulletin, but the intent of the
\
20 bulletin from the expert was that it was satisfied ! l 21 based on making the proper 50.55(e) reports. 22 Q. I guess -- I 23 A. So, if I went back to the man who wrote 24 the report -- I don't know how much Mr. Faire was ; 25 responsible for writing. He certainly has a good s eE*a wh. pa,h,r me m W*CP*P"'*'9"
- D
599 l 1 interpretation. 2 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) Can we see a copy of 3 the bulletin 79-14 to see what the requirements I 4 are? l 5 A. Yes. l i 6 Q. Thank you, ! c 7 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) I guess just the point 8 I'm getting at is that the bulletin contained a l 9 requirement for reporting of non-conformances. 10,' The utility seems without the benefit of the l 11 discussion that you had with the man who was 12 involved in writing this report, the utility 13 arbitrarily decided, "We're not going to comply
~
14 with that." 1 15 They had the letter th'at they wrote and 16 then they closed out the file just saying, "We're { 17 not going to comply with that requirement." I { l 18 Would that be appropriate for the i 19 utility? Wouldn't it be more appropriate for the 20 l
', utility to ask us about.the requirements and try I 21 to justify their not complying?
22 I A. I guess at this point I wouldn't ' 23 supposition what all discussions may have been I 24 going on, other than I found a letter, what other 25 things may have been discussed or what O ea---ee,* -
- O
600 i l 1 1 clarifications the utility may have gotten. 2 I didn't see that it was worth trying to
)
3 draw an issue at the time based on all the things j l 4 that were on going on with 79-14. j 5 Q. If we had, in fact, written a violation 6 on this, how do you think the licensee would have 7 responded? I 8 A. The licensee would have probably said 9 there was no violation, reporting these kind of 10 things under 50.55(e). I need that piece of 11 paper. That's another piece of paper. i 12 Q. But I guess we would have then been able 13 to get down to exactly why they didn't comply with 14 that portion of the IE bulletin more than just 15 some engineer arbitrarily deciding he wasn't going 16 to do-it if, in fact, the decision was an l 17 arbitrary decision by the engineering manager. 18 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) Also, the statement 19 doesn't say that he wasn't going to do it under
- 20 the bulletin, but he was going to do it under .
21 50.55(e). It just says he will not identify I 3 22 l non-conformange conditions; however, the exception 4 , 23 was not stated in the final report to NRC. ' 24 So, you can't tell from the statement 25 whether he was, in fact, at that time going to Wh m i
>-+w ... . . , -.,- -.
r - -
601 1 report under 50.55(e). l 2 A. I don't think he has any choice. If my AC 3 ee does an analysis based on design in that plant 4 and I find it doesn't meet the design 5 requirements, that's a 50.55(e) report, whether 6 anybody has choice in the matter or not. t 7 That engineer, no way could he stop that l 8 from happening. They're violating 50.55(e). I l 9 think the man had -- I didn't take the time to go l 10 back and search the man out and find out why would j 11 he write a letter like this. l l 12 , l I think he had a non-conformance out l 13 there; and how he would do that, I don't know, i i 14 whether he would report it to the Commission. I { 15 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) He can't report it if 16 he doesn't identify it. i 17 A. But the bulletin goes on to talk about 18 when he seismically analyzed, the.only ones for 19 which the person that identified the 20 non-conformance will be the engineer doing the ! 21 analysis which will then identify that from his 22 analysis there's a problem and those are the { j 23 non-conformances that would then be reported to ! 24 the Commission as. clarified in subsequent 25 supplements of the bulletin? sesw .
? -
602 l 1 A. Again, as I indicated, there was a big 2 effort going on 79-14 for which continuing with l 3 anything elre didn't seem to make a lot of sense. l 4 Q. Getting back to that statement, it seems 5 like there were two issues that Mr. Phillips had. i I 6 He had this issue with respect to not reporting 7 non-conformances as required by the bulletin; but 8 th$ other issue was the dynamically analysed by 9 computer issue. i l 10 Is that the issue of the small pipes that !
-l 11 you were talking about earlier? l l
12 A. Yes. 13 Q. So, that's another place, in his opinion, 14 the bulletin wasn't completely implemented? 15 I'm not sure the man went back and looked A.
)
16 to see what he was really -- two and a half inch Field 17 and under pipes are 5444 run. They're not~ 18 seismically analyzed. Therefore, we don't fall ! 19 under what he's stated there. 20 Q. How do you know that's the issue that he 21 was referring to? 22 A. Mr. McCleskey is not now at the site. 23 So, I didn't go back and do a lot of detail on 24 what specifically you're looking at. I tried to 25 figure out what he was looking at since. A
*e W e*= e--- + . .
u___.__L_ .- ? __ _b_ _____-__.f_u____._____.._ __A_'_m_ _ _ _ , -__.-_-,.9_____..__A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ m
603 ) l 1 can't. It's difficult to say; but, again, the 2 reply that came from TUGCO went into what was 3 looked at bv the task force. It was accepted. 4 t There was no letter back to TUGCO that 5 said, "We don't accept your reply." Again, what 1 6 all conversations or interpretations that have i 7 gone on since then, this may well have been 8 i covered even in some meetings with NRR or i 9 whoever. 10 I don't believe the man's statement to be i 11 c o r r e c t .- Like I said, I didn't go back and try to 12 satisfy Mr. McCleskey's question. I didn't even 13 see his question as being germaine.
- 1 14 The whole issue of 79-14 was discussed 15 all through the hearing. I was aware of t h'a t . I 16 remember there was one question on two and a half ,
t 17 inch size or something. I don't recall exactly i i 18 how that was resolved, but I know that even that ! ! ! 19 aspect of it which we're talking about here was l 20 discussed at the hearing. 21 ! So, it has been discussed in a rather ! 22 formal public forum. f i I don't know if it was t 23 necessary to go back and try to rehash all of i 24 that. 5ee 4c 4 H[a., 2. [ 6+f Nf
~
! 25 Q. We have some statements on page -- _ L I I _.. _ .. I
. _ . m _ , _
I 604 1 A. Okay. Now, you want to talk about the 2 fact that it says the 79-14 file was closed. 3 Again, that was the file which the utility had 4 which simply was closed by their procedure once J 5 they had responded cack to the Commission and what i 6 they thought was a final response for which they 7 got nothing further from the Commission. ! 8 That's all that file was intended to be. 9 When we brought the request back up to them is 10 when they provided us with this additional letter 11 which I read partly. 1 J 12 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) What about when we get 13 down to the fact that the records were found to be i 14 decentralized? 15 A. We are back to the same part of the issue 16 that is 50.55(e). The file that they were keeping 17 was a file that was the fact that the i 18 correspondence came in to the utility company 19 which was then sent to some -- to the responsible 20 groups then to take action on it which then a 21 reply was provided back to an individual, "Here 22 are the actions that were taken" for which he then ) 23 put into a letter which he sent back to the 24 Commission saying, "We're doing these things to
~
25 comply with your bulletin." At the time he wrote
=2 .x_.-__1__---__-__-. --_._:..
^
_. . .n
i 605 1 that letter, that was the. completion of th'e action 2 being taken. ' 3 We're analyzing pipe or doing whatever a 4 bulletin required and the utility would provide
. S that in a :eply to them for which, again, l 6 inspectors up until this time had gone to the 7 site, had taken the bulletin reply the utility had 8 given to the NRC'and had gone out and looked'at 9 the records necessary to close the bulletin,-
l 10 including going out and looking at hardware in the 11 field, which is not unnormal from what I had seen 12 at other sites. 13 I am familiar --
- at one time was familiar 14 with Arkansas. All of the correspondence back and i 1 15 forth to the Commission came out of the licenseh 16 I&
o r g a n i z a tio n o4- Li,t t l e Rock. 17 That was based largely -- that was based l 18 on having the commission write a letter to the 19 utility company for which then the licensing t i 20 individual was made responsible who then sent out 21 to the plant or wherever it had to go different 22 requests for.different actions and different 23 information. 24 When that information all flowed back in,
~~
25 then the central person put it together into a
~
-- ~
O ____s... A.__ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - Q m. % A ar
606 i 1 letter which then came back to the Commissior and 2 said, "We're taking this action." 3 That file was never intended to track ,. l 4 every piece of paper that was associated with that 5 bulletin. That's done elsewhere, other systems.- 6 If it gets into the design area, then the 7 design change program follows through with what's 1 8 done in a design chain bulletin. You have to be 9 willing to go look for those pieces of paper which j 10 are staus which you can't find. 11 Q. Bottom line to this whole. area You took 12 't i from unresolved which Phillips wrote it as 13 unresolved, to open. What were you trying to ! 14 accomplish by moving it? ' 15 A. I didn't feel that it was a violation. t 1 16 Q. He didn't write it.as a violation. 17 A. Even as an unresolved potential 18 violation. i' 19 Q. Unresolved could mean?- 20 A. It could mean you could find a violation 21 if I decided it had to have a status for this 22 file. In fact, he's got a statement here that 23 there was no procedure until'1983. That's 24 probably not unusual. 4 25 Normally a bulletin went through the 4,. m.pbr % . . '
'-=*ih *
*W"'!" * " * ' ' ' '
I 607 1 utility in the form of a writing from the i 2 Commission who -- most utilities have a licensing l 3 type organization. They have the responsibility .
]
4 to respond back to the Commission. 5 That organizati'on would then go to the t I
)
6 specific parts within the company for actions that i 7 i are to be taken for which when those actions were i 8 given back to the individual, then he would write' 9 a letter back to the Commission and say, "We're 10 doing this and this on the bulletin." There is 11 today a procedure in place. I i 12 Again, rather than tackle it piecemeal, 13 the utility has gone back and looked at this area l 14 and we have to go follow up what they have done; ; a 15 but it's an open item. I don't see a pote.ntial i l 16 violation. I'd have a potential -- I would even I 17 have more than that if they haven't taken the i 18 action required by a bulletin. That's one thing. l i i 19 We're not alleging that. i I 20 We're saying it's difficult to go find i
?
21 the records to close the bulletin. ty- br e vi ou s . 22 inspectors had not found it. They could not find I
; l
! l 23 the information to close the bulletin. '
24 In fact, you got two samples of reports ! 25 that I showed you there. He's indicating that I l
'~
-a
e 608 l most of what we'did was found on the review and I 2 the corrective action was taken, which I don't l 3 agree with him; but the~ paper was there. 4 It's.not a simple process that 5 Mr. Phillips was looking for. ! 6 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) I guess my only comment 7 would be that you provided some very sound 8 rationale as to why the utility may have done what 9 they did and you attributed to'them some really 10 sound decision-making processes; but I question 11 whether or not it would have been better fo: us to 12 go to the utility and have the utility ccme back 13 and tell us that instead of us kind cf giving it 14 to them. This is the reason why we're not in 15 violation like we talked the reporting 16 requirements on'50.55(e). 17 I think I would much.rather have the 18 utility come back and tell me, "This is how we're 19 going to handle it. Therefore, we don't think we 20 have to reply back'to the bulletin" rather than us i 21 just kind of giving them that, that that's what 22 they intend to do. 1 23 A. I guess I'm back to if I'm going to write 24 a violation, I would like it to be a sonad 25 technical violation which is. based on a firm _ . _m. - _-_ _ _ - - ._E - - -
4 1 609 I regulatory requirement. 2 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) Couldn't one have 3 written up en unresolved item and asked the l 4 utility for whatever information? l 5 A. You could have asked them to provide some 6 1 information. d 7 Q. That wouldn't necessarily mean a 8 vi'olation. / l 9 A. 1 But we also -- again, this is a part of 1 i 10 the same meeting that I brought Eric Johnson to i 11 We met with the utility management. 1 the site. We l 12 discussed the bulletin area for which they had l { 13 made commitments to us to follow through looking l i 14 at this. l l 15 In fact, I think the reason that they 16 would go back through it( status bulletins, for 17 example, and bring these files up where it's easy 18 to do that is from the standpoint of, for example, 1 19 material false statements, 20 If I go inspect a bulletin at that plant t 21 and they haven't carried out the action that they ' 22 committed to me in writing, then that's a pretty 23 serious offense for which escalated enforcement 24 action is probably appropriate which we have done 25 in the past; but I'm no.t sure I would treat the ____As- A----
610 1 fact that they didn't status it as unresolved 2 item. l 3 As an open item, we got the same 4 reaction; and it's kind of like you were talking 5 about some things are violatio'ns and some things i 6 aren't. You can take care of some things by l 7 taking your actions through the appropriate l 1 8 utility management through discussions that went l 9 on, and that's what went out with IE bulletins. 10 Q. You mentioned Eric Johnson in this visit 11 and you talked about bulletins and utility 12 provided commitments that they were going to 13 follow to do whatever. 14 How do you view those commitments? Are 15 those legally binding commitments? What's the 16 shortfall if they don't live up to those 17 commitments?' 18 A. It's not a violation. ( If they decided ' 19 that they don't want to meet these commitments, 20 then that's something they could come back and i 21 tell me. l 22 0. (By Mr. Mulley) Were these commitments i 23 in writing? , 24 A. No, sir. 25 O. Who was at that meeting? 41M
.,...w e,e M gow o ee -.
611 1 A. They're in writing in the report. 2 O. Who was at that meeting? 3 A. Eric Johnson, myself, and I b.elieve John 4 shr..+er Streiger and a whole slew of TUGCO folks. k 5 Q. NRC was you'and Johnson? l 6 A. Johnson and I, and I can't recall how 7 many af the other people were sitting on that l
)
i 8 thing. McCluskey was the over there. I That's the 9 same day that I believe Gagliardo was on site, and 10 Mr. Phillips was out with Mr. Gagliardo in the l 11 plant. 12 It wasn't intended that he not be at that
- 13 meeting. It just worked out that way.
14 Mr. McCluskey was over in our trailer at the time i 15- we discussed all this. 16 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) Did you tell 17 Mr. Phillips about the commitment orally that was i l i 18 given by TUGCO? 19 A. Yes, sir. 20 4 l Q. Did that seem to make him feel any better , 21 than before? ! I' 22 A. I'd be hard to judge _that. ! 23 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) I guess if you and 24 Johnson were to go to Region III or Region I, the 25 commitment that they made to the NRC at this
612 1 meeting was gone. ' 2 A. It's in the reports. It's not the kind 3 of commitment that I can take an enforcement 4 action on. 5 Q. Where is this commitment in the report? 6 A. This statement here is that in response 7 to discussions regarding TUGCO's program covering 8 IEB circulars and information, those the Region IV I 9 was informed that TUGCO would perform and would lb reviews records to determine the adequacy of the l 11 procedures and completeness of associated ( 12 records. Initiation of this effort will follow 13 the task review of the 10 CFR 50.55(e) program 14 which is presently in progress. l 15 ) l Q. You're reading from the final report, I la 16 page six, paragraph 4-A. As I go down to 17 paragraph 4-B(1), it's says that TUGCO stated that 18 the IE bulletin 79-14 file will be reopened. A { 19 l supplemental report will be submitted upon I 20 completion of the ongoJng project. 1 21 So, in fact, they did close that file? . I 22 A. You have to understand how that file was 23 closed. That file was closed on the basis that 24 they wrote a letter which the man considered 25 closed The action on IEB 79-14 with their final -
.. %a .eme. .--+w.w--
m 4who 4-u*+Gr m emre gue- '4 p-m>= - - + '
,*= e
613 l 1 response on what they're going to do about the 2 bulletin. 1 3 It was not a file for status. They had NrP l 4 done everything that 79-14 required because that 5 is status'd under other systems that are in 6 progress. J 7 Q. Okay. ! 8 A. Then we talked about -- also the second l 9 one we talked about, the facc that whether the IEB 10 files 82 and 85 did not contain sufficient records 11 or reference to records which showed IEB action, i
, 12 corrective action, was completed.
13 Again, the IEB file being a status of 14 everything we've done on the IEB. l 15 l Q. Okay. We are starting IE bulletin l 16 79-28. l
~
l 17 A. Okay. I believe Mr. Phillips's statement 18 on the matrix was, "TUGCO had replaced NAMCO !
! l i
19 switches per IEB 79-28, but two of fourteen that ! 1
- 20 was field inspected were not properly identified I i
21 on installation traveler.
. Violation of !
22 Criterion VIII, Identification / control of . I l 23 l I materials, parts, and components. McCleskey and l l 24 l Phillips finding. Phillips wrote the violation." ! l 25 It says, " Violation dropped to ,
.w. wq-wea maini>+- w - eele- -%- *""
614 i 1 unresolved." Now there's a long history to this 1 1 2 one. It's not as'long as 79-14. They went out, 3 and Phillipe had, again, Mr. McCleskey to look 4 at -- I didn't go back to see whether 79-28 was ! 5 closed. - 6 I believe-you will find that was probably 7 closed in an inspection report -- was to see if 8 the piece of equipment out in the field actually i 9 matched up with documentation which Mr. McCleskey e 10 went over, to my knowledge, and asked for the i 11 documentation out of the documents ~ control center i l 12 and that documentation didn't match up with two of I 13 the fourteen switches that he found. l 14 I believe that that went on for some time 15 as far as some discrepancy in the documentation. ' 16 I don't know how long that documentation 17 deficiency had been identified. 18 I knew that at a point in-time which I 19 believe before this report ever was finally 20 issued, I went over to Mr. Brant who was the TUGCO l 21 QE supervisor and brought to his attention this- l 22 documentation issue for which within about four i 23 l' ; hours' time Mr. Brant had the documentation in my ' 24 hand.
~
25 Now, Mr. Phillips had been told that Mr. warJ 4
-= a ,n e d,e v. e o - s an -< w e e omy .k. s- m
615
- 1 Brant was their interface on areas where we had l 2 problems getting documentation or finding what we 3 were looking for; and why he didn't ask Mr. Brant, i 4 I don't know.
5 I'm saying that when I went out and asked l 6 for the documentation, I got the documentation. l 7 Now, there were two switches here. ' One of those 8 - switches -- 9 Q. Let me interrupt you. Mr. Brant, is he I i 10 the person that somebody would normally go to to I 11 get documents? 12 A. In that system. 13 Q. You know him personally, but a normal 14 person needing to get the documents. 15 A. As long as -- if I can't find a document 16 on one level, if I go to the documents clerk or 17 engineering or wherever I'm going or inspectors, ' 18 then I want to go to the supervisor of those i 19 inspectors and that's Mr. Brant and that would be ! 20 a logical place to go. l 21 Q. 'Now, these inspectors and these 1 22 supervisors, are they responsible for filing and I 23 retrieving documents? 24 A. They were responsible for inspection and, 1 25 generation of the travelers that were involved in 1
616 1 the installation of thete NAMCO switches. 2 Q. So, they might -- apparently they prepare 3 the documents. 4 A. They prepare and sign parts of these 5 documents. i l 6 Q. And somebody else filed them away? 7 A. And then they end up going to a file. j 8 Now, where we were in the process.on these l 9 particular switches, you know, I don't know have a j 10 good feel for that. )' 11 Q. Now, Mr. Brant, the documents that he was
]
12 able to give you after four hours, is that a l 13 document that he got out of the files or was that 1 ' 14 a document that his inspectors kept on their own? 15 A. I think it was a document that had no.t 16 yet got to the file and he knew where to go ' find l 17 it. ' 18 Q. So, even though he was able to get the I 19 document within four hours, that still doesn't 20 show that the file system and retrievability of 21 the files is any good? 22 A. This document was out in the paper flow 23 group or whether it was or had not got back to the 24 final documents control center, it's in a process
~
25 that might be hard track it unless you're
. '~
' W h %d i,,w.. --erw ~m
,. 61'7 g
i 1 ultimate]y familiar with that process and I J 2 believe(that's what happened here. , l' 3 Being familiar with 'the' process, l l 4 Mr. Brant knek where to go get it. That's the I l 5 h reason we had interface with TUGCO. We asked for ' 6 interface, and they provided us a man with a 7 name. l l 8 So that whether we got into issues where 9 we were having difficulty with finding a
\
i 10 particular documenty ve would go to Mr. Brant and 11 give him what we were looking for;fand we could go 12 on and we wouldn't have to spend inspector hours 13 A6'trying to find a piece,.of paper that we could J i 14 get the utility to provide to'us. I t 15 Q. I guess what'I'm saying is Ahat -- is it l 16 Mr. Phillips -- isn't his citation against.the 17 process itself? Isn't he claiming that,he's 18 unable to get. records? 19 A. No. For the traveler that he had, the 20 traveler'that he went over there and got does not 21 indicate the switch that was in the field. 22 - Now, there was a subsequent traveler that i 23 went out; and, in. fact, they changed these i 24 switches a number of times. 25 There was a particular issue that came up - _.-- _ ._ _: ___-_=___-- . ._ _ . _ . . . .A
1 1 L. . 1 618 I 1 whether it was a clockwise: or counter clockwise 2 type of a switch which they determined that some u
- 3 of these had to be counter clockwise or visa 1
- 4 versa.-
5 They went back out and there was another ' 6 traveler that"went out and changed the switch 7 again. So that the traveler be had was'the l 8 earlier traveler for which there was a-later 9 traveler. 10 Q.- (By Mr. Goldberg) Let me'get try.to 11 understand this a little bit better. I understand 12 there was NCR written on one of these switches. 13 In fact, it says the traveler, the serial number 14 and model number listed on the traveler is not 15 reflected with what's installed. ' 16 A. There's two switches. The first s, witch 4 j 17 was safety related. We found the documentation ! 18 and problem as far as the safety related switch 19 was a closed issue. 1 20 Q. These are Class 1-E limit switches? 21 A. It might be Class 1-E limit switches. It 22 was installed in a non-safety application. The 23 second one -- 24 Q. It's identified as Class 1-E. 25 A. All of them were bought as Class 1-E M-~new 4 *m -~ S
, en m v -.af eum - = * + * - ' ~ * * '
k l.'. 619 t 1 limit switches. 2 - Q. Let me just start with the first.one. Is 3 there a non-conformance d.isposition of this one 4 that's, in fact, been corrected? 5 A. That's one of the seasons I suggested' ;
)
6 Phil Wagner. l 7- About three weeks ago, Phillips came~back 8 over to the trailer and wanted tf know about this-9 unresolved item for which when we got into l'0 discussing, the original paperwork, the paperwork )
-1 11 that we got, showed that he and McCleskey was
'2 satisfied that the safety-related switch was i
13 acceptable, that there was proper documentation ? 14 for the safety-related - the only one that was 15 safety-related was acceptable, which as I recall i 16 in my discussion with Phillips, thel reason I left l 17 it unresolved was I wanted to know why or if there 18 was any reason why on the non-safety -- what had 19 happened? Was there really a problem or wasn't 20 there a problem? , 21 Q. Can you tell me which limit switchiyou 22 say is safety related? I can't tell from my
. 23 travelers because they both say'Classi1-E. Class 24 .1-E by-derinition is safety-related.
25 A. In fact,'this is the write-up.that e.,eu se n,~w M w UNW M P M '**t' es *Pr,- y , 4 qmm..,.4.,,, 4 y ,,,
620 i 1 Phillips is going to put in - oor not Phillips. I 2 had Wagner go back when this became an issue again j 3 for one last time look at the paperwork, look at l 4 the switch; and at that time three weeks ago vhen l l 5 he went back out, not the safety-related one, but ' l 6 the non-safety-related one was resolved. 7 You might can -- you can talk to him 8 about it. l I don't know what NCRs are whateve- are ] l 9 involved on the non-safety switch. The utility 10 chose to put the non-safety switch under their QA' 11 program, and the main reason-they were doing that 12 was just to raintain traceability of the switch. i 13 At least, that's what was explained to n.e by l 14 Mr. Brant. 15 Q. You looked at fourteen switches and found 16 two did not have correct -- 17 A. That will tell you which ones were 18 non-safety. l l 19 Q. Doesn't it say something about how many 20 different switches were put in the plant? 21 Probably quite a few. 22 A. Quite a few. But one of the reasons ^ 23 there was a difficultyfthat came in here they'went 24 back and replaced a number of these switches.: You 25 i had to get the paperwork to find out if you had M
621 !
, l 1 the right or wrong switch. Then in my mind it 2 began to be an issue.
3 I Once I found out there was reasons for 4 replacements and reasons for other paperwork out I l l 5 there -- you would to go back and look to see if i 6 we got the final paperwork satisfied. 7 Q. Boctom line being out there, you don't ! 8 see the hardware problem right now? 9 A.
. All switches were bought qualified. All 10 NAMCO switches were bou.ght' qualified, That's how 11 come they installed even in non-safety Class 1-E 12 switches.
13 Q. Qualified to th,e point of the EQ?
- 14 A. They bought them to meet EQ requirements.
15 Q. Now the question is: What would happen 16 if you had switches that were not identified i li , correctly in one of the systems? You're saying j i 18 it's still a qualified switch? I 19 A. It's still a qualified switch. The one 20 in question was a non-safety system. l 21 Q. It doesn't mean they replaced that i i 22 ! switch. It doesn't mean that it's not the l 23 original switch, does it? l 24 A. I don't understand your qusstion. 25 Q. If you go down and do a walk-down and
. , ~ , . . . , - 4
,,p, , , , , , . it y ene- ew %- *WM-*
- 48 W "
~I
- 1 i
622 l l L l 1 l 1 ! compare the traveler or drawing with what's in the 1 I t 2 system installed and you see that the model number
,3 and serial r.u mb e r isn't the same, you said it j 4 really doesn't make a difference.
l 5 What I'm asking: Maybe that switch was 6 never replaced and you have an older version of $ J l 7 the switch in there. ' 8 A. No. I think what we saw.was the 9 replacement of switches was what they went out to i 10 do. They found out of the qualified switches, 11 they got into an area -- whether it was a counter 12 clockwise or clockwise oriented switch, for which ) 13 they went out and replaced but they put a 14 clockwise and then later realized that they had to 15 have a counter clockwise. So, the switch was 16 qualified. 1 17 Q. Even it was not torqued correctly? ; j 18 A. I don't know whe.t you mean torqued i i 19 correctly. I l 20 Q. You said clockwise. t' l It was either 21 torqued clockwise or counter clockwise. 22 A. It was a qualified switch, which -- and 23 the only one we had a question were the ones that 24 were in non-safety-related systems. 25 Q. My question is whether, in fact, there
'44i m
623 I i I l 1 may be switches out there that if'you expanded the f' 2 sample size which are both in safety-related 3 systems Class 1-E strictly speaking and which 4 either is torqued clockwise instead of counter 5 clockwise or it's not been replaced. 6 In other words, do we have reasonable 7 assurance that all the switches they say are-8 qualified are, in fact, qualified in the system? 9 That's really the issue underlying all this, I 10 think, as I understand from reading between the 11 lines. 12 A. The reason I left it unresolved was, 13 again, to go out and see what were the 14 circumstances. I didn't understand all the 15 circumstances. _ 16 tater it was explain to me there was a s i 17 number of changes and they declared on a sa'fety 18 switch you might get one piece of paper but you ! j 19 really had to wait until you got all the pieces of 20 paper to close it. I 21 You had to go find the final traveler. 22 It's wasn't as easy as going over to the document 23 room. I believe even on the safety, there was i' l l 24 probably s'ome confusion as to what the switch was 25 there. l
)
624 I Wyder i 1 I think what Mr. Phillips went back and l 2 found was that confucion even solved itself when 3 he went back to look at the paperwork and asked 4 Mr. Brant to go take a look at it. 1 5 Q. There particular one you said was 6 resolved because it being a non-safety related i 7 area as opposed to it being a part number and 8 switch number matching each other. 9 A. I had him go back and look three weeks 10 ago. As I said, Phillips came over to the 1 11 trailer sometime earlier and had talked to one of 12 our consultants about looking at some of these
.2 13 things; and at that time, it wasn't clear what 14 what we were going to do.
15 7 ere wasn't really anybody assigned'to , i 16 follow up on this thing. I did, as a matter of 17 fact, on my own go back up and talk to Mr. Brant , 18 and see if I could find what was the situation on 19 non-safety switche'/. 20 Mr. Brant indicated to do me if it w a s c._, 21 n o n - s e f e t y s w i t c h it , p ,s/might be changed out there 22 by start-up and there wouldn't be paperwork 23 because it's a non-safety switch; therefore, a 24 non-safety switch is beg' inning to get kind of
^
25 confused as to whether or not I really wanted to h-__ _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - ._
. l' 625 1 I
1 go out and spend the time if they'could go change- q
}
2 it without paperwork. 3 I uanted to check this thing. I still I l 4 wanted to check this thing out. So, Mr. Brant 5 came back with another traveler. That traveler
~i i
1 6 had a different switch. - 7 Q. I'm not surprised.
)
8 A. I went out and' looked and that didn't l 9 match up. Then there was another traveler. 'I 10 think the last one finally closes it out.
)
11 Q. That says something about their traveler
)
12 system. Besides that, the key of it -- we could 13 quibble about safety-related or non-safety-related 14 or we could quibble about trying to match the 15 numbers up -- is whether, in fact, they have . 16 completed the IE bu.lletin 79-28. l , 17 In other.words, is that what the l j 18 inspector tried to determine.
'19 A. NAMCO switches that were bought were
.)
20 qualified regardless of whether they were 21 clockwise or counter clockwise. 22 Q. If their job of installation was done 23 correctly; is that also true? 24 A. The best of my knowledge, we finally. 25 resolved on these two switches that was true. All i vw-m
-,.w --~ .. - 1.- m - ,,y.,.... . . , , , . ,
(---- - l l 626 I fourteen were in there. The proper switch in all 2 fourteen is there. It is just a matter of getting
, 3 to the fina.1 paperwork. Of course, I'm not J
i 4 familiar with the details. 5 Q. Let's get back to the issue that I think 6 is important here. Has the utility completed its 7 action on 79-28 and has not only ordered qualified 8 switches, but has inctalled correctly all 9 qualified switches into safety-related systems? 10 That's how you would close this out. If you can 11 make that determinat. ion, then you can close out 12 the bulletin. 13 A. I'd have to go back to who closed out 14 79-28. t 15 Q. That's the issue. , 16 I A. I didn't go back to look at that part of j 17 it. 18 Q. Phillips did a sample. I 19 A. He went out to look at hardware. He 20 wanted to go out and matched up hardware with 21 paperwork, in essence; and when they went out, two : 22 } of the fourteen there were questions. That 23 l paperwork appeared on one of them. 24 It appears they went back and needed some 25 more changes. On the latter on?, it looks like l l [ _ _ .
l J 627
)
1 they made more changes. It's a matter of getting ; 2 the right paperwork. I 3 Q. But the paperwork reflects -- to get back l 4 to George's point yesterday or two weeks ago -- g 5 i what the control is in.the facility which reflects 6 upon the -- you're only doing a limited sample. ! i 7 A. That would be a work package issue. If I i 8 went looking for it, there should be a work 9 package issue that wculd cover replacement of
]
10 .these switches, probably identified which ones; 11 and there should ha,ve been a status of it. ,
-)
12 Q. Is this Mr. Wagner who closed this out? 13 A. Yes. I would only sample -- if the man 14 says, " Hey,. we've done 7 9 - 2 8 ', ' I would go out and f 15 sample that. S*a AN eMO 2 ' 16 A. Okay. 17 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) Okay. ; 18 A. The next one is -- the next two, I guess, h 19 really deal with "TUGCO's procedure for handling 20 IEB are deficient in that they do not describe how 21 construction management / personnel handle IEB 22 requiring IEB requiring action, especially 23 hardware repair, replacement, and modification. 24 Prior to write-up, I stated ~to management that 25 this is a violation; but management. disagreed. I h
-nwm ---e.. - m.. ..n", a , _ _ _
{
J l 628 i i 1 wrote it as unresolved." I 2 Okay. We're back at this status of l 3 what's done in the IEB. The utility gives you a . l 4 reply and tells what you they're going to do under 5 the IEB. Then we would normally go verify that. 6 For example, my prior experience has been 7 in Arkansas. I don't recall having some status on 8 cach IEB kept at the site by the construction 9 folks that were putting in the IEB. I don't know 10 that that was a necessary procedure. IN 11 There is ,ti S i r procedure a man assigned 12 and they got two procedures, as a matter of fact, l 13 that cover that kind of arena. So that when an IE 14 bulletin comes in, he then looks at it and assigns l i l 15 it out or writes out correspondence internally to { l 16 folks within the company that certain actions have 17 to be taken; and they, in turn, provide him back 18 with the actions taken or being taken to comply I 19 with the bulletin. 20 That reply is put into a reply draft and i l 21 sent back to the Commission. Having the j 22 I i construction site have a separate tracking and , i 23 status of of IEB, I couldn't cee how that would be 24 a regulatory requirement placed on the utility
~
25 company. i
- - u 4r'9*NSb++-444***=-W e M'= ee ,).w,
62'9 l 1 They handled it consistent with where I lj l - 2 had seen bulletins handled. 3 Q. Doesn't this go back to the first ! 4 sentence in the whole issue? l l 5 A. Yes.
, j 6 Q. You're going to review procedures and
. . i 7
- records to determine the adequacy'of procedures?
8 A. That's correct. And we did provide them 9 that. I didn't drop it. I left -- the insert 10 says, " Management dropped and wrote insert No. 2 1 11 in Document No. 4," which is essentially the words 12 that we're looking at there. 13 I think the next one is the same thing, y 14 "No TUGCO construction focal point for tracking l 15 IEB actions. Prior to write-up,-I stated to l 16 management that this is a violation; but l , 17 management disagreed. I wrote it as unresolved." 18 This is much of the same. This is again 19 contrary to what any inspectors in the past had ! 20 been able to do in closing out bulletins, 21 including looking at hardware, looking at. i 22 documentation and finding what they needed to 23 close it. 24 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) So, he's.saying here 25 that he couldn't go to a central person to' find usi 1 1
.~,....,._4...,. ,
,.' m ~- -
r . . _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ __ J
I l 630 I I 1 1 out how to track the paperwork on these bulletins? 2 A. Thab's correct. I 3 Q. And ycu're saying that in the past i 4 inspectors have aeen able to'do that? ; [ 5 A. Well, yoa got to take what the utility l 6 replied to in the bulletin and said, "We are doing ' 7 certain things.' s 8 If nhey say, for example,' they are l 9 replacing NAMCO switches, you should be able to go 10 find out if they're replacing NAMCO switches. I 11 I don't have the exact piece of work 12 order down 1 each one that was listed to go out
- 13 and do that replacement, '
don't believe that 14 that is a requirement t i. L nas to be in an IEB ' 15 file. 16 Now, if I.was going to do my druthers and 17 I'm the utility company, I would probably trace it j 18 a lot further than what TUGC0 has done; and that's 19 part of the reason Mr. Johnson and I had say the l 20 discussion with them because, again, if they're { 21 leaving th e ms e l,f open for material false were 22 statements, t h e y ' r-e going to come down with both 23 feet on them. l 24 I don't know anybody'that wants a 25 material false statement. l
- - _ . . ,,.._.,___-4 . . ,
OJA
- i 1 Q. (By Mr. Goldborg) That's an issue where 2 they said they did something.and, in fact, they 1
3 did not do something? 4 A. That's correct. , 5 Q. That's a different issue. l 6 A. For which we're going to look at each IEB 7 to see if they did indeed do --' I
)
8 Q. You check to see the action was, in fact, ! l 9 com'pleted? I i ! 10 A. That's correct. I don't believe the next 11 one is an issue because it indicates that all the l 12 inspectors had been consulted and deals with 13 DCA 29894, including Mr. Phillips' statement that 14 Mr. Young agreed. ! 15 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) So, we're down to the 16 last one? 17" (Off the record discussion.) 18 (short recess'.) ! 19 A. The last item, I believe, on this matrix 20 is with electrical penetration seals. Really this 21 is talking about cable tray b'.Ttiers, Appendix R 22 requirements. 23 The statement Mr. Phillips has made on 24 this, "Whole paragraph changed after management 25 directed additional inspection in late December, i l I [' .,m,.- . ~ . . -t.. _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ -w
r l 1 85, and after Bisco memo to IE reviewed by l 2 Region IV management, Tom Young." 3 l Comment is that " Violation dropped. 4 Request for office investigation to review also j 5 dropped." 6 You have to help me about the whole l 7 . paragraph changed after management directed 8 additional inspection in late December of '85. 9 Do you have'something that could tell me 10 , what he's referring to? l 11 Q. What's the question, Tom? 12 A. I don't understand what I can't ! 13 remember what this " additional management l 14 direction for additional inspection in late 15 December of '85 and after Bisco memo to IE 16 reviewed by management" is. I guess I don't 17 cecall whet that involved. 18 I can talk a little bit about "the ! I 19 violation dropped and request for office 20 investigation to review dropped." 21 As I recall, the violation in the report, 22 in this draft report, that we're talking about, 23 which is Document 1-A, page 6-3, the violation ! 24 that was written here is that "these deficient 25 seals were not documented as non-conformance as
, , , , , , , , . v9e4 a 4 e avN4'*'""#
eJJ ' I required _by QI/QP 16.0-4, Revision 1, 2 Identification of Class 1-E Equipment with 3 Deficient IFEE-323/344 Test Reports, dated 4 July 22, 1981 and CP-QP-16.0, Revision 19, 5 Non-conformances, dated October 16, 1985." < 6
' The basis that was left anresolved was-7 that because there had been a khk written, TUGCO 8 Design Deficiency Report, and the fact that on the 9 top of page 3 it says, "However, TUGCO did 10 document the rescended approval for S-26 in 11 deficiency report TDDR'No. FP-85-063 , dated
, 12 October 21, 1985, but only after ANI rescended 13 approval."
~
l 14 Okay.' Now, there are several things here l l 15 that I gave -- the basic reason I said it was , 16 TDDT unresolved was because there was a m that had 17 been identified or, a form of a document which l 18 identified the deficiency. l 19 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) Is this the TDR that 20 you're referring to? I 21 A. Yes, sir, it is. , l 22 Q. Did you read the TDR number into the 23 record? 24 A. Yes, I did. ! 11 25 Q. Okay. i
.~
Cl% _T
- __T*T_*'~_'__~_'^****'""_*"'_T..'"_'*T"*T'.
' " ' ' ' * * * * ' _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . . ___-__nm.s_.
634 1 A. Now, first off, the violation that I read 2 you in here said that there was no .
)
3 non-conformances required by QI-QP-16.0-4, ] 4 Revision 1. That's talking about Class 1-E anFh ; 5 equipment was def.icient IEEE-323-344 test 6 reports, ! 1 7 We are talking in this particular 1 l 8 documentation with Appendix R requirements for l l 9 which there was not documentation of test 10 requirements in accordance with ASTME 119 and 11 IEEE 634. i 1 12 That's why I'm telling you the violation 13 is not proper even if there had been a violation. l 14 I cannot go from -- you want to make this an 15 exhibit to take'a look at -- from the procedure j 16 which he says they violated which deals with 17 IEEE-323/344, which is environmental and seismic 18 qualification of electrical equipment, to say that ! 19 on an Appendix R type item, which is ASTME 119 and ' 20 IEEE 134, that that procedu-re would have required ! l 21 them to write a non-conformance report. 22 Q. What procedures did they use to write -- 1' 23 A. That's the next one. ; s 24 Q. -- the TDDR?
~
25 A. That's the next issue. Now, the TDR is 1
- - ~ ~ - . . _ _ . _ - _ . . _ . . _ . . .
-635 L
i 1 TUGCO nuclear engineering CPS procedure TNE-AD-5 l l 2 Rev. 6, 12/16/85. That's that one. l ! 3 So, in the process of writing TDR, an NCR j 4 may yet'be written. I don't know with this one 5 where it had gotten into the process. . 6 The fact that it's identified on the'TDR 7 says that they have, regardless of where it was or 8 what brought it about, they have identified it and s 1 9 they are trying to respond to the particular ) i 10 issues that' dealt with Bisco. ! 1
)
11 Q. There are several parts,of the.TDR. 12 There's the issue of deficiency and also a box 13 called potentially reportable under Part 21. 14 A. I will you that I told Mr. Phillips if he 15 wanted to make a violation out of that, he should 16 make a violation out of that. 17 I do not remember his line of logic, but 18 he gave me some line of logic about not wanting to l 19 cite on deportability. 20 Now, if you go back to the final report, 21 he added in an item in here on page 9-A. Now that 22 was his choice. 23 Q. In your mind, do you.think they should be { 24 put under Part 21 or 50.55(e)? 25 A. . What we got in here, we got ints an-issue t
.,,,pa s y + ..--- - - w- ow ..m m -w,9 o n. mA *-nw e -w~-- *' ""- .
_.._.J-_i______
i 636 1 l i 1 that deals with a documentation issue and trying 2 to compare one thing against the other. I've 1 l 3 looked at it. It's confusing. It's one of reason j 4 we took this whole issue and went to IE 5 headquarters with it, to the vendor group, in an 6 attempt to go to the vendor group to have them 7 look at it to make some determinationEwhat we 8 really had here. # 9 I don't know that if -- the utility might 10 be going after, you know, there's later 11 documentation -- it+1ooked very gray. It looked 12 confusing.
]
13 Q. Trying to get back to -- what was he ll 14 trying to write? 15 A. The first violation was one I talked- l 16 about where he wanted to write a violation because , j 17 they weren't meeting the procedure on Class 1-E ' 18 equipment which I'm indicating -- and did not 19 write a non-conformance. I'm indicating there was 20 a TDR. I did not see that the violation wac 21 proper. I 22 Q. Okay. ' 23 A. If you read up at the top of that same: 24 page you'll see where they had written a TDR which 25 covered it.
. . . . .m. -
- =e-*E'A ww- w g .'=4- , y w i a ., p -
}
u 1 Q. .Was it a time when the TDR -- 2 A. That's another issue. That's the part 3 that got into conflicting with what's in the 4 documentation. They had it one time and didn't 5 the next time. f 4 6 Q. It seemed to be written after ANI 7 rescended approval. 8 A. Well, I'm not going to go to back and 9 write something -- they did identify it, even if 10 they were late. It is on a piece of paper. It is 11 tracked as a deficiency. There is corrective 12 I action being taken. If they identified it in i 13 their program, regardless of how it came about,
~
)
14 then it's not the kind of thing I'm going to take l l 15 an enforcement action on and, particularly, I'm ' l 16 not going to cite them against the wrong 17 procedure. 18 l And the TDR itself, there yet may be -- I l l 19 don't know what -- I don't know that an NCR won't 20 be issued. 21 Q. I guess I'm not sure of'the difference f l
'22 between an NCR and a TDR. .
23 A. TUGCO design deficiency report as a part 24 of the procedure. s. 25 Q. How does it go from a TDDR to an NCR? l _ _ , . _ . . ~ . - - ____A.#.. A
ose : < 4 1 A. That was part of the procedure I was 2 - reading you earlier which says it can be closed by 3 sending it on over. 4 Q. Can one interpret a TDDR to be less 5 significant than an NCR? m 6 A. No, sir. It's just the engineering house i J j 7 side way of identifying. ~ 8 Q. So, it's going from one part of the l J 9 organization to another?' j 10 l A. Yes, sir.
]
11 Q. .And who handles NCRs?. QA? l l 1 12 A. QA would also get a copy of this. l 13 Q. Why would this be a QA problem?
)
14 A. What do you mean, a QA problem? 15 Q. Why wouldn't this be~ considered an NCR7 16 A. I'm stating it may yet become an NCR if 17 engineering has still got some questions. The 18 documentation is gray. It's not'a black and white 19 - problem. There's some -- if at a point in time we 20 don't have the right documentation, then.there 21 should be an N'R. C .
- 22 As a matter of fact, let me see if I can l 23 find it. If I went back to look, I'd probably 24 find an NCR.
25 Q. So, it went from a TDDR to an NCR-and now -j
* .e .w. . , =
4 r - ,., 4 .L. - ,..- ~4-~.~,
.-.A.,-.- 7,---- -- e-- - --
_, _ _ __Z_ _ ___lM1 __-
639 1 to 50.55(e)? 2 A. There may still 'b e an NCR. The TDR in j 3 itself is a means of identifying a 4 non-conformance. It in itself is a
)
5 d non-conformance. I don't know the status. I knew j 6 there was a TDR.- 7 Q. You are reading the TDDR as a type of 8 non-conformance? 9 A. Engineering's ways of identifying 10 non-conformance. - 11 Q. Does it get tracked in QA as a 12 non-conformance by anybody in QA? 13 n e. bsehed A. I'm sure the TORS &ttract. I don't know ; 14 who, but I didn't go back to try to find that ! 15 out. I'm sure it's on a tracking. 16 It says that the purpose of this l 17 procedure is to cover -- TDDR 'says the purpose of ( 18 l l this procedure is to confine the process of I l f 19 identifying design deficiencies or errors, ' 20 documenting them on T&E design deficiency reports, 21 TDDRs, and determine the appropriate 22 corrective / preventive action, implementing the 23 corrective / preventive action and the final ' l 24 review / closure of these identified design 25 deficiencies or errors. That's essentially what a _ : = : 2 ::_ - -
^
640 i ! l non-conformance is. 2 Q. So, your point, going back.to 3 Mr. Phillipc' issue, quite apart from the IEEE 4 problem, the issue is that you don't agree with 5 his statement that these were not documented as , 6 non-conformance, were, in fact, by putting ,them as . 7- a'TDDR was documented as non-conformance? 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q. Okay. That takes care of that one. What 10 about the second one? 11 A. "This failure to adequately evaluate an'd 12 report a construction deficiency is a violation of i 13 10 CFR 50.55(e)." 14 In the end when we got around to that, I ( I 15 told Phillips, ," I f Ly o3 want to make that a { 16 violation, you can make it a violation if you 17 think they didn't do a proper evaluation for o 18 reporting," for which I got -- as I said, I can't i i I l ! 19 recall the exact logic that we went through, but 20 he was hesitant to write a violation, t 21 Q. If he had brought against the fact that ; 22 they didn't report under 50.55(e) or Part 21, you ; 23 would have gone along with that? 24 A. I would have had no problem with that. 25 Q. Now, in fact, they.did report.after a 1
.....s..
t
. . - - . , ,.m.... ..U-.. . . , . , . . * - . , , ...m . , .-3, . - - . . . , - i
641 1 that? 2 A. They sure did. 3 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) Did you think that was a 4 violation there? 5 A. Well, again, I went back.
, 1 It is cloudy.
6 Because we got all this conflicting paperwork, 7 there was not a clear call. You might yet find 8 paperwork that says i t's not a problem. In fact, 9 that's the next step for which we did write this 10 issue, the memo that did go back to IE 11 headquarters for which they're still -- I had 12 probably three or four weeks ago a call from Ed 13 Fox about what they were doing on this, the fact ' 14 that IE headquarters had been looking into it, the 15 fact that there was.some discussion. 16 In fact, Ed Fox had been on an earlier 4 . 1 17 Bisco inspection d[eede'$ with some other types of 18 allegations that related to Bisco. Whether 19 they'll have to go back to Bisco or not to resolve 20 this is a matter which IE headquarters will make a l 21 determination which will be discussed at region. 4 22 We'll get some reply back. 23 I know Eric Johnson has had some 24 discussion with IE headquarters on the same 25 ' issue. 9 9
...,-w,% .- , ,-
,you e, , er .,..me,e +e sve _. ..s.4 . . . .** *r
- I 1
'I l 1 Now, the next part of that matrix, I i
2 believe it says, " Request for office investigation l l 3 to review also dropped." ' 4 I don't recall -- the conversation I had 5 with Phillips along that line would have been the i 6 Region IV regional administrator requests an OI ( l' 7 investigation and an office director requests an 8 -investigation. f l ! 9 Our point was that he did write an } I 4 10 initial memo which more or less said he wanted OI 11 to go and investigate and then the vendor
)
12 inspection branch to inspect Bisco. I said, 13 "That's not what kind of memo I want to send back j 14 to IE headquarters. I'want to list the facts to I ! 15 IE headquarters and let IE headquarters make a l l 16 determination as to what they want'to do with the 17 issue and how best to handle it, whether that be 18 ' vendor inspection or whether if they feel there's l 19 some wrongdoing issue here. OI then gets l 20 involved." 21 So, that's how I had left it with 22 Phillips. We went through quite a series of 23 memos. 24 Q. But you feel the call on that was either 25 thw director or regional administrator'or division I 1 o
%. .,,...~7 x
.-;~..-,.... - . . . - ,. -
'g: l
k'
#$ o 4p%-f o.4+?/
o t IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3)
///// / $9gy g,
,.o m .
Fmg23 ce l,l E# bN 1.8 l 1.25 1.4 I.6 4 150mm > 4 6" >
?
#[;;;h%
JIf3>zzzf + .- .d
%Y#
MwA Ni Mh' O
%,0*
& IMAGE EVALUATION #
//o//
,,/
% [ % #f/// TEST TARGET (MT-3) / ,[f#.,4?g,/fg f
pppp k (4 pppp
/
l.0 l# 2 llE yllL23 u U" En 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 4 150mm > 4 6" > l Yf 4>(p> Azzzf/, # 4 t f- /4 k a/A f4
., e gg o;, .
< >+ 4 g:s
, (&
l l - a b____ -
S o A*ANi Q)k
//o/ /
IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) ((/ Ig, l
+ s 1.0 lf a BA y [ij llil!E i,i [m llillE I.8 1.25 1.4 l 1.6 4 150mm >
4 6" > I#Di & . 4!!lf,,// l 1
.+-
L__ [1.c_ J
1 director on the referral? 2 A. On the referral. The man shouldn't say, l 3 " Hey, I want OI. OI should come and investigate 4 this." 5 That's a decision that is made by the ; ( 6 regional ' administrator. I know that was given 7 *back to Eric Johnson. He's indicated that he had 8 some discussions with Mr. Emerson, who was the fe e 9 allegations coordinator km OI on it initially. 10 Q. Mr. Barnes give you any input into the l 11 issue, Ian Barnes? l 12 A. I can't recall. ' j 13 Q. Okay. These draft reports, the 14 handwritten portions, were they all done by t 15 Phillips; or do you have any portion that is 16 handwritten in there? 17 A. Well, I probably have some. On the 18 earlier one we looked at, the previous inspection, j i 19 85-14/11, the draft we were looking at, I believe 20 that all those in there were Phillips'. I could 4 21 go back and check page by page, but I believe that 1 1 i 22 would be Phillips ' handwriting. ' I 23 Q. And this one here? 24 A. In the front of this where it lists ! 25 everything, that could have been mine. I
._ ____..A. I- -
644 1 Q. So, that's -- 2 A. There are some notes in here which I ) 3 believe are Mr. Johnson's. ~ 4 Q. Right. i 5 A. There's a not$ on page 3-1, I believe 6 that's Mr. Johnson's. 7 Q. These portions of t'ae report that you 8 wrote, was Phillips aware of that? 9 A. On these two reports we've been through, 10 anything that went in that report went back to { 11 Phillips for typing. So, each copy each time if 12 there was some comments written on it or whether 13 we sat down and discussed that, those went back to ! i 14 Phillips; and on a number of occasions, some of 15 those earlier ones where Mr. Barnes wrote a note, 16 all those went back to Phillips. { 17 Q. So, he was aware of the changes? 18 A. He should be aware of anything that was 19 changed. He had -- the drafts we got here are the 20 ones ne had in hand. He kept these drafts. As I 21 indicated, there was no -- even beyond that, after 1 22 anything was done to these reports, the final 1 l 23 report once it had been through everybody's 24 comments and whatever things had been done to it, 25 the final version.that was going to be sent out
' ~ ~
U_--__ m- - - - - - - - - - - R % % n
645
.i 1 was brought to the site and those folks that were i 2
responsible for those sections signed those. ; 3 sections. 4 There was not any kind of duress. It was 1 l 5 sent over to them to review and sign. l j 6 Q. Now, this matrix that Phillips prepared, ' l 7 dated May the 12th, he talks about once again 8 changes that management directed that he 9 implemented and which violations were dropped, he I 10 is implying here that he didn't agree with the 11 action taken. 12 In your discussions with him, didlue 13 accept these changes? Di? he agree with them,
- 14 first, I guess is the question.
15 A. I guess all I can say, I have his i 16 signature on the final report; and they were ) 17 discussed. Most anything in here was discussed at 1B quite some length. Whether he was in full 19 agreement, that's another -- however, when he got ' 20 around to signing the report, he signed it. 21 Q. Was this again an knowledgement'of your 22 prerogative as a manager, you believe? , 23 A. I got his memo later on in. April, I 24 guess, or sometime. I don't believe Phillips ever 25 made the statement that it was management's'
~
j 4
- _____m.____
o,. . t 1 prerogative to change these. I believe that was 2 Del Norman that said that. 3 I kno.w Mr. Phillips had some problems 4 with the report, but it wasn't the nature of how 5 serious the problem he had with the report. It < 6 wasn't really evidenced to me by virtue of the 7 fact that -- for example, he signed the report. 8 we had a long discussion and I think I've 9 probably indicated I've come back to Region IV 10 management. I've talked about the kind of reports 11 that the man wrote., I talked that I was having 12 difficulty with his reports. ' l 13 So, there was quite a bit of conversation 14 going on between myself and Phillips. I could 15 not -- not of the nature that he was going to come 16 forth to anybody and say, " Hey, I can't at all 17 agree this report" because he signed the report. 18 Q. I understand the first issue went back to l l 19 the Bisco with respect to non-conformance 20 reporting, but the second part was -- reading 21 here, I want you to explain why you took this 22 out. He says here in the second portion of his 24 write-up " Decision not to report this item was 24 discussed with TUGCO engineering and subject ' 25 penetrations installed in Unit I were considered I
.m - t
647 i i l 1 not potentially-reportable; however the engineer 2 interviewed stated that they did not know.if these l 3 penetrations affected the systems needed for the 1 4 safe shutdown of the plant..This is an inadequate q 5 l evaluation which led to not reporting this item." ' 6 Now that's the part I think that's 7 relevant here, is the evaluation done by l 8 engineering on these seals and the failure to 9 satisfy the three-hour fire test. , l l 10 Why wasn't some of this put in the final- , 11 report? 12 A. Well, the only way I know to do that is 13 go back through that stack. 14 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) This is the issue. ) l 15 When I read this whole write-up, this is the one i' l 16 that's most important. ' It has to do with the l 17 technical evaluation done by TUGC0 in terms of its 18 safety significance at the plant and its potential 19 significance generically. 20 A. I guess the one part I did say, I did 21 tell Mr. Phillips if he wanted to write a failure 22 to report, he certainly could. 23 Q. It says it a little bit differently. 24 It's not so much a failure to report as it is that, 25 the engineers or the technica,1 people did an . j
1 inadequate evaluation which led to not reporting. 2 It's slightly di-'erent. 3 A. You'd have to give me a minute to see if 4 I could find all the drafts that go with this. I 5 guess I can find it. ! j l 6 1 (Off the record discussion.) ! 7. ! MR. MULLEY: Back on the ! 8 record. 9 A. On Document 4, tLa cross-out is probably 10 mine. ! 11 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) Okay. Document 4 12 concerns the draft version of inspection report 13 85/16-13, right? 14 A. Okay. Again, he's quoting that this one 15 said this and this one said that and this one said ,
.16 this.
17 If you'll notice my note on the bottom, I 18 told him if he wanted to write it up as a 19 I violation of 50.55(e) or NCR, he could do that. 20 There's my note on the bottom. j 21 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) What about the issue l 22 of -- 23 A. That would cover whether -- they had to 24 properly evaluate to determine deportability. If 25 they don't report it, then you have to write them
I for not reporting. The basis would be the same if 2 somebody made a decision not to report it. They 3 didn't report it and we're saying it's l 4 reportable. I would write a violation and say, 5 "Under 50.55(e) you didn't report." 6 If they didn't report it and they had it 7 " identified and it's obvious they didn't evaluate l l 8 it;as being reportable, we're going to say it's s
]
l 9 reportaole.
]
10 I was agreeing with the report. That's 11 what my note says, "If you want to wr'ite it as 12 violation, write it as a violation." That's j 13 exactly the discussion we got into. l 14 Q. Would you have cared if he had wrote -- I 1 15 see it a nuance here between failure to report and ! 16 failure to properly evaluate, which would hcve 17 resulted in deportability potentially; but first 18 comes the evaluation, and then comes the i 19 reporting. 20 If he had have added in the evaluation 21 portion and the reporting, would that have caused f 22 you a problem? 23 A. No, sir, If he would have said failure 24 to properly evaluate and report this condition, I 25 would have had no problem. In fact, that's what
l VJu
- j 1 my note tt c s a- > s .
l i Q. L'd you cross the paragraph.out? I l 3 A. : c'7sc d the paragraph out. I just 4 wanted a c:. ear seccinct -- let thom come back i 5 and tell us why they didn. report it rather than ] l 6 somebody told him something and then say, "I l 7 don't know whether I went out and looked at all I I B the other penetrations or not." 9 Let them come back formally in writing 1 10 and tell me what they did and why they didn't~ l 11 report it. 12 Q. Okay. - 13 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) During this time, did
\
14 Phillips ever make a statement to you to the l 15 effect that, "Tell me what you want and teli me how 16 you want it before I prepare the draft if that's what 17 it takes to get it out"? 18 A. I can't recall that. ! 19 Q. Do you think he ever displayed an attitude 20 similar to that, that "whatever you want, you can I 21 have"? I 22 A. I guess he did kind of display an attitude ! i 23 of "whatever you want," but not in -- I viewed that 24 as we had been through a whole series of discussions. 25 I had tried to give.him my philosophy, but I didn't < - . . ..%-n o. ..,-,e. %
,ec -
w w e t i view that as a fact that he was giving up, I 2 don't think it was evident by things that were 3 still going,on, that "I'm going to write what you 4 want me to write." 5 I don't believe that he did that. In the < 6 subsequent reports this came on from this, there
~
7 weren't really any substantive issues in them. 8 one, we got.into the holidays. We had the 9 meetings in Was,hington, too, with Billie Garde. 10 He took a lot of leave time. He had a problem Tad k 11 with his septic 4 as I recall, which kept him out a 12 couple of weeks. ' 13 We really never came up with any other 14 i more issues that would demonstrate to me that he 15 had backed off and wasn't out there trying to 16 write -- he may have displayed that in a 17 I conversation, but I never got anything that showed 18 me that, you know -- I tried to calibrate him to 19 an extent, but I never told the man that he 20 couldn't write violations. 21 If he wanted to write violations, they 1 22 had to be proper violations and had to be based on l 23 the facts and had to be professional and we had to i 24 be able to go back and prove and look at the 25 violation as a factual, technically competent i
.+
7 JT_Tl __?_ _ _^l -- :-_L_ -- _~ ~ " -_ C ' ' ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ^~ A
&^2 1 violation.
2 I never told the man at any time not to 3 write issues up, not to stop, inspections, not to 4 come to me and ask me how something should be j 5 written up, t 6 I don't thAnk that really transpired. 7 That statement may have been made by Phillips or 8 something somewhere.'close to it; but I still i 9 didn't say, " Hey, Phillips, you don't wri.te i 10 violations." I've never said that. 11 I'm sure he felt a lot of pressure 12 because I had a lot of pressure because I went 13 back and forth with him on these kind of issues. 1 14 Q. During this time, was TUGCO completely l 15 revising their QA manual? 16 A. TUGCO, as I've indicated, is'under the 17 process now which was described back in the 18 meeting in the region with IE headquarters, QAB 19 branch, Mr. Phillips and all the others that 20 Counsil was going through a whole series of policy , 21 guides that he was going to be putting out and 22 looking at their QA program. . 23 Q. So, in doing.this, were they 24 acknowledging that some of the things that 25 Phillips was writing up were problems? Did ; _ _ _ _ - -_-___:-_=____.
000 1 Counsil ever knowledge that they had problems with 2 some of these procedures? , 3 A. I think Counsil acknowledged that there 4 were a lot better ways to do it than they had been ; 5 doing it, not that they did meet regulations, but d j 6 there are certainly better ways to do things. I 7 don't know if that's acknowledgment. 8 Q. ) Were some of these things.that Phillips j l 9 wrote, were they violations of the QA manual that l 10 TUGCO had? 11 A. Again, we've been through all the things ] 12 I know of. I've given you what I felt each of 13 those issues were. I guess you'd have to look at s I 14 that particular part of it. I 15 Q. Well, did you ever instruct Phillips that '
)
16 since they're revising the QA manual, you know, 17 it's not worth writing the violation since they
! 18 are revising these things anyway?
f 19
?
A. There was an issue as I recall when we 4 20 got into records description in a QA manual which i
, 21 we went through the particular item about we
! 22 l k should or shouldn't be or how detailed I should be i i 23 in my overall type procedures and how much can I ' 24 do by referencing 45.29 and then anybody else th~at 25 ahd procedures down below are going to write i v-.es "
. l 634 i 1
procedures anything complying with 45.29. 2 As I recall, there's a statement in there 3 that talks about the fact that was left unresolved - 4 but TUGCO is looking at revising their QA program; \ 5 and they have indeed done that, not that they're 6 in violation, but they're making it a much more 7 complete program. ! l 8 We have verbally exchanged these kind of 9 comments with him since we'*ie been on site, the 10 fact that they had three different kinds of QA 11 programs on that site, one for construction, one 12 for start-up and one for operations. In the real I 13 world really ought to come up with one program. 14 I think that's the direction which 15 they're going and they are revising their program 16 to get there, not that any one part of that 17 necessarily violated a regulation but it's an 18 attempt the.get it in a program that kind evolved 19 over time. Really it needs to be looked at and 20 put in one overall program. 21 ! It was indicated earlier that there are 1 22 I other positive changes made, not that they 23 i violated the regulation; but they were moving QA 24 organization to the site. That's the ideal 25 place. That's where most of the acitivity is. i I { \ -.. . . . . . - _ _ _=
l 1 ! That's where you should have those folks, not that j 2 they violated a regulation. 1 3 (Short recess.) 4 MR. MULLEY: Back on the 5 record. J 6 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) I would like to very 7 briefly discuss report 86-06/04 because it's still 8 a draft report. It's still being reviewed and 9 debated and whatever. 10 There's just a couple of general sort of 11 questions I would like to ask you. The first j 12 question has to do with the fact that -- or not i I 13 the fact it was reported to us that Mr. Phillips ! 14 had written certain violations concerning, you 15 know, the QA program at TUGCO as being unresolved 16 during the exit briefing. 17 Apparently, he briefed these as being 18 unresolved. After the briefing was complete, Ian 19 Barnes was reviewing the report and stated that l' 20 they should have been written as violations. 21 ! Do you have any knowledge why EE.rnes : l i l 22 would now decide to go with violations instead of l l 23 unresolved items? I , 24 A. I'm not familiar with that. I think you 1 25 have to talk about that with Mr. Barnes. } i l J l .
*N*'WNe , ~
_ _ = = _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ r__: ---_--_ ='- - - - ~ ~'
l
- j i
1 Q. The second is, sue is at the exit briefing ' 2 when some of these findings in the report were. 3 being briefed. Mr. Counsil, the TUGCO VP, made a 4 statement allegedly that what we "cre talking 4 l 5 about were fact violations, not unresolved items, i I 6 and that the violation should be written and a ) 7 assessed against TUGCO so that they could get the l 8 thing resolved. I 9 2 Do you have*any'information on that? 10 A. Well, the particular item'we're talking 11 about is the cli s that had been welded on some 12 ASME valves which had been the subje'et of an 13 earlier 50.55(e) report for which when our folks 14 in the Comanche Peak group trailer had been out a 15 looking, we ebme the other direction and found the l 16 NCR which had been evaluated which had downgraded 17 the support to a Class 5 support for which then 18 decided they didn't have to remove the clips from ' i 19 the valves for which the 50.55(e) report that had 20 been filed had been filed based on the NCR that 21 had been issued that said, "We're going to take 22 the clips off." 23 Subsequently, they decided not to take 24 the clips off; therefore, the 5 0 . 5 5 ( e .1 report that 25 had been filed was not correct. That is a
~
1 1
, .y . . . - . . - . -
- - - - - - - - - - " - - - - - - - - - - - ' - ' - - - - - - ^ - -
\ _. _ 1
/O.ffic) deviation from a commitment in a be+4444a, and 2 that's what we said to Mr. Counsil.
i 3 Mr. Counsil came back and said that was a e 4 violation. I think Mr. Strel,ter spoke up. ! 5 Q. Mr. Stre1,ter? 6 A. The OA manager for TUGCO and said that 7 vould be a deviation because it's a commitment, as 8 I recall. I don't remember the exact words; but 9 then there's a second part to this thing, the l 10 evaluation of this NCR. l 11 Now, we very much had a purpose and this 12 had been discussed even with Bob Martin. We were 13 going to go ahead and tell these folks that the 14 _ failure to report was a deviation to a commitment; 15 but TUGCO as a part of some of the other areas 16 where we've identified problems and NCRghed l 17 initiated a review of NCRsin which one of these !
, i l
l 18 ti C R.s dealt with these particular valves, i 19 Now, we were waiting to see how well the j
)
20 TUGC0 review of these other NCRs went down the , I I I 21 path so we could evaluate the effectiveness of ! l 22 this commitment to go back and look at engineering l 23 disposed as-is NCRs. l 24 They had identified that as one they were i 25 going back to look at. l We were waiting back 1 J l I l - _ _ _ _ __ 9
-1 before we took a final action on that. There's no 2 doubt in our mind it was a violation, but it was 3
an idea to see how well this program they had put 4 in place was going to work and how meaningful it ' 5 was going to be. 6 There was also the aspect of potentially l 7 whoever signed off on these NCRs may have 8 committed a wrongdoing'. So that issue is still on 9 as far as whether we get OI involved. 1 i 10 So, it is not the kind of thing I wanted 11 to bring up, that part of the issue, at the time la of the exit. That's the reason we didn't 13 initially bring it up. 14 Now, the inspector involved, i 15 Mr. E11ershaw, I think went a step too far when he 16 was presenting the item and said non-conformance L i 17 hadn't been properly evaluated. I didn't intend i 18 for him to say that; and then we went on and in 19 the meeting,. we told Mr. Counsil with Phillips { 20 there that the we were waiting to see how well ' l 21 their evaluation of NCRs was going to take place, 22 which this was one of them. 23 We had already determined that the NCR l 24 was improperly dispositioned. The NCR disposition 25 was very much improper, and there was never'any --
- . ~ . . . . - . % .- y. ,g e.+..w--+u ee 4,. . e . , - - , . . - . , - e
4 1 I think any of the folks, from myself to Ian 2 Barnes to Lee E11ershaw, will tell you we had in i 3 our mind what we were going to do with that and w e. j 4 had other alternatives. 5 We had other intentions that maybe 6 Mr. Phillips wasn't aware of. This wasn't the 7 kind of thing that we would discuss with 8 Mr. Phillips. 9 : So, it was not a case of something wasn't 10 going to be identified as a vicistion. It was a 11 case of looking to see whether the licensee was 12 doing with his program. At point at time, we were 13 going to come back on that issue. It was very 14 important to see how this set of NCRs that he had 15 written ,were evaluated because they were all these 16 "except as-is" type of engineering evaluations 17 where we found a number of -- we have found NCRs 18 which were improperly dispositioned. 19 More basic than just paperwork is the 20 fact that we found right off at the start 4s a , , i 21 result of a p:.Llic meeting NCRs that had b,een 22 dispositioned on weld reinforcements on a l 23 containment liner for wnich the NCR had ', { ; 24 dispositioned "use as is" for which the co6 says I l' 25 the maximum reinforcement .is "X" amount for)which I
-~
l 1 we had written a violation. 2 As a result of that violation, TUGCO was 3 taking this action to go back in and look at the 4 their 300 or so NCRs through engineering. 5 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) So, the reason then that 6 i you didn't assess the violation at the time was J 7 you were going to do more work and further develop I a 8 what you had? 9 A. We would make a violation'of it at the 10 appropriate time, but we were trying to assess how 11 well the program that TUGCO had in place to go 12 back and look at the as-is NCRs was going to 13 work. 1 14 That had been discussed all the way up to 15 Mr. Martin. In fact, it was his direction that we 16 ought to wait on writing a violation on that 17 particular item. We had been in Mr. Martin's 18 office also because we were looking at the t 19 possibility of wrongdoing and the fact that 20 somebody signed off on this NCR. 21 It always leaves you the question of why 22 was it signed when it's not properly 23 dispositioned. l 24 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) The issue originated 25 from --
i
~
1 A. It initiated from our side, the CPRT 2 inspection we were doing when we found this. When l 3 we got into it, the NCR had downgraded the support 4 for which the question had been raised as to the 5 disposition on the NCRs whether there were
- 1 6 adequate quality records for these particular \
1 7 valves. l 8 E11etshaw and Barnes having been previous 4 l 9 vendor inspectors immediately said, "We don't know . 10 that that is really the case." 11 Our inspector was Keith Graham and he 12 found they had welded theseklips on an area where l i 13 there was a letter. So, that wouldn't have been a i 14 proper weld; but then as that thing developed, I 15 can remember my folks telling me they didn't have l j i 16 proper quality assurance. 17 I'm the one that said to call the : c e m en, tre.e, l 18 individual that we knew that was on the codg and 19 find out if they violated NF by doing what they 20 just did and the answer came back that on top of 21 that they violated NF and said the whole thing l< 22 should have been an NF type of support. It should 23 have had all the documentation required under i < 24 ASME. 25 Q. That's all I would say on that inspection
.i l
--e-.. ..w,,ewee.-wee-o..**-=.* e'- '- - ~ * .._l_j_ E --_
I i 662 l report. I l 2 A. Okay, 3 (Off the record disdussion.) t l 4 MR. MULLEY: Back on the 1 5 record, 6 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) I'd like for a couple of ! 7 minutes to discuss an allegation that apparently ( 8
'was made to an NRC cons,ultant named Tom Young at 9 the Comanche Peak site.
10 Apparently this allegation was referred 11 in some manner to you. Could you, if you recall, 1 l 12 discuss with me the allegation and how the region I l 13 handled the matter? 14 A. The allegation was identified I believe 15 from Mr. Phillips by Mr. Young who had some ' 16 conversation with site personnel. I asked 17 Mr. Phillips to write it up in a memo so that it 18 was documented clearly what that allegation was, ! 19 and that is this memo that we have here. 20 Q. Okay. t 21 MR. MULLEY: I'm going to mark l 22 k for exhibit a memo from from Phillips to 23 Tom Westerman, subject allegation dated 24 November 25, 1985. This will be Exhibit 25 No. 16.)
wwW *
]
l i j 1 (Whereupon the exhibit was 1 2 marked for identification as Westerman 3 Exhibit No. 16.) 4 A. Okay. I took this memo that he wrote me i 5 and brought it into the region and provided it to 6 the allegations coordinator who is Mr. Emerson 7 ./ which is the current procedure to handle an 8 allegation. J 9 Mr. Emerson then contacted, as I 10 understand, Mr. Young to find out the specifics of
)
i 11 the allegation because the memo that Mr. Phillips 12 wrote was very vague. It indicated, for example, 13 "It is alleged that Texas Utilities Generating ! 14 Company management has become increasingly 15 uncomfortable with adverse trends reported by the 1 16 site consultant group. i It seems that these trends j i 17 are viewed as embarrassing and possibly as a 18 threat to licensing the plant in the immediate l l 19 future. Members of the consultant group have been 20 informed that consultant's contract will not be ; 21 renewed; and some connect this action with TUGCO's 22 frustration with not being able to control the 23 actions of the trending group. Two of the 24 consultant personnel working in the inspection 25 process control group stated that the corrective I t
6 . l I action taken by TUGCO quality engineering is a 1 2 joke and this is specifically true of electrical 3 are trends." 4 Mr. Phillips said, "I recommend that this 5 matter be investigated immediately because the 1 6 consultant grou'p will probably leave the site i 7 within thirty days. At this point in time all the 8 group is available for interviews on site; but 9 after they leave site, it will require a far 10 greater NRC effort. This item is also in 11 important because it implicates current TUGCO 12 management. Also activity in the electrical area 13 in Unit II is extremely high and if adverse trends 14 . continue, improper QC inspections and improper 15 work may be proceeding." . 16 Now Mr. . Emerson was given that memo and 17 you may want to talk to Mr. Emerson but he 18 subsequently contacted Mr. Young who started off 19 very, as I understand, vague and he didn't want to r 20 provide the names of who these folks were and was 21 reluctant, I think, to give information. l i 22 1 All I know is Mr. Emerson came to me with 23 some questions. His reaction was to what happened 24 when he called Mr. Young and then from that end of 25 it, you would have to talk to Mr. Emerson. I know
= - - - _ = - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
i I 1 it struck him different. 2 As a result of Mr. Emerson talking to 3 Mr. Young, he did give us two names of folks and 4 gave me the telephone number of those folks and I 5 on January -- well, my memo is dated 6 January 9. I don't know the date that I talked to l 7 those folks; but they were both still on site. 8 The memo I wrote to Mr. Emerson after I called him 9 on the telephone to talk to him was dated 10 January 9, 1986. 11 Both of the individuals were still on { 12 site at the time and I took the information that 13 they had and I provided that by memo to 14 Mr. Emerson. I also provided a copy of this to 15 Mr. Cliff Hale who was working on QA/QC allegation ; 16 issues on site. 17 There was an allegation file opened up at ' 18 one point which is 4-85-A-121. It was a part of 19 another -- there was another allegation that came 20 out of the same group. In fact, I went over to a j i 21 motel room and interviewed three of these folks l 22 and wrote all that up and that was also entered ! I 23 into our allegation system under a separate ! ! 24 number. I don't have that number, but it all l 25 related to this particular group and their _ . . . ~ . _ . . . , _ _ _ _ _ - . . . _r _ . _ . - . . , . _ . . . ______j__
sus - I concerns. 2 Q. How did the second allegation surface? 3 A. It seems to me that came from a j 4 Mr. Sutton who had been a previous Region IV 5 employee who had said there's some PAC folks that 4 ( ! 6 you need to talk to. l l j 7 Q. PAC 7 8 A. The company is called Project assistance 9 Corporation. I believe Joe Birmingham -- we 10 talked through Joe Birmingham. He knew one of 11 these folks and contact with him was set up that I 12 would go meet him at a certain place, which I did, 13 in fact, which Joe Birmingham was present during ! i 14 that interview. 15 After that one, I did write up another 16 memo summarizing the issues that the folks 17 presented at the time I talked to them for which I 18 turned over to Mr. Emerson, which there is a 19 separate allegation file, who has been in contact 20 with them; and there was a vagueness as to who was i 21 confidential and who was not confidential. You ! 22 have to talk to Emerson as far as that goes. t 23 As far as the substance of the I 24 allegations, both this one that was made to Young 25 and the allegations that were made by these i __________a- - - - -
'WV,
- 1 individuals, those have all been looked at by 2 Mr. Hale.
3 In fact, some of this resulted in a 4 violation. There may be more. I don't remember 5 how many total violations came out of these j 6 particular allegations and they will be coming 7 forth in a report that either has or will be 8 issued. I have lost track of that at this point 9 in time. 10 Q. So, your involvement with both of these 11 allegations were met through PAC people, the three 12 PAC people in a motel and discussed the allegation 13 with them and then presented a memo to Emerson? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And the first two people that were 16 referred to you by Young or through Phillips, you 'i ' 17 telephonically contacted them and prepared a 18 memor? l
\.
19 A. On site, yes, sir. 20 Q. And Emerson opened up files in both? ; 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. As actively reviewing? 23 ! A. Those files are still active and I l 24 following up on those files. In fact, the file 25 and the memos and all the information were taken d
1 I and given to Cliff Hale who is a part of the 2 ongoing look at QA/QC-related allegations and has 3 followed through on those allegation. ! 4 I also recall on the allegation that came 5 to Mr. Young -- I got some direction I believe 6 1 from Mr. Martin whom I don't have -- I don't have 7 the memo because I couldn't get down to the site 8 last week. I think the gist of that was to write 9 a memo. Anytime you have an NR'C hat on, anybody 10 that contact you, it's not off the record. - i l 11 This was part of the discussion that has t 1 12 gone on between Mr. Emerson and Mr. Young when i' 13 they were trying to identify who these folks were.
~
14 Q. Let me before we go any further identify ! 15 as Exhibit No. 17 the January 9, 1986, memo from 16 Westerman to Emerson, the subject of which is 1 17 allegation 4-85-A-121. 18
.(Whereupon.the exhibit was !
i 19 marked for identification as Westerman 20 Exhibit No. 17.) 21 Q. (By Mr. Mulley)' Any of these 22 ! allegations, do they merit a referral to OI? l 23 A. I don't know if -- that's a final 'l 24 determination. You'd have to talk to Emerson. 25 We've looked at it. We were going to look at the 0
~
_ _ '~~~?; .. '
I technical issues and then look some more to see 2 whether i t was or wasn't because we got into some 3 gray kind of things where there were folks that 4 had i nitia11ed come inspection type things for 5 which it wasn't really clear in the instructions. 6 In fact, I think there's probably some 7 more correspondence from Hale. It seems like some 8 statements were made that could be. In fact, it's 9 even been referred. ! It may have been referred to l 10 OI. There's some other correspondence there that 11 may well have gone tc OI. I think Cliff Hale 12 I 1 looked at that and felt it was was inadequate l 13 procedure, rather than wrongdoing and making 14 absolutely clear to folks what they were doing, 15 whether they were inspecting. 16 I guess that's what kind of confused, 17 whether OI would go get involved in this with any 18 high priority. I think you need to talk to 19 Emerson. ! 20 Q. Is it normal Region IV procedure when
)
21 this is done to provide feedback to the allegers? 22 A. Yes, sir. That vould be done through 23 Mr. Emerson. I 24 Q. Okay. When you talked to these people, 25 especially the two people over the telephone, did I O
., m .
L__._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ __ _ _ _ _m._.__ A. AA.____ _a_._.2 _.A-
otu - 1 they classify these concerns as allegations or did 2 they classify them as concerns? 3 A. I don't reueaber if we were even asked I 4 about a concern or allegation. We just talked 5 about really what the issue was. ! The fellow l 6 didn't say, "I'm making an allegation." Neither 7 one of the two said, 'I'm making an\4 allegation." 8 The man said, "I have a concern here and here's 9 the concern I have.". { l 10 Q. Does it make any difference as far as ' 11 Region IV is concerned about whether something is 12 classified as an allegation or concern? Do they 13 both get the same sort of attention? 1 14 A. I call it a concern and if the man comes 15 forward and identifies this formally to an NRC . 16 representative, then it's an allegation. It's 17 handled as an allegation. 18 Q. That's all I have on that issue. l 19 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) Let me ask some general i 20 requests as we wrap this interview up. In your 21 dealings with Shannon Phillips, did you in any way ! 22 ever harrass him into adopting your way of i I 23 thinking concerning whether to write a violation 24 or downgrade a violation? 25 A. Barrass? No. Discuss how to handle a r 2: = . = _ - _ - -
1 1 particular issue? Yes, we did discuss. It wasn't 2 really an attempt on my part to harrass 3 Mr. Phillips, but I still had to have a competent, 4 technically competent issue; and we had to develop 5 it and we had to talk about it and it,had to be 6 one that stood on itself. 7 Q. What about intimidation or threatening or 8 implied threats that he would be removed from 9 site? 10 A. I've never made a threat to the man. 11 Q. During the 'imes when you were having t 12 these problems and having these many discussions, 13 from what I understand, they were basically 14 between you and Shannon. , j 15 Why didn't you or Mr. Johnson or somebody ( 16 get more people involved and sit,him down in a 17 round table discussion and bring in some of these IB experts and try to explain to him where you were 19 coming from? 20 A. I know that the direction after these two 21 reports were to let him write it and then we were i 22 going to get all this group of folks together to 23 take a look at it and then he could talk about his 24 issues and then we could try to resolve it and 25 maybe that would be a way for the man to f Larrrr : -~ ~
- - 1- --
~
~ ~
1 understand what are the requirements. 2 To bring a group of management people 3 down to talk to Mr. Phillips, he might take that 4 as more intimidation than just letting him write 5 his reports. That's the direction we were going 6 in, letting him write his reports. Let him put it 7 in a final form and then go from there, and that 8 was the direct' ion we were into. It got do the 9 point where we weren't going to try to interact. 10 Q. I know you had lots of discussions 11 Mr. Johnson concerning Phillips' report writing, 12 both from a technical standpoint and also from a 13 pure and simple procedural format, you know, where 14 he was repeating things and preaching too much, l 15 things like. that. 16 But Phillips was never, you know, brought 17 up here and sat down with Mr. Johnson? The three 18 of'you never got together to' discuss some of these 19 problems? 20 A. I think after the first report, the i 21 second one I brought the draft up that I showed 22 you and I gave it to Mt. Johnson and Mr. Johnson - l 23 came down to the site and had a discussion with
- 24 Mr. Phillips.
25 I wasn't there for that discussion, but iwe __: -
~ * '
1 that was another management type having the 2 discussion Mr. Phillips, which whether I was there 3 or not, I think we were trying -- I was trying to . ( i 4 do that. I was trying to -- I had kept management , 5 as well informed as I could on the different - 6 things that we'got into with Mr. Johnson. 7 After those two reports, it got to be l 8 there weren't really issues because there was a 9 time -- there was a lot of other things such as 10 Phillips on vacation or off to the interviews in 11 Washington and what have you when there wasn't a 12 lot of things done. He didn't have any issues. 13 So that really until we got into the last report 14 was the first time we had got back to some issues 15 where Mr. Phillips is off developing his a 16 positions. 17 There just weren't issues there. It 18 wasn't that he quit writing issues. There wasn't l 19 much inspection going on to find issues to write. ' ' 20 Q. Phillips arrived at Comanche Peak in the 21 summer of 1984. It doesn't appear or at least we i { 22 haven't been told of any problems until until 23 November of '85. 24 Bad he not written inspection reports 25 before then?
*.+ w w.e.m .e-w_,, .-. . . . .
1 A. I think up until that time, most of the 2 inspection reports that Phillips had gotten 3 involved in were where he got out and had to do l 4 them himself. When he gets out and does them 5 himself, it's a very limited report. He was 6 assigning consultants to do the reports and they 7 came back with issues and he was trylag to deal 8 with those issues. That's where we got into these 9 two. reports. Mr. Phillips was trying to deal with 10 issues that the consultants were coming up with. 11 Q. During the interviews over the last 12 couple of weeks you often talked about minimizing, 13 you know, the documented correspondence back and 14 forth between NRC and TUGCO and, you know, trying 15 to handle things like through meetings instead of 16 writing it down. 17 So that I completely understand what your 18 philosophy is and how you felt it should be ' i 19 handled, could you explain to me one more tim 3 ' 20 exactly where you're coming from as far as going 21 and sitting down with the licensee management and j 22 discussing the problem with them and getting a 23 commitment or something short of actually writing
- 24 a violation and having them come back.
25 A. Well, in an area where there's not a
- T_--_? ? ?_~_ - _T ----_ -- --?
1 violation for which we've talked about, you have a 2 violation and you have issues that are not 3 violations; but there is an issue there. It 4 certainly.needs the licensee management to look at { l 5 it. You've also got to be careful not to make l
- 6 them do something that they're not committed to 7 do.
8 You sit down as,one professional to 9 another professional and you talk about how things 10 are being handled and this could be programmatic 11 and could lead to a problem. There are certainly 12 ways you might consider looking at these, and what 13 are you doing here. 14 So, I don't see that discussions with 15 licensee management along those lines is something 16 that you wouldn't hold. Now, if we got a 17 violation, then I believe you write a violation. 18 You don't handle a violation at a meeting. i I know ] 19 there were a couple of occasions that we sat down 20 and went through some of the codes and 10 CFR'c 21 and commitments and PSARs. There were occasions 22 where you could read it and, you know, you can j 23 interpret it as a violation. 24 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) However, your decision 25
~
was not to cite them but to discuss it. The
._ ____________s._______
oro
- i 1
alternative could have been write the violation, 2 give it to them, have them come back and write as 3 to why what they did was correct. That's also an 4 alternative. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. 5 That's an alternative. You chose to go the other 6 way. 7 Do you feel that'the way you decided to 8 go was the better way? 9 A. I felt like in that particular issue it 10 was very gray as to what the requirements were. ? ! 11 There were conflicts between what different groups
. 12 within the NRC had done, that it was best to go 13 and get an interpretation of what the NRC's 14 position should be. That's the basis for not 15 making an item such as that a violation. It was a l 16 very gray item.
17 Q. It seems to me in the discussions we've 16 had, your philosophy is that, you know, if you j 19 have a violation, you want the violation to stick; 20 and it seems to me that oftentimes you've gone 21 through and kind of dissected the violation as to i 22 what arguments the licensee could come back with I 23 to say it's not a violation and then you kind of 24 made their argument for them, not to say that - 25 they're not going to make the same ones.
^-
<-own.<w-n.m-ae.m. . ...a , , _ ,
1 Oftentimes it seems to me you made their 1 2 argument for them, some very good arguments; and 3 based on your own argument, you decided not to 4 write the violation where we've done some research l 5 and they're not really committed. It seems to me J 6 you made a good argument for the licensee; and 7 f based on that, you decided not to cite the 8 vi 91ation. Maybe I've got that wrong. That's the
]
l s 8 9 flavor I was picking bp in some cases. I'm not f i 10 judging whether that's a good procedure or bad l 11 procedure. 12 I just want to make sure that's the way 13 that you felt that it should be done. 14 Q. I (By Mr. Goldberg) We had a number of ) 15 examples, such as the spool piece is one, where 16 you expected that the licensee was going to 17 institute corrective action or he promised he 1 18 would come up with what was necestary. j i 19 In other words, he was able to from your 20 point of view correct the problem within a 21 reasonable time, a reasonable time which you felt l 22 was before the inspection report was issued. I 23 So, that's another variation of what 1 ! 24 George is saying, not to cite the licensee because l 25 in your mind you thought the licensee could come
ll A 1 up with the corrective action before the 2 inspection report was issued. 3 A, I don't think I really thought the - 4 licensee could come up with the corrective l ( 5 action. When I read the violation that had been J 6 written, at first it was written that the heat 7 number and what have you hadn't been on the pipe 8 and it raised a question. Now, up.until the time 9 I issued an inspection report, if the licensee 10 comes back with "I have gone out and I found that 11 this spool piece number is there and the spool 12 piece number is adequate for traceability," I I 13 don't see issuing a violation in an inspection 14 report when there's not a violation; and I think i { 15 all the folks involved in that clearly agreed that 16' it wasn't a violation. 17 Q. We're trying to read you the best we i 18 can. We have one area where it's a gray area. ! 19 There was an area where the interpretation is
- 20 involved. !
l ! 1 21 I f Q. (By Mr. Mulley) For example, in process ' 22 records is one when you say, "Well, the licensee 23 l could consider this at any time to be in process 24 records. Therefore, there's nothing wrong. We're 25 not going to cite them."
' ' ' - ' ' ' ' ~
o.__________.____m__._.-- -- - - - - - - - --
l 1 A. I base that also on the fact that the TRT l 2 SssR ' folks and FS AR- 11 had drawn a similar conclusion. 3 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) This was a debatable 1 4 point?
)
5 A. Yes. I would not want to write a 6 violation that/hp"nflicted until I got it verified. 7 Q. Then the second aspect to it is an 8 area -- maybe spool piece was not a good example. { 9 We've had other examples in the past. You might i l I 10 be able to think of the good ones where the i { 11 l licensee went ahead and instituted their f 12 corrective action or found the problem or 13 retrieved the records or did something from the 14 exit that occurred based on that inspection until i 15 before the inspection report was out. 16 These inspection reports took an 17 elongated period of time. l I think the first one 1 18 took several months. So, it's ceem to be -- 19 A. There were two things there. Number one, j 20 if i t technically had been a violation, I del't 21 care whether it was a violation and the licensee ' 22 took all kinds of corrective action, it was a 23 violation and it stood as a violation. 24 However, there was like the one case with 25 in the mixer blades that everything has been done . . . . - - . -- -.- - = - b 4W. eh'.4*ess.4 %mm anw, . W w ge yo, n%m.ga.q. % j,,,, ,
l 1 in my opinion. 444 W e rgg It didn't really need to be don ~e 2 as a violation. i It stood as a violation because , 3 technically it was a violation. It didn't require 4 a reply from the licensee. That was my judgment 5 as a manager. 6 Now, other issues where the licensee 7 before the inspection report had been issued came 8 back and technically showed that there wasn't a 9 violation, then I as a manage'r can't see the 10 inspection report going out with*a violation. 11 Q. At the time of the exit review, there.may 12 be a violation evident at the exit? I 13 A. There was a question; but if technically 14 somebody can come and show me before the time I 15 issue an inspection report that I'm technically in . 16 error -- you know,.for example, I don't have to ! 17 i have a heat number on the pipe. I I can have a 18 spool piece number. Then that's completely 19 adequate with what the code says you can have. i 20 Then I as a manager don't feel I want to make a 21 violation just to have somebody respond to me for l 22 something that's not a violation. 23 When I got, like, the NAMCO. switch issue 24 for which the inspector didn't have the 25 documentation, well, I went to look for the e
- ww.m <w ..w.~..
oos
- 1 documentation from an individual that I felt,would 2 be able to provide it. i They produced the !
3 documentation that covered the safety-related 4 switch. Then in my opinion that is no longer a 5 violation. There was still some question on the h 6 non-safety related switch for which I would not 7 make a violation, but I left that as an unresolved ! 8 item. ! l 9 I still had some question as to what 10 ) effect that might have. I think that developed 11 before it was over with. That there was a third 12 traveler which I just talked to Mr. Phillips at 13 break which covered the non-safety switch. .
.4 Q. You mean Mr. Wagner?
15 A. Mr. Wagner. I What did I say? 16 Q. Phillips. 17 A. Mr. Wagner. i 18 Q. Another example we discussed was 19 retrievability. I think you said that since 20 there's no place that tells you how soon or how 21 much time it takes, as long as you can get it 22 f retrievable -- if I were to get a violation, I 23 would say exactly that. I would say, " Hey, this 24 says retrievable. It doesn't say how long. We 25 can get it for you. Just give us enough time." ____2___1_"_""T"'-**'~'
~
1 It seems that you're making an argument 2 as the licensee would.in knocking down a 3 violation. 4 A. There are two kinds of records we've been 5 talking about. We talked about records that 1 6 weren't 50.55(e) which I indicated they were 7 , retrievable. If you wanted to go at them one at a 8 l time and there were documents that'you cou}d find 9 and you could find them, that's not the kind of i
\
10 retrievable we're talking about. l 1 11 If we're talking about a material 12 document such as $hR, for example, it was not l 13 available at the time, they couldn't find it 14 available at the time of the-exit which before the 15 time that inspection report went out, if that l' 16 licensee produced that document and said, " Don't 17 i 4 cite me because I'll give you that' document," I 18 wouldn't accept that kind of response from a 19 licensee, " Don't cite me because I'll get it for-20 you." . 21 I don't want that unless the piece of 22 paper actually appeared which it did in the case 23 of the CMTR. I don't know all the circumstances 24 of why the inspectors didn't find it to begin 25 with. I ha ve a little suspicion as to the
. ~ - . . . . . . . . . , . . _ , . , , , . . .
1$ 683 1 experience of the folks involved and how they went 2 about trying to find that piece.of paper. 3 So, there's a case where'the piece of 4 paper appeared before the inspection report went 5 out and technica11'y I didn't feel I ought to write ! 6 + that as a violation. 7 , Q. Talking to some of the inspectors, they s 8 allege that in IE bulletins they weren't able to 9 do some of the hardware stuff because they didn't j 10 have the paperwork to compare it with. They felt i 1 11 at the time it was not retrievable. 12 A. We're talking about records retrievable 13 and an IE bulletin.
~ I don't know whether there is i l
14 that requirement. Retrievable in the. sense that 15 they wanted to go to a file which listed every l 16 piece of paper that was ever developed in response l 17 to that bulletin, I don't know that there's very 18 many utlities that probably have a system that 19 does that. 20 If you look~at;the inspectors that had i ( 21 been down there in the past, they took the-reply l L 22 to the bulletin and went to look the way it took I i 23 to find whatever paper they found it was necessary 24 and it is retrievable and you can go find the 25 pieces of paper that are needed to go close the 7 _,-,_ ..._- _ _ . - - _ , . . . - . ._, - .
004
- l 1
bulletin, not that it had to be listed in a 2 specific file which made it very simple for 3 somebody to go .13ok at. 4 Q. I notice on several occasions a question 5 came up concerning whe,ther or not a finding was 6 valid. Oftentimes you would have questions that I 7 thought were' good that could have been answered in 8 a reasonably short amount of time by telling 9 Phillips or the consultant or whatever, 'Go out 10 and get me this piece of information and we can 11 get this issue resolved now," instead of being an i 1 12 unresolved item and having it hang. 13 A. We got into the one like the audit of the 14 reactor vessel. Probably no doubt in my mind it 15 wasn't on a schedule, but the other aspect of I 16 that, there was a legitimate concern identified on 17 my part because I wanted to see -- in the { 18 l mechanical area, maybe it should have been an open i 19 item; but what I wanted to do was the mechanical l 20 < area to make sure of all aspects of the program. 1 l 1 21 I would also like to see -- it's still a I i i 22 question. They may not have audited the ! l 23 mechanical a r e a_, and it would be nice to go do 24 that to know that. There was also an additional i 1 25 thing that dealt with that. 1 _ . _ . _ _ . _-,____..__a L__l~1T X L YY
i 685 I l 1 In fact, there was an issue in the I 2 specific action plan that dealt with audits for ! 3 which TUGCO is going to come up with final 4 corrective actions from that in the results
' ]
5 reports for which I wanted to see -- there's a i 6 mark to go look at, mechanical area audits and how 7 competent your program is and is it encompassing 8 all the aspects that it was required to look at. I 9 Therefore, you treat it as an unresolved
- 10 item. It really doesn't give me any great i
it 1 11 was not in my estimation a violation. Although I 12 i didn't go look at the schedule, at the' top of my { 13 head I doubted there was a schedule. i 1 14 Q. There were couple of connected times 15 when, just like you said, you felt off the top of I 16 your head that,. you know, there was something ! 17 wrong with what the inspector was saying and you 18 I didn't have them go back and check. You didn't 19 think the inspector was asking the right person 20 and apparently, people in the past had found 21 records and had they gone to the right person, 22 shipping the reports off to the installation and 23 you didn't think the inspector had done enough 24 work. Because of that you decided not to write
~
25 the violation. 4 3
P 686 i l 1 Once, again, if you didn't trust what the 2 inspector was giving you', you didn't think he was 3 doing a good enough job or you yourself could have { 4 checked or had somebody else check over this guy 5 and apparently from what you're showing us, the < 6 inspector did cite some wrong, you know, wrong j 7 regulations and requirements and maybe he 8 didn't -- apparently from the CB&I, he was wrong 9 wh'en he said that the records we're sent off in a 10 cardboard box. t i 11 You talked about retrievability of the 12 records. You felt that had they asked somebody 13
... else, instead of double checking, you elected not 14 to write the violation.
15 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) What George is 16 saying: \ Could you have made an effort to get back l 17 to Phillips and tell him he didn't talk to the t 18 right individual or gone one more step and make , 19 that known to him as soon as you could and get the I 20 issue resolved? In other words, get that 21 information out'as soon as you can. . 22 A. I I'm not sure whether Phillips was close 23 to the issue. I would assume that the inspector 24 had gone and actually found out -- and the way I 25 would read that and -- and found out the records
-._,_.-e e-. hd
_a.-wee---ar--.
. __ _ _ A___ _ . _ _ _ n.__.__ _______m._ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
en1 - l 1 were 3 hipped. So, I wouldn't know to say, 2
"Phillips, go back and look at how those records 3 were shipped."
4 Q. I guess it's one thing to assume but 5 another thing to communicate. 6 A. Well, trying to take every issu,e that 7 seventeen different inspectors had and going back 8 and telling each one of them how to go take care 9 of their issue was more than anywhere near 10 reasonable. If I said, " Hey, go bring me over 11 every piece of. paper,you look at and everything 12 you do," it's hot possible. 13 Q. When the inspectors put their time in for-14 their work, do you check the.766 time and look at 15 their reports and do a periodic audit to see if 16 what they're saying are their they're putting in 17 is reasonable? 18 A. I can't say I have for any that we've 19 done. I can't say for what we've done so far that 20 I've done that. As a matter of fact, we have a
! l 21 back log of 766's on this facility which we're !
22 trying to sort out what we're going to do with 23 those 766's. That thing I want to decide at some 24 point in time is how much of those I count against 25 25.12 and how much I count against what we've done e.. ,w %+j..~.% . , , . . , , ,
)
sua - 6 1 as reactive inspection. 2 Q. The other question I~ had which is related 3 to the other point: If you have a utility -- let 4 me ask your How Od you think a utility views an 5 area -- an inspection is.done in a particular area - 6 like 50.55(e). It say at the bottom, "No I 7 violations or deviations are reported in this area 8 or third parties." Should one view by virtue.of j i 9 no deviations or non-compliances, that the utility
]
10 is in compliance with regulations such as in the i 11 50.55 issues, such as in the records issue, such 12 as the Bisco issue, that the utility is, in fact, ' i 13 in compliance; and at the end of the process
]
14 before the NOL is issued, would the utility be 15 surprised if he finds he's not in comp 1,iance? i 16 Should he be surprised? 17 A. I don't think any one inspector can go 18 out and say everything here is fine and not l 19 somebody come back and' find something that might a 20 violation. I 21 There were cases where things were l 22 identified as unresolved. So there's a potential 23 violation. So, the utility shouldn't have a good 24 feeling about Bisco or other issues that are there 25 particularly when they-got an unresolved item.
- o. --
i
- l_------__Am. - -----a___ -------_-----._iman- - - - - - - _ _ - - - -
689 1 Q. Also many of these items get closed out. 2 A. If you go back and look at the unresolved 1 3 items, you take a hard look to see if it's a 4 violation. l 5 O. So, the last sentence that no compliances 6 have been identified, essentially what does that 7 mean to you then? 8 A. That means no non-compliances or 9 violations -- in other words, to me it means I 10 don't have one specifically citing.you for it. It 11 doesn't preclude that I have other issues that I 12 said were unresolved which I may come cite you 13 for. 14 i Q. Do we have a lot of examples of that? 15 f A. I guess we got a lot of unresolved. items 16 outstanding for which we'>re going to reel them in 17 before we're through with inspection here and for 18 those that are violations, there will be i 19 violations. 20 Q. i But that only possibly may delay 21 corrective action that that licensee institutes. 22 A. The licensee is tracking each of those 23 D&LAVPri items. Like in the case of t h e -v alva , which was 24 unresolved item, he had taken all kinds of
~
25 corrective action for which -- even the time he
- m. 4 p -maae
- m. 4 .
- e. .. . .
..4,~*'? .
't
., . ' , #.=- g eau
1 c. e ' fa over to discuss the reply they were going to 2 give. They said, "We don't have a violation here 3 because we've done all these corrective actions,' 4 for which I said,
,..' Fine. You did them, but you -
5 did them after the fact. The fact that you'didn't ( 6 have this problem identified, you didn't take . ( 7 [ proper corrective actions and, therefore, it's a
* ,.,c. .,
*$ < ~
. violation."
8 -' r -{ .,
^
.. r .;; ..
3c. 2,.. . \; P .
. ~#. .
9
,'N'So7(thisi:onNo5atio'n'tatthey'renot-10 .. .
taking action on,is..., sues-that- .are identified,':
;v " 11
" .ya z. .. .
.. assw . w ,n v..
t 6 t's,.notStrue. If<Irgoibac'kiand oo k , 'f o r '
.;; % .s O , % , .n: - . . . yb 12' ' example, 5 & # W.+:'S W #F.VNd'% W
. &. ' . . ?
%. .a .-u . g e p .:-.+ ~ - at :the records ~aream ~over.and
- ~~:$andFI'q . ;5 **
^
13 look a t 'thie ~ vare; botise st'or'ag4'- i he 'prociirem.ent N ". , 14 (.;u s -l W .-~,.- e y .c w % " 9f' . W WF'^%9' ;
, . documents'and n . u. : I". send.back somefio O.
- 4 . , , . - A%
J. C. ' ** 15 t o,. . . a .g o ao nu dt .gdew x.:.. se
.=
r dh. . ,?., <.* i , , . ; h' ,*
. i s .. ;.get e;thhtt
, $4
~ ' " . .. ' K .C P :. acts that-If they di%..m d,.s k h a v e ,.- i d d,. G n u . w .e. a c t u -
.+. b. .
17
. n. :.
em:n :w :%We.x y. didn't d6~this, real factual' ., ,. form,'those.vould be j 18 e.A% . a .- :
- E M E:nM-violations.- @. .-.D Wm m:"...
; .. s ...a. J.,dcHJ.'4 4!.M(FG-l' M?*. .. ' z' ". e . . -
~ -
19 F c e # A $A<aw. - - Q.
- ..~ .
8 0 ,: t h.'e. . . .y ,say . m.. .o,t .t.a. - -k.eWo. r r.ec ti ve .' K.:. . s-y,&,q. . :! I doubt :there' yup (;;gg@?go%;p:c.. actio qv 20 A. 3;- 3' '
's . e ver: :not .. :-
ing;to . be co r r e c t i ve ' a c t i o n, M e 4Wyyyy b.. % A e; - 4.2 ;'ff ei
.* 21 3
cc,h:.? .
.: 's unce~ solved.. * '
m v 4 M q $.taken evenfexperience @'.cfr$ % 4 22 From'.the,4 m seein ee,
. 5.y they are. tracking those? .' Jl&g;with'this licens.
23
;.t.9%f,ySQ, ' i.d w
- m They".do;y have them.
.yBsp &
24 Q. .
~'
Tius ' terms used as welll'as' w p.M. W what 's said in - 25 Part . 2 of the, regulations'is'adQ Ys,n Yeel' ear on.that .
* $ NI* j "f" **T. 5 F
.E. .* <t n,Gkt. 94 [ . . ' ~w . ,.w....s. .. .m.
' r ..
3'::Q,*.
- /kp *
. +. p;n %s;,
t
^ o %%gy,!.h u.*4 3 ,,d .f iy,h.h * [s w bk.'.t(,n.Oy'sg g .,a., en ? *;^ +.;
- a p Q.w ;g':eg}g V
- w. . ..y$ XC,7G f %. T *,.- 'V e ^ ' ?% % .
)
1
.1 .
)
1 i as it is in the case of an non-compliance. l 2 A. If I have got something that's gray for 3 which management has some prerogative as to how -- . 4 the facts aren't here or I felt that something 5 more we ought to look at, i t's treated as an d 6 . unresolved item, 7 That doesn't mean it's not going to get j 8 corrective action. It's tracked and even open . 9 items are tracked and we go back and.we'close each l 10 of those-items and they will be. closed at this. 11 facility prior to its being licensed. 12 Those have a direct effect on start up ' f o
]
13 that facility. Most all unresolved items which-14 are potential violations will be resolved prior to 15 the time of the licensing. 16 Now we trWkd all of those items,1HR- t
.i 17 always in the report. They are given a unique l 18 number. It's entered into the tracking system l 1 19 that we have on site and those are all going to be 20 ace,ounted for before this facility is licensed. J 21 Q. Do you all unresolved it' ems as potential 22 violations?
23 A. Some of these Mr. Phillips got, all I can 24 say is it is management's prerogative. It might 25 have a violation. O
=+..m-..--+e%,- + p.--+,,,wa, ,,og. a , , , ,, .,a p, , ,
v,4 . i 1 Q. In other words, you do consider 2 unresolved items as potential violations? 3 A. Yes, sir. 4 Q. Okay. 5 A. Now, I consiper them; but there may be 6 some cases in the Phillips' scenario that we've 7 been through, I really -- to give you my true gut 8 reaction, I would say it wasn't a violation and'it 9 wasn't an unresolved item; but because we got into 10 such a turmoil -- it's like the description of the 11 records facility and the PSAR. I think once we i 12 all sit down and talk about that thing, at the IE 13 QAB branch, that's going to go away. 14 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) It's almest seems easier 15 to let the licensee sit down and have all these 16 discussions and come back to us instead of us 17 going through all this. It seems like you're 18 doing a lot of work for the licensee. 19 - A. You don't write a licensee a violation 20 just to have him write you back something. That's-21 not what the enforcement policy is about. It's 22 not a means of writing him a question for him-to , 23 answer your question. It's a means of taking an 24 enforcement action when there's an enforcement 25 action due. I i l
-~
m I Q. You do you agree then if there is a 4 2 violation -- if the licensee has done something 3 against 10 CFR or against the standard, even 4 though they may.h' ave a good excuse, it's still a 5 violation; is that correct? ( 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) Back to the Bisco 8 issue, you said you would have written it up as a 9 violation for failu're to report. 19 A. Yes. i
/
11 Q. Under 50.55(e)? J 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Why don't you go ahead and do that? Why 14 don't you do that? 15 A. There again, with all the turmoil we've 16 got into, he would not have deleted it from the l 17 report. It's not something he's going to delete. 18 He felt he wanted to look some merc beface he made l 19 a final determination whether he wanted to call it 20 a violation. Fine. I think that's management's 21 prerogative to treat it that way, but I did 22 indicate to Mr. Phillips -- you saw my little f 23 note. 24 Q. I don't follow you then. Why don't you 25 go ahead and unilaterally upgrade?
.)
L __Trr___1_ _ r__r_u _1___ r_'_ _. __. ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ .- _a
694 1 A. Because he's the inspector. The 2 inspector signs the report. It's his item. 3 Q. It gets back to the issue George is going 4 to. You've had problems with him in the past 5 signing the inspection reports. You.can assume 6 that's going to be a deal of some kind. I don't 7 say he wouldn't do it. There's been this 8 controversy. 9 If you yourself felt there was a 10 violation, then make it a violation. -Why don't 11 you make it a violation? 12 A. I guess I used my prerogative there in 13 leaving the inspector with the leeway. If he felt 14 he wanted to look at something more, I'm not going 15 to tell him he can't. ' 16 Q. Could you make a violation and still have 17 the inspector do work in the area?. Is that l 18 incompatible? L l' i 19 A. Probably could. I suggested very 20 strongly it be made a violation. 6 e s. - A 48 21 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) I guess also an 22 extension of this, in a couple of places, if I 23 recall, especially on the records and stuff, the ! 24 inspector found one or two records that were wrong 25 during his sample. (
, ,. .. u % .,+- * - ~ - -- "^
ovo - I l I 1 Now to me, even though you know these 2 specific things were violations even though maybe 1 the system was set up, I have problems in coping f 3 4 with, you know, okay I give you that these things 5 were wrong, however in the whole scheme of things 6 the whole broad picture, we got to look at the 7 total picture, even though he still found a couple 8 of things that were found that violated whatever 4 9 requirements. , 10 A. Again, we got down to was there really a i j 1 11 violation. There was a second traveler that he l 12 should have found; and if he had gone and asked, l I l 13 for example, like Tom Brant, he would have had 14 l that piece of paper. On the surface it looks 15 wrong because I went here and looked at a switch I 16 i and went and looked at a piece of paper and they 17 don't agree; but whether you're technically as
~
i 18 inspector to look at the kind of thing you ought j [ 19 to look at, you ought to make sure -- we really l 20 got a problem or I know we got a problem here. It 21 did not turn out -- he had a problem because there 22 were the proper piece of paper for that switch, 23 and writing a violation didn't serve any purpose. 24 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) There was the issue of 25 writing the violation, find the extra traveler or \ .
696 1 expand the sample size. There could have been the 2 third option, look at another seven or look at 3 another fourteen and you might find more problems 4 with travelers. 5 A. The paper was there. It was a matter of l 6 trying to put your hands on the piece of paper and 7 then going out and looking at seven more or twenty l 8 more or whatever. 9 Q. The records fpr the non-safety related j ! 10 switch, was that resolved through the traveler? 11 A. That's my understanding. There was a 12 traveler found which closed that out. 13 Q. What about the safety-related switch, how 14 was that closed? 15 A. The second traveler. 16 Q. There were two traveler involved in the 17 first two switches? l 18 i A. No. One of those switches is safety and 19 one is non-safety. It's the same switches. One 20 switch is safety. ! One switch was non-safety. 21 Q. But the same traveler? i 22 A. No. 23 Q. Different travelers?
'2 4 A. Yes, sir. !
l 25 Q. The safety-related traveler was resolved
~
l
i
. )
697
]
1 by going to another traveler? 2 A. By finding there was a subsequent change 3 in a subsequent traveler. 4 Q. On the non-safeti related switch, how was 5 that found? q 6 A. My discussion at the break with 7 Mr. Wagner, there was another traveler. 8 Q. It sounds like a fourth traveler. 3 A. No, the third traveler. There were 10 separate travelers, but safety-related switch were 11 unique. 12 Q. That's two travelersi -
.2 13 A. Then the non-safety switch had three 14 travelers unique to that switch.
15 Q. So, there's a total of five travelers, 16 two trav'elers associated with the safety related 17 switch and thrse travelers associated with the. 18 non-safety related switch? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) Why didn't the inspector 21 if he reviewed this thing, if he picked the-22 traveler up and found that it didn't agree.with 23 what was installed, why wasn't he able to say, 24 " Wait a minute. There's another traveler"? 25 Shouldn't there be something to lead him to that?. . . . .-.. ~~- .. - - - -- - - - - - - -
698
- 1 1 A. That's the inspector. You follow your 2 nose. If I thought there was something i 3 outstanding, I would go,look a little further.
4 I'will indicate again that we had made a 1 a 5 very clear indication to Mr. Phillips that there l 6 was a person who had been designated by TUGCO to i 7 interface with when we run into a potential 8 problem, to give them.a chance before an 9 inspection report was written or anything else. 10 There was an individual designated to us, and that 11 was Mr. Brant. 12 Q. If I were doing an inspection for example l 13 with this headquarters right here, the normal 14 ~ person to go see concerning a file would be to go ' 15 down to the records room and get the file from 16 that clerk. However, I couldn't buh I knew Tom 17 Westerman can get what I want I. Come up here. ! 18 That's based on I'm getting records based on you 19 as a person. If you retire'next week, then the 20 retrievability that I depend on from you is gone. 21 A. There should be somebody else.. 22 Q. That somebody should be the records man. 23 A. No. The records man downstairs would not 24 know if there was another traveler out to go and 25 do some work on this particular switch. _ r - -_: J _-_ _J_L _ : D : _ !_- - . . . .=. . _ _ _ - - - _ _ - _ .
699
- 1 You wouldn't go to the records clerk.
2 You'd have to go back over to construction to find 3 ! out if there was another traveler dealing with j 4 this switch. 5 It wouldn't not have.been in the records 6 vault. You're docket file wouldn't have it. You l 7 still got an element there of something in 8 process. You got to know where to locate it in 9 the process. When this thing is licensed, I can 10" go to TUGCO's record center and I ought to find 11 records on everything that's been completed out in 12 in the records center. 13 Q. There's no system set up as such that I .; 14 begin at a certain place and that the system w11'1 ' e 15 carry me through? I have to know personalities 16 and stuff? 17 A. It's not personalities. I You just have to l 18 understand what the licensee's system is, ou 19 might not need Bra,nt. If the inspector went over 20 and took the time to understand how the system 21 worked and where else would he go to look to findi ' l 22 a piece of paper. Going to the records clerk and 23 saying, "Give me this piecc.of' paper,' that's not I
\
24 even reasonabic, particularly kith a plant that's 25 under construction. 3 4M -7 . W 4 j 4 l' ..
~
~
. . - - Ih a w . .
suu - l 1 Q. The system should be able to trace a i l 2 person who doesn't know the system back to the 3 records. It shouldn't have to be an expert on the 4 system from the outside. 5 l A. The records clerk would have no way of q 1 6 knowing what was still outstanding. The records l I 7 clerk only knows what his job is in that records 8 file. He gets a record. It's filed, and he's ! 9 familiar with that. You ask him for a particular 10 record and he goes and pulls it out of the file. 11 Aside from that, I'm out here and there 12 i is another traveler issued to replace the switch 13 l s c and that traveler has yet to be completely signed l L 14'n off or wherever it's in progress The records
~
15 clerk wouldn't know that. l u. T . l s "16 Q. JBy Mr. Mulleyk Just one other quick 37, issue. We had some discussion concerning 18 installation 'fo the reactor vessel and whether or j
^
19 \ not we had a traveler procedure or what we had and 20 you presented a very good case, once again, I 11 thought.for the licensee that, in fact, you had a l
. 22 procedure, not a traveler, a case that I thought
, $3 baybethelicensee could have presented if he had 24 written the violation; but from what I understand 25 from what youre saying? you never thought there
.4 4, '
S
*h v $ Y __ _ _ - _ _ - - - - - - - -
701 1 was a violation in the first place. 2 A. That's correct. 3 0 so when Phillips was trying to write this 4 thing., he was off concerning his interpretation? 5 A. I think he was off on bis interpretation - w. 6 on what he thought was a. violation. . .
, . . ~,
c 7 l Q. Just'to. repeat, as,farl..'Es this issue'.as
- r )
8 concerned, .you felt that Phil.11ps' .. . .
.s; am was. . -g .* *r wrong, that-
.a * *
- ^: 7.t Lg - ... < n %.
'9 there was no'a:ppro,p,.riate citatio w'y;ca73
"}z..
V ~. y ,~
~
.- ~..:...,,.,- ,
1.0 A. Ibelieveitnightha'v[n-..... hen'n 11 issu e.
. . c JF . *' '/ "'*tM:Ci"T'" ~~t .
- - 'N:
m ,; f y m -i x; s & - @ Ma @ 75.P 12 w V:..*"T . Th e . pe r s on do e s n ' t. mak e.".a.:.d..i f f.e r e. nce.?.'N, . d - -
. .. g .-
13 Right.. 4 a_ M h. - i < 4.hr .
. ,,,. A .
I . ..
'-)
2 ,,
, .pg , . %,..f, ,
,, . g .
3.,
.g;
;.3. . r,,, ,
' 14' . ..
l . , - . . . . ~ . o. ; avgv.~,
' O . ,.. D i d y o,qu f e e l a .- , ,
n y p' r:.Le ,s .. w .,a-sure!.being=tezer '
'7 15 to.get::this plant ready'for licensing, get out
~
...... .v '
~ 18 w m iu: %. * ~*
.l -
,,j&
.. h .e.% +e.r:d 7 ' .mwg M . . ; * . .
6 4 M 21 W. .
.and .
.ge t the
.and get; i.t - s.e t.h.ings,:. -
.d. on 1
*
- N6"J ,. ?T[@,;'". v . *,~
~
i 17 licensed _.and try to minimise.t.peu_ issues, minimise l
. v .; r.. _. . .g -yy , . ;m;: .s:-my:c 18 issues'that'would go before the>bo'ard? *
.s y ;. . g . . .; ' . , & q; f -
19 ,' ,.&. O No,
. , . . .5s,i r.N: I..,.d.o n ..t a4 .
' t?-.'m~ u. h;c, inf tO Tins pe c ti o'n ! , c
'(
- 9
**.t '** , $ ' 'p
~
20 5
~
repor t s reco rds.,..,,a ve;ln'.b 'aj.,.eg,in.f' It o ^(e.[h.N,ll.Y~& 'I . . .. .how:l.thak. cy. a.. s s.
.. . think !.
n.4y:t,3,gy,~wp y;;
. .s
.J, 21
'what our' job'ri'sh.w .go.i.ng Tth..,r,.o. ugh
}
7 the, plantf and' -{ .
. 22
'doing the:. i n s p e?;
. e:
.~cc y. . .....ctions
-+
re
$.5m :tiie,4/m{becaus%y w :: h eJwe got ar::!. '
*$h' . .,8 We're7 going;to. omplete., H
+
2.,n .
?
- c. ,
23 program.~ '. j;$Nk$1.$@.?bi&{c$$sh&:tha.is-l-t'progra m,
. h.'-
,..,. ' . . .w . . ' . :..:,-.. s ':t. :. "; 5,. . . '. . w; -- , ,
24 but I think if'you look .atfthe inspection results
...c. . .- e,. g
.?...
.'T". 25-s .m. .. and;- findings and vidlations that have been issued, -
flg,' .; 4 / * . c . .;,qi.<'- s - p -
" }. .7 e,
.+ o
+. . - -
- : m ;7 ; /~.. ... .- - - - , l
, ?.
, . _- \
- e l I
u__'__________ . + . -
702' 1 all over, then it will be because it's not ready 2 to be licensed, not because I got it ready for 3 licensing. Going through the various inspection 4 Q. 5 reports and various findings that we discussed, it 6 looks like we've opted in favor of the licensee. 7 We've downgraded v3clations to unresolved items, 8 unresolved items to open items. There was a 9 tendency towards opting towards giving a break to 10 the licensee. 11 Do you feel like that's accurate? 12 A. I think what you ought to look at is the ! 13 inspection reports that we've issued as a group. 14 You'll find a numoer pf violations and deviations 15 in those reports. There was never any intent to 16 downgrade an issue that was clearly an isste for 17 which a violation should be issued. If it's a 18 deviation, they've been issued. 19 In fact, as I indicated to you, Mr. Hale 20 even had said that we probably brought things.to 21 the forefront before we might have been ready for 22 them, i 23 Q. (By Mr. Goldberg) I have a question back 24 on this traveler. I note the date of this l 25 procedure is 10/12/85 which is after the __ _ _: _ _2_ __:::: 2 __ __. - - . .
.~
ml. ) 1 inspection that Phillips did at that time. So I { 2 wonder about the relevance of this procedure. 3 A. At the time I asked for the procedure 4 that would have been in effect at the time of the S traveler. So, that was what was given to me. If 1 1 6 you want, we can maybe go back and see if we can 7 get an earlier version if you.want to make a 8 comparison. 1
.I don't know that there was any l 9 significant change to where we are right now. If 10 you want an earlier version -- I think the verbal l
11 thing that was t'ld o to me was that was the same. 12 I asked for the traveler change procedures that 13 would have beer. in effect or the issues that would 14 have been in effect at the time. 15 O. Did yoa have this in front of you at the 16 time of Phillipa' report? 17 No. A. I looked at that traveler and made a 18 judgment looking at the traveler changes that were 19 there and how those changes were made and they l 1 20 looked to me like there was a chango control 21 process. 22 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) Do you feel that there 23 was an emphasis on the part of Region IV out at 24 Comanche Peak to look at hardware issues versus 25 QA paperwork issues, you know, like if we're going
.....,,.o , .%. . . - = =,
705 i 1 i i to find anything, we're going to find the hardware
~
2 first and then go back, instead of starting with 3 the paper and going and looking at the hardware? i 4 A. First of all, you performed the l ! 5 inspection program that's called for in the IE f 6 program. When you go out and.look at.an area like 7 electrical modules, you start out looking at 8 procedures that go with performing.the electrical 9 program. 10 Then you go look at the hardware. When 11 you get out there and look at hardware and you 12 find *a problem, then the logical direction is come 13 back the other way. When we found the hardware 14 problem, then we also went back the other way i 15 which is probably a lot quicker than trying to 16 figure out from looking at a programmatic thing. 17 I think you do what the inspection-18 program requires and you look at the program as a 19 part of that. We do look at it. 20 Q. It seems, through, some of the work that 21 we did that a lot of procedures don't cover, QA 4 22 weren't done as thoroughly as maybe some of the 23 hardware inspection procedures were done. 24 A. I don't know how you can exactly derive 25 that. Like I say, in the electrical area, l u L _T__ r . - . . . _ . .
1 706 l i 1 Mr. Kelley was doing that inspection. He went 2 through and looked at all the procedures that 3 involved controls on the electrical. We went back l 4 and looked at them. That's in his i nspection i {
, 5 report. It's in one of inspection report.s- )
1 6 There's a lot of that you do that's not 7 one of these QA modules over here. As far as QA \ i 8 modules, I don't know I can't talk about why in l 9 1978 there's 48 hours. Maybe that's completely i l 10 adequate. I haven't even gone back and tried to l 11 assess that. 12 There's been an awful lot of looking at 13 the QA program out of this third party activity. 14 To say we're not looking at QA and QA programs, I i l 15 got three folks full-time who,have been looking at 16 QA related issues, whether it be an allegation or 17 whether it be third party CPRT or whether it be Wrt 18 25.12 modules. We certainly haveg reemphasized d 19 that we're going to look at these QA modules. 20 We have almost as many' consultants ! 21 consult or folks assigned looking into the QA area 22 of that facility -- the only one that has got more 23 is the mechanical civil area where there's four 24 folks or four consultants. s-25 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) A lot of these
-O
.a m - .- -..A -----A-__---KS,--.M
A 707 s 1 allegations that have to deal with the activity of i 2 TUGCO at Region IV from the period 1976 to 1984. l 3 A. If you're talking about hardware modules { l l 4 that haven't been done, we've probably overdone l 5 them, way overdone them. We're going back and ! 6 t looking. I think from the past, maybe QA modules, l 7 that was very much.done by TRT, the Region II team 8 that came. 9 Those are issues that are in the specific 10 action plan. They're dealing with the past. 11 That's why we're back looking.. We're not just 12 forgetting the past. We're back looking at 13 inspector qualifications and the audit program 14 that TUGCO has had. 15 ed For example, the ISAP si audit program is l 16 one that is to' assess the overall audit program of i 17 TUGCO based on the past -- what they've done and 18 haven't done and what now do they need to do -- so 19 that they have an accept A' audit program. Where 20 are the weaknesses in it? Where are the 21 weaknesses in the past? We're talking the past. i 22 We're looking at the past. 23 Q. Right. I guess what I'm saying is a lot 24 of these things ~that.we're doing now in terms of 25 corrective action measures to make up for things TATE REPORTING SERVICE (713)222-7177
e v e. 1 that weren't done in the past'that should have 2 been done and, you know, right now there's really 3 a strong emphasis; but in the past over.the last 4 eight years, was the same emphasis there? 5 A. I guess I'm not the one -- I can give 6 you my feeling. We've probably done as much in 7 the QA area as.any other. area, you know. We're 8 not a big region; therefore, we didn't have a QA 9 group who were specialists. It was done by the 10 general inspectors. 11 There was a general attempt to do all the 12 modules that were done by qualified inspectors in 13 the Region IV. 14 l's not sure without looking at hindsight 15 that even those assertions that are being made 16 that we missed this, this and this are really 17 proper. 18 Q. Right. I agree. We haven't determined l l 19 whether or not they were, in fact, missing. 20 There was a comment you made a little bit ! 21 earlier concerning hardware inspections that 22 through hardware you can go back and find a 23 problem and look at the paperwork and develop the 24 programmatic problems. l 25 I was told that you might inspect less i , i l TATE REPORTING SERVICE (713)222-7177 l
, , - l.
'/ 0 9 '
s , 1 than 1 percent of the plant, of the hardware of 1 2 the plant, that we're really able to inspect very 3 little of the actual hardware of the plant. . 4 Is that correct?
)
5 A. Well, I don't have any idea what the $ 6 total number of final hardware -- when you're 7 doing an inspection, though, and this is how the 8 IE manual chapter shows it and you're doing a n. 9 audit, looking at the hardware, from that you see , 10 how well that hardware got put in there, you know. 11 If it's required that we do 100 percent, 12 then we go do 100 percent. From that,.though, you 13 got to look at -- when you make those kind of 14 findings, you say -- when I find a problem there, 15 I'm going to go back and-look at the programmatic. 16 I don't think that that's the end to looking at 17 the programmatic thing. I'm going to look at the 18 progrem from the other end on down That's part of 19 what's in the manual chapter. 20 Q. That's what I'm driving at, looking at it 21 from both ways. If you're just going from the l 22 hardware, could be just a matter of the luck of l 23 the draw where you could look at one bad weld and 24 as a re.3 ult of that develop an entire array of i 25 deficiencies; but if you just happen to miss that TATE REPORTI,NG SERVICE -(713)222-7177
- l l
J l
/10
- 1 weld in your sampling, then you just might think 2 everything is fine. You do agree that we're 3 talking about--
t 4 A. When you look at the welding area, for f 5 example, according to the IE manual, chapter, you i 6 got to look at the procedure, the control, the Oc 7 as a part of the front end of that thing before 8 you actually go out and look at the piece of I l 9 hardware. 10 Again, an experienced inspector has got 11 an IE manual chapter and he goes out and looks at, l 12 maybe, 1 percent of the hardware. The guy when 13 he's out there -- I know from my experience, when 14 I'm walking around, I'm looking, you know; and if 15 I find something else that's there, I'm not going 16 to be bashful from going over and looking at 17 something that draws my att'ention. 18 It's like Ft. San Vrain, when I walked 19 around, I looked over at the shut-down system and I 20 I said, "Now that doesn't look seismic." I didn't l j l 21 even have a module to look at. I wasn't looking j 22 at a module. I was just doing a normal plant walk 23 around, looking at, " Hey, what's in this plant?" 24 So, I would expect probably some of the 25 more significant things to come out of the 0 TATE REPORTING SERVICE (713)222-7177
^ ~.
/ 11 1 inspector being required by the manual chapter to 2 go out and look at a particular area. He may only 3 look at one particular weld as far as going back 4 through all the paperwork; but when he's out 5 there, he's surely looking at more than just the i 6 1 percent. !
7 Q. One final question concerning l 8 Region IV's philosophy towards Comanche Peak. j 9 Over the recent years the intervener has gotten 10 involved and the licensee has taken quite a bit of i 11 heat as a result'of allegations. ' 12 Have you' perceived any indication on the 13 part of the Region to try to assist the licensee 14 to minimize potential allegations that the 15 intervener might pick up by keeping things in an 16 informal part of the record? j 17 A. I don't know of any attempt. I've been ! 18 the allegations coordinator on Comanche Pea.k for 19 all the facilities from about '83 to '85; and any 20 time an issue is identified, it has went into the l 21 allegations system at Comanche Pe'a k and everything 22 else. 23 I will say Region IV was put in a very i 24 adversary role by this whole thing. 25 Q. So, you feel like the region is TATE REPORTING SERVICE
^
(713)222-7177 I a O as _ m _ .a... __._m__.__ ___-________-__-_.___-h
l12 - 1 objectively regulating, that we're in the middle between the intervener and the licensee? 2 WE've 3 not taken sides with the licensee to defend l 4 against the intervener? 5 A. I don't think we've taken sides to defend ; 6 against the intervener; but I think we've been put 7 in an adversary role because'if our findings say, 8 yeah, we didn't see a particular problem, it's a 9 no-win kind of situation when you've got an 10 intervener that says, "I still think it's wrong. hs I w 11 You're wrong." It's hard to survive in that an% 12 atmosphere. I think that's affected Region IV. 1 13 MR. MULLEY: Do you have { 14 anything to add 7 l l 15 } l MR. GOLDBERG: No. 1 16 (This statement was 17 concluded.) 1 18 I have reviewed the foregoing transcript of the interview conducted of me 19 by OIA on July 23, 1986, and have made corrections I believe necessary for a complete understanding of my comments. The information I have I 21 provided is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. l j 2.2 l 23 t l Signed: - % 25 ~ Date: fr ~ PbVl2 v C - TATE REPORTING SERVICE (713)222-7177 __7..,_..._. _ _
F i 139 l 1 1 THE STATE OF TEXAS: J 2 COUNTY OF HARRIS: 3 l 4 We, R. Patrick Tate and Trisha Sims, Court Reporter, l
\
5 and Notaries Public in and for the State of Texas, ' certify .) 6 that the facts as stated in the caption hereto are true; E ! 7 that the proceedings indicated were had before us, and the 8 same were thereafter reduced to typewriting by us or under l 9 our direction. 10 We further certify that the above and foregoing j f i l 11 transcript as set forth in typewriting is a full, true and l 12 correct transcript of the proceedings had at the time ) 13 indicated. 14 In testimony whereof, witness our hands, this
. 15 23rd day of July, 1986.
I 16
} l l 17 r//zsY -
T'risha Sims,CSR
.k_ . / <1 A_ C s IN
#. Patrick Tate, CSR 18 Notary Public in and for Notary Public in and for the State of Texas the State of Texas 19 Commission Expires: My Commission Expires: 10-27-89 20 21 22 23 24 25 ,
_ ~ - TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 o
W
, ,. ~. ..
, . .r.) .: n. n - y 11 3 s- - -
's 'I wir <.
r : i r .,,, pi .r
,4 D.A 7 v A r .i J ,', ., l fgv . :
- 6. C Cyho k+ 1T
$$ l h.%\gt, m L goL. CDR3TRUCT!0li ritiPttitalt AtPORT ,.
T Te,h ; k, .. b6 _ U.f.RUCLEARRtBUL.ATWTCOlut!85!0N kfgg Tg \Aj c, j 6 assim iv
- d. 3 'Oh l ktTespectiestoports 56 445/854- l h
%j . M LA.A A h O 36444/354. [] WiAr,o T~t 6 R SR -
ettets:50-445 50-444 Perait CPPA-124 gg 4 g p cppa.127 v b h m d h Q.g. d W D W. b k k h v u {1u p ut. O h N r anti feras Utilities Electric Costuy (TUEC1 QQ g M, # }k Styvay Tamer
- g(
400 serth Olive street I M h 11 'A- \^I N O l tallas, Texas 73201 ' WJ
- -
- A ka k m % a 4 -o % < ss. i 1% n,d sb.be, o n 325 vt- r !
N Mil!LF ews ,Casache Paat Stese Electric Station (CP$tthyntts1Q 7, e h is 9.xe:et A AIs h b h AY h. b %U un=tia Att sia nue, y== g g ( Q- g , h' M. T W* is,eeu.Cau.ct.4,D.7,,,
, p rtads -- y "
sy d :+ sT J
~- .--
kd %JO. i4 %@, L , y- __L::__'_ X___ __ ' _ - - - ~ _ - -
~ ~ '
--Z_ L
~
- . - - - - - - r-.- , . - - , - . - - - - - - ----, - - - - - , - - - - - -
y-h e s e t
%bph bk p0 -
l r%h m %.th hx0+ 4 j
~
% se_ux_ k yt bo x b& i tss m . t s u st a a a a N ,
5 -. i i j 9 l i l l l o 6 4 mm w w.cwc- .-=--g e-*v-%..a -- 4 , u
- j i
s* % : D H. I. Phillips, lenter Assident Assetor tats lisputar (SRRI), Constructica, teg}en IV CP5IS Brap i 1 trargrigi i, 2, s, 4, si,s, 4-n l l A l S. L. talley, IR11, operattaas, Regina IN, late 1 CPIII Brasp (Farstrsph 1 1
\
l J t *
.1 1
1
\ ' ~
q :-,s- ~; . -r
, atterIns or iC 24tn 19 p (Para 7)
, Coastltuts: Pia 6 Piper - 3. R, 4tlestfy late -
Paraseter - f. R, foung e%- 9= s _- = _: _ _ . . - -- -. _. . .
+
I l 1 Revisuad by e i
!. Iunes, Eroup Leader, tlV CP!ES 8tcup Date l
i
~
{ i approved: _ T. F. Vestersia, Chief, teglos IV CP$ts Eroep Itte i k I hurtilnban - i i NVhk ' g t,, Dspection tenducted duIera t-W.1995 Innert !0-445/t$ tri F I 6313hugitjt i Ratins, unanaccated laspecticas of Unit 1 shichilacluded e ! j l
~
- '+' 'Srna [p#plicant actions se construction deficiencies 8 prrVinos NRC lespecties fladtags 2G- h% fun 1j Kf< tan'sd h' as4=' -t r -- The i
onA. taspectica tavolved 'e taspector4eurs posits by4.elfRC ineptetsrs'and tse f consultant $
.IN I I$O!E OI ar881 lsl$tettd, ~- ._ ,
VIAlttl006werelitattfitdt 'ky{ g k f- ~ ' ' N .D WhMM N (, 7 s hp . [M or (<bw-6% QGL ,
% % N1 i
"!"; aww p py i c ot % W ~ c_m =- _ :. . . :am-
.dh,d w d a mim ku 'e , ~_m t
[L t " .7 c t C
,, 7" '
_'.at- h r <-os f R U v r
!5
> - d-&-t T ".A SC. Yi'a b -I J-O e M d4ag . oms. .
e
~
, ,OWd r i M W i l.*,**
On M Mag h A g ga i f t k b s';(> -* 1: e 1s-.s 5 La - I Yu 1
'k%l L S W -S f a. t ftf0V$2 $ - D_ *.
ML^ *I ^ %sv.ssleIa'u wt n uc$ M.s 3 - ha, .'. I N_t. E3 m bM ufEnMe M,,. d bLc A, & Edam.fu ksJ m M s33 A ";7j 9a.a b * ,pe4ts' & ws,1,3/
~"
*P~ S r ud* 0 '
l g ,_. y
DETAILS
.. PERSONS CONTACTED
. . .TUGCO PERSONNEL l
i J. Merritt, Assistant Project, General Manager P. Halstead, Manager Quality. control (QC) a C. Welch, QC Supervisor
" 2 . ; 1.. , 0:c;;r:t r S:1 i t ,- ^ ;;u :r.:; ; ^'
O.pe... ,- _, , . , . , s_ - - . _ _.e-. _ _ _ _ _===_ -o nww a w wr j J i .rq., Marshall, Licensing i l *J. Hicks, Licensi.ng , ~~ '
- s v.
ne
.-. ,~- , , . . - . , . ,. -
1
, ,~.,m . . . '
\
' ' ' ' " " ' ~ ' '
t} . CA4.athew ,Te c h fe.J 9 Su p psvi7 -..' N C-" r ge~m~4*r I s...us ~ ves s 0 'L L% ' s ' t < s. M Yo e } s sT 6 exGee g4 '-___i?. . Tai s L s a w,e din a,^,- V. kau 51/4 1:s 4-ca d F,4 A',1r. /Z . 1 Q /
& = . : ::. s . t D
/ '
r .: '
~.
o 6iseo 6 . pa D
'A a 1
'M n 9% *'
, N ve w w u<
de 1 Ph . a .
<9w s, 3.-,.
l .ps %r T r w ) "O, u n q- 4;
- CL k *s .
( $r. Ax o r 3 m u - l M e w e W
-M' __S Ogun
. _ - m___.___.-___w
-; 4
- 2.
- Plant Tours M7 '
At various times during the inspection period NRC inspectors W 'L' conducted general tours of t+rs reactor building, safeguards buildin0, and the electrical and control building. During the tours, the NRC inspector observed ongoing construction tJork, and 1 discussed various subjects with personnel engaged in work activities. No violations er deviations were identified. l . 30 Actitsri en 10 CFR Part 50.5S(e) Deficiencise Identified bv the Anelleant I r . TL4. f0 4.C. ok 4o.,c4er s co a lia L S ik A Por, b e c3's so ttem l K ' A &: [y,:,a .
< e cor kis s wL en.ae ora .' -
s ._
/ ! '
l J' en si> ,:. ch 6,aw I 19T y o' . yw al u e':oa d) _ b k <, YL11 Odtu.,- t k w c.8%
- 2 i e M s /v u c. /
- h i
24 u f,' l n ( ei # . 14.s~7, 1 h t h s'. w 4.l- J e e es. b b L Lie w e a c4 E o oh Cc' nA Y2 v
- v. e a s f k. ie k ) u) tn. =nRte d & =0 %
x s,s tu.LA 'n I ( LJUS*/ rnu -ar t Neo/tsH-e r) s,o a s l$a!6
/ Tr r. ,- m , t,s 0 ', k a ,t,a.m S A w ot.4.t., .0.(,,
I w%A &A n t k -= a. wokt, w A'1 %M , fN / ,a d t v.cs.o. of. +r e o < r e <M a.N M 4-a.Nie,,GLJ
. Yi er s hN v
+ W iTb , 1 u74, , .e.uf +s A
.,,,dd(- !
\ ' 4 e la s ad k 'c., k da RAI ha em e.4 e L tl 4., --- ti .
b
<-- &tdr bt\ nAAd[kv k J ,Q } 4,e/- 1 ~
,, , % , 4 g
. r
,n _ .. . -- - - --
I 3' T 1
%c ke La. sw '
1 e4 w r' M M N I J
.i Ca o c.3 u L 2 s ,. isfr tix ore W % A %o6 v 6 4 iu.
~ v d V e d g4 6f c g g. g (,1 h ,"f , h ) , [ A_ _ ,_ d t d c
. b , 8. ,, ,,
J
' fTU 6s t' O 1 h o e > An ML'-O C4 1 )
-s I- Es/hL.() A TIDr0
' oP the o R c- 96,tr a 6 <s s. T T c- m s /s so e ,v r s D.Y oooer lCc.FK h &T' 1 I wD Ibr Fn Mar s o. .C.n e ) , e4
} '
bhc4 e J l U cs (0 h.w s. ' m . .O ' t .s e . r ,4 ( <*/ b .f
~
./
W eet. m cLe a ia m +L J L i - 1. sm L . ,, f n<o a A w y
. etc A wSt a J el g, s x <t t t a. 3 o-<. c h ef S vv.., d k a <_f 4 .# g SDe x - 4L. L. t i ~ ~ R e Iwu 4<-v fbe_se_ G1'I V .e RU C 9- v r- / t- % Lu < ) Tu e, ez 1 e !! s- ~nc x W rc, da L< d % ,'l 1s'sAsc 5 G al .I L- w .al ~
tw er . ls v c h a w.aa s L C.C.n'i&'d'~42) < net Ye -- e a vt u +> care w + ! n k * - e $ ce m ediw o.c.ib . Iw, <~ l 4. 4L, s k, 4< s -L-d-56,ood-iA, e a dedt + is a.oarla W m si U ScN m o w ( N x c 1 L . , u & < 's e e o l w. ~Yk Toc.,co Sv o <b u.x do e wf a d dv< ,s bE doeu -
& ls, asnIu. r.e C.u r u.) '
c u':o C. G or
,a k.~4 c o w A m u., -
6 6.J 6, , A 4 tL, h A L fx 3 %w cL-24 o.,d L r. ft w A 4.J ~Y
' cam h aK
. w .
- m. a fe'- c, A, d . , Y 4 M eu o k- ~ u ww.e .. - y e _ ol y.. sup W kI
. c v-Yb d # ht'c i iwc_ m o /T , T y o Ny e. x _ g (.43 s eiki b.6 L W I 6 t.$ eL a.L.., 3,.. o e m_1 y r. , R u u - u - > c % _c L.a. _ .L- m -
L. _ _ - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ^ ^
5-1 g AAT ' VA vAC C-fW N: na ~ a ,w,v w u - ia s k L1 4-kd" ( d e 3 U< d b \'._
,c,yLI{< lei a n u o,&~3:~ ns b $ m n ,'<6.-r, v f' nN ,C ,; < na !A',J a J' f, D 4. LL x J s m < + .-a ~ C/n',5," ,
A o w r w /_ i k :/e +be r- Txx - Air s-Y cla 6c) No'v w br N th/A
/
\ c6ena a esvaed.4c eo/U w 4.4/ri <!-A bv;f IEn.of f uJ dlv ,C 6 n 4 ,E a l m G b ;<c f.& M<
*N w - .
d C.8 / r=< *54 o t' f . 546 n=~ k he h C P- N- 2 7 MM G CrAJ D~w, SUM 1
\
w t+ L ew. ,, & te / L. S ~ 5;.,& ~ t4 rs L J'
% J 2- ..
7 D r e'< t " s L L,! &< b'n ,a : h we v.+ . a.N < L .
< v _ .r f 84144 3 Jt e &, ; W c <_ !^ 'b ^ 3 L* -w/ Af 0 ** !! e.
_ -L,c - 1 li s .. nc f a a~.J.ML wAJA c-~~ e s /,/ s Lahdh t .:2 An w
& n h M & : l .?.':- Q ' h % c [-4a p g.: .4 e;h YQ G ~
_.;d&M 4 WaMprJ, \ ~ /< r 3, e d' g.-;g.:_ c6.,,p ,.<, n + Tue, ea /., /A "Dex - us c ' e4ll-<cl Is.u i
)./
.2 i . is y2 o,,_d' e w ,% J Zi w& 6 w &<a ufca, t,- n u,t
- t. nn:
luje u ?W'"2/!ch n,4 /a, 'w< > su,'k ., a /?% u [u n u-<f. fTH., W, n> <
- u ' s. ,,, Z i o ei An d 'c L d Ys c. J , t., .
% cla e.5w a ,:(a1 n .c re 0-! u ,>_ obl <. v cdoea w + J ~~{.l n k '
sL v m 4 a.e 4 A
./
c,-, o Ut ; , a g., / IoCFG Wo. 6 ife) .C,% y
- V I
1s a or n IL -{ln o -f-I O cI L U SO (%welL x t - uv 9, Ce ; i e < k y h._,, ?5I l* ~b
/ -' fab.f[(.5.L3rY<] N-
/ -
e
y4 . Tkr tJR. C s p lw rev,a d 6 ,Tuc,co proc. eda m ra hM d.c s c v', % aw coiwh x A s:G v m w ,4 o i f% 3 t5 M Y ~ ' v IOC.l~~TLR/S.KNe\he:ft(.,,"$ ' '5 & M
- h 'e x $ N ,
u a.k.al N . 1-_ d e-o , A , L TU 4's L G.D Q d noa Aw s ? to w-e. M w sisf w1 witi U c-- o cs-t o r e, u L 1 3 LAk L-Xn ,m &a eM < c$-o0-1Lt
-c.
0?3SLi L NA O ww V tr. 14 G 4- eL LA D ro P- CQ ~4 0-wl5 - m 2 cl#.4-oJ, dQ&9 % :;.
-a r .
r! N ; T5 - A n -e RytAm, - I9rv - Da P- a n -iz ( b . s , ;m 2. M ' S-nv
%-4 #1. .
I $ Yf*,&, 0 C P - 0 P - I S. L R~ujoWE, b nY W tv- - c ll . {( $ Th" * %W <$ t tf r
, k ch. AD en l1:8, + ,
iv s n s .' L,: 1 , ' l , > ., . u - m ecL,,1 e -f ..
^
f- , Y A O r* s Yt*
$= Vt NJ t .
tA Y$2 % C th., Y 001 ee t, r \t. ru ,- +, m l . I / 3 y / i % s k-u.e f : ' , . Th:s L ,~1 w % < <.u ? u oJ.) nouJu-vn
.4w :i ', %
6 - a ,, t . it.,,i wul en o , .li v
,e W s -
rd e o .'.. C. 5 - 4 ,s a v', n I a. b f-a i o c F d.
% F sv' O'b uu
<* x a cd. w :n v (uaslysn-or wiles,s a Oa och-d % - u.4 1_f I A
/ 41.1 *tla 104c LsaeL -
6.u J,1,0 P eb Oic,b eu fi'lt c h c Cori oai v
% iiw s t.> k W L
\ vv ie a in.J eIasa, n a "L <*e v w c1 r eSe.4 n.<.f i w $tlt.,- 4 # M '.'&.e . A ws b..$ % "s'. h' ' $ ]..%5Mc&ci u. f '($ s'$ [. &
%dM a. c. bcA up*-c - b O 4 oI 6 M, CJ(e 1 C9 - Y <-l - 1 1; c 0 - fM 4 . .
s C 9 ~. fr T - 0 j4 ' C P- W~ o g* )_ cpg 3 1i - --
b y c 0- vs- n , c p s . ,g a. j c p - y , , y . x p,,, 4 g,
! 9 Y 3~ +L1 UKcA wU a w nn & %
e m sL bd<e< A ,C -G e Iz m"< no % ts,-+ L J ~ G de-h wa s ,A tO h ' t) t' t8 . 4 ( LN t 4M kb ti ,' a l A I taw N d4'Y b f$ A-a f I o e F-r2. ,P d So . hel ' r B , /~x:-\*r.m TiTn ( mst vs n. ~ o1 : vatvv/rs,s-os). 1
. /*
'h 61: 1 l9st LL.: s a. tt. r i hJ .'{ '.<J % Tv 6, c s a~s J )
C, a J d .a). c ,* ~ ~ \ v c o v F-s .o k u d . -s
' ~s t s N 4.<
u.) k N v t b cla 4 'c . A _ eWliI d bf TU 6 (,D ) uu av 1, ! la_ b b' v T%X'HSo# ch M ddLu ei t 4 ter . cH ~N>A L ka sa e > : . rb -UUwm s + U v A evi dMa h.4% 3 tM J M.4I
$CftA. ken $4. M. , bp.e.La gea[(
y K \
\
- g,,
lO(Eb W d. bY[ f [ h dsv* d. &#.=J k ( 3 b 3 A u ><
" C$*
1 W ovt 6 k u 4 c.bu le d a s cw/o -{-M 46 6:[v i c4 Ae ', iL . n wk, a , o F tLi ss]<h,. ,T a i;c d6; LA Cty'YrtYach5 & & d d $ v [-$', $ n M f tr C~ ~
- A b %,i mL 5:; U ml%A n'4 O A, h e. L. w eJ i ht j e+:Oua a.e3L L% ~-.
< A 'cl-d nL L - A'm .,
m >+ ula. (s G G A d> 4 'Maa g o t -b 62 su.t,,,,' (L.2 ,,ict.4,,,_ A to
~ w *,Aev',- v a.o.avt wha.:,;n a tt a.v a[g,G t d~ d A sl~1/ b AGl h u'Ib, ~
Mtl A L .4
- r. , rg L .,
C LJ ms u ,a t
" .!L-m 1-
_ ' d a ,w-, mV,
-p. .
l m_ c ,c_ ___m_________ _ _ _ _ - _
,-5 .
sf;4_' ,
. .u.y; . . . w. . .
_ To e co 's' L a .J w p A ., a c, u+ nu e+ -- v 4 wt c mrJ ' L .
- v. % h d e. Fo< e m A. .
U i t.nA u , J skk c o m c k h a . e d ' '= , tJt ti %.s $s k C P- t 3, - 12 c 9 21 C P- V 3 - L o W rs-n h oe - i t, r< w L 4 4 s k 4 r "<oem/-13-is: ; ie M % %
- a ', f' J <$ an ti W 4- % . As < &
s I
' fu su. l4 i e o a d-i usChk su e 4.
u %~ . % o f a <" a w .r a. c.)N a.,lL %'T -- L w n e) r _ -
%w L .>v d \
kna +L d out) e.o.< n % e> d L . DT+ 3 'id.v% ru wu c,w n e) dJ L _A" W s eu n, A. s . s,u v u
)
\
- e. v4 O A db. r 2e v
e P - r+. z. a, , <. P- v :r - t 3 i L % A C 9 - ? 7 - n._f*, ~~)'u 4(n / ,, i ! - f fa i d a. tr -<} FMn eA m . , % ,,_.l/,-i A f) ~F's t-.t/1/3)
//. / 4 7 f~l
- ,- s le 4/n L 3.,; c e>., hn , % s.,x} i b b >* % % 2 _^ =6*s! /TO $
0,il 0 L 1}& 1re,do ^
"Y /
su m 4 J u / 4 tl- = Ju h. 3/. nrr
. .il
, Ln v W
m,
/_ j .UJ L 'e -i n
- f. 4W u YY M k A.lW. As- Ec)
Y st.,e W'--J fe >v. > >- s d sue
/ 4 f[",
R. e<ac.d k sv=<2")~ [.s
. uk i em Ap S,L*,1 A, li >, .) , In , t.l ,o ep. w - ,, cion ir-ii a L: aLL.
'- ~
En-re 4 c i ,kj L c A ,a ,;g ; g g_, +sl Ah~~ 'i h + k v imsv u ) ittn ,4;c m u,f,f f ,
. t124 ds , ac ., L w/A '
OO L J u.o w 4(.s ,,
~
. , a es <hJ % en J -r4 "sr.w,,JJ u',, ,a. L,,t ,,yf m h. ,g.
~
\ 5 r ./ v ll$ W M
' ' #$Y / W Cn9'YrA kfyn ene. vr j('44s/ .;. .;! ,%, ne A fv1 sr trit-o4; ut sept so.cyey, 0 9)'. ,
_______.R.__- ' ' ^
4 H -l . 4 - Ba u I k i E J Iltw.Lv_',m _A pp!.[ c%i 14c.f a r_ M4 i A >
~'v ob 4s +-kh + a o e e.% .
gy4<% % As h - d ( .'r $ %~v .4%c_. __~ s_<_ _.u ~Ag_g_U.c.J's 9 s a s4e m (*Cs) 8 uIh 4,u , o ,t ch<,- Iys_p,4 i LJ (m fu <, - < r_f
~ L A sL u t:, uu v cf a , a 0 I2.C 0.4v o s-! % i h - s i pl -i z./ o c,'. s.4- o 7 . tv- 2 4 / eo
. , . sc/- :N/, t ."
eu.A % S _o*3lon.. 'TLau .%nu e af, n r c o m u , 4 v h al n 3s. bd ( 8" O O O ! s C A_ h [ jl t L . 11 e b eAi a 'o h . 4 4 M h ., .m ^_- ^ w N (e cc m eEr~oq a. c.k u h n I a. + n a eL ew i I k.n. L' . D v +<4 '.tE &Q. < 'I' -=. . 1b W Td (.A. L.e / us.A .4 L4." e '[s e cf k f c e e si a % g b d o e_. -- , s a edb's(,L s . - __. w s <., o o o. b d h A t ,~ 4
.v v % 6 c.2 d .
v v bos < s'. 's ws Y Y ll C. ! (, Ic iL L.h , p we de e.5,k < v u c-, a t2 ss.s & T&g* ] o e c 4 l_ x1 s, t, dd_ _W.;k~o U t v i $ s, kov L wa.+e 1.ri W a w d . L io rsi o s. a)
$o t% s a e Nj k w 6 so n-,r < .
. % I E S ve % 4 . 'm <
Ma k s,' i N A.s - 85 ( +
*2 9 - t H',. S~e 6 w
- e p Sa.ktw 9<. k b J P.'o,L S w $4 = ?
6A 99*L f65s.bk NAl C Y b f k N /J' )" f N 1 tl>a$ g i r A IVn L,W:.I .L N e.lu i A f a /.e or 4 o9 L u ,. d v e s "
&_ d L e R tl.t o 4- w a 't c- L tL 4 l_ , u;y ~ < r ev ,'eb
% uJ u b a.o k T 18. ] a L<ma)L w w .odJ an~ cni> , n : n ,. . L . -s k n L , -.
tw'v
.I rw- v.s .s La a w d . "D~ L ' L i
.s t-4s Q #
*I G r% \\ r.4.*v ') 4 - t il TL Cs to 36L A b r e A . 2 4. s a L -f .u , m.m
' c \ a s , :( , a d a. s c L. s ,0. ?t ,_ 7 't - > rr V. Q cowk tw 4 d. f.h M b ~-f t e vu. o u ~., -A c.A O _ % ..1 G- 1% .iI v % , k esv> w , c
%A w
_ Y - L .3 s - l __d*+G/ u M
- t, r d ~
L - - - - - _ - - _ - - -
9.v JJ k a n.e e s J L ~ .wto ~ 2 on. m u. _ T.L o (l.'e :r b -Cd> % v- 14
- 0) a. s b - l '<.!d 6 %; 7 , , _ O . r,I.> , d w h (Tu a e n 1 L M , /
w e . V O T s x -sto , h M/L. d n L -<.9 D<~ku1 I s v2. b d 10' s b N f'L N O v% o %> < > . m n .s a 41, C . s w ,.e ,~ , A.> v a f s% s 1 e- i L .t u + . s . T u to a. c. ~v,u D o+ co~ .en e .9L4 d.e. 4.<~ % < ./ ua
+1~d Tu s c o n~ v a 42. w f A vsondx& % .
is i # .1 G h 4, d . i e.. tb Tv6 all as ao eds e -f-
- ch A a t ', - 4'. e s ' hkb co r<.w - o , 1. t aLl see's m; e b .4 m .Z na1-.
h u.i & /1 s % ) io s a /d 1, ou llue da./ _ . _ % " t4 a e. V. k ; ZL U . 1 b /.' , z .e= /J a U c A , ; r , Nwn eh. ,, ~ .*a ~ M (+ !
] nn w / n /u u J L wA , '
L~./0 <~ fmu fm
<J % 'bl'.i ase a. > >-eeu.; eA (m oa-e t- Nord-3 e4 % 1 5 6a H.d Le ? Tu sc i c!,f? w As5J .
/d'G> eppn o u ic 3 sf= #f iL! 6t's & u :e n a -
da ? / ocAAn > 2.. i 9 s 2. '
+L}- % u w L ' ,, . ?c w w L ,,,~ Ar m e i h. 4./'
w w "a ~ s4 bllTA4u)/.e.-& NJr< c4
- + <A, *YtJ<. sui:// w.< n,u > f A /4 r
f -i2 J K > anw fa, ,;.,
~
M d,,l.;e_.,,,t-.. tio t& /L di C a..~. b, ~ u/ M a s e.Y
.,.9.,,.
m mT . L,.cr. uu is, n & & & J 6 ,1,.; 4 la n C. lo kd s-,A$ lyt.< >> > a., re L , ' V r
,emb--- e m______m- - - - - - - - ^ - - - ^ ~ - ~ ~ ~
.d t .-' W YM $5 ag Y S bE J A .w k W-s w___^! - '7 9- W h O N d f7L ekoJMi# i' (&J Nu lA.).L b$ Cit v H e + $~ w & s a.)
a s- LbI4 a2 m.
,_ h it i . h it.M i . "t o
! W2- or ' tE s s #f [(.t , %M 1 w so_./(cc.e f f CL6/ b s ef t~l 4 4 %.tx *t~c f e (rv' 4 .5 (D lA s.E { ta d s.t
<L f1e) (-L 2.e. e:W.s 6 u (L i . i., i f t, k, !
J 81' * ,'-t h <d A 4 4a2. w s fl,,,= 4 hu f(.4 h re wA CL w d., A J d 1,2
~
A. t . l4,3% A ~ lb_( s <.)
$ .e D. A~ f 9 G& J l' ' - O*v*
rv-v w k ,oIe t v<. w is l uw I + ( ? Pn. a ) . A eo, 4.'., e ' D_\
~
O f_W'E A- $ fV ' 8 L-1 e>1 0
'www ~'
e.-v eLl~ fA. I
- 4. t
. n v.4 5 . el_s A tA3I$ 1 0 e. t t'[tc
- t$ $?v e
- W " P' &V ELA 1< '@ t.A*=- b n.O W ..-
4 nw k
.e s a 70 (n / O E ' c s ee m.a./ 1 ept tw u ; s *_c M-d b w (4) re-a en d i W .'e .' /
y .. { C:]e %: _.J L , ~. . . Q. n . war L~kanW$tN .s L ,1 .n J \
+
M c h a .< v s, W >ggln1+iII'M' , u s o ee afa 'e S:. ~ - l', vesen30v.yx
% wn1 t 5 O (.L w k> l +1 - >.!<!- seen a a . 'da,- M G &+
- a. s s ', _ / . _
tea J L ,.3M r<<.s u / / h 2 < l . , 2.< 1 ) A 1 e.' B . f <. M c - Te i n ,', w s ,t ts ) .. . r.= L n L ;tt, ,,.a a. '. 7 TO G L o Da l . 'e ,' a r t0 abs w wo es ?0a ,.n (Ws- ts .
) ,
e
--.m__.-_.-_-__-_-___m_._,,,_
l
. sA 1 e Sa tLd: ,91y
_ 13 0* e v. L k 1 U C, I'-Q w.. , % .,U 6 6 w e_c_, g l L 'U rt c j uedw a 4%'t~) -c; jev', $ % iu. d w m \ v < o Lo.a. n A r e 0 ~J b tLi nad(s. k R G .a-. 3 3fl~w 6c~ & %e o+ -%L = i;. '.1 es a. Iel t~d k sw: le f.u )
'%e<cL f,._ ,;2 d w A,... C.
! k & .C;f1.That ,y, s ,- amco. t, .:, , f sw,% L , hw kes,dLaS G A eena.
.o w .e u . , 4-co m i k : t. 3 . h .e s a.t(t.Mev-secana s ~ .. o w s wist. <
r.rev-sit) + 1 8 -b-4 i L e c e t. - tv er-svo r & -4 s s ' es -o n .s - s ro i) w.e -t i cL~4 I. '<J a 'E A t ro- s uo z a ~a en no - siso z. kt % sw.hiu e a si tl< J A tL f, <M ww.A._J. r; ; u E A t W - 3 i so t, & ]
] C- A t ro - i t 7 o z.
. i m a.o h l.y, u
i
\
. - = -
[ \(\IS J %t
~
o w .c , b b'. e 3_ % <dl [ O a. , Y $ $ t h l f 68., tLt Rt+ rt s m n .< o r L'l ,4m
,, J oSt.3 a . 4 ro c e rtA+ t k <,,,
tt c ,.; %L vuc (vasivrn - ( % ~
' 3.l J ._\, SI'wo. tk T c 16 lLA.'w 7 4 M eJ v e o La e i L < .4iIL,_ ,
N\ Lt Y Sd t WW (JL ,} fM LJ W Yk & an. ) k o wltyt., s ld /,-k.,
- a s ,',, w h i l ig.w bo'ye./
%-}'u s LA N Nri / 6 f H s-,r < /m$ a 4m n c'$' ) f i i % nr k-f it'J'dd sJ .,wilek
~
ii 1 F A;w
- blaola />< N d AU m, *i,%'ml *A a.a t'c.4, '
I e /-e u St~' d a // i
&sc,,O &
a4m.,f,, s ,L sea;lebi ML ,< & / rzo <
.S' fL nsM- u /s .
7 w n >-e el U.
~
a l
\
~~
. nd. .y7,. . - " .
$WQc
- k n.%s., -
if tlardoyd %. wW,'@8 : k ,, , Y.
. . . ~ _ .
~ - . . . . . . . . . ... .
Ace $.,-- # . 8 I ~ R N ~~ Wl L. ,up. ~& uW'W -&lc216 2~,:q%y - --
- y. g .
'Ytw Prec.a w. J,JJt WL../ J p/ addees. cad C, ;,,,;5.0(~
Mry y p. .. wm i re.a s .e ,c -- fNSb MMW W i,W~T w u{.A kas u (af'
^4- l _
o a.aJ. %:e. N s 1. . . y , f . , ,
?aAML.W-- "R '
.'; .:p ?.;. @ . _
^O $ Tk
.g.gf,gp, L. x A hA h.'$- e -<.u,) e a, s - -pd b a.n(:--
LL 1 j wa c,.. O rc. c,.,1<~av.qT= w, .-&p . %. . . ..
- ...{'.l.F t-e.,s a d " b % r ..k g g M ,
_.. - A
~. -
4
& WL! O 4)*L ..*.*.
o.. 41.e._b.c.k
. **W. . ..$._ ,$ Q f t.,.
di$..,.,2 1 tid..Ip u ks oc.s I+ f,..m %
..)e. Y .
ze c')r. 4-en'c!>ew
~ .' 7 * ;. - .
U v rdw 's~-4 M c. 3 ,.
,.* . ,*t l e.' ' *.s'.
. i s -
.~ .a <. :. .;*,O . --.
r - '
.,F s,, . ..... .
s...
.._...w....
...y...
9 8 _ ... g,+. p ' - :.c s i _ .._...... . I
. _ . . . . _ . . . I
; e *.;f';'? _- l i . ' .t.(.hI .
1
* . - ^z. .- - ..... ...
. ~ -
I
..q*',....J .
? 2 * .* .l'.
5 %f'.'i;S?*
- ' :agh . . . .
., 9 . ,;g .-
.' . . :} ., .k.. ,.,,., . -.
* .Q4.f . . .3*. ,j. :?. * -- --~~~
i i
.8..
. .*y.
- o. .> .,
- - ~ - . - -
*.b'.
l
. ~ ..
- r. ; %. 44 . . . . . , -
%.: pf ,e.v. r. *
,,m.7
. . s. . _ .
-s . . . . . .
M
-_ ._ .A____ __.m_m _ _
r y p,,.in Ts/ ' ' 2.p w w +l
" Mfs W a. cd a'
- /
,r% p osr-b
_ . , o.r.. A- .. _ ,. .m- - c - _ n_ _ _ .
.p[ }c.c.s.ev..n gory zz structor.teh. vl6x4o st.1 :er.naIs (o"fi'from ene sole.4 Design Information for In conn eeten ---
gig j th.. Wall on Platform OP-ll in the Pressurizer Compartment. W.?'4@L.- . i d &&W w e i !. t.s_ cai. n .7 ,,st-
~ B'd M s dalua e.l- ll; es de9%.Ws-c $l2&MG M4 .w-k'% p;ec _w,SWau%.r] = n n..f.it,;. J (diMiii% J+ m f. A % w e. e pg,k& g 3.;a m a...
E ffto R LL u.s' an. . re KPR ?Bea.v /ArY) e y" a,
~-o/e.ta . TVGCey,.L.ist a 1 ary
'bbR /9$/69( h .u..;hym ,*, /s.so *d)
$%EEkN % A A% .+ L;.rn , 4 2kg.,.ep-y YAYA05E @ Ww.hYe A.s. J M h l%24 % fa.,>&
Y@liWW." /- d - &d.r " ,,%.% ,, 4f . .w,;& NQ%ye .. c. Vik9'. m - $WA.14:ja'n,,
? WWsnu .1.Leeiers s d ac.,,%;.,;j~;&;;g f
(fg % h c a: 43y e c. J ""1?a x. A g h ,4 5 M . Mw221Wf. QWhW2 W. l, AL.f D-2 & 2 'fk 4. :'*Q^egy.,
% 2.Vi@<;..,a,%)ht .
~
*'2 9 ^2 e-1 aln % ;m /,4 w.x 4 4x s , y m O[TbWNUk , S e1sH+a.1 %wt H ]
k.p!s%G', msix
'hc R Im4 wa...m.,rd. _ _ .
$jihep,,,h.
WM r > . . ,n en _s /- em .oE ./h s gg ' %. ;l7
, jp FMIM*nM : % c 4 .-a i ,Sc
"+2."?ee.aw R c m s s :' vp>,,p.gcp
#@%fa AhW /
% % % y d y;i .g,; w 4. g "g' ,
b :A C4v / / & p a a.a ,, u g g. y,g,,.gy. 3m. .
~'
sh . n 8 ' e' , , , . .g. ,
I ! t,
., !?
.m;w-c~w
. 4s f./a kV'.2 . . . . . . !!Cf' bQ f SF W, ,,
fL 5 L b E i $ G LmA a- o COc9 I9794, TDs is s. l
"&M%L4e i _
s . a w e y n Q o ,. o a.. \ ~., i
< e v > a., o ocas ra- n.sa. _ ,
\ 4kC5s.E5 5 s R (< S& w d6 AAdS3. n~- %s.a ' \ l} RXS$h s take.s W "TG- oue.Otv ^ A yso, a'As. ', 'o ~U . i es%9% %a -lm AB s 'dndn 6a'.aw
\
+ 1 3 ? M A L o L % ..s a zwti nce.dch~ca '
L.,.m. .. 7 . . S ~f *? S } o is .
/ >
rs* ,
. ._,m , M ""
'W: 5.QP..0 ~ & LL e s z f ss- - - % M. ' n ,J
=
1 .- . _ . . .. -
\
hN'hbN [s r/ I'/ de. sac.c.,'d,'M Y $N N_
% %+2 . p da.>w-/ u n x.'.- , s L -I' %<.c \
T.5$%% m%'.% % 6 le n ,/- d eut i'.u a ' FWG%W o L A A, nv,A s. e,w.chw
~
1
- EW5C n k S.u n dasja b dex.f.rJeux an,.mbd$
NNT
; r e m ..b v.e,IC; 4 ~- ~ ?zs,e.xv o n/c>nA, A,l f523 fBN' n./swce e - '
r-A f ?R ~. m ,. h s e e s m yx.ec. ,j u a 3 , w s o u ,,,a aA. -
"5GYSP -9 4 h / /0 , a. W.::, 5 'b4fn k J.v pu Y-h%9$bTbe1$
+24yM 2 T a E/maa l/da-v)<94%g " g/_// 4l ye.,,:cQ*
e . . % ,. ,,g., ,,, gg, y.gye
%n,4;r'", : f ... y4, & ,e
;.c a c n n .4 /e. f,. n
' ' gen'** -
() a.,n W / 3 o AJ MY { . f,l',A.,, r' $
--_ oms a,)_Ck )r o <- ),v l,.,5.) ,.(<,,dA/C l$ Y T
4 M 69 ar- -e 1 Q,1,k gV~cf*c i~ p Y ".- r'k.s..- _. _ 2ep g n ,,-
~
7a- ,, ,;, J ,}a v _
.4.. .? -
S Sc g3 .. . . --
% y ' ' v '," M a d ' d e p s M pL m - A s _
-.ab;Yw p,,',_,_.s
""g t ha r "& yaca.s m ajae&yg a a .. . <. . .
l ..,#--.,._.
- d.. . by l L % a.be 2)cy @yy ggy ymq ~
S:'M y,o q ue,4 w L~r w ,y . g ,,_g. g y7 g
~
[f1Q %a wi+k.ad e.,Lsus,>um % f-bcq yy n y- ~ _kgh;. 3(: M .n< tar. v 4 <- :n s;a 1 % g.;'27(,,
- g.
out $,6. I' ',1 a. It e w s. w hyJ-, s j g ; gyy..,g. e
" g. 7.. .g.
. & =WY".s m pae see a.s' c.o. .. ...j%f .g es ,.
j gs,,wa' ed u.,5' . ..
- z. mcw s,,w- j . ] -
> .t.. ] u .,4,.m,y, r. t u v --
. u -
sA SAL... - tggy' ,x , , '
~
pyc
,. r. .. .. .
s* 4 ,, - * . .,. ; 1
? , -~ .-
I
, ma ., ./',
a.
....'b.. e..
_ su . . A,.s.m.i$.., -dl W
.. ".., - ll .
, :m u ".::g . .
. .. - .y; . '
~ ,.. ~.
e' ' I.'* '. s,j y,,. ,' g' 4* '
- 6. '
c n d'm,a @'a*. ,
- c . ,; ..
. pM,o u.,we si -a v _
,g a
- suuss auge.. .
y rp
,_G . _ ete -
p
.o1 ,
s.
-) >: 7..-
~ -
- .. p ._
~'
_.. E s .. P. h i ,
. 1 e.,.
a - _ n-._ 1 - _ _ ~ - _ - _ . _ . _ _ _ -
ummer a rage no vie atte. 64
- e4- 7 R PC .3 to ,/35 em 03e Y ce j Oled
( r :;) Violation item 445/8422-03: Unit 1 Unauthorized Removal of BISCO Fire Seal The applicant initiated corrective action which included we l Construction Reindoctrinatson of CPSES Rules & Policies, b> Perform Inspection Walkdown of Unit 1, and b) Initiated l
- Programmatic Controls for Construction. The HRC inspector l
reviewed the following documentation of the corrective actions 1 ) i T-141, T1K.Co CAR-938, IM # 27535 S/3/94,
- and the practice of using discrete construction packages tehere each package contains the necessary instructions and forms to complete the specified l
wd.
,, a CCLOSED) Unr d item 445/94 -84 Unit 1 erial Certs 1 )
no!: provide uffici t ce rt if ation. :f Thi om droepeo thro n - V
*Cka will ta e when g r,gy ,
l l 9 i I t i 1 l J e 9 d 2 9
" J g g F -t--A----- _.__ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _____a
frf 6' h sq Ivd <. I . m el Pi Wi Y'v x- u y03 q'(; n ., s-s s \ 2004 .. . ? N.0 0 - 4 o 't /. ;
. -.'. az f
. U 5.N.. ...)..d . $(VNI5
~
d3 f!' . l ' Y _h
%' ($
a a. s
..-a / / :...
... s k..._ ._ . - - 1 < j "
N
~
Q Q (D C 6. ., / f f GNY.* 5 . l & a ". ", M 3 .<1
'g<ye;g,s
( . ) _fGM bu FSZ 1)Lai<a s
) % A - A 74' .at-0-63 m s
- b-B 'Atdztta "TL.c_
n- 4s<..sM.w~ o e aig.
."a.c-hv:It'isMl%
?
c a , m g ()la. _ s e F~g 1 d ~ : - s da L6
% }\, dan.
- a. R.c. ~n sy-s% P.SiL,.o o d o .s..". . *
- ae .... 3 yu.....cyf h w.c /.~t en. ,s,SI). t A. a.m.ss sv u;a vc .../d a s w ' o p s.)x..
i sG & de- w O )x eci 'Y-s- cc::ee tueN
% ee.u%./"Dcc .0 ;Lu . a.# A~f a draus.ucGci S Y y MAL %f
+ O .?et- .ts6c.*"s+. '"Iv ~ 060 .
44k csi rY.s d %. c.or L / .d_c c..p.e p*c u>.ld Gey_c dW- _i h(o d r.eusl u a s u)h
- is s u ed a r-e. s b^Pd
..s ep o ; e e. a .u a_._n.-. u ,.s <a. .. .
e a. c ". ,. u .ce. o.s a n . --. Aids a.c ./.L;.//. ....-. a .>
.- s s.v . ..a._as u e ty./v s J J ~.a c c.-e .
Hu. .s.
, VL. .co .e.es.a a .s
/. ,wee Y f
. . . . =
/ . .
lf,,k, , ,, l y V 2C p?g, J 89-3.a L'-O/ Om - ~ _
~.. h4 ok, O
?h/
@s A&& / /WS - 9% AMC.Emoeden G ll~W _
5 LlUM *5CfV / Ybat. ,,$N/$ , a. W b f *L# war su~ (R PC) & pry
< v a _
ecpy-Ys to ho diCCee e.uY vic e zeex.~ L tc Lo w eue <- a 14.;eA i
';, c.
Aaws.la a
/
/ viee- cera> A s t is res e.e.s,1/<
\
, A/'ElkeX% $rbm . we/ue wc.e .eesee a e./_ A 08. 74 ~
Me Vo e-t's d,'~ Wv
% %C;x
% ? a. Pr e s ( fW J o A A j e ,:.c: ae E4c/e.a e n<./e' e 1.r . kee ao & ble : <anac&es,cogiJ etsbe & soft-e lw.sa.,osc%'a e tave/ An I'O's,ctweg h, \
io bov> d-e. afle Wou bo foo ilw$7'. i CPE55 Q.R. 0/~: 2i:e ee.C/ee 6 % rs <a el.=.a.A mss l 4/ 5 % /i 'r'v f.r w < w - s 3MeJ~
/o -ir- rc i
.x ,
^
~
$6 h -
enumah.
. bf.4.:.,
?
c.\ 7./ . %4r:u f kk f;m., O\
. _ L O_tl c l' sv ( Qo VI bLf ch.4;z;$ o c.h bn. tt,t1yV
...Y_.L_t... .Ce. r..E . i cdi c A, a f T6.r A .d. h .L u s rl.+./. 3 .v.a u.e 1 ' b._I3.Lic cC e.J. .c.E cd .p.c.h lze....s4 14 .u.,z~
% ....- 5.f.A_s4. . us Y . ys u <.A.. ~k -.O a( . . p a.[ s .._ h' .. s t . . 01 n h . . L n-.4 k.$Es-5 r
. . . - - 4-
=e ~ u.u .. - o
. J & __.Q )tA-A _s m b .... b__ .. b
'4s I w) q__.
.- W + a,__.
.M &
~TM_G_.40__=n# U .-.G._A -
.5..k M )
_. .'fE S &. ..
.. c. A .r u . . ..._ h . O l M . g u > a.-a
. b O.!.$.[.D.j..e... b d M New+_- _b ~ IL _ tit.M__s.b- b tb ..h___SA.al. 5.. d..D :sd (e 5.
-.____.$d..LrC.0_ Con.fv d Wo.
. L'f).O~LO.2 ! J,.6*.'.hku 1.td'.6I
$_y_C-(<.N._Ln.. . . No . ') 5 3.3 :W t '3VP Y1? ...
O s.) s
- f .A4TM-.& -H 4..p/ de& 4W
&.....Y t - - . _ . - . - .
% U-.1 t.H !
~
- s. O C M N $ t. h.Es ..Y .. U M .
\
'u s f.s$0.c ... h e m. 4. Y . -t U-w-
i s,_
& S a c. c 4 s s M . .. s o d aw..kLE_C 9 % A ~~?S t
b n".! v ..S_. wa su.t m . km N.hI't O NAk . ebO' .. A . . 0 S A I 9 7 L . 5S n, n
.S.NEw 3. . s~niw . L. A m.'v5.Us.v$4ev _51.u vs s A.qd
. ._____- LK 9.L
$ En.96 U '@b.Jl .E.6 . ._.6 u 6 l U.__ b_ _ '
C sh.si.d>x.<-l.. . $.s. . ..k u cY$.9_.. .. h 3.3.6 _W <; .
,-- _-._._ d* N s es.o. (.A.C)_.li.S. .
t M f a o , I't IC, kk .-..Li.AAs.d..k.Ko. 9
.. .--. .. f-L-a.t a. t Q fu.ru <% t S ( .p .S F-zo (t9 77) .
\
1 4 i
~ .
-----________f
4 G% L 'li 6 N . - o< l N Ce<n,a $ 3.- 6 SN_f. 12Iy s;// cme
. M^3 cilu i ..eW M .bd'/$f DJ/ N b&'1.. &< d4'4-4 -...' $ " $.~
v, %y tir _ hea< k _. s . __ _ ,.< ..g. s. g . w..2 &.
- _. .. J 3. -.... . ..
,a p..._..& m & / ter_<. s/A-
% P - / f'J.... /.f_ G __.. ..c. e rt MM MeoL A M-- . .
& b u x n ~frkr.a kn.At E e ii 2 ba.sf.r1 M.-/Jf~. .
f_ 7%r ?...Y b I N= 2.7 .. .. r~5 , -u. . . - .
' )_ ._ S.. y SS19-/t St.<.l< r>. .
dkJ --. 2.,./.itV. 2 .. ._..._ - . _ . 74f., g.'). . L cih ex st.lesj_..u[ N. . .___._.. O t M... . _ %.< ko, d _W_ __p' _w. .__. ... .
<th- Pw k _
2: L.y..., '.c .t..t.:.m ; s , % A)r..t..c.- ^
\ M.s W.. . .S. I. OW YN _.Nt -.
~j f .....
"2.' - 4.5 .h $ *.
fie_ar~d..e1% .:%t U ee & _.; ' % . I$ O '~~ $:, Y t : ~ - r-< W Ad' uJ 4 ^<- N 5.?_ . G M 44 ..b....m.Aad.3 J % Wi.6 i &,, c.u +,'(; d.. % ....o f..ry S.c.o =-
'M b A b
^ M..n J.... ..
56*AC' W d W .i
.lk .s -tI n ,e--4 . . . . .
v g _s,v,AA.AAk_../.t ;;-r W- . ,- a , < /, e .
~,i m .i -.
. M v .9 & .a> L t. m Lh - h L D w p d'.=
w! JA
.s 6 a ld W .o.b.pk h. Aw._ .a .._m > - W ....u/_ @ - '
s 6._q__k.c.._h.._ M.. 4 a x . _ r. ...,.. , , trd _M_
- ,, a P W- a
'o
..L,n. .c h t t, m
nJ
+...m.g
/ _$ ( Sl' O bL- S '
..) . _. U .. h h , Q f/[,,_ "
.._H.%lr23-i ) _ - . . .
-be- .
- _ _ _ _ _ _-__.-___.__.d...A ___..% ..?.___4. A. a. _ a - _ h .__.
~
L3 ' Tk U (L L.
. &.* f Y fu & &-.hh C0 clcd
- a. ek .M*t gy * ( Lewf w f=b y . u ..n... s..o._i. J.. .
~ b lid ,NcO_/..I._h_y 4 . .M fLC. .n.Y hlo . P 4 .A 3-/o. 7.
W A- 2.c--h. W_ _l.L.r.l.9CW s. h.M. TUW h"m b r < c.'m A. e J. y 4 F.r6 Cv- D5.S.A. _.h . m cLe O , _ t T3 og. j ddrJ e ci,b/ t ,_.t..e 9t.f.__.b u 'I 4. r 9 - w p _q.3 .. kWI M A t4< rv+./..__b tb-F_et __ @. Sne)
~
r e.s.tn_A.d__ M A A'c , ? ..b_L:e . A. . h 6 % _..m b.~ N _ .
. : a d e_[
pu .. W' ft gO
.-n 6 k4 i = -
~
. Me da. b h_
,.k o g g . _L)$ C C a. /M 'm2--_& 0c Oy- - $4 /*/*J"'
W h 9_se.b.h ,_.' .H.,1. 4.f f t n d <* ch._ OfA Wsb~ s+, h .c s wI d G ~.fv a.f c. A-r/, T kdO . HN x)et._ d_ .Q
*..h_. -< d
- d. ac.v w J /
Y .._. A g . p _ & x m n
"~' e [ L.n._k 4 61 - 0 0.LL,_0_ _NII _2 d6~N.[b'M, Aa E _. C 1.d.U L E. _..
n 0 _ $~% I d... $.tS .P.kic. i c ). IE.E2_.35LSj)' .3_f, I<.N..% f.M.h),.,__ L & Ov _}.2. I9 YI y _[,..nngf-Qf.t.c. o
.__: * h..J .5 , N ~ / W SJ v l 4
?NCD % h m h. u ~ d _~ C i
......._.._..___.__....___._.__. 1 Yk'>
1 d_.-.. L..%. M l ~ sv. h.. 4.e. d .deOc L
' / ma7x k.i... i Lh ..i.i. . s va & M s4< aux.
Pe f. a .,. Q .I b _. 4 , e rL b ,. a r o b 'v.r/_ttis )
..._L%._.....e.leeo..ba m f ~ywf_2% i _LL _w_m.__
A O.< & w12X Tuaco n ' w,. '
. S u h j < <.d y .e /><. {cA. s
.74 ns d M -
cd _ .$. tw m s . h d Adf #1 N bb
/
th w w 7% i - n ,cs w i 5 ,n: c*N Me,wO $ 4 4J' ' ic
+ eY N h& / .$) E A- 1 b' 0 ShJ Ft U YhY S $ & _.
$ b. btI l 'l ^ -
15 A.Al b
& t<)lt<. M U 2*0 i
mY Ydl
, n, 4
..e f/tr ~
r
$ rYtM .f "l$ - _ ? ? A th :2 Mb 8R Ns bac.d6 d ba ~ ! 44Y&k +-k'
~
"af t o e t x c s. r-ri, , . w ? -
a 'uldM V $ 0
' ( M r/rrn ' T__
e
#* 8 '_ _ g
'n i Ca=v" A s L L\ bt dV .
. . /. . x . 9
[Ekit Iriterview
,i 9 3 er1 p M */
~%_
4?An ex ,it intervies was cond ucted;U-_ h-- - ,
/,
,, far,1985, with :the applicant '
*'-.;During
~
*rfindings of'the inspection this interview, the NRC inspectors summ
~
Theppp11 cant acknowledged the findings.. iii h & % t k A.%. .i y, m. a n.c. 's ., , e +
%s pg.W 4.~lm %
' <t
. nd =
n+ tk iOc All W&) e e mus
- d4%'c.ii ,
_IT ^
'..... ---~
* &'2 9' hk N*
# e mie.a.aus . .
,m-enge a "W a ~~
\p *t d vanTse eTATES _
gI NUCLIAR REGULATORY COMMlaul0N Db
)
t naosow av ett avan m.AzA on ve, surrs icon 90 AAUNGToN, TEXA8 7etti
, f. ]
November 25, 1905 / In Rep,1y Refer To: Dociet: 50-445/446 NOV?.6.EE .
. M MEMORANDUM FOR: T. Westeman, Chief Comanche Peak Group j FRWi: H. 5. Phillips, Senfor Resident Inspector (SRI)
ComancMe Peak
$UBJECT: ALLEGATION
. On November 24, 1!185 Mr. Thomas Young,'an NRC consultant infom'ed me of an allegation of concern made during conversations with site personnel .
It is alleged.that Texas Utilities Generating Company (.TUGC01 management has become increasingly uncomfortable witM adverse trends i reported by a site consultant group. It seems that tRese trends are 1 viewed as embarrassing and possibly a threat to Itcenstng the plant fn - i the immediate future. Members of the consultant group have Den infomed that the consultant's contract wt11 r.ot be renewe8s 'and, some connect this action with TOGCO's frustration wttN Being unable to , control the actions of the trending group. TWo of the consultant personnel working in.tNe Inspection Process control grong stated ttiat the corrective action taken % Tt!8CO Quality Engineering is a joke and tris is spectffcally true o,f electifcal . area' trends. I recommend that this matter.be investigated' ilmeediately heans's th'a ( consultant group will probably leave site within 30 days. At this l , point in time all .of this group is available for interviews on site but after they leave site it will require a far greater NRC effort. Thts item is also important because it implicates current TUGC0 inanagement. Also, activity in the electrical area.$n Unit 2.is extremely high and if adverse trends continue'. improper QC inspections - and improper work may be proceeding. H. S. Phillips ., N i Senior Resident Inspector Comanche Peak cc: Resident File ' e
*W O y i
e;
*..r.
_ . _ . . . ... .. _ - , ., - . ~ . ~-
,h k ' *% UNITED STATES i g i
*/ . ,; NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$ REGION IV DO NOT DISCLOSE k [ 611 RYAN PLAZA ORtVE. SUITE 1000 C3 $
~~"
%, ,. ARLINGTON. TEXAS 76011 K gg January 9, 1986 ,,..
J MEMORANDUM FOR: Mark Emerson, Allegation Coordinator ~~ ~~ - FROM: T. F. Westerman, Chief [ Comanche Peak Region IV Group l I S.UBJECT: Allegation 4-85-A-121 I telephoned two individuals referenced by Tom Young (Attachment I-Individual A K 5 Neither individual requested confidenti'ality nor i l was it offered. Individual A stated he is leaving his present employer, l Project Assistant Corp. (PAC) and is going to work for TUGCO. Individual B is leaving the site with the termination of the PAC contract on January 17, 1986. Each made the following statements:
. Individual A
- 1. Stated he had no concerns.
- 2. Stated he knew Tom Young was looking at IPC findings but that he was not aware of any problems with electrical trending.
. Individual B
- 1. Did not identify any problems with electrical trending.
- 2. He stated he did have a concern with inspection records whi'ch indicated the satisfactory sign off for inspections of electrical terminations when the lugs were not the same as recorded on the inspection report. The inspection l sign off was for terminal blocks with lugs when the actual brand of terminal block didn't use lugs.
- 3. He stated that the action taken by the QE was to write I off the findings since the lugs did not exist. He felt j this did not address the generic problem of improper j documentation. {
l ( l DO NOT DISCLOSE l l l
~
,. MCh h b b CPSES/FSAR 17.2.16 CORRECTIVE ACTION The CPSES Operations Administrative Control and @ality Assurance Plan establishes requirements for the identification and correction of con-ditions adverse to quality. These requirements are consistent with the
~
provisions of Regulatory Guides 1.28 and 1.33 as discussed in Appendix 37 1A(B). The plan requires that conditions adverse to quality, such as failures, malfunctions, deficiencies. and deviations, identified through review of documents, surveillance, audits, or experience during operation, are documented and dispositioned. Significant conditions adverse to quality are evaluated to determine the cause of the condition and the corrective action to be taken to preclude recurrence. Reports of significant conditions adverse to quality are reviewed by the Operation Review Comittee and that committee's. decisions and/or reconnendations regarding corrective action are forwarded to appropriate management personnel. Follow-up' reviews of nonconformance reports to verify propee implementation of corrective action are con-ducted by quality assurance personnel. 17.2.17 QUALITY ASSURANCE RECORDS The CPSES Operations Administrative Control 8 Quality Assurance Plan 7' and the CPSES Startup Quality Assurance Plan establish requirements for i , the identification, collection, and storage of quality assurance records. These requirements are consistent with the provisions of Regulatory Guides 1.33 and 1.88 as discussed in Appendix 1A(8). The plans require that sufficient records be enintained to provide 7,;, documentary evidence of the quality of items and of the accomplishment of activities affecting quality. Records to be maintained include such items as drawings, specifications, procurement documents, 17.2-35 4 NOVEMBER 5, 1984
- ~~ - - -
_ ---_a_____-__=
( l CPSES/FSAR nonconformance reports, corrective action reports, operating logs, l I personnel and procedure qualifications, results of inspections and test, material certifications and test results, and audit reports. l l Quality assurance records are maintained in accordance with procedures l l and instructions which assign responsibilities for the collection, j l 53 maintenance, and protection of records. These procedures and I instructions provide a system of record identification to assure retrievability and pr'escribe retention periods for various types of f f recnrds. l The Manager, Plant Operations is responsible for development of I 53 procedures and instructions to implement the management requirements
- l l
rela'ted to QA records. Quality assurance records are stored in a specially constructed storage , facility at CPSES to prevent their destruction, deterioration, or theft. The CPSES record storage facility construction is consistent j l with the appiicable requirements of the regulatory guides referenced above. Access to the records far.ility is controlled so that only authorized personnel have access to the records area. , 0 17.2.18 AUDITS The CPSES Operations Administrative Control and Quality Assurance Plan establishes requirements for an audit program. The audit program is 33 consistent with the applicable portions of Regulatory Guides 1.28 and 1.33 (as discussed in Appendix 1A(B)), and ANSI N45.2.12 (draft 4. Rev. 2 - January, 1976). 55 l The plan requires that planned and periodic audits be performed in accordance with written procedures to verify compliance with all aspects of the quality assurance program. Responsibility for the audit 55 program has been assigned to.the Director, Quality Assurance. Audits AMENDMTP 55 JULY 19, 1985 '17.2-36 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____m
7-
~
E M ,+ A
* % , UNITED STATES
~*
[, ; NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
'b $ REGloN IV 8 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE. SUITE 1000
%, - , .8 ARLINGTON. TEXAS 76011 1
?
MEMORANDUM FOR: E. H. Johnson, Director, Division of Reactor Safety l and Projects l FROM: T. F. Westerman, Chief 4 Comanche Peak Group SUBJECT. INSPECTION OF QA RECORDS
~
I have reviewed Mr. Phillip's memorandum to me dated April 29, 1986, same subject as above. Mr. Phillips has concerns with the shipment of CB&I records offsite and the records facility described in Section 17.1 of the Comanche Peak FSAR. My review of each of these issues is as follows: , l CB&I Records Shipped Offsite
- The CB&I construction of the containment liner was basically a turnkey project. The CB&I records were to be provided at the end of the project.
l The records were never under the control of TUGCo during the construction. Therefore, the burden of responsibility for the records until they were turned over to TUGCo was CB&I's. The. utility, TUGCo had the ultimate responsibility of assuring that CB&I had an acceptable records management system and that the final records provided TUGCo are consistent with l regulatory requirements. I have drawn the following conclusions:
- 1. The contractor, CB&I, has violated no regulatory requirement as the result of the shipment of QA records without retaining a copy on site. The ANSI Standard 45.2.9 is silent with regard to method of shipment (cardboard boxes in this case) and or requirements for a duplicate copy to be made prior to shipment.
- 2. There is no regulatory requirement for TUGCo to have control of CB&I QA records (produced on site) while CB&I is the custodian and responsible party.
- 3. The contractor, CB&I, should demonstrate that there was a proper 3 receipt in accordance with ANSI 45.2.9 for records shipped offsite.
l 1
- 4. The utility should demonstrate that the final CB&I QA records provided to TUGCo are consistent with regulatory requirements.
w
1
\
E. H. Johnson : I l TUGCo 0A Records facility (Construction) This facility is no longer the final permanent storage vault. The final $ permanent facility is located on the operations side of the plant and all QA records will eventually end up in that facility. It does, however, appear to meet the requirements for a permanent facility. The two items 1 that Phillips feels deviate from ANSI N45.2'.9 are for a permanent facility. {
- ANSI N45.2.9 states that
- '
"at least the following features shall be considered in design of the permanent facility: .
l (2) Concrete floor and roof with sufficient slope for drainage, if a floor drain is provided, 4 (8) Dry chemical or gas fire protection system." In discussions with the licensee, they indicated that the floor drainage features were considered, but that since there was no water sprinkler inside the building, drainage was not an immediate concern and that in order to enter the vault with a fire hose, the door has to be. open and this provides a ready path for drainage. A flat floor may be an advantage. The irony of the drainage issue is that the licensee could with fire rated , cabinets ignore providing a drainage or fire protection features, since this no longer is the permanent facility. It is not clear that this is better than the present fire rated building and associate fire protection l system. After having several individuals interpret the statement,
" concrete floor and roof with sufficient slope for drainage . . . ." there appears to be a definite ambiguity in the interpretation of this statement.
It is not clear that the slope requirement applies to both the roof and floor. l 1 A fire protection system is described in the FSAR Section 17.1.17 as
" Dry chemical or gas fire extinguishers are provided." A 2-inch fire hose, not described in the FSAR, is provided as a secondary means l i
at the vault entrance. j I have drawn the following conclusions: I
- 1. It is my opinion that licensee is not in violation of ASNI 45.2.9 l fire suppression and drainage requirements.
- 2. In SSER 11, page 0-104, the TRT made the statement, ". . . that both the vault and the procedures were in compliance with the requirements prescribed in FSAR Chapter 17.1 and ANSI 45.2.9."
~
.6 _ _ .__mQ
I
~
I MEMORANDUM FOR: J. G. Partlow, Director. Division of Inspection Programs. Office of Inspection and Enforcement FROM: E. H. Johnson, Director, Division of Reactor Safety and Projects, Region IV
SUBJECT:
CPSES RECORDS ISSUES I have attached a H. S. Phillips, memorandum to T. F. Westerman dated April 29, 1986. Our inspector is concerned with the shipment of CB&I records offsite and the records facilitj described in Section 17.0 of the Comanche Peak FSAR. Your review and ' guidance with regard to these two arecs of concern as dutlined in Mr. Phillips memorandum is requested. If you have further questions you may contact H. S. Phillips (817/897-2201) or T. F . Westerman (FTS 728-8145). E. H. Johnson, Director Division of Reactor Safety and Projects Attachment cc: T. F. Westerman H. S. Phillips I i l l l i RIV:RSB DRSP TFWesterman:gb EHJohnson ~ ~ ~ ~ {/m/86 / /86
.aw eW,, , * ' -
- o ** " 7 '*g UNITED STATES
[- 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l I b REGION IV A j
/ 611 RYAN PLAZA ORIVE. SUITE 1000
...*/
- ARUNGTON. TEXAS 76011 I
l April C9, 1986 ' MEMORANDUM FOR: T. West er man , Chief Comanche leak Group FROM H. S. Phillips, Senior Rauident Inspector l Comanche Peak l l
SUBJECT:
INSPECTION OF GA RECORDS 1 During an October 1985 inspection, the NRC inspectors became ! aware of several questionable practices concerning the control ! and storage of CA records. This was documented in NRC Report enclosed. Nos. 85-14/11 and applicable portions of this report are i 1 The first issue deals with Te::as Utilities Generating Company l (TUGCO) responsibility for OA records generated onsite by l Chicago Bridge and Iron (CB&I). The NRC inspector found that l CB&I had shipped all original OA records concerning Unit 2 steel ! liner, mechanical penetrations. and other miscellaneous i mechanical work activities of fsite without retaining a copy of the original records. These records were shipped in paper boxes. l TUGCO was unaware of any inventory of the QA rec'rds e ! shipped. Therefore, any audit of records returned by CB&I will depend on the CB&I inventory. No CB&I inventory was available onsite becuase.CBLI had left the site. These findings were presented to TUGCO management and they disclaimed any responsibility for these 04 records because they thought they belonged to CB&I until the work was completed, and until all CA records were copied and transmitted to TUGCO at which time TUGCO became responsible f or them. TUGCO management also stated that CB&I was no different than offsite vendors who copied and sent.TUGCO records after completing the contracted work activity. Comment: It is an unusual situation when an applicant states that all site generated records are not under their control even if a site contractor is the custodian during construction. It is al so an unusual case when all original CA records are shipped without retaining a copy. The applicant stated that the loss of such records Hould be at their own risk: however, this is an impractical viewpoint M ______-_---J
ci. . i' i !,pu l 6.p r i 1 . . i l' eJ.F.m.e 3,a t i , Qi tru. r+' <;.mtil a iritmreit jther t*ecordh
.as nou emboddud n c.iet ele > and raccede of ether wor tieni.'i.
ac t t /s t i o+. c annut t e r..ci .ros t ructed if lost. Also, ofi Lel tr
. t- n d or s c.m di f f ermnt f r om ' s i t re contractors as they veu*] 1.
retain .*nd protect Os records in eccordance with AN51 N45.2.9 until the contract i% completed at which time they make a copy and send originals to the site. In this car.o no copy was made. Since CBLI has similarly handled DA
.4 records at other sites. It i s recommended thet the NRC review these policies to datersnine if they era inconsistent-with NRC reciulati ens. 1+ th w practices vi ol a t e- requi. tit.n i
an (IE) Inf ormat i,nn Not :t ce mov he necescarv. ,
-f 1
The other is. sue conewens T U;K f t ' ' comm: t ent to ANSI N 4 'i . . ' . N , I Draft 11. Revision v and Reuo l a t.or y Guade 1.88 in rippend: 1A(N) and 1A(B) of the FSE. It appears that TUGCO l committed to these document;- w)thout en c tep t i on ; however, thu . l, l ' storao = f acilit y describnd in Gection 17.0 of the FSAR and the v.1 to st or ac t+ L did not instal facilitw 1 the firadevsote mpreefrom utonthe commitments svstem, fIcor de1ns thatt ris.TilF'CU ero) L slope en C l osut"f* , the f1cor M described in ANSI N45.2.9. Dets1Is.arn a r, t h i+ Cnmment: The appropr3 ate sec:ts ens of the FSAR should tm reviewed met for consi the subject commist ttnen encv tand w . to determine if TUGCO has It is recommended that these 1Tsuen be forwarded to the Offico of Inspection and Enforcement (IE) OA Branch for their review. ) If you 897-2201. have further cuestions. please contact me at (817)
)
op H. 5. Phillips ( Senior Pesident t Inspector Comanche Peak
Enclosure:
NRC Report Nos. 85-14/11 Pages 8 - 1"
-l l
f p
}
_, ___ __ - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - ~~
gotten sheet 002 rather than sheet 001 by mistake and had returned it immediately without installing anything to it. These failures to follow design document control procedures are a violation of Criterion V of Appendix 8 to 10.CFR Part 50 (446/8511-V-02). (2) The following examples were noted of practices ~b=Wio110wed that were not covered in controlled procedures: (a) The method used to issue drawing packsges from the satellites to the field (e.g., crafts and QC) was not I addressed in DCP-3. The actual practice is that a DCC person and the recipient sign for receipt of all the proper documents (e.g., DCAs) and the proper revisions on the computer printed "Open Design Change Log." (b) Another practice of the DCC group is to log into the computer the status of the DCAs and CMCs. This status is classifed as open, void, or not included (NI) and indicates whether a change is affecting all items built to a drawing, a single item utilizing the drawir.g or no further use of the change. Drawing 2323-5-0910, Sht. CSR-2A, Revision 12 had CMC 75003 issued against it. This CMC had status NI ori Revisions 0 and 01 because it affected a single hanger utilizing the above drawing. However have NI input and it showed as een on,. Revision 02 did not the tenninals. This would require it to be included with the drawing package in error. This was corrected on the terminal. This process of statusing the computerized document information is not
. described in DCP-3.
DCC supervision stated and showed that the practices are j described in internal uncontrolled guidelines. This item is unresolved pending incorporating the guidelines into a ! controlled procedure (446/8511-0-03). h. (Closed) Violation (84-08-01): Gaps on Unit 1 polar crane bracket and seismic connections. In November 1984, a NRC inspector found that the gaps between the bracket and connectors exceeded the design tolerance. This item is addressed in NUREG-0797, SSER 8, along with related problems with polar cranes. Discussion, conclusions, and . AppendixtoK be actions to SSER taken8.are included in pages K-14,15,18 and 121-123 of
$1nce these actions will address the specific concerns of item 84-08-01, this item is closed.
- 5. QA Records System Review The NRC inspector reviewed the applicant's record keeping system after ascertaining that records were being shipped off site without proper
1 l
)
control and inventory. In Appendix IA(N) and 1A(B) of Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Volume 1 Section 1.0, the applicant commits to l i Regulatory Guide 1.88 (i.e. , Collection. Storage, and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plant Quality Assurance Records) and to American National Standard, Institute (ANSI) N45.2.9, lith Draft, Revision 0, dated s January 17, 1973. On page 1A(B)-36 in the Discussion, the applicant makes "no exceptions to this standard. A brief description of QAmrds is [ e contained in FSAR Section 17.1.17 (Amendment 50 dated July 13,1984). The I description does not address the current QA records facilities and i storage; i.e. , temporary storage of records for the ? aper Flow Group, Interim Record Vault (IRV), Permanent Plant Record Vault (PPRV), l procurement records storage area (Warehouse A) and the TUGC0 Records j Center. The applicant has not revised FSAR Section 17.1.17 to describe and reflect the current QA record system. This is unresolved pending the applicant's actions on the item described in paragraph a below (445/8514-U-04; , i 446/8911-U-04). -- -
- a. Review of Corporate QA Manuals and Implementing Construction Procedure:
The NRC inspector reviewed the TUGC0 Corporate QA Program Manual, i Revision 14, dated April 30, 1985, and Quality Assurance Plan, Revision 14, dated August 30, 1984, to determine if ANSI N45.2.9 was 3 referenced and if its requirements were translated into these , documents. Only TUGC0 construction Procedure CP-QP-18.4, Revision 5, was found to reference ANSI N45.2.9. Operations and TUGC0 Nuclear Engineering procedures were not included in the scope of this inspection. Procedure CP-QP-18.4, Revision 5, does not address all aspects of ANSI N45.2.9 such as (1) definitions; (2) all facility l locations; (3) method for maintaining control of and accountability for records removed from the site storage facility to organizations j located on or off site; (4) temporary storage facilities (fire rated , j cabinets versus duplicates in remote, separated locations); and (5) s special process records such as photographs, negatives, and i microff1m. The permanent facilities are discussed with respect to j ANSI N45.2.3 requirements described in paragraph 5.6; however, the ! drain system and dry chemical / gas fire protection system is not discussed. The IRV system is a permanent records vault for Unit 2 records until such records can be transferred to the construction PPRV where Unit I records are now stored. TUGC0 Procedure CP-QP-18.6, Revision 3, discusses records turnover from B&R IRV to j TUGC0 PPRV but does F.ot address the issues raised above. Also, these i issues are not addressed in the B&R QA Manual, Section 17.0 dated l October 31, 1984, or CP-QAP-18.1, Revision 3, dated July 11, 1984. j M
'9 l
i 1
4
/
10-TUGC0 management stated that all of thcir QA manuals are in revision j to improve their written program. This item is unresolved pending the completion of that review (445/8514-U-05; 446/8511-0-05).
. b.
%. . Storage and Transmittal of Design Records to SWEC, New York: On October 16. 1985, an NRC inspector was inspecting .an.olggr1. tem
- previously identified as unresolved item 8226-UJ07. As a result, the requalification package for pipe support CC-1-107-008-E23R was requested and the NRC inspector was informed that this design records package had been included in a total of 5702(4654 for Unit 1, 1048 for for Unit 2) hanger a complete packages that had been shipped to SWEC New York.
reevaluation. . The NRC SRRI interviewed the TUGC0 engineering supervisor who answered questions about whether procedures controlled such shipment, the number of records per package, and how the records were to be
. protected during shipment. He stated that a first transmittal was
' controlled by Procedure CP-EI-18.0-4. Revision 0, dated July 25 1985, until Comanche Peak Project Engineering became a part of THE on September 1. 1985, at which time the procedure was deleted. The SWEC project manager stated that Procedure CPPP-3, covers the receipt and.
indexing of these packages; however. CPPP-11 that will control the ! distribution of these packages to SWEC offices at Cherry Hill, New j Jersey; Scston. Massachusetts; Denver. Colorado; Houston. Texas; and 3 Toronto. Canada, will not be completed until late October or early November York. 1985. according to SWEC Supervisor Project Services. New The utility has taken corrective action that includes (1) making duplicate copies prior to shipping, and (2) all records i; initially sent to SWEC are being copied and a copy returned to the site. Region IV is pursuing with IE Headquarters. QA Branch the minimum protection that should be afforded records in shipment. The failure to have site procedures to maintain control and ; accountability of the shipment of records is a violation of Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50(445/8514-V-02;446/8511-V-03). c. StorageandTransmittalof'ConstructionRecod.sto'ChicagoBridgeand Iron (CBI): As a result of knowlecge of an Carlier shipment of CBI records off site, the NRC inspector has asked the utility to provide records to demonstrate the CBI record controls that were implemented. It is CBI practice to ship all records off site for copying. This matterisconsideredunresolved(44534-U-06;446/8511-U-06). The utility has indicated that the receipt of records from CBI.was handled in the same manner as the receipt of records from any vendor. Region IV will inspect the receipt of vendor records and this matter is considered an open item (445/8514-0-01; 446/8511-0-01). A / 9 _: - - ^ ~~ ~
----^--^- ^^
i
- d. Inspection of Storage Facilities: The NRC inspectors. visited all site storage facilities to determine if storage, preservation, and safe keeping of records are as required by Criterion XVII of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and ANSI N45.2.9, Draft 11, Revision 0, paragraph 5, " Storage, Preservation and Safe Keeping." The facilities inspected included TUGC0 Records Center, which is committed by the FSAR to ANSI N45.2.9-1974 and no.t. th_e n graft 11, Revision 0 version; PPRV; IRV; Paper Flow Group' storage areas for Unit 2 mechanical and electrical; and the procurement records storage '
area. - The facilities for the Paper Flow Group and procurement. . records are not identified or described in TUGCO.or B&R procedures; however, these facilities and the PPRV and IRV were' evaluated with the following results: (1) _TUGC0 Records Center - This vault is the final repository for: (a) Unit I records which describe completed construction, and (b) Unit 2 record packages for systems that have been completed and turned over to operations.- This facility was completed about March 1983. The NRC inspector found that this vault had access control and records were stored in closed containers, open face shelves, or in binders on top of ' furniture. Radiographs and other special process records are protected by controlling temperature and humidity. The NRC inspectors noted that a water sprinkler system had been installed in this 4 facility. This presents a concern because those plant records which are stored in folders or binders in open faced cabinets will be deluged with water and will likely deteriorate. An additional consideration is that records stored in a manila folder may be uashed out and possibly clog.the drain in this facility, leading to flooding of the facility. This ites is considered unresolved pending applicant review of the facility with respect to the above observations (445/8514-U-07; 446/8511-0-07). i (2) PPRV - This vault served as'the sole approximately 1975 until March 1983. permanent vault from This permanent records facility has controlled access. It meets the design features for a permanent facility, as described in Section 17.1.17 of the FSAR; however, the NRC inspector had the following comments: (a) There is no fire suppression system inside this vault. Two hand-held extinguishers and a 2-inch fire hose are located outside the vault. One hand-held extinguisher is located _.. . , _ . ~ _ . . _- . . _ _
l l l l l 1 l '"'tr l i inside the vault. Fire detectors and alarms are inside to alert the onsite fire department if a fire occurs. (b) If the 2-inch fire hose is used to extinguish a fire, the vault may flood because there are no fire drains and the
- floor is not sloped. Therefore, water may potentially ..
enter the bottom cabinet drawers. _r 1 (c) NCRs and corrective action reports were stored in binders in bookcases. If fire hoses are used, these documents would probably be subjected to the force of water from the l hose and damaged. Therefore, it would be desirable to j store these records in closed containers. All other records were stored in nonfire rated cabinets which is acceptable if located in a permanent facility that meets ANSI N45.2.9 requirements. The failure to install a fire suppression system, drains, and a sloped floor appears to be a deviation from ANSI N45.2.9 requirements. However, this item is unresolved because this i facility is described in FSAR Section 17.1.17. Region IV is i forwarding this issue to IE Headquarters, QA Branch for clarification (445/8514-U-08; 446/8511-U-08). (3) IRV - This area is not a separate building, but is actually part of the permanent vault that has been set aside as an interim storage area prior to placing records in the area designated for permanent records. i This area has an access point that is separate from the permanent area and is controlled. The l facility is the same as the permanent area, except a wall - l separates the two. They share the same forced air system. This i
- facility generally meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, and ANSI N45.2.9; however, the NRC inspector had the )
following comments: ' (a) Water had been leaking through the forced air system and beside a support girder. In a second location, approximately 2-3 gallons of water had leaked in through the forced air ventilation duct and was caught by a container placed under the duct. This is considered an open item (445/8514-0-02; 446/8511-0-02). (b) The NRC inspector observed a coffee pot, sugar, and evidence of food on a table adjacent to the vault area. These were immediately removed from the vault by the utility. ? . I
-*W
/
I ! = t tr e l
/
(4) PaperFlowGrocos-TheNRCinkpectorsvisitedtrailerswhere the electrical a"nd mechanical Paper Flow Groups are located to b, determine if QA records are stored there. # 1 si In SSER No. 11, the TRT considered the documents in the paper 4 flow groups to be inprocess; however, SSER No. 11'also indicated N. that the records are maintained in fire-proof catgats. The NRC inspecters found that there are some records sto7ed Tn nonfire-rated file cabinets. This matter is considered unresolved (445/8514-U-09; 446/8511-0-09). ; (5) _ Storage of Procurement Records - In Warehouse' A,' procurement records were stored both in nonfire-rated and fire rated 1 cabinets. The NRC inspector found no master index ef these records and the facility is not described in the FSAR or procedures. There was no way to determine whether du.plicates of thase records exist and if they must be' stored in fire-rated ' l cabinets. This item is unresolved pending identification and
' description of this facility and. indexing of recordsmecently received from the TUGCO, Dallas, Texas, office to determine what records must be in fire-rated cabinets (445/8514-U-10);
l 446/8511-U-10). N 1
- 6. Audit of QA Record Systems / Facilities .
! The NRC inspector asked if the unacceptable QA records storage and control l conditions identified above in paragraphs 5.a and 5.d had been identified by TUGC0 or B&R audits. l l TUGC0 audited (TCP-85-20 dated January 1G, 1985) (
- the PPRV but failed to identify any of the problems noted above. Two L auditors audited this area from December 17 through December 20',1984, and their report did not identify any storage facility problems. MSI N45.2.9 requires that periodic audits shall be performed to assure facilities are in good condition and temperature / humidity controls and protective devices are functioning properly. j i
? An Ebasco review or study dated June 16,1981, page 4 of 25, item g, states with respect to the PPRV, "It is an_ established fact that the QAR hs vault does not meet the requirements for a single storage facility and ; that duplicate files are not maintained in lieu of single storage." On October 23, 1985, the NRC inspector requested documentation which would ' show action taken in response to the Ebasco finding. TUGCO's Project and - J QC organizations had no such documentation. This item is unresolved ! pending review of the response to this audit finding (445L8514-U-11; i 44fil8511-0-11). The NRC inspector asked PPRV personnel if B&R had audited J the record keeping / facility system and was informed that it has been ! several years since B&R had performed such audits. This item is , i i unresolved pending the review of B&R audits (445/'8514-U-12; 446/_8511-U-12) . l l L ,
. l i , - n .
1 1 1 l l Addenda 1 to July 23, 1986 Testimony (page 583) f Phillips assigned McKluskey to inspect IEB 79-14 without any considerations of past inspections of IEB 79-14, It is my understanding that he assigned 1 McKluskey to inspect this Bulletin because he did not consider that Region IV had looked at hardware associated with IE Bulletin corrective action. The l l l hardware associated with this Bulletin has, since the beginning, been inspected l ! on numerous occasions, including NRC Inspection Report 50-445/82-05 which. ! looked at the initial program. i
' In this first inspection of the TUGCo 79-14 verification program, R. Brickley j l (who was assigned out of the Vendor Branch to the IEB 79-14 Task Force) was on 6 site and looked at pipe support hardware. C. E. Johnson inspected the TUGCo l IEB 79-14. verification program.
The Special Inspection Team (SIT) was a full team inspection devoted to pipe . and pipe supports issues. The CAT inspection included pipe and pipe supports. . Region IV performed a series of room turnover inspections which included pipe ] and pipe supports. The Technical Review Team (TRT) inspected pipe and pipe i supports. At present, Stone and Webster (S&W) has full responsibility for the pipe support issues at CpSES. A whole new program is in progress and NRR has the oversight responsibility for both design and the pipe support inspections. The third party, Energy Research Corporation (ERC) is, in addition to S&W
]
walkdowns, performing independent inspections. The third party design i organization, TERA, is also overseeing the S&W design effort. The Region IV I Comanche Peak Group is performing independent inspections of the ERC effort l which includes independent inspections of the pipe supports. The Office of Inspection and Enforcement has been requested by NRR to audit the S&W OA program associated with CPSES activities. My point is that the Phillips' decision to inspect this Bulletin certainly
~
wasn't coordinated with RIV management. I believe the pipe and pipe support effort was already being adequately covered by RIV and NRR. ; [. - w
]
9 /S/E'& t t w 1
- - - y
i Accende 2 to Juis 22, 1986 Teibmony(page603) s The dratt report (document la) of 50-445/CE-16 and 50-446/85-13 states the following on page 4-2, "The NRC review of correspondence in file determined that TUGCc never adequately resporided to all aspects of tne IE Bullecin; . e., ; the TUGCo responses did not indicate that all seismic category I piping ' (regardless of size) would be evaluateo to the ar; tion items in the IE Culletin: if it was dynamically analyzed by computer . , ,, ." 1 The TUGCo letter TXX-3597, dated December 3,1982, which tnis datement refers l to states the following: l "The scope of the program has been established based upon a detailed review of , Bulletin requirements and studies initiated to identify cpplicable piping > systems and related components along with the stress a7alys k problems < , associated with the subject piping. All related documents pertaining to each l stress problem have been identified and the basis for the As-Built Verificatic , ! Program is firmly established. The following defines the scope of the piping ; l being as-built verified to satisf7 requirements of the fulletin: SAFETY CLASS SIZE ,' 1 1 All sizes + i 2,3 Large bore (2-1/2" and larger), s 2,3,5 High energy lines over cne inch that were q i computer analyzed. i 2,3,5 Designated piping, regardless of size, (up tu and l including the first anchor or. terminal connection) l that interacts with safety-related large bore pipe. Note: Class 5 piping has been defined as non-nuclear safety-related lines contained in Seismic Category I structures. , Safety Class 2 and 3 small bore (2" and w. aller) non-high energy lines (regardless of the analysis method tseo') have been excluded ' from the scope of the formal 79-14 verification program for the following reasons:
- 1. These lines are analyzed af ter the piping has been instalN3 and the as-built configuration is krown. '
- 2. Support locations used in the analysis are field verified (rior to completion of the dralysis.
- 3. Deviations from the as-designed support locations are de:ipl',
reviewed and reconciled with the analysis.
"InordertointerpretthepipingexclusionsfromIEB79-14,knefnliewNg l clarification from Revision 1 of IEB 79-14 page 2 is necessary:
"The action items that follow apply to all safety-related pi,Hng [ ,
l ' 2-1/2-inches in diameter and greater and to seismic C6tegory I piping, regardless of size which was dynamically analyzed by empeter." x
; ,,g ~ i'
,n ,
e 4
\ ,'rr
- y. h , f%
i 2
). 1 i l,L. \
k lhe Bulletin (natW "all power reactor facilities and construction' permit holders are coquesied to verify, unless verified to an equivalent degree within the last 12 months, that the seismic analysis applies to the actual configurdnon of safety-related piping systems."' I believe it was the intent N, of the Bulletin that if the utility had an equivalent program in place, that the Bulletin didn't require a whcie new program for past efforts. At the tioe the Bulletin was issued TUGCo already had a program in~ place that satisfied - the Bulletin for Safety Class 2 en<13 small bore non-high energy lines. These particular lines were field run acd support locations were field verified prior to completidn of analysis #A l a part of the already in place (at the i time of the Bulletin) constructiortprogram. There would appear no need to add this class of lines to the formal 79-14 verification program.
- TA It is my understanding that only high energy lines over 1 inch were computer aralyzec to limit the number of postulated energy breaks, as y discussed in f0GCo interna G amo dated August 6, 1982 (attachment 1). Those.
1 inch and uriedr which were~ hot, computer analyzed are excluded by the Bulletin.
.s c .
I. would suggest that. for further clarification you talk to 3 L' John Fair, IE:HQ. rThere has neier been an exception taken to the TUGCa reply sI by Region IV or; ths'IEB 79114 Task Force which was compiled of Region IV, l s! IE:HQ, and E 4. . ,y N : .
}+ ,
) ; . . J m
\1 % , 8 -
W:A d 3 y /fl[6' 3 r i ! , 1 l
, \
1-
\
i [
- r o
]
t {x b ,. 3*
~
- g t
[. '
, -t
'( f
', e
W~'-T,~
]-.
Th.XAS UTILITIES SERVICES* INC[. - CPP-8479 ; t > /O Its OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM : To R. G. Tolson Cten &se Texas Aucust 6.1082 l Subject j' , COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION i' 1 Ac o i yERun'- n rRAM --4 C(l j IE BULLETIN 79-14' ) 1 REF: CPP-8001 DATED JUNE 28, 1982 (ATTACHED) ' 3 2 TD'A5 'J:f.flM ."~Ntm HiQ. f NucLha ;I.rm.3 LN. ~ i Technical Services has responded to TUGC0 QA Audit TCP-32 per attached I memo CPP-8001 dated June 28, 1982.,, Deficiency f 3 of TCP-32 questioned._ our compliance with 79-14 in the area of small tore piping. As explained , in CPP-8001, small bore piping analyzed by the Tomographic method is - l i extremely conservative, and the as-built- piping configuration is known ) 1 , prior to performing the analysis and subsequent support oesign. Thist ] f small bore piping is not required per 79-14 and has been excluded from the As-Built Verification Program. However, Class 2 and 3 high energy piping over one inch has been computer analyzed to limit the number of postulated line breaks, and small bore piping falling in this category is i l included in the scope of As-Built. 1 Per discussions in Dellas with TUSI Nuclear Licensing personnel David Wade and Bob Dacko, a formal interpretation of 79-14 to be presented to the NRC is not warranted at this time. Nuclear Licensing recommends i that this response be made upon completion of Program activities. " l l If any f'urther information is needed, please contact the undersigned. l'
!1 k
i! f4 b wHbo. D. W. Westbrook, Jr. / As-Built Group Supervisor , DWW:1b l cc: M. R. McBay J. R. Johnson H. A. Harrison ',
. - Homer *Sc' hmidt ^
David Wade (TUSI - Dallas) Bob Dacko (TUSI - Dallas) l. I
~
w _ _ a :--_ - _ _____ ____N__ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ . _ - . __~j - - . . . - _ - _ - __ . . _ - . - - - .
- l 4
Addenca 3 to July 23, 1986 Testimony (page 627) I ! I was informed that the NAMCO switches were initially changed to comply with IEB 79-28. I was informed that during testing, subsequent changing of the switches occurred. The operation of the switch (i.e., clockwise or l counter clockwise), gives an open or closed valve. indication. The switches i had to, in some cases, be reversed to give a proper. indication. The subsequent { changing of switches was not'a part 'of the Bulletin required actions.
- 9. S- u l f/7lPG i
l i 1 I i [ 4
>.w,- , ,
Addenda 4 to July 23, 1986 Testimony (page 603) In the draft report of 50-445/85-16 and 50-446/85-13, pages 4-2 it also states that the NRC review of correspondence determined that TUGCo never addressed I the reporting of nonconformances.
. . . and nonconformances were not reported to the hRC as required by pages 2 and 3 of the IE Bulletins. IN TUGCo internal letter CPPA#24.163 d
dated October 22, 1982 the Engineering l'ianager stated that the reportin3 ) of nonconformances is an area of the IE Bulletin which we must take { exception and we will not identify nonconforming condition; however I this exception was not stated in the final report to the NRC.", j 1 The following is the exact quote from the TUGCo internal letter CPPAf24.163 ! dated October 22, 1982: l i
"Re'quirements of the Bulletin which concern reporting of nonconformance i items is an area in which we must take exception. We will not identify )
analyzing the as-built conditions while the plant is undergoing ' construction. Careful records are maintained on all nonconforming j conditions and to date no significant differences between our field ' design change system and the as-built conditions have been found." I have the following comments:
- 1. The inspector imediately draws the conclusion that TUGCo never reported nonconformances to the NRC as required by pages 2 and 3 of the IE Bulletin l because of the statement in the internal TUGCo letter. As I indicated, '
! this statement is in error since it is my understanding that the reporting requirement is met by filing of reports in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e) for a construction facility.
- 2. In the' review of IEB 79-14, the reporting requirements for nonconformances appear to have been established for an operating plant where a timely determination of system operability and compliance with Technical Specifications is required. The reporting requirements for a construction facility is not clear.
- 3. I have talked to Mr. Homer Schmidt, who was the TUGCo Manager of Licensing at the time of the TUGCo December 3,1982 reply to IEB 79-14.
The TUGCo internal letter CPPA#24.163 was addressed to Mr. Schmidt. The TUGCo licensing group prepared the IEB 79-14 response. Mr. Schmidt j indicated that TUGCo licensing had interpreted the 79-14 reporting requirements to be applicable to an operating reactor facility. He stated that careful records of all nonconforming conditions were being maintained and that significant differences were to be reported in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e). Therefore, the paragraph in CPPA#24.163 was not considered appropriate for inclusion in the TUGCo December 3, 1982, reply to IEB 79-14. e-- .c w Y//VN _ t L_ _
~
)
i Accenda 5 to July 23, 1986 Tes timony (page 694) I would like to point out, that had there been an immediate safety issue or ! the need for comprehensive corrective action with regard to the B15C0 issue, I i would have taken an immediate enforcement action and there would have been a j violat' ion issued. . The facts are that the inspector (Mr. Phillips)-indicated a
' hesitancy to issue a violation, there appeared to be conflicting documentation from the vendor, assistance from IE:HQ was going to be requested to review the -
vendor documentation and surrounding circumstances, and I could see no immeoiate safety issue. ] l
- 1 l
I p r. W = n du l l r I i e 4 "aw + p g,,,
I 1 Addenda 6 to July 23, 1986 Testimony (pa'ge 526) l There were a series of memorandums written by Mr. Phillips with regard to BISCO l Fire Seal Certifications and QA Records. The initial memorandum was dated l November 25, 1985, and was addressed to me. Since this initial memorandum l addressed actions and conclusions related only to CPSES, I subsequently l requested Mr. Phillips to prepare a memorandum to go to the IE HQ Vendor I Branch . I asked Mr. Phillips to prepare a factual memorandum that IE HQ i Vendor Branch could use as a basis for reviewing potential BISCO generic issues identified by Mr. Phillips. 4 hr. Phillips prepared a December 2, 1985, memorandum. He wrote it "through" me to Mr. Zech, Chief of the Vendor Branch. I do not recall providing any direction to Mr. Phillips that would have led him to believe that a "through memorandum" was appropriate. The "through memorandum" was Phillips originated. To the best of my knowledge, when I received Mr. Phillips memorandum, I found it to be opinionated and to contain recommendations which I felt the IE HQ , Vendor Branch should decide for themselves. I asked Mr. Phillips to rewrite it. I indicated to Mr. Phillips that correspondence with IE HQ was the responsibility of the Division Director, Eric Johnson. I indicated to Mr. Phillips that anything going to IE HQ should go through Eric Johnson. On reflection, I can see why he may have written a "through memorandum; however, to the best of my l knowledge it was neveis my intent that he should write directly to IE HQ and sign it. As first line supervisor, I do feel responsible and I should have told Mr. Phillips to either write a memorandum to Eric Johnson or for Eric Johnson. The communications could have been better. I do believe that Mr. Phillips, as a previous section chief, should have known the proper protocol. I have not been able to locate a copy of this subsequent memorandum. To my knowledge, it was still opinionated and contained recommendations which I felt were not necessary. 3 This is the memorandum I provided to Eric Johnson and which was the subject of I discussions between Mr. Phillips and Mr. Johnson. l I would point out that Mr. Phillips in the final March 6, 1986, memorandum , following his discussion with Mr. Johnson, persisted in writing a memorandum !
"through" me to Mr. Johnson. J
. < - x ,
[ l . i
~
l 3' y !
~
1 La sw w e k sok. 2 64 n w d M 9 [ l a i On O LA o k 1s . t97Y t')A DKc A w.e.<3w wob b d v 'E ' Ma v4 v . k u> o f y u 4
' T4 m d 4..-l.4,.: . h __. _. 4< L, G ~ ,e>
- t. i t) k (* O i j ----
h o e 0~ , neo c<-t. etin t.t> nre on ef l
,. g' T tav o R c- p o ,t r, a e n f. I T c- m s / fe 7.' s v a ro r s c w p e rt !
IQCFK hrT 2 l n rv D t o c F tt PA-a7 so. .CD e ) , L.d I wLa c s , o e, u> t,.~ ; - . c ~ ., ~ ~ ( ako s J
.i s I
(Al C4/* f M a. d-4 et uJ M4 b ~d b sa la i ,,fthav M Yf
'e i
- . c h' k aff a a et v o < < ait a. s s-e ch a4 Nvn e b s-r a s16 ? g l
N?ex w do. V G ,rtc>,n %iNwa.4<v (Gsu GDl J
- R.l.t C P </c / z % km < Tu(.,Go le !I v D c x 4 c./ r C.
dct. k d Aw,-: I trr4er s k.o al J (a., % of .-t71) i kau Dr. lA y c . Ilo ww e 4% CG$' W N,N, w % Lu ' +- e L 3,,-FL= a - a:- ( o.<h.L,si 14 4L. s 4, 44 s 43 suood-s ., clo d u k i5 a.o a r l a L,lo n s'e O G wnw (anc3 L ,a s s veo; w . T k. Toc,co av o d u.m ' cl od e dt add- s L a docum d - I o% toltI in - e r f.e < r u ) '
%% C. L o .<
,a k 4 clo w A m u.s.L ku 6c,k
- 6. el 4, tL, A l, fx st~w cLa.u J ~ L e. Sa, srJ
?
h Cev n eh. cal k e &cos fo'< n. ~ e, N <-s 04. H
.c~. G e e c.3-~ u- "
' meev wcL+ m . c v-u s %g0 ++ud d e f t'c t u m w o.<1 s. 1 e a!n ** D ou >v e. x e<- c le. 3 1
- s 0a t N~h L % $ D> r s L A:.L ', n ,. o u b A d.e. a:J ew g 4. , 2 u u . w - w I
o - 1 l 413 )
- I CR27590. 0 TATE j
l i I
)
SWORN STATEMENT Of TOM WESTERMAN l l - l July 21, 1986. l l NRC Region IV Headquarters
. Arlington, Texas 1:45 p.m., c.D.T.
1 a TAKEN BY: George Mulley REPORTED BY: R. Patrick Tate
-6 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
* * " ' " " " * ~
u_ 1_ __ l_l_^__i_1$_.____________'___7_________ _ _ _7 m.
1p 414 ( 1 TOM WESTERMAN 2 was called as a witness and, having been duly cautioned and 3 sworn, testified upon his oath as follows: l 4 EXAMINATION 5 By Mr. Mulley: l l 6 Q The time is 2:00 p.m., the date is July the 21st, i 7 1986; we're at the headquarters of Region IV, U.S. Nuclear 8 Regulatory Commission, in Arlington, Texas. Present is 9 Mr. Tom Westerman, myself, George Mulley, Steve Goldberg 10 and the court reporter, Pat Tate. 1 11 We are here to discuss with Mr. Westerman his '
. 12 previous testimony concerning Comanche Peak that he .' 3 13 rendered on July the 10th, 1986. j l
14 Before we start, Tom, I'd like to remind you 15 about the rights advisement that we gave you on July the 16 10th. The same rights still apply. Do you have any 17- questions about the rights advisement? We can review it if ! 18 you would like. I 19 Let me show you the rights advisement that you ' 20 signed on July the 10th, to refresh your memory. l 21 A Yes. 22 Q And this is basically a continuation of our l 23 interview of the 10th of July. Before we again, would you I 24 like to start with a statement? l
' t
'25 A I want to say up. front that I think on the second )
l
-i TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l l i
_:_L' r~_ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _
~
415 , 1 day, maybe because we were all tired, it was my feeling we 2 got'very hostile in the way the discussion was going, even 3 the point of, in my csse badgering me, intimidation, 4 harassment. Now, I want you to know, I know we were j 5 probably tired. Okay? i 1 6 And I'm here to make sure you get the information ,
\
7 you want and I try to give you what you want and I'll do my 8 best. But I think we've got to bfear with each other and I 9 realize two days in a row probably put a strain on i 10 everybody. i 11 But I think I particularly felt strained on the l 12 second day. I mean with things like " Answer the question ( 13 yes or no, yes or no. You didn't answer my question. You i l 14 didn't answer my question." i 15 That line of questioning is not needed. I just I 16 want that, put that on up front. 17 'Q I would like to just say that you are absolutely Q 18 right. The purpose of this interview is to gain 19 information. Sometimes, you know, as you say, time goes on 20 and the heat of discussions, tempers might get a little bit 4 l 21 hot. But you know, we'll try to remember.it. But 22 basically what we're here and the questions are not 23 accusatory in nature, they're just truing to elicit from 24 you information that maybe Steve or I have questions about. l 25 A okay. l l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 I see 6 _p 9p GufibWWD 4> m,e a w e -m i
416 - 1 Q But certainly not intended to be personal. This
. 2 is not a personal interview. This is a fact-finding thing.
I 3 A okay. 1 4 Q And as you say, after 16 hours, sometimes we 5 might loose sight of that. l l 6 A I would try to -- I would indicate that I don't ) ' ] 7 believe that any of my discussions with Phillips ever got j i l into that kind of a line of, you know, it was never, j 8 9 " Answer my question Phillips, answer my question, 10 Phillips." 11 Q That's good. l l l l . 12 A I never did anything in that line in my 13 discussions with Mr. Phillips. It's not my management l l 14 style. I'm very patient, normally. I will go back, I may ) l l' 15 go back, and I may go back, but I'm usually very patient to l 16 try to work out the issues. 17 I have had seen other people that don't do that 18 but that's not my management style. 19 okay. I wanted to, for the record, kind of at 4 20 least make sure I got it kind of all in one place, the kind 1 21 of management issues or actions that were taken and make 22 sure we unde'rstood what wa= going on with each report. You ! 23 know, each report following 85-07/05 was never signed until 24 every review had been done and every change had been made 25 'on it and it was then taken to the site for everybody to TATE REPORTING SERVICE,'(713) 222-7177 -- t w - . - - . .
- l 417 1 sign.
2 And at that poin.t in time, the review had been a ] 3 number of folks, including ELD and NRR, had all their 4 comments and their comments had been discussed. 5 o (By Mr. Mulley) You mentioned 85-07/05. Now 6 that one report -- 1 7 A Well, that's one where, you know, I said I 8 learned a lot from that one. I'didn't' realise how.a$sE# 9 comments and what all I was going to get when I. started off 10 with that report, because I got comments after I first had. 11 gone through it myself and thought _well, once I get it in 12 shape, at least on the broad brush of looking at the b, 13 issues, that I would look at and have some question with, 14 that now it would be in pretty good shape. 15 I found that as I got more questions and I went 16 back to look at the specifics, the specifics kind of l 17 melted. That's where I got into kind of saying, " Hey, that o 18 doesn't look exactly right, there's still something_here l 19 that we need to look at." I 20 sofromthatpfinton,Iwasverycarefultomake 21 sure that nothing happened to that report that wasn't 22 finally signed and if there's, like I say, anybody can say 23 that it might be a typo or something that was obvious. ! 24 okay. 25 I would indicate on those reports in particular, , TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 k . em..
. nf o. - e..-se p .me=' - - , s..ev+,_, er --=-. re +:..4 sww . i s. . .,
418 1 in the case of Mr. Phillips, that he signed each of those- , 2 reports. And if he had a problem with those reports, then 3 in my opinion as a professional, that would have been the 4' time to initial.-- well, that would not be initially, but i 5 that would have been the time say, " Hey, I's not going to 6 sign this report," happens every day, you know. Maybe not 7 .this report, I'm not too familiar with many. folks.saying, 8 " Hey, I'm not go'ing to sign a report", but, you know,- 9 perhaps in NRR area, say, " Hey, I'm not going do sign the 10 SSER," I know of cases here with folks didn't sign the. 11 report, wrote a differing professional opinion which is the
. 12 proper chain to bring.it to management attention.
13 Q Have there been any problems with_ people. writing 14 DPOs, later on, suffering repercussions as a resulk of 15 DPCs? j 16 A Mr. Matson is the only fellow that I know that 17 wrote a DPO on the Cooper report. Whether that -- he's no a 18 longer a branch chief, he's no longer a section chief, he's l 19 an inspector. But I don't know whether that of -- there 1 20 was a lot of circumstances that went along with that. He i l 21 went to the vendor branch; the vendor branch.was leaving. 22 He chose to stay here.- Wasn't a 15 position left for him 23 then so I don't really know that. 24 Q (By Goldberg) Just to follow up, are DPOs, is it 25 a popular thing in Region IV to have a lot of DPCs? TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 [ _ t I
-.a.,.,.. ... . . - . . - - - --
- _-_-_-=-_==-__
419 1 A No, sir. Again I would say Mr. Phillips never 2 made any attempt to request management review through any 3 chain for which I would never hold anybody back from coming i 4 to whatever level management they chose to go, be that the 5 division director, regional administrator, and on. i 6 I think we were trying to be responsible to, or 7 responsive, I should say, to Phillips' concerns, you know. 8 Again I don't agree with how the reports are being done, in 9 fact I believe Mr. Johnson and I, after what we've gone 10 through on these first two reports were in the process of 11 arranging for a peer type review of Phillips' reports in
, 12 which we would do essentially little as far as the regional 13 review except our comments and put it into a peer review t 14 such as, you know, folks from IE Headquarters, NRR, whoever 15 else, to be in that, go through that report and then,try to i
16 resolve it that way.
~
I 17 But we were trying to be, we were looking at 18 being responsive. I believe that when there was an L , 19 indication of some disagreement on the handling of the 20 issues on 85-07/05, we had, and I went through the steps on 21 that, you know, did try to reach to what those issues were. 22 In fact I interviewed a number of folks on site because I ( 23 provided the memo. And so following that, where it became l 24 evident that, I guess, that there was more than just a -- 25 well, not minor, but an over concern with the handling of TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 eac.t-e ..w.m-w. . , , . ,_ _,
. l
.420 l I
1 inspection findings, whoever or whatever; I don't know who 2 was talking to who or what, but I kept getting signals like 3 that, we in the regional management were in -- attemptinng l ~ 4 to set up a mechanism or another policy guide which says 5 handle this, if you have other issues which you feel'not _a 6 happy with the handling. We were in the process of doing 7 that when I think this investigation started. 8 I think Eric Johnson even sent out initially 9 menos to our folks who appeared to have some concerns, to l 10 say, "Let's put them on the table so we, the management, 11 can deal with them." If we don't have them identified in a j l
, 12 manner we can deal with them, we have no way of knowing i
. 13 what they are so we can deal with them.
14 To know what really concerned say, Mr. Phillips, 15 was until he had some drafts of the reports for which, and 16 of course the policy guide if he's, going to keep those 17 drafts then there should be a copy, put them into the 18 docket file with an identification of what the differences 19 are, or what the significant differences are that he felt 20 would make it necessary to maintain those copies.of those 21 reports. 22 And that's kind of the first time I really knew 23 the extent of what maybe he felt the concerns were. I-24 think as we got into this trying to write a, for example, a 25 ' policy guide to have folks identify so that we could deal TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
,, . . , _ . _ - . - - - - - = . - ~ _ _ . . --
= _ _ _ _ . - , .m___ m _ -
421 I with issues on the table in an open manner and I believe , l 2 there was conversation there between probably Bob Martin 3 and Sharon connally and if we did that, that might be 4 judged as intimidation.
- a 5 We backed off, and there was a memo put out and I j 6 think everything was stopped. You'll have to talk to Eric 7 Johnson, kind of where and how that went.
8 We have since this investigation started, stopped 9 any review by myself of any reports. Certain reports, i i 10 those which come under the DRSP, Division of Director 11 Safety and Projects, and we're in the process of providing i
~
12 those back through IE management to look at with limited -- 13 with our first line supervision to review those reports. 14 So that's where we are as far as handling those l 15 kind of. issues. I think probably the recommended direction l l 16 that we will go from here is have a~ panel appointed, 17 whoever they are, to come down and go through how the { 18 Region dispositioned these issues, particularly I think 19 we're now, based on for example Mr. Phillips' matrix or 20 whatever other issues we have, to identify them, we'll have 21 a means of dealing with those issues. l 22 If there's any other kind of questions, I guess i 23 along with management, that we are trying and were trying 24 to be responsive to the concerns, I guess I'd be willing to 25 ' address any of that if there's some -- _-.- i TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
^
__________m_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
422 1 Q (By Mr. Mulley) Let me ask, you brought up 2 Mr. Phillips never asked for management review. So that I q 3 understand exactly what we're talking about here, when he 1 4 was having the conversations with you over findings that he ~ 5 had in inspection reports, did he ever ask to go around you-6 and go to a higher level? . 1 7 A No, sir. I 8 Q so be's never spoken, to your knowledge, at least i 9 to Eric Johnson or to the regional administrator -- while I l l 10 this was going on? I understand later on-he had a meeting 11 with the regional administrator and all that. 12 A Yes. ( 13 Q And during the process of 85-07/05 and 85-14/11, l l l 14 those reports, when he was in disagreement you, he never -! ! 15 asked to go and speak to Mr. Johnson directly -- . s 16 A No, sir. 17 'O -- is that correct? 18 A No, sir. 19 Q And did you ever have him up here and sit down 20 yourself and Mr. Johnson in a conference type atmosphere ! 21 and -- 22 A Well, the nearest to that was when I brought that 23 second report and showed it to Eric and Eric wrote a note 24 on it. Eric went down do the site. Eric went over and 25 ' talked with Mr. Phillips some. And I wasn't party to that TATE-REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 i
.----A - - - - _ _ - -
423 1 conversation so I don't know. 2 Q Do you recall what number of the report was? l 3 A It was 86-13 -- 85-16, 85-13. l 4 Q okay, okay. 5 A I an aware that Mr. Phillips did, when we get 6 into all this and we realised the concerns were maybe going 7 to higher levels, that he did go talk to Vince Noonan. ? l 8 That's not in the -- that's not in our chain. 9 Q Let me ask about -- you brought up the regional 10 policy concerning retention of draft reports? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q What is that policy, at least as you know it? ( 13 A well, it basically says if you're going to retain 14 drafts, that these should to go the docket file and 15 basically you ought -- you are to provide or annotate on 16 these drafts your reasons for wanting to maintain these 17 drafts as a document. l 18 Q Do you know when this policy was instituted? 19 A I could get you a copy of it before the day's 20 over with. It's been around for some time. - l 21 Q How did the inspectors feel about this policy? l 22 A I think the -- the majority of the inspectors do 23 not keep drafts. 24 Q If an inspector wants to keep a draft at his 3 25 'home, a draft of his work, is that -- l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
- 3,_,,, . . . ~ . - - - . .+ y . .- .-.--
424 l l 1 A I don't think management could ever preclude that 2 from happening. 3 Q so basically this is because of the Freedom of 4 Information Act? 5 A Yes, sir, in general. Yeah, we really not ) l 6 interested in -- I personally, when I answer one of those j 7 Freedom of Information Acts, I like to know that I'm I i 8 putting my hands on the information that's needed rather l 9 than having something dribble afterwards that somebody had 10 in their office that nobody knew about that I then have to 11 start trying to explain why I didn't release it the first 12 time. I believe everbody's aware of what happens when f i l 13 those kinds of things take place. 1.4 Q The argument that the inspectors like to keep 15 draft reports because if the report is altered in any way, i 16 at least they can always say, "Well, this is the way I { 17 wrot it," it's kind of like a self protection; is that a 1 18 valid concern, do you think? ) I 19 A Well, again, I say when 1 -- when'an inspector is ! l 20 at the point of signing a report, the discussions are long .j l 21 gone. It's an NRC document, it's going out. If prior to 22 that time he wasn't happy with it or couldn't live with 23 what's there, then that's the time it ought to be resolved. 24 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) So-what you're saying then is 25 'nce o he signed the report and it becomes eventually final, TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 j
425
. i 1 his draft report is not as necessary as it was beforehand; r- 2 in other words, he doesn't really need the draft report?
3 'A Yes, sir, same with inspector 1 notes. Normally, 4 a lot of the inspectors will keep the drafts and'their I 5 notes until the report goes out. And they may keep their .] 6 notes for a period of time. They may want to keep the 7 notes -- I don't see necessarily -- I don't normally go ask 8- to look at their notes. I might ask them to go check their 9 notes for something for me. ,
-1 10 And if they have their notes and they haven't 11 been shown or identified to other folks, then they're not 12 capturable under FOIA and if they want to keep them for !
13 going back and following up on a particular item that's a 14 violation.that the licensee has responded to, and want to 15 use that as a matter of reference, then that's their 16 prerogative that nobody's taken.away.
,17 'Q aut as far as draft inspection reports are
- 18 concerned, you would like to see after the reports have 19 been issued that those not be --
l 20 A Even like to -- 21 Q -- maintained? 22 -A Either not maintained and/or if they are, then I 23 like to see them identified in accordance with the policy 24 guide, so that we know that they're there.
~ '
25 And again I'm not trying to keep somethir.g out of'
~.--
-TITE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 n____r---r L-r r _ _ r'_r ___ _ . - - - - _- m- w ~~
W G 426 l
)
1 FOIA but I want to know what the issues are, I want to know ( 2 that you are furnishing all the documents when somebody 3 asks for. l 4 And like I say, I've got seventeen folks at 5 Comanche Peak. And if I've got drafts all over and drafts s 6 that night not have been kept, you know, or that I kept, 7 then we get a FOIA and sometime later on we find out we got
~
8 to have these other drafts we didn't release, then we're 9 subject to somebody coming back and saying, "You weren't ) i I 10 providing us everything you had when you had the FOIA 11 tequest." ] 12 Q (By Mr. Mulley) You say if the inspector wants 13 to keep a draft report in the docket room, he provides you i 14 with his rationale? i 15 A .Yes, sir. j l 16 Q Is that correct? j 1 17 'A That's what the policy guide talks about. The 18 difference he thinks that exist between that report and the 19 draf t, wh Md2 he feels are significant enough that he wants l
- 20 to keep the draft. ;
21 Q Who makes the decision? After he presents the l l 22 differences that he feels is significant, who then decides 23 whether the di;ferences are significant or not? 24 A I never argue with them. If the man gave me 25 that, it went to the docket file. I only had the case of J __ TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 1 4
' ' " * * ' ' ' ' ' ~ -s
427 I 1 the two reports from Mr. Phillips and they were both sent j 2 up to the docket file, 3 Q okay. j 4 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) So basically, if an inspector 1 5 gives you the reason for it, you -- that's good enough?. ] 6 A If it's there. You know, I might not agree with 7 him, but I'm not going to make any more issue of it. At
-+-
8 least I know what his issues are, I know khere things that 9 might come up inter on. 10 Q (By Mr. Mulley) That's all I have. 11 A All right. f
, 12 There's a couple of general things I guess from
~
13 our discussions last week, as a supervisor with the number 14 of folks I've got, I don't go look at every piece of paper, 15 there's no way I could do that. I've got seventeen folks, 16 going seventeen separate directions. 17 You know, if I had to go over there and do the -- i 18 do a man's work, then I don't need that inspector. So in 19 the field, there's a limitation. In fact, a manager fits 20 into a hierarchy. In fact, I have Ian Barnes in between me 21 se and the troops doing the report or doing the inspection 22 and I have between Ian and those folks, our lead inspectors 23 that are working with the consultants who are taking their 24' inputs and putting together what are the issues. so you know, where I get involved is up sort of 25 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
-- . . . . ~ - _
~a --- . . . . .
J
. 1 428 here and when I see the need, I sometimes get involved in !
1 I 2 other, you know, but it's a very difficult thing to say, 3 I've got to go look at every piece of paper, there's no way 4 I could look at every piece of paper. .okay. 5 Want,to start with -- I think most everything r 6 I've probably written up, if we go through the transcript 7 we can get into and broaden it or narrow it or whatever. J 8 THE WITNESS: can we go off the record a minute. 9 (Discussion off the record.). THE WITNESS: Page eleven, starting in about line 10 11 13 through 23, in here I talk about I war instrumental in k 12 writing most of the electrical penetration issue for which f- 13 we proposed a civil penalty package. ,j l 14 I wanted to make it clear that Ian Barnes was; I 15 said "Ian Barnes also," but he was very instrumental in j 16 writing the report as well as writing the notice. I put 17 together the whole, the letter that was sent back to I 18 headquarters with the package. I went through all that h i 19 package, of course, in quite a bit of detail. 20 Q (By Mr. Mulley) Okay. 21 A On Page 12, Line 15 through 20, the inspection 22 that I'm talking about here, I never did indicate, that was 23 the cable tray support inspection in Unit No. 1. 4 24 So it's clear that there was a second issue for 25 'which we proposed civil penalty and that was a part of the
- TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
}"}.L :. */~~~"
i , . 429 1 overall civil penalty package that has already been issued , 2 which ircluded t'he TRT issues. 3 As far as these issues on Page 14, where the 4 charges I. guess is that -- I like to kind of wait on doing 5 anything with that until we make the final conclusions 6 on -- I think we're addressing most of it in a manner. I 7 don't know whether you had some other questions -- 8 Q (By Mr. Mulley) Well, I believe the way we're 9 handling the interview in going through specific inspection l l 10 reports and specific issues, I think we're addressing, you 11 , know, through specifics.
- feel that we are being, going over Page 14 12 so I
. 13 now, there's nothing in here that I don't feel comfortable 1
14 with that we're act covering as we go. There's no -- ) 15 A okay. 16 Q There are no hidden issues other than what we a 17 have*there. 18 A You did on Page 16, Line 1 through 5, I think it 19 was -- you indicated, I will say that you said they 20 harassed and intimidated -- you said, I'll say that you 21 said you harassed and intimidated, but in other areas where , 22 Region IV didn't perform certain special procedures, well, 23 certainly and naturally you're not responsible for that. 24 As far as, as we went alona, indications that 25 ' harassed, I'm not sure if that's coming through to me, when _ TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
3 1
. 1 430 i
we talk about specific' inspection report. I 1 2 Q (By Mr. Mulley) The words that they used when I j j 3 interviewed were " harassed and intimidated from their 4 perspective." ! A okay. j 5 l 6 Q As we discussed, you getting into the debates and q i 7 discussing issues.with them, in discussing how you felt f 8 about certain technical issues, could be construed by them 9 as being harassment and intimidation. I don't think we're talking about harassment and
~
10 11 intimidation in the sense that we talk about QC inspectors 12 at the plant. These are words that they're using to (, 13 describe, I think maybe some of the debates we got into in 1.4 the previous interview, situations like that, as they're characterizing that as harassment and intimidation. And 15 16 that's why, you know, we're covering them now as we go. !
. 17 But as far as, like I said, harassment and 18 intimidation that we investigate as.NRC out at the site 19 involving quality control inspectors, that's not the same meaning.
20 21 A Okay. Having been the enforcement officer for 22 two years, having dealt with DOLS, having dealt with OI, I , 23 have a preety. good idea what I think harassment and 24 intimidation is. 25 Q Right. And like I say, these'are their words
,w TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713)_222-7177 1
- 4 w < m.
W*4 m Mto=e-
- -- M-_-__-_._.___.,m__ . , _ _ , _ _
~
431 f 1 that they used but they're not meant in the same nature as 2 vhat you're talking about. 3 A Okay. On Page 20, just make a correctlan, I: 4 think I said in Line 21, "and 'X' number of other 5 violations in the the Brown & Root, program,* and.I guess < i
'l '
l 6 what it was "was 'A' number of deviations," at least as l l 7 that initial draft was written. i 8' Okay on Page 25, 1 through 4, I brought up an 9 individual by the name of Ward Smith who's now in Region I 10 II. I indicated that he and I had interfaced on some of 11 his earlier reports, and I think some of the statements
. 12 between he and I had been, he was putting in too much into
( 13 thd re, ort, perhaps trying to preach too 'much. I think 14 Mr. Smith t'r.ok that as pretty much constructive criticism 15 and we really never had any. problems. 16 But I would say that there was interfacing with j l
- 17 Mr. Smith,.with the quality of the type of report he was ,)J
. i a I 18 writing. j J
19 Page 30, Line 13 through 19, you indicated'-- you j 20 indicated in this statement that " People with a strong QA i 21 background feel QA is extremely important, think Shannon is I 22 great. People who are more hardware-oriented -- l j l 23 orientation think that Shannon isn't great. , 24 " People who feel hardware is important and i 25 locking at what's being built and what's being egnstructed 1 j
._ , --- j
\ 'a TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 ,
* +
,e , ,4. . , _ ., , . . , - , , _,s - y g.. . , , , . , , . . ,
432 1 think you're terriffic." You're not drawing a conclusion. 2 Q No, we were talking about entirely different 3 people about, you know, how they viewed Shannon Phillips 4 and all that and the point I was trying to make when I said 5 that was that a lot of it is not even personalities, a lot 6 it is philosophical, you know, ideas concerning how to 7 regulate. 8 some people are more QA where others are more 9 hardware orientated. And I think some of the stronger QA 10 people, you know, tend to side with Shannon's way of doing
/
11 things. But -- and that's a way a lot of it, you know, you 1
. 12 can almost tell when you talk to the guy, th'is guy is a
( , 13 real QA guy and you talk to him about Phillips and yeah 14 paperwork is really important and we should be doing this, 15 and some other guy, I've talked to some' of the inspectors )
, 16 in the Region who are more into the hardware and, you know, 17 but it's not conclusionary. It's just the way they line
.. I 18 up, you know; I think there are two distinct -- I'm finding !
19 out by talking to people that there seems to be two , 20 distinct philosophies about how to regulate the 1 21 construction of a plant. 22 You know, it seems to be they're either more 23 towards the paperwork as being primary or more towards the 24 hardware as being primary. I don't know which is right or 25 wrong. . TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
..phm es. e ,$ m m4 e
4 (
- , ' 's, %, ,1 ) , ,
. ,by . )43Y[% y
' \ I'., ~.I";;y\
1 I mean, I'm just saying it seems to me that they , ( ) 2 line up when you talk to them shout shat. They seem to l 1 3 line up like that. But no, that's just a comment, it's not l l 4 conclusionary. And really.has nothing to do with this a { 4 I S investigation -- . 3 ,4 2 6 A okay. ,1 [ d ; i e g Il } 7 Q At all -- 1' t a y \ 8 A I would normally go both directions. .
,y l 9 Particularly when I find P.sidware, '
it's a lot more' direct '
\
l ! s s ,% \ . 1 j 10 path to say, " Hey, go back and look, what happened to'the i ! t.. h, j 11 receipt of this thing, have I got t3 problem thete, tnS 12 what about your rece ing program, inspection program, , b 13 what about your vendor inspection program, what about y ur $ 1'
.\
14 acceptance of vendor design."
^?q 15 so, you know, hardware, when you find a hindware 'l
.\ ,,
16 problem,youalwaysgobacktotheprojrammaticpap'r(1 e , 17 thing.- Now if the. paper's not r ght, I guess I've never i u o 18 felt that that makes it any better. You know, they've got 19 to have the paper too. You' re r.ot the ;-- the job's not n ( 20 complete until the paper's comp 1,ete. - 21 Q I've talked to a couple of inspectors who seem to 4 be telling se that they would aldost inspect strictly with ! 22 , 23 paper and check hardware once in kvhile just to make sure t 24 what's out in the field is what's t'een documented on the , ,. 25 ' paper. ',.* ( y l,
~L- 4 3
- TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (7*3) 222-7177 >
l r oe one m . -646 .M e^ a_-__Jrs_..:-a.r__ - _ _ _ . _ _ -_ A w n w b. e
~
- s .
.I I -
434 y . 1 A No, sir.
,l' . .
2 ',Q fAndIdon'tknow--that'sjustanother f 3 phjicsophy of doing things, whether it's right or wrong I ' t 13 4 i don't knqw. Just different ways they think the plant 5 should be built and I'm certainly not making any judgment, I ,,h, 's ~ ( 6 >Idcn'tknowwhkchisthebestway. But it's just, that's I I 7 what l'ot saying, just philosophical. And whether one's l% th 8 right orirrong are wrong or stronger or weaker,'I have no ! l . t .
.,' j 9 idea?
, 10 4. !.' feel you'he got to go both ways and we're 4
11 into -- 12 >
,Q That seems to make sense?
13 ) A We are into one of, one of the -- I suspect that seals,with ASME valves, where they haven't found the 14 c 15 paperwork on the bonnets. And we're not going to accept 16 those valves as being ASME valves if they don't come up 17 witti the paperwork on them.
- 18- , Q But let me repeat, that was not in any way a I
'cenciosion.
19 That was just an observation that I was ]
. I 20 makirg. That's really nothing to do with what.we're j
)
21 investigding. 22 A okay. On Page 35, I indicated that Mr. Phillips j 8 23 had been -- I' indicated that Mr. Phillips had been to some ; 24 of the consultants alleging that their violations were 25 'being cove'r d up and the/ just don't know it. I said that v TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
- \ l
\
t 435 1 statement. 2 Has he provided any support to that statement? 3 I was trying to think, the nearest thing that'we 4, came across was the' thing on the CRDM's, what was it, 5 shroud that had the excrement on it; was that the -- , l 6 Q The only instance that I can think that was 7 brought up was the circumstances where he had talked to _ 8 consultants and that -- about talking to somebody off site 2 9 with problems. J 10 A Yes. 11 Q And that's the only thing that I'm tying to this, I 12 your comment at all, is that instance there.
'( 13 A I was just just wondering of what those instances 14 were, I'd like to be able to address them if that's a true 15 statement.
16 Q I'm not investigating, the only one I know about , 17 is the one you mentioned where you had information, I think
- 18 a consultant had come to you, you mentioned to him that '
)
19 Phillips was talking to him about bringing concerns, if he 20 had any, to somebody off the site. And that's, you know, 21 what I'm thinking of there. I 22 A The one I was thinking about was like the CRDM l a 23 shroud issue. Let me go ahead and say a little bit about l 24 that. And again, Ian Barnes is the man to talk to in 25 'deat il on that issue. , __ 4 { i TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
~
g, e iempsu ram,- as'.m,e be,ee s y- a+ s 84++ r 4' 4 4 +- **"4 ' 8'"
l 436 1 1 The consultant involved was Mr. Young. He was 2 out there to observe a surveillance being done by TUGCO of 3 cleanliness for which a third party was observing it, for 4 which Mr. Young came back with like writing up his own 5 findings, I guess, the third party was supposed to be 6 observing how TUGCO was doing their surveillance to see how 7 they would handle something similar. 8 And I don't believe it's a stainless steel 9 shroud; I think it's carbon steel, and I don't believe it's 10 safety related. 11 And it could easily have well been stored outside i 12 for a period of of time, brought in, cleaned up, even in a ( 13 warehouse, 14 l As far as the levels of cleanliness, I guess I ) i 15 have some question about the judgment of the fellow to 16 begin with.
~
17 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) Do you know if the warehouse 18 is under 45.2.13? 19 A No, sir, I don't believe it is. 20 MR. MULLEY: One at a time. 21 O (By Mr. Goldberg) Would they have levels of 22 storage, levels one, level two, level three of storage, and 23 passes various types of environment, and various 24 cleanliness required for each item? - 25 A I don't -- the construction site is not under.the TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 4 ,____m ._x_._ _ _
J 437 l 1 1 ANSI ~ standard for levels of cleanliness. I can only say if I 2 you go out and look at that plant, you'll find it's very 3 clean, I mean, comments come from most all folks that go 4 the site and look at it. 5 And there was no attempt on my part to v.y i 6 cleanliness wasn't.important. I didn't really remember all 7 these circumstances.. And I had a little discussion with 8 Mr. Barnes.. And like I said again, he's the fellow you 9 need to talk to on an issue like.this. 10 I might want to~come back to this one at some 11 point, maybe off the record and talk a little bit about it.
. 12 Okay. On Page 39, we started talking about 766 13 system. And we are talking about priority one, two and 14 three and that kind of stuff.
15 I would point out how come that; priority one, two 16 and three system came about was because we had gone to the )
-17 resident program, because there was a lot of folks from the l 18 Region that had been taken out and put in the resident's l
19 jobs, and that the residents that had separate. modules that 2L they looked at on top of everything that the resident -- 21 that the Regional folks would come out and look'at. And I 22 think the~ resident program epleated the Region talent 23 for a period of time. 24 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) As I recall, going back to the 25 ' transcript, my recollections tells se that you had advised TATE REPORTING SERVICE,'(713) 222-7;77 !
~ ~-- -- ~ - ~ ~ -=
\
. ....m ...m. - . - . . . . . .
,.7...%..
, - . - , . - , . . . ~ . . . ~ . .
i 438 1 us to talk to Mr. Taylor on this issue -- 4 - 2 A Yes. 3 0 -- in terms of what was covered and when -- J 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q -- and how.
. 6 A Be would be the man I would recommend. Now, he's 7 going to be out this week. He's at south Texas.' I de have 8 some -- I did go back and attempt to, well, I did'go back
- 9 and get, what -- how the program changed. Now, whether you 10 went back and Icoked at that, because this is an area we
~
11 got into discussion. l 12 0 Yes, I did some homework last week and we could 13 compare notes on that, if you would like to', at some point. i 14 A Maybe it's worth it. 15 Q whenever you feel you'd want to. 16 A I guess what I found.when I went back and looked A 17 wast'his35/060wastheoneinquestion,cameintobeingin.
- 18 I believe it was July of 1980. It was to be done every 18 l 19 months.
20 And then subsequent to that, and again when one 21 of these comes out issued by IE Headquarters, I-don't know 22 how the field finally -- maybe a couple of two or three 23 months. I don't really -- I don't know when this got to 24 the Region. But then in, September -- 25 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) September 15th, 1981.
~
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
439 1 A -- of '81, we then came out with a priority.one, 2 two and three system for which that module would have f 3 fallen under, I believe it was twice during the first'four. 4 years of construction, and once during the 5th or 6th year 5 of construction. - 6 Q I have it during the second and fourth year and 7 t'han once in the 5th'or 6th year. 8 A Okay. Now, in 1980, we were in the 6th year. I 9 construction permit was issued, I.believe, in December of l 10 1974. So I can see why it might not have been done. It 11 wasnotdoneuntil'84thatwepicked' backup 35/060inthe
. 12 change that came -- if the Region went to Friority one and
(. 13 two, which is what we did, based on the fact we had the 14 resident inspector at Comanche Peak. 15 Q (By Mr. Mulley) So am I right in understanding 16 that the procedure took effec't in July of 1980, that 17 35[0607 18 A Came out in July of 1980. 19 Q sy that time you were already.six years into the 20 project almost? I 21 A Almost. 22 o And then the following year -- 23 A The following year was when you could -- if you 24 were beyond the 5th or 6th year, it was a-judgment. j
, 25 Q okay.
~,
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
)
l
. l
.. _ .. . ,. - - _ _ . _ - - . . . . h
440. 1 A That would have been the 7th year. l
- i 2 Q '(By Mr. Goldberg) -Let me ask you a question.- j 3 Between July 1st, 1980 and September 15th, 1981, is a 4 period of two years -- a year, I'm sorry, i 5 A A year.
6 Q A year. Were there any plans to do this module 7 during that period of time, where it says once every 18 8 months? ,
'4 9 A I can't tell you. I don't know. That was before 10 my time. Mr. Taylor did look at it and I don't know 11 whether you want to -- he had a -- he had a logic that 12 , perhapsevenifwewould--becausewehaddonethe35/200 13 in '78, you know, and he drew some conclusions that maybe 14 the section supervisor decided it wasn't necessary. And I 15 think that's just supposition on his part. Because I 16 don't -- hadn't been able to talk to Bill Crossman. And I 17 don't know whether he'd remember.
! 18 I know why the priority one, two and three system ; I i 19 came out because we were, the Region was short on folks, 20 and headquarters recognized that we had to back some off of i \ l 21 the inspection program. 22 o (sy Mr. Goldberg) Where it gets confusing, with i l j 23 all due respect, in' september 15th, 1981, when we went.to 1 24 the priority program, it's not clear what plants.would be 25 ' grandfathered into this; in other words plants that had TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l _ _ := = :_ ___ _= - _ - - - - - - - -
441 1 gone beyond that period of time in years, which is stated 2 in that module -- for example, at Comanche Peak, where you 3- say it's gone into the 6th year on July 1st, 1980, how that j 4 is affected by this priority schedule; it's clearer when 5 you look at a plant who's now entering into a 5th or 6th or 6 4th year when you set the priority schedule -- 7 A Yes, sir. 8 Q -- but it's not as clear when you are in a plant 9 that had reached that period in some time before. It is a 10 gray area at best. 11 A Yes, I agree. You could also look back at the 12 35/200 had been done in '78, and, you know, although with ( 13 some of the discussions as to how many hours should have 14 been done on that. 15 Q Was it your call at that time in 1981 how to 16 prioritize the program?
^
17 "A I don't recall whether -- I didn't become a 18 section chief on that project until 1982, seems like to me. l 19 Q Did Mr. Johnson have some input into the. 20 decision? . I I 21 A The previous folks in that would have been Bill I ! 22 Crossman and Bill ; I know that there was a discussion 23 in the conference room with all folks as to what we were ] 24 going to do, what priority we weren't into, and I don't 25 'know how well that was documented or whether I could find TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
~
Jee A dd en/ f . 1 that. 2 We thought we might and we've looked some, Taylor-3 and I looked some and we didn't find anything. . And it's a 4 probablity that there was something written up, it might 5 not -- it would only be if somebody actually had it in his
]
i 6 reading file perhaps. 7 But I know there was a decision made by 1 l 8 management back in that time frame that we were going to go i 9 priority one and two where we had a resident on site and 10 that was the consistent I thought with the module as came 11 out which would have carried us up through into '84 : 12 sometime. (see Mdendu' () 13 Q (By Mr. Mulley) Do you have any other examples, l 14 other than this one, that you went back and looked at, 15 otherthan35[060? 16 A Well, I thought that was the one that we had 17 partieular -- 18 Q Theis was one, yeah. 19 A I want to try to address that one. I think 20 there's others probably affected the same way if you look l 21 at priority one, two and three modules that came out. I 22 just picked the one, since that's the one we had specific . 1 23 question on. 24 MR. GOLDBERG: What might be advantageous, have 25 'him go on, if that's the one he looked at because I think
.J TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 ;
"-ere% M *>* * - A g - - - , . w y M riin a-#p e ae-ee rM-
443 l 1 the others would be new information George, that might not 2 be relevant at this time. 1 1 3 .MR. MULLEY: Okay. .
)
4 THE WITNESS: And I don't believe in the IE 5 manual chapter there was anything that'said you'ought to 6 document your basis for what you do, when you do it, the 7 way you change it. That's a thing that just evolved over 8 time and there's been a number of manual changes that just 9 keep coming out, regroup and go back again. 10 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) I think'you have'a good point 1 l 11 there in terms of the fact that the manual chapter changed
. 12 so often, I learned last week, there was one, two, three 13 manual chapter changes that appeared in 14 months and that 14 makes it difficult out in the Region to organize 1 15 effectively. ,
16 A It is that. 17 O I think your point-is well taken. 18 A Talking in general about some gaps in the 19 program, as far as completion of modules and that sort of 20 thing and again I think Mr. Taylor is probably the best man 21 to talk to. And I do indicate that one of the things that a f 22 I intend to do, maybe looking at CAT and some other things 23 and see'where we could take credit for them, is out of the 8 24 CPRT action that we had going down there, under 25 independently inspecting just about every construction TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 ___L====_== - - - -
- ~
~
444 1 1 process that went on at Comanche Peak, see where we can i 2 come back with that now and take credit in 766 system. ]1 3 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) What does CPRT stand for? 4 A Comanche Peak Response Plan. Comanche Peak ) 5 Response Team, I guess. (By Mr. Mulley) And who is in charge of that? < 6 Q f 7 A well, the plan is submitted ~by the utility. And 8 of course that's a third party, as we talked about that 9 last time. And our group is inspecting the implementation Sibh ! 10 of that plan on @ . 11 So I'm going to look at where we can come with 12 that. I took a great big magnetic board down to the site 13 about three or four weeks ago and we had been periodically 14 keeping our status of how many times we looked at different 15 particular hardware areas, welding, and what have you, 16 structural steel, all that, is being looked at under quite
~
17 more depth than probably the IE manual chapter. ! l 18 We went into a little bit of discussion about 19 would there be other' documentation that, perhaps a resident 20 might have done and I believe that whether the resident 21 inspector might have'done other inspections, that might not 22 be.766, as far as say~ reactor vessel or that kind of thing. 23 It seems I recall, we had some resident modules 24- which were specifically written for the residents which l 25 'were separate from the.766 for which he went out and did a- 1 e TATE. REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 i
- ,, < ~ . --
- ____.__ . _ _ - . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _m - ... _ . _ .
~
445 1 number of d.ifferent inspections which were accounted for in 2 that way. 3' - And going back and talking with Bob Taylor for 4 example, I found that he did observe the installation of 5 the reactor vessel in Unit 2. ] 6 , Q -(By Mr. Mulley) How does.he document this work? 7 A It has to be, well, it doesn't have to be, it's 1 8 probably in an inspection report, I would assume'it's in a 9 inspection report. I didn't_ check with him to see how much 10 in the inspection report did he put. 11 Q But that sort of inspection report wouldn't be 12 input into the 766 system. k 13 A It would be input under the resident module. 14 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) Must have, this must have been 15 a period of time quite a few years ago. , 16 A Yes, sir, '79, I believe. 17 'O '79. If we called Mr. Taylor, would he be able 18 to give us a indication of what inspection report it might 19 be under? 20 A Probably'should. Either that or -- you would be l I 21 free to talk to him. He's at South Texas this week. Might 22 even travel to Washington if you would like that. 23 The reason I.went back to Bob Taylor, because he 24 was a resident inspector at Comanche Peak and had a lot of 25 ' history of what went on and what was inspected and what~ \ TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
446 1 wasn't inspected; and that's -- nobody seems to have gone 2 back to talk to Bob Taylor. That's really who I would talk 3 to before I drew any overall conclusion as to the 4 inspection program. 5 - As a part of clarification of course on Page 51, 6 I indicated there were over 30,000 hours of inspection by 7 Region IV for the Applicant's construction ar.d testing 8 program, and that time frame I believe was like November, 9 December, of '85 is when I looked at that 766 data, that's 10 just a compilation of 766 data. 11 It was a fair amount of inspection compared to 12 what even other sites do up to the point of licensing. (_ 13 Page 60, we talked about reactor vessel 14 inspection for example and I indicated, perhaps, you know, 15 if stewart had documented something on the 766, for which i l 16 he might not have seen the evolution himself, but if he 3 17 went*back to Bob Taylor and said Bob Taylor were you their 18 and witnessed the vessel installation, that might have been 19 abasisforwhateverstktusheshowedonthe766. He may 20 have tried to go back and take credit for that. . I don't 21 know whether that was -- I don't know whether that was j 22 precluded. 23 Q (By Mr. Mulley) I guess the only thing that 24 gives me some concern when they do that is that on that 25 ' portion, they do reference.an inspection report number. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 s arrr_1orrn __ - 1 __ . --_ 1 - n . . . . . -
l 44'7 l I 1 A Uh-huh. , 1 2 Q And it leaves a gap when you pull the inspection 1 3 report, and there's not a word about that. 4 A It's very hard to trail that. And I know in- ) 5 talking with Taylor, for example, he said if he went out to 1 6 look at IE bulletins and there wasn't enough to look at, ! l 7 I'd put down some hours maybe against the bulletin. j l l l 8 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) But nothing written. 9 A But nothing written. And that -- I don't think 10 that's faulty, he was just showing the time he put in and 11 where he put schi time in, whether he documented anything 12 in there or something. . (. 13 okay, on Page 64, I said something about talking 14 about going to inspection reports and I would like to when 15 we finish going through this transcript, go back through 16 some of the things in the inspection reports where Phillips 17 has iited them against 35 -- or see 50.34(a)7 for 18 description of the TdAR. That regulation applies to the 19 PSAR. 20 words are in there that says the description of I 21 the records, TUGCo records vault is not described in 22 section 17.2 of the FSAR. It's in section 17.2 of the FSAR l 23 in probably the depth I think it needs to be. 24 So there are a number of those kinds of things, I 25 " don't know whether I'd go to all of them but I'd like to TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 1 L __ __ __ _.: _ __ ___:_____-.__-_
448 1 get a flavor of them so you can understand what else I did 2 with that report. 3 we talked about the' specifics.of violation or 4 what issue was identified on the matrix. And what my, you I 5 know, what my logic might have been or what my -- what my i 6 position had been or we discussed with regard to it, but I 7 want to show a little-bit more of the kind of thing that I
~
8 got into, I also wanted to show that the writing on, for 9 9xample this first report, was as a result of those 10 l discussions. Not everything that's written on that report 11 was 6 result of our discussions. But a number of the s la things that were written there came as a result of our (/ 13 discussions and were written in there by Mr. Phillips. 14 That's his handwriting. If Q (By Mr. Goldberg) We had a question which came 16 up last week which I'd like to bring up at this time. You 17 mentioned in two areas which involve to some deree reviews 18 done on an FSAR, or portion of an FSAR. 19 Generally, do you have your inspectors look at 20 the FSAR for completeness and quality, or do you reserve 21 that to the people up in Washington, for example, the QA 12 branch in reviewing 17.2 of the FSAR; do you have your 23 people look at it here in the Region or do you delegate 24 that back to headquarters? 25 A You're aware at that point in time, any changes TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
- esww e w - es + ...p, yew 3... . % gy 3 , , ,
l l, 449 1 to plan are the Region;s responsibility. I have a man in 2 ny group assigned. so any changes that are l 3 made, we look at all of that; yes, we do. 1 4 0 . so that does come under your sphere of ' l l 5 responsibility. It was unclear when we had the discussion d
.k 6 two weeks ago whether that was under your responsibility or
. h j 7' it was beck .in headquarters.. . .
i
. . .. .m;u.x .
4 l
. ,4 ,.....The . . n,~ 23 5ea.dquar.ters,'.943 branch was a. . sked to come
- e. .- e c. y u.-g.
. - r... y fcg. s.w. . +v ; e .- % .
.9 look spe,#,.~ .
- -.c..v., m e. Comanche Peak,w z.;at their On program as cif.ically at
; . ..,,. .. . -: n~+ -v: . .a . - . - ~ .
' ~
10 commi,tted,"~and' the [FSAR 'back , s"the. .'f ro... Version.that1they'r..,
. e4 !
7 .. % ?. ' . :[? _' T f;1 [. -
. k.v.- j n': g;r%lQ ..., 3 *) y,*',y ;, *
- l 9" .11, committed.to.as'well"l-,f_Q as '_. ,;. k &. . .
,.l*
~
l wm:i . :qfegegnw;munw..look . Wye at klie.ldt nn@wWA:9.>H'#% it;'was stoday's 12 .FsAR,'andtheaffer;3oday'stimeframe.,y.$ t hey, bad.to,look.at C. .13
.. :.. + c M Q i k W . W t. - .
~
- '.@, e z
.v a
both the FSAR :. O .9...: g g y,t andje:goithe licens'ee'.s ~.,.. procedures.m to see.if u. -
."...s.:: 9w.c. :n.. . e- .
.. r . . .n....
they~ found enou.mn '"
.. m' (Ig*g&.;..ow, if t.h.ey+ found. N. j ..
the~.k. ind
..14, t kn..
e.,.,.,. .
- -W. .y r
mn w'. .: . : . .: . ~.w. 15 things you would'f1 fina.todayFSAR.54.y;j.g -Q. I D. ~:. .f,, " s n.....- .a. .. u m sp e w -:!8 % /%im 4 W rsi, 5 : v e n' v n . - i- 3:.16 'r
.0 W aut you still,yyou'feell:you're?stillleharged'wt h .
. g -.u m ,.:. ,... .
y;;.mgu. :.., . :Semm . ye.s.c.u. -
, ,17 .
l responsibility &a..thet areat.;gg.g.f,.y' - "' Sig.:et:.,; . 9V# . m , .. . , , ..~. y >.s W .. .]b;p M;w q r ~ : . 1 18 t. .GA . 1Yes,-str Mthat's'"ri y . r .% l.
.,m.
yr. . J..@gra b :%wm.w.n.w.e tws w .sk.ghtiT w u..... Tdid .. . W.look e '.4 forisone
.. . c.g. . . M. .
+ a:M m n mn. th is, ..
. like'o..
..a . .. ~1.9,, . so. me._ i,nde.p.e..nd. e. nt,1:.. e -.oo. k.,+2 $ hat l independea.t%, . m . - :
. ges.4.g &:t 1;,d24.:4.v..%. u ;.2% : ~
; m q;30 .
. . :.v. v c. '
.,y.r:.;.s look .,that :. had' just.gone.;through;.andfitaid,;thatJfas-very% ^:.3 .. L 21
. . <3.pp, p.mc gx %p9 5.:.yyypw - 3yf . -
strong indication of,what should or shouldn't/have been ini. U.' r_. f22' .r . .K. : j
., . . u, g
-i an FSAR.:
.i..
& &w:::l
. . . w. :.
.....c.3.,.
.v.
u.... a.
& ...e. & c+,.v v.a.
-Qt &. .' W %.fll*i
& &. .&,v,%c. .&s
.e ?-e.%. . a~. s: . i
~c. .
*s...
.-4
- r** * . ;
"*f.% . .
e %. N'Q .,K . . . .,t
- .e
. Q .. l* *% Q, .*M 6,4p ' - W * ' * 'j '
l ':~"23
~ 0k'ay. .Zk'p Page 4 'pl6 3, line 31, &'.r,1. I'said- Jim'Gagliardo; '
. %;. f.1 ,. . . %. 4
. 4. 4 v.- p ,
24 toured shannon Phillips'. I believe-it was the~other way - L ,; 1,,
. . . , . . m. , _ .y . . <.n.:.4 _.
25 e
. . around, I b.m.lieve'.s.hannon.,&w . ,r - * . ...
Phillips wa v:, A .s" touring gia ..%eo .
. %rd .; ~
. ,.D
. . s n . Anw Wl}, ,% it% 2 4* *. f .'Sl.N.W.'5W ? T.: 'W'!.W %%Y A% ' - N
. sh',l, .
d,. TATE. REPORTING;3RRVICE,y'-47 r gm ; v ~ . . s:q .
. - sp n. . .nm wy .y :. . .
,s'
,.g. J .,m .0 ~ , ,
h222-J - ~ .< W.!R?@lEp@MWMa 13)$.@71774lydylrg+w^ R4% h.6
1 Gagliardo. 2 Page 66, line 17, I said we've'been through two, 3 two months,-and I said November, December, it shculd be 4 October, November, I believe. That was the reports which 5 were, a lot of discussion ongoing between myself and 6 Mr. Phillips. 7 we're into talking about I think 84-32, on Page 8 71 and I think we talk about it all along. I want to make l 9 sure what what your question here is, you were talking 10 about after the inspections had been out.for a long time, 11 did I have any problems with the inspection reports that l 12 were discovered during the inspection report, is that -- (. 13 Q (By Mr.'Mulley) Let me read that. 14 The question I was asking, on inspection 15 84-32/11, frro r4y understanding, you were not involved -- 16 A That's irrect. 17 'O -- with the issuance of that inspection report. 18 When you took over your responsibilities involving Comanche 19 Peak and read that. inspection report, you know, reviewed 20 the report, did you have any problems with what the 21 inspection said, what the inspection report said, 22 concerning Comanche Peak and the utility? 23 A I think I kind of gave you my impression of what 24 I -- in parts in here somewhere, .about what, my overall 25 ' reaction to the report. But that wasn't at that time. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 .,. 6
,.-..l- *
.~ - + ,. ,,n.,-. s.-, ,. --,--- . .e, e a
-- s-. -- n
451 i 1 Okay? And since it was a part of the CPRT effort to do the 1 2 issue on audits which this report -- it didn't bother me, l 3 you know, from that standpoint. 4 I was aware it was going to be looked at under 5 CPRT, so I didn't go back and try to pick on anything in j 6 the report, you know. I left it to the folks that are 7 looking at the audit area on the ISAP to see what's, how ! 8 the utility has responded. That's what their response to i 9 the notice of violation said. ! l I 10 Q (By Mr. Mulley) So you weren't upset in any way i 11 over the inspection report in the findings that Shannon l l 12 Phillips documented in inspection report concerning TUGCO's 13 QA program? 14 A Not at the time I took over, you know. It's an l 15 issue in the past. And as I say, I wanted some background, 16 I had heard things, you know.
~
17 Now, in here, and that's where I will, we can i a ' 18 wait until we get there, or I'll say now, and identity when i 19 I get there, I had some thoughts, I indicated I was the l l l 20 enforcement officer when this thing first came through. l l 21 But even prior to that, I think there had been 22 some feedback, I don't know whether it was from Darwin 23 Hunter or however, from Shannon Phillips. We even had 24 discussion way back then when I was a peer, I wasmAt an ) 25 ' enforcement officer, I wasn't anybody's supervisor, I
~
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 o _ __ __ _
452 1 wasn't involved; we'd had'some discussion back then on 2 whether Region IV, why Region IV might not have gone to 3 corporate to audit. And I think I went through the same 4 priority one, two and three thing back at that time. And I 5 know that Hunter, and I don't know whether Phillips was l 6 part of it, had some discussion on audit of Westinghouse 7 service organizations on site. 8 You know, I don't remember how, I can't even i j 9 remember how those might have got, and that would have been l 10 as a peer, not as a supervisor, not as somebody saying, 1 11 " Hey, you shouldn't have written it like that."
. 12 Q Did you ever make the comment to Phillips that 13 Region IV would never forget this inspection report, making 14 the comment as an implied threat?
15 A No, sir. l 16 Q okay. 4
~
17 A Again, I can alacst think I can remember the man 18 saying that to me; he may have said that as kind of a i 19 leading question. And I don't know that I ever would give '. 20 him any reaction to make him think that. - 21 Page 71 says, I can only go on hearsay that it 22 came out auch more negative than was ever intended. I 23 'think ever intended would be when initially written, as it 24 was rewritten. l 25 Page 81, we got into a discussion on the mid-term
~~..
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 9 e.., ,,,; -e ~ w. em m e =m m
. - - . . - . . . , _ . . . ~ . . . . . . __ _, , , .
453 1 QA, the 40 hours that was done in the inspection of that. 2 And I would feel more comfortable with some of discussion l 3 of that with Bob Taylor because that was back beyond my 4 time. 5 I don't think it was Taylor on that inspection. 6 I think it was an inspector who's since retired, that did 7 that inspection. 8 okay,.on Page 82, we got into the discussion on 9 35kO60andauditingofcorporateQA, that's again this 10 priority one, two and three and what have you. 2.did go l 11 back to look at a little bit of the data on that. And I l 12 believe when Shannon did 35-06, he did something like 250 ( 13 hours. 14 When I looked into the 766 off of the computer, 15 it had 1,206 hours. so and I went back and I got part of J 16 the 766, Taylor has got it somewhere and you can see with 17 all the scribling on it why it might have got put in in an 18 a error. l 19 We looked at some of the other plants as to the 20 number of hours spent on doing 35-06, I think we found some 21 with as many as about 29 norm, or 30; sometimes one year 22 was as low as two; sometimes none; I'm not.really going to 23 pick on any one particular plant. But there was probably 36060 24 some little confusion with the 35-G6 and the priority 25 ' system. . .
~
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 __r===_==~====_===-_==~x= =- - -
=-
l l
. l 454 l 1
1
~
1 Page 84, talked a little bit about taking credit 2 on the 766 for things like CAT inspection, the CAT 3 inspection at Comanche was I think the second one that was , l 4 ever performed. And it's the second CAT inspection, I j ? : ! 5 believe it was, i 6 Back in those days, they didn't provide the 7 Region with here's what we inspected and here's what you 1 8 can take credit ,for in your 766. I think subsequently they i 9 do that. l l 10 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) Can you give me the dates on ;
)
11 that CAT inspection? 12 - A No, I sure can't. I could -- it was done in ' (. 13 1983. I don't have the exact month. 14 Q Was it the fall, winter, spring? 15 A It was prior to, I would think, July of '83 16 because it was in the hearing process in probably the 17 spring. So it was probably done sometime in the winter, l o 18 maybe, early '83. i 19 In here you asked the question on Page 96 with 20 regard to did we miss certain QA modules, and the Region 21 has to go back on to records that's been mentioned, we're l 22 talking about going back and looking at the records that 23 TUGCO had and can we rely on that. 24 You talked QA modules, I think you got QA modules 25 and you've got hardware intertwined. Now QA modules like j TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (113) 222-7177
- _ = - - = = = -- - - - - - - - - - - - -
J 4 455 , 1 35y'060 would have been like audits; hardware is a little I 2 different; a lot of things you do with hardware, you didn't ! 3 see what was going on, you can always go back and reinspect 4 most all of the attributes that are'there; you can't see 5 the fit up of the weld or the initial weld, you know, the p-o u 1-6 pause gap or that kind of thing but you can tell an awful 7 lot about an inspection later. 8 And I think we are doing a lot -- have done a 9 lot of that.through our inspection of the Comanche Fsak 10 Response Plan. Done more than probably actual observation 11 than was done at most any plant under 25fd2. 12 Q (By Mr. Mulley) Let me make sure I understand ( 13 what you just said. I guess the context in which I was 14 asking the question, during the last interview was, it was i 15 sy understanding that we had just done an inspection report i l 16 84-32/11, which revealed. shortcomings in the QA by TUGCO, 17 the dA system that TUGC0 had. And it had been alleged that 18 the NRC had missed doing inspections involving QA, some.of ' 19 the QA modules, which resulted, I would think, in we have 20 to go back to QA records to satisfy ourself that things 21 have been done right, properly. l 22 I guess what I was driving at when I asked that 23 question was if the NRC is now relying on the QA records 24 maintained by TUGC0 and we've already identified problems 25 with the QA records, what assurances do we have, then, TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 '
. . . - .e== * ==i
. . . ~ . . _ _ . . , _ . , _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . _ . . ...._ . _ . . - - . . -
l 1 456 I that, you know, the things that were put in, things that 2 you can't see, I guess is what I'm talking about -- from my ) 3 understanding of the plant there's certain things that we 4 just can't go inspect anymore, it's buried in concrete, or 5 you know, it's just too late. 6 And I guess the question, what assurance does the j 7 NRC have, if we weren't there to look at it when it was !
\
8 being insta11sd, what assurance do we have that it's been l 9 installed properly? That was the question. 10 A Two parts of that, okay? First of all, you're il saying QA modules and 84-37 we were dealing with audits, 12 which are not like observing hardware being installed. So,
. 13 and you can -- you can for example, like in 84-32 pick up 14 on the fact that there may have been problems in the audit 15 program which the utility has initiated a corrective action ,
l 16 program included as part of one of the ISAPs. l 17 It is not a record like of a component that's
.. 18 installed that you can't ever go back and look at. But if :
I 19 the audit program wasn't effevtive then what we identify is 20 the kind of problems that they need to take actions on to 21 correct. It would not necessarily be a hardware problem, 22 because you carry it then the next step to say well, we 23 didn't observe certain things in hardware, but that's a 24 whole other subject, which I think like on the 766 you 25 probably ought to t'alk to Bob Taylor a little bit and he
^~
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
,.p~_. . , . . . _ , , .
457 l 1 was resident. And for example on the reactor vessel l J 2 installation, he did observe that installation. It was a i i 3 part of the resident and that's why we put' residents out at 4 the site. i 5 Q Okay. - { 6 A Did I get that, George? Okay. I think we went 7 through that several times. 8 Page 102, where we talk about audits, I want to l 9 make sure that I don't end up with an impression that I 10 don't thin'.i audits are important. I 'think audit programs 11 are important. 12 My experience is difficult to say how effective (. 13 many utilities have been in the past with their audit 14 programs or how effective; that's my personal feelings. I 15 You may have an audit program that completely meets the 16 regulations, but it certainly may not be effective. 17 We saw, for example, in ERC area, which is the
*- jf 0d. -
18 22ec , inspection, reinspection, they had an audit program. k
~
19 And it appeared to meet regulations. But when we went out 20 and went independently behind the inspectors and re-did a 21 number of samples of inspections the inspectors had done, 22 we come up with problems which the audit program didn't 23 identify. So one can say that the audit program wasn't 24 effective in identifying the problem. 25 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) I could understand how, you ( TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 d De.ub-m es-4im4 % y- g -g y. e. g .g .er*= - gepm.
j- 458 t 1 know, what you're saying, mainly because the modules or the 2 procedures are somewhat narrow in their perspective of what 3 the inspectors are looking for. - 4 But I do have a question. And that is, isn't the 5 inspector charged not only to make sure that the licensee 6 meets the regulations but also, if they aren't-effective,. 7 to communicate that, as well, back up to line management; 8 I'm talking about NRC line management; isn't that part of 9 his responsibility? , 10 A Yes? l 11 Q And if they are not effective, corrective action
. 12 should be instituted?
j 13 A It may not be -- it might not be an enforcement 14 action, unless you can show that they are violating a 15 particular part of the regulation or what have you. But it 16 sight be a management type meeting with the utility company 17 to s'ay, " Hey, we're looking at this and we're seeing things
=
18 that don't" -- l 19 Q But that can still happen in what you all do, I 30 mean you could have meetings that include nonenforceable 21 ' discussions which might be' effectiveness of the audit 22 program? 23 A That's correct. 24 Q so it's not out of bounds for that topic to come 25 'up and to try to get institute corrective action on the TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
459
' i 1 part of the licensee, 1 i
V 2 A No. I agree. , I,
.. t 3 And I would indicate tha't I've seen, and.I'm 4 not -- I've seen a lot of positive changes taking~ place in 5 likethe'utilityathcomanche'Pelak,-they'removinga'\1otof I;
.\ . .
4 6 their QA folks to the site from Dallas. Not all, but all , l! 7 but their vendor, I'xthink the vendor area. i t a 8 so their auditors and their QA manager and the 9 folks that work under him are all coming down to the: site 10 to be more, to:he closh: to where the action actually,is'. P l 11 So there's, I think from TUGCO's standpoint,JI do I - i i
, 12 see some positive things, that came out of the 84-32 i
t ( , 13 inspection or comments, I rather think that there ahe some ! 14 commentsthat/wepassedtotheutilitycompanyover'some ., 15 time that say, " Hey, you've,got all your QA folks back in 16 Dallas and here's the plant down here in' Glen' Rose. And
)
Q 17 there's a very little function left that>isn't going lon at i 18 this plant.." 19 There's not the kind'of things that would go'on 20 back at Stone-& Webster -- there's some things' going on 21 back at Stone & Webster, but not like a plant-that was-22 under construction with an A/E and a nuclear steam 23 supplier. 24 So I think that was, -- that was a nonenforceable. 25 kind of a comment that's gone from regional manage:nent: to
,)
1,. :
, TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713):222-7177
. .. _ ._ ... '. . - . -- .- m . _ , '
..Y 460 t
1 the utility company, which it looks like they've been 2 responsive to and they may have just done it on their own 3 anyway. 4 Okay, Page 103, I talked about, you know, we 5 talked about the trend analysis, there was a lot of , 6 Criteria 5 violations that would indicate that the 7 enforcement officer we had was in the, I guess was one of 8 the causes, but I would say that probably just the general , 1 9 trend back in the earlier time was to write it under l 10 Criteria 5. I'm sure he got some of these directions from 11 folks like the enforcement coordinator in Washington. 12 okay, and again on Page 105 where I had some I I k 13 discussions with Phillips on 84-32/11, I was trying to 14 point out that there was some interface, I was trying to 15 . zake sure I got it all factual. But there was soms 16 1 interface between he and I back when I was enforcement l 17 officer when he was in the process of doing this, when some 18 of the feedback coming back where Region IV had not done 19 this35[060 inspection. So even that early in time, I was trying to point out I had passed the rationale to him. 20 j l 2i (Discussion off the record.) 1 22 A (Continued) On Page 121 we are talking about 23 records, I believe we were talking about the record on the 24 CMTRs, and I make a statement here, "My experience has said 25 'that there's never been many cases where we couldn't find I
' TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
,7 .g 1' -
( 461
, s 1 the record." I guess what I want to maki sure is .
[. t ' , i 1 2 "normally"; I'm not going to say "never ever." ( 3 Page 128, we are talking about when theNreactor , e
, 1 4 vessel was set. I believe. I think I said '81, '82, and l l 5 it's earlier than that. I' don't know whether you still N
- 6 have the traveler or not. But it probably shows an earlier (
t l x 7 time. And I don't know what the sign-st2 ' dates are in } j 8 there. '79. % i 9' (Discussion off the record.) s
'i 10 MR. MULLEY: Okay, we'r back ct1 the record.
11 THE WITNESS: Page'129, you asked me if the ll 12 reactor ver.sel was in the utility's audit plan as a ( , 13 specific, okay? And I made a conversation, since I had the 14 duty last week, I couldn't get(back down to the site, so I \ x, g 15 was stuck here. l s. 1 1 l 16 I did by phone talk t'o Mr.iMcAfee who's the TdCCO \ ' i i
^
17 supe'rvisor in charge of theirtaudit group. A.nd . h e ' s
. I 18 indicated that the record, at least that the audit plan 'i l
i would not show reactor vessel as a specific As. sue to be ! 19 l l 20 audited. s - l 21 Page 132, I've, got Line 4, I have got this stage l < i ! 22 we're talking about the reactor vessel, tink' frame is '81,
}
23 '82 and again I think we have r. aid it's '7S, h
, +
24 A number of these pages I'm going througEwre all /
~
l"
- ,. . _ 's l 25 doing with the audit on the reestorsvessel, when we?get '
_. '. l-TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (733b222-7177
\
( - . .. [_ . . . . . .......-
- . . . . _ . , , _..,i. -
1V i 462 t l 1 back to question of was it in the master schedule for 2 audits. 3 When we talked about traceability issue, the fact i 4 that spool piece number and the Brown & Root drawing, when 5 that appeared and when it didn't appear, if you recall, 6 it's on about Page 152. Again I think when we looked at 7 the report and we raised the question, because it talked 8 about spool piece number and drawing and then went on to 9 say it didn't have the heat number and that, and maybe the 10 inspector had not been looking for spool piece number and ; 11 drawing number, versus looking for the other ASTM data and
. 12 heat number, what have you.
. 13 Q (By Mr. Mulley) Let me look at that page for 14 just a minute.
15 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) To refresh my memory, was that 16 a inzuo of timeliness of finding the information to be able 17 to retrieve it? A8 A What initially -- no, that was a case, initially i i 19 when wi went out to look, they came back and said there 20 wasn't traceability because I believe it's written in the L 21 notice', it said it didn't have the heat number and what i 22 have you on the spool. t 23 'O iny'Mr. Mulley) That'r. correct. 24 , A And when I. looked at the report, it raised the 25 gsostien, well,. di.i.it have the spool number and drawing 1 ~ TA?lE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
.i
. . . . . . . . . . . , _ _ . . . . . . _ _ , , ~ . . . , _ . . . .
. . _ _ _ . _ , __ .t._ ..
463 1 number on it. And I think we found it did. Now whether i 2 they had been shown that to begin with,- I never, you know, 3 I don't know. I l 4 Q If I recall, the concern that the' inspector had 5 was that'during his inspection, he had gone out and looked
= 6 at this piece of hardware, they had the exit briefing, and 7 then during the time that the report was.being written, the 5' licensee came in and with additional information, either he l 9 had found the mark that they were looking for or something.
l 10 I think the concern was, you know, the 1 11 11nspector's done with, we didn't find it during the 12 inspection, we were out there and it's too-late now to ( 13 change the inspection report, we'll write it up and you can 14 respond back, that sort of thing. ' l i 15 A I think that's what we talked a little bit about, 16 if.an inspection report had not been issued and I got 17 additional information which said, you know, technically 18 this finding may or may not be correct, then I would have 19 no reservation about making that report technically 20 correct. - f l 21 Q That was really the issue with that example. 22 A Page 156 we get into talking a little bit about
)
23 if they did respond to something that wasn't, for example, i 24 a violation, as I recall, what are -- what do you do, you ! 25 'know, what would you do with a reply if they came in and TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 s *< ,
464 1 said, " Bey, your reply, it's not a violation." And I said 2 we would access the written reply and we had probably have
- e. r-3 to write them a back in response saying, " Yeah, we 1 4 ' would agree it's not a violation."
5 There is something else we should.do and that is u.... . p 8 take the data out of the 766. It didn't indicate that.
,. y
.e 7 Okay, Page 160, just more like"a typo, but it v.w n ..n .c -
.m mapw w.:, , .: . .
8 says 2" wculdn'.t hav.e' signed. the report and sen it out.'.
.w. . - . .
.:n.q.,, 9 .i. m y :,..-.. w ., ,. .
.>.:sesx., g .4 n . ...
,' 9 And 2 guess'I'woul.d~ have . signed 'the report'and's.ent11t..'out,:-
..n w n. . . ,
. . . , c.a.m. gm . : .
. /,p , : . < .s.i y. A . . . :, . v., 4 .g. i,, , , ;.,,; .m. ,
. ., .a S. y W ,,q. <,,, .
... 10 ., it(s a correction. yls.o,m.eh. ow 'the,1 *wo,uldn' t* 'go. t^.;1*ie.,thee,y.,
-,.o* r e..."" ~
_ . . ,.4, . . .
.~
_- .4, , . , . . m.w yf p ,
." ; 117 .. . .s ..z.-
T X . p. . ;T w.3 yelieye,:.on f69"no talked ~aboutga tig. .twi h the.
.yw f ev esWM.. ;;.m.g gy;mty .: m-. y ~wr.44- M.y -
mu mer.#w.#k:.4.m are tal ing ,., u .m...o . surface :conta,,;w'. vesselLwa about .m the shin 4 J 12 ct .nd. I
- w. . 6. l - SWh 31,,,.Agg,,b : 2.. -
. , - ' ., .t:3.%g.AS;g s s 13- said. it. giv.es.:is.thi. .. s. Ae-n.;y. x.o.a.w, tam,'.c. m e:: le..
arance,49 and .:., I be. lleve ' it..shoul,d,,
~n ., p,se.gp;. n; . n n
.. . 14 it gives n' gap. p1'es[rincegso'enJr.inet17 e'f. Page 1694 :ggf$g,y. I
.~ , e . . / \
n .a.s. g'there any3 fTthese that ve've~got"through that Wym,q,yQ. ' ~ 15 Is I a j h . 3 -: .:d.y..y y s e y.p=3 g h -;ggg w p g g:;gt e.92 ,w mo N'W 16' you've~got M.?a.9~ .
. .m- e.g"oEIiiy'??'2*d@TnowitGTe*F6iii"51aT'eYi7Ws v.;.4; r;;, x.. mnenpyy>.pp_
. . ; ; 9;mygg;.g : e V,
- 17~ believe 'I'velot"it' marked 7.whe&f66'jsleTae'11"there T
- wn,g gggyjw.; 9 ;. .g has ; *
. .: .r%. :
- c. . m . . .; s:
.e . .. ,.. .y . . , . . . ,
, 18; a . shim contact,.. some 75. percent.3l.. .; And m .ml ye. M. ..u,. eye..vn In ... here.g,'in- .{
.m. . . . . ; .,_ a a.u m o ... 4 :.p.. , , . .
. ~ . . + . . ~. .w:x.y.,cs.w. , q.> :sp . - a .
m
.z. s.ntg m mn.:: . 1
.x 4 .19- .< fact;;I.was, on some;other_ issue, Lajack$;.believe ,earthe,; V., .
j a.~ . .< n w ;
~
.e.* 7 - w;.x.,gggg. .,; n .y.ggg.g.g.. 3,g.g.,7, . .'. .
20 ~.'second da l
- n. ; ' =; }::yc.:qqq:y, .2.!kaNOdin@g;it .: ;, <talka'abWEn r'cenk.nia '.ggy ; gg.gg . . :.
.ympt?;ygg. i
- u .s ..c n
. . .... .21. .~ g.. .w:::.
. ...y ontac. ; t. ,- v. sop4.it.., was..in.that, .. . ~ 1t was'.71a m thet tava.<ler.f.M.
n.n. nv m, .Qggg.;;
. , ., ... .. m . y . . . . . . % ,,:.
,Q .., ,, , m,, ,
,e .. .. ,.,,.,y .,.e basa,..,,
.r'esent at ; : ' -
. , .. .. ,.... .m,.
+ 2 2,u.a
. . m,.s. . . s. .. . < : A. i .e,x
..There .
.ws.mewas
.a.;
m..a.r,uestion
,. n. ...m. :, .. itq;.,. :. s ,. .,.n.,..,,,
,. . nv :.n,. u.:.;.p:.,c .c o... . .
.to m nv . -.
. . 23- /the t,ex, i, t. ' .on l8 4-32 c. .,'2 be. lie. ve _ - .I wen. t,, ,..c. oo ,
man.m.yw; m
. k,.e,s, ,..'.;a, t.
.. p , '. .
..p . < . <. v.n.
- .e ; .. ? ,, . . . . ;W... ..
p m. m. . e .... 4- ., . y. . ;- . . . -
. the report. .I don't'see his name there.ass b.., ,.yha,,eing~present at 24 . .
~
.. . agg. . . -
~ ..
Re may have been. 25 the exit.
- 3 x.
T*b+. ,
- ~ . ,
.p... '^
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177.2 ."N'.o n M .. . %.'.. Q. S t4. Y. k ;,c
.i. L .., , . % y.; '.g,~L Q.1.:.J,,rc:: 3 g ; ,. 4 '
; h . g j, Q . -.* .
a w- . . - . ,, . g., . _______-__ m
1 1 445 1 sere's one page -- that is important, page 204, 2 ~ Line 21, it says "Be felt that # was probably the 3 driving force," and I'd say I felt, not be; askes a big 4 difference. Imean,12forexampy was to read 4 5 .this, he'd say that's not correct. . I'd say.yes, you are i j-6 right. I had - say 3, it was, evidently just a
.c . ..
- .. .. . .. . ~. s . w . , . .- .
'.7 transposition of what I was. saying.1 7...
l
..s
. . . - m ... . : .. '
8 . 1' ... . I yhad that.there that : g.be ;-- !_had mark'eda....,..m here.
..n ,w
~ .
- . . ,. . c .y - ~. . ...
.. .. . : ;.g r . . .. . .:...y::n 3g .a 9 _with the intent of going.,i. t. e ' m t.alk,-. ,ah' out,",.the..lipport"of M. .. ,W~i;. F.. .
. , . , ..v ~. g :,n.s. n :n w.s:.p,. p m.,zq w , m .; .; g ..,. , . . ., q ., . _ . .;, y. .. . . .
10 85-14/11. We're going to.goiback,: .and as. 2 . indicated, you:..h
~. : ,
.s ,~ . , ;.... . . .....c. x u .;.r.% .wss..m_p,,,.u
- 4 . w : ..
...u. , . , .
*s ' e' .
W. J 11 se c ick ttiat imp. . pAMwi : . would .go b m e: k 1.:s.,. W .g. w boek and.get(p, 3 g;gtpage -
-[M A,o p%,g.;gy:,.u .g .,af
. . f . ter.
. . we.< .
wha
. 4 m.,y , go , g through
. y. .,. . 3 his~ . .. . . transcript;p
; 12 g ;. g.; %, .4 ,
t!s'. 4 g ;t~3.want.to'do.. g,A .g.3.. . l (p. g.w3..f. c:
.vo g:q g Q TFc".% p ge.# .9.. w . ,
' 0 M( %r".i Nu116 M iel& D N ! N : .. p yg gMM'
. pg.%fA %, ; . .
- g. 3
".f;WQW.h @7$h.TMfW9: 3 yp pg.gggg, 4 g s..:. gg,, c.Mt@pt.6(gg gg.gg934_gg,,yg&y4 .y;.pph
. . -, r.,gp 15~ . m s' et
.- .gy en s thatsith.
w .v.:-i. m m m.
% somn.,hi.ng he,.wro,te,
- ~ . . ,
up,.~,m I. .;w.p,t n.hack a,
- a. rL- nd a di.:.m^ cussed.4.ay';w
....1.su _ - p w. wra...,w mm-
- a. .3 .,.. .:. n... 16, - .. gyn ..#2 thi a g . ,. y u. gn W T W a %, .
_4 . . m th,at,'.s , kind ,of'an. ;c o,v.e.r,s a. g:'g g yy g
.4. -l? ?.\ : ; ! 'W ,' .
Qqgg3
..n. ~ . :.a.,.. 'w....,,,~.,..,,,,,.t.,,.
,y, .. .
.,.. ,. ,x
.w
. ~ m. .wn,+u.u y. w.-
.c - . ,y. , ,
"y.. .
~..
.... ... .. . .n .c, z. .
. . . . .~ ...
J,
.. M.., m18 :.. My r ,. e. m,:. ,,.. .. ,. .... r...' 2." %; . Okay,; P. age,2,2. 9., '.wef~t.alked ab.o.u
.aW9%p. ?q.Wp.9. r:mM w. ,..how:would.,4.w ?.% w.2. r.t,";
.. e x . ..,m ::2. n .. .; , .a .
- .y%:
i
- V rist the~ discussions ytth Mr2 pli!111ps ~1a Lind:. .@F * *
"r
. a-l '.at w. 1 e . ,. . . . . , ; m. . ~ ;9m .y m.: ,3 : . . u;.wt. ,,. . ap ; .
#pp . : /**.e, .:? y g.9,
.+g. ..; v.s . ..
beginntag,
!.the,.n y,,:., ' andF.T;;p x..
M y t-y. .6 11,".and 2.se14; friendly l;,. ..,.1s '
;yy . c 20.
9.u.:9... A b. .; '. ; .,'*.T; y ,..n . .m . m' . . r.. . g'/.3 x, m ym s.x: 4 4 w v.,. 9: y.
.. .; .;. ,7. h;.e , .
.ge
- a? '. ' W .W? !
' C.t:g., sine.ss .i ikel 'thel7'~r. r '.ilonger.K".we gotF J.R would say probably more ;bu,f %*.:
2&M'yl31 .L*.i %1R @ $f.l% g.!:.s y S W %'V ".My9np. int;t 7
. i e@intolooking at' the reportsM}ff*.y.p:p?anything'o But never M..
.. m &.. %. wia..M., .
2 2e.sh.., i .. g ...w
. - m:.
* % . w p 8+;*.u,yn .. p..
. , . < . .. u,W ,;q w .x.~4. .
. .s .
M, . ..,. , 4. .$.. f ttrying to tal'k' about what was,i'n 'thefreportS.or someth(ag V5g,
; W. . ' : 23.
q;, .;; n, ;.y. .m. .s.( . .
. ..;3(, , -g4 .;.
9.. p g g .2
. , , .. 24 J.that 'present,ed in the report or some inspection finding .
W N
. 25-C that .was engoing. -
;t . .
m r, ,c , n. ,s;p u./G,.g.
'. ^
L o .' so /v; .. g.f.3h , .
- l
- r ., . . . .. . . .. . .. --
,c , . - . % .. .
% ~.y.. ; 7., T sM. p,c,,%sars . . . ;. maronerna saavres,uvasr
~
w , 222-7177#.':.W..4 .g,; -;.n: . L
. ,...#. , w p , *.tgg. m. . ag.91 ,.... ;Pdyn.. .w. <.
'4
< ,. w . .
., " . . . . , , * . g, 3' . .
a - . . -- =. , , - < a ., . - -
1
. )
466 . l f s
)
1 Q (By Mr. Mulleg g g You say, in your 2 discussions with Phillips, that you tried to force him to 3 change his mind or force him to agree with your way of l 4 thinking? 5 A No, sir. l
)
6 Q Or were you presenting him with technical 7 arguments? 8 A I thin,k they were normally technical kind of 9 discussion that we had and if we still didn't reach a l 10 seating of the minds, that's how coue all those items 11 are -- all those items are still there. l 12 It would be like, you know, we got into and I can ( 13 show you where he changed like in where he wrote in the j l 14 ; report, when he got into shipment of records off site, and i 15 we got into discussions, "Well, Shannon, I can't find in 16 45.2.9 what precludes shipment of records off site or why I 17 woul'd have to have a back up copy," and we'd discuss it and 18 then, you know, it's obvious that he came back and rewrote 19 something in place of what's there. Even saying that even 20 though 45.2.9 doesn't really specify, I believe in a one l l 21 case I could show you "but common sense would say that." l l 22 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) That brings up a good point, 23 and when I read the transcript last week I wasn't clear 24 whether you both were talking about the same version of the 25 ' standard. Were you both aware that you were talking, TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (73 s 222-7177 -
> We * * -W wspe eer i - =as e w- 's = em -
467 l 1 45.2.9, 1973 version,; were you both talking the same 2 language? 3 A Talking about draft eleven. l 4' Q was he aware of it and you aware of it when you , 1 5 were discussing that issue? 6 A To the best of my knowledge. And I had the gray
- 7 book with me, I had my gray book. I had it down at the 8 site. And in fact when I went over and talksd to him, I 9 - had that gray book in my hand. It was the original gray 10 book issued to all utilities and --
11 Q The reason I ask that, I did go back and look at 12 the '73 and '74 version and you are right, the major change s
. 13 is receipt, is a receiving of records, the. receipt area.
14 However, there are word changes-in both, there 15 are small word changes that were made and they could make a 1 16 difference in possibly your discussions you had with 17 Phillips. 18 A To the best of my knowledge, I had my gray book l l 19 in hand when I was over to talk to him. 1
-l 20 Q But do you know if he was talking from that' 21 version or not?
22 A I quoted from it, looking at it, you know, I 23 assume he's familiar with the, you know.- He didn't show me 24 the copy he was looking at, that I know. I never saw 25 anything that he looked at. I had my gray book, I went j TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
+= rew4-s om Mem-
- P e eg = e- *- &
f e **N ,9o ve45asw** '*' e49 9%'.s* %~-+f W- *'W4- '*H **L
i 466 . 1 over and I'm not sure whether we -- 2 Q Maybe a better question then would be the 3 consultants who helped him with the work on the records, 4 were they using the same referenced ANSI standard, the ANSI 5 standard, the 45.2.9's you were, that's probably a better 6 question to ask. 7 A I don't know that they even had.that; I don't 8 know that Mr. Young, for example, would have had that in 9 hand. j l 10 Q I had the impression he did based on the findings 11 he had, that he was looking at the 45.2.9's as part of the 12 basis he had in that area. l ( 13 A In the interchange between like the lead guy l l 14 which is Mr. Phillips and the consultant working under him, i 15 which is the way that was to work and that like I said, I 16 did very little interface with with Mr. Young on any issue; 17 I would go directly to Mr. Phillips, and that's the way I 18 worked even with the folks at my trailer, the Barnes, the Q 19 Ellershaws, the Hales. 20 Q Mr. Phillips did not give you any indication that 21 Mr. Young was using a different version of the standard 22 than what you were discussing? 23 A No, sir. 24 Q Okay.
~
25 A I would say that again the discussions with TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 pW e MMD+ 9 e
%+Wr4M,NL$$ 4%tyg q(5'W94eiGMufe ep % ee 'em=$ te A'@ WM' # W-4* E'
- 1 469 1 Phillips were normally in the professional type 2 discussions; I didn't go over there unless I had something 3 that de. alt with inspection or report or what have you. ;
i 4 I'didn't just go over there to see Phillips. l 5 0 (By Mr. Mulley) The discussions that you had ! 6 with Phillips, I assume they occurred in his office?
~
7 A Yes. 8 0 Is that correct? l 9 A Yes. l 10 Q Were they loud enough that they could be i i 11 overheard by peop7.e outside of his office? !
. 12 A The trailer walls are thin. The door was shut.
l l s. 13 There's no intent to ever do anything with Phillips in 14 front of anybody working for him; there was never anything ' l l 15 I did that even -- you know, I don't think that I would 16 intentionally do anything to to try to embarrass him or ; 17 anything else', you know. I
. I 18 You are in a trailer, the walls are thin. I l i
19 can't say that somebody didn't -- if they wanted to really 20 make an effort to listen, could maybe listen. 21 There wasn't a much more private place to go. 22 Again, the discussions were mostly dealing with the 23 inspection issues. l 24 Anything on the Stone & Webster records? I think 25 we went through that pretty well. 1
-. i i
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 i
; 7-- - - - - . , -- , -- ~- - - + - - - -
-- l
470 i 1 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) A lot of time was spent', I' y . 2 believe. 3 A I would point out and-I don't know where the 4 statement is in here, but I think the statement was made 'i 5 that if 45.2.9-11 doesn't have words in it " temporary 6 storage." It does have the-words " temporary storage." 7 Q Do you recall where? We'll get that in for the 8 records, stand to be corrected. 9 A I don't know.where it is in the transcript. 10 Q okay, the important thing is where it is in the 11 standard, because the words are used in -- -
. 12 A I don't know whether it would be the draft eleven t 13 in the attachments or not. I have some extra copies if you 14 vant them.
15 Q (By Mr. Mulley) well, we could at least take a ( 16 copy with us, whether l't has to be officially attached to 'k ! 17 your statement is probably not necessary. . 18 A Page 18, 5.4, item one, those records stored 19 within a tempo.cary storage facility shall be afforded i 20 protection by use of fire resistent, cabinets with a one { 21 hour Underwriters rating. 1 22 Q I don't know if the context we were discussing i 23 it, is involved with that particular portion of the 24 standard or not. I mean, we'll have to go back. I'll have 2 25 to go back and check on the record.
.. mi TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 :
meemm em w ear %, ee n 3 eep.,e e, g , , , , , , , , , , .m, , ,, ,,q,,, ,. m,,,, , , ,,,.
~
471 1 A I remember it came up and I can't remember 2 whether I marked it. If not, I'll come to it when we get l' 3 to it. l l' 4 On Page 250 of this where it stated that, do you 5 feel the reasons no comments came back from Mr. Phillips to 6 he as a result of the argument that you and he had . l 7 previously over this inspection report. ! 8 I don't know whether I'd characterize it as 1 i i 9' argument. Discussions, I'd say. ! 10 That's all on the first day. Second day, which 11 is July the lith. Here it is on Page 259, your request on
. 12 shim contact, I think I was trying to read it right out of 1
13 the traveler. i l 14 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) I think the context of the i 15 question, going back to the earlier day before, was the ' 16 completeness of the traveler, whether it was in fact i 17 instruction or just trying to find if there was anything 18 missing and that's the reason I asked the question. i 19 A Okay. And I hadn't at that time really tried to 20 study this traveler and I did coming back through this, 21 hey -- 22 Q It turned out to be a very key issue in t.he 23 traveler relative to the installation quality, it3 elf. , i 24 A Okay. 25 Q It was not meant to be a trick question.
- 1 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 W-p- i e e. g n o .wwg . . - F e ojW'p i w ee *
- mav t iei o misp'*g.i
="9 T-*- =$ = #
M *' ++P '*P' ?
- f .
- I 472 1 A Okay. As I said, when I looked at the traveler, 2 I was only trying to look at the specific issue which had 3 been' addressed and that's the reason I was very familiar ,
l 4 with other than just trying to look at a specific issue. 5 I did look at it overwise, I looked at each step 6 and the step seemed to be fairly complete as far as the -- ) 1 7 Okay, Page 271, we're into talking about 8 Mr. Phillips' has provided the matrix on 85-14/1'1, that
- i 9 states, records of Chicago Bridge & Iron were shipped to {
10 Houston in cardboard boxes, originals subjected to little i
\
11 protection without retaining back up copies at the site in l l 12 violation of Criteria 17. Okay. l > ( 13 I, on Monday of last week called the TUGCO QA 14 manager, Mr. Streeter, said I wanted several things, 15 because I was stuck here, I wanted a copy of the CB&I 1 16 procedure on control of records, I would like to see what 17 the " contract, some excerpt of the contract, and I would 18 like to know how the records were shipped from the site to 19 CB&I Houston. 20 On Friday, an individual by the name of Dennis 21 Williams who is an CB&I employee still on site, was on site 22 I guess at the time that all came up, gave me his title at 23 the time as welding and QA manager. It's the title the man 24 gave me. 25 Said he was involved with the transfer of records m _ , TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
%==m. =,p a--m 4--%.-.e ,. ,
473
*1 from the site to Houston. He personally took them one 2 shipment at a time.in a pick-up truck in a fire-rated file 3 cabinet. I.didn't go back~and check the inspectors, you 4 know. I had to act on what the inspector, I assume that 5 the inspectors would go far enough to find out.how things 6 were done, you know, it was a matter of going and asking 7 utility management how to find what had been done. In fact !
1 8 that's his on site number if you would like it. 9 I asked him if he had had an inventory slip, he 10 said he followed the CB&I procedure and had a transmittal 11 thing that went along with it, that he took the records t
. 12 back to Houston.
13 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) Are we speaking about the same I 14 records, what you're saying is that -- let ae ask the 15 question. Was Mr. Williams involved in the incident that 16 was being described in the inspection report?
~
17 A To best of my knowledge, all the CB&I containment )
- l 18 liner records he took back to Houston one shipment at a l j
19 time, not all at one time, separately, in a truck, with a l 20 filing cabinet that he said had a one-hour fire rating. i l l l 21 Now, I did get the CB&I procedure, if you would . 22 like to have that. I did get the contract which says ! 23 they're going to meet 45.2.9. In fact, .the CB&I procedure i 24 talks about the records, records shipment, the fact that 25 you put the records in a plastic --. wrap them in a plastic TATE REPORTING BERVICE, (713) 222-7177
, , p4 myega e s Se> WD sh *4 9 F# 'e 8-
- 9 &
3dg.= rmaow- esqp .gwegirW %+med a o + saw ,g aA. 9 -+ ewas = , . . = = - - - .w , *w 4 m e d e q ==
- m=+ r -* ,7 * ' #*' 4'*+'- *
*e-
474 < 1 before.you ship them, if it was a small shipment, you could 2 ship in it a-box; if it was a larger shipment, you would l i 3 ship in it a wooden container; you should give j
.I 4 consideration to, you know, it's hard to reproduce records 5 as to how you might ship those records, you may use UPS or 4 6 parcel post to ship them; required an inventory, required a l
7 reciept on the other end. 8 (Discussion off the record.) j 9 A (Continued) I don't have the full contract but I 10 just asked for parts that dealt with records. But it does 11 say CB&I will furnish a -- erect two steel reactor
. 12~ containment liners in accordance with the Gibbs& Hill spec 3 k 13 and.that they will furnish such things as quality 14 assurance, and that the quality'asurance program will 15- conformed to the applicable rules and standards as opposed 16 by the Atomic Energy Commission, 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, ANSI 17 4521 71,; A!!sI 45.2.9 Draft 11, Rev. 0, January 17th, 1973.
18 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) How extensive was the work , 19 that CB&T was to perform; how much of the plant were they 20 actually involved with?
- l 21 A I believe they did all of the liner, containment 22 ' liner. They may have done some other things but they did 23 the containment liner, which is the normal kind of thing 24 thing they would do at other sites.
l 25 O were they involve.d with the tank's, the recycle i i l- TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177~
=====_==_====a-===-- --+n-- -+ .
n
475 I hold-up tanks? 1 2 A They may have dene some other. I just looked at J J 3 it from the standpoint of the containment liner which was I
)
4 what the question had come up earlier. 5 Q okay. f 6 , A They do do other things. May well have done it 7 at Comanche Peak. Do you have the procedure? It's the 8 only copy I've got. If you want it, I'd like a chance to 9 maybe copy it, if you're going to keep it. l 10 Q I don't know, I don't have it. I would suggest 11 we copy it at some point.
. 12 A Okay.
13 Q You could do it tomorrow, if you wanted. 14 A I guess as far as how CB&I shipped the records 15 and what's been in the reports, what's been in the menos to 16 me, didn't take me very long to go find out how the records 17 had been shipped, which is something I would have expected 18 and inspector to do before he would write up a finding like 19 that. I guess is there anything else in the record area 20 with CB&I? 21 Q I do recall we left hanging an issue involving l 22 audit of CB&I records. You said there was a letter that 23 you had, you were going to supply this week. 24 A Give you a copy of an audit, TCB6 and the last 25 'page is the memo I think we're talking about.
~l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713).222-7177 x:== ==_ _- - - _ - --
-r - - - -
-1 i
476 1 Q The question is -- does this document the -- 2 A That went to the record file for the audit so 3 that there was something in writing in the audit file to 4 show, for whatever oversight they had not put'in the 5 original report. 6 Q I don't follow you there, you're saying they did i
~
7 r.'ot put in it the -- 8 A In the original audit, it indicated up front that 9 they would audit records. 10 Q Okay. i 11 A When they wrote up the conclusions from their 12 audit, they did not include in it a section that talked 13 about what they did when they looked at records. 14 So in order to do that, that was a follow-up to 15 .say, " Yeah, we did it; and we're going to put the' piece of 16 paper in there to show we did it." 17 Q The audit scope says that they were going to look 18 at audit quality assurance records. 19 A That's correct. And the audit reports that got i 20 written for some reason skipped whatever, you know; I don't : 21 know -- I don't think the auditor knew. 22 Q so the issue is to really document the audit of 23 the records beyond what's in this sheet that -- it only -- 24 A It audited it in detail as the report itself does 25 'n the areas that looked at it. What the man says that-he i
~-a- -
-j TATE. REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
. _ .- - . ---- - 3 **
* *. ., ,e* *y v. .,a, eu -uwm se s.ms . y u .>we, -
.m,.3
477 1 looked at, what he looked at to see that records were being 2 properly maintained at CB&I Houston. 3 Q Is this a quality record, this last page? 4 A That went to the record audit file. 5 Q I'll need a copy of this. I 6 A Okay. i 7 Q I'll need a copy of the whole thing on that last l l 8 thing I showed you. 9 A Okay. 10 A Page 277, it goes into a long discussion on I 11 controls. i 12 Q What? ( 13 A controls. You probably recall, we said like did 4 l 14 CB&I control them in accordance with 45.2.9, and what I 15 kept trying to come back with was what I recall in 45.2.9 16 were only the words " control" appear; now whether that was l 17 answ'ering your -- whether that was answering your question, ) 18 I was trying to answer it in the way that the standard 19 said. Are we still at any -- do you want something 20 further? - 21 Q We went into such great detail there, if you want 22 to add or clarify something -- 23 A What I was trying to repeat back, was when I 24 looked through here and found where the words " control" 25 ' appear, that's what I was trying to -- TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
. . , , , . , . ,. . . ~ -
1
. l 478 l
, I l I i 1 Q I understand. l l 2 A -- repeat back. okay. 3 Not being able to go back to the site last week, 4 I couldn't do much as far as paper flow group which we got t l 5 into a long discussion. l 1 6 Q who would you suggest we talk to? i 7 A cliff Hale is the deputy for the TRT; he was the j 8 deputy, and he's now the acting kind of the -- he's my lead 9 for QA/QC issues; he was the deputy back in the TRT days. 1 10 Q Yo'u're referring to in-process records at this 11 point? 12 A Yes. l l k 13 Q Going to the next issue, which is part of f 14 85-14/16, was the weld rod issue. I recall from reading 15 the transcript that Ian Barnes would be the right contact ] l 16 on that one. 17 'A Yes, sir. And I gave you a copy of his memo a 18 which was stated what had transpired in his understanding 19 of that issue. Do we indicate anything more we need to get i 20 into as far as TUGCo's and CB&I's responsibilities for 21 records as far as the site? 22 Q No. 23 Q (By Mr. Mulley) No. 24 A Page 287 is where we begin to, very flimsy boxes. 25 I don't know who gave you that. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 w
*$@ $3 O Q
ain d-n r e p w ww.ew = -eem -,,%.9-e- g= c *4- w- g- r e EP- '>80
- P *MM--sP*- * - h '
~
1
. 479 *j l
1~ ~A You're referring to the CB&I boxes?- 2 A Yes. CB&I, I believe. We're in the CB&I boxes. 1 3 'MR. MULLEY: You were asking those questions, I 4 think. Maybe you just -- 5 MR. GOLDBERG Let'me see. 6 THE WITNESS:. That's all CB&I that we're talking 7 about. 8 Q (By Mr,. Mulley) I don't think it was based on 9 any direct information, the word " flimsy." It may have 10 been just been a -- 11 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) I don't think it's an 12 expression of any significance, because I'p going back to
,- i t 13 the words used in the draft inspection report. We're ;
14 quaing off the. draft inspection report and if the words-
? 15 aren't there, then it.shouldn't be used.
16 A _okay.
- I i
. 17 A From what I indicate, I have never seen and I'm l l
l 18 not aware of any regulatory position dealing with ; 19 transmittal of records, IE QAB branch or anybody. I 20 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) 'I don't think there's a clear, 21 beyond what we have in the codes an'd standards, I don't l 22 recall a branch technical position, I don't either, from 23 the QAB branch, for example, because there are branch 24 technical positions from time to time that would come out.. 25 'I don't recall any. . I 1
~~
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
480 1 A Page 293 is where you want'd e the audit letter 2 which I will make a copy of. 3 on 295 you,also asked about on the audit, this l 4 memo that went in with the audit report, if it had come in 5 before the inspection report was issued, or I don't know 6 whether that -- maybe it's my comment here, it came l 7 before -- the report was issued in March of '86, we had 8 that, we had that memo from the auditor, I= den't think it 9 was January, the date that was on it. January 9th, of '86. 10 You asked on 298 what the structure looked like; 4 11 we're talking about, I got the FSAR section 17.1, which 12 describes it in general. It is, I belie've is a concrete 13 masonry walls with a roof with a forced ventilation 14 system. And we also got into -- l 15 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) If I wanted to see anymore 16 description, it would be in 17.1 of the FSAR7 17 'A Yes, sir. and we got into a discussion of was a 18 big rain storm a flood, and we're talking in terms of what 1 ! 19 would get into the building and that was a leak, that was 20 two to three gallons of water I think over some long -- 21 over some period of time, that was all that was caught. I 22 wouldn't call that a flood as far as -- 23 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) I had another question, there 24 was another standard I was thinking of. That may have been 25 'either referenced in the FSAR or either in the QA manual , _4 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
-.--_?_~_ N_?_ _ _ _ '_ " ' -- l_ _~ $- -_? - - - _ - _
~
f 481- e ! 1 i 1 the fire protection standard. Hold on for a second. l l l 2 A Can I see if I can. answer your question before 3 you get there. This is 45.2.9 draft eleven, that doesn't ) 4 get into reg guide 1.88 as'far as this vault. .It does as 5 far as the~ records control center vault. That's section 6 17.2 of the FSAR and that does get into you it.7 7 Q But not 17.17 8 A Yes, sir. i 9 Q I wanted that clarification on the record, that's 10 all. l 11 A Page 303 we got into talking about cleanliness 12 and what the plant was committed to and not committed to. I s 13 And I think that we touched on that earlier. If ! 14 there's something more that you -- okay, l 15 Page 305, I think,'is where we again got into
)
. 1 16 this thing about the control rod shroud and the fact there 17 was the grinding disks laying on the ground, said you were 18 not supposed to have any contaminated steel, the statement; 19 again that was being looked at by this survey team. It was 20 a third party observing, our observer was observing the 21 third party.
22 One grinding wheal at a construction site, I 23 don't know if I found one what kind of reaction I 24 personally would have, but one grinding. wheel, 2 have 5ound 25 grinding wheels, now, but if I found large numbers of TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
=__-_= =__-<= = - -- - m -- - r- -r - ~ , - - --
- - ~ - --
l f ., . .
, .j l
482 l 1 grinding wheels then I'd begin to be kind of concerned. j i 2 Aside from this, what we really, what the fellow l . k [ 3 was out there was supposed to be observing was what the 4 utility survey team was doing, which the third party was , l 5 observing which he was observing. So what the action was 6 would be what followed from that. 7 Q (By Mr. Mulley) Okay, let's go back and so I 8 understand exactly. The consultant was doin s -- 9 A The consultant we were observing, an ISAP and I I 10 don't remember the number of it but it was one that dealt 11 with cleanliness, it is an ISAP which the utility is
. 12 addressing. In order to see how the utility was
(. 13 implementing their cleanliness program, the third party, 14 which was ERC, I believe, accompanied the survey team that l 15 was out looking at cleanliness, okay? We were inspecting l 16 that particular ISAP. So the consultant was out there I l 17 obse'rving both the survey being done by the utility and how 18 they were handling'it and how ERC was following through to 19 see what the utility was doing in their survey. j i 20 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) Did the ERC come to different 21 conclusions than the consultant did? 22 A That's -- again you'd have to, you would have to 23 talk to Ian Barnes and maybe when you to go the site, you'd 24 have to he -- I believe the consultant assigned this task 25 afterwards was Joe Birmingham who was given I think the TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
.: = - =..-.-.- . . , . . - + . - - . - . .- ..r- . ,. - .-
483 l 1 findings that Mr. Young had to follow through with as a 2 part of'what he was doing. But it wasn't something that we 1 3 would just write up because it was being identified by the l 4 utility and we were watching the program to see how it was 5 working. . l 6 Q (By Mr. Mulley) This stainless steel grinding 7 wheel that we just spoke of, were you informed of that? I 8 know I read it into the record. 9 A I remember there was discussion on both the 10 shroud and I heard something about one grinding wheel. The 11 reaction was "one grinding wheel?" But that wasn't again 12 the finding wasn't being dealt with or that it wasn't being i 13 assigned to someone to work on it, it was just a passing 14 from someone in the trailer that "One grinding wheel?" 15 That's not unusual. 16 Q You just answered the question, I think, that I 17 'was ' going to ask: Was there just one grind wheel? , 18 A That's my understanding at the time. One 19 grinding wheel. 4 20 Q So no one was asked, "Are we just talking about 21 ene grinding wheel"? 22 A I think Young wrote up whatever he wrote up and 23 that was passed on through to the next, the guy that ended 24 up following through. Now Mr. Young was then assigned over 25 'to Mr. Phillips' trailer I think before anything was TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 1 __ ~ - - - - - - - _ a - __
r . 484. , l i i finally done on those findings. And so Mr. Birmingham 2 followed through on, he picked up the ISAPs that Mr. Young l 3 was looking at. , l 4 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) If we wanted to follow this up 5 further would Mr. Barne's be a good contact? 6 A Mr. Barnes would be a good contact and you may ! 7' have to go back to the consultant, Joe Birmingham. i 8 I think all the rest, the next part of this deals' l 9 with paper flow group. We're.into what is completed l 10 l document, what isn't a completed document. 11 Q (By Mr. Mulley) I think during the last l 12 interview we spent quite a bit of time talking about how 13 you felt and that's all we need. We're not trying to make 14 a decision, at this point. 15 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) We just want the basis of your 16 opinion. 17 A okay. I think you again want to talk to Hale on 18 that deal and how the TRT folks looked at it. 19 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) Will Mr. Hale speak in the 20 capacity of TRT, he was also -- - 21 A He was TRT, yeah. I think, he was also the 22 consultant was involved is still on site, a guy named Vick 23 Winsel was involved in some of it. I will show you the 24 part in the report. 25 I had got just like a regular traveler to show, TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
& =
- 9e 'me v' 4 wa'q. , m oge - g m
r 485 1 you know, on the front of the traveler I do a number of
- 2 things. As a part of that traveler I have a completed t
3 inspection report. That inspection report goes with that 4 traveler and then all the rest of the inspections are done 5 or other things that might be referenced to be done are t j 6 attached to that traveler. ; 7 That then makes a final record and whenever a 8 traveler is completed, then that record may be signed off 9 as a final record or as a record, you know, as the 10 completed document. However that traveler might even be a 11 part of something else. So we're into, you know, it's hard 12 to say. If one takes a very pure view, that's a completed ( 13 document. 14 I could say that the inspection report is a 15 completed document and it ought to go to the records vault 16 right away and shouldn't be out there a part of the 17 trav5ler. 18 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) The word " traveler" was used 19 in two different contexts in the last interview and I just 20 wanted to clarify what you are saying. We had the word 21 traveler used as an installation instruction. Are you 22 saying the traveler in the context you're using the word 23 now is that the same context? Is it an instruction? ! 24 A The one I'm talking about now, I'm just giving an 25 example just a normal traveler; a normal traveler her. Now TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
-)
w5 . ...wwm.ww....ww ....rw.p. .=.w .- * - ...- % .. s . . . . J
~ . . . . . _ . - . . .
i 486 ! 1 there is a paper flow group traveler, which is a different 2 animal. That's what you need to talk Mr. Hale. I'm not-3 expert on that. I didn't go out and look at that. I got a 4 copies of one but couldn't figure out -- ; 1 5 Q I couldn't understand the context that you were 6 using the term and what it was, and how it was-used-in the 7 plant because it's not clear. q 8 A Okay, I'll try one time. A paper flow group-9 traveler, is my understanding, is a means that the utility 10 decided "We want to put everything together so we got in-i 11 one package the things that go with a steam generator," for 12 example. ( 13 Q Is it like a table of contents? 14 A Kind of like a table of contents. But it lists a 15 bunch of documents that all have to be completed before 16 this final piece of paper is completed. 1
. 17 So they're all of'them were there and there a lot I 1
18 of them were out in the paper flow group because that's the J l 19 only way you could put it back together. In fact INPO did 20 an audit at the utility and had high praises for this 21 traveler, this paper flow group traveler. system of doing 22 business. Said that it was an excellent way of putting 23 everything together so when you got through, you've got the 24 records organized so you could go look at the steam ) 1 25 ' generator and find the records for the steam generator . i TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
,.:-,..., ,.,_,w... , o. ,, .,..,-..,,,_,_....m...-..._.,_ m..,,_._, .
.. 7 . . . _ _ _ , . . - . _ . . . . _ .. . _ . . _ . - . . - - .. .
', 487
)1 1 And that meant taking records back out of the 2 permanent plant records vault,- putting them back out with !
'l this thing and then when the whole thing was then finally 4 put together with a final document, it was signed off. And 5 that's considered the final complete record on the steam 6 generator and that goes to the permanent record vault and
\
7 that is stored in the permanent records vault and it's 1 8 going to eventually go over to TUGCO's records center which' 9 is going to be the final resting place for all records, 10 Q I'm not totally clear on that. I guess I'm hung 11 up by what is part of that entire packages what it is. And ' 12 -- (, 13 A Probably Hale or Winsel.maybe can help you ou't. 14 0 I can't get the whole picture from what you're 15 saying.
)
16 A It had records that me.y have at one time been
\
o 17 considered completed documents but it was decided that they 18 ' were going to come back out and become a part of an I 19 uncompleted document which is the paper lion traveler. 20 We get into a legal interpretation of what is the 21 final completed, signed off document. You get into this 22 like AsME realm, I guess unti1 a document is finally 23 considered completed, you've got the N5. 24 Q Is there a plant procedure that describes what 25 y'ou're describing now? - J TATE REPCRTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 ] t 1 U ._ _ _. , . -. . - . . .. .. , . . . - i
I
.. - . ... ..-- . ~
r . 488
<=
1 A The paper flow group procedures, yes, sir. 2 Q Yes. Maybe in the process, when we get there and 3 talk about that, we can see those procedures because it's 4 still not totally clear, n ' 5 A Okay. I don't recall whether Mr. Winsel is back. k6 He can get intimately into this thing. 7 Q I guess it's much easier if you saw something 8 rather than talking about it. I 9 A And I'm saying some of those documents at one 10 time were considered a completed document. Like the 11 installation traveler for the steam generator is a part of , l
. 12 one of those documents that's on the paper flow group i
( 13 traveler which they're going to put them August together 14 with this traveler. 15 Page 323, we got into a discussion on whether it 16 was the same record as Phillips was talking about. To my
~
. 17 know1 edge, we're into the same records.
l 18 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) Is this in reference to the l 19 SSER conclusion on in-process records? 20 A Yes, sir. - 21 Q And Phillips' conclusions were germane to the 22 SSER conclusions? 4 23 A That's correct. In fact when we get on the 24 inspection report, and I got back to Mr. Hale who went back I 25 'to Mr. Winsel who said -- and here was something that ,. l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 i ._ __ __
- 9. ,
l-- 469 l l 1 Phillips had written in there and it didn't seem to ne the I 2 same thing I had understood, I had Hale back to talk tu l 3 Winsel. And I'll show you what was written"there is i not l l 4 exactly what Mr. Winsel told Mr. Phillips. 'So I believe l : l 5 we're talking all the same records. l l l , L 6 0 (By Mr. Mulley) But the reason that you d2dn't I 7 feel that we had a finding or a deficien 7 --- 8 A was because the TRT findings, SSER 11, tt t's ao l ' 1 9 in-process record. i 10 0 And then you just developed information that c j l 11 shows that their system of these in-process travelers may' l I 12 have taken records that at at une time were complete -- i v l s, 13 A Yes. l 14 Q They've extracted them back out to put them on l 15 another traveler so you could have a whole system together 16 on one traveler. 17 A That's correct. 18 Q Soyoumighthaveabunchof'corhlete4recordsof 1 19 sub-systems that they're now bringing back out to put on s 20 another traveler for an entire system so when somebody , ! 21 later on wants to look at everything that has to do with -- 1J 22 A Like a steam generator.
"s l 23 0 -- steam generator, they're h1together --
24 A That's correct. 4i ' o 25 Q -- you don't have to go to five or six~different TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 ( r_= ~~r_ =l:_ __ - _ = _ _-~v~_----+ +w ~ ~ -- - A
.'.e ; .
. . . . .' _ . - - ___ z. . .
I 490 L
^ "
I places to find the records for five or six differenbt l 2 sub-systems, you've got them all on the steam generator? 3 A That's correct. - 3 l 1 4 Q And you say INFO looked at -- J 1 3 A INPO did an audit at the site and part of the t . j
, L6<
INPO audit was that they had high praises,,for this paper l 7 flow type arrangement, generating records; 8 Q And they felt that hy doing this, later on it
- . c; -
9 j wouI.d facilitate going back t..nd getting records out? c i. t
'l 20 A"' That's correct.
1~1 Q Sounds reasonable to me. 12 A on Page 345, Line 24, it',s non-safety related. I ( 13 said safety related or that's at 2 east what we've got 14 written here. We're> trying undefine what -- you had asked l 15 me to define, was the difference between non-safety related 16 and ron'~ nuclear-safety'related. 17 'O (By Mr. Mulley) Right. 18 A Do we need anything more on 50.55(e) as far as l 19 status or -- l 20 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) No. - 21 Q (By Mr. Mulley) The only thing we would need is I 22 if you don't think you have adequat'nly explained your 23 posi, tion, which if I roca11, you did -- 24 A Yeah, well -- 25 Q -- a very thorough ijob. __ l ..
. n. c..
TATE REPORTING 3CaVICE, (713) 22.'*7177 L l ...m. . . . . . . . . ~ - % ,._,,.. , , ,
i
~
491 1
.q 1 A When you get into what does a QA program cover, ,
2 what is it required to cover; and there are things -- your- l 3 QA program can cover a number of things beyond whats
^!
4 Appendix B, that I would take enforcement action on. 5 And I guess the real point I was making on that, 6 I take an enforcement action taken based on 50.55(e). And 7- a *,ittle -- well, if I. didn't have 50.55(e) and I still had 8 -a QA program whi.ch covers everything i'ncluding significant 9 deficiencies including and how to handle and process them, 10 then I separately set about a group, for example, who had 11 the regulations in hand who would go out every day and look e 12 at the nonconformance reports that were written and then ( 13 decide, " Hey, this is reportable," that would be handled 14 completely separate from my QA program. 15 But if I was a utility, I would put that 50.55(e) I ! 16 in my QA program, where it best fits, when I get a 17 nonconformance report. Somebody ought to evaluate it, in 18 addition to everything else, for deportability. 19 But I don't really want to go take an enforcement 20 action on Appendix B; I want to take an a enforcement 21 action on 50.55(e) if they're not meeting the reporting 22 requirements of 50.55(e). 23 okay. And we got into whether this 50. 55(e) i 24 report should have a status or not a status. Do we have ) 25 'anything further there to --
. .i TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 , ___ ..
q
. . . . , - - . ,-- ..: - .. ..=. , , ,. ,. ,-. .. - .- .-g.. _
.....-..L
492
- 1 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) No.
I 2 A I would indicate, for example, during the hearing 3 process, we have a thing, for example, called the master l 4 data status, a system component for which I would use that ) l 5 in a turn-over from construction to start up, for start up i 6 to operations. . J
)
7 .And we got into along discussion during the ASLB ' 8 hearing process on whether that was an Appendix B required 9 document. And since things like the nonconformance reports 10 and design deficiency reports and design change 11 authorizations, inspection, open inspection report items 12 and open walk down items, were all tracked on a separate ( 13 tracking, either nonconformance tracked somewhere or design 14 deficiency reports were tracked somewhere, that document as 15 far as in the hearing, they decided that it was -- it was 16 decided that that was not a QA Appendix B required 17 document. 18 Now, I would have very much a hard time ever I 1 19 thinking I could start a plant up out here without having j 20 that status sheet. But everything on that status sheet was 4 21 indeed tracked somewhere else and is a part of the QA j l I 22 program. l 23 A Okay Page 371, we also got into a discussion on 24 NEO CS1, which was the procedure issued in regard to l 25 ' reporting, by TUGCo. And the fact that there were some , TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
..sta- m.ema.de .m wem. 4 5 es ++e-4. -.m -
493 1 1 other procedures that hadn't been revised, okay? 2 I don't know whether you want to put that into l l 3 the record or not. That's NEO CSI. I went'back and got 4 some copies of it.. And I wanted to make a point out of t l 5 that procedure. 1 6 1s that one and the same? okay. 7 , Now, what Mr. Counsil, who's executive 8 vice-president of TUGeo is in the process of doing, is j 9 issuing a whole series of these policy guides or policy 10 statements or what we're going to do. 11 This one came out and it, as a matter of fact, 12 directs that the vice-president of nuclear operations, on ( 13 Page I guess it's -- well, Item 5.6, that, for example, the 14 vice-president of nuclear operations is responsible for 15 assuring that each organization has procedures in effect as 16 necessary that will implement the action described in l 17 section 6.0. Q 18 Now, he's going to continue to issue a series of ( 19 these things for folks to then take this and make sure they ' 20 implement this. This is the procedure, it's policy. About 21 the only short sight I see here is perhaps a memo should 22 have gone along with the cover of this that said you got 30 23 days to do it. But it's certainly intended that they're 1 24 going to follow this and that they're going to change 1 25 whatever procedure they've got to to follow this and>I TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 hw 4 wwe-w-* y,-- + mm.re h wr T' *" '**k- #***'d-*"t' 'M # ** ***u' w- r
\
'494 I thought it was reasonable and prudent to give them the time i 2 to do that.
3 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) Where is the time indicated? 4 A He didn't. He doesn't put the time. I said I 3_ think the only thing that was missing is I would have 6 clearly, either with a forwarding meno or whatever, put a 7 time on it. But I really didn't get exited when I saw 8 this, and I did see this procedure. And that's the way 9 he's going to do a number of these policies he's going to 10 but the out. He wants folks to fall in line with, " Hey, 11 we've done business in the past this way but that's not the 12 way we are going to do it from here forward."
. 13 He should give them a time to get their procedure 14 in line. But as far as 50.55(e) reporting, I'didn't --
15 none of the other procedures that are out there were going 16 to prevent reporting from occurring; I mean it was still ,
~17 iden'ti fi ed . l 18 If somebody had called in the NRC saying it 1 ?
19 wasn't in accordance with this, I'm sure they would have l 1 20 found out in short order they weren't supposed to be making l l 21 that call, the fact that Bill Counsil is the guy that signs l 22 the letter that submits the 50.55(e). So when, in the way i 1 23 he's doing that, I guess I didn't put any great 24 significance to fact that there were some.other, there were
'five other procedures or six other procedures which take 25 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
495 1 care of the 50.55(e), for which this'is saying, " Hey, ) l 2 you're going to bring those into line with this," but { 1 3 didn't put a time on doing it. ) j 4 It's the kind of thing I'm really going to -- you j 5 know, the utility is initiating action to bring their program'up. In fact there's even probably another' revision i ! 6 7 going to come_out to this in the future. .; 8 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) so you ere assuming basically l l [ 9 that the program is on the up swing as far as procedures, I i j 10 quality of procedures? 11 A Yes, sir. In fact, we had along conference in 12 here, in this and I think even Shannon Phillips was ( 13 present, up on the 10th floor, where mill counsil-came in. ; 14 and talked to IE headquarters, QAs branch; I was there, and 15 I think shannon was there, and he went over all the kind of 16 things he's going to do including putting out policy guides
~
17 on -- to folks on how he wants to run his program. O 18 That was the other point I wanted to make. Do 19 you want to put a copy of this? I'll give you extra ones. 20 if you want. - 21 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) We have one. 22 A Okay. Okay, Page 375 we got into a little bit-of 33 if I put something in my QA program, then if I don't apply j i 24 that or don't meet what I put in my QA program, that would, 25 'I guess, as I would term it, that would not meet Appendix B j
.1 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 1 -- ~.n. n, ~ :,-.r ._ , ,. - -e . - . _ :
1 l l 496 1 criteria. I guess the point I would try to make is I could 2 put more things under my QA program'than Appendix B would 3 . require. okay. l c 4 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) I understand.
.5 A And they do.
6 Q In fact, there's some balance of plant items that 7 might be under the QA programs. 8 A For example the drawing control for the balance i j 9 of plant items. I may decide that I've got some switches 1 10 I'm going to put in there and just because I may want to L 11 maintain location where they are, I may put them under my 12 QA program. ( 13 (Discussion off the record.) 14 THE WITNESS: We got here on 399, we said, "Go 15 on, I can't make heads or tails of it." was there j 16 something I missed? 17 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) I know. It was related to a l i
. . 1 18 change I think Phillips made in one of his draft reports ]
19 and we weren't able to figure out, not from your
]
20 perspective, but from Phillips' perspective what needs _ 21 changed and what he changed and-I couldn't figure it out so 22 we decided to go on to the next issue. That was'the reason 23 for that. 24 A okay, there's nothing else that -- ) 25 Q I don't think we can. l
..i TATE REPORTING SERVICE,.(713) 222-7177 {
t
..___..,,_..._s.._.r. - . ..
d 497 1 A Page 401 talks something we already talked, how l 2 we were handling inspection reports and whether -- how much 3 I wa's passing on to management from the problems and what 4- have you they was having or issues with'the reports, which 5 I kind of indicated right at the start of this that i 6 including up to the point of saying we're going to have a . l 7 peer review of those reports when somebody had a question j 8 on them.so that.it isn't just Region IV saying, at least-l 9 they have an independent look at it, perspective as to what 10 we did with our reports. 11 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) Did you consult with your 12 immediate supervisor on these matters from time to time, 13 try to ' gat his advice on as' to how to handle this? 14 A Yes, sir, I did. I talked to Mr. Johnson almost 15 every week. And that's how we got into -- in fact it was 16 Eric that made a call into It headquarters to talk'about 17 " Hey', if we kind of set up this kind of peer review, if we 18 do that, could.we do that" and that's based on thes first-
~
19 two that we had gone through and we were going to go that 20 direction. If it kind of came forward with a report that i 21 had controversy, I had in my mind to strictly let the man l 2 i 22 write each and every thing exsetly'like he wanted it and ' 23 then ask for a peer review. ' 24 Q (By Mr. Mulley) Do you recall specifically what 25 'nspection i reports you discussed with Johnson? TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
-. .L .
-_ r:_r-~~ ~ T_ : & "-'-~~ v' - ~-m~~~~~ ' ~ ' " ~ ~ * -
~. - -
L
~; * ~
l 498 1 A I know the three we've gone over have been l l 2 discussed in parts, 85-07/05, 85-14/11, 85-16/13. In fact ' 3 85-16/13 was where I showed,you that Eric wrote a note on 4 the fron> cf it and went back to the site and even had some 5 discussions with Phillips. i 6 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) This was on the 50.55(e) 7 issue? 8 A Yes, sir. j 9 Q (By Mr. Mulley) Which inspection report was I 10 that, again? 11 A 85-16, 85-13. 12 Q (By Mr. Mulley) And these discussions that you (. 13 had with Johnson were as the report was being processed? 14 A well, as it was -- even from the site standpoint ! 15 if I could -- when I brought 85-16, 85-13, I brought him in . ; 16 the draft to show what -- I'd been trying to describe to 17 him what I was doing on the 85-14/11 which was the one that l 18 dealt with the records, what I tried to go through on that j 1 19 one. 20 And that's how we got to the peer review thing, 21 the fact that there was a conversation between Eric Johnson-22 and I think Partlow, IE headquarters. I would say the i 1 23 following reports that came after this October / November 24 didn't have any real problem with the technical issues, but 25 'there wasn't much b6ing done from the construction ~ side of TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713)_222-7177 dh** r. D
- gene m se e s .=- 3944+,- es aswo,m,*.a_,a a,.. -e e v 8P --
-tr** 9 *%f> * * ' " '
i I i
.. . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - -. ~ . . - - - - . . - - - ... - -
i . . 499 l t 1 the trailer. 2 I,eaving back to 85-07/05, I can't remember 3 whether it was Eric Johnson or you,know, like when I do my first broad brush at.it and some of those things i l 4 e.. -;. . l 5. floated up that didn't look 51gh'ti,3here was some
- y-i 8
.. .y discussions there.about whether.it.was..the'ki.nd of. thing L1.
. ... . m , . n . m m :n a u d h ..c .'.-
7
- th,at 2 could handle most.,sof. t, hose t.hings'that were
- issues '
\
. ~ .
,4 M..y, . ~.- a .- -
which we were. B
,. going' ..;toe m 4. %. e m e fa. 7. cts..
.,%go h ... 'd.,eal.
zwith th
~
. ? W: i . m,mtue ., v. mew 49,4E,%5 , ,,
. s t.c,,/ v. .c %yr ' g.Q:.../y;46.$ 4 )
9
-0 a. '. ,_ -(sy . .g . qMr. e. . Goldberg)WS.Wes.MW.mm.i.e fop. George's 41.. ,:.,.. .,. l
. o ,.
. m ".' To.:. fell 1 yo ett questions, e how..x.r much w input Would . . eyo.u-'s.t..f.s.m:,W-:.ehiil.n,<11 TP.
. , .m :-
,.r.gr,:.m ,;am. ::: .1 ~ -. .-
c g ..
. .,w. ..r.mpw.&r
' ' it ' , f roh..... . ~Mr. Johnson 91s helping 3felytstVaiaTEQipYiefrdo'l
-, y c y.y.m q.. & p{p~ p p g g y,p g,.;. g ., g ; p p [. p ~
< 12 some of' .4 you rely
~
en,.hi,4 .v.s.thesefissues 44.;, g..we've beemmd.:is.cu..ssig...
. . . . ..w. .a .. , w -. .
, . m..a. / ,.~. m. ;qw.
m quite a. bit would 13
~
m:.y?ww wMRn sa -e v
, 7, ,, w . my syw, mwu . ~ ;.: n.you'x,..y.r m",au w. 8a'V'W. . ,
y . q'2 m .c.,ld say .. w .w ,.. - n pec?,
.A.
A4' wou to-ta ee -
- .h..s.ya.(.
- n.4..gn. ......,,probably . ..
, ; . . . g..,,. . , . . g .p.g.g;p.,
as .
..s
~ how. _ ,
._..-4,w...,.,... 7 m y. . .
g.. . l . 35 particular o,e. .n , I dida*t get any --
- think Johnses4ooked j
l . . .
. .. s . .mjw. ww&
18 at the, bigger. perspective:o f how'better % g @ %weimould 34 b eJ5dosit-a min e s,r d:
}
~ v. .. . . .
~.
17 that,'s how .ws. go.t,_.to
.<.a.m ..w. .
1 -..-:p
.. a , n ndiscuss.i.o:n the : *w of pear : r(
- . Ne }# g t
. .. . q .s ;. .y~~
~
.; -14 would understand.m.;.I pas!.'would iiscuss,4*This is the
..c
- ..Y n
e
.i vat.e.
. . . .- ..e......,'.. .... +c< . . . ,
. g,, g v v,g s'.f,.g~, 9
; .* i
- JM3 . '
j, . t,C., %- p. w, *j p .. ,"a f *g, . . . , 4 t' .
"' }
3+ y';.,q,y. .
.' .q. .s..r.-
ps:.'. issue," and would.he ese . . it < ,as.an.iss @uet.N{ % .: w. yse
.- 1 nn
- .v
. g.c .s
.c ~
, m .: +g ,,s.s - . n... ~. n y.
e ..e . I
. , # e.
49, j
.. . . .And I. . ess1what'.'t. ..wo.uld .ter,sc.as' . . w.s :
the agre.e' shat.1 ' i
, . . u "
.r ......A. ..
. e.x.e:7. , g.,,g..;:n s.wa.;g exsw.m%.. c 3 <
... t .
21'
, . from w .1 Johnson , . , .n that *Teah, : I would., agree with you,3,1t's'not.
.i. .
,. b ..
'-,,s' jaus
,,. e. g, # e;; ,c g 1 I
,. u. . . w,.
i.. .: .s. . . ', . . , .,. W,y ,*.'*. . m.:.,.
,. .9 g
- f. . '. J
. . .. . / [.
,.m.J '.'s
. (. . . Y o.~
v . - *. b .~.^#'
~
. - w.' *.s~ .v. * * . W [ M. *A :,
p- k
- s. .%
.1, an.
-w . '. s y
- u. n , .m l
w u .
. r
. , .c:.n.m" t*'@ e."^+ %~ .e . ..
.., n' . ,.ism. - m,;\ 2 3 JohnsonL would .voluntarily'say n t
o'you Mthat .t...;a.%.+.w>.
- s. . .: . .
~
Q "This .
.. . . v.
wl ..: y's a%.;.... is not an issue"? 24 '
- 25 4 .' A Yeah.
Well, iti's like -
.*.. .a m-i 1
. ' . . TATE2REPORTING SERVICE, .y, (713)'222 ,7177 'h w ~ e .' j
,4n
.t- m, ,,
-)
-~ -- "~. ~ -
~ ' ' ' ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~
500 1 Q He rendered an opinion on some of these issues? 2 A Yes, like on the front of -- 85-16, 85-13, you 3 know, the note there says, " Records for the convenience of l 4 the NRC, I don't view as a regulatory requirement." j 5 Q Were there others that you recall that he was , q l 6 rendering an opinion on verbally? 7 . A Well, I certainly talked to him about the things 8 like we had food crumbs in the records vault, we had you 9 know, those kinds of things were all brought. I didn't ask l l 10 Eric how better to handle it, you know, he understood that l 11 I didn't believe it was an issue. I never got anything 12 from Eric that said, " Hey, I don't agree with you." ( 13 Q So in the absence of him disagreeing with you, 14 you assumed that he agreed with you? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 That's everything out of the transcript. Unless 17 you've got some particular questions for me. 18 Q I think you've hit all the areas that I had -- 19 there were a few areas that we were coming back as far.as 20 that we knew you didn't have all the information and one 21 was this issue of your letter on the audit of the CB&I 22 records, that was one I had. I 23 A Okay. ' 24 o And I don't think so. I think some of the ! 25 ' information that you are giving us will help me as we get TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177= ---
L . 501 1 into talking with these other gentlemen, to -- like 2 Mr. Hale in the case of the in-process records, Mr. Barnes 3 in the case of the weld' rod issue -- give us more 4 information. And I'm sure you understand that. 5 A okay. , 6 Q I'm not trying to disagree with whac you're 7 saying. It just would help us in getting the most complete 8 information. 9 A And again, like I say, if there's something I 10 need, something more to understand what I did or what I
- 11 didn't, why I did what I did, that's what I want to do.
1
. 12 I just want to take a little of the flavor of the j
(; 13 report. We talked a little bit about it but it's, when I 14 took Phillips' report, which is 2-A, which I don't remember 15 yourexhibitnumhber. 16 Q (By Mr. Mulley) We are talking about inspection
~
17 report --
-Q 18 A It's got a long number. Its 85-14, 85-11. And 19 the draft which was marked 2-A in Mr. Phillips' matrix of l 20 which was made an exhibit. -
21 For example, the issue which deals with reviewed 22 reportable significant deficiency files, it was written in 23 a fashion that it just.kept repeating itself from one to 24 the next, for which when we got to the report, the kind of 25 ' thing, the conversation with Phillips would be to "Ney, you TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
'N **' * - 449Pwre. w a*-m q ,.wa . 4 ,4 49 ,, , , _ ,,
1 l 502 1 1 can make one pa'ragraph that captures all that that says 2 ' Hey, we've still got an open issue and the reasons are 3 because the file that we went over there didn't lead them ) 4 to the rest of the documents they thought they should be 5 able to" -- 6 Q Is.all this information that he's documented in 7 the draft report, is that additional support or is he 8 repeating himself? 9 A A lot of this he's just repeating himself. I 10 sean, Page 9, this four and five are almost the same words.. 11 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) I guess one has to 12 differentiate between editing the work as opposed to taking l (b 13 out parts that were germane -- l 14 A Yeah -- 15 0 -- to his technical discussion. 16 A I will get into -- that's kind of, that's the 17 thin'g I worked with on the reports, you know. .Now, most 18 all of this -- I believe all this handwriting in hers is 19 Mr. Phillips' handwriting. l 20 If he and and I sat down and had a~ discussion on 21 a particular item then he comes back and writes, for 22 example, "The incomplete files are unresolved pending the i J i 23 completion of TUGCo effort to make the files complete, and 24 a subsequent NRC review." 25 But that was -- came from discussions with TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713)_222-7177
. . - - . . . . - ~ . . _ , _ _
y
503 1 Phillips. I thought we had an agreement in general not "I l l 2 direct you Phillips"; you know, I said if it's not a ! 3 violation, then -- and the reasons we went through for why 1 1 4 it would not be a violation, we would -- it was then I l 5 guess taken to the fact that, "Okay, we'll leave it j j 6 unresolved and we'll follow through." These words written ) l t l */ in here are Phillips' words. I didn't write them in here, i 8 I didn't direct him. l 9 Q (By Mr. Mulley) Did you tell him what to write? 1 10 A Well, I think probably if I say, "Phillips, I'd 11 like to treat this as an unresolved item," you know we'd 12 discuss what may be the issues, and we would say, you know, (- 13 we'd get to some, you know, treat this as an open item, I'd 14 like to treat this as an unresolved. 15 Q Did you give him any room to disagree and say, 16 "No, I don't want to -- I don't want to treat it as an' 17 unreholved item"? , 1 1 18 A Well, that's hard to -- you know, we'd go through . 1 19 a discussion. and we get down to a point and we'd say 20 "Okay, I won't agree that we'll make it a violation. But 21 we can carry it unresolved, we can carry it open." 22 If he'd come back with more facts to show me why 23 it was a. violation more than what we'd just gone through, 24 then I would have certainly left it, you know, I would have 25 'gone back. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
a
~~
504 , 1 1 Q So more or less what's written there is the 2 bottom line after the discussions you had with him? 3 A In most of these, yes. 4 Q So it seems to me then you're exercising your 5 prerogative as a manager then to draw, "This is it, this is ] 6 the bottom line." , 7 A Yes. How these things are handled is what I as a 8 manager, I think, have the prerogative to do. ! 9 I'm not going to try to go through every one. l l , 10 I'll just try to pick some that are -- okay. For example, 11 on Page 21 of this report, the violation as written was
^
12 written against 10 Cf(F) 50.34(a)7, for the description of ( 13 the FSAR. 44 Now, I can't get there from the regulation. The 15 regulation talks about the PSAR description. And we had 16 some discussion, I don't recall whether it all went along
~
17 with this at the time, but I got a kind of a twisted -- I 18 guess Phillips was of the opinion that they should have 19 updated the FSAR when they went from the PSAR to the FSAR; 20 I don't have any basis for that because I don't even know 21 what was there before. It evolved what's there' the 22 plant today. 23 Q (By Mr. Goldberg) It gets back to the earlier 24 question I had which was I don't know if this is a 25 ' customary thing that you have.your~ inspectors look at, TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 wuc..r..ww n , ++y. + . . . . . a -..r.. a- -*.,n.
. r -,%,. ,4e- mi,_o 4., . . , . , + - . 3 re #
505 I which is updating of FSARs; I don't know if this is a 2 quality assurance issue or not. If it isn't, then what -- I 3 is it in your sphere to do work in this area; are the 4 inspectors supposed to be in this area in the first place, . I 5 that sort of -- i l i 6 A I think the reason we were out here was because i I l 7 we'got into the Stone & Webster issue and we said, " Hey, l \ 8 let's look at it, let's look at this records thing," and we f1
- 9 had them go look, you know.
10 We also got to a point, it got to be like a snow 11 ball, I says, "okay, we go far enough and then we back off 12 and we tell the licensee the things," but it just kept ( 13 going more and more and more. 14 Q So it pertained to records and the QA program? 15 A Yeah, and'we went to look and the reason we were 16 out looking was I wanted to look at the records vault and 17 does'it meet, what's there, where all do we have records 18 stored and how are we complying with the standards. And a 19 that's how come we got into this. f l 20 Q Is it the program description we're discussing or 1 21 the program implementation in this area? 22 A Well, if you go look at the -- if you go look at 23 the program, then you've got to go back and compare it to 1 1 24 something, to compare it to the FSAR and the 45.2.9 25 ' standard and whatever, which is a lot of what this did. ,. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 4 1
506 1 Q Seems like you'd be contacting QAB a lot this in 2 this area? 3- A I did talk some with QAB. In fact AB came on 4 site about the time they were looking at the FSAR 5 description with what the'QA program had. I talked to the 6 Jack Spraul, maybe you could help me with the spelling. 7 Q S-p-r-a-u-1. . I 8 A And I think Belke. i \ 9 Q Bill Belke, B-e-1-k-e. 10 A In fact, that's how I got a hold.cf this ANSI -- 11 excuse me, NFP 232 standard which I gave to Phillips, one 12 of those gentlemen providing while they were'ghere.
'[..
13 Q The National Fire Protection Standard? 14 A Yes. I tried to discuss with some with those 15 folks, what kind of protection to I have to have for 16 records shipped off site; can I ship so~and so records ofd
'17 site"; and I never got a real good straight answer because 18 maybe there's not one.
19 Q So the bottom line in this discussion, just to 9 20 clarify it, was that you felt that his reference to this 21 citation was not quite correct, that it was referencing to 22 a PSAR description as opposed to an FSAR description? 23 A Correct. I mean, we grabbed something that 24 says -- it's we grab something and say it was a. violation.
~
25 'And I have to go back and get it, even if we did make-it a TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
507 1 violation, we'd have to get it straight as to wlat the 1 2 violation was. i 3 0 Did you both acknowledge there was a vio.'ation 4 here or not? 5 A No. We ended,up not. Well, in fact, here -- the 6 writing that says it's unresolved, that's Mr. Phillips' 7 writing that came from our discussions. 8 Q Let me see if I can understand it one more. Is 9 it based on the fact that you can't find anything on the 10 regulation that they are not in compliance with or is it 11 based on the fact that there is a -- the practice is not a - 12 noncompliance? 13 A Of this particular one where we're dealing with 14 the description in the FSAR, the' records system, that was 15 largly based on if fact that IE QAB. headquarters had been 16 down there and looked at what's in the FSAR. And if 17 ther'e's something further along that line, then we out to 18 bring the utility in to talk with IEB, QAB branch. In fact 19 I think the utility is talking about a meeting in the near 20 future to go through all this thing, maybe one time, try to 21 resolve it. They didn't get all the ducks in a row from 22 our inspection. 23 Q The point, the QAB branch is not an inspection 24 group, they are reviewers, lic'ensing types. 25 A That's right. But they were looking at the 4 l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 -~ q 1 i - - - . . - , l LL: r: _ _-_ _T: - - - - L - - - -
l _. . _. e .. , 508 I description of what's in the FSAR. 2 Q But if they find -- 3 A To what the standard would call for. 4 Q If they find a problem, it would be a discussion .
'S that would ensue between them and the licensee, not i
6 necessarily a citation, would ensue, as I understand., 7 A That's correct. But my understanding is that -l 8 they not find any particular problem. j i 9 Q okay. I go back do my earlier question, which '! l 10 was why, when we started this whole discussion I still want l 11 to ask it again not because -- just helps you, too,-in 12 understanding it. I. , 13 Is it the QAB branch is to review this area or 14 the Region IV to be involved? That goes back to the issue 15 which is central I think to the whole issue here.
- 16. A How this thing would normally evolve would the l
17 utiligty back in early days, submitted their description of ! 18 their QA program and their FSAR which, probably-in the 19 earlier version, was reviewed by IE or what was then.NRR 20 QAB branch, for which we then as inspection group would 21 normally go and do what we called our initial QAs or what 22 have you and we would compare what we found there to see if 23 that did come, did match up with what the commitments were 24 in their plan; not questioning the plan. . 25 As things have evolved, now that-function has. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 e-. ee*6e , 1 u,. y * # we es rye 4a mmp-.- t- < s p = w= ce % w * #e = seremy t 9. m i,yj e w
%_-s y <r.=, ,e.
.y a
1 509 1 come to the Region to review the plan to see if it's 1 2 acceptable, except that Comanche just happened to be a case ; i 3 where the TRT or the Director of the Comanche Peak Project . 4 which is Noonan wanted IF QAB to come down and take a look 5 at the QA program at Comanche to see if what they were 6 committed to was consistent with both the standard at the 7 time they submitted it and to what today's standard would 8 be for standard yeview plan would be for a utility if they 9 submitted it today. 10 Q okay. Is Comanche Peak therefore an anomaly in 11 in this region where QAB is more involved with the -- 12 A It is an anomaly, it has been in this case. U, 13 Q so we get to the issue at hand here, the issue l 14 that Phillips is raising, is that a QAB issue or is it a 15 Region IV issue? 16 A Well, it's inconsistent with a QAB position, I 17 gues's what Phillips was taking here, the position he was 18 taking. 1 19 Q But if it's a QAB area, not a Region IV area, 20 then QAB position -- it's position would be the controlling 21 position? In other words, if it's QAB's role to sort in 22 issue out, and not Region IV, then are you saying that -- l 1 23 I'm trying to clarify -- ! 24 A We get into an anomaly here in that IE QAB branch j 25 'came to Comanche Peak and looked at what's in the QA I TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 I l
-.-msy. - . ee., =e.-
510 1 program. 2 Q Right. 3 A It's not the normal kind of thing. 4 Q I understand. 5 A If there was.a problem of what's in the QA ' 6 program thing, then it should have been some -- on another 7 plant, if they didn't submit changes, if they didn't 8 describe what they had, if they didn't do other things, 9 then Region IV would have had that responsibility today. 10 When they make a change to the program, by the regulation, : l l 11 they submit it in, it comes into this office and our folks ! I . l 12 here have a review of it. l l [ 13 Q okay. There are two points here and I'm not sure l 14 which one you're saying. Are you saying that if QAB has l 15 one, takes one' stand and Phillips takes another, QAB would, 16 you know, their position is the position, or are you saying 17 that QAB, because of this unusual situation where Vince Q 18 Noonan and these other factors, has taken over, has taken 19 up this issue, taken up this area, therefore Region IV sort 20 of is backing out of the area and let's QAB deal with it. 21 I'm not sure which of the two you're saying.- 22 A I probably have some of both. What I did was 23 leave the item unresolved, with the idea that if it means 24 we bring the utility in and everybody including Region IV 25 and IE QAB and whatever else, sit down and talk about what TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 o
. . . . , , . . , . . . . - . . . , . .i .s .
. - . ' ,, , , . . - . . . ..-..-m . . _ - . . .
W 511 l l i 1 1 they have got, then that's what it takes to resolve it. 2 And that's very much where I think I'm headed, is to, if 3 this utility comes -- is to have the utility come in ind k 4 get IE QAB and let's go through this records thing, along I l 5 with Region IV because we both got involved. It's not just 6 a clearcut. 7 Q Okay. 8 Q (By Mr. Mulley) Let me ask you a question about 9 leaving the items unresolved. If it were up to you, let's 10 say you were the inspector or let's say Phillips raised no 11 objection, how do you feel about some of these findings or 12 whatever that, you know, you didn't want to make them a (_ 13 violation, you said the most you'd accept is an unresolved. 14 That's because your in a head on, you know, with Phillips. 15 But absent that, what do you feel about -- 16 A A lot of these issues, I would have never made 17 them'an issue. 18 Q so you're giving some -- 19 A Yes. I 20 Q -- by going to the unresolved? l 21 A I did. 22 MR. MULLEY: Let's go off the record. l 23 (Discussion off the record.) l l 24 MR. MULLEY: We'll close out the record and leave 25 'this portion of the testimony to deal only'with your _ TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
)
512 1 corrections of previous testimony you gave in July the 10th 2 and lith and we'll pick up Wednesday with discussing. 3 inspection report 85-14/11 and then the other inspection 4 reports. 5 (statement recessed at 5:45 p.m., C.D.T.)' I 6 7 I'have reviewed the foregoing transcript of.the interview conducted of me , 8 by OIA on July 21, 1986, and have made corrections I believe necessary for a complete understanding of my comments. The infomation I have l 9 provided is-true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. 11 12 13 Signed: _ _ T 14 Date: #//r/M 15 [- 16
~
'17 l
18 l l 19 20 - 21 22 23 24 25 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 W s m.-=, sr,-u. i.,,,. 3 , # v. .= www ,.e.. . - ,e 9 + _., , . . . , , .,%,
1 THE STATE OF TEXAS: l 2 COUNTY OF HARRIS: 3 4 l l 5 I, R. Patrick Tate, CSR #1730 and Notary Public ' I 6 in and for the State of Texas, certify that the facts as 7 stated in the caption hereto are true; that the. proceedings 8 indicated were had before me, and the same were thereafter 9 reduced to typewriting by me or under my direction. 10 I further certify that the above and foregoing 11 transcript as set forth in typewriting is a full, true and 12 correct transcript of the proceedings had at the time l 13 indicated. 14 In testimony whereof, witness my hand, this 22nd 15 day of July, 1986. 16 17 18 My Business address is: . ,,h, 1712 Esperson Buildings A. Patrick Tate, CSR 81730 ~~ 19 Houston, Texas 77002 Notary Public in and for My current certification the State of Texas 20 expires: 12-31-86 My Commission Expires: 10-27-89 21 l I 22 23 , 24 25
,.j 1
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 ! l L= --
l I i Addenda 1 to the July 21, 1986 Testimony (page 442) i l I am attaching the memo written and signed by the Reactor Projects Branch f Section Chiefs ia early 1982 which formally endorsed the priority scheme. l In reviewing IE Manual Change Natice No. 81-22(9.15/81), I found it generally relaxed the IE inspection requirements. I believe RIV was responsive as demonstrated by the Region's decision not to decrease inspection requirements to less than Priority II. The change notice discusses if manpower is limited, ! to reduce to "perhaps only Priority I items and a small portion of the ! Priority II items should be scheduled." Relating to grandfathering of } existing construction facilities, it states "for sites with construction in j progress, no backfitting is expected." l l '! l g/a/u i ll l 4 f
* * * * +- * *- .,, ., . . . . ,,
L__ ___sm_______.____________ ___.__.___-_______..-.__
s
..u. . . . . .
,' (
UNITED STATES
,[la 88odo,, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O 611 RYAN PLA A D IVE, SUITE 1000
;i ,a j ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76012 l-..... }
l Alnt G. L. Madsen, Chief, Reactor Project Branch 1 MEMORANOUM FOR: . W. C. Seidle, Chief, Reactor Project Branch 2 FROM: T$F. Westerman, Chief,ReactorProjectSectionA W. A. Crossman, Chief, Reactor Project Section B R. E. Hall, Chief, Reactor Project Section C D. M. Hunnicutt, Chief, Engineering Section
SUBJECT:
LWR INSPECTION PROGRAM - CONSTRUCTION PHASE 1 The revision of MC 2512 established a priority plan intended to place emphas'is on those inspection plans which.have the greatest impact in regard to nuclear safety and place priority on those plans which yield the greatest benefit for manpower expended.
. Evaluation of the inspection procedures in the three priority categories of Enclosure 2 to MC 2512 led to the conclusion that Priorities 1 and 2 are the minimum program that should be completed. With regard to available manpower, these procedures are the maximum effort to which we can comit our inspectors.
The present plan is to imediately implement Priorities 1 and 2 on Comanche Peak, Wolf Creek, and River Bend. Following the transition effort at South Texas and resumption of routine construction, the firtt two priorities will be implemented at South Texas. A program for completion of the "B" program at a Waterford-3 has been completed and manpower requirements have been estimated for completion by July 1983. / l Assignment of the inspection procedures as contained in Priorities 1 and 2 are designated in the attachment to this memo. Priority 3 is included for information. i l
)
WL 47M' l T. F. Westerman, Chief . A. Crossman, Chief f Reactor Project S ction A Reactor Project Section B bh nW l' R. E. Hall, Chief D. M. Hunnicutt, Chief Reactor Project Section C Engineering Section l 1 Attachments: As stated _ gne. . ,
*"'P' Pet 4* "7-* y ..,
] "
k- - . e (EA 0F PRIORITY CATEGORY - iSPECTION PRIORITY I PRIORITY II PRIORITY III / ; ALITY ASSURANCE 35030 6 (FI) '
.5 5 0 3 0 /3 (#')
' 3.f0536 (PI) 350.C3 6 (Pd 3 So SS13 (PI) l
,S co coos (PI) 550GO8(f0 3506 0 8 (PQ f 350lr/B(PI) -
3 sosS %) 3 Solo 56 (e0 3CO ' SB V') TE PREPARATION , V5o F/ /,3 (E) WD FOUNDATIONS , L/50SCB (G) 95' 0 SCS (E) yro.G / 8 (d') I Lt30635 (6) 450G 5 6 (6) 450G3f,_(se0 vso6 3 c. de!) 4304 5B W y s o & S S (6) l 460E/ 6 6) gg o s~l.8 (G) . 06053 C (s n') L/ & o S 5 G_ O W 460550l2) 4o558 (s) 4t6 /556(E) a l a ;
$1TAINNENT STRUC- -
1)RE tructural
- acrete V 70 F/ 6 (E) '
y 70 538(E) > 47055 C (SCI) h'20syB(E) . ., I 4 70558(E) . y70558(E) 6'70558 (E) y70sc B(E) (pg) - Pusscr tu s ma * ($ R t) ~ $mso o OAL $CSIJWn/r lMs*Ss41:w.,
~e - _ . .
' ' ~ " " ' ' ' ' ' - - * ' '
____l__l____________ n'M_TT_t2_"T_r _* " ~ * ~* '
" ' ' ' " ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ^
i
)
TEA 0F PRIORITY CATEGORY '
._= ,
(SPECTION PRIORITY I PRIORITY II PRIOPQYIII,_, l -- : 4 ,.
'restressing g70&f g (p,)
47063B(E) , t l
- 47063 G (SS Y 9 7 0 (e 3 G..(S E h
'l704 s 8 CE) ' . teel Structures gggj f3,(g) id Supports l 4 8 0 5 5 6 (E) ,4 48055 C(SEN VBcs3 c(5eQ ,
qsocc ace) 480Stace) ' q -
.tructural ntsgrity Test GCECd (FI)
AFETY-RELATED
.TRUCTURES i
l 5tructurai Steei and Supports qgog/8 (E) . 480616 (E) ^
~
y806 3 6 (EJ V8063G(SEh '/80 G3 [_ (5 21) I 980G'l 8 (E) ggggq8 (E) 48 06C8(6 . t/Bo656(E) 1/8o& & B(6) 48o64 B(E) l _ ..J t 7 . t : Welding-Struc- I tures and Sup- ' 1 ports SSISI S. (E) $$;Si b (E) ggjgjg (E) EstS 2 6 (E) g re s 2.b (E) gst 52-8 @) 5 51C3 S (5) 5 5!.s.s is CEJ ggiggg gy r l
^: .
. .2- :
_m=_ _ ___ _===m c -r- - -- - - , - - - - - -
-l
l REA 0F PRIORITY CATEGORY j
~
N5PECTIM PRIORITY I PRIORITY II PRIORITY III - HDE of Welds - Structures & Support:: 5 5 0 51 6 (C) SSof/8 QT) 55c5/ 8(f.) 5 5 0 5.3 B(c) 550 SSB (G) S50558 6) l 550 &/8(EJ 65C6/ 8 h 55% 5 B(E) 5FCG'/4(ED 550GC6Y .5 6 0C. 5 8 (2) 55c G.G 6(E) 55055 C_(SeI) ESOC.5G/5RN 550 6 5 G(seq 550G 5 C.(SeI) SS/SY851 !.85ISVB (.GY 55/Sy 6 (5) gg;ffB(6) l' CC/SCB (6) g gt 5.g*S (S) 55/5613(6) s s~/ S fot3 (6) l USiC7BCE) , SSis76 6) ggis73 cc) SC/58 B(.E) s s y s e B r. s ) g g ,g y 6 (g) ,
'IPING ,
Reactor Coolant
' Loop P1 ping y e) O f f 8 (PI)z YCC5/ f 6 (Pd 99055 6(PI) L/9055 & (P!) l j
- 'l?05-3 &(>et) ,
.V9055C()Et) \
g o s y 8 f p _t) t/9DSYB@'l yGi o55~$ (PI) y9ersg(Pt)
//9056B (2/) , y90566(PI)
;m l-
. l l
p
~
% 9
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . __.__m
5 l IEA 0F PRIORITY CATEGORY - ISPECTION PRIORITY I PRIORITY II PRIORITY III ; l other Piping l/f0fr/$(ps) , qqppfy(p g Vfok36(PI) 4904 38 (PI) ,
)
y;31 ~-_ .' !- --=) -; ; - yqp6S&PI) ,
. 1 ipe Supports
, and Res~traints goo 90 6(6) ' 80090O( } 50090 G eQ 50090G0Cd
~ ' $"!ipi$g" '
55/ 7/ 8(G) 55/ 7/ g (E) ggf 7/ g (d 55172 SCE) 55172 S C) SSI72B W ' SCI 73 8 (E) 5s/756 G) 551736 6) SCO78 G(SR1) G5073 (, NEl) 551755 (2) SSI758(6) ' SS77CS W l SCI 7 6 8(G) 55/76S W 55/ 7 (* 8 W 55l 7 7 8(C s st y 78 (2) 5517 78(E) 55/78 SLG)
- 55/788(2) SC/78S(5)
Welding-Other. j Pj, ping [$j gj g (g) $ff gj g (Q ffjgjg{Q ;
- 5 5/8 Z 6(E) 55/ 82. S(E) 55/82/3 (G) 55tB3 ere) -
.s2..t85 B (G) sti83 $ 5)
SCO 83 Q__(y s) . Cfo85Q.(Sc')I 3C/8585J SS / 85 8 y) 55/ 856(G) 5s78G 6(G) 5 5 iS G 0 (E) .
. l SSl8 78(G) 56/ 8 78 (G) g5j878[G) s sy e s e re.) s etBe e (e)
- , l
\
n., 9 .
c f i
- EA 0F PRIORITY CATEGORY j'
- SPECTION PRIORITY I PRIORITY II PRIORITY III ..' i NDE pf Welds-Reactor Loop , 5607/ d(d SSo7/ 6 % gSo7/j3(6) l 5507 S B(s) .
4 l CSo7t/6QE) 55075S W cro76eW) l NDE of Welds- ! Other Piping 5508l8GEO $508 I 8 5} WOSIO N f f508 3 8(e) . 55oe55g) 55ceSSCN l l MFETY-RELATED VMPONENTS ,
' actor 4 Vissel Insta11ation 5006/ 6, .(F/) ,
COO S38 (PI) 50053 C($124) ScofSC6Rd { rrosrBC'), . s.gos5 ace)
'i Reactor Vessel i Internals foggff3 (r0 Socco3 S(PI) . ,
5006 b c[ Sat) ScocoSC(Sc) SW b[ S (PC 5~ cob G6(pt) tiding &NDE-Reac-
'or Vessel nternals 5 5 C9 3 S (E) 55o9 5.8(E) l
, L
., e ' i
=
\
t g
- l-EA 0F PRIORITY CATEGORY SPECT10N PRIORITY I PRIORITY II PRIORITY III .*
Mechanical j Components goo 7/ 6 (P/) 500 73S(PI) 500 73 gyt) 500 7y 8(PI) jog jyggj) 500 7SS(PI) $~oo 7fB(P!l
, 30 0 7 L B(PI)
Containment - P2netrations 5BOC/ S (g) S*3 05/ 8 V) 5305//5(E) 55055 8(E). . 53 OSSB(E) 53053 c (%d 55053C$td 33 0CCSCE) .csoSC8(E) LECTRICAL Electrical - Components & - systems ElOSI8(pd ' 5~/ OSI B (pt) SI O S S S (PC 570S56(PI) 5~/053Q_(SlC 57053 Q. {S 5/0548(PI) S'/ OS~yl3 (PI) (
~- El 0555(Pt) 5/O[.S~6(PI) 57 O S~58(P0 st 0 Sfo S(Pt) 51056 S(ps1 5~l 056 5(PC Electrical
- Castes g,o 97g(gj gjogi B (E) .
F/0638(E) 51o G 54(E) st 0635(E) } 51065 q_(5ed 5106 5 q (S ei) ' Clo 6 f 8(E) El O s 4 6 (E) gicG y B (E) ri osse (E) gg OGS $ (E) g796fS fa) st0668CE) , 51oic,s(S) cto 6 & B (E) - e - - - - . - + . . . - .,., - .- ..- - . -- . . .
,,,.j.- : ..
. j REA 0F PRIORITY CATEGORY .
l t i NSPECTION PRIORITY I PRIORITY !! PRIORITY III .' ! l INSTRUMENTATION-
- omponents &
$2 0 SI 8(PI)
~
Syst1ms 520f; 6 pj) . 52 OSS B (PQ 52055 B(PI) 5L/53 c,(S ed
~
52/53 C(san) 5 2 0 S y B LR) 5 2-o ff 80'O . 520ffBLP0 s 2.O SG S V0 S 2.0 C4 8 6'O Cables f 2.o(p/ B (E) $20Go f 8 (C) s 2 OC 5 8 CE) 520638 (E:) 52OG3 G6RQ ~ C2.o&3G(3eQ j . 5206'{8 (6) . 5"Zosc(Bqs.)
$2 o656(E) 62-0GS 6 (L) 52 0GSBlE-)
[ SZoG 6 8CC S~20SS0$0 FIRE PROTECTION 82of/.$($Eh 4 2.O f/ $ (39l) i
,, 6t/ OSt 8 LPI) felOSrB(PC e
(oNo CSS (G (pe(of36(E) 8RESERVICE INSPECTION 73 Og-(g (E ) "f3 Off6 gy . 75 05~2-6(6) 73052SY) 1 73055 6(E) l 7 5 offB(E) 73OST5(E) 1 l y l 7 : .
=-_. . .
a
, ,. ; ,i .' !
- '- i . . I l -
1 .
- EA 0F PRIORITY CATEGORY i
SPECTION PRIORITY I PRICAITY II PRIORITY III - : ORRECTIVE , CTIONS AND EPORTING
- rt 21 Reports 3( /008 (r/) .
3 1008$rO L ESIGN AND \ EsIcn CnhuGEs 3.70 Cl6 (PI) S705513 (Pt) .3 7055~8(F't) MISCELLANEOUS i i 3 0 6 / 8 (Pt) etings, etc. Joost B (PD , I l e f o l . , s. l l i
, 4 O
, 1
. .\
? O '
i .-.
~ ~
~^ ~
""'" ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ * " "
d_ ______E_________. _ _~~~
' ' ' ' ' - * * '- -- - - - - - i j}}