ML20234B196

Partially Withheld Transcript of 841025 Investigative Interview in Glen Rose,Tx

ML20234B196
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	10/25/1984
From:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
Shared Package
ML20234B159	List: IA-86-180, Partially Withheld Transcript of 840725 Deposition in Glen Rose,Tx ML20234B157 ML20234B163 ML20234B183 ML20234B196 ML20234B203
References
FOIA-86-180, FOIA-86-A-221 NUDOCS 8707020271
Download: ML20234B196 (47)

Text

1 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT 1

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2

1 I

3 lTEXASUTILITIESGENERATING COMPANY, et al.

I I Docket Nos. 50-445 d

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric I

50-446 5

Station, Units 1 and 2)

I l

6 Administration Building Comanche Peak Steam Electric 7

Station Glen Rose, Texas 8

Thursday, October 25, 1984 9

INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW OF 11 12 PRESENT:

On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

13 H. BROOKS GRIFFIN, Investigator 14 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region IV U.S.

611 Ryan Plaza Drive 15 Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 16 On Behalf of the Witness, 17

~"

~n-20

,4

'I I

21 I

22 23 hDF fp B70b25 1

GARDE 86-A-221 DR 25 l

EXHIBIT (14) o

2 i

i

.P 3 p C,,, p 3 21 E,G, S_

2:01 p.m.

2 l 3

MR. GRIFFINt For the record, this is an who d

interview of 5

is employed by?

Brown & Root.

Correction.

That 6

7 is MR. GRITFIN:

Brown & Root, and the location 8

of this interview is the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, 9

i The date is October the 10 11 Present at this interview are 12 his personal representative { M

]

13 for the NRC, H. Brooks Griffin, Investigator; and the court 14 15 Ireporter.

This interview is being transcribed.

16 I need you to rise and raise 17 l

I need to swear you to the contents of 18 iyour right hand.

7 s.- '.....,

.a

.e a

your testimony.

19 2b,Whereuhn, 21 having been duly sworn to testify the truth, the whele truth 22 and nothing but the truth, was examined and testified on 23 his oath as follows:

72 MR. GRIFFIN:

Before we start talking about 25 l

\\

I

1 3

l I

what we are here to talk about today, I do need to touch 2

,on this.

Before we start the interview, I need to explere I

l 3

it with you in more detail, the nature of your rel'ationship 4

with 5

and I have interviewed oth.er people 6

and have an understanding, but I still need to have it clear 7

on the record.

8 i

EXAMINATION 9

BY MR. GRIFFIN:

i I

10 l

0 Is your personal representative I

11 ifor purposes of this interview?

l 12 A

Was that a question?

Is he?

13 Yes.

14:

A.

Yes, he is.

r 15 C.

'Are you aware that 1so represents I

16 17 l

' ' q~

c ',

p.

i' is A.

Yes, I do.

s 7

s.........

.i 19

'I might add.for the record,

.'Mr. Uriffin,*as I have in'*o~thep,.intervices7 in our Er.terviiw" 20 l

' between( % and myself in preparation for yo.ir

~

21 interview,Iinformedhimthatboth[

22 i

23 e b

23...

0 I

l r

And I informed him 2

3 i

5 I told him that it is conceivable that the 6

nature of my representation of those other individuals and 7

that firms could cause a potential conflict of interest; 8

9 based on my intervie.: with him, I saw no such potential, but if at any point in my representation of him I form a 10 judgment that it is conceivable that a conflict could be 11 developing, I would immediately stop the interview, advise 17 him of that fact and wait further instructions from 13 14 BY MR. GRIFFIN:

15 0

CanIcallyou{

g A

Yes, please.

j7 O

{

did you have a choice as to whether you 18

,7 had a representative or dot?

Did you have any ch'o' ice in '

~

19 r

2'O - the ma[ter?

~

• ~ ;.

9

'A' Yes, I did.

21 And y u chose to have W irepresent you?

D 22 A.

Yes, I did.

23 If we could proceed, as discussed 0

All right.

72 in that and prior to going on the record, 25 i

j

l 4

}

l already had an opportunity to discuss 1

f this particular or prospective testimony for the purposes o 2

i interview, they have generously offered to provide a narrative 31 i oftheeventssurrounding[

d your knowledge of it.

5 I would greatly appreciate it if you could 6 l put it in that form, because it would make it much more clear, i

7 !

rather than just question and answer, question and answer.

i 8 l f

i Could you tell me what you know?

)

9 l

I will try to indicate where I am not sure 10 A.

of a certain thing.

~

11 i

12 came to me with an assignment.

.[

l 13 jlie said that the ASME side were to transfer the travelers l

14 i,to our -- not care, but responsibility.

15 We had certain documentation that we had to i

16 ASME insert into the traveler to make it work for the non-i 17

, side "of quality assurance.,,

gg l

It was my responsibility 39.,,

gn,

i 21 That operation involves a review of sorts.

22 You stick the traveler in there, obviously.

You cannot just 23 had to maintain a continuity between the documents.

g To help my Let me stop you for one second.

CL 25 1

6

\\

l understanding of this, maybe it would be better to fill in.

1 !

2 What was your job position at that time?

3 A

My job?

~ itle.

4 0

T 5

A Title?

6 0

Yes.

8 0

{

9 A

And you w'rked under 10 0

o A

11 12 0

How long have you worked at Comanche Peak?

13 A

How long?

14 0

Yes.

A 15 16 0

What is your present job title?

17 i

A 18 4

Okay, go ahead.

A As the

}

19

.jo '

it was my duty 21 j

It was at this time that we noticed the travelers; 22 could not be just put in there.

The continuity was not there,

23 meaning that the traveler that existed had hold points that 24 were open on them.

Those hold points had to be filled or 25 l

l l

1

• e

{

7 l

1 ! we had a nonconformance.

2 i The hold point sequence that is established 3 l has to be completed or properly superseded and picked up 4

with.

That's'what we had was we had several hold points 5

that were not filled in.

6 O

Do you remember how many?

7 A

Per traveler?

8 G

Ho.

9 A

How many travelers?

10 0

Do you have a number of --

11 A

No.

i 12 0

-- how many needed cleaning up, so to speak?-

13 A

No, I really don't know.

It would only take 14 two or three to realize the problem was widespread.

It wasn't 15 just a unique situation.

l l

l 0

So you and 16 17 IB 39 0

Let me ask'y6u one other, question before you 10 +c6ntinu$.

21 I

A 22 l

Thanthe{

23 3

A.

A make-over of the original.

24 73 D

Okay.

Go ahead.

1 E

8 l

1 l

A with proper changes made to it.

l 2

At the time doing this review 3

It 4

was then that Lummusumumumusumunums 6

7 Okay.

B When the problem was spotted, I contacted i

9 Ultimately -- and I say 10

" ultimately," because this is where I'm not sure of the i

11 sequence of events that happened in the day or two after 12 that.

This could have occurred over more than one night.

14 0

In what form 15 A

Specifically i 16 l

0 Were they already part of!

37 I

18

,7 r.

A Yes, they'were.

39

'O

' They were alreadyqcontained*6Y stlached.*t6 20 'l' I

I them?

21 A

They were attached to them.

To say part of 22 l

them, I would have to have a page number telling me that 23 that was part cf --

3 mmmmmmmust 25

9 1

0 Stapled to --

2 A

uh-huh.

l 3

Were they '

O d

A

' Generally so.

5 0

Okay.

Go ahead.

Theobjectivethenwasto{

6 A

8 9

10 0

Did you suggest to 11 12 A

I-very well could have.-

I know many acceptable 13 ways of doing it.

Yeah, I will say that I did.

14 0

What was your suggestion to' 15 j

16 A

17 IO 19

.~.,,

~

21

'O And were you conveying this possibility to f

22 Is that who you were talking to about it?

23 A

• as present, l

24 0

Who else?

25 A

myself and l

l 1

l l

e i

10 maybe' I don't know for sure.

1 l

2 l

g Didn't you all decide that this was the approach 3

you would take '

5 6

L I recall that it all came about in the round-tablediscussionthat{

7

6m 8

9 10 I don't even remember any argument about that.

11 That is, it's standard and acceptable to the industry; not 12 your intention, certainly, but acceptable.

13 Several people were in agreement on it.

Of

course,( M and I, 14 15 We were the ones saying, M 16 I

17 So that was entirely acceptable to us to do 18 it in that manner.

I saw no problem with it.,

, 7 r-19 3

Were you~ pre'sent when the decision was made

'by Who veri 20 j I

21 i

22 l

A.

Was I present when that decision was made?

23 0

Yes.

24 A

By their agreement with us, I would say that 25 I would have had to have been present, because that was the

11 1

point that they agreed.

2 O

Did proceed to l

d A

'Uh-huh.

5 G

Were you present when these instructions were 6

given?

7 A

I'm sure'I was.

8 G

Do you have any recollection as to whether 9

f 10 11 A

Did they specifically

% to reference or to sign?

12 13 0

Yes.

]

I am not sure if % specifically told { g 14 A

15 As I said earlier, it was in general

)

16 agreement.

I didn't sense any problem there with doing it 17 that way.

1g O

I don't want to make too big a point out of r

39 that, and certainly, if'you don.'t remember, that's all you

~

\\

20 7 can sap is "I don't remed:be~r. "re

+

1.

But this is one of the areas that there'is 21 a question as to who said what.

I have been through, and 22 i

] testimony, I know h as, and --

too, 23 As has I asked 24 25 him to read it this morning.

l l

12 1

,BY MR. GRIFFIN:

i 2

O For the purposes of this interview,'it's my intention to follow the sequence that $ lrecalled', whether 3

I 4

accurate or not.

narrative,duringthisdeposition,,g 5

In t

~

6 8

10 Do you have any recollection of going with 11

[

12

~

13 A.

Going to review them?

14 O

Or 15 A.

Oh, certainly.

16 0

Okay.

You may recall reading testimony.

g.aie that; -

1, 28 19

.Do you have any go --,reca11ection of that?

~ --

l 21

'A That the [

2i i

23 0

Yes.

The a

nd that when you and g 25 i

v.

~

13 I

2 l

i 3

5 6

7 Could you refer to the particular a

testimony?

9 BY MR. GRIFFIN:

10 0

Let me read some parts of it to you and maybe 11 it will jog your memory.

This is testimony regarding 12 the sequence of events.

This is Page 59,526.

I'll just 13 start at the first question on the page.

They are asking

]

14

' "Did they go to anything else, if you recall?

15

" ANSWER:

16 i

17

" QUESTION:

Do you know how many there were?

18

.1 u..

" ANSWER: ~ ~I'in not sure.

.I think there were j9 r

g..

"OUESTION:

What happened next?

21 22 l

"hll, E and I..."

referring to you.

n u ;summmmmmmus :-

a 1

I

...a

l 14 1

2 Do you recall 3 M

'Iremember{

d A

s 7

G Then it 'goes on here:

8 E1mmuumummunummmmmumet 9

10

[

]

}

11 answer:

12 "OUESTION:

When you say are you 13 14 "Yes.

15 "OUESTION:

Okay.

16

" ANSWER:

AndweconcludedI i

17 18

' ' ~ ~

}.

20 '

Was that y6ur* al;Lls' determination?

O,.-""'

'A Uh-huh.

6 21 22 O

The question was asked:

22

unummi 2,

l answer was:

"'les.

We told them about 25 i

I I

O I

.s...._

15 1

it, and

Also, 2

s I

i 3

So I said, 5

Do you have a recollection of that part of 6

the conversation?

l 7

A.

Yes, I do.

B D

Do you know whether anybody consulted 9

because apparently at least xpressed some 10 i doubt as

)

11

~

12 A

I can tell you I know that we requested that 13 be present to explain these.

We never got 14 an answer to that, though.

I did not myself hear of an answer 15 from 16 0

You didn't talk to Ididnottalkto(%

17 A

No, l

0 Do you know who did?

18 l

=

We were t'a'1k'kng to{

I b ",

,e

.a

• r e

{

A.

19 g

21 Can I add this?

22 23 0

Yes.

i A.

That is testimony and I've got somewhat 24 of a difference there, in thati 25 l

l

16 l

~

2 t

They were 3 ' self-explanatory.

i g

'Ihavelookedatsomeoff L.

5 Apparer.tly, in the process -- I'm 6

telling you this now.

Apparently, in the process of the B

i 10

~

11

)

12 13 Did convey this concern to you that was uncertain, thatl @ as unhappy with the prospects of 14 what % was doing, that; as not sure if it was right?

15

]If I

16 l

A.

Not for 17 we had some that were not self-evident, then those could

'notbeused.[

18

'~ '

'/.I Whodid[

~ - ~ '

g..

g

]

I 21 22 A.

I don't know that anybody did.

They just were 23 not received.

They were set aside as another problem.

24 0

Kell, I thought you said

,d; 2s

I 17 1

1 A.

Some were.

I

_g _

2 3

TE WITNESS: -

+

4 yes.

6 THE WITNESS:

Yes.

What I meant was by the 7

statement here, ammmmmmmmmmmmuur]

8 9

It's right here.

10 TE WITNE'SS:

Okay.

h 11 12 13 BY MR. GRIFFIN:

14 0

When you are saying " removed all doubt,"

15

]

16

{

17 A.

Uh-huh.

18 19 r

So you were.'c*onvi,pc6d that 20 -

G 21 l

22 A.

The first fit-up, right, the first step.

23 O

Whether it was plate-to-plate, embed-to-plate 2a I

25 ! or --

18 i

l I

A.

There had to be a distinction drawn there,

!l because it was not applicable to every installation $

For 2

b 3

5 Just a clarifying point that I 6

think could make. [

I 8

l THE WITNESS:

Were most?

9 Yes.

)

10 THE WITNESS:

Most.

Yes, certainly, most of lthemwere.

For those that were not marked, you would have 11 12 to closely scrutinize it by other means, 13 4mm i.

15 BY MR. GRIFFIN:

16 D

As you know, obviously what was being 17 I asked to do yl 19 i, --

21

'A.

I did.

I 22 0

23 was there not?

24 A.

Ch-huh.

l

19 i

I 2

That's your understanding 3

J d

A.

'I might have to be ref.reshed here.. I don't 5

understand what you are saying.

Can you tell me whether or not the embed-to-6 7

plate has a leak chase' channel behind it?

Are you aware 8

of the drawing requirements at that point?

9 0

I might be able to figure it out by looking 10 at an embed-to-plate.

This is an example.

This example i

)

11 is Weld No. 162.

12 A.

Okay.

Fit-up, SAT; VT backing strip, SAT;-

13 clearance to channel, NA, that's correct; final VT embed.

No channel, right?

14 That's correct, embed, final VT, embed fillet 15 16 Weld.

I can't recall.

17 i

O 1,

2, n

~

23 l

That's correct.

24 A.

25 0

I know in plate-to-plate, I believe, didn't 4

.0

20 1

you have to have a key stock for the movement of the plates j

2 i into the containment?

i i

3 A

It was present.

I don't think it was required, 4

but it was present.

It was a construction aid.-

It was not 5

specifically a hold point, but it was included in the 6

cleanliness hold point -- excuse me -- the last fit-up hold 7

point.

8 0

Okay.

Now, 9

10 3

11 A

Uh-huh.

12 O

I may be extending this or overstating this',

,but my reading fromI testimony indicates that g 13 14 l

I 15 16 17 18 7

19 has y~ou down in

' testimony here as 21 A.

Uh-huh.

and I were involved in that.

22 And I believe g testified the 23 24 MR. GRIFFIN:

And stated that.

25 i

21 1

BY MR. GRIFFIN:

2 O

Did g express to you in any greater detail than contained in % testimony what',

3 2

5 A.

What her concerns were?

6 0

Yes.

7 A.

(No response.)

)Doyourecalltheeventspretty 8

9 much as.

describes them in testimony?

10 THE WITNESS:

I do, except for the question 11 that he asked about ten minutes ago that we never got back 12 around to.

13 BY MR. GRIFFIN:

14 0

Which one was that?

j 15 A.

A directive given to 16 0

We will get back to that after we get through 17 the testimony on this.

18 A.

I don't remember having any concerns f

.r aboutit,nomoresothinbyself.

I want to say 19

.al 6

21 cm n

l n

u u

l

22 Jthatyouclarifyso.

That's not the word -- well, 1

l 2

yeah, imi E 3

_1 5

You also clarify byf 6

7 8

G In going back to that earlier question, werei 1

9 l those the instructions'.

gave to(

10 A

Among those, uh-huh.

11 0

12

~'

[

j 13 A

14 15 0

Do you know if M followed this same 16 Procedure?

17 A

did?

I can't say for sure.

I'm quite 18 sure.

I don't remember any --

,7 6--

19 O

Was i'ven the same. instructions to l

c

--~

A I don't know.

I don't remember much abbut 21 (Fred}beingthere.

22

- 1murene 23 24 I were.

73 O

Okay.

So i

i I

l I

e

23 i

3 5

4 6

A.

Tacking, that's it.

That's correct.

7 0

I think you said earlier that there were some 9

10 11 A

Yes, did.

t 12 0

I don't know the answer to this question.

Are

[

13 14 15 A

They would have been among those, yes.

They 16 17 t

18 That is what I was getting back,to about

,7 n.-

19 21 Brooks, can I ask a clarifying 22 23 question?

24 i

MR. GRIFFIN:

Sure.

It's something that told 25 l

i I

I

24 1

me this morning.

2 Do you remember, that the discussion

.Q i

g 7

THE WITNESS:

Do I recall this being a group 8

discussion?

9 Yes.

e 10 THE WITNESS:

Yes.

Yes, I do.

It was a --

11 I say common agreement, 12 13 NJ u

15 BY MR. GRIFFIN:

16 O

Had you pulled the old procedure on this at i

17 lthe time while you all were --

18 A

The old procedure?

,7 r-

~

19 G

Yes.

~

r jo --

A.

I*believe hpd' I don'trremembeE..

~~~

21 specifically pursuing that.

It was clear enough to ab by

)

22 face value, what they meant.

l :he 23 It was cuite obvious what it meant.,

24 l

25 O

m

R 25 i

1 l l

2 3

I could not even tell you to this date that 5

6 It might also be useful, L

8 9

THE WITNESS:

Prior to this event happening?

10 Yes.

11 THE WITNESS:

No.

a

+.

13 BY MR. GRIFFIN:

14 0

In your conversations with 15 Did you have 16 17 further contact with Were there further discussions.

18

, on the matter?

7 w.......

19 A.

With regard

)

?g

. ~,,

.7 yes,.

gn-

"A' I am sure there was.

I can't honestlyisay 21 I remember M having a problem with it, though.

22 23 3

Did you have any other contact with 24 or during +

M.

25 1

26 1

A Well, I'm not sure.

This is where it got 1

i.

2 confusing.

After the night er two, the sequence of events 3

with ammmmmmmmmmmmmg.s it s.

5 7

So actually, t

8 4

io 11 The next thing I 4

} % daid, 12

- h ia 14 15 0

' You are the one that put 16 A.

One of the ones, uh-huh.

I believe M i....

~

19 0

okay.

~

T g..

.\\

l And, the -

• 6 21 22 THE WITNESS:

2,

a I don't even see it on this one.

25 This is confusing because I

~

t r

i I

J

27 1

So they had both, they had 2

the five and the eight, and I think the eights came along 3

later.

d BY MR. GRIFFIN:

5 G

So through the course of this whole thing, you 6

don't have any recollection of g

sumum a

What{gwasdoingwas' wrong?

~9 A

No.

For those that % igned, I cannot recall any problem with them.

10 I

I 12 0

Did you ever hear anybody say 13 14

)

l 15 l

16 A

Did I hear anybody say?

17 0

Any discussion on that?

18 A

No.

6 --' '

.,,7 19 0

You may feca'll, if you h' ave read testimony,

't$at sayi{

20 21 22 a

i' 23 Did you hear that rumor or anything about it?

24 A

No, I didn't.

I was quite surprised 25 i

i I

=..

.._........_..m

i 28 i

I O

Let me ask you a step beyond the events in-

! volving M 2 As I have gone through these documents, 2

3 I have found numerous incidences where dates in particular were lined th'ough and altered to show a different date.

d r

i 5

Some of them contain initials, as in the case 6

of this one.

You have a 7

8 So I can take it on faith 9

that changed that for whatever purpose.

10 We have a' number in here, I'm just telling 11 you that,.,where there is merely a line through with 12 no date, no reference, nothing, just a changing of the dates.

13 Sometimes they are even changed twice with no explanation.

14 Do you have any --

15 A

With no initial?

16 D

Right.

Do you have any recollection of finding 17 that type of problem or' 18

~

19 i

l 20

' A.

• Tliats a bilj

• question.

~ ~~

~

~

21

'O Yes, it is.

We are getting to that' par #t.in the interview here where I am asking you to kind of reach out 22 i

23 and fill me in.

24 It's what you call a fishing 25 expedition.

We are out at sea.

i

• T 8

e

f 29 I

MR. GRIFFIN:

Yes.

I would like for you also 2 lto know that the NRC expects the utility to go fishing,with I

3 lit anytime it wants on this type of thing.

d

^ THE WITNESS:

Okay.

5 BY MR. GRIFFIN:

6 0

Were there any other problems related to this, 7

because like I say, I personally hr.ve found incomplete or 8

unex% aine(i deletions from these forms, and I can't help 9

but think that may have also seen 10 them.

You may have questioned them. You may have resolved 11 them somehow, and maybe you can resolve them for the NRC 12 now.

13 A.

Okay.

To start off with, 14 15 16 l

17 I

'8 19 i

iro"

• The l'ine-tnoughs with the dtte *, 'from* mp. '

e 21 experie'nce, has been situations wheref 1

22 l

23 i Rather than go through 24 the process of an NCR for what is actually their own mistake, 25 they would simply remove the date, to come back at a later l

/,

.T 30 1

data when the situation was rectified, and date it then.

i.

2 i

That is just speculation on the part of,the 3

on the one in front of me.

I would have to say in d

my experience'it's typical of the time.

I 5

0 Rather than just ha/e you take.me on faith, I

6 maybe it would be more expedient here to give you an example 7

of one.

Down here on Step 7 there is a i

i 8

line through and then a later date is added.

9 There is no explanation and we are left with 1

10 a form here that is --

l 11 A

Here it is.

This and this were plugged in 1

12 by construction.

The date is notf 13 t

14 15 did not make the inspection and/or the 16 inspection was not SAT at this time, at which time could i

17 not sign it.

signed it and corrected the date.

It is 18

. deficient in the area of now needs an in.itial to indicate that % id indeed do 1! hat change ther'e.

19

~

20 '

• This'ismy'Ye'elingthatgdtd,'6uetb'-th&"

j 21 signattires; that commonly, these were all filled in. I 22 O

Okay.

So if had taken the next step and just put % initials there, it would have been a complete and 23 24 valid --

i l

25 l A

That's correct.

l

(

l i

v

~

31 1

0 And would have been fully explained, fully 6

2 l documented.

3 I am really stretching it here, but I am going d

to ask you.

Nere is a similar one.

In changed 5

the date again.

Itwas(

and changed it to

% did put % initials.

6 7

When I was looking at this form, I realized l'

alsothat[,

8 9

i 10 3

11 I am asking you now, and I know that you have 12 no direct connection, other thant

]

13 14 l

What is your explanation, if you have one, as to why' 3

15 16 A.

For an inspection which he did not perform, j

i 17 I could not venture to guess.

It appears incorrect.

It l

18 iwould not be acceptable today.

,F i

19 0

Okay, since"it did not' involve you directly, r

50'T b would be poistleis for* me to pull out'aTI 6f thottAthat' e

I 21 !the NRd has discovered in its review,i J

23 I appreciate you, as said, fishing there 24 for a minute, because eventually I'm sure we will be seeking 25 answers to these same cuestions, maybe through other means.

i i

'*st t

32 Just as a follow-up to the events g 1

2 W all of f

5 6

Is that correct?

7 A

Was the question did new construction proceed?

8 0

Yes, 9

A Not under myself personally.

10

)

11 12_~_._~

G So about when did your contact with these r

13 documents end?

14 A

The dates I'm not sure of.

15 16 j j

17 0

What did you specifically do with the ones 18 that completed after you received them?

19 A

After we rec'eived them?

T g

g

. Yes. -

~ - -

21 "A

22 23 24 They were proper.

25 O

Were you involved in l

j

33 1

2 A

because 3

knew I was involved with the program.

d O

'You were made aware at the time it occurred, 5

which I believe was 6

work on --

7 A

[

B l

What do you mean by 9

10 THE WITNESS:

, okay.

11 12 BY MR. GRIFFIN:

13 0

Did you have any connection with the disposition 14 of the NCR?

15 L

16 j

17 1

0

....-e 1

a, A

19

~

9..

21 i

~3 What I was really fishing for there, and I'm l

telling you this.

Whenf 22 23 munummusummmmms3 a

Le:er the 23 I

t

• 't f*

.i

l 34 1

1 which in my estimation cut down on the i

l 2 lscopeor the breadth of the travelers that were nonconforming.

3 Before I let you go, I wanted to maks sure d

that you had no contact with or input s

7 A.

No.

8 G

Okay.

Do you have any questions?

9 A

(No response.)

10 0

We have been through this, and I think you l have gleaned from what I have said, and also maybe from reading 11 I

12 testimony that

thought, was really beinej 13 put in a bind.

Based on your testimony, that was not conveyea 14 to you during -- or you have no recollection of it.

15 16 A.

That's the question you didn't finish.

I've 17 lgottosayitnow.

18 O

Go ahead.

7

> ~.:

-r 19 A.

I don't know what impact.it will have.

It

/-

jo ~ is sombwhat but of the scope.,,It'is my recollecticd.,., So-that's'the best I can do.

4 21 When the explanation 22 n

a

s I

e i

i

35 1

The problem that I perceived were on those 2

3

% comeback was,{

4 That was not done.

6 They said, 7 (

Idonotknow{

8 9

E I

10 11 L

_ _ _ '. I- -

g 13 O

Are you referring, as % did in % testimony, 14 j

A.

Yes, I am.

15 0

I will tell you this.

There are some variations 16 l

I in the recollections of the people I have interviewed regard-17 18 linghowthosedirectionscameabout,whatwas. intended, whetherkuestioning and 19 a11 that; and I appreciat'e *youp,e efarifyimJ"that partic.ular*

20 lPointf'ormeastowhatyour[

21 22 3

~

A.

Okay.

23 3

Following 73 orders so to speak, did you ever have any conversations with 25

{.:e' 36 l

3 A

Conversations after that?

d

' Conversations with j

5 A

The conversation occurred at that time.

The 6

rationale given was that, There was 7

no follow-up on it af ter that was given.

8 O

For my clarification,{

l 9

)

10

[

11 A

12 O

Who attached them?

13 A

14 g

Where were they?

15 A

9 16 3

Where?

17 A

Nobody knew.

16 0

'L

,r It is % to my knowledge 19 A

/-

?

g..

21 22 23 l

I knew the requirements.

The requirements were 24 25

' not being met.

That was their problem.

t A

W 37 1

2 3

J What time frarne was your understandi'ng that d

they were provided?

5 A.

I really don't know.

I can't honestly say.

6 o to speak.

inuuuuuuuumum]

=

i 9

l I have only been told that yes, 10 which is great.

That's 11 fine.

12 O

Did anybody mention whether 13 14 A

No, I haven't heard anybody say.

Either one, j I would think, would be acceptable.

15 16 3

17 jl M ~-

~

i 1,

j g..

gnummmmmmmmmmmmmesJ e

2, 22 A.

do you mean?

23 O

Yes.

J S would have _

24 A.

25 lIcanonlytellyouwhata would have I

2

• =.

' N

=

s p

• f 38 1

been.

Obviously, anything less than that would have been 2 l deficient and not acceptable.

I

^1 I believe it was 1

a 6

The only two items that I know of essentially 7

L 8

That would have been 9

the acceptable form --

Let me correct that.

10 11 12 Anything less than that was not acceptable.5 13 0

Were the ones that were not acceptable provided 14 to as well as those that were, or had you all already 15 separated the two out?

16 A

1 j

m 3--

excuse me.

For 12 l

a What was g asx.e to eo m f

r 20

<What were instrdcaions?""'

^

'A 21 ammmmmmmms o

22 :

l summmmmmmmmmuumunut m

23 6

23 x

i l

l P

.W 39 1

0 Do you know how many of these there were?

~

2.

A I do not.

3 G

Did you disagree with these instructions that

, had given?

4

(

5 A

6 O

Did change his instructions?

7 A

No.

8 G

And signed?

9 A

No.

10 0

11 A

Not to my knowledge.

12 3

Did 13 A

14 irregardless of instructions.

15 G

But that was not instructions to 16 is that correct?

i 17 A

is 0

Yes, 7

o-

~~

~

19 A

No.

e 20 ~.

0 Was this issve re, solved while-you were.freseriti,' ~

l I

21 22 A

It was resolved in that l

22 You are given 7g an order that you know is wrong and you blatantly disregard 25 l

l o

4

.W 39 I

G Do you know how many of these there were?

i-2 A.

I do not.

3 G

Did you disagree with these instructions that 4

, had given?

(

5 A.

6 O

Did change his instructions?

7 A.

No.

And % signed?

8 G

9 A.

No.

l 10 0

11 A

Not to my knowledge.

12 G

Did 13 A.

14 irregardless of instructions.

15 G

But, that was not instructions to 16 is that correct?

17 A.

18 G

Yes.

,7 6-

~

19 A

No.

r fo "

G Was this iss'ue repolved while-you were.freserit,' ~

1 I

21 A.

It was resolved in that l

22 l

23 You are given 74 an order that you know is wrong and you blatantly disregard 25 i

t

r

.g

~ 40 71 l

it.

2 O

I see.

And you say this was subsequently or 3

eventually resolved' t

ummus 6

A I can't personally say that.

I have been told 7

from several sources.

8 0

That's your understanding?

9 A

Right.

It's my understanding that they have 10 been resolved.

11 g

All right.

This conversation and these orders from % to 12 13 I

14 is that 15 right?

Is that the sequence?

16 A

Not prior to.

I would say in the process of.

17 3

During?

l

^

IB A

DU#i"9*

j

• l 19 0

They discovered in their review that some of s-

,, (

I 21 A.

That's correct.

22 G

But you have no recollection of a count, or i

23 do you even have a guess as to how many didn't have an.

24 25 A

Ten to fifteen percent would be a good guess.

, /

41 2

g asumummer d

A

(

1 5

6 0

How many did and Do you 7

have a recollection of that?

8 A

Total, no, I'm afraid I don't.

The series 9

of events were getting very heated, veryconfused.{

10 We J

11 weren't concerned with what was going on.

One was enough, 12 to stop the whole thing.

13 0

Were there more then a hundred?

14 A

More than a hundred?

j 15 a

Yes.

Did they review more than a hundred?

]

16 I am not saying a hundred t

17 but I mean in all?

18 A

Yeah, quite possibly more than a hundred.

1 W -

-r 19 G

I'm asking y'ou now, can'you think of any other j o -- events related to this iriciBent.e tfiat I have.not questioned-21 you ab6ut?

I'm asking you to volunteer now, further bolunteer, l

22 any pertinent events or statements that n

25 A

Possibly.

I would say that I didn't perceive l

l

\\

l

~-

)

)

l r

42 fanyproblemon I

l h.]

'~

2-i 3

As I said earlier, I was alarmed to hear the d

allegation for the first time, because L

Llur 6

7 8

3 aunIC

\\

10 This is what I can remember.

If says 11 does, why, then, I guess does.

It was not evident to 12 me that did.

So you think g problem hinged on the fact, 13 O

u usuuuuuuuuuuuuuuusi is 16 A-5uh-huh.

j 17 0

I don't know if you recall it.

In itestimony,Ithinkthere'sareferencei,nthere,(g 18 attributes a statement ~f.o 19 20 --

was cordeJ)t to "

~~~

Proceedbasedonthefact{

21 22 23 Do you know if also mummmmmmmma 23 t

' h*

Z N

,_=_

i 43 E.+

w 1

A.

I don't know one way or the other on that.

b I cannot rccall even anything that

}wasthere,but 3

d was sitting off to the side, more or less in the'back seat.

5 So I can't say that I recall anything that id.

6 The focal point was 7 M l

8 Did even work on them while 1

9 you were there?

10 THE WITNESS:

I want to say did.

as 11 in there, and I guess I remember seeing some signatures by~

a

% some initials and changes, normal to the change of page 12 13 numbers such as we were doing with this operation.

14 I really don't know about what did.

15 MR. GRIFFIN:

Anything else,$

16 No.

17 MR. GRIFFIN:

Do you have anything else?

18 THE WITNESS:

No.

.r

.........w..-

~~

19 BY MR. GRIFFIN:

F

(

hay,e I threarefted" you ih.any 20 *

• O manner'or offered you rewards in return for this stat'bment?

21 22 A.

No.

23 i

O Have you given this statement freely and I

2a voluntarily?

25 A.

Yes.

e

Ee 44 I

O Is there anything further you would care to 2' i add to the record?

3 A.

That's like an open ticket.

d

'That I don't feel --

Well, yes, there is.

5 I do not feel that our quality objective has been compromised 6

in any manner.

I feel that some supervisory mistakes have 7

been made, but the mistakes were not --

8 O

Are you talking specifically about M t-9

' instructions?

10 A.

Yes, I am.

But that also, as I said earlier, 12 and that nothing happened here to compromise 13 Ml 14 G

As far as you know, then, despite i

15 g

Y, 16 Y only.

17 A.

18 0

And you are not sure abou _gl...

19 A.

I'm not s'u're about

~

~

20-T'

'G

• ail right. '*

' *?

• '~

~

9 I

21

'A.

And that would be it.

l MR. GRIFFIN:

I appreciate it.

We are off 22 23

'the record at two minutes after 3:00.

24 (Whereupon, at 3:02 p.m.,

25 the investigative interview was closed.)

I n

=:..

This is to ddrtify that thG cttachod proceedings befora tho IIITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATOP3 Co.W.ISSION in the matter of:

MAME OF PROCEEDING: DNESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW (C:.OSEQ. MEETING) -

INTERVREW'OF DOCKET NO.:

NONE PIACE:

GLEN ROSE, TEXAS DATE:

October 25, 1984

, rare held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear i

Ragulatory Cc:::=ission.

~

s

~

(Sigt).

6LAN _.

Ah (TYPED) 0 Gay E. D.enton Official Reporter CENTURY REPORTERS, INC.

~

Reporter's Affiliation i

.7 s-

.r

\\

4

.k m

m.

eg a +

4 g

4-84-039 REPORT OF INTERVIEW at the Comanche Peak Steam ectric as Interviewed by NRC Investigator H. Brooks GRIFFI bqen employed by Brown & Root, Inc.,

(B&R){

.J aid that a

~'

a no er involvement had no recollection of discussing ~

ta at t

ime, E was unaware:

aid Wealled that eted ey resumed their norma les. W was said mus ave confused with

}

~

~

l EXHIBIT (15)

_ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _