ML20095D606
| ML20095D606 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/16/1984 |
| From: | Brandt C Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20095D591 | List: |
| References | |
| OL-2, NUDOCS 8408230408 | |
| Download: ML20095D606 (175) | |
Text
._- ,
45239 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMt1ISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD 3,
p q t
4 r;. .-. .- ,50- & h v ~4-g ~*w 5' In the Matter of: ) 3
)
6 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC )
-COMPANY, et al ) Docket Nos. 50-445 7 ) 50-446
~(Comanche Peak Steam Electric )
8 Station, Units 1 and 2)
) gbca.Nk
. g _, .
9 :c =na <
m.
p 10 ? p,00 2 ) 1934,- -5: {
I DCCIIT:HG 6
! > crnv:cz wx Ca sccy-anc
-11 i.,N ,
.6 ' ,
I 12 DEPOSITION o'
13 OF M 14 C. THOMAS BRANDT 15 16 17 DEPOSITION of C. THOMAS DRANDT, taken on the 16th 18 day of August, 1984, in~the above stylad and 19 numbered cause at Glen. Rose Motor Inn, located at 20 Highway 67 & FM Road 201, in the City of Glen 21 Rose, County of Somerville and State of Texas 22 before Marigay Black a Certified Shorthand 23 Reporter in and for the State of Texas.
24 1
'~ / 8408230408 840821 25 PDR ADOCK 05000445 T PDR FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS N.
c;
~
n- .
45240
~
-APPEARANCES: 'J 1 '
J8
, - w/ - 2 3 .
3
-BISHOP, LIBERMAN, COOK P RCELL &-REYNOLDS 4 LAttorneys at law 1200-Seventeenth Stree ,. Northwest 5 Washington, D. C. 20036 -
- By
~ '
Mr. Bruce Downey 6 .
J '
7
~+' -8 APPEARING'FOR APPLICANTS 9 INDEX
"~
1 01 11 EXHIBIT: IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE s12 :Brandt: Exhibits:
, f'5+~
/ 13 N o '. 6' 45,258- 45,270 Aj ,
.14 -
lio . 7, 8 &-9 45,268 45,270 ,
c .. 15 'No.~10 45,269 ._4 5 , 2 7 0 16 No. 11 45,272' 45,275 '
17 INo. 12 45,281
~
45,325 718 No. 13 45,282 "45,325 i
E19 0o. 14 45,288 45,325
. L20 No. 15 & 16 4 5 , 3 0 8:, 45,325
.21 No.117 45k312 45,32h
" -22 No. 18 45,320 --
'23 No. 20 & 21 45,330 45,330 24
-g (3-25 l
FUDERAL COURT REPORTERS ~ .
- D ALL A S ,' ' TEXA S -
_ m. 1 <
.....~....7.. ,
- ^ ; s % 4
"-- =
Q, . , _ 'i
'45241 %-
'i * '
' ;1. , ;P.RLO.CIE--E D I 'N-G S I.. &,
f i I2 = ;Whereupon,- >
, t. ,
H -3 4 C.(THOMAS BRANDT-R, 4 tresumed.the.atandLand,_.having/beenpreviouslyduly
>* l 5- : sworn,'wasLexamined'and testified'as follows:
'6 MR. DOWNEY ; We're ready to resume t: . ,
, f 7 .
2[theJdepositionof.Tlioma~s-Brandt.
+
l8 .
Mr..Brandt was originally called as'a
^
9 witness by: CASE, the intervanorlin this. ',w I
710. proceeding. '
l y
11 Mr.-Brandt's deposition-wasiadjourned:
4
~
11 2 lfoll'owing his cross examination and is now being !
. 13 , recommenced, pursuant to'the order of-the ASLB. 0
, '14 f Counsel'for'the other parties;are not
, . -+
- 4
[ ' 15 present at_this deposition, but Mr..Brandt will'bei ;
', 16 - crossvexamined on'the subject. matter.of his' direct-f 17 .dtestimony at the hearingiin.:this proceeding.- *
~
18 ' EXAMINATION ,
=19 BY_MR. DOWNEY:
. , 20! kQ. 'Mr. Brandt, I'dJ1'ike to ask youJsome ~
' ^
- s. 21 : questions about specific' allegations-raised by 22 'Darlene.Stiner in her_ testimony in this
- 23 proceeding.-
-24 . ;Are youcfamiliar with the allegations 25 lMrs. Shiner.has,made concerning certain meetings Y
~
FEDERAL.' COURT REPORTERS
~-
-fi)A L L A S , TEXAS
- =
. . . . . ,. ~ . . - .... --
'45242 3
.i. .
~
. -I thatlyou Jattended t in the summer and 'autunniof (3
,1982?;
~
L)- .
2 -
b _
3 .
A.; They started i'n the' summer-of 1982, yes,
, 4 . sir.-
f And do-you recall participating in some p-:5 .
Q.
6 ofithese meetings?
l [ ~ 7 ., + A. -Yes,.I do.
+
8 Q. Would.'you. state for the" record your
, o 9 recollectionlof how the(first meeting was convened
-10 -
and the substance of that. meeting?
+
) -
11 A. The-first meeting was a, meeting between a #.
~
-12 Hs.;.Stiner, Mr. Tolson and,mys' elf to encourage her.
. (3
.y.)
21 3 to obtain~a GED.-
F 14 That meeting tookLplacesmometime,!to the
~
!15
,'4, -g ^
best of my frecollection,: in ' the - spring' of fl982.
b , . , , .
p
? '
-16 Q.. Whyfdid you and.Mr..Tolson meet with her 17 :to encouragesher to' earn a GED?_-
y o -
h 1 -18 .
A. Mrs.;Stiner.had not completed high~
~
=19 school f . Reg' Guide.l.5'8'had just been.' issued.
, 20 .. establishing new criteria for" certification ~s of; ,
y
.21 ' inspection personnel.- -One 'of the prerequisites c 22 fforlthose certifications was going to be high
. . , r de,
~ school education o^r en equivalency certificate.
4 23 24 , - The Reg: Guide :made provisions for:
O. 25 ;grandfathering previously certified inspectors who' t X e .
s PEDERAL. COURT REPORTERS' D 2 - D4kLAS M AS ,
a .
1
^
- ' *- .. =45243 e .
. 41 did not meet.the[new' requirements. Under the' ,
..y .
'(/ '2 grandfather provision,-Ms. Stiner could continue 3 to~ work ~at Comanche Peak, but'in the event that
.4 Ms. Stiner wished to be certified as an-inspection 5 person somewhere else, she would be required by-6 lthe Reg Guide to'have a high: school education or a
[
7 GED; <
. 8 Q. 'So , it was your' desire'to-encourage her
~
9 to obtain this qualification; is that right?
10 A. Yes.
-11 Q. ,Were1there other-inspectors that also .
12 didn't have a.high school diploma st this time?
A. -Yes, there were.
}{} 11 3 ,
.14 Q. Did'you have similar_ meetings with'them?=
15 A. We had similar discussions.with them._
16 As a result of the issuance of the Reg 17 auide, we did a-background study on all; personnel,,
18 verifying high school education and personnel who 19 did not have a high school diploma were encouraged 20 to obtain a GED.
21 Q. Was this meeting ~with Hs. Stiner about 22 her obtaining a'GED acrimonious in any way? -
23 A. No.
24 Q. When was the meeting with-Ms.-Stiner V
25 concerning-the GED?
FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS DALLAS; TEXAS
>? '
p; .,
45244
! 1 A._ : Spring.or early summer, toSthe best of
(/ 2 lmy recollection.
3 . Q. Was it in May or June.1982?
r
'4 'A . Approximately. <
5 , Q., When(was the next-meeting that you had 6 with Ms~'Stiner?
7 A. The next' meeting was in1 July. Ms.
8 .Stiner-~had~ presented.me with a^ note from her 9 doctor,.statingLthat due to pregnancy-she was to 10 ' avoid heavy lifting or stair climbing.
'll AtLthat point, I removed her from field
.}
12 . ' inspection activities-because field inspectors are 13
.{} regularly required'to' climb scaffolding and
,14 ~ stairs.
15 '
Within two or thiee days of receiving 16 the~ note, Mr. .Tolson and I. decided to' meet with 3; -
17 .her to discuss her pregnancy.
r .18 Q. Do you recall the substance of the note
.19 from her physician?
20 A. 'To the best of my recollection, it 21 stated that she.could continue to work until y 22 further notice, but she was to avoid heavy lifting 23 and stair climbing.
~
12 4 Q. Do you roca11 how the meeting with Mr.
)0 25 Tolson, Ms. Stiner and yourself was convened?
- PEDERAL COURT REPORTERS l @AL%AS, TEXAS
6
, a
+: -
45245.,
'A.
,. 1 'Yes, I~do. *
. ,g . ,
- - =
(.) [2 -Q. How-was it convened?
Al .
~
[ ;3 _.
Mr. Tolson..and~I. decided to ta1k to her, -
e
+
'4
-and'ILsent i for.Mrs. Stiner. ' * .:
4
- 5. Q., 1Where was theomeeting held?-
~ . . .
_ 6 A.- In Mr.~Tolson's; office, y
. .a 7 0. Why did you decide'to. meet-with Ms.-
8 Stiner? s
+
9 k. Mr.'Tolson.and I were concernediabout ,
1 10 Ms. Stiner's health. It-had~come to-my'att'ention. .
. 11 that'she had had a misca'erlage in the past. iTh'at .
12 test, coupled with:her< doctor's; note,' raised a?
13
.^ question in my mind-about the possible:
~
14 consequencescof her continuing to work. We just, 15 . wanted to be sure that Mrs. Stiner was comfortable
~
16 with her assignment and that she was satisfied 17 that: she.could continue.to work without any 18 adverse:consequeces to-her health. i
~
19 Q. What was the substance of the discussion > 20 at .. this meeting?
~
21 A. We. discussed Mrs.-Stiner's health and 22 her plans for'the future. . She expressed a desire , 23 to continue working'for the time being, but she 24 asked us what'her options were as far as both a
- . 25 reduction in force type layoff or a leave of
/
3 FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
. DALLAS 3 TEXAS'
'.- ~
,-m . 'e_
~
_._--..._p._ m. m - m .._. .,-',m,
' r?; q b- .. -
L. ,
, g $, ~ ' ;' . .3 e. (
i - m
,."'< A 1 ? <
cc 4 i *
'-y - . 4 3 f
.- s t '- - - '
1452.46 2s h- > + :q-. .; g- .
<W , 7 . . .
-t
,1 + r absence.'
gl 4
' 'I:. believe sh.e "alsorinquired *asito L i y; 5 ,
. 4 .
..s -
~
.y
&f~
aqC s W
,t
;2
- unemploymentRcompenration'benefi'ts"andlinsurance' #
.1;
_.) -
^
+
- w. ,
s *3 . wnenerats. , - a y n 3
; 2 c -, , .
'4
<Q., 'Andidi'd j yo u ' respon'd n to ._ he r . inquiries ?: -_ -
4 We told j.er:the' decisions
~
L- A -
' ; .- 5 >
" A .- Yes,;we~did.
4
~?,
6 -
.to rcontin'ue; working was'herssto.mak's. -
We,also ' ' e
+
1 1
# A
, p = ,
t , , 17 ' itold her that, as f ar: as Brown - C Root!sipolicies, ,
.x , - s - -
+ s .. ?
z
' g.neither onerof-Jus 7were~su.re,:but'we'difind out and
^
~
' ' - 8 :
n ,
= =
'a
,w .'
~
t 9 i=- get.back,with her. - ' r w .,. . 9 , [f4.. I _ e F ; '10 , -Q. Let~me'ibe) clear, Mr. Brandt. ' i
<1
,, , n ..
w , 4 *
< ?ll :Did Ma'., Stine r' indicate # to you'that,she. . -
a t
'i
~
^
12 . was interestedlin continuing her' employment'at- - x"
~
13 .f
' >,m7,
}thstEtime?' 'Is.that_right?
f ,
- 54. ;+ tle i
- A '. . , ,1She.was. -
1
-Q.3 - Did lyoutor-Mr. Tolson-try_to pursuade)
~-
15 j
, r, . . _.
+
. ~ .
r
.a ,.
'i -2 p 7
d '-
'16 --Ms.
Stiner to* leave th'e' site?-
, g .. 4
., 4 . - - _,
e
':J[ !
. r d)
, ~L , 17 -
- A .' - Absolutely.not. , ,,
e
.'.n .
- 18 fs C. Did'youfdis~ cuss!with her=the'linits'on- -
i Q.- .
- w's ? : .
hor' physical activiti.es that.hadNbeen impose ..d~'by yp.a , a.7 19 :
, q
- = - -
-f . 20 -l ehercphysician?. ,
t
;+ :
./ .,
j ') J'~ .. j
- 21 i -A. ;Theionly discuss' ion that.I recall 50n , {
p ge v ' c 1
",@' ?22 physical #1 imitations'had j taken place infmy' office
.- ,s a .. , ;
.. ~
m '23 " '.when I received'the note from her. ,
- m. :t t i a .
- [24 Q'. And it was prior to this meeting that .
Q, , Y' 7 ' ' '~ {
> > ~ 725 "'you1had~ removed ~ her f rom fisl'd inspection?
p
- v ?
.. g ,- ,
s~
. 2:;
~. 7 -
a. v< . . :
,9
- J W .c - '
^t FEDERALICO'URT REPORTERS
( y DALLAsi TEXAS
(, -- - _- n s . .
~
45247.
.1 cA.. Yes,;it'was, by one or two days.
4 () 2 Q.- What kind of duties 1did'you'assignLto ( e. 3 ' Ms. ;Stiner when you removed her'fromfthe field? 4 A.- She was assignedgto,the fab shop. 5[' .Q . What kind of. work'did she3do at--the' fab 6 shop? '
.7 'A. She inspected. fabrication'of-- -
'8 miscellaneous steel.- She did no climbing, no-9 lifting.' She was working onJa concrete floor.
10 Q. Is the fab' shop a manufacturing facility 11 on the site?- 12 A. Yes. 13 $Q. Was the-second meeting with Ms. Stiner ()Y
\- .,
14 acrimonious in any way? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Do you~ recall any further meetings with , 17 Ms.cStiner'over the1 course of the summer or autumn ' 18 of 1982?. t a 19 A.- We met with her again shortly after'the 20
.second meeting.
21 Q. This is shortly after the mid' July 22 meeting? r 23 A. Right. We met with her and Mr. Yockey, l 24 .who was Brown & Root's personnel survices manager, ()' ' 25 to explain to tira. Stiner what her options were as
.. i FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS c _ DALLASo TEXAS 1
= --
~i
%s .:b 9
, s 45248 1 farmas-taking a leave of absence and what her
{
s hR 2-insurance' benefits would be~if5she quit. [-
'3. Q.. -Was'this a? response 1to some inquiries .
that'shefhadlmade at the meeting-in-early July or-
~
'4 ,.
'S mid July?J -
s 6 A. Yes, it was.
~
17 -
-Q. And'didiMr. Yockey respond to her
'8 ' inquiries?' .
-T - 9 A.. Y e's , he did.
~
- '10 Q. .Was this meeting.-- let me pin this
- 'll down, Mr. Brandt. . This was__sometime in-late July; 5
12 is that-a fairEapproximation?: , Fr% ~ 13 A~. Mid toylate July._ v ,
? '
14 Q. -Was 6his meeting acrimoniousfin'any1way?
~
s -
* 15 A. No, it1wa's not.
2
'16 .Q. At this* meeting,'did Ms. Stiner.announce <
s o, 17 what her intention's?were'about continued- - 18 employment at Comanche. Peak?' O o , 19 >A. Mrs..Stiner told us'at that point.she
~
^2 'e. . 2 0 . wanded to. work ^as.long as she could.:
E 21 Q.. Do you recall ~any other meetings with
~
. 22 Ms.-Stiner over the course of-the summer or autumn
< 23 of 1982?s.
j-q 3-24 A. Yes. In August,'it came to.my attention , ,Qf . ~f
+
..25 and'to Mr. Tolson's attention, _ independently -- by
~
FEDERAL COURT. REPORTERS DALLAS, TEXAS-
s _ '45249
~
11 " independently, I mean it had come to'Mr. e
.(x_7 .2 Tolson's' attention from someone other than-I.--
3- ~ that'Mrs. Stiner was' requesting copies of'NCR's J
'4 that'had nothing to do with what she was d'oing.
~
5 AtJthat point, Mr. Tolson.became , 6 concerned abd-asked me to. bring Darlene to1his
^
7 ' office. We sat'and. talked to her, and Mr. Tolson-
, '8 " explained that copying these particular NCR's was 9' not'within~the scope of her responsibilities.
-- 10 Mrs. Stiner stated that she needed-11 certain-documents to do her daily function. We 12 assured her whatever documents she needed we would 13 get for her.
14 Mr.1Tolson also told her that.she should 15 not copy documents that she didn't need to perform , 16 her job, and I believe<he commented that there ' 17 ~were legal'means for Mrs. Ellis to get whatLshe ~
~
18 wanted. ! 19 Do'you know what Mr. Tolson meant when
-Q. -
20 he said that there were legal means through which 21 .Mrs. Ellis could :obtain documents? 22 A. He was referring to the intervenor in 23 the Comanche Peak licensing proceeding. And by 24 " legal means," he was referring to discovery 7 U 25 requests. FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS o f3yNWNb ST3XAS - 1
' " ' " ~ - ~~-~'"- "~
yn- - ~'
;g;
~
-A -
n . p s-
.. w
" r 7 ' " ^^ '
, ,-? e;-
y- .
. o.,
s
, > e ,
+
a- 45250:
^
, 'p ,
'Was~ it[knowriit o youythat Ms.y Stiner was
~
_, . -l ' Q. 4.y b, : , , 12 .to..be'.a witnesssfor the intervenors:at-this time? m . __l
.e -
3 A. -Yes,'it'was. The-subject of-Mrs.- 1 s
. W ,. , .
~. . <c -
4' - Stiner's'. testimony 'in the September.-hearings was 4 14 w , I _5 : brought up' during' the . session, and Mr. Tolson-4 u ,> t _
~6 encouraged Darlene to"tell'the truth.- ' I believe w.. -: ,
5
+'
f
~
,. 7 his' statement wa's something toithe effect~of "I .
IC 8 idon'tncare whose side you're on, just'tell the
! ' ' d '- 9 truth.*~
?lo Q. And was this meeting acrimonious in any <.
s 11 way?- 12 '
,A. Not really acrimonious. ItEwas'more of-
.a information'~ session. 'Mr . Tolson simply tol'd-
~
l 13
,~ =L '14 ~Mrs..Stiner that he had no.intentionscof providing'. .
J 15 her with? documents that.were outside the scope uof', . 16 .he r ,: j ob.
^
17 Q.' After this> meeting at which you .y l 3' ;
'18 ; discussed'her document requests,:did you-have any: f
~
19 furtherl meetings ~with Ms. S t i n'e r . p r i o 'r to the time m
;;v "
-c
.q .
20 she left the job site?
. > ~ .
~
- 21 'A. ' Sometinie' du ding that 'numme r , and ' I'[a, 4 ~
_ /
- 22 real unclear as to when it was, Ms. Stiner-came y H 23 'into my of fice and - claimed -that Ms. Ellis had been-c a 24 'to her'h'ou'se'to pickt.up'~an NCR that she supposedly n~ , c J25 -found in a Tupperware package. The'NCR had been
? . ,xe 1 -
x<, n .
$' # - 4, R' FEDERAL COURT., REPORTERS"
- e. <
^
DALLASn TEXAS
r _ ( 45251
, I written by Mr. Atchison.
2: I had previously seen drawings which 3 were attached to the NCR. I had not seen the body 4 of the NCR itself, the NCR had never had a number 5 obtained, but it had been drafted by Mr. Atchison. 6 Q. You say Hs. Stiner came to you? She in 7 casence called this meeting; is that right? 8 A. She walked into my office, yes. 9 Q. And she said she found this NCR where? 10 A. In a package of Tupperware material. 11 Not in a Tupperware container, but in 12 advertisement type brochures for Tupperware. She 13 claimed the NCR had inadvertently been slid in () I 14 this package on her desk. j l 15 Q. Did she indicate that she had given a j l 16 copy of this NCR to Mrs. Ellia? l 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Do you recall if this was before or 19 after the meeting involving her -- before or after 20' you received the note about the limits on her 21 ability to work in the field? 22 A. I really don't recall. 23 Q. Hr. Brandt, you have testified about a
,24 . meeting where you encouraged Ms. Stiner to get her
~)
25 GED, two meetings concerning her pregnancy and the FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS DALLAS, TEXAS
45252 1 explanation of company policy about her leave 2 options. You described a meeting about her 1 3 copying documents which she didn't need to perform 4 'her duties and this meeting about the NCR that she 5 found in the Tupperware literature. 6 Do you recall any other meetings with 7 Ha. Stiner over the course of the spring, summer, 8 fall of 1982? 9 A. No, none come to mind. 10 Q. Mr. Brandt, are you aware that Ms. 11 Stiner contends tha't during the meetings you have 12 described that you and Mr. Tolson conveyed to Ha. 13 Stiner the strong impression that you wanted her (~] 14 off the alto? 15 A. Yes, I am. 16 Q. Did you make any effort to convey such 17 an impression to Ha. Stiner directly or indirectly
- 18 during these meetings?
19 A. No, I did not. 20 Q. In your judgment, did Mr. Tolson 21 directly or indirectly convoy to Ms. Stiner the 22 impression that he wanted her off the site during 23 these meetinga? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Hr. Brandt, are you aware that no. FEDERAL COURT REPORTERG ) R&RLASr WEXAS
=: . .
. 45253
- 1 EStiner has claimed that a large percentage of'her ,
.,m.
i_) 2 job t was making copies of documents? 3 .A. . .Yes,LI am.1 4 -Q. Were.you her supervisor during the. time
~-
5 :that= she worked at Comanche Peak? 6 A.. Yes, I was. 7 Q. And'was making copies.a'large part of 8 _her job? 9 A. 'For a short period prior to receiving 10 the note -- excuse:mo -- foria short period of j 11 -time'between the time I received the note from her 12 doctor.and the. time that I physically relocated = , (~Y :13 her to an office immediately outside the fab shop, xj 14 part'of Ms. Stiner's duties was acting in~somewhat-15 of a clecical function for Mike Foote. 16 Q. When'did Ms. Stiner work in this 17 ~ quasi-clerical capacity?
~
18 -A. Early: July 1982. 19 Q. -Hcnt long;did.she serve in that capacity?
- 20 A. From the time that I' received the note 21 until the time I moved her to the fab' shop.
22 Q. Do you recall how long a period that t 23 . was? Was it longer than a week?
'24 A. It could have been. It was'less than a
-[_ I :
'~'
25 . month.
. FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS c '
DALLASn TEXAS
= , -
b ', 1 m
. j L. 45254.
x , d - '
;o
[ .l I .1 sQ.. Wass she" performing in_this'
. ;Q , e
'2 -
. quasi- clerical: fcapacity'at (the -time . thati' you and
' .3 Mr. Tolson metlwithsher-about copying' documents L ,
L s'
.4 tliat she-di'dn't need--to perform.her' job?
5
' A .- No, she was not. I might add, if'iniany -
[ ', /6
~
ovent'she had.b~een in this cleriodi position,-her-z
. _+
, - 7 clericalifunc?. ion w'as~to support Mr. F o o t e ' s -- w o r k .
i.: ~
~ ~
_ -8 -
'She would'have had no reason to be-copying:the' ~
,9 .d'ocuments th'atrahe had. requested. '
;7 10 +
Q. Mr. Brandt,.are you" aware thateMrs.
^
~
11 Stiner has made': certainl allegations. ' regarding : the r . . , 12 . relo' cation of her office to the.ffab shop area? 13 . A . -: Yes, I am. .
]
+ 14 -
Q. What-is your understanding of the ' ' 15 - subs'tanceLof her' allegation?-
~
e 16 - A. She claims'that she:wasiharassed'by^the h7 ~ 17 ' fact that we moved-her,~and using her own words, I
'18 believe, "all'over the. site."
i - 19 Q.- -Do you'know who'made the.' decision to:
- 20 relocate Mrs.~Stiner? -
21 x A. Yes, IIdo. .
.~ ,
,+
- 22 Q. Who.made'that. decision? ,
~
23 A. I did. + > 2'4 -Q. Why did you-decide to, quote, relocate, 10, 25 unquote, Mrs.'Stiner? y , k o FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS M
F '.+ f A r i - 45255 { J1. A._ Mrs. Stiner;was housed,in a. trailer-j, ^
'LI
$2 ~
immediately adjacent to mine when I received"the 3_ ' note'from her~concerning the limitations on her
.j l ,
4 . ability-to work. 'At the tima, I was moving'the L
) 5 entire l group in'which'she~ worked to-an ar,ea near
'6 the main construction entrance, which would have 7 .
been approximately three-eighths to a half a mile
.8 -from her new work area, which.was going to be in 9 .the fabL hop. '
10' (Recess.) 11 .Q. (BY HR. DOWNEY) Mr. Brandt, just'before 12 ourJbreak you testified that prior to the move of 7/Y 13 Ms. St'iner she was physically located --'her
-V 14 office was physically located in a trailer.
15 adjacent ~to yours; is that correct?
& '16 A. That's true..-
17 Q. And that you,were about to_ move all of 18 ittte people in the trailer--in which she was; located - 19 to a'different location; is that right? 20 A. That's true. - 21 .Q. At the time of this anticipated, move, ; 22 had.you already assigned Ms. Stiner to the fab ' -' 23 shop? " 24 A. Yes, I had. _ k~y 2
'25 Q. How far is the fab shop from the office .
FEDERAL 1 COURT REPORTERS . TWV W M h_S H V\n
^
( .-- - C . ;; . y , _
-O' y-l a x
.~
45256
- 1 - -lsheThad been occupying?L - ,
A . 3.) 2 , .A. - Approximatelyfa mile.'
~
e" 4 3.- '.Q.- JHow far'was.the' fab' shop from.the office 4 t toTwhich;her group was moving?. .. - - J . , "5 .A.- :B2 tween thre'e-eighths.;and half a mile.
" '6-Q '. - And how did Ms. Stiner get from her id ^
7 office to'the' fab shop? - She walked.
'8 A. . J .3 %
J 9 Q. .And how would.g she.havi h,ad to travel' ,, fl0 fromfthe new office location--of her' group to the
, 11 -fab shop? i
- y
;12 'A. She would have to walk.
13 > Q.- Is the fab shop on'a hill, i s .,i t higher (~}. s- .., , s
.. s
,_14 than --- -
15 N A. ;IYes, it '.s up an incline f rosa, whe re she a - 9 16 waa d located. i 1 17 .Q . And-perhaps you: stated this,.Mr. Brandt,
< .18 but I want to+make the record clear. What action i 1 - s 19 1did you.take with reapectstoiMs. htiner'sJoffice-'
4 , 20 when y9u determined you were. going to move her-
~
21 group,to a different' location?. 1
'% 22 s A. I don't' understand the question.
s r.
] '23 -
, 0. What action.did you take regarding Mrs.
24 Stinar's office when you determined that you were g s -
~
25 going to move.her enbire group to a new location?
~
.. 4 N
PEDERAL Cd3NT REPORTERS h; .- _ DALLASM TEXAS'
, ;.a . m . . -
~. . -- - .- -
w.- -- n-v n -. - -- .- po ns a ' n s , x' , ~:M ,
, ~ :; ,
Pf , ,
,r .
+ '
'45257 : !
- w. .
. a-G;U f- -
, ,. . 1 C A. TIrcalled Ken.:L'iford, who was-the-
- Q; . g.;J .w' 2 ,.'assistantfgeneral , mechanical superintendentifor 4 1, .
e__
-_ , _ 7 , _ _, .
'consiitruction and Lasked; him -if: he .had'any space-
[: . L 3-
- 1 favailable.:aurrounding"the fab shop: area, e'ither in-
~
- 5 lthe;fabishop_or.immediately'outside..the, fab' shop. ,
Q .
?
-6.. 'Q. :What:did Mr.fLiford reportito'you? -
.He" told me he'd check into it.
^
'7 ~ A% He got ,
- y -u .
p gq 8 back to me shortly thereifter and' told'me~there:
'9 X-w~as arbui1 ding.' adjacent to the fab shop,that he.
I - 10D 'would clean out .aind make available to 'Ms. -Stiner. - .,
- 11 Q., Was'this.~the kind of building that other _ ,
k, f12 : inspectors used as offices'on'the site?.
,. i 3
+ , -- 6 13 - A '.-- Yes,.it is. 9 / , , l'4 Q.: -.How much time ~1 apse'd between your ' l n I e' c15 .
, conversation wi,th.Mr. Liford and the time when n -
iC . '16 Mrs.;Stiner's group ~wis"mo.ved? -
~
f 17 'A.. I don't' remember ~ i the exact sequence of': 18 . dates. I; talked to Liford one day.- He'go't back-
^~
- ~?[ _^
19 Nith me the sameJday. .The next morning I' moved
. ' 3. >
, ,: 3 g ,
j'? '
' 3 0- Mrs..Stiner.. That afternoon, 'I believe; the rest
+ . w ' , 1,21 ,
/of.Mrs.38tiner's; group started to move.
i- ~22 \ Q. Are you aware'that Ms. Stiner has
~
~
lJ 'd23 al~1eged that she-was moved to four different'
.'24 . locations? . '
, :25 A. Yes..
f , e 4 I
'C- >
' -FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS-
%ALLAS, TEXAS
. .< g 'y.
~
, , . . ~ .
s..
,+
3 45258* v "i
-b; y s 1 }[ y.t . Q.~ 5.Mr. Brandt, I'would like to direct your
/:
V( s ?2 -attention to a document that we have got marke'd s<
. for_identificationias Brandt'Exhibic'6.'
r - a . . . .
.3
..e .
'h 'Okay.
l42 . _ A.: di ,
- lp @ p . I(Brandt Exhibit No. 6 W '
6 was marked for identification.-) ,x ., .. .
' ' e. 6 7 Q.. (BY HR. DOWNEY)
Mr. Brandt, can you
- Q 6,,, _
$8g[ identify.Brandt Exhibit: G7 V ,
9 [,'. A. Yes,. basically-a. site' layout, map. y, .i K 10 + - Q. Mr.'Brandt, would you mark the location 4 11 of Ms.- Stiner'a doffica 'at the time she was. moved , . -12 - with the/ Number'l? ' 13 A., -(Witness complies). < [
- 14 Q.+ Would you pleas 1e circle the number?
u + 15 , A.. (Witness complies)'.
. .16 0. . Would you mark /the location of the 17 office.she ultimately took near the-fab shop? ,
. 18 -- A . ,(Witness complies).
~
19 With a two, I assume? . 20 Q. No, with a four.
~
21 Now, is it your understanding.that Ms.
^
[22 StinerLwas placed'in two' temporary. locations
- a
-23
~
; -before'she~was moved into the office at location v ,
24
,4 4 four?' 't i y A,/:
12 5 A. At this point, yes, I am. 1 -
; -FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
; ; m , D ALLAS ri ~ TEXAS
.t .
45259 r 6 1 Q. Whenedid you become aware that there 7 g
!_/
s 2 were-these; intermediate moves? v 3' A .' Approximately a month ago.- . 4 , Q. 'What is your understanding of these ; 5 intermediate moves, Mr. Brandt? -
. t 6 A. S he wa s ---- - I d i'r e c t e d M r . Foote to move ,
~
7 her-to this location.immediately outside the fab
~8 shop earlyJone morning. Mr.-Foote went up;to
^
9 check to see if the; building was cleaned out'. It
~
10 wasn'tftotally cleaned out. There was not an air
- 11 conditioner in'it..
~
- -12 Mr. Foote decided to move.her ,
a
- ('i 13 temporarily to location . in Ron' Michels ' trailer.
g - - 14 Q. 'Hcar long did Ms.-Stiner stay in this-l- 15 '2 temporary location of Mr. Michel'n' trailer?- ,
,. - 16 A. LA co'uple of hours.
17 Q. Were her deskJand-heripa'pers physically - I1 j
. i 18 moved into his trailer?
z ,
~
There was no. desk. moved at all.
~
h f#< 19 . A. To the 20 best of my knowledge, her personal effects were 21 move'd into Mr. Michel's traile'r.
, 22 ,,0.- Would you indicate;with the. Number 2 the-.
23 ' location on'the map whe'e.Mr. r Foote temporarily 24 assigned Ms. Stiner?: ' ~ ,
- Q 25 A. (Witness: complies).
p9 t FEDERAL ~ COURT REPORTERS f6WhL ASnT_EXA S
s. f u !
~
45260 3 1 Q.. 'And'what's your understanding of bhy.Ms.
=f)S 2 '
Stiner; moved out of that location? 3 , A. Mr. Michels had made~an error in-how 4 f4 many. people he.had'to occupy that office and he
~
5 - notifiediMr._.Foote that'it wasn't going to be
- i. 6 .possible,to leave her thera..
, 7 Q. And did Mr. Foote then subsequently ,
8 'as' sign her'to anot'her location? , 49 A. Mr. Foote at that time' verified that the 10 building still wasn't ready and told. Randy Smith, 11 who.was Mrs.~Stiner's'immediate supervisor, that, ! 12 ~for the time-being, Mrs. Stin'er would be moved > 13 linto. Smith's new office. a }} ' - 14 Q.- So, when Mrs. Stiner could not stay in
,' , *i.
4 15 Mr. Michel's trailer, Mr. .Foote had Ms.~Stiner , 16 move in with. Randy' Smith; isthan right? 17 :A. Right. Mr. SNith had previously been - 18 with Ms.' Stine'r in location. Number 1. ~ As I stated ; fearlier, his entire group'was also moving.
~
m ' 19 His 7(- 20 group wasLin the process of occupying'a new j 21 trailer and Ms. Stiner' moved in'with'them I s , .
~
.22 temporarily..
L: . I
~
!23 . ; , Q.- Would you mark with.a. Number >3-and l b
..? f24 circle.in' blue thellocation of-Mr. Smith's new
?(O . . . l 25 ' office with which Ms. Stiner shared with him for a l !
_ s
.1
, FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS !
y + ., .
.. , . .- . - ~
t
.>- e e , ,
45261 Y l time? ,
. :2 A.. (Witness complies).- C
,3 , Q. How long did Ms. Stiner remain in 4
~4 location three' sharing an office with Mr. Smith?
5 .A. Several hours. 6 Q. And then following that short time, was 7 she again moved?: , 8 A. 'She'was moved to location Number 4, l 9 - where she had~ originally been-intended to be. 10 , - QF. How far was location Number 4 from'Ms.. 11 Stiner's work?. { 12 A.- About 50 feet. Y~T . l'3 - Q. And is that shack. located >on the main - M
, 14 road?
15 A.- No, it's not.- 16 Q. Where is it located?. ,
' 17 A.- It's located basically.under the; potable-18 watef tank.offna driveway that goes into the lay .
19 down area. Her office.was immediately adjacent: to 20 another portable building chich housed the ASME QC' I 21 inspector for the fab shop.
'22 Q. -Hr.LBrandt, did you consult with anyone H2 3 about your'de61sion to. move Ms. Stiner-to-location
.- 24 Number 47 -
?
25 A. No, I did not. 4 4 PEDERAL COURT REPORTERS 1 T@SM\L 9W4XTM3 J
,:----- / - --- -
, 3 3
. . e. ,
a.
~
*'?.-
v .. '
. ~45262
. w,
, ?
1 .' > Q. . . Why..did you move her there?
~
(x)
^
I had b'een. presented with a statement;
~
2 ., _ A .' - , r_, , ,ff- "t-3 .
. that said she couldn.'t.do.any climbing or heavy -
a 4 1ifting, and..I assigned.-h'er-to the fab shop to- ;
.:5 'accommo' d ate? her situation. . 'I-thought that~ moving .. i
~
? E6 ther' to 'arr 'of fice adj acent to';her work larealwould- ,
,.=-
E7 be the. easiest thing'for.her. r T- i t ,,
- 8 Q. Did-you~ intend--in'.any way to harass;her t
9 in this mo've?. , ? - 10 A. Ab'solutely not. [^- l11 , .Q. to you knowfifsthe' office to which Ms.- 12 Stiner was assigned <is now.being occupied by
- 13 anyone.at the-site?- ,
14 A. Yes,-it is'.
, , t -
.. ~
~
'15 .Q . Who. occupies that building, currently?
~
. 16 ,
A~. ~Mr.. Jimmy 3McCla'in. ,
~
i 17 , Q. AndLwhat'is Mr.zMcClain's position? ~ { u 18 - A. He'is the non-ASMEoinspector'in the fab"
^
i 19 shop., , n; ,
, [20 Q. Does he perform basically the same
~
21 funct ons now that Ms.'Stine'rHperformed in the u- _ 22 .La'utumajof'198_27: , ,
.23 '
A. Yes,-he'does. J
~
24 EMr..Brandt,z have you physically looked 3 Q.-- h.t L25 1-- s t rilie - that.. + x ;
#d[
lCx '. :
- f. + '
FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS " o_ . V - e ^ -4 DALLASd TEXAS
's
_ .. . - ~ . ~ . - - ~ - ~ ~ -.~.e-- - -.- r.- . . . . - - . - - .
.+ - -
( , e f>n -
~
, 45263 $
1 .Mr. e Brandt', . have you - inspected._ the
, -t .
V : '2 'of fice _th'atTMs. Stiner was assignedjto, at31ocatilon ,' M , , 3 '. Number'47 (~
, ; 1 .. /J '
O.4 A.. Yes, I have. .. ('5 o Q. What'areits approximate '% dimensions? e w
;It's approximately 8'byx 12(~
K6 A. ,
~ ~ And liow large is your of fice?
~
, ~7 O. .
W
\.
s 1
?8 A. -9l by ' 9.- .
~5 9 Q. Iti's ' approximat'ely the same. siz'e as your .
'10 'i. office?. ,
~
~11 '
A.- It's a little larger than;my office,
'12 yes, sir.
. 13 .. Q . fHow large is Ms. Stiner's office at ,
location' Number 1 w'here she1was housed be' fore f tdis-
, 14 :
1 .,-
'15 . move? < '
~
~
A ,
- --16 A'- . 'She shared that office withLabout seven d c
[ s ' 17 $or?e'ight, inspectors', her lea'dLinspector, an'd her a s
~
-10 supervisor. -The.; building'waar a 10 by.'40 foot i
c . . 3-19 trailer. - , , ( '2 0 J; Q. .She sharedi the officeTwith-a'L large
, a L- . ,
, 21 ,numbe r) ofi.lpersple; is that-right?
'4 22 A. RLght.
., ~ ,
. _ ~
*1 '
-. 2 3 .Q., 'Nowiwith,whom did she' share:the office- - ~
~ ' , . , . . . , ._
~
- s =24 at 1ocation' Number'47 fQ- ne l.-
_ 25 A .~
~
' No' . o n e .
m
.. s 4
1 [ ~
. FEDERAL:: COURT: REPORTERS -
'? I.=' '
FENLl]SASETEXAS
.-- - - ~ .- - - = - - . - ~- - - -- -
, 7 _ , .
;3 ,
i ;% , _ w
.y ,
a, f, i :45264 -1 f' . ,
.l .Q.; '
It'.Jwas.a private buildibg? - y W ~_ ,
+y > 1 l2 -A. ;Right. -2 ,
a- 7 ,
~
* * . Mr. Brandt,1are'you awaretof.the ~
~
- -3
~
Q. . .
~
E. (4 Lal'legatio,ns made by-Ms. Stiner'concerningiproblens-, i c, ,- 5- with~her' air c'on'ditioner.at the new<locati~on,
!ocation1 Number:4?-
6
;7 C A. Y e s ',' , I : a m . - *
- F '
8 - Q. What's your understanding of;those -
,a .
' ~
,< 19 ' allegations?- - .
t.;, , f10 ; '
'A. Mr. Foote call'ed me'and said,."The' air 11 conditioner- up th'ereLian't' working,..can.we get a: .
..-12 n e w J o n'e . "
ILsaid,.'"Let me' call.the warehouse." . I -
~ ,
- ! (~' 13 called the' warehouse and found out none were. - -
~
f 11 4 :available~.- I told' Mr. Foote'that he.and/oriMr. L 1 .
.c ~
! ' 15 .Gaith would have to:get up with maintenance and ,
~ . ,
;16 ge't the one she had fixed.
I- !- ,, 117
.. Is understand Mr.-Smith called ,
.+.
~
i E18 maintenance andJwas(told.thatDit would' tie"two;or _ m Lw 19 threefdays before they/could get to it as they x ' t h -20 lwere busy, whereupon. Iiarlene called someoneithat w' ' v~ a i21 sheTknew'in' electrical maintenance,,an , s i, i- .. . . _ - . . . L r
.m. - , 12 2 . acquaintance ^2of,hers,and got the' air? conditioner- ,
, s
'W 23
~
~ fixed. -
x 24 ._ Q.- Was itJreportsd to you that the' air. ' O^a . ' c25 ? conditioner.did-'get fixed? ln .
~ '
- w. . .
~ ,' -
FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS W
' m g3,., 5prg m g3 .
~
~
. 45265
,q' ~
~1 . . A.- Y e s ,.~ i t . w 6 s . .
2 Q. ;And'hoh soon'after you: received the-- ' 1 -
~ , ,
.3 _ report;from;Mr. Foote about th'e problem;withLthe 4 ,. air conditioner --~ strike that.
Howjmuch time elapsed from the time?.Mr'."
^
4 5 - 6 Foote reported to you the airJconditioner1didn't- %,s . t .
'[
;7 work until it was reported to>you(that'it;had:been s
- 8 fixed? -
(, .9 A. Maybe a couple.'o'f days. 6 s .. ,
. 'l '10 Q.- Mr.:Brandt,.how long"have you been 7 ...
? employed at Comanche Peak?
~
'll w
f1'2 ~ A. Four' years., -
+ - , ff] .13 Q.: How-are.the-offices.'that you-have ,
4 A ,. i . - c . a 2 ,3
- 14 :occ'upied, ~ liow are; they 1 air- condition'ed?
15 A. - Some/aretair; conditioned byoa-central [ " ' 16 . unit'in the4 main ~-admin'istration. building.. All of- , the1 outbuildings 1are. -air conditioned ' by . window a'ih ~
~
4 51 7 2 e - ~ 11 8 conditioning. 4
.u- -,
u..- ! r 19 '
-Q. ,L.Of'.yourifour' years at Comanche ~ Peak,;how *
' ~ - 20 ;1oug haveuyou worked =in offices'with wi'ndow air , ,.p? v ..c21 conditions? -
~
% , . . . v s s- s fa r. j~
- 22 A.. Of.the fourjyears I've been-at4 omanche C
o _
~ '
- ;23
^ '
, Peak, about two-and-a-half. years I've beenLin u
'24 buildings with window units.
l i' 25 /Q . .W as your" window unit similar-to the: kind b 20 .
-A. I Lcalled electrical maintenance. ,
, ' )
;21 -
.Q. 'And.approximately how..long'did it take- ,
t " 7 -22 electrical (maintenance to get *these: units fixed
- ? '
'23 ,when they', broke?. +
g v. 24 A. . When the'. compressor broke,. it..wae- two:
}
i25 . days.z
~
' ~
FEDERAL COURT" REPORTERS' V m - ' .1- - < FDATU.\M a_TE XAS
, 1
.v.
- \ I 45267 p ; - g _
-7 7 p
. ; il ,
Q ., Whenatbey-froze,.how long did that take?- , je . 7 1 ,7 L)f -
"2 w ,
1 A .'
.o Th'ay came-in and thawed them'out<first
, . j.. - + 3 , .and'.. generally--fixed'them later=the same' day. m ., y 1 , . I 1 4 - Q.:
-Now your. current officei Mr..Brandt, is j5 +Ethat office. air conditioned? *
, The~ c u r r en ti office I occupy is$ stinside.a 1
~ 16 . # A.- -
,7 il2-by.4d-foot trailer. There' are three" private
~
, ,w 4 8 " offices in-the trailer, none of which have air.
- +
w . . ,
- 9 conditiloners within1 the-private. offices. There
~
'10 aie: two airiconditioners in the trailerEitself and-J l, air? moves in'to--and outEof'all three office's:b'y .
- s , ,
'12 passiv.exair flow. .
x 13 Q. The two window u' nits ke'ep you.r; trailer
~ , .
14 cool?- , l ' 4, < , 15 ' [ A '.- No, not really. ; 1 Mr.: 'Brandt,oare.youfawar'e'of a'certain
' ~ ' ~
s s
. cl6 3Q'.
r 17 . allegation- raised by- Ms.jstinerc;concerning a- - ~a , .
}'" J18
- problem with qbase metal; def ects? ; .
,y - s19 -A. Y e s ,"' I L a m . ,
t - .,
-20 ^
e Q. . . What's your understandingjabout her '
# .i . , " + '
l21 allelgations,; witli resp ~ectitio base. metal def acts, l -
'22 '[ problems?.i - i _
~ s , . -
f , y , L23 I A .; .-She~ allegesithat base-detal'defacts were ,
-24 not properly ~ reported.
~
tOJ 4 -
";s .. y -25 Q.- ;Do:you-understand?the' particulars of her.
D c o s FEDERAL-COURT REPORTERS
'cp_ 'l D_ALLASi TEXAS
3., e~ - 4
-y<3 x -" '
45268'
~ . ,
' i l all'e gation ? ~ -#
u- - J Af =2- A.' :I~ understand that she contends that she 3 wrote 1NCR's on base metal' defects'which were
- s. '
vo'ided'and that this caused her to have second-- J 4 ' _p: a . 5 thoughts'about writing more NCR's. .; 1 I6 . . Q. Is. it ' your.' understanding tihat she
~
~ '
7 ' contends:-b'ase metal' dsf actis sh'ould ' have - been
~
.8 reported ~on NCR's? '
~ *
~> 9 A.. .
;Yes.' '
~
~ 10 Q. . ,Is that your understanding of'the prope'r ,
~
i ll 3- way to! report. base metalEdefects problems? P 1'2 A. No. .
+
-13
('5 - Q '.' How are base metal ~ defects >to be 4
- \/
dnder the 14 reported,funder the regulations?- .
-s . ,
15 procedu'res? ? 16 A. In'the.non~-ASME QA program,. base metal
' defects are to be ideritified on anj inspe'ction!
17 , s 18 1repory,.in;accordance with QI QP;16.'0-5.' l'9 Q. iMr. Brandt,-;[I'd like . to :show < you othree . _ 20 { documents 1that have been marked.for identification 1 - 21 ! a s.:B r a n d t. E x h i b i t s . 7 ,-) 8 and 9.. i' .i ' e
~22 ;(Depositlo~n Exhibit.Nos. 7, 8 &'9' j ; - *4, were m'arked-forfidentification.-)
(23 - . , s ,, - 24 ' MR. DOWNEY: - I would Olike the record to-
, , o reflect"that Brandt Exhibit 7 is QI QP 16.0-5.
~
~
4
.25 e s .
'~
~ s FEDERAL COURT-REPORTERS ,
O . ~ ,
~ DALLASh TEXAS: 2,. _
. , . . .. . - ~ - . . . . ._ .~
'$' ,t _ ,
t 45269
-1 That's thez procedure number. And it is Revision'0
' h, e2 " d a t e d '.H a r c h ' 5 , 1982.
+ m ,
3 . .Brandt: Exhibit 8.is the,same procedure - o .- 4 number,; Revision-1,_ dated June 21, 1982. [5 4 And Brandt" Exhibit 9 is the same . 6 7 procedure, Revisidn 2, datedfAugust 31, 1982. 7 O .' (BY.MR. DOWNEY) I: would -ask if you could 18 l identify.those three documents? 9 A ._ 'Yes, I can. . '10 Q. Would-you. describe those documents, for
'll .the,r# cord,_please?
1 l'2 A. They're'the non'-ASME QA procedure. [{} , 13 They're three revisions. The first three 14 revisionstare the same. procedure -- excuse me..
.15 They are' the initial-issuejand two subsequent 11 6 ' revisions ofLthe same procedure,Jwhich describes m 17 reporting of base-metal defects on non-ASME items, i
18 It defines inspection criteria and the reporting. l b 19 ~~ mechanism. In all cases-the reporting me'chanism [:- 20 is-the inspection: report..
-21 <
.Q. Mr. Brandt,*have you reviewed any of_.Ms._
22 .Stinersfinspection reports to see how she 23 4 personally-reported base metal de'fects?
- ~
[ '24 A. Yes,.I'have. 'O . 225 Q. .I wouldi-like to show you a document that. t.
~
FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS f[ . MBAAGS, 9EXAS-
e m..
- 1 .
m
'l will be ma$ked'for identification as Brandt
/~i
. 3m> 2 Exhibit 10'and ask you if'you can identify it?
J3 (Deposition-Exhibit No. 10
'4 was marked for identification.,)
-5 A.. Yes, I can.
6 ,
-Q.- (BY MR. DOWNEY)'What is it? -
7 .A. -Its an IR dated May 13th, 1982, IR
- a. - ,
( 8 number MS-0204. . It'is for an embedde'd, weld plate. 9 That was written by Ms. Stiner describingfa defect t 10 . whos'e dominsions are 1/16th inch deep by,:1/4 inch 11 long, and up-to an 1/8th of an. inch wide defect in 12 thes3/4 inch \embedpla'te. ' 13 Q. -Is'this'a base' metal ~ defect?
]
L-
- 14 A. Yes, it is. ,
't 15 -
Q. .How did Ma'.fStiner report i t?. a
. 16 < A.. _On this-IR.'.
. 17 -Q. . Was,that the proper 1way to"roport~it, ,
~
18 - . under tho' procedures? n ,- C' ' Yes, it is. 19 , JG 20 - Q . _. LM r . Brandt, I neglected to.a'skiyou, with T
^
21 ' respect.to Brandt Exhibits,,7, 8 and-9,'the three 22 procedures that you= identified,-have'there been
~
23 ' subsequent' revisions to:those procedures?
-24 A. Yes, there have.
A , r_/ ' . 25 .Q.- lHave-all such revisions, to your >
. FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS.
4
<; I &VVWM8n~ 9[TVl@ - J
1 45271
~l personal knowledge, specified the reporting of
. ;r y .
. (J 2 base metal defects on inspection reports rather s -
3 than NCR!s? , 4 A. Yes, they have. , , , 5 MR. DOWNEY: Applicant moves that 6 Brandt Exhibit 6, Brandt Exhibit 7, Brandt' Exhibit
.7 ~8, -Brandt Exhibit 9 and BrandtLExhibit 10 be 8 received in evidence.
9 (The documents'previously marked . 10 for identification as Brandt 11 exhibit numbers six.through 10 were' 12 received into evidence.)
'13 '
Q. (BY MR. DOWNEY) Mr. Brandt,ldo you * { 14 know whethe'r Ms.-Stiner=at'any-time' wrote an NCR , 15 while she was at the. fab shop-on-thetissue-of base A
.16 metal defects?
17 A.- Yes,-I do. I knowfshe.-did'not.
- 18 Q. ~ ~What'-dif, you docto verify that=shechad 11 9 not? '
20 A. .I did a computer search for'an NCR's 21 written'by Ms. Stiner on that subject. And~I..also 22 -verified'the--NCR log ~for the dates that she: worked 23 :in the fab shop. ' t _ 24 Q. And what were the results of-these
. d 25 searches? 1 d
FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS TC&\LL2&n TEXAS
, ~ ,
f6 ,- o ,
, '45272 1 A. 'NocNCR was found.
'( ) 2 -
Q.. .If Ms. Stiner'had written an NCR on base
.' t{3 metal defects that was recorded, would that NCR 4 have been identified on.theLNCR log that-you
-5 5 rev'lewed?- . , - .
.s..
N. - 6 A.. _Yes.
.7 Q. We have had identifie'd Brandt -Exhibit 8 10, which-is anLinspection report' written by.Hs.'
- 9 Stiner1 reporting the problem with base-metal-L10 defect.
11 How did you locate that inspection
- 12 report?. ,
- (~T 13 A. Basically.tho~ same way. We did a A.)
14 -computer search on both structural and Class V1
~ c 15 hanger IR's for an IR written by-Ms. Stiner ', 16 conc'erning a base metal defect. ,
, ~17 Q. .Was this the only IR that you found?
.18 A. Yes, it is.
.19 I~should note I guess.at this point that
.20 the IR is for an embedplate, which;.1s embedded in , ,
~
21 concrete safeguard unit two,'that it's'not-for . L
-22 anything that is in the. fab-shop.
~ 23 Q. When,did l you first learn of Ms. Stiner's 24 allegations concerning the reporting of base metal-
.(_) 1
-25 defects?
FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS LL ' . _ pyNhrtfig1n _-97tswNt j
?- f ~ l_ ,--- < 't_~ -+ ,3 g .. '
- "Jg:,;&,d
- 1 m -; .
45273 -
.L, . &: ; n1 A. July 1984.
w.. . . tyh ^ h - L2
.[-
c-
-Q' .. How did thatcaubject comeEto your<
3
~ .
'3 attention? ,
14 'A. In preparation for.this deposition. n 1 ~5 . Q. You never. heard t this particular. : o, -u ( 6 allegation;before that? l ~ ', 7 A. N'o t thatIfracall. - I 8 "Q. Mr.;Brandt,'are~you aware of an-9 -allegation-made by Ms. Stiner about an[NCR that l'O 'she wrote concerning the polar crane?.
+
4
.11 A. Yes, I am.
, s
~
41 2 Q. Whata your understanding of that - 1
,o . ..
~
-)- '
13 allegation?- (14 A. 'She thought-the-NCR was improperly
~
' ~ !
- c. .. .
F 15 _ handled.- >
~
6 s
+
16 ,- Q . Mr.:Brandt, I,believe-t' hat,NCR-hascbeen 17 previous'ly: marked for-identification and' receive'd ~ >
- 18 inc evidence - in this - proceeding as - CASE Exhibit' , ,
6670.
#. ~
- - 19 _
20 I would like to.have it, for purposes of 21 :this proceeding, marlied as?Brandt Exhibit 11., f y .
- 22 !(Deposition Exhibit-No.: 11 .
23 was marked for..-identification. ) m 24 . Q. (BY MR. DONNEY) I'd like:you to review ,
- Or .
'Brandt . Exh'ibit'11-and see if.you can identify it.
,, m :25 ; w L FEDERA.LECOURT REPORTERS
. . ^ ~
-MA%LAS, TEXAS'
.f 45274 1 'A. Yes, I1can.
r% 'V '2 Q. What is that. exhibit? 3 A. It's a non-conformance report prepared 4 by Ms. Stiner'on May:6th,11981, on a bus box on 5 the Unit 1 con't'ainment p61ar crane. { 6 Q. 'IsJthis the NCR that che alleges was 7 . improperly voided?. 8 A. Yes, it is. 9 Q. Have you reviewed the disposition of 10 that NCR? . 11 A. Yes, I have.
'9 12 Q. Do you have a judgment about whether it
{}
~
13 was properly dispositioned?
-14 -A. Yes, I do.
15 Q. What.is your judgment concerning the
~
16 disposition of that HCR? 17 A. -The way it was handled is proper. 18 , 'Q. Why is ~ 1t proper,'in your judgment? 19 A. The busibox-for the polar crane is not' 20 . safety related, it's'not seismic category two, and 21 'therefore it's clearly outside:of the scope of:the 22 Comanche. Peak-QA program.~ 23 -Q. It's-your understanding that's the
, - 24 reason it was~voidod; ~is that right?
25 A. 'Right.
~
[ FEDERAL COURTJREPORTERS V w. -. .. M, I
- e;- --
q "E ' ;Af # 5 [j' ~' s ;f' c
> .. ~ r +
,9 sr sy. ,_ ,
4 - J~ ' 45275 ., s. 1 7 _ Q .af Mr.. Brandti, what is the date.'of- the NCR _ y-rp ,. _ .n . Q, 7 ,,.
. , 2 on:theMpolar: crane-bus. box,that's beenfaarked-for-- ,i "g. " ,[' O f 3 identification'as.'Brandt' Exhib'it ll?
~
5 ~
. i y .
~ . .:
q i' It,i~sTdateM Mayj.6thn 1981.'
~
'_ ? A.'
.. 4 .
i s y .
. v ,c ; a
. . ,1 What was your' position at thatktime?
5- , 10 . 8 .y . .
- 6 '*P ,
'A ". ' I:2was working.as.an' advisor 7on?Mr.
+ ,y ~
.7 -
Tolson's-. staff.
- y., y
[8 ~~l 7 Q.,':And what-were-your. responsibilities"at
'. :(9 e
.that9 time?[ < .
J , A
'io -T :A.; Essentially a staff position,.'doing' s -
whatever was assigned by1Mr. Tolson. -
- c .
1.1 y-
'_ q. -
o> _ _12 s -
-Q. Who dispositioned this NCR7; ,,
"J
,c '
.g' : > .. ~
. '13 A.. ~ Bob Scott. .
a- - Do.you know Mr. Scott's pos'ltion at $ hat' i g . '14 Q.- ' i h.. m
. . !15 time? -
g p ' f= 16 ,
;A. He was the'non-ASME-Quality! Engine'ering 1
['- 7 17 ?Supervisork - y r- ,a _ E~ '), E18 / , Q. ~.Was he authorizedtto . ,,s disposition NCR's'?. , i p. f n 19 A'. Yes,'he~was. . fMr..-Brandt,;you3used the phrase " outs'ide
- .20 O.
, s . . .
21 the-scope of the QA program.,"
- J ~ -
22 3 What-does that mean, in layman's terms? .
? w .,
23 f A .- ,That means the installation-and
. . )
f-24 .procurementYof that_particular bus.boxf{is not a _ a mA4 L25 ';'safetyf,related. Item and therefore it.does not' fall s
- p, -
- f. 'i
. ~
1.m x . E
- FEDERAL COURT, REPORTERS:
- - +~
.mg ggmg :
k
/
145276
~
1 within'the' scope of 10 CPR 50, Appendix B { /~1 , V- 2 requirements.
- 43 Q. Now, did Ms. Stiner bring her allegatio~n ,
' ~
4 with respect to theJdisposition of-this'UCR=to 2 5 -your(astention while she,was employed at Comanche 6 Peak? 7 - A. 'No,;she did'not. 8 'HR.-DOWNEY: Applicant-moves Brandt Exhibit'll.be received.'in evidence.s
-9 10 (The document previously -
DL1 marked for identificationJas. 12 .Drandt' Exhibit 11 was received
- (3 , 13 in evidence.)-
14 Q. (BY MR. DOWNEY)' .Mr.- Brandt,.are you; . : 15 -' 1 familiar'with the' allegations made by Ms..Stiner.
~
; 16 regarding1the inspection of the diesel generator-17 . skids?' ,
=
18 A.- -Yes, Itam. ' 19 ! Q.. What's your understanding of that-20 allegation?
' ~
~
21 _
.A. Ms. Stiner.; alleged that she was .
22 improperly qu'alified for inspection on the diesel: 23 generator skid.
,.s
,24 Q. :And at what point did.this allegation
! 25 firatocome to your attention?
FEDERAL COURT' REPORTERS .
- DALLASo TEXAS
-r -r .u '
4
, .i- . >
9
# .J ,.
a g- +
~
1 A. It-was" included in Ms.-Stiner'.s original t R: > 2 testiimon'y filed 'in this' proceeding. = c
' ~
l? , l 3 Q.. That's1when you first learned:that she. 4 alleged-she.was not p'roperly. trained forJthese i L ~5 inspections; is that'right? ! 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q.- -Prion. to that time,'while.she was
~
8 employed /at Comanche Peak, did you'have reason to 7 ,
'9 . suspect that Ms. Stiner was not properly 10 conducting inspections-on the diesel generator .
11 skids?
~ 12 .5. Yes,;IHdid.
13 Q. When did that problem come to your {-
'14 attention?
15 A. While she was working onethe skids. I F > . . . 116 Q. Over whatEperiod of timo did'she work on- - 7 17 the' ski'ds? L 18 A.: ForLa period of~about 10 or 12 days-l .- , du ring th's -su:nme r .of 19 81
~
l 19
, w O' 20 (Recess).. - 'i 21 -
- MR. DOWNEY , Back on the-record.
12 2 Q. (BY MR. DOWNEY) Mr.'Brandt, before our
.23 break,_I recall you testified that.Ms. Stiner ,
t
~
. 24 , worked on the inspection of the.-diesel: skids for
- l. '25 .approximately a' week to 10 days; is that right?
- i. .-
FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS-
.= .
TMT6RASn_TEJAS t
n -- - _- .- . .- - 45278 l A. I'believe'I' said 10-days to two weeks,
<~g u ij ' 2 somewhere in'that n e i g hbo r ho o d . .- ^
34 Q. fM r . Brandt, your testimony was that Ms'.
'4 Stiner worked ~doing inspections on the diesel 5 .
generator. skids-for-10 days to two weeks; is that 6 right?. 7 A. To the best of my recollection, M r .- , 8 Downey,Iit's_in the neighborhood of 10 or 12 days.- 9 Q . . When did it come to your attention that-e 10 .there was some problem with.her. inspections of
'll -
this area? 12 A. I was getting daily status reports (~', 13 .because I was coordinating reinspections of the'
.(f .
~
14 _ skids and it was becoming evident'to-me, just from
. 15 , watching Ms. Stiner's reports, that she was having 16 an abnormal amount of' difficulty with the .
17 ' drawings. g
. 18 Q.- What action did you take,'in responsetto
.19 ^ ~ your observations about the problem she was J L20 .having? ,
~
21 A. I talk'e'd to-both Randy Smith'and Harry n 22 Williams about the issue. Mr. Smith told me that, 23 yes, my suspicions were true. Darlene was having
, 24 aniawful lotlof' trouble with.the. drawings. And I
( Y ~
~$ 25 ~ told-Mr.4 Williams that.if that was the case that
' ~
FEDERAL-COURT REPORTERS DALLA _S M E_XAS
- m. , * .
b 4: - 3 'g *. "(
.* WW J '
i .- ,
- e. .
.45279 r , ~ ], y_; *
^
'fi .
- 1 he-shou'1d'puli hor off of!it. ,
-u 3:a % b. - (2 , Q. -Do.~you know whether he.did pull 'h'er)off ?
(
~
+.
l3 of that insoection? , A' . MYes, h e ' d'i d . 2
'4 , - :
i5 -
- Q. :Did.he do soishortly a'fter;your- .
s
.6 . conversation with him? -
, s- _
17 ! A .' To-the best ofc my recollection, yes.. - 8 Q. Subsequent to. removing Ms.'Stiner from. 9 . the inspection of.the di'esel skids,-Swascher work:
'10_
reinspected?- e . N
~
Yes, i- >
~
. _ .11 +
A. it was{ 12 .Q. And to clarify the record, Mr. Brandt,' ,
-v(~') c13 you--wece a non-ASME: QA/QC supervisor at-the,timep- '
.14 is that right? ._
m '
.15 A._ No, I wa s 'no t .1 e <
4 +, .
~
w ' .16 .Q. . Wha't was your position?- ,
.m ,
o y u .i7 'A .- I was still.a'staffinss'istant-to Mr.- '1 18 - Tolson._
- 19 Q. _ Who was._herhaupervisor?. -
20 -A./ [Who was Ms.fStiner's supervisor at.'the 21 ' time?- ' I. J :22 A.- -HarryjWilliams. - ^ ,
~
23 ,
- 10. ~
Itwas Mr. Williams who directed her'--
~
~
1 24 reassigned her fromJthe' dies'el skids to some other. 40 ' 22 5
' area. Is that right?
3.' y d 9 i FEDERAL COURT R'EPORTERS- l{ TMTtNTSnTE XAS - zl
P -- M . :; -
,n.
; y
+
s u .-45280' Y r
~
;t .: .L g f ..
< 1 ;A.; Yes, he did, at-my request.-
.w A.s.' 2 Q . ;,. .Whatfwere'the results of the a 3 seinspections of_.Ms..Stiner'.s work? -
4
^
A. "Ma~.-Stiner's' work was reinspected ~after-u ~ 5 repairs-had occurred,.:ifnrequire'd. Whether her ,.
-s- ~
, ,y .6 " inspections were a~ccurate or.. inaccurate is-hard'to
, 7 say'at'this. point. .
.8 : Q. But all of the items-and attribut'es she
~
n _ inspecte'd were subsequent}y reinspectedr.is that
- 9
, . . 3 <
-10 right?-
p L< ;11 A.. Ye s~, they.were. . l: ,, . 12 . Q. Mr. Brandt, are youjaware of.Ms. u-Q 13 Stiner's.new.~all'egation,regarding the use of.. weld i
- , 14 symbols on particular welds, s o n d o o r s - t h a t'.. s h'e -
~
~
15 2 inspecte'd11n4thelfab shop?'
.o
_.7 ,16 A. Yes,HI"am. < J . J' .
.a -
- e. '17 :Q.' WhatJia yo.ur understanding.offthatt m
18 7 allegation? - 19 A. Ms.iStiner.was concerned about;some..of 20 7' t h'a- m i s s i l e s h i e l d s d o o r s .. She felt that.a' welding
. . . 4 21 isymbol.on the; drawing.swas ' inaccurate. Thasfact
+ r
* ;I <
. :22 -that lit Jindicated a ~ single ' bevel . groov'ewdhd,
_s 3 ., y 23 welded on both sides. In' addition, she felt That- N' f .
?- ~ 24 fthere;should'b'ejal symbol indicating ^a^ fillet-weld f~s
. +
.25 :on' e'ach: and?of: allug.
s > 7, - . g p / n Y -
! FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
-ay.
..-- n
.; ; 7pgz,393 7 ggggg . ,, _ ,_
- 45281-
~
~
. 'l Q. : And when did this allegation first come
- r'~i '
- .'s_f :2 to-your..' attention?
,' 3 'A. -The allegation-first came'to(my.
attentionsin preparation.for this deposiNion. 4 - I
~
L5. - was ' familiar with the-inc'ident, but I ~did not know ; 6 .that the inspector involved was Darlene Stiner. 7 Q.. How did you know about'theDincident? . , l8 A. Randy Smith raised the question-with me 9 iat,the, time.it. arose. 10 -Q. And what did Mr. Smith report to you?-
~11 A. .M r . Smith told me that;an inspector had 12 a problem with a weld symbol, described the 113 situation,--drew a picture of the configuration'on'
]) .
.14 the bo'ard, and asked my opin' ion'on th'e correctness
./ 15 of the weld' symbol.
I 16 Q. And what-was your-judgment about thel b-17 1 correctness of.the. weld symbol?
~
'i B A. In'my-opinion, then and now, the. weld -
'119 symbol was. adequate.
W 20 Q .; And what's the basis for'yourdjudgment. !' 21 thatLthe weld symbol was correct? 22 'A . "AWS D1.1-1975' requires that measures ~be'- ~ l [ '23 ~ taken x to assure that' groove welds are filled to: L . . . y 724 the fullscross_section of a weld. It. permits the
-25 'us'e of run_off tabs when necessary. However, in a
+
JPEDERAL COURT' REPORTERS 2 ' lifMWX%_jRRWVS _. < _
.+ , ,
~
- . ~ . . . .
^4
~
g
, .x~ ,-
i -
~
, c 45282 4 J . ,, '"
/y 1 . this-case,- the run off tab was';- -the use of a'run m , , _
.;~v v
i
- (y ,
s 2 _ off tab.was impossible'and .
,they had wrapped the'- . #: ^ . . . - ,
- f. V -
-3 weld around th ,e endiof the'iug'to achieve the full'
;4 cross' sectional thickness'of the wald.
[ 5 ' (Of f ' th'e lr eco rd . ) , 6 Q.; "(BY;MR.-DOWNEY) ;Mr. Brandt,Lyou ,
~
*- l,testifie'd, as I'recail,.before our_ break,: that you
- 17"
~
8 . resolved this-prob 1Em. involving the' fab shop d'oor' -
+
9 . by. reference to AWS D'-1.1-1975; is"that correct?r -
~
.10 A. ~ Yes, I di'd.-
11 - Q. What specific provision',.within that -- is that:a' regulation or'a procedure? 12 A. AWS? '
}} .
' , + 13 .
Yes., ',' 7 l
~14 Q. -
' 15 Iti's, the American- Weld Society. Code for-
.A. _
t . 16 1 structural welding,1which :is -referenced. by both "1 u
-17 ;tihe ' ComancheE Peak FSAR and theisite'-specific ^
v-I
, -18 .
specification.. o.
~
7 4 . ,T ,7* .
;- 19 '
LQ.- 'And what particular?provi"sionEwithin AWS s - a f[
'2O Laotyou use-i'n resolving this issue?! -
n -
~
3 . .. . 21 > _A.- TUnde r 14. 6', which :fia t i t'l e d, g r o o v e~ w e'i d ~ > 22 termination. It~ states.that' groove.weldsnshal1<b,e ,
- 4. 5 J"
N ,'N ' 2 '3 terminate'd at-the'edds_of a joint.infa manner that'
" ~
i .
- . T 324 i vill ensure sound welds; Whenever possible, this-- .
L h~
'25 ': ahallibe done by the use of extension bars or run 4 -
es . 4 i _g , 7, <
, w
, FEDERAL COURT P.EPORTERS.-
O ' _L "mgg;gargy3 , -
~
. . + _
.=- ; ,
7
% ~ ;-. . ; * ,[Q- + i' k . , ~! , ,.
. s
[.._ ^
'7 ;- y 4-
,w ,
. 45283
- 3. , .,
of f, platie s V ' " c , g +: _
- 1. ~ ,1
([ a; * ( -2 . a pf Q .; - Mr. ;Brandti,' I wouldilike youc to: review J- > y . ; ,
-3 :- strikeithat. .
e
* !4 ; " ~ MR. DOWNEY i. I I.would.likeothe court:
~
.' 3 - ,
'm.
, ,, 5 reporter to mark-atcopy of the page from AWS code n
m ;,;_ L6 -fromiwhich youiread-as:Brandt-Exhibit 12'.[ ' } '
", ) .. . -y
. 7 (Deposition Exhibit No. 12 >
~
8 was marked for^1d'ent'ification. I y ^ 9 Q. .(BY'MR. DOWNEY)' So:what was'your. L - 10 ? specific response-to1Mr.. Smith when he brought you. .
^
_i: ..11 his9 problem? J - 1 L % . [12 - A. I told him it wasn't.a problem. I? w , 13 didn't have any problem with'it,jthat if~need:be-I .
+
e m -14 would goiperform the. inspection'and;I wouldfeign- - - - s . . ..: .
.. , v.
+ 15 .thejinspection' report. I explained to him~why I- i 116 ithoughtEit waan't.a; problem. .
Additionilly,;I[ crik~tei$ found tdat the lugs were not safety -relatedi
- f s ,
- 17 3; . .
r: J 18
~
-as i~s cle'arlyJindicated on.the drawing. S "
~
Would it !have :been~ proper for fyou r to
~
19 " _Q .. .
'20 -
have done-the11nspectionsand. signed.the?IR?;
.e t
, ~
121 . A '. Yes. . [i:a < F , y .
' ~
E ' Why,oin you'r: judgment,.wouldFit have ? L22 .Q.- ' c -r
>- s u .
y.s ,23 been proper:for,yo.u to have performed the ~
~ '
24 in'spection?- 7. lok; yx., , - 25
.A.:
~Because I am now, 'and was then, ,
.. h - ' ,
y
~
3> : .. -
.o , FEDERAL' COURT, REPORTERS i ,
s au 3 -
m- . g . -. - e .
'45284
. Y i
') s _
l1 *
'certifiedDas,a' Level--III Inspector.
p, ,
, /, y .
' L) - 2 . Q .4 - nME.Brandt, '.I refer;you to Brandt
. g ' ,
- 3 . Exhibit-13 and ask you-if.you-can identify that? _ 24 s' ' (Deposition' Exhibit-No. 13' I* 5 was marked for identification. )
' A '. a ' Y'e s , I can. '
~
,. .6 (It's a. drawing for a typicalL type missile door, tornado missile barrier
,.,- 7 4
8 doors. These doors are for~the Etast opening of - 3
?9 the dihael generator building. The-door. is
-e ,
-10 depicted o'n this drawing. f
' ~
l'l Q. Is Brandt Exhibit 13 is drawing of the yf 12 doors where:the weld symb'ol'. problem arose? f
, 13 A.. It's.eitherothese doors or doors =like
- ]. '
14 them, yes', though I don't~ recall exactly-which l 15 . doors ~were referenced. All the doors havellifting
'16 lugs on them.-
17 Q. What is it'. tihat' indicates this is a . 18 non-Q-item? 11 9 JA. There is a note -- - 20 Q. A note on:the drawing itself?
. 21 A. In Section B-B, at the bottom..of the 22 -drawing, that refers to the. material as inch
' ~
- 23 and-a-half plate. In parenthesis.it says, A588.
24 And then it's marked underneath NNS, which is L); -
-25 non-nuclear safety-related.
7
' FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
.NEXOS
45285 l 1 Q. So were these inspections outside the QA ()' 2 function at Comanche Peak? 3 'A. We perform inspections on the welding of 4 these non-Q items'as they are welded to a safety I 5 related item. The door itself is safety related. l - l I 6 The reason we inspect the welding is to ensure I - l 7 that no damage has occurred in the welding process 8 to the door assembly itself. 9 Q. Was the weld symbol part of that l
- j. 10 inspection?
11 A. The weld symbol indicates the type weld 12 that should be used to attach these lifting lugs {} 13 to the door. As I stated earlier, it's a single 14 bevel groove weld, wolded on both sides of the 15 lug. 16 Q. Mr. Brandt, would you circle -- on i 17 Drandt Exhibit 13 -- the location of the lugs en 18 the drawing? 19 A. On this drawing, there are 12 lugs 20 depicted. (Witness complies). 21 Q. When did you learn that this problem, 22 involving the weld symbolr, was a problem raised 23 by Ms. Stiner? 24 A. In preparation for this deposition. 25 Q. Did Ms. Stiner write an NCR with respect FEDSRAL COURT REPORTERS D A L L A S g___T E X A S ________ __ ___ _ _ _
___.s. _ _ . , _
~ ' '
r ,, , n f . ., j -
. n. , , ,
g .. 4 - , 4 45286
- . <y '
1 to this. matter? ,
^ -
^
- 0. 2 2 A. ; - noe-ehae-we can find. ,
UN_ .
, (3 Q.; Would you be."able'to.. find an NCR'h'ad she w
[4 ~
- written one?
, [, . 1 0 - Had she obtained a" number for an'NCR,
~
5 At - -
~
yes, we would be able.to' find the NCR.'
~ '
z . m 6
/7 Mr. Brandt,-IlhaveLone additional
~
Q. ,
.8 question for you'on thisLissue'.
. .i 9 ,
= How wouldethe problem of the. weld
+
. 10 _symbolo raised by Ms. -Stiner' relate to the[isafety
<11 ' attributes being inspected with. respect'to these 12 doors?- , . ,
^
' Do"youiunderstand my. question?'
~
g 13 i
. ~ LetI, me try to -answer that question two'
,14 A.
~ ~
~
l 15 ' ways. The weldsTwore' required to'b.e inspected by 7 16 procedure. The welds:'were required;to be- ;
. ,a
-17 - inspected--usingethe same acceptance criteria as' .i
^
- 18 '
anyr welding saf ety relatied.-structural welding that , ,
, 19 would-occur at. Comanche: Peak.." ,~
+ i
- -. [ 12 0 ,
However,~1n the: event that-theseslugs- . , [ ;21 . ~had beenLimproperly.A31ded - t.for'that mather, if-
^
12 2 the[1ugs.would!have even fallen off, it;would have ~
~
u.. - a- 23 prosented.no safety-concerni as the lugs-are used
. , _ c -
4 (- #,
. . y ,,
"s. 1 : 24 only-sasClifting lugs to; mount and dismount the 10:, J , .
^
25
~
doors. -In normal operation, the-doors were a
~2 u '
'p-s
~
< FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS ,
e > m t foVNUJAMA _9PFM\M _- .
n , ;- ,.
= = ,. - ,
' h::: '. e,n
+ >- r, u
%^ t e
y d.
.Q;; ,
,+ , -
D' 'V ;.c ' - p p p's. .,, j , ,
,1 ,
.45287? " '
;p r .) .. ,
as .j
' i .
>" J -. , :*'., '
~
1 closed. - r a.h.; ~.s l
^
'2 .' ',Q. ' Are you - f amiliar with Ms. : Stiner 's -
( , m s+
,,a x ~.
9, 73 , ,4 J s3 E ,, ra llegationiconcerning an NCR that she wroteEon- - a &
. N -
4 .'j pi^p e , suppo r t hanger welds? y , E5' % I '
.,; 'A.. Yes..
e. w . i
- ,- (6 ,' , Q .- What is your understanding of_that -
m , -
, , , c
~.
^
E7 C. ..a l l e g a t i o n ? g n . - A S t i n' e r:: c'l' a i m s: that she wrote-an NCR- .. a ~8 -. i . A.. - . H s'. '
~
7 g y - ! " fg 9 y onisome, weave. welding _that_was occurring _'on a- '
"_ w: - 10 1 particular t hitnger. Wo.;.; searched for.anTHCRicn this 3
,4 es e 4 - c, i . . u_- > Furth;er,;we, produced 11
~
( ' hanger._iNo NCR.was.' written. t ~ ~
, 112 an inspection,l report signed by3Darlene Stiner; -
j
, e j N13 7 "herself,_ earlier inItheselproce'edings,,which' s+
')
,. .. ~: 4 W ,. f.,t,,- 14 -3 - aindicated that she had. inspected:and~ accepted 1the j y -
- 7 - ..?l5 ;Evelds,'that she had notlwritten-anLNCRon them.; ,
/+' 16
Q. And.when did"thi'sm allegation firati1 come:
s
-y9 .,
', i .2 7 11 7 tolyotir/ attention? * ' >
,9 -
s l18 'A P A Early:1984'or11 ate'l983. f-: 5 r* ( .
~'.
i- , 4 m;;19 ..Q: , This . .- , was--after Ms.?stiner;left,theJsite?:
- J
. 2 , OW20 L-(g - At Yes, it was.
.; ; ~
~
?.
,2
. ;21 ,
Q., Mr. Brandt, arelyou familiar /Lwith ther ,,.
+ ,
[ .j.__ w lf \ N
; allegation-made=by,Ms. Stinerothat ,two1 women at: '
~
f,Vlg. 122 ,. + 9 V .. .._ , 1I
# :e La,e n- ,? 2 3
$the.siterthreatened;to beat;her upsbecause!she 3 4 .
e
! .. .,4 - .. t . .,
W.
^
'.6testifiedfat1theiASLBfproceeding?
- j. i 17Jx- S :-QM24 u& >
~ ,
, f
- y. . ~ .
, -- a e
~ ~
;f 3 25
, . AV : Te s', T ; am. - ; '
o ; - 4
- @ y , .
-+v ,- ;w, " t .
t m g'4 . . i O gg ^
, { FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS ,
, 06 ~
-n f
6
i 45280 l l 1 Q. When did you become aware of that l ' l K- 2 al-legation? l l 3 A. In the proceedings itself. l ' l 4 O. Do you know the identity of the two l l 5 women that she.-- l 6 A .- Yes, I do. 7 Q. Who'are those women? 8 A. Two women by the name of Leslie Sanchez. 9 and Phyllis May, M-A-Y. 10 0 What action did you take in response to 11 this allegation?
? 2i A. ILcalled both Ms. May and Ms. Sanchez 'l 13 into my offico and asked them if there was any \;
14 truth to the allegation. - 15 Q. What did they say? 1G A. They.said, no, there was not. 17 Q. How long havo you known Ms. May and Ms. 18 Sanchez? Let's start with Ms. May. How long have 19 you known her? 20 A. Two and-a-half years, approximately two 21 and-a-half years.
~22 Q. And approximately how long hau you known 23 her at.the time of this conversation?
24 A. A year. Close to a year.
~
25 Q. How long have you known Ms. Sanchez?- FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS DALLAS,__ TEXAS
y 3- - r - ,r. , .r - - g , , .
. . y, -.
'?' , g.:
^
45289
* ,;,g 4A . , a2I, A. ApproximatelyLtwo-and-a-half years.' -:
t s .. . 4;g - -
.jQ , '
c2 . 1+
-Q. 'How-long had you known her at the' time:
va
~3 of this conversation? !
l 4 A. (About'a year. -
-AndLhaving' heard'Ms. May-_and Ms.
35 Q. '
' ~
6 - Sanchez,ndid you' form:a/ judgment-about~the f7 a'c c u r a c.,y :; o f,l M s . . S t i n o r ' s r e p o r t about the'ir- , i/. T - 4 ( -8 . threatenin'g her?'
' ~ ~
- -[ 9 A. Yes, I did.
- R +
11'O
'Q. What.fwas your judgme'nt?
- 11 A. I.. thought it was fabrication..
I 12 'Q. Anb whatiledLyou1to that conclusion?
., 7 -
Q'&' , 11 3 , A. Neither of the two.". women appeared to be m., 1- .14 a-violentftype, particularly Ms. May. Phyllis'May s il5 7 1s one;of'the easiest-going: people I know, and u
+
16 ' Leslie Sanchez -is much :the same.- _ g ,
, ~
g :17 . l4 .They have categorically deniidithat f ' 18 =anything happened,.: thati they ha'd threatened. Mrs. _
- + ,
. ,[ (19 <
Stiner,land I believed them.. . a
- m. -
}And yoM were sat'isified with)the
+: ! -20 Qi h S.[ '21 .coriclusion --
..i:
l, 4
^
. l22 (A. 'I was' satisfied 'thac; neith~er aof these v , A . . . ,
, .' ". 2 3 : women pos'adlany; threat'to:Ms.:Stiner. -
- g. - >
f - . '24
- Q .7 Did youitake any.further-action after.
, Q, .: 9 , 4 -
' 25
-- these? interviews?:
/ .
+
T , f
~
4 , . a , . _ s FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
~ '
D A LLihS , TEXAS
m 4
, . . 4 %, .
F (
~
4.. 45290 i . , r . 'l A. No, I did not. , Mr.-Brandt,.I would'Ilike you to review a
~
K_) -^
-2 ,
Q. ,
~
'3 document:that has been, marked for identificatio'n 7
4 asi Brandt Exhibit 14. 5 (Deposition Exhibit No. 14 6 was' marked for' identification. 1
'7 Q. (BY MR. DOWNEY) I;ask if you can ,
8 : identify:this? - 9 A. Yes, I can.
-10 Q. What is Brandt Exhibit 147
~
11 'A . .It's testimony prepared by myself for 12 this deposition. . ('T 13 Q. Is the testimony, the written. test'imony~ r/
-14 provided in Brandt Exhibit 14,-true and accurate, 15 to the best of your knowledge and belief? -
i t 16 A. Yes, it is. 17 Q. 'And you-adopt that testimony.as your 11 8 own,.as if it were given orally at depooltion? 19 .A.- Let's go offEthe; record a second. 20 .(Discussion off the reco'd.) r 21 THE WITNESS: Back on the record. 22
~
Q. .( BY MR. DOWNEY) Mr. Brandt, during the'
'23 short recess, you directed my attention to Page: 6 24 ~of-the prefiled, testimony; that is, of Brandt uh.
. + .
-25 'ExhibitLl4, where the word "new" is struck from 4
i
't
, PEDERAL COURT REPORTERS-
- u. ., -. -
';s-
.. ~.. . . - - . . . - -
, . - . . / ' _' ~
-i __
'T + ,
- ~
4 . t ,,
, , ,c . ~~45291 t
- ,-a.
; , .y
* ? '" - L1 -
.the1 sixth line of.your7 answer to Question 8. .
- [.; J2 Is that<an--editorial. change that-you
- 3. t Je
'ip , + [ Imade in the draft? '
;;; _ o . 1.3 _
yw ~ - A. Yes,titLis. f m , l 5 _
.Q. And it should read without the word j
'"new" in ' t'h'at line; fis that:, correct?
6
, , . s 4
; 7 ,
A. :It should reads "The' NRC branch technical position, " y e s , 1 s'i r .
~
dd 2 , 8 - i i. E'
- 9
y O. -Would you please' initial above the
-ji ; .
N V- e ;10 ' Leditorial change? ,
. - ' $11 '
A.- (Witness complies). 4
, ., .a ' 12 ~Q. Withsthat change, do you? adopt this:
Y- . _J'. ^ c [v , ' M - i'
]f 1 ' '13 +
Brandt Exhibit 14 testimony as your own?. 14 :A. Yes,zI do. w ;; . ' 2 k; :15 , .Q. Mr.-Brandt,1 were youla'witnessjte.an
^
; w --
, 16 . incident where"Mr.,Tolson'had'a discussion with -
^
~certain-QA auditorsiin the QA audit office-about! '
-.117 J
- ;. ( -f y.
J18 4 the way'they1.were conducting.their' audit?- jf'.3~ 01 . , _ _ ,. p ; , ,19 A .1 Yes, I:was.. .
.(
i Y 2'O Q.. -What were the circumstances, i f. y.o u . s . .
.g lJ21 know,'that led to that meeting? f
,m, .
~ .-
.I caused the me.eting to(take place.- Ths; 4 A.-
-m 1
. :22 ,
s V Y- ]23 LauditorsiNere doing anfaudit on, - t$ tihe bes t of 'my ~ 24 - recollection, Class-V supports.- The< auditors hadi ~ [$ s -
, y
- s.f . .
~
-25 .foundja weld on a particular Class V support which'
.,e - s 4 1 .
m n, n 1 :q - y'n , t .' '
. 6,
<f,,
A , . .' . W s FEDERAL / COURT: REPORTERS
. D A L_L A S n . T E X A S #
i;
y .-
;;y
, x; '
,', ' z^ , ,
=
.45291
;Q n.
' ; -7 .
~
- xj.7 ' -1 .
jthey felt ~to beRin qusition. 'As Lit jus't so -
... . c co ;2 happened, tho' package-for thatcparticular: support
' u.3- -. -
[ , .j 3 was laying on,my-desk for a reason that I cannot' 4 now. recall,.and a representative'of the ~ L5 / construction 1 department.came in#to-get: the package. 6 7 Lao they could! write an IIRN. i L :Q. Wha't is un IIRN?
~8 + A. =Anxinspected item removal notiba, to o
~
9 ' remove the package back from-the vault. , a ,
- (10 I asked them'at that~ point why the; weld' yo '
( V;. , 11 was.beingsrepai~ red, as'it-had.-been. completed and w .- ,
. 12 G-- .a'ccepte'd once by QC and they told me that tho'
[ Q i. 2 13 l auditors had directed them that the weld was i v. ~
<. I14 ' deficient, and.rather than.cause much to'donabout; u-- , . , .
+
21 5 Li t, they were just going to go fix it.
- 16 . I told the craf ts person ' tihat- was in mp T
4 , y , 17 offico that he needn't do that, that he should'
, 18 void thefIIRN, if it was written, and that I::would -
'19 resolve the:. problem with the - auditors.
r .26[ Q. fDo ~ yo u r e csi l ti.ia e,w2h.au N aaw. 7 :
, s .
'21 A .- 'No, I' don't.- ,
+ .i ,
What did"you-do in r1Jponse to what t tihe - 22 Q.
, +
" ~
c: 23 crafto. person had told you? ,
. ,w;
~
,f 24 A'. ' Ati: that point , I went to Mr. Tolson's-p.
, 1 J25 t
office,-.said, "We-have a. problem.
\
The auditors s, '4
'L .
, - s ..
FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS: E' *,*'3^.a_ * ' DAL%AS, TEXAS-
y,,-= i ;t - 45293' I are directingitse. craft, making decisions that-4.,_f, , 2 :) they are not really qualified to make." I then 3 explained what~the craftsmen had told me and Mr.
4 Tolson said,"Let's go find the team leader."
5 .Q. What did you understand to have occurred L: '6 in the field that you: thought was-troublesome? f' 7 , A. . Well, the auditors were essentially 8 . directing construction activities. 9 Q. That was your understanding? ,
-10 A.- That was my understanding of what had 11 . happened. That's not an auditor's function. It
.12 causes mass confusion when things like that occur.
e j^) - , cl 3 Q. What is yours understanding _of the' proper 9- ..
'14 way forta QA auditor _to report a deficiency he
, 15 . perceives.when he's in the~ field? 16 A. Actually, there's'two options. The.
~
17 auditor could either write a non-conformance
^
18 report or; identify it as.an audit finding in.the L 19 audit report. 20 Q. 15m'sorry for interrupting =you, Mr. 21 .Brandt.. 22 Mr. Tolson and you. discussed-this matter E 23 with-the auditors;.is thatiright? 4y. , 24 A. Yes, we'did. -We walked from his offi'ce' V . . . .
. '25 .to the audito'r's office.
FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS -
> - 'N DALLASj: TEXAS
--- - ,~~ - - ~
m m &- -
?~ '~
~
.p l s. t
~
> _ , B' -
, .y -
S ahi 4
* '~
45294 ' V d ' r u l1 . 7Q. = - How1 f ar is-a that?
. p ;_, ,
,d l ., l2 .A. 20 yards down the-hall. , .
,;y
,, f -
.c a x sand what' happened'when you arrived at
~
'Q.-
?
,3 s _
~
the auditor's office?
~
J
, > 4 .
;5 .-* A,. We' walked in, . and Mr. Tolson ,
- + '
~
-6 -asked, "Wh'o's the'.. team leader?? _T h e r e w e r e 7 t'w o- ' ., ,
,f'.
g ,
~Both offthem
~
7 s ;7 (auditor's 1n the oofficeat the5 time.-
~
, E; x ..
, -8 raised their hand. .I can understand Mr. Tolson .
ea -
+ 9 'having ajhard time with that,tand'I~ informed *him
^
E . ?l0 -
-who I: understood the correct 'tieam. leader. to be. '
- Who?was'that?
- jl1 Q. , ' ;
^
~
12 .
, A. Mr. Larry.Rillera, R-I-L-L-E-R-A.. s
=
'~ 113 ~~Q.- Who was-the otherJauditor present? w L 14
^
A. Ron Co'te. z
,['
- 15 , Q. -What:happene'd after'yo'uLinitiated.thisl -
# .. . . . . . , . . - .e ,
- 16 conversation'with..the_' auditors, or'Mr. Tolson.
g W 2 r
~17 iiniti'ated it?'
f? .-
# ~
p 18 . 4 /A. - Mr. Cote,7who was standing closest'to 3
# s
~
.6 4 19 me,' stood up, andlin a-boisterous way,7 for 1ack'of'
(.
- 12 0 a better phrasef, proceededito.(haveoa rather he'ated~
L
?21 discussion..with: Mr. Tolson. _m >
s
' ' ?
l < . .. , b , 22 Mr. Tolson tried to' explain to the.twol 23 'o'f them-that he and'.Mr. VegaIhad an~ agreement for ,, 24 ~ i y.e a rs Mtha t' if th'ay.had. hardware prob 1' ems 4in the-q= !?
+
- 25 .l field,.they wo'uldfidentify it-lto the site'-
?.N ,C a- -
n _ l' ,
= FEDERAL COURT':' REPORTERS ,
m
~
b .
a h . ., 3
-45295 -
' ~
; '1 ? organization. The site organization would handle
; ,m . ~ ,
U ,- , 2 the; resolution of the hardware problem.- 3 Q.- When you say identify to.the site 4 ' organization, yousarex ceferring to the-QA/QC
- :S on-site' group;.is-.that right? >
G A.: That's right. - E
-ei.
s , 7 'Q..
- And Mr. Tolson headed that group:at the ,
18 time?. 9 A. Yes, he did. - W 10 Q. 'When you say identify it to.theisite ~' 11 ~ group,-do you mean identify by; writing.an NCR or, L 12 including it as an audit finding?- fl, - 13 . A '. Yes, I do. Sometimes_the we were given
- ys r
-14 preliminary notice oftwhat the' audit findings'were
- 15 to-be. But the-point-that'Mr. Tolson was trying 16 ;to make was7that.any interface with the craft ~ _.
17 should be'through the site organization.- ,. i' 18 Q. How long did this meeting last?' l'9 A. About five minutes. i - 20 l- O. Did anyone~else enter the~ meeting l 1 '21 besides the four of'you?
~
, 22 .A. Y e's . - Debra Anderson walked in.Tduring 23 -theLmeeting. .
24 Q. .Hr.-Brandt, in response to que'ations put
-.O:
- 25 :to:you bysMr. Roisman during;your-cross n -
4 FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS .
~
' D A L L A S ,' TRXAS
45296 o
, 1 examination,.you' testified about an incident es 4-) 2 linvolving' Hike Foote. Do you recall that?
3 A.. Yes,JI do.
- 4 _
Q. What le'd to;that situation? What
-5 information1came to your attention invol'ving Mr.
. 6 ~Foote?. ,
J j7 A. I assume you're talking about.the 8 situation between Mr. Footo and the night shift 9 . superintendent?j f
'10 .
Q. Yes,-I am.
'll A.-.
EI' received a copy of the letter that the l' 2 nightTshift superintendent had written to the ( f~ 11 3 gederal. civil-superintendent, esse'ntially
<s.-}s~ ~
e 14 ; questioning Mr.tFoote's superviso'ry-abilities and
~
- s. ,
15 questioning his certification to make insp~ection y- ,
'16 decisions'in.the protective-coatings area.-
', 17 'f, 0 What action _did you'take-upon~ receiving 18 'this menorandum? s
,19 i Ak I communicated with Mr., Billy Ward,. the-20 general superintendent to whom the letter had been a
, 21
- written. :I told him I-had a problem with the '
~ T22 (letterand:that he and-I and Mr. Sandlin, who was 23 the author.of the letter, and Mr. Foote needed to
,24 sit down and work out whatever there was to work
~
25 out. I established that we wauld meet in my 4
;c
" FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
f
}l Q -f,,
~ '
v .} . y- [;, t. . .\.
,- - ~~ mf s %,'-
\j_, "
45297 , .n ,
..,; y
- a
.2 -
}
1 il Gofficeeat~5t00Jo' clock that! day. 4 ypQ : . ' + -
~
f,A _ , ,. 7, 72 -
~_ !Q'. o oThis was;the dayjfollo, wing the receipt
~
, ap,\~ 1..3 of~this letter; i sL 't h a t r i'g u t ?-
i .-q' e w #
/4 'A. And the;l'atter~wa'anwritten1_on night -
k
, :5 . shift'. I receivediit the next morning. '?he '
'I 6 meetingstook place'the samelday'that I received - - -
r
-7 .
th'a l'atter. , Gs n
-8 *Q. ;What-wa's the'substanco:of. the' discussion "
(
~ ~
9 ; at this meeting? ",
- A .; informed Mr. Ward that, Number
, 10 'I 1,. >
11 avaluatin'g'Mr. Foote'afaupervisory abilities was 12
-" - " my' _ responsibility, . no t . his , or anyfofthis ;
{ ,
-13 7
; people's. And,that' secondly, Mr. Foote~was l'4 certified'as aLLevel III/ civil.finspector, which
. included = protective coatings.
15 .That his 16 certification was in the~. vault for: review.when di m 17 any body i needed . to review it. A n d t h a Y e s s e n c i1irl-l y-
- s
. l'8 .Mr..Foote's' inspection decisions'as a-Level III 5# ,
19 were valid. ThatLhe needn't: concern himself
~
.20 ,
'further' with it.
also toldIhim that I perceived the { 7' - ' + 2 'l - 3- .I g_ - . 22 . letter writing episode as?kindLof a mud ali'nging 23 repisodeiat QC, and that.'if he' wished to continue yg -
! 24 thenlotter' writing. episode, letter writing contest
- h.
25 IJbelieve is,what-I told him,-..I'dfbe glad to get-w_ a
.4
' FEDERAL:' COURT' REPORTERS 4 , _
6
~
. p. ,
', g.
45298' ( ' 1 finto the-contest at~any time if 'lue wis he d . But I-
,79 a '
(,/ ~ , ,
< 2 thought communications between us or his people
- 3 andimy people could'be more effectively handled 7; .
4 than by writing nasty letters backDand forth.
,. 5 Q. What.was the approyimate date of this 6 incident?-
Fallil'983..
~
7 A. I bel'ieve it'Was in October.
- 1. - ,
8 Q. Mr.-Brandt, did you discuss-the
^
9 resolution ofjthe matter concerning the letter
- 10 with Mr'. Foote?-
'll -
A. >Ye s . - Mr. Foote-wasJsitting in the.
~
12 - meeting f~) 13 Q. . ;Did you have any subsequent conversation v l'4 with him about the resolution of the matter?.
'15 A. Just in idle talk.- Mr.:Foote and I are-16 ' personal friends.
Do you have~any rea' son'to believe that' 17 Q.
, 18 :he was dissatisfied with the resolution?
19 A. Absolutely not.- 20 Q. 'Do you have any. reason _to think-he was, 21
~
s happ'y with :the resolution?'
.[ "' > 22 A. He thought it was a vot'e of confidence I
23 on'my'part.on his performance. 24 , Q. Hr. Brandt, d o y o u r e c a l l' a former Brown
.25 & hoot employue ncmed Robert Hamilton?
PEDERAL COURT' REPORTERS
- r DALLASn-TEXAS _
_ . , - m. .. . -- -, . - --- . .- , .. . ~
, . ?l
'i ' e , #." b
' ~
b' '
,f' -
e t - j ~ ic . 45299
, ~
. - 1 .
"f. t Y e s ,'-'I ' d o . - i
~ ;fy
,M m 2 20.- .Do you recal'1f a colleague ofhis, Joe
,. e .
- 3 K r o'l a k ?'s - .
l4 x
,- 1A .' (Yes. .
. 5 : - Q. And another colleague, Mr."Shelton?' :
+ ^ ~e-6
.o A.- She.rman'Shelton. Yes.
e , e 5 , c7 < -
.- Q . - While they were employedgat. Comanche- ;
Peaki didlany-of those~i'antlemen,ever. raise any.
~
8 g . 4 9 ' safety concerns.with.you? ,
~.
4 1 10 A.J Safety'with the plant?
'~
n ,_.
.Yes.
7.; ., 1-1 .
'Q . -
[ 12
'A. No'.
~
'afY . --l13 -
Q. -Did any cf.those' gentlemen complain to j(%Ji r . , 14 lyou' abo'ut-harassment ^or.intimidor,ica on theLjob v , .
; 115 'while they were'emplo'yed at Colunche~ Peak? .
. 16 A. ~ No. . ,
. , m -
^
7 17 _ 'Q . - 'Did they raise, any problems wit.hiyou 4 s s ,' 'o ' ' 18 'concerning.their job? ~
~
~
r ,
, 19 ;A. Mr. Krol'ak and'Mr. Shelton did not butI '
'< , c , c .., . T20 , , had-many conversations with.Mr. Hamilton on a'cwide' Yc 3 ~
- 21 # range'of. subjects. ILremember specifically -
. - .e ^
t .
--s. "22 talking'to Mr. HamiltonJabout-the procedures when >
2I;,was'r'ewriting thim.inilate 1981.
"23
~ . .
p24 -
-Q. Did Mr.. Hamilton-make suggestions about
,3,, 3y . . ,
' kyk '
" Ithe: procedures?-
.!2.5 y y '
~ -
,.g l[ q.,' ,
.g-
- t
, + . +
+{. I' , e.
.FEDERALJCOURTLREPORTERS-
, - g
s 71, ,
?' 2-r . _ , .
v : -- . _ , _, . . . 45300- - e- -
-. - s
, . .4 1 A. Yes.. Hs; told me about;some prob 1' ems he.
9 y -: . ' A.f .2 perceived'.with the procedure and! offered some
-3 . suggestions for improvosent.
s .
~
4 ~Q '. Did.you consider these conversations 5 about thn procedures constructive? <
, j5 ,
A ., Some of them. s -
- _7 2 Q., Did you adopt some of his suggestions?:
8 _ A. Yes, I did. 9 O. Were_these discussions with Mr. Hamilton 10 ' acrimonious in any way? 11 A. Absolutely not. 12 - Q.. Did Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Shelton, or Mr. Krolak pf 'i or to the day of their termination,;
~
13 (]>
- s. ,
14 raise anyLanfety concernsnabout-the safety;of the 15 . workers.atLthe plant? l16 A. Not that I' recall -- and not with me. f ' 17 0. Do'you have any reason ~to-believe that
. 18 cMr. HamiltonRwas a more' rigorous inspector than 19 . hic colleagues?
20 A.- No, I' don't.
~
21 Q. Do.you have any reason'to believe that s 22 11r.-Krolak or'Mr'. Shelton: were more-rigorous 23 inspectors _than their colleagues?
,4 :24 A >. , , No , 'I don't.
(
)
25 Did you ever; receive any complaints Q. FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
'DA%&DS,' TEXAS
- r. _ - .,
ff ' 45301
; . 1 aboutiany1of'those three inspectors being overly-i
-k -.-
/"./
y_ , L2 zealous in the'ir inspections?
. t
'3 '
A.. I know';that one member of. the craft 4 ,
.didn't particularly-like Mr. Hamilton, but I don't
~
5 recall'that.the craft ever complained about him J 6 being over zealous in his inspections. T
? ?Q.' Do you recall the basis 1for disagreement.
8 between;Mr.1 Hamilton and the craftsman you_ _ 9 mentioned? q < , 10 A. It appeared to be more of a personality 11 conflict'between Bobby Lockamy, who was the 12 protective coating' construction superintendent, 13 :and Mr. Hamilton,
' w(~'[
14 'Q. !Now, do you recall the'date on1which-
~
115 -these gentlemen were terminated? 16 A. March 9th,-1982._ , a 17 Q. How did,the' problem'that lead'to ~ their
' . '18 termination first come to-your attention?'
4 12 A. Construction'h'adisigned upf for~an i20 . inspection.. Mr. Hamilton had refused to go and 21 aaid his people wouldn't go. Construction _then
- . A 72 2 called their supervisor. Harry Williams, their 23 second level supervisor, learned of the situation
, 24 ,
and:he described 1the problem to me. V .. -
' t ,
"25 I sent'Mr. Williams, along with Mr. Mike t 4 m 6
. FEDERAL 1 COURT REPORTERS -
DALLAS,-TEXAS
+ +
s ,. w.
.f ; , _
y , y
- e y; M.7 g ,gP'
-45302
'O M , - 71 ,Foote,Itb'finspect,the area that they had? refused.
- a= lMW ' ;2 ;to go t o .~
a _: '
- w s ~r . '% .
.5 R;L 3 2 , -Q. Would you describesthe-inspection that
, , y ,
w
^
l J4 th'ey::ref used to co'nduct? ? a,; , :( , , rg -
.TS- . ? A.; The'~ inspection"they refusedito; conduct Ma's1.an.i~nspection which wouldfhave required l.them-
~
p [ ~ (6 J. - , .
, J 9 , .
'27 : to-walk.onia containment access,= rotating platform ,
j, .
% ?8 ~ rail that's"approximately 10.0 to 105 feet above 9 -thefirst floor level below.;that. -
,N 10 -
;Q. Did Mr.'. Williams and Mr.'Foote report
.~
'f ' g e
* ;11
~
iback to-you?--
, .n .e, .
12 A. . Yes., they,did. , ,
~
~13 , _
'Q. And what'was their-report? "
M;i m,
14 '
A. That it was' safe. They said theythad o-f#'
- n 15 m. walked completely around the circumference of'th's -
- :16 . containment on the rail.'that Krol'a'k,; Hamilton"and .
i
> 1 .
.17 Shelt.on-had refused.to walk, and that it was safe'..
<; , 7.
_j l?"~ ,
, :18 4 Q.; And.you sent Mr.-Focto and Mr. Williams ,
iJ; i.x ,=
. $9 to inspect'-the rail, inithat right? .
l + _y 20 A. Right. /'
- l. ,
_ 21 Q. '..And they reported back to you? , p v ' [r , 22 1A. Right,.that;it was safe, that they.:had
- u. - ,
m . -s l~* . _no problem'.. I'mightl add that I.tho'ught that this L ?2} l.'-*
, 24 'reportiwas particularly significant;because.I know-
, ly -
'. ~
=
t' Y;25 Harry Williams was scared to death of heights. p ~,[ [y .
.+ ,
, ,.N ,
. et a 5, ., , ,
,E R AC H FEDERALECOURTLREPORTERS N _
_..,2,_,_
. ~ .. . . . . _
45303 u- L '% .l c.3 QC ~Mr fBrandt,Eid d you.take any other
' m.
)
, , , J2 action to; assure that the inspection was safe to
, .v ,
,a -
3 conduct?.
- :4 A. At approximatelyJthe same time I sent
+ -
lS 'Mr.'F'oterand o Mr. Williams out, I calledJSam- ~
' :6 ,Hoggard, who was Brown & Root's senior safety
- -c ~/
7 reprerentative. 8 Q.. And what'didMr. Hoggard -- what'did.you 9 ask him to do?
?lo A. I1 asked him if the rail was safe.
11 .He said, yes. We've been up there. 4
- 12 There's a life $line, three-eights inch steel-cable j 13 tied :to 'the containment liner that they can hook 14 off to immediatel'y upon.getting off the ladder.
15 He said, in order,to make sure 16 conditions haven't'? changed, that.he would send' 17 .someone up to re-evaluate the' condition.
- t j4 ,
18 Q. Did he. report back on the' conditions at'
~
19 the rail?' - 20 A. Yes, he d'd. i 2 ', ' Q.- What was' his report? 22 A. He-told me as far.as the Safety 4 23 Department was concerned, the rail was safe to
'24 walk on.
C'). 25 Q. Where'did the-painters and inspectora FEDERALCOURTLREPORTERS
'DALLASa_ TEXAS
e -- ; - ' m;
+
~ * '
; _' 45304
, e.
. '1 Latandcwhen.they-were. working in this. area?
;g , _.
3 , 7:1J 2 =A. On scaffolding between the rail and the
,, .s. - _
3 " l i n e'r' p l a t e'. The~only time workers used the rail .m
~
4 "wasLto-walk from the ladder-to their work area.
-5 Inithis case, I believe:the painters had been
' ~
6 there:. preparing.-the area. I don't believe the-x ]- 7 ' area'waspaihtedi.wh}en.theycalledforthe
. [. ~ $8 inspectiYn.
9 J.- Q I see. 'But the painters h'ad walked.on - 7
?lo the rail?
.11
~
A '. Yes. .The; painters had to walk along the-
~
12 . rail to,get to.the area where they had been 13 ~ working previous to.thelConstruction's-request for fr] s . j 14 the' inspection.
- a. ,
T 15 Q. : Followingireports from Mr. Williams,.Mr.
-, 16 Foote,'and.Mr..Hoggard,1-what action did you take? .
- By this .: time, ,it was about' 1unch. .
~
L17 A. W 3 18 I went to lunch, came back, and I saw 19 .Mr. Britton'. -I-said -- *
~
- 20 Q.,' Who's Mr..Britton? . , .
21 ' A . :. Mr. Bri'tton at that time was;Mr.
. 22 Hamilton'a superviso'r'- Jimmediate, supervisor.
o
~
12 3 .And I asked Neal, who-is Mr. Britton,
.' 24 whathad ; happened.
f} ~
= <25 ~Hf. said, Hamilton atill.. refuses to'go.
~~;
.' FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS r
. w
.M .
45305' e il -ILsaid,'Did?they-all rofuse to~go? He said, i)- .2 .everybody in the field refuses.to go. h: O 1, ~3 O. Who was'everybody in the field?:
;4 A. . At0that. time, on that shift, everybody
- s
.5 ,in'tho' field, was Shelton, Krolak and Hamilton.
6 I, told ~Neal to go.gettthem and' bring 4 7 .them to~my o'ffice. 8 -Subsequent:to talking to Mr. Britton, I' 9 ca'11ed Gordon'Purdy, told him I:had a problem, 10 told him what it was. All three were Brown & Root m : 11 employees.- .I wanted Mr. Purdy present when they 12 arrived:in my-office.
/ ~'s 13 They_ arrived-in my office, walked in, Q.
14 cat.down and I started a conversation, explaining 15 what I knew of the situation, asked if they had 16 any comments. 4 17 Hr. . Hamilton's'only comment was'that
'18 they had built a scaffolding-in unit'one, and he 19 thought-there ought=to be a. scaffolding built in
. 20 unit two.
21 I explained to Mr. Hamilton and the 22 others~'that I had determined, through two > L23 independent means, that'the wo'rk area in Unit 1 2 24 :was' safe. I then informed them'that they would
.h 25 ~either'go perform the inspection or I would have
' FEDERAL COURT 3 REPORTERS RARLAS, TEMAS
.n. .
- t ,
, 4 .
,1
, ( ,
45306
-- 1 to terminate them.
- (~ . .
( >y' ' 2 All three of'the inspectors.stil'1
~ - ~
l ,. 3 refused.to go perform the inspection and they were 7 4 -terminatediin.myJoffice. 5 Q. .Who actua11yJterminated these three
.6 gentlemen?
- 7 A. Mr. Purdy.
8 Q. Why did Mr. Purdy, rather.than yourself,
~9 . terminate these employees?'
10 - A. Mr. Purdy is the Brown'& Root QA
~
11 manager. As such, he was, he'was administrative 1y
. 12 responsible.foranyLBrow('& Root employees Working M
+t -
13 in QA.
< '14 The counseling form that was. prepared 15 describing the situation an'd recommending 16 termination is~ signed by both Mr. Purdy.and.
-17 'myself.
18 Q. Mr. Brandt,cwould you"please describe a '
.19 the document that has-been marked'for
. 20 . identification as Purdy Exhibit 15', and identify D 21 it, if:you can?
22 A '. It isua' copy of the councel'ing report 23 prepared at the kime Mr. Hamilton was terminated. 2
~c 24 Q. When did'you first'become aware that Mr.
[ b) ~ Hamilton was alleging that there were safety 25
.i-4 FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS.
DA%LOS, TEXAS
45307 1 problems at the plant? " Safety" in terms of plant 2 operations, not safety in terms of personal 3 safety.. , 4 A. We were notified that Mr. Hamilton 5 intended to testify on behalf of the intervenors 6 -- I believe in June 1982. 7 Q. That was how long after his termination? 8 A. Three months. From reading the 9 transcript of the deposition of Mr. Hamilton taken 10 before the ASLD, I ~ 1 earned that he thoughh.there 11 were safety concerns. 12 Q. Did he raise any of these concerns with
~
( ~') :L 3 you prior to the time he was terminated? 14 A. No, he did not. 15 Q. Mr. Brandt, in response to questions put 16 to you by Mr. Roisman on cross examination you 17 testified as to an incident involving an inspector 18 named Wade. Do you recall that? 19 A. Yes, I do. 20 Q. Since the deposition, have you' 21 undertaken some rosearch to fill out details that 22 you couldn't recall at the time of your ehrlier 23 testimony? _s 24 A. Yes, I do. And some of the details'are 25 contrary to what I reported to Mr. Roisman.
+ - - - -
FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS DALLAS, TEXAS
, , - = _. - ~ . . .m -- m . - -. . ._ - . -.-
M ,e d W rs 4 - = y '
. . /_s- , ,
s
, ~
- J_, . < .
4530'8- . E-
-m *3 4
7 ; _
- F i~r s t_ le, metask you,"What-research #did ,; . ;.J fl Q..
h:
.U : ,
- x $2 W{ .
- you undertake tio - clarify . tho' situation?
w ,,
, 13 % '"A. I discussed the incident.over-the-telephone'wihhERandy Smith. . Randy reminded me of
-l4 y:, -
i
. J .
;5 , .the situation, clarified some details, and told'me 6 -1 0: _
7 .g . 6 there were. letters regarding the subject thats.he 7 ' f and 'MikeL Foot'eihad written.-
] At that. point,/I had_some.of fthe people- .
9 at the site get with George'B ntLto see.if George-
~ ~' <
[ 10 .
' Bunt had copies 4 of the letters, and the letters; -
- - 11 ,
we res -proyided.byMr. Bunt to myself. . L.
>l2 "
Q. >~Who.is Mr.. Bunt?-
;,'.... s .
.Mr.-Bunt is the4 construction ',
~
13
] A.' . <
l i; , 14 superinton' dent who supervised :the generalf foreman ' [ ' 15 involved'inith'e original issue with.Mr.-Wade?:
% > g:. ' :16 Q. And Mr. Brandt,r.I'll-show you-two' /
o AT y, ~ 'J . 17 -documents' marked'for: identification'as Brandt (; ; h c 18 -Exhibits,15'and 16 and.ask,if you can identify - 19 them?.. .First Brandt Exhibit'15. 3 e .- 20 . (Depos'ition - Exhibit No. 15.& 16
~
i
. 21 ,
were marked for identification. ) , L .22 B A. Yes, this-is a speed letter written byt
~ v ,
O 23 Mike Foote concerningfthe' incident. It's a copy '
;24 of a copy'which was-provided'to George Bunt .~
h '. ' '
- 25 . describing the resolution of - as Mr. Foote
, 4 L d'
.c ; FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
, c ,
+
.;T0 6 TEXAS
-- - - - - - - - - - ~
- p. = ~ --
2.x -v r . .n
.c t
. ., , 3
, a: ,
4 .-c:.;f : ', k ', . 245309
'[ 4 1 titlediit;and theys'ubject of the'meno, possible-fp: x M, . , .
2 threats 'to QC- - ,
-i
$ U -
'3- -Q. ' And that'E -Brandt Exhibit 15. tDo you '
~
h4 recognize Mr.; Foote's handwriting? . p 4 5 A.,. Yes,yI-do. ",
- 1_ 6 -Q.- Is that written:in his. hand? .
i fYes,- that's h'is signature at; the botitom
~
7 ~~A. ,
, .2 -
~ ' '
E ,
- of th'e letter.-
;8 7 s _
. s ,
. 4
-:9 Q. Mr. .Brandt, I'dilike"you'now to review q x.
10 Exhibit 1'6..'and-ask you if you canJidentify'it. P : 11 ~ ;A. . _ Yes, I can. It's'a letter.Jfrom: Randy '
> 1' 2 Smith to Mr.(Mike Foote requesting:an l
- e: . , .
Q- - 13 ' investigation;of.ithe incident which involved.a - ,
- ' 14 pipe support foreman and Mr. Wade. -
15 Q. After reviewing these docum~ents, M r'. 16 Brandt, is your recollectioninow-refreshed as'to .
- s .
C .
, - 17 'the details of the-in'cident that you' mentioned w .
1'
. .18 4 briefly in~ cross examination? -
.;; o '
4..
- 19 '
;A. ,
Yes, sir. 'ILthink the two - w, , ..
> .< s _,
~ ' ' ~
'20 ', : inconsistencies between my original te'stimony and' ,
.,4... .
f21 -
'whatJactually happened was I had placed the '
- 2'2 dispu tie in.the fab-shop. JAt- this ~ time Mr. Wade 23 ' w'as .'no t ' in' thel f ab sh'op , he was in the field.- ~
And
- u. .. :
24 I!.hadithe(supervisor involved. being Mr. Cappy ' 4
- 25
,; Lawrence.'rIn) reality, thr, supervisordinvolved was 4
( # g 'k p, , 3 h $ .' a g :
~[,
1: 1 - s FEDERAr, COURT REPORTERS , v qqw .
,- - .- m_ -
45310~ 1 Mr. Mike Foote. 2 I previously stated we removed Mr. Wade 3 from the fab shop at his request after this 4 -incident. As a matter of fact, Mr. Wade was not 5 in the fab shop at this time.
, 6 Q. Did this incident take place before or 7 after Mr. Wade worked in the fab shop?
8 A. Before. 9 Q. Subsequent to this incident, he was 10 transferred to the fab shops is that right?: 11 A. Right. 12 Q. Did you have occasion to discuss this (} 13 natter with Mr. Wado? 14 A. No, I have not. Not this particular 15 matter. This was resolved at a level under me. I 16 was made aware of the situation, I was copied on 17 the original letter from nr. Smith to Mr. Foote. 18 I was copied - I was provided a copy of the 19 letter from Poo;e to include in the personnel file > l 20 for Wade. I concurred with Mr. Foote's judgment l l
.21 that the issue was dead, and I believed that the l 22 actions that had been taken were sufficient.
23 Q. Hr. Brandt, since your testimony on 24 cross examination from'Mr. Roisman, do you now
/
25 recall any other incidents of complaints of FSDERAL COURT REPORTERS g DAAAAS, TEXAS
~
- 1. , , , .
- ~ , -
,s .-e y _.e . . - . . m.
n 77 y
,; ., , ., x a ; *'( j,
- I n
-c' - 45311 g -
.m .
s . .., . : 1 ' harassment-being; brought;to^your.-attention while'.
' h}s ; 3 2 fyou'were supervising-QC1 inspectors at Comanche s p ~*
u .
- c
?' L3 Peak?. g .,
'^~ ~
^J 4 1 A.: SubsequentlyLI have found:a three-part ,
' , if/ ,
15 .
-memoGdocumenting:.a=. complaint involving Mr. Cory' '
;... , ~. -
.m_ .
.'6
~
. Allen.- - U e
_ 7 ,
.Q. 1Would you describe those circumstances,. l 8 please, the" circumstances surrounding his x . ,
5 . e V, 19 complaint? , i f ' -10 * 'A.. HisJcomplaint ess'entially states that he P
.c 111 felt that'he was being, ordered ~to perform o - ,
j c12 , something by aIBrown & Root'.paintrforeman. _ He-g} - 13 felt that the Brown &' Root paint" superintendent..
- 4
[
~ '
=4
.[ ,,14 had complained to Mr. Allen's supervisorlHarry g
M- , t 15 1 Williams:that he had refusedTto follow'.the',
, c
~
~
;16 2
. foreman's~ instructions. 'He felti. the craf t wac compla'ining.to' Harry Williams.thatLhe.wasfwriting~
17 d .s s Q' ml8 NCR's-on CZ-ll that had out" lived its pot,' life.
~
+ ~ 7 '.19 He alsoucomplained'about some argumentsTthatJhe.'d; 2
-20 had.with different. Brown & Root paint foreman. He-s ,;21 ,
didn't'think it was handled in a' professional
~
-22 ,
' manner. sHe felt that'he was'being picked o'n by.
52 3 the paint Nepartment.. Irguess that?was the bottom-
," ~
- t. ; .. 24 ~ -line. *- , ,
'0' ' n ,
'25 . Q. ~What action did you take inJresponse to c - ', s ; > FEDERAL COURT; REPORTERS -
DALLAS, TEXAS ;
= _ --=- - -- . _
~
~ -2 -c 45312
-1 iMr. Allen.'s complaint?-
g ~. _ (J 2 A.- I convened a meeting --
'3 .Q.' By the way, when.did_you receive his v .
..l4 ' complaint f rom . him?
; 5
~
'A. His compla' int'is. dated 6/25/83.
6
>HR. DOWNEY- .I'd-like-the court ;
.7 ' reporter to mark th'at complaint as Brandt Exhibit 8 17. .
9 (Deposition Exhibit No. 17
. 10 was marked for id'entification. )
' ~
~ ~ 11 -A. It's' dated 6/25/83. I; don't recall-1when 12 I' received it. I would assume,I received ~it the
(.]y 13 same day or the day after Mr. Allen wrote it. My response-la datedJ6/29/83, which'
~
41 4
~15 leads!me to believe it-lwas probably overan 16 intervening _ weekend. . What;-I'did after receipt of ,
^
17 it was ~ to convene a meeting.between the. Brown'-&- zl8 Root construction. coatings' superintendent,1Mr. I 19 'Haley; Mr.(Allen's supervisor,, Harry.Williama! a
'20 coatings general foreman, Jim Brackin; and.a .
- , 21 , coatings foreman, Wayne:Remington -- I believe his 2 22 'first name is Wayne ---andcMr. Allen and myself.
23 And'we had a discussion of all'the .
~
24 incidents-described in Mr. Allen's compla' int.as C/. 25 stated,in my~ response to Mr. Allen that ~ the L k FEDERAL COURT-REPORTERS < l
l 45313 1 context of the conve'rsation with construction was 2 that_this type of conduct must. cease. I believe 3 those were the exact words I used. Junior Haley 4 assured me that he would take care of the problem, 5 and that he would implement corrective action as 6 necessary immediately. 7 The meeting adjourned and overyone left 8 except Mr. Allen and myself.- I told him, Cory, 9 this in the way I would like to see this handled. 10 I said, If you continue to have problems, please 11 get back with me. 12 In the last line I state, As we
') 13 discussed verbally, if the situation does not 14 improve, please notify me again.
15 Q. (BY MR. DOilNEY) Did Mr. Allen bring a 16 subsequent complaint to your attention along these 17 linen? 18 A. No, he did not. As a matter of fact, I 19 had occasion in. late September to ask him 20 specifically how things were going. Mr. Allen 21 said thist they were working long hours, and would 22 like to see that changed. I then asked him if he 23 was having problems with people harassing him and 24 he said he was not. 25 Q. And what is the date of your response to FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS DALLAS, TEXAS ,
=- ' - - = - -
- - - - - - ~
, ..m _ , . , -
; _A * *
~1
.g - [3 [
' ~,
g _
' # '" ' k ~
3 T e .:
,yu > , s . s
, 45314 x- ;l Mr . ? A11eri? ' ,
3
-i " .
.2 .
LA. 6/29/83. }
-), . $ That's four. days after-the.date of his
, -3 ,
Q. -
+
s r T' ij . original-~ complaint;--is that right? ~
,_ y c '. 5 _
'A... 4Right..
'6 .
Q .~ It ' ai ybur -recollection ' it ' was an' , w: : ' ; . S 7 intervening weekend; 1s that right?-
'8 A.- To the best of my recollection, it would -
2 W - 9 .'be easily. discernable upon-seeing a calendar. ;I-Edo'believe that-I convened the meeting =on th'e
~
J
' l0 3
- i1 [ ~ ' "11 firativork day on which everyone involved was at
.- 12 the job site.- .
~
J D%!; , 13 EXAMINATION- 4
. x14 BY..MR.EWATKINS: "
g ~ 15 Q. - Mr. Israndt, are . you. f amiliar z with the . _16 o . spent 2 fuel pool ?i 'n Lthe transf er canal associated- . 1 ,7 17 with.the-spent fuel pool?- , i. [ 18
~
-.A. Ye s , . I s ala . . .
19 Q.- Could'you brieflyLdescribe the basic
^
20 functio'n of the spent.fuelcpoo1~and the transfer- ; e 7.. canal?
., .7 21
'22 _ A '. The transfer canal is usedLin -
23 : transferring both new f uel f rom the_ new f uel pool . - I yS .
'24 to the reactor._ vessel during. fueling operations:
3 . .
. y') ..
~
~
-25
'and is'used to; transport spent. f uel f ro.a the
~ '
4 ') , ,, - 4 , _1 ' " J
,O FEDERAL COURT RSPORTERS
r 45315 1 reactor to the spent fuel pool dura g refueling 2 operations. The spent fuel pool is used to store 3 spent fuel. 4' O. Are you familiar, Hr. Brandt, with the 5 liner plates. associated with the transfer canal
- 6. and the spent fuel pool?
l 7 A. Yes. .They're stainless steel plates l l 8 welded together to form a canal or in the case of 9 a spent fuel pool to form a pool. 10 ! Q. Is welding'on these liner plates an ASME l l 11 item or a non-ASME item? 12 A. It's non-ASME. C'; 13 Q. Are the wolds on the stainless steel 14 liner plate in the. transfer canal or the spent 15 fuel pool' safety related welds? 16 A. Yes, they are. 17 Q. -In what sense? 18 A. They're considered by the design 19 engineer to be safety related. 20 Q. Mr. Brandt, are the welds on the 21 stainless steel fuel pool liner plate or the 22 transfer canal structural welds? 23 A. No. 24 Q. What is the purpose of the wolds in the 25 liner plate? FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS RALLAS, TEXAS J
~- - - -
45316 1 A. The purpose of welds between adjacent 2 liner plates is to form a continuous liner to 3 preclude the possibility of the irradiated water 4 from seeping out of the liner into the concrete 5 which surrounds the liner. 6 Q.- Essentially,Ltherefore, the welds are 7 simply designed to ensure that the spent fuel pool 8 and the transfer canal hold water; is that
-9 correct?
10 A. Yes. In fact, the design specification 11 for these welds requires only that the welds be 12 madc, that they be smooth enough to allow
.( ~') 13 decontamination, that they-he liquid penetranc 14 tested to give some assurance that the surface is 15 smooth enough to allow decontamination, and that 16 they be vacuum box tested to assure that'they're 17 water tight.
18 Q. -Mr. Brandt, are these welds in any way 19 directly related to the operation of the nuclear 20 reactor? 21 A. They in no way affect either the safe 22 operation of the nuclear reactor or the safe shut-23 . down of the nuclear reactor. 24 Q. Mr. Brandt, do you recall a time in 1983 i 25 in connection with stainless steel liners in which l FEDERAL COURT 1;E PORTE RS DALLAS, TCXAS
J;, , _
-.s . .
, ca 45317
.s
.-u- ~
, 1 laiQC.insp'ectorLor" inspectors-were asked to sign
~
,~4
. k.h 3 *
'2 <- traveler)ho~1d points based on NDS chits?,
X, _ ,
'3 -
,A.. Yes, I-:do.
4 Q. JWould you explain your recollection of.
~
i ~5 that ovent?. 6 1A. Itiwas during the time of the fuel 7 ~buifding[turnoverLthat we' realized that some of' , e . . 8 'the Unit 2 l'iner plate travelers ware incomplete 1
~
*9 in':thatTthe fit-up inspection' hold point on the
. .# '10 -
. traveler"itself was not signed and yet the weld
' ~
+ 11 was completed. This: activity during theLtime.
- v. ,. -
" ~ J "12 frame-in which the1 travelers were-generated.was e(T .13 ~ performed by ASMB QC inspectors. ~At the' time of 3.j; 11 4 the fuel buildin.g turnover, a' box.of-documents was ~
_15 brought;.to,my office and.it~was explained to me 16 .that since it wasla non-ASME activit'y now and that, m 17 my inspectors performedithis' inspection,.that I
~
. . 18 should address the unsigned fit-up hold points.' p i 19 ,
^Q.- For the record,.Mr..Brandt','woul'd you.
I 12 0 ,' state the capacity.in/which this box of. documents 21 was; brought to c you. 22 A. At'that time, I'was the non-ASHE QA/QC ' -
'23 supervisor.-
t .
~
24 Q. What was in this box of documents?
~25 A. The travelers for.theLUnit'2 liner. <
4 s FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS h
. . ,. : - . ~ . ~- . - - .. . .
.. - 4
, . - . ~ , - .
2'
.- -45318 -
1 % lQ. What/was your' response?.
; y
~
l.). - .-2 A., I2 responded toiMr.sC..C. Randall'that he "sh'ould go get with Ted-Blixt and Jim-Ragan as'the-
- 3
+ . . .s .
+ .
q. 4 ; activity had'been-an ASME-activity;and that.the , 5 ASME QC-people?should. resolve the problem.- i 6 Q. What positionsdid Mr. Blixt hol'd at that 1 17 .
' time?.
' ~
-A.
~
- e. 8 - It was -- Blixtswas the.. Quality.
29 Engineering Supervisor.
'i10 Q. :And what job did-Mr. Ragan hold'at-that.
11 time? Mr. Ragan wa's the ASME.QC supervisor.for
-12 A.
13 ' night. shift.
-({
y 14 -Q. What did,Mr. Randall do pursuant to your
- 15 '
instruction?. z ; , ~ 16 . A. M r.. R a n~d a l l , I assume, discussed the 17 ( cmather with Mr. Blixt.-
+
To expedite the 18 ~ resolution, I offered George Willis to Mr. Blixt
'19 to assist in'the review. At'the time the >
(travelers were generated, Mr. Willis was the ASMB-l20
.21 '
. QC; superintendent.
. v. .
.y, .; E22 Q. 'Andlwhat happened?
p 23 ' A.. . Travelers were reviewed, where possible
,1 H24 inspecti~on chits were-located for the missing
.D;5
" ~
inspections, the travelers were signed offenoting i
}25 i 3 .;
PEDERAL COURT REPORTERS '
- DALLASo -TEXAS
m .-. v .
.I M }
G. 45319
. g: -
1 that th'ey were . a late entry, the signature was r . g> '2 ~ based'on thew-existence of an NDS chit for that 3 inspection which had-been signed by a certified ~ -
~
4 -inspector..and the chit'was attach'ed to the 5 traveler. .
~
6 Q'. -Mr. Brandt, in the' circumstance.that you 7 Ldescribed,'is-it appropriate for a QC inspector-to 8 ' sign a-hold point based'on.an NDE chit signed by 9 another inspector? Yes, provided that it's clearly'
-?10 A.
4 11 indicated.that.the inspector is signing not for
'12 the inspection but for a verification that
, .p% 13 evidenced that?the.' inspection was' performed by a 4 14 certified inspector. I;have no problem with that t
' ^
15 practice. 16 .. Q. How would the inspector signing the hold 17 point on the: basis of other documentation -indicate c >
.;18 ;that that inspector had not actually performed'the
_v 19 inspection?.
~ ~
. . 20 A. The' inspector wou1d-indicate that the 21 entry was a late-entry based on the existence of
~22 an NDE chit and attach the chit to the traveler. '
23 Q. Mr. Brandt,;do.you know whether a ( 24 'non-conformance: report was written with respect to
- O "25 ithe travelers and accompanying chits that you have
- r. .
*~
PEDERAL COURT REPORTERS-RALLDS,' TEXAS ,, __._ _ _ .
G_ j ", 4 -
,_~ ~ ~ ~ ~
N 9:} r e s c ,
~
z .'l
.+
~
~ 3ll, ', L w ,
r ,g. c S-3;. .i, # y . - w , . 45320 *
>c . - r L l '
' ? des'cribed?
~
+
- A l +
- c. , .n e
_b #. "(.
' Yes,'it was.-
;ss >
2 ,
'f A .n I[ j. 44 ^
g: , m,, 13 -
.g-
- IQ. -m
'I-show you'a copy of'~a two-page document
'4
' ~
' marked 4for--identification'as[Brandt Exhibit 18,
?
" 5. . 'and.;a'sk you if that'is the,NCR'to which you refer? -
p y
;6 . ;- SA. 'Yes , - it . is .- -;
w 7 *
.Q.. Mr. Brandt, do you~know whether that NCR- '
b -
" ' 8 -
went.through a-subsequent revision?
~
9 a' A.- Yes,'it id. . i 10 ~Q. . Mr. Brandt, I 'show i you' another, s two-page :
- s. -
fil : document marked as.Brandt Exhibit'19.and ask youf ' w .
-12 lif that i~s~Rev..1 of the. original NCR that you ~ ' .
t
.:5 .: . . .
A ~~ 13 h~a v e . i d e n t i f i e d ? >
~ (4 ,
is , 14 s A.- Yes,,it is.- . 1
. y c <
Mr. Brandt,,;who wrote those NCR's?
'15 Q. i
~
, 16 ,
A. Revision-0 was written by Randall Smith I l7 - and Clair Randail. [.
~
'18 I s t h a't C . C . Randall?
~
. Q.
.19 - ~A.. 'Yes,:it ic. Revicion:1, although it- .
c: , x . . . 120 indicates'reportedJbyfRandall Smith and C. C. ; 21 Randall, was'a revision to delete the.' word.
~
4 .m, . L J. 22 -"ran'diim",Jand the revision wastmade by George i o '
~'
r23 , -Willis._ , 4 i {24 Q. As youl understand-it,.Mr.'Brandt, what 'O 25 . was the:nsture of the non-conforming condition 4
. FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS ,
_. - 16
. _ _ . _. . ... ~
. ar f-5 j - ;[
'_,4,,
g L' b; '
~
~
45321 g 1 identified'in these-NCR's? T_/ - ;2 4 A.. There was som'e' question in Mr. Smith'and
;t .[ 3 'Mr'. Randall's minds as to whether the inspection-
'4 ' chits.wasi f or the fitup'of:the weld between the
' ^ -
5 seam caused by the.fitupcof the two plates or n
- m 6 -
whether the inspection chit was for the.fitup of
~
7 .the backi~ng strip to the two'; plates. For_ this 8 : _ reason,,it^was reported'that1the fitup can't be - , 9 verified as.being performed.
. 10 'Q. Wasqthat NCR'aubsequently dispositioned?
_ ': 11 = A. .Yes, it was.
-12 Q.: What was the basis for the disposition?
13 A. The disposi't'ionHreads,c" Subject welds-
, ~ (.~.,#i)
~ ~
.14 'are seam welds utilized'to provide leak 1 tightness
'15 of the" liner. ' Acceptability of the welds shall.be 16 based on vacuumfboxtand hydrostatic tests."
^
l 17 Essentially, what this is indicating,.what ~ I had 18 eahlier stated,-_the welds are non-structural, . 19 their only purpose is to' provide a leak-tight v- 20 barrierbetween'the:irrabiatedwaterandthe
' concrete.; Land acceptability of the welds' was to 121 12,2 be base'd' solely on thefsatisfactory-performance of (vacuum box and hydrostatic tests.
~
_23
'24
,0.; ,Mr. Brandt,Jdoes your signature appear.
.Ci
' '[ '25 on eitheroof these documents?
r 4 FEDERAL" COURT' REPORTERS T6NtF{Nh_5?J3D[2D a
_.- . = - ~ - _ . - _ _ . . . ~ __. _ .
.1 7y _
- 71. , , . f u m- . 7~ . ,
?
q,, [ ,; 4 , 45322
,, -~:
'I ,L+ 'A.. Yes, it does. '
. :. ,' s ,
i)W;w 12 ' jQ. On which does it' appear? - 4 - < ,l
- L ;x . ..
-a m -- ;
3 ,, _ A.. iItlappe'ars~on3 Revision 104as' authorizing
. c ..
~ ,,
.4 ,'theLNCRTunder the: block, entitled!QE; review or
'n.x,, 3 3 . .
3 ,
! :c ' -5 . 1 approval, and also under dispositionxverification.
^
H^
;p 6 .and closure. on: Revision 1,rlit appears'under QB -
.7
- +
~ .
review and'apprhval of'thei disposition.
;7 t r' >
,Whatadoes your signature on'the QE
, 8 , 'Q.s
-t . .
9
.revie'wjand. approval mean? -
1'O - A. It1' indicates that the disposition-is 11 both' technically satisfactory and, meets all QA and x . I12 , regulatory requirements. < g 13 ' Q.- .Mr. Brandt, what la a vacuum box. test? i I [14 A vacuum box test is performed by ' [ .A.- - J, .15 . applying a soap solution to a.. weld, covering the , b 16 ~ weld with a box called'a vacuumsbox, booking the
^
n .
~
[.f _17 box upftofa vacuum; pump and applying a vacuum to
; ,s .,.
y- $18 the-box.T -If.the weld has any leaks in'it to where i Y 71 9 Lair can pass fromfon'e: side of the: weld to the Q ;20 other, it will. draw air through then weld causing .
~
721 the soap 1 film to bubble.
/22 Q. Mr..Brandt, referring.agal'n to the two, 4
~
23 :NCR's, would you define the location of the liner
~
)24 plate for which?the non-conforming condition was C, x+ qi
'25 . identified?
rc - 4
-e m
^
' " ', FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
'i N
~ 45323 1 A. It states Unit 2 reactor building.
~
2 Q. Can you be more specific? 3 A. It's talking about.the refueling cavity 4 in the reactor Unit 2. 5 Q. Mr. Brandt, did the NCR or the travolora 6 to which the NCR's relate in any way involve the 7 spent fuel pool? 8 A. No. Not to my knowladge. 9 Q. Did the NCR'a or the travelera to which 10 they relato refer in any way to the transfer 11 canal? 12 A. Yes, they did. 13 Q. Mr. Brandt, la the transfer canal the 14 name thing as the refueling cavity? 15 A. Yes, it is. 16 Q. And is the refueling cavity that to 17 which this NCR relates? 18 A. Yoa, it doca.
~
19 Q. Going back to vacuum box testing, Mr. 2 01 Drandt, have vacuum box teats boon performed on 21 the vacuum box linor plato wolda? 22 A. They've been performed on uomo of the 23 welda in the Reactor 2 cavity. I don't boliovo I
~ 24 they've beon performed on all wolds as of thia 25 dato.
i PEDERAL COURT REPORTERS DALLAS, TEXAS
. . u .
y---.~.~---
- %n b :s x ,.
., /; , - >
, y,,'- ^
-,p 1 :s , - :* ~
. c w'm .'
~'
Q #1
. _4 . + 9 . 45324 .- ;. . , n .
2
. , ..N. -
. \. t
' , Q :- 71 f~ Y Q.L. 7 Will'they;be.. eventually performed onLall-
- ~ .
2(7; O ; l
- ' 42 Welds?' ,
.s .., .,
p$2
~r
~
.,~
3
+
A.. 'Yes, they will.
.u , t ,
7 y y 4 <. tQU Mr. Brandti.what is hydrostatic tests
. . o ,
.t .
m
* % . . .. s t s
w l. . _ Jy
; 5
'with1 reference =to:the liner plate welds?
- v s: , .
~
In this referencei t h. ae hydrostatic tests
.L .
~
&u , .'6 ^ .A.-- -
(' , 7 , refers toitifling the cavity with wate'r and i M, e ., n -%
~
L; t -8 cl examining the roavity' for leaks'. A s
^f
~
,v - b. -
c f k9 < O. - Baire hydrostatief tests been' performed +on: .
> r ,
a _ '.o> 6fl0 the'linerplatettowhichtheseNCRhs. 1 relate? ' u a - F
*p. I
( .. g y 'll ' A .'-
- No, they haveenot. -
a s ,, . . [-
. -12 Q. Will;they be' performed?
'"13 A. .Yes,:cthey will. ,
.n . wy . .. .
."* -14 . . Q. .Mri Brandt, were-vacuum boxJand * -
3 .
- 4 F. ..
> + >
. . . - . . ,r .
. Thydrostatici.testsLtests that'were spe'oifically '
u ;,," "15 JL ' *- <+ 1 m"
, 16 imposedcto: respond to these'NCR!s7; .
3, . [ $ '17 MA.- lNo',Ethey-were part"of the' original '
- r. -
, -p.
r fle specification.. , Mr. Brandt, do you know who's'igned th's _w
/ l19 -
'Q .; - .
'1, y ytravelers! associated with these, liner plate' welds <
T -
. 420 ~
+*2 .
Le: 1r<,
. , , ce ,
2
.E21 based 'on Jthe 'NDE . chits that :you' earlier' dis' cussed?.. '
y;_ ' e ,
~
,, '22 -e :A. 7 Sue Ann Neumeyer.did a lot'of'them..,s Ve ,, g 3 y ;
y n23 . i Q. :In' signing those-hold points,-was she
~
, 24 performing:an-inspection function?
%s O ,:;*-
- y :25
/ >
~
A. No,'sh,e was not.
.s ( .
1 ,
^
n FEDERAL' COURT REPORTERS y -r . 3'. -
45325 1 Q. What function was she performing? 4 2 A. Document review function. 3- Q. In your judgment, would it have boon 4 necessary for the person signing the hold point on 5- the bacia of the NDE chita to have been a Lovel II G inopoctor? 7 A. Only to the extent to interpret that the t 8 NDE chit was for the wold in question. If it was 9 clear that the wold reflected on the NDE chit was 10 the same as the wold on the traveler, no, it's a 11 clerical function. 12 HR. WATKINS: That will conclude my
\
4 13 examination.of Mr. Brandt. The Applicant now 14 movea that Brandt Exhibita 18 and 19 be recieved 15 in evidence. 16 EXAMINATION 17 BY HR. DOWNEY: 18 Q. Mr. Brandt, in responao to questions put 19 to you by Mr. Rolaman on crosa examination, you 20 testified about your meetinga -- or meeting with 21 Jack Pitta on the day of the T-shirt incident. Do 22 you rocall that testimony? t 23 A. Yoa, I do. 24 Q. In Mr. Pitta still employed at Comancho ! 25 Poak? l l L_. ..___ _ FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS I DALLAS, TEXAS
~
'g' ' .,
40326
,. .s -
,' il A. No,'he.is not.
. ,5 l k/ . .
- 2 Q. .Is he.still employed by Ebasco?
? _ Yes, he is. j 3 . A. . 4 Q. Do you know where he's now' employed? 5 , A. Yes, I do. ,4 6 . Q. Where?
.-7 A. He's] employed at the~Clinton Power !
8 . Station, Clinton,_. Illinois. 2 9 Q. Do'you now how Mr. Pitts came to accept 10 ..the position the Clinton? 11 A. Yes, he;was offered a transfer by.me.
-12 BbascoI had signed a contract for provi' ding 1 .13 ' electrical QC personnel, with Baldwin Associates,
(] . f. 14 which is the prime contractor.at Clinton. Power
.15 Station.
16 I was-call'ed by my boss in NewLYork, Mr. ; 17 Jerry Hoops, and asked if we had anybody that 18 could be made available to go to Clinton. I'said i 19 I didn't know, but I would. check it out.
. 20 s At the time at Comanche Peak, Ebasco had L21 two elect:rical inspectors, Mr.~Pitts and one other
~
~
22 inspector. I was aware of Mr.,Pitts' capabilities 23 and felt quite confident that he would'do a good 24 job at Clinton. (~'t 25 I was also aware of the fact that Mr.
+. .
FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS c ,,
,~ '
~.. , ,
- + - - :-- :- ; ~
'7'
.s
~
# - e .'
A .,
.45327 '
- . - :.x >
.r '
a,
;w4, ,q,
- g. - ,,-
+ ;*1 PittsLielt"quiteJun' comfortable in.that'he felt s , ,
?! *
' thati$fe1was receiving a great deal ~of' peer
- j. ~
y - u.O [ [2 =
, y -
mz
. ; < i 3 s spressure bec'ause_he was the only EbascoIemployee g .
J,
~
[4
'( Tn---a'. group,Lof:all; Brown & oR'ot employees,'and that c
transfE$ ring might be someth'ing-he,would be
~
, u 5
- +
~
4
- I, ~6 int $ rested in doing. '
(( '
' ~
- ?
-.7 x,I., discussed'thematter-lwithMr.-Pitts. -
/* ~~ 8 ;I: told him ' basically what J therjob1wastat Clinton,
; 8 . . .
9 -what:he woul'd be doing. It'was a-brand new i
~ 10 contract 1for Ebasco. I'. told him it.waJ an n r,r'
~
~11 opportunity lforchia tofstart out on the ground y .
t' % ~
- > s
.T12 J - floor and.whatever he:made for himself he;would be -
13 making"along with 14 orJ15..other_ people. ~ i
. x ~
'14 ^ Mr. Pitts asked.if'he was being directed f 15 'to go to Clinton.Kand I responded in the. negative, _
"r e -16 statlng there~were.several option's available to
- g ,
17 him if.he didn't want Clinton. He asked'meLwhat s, ;;
"l a those; options were. I told him.one cert'ai$ly'was u.
f _ 19 remaining at Comanche Peak, that absolutely no one 20 'hadTreg'uested his removal from Comanche-Peak. And *
]
'*a'. >
' 2'1 the mother :was to wait for'an~ opening at south
, 1
,22 Texas-and transfer to the south Texas project. -
i
# 23 +
I' explained the economic considerations c.
'4~ 24 'of go'ing.to Clinton.. I told <him benefits at 1
d 225 Clinton more closely ~related.to what Mr. Pitts o
, FEDERAL COURT. REPORTERS e -
DALLASf TEXAS - /
, - . . . . . .~ +
,. _ - 3 > -
4 t , ,
- . ~ . . ,
mm S i 45328
& ~
~ *
[~f L ""'
; .,_~ ,
r s '1 ,Hreceived'at Comanche Peak'than the benefits he L
- 4. ..i .
would'rece'ivelat.southLTexas.
~~
2 :
. ~, 4 4- -
c.
, a. ~
^3 :- ,
e Mr. Pitts. asked if he coul'd.have time?to
>w , , .
4 discuss,the matter with.his wife. I'said,'Of i- . . l 5 :, course. I.said,,I-do-.need;.to know as4soon as , 6 . poss'ble', i as Ebasco.is~under aIdeadline'for ie 7 ,staffingL t'he job'and I need to know if.you're , t a l'^ '^ 8 -going to be' available or not'. < >
+
, ,;n , ,
. r; 19 t. -He came back to:me either'the nextiday
-\, '
c. 10 or.the day;after and.sai'd he had decided to go to G e i .11 =*Clinton. 4 3 1 12 7 .Q.' Did your. offer to transfer;Mr. Pitts to D 13 the Clinton.-site.in?any'way relate to.the T-shirt . J.
'14 incident? '
.. K
; lA. Only'in that Mr. Pitts madedit quite
~
15
'~
clear:to.me in the discussion we'hadLon<the
~
l'6 n D.o ', -.17 .mdrning of the T-shirt' incident..thatlhe feltilike
@ v 18 he was an outsideraadyheswas having a hard time -
.r ,
19 : fitting inLwith his7co-workers. . ' a ) E . : -
~20 ..
Other than this consideration,
'- '?- 21 absolutely:.not. '. ,
?1 l22 -Q. Mr.;Brandt,.do you recall an inspector
. +
~ 23 who worked 7 in1the.non-ASME coating area named Joe =
-24
'Krolak?}'
h~ . 25 A. Yes,-I'do.
- .I ,
^
o x < ' FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
" " DALLAS, TEX 4S .. _......_....._ _ _
; - ~,
'i *'
s
-'a' ^ '
1
,, - s-. as ,
~
. i. .- . J.. .
45329:- ' 4 . h *. - t ,,
.'Are'you.awa'retthat Mr. Krolak~has 1
, 2Q. .
.g.
.i '[ Jalleged.that NCR's(that he wrote while at. Comanche
~
2
. . .~' "
.3 'feak? were,,, quote, ; squashed, close quote?
.. =
, . _4 A. 'Yes,.I am. .
,y -
5 Q. What's'your understanding of the n , . x
.'. 6 :substanceJof-.Mr..Krolak,'s allegation about the .
NCR'$ that he wrote?~
~
7 8 'A. The'_only NCR'that I an aware that'Mr. 4 l
~ ~
9 - Krolak alleged that'was, quote,' squashed, close
'10 quote,1was an NCR involvin'g the use of Kelly
-- 11 heaters to accelerate cure on. coatings on some
;i - ,
[ 12 electrical supports in the - 'what's called a , r L 13 tunnel, which'is actually a quonset hut, outside ,
~ *
'14 I
Reactor Unit l'. ,w' - x 15 Q. 'Mr. Brandt, have you. reviewed'the file
~
*16 of NCR's written in the. coatings area ~to identify I 17 the-N'CR's written by Mr. Krolak?
7 s18 - ; A. Yes,' sir, I h av e '.
~19 Q. How many'NCR's did Mr. Krolak write 20 'while ha'was; employed.at Comanche Peak?
21 A.- I;w'as able to find two.
- 2' 2 Q. An'd'.~are all NCR's kept in the file'in' -
s r ,
- 23 , which you con' ducted your search?
!1 . = u 24 -
-JA. .
The file that I dearched was a. i n 25 'compreliensive listing of all.nonconformance. t g 7 FEDERAL' COURT.' REPORTERS fiyN W y h _jTy %(1
- - =
.y
^ -
'L-*--~":-~'~
y ;_ .
.r , . ,, + .
w ,
, j '
+
a-
' 45330
. , , c fr'eportsfin=the coatings ar'ea: generated.from-1980
~
- s. _
1 h ~2 to present It's a: file ~of NCR's kept byithe
'* LEngineeringdDepartment.. I have additionally-
,3 [3 .
~
. 4 J s e a r c he d . ..t h's lo g . --
, . .I ~
5 -Q. , 2By.the;1og you mean th'e,NCR31og?
,6 $ ' A' . Yes,.I do. -- forJNCR's that Mr.-Krolak -
~7 might have written, and>was able to identifyotwo d' 8 NCR's.
s,
. .19 -
;(Who supon Deposition Exhibits ,
, c 10 (No.J20 and 21
^
$ 11 -(was marked for identification..
/ J , 12 -- Q . (BY MR. DOWNEY) 'Mr. Brandt, I would s '
, - (~% ; ~13 l'ike you to review:two exhibits that have b'een
%A~ . .
+
fm'arked'fortidentification asoBrandt Exh2 bits 20 L 114 15 , and 21.- . 4 .. _f'7
~
16 ., I would ask younto identify those ,
- r ' -
~
17 ex,hibits", if.you.can? m 18 l A. , All right. - 19 . Q. 'What'is'ExhibitL20,1Nr. Brandt? m - 3
- Exhibit (20 is NCR.C-82-0060~.,
, 20 4
'A.
.r 21 Q. ~And by whom:--
122 ;A. Original issue and' Revision;1.ob > t . 2.3
.Q. "JAnd o by.whom was'it prepared?
24 A. Joe Krolak. r
" , '2 5 Q. Mr. Brandt, can you identify Brandt ,
W 1 i
' FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS.
, , . ~
'I ' # '
. r - ,- ' -
DALLAS 5 TEXAS .
, .. . ~ ~ , . . - . . . - . .
J - . 45331 s
. - I ~ Exhibit?217
.g.
V 2 A .' Yes,.I can. 3 ' Q. 'Whatiis that exhibit? ,
- 4 A.- , 'It's NCk C-82-00083.
5 Q. cAnd by:whom was that NCR prepared? f
- 6 ~A. Joe Krolak. [
'7 Q. Mr. Brandt, is.Brandt Exhibit :20 the NCR
.8 about which you.te'tified s just a'few moments ago?
9 A. By the'NCR that I testified to !a few
~
10 moments ago I assume you mean the one written by
'll -~ M r . Krolak that was, supposedly squashed.
'12 Q. Yes. .
~
?I A_/
13 'A. Yes, sir, it is. , i 14 Q. What was the disposition of that NCR7
- 15 A. To solvent wipe the coatings on'~the 16 hangers. If contaminantes are visibly present
~
17 after wiping, the area should be sanded:slightly 18 ,until removal of discoloration'is complete".' After 19 completion the-repair the area should be-checked ; 20 for. dry film thicknesa. The coatings on the' shim 21 plates are to be used as,is, due to the small _ < 22 amount'of exposed painted surfaces after: placement 7 23 of the chim. In your judgment, as a Level-III'
~
,, ., 24 Q.
L) coatings inspector, .is that a proper disposition 25 4
' f i . FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS I DALLAS, TEXAS
. . _ = _
..=
45332 c 1 -ofDthat NCR?- 2 A. Yes, it is., 3 -Q. :Mr. Brandt, what is the date~of the NCR
, 4 which han-now been marked for identification as 5- BrandtcExh'ibit 20? >
6 A. January 20th, 1982'. 7 'Q. . 'Mr. Brandt, with respect to Brandt 8 Exhibit 21, is.that the second NCR you found that 9 . was written by Mr.'Krolak? 10 A. Yes, itlis. 11 Q. -And what was the subject matter of that 12 NCR7 J 13 A. Some shim plates to be used with - (v') . 14 . electrical hangers were coatediwith a sinc. 3 15 enriched coating from a spray 3 cans and that1the 16 shim-plates contained no unique. identification 17 number. 18 Q.. And in preparing this NCR was Mr. Krolak 19 asserting that these two it' ems were< improper? 20 A. Yes,'he'was. 21 Q. -What was 5he disposition of>that NCR, i ' 22 Mr. Brandt? 23 A. Use as11u, based on'the fact thatlCCP-30
-2.4 and QI-QP 11.4-1 do not apply to galvanized
-]- ; ,
25 -surfaces. And Section 2.9 of ES-100, which is the
]
,, PEDERAL' COURT! REPORTERS [ DALLAS,' TEXAS
. , w; =
- ~
~~~---mn
,e
- a ,
/ ..
*1 t n ; f ...
~
9 hl u l
]7 ~g,5
~~v:
3V 7
- H ' -
, i 45333 v Electrical' Installation Spec, states, in part:the, ,
1
. 4 4 , 1 I2 damag'es to galvanized surfaces 1shal1 be repaired
~
^
<3 ~within 24. hours using Galvanox-paint.or approved ,
7
;4 equal.. .
'l }i ~ 5
" ~- . ThecoatingthatMr.'Krolakhad'referreb' y ~6 'tto in'his;descript' ion of non-conformance1was a, ry . .5 ;
-7 = quote,.sino' enriched. coating,'close quote,'was.
< ~
8 this~Galvanos pain't. '
~ #
['s *
. a 9 ~l Q. .Mr. Brandt, was this coatingfa non-Q~
x , , (4 10" ' coating?
'll 4' . ;A. Yes, it is. [ '
[ , l{ :12 -Q. - And was.the non-Q coating properly used
}
- g. . -13 in-this case? -
. Yes,-it was._
2 14 - A~. ..-
- 7 . y -
15 :c -Q. ' And did1the-fact that'this was a:non-Q y y . . s 16 Jcoating form'acbasis for the disposition of'the , a. 3- -
, .e
~
Il7 . INCR?' ^ - I ( ' The. coating was required?to be used. 9 F, ~ 18 LA.
'~c
- x 9 _
p <
,~ .19 ~Mr.-Krolak had inappropriately applied y ' . ,
requirements of an inspection' pr,ocedure- and' '
~ ~
p 20 x > y', 21 construction (procedure for application of service 4: [22 ' Level.I Q-coatings to the application of this sino [ b _ *'.23 enrichedLGalvanox coating _usedLtolrepair [ -
=24 ' galvanized' surfaces.
v .
~!
4 .>0 ! ' So the(disposition of this NCR-was, 125 Q. p ' , : M : *" FEDERAL COURT ~ REPORTERS , m ; - < DALLASji TEXAS - -
. . ~ - - : -- -
~ 3 - p D 5.. * #_ _
i- =i y > (^ s'., _ vf ' . 7
- , .s . . ~
s; .m < t
, q' <
w.- . ,,f&_ '
,,- E 45334
' a,m, WJ.7m
.~.
, g n - ,
J# . w .# n -
% _. quote,juse as is,.closexquotle?
/~~ ",:1 1 '<
.w ./ . ; .
v . . x.,b h
~
~
- " ._2 A.-?Yes,[itLis. <
- ?; . -
__ < , ,yq, -
" 'p x. (. 3 .I"' ;MQ; "Mr.iBrandt,'who[closedoutthisNCR7.
v: ,y - v_ 4 q, s i l4 A. Bob Scott'. iBeblScottfsigned for final.
. . , +
35 M closureVof u. the NCR. , The NCR was closed.with an 8 < N
. dk
. inspection > report dated February 12th, 1982. signed a . "
c c < gby Joe'LKrolak w ich states th 7 non-conforming s
. 8- -condition is in accordanceswitih-ES-100 CCP 30 and
~
I 49 iQ'I-QPw ll 4-lido [:notJ apply 'ho' galvanized surf aces
- n. ,
. r ;
't ..
.M-
,' 710 hold tags'have been,, removed, an'd non-conforming-
, e a
., , Ill ' items will;he'usedias'is.' '
~h, 3( -l p-
-12 "
Q'. ; 'In iact, thes.o.~wereSnot.non-conformin'g
.a ; - .
- u f., t' *
,1 3 ;13 items, isn't that right?. .
w
? - a
' 14 1
, .A. That.'s : right. . m -
- 3. .
1
- 15 -Q. In your judgment . was tihis NCR ' properly o - .
, . j . . ..
m '16 dispositioned?. a' ' a a . i: Yes,'it;is..
'17 A.
y u, 4 j 0 ) Q. 7 , , 11 8 'And does Mr. Krolak's.inspectionfreport s . - i ., 4 1e (19 indicate that-heiwas made aware'of the basis-for
.g ,
y 3 r [;- ' 20 _
, the: disposition of the'-NCR7 '
x ,
~ -4 >
;21 A.- ' Y e s' , it-does.
, . +
4, ,
,22 Q. rMr. Brandt, are you aware'that Mr.- , e, ,
s #
-w ,
. . s.
..Krolak has alleged th'at;; Harry Williams,.somehow 23 .
1 y '
. > c
? threat'ened tir.'Eob Hamilton's job during a
... LT 24
; i h: .
25 co'lloquy between them which allegedly involved ,
+
,, , u ,
'. - a ;7 - . , , .
'pfe
. .s
.F,8DERAL COURT < REPORTERS L_ < c < '* -
, , ,. ; L' , . ..
"y
~
~
l
' L45335.
0
'l ' proposed ^~ changes'to thei1R form, the inspection >
V. , L2 ' report; fora?. ' m g I' 3
.A. I'm aware'of'the allegation, yes,. air.
4 F
.-r.
g- 4 4 <
- c .
>4 Q. Mr. Brandt, are you aware of the t _
;5 particulartpoint:that--Mr. Krolak alleges was thel j
'6
- bariseforithe. dispute:between Mr. Williams,and.Mr.,
[ 7 Hamilton?. ' V 8 'A.. Yes,'I.am. t
~
,. , 9 -
.Q. !What is your understanding of that' .
i , <
- .dispu.te?
10 4 11 A. Mr..'Krolak states that-he and Mr. l t 12 - Hamilton and essentially.. implies.that_the gr<oup,
- J
= t y, , 13 the protective. coatings QC group, thought the IR i 1 ,
" J 1'4 form was. improper in that it did noti" allow for. "
~ .
i
,], 15 identification of-lo^ cation of'the inspected item. -i
-16 -Q. When you say, the IR, do you have_ n<
s .y , 4 . ,F 17 reference to the proposed IR,which Mr. Krolak 18 alleges Mr. Williams was preparing? , i e
'J s- ,
19 A'. That's true.
~
20 ;Q. - 'Mr..Brandt, hott'manynIR forms, basic fr w . _ 21 forms have been usedfin the non-ASME area at . ', ;
- p. ,
l
- 22 Comanche Peak 'since' you came to the site?
23 A. Each different inspection instruction , 24 has itszo.wn inspection report, or'in many. cases
'3 7
, '25 l'nspection reports, attached to the procedure j
j p c, . . ;
' i b , FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
'v
~~
13YVWMh_RTOR L. _. .
' +
i , s , ,1 45336-I 'itself., These inspection reports have inspection I ' '2 : attributes? typed'on them varying with the 3 discipline and type of inspection involved. 4 Q. 'Are there certain common elements for
'S this form?
6 A. The basic form is a proprinted form on 7 which the top part.is proprinted.. All of the u , 8 eproprinted forms are identical. All forms contain 9 the same informatior. throughout the form. i- 10 Q. And does this proprinted portion of the 11 . form indicate the location of the item to be 12 inspected?
~ 13 A. It'has a' block titled system / structure
[]} - 14 designation. The location of each inspection is - 15 recorded in this' apace. 2 16 Q. Mr..Brandt, I observe when you answered ,
, .17 ':my last question that you'made reference to a page t -
m , 18 in Brandt Exhibit 21, is that correct? 19 A. . Yes, just-to refresh my memory I've
.2b crt.;ad t'o page three of;Brandt'Eshibit 21,-which t
. 21 .n an inspection report numbered PC 43571,' sheet 22 one of one', signed by.Mr. Krolak.
3 , .. 23 Q. And Mr. Brandt, what part of,that form L 24 is proprinted in the way that you've described? O 25 Would you describe it please, for the ? f
' +
FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
' f%{hMOn-_5XPLVl___
45337 F 1 record, the-portion of the form that's proprinted? [ 2 A. This, in fact, ,is the preprinted form. 3 Everything on'this inspection report that's not 4 handwritten by Mr. Krolak is proprinted. 5 Q. And how long has that proprinted form 6 been in use at Comanche Peak? 7 A. As long as I've been at Comancho Peak 8 which is since September 1980. It was not used in 9 the coatings area, however, prior to the rewrite 10 of the. procedure in October of 1981. Prior to 11 that the coatings group used several check lists. 12 They did not use an inspection report, as such.
y 13 Q. At the time the procedure was rewritten, a
14 was Hr. Williams assigned the responsibility for= 15 preparing an inspection report form? 16 A. No, I was, and I adopted the reprinted 17 form. 18 Q. During the time you have been at 19 Comanche Peak did the proprinted form have a blank 20- in which the inspectors were to identify the 21 location of the inspection being made, isn't that 22 right? 23 A. Yes, it is.
- 24 Q. Hr. Drandt, are you aware of any time
~'
25 when Mr. Williams was asked to prepare new FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS L TFGNV)n 92fTVN1 . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
p ., J' : - , r
'i 45338 1 'i nspection reports in the coatings area?. i f
( )b '2 #
.A. To change the proprinted format? !
3 Q. Yes. 4 A. No, I'm not. 5 Q.- Did Mr. Williams have the authority to i 6 ' change the inspection report form used by coating 7 ins pe c to'e s ? [ 1 8 :A. No. ! 9 , QI 'As>1ong as the preprinted format.was not Y
'10 being changed there would be a place to indicate '
the location of the ' inspection, is that right?- 11 ! 12 A.. Yes, there would be. , (} 13 EXAMINATION , 14 BY NR. DOWNEY :
- 15 Q. Mr. Brandt, are?you aware'of certain -
16 allegations made in this proceeding that C 17 inspectors were directed not to write NCR's? l-18 A. Yes, I am. 1 19 Q. . Have you ever. directed inspectors not to - 7 20 write NCR's? ;
;- o
,' 21 A. Yes, I hkve.
22 Q. Under what circumstances have you issued 23 that directive? t 24 A. I have directed inspectors not to write ; ( ') ' ' 25 NCR's in written instructions complying with the _ _ - _ ?
- '.___________ _ __________ ____JOTWNh FEDERAL COURT 3?ITVM1-- __ _REPORTER 0 __ _ __
45339 1 requirements of the procedures. Several l h 2 procedures stato nonconformances shall be reported ; 3 on on uite inspection reports or NCR's as directed ' 4 by the non-ASMB QA/QC supervisor. As that was the 5 position I held, I was providing direction to my G inspectors on how I wished non-conforming 7 conditions to be reported. 8 Q. Did you ever in any way discourage 9 inopectors from identifying nonconforming 10 additions? , 11 A. Absolutely not, to the contrar) I I 12 encouraged them in all cases.to follow procedures I l
'^)
LJ 13 and all procedures require reporting of discrepant 14 conditions on one form or another. < 1 15 Ok In your direction about not using NCR's I 16 -- was your direction not to write NCR's and to l 1 17 uno IR's in compliance with the procedures? 18 A. Yes. The direction I gave was to use ; i 19 inspection reports rather than nonconformance 20 reports to identify nonconforming conditione. 21 I've never given instructions to anyone to not l l 22 report nonconforming conditions. 1 23 Q. Were your instructions simply to clarify j 1 cs 24 the manner in which nonconformances were to be L)
~
1 25 reported? 1 FUDNRAL COURT REPORTERS l _ FYWVVh GnTYV1 - _ _ _
. . . .- . .-= - -
. L-t 45340 1 :A. .The form on which they-were reporte'd,
_ f
.2 yes. t 3b Q. ~Mr. ~arandt,.wh'at; kind.of encouragement.
- 4 do quality < control inspectors receive at Comanche Peak.to report deficienciec?
a .
'6 They are
~
A. It's part of their training. . 7 -procedurally required to do it. It is not a' ., 8 . bonus-type activity, something that they are
.9 rewarded ~for doing. It's someth'ing that ia ,
10 procedurally described and-mandated that they do
~
-11 as;part'of their' job'. Procedures themselves 12 actually direct inspectorc s to report nonconforming ,
f~p 13 . conditions on the appropriate. form. So the first' v. 14 ' point is that the inspectors are required to' 15 : report descrepant. conditions. Additionally,- 16 .myself'and other non-ASME1 supervisors frequently 17 " encourage inspe^ctors7 to do their jobs to the best' L18 :of their ability, which, of' course, included 19 .- . identifying discrepant conditions. We provided 20 -such encouragemahE through casual 1 conversations, 21 in performance evaluations, in group meetings and 1 22 2 ".the like. x g 23 Q. Mr. Brandt, did you provide instructions g 24 to the inspectors who\worke .in your department as
'q)~ ~
25 -to1how~they should raise concerns'they had at the
-s m PED'ERAL COURT REPORTERS = . ,
mamawas _ . - _ . .
. . . g. ...
.; . .. - . . . . -.- - - - - ... - -----.. ~ - ~ - - . --
y74 ,
, 3 7.Y ~
. . b
- n . m. -
j- ;_.
; 45341: ,,
3- .
. l .
j o ts s'i t e ? s i
- .u z ~
/
,~;n . ,
, N .
1 ,j m , .2 A. ,Yes, I.did. ,
* ~
""5 3 _ 'Q., _ What were those instructions?rs '
~
1- + E4 1 A .1 IJinstructed them.in9severallgroup, s ..C. T i
- 5
; meetings if they;had problems c I< desired for.them , ,
1 j6. _ ':to discuss j tliair problems . initially with th'eir 1
'7
.immediate-superviso'r as it's difficult to manage a
} 8 ., , . group offpeople firsthand 1.E you don.'t know.what. - 9 :.their problems - are..* I also-emphasized this policy >
;10 - to-.my supervisors and asked i. hem to conv.ey it to
> .w .
.x }11 theiline inspectors. ..I also stated on numerous
~ , eg (12 [o'ccasionsfthat if they felt thattthey.did-not get . 4 11 3 1 resolution;at.that' level they could. continue on.up. '
#{}. '
c- -
... ~
1 , . 1.4 fthe chain as high-as.they wished >to go: including w , tY , a4
~
.a 15 3 past;me,,Lif they3- wishadito. s e;j ~ _ s
; m ,
'[.. { :16 -
'Q,- IDids inspectorsuraisel problems with}y"ouL _
17 Tf rom time Etio time? ' L 4
^
1A. 'Yes," Ilhad:a reasonably good rapport
.. j { }8 w g
I _ _19 vith[mostYinspecto rs a : I think::most inspectors
, t . 3 . .
Ww 20 ,
. - .~feltithatlif;they~had a-problem they could 1 comeDto:
.c .
~
-21 me.anditalksabout*it. -
4 x: . x '
^
~ l L22 _ Q '. - -Can you think of some~ instances where* _ p , Lproblems were.=raisediwith;you, whether they relate _, st J t f23
, . , v.
2'4 toiharrassment or other? issues? <: p. D ^: y- a' .
; - ' , '25 f A'-- . : Inspectors 0often' stopped by to talk ~with-x .
~
1 j p- .
. a ' "'
FEDERAL COURTJREPORTERSS
~
- a. _ ,,
1 J .,- m,mz a , . .; ..
- DALLAS, TEXAS-.__. ..
,,. a . v. _ J
t,, c, ,
~ ~
; .. , o , ,
45342 fl me . . U'auallh it ~ was ' j ust to shoot the bull'or ask
~
~
Ps . ,
- 3) ,
2 technical questions.--They also freely discussed 3 -3 -whstever concerns were on their minds. It would i
'4 be7 impossible to list' all of the different -'
. -5 : subjects!that-we discussed.
6 - Q. Is it fair to say a largeenumber of 7 inspectors stop by.your office?. a ' 8 A. A'large.-number of inspectors, yes, sir. ~
-9 Q. Just generally what types of problems 4
- 10 came to your attention during these sessions?
~ 11 A. Everything from soup to nuts. They e
12 didn't like the bathroom policy. They were - - j } 13 supposed to use the bathrooms in the field and-
- 14 they: thought they should~be able to useLiheL i 15 restroomsJin the administration building. They'- ,
E 16 didn't like the-parking lot; situation. . And'I - 17 might add, neither did.I. They'didn'tclike~having 18 to walk the cattle shoot'on their way.to' work. 2, .. A-L19 .They didn't like the hours. ~SomeLof them didn't think that they were getting enough overtime.
, l20
, - :21 Some of them, thought-they were getting too much 22 overtime. A~ multitude of' issues.
. ~
, 23 Q. 'Was there ever'a time when you refused-L24 to see an inspector-about a problem he wanted to h? ~ ~
- 25
- raise with you?
J
' FEDERAL ~ COURT-REPORTERS -
L. - , TWNEF{M% 9718W\f8 .... . -
;; m=
y q; ;w : ;. x - . y_ , m ,
.f ' , -
-p4- jis . ,
,,4* g ,4 4 u- .o , ,
h ;,'
'~
.' 1 s
y 45343 4 ' . ' . ,"x
'^
i.* ' J .. - *
. . 'f
- i -l A-. NThere were . occasions-wh'en Iiwas headed- ,
-2 -to a; meeting.that[I.hadito go to-that '
I would1, j^ y
~
~ '
N . r ,c -
;3 explain toethe' inspector or whoever wanted'to see: ,
.4 -meathat1Ifwastgoing somewherejand~that I wouldrbe , --
d T e.
-5 T :back shortly, or-that1.I wouldn't.be backifor t ho' ' ,
j g' m <
- 6 -,
rest.'of the: day. I.think that's normal in..the;' . l 7 - . course of'the construction business. !
, 8 It.was not only inspectors. There were. .
v:" " 9 .
< construction people regularlyTwaiting$to talkto - '
c, _ , - . J10 - m e b e n g"i n e e r i n g-:p e o p l e a n d '. o t h e r s . If I~had' .; c
~ ,
, a.
4
} cl1 previous commitments I tried to make;those- !
7, ' 14 ' fl2 4~ commitments.. But I indicated that'ifTpeople ;
- o >
y, ,
# 4'
~13.
'needed7to. talk to me they?could'come.back,: I:would - '
;t
.m - . , <
f bh g'ladL to tallist' ,.them. -
-E m -14 o -
~
5- ,
,, , A -
. a,;i
,s' *.
. Mr . , Brandt , .'did ~ you.; implement an open!
15 - Q. s c. _ 3 ,
-door. policy during:the'timelyoutwared he-non-ASMB !; g
- 16 y
+ , m
~
r
. s r
17 QC n aupe rvis'o r ? i ' # 1^ f .. W ( j a. , , y e- =
.z- ..
t
; . ; , ..-- p _
a 4 _ , ~18 A.- Yes..' .H.
. .e W
'~k -} ?
p . L. w -p-
~~:
How idid you convey ' thatf policyE to .thek'4
~
;19 s Q . ;-: i
~
, w , -
,9
[ f20 in'apectors wh.o worked'inlyour group?? 't
;w -
Y< . [ _ Group--meetings,spersonal conversations?,
~
, 12 1 'A. s . . . _, s. 4s
- x: , . b. ,
Lan~d i tihrough -my superviso'rs. .Ilwas frequently:in 22 = c . ~ the field ' arid in -< the' inspectors ' of fices'for y ~23 .; .. c _ f- l,
-various reasons 1and'I tooksthese oppor'tunitiesito'-
'24 7 ..
l . .. . . l# , , j j;;
~
'...-25
. speak with^ inspectors in an informal (setting. I
.m
_,;g
..m A: c.
v ~ ' 4
. :p ,M X;,C a ." .
, Ye , , e
% 9 .. . .. .
SfC _ ^E~ FEDERAL (COURTiREPORTERS r-
~
;;v qd g _ _ . 4 - -_DALLASM; TEXAS ~
= < .
w , . - .- - . .c. .
, , , 45344 1 Additionally,.each il6spection. group held
'w)3 , ~2 periodic. meetings, and,I often dropped by to see ,
3 lwhat was happening audito' answer question's. On
~
4 numerous occasions.during th'eso. meetings t 5 informed the inspectors of.ny policy and I tried 6 .to convey my personal interont in their' concerns. 7 I want to add that I can't think ofsa 8 day when I didn't meet with one or more inspectors 9 on an individual, basis in ny office and the 4
'10 . majority of these meetingo were initiated by the 11 inspectors. ,
i
~
12 Q. Mr. Brnndt, did'you have a policy about r3 13 the way in which you wanted disputes between. craft'
.\./
14 and'QC resolved? 15 A. Yes, sir. I made it clearLto all; 16 .non-ASME inspectors and. supervisors that.whenever. ' 17 a difference of opinion arosi between craft and QC 18 during an inspection,~the inspector:had the last
~19 word.
20 I:also. mad 6'it clear:that the QC 21 supervisors, including mycelf, were available to 22 assist in resolving any disputes that arose.. 23 -Q. Mr. Brandt,/did there_come a time ~when L24 you conducted _a survey of your inspectors to 25 ascertain their attitudes about certain things? e FEDERAL' COURT REPORTERS m _ _ . _ DALLAS, TEXAS' - y
v . . . - 45345 1 A. .Yes,-I did.
\_'.).~
2 Q. When did.you-conduct this survey? 3 A.- Early summer, 1983. 4 Q. How did you decide -- how did you~come 5 to conduct the survey? 6 A.- I was concerned on what people-~ thought-
-7 of their own' job, how they parceived the job-they 8 were trying-to do. One of the guy's that worked.
'9 for me at'the time, a follow by the name of Mike
.10 Warner, came up with the idea of the. anonymous
~
11 white paper'aurvey. I think it's called the White 12 Paper Report, giving them an opportunity to voice'
.(1 13 their complaints, what-they thought of their job, 14 what they thought of Comanche Peak,.what they 15 thought'of their supervisor, what they would do.to 16 . change-their job, if they could. Those type of
-17 ~
questions. , 18 > Mr. Warner prepared the survey for'my-L- - l 13 review. 1 i 20 Did you distribute the survey' ' Q. 21 questionaire? ! 22 A. Yes, I did. I distributed the
^
questionaire'tocevery-non-AGME QC, inspector. l 123 2;4 Q. You say they were anonymous;nis that 25 right? - PEDURAL COURT-REPORTERS b _ DALLAS, TEXAS j
- c. .
- 45346
~
-1 A. They were anonymous in.the sense thattI .
>.c > <
(,) ' ' 2 .can't-tell who. wrote them, other than in'some 3 cases, I--cangtell by individuals' nandwriting 4 whose responses it is. They are geared so that
~
5 Lthere.is-minor word changes in a couple of key 6 - questions to-where I can~tell: which group or which. 7 supervisors or inspectors were answering the 8 survey. 9 Q. How long after-you distributed the 10 ~ surveys did you.get-responses back? ,
'11 A. I would say I got the response ~c-back 12 between a month and six weeks later. I received:
o 12 them. They were turned back in, to the best.of'my A.) -
.14 recollection, about two weeks'atter they were sent-15 out.
A 16 Q. Were the results:then compiled-for your. T17 review? 18 A. Right. 19 : .Q.- Mr. Brandt, did you review.the' responses 20 to the survey? h 21 A. Yes,-I did. I spent more time 22 concentrating.on the narrative portion at the - 23 end. I think.the last question una comments. I
- 24 reviewed every one of those, and I reviewed the 4
[.) - r 25 summaries that were prepared for me.- I reviewed FUDERAL COURT REPORTERS DALLAS, . TEXAS __ , . _ . _
r- -.. _ _ _ - _ _ . _ .. . .__ . - -
~
45347'
- u : . .
~
1 other; portions of:theLsurveys at< random. I don't
,j(.w) . 2 b$lieve I could honestlyasay I've read every line' ;
3 of every surveyr even a'tJ this stage. 4 -Q.- 'Mr.-Bran'dt,iwhat action'did you take in - 5 response to the' survey? . 6 - A. I made some supervisory chances.- f L I7 Q. AndLwhat were those? 8 A. Let me make ' clear, beforeiI1even. answer '"
.9 your question, Mr. Downey, that the survey was'a
, - 10 _ contributing factor. To say the survey alone '
--e
~
11 caused anytbing other-than. expenditure of-several~ 12
~
.hoursLpreparing;it, distributing itictabulating 13 .
it, and evaluating ~it, it ? ai :probably_ e not true. 3' 14 'Q. It was a contributing 1 factor? -
~ ~
15 A. It was a' contributing factor to-some of - 3 16 1the personnel'decisi'ons I made,.one of which was J
~ 17 .
the removal of Harry] Williams, one.ofLwhichtwas- , 18 7 the: transfer of Mr. Foote to night shit and$the-19 Ereturn of'Mr.-Randall to the day shift,.and Mr.
-20 Lawrence receiving _some additional ~ responsibility..
r . . . o 21 .Q . Starting withithe additional.
-22 responsibilities.given to Mr. Lawrence, what~in- .
23 the survey-responses -- howEdid that contribute to ; ~ ' 24 'that?-
.wp- ~ >
' .g2 , - 25 A '. Mr. Lawrence's group ~. responded;in a.way I t FEDERAL 7 COURT 1 REPORTERS xx - - DALLAS, TE%AS -
s -.-
~
l s > c
; ; . . 45348
+ 1 -
thats-ILwould1have expected anl ideal supervisor's Dj f 2 - group tolrespond. -They were very positive,;which y .'4 , c3
'i n d i c a t e d ' t o m .
c e t h a t there was a; clear 111Ne of' '
~
4 . communication,and understandin'g7andvrespect -- 05 between!Nr.LLawrence and liis troopsi < 6 Q. You"say you' assigned-Nr.!R'andall ; to 4 the , 7 day; sift;and Mr.-Foote-to the night. shift after ,' .
~ ^
'S the-survey, 1s-that.right? .
-9 '
A.- . .Right. .
. 11 0 -
Q. 4
;How-did the survey contribute to that' r
~~ .,
c11 change?.. - n -a '
- 12 'A., Mr. Randall is'- te use probably an.
, .n 13 often.over-used tera, was burned'-out in,thelfact . ' ~
x -
~ +
14 ithatnhe had been.on night shift fore well_overJa '
.e
- year., 'It' was causing him. some; pers'onal problems.
15 -
- 1. , ..
16 , Q., :I've'workednight'shiftisyselfandyouzi~ -
- - ~
; ~
"~ '
m' 17 tento d- ' lose c'ent'act withLthe-people thatDyou' met *
~18 ,
'~onM day i shif t'.' You sometimes lostLfeeling, ford n ~
, ,s.
~
19 .whatis,actua11y going on. /
. [.
~
a 20 AfterLI mov'ed him from night shift"to. -
- 21 day 5 shift, he'came in and. Personally-thanked,me~- , ,
% . - y for'it. .He._never formally requested thlatihe'be. w e .
-12'2 .
g .. - 23 removed from night / shift,;but he did come-in,'- - 1 a. 24
.after;the fact, to1thank~me for getting7 him.off .
'g' ' l25 ; night shift. ,
~
, m .
}:
V - FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS- , V _ [. '
- '___..- x._.. _ .
....,,D,A L L A S , , TEXAS, ; _ jg n _ _ ,_. .,
. .. _.m . .- .. ._..~ _ . _._ _ - ._ __ _ .
~ , .
. ; ~* _ .,
- x . .
k' ' a45349 L # s: 4
~
+e -
1 T. 'i Now,nMr. Foote, why'did you'movejhim to
. j3 ^
n .V s2 nig6ti shift? ~ ,'s
. ~
p s v3 'A.- When.-I moved;Mr. Randall-off~ night j 4 - shift,1;I had-to replaceLhim withesomeone.- Mr. < f .: . I4 '
-5 Fooke1haa kind of.stagnatediwhere;he was'at. IHe -
L' '
, l5 wasEsupervising an. electrical:'suppert installetion l- . . . .. .
27 inspection. At:the time, the. activity;with the 8 mo'st' craft + people and inspection: people wasythe 7 9 coatingharea.- ,
~
l- ~ (( ;10
; Mr. Foote was Leve1~-'IIIlin"2 coatings. .I ~
.- 11 deemed:that Mr. Foote was'a good chase:becaus'e he. ,
- . f 12 , was
- the only one-of my supervisors vio had any: i s- '
13 experience'-at'all with. coatings.- Aad.~it improved. e- , a 14 the; organization, I thiak, by tho' factithatLIahadJ[ '
. 3 x ~
- +s L1'5 someone'who-could answerJtechnic'al concorse on, u
- ,, I .
o f 16 ' night shiftiin the1 coatings area. ,
- s. ,
4 You mentioned $ hat following.the;surveyf
~ ,
1~ '17 .Q. ,
- s. -
- f, -18 you : replaced Mr. Williams,iis '.that right?[# -
,. . S That's[true.
p 19 A.
~
i ' n e - - 20 ;Q. Would,Lyous. describe more fully-the
, ~.
+ -
42 1 circumstances.tha't.clead to thattdecision? .
.1h . > . \.
f - There iwereiaaumber iof f actors'that ' '
~
7 J22 A,
'+ . . .- . .
_Q..
- 23 occurred during the. summer of 1983. One wasithe .
,m.. l24 . survey,none~was day-to-day-observation.of job
.g. -
(( ..
<2 5 performance, includ'ng{ i personal conversations?I~
j 4 FEDERAL' COURT REPORTERS
- g t- -
. .- m 'DALLASo TEXAS-
45350
.1 had with"Mr.-: Williams and Mr. Willian's l
[_).. 2 inspectors,Lconversations with construction,- , l l 3 ~ conversations with engineering, inspector ) 1 4 interviews I: conducted after talking tolHr'. Dunham jl 5 'in June. ~ t 6 In essence', all theLfactors lead me to u 7 believe that Mr. Williams had lost effectiveneas 8 ac avsupervisor. 9 .Q. So.the White Paper Report was a 10 contributing factor to this judgment, is that- . 11 :right? 12 A. ~ Yes,zit.was. I wouldn'.c say-it; 13 contributed any more'or any less-than'anything
}
14 else. It was one of a' number of factors.that. E15 contributed to my decision that Mr. Williams had 16 to be! replaced. 17 Q. ~ Apart?from the supervisory changes that'.-
-18 you.made following the survey,-as toLwhich dhe
.19 ' survey.results vere at contributing factor, did the' 20 survey results contribute-to any.other action that- J 21 you'took outsidelof:this area,.outside of the area 22 of supervisory assignments?
23 A. As a-result of the survey itself,.no, 24 not that I recall.
' t"M 1
-)
\
25 Q.. Did you pass the curvey along to;your
^
l
, - ,)
J
- z. FEDERAL' COURT REPORTERS l DALLAS, TEXAS- 'j
-mn-7l-g,- ~ ny a.[y ': n y~-
--r --
g ng e = g- ~;~w7., ^
' ~
l lil" g%, , ,l. , .. , ' 4. .l l 6: LI P-} s c I
, g . . . _ _ . .
.. ~4
,J - i -s 3W 45351?
17 y. m3 -- 7 ,
- t y^msw .
;q 34 _
. e ,
y
- ;m
; n 4
.A ~supervis_ ors 7:
^
- il
~
v . . . . . . .
. p .sp ,u . .
y ; R A xy# 2 A. I di's~cussedig'enerally the result's?of el
- j
' .~ .,j~',
,_f. r
. .h ,
~ ' '
- b. b . , 13 survey;with my. supervisor, Mr. Tolson. ,
I' l .gc , . . . _ _ , . . V' s, J4 ; idiscussed.the s'apervisorycchanges?Itwa's about?to _ + , s es %, - - m o
].g ,,
W Sf make... 7 b,' 6 I , 4ast thati po'1"ak, no , si'r , - I, d idn ' t
. . . . s
. s. .
wh,y didn'.t you' pass;the entire surveyC
-7 'Q.- .
g; , g 1 8 - along togethers injyour chain:ofEcommand?; h, ;;. _ $ .: b.3,,,
*[ .[
U It wasia1 report ~thatywas: essential' lyn fJ - (9 -A.- ' 4
~
7 -#
.g .
- n.
~
1
'autho' red _by myself. The!ideaivaslaine_or?myj
_p 10 m
- ~
~
m: > r&_. _.'. .. .
-, - . % c.
- 11
- W ~ . M(-G . people'.s'. It/was done for my benefit, notJdoneeate y < j d ' .
g --
- r. e n . . , 6 -9 a-P 12 Janyone's direction.- And ietheir, thanipassin'gion} the~ f c ' >
3
< at . t.; - . 1 . . . . . _ s e
- W . . .
- = 13 general?results of the-survey,fIJdidn'tifeeliffhad~
e-
;;w
,-;a
;d ..
y W. bm -*c
.14
!any5 obligation s to. pass?the{ survey:.on6 -
e<. + y k _ k
-l$
, ' r? _ .h
, Did7 you 'see .anys needito'-do', r th'at?.
lQ F13 _Q. w R 1 Rd, . 16 ,
- lA.- No. 3 I t , w a s a /_d a'y,- t o - d'a y f s e p e r v i s o r y K,-
y 4 y gG 0;.,5 ' ' 1
' i
/ fn 17 evalhatilonloffp'eople I'fhad working;forfmeR more-1-
w o , - ,
,. a m m g n
c . -
.x x . n. ,
y7 18 thania~ythingfelsek n and;whatWIXoseld,etryitoldo to -
~ ;
- g . . y . . - .
+ ;a . .:
J, , # 19 cquite frankly",make the;QC(inspectori's job 1 easier ** w * - ' a n- .
.,2
*f
~ 1 [
[ _- . s'
, 20 -
for%him. . .
% g
- tl' l'J',," _ _n i* - 22 1 NR. DOWNEY: The appli' cant moves..thati g M ,
> : n m , .,
, a g:4 y -4,
..g .-
c_ ._ , . o t. ..,,A i 7_ j yL22 T
~
Brandt f Eshibits :-12, 13, 14,_18k(19, 20, 214be" 3
, ~. . -; - ~
, 7. m :-
14L_,' } y Qh k. ( y-H,2 3
- receiv'ed in-evidence. .
7 4 *j
., y .Y
? * * * * * * * * * * * * ' ' ' " " * * * ' * * ' * * *_
l** f-'E,
" ~
12 5 ,- - plant 0 exhibits no, sir 12,-13, ; g , a
- x97
+ ,
^
s ~a ,
.-tl , [
d'" ,_ FEDERALICOURT'-REPORTERS y, . L ELI _ 4 'f1 . ;s: c 7 :h DALI.AS,iTEXAS: m 6 <~* _T
- g. -
- ; -- ., . : : w .; .,-----+; - - .
;~ .
93 c;; .- ~
,.E' y?* '
~453523
~
vg , s 7
- - _ 1 1 ?14,.18,,19, 20 Land l214.for " -
4 , Identification vere' received;in h.
~
?2 a ,. >
~ , .
( m 3 :eviden'cel.- 1 U 4 _ MR.'DOWNEY: ~And the , Applicant- moves , that!Brandt Exhibits-15/ 16 and 171ba received in "
^
~
ly ' 5 s
~
6 . evidence-for the limited purpose of e'stablishing. n .'
~
_. ^ . . _
~.L _
.7 thefnature o'f the~ complaints that' ware ~ brought ti- , ,
JL8 ..manag'amant's attention?by QC-inspeStorsjand ...- . _ . y ' a. 10 4 TheLdocuments previously marided- _
, q.
^ '
111 'Brandt Exhibit Numbers 715', 16; i
^
~
' ~
11 2 and 17:for identification vere 13 receive'd in evidence. limited"in I f) .x '
- 14 scop'e asJnoted;abovei i:
[ I15 , (Whereupon the"deposiklon of Mr.?Brandt ._ 16 - was adjourned _.. -- _, s . ~ .
- s. . 17 _
^
- a. 4
. 18 -
,- 'It ,
~
~
20 a L - f21 I, C. THOMAS BRANDT, have read the' foregoing. ,
* -22 -deposition and;hereby aff14 my signature'< that- same'. -
, s y 3123 is' true and correct, .except 'as noted herein. - 7' j l . 24 =.; ; L}. 25 , t L _ L
' ' ~
' FEDERAL' COURT REPORTERS. t.
.- $ ,i . , '7 , _:_:._,_,_. ._..
7 DALLAS,nTEXAS__, _ _ . _ _ (__;
J 453'53.
- - ,1 '
.C.~ THOMAS BRANDT 4 U! _2 ,
~
3 . 4 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN ' to ;bef ore as this ~ the , -r
-. .5 .
day of , '1984.
. ;g --
~
'7 -
8 HOTARY PUBLIC IN AND'FOR THE~ ,
' S T A T E O F..' T 8 X A S'
'3. 9 1 ': < gn ,
. 11 My commission expires 12
?
f 13 '.'
- l&.
14 ' - 3
'15
-16 r- , .. ;
17 , 18 , 119 . [ 0 .. 20 , 21 22 23 { ' 1 y , C) F 25 t P. y W" \ FEDERAL COURTfREPORTERS r- _ _ DALLAS,_ TEXAS ~ ___ __ . _, ,
~ ~ '~' '
-y "
-45354-r
~
)
).
l STATE -OF}.TSXAS (( b 2 COUNTYiOP DALLAS )- , s 1 I
- 1 4 I, Marigay Black, RPR,.CertifiedLShorthand 5 -Reporter-in'and forrthe State of Texas, do hereby-s
'6 cerEify-that the're came before me on the 16th-da~y L7 ,of August, A..D., 1984,-at the Glen' Rose Motor
~
Inn, Glen Rose, Texas,fthe~following named ^ person,
- 8
-9 to-wit: C. THOHAS BRANDT,_who was by me/ duly sworn a
s-10 _tontestify the. truth and nothing but the' truth of' 11 his knowledge touching'and concerning' the mattera-11 2 .in controversy in~this-causes and that he was 113 thereupon examined upon his oath and'his
=14 examination reduced to writings sameJto-be sworn
~
15 to and' subscribed by said witness 1befor.e any g 15 Notacy Pablic. 4 17
~
^
'18 I'furthercertify-th[tiramneitherattorney 19 or counsel for,-no't related'tolor employed by,wany.
20 .of the parties to theiaction?in which-this 21 deposition is taken, and further.that I am not a 22 relative or employee-of any attorney-orJcounsel 23 . employed by the-parties hereto, or financially , interested in?the action. s 24 c 'O
- L' 25 1
FEsJRAL. COURT-REPORTERS.
' ' DALLAS,' TEXAS -
- t~
45355 c2 _ , I'n
~
g . L1 witness'-whereof, I~have-hereunto" set ~my 7;4 '. V
~'
~2 Thand andcatiimod my. seal':this 16th day-of: August, t~ ,
'3 A.D.,198d.
u [ 5 i.Ia'ense' Expires 6 -- December 31, 1984 CSR No.' 351-7 MARIGAY BLACK,'RPR, CSR .
- ~IN.AND FOR-TERjaTATE OFLTEXAS~
8 1226' Commerce, Suite-411 ' Dallas,. Texas 75202
;9 -(214)'742-3035 ; 10 .
_.'~ 11 , .
- s. 1 12
-x
-h t
.. *l 14 '.
^
15 . 16 17 ^ ^s l , ; -
~
18 .
~
1 19 , o 20 - , s . , .m 21 +
^
. =22 :,
~
f .23 a. i
. , 'J24 n; .
^
.v 35 ,
t i - i FEDERAL. COURT.REPORTERC nv DALLAS , .'.T E XA S -
DOCU V E \. PAGE l PU _ E J _ A\ O. ssossmoe NO. OF PAGES .! REASON: O PAGE ILLEGlBLE: O HARD COPY FILED AT: PDR CF OTHER
/ /
O BETTER COPY REQUESTED ON . E TOO LARGE TO FILM: HARD COPY FILED AT: PDR 8 OTHE4 O FILMED ON APERTURE CARD NO. k DNSMYOh-Of
s
. (. l C -
rac _, (t
' INSTRUCTION ,.,
nEVISICN ISSUE II " ' ~ P A G Ey, ; , C TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO. g 7g
, NUMEER ~ _ n wm _- , , , . ~
y CPSca y yg.7 ".y:cu /C
! QI-QP-16.0-5 0 . MAR '1982 1 of 3 U-
/UTd h '
PREPARED BY: gg / // 3u 2. j j;/ 7 '
. REPORTING 0F BASE i DAT
! APPROVED BY:
e / /f 3 ors O" k .
- l APPROVED BY; V
_I
~
b [2 - DATE 1.0 f, REFERENCES FOR IHF0imai:0N OM_Y . 1-A CP-QP-18.0, " Inspection Reports" ', 1-B CP-QP-16.0, "Nonconformances and DeficienciesI ' , I b b{ 2.1 PURPOSE hg( (g g gdh [f [ I
, j[ .
The purpose of this instruction is to provide the criteria
, for reporting base metal defects -incurred on non-ASME items. - '
'(, . 2.2 _ SCOPE Base metal defects reportable in accordance with this : procedure are, but are not limited to, the following: !
, a. Base metal damage l l
- b. Minimum wall violations r c. Arc strikes l
3.0 INSTRUCTION . 3.1
~
REPORTING t. When it has been detkrmined that a base metal defect is l present the inspector shall report it on Attachment 1 . in accordance with Reference 1-A. A The following shall be included on the IR:
?. E '< a * * '" c 5 da; * --*d:- 3d y#er.tatifr. cf defect en
.r.eT;e r i
N
; ; DEPOSITION EXHlBIT Yh N ?
U b TUGCO CA MW -. . , . - - , . , . .
1 - t i 1 i INSTRUCTION - I5b5 I PAGE l 1 ! ' TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO. ! l AEVISION ' CPSES >
.( ,QI-QP-16.0-5 0 , DR 5 1982ii 2 of 3 i i
i t
- b. Component identification or location f
- c. Defect dimensions (width, length and depth)
- d. Member description:
- 1. Outside diameter
- 2. Wall / plate thickness
- 3. Material type / grade .
Additionally, the inspector shall circle the defect on the member with a site approved marker. l 3.2 DISTRIBUTION The inspector shall return the IR to the appropriate file custodian and a copy will .be trar.smi tted to Welding
- (, Engineering for corrective action.
- 3.3 CLOSURE l Upon completion of repair the inspector shall reinspect !
the area, and if the defect has been satisfactorily repaired, l he shall close the IR in accordance with -Reference 1-A. Any RPS(s) issued shall be referenced in the Remarks l: section of the IR. and the inspector shall verify the
-i RPS has been properly completed.
l l j 3.4 NONCONFORMANCES t l ; In the event a defect is repaired without proper l documentation an NCR shall be issued in accordance with
- j. Reference 1-B. ,
i l 4 1 i i n o 5 i
- m.e
. . .. . g 5TRUCT;Ch IS UE PAGE ii REVISION DATE NUMBER I I
! TEXAS UTIUTIES GENERATING CO.
.' CPSES l
! QI-QP-16.0-5 0 .
MAR 5 1982 3 of 3
., l ATTACHMENT 1 i
i
. C::MANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATICN 9. m en INSPECTION REPCRT p
$6L%i F* CAT.CN %G. 4YSTI.w / STRwGTwAE ;E4.GmAT.GN (TEk CE!CMiPTICN
? 4 2
sit:.xo. aEv. au cc. cCC. a =Ev. a :nanse no. g=cAswas en Tur Ecuir. cc4T. aG. M/A s N/A e QI-0R-16.0-5, Rev. e , INSP' CM C M NSP O I CTf0N NSPECTICM 9 ue4P. RE3UI.T3 , O raecerica ec eattTro , *tt araucastE iTo.: sATisticTeav Cinset:T1CN CCae TETE 3, UNSAfl$r&CTORY ITEMS UsTED SELQW '"'I "~ ee
. IN5'PECTICN ATTRIBUTES ; $ Daft sionan;ng
.. . ,1 s ,,
- 1. 1 Cefect !dentification l ll 1 i
) i O ease "etai camace i i t O sininun wati violation i i h i l O Arc strike i i i i I 0 0tner: - - .
Ii I l k I 1i I l Cefect 01 ensions: l l f i l Material Type / Grace: l \l 1 l f l l ! l I I Wall / Plate Thickness t Outside Diameter: l l l { l l i l l ! l l l I I I I i i l l I I l aosAmu (owas,setes, rre.) RPS NO. I , i PC ATC gCM NC j g , GATE igggggyy,g
= ' t CC 41PECTOR 6 i .e l
. v. i INSTRUCTION h[SUc D 7.XAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO. NUMBER , AEVISICN qJgf gg7 .n Q _) PAG ,E
~
CPSES
!QI-QP-16.0-5 -
1 M m M'6?A '1- EE ,3 l ' k DUN 21 !c?2.1s a /L/ . D0;c3eS3
,) ., - c c1.. a iv u ,
j
,EPORTING n G,.r BASE fPRE?AREDBY:g- y.-
em,_ ' Akh x . i m %- - MI / . E, APPROVEDBY[ < ,! 4 v
' DATE ,
v. APPRCVED BY:
- N .
L DATE I
1.0 REFERENCES
i 1-A CP-QP-18.0, " Inspection Reports" 1-B CP-QP-16.0, "Nonconformances and 4 jcie,ncies" z 2.0 GENERAL
#d/*yQ,,' g JI, .
2.1 PURPOSE /j/L . - i Ui/ r.s , I
! The purpose of this instruction is to provide the cri O l 6
for reporting base metal defects incurred on non-ASME ite ( ! ( ! 2.2 SCOPE i Base metal defects reportable in accordance with this i procedure are, but are not liniited to, the following: !
- a. Base metal damage '
i b. Minimum wall violations
- c. Arc strikes
; pc;n q 'n: r, 3 74 r:n g 3.0 MSTRUCTION b 'k d U .. .
= fp e w
- d NMt. %5 L : b:d hd:
; 3.1 REPORTING '
l
'n'h en it has been determined that a base metal defect is .
present the inspec tor shall report it on Attachment I in accordance with Reference 1-A. The following shall be included on the IR:
- a. Sketch showin; location and orieitation of :efect on
~ 9+ g ,
3 DEPOSITION EXHIBIT m M8
,i
"' .GOO O A ams.
(. e i INSTRUCTION REVISION ISSU,E, PAGE TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO. CPSES 1 JUN 21 1982 2 of 3 l lQI-QP-16.0-5 ! i 4
- b. Component identification or location j
- c. Defect dimensions (width, length and depth) ;
I
- d. Member description: ;
- 1. Outside diameter !
. l
- 2. Wall / plate thickness j I
- 3. Material type / grade -
I Additionally, the inspector shall ci rcle the defect on i the member with a site ~ approved marker. 3.2 CLOSURE i l Upon completion of repair the inspector shall reinspect -i the area and the following non-destructive examination shall ! (- . be' performed to determine the acceptability of the repair: I l a. Liquid Penetrant or Magnetic Particle Testing for l surface defects. i-
.. i l
- b. Ultrasonic Thickness Measurement for minimum wall deficiencies.
If the defect has been satisfactorily repaired, he shall j close the IR in accordance with Reference 1-A. If not, the
- inspector shall return the IR to the appropriate file l custodian and a copy will .be transmi tted to Welding
- Engineering for corrective action. Any RPS(s) issued shall
'- be referenced in the Remarks section of the IR, and the j inspector shall verify the RPS has been properly completed.
l 3.3 NONCONFORMANCES
! In the event a defect is repaired without proper
, documentation an NCR shall be issued in accordance with Reference 1-3.
l l
,.3a- =3 _ _ . _ . _ ~ . _ . .
a
, _ El 1.' .
L - . INSTRUCTION ISSUE PAG:' REVISION ,' NUMBER DATE
; TEXAS UTILIT'IES GENERATING CO.
CPSES i ' 1 3 of 3 ; lQI-QP-16. 0-5 ' JUN 21 1952 l t-f ATTACli'ENT 1 l 1 - .! ,._ i . 00 VAN 0HE EAX $*EAM E'. E*TRIC S TATION l Ser er
- INSPECTlCN REPORT j%c
. tw ccs:.or.c
- r.r.Ga:-c.= w. sis:s.w , sTai.cr.=s ;u.c.narism
- 2.
- 4 5MC %C. g5 LF G4 OCC. S 4Cv. & Ona.%4E 40 TE5T E3wd. GENT %G.
j 80 W. juC'3="E64
' 't/ A . .I N/A el 0!-OP.16.0-5 Revi ,
QinRSP(:T
**c:tssCM C parbl4F
- =srap.0N
- 4 ricg C ;utat.ar :=
'40P(07iO4 -
C pat eksp(271C4 g p t try W5PtGip04 - 9 !
%3P. RESULTS ,
O asrc.voa ::ua t to , att awcaett attus satva: car
.C.=sPt: reg ::uatries. L%sar:sta: ca.y ircus ustra at.:w '"8? * **'E c
tw =o. ..
. INsFECT:cs ATT4'SuTEs - -loa;t
.. . ., i s. s:sgar.Pc., i.
1 t Oefe:: :denti't es:t c, f iI i , I i O sase "e:31 ta ere Ii' 6 i i O xini: 2 weii vietatien -- i i; i i
.! O Ar: Strike l -- 1 l l I
- c. I O ctner: -
I !I i
'b g
(- l i! l 1 *,e'ae: Cireasiens: II l- j
! "ste*ial Ty;e/3 race: -l l I .
l' I Wall / Plate Thickr.ess i.I l l I j Ow:si:e 313 eter: l 1 l l 8 I l l! l
~* I J l i ,
I-I i
.j.
1 i ; l1. I I '
. . a i .
l l' !
'tw u =s :w:s, sat:s,t : 4 d
"Ikea % I %
g ,m, og q - eEIb g;$ g *,p g I ***'
- l g == C; %SPt;**9 a 4
y c . .. .
i , NS UTtuT;Es 3ENE.=ATING CO. '" fu REVISICt 'Qf{'pOPAGE
- f. J t
CPSES I QI-QP-16.0-5 2 Y N Ml IC
/'-
55 5
\vAUG 31-1992 .
O N
/
a PREPARED BY: '//e -.-- c 61
- REPORTING 0F BASE I
METAL DEFECTS I A? PROVED BY: a.hiban'i[,@rv l T-M R2 APPROVED 3 . , l " CATE l 8 [g
1.0 REFERENCES
1-A CP-QP-18.0, " Inspection Reports" I h['/.f.,
! Wi / i .
1-B QI-QP-11.18-1, " Liquid Penetrant Examination" [4 fg
, 1-C QI-QP-11.18-3, " Ultrasonic Thickness Examination" 1-D CP-QP-16.0, "Honconformances and Deficiencies" ;
2.0 GENERAL g 2.1 - PURPOSE ~ ,, f The purpose of this instruction is to provide the criteria for reporting base metal defec.ts incurred on non-ASME items. l 2.2 SCOPE Base metal defects reportable in accordance with this . procedure are, but are not limited to, the following:
- a. Base metal damage
- b. Minimum wall violations
- c. Arc strikes .
NOTE: This instruction does not apply to weld undercut. l
, 3.0 INSTRUCTION 3.1 INSPECTION Sue ret d indicat"nr Wil 3e ?.cceptible provided the
- a. esa ns c;r.;; a ans sru is*.; ,
r t 3 DCPOSITION t EXHIBli uccc e4 yl M T r
, ( .. -
~
l ' i l j INSTRUCTION ISSU PAGE
, REVISlCN DAT:
! .NUMSER i - TEXAS UTIL:T;ES GENERATING CO. ,
! i CPSES I 2 of 5 2
', Ql-QP-16.0-5 lAUG 3 l'1582 l l
! f
- a. The damaged / defect area ground to remove the imperfection is well faired without abrupt changes in contour and l -- shows no visual indication of being previously repaired.
- b. The depression produced by grinding will not exceed the.
following:
- 1. Area g'rdund is 2' inches or less in def ameter.
- 2. Structural Shapes -
f 1 I a) 1/32 inch, for material less than 3/8 inch in
', thickness
-l 1/16 inch, for material 3/8 to 2 inches
! b) inclusive in thickness c) 1/8 inch, for material over 2 inches in thickness
(,.. ,
- 3. Plate I
a) 7% under plate _ thickness for plate 3/8 inch and less ; b) 7% under the plate thickness over 3/8 inches, but, in no case, more than 1/8 inch l See Chart below for percentage conversions: l. 7% OF PLATE SAMPLE DECIMAL l PLATE ~ j THICKNESS EOUIVALENTS THICKNESS (Thousandtns) I i
' 1/64' = .015 35 1/32 = .031 1/2 43 1/16 = 0.62 i
! 3/4 !
70 1/8 = .125 1 [ . 1 1/2 105 1 3/4 122 . Over 1 3/4 125
; mcco c4 . ' ey g e o- 2
1 ( >
. l-
.g INSTR CN REVISICN I8 O E PAGE
, _I TEXAS UTlUTIES GENERATING CO.
CPSES QI-QP-16.0-5 2 lAUG i i 31 1932 3 of 5 i-3.2 REPORTING When it has been determined that a. base metal indication is relevant the inspector shall report it on an Inspection Report (Attachment 1) in accordance with Reference 1-A. The following shall, be included in the IR: ,[
- a. Sketch showing location and orientation of defect on member ,
- b. Component identification or location
^
- c. Defect dimensions (width, length and depth)
- d. Member description:
- 1. Outside diameter .
- 2. Wall / plate thickness - l
- 3. Material type / grade Additionally, the inspector shall circle the defect on !
the member with a site approved marker. i
- A copy of the Unsat IR shall be sent to the involved craf t .i and/or Engineering group for repair.
3.3' CLOSURE : I- Upon completion 'of repair -the inspector 'shall reinspect , the area . per the RPS. Ifedefect is considered minor by _ , Engineering and no RPS is issued,' the inspector shall visually
~
reinspect per Paragraph 3.1.anif ~ contact Quality Engineering for l any additional NDE. If the defect 'has been satisfactorily repaired, he shall i close the IR in accordance Nith Referenc'e 1-A. If not, the ! I inspector shall: return th'e IR to the appropriate file i custodian' and a copy will be transhitted to the involed l i
. j-
.k
'c WGCC CA
't M - - - > - - - * - wp -
}; ,
(_ . y
- 1 1 -INST 9UCT:CN ' ISSUE pg g,-
REVISION AE N .j t TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO. - CPSES [ QI-QP-16.0-5 2 1,AUG 31 :982 4 of 5 i r sngineering or craft group (s) for corrective action. .Any l{ j RPS(s) issued shall ~ be referenced in the Remarks section of the IR, and the ' inspector shall verify the RPS has been ! properly completed. 3.4 NONCONFORMANCES In the event a defect ' is repaired without . proper . 7 i docu:nentation ~ an NCR shall be issued in accordance with Reference 1-0. , f 1
-l t-i i: .( !'
~
l-i t 1 I C i-t NGCo CA 8tm %e. 9
. Y ..
~.:. ( -
l -
'I INSTRUCTION REVISION IS3UI DATE PAGE
,, NUMBER
., TEXAS. UTILITIES GENERATING CO.
CPSES QI-QP-16.0-5 2 MG31 GM, 5 of 5 ATTACHMENT 1
- C?.W ANCHE PEAM STEAM E'.E:TRIC STATION t tr- a INSPECTION REPCR7 y
.~1.e . n..w ,n. u ,= m , .
.r a.ane.
f g= cam.w cm ; m s sw.n. sm, ae. wr no. esv. . 3 u se ;oc. n esv s snaam so. N/A ,1 N/A al O!.CR.16.0 5, Rev. 4 . in .M !g hsp ; shWCas h t> 44 g Jt4P. Re.SJ.t$ ., O ih:,seca eo scie:, att aesicaetc i . mars.crea, 'M O := sat: c= .c:wautto, uwsatista:Teu et w Lstro st.o=
'"8f''" ~
e
' " . INSPEgTION ATTRiguTES garg ,,,8, {3,,,
3 , I Cefect identification l ll l
- 1. 8 i i !
=i' ] 8ase vetal One. age i fI i I ] Minimum Wall Violation i O Arc strike i1 : .
F I O cteer - t i. i ii1 l I i I i I te<ect :1eensteast l l l ! i P4terial Tyre / Grace: l l 4 l I nall/ Plate Thicteess Qutside 314mter: -l l l l Il! l I [ t I i u h I i i ., ' 6 I i I e
-[-. l i =ema*=s e owis,setts, c cj ,
I 4 i. O b n . .n ...e,.. ~ . i , i~ru I ca a tI i u :t ,e * ' ' OC 9 spit *:A .g ! s . { 4 . I I',)C C'17 A -
o ._ -
,i . , . _ ._ gn-6 c' t. t *.g' g
'--. L ._- - ~g , . _ . - ..
- . - ; -- s
-- : ..-:^
)~,f f ij,.h. ." __
.. _ : - T
[N i ", .--. -':- ' ' * " p.-
' ' ' ' ' 7 f . air i&D, -~~ '$n. ~ .
* ~/i i t, (7i 4~
[ i~ '3.p/ a
~SeiC.h 0.
.' . A A a.
.,). / .-?'
e'EV.
).uG.7' ,.-
REE. C.C. OCC. & $E'/. S OMANGE NO. scat.;..ston - J'c - Nsu~56 ".2//&:7 'G \^ Eu f ,in /: Tag :m r.li.c,s MEA 5uRE f ~CRr TEST EGuiP. 4 CENT. too- -
#d/ m o m r c t N/A s QI-QP.-16.0' 5, Rev. _ 'O
- T N/A 3
/a,
, , s n4t 1 e pRemi3T C PRE INSTALLAT:CN Oiks72a' Tic 4 INSPECTiCN g :: INSPECT . PD ev r;ttiSFi.CT4tN Ak/
][N P9CCESS IsSPE0 TION V ERFICATiCN
*" ~~ ,-x.'/
O 'A INSP. RESULTS flh A?'n, . 2 -h.6s. 5-O iNeaEcrioN covetETED , Att' Ara 1:Asts iTEus SAT:37ACTear - QC IN SPECTORv CAT 7 L'.,, INsPe.CTION COMDtETED, UNsATisFACTCP.Y !TIMs L!sTED BC CW W C ITEM NO. - INSFECTION ATTftlSUTES ' * ; g eg;g 3,GfiATt (2 0 3
- -. 11
} l
- 1. l Defect Identification l @ Base Metal Da.nage v{v' fee,l[j[gf'r I O sinimum wall violation Wei I
,/,.R I I I O Arc strike
./bl l I D other:
l I. i, l l 1 Oe f ett C i er.s i e ns : g .. .e ., v, . M.%. 1,". P, f.t. , . . ; 4 ..' i /... lndd . , ' I . ..is 't l Material Ty2e/ Grade:/',, f., ;,/. f /,< ag. lII l l l l l l WCll/ Plate ThiChess N' l Outside Diameter: f e,,, ,,, y,,, _ ll l i II l l l s t. r W
.pi o
' I C
.a? f e
.co u
-= ::-- x c
'-t ,,a g e. , . , , . - . c,.
y/ - O '(,. M;wEt
- l. O -/9 1 c',
.f'- / " .i u
j
--fl.-It N-Mic W -l- owK itV9 -$cuTh $
l O.$ s. C r_ ;L i+:s_fJ. v. 2 +1,- & . .
.. (C.t:.\.\
RetAaxs p.vcs,spE:3, E c.) - pg g ., DEPOSITION
$2 ~7 9 6 ig,,f,p".g..
. EXHIBIT
$ ,.gEe %Xh \ D LE
_/ >
- A (
RELAN.lNCR ?*C. 1. R . C , f.,.S r.D g jDATEg ,jj ,['2 jg;cn47 ppgc M :Ns:E;T:R L, ee M , M / N f//4 5
; I s
\
e "W O F
+*G
,Me
&aM INEA' L8TiDN TO.EE I.*; gg gggg; :.:c ,
AC'.'.O.OA',CE v.,TH P.:vxn p-- - - . . ----e..-- - C M ..c - ! 3. e,/- Q _ REFERE.'CED IN CFfit 6.11 WeId N0. Er/BA'C?/L WEto M47 0 3CRIPTION OF CEFECT (SKETCH) R- 1 DEMH oF ffP/W .WC r
,y,S ogg 7~c iX & JEo sofc cf
&?Ss- McTryt- -7y/ uM.i'sS t,W W.A ytiri"3S ray fff20X. File f " n f **bCEP X {yo ~@b[
xf .,.c y "i_o.q 5 g.tn (11 7 h Y ($ 3 C L
- RECORD DIM'S o-ct0 30tNTs sa /iwETica Ar.atis (sisa Ano cATE
'nT QC, AMI. COM or 7C or WT f(Os CUT ML 3FER. OFERATICM ma I LE'IEL VO.
R-s l ff/G 4f &ff42 !
/s) WRAP l 1 A l L AYO'.IT IY Na '#4 l d' M@@ fM-bM L B IGRIND I X l NA I #4 iS b75 6-M St.-l C I //' CAVITY l NAI J l N4 4 l $ {d.f.6' (/Jh % 2 !._W l
- D IEVALUATE I I l
/d l I IEXCAVATION IX l NA l sc I 5 d Nto5-M-84-l I E- CLEAN lNA / lMcl l5 lY M fp M M 2l T l F PREHEAT I NAI J r/(- 1 l5 l'AddkM'fdd 'EZ' i j G l WELD:/&98 8/o NA NA l e4 l l Y El l H FINAL VT e jfNA 1.J l a t. l ,8 M /,/ M y f'# $ l
}?Pf/ : f /H-,A// f/,4$' St- l l l l
h l l Jmhaut.' /M4dh$XJL->l'C-14.t?% t-T 'N I I I , I I L I I j l l l l l ) l i I n l l l l j i l i I
) l I I I .. o l l .., h i. W M 1 l l .sh %"dN P' L l I , .9 MMl "'" l
) l l l l l W" l I I ! I i ! I I i I
ANI GaH wr ec i ;;,,i .r . n o .-i .e i r . s :-. . is,.
,,,-% ,,m,. im..-m o n Lass =eul tru p . .t. :*. 'p. aat me t s v.a t sessie . =C. . nat
It STAU. ATiON TC; EI !!,
.. , , , ACCCCANCE i.iTr: PTCCD.'T ES ,", "_ , Y " I ",,O ' ',',,
REFERENCD IN -CPV. 6.11 g .. .>k,!f ^! ..e '*'Q
' ' Q:
CF. .,v., 4..: WEl.D DATA CARD Orawing No. #4 Weld Ho. d,' 1 WPS i REYi/ICN! FABRICATICH CCDE & LINE f C:. ASS /ACC. ST").
/
/ AS:4E III
/
CPM-6.9
/
MSF. MATERIAL FOSTiED NEAT TREATMa7 K# ## to HTi #4 TIME ## Hrs., TBP . #4 'F
*C # MJ to FCI MA Pf N/ to P # N# HEATING RATE d# /Hr. #4 SPECIFICAT'. Ort nes/cen o.90 UT QI-QAP/REV VT/11.1-26 PT/10.2-1 MT/10.2-2 RT/10.2-3 M.&T.E. CALIS. QC WED FILLS MATERIAL REQUIRED tir(S) CUE DATE I i ACOT CLASS CC VSIF. iFILL CLASS I 1 e DATE:
I I i CLASS I I i CLASS 4TF 5: (1) A;plicacle QC/ANI nolo points.snai.1 ca tr,cica:ac cy enecx;.arx /.
-(2) ANI inspecticn Points indicated by (X).
(3) Cenote Satisfacterv ins:ecticn by an "S": Unsatisfacerv ins:ections bv a "U". FROCUCTION R E!ASE , Pre:ared Bv: SAT. (SIGN AND CATE) s 'R. OPERAi10M hCLD FOINTS CON _ INSPECTION RESULTS JiO. WT 'QC ANI or QC or WT HCE CERT. AN1/
\ UNSAT. L E'/EL /
i N / N I /I i N If I N / I N / I V .A [ N s 'b#
/ \l c&
/ N
- lfM'}s.-
/ , .y
/
-l Q.
/ l ,
~
l I I l '.N if I t i i i I I IN WE CC MiI A:::r:vai signa:::rss s .ali :e af'ixec cn :*e lir.e ' =ecia ely tei:w tne las-s 2:: in eacn sect.:ence.
F . .; 5.i. i E.i .. 5 i t. 7 . ' >. c . . . .'. n :9._ < r-
,.- ~,.
. ~
I ..v . . . _c, ,4.v
%. . h: _- .. mr... (s' jC. .,, -- ,
s . , . . . .s Gw.F>ca;4 s s-. T Z :. / a a nTe7.c tc3..a. Ar.: , 7e4 . . 7', , .- .4 - N . ,\EP"1 /[W 'c: " s
- .. .' . / / ,} / * ' . - ?
2
*dEAMf. Ca TEST ECutP. s0Et4 T . too.
?f5C.f.C. AEL F.5.5. CI CCC. S 'R EV. & CMANG?_ NO.
QI-QP.-16.0-5, Rev. '9 7 M',f a ft/A e it/A c uit g g:INSPECTICH O PsETrsT 14SI-ECTICf4
]lN MCCESS C PD.E IN STALL!.T:CN Oisst VErfiCATlCn a'TC4 INSPECTION 9 is5PECTloN tidSP. RESULTS ,
C INI:EC.CN CCNFLETED , ALL AP8'.:CAELE ITEMS SAT IFA::TCRY
;,,,h j , ,, f.ggf., -
OC IN S.P ECTC R DA T*T . L INSFECTICN . CCMPLETE3, UNSAT!STACTCP.Y ITEMS LISTEJ E~r CW , ic
>- CC ITElst h0. >- e
.' INSFECTION ATTRIBUTES - < E ,oxyg SIGNATURE 12
- 3 1 13
+ 11 J
- 1. l Defect Identification ltd l l @ Base Metal Da. mace '
V,R' l O ninicum wall violation /ly l I O Arc strike
./!? -
I D other: _ lL l . 4,.'. ~ 4.-lOddj.. . y I.} . ../, [H . l Def ect Dimersions : c,,4 ,,M . 72,c.,4*. c. /A. . e.. '. ; - l Material Tyce/ Grade:,r. .g.., e,e,//,.,'-rg. l I ls l l Wali/ Plate Thickness .%. l ll l l Outside Diame er,: f egg, f., l l! l i l w . j . G er
'e.i l
n' . l
..v.'
v.
- I
-6 + .r
't . , " . . . .
Y L O-O f. /-c'1 .
' .f
.l., '
. . - --f-l.-n N- Vicw -I: cc-K v:2 SeuTQ -5 D-S ;
G iLies lD. v. 2 + 9 - !.- l Re4AaxS (tw33, SPECS, ETC.) p.p .
.,. {@. s .~ . . f.* *
>6 ..,.%. .t %e. .. <
,t'c 'up-
' I Q.l)*
s ,
, , b I
F.c ATI: NCa No. l.R. C'LCSED
- C 'l D" l 83 *iAWR8 oc rNsPECToa gj
\$ .
1 i
-a- .
e
- - i
. l
*I
(
.} ,
1
.~
. , . . .a....3 e . , -:.~. ,m.- . ..w<~ w. .
.- HST/CT 4 M i. k'47. 15Wie: AFM.Clit.
G. i G~ 17's.
!*.I/C.AS3 SW.30. '47!/I:::t # cr C:::t # ' Iss, (G . . CATI t
// 0 7 2 (W2M/ J~L) ficetmo-.re
. . d'/.A.
-%. I Jhs ff'!I E1cif ANC I
l f lf9 / 6 3'7
/0 [I '
' /' ,'?o7 7 l
i t ,
- i l l
, l _.
.l l l l
! I i -
t l l l '
!i ! l
_ ___j i i i t '
- l i I i i -
l' . i i. l 1 I I l l l - 1 [
;i l i I l
1 r r i 1 i l' .
~i .
g 1 I
- l l i l I
l 1 1 ; L , g
.i .
t g l 1 l i l l l -1% a 1 I l I I l t l l . ! ? ( l 1- l l [ I
- r. n v r. hP.W i .bC '
# l- i . . _ . . . ..
l 19w91, },Mi 0 n"" " ' l . i l _ _ l
' t i i i I . _. 1 i
f il - ._
-~-
---.-=__---~~-__-_____..___ ' 9-Vg--,e _
t .
.._.--.a . . . . . . -
I o o (,",ct,j 1 , h0C ! arf al .4. t
'GS ?
I. Cnwing .t. 6 2 - # 16 f
. gh)2 _ .
I .c : r u.s n n 1 u:2 vana.u. wwwo a?24
~
At///s -_
' t!GT/CT* f AMT. AMT. !!!: A*'CI J ~8~S/AL
'. t WD rG
~i-y W7!/ICI f or COE f III. 47'3.
. tc7 CATI 1 7 10 A!! $W3CL ,
l l
- . ! I i
. I t
i ! 1 9 1 I i
*
- l l l --.
I l i
. I i
f I I
, i l
1 l I l l . i ! I I i l I
._, l
- . I I I __.
)
.l .. .
j l ( . I 1 'l n .
~
j i l- . I 1
~ l
-[, - t i
I I l I i-
- \ ( ( l l 1
I l l
; l 1 -
I i . g g t
< %.b l".%
, q. e.M i -
i g;, y.s. . cG ,..:",' i.%' ' g 14 . . ,. , ,
. t .,
,
- e i
F q
- - . . - - - . ~ . . . -
, - - - ~ . . - - . , _ . _ _ , , , , _ _ _ , _ -----_----- -_
b,NUA.T!(bYUCb!. ll j@.;"-;,2,
~?
/ OU ALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT MT/PT REPORT .
FAGE_I___.OF,f JOS NO. 35 119E UNIT _1 PROJECT. COMANCHE PEAK MT O- PT V WDCITraveler # [ol9 H[ System Op g.-. Class ggg Drawing gg_ 7pf LocationCc ra,ec f/ past, 4 '(,"3),cf /C,5 [f 'M; Welds'ltem # g/gt,y (m g p R 4 7e~ ' Mfg Stage g_g q [p ggg NDE Procedure No.Qf[ Rev.] Acceptance Std. MS DLf Equip / Mat'Is Mfg. gg q g Developer Batch # 3/7038 Pinetrant Batch # $(L o O 7 Cleaner Batch # f2 A /2 f Mode! # M&TEIRC # AC Yoke O DC Prods Ogd Diameter D Mat'l Type A $ g 9 Mat'lThickness f4 Length F1 [ ID D OD 0 Sketch & Comments
,' k '"
. .. ,. 9 , tW '9[.,p,,.g, j,p * ? "
. c,;,,,,
MspectorM.[F ()% Cert Nicati on Level g 03:eg[jg[77 fjjy,sge;e,,g
,u,,
,e. . u -
- E' E = r .:
- ~~ ::= .~= ===~: := -- -
_ .31.. ,.qc t L .m."b1A."iOli
. . . . . . . . . 03/- . . . .U-1 t, ar sTR CiuRE/ SYSTEM ' 1TE*.u 00!.9C N ENT TAG /iD P.U EER LOCAT:CN CR ELE'.'AT:0N ' R:R NC.
Bus 3x Above 905' Cont = 1 C:ntainment #1/ , Polar Cran? Polar Crane Approx.onlySOk.1m l'/A NCNOONFCRM:N3 OONDCCN "Ucc9r$ W a
' j i
, ( ~.a,e ::=:: o ?,
j Bus. box is burned extensively and burned into. '
}a f .g.- - g 3 gg40- Q 5 The danaced area is large; however it is Confined to the bcx c'nly. LCCGMS'cu a ~
,, sgwc:
00 M g; g6
$.A jN 9.- /
a Hold. tag applied. %ey% 7, j y \ s ;
= .
5 e O SI
=
CP-QAP-16.1 (Ref. ANSI-45-210) 3 3.1 PEFERENCE COCUMENT- c?-CPM-14*1 PEV 0 PARA 2**0*1 PEPCRIED SY: OATE: Darlene Xaye Stiner 5 f 6 , 51 CE REViEN/APFAOVAL: DATE: 1:g / / ^l 4 C ACTICN AOOREssEE CEPARTMENT
' D:sPCsiTICN:
REWORK REPA!R UsE As is SCRAP NOR VOIDED: . W i Justification: Polar Crane bus bex is NCn-Q and therefore, is cutside the
$ scc;e of the QA Program.
=
-O C
Z O P O
~<
ENG. REVIEW /A PROVAL cATE: i , / /
/i
" REVIEN APPROVAL:
- AT E:
I a, ,.u......
.Y
... . _ .., - . . . . .n _yU b St r$l ....
& M 4 . - .. OM.. . --. Y -'
DEPOSITION I/ Y=/ c:vuENTs: EXHIBIT , hAAk i1
.M w. e A
1 m s %u'c . Shielded Alctal Arc Welding /31 4.6.2 In building construction, extension bars or run-The ambient environmental temperature may be off plates need not be removed unless required b the below 0 'F but a heated structure or shelter around Engineer. the area being welded could maintain the temperature adjacent to the weldment at 0
- F or higher.) When the 4.6.3 in bridge construction, extension bars and run-base metal ,s i below the specified minimi,m off plates shall be removed upon completion and cool-temperature, it shall be preheated so that the parts on inn of the weld, and the ends of the weld made smooth which weld metal is bemg deposited are at or abose an'd flush with the edges of the abutting parts.
the specified minimum temperature for a radius equal to the thickness of the part being welde, I, but not less than 3 in. (76.2 mm)in all directions from the point of welding. Preheat and interpass temperatures must be 4.7 Groove Weld Backing sufficient to prevent crack formation, and 4.7.1 Groove welds made with the use of steel backing temperatures above the specified minimum may be shall have the weld metal thoroughly fused with the required for highly restrained welds, in joirts in-backing. On bridge structures, steel backing of welds solsing combinations of base metals, preheat shall be that are transverse to the direction of computed stress as specified for the higher strength steel being welded. shall be removed and the joint shall be finished smooth or ground. Steel backing of welds that are longitudinal with the direction of stress or are not subject to com-4.3 Heat Input Control for Quenched d '* "**d and Tempered Steel @3,g ,yn,,, " ' b"em ved, unless s specm 4.7.2 Steel backing of welds used in buildings or When quenched and tempered steels are we'ded, the 5tructures need not be removed unless re-heat input shall be restricted in conjunction with the Y"'by. quired the Engineer. masimum preheat and interpass temperatures re- 4.7.3 Steel backing shall be made continuous for the quired (by reason of base metal thicknesses). The full length of the weld. All necessaryjoints in the steel above limitations shall be in strict accordance with the backing shall be complete joint penetration butt welds steel producer's recommendations. The use of stringer beads to avoid overheating is strongly recommended. meeting all workmanship requirements of Section 3 of Oxygen gouging of quenched and tempered steels is this code. not permitted. 4.4 Arc Strikes 4.8 Caulking Arc strikes outside of the area of permanent welds Caulking of w elds shall not be permitted. i should be avoided on any base metal. Cracks or l blemishes caused by are strikes shall be ground to a l i smooth contour and checked to ensure soundness. Part B Shielded Metal Arc Welding 4.5 Weld Cleaning Before welding over previously deposited metal, all
, 4*9 Electrodes for Shielded Metal slag shall be remosed and the weld and adiacent base -
metal shall be brushed clean. This requirement shall Arc Welding apply not only to successive layers but also to 4.9.1 Electrodes for shielded metal arc welding shall successive beads and to the crater area wben w elding is conform to the requirements of the latest edition of resumed after any interruption. It shall not, however, AWS A5.I. Specification for Mild Steel Covered Arc restrict the making of plug and slot welds in accor. Welding Electrodes, or to the requirements of AWS dance with Appendis A. A5.5. Specification for Low Alloy Steel Covered Arc Welding Electrodes. 4.9.2 All electrodes having low hydrogen coverings 4.6 Groote Weld Termination conforming to AWS AS.] shall be purchased in
-' - ~ % c P.all be dri:3 for at a jomt in a manner tnat will er.sure so.nd welds. lea >t two nours cetween W 'F (230 'C) ard 500 F C60 'C) before they are used. Electrodes having low Whenever possible, this shall be done by the use of ex.
h3drogen coverings conforming to AWS AS.5 shallbe tension bars or run-off plates. DEPOSITION
" EXHIBIT
-wup k
co w.. . . o w i t
* .u e,
.l ;c -<
T.l Q ,
. pe .. itle.
/a e ;: n.:i Q f.g. - -
r e irm ;:r; mus - _u+- ._- - _ ~_ _. y . ;. _ n ..N.:: r . r.,n.r. d,F S.,. :..'c 4 -10 4 m 5-"
, i Er ,, .2.ii
.c,..n.v c - n,.
..- =..
..g.. .; . 3rg ] ,.o .
-N E ,g. __
D . af a~ i
;Im e : ~ ,
i o \ a . , . ,9,, --+.--g ~ a
, w . . u . . . . n1. .+ - -
., op un w a . ;
,c{s._.
, Y _. .
- O .a d ,
-nj ,'
- m >- h-m%
f"l 7-l#\
;l : . S? -
El ZI 7
,. 4 y '
w , i s.
,w .g.
ru.;f,4 I t , l VA- A 11 [--. ; I $ 4
.' M.t 3 .O-j 4 0g 7
-e .'"-- ?, k=; -* g e .c ~y, ss 'J ,0 a %l g
\
( '.~j d. 4~ ,* 7 ( .. yyp\, . b
,t y ) ,e g
. :l
' T &4 t'a EDCa t Cg
*-t[ I.
.2
*
- E 'e t A
' uARL
$ ,$ .JI
~
w'.
- j Ct g
i
. t, i i
; 's ,
g.3 e 8 s,. , v y,- i !r u.a y g._ - _ e < y :; _g _._
.,j - g 1_ __ . g ..
. - -- vA
-
- m ..
Av * )' - ,- ty \7 v / ol. <;,,-, .- is + 4 ~;Jg 8 L-+- f - -
. , . . . . u i : f u ru .1 1
, l- :.-.e--
-ft .$r.1.:
-T CJ e 4'. i t*
' b'y N: ' h ---
~ y~
i
, DETAIL- I ___ DE T AIL -
.s A E. ' t = i 0- ly,,E: ..i I~ll ?,' ",, < >, !,
v . I . I, f f d % f ?'4L*, )
- d. 1u -.i FA E ~3. s - 6 i
. . '-E f.
1 s. 8, !.
.t -:. . . ww w >. a m J. :. ,
5
.1.
i aa Ws ~'
, t; rz.e taL4 es .e .
I , i -
...i!
( t' . _ 2_ , _ _ . _ . , _ . , L, :: 9 ; p.n s t + w/n 7a?+ 08 J e ,
;t s-
,4 y
--e /m w..- a. r r . . . . _a
) j . ,t ,
_n v c~ SECT'ON A- A - SECTK. w .s. y -r-a- g ,n.t g*.,, y e 5i 4 9
. 1$ / 0 s
. g a
;i .
3
., t 1 _-
t
am p pe6 4 LL gaG TI .- f - APERTURE 3p ll]3
.e
't- -
CARD T,3g
- j. SHW BrLL '
? -
p; . ASSEM PC No SHAPE _tJ NGT
- REMARKS 0, No NO REQ wT 5 '
F T . ' WS MAT SPECS
-e.ol-3,4 2-
-j .
j i,!- mumb+iauim.aAnte 4 _+ 1 i a . - i
- .05
;Nt wi! L's T e memmai s
*i l me _' li. _2...l.. . i . E v 2, .,,-..itA 6 ,
L ,
- m. __ c ,, i u.w sn asajtr ;
n,14,g. a o Ii x y, ,.y L .3 u;c e x , r,;z i p7 j gd K{q' , -~ % R. a5c '= psagg . w ;n .w y g e I o i j3 ! 3 m? 3. 5M ~
<5 9". i'.
[f. ._"1 g am ya ,, 9 8, 1 8
' 'I4 l I ' l'I A STM A.s.a '
. f kW1. J_
6 I, e l
-m . .._ J
, -g ] ;
I _ .. . _ . _ .
'r._
.g f :' a w
i . q } h,0TO__.C'__A\J'
~
. ! ! a, .
%p _m
. i s i
* ' - 93E MG-USI-0 RY.- i 1
_ . cy. . . f_ ,
,L -_ :.
g
. L -- . - f. . _. . .- -j - - _
, ..g - .. j .
L g; j
- k. y cJts -
f ! c ;:'.. ws
-gf,, -.*---.--<
u , I ~~ ~Q,7 'CND ~ ~~ '~ ~~d ! ~~"8 N h-+= 3 .; 3 l- l 1
. ( -
4, s .E 'd._ t [ POTES / CESIGN SPECS / PA:NT
.gBE 'j,L l'.13Mi
test cacNt*
. Also Available on
,i{lNM L .?:t$1 h
. A
' Parture Card ,
I3-~ u) ST. 7P. No mTe
.A 'O.',7 e U.%I F E - 3'_49 s**
1 h
'a >
_ E.l a , nEVISION 49Y 'Ct:L j pt I a m r.I r e.a nd 3!.'o3(3 eH $10635 Erd 2) A ~~ ' hM "' JA ~ i c',_e, u t a t r s:ss aiu_ ~~ - I nm ___u _ : .
-- ~' us p. -
{, c p ;- g -__7.._.-___
~~~ '7 .__.. _ ._. _ - --
{
,_._.y
~& '
'd wm wme: a sssC <
, ,8;,5 , , ,,',
l-pc BrcwnfrRoot.!nc.
..... r..,.w. 3.c,a m. n_ ,m .
...J I
; a - =- iy ( '!
j
. . . . . . . . . a m. .e i u . . i s .w _ . _ . r 11 r9 j ",, ,. ,
,w.. . _ e
- e s .a : e C P I f. I_ 'es t 'e 40 50 f t a 45 ll .
\
. . . . . . a , u n, a .. . . . = :,. ., . ... .. . . sm l . . . ,1 s . e . ,
;a lN 9=F B- B_
r, m,- o. . 209 No 35-'95 e=*= MSB-0635-OOJ l ~sheer O N E. 1_Ig ,
',y' j
f j or q4. j i. 1
,0 DEPOSITION :,,, -
l2 hm EXHIBIT
't.
_.o, . :4 l l2 840823040%-0-'2 , 17". m )
~
. y~3
/
N
- ^/ >
/ '
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , ; } NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD . ..
/x ' -
- ?.. ,\/ "
)
N(~l ' ndM ~~ In the Matter of
)
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-445 and COMPANY, e _t al._
) 50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) (Application for Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Operating Licenses)
TESTIMONY OF C. THOMAS BRANDT REGARDING INSPECTION AND TESTING OF NON-ASME COMPONENTS AND SYSTEMS Ql. Please state your full name, residence, and educational and professional qualifications. Al. My name is C. Thomas Brandt. I reside in Fort Worth, Texas. t l l I am employed by Ebasco Services, Inc. at Comanche Peak Station. A description of my educational background and professional qualifications has been previously received into evidence as Applicants' Exhibit 141D. Q2. What is the purpose of your testimony? A2. The purpose of my testimony is to describe the various inspection, verification, and testing programs which exist at Comanche Peak Station for non-ASME components.
- 03. Please summarize your testimony.
A3. There are three parts to my testimony. The first part discusses the QC inspection program for non-ASME components _ : . ; c ; c . _..m
- c. . ; .a:.c ..e Pean. Inis program involves numerous instances of multiple inspections and verifications
) DEPOSITION EXHIBli
];3rm>4 Ut
V J . _7_ which provide assurance that construction discrepancies are identified by QCLinspections and corrected in a timely manner. HMy testimony highlights examples of this QC inspection process. The second part of my testimony' discusses further inspections and tests which are performed after installation of'non-ASME components which further assure the proper function and overall quality of the. equipment. These
-inspections and tests are in addition to the multiple QC inspections. Again, my testimony highlights several .
specific. examples. . The third part of my testimony describes independent i.~~ ' audits, inspections, and investigations conducted by outside sources to assure'QC inspection program compliance and acceptability of installed components and systems.
- 04. .How do these multiple inspections and tests provide assurance of_the acceptability of installed systems-and components?
.A4. . All inspection attributes will be directly inspected at In addition, least once during the QC inspection process.
in many instances multiple inspections and tests of the same components provide. additional opportunities for discrepant conditions to be detected. These cumulative inspections and terts ereeide a hich level of essurance that such conditions
7, 'i n will be identified and' corrected prior to-operation of Coman'che Peak even if.they.had not been detected in the
-initial QC inspection.
'QS . 'Please describe the non-ASME QC inspection program.
_AS. The non-ASME QA program requires a seri es of'QC inspections 4 which are described'in intricate detail in inspection
. procedures and instructions. The attributes for these inspections'are outlined on Inspection Reports. The program includes _ numerous in-process inspections, and post ,
construction acceptability' inspections and acceptance testing. The non-ASME' QC inspection program covers four major-
'~
disciplines: (1) Civil -- which includes concrete, soils, Hilti bolts, and protective coatings. (2) Electrical - which includes all electrical , activities.- (3) Mechanical -- which includes mechanical instrumentation and Radwaste Management System piping. (4) Supports -- which includes cable tray.and conduit supports, pipe whip restraints, and Class V pipe supports.
w L In V each of;these disciplines, the QC inspection. program provides multiple. opportunities to detect unacceptable
~
L i
! conditions which'may have eluded detection in earlier-l inspections..
106. . Please: provide an exmaple -from the Civil discipline where QC. e sinspections subsequent-to initial inspections. provide.an
- additional' opportunity for identifying previously undetected
. discrepancies.
( A 6.- A good example-in the Civil discipline is protective coatings. The nature of the QC inspection process allows - - unacceptable conditions which have been undetected on . initial inspection to be detected =on subsequent. inspections. All coating systems consist of multiple applications of s coating material, each of-which is' inspected. Unacceptable conditions are likely to be observed in-subsequent coats, as each subsequent application is applied and inspected. For instance,~an unacceptable condition:(e.g., surface contamination) on the bare steel substrate not detected in the' inspection of the substrate may also be observed and ,
~ identified during inspectionlof the prime coat. ;
Q7. Please provide examples from the Electrical discipline where QC inspections subsequent to the initial inspection provide ; an additional opportunity for identifying previously
- : undetected discrepancies.
G 4: . _5-n It fA7. . Anyl electrical-system is~a multi-component system. typicallyEconsists of electrical equipment, electrical instrumentation,-cable and its associated termination hardware,-and conduit and cable tray and;its associated hardware. As the " system" is constructed in a defined-sequence, there is ample opportunity for discrepant conditi~ons not initially identified for any. single component to.be identified during subsequent installation of other associated components. For example,Lconduit that was installed incorrectly _( e . g . , size, number and flattening of bends, interior r cleanliness) could be identified by' subsequent QC inspection such as during the cable pulling activities for that particular conduit. Cable which was installed incorrectly (e.g., . ; n'e , size, . identification, or separation) could be identified during various QC inspection points such as- , separation inspection, termination inspection, or during meggering (insulation resistance testing) activities. L " Similarly, inadequately installed cable trays (e.g., incorrect identification, damage, color coding) may also be identified during separation or cable pulling inspections or meggering activities. Additional assessments of the adequacy of inst'allation of electrical equipment and
~
~
n. n V p i= I-l
- instrumentation are provided by the post construction L verification inspection, and testing, discussed below in p .
. A 13 '.
- 08. Please provide examples in the M.echanical discipline where QC. inspections subsequent to the initial inspection provide an additional opportunity for identifying previously undetected discrepancies.
A8.*.Both elements of the Mechanical discipline (Radwaste Management System (RWMS) piping and mechanical instrumentation) receive in-process inspections and multiple - final inspections by QC inspectors. RWMS piping was . origina).ly inspected visually by Welding Engin r . I' Subsequently, in order to satisfy the NRC's ranch Technical. Position ET-SB-ll-1, a QC inspection program was developed in addition to the original inspectlon by We' ding E.,qineering to assure compliance with the Branch Technical P.sition. This program included visual inspection of all pipe welding, welded attachments to piping, and support location. Also, subsequent to these QC inspections, QC performed-a walkdown inspection of the system prior to hydrostatic testing. Mechanical instrumentation receives numerous in-process QC inspections during the fabrication process. For, example, OC eniters tube bendine coeratiens, installation of Swagelok fittings, and material identification. 1
(T! - (i s. L - 0 - L !,7 j .- l.; , Additionally, upon initial completion of an instrument run L QC performs a final inspection of that installation in which
, all? qual'ity1 attributes are verified (e.g.,-support _ span,_
l' = configuration,:and location, tubing size, color _ coding). !- : Subsequent to this inspection, QC performs walkdown inspections prior to hydrostatic testing and again prior to system turnover to Startup. Attributes such as proper bend radius, tubing size and color coding and tubing support may o
'be observed and discrepancies noted at any point in these
! . inspections. I Q9.. Please provide examples in the. Supports area where QC inspections subsequent to the initial inspections provide an Y additional opportunity for identifying undetected L discrepancies. A9. Conduit and cable tray supports are-installed using a !. Construction Operation Traveller. . These travellers are prepared by Construction defining the step-by-step fabrication and installation processes. 'QC hold points are established by Quality Assurance on each traveller -- L describing the QC inspections required at each interval of the fabrication and-installation process -- prior to release i to Construction. These travellers contain an average of 20 L QC inspection hold points for conduit supports and an e 7z n- we - e.. w;, ( ...,7,-, 2-e_,c.4-. 4-.. m 7 y., I supports. The nature of the traveller itself allows for l t
.' t .
G ._8-- 7 ,
- r
- ' lidentification of' discrepant-items during each stage'of the i
. . inspection ~ process.even'though they may have previously-been
~
? -inspected _and accepted. Additionally, conduit supports receivelaLfinal inspection in which support span and
' capacity are1 verified as: acceptable for each support on the
,entireCrun of conduit. Attributes for which such inspections-have previously been' performed may,also be
~
nobserved and deficiencies identified during this final , inspection. PipeLwhip restraints are'also installed utilizing the - . Construction ~ Operation Traveller. However, in_this case,
'the-travellerLis-prepared by'the. Civil Engineering.
- p. , Department prior,to establishment of QCLinspection hold 1:
l
' points'by Quality Assurance.- The' fabrication and OE installation of these structures employ; welded construction
{
~
to the maximum extentLpossible. 'n a typical pipe whip. O 7 h) restraint weld,- QC verifies fit-up, cleanliness,-and preheat prior _to commencement of welding, and performs visual examination of all welds.- QC also-performs.non-destructive examination (i.e., PT, MT, or UT) on the majority,.ofEthe
, : welds. Thus, the QC' inspection process for= pipe. whip g
restraints also provides multiple opportunities for
~ identification of discrepant conditions-by QC.
Q10. Will'the same QC inspectors perform these cumulative
~
inspections?
p A10. Not likely. There are numerous QC: inspectors in each non-f ASME-discipline, and in most cases inspections performed E after the initial inspection for a specific QC attribute are performed by QC inspectors different from the one who performed the initial inspection. Moreover, in most cases, inspectors who perform inspections subsequent to the initial inspection are qualified to identify discrepancies that.may not have been identified in the initial inspection. In sum,
- there is a high level of assurance that discrepancies that ,
may not have been identified in the initial QC inspection because of the particular inspector involved will be _ detected by another inspector in one of the later QC inspections. Qll. Are there.means other than the non-ASME in-process QC inspection' program described above by which overall product quality and safe system operability are assured? - All. Yes. The measures which provide additional assurances vary with each of-the four disciplines I have previously discussed. .These' include'. additional inspections and testing of components and systems.
.Q12. Please provide examples of these measures for the Civil discipline.
A12. In addition to the, cumulative QC inspection process described crevicurlv vith resoact to eretective coatings, the majority of the protective coatings applied prior to
- November, 1981, were reinspected utilizing destructive testing _to1 assure their integrity. . Also, a. final walkdown
~
visualinspectiono[thecoatingsisperformedby Engineering prior to turnover to Operations. Q13. Please provide an example of additional inspections or' tests which.are performed for the equipment in the Electrical area.
-A13'. For'all electrical installations, there are several separate
. inspections and/or tests in addition to the QC inspections-previously discussed. This applies to all cable all electrical equipment installations, and ,
-installations, all conduit and cable tray installations.
' First, all electrical installations are verified to be hardware acceptable (e.g., separation, bend radius, damage, in place) immediately prior to turnover during a post-Second, construction verification inspection by QC.
subsequent to this post construction verification
-inspection, each component receives prerequisite testing by functionability. This testing Startup to verify component does not go to specific QC inspection attributes, but
~
demonstrates proper and safe operability of the each electrical system also receives l installation. Third, further preoperational or acceptance testing by Startup.
-"de *ce~'-~ -r-ffrre rester coerability.
Q14. Please provide an example of additional inspections or additional tests which are performed on equipment in the Mechanical area. s A14. Non-ASME mechanical components (RWMS piping.and mechanical instrumentation) are all subjected to three additional layers of' confirmatory testing. First, RWMS piping and mechanicul instrumentation are subjected to hydrostatic (pressure) testing. The
~
requirements for these pressure tests are described in the , ASME Code for mechanical instrumentation and in ANSI B31.1,
" Power Piping," for RWMS pipe. During these pressure tests QC visually examines every weld that has not previously been hydrostatically tested, every high stress point, and all base metal repairs.
Secondly, both RWMS piping and mechanical instrumentation are subjected to prerequisite testing to assure that each component functions as intended. Finally, RWMS piping systems and mechanical instrumentation systems undergo precperational or acceptance testing by Startup to assure system operability. The preoperational tests for mechanical instrumentation include the hot functional testing program. Q15. Please provide an example of additional inspections or tests which are performed en eculement in the Suceerts area.
i
=A15. An example of an additional inspection in the Supports area
=is the' case of Class V pipe supports. Subsequent to the
-original'QC inspection, the location and configuration of, thoseiClass.V: supports within the scope of the IE Bulletin 79-14 As-Built Program were verified by Technical Services Engineering. Any necessary corrective action resulting from this as-built verification is completed prior to system turnover to Operations.
Additionally, a large number of Class V supports, including:all on the diesel generators and in the fuel-building, were. reinspected by QC to verify adequacy of the . original"QC inspection, and to verify that no damage or unauthorized modifications had occurred to the support after-its initial inspection. Also, all skewed fillet welds on Class V supports have been reinspected. Finally, the design function and operability for many of the Class V supports have been verified by Design Engineering and Startup during the hot functional testing program.- 1Q16. Has the non-ASME program and QC inspection process at Comanche Peak ever been reviewed or audited by any independent organizations?
. , w'- -
- - . f
'A16.'Yes. -Numerous independent organizations have conducted inspecti.ons, audits and investigations of the adequacy of the.non-ASME QA program. During the last two years alone,
'the following audits, inspections and investigations have been conducted:
an INPO audit and field inspection; an NRC CAT field inspection and audit; two complete building turnover inspections by NRC Region IV; , an NDE audit and field inspection by NRC Region I; audits, surveillances, and field inspections conducted by TUGCO QA;
' audits and field inspection conducted by Cygna;
-a_ continuing field inspection.and investigation process implemented by NRC Region IV and Region IV RRI.
Q17. What is the significance of all of these independent audits, inspections, and investigations? A17. These' additional independent: audits, inspections, and investigations have provided a further opportunity by which construction discrepancies not identified by original QC inspections could be detected. Ol8. Does this complete your testimony? Oe. yee i
-o
- - - - - - - - _ _ _ . - - _ _ _ - _ , _ _ - - . - _ _ 'l
r
.v.
Speed Lettet - 3 . (
< -h:
i from N~)?l-f _ __ f e'L.g. -~ 'l '
.k'r}}f 1
.. . a, .o
~~ .
fe
- _
N-
.. . _. ._ _ -. N f.
cj
]47 \
. .1 - ( b.... t'c .. ~x -
iy G. d. -. ".". .. g'i~//(=/.W- '/O tQL " 1 j Date T//6 -- 13 # 1 E 3SA.GE 1,0 C b 6A>1* b g sc it i A n-b /d
,-.tYk't;J(~ h1%c'Us s on ) 71-{ n b i M T i.,'._ _ D f&Cri? 'Tf/ { }' L iA> I TW /l. W ACE
,!!D lA
,.6j & jl. I;4 [.D o /J & L. D t T* /n h ' 2 + 2- 6 D YrlA-7~ Td&V__C+'6
/ 8 e
/ 10o TH PMn c-s .
*1 ..X MJ &V K. h u % ._U ^) b !a t.S 74 ^' D'N b .
A2 CC E~%S AA'-9 5'fvil! -N1. D 5 * .- IJ Ruln&1C . lLGc.w /
,,,m.rsu*",,a 6
'l P p..d C _ . .. r. _. bt,?.z;], . _ . - -
n.-- .
. $44 /~f//.
i
,e .-
s:w1 .
'I' a. n.-
.$.L',.? :
i p ; __
,t nate. - _1 o 3 Pt.Y .
M41*.=*w.6
** *h *m-M'dW M- * '"* <
4we
*h.hDM*
-ae+mm.m-wF*es ew..
. e e e-e 3.+
- m .m e%
- g. -
- as p e-6.em a e W e = mur me4& *e f
4
. . . -.~
1 DEPOSITION EXHl81T
;% ntvik t$
1
I .
/ /y('ikkq V,r f n g9 n
liiTEF.0FFICE MEMO / o *
~~ q
@c;:- l TO: Jise Foote; Structural QC Supervisor DATE: Sept. 15 1982 f-)g/-:x)
<f u
y FROM: Randall Smith, Structural Supports Lead 7i @9 -
SUBJECT:
Report of Threat to QC Inspector, Hal E. Wade At approximately 11:05 a.m., this date, I received a report of a threat being dirtcted it QC Icspectcr Hal b de. Infcrcation received from Wade, and rsported witness Laniel Hanke, indicate that Pipe Support Foreman, Ken Mcdonald, c ted in a threatening manner both verbally and physically. Wade related that a dispute over material orientation, on Hanger #H-VA-X-AB-023-005-5, started when Wade initiated the NCR process on stated hanger; for which Mcdonald is the responsible foreman. Mcdonald reportedly began shouting at Wade and continued this in Wade's offi'ce, as Mcdonald folicvied Wade to the office. As the raised voice dispute continued, Wade was seated at this time, Mcdonald reportedly was " shaking his fist" in front of Hal Wade's person. I proceeded to talk to Craft personnel, Ed Haliford, Steve Curlee, and George y Bunt to ascertain additional information. All three agreed that the dispute got out of hand, but didn't know of the reported threat. Haliford said he will deal with the foreman, in hopes to prevent a recurrence of this type activity. I then asked Wade if he interpreted McDcnald's actions as a threat. Wade stated " Yeah, I think it was (a threat)." It was at that point when I contacted you with regard to this matter. Witnesses: Daniel Har.ke, QC Inspector . Randall Shields, NDE Technician Daniel Cox, NDE Technician I h reby request a thcrough investigation be conducted concerning this F.atter.
~
A' y , ,~ . c/ .'
.hll'..'MAd.4.40m'.
nancaTi~u. amitn Structural Supports Lead RC /Is 3 DEPOSITION EXHIBIT
%Nr \k l
~
', .. ~ gj.!Y!LL ,
Ny. Tc -7 B t1 UTl? M f1 T' - Frorn b@YM ' [.. 4 y
. y ,gt
\ '
subi:ctOM9/ A/NT AcA/RTT N R PA/N r M AN /
.~......
MESSAGE 6 /M w Date L 1963 O M Col24lRt ulHit1: PTRFbtMtHC i i y A HOL.LM.OGTECTowl it sT Dannah A FrHAL INTP W ed I- WAt /N n=/2#rJPTWA RY pad 3_' [3> REMAN VA_YNE VituAMt. HG /N77storTgr5 ME To cumrz rtAcx OP scALFCv nerlq "RQ, El$/dSMCT, A, TAM /S AM- 4*r4"qRCSS
. hts co NT/Mut TY' . tb AK rth PRovC' 7b Mim -rHAT IT MAX _ Ad DNrAT1AFAcTaRY ARE4_
f7- WA5 NOT AM /#T;r:2ROrpTic- 12/ ggESI,5Q{,Jtf . IMPEgtTWg coNNANo 7= ort ,,, Nr~ To_cm=Y ryts I,s A w a rAN.z_mer_r oz.A Stff..psier rcP3 manl eRCcRING A De InsR=r rnR ru n=gEpa m. ro MELLQHT rms GYArnptM, HR. Wtv ynt /4Alb TM R PA/H'T" ,5 OM=R./ALTCM DEdr. M A LGX. E em PLA IM To M AR2.f _
- n. MILpwc ; -h4A'T r- RJ;RL$2fh *T D 1:b.LgLQ( FMCMnN'c INSTRac nam.T A-NO
_P5=TP_fT 77tr A pr A - W4 fe4 #N r Acr VAs 1/1f.r$ 7f:rm .~I* ToL6 rMA Pv'FM A M
,Q rMAT Ti M M T i4 A T T MnB RdORN 7D TIE _A REA VHF>l T WAS
~ " ' "
M signed vn
"' f '
g/ - yl((r *&jjg,g, 'l Ba na fe m mo % g [!zyw% .M k_ . hft ,
,' W:
k .
. , , kg, 4s_ %
dd '+se/rLAe6 e_x.a ) beAW
~ .
'/ do dernd 2 -
bl M k 6 '. I __ NS - _ f .- f l - M
, (,,p7 ,
< a ; DEPOSITION
- o i
1 EXHIBli
._ sign.a i - -
].
EEsG)j:'"1 2 nEc:P!ENT- RETMN WMTE CCPY, RETunN PINK COPY
- rr;m 0bW h! I_W -_.
~T6m "TEWOT _
Subject
. u .- oat.
6i;U _39 63 MESSAGE O'77,5:Tb OF ! FfMMMrro WIT 4 774E ENT?RF ARFA [ coNsstsTING i Anome exnmpts 01: PA1NT D= PAR VMENT MARAtsh1 PAT OCCURRPn DhY It ( _EEFORT: 45ETE40A4 , A,/M/H3'u f'ENEttAL _ _FbRGMAM C. 44fAYFTTT-' ( AAgey &_WLt4./AM C *TH47 r WAt WRrnN(; NdPh od A OM PLAiM6/1 Tts . ld. UCMINGTOM 'S O RG W -
. _ Mps R rn c' r ~1i 'THA'i ._BAO EEGd...APPLJED_ RY <.
T' bib W4A .% 1M PLY T4 tS WAt AN DQTRAQGDQS .. WLSJELCAT1DN..._}U f woald 31:tbatfM ATRIPPtMG _.kJ R17t~ AH fir].5AT RALHER 8EPAt%VlBlen Nt- rHAT nMF1,
-Tkr C.Z-LI (MHICH. I_ -- -
.E10.AfNGo__Ib ._A R mu #NG,. rtN __
FIA ARY O Witif4M WRt nNG A flCR NMvF/t Fumano mv Min es O NTsa. MAb A 'CAAWF m i EVEN g cap 3 tiew n te eBouc. ILRcAarer -
~
1; n tts u W R m a c n + C . 1 2 .. t, .-....s o (I g . .... Signed n, A
/v d--g - %. k \
E 19 caie 3 REPLY G ... . . R _ ._ E .__ t.,;
- e. . . . .- . =
. .m j .. . . . . . . . _ _ .
.8 -
i Signed I ( fitCIP10if-AETAIN WHITE COPY, AETURN PINK CON
$$ .),*F#- _ - - :, l
- - ~ -
ap SGG Ji.i.e f. I'%E 6 From D - 34 TRr4N O~I-
'Tb . ..
Subj1ct - 19 0 S [fU cata MESSAGE s LAST WpMV T - HAO 7WFJ:c Br R : RAN'i 4Ho&ridt MA.TcJ-)SS -OoRiN A e a fMfPRTic43 WITif_7MF;_E Of s-c'ZeNT *Eli R PAINT 1:BRI MAN %/40 6TRvinMt N.
~7N Alf WAv nt1T OT:' OMSAT cn AT!Nc- T.
TRtFB ~7M A RCrig & ( ' lOORPMT W1AN PAf h_ M - _ -X* AtwAvr f.9(fLAfN *TO ~7 M 2 PhlNT FDRf mad AMO ~ MV 1t43ps-c r;o a rM c @ fNc, rM r AZ.1M t rrM, r:o=vA77oN1 1HC TthTs_ 07: = . AN ARcoMMMT 7:or_t.oes WiTW ecN 9tArNTI AMO 10 N0Mair.fC... JAf FViTA.nLY f4A c e,:y. ._q._wy_ue m 17
~
7t+s:F R & ar-m ARE NFG AvivF .
"To AnoaT MAvlNn' ,O OEFEMO MY.SFIV AGA-nAST
~C 1" EL L%I COM1:bRTAR 1"' o M4.SurEMN)SoR ! A MAnF TTY A 31(2 6oPFein iM Ar:NT.4 "THis MLt TWOMF g
Aii Fra. Tr<aMa - MFW kloot h . f t Sc,G,T:<T A
.417 Y NCu12QAhk'R TN2fGRY ArtFAI_', -E -
T:YoM W PAVNT DFFA#TMs:W-T-
~FbR MA t- -:bR 'RECGt V tMa. OOM PLA/NE t
~ ~
- Signed g ,
<L J 19-Date REPLY t
. _ . _ _ . _ s t
~ m m..
._.-..*w. -
-w,,,-
.......u
~ . Signed RECIPIENT-RETAIN WHITE CCPY RETUR
=a.,.
A. 't:lii . S.L_
O e - -,
. . . n u. ;
From D bI I b To ' 'TO M AIR AP3 OT Subj:ct
. . . . . ~
cate 6 25 1923 MESSAGE
/Als AccToe Fbre tAAsTANcg. Esckner TT4 F AG A.WsT A OL=cz n1:1Go h-fN T DE=PA RTMEMT REPRMEHTA'nJr 'nD N AKl= 'Tt+G O OM PLA thlT W#TH -7Mr Mf PA*"7Dff PRCCASNT do ~TMA-T 41 CAAl fN P!:EsoM 4I MKl=LF OR M ~T w =* Ph:NT ' DPPAR*rMr=NT 'TD PQT bCCMn 4 IT f4 WPrT7NG- AWM AR T" RAVE _ neWE. ,
4' g 1 h -
. . . Signed h r% j ;g
~ -
j Date 19 REPLY Signed hhY;m'Y# RECIP!ENT-RETAIN WHITE COPY. RETURN PINK COPY
.. ]
, . - ~.
(- AANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRK, .k.YlON M -
~
8"* / NONCONFORMANCE REPORT (NCR) ; y_ g .,gn , n ,, MRATING CO. l Y .m'}O I TAGi10 NUMBE9 LOCATION CA ELEVATION '~ , . AIRNO g. n[,. . ITEM / COMPONENT I Dif STPUCTURE/ SYSTEM s/s Reactor ~. 0T.V ?' I RB s/s Liner 11 SA Top at 860'-0" NA T/0 4000 Cavity Liner j NONCONFORMING CONDITION A random review of stainless steel liner travelers, for Reactor 11 Cavity Litter Welds, Ii hoc found required fit-ups/ cleanliness inspections of inside (waterside) welds can not j b2 verified as being performed. 3 2 Quelity of welds indeterminate. d Su attached sheec Zor welds randomly reviewed. 5 . E 5 Hold Tags Applied
?
Ii Attach. I QI-OP-11.14-6 REV 2 PARA seen 5 PEFERENCE DOCUMENT. DATE: REPORTED BY: Randall D. Sedth/Sdair C. 4andall 3/17 / 83 i / , / // q O
/hW$d .
ACTION ADORESSEE t.u n f /
/' )
5 3 i?b&2 DEPARTMENT J. B. Gd rge/Kissinger f Const/ Engineering DISPOSITION: USE AS IS XXX SCRAP REWORK REPAIR Subject welds are seam welds utilized to provide leak tightness of the liner. Acceptability of welds shall be based on vacuum box and hydrostatic tests. N c Q Q l DEPOSITION z ( E IBli o 4 -Is 5 i
< =
DATE: ENG. fl I / APPROVAL h @h /22 /
.<- DATE.
CE LE. - ,
. .g ,0fp W h _ s */,flY, r / /f' ~ h- /**
CA
't.
' ~
a
/
CISPOSITION VE AIFICAfiON & CLOSUAE-
"l
/[ '
,4 $:U:.5 l 2'r r ,t/s -
~/ COMMENTS:
I
~~~'"'~ff__________________2_~'~ '~~
1 W .e. . m um c- or c_
$7 0.. .
69CR*A-83mHS 7
? $sas:dt' k c. T?L. n M 3//V /B 3 AT A CRe%EM ,
t w e_ t. n
- w Eto *- Lo e t t>
- 225 s so 209 115 299 2co :
- T2 4 a c; s cl 2_ i
, ; Vo9 2 89 I l-0 0 285 i 69C1 282 .I 28 1 l,95 353 280 3 51 278 3 99 279 3' 8 ZW l . 347 271 1 3 ' lo 2 63 345 2 62 l 39' 251 ,i j 34; 25Z j ! l 336 2 El j i 333 2 50 ; n t, ?He L- 335 2% 90 33H Z36 ' 333 235 ! _ __. . 231 210 , .. ._ _ _
)
7,_.-. . ItXAS UTIUTIES ,( . MANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTR TION . GENERATING CO NONCONFORMANCE REPORT (NCR) s
/) 3-0079'5 IRS' '
st ,-Q .f: _ '. %f -)-' X Y ; efh .h_ ~ I_UNii ; sipucium tysTEM ittv > caw UNf NT i ' A G e n N U'.W f f. f t OC t. ' M S I ft' I EVt.TiQPO i"RF4NO{ 6 !RB s/s Liner js/s Reactor i ? hjkkd# /
- _11. lT/0 400.0_..
. .-jCavity Liner N/A Top at 8 )0" TF y n=._g.'GN:.SN/ A's /
NONCONFORMING CONDITION ' e. ' s " "
;,x ,/
A review of stainless steel liner travelers, for Reactor II Cavity Liner edsds g found required fit-ups/ cleanliness inspections of inside (waterside) welds can not z be verified as being performed. z O g Quality of welds indetenninate. m See attached sheet for welds reviewed. O z p 5 hold tags applied. c' CL Attach. I PEFERENCE DOCUMFNT. 01-0P-ll.14-6 REv 2 PARA Step 5 REPORTED BY: DATE: Randall D. Smith / Clair C. Randall 3 i 17 i 83 DATE: nil OE REVIEW / APPROVAL:/Yd m~;
& <41w, .5 /EAIR2 ACTION ADDRESSEE DEPARTMENT J. B. George /Kissinger Engineering DISPOSITION: !
REWORK REPAIR USE AS IS XXX SCRAP Subject welds are seam welds utilized to provide leak tightness of the liner. Acceptability of welds thall be basdd on vacuum box and hydrostatic tests. E S cc o A~d '~ ') Y lDb. z , .' DEPOSITION EXHlBli O a 1W l EW/ PPROVAL DATE: ENG(' __..,.._z _. 3 29S3 .g O
/. b DATE:
D SPOSITION VE'R TION & CLOSURE
.>. / /
(J-i COMMENTS Revision 1 issued to change nonconformina condition.
\
- - - - - - - = = - - - - -
- -. ...e n .3 y
r:-
~
GA _ft'$cnIt e$ocms 94L w n [/' l O c.Th.1 A 3,iiv /s s l
*m-A. cl== R C H k E N l .
1 NN E. L_ B
- WELD # LO e.t. D
- L2 2 5_ 53.0 209 I I 15 2 99 20o Y29 291 19 1 i
~
~f o 9 2 89 Pog 285 ; 2. .6 9 8 .. . 292 ~NRw ..... ... $ll, Y.5,@s: $7,' . 6.8."
4.. gy ;.:,. 7 3 5%'7t yp e go
- f^V '
m .3. 5 .1.
. ... . :. 2T.8 l
'333 233 -
. A.,. .
3.. 1 S . n<p...
..,u Zh J. 3..S. . 3.N. T. . :...
.. . Z71 3 y L,;'
z (,3 l 345 2 (o l FOR IN!0 RET DN ONI.Y 349 2ST l . ^34l 252
.336 2 ET I 331 2 So I 33k 248
.3 s 5 2%
L 33H Z36 !@) 333 235 3 31 210 '
-...m____
TEXA5 UTILITIES e o GEtM .AVING CO. NONCONFORMANCE REPORT (NCR)
~
vNIT STRUCTURE / SYSTEM ITEM /COM PONENT TAG /lD NUMBER LOCATION'OR ELEVATION ,-RIRjQ. 1'2 Reactor Bldg./Elec . Phenoline 30 5 See Field Curing q ' 1'# . }j Supports & Misc. Steel Finish Coa-; Attached list Tunnel:0 RB#1 5 % N/A NONCCNFORMING CONDITION *
.g f[> M Contamination of "in-cure" finish coat y .. _ ./'
N - d Contrary to referenced documents listed below, parts listed on attachTd sheel z wereforcecuredwiththeuseofKellygeategsforthepurposeofproducinga 8 48-hour final cure at approximately 110 -115 F. Consequently, this type
.g heater expelled an oil based soot and fume while in a " tacky" state.
Therefore, the overall integrity is at this time indeterminate. QA RECORD 1
$ 'W' QA REVIEW g .
ARMS _l * ,-m 8 INDEXED "/S./ suBFILE NO. DATE: CCP-30, R-9, Para. 4.4.2.1 9 4.4.2.1 REFERENCE DOCUMENT.
. , RJ , Para. 3.5.1 ngy 7 PARA 3.5.1 REPORTED BY: DATE:
Jon Krnlak 1 / pn / np I OE REVIEW / APPROVAL: DATE: tu O
~ /0 /ff/ h b ~ 5~' e /$ IN /A ?
ACTION ADDRESSEE / DEPARTMENT J. T. Merritt/R. Kissinger Enoineerina REWORK REPAIR usE AS IS SCRAP Coatings on hangers listed shall be solvent (thinner) wiped. If contaminantes are
, visually present after wiping, the areas should be sanded lightly until removal of w discoloration is complete. After completion the repair areas shall be DFT checked.
8 Due to the small amount of exposed painted surface of shims after placement and that E shims require rework of exposed coatitigs after installation; the coating on the list-g ed shims shall be used as is. 2 O i F01 INEDWAIl0N ONLY. ENG. R V W/ APPROVAL DATE: L UO , S - ll0> / 83 w D
'"75W O'SITION VER'IFICATION &
nd Gl'Yh A COMMENTS: -' DEPO 5tTION - R-1 issued to revise ostion EXHIBIT M 2o
. NCR-C-82-000601.(
# Attachment i ,, _
Page 2 of 2
- s. - , ,
ITEMS IN BLASTING TUNNEL AWAITING FINISH COAT CURE 1/20/82 16 Each Electrical Hangers 51 Each Electrical Shims C-14Y30536-6 QP00329 16 ea.*QP00411
. C-14Y13416-2 QP00041 17 ea. QP00321 C-/.3[C69/A7 " "'"" ' ' QP00032 5 ea. QP00414
. g.x% C-12K04488-11 QP00377 1 ea. QP00412 C-16B09456-2QP00316 2 ea. QP00321 d-iG5Ci413.QP00328 2 ea. QP00405
' .g_g g O _* C-14Y13417-7 QP00414 * - 2 ea. QP00329 d'# 2-13G07401-8 QP00321
- 2 ea. QP00410 8*kC-14R13096-2 QP00412 1 e'a. QP00321 C-14R13096-3 QP00412 3 ea. QP00404 C-14B30551-1 QP00412 C-14Y13417-5 QP00414 C-14Y13417-6 QP00414 C-14Y13417-7 QP00414 C-14W30547-1 QP00381 JB-1C385-R QP00324 /
Q - I l 1 l FOR EDRiEDH DN l<~ ., e I L L
. .- a o .e c_ _ -m _. ._ _ _ COM AN CHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATiCN
' weer J Cr /
INSPECTION REPORT NQ. P6 /2 27cz J SYSTEN / STRUCTURE CEf Cerd;m l ESCRIPTION, ICENTlHCAT6CM two. t 3 O" A-nw-m 1
-rx :r-senEv.e- GMn43 1 fCB"/$E MiASURE GR TEST E JUIP. IDENT. No.
\
SPEC.No. RU. Q.C. COC. 8 REV78 CMANGE NO.
/95 3 / s / e icT-op /s.4.-s T N/,4 O jN PROCESS C PRE INSTALLATION [ [NSTALLATICN Q flMA1. O PRETEST INSPECT 1cN VFRFICATION INSPECT 3CN INSPECTICN INSPECTION g < IMSP. RESIA.T3 dINSPECTION CCWFLETED , ALL APRJCABLE ITEMS SATISFACTCRY [gg/ [ ', , y g O iNseECTicN couetETEo, uNsATisrAcTcRT iTEus usTEo sEtCw W
ITEM F3- #
. INSPECTION ATTRIBUTES
- g . BATE
< SIGNATUR9
- t. - e2
= 5 i o -
/ $E f)s,newran) e/ JX/ 687-n w&O e-/ f I f.
e
~77M / k A pc w erw E ciijs w rrw Se2 '
\
M M L>s w m) femotvr:r- dda rris . 5 n se7w nm2n -m n "asF #S /s " ' l
. l 2 //o / bin we sm/m, / _
\
3 -f* A 4s D>S/s rrez/ /mn unn / ' 1 //C4 r* A?2-Anois,a 2/ l
~
\
1 o ._ l
,. I 1 i i ,
l I I l
.. 1 p; r e., ., n . m n = r. n - t em 0 5tl t REMARKS ( CWG3,5PECS, ETC.) bOkk N k M
N RELATED NCR NCL '8'5"^'""' ## g, OE r ///AI 'es A4b O i ///At
! ! oC nNsPECron 5 .
p _. .. ... . . . . . . . .
TEXAS UTILITIES NONCONFORMAh!CE REPORT (NCR)
, GF Nt;RATsNG CO. C-2b0060 UNIT STRUCTURE / SYSTEM ITEM / COMPONENT TAG /lONUbER LOCATION OR ELEVATION RIR NO.
Reactor Bldg./Elec , Phenoline 305 Field Curing 1&2 Supports & Misc. Steel Finish Coat See Attached L ist Tunnel @ RB#1 N/A NONCONFORMING CONDITION
--Contamination of "in-cure" finish coat-- '
a y Contrary to referenced documents listed below, parts listed on attached sheet z were force cured with the use of Kelly Heaterg for the purpose of producing 8 a 48-hour final cure at approximately 110-115 F. Consequently, this type g heater expelled an oil based soot and fume while in a " tacky" state. a. e Therefore, the overall integrity is at this time indeterminate. z i g .. e cc CCP-30, Rev. 9, Para. 4.4.2.1 9 4.4.2.1 REFERENCE DOCUMENT. QI-QP-ll.4-5, Rev. 7, Para. 3.5.1 ngy 7 pang 3.5.1 REPORTED BY: DATE: Joe Krolak i f 20f 82 . OE REVIEWtAPPROVAL: DATE: 5'~ fMr. / 13018 3 O ACTION ADDRESSEE DEPARTMENT J. T.[Merritt/R. Kissinger Engineering DISPOSITION: REWORK REPAIR YYY USE AS IS SCRAP Affected surfaces shall be solvent (thinner) wiped. If contaminantes are visually present after wiping the areas should be sanded lightly until removal of dis-y coloration is complete. After completion of the repair areas shall be DFT checked. l3
'E .e z
8 FOR Nf0RMATION ONLY a ENG. REVIEW / PPROVAL DATE:
/ /2218b OE REVIEW APPROVAL: DATE
. DISPOSITION VERIFICATION &[OSURE:
'/ [ [ DATE:
1 / / COMMENTS: .
'i t.
t NCR-C-82-00060 j Attachment
. Page 2 of 2 ITEMS IN BLASTING TUNNEL AWAITING FINISH C0AT CURE-1/20/82 16 Each Electrical Hangers 51 Each Electrical Shims ,-
C-14Y30536-6 QP00329_ 16 ca.'QP00411 C-14Y13416-2 QP00041 17 ea. QP00321 C-13Y206912-7 QP00032 5 ea. QP00414 C-12K04488-ll QP00377 1 ea. QP00412 C-16B09456-2 QP00316- 2 ea. QP00321 C-lG809456-3 QP00328. 2 ea. QP00405 C-14Y13417-7 QP00414 ,
. 2 ea. QP00329 2-13G07401-8 QP00321 2 ea. QP00410 C-14R13096-2 QP00412 1 ea. QP00321
. C-14R13096-3 QP00412 3 ea. QP00404 C-14B30551-1 QP00412
'C-14Y13417-5 QP00414 C-14Y13417-6 QP00414 C-14Y13417-7 QP00414 C-14W30547-1 QP00381 JB-1C385-R QP00324
-}
t .t j (
- v. t
LuffaffGnt r =. A SetaM tLabiniL 5 i A iiCra suEn I er i INSPECTION REPORT
- No.
, pc 49o9r7 6 TEM DESCRIPTION s0EN TIF4CATiGN NO. SYSTEM / STRUCTURE DESIGNATICM
'366 B etose 2 SEE BG L o 'u ? RC B- Comeno g SPEC.ho. isEV. REF. Q.C. DOC. S REV. & CMANGE NO. N(ASURE GR TEST EQu!P. 4 DENT. NQ.
. - - ./ '
OI-Q P I f . 4- 5 5 l'E G N Cit. - C - B a.- o oo to o 7 PNA
@*4 PROCESS INSPECTION Q PRE INSTALLATICN O lNSTALLATICN VER:FICATION INSPECTICN O FINAL INSPECTION D PRETEST
,' INSPECTION
, ," iMSP. RESULTS
)- ,
@tNSPECTION COMPLETED , ALL APR.! CABLE ITEMS SATISFACTCRY
((% q.2 y_ g 7 OC INSPECTGR DATE NSPECTICM COMPLETED, UNSATISFACTORY ITEMS LISTED BELCW e
, ITEM NO. W
. INSPECTION ATTRIBUTES
- 5 DATE SIGNATURB
?e 11 12
" 3 Y42.- - THE p o c cw m e, si. ec.v m u ne s m m a nm cawuor RE
@.Y: , .
i vn n te.h Ts u s w L.ncv. on tJ m o v q spf r.AEM M bE s t it.tttEn
.y6?, :i ).'.f v , ea M C R. - C- 9 2- o oo (,o - ..,. 9 -- '
k.a . ,, 3 t to eo.- O P Oo41I sh.h ' ' -
. y Tf4f8 '.
I 9 c.a.- O P e o 37 I hfAh
- S eo - 6 o e o 414 M Id NSfj - I ea. - Q p o o 4. t 2 (1 d
,N 2.e o - O P oo ~5 L f iti/4
...i.- '
#' ~
,. i' ..
' Z ea. - O D o o 4 o5 Rf/A l
Z en - op oo ~5 29 _[' 'R/ J/) I' ' 2e. -oooo4eo l N,k i p' ie -o poo s t / k t 'A 3 ec -OP 004 04 A//4
~
/ ~
?- / '~
l? ~
/
/ . .. ..
l / rnn wenm.MTI E --- E1 iua 7 l .. 4 L / t [ REMARKS ( CWGS, SPECS, ETC.) 4 i f RELATED NCR NCL [ C-82 DoOG nis *
- lDATE I
l StGNATURE i OC INSPECTOR t
& g'
- c. 4 WMmnena rca s i E.au cusu nic d . - .iva
.- .+. r.-
INSPECTION REPORT. Na ra 4.';o 82.
.g s ,
ITEM . DESCRIPTION i;EN TIFICATION NQ. SYSTEM / STRUCTURE DESIGNATION J .L - '
.S E 8E.t.oav 2 5CC EE.t.o w 3 RC B -I -
4 f.,'r. SPCC.NO. REV. , REF. Q.C. DQC. & REY. 8 CHANGE NO. NEASU E Cy TEST EQUIP. lDENT. No.
'I* . .'l22 -Q 9 11. 4- 5 5 I"L' & M C.D - C- 87.- 0 00 G 0 7 2.11.9. 2.1 bl g h
d @ N PROCESS O prsE INSTALLATioM C [NSTALLATION O FNAL QPRETEST INSPECTION VERIFICATICN INSPECTION INSPf_CTION INSPECTION .t 9 D IftSP. RESUI.T3 .g. f}; . blNSPECTION,COMFLETED , ALL APFUCABLE. ITEMS SAT'SFACTORY
. .2 A/ 2.3 84- id.._- .
." QC INSPECTCR .- DATEn.,
) 4 '.
INSPECTION.. COMFLETED, UNSATISFACTORY ITEMS USTED BELOW .O F. 7.- -
.S .a . g ATE. ..+
A. ITEM NO - - + . ~- ..
' =- , ^-
* ~. ..
P._
-- v . ....-
. . INSPECTION ~ ATTRIBUTES t .
.3
?,, . . *-
.c A'
;s.
J 33GNA
.? ..s.. n c.b_ r :a. .* - .i..- - - 4 . - -
w s. > q vi =5 .D%n
- c. . ric.n .,;.TURE .., .g Ab hj . , ,
SW' ~ G) ~ ' CNoo rr Soveo Wr- C M-RJ309 f,-1, m yesm.e commu " '+ NOS '- 4M c& . Qr~ ~: ,,, ,[=rifs4 mi 60.5 ^# *
*' "2 5:[^ v
- N;*- TE ~ JJ P.w: ..
.rj pp -
. . - .:zu ; .., :. -
x -
~p- q, .: _
T. . .pt . = . m: . . u, a.. ., . 11-*~ gg: W' " (i) CZ$o sy %MJi+ 'ci4.Ri3o9f,.3 wo visane Eom a,WGe
- f. .C -
W: @ 6 er: 9. o m s h hi.o T -*^~ - i- 3r --:
^
Im:
,g: - :&
.n :r. .Aa - #
-zi - : <. . ~Wy -
- f. .
. h:? h ' 'CIs ov.7 Lone o'v- C'li-E>.iO 551-l,, no vis agu c, m mi,,,4 g C +
s, - . K
"~
u sr e m iH 7.0 E a v 9. o *- Tz. _ .
.- -4. . . n .; ,,- . -
- s. M . y. .
- f. :
b Couco or Su ppo a.? c q4.Yl'3 417 -( . So v6apte e.o n y n % ,w n urs f b FTm r i t u 7.0 m e -- 8 O i
- i G Covevn S u pP. efr ci4 Y rM l/ t -2, no wsm eu- c ourn mein w . '
on7 mm 9. o ma< //. o < h ) ><en
'*=d =
U [OD Q /lT Ifl U vauisseeUu I i
-i il f ti E t(
( Oou ove Suppu r Cl360 69i2 '7. no visn nt couram,unuts, f _._ri ir- 7 0 ,* A t so. o a- ! N j .3 :- ; - l
~ .
~""
I i/ (h Co*Uover SvooO;r Cl390M54-2, wo visana es v e i,, A m. . l I ' ~ der: 7. 0 . m47. //.d' ~ u a pj; ?.y. ?
.. = C -;*'- . -;. - -'
f h bouno,r S u po o rtr Clb B o9 4 5 fe-2 No ves nAu co u tam f N At46 DPT vn4 4 s Yl'.o' 8.-- *
- 7. 0.
- REM ARKS . ( DWCS, SPECS, ETC.)
( i, . Tan eccriou peo.s ourco Pc4 Pa ed. 3.6.3 of ct.I-4.p. -il 4 - G h, ri._ [^,, -..- a,, \ . i ' c-g . ELATED NCR Na ATE I SIGNATUR # / I.R. CLOSED jl t A'M 15 7Ii S.13 82. I oC INSPECTOR 16 h j-C.- &-000@0
~
1..' . I L .. 7. ... . . . . . .
. . .. . . . . .. . - - I - .
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC S TATION
*ErT
~
I or- /
/
INSPECTION REPORT No
' PC %99 (o ,
ITEM DESCRIPTION 60ENTIFIC A T60N NO. SYSTEM / STRUCTUrtE LE5IGNATICM PROTECTIVE C0ATINGS 2 c.14-Y / S4 / 7 - b 3 re. c a - 1 4 W C.N O. REVj AEF. Q.C. DOC. 8 REV. 8 CHANGE NO. MEASURE CR TEST EQUIP. ID EN T. NO. AS-31 3 'l e QI-QP-11.4-5, Rev. 1 C 7 y/g g (see at%,33} , lN PROCESS O P9EVER:FICATICN INSTALLATION ] [NSTALL ATION INSPECTION
@-FINAL [ PRETEST INSPECTION INSPECTION INSPECTION 9 INSP. RESULTS
, IINSPECTION COMPLETEo , ALL APPLICABLE ITEMS SATISFACTORY [ g. g 9.gg O INSPECTION CCuPtETEo, uNSATiSrACToRT ITEMS tiSTEo eELCw
"*S"" " '
IC h INSPECTION ATTRIBUTES Q DATE siGNfTuat
,>. c. -
,, FINISH C0AT FINAL. ACCEPTANCE i2 a 5 a fs; e-1.l Verify Curing is per CCP-30 or 30A and para. 3.6.1. 9/d p,p 2. l Perfom Visual Inspection of Coated Surface oer oara. h 3.
l 3.6.2. - J
'N f
- 3. Perfom DFT on Coated surface as per para. 3.6.3 (For h l multiole items indicate Min. Soot. Max. Soot and 2j Averace DFT with tnreptpondinq OP & ID No's for each f'
@; item in " Remarks").
1.,_ Coatina System Soot Test Minimum: ( (' Coating System Spot Test Maximum: T
' Average DFT Coating System: N/A
- 4. Perform Continuity insoeCtion oer oara. 3.6.a. 7 I
.. n'tN
_ . .-nnwnM - "' (; gg \((tWW" gw-
~
l . 1 l l REMARKS ( CWGS, SPECS, ETC.) CO W T/RU/T"Y INSPEC.71oH, IM sonY cerserost s/H 93 E 9 . A 2 2 (,0'.+. , EL B 5 8' +. 9P o3 I/ l Ref. Pc"4-d43 fo, ifern3g/,af.Ta.bove. ,
. ~ - .
ELATEC NCR NO. iDATE l SIGNATURddle- -- g ~g' F l NC r? - C - B Z o o3 (, c, es ' 9 - I 'l - 2 2. I oC INSPECTOR :s is . a .
vemmarcm.w-w.-- n - eurer= i ew ?. l . INSPECTION: , REPORT; sgC.&nf4.h.... .m- '
* ' ~tTEM CESc.%PTION ICf *4TIF104T8CN NQ. SYSTEM / STRUCTURE DESiGNATicte BELow 2 SEE 13 E L. o w 3 R C. 6 - l a- a (i s r.c.No.
r$ E E
'.s(-op-Il.4-4 REvg
}&f s REF. Q.C. 00C. 8 8EV. & CHANGE NO.
NCR- c- s2 o oo 6,o ME.AsuRE CR TEST equip. : DENT. MO.
'T Z./69,/8/3 e
@ INSPECTION PROCES$ dfNfNSTALUTm VERtFICATICPr
[ lNSTALL INSPECTION EN O FmAL INSPECTION O PaEttsr INSPECTION g lf *. L> INSP. ESULTS ~ 4 l- ., INSPECTION COMPLETED , ALL APPUCABLE ITEMS- SATISFACTCRY g gg , , g ; gg, r QC INSPECTOR DATE C INSPECTION ; COMPLETED, UNSATISFACTORY ITEMS LISTED BELCW . ; 14 ITEM NO.. e s W ' OC
, N id - 6 -
.lNSPECTION ATTRIBUTES: ...
>- g
< .DATE - SIGN ATURE
_y T.; w-. .; ..i<=, .g:- n y, f 7 {- l- $Nufl $upp'o el- C 12 Mc 44 8%-tIi klo usu$ Cvesse .suvn,
~ ~ '
hh, " bhe k MN ".o [mns i11.c ' # ~ l# 7-8' se alfM
- f g :- . 1 .. /
L; *
2 !C;u%,r ~ sus.'A- e i+vsocSL -c :s visasa.c ec,<rn, ,,sar,. ' - ^
V .'s. jg. 'o p p r mieJ. 8.o* - m Av It.o 4 *r - ' t- 1898 M 8/ --. -
,;: ~ .. , ' QyG.Q- . ; .;L . m nia L-
[, 3. Snetio n 'Bof TB - \c 3 BG
- N o visast.. e. c omi...as ,
-. .c. .. ~
l s u n s ac.e i wa,.es 3,asa n, o .s.T. ve=.is.c .v.. u r-#Ju af.h
. My -
~
N 4. Concurr Sur,. + c- t + Yt3 +11 - S ? Afa vis a s L C dervTm tN4Nt1[ I-
- W o" D F.7's' M xeu, Du r to ' ss se *~o o e w & v e=+.~. 04"< z*< r'9 v 7-ii st Jf.h
+ 6. dououir S u e r . =.r C - 14 Y 1 $ 4t 7 - 7 : No vis a si.e e. ora ,e Me D. F.T.'s rw ew. bu m r= s oi e a- e. ..w s sv (8 4 't' Z** f **)
- 7 tu t. ,lt
# M
*l % RA. va, s s. t. t c o r-o - n11. 4- 5 2.a io _ _ _, , ,.e n .a gM ' ( *M ur+
- f. M MUD U 1 =
- 3. .,
(r p.- 24- -- - LU GE.: 4. C.I,over S.iraonr C- If, e eq+5 6-3 Q P 00 3 2.B nao y,s l,le e M...J.,' v Y'I 'sGrr n m o n s.o . e,M sl.o. A v59. 0
~
-m-
~
- L .:g t ;; +; .
S 7. C,;uoy,r Sy4poe r C -s 3 G o7 4o1 -8. G P oo 32 / w v,s lif e W i- - f7. co ,rnmeum.ars No DE J TA waA. tve -b $ s te A u n c o w rig.un nTio % . -
', RD4 ARKS (DWGS, SPECS, ETC.) f i' l
1 ELATED MCR Na g-g . jDATE l SIGNATURE Ob -- l C -82. - O oo /,o 15 1 B- /g-31 l CC INSPECTOR p
. +
, .v. .-- ,
\
8 ' e l
= - - * - -
-- ;,-- -- ~~ = 1 re---- - - - ,em -myT----_,
------ wumwna ewa so m use moe e> u m o uem SWEET 3_ op- b INSPECTION REPORT so. -
PC 46449 , a iT.EN CESCRIPY1CN .O NTIFICATION NC. SYSYEM / STRUCTURE CESIGNATION SEE BELo *v 2 s e c Bc'e-o' > 3 (2CS-) a 3.') Sr' C.N O. REF. C.C. DOC. 8 REV. & CHANGE NO. MEASURE CR TEST EQulP. 80EN T. No. REV.g
>f-Q P.//. 9 5B g 6 N c R - C - R 2- o oo 4, o T 2.)47,pg/3 g y t- os s t.
@ N PROCESS PRE INSTALLATION D INSTALLATION O FINAL O PRETEST INSPECTION VER;FICATION INSPECTION INSPECTION INSPECTION 9 IMSP. RESULTS dtN7ECT10N COMPLETED , ALL APPLICABLE ITEMS SATISFACTORY [JM q.ff, g g INSPECTION COMPLETED, UNSATISFACTORY ITEMS LISTED BELOW ,
IC ITEM NO. & oc
. INSPECTION ATTRIBUTES
- g 'DATE
< -- SIGNATURE ti 12
" 3
- 13
- 0. Coacuir Suppo er C'I4- W 3eS A.7-l O ? 0o %\ no f "
tip s s ete couramerveres No D.P.T 'S h ew nur T o S st%c nuo c on f oc.u n Arno a .
, C 0 .
i.
. se
..s TON' l msgAm"- _
, yw-REMARKS ( DWGS, SPECS, ETC.)
i. l I
\
i4
- ELATED NCR NO. j ATE l SicNATURE ME/~
g d . 8 2.- c o o G o IS
'R' ME @ 3 9" # 1
- W 2- 1 QC INSPECTO R 16
.. . .... . .. . . . . - . . . - - -. ----.--7 - .
..-. -~\
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION TEXAS UTIUTIES
- GENERATING CO. NOMCONFORMANCE REPORT (NCR) 82b0085 UNIT STRUCTURE / SYSTEM ITEM / COMPONENT TAG /ID NUMBER LOCATION OR, ELEVATION Mf (11R NO. s
- 1 Reactor Bldg.
Protective Coating See Attached See Attached --
'M N/A>\
NONCONFORMING CONDITION f j[ - U Contrary to below noted procedures, " Shim plates" have been iqstalledIf0;cortoectione Abh E! with the electrical hangers listed on attaced (Sheet 2 of 2) wisth a ' zinc %hiiched/
$ coating from a spray can and no unique identification number, gx)/
o a y {_t ea's yl m E' Hold tags applied. I2 E REFERENOE DOCUMENT. CCP-30/QI-QP-11.4-1 ngy 9/7 p4nal.3.1/3.2.3 REPORTED BY: DATE: - Joe Krolak 1 /27 /82 y O QE REVIEW / APPROVAL: ACTION ADDRESSEE
'Blwn)A-
'['
i ain DATE: DEPARTMENT
/
J. T. Merritt/Kissinger Engineering DISPOSITION: REWORK REPAIR USE AS is YYY SCRAP Section 2.9 of ES-100 states in part that damages to galvanized surfaces shall be w repaired within 24 hours using Galvanox paint or approved equal. The shim plates g listed under the above nonconforming condition are galvanized plate which were t m drilled for installation. When the plates were drilled the galvanizing was damaged E and was reparied using Galvanox paint. The above listed nonconforming condition is
- 8 in accordance with the 2323-ES-100 specification. CCP-30 and QI-QP-11.4-1 do not
< apply to galvanized surfaces.
g P used as is. g' ggg Therefore the listed nonconforming item l}sha'1 bg O dl Q %gy,D QA RECOdD I RTN. QA REVIEW L MJ-dh ENG. VIEW / OVAL [g FILE NO. DATE: M,,@-- O
/ M/8L OE REV Oy g,g .gg.oooT S DATE
Ta'"$h h 4
- lh
- D 4-COMMENTS: .
a ,76 1 DEPOSITION t
C,!4ko4773'I ELV8'3W G2 34I C I1 M o til0 - Q [LV g31 es 16' CIHRI309+ 15 ggigu psgg Cl4R I30952. gugqq ge 3y
- C NB 13/12-7 KLv 84g og 3
- C-t%gG 8ll0-rg Els 834 922$
4 t EBR INE0RMAIOH BH3 O 1
.. . w.. im.. u . . . ., m . .u o .,iisu..
INSPECTION REPORT No. rggg 6 TEWOESCRiPTIOg IDENiiFijATION Je gf SfYTEM / STRUC TURE CESIGNATIGN j SHth i MfeS 2 Xill/VibYes/ M oc P. 3 MA#l < SPEC.NO. REV. REF Q.C. DOC. S REV. & CHANGE NO. Mf.ASURE CA TESl EQU6P. 6 DEN T. 60. U23e -21 S l/s ccP .90/or-op g.v-/ r */'r e [lNPRCCESS INSPECTION 6 PRE INSTALLATION VER;FICATION lNSTALLATION INSPECTION O FINAL O PRETEST INSPECTION INSPECTION d INSP. 'stESULTS O iNSPECTiOu COuettTEo , ALL APPLICABLE ITEMS SATISFACTORY g g g,/g- g O iNSeECriOn COuetETEo, UNSATISFACTORY ITEMS LISTED BELCW ' ITEM NO. p INSPECTION ATTRIBUTES .- <
< DATE SIGNATURE
. E 11 I2
- 3 il
- /
TaNe&onROS fo t),bposifios//4r Alcnc-12-cenril
.rrMIxia rie_ lloa d afcamiha CosMiov<-
~Nt d #Aci- n /2-OnAsc e w/7-h N 23 - Es / 00 SDec no r-Le t' ccP 30 GNo 01-0P-it. 4-l
)o
'/ Ato;~ /0994 fo /SnvdA//2Ad Graces .
14w nWidhve A% %oked' wo '
//cd Coitfoamion T-rems td,t/ Re //se/pS ik 4
nsn h - . v _.. e m % u m -u = m mawm"~ .. yUb "' . REMARKS ([MGS, SPECS, ETC.) e n n M RELATED NCR NO. gg l DATE lStGNATUM[ h2- UOb f"*-99 00 () 57'( IS h*fk" $- l OC INSPECTOR ns x- .
.- . . . . . . . .. .}}