ML20106G592
| ML20106G592 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1983 |
| From: | Gary Purdy BROWN & ROOT, INC. (SUBS. OF HALLIBURTON CO.) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20106G461 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8410310257 | |
| Download: ML20106G592 (88) | |
Text
.
..b.
I U.s'ITdD ' ST ATES OF Av.ERIC; SUCLEAR rE30LATORY COV. MISSION
['
3 4
INTERVIEa 5
6 GChDOt. RAfMOND PGhDY 8
- 9 Conference Room No. 2 10 Visitors Information Center Texas Utility Generating Company II P. O. Box 2300 Glen Rece., Texas 760A3 la Tnursday December 1, 1963 13 g Tne interview cc%aenced, pursuant to notice, l.a at 9:12 a.m. !
16 PARTIES PRESENT:
On Benalf of tne NRC Office of Investications:
18
- n. BROOKS GRIFFIN, Investigator DOdALD D. DRISKILL, Investicator 19 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission a0 E*9i " IY 611 Ryan Plata Drive
,, Salte luu0 nritragton, Texas 760U1
--,o On Eehalf c: Texas Utility Generating Ccmpany:
l McNcILL hATKIi<S, 11, ESC.
Ocbevoise & Liecerman 1200 Seventeenth Street, N. K.
.v a s u i n g t o n , D. C. 20036 "a.
r TAYLOE ASSOCIATES l c
1625 l STREET, N.W. - 5UITE 1004 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 EXHIBIT (19) 8410310257 840726
& PDR ADOCK 05000445PDR a n,,c,m;ay-1,5,-: :;., xrw a 9 w ggc.,s ng
~
G' J '
h t
( 6 4
t' e .-. . .,
4 i
I PEOCEED INGS ,
.N A . DRISKILL: For tie 3 record, this is an 3
interview of'Gordon R. Purdy,.P-u-r-d-y, who is employed oy Brown and Root, Incorporateo, at Comanche Peak Steam, Electric Station. -
6'
.Present at this interview are Mr..Purdy', Mr.
McNeill watkins, II, of Decevoise and Liberman, 8
hashington, D. C., Mr. Brooks Griffin from the Oftice of 9
Investigations, Region.IV and myself.
10 The subject matter of tnis interview concerns t
U tne termination of William Dunham, a former Brown anc Root l
I, I e.T.ployee.
13 hhereupon, I'
CORDON RAYMOND PURDY I
naving been first duly sworn by Investigator Driskill, was 16 examined'and testified as follows:
MR. DRISKILL: Before we begin the questioning, 18 Mr. Purcy, I would li<e to ask you a couple of questions. ;
39 I Is sir. hatRins your legal representative? j a0 THE WITNESS:
I Yes, sir, ne is. .
-3, NR. DRISKILL: Is he your chosen personal
. ..s
-- I representative?
13 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, he is, e
2I MR. DRISKILL: 15 it Brown and Root's policy 25 that you have a lawyer present when you are interviewed by i
TAYLOE ASSCK:lATES 16251 $TREET, N.W. - $UITI 1004 i
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 '
(202) 293 3950
\
l o !
fi .
?
3 I
'NRO?
h .
ThE WITNESS: It is Erown and Root's pclicy to
- 3 inform personnel tnat tney nave the rignt to counsel when 4
tney are ceing interviewed by the Commission anu I chose 5
to take tnat course. -
6 MR. DRISKILL: I see. And you.have chosen Mr.
hatxins as your personal representative?
8 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
9 MR. DRISKILL: Is it a TCGCO policy or a site' 10 policy that you have a lawyer pre ^sent when you are 11 interviewed by t4RC?
I2 THE WITNESS: .To the best of my knowledge, tne 13 op ortunity for counsel is afforded. I am not faciliar I4 with any of'their written policies or anything of that ':
I natare.
16 MR. DRISKILL: You have said tnat you have I
selected Mr. wat<ir.s as your personal representative. Did 18 you have any choice with respect to that selection of I9 attorneys?
- 0 THE WITNESS: 't es , sir, I did. Yes, sir, al k.a . DRISKILL: Sc you were not told that Mr.
22 watkins would ce your personal representative er anything a3
~
11,<e that?
- 1 TnE WITNESS: 14 o .
3 MR. DRISKILL: Let me ask you a couple of TAYLOE ASSOCIATES ts2s i STREET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 39s0
91 fi
- 1
.i 's ,
I queJtions, if I may, Mr. hat < ins, please, s
)
~
MR. WATKINS: hhat is-tne subject matter of the .
3 questions?
4 MR. DRISKILL: With respect to your representing Mr. Purdy.
6 You are i,n fact representing-Mr. Purdy on a .
personal casis?
8 MR. WATRINS: For this interview, yes.
9 MR. DRISKILL: hay I ask who you are employed 10 by? , ,
I 11 MR. hATXINS: Debevoise and Liberman.
12 MR. DRISKILL: Ana does your firm represent any I3 other parties associated with Comanche Peak or the matters I4 involved in this investigation?
hR. hATXINS: fes, it does.
16 f1R . DRISKILL: I see, and do you represent any I
other parties associated v.ith tnis matter under 18 investigation? ,
6 I9 4R. e. AT.s1NS : I am working on the Brcwn and
'O Root defense in tne Dunham caJe, tne Lepart.nent of Labor E
'l case. I
. .4
~~
l MR. DRISKILL: Do you celieve that Enere is 3 l
n3
- i potential conflict of interest tnat may arise during tie l 2I course ci the questioning cf Mr. Purdy witn respect to 25 your representing him personally at 6 your acties with
[ TAYl.OE ASSOCIATES i 25 i srmr. N.w. - sum iOO4 j WASHINGTON. D.C. 20004 (202) 293 3950 t
1 5
" I '
~
f Le:e/clse ana Licerman?
MR.-hATnlas: At unie time I have no icea, but I don't tuini: so.
4 MR. DRISKILL: If a potential conflict 02 interest arises,, wnat action woulc you take?
6 MR. h6TKlas: I will call a acess and discuss tne ratter 41:n Mr. PurGy.
O MR. DRIShILL: Do you nave any instructicns as 9
relates to tnis individual or Mr. Purdy's testimony?
10 MR. NAT KI.vs : I con't understand tne question.
11 F.R . DRISKILL: Do you nave any in'structions 12 from your tirm or'from any other parties associated with, i3 representing erown and Root or TUGCO with respect to the testimony given by vr. Purdy? ,
15 hR. WATKINS: I still don't understanc the 16 question. Do you mean has anyone told me unat to do?
MR. DRISKILL: Or have you any instructions to 18 provide gne text of tne interview or anything to any 19 parties associated with the interview or any parties
- 0 associated with otner matters related to this case?
al MR. WATKINS: I have no such instructions.
MR. DRISKILL: Okay. To you knowledge, it is a '
U policy of TUGCO to nave contract employees represented by at TUGCo attorneys?
3 MR. WATKINS: I doO't know.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3930 1
r 6
I MR. DRISKILL: Very well,
)*
MR. GRIFFIN: Does your firm' represent Brown 3
and Root?
4 MR. WATKINS: Yes, in the Dunham matter.
5 MR. GRIFFIh: Does your firm represent TUGCO in 6
otner matters? .
MR. KATXINS: It does.
8 MR. GRIEFIN: Does your firm represent any 9
otner centract employees on site li:<e Ebasco or any of tne 10 other ---
I MR. WATKINd: Contractors or employees?
12 MR. GRIFFIN: Does your firm represent anybcdy I3 on site here wno is employed by any of the otner Il contractors or subcontractors or anybody related, any ,
I group or organization related to tne Comanche Peak site?
16 MR. WATKINS: I don't know. I Know we represent II TUGCO and for tne Dunham case we represent Brown and Root.
I8 I will be hera at Mr. Purdy's request, also at Mr. i 19 erandt's request and at Mr. Tolson's request today during a0 these interviews. I oon't knew wnetner we represent any l al one else. I don ' t think so.
... i MR. GRIFFIN: Mr. Brandt I believe is an Ebasco U employee. So you will be representing Ebasco? l 2I MR. WATKINS: No. I will be representing Mr.
I 23 Brandt.
TAYLOE ASSCK:lATES i
16251 STRffT M.W. - SUITE 1004 )
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20004 /
(202) 293 3950 i i
g .
7 1
MR. GhlFFIN: Individually?
I- " i-
~
MR. WATKINS,: Yes, for the purpose.of.the
- 3 .
interview today.
o MR. GRIFFIN: Do you have any instructions as 5
relates a potential conflict of interest between any of 6
tnese. individuals' personal representation versus your.
- p.
firm's contract cbligations to Brown ana Root and/or i 8
TuGC07 9
MR. WATKIwS: Mr. Griffin, I have of course }
discussed in connection with the Dunham case and in II connection with these interviews several matters relating I
to the NRC investigations and to the Department of Labor 13 ~
case. Those discussions are I think confidentia1 and I am I4 not going to tell you about them.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, I am not asking for 16 specifics. I am trying to determine if tnere is a I
potential contlict of interests between your representing 18 the utility, which is the client, and Brown and Root.
39
- MR. WATKINS: I fully acquainted myself and ao refresheo my memory as to conflict of interest rules al before I ca a down here and I have those firmly in mind.
~
MR. GRIFFIh: Okay. And you believe in tnis 23 instance that you represent these three individuals that 28 you will be representing tnem personally as opposed to 23 representing TUGCO or Brown and Root?
TAYLO'E ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004
- WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004 (202) 293 3950
f i' *-
6 1
XR. WATdINS: Yes.
l
~
MR., GRIFFIN: And if a potential conflict of 3
interest arose between tne truth as tney know it to be and TUGC0 poli.cy or Brown and Root policy as you might know it to be, you would continue to represent the indiviaual's 6
interest?
I MR. WATKIdS: I can't answer that, but I 8
suspect not under the hypothetical you have laid cown.
9 MR. GRIFFIN: Mayne you misunderstood me. If to enere was a potential conflict of interest, would you be II representing Mr. Purdy or TUGCO? !
I i MR. KATdIN5: Let me restate the question. If ;
I3 you asked Mr. Puruy a question and Mr. Purdy gave an answer that appeared to depart from TOGCO's intereut, for .
I example, or Brown and Boots' interests in the Dunham 16 proceeding, I would ask for a recess and oiscuss tne II matter witn Mr. Purdy.
I8 MR. GRIFFIN: As to your representation of him? l 19 Md. WATKINS: Yes, and a decision would be made a0
- 1 as to whether I should continue.
- l MR. GRIFFIN: All right. I I
22 MR. DRISKILL: We nave discussed this with Nics 23
! Reyno1cs on previous occasions enat we are all aware that
., g Mr. Purdy naa tne rignt to personal representation uitu 25 reapect to our i.nterviews and we don't intenu or want to TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1425 i STHff. N.W. - $UlTE 1004 i WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 E
i
.-=m .
- l g
~ I intringe on any or nis rights with respect to that. But, likewise, we want to for the record make sure tha.t we understand wnat toe relationships are and that Mr. Purdy 1
understands what the relationships may be in order that no 5
conflict may arise at a later t'ime for ourselves or for 6
Mr. Puray. .
THE WITNESS: I uncerstand tnat if a question 8
of con:lict of interest arises tnat Mr. hatkins and I 9
woulo ciscuss it and discusc_ representation.
10 Mr. Driscill, I would like to ask, too, if I U
could get a copy of tne transcript for myself.
I2
, MR. GRIEFIh: Of course. As.soon as we get it, I3 we will mail you one.
I4 TP.E WITNESS: Thank you.
BY MR. DRISKILL:
16 Q I would like to begin tne questioning of Mr.
I Purdy witn regard to the termination of William Dunham by 18 Brown and Root.
I9 I, first of all, understand that you nave "O
previously prepared a statement wnien was provided to the
'l
~
Department ot Labor concerning tnat matter?
A Yes, sir, I nave. I have a copy of it here if II you woula lire tnat.
24 Q Yes,.I would. If you don't mind, I woulc d appreciate it, anu I will look at it later.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16251 STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004 (202) 293 3950 w- _
lu 1
As best you recall, I would li'e < to aiscuss
.,1 2
'the events whicn led up to his terminatian. First of all, 3
wny don't you explain what your job is and what 4
- relationship you had with the protec,tive.ccatings.
department, its personnel, any and or all of its personnel 0
at the site?
I A Okay. I am the Site QA Manager ccr Brown and 8
Root at Coinanche Peak Steam Electric Station. As sucn I am 9
dirctly respcnsible for the development anc implementation 10 or the ASME/QA program which addresses the mecisanical, II fabrication, costruction and testing activities for safety I'
class one, two and three systems.
I3 As the senior Brown and Root representative on I4 site for the QA department, which is a different reporting entity than the Brown and Root construction organization, 16 I share acministrative responsibilities for all QA II cepartment employees at Comanche Peak, for those tnat are .
18 in the ASME organization, of which the coatings I9 organization is part of. Inat is, it is primarily a -
'O contract aciainistration type of a situation wnere pay, at accounting, approval of raises, evaluations, administration of sick time policies or vacations, this 3 type of situation is concerned.
]
M I nave na involvement in the technical aspects U
ot any of the non-ASt:E programs nor am I directly in line TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STRttT. N.W. - SulTE 1004 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20004 (202) 293 39SO
11 I
,- for their day-to-day supervision. In the case of any of i
tnose employees that are not directly under my tecnnical 3
functional control, shoulc a proolem be perceivec oy tneir I
supervision, regardless of the supervisor's organization, 1 may, anc I only say may, be called to ascit nim or to 6
addresc those personnel with him in matters .that require either botte Codnceling, ciscussing or something of this 8
nature.
9
'O So it would be fair to say that you nave a 10 acministrative responsibility over Brown'and Root 11 employees who may operationally be responsible to someone I2 other than a Brown and. Root official?
13 A Yes, I believe that is correct.
14 Q Was that tne case with William Dunham?
15 A Yes, sir.
Q He was employed by Brown and Root?
17 A He was employed by Brown and Root, but was 18 directly assignec to the protective coatings crganization I9 which is administereu by tue non-AS!!E/QA organization.
"O Q And the administrative responsibility for the 2.
non-ASME/QA organization goes to TUGCO; is tnat ccrrect?
TUGCO has tnat responsibiity for supervising that 3 organization?
2I A Yes, sir, tnat is correct.
25 Q whereas Brown and Root supervices and TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 WA5HINGTCN, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
t
.- o .
3 I '
acminictere the ASME operations, tne construction ,
2 operations and toelt QA/QC responsioilities? -
3 A That is correct.
4 Q Witn respect to tne termination of William 5
Dunham, I understand that it in large part came about as a 6
result of nis conduct in a meeting.which was held for I
protective coatings personnel.
8 (Pause).
I will repeat the question.
10 A Would you please.
II Bassa on previous interviews, I understanu Q
12 that the situation which arose which resulted in nis 13 termination came about, the situation came about as a
" result of his conduct in a meeting held for QA cr OC 15 protective cuatings personnel.
16 A The reason that I was discussing or was going l II to be involved in a discussion with Mr. Dunham was as a 18 result of that meeting. Tnat meeting was not what resulted i
19 in nis termination.
'O Q tes, that is what I asked.
21 A Okay.
. .o Q I understand that the meeting ecok place on U August the 23rd or 24th, aoout one of tnose days, it was a l
28 Tuescay or a hednesday,. and he was terminated on 23 approxi.nately August the 26tn I believe. .
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 162S I STRffT. M.W. - SulTE 1004 ,
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 s
13 I
r A That is correct.
. 4 J Q At wnat point where you made awar.e of nis conduct during tnat .neeting?
4 A The day before I terminated Mr. Dunnam, as I recall,'which was the 25tn I believe, a Thursday, and I 6
, believe the, meeting was on tne 24th.
Q Oxay. And how did this information come to 8
you?
9 '
A I hac dropped into the office of Mr. Branot, 10 wno was the group supervisor of which Mr. Dunham's i II protective coatings group was in his purview for
'la -
administration, and he had related to me at that time, I I3 walked into his office and he was in a discussion with I4 anotner individual'and ne had related to me at that time I
that he hac had a proclem with Mr. Dunham tne previous day 16 ana would like to discuss it with me.
~
I Q That was Mr. Brandt?
18 A Mr. Branct, yes, sir.
I9 Q And basically what did Mr. Brandt tell you?
- 0 A Mr. Brandt at that time, and I said Mr.
- 1 Krisne waa in the room witn him, asked Mr. Everett Mouser 22 and Mr. harry Williams to come into the room. They were a1 outstae of Tom's room. At that particular time Mr. Brandt 28 related to me that it nad been reported to him by Mr.
U Krisher and one of the PC, protective coatings TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STasET, N.W. - SUlft 1004 WASHfMGTON, D.C. 20004 (202) 293 3950
1
-14 I ^^
consultants, that Mr. Dunham's behavior in the meeting was
)
. very ocnoxious and very unprofessional, and that basically 3
a meeting wnien was intended to provide a tangible benefit
, .to.tne GC department'-in explaining to them wnat they'were doing to improve or clarify the protective coa' tings 6
program had turned iato a dismal failure because et Mr.
I
'Dunham's attituue and his presentation at the meeting.
8 Out of tnis I perceived that eney coviously 9
had soir.e ccncerns about his attituce in addition to the 10 fact tnat there was some concern about the way he reacted ,
i 11 I in front of some relatively highly credentially l 12 censultants tnat were called there to help the I3 organization.
I4 Q This was Mr. Firtel and Mr. Kelly from Ecasco?
I '
A that is my understanding. I cic not know who 16 they were. I was not aware that a meeting was.even ta<ing II place prior to this time.
18 Q 1 see. Did Mr. Branat tell you which one of i i
39 tnese particular gentlemen, eitner Mr. Firtel or Mr.
'O l
Kelly, tnat he had tal<ed witn regarding Dunham's conduct? i 2I A 1 celieve he related to me that it was Mr.
22 Kelly, but very honestly not being directly involvec in 11 toe teennical aspects of the presentation, I don't recall.
28 Q So to summarize your answer to my last 23 question, you met with Tom Brandt, Harry Williams, Ctrley TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
! iets i sineer. N.w. - suite ioc4 j #
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20004 .
(202) 293 3950 l
r .-
e A5
,'~ I f
Krisner ---
A And Everett Mouser.
- 3 Q --- and Everett' Mouser and either Brandt and 4
others explained to vou basically what Dunnam's eonsuct ,
5 hau been during the course of the meeting?
6 A Yes, sir, tnat is correct'.
I Q Wac a decision made during the course of four 8
tr.ecetrag witn tnese gentleraen regarding what should be done 9
about Dunnac's conduct?
10 A I asked Mr. Brandt what.he felt should be done and he nad incicated tnat he considered a counseling and 12 giving Mr. Dunnam three days off without pay was
^
I3 warranted and that was basically tne sum anc essence of M
his recommendation.
I3 Q Did you agree with his recommendation?
16 A I believe to agree with his recommencation I
woulo assume that I understood the full severity of what 18 nad transpired at the meeting. I did later contact Mr.
I9 '
Tolson, whc was of tne same impression, and did concur
'O
~
witn that recommedation on that day.
- 1 As they are Brown ano Root's client in tnis particular joc and in fact are directly responsible for 13 acministering that program, my immediate action is to 28 assume that it is a warranted recommendation.
25 Q Would disciplinary action of that sort be tne TAYLO'E ASSOCIATES 1625 l STRGET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHlNGToN, D.C. 20004 (202) 293 3950 1
1
1 16 .
1 1 1 kinu of thing that Brown and Root might on some occasion i n ..
) \
~
take with respect to someone working in a Brown and Root 1 3
organization?
A Yes. You mean as far-as counseling someone and gi'<ing tnem three days off without pay?
6
- g. Yes.
A Yes, that is not a unique situation. It is a 8
stanaarc ana it is accreasec in one of our procedures as a 9
progressive method'of ciscipline.
10 Q Oxay. So their recommendation was not outsice II cne norsal disciplinary action which mignt be administered 12 cy Brown and Root?
I3 A No, not at all. It was totally consistent with I#
our policy.-
15 Q I see. OKay. So you say that after you meeting 16 with Mr. Branut and the otner gentlemen, you then tal.<ed I
with Ron Tolson?
I A Yes, sir.
t 19 !
Q And he concurred in their decision to request
O taat Mr. Dunnaa be counseled and receive three days off?
n; A fes, sir.
Q Was there any other discussion with respect to 23 Dunnan's attitude?
28 A The only discussion was that he expected his 25 pecple to oe professional under all circumstances and tnat TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1825 i STREET. H.W. - $UITE 1004 i WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004 . ,/ e (202) 293 3950 u ;
[ . .
m i e 17 I
? _t e'- as relates to .hi.n by his subordinate supervisors that the indication that ne received was that it was a.very unprofessional presenta' tion and that therefore ne did -
4 concur with their recommendation.
O Oxay.- So your decision'to take disciplinary 6
action with respect to Mr. .Dunham's conduct and attitude ~
in the August 14th meeting was based on the -
g .'
. recommenuations you received from Brandt and Tolson?
9 A Yes, sir, that is correct.
10 l Q Were there any other discussions on August the i
. e 11 25tn with respect to what should be done? l 12 A The question came when snoulc I discuss tais 8 i,
13 with his supervisors with Mr. Dunham. This was done in Branat's office. It was after 4: 30 in the afternoon and' j all of my administrative peraonnel had alreacy gone home 16 for the day and I recommended that it occur in the morning on the 26th. But other than that discussion relative to 18 Mr. Dunham, which really supplemented what I was l 19 ciscussing witn Mr. Brandt, there was nothing else '
20 ..
cascussed tnat oay.
I
,g
~ i Q so it was determined that the counseling session would take place on the 26th?
a3 A on the morning of the 26th, yes, sir.
28 Q As I understana it, that counseling session
,5 oia not take place on the morning of the 26th.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
' 1625 i STittfT. N.W. - $UITI 1004 WASNINGTON, D.C. 20004 (202) 293 3950
T
, 16 I -
A That is correct. It too.< place actually after n '
)
4: 30, or about 4:30 on the afternoon of the 26tn. -
3 Q Ano wnat events contributed to the delay in 4
having this meeting? ,
.A There were actually three tnings that 6
contributed to it. I suddenly had'two very major tecnnica'l meetings that I nac to attend that were relative to 8
activities on tne pro]ect. Tne other tning that occurreu 9
was that the counseling report which I wanted to reac anc 10 evaluata and l'co.< at that was to be preparea for Mr.
II Dunham had not been prepared in tne morning.- Actually I i, -
guess there was one other. item that occurreu, and at that I3 particular time I was notified wnen I discussed tne Il counseling report with Mr. Krisher and he said he did not 15 have it ready, that Mr. Krisher and Mr. Tolson had both 16 decided that cue to the length in time cetween the meeting II and the point where we were actually going to be la counseling nim that disciplinary measures were not I9 warranted other than the ccuneeling. What I am saylr.g is
- 0
' i that tney haa said that all they wanted hi.a was counseled I
relative to his attitude and no longer to be given the 22 tnree days oft without pay.
23 Q Thia occurred on tne 26tn?
28 A That occurred on the morning of the 26th.
3 !
Q While you were in your meeting they cecideo TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHINGYON. D.C. 20004 .
(202) 293 3950
L1 .
.a .j
+
19 I
r'-
tnis?
i I
. A -
When I called Mr. Krisher to ask him about it, 3
ne had informed me at that time that Mr. Tolson had informed him tnat he did not want to continue recommending.
5 tnree days of f without pay due to the length in time 6
, 'between the meeting and when we were going to actually counsel nim. If it was important enougn to invoke three 8
days of f without pay, tnac we should have done it 9
immediately following the meeting when the situation was 10 f resh and was in fact' a ma]or point of contention, and I II concurred witn that. I doubled checked that wito Mr.
I2 Tolson and he agreed. he were going to do it later tnat 13 afternoon anc I deferred until later in tne afternoon I4 because of the meetings that were involved.
Q Anc then you concurred with their 6
recommendation to not then administer the three days off wituout pay?
18 A Yes, I concurreo to only conduct a counseling 19 session anc not acminister taree days off witnout pay.
"O O I see. iias the length of time wnicn had
- 1 elapseo since tne meeting, was that the caly reason on 22 wnien they based the decision not to give him three days II oft?
24 A That was the only reason tnat was related to 3
me and it seemed li<e a rational decision at the time.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16251 STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004 (202) 293 3950 o
7
.i 20 I
Q Sometimes justice tase a long time thougn, doesn't it?
3 (Laughter.)
- ~
> A- Yes.
5 Q So tne meeting with.cunnam teos place then you 6
said around 4:30 in the afternoon in the 26th of August?
A Yes, sir.
8 Q Could you exe lain to me the preparation for 9
ene meeting once you were reacy to bring Mr. Dunham in and 10 counsel nim how all tne arrangements were made?
II A I asked Mr. Krisher to bring the counsel -
12 report to my office so we could sit down and read it and I3 discuss it oefore Mr. Dunham arrived. Mr. .<risher came to Il my office I would say around 4 with the counseling report.
I I read tne counseling report and asked him I am sure some 16 questions relative to the counseling report, although I am II not sure I recall specifically what tney were. But I would I8 Imagine we discussed tne counseling report for about 15 or 19 20 minutes at tne most. ;
ao I reaffirmed the fact that casec upon ene l i
2I counseling report enat I woulo tage tne lead in discussing 22 the counseling report with Mr. Dunnam since at enis 21 particular point it nad become my responsibility with nim 28 being a Brown and Root employee, and Mr. Dunham as to be U brought to my office at 4:30. So for the next ten minutes t
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES te2s I sfastT, N.W. - SulTE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004 ,/
(202) 293 3980
[ !
r'-- .
e 21 I
,~ -
'l guess we haa a cup of coltee .
. r .,
es were any changes made to tne counseling report
- 3 subsequent to your review? .
I A t.o . When I read the counseling report, arter whatever questions I may have presented to hr'. Xrisner, I~
.6 was satisfied'that it'auequately related the info'rmation.
No enanges were made to it and nothing was added or 8
deleceu.
9 Q Then Mr. Dunham arrived at your office around 10 '
l 4:30? -
( 11 .
A Yes.
i O d Would you explain to me what occur. red during i
0 I3 the meeting, or during the counseling session with Mr.
I4 Dunham?"
15 A At aoout 4:30 Mr. Dunham anc Mr. Everett 16 Mouser arrived in my office. They' knocked on the door. The 17 door was closed and I motioned for them to corae in. Mr.
18 Dunham opened the door and I am not quite sure how to I9 describe it, but basically danced into the of fice with his a0 arms spread open up on one leg like here I am.
2I I asked Mr. Dunham and Mr. Mouser to be seateu and we were at sort of a typical conference table much 23 like this anu I was sitting in my chair at the head of the' 24 taole. . Mr. Kris.her was on my left-hand side, Mr. Mouser 3 was on the right-hand side of the table closest to me anc TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16251 STRitT. H.W. - $UITI 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004 (202) 293 3930
22 1
Mr. Dunham was at the end of the table on my right-hand sice.
3 I explained to Mr. Dunham that his supervision 4
had some concerns and some problems with his attitude and 5
haa prepared a. counseling report and told him tnat,I 6
would like him to read the counseling report and then let .
us discuss it and I handed him the counseling report.
8 After what appeared to ce a very quick perusal of the counseling report ne tnres it-back across the' table 10 at me and said [uck it, I am not going to change anc you II might as well walk me to the gate. I was a little' bit l
amazed.at that if for no other reason tnat the vehemence 13 with which it was returned and sent back to me. I might I4 also add that I had never had out of 360 employees anyone I5 necessarily andress me in tnat way in the past, especially 16 not in the presence of individuals who represented tne 17 owner.
18 I asxed Mr. Dunham, I said :io you mean to tell 19 me tnat you don't ant to discuss something which is "O
merely perceived as an attituce preolem? de pointed at tne al report and ne says, and again this may not be in ene sequence, but basically what he saic was that is the U
biggest proolem on the project. I have my anno, I don't 23 gotta to worry aoout a job ano you might as well .alk me a5 to the gate.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16251 STREET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 WA5HINGTON, D.C. 20006 . I (202) 293 3950
. !; e 23 I
The manner in which he audressed me and the'
.n~
manner in enien he presented it, I very clearly in my own 1
mind construed it to be insucordination almost boccaring on caiting and I am afraic in a management position, '
5 especially in. front of other people, I woulc not tolerat.e 6
that, and I said tnat.is fine, let's go, and at tnat particular point I mace up my mind to terminate Mr.
8 Dunnam.
9 O Did you try to calm him down in any way or ;
i 10 i discuss it with him any further? .
l 11 A No, I didn't try to clam him down because the I2 way he presented it, it didn't appear to me that the.re was 13 going to ce a calming down exercise. I also dicn't try to U
calm him down because he riidn't come ati me in'a~ manner '
15 which indicated tnat ne wanted to be calmed down, anu I 16 cnose at that particular time to exercise my authority as 17 a senior brown and Root QA representative on site to go 18 ahead and execute the termination because after 25 years m
of supervising and leading people, no one is tnere to talx I,
to me that way and I have no intention of ever putting up I witn it not only in this case or in any case in the future.
t C Okay. During :ne course of this exchange with' as Dunham did you contact anyone to let tnem know tnat ycu
' were going to terminate him?
i TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STRitT. N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
.. , . ,,, -..;m- . . ..- _ . ... .
. 24 A tiot a soul. .
a
- ')
Q tiis statement to the Department of Labor
. indicated that you got up and walked oat of the room and
~#
then'came back in. . ,
. -A l' walked out of the room, the purpose of 6
. wnich, a'nu I g'uess tnat .ill show 'you now disturbed I was ,
was to get my ';A Administrative Assistant to prepare the 8
termination papers or to notify tne time office to prepare
-9
, the termination papera, and being well after 4:30 they 10 were all gone. I walked cack towards tne off1ce. They were II exiting the office at tne time. I said sometning to the I2 effect of going cown cync get his stuff and'I will, meet-ypu 13 at tne time office. Mr. Mouser and Mr. Krisher took Mr.
I4 Dunham and headed towards their office to collect his .
15 personal celongings and I went to the time office to I0 execute the termination.
II Q And that was the ena of the meeting?
I8 A That was the end of the meeting.
19 0 0xaf. hitn respect to t.Te counseling report, a0
, was the counseling report that ne was presented the same !
t og one whien Mr. Krisner prepared?
,,.3 A Yes, sir, it was.
U Q And that was on a standard Brown and Root ..
21 document, the counseling report?
A YO3, Sir, it waS. The exact copy of it is in TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16251 STRitT, N.W. = $Ulf t 1004 i WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 * '
, (202) 293 3950
W e
25
- I tnat previous testimony I prepared for the Department of
'. 2 Labor before you. It is part of tnat package.
Q OKay. Let me'go back to the previous oay an:
asr you a couple of auestions about your plans to counsel Mr. Dunham and at that particular point also to administer 6
tnree days off witnout pay.
Was any thcoght or discussion nau witn respect 8
to Dunham's reaction to counseling and time off without 9
pay?
10 A No. You mean dic we have any ciscus'sion'on now II ne woulc perceive it?
in-0 On wnat nis reaction might be.
13 A tao , not at all.
I4 Q Did .you anticipate any problem with hiin during 15 tne course of the meeting that you had planned for August 16 tne 26th?
I A No. I never enjoy doing this, out I never 18 considered nor did I give tncught to the fact that wnen 1 I9 discussec it witn him tnat it woulo be a moscrately
- 0 violent reaction. He is not the only person that I have
'l talxeu to on the site, and I believe you can tal.< to any 22 of my people that wnen I sit cown and talk to tnem it is 13 never with an antagonistic attitude and generally we are 24 able to reach a communion of thoughts at that particular t5 type of a meeting, and I have never hao that type of a TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20004 (202) 293 3950
26 I
reaction from anycody. So I didn't anticipate it tnis ,
n time. Mayce I was overestimating my soothing qualities. I 3
am not sure.
4 (Laugnter.)
Q ,
I don't suppose I would .be wrong in assu. ming 6
.then tact you do have counseling sessions'sith various Brown and Root ~ employees? '
8 A I nave had, yes. I con't nave a whole lot of 9
,tnem primarily because within our org,anization,'except in 10 matters in .which' they- feel they .neeu tne senior II representative on site for Brown and' Root.to empnasize the l'-
concern and tne autho,rity to discuss and counsel and/or 13 basically express management desires, it would nave been I*
delegatec to my subordinate supervision, not only within I
tne ASME organization, out the same thing has been -'
16 delegated and is soon to occur within tne non-ASME II organization. So I nave probably been involved probaoly 18 less than half a dozen timea in too years in situations in ,
i 19 wnica I peraonally became involved in the counseling. Two a0 or tnose occasions were wi'th my immediate supervisors.
2I Q When you have these meetings do you generally !
,,o always prepare a counseling report?
21 A On those'in which a formal counseling was ..
24 considered or vaa anticipated, yes.
23 Q So you have presented indivicuals nere at TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET. H.W. - SUITI 10C4 i WASH!NGTON. D.C. 20006 i./
(202) 293 3950
- n. .
. -g 27
,4*-
-I Comanene Peak with that counseling report on other n
~
occasions? - ,
'-- 3 '
A Employees have been presented with those l 4
I have prooably only personally counaeling reports.
presented counceling reports as a prelude lo a counseling 6
session maybe *two or 'three times. -
Q .I se'e. So1the use of tnat report is not a 8
i:.equent occurrence?
9 -
A The use of that report-is very frequent. It is 10 '
very infrequent that the boss gets involved in it.
11 O I see. The decision to terminate Dunham was M
l l made during the meeting and not prior to the meeting? I
~
I3
.' A Definitely. .
I4
-Q Witn respect to preparation of the counseling '
report, was there a need to have his time card numuer?
~16 A There was a slot on the counseling report for
" the badge number.
18 Q I see. And so during the preparation of the 19 i report earlier in the day someone would have had co nave-
'O obtained his time card number?
al A So.meone would have had to put it there to fill 99 it out completely, yes.
U Q which would explain his statement that scmeone 24 nad calleo tne coatings QC office earlier in tne day to
!- 3 obtain tnat time card number?
I TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET. N.W. - SUITE 1004
. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 293 395v e , s,--.--- .
v-- .-- - , --
y- ,, ,,-e -
1 28 .
I A In all prooability. .
i 2 '
I uncerstand that you didn't prepare the form 3
so you mignt not necessarily be acquainted with it.
4
- A It would not surprise me tnat that occurred to 5
get the number. .
'6 Q But, again, the decision to terminate Dunham was made during the meeting?
8 -
k A Yes, sir. '
9 Q And for what reason?
10 A Because of his insubordinate communications. -
I-i
~
II towaras myself.
I, Q Okay. Lat me go back prior to this counseling I3 session anc tne meeting and so on. here you previously ,
I#
acquainted with William Dunnam' prior to this occurrence?
I ~
A Only on one_other occusion.
16 Q And uo you recall when that was?
k II A It was the late spring or early summer, and I I8 am going to try to hedge it oecauce I don'c remember. Mr. .
I9 Dunham came to me with another individual within nis a0 organ 2zation to express some concerns or asked if ne coulo
'l nave an appointment with me to express some concerns.
rA Q and who was the other individual?
'l A A gentleman named Dan Ferris,
24 Q Anc who is Dan Ferris? .
A Dan Ferris is a draf tsman tnat works in the TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 '
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 )
(202) 293 3950
29 I
y protective costings group.
,0 Is Ferris a Brown ar.d Root employee?
A Yes, sir, he is.
4 Q and eacn of them had concerns relative to their joo that tney wanted to discuss with.you?
6 L A Mr. Ferris called.me and. indicated that he [
woulo li'<e to have an opportunity f or he and one of tne 8
leac inspectcrs to get together witn ce because they nau l 9
some concerns aoout harassment and I said well, what do 10 you mean, and he says, well, I can't directly tell you. I II am actually making the call for the lead inspector who is IE
'o u t in the field. So he says I can't tell you directly 13 wnat some of the major. concerns are. This was fairly late I4 '
in the morning,.as I recall, and I had said that is fine 15 and let's get together. I think'it was right after lunca 16 or anyway very snortly thereafter because of the severity 17 of the concern.
18 Q Okay. So you met with them?
I9 n' I met with tnem tnat afternoon.
~O Q Coulo you tell me what in fact they discussed ,
oj I
witn you then?
A They discussed with me the fact tnat they felt 23 their field supervision was casically applying undee 24 pressures for them to get work done. They felt that they 3
were more supportive in essence of the craft ther. tney TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET. N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
k 3n I
were tne QC personnel'.. A particular instance tnat-tney
_ discussed was a situation where Mr. Dunnam was inspecting 3
so:ne protective coatin'gs on the reactor containment liner 4
. and nis immediate supervisor and a craft supervisor were standing over his shoulder asking him questions basically .
6 in a. manner which he perceived as trying to expedite' or haraas him into doing work more rapidly in the area.
8 He~had indicated that his supervisor told nim 9
he couldn't write any more NCR's and that he had to put 10 things on IR's and ne said ne had some concerns with the II technical adequacy of tne protective coatings program. I 12 attempted to elicit more specifics out of him, both of the 13 individuals. Mr. Ferris again related to me that-his I4 information was basically second and third party, by 15 people relying it to him because he wasn't directly in the 16 field.
U I indicated to them that not being tecnnically 18 anc cirectly responsicle for the coatings program that I 19 really was act cognizant of tne specification requirements a0 or tne development recommendation of the program, but if 2I tney would li<e to give me some concerns, I would try.ana see what could be acne, which they did, and they expressed 23
, those concerns. I would say tne meeting lasted about an
24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
25 O Did eney request confidentiality with respect i
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET. N.W. - SUITI 1004
- WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 ,/
(202) 293 3950
~
31 g
j #. ., to t. heir ' conversation ith you? -
A- 1:oon't.rememb'er the word ** confidentiality"
- '3 be'ing used either by tnem or myself. I very-clearly recall
- I tnat tney expressed concern over retributio'n trom tneir supervision, and I very definitely, in fact I guaranteed 6
, Mr. Dunham and Mr. Fe:.ri's that tney certat6ly would not nave _their job in jeopardy or lose their job because of-8 bringing the concerns to me. So I did guarantee taem that .;
9
.they weren't going'to get in trouble foi doing that,-but I O
do not remember the word " confidentiality."
II Q well, that is just. a word.
12 A Wfiich is inconceivable knowing the structure, 13 Decause if I have nothing to do with tne functional I4 day-to-day-direction of the tecnnica'l' application, I nave got to go tell somebouy tnat there is problems. We wors 16 very closely that way.
I Q suosequent to this meeting with them what did 18 f
you do with that information?
19 A I went over to talk to Mr. Tolson who is 90
~
directly in charge of the non-Ast;E activities. F.e
'l expressed a concern and thougnt that we had cetter get tne 22 men in here and let's figure cut if we can get the
,3 specifics and see what is going on and arranged early than 24 afternoon after I discussed it with Mr. Tolson, Mr.
25 Branat, myself anu Mr. Dunham, ano did that oovioosly TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET. H.W. - $UITE 1004
._, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
e
, 32 I
because the major players in the. CA organization that ,
would be able to:act on any of his concerns were both Mr.
rolson and Mr. Branat, and we held a meeting that 4
afternoon with.Mr. Dunham. . .
Q Were you present throughout this particular 6
meeting?
I a They started tne meeting, and it procacly 8
coulcn't nave been muen more than a minute or two before I 9
got there. I was a.little late because of one of those .
10 proverbial meetings tnat always make me late.
Q While you were present in this meeting did.Mr.
I' Ounham have an opportu.nity to relay to tnem his concerns 13 or the same concerns ne had relayed to you?
I#
A Yes, he did. He expressed the same concerns 15 relative to tne NCR-IR program which at least I perceived 16 Mr. Brandt and Mr. Tolson explained factually in I.'
accordance with the program on tne way it was implemented. l 38 l*
It was not my program, altnough I haa hearc ciscussions on ,
19 it before. I perceivea tnat they were giving nim a very
- 0 candid ano strai.;ntforward answer.
23 Tney discussed the conceras about Mr. Cunham's
- a. , . . .
immeciate supervisor ---
l 13 Q Namely? **
24 A Harry hilliams at the time, and his apparent 25 desire to be more scpportive of crafts than ne was of nis TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STRiff, N.W. - $UITE 1004 ,
e WASHINGTON. D C. 20006 -
(202) 293 3950
33 I
. inspection personnel.
t -
C Excuse me for interrupting, but did tneir claim also include statements to the effect that Mr.
4 .
hilliams was harassing and intimidating them in addition 5
to. supporting the craft? ,
A They felt that ne was, yes. That question was specilically asked. In fact, I asked at the meeting if ne 8
was being narassed and intimidated by his supervision or 9
by craft or by engineering or by who. He had in'dicated by 10 craft and his own immediate supervision. We'hac discus' sed 11 tne point wnere they felt that Mr. Wil'liams was nothing 12 more tnan a moutnpiece for Mr. Bra n,d t and therefore were 13 afraic to come to Mr. Brandt directly because Mr. Brandt 34 asked that question ins ~tead of coming to me, and Mr.
15 Brandt at that particular time I guess asxed several 16 questions which, as I recall, were intended to show the other side of the coin, that people always come to him, 18 you know, and tnat he will talk to them.
19 Mr. Brandt committed to making sure that he "O
got all of tne coue inspectorr together and talk to them ol to maxe sure tnat they understood that there was that !
I no
- I path, t Q Dia Mr. Dunnam tell Mr. Bradt that they had 24 been, they, the coatings GC inspectors nad oeen forbicden ,
3 to permission to taxe advantage of Mr. Branct's open door TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET. N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 I
I
- i 1
34 l 1
1 policy? I i
d A I don't recall' that being stated at that '
3 meeting. As I recall, Mr. Dunham merely implied and/or 4
stated that they were afraid'to go t.o Mr. Brandt. I guess.
maybe that -ould ce.the same thing, out taat implication 6
was there. '
Q During the course of this meeting did you 8
perceive any' animosity on the part of Mr. Tolson or Mr.
9 Branct toward Dunnam? . -
10-A No, I really didn't..Mr. Tolson and Mr. Brandt 11 i and even myself, once'I understood the direction that some l'
of the questions and poncerns were going, ceing not 13 totally familiar with the way they f unction, trled to ~
I4 elicit some specific examples from Mr. Dunham even to the I
point of asking him to show us, or to show Mr. Brandt in -
16 the coatings procedures where he nad his aajor concerns II relative to a couple of the techni' cal aspects.
18 Mr. Dunham appeared to be getting nighly 19 nervous and vtlatile continually leaning bacx and 20 gestaring witn his hands and becoming a little more 2I frustrated as he tried to find specific examples of 22 tecnnical progra.n inadequacy within the manual.
U As a matter of fact, wnen it appeared that Mr. -
24 Dunnam 'was getting too frustrated, the meeting was 23 amicably called to a halt, but I did not perceive cny TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 .
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 j (202) 293 3950
4 0 4
3G-
- my orgenization, if .-tney are going to take care of. it,
.+ -
, . they: are commi ttea . to ta<ing care of tnose problems.
3 (Discussion off the record.)
SY MR. DRISKILL:
4 0 was Mr. Ferris at this meeting? ,
6 3 gg, g i.r , ne was not. The meeting with-Tolson, -
Dunham, Brandt ano myself?
8 Q Yes.
9 A No, ne was not.-
10 Q Did Mr. Tolson and Mr. Brandt; have a meet'ing II with' hr. Ferris at another tirrie with respect to tnis j 10 matter? e 13 A Not to tne oest of my knowledge. I really I4 don't know.
I5 Q was Harry ',villiams at t.ais particular meeting?
16 A No, sir, he was not.
II Q Did Dunham seem satisfied wit'h he'left the 18 office? You said that he seemed to be somewnat perplexed i 19 '
c'ecause he was unable to provice them with speci:ics 20 regarding tneir questions or specifics which tney asked !
I 2I for. Did ne seem to be satisfiec as a result of tne conversation you naa nac witn him?
% A well, 1 cnink Mr. Dunnam was apprehensive. He 1 23 had indicated that the reason ne had not gone to Mr.
23
'Brandt was cecause Mr. Brandt had terminated Mr. Atenison, TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREE*, N.W. - SL'ITE 1004 -
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
n- . ,
-0 37 I
.one of_the previous-inspectors out there, and at tnat j ,
particular point I tries to explain to Mr. Dunham'so that 3
it woulo relieve hic concerns in directly talging to Mr.
4 Brandt, that it was'not Mr. Brandt who had terminates Mr.
5 Atchison, that-I had terminate Mr.."Atchison for 6
sianificantly different reasonsLthan bringing concerns,-
you Know, tN'theattention'of supervision or management, 8
j I am not sure anat Mr. Dunham's reaction'was
-9 when he left the meeting. If 'Mr. Dunham perceived that ne 10 had'or any of his. associates had problems within'the ranks of tne. organization or that 'they had problems tec7nically l '-
with the program, I doubt'very seriously if that meeting 13 would have mace him go away feeling everything was all I4 right. I believe that there would have had to have oeen 15 some very objective indication of tnose of us or one of 16 us, or someone in the meeting taking ac' tion on nis I
expressed concerns, and that is why Mr. Brandt started the 18 interviews with the inspectors that very afternoon.
39 Q Mr. Brandt did begin interviewing the other "O
~
coatings inspectors that day?
21 a Yes, sir.
0 And he interview all of tnem, to your
~3 ~
. knowledge?
24
'A To the best of my knowledge.
3 Q Did he ever discuss with you tne results of TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004
. WASHlHGTON, D.C. 20006 (2021 293 3950 I
i e i
36 I
tnoso-interviews?
4 A ;oc in detail. Only from the stanupoint of me 3
asking how tae-interviews were going and was everything ccc.ing out all right and~his indication basically tnat 5
es, everything was proceeding along fine, whien I-6 perceivec as nim resolving tne apparent problem.
O Suoseguent to this meeting dia you discuss Mr.
8 Dunham's concerns wito ar. Tolson anc Mr. Brandt?
9 A Subsequent-to the meeting? .
10 '
Q Yes, after Dunham was excused.
i 11 '
A No.
l 12 Q You nad o,oviously gone to enem witn some !
13 concerns tnat one of tne Brown and Root employees nac. Was Il enere any discussion ---
II A do. de finished the meeting. p.r . erandt 16 connitted to talxing to tne inspectors and we left. Otner II tnan Just those comnients during the ensuing week or ten 18 nays of new tne interviews were going with the inspectors i, i
19 and personally oc. serving on a couple of cecasions his ao di.scussions with craft supervision on, you knew, toe
'l validity of nis inspectors' fincings, I guess I never really got involved in tne coatings arena again.
'3 Even througn ene grapevine, anc any ,
28 construction project nas a very large grapevine, I didn't 5
get any specific feedback free. my people on the coatings-TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 1 STREET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
/
(202) 292 3950
~
39 1
drena, to the best of my knowledge, that I Can recall. I e 4 nave several people tnat have been there for a long time
- 3 and the people communicate very freely anc it generally 4
gets bacx to me if there'is a problem somewhere.
Q So prior to that time ycu naa no' knowledge 6
tnat tnere were any pro 61 ems'within the coatings CC
~
cepartment?
8 A No, tnat is not a fair thing to say. It had 9
been arought to my attentien earlier by anocner individual 10 that he hau some concerns i'n t'he coatings department, but II
, it was primarily witn his supe'rvisor, again Mr.' Williams.
p- .
That was brought to my attention by a gentleman name~d Neil-13 britton.
Q were.you aware that tnere was an investigation 15 relating to claims of tnat sort earlier in tne year?
16 A No, not really. Tnere were a lot of tnings 17 going on that I coviously wasn't aware of. I knew that tne 18 Office of Investigations had oeen discussing witn pcopie 19 questions of narassment because they nad even talkea with 90 some of the people taat were functionally in the ASME 21 organizstion, as I recall, out I didn't ask them wnat they 22 nad asked. It nadn't really gotten bacx to me and 21 functionally it was so far from what at least I perceived i
24 as the attituce of my. organization that I never.pursuec 25 tne question.
I TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1
1625 i STRKT. H.W. - SUITE 1004 '
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
't
\
. 4U I
Q Neil 3ritton is a Brown anc Root employee?
~
A Yes, sir..
3 Q anc he left tne coatings department acout enat 4
time?
A No. lie is' still in tne coatings cepart.nen't.
6 0 Is he?
A Yes, sir. t I
8 o aut he was a supervisor under harry Willia u.s 9
at tnat time?
I A Yes, sir.
t II Q Did ne asx to be relieved from that capacity?- l II A Seil canae to me'with basically a nanawritten I3 summary of concerns and I sat down and talxed to Neil caly I4 cecause Neil nac worked with me en another proj_ect. I sat I5 down ano talsed to Seil about tnem and he is concerns were 16 as .as . stated working directly as a supervisor for Harry 1
I williams ana what ne reported to be a fear of upper I8 management within tnat chain, g i
19 I a3xec 6 thy ne nad never gone to see Mr.
"O Brandt directly if he hac concerns with the supervision 21 and ne hac indicated that he didn't feel ne coulu freely communicate. having Known Neil for quite a wnile, I saio, 23
.Neil, I saic I a.n not really sure that is true. I have 23 talrea to Mr. Brandt on several occasions and have seen a 23 lot of people in taere talxing. I said may'e c you feel that TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SulTE 1004 j WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 *
(202) 293 3950 l
r~
~- -
L
- 1'
! ^ l
.way because or your association with Mr. Williams. I says, l ,
~
j I would li.<e to.get Mr. Brandt over here and nave you and P.r.-drandt and I sit down and discuss your concerns, wnich 4 .
ne agrees to oo.
5
. he nad inoicatea that he felt ,ne was unable to 6
( perform and/or function within the. current scope.of wnat I; -
{
tney were trying to do witnin tnis revision and I as.ted j t
8 '
him wnat he wantec to co, what he woulo feel more 9
comfortable doing, because a great deal of the' impression 10
'was that the heat anu the intensity was just getting to
{
U Neil. In fact, he even mentioned nis ulcers, you Know, and 4
3,-
I asked him what he would feel more comfortacle I
{
performing, and he had indicated he woulo li<e to n' arrow l t
N down his scope and/or go back to being an inspector. I 15 l said, you realize, Neil, that if you do that,I am very 4 l
16 nard pressed from a corporate policy standpoint to pay you I
as a supervisor if you are not supervising, which he says I
I unuerstand that.
39 You choose sometning because it is tae. lesser a0
~
of two evils, I am sure. I mean ne could either stay tnere
- 1 and get an ulcer, as ne hao implied, or ne could move back 22 and try and recoup. But I believe that at that particular 13
point all three of us felt that what Neil was doing was 28 probably cest under the circumstances, and Neil never came 25 bacx to me to express any concern after that.
TAYLOE ASSO'CIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITt 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
w 4
+
~
'I Q So'ne was transferred to'a new job?
~
.A He was transferred to a new joc. He was 3
'reclassifiec anu treil nas not come.back-to-directly
~4 -
express any concerns to .me since then..
5 '
C what is he doing'now?
.6 A Rignt now he is inspecting'again. However,'he recently h'as been pct'in cnarge of training anc certifyin'g 8
a relatively'large nomoer of new inspection personnel.
9 Neil, nas' aluays been a - very, very conscientious' young.can.
10' MR. DRISKILL: hhy don't we stop for'a moment 11 .I
-and take~a brea,t.
la-(Brief recess.)
II MR. DRISKILL: Let 's ,go bacic on 'the recoru.
I4 4
BY MR. DRISKlLL:
15 Q Anotner area I woulc like to discuss eith you, 16 Mr. Purdy, is that subsequent to the termination'of Mr.
17 cunham I understand tnat Mr. Peter McClain, at attorney 18 for Brown ana Root, Incorporated, in Hcuston came downcand i 4
19 looked into the matter as a result of a complaint'Mr.
- 0
, Cunham hac cade to Brown and Root management; is that correct?
A That is my understanding.
3 0 . It has come~to my attention that subsequent to
-'l a Mr. c.cClain's investigation or inquiries into triis matter 3
- a uetermination was made to offer Mr. Dunham
)
1 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1623 i STREET. N.W. - Sutfl 1004 WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20006 '
(202) 293 3950 l
p1-m9 y h" 7 = w y -'W%' r w - - - -
1 43
,<^~.
re-employment.
MR. - W ATKIrJS : Excuse me. In the context of the 3
lacor case an offer of settlement was made with Mr. Donnam 4
anc tnat fell within the Department of Laocr precedures.
5 what went on in tne determination is pr vi,leged ana.the 6
reascas for whlen tne company offered it, as any . .
I settlement offer is. I don't Know how deeply you are going 8
to get into, and I am not sure it Gordon even snows tnat 9
mucn about it.
10 NR. DRISKILL: Well, I did. want to ask him some II questions about it.
12 MR. WATKIKb: The offer was made and rejected 13 '
Dy Mr. Dunnam.
N MR. DRlSKILL: I understand that. And my investigation does not relate to the fincing of 16 ciscrimination by the Department of Labor.
I MR. WATKINS: I understand, but so long as you 18 understand the reasons for which any corporation in any 19 litigation may offer settlement and may offer to ciscuss 20 tne matter with the otner side are generally privilegea 91 ana confidential. Tney have to be or otherwise it woulc e
make it very difficult to settle cases.
U MR. DRISKILL: I want to make it clear though*
24 that my interest in tnis has nothing to do with tne 25 Department of Labor decision or the conciliation that~ went
'TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHiHGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
v,-
e 44 1
.l- g 1
- on tnere.
MR. wA.Tdl.NS:' ;I uncerstand,_ but t:7.a t doesn't 3
-alter tne fact tnat settlement negotiations and the 4
rea: sons fcr of fers of settlement and Mr. Dunham's reasons
-for rejecting the' offer of settlement are privileged no .
6 matter snat the context. .
NR. GhlFFIN: Privileged between uno, your-law . l 8
iic.?. and Brown and' ' Root?
9 MR.-WATKINS: Jo, as against tne world.
10 MR. GRIFFIN: Is it privileged from-Mr. Purdy L
11 i
to the anC? '
to-THE WITNESS: I can mage.it real simply because I3 I don't Know any of the things that went on en that. I.was 14 nct inclut.:ed in any of tnose discussions; determinations ,
15 or inve.tigations.
16 MR. DRISKILL: You were interviewed.
i-THL WITNESS: by wno?
18 MR. DRISKILL: By Mr. McClain at first I 19 a s s uaie .
0 ThL WITNESS: 60 a
l i Mk. Dril s,(ILL :
You mean Mr. McClain ca:.e down !
i
.,n to look into tne matter of a complaint registered oy Mr.
U Dunha:a with respect to his terinination and they didn't .
^8 even ec:ae to you?
,3 The. WITnSSS: Mr. McClain came to me, and I was TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 162513TREET. N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHtHGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 b
95-
, I not aware tnat ne nad oeen called in, but Mr. McClain came 2
to me and said that ne had been asked to investigate the
- 3 Dunnam issue ano talkea to me procably for about three or 4
four minutes, but there was very, very little that was j 1
involved. I think he verified that ne had a copy of tne I 6 l counseling report and that he. had a copy of the' l I I termination slip anu asned me if wnat was en those was l
8 currect, and I said yes, ano that was it.
{
9 BY 6R. DRISKILL:
10 !
O And subsequent to that brief conversation witn j t
11 <
, McClain, you were never told that Brown and Root anc (
s l'-
, considered rehiring Mr. Dunham subsequent to your 13 terminating him?
I4 A Iv o . I was told that they were going to ofier Mr. Dunham a position back, but it was never expanded into 16 the corporate's decision to do that.
II Q In other words, it was never explained to you 18 the rationale for wnich they were going to ---
I9 A do. *
"O Q To your <nowledge, were they going to offer "1
nlm a jco at Comanche Peas or somewnere else?
22 A to my knowledge, tney were offering to 23 reinstate him at Comanche Peak. -
24 Q Without discussing it with you?
3 A I work for people, too.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET. N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
46 I
Q well, I uncerstand that.
Q So you _ nave really 'no .<nowledge with regara to 3
the rationale of way eney made this determination or L ceciced to offer nim re-employment?
_5 A ug, ,
6 G Okay. Anonner issue tnat I would lite to ,
ciscuss .i c you briefly, and I_ understand.that you are 8
employee on the ASME side of tne house, but earlier in our 9
discussions you :aentioned tnat you were somewhat f a:allia r 10 witn nis particular r.opic, and it has to do with NCR's II and IR's and some concerns that aere had by inspectors I ja witn regard to whicn cocument they wera instracted to use.
' I3 A I am familiar with the term hCR's and IR's. My -
1 N
side of tne organization also uses them. Relative to the 15 ar.a3cr concerns , to the best of my knowledge, because it 16 nas ceen investigated several times and it has been a I
suLject of ASLE hearing testimony on numerous occasions 18 and it is very ifficult not be moderately familar wita ,
19 tne topic, to the best of my kncviledge, tne biggest
,0 ,
prcblem was tnat people do not uncerstand that tnere isn't 8 41 a criterence.
O inere isn't a difference?
U A
There isn't tne difterence tnat they suppose t
23 or that they perceive there tc be.
23 Q Don't the inspection procedures differentiate TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 162515TREET. H.W. - $JITE 1004 WA$HINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
~
l 47
~ ~~ I ostocen the two?
A I don't know about non-aSME, whetner they
. differentiate between the two.
4 Q -I assume tne ASME side of the house procecures 5
reference CP/QF 16.0 and 16.0 ano those things?
6 '
A 'ihey reference my procedures *very .
specific 611y.
8 Q Those are_Brcwn and Root procedures?
9 A On the~ASME side, yes, sir. '
10 '
Q Oxay. You were present I suppose -then wnen {
t 11 '
some discussion oy Mr. Tolson and Mr. Brandt took place j I2 with'Dunham wigh respect to what he perceived to be an I3 inacility on nis part based 'on nis manager 's instructions !
I4 'l' to' write NRC's?
t 15 (
A Yes, I would be familar with enat. g Q Would you relate to me, to the best of your I' 3 knowleuge, how they responded to him with respect to their !
I8 decisions on that?
I9 A' Tneir response to him was that the !
e
'O unsatisfactory inspection report does in fact comply with j
,1
- I 10 CFR SU Appendix B criterion 15 in that the word j D
" non-con f orinance " wnich is a small "n" identifies that II
, QA/QC must be able to identify disposition and correction i i,
2I on items that are non-contorming. Nowhere in any of the 25 appendices or in any regulations is the acronym NCR i
, TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16251 STREET N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 t
~
48-mandated as a vehicle to do that. It is not a bnor:r.al -
- hrougacut the incustry'to use different names ter tnat.
3 They explainen enat the difference between, 4
and ineirs.nappens to-ce ironically the same as ours, that .
.tae difterence uetween an un-sat inspection report,-and a {
'6 .
.non-conformance reportfis tnat an un-sat inspection report
-1s inentified by OA/QC cr anyone brincing it to QA/CC's ;
8 attention durin.; an in process activity wnlen can be 9
corrected by casically a rework mechanism. '
10 -
It doesn't require engineering acticn and it-II doesn't require any major managemen't deal. Constr6ction l'
just didn't build it the way the engineers said and On nas I3 icentified tnat and they are now going to-go cack out and I4' put it the way tae-engineers said.
15 It is still ' subjected to toe same evaluations 16 required by criterion 17 and that they are trenced to
'I~
ioentify repetitive conditions or significant conditions 18 anc corrective action is initiated as a result of it. All i 19 it coes i.2 recuces the processing ti.r.e by recognizing the 20 fact tnat OA anc construction can identify wnere they i 2I 1 mesaec up and ca<e it loog tne way it should have been to :'
begin with.
23 Now I tnougnt Mr. Dunham when he left the 28 meeting unaerstood at least that point.
Q Are IM's a part of tne permanent plant record?
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16251 $TREET, N.W. - SUITI 1004 WASH!NGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
'49 l 1
A Most assuredly, serialized and in permanent plant records. In my program tney even become a part of tne installation pacxage.
4 Q Are they on the non-ASME side of the house?
A They are numbered, they are tracked, they are 6
documented ana they are filed.in th'e permanent plant I
recoris vault.
8 I C sn original IR whica may identify an un-sat i 9
condition?
10 A I would assume, yes.
11 MR. ORISKILL: Thanx you. I can't recall any 12 adcitional questions. ,
I3 (Brief recess.)
I4 MR. . GRIFFIN: Let's go back on the record.
15 Gordon, I am going to ask you kina or a j 16 cross-section of questions here 'ased c on your interview so I' i far witn Mr. Driskill.
18 BY MR. GRIFFIN:
19 Q Going back to your initial meeting with a0 Dunham, tne first time that you can recall naving talked
'l with him, was tnere anything improper or unusual about
'^
Dunnam requesting a meeting witn you?
e3 A No. Certainly not improper. I assume the 24 responsibility as Site QA Manager for Brown and Root, ano "5
everybody was made aware of the fact that, you know, that TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STRIIT, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 292 3950
r
, 4 50 l
I r 1 was with Brown ana Root.and therefore was within their' cnain of commanc.
3 I didn't find it abnormal that they would teel
-4
, free to come to me if taey had a proolem.- In fact, I felt ratner good aoout tnat. I was' concerned'because they 6
cian't feel free to go tne otner way.
O tollowing tnat meeting did Brandt ever express j t
8 to you any utspleasate acout Dunnam coming to you anc/or 9
cid arandt ever incicate tnat he shouldn't nave done it .
10 and enat tnis would nct be a tolEracle procedure?
11 A No, he-never did express displeasure to that. j 1
Q So Brown and Root QC inspectors had access to I3 you uiti.out fear of upsetting eneir supervisors if their I4 supervisors workeo for'otner companies li.<e Ecasco?
15 A I will have to answer you by the statement 16 tnat I would liAe to tnin< so; That has not nappened very II often. Mr. Britton &nd Mr. Dunham, or Mr. Ferris and Mr.
18 Dunnam are really toe only situations where that has ever I9 hac to occur. I nave several 3rown ana Root supervisors en !
- 0 tne non-ASo.E side of the house that I know very well tnat al worked ror me before on other projects who . knew full well t,4--
that they are fee to ccme to me, or.their people are at l
M any tin.e, anu if taey hac a problem there is no couct in i -
23 my mind that tney would co,ae. to me with the problem.
- 0 Q All right. Let's switch subjects nera. I want TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
w e 6'
51 I
, to draw your attention to the. employee counseling and o l guidance report which is includeo as an attachment to your {
testimony tnat gave to the Department of Labor'I believe.
4 A Yes.
Q ine. employee's name on.this is. Bill Dunnam and 6 '
nis bacge.numoer. I wanted to ask you about a particular section on this report that reads "Did/could this create a b '
potential problem?" And it is an "X" marked "Yes" and then-9 "If yes, explain," and there is a written explanation.
Do you know wno wrote that, whose handwriting ,
. 11 tnat would have been?
la f f A I co not know whose nanowriting that_could
' 13 have ceen. It was on there when it was presentes to me.
I#
0 OKay, . And Krisher, he was the one that j 15 prepared tne term as you uncerstand?
16 A Yes, sir.
Q If I am reading this correctly, I want to asx 18 you about snat it says. "A sensitive program alreacy oeing {
19 }
delayed by confusion" I believe is what it says.
20 f A Yes. '
i al Q hithouch you do not Know who write that, do oo you unuerstand wnat tue writer intended?
o3 A As I look at this I can recall some of the 24 s,cenario tnat went witn it, he had ciscussed ba ically 25 wnat was being discussec or what .as implied, not only oy I
l TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 l WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
y
?!
,- 52 l'
tais, cut how that related to I celieve attitude and acticas as discussed aoove. Mr. Krisner at that, time, and 3
I am assuming.that Mr. Krisher a:ided that notation'since 4
, he was the only one'tnat.was actually involved'in the
'5 -
- fr preparation of'this form, .in that the meet was nold' ,
6 oecause they were concerned over tne protective coatings ,
I program anc at tne recommendation of'the protective 0
' coatings consultants felt that it would be bes- to get 9
together with tne QA/QC fol4s so they could ciscuss some 10 of the procedure programs and specification changes and '
11 answer questions to try and clear, if'you woulo, any I
concerns-that tne 2C inspectors would have= relative to the 13 cnanges that were being made.
I4 Mr. Krisner's position on that was that 15 instead of ceing a meaningful communication of trying to 16 explain 'oetween the consultants and the engineers and the I
inspectors on pro'olems that had been icentifiec or the 18 inspectors' concerns being answered, it uegenerated into .
1 I9 ene of basically of tne writing of their particular
^0
~
efforts.
3 3
Q UKay. In tnis statement that is written nere,
,3 and we are assuming it is Krisner, it refers to it as a 23 sensitive progra2n. Do you Know what he intenced by '
M " sensitive"? What is sensitive about this program?
05 a It would be supposition if I toic you. I can TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16251 $TREET H.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 l 1
1 l
e 53' I
f f"'
, tell you wnat I perceive it means.,
a , ,,
Q I would apcreciate it if you could give me your opinion.
4 A' hhen I first came to Comanene Pean some questions nad'been raised about the coati.ogs program 6
because or documentation that nad not been effectively retained in some of tne areas of satety class coatings.
8 Inere were one or' mete cacxfitting inspections.geing on 9
within tne protective coating = srena. The criticality of 10 protectin'g' coatings and the ape.ication was being felt 'oy II tne entir'e project. It is not a subject that was talkec I2 strictly with the QC people. Everybody from Project I3 Management, Dallas, all the way down into our rancs N
realized tne regulatory requriements applicable to I
protective coatings and enere is just a great ceal of 16 attention on the program right now.
I Q So that is.snere the sensitivity came from?
18 A That is what I assumed it to be.
I9 Okay.
Q This sentence furtner says that "A 60 sensitive program alreaoy being delayed." What was the
' l delay as fcu understand it.
A My uncerstanding is that the delay was U '
primarily due to the either differences of opinions or the 24 questions that had been rai, sed relative to the techincal 3 adequacy of the program.
TAYLOE ASSCK:lATES 1625 i STRIET. N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
n a; ;w - 8 I;b. "
n 5*
1 Q. .And tnel delay;is caused by,~at what? level or 4 ;- .4
~
,,fby wno?:
I'
_a Tne calays are; ultimately caused-'by. project 4
' management in an-effort ~to try and ferret. cut:proclems. dis
'5
- . tnat -nat ' you : mean? -
6 O Are you-saying that pro]ect managementi nas-celafea some pnase-of=.either application or~inspecticn '
s1 8
coa tirg s ?
9 -
-A :.o . - I celleve that the progress of tne '
10 coatings. program was'not' going as rapidly.as anticipated U ~
primari1y because of the' questions.tnat were raised and 1n
]
were naving to ce resplved, anc in.an. effort-to get the i
13 coatings bacic into a normal project mode where we are I4 accomplishing the coatings.in consort with the'.'other 15 activities, it was very necessary to mage sure that'not 16 only tne engineering, construction and tne QA/QC. folss met II ano agreed on the program that was to be implementec.
18 Q Are you referring to tne backfit or is this 19 ongoing?
20 s I am referring to even the ongoing. You know, ng l
4 i
we are still coing a lot of repairs and a lot of coating j
~ ~2 work out there. Every time I put up a pipe support I mess 21 up their coatings.
- i
- 3 (Laughter.)
23 Q okay. Let's move on. The last words in this TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET. N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C.' 20006 '
.(202) 293-3950 h
\
55
" I sentence says "ceing delayed by confusion." Is tne o -
, contasion among QA management 1or among One inspectors, or
, wno is confused?
4 A' I_ perceive ---
5
. C Rignt','your opinion.. .
6 A 'I. perceive tnat.the confusion on what is .
intended anc meant by the specifications and prececures'is 8
. project-wice and not any given organization, and I oelive 9 ~
tnat is what the protective coatings conscitants were 10 trying to do. It is like trying to intrepret the coce.-You 11 can ass tnree people'what tne coue means and tney are 12 going to give'you,three different answer, and .I Delieve I3 that is what resulted in the coatings program I4 specifications and procedures. You can ask three difrerent 15 people wnat tney mean and they all say difrerent things.
16 so to tne engineer it' meant one thing, to the constructor II it .neant another, the applicator,. and to the inspector it 18 meant another, and you are never go anywhere without uelay 19 anc confusion unless tney all agree, and I celieve that is
- 0 what this effort was.
91 C All rignt. Thang you.
on I want to switen subjects again. Does the AS.*.E n3 side of the house, ao you have any groups tnat are 24 restricted to using inspection reports anc not allowed to-O use or write NCR's?
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SulTI 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20GM (202) 293 3950
,7,, e-,t, - '~ Y
w . .
. So
~ I TA- Not' allowed?
O ey' procedure.
3 IA we'icentity our-procedure as a deficiency-4 icentifiea.daring?in process inspection:that;can be -
, rewor,ced or repairec'using standard repair procedores:that 6
are witnin the normal' construction' processing-cycle, that
'l-can be identified, aispositioned ano closed on an un-sat: !'
l 8
Id. we say maybe. We'also'say that-anything that cannot - ce 9
resolved on an un-sat IR must'be ioentified-on an SCR. .
10
.j Tnings that'ccviously Lall into that category are things j U 'l that require engineering evaluation, j 12 Q; More spegifically though do you now- or nave- -
I3 you had since you nave been working on site,.'has there
,I been a time period for a particular program or a 1
- 15 l particular group'that has been restricted to using Id's j 16 anc wnere ::CR's nave been removed from procedure eithin'
- l. .
tne AStiE side? I 18 a Within the ASME side, no.
19 O Are you aware that on tne non-AS:. E side as l
.so
~
relatec to coatings there was a period of. time in whien !
3} !
the 16.0 NRC's were removed rrom coatings QC procedores or [-
IA Ol's?. I a.a asking you are you familiar that that was i:ie l
.,3 case? ! .
- ; ~
A tio , but I can uncerstano why an t.CR woulon't
.5 ue necessary in the coating 3 p r og ra.a, because it is a TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET. N.W. - SUITE 1004 6 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 *
(202) 293 3950-k, ^
'57 I
i continuous in process inspection until you get to.tne point wnere you have an area that is acceptacle and
- 3 t7erefore you nave constant craft /QC interface. Sc even 4
though I am not fac.iliar.with tnen saying no, I am not sure that it woula mase any dif ference. ,
6 0 Okay. Since your side of tne nouse also uses I
IR's, could you tell me how they are tracked?
8 A Yes. IR's are sequentially nu;abered. iy GC group supervisor provices [or the districution to various 10 QC groups of a block of IR nu.nber s . An IR doesn't nave to 11 ce un-sat. It can be sat, you know, what you are using it 1*
for. Those are assigned to each grocp with a leaa 13 inspector being responsible for the control and I4 distribution o'f numoers.
15 An inspector will request a numLer or octain a 16 number from him and will initiate an IR. The QC lead will
~
take pertinent information off of that or record into nis 18 log what that IR was used for, whether it was sat or 19 un-sat and where it went.
"O In our arena, as I said, it cecomes part of,
'l for example, a nanger package or it will become part of 22 wnatever tne process document was tnat was involved in Z3 ' that activity until sucn time as it is closed out. At tn e' 24 enc of each quarter a copy of that leg and a copy of all 3
tne IR's are transmitted to my quality enginering group TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
\
7-56 I
w ho will do a ocable.cneck to. ensure that tne log.shows closure of'tnose particular IR's and a'lso encompasses.them-3 in tne overtil trending program for severity anc/or .
4
. repetition and/or signi-icant repetitive actions.
5 0
In the case of on-sat's on IR's, is tnera a 6
separate trac.<ing of those.for.dispositioning or rewor4 or
~
..hatever it is called?
8 A On my sine, you xnow, on tne AshE side of tne 9
house, all un-sat IR's are also identified on.a QA 10 deficiency list for thatLparaticular item.
II Q who maintains tnis. list?
I2 A Tha.t listeis maintained oy my group. A QA-13 building supervisor in that area will maintain that. So we I4 have a redundancy of numbers.
15 Q Is enis a f o r.r.a l s ys t em , tnis tracxing or 16 un-sat's on IR's?
I A Is it a formal system?
18 0 tes. ,
19 A The tracking of them is very for.T.al, yes.
'O Q So it is tne log, or whatever system you use, '
21 tnat maintains tne plant record?
22 A Tnose particular items are transmitted to the l
23 owner.
f 24 To the, excuse me?
Q 25 A To tne owner, to the permanent plant recores TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16231 STREIT. N.W. - SulTI 1004 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
SS I
v$ ult.
Q Do you happen to Know if the same system exists on the non-ASME siue?
" 4 A I believe a very similar system exists. They .
5 have also gone to the point of. putting all,un-sat IR's 6
into a computer prograia so that mangement can sit down and identify problems, although tney still use tne nard copy 8
closore.
9
.G All right. Prior to the use of the computer lo system, which I understand is fairly new, how'were IR's 11 tracxea on the non-ASME side of tne nouse, do you krrow?
l' A I'really can't tell you. I don't know.
13 Q You stated earlier that Dunham indicated tnat 14 he had some concerns about the use of the IR versus NCR.
15 P. ave you hearc this same concern expressed by otner QC 16 .
Inspectors?
l~
A No.
18 Q You said tnat this subject has been discussed I9 on a number of occasions cefore the ASLB and other.
'O meetings. nao has been tne criginator? Wno has expressed al tne concern that led to these discussions?
no A Who initially?
69 Q Yes.
24 A 1 don't Know. Ms. Ellis ooviously cid at the 25 ASLE. I am not sore where she got ner information from.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16251 $7RIET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 i
I
e :. -
L 60 I
Q' What I was trying to learn from you;is whetner-4
'tnis is a concern tnat is isolated or restricted to Ms. ,
3 Dunham, that only he teels this way or if this is sometning that is'--- i 5
A I don't Kno.. Other than the ' fact that I know -
6 we did niccuss'it at the ASLE hearings anu it nas been -
- i relateo to me that somebcdy had oeen door 4 loccing into it !
8 or investigating it previously. I am not tamiliar with 9
where the allegation or'tne concern was locged fromJ Otner 10 than Mr. Dunham, nobody nas ever explained to-me enac they ,I II had a problem with it.
l~
l' Q All rlgno. Let's switch subjects again. You I3 related earlier of a time wnen some of your QC inspectors I4 nad ceen interviewed by tne NRC on another matter other 15 tnan what we are nere discussing tocay. Were these-16 inspectors debriefed or interviewed following their interview witn the NRC?
18 A I don't even know who they were. !
I9 Oxay.
C Do any Of your subordinate supervisors, l 1
40 co you know if any of them debriefed or caused to be !
3 i 3
debrierec or interviewed these inspectors following their l
.n !
t interview with the NRC? -
U A To the best of .ny .<nowledge, and the 24 supervisces tnat work for me I have known a long time, I 05
.douot very seriously li tney would ever be conceraed 1:
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1623 1 STitEET. H.W. - $UITI 1004 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
b ,
5 61-I y.ou were' talking tus anyoody.
n Q Do I take'rrom that that'ycu nave never heard
- 3 of any of ycur subordinates decriefing or interviewing interviewees of~cne-NRC for tne purpose of finding out 5
what eney toicitne NRC? -
^
6 n -o. As a matter of fact, at tne ti'mesLwnen apparently:tnese were going on, I heard, anc-I am not even 8
, sure wnere I heard it-from, that some of my people _were e 9
scheouled to.be tal. sed to, and neither I nor any of my_
10 people _have even triec to find out who they were.
II !
o O oicay . So if enere were instances wnere-your f t
12 suboruinates did interview these people, it would have 13 been without your knowledge anc it woulc not nave been at I4 a formal request, frem QC management?
15 A That is a fact.
16 Q As relates to Dunhac's coanseli'ng, were eitner I
Brown and Rcot or TUGCO managers involved in any decision 18 tnat related to Dunitam's counseling? I as speating more 19 specifically of tnose managers off site lixe those that
'O ara 6t the o' ice in Dallas.
- 1 A Co you mean involve 6 in the decision to on counsel nim?
13 .
O Yes.
24 A ho.
25 g .rney were not aware of tne situation at tnat TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 WA$NINGToN, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
et I. tige?
n
\
.A 2rcwn and Root wasn't, and to tne cess of :ny 3
k: coledge, I don't think Lany::ody was.
4 MR. GKI'FId: That is.all I nave.
5
- NR. DRIS ail.L : . J u::s a . couple r.cr e ques.tions .
6
. 3Y '.R . DA13 KII.L :
~ '
. ..ito respect to tne counseling mea.0, *(Lict 8
ners is a ecpy or tnere, was that presente: to :;r . Danna.
9 aa a ' single copy or dereithere carbon co::les attached to 10 .
It?
11.
A There are no caroon copies ever attacnec to I"-
tnese. There is one copy. The original I celieve you -11.1 13 cind in nis personnel record. A single . sheet was pa s.s ed I4 over to nim just that way -- (Inaicating).
15 Q I see. The one, two or three pages are there 16 s ta ples- togetner or sometning ---
II A There was nothing~ stapled to it even. He got
'8 ene piece of paper. This one. That is all.
19 Q he indicated in nis statement to tne I
ao
' 1 Depa r t:aent or Labor tnat it was a three-part memo or !
I Og' sciaething lir.e enat. Were there any docuinents inere or any
.n writing; wnich were en the tnree-part itemo that was a3 presented to nim either during tne counseling session or
l suosequent to tne decision to terminate him?
o.
3 a No. I believe that is what you woul.2 call a i
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STRitT. H.W. $UlTE 1004 WASHINGTON. D.C. ' 20C06 '
(202) 293 3950 l
63
'3 f.. '
ma t e r ial _- mi s repr e senta tion .. No.
~
O, .On ni.3 part?
A Yes.- There was nothing ever li<e tnat.
4
, Q hitn regard to his evaluation in nis personnel 0
record at the time of his termination, he was given a fair 6
performance evaluation.
A Yes.
'8 Q was that determination mace by you or scmeone
' 9 -
else?
10 A' Me. .f II Q And what did you base that on?
I2 A W6at I based it on was tne fact that-I-had
~
I3 never hdard anytning negative about his aoility as an I4 inspector. Subsequent to that I nac ceen told that ne was l
a very good inspector, but-if an inspector who is good l 16 tectinically will talk to me that way, I would nate to be -
I the craft or somebocy else tnat he would talk to, and as_ f la i-far as I am concerned that is fair.
l 19 Q So I would be correct in assuming, bas'ed on "O
wnat you have said, tnat if you had been put in a position '
"I to write an evaluation for nim tnree days before, you n',
would have given him better than fair?
n3 A I can't say that. Tnat is nypothetical. 1 24 con't x 1cw.
25
, Q what I am saying is tnat based on all t
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
n -.
64 I
indications nis performance, to your knowledge, had oeen very good?
3 A Let me 'elarify that - because I thinx f you have 4'
.to qualify unat. If I were put in a position of evaluating 3
, Mr. Dunham, and his tecnnical proriciency were.as Aign as 6
i t ,.a s , .anu I,cc~ served, because I don't_ evaluate some'edy c
unless I ouserve them, ana .I coserved that his 8
presentation was equal'ly as' professional, yes, it would 9
nave been higner-tnan fair.
10 Q okay. So a less tnan higher than fair
-11 evaluation was given to him based on his response to your 34
' counseling?
A Yes. ~
14 C okay. One last tning is tnat based on our I3 .
discussion, tne recommendations.came to you free. Mr.
16 Brandt and Mr. Tolson that oisciplinary action cr 1-counseling ce conducted with Mr. Dunham and originally it I
18 wac proposed tnat ne be given tnree days off witnout pay l 19 unicn was cubsequently rescinded at least in that part.
20 You co;; curred in that based on your knowledge {'
^1 ot that a= reiatec by those people?
A Yes, I agreed to do tnat cased on their
^3 recomt.ienda t io n .
28' o so would I be fair in assuming tnen that ycu 23 were basically acting as an administrative toci of TUGCo TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 1 STRffT. N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950-J:
)
. . . . ._. . . . . . i 1
= . ,
65
. .to'efrect disciplinary action on a Brown and Root' employee unuer their supervision insomuch as you were tne senicr Brown ana Root officia'l on site?
- 4 A 'Again, I hate.to qualify my responses. I did not personally _take part in those decision.-making *
- 1 g i processes or itness activities that were evaluated by Mr. j 4
Tolsen'c subordinates. I have, however, workea very i i
8 closely with enose inciviouals for s long t i.ne . I_ nave, however, knowr Mr. Brandt significantly longer than the 10 period of time I have been up here, more professionally j 1
II anu project-wise than personally. -I don't xnow either one 12 of them personally, but fro,m a standpoint.cf professional.-
13 presentation and jobs tnat they nave ta<en,-I have worked I4 witn both Mr. Tolson and Mr. Brandt probably for cetter 15 than four years, f
16 I am aware of Mr. Krisher's previous activities. In fact, one of my direct supervisors workec 18 for Mr. Krisher at WPPS. To act as a tool may-be a {
. 19 overdimplitication of it oecaut.e I actec in my role as an l I
- 0 administrator for Brown ann Root, out did not question the l 91 valiaity of their evaluation becarse of my knowledge or {'
e, tnem. Therefore, it was not a by definition okey, you are 23 {
the client and I will do whatever you say. I know tne I 24 people better than that. I don ' t want people to get tne i
o5 wrong i.npression of .ny action on Brown and Root employees. I 1
l
- TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20C06 (202) 293 3950
Li- 66
'I~ '
If-I did not nave-confidence in their evaluation,-then.I woulc not teel free in exercising that disciplinary 1
action.-
b&. GnIFFIN: If Mr. Brandt as a matter of course suggested counseling to you for a Brown and, Root }
6 employee ycc would feel comforta'le o with counseling the ,
er.p oyee baacd on tne infor:r.acion hr. Eranct gave you?
8 THE WITNESS: Yes. I coulo not work any other 9 i way with 200 people over on the non-ASME si se of, the ;
10 i
.nouue. '
t II EY MR. DRISKILL.
9 {
l' 8 I Q Just hypotnetically speaxing, if they had come l l
13 1 to you and tolo you that Dunham's conduct in tne meeting ,
l N l in question, if they haa explained to you nis conduct ,
15 there, would you witnout any recommendations on their part l 16 8 nave counseled witn him conceivably? l 1I A Would I?
'4 IO Q Yes.
19 A No, not in all procabiaity. .
i a0 MR. DRISKILL: I don't ncve any other al questions.
22 I have one last statement I would li<e to 21 make. !
28 Mr. Purdy, have I or ;4r. Griffin tareatened 3 t you in any manner or of fered any rewards in reward tor l TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16251 $7RffT, N.W. - $UITI 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3930
~
t -
. 6i
' ' '- I this-stateiaent? l TriE h1T?iESS: .N o .
- 3
- MR. DRISKILL: iiave you given this. state:nent k f reely.' aric - voluntarily? ,
5 ThE WITNESS: -Yes. .
6 MR. DRISKILL: Is there anything further that you would care to add to the record?
8 T t. C W I T N t:S S : Only that I wisn we soula nave to 't 9
quite ta.1xing'acout this. It is getting to be a long, long 10 '
time and very old.
11 (Laughter.) -
12 (Whereupon, at 11:00 a.m., the INTERVIE.i Or' 13 GORDON RAYMOND PURDY concluded.)
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ..
d 24 25 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 WA$HINGTON,.D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
.c __
[ .
L.
- c. .
..I CERTIFICATE OF PROCEEDINGS .
2 3
'Ihis is to certify tnat the attached proceedings of-tne 4
Interview of GORCON RAYMONC PURDY, before the Office of Investigations at Texas Utility'Generhting Company, 6
Comanche Peu Ster..? Electric Station, Glen Rose, Texas.
Mh 3, en Tnurscay, Decemoer 1, 19e3', commenci ,g- at 9:12 8
a.m., was neid as herein appears, and tnat this is the
.criginal transcrist for the files of the Office of 10 Investigations, Region IV.
11 12 13 Faary C. Simons 14 15 Official Reporter - Typed 16 -
1: ____.___ ___ $___ _4da m --________
18 official Reporter - signature ,
19 -
l 20 ;
r 21 '
22 21 21 25 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 I $YRiff. N.W. - $Ulff 1004 W A$HINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
STATF.ENT CF GORDON R. PURDY I have reviewed the Sef emoer 23, 1983 complaint (the C =:iain:) filed by William A. Dunham wi th the Department of Labor. The Complaint cort ains numerous distortions and inaccuracies. The purpose of this statement is to provice an ac: urate summary of my involvement with .Mr. Dunham, including his counselling and termination. Below is a description of (1) my organi:a-tional responsibilities at the Cccanche Peak Steam Electric Station (Cc=anche Peak or the Project); (2) my contact with Mr. Dunham prior to the counselling session; (3) my role in the counselling of Mr. Cunha=; and, (4) my role in the temination of Mr. Dunnam for in:ubordinate behavice during the c:unselling l session. This state.ent is based on ratters wi thin my personal kncwiedge, I and is t:.:e and correc: to the best of my recollection, knowledge anc 4
beli ef. - -
- 1. Orcani ational Reconsibilities I am currently the 3rcwn & Root (5&R) Sita Quality Assurance
, (CA) Manager at C:manche Peak. As indicatec on the attached QA acministrative organization chart, the C0manche Peak QA organization is diviced into two func-ional organizatir as, one covering karican 1
l Society of Hechanical Engineers (ASME) QA ac-ivities (the ASME Group),
1 and tne other c:vering all other QA activities at Comanche Peak (the Non-ASME Group). I have the responsibility for directing the day-to-day activitier. of the ASME Group. The Texas Utilities Genersting C:mpany (R]GCD) (3&R's client, and the canaging cwner of Coranche Peak), di rec s the cay-to-cay activities of One Non-ASME 2rcup througn a
EXHIBIT (2C
\
- . . . - . . . . .., . .. . . x ,,-- -- - - .y = a~~ = v=::~,
e *h b*" ' .3r -
- w *
".R ; 4 ~}
l l,
, 1 the WGCD Site QA Supeni sor, R. G. Tolson. Under Mr. Tolson, the individual responsible for the supervision of the Non-ASME activities covered by Mr. Dunham's Ccmplaint 'is Mr. C. 7. Brandt'. Mr. Brandt is employed by Ebasco, another contractor employed by TUGC0 at Comanche Peak.
- While Mr. Tolson and Mr. Brandt supervise S&R empToyees assigned to the Non-ASME G' roup, as th'e Senior B&R QA manage. ment representative at Comanche Peak I retain the ultimata responsibility for administering disciplinary action arising out of any serious perfomance or condu,c problems of B&R employees.
When B&R employees in the Non-ASME Group. express jcb concerns to
, :ne or to other B&R ASME supervisors, we coordinate with the employee's Non-ASME supeni sors in resolving any such concerns. I would emphasize that as the Manager of the ASPI Group, I do not have responsibility. .
for directing the coatings program. Mr. Tolson and Mr. 3randt have
, w that responsibility. Based on several years' of working closely with Mr. Tolson and Mr. Brandt, I have found them to be extremely competent and knowledgeacle about nuclear QA requirements with respect to coatings and other areas, i 2. PH or Contac with Mr. Dunham i
I recall only one personal contact with Mr. Nnham prior to the August 25, 1983 counselling session. In late June or early July of 1983, Dan Farris, a S&R draftsman in the Non-ASME Group, called and asked if he and Mr. Dunham could meet with me. Mr. Farris indicated during the phone discussion that Mr. Farris and Mr. Dunnam believed J
i l
l l ,
,-- w-.-,... -. -m,.-.-,,.., -_-r . - - - . . - . - . . . . . . - - - -
,s 5 they had been subjected to " harassment," and that there were problems in the implementation of the protective coatings QA program. Because of the seriousness of their ex. plaints, I asked them to meet me that day in my office so that we could discuss their concerns in detail.
When they arrived, I began the meeting by referring to Mr. Farris' call, and made it clear that I was sincerely interested in discussing any concerns the employees wished to cm .anicate. In response, Mr. Farris indicated thkt he had not directly cbserved " harassment" problems, but had beard fr:ra othen (unnamed) that tnere were harrassment problems in the coatings area. He did not specify what these prt:blems were, but suggested that Mr. Dunnam would be able to describe examples.
Mr. Dunham told me that he had been hirassed by construction personnel and by his own QA supervisor, and discussed a few instances which he believed amounted to harassment.' Mr. Dunham claimed that he was pressured both by constiJction personnel and by his QA superd ser to perfom his QC inspections in a hur-ied manner.
Mr. Dunham did not state or suggest that he was threatened at any time or that he was ever asked'or required to accept unsatisfactory work, or that he knew of any unsafe conditions at the plant.
The discussion at the meeting centered around Mr. Dunham's
(
Supervisor, Mr. Harry Williams '(a QA employee of Gibbs & Hill, j TUGCO's principal arditec-engineer at Comanche Peak) and
! Mr. Williams' supervisor, Mr. Brandt. Mr. Dunnam canciained that i
l on the instruction of Mr. Branet, Mr. Williams had directed coatings inspectors not to draft Nonconfor=ance Recor.s.
i
.h L
s.. . . .
.; .. m s.
I Mr. Dunham's allegation relates to the use of Satisfactory /Unsat- i l
isfactory Inspection Report (Sat /Unsat IR) foms for documenting nonconfaming conditions, in lieu of using ifonconfomance Report foms . This practice is completely consistant with the NRC's OA requi rements in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 3. Use of Sat /Unsat irs is not unique to the coatings area, but occurs throughout the Comanche Peak QA program, in both the ASME anu Non-ASME Groups.
Tne use of Sat /Unsa: irs has been extensively di scussed and '
explained in recent Nuclear ' Regulatory Commission hearings.
Mr. Dunham also claimed during our meeting that Mr. Brandt, through Mr. Williams, was constantly imposing new QA policies on the inspectors with little explanation. Mr. Dunham further felt that Mr. Brandt was not available to hear inspector concerns aoout these policies, and that inspectors might be penalized for bringing any concerns ci rectly to Mr. Brandt.
I told Mr. Dunham and Mr. Far-is that I had heard canplaints abou:
Mr. Williams before. I did not indicate the source or specific nature of these previous canplaints. My reference to previous canplaints I was based on a single conversation that I had in Feuruary 1983 with l
l the individual who previously held Mr. Cunnam's position.. That '
individual c::mplained to me about poor ccawnications and tense l
j relations with Mr. Williams. The individual did not incicate conce-ns I -
about harassment. Although I did not discuss the individual's canolaints -
during my meeting with Mr. Dunham and Mr. Farris, I assumed that becaus of Mr. Dunham's close relationship with the other individual, Mr. Dunnam 4
) .
.. . n -
was aware of my prior discussion. .This is wny I said " needless to say" in referring to the prior criticism of Mr. Williams.
When Mr. Dunham began to discuss the details of ccatings QA
- policies and procedures, I indicated that because I did nct supervise Non-ASME activities (including coatings inspections),'I was not - '
familiar _ with the details of the technical standards and procedures being employed. When Mr. Dunham and Mr. Farris finished describing their concerns, I told them that I would investigate the concerns and would get back to them. The." stir the kettle" quote at page 2 of Mr. Dunham's Czplaint is essentially correct. I did not assure Mr. Dunham that I would keep the meeting confidential. I could not have made such a promise, since I knew that I would have to discuss the concerns with fir. Tolson at a minimum, 'given our^ organi::ational arrangement. However, I did guarantee Mr. Dunham that he would not lose his joo as a result of our meeting. ". As described below, Mr. Dunham's counselling and temination was in no way related to this meeting er to any quality concerns which Mr. Dunham expressed to management.
After the meeting, I ic=:ediately went to Mr. Tolson's office and discussed the subjects which were covered in "my meeting with Mr. Dunham and Mr. Farri s. Mr. Tolson and I agreed that we should address Mr. Ibnham's concerns immediately. We scheduled a meeting for the same afternoon with Mr. Brandt and Mr. Dunham. We both felt that it was important for Mi . Brandt to hear Mr. Dunham's concerns, since Mr. Brandt was the person most kncwledgeable regarding the areas of concern, and was the manager under Mr. Tolson who had the responsi-
. . . . ,. . . . . . . . . - . ....L...- . . . . . . .
bility for implementing -any necessary action to respond to the concerns.
I arrived several minutes after Mr. Tolson, Mr. Brandt, and Mr. Dunham began to di scuss Mr. Dunham's concerns. *'
n hen I arrived , there semed to me to be a good discussion going on among the three participants.
I did not see any evidence of pressure or hostility by Mr. Tol. son or Mr. Brandt, and it appeared that Mr. Dunham was -freely discussing his concerns. ~ I did observe , however, that Mr. Dunham became agitated whenever he was asked for details or specific examples of the problems he was raising.
Mr. Brandt asked in a straightforward manner why Mr. Dunham had not approached Mr. Brandt with his concerns. Mr. Dunham replied that it was because Mr. Brandt, had " fired" Charles Atchison (a for.ner B&R inspector in the Non-ASME Group). I stated at that point in a matter-of-fact tone that I was the individual who " fired" (using Mr. Dunham's term) Mr. Atchison, and I explained that I had done so for reasons that were significantly different than identifying concerns and pr:blems to management. Mr. Dunham states in his Cm: plaint that my statement caused him to believe his jcb was in jeepardy. I know of no rational reason he could have concluded this frcm the tone, context, or substance of my stat ment. The intent of my statement was to make sure that Mr. Dunham understood that Mr. Brandt did not have the authority to -
ter$1 nata Brown & Roct employees. As stated above, I had in our earlier
=eeting guaranteed that Mr. Dunham"would not lose his jcb for bringing his pecblems to management. -
c+
. . . .. . . . . ...a. -
.-)
1 Mr. Dunham's reference to Mr. Tolson's remarks about the NRC are I seriously misleading and out of context. Although I do not recall Mr. Tolson's precise words, it was: clear to me, and should have been clear to Mr. Dunham, that Mr. Tolson was saying he had no problem with inspectors expressing concerns directly to the NRC. Mr. Tolson's
" intimidation" remark indicated to me that he considered Mr. Dunham's statement to be unnecessary and inflammatory in the context of our meeting, which was an effort by :nanagement to get to the bottom of
'Mr. Dunham's concerns. I' myself felt at that time that Mr. Dunham's remark was unnecessary and inflamatory.
In the meeting with Mr. Tolson, Mr. Brandt and me, Mr. Dunham discussed essentially.the same harassment concerns as those discussed in my earlier meeting with Mr. Dunham. In response to Mr. Dunham's statement that the inspectors were afraid.,to talk to Mr. Brandt, Mr. Brandt responded that his door was a7 ways open and that in fact inspectors were constantly coming into his office to discuss concerns.
I have personally obsened, on many occasions, meetings between Mr. Brandt and Non-ASME inspectors at which quality issues have been openly di scussed and resolved.
After listening to Mr. Dunham's concerns, Mr. Branct stated during the meeting that he would take responsibility for speaking with the coatings inspectors, and would assure them that they Wert free to bring to Mr. Brandt's attention any problems, -
including harassment. Mr. Brandt subsequently indicated to me that he began the discussions with inspectors the sann day we met with Mr. Danham. On several occasions during the next two 7
.s 3
weeks, I discussed with Mr. Brandt .the results of his interviews. I also cbserved several nestings wnich Mr. Brandt held with the coatings
, craft superintendent, in which Mr. Brandt supported varicus actions taken by coatings inspectors and e::phas'ited 'the importance of allocating sufficient time for inspections ~.
Finally, in the meeting atter.ded by Mr. Tolson, Mr. Brandt, Mr. Dunham and me, Mr. Dunham made emotional statements about inadequate coatings procedures. These statei:ents were very general in nature, and were vague. We asked a number of questions, but Mr. Dunham could net provide any specific examples of coatings inspection procedures that were inconsistent with the coatings speci fications. Mr. Dunham became increasingly agitated as we attem;;ted to cbtain the' specifics necessa.-f to pen::it us to investigate and address his concerns. At that point, the meeting
- ~
was ended by mutual agreement.
- 3. The Ceci sion to Counsel Mr. Dunham .
Subsequent to the events just described, I had no contact with Mr. Dunham and no discussions about Mr. Dunham with any of Mr. Dunnam's supervisors or anyone else until Thursday, August 25, 1983. On Thursday . .
afternoon, Mr. Brandt called ne to his office to :: met with him. When I ar-ived, Harry Williams, Curly Krisher and Evert Mouser were present in
, Mr. Brandt's office. Mr. Krisher and Mr. Mouser are enployed by Ebasco _
and work in the Ncn-ASME Group under Mr. Tolson and Mr. 3ranet. I was told by Mr. Brandt that he had a proolem with Mr. Dunham's conduct at a
. -I>=
..s. .. a
_ , 1 . .. . . .. - . . - . - - - - --- ' - - *
.m meeting held' the previous ' day (Wednesday, August 24) with engirieeHng l consultants 'who were experts in protective coatings (p.c.), visiting
~
the site fran New York and Houston. Mr. Branct was not at the meeting -
q j
with the consultants, but was relating the conclusions of Mr. Williams, . l Mr. Krisher, and Mr. Mouser, who were in attendance at the meeting. .
Mr. Brandt said Mr. Dunham had been obnoxious, that 'he kept' interrupting-the meeting, refused to stick to the subject cf the meeting, and that i
his actions were completely out of place. Mr. Williams, Mr. Mouser and Mr. Krisher nodded their agreenent -as Mr. Sranet was describing the.
meeting to. me. Mr. Brandt also made reference to criticisms of Mr. Dunham's conducj by one of the p.c. consultants who had conducted the meeting.
What Mr. -Brandt and the other supervisors told me was a very*
4 serious matter in my view. Not only had Mr. Dunham embarassed TUGCO, a highly valued client of S&R, but he had d' one so in the presenca of i
other on-site contractors with which B&R has a close and continuing relationship. Furthermore, I knew that the consultants who had conducted the meeting in which Mr. Dunhm had caused problems were highly respected special coatings consultants, brought to the site at considerable effort by, and expense to, Texas Utilities. As the Site QA Manager for B&R, I felt that such conduct, especially caning fran ,
an expeMenced lead inspector, had to.be addressed.
i After di scussing the matter for approximately 10-15 mnutes, I asked Mr. Branct for his recommendatiori. He recc= ended that I counsel Mr. Dunham and give him 3 days off without pay. I suggested that we i
l
. . . . . ... a .. .
~. . fx *%
J
. hold the counselling session Friday' enrning (August 26). Mr. Brandt
'l agreed but indicated that he was scheduled to be in~ Dallas Friday and j 1
that Mr. Krisher'would be acting as his representative in the counselling session. .
After this meeting, I went to Mr. Tolson's office and asked him if he 'was aware of the situation, including the recontendation ~to counsel Mr. Dunham and give him 3 -days 'off without pay. Mr. Tolson said that he was aware of the situation and agreed with the recommenda-tion. He said he expected his inspectors to be prcfessional, and understood that Mr. Dupham had not acted in a professional manner in front of the p.c. consultants.
In my meetings Thursday with Mr. Brandt and Mr. Tolson, no reference was made to our previous meeting with Mr. Dunham, described .
above. No statements were made about Mr. Dunham going to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. No statements were made about terminating Mr. Dunham. Our discussion related only to Mr. Dunham's actions in the meeting with the p.c. consultants, and the conclusion that Mr. Dunham should be counselled and be given 3 days off without pay for his behavior at the meeting.
I called Mr. Krisher Friday morning to check on the -
counselling fom. He told me the fem would not be ready until later that day, and confirmed that he wculd be acting for Mr.-Brandt. -
Mr. Krisher also told me that Mr. Tolson only wanted Mr. Dunham counselled and no longer wanted Mr. Dunham to be given 3 days off
m without pay, becau:,e Mr. Tolson thought too mucn . time had gone by since the Wednesday meeting with the p.c. consultants. I arranged to have Mr. KMsher bring me the counselling fem at 4:00 p.m. and asked him to schedule a meeting in my office with Mr.. Dunham for 4:30 p.m. After my telephone conversation with Mr. Krisher, I went to Mr. Tolson's office and Mr. Tolson confirmed what Mr. Krisher had told me. Mr. Tolson stated that he did not want Mr. Dunham given 3 days off without pay, because he thought it was too far after the fa'ct to i ck Mr. Dunham's pay. He still recamnended that I counsel Mr. Dunham.
Friday, August 25, was a busy day for me, and I had no further discussions about Mr. Dunham until my meeting with Mr. KMsher at 4:00 p.=. At that time, Mr. Krisher gave ne a copy of 'The Employee Counseling and Guidance Report" which is attached to this Statement.
(The Report given to me did not contain my handwritten description in the lower right hand corner of the Report, wnich I entered en the Report subsequent to the ccunselling session). I asked Mr. KH sher about the reference in the Supervisor s Statement to "several 8
occasi ons . " Mr. Krisher said that Mr. Dunham had acted in an cbnoxiaus, distuptive ..:anner in meetings prior to the August 24 meeting, but that when Mr. Dunham acted that way in front of the outside p.c. consultants his behavior could not be tolerated. I had no ciscussion with Mr. Krisher about terminating Mr. Dunham (Mr. Krisher knew that we were not even to dock Mr. Dunham': pay, -
based on Mr. Tolson's state:ents), and 4 did not di scuss any other matters relating to Mr. Dunham's conduc..
l
. . .m
../
At 4:30 p.m. Mr. Mouser escorted Mr. Dunham into my office to meet with Mr. Krisher. Mr. Mouser and me. My understanding was that, for purposes of the counselling. session, Mr. Mouser was representing Mr. Williams. Mr. Dunham's suggestion at page 7 of his Carplaint that he was 'not a subordinate of mine, that no appropriate' superti sors were in attandance at the counselling session, and that the counselling session was "not legal," are canpletely without basis as Mr. Dunham well knows. I am the senior B&R QA management representative at the site. Vhile I did not supervi se Mr. Dunham's day-to-day 0A activities, he is clearly a subordinate of mine. It is nor.nal for me or another BAR management representative to handle counselling of S&R employees, whether in the ASME or Non-ASME areas. I thought it was perfectly appropriate to have Mr. Krisher and Mr. Mouser present at the counselling session. Mr. Krisher was a senior supervisor in the Non-ASiE area, and he and Mr., Mouser had witnessed and were familiar with the conduct for^ which Mr. Dunham was b eing counselled. Li kewi se ,
Mr. Dunham's allegation .that his tennination was "a pre-arranged conspiracy' is pure fabrication. As I have stated, I did not consider or discuss even the possibility of firing Mr. Dunham prior to the cour. selling session. Mr. Tolson had told m not even to dock his pay.
There was no consp9acy of any kind, and no pre-arranged plan to terminata Mr. Dunham. ..
t
- 4. The Decision to Ter ninate Mr. Dunham
- l l
-\
When Mr. Mouser escorted Mr. Dunham into my office, Mr. Dunham 4
came -*cugh the door and went up on his tr.es and spread his anns l
6 e
.s l
down and out, as if to make a grand entrance. His entrance looked
~
to me like a sarcastic gesture designed to belittle the meeting.
We all sat down, and I handed him the counselling form, saying in l a low-key :nanner: " hill, your supervisors have prepared a counselling recort for your attitude. I woul e W ke you'to read it,.and let's di scuss it." I did not ask him to sign the report. There iji, a space for an " Employees Statement" on the form. Mr. Dunham's claim that there was "no room for any statement" is not true. There were no other forms handed to Mr. Dunham other than the attached c: 2nselling recort. ,
Mr. Dunha= perused the report for less than 30 seconds and did not appear to read it carefully. My nandwritten statement on the counselling repor: is an accurate description of what occurd after that. Mr. Dunham's actions and statements, as desc-ibed on the counselling report, weh insuborcinate. He threw the counsel. ling report at me, using profanity. Twice he asked me to walk him to the ga te. He said he was not changing (and I believed it fra:: the tone and words he used). I concluded that given Mr. Dunham's actions, words and general attitude, neither I, nor his Non-ASME supervisors, would be able to exercise the normal and expec:ed superdscry responsibility over Mr. Dunham.
I have spent 23 years warting in the nuclear power industry, eighteen of which wers in the nuclear navy. I have been responsible l _
for superd sing thousands of individuals. Based on all my experience as a supervisor there is no question in my mind that Mr. Dunham's
, . _ . _ , _ - - - , - e v+-- - - -" " - " ' " ' ' ' ' ~ ~
l
_ , .S I
I l
wods and actions in the counselling session were sericusly insubordinate, and that my acceptance of his offer to walk him to the gate was preper in the circ:m: stances.
After agreeing to walk Mr. Dunham to the gate, I left my office and went down the hall to ask one of my adminstrative assistants to contact th'e time office to prepare Mr. Dunham's termination papers.
I did not use a phone as Mr. Dunham claims. No one was in the -
s acminstrative office (I realized that the administrative personnel had left for the day). -I walked back to my office. Mr. Dunnam was waiting outside with Mr. Krisher and Mr. Mousar. I said to Mr. Krisher .
and Mr. Mouser: "Go ahead and get his stuff," meaning that they should
,_ escort Mr. Dunham to get his belongings. I did not say "go ahead with it," as Mr. Dunnam alleges.
I then walked to the time office to fill cut Mr. Dunham's ter=ination papers. There e e several pecple in the ti=e office wno can veri'y that I did not pre-arrange or pre-sign Mr. Dunnam's termination pacers. If the Labor Department has any questions about this they should check with the time office eersonnel. When I arrived at the tim office, I asked for Mr. Dunham's Termination Sheet (attached). All employees have Assignment Ter=ination Sheets **
in their personnel files. At the time of hire, the top portion of these Sheets are filled in with the name and address of the employee.
I was given Mr. Dunham's Assignment Tar =ination Sheet, and I filled -
(
in the reasons for ter=ination, as shown, and signed the Sheet.
After cc=pleting the Ter=ination Sheet, and before Mr. Dunham l
l . .
~
.s m
)
I arrived at the time office, I left for Mr. Tolson's office. I met with Mr. Tolson and infomed him of the counselling session and Mr. Dunham's termination. Shortly after I arrived at Mr. Tolson's office, Mr. Krisher arrived and we briefly discussed Mr. Dunham's conduct at the time office.
I understand that this Statement will be reviewed by Mr. Bob Rice of the Labor Department, and that I will have a full opportunity to di scuss with Mr. Rice the facts' described in this Statement and any other facts relevant to Mr. Dunham's Complaint. I look forward to the opportunity to meet with Mr. ' Rice, and request that Mr. Rice interview all persons mentioned in this Statement, so that the facts set forth in this Statement can be confi med.
't nd_
Gorcon R; Puroy [
Dated : 1.1 Oh 1893
-15 . -
I
- t. . _ ,/ .S
. 1 e
, ,1
- E~
n a '
I .m l -
- *3 "a ... # .g .
l
- '5 3
f.
e
=
a
- W
. . se
. - a . ,
.
- w b - 'S f- '
i . I 3
{ 5 :3 . +%O . 3
- 4 g:
=
2:*
- 5
'.'"s*hh l2
- E E
I fI f = -
4 a
3
' =
I i I i .=o . E
- 4 s
~ !
l e 33 . *
.; 3*
- l $
=
- i <. .5. i . . .
h I 1 .- ~O ! l y 4 h
- i -
- i .=h -
a i . s a
I 'E h j .E* I is * .
l' i '8* i lG* -
i i =
- l ;, -I u 3 l l v- t 8
6 0 f I l ' '
- I j l 4 5; l i 5 l .
i . -
!! = 22 ; E -
-gs ~
gE at$
g
- . I is ;s t s ' I : .' =
' w . .g; - l1 (30
' I
.c-
! - < g- -0 :x = =- .
., 5 - -= < g e-a-
i
- $h ' f,h - i .'
bb
- - , - b. _
. M 3,-
I ;;,-,?
~
'E l ! :. : i' 3 . ! ; : -
8 1
s .
I e
e l
f 8 .
I
.A g .
- t. . .,
, i I .uo o
- g
_ , g I . g g e ==
l
.y9 . a- *
,q s I .g, is hi *
- f;. Ia32 !; q Iw ; !w
-1 .,.
i c*.o i w ,- -
- ..3 l
- l ==;- l' . . _g O h. d' -
g . ::'lag y . '
- l
- ab* =- i.
e B i w h :w - I .
w=
T,i
. ;' l u- l
-3 ,- !=- o5 :
i==_
e-
=
El
.i
- g.=
S l 5 ;- 2E l l ,.
2 l-
- l 2 1
l
, m
. ;m i li ,
ug .
$ ti g! - .
I I h= = > :
.u w = =.!
- g l lI 'l l - ..
t j SERE
~
e
- )
. =\
I*a< a o es et l 02 ;
=l '
i,.
=* I lN
. .E i t
9
%w i E r s'
- I e .f 30 .
- 5 .o G =e h
2 s *;
l I :
l I l
I e e e a
- ; 5 , I t. - 8 I5. ,
- [*
e
- u.8 ! g
$ =p 3 E - -- : s.
1 Wb
- "I $-31 ! ". =* i ,= .
I r : -
1g ?$s ! c-it a f
, .f ..
l
.e .2 - e
,8g g *
- j. 3. - h
- t s c
"'I I I
e d e
W .
e w a_ _
e
. $. i
.- 8 i la
' l I 55 ! l i = '$5 I5 5 ',.
.i g:
. .h s
.:: . . e s. .: ,i W'"
" es
- 9
- .p
-s ;
- , s. - ;*
5h ; e
- s s :
a l' - -
- $ , 3 , , o ,
g h
W '
. [
I* .
e ,
.O e
l
. . . . -.. s.
v .,,,
m r ~. II cccNsII.:I AND c I:Ascz II?cR-
'IMPICTII'S RAE BILL CtmHAM
.u::c pme = C955 ' -
tz?gm oc -
K ASON TC2. h -- w (Check.Onm) - .
i .
Ar ~8-~~a Wed. Perfo:..a=ce ' '""
Ac d.::::de i Uc:t Eahits- - -
- -- e -- ' ' - y Hay E a.Lu.n Lc1 ri=--- '-= inc -
C:!:s::- (Spe=-L'7)
~
u r w n;;r s s _Lw.i. . Bilf, ycu have en several occasions veM~ v erenss=d s c mpleta lack of c:nfidenca in :ne project pmtective cca:1ngs, Q=ailty, Engineerinc and Production , pmgram. The : nest .retant and the speci'fic incident ei' was Meerded ~
in :ne 6,0 71ca on wecnesday e/24/83, during the open infor .ation 4xenange between P.C. censultants and the Oualitt inspectors. Yeur e ntinued domina-M 'e' the meeting. _
., cy secffing at. and/or express.ing scom of and for the program was disru;:tive, l counter-creductive ynd uncrof'es sional . ha dese- N d =*i H. 3-s W ad--- -.
l ina wii s not ce to ieratec and any furtner derenstrations of this na.ture will result i in cisciolinary acticn. ' '
1 r .
.'.'.'d/Cc=2.i this eraa== a ?or.e tial ?:wbla=: Tes 22 . ==- v - - 4. A, , e _X Wo m. -
, <yg .
, dow A $ A 4* Mm _L.~ L, /. f l . ~ / -
~ / ./
K C:2:wn 2""'--(s): -
^l us berg esoscied C- D d(a amm:te; '
naak .! _t Med 'ntu % rr.ccd- M aske.d ,
- = Av.W --M - . ' -
h,u 4' ; gease mt A:.t he + m W-v-u- ,J, ww% -4 i
' C J aI.l d.,2
- 1a.r!.*J
- 73. b 4. r 1i M, - rfr4-
- v. d :; el,W J ./ht bMS, i
cup-*rd * ~r.". 4,: se 2m , ,_, , %k d, a:o Mt 65 irth 4.:nik >< % .
~. - . :
,. e.actc e ,
% -y-w f,= . d' c M . ,z_ce g us e .i e g r aer $ (::rN --f L _. <-
cas.nr n eusca c m : re:n.::d c.-k s.s
,w
.. r .i., _~rk.,r.zp]4eace,4 l
. zer:. :zz s.s:A_ - -
M d1MdcFM c : i ce m 1 ~ s v s -, 7 . s
, .a .;
fis -: Ti- L % % a m ds 4Le 6,w A ~ % n_' _ Y- _
. . ~ ~ - k u eat e es e v w rw et;.x v.m .o -
t e r w .- w V. Le- .. >--nr em~.c' ,
oW ', M r- -cdnex AMn o c--nn cwa -a -!k
, t ,,) ,s c uc:.; r,,.mI l s *- e , W .d
- t'.S C C D e="'-
IMPI.crII's s cxr z: Y D TT <OCPSCM ~ A t f. ~ 4[e7 Ac A/~2 . b 6 $s:"AM""'N e._df c -4 v-
- - - -:?- -n:- ~ r.r~<J.8 ns~
l AisS_~5:<
1u .tc .xen ; w ak/g5 s=nnv_::es s==st.o.. _ _ . _ - - _ -- ,
1
... . . . . . . . . . .- . .. .:--.-. .~.. - - . - - .
\
t
.,,,:..., * ' AWufqBC.M I IL'13N8 PEA 4 IUPE
' .R.
,j,, ,,, -
'] j, o . **='"***
\.,,
p %
- . . _ . . _ - . .--- m.- F b lJ YACW l '.? , . .-
l=/ h *
- 0Yf A A/>'t huk EM Y/* a l
- D >c x x -
.x s1 [
X < x' >< x x -
H-n-D x .x
- l
- Aeus e
. --* 7.,; -*
r =e.
m . a~;::t,- ,,.
/ M,cu.cs
- - - - - = -
..-a DM9
/ \ M 'I M, -=- D _ f r._ w m m m D74
- ,;A ;; == ~ -
Id' Ps f
\ l- i l .
00.Ze.j3.
- 2) ,5774 // 'I . _ )C .:
9-- *
.e
.. -./.s-s o is- ,; .
~.
. ' '. :f A % '/4 J '
~
l .
. - r-
. . -- = . . . . . . . ~ . ,-
-~ , mm _ .__ W.. .n . ..
s ..- .
- e. -
' ~
A00N .:M ASS:GNMEMTEMUNNDCW -- CHECX CNE SELOW '
j = ,- - n. l p gy--r l H== l.{ Jim.n.~.e. j m=
. . .. , - l ,,,, _ ...
.l ja .
. w _. _
w _.,_
, _ .- p = ..: .
p =.__,.= =- _
p- ,
6mm i
.- - - - -mq n s '""'" " " m
== ==== = ,as:7 j.
p ._ _ a. a e-
== = = =_ -
~
a= 3'","l%. .
fa@ GJ..
,, - w.~;,,. ; .L.teW D A '
l tus ,ucumt IDt.ANA"*CN W TTIM AEC:J:R1 DN.ANA~?ON .OsO W2'J* liWW:IA'S 8H:MATtRE
- ' 4g@m 1
A M >+-L-- k & c- In 4-- a+%c. w C +1 L
, W- Q4 +L- 4. ke uiwYckw a a en sum es tut Txt x.s.Axei-w,c.so As:vu naa ut
~
Hrs Assoswawf. e.= n -'= var = seu aTt= e -- ' NY x:4mTT.'wyT== , 4cpprw @ca.% e ,
r
.=vt.m An.; k /s! I s., .
L:-hNn.zr-% _-A7n'et=d 7Sv'tmsMac
._.rts CVIk j gM HCUSTON N 8 Swmym . - .m gggv. Cr? FICE PERSOy,-,N -
- - - Ey_-.R
.me E.~C.O - .R . .C..S ~ -. .- . _