ML20154R181
| ML20154R181 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1984 |
| From: | Bangart R NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM) |
| To: | Spence M TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154R138 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8603280121 | |
| Download: ML20154R181 (5) | |
Text
_ __ ._- _ _ -_ _ _.. _._ .__ _ . _ _ . _ . . _ _ .
, /Ti&lY
,))J ,
J
., Dockets: 50-445 "
50"446 ,
Texas Utilities Electric Company ,
ATIN: M. D. Spence, President. TUGC0 Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street Lock Box 81 '
. Dallas, icxas 75201 .
Gentlemen:
i Following the "T-shirt incident" in March of this year, J. E. Cummins of our
- office obtained' copies of the docun.ents that were collected by your staff from the desks and/or files of involved persons within your organization. This letter documents the fact that our copies of the subject documents were returned to your Mr. Tony Vega on July 20, 1984.
For your information, Region IV reproduced additional copies of. the subject documents and made one copy available to CASE and presently retains one copy.
Sincerely, Orista 4 *
i Misbarj 1. I"3 8.~-
4 Richard L. Bangart, Director Region IV Comanche Peak Task Force i
! cc:
Texas Utilities Electric Cor.pany
- ATTN
- B. R. Clements, Vice President, Nuclear Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street lock Box 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Texas Utilities Electric Company -
ATTN: H. C. Schmidt, Manager .
Nuclear Services Skyway Tower -
400 North Olive Street Lock Box 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 D/R1 iE( NRJR9h RLEa W.rpnh TI);rolith 8/,j 4 8/ g /84 8603280121 860320 PDR ADOCK 05000445-A PDR
4/5/8 l
- 1. Did you or any of the other persons sequestered have someone d call the NRC' If so what time?
What message did this person convey or was asked to convey to the NRC?
Can you give the name of the person who called or was asked to call the NRCi that allegedly
- 2. Has your personal property, if any/was r moved from the Safeguards Building been returned? If yes, when was it returned and was it in good conditioni
- 3. Do you desire that the other materials removed be returned?
- 4. What purpose did you think the NRC could or should serve before, during, or/
after you were sequestered?
- 5. Were there any notes or records in the material that was taken from your desk or files that would indicate something was not being done in accordance with requirements?
- 6. Was there anything taken that is not available from another source today?
- 7. If "yes" to 6; What was it?
- 8. Do you know of any thing that has been done that was not in accordance with specifications or requirements that has not been corrected.
- N O
s l
April 9. 1984
SUMMARY
OF INTERVIEW WITH Mr. Lan Davis
- 1. Mr. Davis did not know of anyone that contacted the NRC as a result of being '
sequestered.
He said that Scott Schanlin(sp) called the newspaper and probably called the NRC. He indicated that he thought that Schanlin was " stupid" and never did understand anything and had no business getting involved or involving the sequestered people.
- 2. Mr. Davis stated that none of his personal property had been kept by the management.
- 3. Mr. Davis stated that the materials removed from his desk and work area are not required for him to do his job. He could care less if these materials are ever returned as they are available though other sources.
- 4. Mr. Davis stated that he felt they did work for NRC or at least do work as NRC representatives. He could not determine the usefulness of the NRC at the place of sequestering. He would not want his picture taken by the licensee and told the licensee that. He would not want NRC to take pictures either.
- 5. Mr. Davis did not know of any notes or records that would indicate something was not being done that should have been done in accordance with requirements.
- 6. Mr. Davis stated that materials taken were avialable through other sources.
- 7. Mr. Davis stated that things were getting done OK. He felt that the work was well above what was called for. He stated that some procedures had been made less restrictive, but that the requirements were still above the minimum requirements to meet the work.
Mr. Davis felt that feedback from management could be better. He still does not know where he stands as a result of the tee shirt incident.
D. M. Hunnicutt
_7 i -
- o April 9,1984 ,
SUMMARY
OF INTERVIEW WITH Mr. A. Ambrose
- 1. Mr. Ambrose did not know of anyone who contacted the NRC nor of anyone who
- requested that someone contact the NRC.
- 2. Mr. Ambrose's records wwwtwW included NIS(Nuclear Instrument System) records but personal property was not taken. *
- 3. Mr. Ambrose did not desire that any materials be returned. He stated that I
he had two copies of his work documents, so did not need the materials to do his job.
- 4. Mr. Ambrose stated thatmanagement " blew the whole thing out of proportion".
- He stated that the NRC should have been contacted, but didn't know why or wh4t he expected the NRC to do or accomplish. He stated that no way would he have allowed the NRC to take pictures of him. He stated that he was lunong those who told the licensee that they could not take pictures or him.
t He stated 'that Brown and Root stated that B&R had no problems with the people 1
wearing the tee shirts, but management made the decision. He said that B&R took 3 to 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> to determine what the problem with wearing tee shirts was.
He stated that the tee shirts had nothing to do with anything, except a ashgan slogan "we pick nits", as a result of a discussion with a craft foreman. He felt the press was inaccurate and unjust. He felt that the " Harry Williams" firing had nothing to do with the slogan. He stated that he had worn the tee shirt twice before without ' incident. -- :
, 5. Mr. Ambrose stated that he knew of.nothing that would indicate something was -
e not being done correctly or that any notes or records taken indicated that type of problem.
- 6. Mr. Ambrose stated that he got copies of working documents and didn't need '
l that materials taken.
i 7. Mr. Ambrose could not identify anything that was done incorrectly and was not corrected or scheduled (identified) for corrective actions.
D. M. Hunnicutt t
I 1
i
.- , _~ - , . - . . - _ =- , . . . - . . - . - .- - , .-,..-- - - ...-,. . . - -. - .. - .- . - . -. -
' April 9,1984 s
SUMMARY
'0F INTERVIEW WITH Mr. B. Hearn l
- 1. Mr. Hearn did not contact anyone and request that person (s) to contact the NRC or '
anyone else. ,
- 2. Mr. Hearn stated that no personal property was removed and kept by management.
He has prepared
- 3. Mr. Hearn has no desire that materials removed be returned.
replacement documentation from other sources. ,
)
- 4. Mr. Hearn can think of no purpose that the NRC could or should have performed.
He definitely did not desire that any pictures of himself be taken by anyone -
either with the tee shirt or in any other clothing.
- 5. Mr. Hearn kept records for his own personal use due to the " poor paper flow" that he felt would be useful to provide information, if it was necessary to re-inspect items at a later date. None of these records were removed by management from his desk or files. He knew of nothing that was not beinq done in accordance with requirements that was not reported and/or known by others. )
- 6. Mr. Hearn had nothing taken that was not available from another source.
- 7. Mr. Hearn knew of nothing that has not been done in accordance with specifications or requirements that has not been corrected or that is not identified for corrective action. __
D. M. Hunnicutt -
o l
r -. , , ,- a n -
l 13.~,33 9
1 ll UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '
il 2 fl NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
.l :
3 .'
4l In the Matter of I l I 5j TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING I i
IDocket Nos. 50-445-OL2 l 6 , COMPANY, ET AL. I i I 50-446-OL2 7
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric I I
Station, Units 1 and 2) I 8[
9 i l'
10 i Goodnight Room 11 Ramada Inn Central I
12 I-30 and Beach Streets l
13 Fort Worth, Texas I ja Monday, October 1, 1984 l
i 15
! 16 ;
The hearing in the above-entitled matter
- I I
j7 I was reconvened, pursuant to adjournment, at 8:30 a.m.
1 l
18 j9
- BEFORE
l.
20 JUDGE PETER BLOCH gj Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Boarc 22 JUDGE HERBERT GROSSMAN 23 Member, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 24 JUDGE WALTER JORDAN 25 ' Member, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 7
}c f '
l ,,,J "O f
l
[ 1 j- MR. BACHMAN: Mr. Hunnicutt is now
$ available for cross-examination in whatever order the 2l l
3[ Ecard may choose.
t i I
4 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Roisman.
1 5 CROSS-EXAMINATION .
le 3
6 BY MR. ROISMAN:
I :
7 , G Mr.Hunnicutt, . on Page 4 of your testimony, i I l g k: the next to the last sentence of the carry-over i
i p l
9 paragraph from Page 3, "The four of us determined that i
10 l there had been no indication so far --
. Do you see ;
11 that?
12 On Page 4, the next to the last sentence 13 of the carry-over portion --
14 A "The four of us determined -- ". Yes.
l 15 ! G -- that there were no indications so i ,
i I
l 16 l far that N:C regulations or a threat to health and 17 j safety of anyone was involved."
l 18 l A Yes, sir.
19 G Can you please tell me what were all the 20 bases that at that time that that decision was made 21 by the four of you, entered into the making of that 22 i decision, what were the factors?
i 23 A Well, the first one, there's no fuel in 24 the vessel, nor was there fuel any place othef than I'
25 in the stored position for it in the fuel handling I
R W' 13371 f
I t
building.
The plant was still under construction.
23 3
The safeguards building was essentially complete.
4
- The QC people were reviewing the various portions o.f 3
the testing.
That was probably the three largest inputs.
6 0 It seems that that answer helps me 7
a understand why you felt that at that moment there was l l
safety to anycne.
9 no threat to health and
' What about -- that there were no NRC ,
10 e What about that part of the 11 i.
regulations involved.
i 12 " sentence? ,
A.
We could find no regulation that required 13 l
14 immediate attention.
0 But what was it that you perceived was 15 16 j going on to which you thought no NRC regulation i
17 related?
18 A Let's see.
19 i I
Right at this second I can't think of any I '
- c particular one that was of concern. l 0 Well, let me see if it 21 22 j A Maybe I need to --
f 23 g Okay. Let me ask it in a somewhat 24 different way.
25 If the telephone caller called up and said l
I w
wa'su
'h,t we believe that a group of inspectors are down l h one of the buildings here and they are ripping
'i r e s out of conduits and doing other destructive
'hings inside the building; would that be something l 'b,t would be a violation of the NRC regulations, if l
' hat were taking place inside the safeguards building?
i .
l A Oh, certainly, i l
" I g So that there are things that could have l
!, ' ' a n happening that might have been NRC regulation
'" I Vlolations; correct?
1 11 i A I understand your question better now.
l) Okay. Now I can go back.
. 11 A day or two before this instance, which, If I remember correctly, occurred on the 8th of the
) "' ' o t h . We had received a telephone call through Mr.
4 l T"'=on to Jim Cummins that there were possibilities i !
Ir .
.' that destructive testing had occurred in some portions i
"r the safeguards building and he indicated that i f Ihis was found to be true and correct, that there might
" l'a personnel actions taken.
, 21 And this was part of the basis on which 2
! Wu felt that the threshold was low because management i
i had identified possible concern and they indicated they
- a i
Ware going to pursue it.
23 And, as usual, management should have an i
l 1
7-w,,-.--.+ ,.- ------ -r p - - , , ,,_ e--w
lF .a-.sa .3 l
q 0'Iopportunity to pursue whatever they had previously
- 2) identified and indicated that they were following i
3 through on it.
Y a 4d 0 Was it your thought, then, on that morning l..
5 when you got the call, that these actions -- strike 6 that.
7 At the time that the four of you 8/ determined there had been no indication, so far as NRC 9 , regulations were involved, was it the thought in your i 10 mind that anything that was going on at the plant site 11 i dealing with electrical QC inspectors in the safeguards b
12 building was probably related to this prior call from 13 Mr. Tolson about possible destructive testing?
14 l Is that what you're saying?
15 A Yes, sir, I believe all four of us had ,
l 16 l somewhat the same feeling. Yes, sir.
1 17 i O And what had you -- what was your 18 perception when Mr. Tolson called you? How significant That he called you and said, "We 19 did you treat it? ;
20 think there might be destructive testing."?
21 Was that a normal thing? l 22 A Well, first, he did not call me.
23 G Mr. Cummins.
24 A He called Mr. Cummins. It occurred late l
25 in the day, the day before the T-shirt incident. !
l
.E
s.3. ell i 1
) Mr. Cummins called me at roughly --
well, in the 2[ neighborhood of 4:00 p.m.,which is our normal closing 3I i time, and this incident started before noon the next 4 day.
{
5 h So, by anybody's clock, we really hadn't .
6 l h
had time to organize and prepare to delve deeply into 8 7
f possible concerns of this type.
l s
8i G Would it be a normal and expected thing 9 at any time there !
l was a suspicion that something like '
lo l destructive testing was taking place at the plant site, 1
11 you would expect that someone from Region IV would
- 12 !! have gotten a call about that or was this an abnormal 13 thing that Mr. Tolson did? 1 l
14 A Well, this is the first time. You could 15 classify it, if you wish, to abnormal. Again, since 16 lit i was apparently the first occurrence on their part, 17 the licensee's part, it should have been reported I
18 l through the normal 10 CFR 50-55(e) program.
19 i
So it was not unusual from the standpoint 4
20 lofreporting to us; no, sir. l 21 O I guess what I'm trying to get at is some 22 ,
understanding of how you evaluate the information that t 23
, came in to you and let me just give you some options 24 so to try to put Mr. Tolson's call on the scale of 25 things.
1
. .\
o
.. . _ _ . , _ _ _ _ ---- - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
' 195 3 l
t You get an anonymous phone call from 2 i somebody. !
A Yes, sir.
3 O
Who just says there are inspectors at the 4
Commanche Peak plant who were doing destructive e 6
testing and I want the NRC to know about it. .
I And hangs up. !
7 report filed by the company l Or you get a 3 !
a six-monthi I
9 with you that says, "We have just completed 10 investigation and we have identified five different it places where destructive testing has taken place I i 12 and here are the people involved and here's what they 13 f did and here's what we're getting ready to do to them 14 d
as a result of our investigation." !
! Now, on that sort of scale of things, j 15 [
16 where did Mr. Tolson's phone call to Mr. Cummins fit?
17 Which end of that spectrum is it closer to, in terms 18 of your evaluation of the veracity and seriousness l ,
I 19 i of the charge?
20 A Well, it would be more closely to an i 21 l allegation from the standpoint that something serious i it normally takes a certain 22 j was going on but, again, I f
23 length of time to pull someone off of another l 24 inspection and get it on.
25 l
1 b-mm l
~ -
133".S 1 O You mean it would be closer to the that it would be to the report?
2fanonymous phone call l
}
3; A At that immediate time.
i At the time you had to do your -- you 4 O
\
0 1
5 and the three other individuals who were discussing , j l
6 3 this matter now on the day of the T-shirt incident, 7
1-how much did you attempt to evaluate the quality of i'
8 I the information that you had from Mr. Tolson in L
9 determining what actions were appropriate for you to i
10 ,1 take in light of the call that someone from Region IV 11 had received anonymously from someone at the site of i
12 1 these events? ,
I 13 A. Well, again, we didn't have the time 14 frane in which to properly evaluate it because they i
. l 15 j say it occurred essentially at the close of business l
16
! or maybe after the close of business on the day before i
l 17
) this incident.
18 0 Well, then, why did you decide to give 19 l it any weight at all in your thinking processes the
, l
- 1 20 following morning?
JUDGE BLOCH: I'm sorry. I've got the ;
21 22 l time frame confused now.
23 I thought you first said that the call 24 came on the 6th.
25 r THE WITNESS: No, I said the day before, if l
131I7 t
,. I remember, sir.
JUDGE BLOCH: Okay, sir.
l By MR. ROISMAN:
3 G
I believe you're testifying, Mr.
,l you're talking about Hunnicutt, when you say the call
- 3 Not the call from l the call from Mr. Cummins to you?
6
. Mr. Tolson to Mr. Cummins?
Just to get us clear, as best you can ,
l 6
he got the 9
remember, when did Mr. Cummins tell you 10 call from Mr. Tolson? l
' A If I remember correctly, it was sometime l 33 was still the day 12 l
midday, it would be Wednesday, it 33 before the T-shirt incident.
! O Yes, sir.
ja And then later that same day, just around >
15 16 L, closing time, he called you to report that information?l A Right.
17 18 l
G Now, my question to you is, if you hadn't the 19 had time between that late afternoon call on 20
!7th, and the calls that-you were receiving the following 21 morning on the T-shirt incident, to evaluate what M1, l
22 l' Tolson was telling, why did you factor it in at all 23 to your decision-making process on what you would do 24 in light of the anonymous call you got the morning of 25 the T-shirt incident?
l "he 1
a 23.,a,s f' 1 A Well, we faitored it in mainly because -
l 2 ll it was heads-up --
in othat words, we had identified ;
i i 3 , an item of concern to us, licensee management, and we 1 4 } are going to pursue it.
lI 5 So, due to the fact that they had stated 6 [ that they were going to follow up on it, we felt that l 7l management should have an opportunity to follow-up on l
l ,
8i their own identified problem.
l 9 g Did it ever ,,ccur to you that management '
I i
, to I might, in fact, have been creating an appearance 11 that there was destructivo testing in order to disguise l 12 i a different motive for,taking personnel action against 13 some of the people who were in the safeguards building?
14 A It did not.
i 15 g Had you been aware at the time that you i -
16
- and the three other gentlemen were sitting and I 17 discussing this matter, that there had been some i
18 i friction between the inspectors and building management I
19 in the safeguards building involving electrical l l
j
{ 20 ;
inspections and that the inspectors had been finding a
_ 21 l lot of problems in their inspections?
! 22 Were you aware of that at the time that 23 the four of you were making these decisions?
24 A Well, there's always rumors of management-25 labor frictions. I do not recall if this was anything i
l more or less specific, sir, l
K
e- '
l 193;9 l l
l 0 Are you saying that you had heard there that there was something but you're just saying it 2 '
wasn't different than lots of things you hear?
3 A Yes, sir, that's what I'm saying.
G So you had an allegation from Mr. Tolson ,
that there was a possibility of destructive testing?
6 .
A Right.
7 g And you had some rumors that there was ,
8 8 i
9 some friction between the builcing management and the 10 OC electrical inspectors at the plant?
- A I can't specifically state that it was l gg l
between those two groups that you identified. t 12 'l 97 G- Okay.
33 l
A But over the period of time, and of 14 ; t i
15 I course, it's backed up by records on both sides that j 16 there was areas of friction at times between inspectors 17
' and management, t G Well, had your resident inspector given l 18 19 ,
you any information regarding the frequency of -
i 20 deficiencies being found in the safeguards building ,
21 by the electrical inspectors during the early months 22 of 19847 23 A I don't recall of it being higher or 24 lower.
l 25 2 Would the resident inspector normally .
t
S S.~,'!O I
1 l give you a periodic report on what's going on at the 2 l plant? Did you have a normal, routinized procedure 3j for that?
h 4l A Right, but here we're talking about a 5l trend that we would have to periodically plot course f
6 whether -- and I really can't answer the question 7 properly. l 8; O All right. Let me j ust go back for a l
9 second to these periodic briefings. How often did i
i *
! those occur?
10 I
, 11 A. Between an inspector and myself?
f Between ,the resident inspector, or one 12 G g 13 of the other inspectors that you have on the site, and i 14 , yourself or someone at Region IV?
15 A. Almost daily; sometimes several times l
' ' a day.
16
_ 17 0 Is there no set time when there's sort 18 ,
of a summarization report, once a month, once every
, 19 i week, when you sort of get the big picture or the 20 overview from them?
21 A No, because the way things are changing, 22 we get an update as it comes in. There i s a monthly 23 ,
report written for it, and scmetimes monthly may mean l 24 two months or some other calendar time period.
25 0 There's nothing you can remember, then, 7-m.g.-ei.-ym-w------ -g-rt-g.--s-we wy yg wis-ugw --y- ,g-p-ttiu-*- s-r peuw--r-w--ee-werWgyww--ae--erw er e w= m--e,w-m-me e m we *9WN4-ee+w m _ e-&'#*-*'*'*8e-"" -F--" t'
t
' . 19731 was specific to the safeguards building or any
, t .*. 8
,pecific kinds of problems that they were having with
,1.etrical inspections, lighting inspections, anything g lik* that?
A I can't recall one right at the moment, ;
S :
l l l
sir.
O Just so we're clear on it, because I'm ,
l I a little unclear on what you were saying about the 8e i
, rumors regarding some tension between management and ,
gflabor, I think what what you used.
' A Yes, sir. I g
g Was it your understanding that there was 12 some tension between management and labor in the 13 [
4 f safeguards building specifically?
i I
15 A No. Specifically, the two cases I was f
16 trying to think of was where, over a period of time, 17 I believe it was September and December of last year, 18 we Prepared civil penalty packages related to harass-19 ment of personnel at the site. And that's the two 20 large ones that I can think of offhand.
21 ; O Okay. I guess I want to be clear and r 22 I want your testimony to be clear on this. I thought l
23 you had said earlier that there had been some sort of 24 rumors about -- in answer to a question that I had 25 asked you about the safeguards building, that there i
i i
. .I
P" 2 sac 2 i
I hi had been some rumors about labor-management problems Am I incorrect, or did you not 2f in that building.
- 3 have any knowledge about that?
A Well, you aren't exactly incorrect, but 4
f 5
there's no delineating line that you can flat out say l
+
6 ; this is the safeguards building, this is the auxiliary 7l building. There is, certainly, by drawings and so I
8fforth, but people transfer back and forth and work 9 ,
back and forth, and to flat out make the statement I
10 l that it was electrical QA inspectors in the safeguards f
11 building, Unit 1, I can't honestly identify it that 12 ! closely, sir. ,
4 Now, in your testimony --
13 JUDGE BLOCH: Before we leave that, 14 15 A
j Mr. Hunnicutt, do you know whether Mr. Tolson mentioned i
16 I any nanes to Mr. Cummins?
17 THE WITNESS: I do not believe he did.
f 18 Mr. Cummins did not mention any names to me.
Excuse me. Are you JUDGE GROSSMAN:
19 l 20 leaving this immediate subject on the knowledge of any 1 21 I friction, Mr. Roisman?
1 MR. ROISMAN: Yes, I was getting ready 22 23 to do that.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Do I understand from 25 what you said that you had some knowledge of friction
1SG:3
,,eween OC electrical inspectors and the company but l that you can't pin it down now to the safeguards I
h i n z1 ding or the auxiliary building?
- 3 THE WITNESS: I was trying tc make it
. 4
- e ear, sir, it was QC inspectors in general, not Y i j l specifically electical inspectors. There are several !
8 I l .
different areas of inspectors, welding and so forth, i
! JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, did you hear l E
} ,!
, specifically that there also friction with electrical
's g inspectors, or are you saying now that you just knew gi there was some friction but you couldn't tell at all l I
) whether it was welding or electrical? .
g3 I'm not sure I understand what your i, t responses were. ,
d I ,
15 THE WITNESS: Okay. Let me do my best le to clarify it, sir. l 37 What I was trying to get across, and 13 maybe I did it poorly, was that in general it was l
19 inspectors. Now, it may have been more related to y electrical than to the others, but I'm just not that .
I 21 ! sure in which specific areas the inspectors were in.
M JUDGE GROSSMAN: I see. Is that because 23 of a passage of time, that if I had asked you the ;
24 question some months ago you might have been able to l
[
25 pinpoint who you knew about or --
1 I.
f -
! I L 1
$NEbu
_- .. __ _ - -- .- -. a l
6 7."7~1 1p THE WITNESS: I wish I could answer that question, sir. I can't.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Thank you.
1 3 4 BY MR. ROISMAN:
g Now, what would the anonymous phone 5
6 I; t
caller's information have had to have been for the I'
7 NRC to decide that it would move in rather than wait 8
f and see on the T-shirt incident, related to the j 9 q incident?
I jo j l
A Well, let's see, the first anonymous 3
I 4
11 ,
phone call was that people were being detained and that desks and files were being gone through. Neither l
. }l-j 12 i
13 one of t.he s e tripped an alarm from the standpoint of 1
ja what we had previously been told the day before.
Now, I'm certain, in my own mind at least, 15 16 that if we had not had this call through Mr. Cummins i
well, les's than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> before, it would i
17 almost --
i 18 probably have required me to immediately send one or 19 more inspectors there.
1 0 So that was really the crucial factor 20 i 71 in your mind, was that you had gotten this call just 22 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> earlier --
1 A Yes, sir.
23 l
i I 24 0
-- indicating that management was l l
25 considering some personnel action, and then when 4
9 4
iscos came and you got thAs call, what
- pursday morning to you was, this must be what we got the 2
occurred I call about yesterday?
3 A.
Yes, sir.
A g
If the anonymous caller had indicated to you that he knew that there had been an earlier y
call to the NRC about alleged destructive testing and such destructive testing had j that he knew that no '
gl actually occurred, would that have neutralized the
,b y f other call?
A.
No, it would not, because once a call g l is made, until we actually take it down to the ground 12 ,
13 or the bottom of it, we have to keep it an open y
allegation, and if you would look through our t '
allegation files you would find some that we have ;
l 33 that were ridiculous, u spent considerable manpower on 17 such as a handwritten note a couple, three years ago, la that the licensee had muggled. fuel on site.
And what had happened was they had l 19 And we still l 20 brought the dummy on to index the core.
I 21 went to see this lady and we used manpower and money l
But vhat we do 22 ;
that we could have used elsewhere.
23 is every allegation is traced, if we can, to the 1
2d ! source or to the cause.
I G
I wasn't asking whether you would have 25 f I
st .
. . tv--
135;G $
1 not then --
2 A Oh, I'm sorry.
3 'I S --
completed the investigation that the
, 4 call from Mr. Tolson initiated, but I'm asking whether )
not in the d2 cision making processes on the 5). or '
6 ffollowing day, having not yet had time to do an l
7
/
investigation, would the counter-allegation from the i
8 ,! anonymous phone caller have neutralized the Tolson i.
9 -
call to the point that then you would have moved in '
- 10 ; to find out what was going on with those inspectors. 1
't '4 b
11 i I wish I could give you an answer one I
12 { way or the other, but.you know, we're in the hypo- i4 i
13 thetical.and I could say one thing to make myself look 14 good, but I'm absolutely not certain that's what I 15 would have done.
i 16 ! I think I would, but again, I can't 17 ! just flat out make the statement that I would have 18 done the most prudent item. I would probably have 19 followed both.
20 But an anonymous phone call is very 21 difficult. We have done our best in some, but again, 22 the information, we would have tried to determine how 23 valid, and so forth, but I just can't, in all truth-24 fulness, flat out make the statement that I would have 25 done what seems to be prudent through your question. l I
l l
1 t'
L t
rg g since the T-shirt event, I take SEUl~7 v .
t og.ye learned a lot more than you knew that --
A I have leaned a great deal, sir.
- g -- that morning. You've indicated a
. ra
=t
".'*y? f candor, which I appreciate, so I hope that you will take this question in the spirit intended.
1 Knowing now what you know, do you think I l 0 that at the time the NRC should have acted differently l l
(9 than it did in the T-shirt incident that morning?
A Well, I hate to be overly stubborn, but
,. g gg if I had exactly the same information, except for the ,
g fact that cut-off, of course, of addition investi-4 g gation, depositions, hearings, and so forth, it would l
u Probably happen pretty much the same way, because it ,
y was a heads-up item that disciplinary action or --
]
g well, disciplinary action is not the word to use --
p personnel action, I believe, was somewhat similar to u what I used, and over my thirty plus years in various 1, parts of the nuclear industry, including many years 3 in construction, I have seen things twenty years ago 21 that you wouldn't believe if I told you, related to l i
n harassment and intimidation, and so forth.
M And so based across the board, I think 2d / I would still have given management the benefit of i
25 f trying to show their case, the merit of it, one way or i
,- ~ s l
EdCIC7
%, I Since the T-shirt event, I take g -- l than you knew that 8
a lot more you've learnett I
deal, sir.
I have leaned a great y' % A a indicated
-wo . 1 - that morning. You've g will .
so I hope that you r.
t 4
which I appreciate, candor,
~ -
3 9t in the spirit intended. '
take this question do you think
, Knowing now what you know, j acted differently i i
g that at the time the NRC incident should that have morning? [
than it did in the T-shirt to be overly stubborn, t
I but g
Well, I hate A
information, except for the l same f had exactly the nl if I of addition investi-f I cut-off, of course, forth, it would n
I fact that and so hearings,
' depositions, y gation, the same way, because it probably happen pretty much l a disciplinary action or -- t item that was a heads-up l g the word to use T well, disciplinary action is not similar to g was somewhat J personnel action, I believe, I /
17 thirty plus years in various l l what I used, and over my I l
13 including many years l parts of the nuclear industry, ;
l n seen things twenty years ago 3
in construction, I have related to l if I told you, that you wouldn't believe 21 and so forth.
and intimidation, a
M harassment the board, I think And so based across of M >
the benefit have given management j ve 24
' I would still of it, one way oi ;
show their case, the merit I
1 23 ,
trying to l
- * * . o'. ,,
W -_
]
. - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 9 __ ~~=N4+ v
ISOCS 1} the other.
?
Il4 2 0 When you get counter-allegations, some 3i from management and some from the work force, is there e
4 ll a policy by which you decide whether you will let 5 management complete whatever it wants to complete '
l 6[ with regard to the allegations before you move in 7l versus you're going to move in right away and not wait 8- for management to move? Is there a Region IV policy o on that? e to l' A Definitely not, because I believe in I,
11 each case it would be absolutely imperative that it U
12 I
) be weighed to the best of our ability. You know, you 13 just don't have a scale of justice to where you can 14 say Joe's information is better than Sue's or Mary's, 15 because everybody, when they phone, write, or esent 16 l information, as far as we're concerned they're all 17 f equal.
l i 18 i
Now, if it's obvious that someone has 19 direct information, I'm sure we would weigh it a little 20 more than the other, regardless of whether it was a 21 janitor o- the president of the company or someone in 22 between.
23 0 What investigation has been done by your 1 1
24 l office into the allegations that Mr. Tolson made in I
25 l his call to Mr. cummins regarding possible destructive h 9
1S539 l
,I testing in the safeguards building?
A The safeguards building is a very large and complex building. If I remember correctly, there 3
f It are 78 rooms and areas that make up this building.
There ,
includes many of the emergency back-up systems.
3 Each are a tremendous number of conduits, cable trees.
i 7
one is identified in one of three colors.
The orange colored jacketing is for 8
Trade A, safeguards. The green is for Trade B, and -
9 to k
L the not safety related is til black.
Now, regardless of what the licensee's n'
12 procedures state, we would follow the green and the l
13 orange portion, and not ignore but certainly have very 34 )
little time spent on the black, because by it our b -- but now, 15[ charter is safety related and therefore a
16 what I'm trying to say is that a black one, if we saw 17 it cut in two or torn down strings, we would certainly 18 , be involved and interested in it.
i 19 But by going through, out of these 76 l
20 rooms we, from -- well, we did some of it in January 21 and February, which we will negate for the purpories o:
this, and then from June 20th through September 28th, 22 23 and it will be documented in Inspection Report 45/8426, in other words, roughly 24 , we went into 64 of these rooms, 25 80 percent, and we found a few glitches, but nonc in e . ,
195CO 1 .i the electrica1 area, sir.
r 0 were you looking for destructive testing 2$
3 at that time?
! L l
4 :l A We looked for everything, destructive i:
testing, improperly oriented materials, such as pipe i 6 } hangers, pumps, and so forth, the whole cross-section, 7; and the four inspectors that were involved, other I 8j than Mr. Oberg, had nothing whatsoever to do with any 9 of the previous concerns relating to the T-shirt I
, 10 j incident.
11 0 Was this investigation that you're just
- I
- . 12 talking about now, was that intended to be the i
13 follow-up to the allegations that had been made by 14 Mr. Tolson in March to Mr. Cummins that there had been 15 l destructive testing at the plant in the safeguards 16 building?
l 17 A That would be a very, very minor portion i : 18 of it. The main thrust of it was, we were doing a e
t l 19 detailed, in-depth inspection of the area and that j 20 just rubbed off as one of the items.
i j 21 0 And did you question Mr. Tolson to find
}
i 22 out some more details about where the alleged i
i 23 destructive testing had occurred, so that you could l 24 go to those spots and specifically look to see for 25 yourself what had happened?
1s;;1 A Mr. Tolson and I had a very short ,
, i on that one day while I was at the site l discussion and -
' i g Can you give us a rough time frame?
4 '
A It was probably either the week that ,
included the 13th, when I was down there making the j
, physical or --
A I'm sorry. Which month? .
- I g Oh, I'm sorry. The months are ingrained in me, I was forgetting. March.
gg So anyway, on the 13th I was down there g and obviously made the physical inventory of the boxes, t
13 ,
anc it could have been sometime during that week, or l 3,
it may have been the next week, but it was just a 15 cursory discussion, nothing in depth.
16 O Did you go and look at the places where 17 f the alleged destructive testing had taken place, or 18 did someone from Region IV?
19 A Mr. Kelley did this pretty well on the 20 I day of the incident when he tried to find the lo c a t i o r.
21 ! that found the one wire, which was in the north pump 22 ' room at the safeguards building on the lowest deck, .
23 and he did not find any other junction boxes or other 1
24 areas that had any indication of tampering or I i 1
25 incomplete. It was this one wire that was hanging in i
I
$8.]C2 1
l 1; this junction box, oh, roughly a foot square and four i
{ 2h inches deep, plus or minus. l l .
l 3 0 And did he communicate to you any l hl a
l
! 4 conclusion as to whether he thought it was a loose 5 wire or a destructively tested wire, or anything 1tke 1
6 I, that?
! 7 A He described it to me and we determine
) .
l 8 that was not destructively tested and --
l l
i '
9 ,
O I'm sorry. That it was not destructively:
l
, 1 l to tested?
j i j 11 h A. Dennis Kelley and I talked on the phone l'
{
) , .
12 , after Mr. Kelley finished his inspection, and attempted
, 13 l' to take.the one photograph in the area, i t I
p j i And he stated that the best he could see, 14 ;!
l
! 15 iI there were no deep scratch marks on the copper, which, l
4 i
16 l if it had been properly insta'. led and had been jerked i
i .
17 !
free, it would undoubtedly have scarred the copper, i ,
18 and that was the only one we found.
! ll l 19 We did look around in, as I say, a i [
i 20 number of the rooms. The number, I wouldn't even l
i 21 attempt to remember, but he did make a detail through 22 the north and the south ladders that go down in the 23 l safeguards building to the various areas and in the i
24 rooms and the other areas he did not find any.
25 0 When you became aware that there did not i
! ! I
. i 4
l n
V is303 4
appear to be any destructive testing in the building, ;
y did you think back to the call from Mr. Tolson, and y
if so, did you re-evaluate what you thought that call l
f
,, was about?
I A Well, of course, anything that you l
thought of is nothing more than conjecture, and I
- l. ,
certainly felt that if there had been a problem it 7
I was certainly alleviated because no one saw any more 8
of it and it never surfaced again.
g[ The roughly 17 QC inspectors in the
,,f electrical area there, we passed many of these people one and two times a day. We were always identified 37 i
with our NRC on our hat. In other words, over a 13
,, j period of time, including the day that Mr. Tolson l
i called Mr. Cummins, who then called me, there was 15 g ample opportunity, both by telephone and face to face 37 l discussions, for an individual to say, hey, come here is and look, because I've had that happen to me many 19 times when I walked through the plant. ,
y G You mean come here and look if there had f
21 been some destructive testing? ,
22 A No, just come look, everything from, nc3, i
2 come here and look, I want you to see what a good' job 24 I'm doing in this area, and I've gone into others and 25 the guy, look at this, this damn guy shouldn't do this :
t
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ d
f 2s. . t 1, this kind of stuff. But you've got a C minus, in 2 , other words, it was acceptable. You might not be i
3 proud of it if you were the workman. But you're 4 l either on the table or you're off the table. In other I
5 words, it either meets the requirement or it fails to meet the requirement. We have no gray area.
6
. I 7 Q But on the day of the T-shirt incident a
B the NRC did get called on several occasions --
9 .. A. Three.
k 10 !i 0 --
by a worker?
I 11 A Yes, sir, three times.
I li '
12 i!
h O And the.NRC did not come to the aid of I
13 the people or whom, or in whose interest or apparent ,
14 interest that worker was making the call on that day, 15 did they?
16 MR. BACHM:sNN: Your Honor, I would object 17 to the characterization of these anonymous phone calls
, 18 as from workers. There's been no identification of the 5
19 ~ person. We don't know who made the phone calls.
20 MR. ROISMAN: That's all right.
21 BY MR. ROISMAN:
I 22 f O Just an anonymous phone call. That's 23 fine.
24 A Okay, sir. On the first one, we 25 , definitely took it into consideration from the 1
I a--__-.. _. - . . . _ .-,:._----_-_-..=.m---_
19.737 h
- 4 the drawing, schematic, certainly shows how it should 2' be made up.
3, G Was your inspection intended to identify i
j loose connections?
5 A Our inspection was the over-all inspectic.,
sir, and the loose connections, operability, that the 6
- , proper colored wire went in and came out of the Juncticn 8
box, that it was labeled properly, that it wasn't JB-1-C I
instead of JB-1-D, or whatever.
10 0 But you wouldn't find a loose connection I-
' unless you opened a junction box and looked right?
A That's the only way you would find it.
12 F
j3 -
0 What about if there had been improper t
- y, i, [ splicing in the junction boxes, you couldn't find out 15 ; without taking off the cover, either, could you?
16 i A That would be an interesting situation, 17 because you would only have a lead about a very few 1 l
18 ! inches , and to put a splice in a junction box, it ;
1 39 could occur, but I've never seen one.
3 G When you were looking at cables and cabat.
L
- ame 21 l trays, did you physically move the cables and look at .
I snd n , cables who were hidden by other cables?
Was that part !
I n 23 l of the inspection to do that?
. ce 24 ,i A You do to a certain point, but again, let
}
- sna 25 f me stress, some of these cable trays are eighteen inch c ,
l l
- - - - - -- ~
_ _ _ , - - - . - . _ . _ - - - - _ - _ - . _ , . , - -r- -- -- -,
~
19.,C3 !
1 l wide and four or five inches high and may have up to 2 roughly 28 pounds of cable per linear foot.
3! So what I'm trying to say is you would I!
4 have a hell of a maze, but you could, and we did. You
- 5 look through th e tops and the sides a r.d at t i r.e s fou 6
would move the cables; but, again, the main reason would l
b 7 l. be trying to find a green and an orange, or vice versa, i 8 ..
O So you would looking to see if the right 1
- 9 wiring colors coincide with the right diagram?
i }
l 10 : A Yes, sir.
0 That was the principal thing you were 11 i
i c 12 ; looking for?
,i l
f A. Right.
l 13
! f '
4 And then a functional test, did the light j 14 15 go on when you hit the switch and was it the right I i
16 licht'
' l 17 A Right.
- l I
i 18 ! O So if there had been any hiding of cables j
19 that had improper splices or something like that by 1
putting them near the bottom of the box o* turning them 20 l 21 away from where they were easy to see, your examination l l 22 would not have been likely to detect that?
23 , A In general, no, sir.
! I j 24 S Does your office have any particular l
l 25 policy regarding how it responds to worker allegations
V l 13.5C9 or allegations from anybody that the work force is 2 being intimidated or harassed by management through 3 things like sequestration, searching of employees' 4 l personal material, or anything like that?
i 3 Is there some kind of written procedure d
a that you go to?
. MR. DOWNEY: Objection. I would object !
3 to Mr. Roisman's characterization of sequestration I e and searching of papers as harassment. There's simply t i ~
IC nothing to support that.
si The re are all kinds of reasons to take t
12 those actions.
13 JUDGE BLOCH: We have a comment on the 34 question. Now you may answer.
15 MR. DOWNEY: That was an objection to !
16 i the question.
17 i JUDGE BLOCH: Yes, but with the comment, 18 it seems to me he's got a fair question. He can l I
19 f answer. l M THE WITNESS: We do have a written ,
I 21 l procedure that covers all the points that you mentioned -
M sir.
23 i We have a procedure that if we do get an '
24
. anonymous call, that you try to get all the information 25 possibly; the location, the problem, if there's s ome oric '
i I.- .. . . .
l
_,-w,,--- -n,a, - , - --*-~-----w' '~ ~~ '~~~~ ~'~ "
l l'
iS5"O
]
l 1, that we can contact, whether or not it's the individual ll 24 that's making it.
l i I For instance, "Well, who is your l 3q I
4 l supervisor," or, "Who is the building manager? What i
5 drawing?" And the key information that will detail it.
I i ,.
6
, If a man calls and says, "One of the~ pipe l 7 , hangers in the Safeguards Building is bad," there is 8 probably eighteen hundred or twenty-five hundred. So l
, 9 without knowing what's bad and the location, it's a f
I __ 10 U lost cause, essentially, before you start.
I! '
> 11 But if we know it's a diagonal that's been i
12 left off or if the welding hasn't been performed ;
4 l
13 correctly, one side is not welded properly, then we have l
i 14 a good chance.
15 l We try to explain this to an individual.
i 16 ' We certainly appreciate an indivu.aal's right to remain 17 l anonymous, and we do not press him in any way to l
l 18 !
reveal anything about himself or herself that would i
i i j 19 j make him feel uncomfortable and cease-giving us
! 20 ! information.
I 21 I We also stress for them to call us back,
, i
- 22 l or call either the resident's offices, or call collect, i i 1
23 and we do this every so often.
24 4 I guess the part that I'm interested in i
25 I is what do you do after that comes through. If you get l
1 l
l t ;
i
- 'a' . ..
- l
2 S ~,01 1 ,
an allegation --
well, in fact, on the morning of the seh you did get an allegation.
2I l i
I 3 That is, you got an allegation by a
, somebody, twice in phone calls, and then maybe another 3 p.2rsen who physically car.e forward and said that they i
..i .
s perceived that these events that were taking place on l, i
7 the plant that day were contrary to the best interest g of the workers, and I assume they thotaght it was also
, contrary to the best interest of what the NRC was there' l
gg l to protect.
n 11 S y u have an allegation about that.
12 What do you do to determine whether that allegation is b, valid or invalid?
, 33
,, 7 A Okay. First, may I restress the point 15 i that we had received information that there was l 16 fpossible personnel action, so this is unusual from that Ii 17 stanopeint, that some of our barriers we did not 18 raise, because we felt that it was being covered under 19 another condition.
I 20 But in general, if we had received it, 21 'we would have sent an individual to the Safeguards 22 IBuilding or whatever other area was identified, and we l
23 !would make an effort to determine the condition, the '
24
- location, how much and what was involved, length,
} 25 ],widthand so forth, tu where we could determine how 1
l 1
.. . , . v ... . . . .. . .. .
-a
_ _ _ _ , _ , - . . - - - - - - ' - = - ' - ' ' ' " ' - - - ' " - " " '^-- #" '
230C2 h
9 Is it a 1 ll significant it was. Is it an isolated case?
4 t
C 2 ji general case, or is it because of one group or an
! 3 I individual?
P 4 ,
We would do all that was possible to
! 1 f ;
5 1
identify it totally and anything that was related to it. i
' We try not to just put on a set of {
6 : ,
7 blinders and say, "Well, XXX is bad, so we Just look ,
l 88 at that one. We don't look at the ones on each side 9
or other levels o r ot he r buildin gs . "
10 g Well, here the allegation was that j i
the management was taking action against employees in j
11 l
12 ,, a way that was intimidating them, that it was something tl them from doing their jobs?
13 that woul,d discourage l There's nothing ;
MR. DOWNEY: Objection.
la f I
to indicate that allegation was made in the phone call
- 13 l
~
I l
. 16[ to the NRC. '
?
l MR. ROISMAN: I'll withdraw it and put
' 17 ,
18 it a different way.
19 : BY MR. ROISMAN:
20 j g You had a call, two calls and a visit.
I A Yes, sir.
l 21 l 4
And there was a concern expressed. What 1
22 0 23 did you understand that person's concern was?
i i A.
His concern appeared to be that some of 24 25 the people who were working with him or that he knew f
i i
1 I .
l* - - - - -
f* ,
10:3. 1
,} about were being detained and that a search of files B
and desks was occurring.
2 :. ,
? ;
O All right, and did he indicate --
or is !
l it your understanding that he indicated what dif ference l l
3 that made? '
, A If he did, it wasn't conveyed to me, '
. l
, and Mr. Kelley and Mr. Cummins and I have had many ; I g deep discussions trying to reconstruct this the very
'l i ,
best we could, i Il
- l tc , G You indicated that if you hadn't had the -
i it l earlier call from Mr. Tolson on the preceding night, and I assume, also, the call from Mr. Clements on that l 12 i
33 ' morning, that you would hr.v,e gone out to look.
i A I'm sure we would have, yes, sir.
i i i
15} O Why would yo2 have gone out to look?
l 16 A It was an allegation and we need to l t I 17 determine whether it was founded or unfounded. I 13 0 An allegation of what? , l l
i, l A You mean of the individuals?
l 1
3 0 What was the allegation you would look l i
l l 21 into?
3 n >
A We U. , first, why they were detained, asam 4
23 second,,what was being searched and why.
i 24 O Why would that be o f concern to the NRC7 25 Just the bare allegation, "We've got people being l P
i b
l l '
." 8 , 8
- 1,
,, ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ -- "' ~' ~ ' -'-*~'~ - ~ '~~~~
19r,01
[
l 1'
detained and their personal belongings are being . 1 2 searched." Why would that be of concern to the NRC?
A Well, it's hard to put a tag on it from 3[ '
4 the standpoint of -- but when I look back at the two I'm sure that 5 previous civil penalty packages, l
r this we would try to determine if it was 6 I related to l,
7 related either directly or remotely to either one or l
r 8
4 both of those type of incidents; not specifically those, i l
9 but that type of incident.
li 10 0 In other words, whether it might in 11 ! fact be some form of harassment or intimidation?
f i
' t' A Yes, sir.
i 12 f l
! l 0
Once you had put aside the destructive l 13 l l
i 14 j testing concern, weren't you then left with a situation i
15
. that was not dissimilar from having never gotten the i
t 16 calls from Mr. Clements and Mr. Tolson at all?
A I don't know.
17 )
Did you do any further' investigation to i
18 } O j
i t
the detention and the searching of 19 jdetermine whether l '
20 lthe personal property had anything to do with harass-
- ment and intimidation?
l 21.
l I guess obliquely when we interviewed 22 l A
1 the three gentlemen in April. We tried to determine if 1 23 ;
i
' 24 i
' this was related, and none of this came out.
25 0 The three gentlemen who you interviewed I
t _.
V t 19.705
, in April, were any of those three gentlemen ones who 2
had been detained?
A All three had been detained, yes, sir.
3
, O Were any of them the ones that had been g
f l 3
on the list that Mr. Clements had given to Mr. Check?
I g
A Unfortunately not, but may I clarify a l
7 little further? l 1
, g 0 Sure.
g A I figured that I would get through all -
10 k seven of those individuals that afternoon.
p I O By "all seven," who do you mean? l 3; A Well, seyen that were still on site, sir.
L 13 o one of the eight original people who had been detained l!
e i 14 j' with the T-shirt incident had left the site, according
[
15 [ to the Licensee's records.
I 16 i One was in the Unit'2 Building and the 17 other six were in the Unit 1 Building.
18 I So I had my list directly off the 19 physical inventory, and for whatever reason, I picked ; j 20 David, Hearne and Ambrose.
. i 21 { Now, who I would pick next, I don't know-22 !It's easy for me to say, "Sure, the fourth one would
(
.f 23 lhave been one of the three who were not, but I can't 2d l >say that, because I was doing it at random.
I 25 l I had essentially forgotten the six names t
i
... . , .. l
- - - - . - .. - - . - . .d
I l 1e-,n2.. o 1 l, 1
that Mr. Lneck and I had discussed almost a month l 1
before; and it really never occurred to me that those i
2l 3 :, people's weight would have been equal, better or I
i 4 worse than the eight that were involved.
5 g So that when you looked at the ecent a I 6 [ month later, when you were talking to these people, l t
7 I you were not making any connection between the concerns 8 that were showing up as deficiencies in inspections l
i 9 in the Safeguards Building and the personnel action. I 9
10 I You were looking at T-shirt wearing and 11 ! personnel action; is that right?
12 11 A That's r,i g h t , and as I say, I was 13 reasonably certain that the three who were not members 14 of the T-shirt group, I would not have interviewed, and 15 ! that's the reason.
16 0 You indicated in the clarification of a l
17 ! your testimony this morning that the film that was 18 taken by Mr. Kelley was developed and it was found to 19 be totally useless.
20 l When did the film get developed?
l 21 i A Oh, let's see. Very shortly after I I
T 22 wrote this testimony; the day I have no idea.
l 23 l Anyway, it was brought to my attention 24 that maybe we ought to splurge and get the film 25 . developed.
I l
. .- l 1
1ST,07
( i G
Where did you have the film developed? 'I l 1 i
A Mr. Kelley had it developed someplace.
O Just commercially?
3 s
I
' A Yes, sir.
,I Is there usually a problen JUDGE BLOCH:
3 i between telling people to take a picture and to develop I
7 it?
THE WITNESS: Well, my problem, sir, is ,
i ,
i there's 36 exposures and this was about number 20.
l i
3g ; Normally, we wait until we get through, which I've ii!learneda little about since.
3; BY MR. ROISMAN:
I G Was all the film black, or just this 33 ,
} 14
' one picture?
i A Oh, no. Well, there were probably some 15 . i 16 l o f the others, but let me try to put it in perspective. l 17 This junction box is up near the roof There are four pipes about that large with j 18 f wall line.
19 the insulation lagging on it, and Mr. Kelley is a long 20 lway from being a professional photographer. I 21 He tried to take the picture, I would 22 say, ten to twelve feet away, which by itself didn't i 23 help a lot, when you are shooting a wire that's 2d ! probably fifty-thousandths in diameter, and it just 25 didn't work, sir.
i
135DS
, 1 0 I thought your testimony was that it t
2l was totally black?
A Well, it was for all purposes. I mean, 3 '.I ll i
- 4 l you could make out nothing on it.
i I
5 3 It wasn't like it had been exposed to the 6
8 light?
ll NO-7f !
A-O It wasn't that kind of totally black.
8 !!
li 9 You j ust mean there wasn't anything distinguishable on I 9
l l
10 p' i t ?-
i 1,
ji f A. Right. You couldn't pick out these I,
12 l pipes that were about ,this large and .3 foot closer.
, }
13 You couldn't pick out the rectangular image of the l junction box, so for sure, there's no possibility of
, 14 l 15 picking out the wire. ,
i l 1s l ///
17 : ///
18 19 j 20 l 21 22 23 24 25
. 9
,-w-,--w-w-m w wwew
1S.703 l l
JUDGE ROISMAN: I'm surprised that someone i
' l
. g. , would take that picture from 12 feet and would take it ]
4 :
so you couldn't see what was happening.
3 THE WITNESS: What can I say, sir?
a I
i w* "iil t#Y t i"P# "* '" th#t' 5
! l BY MR. ROISMAN:
. O Did you at any time involve the Office I
g of Inspection in your investigation into the T-shirt
- incident?
- A Not directly. Mr. Griffin and I had a 10 33 cursory discussion and neither saw any merit into 12 asking OI to perform an inspection.
MR. ROISMAN: I have no further questions.I 33 :,
h Mr. Downey.
i4 il JUDGE BLOCH:
MR. DOWNEY: Thank you, Your Honor. ,
IS t 16 ,
CROSS-EXAMINATION r
l 17 BY MR. DOWNEY:
le O Mr. Hunnicutt, you testified about a 19 i certain inspection that the NRC cnducted at the l I
i, j
20 safeguards building over the course of the summer.
f N
A Yes, sir.
l 21 l 22 l 0 Would you describe the scope of that l
I 2: l investigation, or that inspection? ;
24 A. It was one of the room inspections that l.
are in the process of carrying out. If 1 recall l 25 l we l t
l I
e '
iSS00 i it was the fourth one and was specifically 3 1l correctly, i
for safeguards and auxiliary building. .
I 2
intended and
! Ahe four largest systems we
! 3 1
I 4
, did inspect was the auxiliary feedwater system,
!! l r
! The component cooling l it, of course.
5 portions of l4 water system; the course free system and the fourth I l'
}
6 ]I for the moment.
I'm sorry. i 7 h one escapes me You inspect You say a room inspection.
t 0 l 8 -
t 9
every room in the building; is that how 1 A
No, sir. We roughly did 80 of the combined
. to ll cent, I'm sorry, of the ,
jj auxiliary -- eighty per ;
O l
combined auxiliary systems of the building and the l j
\
12] safeguards (ll building.
inspected eighty per cent of the l
13 1
t 0 So you ja j c two buildings? ;
15 j total number of rooms in those I No. I've forgotten how many was in the A
16 :
but it's pretty close to the number
-l auxiliary building j7 t safeguards was seventy-that's in the safeguards 1
18 lright.
You testified you also inspected some of 19 0
20
+
21 the electrical --
t A Yes, sir.
22 l is that right?
I 0
- work in those buildings; 23 li A Yes, sir.
I 24 And your inspection there, from your 25 qI O J
1 1
h a
P -
q
, oCaJ. e J 'J }
L r
i
^
that inspections were conducted properly and
- 2. identified concerns; yes, sir.
f 3, O In y ur interviews with these gentlemen, 4 did they share with you their view of the T-shirt 3 incident?
6 A V*rY "*II*
. O Would you share for us the substance of 8 g what they told you? i
- A They had different views.
I 10 0 Well, what did they say?
11 A Mr. Ambrose --
12 . MR. RO I S.4A N : Excuse me. I assume this is j jlnot being introduced for the truth'of what those people i
13 h i 14 said but for what this witness heard and I guess it's j l
15 relevance is to find out whether he should have -
l 16 l, investigated further or not; is that correct, Mr.
t, 17 , Downey?
18 MR. DOWNEY: That's correct. t l
19 We have testimony from two people who -
20 l wore the T-shirts and only testimony from two people.
21 I guess their testimony will stand as to the views of I l 22 ! the T-shirt wearers but I would Eke to have Mr.
I i 1
23 l Hunnicutt tell us what they told him. It will help 24 t us --
I guess -- you have made an issue of whether i
25 ! the NRC acted properly and I would like to elicit fron h
i
. I
- l.-
._-- ,_ , _ , - . ._ , . - , _ . - r - - -
Il y.ss-c ,, , 0
~
1 ! him what he information he did --
L 2 ll MR. ROISMAN: I just want to be clear l 3, that you don't think that what you're getting here is l 4 d information that goes to the truth of what these l 5 people said.
I JUDGE BLOCH: For the limited purpose 3
7 that has been discussed by Counsel, the cuestion shall !
l 8r be allowed.
I 9 MR. DOWNEY: No problem. i 10 [ BY MR. DOWNEY:
li 11 O Okay.
I 12 ; A Mr. Ambrose, he said that he was 13 thoroughly confused because it started out as a joke 14 and a few days before, I believe he said on Monday, 15 !: that roughly 20 people wore them and he said nobody 16 ( paid any attention to them and said then on Thursday, I
j, 17 it wasn't quite that way.
Mr. Davis essentially said parallel. He J] 18 19 , felt like whatever clothing he felt like wearing, he 20 l' should be able to wear on the site.
21 And Mr. Hearne was less vocal than either 22 of the other two but he really couldn't see the 23 l relevancy of being detained and so forth.
i 24 JUDGE BLOCH: Were either of those two 25 f individuals transferred from Safeguards 1 to I i
i.
AQPO 1aa-9.L1 '
j , Mr. Ambrose saying the NRC should have been there. ;
2 Mr. Davis said that he couldn't have 3
cared less if the NRC come.
Mr. Hearne essentially said, "You weuldn't have done any good anyway, so we didn't need '
5 l
you."
1 So from that side -- but we didn't get i 7
down to the point of where one guy says, "Well, it !
8; was a 3cke." and the other guy says: "Well, we did 9
i fun.", those kind we didn't try to get to.
10 h it for jj
! BY MR. DOWNEY:
', O After those interviews, were you f 12 li
- convinced in your own mind that the answers were 13 that you didn't need to j, f, sufficiently consistent F
i; interview others?
15 l' g A That's the way we felt plus the fact that 17 i just knowing human nature, including myself, overnight 18 the majority of the other four people on site would j9 have had some discussion and we felt that with the amount of informatiom that we would not have gained a l 20 21 I sufficient additional information to warrant it at th.
22 ,
time. l l
t 23 ! O So you conducted these interviews in such i 24 a way that none of the other -- none of the three knew what questions were to be asked in advance?
-] 25 e
i
~
I
[ .
t 1
W P
.n-,1 Ass.
!I 1
i
.6 1l t
A Well, the first two I'm sure did not 2j because nobody knew and Mr. Davis, for whatever reason, 3
was picked as first and Mr. Hearne was the second cne 4 ['
from but there on, of course, there was f oraebody ou t t
3 in the plant that said, " Hey, what did they ask?" i I
But t r. e first two, I am positive, that '
l 6
7 there was no cross because there wasn't time in 6 between and, of course, no one outside the NRC had 8q I 9
access at any time to our questions.
I O In your interviews wi th these three 10 E 11 gentlemen and your review of the documents that were i l
12 ,
taken from their work . area, did you find any evidence 13 j that personal effects were confiscated?
E A There were no personal effects of any 14 a significance.
I interviewed every piece of paper in [
i 15 e.
t 16 each of the files and there was nothing that you would i i l
17 re9ard as valuable, from a personal standpoint.
! O Did you find inspection reports as part 18 ;
i 19 of the materials that were in the packages?
i Inspection reports.
NRC procedures was 1
20 f
There were a few other pieces of l the majority of it.
21 f
22 paper I just don't recall specifically right at the l 4
23 moment.
0 Is it your understanding that the site 24 25 policy subjects every employe( to search at the .
,1 Je
ge-o- i PP" _ .v . 0 ,
t desire of management? ,
' l A Including myself; yes, sir. !
)
JUDGE BLOCH: I'm sorry. i I
l When you go on the site --
, i s.
I THE WITNESS: I have been searched; fes, sir.
Both going on and coming off. ,
- I.
i JUDGE BLOCH: Your briefcase? l 7 l THE WITNESS: I normally have a property l
- 1 pass that deletes that but it ran out the 28th of 4 1
I ,
I September so --
l
)
JUDGE BLOCH: You wouldn't expect them . ::
11 .
to look at the documents in your briefcase? !
t .,
I Oh, no, but there's no harm p*
THE WITNESS:
l 3,
in looking to see if I have a coil of wire or some l
electronic components or --
15 JUDGE BLOCH: It's a security check? , ;
g
' Well, in general, that's I p THE WITNESS:
jg !a true statement but it could be a little more but, 39 so far, as I say, I've been searched three or four g- times in the times that I have gone down there. f i
So, there is a sign there that says, "V 21 .
22 firearms or cameras" and sometimes we've been asked uno 23 that was sufficient.
I 24 I Other times, of course, it's like going l
25 into Safeway's. You never know.
h t
I!
i li i- . .. .
f .-.
a c .- a n asvaa y
I
'6 BY MR. DOWNEY:
1l O And it is your understanding, 2q '
3 '!
Mr. Hunnicutt, that employees were subject to search to make sure that they had no unauthorized documen-
'l 4 [
I 5
tation or materials or those sorts of things. i A I'm certain if they search me they 6
7 search employees.
4 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you know whether the 8 f:
p i* 9 employees are subject to search for unauthorized I
10 l cocuments?
' I THE WITNESS: Let's see, unauthorized 11 I can't answer that one, once you point 12 9 documents.
I 13 out -
JUDGE BLOCH: Try to listen to the 14 .
15 !
question, because you've got to answer the question, i h
' 16 l! sil.
i THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
17 BY MR. DOWNEY:
ll 18 0 Did any of the three persons you 19 20 interviewed indicate to you who it was that contacted g
' - 21 the NRC?
c A One individual did. We didn't ask the
^
22 23 name. He blurted it out.
24 0 Who blurted it out?
25 A Mr. Davis.
I i
- , S
l
^
I g m,,, i m J 2** ,1
!l time to get on board and find out that it had l
.' f 2
previ usly occurred. I JUDGE BLOCH: I'm sorry. You said if 3 t 3 ; it happened again?
THE WITSESS: Well, it had happened On Monday and he came in to work on Wednesday and
( n the 7
apparentDj he didn't know that it had happened ge Monday, so when i t happened the second time on 9, Thursday --
l 10
JUDGE BLOCH: But I thought you also said) i
- n he had instructions on what to do if i t hapoened aca2n.
THE WITNESS: If I did, I made a mistake y,' .
1:
in the way I said my words. I didn't intend it to g3 jj mean i
JUDGE BLOCH: But did he have instruct o!.S 5 .
16 ( on wha t to do if it happened? I THE WITNESS: I don't think so. What I ,
17 ,
18 was trying to say -- let me see i f I can put it back l
i' 19 in perspective, that if the T-shirt people felt that j l
~~I g* since it had previously happened, that when it j 21 happened the second time on Thursday, that it would !
l t
.on n have been nice i f this supervisor would have known thatj i
ree 23 i this was the second instance it happened; my words, I i I
as .
24 think I said happened again, which I'm sorry threw t
l !
,ao 25 you off. !
> i,
, s.
-- - -we'e-=g-, ,--e e------W 's--9geeay-----w---T -
---wy 9- we- e w---
+
l -
l'3 3:1 ;
1 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
2 0 I think you testified that you understood s i 3j there was some kind of disciplinary action being l
} '
l 4 contemplated by management prior to the T-shirt !
5 incident.
s - '
l I
i 6
MR. DOWNEY: Objection. I think he said I y I al 7! personnel action, which is -- #
l i I I' 8 i JUDGE GROSSMAN: Personnel action.
i.
1 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN.
9 [! -
3 1 .
' i l
10 G What was the personnel action that you l 1
11 -
understood that the company was contemplating? '
A l 12 j Well, we really didn't know of the depth I I
l j-13 forbread'thofit.
t We were informed, through '
14 l Mr. Cummins, who informed me, that there were possi- l 4
l i
j 15 ' bilities of destructive testing instances that ;
i i
16 l occurred in the safeguards building and that there was ,
I j
17 a possibility of personnel action occurring. And that 18 was essentially the day before this.
19 0 Now, I've read your prefiled testimony l j
j 20 1 and I'm having a little troubl e understanding one
. i 21 l sentence here on Page 4, and perhaps you can clarify ,
i 22 ; that for me.
j 23 l It's the second sentence on the paragraph 24 that begins on Page 4, which says, also if possible g 25 ! to take photographs of the T-shirt personnel wearing-1 J
' 4 e.
~ , o
~ s . ,7 f
, A No, sir. l And if you happen to go back I y through some of our reports for this year, Inspection !
y Report 445/8410, there are either three or four i
,3 photographs on one of the pages in that report to 5 :llustrate some points we were trying te make.
, 6 O I'm sorry, I don't understand that
. answer. I'm asking you --
I
, A Okay. Let me try again.
, 0 --
specifically about the act of I
- g. attempting to photograph the suppose Ar destructive it act with regard to this wiring. !
l g Didn't it appear to you at that time l
1 33 t t
that the photograph would be only in the direction of l
supporting the company's position in this contfoversy? !
k-i 3 A No, sir.
We try to be totally impartial,'
and by having the information it may or may not have 16 ,,'
s 17 supported either their position -- in other words, it l la li would appear to be in good taste. Why would it support l 15h management?
It looked to me like it would lean more X toward the eight individuals.
But we had no idea of what was written on or what the design looked like.
21 t
Mi G But it was a follow-up of a management
- 23 I allegation, wasn't it?
24 A
Not really; it's happened less than 21 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. l f
I l.
_ _ - - - - . - . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - - - - - - - - -- -- - - ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ '~*
,o-n-
. s e,. O g
d Well, wasn't it the management of the !
1$ g
( ,
2 8
company rather than the OC inspectors who were l 3 l alleging that there was destructive testing? ',
i 4 i A That is true, t i
5 g Now, in retrospect -- well, y o u '*/ c 6
indicated that in retrospect you would have acted 7 the same, i 8
i A With the same information, yes, sir. :
i 1
9 G Okay. Now, if I recall the information t
10 ,
h that you were operating on, there were two anonymous l N
11 phone calls in the direction of assisting QC inspectors ;
12 who apparently, or allegedly were beleaguered, in l l 1
13 l which you took no action at all. i i
14 N And then there were two subsequent acts i j 15 that the NRC took with regard to allegations by l l
16 management with regard, one, to the wearing of the j 17 l T-shirts and, two, with regard to the damaging of 18 i electrical equipment, in which the NRC did take scme i
19 l action, i
20 : Doesn't that appear to have been what l !
21 occurred, sir?
22 , A Pretty much.
23 0 And in retrospect you still believe that 24 that was an evenhanded approach, do you, sir?
I 25 MR. BACHMANN: Judge Grossman, I don't l l i
19003 usually object to the Board's questioning, but I think e
2 you have kind of mischaracterized Mr. Hunnicutt's 3
testimony into dividing actions by the NRC into those l
4 , instigated by allegers, in this case inaction, and those I f
3 instigated by management.
From what I can recall, Mr. Hunnicutt's l 7
testimony has been that the actions taken by the NRC i g were to gain more information over a situation of which,
- they had very little information, and I do not think l
10 it's' fair to characterize that the actions they took n' I were directed towards supporting the management's i ; ,, position, and since Mr. Hunnicutt has agreed with it, ;
13 don't really think that he meant to agree with that,
l . I i
a !l just to keep the record straigh..
15 r BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: l 1
le G Well, my question really is, in retro- ;
17 , spect do you still feel that the'non-action with I l
18 regard to the two anonymous phone calls on the part of 19 i the QC inspectors and your action with regards to the i 1
1 20 i allegations by the company in these other two instance = l l
21 ,
are an evenhanded action by the NRC?
i 22 A In the short period of time that these k j 23 koccurred, i
I still stick with my original. Now, it's l
24 true we all learn a great deal in six months, and 25 based on that, which the question has not been asked me
< 1
P .- p iSG30 l
1 I would probably have done differently. But when you 1f k
2 '- find out something at roughly 4:00 p.m., and this all !
i o' clock the next day, in other ;
3 l occurs before 2:00 I 4 words, less than a 24-hour period, and the meager 5
amount of information we had under those conditions, 6
I feel that to tell you that I would have done 7 differently is not characterizing it properly, because .
8 I with the information and under the conditions I don't i 9, see that we would have changed.
10 But again let me stress that based on B
11 I:
what we learned subsequently, and up through today, i
I 12 I it would have been an entirely different matter.
13 0 Well, let me ask you, if you had known 14 then what you know now, would you have gone in sooner 15 [ in response to these anonymous phone calls, or would l.
16 you : ave not gone in at all, or how would your actions ,
l 17 have changed?
18 A Well, unfortunately, hypothetical -!
19 l situations, quite often you try te answer them to make <
20 f yourself look good, and so if I did ans.'r it I would 21 I only be making a conjecture that may or may not be 22 I
true, sir. I'll be happy to answer, but I honestly 23 j can't tell you what I would have done seven months 24 l later. I But it's obvious, under the conditions !
25 l
I l
._. 1D b d .L 7 l
that have occurred, that we'd sure has different ;
l
- information, we would have probably, and I repeat ;
2 there immediately probably, sent someone directly,over 3
,j to determine.
But again, given the same conditions, I believe I would have reacted the same way in the l
same short period of time. '
4 l t i
9 10 '
=
11 -
I 12 ,
r 13 Ii 14 , '
f 15 i
f
{
Ih
[
l-17 18 i
l 19 l 1
I 20 i .
v,h l 22 l
23 i
24 i
h I l 25 !
i.
c,s h
.- = - . .
4
**WYMw wwm y, '""#fAWe - w wsg
,i
y ,
I 130~7 t
st and other conditions we wouldn't. )
i If it is, of course, we have our internal l 3{ .
1
-recedure that is very specific that the names of l 3l i l confidential people are kept confidential and we have l 8 l 7
u,3 v e this to carry out our normal inspection duties l 1
t ; 3 in some cases. j
- e We do our best -- two things; not get them
- I I
in the first place and promptly forget them otherwise ]
8* I :
.o- tut each and every one of us at times is involved one I e l way'or another and, as I say, it's a very sacred l M '
portion of our duties and it's even more sacred than t releasing draft reports.
13 JUDGE BLCCH: I was ^i u s t interested because of the reluctance to give it to the parties under the protective order. g 4 THE WITNESS: That's one party, I guess.
17 To further clarify that, sir, just for i
ibly W everybody's sake, in the allegation packages, I was the l l
I S . 19 one that put them all together. I w as the final l
E focal point for preparing the allegation packages for !
the 3: the TRT. Just so we've got everything on the table.
- U BY MR. ROISMAN: l' i
iorthj ,
n 0 Well, let me go back to this. !
24 As I understand it, your belief that none 8
l i
30W D of the people who were detained that day wore the
' i k
l i
I
l 1S019 i
1 T-shirts have come forward and made any complaints?
! i And that investigations by you into the 2( i 3 f saf eguards building, which you previously described, 6
4 have not found any hardware problems and, thus, it's
' I 5
not impcrtant to go on to find out if the te was, in l
6 fact, some "other" motive that management may ha/e had, 7
7 i, o t h'e r than the protection of craft and OC from each 8I other as their motive for what happened in the T-shirt ,
i 9 incident?
10 i Am I correctly summarizing what your
)
I it position is? l i
A I believe in general terms you have 12 ( ,
I i l' l l 13 summarized it correctly; yes, sir. '
1 You, t
14 i
j JUDGE BLOCH: Could you qualify that?
I i
i said general terms. Is there some aspect in which you 15 16 l! find it misleading? ,
l 17 .
THE WITNESS: Well, I'm trying to fit it 18 all together. I don't find it misleading.
i 19 I JUDGE BLOCH: Is it possible you don't t l I
I 20 understand the whole statement?
'f ,
i THE WITNESS: I started to say, I'm not 21 22 j sure I can keep it all in context that he said but {
> l I in general -- l 23 '
24 JUDGE BLOCH: The question may have been a little too long. i 25 i I
l
130;9 l MR. ROISMAN: All right.
9 Let me try it a different way.
f SS
~1 l ,y gg. ROISMAN:
x 63 l Why don't you state for me all the g
n;d
(( r e a r : r. s why it is now your position that it is management's motivd
, unne ce s s a ry to investigate what was j
y
.- the actions that it took on the T-shirt incident g
day with regard to the T-shirt wearers?
A Okay.
JUDGE BLOCH: Before you answer that question -- Mr. Roisman, there's one aspect I'd like p
to to bring to the witnes.s' attention. ,
Are you aware that Mr. Tolson has h i
13 I
testified here that at the time he called the NRC, he l y
33 had not followed up in any way to find out whether ,
I the allegations were true, that any of the QC l i
se l 17 ,
inspectors had committed destructive evaluations?
THE WITNESS: No, sir. All I had knowledge 18 l
19 of was the preliminary call.
JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. That's another fact 20 21 we now have in our record, that Mr. Tolson didn't even -
start an investigation about whether or not that was i 22 l 23 ! true. l l
24 l Now, maybe you want to ask the question l 1
l J 25 lI again, because that to me is a fact that is important j I )
- I
! t i
( !
l 1
i
' ' I i
19050 j in the answer we're going to get.
2j MR. ROISMAN: All right. '
t '
3 i THE WITNESS: Because I have not read Mr.
I I i i 4 Tolson's testimony. You re the first to point it out '
l S t c .m e . 'l ll BY MR . ROISMAN:
6 e
7(i ;
0 Well, along with the other knowledge 8p that you have picked up about the T-shirt incident, 9 . up until today and add in now the knowledge that the i
s jo l Chairman has given you --
i n l A Yes, sir. '
i
}
l 12 j 0 -- my question is, give me all the reasons k' i
f j3 why it is your current position that it is unnecessary l ja for the NRC to investigate what were the motives of j i l 15 the company in taking the actions that they took during.f 16 ,
the day of the T-shirt incident with reference to the .
j7 T-shirt wearers? I i jg A Well, I think the only answer I can give i j9 j you is that our inspections that followed from that day to 1
20 j now, has not brought to light any information that 21 w uld substantiate it and, therefore, either in substance i
22 we have investigated it by our inspection programs. ;
23 i Specifically in the areas of the safeguards building '
l l
and I 24 believe that essentially covers the investigation.
25 No formal specific investigation on that l
l l
l
1S001 one allegation has been performed.
O By that, which one allegation?
A The one where the licensee management possibility of destructive stated that there is a testing occurring in the safeguards building.
l 5 t No. I'm sorry.
0 e ;
okay. Let's try again.
A We O What I want to focus on is this.
facts --
started with my asking you which new A Yes, sir.
I t 0 - are the ones that you would have 11
=
considered crucial if you had had them in your g
l possession the morning the NRC decided what it would 33 do about the T-shirt incident and the first one you had actually been g i mentioned was that the T-shirts 16 worn, not for the first time on that Thursday but !
A a Monday with apparently no incident --
17 ,
earlier on l'
18 A Right.
testimony'
,o 19 L G And that would -- I believe your
- i. seem to lay to rest the concern that l 20 ': that that would craft and OC would get into some confrontation becauct I
21 22 ! of the wearing. Okay.
! i 23 Now, given that one of the reasons that f
2d management expressed, the major reason that management the morning of the T-shirt!
25 expressed for its actions on i
-. - - _ . _ _ _ ___ ' ~ ' ' ' - --,, __
~
130 2 1
incident, was this concern.
I A Yes, sir.
- 2 g And knowing now that on Monday those 3[ e
.e
+ 4 T-shirts had actually been worn on the site, so that Maybe 5; at least the fact of the concern wasn't there.
6
- l the belief was there but the fact of the concern o wasn't there -- what have you done to investigate to l 7 I l was management's real motives for the 8
l l find out what '
actions that it took, if it were not that concern?
9 And you said nothing.
? 10 ,
.I And I said, "Tell me why."
11 12 S I want, to know why it doesn't bcther you that.an underlying premise that seemed to l 13 underlay the management decision-making on the morning 14 I
the T-shirt incident, why that, knowing now that 15 ff f
l 16 i the underlying premise was in error, why it is that j7 :
you don't think further investigation is warranted?
L That's got nothing to do with destructive 18 39 testing. It's just got to do with that one thing.
Why don't you think you need to look any 20 f s What are all the reasons that you have for
,' 21 further?
e l
22
' now saying you don't have to look any further?
l l
i A Well, the only one I can come up with is 23 24 the one I originally brought in; that our inspections E
25 in those areas have not substantiated it and I assumed
\
1SGp3 there was sufficient investigation or retracing of 4
cur steps to cover the situation.
O Well, let's --
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me.
4 I think the witness is answering -- I think
$. \
l he understands your question to be, why haven't you e
t looked further into the destructive testing, when he
- r. ,
I
- I says that the investigations haven't substantiated it and I believe your question is, why haven't you looked into the motivation of the management for doing g
I what it did, now that you understand that one of the 1 11 ;
bases that they claim *their actions were based on was )
12 1 l
not, in fact, there. l g
l Now, why haven't you --
and the question is, why haven't you looked into the motivation of ,
15 .
I !
g management? And all the reasons for that. ]
37 ;
THE WITNESS: I don't know. It's one of l 18 ! those --
I guess some people would say it was just left 39
- on the table and not picked up. I t
20 l BY MR. ROISMAN:
l 21 1 0 Okay. What was another crucial fact that I i
22 l you learned since that day, the 8th of March, which, in 22 your judgment, would make a difference in how the NRC ,
2d would have reacted if you'd known that fact that day?
l 25 A Well, of course, we would probably have I I i l 1
! J
13051 i put in a whole team and essentially secured the 2 safeguards building and put in a whole team and did a -
i l 3 point by point check. Then, that way, if there had been 4 any destructive testing, we would have identified it.
5, G No. I'm sorry. I'm r:ot asking what I
6l actions you would have taken that's different but what 7 fact do you now know --
l 8 A The fact would have been that we would 9 assume that there was destructive testing, we would 10 send it a team to assure i t. #
33 0 Okay. Let's try again.
'i [
12 j A Okay.
13 0 Y u now know, or at least you believe, 34 based upon the investigations, both Mr. Kelley's and s
15 subsequent, that there was no destructive testing in
{ ;$ { the building; right?
s, - i i .
p j7 A That's what we found.j 18 g Okay. And I assume that if you had known i
j9 on the morning of :iarch the 8th, contrary to anything 20 that Mr. Tolson had said the night before that Mr. l l
21 Clements said on the phone that morning, that in fact, 22 lthere was absolutely no destructive testing in tne i
23 l building, that would have been a crucial difference 24 in your judgment?
25 A It would. Yes, sir.
e
1S005 0 Okay. So the absence of the destructive gesting would have been a crucial difference; is that right?
3 A - Right.
O The absence of any basis i
L Any basis. l s
i For that? Okay, 0
7 Now, what have you done since then to investigate management, now that you've learned that
- l the re -was not MR. DOWNEY
- Objection. Asked and gy e
12
! answered. He's going to go through each once of these 33 ,
facts and ask the same question.
I The witness has testified that they have 1, I cone any further with the investigation as to the 15 f not we're gettir, very 16 motives of man'agement and I think 17 repetitive if not cumulative.
MR. ROISMAN: Well, I assume he's going i I
I l
18 l
tell me j to say no and then I'm going to ask him to 19 l j
20 i all of his reasons and if they are different now.
i 1
If Counsel wants to stipulate that the ,
21 l l
witness, A, has not investigated any cf management's 22 ,
20 I motivation and his answer to the question "Why?" is i ,
24 i
I that he doesn't know, it was just left on the table, 1
25 we can leave it and that will be it.
I i
i [:
{ 3.
- - - - - _ . - _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ -'~-*W w-- --w- _ , _ _ _ _ ,
19003 1 l Otherwise, we'll have to ask the w2tness l!
3, to tell me that. !
I JUDGE GROSSMAN: I think the witness has 3 '
bi 4 already testified to that and that is where it stands i
. 1 '
5 a r. d the reasons why it stands that way: so I don't 6 '; think you need any stipulation.
7 MR. ROISMAN: Okay. I was concerned only I
8 [ that he was answering the question only in reference l
9 to crucial fact No. 1, that is, that the T-shirts had I
jo been worn on Monday and he hadn't known that on i
j:6 11 1 Thursday.
12 JUDGE BLOCH: Is there any fact or set of j3 facts t h.a t has led you to believe that the l i-g 14 investigation of the T-shirt incident should be 15 i reopened?
! l'
' l 16 THE WITNESS: No, sir.
17 MR. ROISMAN: No further questions.
.) l e'
ja FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION 19j BY MR. DOWNEY:
li 20 0 Mr. Hunnicutt, you just testified in ,
l I
21
- response to Judge Bloch's question, that you know of '
d 22 !! no reason why the matter should be reopened.
23 ,
In making that answer, did you consider _
24 the substance of what you learned in your interviews l
25 g with the people who wore the T-shirts?
i.
I b
aSn
- au 7 A I'm sure it was a part of it, as well as o*g ,f 1 l
2, our own independent inspections.
G And the fact that to your knowledge, none 3l l
- i of the people who wore T-shirts have made allegations l t
3 to the ::RC : is that one fact that vou considered in l
3 saying it shouldn't be reopened? .
. A It would be a small one but it is a .
I g probable one.
- G And you testified that your inspections 10 F in the safeguards building would be another reason n why you don't feel that you need --
12 i. A That's .th,e major one.
13 .1 G. There's one other fact that I don't know ,'
I ll l 14 [ that you have testified about, Mr. Hunnicutt. I I
15 f Do you know --
are you aware that Mr. i 3
l 16 Collins and Mr. Spence, the President of TUGCO, met i 17 i with a number of the T-shirt wearers?
- 18 A By coincidence; yes.
19 0 Did you discuss that meeting with Mr.
20 l Collins or have you done so?
21 A No. Except in the very cursory terms.
f 22 Specifically, I was at the site on an l
23 ! inspection when a gentleman came into the area that I 24 was and I stopped my inspection for a minute and went l
- 25 ; out and we talked and he said, "We're here on a couple '
l 4
._- . _ _ _ . _ . - . - . - - . . . _ .._ --- -- -----~ _.-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - -
i
I -
1S003 8
i h of matters." and I went back to my work and they went 2 to theirs.
g
- 3 And following that meeting, did Mr.
4 Collins report to you any problems that he uncovered f $ during these meetings?
- D I '
6 A He didn't discuss any with me.
7 ;
JUDGE BLOCH: Did he report to you at all 8 0l about what happened at the meeting?
9 THE WITNESS: If he did, it wa s in awful to general terms because it was --
let's see, I can ij remember some of the people that attended and if I 12 remember correctly, they met with almost all of the ,
13 wearers, ,if not all of them.
14 But it was around, I don't know, the 15 first week of April, if I remember correctly and the 16 only thing I can remember is they felt that the T-shirt 17 wearers had no reservations about discussing the whole 18 incident with the President of the company, Mr.
, 19 Eisenhut, Mr. Collins and others. They ' felt that 20 the meeting was a worthwhile meetings and that's 21 about all I got, sir. -
22 4
And had th e .= e inspectors made allegations 23 l i
to.Mr. Collins or Mr. Eisenhut at this meeting,would
- 24 you have become aware of this in preparing the-i 1
25 I
l allegation packages that you testified you prepared?
. , , . . . . - - _ - . - - -, __._wm,__,.- w... _._.,,,_-----,,_,m_ ,.--,,,.-,,.,m.ww,y,_m,_,,,w.,,,,,-_-_,.w--ww_ _.._ww,r..---
.at day I would have bee
- aware of it; g
assure you.
3 11 And you haven't been made aware of such g
f I
so allegation? ,
- o, sir.
A l Mr.
Mr. Hunnicutt, do you know whether g
9 was aware that the T-shirts had been worn I
?
Tolson su
>< in the week?
? 25,t earlier
, g. 9 A I have no idea, I 9 these set.
15c And if Mr. Tolson wasn't aware of 0 '
1%$3 W, would you have any reason I T-shirts having been worn, '
-J _ in acting the way he did that j .
question his motivgs e
12 day?
13 A I don't know.
g I O You testified, Mr. Hunnicutt, that one I
15 of the facts you have now that you didn't have on the a
day of the T-shirt, was the fact that they had been e 37 ja worn earlier in the week; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
g9 l 0
And you acted the way you did because 20 21 i
you didn't know that: isn't that right?
A Partially.
And isn't it possible Mr. Tolson acted the 22 l
23
} 0 j vorn 24 i
way he did because he didn't know they'd been b
in the week? i 25 l earlier l l
. , , , _ _
- N -w-, n,,, __ WM"WMw gy -
i 1 MR. ROISMAN: Objection C. I don't see that l 2
the witness is in any position to give an opinion about 3 Mr. Tolson's action.
4 He had already testified he didn't b
.' 5 ., investigate it.
l' 6
l l
JUDGE BLOCH: He has also testified that
! 7
- 1l he hasn' t read the record of what Mr. Tolson testified -
i a j to in this proceeding.
9 BY MR. DOWNEY: '
10 0 In your mind, Mr. Hunnicutt, knowledge of 11 ;
l the fact that they had been worn earlier in the week 12 is a fact you consider important in deciding what action t!
13 should be taken? 3l 14 A Possibly.
'\
That would be tied in with the '\
15 e rest of the information that was made available.
16 O It's a fact that you consider important i
~
17 t
in judging your performance in that event?
18 A Now. Yes. !
19 ;
G Mr. Hunnicutt, maybe I misunderstood your ;
1 20 testimony. I thought you testified that you had some -
.t 21 --
that you might doubt management's motivation in 22 acting the way it did on that day because you've f 23 learned that the T-shirts were worn on the previous
'I 24 Monday.
25 Was that your testimony?
I
, , . , ww-.y
-W'w - - ' -
I 190C1 g>II g A I believe that was included.
2 j G And if, in fact, management and 3
specifically Mr. T o l s o n ., wasn't aware that they had ,
1 1
4 been worn earlier in the week, you would have no !
~ <
98 5
reason to question motivation on that basis; isn't iD 3[ that right? I
, 1 7f A Based on the information you're giving j t !
g me; right. ,l O Did you receive the call about the j, 9 .
l 10 l
possibility of destructive examination at the site i 33 from Mr. Tolson?
12 A No, sir. It came to Mr. Cummins, who called ::
1:
13 me late in the day, 34 0 If you understanding that the information l.;
i 15 Mr. Cummins received was a possibility that this was j.
16 occurring at the site?
17 A That's what Mr. Cummins stated to me. !
18 0 And it wasn't --
to your knowledge --
19 JUDGE BLOCH: Was the word possibility 20 something that he told you or is that something that l 21 Counsel just used?
l 22 THE WITNESS: I wish I could answer your 23 question. I can't recall the specific verbatim 24 discussion.
25 JUDGE BLOCH: Did you have the impression i
190C2 1 that it was happening or some chance that it was 2 happening?
3 THE WITNESS: My personal impression was 4 that it was a chance or a possibility that it was
. 5 ~> happening, and that it had not been confirmed.
I 6 !E Because -- to go with that, the I
7fpossibilityof personnel action, there was no --
at
'l a lj least as I remember it, there was no statement that 9 there was going to be. That there was a possibility l
10 I of.
I 11 , E Y MR . DOWNEY:
12 O Mr. Hunnicutt, you were asked come I
13 questions by Judge Grossman --
let me withdraw that. j 14 You testified that you received 15 anonymous phone calls on the day of the T-shirt l ,
i 16 ! incident; is that right?
1 17 A My inspectors did; yes, sir.
18 0 Did you receive any?
. 19 A No, sir, i
q 20 l 0 Do you recall when the first report came l
1 21 to you that there was an anonymous call about this 22 subiect matter? What time of day?
23 A Oh, roughly, 11:00 a.m.
24 Mid-morning.
0 Late morning. l l 25 A Yes, sir.
- - - ~~-- ~
.i 1S003 0 Who rendered that first report to you?
jg' A Kelley and Cummins were both on the 1
1 3, extensions in the operations, inspection office. !
, O And they were at the sit- and you were 3
in Oallast is that right? !
i
_,- A Arlington.
4 7 0 In Arlington? '
, A Yes, sir. i e ,l O And at that point ycu decided not to take l l gg , any specific action; is that correct?
i, A g, That's right.
12 -
13l* /// l 14 .
///
15 16 l '
17 18 .f I
l f 0 I
20 ,
j i
21 l !
t 22 1' .
i 23 I l
24 l l 25 L li t
1 I
_ _ , _ . - . _ - - - - - - - " - - ' " ' " ' - " " ~
. . . _ . - ~ - - -
.i l
G WF 1S004 3 was the next report ma to you i
2l that someone was raising a concern about this T-shirt i
matter?
3ll I
A 4
I Well, it was close to noon, by Mr. Oberg. ,,.
3 3 And was he also on site? '
[ i A
He was at the construction trailer, which !
6 I
'f S79 7 .
is in the neighborhood of a half a mile from the j l 9r*
8 'Il operations trailer --
well, operations building, i t's t
9 a permanent building on the operations site. ,
10 G But he was at the Comanche Peak site, 11 not in Arlington?
12 A Yes, sir.
13 j 4 And he telephoned you?
i
,I i 14 A Yes, sir.
I 15 , G And was it that time when you directed 16 !
l Mr. Kelley to go over to the administration building 17 and see what was going on?
A 18 It was sometime after that.
19 4 But that second call prompted you to do i
20 that; i s that right?
A 21 I
Well, it set the wheels in motion, yes, '
I 22 i sir, and then just somewhere in there we got the third 1
23 i
, call from Cummins, if I remember correctly, which tied -
24 in, and we were already getting hold of Kelley. In l 25 ,
l other words, Curamin s had come back over to the i
i l
l I
, - - , wy.u,m, - - , . , --.i.+,---,--.,
_------,.v-, - - - - -- - . , . . - , . - . - - , -,,._p--_-,.y
1S005 3,
construction site and the operations site.
2 O Do you got the first call about the 5
3 situation from an anonymous called around 11:00 a.m.?
A Yes, sir.
4 f 5
0 And by sometime after 12:00 you had set ;
I in motion certain steps to have your people look into i 6 l I-7 at the site; is that right? ,
l 86 A In the neighborhood of 12:30, Mr. Kelley,'
l 9, yes, sir.
10 0 So within an hour and a half of the I
gj ! first report to you, you had set in motion some 12 l activities at then site to have your people look into i
13 l the problem?
j, A Yes, sir.
O Y #"## ^
15 -
16 them to do?
I j7 A Mr. Kelley was the individual, I is ;
specifically asked him to take the camera equipment 1
19 l and go to the administrative building, to leave the 6
20 [ camera equipment outside of any area that the inspectors 21 were detained in, ask permission if he could take !
22 pictures and try to discuss them, if possible.
23 g Basically to see what was going on? ,
24 A Yes, sir.
25 G Now, on a previous day when you had ,
I i
s
. - . - - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - ' ' ' ' ' ~ ~ ~ ' ' ' ' ~ " ~
l '
'I 1SCCS 1
3 received the ,all about the possibility of destructive 2 l examination at the site, you instructed Mr. Kelley to I
go look into that matter, too, did you not?
t 3
i v
ei A l
[ Would you repeat that question?
! 5 g When you received the call about the .
3 f[ possibility of destructive examination, which was the 6
y y previous day? ,
l g A Yes, sir. i 9 0 i
When you received that call, did you ask 10 l Mr. Kelley to go look into it?
11 A I did not.
12 0 He did that on his own?
13 A No, let's put the time frames back, j 14 please.
i It was very late in the day, in fact it was I j
15 i either almost at or after the close of business, in 16 !
other words, 4:00 p.m., 1 when Mr. Cummins called me. I I
17 Mr. Kelley had no knowledge -- ,
i 18 ,
O l So Mr. Cummins called you?
I 19 .1 Yes, sir.
20 0 What action did you take at that ^ time? , -
21 A a Since it was the close of business, 22 none that day.
And with the T-shirt incident, it 23 became secondary.
I essentially laid it on the table 24 that morning. }
25 0 l So in the case of destruc'tive examination q i
I l.
l
_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ^ ' ' ' ~ ~ ~
1 3 G u'l 1
I basically at some point you asked them to look into 2, '
that matter; 1s that right?
A When I asked Mr. Kelley to go on the 8th.
3)l
,: O In response to the allegations of non-i 3
destructive examination, in response to the allegation 6
that there was some impropriety with the inspectors 7
being detained, in both cases you sent Mr. Kelley to
, look into the problem; isn't that right? I
, A That's right.
MR. DOWNEY: No further questions.
b JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me, I believe 11 :
the last question you misspoke and said non-12',l' in 13 destructive examination.
ja >
MR. DOWNEY: If I did, I did misspeak 15 if I used that term, Judge Grossman. I'll re-ask the 16 ' question.
I 37 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That's all right. The 18 witness understood him to mean destructive examination.
19 f THE WITNESS: That's what I thought h *-
8 20 i said.
I didn't catch that point either.
21 MR. DOWNEY: Thank you for bringing that j l
22 to my attention.
23 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 24 BY MR. BACHMANN:
25 g Mr. Hunnicutt, in response to a previous
____ _ _ _ _ , _ _ . ~ __ .-- - -- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - ~ ~ " ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' '
1SGC5 1
e question, you stated that you were the person who s '
2 0 prepared the allegation packages for the technical i 3l review team or the TRT; is that correct?
4 A That's true.
t t, !i i
5 g In that statement, I want it to be clear '
6j for the record, you do not in any way prepare I 7
allegation packages for the Office of Investigations, !
i 8f or OI, do you?
9 A No, sir.
4 10 MR. BACHMANN: Thank you. No further i
ji questions.
f '
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Just one question. 4 bl In 13
] your investigation of this T-shirt incident, which you i
- 14 j feel was impartial, when you found out that all th re e 15 of the persons you interviewed were opposed to calling 16 the NRC, did you attempt to seek out anyone who was
. i 17 !
! in favor of calling the NRC, such as a person who -
i 18
! actually called whose name you had just learned? ~
19 l
' THE FITNF05: t Mit y I put it slightly in I' I
20 perspective, sir?
i !
i 21 ! JUDGE GROSSMAN: Sure. k
(
22 THE WITNESS: Mr. Ambrose did state that 23 : he thought it would have been an idea to call the NRC, 24 though when we asked him what would you want us to 25 ,
,I accomplish, could or should we accomplish, he had no I
l
~ -'
I
.svud '
1 I I i answer.
We 1 oked on tne list, and with niy l f 2 -
l i
3' spelling of who we later learned to be the individual a,E who had made the call, we did not call him.
! .' He may --
1 5, you know, it's awful easy for me to say that if I'd ;
had two days and used them properly that I wouldn't
- l l 6 I j
)
7 have called all six of the names that were given to f Mr.. Check by Mr. Clements. But I can't guarantee that's g
I don't know.
l' 9i what I would have done.
i JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Hunnicutt, thank you )
I go[
I t" 3
very much for your testimony. You're excused. l t THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.
g3 ,
g3 JUDGE BLOCH: Are Applicants prepared l 34 l:
to respond to the' September 24 motion for production >
l
)
i3 of documents and inter ogatories? l i
16 (No resp >nse.)
l I i JUDGE BLOCH: I guess not. Mr. Downey 17 18 i looks puzzled. It's Mr. Roisman's motion with regard j
\
19 to the --
MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Davidson, I asked him -
20 l i
on Friday I asked him to prepare a response. I belic 2 21 22 the return date was October 2nd, which I --
I' 23 i JUDGE BLOCH: We'll adjourn until 1:00 l
24 l 4
o' clock. ,
' I 25 ! (Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., a recess was i taken until 1:00 p.m., the same day.)
I l
i l
. . _ _ , - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . , , _ . . . , . _ - , -