ML20202A785
| ML20202A785 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/07/1977 |
| From: | Childress W, Dodd H, Fitzsimons J BROWN & ROOT, INC. (SUBS. OF HALLIBURTON CO.) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18052B537 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-59 35-1195-DCP-3, NUDOCS 8607100133 | |
| Download: ML20202A785 (338) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- " ~ November 15, 1974 REVISION 5, March 9 g JOB 35-1195 1 CN WD COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION y ... CPSES r W" + fait PRf1CEDURL'.." 1195 gfigs_rrp_i9 , sA .
'C Ct-8 , ,B 3stEPR000CTIQR1 p
I CONB b( ARMS INDEXED . DCN: W0[Yl35~F?5~0W~ S l MSC: 8 M /,4 ! D G 7 d ? - } TO:?- - /MC FROME-; /~JE1:- APPROVED BY: APPROVED BY:
/
Y! ' W. E. Childress, Jr. H. C. Dodd, Jr. Project Engineer Construction Project Manager PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY:
/[ gm g-//-77 her d. Ouno J E. Fitz mens"
.. P. L. Bussolini
(/ Document Control Suoervisor Quality Assurance (.
~'
BROWN & ROOT, INC. HOUSTON, TEXAS [91 J ,, , 8607100133 860630 _ l V G$DE 9 PDR ,
..w..._....
l .
- u. __. !
l
, . l JOB 35-1195 441 019 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
'Cd tns ri[ction P'ocedure r '
Sheet 1 of 2 INTERIM _ CHANGE NOTICE NUMBER '2 ' This notice applies to Construction Procedure No.~353957 DCP ,, Revision 5 .? f The intent of this change will (X) / will not ( ) be incorporated in the next revision to the procedure. This Change applies: . Until Further Notice ( ) Until the next revision is issued (X) Only as follows: Change the procedure as follows:
- 1. This change notice amends DCP-3, Revision 5 to delete all references to the following types of design change, design deviation, and/or design clarification and interpretation forms and replace them with Design Change /
Design Deviation Authorization (DC/DDA - See Attached Sample Copy):
- 2. Design Change / Design Deviation Request - DC/DD Field Problem / Action Request - FP/AR Field Interpretation / Clarification Request - FI/CR Design Engineering / Change Deviation Request - DE/CD
- 3. Existing DC/DD's, FP/AR's, FI/CR's and DE/CD's that are in effect will remain in effect and be governed by the provisions of DCP-3, Revision 5, until otherwise incorporated or inactivated.
.. .6Er.J INDEX,ED.
u...LDICA ) CAI- L MKDDCP 35-)19s- nr0-3AM 017 7/l 7 4 7 10L M / - F[0 f f f -- 't Reason for change: Required by Section 2.7, Revision 4, TUGC0 QA Plan. 4 ii 11 i This change apprgved by: , , epartment Head d bb _<-v Quality Assurance v sso [ i Reviewed By: . O hhd & v2%/??7 Procedures & Reports Date W
....-.....-,.,-.m....,.. .
. - - . , y ,-g- ,-&m ,,,,.y-, w-,,r, 4,y--- ~
-------y - - -- -- -- - ,
. _ . _ - . . ~ _ . . ......--...:-._:._ _ :...-..~.__ -
Figura 2.7-1 PAGE 1 OF 1 , p. #2. COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 020 o DESIGN CHANGE / DESIGN DEVIATION AUTHORIZATION 441 AUTHORIZATION NO. 2
'-'IKK)(WILL NOT) BE INCORPORATED i.. DESIGN DOCUMENTS.
SAFETY RELATED: X YES NO
- 1. DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE / DEVIATION / CLARIFICATION A. APPLICABLE SPEC /ms mvwMX 2323-SS-17 1 9-30-77 .
Rev. Issue Date B. DETAILS Contractor requests approval to color code embedded portions i of ASTM AS40 and A320 anchor bolts in the Containment Building. j Approval should also extend to ASTM A194 and A540 nuts. l l f JOB No. 3>llW ; I
, / e er .vr sb If 6 -t iOTF d, '
,\ \, _"_:;' _--- J \.
7
- 2. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION {
t Bolts S nuts may'be color coded with a narrow strip of paint not to ; exceed Z" in widtn. The presence or cnloride in tne paint will not : adversely impair the function of the bolt or surrounding concrete. e This approval is oeing granted in advance or rormal design review with concurrence of NY Projects and Engineering. I
- 3. SIGNATURES 7-25-77 A. APPROVED BY: _/ ,
B. APPROVED BY: / ) ? gmA [ P[77 C'. APPROVED B : p ~7 /7 Date'
~
Projec ngineer or Engineering Supervisor
- 4. STANDARD DISTRIBUTION $ 5. DOCUMENT CONTROL c TUSI Dallas (6) B!rR W 4 (1) FOR RECORD ONLY g U TUSI Field (1) B&R Houston (1) FOR CLARIFICATION ONLY TUGC0 Site QA (1) B&R Site QA (1) X NEED TO KNOW I G&H New York (1) B&R Houston QA (1) ALL (AFFECIED) COCL%'I HOLIERS S
. PER ATTACHED LIST w
__- - . -. . . .- . . _ . _ - . _ .-. .- .- _. ~- -. fW d/W JOB 35-1195 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
. ConstructJorCRoceduFa. 3 ,,.
I@_IWCHA_NGC_]!qIISjD[QEQT ^ 'l V
~
This notice applies to . Construction Procedur* E Ni195d AP-3. rs,Re@g5~.;- , The intent of this change will (X) / will not ( ) be incorporated in the next revision to the procedure. This Change applies: Until Further Notice ( ) Until the next revision is issued (X) Only as follows: Change the procedure as follows: ICH #1 is cancelled. This ICN is issued to provide numeric continuity; i.e. ICN #2 to this revision has been issued. ARMS INDEXED Reason for change: N/A CCil: 7~D .Scs//35-09S'- DU .* - rca-IfY M3C: 8 M/J-This change approved by: DI: 778[R6T0: AIdl - FR0h M / - N/A N/A Department Head Quality Assurance Reviewed By:
- w. fh Procedures & Reports 04 v
Af S? Date
.--e-=...~ ._
_ .-.--,. .% w, . .-.-....~-.,--..-->--,r.. . - , - . . , . , - , . . .
'.--..._....--._.,._.,.._.L_,..,,_.___l_l_l_ _l,N
$/- o/.3 35-1195-DCP-3, Nov. 15, 1974 REVISION 5, March 9, 1977 PAGE 2 of 20 LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES The total number of pages in this document is 20. The p3ge numbering sequence
-- and revision status of each page is as follows:
PAGE REVISION STATUS DATE Title Revision 5 March 9, 1977 2 through 20 Revision 5 March 9, 1977 NOTE This document has been completely retyped for convenience in issuing Revision 5. Vertical lines (change bars) appearing in the margin indicate what information was actually changed, added or deleted by Revision 6. 1 j 1
~s - .. _ _
m- -- .___ ___._._.- __. . . _. _:.---.._._u-_.-- _ . _ _ ~ _ _ _ . . . . ._ _ t//- on/ 35-1195-DCP-3, Nov.15,1974 REVISION 5, March 9,1977 PAGE 3 of 20 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE
- 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................... 4 1.1 PURPOSE .............................................. 4 1.2 SCOPE ................................................ 4
- 2. DEFINITION OF TERMS, ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS . .. .. .. 4
- 3. REPRODUCTION ......................................... 5
- 4. REPRODUCTION EQUIPMENT, CONTROL AND COORDINATION .. .. . 9 4.1 EQUIPMENT AND CONTROL ................................ 9 4.2 COORDINATION ......................................... 9
- 5. S U P PO RT ING I NFO RMATIO N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.1 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ................................. 10 5.2 ATTA C HM ENT S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 E.
.. _ _e* - * * * .-- -
- v*P-- -
O 35-1195-DCP-1, Nov.15,1974 REVISION 5, March 9,1977 PAGE 4 of 20 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE 1.1.1 The purpose of this procedure is to describe the activities, functions and responsibilities of the Reproduction Section of DCC at CPSES. 1.2 SCOPE 1.2.1 The DCC Reproduction Section will be responsible for the reproduction of controlled documents (drawings, specifica-tions, procedures and safety related purchase orders) for distribution to construction activ.ities. Approved changes (design changes / deviations, interim change notices, and construction hold notices) affecting controlled documents will also be reproduced for distribution to controlled document copy holders. Additionally, DCC will provide central reproduction for the copying of correspondence, ( lists, forms and internal documents for other site offices and organizations as required.
- 2. DEFINTIIONS OF TERMS, ABSREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS 2.1 Document Control Center - DCC Brown & Root, Inc. - B&R Texas Utilities Services, Inc. - TUSI Gibbs & Hill - G&H Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station - CPSES Distribution Routing and Control List - DRCL Field Design Change Requests - FDCR Design Change / Design Deviation Request - DC/DD Field Problem / Action Request - FP/AR Field Interpretation / Clarification Request - FI/CR Design Engineering / Change Deviation Request - DE/CD (previously known as Change / Deviation Request - C/DR)
Interim Change Notice - ICN Construction Hold Notice - CHN _ - . ~ . . _ . . - . . . . _ . ~ . . . _ .
hW(s 35-1195-DCP-3, Nov.15,1974 REVISION 5, March 9, 1977 PAGE 5 of 20
- 3. REPRODUCTION 3.1 All hard copy reproduction accomplished by DCC must be sub-stantiated by:
1.) A Reproduction Request Form (see Attachment #1). The Reproduction Request Form covers all repro-duction. It is used internally by DCC to account for the number of original sheets /pages/ cards per document, the number of copies made from each original, the requesting organization, and other information relative to copying requirements and processes used for copying.
- and -
2.) A DRCL (see Attachment #2). The DRCL is a com-puter generated printout arranged by control copy number (recipient code) listing the controlled documents being reproduced for distribution (this listing may be manually prepared in the event the ( computer is out of operation).
- or -
3.) A Distribution Summary (see Attactinent #3). The Distribution Suninary is a computer generated printout arranged by controlled document number listing the recipients and quantities reproduced for distribution and is utilized for the repro-duction of approved FOCR's, OC/DD's, FP/AR's, FI/CR's , DE/CD's , ICN's , and CHN's. (SeeAttach-ment 4 through 10). 3.2 All controlled document copies reproduced for distribution will be marked with the controlled copy stamp (below) and the control copy number will be entered in the shaded area of the stamp face (in red) after reproduction. CPSES 35 1195 CONWOC e :
%W/ N C0N
+
-w
4/-et,7 35-1195-DCP-3, Nov.15,1974 REVISION 5, March 9, 1977 PAGE 6 of 20 3.3 Prior to the reproduction of G&H controlled documents (drawings / specifications) for controlled distribution DCC must receive one of the following authorizations: 1.) A G&H transmittal letter stating that the document being issued is not subject to aooroval . 2.) A TUSI Status I letter approving the affected document. 3.) A CHN delineating any construction restrictions p' aced against the use of the document as a result of a TUSI Status 2 letter. 4.) An FI/CR stating that the comments contained in the TUSI Status 2 letter are of a minor nature and will not affect construction. NOTE: The CHN and FI/CR must be prepared and approved by TUSI-Site. ( If one of the above authorizations is not received, DCC will not reproduce the controlled document for distribution; however, DCC will reproduce a preliminary copy for the appropriate B&R Project Discipline Engineer, B&R QA Manager, and TUSI Site Manager. The preliminary copy will be marked with the following stamp: PRELIMINARY COPY THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED AND 15 NOT TO BE USED FOR ANY PHYSICAL CONSTRUCTION ACTIV11Y NOTE: No additional distribution of preliminary copies exceeding that mentioned above will be allowed without appropriate I I project management authoriza-tion on a case-by-case basis.
-- .m
- _ .. 2.m__,_._.. m, _ _ . . ..m. -
- m. . _ .8 . -
. _ _ . _ . _c W-tv3 35-1195-DCP-3, Nov.15,1974 REVISION 5, March 9,1977 PAGE 7 of 20 3.4 When a G&H controlled dxument approval authorization is received by DCC (as outlined in Paragraph 3.3), the docu-ment will be reproduced for controlled distribution to all construction activities and will be marked with the follow-ing stamp:
m 4
== m=
l 3.5 When G&H becomes aware that an imediate change affecting construction is required for a controlled document that has already been approved or is in the approved cycle, GaH will notify TUSI-Site to initiate a CHN against the affected controlled document. I. NOTE: Other organizations involved in the construction of CPSES (i.e. B&R Construction Engineering, TUSI-Dallas, G&H-Site and TUSI-Site) may also request the initiation of a CHN when they become aware that an imediate change affecting construction is necessary. 3.6 TUSI-Site will prepare and issue an approved CHN against the affected controlled document. Upon Receipt of the approved CHN, DCC will reproduce and distribute copies of the CHN to all controlled document copy holders of the affected document. 3.7 The approved CHN becomes an official part of the affected document at the specific issue / revision devel addressed in the CHN and must be marked on the face df all copies of the affected document (in the same manner as idesign changes). A subsecuent issue / revision of the affecded document aute-matically rescinds a previously approved CHN. If the condi-tions necessitating the CHN have not been resolved prior to the issuance of the subsequent issue / revision of the document, G&H must note the " hold" area on the affected document as it is still in effect.
, - w m. e ,. +,,,.y...., ..,.,.,,.,,w,,..., m,.., , , . , , , . . ,
- - . ++-me.+--- . _
W-on 35-1195-DCP-3, Nov. 15, 1974 REVISION 5, March 9, 1977 PAGE 8 of 20 3.8 Request for additional copies of controlled documents, over and above controlled distribution or preliminary copy distri-bution, may be requested at the DCC counter as follows: 1.) Information Copy: An information copy may be requested for use as a "one time" issue which will not be kept-up-to date with subsequent revisions by DCC. It will be the responsibil-ity of the holder of an information copy to ensure that the document has not been super-seded by a later revision. All information copies will be earked with the following stamp, in addition to the status stamp and design changes and/or hold notices. INFORMATION COPY
, THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY.
CONTACT DOCUMENT CONTROL FOR CURRENT STATUS AND REVISION. 2.) Bid Document: Copies of documents may be requested for the preparation of bid pack-ages. These copies will be marked with the following stamp in addition to the status j stamp and any design changes and/or hold i notices. BID _DOCCMF3T .
~.-
4
V/- oon o 35-1195-0CP-3, Nov. 15, 1974 REVISION 5, March 9, 1977 PAGE 9 of 20 - A
- 4. REPRODUCTION EQUIPMENT, CONTROL Af'9 C0 ORDINATION 4.1 EQUIPMENT AND CONTROL 4.1.1 Copy machines located outside the DCC reproduction area are specifically for departmental copying and are not to be used for reproduction of the types of documents listed in items 1 through 5 below. It will be the responsibility of each department manager having cognizance over such copy machines to insure that this procedure is followed. Additionally, signs warning of these copying restrictions will be posted at each copying station located outside the DCC reproduction area.
- 1. Specifications
- 2. Construction Procedures 1
- 3. Drawings
- 4. Limited Distribution Documents k 5. Any documents requiring more than twenty-(20) copies 4.2 COORDINATION 4.2.1 Additional resconsibilities of the DCC which are a matter of business conduct, but which should not be considered "QA Audit" items, are as follows:
- 1. Arrange to have the reproduction equipment serviced and maintained.
- 2. Provide or obtain technical advice and assistance on
- all matters pertaining to printing or reproducing project data.
- 3. Maintain an inventory of adequate supplies for all reproduction equipment.
.I f
l l
w - mem - h w2 - rm m m - -
- 4/-o al j 35-1195-DCP-3, Nov.15,1974 REVISION 5, March 9,1977 PAGE 10 of 20
- 5. SUPPORTING INFORMATION 5.1 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
- 1. TUF-1378, " Drawing Status", Dated March 11, 1976
- 2. GTN-7442, " Drawing Construction Releases", Dated March 12, 1976
- 3. TUF-2719, " Minutes of Drawing Distribution and Status Meeting", Dated February 28, 1977
- 4. TUF-2731, " Construction Hold Notice", Dated March 1, 1977 5.2 ATTACHMENTS
- 1. Reproduction Request Form
( 2. DRCL
- 3. Distribution Sumary
- 4. FDCR
- 5. FI/CR
- 6. FP/AR
- 7. DC/DD
- 8. ICN
- 9. DE/CD
- 10. CHN .
i B Y
+
I W~"" l
- 8 1. .MM mh#4.h .J er.ha mh .wa .a _ a. i e ammnh.AA .ea.mm. .a. d Mm u ma har h a ad 4. me am a . .mma m - .m ..
35-1195-DCP-3, Nov. 15, 1974 REVISION 5, March 9, 1977 PAGE 11 of 20 ATTACHMENT #1 R QUEST FOR , REPRODUCTION , DATE: REQUESTOR NAME: DEPT. DOCUMENT REQUESTED: NO. OF ORIGINALS'(PAGES/CARDST COPIES REQ.* (EA) SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: O SORT OSTAPLE O 3 HOLE PUNCH O FOLD OTHER: DCC USE ONLY DATE: 0 XEROX ,0 MICROFILM PRINT,0 BLUELINE
- TIME: STARTED. COPY SIZE: O e va" x ti" O so"x 4o" COMPLETED O 8 I/2" x 14" 'O 3e x BY:
O it" x 17" O RCLL X EQUIP. USED O 18",X 24" O 24 x se"
\
t
-----+.3 *: <ame- -
e- w +e m . w w g.as.msp e #e - _ - -
- A 4.hedhus&6JashAm a& e'Lf a..ZasA.t. amanshdah a .hLL5 W -
1
- 35-1195-DCP-3, Nov. 15, 1974 REVISION 5, March 9, 1977 PAGE 12 of 20 ATTACHMENT #2 (Reduced Size)
DRAWING C0NTR0L 3Y3 TEM DISTRIBUTION ROUTING CONTROL LIST RECIPIENT 001 DATE 770330 TYP CCD NUMBER SUFX SNO REV NBR LAT3T DATE COMMENTS j RETURN
- M-~=--/
3 G-H 2323-MS-9049 A 2 1 YES 770330 3 G-H 2323-MS-OO69 A 1 2 NO 770314
- U4 1 YES 770330 --+-gr-(' 3 .G-H 2323-MS-0092 A 1 NO 770112
- RETURN
- 81-- p/ -
3 G-H 2323-MS-6092 A 1 RECEIVED B f - &---- ----- DATE - 0 d- 7 7--
'h 'Y lt I .
I 1
\ .M l
l O~7sC
A, htLanha.Ahmaa af hW maahh/. .:ak.AmakamTf .am a hJ hansamod.1a . hah.mhwem ' 35-1195-DCP-3, Nov. 15, 1974 REVISION 5, March 9, 1977 l l PAGE 13 of 20 l ATTACHMENT #3 J (Reduced Size) VENDOR CD G-H VENDOR NO 3b3 M $6b3 huhFX JHEEk kkbh DI3PO3ITION 3TATU3 NUMBER OF RECEIPT NUMBER OF NUMBER OF NUMBER OF FINAL INDIV COPIES FROM COPIES COPIES COPIES DISPOSITION CODE 3 DISTRIBUTED FIELD RETAINED RETURNED VOID / LOST COMPLETED _ 004 002 N 000 000 000 NO 907 001 N 000 000 000 NO 91 1 001 N 000 000 000 NO 013 001 N 000 000 000 NO 022 003 N 000 000 000 NO 023 001 N 000 000 000 NO
. 028 001 N 000 000 000 NO
*040 002 N 000 000 000 NO
( 041 001 N 000 000 000 NO 044 001 N 000 000 000 NO
"" 000 046
~001 N 000 000 NO 047. _. 001 N 000 000 000 NO 055 001 N 000 000 000 NO 962 001 N 000 000 000 NO
~
4 S
'd
,.m . - - __,t.._ i ._ _ . .m . ...m.-- ---5,-u--- --- -~ - - " ~ " 35-1195-DCP-3, Nov. 15, 1974 REVISION 5, March 9, 1977 PAGE 15 of 20 ATTACHMENT #5 (Reduced Size) Form TCC-273
..a REQUEST NO 231 TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES, INC.
*TNH* ROT
- fit.E CMCHE PM STM MCTC SMICN FIELD INTERPRETATION / CLARIFICATION REQUEST APPLICABLE 3EDIECf/ DRAWING /MMTtTTTY 2323-S-0721 REVISICN: 2 ISSUED DATE S-16-76 Tes' SAFETY RELATED
- 1. STATE.'G:NT CF PRCELEM CR CUESTION: (Attach Infaranca, irg.tiry, if avaitahia)
Request per:11ssion to add construction joint in the elevation 830'-0" slab in the Auxiliary Building 'as described by TWI-620. (Also see RFIC No. C-1013) Regtasted by: B&R 3-18-77 Prepared tr/ I Cate 3-23-77 Or?=a = + n Date jCivi(fcgineer
- 2. ENIDEIRDC REPLY: (Attach em*49 let'.ars, etc.) .
Requested construction icint is aooroved eer G-"'-94 5. 1-fP D An n. _ . _
.;-- **+ e ssya Note: B&R isecetric drawing nunber SA3-0721. S')$"J( 'I C..f f V r -
to be revised and resubmitted. MAR 30 7077 ' kEC11Vr WE RDEeEC THAT CCCPJCICR (IS) CCCCCT) ita- TO PC n ne.d en. I MM / / TrI:2 Resident EnginearnAIE 3-25-77 (Deszy'fz=gdee.. aaprusentat:.vas
- 3. RE3:23T I APPRCraD AS PER Chu DJ%IItc, ' "I Im APPIG E
/
,/ DATE 2[ 7 TJSI P 1ces: Manager ~
Distributicn: TCSI (nat ta*) (6) B&R (Haue ) Gi) G&H (NY) (4) TUSI (Field) (2) BER (Field)kt2) me --we=-**- m ****
..u A ww s,. - - - ---c..----
~
35-1195-DCP-3, Nov. 15, 1974 REVISION 5, March 9, 1977 PAGE 16 of 20 ATTACHMENT #6 (Reduced Size) ZatM*TUSI-DR-2 REQUEST NO.452 TEIAS UTILITIES CENERATINC COMPANT CNANCE/DEVIATICN COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECT 2IC STATICN tKgtt (WILL NOT) TNH. ROT. FILE FIELD PROBLEM / ACTION REQUEST BE INCORPCRATED. MON-SAFETY RELATED CHANCES CMLY APPLICABLE MICRAWINCCQC;XIIlt 2323-M1-412 RE7ISICN 1 ISSUE DATE 10-25-76
- 1. STAIEMENT OF F10BLIM CE QUESTICNs (Attach reference, inquiry, if available.)
The area where the piping from the yard enters the vast end of the Unit 1 turbine building is on " Hold." _ _ .. witqs ayo ow. - r'c E 1V E D
~~
$ ) uAR'501977 l l See atrached B&R PEIC-M-334 \ t C EITI n
( Requested by TUSI 3-28-77 Propered By Date 3-28-77 Organization Data naca, r.ngu.aer
- 2. INCINEERING REFLTs (Attach confirming lettsrs, .etc.)
Remove the hold frem the lines where they come through the building wall to permit insta1.lation un to the first welded or screwed connection on the incarior side of the building wall. See attached telecen records for TUSI & C&H concurrence. WE REC.M THAT CCNTRACICR (IS) (CX2DQ AUTRCRIZD TO FECCID with const m etien in accordance with the above. TITLE Resident Engineer DATE 3-28-77 Design Engineer Represencative ,
- 3. REQUEST 1 APPROVD AS FE1 ENGINEERING RECOMMt.MDATION ,
_ NOT APPROVED
.k- DATE 8 '7 TSIJesident Manager DISTRIBUTION: IUSI (Dallas) (6) B&R (HoustonV(1). C4H (New York) (2) ;
1 (2 34R (Pield) (2) C&H (Tield) (2) WMMd$ _4
^
. . e e- as e=- . -- a++ _
- * * * * * ' =*
i ._1
, .ma - --wwwhM 35-1195-0CP-3, Nov. 15, 1974 REVISION 5, March 9, 1977 PAGE 17 of 20 ATTACHMENT #7 (Reduced Size)
CHAhCE/CEV f AT10N Figure 2.7-2 (mus ) (u n ._ -) BE 1NCORPORATED. CCKANCHE PEAK STfAM EI.EC*RIC STATICN DESIGN CHANGE /CESIGN DEVIATICN REQUEST Yes Safety Related DC/DD Request No. 263 1.a CRIGINATCR2 TUSI VENDCR X CONSTRUC'!!CN Description of Cesign Change / Deviation Requested: Applicable Spec F r& ~ m ;.; 2323-SS-9 4 7-29-76 Rev. Issue Oace See attachment and TDC1 No. 0413 Justification: See attach =ent and C C2 Ng. 041 A asquest Prepared sby &.a. el 'ger *,,ftle / Civil Engr. :: ate 3-9-77 V k 1.h *US! RESIDENT MANAGER X Recem=end Approval ,/' Rec'emmend Disapproval TUSI B==1% Manager's Signa [J S2/pate 9 ~7 H V
- 2. CESIGN CRCANI:ATION Design Engineer's Ccements: (Changes /ceviation to be Made)
Schedule: Change / Deviation Approved Not Approved Engineer's Signat:.:re Title Cate Indeoerde.t Nsien Fevicer's C=nents: Irv'W Design Paviewer's Sigature Date . Interilaciclhar/ Itevie.e Initials Cate 3. ESI (M) Int- m Cats st=uc :ral Nuclear Resp:r.sible Enginee,r 4""
. w anical '
P:oject Engineer necer_ cal CA APPOT TCR C333;CII31: ctne.e Proj. Ityr. k.cep. Cate P:o3ec- Manager's Signatura Date Distrik ticn: TOSI (P* M ==) (6) BAR (Housten)!(2) C<-NY (2) WM IUM (Fiald) (2) B&R (Field)\l21 G48-Field (2NQ e.--ee _ me wo m *ew == ' '
- 2. m . _ s . c. m 1 s . m u._ m _.__.m,_...._._._.._.m_._.. _.
~
l 35-1195-DCP-3, N re. 15,1974 REVISION 5, Maren 9, 1977 PAGE 19 of 20 ATTACHMENT #9 l (Reduced Size) l I 1 xstcM/rsuim: wu ., ) .
'* CMAMcE/DEYTATC*r arctr .
ROT. Spec, File 'rUCt. M SA.s m .qr*.A m m .g Approval - TGH-42S7 Canase/Destanos o a a Jon.'No. f 32'S A assoastad 3r: Ortsinasce Ret. No. o&5 C Chasse/Deviacica Requeat No. ~~ M ) Voodos $ DMGM-Wil.1 AM4ETTE (bW) ygou J.M.susTw g,ocA ;;CM Ct.ts Tod ,4.7. c746 safweece %:nmens 232'5 -Ms-n . mar. 2 Date W.-to T4 r
. DMCN Cl* CMANCE/DEYTATTCM REDUE5"""J?
B-W PRaposts w uss ASTM A-70A NNN. "" *[ TEST 91909CT3 A4D % EAT MGM51R4 AMD CL'.9t.TtFT %d's ASM MRT=.a.i Au ro A%xs MATritt Au ii4 Tu's.sg psey oto pacts.rrY
'FCE d5E l4 'Cou3T11tue.Tt00 8W TnC ?)CE MTG.S.
Em2fvrEMrNo .'es? 7*CA TCM s'Cn AsCvE-ASTM MaML AL ro na can:Tgs tilbio NSME MATEEs hw N Sec.T..a = Asut caos , m\ etis sa.va.w. MB-2 soc. Arwxr c. "\ ;. ( IS'74 OtT404 gDNLA MM \7.'2,0 t% Ac::.t?"'AELt1 CEANCE/DCvtAT.I.CM REQUEST PRE, PARED ST: I.M O ODO Tm. mc . e. . Du i- ~ r DISC:Pt.DfE JCB CfCINEER'S CouMENT."s
.Na-*- .
la chasse reportable ender 10 CTR 30 Parm. 33e. TES C NO Q o a a Docuseats Acected: N1'#*M3-U J Ee W. 2 "l%TC \" * % O*"N Cthat Documents Acected: CHANCE /DEVIAT CM REOUEC: Approved I Not Approved C seTrasac:Pupt arvTrvs J.E. /% Due /*/ 77 I I t=*** I 0** QA.Desisa versication i,- i - .
*=== t -- t I ,
E ' ry < .
- De.Ya Reno. E- .f -. cue /-2 5- > 7 i , ..
Project manaser. A,wed det Approved C Staasure Due f-/ *7 7 se. ts Can.../Denute. :=iesseted %>/ Ca ntus C J.E. '3cgpyg gg ggg rinai em.o ro: .. E c rIy E q s O u O s O N O AM C C C Ownt O MAR 301977 P 8 O QA C Prtat Dept. C (ggggyE . May 14, 1976 jd- _
~-6.*~ . oom. -- ee
y .. _ m . t . m .x . . _ _ . .;,_..m.,,._., w. .; ,.. _. m __. _..._____,_.,_._,.u,_ .m __m ~ . 35-1195-DCP-3, Nov. 15, 1974 REVISION 5, March 9, 1977 PAGE 20 Of 20 ATTACHMENT #10 (Reduced Size) CONSTRUCTION ROI.D NOTICE JOS NO. 351195 j E C E1V E REQUEST NO. 1 ORIGINATOR TUSI - Jobsite 1 1 1..E C E 1.V E. APELICABI.E IIIR/ DRAWING /nermgIII 2323-El-1103 5 2-7-77 Rav/ Issue Data DESCRIPTION OF HOLD NOTICE All embedded conduits above elev. 793' 0". The north wall of the Service Water Intake Structure was olaced to elevation 794' + without placement of embedded conduits. New locations for these conduits and other conduits affected by this deletion must be resolved before work can continue. Contractor should consider that continuing rebar placement may compound proble s with future conduit installatien. Note: This is a combination of construction error and designed in interrerence ostween concuu;s aus soccur.i saiu.~wu-- 6 w4 in slab. Engineering evaluation must be performed to some degree. REQUEST PREPARED BY / N TITLE Elect. Engr. DATE 3-15-77 APPROVED I._./ IS f f DATE 3 /b IUS siden: Manager e o s l DISTRIBtfrION:TUSI TUSI (Field) (Dallas)(2)(6)B&RB&R (Field) (Houston) (2)/G&H (2) G4R (New York) (2) (Field) (2) e = =
-.um---= e.e+-
- e ym..
o _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA B E FO i!E Tile UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LADOR DOB1C HATLEY, ) i 3 l (' 4 Complainant, )
)
) Case No.
VS. ) 84-CRA-23-25 5
) {
7 , bkOWN AND ROOT, ) 6
)
Respondent. ) { 7 l J 9 1U i 11 ORAL ULPOSITION ' 12 OF ( 1) IIEYWARD ASGELL HUTCl!INSON, JR. 14 15 lb A N S ei E R b AUD DEPOSITION of IIEYWARD ASGELL 17 h UT c h 15 b o t. , JR., taken at the instance of the ! 16 C o r.1,l a i n i n t , on t 85, in 19 the noove styled and numbered cause at the Glen Rose 20 Motor Inn, located at Highways 67 and 114, in the l
) 21 City of Glen Rose, County of Somervell and State of 22 Texas, before Sharon L. Szotak, a Certified 23 Shorthand Reporter in and for the stete of Texas, 24 t
pursusnt to the agreenent hereinufter set forth. 25 - l j J[
- C 'j 9 b FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
( (< [* ,
- - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -- :. _ - _ : u = - _ _ w :: ,: .=~_ .
2 1 APPEARANCES:
~
k 2 3 GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT r
~
1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. [ 4 Suite 202 Washington, D.C. 20036 5 By: Ms. Billie Garde
'g u APPEARING FOR COMPLAINANT 7 BISHOP, LIBERMAN, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS
, Attorneys at Law 6 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 9 By: Richard K. 'n a l k e r , Esq., and Carol Resch, Esq. 10 APPEARING FOR RESPONDENT 11 VINSON L ELKINS 12 Attorneys at Law First City Tower '
! IJ Houston, Texas 77002 LY: W. Carl Jordan, Esq.
14 APPEAh1NG FOR THE WITNESS 15 ALSO PRESENT: 16 Hs. Dobie Hatley 17 lb
- e. I 'l 20 21 22 23 24 25 i
PLDLEAL COURT RCPol!TERS
-- --- _. ______ _ n .- __ , 1 - -
?-_-__.____.
3 1 INDEX k 2 WITNESS: liEYWARD ASGELL liUTCHINSON, JR. 3 Examination by Ms. Garde Page 12, 125 I' 4
. Examination by Mr. Walker Page 121 5 ', o bEPOSITION (HUTCl!I!JSOG) E X ill B I T PAGE 7 ', Exhibit 1;u m o e r 1 28 8 Exnibit Number 2 97 Exhibit G u aib e r 3 101 9 Exhibit Number 4 103 Exhibit Number 5 103 10 Exhibit I. umber 6 104 Exhibit !*u b b e r 7 lie 11 Exhibit Number 8 lie 12 13 14 15 1c 17 la 19 2 'J V-21 22 23 I
23 i l FEDERAL COOK? REPORTERS
---- -__ _ _ _ _ ___ _. . J
- .--.=: :=.:.:= : : .=.: = : =.: = :=;.: :===1- .: *: =~ ~:_ :: :_ -.:.:'=~::'.'L .
4 1 A G R E E M E W T 2
, 3 It is hereby agreed by and between the 4 parties hereto through their attorneys appearing 5 herein, thtt this deposition may be signed before '. 6 any Notary Public and thereafter returned into Court 7 and used on tne trial of this cause with the same 8 force and effect as though all requirements of the 9 Rules and Statutos with reference to signature and 10 return had been fully complied with.
11 P RO C E E D I N G S 12 MR. WALKER: Before we get started ( 13 with the deposition, I think we hnve a few 14 housekeeping matters I would like to deal with on 15 the recore. Why don't you go ahead, and then I will 16 deal with mine. I think Mr. Jordan also has a brief 17 statement. 16 MS. GARDE: Okay. I think the only (. . 19 preliminary matters that I have are more by way of 20 introduction. Hr. Hutchinson, my name is Dillie 1-21 Garde. I am a law student with t h'c Governacnt 22 Accountability Project. .I represent Hs. Dobie 23 !!a t i c y in ner Department of Labor action against 24 Brown & Acot. f 25 1 have some questions for you which I'm PEDEP.AL COURT REPORTERS
...=..-.- - . - - . .. ..
.--~3==
5 I sure that you will answer completely based on what 5 2 you know now. And if at any time I ask you a
, J quection, I want you to consider that what I'm ~
4 asking is your full knowledge about that subject at 5 this time. If I want you to clarify a question to
'. 6 what y'o u knew then at a particular dato, I'll ask 7 you that; and if you want to clarify an answer about G what you knew at a particular time, then you be sure 9 and include that in your answer.
10 We are starting at eight o' clock tnis 11 scorning, and I understand Mr. Jordan needs to leave 12 precisely at noon for another appointment. 13 !! ope f u lly , we'll get completed by that time period 14 and we won't have to continue it. If we are not l 15 done at that time, I want to talk about continuing 16 it at another date. That's my only tning. 17 MR. WALKER: Before we get started, 18 I'd like to get on the record, Just very briefly, a
.. . 19 few comments about what's happened over tne last few 20 days. And since you have been participating in 21 what's boon happening and I have not, I'd like for 22 you to confirm my understanding of where we stand.
23 ha. GARDE: Okay. 24 i !! R . WALKER: Will you confirm for the i t 25 record that cuttlement discussions have been going l FEDERAL COURT RLPORTERS
r
- _ _ _ _ ; -- : -- . ==.:- .: ; .:.:: ; : :.:~ :: ;:: : : a ===: =~ = .
6 1 on in this case for at least the past couple of 2 weeks, approximately? 3 MS. GARDE: I have been involved in 4 settlement discussions personally for about a week. 5 I know that there were some motions before that.
'. 6 MR. WALKER: Okay. And will you 7 confirm that thcae discussions occurred in meetings 8 and telephone conversations that altogether probably 9 amounted to several hours?
10 MS. GARDE: Yes. 11 MR. WALKER: It's my understandi,ng 42 that you and one of my law partners were engaged in 13 negotiationc as late as yesterday. Is thht correct? 14 MS. GARDE: Yes. 15 MH. WALKER: Would you agree that in 16 tne course of the negotiations, 'severa1' serious 17 offers of settleuent were proposed on behalf of 18 Brown & Root? 19 M3. CARDE: 1 tnink all nugotiations 20 were conducted in seriousness. 2-21 MR. WALKER: It's my understanding 22 t* a t the last settlenunt discussion yesterday 23 culminated in your communicating Hs. Hatley's 24 regoction of the isst settlement proposal offer on 25 Denolf of brown & Root. Is that correct? l l FELERAL COURT RUPORTERS t w -- = .. . __._- - -
r - 1 i 7 1 . MS. GARDE: That's correct. I 2 MR. WALKER: Ms. Garde, will you 3 confiru that throughout these negotiations, it was 4 repeatedly emphasized to you and other 5 representatives of Government Accountability Project
, 6 participating in the negotiations on Ms. Hatley's 7
behalf that because of Brown & Root's desire to j 8 avoid the costs attendant on further discovery, the 1 1 9 position was clearly enunciated that as soon as the 10 deposition of either Mr. Hutchinson or Mr. Frank 11 Strand commenced, all possibility for settlement in 12 tnir case would be extinguished? 13 MS. GARDE: That comment was made, Mr. j 14 Walker, and 1 took that comment in the context,of 15 all settlement negotiations. 1 16 I can certainly understand your firm's 17 position that there's a certain point beyond which t 18 you will not settle. I think that's probably an
,, 19 imprudent position to maintain 'till death do you 20 part, but that was communicated.
s. 21 MR. WALKER: Okay. I just wanted to 22 be sure that that position had been communicated.
- 23 Was the fact that the position --
that i 24 position had been then communicuted by you or anyone i i 25 cisc, to your knowledge, to Ms. itaticy? FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
_ _ _ = . _ = _ _ _ =_ _ _ _ _ _ : :: . 0 1 MS. GARDE: Yes. 2 MR. WALKER: Who communicated it to 3 Ms. liatley? 4 MS. GARDE: I did. 5 MR. WALKER: Is it your impression
'. 6 tnet Ms. Hatley understood that position?
7 MS. GARDE: Yes. 6 MR. WALKCRs That was communicated. 9 ns. Garde, who advised Ms. Haticy on whether she 10 should accept or re]cet the final offer extended, or 11 at least reached yesterday? I don't know wnether it 12 was extended. 13 MS. GARDE: I did. 14 HR. WALKER: Were you tne only one? 15 MS. GARDE: What do you mean, was I 16 the only one? 17 MR. n'ALK E R : Were you the only one who 18 , advised ner regarding whetner she should accept or
.. 19 reject the offer?
' ~ 20 MS. GARDE: Yes.
?-
21 MR. WALKER: Were you also the one who 22 advised her on her prospects for success in this 23 action and any other claims' that she has or believes 24 she nas hyainst Brown & Root? l i 25 MS. GARDE: I think Ms. Hatley's t l FEDLRAL COURT REPORTERS
. . . . . = . . .
9 1 gotten advice from several m. embers of GAP throughout 2 the coursu of this entire proceeding. So although I 3 have been talking to her primarily in the last week, 4 she's also hud discussions with, 1 believe, Steve 5 Conen and Louis Clark. 6 MR. WALKER: Ms. Garde, were you 7 warned, for the record, that Ms. Hatley had been U informed that once this deposition begins, any hope 9 of settling the case will have been lost forever; 10 that she understands this and that she has, 11 nevertheless, authorized you to proceed with the 12 deposition? 13 IIS . CARDE: Yes. 14 MR. WALKER: Thank you.
~
15 MR. JORDAN: I have one or two matters, 16 Billie. The first matter has to do with the 17 scheduling of the deposition. Inatially, I was 18 advised that Mr. Hutchinson haU been subpoenaed to 19 appcor for deposition last Friday, and I had planned 20 to be here at that time with Mr. !!utchinson.
~s .
21 I was. subsequently advised by Mr. Walker 22 tnat the parties had agreed to postpone Mr. 23 Hutchinson's deposition, and I was advised -- and it 24 was tentatively scheduled, I believe, for Tuesday. 25 1 was advised, I believe late Friday, that -- I l FCUERAL COURT REPURTERS.
- - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.::_ _ _ _ __= :.__
__. :=.;::= = t__ a = 10 1 or it may have been midday Friday -- that the " 2 deposition was now scheduled for Monday morning. At
. 3 that late date, without any additional notice, it 4 was impossible for me to rearrange my entire 5 schedule for today, and my presence is required to 6 be a meeting in Houston, which could not be 7 ' rescheduled, tnis afternoon. That is why I must 8 leave no later than noon. And I just want the 9 record to reflect clearly t'n a t tne deposition must 10 be recessed at that time because of what I view as 11 very short notice that I needed to be here today.
12 I'm not trying to apportion responsibility 13 for that to either side; th't's a Just what I was told. 14 And I have donc my best to accommodate both sides in 15 this regard. But we will have to quit no later than 16 nwon, and it's my understanding that both sides 17 understand that. id MS. GARDE: Yes. Let be respond J. 19 briefly. As I'm sure you aro aware, we were engaged 20 in settlement negotiations, and the basis of those
?-
21 settlement negotiations continuing was our agreement 22 to postpone the depositions, which I agreed to do, I 23 believe, last week, c.i d w e e k , with Mr. Downey. Mr. 24 Downey made the followup schedule wnich had 25 scheduled this deposition for Tuesday. He did not PEDERAL COURT REPORTERS i l
;:.: _ =: ; :.:.--.:.: .: :.- - ~ "~ '- " "- * .=:- -
11 1 realize that I also had an appointment, that 1 could I 2 not get out of, in washington on Wednesday, early 3 morning, and so hc had to push it back. 4 I completely understand your inability to L rescuedule, at the last minute, your schedule. And
'. 6 hopefully we'll be done with Mr. Hutchinson and not 7 have to continue.
6 MR. JORDAN: Second point is, neither 9 Mr. Hutchinson nor I, of course, have been parties lu to any prior communications among the parties with 11 the Judge in this case regarding evidentiary matters 12 anu the proper scope of examination and discovery 13 attendant to this deposition. For that reason, wc 14 will defer to Mr. Walker with regard to any 15 objections or instructions on evidentiary matters, 16 including proper scope of examination. And wnile I 17 reserve tne right to, I will, in all probacility, . 13 not in]ect myself into discovery arguments., I view
. 19 !
that as a matter primarily between the parties to I Ob the case. 3 ; 21 HK. WALKER: Mr. Jordan, perhaps it 22 would be helpful for you to clarify for the record 23 in whct capacity you are appearing nere today. 24 f1R . JURDAN: Yes. I am appearing here 25- Lodcy as personal counsel, legal counsel, to Mr. kEDERAL COURT RLPORTERS
. _ . . . ~ . . . _ . - _ - - _ -
12 1 liutchinson. I am not appearing here today as 2 counsel for Brown & Root in any way. 3 MS. GARDE: Okay.
. Anyone else have 4 any other preliminary matters?
5 IIEYW AR D ASGELL HUTCHIhSON, JR.,
, 6 the witness hereinbefore named, having been first 7 duly cautioned and sworn to t e'l l the truth, the 8 whole truth anc nothing but the truth, was examined 9 und testifieu as follows:
10 EXAMlUATION 11 BY MS. GARUC 12 Q. ri r . 11 u t c h i n s o n , will you please state your 1
, 13 full name for the record, i i
14 A. " ! 15 C. And what is your current position at 16 Comunene P 4 a l. ' 17 A. I im-10 9h le O. Is that your only position? l 20 A. That's my only position. l
. Correct. i ~*.
21 Q. Could you please briefly describe your 22 positions at Comanche Peak with Brown & Koot? 2 ,i A. Okay. If we go back to 1975, I was in thc 24 ! subcontracts department. I 25 v. And this is at C o se.a n c h e Pean? FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS.
13 1 A. Comanche Peak. And in '79, I became 2 project control manager and held that position until 3 January of this year. 4 HR. WALKEh: Off the record for a 5 monent.
. e (Whereupon, there was a 7
(discussion off the r e c'o r u 6 MS. GARDE: While we were taking a 9 snort break, we were joined by Ms. Dobie Haticy, the ! 10 complainant in this action, and she'll be assisting i l 11 me through the deposition. 12 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) Mr. hutchinson, could you 13 confirm what 1 Just wrote down in my notes: That 14 you were in charge of the paper flow group from 1990 3 15 until January of this year, 1985, at which time you lo took over as a supervisor of the Unit 2 paper flow 17 group; is that correct? 18 A. No, it's not entirely.
., 19 Q. Okay. I'm sorry.
20 A. In '79 became project control manager, and l 21 that lasted until -- that position lested until 22 January of this year, at which time I took over the 23 paper flow group. 24 c. I see. i 25 v. And do you have a college degree? FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
m
- .__..___ _ _ _ _ _ __._a _ m____.___ ___ u_ ._ _ _.:_ = __ ___
14 1 A. No, 1 do not. 2 Q. What is your' highest level of education? 3 A.
. Completed one year at the Unisorsity of 4 South Carolina.
5 c. Ant
. 6 A. Li '--
7 C. And who was your supervisor curing the time G period that you were project control manager? If 9 you could just give me the title first, and then the 10 different people that filled that position. 11 MR. WALKER: Are you asking for the 12 person to wnor he reported? i 13 MS. GARDE: Yes. Fron '79 to '85. I 14 A. Onay. In '79, I reported directly to the 15 project manager. 16 C. Who was, at that time? 17 A. Miss Eubie Douglas. At some point in '79 12 it was Doug Fran um. And in 1960 it was Dan Hicks.
., 19 And probably in late '83 --
20 HR. WALKER: Mr. Hicks did not become 21 project manager, did he? 22 THE WITNESS: No. He was a 2J procurement and controls manager for TUGCO. 24 MR. WALKER: So you were reporting to 25 a different person in a different position at that FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS l
_ _ _ _ _ _ : = __.c _.:. ====.cr a _ _ _ _ 225.d^"- ~ ~ -- CCC 2CL 15 1 point in time? 2 Tl!$ WITt!ESS : That's correct. 3 O. (DY MS. GARDE) And that was from 1980 to -- 4 A. Probably the latter part of '83. 5 O. okay.
. 6 A. And then it was Bob Gentry, and now it's 7 Bill. baker. I think that pretty well clears the gap.
3 C. During the time period that you were under 9 Mr. liichs and tnen Mr. Gentry -- Let me see if 1 10 understand this -- did Mr. Gentry take over for Mr. 11 lii c k s as project control manager or procurement 12 control manager? 13 A. Yes, he did. 14 C. Okay. So from 1930 until your change to 15 unit -- your Unit 2 position, you were under the 16 procurement control manager? 17 A. That's correct. la Q. Okay. Could you pleasc describe for me
* . 19 your duties anc responsibilities in that position?
20 MR. WALKER: In which position? 21 MS. GARDE: Under procurement control 22 manager, starting in 1980. 23 A. Starting in 1980, it would -- I would have 24 been in charge of the procurement group, which had i 25 purenasing, subcontracts and expediting. And FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS .
- = _ _
- a _ = :.__ _ : ___.: _:.c.b.ii'ir _:.__._c i:.__;____ = b r ___ __
16 1 another group would have been the cost and 2 estimating group. And in tia y of '82, I assumed
. 3 responsibility fo'r document control in addition to 4 the others.
S Q. And when was the first contact that you had 6 with Dobie Hatley? 7 A. It would have been after May of '82. I 8 don't recall how soon uiter. 9 Q. Do you recall what position Ms. Hetley was 10 in when you had your first contact with her? 11 A. As best I can remember, it was -- she was 12 in charge of the night shift. 13 v. Did you nave any involvement in Ms. 14 Hatley's hiring at the Comanche Peak sit'e? 15 A. No, 1 did not. 16 O. Did you have any involvement in Hs. 17 Hatley's transfer to night shift supervisor? 13 A. No.
.- 19 Q. Did you have any involvement in Ms.
20 hutley's assignment to document control, DCC7 21 A. No. 22 O. At what point did you assuno the 23 responsibility as one of Ms. H6ticy's supervisors? 24 A. Well, it had to have been when I assumed 2L doeunent control, and tl.6 t was in May of 'U2. FUDERAL COURT REPORTERS
.- .... .. .- - .J -
_...r..--..~ _ . ~ - ; - ..- -- :-~ .-.-~a---- 17 1 Q. And at that time, as you stated, she was ( 2 night snift supervisor? 3 A. She was on night shifts. On the night 4 shift.
~
5 U. Do you know whether she was night shift 6 supervisor? 7 A. No, I don't.
~
8 Q. When you assumed that position, did you 9 h6ve responsibility -- When you assumed the position 10 over document control in May '82, did you also 11 assume the responsibility of personnel actions for 12 those people in document control? 13 A. Those two would go hand in hand, yes. 14 Q. Okay. And did that responsibility include 15 hiring? 16 A. I didn't get involved in direct hiring. 17 0 Did you hpprove candidates selected by 10 supervisors unuerneath yourself?
, , 19 A. State your question again, please.
20 Q. Okay. You said you did not get involved in
- ~
21 niring directly. Did you approve the hiring of 22 personnel donc by others in document control? 23 A. The only involvement I had would have -- I 24 would have approved the requisitions for tne labor. 4 25 They would not have gone down to individual approval FCDERAL COURT REPORTERS
. .. - -.-.. ~. - . . . . . - - __
______-.---____w--.-__ 18 1 per person. ( 2 O. And wno had the authority to hire for 3 document control during that time period? 4 A. Frank Strand.,
. s' 5 MR. JORDAU: Wnat time period?
G MS. GARDE: Unicas I say otherwise, my 7 questions are going to be from May '62 until he left i . 6 and went to Unit 2 paper flow group. 9 0. So if those change, like if I ask you a 10 question and it was different during that time 11 period, clarify that, please. ' 12 A. Yes, I need to clarify that. Strand would 13 have had it from 'G2 until March of '84. 14 c. Okay. Did you nave responsibility for 15 terminating employces during that time period? And 16 do you understand what I mean when I say that time l l 17 period? 18 A. I would have been involved in the process
- . 19 of terminating employees, yes.
20 Q. And what coes that mean? 21 A. In all likelihood, if it was a voluntary 22 termination, then I would have known about it and 23 that would have been probably the end of it. But if 24 it was something other than that, then I would have i 25 been directly involved in it. FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
"===
^
=::.:-- ~ : .: = ~ & ~ ' - - - -
-_._'-" 2&
19 1 0 Okay. Were you involved in promoting 2 people?
. 3 A. Yes. Those things would have crossed my 4 desk.
9 5 O. By cross your desh, you mean you would have 6 had to sign something? 7 A. I would have had to have signed something, 8 yes. 9 Q. Would you have been involved in demoting 10 pecple? , 11 A. I would have bcon party to discussions that 12 led to any demotions, yes. 13 O. In the normal course of business, would you 14 have hed to sign something in a demotion? 15 l A. If it had required a reclassification, then i 16 l I would have had to sign it, yes. 17 Q. What about transferring people? lb A. Interdepartmental transfers would have l- 19 required my signature. I 20 ! Q. wnat about disciplinary actions? 21 MR. WALKER: Disciplinary actions 22 other than terminations, transfers and demotions? 23 MS. G A R D L': Other than those that -- I 24 O. For example, three days off without puy. 25 A. I don't recall any -- 1 don't rech11 any FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
l
- - - - - - - a. = - .: :. :.:.: - -.:= .; : .== = = :.=.: .::.r :: =.1 .: :: =.:: .:6.h=.=.:: . l 20 l
l 1 instances like that. -
)
2 Q. If there would have been any instances like
~
1 3 that, would you have been involved in then? 1 4 A. Well, probably. 5 Q. Could you pleuse describe the procedures
, 6 that you would follow when there was consideration 7 for terminating an employee?
6 A. I don't think I'd call them procedures. As I 9 a natter of -- I guess as a metter of rule, if a 10 supervisor had a problem with one of his unployces, 11 tnen he would tell me what that problem was and i 12 jointly we'd probably make a decision on what to do 13 witn it. 14 Q. Hypothetically, in a discussion such as 15 you've described, would you have to go higher than 16 you to get approval to terminate someone? 17 A. Tnere's certain reasons or certain 18 categories of termination that do require, you know,
. 19 a higner level of approval than mine.
20 Q. And what are those? 21 A. I don't recall all of them. Some of them -- 22 This is noted on the termination slip. One of them 23 would be, you know, narcotic related or theft or 24 that sort of thing. 25 O. Oxay. l l l FLDERAL COURT REPORTERS _.,m
- . - . - - ... .. - . - -.--...a . = . . . . . - - - ~ .c.~~.~.w- -
21 1 A. And then as a matter of rule, I think I 2 pretty well kept our project manager informed when I 3 terr.inated someone.
. 4 0. Mr. Hutchinson, I'm going to show you a 5 copy of a termination slip, and at this point I'm 6 r.o t ready to put it into the record because I have 7 some questions on it later. For the purposes of the a question tnat I'll just ask you, just pretend it's a 9 blank termination slip.
i 10 .A . Okay. 11 O. And would you identify those categories 12 that require higher authority than yourself to 13 terminate someone? i 14 A. I think it alludes in the column here with 15 the usterisk. 16 0. Could you read them for the record, pleasc. 17 A. " Alcohol related, narcotics related, le i security / theft and other."
, 19 Q. And "other" is supposed to be some kind of 20 unusual -- ~
21 A. It would be sometning that wouldn't bc 22 categorized in the above list. 23 O. Okay. To the best of your recollection, 24 ; Mr. M u t cis i n s on , roughly how many people did you 2L terminate, in your position as document control ! I'E D E RAL CGURT REPORTI.hS
_ _ :.== ::.:_.:=.;. ;. _ 2.'.hf.ih&='2h __ .:it rnh2__ __ _._' br2 rr _._ . 22 1 supervisor, from that department? i 2 (Witness and counsel confer). 3 A. State that one more time. 4 0 Okay. During the time period that you were -- 5 from May '82 to March of -- strike that. 6 What's the ending date that you were over 7 document control, that you didn't have that as a O responsibility anymore? 9 A. Thbt ended in October of '84. 10 c. Okay. During the time period.from May of 11 1962 to October '84, when one of your 12 responsibilities was supervisor over cocument i 1J control, how many people did you terminate in that 14 department? 15 MR. WALKER: Ms. Garde, can you give 16 se a reuson why terminations subsequent to February 1 17 7, '84, would be relevant to this proceeding? 10 MS. GARDE: Well, Mr. Walker, I
.' - 19 certainly think that the termination practices, 20 which we are alleging were not followed in Ms.
21 Haticy's termination, are relevant to this 22 proceeding. I'm not going to pursue anyone who's 23 been terminated ad nauscum. I have a lot of 24 questions I want to ask, particularly about Ms. 25 Itatley's termination. I want to understcnd how the s
, FEDERAL COURT h E P O ll T E R S
3 .. - --- - _ 3- . --- 3--- -----------3 23 1 procedure worked, how common this was, how often it (' 2 happened. It's a background question. 3 MR. WALKER: Okay. To the extent the 4 question calls for information relating to b t e r mi na~t i on s occurring after February 7, 1984, I 6 will object to the question on the grounds that it 7 calls for infor5ation irrelevant to the issues in 8 tnis proceeding. But you may answer. 9 MR. JOEDAN: Ms. Garde, I would like 10 to make an objection which I think you can remedy. 11 both times you put the question, I think tnat you 12 termec Hr. Hut.chinson's position as supervisor over , 13 document control, which I think is inconsistent with 14 his prior testimony. If you could -- you know, I 15 think the record reflects that he -- that the 16 supervisor of docunent control reported to him. I 17 thinx that ought to be clarified. 18 MS. GARDE: Yes. Okay. I will stand
* . 19 corrected on that cescription.
20 C. (BY HS. GARDE) I understand that 21 supervision of that department was one of your 22 responsibilities, so in that capacity Mr. Strand 23 answered to you; is that correct? l 24 A. Tnat's correct. s Q. 2 a_ Okay. Now, could you answer the quest 2on i l 1 l FEDERAL COURT REPOHTEKS
. - . . . . . . . ~ . . -
24 1 how many people were terminated during that time I 2 period of May '82 to October '84? 3 A. It's going to be a guess.
~
4 Q. 1 understand. 5 A. Four or five.
. 6 Q. Okay.
7 A. Just pure guess. 1 3 Q. Mr. Hutchinson, can you r e m e n:b e r , as 9 closely as possibic, what day the decision was mado 10 to terLinnte Doble Hatley? 11 Y The final decision would have been made 12 February G. 13 C. knd who did you discuss the finci decision i i 14
~
to terminate Dobie Ilatley? 15 A. With whom did 1 discuss it? 16 C. Uh-huh. . 17 A. Would have been Frank Strand and Doug le Frankum and Ray Yockey.
- - l ') O. When is the first tiac you recall a 20 discussion about terminating Hs. fla tl e y ?
9 21 A. Would have been midwcek prior to the 6th. 22 Woulc be around the 1st of February. 23 Q. And wouJd you please tell me about that 24 first discuccion, when the issue first came up and 25 how it came up? !!ight not have been a discussion. l FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS i
~
;I' ~
_ : :.- _ _ _ :.: - : -.: : ;. - :.:--.- : = = .:.=. - : = _ .:-.- - _ _ .: := - - ~ .:.:. 25 1 A. Well, it came up as Frank and I were I 2 discussing what we had found in 306 and, you know, 3 why we had found what we found.
. And I really don't ~
4 recall who orought it up first, whether it was Franh 5 or myself. That's the first discussion I remember.
. 6 C. And do you recall whose suggestion it was 7 to terminate Ms. flatley? l 8 A. I really can't remember. We talked about 9 it, but I don't remember who said it first.
10 Q. Was the decision made, at that first 11 meeting, to terminate her? 12 A. No, it wasn't. I told Frank that I'd make 13 my final decision on that Monday morning, that I 14 wanted to tnink about it over the weekend. 15 0 !!o w many discussions can you recall with 16 eitner Mr. Strand or others about Ms. Hatley's 17 termination? 18 A. Frank and I talked frequently during that
- . 19 week, and I really don't r e c a .. I hcw many times it 20 came up.
1 l I was more concerned about what we'd found 21 rather than -- I just don't remember. 22 Q. Did you have any discussions with 14 r . 23 Gordon Purdy about terminating Ms. Hatley during I l 24 that w e e r. ? 25 A. Uc. i i F E D I: R A L COURT. REPORTERS ? . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . - . . . . - - . . .- - - - . . - . . - ~ - . . .-.-:-...-- _
26 1 Q. Did you have uny discussions with Mr. t~ 2 Merritt about terminating Ms. Hatley? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Did you have any discussions with Mr. Al 5 Smith about terminating -- 6 A. Mister who? 7 Q. Mr. Al Smith, about terminating Ms. 11u t l e y . 8 A. No. 9 Q. Did you have any discussions with Mr. 10 Yocney that wcek about terminating Ms. Hatley? 11 A. First time I would have talked to Kay would 12 have been that Monday,, the 6th. ( 13 C. Did you have any discussions with Mr. 14 Frannum, coout terminating Ms. Batley, that week? 15 A. 14 0 t until Monday, the 6th. 16 O. And if I asked you about this, excuse me. 17 Did I ask you if you had any discussions with Mr. 18 Merritt that week 7
, , 1J A. You did.
20 V. Okay. And the answer was "No"? 21 A. The answer was "No." 22 G. Mr. Hutchinson, you were somewhat vague -- 23 and I can understand that since it's almost a year 24 ogo that we're talking about these events -- about 25 the number of discussions tne week prior to Ms. FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
. , _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ - - - - - - ~ ~ . - - . ~ - - - - - -- .-
27 1 Hatley's termination. But I want you to take as 2 long as you need to try to remember how many
~
3 discussions, specific discussions, there were the
. 4 week prior to the termination.
5 MR. JORDAN: Ms. Garde, I think he's 6 already testified that he can't recall the precise 7 number. If you want him to take a moment and tnink 8 back, that's fine. 9 MS. GARDEs 1 do. 10 MR. JORDAN: But I will instruct the 11 witness that unless he can recall, he's not 12 obligated to make a guess. 13 MS. GARDE: I am really not intorested 14 in him guessing. I want him to take a couple of 15 minutes to think about that week. It's going to be 16 obviously a week that I have a lot of questions 17 about. ld O. (BY MS. GARDE) So if you would, please 19 take a minute. 20 MR. WALKER: If I could, your question 21 is a cit a=biguous. 22 MU. GARDE: Okay. 23 MR. r/ A L K E R : You said specific 24 ciscussions but you diun't say on what topic. i 25 Ms. GAhDE: The termination-of Ms. FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ w = :: : =.;;;.:.:::. ::.= -2.___ _ __ 26 l S 1 Hatley. , i 2 f tR . WALKER: Okay. 3 A. I really can't put a number on it. ~ 4 Q. (BY llS . GARDE) Mr. Hutchinson, as we go 5 through the rest of this deposition, if you recall
. 6 any discussions that ,you are not remembering right 7 now, woula you please tell me that?
e A. Surely. 1 9 O. If I ask you a question or sor.ething 3 cgs 10 your uencry and you remember having another 11 conversation that you can't think of right now. 12 would you please tell me? i 13 A. Surely. 14 Q. Mr. 1utchinson, I'm going to show you a 15 cocument I'd like to mark as Exhibit 1, which is a 16 meco fron yourself and Mr. Strand to Mr. Yockey 17 about the termination of Mn. Hatley. And I have 16 some questions about it. J. 19 (Witness perusing document) 2G Q. Have you seen this document before? 21 MR. JORDAN: Excuse me, Ms. Garde. 22 MS. CARDE: I'm sorry. 23 MR. JORDAN: Mr. liutch2nson, as you 24 are handed documents to be examined about, you hre 25 entitled to take whatever tiac you need to review FEDERAL COURT REPORTLRS
_.a _ w ._._ _ _ : :_ 29 1 the document before answering questions. Sorry. Go ( 2 ahead. 3 MS. GARDE: That's okay.
~
4 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) If you'd look up, Mr.
.5 Hutchinson, when you are donc looking at it, and I 6 will ask you my question again.
7 A. Okay. U G. Why don't you keep it there. Have you ever 9 seen tnat document before? 10 A. Yes. Al C. Is that your signature on the bottom 12 right-hand side of that document? 13 A. Yes, it is. 14 c. Okay. . I 15 MR. . WALKER: I might point out that 16 there are two sig^ natures on the bottom right-hand 17 side. I assume the witness is only claiming credit le for one of them.
- f. 19 A. The bottom one is mine.
20 Q. Now, the document, as the recoro will show, 21 is a list of six items on a piece of paper 22 uncerneath a very short introductory paragraph. And 23 I have a couple of questions about that, so let mc 24 reau that in the record ano I will give at back to i 25 you. FuDERAL COURT hEPOhTERS 7 __- -
-:== ====~ ~
rr_____._2___'rr __._2LK__._____
, 30 1 "Dobie Hatley is terminated effective f
2 February 7, 1984, for failure to obey instructions.
. 3 This termination decision is based upon recent 4 observations and findings within those areas of 5 Dobie's work responsibilities. Specific areas of 6 deficiencies are listed below."
/ Now, as to the second sentence, Mr.
O I G Hutchinson, about recent observations and findings, 9 do you see that sentence? 10 A. Uh-huh. 11 Q. Could you please describe for sc , w hat those 12 recent observations and findings were? , lJ A. What I had reference to there were the 14 audit reports that had been generated by the DCC 15 monitor la for the prior -- that I guess were taken 16 during the prior wecx. - 17 Q. Is tnat all that you are referring to in 18 that sentence?
,- 19 A. That in addition to having talked to some 20 of the people who were associated with the DCC 21 monitoring team.
22 Q. ilh e t procedure was used to do the audit by 23 the DCC monitoring team? Did you say DCC monitoring 24 teau? 25 A. Yes. PEDERAL COURT REPORTERS ; _l _ . . -
--------_-----_w^------- -
31 s 1 0 What procedure was used to accomplish that I 2 audit? 3 MR. WALKER:
. If you know.
4 A. DCP-3. S 0. Was it a normal audit under DCP-3?
. 6 A. There are a couple of paragraphs in DCP-3 7 cnct tell you what stepc you go through, the 9 monitoring team goes through, and they would have 9 donc it in accordance with that procedure.
10 MS. GARDE: Mr. Walker, at the 11 beginning of the deposition you did not produce any 12 douuments which were responsive to our discovery 13 requests or under our subpoena duces tecum. Do you 14 have any documents to give me?
~
15 MR. WALKER: I do not on the grounds 16 tnat tne subpoena, to the extent that it called for 17 tne production of documents, was void and was issued 18 in defiance of an order by the presiding
., 19 administrative law Judge confining any further 20 ciscovery after November 1, 1964, in this proceeding 21 to those discovery procedures that were scheduled on 22 or before August 10, 1964, and could have been 23 completed by August 15, 1954.
l 24 MS. GARDE: And it's your position l 25 that the documents that we requested Mr. tlutchinson FEDERAL COURT hEPORTEkS
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - w - - _ _ _ _ _;, _ :. _ _ = _.:~ = -. 32 1 to bring with him to this deposition are not 2 incorporated in that? 3 HR. WALKER: No. It's my position 4 that the documents -- It's my position, first of all, 5 that by August 10, 1984, you had served no subpoenas
. G in this action. We had a deposition, in fact we had 7 t-o depositions seneduled, if you will recall, over 6 my objection, for tne day before trial. Judge 9 Halpern had ordered that you would be permitted to 10 take the depositions of M 'r . Hutchinson and Mr.
11 Strand, tnat you could have one of them in tne 12 morning and one of them in the afternoon. There was i l 13 never any paper issued and no documents subpoenaed 14 or otherwisc requested incident to the taking of 15 that deposition. Ic I think the order of November 1, 1964, is 17 c 1'c a r and unambiguous in restricting you to what you 18 had scheduled and could have completed by August 15,
. 19 1964. And since no subpoenas had been served, no 26 document requests hud been served, then 1 don't 21 tnink you are entitled to discovery of any d o c u nie n t s .
22 MS. GAhDE: No document request has 23 been served 7 24 MR. WALKER: Prior to August 10, 1984, 25 tnet's correct. FEDERAL- COURT REPORTERS .
-~__. - _ _ __ _-
.. . ___ m. __,__.____.m. _. - - .------ - -
33 1 MS. GARDE: Okay. Well, I understand 2 your position. I'm going to take exception with it, 3 and I certainly am going to try to schedule 4 something with Judge Halpern maybe this afternoon, 5 becouco tnat's completely unreasonable and totally 6 out of line with the agreement that we had. But I 7 don't want to waste time on it now, t I understand B what your position is. 9 0 (BY MS. GARDE) Do you remember the number 10 of that audit with that -- 11 Mk. WALKER: Excuse me, Ms. Garde. 12 Now, you nave referred to an agreement that we had. 13 Ulli you enlighten me as to what agreement you're 14 referring to? 15 MS. GARDE: Well, as I understand it, 16 we are entitled to take the deposition of Mr. Strand 17 and Mr. uutchinson. We all entered into settlement , 18 negotiations in August with the good faith agreement i 19 that if those settlement negotiations fell through, 20 wnich they subsequently did, that we would go foward 21 on oiscovery and rescheduling of the hearing and any 22 other matters tnat needed to be taken care of. So 23 we postponed, es I recall, any discovery at all on 24 your part or ours. I i l 25 MR. WALKER: Jell, let me enlighten FEDERAL COURT.REFORTERS
1
- - - a - - - - _ _ _ i== =u .= *;.;; ; -
' = .: := = : :=.:: =-2 h* _ t .~ :.
34 1 you on that, since you -- t 2 MS. GARDE:
. I don't want to use up my
. 3 time on this argument. We're not goin'g to get any 4 closer than we already are. You're not going to 5 give me the documents and I want them. So we can 6 argue that after Mr. Hutchinson is gone.
t 7 MR. WALKEk Fine. U O. (BY MS. GARDE) Can you remember the numoer 9 or the cudit, Mr. Hutch'inson? 10 A. No. 11 O. Who performed the aucit? 12 A. Initially it would have been Phyllis Wells (_ 13 end -- I can't remember the other girl's name. 14 Q. How many other girls? 15 A. There would have been a series of people. 16 Phyllis was involved in it. Kay Norman 'was involved 17 in it. And, of course, Strand was in it pretty le heavy. I just don't remember all those names.
~ .- 19 0. liow many days did it take to do this audit?
20 HR. WALKEk If you know. 21 A. I really don't know. 22 Q. Old it start the Monday prior -- the Monday 23 prior to her termination? 24 A. Tnat's wnen it got into full gear, yes. a 23 5 tarted that Monday, as best I can remember. FEDEhAL COUR7 REPORTEh3
e a _ _. _ _ _.: - _ 35 1 1 Started that Monday. ( 2 Q. Did it go all week? 3 A. I know it went all week, and it as best 4 I can remember, it went on into the next week. And -- 5 I really can't remember.
. 6 Q. And do you know what shift it was done-on?
7 Was it done during the day shift, dono during the d night shift? 9 A. During the day shift, as best I can 10 remember. 11 Q. .N o w , was an audit document ultimately 12 written up, an audit report, of this audit of 306? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And when did you see the written audit? 15 A. I wouldn't have seen the entire report 16 until it was all over. 17 C. Which was when? IJ A. I really don't- know. Now, those things 19 were generated, you know, daily, and I saw them 2U daily. But the entire thing, I don't remember. 21 Q. Could you describe for me the type o f-
- 22 document that was generated daily?
i 23 A. It was on a form that I think the title was 24 DCC 21onitoring tie mo r a nd u n or something along those 25 lines. i FCUCRAL COURT REPORTERS 1
.r.: _: _ __ _.__ _ u .._ ::r_ _ u = .r_*
r'_.= O r : _ _ C _ _ __ C r '~ ~' _ 36 1 0 And to the best of your recollection, when 2 is the first time that you saw one of those forms 3 during thic audit? 4 A. It would have been early in that week, 5 prior to the 7th or the 6th. 6 Q. By early in the week, you mean Monday or 7 Tuesday? I 6 A. Tuesday or Wednesday. 9 Q. Did you require any substantiation of tnc 10 audit findings?, Did you take the audit findings ut 11 tace value? 12 A. I'd have to say yes. That in addition to, 13 you know, ciscussing with Frank. 14 O. And this audit whs only done in 3067 15 A. At that particular time, yes. 16 Q. It was later expanded to the other 17 satellites? 10 A. That's correct.
~. 19 O. And do you rer o 't er then the audit was 20 expanded?
21 A. It would have been when we got tnrough with 22 the 306, and I don't know when that was. 23 C. Was it after Ms. Ilatley was terminated? 24 A. Yes. 25 G. Did Brown & Root notify TUGC0 of tne FEDERAL COU1;T REPokTERS
_ --- ... _-. - -~--__ c 37 I results of that audit?
'I 2 A. I'm sure I discussed it witn Dan Hicks, who
, 3 is TUGCO.
4 O. And when would tnat discussion have been? 5 A. Probably been during that same week. 6 Q. Arc you aware of any written communication 7 between brown & Root and TUGCO about the results of o the audit? 9 A. !J o . None that I can recall. 10 0. Did anyone from TUGCO, or any of your 11 supervisors, review the results of the audit? 12 11R . WALKER: If you know. 13 A. I really don't know that. 14 Q. Now, Mr. Uutchinson, I want you to try to 15 remember when you discovered any prob _ ems with Iis. 16 hatley's performance of her duties prior to the week 17 that we're discussing that the audit was done. la A. Frank and I talked about it probably in the
.' 19 latter part of December or early January.
20 C. And what was the nature of that discussion? 21 A. We seemed to be having more problems witn, 22 I guess,*the interface with the paper flow groups. 23 and satellite 306 prob'bly a more no than anything 24 else. Anc it also seemed to be where we nad the 25 largest number of problens with the drawings. l FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
38 1 O. And during those early discussions, was Ms. 2 Hatley considered the cause of th9se problems? 3 A. As I recall, the conversations Frank and I 4 had were more of a -- you know, why is this S happening to us? -- trying to understand it.
. 6 Q. And how long do you recall that those 7 problems had becu happening?
I 8 A. It would have been when Frank and I had 9 these discussions. 10 O. Late December, early January? 11 A. Somcwhere in that time frame. 12 Q. Prior to 't h a t time period, ,there wasn't any
, 13 problems?
l 14 A. I wouldn't say there wasn't any problems. I 15 Q. hormal problems? 16 A. Yes, normal problems. First of -- I'm 17 going to say the first of when we 16 December)is CPPGs stcrted the Unit 1 task forces which required that
., 19 we, I guess, rethink tne way we were distributing d
20 documents. And any time you start a new process, 21 you got to establish a learning curve. But I would 22 consider those as normal transition problems.
'l 23 O. And this was for the post construction 24 verification task forcu?
25 A. I don't -- I can't relate to that puruse. FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
. . . . . . . . . - . .>.~..~ - - - ~ - - - .- -:--- -- ---- -::-
39 1 Q. Okay. You said it was beginning of I 2 December you started the task forces. Were they 3 building task forces? 4 A. It was a building management concept where 5 each building had its own group of people. That, to
, 6 me, io a task force.
7 Q. And were these task forces responsible for f 6 tne documentation of that building? 9 A. hithin each of the building task forces, 10 there would have been what they called a paper flow 11 group whose responsibility would have been, you know, 12
=aintaining the inspection reports, maintaining the 13 drawings, that sort of thing.
14 Q. And tne paper flow group thdt you're l 15 tulking about in beginning -- in early December, was 16 that run out of document control, DCC7 17 A. Paper flow groups worked for the building 18 managers and not document control.
= 19
, Q. Anc what procedures supervised or --
What 20 procedure did the paper flow groups work to? 21 A. As it relau3 to document control? 22 Q. Uh-huh. 23 A. I'm not real sure. They had a set of 24 ( guidelines that the entire paper flow group worked 25 under. As it related to nuncling drawings and I t FEDEhAL COURT REPORTERS asue m - - ame.u.m - e-emmuemm = - - - -
- _ =- =.=== = ; : :2 :. :.: : :.: :. _ __. . = : .._ .: _ _2 : .
40 1 documents, then it would have been DCP-3. ( Q. 2 And were the people that were doing the
. 3 paper flow group or were involved in the paper flow 4 group in tne different building task forces, did 5 tney go under some kind of training dealing with i
6 documentation? 7 A. At some point in time, and I don't remember G when, required all those people who handled those 9 drawings to be iilad with the state, which meant 10 they had to take the state test, take the 11 orientation. 12 C. Do you remember what buildings were i 13 organized into paper flow group task forces; how 14 many of them there were? - 15 A. I think there were four. lu O. ti o w , prior to that time period, do you 17 recall any complaints about Ms. 11a t l e y ' s work or her ld performance?
*. 19 A. Yes.
20 C. And what were those complaints? j. 21 A. About her abrasiveness with some of the 22 craft people. 2J 0 And when do y'o u recall getting those 24 complaints? 25 A. It would nave Loen late '8S. That's as FECERAL COURT REPORTERS
41 1 close as I can get to it. 2 C. I'll come back to that point later. 3 Now, Mr. ii u t c h i n s o n , prior to discovering
~
4 the documentation problems with the audit performed 5 the end of January or beginning of February,
, 6 immeciately prior to Ms. Ilotley's termination, the 7 mc: th prior to that wnere you caid this -- Well, o strike that.
9 They started the task forces in early 10 December. By the end of December, you said you were 11 starting to see proclens with the performance of the 12 satellites; is tnat -- um I understanding your 23 testimony correctly? 14 A. I guess a better way to put it would be 15 tnat I began to recognize problems with 306. 10 u. Okay. And that was around tne and of 17 December? Id h. As best I con remember, yes. 19 O. Now, the third sentence of that c 20 introductory paragraph says, I believe, that the 21 list oclow is a list of separate cuficiencies or -- 22 " Specific arcas of deficiencies are listed below." 23 And again there's a list of six items. 24 Was tnere other areas of deficacneies other t 25 than those listed cn that memo? FEDERAL COURT REPGRTERS
- - -- - - - - - - - - - .:.-- : -.:. _ _ - - -- _ '_ '.-. _ ' X h -
42 1 A. Well, at the time I wrote this, this -- 1 ( 2 think this encompassed the areas that I knew about.
, 3 O. At the time you wrote it?
4 A. At the time I wrote it. 5 Q. And so that -- The areas of deficiencies 6 listed are the ones upon whien the decision was made 7 to terminate Ms. tlatley?
- 6 A. That's correct.
9 Q. Okay. Now, item number one, why d o r. ' t you 10 just read it into the record, and I want to ask you 11 about that. 12 A. ' 13 l 14 O. Would you please explain tnat concern a 15 little bit more fully? 16 A. Well, at that particular time, what we'd 17 -found is that tnere were procedures in those three le areas that hadn't been updated; some as far back as
*. 19 August of '83.
And that was -- 1 guess that was 20 essentially what I knew about those three areas at 21 that time. 22 Q. And those three arcas were building, 23 rigging and fab shop? 24 A. That's the tnrce that I knew cDout, yes. i i I 25 U. And who was responsible for updating those )
' FEDERAL COURT REPvRTERS !
1
~ _ . . ._ ..a.-.. . . o sw %., .e-L..+.,n'a'.n.. 43 1 procedures? I 2 A. Satellite 306. 3 Q. nu my 4 was there an audit of those procedures performed? 5 A. I don't know.
. 6 Q. Do you know if audits were supposed to have 7 been performed?
L MR. WALKER: I'm going to need to ask 9 . for clarification of the question. Wnat procedures I 10 are you talking about? 11 MS. GARDE: Well, ask Mr. Hutchinson. 12 I mean, he says the procedures were not up to date. 13 , I don't know what procedures he's talking about. t 14 MR. WALRER: And you're talking about 15 l August? I 16 MS. GARDE: He t .: s t i f i e d that they 17 found proccoures out of~date from as far back as 18 ; August of '83. l
. 19 ! Q. (BY MS. GARDE) Why don't you clarify, Mr.
20 Hutchinson, what procedures that you're talking 21 about. A. It would have been construction procedures 23 that were related to any of tnose three departments.
~
24 L. All of tnem or any of them? t 25 A. All and any. FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
- - _ _ _ _ _ .-- _ .-_ = _ -= -L &- 2 h _ _ = =*.:..____._._.: __.:_'- ~ ~ . .
44 1 Q. And at the end of January you discovered 2 procedures that had not been updated since August? 3 A. some that had not been updated since August, 4 ns far back as August. 5 Q. Do you remember how many?
^
6 A. Uo. 7 Q. And you don't know if any hudits had been 8 performed between August and the end of January on 9 the procedures in those buildings? 10 A. No, I don't know. i 11 O. Do you remember who performed the review -- 12 who on the audit team from DCC performed the review 13 of the procedures? 14 A. No, I don't. 15 O. And what documentation would the audit tean 16 have looked at to make that conclusion -- reacn tnat 17 conclusion? i lh - MR. w' A L K E R : If you know.
~
19 A. I don't know.
, 20 Q. And is it your testimony tnat building, 21 rigging anc tne fab shop w e'r e all covered by 22 satellite 306?
23 Mk. WALKER: What do you mean covered 24 by? i 25 O. Satellite -- Let me explain my question. I l'EDERAL COUhT REPORTERS
_____ _ 2-su = =.- - - - . __ - - :- . 1 ? _ _ = ~3 45 1 It's my understanding that your testimony ( 2 is that the audit done of the responsibilities of
. 3 satellite 306 revealed problems. What I'm asking 4
him is that is it his testimony that the building, 5 rigging and the fab shop were the responsibility of 6 satellite 306 from the time period of August '83 to 7 January '84. 3 A. I think you probably need to clarify that a 9' little bit. The procedures that were found tnat 10 kere out of revision heu a 306 stamp on them, which 11 tells mc that it's that satellite's responsicility . 12 to update those procedures. 13 C. Okay. 14 A. So does that answer your question? 15 O. ho. Okay. Let me try this: ' In october 16 1963, was the building -- was the fab shop under 17 satellite 306? lb A. I don't know.
.' - 19 C. Do you know if the rigging --
is it rigging 20 department? 21 A. Rigging department, yes. 22 u. Do you know if that was under 306 in I 23 October 19837 24 A. I don't know. i 25 v. Lo you knew if thu building department wus l FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
- . e : = ._ _ u : : :2_. _._ a r. :. _ _ _ .= .:.: ::S B ::- m-:.___.= = : __.____ E ;=.
46 I under satellite 306? 2 A. No. 3 C. And so what is the basis for your 4 conclusion thnt it was satellite 306's fault that S the procedures were out -- not updated in those
. 6 threc. buildings? , 7 HR. WALKER: I think he's already 6 answered that question.
9 Q. And that's because they had -- the 10 procedures had a 306 stamp on them? 11 A. That's correct. 12 v. Okay. You don't know if tnat was the basic 13 of the audit team's conclusion, do you? 14 A. No. 15 Q. How serious was that problem that there 16 were construction procedures that were out of date? 17 A. Well, the thing tnat comes to mino is that lo tnc craft as responsible to provide training to the 19 latest revision of a procedure. And if a
,., 20 superintendent is looking at those procedures and '
21 there are no new revs coming in, then his training 22 is not up to date or could not be up to dates and 23 that's a pretty serious implication. 24 g. Why is it serious? 25 A. Because we're bounc, by procedure, to train
. FEDERAL COURT REPORTERG ,
. _ . . _ _ . . . . _ . . . . . _ . . . _ . . . - . _ . _ _ . . --r u a _ -~ .
~.m . . c . :--._---
47 I 1 our people to the latest revs of a new procedure. I I i 2 Q. Do the construction procedures also cover 3 installation of components? 4 A. Yes. 5 0 So in these three departmtnts, is one of i
. 6 the problems that work could have been performed to 7 the wrong procedure?
8 A. It could have Deen, yes. i 9 0 Do you know if an audit was donc to t 10 deteroine what work was done during the periods of 11 noncompliance? 12 A. No, I don't. IJ C. Are you aware of whether or not there whs q 14 an NCR written on the condition that the audit 4 15 ciscovered? 16 A. Go, I don't. ) 17 Q. Would you have been aware if one was ! 16 written? . 19 A. If it had been written against DCC or any 1 20 of the DCC procedures, I would have been aware of it, l 21 ycs, i ts all likelihood. 22 Q. Do you know 11 the Nuclear Regulatory 2J Comoinsion was apprised of this deficiency according i j 24 to a 5055-E report? i 25 Mh. WALKEE: 4 I'm going to object to PEDERAL COURT RUPokTERS
- t
u.=:.:= :. =
^ - - - - - - : u::.:.:. =.== .; .;: - i-==.: - = : : Q : : ~ i= .:.: :. .
48 1 the question. I don't see that it has any bearing ( 2 on the issues in this proceeding. 3 MS. GARDE: Well, these were reasons 4 that were serious enough to terminate an eniployee ! 5 that had been working at that site for four 6 and-a-nalt, five years, and judging by the testimony, 7 they were fairly serious. I want to determine how e serious tney werc. 9 MR. WALKER: 1 think he's already 10 testified that the problem was quite serious. I 11 tnink what, if any, measures may have been taken to 12 inform !!RC is irrelevant to this proceeding. And, 13 Ms. Garde, I'm well aware of the fact that you are 14 appearing in another proceeding, and I'm not about 15 to allow you to use this deposition to obtain 10 discovery for a collateral proceeding. 17 MG. GARDE: .I have no intuntion of la doing that. I want to determine how se'rious Mr.
, 19 Hateninson viewed the problems tnat he discovered.
20 Ana certainly one of the judgr. ental sticks, if you -
.~.
21 will, about how serious problems are, are whetuer or 22 not deficiency reports are written up, whether or 23 not the NRC is notified, whether or not stop work 24 orders are issued. You Know, wnen he's going to usc 25 adgeetivos like very serious, extremely scrious, FEDEllAL COURT REPORTERS
a . . _ . _ . .. ._. . m . . 2 : .. . _ . : : _._ ____..u._ _ - . .
..._............n_.-.. <J 49 1 they're very ambiguous terms.
t 2 1 want to know what actions were taken as a
. 3 result of the seriousness of this concern other than 4 the termination of Ms. Hatley. I think it's a 5 completely. legitimate question.
6 HR. WALKER: I don't, and I will 7 direct the witness not to answer. 8 MS. GARDE: Okay. That's i t e r. . number 9 two for our conference call. 10 C. (BY MS. GARDE) Within each of the task 11 forces -- excuse me. 12 Within eacu of the departments, who was 13 responsible for insuring that tne construction 14 procedures were updated? For instance, in the fab 15 shop, who was responsible for knowing that lo construction proceduros were updated? , 17 A. It would have been tne satellite that those le procedures came from. 1 19 v. Okay. And what was the reasoning, Mr. , , 20 dutchznson, by which it was decided tnat that wes 21 Ms. Hatley's responsibility as opposed to one of her 22 other employees, one of the employees that worked 23 under tis . sio t l e y ?, 24 A. Probably in late September, early October, t 25 I thinn booie had pretty well resigned herself FEDCRAL COURT REPORTERS
v
- - :_ _ _ _ ~_ :._; _ = = _ _
_.; L _ ___ r r _. _'_ Z Z i j__' i n _ Z . 50 1 almost exclusively to the 306. That in addition to 2 her being, I guess, supervisor of 411 the satellites. 3 O. Was there any consideration given, in the 4 discussions that you had with Mr. Strand, about 5 these proolems being caused by people under Ms. 6 11a t l e y ? 7 A. I don't recall' sny. e 0 This problem, and we're discussing item 9 number one, had you discovered it by itseli, if that 10 had been the only problem that you disccvered, would 11 that alone have been enough to result in her 12 termination, in your opinion? 13 A. Serious enough that it would have required ( 14 some sort of disciplinary action, yes. 15 Q. Item number two, ti r . Hutchinson, could you 16 rcad tnat into tne record, please? 17 A. " ^ - - * - . ., r+ ,- -r- r+ rnr. 10 c a t - c. i n l ') Q. Could you please expanc a little bit and
., 20 describe tnut concern?
21 A. Well, at tnat particular time, the o r. l y 22 drawings that were allowed out on a long-term 2] cneckout were those is' sued to the paper flow groups. 24 And the craft people, primarily those in Unit 2, 23 were still requireu to turn them in every afternoon; FLDLRAL COURT REPORTLRS
. .. . . _ . . - . . . . - . - - . - . . . . . = :.-..<-.. ~..---.
51 i 1 cncek them out every morning and turn them back in l . j 2 every afternoon. 3 v. But in Unit 1 they were not? 4 A. Unit 1 they were assigned to the paper flow
~
i 5 groups. 4
, 6 Q. Okay. I think what you've described is the i
.i 7 procecure. I don't understand what you described is e the problem. 9 6. W t 10 11 12 Q. And they were supposed to? 13 A. And it was some l 14 sort of agreement that they had with 300. 15 O. Okay. Now, can you tell me g t : 16 ! c
% .ed?
17 16 I A. l . 13 L. And DCP-3 had a Was DCP-3 modified to f 20 incorporate tne task force exceptions? l 21 A. I don't know. i 22 Q. Go you don't know if the creation and the 23 existence of the task forces were in compliance with 24 the DCP-3? uk A. What they were doing was in compliance witn l l l l FEDERAL COURT REPURTEHu
--------~=-------=----~~--------------------------------:.- -
^' ~:-. - - _ _ _ _ u. .:~
- - .: ::: ::.: L =ti.&..it. r :.:t i : = = " h k = & _." 2 _ _ .
52 J l DCP-3. ( 2 Q. And is it your testimony that there's , , 3 procedures or revisions to DCP-3 that document that i I' 4 authorization? 5 A. You asked me if I knew if the revision had
- 6 been made to accommodate that, and I told you 1 7 didn't know.
~
J i 6 O. Do you know of any d o c u r.e n t a t i o n , 4 9 prvcedurewise -- procedures -- that establish the 10 task force's paper flow groups? 11 A. No, I don't. Not as it relates to DCP-3,
, 12 no.
, (, 13 Q. Okay. Wnen you refer to certain craft, are 14 you referring to personnel only from Unit 2? Is 15 that what you're reterring to? 16 A.
- In this instance, yes.
17 C. And do you recall the names of any of the 10 individuals?
- l ') A. Not names, no. I remember i t being the 20 millwrights.
21 0 And how did you determine that picco of-22 infornation? .; 23 A. Through Frank'GLrand. l 24 L. Wau at part of the audit? ( 25 A. I dors ' t renomber if it was part of the FEDERAL COURT REPORTLRS '
- - - - . . , - - r-.-- , rye .-..----,.w - , - - - - - - - . . - - . - - _ - - - - - - , _ - , - -
--,-,----------,y-. r -
_____ ._i_ . _ . . .
= = = . .
= _ _ = _ = =_w__z 53 1 audit or not.
.i i' ( 2 C. Do you know of your own personal k r.o w l e d g e 3 what's the basis for tnat conclusion? I mean, did 4 you see anything written up on that on the daily l 5 audit snects? 6 A. No, I don't recall seeing it on an audit 7 sheet. I wouldn't have hac personal knowledge of it. S bomeone would have told me. 9 U. And how serious is that conCorn? 10 A. Well, number one, it violates the procedure. 11 And number two, if the drawings don't come back 12 every afternoon, then there's no way to know that 13 you've got the current revision in there, that 14 you've got all the opplicable design changes. So 15 that's serious changes to procedures. 16 i l Q. Can it result in a condition where work was 17 accomplished to drawings that were out of revision? Id A. I have no way of knowing that.
'. 19 ) C. Do you know whether an NCR was written on I,
i 20
- this condition?
.~.
21 A. I don't know. 22 v. 1 I 23
/
1 24 MR. WALKER: 1 25 q FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
----==-_=_=.=1'_r.r~=~:.__=~L.___.-'-_'=.-_*_.
54 1 2 3 MS. GARDE: We're going to go through 4 this for every question? 5 MR. WALKER: Yes.
~
6 Q. Do you know how this flaw was attributed to 7 Dobic? 8 A. Well, during that particular time frame, 9 11xe I said earlier, she had -- she had moved 10 herself into 306 on a full-time basis. So that's 11 how I r.a d e that assessment. 12 y. Could you rouc item number three into the i 13 record? 14 A.
- 15 .
16 C. Could you describe that concern, please? 17 A. It's going to be a little complicated. le What I had reference to here is drawings that are 19 issued as control drawinga have to be logged into /
/
/
/
20 the DCC computer so that we can keep up the right 21 count. 22 Tne way that you do that, or the way that 23 i t, was done then, 11 they needed a drawing, they 1 l 24 calleu toe pheno bank and asked for a control copy i 25 of such-and-sach crawiny. And then the satellite, , FEDLRAL COURT REPORTERS i
.-._ ._ . ~ . _ _ . . . _ . _ _ _ . . . . _ _ - _ _ _ -
. . . . __._....e ._:...._ . ___--..__. . _ _ . - _ ~. -- ---
- - _ .----- - ~.. - ---- ._ _
55 1 in turn, should have taken that drawing and done a 1 ( 2 CRT request back to the computer people so that that ! = 3 drawing could havo been charged to that satellite. l-4 And that was not being done. S u. And how do you know that was not being donc?
. G A. Part of it was picked up in that audit. We 7 found more control drawings in 306 that the computer B >
listed them for, and in some cases less. 9 Q. And what established proceduro or 10 instlocLion diu this violate? 11 A. DCP-3. 12 Q. And how was it determined that this was 13 Dobie's responsibility? , l 14 A. Well, there again, she was in charge of 30d i - 15 at that particular time. 16 Q. Can you recall what drawings or the numb 5r 17 of drawings that were not logged into the computer la system?
., 19 A. No.
20 Q. Do you recall how many of those that you 1 l 21 looked at? 22 A. No. I remember it being a large number. I l 23 Q. And who compiled this informhtion? j 24 MR. JORDAW: Lxcuse me one second, i l 25 Billic. Let me consult. I 1 FEDERAL COURT kLPORTERS
- w------- - -
_____ -_____~--____ r_ r__ 56 1 (Witness and counsel confer) ( 2 A. I need to back up and expand on that a
; . 3 little bit there. ~
i 4 Q. Okay. Please do. 5 A. 'I 6 . s n .rm.a , - m 9 grgp. ed. 10 Q. w'h a t procedure would Ms. haticy or someono 11 in .300 have been following to insure that the 12 l l crowings were properly checked out to the paper flow > 13 group? ! 1 14 A. Well, that would have been a violation of l 15 D C P.- 3 as well as the operating instructions that wc 16 nad for the satellites. You know, you don't let i ,
' i 17 drawings go out without logging them out. That way 18 you don't know where they arc.
19 v. And wno compiled that information that {
\
i 1 *.
.~ u we've.just been discussing about the probice of 21 logging drawings into the computer system?
{ 22 A. That would have boen part of that ongoing 23 a u t.: l t . 24 Q. And by ongoing audit, you mean the audit 25 that began the rionday before une retuznud and then l k"DEnaL CodRT RL: PORTERS
_, .. . . _ :. . . . . . _ . . z_ . ::- .. .. 57 1 was ongoing after she departed? 2 A. That's correct. 3 O. Was this a serious problem? 4 A. Yes, it is. 5 O. And why is it a serious problem?
, 6 A. well, at tnat particular titne the 7 ! sa -
e And if the 9 c os..p u t e r saic there were four out there when in fact 10 there were five or six, then they would leave the 11 satellite to go upcate, and they'd update what was 12 on the computer, thinking they'd done their Job, and lJ there would be three or four oorc that hcd not been 1 updated. So y 1 I lo u. Were personnel from the satellites assigned
- 17 l to each of tne paper flow groups to insure that the is l work of the paper flow groups, or d o c u ss e n t a t i o n of I
., 19 j tnc paper flow groups, was up to date?
20 A. The two crafts satellites had runners that 21 did tnat. That was their job. Yeo. 22 U. And who did they answer to? 23 A. To the particuler satellite supervisor. 24 ' O. nus an :i C R written about th16 problem? 25 n. Tnere again, I don't know. FEDURAL COUhT REPohTEh6
- - - , . - - . - - - - _ _ . , , - - . - n - --~ m-.e . _ , - - - , --.-,,..,-_-.-,..,.,_n,--,-- .,--g, y , ,,.--------_.---e _ - , . -
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ __:._ _ r__ _ _ C _ _'____'_'f_ d i___"._~_ D___t. 50 1 Q. Was any deficiency paper written about this ( 2 problem?
. 3 A. I don't know.
4 Q. Was TUCCO notified about this problem? 5 A. TUGCO was aware of what was going on. 6 Q. Anticipating Mr. halker's objection, was l
! 7 ene 1.' R C notified about this problem?
e MK. WALKER: Objection. Beyond the 9 legitimat.c scope of this deposition, and I will 10 cirect the witness not to answer. 11 0 Could you read item number four in the t i 12 record, please? I 13 A. "A h 14 " 15 O. Would you describe this concern, please? , 16 A. There again, we'd go back to the computer' + 17 that lists the n u rab e r of drawings that should be in l lo 306. And what some of the clerks in there told us, l l 1
~. 19 , and .i h e t we found, was that the computer had been --
} 20 the computer listing had been marked up to show what l 21 was actually in filu rather t h a'n what should have 22 been in file. 2J j i umanummenen 4 25 C. And what wau the pasas of that fiuding? FEDcRAL COURT REPORTERS
,- , _ . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ . _.... _ ~ .s - . . . . - . _ _ _ . . - . - ~ -
59 4 1 Where did you got that finding? Was it from the ( 2 audit team? 3 A. Part of that came from the internal audit 4 that 306 had going and part of it came from the 4 5 audit team. They found the printouts where that had
. 6 Leen done.
j 7 O. Do you recall who was the person who found a that particular problem? 9 A. No. l Id C. And you've kind of answered this question i 11 in a roundabout way, but let me ask at -- get your 12 answer Just to this on the record. I j , 13 What was looked at, to the best of your 14 knowlooge, to discover tnis problem? What documents? 15 A. Would have been the computer listing that lu would have snown which documents and how many of 17 theo should have been in 306. 18 O. Is this a very serious problem?
., 19 A. Yes.
- 20 Q. Is falsification of documentation a 21 fireable offense at Comanche Peak?
l 22 A. There again, it would require some pretty 1 23 strong disciplinary ac. tion. I 24 0. Do you recall any discussions, Mr. 25 tiutchinson, on this item of referring it to your 1 FEDCxAL COURT REPORTERa
- ___________________mame_ - -_.. ._-- -
~ -- - _-. - - :.:- - = :._:: :_ _ ~ :2.1. :.~ _ _ - _. :: --2= _ =_ _ _ _rr2_" _ _: 60 1 security office, Mr. Andrews? ( 2 A. No. 3 u. Do you recall asking Ms. Hatley about this O 4 problem or telling her about this charse at her exit 5 Interview, or -- excuse me, exit interview is 6 prooably a wrong term. 7 When you and Mr. Strand and Mr. Yockey 8 talked to ner, I believe it w6s on the 7th of 9 February, ao you recall discussing this concern? 10 MR. WALKER: I'll object to the 11 question on ene grounds that I t h i n }. It assumes 12 something tnut has not been established. And tnat ( 13 is tnat -- 14 MS. GARDE: That there was a 15 discussion? IG MR. WALKER: Right. 17 MS. GnRDE: Okay. I'll get to this le later.
. 19 Q. But for the purposes of this question, do 20 you recall having a discussion with Ms. Hetley and 21 Mr. Strand and Mr. Yockey on February 7, 19847 22 A. Well, Strand wasn't thore.
23 C. Wno was there? 24 A. You mean in the termination of Dobie? It 25 was Doole, Yockey, Franhum and myself. FEDERAL COURT REPOhTEhd .
_ - . . . -... -..~..:.-.. - - . -.. - -
; 33 61 1 Q. Okay. Do you remember at that meeting this t
2 charge being discussed? 3 A. I rememoer discussing each of these items 4 during that meeting, yes. 5 O. Do you recall what Ms. Hatley's explanation 6 of this charge was? 7 A. No. 6 Q. hhut would you normally do, Mr. Hutchinson, 9 if you received a charge of falsification of records? 10 A. I think I'd probably treat that the samo 11 way I would any other sort of problem like tnat. 12 I'd looA into it, find out if it was indeed ( 12 falsification, or just find out whet it was. And 14 depending on what I found would determine wnst I had 15 to do. 16 Q. Do you know if this finding was verified by 17 a.nyone other than the audit team? 16 l A. ho.
. 19 Q. Do you know if anyone else was implicated 20 in this falsificetion besices Ms. listley?
21 A. No. 22 0. Now, the item on the paper in front of you 23 scyu, " Apparent falsif'ication of records to match 24 computer listing." And the date on that, I believe, 23 is Feoruary 7. Did your investigations ultimately PLDEhAL COURT REPOhTERS
~...-.s~_..._ _ __ _ _~_ _ _ _-... ...~ _.. usa.4 4 _ .- _ _ .~ ~._ _ _ _
.....,.a... .. .. .
__ _:...L
..:J 62
- 1 1 conclude that there had or had ,not been i
2 falsification o' f records to match the computer i
. 3 listing?
4 A. They confirmed that there had been. , 1 5 c. And can you give me some idea of what J 6 amount of records were involved in that 7 falsification? 6 A. No, I can't. ' 1 l 9 Q. Was there, to the best of your knowledge, 10 an NCR written on that condition? i a 11 A. I don't Know. I ! 12 O. Was there any deficiency paper written on 1 l 12 that concition? I l 14 A. I really don't know. 15 Q. Anticipating your objection, was the URC i i } 16 cvsr notified of that condition? I 17 MR. WALKLRs I object. The question I l
- 16 goes beyond the legitimate scope of tnis deposition, i
!.* 19 and I'll direct the witness not to answer. i 20 v. Was there any discussion, Mr. Il u t c h i n s o n , 21 of n generic implication about this falsification of 22 rccords? II j 2J MR. WALKER: Could you define generic i 24 implication? ] } 25 MS. GARDE: Suro. l 4 I } 4 FLUEhAL court RUPORTLR3
- - ~ - - - - - - - - - - + ~ ~ - - - - -
63 l 1 0. Do you recall any discussions with the 2 audit leaders or Mr. Strand or others that the 3 problem of apparent falsification of records could
. 4 go to otner documents i n 306?
S 11 R . JORDAU: Other documents other 6 than what? 7 Md. GARDE: Logs. I think we're I a talking about the logs, aren't we? O Ma. JORDAN: That's not what 1 10 i understood nis prior testimony to be. 11 MS. CARDE: Let me lay some 12 foundational questions. 13 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) i What documents were I f 14 falsified, or apparently falsified, to maten r 15 computer listings? i lu i A. Would have had to have been the internal 17 logs within the satellites that logged the drawings it in or out. 19 u. Now, my question is, was there any 20 consideration of the fact that there may be other 21 docuounts, otner than the logs, that were falsified 22 within satellite 30u7 23 A. I don't know.. I con't have any way of 24 knowing tnat. 20 0. You c o r. ' t know if there's any consideration FEDURAL COURT REPORTERS egne mm m em m m m amassmo m m ammame m mmmm emEmbump eMumpsp EnnEIRBEERIRMgG egumMup abgMWSWEEED m GMMIEIDmmmh m N =*
. . . . . . . . - - . . . - - . . . . . .~------.--~--c.a . --.--- ..-.- ,---- -
64 1 of that? 2 A. I don't know.
- I 3 Q. Did you consider that? i 4 A. No.
~
5 c. Item number five, could you read it into
. 6 the record, please?
7 A. 0 ."
<> O. Do you know what records that's talking 10 about?
11 ' A. Document control has a set of cbsentee logs 12 that cover each employee, and it's just a stretch 13 out of the ER-1 sheet that shows the days they 14 worked, the days they were absent anu t h t: reasons 15 they were absent. 16 Q. And who is that maintained by? 17 A. By someone in document control. I'm not 18 sure who. In that period of time, I think it was 19 Ken Ward. 20 Q. Okay. And that's tne records that this 21 refers to? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Or the record.. Okay. 24 Who uid you learn this charge from? Or how t 25 did you learn this charge"> FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
65 1 A. I really don't remember who. Or I remember ( 2 the content of it. 3 Q. And what was the content of the charge? 4 A. I think'that Dobie had gotten tue logs to 5 update them, to try to -- supposedly, to update them,
, 6 to bring her records up to snuff. She hadn't been 7 giving tiac shocts to Ken Ward. I'm pretty sure it 8 was Ken.
9 Q. Ukay. 10 A. And a statement was made to me tnat Docie 11 said that these things would be valuable in a 12 certain person's hands. 13 Q. And that statem$nt was made to you by Ken 14 Ward? ' 15 A. 1 don't remember who made the statement. I 16 Q. Do you have any iaca who that person was 17 that snc was talking about? la A. I can make an assumption. 19 Q. And what's that assumption? 20 A. Margaret Kelly. 21 Q. f And why do you assume it's Margaret Kelly? 22 What's the basis for that opinion? 23 A. At that point in time, sometime prior to 24 that we had terminatec Miss Kelly for excessive I 25 ubsentteism.
\
, FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
- . ~ .- -....- ~ .- .. _ . ..-.-.- . x. . .~.- _- __ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . 66 1 C. Was Miss Kelly contesting that t e r m i n a t i o n */ ( 2 A. Yes, she was. 1 O. Did she in fact use the document we're 4 discussing, t. h e departmental absent records, in her 5 a c t i o r. ? -
. 6 A. I don't know.
7 O. Would you know? 6 A. !! o . 9 V. hho would know? 10 A. I don't Know. 11 C. Was thic a civil suit or some other type of 12 - action? 13 A. I really don't Know that, either.
. 14 O. Did you consider this theft of Brown & Root 15 property?
16 A. I considered it as possibic theft of Brown 17 6. hoot property. 16 u. When you say possible thoft, you mean you 19 cidn't have any proof that she had taken these? 2U A. tJo proof. 21 Q. Did you ever got any proof that sne'd taken 22 these? 23 A. tJ o . 24 Q. Then the sole basis ror this i t e n, is the 1 25 comment that was modo to someone else and tnen t'E D C R A L COURT REPORTERS
~
- - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - . _ - ~ = 2.:i;: + =.= : = - * - -- '- =-2= &-- - - - - -
67 1 conveyed to you, the communt that Dobie made that 2 you just said? 3 A. Yes. 4 o. Did you refer this item to security, 5 internal security? 6 A. I don't recall doing that. 7 Q. Do you recall asking Ms. Hatley if she had 6 taken the departnental absent ecords? 9 A. I recall Frankum asking her. I don't think 10 enat I asked her. 11 C. Were the departmental absent records in 12 fact missing? Are we talking about the actual 13 absent records, or a copy of them? 14 A. The actual records. 15 Q. And were they ac.tually missing? lb A. They were missing for a couple three days, 17 yes. la O. And when is this three-day period that they
, . 19 were missing?
20 A. Would have been sometime during the month 21 of January. 22 Q. If you had determined that Ms. Hatley in 23 fact had token those d'epartmental absent records, 24 would that nuve been a fireabic offense? i 25 A. Yes. ' FEDERAL COURT REPORTEhS
a = ~ C.~ = = = = 2'O 2 _- ' 2 _ ' _ L l~2^2 LC " .~C^L~ _"~~ 68 1 Q. I'm not going to ask you if you know if ( 2 there was an NRC written on tout. 3 Would you read item number six into the 4 record, please? 5 A. e genumassamammagus-7 Q. Could you please dcscribe the basis ror t that item? 9 A. Well, I got quite e bit of feedback from 10 people within the paper flow groups, including 11 superintendents, tnat Dobie was extremely abrasive, 12 very nard to get along with, and that on occasion i I ( 13 she had gone through the paper flow groups and, you j 14 know, just stepped all over people's toes and was l 15 really quite belligerent with some of them. And I 16 got some of the same sort of complaints from some of 17 of our tellow workers in the satellite. She was 13 very, very hard to deal with. 19 Q. Did you probe into the reason that Ms. 20 Hatley was allegedly ubrasive?
.~.
21 A. I don't know now you would probe into the 22 reason. 23 v. Well, did you'try to inquire as to the 24 reason that she'd gone into the paper flow groups e5 and stepped on people's toes? l FEDERAL' COURT RLFORTERS
_ . - . . . . . . - . . . - - - _ _- -- -. - . _ - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - ~-- - - - - - - - - - - ---- 69 1 A. What I tried to find out was, you know, why ( 2 it was going on and just how widespread it was.' And 3 there are certain ways to deal with people in -- you , 4 know, you gust don't have to be abrasive to them all 5 the time. There are ways to get things'done without 6 being, I guess, crude and rude. 7 Q. And -- B A. That was the inpression that, you know, I 9 was left with. 10 c. So you didn't maxe any determination if Ms. 11 Hatley's crude and rude attitude was a result of 12 some legitimate complaint with the paper flow group? 10 A. No. I got involved in several -- I guess 14 several -- instances where the paper flow group had 15 problems with maybe satellite 306 and Ms. hatley. 16 Q. Tnat was prior to the audit done the week 17 before ner termination? 16 A. Yes. 19 O. Can you remember any of those incidents? 20 A. The one I. guess that I remember probably
~
21 best is at that time J.D. Turner was in the 22 safeguard paper flow group, and he had brought a 23 serics of problems to my ottention about not getting 24 his package updates in a timely manner. 'And, you ( 25 know, I can temember eight or nine or 10 cases he FUDCHAL COURT REPvRTERS
L r r r r r = =~."._ 1 _ Z'z.__ _ Z'r _ _ Z Z _ __Z__ _ _ _ _ _,__
~
70 1 orought me. And 1 took it to Frank and we got Lobic 2 involved in it.
. 3 And as it turned out, there wure like maybe 4 three out of those seven or eight or 10 tnat were 5 cases where the DCA, tne CMC had not gotten to DCC
~
6 or had not gotten to the satellite. And then the 7 rest of tnem were cases where the updates hadn't d been made the way they should have. 9 C. At satellite 306? 10 A. Out of 306, yes. 11 Q. I'm going to read a list of n a r.e s to you, 12 of craft supervisors, and all I'm interested in, Mr. 13 aiu t c h i n s on , is whether or not you recall complaints 14 by tnese particular craft supervisors about Ms. 15 natley. okay? 16 A. Okay. 17 Q. This is just a "yes" or "no." le Mr. Callicut? .
. 19 A. Yes.
20 G. Mr. Frankun?
.~.
21 A. 13 0 22 O. Mr. Turner, J.D. Turner? 23 A. I just mentioned Turner a few seconds ago. 24 v. Ken L1 ford? ( 25 A. Yes, FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
__ _3 __3 _..----- _ 71 1 Q. Mr. Merritt? 2 A. No. 3 O. Charley Britt? 4 A. No. 5 O. Don Morrison? 6 A. Yvo. 7 Q. Walt Lachesky? T 8 A. No. 9 Q. Tommy 6 acon?
- 10 A. No.
11 Q. James Morris? 12 A. . Yes. 13 Q. R.L. Kelly? 14 A. I remember R.D. complaining, but it wasn't 15 about Doble. It was about the -- no. 16 Q. Randy Cunkle? 17 A. No. 18 O. Curtis Biggs?
,' - 19 A. No.
20 0 Cappy Lawrence? 21 A. No. 22 0. Okay. Is there any other craft supervisors, 23 that you can think of, that complained about Dobie? 24 A. Dale Bullard. That's it. i 25 O. ukay. Now, you also said that you had tne FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS w w
=- . ; . . :- a L -- ' --.~ ~
72 1 same prob 1cu with fellow workers in the satellites. I 2 A. Uh-huh. 3 0. I'm going to run through a list of those, 4 and I want you to give me a "yes" or "no" answer on 5 those, too. Edic !!u d s o n ? 6 A. Yes. 7 O. Joanne Jenner? 4 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Joff Ransom? 10 A. No. 11 0. Billy Orr? 12 A. Yes. 13 0 Johnny lludson? 14 A. Johnny Hudson? I don't know Johnny Hudson. 15 v. Clia r c s c Presley? 16 A. Yes. 17 C. Suzy Brown? 16 A. Yes.
. 19 C. Dridget Burgess?
~
20 A. I don't know a Bridget Burgess. 21 Q. Jean Womack? 22 A. Yes. 23 v. Jim Tate? 24 A. No. j t 25 O. Ficharc brown? FEDERAL COURT xEPORTERS ' 1
o _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - =.:.:. -- -- _._ - -
- _------~*-~ r fl _
73 1 A. Yes. ( 2 Q. Judy Dickey? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Kim lia n k i n s ? 5 A. No. 6 Q. bandy Bruce? 7 A. No. C Q. Donna Wine? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Janet Gregory? 11 A. I don't know Janet Gregory. 12 Q. Ken Ward? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Diane Bleeker? 15 A. Yes. lb Q. 14ary Francis? 17 A. No. la Q. Kai Norman?
. 19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Deoble Callicut? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Ine: Poppowell? 23 A. I don't know Poppowell. 24 Q. Can you think of anybody else that you i 25 deceribed as her fellow workers that complained FEDERAL COURT REPOHTERS
. . _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ .._._ _ _ _ _.:._-E-d.:.- ;/Mi 6:i: c ;: = r :; .:3_ ;.= = =, .
74 1 about her? 2 A. No, not right off the top of my head. 3 Q. And when did these complaints come to your 4 attention? 5 MR. JORDAN: You mean over what period 6 of time? 7 MS. GARDE: If they came to his 8 attention over a period of time, yes. If they came 9 to his attention on one day -- 10 A. It wouldn't have been one day. They would 11 have boon over a period of time. I just can't 12 r e a c cib e r when. ( 13 c. Can you remember when they began? 14 A. Not specifically, no. 15 O. rJ a c it toward the end of Dobie's being a 16 supervisor? 17 A. No. It would have been prior to that. 16 Q. Would you say it was the last tnird of her
, . 19 time period as supervisor?
20 A. As oest I can recall, it would have been ' 21 like late '53. Mid to late 'S3. 22 Q. Lid these people complain to you directly? 23 And that includes craft and fellow workers. 24 A. On occasions, yes. i 23 Q. Did fir . Strand tcil you about their FLDLkAL COURT REPvRTERS
- -- . . . - . . - - - . ~ . . . ..
______ __ 3 _ -. 75 1 complaints? ( 2 A. Un some of thou, yes. 3 Q. Did any of the craft supervisors go to Mr. 4 Frankum and then you heard about the complaints from 5 Mr. Frankum? 6 A. I don't recall that, no. 7 C., And when you heard these complaints, what 8 did you do aoout them? 9 A. I think I made a point to look into some of 10 them to find out, you know, if they were valid 11 complaints and why. 12 0. Can you give me an example of when you 13 locked into them? 14 MR. WALKER: I think he's already ~ 15 given one example. 16 Q. Wnat is that? 17 A. The Turner deal. 13 Q. Oh, that's one example. Can you think of
,". 19 any other examples?
20 A. No, not right off the top of my head. 21 Q. Any with the -- well, just her fellow 22 workers, putting craft aside. 23 A. A couple of, names tnat we missed there that 24 Just got registered. 25 Q. Okay. FEDERAL COURT REPORTLAS
. _ _ _ _ _ . ._ _ _ _ . - = _ _ _ _ - .
.________-__~_____-._---..a-
...g_ . . . .
76 1 A. One of them is Lovey Sneed. And Janet
~
2 bridges.
. 3 .Q . Janet Bridges?
4 A. That's the name I remember. 5 Q. And they also complained? 6 A. Yes. Both of those, in fact, came to me O 7 personally. 3 C. And what was tneir complaint? 9 A. About Dobie being just unremittingly on , 10 their case. They couldn't seem to do anything to l 11 pacify her. And they wanted out. 12 Q. Wnen you say to pacify her, what do you ( 13 siean oy that? 14 A. I guess to satisfy ner. 15 O. In tne performance of their duty / 16 A. Performance of their duty, yes. 17 c. Did you transfer them? I t' A. I think both of them ultimately quit. The
. - 19 best I can recall, they both quit.
26 Q. You remember any of the other complaints? 21 A. Oh, I'm sure there were; rhey 3 cst con't 22 conc to mind right now. 23 g. Same type of complaints? l 24 A. SGne thing. ! ( 25 O. Dobie was on their casa. l FEDERAL. COURT RUPORTERS
. r
.-_-_._:.._-__=_-~.-.=.__--Y~._*'._._--_~.~
77 1 A. Yes. 2 O. Did you ever sit down and talk to Dobie
. 3 about tnese complaint,s?
4 A. I can recall talking to Strand about it. 5 O. Do you remember when that was?
~
6 A. It would have been the same time period. 7 Q. Did you ask him to talk to Dobie? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Do you know if hc did? lu A. I'm pretty sure he did. 11 MR. JORDAU: Excuse me, Billie. We 12 are about halfway through t h e. alotted time, and 1 13 think it would be a good time for maybe a ten-minute 14 break. 15 MG. GARDE: That's fine. It's a great 16 time for me, too. 17 (Whereupon, a brief 16 (recess was taken 1 *> 0 (BY MS. GARDE) Now, Mr. Hutchinson, we 20 have been going down through the memo which we've 21 marked as Hutchinson Exhibit 1, and I have a few 22 more questions on the meno itself. 23 Is it normal procedure at Brown t Root, 24 when someone's terminated, to prepare a memo like 25 th2s? FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
.ww_ : = - ...
_.=_n:~_.. _ _ _= _ u
. . . . . . - . .. . ... . . . . . . . .:. :e.
78 1 l 1 A. I could only speak for, you know, the ( 2 terminations I have been involved in. And it's
. 3 cither done in this fashion or some fashion that's 4 expansive enough to define what the problem is.
5 Q. So 'i f not a memo like this, something where
~
6 it's written up? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And when was this memo prepared? 9 A. The morning of the 7th. 10 O. Was it prepared at your direction? 11 A. I wrote it. 12 Q. Was it ecited by anyone? lJ A. FranKum read it. 14 Q. lie read it? 15 A. xcad it and signed it. 16 Q. 11 e didn't make any changes? 17 A. bo. I don't recall him having made any. 18 0 Did Mr. Frankum see it before it was signed? 19 A. Frankum saw it after it was algnec. 20 v. Was it signed in your office? 21 A. I don't remember. I don't recall where it 22 was signed. 23 v. how, you testified that there was an audit 24 perforneo the week prior to Ms. if a t ley 's termination; ( 25 there was Jiscussions held with personnel in the Ft DL:k AL COURT hh.PUKTERS
- = :.: = = _ = = ~ _ = = '_. V '" * ' ~ ~
2 ~" Q r _~ T ~~ ~ ~~' ___ 79 1 satellites. Then there were some findings, which I 2 we've discussed in the first half of this deposition, 3 and a decision reached to terminate Ms. Haticy. Can 4 you tell me why you decided to conduct an audit of S 306 at that time? 6 A. At that point in time, Frank Strand is the 7 guy who recommended the course of action that we S took. I relied on Frank to feed me whatever he 9 found in there. 10 Q. That's a different question, Mr. Aiutchinson. 11 I want to know why it was decided to be undertaken 12 on the Monday, which I guess would be January 27th 13 or 28th. 14 A. Well, the decision to go in would have been 15 made before then. And the reason that we started 16 that Monday is that Dobie would have gone to night 17 chift on that Monday. Ana Frank had made that IS decision or had talked to me about that decision the
~. 19 week before, and it was based on some ~ conversations 20 he had had with K a y fior na n who had indicated that
.~.
21 the CRT requests were unusually low coming on 306. 22 And at the same time the requests coming through the ! 23 phone bank were unusually high. 24 0. That would have been wnen? 25 A. That would have been a couple of weeks FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
- _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - e _ _ -. _ :. ~
80 1 prior to her termination. During that timo frame. 2 MR. WALKER: Excuse me, Ms. Garde. 3 Can I make a clarifying point? 4 Mr. Hutchinson, did you just say that you 5 had spoken to Frank -- 6 TiiE WITNESS: Yes. 7 MR. WALKER: -- about this matter? 8 May I suggest that you refer to him as Mr. Strand,
, 9 because we're also referring to Frankum, and I'm 10 atraiu that the court reporter may be confused by 11 those references. ! 12 Ti!E WITNESbs Okay.
1J O. (BY MS. GARDE) Okay. So a few weeks 14 before this audit was undertaken, Mr. Strand talked 15 to you, upon having a conversation ~ with Kay Norman, 16 about certain problems or irregularities in 30b 17 daily operating. Is that a characterization of your 18 , testimony?
.. 19 A. Tnat's correct.
20 Q. And did he need to get your approval to
.~.
21 conduct a special audit? 1 22 A. No, he didn't need to get my approval. He 23 kept ne posted on what.was going on. Frank and I 24 hac daily conversations. I relied on him to give me , i 25 the feedback. FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
.........._...-.w.:.:.- - _.-...w;.-
- - - ~.
81 1 Q. And so to the best,of your knowledge, the k 2 sole basis for beginning this audit, as far as you
. 3 were concerned, was the conversation between Ms.
4 Norman and Mr. Strand about the irregularities in 5 the satellite's production?
~
6 A. I wouldnt say the sole basis. 7 Q. What were the other bases? 8 A. Those things you mentioned in conjunction 9 with the -- say, the Turner incident. 10 v. And when did that take place? , 11 A. It would have been late January -- late 12 Deccmber, early January. hight in this same time 13 frame. 14 Q. And other things? 15 A. It was kind of e snowballing effect. And, 16 you know, Frank told me what he wanted to do, and I 17 concurred with him. Le u. And prior to that time period, the problems
. - 19 with Ms. 11a t l ey or the complaints about Ms. Hatley 20 had been --
I'll use the term manageable? They 21 weren't unusuali 22 A. Frank and I talked quite often about, you 23 know, how the satellites were hanuling the paper 24 flow groups. You know, we expected some confusion. I 25 Q. wnun did the paper flow group start? FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
--.--.-------.__-----.:_-__::_==_:..=_:...=.
82 1 A. Started in December, first of December. ( 2 Q. Okay. 3 A. And we kicked them off. There was a little 4 confusion, but it seemed to be -- seemed to be 5 ironing itself out. So I stayed in pretty close 6 touch witn Frank during that whole time period. 7 Ptobably 60 percent of my time was spent in 8 uiscussion with him. 9 c. Prior to early December when the paper flow 10 groups were started, did you havu any problems with 11 Ms. ti a t i c y , that you recall? 12 A. Probably nothing more than, you know, what 13 we've talked about earlier, some of those fellow 14 worker problems. 15 O. Those were not enough to terminate her? 16 A. No, I wouldn't say so. 17 O. Were there any disciplinary actions 10 considered against Ms. 11a t l ey prior to the December
,'. 19 problems?
20 A. Well, I talked to Frank St' rand about it, 21 and I'm sure Franx had some conversations with her. 22 Does that answer your question? 23 O. Not fully. I.want to understand, Mr. 24 liuteninson, all the problems that you had with Ms. I 25 haticy prior to the December time period when you FEDERAL COURT REFORTERS
.o. .
~'
- - : = : --.: -- _ ~ "~- "
=.:- _ =~.:_ _ _.-- _ -L _* =tL 83 1 instituted the paper flow groups.
2 HR. WALKER: So you're asking about 3 disciplinary action considered by Mr. Hutchinson -- 4 MS. GARDE: Yes. 1 5 MR. WALKER: -- prior to the { 6 institution of the paper flow g r o u p s ~i 7 11 S . GARDE: Yes. 8 A. The only disciplinary action that would 9 have been considered would have been, you know, 10 pernaps a session with her. 11 Q. You mean, talk to her? 12 A. Yes.
, 13 Q. Was that done, to the best of your 14 knowledge?
- 15 A. Mr. Strand was pretty good at that. He --
16 I have secn him and been in soveral of those 17 sessions. I don't recall, you know, having been in 16 one with Dobie. But he was very good at, you.know,
,'. 19 describing the problen, explaining why it was a 10 i problem, what he wanted done to fix it. And he , . I 21 nandled all those things.
22 Q. And tnen problems with 306 started 23 developing around the institution of the paper flow 24 groups, wnich was early December; is tnat correct? t 25 A. Tne problems with 306, you know, as I said FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
.. . .- .. u -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - = . .___-.:...-_ _ _ _ _ _ ~ . - . __ _ _ _- . 84 1 carlier, started -- it came to my attention probably 5 2 the latter part of December, early January. 3 C. Okay. Prior to that was normal problems 4 that could be expected when you change a system or a 5 procedure on the site? 6 A. What I'd consider to be normal, yeu. 7 g. Oxay. And beginning at the end of December e you were aware of more serious problems? You became 9 cWdrC of more Serious problODS; iG that correct? 10 A. State tnat again, please. 11 Q. Okay. You talked about normal problems as 12 tney instituted the paper flow group. That wasn't 13 enough to lead you to terminate Ms. Hatley? 14 A. That's correct. 15 O. Okay. Nor was it enough to institute a i 16 special audit of 3067 17 A.
- 16 .
."- 19 Q. And that's vour normal site audits?
e 20 A. Th 21 s 22 . 23 Q. And none of the results of those monitoring 24 audits were of concern to you enough to consider ' i 25 ter:1neting Ma. Hatley prior to tne midale of FEDERAL COUh? REPORTERS
. . . _ , . . . ~ . . .~~ .w.:- .. w 85 1 December; is that correct?
2 A. That's correct.
. 3 Q. Between the middle of December and the end 4 of December, however, things changod; is that 5 correct?
6 A. They had begun to change, yes. 7 O. Now, during that time period -- we're o talking middle of December to the end of December -- 9 was the Comanche Peak site closed down for a week 10 between Christmas and New Year's? 11 A. I don't know. 12 Q. Is it normal for Comanche Peak to close 13 down between Christmas and New Year's? 14 A. I wouldn't say it was normal. This past 15 year I think we had a reduced work force. 16 Q. But you don't remember'about D e c e m'o e r '637 17 A. No. Like I said, I don't think it ever 18 closed down. I think we reduced the work force down
. - 19 to, you know, just essential people.
20 C. Now, the weck prior to Christmas week, so 21 four weeks and a month; we've climinated the first 22 two by gett ng started with the paper flow groups. 23 The third ween of December, do you recall problems i 24 beginning then, more serious probicos? 25 A. The only thing I can tell you is the letter FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
~- =-__~===-_2r_rr r-_ _ r_ ~3r ~ ~_~_~. 86 1 part of December. Now, I can't get any more I 2 detailed than that. 3 O. Okay. 4 A. That's the best I can do. 5 Q. Do you recall whether or not Ms. Hatley was 6 oven at work tne latter part of December? 7 A. No. U C. In early January you've stated that there 9 was some discussion by Mr. Strand of getting a 10 special audit done by the DCC monitoring' group; is 11 that correct? 12 A. I don't think it was early January. 13 Q. Wnen was it? 14 A. ilo uld have been the week prior to February 15 the 1st. hould have been the latter part of January. 16 Q. Now, w c- r e you part of the discussions with 17 Mr. Strand -- strike that. 16 Did you discuss with Mr. Strand the 19 decislor. tc transfer Ms. Hatley to night shift? 20 A. Yes. I tolked about it, yes. 21 O. Anu to the best of your recollection, when 22 were those discussions? 23 A. Would have been maybc one to two days ! I i 24 before that last Friday that she worked. 1 25 O. And was it his suggestion or your FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
~
.:: ^
_ _ _ _ - ._ _ _ _.._w n: __.+_ 87 1 suggestion to transfer her to night shift? I 2 A. It was Frank's.
. 3 Q. And do you have any knowledge of Mr.
4 Frankun being part of those discussions? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Do you have any knowledge of Mr. Tolson 7 being part of those discussions? s A. No. 9 0 Mr. tie r r i t t ? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Sc to the best of your knowledge, Mr. 12 Uttsnd reached that decision completely on his own? 13 A. The decision to move her to night shift was 14 prooably recommended by Strand and reached jointly 15 between the two of us. 10 C. And I still don't have it clear in my mind, 17 Mr. Hutchinson, when the decision was made to nave 18 the LCC nonitoring group do a special audit of 306.
. - 19 when tnat decision was made.
20 A. It would have been during that week. I 21 don't know what -- 22 0. The week -- 23 A. The week of the last day that Dobie worked. 24 Souewhere during tnat week; I don't know which day. 15 O. So the week prior to the week she took off? FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS -
i __ .c.t r. t.22~_._ _ _rr~.r ._. = C C _ C Z _ _ _ _ D_ _ dZ'__,. Z Z ZZi _ _t 88 1 A. Yes. I 2 Q. Was she notified of that?
. 3 MR. WALKER: If you know.
4 A. I don't know. I really don't. 5 Q. And the basis for deciding to have that 6 hudit was Kay Norman's comments to Mr. Stranc? Is 7 that -- s A. I think that was probably part of tne 9 decision that Frank -- tnat influenced his decision 10 to do it, yes. 11 C. What did Mr. Strand tell you, or what do 12 you know was the reason, in your mind, for that 13 special audit to be conducted? 14 A. I think I've already answered that as best 15 I can. lo Q. Okay. What you've told me is -- and if I'm 17 incorrect, please correct me -- what you've told me le is that Kay Ncrman told Frank Strand that there was
.'- 19 a large number of requests coming through on the 20 telephone and a low number of aesign chenges. Did I 21 say that correctly?
22 A. No, you didn't. 23 Q. Okay. Would you restate it? I mean, I'll 24 see it in tne record, but in t e r ra s of moving through l 25 this more quickly. l FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS l - . - - -
~=_.r c r = = Z C _ _ Z _ '
_____Z--~~"~~' ~~'E ~ __ ~1 89 1 A. I told you that Kay mentioned to Frank that ( 2 . the number of CRT requests were unusually low.
. 3 Q. Okay.
4 A. And then Ken Ward said somothing about the 5 number of phone bank requests being unusually high. 6 Those two played a big decision in -- played a part 7 in Frank's decision to go in and look at the e decision in detail. 9 Q. And that's wnat he told you was the 10 decisions? 11 A. Say trat again. 12 V. That's what he told you were the decisions 13 to go in and do a more expanded look? 14 A. He mentioned those, yes. 10 0 Okay. And nothing else that he mentioned 16 to you? 17 A. I just don't recall anything else. 16 Q. Okay.
- - 19 A. I relicd on Strand to keep me postou on 20 wnat was going on.
21 0 And Dobic's interaction with her fellow 22 employees and the craft supervisors played no part 23 in tne decision to do a 306 audit? 24 A. 1 told you earlier about the problem we bed i 25 with Turner. And then some of the other paper tiow
. FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
.____-____-_-_-__-~_____-r______---
90 1 problems that surfaced out of the updating process ( 2 probably influenced it, as well. . Influenceo the
. J decision to do that audit.
4 Q. But the decision was Mr. Strand's, not S yours? 6 HR. WALKEh: us. Garde, we have 7 limited time, and I think we've already gone over e d this ground at least once -- 9 TliE WITNESS: We have. 10 MR. WALKER: -- and probably twice. 11 And he's testified it was a deciclon Jointly reached 12 cetween -- as a result of a discussion between him 13 anu Mr. Strand. I'd suggest we move on to new 14 material. 15 Ms. GARDE: Well, tnis is a very 16 important point, 1 mean, as you can appreciato, the 17 basis for the actions of that week. I want to make 18 sure I understand what Mr. Hutchinson's knowledge of,
. - 19 and understanding of, as to why these things were 2u accomplished. -
21 I'm not interested in spending a lot of 22 time going over the same ground, but I'm not sure 23 that I completely understand what the basis of these 24 decisions were. It seels to me, when we get back to 1 25 Mr. hutchinson, ne can correct me, and then we'll FLDERAL COURT REPORTERS
3
.+.---_.m.__---u-a-.
91 1 move on. ( 2 O. (BY MS. GARDE) You had no substantive 3 complaints, no unusual substantive complaints, about 4 Ms. Hatley's performance until middle of December 5 1983; is that correct? 6 A. That's fair, yes. That's a fair assessment.
, 7 0. You did have complaints about Dobie's 6 getting ulong with other individuals during that 9 time period?
10 A. That's correct. 11 Q. But those did not rise to the level where 12 disciplincry action was considered? 13 A. Tnat's correct. 14 Q. Okay. Sometime the latter part of December 15 1983 you began to notice substantivo problems in 16 satellite 306? 17 A. Yes. la O. And that came to your attention from Mr. 19 Strand? 20 A. That's correct. 21 C. Sometime in mid January 1984, the problums 22 were noticed as getting worse? 23 A. Yes. I 24 Q. And based on at least the conversation with
- 25 Kay Norman and Ken bia r d and maybe other things, Mr.
FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
- +m- --
- ~ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . . _ . . . . . - .__ . . , - - 2.. c- i 92 I 1
Strand came to you and said that he wanted to do,a ( 2 more in-depth audit of 306? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And that was immediately prior to Ms. 5 Hatley's going on vacation for a week as opposed to 6 going on nights? 7 A. Yes. 6 0 And during that weex then, an audit was 9 done by tue DCC monitoring group? 10 A. An audit was started. 1 t 11 Q. Stdrted. And by the end of the day 12 nednesday, whien would have been the second day of 13 tne audit -- unless it got started on Monday; then 14 it would be the third day of the audit -- you'd 15 aircody reached the decision to terminate her? lb A. No. l 17 Q. Okay. i Then what's incorrect in that 16 statament? .
'. 19 A. By that Wednesday, Frank and I knew that we l
20 ned nau procedure violations, that the -- I guess l 21 the system had been undermined. And what we were 22 finding was more than a personnel problem, you know, 23 than a dialogue ~between two people. 6t 4 .,
., :..._... ..g,.n.. - - -
~_.--~~-- ..--~m.tv-.w 2b l
FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
. .....- . - . 1 93 1 t 2
3 u. And in those first couple of days of the 4 audit, you discovered that there was problems that
- 1 5 in fact went back as far as September of '837 6 A. I don't remember when we discovered, you 7 know, tne procedure business. But it was somewnere 8 during that period of time, yes.
9 O. Well, it had*to be prior to the time that 10 letter was written, because it's the first item on 11 the list; is that correct? 12 A. Lik'e I said, it would have been somewnere 13 during that week. 14 Q. That week. 15 A. Okoy. Ib Q. Ukay. And son etime following the first 17 major discussion with you and Mr. Strand, the 18 decision was made to terminate Ms. Hatley?
'. 19 A. The decision was made to terminate her the 20 1-lo n c a y before the 6th.
I 21 Q. That's the first day of the audit? 22 A. No. That's a week later. 23 MR. JORDAN: You meant Monday the 6th? 24 ThE WITNESS: Yes. Monday the 6th. ( 25 v. Okay. So the decision to terminnte Ms. FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS .
m..- _ m --a. y.2.w a .m .-
- - - _ _ . _ _ _--. ._ _ - - - - _ _., _ _r_:
94 l 1 Hatley was not made until Honday the 6th? ( 2 A. My final decision was not made until the
. 3 6tn.
4 Q. When was Mr. Strand's decision made, as 5 that recommendation? 6 MR. WALKER: I ' l.1 object to the 7 question. It assumes a fact that has not been B establisned. I believe his earlier testimony was 9 that he didn't recall whether Mr. Strand had 10 recommended termination. 11 MS. GARDE: Okay. My recollection of 12 it is that he said that Mr. Strhnd did reconcend it 13 and then they talked about it. But let's ask the 14 witness. ~ 15 A. I said I don't remember who made the 16 recome.undation. I remember Frank and I talking 17 about it, but 1 don't know who made it first. 16 O. Ukay. And then the discussion about
.'- 19 potentially terminating Ms. Hatley I have in my
, 20 notes as first taking place on tne Wednesday of the 21 week prior to her termination. Is that still what 22 you recall?
23 A. Yes. 24 C. And then how many discussions between i 25 Wednesday and the following Monday do you recall? FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
o-
~- e
-~ - = ~3 _
... ' ~
. . = . - < 3 3 3 -
33 -_ 95 1 MR. WALKER: Question's been asked and I 2 answered. 3 MR. JORDAN:
. That's been asked. Go 4 ahead.
5 MR. WALKER: Question has been asked b and answered. You may answer. 7 llR . JORDAN: Well, wait a minute. The 8 question's been asked twice before and both times
') he's incicated that he cannot tell you precisely now 10 many conversations ne's had. I am again going to 11 instruct him that he is not required to.make a guess 12 if he has no recollection of that. I suggest that 13 we are wasting time.
14 !!S . GARDE: Well, I am not interested 15 in guessing. I am interested in him having a memory 16 refresned efter having gonc over this ground in more 17 detail, I'm sure, than he'has in some time. 1d Q. (BY MS. GARDE) Would you say that the
. '. 19 majority of your time the week prior to Ms. Hatley's 20 termination was spent on tuo topic of the problems 21 with 3067 22 A. The majority of my time that would have 23 been spent in DCC during that week would have been "4 -
on 306, yes. ( 25 v. And can you approximate how much of the i FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS _ _ . . _ _ _ . ~ m . , . _ -. _. .-, _. . _ . . ,
' ~ - = =.== = ::==. = :. .:.=_.1:::.=:. t=:.".::- 2.:.=~.~.=;?: : i.: ; .:_;
&__ _.- ._.:== ===r- ===
96 1 time was spent discussing the extent of the problems ( 2 and how much on the solutions? 3 A. No, 1 can't. 4 O. During that week that the audit was ongoing, 5 did you nave an occasion to talk to Mr. Robert 0 Taylor from the NRC about cor. plaints the NRC had 7 received about documentation? 6 A. No. 9 Q. Did you have an occasion to talk to Mr. 10 Doyle liunnicutt from.the NRC about complaints tnat 11 the Nhc nud received about documentation in the 12 satellites? 13 A. I renember one conversation with Doyle, but -- 14 and 1 tninx it was a followup on our response to the 15 CAT office, but 1 don't know when that was. 16 Q. You don't remember if that was the week 17 prior? 18 A. No. i , '. 19 Q. Do you remember conversations with any i.'- 20 member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, during 21 the week of the audit, about problems or allegations 22 they had received about documentation problems? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Do you recall any conversations with anyone 25 from tne buclear hegulatory Commisalon, d u r i tig the FEDEhAL COURT REPORTERS
---' _ _ _ _-...x a :. - 97 1 month of January, about allegations they had k 2 received on documentation problems?
, 3 A. No. .
4 v. Do you recall Mr. Frankum or Mr. Merritt 5 informing you of any such allegations they'd
~
6 received from the NRC? 7 A. No. 8 O. And it's your testimony that during the 9 week of the audit, no NRC officials discussed with 10 you personally your review of 3067 11 A. None whatsoever. None .that I remember. I 12 just don't recall it. 1J G. All right. Now, I'm going to show you what 14 we should mark as Hutchinson Exhibit 2, whicn is a 15 memorandum, for the record, from Ray Yockey-16 memorializing a meeting with Ms. Hatley. And I'd 17 like you to take a minute and look it over. 18 There is a comment where it says "306 19 auuit" in red in the left-hand margin. That's my 20 notes. It's not on the document. 21 (Witness perusing document) 22 A. Okay. 23 G. Is that memorandum your recollection of ; 24 that meeting? Does that reflect your recollection j ( 25 of that meeting? 1 l FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS ,
.,-.i,-
~
- - _ -- - -- - - -._ : - := - -
- ===_ .=:. =:. _ - =_ = = _ a == _ b k r": .
98 1 A. Yes. It pretty well summarizes it, yes. ( 2 Q. Now, following Ms. Hatley's termination, 3 was the aud'it continued of the problems in 3067 4 A. Yes, it was continued. 5 Q. Did the audit extend to the other
~
6 satellites? 7 A. Eventually it did, yes. b 0. And were the employees that worked in 306
') interviewed, the week after sho was terminated, lu aoout the problems you were finding in 306?
s 11 A. Interviewed may not De the right word. I l 12 know Frank had some discussions with those people, 1J and I don't remember whether it was the week before 14 or the week after. 15 O. Did you have discussions with thosc people, 16 some of tne peopic? 17 A. I recall sitting on some of the meetings, 16 yes.
, '. 19 Q. But you're not sure if they were the week 20 cefore or the week after?
21 A. No. ' 22 0. Did you use a tape recorder in those 23 meetings? 24 A. No. t 25 O. In nonc of the meetings? FEDERAL COURT REPORTEh3
. .. __________- - . - _-- - - _ _ __ - - -.-----__x--L=-R-=-
99 1 A. No. 2 O. Do you remember how many of the meetings 3 that you personally sat in? 4 A. No. 5 O. Do you recall if. notes were kept of those 6 meetings? l 7 A. I don't recall any notes, no. O u. Did you personally take any notes? 9 A. I coulo have. I don't know. 10 0 W1. a t were tne purpose of those interviews? 11 A. As I recall, it was to find out, you know, 12 just how bad 306 was; just what kind of shape it was 13 in and why it had gotten that way. 14 Q. But since you can't rememoer if they were 15 . before or after her termination, you don't know if 16 those comments from those meetings contributed to 17 the cecision to terminate her? IS A. Well, some of those comments would have had
.E 19 o bearing on it, yes.
20 C. Does that mean that some of the interviews 21 were conducted the week prior to her termination? 22 A. Some of the interviews I had were conducted, 23 yes. 24 0. And who were those with? I 25 A. Would have been with Kay Normen, Pam Parker, FEDERAL COURT MEPORTERS
_ - . - - . . ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _+- +.c 100 1 some of those people who had been sent into 306 to ( 2 look.
. 3 Q. When was the audit into 306, and the 4 problems, concluded?
5 A.' I don't know. The deeper we got into it, 6 you know, I guess the worst it was, the more we 7 found. And eventually, you know, Merritt had to 8 shut the satellite down. In fact, I don't know how 9 long it stayed down, but we stopped issuing anything 10 out of 306; and whatever was needed for those 11 drawings came out of the main DCC. And I really 12 don't know how long it was shut down; two, threc 13 weeks. 14 Q. When did Sandy Hartman begin his 15 investigation into the termination of hs. Haticy? 16 MR. WALKER: I'll object to tnat 17 question. First, of what relevance is it? 18 HS. GARDE: Well, if you are going to 19 put on evidence about why she was terminated, 1 20 think I have a right to know what investigation your 21 investigation produced. 22 MR. WALKER: Sandy Hartman, as you are 23 aware, is an attorney employea by my law firm. 24 fiS . GARDE: Yes. (. 25 MR. WALKEh Do you have any reason to FEDERAL COURT REPORTER 3
.____ .- u--. .
_ 3 ~ ..a-= c - :-.----
-3 101 1
believe that he was functioning in any capacity ( 2 other than as an attorney? 3 MS. GARDS:
. I didn't ask what he found.
~ 4 I just asked when it started. 5 MR. OALKER: You may answer the 6 question. 7 A. I don't know if 1 know. Sandy got into 8 this -- oh, I need to think about this -- probably 9 like a week a'nd-a-half, maybe two weeks. 10 Q. After she was terminated? 11 A. Yes. The oest I can remember, that's what 12 it would be. 13 Q. I'm going to show you a cocument which 14 we'll mark as Hutchinson Exhibit 3, which is a memo 15 from Anthony Vega, TUGCO Site QA Manager, to Mr. 16 D.C. Scott, and I don't know what his title is. And 17 I'd like you to look it over, first answering 18 whether or not you have ever seen this dccument
. . 19 before.
20 (Witness perusing document) 21 HR. WALKER: I'm going to object to 22 the use of this document as an exhibit to this 23 deposition. 24 MS. GARDE: Mr. Waixer, I only asked 2b onc question. FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
_ _ _ == _: : ; .: .:;==' ;.:._ :.ih. . . ... . . . -t*1% _
';.1 _C _ = L'; _ ZZ _ - _, _
- y 102 1 MR. WALKER: Well, let me state my I
2 objection. And I will object to any questions based 3 on the document. The ground for the objection is 4 that, as is the case with the two other documents 5 already introduced as exhibits, to the best of my 6 knowledge, this document marked as 11utchinson 7 Exnibit 3 was not obtained in the course of i 8 discovery in this proceeding. It's ooviously, on 9 its face, not a document authored by this witness. 10 And this witness, therefore, is not competent to 11' testify to its autnenticity. 12 HU. GARDE: You done?
, 13 HR. WALKER: Yes.
14 MS. GARDE: The pending question is 15 whether or not Mr. Hutchinson nas ever seen this 16 document before. I think I'm entitled to an answer 17 to tnat question.
. 18 MR. WALKER: he may answer that
. 19 question.
20 0. (3Y MS. CARDE) What's t l. e answer to that 21 question? 22 A. No. 23 MS GARDE: Okay. I'm going to ask hini 24 the same question on this document. I want to give i 25 him one more. I think there may bc one or two more, FEDERAL COURT REPOhTLES
.. . . . . , . . w.~...
.--- -~
- . - ~
103 1 ano that's my only question on these documents. ( 2 MR. WALKER:
'. Then let me note for the
. 3 record, to the extent that --
4 !!S . GARDE: You don't need to read it 5 all, if you have never seen it. G HR. WALKER: -- the remaining 7
. cocuments are documents not obtained in the course 8 of discovery in this proceeding and were not 9 sathored, in whole or in part, by Mr. Hutchinson, 10 that quections based on these documents are improper, 11 no foundation having been laid.
12 MS. GARDE: Exhibit Number 4 is a 13 mcuorandum dated June 14, 1984, to D.N. Chapman from 14 Mr. E.G. Spangler. l 15 (Witness perusing document) 16 MR. WALKER: Have you scen it before? 17 THE WITNESS: No, never seen it. 1S Q. (BY MS. GARDE) The answer is, you have
~ . - 19 never seen that document Defore?
20 A. No.
- 21 Q. ' Would you just go ahead and lay it in front 22 of you. Okay.
23 Look at this one. Number 5 is a t. office 24 memorandum, request for assistance in resolving 25 ouality assurance allegations number 003, dated 1 1 i e FEDERAL COUNT REPORTER 6
H
. _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . . ....?._...._...~
n...--- . . -
~
~
\
l 104 1 February 9, 1984; investigation requested by Boyce ( 2 Gricr; and this is a one-page document marked 3 " confidential" on the bottom. . 1 4 MR. WALKER: Same objection to this 1 5 document. 1
~
6 MS. GARDEt Same question.
'7 (Witness perusing document) i d 'O . Never saw that before?
9 A. Never saw that one, either. 10 O. This is the last in this series, and it's 11 !! u t chi n s on Exnibit 6. . t 1 14 Again, the only question, Mr. Huteninson, 15 is have you ever seen this cocument before? lu MR. WALKEK Same objection to the 17 document and the question based on it. lu (Witness perusing document)
,'. 19 A. Never seen that one, either.
20 Q. Okay. Now, Mr. tiutchinson, during tne day 21 that Ms. !!atley was to return to work on night shift, 22 which I believe is February 6, you said that you 23 made up your nind to t.c r mi n a t e her. 24 A. Yes. 25 O. Did you do that alone? Did you make up FEDERAL COURT REPOATERS
L. _.._. .__ . _ _ . . _ . . _ . . - - . . . . . - . . _ _ . . 105 1 your mind alone, or was it in a meeting? ( 2 MR. WALKER: Ms. Garde, if you 3 remember correctly, I think his testimony was that
~
4 he made up his mind over the wockend. 5 MS. GARDE: I don't- remember that. b MR. WALKER: Before the 6th. 7 THE WITNESS: That's what I said. 8 Q. So it was over the weekend? 9 A. Yes. 4 10 Q. Oksy. So then on Monday, the 6th, did you 11 notify Mr. Strand of your decision? 12 A. Yeu. 13 G. Ano what was his response, to the best of 14 your recollection? 15 A. He concurred. 16 0. Did you notify anyone else? 17 A. I renomber talking to Rhy Yockey about it 18 sonstime during that day. . 19 C. And what was his response? 20 A. lie concurred that we had grouncs. 21 O. .Did you notify anyone else? 22 MR. WALKER: We're still on the 6th? 23 MS. GARDE: Yes. 24 A. No. ( 25 Q. Did you notity Mr. Frankum? FLDERAL COURT REPORTERS
. . .-_. .. . . _ . . . . . . .. . - . . . - ~ . - - - - - -
_:.; M d 2 _ _2. = _ 2 2 _ J _i C.Uh _ _ _ _ fi__ _D.~2ii _"_ 106 1 A. I could have talked to Mr. Frankum. I just k 2 don't remember.
, 3 Q. You don't recall if you talked to Mr.
4 Merritt? 5 A. I know I didn't talk to Herritt. 6 Q. Did you talk to Mr. Tolson? 7 A. No. 8 U. On the day of her termination, which is the 9 7th, you had a meeting with Ms. Hatle'y and also Mr. 10 Frankum and Mr. Yockey. Do you recall that? 11 A. Well, I discussed a -- 12 Q. First, do you recall the meeting? 2 i ( 13 - A. Well, earlier that morning, or sometime 14 during tnat morning, I had a session with Frankum i 15 and Yockey, both. 16 Q. Okay. 17 A. Before noon, sometime, 10, 11 o' clock. I 18 don't know.
. - 19 C. Before Ms. Hatley came in?
, 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. And what was discussed in that 22 meeting? 23 A. She had indicated that she had wanted an l 24 ROF, wnicn is a reduction of force, and I'm not 25 autnorized to give those. And I discussed that FEDERAL court REPORTERS e -
- b. '
=- I'*
l f 3- __ _ _ _3 u
~~-f~ --- 3 _
107 1 aspect of it with Frankum and Yockey, both. ( 2 O. And the discussion was solely about whether 3 or not to just terminate her or to give her an ROF7
- 4 A. Well, I told them that, you know, Dobie had 5 wanted an RUF, and I didn't think that a.n ROF was 6 appropriate; that I intended to terminate her.
. 7 Q. For cause?
8 A. For cause. 9 v. 'And that cause was what? 10 A. The items that are listed in that memo. 11 O. Okay. And the reason given on her 12 toralnation slip, do you recall that? 13 A. Failure to obey instructions. 14 O. And, Mr. Hutchins6n, would you describc, in 15 your mind, how the things on Hutchinson Exhibit 1 16 equal failure to obey instructions? 17 MR. JORDAbr Would you show nim the 18 document, please. 19 MS. GARDE: Sure. 20 A. Well, each of these things are, in my 21 opinion, established procedures and instructions. 22 They're guidelines that she should have been working 23 by. She chose not to follow those instructions. 24 u. And thun -- 1 25 A. That constituted, to me, failurc to obey FEDEhAL COURT REPORTERS
- - - - - - ww - ; a a = :.:.r _ - a ; ;.d;[dhr ;; i == n ad ,;;,; g n ;
108 1 instructions. I 2 Q. Okay. By your last statement, you're J inferring that she made a decision to not follow 4 those instructions; is that what you're saying? Is 5 that what your testimony is? 6 A. No. I'm saying that she did n o,t follow 7 instructions. Whether she made a decision or It acteruination not to do it, I don't know. 9 Q. Okay. After Ms. Hutley was terminated, you 10 continued your audit of 306 and interviews of 11 coployees t i.a t worked with Ms. Hatley; is that 12 correct? I i lJ A. That's correct. 14 Q. When did that audit and investigation 15 conclude? Yours. Its A. I don't -- I told you ocfore, 1 don't know. 17 I don't know whether it lasted two to three to four lo to five weeks. I don't know now long it lasted.
~
. 19 Q. And that included the whole time period 2L tnut audit 306 was shut down?
21 MR. WALKER: You mean satellite 30c. 22 MS. GARDE: I'm sorry. What did I say? 23 MR. WALKER: Audit. 24 MS. GARDE: Yes, 1 mean satellite, t 25 A. Tne sequence I r o m e r..L c t , w kiDERAL COURT EBPORTERG
__-______-..__-2---____:_-_-=---- a : ---- 109 l 1 started the audit, it was worse than we thought it 5 2 was; the logical thing was to shut it down. gt 3 4 nd I s . I G O. And the audit of 306 that was started the
, 7 week prior to her termination includes all the l
6 things that were found even after she was terminated;
') is enat correct?
10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. So if I had that document, which I'm 12 r.o t going to get from you, I would have a 13 c 14 1:3 A. Let ne answer that a little differently. 16 We went into 300, and I know wnat we found there; 17 and the i 16 go a c
. 20 e.
21 Q. Okay. And that audit -- You don't remeuber 22 the completion date of that audit, but that audit is l ! 2a comprehensive, includes all of those things that
.! 4 you've just described?
25 A. l' o the best of my knowledge, yes. FEDCRAL COURT REPORTERS
- ~
-_.,a_._____.______. ,,
110 1 Q. Okay. There is no document available that ( 2 indicates the amount of knowledge that you had when 3 you decided to terminate her? 11 you ~had brought 4 the documents with you, one of the things that would 1 5 have Deen responsive was the audit. And whht I want 6 to know, Mr. Huteninson, is there any document that 7 concludes tne date prior to Ms. Hetley was O terminated? 9 MR. JORDAN: Excuse me. Did you say 10 "tnat concludes"? 11 MS. GARDE: Yes. Any audit that would 12 conclude February 6 or February 7. 13 A. It wouldn't have concluded then. ( It would , 14 have still been ongoing. 15 . Q. Go other ,than the daily audit sheets that 16 you were discussing in the beginning of your , 17 deposition today, there's nothing? i 2 18 A. When they completed the certain portion of
. 19 the audit, they returned those sheets to Frankum.
20 O. Did the audit include the -- You said you , 21 looked at all the documents that had ever gone 22 through 306 in your audit. Did it also include the 23 work donc by 306 on the CYGUA docudents? Was that 24 included in that document audit? 25 MR. WALKEh: What do you mean oy w o r.x 1 FEDERAL COUP.T REPORTEh5
. .a ... . . - .a.uaa ' -.. .
___ _-s _. -_ _ _ _ . _ - - -- _____ 111 1 done by 306? k 2 MS. GARDE: Off the record a minute.
. 3 (Whereupon, there was a 4 (discussion off the record 5 O. (bY H3. GARDE) Subsequent to Ms. Ila t i c y ' s o termination, there was some discussion of a review
., 7 done by satellite 306 in preparing document packages e for CYG:J A to review. Do you recall that?
9 A. CYGNA was down in October. . IU O. Right. 11 A. Ukay. 12 Q. Okay. You testified that the audit that 13 you ultimately completed on 306 included looking at 4 14 all documents that had ever gone through 306. Is 15 that your testimony? 16 A. That's what I said, yes. 17 C. Okay. What 1 want to know is if you -- 16 A. Let me clarify that. That would mean that 19 for whatever 306 documents were in the field, cither
., 20 the paper flow group, the superintendents or 21 wnatever, those are the ones wc looked at.
22 C. Ukay. So you did not reaudit -- You did 23 not do a reaudit of any previous work done by 306:
- 24 for example, i. this case I'm asking you the CYGNA 25 audit?
I l i FEDCRAL COURT hEPORTERS -
- .: : .: =.=:= L.; _ : - =Y=~_ :. - ;.'= ;;.:.: ~. . ;- :.: _ _ _ =~ ~~. .
I12 1 A. No, you couldn't do a reaudit. ( 2 Q. Okay. You answered my question. Actually,
. 3 you answered my next two or three questions.
4 Mr. dutchinson, did you ever consider 5 terminating Mr. Strand for the documentation in 306 6 bcIng -- l'11 describe -- out of control? 7 A. No. 8 Q. 10 b 11 A. No. 12 O. Did you ever discuss with Mr. Strand why ne ( 13 did not have a handic on that problem sooner? 14 A. I think Frank recognized it as quickly as 15 you could. I don't know that he could have picked lo up on it any quicker than he did. 17 Q. Did you ever consider terminating anyone in 16 the DCC monitoring group for not finding the problem 19 sooner?
, 20 A. No.
21 Q. W i.a s there any discussion, that you recall, 22 with Mr. Frankum about why the problem was not 23 discovered sooner? 24 A. ti o . Tne only concern I rencobcr l' r a n k u m e , 25 naving was, you e, n o w , what has it done to ur. Just 1 i FEDERAL C0 UllT REPORTURS
.~
_: _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - - ~ " - - - 113 t I how bad is it. That sort of thing. But I don't k 2
. recall anything about, you know, why didn't you
. 3 catch it sooner, no.
4 Q. Was there any discussion, or do you recall i 5 any discussion, with Mr. Hutchinson about Ms. 6 Hatley's -- I will characterine it as -- defense 7 that the paper flow group supervisors were demanding 8 Jocumentation they shouldn't have? 9 MR. WALKER: Did you ask about 10 discussions with Mr. Hutchinson? 11 MS. GARDE: No. I said between Mr. 12 [ tiuteninson and Mr. Frenkum, I think is what I s a i d. . l 13 MR. JORDAN: I think you might have 14 caid with ilutchinson. 15 tis . GARDE: I meant Frankum. I's 1 It sorry.
- 17 THE WIT 2iE S S
- Start over again.
i 16 Q. (BY MS. GARD 1:) Okay. Do you recall any discussions with Mr. Frankum about Dobie's 19
., 20 in 21 th i ,
j 22 23 A. The only thing I remember is, probobly mid 24 October, I thank Dobio had had a run-in with t 25 Callicut and Liforc in regards to the FSE-151 l l I l l FEDERAL C$URT REPORTERS
~' - _ _. .:_ _ _ _ _ ._._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -i _ CC C CE '.1_ . -
114 1 drawings. For some reason, they thought that those ( 2 drawings were in the system, were in the DCC~ system,
, 3 when in fact they were controlled by engineering.
4 And I recall them coming down, and Dobie 5 was with them, you know, saying liow come you cari't
~
6 give us these crawings? n't 7 We 3 plan to put tnem in in January. And that's about it. 9 0 Do you recall Ms. Hatley's discussions with 10 you about problems in DCC during the week that Mr. 11 Strand left the site? 12 I don't mean to characterize the reason why,, i 13 because 1 haven't deposed Mr. Strend, but there was j 14 a time period where Mr. Strand was not on site. Do 15 you recall Ms. lla t i c y talking about tne problems 10 with DCC and satellites then? i 17 A. If 1 remember currectly, we had a TUGCO le audit that was taking place that weck. And I'm sure
. 19 I had conversations witn Dobie, but, you know, I 20 don't recall.
l' , 21 0. 'lo u don't recall any of the things that she 22 said about her problems with the satellite?
- 2) A. IJ o .
24 Q. Do you recall any communication from Mr. i 25 Chris b c,'j a or any of his supervisors regarding FEDEhAL COURT RtPORTERS
.. . . . . . :. . . . .. L--. ,:.:.u.~:J - 'P 115 1 complaints that Ms. 11a t l ey made about problems with
( 2 the DCC7 3 MR. WALKER: For my benefit, would you 4 identify wno Chris Boyd is? 5 MS. GARDE: I'm not exactly sure what 6 his. title in. Maybe Mr. Hutchinson can answer that.
, 7 A. Chris Boyd. Chris is now supervisor of DCC.
4 8 Now, what time frame are you in now? 9 Q. December. l 10 MR. WALKER: December of 19837 11 MS. GARDE: '83. 12 Q. Something like the second week of December, 13 1903. 14 A. I can't imagine what Chris would have to do 15 witn DCC. At that period of time, he was supervisor 10 of cost esticating.
~
17 U. So you don't recall'any conversations with 1 16 Mr. Boyd rogarding a conversation he had with Ms. 19 Hatley about the probicas in DCC?
., 20 A. No.
21 Q. Is it your testimony that you didn't know 22 that such a conversation took place? 2J A. I Just don't recall that. I can't imagine 24 what Chris would have to do with DCC. 25 U. Okay. FEDERAL court REPORTERS
, . . n .n
, :. ,; : .n .
- - - - - - - - _ --- _.- =
- .:.: :. c: : _.:=.= ::: 22 ~.= :2.:'.::_= : ; ;=.:= .:.= == _-- .
116 1 A. No. The answer is "No." . 2 Q. Do you recall Mr. Strand comtiunicating-to 3 you complaints by Ms..Hatley regarding the conduct
; 4 of certain craft supervisors in attempting to bypass 2
5 procedures, sutellite procedures? a 6 A. I'm sure that Frank had, you know, occasion
. 7 to --
I guess to have a run-in with some of those o superintendents. But nothing significant, no. 1 . 9 C. Lo you recall a complaint coming to your 10 attention, initiated from Ms. 11 a t l e y , about one of
! 11 the craft runners throwing a stapler at one of her l
) i 12 employees? I l ( 13 A. I remember the incident. I don't remember a i
- 14 how I got --
now I got tuned in. 15 Q. Do you recall taking any action about that? ll 16 a. Me personally, no. I think Frank may havu 17 looked into it. But I remember picking up on it 16 secondhanded. 19 Q. Do you recall any specific complaints at
. 20 all that Mr. Strand communicated to you from Ms.
21 Hatley regarding tno conduct of craft supervisors 22 toward satellite procedures? 23 A. I toink any time you cuange, you know, ways j 24 of doing business, tnore's going to be some i 25 rewistance. I'm suru theru was some resistence.
,F4DERnL COURT RLPORTERS
~
- .js . ..fiff'3 _y_
. ------x-
= 3- -
117 1 Q. You talking about the paper flow group time 4 ( 2 period?
. 3 A. Or even the transition from the file 4 custodidns to satellites.
5 O. That would have been in spring of '83? 6 A. It would have been like in July or August .i 7 of '83. I B MS. GARDE: Okay. Let's take a quick 9 brouk for a phone call. 10 (Whereupon, a brief I l 11 (recess was taken l 12 G. (bY MS. GARDU) Mr. Hutchinson, 1 found two l j 13 otner documents in the same category as the other 14 ones. So before 1 move on to my last area of i l l 15 questioning, whien is just about 10 more minutos,
- l lo can you also look at these? And the only question
, 17 is whether or not you have ever seen these doeur.ents )
i 10 Defore. 19 Hutchinson Exhibit 6 is a one-page memo
., 20 from Dave Chapman to Michael Spence dated May 22, 21 1984,
Subject:
Dobie Hatley allegations. And 22 Hutchinson tJumecr 7 is a three-page memo from David i 23 Andrews, director of corporato security, to David 24 Chapman, dated April 9, 19o4,
Subject:
Response-I
! 25 request for invustigative assistance regarding l FEDERAL COURT REPORTEkS n _-. __,
i
. .- - .. :. . a_ .- _~ _ _ _._ _
. o
...f
_ _ --.- .= = =
- = -.=.
118 1 allegations by Ms. Hatley. ( 2 MR. JORDAN: Excuse me, Ms. Garde. I
. 3 think you now have two Hutchinson Number G's.
4 MS. GARDE: I'll change Number 6 to 5 Number 7 and Number 7 to Number B. Thank you, Mr. 6 Jordan.
., 7 MR. WALKER: Same objection on both U uocuscuts and questions based on them.
9 (Witness perusing documents) 10 A. Dever seen either one of them. 11 C. (BY MS. GARDL) Okay. Mr. Hutchinson, I 12 really only have one last question, but I want to be 13 sure that I have a complete answer. I want to be 14 sure that you have given me, on the record, the-15 complete basis for your decision to terminate Ms. 16 hatley. 17 We've gone over each of the items in the lu letter, we've discussed the conversations with the
- 19 omployees, and I really would like you to just take
., 20 a minute and go over, in your eind, your memory of 21 tnis incident and tell me if we have, on the record --
22 whether I've asked you or whether you've omitted 2J s o ni e t h i n g -- the c o m p 1.e t e basis for the reason to 24 terminute Ms. Haticy. If thero'u any other reason, t 25 please tell uc now. { FEDERAL COURT REPORTERO
++-w-
"_ . . ..~3 . _ _}$C -
~3- - -- _ -
119 1 MS. GARDE: Rick, I kind of object to ( 2 you showing him a note.
. 3 HR. WALKER: I'll point out that you 4 did it several times in Ms. Hatley's deposition.
5 MS. GARDE: And to each time you 6 objected.
., 7 MR. JORDAN: I think the rules are e cicar that counsel have a --
the witness has a right
; 9 to consult with counsel and that it can be noted, if 1
10 that's your point, billie. But I don't think 11 there's anything to object to. 12 MS. GARDE: Well, I want the record to 13 reficct that you're snowing him a note. You go 14 ahead and do wnatever you want to do, but I'm a 15 11ttic concerned about it. 1C A. If I understand your question, you're 17 asking ne if these are the only reasons, in my mind, 18 that I terminated Dobie?
-
- 19 0 (BY MS. GARDE) Well, if those uren't the 20 only reasons, I want to know the full basis for --
21 that went into your decision to terminate Ms. Hatley. 22 And if there's reasons other than on that memo and 23 that we've discussed here today, I want ycu to tell 24 me them now. I 25 A. Let me prefnce that by saying on February l FEDERAL COURT REPORTCRS
~-
-____.__s=%-.___-__==_;_._w_______=.
120 1 the 7th, these were my reasons. And I really don't ( 2 see anything that makes me change these reasons, or 3 expand.them, in the letter. 4 Q. So the things that you've described in the 5 letter, in that meno, Exhibit 1, and the things u we've talked about this morning, were the only 7 reasons in your mino when you decided to terminate 8 Ms. Haticy? 9 A. If there had been more, I'd have written 10 them down. But that was the oasis for her 11 termination, yes. 12 MS. GARDE: Okay. I have no further 13 questions. 14 . MR. WALKER: Could we take a 15 five-minute break so I can confer with Mr. Jordan? 16 I thlus we'll have a few questions on redirect, but 17 shouldn't tako more than a few minutes. 13 MG. GARDE: And then I want the record ,,", 19 to reflect the things that we disagree on at tne end 20 of this. Okay. 21 (Whoreupon, a brief 22 (recess was taken 23 MR. WALKER: Ms. Garde, I just have a 24 very few brief questions on redirect; and I would 25 ash all counsel present to help me remember that we FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
_ _ _ :._ :.;.=& ~--- _ = = _:.:- = =-~~~-~-* ' * -- __ ~ -- 12A 1 do have a procedural point that we need to resolve I 2 betore we conclude the deposition.
, 3 Mb. GARDE: Okay.
4 E X A M I lJ A T I U I4 5 BY tR. WALKER: 6 Q. Mr. Hutchinson, when Ms. Garde was asking 7 you about the Icaue of falsification in satellite i u 300, you gave an example, which, as I recall, was 9 changes made o n. sign-out logs reflecting the number 10 of documents; is that correct? 11 A. Tnat's correct. 12 Q. Can you think of any other examples to help 13 Ma. Garde understana the scope of tne falsification 14 issue as it figured in Ms. Haticy's termination? 16 17
- and !
le r ~ -
. - 19
. 20 Q. How did you ascertain that?
21 A. T 22 23 C. With regard to Ms. Garde's questions about 24 why it was deciced that a special audit of satellite ( 23 206 was necessary in late January of 1984, to what I FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
- - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ -=
- _-- - _ : =.= _ _._ _ : ; : ;- .: ,. = : :=.:..:_ .
- s. .
122 I cxtent were there things arising from past routine ( 2 audits of satellite 306 that figured in your
. 3 decision?
4 A. Frank had indicated that he had sent the 5 monitoring team in on a couple of occasions earlier, O dnd they had met with some resistance. They were
, 7 not abic to, I guess, perform tnat audit or even get 6 started on it.
9 C. From what source did the resistance come, 10 if you know? 11 A. Came from Ms. Hatley. 12 Q. You earlier testified, Mr. Butchinson, tnat ( 13 you did not recall whether Ms. Hatley was at work 14 the last week or two of December of 1983. To what 15 extent, as a general matter, were you in a position 16 to ascertain, on a day-in/ day-out basis, whether Ms. 17 11 a t l e y was at work either in late December of '63 or 18 at any other time?
.' - 19 A. Tnc only thing --
The only way I would have 20 r. n o w n it would have been if I just bumped into her 21 in the hull or had just happened to see her 22 somewhere. As a matter of -- As a matter of rule, I 23 wouldn't have known who was there everyday. 24 O. Ms. Gardo also asked you a question about 25 conversations with IJnc of ficials regarding alleged l FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
-____ ___- = _ _ = _ =- - -- -- :.? ~ ' _ :.~.i: = :_._:,2-123 1
problems with the document control system at I 2 Comanche Peak. And as I recall, Ms. Garde's 3 question was directed at conversations in the 4 December 'SJ-January '84 through February 7th date 5 of Ms. Hotley's termination. As I recall your 6 tectimony, you incicated that you did not recall any 7 such conversations.
'. What is the likolihood that, if O such conversations had occurred, you would recall 9 them today?
10 A. Well, if the NRC had been looking into 11 .anytning, I'm sure I would have remembered. You 12 just don't forget those sort of things. 13 Q. You also testified to a conversation with 14 Mr. Loyle Hunni. cutt, and I believe you mentioned 15 that that dealt with problems dating back to lo something called a CAT team report. What was the 17 CAT team report? 10 A. It was an NRC team that I think was [ *. 19 Construction Appraisal Team or something. And they 20 found some deficiencios in document control, the 21 program itself. And we nad committed to X number of 22 items to correct those deficiencies, and Loyle was 23 following'up on those.. You know, have you done this? 24 Have you done that? Have you donc this? You know, ( 25 in every case I've said, Yes, we've completed that, FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
_ - - _ _ =._ __: ._ 2 Inc_: a _2.: _ _ _.:f=:-_ _ .;= __ ' _ D: :i-B _ = __ _d .--d-- ~ dE, 124 1 we've completed this. That sort of thing. ( 2 O. When was the CAT team report issued? 3 A. Would have been early '83. 4 Q. 1 believe you testified you didn't recall 5 when you nad had that conversation with Mr. 6 Hunnicutt. 7 A. No. d O. Do you recall how long the conversation 9 lasted? ' 10 A. Oh, Just maybe a minute and-a-half or two 11 oinutes. Not very long. 12 C. Were there any subjects, other than 13 followup questions that Mr. Hunnicutt had about 14 issues raised in the CAT team report, discussed in 15 that conversation? 16 A. No. It was exclusive 10 the CAT team. 17 Q. fir . Hutchinson, you've testified that tne 18 special audit of satellite 306 was not yet completed
. 19 at the time Ms. Hatley was terminated, and that it 20 went on for some period of time, apparently for at 21 least u few weeks, after Ms. Hatley's termination.
22 What, if anything, as the audit progressed 23 to completion, came to.your attention as a result of 24 being discovered in the audit that suggested that l 25 your uriginal conclusions regarding Ms. Hatley and
, FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
l .-.' _ = = - _ . - - _ - .. _ - - - - - - _-_ ! 125 I 1 your determination that termination of her ( 2 t l_ employment was appropriate, that those conclusions
. 3 were inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate?
4 A. Nothing. Nothing at all. 5 liR . WALKER: I have no further ! 6 questions. l 7 MS. GARDE: Okay.
.. I nave a couple of
\
8 tollowup. \ 9 RE-EXAMINATION l 10 BY 11 5 . G A R D r.: 11 C. Mr. Walker asked you some clarifying i 12 questions regarding the issue of f f 13 ( e
^
14 de=. J; tion of 15 cocuments a firoable offense? 16 A. I'c have to say s o, yes. 16
. - 19 A. Would have been in that same time period.
)
. 20 a. r l 21 she w nated?
22 A. e. 23 Q. Did you inform her of tnat? 24 A. Like I said carlier, I remember discussing i 25 that letter and each itec in it, and I don't know FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
. _ _ _ - _ _ _._ _ _ ;_ : _d' _.: . __ __._ _ : ::. _ .: : :::: _. u;_ :
126 1 whether I directly mentioned tnat or not. ( 2 O. Did you take disciplinery action against
, 3 any of the employees who in fact had destroyed the . t 4 documents?
5 A. t;o . They had destroyed tnose documents at 6 Ms. llatley's direction. Would nave been no need for 7 any ECtion. 6 Q. Mr. Uc1ker asked you about why an audit was 9 not donu in tne fell of '83 time period, and you 10 said that it met with resistance from Ms. Haticy. 11 a'o u l d you pleuse describe wnat resistance Ms. It a' t l e y 12 provided to -- or what did she do that resisted an la audit? , 14 MM. WALKER: Just for clarification 15 purposes, I don't believe I specified. I asked lo wnetner there had been any prior routinc audits that 17 figured into the decision to order a special audit. 18 I didn't specify a time frame.
. - 19 MS. GARDL: Okay. Well, his answer
. 20 very definitely was that there was resistance
. 21 provided by Ms. 11a t l ey to an audit, earlier uudit, 22 of 306. That's what he said.
23 MK. WALKER: Correct. 24 Q. (BY Md. GARDE) ( I want to know what 25 resistance nn. dat. ley put up and when it happened. FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
~ ~g. _= .
5- - .=- _ 'a- ---. .----;-
.j-- -- _ ; _ _
127 1 A. Well. I gained knowledge of this through ( 2 Frank Strand. And he indicated that Dobie didn't
. 3 want thcac peopic in her nouse.
4 Q. When was that? 5 A. There was notning wrong -- it was probably 6 early January. 7 Q. Of '85? 8 a. No. 9 Q. '847 10 A. '04. 11 MR, JORDAU: That you were advised of 12 tnis? 13 TIiE WlTNESS: Yes. 14 Q. And when did this allegedly take place? 15 A. Couldn't have been more than a couple days 16 before that. 17 Q. So -- 13 A. It was in this same time frame.
.- 19 Q. So she resisted an audit at the end of
. 20 December or early- January?
21 A. Somewnere in that time frame, yes. 22 Q. Was there any other resistance to audits 23 prior to that, tnat M r .. Strand told you about? 24 A. Go, none that I remember. 25 Q. tir . Walker aske'd you about your knowledge FEDERAL COURT HEPORTERS
------ _ _. :=::: _ :.= =._ 2. = :..=.=.:. _ _ .-_ _ __ _ =._ - .
128 1 of when Ms. Hatley was there and when she wasn't ( 2 t ri e r e . I tnink your testimony was that you spent 3 about 80 percent of your time in DCC. When you were 4 in DCC, did you have an office? 9 5 A. No. 6 Q. So you just walked around? 7 A. Most of my time would have been in Strand's 8 office. 9 C. In Strand's office. And how far was 10 Strand's office from Ms. H a .- 1 c y ' s office? 11 A. A hundred feet, 150 ~ feet. 12' O. Do you recall that Ms. Hatley had to ( 13 request approximately a week off in December because 14 her father died? 15 a. No. lo u. No recollection of that at all? 17 A. No. 16 Q. There was some discussion about
. - 19 conversations with URC officials and particularly
, 20 Doyle Hunnicutt in followup to the CAT team report.
21 Did the followup to the CAT team findings -- strike 22 that. 23 lia c the followup to the CAT team findings 24 done exclusively oy the NRC? i 25 A. I really don't nave any way of knowing that. 1 FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
i
---__---:- = = _ = _ _ - -.=;- = -& " ' -*' _
129 ' 1 Q. What's your understanding of the 2 requirenent the NRC imposed which resulted in CYGNA
. 3 coming on site?
O 4 A. 1 know that CYGNA was there, and that's the -- 5 that's about it. 6 O. You have no understanding of the purpose of y 7 the CYGNA audit? 6 A. None whatsoever. 9 O. So it's.not -- 10 A. You know, I noted it was s o ri e sort of a 11 design review or design verification, but that -- 12 that's all. 13 O. You have no knowledge of CAT team being 14 respons1hle for following up -- I mean, the CYGNA 15 company being responsible for following up the CAT 16 team findings? 17 A. no. 1C O. No knowledge at all? 19 n. Il o .
. 20 MS. CARDE: That's all.
(o .- 21 MR. WALKER: I'd like, first of all, 22 for the record to reflect, Mt. Garde, out of i l 23 consideration for the limited time we had, Mr. 24 Jordan and I did not raise a number of objections to
\
l 25 your questions that we might have raiseo, in the FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
F-
= ;:.EL.:-hu-2.= .
130 1 interest of expediting this deposition and to 411ow ( 2 3 you to get through all of your questions as quickly
, 3 as possible.
4 We, of course, reserve the right to object 5 to use of any portion or all of this deposition at 6 trial as maybe appropriate under applicaole 7 evidentiary rules. 8 I'd also like to note for the record, since 9 you did not deal witn this specifically t the 10 beginning of the deposition, that Mr. Hutchinson 11 does not waive his right to review and sign the 12 transcript of tne deposition. And ne, therefore,
, 13 would request that the transcript be forwarded to 14 him through me. Is that agreeable?
15 MR. JORDAN: That's agreeable. I am lo ordering a copy indepencent of that. 17 MR. WALKER: So that he would have the 13 opportunity to review and sign tne deposition.
. . 19 MS. GARDE: Okay. I also appreciate
, 20 your not objecting to whatever questions you 21 concidered had some objectionable basis, so that we 22 could get this over with.
23 I will note for the record that it's our 24 position tnat this deposition is adjourned, but not ( 25 conclude.2, panding some kind of resolution by the FEDERAL COURT REPORTERG
~
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _. ; : ; .i:::.: = := :. [ ~~' ' ' _ _ rdLt=~L 131 1 Judge to the issues of documentation which was not 2 provided, and answers to the four questions about
. 3 whether or not the NRC was notified on a 5055-E 4 regarding the first four items of this memorandum.
5 I nave a feeling, Hr. Jordan, t h a t' I'm 6 going to want to schedule a conference call. I'd
, 7 like to do it this a f t e r :4 o o n , unless you feel you o need to be on it instead of Mr. Walker, in which 9 case we will have to try to schedule it later.
10 MR. JORDAN: I am deferring, as I 11 suggested earlier, on all evidentiary matters. 12 However, please consult with me before you t 13 reschedule Mr. Hutchinson's deposition, if that is 14 ordored. - 15 MS. G A R D r.: Oh, yes. Well, in light 10 of the fact that we're talking about four questions, 17 it the Judge would say that you needed to answer 18 them, I would - that could be done by writing.
- ' 19 That would be fine with me.
20 On the otner hand, if documentation is 21 produced which we think is responsive to the 22 subpoena and is necessary to have a complete 23 deposition of Mr. Hutchinson, and that would require 24 further actual deposition, then we would want to l t 25 rescnedule it et that time. So there's e couple of FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
_ _. .: . .~.._>- , ______.___--m________m___ 132 1 procedural things between then and now. I hope I ( 2 get the documentation and I hope I don't have to ask O 3 any more questions. So I will want to adjourn this 4 as opposed to conclude it. . 5 liR . WALKER: Well, I will note for the o record that, irrespective of the outcome of the 7 issue of production of the documentation, it is my 8 position that tnis deposition is co'ncluded and thet 9 you are not entitled to reconvene it. 10 MS. GARDC: I understand. 11 MR. WALKER: Obviously, we will , , 12 diccuss tnat with the Judge. lJ Md. GARDL: Okay. Adjourned. ( 14 (Time noted: 11:55 a.m.) 15 16 17 Lu '."- 19
. 20 21 22 23 24 25 FED 1;RAL COURT REPOR/ERS
. . _. . . ~_ _ -_. m ;_. :;.ul<!. - --
133 1 CORRECTIONS AND SIGNATURE 2 .PAGE_ LINE CORRECTION O
. REASON FOR CII A N G.E 3
4 5 6 7 E 9 10 11 12 13 1, HEYWARD ASGELL H U T Cili N S ON , have read the 14 toregoing deposition and hereby affix my signature 15 that same is true and correct, except as" noted 16 herein. 17 HEYWARD ASGELL HUTCHINSOG 18 19 SUBSCRIBED AND S *.J O RN to before me this the 20 day of , 1965. 21 22 NOTARY PUBLIC I t! IsN D FOR THE 23 STATE OF TEXAS 24 My conaission expires: 25 L FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS ____ __________m---
~
_ . . . _ . ...L_. '
--- - - - - - --- -- ----- di ~1Y- ' --
134 1 STATE OF TEXAS ) 2 COUNTY OF DALLAS ) 3 4 I, Sharon L. Szotak, RPR, Certified Shorthand 5 Reporter in and for the State of Texas, do hereby
. 6 certify that, pursuant to the agreement hereinbefore 7 set fortn, tuere came before me on the lith day of 6 February, A.D., 1985, at 8:00 o' clock a. m., at the 9 Glen Rose notor Inn, Glen Rose, Texas, the following 10 named person to-wit: lle y wa r d Asgell Hutchinson, who 11 was by me duly sworn to testify the truth and 12 nothing but the truth of his knowledge touching and 13 concerning tne matters in controversy in this cause:
1* and that he was thereupon examined upon his oath and 15 nis examination reduced to writing under my 16 supervision; t r. a t the deposition is a true record of 17 the testimony given by the witness, same to be sworn la to and subscribed by said witness before any Notary
.. 19 Public, pursuant to the agreement of parties.
20
- ~
21 1 further certify that I an neither attorney or 22 counsel for, nor relatec to or employed by, any of 23 the parties to the action in which this deposition 24 is taken, and f u r t te e r that I am not a relative or 25 cmployee of any attorney or counsel employed by the FEDERhb COURT REPORTERS
- -e,, -
=--.... -. ...a ...- - . - s 1w . . . . . . :. ..- :
~
1. 1 parties hereto, or financially interested in the 2 action.
~
3
. 4 In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand 5 and affixed my scal this 14th day of Feoruary, A.D.,
. 6 1985.
7 6 Commission Expires: December 31, 1985 j , 9 //Mc7h- . cVf 10 S H A KUN L. SZOTAK, RP p, CSR fle76 Ild AtJ D FOR T!!E STATE OF TEXAS 1226 Commerce, suite 411 11 Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 742-3035 12 i 13 14
-15 le 17 le
.. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
. . - . . =q .
~~
.c . . - - . . . . = - ' .,...a...
( gj ~
. o: ' ,
k T0: Ray Yockey (Personnel Manager) . . FROM: H. A. Hutchinson/F. M. Strand '
SUBJECT:
Termination of Dobie Hatley (Badge B-993) . Interoffice Memo
' Dobie Hatley (Badge B-993) is terminated effective February 7,1984, for " Failure to Obey Instructions." This termination decision is based upon recent observations and findings within those areas of Dobie's work.
responsibilities. ' Specific areas of deficiencies are listed below. (1) No updates to documents assigned to various departments - Building, Rigging, Fab Sh'op. (2) Drawings checked out to certain craft
- for extended periods of time.
(3) Failure to log drawings into computor system. , (4) Apparent f alsif'ication of records to match computor listings to physical filesi,. (5) Obtaining copies of departmental absent records - (Purpose and intent unknown.), (6) Constant confrontation with' fellow workers and craft supervision. These represent violation of established procedures and instructions and form the sole basis of her termination. , ., Ya N - F. M. Strand' OCC Supervisor az , H. A. Hutchinso( Project Control Manager FMS/ HAH /dc DEPOSITION I(J EXHIBIT [ EXHIBIT y
.94,,.../_f c
~__ .
I [1 bl. d,
. .. ~ .: _ .. - - . . . - . . .:
. : .. a. . . : -
.. :_u . - . . . _ . . . . - . . .
Era.vn CTRoot.ltr ( N { 35-11Q5 . p 2/7/84
. o; ' ,
T0: Ray Yockey (Personnel Manager) FROM: . H. A. Hutchinson/F. M. Strand '
~
SUBJECT:
Temination of Dobie Hatley (Badge B-993) Interoffice Memo
- Dobie Hatley (Badge B-993) is terminated effective February 7,1984 for " Failure to Obey Instructions." This termination decision is based upon recent observations and findings within those areas of Dobie's work responsibilities. ' Specific areas of deficiencies are listed below.
(1) No updates to documents assigned to various departments - Building, Rigging, Fab Shop. (2) Drawings checked out to. certain craft
- for extended periods of time.
(3) Failure to log drawings into computor system. (4) Apparent f alsification of records to match computor listings to physical filest,. (5) Obtaining copies of departmental absent records - (Purpose'and intent unknown.), (6) Constant confrontation with' fellow workers and craft supervision. These represent violation of established procedures and instructions and form the sole basis of her temination. ,. N - F.~M. Strand'.
- DCC Supervisor Y +1 H. A. Hutchinso(
~
Project Control Manager FMS/ HAH /dc -
^m
[2 DEPOSITIO7 DEPOSITION (( EXHIBli EXHIBIT ( [l u A.1- / . j4LL"1 L .- '
~
. - . . . . . . - :- . . L-- . ' . : . -. .-. -.u.s . .= . . -. .. , : + ,.:. 2 - ..
February 7, 1984 C C - u MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
' o* -
SUBJECT:
TERMINATION DORA D. (DOBIE) HATLEY
, PRESENT:
D. C. Frankum Ray Yockey H. H. Hutchinson Dobie Hatley The above named persons met at 12:30 P.M., this date in Hutchinson's office. The purpose was to inform Hatley that she was being terminated for, " Failure to Obey Instructions". Hutch-inson advised her of the specific reasons stated in the attached memo addressed to Yockey and signed by Strand and Hutchinson. Hut-chinson reitterated the key role of the Document Control Center in the construction activities and that.the numerous errors and omiss-ions of her function could no longer be tolerated. These errors 3x f and caissions were based upon an audit of the Satellite off~ce under _A!. T her supervision. _ k"nen it became obvious to Hatley she was in fact being term-inated, she offered her handwritten, undated letter of res.ignation to Hutchinson. Some brief' conversation ensued but, is not recalled. At this point, Hutchinson completed her termination slip and handed it to her fo'r her signature. She refused to sign it and I annotated , it accordingly. Frankum had left the room and I took the termination slip copy. to him for his signature and returned to present Hatley with her On returning to Hutchinson's offic.e, I partially overheard a conversation between Hutchinson and Hatley. Hatley mentioned going to' the Labor Board about a promised pay raise and there was some mention of her vacation and final pay. A -
/ Y Ray./Yockey Manager, Personnel. Services RY/ac l . ..- T. y
. DEPOSITION EXHIBIT
{ i sm, - J
[.I , . . . . - . .. . .----- ..-.- u ~
^
~ ~ ~ . - - ~ - - - - - - -
' 2
@b5i C;'
Actual operating instructions for the satellites are set forth in the Satellite Operating Instructions. That document instructs document clerks working in f ' the satellites how to prepare packages, how to issue controlled drawings and how to satisfy requests for new drawings. This is the critical procedure in terms of the interface between the satellites and those requesting a document. ~ Based on discussions with several document clerks, it appears that training on these actual operating instructions did not occur on a regular basis. Hatley was responsible for providing this training. To avoid this situation in the future.- training should be done and records kept to assure that document clerks in satellites receive training in satellite operating procedures. This training should emphasize the interface between the satellites
.. and those to whom they provide documents. .
C. It appears that procedural changes are necessary in DCC and satellite procedures. Firs t. DCP-3 should be modified to state clearly that whenever a satellite requests the hard copy of a drawing or reproduces a drawing and the drawing will be controlled. the satellite must advise the CRT. If a satellite requests a drawing from the phone bank, the phone bank should not issue it until it has received a copy of the written CRT request form. Second, it appears necessary to include in the Satellite Operating Instructions a requirement to call DCTG when errors or discrepancies are discovered on the data base. Third, authorization should be required from the head of DCC whenever manual design change logs are xeroxed. In this way DCC management will know when . a satellite has fallen so far behind in its f!!ing, that document clerks using the logs lack confidence in them. Had this procedure been in effect in November, it n likely that the difficulties in Satellite 306 would have been discovered sooner.
.. 5 Please review the above items. Please determine if these items have already been addressed as a result of our emphasis on document control activities or whether ,. further actions are necessary.
Please give me a status report by June 20. 1984, and every Friday thereafter until
. . these issues are closed.
A. Vega TUGCO Site QA Manager A V/bil cc: B. R. Clements , D. N. Chapman 1 l a
-~ p. w ~- m 3 -
e %, .._, _
,_mm. .a_ --' _
. X6m A - clue et kooens 1 CQ A-001 TEX 2 pher dF 366 Vic.Cw(. l
. O. *
. h %C.A65 $ , f ro B. C. Scott I ,
Subject Ouestions Q G\T4 JAW 6 I (CCCM L ES 4)@ . _CONFID ENTIA L AddGo A 8 C_kSWCCLaw kTtu a r t6:f[ _ a *Sp {c_ og. Please coordinate an assessment effort to determine Ine impuuativa, v. . A. Verbal instructions and procedures were communicated to DCC satellite personnel. * ' " -
- t fi: n.; x .x; id: "f!:d i- _ . . ~
~
t '- " -- _ .._ g : x " -m t a cro cra m m n +u " - - __ Wd those deficiencies were for the most part traceable to Hatley. For example, Hatley failed to advise her staff to call the CRT Room when ordering drawings. As a result, the exact count of drawings for that Satellite was not available. In all other satellites this procedure was followed and it seemed that for the most part it was effective. - were not current, document clerks would call DCC to obtain the latest document change paper. In addition. the logs themselves were replaced. Similarily, even when Satellite 306 failed to o'rder drawings through the CRT Room, document clerks always checked the computer when preparing packages to assure that the most current drawings were sent to the field, s received were consistent with DCP-3 and Satellite Operating Procedures. nz r M Esnadly.I it was assumed that if there was a significant breakdown in document
.' - control system, Hutchinson would have received increased complaints from craft. The basis for this assumption is that in many cases craft would initiate design changes during the course of construction and, therefore, would be
. - expecting design change documentation. No evidence was found of such complaints although individuals outside of DCTG, DCC and its management were not interviewed.
B. In regard to training, it appears that document clerks are trained in DCP-3. That training does not extend to the satellite procedures. To the extent that l I the custodian certification examination does require any knowledge of the functions performed by the satellites, these functions concern the interface between DCC and the satellites. p -m I;c:m :x--.s DEPOSITION ( EXHIBli Le i '-Let d9 L .
^
-.. . - . - - . . . . . . . _ . . t__.._ a. , _ _ _ _ x
, yfQ-766
... TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM
. To D. N. Chapman Date June 14, 1984 j Subject G Board Notification 84-085 I have reviewed Board Notification (BN) 84-085 and the attached enclosures.
Enclosure two is a transcript of Mrs. Hatley's interview with USNRC Region IV personnel, Messrs. Check and Denise. Mrs. Hatley summarized six concerns
- identified during the interview into a three page statement included as enclosure three to BN 84-085. In addition to these six concerns, Mrs. Hatley also discussed or described, in varying detail, the following:
., 1) the formation of the building Task Groups,
- 2) the circumstances surrounding her dismissal,
- 3) her reasons for not communicating her concerns to the NRC prior to her dismissal and
- 4) a description of the site visit by herself, Mr. Check and Mr.
Denise. The results of my review for each of the six concerns and the items noted above are as follows: A. Enclosure 3 - Concern 1
" Craftsman receive so much documentation, that may or may not be correct or all inclusive, that he can not be sure that wh'at he is doing is right and correct."
~The material in the transcript which appears to relate to this concern consists mostly of generalizations, some of which are similiar to a few of the twenty-four allegations received from Mr. Eisenhut. At page 15-of the transcript, Mrs.
Hatley noted that an NCR was written against UCC batellite 30b tor a missing DCA in a drawing computer datapackage, base. which she contends occurred because of inaccuracies in the this incident. 1.ater at pageand Review investigation of NCRs could provide details to 60 of the transcript, Mrs. Hatley contends she discussed a missing revision to a CMC with Hayward Hutchinson and Cathy Cawrence. Interviews with these personnel could provide turther details. However, I do not recommend that an investigation be conducted, since the questions of inaccuracles
- in the DCC data base and of missing or
, . addressed in responses to Mr. Eisenhut. lost documentation have already been B. Enclosure 3 - Concern 2 "The CYGNA evaluation of the drawing control system lacked independence because what was to be checked by CYGNA was given to me anc others before CYGNA come to check, and I was told to be sure that the information that CYGNA was going to check was available in the Satellites. It they 010 this to De sure that the UCC Satellite be sure thatSystem theypassed passedthe thetest, did they do the same thing on pipe supports to test."
b Tb
'i
\cns sy QM exsisiT su n
y , Wc w
. . _ _ . . - . - . - - -- - - - - - - - - ~ " --- - ~~ ^
~ ~ ~~
0;' Pages 23-24 of the transcript contains Mrs. Hatley's version of how she obtained f$: a copy of a list of documentation purportedly furnished as advance notification by CYGNA personnel to Hayward Hutchinson. This issue is being pursued in the hearings and investigatied by S. Hartman. C. Enclosure 3 - Concern 3 "The TUGC0 QA group is not doing what needs to be done to assure that the
- Document Control System at Comanche Peak is correct. I am prepared to discuss this more fully at a latter time."
The lack of detail provided by Mrs. Hatley (see pages 34-36 and 57-58 of the transcript) does not permit an investigation at substantive tact. D. Enclosure 3 - Concern 4 "There are problems in the cable tray hanger clamps. Clamps were never inspected on site or off site to see that they were acceptable. I was made aware of this when we got involved in a backfit effort on cable tray supports. There was not correct documentation available." The lack of detail provided by Mrs. Hatley (see pages 59 and 60 of the transcript) does not permit an investigation of substantive tact. E. Enclosure 3 - Concern 5 "There were corrected." errors in color coding of instrument piping which need to be , The lack of detail provided by Mrs. Hatley (see page 61 and 62 of the transcript) does not permit an investigation of substantive tact. F.
"There are steel pillars in the cable spread room, about 1050 feet, which appears to be laminated instead of extruded, with no documentation of quality.
This was revealed to me by a paint inspector." The lack of detail provided by Mrs. Hatley (see pages 61-63 of the transcript) does not permit an investigation of substantive fact. Note: This apparently
,'. relates to SDAR CP-84-01 which dealt with sur. face indications identified on two T8" wide flange columns used as supports in the unit I cable spreacing room.
f .c ._<.;- 'M "A CC -
. ~ _ . _
.n ; - .
G. The Formation of Building Task Groups During this discussion, Mrs. Hatley alleges that document control procedures were arbitarily changed by management to accommodate the formation of the building task grcups and that she received no cooperation from the task groups in updating document packages. The lack of detail provided (see pages 36-40 of the transcript) does not permit an investigation of substantive fact.
w . . _ - . . . -.-.-.=.. ..:.. ~ =--. ' .- ~ - - - - -' "
---~..- .-~.~" - -
0;' H. Circumstances Surrounding Mrs. Hatley's Dismissal > q[r. Mrs. Hatley on pages 41 through 48 of the transcript provides a detailed ~ description of the events surrouncing her cismissal. Although a detailed reve1w for accuracy could be made, it is not clear whether or not the effort is
' warrented. I recommend that no investigation ne conouctea until accitional details are determined.
1. Reasons for not Communicating her Concerns to the NRC Prior to her Dismissal Mrs. Hatley alleges that visiting the NRC onsite would lead to dismissal by Brown & Root; however, no examples are cited (see pages 49 througn do of the transcript). J. Description of the Site Visit by Mrs. Hatley, Mr. Check and Mr. Denise Folicwing the interview, Mrs. Hatley, Mr. Check, Mr. Denise, Mr. Kelley (NRC) and Mr. Frank Strand (Brown & Hoot) visitea datellites JUb and JU/. Iney noted by number several drawings and CMCs that they selected for viewing. Ihey drew no conclusions (see pages 64-69 of the transcript) as a result of these activities. In summary, the lack of detail available in the transcript makes it impossible to address and resolve Mrs. Hatley's concerns. Furthermore, the ettorts in responding allegations to the fiRC regarding the 24 allegations from Mr. Eisenhut and the relatin Hatley's concerns. g to protective coatings already address many of Mrs. Therefore, although I have noted certain events describec Dy Mrs. Hatley which could be verified by investigation,'l recommend that no further action be taken in this regara pena.ing the availability of additional details.
,4h '
R. G. Sp ngler f RGS:In e
;. .. . .- .-~.~4-~ ~=m ~~-~i '--'~-**"~~****A*""~ ' ^ * * "*' * * * * '
~
- TEXAS D f1LITIES GENERATING COi1PAhT OFFICE MEMORANDUM, 0;' Distribution ro OAlf 0003 Y.
s ay,,, RE00EST FOR ASSISTANCE IN RESOLVING OUALITY ASSURANCE ALLEGATI0F5 Investigation Requested by Bovce Grier Date February 2/9/84 Corporate Security Assistance Requested Yes (XX ) No ( ) Allegation Made by (Name, Dept., Badge f) Dobie Hatlav Confidentiality Requested Yes ( ) No (XX) Allegation Made to (Name, Dept., Badge f) nnvco r, ri a r . Tpr,r0 na The attached allegation has been received by the TUGC0 Quality Assurance Department. The following individuals are asked to provide the assistance requested in order to
- resolve the allegation.
The mee<e+=nco nr rnrenr=+. cor,,r4+y <e ..n . .. e t o ,4 in in...etin=+4n-of allecations contained in the attached recort of an. interview with Dobie Hatlev on February 7,1984 as follows:
- 1. The use of druos in a DCC satellite office (Item 89)
- 2. The coeration of the Ouality Hotline (Item #12)
- 3. The bugging of telephones (Item #13) ,-.
All correspondence relating to this matter shall reference the above QAI number and will be distributed as detailed below. Distribution - Confident al - D. N. Chapman / Dallas QA/QE File D. L. Andreves/ Corporate Security ~ Scyce Grier/CPSES OA d,ng)'{tgr'.~ ij ,) l ;l G M Initiator R. G. Tolson .- -- DEPOSITION EXHIBIT { 3
- m@s
f# TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY I
' OrrICE MEMOR ANDUM
- 7. A. Veaa '
cien nose. Texas February 24,198d subject Allecations of Dobie Hatley This is to provide you with the results of my review of the allegations - contained in the report of my interview with Dobie Hatley on February 7, 1984, copy attached.
- 1. Item #1 - I discussed the basis for Hatley's termination with Frank Strand, DCC Supervisor. Strand stated that Hatley was terminated because of problems with her performance in supervising the DCC satellite offices. A recent audit identified problems in areas for which Hatley was responsible and which were the result of her failure to follow instructions.
- 2. I.homesii -
- e
. Whenever it is determined that that tas happene ,1 is the practice to issue an NCR and to reinspect. This appears to be an appropriate way to handle corrective action in such cases. -
A +-t --' -"' 1. There may be others but f it does not appear to be a significant problem. It would be appropriate during your next audit of inspector training and certifications to examine the steps taken to prevent the use of uncertified inspectors. I do not interpret Hatley's concern to be that inspections have been performed by uncertified inspectors but rather that having to , reinspect is inefficient and causes extra work for DCC. .-
- 3. P---
% .. , m.v rw --These matters'all relate to the Document -- '
Control Program and should be examined during your next audit of
- f- DCP. I-.... . J ~ ' "" _ u..u.enueu .
~"a
-"> ' ^^ "
. themenigter. ~
- 4. I'-m E4 N ~^^~'A'h "'^
''" "~~ was identi fied in
~
by Hatley do not add anything to this matter.
- 5. h- '5 - T H -rn W m wi'h tha cabla +-av e"--- '
_ _ : -. was identiTied u- - ,-- u e-in teLn M-84-00062 dated 1/10/84. 3a a en cet,) n~,r+ NF "E noti #4 d ^'
<e
- e ., s 4 r, - tamo uo/84). The statemer.ts by riauey co not add anything to this matter.
- x. . = .
@ DEPOSITION
( EXHIBIT I4
. $.U h % .. .
s ~- ~':-
=.- .:_..__.~.... -
,.i.-...z.. x x L :.a -: i:. a - . : . :=~ L.. a --: -
( ( . . A. Vega Page 2
- February 24, 1984 '
d
. 6. Item #7 - No action is necessary on this matter.
- 7. Items #9, #12 and #13 - I have referred these matters to Corporate Security for investigation. (QAI #0003)
- 8. Item !11 - The allegations regarding the CYGNA report are being aired during the Licensing Hearings. I plan no action on this matter. -
If you have questions on any of the above matters, please let me know. 74ce' /c $5! fBoyc1FH. Grier BHG/bil Attachment cc: D. N. Chapman R. G. Tolson
* ~
e e t 4
\
_ _ . - _ _ . , , _, . _ - . . __vm...
E .. w... .. . .. .
. s . .. r. .r.- . . ' . -
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPAhT OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM
, c; - To Michael D. Spence Date May 22, 1984 4 Subject Dobie Hatley Allegations This memo is intended as a status report concerning our response to allegations made by Dobie Hatley in her interview with the NRC last February (the subject of Board Notification 84-085).
My initial review of this notification leads me to believe that our
- response to Eisenhut's April 24 letter addresses many of her concerns (though not in the same order as listed in BN 84-085).
However, I've asked Bob Spangler to make detailed "take offs" from BN 84-085 and, working with documentation specialists from John Merritt's staff, evaluate the allegations as stated by Hatley to the NRC. We should be able to respond to some of these issues with Sandy Hartman's investigation report when we get that. I also expect our audit files to help, s'ince Hatley's activities were audited last year.
- I'll keep you posted as our work in this area proceeds.
C M'
. h.khap n DNC:In cc: B. R. Clements R. G. Spangler 6
e
,.A e
yog" ~ DEPOSITION *'
!o! #y ~ & A.dG331)
%r, .
.-.-.-a.....~....-..,.--..* .
. . L. V:.. . . . . . . .. . . ~ - . . . - . . - - - . . -
ZXAS UTILITIES SERVICES I
- l. ' nr
. i*-
M
* # "i .mf '" '
. OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM 4' To Mr. David Chapman Dallas, Texa= 14R4 Ap'-i l 9-d.
Subjee, Resconse - Recuest for investicative assistance regardino Allegations by Ms. Dobie Hatley . On February 10, 1984 this office received a request for investi-gative assistance from Mr. Boyce Grier (CPSES). Mr. Grier a specifically requested Corporate Security assistance in resolving - thr'ee (3) allegations made to him by Ms. Dobie Hatley, a former employee at CPSES. These three allegations are summarized as follows:
- 1. That certain personnel at CPSES felt that the telephones were bugged.
- 2. That drug use at CPSES was widespread and in-volved a DCC supervisor.
- 3. That the Quality Hot-Line was not working and that persons who had called the Hot-Line had not received responses.
With regard to allegation #1, which.is vague in nature, it has been determined that a proper investigation of this charge would logically require recontact with Ms. Hatley for the purpose of obtaining more specific detail (eg. type of " bugging" being conducted, locations of suspected " bugs", etc.). Our legal counsel (Mr. Sandy Hartman) has advised that such contact with Ms. Hatley at this time should not be' attempted in view of pend-ing litigation involving Ms. Hatley, Brown & Root, and Texas Utilities. Based upon my experience in the area of electronic interception detection and my familiarity with the size of the telephone system at CPSES, I am of the opinion that any type of general telephone security survey (without additional specific . - 1 input from Ms. Hatley) would be extremely costly and essentially non productive in addressing her expressed concerns.
' ' . With regard to allegation #2 (re: drug use), our attorneys have advised that this charge is involved in pending litigation and
,1 should not be investigated by Corporate Security at this time.
The following information is submitted with regard to Ms. Hatley's third allegation regarding the operation of the " Quality Hot Line:" samm CEPOSITION EXHIBIT i AM.4%A I 4_
.a..___._._.-...._..v. m .c... '. .
_--.2_. ...._. .. .....a- -- - . - . - ._ - c c . . 7 q -. U U i i laq 4ii[ L.' n3l 8 Mr. David Chapman Page 2 I"l iui ul gg
- 1. As of the date of Ms. Hatley's allegation, ,
this office had received only four (4)
" Hot-Line concerns" or referrals from CPSES-0A which required investigation and wherein the alleger had requested an answer 4 based upon the results of the investigation. -
Of these four, only two (2) had been received more than two-weeks prior to Hatley's allegations.
' 1
- 2. Of the two investigations which were over two weeks old, one had been completed (and a summary of results prepared for
,the alleger) and one (1) investigation was still in progress. In the case of both of these investigations, the allegers had also been contacted in order to provide them with the status of the ongoing in-vestigations and/or to obtain additional information to be used in the conduct of the inquiry.
- 3. In both of the above-noted investiga'tions the allegers had requested confidenticlity in order that their identity would not be revealed to anyone at CPSES. It would there-fore seem somewhat implausible that Ms. Hatley would know their identities, the nature of their expressed concerns and/or the status or results of the investigations into their allegations.
- 4. This office has no information to indicate that Ms. Hatley has ever utilized the Hot-Line for .
any purpose, nor has she contacted this office to inquire as to the status of any investigation.
- 5. This office has, to date, never received a complaint from any alleger that his " Hot-Line" concern was not addressed or was inadequately
.1 addressed.
i 1 e i
~~~
c c - - ine,
U l
- I e $a o.. Mr. David Chapman ,a i ~ "* Page 3 s i dd
$ 6. This office operates under procedures intended to insure proper receipt and documentation of -
all " Hot-Line" concerns. The " Hot-Line" is answered on a twenty-four (24) hour basis,
' either by Corporate Security personnel or by a telephone answering device. The telephone answering device is chechad for proper '+ functioning at the end of each work day and at the beginning of the following work day. A daily log is maintained to verify these checks.
I am hopeful the above information is responsive to Ms. Hatley's expressed concerns regarding the operation of the " Hot-Line." I am deferring any investigation into allegations #1 and #2 until I receive further instruction from legal counsel. COA $ 0hd David L. Andrews Director of Corporate , Security DLA/la cc: EOyce Grier, CPSES
/
i $> O
1 n i 11 , l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA j i BEFORE TliE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR - i 2 DOBIE 11 AT L E Y , ) 3 ) Complainant, ) 4 ) Case No. VS. ) 84-ERA-23-25 5 ) BROWN AND EOOT, ) 6 )
-$i*a Respondent. )
7
'l* a 1-0 9
10 11 ORAL DEPOSITION 12 OF 1, FRANK f! ARK STRAND 14 1 15 16 ASSWERS A!!D DEPOGITION of FRANK MARK STRAhD, 17 t a k ce n at the instance of the C o r.p l a i n a n t , on the l e., tri'FW*' % , in the above styled and
. 19 num'oered cause at the Glen Rose Motor inn, located
- 20 at lii g hw a y s 67 and 114, in tne City of Glen Rose, 21 County of'Somervell and State of Texas, before 22 Sharon L. Szotak, a Certified Shorthand Reporter in l 23 and for the State of Texas, pursuant to the 24 agreement hereinafter sut forth.
p k i 25 pc3A uu-C 0 P Y FEDERAL COURT F.E P O R T E 16 ,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ fO'C _ r2"CC _ _ i _ dM C* "._ C ZD_d _~ 2 l 1 APPEARANCES: i 2 3 GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT 1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 4 Suite 202 Washington, D.C. 20036 5 By: Ms. Billie Garde s u APPEARING FOR COMPLAINANT 7 UISHOP, LIBERMAN, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS 3 s . Attorneys at Law l* 8 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W. Wcshington, D.C. 20036 9 By: Richard K. Walker, Esq., and Carol Rosch, Esq. 10 APPEARING FOR RESPONDENT 11 VINSOt* k ELKIUS 12 Attorneys at Law First City Tower 13 Houston, Texas 77002 { i DY: W. Carl Jordan, Esq. 14 j APPEARING FOR Ti1E WITUESS AL30 PRESENT: 16 Ms. Dobio Hatley Ms. Billie Irene Orr " 17
,. lu , 19 .
20 . o 21 22 23 24 25 l l FEDERAL COUR? REPORTERS
_f. . . . . . . . . . . - . - - -
- -- - ~
--[ - - - -
3 1 INDEX i 2 WITNESS: FRANK MARK STRAND Examination by Ms. Garde Page 13, 147 3 Examination by Mr. Walker, Page 146 4 5 DEPOSITION (STRAND) EXHIBIT PAGE 6 Exnibit Number 1 107
= . ~
7
$ 8 9 * * * *
- 10 11 A G K E E M E N T 12
, 10 It is hereby agreed by and between the 14 parties hereto through their attorneys appearing l 5' herein, tnat this deposition may be signed before 16 any Notary Public and thereafter returned into Court 17 and used on the trial of this cause with the same ,, 18 force and effect as though all requirements of the 19 Rules anc Statutes with reference to signature and 20 return had been fully complied with.
21 22 23 24 25 b FEDERAL COUR~f REPORTERS A
.. ..~..- -.:.~.....- = - .. .. . .: . . :- - - . . . . . - - - . . ---:- ==~:- --
j 4 I 4 1 1 P R O C E E D I N G S I 2 MS. GARDEs This is the deposition of 3 Mr. Frank Strand. Before we get started with that,
- 4 I have two preliminary matters for Mr. Walker, not 5 related to Mr. Strand, but on this case.
6 Yesterday, Mr. Walxer, there was some
~
7 question and answer of me about the settlement i
$ 8 negotiations in this case at the beginning of the 9 deposition, and I answered those questions in the 10 spirit of acxnowledging that you have, in the past, 11 taped acttlement negotiations and you wanted to 12 memorialize th'e discussions between myself and 13 another one of your colleagues, Mr. Downey, over the 14 past couple of days, which is fine and I don't have 15 any problem with that.
16 However, after talking to one of my 17 supervisors last night, he suggested that I add to 1G this record today the statement that we t h i r. k that 19 there is some possibility that you will use that 20 colloquy between myself and you in some type of l 21 motion to dismiss this casc. And if that is your 22 intent of doing that, we object to that. i 23 If you do that, we would also request that 24 the record reflect at this time, and that you ( 25 consider yourscif bound to report that our position FEDERAL COURT REPORTERC
-- - = -: --.
' ~ - - - - - -
"-u"- ~' ;
5 N 1 on the settlement, althougn I will not go into the L 2 terms of the offer, was that our client believed 3 that it contained some unacceptable strings attached 4 to it and that it did not compensate for the fact 5 that she has lost her job and has lost income for a 6 large period of time. Since you didn't put any of
=
7 the terms yesterday on the record, I won't do that, d either. I assume that you prefer not to have tnat 9 done. 10 MR. WALKER: Inasmuch as it's my 11 understanding that the settlement discussions, 12 certainly the settlement discussions in which I 13 participated, I think it's very clear that those 14 discussions and all offers made in them were l 15 intended to be held confidential. And it's my 16 undcratanding that subsequent discussions in which I 17 did not participate, that were conducted between you 18 and Mr. Downey under a similar condition, was
.a 19 thoroughly communicated.
20 Ms. GARDE: I have no problem with
* ~
21 that. It's just that if you are going to use the 22 colloquy between myself and you in some type of 1 23 motion to dismiss or any other brief that you may 24 file in this matter, I want the record to clearly 25 reflect that my client's position was that there was 1 FEDERAL CGURT REPORTCRS
- ; _ : = :.= :.: =:: : -h := .: : u;. .-- _ : _t J _ _: '= = C;._- _. = ._. 2 6
1 unacceptable strings attached to the offer. And I I 2 don't thinh any more needs to be said about that. 3 Second, Ms. lia t l e y reminded me of something 4 which I'd completely forgotten since los-c summer, 5 and that was, during one of her depositions, you 6 presented her with some books which were her 7 personal property, and you have not returned that h 8 property and she is still desirous of that. 9 In volume four of the oral deposition of 10 Dobie li a t l e y , on page 163, although you did not 11 agree to return her property, you did say that you 12 would be happy to provide her a copy of tnese. And , i g 13 we would request that you do that or return the l j i 14 property in the very near futuro. i 15 Those are my only two unrelated preliminary 16 matters to this deposition. 17 MR. WALKER: In response to your I '
,, 10 second one, Ms. Garde, inasmuch as I have reason to 19 believe that the property to whien you refer may 20 constitute evidence in this case, it will not be my 21 intention, and it was not my intention last summer, 22 to suggest that that property would be.rcturned i
23 prior to trial. 24 If Ms. hatley has need of the property i 25 before t r i.a l', I'd suggest the appropriate way to FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
-e
_.=_.. :.:. .=_a- gg_ 7 1 1 1 deal with that would be to file a motion with Judge 2 Halporn in which we could discuss how best to insure 3 the preservation of evidence in the case. 4 MS. GARDE: Well, I just said that we 5 would find it acceptable if you copied it and G p:' o v i d c u her a copy of that. You know, if you do e
~
7 that, we don't need the actual materials. If you ( 8 are not willing to have that done, then I agree that
') we should file some kind of motion.
10 MR. WALKER: May I assume that Ms. 11 11atley is prepared to reimburse my client for the 12 cost of copying? 13 MS. GARDE: You can't assume that 14 without me checking with her. 15 MR. WALKER: Well, as you will recall, 16 the caterials are rather voluminous, and in fact 17 we're talking about two whole books. If she wants [, 15 those copied, 1 think that it would be unreasonable 19 for her to expect that Brown & Root would bear the 20 expense of that copying. O 21 MS. GARDC: Well, I think it's 22 unreasonable tnat you have had that property for i 23 seven or eight months.ano not returned it. I would 24 advise her not to pay for the cost of the copies. 2b She's unemployed, she doesn't have any money to pay i FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
~
- _ z - - _ - .- _ L 8
i 1 for copying of her own personal property, which we 2 maintain was illegally taken from her in the first 3 place which is, 1 think, a little outrageous. 4 If we can't agree to this amicably, we will 5 nave to file something. So why don't you get back 6 with me and let me know at the end of today or
~
7 tomorrow, when you get back in Washington, what j ,' S you're going to do, and then we'll do whatever we 9 nave to do. 10 MR. WALKER: Well, I think I can state 11 at tnis point that, at most, Brown & Root will be 12 prepared to provide her with copies of the books if ' g 13 Ms. Hatley is prepared to reimburse Brown & Root for !
. j f
14 the cost of copying. I'll check to see if there is 15 any problem with that. 16 But I also think it's necessary to address 17 your characterization of the circumstances under 16 wnich Brown & Root came into possession of this 19 property. 20 MS. GARDE: I don't know how that is. l 21 HR. WALKER: it c 1 1 , your 22 characterization is that it was illegally taken from l 23 her. My understanding is it was not taken from her 24 at all. The property was left by her at the site, t 25 and discovered. And again, inasmuch as we think FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS l
_ ___ 3 -
~ -
. 9 i
i that the books concerned may be of some evidentiary
! 2 value, we are not inclined to surrender them at this 3 point unicas we can work out with Judge Halpern a 4 way of preserving whatever may be of evidentiary 5 value in those books.
6 But let me also say that nobody has any
~
7 intention of being unreasonable about this. And if {,' G we determine at some point that the books do not 9 have evidentiary value, or, of course, if the case 10 is dismissed, I'm prepared to return the books to 11 Ms. Hatley forthwith. 12 MS. GARDE: Okay. I didn't mean to 13 imply tnat you didn't intend to ultimately return 14 them to her. And I think my uncerstanding of how
-t 1
15 tney came into your possession is somewhat limited 16 to Ms. Hatley's contention that the last time she 17 saw the books they 'were in her personal home, not at 10 the site. However, you now have them snd say that
]
19 you got them at the site. However you got them, 20 it's not l'n dispute that they are her personal 21 property. And if you think they have evidentiary 22 value, you certainly have a right to use them. I an l 23 just saying that she wants them back; and if she 24 can't have tne actual books back at this time, she i 25 , wants a copy of'them, wnich you agreed to provide. FEDERAL COURT REPORTERb
10 k 1 I don't think -- and I will have to look; I , I 2 don't want to do it now -- whether or not we 1 J 3 discussed costs before. You're right in that there 4 are two books of several hundred pages and I would S imagine that the cost of the copying of them would
. 6 be somewhat prohibitive. Although, I do understand 7 the books are in print, and so she can't just go f 8 down to tne store and buy two more' books. I'll*have 9 to talk to her. And we'll talk about it maybe 10 tomorrow.
i 11 MR. WALKER: Okay. I 12 MS. GARDE: Those are the only l 13 preliminary matters tnat I have. 14 MR. WALKER: Hs. Garde, as long as
, 15 we're going back to the deposition last summer, I l
16 would suggest to you that it would be advisable for l 17 you to have Ms. Hatley review her deposition. There i le are a number of instances in that deposition in 19 which she promised to provide information and/or you
\ 20 or Mr. Cluitt promised to provide information --
21 MS. GARDE: I have her working on it 22 now. I I 4 23 MR. WALKER: -- and that has not been 24 done. 4 25 MS. GARDE: I understand. I have her FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
- - , + - - ~ - - . - -. -g + , - - , . , . . -c.--- - - - - - . , - . . ~ , - . _ _ , - , . , ,,,r - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - +
...-...- -...t....^. . :..
11 1 I working on that now. I 2 would you swear the witness now, please. 3 FRANK' MARK STRAND, 4 the witness hereinbefore named, having been first 5 duly cautioned and sworn to tell the truth, the 6 whole truth and nothing but the truth, was examined
~
7 and testified as follows: {~ S MR. JORDAN: Before we start again, 9 let me make a couple of brief statements'for the 10 record with regard to Mr. Strand's deposition. 11 My name is Carl Jordan. I am appearing 12 here today in the capacity of Mr. Strand's personal 13 attorney in connection with this matter,'this matter 14 being the Hatley 210 case. Neither Mr. Strand nor i 15 myself nave been a party to any of the prior 16 arguments and discussions with the Judge in this 17 case on evidentiary matters; therefore, we will bc
; 18 deferring to Mr. Walker's advice and instruction, 19 Ms. Garde, on all evidentiary questions, and just 20 want you to be aware of that at the outset.
21 That's really all I have for the record. 22 Can we go off for one second? l
'23 MS. GARDE: Sure.
24 (Wnercupon, there was a i 25 (discussion off the record t FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
-------_---=:-----~--_.'-22__-_~- -.
12 I 1 (Ms. Haticy enters the 2 (doposition room 3 MR. JORDAU: I don't know what 4 agreements the parties are into in connection with 5 this deposition, but Mr. Strand would appreciate the 6 right to revicw and make corrections and sign his
~
7 deposition before it's filed or any use is made of d." 6 it. And you can accomplish that by forwarding the 9 original to him through Mr. Walker. 10 MS. GARDE: Okay. Let's identify, for 11 the record, all the parties in the room. I'm Billic 12 Garde. I am a law student that represents Ms. Dobic 13 Hatley in her 210 action against Brown & Root. I am 14 witn the Government Accountability Project, 1555 l 15 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., .Wa s h i ng t o r. , D.C. 20036. 16 With me is the complainant in this action, Ma. Dobic 17 Hatley. Mr. Jordan? 16 MR. JORDAN: l I am Carl Joruan with the i l 19 law firm of Vinson & Elkins. . , And as I mentioned 20 carlier, I am here representing Mr. Strand ~ 21 personally in connection with this action. 22 MR. WALKER:
, I am Richard Walker. I 23 represent the respondent in this action, Brown &
24 Root Incorporated. With =e and assisting me in the i 25 deposition is an)ther attorney from my firm, Carol FLDERAL CGURT REPORTERS
._________ __ -* ~^ -ibii: " '----~b _= a ,
13 1 4 1 Resch. I 2 EXAMINATION 3 BY MS. GARDE: 4 Q. Mr. Strand, will you please state your full 5 name for the record. 6 A. Frank Mark Strand. 7 Q. And are you currently employed? d - A. No, ma'am. 9 Q. Retired? 10 A. I am retired. 11 Q. Prior to your retirement, did you work for 12 Brown & Root? 13 A. Yes, ma'am. 14 Q. And that was at the. Comanche Peak site? 15 A. That is correct. 16 Q. Could you please give me the dates of your 17 employment for Drown & Root Incorporated? Is A. From July the 6th or 9th, .I believe, 1980, 19 until (4 arch 5th or 6th of '84. 20 Q. Was the entiro period of that employment at 21 the Comanche Peak project? 22 A. Yes, ma'am. 23 Q. And prior to working for Brown & Root, 24 where did you work? I~ 25 A. I was a deputy sheriff in Hood County and FEDEHAL COURT REPORTERS
+
_ _ _ _ -_ _ -_ :_ _ i.: :n:t.:a:.:_ _ _.d:;.i =:. ; =:.;;.__ = __ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ 14 l 3 1 in Somervell County. ( 2 O. And for how long a period of time did you 3 have that employment? 4 A. From, I believe, 1975, probably early 1975, 5 until 1980. 6 Q. And what did you do prior to 1975? 7 A. For a two-year period, or a three-year
.. 6 period, I was semi-retired. I am a General Motors 9 retiree.
10 0. So you had 30 years as a General Motors -- 11 A. No. 12 Q. About 20 years? 9
, 13 A. I was with General Motors approximately 12 14 yours, I think.
15 Q. And at what particular location? 16 A. For several years based out of Lockport, 17 Ncw York. Commencing in 1963 I had an office in
~
18 hurst, Texas. I moved to Hurst, Texas, from New 19 'Jork in, I believe, May of 1963. 20 Q. Am I correct in assuming then that Comanche 21 Peak is the first nucicar power construction project 22 that you've worked on? 23 A. That is correct. Well, that is not 24 completely correct, ma'ac. May I say something? t I 25 - G. Sure. I 4 FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
. - - - - . , . , - - , --. _._.c _ _. . - , ,,,- ---
. :. ; =.: : = - . & . : " : _: _ = = '* ' * ~
_ f rl'~" _n 15 l 1 A. In ny employment with General Motors and a f . ( 2 prior organization, the Adsco Division of Ubi'ck 3 Consolidated Industries, I did have conduct with the 4 4 nuclear industry with Adsco. We were successful 5 bidders, I believe, with FMC Corporation in 6 providing heavy water reactors and heat exchanges, 7 heat transfer products, for export.
., B Q. And that was a subcontractor?
9 A. Yes. 10 0. Okay. Thank you. 11 tty questions, Mr. Strand, are going to be 12 directed to the time period of your employment at 13 Comanche Peak. I will try to give you a specific 14 time period that I'm asking you a question about. I 15 tend to be a little sloppy about that sometimes 16 because I haven't had a lot of experience. So if 17 you don't understand a question, please ask me to 18 restato the question or clarify somothing that is . 19 . ambiguous. Don't try to answer it if you don't
,, r 20 un.derstand it.
21 A. I understand. 22 Q. i As I'm sure Mr. Jordan and Mr. Walker have 23 told you, if at any time you need to talk to them or 24 you want to interrupt me and ask a question, you , t 25 know, just indicate that you want to do tnat.
~
PEDERAL COURT RE P O RT E P.S 1 i
- :. : - i = .:_.:.:: : r _ _ r : _ n _ _ _ _ ._, i'i-n s ._, z _ _ _ ; _ ;in 16 1 MR. WALKER: Off the record.
I 2 (Whereupon, there was a 3 (discussion off the record 4 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) Who was your supervisors at 5 Comanche Peak? 6 A. At what point in time? 7 Q. Well, just very quickly if you would run
." 6 through the chronology of them, if there's more than 9 one. -
10 A. There were. Both of my main supervisors, 11 superintendents, I think, technically were on loan 12 to the client, which was Texas Utilities. When 1 ( 13 came aboard at Comanche Peak, I reported to Mr. Ken 14 Thornton. 15 y. And what was his title at that time? 16 A. I think, manager of warehousing and 17 production control. 16 Q. Okay. And what was your title at the time 19 you were reporting to him? 20 A. I don't think I can answer that, Ms. Garde. ~ 21 1 don't know what the title was. 22 Q. What did you do? 23 A. Well, there w a s n ' t. such a slot in existence 24 before I came aboard. I did essentially industrial I. 25 cngineering studies. FEDCRAL COURT REPORTERS A
_=___ ._ _-_-.g.. . _ . . = - 17 1 Q. Okay. And what was your next position and ( 2 supervisor? 3 A. When I took over the document control 4 center. 5 Q. And who was your supervisor for that? 6 A. Mr. Hevward Hutchinson on the Brown & Root 7 side of the house. And I might add Mr. Dan Ili c k s , 8 in both situations with Mr. Thornton and Mr. 9 Hutchinson, he had cognizance over both areas. 10 Q. And Mr. flicks is TUGCO? 11 A. Texas Utilities, yes. 12 Q. Now, what were your responsibilities as 13 supervisor of document control? ( 14 A. The production and distribution of all - 15 engineering documentation. 16 Q. And when you say all engineering 17 documentation, could you plesse explain to me a 18 little bit more what that means? 19 A. As brictly as I can, this was all A and E 20 drawings, architect and engineer's drawings, all 21 site generated drawings and all accompanying design 22 changes, procedures, specifications; everything the 23 site essentially operated from. 24 Q. Wcre all the documents wnich you've 1 25 described documents to be used by construction or FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
- _ - _ = - : &- ::=~=- -. --
- - - =.~ :' *252.:= _ _ _ ~_ ._ ^ b --
18 1 craft side of the house as opposed to quality i 2 control? 3 A. No. We served quality control, engineering, 4 the crafts, in many cases the subcontractors. 5 Q. And when did you assume the position as 6 supervisor over document control? 7 A. I'm not positive, but I think it was May t
' .' u 1982.
9 0 When was the first time that you met 'Dobie 10 Hatley, Mr. Strand? . 11 A. I think I may have met Ms. Hatley in 1977 12 or '78 when I was a deputy sheriff in Somervell 1
, 13 County.
14 Q. Were you friends with her at that time? 1 -l 15 A. I don't think Ms. Hatley and I knew each 16 other very well. I can only remember one contact: 17 I believe she was occupied as a Juvenile officer in
- _", 18 tne county at that point in time. And I left 19 Sonervell County to return to the Hood County 20 Shuriff's Department shortly after she took tnat 21 position over.
22 O. When is the first time that you met Ms. 23 Hatley, or re-mut Ms. .fl a t l e y , at the Comancho Peak 24 site, if you recall? I ( 25 A. At the time that I took over the document FEDERAL CuURT REPORTERS
,- g---,,- ~ - - e-- -, - - - , ---- - - - - - ,, - w---- - - - , -
. . . a. . . - .-...:..-- .:....--- : ,
-..r. . -.. :. 2 :
19 l 1 control system. I Q. 2 Now, at that' time, to the best of your 3 recollection, what was Ms. Haticy's position? 4 A. I believe she was supervisor of the night 5 shift, the second shift.
}
6 Q. Did you have anything to do with !!s . Hatley 7 being selected as a night shift supervisor? h 8 A. No, I did not. She was in that position 9 when I took the department over. 10 u. And in that position, what is your 11 understanding of what her responsibilities were? 12 A. If my recollection is correct, I think the 13 night snift at that point in time was concerned 14 casentially with. reproduction, possibly a few l 15 extraneous duties. There were possibly six or seven 16 people involved. 17 Q. Now, sometime after May of 1982 when you
. 18 became the document control supervisor --
is that 19 the correct title? 20 A. (Witness nods). 21 Q. Okay. There was a reorganization into what 22 we now refer to as the satellite system. Do you 23 recall that? 24 A. Yes, ma'am. 25 O. Would you please briefly describe for the FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
'I
---_________=_________.___.__::_.__:___._.___.:_._ca _ .
20 1 record what your understanding is of why the I 2 satellite system was started? You don't need to
- 3 explain the satellite system to me. Just why it was 4 started.
I i 5 A. Actually, I had envisioned the concept 4
, 6 relatively early on in the game. Its initial thrust .
o
, I 7 was economic rather than technical. I probably f 8 started thinking in these terms in probably 9 September of '82. And then around the first of the 10 year, I advanced this as a possible step toward 11 tighter control of site documentation. I think that 12 just about summarizes it.
13 Q. Now, my understanding, and correct me if I ( 14 am wrong, is that the satellite system itself was 15 not fully implemented until, I'll s'a y , early summer 16 1983. Am I incorrect in that? 17 A. That's correct. And I'm not sure that it 18 was fully implomonted at th (OuAf3 t point. 19 Q. Who was the first supervisor of the 20 satellites? 21 A. Mr. Gary Clark. 22 O. And when did Mr. Clark assume that position? 23 A. Probably in February or March of 1983, I
\
24 believo. Or -- Yes, '83. t 25 O. And did you select Mr. Clark for that FUDERAL C O U itT REPORTCRJ
. . 2 .-
21 b 1 position? I 2 A. I did. 3 Q. And how long did he remain in that position? 4 A. Not very long. Perhaps a month or so. 5 Q. And why did he leave?
. 6 A. He d'e m o n s t r a t e d that he did not have the 7 capabilities to pursue that activity.
1 3' 8 Q. And what was the basis of your decision 9 that ta r . Clark did not nave the capability to assume 10 that position? 11 A. I expected quicker, more thorough progress 12 in cetting up the first satellite. .l 13 Q. Isn't it true that tir . Clark was eventually 14 given a choice of transferring to another Job on thu
~
15 site, or termination?
~
lb A. No. I don't think it was exactly thnt way. 17 Q. Okay. Could you please describe -- 18 A. Well, to the best of my recollection, Gary 19 had been on site probably as long as anybody, 10 20 years or so. And he was a good friend of c boy 21 working in personnel whose name escapes me now. 22 Gary was looking for. longevity, and he secured a
- l ,
23 position in the TUGCO warehouse. ! 24 0, . Okay.
' )
25 A. And when I cxpressed my dissatisfaction FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS ~
22 1 with !! r . Clark's performance, why, he apparently I 2 contacted his source over there and he almost 3 imuediately transferred into that. 4 Q. Wnen did Mr. Clark leave as satellite 5 supcrvisor, the first satellite supervisor? i 6 MR. WALKER: It's been asked.and , 7 answered. I" 8 MS. GARDE: Okay. I' forgot. 9 A. I'm sorry? 10 Q. When did Mr. Clark 1 cave as satcllite 11 supervisor? 12 MR. WALKER: I believe he testified , 13 that he was in the position for approximately a i 14 month. i 15 MS. GARDE: Okay. 16 Q. Is that correct? 17 A. That's correct. l 16 - O. Okay. 19 MR. J O R D Ati : Excuse me. Off the 1 ~ ' i 20 record a second. ~ 21 (Wnercupon, there was a 22 (discussion off the record 1 23 O. (BY MS. GARDE) Following Mr. Clark's 24 position as supervisor, who was then appointed as 25 satellite supervisor? FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
_____.a . _.._ . -.
. -33: __ . _ _ - -
23 1 A. !!s . !!a t l e y . I 2 Q. Did you make that selection? 3 A. Yes, I did. 4 0. And what did you base that selection on? 5 A. I reviewed all the possibic candidates that
. 6 I had within the organization, a couple outside of ~
7 the organization, and I determined that Dobie had d' O the necessary experience, knowledge of the then 9 existing system and the ability, as a supervisor, to 10 handle that task. 11 Q. !!ow many other candidatos were there that 12 you considered? 13 A. Seriously, possibly only one or two. 14 Q. Now, after Ms. Baticy was selected you 3 15 continued an her supervisor; is that correct? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. She was just in a different position? 16 A. That is correct. 19 Q. As ner supervisor, did your duties include 20 Ms. Ilatley's promotions, if there were going to be 21 any? 22 A. I would say yes. 3 23 Q. What about demotions; if Ms. liatley had not 24 been able to cut it, like Mr. Clark, in the first i 25 month, would you nave been the person to transfer FEDERAL COURT REPORTER 3
--__.-;-------==::u.---2.:-.;-----------__-__-
24 b 1 her back to night shift or denote her? I 2 A. Yes. And possibly in consultation with Mr. 3 Hutchinson. 4 O. What about other disciplinary actions: 5 could you take,them on your own or did you need Mr.
. 6 Hutchinson's authority?
~
7 A. I have done this on my own but also in f S conjunction with Mr. Hutchinson, depending upon the 9 situation. 10 Q. Did you have hiring authority over all the 11 satellites? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Did you have firing authority over the i 14 employees working in the satellites? N 15 A. Essentially. 16 Q. Did terminating an employee require Mr. 17 Hutchinson's approval? . 18 A. In some situations. 19 Q. How many people did you supervise in 20 document control? 21 HR. WALKER: Are you talking about a 22 given point in time, or are you talking about i 23 throughout, cumulative? 24 MS. GARDE: At any given point in tima t -- 1 25 following the establishment of the satellite systems. FEDERAL COUhT REPORTERS
- ._ =
25 1 MR. WALKER: Well, it may have varied 2 substantially from time to time. 3 MS. GARDE: I understand. So, 4 approximately. 5 MR. WALKER: Why don't you specify.
. G MS. GARDE: July '83.
~
7 MR. JORDAN: Also, Ms. Garde, do you
$' B mean how many people reported directly to him or how 9 many people altogether in document control?-
10 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) Altogether, how many people 11 were in document control? 12 A. The July time frame, possibly 95 to a 13 hundred. 14 Q. And those individuals were divided up under i 15 other, shall we say, subaupervisors, people wno 16 reported to you, like Ms. Hatley? 17 A. That is correct. IB Q. How many other people -- I will use the 19 term second level supervisort I am not sure if I'm 20 using that correctly -- like Ms. Hatley reported to 21 you? 22 A. I believe five. i 23 Q. Could you name them, to the best of your 24 ability, and give me what tlwir positions were? I 25 A. Well, again the time frame perhaps is PEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
26 b 1 important. Let me put it to you this way: At the I 2 time I terminated -- at the time I retireo -- we had 3 not filled lis . Hatley's vacancy. Kay Norman was 4 supervisor of CRT, nicrofilm, specs and procedures. 5 Diane Bleeker had cognizance of design changes and 1
. 6 believe drawing documentation; she put that together.
7 I have difficulty Qith names. I 8 Q. So thero was a supervisor over drawing 9 documentation? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Now, if you think of any otners -- 12 A. I haven't finished yet. 13 Q. Oh, I'm sorry. 14 A. I am trying to think of the successor to i 15 Terry Miller, who was killed, had procedures and 16 specifications. And frankly, I can't recall the 17 name of tne night shift supervisor et this point in 18 time. but that was essentially it. 19 C. Okay. Now, under cach of these 20 individuals -- let's start with Diane Bleekor -- how ; 21 r.any supervisors did they have? I guess those would 22 be first line supervisors. i 2J A. Well, Diane Blecher had a girl responsibic 24 for design changes alone. Pam Parker reported to 25 her in drawing documentation. Frieda Hooks FEDEhAL COURT REPOP7;ES
. . : a.. u
. 27 h
1 supervised vendor documentation. They reported to ( 2 Diano Bleeker. 3 Q. And Kay Norman? 4 A. Microfilm, Mary -- I believe now Mary Davis 5 was the group leader in the microfilm department. I 6 cannot recall the name of the girl who was immediate
~
7 supervisor over the CRT room. And again, I can't ~1~ 8 recall the name of the girl -- Sarah Donaldson, I 9 think it was, had specs and procedures at that point 10 in time. 11 u. What about under the drawing supervisor? 12 A. Reproduction was Ken' Ward. 13 Q. And that was under drawings? 14 A. Yes. Reproduction. l 15 Q. And then you had mentioned an individual 16 who had been killed, Terry Miller, and you couldn't 17 think of the person who replaced her.
, 16 A. Sarah Donaldson I think her name was.
,, 19 G. Okay. And how many lower-tiered 20 supervisors were under Miss Donaldson? 21 A. That was a lower-tier supervisor. 22 O. Okay. And how many supervisors were under
'l 23 Ms. tlatley?
24 A. At the time she had the satellite situation, t 25 if we had -- at one point we had five satellites, FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS '
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.- - - - --.: = _ _ - =;: ::::= === :s 28 b
1 she had five supervisors. That was cut back. One I 2 satellite was merged into another. That left four i 3 supervisors and herself. , 4 Q. Okay. Do you recall the numbers of the , 1 5 satellites that were in place at the tine Ms. Hatley ! I 6 was terminated, the numbers 7 !
~
7 A. One satellite incorporated four numbers -- ~ d 8 or three number -- yes, four numbers. 300, 301, 302 9 ano 303. That was generally known as the startup I 10 satellite. 304 was the engineering satellite. 11 Q. Okay. I 12 A. 305, I believo, was originally the civil
, 13 engineering satellite, but that was cerged into 14 satellite 306, which was the -- all of the ASME, 15 cruits, pipes, millwright. And satellite 307 was 16 the electrical satellite.
17 Q. And wnen was the merger of 305 and 3007 15 A. Gosh, I can't be sure, but I would think 19 that would have been possibly in the summer of -- 20 warly summer or late spring of 1983. . 21 Q. Do you remember the names of the individual 22 satellite supervisors at the time Ms. Hatley was l 23 terminated? 24 A. I believe in 307 Richard Brown was the ( 25 superviscr. FUDERAL COURT REPORTERS G
;c :. -
29
)
1 Q. 3047 I 2 A. 304, I think Jim Tate was the supervisor. 3 306, we had had three there; I'm not sure -- I 4 franx1y can't recall who succeeded Billie Orr. 5 O. So it had been Billie Orr 'till her 6 transfer to the night shift? 7 A. That is correct.
~( 8 0 Okay. And how long a time period had 9 Dillie Orr been there?
10 A. A relatively short period of time. Perhaps 11 a month, month and-a-half. 12 Q. And before that it was someone else? 13 A. Before that it was Lovey Sneed. 14 Q. And hcw long.was Ms. Sneed there? k 15 A. Not very long. Perhaps six weeks. 16 Q. I don't mean to tax your memory, but do you 17 remember who was before Ms. Sneed?
, 18 A. Yes, 1 recall her. That was Helen Boucher.
19 Q. And how long had she been there? 20 A. We inherited her. Sne had been the file 21 custodian of the pipe department, and.she did not 22 remain in the job possibly two months, d 23 Q. Now, this is.of 306. I think, if you add 24 this time up, it does not go back as far as the 8 1 25 aummortime period whers you say that you merged 305 1 FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _. _ . _.... _. _... . _ 2 _.._._._..... _. . _. .. _. . _.. . 30 N 1 and 306. Was there a separate supervisor for 305 I 2 prior to it being merged? 3 A. Yes, there was. Her name was Jean. 4 Q. Something? 5 A. I can't recall her last name. I'm sorry.
, 6 Q. Okay. That's all right. During your time 7 period as supervisor over document control, how many ~
( 8 people did you have to terminatc? 9 A. That's difficult to say offhand. 10 0 I don't want you to guess. I mean, if you 11 can give me a close number. Is it 10 or is it 50? 12 A. It would have to be a guess. It would have I 13 to be a guess. 14 Q. Okay. - 15 A. I usually followed the. recommendations of 16 my supervisor. 17 C. I don't want you to guess. lb A. But I don't think it would exceed 10. 19 0 So it's probably less than a dozen, if we 20 put it in categories? 21 A. Yes. 22 O. Okay. Mr. Strand, when was the first i 23 discussion that you can recall about terminating 24 Docie Hatl(y? 25 A. ' Discussion with who? I FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
31 il 1 c. Well, that'n my next question. You can 1 2 answer both of them if you just want to explain what 3 you recall is the first time that Dobic's 4 termination was discussed. 5 A. Probably the week that Dobie was gone. O 6 Q. And who was that with? 7 A. Mr. hutchinson. 1 8 Q. And did you initiate the conversation or 9 did Mr. dutchinson? 10 A. I initiated the conversation. 11 Q. Could you please describe for me that 12 conversation, as best you can' recall? 13 A. I thinx that it probably came about after 14 my first meeting with some of the auditors and some 15 interviews I had had with the employees in catellite 16 306. I recounted to Mr. Hutchinson the findings, up 17 until that point, of the audit team. Up until that
. 18 point in time, I had planned to put Ms. Hatley back 19 on the second shift.
20 Q. And who were the auditors that you talked 21 to? 22 A. Phyllis Wells headed the audit team, and J 23 Joan Swain was assistant at that point in time. 24 Q. And what is it that they told you that made 25 you consider terminating Ms. Hatley? FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
- - - - - - - _ _ _ - - - : - = : ::: =. _ .:.= _ - _ _ : = = ==.~~. -
32
;)
1 A. Tnere were a number of things. I 2 Q. Okay. Woule you tell me, as best you can l 3 recall, everything that they told you that 4 contributed to your initial decision to start 5 thinking about terminating Ms. Ita t l e y ? 6 A. Oh, the first one, 1 think, was the -- is 7 the audit of the design change: Logs, paper.
'![ 8 Secondly, the package audit. Thirdly, my interviews 9 with certain personnel.
10 Q. And what personnel is that? 11 A. 1 beg your pardon? 12 Q. Wha't personnel? 13 A. Individuals who were at that time working 14 or had worked in the 306 satellite. Edie Hudson, 1 - 15 Jim Tate, Janice Day, a Spanish girl whose name I 16 cannot recall. There were several people involved. 17 I don't recall the names of all the personnel. f 18 (Billie Orr enters 19 (the deposition room 20 MR. WALKER: Off the record. 21 (whereupon, there was a 22 (discussion off the record 23 MR. WALKER: Ms. Garde, first of all, 24 let me say that I do not think enat a deposition is t 25 a public proceeding to which anyonu may be invited. FEDERAL, COURT REPORTURS
g.c= . _. _ 33 h i It is true Mr. Strand sat in on the deposition -- on 1 2 part of the deposition of Ms. Hatley, and at that 3 time we knew that Mr. Strand -- and I think you knew, 4 or, in any event, Mr. Cluitt who handled that 5 portion of Ms. Hatley's deposition was aware, and if G he wasn't aware, I informed him specifically, of the
~
7 fact that Mr. Strand would be a witness in the case. [ 8 Both sides have submitted witness lists in this case, 9 and Ms. Orr is not on your witness list. 10 Secondly, it is true that Mr. Strand sat in 11 on the deposition of Ms. Orr that was taken back 12 last June, again because we were aware of the fact 13 that Mr. Strand would be a witness in Ms. Orr's case. 14 I'd also point out to you that we've i 15 checked t h'e transcript and there was no objection 16 expressed to Mr. Strand's presence. 17 In any' event, I'd like for it to be clear f la that we don't think that it is proper for either 19 side to attempt to turn depositions into public 20 hearings, and that we have a legitimate objection to ~ 21 the invitation of non-parti 9s other than the 22 witnesses of the parties who will be testifying at 3' 23 trial, if there is one.
- 24 However, Mr. Strand has informed us that as t
25 far as he is concerned, Ms. Orr is perfectly welcome i FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS e
- 1 :.-21$ A.=-= _ : = O- : -- i = Y::.:= = : : =. .-- _ _ --- - -
34 4
. 61 1 to sit in in this deposition, and he has no
( 2 I objection to her presence. I'd like to make it 3 clear that because Mr. Strand is comfortable with it, 4 we're prepared to permit Ms. Orr to stay for any i 5 part or all of the remainder of the deposition, but 6 we are not thereby waiving the right that we have to 7 object to the invitation of non-parties and non-witnesI 1 ( B to depositions in this or any othor' case in the 9 future. j 10 I would also caution you tnat if Ms. Orr's 11 presence here is a suggestion that you intend to 12 expand the scope of this deposition and get-into 13 matters touching on either Ms. Orr's pending case or 14 her prior 210 case filed with the Department of
' l ~
15 Labor last year, early last year, then I think that 1 lb we'll have to deal witn that when the time cones. 17 But I want to put you on notice that such an 15 expansion of this deposition will clearly be 19 improper, and it will be my position that any suca 20 questions will not require an answer. And I.will
~
21 advise Mr. Strand and his counsel to that effect at 22 the time. 23 MS. GARDE: Is that all? 24 MR. WALKER: Yes. I 25 Ms. GARDE: Okay. FEDERAL COURT REFOhTERs .
-m e ~ -~-m -
-n,- ,4 m m -w, -k
. . - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ : --." : _ =. .:.=:: =-- - - ~ - - - -
" " '"~~
=
35 l 1 MR. JORDAN: Ms. Garde, 1 think that 1 ( 2 should add that I concur entirely in the latter 3 portion of Mr. Walker's statement. My understanding, 4 based on the conversations that I have had with Mr. 5 Walker and with you, and based on the Notice of
, 6 Deposition that was received in connection with this 7 matter, was that the examination of Mr. Strand would j- 8 be limited to Ms. Hatley's 210 claim.
9 And to the extent that -- I'm not saying or 10 suggesting that you might do tnis, but to the extent 11 that any effort is made to expand that examination 12 into other areas, including a'ny areas concerning Ms. 13 Orr, then I also would object and instruct Mr. 14 Strand he does not -- that an answer is not required. 3 15 MS. GARDE: Thank you. 16 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) Mr. Strand, before the 17 Interruption, you were describing the individuals
. 18 from tne audit t e a ns that you had talked to that 19 audited the design changes and interviews with 20 certain personnel in --
and I believe you said 21 satellite 306, but let me make sure that you said 22 satellite 306 and not all the satellites. l 23 A. No. We were. concerned with satellite 306 24 at that point in time. 25 O. Okay. Now -- FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
. eassem a e..ame,%e A
= - .
- .: .;..i : - -. .:i ;. '-.;=. - = - .; = - =2 : = - : ::*=.' : = == 2 L L _ -. '=C=~-
36 1 A. Incidentally, I omitted two names. I 2 Q. Okay. 3 A. I also assigned to that task Ms. Kay Norman 4 and Ms. Pam Parker, who were also engaged in that 5 activity. 6 O. As auditors, not employees of satellite 3067 7 A. That is correct. ~ ( 8 Q. Okay. 'Now, when you say an audit of the 9 design change log paper, could you briefly describc 10 what you mean? I think I have'an understanding of L1 what that is, but I want the record to be clear of 12 what it in that the audit -- that you are talking 13 about. 14 A. To determine if the files were current, i 15 that they contained all of tne required design 10 changes. 17 Q. And when you talk about a package audit, 18 what is that? 19 A. That is the package that has been built. 20 It is comprised of a drawing and all design changes 21 that accgmpany it that were in-house, and that audit 22 extended probably to the field. i 23 Q. ' And when you. talk about interviews with l 24 certain personnel in the satellites, what is it that 25 you were interviewing them about?
~
FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS i
.I
.. - - - - _ _ - - _ _ _ .-- w .__ -.-. .::_ )
37 1 1 A. Specifically, operating procedures within i 2 the satellite. 3 Q. Okay. So sometime during the weck that Ms. 4 Hatley was gone, you began ~an audit of satellite 306 5 which was comprised of design change log audit, a 6 package audit and interviews with certain personnel
. 7 in 306; is that correct?
j- 8 A. Also including procedures, specifications, 9 cverything contained within satellite 306. 10 Q. Okay. 11 MR. WALKER: !!ay 1 interrupt for a 12 clarifying point here? Both you and Mr. Strand have 13 referred to the week Ms. Haticy was gone. It's my 14 impression that Ms. Hatley may have been gone more ^ l 15 than for a week on more than one occasion during her 16 tenure as satellite supurvisor. It might be useful 17 to pin down which week she was gone that we're 18 talking about. 19 MS. GARDE: Okay.
~
20 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) Mr. Strand, I have been 21 operating on the assumption that you're talking 22 about the week prior to her termination, which would 23 would have begun -- I. don't have a calendar in front 24 of me -- something like January 29 or 30. is that t 25 correct? FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS . k -------- - - - * -- --g 79+ c-- -
3a l l N 1 A. That's the time frame I had reference to. i 2 O. Okay. Now, can you explain to me why it is { 3 that this audit of 306 was started that week? 4 A. Well, there were a number of reasons; 5 probably foremost were audits that had been
, 6 conducted prior to this. But primarily, I think I 7 went out to the satellite. I stayed out there for J- 6 several days, the weekend, and my interviews with 9 Jim Tate and the lady named Jean whose namo I Just 10 cannot --
last name I cannot remember, and we began 11 discussing the procedurcs of the internal audit of 12 306. And I received some very upsetting informhtion , 13 et that time. 'l 14 Q. And what was that information? i 1 A. I asked how the last internal aucit had been conducted, and Mr. Tate advised that there were redundant packages, and in an effort to match the r printout, the computer printout, the packages were destroyed.
. l I
O. ' Did he give you a time frame for destruction of those packages? A. Yes. Sometime in the previous month. i O. And the destruction of those packages was a violation of procedure? ( 2 A. Yes, it is. l FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS I 1
_ u_ -- :_u 39 k 1 O. And it's your testimony that you know I 2 nothing about the destruction of those packages 3 prior to Mr. Tate telling you about it? 4 A. Tnat is correct. l 5 Q. Now, what else did they tell you over that
~
, 6 weekend that led to your having a larger audit? i l
A. Kay Norman came to me, and I had been going l j' over my daily reports. Each department reported, at seven o'cicek in the morning, the business of the preceding day. And what I found particularly disturbing was the discrepancy between the number of drawings issued to satellite 306 ~ and the number of entries into the computer. Q. And Kay Norman told you about this? l 15 A. Yes, ma'am. 16 Q. And that's the first time that you nad come 17 across that. problem for satellite 306? lo A. I had questioned Kay Norman about it r 19 earlier, and I felt that there was possibly an
- . ~ .
20 explanation for it.
~
21 Q. When was earlier? 22 A. Possibly a week or two before then. And I 4 1 23 think Hs. Norman had a conversation with Ms. Haticy 24 regarding that particular situation. I t 25 O. Okay. So you spent the weekend in l FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
=-.______________-_____&
40 1 satellite 306, you talked to Jim Tate and Jean I 2 somebody, and you talked to Kay Nornan who showed 3 you that the number of drawings and the number of 4 entries in the computer did not match? 5 A. That's correct.
, 6 Q. What else led to your requesting the audit?
7 A. I interviewed Janice Day, Edie Hudson. I
,h 8 can't recall the name of the Spanish girl.
9 Q. Okay. Now, is this the same interview with 10 Ms. Hudson that you referred to in the question I 11 asked you previously about -- 12 A. No. There were a number of interviews. As 13 questions arose, I got back to these people. 14 C. Okay. k 15 MR. JORDAN: Excuse me, Ms. Garde. If 16 I heard your last question correct, did you ask him 17 what interviews led to his decision to request tne
. lo audit?
r 15 MS. GARDE: That's what I'm asking him
~
20 about now. He said that based on the audit or the 21 Deginning of the audit, he decided to terminate her. 22 MR. JORDAN: I guess I'm just a little
) 23 confused as to --
I was not aware that he had said 24 interviews led to his decision to request the audit. 25 Was that your testimony? FEbCRAL COURT REPORTERS
--____-_-_______ __ _ 8 41 4
1 1 THE WITNESS: No, I don't think that I 2 was. 3 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) That's what I'm asking you 4 about. I'm trying to. ascertain what you based your 5 decision to request the audit on. 6 A. Well, that was ongoing. And actually, that 7 had occuYred possibly from October on. j' 8 Q. Okay. Then I'm really confused. 9 In my previous question, Mr. Strand, I 1 10 attempted to determine what was tne basis of your 11 first decision or the first tiac you started 12 thinking about terminating Ms. Hatley. And you gave 13 me three things which I then went over with you: 14 Tne audit of the design change log, a package audit i 15 and interviews with certain personnel in 306. 16 A. That is correct. 17 Q. Okay. Now, my next question was intended 18 to ce -- and maybe you misunderstood my question -- 19 what made you decide to have this special audit of 20 the design change log paper and the package audit? A.' 21 Well, I guess I am confused. 22 MR. JORDAN: Well, wait a minute.
. I 1
23 don't think tnat was your question. I think your 24 question was what interviews led to the decision. I I 25 tnink you did misunderstand it; I think if you'll FEDERAL COURT REPOhTEhS
.m y
42
- l I restate the question --
I 2 MS. GARDE: Okay. 3 MR. JORDAti: -- maybe it will clarify 4 it. 5 MS. GARDE: Let me try again.
. 6 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) Okay. I asked you what you 7 based --
what was the basis for your first thoughts. 3 8 1 know -- I am not asking you about your ultimate 9 deciclon, but your f.i r s t thoughts about terminating 10 Ms. natley. And your response to me was tne audit 11 of the design change log paper, the package audit 12 and interviews with certain personnel. 13 A. That's correct. 14 Q. Okay. When did the aucit of the design l 15 change logs take place? 16 A. That occurred probably over that weekend; 17 that wee'kend, I believe it was the 29th, the 30th of i
. 18 January.
19 Q. Okay. And why did you request that audit 20 of the design change log? 21 A. Because of the number of phone requests 22 that were coming from satellite 306 into the phone ) 23 bank. I 24 Q. And how did you know about them? t 25 A. There's a daily report provided to me on FEDERAL COURT REPORTERJ
. ~
._ ___ ____ _ _ - . - . ~
43 l' 1 the number of requests and what the requests were. ( 2 And the number of requests that were coming out of l 3 30G were inordinatoly higher than any otner 4 satellite. 5 0 And when did you see this daily report? 6 A. Daily. 7 Q. Okay. You saw it daily every day that you p 8 were document control supervisor? 9 A. Every day that -- since I had initiated the 10 system. 11 0 Okay. What happened or what changed in 12 this daily phone log report, if I'm describing that 13 correctly, that motivated you to request an audit of 14 the design change log? 15 A. Because the large number of requests to get 16 design change paper from the central DCC seemed 17 unreasoncble. They should have had everything in
, 18 t ;t e i r filen.
l ') O. Was it unreasonable one day or was it 20 unreasonable for a long period of time? 21 A. It was unreasonable at that point for 22 several weeks. 23 Q. Okay. Then you have said tnat there was a 24 package audit that you had requested. Why did you ( 25 request a package audit? FEDERAL COURT AEPORTERS r
- tw-
, 44 N
1 A. To determine the state of the existing i 2 packages: Were they current? Had they been updated? 3 Were they accounted for? 4 C. And what motivated you to request that 5 audit? Was there a daily log of some type that 6 tells you about the state of the packages? 7 A. No, I don't have a daily log that does that. - (* d But the condition of the satellite warranted that 9 in-dopth look. 10 Q. And what do you mean ty condition of the 11 satellito? 12 A. Well, the results of the design change 13 files, for one thing. 14 b. The results of the what? l 15 A. Design change . files. 10 Q. And what are those? What are the design 17 change files?
. 18 A. They are books of design changes, numbered 19 sequentially, of all tne design changes numbered
- . ~ 20 froo 35 thousand up, that were in that satellite. 21 Q. Now, was it normal for you to work on the 22 weckend? t 1 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. At that tino period? ( - 25 A. In that time frame. FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
--_________ __ __ _ _ . _ _ ___ _ _ J 45 i i i
1 0 Is it normal for you to spend your time in
! 2 one of the satellites, or was it normal for you to 3 spend your time in one of the satellites?
4 A. No. 5 u. Why is it that you decided on this weekend
, 6 to go to satellite 306 and spend your time?
7 A. Secause my audit team had reported to me j' 8 that the condition of the s a t.e l l i.t e . w a s . c o m p l e t e l y 9 u n s a t i s f a c t o r.y...._ _ ._ 10 Q. And wnen did they report that? 11 A. Possibly the -- I have not reviewed the 12 oudit forms and so forth. Possibly in mid January 1 13 had sent them in to audit at that time. 14 Q. That was not a normally scheduled audit; l 15 was a special audit fequested by you? 16 A. iJ a c r e the audit team was concerned or tne 17 conitoring team was concerned, there are no normal 18 audits. l ') Q. This is the monitoring team that you sent 20 in there? 21 A. Yes. They didn't know themselves where 22 they were going until I sent them in. l 23 Q. And you may have answered this already, but 24 did you tell ce who was on the monitoring team i 25 already? . i l FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS l l
- - - _ -.- - - _ _ --- - - - : _.: - _ : -:- - :. - : - _ _ _ .=5 .:.= b.i.: =: --
46 4 M 1 A. Yes. , I 2 Q. Okay. ti o w , you requested the monitoring 3 team to go in there? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Why did you ask the monitoring team to go
. 6 in there?
7 A. Because, as I explained earlier, I had [ 8 reason to believe that there were problems there. 9 Q. And those are the same problems which 10 you've described before that you -- the design
< 11 change logs and concern acout tne state of the
- 12 existing packages?
13 A. That is correct. I would do that in any 14 satellite if that pattern had been reficcted in the
$- 15 daily reports.
16 Q. Okay. Now, did ti s . Hatley ever tell you , 17 tnot she was concerned about satellite 30G?
- la A. I had a number of conversations with Ms.
19 IIatley. 20 Q. Okay. That doesn't answer my question. 21 Did Ms. Hatley tell you she was concerneo 22 about the condition of satellite 306? l 23 A. I want to respond to this completely 24 accurately. t
- 25 O. Okay.
PEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
. - _ _ . .y , - . . _ - , , t-.gi p.. _ - _ - __y c w+ - . _ - y wn
.-_________m _ _ __;
47 1 A. I think Hs. Haticy and I had our first ( 2 conversation -- I think there was some friction 3 between the audit team and Ms. !!atley, or members of 4 her staff in 306. 5 O. Okay. That still doesn't answer my 6 question. Are you done with your answer? 7 A. I thought I was. { S Q. Okay. No, that doesn't -- Let me try to 9 rephrase it. , ] 10 Did Ms. Haticy come to you and complain 1 11 about the state of documentation in satcilite 306? 12 A. Ms. Garde, we had a nomber of conversations. 13 We had conversations every day. There were always 14 problems arising. I think I had more than one i 15 conversation with Ms. Hatley concerning the design 16 change files. 17 C. And was Ms. Haticy --
. 18 A. Which were my primary concern at that point 19 in time.
20 C. I didn't meen to interrupt you. 4 21 Was Ms. Hatley concerned about the 22 documentation problems that she found in satellite l 23 306? 24 MR. WALKER: Your question is did she 25 express concern, is it not? i FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS l
. . . . . . . . . ~ - . ... ... - ..
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - == : _ : = __. _ _ _ :. _ = .:.: -:; :: ::
48 ,
.b 1 MS. GARDE: Yes. Thanks, Rick.
I 2 Q. Did she express concern about the design 3 changes? , 4 A. Not that I recall. The concern was in the 5 other direction. 6 Q. What do you mean, it was in the other 7 direction?
- j. 8 A. I was concerned. I spoke to Ms. Hatley on 9 a number of. occasions and she said she was having 10 some problems but that it was under control.
11 Q. Did !!s . Hatley ever communicate to you a 12 concern about the packages being not up to date or 13 not complete in catellite 306? 14 A. In satellite 306 there were a number of k 15 problems that arose. You are going to have to be 16 more specific, Ms. Garde. 17 Q. Okay. We've discussed a problem about
. 16 packages not being complete. What I want --
19 A. If they're not complete, Ms. Hatir, -. 20 responsibility was to make them complet'e. 21 C. Okay. That's not what I'm asking. 22 A. I don't think we're getting at the problem 3 23 here. 24 Q. Okay. Mr. Strand, I'm asking the questions. t 25 Okay. I want to know if Ms. Hatley -- if you recall FEDERAL COUMT REPORTERS *
. . . . . _ . _ . - _ . . _ _ . - . - _ _ . _._ ~ . . - _..._ _._-.- . - -
j
_ _ _ _ _ _- __ ) 49 1 if Ms. Hat 1cy ever communicated to you, in any of ( 2 your meetings while she was in 306, and I will put a 3 time f r a r.e on it -- December and January, December 4 1983 and January '84 -- do you recall Ms. Hatley 5 ever telling you that she was. concerned about 6 packages in satellite 306 being incomplete? 7 A. Well, if I'm undcratanding your question, f 6 .yes, there were occesions when she'had difficulty 9 getting a particular design change. Is this the 10 thrust of your. question? 11 Q. I don't know. My understanding of packages 12 being complete is maybe different than yours. I 13 want to know if she ever communicated to you, that 14 you recall, a concern about the packages in 306 not i 15 being complete. 16 A. Only in the sense that we sometimes had 17 obscure design changes that were not readily
. 18 availaole. And we had an emergency number to call 19 and a design change tracking group would call how 20 York to see if that thing was available. If it 21 wasn't available on site --
Is that the thrust of 22 your question? 23 Q. Well, I think that that's the thrust of 24 your answer. That's not the thrust of my question. t 25 A. Well, 1 am trying to establish thet. I FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
*, w - - - e,.- -. - , -w --
. . . . - - . . . . . . . - . . . - . - . . . . - - . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . ..._........_u_-.-
50 I want to be responsive. I 2 Q. Okay. You said that you? spent quite a bit 3 of time with Hs. Haticy; 1s that correct? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And that would also bc during this December 6 and January time period? 7 A. That is correct. 1
. _y 8 Q. What did you discuss as a general matter or 9 generally when you --
10 A. We discussed our daily problems. And there 11 were plenty. 12 Q. And by daily problems, what do you mean? 13 Would you give me some examples? 14 A. They ranged.from personnel, she complained i 15 about the phone bank. 16 Q. What about the phone bank? 17 A .- The pnene bank was becoming a littic bit 16 restive, shall I say, by the frequency of requests. 19 We nad a number of situations where -- and I think I
~
20 know where you're heading now -- Dobic came to me 21 with requests that were marked PROF. 22 Q. And what docs that mean? i- 23 A. That meant that they had phoned in a 24 request, and when they went to get it, their request ( 25 was designated out of f i l e.. Investigating these FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
.. .... -. . . . . ....-...----~~...~...--~...-..:-.-..-.
51 l I 1 particular situations, to give you one for instance, 1 2 a girl at the phone bank said that they had 3 requestod that same CMC three times in that given 4 day. Well, that told me that whoever had requested 5 that design change did not make a copy for their own 6 file. It should have been in the file in the first 7 place. And it also tells me that something was 8 wrong, if you'have to request it two or three times. 9 Q. Did Ms. Hatley communicate that concern to 10 you? 11 A. I spoke to Ms. Hatley about it. 12 Q. Okay. You said that Ms. Hatley came to you 13 with daily problems. I want to know what some of 14 those daily problems were, excluding personnel. l 15 MR. WALKER: I don't believe that was 16 nis testimony. I believe he said that he and Ms. 17 Hatley discussed problems on an almost daily basis. 18 He did not say tnat Ms. Hatley came to him with 19 problems. 20 , MS. GARDE: Okay' .
. 21 Q. Drawing that distinction, I think --
How 22 far apart were your offices? a 1 23 A. She communicated with me ainost daily. 24 Q. Okay. The question is, how fur apart were 25 your offices? FEDERAL COUh? REPORTERS
. . , . - - . .. ..--...-...-..:-.-._L:.-...... .
.....u.. . ..-
52 N 1 A. Oh, not far. I 2 Q. Two hundred yards? 3 A. No. A hundred yards, perhaps. Even less. 4 Q. Did.you spend time in her office on 5 occasion?
. 6 A. On occasion, but seldom.
7 Q. So she spent a lot of time in your office? -{' G A. From time to time. 9 Q. Okay. On a daily basis? 10 A. Yes. Or almost daily. 11 u. Okay. 12 HR. JORDAN: Excuse me. Off the
; 13 record a second.
14 (Whereupon, a brief l 15 (recess was taken 16 MS. GARDE: Read back the last 17 question, please. 18 (Whereupon, the record 19 (was read back by 20 , (the court reporter ~ 21 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) Mr. Strand, I want you to 22 recall, as best you can, whether or not Ms. Hatley 1 23 complained to you about document packages being 24 incomplete in satellite 306 at any time in the last i 25 couple of months of her employment. FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
. . _ . - . . , . . . . . . . . . . , - . . . . .....----..;...--. .-.:-- - ~e -. --
53 1 A. Not in that context, no. ( 2 Q. OKay. What context do you recall her 3 complaining or being concerned about document 4 packages? , 5 A. The one I reiterated earlier. 6 Q. You mean the use of the tern PROF, P-R-O-F? 7 A. PROF, and missing documentation, old 8 documentation that was coming from Gibson Hill and 9 so forth. lu O. Mr. Strand, do you recall Ms. Hatley coming 11 to you -- and again I am talking about during tne 12 last three months of her employment -- and 13 complaining about certain craft supervisors 14 ' demanding drawings that the satellite didn't have k 15 have or documents that were not in the satellite? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And how often do you recall that complaint? 18 A. Well, if it's in the context that you're 19 describing or that I understand here, fairly often.
~
20 Q. And what were your instructions, if you . 21 remember, to Ms. Hat, ley when those. situations occurred'?
~
22 l 23 - A. When she got.it, they got it. 24 Q. And no your instructions to Ms. Hatley werc l 25 to do wnat, not provide them documentation? FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
- ~
- :. ;;.;.:.:.;;;== :.::.:.; 2.2~:.::.=
= - :.:=r ' ' _ 2~ ~2_ _% --
54 l 1 A. Well, she couldn't provide something she I 2 didn't have. 3 Q. And was there ever an occasion when Ms. 4 Hatley was unable to provide a document that those 5 supervisors then went to you directly?
, 6 A. They have.
7 Q. Can you give me an example of when that
]* 8 happened?
9 A. Gee, I don't think I can give you any 10 specifics at this distance. But that did happen. 11 Q. - And what would you do when that happened? 12 A. Send them on their way. 13 Q. Okay. And was there ever an occasion that 14 you recall where you couldn't give them a document i 15 that they wanted, and Ms. Hatley hadn't been able to I 16 give them a document that they wanted, that they 17 went over your head to Mr. Hutchinson?
. 13 N. I don't recall.
19 MS. GARDE: Excuse me. The're's a 20 phone call.
~
21 (Whereupon, a brief , 22 (recess was taken 4 23 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) When a craft supervisor 24 would demand a package from Ms. fluticy and she came 2 ( 25 to you, was sne coming to you to get backing for her FbDERAL COUNT REPORTERS -
. . . .:.: . - .: .- .. . . - - . . . . . .. ~ . . .
}
55 1 not being able to give them the package, or to ( 2 report to you the incident? 3 A. I'm sure both happened at one point or 4 another. 5 O. Sut it was usually one or the other? 6 A. Well, I'm sure.
~
7 Q. I understand that your job -- that you had
.{ C a lot going on everyday. And I'm not asking you to 9 recall a specific incident.
10 MR. GARDE: And unless your counsol 11 objects, I would like him to describe hypotnetically 12 tnis type of situotion. If'ne can give me a 13 specific incident, that's fine. 14 MR. WALKER: What type of situation? i 1 15 MS. GARDE: Okay. He are talking 16 about when Ms. Hatley would not be able to provide 17 craft supervisors some document tnat they wanted for
,' 16 some reason, and sne would go then to Mr. Strand.
19 okay. If he can think of a specific incident, l'd 20 like him to recall one. If ne can't, I'd like him 21 to describe generally what that situation involved. 22 MR. JORDAN: Well, I think that's okay, 1 23 but that's not hypotnetically. I den't think it 24 occurred hypothetically. I 25 MS. GARDE: Okay. Incorrect use of FEDERAL COUhT REPORTSRS
. - . ~. _ ........_s.._.- _ . . . . . .,
56 N 1 terms. I 2 MR. JORDAN: To the extent tnat you 3 recall. Don't speculate. 4 A. This is where the problem is: I can recall 5 several instances where Dobie was asked to release 6 packages that were not complete and, of course, she 7 didn't or wouldn't, and people came to me.
-d B Q. (BY M5. GARDE) Can you think of any of the 9 craft supervisors' names?
10 A. I think perhaps one might have been George -q l 11 millwright superintendent. I can't recall nis last 12 name offhand. There was usually a little hassling. 13 Q. okay. Let me read to you a list of names, . i 1 14 and I would like you to respond to each name with a h 15 "yes" or "no" answer on whether you recall these i l 16 craft supervisors complaining about Dobie's 17 nonproduction of cocuments to them. i
. 10 A. Okay. ,
19 Q. Callicut? j i 20 A. Callicut never complaincd to me. l 21 Q. Frankue? 22 A. Never. i 23 Q. J.D. Turnor? 24 A. On one occasion. Dobic was present on that t 25 one. That was a relatively minor matter. 1 FEDCRAL COURT REPURTERS l
---- -- - ------ .- : --e 57 3
1 Q. Do you remember what the matter was? I 2 A. No. 3 Q. Ken Liford? 4 A. Yes. Ken ~had come to we on a couple of 5 occasions complaining of Dobie's abrasiveness, but I . 6 don't recall any specifics with that situation. 7 Q. Mr. Merritt? f 6 A. Mr. Who? 9 Q. Morritt. 10 A. No.
~
11 Q. Charles Britt? 12 A. No. 13 C. D o.n Morrison? 14 A. Don Morrison? Tnere's a Don Morris. 1 15 a. Okay. .Muybe that's Don Morris. 16 A. Yes, Don came to me on one occasion that I 17 can recal'l.
. 16 MR. WALKER: This is Don Morris?
19 THE WITNESS: Don Morris. 20 Q. Walt Lachesky? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Tonmy Bacon? a ' 23 A. No. 24 U. Then I have a James Morris. t 25 A. No. FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS l1
. - -- . _ _ _ . . - - . . ___.- . . . . _ _ . : 2 . . ;___: u 58 Y
l Q. That's a different. person than -- I 2 A. Than Don rio r r i s , yes. 3 Q. Okay. R.B. Kelly? 4 A. Yes. 5 O. Handy Cunkle? . 6 A. I don't even know the name. 7 Q. Curtis Biggs? j , 8 A. Yes. 9 0 Cappy Lawrence? 10 A. Yes. 11 0 Dale Bullara? 12 A. No. j 13 Q. And when these people would complain to you ' 14 about Dobic -- and you mentioned one of these 15 people's complaint about abrasiveness; let's set 16 that aside for a minute. I'm talking strictly about 17 document production -- what would you respond, if 16 you recall? 19 A. Oh, I think I've got a pretty good 20 recollection of the R.B. Kelly thing. 21 Q. Okay. A. R.B. Kelly was an instrumentation superintendent, and perhaps not the most reasonable man in the world. But there were problems witn i 5 design changes, perhaps in some cases drawings. 1 FEDEllA L COURT REPORTERS,
.. . . . - . . . . . . . .:.. . .: .w. .-..~._.L......:-....
59 '
]
i s don't remember the details. And there was cases ( with crafts; they're pushed and they just passed the heat along. I don't regard those as more than routine. Q. Was !! s . Ilatley's job in dealing with craft , 6 needs, supplying their documentation needs, 7 difficult, in your estimation? f ~ 8 A. Yes, it was. It was a difficult job. It 9 wasn't easy. 10 Q. How many packages -- If you know, how many 11 packages a day would you say satellite 306 had to 12 issue to the field? 13 A. I can't give you any exact figures, except 14 that there were times when the figures were very 15 large. 16 Q. In the hundreds? 17 A. I don't know that they rose that -- it
.' 16 depends opon the nature of the package. But there
. 19 were great demands upon 306. No question about it. 20 Q. And wnat was the average work week, if you 21 recall, nu=ber of hours put in by Ms. Ita t le y ? 22 A. A bunch. She worked very hard. When I say b- 23 a bunch, like 60, 70,.80 hours was not unusual. She 24 l was out there as much as I was. ( 25 Q. Now, when you began to discover the kind of FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
____2..u :_ _a.1: .:_w . . :.______~__-..-.:...._ _ _ _ _. _ _. _-. _ ..._- 60
.b 1 problems we've discussed earlier in the deposition
( 2 with the design change logs and the packages being 3 incomplete, and you started considering the need to 4 terminate Ms. Hatley, can you please tell me what 5 was your reasoning -- what reasoning went into your
, 6 thought process, if you will, about wny Ms. Hatley )
7 needed to be terminated for the problems in 3067 [ S A. Well, you're asking for a hypothesis now. 9 Q. I don't want a hypothesis, Mr. Strand. I 10 want you to remember, as best as you can, what you 11 thought wnen you decided that Dobic was probably 12 going to necd' to be terminated. 13 A. That was not my original conclusion. I did 14 not draw that conclusion until the week she was gone. 15 Q. Okay. W e 1.1, then start at'the beginning of 16 your thought process about the problems with 30G and l 17 what needed to be done about Ms. Hatley. l - l . 18 A. To maintain the enronology here, things 19 started going awry in 306 probably in October. Now, 20 Ms. Hatley was supervisor of all of the satellites, 21 not just 306. And I noticed that she began spending 22 more and more time in 306 until she had reached the 4 23 point, probably by November -- and of course part of 24 tnis, I'm sure, was occasioned by the task forces, ( 20 but I think she was spending alanost all of her time
. FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
.. _ _ _ _ _ ~ : L=i d- ~ ' ' hr _ _ ri:= ~ = - -- - - = .-'~*---- -
J 61 I 1 1 in 306. I 2 Q. Okay. 3 A. Pressure on all of us was horrendous. The 4 hours were l o n~g . And after a month or so, 1 began 5 to feel that I nay have exhausted the lady. 6 Q. Okay. 7 A. Referring back to the phone' bank request,
~
-f 8 this was particularly disturbing to me, as overall 9 supervisor, and without getting into personalities, 10 and it was my original inclination to take Lobic out 11 of there, at least for a few nonths, put her back on 12 , the night shift, insist that sne only work 40 hours 13 a week for a few months, and then reconsidor the 14 situation.
l 15 Q. And when were you thinking in that vcin? 16 A. Procably from the first of December onward. 17 That's just a guess. 4 . 13 Q. Okay. When did that idea cnange? 19 A. The week that Dobie was gone. 20 Q. And what changed your mind from. 21 transf. erring Dobie, cutting her hours back to 40 22 hours a week, to terminating her for cause? 4 1 23 A. For the reasons that 1 spccified earlier, 24 the tuin3s that we had found within tne tning. t 25 You've got to understand that this put me in a bad FEDERAL COUd7 REPORTERS
- . . a ..:. . .; - __ ._ -_.. ._
._ Z_ , _ . ,._ . _ _
62 7 i i position as a cupervisor. I 2 Q. I can understand. 3 A. Dobie and I were charged with the 4 responsibility of maintaining procedures. If I had 5 continued on with the transfer, then I was suspect. i 6 As a macter of fact, there were comments that I was 7 trying to protect Dobie. Dobie had terminated a S number of people for violating procedures, and here 9 Dobie had violated some of the most basic of the 10 procedures within the satellite. That really didn't 11 leave me with any alternative. 1 1 12 O. Mr. Strand, do you remember tel~ ling Doole 13 lia'tley that li r . Tolson had said she needed to be 14 cerminated? h 15 A. No. 16 Q. Do you recall saying to Ms. 11 a t l e y , ! I i 17 throughout t h e. time period'of pressure on her in { lb satellite 306, and I'll again limit my comments to ' ,. 19 the last thr . months of her -- questions to the I 20 last tnroe months of her employment, that if anyone 21 was ever going to get to D o b i o ,. they'd have to come 22 through you7 i 23 A. I said it. 24 Q. Do you recall telling Ms. Hatley and other ( 25 employees an satellite 306 that Comanche Peak was FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
- . . _ . . _ . _ . . . . . . . . . . _ __ 2._..c ._ . . _ . . _ _
. 03 1
1 built on an inverse pyramid of paper that would I 2' someday crumble? 3 A. That isn't an accurate quotation. 4 Q. Could you please correct it? 5 A. I said that Comanche Peak was being built
. 6 with an inverse pyramid of paper; that it could be 7 pushed.
~f 8 .
O. And it would topple? 9 A. It could. 10 v. How often did you say that? 11 A. I can only recall the one situation. But I 12 did say it. 13 O. Did Mr. Merritt have Dooic -- 14 MR. WALKER: Request we go off the
'l 15 record.
16 (Whereupon, there was a
~
17 (discussion off the record 16 Q. (BY MS. GARDL) Did Mr. Merritt have Dobic 19 Haticy fired? 20 A. No. 21 Q. When, to the best of your knowledge, Mr. 22 Strand, did Mr. Morritt or Mr. Tolson get briefed
'l 23 about what was found in satellite 306 the week prior 24 to Dobie's termination?
f 25 A. I don't know if Mr. Tolson was over briefed. FEDERAL COURT REPokTERS
. ~ . . - . . . . . -:a: _
64 l 1 Not'to my knowledge. Not to my knowledge was Mr. I 2 Merritt briefed. If it was done, it was by somebody 3 other than myself. 4 Q. Who would t h a t' person most likely be if it 5 wasn't yourself? J 6 MR. JORDAN: 1 think I'm going to 7 object to that as being speculative, unless you can (
~
8 demonstrate that he has some basis for knowing the 9 answer to that. 10 MS. GARDE: Okay. Let me try to 11 demonstrate that. 12 C. (BY llS. GARDE) Mr. Strand, on occasion 13 were problems identified within the satellites that 14 had to be reported to TUGCO? l 15 You want me to describe some problems? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Okay. Were audit findings occasionally
, 18 reported to TUGCO?
l ') 6. TUGCO would audit occasionally. 20 Q. Okay. Did drown & Root ever send the , 21 results of their audits, internal audits, to TUGCO? 22 A. No, not to my knowledge. j 23 Q. Okay. If you ever discovered a problem of i 24 great seriousnuss, did you have un obligation to i 25 notify Mr. Ilicks? PLDERAL COURT REPORTERS 4
. _ . ~
,._..._m....:_. . . . . . .. J ._ ;_ .. m . . . _ . . . . ....,_:_...
65 ' i 1 A. Certainly. I 2 Q. Did you notify Mr. Ilicks? 3 A. About what? 4 Q. About problems that you may find of 5 seriousness. I'll give you a hypothetical example 6 of an audit finding that would discover procedures 7 out of date for a six-month time period.
~
8 A. Six-uonths time period? I think Mr. lii c k s 9 would be informed about that. 10 Q. Okay. Do you have any way of knowing .f 11 tir . 11i ck s would then notify Mr. Merritt or Mr. 12 Tolson? 13 A. I have no way of knowing that. 14 Q. Okay. I'll drop the question. But let me 15 make sure that the record is clear on this. 16 Mr. Strand, you have no -- Is it your S.. 17 testimony that you have no knowledge that Mr. Tolson
~
IS or Mr. Merritt were ever informed, tnc week prior to 19 Ms. Hatley's termination, of the findings of the 20 audit that you had conducted? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Okay. Now -- l 23 M it . WALKER: I think you meant to say 24 the audit tnat he had had conducted. ' t 25 tis . GARDE: l't e had had conducted, yes. FEDERAL COURT REPORTEUS
, - w- w , -=
. ....z.. . ...w.. ...:.-..
06 N 1 Q. Who is the first person you discussed the -- ( 2 your conclusion that Ms. Hatley needed to be 3 terminated with? 4 HR. WALKER: Asked and answered. 5 MS. GARDE: Okay. I don't remember. 6 HR. WALKER: You may answer. 7 A. dr. Ilutchinson. [ S Q. And when did that conversation take place? 9 A. About mid-week of the week that Dobie was 10 on vacation. 11 Q. And to the best of your recollection, what 12 was discussed? 13 A. The position I found myself in. My lead 14 supervisor hcving had testified to obvious i 15 procedural violations. 16 Q. What was tir . Hutchinson's reaction? 17 A. I tnink at first, surprise.
. 18 Q. And then?
. 19 A. He said he would have to take that under 20 advisement. We needed to discuss it at greater 21 length. This was nothing enct was lightly 22 uncertaken.
$ 23 C. And then when is the next t i r.e you talked 24 to soccone about Doble's termination?
t 25 A. I talked to nobody about Dobie's FEDERAL COURT HEPORTL!sS l e =en.* w --y- e.--.
- . . . . . . _ . . . _ _ . . _ . . . . . _ . . . . . a r_m. .. .a _.. _ _ . . ,
, 67 1 termination in that period except to Mr. 11 u t c h i n s o n .
( 2 Q. Was there more than one conversation with 3 Mr. Hutchinson that week? 4 A. Oh, yes. 5 Q. How many? 6 A. Pdssibly a half dozen. 7 Q. As best you can recall, Mr. Strand, would
- i d' 8 you please recount when those conversations were?
9 First of all, was the first time you talked 10 to hiu on Wednesday? 11 A. 1 think it was late in the afternoon on 12 that Wednesday. 13 Q. Then when is the next time you talked-to 14 him? i 15 A. The following morning. 16 Q. Wnat was discussed in the second , 17 conversation?
,' la A. I can't honestly recall tne details of that. . 19 It was painful.
20 Q. For you? 21 A. For me. 22 Q. Why was it painful for you, Mr. Strand? 23 A. Ms. Hatley had worked very hard, very 24 diligently. I'll never take that away from her. l . 25 But faced with the att of circumstances that I was FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
- :. - _ ::. ;.:::.r.: :-.:2- : _ h = 2 L = :: :. =.: ; _ :.- . : - ; - = aa _ ::.
68 a
.1 1 faced with, I had no alternative but to recommend
( 2 her termination. 3 Q. Did you tell Ms. Hatley that you had 4 recommended termination? 5 A. I tnink so. 6 u. So you discussed the first and the second 7 conversation with Mr. Hutchinson about terminating ~
,f 8 Hs. Hatley. You said there was about a half dozen.
9 When were the rest of them? 10 A. Oh, Ms. Garde, they continued right through 11 the week. I can't give you any specific time. 12 u. Ok'ay. During that week was the audit of 13 306 continuing? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And were you getting daily upcates of that 16 audit? 17 A. Yes.
,' 16 0 Was it confirming your concerns raised by 19 the initial audit in your look over the weekend?
2G A. Yes. 21 0. dere things worse than you'd expected? 22 A. Much worse. i 23 O. Now, Mr. Strand, would you explain to me 24 why it was that you decided or assuned that the ( 25 problons in 306 wore a result of Ms. Haticy's doing, FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
-..........~~uL.' :.: . .
_- ..a..... _'_ _ _ _~ : .
. . . .. ...u . a m
69 J 1 1 or that they were her undoing? l 2 A. Well, . hat isn't too hard to explain, Ms. 3 Garde. Number one, Dobie was responsible for all of 4 the satellites. Number two, she was spending all of 5 her time in 306. She has responsibility for what
. 6 occurs there, just as I had responsibility for what 7 occurred there.
8 Q. Did you look at any of the other satellites i 9 tnat week? 10 A. Not that week. 1 devoted my full attention 11 to 306. 12 O. Subsequent to Ms. datley's termination did 13 you look at the otner satellites? 14 A. Yes. But you must remember, 1 wasn't there 15 much longer. 16 Q. I understand. What's your date of 17 termination? lb A. I beg your pardon?
,. 19 Q. What was the date that you left the site?
20 A. I'm not sure. 1 think it was Maren the 6th 21 or 7th. 22 0. So a full month after Ms. Hatley's 3 23 termination? i 24 A. Yes. I 25 C. During that month did you look at the other FED"RAL COURT REPORTERS
_ _ ::.:.:.21.2.". :. i.:._ _ _ :ir. =. c. :.= t;.:fi _ ._ _ .'.: _ =. . :. =._.x _ .: _.:. r. :c : :_ 704 k! I satellites?
! A.
2 We were concentrating almost completely on 3 306. 4 Q. And you explained to me, Mr. Strand, what 5 you did in looking at 306, and I asked you why it 6 was that you had decided the problems that 306 werc 7 Ms. Haticy's fault. Let me make sure that I have
, ,$, 6 your complete answer on that.
9 one, you said it was because she had 10 located he'rself primarily in 306 the last couple of 11 months of her employment; is tnat correct? 12 A. No. I merely made that us a statement of 12 iact. 14 Q. Okay. I want to know why, when you , 15 discovered the problems in 306, that that translated 16 into it being Dobie's fault. 17 A. Well, because she was there all tnrough iS that period. ' l . 19 Q. She was also satellite supervisor over the 20 other satellites during that time period, wasn't she? 21 A. That was my concern. 22 0 Okay. Explain yourself. I don't i 23 understs'nd what you meon. 24 A. Well, she wos responsible for all of the i 25 satellites but, yet, was spending all of hur time in FEDERAL COURT REPOhTLRS
- - _ _.a -
- . . ~ . . - . . . . . . . . . - . .
_ . . . . . - . ~ - . -n 71 ! i i 1 306. ! i 2 Q. Okay. Is what you're telling me -- just a 3 minute. 4 What you have just said, Mr. Strand, is 5 another problem or another reason which
. 6 independently may have been grounds to fire Ms.
~
7 Hatley; that is, she wasn't doing what she was
~
~ j. ' 8 supposed to be doing, supervising all the satellites. 9 But you haven't said that before. Are you telling 10 me now that one of the reasons that she was 11 terminatec was because she was not performing her 12 function of supervising all the satellites? 13 A. Not cirectly. What that was, to me, was an 14 indicator. 15 Q. It was an indicator of what? 16 A. That there obviously nad to be problems in 17 306 or she wouldn't be spending all of her time id there. 1> 0 Okay. Now I'm really confused. Let me 20 back up. Let's try to go through this in chronology 21 starting in October of '83. Okay. And I will try 22 not to get confused. e 1 23 In October 1983, Ms. Ilatley was the 24 satellite supervisort is that correct? t 25 A. She was supervisor of all satellites. FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
. . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . .. .... . . . . . . - . a. .x: . :.. . . . ~ . ~ . . -. . . . :. . a i 72 b
1 Q. Right. And at that time there was four ( 2 satellites? 3 A. That is correct. 4 Q. Okay. And we named those before on the 5 record.
, 6 A. (Witness nods).
~
7 Q. Okay. Each of those satellites had a ( 8 supervisort is*that correct? 9 A. That is correct. 10 , Q. Okay. Satellite 306.had had three 11 supervisors in that time period. I think there was 12 one in summer and one in October and then Billie Orr 13 for awhile and then -- 14 A. That is esswntially correct. i 15 G. And it had also been merged with satellite 16 305 th summer; is tnat correct? 17 A. That's essentially correct. If I remember, 10 some of 305 was merged into 306. I might be off on , 19 the details. Some of it may have gone to 20 engineering. 1 don't remember the exact details. ~ 21 But Dobie had made the value judgment that she felt, 22 in her opinion, that they were better off combined, i 23 and I cgreed with her.. 24 Q. Osay. After October of 1983, you noticed i 25 that Pl s . 11a tley wa s spending almost exclusively all FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
" "~"'~~'~~'=
^^~C r z __iL R _ C _ _ Z r ~'L ' "~ ~ Z * ~'
e 73 1 of her time in satellite 3067 1 2 A. That is correct. 3 Q. And your understanding of why she was doing 4 that was because she found additional problems in
- 5. 3067
. 6 A. Well, that's an assumption on my part.
7 Q. So you assumed that that's why anc was i 8 spending her timo in 306; is that correct? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. Sometime in December, task forces were 11 created for the building task forces, or paper flow 12 groups were created for the building task forces; is 13 tnat correct? 14 A. No. I believe that was somewhat earlier. l 15 Q. Okay. 16 A. It possibly was in November. 17 Q. Late November, early Duccaber, paper flow
.' 1G groups were created for building task forces? , 19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. And tnere was four of those; in that 21 correct? 22 A. That is correct. e . 1 23 U. That was another change in the way 24 documentation was controlled on the Comanche Peak i 25 site; is that corruct? FEDERAL COUhT REPokTURS
__ . . . ~ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . _ . _ . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . _ . . _ . . . . . . _ . . _... 74 1 A. That is correct. I 2 Q. Each of those paper flow groups had 3 documentation of their own which they'd received 4 from the satelliter is that correct? 5 A. That is correct. 6 Q. And they interfaced with the satellite 7 through runners; is that correct? f 8 A. Essentially. 9 Q. And the satellites were responsibic for 10 keeping up the paper flow groups logs; is tnat 11 correct? 12 A. Early on in the game, yes. 13 Q. At some point they became responsible for 14 their own logs; is that correct? 5 15 A. That is correct. 16 Q. And that was approximately the end of 17 December; is that correct?
. 18 A. I'm not sure as to the time frame. I would l ') suspect it.was a little bit later.
2U Q. Okay. Sometitie they became responsible lor 21 their own logs? - 22 A. (Witness nods). i 23 Q. Ms. Hatley complained to you -- let me ask 24 this. I didn't ask this on tne record yet. I 25 Did Ms. Hatley cocplain to you about the FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
g.. . ..; _3 3.-. . :. . . . ....;._._ . _ . _ . . 75 l I creation of the paper flow groups? s ( 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Did she express to you her concerns that 4 the paper flow groups,- in fact, were in violation of 5 procedures?
, . 6 A. They would have been a technical violation 7 of our procedures. But, Ms. Garde, you must k 8 understand that in setting up the satellites, we 9 were setting up a new concept; procedures developed 10 as a result of experience. This is in fact what 11 happened where the task force paper flow groups were 12 concerned. As wo. progressed and moved along, they 1
13 developed their own file custodians, we trained them,
'14 and that was an ongoing process at the time of my 15 termination.
16 Q. Okay. Going to tne creation of the paper 17 flow groups a rid when they first got t r. e i r 16 documentation from the satellites, do you recall Ms. 19 11a t l e y ' s -- You answered this question already. 20 Strike that. Q 21 Were the paper flow groups established by 22 proper revision to DCP-37 i 23 A. Well, as I explained just earlier, this is 24 an evolutionary thing. I 25 O. This is a "yes" or "no" question. If you i l
. FE D Eli AT, COURT REPORTCHS
.~ - . - -
... . . . J... . . . . . . . _ . . - - - . - . .
76 1 1 can say "yes" or "no" and then explain it, that's ( 2 fine. But I want to know if there was a revision 3 issued to DCP-3 prior to the creation of the paper 4 flow groups and'the issuance,of that documentation 5 to the paper flow groups. 6 A. There was none formally issued at that time. 7 They were in the process of being written. [ 8 Q. Was that a complaint of Ms. 11a t i c y ' s ? 9 A. I think so. 10 C. Was it a complaint of M 's . Hatley that sho 11 was responsible for documuntation that was released 12 to the field, to the paper flow groups, that she was , i 13 responsible for but she hao no control over? ! 14 A. I'm sure tant was discussed. i 15 u. Did you agree or disagree with Ms. Hatley's 10 complaint? 17 A. 'Yes. And I told her that we were moving in 18 that direction.
, 19 Q. You were moving in what direction? l j
l 20 A. In t ?. e direction of proceduralizing.
* }
21 Q. Mr. Strand, is it your understanding of tnc 22 requirements of nuclear power plant construction -- k 23 and I know that covers a wide 'r a n g e of things from 24 10-CFR appendix B down to ASME and ANCI standards -- ( 25 that you can make enanges and then write revisions, FEDERAL COURT REPORThaS
.._.s._._.__. . . . _ . . . . . .._.__.._.._._m_....v..._;__...._...
77 1 1 make changes to procedures and then write revisions i 2 to procedures? 3 MR. JORDAN: Excuse me. Ms. Garde, 4 are you asking him for a legal interpretation or a 5 legal opinion? 6 MS. GARDE: No. His understanding of 7 the practice of Comanche Peak based on his personal ~ f 8 knowledge. 9 MR. JORDAU: Okay. 10 A. I think the proceduralizing moved as fast 11 as the systems were designated. I don't think there 12 was an unreaconable time. 13 0 (SY MS. GARDE) That's not what I asked you. , 14 Okay. Please listen to my question. I am not i 15 trying to be difficult, but it's a long quoscion, 16 and let ce try to state it again. No, don't let ne 17 try.
. 16 ud. GARDE: Would you read it back,
. 19 pleasc. 20 (Whereupon, the question 21 (was read back by 22 (the court reporter l 23 A. I think I understand the sense of that. I 24 think the answer to that is yes. I 25 Q. (DY MS. GARDE) Okay. what date, if you FEDERAL COUP.T REPORTERS
s _-_ -_______-=- _-._________ 78 d 1 know, was the revision to DCP-3 issued that ( 2 established formally the paper flow groups? 3 A. I can't answer that question. I had 4 started writing it. I had it in written form. I had 5 formalized it two or three times, and we had '
. 6 submitted it to comanche Peak staff engineer. And ~
7 before that thing was finalized I had terminated.
.} 8 Q. Mr. Etrand, there was a week that you were 9 not st Comanche Peak, and it has been characterized 10 to me --
and I say that only to try to locate in f 11 your mind what that week is I'm not saying that 12 that's the truth -- that you walked out. }re you I 13 familiar with what week I'm talking about? 14 A. No. i 15 O. Okay. 16 i. , I have walked out on a number of occasions. 17 0 .' Okay. My understanding is that this -- the le week that I an asking you about was in fall of 1983, 19 and it was in the middle of a TUGCO audit. Does 20 that help place that in your mind?
- 1 21 A. In the middle of a TUGCO audit?
22 Q. Yes. i 23 A. I would never leave in the middle of an 24 audit. t 25 Q. So you don't know what week I'm talking FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
. . . . . . . _ . . . . . .._u_-;_..~__. . . .;. . c m u. . . . . ..1 79 1 %
1 about? I 2 A. I'd have to pin it down. 3 0. Let sic confer with Ms. II a t i c y , see if I can 4 pin it down. 5 (whereupon, there was a
. 6 (discussion off tne record 7 0 My understanding is that it's the same week
( 8 that Brownward played Cleburne for the state 9 championship. lu A. That wouldn't mean a thing to me. 11 Q. Okay. That's the best I can do in terms of 12 locating it in more detail than f,a l l of 1983. My 13 understanding is it's sometime in November. 14 A. Well, let me answer the question in part. i 15 I'm not sure what you're driving at specifically. 16 Q. Well, 1 don't want-to ask a question until 17 I've got you and I talking about the same week.
,' ic A. Okay. But I don't know at what point in
. 19 time it was, but ti r . Frankum and Mr. li i c k s callea me 6 20 into their office and they handed me the keys to a 21 truck. And I asked what that was all about, and 22 they said -- I had walked out the week previously, i 23 and it was raining like mac. I was under a great 24 deal of stress, and I just nod it for that day. So i 25 the next w e e r. , wnenever that -- whatever that time
. FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
_ .;_ _.:_=_:O==: :_ _'.___;.u=:.;E _ _i;_ _ _ _ __ __ _ ____ _ _ __;__ 80-1 frame was, they gave me a truck so I could more i 2 conveniently escape when my cup ran over. 3 Q. I sce. 4 A. And now if you can specify any one of these 5 situations, why, I will be happy to respond, if I 6 can. 7 Q. okay. I can't any more than that. I am ( 6 trying to lay a basis for another question. And let 9 me ask that question, and if it jogs your memory, 10 fine. If it doesn't, I will move on to another arca 11 of questions. 12 During the week that I'm asking about, Ms. l 13 Hatley has given testimony, tnat she talked to a Mr. 14 Chris Soyd about the status of the satellites. My i 15 question is, do you have any knowledge of that 10 conversation? 17 A. Chris Boyd? 18 Q. Yes. . 19 A. Well, Chris Boyd ultimately was my 20 successor. But at that point in time, I don't know 21 what possible connection he would have with DCC. 22 O. Okay. The question was,.do you have any t 1 23 knowledge of his conversation with Ms, liaticy around 24 November, late November, early December 1963, about t 25 problems in the satellites? FEDERAL COURT RCPORTERS f - - r
. . . . w. . a. . . - -- --.
_ _ _ _ _ ~ . . __________ m 81 k 1 A. I don't have any such recollection. ( 2 Q. Okay. Now, there's been testimony by you 3 this morning that there was a lot of pressure 4 involved in Ms. Uatley's job. You just testified 5 that there was also a lot of pressure on you. Was . 6 that normal job pressure associated with keeping up 7 with tne documentation demands of the construction j 8 crews? 9 A. Well, I'm sure that contributed to it, yes. 10 0 What else contributed to it? 11 A. Tne whole range of supervisory problems, 12 Ms. Garde. Personnel, hours. You run the whole 13 gamut. I think we were probably the hot spot on 14 this thing. i 15 O. We interrupted a chronological flow of what 16 happened in the satellites to go down this side trip, 17 because you didn't remember something I was -- I was
~
la trying to ask you about. Let me return back to the 19 paper flow -- establishment of the paper flow groups 20 and wnether or not they were established according 21 to procedure. 22 Now, after the paper flow groupu were I' 23 established, there was both operating satellites and 24 operating paper flow groups within the building task i 25 forces; is that correct? FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
-------------.-------__.-.:__=______1-t_
82 i 1 A. Yes, I would say so. I 2 Q. And both of those were under your 3 supervision; is that correct? 4 A. No. 5 O. Okay. Who were the paper flow groups under?
. 6 A. We're back to names. Don Morris had, I
~
7 believo, the electrical control room and electricci
- l' 6 cable paper flow group. I think Randy Taylor'had 9 tne reactor building paper flow group. hnd I can't 10 recall tnc names of the other two chaps. Danny 11 Sinclair, I believe, had the auxiliary building.
12 Q. Who had safegueards? l 1h A. I can't recall the name of that individual. 14 Q. Did they have a supervisor? 15 A. Oh, yes. 16 ' O. Did the paper flow groups answer tu a 17 particular supervisor?
.- 18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And who was that? 20 A. Each task force had a manager. 21 Q. And that was the building manager? 22 A. Building manager. i 23 Q. And so the paper flow groups within each 24 building management system answered to the building i 25 manager? FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS 1
... .. _ .__ _ . . . . _. . . . .. .c ._- . . . L_ _
83 1 A. That is correct. f 2 Q. Okay. Did they also answer to the building 3- manager for flaws in' documentation updating? 4 A. In a sense, yes. 5 O. Were the paper flow groups responsible for
. 6 updating construction procedures?
^
7 A. Got initially. ( 3 0 When were -- . 9 d. We were charged with that responsibility. 10 Q. When did they become responsibic for that? 11 A. I understand, shortly after I departed. 12 That was the direction that we were heading in. 13 Q. Okay. Were they responsible for updat2ng 14 design changes? 15 A. Not in the time reference I think you're 16 concerned with. We were. 1? Q. Were they responsible for updating aperture 18 cards? , , 19 A. No. 20 0. Were they responsible for updating the 21 design logs, drawing logs? 22 A. No. l 23 Q. Were the paper flow groups responsible for 24 for updating the computer with design changos? i 25 A. No. t FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS P - . . - ~- _ _ _ , , , m
z
---- - - _ - : _ .:.:.: .2.:_ - : _ a 12" t L2 _ ~i= _~
84 1 Q. When a paper flow group employee discovered I 2 a missing design change in a package, what was he 3 supposed to do, if you know? 4 A. Call the satellite. But that usually 5 didn't happen. The packages were updated once or
. 6 twice daily. I think Dobie had them updating twice ~
7 a day at that point. I'm sure there were occasions
.{ 8 when a mechanical error occurred.
9 Q. Were comple'te packages issued to the paper 10 flow groups by the satellites? 11 A. Well, completc packages were, and traveler 12 packages were also issued. 13 Q. And it's acceptable to issue partial 14 traveler packages in an incomplete status? I mean, l 15 if you have a traveler you don't have to issue the 16 whole package? 17 A.- That's correct. 18 Q. And that is according to procedure? 10 A. That is according to procedure. , 20 Q. tiow, you said that Ms. Hatley came to you 21 with daily complaints, or came to you on a daily 22 basis with normal problems of operating the 1 23 satellitos. And you also testified that sho -- or 24 ! that you recall her complaining about the 1 1 25 establishment of the paper flow groups and how shc FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS n .1
85 1 1 was supposed to control documentation that was out I 2 in the field in the paper flow groups. 3 What percentage, if you can put a number on 4 it -- and take some time if you need to, but think 5 about Ms. Haticy's complaints during the time period 6 of the last two to three months of her employment. 7 What percentage of her complaints to you stemmed j- 8 . from problems with the paper flow groups? 9 A. W e l,1 , I'm positive that a good many of them 10 did at that time. That was a period of confusion, 11 startup. 12 0. okay. Now, Mr. Strand, when you did your 13 audit of 306 and decided that you had to terminate 14 Ms. Hatley because of all the problems in 306, 'did i 15 you consider that those problems were a result of 10 thingc beyond tis . Hatley's control? 17 A. Yes, I considered that, definitely.
, 10 Q. And am I correct in assuming that even 19 though you considered that, that you rc]ceted that?
20 A. I had to. 21 Q. And wny is it that you had to? 22 A. I was faced with a whole series of blatant i 23 procedure violations. I had no place to hide. l 24 Q. hhan you decided to terminate Ha. Hatley, 25 did you institute changes in the procedures in DCP-3? i l 1 FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS j
____.--.______._.__.____G.__.G=__ . 86
.;j 1 A. I'm not sure I understand that question.
I 2 Q. You discovered a large number of problems 3 during your audit of 306 is that correct? 4 A. Yes. . I 5 O. You decided that the cause of those
, 6 problems, as I understand it, was Ms. Hatley's
~
7 inability to implement the procedures correctly; is { 6 that correct? 9 A. That is correct. 10 Q. Did you change any procedures after Ms. 11 Hatley left? l 12 A. We had in writing, we were instituting , 13 changes as a result of that, yes. And I have to be ( 14 , a little bit vague because I was not there when they 1 15 were actually implemented. 16 Q. Mr. Strand, when you left the site a month i 17 later, was it in any way connected to Ms. Hatley's 16 termination? 19 A. Oh, no. 4 20 Q. Were you on the site when the CAT tcam --
~
21 that's Construction Appraisal Team -- of the Nuclear 4 22 Regulatory Commission performed its audit? i 23 A. Yes, ma'am. 24 Q. And what was your position at the time of I 25 the CAT tuan audit? FEDURAL COURT REPORTER 3
. . . ..a . ..s . . :. 2 - :-...-.. ...~...- .- . ...- ------ a ---- - - - - - - - - - - -
G7 l 1 - A. I was supervisor of document control. ( 2 Q. What is your understanding of the followup 3 required by yourself, Ms. Hatley and the document 4 control center in response to the CAT team's 5 findings on documentation? 6 A. I don't know how to phrase that -- phrase 7 this answer without confusing you. At that point in j- 3 time we were in a completely different distribution 9 mode. 10 G. I understand that. There was no sate 111tus. 11 A. .Thure were no satellites. Everything was 12 distribut'od to control numbers. 13 Q. I understand that. 14 A. The document control center, document l 15 control department, was not cited, was not faulted 16 as a result of that CAT team audit. I'm sure you've 17 read it.
- , 10 Q. Yes.
J
- 19 A. Been sometime since I've looked at it.
20 I had already under consideration another 21 plan for drawing and documentation distrioutien 22 which didn't emenate from the CAT team. l 23 Q. Wu.ch wou ultimately the satellite system 24 that was implementod? i l 25 1 A. Which was ultimately the satellito systen PEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
,.~-~.1.'
^
..~-_L -
80 1 . l 1 i that was implemented. But the CAT team, por se, had ! I 2 nothing to do with the implementation of -- We 3 didn't come up with the sato111tes as a result of 4 the CAT team. 5 O. You said that the CAT team, as you recall, 6 did not cite DCC, per se. What is your recollection 7 of what they did cite about documentation? J 8 A. Oh, well, I was very close to that
'> situation. That whole team camped in my offico for 10 great lengths of time. An NRC inspector by the name 11 of Bill Hanson, I believe, spearheaded that 12 docucontation effort. They went out into the 13 buildings and so forth and checked on tne 14 ' documentation tnat workers were working with, and l-15 they brought back lists or documentation that they 10 found laying on print tables and various locations 17 around the buildings ano so forth. They would bring
. lu those drawings in Rev. numbers back to the DCC. And 19 I assigned a lady to work with them and verify what, 20 in fact, was the current revision. A n .] the vast 21 majority of the documentation dufocts were within 22 the electrical group at that point in time. They l
23 probably found 12, 14, 15 drawings out in the ficid 24 that were out of revision. I 25 0 I've read tnc CAT team report, so I know FEDCRAL COURT REPORTLhd
~ - _ , _ . - , . - - , , , - - - ,- - - - - - - - , , - - , ,
--c- - - - - . - , - - . , - - _
_.~.n . z_ __. m m _'_
' ~ ~--- - + " ' - -~~'~ '
E1 l q 1 what their findings were. What I'm interested in, 1 2 from your perspective, Mr. Strand, is your l 3 understanding of what the CAT team required in 4 4 documentation changes or changes in the document ]i 1 5 control system under your supervision. j , 6 MR. WALKER: Ms. Garde, we have not 7 i established a time frame for the CAT team. And you j j' 8 know what it was and I know what it was, and I , 9 assume the witneau knows what it was, but it's not 10 in this record. Could we do that? i 11 MS. GARDE: 1 believe the CAT team 12 investigation was conducted in the fall of '82 and 13 issued in April '83. 14 Q. Is that correct? i 15 A. 4 I believe that is the time frame. Very j 16 closo. 1 1 l 17 Q. Okay. Do you understand my question? I'll 1
. 16 try to restate it if I'm not stating it --
19 A. I wish you would restate it, because I'm 20 still a little hazy as to what you want. i 21 l Q. Your recollection is that the CAT team did i 22 not cite DCC, per se, the document control center. j j . 23 Okay.' And my understanding in the same thing. 24 Okay. but they did have a lot of findings about i 25 documentations is that correct? FEDERAL COURT HEPORTERS
_= - _
- .:- =.s ;. =h d.::i-. :A :: L ::.:O. : - _ =:N =~=- =:= i 90 3
1 A. Yes. I. 2 Q. Okay. 13 ow , what I'm asking you is where ) 3 did they find the problems? 4 A. The problem, as I understand it, was in the 5 local control numbers failing to control tacir own 6 documentation. 7 Q. And there were approximately how many field ( 8 control numbers at that timo? 9 A. Might have been 60 or 70. 10 Q. So it was the document distribut. ion system 11 would that be correct? 12 A. Document management system. 1 1 13 Q. Okay. Document management system. And the ( 14 response to that finding, as you say, was already in l 15 the works. In other words, you had c1 ready thought
, 16 up --
17 A. Not for that reason. IB Q. Okay. Because you had already decided that
, 19 you needed to change the document management system?
i j 20 A. I felt that the economics -- that there I j 21 were too many people involved in handling paper and a { l 22 that there had to be a better way, economically, l l 23 manpowerwise and so forth, to handle it. 1 i j 24 Q. Okay. So it's your testimony that i 25 coincidentally, CAT team findings and your new f
, reuCRAL COURT REPORTEMS
_ __ _____ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - -l
.______ _ .. ~. .. . . . . . .
91 i i system happened around the same time period? ( 2 A. Yes. And I might clarify it a little bit 3 better for everybody's edification. l 4 This team used to meet in my office 5 periodically. I recall Bill llansom specifically.
, 6 Le kept looking at the charts on my -- on my wall 1 7 and asked what that was about. And I told him what
]~ 8 the concept was, what the approach was, that it nad 9 not been finalized, not been completely thought 10 through at that time. I think the next day was the 11 cxit critique at which they all sat down and for 12 which I was present for a part of. And the only 13 thing tnat wac mentioned at the exit critique, that 14 I recall --
and as I say, I wasn't there for all -- i 15 is that we are not going to address a rumor but we 16 have the feeling that the documentation problem is 17 already being addreased. And it was luft at that. 1& I took that as a cue that I could implement my 19 system over, and that management -- 20 0. Wouldn't say anything? 21 A. Management jumped at it. 22 Q. Now, soon after that, in fact, in the 1 23 chronology that we ' ve -bcon going througn, you in 24 fact did begin to implement the sato111tes7 I 25 A. That is correct. PLDERAL COURT REPORTERS
-..-_s-.c .
-- . - - . - - - ,- . ~ . . - .- .---- ...e.-.-,- - - - - - - - . - ..r- , - - - - - ,
. _ _ -. _ . _ _ _ . . -, _ _- m _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ . _ _
_ .. _ ... ,... ... . . J.~ .J, . .......-.-i.'*-+ a -L - - 92
! k I
- 1 -
Q. And that's when you brought Ms. Hatley over, I i 2 after Mr. -- j 3 A. Gary Clark. l 4 Q. After Mr. Gary Clark was not able to 1 5 impicoent the system you brought Ms. Hatley over? t 4 6 A. That is correct. 1 7 Q. Okay. What is your understanding of the o f f 8 followup required in your changing? Strike that. ! 9 What is your understanding of the changes 1 I 10 that your system or your DCC was required to } 11 implement in order to satisfy the CAT team findings? l . ] 12 You understand my question? l l 13 A. Yes, I understand your question. But the 1 14 requirement of the CAT team could have been ; j 15 satisfied with the existing system i f it had been
~
16 tightened. { i i 17 Q. Oksy. So in your testimony that document t ] . 14 control center, DCC, had to ao nothing to satisfy 1 ], 19 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission? j 20 A. No. There were no -- We had long i discussions wnere this was concerned. 21 They didn't j 22 find it. Thuy did find a problem with craft j l 23 managument of their own paper. And as n result, I 24 got the authority to take that away from them. i I j 25 Q. Okay. But it's your undorctanding that you, I \ i 1 FEDLRAL COURT R E P O P '. d R S
..=...:.-.......-.
___d 93 l 1 as an officer -- and I'm referring to DCC as a kind ( 2 of amorphous thing out there -- had no obligation to 3 get back to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in any I l 4 way, shape or form once the changen were implemented? 1 5 A. Well, I'n sure that we did, if 1 understand 6 your question. There was the outstanding concern 7 registered by the Commission out of revisions,
. j- 8 drawings being found in the field, and the site had 9 to address that. I addressed it for the site by 10 proposing the sacc111tes system.
11 0 Okay. I think ww're talking about two l l 12 different time periods. I'm intorosted in 13 -a n d e r s t a s: d i n g , ti r . Gtrand, if after tne satellitus 14 were implementec you understood that the Nuclear 15 Regulatory Commission had to be apprised of how the 16 new system was working, that the NRC had to be sure 17 the systen was impicacntod. i
! . 18 A. No, I don't think that was incumbent. This N
19 was done on en informal basis. I toured the i 20 resident, a now resident of thw NRC. No members of i
- 21 the --
1 ( 22 Q. Is that Doyle Hunnicutt? I 23 A. That name is.not familiar to me. 24 Q. Okay.
- 25 A. Bob Taylor, James '
I think hu's still tho l F,EDERAL COURT REPORTERS
,9 -- -,-7-- , - , y - en4
____________________________________q 1 94 ' 1 current resident. And then there were three or four -c I 2 Q. Do you mean Mr. Cummings? 3 A. Cummings, yes. And there were three or 4 four others that came down in a team from Region 4; 5 I toured them, explained the concept. 6 Q. And when was that visit?
~
7 A. Well, thcao visits were all at different
}'
8 times, Ms. Garde. 9 Q. Okay. 10 A. Oh, I think they ranged from -- Actually, 11 Bob Taylor made the first tour. And I don't even 12 think we had cet the craft satellites up at that 13 point, although he would drop around from time to 14 time. And of course, he was transferred. The i 15 satellites were then in being, I would guesa -- and 10 I'm only guessing -- cid-sumucr when Mr. Cummings I l 17 arrived on the scono, and 1 toured him through, gave ' la him a format of how the system worked. And then 19 some weeks after that, maybe in August, somewhere ,
\
20 around in thure, thoac -- as I recall, these four 21 peoplo from Region 4 came. 22 C. Okay. l 23 MS. CAhDC: I ' t.1 going to show Mr. 24 Strand the document that I had shown Mr. liutchinson ( 25 yesterday. It might be a good time for a breas. I FEDERAL COURT REPOHTUkd
l __ . . . . , - . . . . . . . . - - - . - . - . , 95 l 1 don't know what time it is. I l 2 M R' . WALKER: It's 10 'till 12. 3 MS. GARDE: Could we tako a very short i 4 lunch recess, let him look at that and then try to ! 5 wind this up? 6 MR. hALKER: How much longer do yJa 7 estimate you're going to bw? j 8 !!S . GARDE: About an hour. 9 MR. WALKER: I'm not saying I am not 10 agreeabic to that, but if that's all you need, why 11 do wo need a short lunch break' 12 MS. CARDE: Off the record. 13 (Whereupon, from 11:50 a.m. 14 (to 1:00 p.m., a luncheon i 15 (recess was taken 16 Q. (BY HS. GARDE) Mr. Strand, I hope to 17 finish up in about an hour. Before I get to the
, lu cocuments that I gave you to look over over 19 lunchtimo, I have got a few more general questions I 20 thought of.
21 A. Fine. 22 c. I don't remember if I asked you, so let me l 23 ask you now; and if you answered, just say that. 24 Do you recall ever instructing althur Ms. Hatley or i 25 any of the utner DCC or satellite e sip loy e e s tu give \ FEDERAL COURT REPokTCHC O
^^ '^-
96 , 3 l 1 prints or CMC's or DCA's to craft personnel out of I I 2 procedure? ) 3 A. Not out of procedure. I have donc that.. i j 4 4 Q. Okay. What procedure authorizes you to 5 give out to craft personnel documents without them 1 6 ueing signed out on the logs?
.' 7 A. Well, if I'm correct in assuming what 1 .j. u you're referring to here, we're talking essentially 1 9 design changes, are we not?
] 10 Q. DCA's, CMC's. , 11 A. Yeh. ti + had operational instructions 4 1< 12 within the matc111tos, which I believe Ms. Hatley i i' j IJ helpcd write. i 14 0. Right. i 15 A. Therc ~ are occasions when a craft would lo require an individual CMC. These are isolated. And 17 we had a procedure set up whereby they would submit 18 a three-part meno to me with an explanation for the 19 need for the CMC, and it had to be signed by the 20 craft superintendent. 21 Q. Who would have beun Mr. Frankum? 22 A. No. Anybody of superintendent rank. 23 c. Okay. And were these operating
! 24 instructions incorporated into DCP-3?
)
25 A. To my knowledge, I can't answer that. It 1 l FEDERAL COURT HE P 01tT E R S
- - - - . I
_ _ . _ . _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. , _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ , _ _ _ _ . . ._.._ __2 _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ , . _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ , _ -
..e .D 97 4
1 1 was intended, at some point, to do s'o . 3 ( 2 Q. Okay. Let me ask you about a specific 3 incident and get your uxplanation of it, if you 1 ] 4 recall. Lo you recall the week that Ms. Itatley was j 5 off after her fathur dicd? Week in Decommer? I'
. 6 A. I don't recall the time frame, essentially, 7 but I'll try to anowor. -j' 8 Q. Okay. Do you remember when Ms. Hatley's 9 father died, or that he died and she hau to take off l 10 a week?
11 A. I remember her father passing cway, but 12 honestly I don't remember wnst time frame it was in. I 13 Q. Okay. Do you remember tnat at the same 14 time au he passed away, that she took off for i 15 several days or up to a week? 16 A. I'm sure she did. 17 0 Okay. During that week do you recall Ms.
. 18 bilito Qer coming to you and saying that Don Horris 1
l ') had ordered hur to give him five prints and 21 CMC's
.=
20 and DCA's and you ordering her to do that? 21 A. What was it relative to? 1 22 Q. I believe Mr. Morris was with the paper i 23 flow group for ciectrical. 24 A. What kind of drawings? 25 Q. Five prints and 21 CHC's and DCA's relatud ] FEDEhAL COURT REPORYURS
. - . . . . . . ... .. . . . . . - . . .. _u J 98 1 to cable trays.
I 2 A. I am having difficulty isolating thia. 3 Q. You do not recall that incident? You don't 4 recall 11 0 . Orr coming to you? 5 A. ti o . I hac dozens of people coming to me 6 constantly. o 7 Q. Well, if you don't remember, you don't j- 8 remember. 9 A. Can you be a little bit more specific? 10 Q. I don't think so. I mean, it wns the week ' 11 that -- it was the week when fi s . Matley was not 12 there, so sha came or had to c o s.i e directly to you. 3 1 13 I'm asking you if you recall this incident. ' If you I 14 don't recall it, you know, just say you don't recall l 15 it. 16 A. Would these have bon a FUE-159's? 17 Q. ti o . 18 A. Then I -- I don't -- We hac 4 situation 19 that arose -- 20 Q. With FSE-179 drawings? 21 A. I think they were FSE-159. This was a 22 retrofit inspection. l 23 O. For the cabic trays. 24 A. Cable tray clamps. I 25 Q. kiyht. I am familiar witn that too, but j PEDChAb COURT REPORTERS
99 , 1 that's not what I'm asking you about. . ( 2 A. No. Then I can't -- 3 Q. Okay. Another question about the events 4 surrounding Ms. !!atley's termination. When you 5 informed Ms. Hatley that she was going to be 6 terminated, do you recall her requesting to you that r 7 she face her accusers? j- 8 A. I think so. That was a very unhappy hour. 9 I think -- I remember that. 10 Q. And subsequently the next day, are you 11 aware of a meeting between Ms. Hatley, Mr. Frankum, 12 Hr. Yockey and Mr. liu t c h i n s o n ? 1 13 A. I learned of that subsequently. 4 4 14 Q. You were not present at that mooting?
~
15 A. No. 16 Q. Did you arrange for that mooting for Ms. 17 Ita ticy ?
, 10 A. Did I arrange for that mooting?
19 Q. Yus. 20 A. I don't think so. I think thu way the i 21 thing came down, Ms. liatley asked to speak to Mr. 22 Ilutchinson.
)
23 Q. By namo? 24 A. Yes. t I i 25 Q. Okay.
)
- ' . I FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
- . .. . .- . .: . .. L: .:.. - >..: . .. =. ' . - . : . ..- - L -- 12-.
100; I A. And if memory serves, Heyward was out of ( 2 pocket. He was not availabic. And Ms. Hatley asked 3 if sno couldn't come back the next day, and I said .I 4 that would be fine. She had made another request, 5 and I had to take that under advisement. i
- 6 Q. Is that as to whether or not she could bc ,
7 ROF'd? {- 8 Yes. A. 9 c. So when Ms. Hatley asked you if she could i l. 10 face her accusers, what did y.o u do?
. 11 A. I told her I would --
She didn't ask to l 12 face her accusers, as I recall. She asked to speak i 1 1 13 to hutchinson. 14 Q. And did you pass that communication on to i 15 Mr. Hutchinson? lu A. Yes, I did. i j 17 Q. Did you call her the next morning and teli j , 18 her to come in at 12 or 12:30 to moet with thum? l i , 19 A. I think I did. I think that Ms. Hatley and 20- I had mace arrangem .ta for her to Du there about 21 eight o' clock the next morning, und something 22 intervened; I can't recall what it was that i 23 intervened. And they,asknd me to contact Hs. Haticy
; 24 and arrango for her to come in around noon.
I j 25 O. Now, after Ha. Haticy was turminated, there FEDERAL CUURT RCPORTERG *
~ . . . - - .r.=.. .-a . - -~ .~.-- - -. ...--
101 1 was an investigation into her termination by TUGC0 l 2 officials; is that correct? 3 A. What time frame? How long -- 4 Q. Immediately after her departure from the 5 site. The next day or two. l , 6 A. I don't recall. I mean, I'd have been a i* 7 part of that. And I could have been. Do you happen j . j- 8 to know any of the principals involved? 9 Q. Well, let me back up a little bit. Do you 10 recall being interviewed by Mr. Boyce Grier i 11 following Ms. Haticy's departure? i 12 A. Yes. ] 1 13 Q. And what do you recall about that 14 convorsation?
- l
- 15 A. Not much. It was of quite short duration.
16' O. Fivo minutes, 10 minutes? l 17 A. 10 minutes, I would say. 4,
- la Q. Okay.
i . 19 A. Mr. Grier's office is right across the nali. < s a ..
- 20 And now that you mention it, he said that encre a
21 would prouably be further contact, but I don't 22 recall any further contact with him or with TUGCO i 23 personnul. . a 24 a Q. Do you rocall what Mr. Grier asked you? 25 A. I think he probably asked me, you know, the l - 1 j l FEDERAL COURT R E PO R'i E R S
....._........-u...-.w.. --.. .. . - . . - - - . - - . - ... = .:a. ----
, 102 b -
1 circumstances about Ms. Hatley's termination, but I I 2 frankly can't remember any details of that 3 particular meeting. 4 Q. I left with !!r . Walker, over the lunch 5 break, some handwritten notes which I explained to 0 nim were the handwritton notes of Mr. Boyce Grier 7 obtained in discovery in another proceeding. Did (. 8 you look at them? I 9 A. I glanced at t h o s e., yes. 10 c. Do you recall Mr. Grier making notes while
; 11 you were talking to him?
12 A. tJ o , I don't. As a matter of fact, I feel ! 13 quite certain he didn't. 11e came into my office, t 14 and I don't even think he sat down. l 15 Q. 11e came to your office? 16 A. Yes.
- 17 Q. And you don't recall what you told him?
. 18 A. Let me amend tnat. I think he c a ra e into my 19 office and asked me if I had a couple of minutes, t
20 and we walked across the hall to his office. And he 1 21 questioned me briefly about the situation, and 1 22 responded to whatever the questions were at that i 23 point in timo. And the interview, I don't think, 24 took 10 minuteu. I 25 0 Okay. dow, you said that you recall nim FUDERAL COURT R E P O R T 1: A S
~~ ..~.:_- '
-~__....._. . . _ . _ _ . . . . . . ... - -
- _ ..~.-
' - ~ ~ ' -
103
)
1 saying something about there being a followup I 2 investigation. Do you remember any more enan just i 3 that somewhat vague statement? l 4 A. That's all. 5 Q. Okay. Now, after Hs. Hatley was terminated, 6 did you participate in further interviews of 1 , l . 7 employees in satellite 3067
.{ 8 A. Yes, I did.
9 Q. Was a tape recorder used in any of those? 10 A. Not in my interviews. 11 Q. Are you aware whether a tape recorder wan l 12 used in any of the interviews? 13 A. Yes, I am. i 14 Q. And who used a tape recorder? s 1 15 A. TUSI attorneys, I believe. 1 16 Q. And do you know whicti attorney that would 17 be? 10 A. I believe one of them was Sanford Hartman. 19 And there may have been a Brown & Root attorney s 1 20 present. Toby White, I think, was present at some e 21 of thoce. 22 Q. And how long after Ms. 11a t ley wa s ' i 23 terminated did these interviews with the attorneys 24 commence?
- 25 A. I can't --
it wasn't long siter. It FEDERAL 00URT R E P O RT Ells memum esumme essee animummab m. m summme emuemune aumeene ammmmme emann amane .emmusum emmen um emummue eeune summmme ammmmmme em ammmmune memummme -=.=me e eumm-= mm -
~
. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . - . - . . - - . . = . = '
~~ '
104 1 probably was a few days after Dobie came on site I 2 with the Region 4 poople. 'That's about as close as 3 I can fix that. 4 Q. And that was a day or two after she was 5 terminated? 6 A. Oh, it might have been a little longer than 7 that. I don't recall the date.
. {. 8 Q. Okay. Did you participate in any other
- 9 investigation of Ms. hatley's termination other than
! 10 talking to Mr. Strand and talking to the TUSI 11 attorneys? I'm sorry. Mr. Grier.
12 A. I don't -- I really don't think so. 13 ftR. JORDAN Ms. Garde, I assume you 14 mean other than the investigation which he 15 commissioned. 16 MS. GARDE Yes. I meant after, if I 17 didn't say that. After Ms. datley was terminated.
, 10 A. After which?
19 Q. After she was terminated, other than 20 talking to Mr. Strand and being interviewed by the 21 TUSI attorneys. I'm sorry. Mr. Grier.
; 22 A. I don't think so.
f 23 Q. Okay. Now, at some point, Mr. Strand, were 24 you contacted by the Department of Labor? i 25 A. Yes, I was. FEDLRAL COURT REPORTERS
~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . -
.-.....x.u----.-....-...a...- .-2... :- - - - . : --... . - - ~ . ~
100 l 1 O. was that by a Mr. Louis Diaz? ( 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And was that while you were still employed 4 at the site? 5 A. Yes. No. No. I'm sorry. I had already 6 left. 7 Q. Okay. And did you understand -- Strike 8 that.
.}
9 What is your understanding of wnat was the 10 subject of Mr. Diaz's investigation? 11 A. If memory serves, I believe he was 12 investigating circumstances of Ms. Hatley's , 13 termination. 14 Q. And how long did your interview witn Mr.
- 15 Dia~z last?
16 A. Well, that was fairly lengthy. i 17 U. kive nours? . 16 A. Oh, no. No, no. l 19 C. An hour? 20 A. Hour, hour and 15 minutes. 21 Q. And to the best of your recollection, what 22 transpired during that conversation? 1 23 A. Mr. Diaz asked a series of qucations, much 24 as you arc at this time. ( 25 Q. Do you remember the questionb? FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS b
_ _ _ _ - -==
- . := =- - ; = ;; :. - - - =: * - - = === *-- i :-- --. ~r: --
106 1 1 A. I don't remember the details of it. ( 2 Q. Did Mr. Dias tell you any of his 3 conclusions during his meeting with you? 4 A. No. i 5 O. Okay. Did you 'ever find out the results of
. 6 Mr. Dias's investigation?
7 A. I don't really think I did. I don't recall.
- {' 8 Q. Okay. I asked you some questions be ore 9 about whether use of travelers to issue incomplete 10 packages was in compliance with procedures, and you, 11 I believe, said that it was. '
12 A. Yes, ma'am. , I 13 O. Let me ask' you one further question about 14 travelers. Is it your understanding that travelcrs k 15 that were used to issue incomplete packages had to 16 have unique identifylng numbers? 17 A. Yes.
.- IB Q. ,And is it your belief that in fact the
, 19 travelers that were used to issue incomplete . 20 document packages did have unique identifying 21 numbers? 22 A. Well, I feel quite sure that they did. k 23 Dobie wouldn't have issued them without a number. 24 O. That was not one of the probicas that you 1 25 discovereo when you did your audit of problems with I i 1 FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS 'l
- ----y
. . . - . . . . . . . = - .. . . . :-.: . . . . . . . . - . . . .
107 1 306? I 2 A. I don't recall such. 3 0 Okay. I'm going to show you, Mr. Strand, a 4 document which l'd like to also mark as Strand 5 Exhibit 1, which is a memorandum from yourself and 6 Mr. Hutchinson to Mr. Ray Yockey, dated February 7, 7 1964. It has a signature on the bottom. I'd like j 8 you to first identify if that's your signature. 9 (Witness peruuing document) 10 A. Yes, I have seen this. 11 0 Okay. 12 HR. JORDAda Take all the time you 13 need, Mr. Strand, to review documents. 14 Q. When is the first time.you saw that l 15 document, Mr. Strand? 16 A. This document? 17 0. Yes. le A. I think when it was brought to me for 19 signature. 20 Q. And wnen would tnat have been? 21 A. Very probably the morning of the day that 22 Dobie was terminated. 23 u. Okay. And to the best of your 24 understanding, who prepared enet cocument? 4 25 MR. WALKER: If you know. FEDERAL COURT RSPORTERS
. . . . - ..:.... ....-.-2.-. - :_. . c -_-....--........w-108 1
1 A. I don't know. I 2 Q. And who brought the. document to you for 3 signature? 4 A. Mr. liutchinson. 5 O. Do you know where Mr. Hutchinson -- Strike 6 that. 7 Do you know where the information contained
- ( 6 in that memorandum came from?
9 A. Yes, ma'au. 10 0 A rad where was that? 11 A. From myself. 12 G. And it went from yourself to who? 13 A. To Mr. liutchinson. 14 Q. Now, there's a statement in the beginning N 15 of that meno that said that the termination is based 16 upon recent observations and findings within those 17 areas of Dobie's work responsibilitics. Do you sec
. 1G tnat?
19 A. Yes, ma'an. 20 Q. Okay. have you described for me already in 21 this deposition, Mr. Strand, all the recent 22 observations and findings which went into the i 23 conclusions in that memo? 24 A. I think we ieretty well have covered it. ( 25 O. Okay. And+am I correct in assuming that FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS y
10@ l. I the procecures that are referred to in violation -- ( 2 it says violation procedures -- is DCP-3? 3 A. Yes, ma'am. 4 Q. And have you already told me on the record 5 all the individuals who you remember participated in 6 conducting the audit or the recent observations and 7 findings?
,{ 8 MR. WALKER: Conducted the aucit or 9 recent --
10 Q. I'm sorry. Conducted the audit or 11 identified the observations and findings referred to 12 in that memorandum? 13 A. I think so. I'm just trying to make sure 14 that we haven't overlooked somebody. k 15 Q. Okay. 16 A. To the best of my recollection. 17 Q. If you think of anyone between now and when
. Ib you review the transcript for accuracy, would you 19 please include those names?
20 A. I certainly will. 21 U. And was this audit accomplishe'd on the day 22 shift or the night shift? i 23 A. Actually, part of both. It involved 24 overtime. 25 Q. Okay. Did you ever suo a final audit i FEDERAL COURT RCPORTERS W
_r________--_---____-.-_---____-.---.- 110; 1, document prepared by the group of people that I 2 conducted this audit? 3 A. Final? 4 Q. Yes. 5 A. No, ma'am, I have not.
, 6 Q. Is that because you left --
7 A. Yes, ma'am. . j
~ j- 8 Q. --
'before they completed their work?
9 A. Yes. 1 10 Q. Did you som daily documents from this group? 11 A. Yes, ma'am. 12
~
Q. And am I correct in my understanding of ; 13 your testimony that all they looked at was 3067 i l 14 A. At that point in time, yes. k 15 O. When was Ms. 11a t le y ' s last performance 16 report prior to her termination? 17 A. I don't think I can answer that question. 16 1 d r. n ' t -- I don't know that I have ever had the 19 opportunity to do that. 20 C. Okay. Now, ites nu=ber one regarding no 21 updates, do you see that? 22 A. Yes, ma'am. h 23 u. n
*ould you read that into the record, please, 24 simply because I don't have a copy of it here.
I 25 A. "Go updates to documents assigned to FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS m
111 l 1" various d es p a r t me n t s - Building, rigging, fab shop." ( 2 Q. Okay. Now, would you please tell me, Mr. 3 Strand, when the building department came under -- 4 306's supervision came into satellite 30G? 5 MR. WALKER: Is your question when the 6 documentation --
. 7 MS. GARDE: became the responsibility
- j. 8 of satellite 306. -
9 MR. WALKER: Okay. 10 A. I believe that was for a time from the 11 original startup in satellito 304. Most of their 12 stuff -- most of their stuff was handled out of the 13 engineering satellite because of their proximity. 14 Dut I believe there was a change at some point in 1 15 time. lu Q. When were the documents handled by 4 17 satellite 304? ? t 18 A. 1 think tnat was shortly after ei O 4 was set e a e 19 up. . 20 0. And that would have been in the spring or 21 early summer of '85? [ s 22 A. It was the second satellite that we set up. t 1 23 Q. Okay. And at some point it was transferred 24 to 3067
- i .
25 A. To the best of my recollection. r FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
- _ _ _ _ ; .: = ; :_ =;.: =
- - - - :=. = - - : : _ _ _ _ =*=~=~=~-
112' l 1 Q. Do you recall whether it was transferred to I 2 305 before it was transferred to 3067 3 A. That's a possibility. I was about to 4 interject that. 5 O. Okay. So what is your recollection of the 6 first time the building documentation was moved fron
~
7 satellite 304? {' 6 A. I'm sorry, Ms. Garde, I just can't fix a 9 date. 10 Q. Okay. Do you have a general knowledge,that 11 It went from 304 to 305? 12 A. That is certainly possibic. 13 Q. Okay. And then from 305 to 306? . 14 A. Certainly possible. - I 15 O. Okay. Now, in the rigging department, is 16 it your understanding that the rigging department 17 documentation was always in satellite 30G7 lo A. I think it was. But that's -- , 19 Q. That's the best you remember? 20 A. That's the best I can recollect. 21 U. You have no recollection of the rigging 22 department going the same route as the building i 23 department? 24 A. No, simply don't. I 25 C. Is it possible? 4 FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
113 1 A. It's possible. ( 2 Q. How about the fab shop; was fab shop 3 documentation always the responsibility of 306? 4 A. That probably was a similar situation to 5 the other two.
~
6 Q. Okay. Now, when it says established 7 procedures or instructions were violated, again arc
- j. U we only talking about DCP-3 or is there another 9 procedure that I haven't mentioned or you haven't 10 mentioned?
11 A. de nave UCP-1. You are going to have to 12 bear with me. 13 Q. That's fine. 14 A. My memory gets just a little bit dim in i 15 some of these others. We hac DCP-1, DCP-3, DCP-5 16 and DCP-7. Not all of them applicable to Dobie's 17 area of operation. I'd have to see them to refresh
, 16 my memory. ^
19 Q. Now, in item number one, it says various 20 departments. Is there other departments, other than 21 ouilding, rigging and the fab shop, that are , 22 included in item number one? 3 23 A. I believe it was intended that there would 24 be. ( 25 Q. Do you know if at the time this memo was FEDERAL COURT RE P O RT E7,S
. . . . . , ...<..ha*.m' 114 I written it was supposed to include other departments?
( 2 A. Ms. Garde, I'm not sure. 3 Q. Okay. Mr. Strand, what documentation would 4 have been reviewed to determine the condition 5 described in iten number one?
, . 6 A. Would you repeat that, please?
~
7 Q. What documentation would have been reviewed
~( 8 to determine the condition described in item number 9 one on that exhibit?
10 A. It would have been audited. i 11 Q. Okay. I know it would have been audited, 12 but what would the auditors have looked at?
, 13 A. Specifications, procedures, drawings and
. 14 design changes.
15 Q. CMC's? 16 A. Beg your pardon? 17 Q. CMC's?
.- 18 A. Yes. Design changes.
, 19 Q. Aperture cards; is that included?
20 A. I'm not sure that tnat would include 21 aperture cards. t 22 Q. Would it have been checked against the i 23 computer? 24 A. Yes, it would have. ( 25 Q. Would it have been checked hgainst the logs? FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
_a___c "" -~'~ ~ ' ' A_Cr_ _ _ _ _ 115 1 A. Yes, it would have. ( 2 0 Do you know if any determination was made 3 during the audit to discover the time frame of the 4 problems that you discovered? If there was a 5 missing design change, for example, was there any 6 determination made to discover at what time in the
~
7 life of that component the design change was missing? ~{ 8 A. All we could do is establish the date at 9 which time the audit was performed and that it was 10 perceived to be missing. 11 Q. Okay. So it was a -- If you will excuse my 12 using the terminology, it was an as-built audit, as 13 the packages were when you went to look at them? 14 A. Necessarily so. 15 C. Okay. Do you k.now if -- Strike that. 16 Let me ask you again, Mr. Strand, if the 17 determination to terminate Ms. Hatley was based on
,- 18 an assumption of guilt because these tnings were
. 19 wrong? Do you understand what I'm saying? 20 A. Not completely. 21 C. Okay. In your hand you have a memo which 22 lists what I think is characterized on the bottom of t t 23 that memorandum as "Those are the sole r'asons e for 24 Ms. Hatley's termination." Okay. Wnat I'm asking i 25 you, Mr. Strand, is whether or not it is the tact FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
116 d 1 that these things were in -- if you will excuse me -- ( 2 a messed up condition that was the reason for her 3 termination, or because you think she was personally 4 responsible for having them got in that condition? 5 A. I think she was personally responsible. 6 Q. For having them got in tnat condition? 7 A. Yes, ma'am. - l, - 6 Q. And that's what that memorandum is supposed I 9 to imply? 10 A. Yes, ma'am. 11 Q. Okay. Iten number two, could you read it, 12 please? 13 A. " Drawings checked out to certain craft for 14 extended periods of time." k
- 15 Q. Okay. Could you describe for me what that 16 concern means?
17 A. That means that drawings in this particular
. lo situation, or packages, were checked out on a daily 19 basis but were not returned.
20 Q. Were the documents checked out to the paper 21 flow group -- 22 A. Oo. 23 Q. -- supposed to be returned every evening? 24 A. No, not to the paper flow group. These ( 25 were documentation that had been put out to the FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
%mm mm i e
~
l 117 1 1 crafts that were not being served by the paper flow ( 2 group. 3 Q. Okay. Can you remember what certain craft t l 4 had it checked out? 5 A. Hi11 wrights, for one. 6 Q. Does the millwright shop have a second
. 7 shift?
. . 8 A. I don't really recall. . 9 Q. If the millwright shop has a second shift, 10 is there an in-house procedure for checking n e '. 11 drawings to the second shift when the satellites are 12 not open, if you know? 13 MR. WALKER: You asked the question in 14 the present tense. You are not -- 15 MS. GARDE: Okay. I apologize. 16 G. While you were at the site, are you aware 17 of whether or not there was an instruction which 16 allowed documents to be checked out to the 19 millwright shop, or any shop that had a accond shift, 20 for after the satellites closed down for business? 21 A. My memory tells me that the second shift of 22 mi11 wrights and so forth had been disbanded sometime N ,23 before. 24 C. That doesn't answer my question, Mr. Strand. I 25 A. Well, I can't answer the question because I FEDERAL COURT kEPORTERS ~
. . ...u,.;...a-,...,- __v.....-..-u. . . . " . .L . .- :-. :.a .- ....
116 l 1 don't know. I 2 Q. Okay. Is it your testimony then that, to 3 the best of your knowledge, tnere were no second 4 shifts during the time period the satellites 5 operated? 6 A. I don't know whether that's accurate or not. 7 Q. You just don't know?
- j. S A. I just don't know.
9 Q. Could you read item number threo, please? 10 A. " Failure to log drawings into the computer 11 systea." 12 Q. Okay. What does that mean? Could you f3 please describe that concern? i l 14 A. We had a procedure by which the satellites k 15 would order drawings simultaneously with the 16 telephone order. A manual written order was to be 17 delivered either at the end of the day or a't the la time to the CRT room so that the drawing could be 19 logged into the computer enabling us to track them. 20 0. Is it your testimony, Mr. Strand, that you
=
21 never authorized that procedure to be changed in any 22 way? i 23 A. Yes, ma'am, it certainly in. 24 Q. And you can't recall any instances where ( i 25 you allowcu a craft drawing to be issued to the I FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
%6666 mNhN666666NNN NN
119 l 1 field and did not yourself fill out such -- the I 2 required paperwork? 3 A. I never requested any drawings. 4 Q. Okay. Do you remember what drawings were 5 lookea at that provided the basis for that statement? 6 A. Yes. We had a final accounting on that on 7 a day-by-day basis as the audit proceeded, hnd they ']~ 8 ran a wide range of drawings; I can't give you any 9 specifica. 10 0 Okay. Let me draw your attention back to 11 item number two for just a minute before we move on. 12 Do you have any recollection of whether Herschel
-13 Wynn or Mickey Garrutt had long-term documents 14 checked out to them, or documents checked out to l 15 them on a long-term basis?
16 A. Herschel Wynn did, 1 can recall. I'm not 17 sure about Garrett. 18 Q. Mr. Garrett is in the m111 wright shop, is , 19 he not? 20 A. Yes. He was. 21 Q. Was there a procedure established which 22 allowed for these documents to be checked out on a 3 23 long-term basis? 24 A. There was none formalized at that point in l 25 time. FEDERAL COURT RUPORTERS
. . . . _ . . . _ . _ . _ . . . . . . .._.: u,:,-- . :_ - -m..
12@ f! l Q. Were these the documents that were I 2 considered in the audit, in item number two, that 3 drawings were checked out to certain craft for 4 extended periods of time -- did it include these, to S the best of your knowledge? 6 A. No, it would not. e 7 Q. It would have excluded these?
) -
8 A. It would have excluded these. 9 Q. But you don't remember which drawings they 10 were? 11 A. Herschel Wynn was the custodian for the 12 insulation group, as I remember. They werc located 13 way at the end of the site. And this was donc as a l 4 l 14 logistical tning. ! i 15 O. Okay. Item number four, could you read 16 that into the record, please? 17 A. " Apparent falsification o. f records to match
, la computer listings to physical files."
19 Q. And what was that about? 20 A. Each satellite was required to audit itself 21 once a month over a period of time not to extend 22 past 45 days. This perhaps is the most serious of k 23 the violations. The printouts were crought in 24 apparently for the audits, and from the testimony I L 25 received from the people working the audits, the FCDERAL COURT REPORTERS A-
. _ . . .u.m _.. __.._ a a. . . .. 2.. A .. a . .a - __ _ d 121
- l 1 aadit was made to match. They destroyed packages.
( 2 Q. And what audit was this? 3 A. An internal 306 audit. 4 Q. And thac would have been during what time 5 frame, if you remember? 6 A. January sometime, I would Delieve. 7 Q. January '837
"{- G A. I can't be sure, but in January sometime.
9 HR. JORDAN: You mean to say 'G3 or '64 ? 10 MS. CARDE: '84. Thank you. 11 u. Are you familiar with the integration of 12 satellite 305 into aatellite 306? 13 A. Yes. Not intimately. 14 Q. Do you know that when those two satellites 1 15 were merged, cocuments were destroyed so enere would 16 be only one document package in the satellito? 17 A. I don't have any recollection of that
, 1G particular situation.
,, 19 Q. Do you know whether or not the dostruction
.o 20 of these records or the apparent falsification of 21 records, as it's described in the memo, dealt with 22 305 documents which were integrated into 306?
( 1 i 23 A. That was not.my understanding of the 1 24 situution. I 25 Q. okay. Who did you got your understanding FEDERAL COURT RUPORTERS
=1
. - . - . . . . _ - - . . _ . - . . . ~ . ..--.=:-. . . - - a. . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
128 4 il 1 of the situation from? ( 2 A. Mr. Jim Tate. And I cannot remember Joan's 3 last name. 4 Q. Did you t a k'e notarized statements from any 5 of these people that you interviewed? 6 A. I'm not sure I understand your question. 7 Q. Wnen you.interviewod these individuals, do
,j- u you know if there was a notarized affidavit preparod?
9 .Did they sign, under oath, the things that they told 10 you? i 11 A. I don't believe there was any notarization. 12 Q. Was there any written documentation at all, 13 of what they told you? 14 A. Oh, yes. I'm sure tnere was. J 15 Q. Did you take notes? 16 A. I mado notes. 17 C. Item number five, would you reac that into
. 16 the record, please? , 19 A. " Obtaining copics of departmental absentee 20 records, purpose and intent unknown." ^
21 Q.
~
Could you please explain your understanding 22 of that allegation? l 23 A. Yes, I can. ,That was apparently a 24 misunderstanding by some of my employees. As a 25 matter of fact, I was extremely upset at the time. FEDERAL COURT REPORTEh5
j __e 123 1 1 I thought we were talking about our original l l 2 absentee records. I subsequently learned that that 3 was not the fact. This was apparently a copy that 4 Ms. Hatley had somchow acquired to update her a 5 absentec records, something of that nature. 6 Q. And how do you know that she had a copy? 7 A. I was told that she had a copy.
*j- 8 Q. And who told you that?
9 A. Several people. Edie Hudson, Janice Day. 10 Q. If you had known at the time that the 11 document being referred to was a copy, would it ha$ 12 provided one of the bases for her termination? 13 A. No. 14 u. Going on to item number six, please, would 1 15 you read item number six? 16 A. " Constant confrontation with fellow workers 17 and craft supervision."
. 18 Q. And what was that?
19 A. Would you repeat that? 2u Q. Yos. I'd like you to describe tnat concern 21 for me. 22 A. There were a number of situations, one of i 23 them whien resulted in a termination, possibly 1 24 several that resulted in termination. I have since t 25 talked with these poopic. FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS O .
. . . .;; ....-..;....u.s .~.
.A.' . N . .. . .
. . .. ' . 4 ,.s .
. .. ~ . d .Y.: :... '
120 3 1 Q. People that Ms. Hatley terminated? I 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. These are people that Ms. Hatley terminated? 4 A. Or was responsible for terminating. 5 O. And you had talked to them atter Ms. Hatley 6 was terminated or before Ms. lia t l ey was terminated? 7 A. I talked to them before and after. But I j- 8 have talked to them after Ms. Hatley, if that's the 9 thrust of your question. 10 Q. Okay. Could you name those individuals, 11 please? I 12 A. Annic Olson. 13 u. Who elso? .i 14 A. Billie Orr, Lovey Sneed. Lovey Sneed was 15 not terminated. She -- I don't really fully le understand'the circumstances of her departure. I 17 think she resigned, ultimately.
, 16 Q. Any others?
19 A. Helen Boucher.
-6 20 Q. Ellen?
21 A. No. Dobie did not erminate Helen. I 22 i terminated Boucher. I 23 Q. Okay. Are these the fellow workers that 24 are referred to in item number six? I 25 A. Oh, no, not specifically. That's just --
)
l FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
.___ _____ 1 :
. . . . . _. . . _ .. _ _. . a c._L i.L. . ._. a . . c . o: .u . _ -. __ e 1.2 5 l
1 Q. Who are the fellow workers that item number ( 2 six refers to? 3 A. Well, let's start with Eillie here. Billie 4 came to me and told me she could no longer stand 5 working with Dobie. 6 0. And? 7 A. That she was impossibic to please, could {- 8 not cope with it, and could she have a transfer. 9 c. it s . Hatley's my client. .I should stand in 19 line. 11 Okay. That's one of them. And that's 2 12 right before Ms. Orr was transferred to the night 13 shift? 14 A. , Yes, ma am. i 15 Q. Okay. ' 16 A. Lovey Sneed was another. Lovoy was in a i l 17 state of hysteria when sue left. I offered her l l , 18 another job in another satellite. She refused that.
\
- ,s 19 I offered to bring her into the first snitt DCC and l ..
20 she refuseu that. This thing has dragged down.
~
21 There were, as I recall, a list of 16 or 17 22 names on this thing, and -- l 23 Q. Of people that had complained about Ms. 24 Hatley? ! t i 25 A. Yes, ma'am. l 1 FLCERAL COURT RdPORTERS
-..__,__y-. _
..M....u__..._...._L..'m...s..;...-_..__.._L. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . -
12G 1 Q. And where was this list? I 2 A. Beg your pardon? 3 Q. Where was this list? 4 A. I left it in my office. 5 Q. Okay. Let me read a list of names to you, 6 Mr. Strand. And again, this is a "yes" and "no" 7 question. I want to know, to the best of your ! ~ {- 8 recc11cetion, if these people were among those that 9 you recall complaining about Ms. Hatley, and served 10 as tne basis for that item number six. Okay. Edie 11 !!udson? 12 A. Yes. i 13 Q. Joanne Jenner? I 14 A. No. k 15 C. Jeff Ronsom? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Johnny Hudson?
. 13 A. Uh, I had forgotten about him. Yes. , 19 G. Chareau Presley?
20 A. Yes.
~
, 21 C. Suzy brown? 22 A. Yes. i 23 Q. Bridget Burgeso? 24 A. I'm trying to put a face with that name. 25 C. Okay. I'll go on. Joan Womack? FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
- .J.
^
.-.-"^-~"~
^
^ T L :. . . . : . .. . . - > i-. . u .. . . ---- ,. - ... ::- : : - -. .-=
127 N 1 A. No. ( 2 u. Jim Tate? 3 A. No. 1 4 Q. Richard Brown? I + 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Judy Dickey? i 7 h. Yeo.
. a Q. Kim llankins?
J. 4 9 A. No. 'i 10 Q. Sandy Bruce? 11 A. No. I, 12 Q. Donna Wine? J 13 A. I don't believe so. ' i
; 14 Q. Ken Ward?
15 A. Yes. i , 16 Q. Diane Sleeker? I 17 A. Yes, i ld O. !!ary Francis? f , i 19 A. No, I don't recall Mary. iw 20 Q. Kay Norman? 21 A. Yes. 22 O. David Callicut? i 23 A. Yes. l 24 G. Inez Poppowell? I l 25 A. I can't put a face with tnat name. FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
-e - - -
? -- ,vmr,, w - m, -n--snm--o.----w-e - -- - - - - - - -~
_...e_._.._. . . _ _ . - . .
. 12E 1 0. Okay. Lovey Sneed?
I 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Janet Bridges? 4 A. Janet Bridges. I don't remember her, 5 either, I'm sorry to say. , 6 Q. Okay. Now, are there any others that you 7 can think of whose complaints were partially the
,j S basis for item number six?
9 A. I just can't think of any offhand. What I 10 can do is, at tho time of your submitting the 11 deposition for correction, I'll be happy to add. 12 Q. Okay. Again, I ask you to add any names at l l 13 the time that you review the deposition. ! 14 A. All right.
) 15 C. Now, you used tue term constant 16 controntation, and let me ask you, Mr. S t r a ti d , what .
17 is it that the constant confrontation between ?!s.
, l <3 Hatley and her follow workers was about?
19 A. I really can't answer that question. How 20 do frictions develop?
~
21 Q.. It was general personality conflicts? 22 A. I think it was probably a personality clash. i 23 I don't think that would have ever happened with 24 Dooic and I, because I understand her. But women, I l 25 think, cometimes aren't as patient with each other l l FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
=
. . - . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - . . ........~......~a.....:.. . . . . __
w 129 l 1 as they could be. ( 2 Q. What was the major complaint of these 3 people that you've named, which are both men and 4 women? 5 A. Impatience, unwillingness to communicato. 6 Q. Impatience about wnat?
. 7 A. Almost anything. And given the fact that *j. 8 we were all under pressure, I think probably the 9 Diggest sing 1c. complaint that I got in that 10 particular week is that --
especially the people in 11 satellite 306 operated almost exclusively on a 12 do-this basis. 13 u. Ukay. Could you explain what that means? 14 A. That means that Dobie gave them explicit, i 15 move-by-move instructions. Now, this was out of 16 cnaracter for her. But nonetheless, I've satisfied 17 myself that this in fact was true. 18 Q. Mr. Strand, did you, in your attempts to 19 satisfy yourself that this was truc, consider the 20 fact that Ms. Hatley was trying to get 306 under 21 control? 22 A. I'm sure that she was. e 1 23 u. Could you explain to me why, in your mind, 24 at the time that you made the decision to terminato ( 25 Ms. Haticy, you did not consider that 306 was out of FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS ' emmusukeN Gamungne esmage eguesamus em m - em h e *
~
n
130 1 control on its own because of the situation as I 2 opposed to the fault of Ms. Hatley? 3 A. Oh, certainly. That was factored in all 4 the way. 5 Q. And how does terminating Ms. Hatley, or how 6 did terminating Ms. Hatley solve the documentation 7 problems in 3067 8 A. By returnir,g to the basics. _}
'> 0 Okay. What do you mean by returning to the 10 basics?
11 A. Everything back in flie b e f~o r e the opening 12 of ousiness the next day. 13 Q. Ms. Hatley authorized it not t .o be done 14 that way? l 15 A. I don't know what she authorized or she 16 didn't authorize. It was not done. 1 I 17 Q. Well, you interviewed everybody in 306. 16 Okay. Did you deteruine that the violations of 19 procedures in 306 was a result of Ms. Haticy's 20 do-this, do-this, do-this instructions? 21 A. Very definit.ely. 22 Q. Give me an example, if you could, please, j 23 of now Ms. Hatley's instructions caused the problems 24 in 300. ( 25 A. Any timo you instruct somebody not to PEDLRAL COURT REPORTERG
, _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . - . _ - - m, ._r
... .......__....__..-.a. ._ _ . . . __
131 1 1 bother reporting something to the CRT, you have a ( 2 potential for large problems. 3 Q. has that one of the things that you were 4 told? 5 A. Yes, ma'am. 6 Q. And wno told you that? 7 A. My daAly reports told me that. j- 8 Q. That's the audit that was done? l 9 A. No, no. l 10 Q. Okay. You have a daily report of the 11 number of CRT's. 12 A. (Witness nod). 13 Q. okay. How do you know, based on the number 14 of CRT's reported, that Ms. Batley instructed 15 someone to do this or do this or do t h'i s , and that 16 was the result? 17 A. That'was a direct ' result. Edie Hudson. 1B Q. Edie Hudson told you that Doble informed 19 people to not fill in the -- if l'm sayinr3 this 20 incorrectly, please excuse me. 21 Edie Hudson told you that Dobie Hatley 22 instructed her to not follow the proper procedures i 23 regard'ing CRT's? 24 A. That is exactly true. ( 25 Q. Do you xnow if Dobie had someone full time FEDERAL COURT REPORTLRS
, _ _ _ - , . _ .r. ~'~
, _ . .. . . ~ . a . .. .
.-.._ww_.-____________L=
138 i 1 working on CRT updates? I 2 A. That wasn't possible. 3 Q. Okay. Why was it not possible? 4 A. Because it w'asn't being done. 5 Q. Do you recall Ms. Hatley complaining to you 6 about not having enough people? 7 A. Yes, ma'am, I do. J- 8 Q. And how long do you recall Ms. Hatley 9 complaining to you that she did.not have enough 10 people to do tit e Job right? 11 A. Ms. Garde, that's a common complaint. 12 Q. I understand it's a common complaint. s 13 A. All of the new personnel that was assigned 14 to the satellites were assigned to Ms. Hatley te use I 15 where she felt -- 16 c. That's what I want to ask you, Mr. Strand. 17 How long do you remember Ms. Hatley conplaining
. 18 abou*. not having enough people to do the job, being 19 satellite supervisor, correctly? When is the first 20 time you r e m'e m b e r her complaint complaining about 21 that problem?
22 A. Procably in January. l 23 Q. Of 19847 24 A. Yes. ( 25 O. And not before tnen? FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
--- - . .. .. - .: . ' .u c . . c. . - _ w_. -
133 l 1 A. No. I 2 Q. All right. Is there anything else about 3 constant confrontation with fellow workers that you 4 have not explained to me so far in this deposition? 5 A. I don't think we have touched on several of 6 the confrontations that -- 7 Q. Okay. Would you explain them to me, please.
* [- 8 A. --
that occurred with the paper flow groups. 9 Q. Okay. I would consider that craft 10 supervisors, which is the other part of this 11 question. Okay. I'm talking about Just with fellow
-12 workers right now.
s 13 A. I think we've pretty much touched. 14 Q. If you remember anything else between now j m is 15 and' trial, would you please notify me -- 16 .A. -Be happy to. 17 Q. -- through one of your counsel? i
. la A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. Now, the last half of item number 20 six is constant confrontation with craft supervisors; 21 is that correct? l 22 A. .Yes. ' l 23 Q. Okay. Now, we went through a list, this 24 morning, of craft supervisors who you recalled had l , 25 had run-ins,'If you will, with Dobie liatley. Do you y - t FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
~
. . _ - - - . . _ _ . ~ . . . - - - - _ _
_ . . . a _- 134 4
.I 1 remember doing that this morning?
I 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. okay. Do you remember any other names of 4 individuals that you want to add at this time? 5 A. Was tiickey Carrott on that list? 6 Q. No. Anyone else? 7 A. I hate to do this, Ms. Garde, but I can't
*]- 8 remember all the names. '
9 Q. Okay. I'll read you the list. First let 10 se read you the list of the ones you saio "yes" to. 11 Callicut. No, you didn't say "yes" to callicut. 12 Liford, Morrison, who is Don Morris, and-James, 13 Morris. ' 14 A. James Morris didn't complain. k 15 O. Okay. I thought you said he did, this 16 morning. I think 1 have Mr. Hutchinson's name down 17 here and I didn't write yours down. Let me read you 18 the whole list. Tell me "yes" or "no." Callicut? 19 A. To me, no. 20 Q. Frankum? 21 A. No. ' 22 Q. J.D. Turner? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. L1 ford? ( 25 A. Yes. ~' ( FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
m 135 l 1 Q. tir . Merritt? l 2 A. No. 3 O. Charles Britt? 4 A. No. 5 O. Don fiorris? 6 A. Yes. 7 O. Walt Lachesky? j- S A. No. 9 Q. Tommy Bacon? 10 A. No. 11 Q. James Morris? 12 A. No. 13 \J. R.B. Kelly? 14 A. Yes. i 15 O. Randy Cunkle? 16 A. That's a name tnat's not familiar to me. 17 u. Curtis Biggs?
. 18 A. Yes.
, 19 0 Cappy Lawrence?
20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Dale Bullard? 22 A. No. 1 1 23 C. And'you've added Mickey Garrett. Okay. I l 24 Is'there any other craft supervisors that (
'S you can think of at this time whose complaints i
4
, FEDERAL COURT HEPORTERS
~
( 4
- ____1 -_._ -.--.__ -.__.
136 i i factored into the decision to terminate Ms. Hatley? I 2 A. not at this time. 3 Q. Okay. If you think of any, will you please 4 add them when you correct the record? 5 A. I certainly will. 6 Q. Okay. Now, could you estimate, as close as 7 possible, Mr. Strand, how many craft supervisors j- 8 there are at the site? 9 A. I don't have the vaguest idea. 10 Q. Okay. Would you say it's over 50? 11 A. I huve been gone for a year. I don't have i 12 any idea. I 13 Q. All right. Fine. You've named 14 approximately half a dozen, maybe seven or eignt, 15 craft supervisors who had couplaints that they 16 orought to your attention about fis . Hatley. Did you 17 go back to these craft supervisors or thesc
. lb individuals the week that Ms. hatley was gone and 19 talk to them about their confrontations with her?
O 20 A. Yes, ma'am, I did.
~
21 Q. Did you talk to the people wno did not have 22 complaints about Ms. Hatley? i 23 A. I attended one meeting where all the 24 general superintendents and so forth were present. ( 25 Q. Was Ms. Hatley's termination the subject of FEDERAL COURT rep 0RTERS
. . . . .a 137 1 that meeting?
( 2 A. No. But it was a part of it. 3 Q. How oany general superintendents are there? 4 A. I have perhaps misspoken. There are a few 5 general superintendents. I'm calking about 6 superintendents. 7 Q. Okay.
-{- 8 A. Including general superintendents.
9 Q. About how many people in that meeting? 10 A. 14. 11 U. And -- 12 A. That's a guess. 13 Q. What was said about Ms. Haticy? 14 A. Some were noncommittal. k 15 Q. What did you say about Ms. Hatley? 16 A. I said nothing. 17 U. Who discussed Ms. Hatley?
. 18 A. I believe the superintendent by the name of 19 George Bundt.
20 Q. Okay. You hadn't mentioned hio before. 21 A. You just brought it to mind. 22 Q. What did Mr. Bundt say? I 23 A. Mr. Bundt apparently had Ms. Hatley in his 24 employ at one point in her career on site. I con't ( 25 really know what this particular was. FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
_______________c_______-_ 138 l 1 Q. Okay. Whnt happened at the meeting; how I 2 did Ms. Haticy's name come up? 3 A. Really, !!s . Garde, it came up as an 4 incidental kind of a situation. 5 O. Do you usually attend the meetings with the 6 superintendents?
~
7 A. No. I was there for another reason. [ 8 Q. dot related to Ms. Hatley? 9 A. No, not related to Ms. Hatley. 10 Q. And then ti r . Bundt said something about Ms. 11 Hatley having worked for him? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Before you ever said anything about Ms. 14 hatley?
~
15 A. Yes, ma'am. 16 Q. Okay. And then the conversation went from 17 there to discussing confrontation between 18 superintendents and Ms. Hatley? , 19 A. Yes, ma'am. 20 Q. And you have no recollection of how her 21 name came up at all? 22 A. No. It was just one of those -- i 23 Q. Okay. Fine. What other incidents or 24 individuelo did you consider in item number six, i 25 craft supervisors? FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
= 7 130 a
1 1 A. That was essentially it. ( 2 Q. Were there negative comments made about Ms. 3 Hatley at this meeting? 4 A. Yes, there were. 5 c. About how long a period of time was she 6 discussed? 7 A. 10 minutes.
}' B Q. Was Richard Brown at this meeting?
9 A. No. There were also negativo comments on 10 me. 11 Q. But you were at the meeting? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Would you say that craft generally had 14 proolems with DCC and the documentation? i 15 A. I' don't think so. 16 u. You tnink they specifically had problems 17 with you and.Dobie?
,- 18 A. Well, I'm the man that's supposed to take
. 19 the heat. 20 Q. Dobie took quite a bit of it, did she not? 21 A. Necessarily so. 22 Q. Who was Dobie's replacement? l 23 A. During my tenure, there was'no replacement 24 for Dobie. I and Kay fiorman spent some tioe out ( 25 there. FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
140 1 Q. Did Richard Brown move into 306 after Ms. I 2 hatley left? 3 A. I had heard that. 4 Q. But that was not while you were there? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Is there any other reasons, Mr. Strand, 7 that Ms. Hotley was terminated other than those
~{- e listed on that piece of paper, with the exclusion of 9 item number five?
10 A. No. 11 Q. And so, as that memo states, the sole basis ' 12 for the termination is what you have described to me i 13 today and what is captured in that memorandum? 1 14 A. Yes, ma'am. l ~ 15 Md. GARDC: I think I'm donc, but I 16 just need a couple of minutes to look over my notes. 17 I'm going to take about five minutos.
. 18 MR. WALKER: Okay. , 19 (Whereupon, a brief 20 (recess was taken 21 Q. (BY MS. GARDE) Mr. Strand, I jtst have a 22 few more questions, and then I'm completed.
i 23 First of all, do you recall whether or not 24 satellito 306 was shut down in October tor i 25 procedural violations? PEDERAL COUkT REPORTERG
. . . . _ -=..u... __
^
_ _ _ n 141 l 1 MR. WALKER: October of what year? ( 2 MS. GARDE: '83. 3 A. It wasn't in existence, I don't think, in 4 October. 5 O. Didn't the satellites g e t. set up in' the 6 s u r.m c r of '83? - 7 A. Summer. You're right. That is correct.
- {- 8 Gee, you would think I would remember if it happened, 9 and I don't. I don't think it was in connection
. 10 with the satellite at tnat point in time.
11 Q. You don't think what was in connection with 12 the satellite? 13 A. If there was any shutdown. I think it was 14 in reference to the computer. i 15 c. Okay. Do you remember a shutdown in 16 reference to the computer? 17 A. Yes, ma'am.
. 16 Q. And that would have been around the October
, 19 time frame? e 20 A. It would have been in that particular thing. 21 That was a stop work order covering certain facets. 22 I don't remember in any detail anymore. I think it l 23 was instrumentation and possibly structural. 24 Q. Okay. Now, Mr. Strand, I am going to go ( 25 through a list of things, and I have a general FEDERAL COURT REPOP.TERS
. - . . . .. . ... -. u. .
142 l 1 question which I'd like you to answer "yes" or "no" I 2 to, if you remember. The question is whether or not J you recall Ms. Hatley coming to yo- and complaining 4 or being concerned about the following things. And 5 I'm going to read you a list of things. 6 Do you recall Ms. 11a t l e y coming to you and 7 complaining about drug abuse among satc111te
~
j- 8 cmployees? 9 A. Yes, ma'am. 10 Q. About Mr. Richard Brown in particular? 11 A. Yes, ma'am. 12 Q. Do you recall Ms. Ilatley coming to you and 13 complaining about the need for help? I tnink you've 14 already answered that "yes." Okay. 15 Do you recall Ms. itatluy coming to you and 16 co= plaining about the computer never being accurate? 17 A. Yes, ma'am.
. 13 O. Do you recall Ms. daticy coming and 19 complaining to you about constant missing ,
20 documentation in the satellites? 21 A. Not in that context, no. 22 Q. Okay. Do you recall Ms. Hatley coming to k 23 you with a complaint about an incident when one of 24 the paper flow group runners had thrown a stapler at ( 25 billie orr? FCDERAL COURT REPORTEHb
u_...-... . . - . ~ ~ . . . . . . .
=
143 1 1 A. It cortainly could have happened, but I ( 2 don't recall it. 3 0. Do you recall Ms. Hatley coming to you and 4 complaining about craft supervisors letting 5 themselves into the satellite areas? 6 A. Yes, ma'am. 7 Q. Do you remember Ms. Hatley's co'ncern about j-6 the number of hours both she and her employees had 9 to work? 10 MR. WALKER: Do you mean to ask if he 11 receLbers her coming to complain about that? 12 MS. GARDE: Complain, yes. 13 A. No, I really don't remember that. Eecause 14 we were all working long hours,. and Dobie was pretty 15 good about it. 16 g. Okay. Do you remember Ms. 11 a t l e y ' s coming 17 to you and complaining about craft somehow being
. 16 able to get documentation out of procedure?
. 19 A. Well, that was a continuing discussion. 20 Q. Okay. Mr. Strand, when you discovered 21 these problems when you did your audit prior to Ms. 22 Hatley being terminated, did you write a l 23 nonconformance report? 24 A. No, ma'am, 1 did not. I 25 u. Do you recall if any nonconformance r epor t-FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
144 b ' 1 was read -- written? k 2 A. I don't know. 3 Q. Mr. Walker is going to object to the next 4 question, so don't answer it. Do you know if the 5 NRC was notified by way of a 5055-E report? Don't
, , 6 answer the question.
l 7 MR. WALKER: For the record, my
'{~ 8 ob]ection,. as I told you yesterday, I feel that the
! 9 question is designed to elicit discovery for a 10 collateral proceeding, has no bearing on this l
11 proceeding.
- I therefore advise Mr. Jordan and Mr. I 12 Strand that an answer to tne question is not 13 required.
14 MR. JORDAN: And I will instruct Mr. 15 Strand to defer to Mr. Walker's objection. 16 MS. GARDE: Have to bear with our 17 legalese. 18
.- Q. (BY MS. GARDE) One final question. After 19 Ms. Hatley was terminated, you testified that you 20 shut down 306, spent a lot of your time there to get 21 it straightened up. How long did it take and how 22 many people did it take to get 306 straightened out?
i 23 MR. WALKER: If you know. 24 A. And I don't know. Tne effort, I am told, ( 25 went on long past my departure. FEDURAL COURT REPOP.TERS
- ~ = -
145 J l 1 Q. Do you know how many people were working I 2 there? 3 A. I don't know. 4 Q. Okay. During the month that you were still S there after Hs. 11s t l e y left, how many people did you . , 6 have working in satellite 306? 7 A. Pretty much every spare body that I could {~ 6 put in there. 9 Q. A dozen? 10 A. Off and on. 11 Q. Both shifts? t 12 A. No, not botn snifts. 13 Q. Seven days a week? 14 A. Yes, for a period. 15 Q. Were they still working seven dayc a week 16 when you left? 17 A. I just don't remember that.
,- 18 Q. Were you asked to resign, Mr. Strand?
. 19 , A. No. 20' MS. GARDE: I have no further 21 questions. And I thank you very much, Mr. Strand. 22 HR. WALKER: If you will permit us, 1 23 Ms. Garde, we'd like to have a few minutes to confer. 24 (Wheruupon, a brief ( 25 (recess was taken FEDERAL COURT REPORTERG m
146' N 1 EXAMINATION ( . 2 BY MR. WALKER: 3 G. Mr. Strand, I have just a few questions for 4 clarification purposes. 5 Earlier today in your testimony you stated, 6 in response to one of Ms. Garde's questions, that as 7 supervisor of document control, you had
*{~ S responsibility over the production and distribution 9 of all engineering documents. To what extent, if 10 any, do you believe that that statenent snould be 11 clarified?
l 12 A. I think a clarification is required. In 13 that time fraoe, in that period of time, a number of j 14 activities were added to tne document centrol system 15 prior to my taking over DCC. Prior to tt.a t point in lu time, engineering handled certain' distribution of 17 .documentar hangar engincoring made distribution of
. 16 hangars. Early in my tenure wo absorbed tnis . 19 function.
20 A little later on, civil engineering, who 21 had made distribution of certain structural items -- 22 cable trays, cable tray supports and so forth -- had l 23 over the years made distribution of those 1 24 engineering documents. In the August-October tiac I 25 frace, of '83, we assumed those functions, also. l FLDERAL COURT itCPORTEH6 i 1 n
== .- h-h:i . _ :. _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
145 4 1 1 There were also, from time to time, ( 2 additions from subcontractors such as Allis-Chalmers 3 and so forth who had retained control of their 4 documents and were gradually filtering them into the 5 system. 6 That's to clarify the original statement as 7 to tha purview of the document control conter.
.f 6 u. Mr. Strand, at another point in your 9 testimony you stated that at the time that you 10 decided to transfer Ms. Hatley back to the night 11 shift, tuat souc were saying that you were 12 protecting her. Who was saying that sort of thing?
13 A. Well, there were a number of personnel in ( 14 DCC and in the satellite system which were critical i 15 of my action at that point in time. 16 Q. Was that the only source? 17 A. Essentially.
. 3 13 HR. WALKER: No further questions.
. 19 RE-EXAHINATION 20 BY HG. GARDE: 21 c. A followup to the last question. When you 22 say some were saying that you were trying to protect 23 Dobie, can you name the Inuividuals that said that 24 to you? i 25 A. Some of them. FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
.i.. = :c -
______l. - -. . -- - 14E Y 1 Q. Could you name them, please? ( 2 A. Oh, Pam Parker, for one. 3 U. And who else? 4 A. Kim ll a nk i n s . 5 Q. Who else? 6 A. Ken Ward. Q. 7 Who else? 8 A. There werw a few people in tne papet flow
.f 9 group, come to think of it.
10 Q. Anc who were they? , 11 A. I can't remember the name of the man in the 12 aux building. 13 Q. The auxiliary building? ( 14 A. Yes. l 15 Q. So whoever the supervisor is ot the 1G auxiliary building paper flow group? 17 A. Yes.
. 18 Q. Safegucards flow group?
, 19 A. I think it was auxiliary building. 20 Q. Just auxiliary? 21 A. Yes. - 22 Q. That's the only one?
}
23 A. As far an I can recollect. 24 Q. Was there anyonc clso at all? ( 25 A. One of the girls in the pnono bank, and I FLDEhAL COURT HEP 0HTERS O
. _ _ x = = :- _w___ - _ . . _ - la Ga:-- -- -- N - ---- I-- N A'4~
149) i i l ( I i l 1 can't remember her name. ' I 2 O. Did you talk to Mr. Hutchinson about your i 1 3 decision to keep her on night shift instead of
, 4 terminating her?
5 A. Yes, ma'am. 1
. , 6 Q. ,
And what was his position? 7 A. It's my storer I'll run it the way I want
, {O G to.
1 1 9 MS. GARDE: That's all. i
- 10 (Time noted: 2:45 p.m.)
i 11 12 13 )
- 14 .
l 15 16 17
,- 18
+ 19 20 . 21 I
, 22
^
' l i
23 - l 24 , , I i
, 25 l ! I 1
1 l 1 l PEDLRAL COURT REPORTERS i -, e
- - - - - - - - - - -- - ^ ~'
150 1 1 1 CORRECTIOtIG AND SIGNATURE I 2 PAGE LINE CORRECTION REASON _FOR Cli AN G E 3 4 5 . , 6 7 f- e 9 10 11 12 13 1, FRANK MARK STRAND, have read the foregoing 14 deposition and heracy affix my signature tnat same 15 is true and correct, except as n'o t e d herein. 16 FRANK MARK STRAND 17
. lu . SUBSCRIBED AND S W O Rtl to before me this the
. 19 day of _ , 1985. 20
~
21 22 NOTARY PUBLIC IN AED FOR TEE STATE OF TEXAS 23 My commission expiross _ 24 1 25 FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
151 1 1 STATE OF TEXAS ) I 2 COUNTY OF DALLAS ) 3 4 1, Sharon L. Scotak, RPR, Certified Shorthand 5 Reporter in and for the State of Texas, do hereby G certify that, pursuant to the agreement hereinbefore e . 7 sot forth, there came before se on the 12th day of
- j. ,
8 February, A.D., 1985, at 9:00 o' clock a. m., at the 9 Glen Rose Motor Inn, Glen Rose, Texas, the following 10 named person to-wit: Frank tiark Strand, who was by 11 me duly sworn to testify the truth and nothing but 12 the truth of his knowledge touching and concerning 13 the matters in controversy in this cause; and that 14 he was thereupon examined upon his oath and his
~
15 examination. reduced to writing under my supervision; lo that the deposition is a true record of the i 17 testioony given ny the witness, same to be sworn to 18 and subscribed by said witness before any Notary l , 19 Public, pursuant to the agreement of parties. 20 21 I further. certify that I am neither uttorney or 22 counsol for, nor related to or employed by, any of 23 the parties to the action in which this deposition ( 24 is taken, and further that I am not a relative or 25 omployee or any ettorney or counsel employed by tne 1 FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
-~~~ , --. - - - - - - - - - - . _ . ,, p. y _, - , - - + y,-wv 4-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - w- -a - - _ . :- _ -- = - --- --. =n.=: = : = 152 1 parties hereto, or financially interested in the 2 action. 3 4 In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand 5 and affixed my seal this 15th day of February, A.D., , , 6 1965.
~
7
'L ' O Commission Expires:
December 31, 1985 9 d467L[- S !! A R O'N L. SZOTAK, R R)l, CSR 61076 10 - IN AND FOR Tit E STATE OF TEXAS 1226 Commerco, Suite 411 11 Dallas, Texes 75202 (214) 742-3035 12 13 l 14 l' 15 16 17
. 18
, l ') r 20 21 22 23
- 24 25 FEDERAL COURT REPORTEMS
=
..-_. .. . . - . - _ - . _ ~ . . . , -....:-. .- ..--- :.. =___-
E.~ & m if R o o U .v,:. { { 5 S
\
1 6 l TO: Ray Yockey (Personnel Manager) - j , , - FROM: H. A. Hutchinson/F. M. Strand- -
SUBJECT:
Termination of Dobie Hatley (Badge B-993) .,
- e Interoffice Memo
/
- i . .
i .. , I l Dobie Hatley (Badge B-993) is terminated effective February 7,1984 ' for " Failure to Obey Instructions." This temination decisicn is based upon recent observations and findings 'within those areas of* Dobie's work i responsibilities. ' Specific areas of deficiencies are listed below. l l (1) No updates to documents assigned to various departr. ants - ] Building, Rigging, Fab Shop.
~ , (2) Drawings checked out to certain craft
- for extended periods of
) time.
{ (3) Failure to log drawings into computor system. (4) Apparent f alsification of records to match computor listings to physical filest,, ) (5) Obtaining copies of departmental absent records - (Purpose and intentunknown.) - i (6) Constant confrontation with' fellow workers and craft supervision. s These represent violation of established procedures anc instructions i and form the sole basis of her temination. , s )
- .~
g i* N/* F. M. Strand'__._ 44 b i DCC Supervisor - 1 '
'A c .
l , H. A. Hutchinsorf j Project Control t'anager 1 j :- fnS/H.*,H/dc g c r=r- . m rs ~ -- *- 3 nj DEPOSITION d M.'OSEN
. II r EXHISIT j EXHISIT l l .% .t.)- I ,
' \\ N' * ~
{ L. , . ,. _ ,,,, y W. u um- . . W i
_ . . . . . -;.__ ..__..._n.._......_:. . . _ . . . . _ . . . . . . . ...... ._.. . . . . Em,mf5 Root.inc:. ( ( 3S-1195 2/7/84
. C; - ,
6 TO: Ray Yockey (Personnel Manager) FROM: H. A. Hutchinson/F. M. Strand '
~
SUBJECT:
Termination of Dobie Hatley (Badge B-993) - Interoffice Memo Dobie Hatley (Badge B-993) is terminated effective February 7,1984,
- for " Failure to Obey Instructions." This termination decision is based
.' upon recent observations and findings within those areas of Dobie's work responsibilities. ' Specific areas of deficiencies are listed below.
(1) No updates to documents assigned to various departments - Building Rigging, Fab Shop.
~
(2) Drawings checked out to. certain craft' for extended periods of time. (3) Failure to log drawings into computor system. (4) Apparent f alsification of records to match computor listings to physical files!... (5) Obtaining copies of departmental absent records - (Purpose and intentunknown.) (6) Constant confrontation with* fellow workers and craft supervision. These represent violation of established procedures and instructions and form the sole basis of her termination. . _ i -
. N .
bbf4 F.' M. Strand'. OCC Supervisor - a , H. A. Hutchinscr( Project Control Managar e FMS/PAH/dc ~ _ _ .
;' DEPOSITION
, --[_
I O' DEPOSITION EXHIBIT EXHIBli
' $o.3.1-/ ,
li,LL t"1
.l /
. . . . . . . ~ . - . . _
o u. - - ~ w - u ... " ---- - - -
-. = - - - - -
February 7. 1984 l i MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
- .m-j
SUBJECT:
TERMINATION DORA D. (D0BIE) HATLEY PRESENT: D. C. Frankum j
)
Ray Yockey ' } H. H. Hutchinson Dobie Hatley
., The above named persons met at 12:30 P.M.,' this date in ; Hutchinson's office. The i was being terminated for, purpose " Failurewas to inform to Obey Hatley that Hutch-Instructions". she l inson advised her of the specific reasons stated in the attached '
memo addressed to Yockey and signed by Strand and Hutchinson. Hut-i chinson reitterated the key role of the Document Control Center in the construction ions of her function activities could and that.the no longer benumerous tolerated.errors and omiss-324 These errors s n.L f( and omissions were based upon an audit of the Satellite office under her supervision. ] When it became obvious to Hatley she was in fact being term-i inated, she offered her handwritten, undated letter of resignation to Hutchinson. Some brief' conversation ensued but, is not recalled. At this point, Hutchinson completed her termination slip and handed it to her for her signature. She refused to sign it and I annotated it accordingly. Frankum had left the rocm and I took the termination slip to him for his signature and returned to present Hatley with her copy. ' j On returning to Hutchinson's offic.e, I conversation between Hutchinson and Hatley. Hatley partially overheardgoing mentioned a to' the Labor Board about a promised pay raise and there was some mention 1
,- of her vacation and final pay. '.. / .
v Ray /Yocke Manager, Personnel Services ! RY/ac i i h 0 l
- .~
3 DEPOSITION EXHISIT ! ; .tk hw j gg i - . l
~- _ _ _ _ - - ._ -- _ _ -
...._;.__- _ t. . ... . a - - w - ,. - -- - i-- i : - - - - - - -- -i ~ - - - - - ~
h C Q A-001 TENAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY j - OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM 0;' To B. C. Scott cien Itose. Texas June 13.1984 g Subject Ouestions Arising from Investigations into D. Hatlev Allegations 4 l _CONFIDENTIA L I t i Please coordinate an assessment effort to determine the implication of the following: s^ A. Verbal instructions and procedures were communicated to DCC satellite j personnel. Although some deficiencies were identified in document control, these deficiencies do not appear to represent a programmatic breakdown of a "significant" nature for the following reasons: First, the procedural deficiencies identified appeared to be limited to Satellite 306 and those deficiencies were for the most part traceable to Hatley. For example. Hatley failed to advise her staff to call the CRT Room when ordering drawings. As a result, the exact count of drawings for that Satellite was not availabh.. In all other satellites this procedure was followed and it seemed that for the most part it was effective. 1 Second, where deviations from procedures were identified, document clerks i apparently took compensating action. For example, if manual design logs i were not current, document clerks would call DCC to obtain the laisst document change paper. In addition, the logs themselves were replaced. Similarily, even when Satellite 306 failed to o'rder drawings through the CRT Rocm.
' document clerks always checked the computer when preparing packages to assure that the most current drawings were sent to the field.
- Third, during the course of the investigation it was discussed in general terms with document clerks how they prepared packages. Overall, the responses ,, .
received were consistent with DCP-3 and Satellite Operating Procedures.
~
1 Finally. It was assumed that if there was a significant breakdown in document control system. Hutchinson would have received increased complaints from
., craft. The basis for this assumption is that in many cases craft would initiate design changes during the course of construction and, therefore, would be expecting design change documentation. No evidence was found of such complaints, although individuals outside of DCTG, DCC and its management were not interviewed. -
1 B. In regard to training, it appears that document clerks are trained in DCP-3. That training does not extend to the ratellite procedures. To the extent that the custodian certification examination does fequire any knowledge of the functions performed by the satellites, these functions concern the interface between DCC and the satellites. I 3" DEPOSITION EXHIRif
. l)d.MJO f, ,.63, l .
r
. o I . C; '
Actual operating instructions for the satellites are set forth in the Satellite Operating Instructions. That document instructs document clerks working in g the satellites how to prepare packages, how to issue contro!!ed drawings and how to satisfy requests for new drawings. This is the critical procedure in terms of the interface between the satellites and those requesting a document. ~ Based on discussions with several document clerks. it appears that training on these actual operating instructions did not occur on a regular basis. Ha tley was responsible for providing this training. , , To avoid this situation in the future. training should be done and records kept to assure that document clerks in satellites receive training in satellite operating procedures. This training should emphhsize the interface between the satellites and those to whom they provide documents. , C. It appears that procedural changes are necessary in DCC and satellite procedures. First. DCP-3 should be modified to state clearly that whenever a satellite requests the hard copy of a drawing or reproduces a drawing and the drawing will be controlled, the satellite must advise the CRT. If a satellite requests a drawing from the phone bank. the phone bank should not issue it until it has received a copy of the written CRT request form. Second. it appears necessary to include in the Satellite Operating Instructions a requirement to call DCTG when errors or discrepancies are discovered on the data base. Third, authorization should be required from the head of DCC whenever manual design change logs are xeroxed. In this way DCC management will know when a satellite has fallen so far behind in its filing. that document clerks using the logs lack confidence in them. Had this procedure been in effect in November. It is likely that the difficulties in Satellite 30S would have been discovered sooner. Please review the above items. Please determine if these items have already b, en addressed as a result of our emphasis on document control activities or whe aer further actions are necessary. Please give me a status report by June 20. 1984, and every Friday thereaf ter until these issues are closed.
.( , .\ .
A. Vega TUGCO Site QA Manager A V/bil cc: B. R. Clements D. N. Chapman l
.. ~ -
(- ( TEXAS O flLITIES GENERATING COMPANY j OFFICE MEMORANDUM
. C ' To Distribution QAI# 0003 d subject RE00EST FOR ASSISTANCE IN RESOLVING OUALITY ASSURANCE ALLEGATIONS ; Investigation Requested by Bovce Grier Date February 2/9/84 t
Corporate Security Assistance Requested Yes (XX ) No ( ) BTj , , Allegation Made by (Name, Dept., Badge #) Dobie W tlev Confidentiality Requested Yes ( ) No ( XX) Allegation Made to (Name, Dept., Badge #) anyca criar. tpqrnna The attached allegation has been received by the TUGC0 Quality Assurance Department. The following individuals are asked to provide the assistance requested in order to resolve the allegation. The ateiet3nco nf rnrenr3*= tarorftv fe -aanattad in invattf e fnn of allecations contained in the attached recort of an interview with
! Dobie Hatley on Fabruarv 7, 1984 as follows:
1 1. The use of drucs in a DCC satellite office (item 891
} 2. The oceration of the Ouality Hotline (Item #12)
- 3. The buggina of telechones (Item #13) -
i i ., i *. . I i All correspondence relating to this matter shall reference the above QAl number and I will be distributed as detailed below. Distribution - Confidental . D. N. Chapman / Dallas QA/0E File D. L. Andrews/ Corporate Security l 1 Boyce Grier/CPSES QA Initiator
]griqr'(~
flf [\'.\ R. G. Tolson 7QQ] r 5' i L _ _ _ _ _ __ - _ _ _ _ _ -- - - - -- --- - --- - -- - -
. . . . . . _ _ . . . - _ . . _ . . _ . . _ . _ _ . . ..~ _ _ . . . _ _ . _. . .. . . . . _ . . _ . . _ ..
k- Y ( TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY ( v.. OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM To A. Vega cien now. T.us February 24.198d subject Alleo'tions of Dobie Hatlev This is to provide you with the results of my review of the allegations - contained in the report of my. interview with Dobie Hatley on February 7, 1984, copy attached.
- 1. Item #1 - I discussed the basis for Hatley's termination with Frank Strand, DCC Supervisor. Strand stated that Hatley was terminated because of problems with her performance in supervising the DCC satellite offices. A recent audit identified problems in areas for which Hatley was responsible and which were the result of her failure to follow instructions.
- 2. Item #2 - There have been instances in which inspectors have performed inspections for which they are not certified. Whenever it is determined that that has happened, it is the practice to issue an NCR and to reinspect. This appears to be an appropriate way to handle corrective action in such cases. NCR M-83-3049 is a recent example of this approach. There may be otheri but it does not appear to be a significant problem. It would be f appropriate during your next audit of inspector training "and certifications to examine the steps taken to prevent the use of uncertified inspectors.
I do not interpret Hatley's concern to be that inspections have been performed by uncertified inspectors but rather that having to , reinspect is inefficient and causes extra work for DCC. -
- 3. Items #3, #6, #8 and #10 - These matters all relate to the Document - '
~ Control Program and should be examined during your next audit of . y- DCP. I note that TCP-84 recommended a folicwup audit of DCP durine this quarter.
4 Item #4 - The problem with cable tray clamps was identified in NCR M-83-01629 dated 6/14/83 NRC was notified of the problem
- and a 50.55(e) report was subnitted on 7/12/83. The statements by Hatley do not add anything to this matter.
- 5. Item #5 - The problem with the cable tray support column was identified in NCR M-84-00082 dated 1/10/84 NRC was notified of the problem and a 50.55(e) report is pending (due 3/9/84). The l statements by Hatley do not add anything to this matter.
--m _.2 . a r:DEPOSIUCN 7
Eh!;lEIT J AJ.Bes,Jtc 1
. . . . . . . - . . .. . -. . . . . - . . - - - - . . -~~-------~~-~~:---
C ( A. Vega
- c* .. Page 2 February 24, 1984 g
- 6. Item #7 - No action is necessary on this matter.
- 7. Items #9, #12 and #13 - I have referred these matters to Corporate Security for investigation. (QAI #0003)
~
- 8. Item #11 - The allegations regarding the CYGNA report are being aired during the Licensing Hearings. I plan no action on this ,
matter, i *. If you have questions on any of the above matters, please let me know. I 452 Ysch, r l Boyc1FH. Grier i BHG/bil i Attachment cc: D. N. Chapman R. G. Tolson i I J
; .~
- 4
-l I.
e e W 1 9
-..... .-. --._--.;..... ~ :.. . _ - ~; -
, 4 WQ-766 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY r > s
- OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM
~. c= .. To D. N. Chapman Date June 14, 1984 2
q:. Subject Board Notification 84-085 I have reviewed Board Not Wication (BN) 84-085 and the attached enclosures. Enclosure two is a transcript of Mrs. Hatley's interview with USNRC Region tv
. personnel, Messrs. Check and Denise. Mrs. Hatley summarized six concerns
' identified during the interview into a three page statement included as i
enclosure three to BN 84-085. In addition to these six concerns, Mrs. Hatley also discussed or described, in varying detail, the following:
- 1) the formation of the building Task Groups,
- 2) the circumstances surrounding her dismissal,
*f 3) her reasons for not comunicating her concerns to the NRC prior to her dismissal and
- 4) a description of the site visit by herself, Mr. Check and Mr.
Denise. The results of my review for each of the six concerns and the items noted above are as follows: A. Enclosure 3 - Concern 1
" Craftsman'raceive so much documentation, that may or may not be correct or all inclusive, that he can not be sure that what he is doing 1s right and correct."
The material in the transcript which appears to relate to this concern consists mostly of generalizations, some of which are similiar to a few of the twenty-four allegations received from Mr. Eisenhut. At page 15 of the transcript, Mrs. 4 Hatley noted th'at an NCR was; written against UCC datellite 306 for a missing UCA in a drawing computer datapackage, base. whicn she contends occurred because of inaccuracies in the this incident. LaterReview and investigation of NCRs could provide details to at page 60 of the transcript, Mrs. Hatley contends she j d'scusseo a missing revision to a CMC with Hayward Hutchinson and Cathy Lawrence. 1 Interviews with these personnel could provide turther details. However, 1 do } . not reccc. mend that an-investigation be conducted, since the questions of inaccuracles in the DCC data base and of missing or lost documentation have already been addressed in re:ponses to Mr. Eisenhut. B. Enclosure 3 - Concern 2 "TheCYGNAevaluMonofthedrawingcontrolsystemlackedindependencebecause what was to be checked by CYGNA was given to me and others before CYGNA come to , j check, and I was told to be sure that the information that CYGNA was going to check was available in the Satellites. It they did this to be sure that the UCC Satellite te sure thatSystem they passed passedthe thetest, test." did-they do the same thing'on pipe supports to pe----- -- . .s
; DEPOSITION j h. !
l w' EXHIBli pn LL o
..: ......-. . . . . . - _ ~ . . -
t *
.C Pages 23-24 of the transcript contains Mrs. Hatley's version of how she obtained [
a copy of a list of documentation purportedly furnished as advance notification by CYGNA personnel to Hayward Hutchinson. This issue is being pursued in the hearings and investigatied by S. Hartman.
~
C. Enclosure 3 - Concern 3 "The TUGC0 QA group is not doing what needs to be done to assure that the Document Control System at Comanche Peak is correct. I am prepared to discuss this more fully at a latter time."
,. The lack of detail provided by Mrs. Hatley (see pages 34-36 and 57-58 of the transcript) does not permit an investigation of substantive tact.
. D. Enclosure 3 - Concern 4 1
"There are problems in the cable tray hanger clamps. Clamps were never inspected on site or off site to see that they were acceptable. I was made aware of this when we got involved in a backfit effort on cable tray supports. There was not correct documentation available."
The lack of detail provided by Mrs. Hatley (see pages 59 and 60 of the transcript) does not permit an investigation of substantive tact. 1 E. Enc.losure 3 - Concern 5 "There were errors in color coding of instrument piping which need to be corrected." , The lack of detail provided by Mrs. Hatley (see page 61 and 62 of the transcript) does not permit an investigation of substantive tact. , t F. Enclosure 3 - Concern 6 "There are steel pillars in the cable spread room, about 1050 feet, which appears This wasto be laminated revealed to me instead by a paint of extruded, inspector."with no documentation of quality. The lack of detail provided by Mrs. Hatley (see pages 61-63 of the transcript)
' does not permit an investigation of substantive fact. Note: This apparently relates to 3DAR CP-84-01 which dealt with surface indications identified on tw 8" wide flange columns used as supports in the unit I cable spreading room.
This problem was determined to be not reportable under 10CFR5045(e). . G. The Formation of Building Task Groups During this discussion, Mrs. Hatley alleges that document control procedures were arbitarily changed by management to accommodate the formation of the , i building task groups and that she received no cooperation trom the task groups in updating document packages. The lack of detail provided (see pages 36-40 of-the transcript) does not permit an investigation of substantive fact.
. : . . . . . . . .. a -"~L = -
------~ ~ - - ~ - ~ ~ ~ - -
?~
's '
?
. O. ' H. Circumstances Surrounding Mrs. Hatley's Utsmissal (h:
Mrs. Hatley on pages 41 through 48 of the transcript provides a detailed description of the events surrouncing ner aismissal. Altnougn a cetailea reveiw for accuracy could be made., it is not clear whether or not the effort is warrented. I recommend that no investigation ce concuctea until acaitional details are determined. I. _ Reasons for not Communicating her Concerns to the NRC Prior to her Dismissal Mrs. Hatley alleges that visiting the NRC onsite would lead to dismissal by Brown & Root; however, no examples are cited (see pages 49 througn be of the transcript). J. Description of the Site Visit by Mrs. Hatley, Mr. Check and Mr. Denise Following the interview, Mrs. Hatley, Mr. Check, Mr. Denise, Mr. Kelley (NRC) and Mr. Frank Strand (Brown & Moot) visitea datellites JUb and 40/. Iney noted by number several drawings and CMCs that they selected for viewing, they drew no conclusions (see pages 64-69 of the transcript) as'a result of these activities. In summary, the lack of detail available~in the transcript makes it impossible to address and resolve Mrs. Hatley's concerns, turthermore, the ettorts in responding to allegations the NRC regarding the 24 allegations from Mr. Eisennut and the relatin Hatley's concerns. g to protective coatings already address many of Mrs. Mrs. Hatley which could be verified by investigation, I recommend that n further action be taken in this regara pending tne availability of additional details. Ah R. G. Sp'ngler s RGS:In e W W
~s - -.- ,y- . . - -
..e.-... .: . . . - . . . - . . . .._ ..
3 ; : TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM o;' To Michael D. Spence Date May 22, 1984 f,.. Subject Dobie Hatley Allegations This memo is intended as a status report concerning our response to allegations made by Dobie Hatley in her interview with the NRC last February (the subject of Board Notification 84-085). My initial review of this notification leads me to believe that our
,- response to Eisenhut's April 24 letter addresses many of her concerns (though not in the same order as listed in BN 84-085).
, However, I've asked Bob Spangler to make detailed "take offs" from a
BN 84-085 and, working with documentation specialists from John Merritt's staff, evaluate the allegations as stated by Hatley to the NRC. We should be able to respond to some of these issues with Sandy Hartman's investigation report when we get that. I also expect our audit files to help, since Hatley's activities were audited last year. , I'll keep you posted as our work in this area proceeds. V
- 0. h.khap.an DNC:.in ec: B. R. Clements R. G. Spangler 0
6 T DE[d51TIOh g.$$T ENN hl) La % - a w. +.Mgee- M y e g*es.Ing eee w W
- 4 8 4-e.w . e e-.ee hewasseum= *. * ***
,._ . _ . . . _ _ _ . _ . . . . _ . . _ _ . _ ---...-..--.xs--- -
.- . \
' ; \
JXAS UTILITIES SERVICES I . 1- - 7 r*v- 3 OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM
. P To Mr. David Chapman Dallas, Texae April 9- 1994 dh Subject Resconse - Recuest for investicative assistance recardine Allegations by Ms. Dobie Hatley .
On February 10, 1984 this office received a request.for investi-gative assistance from Mr. Boyce Grier (CPSES). Mr. Grier specifically requested Corporate Security assistance in resolving - three (3) allegations made to him by Ms. Dobie'Hatley a former
. . employee at CPSES. These three allegations are summar,ized as
. follows:
- 1. That certain personnel at CPSES felt that the y telephones were bugged.
- 2. That drug use at CPSES was widespread and in-volved~a DCC supervisor.
- 3. That the Quality Hot-Line was not working and that persons who had called the Hot-Line had not received responses.
With regard to allegation #1, which is vague in nature, it has been determined that a proper investigation of this charge would logically require recontact with Ms. Hatley for the purpose of obtaining more specific detail (eg. type of " bugging" being conducted, locations of suspected " bugs", etc.). Our legal counsel (Mr. Sandy Hartman) has advised that such contact with Ms. Hatley atinvolving ing litigation this time Ms.should not be' attempted in view of pend-Hatley, Brown & Root, and Texas Utilities. Based upon my experience in the area of electronic interception detection and my familiarity with the size of the telephone system at CPSES, I am of the opinion that any type of general telephone security survey (without additional specific .- input from Ms. Hatley) would be extremely costly and essentially non-productive in addressing her expressed concerns. With regard to allegation #2 (re: drug use), our attorneys have advised that this charge is involved in pending litigation and should not be investigated by Corporate Security at this time.
' The following information is submitted with regard to Ms. Hatley's i
third allegation regarding the operation of the " Quality Hot Line:" e l l
- m .
=- , 2 l DEPOSITION
( EXHIBli
!3
!.LL M c2.s w~3
,. . . . . . . - . - . - - - . - . - - - . . - . - - - - ~ . - . -- - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - ~ --
A a
u ._ . _ _ _ __ _ ( n ' ~ r , f "Len L !,I I u iIibs )* [! lt b*. . Mr. David Chapman J "I-Page 2 gh
- 1. As of the date of Ms. Hatley's allegation, ,
this office had received only four (4)
" Hot-Line concerns" or re ferrals from CPSES-QA which required investigation and wherein the alleger had requested an answer based upon the results of the investigation.
Of these four, only two (2) had been received more than two-weeks prior to Hatley's allegations.
- 2. Of the two investigations which were over
, two weeks old, one had been completed (and a summary of results prepared for the alleger) and one (1) investigation was still in progress. In the case of both of these investigations, the allegers had also been contacted in order to provide them with the status of the ongoing in-vestigations and/or to obtain additional information to be used in the conduct of the inquiry.
- 3. In both of the above-noted investigations the allegers had requested confidentiality in order that their identity would not be revealed to anyone at CPSES. It would there-fore seem somewhat implausible that Ms. Hatley would know their identities, the .ature of their expressed concerns and/or the status or results of the investigations into their allegations.
- 4. This office has no information to indicate that Ms. Hatley has ever utilized the Hot-Line for .-
any purpose, nor has she contacted this office to inquire as to the status of any investigation.
- 5. This office has, to date, never received a d
~ ' cc= plaint from any alleger that his " Hot-Line" concern was not addressed or was inadequately addressed.
o
- l 4
see +p ap.se- gope _ _ O em h he sph6-~ # h *# '
**d"W** * * * " *
= u -. . . . . . :-.--..-.... . - . - - -~ ~.--- -- --- -- ---- " ~
- ( (
.mn .
a.u' ,.,ll x A,m ,,,Il[e
- 6*.. Mr. David Chapman Page 3 d
- 6. This office operates under procedures intended -
to insure proper receipt and documentation of all " Hot-Line" concerns. The " Hot-Line" is answered on a twenty-four (24) hour basis, either by Corporate Security personnel or by a telephone anrwering' device. The telephone '
- o answering device is chechad for proper functioning t4t the end of each work day
. and at the beginning of the following work day. A daily log is maintained to verify
, , these checks.
I am hopeful the above information is responsive to Ms. Hatley's expressed concerns regarding the operation of the " Hot-Line." I am deferring any investigation into allegations #1 and #2 until I receive further instruction from legal counsel. m f c{ - la'n L David L. Andrews Director of Corporate Security DLA/la ~ cc: Boyce Grier, CPSES 5 o o h a 1 I i . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . - - . . . - - - . . - . . ~ ~ . - - - -
- ~ - ~ ~ '
.-}}