ML20237L352
| ML20237L352 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 06/25/1986 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237F760 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8708200186 | |
| Download: ML20237L352 (36) | |
Text
'
1 I'
bEFORE THE 2
OFFICEOFINSPbCTORANDAUDITOR q
3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
4
x 5
Interview of:
6f 7
~
__-x s
l 8
Room 533 9
Rodeway Inn 833 North Watson Road 10 Ar ing n,
exas gg Wednesday, 1
June 25,, 198,6 12 s
1 I3 APPEARANCES:
I l
14 For the commission:
15 GEORGE A. MULLEY, JR.
16 Special Assistant to the Director office of Inspector and Auditor Nuclear Regulatory Commission
.j 18 19 l
20 21 22 13-t 4
4 24 25 i
e
' Attachment JJ 8708200186 870819 "-
PDR ADOCK 05000445
- q O
PDR-
n,-
- r
. p ' i, k,,
\\
y v
q g,
,q
\\
p I
. _ ~ -
Whereupon g >ii(
[s
(,.
[*
t
.1 i
.h
%.i 3
^
q 1
having been duly sworn tes,,tell thm,P. ruth,' the whole, truth,
e 2
3 4
i i;
and nothing but the truth, we interviewed and answered as 3'
i I
5,.
followst
' /,
g 1
s.
s.
6
/
1,\\
,MR. ItULLEY:
The\\tirhe LE2: 05 p.m., and the
)1 s
+<
7 date ls~f.Ee~25th of. June,!
1986.
We are J.n, Room 53f of the i
I Rodeway Indfin Ar1.pg't:on,; Texas.
(
t i
i i
o 9
_7%
3 Present is Mr. y' gggy
{ feff 5
1,,,a.Qq W.
Region IV NRC;
,4 11 mysel2} George Mailey, Special Assistant to the Director, 12
)
O ffice el InspecthE and Auditor, NRC; and the court reporter,
)
l 13 Miss Sandra Harden.
t 14 g
.We're here to dittu u,information that Mr.,
3 15 gM may have concerning Reg)pn-IV.'s regulation of the g
, us w
)
16 Comanche Peak Nuclear Powe[h Pltrte s
4 t
g
-\\
k i
17 BY MR. MULLEY*
s' i
\\
y 18 Q
Mr f
C(orNWebegin,.woulds.ycuplestcl4 i
\\s 19
. gt give us a resume of your backg sund arid work ats Regi$n(IV?
l as.
j i
'20 r
i, r s -
A I came toiRegion IV f n late ' sum:ncr of ihb2 21 as t'to director of a. div.1sion that then had both the radiation
.1
..A r
r*
q 22 suf9ty and spfeguards frnatione in it, together Vith the vendor f
A 1
.s 23 k
prog.'am branch, respons).bil.ities.
~
.f,i l'..
S
~
3, w
g i
24
's
\\
.-buring i.he summer of 1984, I was detailed f;cm s
25 that position to the TRT tt:am effort at Comanche Peak in an f
~
s.:.-
c l
A,A l
w, i
5 I
r 3
I l
I assignment where I oversaw both the completion of the routine i
l 2
i inspection program that was called for by the IE manual chap-
]
3 ters and also was a person who was responsible for closing out s
,s 1
(t a set of allegations that were entitled "The Miscellaneous 4
5 Allegations".
6 In the fall of 1984, I returned to the I
7 Regional office and resumed my duties as division d'irector.
S
[
E O
While you were on the TRT, what were your 9
perceptions concerning how Region IV was regulating the con-f 10 struction of Comanche Peak?
II A
The--
As I indicated, one of my responsibili-12 ties was to make the inspection program current with the I3 stage of construction of the plant.
At that point in time, 14 in mid-1984, Comanche Peak, the facility, was still holding 15 to a licensing date in the fall of 1984, and we had to get l
16 the inspection program completed such that NRC's activities
?
17 would be at a stage of completion such that we could say, f
18 through the verification of the inspection program, that 19 things were okay for licensing.
l 20 In my assignment down there, one of the first 21 activities that I undertood was to ascertain just what the 22 status of the completion of the inspection program was, both q
\\W on construction and startup and pre-operational matters.
24 I found that because of the fact that the 25 Region had been pursuing the resolution of the many allegations
)
~
i u-i
-a
-4 1-that were associated with that plant that, indeed, the Region 2
had fallen behind in the completion of the inspection program.
3.'
So, there were a number of completions that--
4 or, I'm sorry, a number of inspections that we did have to 5
complete in. ultimately rapid--
a relatively short period of 6
time.
7 And other than that, those were my initial 8
set of impressions, that there was much work that was yet to 9
be done, even aside.from the resolution of-the large number 10 of allegations that were associated with the plant.
11 0
Did you feel any pressure by Region IV upper 12 management to just get these inspections done, sort of pencil-l 13 whip the inspections, just cross all the "t's" and dot all the 14 "i's" without really going in and looking for problems?
15 A
No.
In fact, if I were left with any 16 impressions of directions that I received, it would be 17 probably more in the opposito sense.
The Region was in a i
18 very difficult position at that point in time.
We were being 19 challenged--
The work that we had done in the inspection 20 program was being challenged by 1;)tervenors, and I felt it 21 was incumbent upon me and my management at that time felt it l
22 was incumbent upon'the Region as'a whole to thoroughly investi-l 23 l
gate and inspect activities at the plant so that we would'not L
24 be subject to criticism or second-guessing after the fact.
25 0
In doing those inspections and. conducting-those
5 t
I inspections at Comance Peak, was there any emphasis towards 2
inspecting hardware deficiencies versus looking at quality 3
assurance matters?
4 A
The inspection program really covers both.
'For 5
Unit 1, we did not place any greater amount of emphasis.than 6
would be called for by the IE inspection program on either 7
QA or inspection of hardware.
.Or, at least in my view.
8 We did find that quality assurance type inspec-9 tions, especially at the corporate level, had not been comple-10 tea according to the schedule called for by the IE manual.
11 And we were probably further behind in terms of completing the 12-inspection program in the QA area than in the direct observa-13 tion of work at the site.
14 0
How did you learn that the 05 inspections were 15 not as complete as they should have been?
10 A
As I indicated earlier, I had asked that the 17 people in the Region put together the ' status of the entire 18 inspection program at Comanche Peak, and that was one of the 19 findings that grew out of that effort that I asked be done.
20 Q
Had you been provided with any--
Or, do you L
21 recall being provided with any specific findings or inspection 22 results that would have given you an indication, you know, 23 that the inspections had not been completed'as they should 24 have been?
25 A
Well, we had a--
if my memory serves me
~
m___m__ _ - - -
e i
6 1
correctly, an informal tabulation of the status of all the 2
inspections, but I did have--
In the QA area, I did have 3
discussions with Shannon Phillips specifically about the 4
status of the completion of those types of inspections.
5 Shannon's background is one where he has been 6
associated in his care.er with quality assurance kinds of 7
matters, and he showed a special interest in that area.
And 8
he pointed out to me, as a result of his review of the inspec-l tion program status, that there was a need to do additional 10 inspections in that area.
11 O
When this review was. completed, what were the
~
12 results?
13 A
I don't remember the specific findings as of the 14 time that I had--
that I left the Comanche Peak assignment.'
15 I do recollect generally that there were a number of findings--
16 concerns, if that's a better word, that were discovered as a result of the inspections that summer.
They were conducted, 18 I believe, both by some of the Region IV people and some contractors to Region IV, 20 We did sit down on at least one occasion, and l
l 21 l
I b'elieve maybe a couple of occasions, with management of j
22 I
Texas Utilities to convey interim findings in relationship to 23 these inspections of the corporate QA programs.
24 Q
Did you find that Region IV hadn't completed
-(
l 25 all the QA inspections that they should have?
W.----______-_-.__--._._-__-_-__--._-
l 7
1 A
At the outset, are you talking about?
2 Q
No, at the end, you know, when this review was 3
complete and they went back and, you know, compared the Region
)
1 4
IV inspections versus what was required by the IE manual.
)
I 5
A If my memory serves me correctly, the inspection 6
program calls for certain inspections in all areas and in the 1
7 QA area also at certain steps in the construction a at.certain 8
stages of construction.
9 we had, I believe, missed'some inspections 10 that were called for by the program that should have been I
i 11 done earlier.
12 So, my instructions to Shannon were to go in i
13 during the summer and--
late summer of 1984 to capture in 14 one inspection effort as much of the previous inspections that 15 we could at that point in time, recognizing that that wasn't I
i 1
16 the perfect opportunity to do some of the work.
17 For example, some of the QA inspection effort 18 relates to vendor quality assurance programs.
Some of those 19 vendors had either completed their work or had very little i
20 work remaining on site at that point in time, and it was 21 difficult, from an inspection standpoint, to gain a full I
22 appreciation as to just how good the quality assurance program 9 23 of certain of those vendors were'since they weren't on site 24 any longer.
25
'So, that's the kind of example that I'm pointing 4
____-__-__a
"U S
8 I
to in the sense that we did the best we could to try to see 2
what kind of quality assurance programs were being provided 3
by some of the vendors.
4 Q
What sort of impact would the failure of 5
Region IV to complete some of these inspections at the appro-6 priate time, for example, not conducting the inspection of the 1
7 TUGCO cor'porate headquarters, what sort of impact Wbuld that 8
have on Comanche Peak?
9 A
Certainly would put the Region in a position 10 where we wouldn't have as full a data base to base our judgment l
11 as to the adequacy of the construction of the plant, recog-I' 12 nizing that the quali'cy assurance program is one important part 13 of the set of management controls that the utility has to 14 assure that the plant is constructed properly.
15 The fact that we didn't do the inspection 4
}
15 doesn't necessarily mean that the utility didn't have adequate 17 programming, just that our data base was not as complete as 18 it would otherwise be.
19 Q
At this point in time, do you feel that the 20 Region has recouped sufficiently in this area?
l 21 A
The Agency and the Region have recouped, in 22 my view, sufficiently because we've focused, since the 1984 j
23 time frame, tremendous number of resources on Comanche Peak, 24 much of it related to the specific question of adequacy of
~'
25 quality assurance and quality control.
~
4
9 1
So, if resources--
application of resources 2
are any indication,.this plant has received as muchEreview, 3
'at this point in time, and probably more review than any. plant 4-in the country.
i 5
0 While you were.with the TRT, did you ever d
receive an attitude by upper Region IV management that Comanche 7
Peak was being criticized by the interveners quite 'a bit and, 0
therefore, the Region should try to take the side of the licensee to try to get this plant--.you know, to try to even 10 up the scales?
That maybe, you know, the interven~ ors were II being unf air to Comanche Peak and the licensee and, therefore, l'
the Region should try to do what they could to help out the 13 licensee.
Like there was only two cides to the argument:
I4 The intervenor against the NRC and the licensee versus three 15 sides, the intervenor, the NRC and the licensee.
16 A
on the part of management at my level and above, 17 I perceived no such kind of effort on the part of the Region 1
l l
I8 to def end the licensee from the charges that were being placed 19 by interveners.
20 0
Let me ask you:
At a level lower than you 21 or that specifically Mr. Tom' Westerman or Eric. Johnson, did 22 you feel that they had an attitude of trying to help the 13 licensee over some of the hurdles that the intervenor had 24
~'
placed in front of them?
25
~
A At that point in time, Mr. Westerman and Mr.
__2J
f 10 1
Johnson were not people within the Region that I interacted j
2 with relative to-Comanche Peak.
So, their views--
I did not 3
receive their views.
4 Q
What about since that time?
Have you picked l
5 up anything?
6 A
I've not received any impressions or heard any 7
atatements in regard to that specific question.
I'only have l
8 heard third-hand that there are perceptions on the part of 9
others that, perhaps, that's the case.
I 10 0
Have you ever witnesses any confrontations, 11 let's say, between Mr. Westerman and some of the inspectors 12 out at Comanche Peak where Mr. Westerman has tried to either 13 downgrade or delete violations or inspection findings from 14 inspection reports and the inspectors feeling strongly that 15 the violations or the findings should stay in the report?
l 16 A
No, I have not.
17 Q
Why did you leave the TRT?
18 I
A As I had indicated, I was detailed for the 19 specific purpose of handling the miscellaneous allegations I
20 and bringing the Region IV inspection program to an adequate
}
21 stage of completion.
22 As of October of '84 which is, I believe, the i
23 date that I came back to Arlington, I had essentially completed 24 those tasks, at least the field work associated with those 25 tasks, and the remaining effort relative to followup on TRT
~
\\
11 1
1 findings, writing the SSERs or finalizing the writing of the SSERs and the conduct of the inspection program f rom that 1
3 point fo'rward were returned back into the normal structure 1
4 of the Regional Office and the remaining segments of the TRT.
I i
5 And so, it was--
For that reason, plus the 6
l fact that my normal responsibilities needed attention.
7 il 0
Did anybody take over your responsibilities
?
8 on the TRT after you left?
9 i
A The responsibilities that I was assuming went f
10 l
to Darwin Hunter, The branch chief in projects was given the 11 responsibility for Comanche Peak.
12 O
Okay.
We discussed Shannon Phillips very 13 briefly.
How would you evaluate Phillips as an inspector?
14 A
I would say that he certainly is a hardworking 15.
l person.
I knew Shannon both at Comanche Peak during the TRT
}
16 assignment of mine, and he was a section chief in the vendor I
17 i
program branch when that branch was in Region IV.
So, I came i
18 to know him, as I said, as a hardworking person.
19 I'm trying to think of other descriptive 20 adjectives.
21 I think that he's a fairly tough inspector and l
22-a tough' supervisor of people in that he is one that digs to 13 find violations.
24 I must also comment that, on occasion, there 15 are certain findings that he may identify that he places,
~
l
.12
-1 perhaps, more importance: associated with those findings q
2 than managers' and. supervisors above him. 'This didn't happen 3
on frequent occasions in the vendor progrhm^ branch, but on 4
4 occasion, it did.
)
5 0
, hen this would happen, what would be the W
6 result?
7 A
Most often, the resolut' ion would occ'ur at the 8
' level of the branch chief /section chief interface.
So, it 9'
would occur at a level that was below mine.
10 And Shannon would argue his point vigorously..
l
-1 11 But on almost all occasions, he would accept the final l
i 12 determination that was made or some consensus kind of decision.
13 would be reached on how a certain finding should have been 14 handled.
' 15
~
0 If this--
you know, this agreement occurred, 16 would the management provide him reasons to support why they-l 17 didn't think, you know, this finding should be written or I
18 wasn't a finding or should be something other than the way i
19 he felt it should be written?
Or did they just arbitrarily I
20 just try to dismiss them?
l 21 I'm trying to establish what it took to get 22 Shannon Phillips to agree with the other side that maybe....
23 A
Certainly, in.my dealings with Shannon within 24 the program branch and my observation of Uldis Potapovs's
~
25 dealings with Shannon within the program branch, whenever ther e
13 I
was a matter that was on the table for discussion, we, as 2
Shannon's supervis.or or managers, tried.to put forth the 3
basis for whataver views we had that might not totally agree 4
with Shannon's.
or with anybody else that we might be 5
discussing a point with.
6 So, certainly, from my perception, we had 7
sound, logical reasons that we presented to Shannon*and others 8
for any matter that's in controversy that we're discussing.
9 And it's not my management style, nor was it 10 Uldis's, to just make arbitrary decision without explaining 11 the basis for them.
And that's not the way I managed the 12 effort that I was in charge of down at Comanche Peak.
13 0
Sh.annon Phillips had been involved with the 14 South Texas project and apparently had found some problem 1
15 areas down there.
Did he rective any backlash as a result of };
i 16 that by Region IV management?
17 A
That was during a period of time that I was 18 not associated with the Region.
I 19 0
Even nowadays, since you've been involved with i
l 20 the Region, have you heard anything that would indicate that 1
l 21 maybe he was being blacklisted or being badmouthed because of 22 the work he had done in South Texa's?
23 A
No.
I think--
In working with Shannon during l
24 the summer of 1984, I think he had expressed on occasion that 25 there was a concern that that might be the case.
But I have
._.m. _. _ _ _. _ _ _ _
14 1
seen no direct evidence in Region IV that that's the case
'2-or heard anybody m.ake such a statement.
3 In fact, he was promoted to a section chief 4
within the program branch, and that occurred after South 5
6 Q
Region IV has a policy concerning retaining 7
draft reports, from what I understand.
8 A
Uh-huh.
i 9
Q Do you know what that policy is?
10 A
I don't remember--
I think it is incorporated 11 into a retional policy guide now, but generally, the policy 12 guide states that there is no benefit to' retaining draf ts and 13 drafts of all materal are expected to be discarded.
14 If drafts are to be retained, I believe they're 15 supposed to go into the docket--
our regional docket file i
16 so that the Region, in responding to requests like FOIA I
17 requests, can go to one central location and get all materials 18 associated with a certain FOIA request.
19 And so, if there's a reason to keep a draft, i
20 then the draf t should be in the NR official file.
And 21 retention of drafts by individual persons is not encouraged.
22 0
One of the reasons that's put forth by some j
23 of the inspectors for retaining draf t reports is they feel l
24 that--
you know, they submit a draft report with how they l
25 feel it should be written and it comes back changed, deletions 1
l l
15 I
or additions are made to the draft report, that they'd like 2
to have that document available so later on they can say:
3 Well, this is the way I felt.
This is the way I sent it up.
4 Would that be a valid reason for keeping a 5
draft?
6 A
Not in my view.
The--
Certainly, the directior.
~
7 that all of the people in Region IV have is that when there 8
are disagreements about disposition of inspection findings 9
is that they should be reviewed and discussed with.the parties 10 that are involved so that everybody has a clear understanding 11 of the facts surrounding a particular set of circumstances.
12 But ultimately, it's the responsibility of the 13 supervisors and 'the managers to decide on just how a matter 14 will be dispositioned, and--
But, as I say, the charge to 15 all of us is, as supervisors and managers, that we have to 16 gather facts--
enough facts so that we clearly understand 17 a particular set of findings so that they can be dispositionet
....-..-.--...-.-.c
- .=--.--
18 properly, in accordance with the policies and the views of 19 the Agency at the time.
And that. responsibility. runs with
- 9.,.yf y q$ g _.;. ;,
_. z:, -
20 the supervisor and the manager, and ;it'? s. proper. because~ the;
',',f N 2 :,
b 3
21 there is information on dea'lingYwl~tIiU'i Mc'u'lar 2ssues~.m are--
22
'~7 N
~~' E? 3"~ ~
that. a supervisor or manager may have avalf'a"bpento'-himith*aty -
- :j
^ *??c-gM2.D?:t provides a broader perspective than an-imdividtial-'155p56t-dF_f.
.+
23 P': O
",' f N 1 9 ) W [ OW$"g?$
24 would have.
.~~M
=
y.3,gg.p-So, that's why we conduct these kinds of....;B 5,5 bCW 25
.matteriff.es n
l.. T'&
... 'J 5 ) [h.
. l.
i
. ~.+
'~5R.5.1
.;@g
16 the way we do.
And if there are remaining differences that an inspector or individual can't accept in relationship to 3
a manager's decision in regard to a finding, then we certainly 4
also have the policy in place that an inspector or an individu-5 al can go to the next layer of supervision and have the matter i
6 I
aired and reviewed.
If there.isn't satisfaction resolved within the Region by going to regional management, then the 8
option of a differing professional opinion also exists.
9 Q
Do you have any knowledge of inspection reports 10 ever being changed without the inspector's. knowledge?
11 A
In a substantive f ashion?
12 0
Yeah.
Yeah, more than editorial, right.
Where l
13 violations may have been downgraded to unresolved or deleted 14 from the report or combined in some manner.
15 A
I can't speak--
or, identify specific examples i
l 16 where that has occurred.
Certainly, there may have been cases 17 that I can renember, at least in general, where there's been M
a change in a finding, a change in severity level, or a 19 reclassification of a finding frc= a violation to an unresolved I
20 item or unresolved to violation, that kind of a change where l
the inspector that week may have been out of the office on 22 travel.
I 23 If supervisors felt that they understood the
'4 situation clearly and had all the facts and--
There may have 25 been an occasion when that kind of a change would be made and
1 17 1
the inspector was not consulted about it but informed about j
t
?
~
that kin,d of a change.
That might occur infrequently.
3 But in most occasions, at least_that.I'm
)
4 familiar with, if there is a question about the way a finding 5
is dispositioned or a subject is treated in an inspection i
6 report, we go back to the inspector because he's.normally the 7
one that's given the charge to revise the report.
0 Q
If it got to the point where the inspector 9
was just not comfortable at all with the change, to the point 10 where, you know, he didn ' t want to sign the report' or he made 11 comments, "Well, I completely disagree with what you're doing, 1
l *'
but you have the right to do it," what would happen then?
l 13 A
It's a general question, and there might be j
)
14 different circumstances. surrounding each case that might cause l
15 an individual case to be treated differently from another.
I0 But I can, in general, what I would expect to 17 happen in that kind of a situation is that there would be 18 i
additional discussions between the parties with the differing 19 views sp that there was complete assurance as could reasonably 20 be expected that each other's views were clearly understood.
21 At least, I think in my division that, ifsuchj 22 an inspector held a view, he would be reminded that he had an 23 opportunity to go to the next level of management and discuss 24 the differences.
25-I also feel confident that a supervisor below
~
t_____
18 I
me, for example, if he were faced with that situation, would
\\
independently come to me and tell me about the disagreement 3
and give me his views.
So, we would go t!hrough that kind of 4
process.
l 5
Imd again, ultimately, if there was not accep-d 6
tance on the part of a person holding a dif ferent view, then a
7 they'd be reminded that the DPO could be filed.
0 But my own personal view is that most situations I
9 where there is a dif ference of a view are not associated with i
i 10 matters that are earthshaking and nine cases out of ten or f
11 forty-nine out of fifty, the inspector will defer to the fact 12 that the manager has a broader kind of perspective to apply 13 to a given mdtter and that, because of that--
that different 14 perspective, they recognize that the matter might be handled 15 differently.
16 0
In something like this, would it be appropriate l
17 to go to a third party or an independent person?
For example, i
l 18 what if there was a disagreement on the interpretation of 1
19 an ANS'I code, would it be appropriate to go t o the board and 20 ask them what they meant when something was written?
Is that I
21 a step that's available?
l 22 A
It's a step we don't exercise very often.
The j 23 third-party airing occurs, at least in my experience, more 24 within the regional of fice in that people who have expertise 25 in a.certain area might be consulted.
If it's a mechanical o
19 j
l 1
issue or electrical issue, we'd go to people in our regional of fice who really possess the most expertise in those areas 3
and rely on that as, in a sense, some ind'ependent view on a 4
particular matter.
5 Certainly in the NRR,--
I've worked in the
)
1 6
NRR, also.
--we've worked more closely with standards--
7 industry standards setting organizations than peop1'e do in the 8
regions.
9 o
Let me ask, getting back to--
10 A
Just let me add one more thing.
Generally, 11 the process--
We do have a process that's generically applic-12 able, wheth.er it's an industry code question or just a 13 technical question.
We, in the regions, will go'back to 14 branches in INE that provide inspection program guidance in 15 these different functional areas.
And if we have a question, 16 we would--
the program calls for us to go to them to get 17 direction on the resolution of a particular technical issue.
18 Again going back to the headquarters reference, 19 if they felt it was necessary to go to a standards organica-20 tion, they would more likely be the one that would do it 21 than we in the region directly.
j 22 Q
Based on your contact with Mr. Westerman and j
23 Mr. Eric Johnson, do you feel that they share the same 24 philosophical views toward regulation?
Do they line up with 25 each other'quite a bit?
~
l'
20 1
A I don't see large dissimilarities in their
. views of themselves as regulators.
3 0
If an inupector were to ha've a problem with 4
Mr. Westerman and so he decided to go to the next person who, l
5 I've been told, is Mr. Johnson,--
6 l
A Yes.
j Q
--would he be faced with getting the'same j
l 8
response back, or would he get a fair review of his concerns, I
9 er would he just get.Mr. Westerman's response back all over 10 again?
II A
I believe that Eric Johnson would give a fair 12 review o-f a matter that were brought to his at.tention.
He's, I3 also in my view, a highly principled man, and I think he takes 14 any concern or question that's brought to him as a serious one v
i 15 and would give it his best objective assessment.
l 16 On an inspection finding or how to deal with 17 an inspection finding, specifically though, after that revies 30 process, because of the fact that I don 't see great dissimi-19 larities in their view of what a regulator should be, I
'O wouldn't think that the ultimate resolution might diffe-1 21 greatly between the two.
I 22 Q
Would an inspector'have the freedom to go abovej L
23 Mr. Johnson?
24 A
Yes.
25 Q
Who would that be that he would go to?
t i
21
.s.
I A
The Regional Administrator--
Well, first, 2
the Deputy Regional Administrator if he chose--
if the 3
person chose to do thet.
~
4 Q
Does that happen very often?
5 A
It's happened on infrequent occasions since-6 Mr. Martin - has _ been Cr:re.
.I've had one or'two inspectors 7
go to Mr. Martin with' a concer-about the way a particular 8
matter was handled relative:to a licensee.
9 O
Now, this may be a--
somewhat of a repeated 10 question, but during your time when you'were involved with 11
. Comanche Peak, did you ever pick up an attitude by Region IV 12
' management not to find anything wrong with Comanche Peak?
13 A
No.
Again, as I said, I think there was more
-14 cf a view that we had to find everything that was wrong 15 because there was so much attention being focused on the' site 16 and we had to make sure that evsrything that was wrong was 17 identified and corrected because it was important--
it was
~
18 important for the Region ~ to do so at that time.
19 0
Do you know of any unresolved safety issues at 20 Comanche Peak?
21 A
Well, I have lost track with what the' ongoing, 22 current, outstanding issues are with the--
with that plant.
23 So, I don't personally know what matters are still outstanding, 24 0
Do you know of anybody in the Region who 25 feels that they do know of unresolved safety issues that have
22 1
be'en put down to not--
you know, not voice any concerns?
A only by third-party hearsay, in that because 3
of the reason we're here, I know that there is some concern
'4 voiced by individual--
an individual or individuals that 5
certain matters aren't being handled properly.
6 O
Are you aware of the 766 reporting system--
l l
7 A
Yes, yes.
[
8 Q
--requirement?
9 A
Yes.
10 0
Are you aware of any problems with the accuracy!
11 of the 766 reports?
l 12 A
766--
The 766 system, in general, has been, 13 in most people's views, plagued with inaccuracies for years.
14 0
What sort of inaccuracies?
l 15 A
The concerns--
The sources of inaccuracies i
16 appear to run the gamut.
Over the years, there's been prob-17 lems with inspectors coding the forms properly.
There have 18 been problems about the data being entered into the system l
19 properly.
And taken together, when historically people have 20 called for reports based on 766 data, because of those prob-l 21 lems, there's not been a great deal of confidence placed in l
22 the numbers or the data that's been generated.
l 33 And much of the time, if you wanted to be 24 certain about the information that was given to you in a 766 25 report, you had to also spend the effort to go back and do a
23 1
manual records check to be sure that it looked reasonable to you.
And once you took that additional step, then you could 3
make a decisicn as to whether.to rely or hot rely on that t
4 particular 766 report.
5 Q
Do you have any knowledge or are you aware of 6
situations where 766s will reflect an inspection procedure 7
as being a hundred percent complete, and the 766 wi'11 reference 8
back to various inspection reports, but when you pull the 9
inspection reports, there's nothing in the inspection report I
10 that even hints at any work being done on that inspection I
11 procedure?
12 A
I have a general recollection that that comment 13 may have been made during the summe; of '84 as a result of 14 having gone through the historical completion of the inspection 15 program down at Comancl$e Peak.
16 The general problem of relying on 766 data was 17 the one that we were faced with, and we did have--
We had i
18 to go back to look at hard copies of inspection reports and 19 766 data to see whether they were consistent with one another 1
20 in terms of completion of the inspection program.
l t
21 And as I say, I think there may have been l
22 occasions like the one that you described that we discovered.
1 23 Q
If you were going--
Not you personally, but 24 if management or an intervenor or a licensee or anybody was l
25 trying to decide whether or not an inspection procedure had
-4 i
u________-___
24 1
been, in fact, done, would the place to go be the 766 output?
1 The computer output that provide the base for the 766s?
1 3
A well, that would be one place.
As I've I
4 indicated, the other place would be to look at inspection i
5 reports to see whether or not certain inspections had been j
i 6
completed.
l 7
We explored that question with peop1b that had 8
been involved with the inspection program at Comanche Peak, 9
and'in regard to the offset of what the inspection report 10 said and what the 766 said.
And if I remember correctly, in 11 addition to just out and out errors in the coding of the form, 12 the explanations were, like:
Well, it was done, but it wasn't 13 documented fully enough so that you could recognize it.
That 14 kind of thing.
15 0
But is that appropriate for an inspector to' 16 look at something and not put it in theinspection report, but 17 on the 766 say, Well, I recall doing something on structural 18 steel or whatever?
And then using that to close out--
19 A
We dora ' t--
l 20 0
or should it be in the inspection report?
l 21 A
I think the general answer is:
Yeah, it ought 22 to be in the inspection report.
23 And in my division now, we almost always do 24 that.
I say with some reservation, however, because the 25 resident inspector is more of a generalist, and his activities c
-25 1
include walking through every day, observing activities that 2
are ongoing.
And.there may be' specific things that he' observe s 3
in a month thai: ' don't get captured in.the' inspection report.
4 Otherwise, it would be voluminous in nature.
5 I recognize that some of the documentation'that 6
a resident inspector generates in terms of reports is going to 7
be, perhaps, more general in nature than.an individbal,.
l 8
Region-based specialist inspection--
inspector.
9 0
As far as the reasons for the discrepancies, is 10 there any indication that inspectors were purposefully I
d 11 completing these forms to show inspection work that they didn't i
12 do just to indicate that, you know, trie procedures were done?
13 A
I had no indicat'on--
Or, nobody--
I had i
14 no reason to believe that, and I don't believe anybody ever 15 voiced that view to me that they just completed the form to 16 j
show that the work was done when it really wasn't.
(
17 0
Because on the surface when you look at the 18 form, it seems pretty straightforward.
I mean, there's an l
19 inspection procedure number, and there's so many hours dedi-20 cated to that procedure and how--
you know, it's twenty 21 percent done.
I mean, it seems pretty straightforward.
And i
22 you read the report, and there's just nothing there.. It's 23 kind of a baf fling situation as to why are.these things so 24 inaccurate.
It doesn't seem to be that difficult of a-form 25 to complete.
-)
t 26 1
I A
The problem of accurate and complete rep.orting 3~
on 766 has not been isolated to Comanche Peak.
It's been a l
3 difficult area for years and in all inspe'ction programs.
i 4
Without detailed supervisory oversight, errors 5
can occur in those, and one of the reasons they occur is that 6
technical inspectors don't enjoy fillir.g out forms and doing 7
work l'ike that, and they tend to--
not across the board, but 8
'on some occasions, certain inspectors don't pay as much atten-9 tion to that part of the job as they do the technical aspects 10 of it, II Q
But the problem isn't recognized.
.So, if you 12 want to find out if an inspection procedure has, in fact, 13 been done, you go back to the inspection reports.
I assume 14 that's the way to verify it now.
Is that accurate?
i 15 l
A That's what a prudent person would do.
i 16 I might say that we do have in place in the 17 Region guidance that says 766 accompanies the inspection I
i 18 report as it goes through the concurrence chain now so that 19 the supervisors at least will have the opportunity to review 20 the information that'c on the 766 versus the report itself
?
I 21 to be sure that the two are consistent with one another.
22 Q
During your time on the TRT, did you have any I
23 occasion to witness any instances of inspectors being 24 embarrassed in front of licensee by Region IV management?
25 By that, I mean, you know, an inspector briefiaq on a finding I
i
27 l
1 or a violation and having somebody from the region sitting in i
2 the audience rolling their eyes or shaking their head or, 1
3 you know, showing visible disagreement with what the inspector l
4 is saying.
5 A
I believe there may have been an occasion like 6
that.
Or maybe two.
7 Q
Could you describe those?
The ones that you l
8 can recall.
9 A
I don't remember the specific subjects that we j
10 were discussing with the licensee, 'but there was--
at least, 11 I can remember one occasion where an NRC person in attendance 12 did give body movements and facial movements such that it 13 appeared to some others who were there associated with the f 14 NRC that there was less than complete agreement among the NRC 15 staff.
16 0
What would that do as far as the licensee's I
17 perspective, you know, receiving an outbriefing and seeing 18 that?
Would that lessen the impact of the....
fi 19 A
I think not because the highest level--
This
-\\
20 kind of behavior did not--
certainly didn't occur at the i
21 management level, and management was in attendance at all of l
22 these meetings.
And they were presenting the findings to the 23 licensee and standing behind the findings based on the infor-24 mation that was at hand at that point in time.
25 So, it may have been embarrassing if that were l
1 1
28 f
I noted by the licensee, but I don't think that it caused the l
licensee to be any less responsive or take--
or view the 3
finding with any less seriousness than he'would otherwise.
u, l
Q What was the name of the person that was showing
)
5 the disagreement?
j 6
A Doyle Hunnicutt.
7 0
Do you recall the name of the inspec' tor that l
8 was doing the briefing?
9 A
I can remember on one occasion we were discuss-10 ing, I believe, the reporting of 50.55(e) items.
I believe 11 Mr. Cummings was presenting tu findings at that particular j
12 meeting with the licensee.
.j 13 l
If it occurred en <another occasion, I don't i
14 remember the. individuals or the subject at hand.
A 15 t
g Why at that late date?
Why was there still j
16 that--
I don't know if you recall or not, but why was there
\\
l 17 stil'1 that disagreement at the point where you've got the I
18 inspector was on the findings and somebody else just--
19 A'
Well, I think we weren't in disagreement,
{
l i
20 necessarily, going into the meeting.
It was a situation where 1
21 presenting the findings or the concern to the licensee, he 22 gave us additional information.
In this particular case, we l
23 held fast to our initial view, and whatever differences there 24 were developed as---
during the course of hearing the licensee 25 present his views on the matter.
a I
1 m__m_
__a_m.
29
'I
,So, we.didn't walk'in there knowing that'there was. going to be a difference in view among the NRC staff.
It-3 develop'ed during the course of the discussion apparently.
4 And there wasn't a view that the difference 5'
in view didn't prevail long afterwards, because it eventually 6
got resolved.
7 Q
Have you noticed, on the part of any'of the 8
Region IV management, an attittide of trying to handle viola-9 t' ions and concerns or deficiencies on a more informal matter 10 that if the licensee is going-to provide more information after 11 an inspection is done, we'll consider that, and if that 12 resolves the issue, don't write the violation, just take care I
13 of it informally?
14 A
Well, it's a--
As a general rule, if the I6 licensee can provide more infomation to us that would cause /
16 us to change our view of a particular finding, we' leave the 17 door open until such time as the report is prepared.
If he 18 hasn't given us any additional information that would change 19 our view on a particular matter, then we continue on our 20 original course.
21 so,.I don't know of any direction'that's been 22 provide'd by management that says try to handle matters 23 informally. We certainly recognize that there are occasions 24 when the licensee may have difficulty uncovering certain 25 information that we think is instrumental in a certain
4
\\
30
..n t
t s
I pa rtic y 7. 5. 'r ca d.
x 1
But the dihection diat-
, and guidance :that s
I we receive from Bob Me tin is what I dould characterize as j
beinginthedirectioncfadding[oro-formalitytothedocu-t 5
l n'
ge mentation andsinspection process, rather 'tilan less p't mality.
I,
)
(1 t (! c
- {
6 o
' On thc;oart of a'dividuals--' Let 's get awart t l
3, t
.j
, s 7
from Region IV manage 1,Ien t, as 4 whole.
AutlUn the part of j
s t
E individuals, are thede any individuals 'in hegion IV tiJtt -
8 J
N 7
-.. w 4.,, l, s
,e,
\\1 9
seem more willing to handle c.hings infoi.Taally, "rathGE",tn/r,s\\ '
\\
s s
10 going to the formal order of writing the violation and having
,3 f
[-
11 the licensee reply in writing?
[
l e
+
12 A
Wel1,' I think therp certainly are a rangen.d i
g e
13 regulatory styles that people.in the Region endorse, and all N
14 the differing styles are developed in response to what people
!'s' s
15 read and understand to be the guidance.provided to tis in jMi 1
16 t.he regulations and the IE manual.-N
-t 17 But even with that[ guile.nce in ple.ce,ithere's
\\
%g 18 room for people to interpret the kor;1s somewhat differently..,
s 19 And throughout tUs Region, certainly,some l \\t i
v s
20 people possess a view that 4 more. effective way to bring m.,
21 about an improvement on the pdrt of the licensee is to not (
4 Nl 22 fall into a "pactern of focusing on 'iiidividual nits, that it's '
s t; '?
s,,
23 more import. ant to focus on the bid issui problems.
.\\
24 And in terms of deali:?g with particular
- s
\\
3 x
s 25 finc~.ing s, there are a range of views'in the Region as to ld
~
s g A 6
..y 4-y
\\
s.,.,k V
(
+
} sl\\\\ l h.
31
\\
N t
I'
-4 whether we should come down very hard on a particular set of 1
findings and call'for escalated enforcement, for example,
^
or g
h,_ 13 kwhether the matter might be dealt, on the other hand, in a A,,;,
i k.
way that's, perhaps, less punitive and more along the lines
' S
}
l' of trying to work and identify to management thr'ough meetings l
t b :\\;arul discussions that an area is weak and is in need of atten-I l
' tion ',
s I
~
8 i
So, I don't see anything outside the bounds of 1
l j
s -
l 9
what I would expect to fi.nd in any organization like ours in 4
l 10 terms of approach to getting the job done, which means being l
11 sure that things are safe on the part of the licensce's I
I N
12 operations.
13 0
'You talked a couple minutes ago about accepting 14 information and input from the licensee up to the point where a
15 the report is issued.
I've noticed that some of these reports 16 take several months to get out.
Do you feel that the Region--
17 it 's appropriate for the Region--
After they do the exit i
i 18 briefing, ie it okay for the licensee to come in, you know, 19 during the preparation of the report and provide additional 20 information or--
There 's been a complaint made that, you l
21 know, we've given the licensee during the period of the inspech i
22 tion to provide us information and up to the point of the f
23 exit brifing, if they haven't provided it then, well, they 24 can provide it later on when we write the violation.
25
~
Like you said, there's another school of
i 1
32 I
1
~
thought that says, well, you know, as long as the report isn't
'1
~
issued and they have further input, we'll consider it.
{
3 A
We don't have, in the Regi'on that I'm aware of, written guidance in this area.
And I have seen reports l
l' 5
that identify violations because during the inspection, 6
certain documents or records couldn't be provided.
7 I'v.e seen other cases where we do al' low the 8
j licensee to continue to search for records or gather informa-r I
,Y tion, and we will accept it af ter the point in time that the l
10 exit interview is concluded.
II My own view is that--
and the one that I l'
promulgate in my division is that, as a matter of fairness,
~
i 13 if the licensee comes up with information that's relevant.to l
I4 the question at hand, even af ter the exit interview, that 15 we should give them credit for daat.
16 i
Certainly, we will go back and--
or, ask him 17 to provide a copy for us, or have the resident inspector, 18 for example, look at it so that we can confirm, indeed, that 19 the information is appropriate.
20 0
In the same line, I've been told that, well,
)
I if it takes that long just to retrieve a record, then they're '
l 21
)
l i
22 in violation of a--
one of the Appendix B criterion, and I
]
23 don't know if it's 18, but one of them that talks about 24 retrievability of records.
Therefore, we can get them for s
25 violation on lack of retrievability.
Do you think that.that's
-d h
J
J 33 I
an appropriate attitude?
2 A
Well, most of the inspections that are con-3 ducted in my normal division deal with ma'tters that are out-4 side the scope of Appendix 3.
So, I don't come across that 1
5' issue relative to Appendix B, and I didn't come across it, 6
that I can recollect, down at the Comanche Peak that summer 7
either.
So, I'm not in a position to give a knowle'dg.eable j
8 view on that subject because I don't know how that particular 9
criterion has been interpreted in the pasc.
10 0
okay.
Do you think that the Region IV inspec-11 tors are provided with sufficient training so they can ade-12 quately look at the QA area?
l 13 A
They should be.
We have a program in place 14 l
that speaks to the certification and qualification of each 15 inspector, th at his --
The IE manual has spoken to qualifica-tions necessary for inspectors for some lengthy period of time l
17 and it's been the Region's policy that the people who inspect i
l l
18 in any technical area satisfy the requirements that are i
19 called for in the manual to be qualified in those areas.
l 20 0
Do you think that the supervisors at the l
21 Region have a good feel for what the inspectors in the field 22 are actually doing?
23 A
Again, daey ' re supposed to be.
The ones that 24 I'm most familiar, I think, do.
We do have a Region policy J
25 that spells out the--
in a minimum sense, the number of times
34 l
1 that the first-level supervisors are supposed to be out in 2
the field accompanying their people so thac they can gain an 3
appreciation for just how good a job their inspectors are 4
doing and gain an appreciation for the licensee's programs 5
that are being inspected by us.
9 6
Q And you know of no instance where Region IV 7
supervisors have discouraged inspectors from writing violations.
8 or, you know, identifying findings as a result of their 9
inspections.
j 10 A
Not as a general--
Not in a general sense, 11 no.
I mean, there clearly are times when an inspector comes 12 back with a finding that he may'think is possibly a violation 13 and after discussing it with a supervisor, it's determined I
14 that it isn't a violation.
i 15 But I know of no case where any general direc-
]
16 tion has been--
or guidance has been provided to an inspector i
17 to minimize the number of violations.
18 Q
Yeah.
I'm thinking more of an attitude where, 19 if you bring back a violation, it's. going to cause us problems 1
20 and going to cause the licensee problems, it's going to slew l
l 21 things down.
So, therefore, let's not go creating, you know, f
22 too many problems.
That sort of an attitude.
l t
23 Q
No.
Again,--
And this is going straight to 24 the Regional Administrator.
His direction to the staff and 25 supervisors and managers within the Region is that a violation l
l
1 35
, n 1
is a violation is a violation.
We'll deal with a violation i
in an appropriate way, but if we identify one, we will call it 3
a violation.
4 O
Let me ask you just a question about NRC 5
consultants out at the Comanche Peak site.
6 Do you have any information or any indication 7
at all that the NRC consultants are being steered a*way from 8
quality assurance and encouraged to look at, you know, quality 9
i' control of hardware type problems, that they're more easy to 10 find and to repair.
11 A
I don't have any knowledge of that.
12 Q
And do you have any knowledge that the NRC' 13 consultants have been told to confine their inspections to 14 followup of the Comanche Peak Response Team findings and not l
l 15 to develop any new iss.ues?
l
]
16 i
A Again, I have no knowledge of that because I l
17 haven't been involved with the followup of the TRT findings.
18 MR. MULLEY:
Well, I have nothing else.
Do you 19 have pything you'd like to add before we conclude the inter-20 view?
f i
21 THE WITNESS:
No, that's all I have to say.
l t
1 22 MR. MULLEY:
Well, thank you very much.
We're i
23 through.
24 (Whereupon, at 3:17 p.m., the interview was 25 concluded.)
-i 4
i u_____.________-_--------
.t.
I REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE i
2 3
I hereby certify that the proceedings herein r
4 are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me p
I 5
during the sworn interview of an June 25, I
lm M
l 6
1986, coc:mencing at 2 : 06 p.m., and that this is a true and 7
accurate transcript of the same.
8 9
M)
Sandra Harden 10 Reporter 11 My Commission expires:
6-4-89.
12 13 1
14 15 16 17 18
}
19 e
20
?
i 21 I
22 i
23 24 i
I
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.