Interview of Bruce Campbell //01
c BEFORE THE NTIONL TRNSPORTTION SFETY BORD 1 FIELD INTERVIEWS 1 1 EL PS0 NTURL GS COMPNY ) NO. DC00MP00 1 Kayser Center I 1st Floor Conference Room 0 N. Stanton El Paso, Texas Thursday, pril, 01 $* L; The interview began at :0 a.m. Interview of: PPERNCES: BRUCE S. CMPBELL On behalf of the Witness: SNFORD M. SUNDERS, JR., ES. kin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P. 1 New Hampshire venue, N.W., Suite 00 Washington, D.C. 0 () BENNIE BRNES Manager, West Pipeline Corrosion Services El Paso Corp. 1 E. th Street, Suite 0 Tucson, rizona ()
r LJ PPERNCES : (cont. ) On behalf of the NTSB: RVIND M. CHHTRE CLIFF ZIMMERMN ccident Investigators National Transportation Safety Board Office of Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 0 L'Enfant Plaza East, S.W. Washington, D.C. () 1 On behalf of the U.S. DOT: RICHRD J. LOPEZ, Sr. Engineer GUSTIN LOPEZ, Engineer U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Pipeline Safety Research and Special Programs dministration LaBranch, Suite Houston, Texas 00 (1)... m.
WITNESSES: BRUCE S. CMPBELL EXMINTION
L; 1 1 PBCEEDINGS MR. ZIMMERMN: I am Cliff Zimmerman. I am the investigator in charge of this accident for the NTSB, the accident being the rupture at El Paso Natural Gas' pipeline on ugust the th, 00, south of Carlsbad. This interview today is with Bruce Campbell. BY MR. ZIMMERMN: EXMINTION nd would you state your full name, sir? Bruce S. Campbell. nd a business address where you can be reached? El Paso Natural Gas Company, 01 trisco, N.W., lbuquerque, New Mexico 1. now? pr..&/a nd, Bruce, what's your position with the company f e Compliance Engineer, lbuquerque Division. Okay. Why don't you just give us a little background on your history with El Paso Gas and how you progressed through the company? With El Paso, I started with El Paso on July 1, 0. I was a Compliance Engineer in Farmington, New Mexico. I was there for seven months. Transferred to Flagstaff. nd I was there about a yearandahalf and moved to lbuquerque. I've been in lbuquerque ever since. Okay. How about prior experience? '.
/ 1!i 1 I was Director of the Pipeline Division for the New Mexico State Corporation Commission from to.. ny other pipeline experience? /F $W. I did some consulting with small operators between and 0. since 1? Can you So you've had the same position then Nineteen ninety essentially. Yeah. Can you then give us your, give us a little background, well, first of all give us a little background on your education and training? Bachelor's Degree in liberal arts, University of New Mexico,. nd worked as a journalist for eight years. Got a Civil Engineering Degree from the University of New Mexico in 0. Training in pipeline, you know, the major things you might have been trained in? cw Formal training, I had all the OPS / courses that were offered at the time between and. various seminars and what have you. Plus ny of the seminars, you know, of particular technical merit, anything regarding corrosion 01: do you recall what you might have attended? I had the NCE corrosion courses, the basic and cathodic protection courses.
d LJ 1 more than one? Basic. Did you have another one? Did you go to Went to the basic one and cathodic protection. They were two separate courses. recall? Okay. t the time. things like that. Okay. ll right. nything else that you can Oh, very short seminars, one, two day seminars, Okay. Can you tell us the basic responsibilities of your position? 1 Well, the primary responsibility is enforcing the OPS DOT pipeline safety regulations. nd when you say enforcing them how do you go about doing that in the company? We consult essentially with the operations people, the operations areas. nd we audit them on an annual basis for compliance. nd when you do those audits and you come up with deficiencies, how do you handle those? We, if it's something that can be corrected on the spot we'll get them to do that. If it's not we will write a report and send the report to the manager of the complex, or area as it is now, telling them essentially what they need
f'. ii 1 i 1 Li 1 to do, offering our assistance and giving them 0 days to respond. If they respond satisfactorily and they take care of everything, we check it out on follow up, it pretty much ends there. manager and division director saying everything's fine. not, we send the report to the compliance manager and division director and they can take it up further if necessary. nd we send a final report to the compliance You send the final report to the compliance manager and? Division director. nd the division director which would be the 1 &= complex persodsupervisor; is that? That's correct. If ii Now, if you can correct these things on the spot is there any documentation done that you corrected something that needed it? It depends on the nature of the thing. Most often something that you can do on the spot is a missing piece of documentation that they find while you're there. Okay. In which MR. ZIMMERI": case we probably would not document it. Okay, thank you. I think at this point I will just pass the questions to Ravi.
L,, 1 kij. 1 1 BY MR. CHHTRE: Hello. I'm Ravi Chhatre, I'm with NTSB. MR. ZIMMERMN: I'm sorry. Before you go ahead and start let's go around the table here so that everybody is introduced to you before we go any further. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Pipeline Safety. Safety. MR. R. LOPEZ: I'm Richard Lopez, Office of MR.. LOPEZ: gustin Lopez, Office of Pipeline MR. BRNES: Bennie Barnes, El Paso Corporation. MR. SUNDERS: Sandy Saunders from kin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer f Feld as the personal representative for the interviewee. sorry to interrupt. MR. ZIMMERMN: Okay. Now go ahead, Ravi. I'm MR. CHHTRE: No problem. BY MR. CHHTRE: You said your primary responsibility is enforcing DOT pipeline safety regulations? Well, rather than use the term enforcing let's say ensuring compliance with. Okay. nd during your annual audits will you be looking at all aspects of DOT compliance or you just kind of target certain areas?
1 No, we do 0 percent audit. Would that involve the corrosion control? Yes. nd are you familiar with the Section 1., page 1 through, dated //, that says "Operating and Maintenance Procedures General; Subject: Corrosion Control"? a 1 Generally. I will give it to you to take a look at. (Witness reviews document.) You are? Generally. ll right. You can keep that. During your audit will you follow these procedures 1 for corrosion control for auditing purposes to ensure compliance? Whatever is appropriate. We would go through the annual CP monitoring surveys. We would go through the checks of power sources, rectifiers and so on. We would look for anything that's anomalous. We would look at the bell hole reports to ensure that they did a proper and thorough pipe inspection. We'd look for things like exposed pipe to make sure it was inspected. and so on. We'd look at remedial action forms So now in your opinion if a corrosive gas is \
transported through the pipeline, look at item, would you IO ib a # 1 s i 1 look for compliance on that? This is page of, item. If we were aware of any that was being transported. During your audit will you be checking to see if the corrosive gas was transported? Would that be a part of your audit? Well, we wouldn't be checking gas quality samples, if that's what you mean. No. Would you be, would you be asking questions if the corrosive gas was transported through the pipeline during your audit or you would not? Not unless there was some reason to believe that there might have been corrosive gas transported. that? nd what would give you the reason to believe I haven't seen any. I'm sorry, I'm lost. What you haven't seen? I haven't seen any reason to believe that there was corrosive gas being transported on any of the transmission lines that we examined. But how would you know the corrosive gas was transmitted? I'm not sure what do you mean by you have no reason to believe. How would you know? What may give you a reason not to believe that corrosive gas is transported?
1 1 1 What would be your criteria to decide whether the gas was transported or not transported? I'm not sure I understand. Okay, let me back up. audit for item. If the corrosive gas is transported then you will gas was not transported through the pipeline as a process of your audit? How will you make sure that corrosive I just would not see any reason to question that unless I had some specific reason to believe there was. (Witness and counsel confer.) Go ahead. I was going to say there is a question on our auditing procedure as to coupons for corrosive gas. So we would be asking them if they had an coupons in the line. nd are you aware of what makes the gas corrosive per El Paso's specs? consider? specs. what they all are. Do you know what El Paso would I'm not, I'm not aware offhand of the gas quality I mean I'm aware they exist but I couldn't tell you Okay. Was a part of your audit if the coupons are required and the coupons are not there would you consider it as a deficiency? '.
1 If they were required and not there, yes. nd what would require them to install the. 1 1 coupons? & If they had corrosive gas *that they were aware P of,coupons would be one method of dealing with that. In doing your audit you said you would ask them if they have coupons in the line. Would you ask them at that time, if the answer is no would you ask them did they have a corrosive gas going through the line or you would not ask that? I might ask if they wer aware of any, any LLd L corrosive gas. But I across any in any of the transmission lines so it's somewhat of a moot point. When you say you're not aware, meaning that you are not aware of coupons installed in the transmission lines; is that correct? g/r corrosive gas, to my knowledge. nd for you to believe the corrosive gas is not transported you will be relying on the answer of the superintendent or? Primarily, yes. (Witness and counsel confer.) THE WITNESS: Yeah, let me clarify that. MR. CHHTRE: Okay. THE WITNESS: We don't have superintendents '.
1 1 1 anymore. BY MR. CHHTRE: Okay. managers then? We have managers. Okay, so would you be relying on the answers of The manager, yeah. Or where there was the superintendent title was there would you be relying on them? There was at one timea superintendent. Right. Because you guys have reorganized several times maybe I am using not the charge? Yes. correct term. But whoever the person in That's correct. Okay. But would you require them to give you evidence that the corrosive gas was not transported or would you ask the manager to provide you a reason that the corrosive gas was not transported through the pipe or you would not ask for that No, I would not. ' as a part of your audit? I would not ask for it. re you familiar with the line 100 Is it 1
1 _ 1 ti 1 Roswe? Roswell, yes, sir. Roswell failure circa? Yes, sir. Were you an auditor for that particular line? Yes. For portions of it within my area. Was it prior to 100 failure or was it after? Both. nd as a part of postaccident audit did you ask during your audit the question of corrosive gas to them? We examined the question of gas quality, yes. Now, as a result of line 100 rupture, during your audit did you ask them if they had installed coupons in the line? &+ NO. k$# s prf of /nu~~d&drr,, s a part of the audit process would you consider e lye were not aware of any transportation of corrosive gas that would require coupons. We looked not as Pn & part of ~&FS audit but as part of the investigation of that failure at the quality of gas and what might have caused that failure. re you aware of the report that was issued by El
Y i: 1 Paso as a result of that accident? Yes. s a result of that accident on line 100 did your auditing process change for line 100 or any other lines as a result of the accident? No, I don't believe so. In your audit will you be looking at the external corrosion cathodic protection deficiencies? Yes. Now, can you explain what your audit would involve for internal #+.. L.: L: 1 1 inspection reports to determine that they had been examined for any evidence of internal corrosion. nything else you would be asking during your audit on internal corrosion? e No. Did the audit involve the gas quality? udits? No. Now, I'm referring to line 11 and. Were those two lines in your jurisdiction? No. Were you familiar with the corrosion, internal corrosion on line and 11? No.
/ b 1.n. 1 bi 1 nd how many people in the auditing group? In the group, in the compliance group? Right now or? I would say. Would have had two people in Midland, one in El Paso, two in Tucson, one in Flagstaff and one in lbuquerque. nd so, what, seven is that, something like that? Something, yes. Okay. Is there any internal communication between the auditors as to what they found any deficiencies or lessons learns or something like that? = There's some. We regular meetings every so often and discuss any common problems. s a result of Carlsbad accident did your auditing process changed, if any? No, I don't think so. Our auditing process was pretty clear to begin with, I don't know that there was any change subsequent to that. questions? MR. CHHTRE: That's all for me. Thank you much MR. ZIMMERMN: Richard, do you have some MR. R. LOPEZ: Yes, I do. BY MR. R. LOPEZ: Bruce, you're part of a Codes and Compliance
et 1 Group? It's just Compliance now. Okay. nd while you were part of it was it ever Compliance as well, as they call it, or did you say you had, you worked for Don Payne? That's correct. nd you guys would effect changes to the 0&M? Yes. For example, if regulations changed then you would lo incorporate whatever requirements and regulations changed Right. into the 0&M? 1 That's correct. 1 Conversely, if you saw something in the field that you saw might improve the safety for safe operation of the pipeline would that also be changed? That's correct. ia nd it was primary from input from the field? Input from the field or from the compliance group. From the audits? From audits. From accident investigations? If it was applicable. Okay. You were the lead on the Roswell ' accident investigation; correct?
.. 1 1 ia O&M? That's correct. Did you make any recommendations to change the Not that I recall. Okay. There have been some recent changes to the 0&M with respect to internal corrosion. prompted these changes? Do you know what I'm not really aware of what those changes were. s far as I know the changes were all in the Corrosion Manual which is more or less incorporated by reference. But the 0&M Manual itself pretty much reflects only the regulations. Okay. That's correct. When I say the O&M I'm Corrosion Manual. yes, just talking about the Corrosion Manual. nd I'm not, I couldn't really tel you specifically what those changes were. You cannot? No. You're not familiar with the 00 internal corrosion procedures then? Not that familiar with them. Okay. Do you know when they went into effect? Not offhand. MR. R. LOPEZ: Okay. That's all.
i; 1 1 1, MR. ZIMMERMN: gustin? MR. R. LOPEZ: No questions. MR. ZIMMERMN: Bennie? MR. BRNES: I have nothing. MR. ZIMMERMN: Okay. BY MR. CHHTRE: Richard, I'd like you to if you could give me your background on the guidelines that you use to do your audits? The guidelines? Uhhuh. We have a manual or uality ssurance uditing I think it's called that sets forth guidelines for how we do the audits, forms we use, the time frames for making reports and getting responses and so on and so forth. Generally we use a specific form that sets out all the areas that we've gone through, the regulations that we need to look at to ensure compliance with all the Part. Do you then is that like a checklist or is it a checklist or how do you go, how do you use it aur It's like a checklist expanded checklist I suppose you could say because we go into it a little more subjectively probably than simply checking off something. So as a result of your compliance audit do you generate any paperwork for yourself that shows that you've looked at all these areas or you've asked questions and '.
1 1 1 gotten answers? Yes, sir. Okay. We have the form that we send citing any deficiencies. Plus we have the forms that we filled out, checked as we go along and made comments on as we go along and on each location. We have a separate one for each compressor station and each pipeline district. nd we have one for general files. Okay. Whose responsibility is it to ensure that the O&M Manuals and other procedures are effectively distributed? Well, it's been Don Payne's up until this time. I guess it would be Pat Carey's now as Compliance Director. nd Don Payne is no longer the Compliance Director; is that Was it Don Payne? Payne. Don Payne? Compliance Manager. nd the other guy, Carey? MR. ZIMMERMN: Off the record? Can we go off the record for a minute? (Discussion off the record.) MR. ZIMMERMN: Back on the record. THE WITNESS: The new changes to the Corrosion '...
' = f"' '.ij 1 Manual, the ones that I'm not, you now, specifically familiar with are ones that I will be familiarizing myself with before we go through the next audit cycle. We're between audit ycles right now for me. flex F starting U month. MR. R. LOPEZ: Okay, thank you. BY MR. ZIMMERMN: nd that will be Okay. Just to finish up on that area, when was the last audit cycle that you went through? I think I finished them probably last June. i 1 00. 1 date. 00. nd that would be June of? Could have been July. I'm not sure of the exact Okay. Your supervisor right now is who? Who do you report to right now? Ken report to? I think Ken Peters. Okay. nd what's his title? Compliance Manager. Pat Carey. Pat Carey, okay. Okay. nd his supervisor at this time, who does nd at the time of the accident in Carlsbad in '.
c 1 00 who was your supervisor? Don Payne. Thank you. How does the Compliance Group ensure that O&M procedures are distributed properly? We provide training on the O&M Manual periodically. This year we're doing it in four modules, four parts at a time. nd the 0&M Manuals and all the manuals actually now are online so that everybody has online access to them. nd do you, do you or does someone else send out a notification when a new procedure is created? F 1 Yes. Or incorporate that into our training. Okay. How is that, how do you make that L' 1 notification since the standard is online, and what method would you use to? We would not make a notification for very minor ia things like editorial changes that don't have any substantive impact. For anything major we would email something to the managers of all the areas. Okay. nd the directors. re you aware of the existence of a procedure called number 00, Internal Corrosion Control, that was dated / of 00? I'm aware of it.
h u' in time? Do you have any familiarity with it at this point I have some familiarity, yeah. I'm not intimately a / 1 L; 1 familiar with it. re you MR. CHHTRE: Can we go off the record for a minute? MR. ZIMMERMN: Okay, yeah. We'll go off the record. (Discussion off the record.) MR. CHHTRE: Back on the record. BY MR. CHHTRE: This procedure was apparently effective on //00. nd I guess I'm wondering if you incorporated it into your audit procedures? Yeah, not that I can think of. Do you know if any of the items that are in here are, you know, part of your planning for your next round of I'll review that before the next round and see if there is any need to change the auditing procedures to accommodate it. When was the last time that you changed your audit compliance contents, questions, checklist, whatever you want to call it?
I couldn't tell you offhand. Do you recall if there were any changes made, you know, before you made like the 00, if you can think about that for a second? Was anything changed for 00? I can't think of any. questioning to you, Ravi. MR. ZIMMERMN: Okay. ll right, I'll pass the BY MR. CHHTRE: I have two followup questions. nd one you may have already answered but I didn't take the notes. Referring to the Carlsbad accident, line 1, sister line and other line 10, would those be in your... 1 jurisdiction? 1 No, sir. kaj.._ Okay. You did mention that all the compliance engineers meet periodically and you guys have informally exchange information? We used to. You no longer do that? I don't know when the next one's scheduled for. I haven't seen anything. So those are kind of scheduled meetings in the past? In the past we had meetings, yes. nd how often those meetings were?... '.
c 1 1 I think every three or four months. Don could * probably give you a better/ c? Wcr nd when was the last meeting? The last meeting of the entire group ',I don' t remember. Was there a meeting after Carlsbad accident? I don't recall any of the entire Compliance Group, no. There may have been, I just don't remember one. I seem to go to so many meetings. Were you an author of this report that was issued as a result of line 100 rupture? of this accident? Yes. I was one of them. nd what was your contribution in this report? Primarily as a coordinator and I wrote the drafts. nd did you see any audit deficiencies as a result No. In your recommendations that were made in this report do you know if all of them were followed? I couldn't tell you entirely. I mean if I made a statement it's probably hearsay. Now, since the recommendations were made would that be a part of your audit to see if these recommendations are followed? Possibly. You know, I could tell you that some of
a C 1 1 them I'm perfectly aware were followed because the smart pigging was done, the cleaning pigging was done. I'm aware that they put in some moisture analyzers and that they checked the water content on some of the gas. nd I couldn't tell you what else was done specifically. I know there was some renovation that came about as a result of this also and some hydrostatic testing at least in connection, conjunction with that. nd as a compliance engineer would the recommendations from this would be the guidelines for other pipelines? e Not necessarily. This is a specific instance and P that's aimed at a specific situation, particular failure. So in your opinion then would you consider this, these recommendations only applicable to line 100? Yes. ny other information from the reports would you consider applicable to other pipelines? aimed at. They could be, but that wasn't what the report was Did you use the information from this to modify your auditing for the other pipelines? No. MR. CHHTRE: Thanks. Cliff? MR. ZIMMERMN: gustin? '.
p. b, 1 MR.. LOPEZ: No. MR. R. LOPEZ: I have one. MR. ZIMMERMN: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes? MR. R. LOPEZ: I have one or two followup questions. MR. ZIMMERMN: Yes. Go ahead, Richard. BY MR. R. LOPEZ: With regard to changing your audit inspection forms who is responsible for that? Les White was the one who was making changes when there are changes to be made. But did he decide what changes are to be made? No. That would be decided by Don. Okay. M k t h our inputs yeak Okay. Now, today who is responsible for that? That's a good question. I would think Don would probably still be in that role. MR. R. LOPEZ: ll right, that's all I've got. MR. ZIMMERMN: nything else? MR.. LOPEZ: I have. MR. ZIMMERMN: Go ahead, gustin. BY MR.. LOPEZ: Who's in charge of making changes to the O&M? The changes to the 0&M there's a process now where
? &' 1 1 they go into a log for proposed changes. It's all done out of Houston now. nd I have some input into that. nd Darren Moore who's my counterpart with Tennessee has input into that. Then we have a group of people who meet periodically. That includes heretofore it has included Don, myself, Les White, Darren Moore, Pat Carey, Ken Peters and John Sterrett who was with field services so I guess won't be in there anymore since they have an entirely different operatiom nd we get together every three months or so and talk about changes to the OCM Manual. nd they'd either be approved or disapproved. nybody can propose a change. ll they have to do is take it to the Compliance Engineer, Compliance representatives and it will be put before that group. nd so whoever proposes the change writes the procedure changes or? They might write the changes. We may modify the change. Modify it. Corrosion I would say pretty much does their own. The Corrosion Group? Corrosion Group, yeah. So that would be Babnick or? R.kaae fr U Both the eastern and the western corrosion
., *. LJ 1 a 1 1 ia /+ people. I know they meet seve~%&, fairly often. But they had the primary input into revising the corrosion L regulations. That's why I'm not personally familiar with the specifics. MR.. LOPEZ: Thank you. MR. ZIMMERMN: Bennie? BY MR. BRNES: Back to the Roswell 100 line, when the team was putting together this report and also the work that was done following the recommendations following the report was there reason to believe that this as an isolated incident, again at the time? Yes. nd why was that, what were the reasons? Well, several reasons. One, we could not fin any /+=+ v &Gf/YC & d. &PxL ctrbvs" evidence of current corrosion. m+ was completely indeterminate. That line, the circumstances of that line were somewhat unique in that you had two receipt points very close to that area where it ruptured. nd one of them historically * had problems with the producer & fde "GR/f putting water, getting water into that line. nd kkq put that on disconnect. My understanding was that one of the major reasons for it being on disconnect was because of the water problem. You had the situation where that line used to run Executive Court Reporters, Inc, '.
. 'cc/ < 1 1 0 to the northwest and connect with the California lines with Permian gas. In Or let me back up a little bit. were Before for several years therevvery low flows, there wasn't much demand for that gas going west. So they didn't have an awful lot of flow on that line. nd there % were a lot of almost static conditions,,,my understanding. In they reversed the flow on that line. nd the line now runs it's bidirectional but primarily it runs from northwest to southeast. So you had a situation where you had a possibility of water being introduced into the low spots in that area where it ruptured. nd you had a situation where you did not have the sort of volume or flow of gas that could be expected to move that or dissipate that moisture. questions, sure. MR. ZIMMERMN: Thank you. MR. CHHTRE: I have a couple of questions. MR. ZIMMERMN: Okay. Ravi, have some more BY MR. CHHTRE: Going back to line 100 rupture, and you mentioned that you were responsible for auditing line 100? district or pipeline area, yes. 'V Were there any indications in your past audit that would require you to check and see if the corrosion coupons
1 c 1.. I 1. L' 1 or monitoring should be done over there? No. Was there any indication during your past audits, was there any indication at all that would give you some kind of a clue about the internal corrosion occurring on that line? None. So until that point during your audit did you know that there was a producer dumping a lot of moisture in that line? or would not be? No, I didn't know that until the investigation. Would those things would be a part of your audit It was not part. It was not part? Of the audit. Now, one of the recommendations coming out of Roswell report refers to the gas quality in the low spots to be checked? G~xrn/ kw pi c 1 k J crfl/, Since there was no prior indication until the rupture of line 100 that there was a problem and based on the recommendations made in that report did you make a change in audit or made a recommendation that as your auditing process that the low spots on the other lines
1 0 1 1 should be looked at? No. Can you elaborate? Could you? Why that recommendation was not carried over to other lines, what are the reasons for that? This was seen as an isolated incident. That's about what I can tell you really. gain, the recommendation of gas quality, past Roswell accident, during your auditing process did you ask for gas quality of line 100 and all the other lines of the region that you audited? No. s a part of your audit do you have them to do you ask, and again maybe superintendent or managers, to look at the low spots on their lines as a part of corrosion compliance? e s a matter of routine? s a matter of compliance to corrosion control. No. MR. CHHTRE: Thank you much. MR. ZIMMERMN: Just to make sure, does anybody have any other followup questions before we conclude this interview? (No response. )..
r"' 'u' 1 MR. ZIMMERMN: We're finished then. Thank you very much for your help, Bruce. (Whereupon, at : a.m., the interview was concluded.) \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 1 \\ 1 \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\
i/ 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICTE CSE TITLE: Field Interviews: El Paso Natural Gas Company; Witness: Bruce S. Campbell DOCKET NO: NO. DCOoMPoOg HERING DTE: pril, 01 LOCTION: El Paso, Texas L; 1 1 I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately on the tapes and notes reported by me at the interviews in the above case before the National Transportation Safety Board, and that this is a complete and accurate transcript of the testimony included herein as prepared by me. Date: pril, 01 Raymond M. Vetter Official Reporter on behalf of Executive Court Reporters