IR 05000354/1988020

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Enforcement Conference Rept 50-354/88-20 on 880609.Major Areas Inspected:Dept of Labor Determination That Contractor Bogan Discriminated Against Employee for Raising Safety Concerns.Agenda & Supporting Info Encl
ML20196J067
Person / Time
Site: Hope Creek PSEG icon.png
Issue date: 06/17/1988
From: Swetland P
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20196J050 List:
References
50-354-88-20-EC, NUDOCS 8807060317
Download: ML20196J067 (52)
v • d • e


Text

e-

'

'

i.

.

e,

.

v

,

-

,

,

>

\\

v i

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

\\-

REGION I

.\\.

\\-

Meetind.No.

'50-354/88-020 License No.

NPF-57

'

Licensee:

Public Service Electric and Gas Company P. O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Facility Name:

Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station Meeting At:

.USNRC, Region I, King of Prussia, Pennsylvani,a

' Meeting Conducted: June 9, 1988 Approved By:

-

(, /7!T

~

P'. D. Swetland, Chief Idat6 Reactor Projects Section 28

'

Meeting Summary:

Enforcement conference at NRC Region I on June 9, 1988 to discuss the Department of Labor's determination that a contractor (Bogan)

discriminated against an employee for raising safety concerns. The items discussed include review of the case history, the 1icensee's controls to prevent discrimination against employees who report safety concerns, and the potential chilling effect Bogan's actions had on reporting safety concerns.

,

I CMhf0$j54 PNU r

s

- - - - - -

- - -

- -.

-

-

- - -

-

.

.. -

y-

---

--

-

g

_,

-

,

,

f,;

.:

+

x

.

Qi.

'

,

+

,

'

'

<-

u DETAILS

,

1.0 Participants 1.1 Public' Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G)

.,

S. Nilte.nberger, Vice President and Chief Naclear Off'icer L. Reiter, General Manager Licensing and Reliability B. Pre'ston,. Manager, Licensing and Regulation

>

,

C. Johnson, General Manager of Quality Assurance D. Fryling, Attorney M. Wetterhahn, Attorney M. Sesok, Site Representative for Atlantic Electric A. Giardino, Manager Station Quality Assurance - Hope Creek

'

'1.2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-(NRC)

W. Kane, Director, Division of Reactor Projects (DRP)

J. Gutierrez, Regional Attorney

.

R. Rosano, Office of Enforcement D. Holody, Enforcement Officer R. Capr'a, Acting Chief, Projects Branch No. 2, DRP P. Swetland, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 28, DRP D. Allsopp, Resident Inspector, Hope Creek

,

R. Borchardt, Senior Resident Inspector, Salem G. Rivenbark, Project Manager, PDI-2, NRR B. Hayes, Director, Office-of Investigation 2.0. Purpose

,

The enforcement conference was held at the request of NRC Region I, to discus's the Department cf Labor's determination that a licensee contractor

'

l (Bogan) discriminated against an employee for raising safety concerns.

3.0 Presentation and Discussion

~The Director of the Division of Reactor Projects opened the conference and requested the licensee to present their perspective on the Department of Labor's discrimination finding.

The licensee was asked to specifically i

l address what controls were in elace to. prevent discrimination for em-

ployees who reported safety concerns and the potential chilling effect Bogan's actions had on safety concern reporting.

i The senior licensee representative,. disagreed with the Department of Labor's finding and felt Bogan had ample adverse performance indice'.'as to warrant demoting the subject employee.

The licersee explained the Safeteam and Quality Concern Reporting Programs and now they would allow an employee to report safety concerns without fear of reprisal.

They

..

-

-

..

-

.

-

-

..

-

-

'

.

. :

.

2,

,

.

'

further stated that Safeteam monthly reporting statistics, indicated that

'

there was no chillingtsffect on other employees' reporting of safety Concerns.

'

The licensee claimed that the reporting of five safety concerns was not a basis for the employee demotion since the individual had actually been promoted from a. technician to a' supervisor after.all five safety concerns had been reported.

The licensee indicated that there was no evidence that the individual's immediate supervisor had knowledge of the employee's safety concerns prior to demoting the subject, employee.

The licensee's representatives proceeded to explain their long term cor-rective actions which included their intentions to strengthen contract requirements regarding employee protection provisions specified in 10CFR 50.7 and to send letters to-present contractors reemphasizing employee protection requirements.

In addition, the licensee ~ intends to require contractors to notify them when the contractor becomes aware of cases of discrimination alleged against them.

The licensee's presentation material

~

appears as attachment 1 to this report.

4.0 Concluding Statements The Director of the Division of Reactor Projects thanked'the licensee for their presentation and stated that this information'would be considered in the NRC's determination of enforcement actions related to these issues.

,

i

--

~3--

_.,,,,n..

.n..

-,...-,

.

- ~~,-

n

_

.

'

'

ATTACHMENT 1

.

-

NRC/PSE8G MEETING

\\-

JUNE 9, 1988 AGENDA

-

OPENING STATEMENT - S. MILTENBERGER CHRON0 LOGY OF EVENTS - B. PRESTON

-

-

DISCUSSION OF SELECTED DOL TRANSCRIPT REFERENCES-B. PRESTON QUESTIONS REGARDING DOL FINDINGS - B. PRESTON

-

-

SAFETEAM AND QUALITY CONCERN PROGRAMS - C. JOHNSON

-

CLOSING REMARKS - S. MILTENBERGER

'.

.

-

.

.

-

-

._ -

..

.-

..

>

,..-

,

.

<

'

._

EMPLOYMENT OF.AL FRANCIS s

CHRONOLOGY

.

-

',

,

,

M IV1El June 17, 1984 Date of hire August 1984 Promot' ion;to supervisor, walk.down crew-

-

.

.

.

...--

.

August.7, 1984 First fiel'd que'stionnaire filed

,

. August 21, 1984 Secon'd fia'id qusationnaire filed October 23, 1984 Third f'ield hostionnaire filed

.

Tourth. field, questionnaire filed

..

.

November 14, 1984 l

-:

.

..

.

.

.

January 15, 1985 Fifth;. field qu,estibautre filed

'

April 1985 Return.to technicien level at Francis' request, l

1 May 1985 Promotion to supervisor l

August 24, 1985 Demotion to technieian

.

.

August 26,~1985 _

Contact.with'8AF8TEAN l

-

.-

.

.

~

.

'

'

August 27, 1985 Contact with*WRC.

-

,

'

.

-

-

-

..

.

..

.

September 11, 1985.

Francis' files with dol.

s n

.

\\

~

'

oathbor 18, 1985

' ' ' dol' invesfigators.determinatios of t

po'ssible yielation.. -

'

'

-

,

'

  1. -

December 19,,i985

-,' dol '. bearing

.

,.

.

March 21, 1986 Admi'nistrative Law' Judge

.

_

Recommended Decision and Order

-

'

January, 1987 Francis leave.s site'.for other employment with sogan

-

April 1, 1988 secretary of Labor Final Decision and order May 3, 1988 NRC letter te enforcement conference

,,

.

_

.

.

SSINS No.:

6835 IN.84-08

.

tal!TES STATES NUCLEAR REdut.ATORY C00 MIS $10N OFFECE 0F INSM CTION AND ENFORCENENT lR$NINSTON, D.C.

20555 February 14, 1984 IE Infest 4 TION NOTICE NO. 84-08:

10 CFR 50.7 El#LOYEE PROTEIIINI h:

This information notice calls attention to' 10 CFR 50.7 which prohibits discrimination against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities, such as providing the Commission information about possible violations of requirements imposed by the Atomic Enery Act or the Energy Reorganization Act.

e We urge you to review your activities to ensure that (1) a mechanism exists for employees to raise safety issues free from discrimination and (2) empicyees are notified about this mechanism.

Your contractors also i

should be aware of this matter.

l l

,

. -. - - -... - - - - -. -

-... -- -.-.-

-

.

.-

.-

-

..

a

,'

I

HOPE l $ CREEK SAFETEAM"

'

.

.

r

,

-

.

i

\\\\.

HOPE CREEK-i

-

'

/s

,

,

.

.

p.

.

"

_

$

g

'

\\

l

.

,

l l

l

.

... -

... -

. - -.

-.- -

.. - - -.. -

_

.

.

.

___.

e

,

l'

'

Bulk Rats

,

U. S. Poetage

PAID I

-

Permit Nc. 533

,

'

'

Wilmington. DE 19650 HOPECREEK

  1. Tj# CUR lENT la

,;

j Volume 6, Number 8 8@6 September,1984 i

SAFETEAMs ARR VES!

Just as an army brings in the re-serves to ensure victory, so PSE&G is drawing upon the best available re-r

-

y

,

n

.

-

.,}

sources to ensure titat all quality and f

!

m safety concems are resolved before

.

l construction is complete. PSE&G's im-

piementation of SAFETEAM8 at Hope

~

,

Creek represents a major effort to safe-guard against technical problems that

J)

g could impede licensing or fuel load.

SAFE (EAM8 fills a critical niche in

-

i communication on the job. The pro-

-

'

gram's basic function is to provide em-

.

,

ployees with a responsive, confidential

-

'

o i

service where concems about plant or O

,,

job safety and quality can be discus-

,.

,

.

'

sed. The program also oversees inves-

,g, tigation of these concems, and docu-

'

'

ments any corrective actions that are s/

taken.

'

'

The program has two branches. It o

'

has assumed command of the Hope

.

Creek Hotline; and it also perfomis exit

.

l Interviews. PSE&G has retained the

\\

services of Utility Technical Services (UTS), a third party agency, to adminis-

.

t(r the program. UTS, in tum has re-

[

'

tained a separate organization to per-form the interviews and man the n___

_ _ _..

._

m phones. This builds an element of

"confidence-in-depth; " in other A

A words, any employee who participates in this program is guaranteed anonym-

' ity as far as PSE&G, Bechtel, or any other company contracted to perform work at Hope Creek is concemed.

(Cononued on Page 3)

.

- - - - -

,

~--w

- - - - - -.

-~

l

=

.

.

.

,

September,1984

f3 sAFETEAM'

2. Exit interviews w) (Conbnued from Page 1.)

When an employee term.inates em-Hope Creek The SAFETEAM concept was de-ployment at Hope Creek, he or she will veloped by Detroit Edison for use at its be invited, on their last day of work, to F rmi2nuclearpower plantundercon-the SAFETEAM Appreciation Center Hohe *-

struction in Michigan. The program has (located in a trailer between TB1 and attracted quite a bit of attention, all of it the powerblock.) The purpose of this positive, from utilities, contractors, and visit is two fold. It gives PSE&G a 1-800-932-0593 government agencies. SAFETEAM is chance to thank the employee for parti-in operation at plants under construc-cipating in this project; and it gives the (Toll free from NJ, MD, PA, DE)

tion for Commonwealth Edison and employee a chance to discuss any Houston Power & Light, which puts us concems that he or she might have in the forefront of this "new wave" in about the project. Exit interviews are quality communication.

strictly confidential. All records of inter.

How SAFETEAMs Works:

views (including Hotline interviews) are anonymous when they are routed for f. The Hotline evaluation and investigation.

'tECT d

The Hope Creek Hotline is a toll-free Employees who visit the apprecia-h*

  1. ^ N S line to SAFETEAM headquarters. Any tion center on their last day of work are 9 -

Y Hope Creek employee or former em-given SAFETEAM coffee mugs and

.TY,~ ?

,

ployee may use the hotline to express bumper stickers as an added expiess-f

'

\\

concems about the design, coristruc-ion of appreciation.

f Mb -

cp tion, or management of the project.

Concerns are classified into catego-A Dr i

The line is "manned" five days a week ries including nuclear safety, secunty,

[.

L.F

- from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday industrial safety, site management,

%

-l

..M e

through Friday, and fror-4:30 p.m. to and miscellaneous. All concems ex-9, r

M 8:30 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

cept nuclear safety are investigated by

~b

'

An answering machine records calls PSE&G. Nuclear safety concerns are

.,)

(,) made during off hours;and team mem-investigated by an outside agency, and Yn v

'

y f

"

bers will respond to those calls at the their reports are reviewed by a special N'M

'

start of the next day of normal opera-panel of PSE&G representatives. This 9 #

tion-panel is responsible for ensuring that Y

-

S The Hotline will also make write-in corrective actions are taken. At that j?

,

,,,,,

l forms available, and welcomes em-point, SAFETEAM sends the em-

", _ " <

-

ployee communication by this means.

ployee a letter outlining what was Employees are not required to identify found and what wat done as a result of

themselves when dealing with the hot-the employee's concern.

I line, but if they want follow-up informa-SAFETEAM is writing to hear from

[

tion, their name and address will be ul

requested.

l P.Jil McCune, Letters and articles authored by Mcpe Creek Editor & Pt)otographer empioyees are welcome. Please inciude your name.10 number. and craftdisciohne so that Hope Creek Janet Kay Ham.s, we can retum matenal. All cuesbons and com-Current Editorial Assistant ments regarding this publication shouid be directed to: Bill McCune, Editor; c'o Bechtel Shirley Hinkle, construccon inc.

Published monthly for employees at Assistant Editor the Hope Creek Project and their ramilies.

Kathy Hackett, It The contents of this publication may l

ba repnnted wih permission. Alinghts reserved.

(

rU'

Bechtel Construction, Inc, noc,,,,,,y in, y, ws heid by Pubiic sennce The views stated by our contnbutors are not P.O. Box B Electne & Gas Co., or of Bechtel Construccon, i

Hancock's Bridge, NJ 08038 inc, or of any other company or organaanon invofved in the construccon of Hope Creek An Equal opportunity Emploror-M/F Generanng Stanon.

._

_,

-

.

.

.

.

.

.

-

-

RESULTS:

,

Personnel Visits to SAFETEAM 7,733

'

s Interviews Conducted 2,551

'

.

Concerns Identified 853

--

Industrial Safety....t.!...........

178 Management.......................

323 Nuclear Safety...................

310

.

.

Security..........................

Miscellaneous.....................

..

n

>

.

.

.

O PSEG

~

.

Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, MJ 08038 609 339-4800 CortWn A. McNeill Jr, Vice President - Nuclear November 3, 1985 To the Nuclear Department Employees Assuring a high level of Quality and Nuclear Safety in the Operations of our facilities is the responsibility of all personnel.

The Nuclear Department has implemented a Quality Concerns Reporting Program designed to provide a means for an individual to report any Significant Safety or Quality Concern, while maintaining a high degree of individual confidentiality.

This Quality Concern Program is not intended to replace the normal lines of communication through appropriate supervisory levels or the many reporting systems such as regulatory reporting, Suggestion Plan Program or the Miss Peggy column of the PSE&G news.

This system does provide,an alternate, confidential.

-

~

~

means by which any individual can identify a Significant.

-

Quality or Safety concern which he or she feels may have and adverse impact on safe operation.

I have assigned the General Manager - Nuclear Quality Assurance

as the Quality Concerns contact.

A concern can be initiated in two ways.

An individual can complete a Quality / Safety Conctern Form and forward it to the General Manager - Nuclear Quality Assurance, or an individual can report the concern by calling 935-6000 extension 3400 and providing the necessary description information.

Calls may be made between 3:30 and 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday.

l Although it is recommended that the individual reporting l

a concern provide his/her identification so that the result l

of the evaluation of the concern can be provided to the individual, it is not necessary.

l This program will provide another way in which we can improve l

upon overall quality and safety performance.

l I want to emphasize my commitment to the program and' assure l

you that we will maintain confidentiality of all reported concerns and provide a complete response as quickly as possible.

l

--

l

%

The Energy People

.

.

.

.

.

muskrat info line!

~

.

-

d.%" ' p'

.

Nuclear Department

.g

-

Artificial Island A

g PSEG a[,

'

5 g

g l Dial INFO (Ext 4636)

uEgrs

.

.: p.

i{0,f.h 'I '

-

Friday. November 15. 1985 Both Salem Units head into the weekend at full reactor power: Unit 1 is producing 1.125 megawatt <3 and Unit 2 is turning out 1.150 megawatts of electricity.

.

.

.

.

.

The training center got the good news yesterday that all 1 Salem station programs are now accredited by the Institut

,

of Nuclear Power Operations.

According to center manager H. Denis Hanson. Salem is the second nuclear station in the country to have all programs pass the test to join the INPO National Academy of Training.

Hanson says they've set a l

goal to get applications for the Hope Creek accreditation program completed in 1986.

'-

-

.p.

. 1

-

.

.

.,...,..,.

.

,

.

,.

.

,

AttentionPSE5G.employeeswhoarecurrently receiving mortgage interest dif.ferential payments for relocation:

Administrators of,the' corporate refinancing,Arogram will be

~

-

available in the. administration b~uildin~g gafeter,ta from 9 to 11 a.m.

and fr.om 2 to 4 p.m.

t o day. t'o" an su'e re'your refinancing questions.

~ '

.

  • j

"

-

, _.

,

..

.

.

'

The Nuclear Department ha.s s t ar,t.e d a :' Qual'i t y Corcerns Reporting: Program" beginning today.

This new program.

outlined in a letter to all employees..pecvidas a mec.ns for

,

anyone to confidentially report a quality on safety concern to top management.

Chuck Jo'h'nsoni;6dnera.1 Manager

' Nuclear

,

.

.

Quality Assurance, has been designated.a.s tbe Quality

'

Concern contact.

Emp l o y e e~ s, c a n e i t'he'r complete'a form-outlining their concern or can call 935-6000, extension 3400, between 3:30 and 4: 30 PM. Monday through Friday.

.

That's Muskrat Info Line for todar--thanks for calling.

._

-

-

_ _ _.

_

i a

.:

.

.

--

'

~~

HERE'S MY QUALITY / SAFETY CONCERN No.

2816 W

f. Here's MY CONCERN. Describe quality / safety condition that should be improved, changed, or corrected.

Please print, type, or write clearly - use black ink. If more room is ne.ded, attach additional sheet (s),

r Here's MY RECOMMENDED CORRECTIVE ACTION

!

I l

l

_ _ _ _____ _ _._ _ _ _ _ ________ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

OPTIONAL NAME:

TRADE or DISCIPLINE:

l ADDRESS:

BADGE NO.:

.

RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGED:

l TELEPHONE */ EXT.:

OAF 47 REV.1 10/06 l

!

-_

,ysm-3

.ec w ;
r,.

-..

r n- =<.c - w :z u y, n..~ w.. g..

.

.

,

.-

..

....

.

orr

-

..3 t

!

,

l M Ay.17

-

,

.

/

RECI.:'.:.

BEFORE THE REFE.i 70 l

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

_

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

-

-

)

.

In the Matter c":

)

Caso No: 86-ERA-008

)

-

ALBERT FRANCIS,

)

)

Claimant,

)

)

vs.

,

_

,

, _,,,,, _ _.,

BOGAN, INC.,

)

)

Respondent.

)

)

.

.

)

(.,

)-)

.

)

s Pages: 1 through 282, including 1A and 2A j

Place: Camden,,New Jersey Date December 19, 1985

-

..

Acme Reperting Company Offic*al Reponers 1220 L Street. N.W.

Wuliington. D.C. 2000$

.

(202) 628-4 88 r

--

- - T.,, m

_.

-,u u

'-

-

-

- - -

-

,

. - _ _ _ _, - -. - -_ _ _ _ _ _ _

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

~

_

..

-

--y

-

u m..

.,

...

,

. _..

-

.

.

.

/

'

1-0FFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

)

)

In the' Matter of:

)

)

ALBERT FRANCIS,

)

Docket No. 86-ERA-008

)

Claimant,

)

)

vs.

)

)

BOGAN, INC.,

)

)

.. _

,

. _

Respondent.

)

-

= epc.

~.

......._.

Hearing and Appeals Bu'ilding

Courtroom 3 2600 Mt. Ephraim Avenue (

Camden, New Jersey

Thursday, December 19, 1985

The above-entitled matter came on for hearing,

pursuant to notice, at 9:00 a.m.

17 BEFORE:

HONORABLE PAUL H. TEITLER, Administrative Law Judge

-

.

20

.

22

,

24

Acme Reporting Company

,

.

-

<

'

~,

  • .' s #
    • my

,.

,

,

_

"

la

.

APPEARAliCES

-

On Behalf of the Claimant:

.3 JAMES KATZ, ESQUIRE TOMAR, PARKS, SELIGIR, SIMONOFF & ADOURIAN

41 South Haddon Avenue

.

Haddonfield, NJ 08033

.

On Behalf of the Respondent:

e v

CHARLES W.

BOOHAR, ' ESQUIRE

,

PERLINO & LENTZ

-

S 2300 Packard Building Philadelphia, PA 19102

x..-=.a._.,..

-,,, m... _

- -...

.-

,

.

,

,

(.f

.

14

16

-

,

l

18

.

l

!

21

22

!

t

'

l

'

!

l

,

i

.

l Acme Reporting Company

-

- - - -

-. -.

.

. _.

- - - - _ _. -

~

..

,..

.

-

.

.

w-

_. ;

.

..

,

,

.

-

.

_ _ _

.

-

.

'

.

L ll D. E. E

VOIR

.

WITNESSES:

DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS DIRE

A.

FRANCIS

83 105 114

117 119

  • D.

DAVIS 121 139 141

__

..

J.

STROSNIDER 155 161 165

..

..

E.

JONES

,169

.187

..

__

__

D.

CAMPBELL 201 208 250 237

--

R.

CLASS

-

241 247 256

--

< - -.

..

.-

._,

.

D.

DAVIS 260 265 267

--

--

.

.

(

n EXHIBITS:

-

EXHIBIT NO.

IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE

.

D-1 thru 3

9

C-1

--

C-2

17

C-3

22

C-4 and 5

98

.

,

C-6

57

0-3

96

D-4

98

$

D-5

98

0-6 101

--

C-7 121 122

'

.

.

Acme Reporting Company

..

_

_

_

_ _ _ _

-

-

x.

'

,

~~

,

..

.

>

2a

-

.

'

EXHIBIT NO.

IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE

C-8 127 128

.

C-9 129 130

"

C-10 131

--

D-7 157 161

.

C-11 269 271

.

,

8

10

'/ -

(

.

.

,

15

'

.

.

,,

.

l

21 l

I e

!

.

24

.

.

Acme Reporting Company

.

.

.

.

___

,

-

,

I

-

'

r i

su

'sory position again?

l l

l

A

3

And do y member app mately when that

,

took place?

A It was in t atter pa f May.

4 In be t'

n May and August 24t 1985, the date y

of your de'r on, did you continue to work super-

.

viso

-

A Yes, sir.

  • M I

C And could you please tell me, Mr. Francis,

"

did PSE&G provide any on-the-job training?

ut A

Yes, sir, they do.

4 And could'you describe the kinds of things

-

that are emphasized in that on-the-job training?

A Always they emphasized the need to follow

procedure,_ to do quality work, iut really to stick to

^

the procedure and do it like you are supposed to de it.

The documentation is critical in a nuclear plant.

.l I

G What do you man by "the documentation is l

cri 1"?

A that the work you do has e' documented

on the correct p in the cc.way, and the work

23 provides traceabil:*

e you can always go back and

tell whe

.nstrument was e ated, what test in-

.. e n t was used doing the calibratt You have got

.

.

.

Acme Reporting Company

-

.. -.

..

-

.

.,

,

.

.

.

'

\\

i

'

t e able to prove that.the work was done.

0 And chat the work was done prope

.

A Ye ir.

Q. *

I would to show '

what I would like to

have marked for identifi n purposes of Plaintiff.'s

Exhibit No.

3.

'(The doc t referred to was

8 marked for iden

~ cation

as Claimant's Exhibit

ll

BY MR. KATZ:

,

0 14ould you please idsntify that document for (,.

me?

~ < -

-

m,

... <.... - - -

..

.

A This is a page out of the General ELployment

Training Manual, and.this is basically what all of the

training sessions emphasized.

0 Who provides you that General Employment

Training Manual'?

e A

The utility, PSE&G.

.

0 Did you receive a copy of that manual?

A Yes, sir.

I l

KATO:

I would 114e to offer that as

.

l n

Plaintiff's

' it No.

3.

%

JUnGE TEITLER:

A. 2 olons?

M ?.. B00hApr

.1, asice fr, evance, no.

l

J "' '

EITLER; Okay.

As far as

--

l'

Arm. Dann,einn r,v. nu

-

__

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

,

i r,

were you specifically assigned to work on ta i

!

package

-

!

A.

Not cifically.

All of t suparvisors l

l

worked, at that tim n test p ges and were asked

.

to support special pro $oc s they came up.

G Did you wo eith you ois during that

time?

f

A.

o, sir.

You can't.

As a 31perv1 you

work with ylur too.ls.

d

.

0 At any time, were you ever told that your

crew needs to complete a-certain number of test packages l

per evening?

A.

No, sir.

.

!

G At any time, were you ever told, or were

l

requirements ever set by Bogan or PSE&G that a certain I

!

number of test packages need,to b~e completed each l

l I

evening?

!

A.

No, sir.

,

Q At any tine, wer e you ever told that you only

have a certain amount of time each evening to complete

the calibration and all of the work in each individual

test package?

A.

No, sir.

24 G

At any time, was a benchmark ever set by

.

Bogan or PSE&G mandating that a certain amount of : me

'

.

.

.

,,,-,-n

,,,,

,,,, - -,

,-.,,------~--.--ww

-

,r-r,---, - - - - -

.

-

'

.

.

.

.

l

-

'

,

be spent on each individual package?

A No, sir.

t

0 Why not?

I t

A It's because the important thing in a nuclear

plant is quality work, and you can't place a time limit

on it, that would compromise the quality of the work.

The instruments themselves vary in how long it would

cake to calibrate them, so many things affect them.

ll

4 What kinos o nings would a.ec ow len

'

it n'

take to calibrate one work package, one trument it as oppos to another?

i

A Oh t would depend on the t of instrument.

The device in a ckage could be a mple guage, which would take a short e,

or it ld be a complex

.

i

controller, which coul ak ours and hours.

!

!

Also, t h.e location he device.

The first thing

a technician had to was t

.ocate the cevice in the l

plant,. and someti.

it took ho to actually find

.

the instrument gg

0 I

it possible to mandate e t a certain

number o devices be completed by eact c w every

eveni

?

.

A Not without compromising the quality the

.

24 ork.

0 And, once again, wny is that?

Acme Reporting Company

..

.

- -

- - -

- -

- - -

...

'

.

-

.

.

.

t in August, about the midd'le of A"-

'

-

.

,

noted that the/ we.

"c-In.g on this

"

particular.MCC

.a that s e along the

-

..,

I i

I

aad to bring it to someone else's at.

.

.

d

On August 22nd, we were having GET training and

at the halfway point of the training, I went into the

instructor's office and asked for his advice as to

what I should do now.

And he advised me, at that time, l

he was a little hesitane as to what I should

that

--

do after he found out what all I had done but he said

if I me n t'io ne d it to an NRC l'nspector, then I would

get some action taken on it.

And I asked him if they

had -- if those people were assigned there to the plant

'

i

and he snid, yes, there were two or three on site all l

the time, and their offices were in the Admin. Building.)

l

'

'

4 And what happened after that conversation?

i

A Well, the following day --

!

i

Q.

Strike that.

Who provided GET training?

A The utility, PSE&G.

i

i

0 And the instructor is a PSE&G

--

A Employee, that's right. I believe so.

j

!

no wnat clu you co after that conv

-

..

'

k

-

- * '

versation?

A Immedia s

.

l l

0-NO>

ently, in o try to rese'./e

'

-

.

t"

..oblem.

,

e l

Acme Reporting Company

..

..

-__

_ _ __

_

_.

-.

_ _ _ -

'

.

.

.

.

-

,

.

JUDGE TEITLER:

Okay, this is marked Exhibi*

-5.

.

(The document prevd sly mark-

ed for identifi ion l

as claimant'

xhibit 5, was i

received to evidence.)

.

BY MR. KATZ:

'

0 And was the. C dev e subsequently corrected?

A Yes, sir.

4 Did you know en roxi'mately that occurred?

A Within tu o three we s after I brought it

up to them.

Thi asn only on on CC, it was on --

i l

0 You d brought it up to whom l

l

A ad brought it up to the safe t on the

26th a the NRC on the 27th.

And this involve ore

th ne motor control center.

There was four of t.

m

the lant that had the same proble'.

m

0 Now previously you mentioned that on August

26th, you brought this up to the safe team.

Now,. could

'

i

you please tell me what the safe team is?

N A

The safe team is an independent group that l

is on site, supposedly to allow workers or anybody to

raise safety questions.that would affect the plant and

,

i

by going through the safe team, supposedly you had a

!

certain degree of a no nnii ty.

G And you sent : cme ' concerns or you spoke to Acme Reporting Company

.

.

.

.-

-

-

..-. -

_

- _.

.

._

.

.

--a.

.

,

1

.

I i

3.

the safe team on the 26th of August?

'

,

A I spoke to the safe team b'ecause I felt that

3 was the next step.

I think that you owe the company

,

the responsibility to proceed step by step, as they lay l

5 it out for you, and that's what I had done.

-

4 The next step, the next step towards what?

,

A If you have something, a problem, you find

}

the problem or the deficiency, and you take the first t

step to get it corrected, and if you don't receive

satisfaction, you proceed a little higher and a little

,

i

higher.

The last step in the chain, I guess, is the

'

NRC.

s I,

d

,

I

O All right.

tiow, can you tell me generally

what quality of the work packages that you w

receiving

A I co ered the work packages be very poor,

and a large number them had to be nt back, l

l

modified, before we cou even t to work.

l

G Were there others o shared your feelings l

l

as to the quality of t'

work ages?

A I think ically all of a supervisors did.

l

O And c would you do if the rk package was

'

poor and dequate?

Sometimes it could be easily correcte

-

25

. ding it back to the test engineer t'o get him to a-Acme Reporting Company m. u.....

-

_

.

.

'.

.

130 i

.

i

document previm mark-

,

.

'

ed for eation.as

'

t 's s.

bit 9 was i

!'

received into evi.

e.)

.R.

KATZ:

0 Now, Mr. Davis, between the period o..

1985 and August 1985, were any production quotas set

for supervisors on the night shift that you were pro-

.

viding work to?

A None.

..

.-.-

,,.

. r a

+

O Between May in 1985 and August 1985, were

you ever told that a specific crew had to comple-te'a (

'

certain number of packages that evening?

-

A There were a number of instances where a

'

few TPR's had to be completed in order to complete

'

functional testing or support pre-ops.

however, there

was never any number as' signed a supervisor that had

to be completed that evening.

g So if I understand your testimony, thers O

might have been a requirement that a specific job be

completed, but not a requirement that a specific

number of test packages for each individual crew be t

completed that evening?

A That is correct.

are you aware of any benchmarks se:

g Were

--

Acme Reporting Company

,,........

._

-

_., _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _

.

.

.

'

'

.

.

.

.

,

131

!

.

I requiring that a specified number of test packages be

completed by a specific crew each evening?

A There was no such quota.

o

<

l

4 Let me show you what I would 11 e to nave

,

ma d as Plaintiff's 10.

-

(The document referred t was

marked for identifica* cn as

Claimant's Exhibit

.)

l i

BY. MR. KAT.

{

-

!

l

0 Please d ribe what this doc' ent is, and I

\\

l

.

t

-

how it came into your ossession?

l

'

A Yes, sir.

Thi documen again, was drawn up.

Ted Robbins had requested t

an Gage and myself

-

sit down and draw up depart.

al responsibility list,

15 that was to include respo ibil les of coordinators,

supervisors, technicia and ever ody in the department i

The first page as my responsi lity; the second j

!

page was the sup visor's responsibil y; the third

'

l

'

'19 page, the tec icians'; and the focrth, ge was

requirement work assignments by coordin ors and it

,

also inc des the flow chart, for the depa ent.

Was this the procedures and the reg rements

tha were followed, to your knowledge, during i ur

.

nure from May to August 1985?

A Yes. To the best of my a b.1 1 i t y, these we Acme Reporting Company l

an..>.....

.

..-

..

-

-

- - -__________

l

-.

.

.

'

'

140

-

1a G

What is the correct program?

l

,

A The correct program would be you would bri

it u to the system test engineer, and that test

.

engine would initiate that document.

4 f he does not do so, may any persg initiate

the documen

,

A The our program was initi ed or imple-

mented, yes.

9-

And was th so through the period of,your

employment with Bogan om Sep ber through November

of this year?

,

A I really don't stand, the way you put k.'

that question.

4 Well, yo said that you regram included the

ability of any sponsible person to itiate an SDR,

if the test gineers didn't do it, rig'.

A ur pregram was one that was con nely

chang'

okay?

It wasn't necessarily being i lemented

,

'

th ame each day.

We had a lot of problems.

  • 21

Have you ever gone to the NRC or the safe team

at !! ope Creek?

m A

Yes, I have.

',

,

C When did you do this?

A I went to the

--

Acme Reporting Company

-

--

- - - - - - --

-

- - - - - _ - _

_

',

.

.

141

.

.

MR. KATZ:

Objection, Your Honor.

JUDGE TEITLER:

On what grounds?

MR. KATZ:

I dont know what this has

--

o

JUDGE TEITLER:

It's cross examination.

Go ahead.

l

.

B,Y MR. BOONAR:

4 When did you do that?

l

A I went to the safe team to find out what the l

safe team was all about, and I am going to say probably l

sometime in June.

.

g of 19857

.

A That is correct.

.

U G

Was any retaliatory action ever taken against

you for going to the safe team?

A No, I wanted to find out what invo lver.e n t

they actually had on the site.

0 Where did you learn about the existence of i

it?

l

'

A It was advertised all over the plant.

0 So everybody was well aware that you could go'

~

l

to the safe team, right?

<

.

'

A I think so.

4 Is that true also with respect to the NRC?

l

23 A

Yes.

The i; R C, you should have been allowed

to go'to, because that was part of your QA training

,

M program, okay.

You should have been able to go to :he Acme Reporting Company

.

..........

. _ _ _ _ _

.

.

.

LA2

.

NRC at any time.

'

And everybody that you worked with, who worked

f r Bogan, was pretty well aware of that, right?

A I believe so.

  • 0 Do you P,now of any instance where anybody

in a gan's chain of command took any retaliatory action

against anybody for going to the NRC or to the safs

-

        • i'

A N0'

I dOU ' D

'

0 n

act, it is fair t say that people were

encouraged to bring their concerns to'the safe team and gg the NRC is' tha t not so?

A I w uld not say that.

-

>.

G Everybody knew.that they were there and what

the purpose was, right?

gg A

No, that's not true.

0 What is true?

A Y u say everybody knew.

'

O Yes.

.

gg l

Okay.

Well, you know, based on my assumption

,

and my opinion, okay, it is very hard for everybody,

kay,.to have 100 percent awareness of what is going on

'

all the time.

g C

Okay.

But this is a subject that was"covered

in QA training, that was attended by yourself anc g

-

.

Acme Reporting Company

,

.

.

.

.

143

'

i i

Mr. Francis and other Sogan supe"visors?

l

'

I g

A That is correct.

i

4 Did you ever hear anybody say that Al Fran

'.s

,

'

was demoted because he initiated or participated in

.

an in estigation of Bogan or the utility by the NRC

or by PSE&G's safe team?

A No, I didn't.

'

4 Do you have any reason to believe that that

was the basis of his demotion?

to A

No, I have no comment as to that.

,

.

MR. BOOHAR:

nave no further questions.

l l

  • DGE TEITLER:

Do you have any questions, cc el?

,

I (.

MR.

Z:

I just have one final question l

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. KATZ:

in terms of eing the super-

4 In terms o

-

l in terms of bei the w coordinator on the

visor

--

night crew, were you direct esponsible for distribu-

ting work to all of the er s?

-

A Yes, I was.

0 Did anyo else have that ponsibility, unded f

n Bogan manageme

.

$

are you auki about that g

A

?

at that-time

--

,

24 time fr e?

Yes, between May and August, 19.85.

Acme Reporting Company

............

.

.

.

.

162

)

.

.

regarding employee protection."

'

weren't there in the meeting that took p'

i l

,

.

were you,

~ r?

.

A No, wasn't.

,

.

0 And you ve no personal owledge of whether

he specifically reques

.tha o you, sir?

A I don't know if g specifically asked for

that, no.

'

.

i

0 Is it true that it is andard policy

!

l

that when an a brings a 210 complaint a whistle-i

~

blower c laint, that those regulations, a matter

of c se, are provided to that individual?

..

'

A Yes.

'. _

0 Are you the on u d be aware of any

210 or whistle-blower complaints that were raised by

,

individuals at the Hope Creek Nuclear Power Plant?

A Yes, I was.

0 Are you aware of anyone else having raised

such a complaint?

A No.

0 Sir, world you be aware if safety complaints

were raised by individual employees at that plant?

'

t n

A Yes, I would, i

0 And could you say, sir, approxj.mately dur ng

the past two years, how many safety complalats would

'

.

Acme Reporting Company m.......

,

-

.

.

.

163

.

'

t you say have been raised?

'

MR. GUTIERREZ:

Just for point of clarificatloa,

I assume in that question you mean brought to the NRC?

l

4 MR. KATZ: Yes, that's correct.

Brought to the

!

$

NRC.

JUDGE TEITLES:

If you have any recollectio'n.

.

BY MR. KATZ:

G If you nave any knowledge?

A I have not been associated with the Hope i

Creek Project for two years, but in the last year,

there has been approximately a half dozen, u

O Could be less?

A Could be a few less than that.

a

0 Now, in the course of this investigatio

did NRC have an opportunity to

-- or st people

from the C,

have an opportunity to re*

the safe l

team report t.

related to claims t were brought

by Mr. Francis?

i

19 A

Yes, we did.

-

did

0 And can you t did the NRC or

-

--

,

you do that review'

A I h reviewed the respons es.

l

$'

!

Q.

nd what was your reaction to th afe team's

fin

.gs?

A I am not sure enat I understana, reaction?

Acme Reporting Company na,......

. _.

_

_

_

.-

,

.

~

l i

'72 (

,

'

es through a process.

It is reviewed "-

t g

..e

engin a response comes ba o the originator

'

'-

'

and he approves' or s of the disposition.

'

And if he disape-of it, s to go back to site

-

enginee and the process can conti til some

eable solution can be. reached.

C During the period from August of 1984 througn

the time that Mr. Francis left the walk dow~n area, do

you know how many questionnaires were generated by

,

Bogan's people?

A There-were approximately 514 to 520 field

questionnaires that were written by our group.

Mr.

(

Francis origina'ted four field questionnaires.

'

C Okay.

And I would like to show you the

d o c u r..

s that have been marked as C-4, Claimant'

9;

Defendant Exhibits 3,

4, 5 and 6, and ask '

u -wha t l

.

17 those documen re, sir?

A These ar teld quencionn es.

I believe i

i it is in their entirety I don'

think I ever saw t h ]. s -

gg l

particular one.

l l

Do you want to k what

. y are?

0 Are th

-- you said t..

Mr. Francis hac I

l

been involv in approximately four ehese.

Are four?

these

-

A Yes, sir, I believe they are.

.

Acme 7eporting Company ns.......

-

.

.-

-

..

_

-_

-

.._

_

..

.. - -.

.

.

Id:

is field questionnaire was reopened at a later date,

.

g and Design Change Package, was issued, EcN

,

0 Wh responsible for putting fo" the i

,

'

'

effort that it takes resolve the sit'

J.on set forth

in that

--

It was our respons y,

Bogan's.

C.

And who withi e Bogan a' n i z a t i'o n, whose

particular responsi ity?

either -- whoever had that reicular A.

It

'

system, was either mine or Al's, and in this

l p

cular case, Al had this particular system.

,

,

g

Mr. J nes, are y u fa iliar with the existence

n the site of an NRC inspection team?

A.

Yes.

g4

What is their job?

Basically to look at items that are Q-related

items and make sure that work was performed in accord-g7 ance with procedures.

Be sure that the people th a t.

worked are qualified to do the job.

0 When you say "Q-related", does that mean

safety-related?

A.

Yes, safety-related.

In terms of the safety

,

4 I

relation to the board, to the nuclear board itself.

g

Q Now, they're there to receive concerns frem g

"Il f

'h*

P* El*

"

    • t*?

A c n. 4-Reporting Company na.

.a.....

l l. -.

- -. -.. - -...

-

.

.

.

-

... - - -

- -.

-.

,

-

'

.'.

.

,

'

153

-

.

A Absolutely.

Everybody is completely open and t

anyone can go to the NRC if they have any problems whatsoever, and make those claims.

4 Have you ever heard of anyone in.Bogan i

5 management criticize anybody for going to the NRC?

A No, sir.

  • G Have you ever heard anyone in Bogan manage-

8 ment suggest that they discourage people from going

g to the NRC?

A N

absolutely not.

As a matter of fact,

,

on the contrary, if there were problems, it has always

been encouraged, open policy to do whatever is necess-

13 ary -- in most' c a's e s, that's not even the avenue that s.

needs to be gone to because it can be corrected before g4

you get to that point, intercept the problems that have been identified.

t

When you say management, you included not only

the Bogan management, but also management for the

,

utility?

A Utility, absolutely.

11 MR. B O O ll A R :

I have no further questions f s

witness.

t Juocs TzIT a one qecation for

_

.

clarificati-u are say.

w, in your testimony,

  • h

. e re are, t your knowledge, a

' ma te ly 500

,

Acme Reporting ' Company

- -

.

.

-

..

-.- - -.

-.-

- -. _

_, _

-

.

.-

.'

126

'

,

.,

.

.1 e Creek Nuclear Power Plant?

l

.

I really don ' t he e the foggiest idea,

.ner g

,than I'g s Al must havs wrote a letter.

S

.e is the

'

e

.

only one tha-know of.

I

.

4 P. e ' s th nly.one that yo now of?

l

A.

I have no id who e has gone to the NRC.

Q Okay.

And can y all me, sir, when you were

on the walk down crew nen you e the supervisor of

the walk down c-and Al was the sup isor of the

walk down you had no supervisory re nsibilities l

,

over

. Francis' work, dic you?

A That is correct.

Unfortunately correct.

(.

l l

0 Now, if a field questionnaire does not get m

responded to, and if corrective action is not taken,

,

.

I

what should an employee do?

16 A

Well, I guess it depends on what avenue is

,

'

!

open to the employee.

If the employee has the avenue

>

l have an SDR written, he could write i

to go to the

--

!

an SDR.

If, in that case, he cant do it, like any

'!

other chain of command, go to his supervisor and say,

look, I have a problem here, we are conforming to this, one, two-tier hierarchy above

in this case we had a

--

n us, and if that fails, go over to the INC engineer, j

We have a problem here and it needs to be resolved.

And I do not know of a single case where, if it had ::

Acme Reporting Company

,

__

..

.

..

-. - -

-

.

. -..

-

~

.

.

l t

197

g go to that level, where we did not get the backing to resolve the problem.

'

3

What happens if the problem didn't get re-

'

solved,?

What should an employee do?

It's up strictly to -- I have never been able

to have a situation where I couldn't get a problem

'

'

resolved.

8

You would agree, sir, that safety is of utmost g

concern to all

--

A Absolutely.

.

0 And you would agree, sir, would you no t, that if an individual sees a safety violation, they have a

.v

(

-

responsibility to do everything they can to correct o.

that violation?

g4 A

You betcha I do.

16

And wouldn't you also agree that if correcting th a t violation mernt going to the NRC, that would be g7

,

appropriate action, wouldn't that not be correct, sir?

'

A If there was absolutely no other alternative gg

left, because that is to get the job done.

I

0 That would be appropriate action to get to job done.

t Now, sir, it's t

as far as you

,

.

understand, that

-

--

A

.

.

A wuse me.

Pardon me.

You are tat

3 As:me Reporting Company

...

.. - -

-

-.

_ _. _, _ _ _

._ -,___-.-_._,. _

-..

_

.

,

.

203

,

f 1p visors INC and five coordinators.

.

i

>

Q How many technician 1 work under those aper-

vi es, that are employed by Bogan?

!

At present, it is 140.

{

4 In the course of your duties lead INC

superviso have you had' occasion to parvise Mr. Al

.

Francis?

A only 1 lead supervi r and he was a super-

visor at.the time, i

to G

okay.

So t' y had -- you were his.next i

'

boss; is that correct?

A Yes.

,

.

k

0 And was at in Aug e of 19857

'

-

l A

Yes,

.

15

The came a time in Augu of 1985 when

Mr. Franci.was demoted; is, that not so

A Yes.

3 And was that on or about August the h?

19 A

Yes.

i

4 Were you involved in the decision to cemote

Mr. Fr~ancis?

A Yes.

t

0 Would you tell His Honor the basis of that

decision?

-

A Well, the basis of the decision was from

.

Acme Reporting Company m..a.....

I

Y..

,'.

n

.

,

204 j

,

i

various conversations with coordinators and Public

!

-

service management, my personal observations, tech-i

nicians' comments, and that is.about it.

.

.

,

'

G And wnat were the grounds on which the dimotio.4

was made?

A Productivity, continuing or solving problems

.

.

that were arising and holding test packages, observation f

of knowing where his technicians were, working close in

hand with his technicians, coordination with the

coordinators and tha start-up engineers.

C What were your personal observations of u

Mr. Francis' performance of duties in his role as an (

,

INC supervisor?

,

%

MR. KATZ:

Objection, Your Honor.

There has been

~

no foundation laid that this witness had any personal

observations of what the nature

--

MR. BOOHAR:

!!e

--

.

JUDGE TEITLER: I think the last question laid tne

'

,

!

'

foundation.

He said he supervised him.

He' made the

-

lacision to demote him.

i l

MR. BOOHAR:

And said he had personal observation.

JUDG.T TEITLER:

And said he had personal obser-

.a vation.

I

Go ahead.

Acme Reporting Company m,.......

..

-

.

,

205

.

BY MR. BOOHAR:

g G

What were your personal observations of

'

Mr. Francis' performance of duties?

,

i A

tie ll, my personal observations were that you

have to continually monitor the amount of productioh

that the supervisors that are under my control put out,

.

and-the relationship that they have with their techni-

cians.

That's a very important thing'because every package

10 or every test function that the supervisors'do perform with the technicians that they have under them, is to

meet a certain schedule of completion.

This schedule

.

('

f completion has to be met, one way or the other.

~

G Sir, prior to August 24, 1985, had you had g4 occasion to discuss with Mr. Francis his performance

f duties --

-

A Yes.

g7 as an INC supervisor?

j

--

'

A Yes.

.

^

Approximately when did that occur?

A Well, it happened a few times, but the last

-

time, I think, was about two weeks prior to his demotion.

,

O

{

And were there other INC supervisors who.

,

~~

A 0"*

  • U*#'

Acme Reporting Company

.

..

.;

205

-

.

cautioned at the same time?

4

'

--

A One other supervisor.

,

C And who is that?

l

A Joseph Pinski.

,

4 Would you relate the general nature of that

conversation, sir?

A Generally, it was just a pep talk to describe

that more production, I think, ha d to be warr.nnted and

that a better relationship had to be established with l

to the techs.

.

0 Sir, at the time -- well, when did you make

the decision to recommend the demotion of Mr. Francis?

A Ch, approximately about the time that he did

get demoted.

0 Okay.

At that time, were you aware that

Mr. Francis had raised any safety concern in the employ-

ment training environment?

A Nope.

0 Were you aware that Mr. Francis had or was

-

,

l

about to institute an investigation by the NRC or by

the safe team?

A No.

t i

ere you a ae vicinity who-w.lon

,

actually occurreo, s I in view of it?

,

,

Acme Reporting Company

-.-

. -.. - -.

_-

-

-

.

.

.

233

-

.

'

4 And accordingly, Mr. Francis objected to

ing that, right?

i

A Yep.

J

Now, would you explain to His honor w you

!

keep tr k of these test' packages?

A ell, the test packages are com teri:ed.

'

They are re ved, they are given a num r,

they are

assigned to th systems and the respo ible INC

supervisors.

I e the number of ackages.

They have

.

work sheets that th have to e ly with, to bring this I l

up to date of what they e do' g on a continuous basis.

'

O Now, that compu

,

is that available to you;

the computer read-out, i th available to you?

%

A At any time

,

i

0 And do y regularly re ew it, like each l

,

'

morning?

17 A

Yes

!;

I i

0 at would show you who had pac es and

{

how many.ad not been complied with?

Right.

Any of them that are on hold, ny

21 of em that are being working, any of them that a

eing com

  • " "

,

I

%

i n

What'did you observe with respect to the test i

.

packages that were assigned to Mr. Francis.as opposed

.

to the ones that were aasigned to other supervisors?

Acmo Reporting Company

.,,,.......

-,. -., - - - -,.,, -.

.. - - - -., _, - _ - -, _ - _ _ _.,,_ _,,- _.. _.- _.--_,..- -- _._ -..

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

- -

.

.

-;

-

'

234

t A

T'here were constant, complaints from the j

coordinators that these devices that Mr. Francis was i

holding had to be worked in order to continue on with I

i

the system.

We would get the packages and either turn

them ovtsr to another supervisor to work -- it seemed

' funny that the ones that we did turn over were completed,

4 Now, when y'ou say "completion," does that

,

necessarily mean that the test is done and the data is

accepted?-

A NC'

7 What does completion of a test package mean?

.

u A

Completion doesn't necessarily mean that'

k,,-

'

everything i n -t h e p a c k a g e is to the prescribed written

.

details that it came with.

There are certain occasions

where on-the-spot changes can be made by the test

engineers on procedures if the procedure does not

comply to what or how you are testing a device or

calibrating a device.

If the data taken on the ICD

'

gg card, which is the instrument calibration data sheet,

is not correct, the test engineer asdociated in that

aystem has the authority to come up and change that

data, and initial it.

l-

%

If you have an exception to a calibration or a device or to a procedure, you can write an exception

25 to that, and send it back through channels to the tes:

,

Acme Reporting Company

.........

-

.. _.,

.

-.

i

235

.

,

.

engine ~er to be dispositioned, if he is not available.

,.

,

4 or if the package just can't be worked, when

,

is it considered complete?

When it is sent back to the I

.

!

tes t engineer?

A Complete as far as the INC supervisor is

.

concerned, yes.

,

When it leaves his heure.

C So that to the extent that you may have testa-

fled on direct examination that it's important to get

.

completion accomplished, that means doing whatever your

job is on the package, right?

A Yes.

(.

C Whether doing that job results in acceptance s

tg of the system as it is and as calibrated and moving on,

or whether that is send back the package and get me

one that will work?

A Exactly.

ay.

Now, you are on day shift and Mr.

Franc on night shift, or was.

Is there onsider-

able overlap

'een the shifts, espe y at the

supervisory level?

A Not really.

'

t

0 What tir you come to work?

"

A-

-

In August?

'

Acme Reporting Company

,,,........

.

.. -.

.

--

.

- - -

.

.

.-

. _ _ _ _.

.

. _ - _.

._. --

_.

_

__

.

.

.

O

,

l l

-

.

242 t

o l

Q Okay.

And is that what is called the

'

'

contra f

A Y

INC.

Yes.

.

C Does B n have other s neracts with the

'

utility?

A Yes,. we do.

ve roughly seven of them.

G And does r functi compass not only

the INC contr but all of the och neracts of

,

the

--

.

.

.

Yes, all contracts on site.

0 So you are a Bogan senior representative on

.;

the Hope Creek site?

.

A Yes, sir.

4 In the performance of your duties, sir, i

as a Bogan senior representative at the Hope Creek

site, have you had occasion to observe the performance

of Mr. Al Francis as an INC supervisor?

,,

..

A Yes.

0 And what were your observations?

-

A My observations were that his productivity

was low; that he did not have full control over his

crew; did not utilize his people properly.

E n

Can you give us any specific examples of I

your own personal observation of Mr. Francis'

--

A I can give you a couple,.when I was coorein-

,

.

Acme Reporting Company

...

.

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

'~

.

.

.

,

,

'

&

243

$

'

'

!

'

ator, not as the project manager, but back when I was

,

,

coordinating, back in the first part of my job.

.

JUDGE TEITLER:

When was that?

8 THE WIT!1ESS:

That was from March 25th to roughly

che lse of xugust, I was an I c coordinator, before I

,

e k over as the site project manager.

JUDGE TEITLER:

Is that day shift *or night shift?.

"

Y

It was -- oh, let's see -- one specific, where

we had a package that Mr. Robbins asked me why it was g

'

on hold, and I said, well, it's on hold because there

'

is scaffolding in the way.

At least, this is what'is

{ *s on the computer print-out.

So I went and pulled the g

-

package off Mr. Francis' desk, and went over and asked g

ne f the day supervisors if they would take tho

E*

"9'

""

  • ""

""

"9

-

,

was -- had been removed, if it was possible to work g

E""

"I**

!

and'

Well, the package went out, the scaffolding

--

g came back finished, and the scaffolding had not been g

removed.

It was still there.

The only problems they g

encountered was it was a very hot area and a very dirty g

area.

Q Are there any o ther examples of similar g

p r o h,l e ms that

--

.

.

Acme Reporting Company

,

,

_

_

. s

.

a i

244

A There was one other that

--

in your own personal experience

0

--

--

A Well, there are several, but there is one

t

more that I can think of, that really comes to mind,

is one with the TPR was on hold because of a broke,

supply air line.

And, again, one of my duties was

to"look out for hold packages for Mr. Robbins, so I

went and got the package off of Mr. Francis' desk, and

again I asked another day supervisor to investigate

and see what exactly the problem was, and could we get

it expedited and taken care of.

They went out, and found that the broken air line

was merely a quarter-inch piece of tubing.

They

.

replaced the piece of tubing and completed the package.

l

C Sir, are you the gentleman who actually

in.

med Mr. Francis of the decision to demote m?

!

!

A es, I did.

Yes, I was.

G An en did that occur?

A It was a

'st 24th, so here around

--

between 3:30 and 4:00, t*

afternoon of the 24th.

.

0 And would ye-ela

' hat happened at the

time of the demo n?

like I n

A W

as I remember it, Al c a,.

,

,

said, was around 3:30, going on to 4,

somes.

In

t area.

I asked him to step across the hall to

.

Acme Reporting Company

.......

I

- -, - - -. -, - - - -.... - -, - - - - - - -.... - -...., - - - - - -, - - - - -

.-

_

O

\\

D,

.

I hf

-

l 262

o

MR. B00hAR: I will object, Your Honor, "general

s e."

If he wants to get specific statements to at

'

effe o'ther conduct to that effect

,

--

l

l

JL E TEITLER:

he's right, counsel.

e question i

is poorly rased.

l

BY MR.

Z:

,

(

l

0 Is it ur belief, ba on having worked l

l

at Hope Creek Nucle Power nt, having observed

actions of other indiviu s,

having spoken with other individuals, that it a

eral feeling among those

'

z other employees, t raising s ey concerns was not

operating acco ng to the program?

(.

-

MR. B AR:-

I am going to object in, Your l

Honor f he wants to get specific stateme from i

ody --

l

'

JUDGE TEITLER: L e.t. me just ask one question, anc l

!

maybe I can end the inquiry.

Did you feel that there would be re taliation on

~

gg the job if anybody reported a violation to any entity?

THE WITNES3:

I don't feel that there is going to l

be retaliation on that job, spdcifically.

Okay.

BY MR. KATZ:

g O

What do you feel?

+

A My personal feelings are that, you know, if

,

somebody raises too many questions or complaints, tnat,

!

Acme Reporting Company

,-.........

_____ _

,

e s.

I I

263 l

s'

I you know, the next job you won't be working for that g

rganizati n.

That's a personal feeling.

j

Q.

Can you tell me, Mr. Davis, during the time

th a/.

ou were a work ecordinator on the night shift, f

"

.

f: mM 1985 to August 1985, were there individu s

!; rom the i us cr'ews who were assigned to spe al

apsignments?

i That.

c o r r e c t..

They were.

p

And woul ou say that there w a substantial g

"**#

  1. # ^*

"

""

A At times, mo definitely here were.

g G

At times, they re sub antial?

L2

['2 A

That is correct.

g s

O And at times, wou ou say that Mr. Francis nad a substantial number ind duals from his crew

assigned to special as-gnments?

A he did.

g Q

And wou you say during Au; t 1985, t'ne r e

would be times en !!r. Francis would ha a s u b s t a n t i a l-g number f hi crew members assigned to spo 'ai assign-

ments?.

A T

the best of my knowledge, o,k a y,

thout

-

8 looki at the records, I would have to say yes

-

g I

C And if individuals are assigne d to spec.

L

'

,

'

a signments, they wouldn't be working on normal cre

.

.

I Acme Reporting Company

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

a

h. ;.,

!

a,

.

?

265 l

r c

rect?

g Yes, that's correct.

0 s opposed to otha.r supervisors bein

'

stickler fo racedure?

Y***

.

And do yo ecall when th conversations

took place?

A.

I had a convers o

ith Mr. Class, this

this was on the Thu before Al was demoted.

was

--

,

1

Let me ask yo did h ever say that his

performance was inad ate?

g

.

A. '

No, I n r heard him mentJ.

that.

g C',

I

Did ever say his performan was sub-g t

standard?

KATZ:

No further questions,.

.

-

CROSS EXAMINATION g

00HAR:

.

0 You said that you had a feeling that if you

went to the NRC or someone went to the NRC, that they g

w uldn't be working on the next job with the organ-

ization.

.

g

A That is my personal feeling.

That is

i

'

correct.

Can you give me any specific statement to

,

i

!

Acme Reporting Company

-

...........

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

'

.

'

.

T 266 r

that effect, by anyone in Bogan manageme'nt?

-

t A

No.

Like I say, that's human nature, okay?

.

That's my personal feeling.

'

can you give me any specific statement to

,

that'effect, from anyone in the utility's management,

-

to the fact that you won't be brought back on the site on the next. job if'you go to the NRC?

A.

No.

g

'

g

So that feeling is based on your understanding of human nature?

A.

That feeling is based on a number of things,

12 okay.

My employment history, my past employment hi' story O

and my personal feelings.

That is correct.

Q But not on anyth'ing that anybody from Bogan g4 Of

~~

.

A No.

No.

,

0

-- or PSE&G has ever done or said?

e A.

No.

.

You were responsible, at night, for assi g-

20 work to Francis' crew, were you not?

A No, Mr. Francis.

Q To Mr.

ncis?

.

A.

That is t.

0, i.erformance his crew?

.

That is correct.

Acme Reporting Company i

I

.,.........

-

___________-______ ___ __

_

_

_

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

-

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=IR_05000354/1988020&oldid=4111189"