ML20195B661
| ML20195B661 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 03/28/1986 |
| From: | Seltmann R COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#286-299 OL, NUDOCS 8605290469 | |
| Download: ML20195B661 (126) | |
Text
ORLiNAL _ 4 % OJ 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA /8 y^
>r 3, 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION w c (;
3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOAR G
91 M$
g Cf$ "% . fM , ,
,x 4
4'Ifry .,W 5 ------------------x 6' In the matter of: : Docket Nos. 50-456 7 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY : 50-457 8 [Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, :
9 Units 1 and 2] :
10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 11 Isham, Lincoln & Beale 12 Three First National Plaza 13 51st Floor
[)
14 Chicago, Illinois 15 March 28, 1986 16 Deposition of: ROBERT V. SELTMANN 17 called for examination by Counsel for the Intervenors BPI, et 18 al., pursuant to notice, taken before Pamela Briggle, a Notary 19 Public in and for the District of Columbia, when 20 -------------------------------
21 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
22 1625 I Street, N.W. 293-3950 Washington, D.C.
i 8605290469 860328 PDR ADOCK 05000456 T PDR
2 1 were present on behalf of the respective parties:
2 3 APPEARANCES:
4 For the Licensee Commonwealth Edison Company:
5 MICHAEL MILLER, ESQ.
6 Isham, Lincoln & Beale 7 Three First National Plaza 8 Chicago, Illinois 60602 9
10 For the Intervenors BPI, et al.:
11 D0UGLAS CASSELL, ESQ.
12 109 North
Dearborn,
Suite 1300 13 Chicago, Illinois 60602 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 O
[
i .-.
3 j 1 CONTENTS Lo2 3 Witness: Examination by: Page:
4 ROBERT V. SELTMANN Mr. Cassell 4, 86, 123 5 Mr. Miller 118 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 O
4 1 PROCEEDINGS
~2 (10:05 A.M.]
3 MR. CASSEL: Mr. Seltmann, my name is Doug Cassel.
4 Would you prefer that I address you as Bob or Mr. Seltmann, 5 whichever you prefer.
6 MR. SELTMANN: Bob will be fine.
7 MR. CASSEL: I am going to be asking you a series of 8 questions which the Court Reporter will be marking down both 9_ the questions and the answers, so you have to answer 10 verbally. A nod of the head won't do. If I ask you anything 11 that you don't understand, just let me know and I will try to 12 rephrasa'the question. Every now and then your counsel may 13 interrupt with objections which will be unfounded and I will
( }
14 overrule them and proceed.
15 Whereupon, 16 ROBERT V. SELTMANN, 17 having been called for examination by counsel on behalf of the 18 Intervenors, and having been first duly sworn by the Notary 19 Public, was examined and testified as follows:
20
- EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. CASSEL:
22 Q Did you bring any documents with you today?
O 1
5 1 A Yes; I did.
2 Q_ What documents did you bring with you?
3 A There are some documents of files that we have.
4 MR. MILLER: They are documents that have previously 5 been turned over to Bob Guild. They relate generally to 6 incidents that are described in the Contention and that may or 7 may not have Bob's signature on them.
8 BY MR. CASSEL:
9 Q The Intervenors' Quality Assurance Contention was 10 filed back in early July of last year. Since that time, I 11 assume you have had discussions with various attorneys for 12 Commonwealth Edison about the issues raised by the Intervenors
(~'\ 13 in regard to Comstock?
d 14 A Yes; we have.
15 Q With what attorneys have you spoken?
16 A I've spoken to Mike Miller, Elena Kazelis, Lisa 17 Stiles, Joe Gallo, Fred Williams, Becky Lauer, Susan Babb.
18 Q Approximately how many conversations with Edison's 19 lawyers have you had since early July about the Comstock 20 contentions?
21 A I would estimate around ten; I can't be sure.
22 Q What was the most recent such conversation?
O
6 1 A It was yesterday.
2 Q With whom?
3 A Mike Miller and Elena Kazelis.
4 Q How long did that last?
5 A It lasted about two and a half hours.
6 .Q The purpose was to go over the questions you might 7 be asked today and the issues that may be raised?
8 A We went over what a deposition is all about. We 9 went over several letters, things of that nature.
10 Q Prior to the discussion yesterday, had you been 11 advised by any of Edison's attorneys that you would be asked 12 to testify in this case?
13 A Yes.
( )
14 Q When were you first so advised?
15 A I can't recall exactly when we first discussed it, 16 that I would be a witness on this contention item. It was 17 some time ago.
1B Q Do you know on what subjects you are going to be a 19 witness?
20 A The contention item on harassment and intimidation.
21- Q There was an Interrogatory Answer served on us by 22 Edison's lawyers which you may or may not have seen, that said O
r 1 l
)
7 l l
1 that you would testify potentially on your interactions with O(_/ 2 Mr. Seeders and with Mr. Puckett and depending on the outcome 3 of the deposition taken of the two NRC Inspectors who 4 inspected all this, possibly some others as well.
5 Have you been advised, other than Mr. Seeders and 6 Mr. Puckett, whether you are going to be asked to testify 7 concerning any other persons or incidents relating to 8 harassment?
9 A No; to the best of my knowledge, just the two, and 10 Rick Saklak.
11 Q Do you know when your written testimony is due?
12 A I've submitted my written testimony.
( }
13 Q When you say you have submitted it, you have 14 submitted it to Edison's attorneys?
15 A Right.
16 Q Your written testimony deals only with Mr. Seeders, 17 Mr. Puckett and the one incident involving Mr. Saklak?
18 A Yes; for individuals.
19 Q No other QC Inspectors at Comstock are discussed in 20 your testimony, or QA/QC personnel at Comstock?
21 A No; not specifically.
22 Q Other than the particular facts regarding the O
LJ
8 1 alleged harassment of Mr. Seeders and Mr. Puckett, and the one 2 incident involving Mr. Saklak, is there any other subject 3 matter at all addressed in your testimony?
4 A There is some subject matter of my responsibilities 5 when I arrived on site, the internal auditing program at that 6 time, and what was done to correct that.
7 Q Anything else?
8 A Most of the testimony dealt with the Seeders' 9 incidents, some questions related to Mr. Saklak and a few to
-10 Mr. Puckett.
11 Q Let's start with the questions relating to 12 Mr. Saklak. What does your testimony discuss in that regard?
13 MR. MILLER:
( ) Mr. Cassel, I will represent on the 14 record that the testimony is in a draft state, that 15 supplementary or additional questions may be asked of 16 Mr. Saltaann before it is filed. I have no objection to your 17 inquiring into the facts that he is testifying to, but to the 18 extent that you are inquiring into the testimony preparation 19 process as opposed to the facts that underlie the testimony, I 20 object.
21 MR. CASSEL: I think that is a well founded 22 objection. Let me see if I can phrase it better.
O
,- m ., m.e mm--43-r-*-r=ww-me- ~
9 1 BY MR. CASSEL:
2 Q The incident concerning Mr. Saklak that you 3 addressed in your testimony, what incident is it? Then I will 4 ask you about the facts concerning it as opposed to the 5 particular words used in your draft testimony.
6 A It was an incident that Mr. Saklak and a QC 7 Inspector, Rick Snyder, were involved in, back in March of 8 1985, if I recall correctly, where Mr. Saklak had made a 9 statement to him. It was over an issuance of an inspection 10 correction report, an ICR.
11 Q That was the statement "if beating were legal, you'd 12 be dead?"
13 A Yes.
14 Q What personal knowledge did you have or do you have 15 of that conversation that allegedly took place between 16 Mr. Saklak and Mr. Snyder?
17 A There was a conversation prior to Mr. Snyder coming 18 into my office with a couple of other individuals. I wasn't 19 around at that time for that conversation. It ended and Tony 20 Simile, Ray Nemeth and Rick Snyder came into my office to 21 discuss the matter, the conversation they had with Rick 22 Saklak.
i O
l
k , ~ m -&-
10 1 Q What did they tell you?
, 2 A Their concerns were based on the issuance of an ICR 2
3 for a weld machine and that Rick Saklak wanted Rick Snyder to '
4 initiate the ICR and disposition it and close it on his own 5 accord.
6 Q That is all they told you?
7 A Yes; that's basically the story.
8 Q Did they tell you that Mr. Saklak had told 9 Mr. Snyder that "if beating were legal, you'd be dead?"
, 10 A Not at that time.
! l
. 11 Q When did you first hear that?
i 12 A That was later that day in the men's room. I
() 13 14 discussed that with Ray Nemeth.
the one in my office.
That conversation was after 1
15 Q Did you learn anything further about the incident, 16 other than what you had initially been told by Mr. Saklak and 17 the other gentlemen and what you heard in the men's room?
18 A Could you rephrase that or repeat it?
19 Q You already told us some things you learned about 20 that incident. Did you learn anything subsequent to the 21 things you just described?
- 22 A No.
l j
h
11 1 Q What is your opinion as to whether the conduct of 2 Mr. Saklak in that incident was in accord with Comstock l
3 procedures?
i
- 4 A What he was telling Mr. Snyder to do was not in 5 accordance with the procedures at that time or not. The ICR 6 has to be dispositioned by Engineering.
- 7 Q I should know this, and I apologize. What was your 8 relationship to Mr. Saklak in who reported to whom?
- 9 A He reported to Larry Seese at that time who was the 10 Assistant QC Manager and subsequently Irv DeWald. I was in
< 11 the QA Department, separate from the-QC Department.
l 12 Q In what sense was it part of your official
( ) 13 responsibilities to know about the Saklak incident, and if so, 14 to do anything about it?
i f 15 A It was a programmatic decision on whether he could 16 do that. They were right in coming into my office to ask what l 17 the proper procedure was.
18 Q What did you advise them?
19 A I advised them to issue the ICR and send it to 20 Engineering for disposition.
1 21 Q Is that what Mr. Saklak had originally proposed to 22 do?
i i
i i
12 1 A No.
2 Q After that incident, were you involved at all in the 3 decision to terminate Mr. Saklak?
4 A I was only involved to help investigate what 5 occurred during those days and to document that.
6 Q Was that involvement prior to Mr. Saklak's 7 termination?
8 A Yes; it was.
9 Q Did you undertake that on your own or did somebody 10 ask you to do it?
11 A No. I was asked to do that from Corporate 12 management.
13 Q Specifically, who?
( }
14 A Tom Paserba and Bob Marino.
15 Q What exactly did they ask you to do?
16 A They wanted me to outline the events leading up to 17 the incident we are talking about here and subsequent meetings i
18 that were held after that, just a sequence of events.
l 19 Q Did you prepara a report of your investigation?
l 20 A I reported -- I issued a memo on the incidents; yes.
I 21 Q That letter was addressed to whom?
22 A I don't recall that it was addressed to anybody. It l
t O
1
13 1 was just a list of events.
I
\ 2 MR. CASSEL: Mike, do you know if that has been 3 produced?
4 MR. MILLER: I'm confident it has been.
5 BY MR. CASSEL:
6 Q Other than that letter, did you prepara any other 7 report on your investigation?
8 A I wrote a letter on my involvement in that meeting 9 with Mr. Nemeth, and what had occurred and my knowledge of 10 what happened in that event.
11 Q Meeting with Mr. Nemeth?
12 A Mr. Nemeth, Mr. Snyder and Mr. Simile in my office.
/ 13 MR. CASSEL: I assume that letter has been produced
}
14 also?
15 MR. MILLER: Correct.
16 BY MR. CASSEL:
17 Q Can you summarize basically what you found and what, 18 if anything, you recommended?
19 A I had no recommendations. I basically documented 20 the meeting with the four of us, what Mr. Nemeth told me and 21 the events leading up to that, and presented that information 22 to Irv DeWald and Corporate management.
O
m 14 1 Q If you had not received a request from Corporate 2 management to look into this, would it have been part of your 3 responsibility to do so anyway?
4 A I would have probably helped. Direct responsibility 5 would have been the QC Manager's.
6 Q To the extent it would have been your 7 responsibility, the reason is it could have raised a 8 programmatic concern; is that right?
9 A Yes; it could have.
10 Q Any other reason why it might have been your 11 responsibility?
12 A That would be basically it.
() 13 Q Is it part of your responsibility not only at that 14 time to respond to this sort of thing when it came to your 15 attention but also to be aware of such things, to be alert for 16 such things?
17 MR. MILLER: What "such things" are we talking 18 about?
19 BY MR. CASSEL:
20 Q Here we had a situation where Mr. Saklak, whose
- 21 position was QC Supervisor, engaged in violation of Comstock's 22 procedures, and a situation which was arguably harassment of
~. . _ ___ . . .__.
15 1 the inspector involved. You responded to that by looking into 2 it, once it came to your attention.
3 What I am asking is was it your responsibility as QA 4 Manager -- was that your position at the time?
5 A What was the timeframe on that incident?
1985 6 Q March, t994. h 4/2f[%
7 A Yes; QA Manager.
8 Q Was it part of your responsibility as QA Manager not 9 only to respond to such situations when they were brought to 10 your attention, but also to be alert, aware and to discover 11 such situations if they existed, even if someone didn't come 12 to you and tell you about it?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Prior to that incident, had you heard any 15 allegations or reports concerning Mr. Saklak that had come to 16 your attention?
17 A Could you rephrase that?
i l 18 Q Is this the first complaint you heard about 19 Mr. Saklak, either violating Comstock procedures or unduly l
I 20 pressuring a QC inspector?
f 21 A Violating the procedure or working not in accordance i
l 22 with the procedure, yes. on. occasion, some inspectors would
! .(
l i
--,-.,-n-n-n.,en-,---,...,-,- n_,-~ ,,--,n-m-~_w.~,-- .ev., , -r~ e e,- ,
16 1 complain that he was a little rough at times.
2 Q Would they complain to you?
, 3 A A couple of them did.
4 Q When did Mr. Saklak start with Comstock? Do you 5 remember?
t 6 A No; I can't recall. It was before I was on-site.
7 Q You came on-site?
8 A September, 1983.
9 Q You became QA Manager in November, 1984?
10 A Right.
11 Q From the time you became QA Manager in November of 12 1984, when was the first time you heard any complaints about 13 Mr. Saklak?
14 A I can't recall specifically.
L 15 Q Do you recall who brought any complaints about i
I 16 Mr. Saklak to your attention, once you became QA Manager?
I
! 17 A No; I don't, not when I became QA Manager.
l 18 Q Prior to being QA Manager, what was your position?
! 19 A QA Engineer.
I
! 20 Q While you were in that positior., would it have been 21 any part of your responsibility to know about or inquire into 22 such things as complaints that Mr. Saklak was unduly O
.i 17
?
1 pressuring inspectors?
2 A Yos.
< - i 3 _
Q Did any complaints come to your atter$ tion while you {'
.4 - were a QA engineer?
5 A There were t'so that 1. can recall, they were informal !
+
6 types of.conyt sation.
J 7 Q
[' - Just for the. record, you were a QA engineer from the 8, Fall of 1983 until November, 1984? l 9 A Right.
i' 10 Q What were the two that came to your attention?
11 A I recall QC Inspector, Jan Lobue, nnd QC Inspector, i d' 12 Bruce Brown.
13 Q Were th se two separate incidents or did they come
( }
14 together?
i -
15 A Two separate.
, 16 Q Do you recall approximately when they came?
1 17 A No; I don't.
- 18 Q With respect to Ms. Lobue, what was her complaint?
19 A As I recall, her complaints were basically the way r
i 20 Rick presented himself. He could be rough at times.
[
21 Q Did she give you any specifics? -
22 A
{ .
Not really; no.
1 g - -
9 i
e- . . , - . - - -
--w--, , 8 ,y
18 1 Q Did she come to you for the purpose of making a 2 complaint or you just happened to run into her in the hallway 3 or something?
4 A No. It was casual conversation.
5 Q Who was the other complainer?
6 A A gentleman by the name of Bruce Brown.
7 Q What was his complaint?
i- 8 A Basically the same thing. He also didn't feel Rick 9 was completely experienced in the areas he was covering.
10 Q Again, was this just a casual conversation or did he 11 come to you to make a complaint?
12 A Yes; it was casual conversation.
13 Q When you received these two complaints, did you pass
[ }
14 along the information you received to anybody else?
15 A I don't recall at that time.
16 Q You don't recall at that time. Did you do so at a ;
17 later time?
18 A No; I don't recall.
19 Q Until today's deposition, had you ever told any of 20 the Comstock management people or the Edison people about 21 these two prior incidents?
22 A I may have discussed it with Irv DeWald and Larry O
, , , , - _ , ~ , _ . .--..,....v -~ --~~ - -r- - - - - - - - - - + ' - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' " ' - - " ' - ' " - ' - - - ' - ~ ~ ' - - ~ ~ - ~ ' ~ ' ' " - ' " - " ^ ~ ' ' - - ' ' '
19 1 Seese.
2 Q When do you think you may have discussed it with 3 them?
4 A I can't recall.
5 Q Do you recall if you discussed it with them, you did 6 so as part of some reporting in your official responsibilities 7 or just a casual conversation in the hall?
8 A Just casual conversation.
9 Q Once you received these complaints, did you do 10 anything to look into whether they were correct?
11 A Specifically, no. I don't recall looking into them 12 formally.
( ) 13 Q Did you look into them informally?
14 A No; I don't recall that either.
15 Q Do you recall doing anything, taking any kind of 16 corrective action in response to them?
17 A No; I don't recall.
18 Q Apart from the complaints you had received while you aA klul8'
- 19 were a 1HE engineer, are you aware prior to the March, 1995 l
l 20 incident involving Mr. Snyder, of any complaints about l
21 Mr. Saklak being brought to other QA or managerial people at
~
l 22 Comstock?
O L
20 1 A There was one around November / December of 1984, 2 between Rick Saklak and QC Inspector Franco Rolan.
3 Q Was that incident brought to the attention of 4 somebody in Comstock management?
5 A Yes; Irv DeWald.
6 Q How did you find out about it?
I 7 A We talked about it.
8 Q At the time?
i 9 A Yes.
10 Q Basically he told you about it. You didn't know 11 about it until he told you about it?
12 A Irv DeWald told me about it.
13
( ) Q What did he tell you?
14 A He was discussing with me an incident between Franco 15 and Rick and it got into a heated discussion. Franco
]
16 complained to Irv DeWald, 17 Q Do you remember any more specifica about what the 18 heated conversation purportedly was?
19 A As I recall, it was about the closing of a
< 20 Non-Conformance Report, NCR, and that Rick wanted Franco Rolan 21 to do more research before he closed the document.
22 Q Franco wanted to close it and Rick wanted him to do i
- ---_- -- _ _ _ _ r - , - -
- - - - .m
l 21 1 more research?
2 A He thought he could close the document.
I 3 Q At the time Irv DeWald told you about this, were you 4 the QA Manager?
5 A It would be right about that time.
6 Q Subsequent to that and before the March, 1985 7 incident, did you hear or receive any further complaints about 8 Mr. Saklak?
9 A I don't recall any.
10 Q After you heard this third complaint about 11 Mr. Saklak from Mr. DeWald, did you undertake any formal or
, 12 informal corrective action relating to Mr. Saklak?
( ) 13 A There was a written warning issued by Irv DeWald.
14 Q Mr. DeWald issued a warning?
15 A Yes.
16- Q Did you undertake any effort to investigate whether 17 Mr.-Saklak was properly performing his duties with respect to i
18 his relationships with the people who worked for him?
19 A No; I didn't.
20 Q Did you discuss with Mr. DeWald whether such an 21 inquiry should be conducted?
22 A I didn't feel an inquiry needed to be conducted l
I 22 1 based on Rick wanting additional information to close the NCR.
2 Q What about the prior two incidents, looking at all 3 three together, you didn't think it added up to anything worth 4 looking into?
5 A We had talked to Rick about his mannerisms and 6 supervisory techniques, that type of thing. Yesf we did that.
7 Q You said "we."
8 A Management.
9 Q Did that include you?
10 A Yes.
11 Q When did you talk to Mr. Saklak about his attitude 12 and manners?
13 A I don't recall exactly when.
( }
14 Q Did any of that occur while you were QA engineer?
15 A It may have.
I 16 Q As part of that, were you aware of anyone other than 17 yourself making any effort to find out how widespread this 18 sort of problem with Mr. Saklak was?
19 MR. MILLER: Could we identify which problem? I 20 don't know if you are characterizing his encouraging a QC 21 Inspector to do more research as a problem.
22 0
23 1 BY MR. CASSEL:
2- Q The type of problem reflected in the first two 3 incidents, that in the view of the people who worked for him, 4 he was unduly pressuring them.
5 A I wouldn't say pressuring. His mannerisms were 6 stronger than most supervision.
7 Q His stronger than most mannerisms, were you aware of 8 anyone in Comstock management making any effort prior to March 9 of 1985 to investigate whether those stronger than most 10 mannerisms were more widespread than the two or three 11 incidents you knew about?
12 A I don't recall an investigation type situation.
13 There were discussions with Mr. Saklak on his supervisory 14 techniques by both site management and Corporate management.
15 Q Do you recall either yourself or anyone else in 16 Comstock management passing along to anyone from Commonwealth 17 Edison any of the complaints about Mr. Saklak before March of 18 19857 19 A I think possibly the Franco Rolan incident was 20 passed along.
l 21 Q You think possibly. Why do you think that?
l 22 A In conversations with CECO, I am sure it came up.
1 O
24 1 Q What about the other two incidents?
2 A The ones I described?
3 Q Right.
4 A No. I'm sure they weren't.
5 Q Do you know if any complaints about Mr. Saklak were 6 conveyed to the NRC prior to March of 1985, by anybody in 7 Comstock management?
8 A There were -- I am trying to get my time tables in 9 order. There was the John Seeders incident in August, which 10 was passed on to the NRC. NRC was aware to that situation.
11 That was prior to March of 1985.
12 Q Mr. Seeders' complaints about Mr. Saklak?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Any others?
15 A Not that I recall; no.
16 Q That pa'ticular r one you described, wasn't it l
17 Mr. Seeders who directly went to the NRC on that, or did 18 Comstock management beat him to the punch and go to the NRC 19 first?
l l 20 A He went to the NRC first, if I recollect.
21 Q No other incident you recall where Comstock l 22 management informed the NRC of any problem with respect to r
t
25 1 Mr. Saklak prior to March of 1985?
2 A Not that I recall.
3 Q Do you recall ever receiving any inquiry from the 4 NRC or from Edison about Mr. Saklak prior to March of 1985?
5 A There was a meeting in Mr. Shamblin's office with 6 the NRC concerning the John Seeders' incident and Worley 7 Puckett.
8 Q One meeting dealt with both subjects, or two 9 different meetings?
10 A It was both subjects.
11 Q Other than that one meeting on the Puckett and 12 Seeders' issues, do you recall ever receiving any inquiry from
( ) 13 either the NRC or Edison about Mr. Saklak prior to March of 14 19857 15 A There may have been a conversation with Bob Schulz.
16 I don't specifically recall it.
i 17 Q You said there may have been. You mean there may 18 have been one between you and him?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Why do you think there may have been if you don't 21 recall it?
22 A I recall a lot of conversations with the NRC. The 1
I O
l
- ,- , ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ __
26 1 time table of events is difficult to put in order. I do
\m/ '
2 recall the meeting with Bob Schulz in Dan Shamblin's office on 3 the John Seeders' incident specifically.
4 Q Do you remember approximately when that meeting took 5 place?
6 A That meeting was in September.
7 Q 19847 8 A 1984.
9 Q Do you remember who was present?
10 A Dan Shamblin, Irv DeWald, myself, Bob Schulz, Jim 11 Gieseker.
12 Q Anybody else?
(s) 13 A I think Tom Quaka may have been there from CECO.
14 Q Anybody else?
15 A No.
I 16 Q How long did the meeting laut, roughly?
17 A I would say half an hour, 45 minutes.
18 Q Do you recall about what was said at the meeting?
l 19 A The discussions were on the John Seeders' 20 incidents. Mr. Schulz had stated that the inspectors had some 21 concerns to them. Dan Shamblin chaired the meeting. We 22 basically discussed the Seeders and Puckett allegations.
O
27 s~
1 Q Was there a conclusion or a consensus at the end of 2 the meeting?
3 A I recall for the John Seeders' situation, there were 4 some specific things, recommendations that were made, for us 5 to review the situation.
6 Q By the " situation," you mean to review Mr. Seeders' 7 own individual situation?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Those recommendations were made by the NRC or 10 Edison?
11 A The recommendations were discussed in the meeting.
12 It was kind of a back and forth type discussion.
' 13 Q You concurred in the recommendations?
(
14 A Yes; basically.
15 Q Any other recommendations or conclusions that you 16 recall from that meeting?
17 A No; not that I recall.
18 Q I think you said earlier that the meeting also dealt 19 with Mr. Puckett. Were there any recommendations or l 20 conclusions that came out of the meeting with regard to 21 Mr. Puckett?
22 A I don't recall; no.
O 6
28 1 Q Do you recall there were some but you don't remember 2 what they were or you don't recall whether there were any?
3 A I don't remember what they were, if there were any.
4 Q You don't recall even if there were?
5 A No.
6 Q Do you recall with confidence that the subject of 7 Mr. Puckett was even discussed at the meeting?
8 A It was discussed.
9 Q Most of the meeting was about Mr. Seeders?
10 A That's what I recall; yes.
11 Q During the meeting or after the meeting, did you or 12 anyone else from Comstock take any notes or write up a 13 memorandum concerning the meeting?
( }
14 A Yes; Irv DeWald issued a memo, minutes of the 15 meeting.
16 MR. CASSEL: Has that been produced?
17 MR. MILLER: It has been produced; yes.
i 18 BY MR. CASSEL:
1 19 Q At the time that meeting took place, if it was 20 Septenber of 1984, you were still QA engineer; is that 21 correct?
22 A Right.
O
29 1 Q Who was your QA Manager at that time?
2 A I reported to Tom Paserba who was the Regional 3 Manager in the Chicago office.
4 Q Even during the period while you were QA engineer 5 rather than QA Manager, you were the senior QA person on-site 6 for Comstock?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Out of that meeting that was held in September, was 9 it part of your responsibility to follow up on the 10 recommendations to look into Mr. Seeders' situation?
11 A It was actually Irv DeWald's responsibility but we 12 handled it together.
( 13 Q Apart from looking into Mr. Seeders' specific
}
14 situation, did you conduct any further investigation or 15 inquiry based on the September meeting?
16 A From the September meeting, we continued with the i
17 calibration review, based on Mr. Seeders' concerns or our l
18 concerns with his work. From the recommendations, we 19 transferred Mr.-Seeders into the Engineering Department.
20 Q We will come back and talk about Mr. Seeders later 21 on. Right now I am just asking you about whether you did 22 anything unrelated to Mr. Seeders' coming out of that meeting, O
30 1 in terms of looking into whether any problems needed to be 2 corrected or investigations needed to be made, apart from 3 Mr. Seeders' personal situation.
4 A We were investigating and doing research on the 5 calibration records to ascertain how much of a problem we had 6 in that area. That review was started by Mr. Seeders and 7 continued on with three other inspectors. We were also 8 looking into some welding concerns that were brought to our 9 attention by Mr. Puckett.
10 Q You are welcome to look at this memo. We will be 11 getting into it later when we talk about Mr. Seeders.
12 Mr. Seeders' letter of August 17th to Mr. DeWald, you remember 13 that letter. One of the statements he makes in there among 14 others is -- this is Seeders Deposition Exhibit No. 13.
15 "For at least the last six months, we have been 16 subject to endless harassment and intimidation by Comstock's 17 management to justify the incompetence and disregard for all 18 company inspectors."
l 19 Following the receipt of that letter, and following 20 the September meeting in which you discussed Mr. Seeders' 21 situation, did you ever make any effort to look into whether
- 22 there was in fact widespread harassment and intimidation of QC O
31 1 inspectors at Comstock, as Mr. Seeders seemed to be alleging b 2 there?
3 A I didn't personally but it was looked into.
4 Q Do you know by whom it was looked into?
5 A It was looked into by Irv DeWald.
6 Q Do you know when he began looking into that?
7 A It was after the letter was issued. He brought the 8 letter down and researched and investigated items in the 9 letter.
10 Q You mean Mr. Seeders' August 17th letter?
11 A Right.
12 Q Prior to that letter from Mr. Seeders, had you made
()13 any effort to investigate any allegations of harassment or 14 intimidation of QC inspectors at Comstock?
, 15 MR. MILLER: I object to the form of the question.
16 Go ahead and answer it.
17 THE WITNESS: No; I don't.
18 BY MR. CASSEL:
. 19 Q Do you know if anyone else had, Comstock management?
l l
l 20 A Not specifically, looking into the investigation.
21 We did talk to Rick about other incidents.
22 Q Rick Saklak?
l l
O
32 1 A Yes.
2 Q You said Mr. DeWald looked into that allegation by 3 Mr. Seeders with respect to harassment?
4 A Yes; he did.
5 Q Do you know whether he came up with a report 4
6 responding to that allegation, which has been produced in 7 discovery? I see counsel nodding his head "yes."
8 Were you aware that any of Mr. Seeders' allegations 9 concerning harassment were specifically directed against 10 Mr. DeWald?
4 11 A They were directed at all Comstock management.
12 Q They were also specifically directed at Mr. DeWald;
( ) 13 weren't they?
14 A I think so; yes.
l 15 Q As QA engineer, senior QA person on the site at the i
16 time,- did the question occur to you whether it ahs prcper to
- 17. have Mr. DeWald investigating allegations directed 18 specifically against him?
19 MR. MILLER: Object to the form of ths question.
! 20 BY MR. CASSEL:
l 21 Q You can go ahead and answer the question, if you 22 can.
i O
l
. _~_ ,-.._..,..._. .. __ _ _ _ _ . . . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ - . . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . .
33 l
1 A The items in the letter were directed toward O
(_s/ 2. Comstock management and Irv DeWald was considered the senior 3 representative for Quality Control. It was his responsibility 4 to look into that.
5 Q QA had no separate responsibility apart from QC to 6 investigate?
1 7 A Into the harassment and intimidation? I don't think 8 so; no. It wasn't programmatic in nature.
9 MR. CASSEL: Off the record.
10 [ Discussion held off the record.]
11 BY MR. CASSEL:
12 Q And when you say it was not programmatic in nature, 13 what do you mean, when you use the word programmatic?
( }
J 14 A It wasn't related to implementation of the 15 procedures, related to the QA program. It was an item related i
4 16 to the QC inspectors and it was a responsibility of Mr. DeWald '
, 17 to investigate that, which he did.
la Q Maybe I misunderstood one of your answers to one of 19 my earlier questions. Are you saying, then, that if someone 20 vere to come to you -- in your capacity as senior QA person on i
21 the site for Comstock -- and say QC supervisors, including the 22 senior QC person, are engaging in widespread harassment and ,
i l
O 1
I
34 1 intimidation of QC inspectors onsite, that that would not have 2 been part of your responsibility, as Senior QA person, to look 3 into that and investigate it?
4 A If it was directed to me yes, I would look into it.
5 But the letter was issued to Mr. DeWald and it was QC related, 6 with the inspectors.
7 Q Suppose someone came to you and said there is 1
8 widespread harassment and intimidation of the QC inspectors, 9 including by Mr. DeWald? Are you saying that you wouldn't
+
10 have had any responsibility to look into that?
11 A Yes, I would have looked into it..
12 MR. MILLER: Object to the form of the question.
I 13 BY MR. CASSEL:
14 Q And the reason you didn't look into this was because 15 Mr. DeWald was looking into it?
- f. 16 A The letter was directed toward all management.
i 17 Q Why was it not part of your responsibility, as i
18 senior QA person, to look into this, rather than leave it to i
19 the person who was directly involved in supervising the person 20 making the complaint?
21 MR. MILLER: I'm going to object to the form of the L 22 question and I believe there is a mischaracterization of the O
- -,m y .m - , - . . _ ---,m - -_y-- , ,,, , ,, , ,.-m ..%-.,, . y-y 4 - , w.---m-- +.-1g--w m w-
35 1 document, by omission. Mr.-Seltmann is, I believe, directly 2 mentioned in the letter as well. I'm not quite sure what 3 point you're driving at, Mr. Cassel, but in any event my 4 objection is noted.
i 5 BY MR. CASSEL:
6 Q Now I have to remember the question, but I think the 7 thrust of it was isn't part of the responsibility of QA to
. 8 ensure that the QC people are properly carrying out 9 procedures?
, 10 A Yes, it is.
) 11 Q And isn't part of the responsibility of QA to ensure 12 that QC people are carrying out their responsibilities without 13 harassing and intimidating their inspectors?
( )
4 14 A If it affects the quality of the inspection and the 15 issues were programmatic procedurally oriented,-it would be 16 directed -- yes, I would have a responsibility in that.
17 The letter was issued with specifically names 18 mentioned in it and any one person responding to that would be I
19 alse included in the letter. Irv DeWald, at the time, was the I
20 senior manhger responsible for the department.
21 Q You say it would be part of your responsibility, if 22 I heard you correctly, if two things were true. And I'm not l
, . , , - . . - , , - , - , - - , - , , . , _ , - , , ,--,--,--,,,.--_.,m.-._-_-------.-_.-_m.
36 1 sure whether you meant and or either. One was if it affected p
(~s 2 quality. Isn't it true that you don't know whether such 3 harassment, if it exists, affects quality until you look into 4 it?
5 A That's true.
6 Q And the other was if it's programmatic. Isn't it 7 also true that you don't know for sure whether it's 8 programmatic until you look into it?
9 A If the issues brought to my attention were related 10 to procedure interpretations and their issue of complaining 11 about harassment, that they were being asked to do something 12 that was not in relation to the procedure, yes they would come
( ) 13 to me and it would be my responsibility to follow up on it.
14 Q Only if they came to you or if that information came 15 to your attention?
16 A It would be both.
17 Q And you did not interpret any of Mr. Seeders' 18 allegations as raising that type of allegation? Namely, that 19 there was harassment relating to interpretation of procedures? '
20 MR. MILLER: I'm going to object to the form of the 21 question. I believe that's -- maybe you could point the 22 witness to something in the letter.
__--_--_____x_. - - . - _ _ - , _.
,m
1 l
37 1 BY MR. CASSEL:
7 2 Q Well, we could go through the letter, but I'm just 3 asking whether anything Mr. Seeders alleged, in your opinion ,
I 4 raised questions concerning harassment involving 5 interpretation of procedures?
6 A I think he raised concerns of that nature.
7 Q Is it the case then that the concerns he raised !
8 really were within your responsibility to investigate and the 9 reason you didn't investigate them was because Mr. DeWald was i r
10 investigating them? '
i 11 A No, I assisted in that investigation of the letter. l 12 Q Oh, you did? j 13 A Yes.
14 Q Following the --
15 A It wasn't my responsibility completely. I was ;
r 16 aiding or helping Mr. DeWald in that investigation. .
17 Q And as part of that investigation, did you interview
- 18 other QC inspectors who worked for Mr. Saklak, to see if they ;
19 had been subjected to harassment or pressure by him? t 20 A I did not.
4 i 21 Q Did Mr. DeWald? >
22 A Yes, he did.
(
t
. . , . , . - . . - . - - . - _ _ - , - , _ . , . - , .,--.----,--,-,,.--------,----,-.-,,---,---...,---.,----,-._n,. - , -
38 1 Q And he wrote up the results of those interviews in
) 2 his report?
3 A Yes, he did.
4 Q What -- when you say you assisted in his 5 investigation, how did you assist?
6 A There was a paragraph, in Mr. Seeder's letter, that 7 was directed to me, as far as he mentioned by name and 8 relation to an audit finding and a calibration records review 9 program. And I responded to that portion of the letter.
10 Q And that's the only way in which you assisted 11 Mr. DeWald's investigation?
12 A Towards the letter, yes.
/ 13 Q Coming back to March of '85 with Mr. Saklak, your O) 14 role there was essentially at the request of corporate 15 management to look into the allegations that had been made and 16 you wrote a report concerning your findings.
17 Did you have any other role, with respect to the 18 termination of Mr. Saklak?
19 A No.
20 0 Were you present in any meeting where the subject of 21 terminating Mr. Saklak was discussed?
22 A We had a meeting with corporate management, Bob O
1 39 1 Marino and Tom Paserba and they expressed that they were going 2 to look into and investigate the incident and make the 3 recommendations.
4 Q And when you say we, who was we?
I 5 A It was, as I recall, myself, Irv DeWald, Larry Seese 6 may have been in that meeting, Tom Paserba, Bob Marino.
7 Q And was that meeting before or after the 20-odd 8 inspectors had gone to the NRC?
9 A That would have been after.
10 Q And did you participate in any subsequent meeting 11 concerning the termination of Mr. Saklak?
12 A Not after that meeting. '
( ) 13 Q Did you have any other discussions with any other 14 Comstock managers, concerning the termination of Saklak, apart 15 from that one meeting?
16 A I don't recall specific meetings, no.
17 Q And did the people from Comstock corporate 18 management say why they were going to look into the Saklak 19 situation and consider taking action?
i i
I 20 A Well, the concerns came previous to that meeting.
21 We had a couple of meetings with CECO on it. That was after 22 the inspectors went to the NRC and the NRC presented those i
l0 ee-,-- ,,y.,-.-,_,-,,-.---r- - ----
. ,--,m v~ -- ----#---- . - --- --- ,--- - - - - --- . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_ r---v - -- - - - - -
. . _ _ - . = - --..
1 4
40 1 type of meetings to CECO. CECO requested meetings with us.
1 s_- 2 And it all happened very quickly, within three or four days.
3 Q And you participated also in the meetings with CECO?
4 A Yes.
5 Q And who was present at those meetings with CECO?
6 A If I recall correctly, it was Dan Shamblin, Jim 7 Gieseker, myself, Irv DeWald, I think Doug Evans was there.
8 QA was there, Tom Quaka, I think, and Tom Maiman from CECO.
9 Q And how many such meetings were there?
10 A I recall one at the and of that week and then we had 11 a subsequent meeting at CECO office with everybody, all the 12 inspectors, the following Monday.
[ }
13 Q Referring to the first meeting, do you remember how 14 long a meeting that was?
15 A I recall maybe a half an hour.
16 Q And what was the discussion in the meeting, if you 3 17 recall?
18 A We were given the facts of the inspectors, '
19 approximately 25, I think it was on two different occasions.
9 20 One the previous day, I think March 28th, and then on March 21 29th additional inspectors went to the NRC with concerns and 22 allegations. And the NRC contacted CECO and we discussed O
1 2
-~ , , - - ,- --,-.-. ---, .- - - , , . . - - . . . - ,,--------.,-ne - - - - - - -. ,, --v-.,- - - - - - - - - - , -y- - - - --
41 1 those items and the Saklak incident.
2 Q And did the CECO people tell you which inspectors 3 had gone to the NRC? .
4 A No.
5 Q What did they tell you about the allegations?
6 A They didn't discuss the allegations -- the NRC 7 didn't discuss the allegations with us.
8 Q I'm talking now the CECO people who met with you in 9 that first meeting that you had with CECO?
10 A They said that there were 23, 24 inspectors that 11 went to the NRC with allegations concerning around the Rick 12 Saklak-Rick Snyder incident and that was basically it. They 13 informed us of that.
14 Q They informed you that a large number of inspectors 15 had gone to the NRC about Mr. Saklak and that's all they said?
16 A About concerns and allegations.
17 Q Did they ask you to do anything? [
! i 18 A They wanted us.to -- we discussed our policy 1.0.0 6
. 19 statement, which is procedure tree.h(hey T discussed issuing or 20 having a meeting a Monday for Irv DeWald to issue a letter l 21 that day that the meeting would occur and we subsequently 22 contacted corporate management.
O
t-42 1 Q And did they tell you that they wanted you to 2 investigate Mr. Saklak and take any corrective action 3 concerning him?
4 A That was discussed, yes.
5 Q Do you recall what was specifically said, regarding 6 that?
7 A It was discussed that they wanted Comstock to
.8 comply, implement -- comply basically with their policy I.0.0 9 statement, which is that procedure 1ree. ple
.10 Q In what respect?
11 A The policy statement is our commitment to CECO of 12 what we're going to do during tha contract. It's a one page 13 type of document.
14 Q other than wanting you to comply with it, did they 15 identify some particular way in which they thought you had not 16 complied with it and they wanted you now to start complying 17 with it?
18 A They wanted us to investigate the situation and 19 relate it to the policy statement and make our determination 20 and take action.
21 Q Did they ask you to look into the situation beyond 22 Mr. Saklak?
O L
43 1 A Not that I recall at that time.
2 Q Did they ask you to look into the situation beyond 3 Mr. Saklak at some later time?
4 A There were recommendations that came out of the 5 investigations on that incident and the concerns and 6 allegations.
7 Q Recommendations that came out of whose 8 investigations?
9 A CECO's.
10 Q You're aware that Ceco had a Quality First program 11 in place at the time? \
12 A Right.
4 13 Q
( ) Prior to the incident involving Mr. Saklak, in late 14 March of 1985, had Edison communicated to y)u any complaints
(
15 concerning Mr. Saklak that had been received through the 16 Quality First program?
17 A I don't recall any. -
18 Q If they had, would it have been your responsibility 19 to conduct an inquiry or take some action?
20 A Not through the Quality First program, not 21 generally, no.
22 Q Maybe I'm not being clear. If the Quality First
< O
44 1 program had received some allegations and Edison had 2 transmitted them to you, once you received some allegations 3 from Edison, would it have been your responsibility as QA 4 manager to either look into those allegations or take some 5 action on them?
6 A We would investigate them, yes.
7 Q And do you recall any such investigations being 8 conducted by you or by your people prior to the Saklak 9 incident?
10 A No, I don't recall any.
11 Q Apart from the Edison Quality First program, do you 12 recall anybody else from Edison bringing any allegations of
( } 13 harassment or intimidation concerning Mr. Saklak to your 14 attention, prior to late Merch?
15 A No.
16 MR. MILLER: Other than what he's already testified 17 to.
t 18 MR. CASSEL: Other than the meeting, which is so far 19 all he's --
- 20 MR. MILLER
- I'm sorry.
21 MR. CASSEL: If it's not clear, why don't you --
22 MR. MILLER: Well, maybe I misunderstood the i
l 4
O i
, , . - ,- - . . , . . - - . - . , , - . ~ _ . . . - - .
. - . . . . . . _-,,,-,m. . - , . _ , - ._ - . _ - . . ----,--------.----.-,-n er.* e-
45 1 question. I thought you asked him whether anybody had brought
, '2 instance of alleged harassment and intimidation by Saklak to l
?3- his attention.
4 MR. CASSEL: That I asked a couple of hours ago.
5 . Right new, I'm zeroing in on Edison personnel. .
6 MR. MILLER: I beg your pardon.
7
- BY MR. CASSEL:
4 s' Q Let me just repeat the question. I think I 9 ,-understood the answer, but let's -- just so the record is i 16: ~ clear. ,
- 11. Prior to the incident that you described in late j 12 March, had anyone from Commonwealth Edison Company,ever 13 brought tb youra'ttention or to Constock's attention, to your 14 knowledge, any complaints concerning Mr. SaklakT: ~
~
15 - A
.f I don't recall any. ./
16 Q Prior to the late March incident, involving" Mr.Saklak,hadanyonefromCommonwealthEdisonb[oQhtto 17 ss 18 your attention any~ complaints concerning harassment or l i 19 intimidation of Comsteck QC inspectork?!
j'- , , ,
3 - 20 A Other than.the Sohn Seeders incident.
, m; ' ,
- y ~
[j <" 21 Q Other than the Seeders incident? '
t } W 9 22 A No.
4 '
6 I' y I e4'-
l p. * ,
i -
..~.. - _ __._/ ___
46 1 Q And when you investigated the Saklak incident, what 2 was the essence of what you found?
3 A My personal investigation?
4 Q That's right. The one I thought you said earlier 5 you conducted at the request of Comstock corporate management?
6 A I listed the timetable and events leading up to the 7 incident for Mr. Marino, so he could have a dossier type 8 document, so he could see quickly what had occurred.
9 Q Other than -- and that's all you did, by way of 10 investigation concerning the Saklak incident?-
11 A And I documented a letter of my meeting with Rick 12 Snyder, Tony Simile and Ray Nemeth.
13
( ) Q And that's all you did, as part of the 14 investigation?
15 A (Nodding affirmatively.]
16 Q Other than --
17 MR. MILLER: You have to say yes.
l 18 THE WITNESS: Yes.
l 19 BY MR. CASSEL:
l 20 Q Other than that investigative activity, that you L
21' just described, in attending the meeting with CECO management 22 at the end of the week and attending the meeting -- I think it l'
O
47 1 was early the following week, with the inspectors present, did 2 you have any other involvement in connection with the 3 allegations against Mr. Saklak and his subsequent termination?
4 A They were mainly investigated by Commonwealth Edison 5 through their Quality First program, and there were 6 recommendations issued based on their investigation and I 7 helped respond to that recommendation letter.
8 Q Looking back on this whole series of events now, 9 Bob, do you have any feeling that Comstock should have known 10 about the problems with Mr. Saklak and done something about 11 them sooner than it did?
12 MR. MILLER: Objection to the form of the question,
,) 13 but go ahead and answer it.
14 THE WITNESS: I don't think that the concerns, based 15 on the concerns issued to the NRC, were substantiated prior to 16 that time.
17 BY MR. CASSEL:
18 Q Do you think enough investigation was conducted, to 19 determine whether there was more of a problem there than you 20 knew about?
21 A I think it was investigated thoroughly on the 22 harassment intimidation issue and the conclusions were issued.
O
I.
48 1 Q When you say it was investigated thoroughly, you 2 mean once the 20-some inspectors went to the NRC?
3 A Yes.
4 Q I'm talking about prior to that time, prior to the 5 QC inspectors going to the NRC. Looking back on it, now, in 6 light of your long experience in QA, is it your opinion that 7 Comstock should have known about the problems regarding 8 Mr. Saklak and should have done something about them sooner l 9 than the incident where the 20-some people went to the NRC?
10 MR. MILLER: The same objection.
11 THE WITNESS: We did handle each occurrence when it 12 came up, investigated it, documented it, and in some occasions 13 talked to Mr. Saklak about his supervisory techniques. We did
( }
14 act on the investigations or the issues prior to that. Yes, 15 we did.
16 BY MR. CASSEL:
17 Q So if you had to do it again, you'd do it the same 18 way?
19 A Yes, I would.
20 Q At any time, during those discussions you had with 21 CECO, did CECO people express to you any concern that they 22 felt you should have learned about problems with Saklak sooner v
49 1 than you did?
s_ / 2 A On occasion, from these incidents -- the Seeders and 3 Franco Rolan incident -- conversations had occurred between 4 CECO and Comstock. They expressed that we ought to talk to 5 him, that type of thing. And we did.
6 Q Once you began having discussions with Edison and 7 various investigations, following the incident where the 20 8 inspectors went to the NRC, did anybody at CECO ever express 9 concern that Comstock should have known there was a problem 10 with Saklak prior to 20 inspectors going to the NRC?
11 A I think Jim Gieseker made a comment at one time.
12 Q Do you recall what that was?
( 13 A It was basically what you said, that possibly action
)
14 should have been taken prior to that incident in March and 15 that the incident in March wouldn't have happened.
16 Q Do you recall, was that in a meeting or a casual 17 conversation?
l j 18 A A casual conversation.
19 Q Between you and him and no one else?
l 20 A I don't recall who. I recall a conversation of that 21 nature. I don't recall who was present at that time.
22 Q And do you recall Mr. Gieseker saying, at that time, 1
Q%.
1 _ _- - . - _ - - --- -- - --- - - -
50 1 that maybe there was some - expressing any concern that there 2
was some shortcoming in your program for not having discovered 3 the problem sooner?
4 A No, I don't recall anything like that.
5 Q Do you recall anybody from CECO, at any time, ever 6 suggesting that there was a shortcoming in Comstock's QA 7 program, for not having discovered the problem sooner?
8 MR. MILLER: Objection to the form of the questien.
9 BY MR. CASSEL:
10 Q By the problem, I mean the Saklak problem?
4 11 MR. MILLER: Same objection.
12 THE WITNESS: Would that be before or after the
( ) 13 March incident?
14 BY MR. CASSEL:
15 Q Either way.
16 A Well, after they issued a recommendation to that 17 effect.
18 Q And what specific recommendation are you referring 19 to?
s 20 A It was a recommendation in their follow up, in their 21 report, on the Quality First allegations. They issued a 22 letter to us on recommendation on how to strengthen O
4' 51 1 management. And one of the recommendations was for us to s/ 2 review the possibility of issuing a procedure for concerns of 3 this nature.
4 MR. CASSEL: We're about at 11:15. I think we're at 5 a breaking point, if you want to take a break now.
6 MR. MILLER: Okay.
7 [ Recess.]
8 BY MR. CASSEL:
9 Q Your mind goes back to March of 1985, Bob, and 10 you're sitting in your office, I presume, and Rick Snyder and 11 two other gentlemen come in to tell you about the incident 12 that's just happened with Mr. Saklak. And the question is,
()13- what did they tell you?
14 A They told me that Rick Saklak wanted the ICR that 15 Rick Snyder was issuing, on a welding machine calibration 16 problem, he wanted Rick Snyder to evaluate it and disposition 17 it himself and close it out.
18 Q Did they tell you anything else?
19 A That was the basic conversation, at that time.
20 Q They didn't tell you about the "If beatings were 21 legal, you'd be dead" comment?
22 A No, they didn't.
i O
52 1 Q And did they tell you why they were coming to report 2 this to you?
3 A Well, Rick Snyder felt that he couldn't do that, in 4 accordance with the procedure. And I agreed with him.
5 Q Okay, now turning to the whole situation regarding 6 Mr. Seeders. August 17, 1984 seems to be something of a 7 watershed in that whole series of developments. That's the 8 day that Mr. Seeders sends his letter. I think that's the day 9 that he gets some kind of formal complaint issued by 10 Mr. DeWald. Do you know why things came to a head on that 11 particular date? Was it just a gradual buildup of things, or 12 was there some particular event that triggered what appeared
! ( 13 to be a new stage of tension at that point?
}
14 A There was an incident that morning between 15 Mr. Saklak and Mr. Seeders, that Rick wanted to issue a 16 warning. He took that concern to Mr. Seese and Mr. Seese 17 wanted to investigate it, but there was an incident -- a loud 18 discussion -- between Mr. Seeders and Mr. Saklak that morning.
19 Q Prior to that morning -- prior to the letter of that
, 20 day, and I assume you recall the letter of August 17th and 21 generally what it said.
r 22 Prior to that letter of August 17th, had Mr. Seeders lO
f?
1 53 1 made any complaints to you that came to your attention 2 concerning harassment or intimidation of QC inspectors?
! 3 A No.
4 Q Prior to that time, had he ever told you that he was i
5 considering going to the NRC?
l 6 A Not that I recall.
7 Q Had you received any information from anybody to l 8 . indicate that he was going to be going to the NRC or might be?
I 9 A No.
10 Q Other than the response to the Ceco audit, 11 concerning the calibrations, which you asked Mr. Seeders to 12 look into back in, I think it was July, you didn't really have 13 much day to day contact with Mr. Seeders prior to August 17,
[ }
14 did you?
15 A No.
l 16 Q Normally he was working with and for the folks in QC 17 and you, in QA, really didn't have any reason to be in contact 18 with him?
. 19 A That's correct.
20 Q Did you have any other contact with him, apart from 21 the follow up on that CECO audit concerning the calibrations 22 prior to August 17th?
O d
f
.I
- - - - - -- - - - - - , , , - - - - , - - - , - - - - - . _ - - , - - - . - - . . - - . - . ,-------,-.nn --- - , - - - . . , - - . . . , . - - m , ,---,--- -- - , , , - . _ -
54 1 A Not other than say conversations. He sat outside my
'(_, 2 office, so we would talk on occasion.
3 Q Now later on, following the September meeting with 4 the NRC and CECO, to discuss the Seeders' situation, you said 5 one of the actions you took was to transfer him into 6 engineering. Is that the right term?
7 A That's correct.
8 Q What was the reason for transferring him?
9 A The reasons were related to the calibrations records 10 review that we were doing and the concerns of the paperwork 11 that we had found in that review.
12 Q And whose idea was it, who initiated the idea of
}13 transferring him? Did it come up in that meeting with CECO 14 and the NRC?
15 A Yes, it was one of the recommendations. I think it 16 was Dan Shamblin said, on occasion we have considered 17 transferring individuals into a different department to see if 18 they can perform better. And it has worked for commonwealth 19 Edison. So we took that recommendation into advice and we 20 decided that was the best thing to do.
21 Q So really then it was Dan Phamblin, of Edison, who 22 initiated the suggestion to transfer Mr. Seeders?
O
I 55 1 A He came up with the comment that CECO has done that 2 in the past and we could review that for our own purposes.
3 Q Who was the NRC representative in that meeting, 4 again? If you recall?
5 A The meeting in Mr. Shamblin's office was Bob 6 Schultz.
7 Q Bob Schultz, and he was the only NRC person present, 8 that you recall?
9 A I think I'm confusing the -- yes, he was in that 10 meeting.
11 Q Well, do you recall him making any recommendations 12 about what you ought to do, if anything, in regard to 13 Mr. Seeders' complaints?
14 A No, he didn't make any recommendation.
15 Q Was he merely an observer at the meeting?
16 A Yes, he wanted to be informed of the outcome of the 17 situation.
18 Q And whose actual decision to transfer Mr. Seeders 19 was it?
20 A The decision was a joint decision between Mr. DeWald 21 and myself.
22 Q And when did you make that decision?
l O
56 1 A We made that decision, if I'm not mistaken, the O
(/ 2 following Monday after that meeting.
3 Q And you and Mr. DeWald sat down and discussed the 4 situation and made the decision?
5 A Yes.
6 Q And do you recall the discussion that you and 7 Mr. DeWald had?
8 A Well, we felt with all the circumstances, that was 9 the best decision to make. We wanted to salvage Mr. Seeders, 10 as far as his long term employment with Comstock. And we felt i
11 moving him into another situation may be the most beneficial 12 way to handle the situation.
( ) 13 Q And why did you want to salvage Mr. Seeders, with 14 regard to his employment with Comstock?
15 A Well, we were concerned about the individual. He 16 had several years with the company and we felt that if we 17 could correct the problem and still help him out and not lose 18 his job, that was beneficial to him and us.
19 Q And that was the only reason?
! 20 A That was the main reason, yes.
{
21 Q Were there other reasons?
22 A That was the main reason.
O l
h f
57 1 Q Have you reviewed the transcript of Mr. Seeders'
() 2 deposition prior to today?
3 A Yes.
i 4 Q Do you recall finding anything in the transcript 5 that you disagreed with?
4 6 MR. MILLER: If so, give us the page and line 4
7 number.
i 8 MR. CASSEL: Let's do it this way.
9 BY MR. CASSEL:
j 10 Q Beginning at a certain page of his transcript, and l 11 I'll identify that for you in a moment, Mr. Seeders testified l 12 -- in response to questions from Mr. Miller -- about a series
/~T 13 of conversations and events that he had in connection with you I U j 14 and the follow up on the Ceco audit in July and August of 15 1984.
I f 16 I can either ask you if you have reviewed that and l
l 17 if you have a different -- if you differ with his statements, 18 or I can simply have you go through the transcript and 19 indicate where you disagree with his statements.
20 Unless you have a clear fix in your head of what ha 21 said, I think the best thing to do is to have you go through 22 the transcript and indicate where you disagree.
O
58 1 A I think that would be best.
2 Q Okay. Let me see where it starts.
3
_(Discussion off the record.]
4 BY MR. CASSEL:
5 Q We're now going to be going through the transcript-6 of the deposition in this case of Mr. John Seeders, taken 7 November 5, 1985 by Mr. Miller.
8 At the bottom of page 81, Mr. Miller asks 9 Mr. Seeders whether you, Bob, discussed your response to the 10 Edison audit findings with Mr. Seeders before you put that 11 response together. Mr. Seeders said no at the top of page 12 82.
() 13 Is that correct, to the best of your recollection?
14 MR. MILLER: Let's take a look at the document which a
15 is identified as seeders Deposition Exhibit 5. That may be 16 helpful, as well.
17 (Witness reviewing document.]
1 i 18 THE WITNESS: No, not at that time. That was the 19 initial response to the audit report. I don't recall 20 discussing the situation with Mr. Seeders at that time.
21 BY MR. CASSEL:
l 22 Q Okay.
l
!O
59
.1 A We had a training session as a result of that audit, 2 so I may have talked to him about the training session, you 3 know, was it completed and that type of conversation.
4 Q That training session came up later on, though, 5 correct?
6 A The training session should be in this audit report 7 response.
8 Q You're referring to the May 9th training session?
9 MR. MILLER: Both the May 9th and the June 9th 10 training session reflected in the exhibit.
11 THE WITNESS: Yes, I may have talked to him about 12 was the training done. I don't recall it, though.
13 BY MR. CASSEL:
14 Q Now on page 84, again at the very bottom of the page 15 and carrying over.to the top of the next page, Mr. Seeders 16 recalls that you decided that all ICRs that were supposed to 17 be generated should be NCRs and that took place prior to his 18 writing the August 17th letter. Do you have any reason to 19 dispute that recollection by Mr. Seeders?
l 20 A On occasion we discussed issuing NCRs instead of 21 ICRs, but the procedure at that time said to issue ICRs.
J 22 Q At some point, though, did you, as he seems to be l
t
!O i
- - - . - - - . , . . - , . - - . , , . , - , , , -.-.n-..-,.--._ , - - , - - - - - . - , , - - . . _ , . - . , - . - . - - - , - - , _ , , -
r 60
- 1 saying here, decide that all the ICRs should be NCRs?
2 A' Well, I had this discussion with John. I don't 3 recall that it was at this particular time for the audit 4 response. He is relating it to the audit response if I read 5 this correctly.
l j 6 Q on the top of page 85, he basically says that that i
7 took place prior to August 17th when we wrote the letter. Is
- j. 8 that in accord with your recollection?
9 A I would say yes, we did discuss it prior to August 10 17th, but I think we talked about it prior to this audit
! 11 report also.
12 Q Now on page 88, in the middle of the page, and I.
13 referring to Deposition Exhibit 7, first of all, Mr. Seeders f 14- testifies that he did not, as far as he can remember, receive 1-i 15 a copy of that memorandum. Do you have any reason to dispute
- 16 that?
, 17 A I put him on copy for the letter just so he knew my 18 intent and where we were headed with the response to the j 19 audit, and this was to confirm our discussion on that 20 following Monday, if I'm not mistaken.
t l 21 Q Do you know whether he, in fact, received the l 22 memorandum?
I O
l l
. .. .. - - - - . - - - . _ . - . _ . . . _ . - _ _ - ~ . - _ _ - . -
l '
61 1 A I couldn't say for sure that he received it.
2 Q okay. Now, he then says, on the bottom of page 88
- 3 and carrying over to page 89, he describes a series of !
i
, 4 conversations between you and him concerning the follow-up on 5 the audit. Would you take a moment to read his answer there ;
I 6 that begins on 88 and goes over to 89 and let me know if there l 7 is anything in there that is not in agreement with your 8 recollection?
9 A Our conversations -- I didn't request him to do an 10 internal audit, number one. That was Irv DeWald that 11 requested him to review the records to see if there were any 12 other occurrences similar to the one addressed in the audit
( ) 13 report. When I received a letter from CECO requesting 14 additional action, I discussed it with John at that time. I ,
L 15 did not request him to do an internal audit. He is not 16 certified to do that.
17 Q What did you ask him to do?
18 A I asked him to continue with the Irv DeWald request l
19 in doing the 100 percent surveillance or records review and 20 that a sample could have been initiated rather than 100 l
! 21 percent, but after that discussion, we did agree to initiate l
i 6
! 22 the 100 percent, and that the report that he would generate i O .
8 w--.--.--.-.-. - - - - - - - - -
62 1 over the weekend -- he had Saturday overtime to perform this O
\ s/ 2 ' activity -- that I would review that report and ascertain if 3 we could use a partial from the 100 percent survey to issue to 4 CECO if we didn't find any other occurrences.
5 Q Well, the way he tells it here, he says you asked 6 him first to do a sample, and after he did the sample, you 7 asked him to do a 100 percent -- he uses the word " audit." He 8 may not have meant it in the formal sense.
9 A I understand. i 10 Q But anyway, he says you first asked for a sample, 11 and after he did that, you asked for a 100 percent records .
12 review. Is that sequence of events correct, that first you 13 asked him to do the sample, he did the sample, and then you
[ } l 14 asked for 100 percent?
15 MR. MILLER: Could we continue -- to get the full 16 flavor of this chronology, Mr. Seeders' discussion continues ,
17 beyond at the bottom of page 89 and the top of page 90, and 18 there are some additional dates.
l 19 MR. CASSEL: If you want to make a moment to i
20 review -- I was going to go through those pages as well, but 21 if you want to read them all first and then go back -- ;
22 MR. MILLER: I don't object to this type of 1 i I .
!O i
e-f 63
- 1 examination, but --
2 MR. CASSEL: I don't want to do it in an inefficient 3 way, Mike. ,
i 4 MR. MILLER: I was just going to say one possibility [
5 would be to ask Mr. Saltaann what his independent recollection 6 of the sequence of events is and see what the answer may be, 7 and whether it is consistent or inconsistent can then be [
8 established depending on what his answer is.
9 MR. CASSEL: That may be a good way to do it. '
i 10 BY MR. CASSEL: (
j 11 Q Let me ask the question this way. Is it your I
'l t
12 recollection, Mr. Seltmann, that first you asked Mr. Seeders r 13 to do a sample review, he then did the sample, and you then
)
, 14 asked him to do a 100 percent record review?
l j 15 A No, that's not true. When John and I discussed the '
16 audit finding and the response letter from Ceco, he stated
=
17 that Irv DeWald had given him direction to do a thorough 100 i
, 18 percent review of the calibration records. In that 19 conversation, I told him that in reviewing the audit finding,
- y. 20 I think a sample could have been initiated but that he l 1- ,
21 continue with the 100 percent audit as directed by Mr. DeWald !
1
- 22 and that I would review his findings on that following Monday, I i !
. f i
b 64 1 and if we did not find any further occurrences, I could 2 possibly use the initial portion of that review to justify 3 that we didn't find any more occurrences similar to the one in 4 the audit finding, and therefore use that documentation and 5 not continue at that point with the 100 percent sample, or 100 6 percent review.
7 Q So then he came back to you with the initial portion 8 the following Monday, was it?
9 A No, he didn't have any report ready at that time.
10 Q At some point he came back to you with the initial 11 portion?
12 A Yes. It was later than that, though.
13 Q And when he came back to you with the initial
( }
14 portion, after you looked at it, did you then instruct him to 15 finish up the 100 percent?
16 A That was in a later discussion after the following 17 Monday meeting that I was talking about, and at that point I 18 don't recall telling him to continue to follow up with a 100 19 percent survey.
20 Q Well, the way you described it, I thought you said 21 he was already under instructions from Mr. DeWald to do 100 22 percent, so you didn't need to tell him to finish it up; he O
65 1 was still under the order to do all 100 percent unless !
/~T k ,)
m 2 somebody told him otherwise?
3 A I told him on that following Monday -- I think the l 4 date is the 23rd or the 24th, I can't recall exactly which 5 date. It was a Monday. He was supposed to have the initial 6 report ready for me to review. He did not have that report, 7 and at that point I directed him to continue on with the 100 l 8 percent survey and that a sample -- we would use the initial 9 review of the 100 percent as a sample. So yes, I did tell him 10 to complete the 100 percent at that time as directed by 11 Mr. DeWald.
12 Q Now on page 92, lines 6 and 7, Mr. Seeders says he
( ) 13 was just asked to do an audit, and again let's assume he means 14 review, "to see if I could find any deficiencies in the 15 records." And that's a response to a question about what he 1
16 was asked to do at the beginning.
17 Is it your testimony that Mr. DeWald was the one who 18 at the beginning asked him to do whatever it was he was asked 19 to do?
l 20 A Yes.
21 Q So you don't know whether the answer there on line 6 22 or 7 is correct or not because that was a request made by
66 1
1 Mr. DeWald to Mr. Seeders?
2 A Initially, yes.
3 Q All right. Is that inconsistent with your 4 understanding of what the task should have been?
5 A Yes. That was the reason we wanted to do the 6 review, as far as determining if there were additional cases 7 where tools were found out of calibration and ICRs were not 8 initiated.
9 Q At the bottom of page 92, beginning at line 17, 10 there is a discussion of how big a sample, and you have 11 already clarified that you didn't ultimately decide that the 12 initial work should be used as a sample, but he is discussing
()13 here how big a sample he would take of the records, to begin 14 with five or six documents out of each tool sample. Is that 15 estimate of the numbers consistent with your memory?
16 A No, this isn't, no.
17 Q What is your memory on that issue?
1 18 A The initial contact with Mr. Seeders was to review 19 the records, the calibration records. He is stating here that 20 we discussed to simply look at a couple tools in each 21 category, and I don't recall discussing that. I remember 22 discussing that he would initiate the 100 percent review and O
67 1 that his findings on that Saturday would be evaluated to
( 2 ascertain if that was enough information or we needed to 3 continue with the 100 percent review.
4 Q Well, specifically at lines 21 and 22, the question 5 is, "So, for each category of tools, you were to take five or 6 six records and look at them for five or six tools; is that 7 correct?" And he answers: "Right."
8 Are you saying that the actual answer to that 9 question should have been " wrong"?
10 A I don't recall that conversation, no.
11 Q Now, during this period Mr. Seeders was receiving 1
12 some instructions, I gather, from you and some from
/~T 13 Mr. DeWald?
U 14 A During this review?
15 Q Yes.
16 A No. We discussed that he would start the review and 17 that he would formulate his report and I would use that report 18 to follow up on the response to CECO.
19 Q Well, I think you said earlier that the initial 20 instruction to Mr. Seeders came from Mr. DeWald.
21 A Right.
22 Q And that subscquently you had some discussions with l
i
68 1 Mr. Seeders.
(s_/I 2 A Right.
3 Q Do you know whether Mr. DeWald had any further 4 discussions with Mr. Seeders after the first one?
5 A I don't recall if he did.
6 Q Now, the middle of page 93, Mr. Seeders says that 7 basically what you indicated to him was that you had a 8 deadline to meet for Ceco and you wanted that deadline met.
9 Is that basically correct?
10 A There was a response due date in the letter that we 11 wanted to raraspond to CECO. That's quite common in following &
12 up on audit findings.
/~' 13 Q And did you tell Mr. Seeders that you had to get an D) 14 answer back to CECO within a certain period?
15 A I told him that I had to respond by, I think it was, 16 July 24th. I think the response to that letter from Ceco was 17 late by a few days already. It may have been 7/20 that it was 18 due. Yes, 7/20.
19 Q In the middle of page 95, beginning at line 9, 20 Mr. Seeders was asked, "How much time did he give you?" And 21 the "he" here is you, Mr. Saltmann, and Mr. seeders answered i 22 that, "I think he indicated, he gave me a date that it had to
69 1 be done by, and I told him that it was impossible."
/~
()N 2 A I'm sorry. 95?
3 Q Page 95, line 9, "How much time did he give you"?
4 And the "he" in this instance is you. And the answer was that 5 you gave Mr. Seeders a date and Mr. Seeders told you that it 6 was impossible to get the work done by that date and it was 7 totally ridiculous to get the work done by that date, although 8 he may not have used those words with you.
9 Do you remember him indicating, in response to your 10 request that the work be done by a certain date, that that was 11 an unreasonable date to have the work done by?
12 A We discussed that the response had to be done and we
( ) 13 were already late on it, and that's why we discussed going 14 from -- were talking about the 100 percent sample, beginning 15 it and using that in the response to CECO.
16 Q But do you recall Mr. Seeders telling you that by 17 whatever deadline you wanted the work done, it was 18 unreasonable for him to do a 100 percent document review by 19 the date that you were asking?
20 A No, I don't recall that in conversation, no.
21 Q You don't recall him raising any questions about 22 whether the work could be done by the date that you asked him
- - - - . ~ . . .
70 1 to do it in?
n
'\m-) 2 A Not in that discussion, no.
3 Q In any discussion with him before the work was due, 4 do you recall him raising questions with you about whether it 5 was reasonable to do that amount of work in the amount of time 6 you were giving him?
7 A I don't recall it, no.
8 Q At the top of page 96, Mr. Seeders says, in response 9 to a question whether he asked you for assistance, says he 10 indicated that he needed help and that you responded: We don't 11 have anybody to help you with it, you've got to do it on your 12 own.
( }
13 Do you remember Mr. Seeders ever asking you for help 14 to get the job done?
15 A He was working with QC inspector Rick Snyder. I 16 don't recall him requesting help from myself. That request 17 would have to be to his supervisor or management to assist in 18 that.
19 Q When you say he was working with Mr. Snyder, at what 20 point in this follow-up on the Ceco audit did he begin working 21 with Mr. Snyder?
22 A As I recall, right in the beginning, the first t
i
- ,,,--,-a - . - - - - - > -----,,,.,,,-,,n.,-w, ,,..m,n~, - . , , .,e ,- , n. - ,, ,,,.n ,, .,-- r --e , - . ,-~,,,,e- g,-.. , ,, -
- .- . . - - - _ - = . . _ . _ . - _ _ _ - - . . - - - _ . _- . _ _ _ - .- -
1 5
71 1 conversation I had with John was on a Friday and he was 2 scheduled for overtime, himself and Rick Snyder, to start on 3 this.
4 Q So you don't recall ever telling him: We don't have 5 anybody>to help you with it, you've got to do it on your own?
6 A No, I don't recall making that statement.
7 Q He also says, here in the middle of page 96, that 8 you had told him to do it or else, and he doesn't know what i 9 the "or else" was. Did you ever say anything to Mr. Seeders
\
10 along the lines of get this done or else?
11 A No, I didn't. I recall the conversation being very
- 12 casual. It was an informational-type conversation between l
) ()13 John and myself. I just wanted to find out where he,was,
- 14 where he was headed, and we would get bAck together onJ Xonday 1
s 15 to see the results of that review.
1 16 MR. MILLER: If I may, your question was "ever," and l 17 I think the witness responded specifically with respect to the i
18 conversation in July.
r 19 Is that what you are referring to, Mr. Saltmann?
4, 20 THE WITNESS: Yes.
21 MR. CASSEL: I was too broad and he was ,
i 22 appropriately narrow, but let me be more precise.
1 i t
i 3
f P
--.,..,, -n.n nn,_--_,n_.,, ,_m.,-,c~.va----,-nn,,__,,._r,~,...----,, , , - , _ .m..,,,.--,
/ 72 1
1 BY MR. CASSEL:
2 Q At any time before the due date -- and by the due 3 date, I mean the date you gave him to have the 100 percent [
4 records review done by -- did you ever tell him in very 5 forceful terms that he had better make sure that the job was l 6 done by the date you were giving him to get it done?
7 A No, I don't recall.
8 Q Well, you did give him a date by which you wanted '
t 9 him to have the work done, did you not?
10 A We talked about having a preliminary report done for f
11 that Monday and that I would review that report and issue my .
r 12 response to Ceco on what that report found.
13 Q But with respect to the entire 100 percent records 14 review which you instructed him to continue with, did you ever 15 give him a date by which you wanted him to have that 16 completed? I 17 A I think the initial response to CECO said that we 18 initiated a review of the records and that we would have a
- 19 follow-up on 8/13.
20 Q And do you recall instructing Mr. Seeders that yoa l
i 21 have to have your records review done by a certain date; you, i
22 Mr. Seeders, must report to me, Mr. Seltmann, by a certain O
3F
%v -'
j.- s 73
/
1 'date with regard to the completion of the records review? -
7 A I don't recall telling him that he h Q to reybrt to
'3 me. We discussed for him to continue with the' records 4 review ar.d that we would rarespond and keep CECO abreast of 5 ; the review.
G Q Do you recall giving him a datit by which he had to
~7 have the records review complete:1? / s
./ :' . .
s
, 8 A We gave CECO a date of 8/13 in our initial letter, 9 if I recall correctly. .
~~
.s
--i ',' 10 MR. MILLER: Let the record ruflect I am showing thu
.i' 11 witness Seeders.hposition Exhibit 7.'l
.. 12 THE WITNESS: And the lettef/says that an updated ,
l~ , .; . .
j 13 response will be issued by 8/13/84 if the review has not been 4D 14 completed as, of that date. <
15 BY MR. CASSEL: j
- 16 Q I'understancL you gave CECO a date. .My question is' w
17, whether you personally ever told John. Seeders'th'is'iork by you 18 needs to be done by a certain date. #
- s 19 MR. MILLER: You mean as opposed to simply sending -
20 him e.' copy of the memo?
~
21 s THE WITNESS I don't recall specifically telling 3 , . y 22 him it had to be complete by that date. I sent him a copy of, l-b ,
/ '
r l
P M ea h
. - - . - . l" . _ . - . . ._- _ _ _ _ _ _ -
-L .-O~.-.-- - --
-" ~
74 1 the memo to make him abreast of where I was headed, and that 2 we would rarespond. It wasn't a hard, factual: You've got to 3 be done by that date type of statement made to Mr. Seeders, 4 no.
5 BY MR. CASSEL:
6 Q Okay. Well, let's take it one at a time, first the 7 memo and then the oral conversation. On the memo, you don't 8 know whether, in fact, he received a copy of the memo, do you?
9 A No, I can't say for sure if he received it.
10 Q Okay. Now, in terms of oral conversations, do you 11 remember whether you had any direct conversation with 12 Mr. Seeders other than his possibly receiving a copy of that
( } 13 memo about his work having to be done by a certain date?
14 A No.
15 Q You don't recall whether you had any such 16 conversation with him? '
17 A I don't recall having a specific conversation with 18 him stating that it had to be done by a certain date. We l 19 discussed that since the review wasn't ready on that following i
20 Monday, that we would continue with the 100 percent, I would 21 respond to tell CECO where we were at and what we were doing, 22 and in that letter we said that we would give them an updated O
. ~ .
I 75 1 response, so I'm sure I discussed that with Mr. Seeders, and 2 if I didn't, that was a reason to send him the copy of the 3 letter.
4 Q You say you are sure you discussed that with 5 Mr. Seeders.
6 A That we would follow up at a certain time. I don't 7 recall if I ever told him about the date other than issuing 8 him a copy of the letter.
9 Q These conversations basically took' place something
.10 like nine months ago. Are you having some difficulty 11 remembering? Is that right, or was it --
12 A A year and nine months. .
13 Q A year and nine months. I gather it's a little 14 difficult at this point in time to remember exactly what was 15 said in your conversations with John Seeders.
16 A That's trus, it is difficult remembering.
17 Q On page 98, Mr. Seeders in the middle of the page 18 there, beginning at line 10, describes an incident in which 19 you called him into the office and asked him to show you the 20 paperwork that you had been working on up to that point, and i 21 when he showed you the paperwork, you threw it at him, and 22 Mr. Saklak was present as well. Do you recall any incident in O
76 1 July or August of 1984, Bob, where John Seeders came in and 2 showed you his paperwork and you threw it at him?
3 A I recall having a discussion with Mr. Saklak and --
4 Q Mr. Saklak or Mr. Seeders?
5 A Mr. Saklak and Mr. Seeders, in my office, which was 6 the trailer at that time, and no, I don't remember throwing 7 the report back at him, no.
8 Q Do you affirmatively remember that you did not throw 9 the paper at him, or you just don't remember whether you did 4
10 or did not?
11 A I'm fairly sure that I did not throw it back at him.
12 Q But you're not certain?
13 A
( ) I don't think I threw it back at him.
14 Q Now, at the time that this audit follow-up work was 15 being done, is it correct that the audit follow-up was 16 basically your responsibility in QA as opposed to QC 17 responsibility to report back to CECO?
18 A It was my responsibility to obtain the information 19 of any follow-ups and to correlate it and issue it to 20 Commonwealth Edison.
21 Q And so when Mr. Seeders was working on this 22 follow-up, his work was really an input to your response to O
77 1 CECO.
2 A Yes.
3 Q. Now, at the same time that he had these 4 responsibilities to provide new input for your work, he also 5 had QC responsibilities within the QC Department, did he not?
6 A Yes.
7 Q But on those responsibilities, he wasn't reporting 8 to you and you were not instructing him as to what he had to 9 do and by when he had to do it.
10 A Right.
11 Q During the time that you were asking him to do this 12 records review, did Mr. Seeders ever discuss with you the 13 other assignments-that he had within the QC Department that 14 were not directly related to your audit follow-up?
15 A I don't recall if we talked about it in our 16 discussions. I was aware that he was training. He was 17 training Mr. Snyder at that time.
18 Q And were you aware that he had other QC 19 responsibilities at the time?
l 20 A Not at that time. I was aware that he had other QC 21 responsibilities, yes, at that time.
22 Q At that time, you were aware that he had other QC l
l i _
78 1 responsibilities.
2 A Oh, yes, sure.
3 .Q But he never discussed with you any time conflict 4 between his QC work and the follow-up on the audit?
5 A Well, that's why he was given overtime on that 6 Saturday, to do the records review; so it was in addition to 7 his normal activities, but he was given the time separately to
, 8 do that.
9 Q On one Saturday?
10 A It was the Saturday in between our discussion and 11 when the report was supposed to be due.
12 Q And after that, did he ever discuss with you, as far 13
( as you can recall, any conflict between his QC work and the 14 audit follow-up?
15 A No , I don't recall it. It may have occurred on the 16 discussion with Mr. Saklak and him in my trailer that day, but 17 I don't recall that conversation. My concerns were where we l 18 were at on the records review.
19 Q Now, I can show you specific pages if you want, and 20- don't hesitate to ask, if you like, and the same goes for you, 21 Mike. The way Mr. Seeders tells it, initially the records
- 22 review was an assignment given to him individually, and then i
L O
( _
79 1 at some later point in time, three other people were brought 2 in to do the work, those three being -- is it Rich or Rick 3 Snyder, Don Coss and Myra Sproull?
4 A Correct.
5 Q Is that your recollection? In other words, that 6 first Mr. Seeders was doing the work, and then at some 7 subsequent point, these other three individuals were brought 8 in to complete the job?
9 A That's true.
10 Q Do you know Mr. Tapella at CECO?
11 A Yes, I do.
12 Q Did you know him in July and August of 1984?
13 A Yes, I did.
( }
14 Q What was his position in CECO then?
15 A I think his position at that time was a PCD -
i 16 engineer. There was a period of time he worked for the 17 Licensing Department.
18 Q You said what engineer?
19 A As a PCD engineer, Project Construction Department 20 engineer.
l 21 Q And what were his responsibilities with respect to 22 Comstock?
l l
O l
i
80 1 A PCD basically overviewed problems, coordinate with 2 us on action items, kind of assisted in the electrical 3 construction from the CECO side of it.
4 Q And as of July 1984, had Mr. Tapella been in that 5 position for some considerable period of time? ,
6 A I can't say exactly how long a period of time. Like i 7 I say, there was a period of time when he worked for the 8 Licensing Department, and then he came back into the position 9 of engineer in the Project Construction Department.
10 Q Did you ever discuss John Seeders' work with 11 Mr. Tapella?
12 A I recall discussing on one occasion that Larry, 13 Mr. Tapella, felt that why we had so many concerns in the 14 calibration, and he thought that area was relatively in good 15 shape.
16 Q I'm not sure I can formulate this question very 17 precisely, and we may need to refer to the transcript to clean 18 up the situation if I don't get it right, but when the 19 inspection of the calibration work was completed by Myra 20 Sproull and Rich Snyder, they apparently found a number of 21 incidents involving torque wrenches where there was no ICR 22 written. Do you recall that?
, O
81 1 A Yes.
2 Q And if I understood Mr. Seeders' explanation of that 3 correctly, he describes, and particularly on page 110 of the 4 transcript, a situation in which, if I am correct, there was 5 an ICR written initially and then the torque wrenches would be 6 sent to Phillips-Getschow, and then the torque wrenches would "7 come back, there would be more paperwork in the folder without i 8 another ICR, and his explanation at line 22 on page 110, 9 carrying over, is that the ICR had been written on the initial 10 out-of-calibration condition and that wrench was never 11 returned to the field, I believe that's what they found.
12 Do you have any reason to dispute that explanation
( ) 13 by Mr. Seeders of why the two inspectors may not have found a
14 ICRs in connection with these torque wrenches?
15 MR. MILLER: Could I suggest that the witness might 16 want to take a look at a few pages?
17 MR. CASSEL: Sure. If that is not clear, take a 18 look at the preceding pages. I'm trying to save some time 19 here, but if you need to clear it up. I think that discussion 20 begins --
l 21 MR. MILLER: For background, I'm suggesting the 22 witness start at page 103, line 13, and just so you will know O
~
82 1 what Seeders Deposition Exhibit 9 is, it is, in fact a O2 document dated September 6, 1984 with Snyder and Sproull's i names typed on the bottom of the first page.
4 MR. CASSEL: I could rephrase the question.
5 BY MR. CASSEL:
6 Q Basically, it appears to me that what Mr. Seeders 7 was saying in his answer that begins on page 110 and carries 8 over on 111 was he was providing a possible explanation for 9 why the two inspectors had not found ICRs in connection with 10 some of these torque wrenches, and my question is do you have 11 any reason to dispute the explanation he provides there?
12 A Well, the initial finding was based on the procedure
( ) 13 requirement that when you find a tool that is out of 14 calibration, you initiate the ICR. That's the first step you 15 take.
16 Q And as I understand it, he is saying he did that.
17 A My understanding --
18 Q And I'm referring to the bottom of page 110, line 19 22. He says, "But the ICR had been written on the initial
- 20 out-of-calibration condition, and that wrench was never 21 returned to the field." And then he sent it off to 22 Phillips-Getschow and it came back.
O
83 1 A The situations that we were finding and that the 2 audit report found was that the tool was out of calibration 3 and that initial ICR which is discussed in line 18 was not 4 being initiated.
5 Q Did you do any of that work yourself of was that 6 work all done by inspectors Sproull, Snyder and Coss?
7 A During the records review, that was done by those 8 three inspectors, yes.
9 Q Did you ever specifically ask them about this type 10 of a situation and whether they had verified whether this 11 issue might account for some of the missing ICRs?
12 A Well, this statement here says that he initiated the
/ 13 ICR. In fact, an ICR had been written on the initial AMT.cR. MdvM 14 out-of-calibration condition. That WeR had been written, 15 logged into the ICR log book, so the Form 77 would have said 16 "out of calibration," the ICR log would have shown an ICR, and 17 that they found that this ICR was not being initiated.
18 Q Yes, but if you look at the line ahead, the sentence 19 before that, beginning on line 15, he says, "If I had a chance 20 to check, I believe that what they were finding in there were 21 the Phillips-Getschow reports coming back saying yes, these 22 are still out of calibration." And the says there's no new
- O
I 84 1 ICR on that, when in fact an ICR had been written on the b)
\_, 2 initial out-of-calibration condition.
3 Do you know whether some of the reports written up 4 by these inspectors were based on the Phillips-Getschow 5 reports coming back?
6 MR. MILLER: Could I suggest -- and I don't want to 7 interfere with your examination, but if you would like, the 8 report is Seeders Deposition Exhibit 9.
9 BY MR. CASSEL:
10 Q If you want to review Exhibit 9, that's fine.
11 THE WITNESS: I guess I don't fully understand the 12 question because the review that they did if the tool was out
( 13 of calibration, simply out of calibration, which the initial
}
14 check would be by our calibration inspector, which was John 15 Seeders at that time, he would initiate an ICR.
16 The records review indicated that they found on the 17 Form 77 tools found out of calibration, and they could not i
18 track an ICR initiated at that time for that tool 19 BY MR. CASSEL:
20 Q Now would a Form 77 possibly be utilized when the 21 Phillips-Getschow reports came back?
22 A The Form 77 is a card which tracks when the due O
85 1 dates for the tool exist. It would be updated possibly when ,
2 the reports came back in or when a tool came back in. It 3 would establish a new due date for the tool.
4 Q Well, did you ever discuss with the inspectors 5 whether the situation that Mr. Seeders describes here on page 6 110 may have affected their findings?
7 A No. I didn't have those discussions, no.
8 Q Do you know, in fact, whether the situation that 9 Mr. Seeders describes on page 110 may havn affected any of 10 their findings?
11 A No, it shouldn't have affected their findings.
12 Q Do you know whether, in fact, it did?
13 MR. MILLER: I object.
( } I think the question has 14 been asked and answered.
15 THE WITNESS: No, I can't be sure.
j 16 MR. CASSEL: Let's go off the record.
i 17 (Whereupon, at 12:24 o' clock, p.m., the taking of l
I 18 the deposition was recessed, to reconvene at 1:15 o' clock, l
! 19 p.m., this same day.)
20 21 22 O
. 86
'l AFTERNOON SESSION 2 [1:16 p.m.]
3 Whereupon, 4 ROBERT V. SELTMANN 5 resumed the stand and, having been previously duly sworn by 6 the Notary Public, was examined and testified further as 7 follows:
8 EXAMINATION (RESUMED) 9 BY MR. CASSEL:
10 Q Before the lunch break, Bob, we talked about the 11 decision to have John Seeders transferred rather than fired, 12 and you indicated that you and Irv DeWald jointly decided to
( ) 13 let him remain with the company so he would continue to have a 14 job.
15 A That's correct.
16 Q You were aware, weren't you, that Irv had drafted a 17 letter that would have terminated him from the company?
18 A Yes, I am.
19 Q When did you first see that letter?
20 A Oh, I would say it was a few days before, possibly 21 Friday, I think it was.
22 Q What Friday are you referring to now?
G3 l
l 87 1 A The Friday meeting that we had with CECO.
O
\m / 2 Q I see. So first Irv drafted a letter that would 3 result in termination. Subsequent to that, there was the 4 meeting with CECO, and then at what point did the decision to 5 transfer him come? After the meeting with CECO?
6 A After the meeting with CECO, yeah.
7 Q At the meeting with Ceco, did you or Irv tell them 8 that he had drafted a letter that would result in John's 9 firing?
10 A Yes, I think it was mentioned.
11 Q And did CECO react negatively to that suggestion?
12 A Well, they reviewed the situation and presented
( }
13 their recommendations at that point.
14 Q Did they react negatively to the suggestion that 15 John be fired?
16 A I don't recall them acting negatively toward that 17 letter.
18 Q Well, you said that -- what's Mr. Shamblin's first 19 name?
! 20 A Dan.
21 Q That Dan Shamblin indicated that in the past they 22 had used transfers as a means of dealing with some l
0
88 1 situations. Did he suggest that? Did he say he would suggest .
2 that instead of firing John?
3 A No. He just made the statement.
4 Q So you came away from that meeting with no feeling 5 that CECO was in any way opposed to the firing of John 6 Seeders?
7 A They gave us other avenues to pursue and told us 8 basically it was our decision.
9 Q Did they say anything at all, other than telling you 10 other avenues to pursue? Did they say anything at all about 11 the idea of firing him?
12 A I don't recall those statements, no.
13 Q Did you discuss the idea of firing John with Irv
( )
14 Seeders before he -- Irv DeWald before he wrote that letter, 15 the draft letter?
16 A Yeah, we discussed that. Yes.
17 Q And at that point, your concern that John continue 18 to have employment was not strong enough that you opposed the 19 draft letter that Irv wrote?
4 20 A Well, we felt the termination was the proper avenue 21 to pursue, yes.
22 Q And it was only after meeting with CECO that you O
89 1 changed your mind?
2 A Yes.
3 Q But CECO didn't say anything at the meeting that 4 would indicate to you why some other course would be better 5 than firing him?
6 A No. They simply presented the recommendations or 7- their viewpoint on different ways of handling problems and to 8 take it under consideration, and we did so.
9 Q So before the meeting with CECO, your concern that 10 he continue to have a job was not so strong that you weren't i 11 prepared to fire him, but after the meeting with CECO, your 12 concern that he continue to have a job became heightened, and 13 so you decided not to fire him?
[ }
14 A I didn't say that, no.
15 Q Well, earlier you said that the reason you decided 16 not to fire him was your concern that he continue to have 17 employment.
18 A I said that that was the only avenue that we had 19 pursued at that time, not thinking of the transfer type 20 situation.
l 21 Q Oh, I see. The idea of a transfer just simply i
22 hadn't occurred to you until CECO mentioned the idea?
O P
-. . - - - . - _ , . - - - - - , - . ,, v- y
90 1 A That's correct.
2 Q Now in Seeders' August 17 letter, he says that 3 approximately 30 inspectors had recently left the job for
, 4 Comstock; do you recall that? Do you want to take a look at 5 it?
6 A I recall him saying in the letter; yes, I do.
7 Q It's Exhibit 13 to the Seeders deposition. To your 8 knowledge, was that correct, that 30 inspectors had recently 9 left Comstock?
I 10 A No, that was not correct. That's one of the 11 portions that Irv DeWald investigated and presented a letter 12 of his investigation into that, and it was not 30 individuals.
13 Q Do you remember approximately how many it was?
14 A Oh, I recall a number around five or six in his f 15 report.
16 (Pause.]
17 Q Now this incident on the bottom of the first page 18 involving Mr. Saklak asking John Seeders to have some other 19 people do his work and then have John sign the paperwork, was 20 that one of the incidents that you knew something about or 21 investigated?
22 A No, I didn't investigate that portion. No.
O
91 1 Q Then there is the reference to the audit in the t
\ 2 middle paragraph on page 17. Other than giving your views on i 3 that, was there anything else, any of the other allegations in 4 this letter, which you personally investigated? '
5 A No. That was the extent of it. -
6 Q Other than the reasons indicated in the various 7 reports which you wrote up or which Irv DeWald wrote up, were 8 there any reasons for the transfer of John Seeders that were 9 not documented in these reports?
10 A No. Not to my knowledge, no.
11 Q So if there was any claim that John did deficient 12 work or failed to do his job properly, it should appear in the
( ) 13 various reports that you and Irv DeWald wrote up between July 14 and the end of 1984.
15 A Well, at that time, I do recall an additional audit 16 that I had performed personally. It was an internal audit 17 that found deficiencies in the calibration area.
18 Q But that was written up as a report.
19 A That was written up as a report. Yeah, sure.
20 Q So whatever dissatisfactions you and Irv DeWald had 21 with John Seeders' job performance are reflected in the 22 various reports that you and he submitted?
O
92 1 A I'd say yes. l 2 Q You don't recall anything that was omitted?
3 A No.
I 4 Q Turning now to Mr. Puckett, what was your l
5 involvement with Mr. Puckett during the few months that he was 6 a Comstock employee?
7 A Well, Mr. Puckett and I had very limited 8 association. He was brought on the site as a Level III 9 welding inspector for the QC Department and reported to, at 10 that time, Rick Saklak, if I'm correct. His involvement was 11 basically with the QC Department.
12 Q And how did he come to have any contact with you at 13 all, other than maybe a casual conversation?
( )
14 A He was doing some reviews of our files related to 15 . welding. He was looking at procedures; he was looking at the 16 welder certification process, the documentation for that. And 17 on occasion, we would discuss his progress and what he was 18 finding.
19 Q And were there several such occasions during the l 20 time that he was at Comstock that you and he discussed his 21 review of your procedures and your records?
22 A There were several, three or four maybe. I can't l
l v) i l
93 ;
1 recall exactly how many conversations I had with him. '
2 Q Now from looking at the documents in his file, it ,
f 3 appears to me that he had a number of complaints concerning 4 Comstock procedures and records.
5 Did he bring those complaints to your attention?
6 A Yes, he did.
7 Q And how did you respond?
s 8 A Well, we discussed those problems, and I was 9 requesting Mr. Puckett to more or less develop a report or a
, 10 summarization of what he was finding, so we could take 11 corrective action if needed. We could evaluate what the 12 problems were.
( }
13 Q And did he, in fact, submit some reports indicating 14 some of his findings?
15 A He did issue, not directly himself, but he had l 16 issued through the signatures of other inspectors some NCRs f 17 related to procedural problems. But a summarization of i
18 everything he found, I did not see.
19 [ Pause.]
20 Q Let me show you a document that is marked as Exhibit i
21 C to --
l 22 MR. MILLER: It's also been identified as a Puckett O
I
-- - - - - . . - .__ ._~ _.. .
I 94 1 Deposition Exhibit, I believe.
2 MR. CASSEL: Probably so.
3 BY MR. CASSEL:
. t 4 Q And this is Exhibit C to the motion that the '
5 Intervenors filed last July to admit the harassment claims, 6 and it probably has been a Puckett deposition exhibit as well.
7 Would you take a look at that document, and my 8 question is whether Mr. Puckett ever discussed that issue with 9 you?
10 [ Witness reviewing document.)
11- MR. MILLER: Let the record reflect that the 12 document referred to is a handwritten Comstock " Read & Reply" 13 form dated August 10,' 1984. The top half is from Mr. Puckett
[ }
14 to Mr. DeWald, and the bottom half is Mr. DeWald's reply to
, 15 Mr. Puckett.
16 THE WITNESS: Okay. Could you repeat the question 17 again?
i
'18 BY MR. CASSEL:
19 Q Sure. Did Mr. Puckett ever discuss that issue with 20 you?
f 21 A No, he didn't discuss this one with me. I did read i
I 22 a letter that he wrote, I think it was after this.
O l
m _vy -
.-.-_m_.. , , . , , _ _ -.,.___m. ._
.--r-.. , , , ,-.-__y
95 1 Q Okay. We'll deal with the others. Let's just take O* 2 them one at a time now.
3 He didn't discuss this one with you. Do you recall 4 getting a copy of this " Read & Reply" memo at the time?
5 A I don't remember receiving this particular one, no.
f 6 Q Okay. Now this one is dated --
7 MR. MILLER: Doug, could we go off the record?
8 [Brief recess.]
9 MR. MILLER: The document that Mr. Cassel is lo questioning Mr. Seltmann on has previously been marked as 11 Puckett Deposition Exhibit No. 9.
12 BY MR. CASSEL:
4
( ) 13 Q Now, Bob, this one is dated August 10th, and 14 Mr. Puckett arrived at Comstock in late May of 1984. Do you 15 recall receiving any written complaints or written forms 16 raising issues about procedures from Mr. Puckett prior to 17 August 10th?
18 A No, I don't recall written documentation. No.
19 Q Okay. The next exhibit attached to our motion to 20 admit the contention, and it's probably also a deposition 21 exhibit, it's August 17th, and this is a memo from Mr. Puckett 22 to Mr. Saklak, a one-paragraph memorandum, raising issues s
- O
, 96 l 1 concerning weld rod slips.
2 Do you recall Mr. Puckett discussing the issue of 3 weld rod slips with you? -
4 A I remember discussing this letter.
5 Q With Mr. Puckett?
6 A Could I have a few minutes to read it over?
7 Q Sure, sure. Take your time. '
8 [ Witness reviewing document.] ,
9 MR. MILLER: That's been previously marked as 10 Puckett Deposition Exhibit No. 25.
11 BY MR. CASSEL:
12 Q Do you recall Mr. Puckett discussing that issue with 13 you?
e f 14 A No, I don't remember talking about it with 15 Mr. Puckett personally, but I'm fairly sure that this is 16 related to an NRC concern, and this was a follow-up to that
+
17 NRC concern dealing with the heat numbers for a 7018 type of 18 rod being interchanged with E-6013. So by reviewing the rod '
19 slips, it would show a heat number from one type of rod but 20 actually list the other type of rod.
l 21 Q And did you discuss that issue with Mr. Puckett at
[
22 all? !
l i
d
. .. . - _ . . _ . . _ _ . . . . _ . ,- __, . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . - . . - __,m.-__ - .
97 1 A I don't recall actually discussing this, but I was 2 aware of the problem. l 3 Q The next one is Exhibit E to Intervenor's motion.
4 It's a memo from Mr. Puckett to Irv DeWald, dated August 22, 5 1984, raising his concerns based on a preliminary review of 6 Comstock weld procedures.
7 Why don't you take a moment to read that?
8 [ Witness reviewing document.]
9 MR. MILLER: That's Puckett Deposition Exhibit 10 No. 16.
11 THE WITNESS: Okay.
12 BY MR. CASSEL:
)
13 Q Okay. Did Mr. Puckett ever discuss any of the 14 concerns reflected in that document with you?
15 A Yeah, we discussed that with Mr. DeWald at that 16 time.
17 Q When you say "at that time," you mean --
18 A Around August.
19 Q -- August 22nd or even before the memo was written?
l 20 A I would say -- well, we discussed it before with 21 that other memo, and I don't know exactly what date, but we 22 did issue two stop-works, and I think it was prior to this 1
i
98 '
1 time.
b
\m ,/ 2 Q And are those the stop-works referred to in the 3 first sentence or two of that document?
4 A Yeah, that would be related to the stainless 5 stop-work, and we issued a stop-work on this situation also.
6 Q So in response to some of the concerns that 7 Mr. Puckett had earlier raised, the stop-works referred to in
'8 his letter there were issued?
9 A They were issued, yes.
10 Q Now in this letter, he indicates that in addition to 11 the two procedures on which the stop-works had already been 17 issued, he says there are at least five others that were
() 13 incorrectly qualified. And assuming that he's referring to 14 five other procedures there, did you discuss any of those 15 other five procedures with Mr. Puckett?
16 A No, I don't recall discussing that portion.
17 Q Okay.
18 MR. MILLER: Well, he goes on to explain, just so 19 the record is clear, on what basis he wants those procedures l 20 -- on what basis he believes they were incorrectly qualified.
21 BY MR. CASSEL:
22 Q Did you discuss with either Mr. Puckett or l
O i
. , . - - , . . , -. , , , -v. --- -
I 99 1 Mr. DeWald any response to this memorandum from Mr. Puckett?
2 A Well, we discussed -- well, I think we had the .
3 stop-work. If I could see exactly when we issued that 4 stop-work, I'm sure it was before this, but we were discussing 5 the problems, and we subsequently had a meeting with 6 Commonwealth Edison and Sargent & Lundy on this particular 7 situation here. >
8 Q Now was that bei' ore or after Mr. Puckett was 9 terminated?
10 A The meeting was held before he was terminated.
11 Q And was that a meeting that he was present at?
12 A Yes.f 13 Q Nost did you, other than these three -- I think it's
( }
14 three -- menos we've just looked at, did Mr. Puckett bring any 15 other written complaints or concerns about Comstock procedures 16 to you? ,
17 A I don't recall any besides these.
18 Q He may have, but you don't recall?
19 A I think these were the only ones that I was aware 20 of. There were some NCRs issued, so that would be 21 documentation that he was responsible for getting issued.
22 Q Were there any complaints or allegations or concerns L
F
\
100 1 about Comstock procedures that he brought to your attention, 2 either.in these documents or orally before that to which you 3 responded by telling him that nothing should be done for some 4 reason?
5 A No.
6 Q Can you characterize generally what your responses 7 were, other than asking him to write a comprehensive report 8 when he brought concerns to your attention?
9 A Well, we wanted to ascertain what -- specifically 10 what were the problems, how widespread the problems were, and 11 actually see these in writing, so we could address them and a
12 evaluate them.
13 Q
( } And do you know whether he filed any other written 14 memorandums about his concerns other than these three?
15 A He's issued some -- he's had the NRC concerns.
16 That's been after the termination.
17 Q Right, but --
18 A But during his employment --
i 19 Q Yes.
l 20 A -- to the best of my knowledge, these were the only
( 21 documents other than the NCRs.
l 22 Q Okay. Did you have any role whatever in his l
\
O l
l
101
- 3. ' p' 1 termination? ,;;
f%; ,?
(/ a
- 2. A No. *
?
3 Q s Were you present in any di'cussions of his
[ ~ ~
4 termination?
5, A During the termination, on that Monday, I war in the 6 Pittsburglioffice so --
7 Q An{ prior to that Monday, there hadn't b,9en a'ny '
ts 8 discussion of terminating him that you were aware of?
9 A There were discussions on concerns about the issues 7 , -
10 that were raised by Mr. Puckett, that-they weren't, in fact',
11 valid concerns. ThjN particular si'tuation was one of those.
12'
- MR. MILLER:
Lettherecordreflectthatthewitness
, 13 is referring to the document, and that s iPuckeY.t Deposition
[*#-l 14 Exhibit 16, the August 22 memorandum.
15 ,. ". BY[MR. CASSEL:
16 , ,
Q .. Now was that discussion that you just referrad to
' 17 the same as the earlier one you talked about that involved a
! a.
~ 18 meeting with Ceco with Mr. Puckett being present? In other s 19 words, was the discussion -- was there more than one Y
- 20 '
discussion _about this memorandum raising concerns that were
~21 not valid?
L 22 MR. MILLER: I'm sorry, Doug.. I have to object to q ,... . , ,
7 .
O .
( ,
j l
102 1 the form of the question. I don't think the witness' prior 2 testimony establishes a foundation for the factual premise.
4 3 MR. CASSEL: Let me back up.
4- BY MR. CASSEL:
5 Q What were these discussions that you just referred 6 to k moment ago? When did they take place, among whom, about 7 these concerns in the August 22 memorandum not being valid?
8 A Well, as I previously stated, we had some 9 discussions with Worley, Irv and I did, on these concerns. He 10 was reviewing our entire welding program as a Level III 11 capable person, and he was to determine if we had problems or 12 not.
13 The concerns, we, Irv DeWald and myself, had gone to 14 Frank Rolan, who was the Project Manager, with these concerns 15 and together issued the stop-works and documented the 16 stop-work for the stainless welding procedure problem and this 17 A-36/A-446 problem.
18 Subsequently that meeting occurred between S&L, 19 CECO, and Comstock, and it was after that meeting that we had
! 20 concerns with his ability to evaluate this type of problem.
21 Q Okay. Now why don't you tell us what happened at 22 that meeting, then?
O
,,,---,-e --- , - . . . . . --- -- -
I l
103 1 A Well, the meeting, like I said, entailed Sargent &
O (m,/ 2 Lundy's personnel, welding personnel, Commonwealth Edison 3 welding personnel, myself, Irv DeWald, Worley Puckett, and we 4 were discussing whether the procedure was properly documented 5 and the way that it was qualified was correct in accordance 6 with the Dl.1 code. And from that meeting, it was ascertained 7 that, yes, the 446 to A-36 was qualified to be welded.
8 Q Was there a discussion of the other five procedures 9 in that memo at that meeting?
10 A No, there wasn't.
11 Q Was that -- the entire subject of that meeting, 12 then, was the issue of welding the A-36 to the A-446 using E-7018?
() 13 Was that the whole subject matter of the discussion?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Now he also refers -- or you had also issued a 16 stop-work on all stainless. Is the subject of stainless a 17 different subject than the A-36 subject?
18 A Yes, it is.
19 Q Was the issue of stainless alao discussed at the 20 meeting with CECO?
21 A No , I don't recall it being discussed.
22 Q And so after that meeting, your confidence in Worley l
O
104 1 was shaken because either the CECO or the Sargent & Lundy
) 2 people had indicated that the procedure that he felt was not 3 properly qualified, in fact, was?
4 A Correct.
5 Q And then after that meeting, did you have any 6 discussion with -- did you and Irv DeWald have any discussion 7 with Worley about the issue of his qualifications?
8 A I don't recall a meeting of the three of us, no.
9 Q Did you have any discussions with Worley about the 10 issue of his qualifications?
11 A No, not that I can recall. No.
12 Q Did you have any discussions with Irv DeWald about his qualifications?
) 13 14 A Well, both Irv and I were concerned. My main i
15 concerns from that particular meeting were that Mr. Puckett i 16 was so adamant about that it was a problem, and I recall 17 making a statement to him walking to that meeting that, " Stick 18 to your guns, if you feel it's a definite problem. Stick to 19 your guns."
20 And during that meeting when it was discussed, I was 21 concerned how quickly he stepped back from his original 22 concern of the situation and would accept a memo from lO
105 1 Comyrnwealth Edison that it was sufficient. I was expecting 2 more of a fight from Worley to stand up for what he felt was 3 the problem.
4 Q Did you ask him afterwards why he hadn't?
5 A I don't specifically recall talking to him about it, 6 no. Irv and I discussed it.
7 Q And what was the substance of that discussion?
8 A Well, we were both concerned at that point that he 9 was so concerned about the -- and thought he was correct, and 10 during the meeting there was no real rebuttal from Worley on 11 the situation. He basically accepted their response and said 12 that a memo would suffice in correcting the problem.
/ 13 Q Now this memo was written August 22 and he was 14 terminated August 27, so there's only a five-day period in 15 between there. I take it that the meeting took place during 16 -- with CECO took place during that five-day period?
17 A The meeting was -- I don't recall; it probably was.
18 I don't specifically recall the date.
19 MR. MILLER: Well, can I be of any assistance?
20 MR. CASSEL: Sure.
21 MR. MILLER: Mr. Puckett and others have testified 22 and identified documents which indicate that the meeting which O
i
106 4
1 Mr. Seltmann has just described, in fact, also took place on 2 August 22, 1984, and Puckett Exhibit 14 are notes of that 3 meeting.
4 MR. CASSEL: That's the August 22 memo from Puckett 5 to DeWald? Oh, you're talking about the separate notes. I'm 6 sorry.
7 MR. MILLER: Yes. These are Mr. DeWald's notes of 8 the weld procedure meeting on that same date.
. 9 MR. CASSEL: Okay.
10 BY MR. CASSEL:
11 Q Now during this five-day period between the memo and 12 the termination, you had one discussion with Mr. DeWald about 13
( ) Mr. Puckett afterwards in which you shared your concerns about 14 how quickly he had backed down; is that corroct?
15 A Yes, that's correct.
16 Q Did you have any discussions with Mr. Puckett after 17 this August 22 memorandum and before he was terminated on the 18 27th?
- 19 A I recall a meeting between wherein Worley Puckett l
l 20 and myself -- I can't remember if it was during this time l
21 period, but we were expressing concerns, and I do not recall i
I 22 if it was after this particular meeting or prior to that O
107 1 meeting.
2 Q Well, whatever the date of this discussion that the 3 three of you had was, to the best of your recollection, what 4 was said?
5 A Well, I recall the conversation having concerns of 6 why the information wasn't getting to us, and that's about 7 it. It was some time ago. I recall having a meeting.
8 Q You say you had concerns about the information not 9 getting to you. You mean concerns that Worley Puckett was not 10 conveying to Comstock management, his concerns about the 11 inadequate procedures?
12 A Yeah. During the period that Mr. Puckett was
/ 13 employed there, he was going through our welding procedures 14 and the files, and I remember talking to him about why weren't 15 we getting, you know, a report. We had discussions about 16 problems that he was finding, but it may have been one or two 17 problems, or it may have been a problem with every document 18 down there. And from my standpoint, I wanted to know the 19 depth of that problem, and I was not getting that kind of 20 report to be able to evaluate how extensive the problem was.
21 Q And what response did Worley Puckett make to that 22 concern, if you recall?
O
108 f
1 A No, I don't recall.
) 2 Q Do you recall whether Irv DeWald in that discussion 3 expressed the same concern?
4 A I don't recall.
5 Q Do you recall anything about what he.said?
6 A No.
7 Q Okay. Apart from that meeting, which may or may not 8 have been before the 22nd, do you recall any other discussions 9 with Worley Puckett after the 22nd and before he was 10 terminated?
11 A No.
I 12 Q Do you recall any discussions about him with Irv 13 DeWald between the 22nd and the 27th of August 1984?
)
14 A No, I don't recall.
15 Q Do you recall any discussions with any other 16 Comst'ock management about Worley Puckett after the meeting 17 that you had with Ceco?
18 A No, I don't recall.
19 Q Is it the case that -- you said you went to 20 Pittsburgh the Monday that Worley Puckett was fired; is that 21' right? You were in Pittsburgh?
22 A That's correct.
O i
1
109 1 Q And when did you get back?
2 A That night.
3 Q And shortly after your return, did you learn that he 4 had been fired?
5 A Well, the next day, yeah.
6 Q And how did you find out about it?
7 A Well, I discussed it with Irv DeWald.
8 Q And what-was the substance of that discussion?
9 A Well, he said that they decided to terminate him, 10 based on what he evaluated his capabilities and the result of 11 some tests that he took, and the overall viewpoint was that he 12 wasn't Level III inspector capable. He was brought onto the
)
13 job site to be a Level III weld inspector, and we weren't 14 getting that type of response from him.
15 Q And so you had -- before you went to Pittsburgh, 16 there..ad never been any discussion that you were aware of 17 about possibly firing Worley Puckett, and then when you came 18 back, you learned that in your absence, never having discussed 4
19 it before with Irv DeWald, that Irv had fired him?
20 A Well, we discussed the concerns. I do not recall 21 talking about terminating him prior to or during that week.
22 Q Or indeed at any point before he was fired? Did you O
110 1 ever talk with any Comstock management about firing Worley 2 Puckett before he was, in fact, fired?
3 A No, I don't recall.
4 Q As you probably know, he has alleged that other QC 5 . inspectors scored worse on exams then he did, and yet he was 6 fired and they weren't. Are you aware he alleged that?
7 A No; I'm not.
8 Q Do you have any knowledge concerning whether that 9- allegation is true, if he made it?
10 A That they scored lower? I'm sure it's possible.
11 Q Do you have any other knowledge concerning the 12 reasons why he was terminated, than what you have already told 13 us this afternoon?
14 A No. I think I expressed the concerns of his Level 15 III capability and that we felt he was not performing within 16 that capability.
17 Q Could you specify as completely as you can in what 18 ways he was not performing the required capability? >
19 A A Level III is the top level for a QC inspector.
20 It's a position that there is only a few on-site. Presently, 21 we only have three on-site, a manager, assistdat manager, and 22 a gentleman by the name of Tony Simile, who is our Level III O
111 1 weld inspector. A Level III is to have the capabilities to 2 evaluate the procedures to the codes and be able to assure 3 that the implementation of those procedures in accordance with 4 the codes comply.
5 Q You have described what a Level III and what the 6 responsibilities are. Can you go on and say as completely and 7 specifically.as you can, in what ways Worley Puckett fell 8 short of meeting what was required?
9 A In the incident of that A36 to A446, he was wrong in 10 his evaluation and the procedures were okay. We could weld 11 because of the group of families of steel that we did qualify 12 the joint with, and his job was to evaluate those and come up 9
13 with corrective action to help eliminate those.
( ) We felt we 14 weren't getting that.
15 Q one thing was you felt he was wrong on that 16 particular procedure. Anything else?
17 A That was the main point.
l 18 Q over that single issue, he was fired?
19 A No. The idea of the test. He failed several 20 tests. A Level III should be able to pass a Level II type 21 welding test without any problem. He had to take several 22 practical's to pass that test.
O
112 1 Q When were those tests administered, when he first I
\ -
2 came on the job?
3 A No. I can't exactly say. It was during his A
! 4 employment there. It was not the first day, but it was during 5 the three months he was there.
6 Q Those tests would have been administered in QC 7 rather than QA?
8 A Right.
9 Q You had no direct involvement in administering those 10 tests or evaluating their results?
11 A No.
i 12 Q Other than the tests and that one weld procedure,
( ) 13 any other reasons for his firing?
14 A It's documented in the package that we have. I
, 15 can't recall every aspect of why the termination was given.
16 Q When you say documented in the package, what 17 document are you referring to?
18 A The termination package; his personnel jacket.
1 L. 19 MR. CASSEL: We have that in discovery?
20 MR. MILLER: Yes; you do.
l 21 BY MR. CASSEL:
l 22 Q Other than what was in the personnal jacket, l
l
!O
-~
w . . - - - - - - - - -n -_, - - , , ~ , - - - . - -----,-_...---------n.-,,,----.------..------..--.-,--, --.--w.nn---,,-,n-,- ~ . , - - ,n--
-. . - - _ = - . - _-. - -- . -
113 i
l 1 documented in the personnel jacket, was there any other reason
( 2 for his termination?-
3 A That covered it.
4 Q Did you have any other interactions with Worley 5 Puckett other than those you described, that you can recall?
! 6 A No. I feel I told everybody each occurrence.
7 Q If he was hired in late May and was fired in late 8 August, was there any problem with your procedures for hiring 9 him in the first place? Should you have given him enough 10 tests on day one that you could tell he was not qualified, if
, 11 in fact he wasn't?
12 A We reviewed his resume. His resume had sufficient
( }
13 information to establish a Level III capability. We also did
[ 14 phone call verifications to assure that resume was adequate 15 and he did work and perform at those functions according to 4
16 the resume. From the paperwork we had and the application, we 17 felt he was capable; yes.
18 Q Were you involved in the decision to hire him?
19 A No; I wasn't.
20 Q You were not involved in checking out his resume or i
21 reviewing the paperwork when he was hired?
i 22 A No; I wasn't. !
i i
i O
1
114 1 Q The first time you met him or knew about him was
( 2 some time after he had already been hired?
3 A Correct.
4 Q You indicated earlier that apart from the Saklak 5 incident and Mr. Seeders and Mr. Puckett, that you also expect 6 to address in your testimony after it is finalized, issues 7 relating to your responsibilities when you arrived on the 8 site.
9 What were your responsibilities when you arrived on 10 the site insofar as they are pertinent to the case?
11 A In September of 1983 when I got to Braidwood, the 12 immediate concern was the internal auditing program, due to a
( }
13 past QA engineer quitting, we had a temporary fill-in from our 14 Regional Office to implement the auditing procedures. When I 15 got here, there was an NRC concern that the auditing schedule 16 wasn't being met. The main concern was to get the auditing 17 back on track and initiate that and resume it, basically.
18 That's the extent of it when I got here.
i 19 Q How far off track was it?
20 A It was virtually stopped at one point because of the 21 manpower problem. It re-initiated around July of 1983 and i 22 went into full swing late 1983, getting back on track.
O w- ' -- -m -e- - , , ,n-- ,--------,-,-,-wn, , - - - - - - - - , - - - - , en,,- - , - -ve-,,, 7,wm-- e,, ,- - --e _- w- -
. ->,,-r,,q--r,--
115 1 Q You said it re-initiated in July of 1983?
2 A Yes. There was a period between March and the end 3 of July that no audits were being performed.
4 Q You arrived on-site when?
5 A September, 1983.
6 Q Was part of your initial responsibility then not 7 only to get the audits going again but to go back and do some 8 sort of corrective action for the period when they had not 9 been done?
10 A Well, you can't really go back in time on an audit 11 schedule of that nature. You have to review what was done and 12 basically we started over. We evaluated in December of what
( ) 13 procedures were audited previous to our program and set up a 14 new audit schedule and started performing audits. I did my 15 first audit in October of that year.
i 16 Q You referred earlier in your testimony to the fire 17 -- maybe it was in one of these documents. Was it the QC or 18 the QA office, or I guess they were the same.
i 19 A Yes, at that time.
i 20 Q When did the fire take place?
21 A June, 1984.
22 Q Did that result in the destruction of any records
(]) -
4 7_ . . ~ . - - . _ - . , , . , _ , . , _ _ _ _ ,___,,,___.__,....m . . , , _ _ _ , , . , - , - _ _ _ - _ . - . , _ . . _ _ _ . - _
116 1 that you didnc have copies of someplace else?
2 A No; it didn't affect the vault. !
3 Q Did it affect your operations at all other than the 4 fact that you had to physically relocate for a temporary 5 period?
6 A No; that was the extent of it. The relocation was 7 the hardship.
8 Q No records at all were destroyed in the fire?
9 A There were documents, letters, possibly destroyed.
10 I'm not aware of them. Irv DeWald's office took the brunt of 11 the fire. I'm sure there were records that were burned but 12 they were duplicated in the vault. There could have been 13
( ) memos, that type of thing.
14 Q Mr. Seeders' letter among other documents alleges 15 there was a morale problem among QC inspectors, at least-16 during the Summer of 1984. If there was a morale problem, was 17 that something within your responsibility?
18 A Mainly that the morale problems were related to the 19 . money aspect and the training going on at that period in 20 time. It was difficult times for the training program because a
21 we were going through a new program, based on a new CECO l 22 procedure and also a training program initiated by corporate l
I O
. , . _ . . - - , , , , _ , . _ . - . . - , _ __,_.__.,___.m.__m , ~ . _ . , _ _ , _ _ - - - _ ,
I I
117 )
J 1 Manager, Bob Marino. In trying to get the training done, some A
(_sI 2 of the inspectors felt it wasn't getting done on a timely '
3 manner, that type of thing.
4 Q Was the training -- to what extent does QA have any 5 responsibility at all for training? Is that a separate 6 department?
7 A We would initiate the procedure, make sure it 8 complied with the program requirements and then QC would take 9 over and implement the procedure and do the training.
10 Q You didn't have any direct responsibility for the 11 actual implementation of the training?
12 A No.
( ) 13 Q If there were morale problems among the QC 14 inspectors, was that not part of your responsibility as QA 15 Manager to deal with or QA Engineer at that time?
16 A No.
17 Q It was not?
18 A No.
19 MR. CASSEL: Your witness.
20 MR. MILLER: Off the record.
21 [ Discussion off the record.]
22 MR. MILLER: On the record.
O
-- _. - -- _ _ ~ . -- . . -- - -
118
, 1 EXAMINATION
~
2 BY MR. MILLER:
3 Q Mr. Scit= ann, I want to refer you again to Puckett 4 Deposition Exhibit No. 16, which is the memo from Mr. Puckett ,
5 to Mr. DeWald showing a copy to you. After discussing the ;
6 stainless steel weld procedure and the welding of A36 to A446 ,
7 steel procedure, he then refers to at least five others that 8 were incorrectly qualified and then two sentences later says l 9 "The aforementioned procedures were qualified using the a
10 criteria of AWS Dl.1, 1975, and it should have never been 1
11 done." He goes on to suggest that AWS Dl.3 was the only 12 applicable code to those types of materials.
13 Do you recall any discussion with Mr. Puckett or
( }
14 anyone else regarding that specific issue?
15 A The issue of the Dl.3?
16 Q Yes, sir.
17 A That was discussed in relation to this; yes.
18 Q Do you have any responsibility for weld 19 inspections? Are you certified as a weld inspector? '
20 A I'm certified across the board, which means in all 21 categories, as a Level III, which is an administrative type 22 Level III position. Those type of questions would be given to t
O
119 1 the Level III on the job site.
O k_) 2 Q The question of which code was applicable?
3 A Exactly.
4 Q In the welding area, that would be Mr. Puckett and 5 now Mr. Simile; correct?
6 A Correct.
7 Q Do you have any knowledge as to which code the 8 Comstock procedures referred to?
1976 9 A It's Dl.1, 49tHh {9kN 10 Q Do you know whether or not there is a requirement 11 that Dl.3 be used for A446 material?
12 A Do I know of a requirement in our program?
/'}
NJ 13 Q In your program or any welding code.
14 A Could you restate that question?
15 Q Do you know of any requirement in your program that 16 says that A446 material should be welded in accordance with 17 procedures qualified under AWS Dl.3?
18 A No.
19 Q Do you know whether there is any welding code which 20 imposes such a requirement?
21 A I'm aware of Dl.3. I'm not aware of the actual 22 details in Dl.3; no.
l O
120 1 Q Mr. Cassel asked you some questions about the review .
2 of calibration records that Mr. Seeders was requested to 3 undertake. I would like to just clarify a little of that.
4 I would like to show you a document that has t
- 5 previously been marked Seeders Deposition Exhibit No. 25 for i
6 identification. I would ask if you have ever seen that 7 document before today.
8 A (Perusing document.] Yes.
9 Q Mr. Seeders has identified this as a handwritten j 10 report regarding calibration records that he created and it
, 11 has the date of' July 28, 1984 on the top of the first page.
i
- 12 Can you tell me, to the best of your recollection,
()'13 when the first time was that you saw this document?
14 This is the report that during the meeting between A
15 Rick Saklak, John Seeders and myself, in the trailer, was
, 16 presented, around August 13th; somewhere around that date.
17 Q At the beginning of the deposition today, Mr. Cassel j 18 asked you about a meeting regarding Mr. Seeders that took 19 place in Mr. Shamblin's office. I think you said you and l 20 Mr. DeWald were present, Mr. Shamblin, Mr. Gieseker from ,
l-21 Commonwealth Edison, and perhaps Mr. Quaka and Mr. Schulz.
! 22 At the time that meeting took place, Mr. Seltmann, O
L
121
- 1. did you have any knowledge regarding Mr. Seeders' apparent 2 competence in maintaining the calibration records for tools 3 that were in use at the Braidwood site?
f 4 A Yes. There were several different occasions. One 5 was initiated by an internal audit I had performed showing
. 6 discrepancies. There was the Ceco audit in May of 1984, which 7 initiated the records review. There was the documents from 8 Myra Sproull, Don Coss, Rick Snyder; the review indicated a 9 rather large degree of inconsistencies and missing I
10 documentation.
J
, 11 Also during a Commonwealth Edison general office l 12 audit that we had, a gentleman by the name of Mr. Felz -- i
( ) 13 we had discussed in the audit -- he had found the same problem
) 14 that was related to the Ceco audit done in May of 1984, which
~
15 in turn I investigated and what I determined to be the same 51B Mdg(84 16 problem created in the 5fte audit was still happening by 17 Mr. Seeders, even after all the discussions and the training i
- 18 session. That CECO audit produced additional problems, where
- 19 ICR's were not issued.
l 20 Q Can you recall the approximate date of this general
. 21 office audit you just referred to?
] 22 A That war in mid to late September.
1 i
O 1
P
-= wmre--ey -t---p--,+r-w--g-c-.p.y.,,-.,4, - . _ ---,.,,w,- ..g
122 1 Q Was it before or after this meeting you just O)
(_, 2 testified to, with Mr. Shamblin, Mr. Gieseker, Mr. DeWald, 3 Mr. Schulz and so on?
4 A It would have been before.
5 Q At that meeting, was there any discussion of 6 Mr. Seeders' competence or lack thereof in filling out and 7 keeping track of the calibration records?
8 A At that point, that is when I issued the letter. I 9 don't recall specifically talking about that at that meeting.
! 10 Q Talking about "that," talking about the issue of his 11 competence?
12 A We talked about the results of what we were finding 13 in the records review program and what we discussed in the
(
14 CECO audit.
15 MR. MILLER: I have no further questions.
16
) 17 18 19 20 j 21 22 l
lO ,
k 123 J
1 FURTHER EXAMINATION 2 'BY MR. CASSEL:
9 3 Q This August 21 memorandum from Puckett to DeWald, i 4 and the issue of whether D1.1 or Dl.3 should be used to
- 5 qualify the procedures, was that issue discussed in the j 6 meeting with Ceco and Sargent & Lundy held on August 22, 19847 i
7 A I think it was. The main concern was was it 1915 8 properly qualified under Dl.1, 1999. pk 9 Q Mr. Felz' audit was done in early September, 1984; 10 is that correct?
2 j 11 A I'd say mid to late September.
12 Q Did you have any knowledge before that audit was
- 13 conducted that it was going to include the review of
[
14 calibration records?
i 15 A They will issue a letter prior to their entrance 16 meeting describing what they were going to look at.
17 Q Do you remember how far before the audit was done 18 that letter was issued?
19- A I don't recall.
20 Q Is there a normal period of time?. A day or two 21 before?
22 A No. It's generally several weeks.
i I
i O
124 1 Q Do you recall when the entrance meeting was? Would 2 it have been right at the beginning of the inspection?
3 A Of their audit; yes.
i 4 Q Were you present at the entrance meeting?
5 A I can't recall. I usually am.
6 Q Did you have any discussions if you can recall, with
, 7 Mr. Felz before he began his audit relating to calibration 8 records and his forthcoming audit?
E 9 A No; I don't recall talking to him prior to that.
10 MR. CASSEL: Thank you very much, Bob. We 1
11 appreciate it. That is it.
12 (Whereupon, at 2:25 p.m., the deposition was 4
cenc1ueee.,
c:)12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 l 22 O
1 l
L
125 1 CERfIFICATE OF DEPONENT 2
3 I, ROBERT V. SELTMANN, do hereby certify that I have read 4 the foregoing transcript of my deposition testimony and, with 5 the exception of additions and corrections, if sny, hereto, !
6 find it to be a true and accurate transcription thereof.
7 8 = --
9 ROBERT V. SELTMANN 10 11 / 6'6 12 DATE 13 ***
14 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC 15 Sworn and subscribed to before me, this the fOfI 16 day of R ild,L , 19 .
D 17 18 19 AO -
1 M
Li L 20 NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR 21 My commission expires: /Q,VRO{ (v$[fiD}Mg I d/DW 22
/ o [30 / $h O
y 126 1 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC
>O k s/
m 2 3 I, PAMELA BRIGGLE, the officer before whom the foregoing 4 deposition was taken, do hereby certify that the witness whose 5 testimony appears in the foregoing deposition was duly sworn 6 by me; that the testimony of said witness was taken by me and 7 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under my direction; 8 that said deposition is a true record of the testimony given 9 by the witness; that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor 10 employed by any of the parties to the action in which this 11 deposition was taken; and further, that I am not a relative or 12 employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties 13
( ) hereto, nor financially or otherwise interested in the outcome 14 of the action.
15 16 bwhy bfac:[p
- cate 17 PAMELA BRIGGLE 18 Notary Public in and for the 19 District of Columbia 20 21 My Commission expires: May 14, 1990.
22 O