ML20195E545
| ML20195E545 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 06/03/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#286-532 OL, NUDOCS 8606090124 | |
| Download: ML20195E545 (257) | |
Text
--
7 ORIGINKL !
O UN11ED STATES !
l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i i
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-456 OL 50-457 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Braidwood Station, Units 1 & 2)
O LOCATION: JOLIET, ILLINOIS PAGES: 2579 - 2833 DATE: TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 1986 l
l d ',
ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
O OfficialReporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 i (202> 347 3m0 ygo*onMR8018yjiy )
I NATIONWIDE COVERACE
r O
2579 O
O 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD O
4
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X 5 :
In the Matter of: : l 6 : Docket No. 50-456 OL O COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY : 50-457 OL 7 :
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 :
8 and 2) :
__________________x 0
10 Circuit Court of Cook County Sixth Municipal District 11 16501 S. Kedzie Parkway, Markham, Illinois 60426 12 O (p)
, Tuesday, June 3, 1986.
13 14 The hearing in the above-entitled matter reconvened 15 at 9:00 A. M.
,0 16 BEFORE:
17' JUDGE HERBERT GROSSMAN, Chairman 18 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board O U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 19 Washington, D. C.
20 JUDGE RICHARD F. COLE, Member, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 21 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i O Washington, D. C.
22 JUDGE A. DIXON CALLIHAN, Member, 1 23 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 24 Washington, D. C.
O
() 25 APPEARANCES:
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
(3 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 b
,O 2580 10 0
1 On behalf of the Applicant:
) 2 MICHAEL I. MILLER, ESQ.
ELENA Z. KEZELIS, ESQ.
3 Isham, Lincoln & Beale
.)
i( Three First National Plaza 4 Chicago, Illinois 60602 ,
5 On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff: -
6
{0 ELAINE I. CHAN, ESQ.
7 GREGORY ALAN BERRY, ESQ.
l U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8 7335 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20014 :
9 H) On behalf of the Intervenors:
10 ROBERT GUILD, ESQ.
i 11 12 j
!O O 13 4 14 15 lO 16 17 t 18 iO 19 20 21 20 22 T'
23 24
'O O 25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
- O Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2581
! (
l WITNESS INDEX 2 LARRY G. SEESE 3 REDIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued.)
BY MR. MILLER 2583 4
RECROSS EXAMINATION 5 BY MR. GUILD 2667
. 6 BOARD EXAMINATION BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: 2759 7
BOARD EXAMINATION 8 BY JUDGE COLE: 2761 9 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MILLER: 2762 !
10 JAMES GIESEKER 11 DIRECT EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. GALLO 2769' O 13 CROSS EXAMAINATION BY MR. GUILD 2772 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 l 21 22 l
23 24
/~D 25
(>
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
O 2582
) .
- Q l JUDGE GROSSMAN: The 12th day of hearing is 2 now in session.
- 3 We ended on Friday with Mr. Miller on Redirect of
- O 4 Mr. Seese.
5 Mr. Seese, you remain sworn; and Mr. Miller will 6 continue his examination.
- O 7 MR. GUILD
- Mr. Chairman.
i 8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me. Mr. Guild.
9 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I have 10 one preliminary matter.
11 At the conclusion of the session on Friday, in 12 response to my request and the Board's direction, the-
.O O 13 company made available a document that was Comstock 14 Nonconformance Report 1827, a later revision on the 15 subject of the Quality Control Inspector Reverification i
16 Program.
17 Now, I understand informally that the document
- 18 given to me is simply an excerpt from that revised,
- () ;
1s updated Nonconformance Report, and that the actual 20 document is voluminous in nature. l l
21 The document that I have been given is not l HD I 22 particularly useful for the purposes which I sought the 23 updated version. It doesn't contain any recitation of I 24 deficiencies identified. It simply refers to documents iO ( ) 25 that are not attached that do contain such lists of Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
,D l( Geneva, Illinois 60134 1
(312) 232-0262
- O 2583
- O O
1 deficiencies.
2 I guess I have a request, and that is that 3 Applicants make available for inspection ~the original 4 document, which I understand to be voluminous, from 5 which I can make copies of pertinent parts; or, 6 alternatively, if there is a summary that displays the 10 7 data that is contained in the voluminoas attachments, 8 perhaps that would suffice.
9 MR. MILLER: I will inquire, Mr. Chairman.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I assume it's not too 11 voluminous to carry, Mr. Miller.
~
12 MR. MILLER: Well, if you don't have to carry 13 it too far; but it is quite a stack of paper.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. That's the only 15 preliminary matter?
- O 16 MR. GUILD: It is, Mr. Chairman.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Miller, please.
18 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
.O 19 (Continued.)
20 BY MR. MILLER ,
1 21 Q Mr. Seese, when we broke on Friday, we were inquiring I
!O 22 into the diary that you maintained, admitted into 23 evidence as Intervenors' Exhibit 33.
1 24 You were at Page 117. I would like you to turn to I
- (3 ( )
25 that page again, please. l l
Sonntag Reporting Service _. Ltd. l i>
- C Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l .. - - ... .. - -- - . . - - . - .- .
'O 2584
-Q l Item SA on that page begins with the words, "Irv 2 states that Inspector Steve Scott," and so forth.
3 What did you understand Mr. DeWald's comments 4 regarding Mr. Scott to mean?
5 A Mr. Scott was a Level 2 Welding Inspector.
6 Mr. DeWald's comments were that he, Irv, observed 7 him standing around the office, what he felt was an 8 excessive amount of time, and he wanted him to be sent 9 to the field to do inspections.
10 Q Following down the next item on that page is Item 6A, l 11 which states, "Saklak and Brown complain about poor work
- 12 practices causing a high reject rate. This causes each
- O 13 item to be inspected three times."
i 14 I think we previously identified Mr. Saklak and Mr.
15 Brown on the record.
- O 16 Whose poor work practices did you understand the 17 complaints were about?
o 18 A They were discussing the craft or construction
- (3 i 19 personnel's work practices.
20 0 What action, if any, was taken as a result of these 21 complaints? i
'O l 22 A We continued to monitor the reject rate in each given .
I i
23 area; and if it warranted going back to construction I
- 24 with training classes or whatever, it was an ongoing
!O ( ) 25 program that we had.
4 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
!(3 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- O 2585 4
O 1 Q Item 7A states, "Coss, Brown, Saklak complain about the 2 use of AVO's," that's in quotation marks, "that this is 3 a gross abuse. Irv requests that Seltmann start looking 4 at the abuse of the AVO system. This ties into the 5 overall lack of control of the re-work system."
6 First of all, Mr. Seese, would you define for us 7 what an AVO is?
8 A Yes. It was a small, preprinted form that was entitled, 9 " Avoid verbal orders"; and the AVO is used to track
,0 10 re-work on existing installations in the plant.
11 For example, if you had an interference problem 12 with another craft, they needed to remove one of our
.O O 13 welded hangers, they would cut one of these AVO's so 14 that the craft had something to charge their time to.
15 However, QC was not on distribution, so we didn't
.O 16 get tied into that re-work program that was in existence 17 at that time.
18 Q Let me make sure that the record is clear.
.O 19 Which Comstock organization was using the AVO 20 memorandum?
21 A Comstock Construction.
!O 22 0 How, if you know, did this use of the AVO come to the 23 attention of Comstock QC?
24 A Some of the inspectors would have completed inspection I
'(3(]) 25 maybe three weeks earlier and in their routine visits to I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
- (3 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 i
\
'O 2586 0
.O 1 the plant observed that item being removed.
2 Their concern was how would we be notified to go 3 back out and redo another inspection of that work.
4 0 What was the chain, if you will, as to how those 5 inspectors' concerns came to your attention?
6 A They voiced the concerns to the supervisors. The 7 individuals who made the complaint here -- Mr. Coss was 8 a lead at that time -- to Mr. Brown and Mr. Saklak.
9 They had brought it to our attention at this 10 meeting.
11 Q What action, if any, did Comstock QC take as a result of 12 these concerns about the AVO program?
13 A We, Mr. Seltmann and I, both got involved with looking 14 into it.
15 I believe at the final stages there was also an NRC 16 inspection that brought the concern up.
17 The end results were that we wrote a re-work 18 procedure and also documented the use of the AVO system 19 on a Nonconformance Report.
4 20 0 Item 9A, " Larry Phillips says in the past construction 21 has ridden roughshod over QC. If the procedure says 22 write an ICR/NCR, then write it. Irv states that giving 23 them one day to make corrections is acceptable."
24 Let's deal with the first sentence of that subparagraph first, Mr. See'se.
O 25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
iO Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
.O 2587 C:)
O 1 What did you understand Mr. Phillips to mean when 2 he made this comment about past practices by 3 construction?
.:O 4 A Mr. Phillips was one of our older inspectors, and he was 5 commenting that in the past if Construction had 6 something they wanted done or, better, if we had things 7 that we needed help from Construction on, the 8 cooperation wasn't there; and that in the past if we 9 requested to have paint removed, Construction did it 10 10 when they felt like it.
11 It just wasn't the spirit of cooperation that we 1 12 were now trying to stress.
10 13 Q All right, sir.
14 The second sentence says, "If the procedure says 15 '
write an ICR/NCR, then write it."
!O j 16 My first question on that sentence is: Who made i
17 that observation in the meeting, if you recall?
18 .A Mr. Phillips.
19 0 What did you understand that statement to mean in 20 relationship to the first sentence of the subparagraph?
21 A Irv and I were trying to stress that regardless of what
- (3 ,
22 the past history was, that we had approached 23 Construction and Engineering upon our arrival at the
- 24 site and we wanted all parties to work together for the
.O ( )
25 betterment of the job.
SQDnhag Reporting Service, Ltd, l(3 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- O l 2588 O
-O 1 One of the things that we were stressing was if you 2 were -- if the scaffold was built, the welding machine 3 was there and you were out on a deficiency that could
- O 4 readily be repaired, document that in the Remarks 5 Section of your checklist, allow the repair to be made, 6 versus writing the ICR, allow it to go through for a 10' 7 week by the distribution system. By that time the 8 scaffolding has been removed, the crew has been removed i 9 to another area.
jo 10 So we were stressing to, yes, document your 11 deficiencies but work with Construction. If they were 12 set up in an area to make a repair, give them that
- O O j 13 opportunity.
1 l 14 Q And is that what you understood the last sentence of i
15 Subparagraph 9A to imply?
- 16 A Yes, sir, it is.
j 17 0 Is the practice of allowing the craft one day to make i
18 repairs or fix up discrepancies adhered to today?
10 19 A Yes. The practice today is, in fact, they are given a i 20 three-day ICR, which allows them three days to make 21 those type of repairs.
22 0 Under the practice as it was contemplated when this
- 23 meeting was held at the end of December, 1983, was an 24 ICR or NCR initiated even though the craft was given to ( ) 25 time to repair the condition?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
i) C Geneva, Illinois 60134
- (312) 232-0262
10 2589 s
10 1 A No, sir, it wasn't.
2 0 When did that change?
3 A That changed in December of '84, which was when we made
- O 4 the procedure revision that encompassed the in-process 5 ICR.
i l 6 Q Page 118, Mr. Seese. It actually is Paragraph 10A, but
'O 7 the sentence that I would like to focus on is the last l 8 sentence of that subparagraph, which states, "Seltmann 9 says, 'These are the worst files he has ever seen.'"
10 What did you understand Mr. Seltmann to be l 11 referring to in that comment?
6 1
i 12 A Mr. Seltmann had an extensive background in record 10 13 turnover. He was referring to the way our files in our 1 14 record vault were filed and maintained.
15 The concern was that for a piece of equipment, the 16 inspection of the actual equipment was in one area; the 17 welds for that equipment was filed in a different area.
18 It was the same way with the hanger: The welding 19 would be in one place; you would have to go to another 20 file to find the configuration reports.
21 Bob was stressing that a better way to format it
- O 22 was to have everything for a piece of equipment in one 23 file, so that the 38-A and the 19 would all be in one 24 place.
- O ( )
, 25 If you had a question on a piece of equipment, all i
Sonntag_ Reporting service. Ltd.
' () Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
, , . - - , . - . , , ..m__ , , - .w.-..,,..--e m.~, ,,,%~-,, - . s ,#- . - . , - , . , - . . - , . , , , - , - . - - - , , e .%,
h3 I i 2590 i I
l 10 j 1 the records would be readily available in one package.
]
2 Q You referred to a Form 38.
l 4
i 3 Would you describe the purpose of that form?
jO i 4 A Yes. The purpose of the Form 38-A was to -- it was a
! 5 multiple-purpose form.
! 6 The construction people who installed the equipment 10 7 filled out the top portion.
{
t 8 The bottom portion of the equipment was then the 9 inspector's checklist where he would document his jO j 10 inspections.
11 Q And I believe the Form 19.has been previously ;
) 12 identified.
iC)($)
j 13 But just for the purposes of the record, would you j 14 state what the function of that form is?
i
? 15 A Yes. Form 19 is the checklist that is used for visual. l I C>
, 16 weld inspections by our QC Inspectors.
, i 17 Q What action, if any, was taken.after the end of '
l j 18 December,1983, with respect to the organization of
- O
! 19 these files?
l 20 A They have now been incorporated into the package system 21 that Mr. Seltmann was referring to. l
!(3 !
22 Q Continuing on Page 118 of Intervenors' Exhibit 33, j j 23 Inspector 12A -- I am sorry'-- Subparagraph 12A, "Saklak i 24 asks about" -- is that "HIR"?
1C)
()
i 25 A Yes. That would be a Hanger Installation Report.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
(O Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262
- - . - - = -- . --
10 i i 2591 i
O O
j 1 Q " Brown reports that we only have 6 or 7 back of the i 2 1,400 that were issued."
3 Let me read the rest of the paragraph on that
- O 4 question. " John Camron is handling the engineer's ;
5 response to this audit finding. Saklak says that the I
6 written instructions say, 'do not separate,' and
- O 7 engineering is tearing them apart. Irv says he will see
) 8 Frank."
I 9 Rather than go through that sentence by sentence,
- O i
10 if you could describe generally for us what situation i
11 Mr. Saklak was asking about and what the substance of i i
l 12 the conversation at the meeting was concerning that io O i 13 subject?
i
] 14 A Yes. The Hanger Installation Report was a document i 15 filled out by Construction, the craft personnel, when jO 16 they installed an item in the field. ,
i 17 So what Mr. Saklak was complaining about was that i 18 they were slow in coming in, and there was an audit i 19 concern that the foremen had not signed'all of the I
! 20 Hanger Installation Peports.
i
! 21 So there were 1,400 Construction had to have
- O
) 22 redone, and they would be turned in to be reviewed by QC 23 to-close out this audit finding.
i 1
- 24 So they were discussing the slowness of them coming 10 i
O 25 in.
I l
! Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
1 Geneva, Illinois 60134 l0 (312) 232-0262
- . . . _ . _ . _ _ . . _ . _ - _ _ . . . _ _ . . _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - _ . . . _ _ - . _ , . . . - - - , _ . _ . . _ , ~ , , . _ . . , - _ - . .
l l
'O 2592 I
O l 1 He was also discussing that Construction was 2 supposed to keep them together, not to separate them; 3 but they were being sent out piecemeal, they were not 4 being kept together; and that was creating for QC a 5 tracking problem. !
6 0 I take it the last sentence of that subparagraph is the
- O 7 action, "Irv says he will see Frank." ,
8 That's Mr. DeWald and Frank Rolan?
9 A That's correct; and, as a resalt, Engineering started i 10 accumulating the secords and sending them out the way i
11 Mr. Saklak had wanted them to be.
I 12 Q Subparagraph 13A, "Tonja interrupts meeting to see if 10 13 Rick has anyone else to pull cable. Rick complains that 14 Pat Foss has issued cable pulls without checking field.
15 Example, 27 cables issued to pull through a three-inch 16 conduit."
17 I take it -- well, first of all, does this record 18 an event that took place while this meeting was in
- O 19 progress?
20 A Yes, sir, it does.
21 Q Who was the Tonja who is referred to? l
- O 22 A Tonja Rolan was one of the QC secretaries.
1 23 Q Who is Mr. Foss referred to in that paragraph? i I
24 A Pat Foss was the head of the cable systems or l l
13() 25 Scheduling. I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
-() Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 l 1
_ .- . . - -- . - - . . . - - _ - . - . - - _ - . - . - , . - . . - - - _ . . - - . .)
O 2593
(%
b O
1 Q And was he part of the QC organization?
2 A No. Mr. Poss was part of the construction organization.
3 Q All right. What was the substance of Mr. Saklak's
.O 4 complaint about Mr. Poss?
5 A Rick was saying that he was sending his inspectors out 6 on pulls that Mr. Poss said were ready.
7 When the inspectors would, in fact, get out to the 8 field, there would be parts of the conduit that were 9 missing; or, in the case he describes here, the 27
.O 10 cables physically would not have gone in the conduit.
11 It was not the way the conduit was scheduled to be by gs 12 design drawing.
O\) 13 So he was complaining that Mr. Poss was sending out 14 all of these cards, they weren't ready to pull. The 15 inspectors were being called out and they would arrive
- O 16 on the scene and immediately there was being said, "No, 17 you can't pull the cable."
18 It was for reasons that Mr. Foss's department
-O 19 already should have found.
20 0 What action was taken, if any, as a result of this 21 situation?
O 22 A It's not noted here, but in past cases Mr. DeWald would 23 go to Mr. Rolan and Mr. Foss and discuss these problems.
24 Q Turning to Page 119, Subparagraph 16A, " Questions on O (]') 25 ' Detail J.' No consistent way of notifying QC for S o nn t ag_Repo r_ ting _EerXice,_Lt_d .
.(3 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 10 2594 (2) 40 1 inspection. Irv tells Saklak to get someone in his 2 group to get qualified" -- I am sorry -- Soberski. "Irv 3 tells Soberski to get someone in his group to get
- O 4 qualified as Welding Inspector. Irv talked to Frank.
5 Soberski made smart remarks about new welding inspectors 6 walking around. 'Let them do a status.'"
7 First of all, would you describe to us what Detail a 8 J is?
i f 9 A Yes. Detail J is a mounting support detail where O
l 10 conduit is attached to a conduit hanger after the fact.
1 i 11 It has to be -- what it does is it supports the i i l 12 conduit where it crosses the hanger. So at the time you
- O 13 install the hanger in the field, you would not know 14 where the Detail J has to be placed.
15 It's a detail that, after the fact, would be added 10 16 as the conduit is being run when you know the elevation 17 that it's going to cross at. It's a welded detail.
18 0 who is Mr. Soberski?
10' 19 A Dave Soberski was one of the QC Inspectors who was the l 20 Lead of the conduit inspection group.
21 Q All right. The sentence says, "No consistent way of 10
- 22 notifying QC for inspection."
l 23 Who made that comment?
24 A It would have been made by Mr. Saklak or Mr. Soberski.
25
!O(]) 0 Now, there is an apparent direction from Mr. DeWald to Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
- () Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l'
-O 2595 4
O 1 Mr. Soberski to get someone in his conduit group 2 qualified as a Welding Inspector.
3 What was the purpose of that direction, if you 4 know?
5 A Since the Detail J's were added after the hanger had 6 been installed and after the welding inspection, it was 7 Irv's feeling that the easiest way to do it would be to 8 certify a member of the conduit Department in welding,
! 9 so that as they came across these details without iO 10 inspector stamps, there would be somebody within the i 11 conduit group who then could do the weld inspection that 12 was necessary.
lO O 13 0 Then it says, "Irv to talk to Frank."
14 Again, I assume that is Frank Rolan; correct?
15 A Right. He wanted to discuss how QC was going to be O
16 notified of the Detail J's.
17 Q What does the last sentence of that subparagraph 18 reflect?
.O 19 A Mr. Soberski, at the time that Irv asked him to get one 20 of his people trained, made a remark that, since there 21 were welding inspecLors walking around, let them come 22 out and do a status of the Detail J's and do the 23 inspections themselves.
24 Q How was that iscue resolved; do you recall?
4 O() 25 A Yes. Somebody within the Conduit Department was i Sonntag_ Reporting service. Ltd.
l() Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
lO 2596 4
()
.O 1 certified.
2 0 Subparagraph 22A, could you read that entry into the 3 record, please, Mr. Seese?
4 A Yes. 22A says, " Drawing control. Rick whines about 5 prints being brought into the office."
6 Q The Rick is Mr. Saklak; is that correct?
iO 3
7 A That's correct.
8 Q And what was the substance of Mr. Saklak's complaint on l 9 that issue?
lO j 10 A Several days earlier -- perhaps a week -- Mr. Saklak had i
i 11 complained about the drawing control out in the l 12 inspection crib.
!O O 13 We had held a meeting with Mr. Saklak, Mr. Brown 14 and Mr. DeWald, and at that point we made a decision to 15 bring the drawings into the QC office, take them to the 10 16 QC records vault and that they would be distributed by 17 one of the clerks from there.
18 We felt that was going to give the additional O
19 control that Saklak had asked for earlier.
20 Then he come back and complained that he didn't
! 21 really like the idea of it being in the records vault.
'O 22 He would rather have had a clerk stationed out in the i
23 plant; and our feeling was that it wasn't a full-time
! 24 job, didn't merit stationing a clerk out in the plant.
- O() 25 It was something that we could handle more efficiently Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
!() Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- O 2597
(
O 1 as part of the normal vault work where we had seven or 2 eight collegues available.
3 0 What action, if any, was taken as a result of Mr.
4 Saklak's complaint on this subject?
5 A None. The system that we established is still in effect 6 today.
7 Q All right. I would like you to turn to Page 121,
, 8 please.
9 First of all, the entry under the date 5/18/84,
- (3 <
10 what relation, if any, does that entry have to issues at 11 Braidwood?
12 A None whatsoever.
- 0 0 13 Q Do you recall whether that entry involves events at any i
14 other power plant?
15 A Yes. It involves some events at the Perry Nuclear Power 16 Plant.
17 Q All right, sir.
i 18 We have the entry, "Re-started log 9/13/84.
,3 ( ;
19 Informed by Tonja that very large number of inspectors ,
20 attended Union meeting at Morris Holiday Inn." l 21 Again, Tonja is Tonja Rolan? ;
(3 l 22 A That's correct. l l
j 23 Q And it is the Comstock QC Inspectors to whom you refer; j 24 is that right?
I l(3
() 25 A That is correct.
i Sonntag Reporting ServiCL_Ltd-i(3 Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262 '
!(3 )
2598 l
l I'
() l K3 ,
1 Q There is then a series of names: Bossong -- what is the l l
2 next one? i i
3 A Frisby, Garish and Patey.
10 l 4 Q "At head table"?
5 A Yes, they were at the head table.
6 Q Who are Messrs. Bossong, Frisby, Garish and Patey?
10 4 7 A Mr. Bossong was a Level 2 QC Inspector. He still holds l
8 that title. He is also the day shift Union Steward.
]
i 9 Mr. Frisby was a Level 2 Inspector assigned to 10' 10 Comstock. He has now been transferred to Newberg at the i 11 Braidwood site.
- 12 Mr. Garish is still a Level 2 Inspector for jo
- 13 Comstock through BESTCO.
f 14 Mr. Patey was a Level 2 Inspector, and he quit to i 15 accept employment elsewhere, not at Braidwood.
i C) 1 16 Q The next sentence says, " Franco L. ed meeting."
1 17 To whom does that refer? I i ,
! 18 A Franco Rolan, one of our CR 1 :spectors.
jO
) 19 Q He is?
20 A Tonja's husband.
21 Q Tonja's husband?
22 A Yes.
23 Q "After the meeting he was stopped in men's and Seeders, I
l l 24 Bossong forced him to turn over the tape." l l
iC) ( ) 25 What does that refer to, Mr. Seese? ;
i I j Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
J C) Geneva, Illinois 60134 1 (312) 232-0262 i
I-.~.,.-_-.--._.- .- .---.- . . - ~ ~ - . , , _ . ~ , - - - _ . _ _ _ , _ . . _ - - _ _ . _ , , . . .
- ,_ _. .- _ ...~. - ,,,__, - ,. _ _ _ -
___ .. .. . Ay 0
2599 O '
O 1 A Tonja had reported that he was stopped in the men's room 2 of the Holiday Inn in Morris and that Mr. Seeders and 3 Bossong forced him to turn over the tape before he was O
4 let out of the men's room. l 5 0 All right. It goes on to say, "This info was reported l l
6 to R. Marino by telephone" - "by phone."
7 Did you do that, sir?
I 8 A Yes, I did.
9 Q Then it goes on to say what his instructions to you were O {
10 and requested that you inform Frank Rolan of the events, l 11 and the last sentence indicates that you, in fact, did 12 so; is that correct?
OO 13 A That is correct.
14 Q At this point in time, September 13, 1984, Mr. Seese, to 15 your knowledge, what was the status of the Union (3 .
16 organizing effort with respect to the Comstock QC 17 Inspectors?
18 A The organizing effort was underway. However, they had O
19 not petitioned for an election at this point.
20 Q By "an election," what are you referring to?
21 A To the National Labor Relations Board.
O 22 Q The next entry on that page has the date of December 3, 23 1984, and the first sentence of this says, "Due to the 24 events taking place with relationship to the Braidwood O() 25 QC Program, this log is re-started."
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
C) Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 l
t
~ . - . -- -. . .- , -
- O t
2600 i
i DO
}O 1 What events were you referring to, sir?
l 2 A One of the e rents was that Mr. DeWald was of f site i
! 3 meeting with the company attorneys in Cleveland.
!O j 4 Since some of his -- since his responsibilities 5 fell to me at this point, I tried to keep notes so that 1
6 I could advise him, when he come back, of different
- 7 activities.
t i 8 In addition, having reviewed it over the weekend, 9 it also was clear to me that the Union election had
!O 10 taken place on 11-28-84, so that that would be one of 11 the other events that I was starting to diary for.
l 12 Q Turn the page, if you would, to Page 122, still under i
- O([)
i j 13 the date of December 3rd. Item 2, " Received a phone !
! 14 call from Carl Mennecke of CECO PCD asking the impact of i
15 the Union election. He wanted to know how the 10 i
16 anti-Union people felt."
17 What anti-Union people did you understand Mr.
1 18 Mennecke to be inquiring about?
!O 19 A He was questioning about the members of the QC 20 Department who had opposed 'the Union organization drive.
t i 21 Q Then you explained that you would-lose certain
- O I 22 individuals that are set forth in that paragraph.
23 Could you state for the record how many of the 24 individuals that you list 'are QC Inspectors?
iO-I
() 25 A Today, Mr. Miller, or at the time?
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
!O Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
_ . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ .- _ ...~ _ . _ _ _ . ..., _ . . _ .. _ _ _ _ _.. _ ~ _. ....... _ - ._ .. _ _ .. _ ._ _ _
lo i 2601 O
lO l 1 Q At the time; and you might also indicate whether they i 2 are still employed at Comstock.
1 3 A Jim Sumrow was a QA engineer at the time and is no
- O 4 longer with Comstock, 5 Mr. Simms was a QA engineer at the time. He is now j!
- 6 the QA supervisor with Comstock.
- O i 7 Mr. Himes was a Level 2 QC Inspector at the time.
i 8 He is now employed as an engineer for Comstock.
1 r
9 Mr. Rissman was a Level 2 Inspector, who is now
- O 10 employed by Commonwealth Edison, I believe, at the Zion i 11 plant.
i 12 Ms. Rolan was a secretary at the time. She is now l'OO
- 13 a secretary for the Engineering Department.
j 14 And Mrs. Jackie Joyce is still employed. She was a i
15 QC clerk at the time and is still employed as a QC clerk 40 16 under BESTCO and the Union.
l 17 Q December 4, 1984, Item No. 2,'"Seltmann and I approached i
- 18 Irv this morning about inspectors coming and going as
- O
. 19 they pleased. They have open defiance of management.
i 20 Bob and I suggest going to a brass in and out system.
! 21 No positive statement from Irv."
10 22 First of all, Mr. Seese, on how many occasions had 1
23 you observed inspectors coming and going as they 24 pleased?
!O{) ( 25 A It had been transpiring ever since the Union election, i
! Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
] C) Geneva, Illinois 60134
- (312) 232-0262 1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ . _ _ _ . , . . ~ . . . _ . . _ . _ - _ _ . - _ _ . . . _ . . _ , . . _ . - - _ . _ , . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _
O 2602 O
O 1 so that' would have been a period of 11-28 to 12-4.
2 0 When you refer to them coming and going as they pleased, 3 i'n Nhat, respecti, sir?
4 A We were referring to starting time in the morning, 5 quitting time in the evening and also leaving for lunch
~
6 early and coming back later.
7 0 Trhe next sentence says, "They have open defiance of 8 management." _
9 Are there'any specific instances that you would
.O 10 characterize as open defiance?
11 A No. It was just a general -- a general attitude that we 12' perceived had occurred.
.O O 13 0 You and Mr. Seltmann suggested a brass in and out 14 system.
IS What does that refer to, please?
- O .
16 A The brass in and brass out was a method of tracking '
17 craft arrival on the jobsite and leaving, where you 18 would actually have,a round piece of brass with your 19 number stamped on. You drop that at the main gate as 20 you come in. Later on in the day you would pick that up
, 2[ at a given station and you would drop it again on your
!O '
22 way out in the evening; and the gate was only open at 23 certa'in times so you coul,d track arrival and departures.
24 0- 'The final sentence says, "No. positive statement from 25 Irv." .-,
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
!O .. Geneva, Illinois 6013T
, (312) -
232-0262 ,
!O 2603
)
10 1 What does that refer to? _
i 2 ,
A Mr. DeWald would not give a yes or no answer at that 3 point. He wanted to discuss it with other individuals; 4 I would assume higher corporate officials.
5 Q To your knowledge, Mr. Seese, was the brass system ever 4
6 instituted?
jO 7 A It was at the time the inspectors were transferred to 8 BESTCO, yes, and is still in effect today.
i 9 Q Turn the page, please -- well, I guess we will have to 10 10 go back to Page 122. At 10:10 A. M. on December 4th 11 there was a meeting.
- 12 In whose office dia that meeting take place, sir? '
13 A It took place in Joe Klena's office, who was the Project i
14 ' Engineer for Comstock.
15 Q All right. And can you tell, by looking at the notes, .
!O 16 what the purpose of this meeting was? l l
17 A Yes. The members of the Engineering Department were I 18 complaining about a problem with the paper flow in
.!O 19 re-work system and that the re-works were being rejected j 20 because the installation reports and the WIR, which was l
! 21 the Weld Installation Report, was not being attached to
!O 22 the re-works. They weren't coming in together.
1 - .
- 23 The procedure on re-works required the. installation
]
I- 24 reports to be H. - d in with the re-work. J 40( ]) 25 Q All right. There is a paragraph on Page 123 that l
Sonntag Reparting Service, Ltd.
} C)
- Geneva, Illinois 60134
, (312) 232-0262
d)
I 2604 I i -
jo(
1 begins, "I talked to Tony Simile after-the meeting-and l 2 it appears that he wants QC to list all inspections as l
i 3 required. This transfers the burden from Engineering to i C> ,
4 QC, and we do not have the manpower to staff it that 1
5 way. I explained that I was given," and you 6 characterize the inspectors - "to work'with and I don't i 7 have any qualified to complete this work."
8 First of all, Mr. Seese, to your recollection, did 9 Mr. Simile make the suggestion in this meeting with
}0 1
10 Engineering and Construction that QC should list all the :
i, j 11 inspections on these re-work documents?
I
- 12 A Yes, he did.
'o O j
13 Q Were you in favor of or opposed to that suggestion?
- 14 A I was in charge of the people who were doing the review j 15 of the re-works, so I was very much opposed to it.
- O i 16 Q For what reasons, sir?
i
! 17 A Two reasons. One, I felt that was an Engineering l 18 responsibility. The way the form was set up itself,
- O
- 19 there were blocks at the top where the engineer had to j 20 mark what he was going to be re-working. I felt 1 '
. 21 strongly the engineer should do that.
- O l 22 Secondly, I. felt that I didn't have any manpower 1
23 devoted to that assignment that were competent to l
i 24 perform.that function if it was transferred to QC.
'O
() 25 Q All right. You characterize the' inspectors in that I
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
) C>
! . Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312)- 232-0262
0 2605 l O
O 1 paragraph with an adjective that everyone in the hearing 2 room sees.
3 Would you explain the ~ oasis on which you used that O
4 characterization?
5 A The inspectors who were assigned vault duties and 6 re-work duties were historically the inspectors who 7 could not complete field inspection assignments, and so 8 if somebody had difficulty climbing, had their certs 9 removed, for some reason couldn't fit into routine field 10 assignments, were accident prone, whatever the reason, 11 they were the one given to us to do these office-type 12 assignments.
oO 13 It became a standing joke or comment around the 14 office that the vault was the clinic.
15 So that statement was just a poor choice of words, O
16 but referring back to the clinic description, which was 17 common practice.
18 0 What was the disposition of this suggestion by Mr.
O 19 Simile?
20 A We had had the discussion, and at that time we agreed it 21 was still Engineering's responsibility, and that's where O
22 it rests today.
23 0 All right. Further down on the page under numbered 24 Paragraph 5, there is a reference to a staff meeting.
O() 25 Subparagraph SA, " Training is to be per training sonntag Rep &rting Service, Ltd.
C) Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- O 2606
(
lO 1 schedule. If a man is scheduled for testing on Monday,
. 2 he is to test that date. Seltmann asks, 'How do we I
3 control this?' I have told training not to accept any UD :
4 101's from inspectors who are not on the training ;
5 schedule unless it is approved in writing by the i 6 supervisor. I have expressed a concern with the
!O 7 training hours and possible compromising of practical 8 exams."
l 9 At this point in time, Mr. Seese, were you l 10 10 personally responsible for the training function?
! 11 A Yes, I was.
1 12 Well, as Assistant Manager, that was one of the io O l 13 areas, yes, Mr. Miller, that did report to me.
i
+
14 0 Was there an individual at this point in time -- that i 15 is', December,1984 -- who had direct responsibility for !
!O 16 the training function?
17 A Yes, there was a Training Coordinator. It would have r
i 18 been Mr. Dominic at the time, yes.
!O 19 Q What was the concern, if any, about training not being j 20 on the training schedule?
21 A What we were running into was the supervisor would 22 assign an inspector to field inspections but he would go l 23 out with another one of the inspectors and just start j 24 training on his own.
- Cl I
a
() 25 So the concern was we had to control that. We
! Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
! C)- Geneva, Illinois 60134 I
(312) '232-0262
i
- O l 2607 i
O
- O-
- 1 could only afford so many people training and the other 2 inspectors would have to keep up our workload.
j 3 So the practice we instituted was if a man was on jO 4 the formal training schedule, we accepted the Form j 5 101's, which was the form used to document training.
! 6 If he was not on that schedule, then we required iO 7 the approval of his supervisor prior to accepting that I
- 8 training.
9 Q The last sentence of this again says, "I have expressed
- O
{ 10 a concern about the training hours."
11 What was the concern that you expressed about the l 12 training hours?
io
}
O 13 A That an inspector would turn in eight hours training 14 and, perhaps, part of that time was not spent in actual 15 training.
- O ,
- 16 That may have been time waiting for craft people to !
1 j 17 show up, time where you actually weren't training. ,
18 0 Okay. "And possible compromising of practical exams." t
- O 19 What was the possible compromising of practical 20 exams that you referred to?
21 A At that point an inspector would go out into the plant t 22 unmonitored. He would be given an assignment in his l 23 office saying, "Here is your practical exam, here is '
i 24 what we want you to go inspect." He would be allowed to
- O
! O 25 go out in the p1ane en his o.n.
1 i Sonntag Rep _Qr_ ting Service, Ltd.
lO Geneva, Illinois 60134 j (312) 232-0262
- O 2608 i
i
,O 1 We perceived there could be a possibility where 2 somebody could come back and say, "Well, how do you know 3 that somebody didn't help them?"
4 Nothing ever happened that made us doubt he was 5 being helped, but it was a perception that somebody 1
6 could come back and ask that question.
.O i 7 Q All right, sir.
8 Subparagraph 5B on Page 123, "Irv talks to Sak l 9 about his memo asking for direction on what management
.O 10 can do. Irv states that you can't put some of these 11 things in writing."
s 12 All right. What did you understand Mr. Saklak's 13 memo seeking direction to involve?
14 A This memo was issued very shortly after Mr. Saklak was 15 given a written warning for an incident with Inspector 16 Franco Rolan.
17 Mr. Saklak was requesting an exact listing of what 18 a supervisor should do, what he could do, what he
- (D .
l 19 couldn't do; and Mr. DeWald's closing statement was that 20 some of these items had to be pure common sense. You 21 couldn't put everything in writing for him.
22 Q All right, sir.
23 Turn to Page 124, Subparagraph 5D, "Irv says the 24 supervisor should ask the Leads why their people are not O(]) 25 working. If you ask them enough times, they will get
! Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
~
1 C) Geneva, IT11nois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2609 I
O O
1 tired of hearing it."
2 First of all, at this point in time -- that is, 3 December 4, 1984 -- how many supervisors were there in 4 the Comstock QC organization?
5 A Without looking at the organization chart, I couldn't 6 say positively.
7 Q All right. More than one?
8 A Yes, I believe there were more than one at this point.
9 Q What situation was Mr. DeWald referring to in this 10 statement?
11 A Again, it relates back to after the Union election, q 12 there were a lot of gatherings, standing around, OV 13 talking, within the office.
14 What he was referring to: If you observed that 15 situation, instead of the supervisor going up and 16 , confronting the individual inspectors, he was suggesting 17 that you talk to their Lead and ask the Lead to go back 18 and ask them what they were doing and try to get them 19 working.
20 0 Mr. Seese, I would like to just ask you a few questions 21 about Subparagraph SE. It's quite long.
22 If you would read it to yourself, please, and then 23 I have a few questions for you.
24 Mr. Seese, could we agree that there is more than O
Q 25 one topic that is discussed in that subparagraph?
Sonntas_Repotting_St.rylch _LtL O ceneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
-O 2610
(
lO 1 A Yes, there are.
i 2 Q What are the topics that are discussed?
3 A There appears to be at least two subjects: One, the CAT
.O 4 Team Audit that was coming up and a meeting that was 5 held to discuss that; and also there is a reference 1 6 within the body of that paragraph to exit interviews JO 7 being done by Quality First Group.
8 So that is two distinct subjects there.
i 9 Q All right. Let me ask you -- first of all, the sentence 10 j 10 that says, "Irv stresses that we react properly," to l
I 11 what subject does that subject refer, if you could tell?
j 12 A That refers back to the CAT Team Audit.
10 I
O 13 By " react properly" is -- if the inspector shortly l 14 before lunch comes up with a concern, by " properly" he
, 15 meant that you worked through lunch to get an answer for 10 16 him, so that when he come back, you had his answers.
17 He wanted that done. He wanted to show a positive 18 spirit.
lO i 19 0 There is another sentence, "Irv and Seltmann will handle 4
l 20 most of it."
21 What does the "it" refer to?
10 '
l 22 A It refers back to the NRC CAT Team Audits; that they 23 would be the primary contacts.
l 24 Q Then, "This report will decide if we can bring fuel on IC)
() 25 site in 1986."
) .
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
C) ceneva, Illinois 60134 ,
(312) 232-0262 l
}
i lO i 2611 1
i lO o
1 Which report is this referring to?
, 2 A The CAT Team Audit.
I 3 Q Then a little bit further down in that paragraph, "Will
- O 4 conduct inspector interviews."
5 To what subject does that refer?
4 6 A That refers back to the CAT Team.would probably conduct
- O '
7 inspector interviews while they were here.
8 Q All right. It goes on to state, "Tapella will be the
- 9 primary CECO PCD contact."
- O
. 10 And does that refer to Quality First or the CAT 11 Team?
j 12 A That referred to the CAT Team.
- o O 13 Q All right. Again, Mr. Seese, I would like you to take
- 14 just a' minute and look over the entries under the date 15 of December 10, 1984.
- O j 16 I just have a few questions that I want to ask you i 17 about those.
! 18 JUDGE COLE: What page is that on, Mr.
!O 19 Miller? '
l 20 MR. MILLER: I am sorry. It starts, your 21 Honor, on Page 124 and continues, really, for quite a lO 22 number of pages, until Page 128. Page 128 appears to i 23 start with a new number.
24 JUDGE COLE: Thank you.
BY MR. MILLER:
!O(]) 25 Sqnntag_Repatting Se rvice ,_Ltd.
4 C) Geneva, Illinois 60134
. (312) 232-0262 i
!O 2612 O
O 1 Q All right, sir.
2 Did this meeting -- well, can you describe the 3 general subject matter that was discussed at this
.O 4 meeting that took place on December 10, 1984?
5 A Yes. We were going through the upgrade of inspectors' 6 certifications, and what we wanted to do was sit down 7 with the individuals from Ceco QA, who were reviewing l 8 the packages, and Mr. Gieseker from the PCD Department, 1
9 along with myself and Mr. Dominic in the Comstock QC 10 Training Department -- sit'down and discuss some of the 11 problems that we were having with individual packages
- 12 and try to get a common understanding.
10 13 Q I think in your previous answer you referred to an ,
14 upgrade of the certifications.
15 Would you describe the reason for the upgrade, sir?
() '
16 A Yes. There was a new site certification procedure l 17 established that required us to issue Revision C to our 18 certification, and that upgrade required additional 19 supporting documentation. It required us to review past 20 certified inspectors to see that they met the
- 21 requirements of the ne upgraded site program.
!O l 22 Q All right. I would lik to turn specifically to Page 23 126. There is a reference to Mr. R. D. Hunter. The 24 sentence states, " CECO QA states that he has zero time i
- O(]) 25 to qualify for welding."
i l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
- C) Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 1
i' O-2613 i .
10 j- 1 I take it the reference is to Mr. Hunter?
i i 2 A Yes, it is, i
i 3 0 What does that mean, that he has zero time to qualify?
- O l 4 A Jim Walters, a member of the CECO QA Department, j 5 reviewed his background and his resume, and he felt that i -
6 he could find zero time there to support Mr. Hunter lO j 7 having related experience to welding.
8 Q All right, sir. .
i !
- 9 What was the resolution of that?
- 3) ,
) 10 A We had to go back to Mr. Hunter's previous employers and j 11 do an extensive background. , l l
1 12 We did a conference call.where Comstock training ,
- o O 2 13 was on one line and CECO QA was on the other line trying
, l l 14 to get confirmation, not only from the personnel ;
1 ;
} 15 departments of these other companies, but actual people !
- O 16 who had supervised Mr. Hunter's work activities that 17 would know directly what he was doing.
! 18 0 And --
10 19 A And as a result, we were able to upgrade Mr. Hunter to 20 Rev C of our cerrification program.
i '
! 21 Q Would you turn now to Page 128, sir, the entry for I
- O 22 December 11, 1984.
j 23 Could you describe who attended that meeting and i i 24 what its subject matter was?
{O(])
25 A Yes. This was a meeting attended -- it was done in l
! SonntAg_ Rep.otting_Sityi m Ltd. ,
l C) Geneva, Illinois 60134 !
, (312) 232-0262 i
j
[O
! 2614 lo
- O It was attended by all employees of j 1 several groups.
2 Comstock, not only Quality Control but the Engineering I
j 3 Department, and it went into Construction. I believe jO 4 the Construction stopped at the foreman level; and it 5 was a meeting held in our -- in the Comstock i
- 6 Construction conference room and was presided by Mr. Ray to ,
. 7 Preston.
)
i 8 Q Who is Mr. Preston?
l 9 A Mr. Preston was in charge of the Commonwealth Edison
- O l 10 Quality First Program.
11 Q The comments under numbered Paragraph 1, December 11,
! 12 1984, are statements by Mr. Preston or by someone else?
!O O 13 A Those were statements by Mr. Preston as he was 14 presenting his program.
, i 15 Q Prior to December lith what, if anything, did you know !
1 0 l 16 about the Quality First Program? >
l
- 17 A Just a few comments from Irv and Bob Seltmann, who had l 18 attended some of the initial briefings, about how it was jO 19 going to be set up.
20 This was the first time that Mr. Preston come over 21 and presented his program to the full group.
O 22 O Now I would like you to turn to Page 129.
23 Paragraph la, "Need performance evaluation on all 24 people assigned to each supervisor."
O 25 Who made that comment, if you can remember, sir?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
,O ceneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I
- O 2615 i
)
IO j 1 A Mr. DeWald.
1 j 2 Q All right. And from whom was he asking for the 1
i 3 performance evaluation?
10 4 A He was asking each supervisor to turn in a performance j 5 evaluation.
i 6 Q Are those performance evaluations in writing? ,
i 7 A Yes, they are. ,
)
l 8 Q And what was the occasion of asking for a performance i
! 9 evaluation at this point in time?
,0 i 10 A Comstock corporate policy required that each employee be i
11 evaluated on an annual basis.
j 12 We were approaching the end of the year. January O
13 was historically the time when you turned in your new, j 14 evaluations, so Irv was telling the supervisors that he l 15 needed evaluations for those people assigned to him.
j 16 Q I think there are a number of individunis listed as
{ 17 being present at this meeting.
i
. 18 At this point in time was Mr. Worthington a
- O j 19 supe rvisor?
20 A Yes, he was.
I i 21 Q Mr. Saklak was.
lO
' 22 Was Mr. Simile a supervisor? ;
I l 23 A Yes, he was, l
1 24 Q Was Mr. Gorman a supervisor? i
() (]) 25 A Mr. Gorman was not a supervisor. He was the Lead of the i
}
S o n n tag _Re p or.ti n g_S ervi c e ,_L t.d .
)O i Geneva, Illinois 60134 j (312) 232-0262
O 2616 O
O 1 records vault.
2 0 was he requested, also, to provide performance 3 evaluations?
O 4 A No, he was not.
5 0 Who would give the performance evaluations for 6 vault --
O 7 A Mr. DeWald.
8 0 You have got to let me finish my question.
9 -- for vault personnel?
10 A I am sorry.
11 Mr. DeWald.
12 Q At the beginninc of the new year, is there a change in
.O O 13 compensation levels?
14 A Historically, that's when Comstock would issue -- any 15 salary changes would be the first of the year.
.O 16 Q All right, sir.
17 Do you know whether any were, in fact, issued in 18 early 1985?
19 A They were issued to the supervisory people; but to the 20 best of my knowledge, because of the Union election, the 21 inspectors were still operating on a 50 cent a cert 22 increase.
23 0 . Subparagraph lb refers to the manning of a second shift 24 and who the Lead Inspector should be.
O() 25 There is a -- I take it that Mr. Tufte was Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
,O ceneva, IIIIii61s 60r34 (312) 232-0262
l C
2617 O
iO 1 suggested by Mr. DeWald; is that correct?
2 A That is correct.
3 0 Who did Mr. Saklak want as Lead?
l 4 A He was recommending Mike Lechner, who was the Lead of 5 our Conduit Group at this time.
6 Q And whose recommendation was followed?
O 7 A Mr. DeWald's.
8 Q That subparagraph goes on, "There will also be an i
9 increase in conduit crews by five. This should be
!O 10 reflected upon our training schedule."
11 How would the increase in conduit crews be 12 reflected in the training schedule?
13 A By increasing the conduit crews, you knew your 14 inspection level in that group would increase, so we 15 wanted our Training Department to begin conducting 16 training classes to certify additional inspectors in the 17 conduit area.
18 Q It goes on to say, "Will also lead to a need for CEA 19 personnel." ,
20 What type of personnel is that?
21 A Level 2 inspection personnel.
22 Q How was that need going to be satisfied?
23 A Again, training would have to begin conducting classes 24 in the area of concrete expansion anchors.
O Q 25 Q Turn to Page 130, the same meeting, "Seltmann requests Ssnntag_ Reporting _Senicc.,_Ltd. _
O ceneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l l
- O 2618 l ($)
(3 1 meeting with Irv and I to discuss Frank Rolan letter 2 requesting warnings for Blake Bissett, Howery and t
3 others, especially Myra Sproull for no pays. Seltmann lO 4 feels that Frank has overstepped his bounds. Seese 5 suggests formal letter be sent to Frank saying this is a
! 6 QC matter." .
- O l
7 At the end of the staff meeting, did Mr. Seltmann l
l 8 request a meeting just with you and Mr. DeWald?
9 A That is correct, yes.
.O 10 0 All right. On what basis has Mr. Rolan requested 11 warnings for the individuals that are identified in that l
12 paragraph?
- OO 13 A As Project Manager, Mr. Rolan's signature was required 14 on all time sheets which would record the inspectors' 15 time, which would be sent to our Payroll Department for 16 computing the payroll.
17 The payroll ends on December 15th, so while Mr.
18 Rolan was signing those time sheets, he notice an entry
,0 19 for these individuals that said "no pay," indicating 20 they had exhausted their accrued sick, personal and 21 vacation time.
- O 22 Based on that, he was sending a response up saying, 23 "These people have used their time. They must be an 24 absentee problem. Why don't we issue warnings?"
,O() 25 0 All right. Now, there is a -- I read it as one name.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
() ' _
Geneva, Illinois 6013T (312) 232-0262
! i lO 2619 '
I
(~)
{ \_/ !
O 1 Is it Blake Bisset or are those two separate i 2 individuals?
i 3 A Those are two separate individuals, Michael Blake and
'O i 4 Bill Bisset.
- 5 0 What was Mr. Blake's position at that time?
6 A Mr. Blake was a Level 2 Inspector.
10 l 7 Mr. Bisset was a Level 2 Inspector.
i j 8 Mrs. Harvey was a Secretary assigned to Bob 9 Seltmann.
10 Myra Sproull was a Level 2 Inspector.
l 11 Q The next sentence says, "Seltmann feels that Frank has
, 12 overstepped his bounds."
20 13 Did Mr. Seltmann identify in what way he felt that?
14 A Yes, sir. Mrs. Harvey was Bob's secretary. She had, i
15 started rather late in the year and, thetefore, had not lO 16
- accrued a complete eight sick / personal days.
I 17 Iler husband was going through chemotherapy. She 18 had requested time off to go with him for those LO 19 treatments. It was approved by Mr. Seltmann.
j 20 He took offense that Frank just sent this memo out i
1 21 without asking whether there were extenuating terms or
!() -
22 circumstances.
! 23 0 You suggested that a formal letter be sent to Mr. Rolan.
I
! 24 Was such a letter sent?
.' O ( ) 25 A No, sir. Mr. DeWald felt the fact that no action was I
i SADiltALJLep ott_i ngJu v ica,_L_t d .
{()
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 i
.O 2620 O
V
'O 1 taken would serve notice to Frank that QC was handling 2 that matter themselves.
3 Q All right. So was, in fact, any warning for being in 4 no-pay status issued to any individuals listed there?
5 A To the best of my recollection, there may have been one 6 issued to Myra Sproull. That would be the only one.
7 0 Why was Miss Sproull being singled out?
8 A She had historically been an absentee problem. This had 9 been a recurring event at the end of just about every 10 year.
11 Q Continuing on Page 130, under the date, December 20, 12 1984, No. 2, "The staff-lead meeting." Item B, "Irv 13 talks about status reports and the need to stay 14 current."
15 To what does that refer, sir?
O 16 A He would have been discussing the need to assure that 17 the status reports were being turned in daily and 18 stressing that one of the important things we looked at 19 through the status reports was that we were maintaining 20 current inspections, and current would be defined as 21 within 30 days of construction completing the O l 22 installation. i 23 0 At that point in time was the inspection activity l 24 current as far as you --
O 1 O
- 2s A Per the most part it would have been current.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
!O ceneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
.O 2621 O
10 1 There may have been one area, because I see Note C l 2 talks about requesting overtime.
3 Q And that's Item C on the same page?
4 A That's correct.
5 0 It looks like the bottom of that is cut off.
6 Is there any way of knowing what the rest of the O
7 sentence is?
8 A From my copy it appears to say, " Increased OT after the 9 holidays."
10 Normal practice as we approached the Christmas 11 holidays, was to cut back to five eights, to spend time 12 at home during the holiday season.
,0v g 13 0 By "five eights" you mean a regular workweek?
14 A A regular 40 hour4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> workweek.
15 0 All right. I would like to ask you to look at Page 131 16 now, the entry for January 7th, and I call your specific 17 attention to numbered Item 3 on Page 132.
18 All right, sir. Mr. Seese, my first question to 19 you is: In early 1985 how many meetings did you attend 20 where the Braidwood construction goals were discussed?
21 A The best of my knowledge, there would have been this one 22 when it was presented and then an individual meeting 23 within the QC Department to discuss our responses.
24 Q All right. When you say, "when it was presented," by
- O 25 whom were the goals presented, sir?
Sonntag Reporting Servi _c_e d t_d.
O ceneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
O 2622 i
O)
- O 1 A Commonwealth Edison Project Construction Department, Mr.
2 Mennecke and Mr. Gieseker, Mr. Parazo and Mr. Tapela.
3 Q The last sentence on Page 132 says, "Gieseker emphasizes 4 paying more attention to detail. If a program needs 5 change, review it with PCD and QA."
6 To what specific situation, if you know, did you 7 understand Mr. Gieseker to be referring?
8 A He was making an emphasis to Construction, people who 9 installed the items, that they should -- that their 10 supervisors should direct them to pay closer attention 11 to detail. In effect, make sure it's done right, done 12 right the first time when it's installed.
13 If they identify a problem within the program, then 14 to certainly come back to Commonwealth Edison PCD and QA 15 and request that changes be made within that program.
16 Q All right. Now, this meeting continues to be recorded 17 through the bottom of Page 133, isn't that right, that 18 is up to the numbered Paragraph 4 at the bottom of Page
.O 19 133?
20 A That's correct.
21 Q Now, starting with Item D on Page 133, were ,those 22 Comstock's responses to the goals that were expressed by 23 Mr. Gieseker?
24 A Yes. Mr. Rolan was bringing up some responses to those
- O
+
25 goals, yes.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
!O Geneva, Illinois 60174 (312) 232-0262
_ _ _ . . . _ . . - . _ . - . - . - ~ - - - _ . . - . - - . - - . . . .. . -
I
- O
' 2623
- O o l 1 Q All right. The first I.roblem that Mr. Rolan identified 2 had to do with torque wrenches.
l 3 What did you understand the nature of that problem
- O 4 to be?
5 A There were a large number of torque wrenches that had l
j 6 been placed on hold as a result of NRC's and ICR's.
-O l 7 Mr. Rolan was requesting that the parties get 8 together, decide what corrective action had te be taken, l
, 9 so that these wrenches could be recalibrated and again 10 10 made available to Construction.
i ;
J 11 Q At this point in time, that is January, 1985, had the i 12 calibration inspection procedure been changed?
'O j 13 A I am not certain of the date of that procedure change.
1 14 Q All right. The next problem that Mr. Rolan discusses 4
15 had to do with mechanical equipment.
j 16 What sort of mechanical equipment was that, sir?
i 17 A He was discussing mechanical equipment that would have I 18 been set by Newberg; and how it would have related to
!O j 19 Comstock is that we would run our conduit, we would have 20 to pull cable to that equipment.
4 21 The problem was until that equipment was physically lO J
22 set by the other contractor, we wouldn't know where to '
i 23 terminate our conduit. Therefore, we wouldn't be able
- 24 to pull our cable.
'O O 25 2 hat wou1d impace meeting the schedule that had i
S_Qanta g_R99_q rAI D.g_Suyv_l_c i b_b.t d_.
O ceneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
1 0
2624 O
v O
1 been set forth by Commonwealth Edison.
2 Q All right. And then Mr. Rolan wanted Pat Foss to issue 3 a report to Carl.
4 Carl who, sir?
5 A Carl Mennecke from PCD.
6 0 Were any of those individuals employed by Comstock QC?
7 A Mr. Rolan would be the Project Manager.
8 Mr.'Foss would be the supervisor of the Systems 9 Department where the cable release would have come from.
10 0 Then under the heading of problems, Item D-3, you say, 11 "The commitment was made to Ceco, Gerry Groth, November, 12 1984, that items will not be turned in until they are QC O '~ O' 13 accepted."
14 What problem, if any, was Mr. Rolan referring to 15 there, Mr. Seese?
O 16 A He was stating a change in policy.
17 In the past Construction was allowee' to turn it in 18 at the time they installed it, and CECO had made a 19 ntrong statement to Comstock that they wanted it put in 20 right the first time.
21 In order to assure that the item was installed O
22 correct the first time, it had to be QC incpected before 23 they could turn it in as accepted.
24 0 What relationship, if any, did this issue have to the O (]) 25 manner in which Comstock Production was meeting its sonntag Rep'orting Service, Ltd.
() Geneva, fffinois 661T4 (312) 232-0262
O 2625
.OO 1 schedule?
2 A It would have nothing to do with the installation in the 3 field and the meeting of the schedule.
4 It would be based on how quickly we could get out 5 to inspect the item as to when it would be turned in as 6 completed.
7 Mr. Rolan would complete his work, but he couldn't
- 8 turn it in until we got out to complete the inspection.
- 9 Q All right. It goes on to Item E, "Gieseker emphasizes
- O 10 the need to get the item installed right the first time.
11 This will minimize the need for extra QC Manager."
12 Now, at that point in time, Mr. Seese, was an lO0 13 additional QC Manager, in addition to Mr. DeWald, 14 contemplated?
15 A No, sir. The term " manager" in there doesn't fit.
,O 16 There was never a discussion of that.
17 Reading it now, it should have stopped at the end 18 of QC.
O 19 Q All right. How does that relate to getting it right the l 20 first time?
21 A Well, if craft installs it improperly, that would O
22 require QC to go out then and write a deficiency, ICR or' 23 NCR.
l 24 Craft would have to make the repairs. Inspection 40 0 25 would have to go out a second and a third time to make 4
_Jon nt a g _ Rep.p tt. i n g_S e rli ce , _ ht d .
- O -
Geneva, Illinois 60134
! (312) 232-0262
O 2626 1
0 1 sure it was right.
2 Mr. Gieseker was making the point: If they put it 3 up right the first time, it would only require one
,O 4 inspection.
5 Q The last entry with respect to that meeting states, 6 "Rolan keeps pointing out that QC will be the reason 7 that Comstock falls on their face."
8 First of all, was that comment or something similar 9 to it made in the presence of individuals from 10 Commonwealth Edison Company?
11 A Yes, it was.
12 0 What did you understand Mr. Rolan to mean by that 13 comment?
14 A Mr. Rolan was making a point that he could call the 15 Union Hall and get additional certified electricians to 16 meet his schedule.
17 QC didn't have that liberty. We would have to --
18 we could call and hire new people but it would take a 19 month, six weeks, perhaps, to run those inspectors 20 through a training program.
21 C3 while he could increase his production 22 immediately, with the training time for QC Inspectors, 23 we didn't have that luxury. It took us a lot longer to 24 increase our staff and get them into the field
,0 l 25 inspections, inspecting.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
- O Geneva, inTn~ois 60D4 (312) 232-0262
- O 2627 i
(
lO- 1 0 What, if anything, was said about increasing the number
, 2 of inspections to be performed by existing inspectors?
4 3 A None whatsoever.
- O j
4 0 What, if anything, was said about increasing the working j 5 hours for the existing inspection force?
l 6 A I don't believe there was any discussion at this time iO j 7 about increasing the hours.
- 8 Q What did you understand Mr. Rolan to be referring to 1
l 9 when he said Comstock is going to fall on its face?
lO j 10 A He was making a point to Commonwealth Edison that,
! 11 perhaps, Comstock would not meet the goals and the 12 reason we would fall on our face and not meet the goals l0 0 13 was simply because to get additional inspectors in and 14 get them trained, we would not be able to get his items
- 15 inspected so that he could turn them in per schedule.
- O 16 t He is referring back to the {ommitment that it l 17 would be inspected before he turned it in.
18 Q Now, the --
.O 19 A Frank had -- if I might add, Frank had been involved in i 20 a lot of the discussions that we had had with 21 Commonwealth Edison based on interpretations of the jo 22 , certification procedure.
23 0 Why? What is the pertinence of the certification I
24 procedure to Comstock falling on its face? .
iC) ( ) 25 A They are related, in the fact that if we requested
.__Sonntag_ Reporting service,_ktd.
C) Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
O-2628 O
10
- 1 additional inspectors, that it took this long period of 2 time to run them through the certification program and 3 we would not be able to keep up with Frank's increasing O
, 4 craft work crews.
5 So as the Project Manager, he would have been
]
4 6 involved in those discussions.
iO 7 Q In 1985 did Mr. -- Well, did Comstock increase the 8 number of production crews working on various aspects of 9 Comstock's scope of work at Braidwood?
- O 10 A Yes, they did.
j 11 Q What, if any, affect did that have on the Comstock QC i
12 inspection force?
IOO
! 13 A It led to an increase in the number of inspectors, but 14 we still maintained currency.
15 0 Was there a time during 1985 where Comstock did not me'et
!O i 16 its goals as a result of QC?
17 A Not to the best of my knowledge.
18 Q Did there come a time in 1985 when the number of hours
- O
- l 19 worked by QC Inspectors was increased?
- l 20 A Yes, from time to time we increased the number of l ,
21 overtime hours.
i C) 22 0 To your knowledge, did Comstock production meet the 1985 23 goals that were set for it by Ccmmonwealth Edison ,
1 24 Company in this meeting?
!C) ( ) 25 A To the best of my knowledge, they did.
i
! Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. -
l C) Geneva, Illinois 60134
- (312) 232-0262
. . -_. . _ . . _ _ . -. .. .. ~.. _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ . . _
4 .
4 iO I 2629 l 1
4 l0 10 i 1 0 The next page, Page 134, this is still on the same day, i
2 is it not, January 7, 1985?
3 A That's correct.
! 4 Q All right. Am I correct that it actually starts on the I
5 bottom of Page 133? This was a Comstock QC meeting 4 6 simply to discuss how Comstock QC was going to respond >
'O !
7 to goals?
- 8 A That's correct.
l 9 Q Now, the individuals who were present, at that point in O
j 10 time what was Mr. Worthington's title, if you can ,
i l 11 recall?
12 A Mr. Worthington was the supervisor, but he would have l
OO 13 been in charge of special projects.
14 Q All right. Was Mr. Saklak present, to the best of your .i 15 knowledge? i
! 16 A No, sir.
i*
17 Q It says, "I presented a written game plan." !
! 18 What was your written game plan, sir?
10
] 19 A It included some transferring of people from the special i 20 projects group'to current inspection groups.
L 21 I had believed that that would kind of set the tone
{0 1
j 22 of what we would have to do, who could go into training :
23 to meet these goals.
24 MR. GUILD: I am sorry, Mr. Miller.
25 Would you give me a reference to that?
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
!O ceneva, Illinois 60134 ,
l (312) 232-0262
O 2630 0
1 MR. MILLER: It's right at the top of Page 2 134. I beg your pardon.
. 3 MR. GUILD: 'At the top of 134?
'O -
4 MR. MILLER: Yes.
5 MR. GUILD: Thank you.
6 THE WITNESS: Mr. Miller, if I could back up, 7 looking at these dates, it would appear that Mr.
8 Worthington would have still been the Assistant QC
' ~
9 Manage r , the other one.
,0 10 BY MR. MILLER:
1 11 Q What did your written game plan show, if you can recall, vo 12 13 A regarding QC coverage of Comstock production activities?
What it reflected was that we had completed many of the 14 -- we hai, completed, in fact, our backlog and that I was 15 transferring some people from special projects into the
- O 16 current work force.
17 So we would be increasing the number of inspectors 18 devoted to current activities, which would directly help
,O ,
19 meet the goals.
20 Q Now, you referred to special projects.
21 What were those special projects?
22 A Some of them would be doing inspections resulting f rom
. 23 unit concepts; there wete inspections that were 24 invdiving closing certain audit findings; there was a
'O 1
() 25 spaci'al project where we were walking down cable that Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.'
'() Geneva, Illinois 60134
'( 312) 232-0262
__n,,. , , - - - ~ .-------na. s - - - - - . , -n , , - - . - - - - - - - - . . , - = , , , , - . ,
O 2631 O
iO 1 would aid in releasing cable for Unit 2, things that we 2 felt we should continue with but at a lower level of 3 personnel, still get the work done, just slow down the 4 completion date.
5 0 All right. What, if anything, was discussed about the 6 number of inspections that each inspector was 7 performing?
8 A None. There was no discussion of that.
9 Q All right. N ow , the notes continue, "Irv and Seltmann 10 trying to give OAD, IM, Westinghouse, RNR work away due 11 to lack of manpower."
12 First of all, are you reflecting an effort prior to
~O O 13 January 7th by Mr. DeWald and Mr. Seltmann to give this 14 work away?
15 A No. What's being -- this is a difference of opinion 16 between Irv and Mr. Seltmann and I.
17 If I may expand, one of the -- one of their 18 suggestions was we go back out and do a lot of O
19 inspections of modification because OAD, which is one of 20 the CECO test prcgrams,.the IM, the instrument 21 mechanics, and Westinghouse would remove a piece of 22 equipment, we would have to go out and inspect it being 23 re-installed.
24 Bob and Irv, their feelings were if this work was
'O( ]) 25 given to CECO and they provided their own QC people, Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
- O Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
M) r 2632 i
(2)
'io 1 that, in turn, would free a certain number of our i
j 2 inspectors up to be assigned to additional current 4
4 3 inspection work. i A) 4 Q So I understand that OAD, IM, Westinghouse, are all 5 modifiers of RWR work?
- 6 A That is correct.
- O 4
7 Q And OAD stands for what?
8 A I am not certain of the initials, but it's the
, 9 department for Commonwealth Edison that would do the O
j 10 testing of cables, the testing of the circuitries 11 operation once we have pulled the cables. r
! 12 O IM stands for?
N3k) 13 A Instrument-mechanics.
l j
14 Q And Westinghouse was --
15 A Westinghouse woulu be providing much of the equipment in ,
16 the control room, so they had a group of people 17 stationed up there monitoring the installation. l 1
1 18 Q And each of these three activities resulted in re-work
<3 1 1 19 of previously installed equipment; is that correct? l
\
20 A That is correct. l l
. 21 Q And the need for further QC inspection? i iO l 22 A .That is correct. l l
! 23 Q Then Mr. DeWald in his statement uses an obscenity and
, 24 ssYs that he is going to Gieseker?
iC) O 25 A Right.
! Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l() Geneva, Illinois 60134 j (312) 232-0262 l
iO 2633 i
'O 1 Q What did you understand that to mean?
2 A Again, we had a difference of opinion.
3 I felt that while giving the work to Commonwealth
- O 4 Edison may have been a short-term solution to increase 5 our number of inspectors, in the long term I felt that 6 it would be detrimental to Comstock giving the work
~O 7 away. I wanted Comstock to maintain that work. .
8 Irv had decided to disregard that opinion and he 9 was going to discuss with Gieseker the possibility of 10 transferring this work to Commonwealth Edison.
11 Q What was the outcome of that, sir?
12 A We still maintain the work today.
- lO O 13 0 Well, do you know whether or not Mr. DeWald went to Mr.
14 Gieseker?
15 A No, sir, I do not.
O 16 0 Would the level of this RNR work increase or decrease 17 over calendar year ended 1985?
18 A It would have increased.
O 19 Q How was that increase accommodated by the Comstock QC 20 staff?
21 A We received additional inspectors. !
- O 22 Some of the initial problems we had with the 23 certification procedure had been ironed out and we were l 1
24 able to meet the increased workload by getting the new i A) l l
l
() 25 inspectors certified in a more timely manner. !
l
. l l
, Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
() Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 i . _ - _ . _ . _ . _ _ __._ _ . . _ . - - .
O 2634 O
-O 1 Q On the same page, under January 9, 1985, Item C, 1-C, 2 " Talk on manpower adjustments. Tony" -- who does that 3 refer to, sir?
O 4 A That refers to Tony Simile.
5 0 -- "says he has four people down with no certs." They 6 are identified. " Tony says, ' Training is eating us 7 alive.'"
8 To what situation does that refer?
9 A Four of the people that he refers to, four Level 2 O
10 welding inspectors, Mr. Brown, Gallick, Hunter and 11 Wicks, were due for their annual certification 12 evaluation; and because of additional documentation that OO 13 will to be achieved to upgrade certs to Rev C of our 14 certification procedure, that time had passed and, i
15 therefore, their certs had expired.
O 16 They were not able to do inspections until the 17 questions on their certifications was solved.
18 What Tony was saying was: With these four people
,O 19 down and additional people in the training program, it ;
i 20 was just too much of a drain on his manpower. '
i 21 Q Sir, how was that situation resolved, do you recall? ,
- (3 22 A We worked in conjunction with Commonwealth Edison QA to 23 expedite and correct the problems with the four i
24 individual certification packages.
- O( ]) 25 Q Do you know how long after January 9th it took before l
4 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. '
() Geneva, Illinois 60134 )
232-0262 (312)
lO 2635 lO 3 1 that situation was resolved?
j 2 A No, sir. I would have to look at their packages to 3 determine that.
30 l 4 Q Can you estimate as to whether it was a matter of days, 5 a matter of weeks, a matter of months?
i 6 A Certainly, it would not have been a matter of months.
40-7 It would have been, perhaps, a week.
8 Q What, if anything, was said in this conversation with
! 9 Mr. Simile regarding additional-inspections from the 20
) 10 qualified and certified inspection force?
I 11 A None.
i 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We will take ten minutes.
10 O i
13 MR. MILLER: All right. Thank you.
j 14 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which j 15 the hearing was resumed as follows:)
10 16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Miller.
J l 17 MR. MILLER: Thank you, Judge Grossman.
18 BY MR. MILLER:
- O 19 Q Mr. Seese, I would now like to continue reviewing j 20 certain portions of Intervenors' Exhibit 33 with you. j 21 On Page 135, at the very top, Mr. Rolan reports a l lO 22 condition with respect to certain junction boxes.
I 23 What is the significance, if any, of-the fact that i
. 24 junction boxes were painted with aluminum paint?
10 f
() 25 A The specification -- this would be junction boxes Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
[() Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262. I
O 2636 1 O
O 1 ordered from outside suppliers; and the specification 2 was that the painting be not aluminum paint. There was 3 another specification at Byron.
4 What Mr. Rolan was reporting was somehow he was 5 made aware from the vendor that they weren't using the 6 proper paint.
, 7 Q What relationship, if any, does that have to do with Mr.
8 Saklak's complaint that is recorded in the next sentence 9 or so?
.:O 10 A The only tie-in there was when Frank brought up 11 vendor-received junction boxes, Mr. Saklak then brought 12 up his feeling that our inspectors shouldn't be spending 7S 13 time inspecting these junction boxes, the weldments in 14 particular. That that should be done by another --
i 15 should be done by an in-process system in the suppliers' l 16 plant,'that they should be a better quality when they 17 come in.
18 Q What was the disposition of that complaint, if you know?
19 A We, at the direction of Commonwealth Edison, continued 20 inspecting the junction boxes, the welds.
21 Q The next entry is that Terry Gorman is having problems l 22 on Phase 2 with rejects, not covered -- perhaps I am not 23 reading the right word.
24 A "Not covered by Hagler, Rowbothen and Washington." I
() l 25
(]) They were three document reviewers during the early l l
l I
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. )
13 Geneva, Illinois 60134 ;
(312) 232-0262
!O 2637 1
(:) .
l H3 i 1 stages of the Phase 1, Phase 2 program.
i 2 0 What was the nature of the problems that Mr. Gorman was
, 3 experiencing? ,
.(J 4 A He had run across some items that, in his opinion, 5 should have been rejected and they were not looked at by 6 the three individuals who did the initial review.
!O 7 Q That was Phase 1 or Phase 2 initial review?
I 8 A The initial review would have been Phase 1.
9 Q And this is a documentation review; is that correct?
10 A That is correct.
11 Q The next page, Page 136, C, "Irv wants inspectors and
- 12 leads to work through the supervisors and cut down on 13 traffic through my office."
14 First of all, who does the "my" refer to, your 15 office?
O 16 A It was my own office, yes.
i 17 Q What was the nature of the traffic going through your 18 office, Mr. Seese?
19 A Irv, for some -- the inspectors and I got involved in a 20 lot of conversations. There were a lot of inspectors 21 that came to me.
- O 22 On occasion some of the work that Irv wanted me to 23 do I was not able to get completed because I would get 24 involved in inspector problems.
'O]) ( 25 So what he was attempting to do was to ask the Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
~
(> Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
{ 2638 l
l
'O 1 inspectors to deal with their supervisors first.
2 Perhaps they could take care of some of these problems 3 and it would reduce the number of people that had come I O \
4 to me.
l 5 Q And did that, in fact, take place?
6 A Yes, it did. I still had extensive involvement with the O
7 inspectors, but they went through their supervisors 8 first.
l 9 Q Then the entry for January 16, 1985, Item 1-C, "Get Irv 10 input on weekly meeting." Then it's " comments."
11 What follows? Perhaps, you could read that word I
12 for us.
oO 13 A " Weekly minute" - " weekly meeting minute comments."
14 There was a weekly management meeting that Irv 15 attended, along with Frank Rolan and Joe Klena from our 16 Engineering Department, also was attended by CECO PCD l 17 and QA, and in that meeting Irv would routinely report 18 on the status of certain projects.
19 So then this was a note to myself to'make sure that 20 I got Irv the information that he needed for the j 21 meeting.
! 22 0 All right, sir. At the bottom of Page 136 under the l
23 entry date of January 18, 1985, item -- I can't tell.
24 It's the last two lines of the page.
- O 25 "Irv talks about question from Quality First that Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
- O Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4 0
2639 O
1 anonymous letters are being sent to CECO complaining 2 about pressure of production."
3 What was the nature of Mr. DeWald's comment
.O 4 concerning that item?
5 A He would have been discussing -- it would have been a 6 discussion as to whether we were aware of any problems,
,O 7 whether anyone had come to us and expressed any 8 problems; that we might have some idea what motivated 9 the Quality First involvement.
10 0 To your recollection, did anyone have any such ideas?
11 A To the best of my knowledge, there was none that anybody j 12 brought up at this time.
O 13 Q Was there any other discussion about pressures of 14 production at this meeting?
15 A No, sir.
10 16 Q The next item states, "Saklak complains about the 17 defiance level. Seems to be a real bad problem. Gives 18 examples of Myra Sproull and Lechner."
19 Defiance level of whom, sir?
20 A Defiance level among the certified inspectors.
21 Q What did you understand -- is " defiance level," your
- .O 22 word or is that as Mr. Saklak characterized it?
23 A I would say it was my word.
24 Q What type of an attitude were you characterizing?
- O
() 25 A The incidents that Mr. Saklak brought up at this time Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd. '
() Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
O 2640
(
- O 1 referred to, for example, Myra Sproull habitually coming 2 in late in the mornings; and when he would ask, "Why 3 can't you get in here on time," she would refuse to 4 respond to him.
5 So it was that type of defiance, that she would 6 come in late and didn't feel she had anything to --
7 there was no reason that she had to respond. She didn't 8 have to tell him why she was late.
9 The reference to Mr. Lechner, I don't recall the 10 incident that he would have referred to.
11 Q All right. The next entry, "Saklak comments on Seeders' 12 work on eng. RWR's in control is causing him problems."
. OO 13 First of all, the reference to Seeders, who is 14 that?
15 A That would have been John Seeders.
!O 16 Q At this point by whom was Mr. Seeders employed?
17 A Mr. Seeders was working in the Comstock Engineering 18 Department.
,O 19 0 What sort of problems did Mr. Saklak identify with 20 respect to Mr. Seeders' performance in his job?
21 A Mr. Seeders would be involved in the preparation of some 22 of the RWR reports. These reports would come to Rick 23 and he would do inspections based on what was indicated i
24 on the RWR's.
- O ( ) 25 Rick had pointed out, in some of the incidents that Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
C) ceneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
!O 2641 O
, 1 I can recall, that John would mark them as non-safety; 2 and by being non-safety, no inspection was required.
3 When Rick's people would do some research, they 4 would find out that they were safety related and 5 inspections had to be done.
6 So the comment that I recall from this meeting was 7 in the filling out of that form.
8 0 What, if anything, was done as a follow-up to this 9 comment?
- O 10 A Mr. DeWald had informed Saklak that he would talk with 11 the Engineering Department, and there was a marked
. 12 improvement.
'O 13 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Excuse me, Mr. Miller.
14 Mr. Seese, what is an RWR?
15 THE WITNESS: It's a Revision Work Request.
16 It's a form used to modify equipment in the control 17 room that has already been installed and you need to do 18 ongoing modifications.
- O 19 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Thank you.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: These are modifications that 21 the engineers approved, not the QC Department; is that 22 right?
23 THE WITNESS: That is correct.
i
, 24 BY MR. MILLER:
!O
() 25 Q Page 138, at the bottom of the page, there is a Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
l() Geneva, Illinois 60134
, (312) 232-0262
O 2642 l
O lO 1 reference to an exit meeting on -- is that word, ;
1 2 " internal audit"? !
3 A That's correct.
O 4 Q All right. When you use the word " internal," are you 5 referring to L. K. Comstock?
, 6 A Yes. Internal audit would be L. K. Comstock O
7 Braidwood-assigned auditors.
8 Q I think we have identified all the individuals in the ,
9 meeting except Mr. Simms.
10 What was Mr. Simms' position at that point?
11 A Mr. Simms was the quality assurance engineer who would 12 have conducted the audit for Comstock.
OO 13 Q Down at the bottom of the page, there is a sentence, 14 "Corcoran committed to doing a review and did not follow 15 through."
O 16 To whom is the reference "Corcoran"?
17 A It's a reference to Tom Corcoran, the Comstock QC 18 Manager immediately preceding Mr. DeWald. 1 0
19 Q Does the entry under Finding 1 represent Mr. Simms' and 20 Mr. Seltmann's -- well, are these your comments or
]
21 someone else's?
22 A Those would be the comments of Mr. Simms as he was going 23 through the audit problems.
24 Q January 23, 1985, on Page 139, Mr. Seese, Item 1-A, O(]) 25 staff meeting, "Saklak reports on his need for help in Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
() Geneva, Illinois 60134 t (312) 232-0262 i
L .-
- O 2643
(
'O 1 RWR and term" -- I assume that is short for terminations 2 -
"due to in-process wiring the main control panel."
3 What, if any, response was made to Mr. Saklak's
- O 4 report of his need for help?
5 A I believe there were additional termination inspectors 6 transferred to his group to meet this increased
- ,O 7 workload; and, in fact, he stationed one inspector full 8 time in the control room to be there to monitor this 9 work.
'O 10 Q He also complains about absentee problem with Julie 11 Bullock.
12 What was Mics Bullock's position at this point in
- O O 13 time?
14 A Julie was a Level 2 QC Inspector assigned to Mr.
15 Saklak's group.
16 Q What, if anything, was done with respect to the absentee 17 problem that Mr. Saklak identified?
18 A I believe Mr. DeWald investigated it and issued a verbal
- O 19 warning.
20 Q Item No. 2, "Gave a two-hour QA lecture to new 21 employees. Covered Quality First and employees' right
.O 22 to call the NRC." l 23 Did you personally give this two-hour QA lecture? l l
24 A Yes, sir, I did. l
- (3 l
() 25 0 Was this the first occasion on which you had given such Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
C) Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
!O i 2644
}
!O 1 a lecture?
l 2 A No, sir. This lecture has been incorporated for all new i 3 inspectors and it also -- the formal lecture was given 10 l 4 to all of our past inspectors.
5 I would have to look at the records, but I believe c 6 it would have started some time in '84. >
!O 7 Q All right, sir. In 1984 what reference, if any, did you
- 8 make to the employees' right to call the NRC?
9 A There is a form that is hung on the bulletin board in
'O l 10 the office that shows what the inspectors' rights are.
i j 11 It gives a map of the United States divided by the 12 NRC regions. It gives phone numbers for the Region 3
..O j 13 office.
l 14 We had an overlay of that map and spent, I would i
15 feel, about 15 minutes of every lecture stressing to the 16 employees that they had a right to contact the NRC, 17 either the residents on site or also the Region 3 18 office.
10 j 19 We would also discuss: If they felt they were
! 20 discharged for quality concerns, that there was some i
! 21 recourse through the Department of Labor and Industry.
! C)
, 22 This was all available on this overlay.
I 23 0 Item 3 on the same page, Mr. Williams was found sleeping i
! 24 by you; is that correct?
!O l () 25 A Mr. Saklak came to me and said that Kermit was sleeping.
i i'
Sonntag Reporting Service,-Ltd.
i C) Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 3 i .
0 2645 O
lO 1 I immediately got up, walked over to Kermit's desk 2 and I, in fact, found him still sleeping.
2 3 0 In fact, he was disciplined, as is indicated in this O
4 entry.
5 Did, in fact, Mr. Williams return after his 6 three-day suspension?
7 A Yes, sir, he did.
8 Q I take it Mr. Williams is a Level 2 QC Inspector?
- 9 A Yes, sir.
- O 10 0 Is he still employed at the Braidwood site?
11 A No, sir. He has been recently discharged through 12 BESTCO.
lO O 13 Q Entry on Page 140, at the bottom of the page, " Caught 14 Rick Martin and Kermit Williams reading Martin's college 15 homework."
!O 16 I take it that's a personal observation that you 17 made?
l i 18 A Yes, sir, it is.
10 19 0 What, if any, disciplinary action was taken with respect 20 to Mr. Martin and Mr. Williams?
j 21 A I gave Rick Martin a verbal warning not to be involved O
22 in it; and I notified Rick Saklak, who was Mr. Williams' 23 supervisor, of the incident and a copy of the -- I 24 documented on a speed memo and gave Mr. DeWald a copy of
- O
(') 25 that for Mr. Williams' personnel file, Mr. Martin's l
Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
C) ceneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
s 40 2646 1 (
lO 1 file.
2 O I would like you now to turn, if you would, to Page 143 3 in Exhibit 33, Item No. 2, which discusses a meeting in 4 Mr. Rolan's office.
J 5 I think we have identified many of these i
6 individuals except Mr. Ovens.
j 7 What was his position?
8 A He was Mr. Rolan's assistant.
9 Q And then the next to the last name, perhaps you could 40 10 pronounce it for us?
- 11 A Bradfute. Dave Bradfute was an assistant project 12 engineer for Comstock.
iO O
, 13 Q And the last name?
14 A bod Whitney. He was one of the area managers for 15 Comstock Construction.
- O
- 16 Q Was Mr. Whitney on site or off site?
17 A He was an on-site area manager.
i 18 Q Were you the only person from the quality control staf f i
19 at this meeting?
20 A Yes, sir.
21 0 What was the occasion of this meeting, Mr. Seese?
1 22 A It was a discussion of things that could be done to 23 speed up cable pulling by Comstocx Construction.
i 24 Q Item No. B, about halfway down the page, says, "Too many
.O 25 ICR's."
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
() Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
()
2647
- O 1 Who made that comment?
2 A I can't at this point-determine who that comment would 3 have come from.
- O 4 If I might add, usually when you get in with the 5 area managers, that was always one of their complaints, 6 "You guys write too many ICR's."
,O 7 0 What was your response to this comment, if any?
8 A Simply, that the number of ICR's is based on the craft 9 work performance.
O 10 Q A little bit further down the page, under Item D, "Need 11 a QC coordinator in QC (Jeff Dominique) and one in each 12 department."
LO O 13 First of all, who made that comment, sir?
14 A That was a suggestion from Mr. Rolan.
15 0 What function would be performed by a QC coordinator?
~'O 16 A He wanted a coordinator in QC to -- one individual that 17 would be notified of any priorities coming up.
18 If an ICR or NCR involved a priority cable pull,
21 That person would get back to the supervisor and O
22 assure that he was working on the priority items first.
23 Q Then the sentence goes on, "One in each department."
. 24 Is that departments other than QC?
- O(]) 25 A That is correct.
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
- () Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
O 2648 O
1 Q Down at Item G, "Much of the ICR's are from welding.
2 Klena, Ovens, ' Find out who the welder is and run him 3 down the road.'"
O l 4 Who made the comment that much of the ICR's are 5 from welding?
6 A That would have definitely been a comment from Mr.
'O 7 Rolan.
{
8 Q All right. Is the statement that follows one that was 9 made by Mr. Klena and Mr. Ovens?
10 A No. That statement would have also been by Mr. Rolan, 11 to determine if it was one particular welder; and if 12 that was the case, assure that he was no longer a welder OO 13 at Braidwood.
14 Q Did that, in fact, happen, do you know?
15 A There were several welders, as I remember, during that
'O 16 year that were removed from the welding area.
17 Whether it was a direct result of this meeting or ,
18 others, Mr. Rolan did, as a result of this, set up a O
19 tracking from the work.in the field back to the welders 20 to determine the quality of their work.
21 Q All right, sir. On the next page, Page 144, there is a C) <
22 staff meeting recorded at the top of the page.
23 The first item, "Saklak complained about Bruce l 24 Brown's negative attitude relating to penetrations."
10 ( )
1 25 At this point in time, what was Mr. Brown's title, Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
() Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
O 4
2649
)
[) i if any?
2 A Mr. Brown at this point was a Level 2 QC Inspector.
3 Q What did you understand the negative attitude regarding
- O 4 penetrations to be?
5 A Mr. Saklak was complaining that Mr. Brown was real 6 negative in responses back to Saklak concerning the
- O 7 pe net rations.
8 The penetrations were the electrical penetrations 9 that were being installed in Unit 2 at that time, so Mr.
>O 10 Saklak was complaining that if he would ask Bruce Brown 11 a question about how the penetrations were going, Bruce 12 was being rather negative and evasive, not responding to O (f-)s 13 Mr. Saklak's questions.
14 0 What, if anything, was done with respect to this 15 negative attitude?
lO 16 A Mr. Brown continued as the inspector. The job got done.
17 I know on occasion I went out and talked with him; 18 but as far as I -- there would have been no changes as a
- O 19 result of Rick's complaint.
20 Q All right. The next item, C, "Seltmann reports that ;
21 Rick Snyder is signing off Form 39A's without doing
- (?
~ i 22 inspections. This relates to penetrations." I
! l 23 At that point in time was Mr. Snyder, to your ,
l 24 knowledge, certified as an inspector of penetrations?
l l
() 25 A No, sir.
l l Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.-
43 Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
- --- - _ - - - - - - .- . - . - _ - - _ .- -~
iL 2650
(
i 1 Q Well, what is the Form 39A that was being signed off?
- 2 A I believe the 39A was the form used for documenting -
3 inspection of penetrations; but I have no recollection J 4 of what this statement -- what it pertains to .
I 5 Q All right, sir. Now, the entry under March 13th, I ,
6 would like you to read to yourself, if you would , that l
-l 7 entry, and then I have a few questions for you.
1 l 8 All right. Mr. Seese, first of all, the practical
~
9 examination that Mr. Walters had graded, did he, in 10 effect, fail Mr. Stout or did he pass him?
4 11 A He did neither. He felt that the exam was improper 12 because there was a problem with Mr. Stout's identifying j i 13 some of the grounding.
) 14 The grounding on the particular equipment is 1
. 15 contained within the conduit procedure; and he felt that
] 16 -- Mr. Walters' felt that -- the information should have ;
17 been in the equipment procedure and not just a reference 4
} 18 to another procedure.
i 19 So what Mr. Walters did was feel that the exam was
{
20 invalid. He, in fact, tore the exam up and threw it i
21 away.
j 22 0 was Mr. Simile criticizing Mr. Walters for his approach
- 23 to this?
l 1
24 A Yes, he was. Mr. Simile was taking the position that
() 25 John Walters did not follow the chain of command.
I ;
['
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 '
i , (312) 232-0262 -
1
,,,-ww-~n-.en-,- - - , , . . - , , - , -s --m-m---ar-nm.,w , ,.e, ,-,,wemm~,+wer,,,e ,v, - - , . - ,e,-r,-, w w ww- s s-v ~ e s =- w ee v v - e - m - - m -v w xv-- " v v st,v ' <- + rm- --
2651 (3
%.)
1 He came until -- he went to people until he got the 2 answer that he wanted to hear and then he tore up the 3 exam.
4 Q From whom did Mr. Walters get the answer that he wanted 5 to hear, do you know?
6 A He came to me with his concern; and it was my opinion 7 that if the training did not involve the conduit 8 procedure, then, certainly, you couldn't expect the 9 inspector to be aware of that.
10 0 Were Mr. Saklak's and Mr. Simile's reporting the notion 11 that Mr. Stout had successfully completed the
)'
12 certification?
O 13 A No, sir. They were saying that Mr. Stout should have 14 been failed on this exam and that Mr. Walters was 15 incorrect in his decision to tear up the exam and throw 16 it away.
17 Q What is the significance, if any, of the sentence that 18 reads, "Saklak makes a point that Stout did mention the 19 conduit grounding detail in the ICR"?
20 A There was something -- I would have to see the exam, Mr.
21 Miller, to be completely certain of exactly what he is 22 saying; 'out the implication by Mr. Saklak was that there 23 was a comment in the ICR written by Mr. Stout that 24 indicated he must have been aware of something about the 25 !
(]) detail.
Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262
2652 1 Q Now, what, if anything, was the consequences of these 2 events with respect to Mr. Walters?
3 A Well, first, we were able to retrieve the torn-up exam 4 from the garbage.
5 We did re-take the exam together. We asked Mr.
6 Walters to grade the exam and to turn that in to us, 7 which he did; and that was the only consequence to Mr.
8 Walters.
9 Q Did Mr; Stout pass or fail the exam as graded?
10 A As I recall, Mr. Stout failed that exam.
11 Q All right, sir. What then happened to Mr. Stout?
- 12 A He was given additional training and would have 13 subsequently been retested.
14 Q Now, continuing on Page 145, there is an entry for Apr.
15 2, 1985.
16 Can you tell by looking what the subject matter of 17 this meeting was?
18 A Yes, sir.
i 19 0 What is it?
20 A This would have been the Rick Saklak affair, 21 Saklak/Snyder afair.
22 The corporate people were in to investigate the 23 incidents.
24 Q All right, sir. On Page 146 -- I guess we have to start
() 25 back on Page 145, the entry for April 8th.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2653 1 You were the only representative of Comstock at 2 this meeting on April 8th at 3:00 P. M.; correct?
3 A That is correct. The Quality First group was 4 interviewing people with any knowledge of the 5 Saklak/Snyder affair, and this was my interview with 6 Quality First.
7 0 All right. On the next page, " Topics covered," were 8 these the topics covered by Commonwealth Edison 9 personnel in their interview with you?
10 A Yes, sir.
11 Q The first entry says, "Did LKC have similar problem at 12 Perry two-and-a-half years ago?"
O 13 Was that a question that you were asked?
14 A Yes, sir, it was.
15 0 And then there was -- the next words say, " Training 16 problems."
17 My question is: Was that a reference to training 18 problems at the Perry plant or training problems at 19 Braidwood?
20 A That was a discussion of training problems at Braidwood.
21 Q " Pressure from Frank Rolan," was that a question about 22 Mr. Rolan's activities at Braidwood or at some other 23 location?
24 A It was a question concerning Braidwood.
25 Do you remember a question asked about whether Mr.
(]) Q 1
i
. l Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd. ;
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
.= - . __ ._
2654 O
1 Worthington was qualified to be supervisor; is that 2 correct?
3 A That is correct.
4 0 And that is at Braidwood?
5 A That is correct.
6 0 "Why not pay leads for being lead," what is that a 7 reference to?
]
8 A. There must have been a complaint, because, Mr. Preston, 9 his question was why did Comstock not pay our Lead 10 Inspectors any additional money for being a lead; and 11 this, again, was at Braidwood.
12 Q At that point in time, sir, were the leads being given 13 any additional compensation?
, 14 A No, sir, they were not.
15 Q Had there ever, to your knowledge, been any' suggestion 16 that they, in fact, be given additional compensation?
17 A Yes, sir. There were suggestions made by, to my 18 knowledge, Mr. DeWald, Mr. Seltmann, myself, and at one 19 point Mr. Rolan had also made that suggestion to our 20 corporate people.
- 21 Q Had anyone made the suggestion to you that they ought to 22 be paid?
l i
23 A Oh, yes. From talking with the leads, they all felt,
- 24 with the additional responsibility, they should be
(]) 25 compensated for it.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. l Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
2655 1
1
! (')8 s
l 1 0 What was the response from your corporate management?
2 A The corporate management felt that there was no job 3 description in the corporate salary structure for leads; 4 and, therefore, they didn't want to get into changing 5 that job description and create any.
6 They were opposed to it.
7 0 All right. The last entry in your diary, Mr. Seese, is 8 dated April 12, 1985, " Meeting, R. Martin."
9 What was Mr. Martin's status at that point in time?
10 A He would still have been employed in the Comstock QC 11 Department. His certifications I do not believe were 12 reinstated and he was assigned to be in the vault.
O 13 0 What was the occasion of this meeting with Mr. Martin?
14 A Mr. Martin was being given a written warning for 15 falsification of company payroll records.
16 What, in fact, he had done was signed out at one 17 time and was observed outside the plant prior to the 18 time that he had indicated on the time sheets.
19 Q All right, sir. Did you read the written warning to Mr.
20 Martin?
i
, 21 A Yes, sir, I did.
22 O I take it he refused to sign it?
23 A Mr. Martin refused to sign it, yes.
24 Q The entry in your diary goes on, "I asked Rick if he had
() 25 some comments. 'Well, I was wanting to say -- I wanted
^
- Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- 2656
(
.i l 1 to ask you if there was anything I can do to improve.'
i j 2 Rick wants overtime."
3 Is that, essentially, a verbatim recollection of i 4 what Mr. Martin said? ,
j_ 5 A Yes, sir.
- 6 Q And did he, in fact, request overtime?
I j 7 A Yes, he did.
8 Q Now, how much of a discrepancy in his payroll records i
9 were there in terms of the amount of time indicated he 10 was working when, in fact, he was outside the plant?
11 A It amounted to five or ten minutes.
I 12 Q That occurred on one occasion or more than one occasion?
! k) 13 A It was on one occasion where he was observed by security L
- 14 and Mr. Rolan. gg i
15 Q Your statement goes on, "Irv states that he is trying to 16 get printouts from construction."
1 17 What, if anything, does that have to do with Mr.
I 18 Martin's request for-overtime or wanting to improve?
~
I 19 A. Mr. Martin's assignment at that time was to do - .to 20 take Comstock's inspection records and installation f
i 21 report records and load them for entry into the 22 computer.
23 The amount of work that he had in. front of him at
- 24 any given time depended on the number of printouts that 25
(]) we had had from Construction, so Irv was telling him Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. !
j Geneva, Illinois 60134
- (312) 232-0262 i
l 2657 l- 0 1 that he was trying to get additional printouts.
2 As soon as we got those printouts, that Rick would j
3 be put on overtime.
4 Q The entry in your diary goes on, " Stressed that this
) 5 warning, coupled with recent -- Seese 4-12-85 --
6 evaluation does not make a good picture."
7 What was the substance of your recent evaluation of 8 Mr. Martin?
l 9 A As I discussed earlier, at the end of each year we did 10 an evaluation of all the employees.
11 My evaluation of Mr. Martin was extremely negative 12 and included the situation with Mr. Williams reading
~
13 homework, with some problems that I had had with Rick's 14 work performance on assignments that we had given. So I 15 was rather negative in the evaluation.
16 The, "Seese 4-12-85," what that is a reference to 17 is I made a correction there. I single lined. When you 18 make a correction, you draw a single line, date it and 19 correct it.
20 So "4-12-85" is not relating to the evaluation. It 21 is merely indicating that I crossed out something.
22 O I see. All right. The next sentence of this reads, "I 23 nor Irv are here to fire anyone. We want you to comply 24 with the rules."
(} 25 Was this a communication from you to Mr. Martin?
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2658
1 15 extended to quantity versus quality concerns, i 16 production-pressure concerns?
i d 17 A I had not seen any written report of what the actual l
18 concerns were.
19 I could only judge from Mr. Preston's questions.
! 20 Q well, had you understood from talking to the Edison I 21 executives who spoke with Comstock management shortly
{ 22 after the complaints to the NRC that there had been 23 production-pressure concerns?
24 A Yes, I was aware that that had been mentioned by the 25 Edison people.
I i
l Sonntag Reporting Service Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois 60134 1
! (312) 232-0262 !
o
C-2672 0
1 Q So you were aware generally when you were questioned by 2 Mr. Preston of the Quality First, that he was asking you 3 about whether there was any basis for 4 production-pressure concerns by QC Inspectors at 5 Comstock; correct?
6 A Correct.
7 Q All right. And you had that subject matter in mind, did 8 you not, when Mr. Preston asked you, in substance, did 9 LKC, Comstock, have a similar problem at the Perry 10 station two-and-a-half years ago; correct?
l 11 A No. My perception of that question was: Did we have an 12 incident of inspector harassment?
O 13 My perception of that question dealt more with the 14 Saklak/Snyder incident.
15 0 Well, for now let's not distinguish that from the more 16 general question of production pressure.
17 The essence of the Snyder/Saklak incident was that 18 Mr. Saklak threatened Mr. Snyder if he didn't speed up 19 production -- in effect, by signing off the ICR -- that 20 he was going to kill him?
21 MR. MILLER: I am going to object to the 22 characterization of what Mr. Saklak did to Mr. Snyder.
23 That has been -- I think Mr. Guild is, for some i 24 reason, confusing two concepts which till now have been,
(~)
v 25 really, developed quite separately, that is the threat I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2673 i
O N_/
i 1 to Mr. Snyder, which I think has been characterized by 2 this witness as harassment, and the general production 3 quality subordinated to quantity issue.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Guild.
5 Were you asking the witness if that was his 6 understanding of what occurred?
7 MR. GUILD: Let me try to -- let me try to --
i' 8 reframe the question and see if I can cure Mr. Miller's 9 problem, Mr. Chairman. I will just rephrase the 1.
10 question. !
11 BY MR. GUILD:
I 12 0 You understood Mr. Saklak was trying to pressure Mr.
O 13 Snyder into signing of f an inspection document, an ICR, 14 do you not?
.; 15 A I understood two points: One, that Mr. Saklak wanted 16 Mr. Snyder to sign the document; and, secondly, that Mr.
17 Saklak was upset that Mr. Snyder went over Mr. Saklak to l 18 Mr. Seltmann.
19 Q And he used threatening language and harassed Mr. Snyder
! 20 in that context?
21 A Yes, sir.
22 Q Now, just for purposes of my question, I include -- and 23 I am now asking you necessarily to include -- incidents 24 of harassment within the concept of production pressure, 25 Saklak trying to get Mr. Snyder to do something by way
(])
i ~
Sonntac Reportina Servico _Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i I
2674 i
- O i 1 of signing off an inspection document.
i j 2 Now, with that, with my definition, in mind, and 3 Mr. Preston asked you the question whether there had j 4 been a similar problem at Perry two-and-a-half years j 5 ago, where you had been, correct, as a supervisor --
i l 6 right?
I 7 A Correct.
l 8 0 -- did you identify for Mr. Preston the fact that there
! 9 had been similar complaints at Perry?
i l 10 MR. MILLER: Excuse me.
j 11 Similar complaints to what, to Mr. Saklak's threats i 12 or something more general?
13 MR. GUILD: I am using the language contained l 14 in Mr. Seese's own diary.
i
! 15 Would you answer it in that context? Did you 16 identify similar problems at Perry?
1 17 Those are your words, not mine.
]
18 A Yes, sir; but you have to understand that this question l
i 19 dealt strictly with the Saklak/Snyder incident.
I i
20 Mr. Preston was asking me, "Was there a similar i
)
I 21 problem at Perry two-and-a-half years ago?" l l 22 BY MR. GUILD:
23 Q What was your answer to Mr. Preston?
l 24 A No, sir, there was not.
)
25 Q You said no?
i l' I
-) Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
! Geneva, Illinois 60134
- (312) 232-0262
2675 1
O 1 A No.
I 2 Q Did you drop the matter at that point with Mr. Preston?
3 A No. We had an ongoing discussion of what had transpired 4 two-and-a-half years before at Perry.
5 0 And did you tell him -- what did you tell him about what 6 had transpired at Perry?
7 A There was a problem two-and-a-half -- approximately 8 two-and-a-half -- years before at Perry the.t dealt with 9 a task force review.
10 These were people, not inspectors, brought in to 11 review documentation; and that group was to be their own 12 separate entity. They were not to become involved with
' O 13 the inspectors.
- 14 There subsequently come out of that group a 15 concern, a complaint to the NRC; but it did not base 16 anything close to the Saklak/Snyder incident. It was 17 not comparable to that incident whatsoever.
l 18 0 Was it a c'omplaint of production pressure?
19 A No, no.
20 0 Was it a complaint of harassment?
21 A It was a complaint that these inspectors were not 22 permitted to interface with the task -- the task force 23 was not permitted to interface with the QC Inspectors, i i 24 and their role was being inhibited because we would not 25
(]) allow that interface.
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd. .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 1 1
2676 O
1 Q And that's what you told Mr. Preston?
2 A Yes, sir, to the best of my knowledge, yes.
3 Q All right. Well, your diary --
l 4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me. l l
5 Was there another group here at Braidwood similar l
6 to the one.you just mentioned at Perry that was not 7 permitted or was permitted to interface with inspectors?
8 THE WITNESS: There was a similar effort at 9 Braidwood; and it was done and formatted entirely 10 differently, where that group was made up by some 11 inspectors and some Doc. Reviewers.
12 The Braidwood program was vastly different from the C) 13 Perry.
14 BY MR. GUILD:
15 Q It was a similar program in the sense that there is a 16 quality document review program at Braidwood?
17 A To that extent, yes.
18 Q And organized somewhat differently at Braidwood from 19 Perry? '
20 A That's correct, organized more than somewhat different.
f 21 It was a major difference.
I
! 22 Q Page 121 of your diary, Mr. Seese, the top of the page, I
23 under the date May 18, 1984, you make a reference to a 24 conference call with a lawyer, one or more lawyers,
(]) 25 subject Steve Balazs', B-A-L-A-S, complaint.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4 2677 O
1 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, I will object.
2 Mr. Seese in my examination of him identified that
- 3 this related to an incident at the Perry Nuclear Power 4 Plant.
5 The relevance of the details of this incident to 6 anything before this Board is simply non-existent.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And Mr. Guild is entitled to 8 cross examine on the answers that you received.
9 MR. MILLER: The only answer that I received 10 was that he didn't --
I' 11 MR. GUILD: That it wasn't relevant.
1 12 MR. MILLER: -- that it didn't relate to O 13 Braidwood.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: He can probe that to see if 15 the answers are real credible.
< 16 BY MR. GUILD:
17 0 The question is pending: That's what you had a meeting j 18 about, was about a complaint by Mr. Steve Balazs, was it i 19 not?
20 A It wasn't a meeting. It was a conference call with Mr.
21 Adamson, who was a -- I believe his role was 22 Administrative Judge with the National Labor Relations 23 Board, and Mr. Glenn Smith, who was Comstock's attorney 24 in that case.
() 25 It wasn't a meeting; it was a conference call.
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 L_
2678
(
l Q But it was the subject of Mr. Balazs' complaint?
2 A Yes, sir, it was.
3 Q Was Mr. Balazs, in fact, a former Quality Control
) 4 Inspector of Comstock at the Perry site?
5 A Yes, he was.
6 Q And did Mr. Balazs raise complaints about being 7 prevented from writing Nonconformance Reports by his l
8 superiors at Perry?
9 A Yes, that's a fact.
10 Q Did Mr. Balazs, whose name I believe is spelled 11 B-A-L-A-Z-S -- is it not?
12 A It's pronounced Balazs. I am not sure of the spelling.
i
( 13 0 You are not aware of the spelling.
14 What was your relationship, if any, when you were l
15 at Perry?
16 A When I first arrived at Perry, we were both inspectors.
17 At one point I became his lead and then later on 18 his supervisor.
j 19 Q So you were a colleague first and then a supervisor of l 20 Mr. Balazs?
j 21 A That is correct.
j 22 0 Until the point when you left Perry and came to b 23 Braidwood in July of '83?
24 A No, sir. I left Perry and went to D. C. Cook.
() 25 0 I am sorry. You went to D. C. Cook in July of 19837 i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 66f34 (312) 232-0262
._ . __ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ . _ . ~ _ _ __. _ _ . _ _ _ _
2679 1 A That's correct.
l 2 Q You lef t Perry in July of 1983?
3 A That's correct.
4 Q You supervised Mr. Balazs up until that point?
5 A That's correct.
6 Q Is it true that quality control workers at Perry had 7 been complaining to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8 for more than 17 months at the point when Mr. Perry quit 9 in September of 1983?
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Balazs?
11 MR. GUILD: That's right, Mr. Balazs quit. I 12 am sorry.
O 13 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, I object to the 14 whole line of inquiry. l l
15 What was happening at Perry I don't believe has 16 anything to do with what took place at Braidwood.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Miller.
l l 18 There was some testimony relating Perry to l 19 Braidwood; and Mr. Guild is probing that, those l
l 20 responses.
21 MR. MILLER: The only testimony, sir, was 22 that there was elicited whether or not Mr. Balazs' l 23 complaints related to Braidwood solely so that we could 24 establish that it had no reference do it.
l 25
(]) JUDGE GROSSMAN: I am not referring to that l
S onnt Ag_Res_o tt_ing_.Se r v i colt d .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2680 O
1 testimony now.
I 2 I am referring to the testimony with regard to Page 3 146 of the document, and Mr. Guild is probing the 4 answers to that and he is permitted to do that. It's 5 within the scope of what you questioned on on Redirect.
- 6 Continue, Mr. Guild.
J 7 Is there a pending question?
l i 8 MR. GUILD: There was.
9 Can you recall the question?
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Could the Reporter repeat 11 that question?
12 (The question was thereupon read by the I ( 13 Reporter.)
1 14 MR. GUILD: Would you answer that question,
! 15 Mr. Seese?
16 A I have no knowledge that the inspectors were complaining 17 to the NRC personally.
1 18 If you would like me to expand --
i 19 BY MR. GUILD:
20 Q Were you aware that such complaints had been made over a 21 long period of time,17 months, for example --
22 A If --
23 0 -- complaints by QC Inspectors at Comstock, at the Perry 24 site, to the NRC?
() 25 A I am aware from conversations with some of the i
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illfnois 6D134 (312) 232-0262
2681 0
1 supervisors at Perry that there were inspectors who 2 complained, Mr. Guild.
3 It was after I left the plant. My involvement was 4 strictly in the case where I would deal with Mr. Smith.
5 He would ask me questions that I had knowledge of, and 6 this one of Mr. Balazs was just a small part of it.
7 As to exactly what the complaints were, I did not 8 see the NRC reports. There is no way for me to know how 9 many complaints or what all was involved in it.
10 I was asked -- I was called at Braidwood and asked 11 these certain questions, where my testimony was 12 required.
O 13 The involvement, I don't know what all the 14 allegations or charges were.
15 Q So the notes that appear on Page 121 of your diary 16 relate to complaints by Mr. Balazs?
17 A Those notes relate to the conference call and I have 18 documented the questions asked of me and my responses.
19 0 Yes, and relates to Mr. Balazs? ,
20 A Yes, a very short conversation that relates to Mr.
21 Balazs.
22 0 That's the question, yes.
23 When it says, "Did he have complaints," the "he" is 24 Mr. Balazs, is it not?
() 25 A Yes, it is.
Sonntaa Reportino._Sqrvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2682 1 0 And the answer is yes, he did have complaints; correct?
- 2 A That's correct.
3 0 "Did he want to issue an NR?"
4 Is that a Nonconformance Report?
5 A Yes. l 6 0 And the answer was yes?
7 A That's correct.
8 0 Mr. Balazs did want to issue a nonconformance?
9 A That's correct.
10 0 "Did he issue a Nonconformance Report," and your answer i 11 there is no; is that correct?
12 A That is correct.
13 0 And then you were asked, "Did you throw the reports 14 away," and you answered no?
I 15 A That's correct.
16 0 And then you say -- the note says, "Did you say " --
17 referring to you, Mr. Seese.
- 18 A Yes.
19 0 -- quote, "' Humor me. Get out of my office,'" unquote; 20 and your answer to that was no.
21 A That's correct.
22 0 Did Mr. Balazs seek to initiate a nonconformance report 23 with respect to electrical deficiencies related to the 24 diesel generator?
(} 25 A Yes, he did.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneve, IH incis 60-13 4
- (312) 232-0262
2683 O
1 Q Was it, in fact, five months before he was permitted to 2 -- before a nonconformance report was originated, 3 documenting those deficiencies?
4 A Mr. Guild, I can't testify to that.
5 At the time I left Perry, he had not written the 6 NCR. Whether one subsequently was written, I have no 7 way of knowing that. I wasn't there.
8 0 Do you know whether or not Mr. Balazs said to his 9 supervisor, quote, "I told my boss, and he said," quote, 10 " 'That's the way it goes. This is a shameful 11 situation'"?
12 A I have no knowledge of that statement.
13 0 You weren't the supervisor or the boss that he said that 14 to?
15 A It was never said to me.
16 0 Did Mr. Balazs subsequently bring a wrongful dismissal 17 action, a lawsuit against -- or a complaint, 18 administrative complaint, against L. K. Comstock?
19 A I have no knowledge of that.
20 Q Do you know whether or not Comstock settled such a 21 wrongful dismissal suit with Mr. Balazs?
22 A My only knowledge -- my only knowledge of Mr. Balazs of 23 any type of litigations or complaints was this one --
24 one conference call.
25 0 Did you ever present any testimony in Mr. Balazs' case?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois60-134 (312) 232-0262
i 2684 I
1
, r- i
(_)N l 1 A Strictly this conf erence call.
2 0 was that his testimony under oath?
3 A No.
4 As I understand it, he was an Administrative Law 5 Judge, as I understand it. He asked some questions. I 6 did not take any notes at that time. I only responded 7 to the questions he asked me.
8 0 was this, in fact, a United States Department of Labor 9 Administrative Law Judge considering retaliatory 10 treatment claimed by Mr. Balazs?
11 A Mr. Guild, I was -- I was told by Mr. Glenn Smith, our 12 attorney, that Mr. Adamson was an attorney with the O 13 NLRB; he had some questions to ask related to a case by l 14 Mr. Balazs.
4 15 That's the extent of my knowledge.
i 16 0 Isn't it a fact that in addition to Mr. Balazs, that 17 there were a number of other Quality control Inspectors 18 at the Perry site who, over a period of time, raised 19 concerns that were indeed very similar to the concerns 20 raised by Comstock inspectors at Braidwood; that is,
) 21 about production pressure and the sacrifice of quality 22 for quantity? ,
23 A Not that I am aware of.
24 0 After the recess Friday, Mr. Seese, your counsel made
{} 25 available to me an updated Rev. 1 to NCR 1827.
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneve, Itlincie 601-34 (312) 232-0262 1
- _ _ . _ , _ . - _ _ _ - - , . . - . _ . - . . . -~ . _ _ _ . . . . , , _ _ _ _
2685 1 Do you recall that nonconformance report --
2 A Yes, sir, I do.
3 0 -- cubject to the Quality Control Inspector reinspection 4 program?
5 A That's correct.
6 0 Now, let me just show you the documents that were made 7 available to me.
8 (Indicating.)
9 There are three sets of documents. The first is a 10 cover sheet and an attachment. The second is a 11 memorandum. The third are some continuation sheets with 12 entries on them.
13 Could you identify those documents in turn, please; 14 first, the cover sheet that bears the identification 15 "NCR 1827, Rev. 1, 5/5/1986."
16 A Yes. That is the subsequent revision to the NCR.
17 0 All right.
18 Is that the complete nonconformance report?
19 A There -- there are sizable attachments that go with the 20 -- supporting documentation to this report.
21 0 And can you -- are they continuation sheets to the NCR?
22 A Yes, yes, with -- yes, they are.
23 They describe some of the -- some of the items 24 involved with the NCR.
25 Q Do they describe all of the items that are within the 2
}
Sonntag Reporting Service, , Ltd. _
ueneva, 1111nois oulae (312) 232-0262
I 2686 1 scope of the NCR?
2 A There is an accounting for each item within the scope of 3 the NCR.
4 0 And can you describe generally how those attachments 5 which account for the items in the NCR -- what comprises 6 those attachments?
7 A There are some engineering evaluation forms that explain 8 -- for example, if the deficiency could have been caused 9 by ongoing construction activity, the engineering 10 evaluation form will identify what rework report or what 11 AVO did the original rework and why it shouldn't be
~
l2 counted against the original inspector.
13 There are also some evaluations on the welding, the 14 objective -- or subjective welding' deficiencies.
15 Commonwealth Edison established Level III welding 16 inspectors employed by Sargent & Lundy, who went out and 17 reinspected all of the welding deficiencies; and they 18 would come back and state whether they agreed with the 19 first inspector, second inspector. Those were also 20 attached as part of the nonconformance.
21 Q I'm looking at Page 3 of the NCR Rev. 1 form, Sheet 3; 22 and there it identifies Parts A, B, C'and D of that NCR.
23 Are you just describing one of those parts, now? -
24 Can you identify which one, if you remember?
25- A Okay. Part A is the actual Rev. O of the NCR minus the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinvis 60134 (312) 232-0262
2687 1 attached sheets that we looked at when you first 2 presented it.
t 3 Q That's the document that's already in evidence?
4 A It should be these sheets, that's correct.
5 Part B is a summary and computer listing of all the 6 inspectors -- or all of the items addressed in Rev. O, 7 so that would actually be computer printouts.
8 Part C is what I was referring to, the third-party 9 evaluation and the contractor evaluation of items that 10 we felt there was no way to explain ongoing activity.
11 They were justifiable rejects.
12 Then Part D would be the same evaluation forms on 13 items where we were able to establish ongoing activities 14 could have caused them after the original inspection.
15 Q Part C, then, reflects the items for which there were 16 identified ultimately deficient original inspection 17 work?
18 A That's correct.
19 0 Now, that is in the form -- that Part C, then, is in 20 what form?
21 A It would be -- as I believe it's formatted, it would be 22 the actual rej ect sheet by the ori'ginal -- by the person 23 doing the extra inspection.
24 Attached to that would be the original inspector's
{} 25 original checklist, and then there would be an Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ,
ueneva, 1111nols eviae
) (312) 232-0262 I
2688 O
1 evaluation sheet by Engineering, where they'll state 2 that, "This was a valid reject. We could find nothing."
3 Or there would be an S & L -- that they went out and 4 they agreed this was deficient work.
5 0 Is there any summary tabulation of the results of that 6 Part C evaluation that identified actual deficient past 7 inspection work?
8 A No. I would believe you would have to look at that Part 9 C in total.
10 Each one is dealt with one at a time. It would not 11 he a summary, 12 Q Has Comstock ever performed a tabulation to identify,
/
13 say, for example, the number and character of deficient 14 inspection work by past inspectors?
15 A There -- there was a tabulation of this type by past 16 work involved in that NCR.
17 Nobody has -- there is no summary, to the best of 18 my knowledge, that says, "Do you have X number of 19 deficiencies against each inspector?"
20 We stopped work on that item and established a new 21 inspector reinspection program, so thete was no final 22 summary given of this one because he program did not go l
23 through to conclusion.
24 0 Well, then, is there a final summary of any permutation 25 of this program that would provide the data that I'm I
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. )
Geneve, Illinois 60134 !
! (312) 232-0262 '
i
t 2689 O
1 asking about; that is, actual deficient inspection work 2 by Comstock inspectors?
3 A If you're talking -- if you're asking, Mr. -- I don't 4 know how general you're being, but they are tabulating 5 the rejects as a result of the second inspector 6 reinspection program --
7 Q All right.
8 A -- the one by procedure.
9 ,
I have not seen a final tabulation yet, and I don't 10 believe it could be ready at this point in time. S&L 11 is still doing some evaluations, but I have not seen a 12 final tally.
13 0 Is there a preliminary tally?
14 Is there any tally?
15 A I have not seen any.
16 0 Are you aware of one that exists?
17 A No, sir. I have not seen or heard of one.
18 0 Briefly would you identify the other two pieces of 19 documentation that I just showed you?
20 A Yes.
21 This letter was intended to explain why we wrote 22 the NCR and what its purpose was going to be.
23 (Indicating.)
24 Q This was an attachment to the original NCR that is 25 already in evidence, isn't it?
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, AA11nols ovAae (312) 232-0262
_ _ ._ _ . _ . . ._ _ ._ _ r
2690 t
O 1 A It was a memo to Irv relating to that NCR, which we 2 subsequently made an attachment.
3 0 Right.
4 If you look at the second page, this is simply a 5 duplicate of the document that is already in evidence in 6 this case?
7 A That's correct.
8 0 Now the third stack, then -- is that also an attachment 9 to the original NCR?
10 A That's right.
11 The original NCR required that we keep a separate 12 sheet on each inspector and, as we did the inspections
[D
13 and each day we found a deficiency, it should be added 14 to that sheet so that you had an ongoing list.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild, is this a good 16 time to break?
17 MR. GUILD: Yes, if I could just have a 18 moment.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Sure.
20 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, at the outset --
21 that helps clarify a little bit the status of the j i
22 document that had been requested.
23 At the outset of today's hearing, I had asked that l l
24 Edison make available the original documentation that i
<^ 25 the witness has just described. I would like to renew I k_)3 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinviu 60134 (312) 232-0262 I
2691 O
1 that request.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN : My understanding was that
- 3 Mr. Miller said that he would cooperate and attempt to 4 do that -- ,
5 MR. GUILD: Yes. Thank you.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- and I hope soon.
7 Okay. Now is a good time for a break for lunch.
8 We'll return at 1:15.
9 (WHEREUPON, the hearing was continued to 10 the hour of 1:15 o' clock P. M.)
s 11 12 13
- 14 15 16 17 18 19 i
20 21 22 23 24 25 CE)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
- (312) 232-0262
. - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ - - _.._._ ._. ._ _ _ , .. _ _ _ . ~ _ _ , _ _ . - . - .
2692 O
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAP REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
_ i _ Z _ i _ Z Z _ _ _ _ _ _ 2 _ _x 5 :
In the Matter of: :
6 : Docket No. 50-456 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY : 50-457 OL 7 :
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 :
8 and 2) :
_______2__i_Zi___2x 9
10 Met pursuant to recess.
11 Wednesday, June 3, 1986.
1:30 P. M.
12 i
13 14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We're back in session.
15 Mr. Guild?
16 MR. GUILD: Thank you, Mr. Chai rman.
17 BY MR. GUILD:
18 0 Mr. Seese, turn, if you would, please, in your diary, 19 Intervenors' Exhibit 33 in evidence, to Page 108.
20 Here you document a meeting involving Mr. Wallace ,
1 21 and Mr. Marcus of Commonwealth Edison Company -- or 1 22 refer to a previous meeting in which Mr. Wallace had, as i 23 you state on Page 108, not permitted you "to discuss the 24 backlog of inspections prior to August, 1983, during our 25 presentation to the NRC."
{
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Gaueva, Illinvio 60134 (312) 232-0262
2693 O
1 Now, the " presentation to the NRC" that's referred 2 to there is a presentation dealing with the subject of 3 backlogs of current inspection work and backlogs of 4 Comstock quality documents, which backlogs were 5 discussed with the NRC; correct?
6 A That's correct.
7 0 Now, you refer on Page 107 to that meeting, the meeting 8 with the NRC, and the participation in that meeting by 9 Mr. Williams.
10 Is that Mr. Cordell Williams of the NRC?
11 A That's correct.
12 Q Now, subsequent to that meeting -- was that an exit D<
\/ 13 meeting, an NRC exit meeting?
14 A Yes, it was.
15 0 And subsequent to that meeting, the NRC published an 16 inspection report; and that inspection report was dated 17 January 27, 1984; is that correct?
18 A I -- I don't have the report. I don't know the date, 19 Mr. Guild.
20 MR. GUILD: All right.
21 If I could ask counsel to make available to the 22 witness Intervenors' Exhibit 3 that's been received in 23 evidence -- excerpts f rom that report.
24 MR. GALLO: (Indicating.)
25 BY MR. GUILD:
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, 1111nois oviae (312) 232-0262
2694 1 Q Now, the first page of the document, Mr. Seese, 2 Intervenors' Exhibit 3, is a specific trouble report 3 relating to document review problems; but the following 4 pages, beginning with the middle letter of January 27, 5 1984, are indeed excerpts from Inspection Report 8318, 6 which is the report that resulted from the inspection 7 when the exit meeting with Mr. Williams took place; 8 isn't that correct?
9 A Yes.
10 0 Now, as I recall from Mr. DeWald's testimony, at the 11 time Mr. DeWald took over at Comstock as the QC Manager 12 in the fall of '83, the inspection backlog at that time n
13 consisted of 14,000 inspections not performed; correct?
14 A That -- that was the number of documents we had that, if 15 valid, would have generated inspections, yes.
16 0 And 50,000 quality documents backlogged to be reviewed; 17 correct?
18 A That -- that sounds correct, yes.
19 0 All right.
20 Now, if you turn Intervenors' Exhibit 3 in 21 evidence, the inspection report, to Page 7, please, 22 towards the bottom of the page, I'm reading what the NRC 23 on January 27, 1984, recited as their apparent 24 understanding of the backlog of Comstock work.
25 Towards the bottom of the page there, I see Item Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneve, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2695 l l
1 1 No. 1, " reduce backlog of approximately 924 2 inspections"; and below that, Item No. 4, " complete a 3 broad review and correct as required approximately 4 32,316 existing Oc records."
5 Now, isn't it a fact, Mr. Seese, that those numbers 6 that are quoted in the NRC's inspection report of i
7 January of 1984 substantially understate the inspection f 8 and quality document backlog that, in fact, existed at i
9 the time this inspection was performed?
]
10 A The -- the 32,000 documents -- they had been being i
11 evaluated. That could be a correct figure at the time.
l 12 The 924 inspections were -- was the backlog of 13 current inspections, but there is no reference to the 14 14,000 possible inspections that Mr. DeWald talked 15 about.
16 No, there are not.
17 0 Well, let's look at the top of the page, the same page, 18 Page 7 of the inspection report, " backlog of inspections 19 from August 1, '83, to November 3, '83." Then there's a 20 series of figures.
21 I haven't added them up, but those certainly do not 22 add up 14,000, do they?
23 A No, they do not.
24 As that states, it was the backlog f rom August 1st 25 to November 3rd, so it was only the backlog for V(*T Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
veneva, I2linois ouAae l (312) 232-0262 l
2696 O
1 approximately a three-month period.
2 0 All right, sir.
3 But your testimony is that Mr. Wallace of 4 Commonwealth Edison Company did not want Comstock to 5 discuss the backlog with Commonwealth Edison, because 6 you did not want to mislead the NRC about the extent of 7 your backlog; correct?
8 A That's -- that's correct.
9 0 In your diary, Exhibit 33, please, Page -- it looks like 10 108, you explained to Mr. Miller that -- the entry that 11 appears there under 5.C., which reads " fill out check 12 sheets /ICR's in field," I understood to mean that the 13 checklist should be used as intended.
14 Wasn't that your testimony?
15 A Yes.
16 0 In fact, the purpose of the checklist was to provide, if 17 you will, a go-no go point of decision for the inspector 18 with reference to the subject matter of the inspection; 19 that is, the specific attribute, ei'her c accept or 20 reject?
l 21 A Well, when you say "go-no go," that means it would give 22 the -- the tolerances, perhaps. They didn' t do that.
23 The checklist did describe that, for a weld, you 24 would look at undercut, you would look at base metal, l
25 you would check profile. So it was that type of a I
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. !
Geneve, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 I
2697 1 detail, points to be inspected.
2 But the inspector would have to use that in 3 conjunction with his procedure to get the go-no go 4 tolerances that were involved.
5 0 Fine.
6 But didn't I understand that the reason why the 7 form was developed in the checklist format was to 8 require a specific decision, a reject-accept decision, 9 as to each of these listed attributes --
10 A That's correct.
11 0 -- as opposed to simply providing a blank piece of paper 12 and asking for the inspector to, in a narrative form or 13 -
" discursive form" I think was the term you used, 14 document inspection results?
15 A That's correct.
16 0 All right.
17 However, if the form was not used to, in effect --
18 used in the field to document the decisions made 19 contemporaneously as the form was filled out, the 20 checklist was checked off, then the purpose of the 21 checklist would be circumvented, would it not?
22 A To the extent that they weren't using it for its 23 intended purpose.
24 'But I submit, Mr. Guild, that they were also 25 required to have their procedure with them at all times.
G(^T Sonntag Reporting Service, _ Ltd.
ueneva, 1111nois oviae
, (312) 232-0262
2698
()
1 So even if they didn't fill out their paperwork, that
' 2 didn't mean they didn't have the information readily 3 available to them, 4 0 Well, that's a separate question, Mr. Seese.
5 But as I asked the question, isn't it a fact that 6 if the inspector didn't fill out the checklist in the 7 field, as the checklist was intended to be used, the 8 purpose of the checklist would be circumvented?
9 A A good portion of it, yes.
10 0 All right.
11 And that would be the case in particular, would it i
12 not, if an inspector, say, saved up over 1,000 specific 13 welds for which 10 or so attributes applied and waited i
14 for a period of days, let's say, before coming back.to 15 the office and filling out the checklist?
16 That would represent an example of a circumvention l 17 of the purpose of the inspection report, would it not?
18 A No, sir, to the point that at the time period of the 19 1,000 welds, the program did not require a unique 20 checklist for each item being inspected.
21 So at the period of time where you would see 1,000 22 welds, the program didn't require you need a checklist 23 per item.
24 Our program had been changed, enhanced, if you 25 will, to where each checklist for each specific item i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l' Geneva, Illinvio 60134 (312) 232-0262
2699 1 being inspected was now a requirement, and that's what I 2 was referring to at this meeting.
3 0 You're not testifying that the procedure changed from a 4 former procedure, where the checklist was to be used for 5 an unlimited number of inspections -- say, 1,000 welds 6 -- to a procedure where it now specified, "Use this form 7 for only one hanger"?
8 It didn't change, did it?
9 A No. The implementation of that checklist is what 10 changed.
11 0 My question, then, was: The purpose behind using the 12 checklist, which was to have a discrete set of 13 inspection attributes which would be applied to specific 14 inspection decisions -- that purpose would indeed be 15 circumvented by saving up 1,000 welds and then writing 16 up one checklist when you got back to the office?
17 A The purpose of the checklist, yes.
18 0 Apparently someone observed someone, in effect ,
19 circumventing the purpose of the checklists in -- I'm 20 looking for a date here -- it looks like November of 21 1983; correct?
22 A That's correct.
23 0 Did you change the procedure then to specify that the 24 checklists were indeed to be completed in the field, as 25 the inspections were being performed, in order to
)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 6013-0 l (312) 232-0262
- , - - ---- . -r - ,,-c ., -- - , - - ,
2700 fs O
1 effectuate the purpose of the checklist?
2 A We -- we did not. We re-emphasized our desires and our 3 intent.
4 0 Did you issue a policy memorandum or a work instruction ,
5 to that effect in November of 1983?
6 A No, sir.
7 We felt that in a general meeting, by stating, 8 "This is what we want you to do," it served the same 9 eff ect as a policy memorandum.
10 Q In fact, was any written policy memorandum or work 11 instruction ever initiated that documented the 12 instruction as to how the checklists were to be
(~T/ 13 completed consistent with their purpose -- the purpose 14 of the checklist?
15 A There was not a work instruction.
16 I -- I couldn't say that Mr. DeWald had never 17 issued a memo. I don't know.
18 Not that I'm aware of at this time.
19 0 Not that you're aware of?
20 A That's correct.
21 0 All right.
22 Page 113 of your diary, Exhibit 33, talks about Mr.
23 Seeders.
24 Mr. Seeders apparently -- it was apparently brought
'g 25 to the atter. tion of the management group at Comstock who
{J Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illiuviu 60134
- (312) 232-0262
2701 I
()
I were meeting on this occasion, you and Mr. DeWald, that 2 Mr. Seeders had been employing the practice of utilizing 3 precheckmarked calibration inspection forms; correct?
4 A Correct.
5 Q Now, Mr. Seeders, as I understand from your note in the 6 diary, essentially responded that he stopped doing this 7 when Rick Martin was trained.
8 This was contrary to procedure; correct?
9 A Well, what this is saying is a Rick Martin training
]
10 class. It wasn't as Rick as an individual was trained; 11 but at the time the general office audit found the 12 documentation problem with Rick's, a general training 13 class was held for all inspectors.
i 14 So when I refer to that, I'm talking to the general 15 class.
16 Q Right.
17 So at the time that Mr. Martin was -- the practice 18 as participated in by Mr. Martin was identified, there 19 was a general instruction to all inspectors not to do 20 this?
21 A That's correct.
22 Q Mr. Seeders was saying that he stopped doing it then; is 23 that correct?
a 24 A That's correct.
25 0 All right.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.,
ueneva, Illinois ouAag l (312) 232-0262
2702 1 And then I gather that Mr. DeWald inquired why 2 didn't he go back and correct the instances in which he 3 had employed the precopied -- prechecked checklist, the 4 Xeroxed checklist; right?
5 A Correct.
6 Q Seeders says, well, it "was an office-wide practice,"
7 and that was his explanation for not doing so?
8 A That's correct.
9 Q Well, did anyone undertake an investigation to determine 10 whether, in fact, Mr. Seeders' response was correct; 11 that it was indeed an office-wide practice?
12 A Yes.
) 13 Part of our Procedure No. 413.1.1, document review 14 corrective action program -- one of their criteria was 15 to look for photocopied entries.
16 0 And did they identify other instances, aside from Mr.
17 Seeders on this occasion and Mr. Martin, where 18 photocopied checklists had indeed been employed?
19 A It identified one other condition that we were already 20 aware of, dealing with Mr. Steve Lobue, another welding 21 inspector.
22 0 Mr. Steve Lobue?
23 A Correct.
24 Q And that's all?
25 A That's correct.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneve, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2703 O
1 0 In how many instances, all told, did you identify the 2 use of precheckmarked inspection reports?
3 A I -- I couldn't -- I'd have -- I'm not aware of the 4 numbers. I couldn't testify to the numbers, Mr. Guild.
5 There were more for Rick Martin than any -- any of 6 the others. Steve Lobue had some additional ones, also.
7 But I -- I just -- I don't have the numbers. I 8 couldn't testify to that.
9 0 But it was just Lobue, Martin and Seeders --
10 A Correct.
11 0 -- that were identified, in any event?
12 A That's correct.
13 0 And you identified those by -- in what fashion?
14 A Each of the documents were individually reviewed by a 15 trained document reviewer, and part of his criteria was 16 to see that the markings on the document was original 17 ink and not a photocopy.
18- 0 And are you confident that that's a certain method for 19 distinguishing between, say, the writing that I have 20 underlined on my copy of this exhibit -- which is my 21 original, I think -- and the writing that may or may not 22 have appeared on the prior photocopy of that exhibit or 23 the original of that exhibit?
24 A Our experience indicated that you could definitely tell, 25 yes.
Sonntag Reporting Service, , Ltd.
ueneva, 1211nois oviae (312) 232-0262
2704 1 Q What then was done in the instances in which 2 precheckmarked inspection reports were found?
3 A In the cases of Rick Martin and Steve Lobue, where there 4 were actual conditions out in the field that were 5 re-creatable, either all of the items or a portion, a 6 percentage thereof, were reinspected; and that was used 7 to document Comstock's response as to the general office 1
8 audit. ;
9 Q How about in the instances involving the calibration?
10 A Unfortunately, once the tool leaves the tool crib and is 11 used again, there's no way to go back and re-create 12 those original readings.
13 0 Well, did you do anything then -- if so, what? -- with 14 respect to calibration documents?
15 A As I understand -- I don't believe we did anything to 16 follow up on those records.
17 If -- if, in fact, there would have been anything 18 done by our procedure, we would have gone back and 19 simply made a statement by the original inspector, which 20 would have been Mr. Seeders.
21 Q Well, what sort of statement?
22 A What I'm saying -- I don't recall what was done.
23 I'm saying that as I perceive it at this time, l 1
24 that's about the only thing we could have done, because l 25 we could not -- we could not go out and reinspect the l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illincio 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
t _ - - . -
l 1
2705 I l
i
(~% l
's_) '
1 items. They had been used. You couldn't re-create the 2 tool calibration.
3 0 You don't recall what was done; is that your testimony?
4 A No, I don't.
5 0 Do you know whether or not -- can we exclude the 6 possibility that you went back and reworked all of the 7 work that was done with the tools that were involved in 8 the photocopied calibration records?
9 A As I testified, you couldn't re-create the unique 10 results. The tools would be recalibrated based on what 11 their f requency, either biweekly or bimonthly --
12 0 That's not my question. Maybe I'm not being clear.
13 A No, you cannot re-create Mr. Seeders' inspections.
14 Q That's not my question.
15 Let's assume it's a torque wrench that's involved, 16 and you've got a number on the torque wrench and on the 17 piece of paper that you identify as being a prechecked 18 checklist.
19 Did you go out and rework all of the work performed 20 with that tool for which there was a discrepant 21 inspection document?
22 A Not to the best of my knowledge.
23 Q Did you, in fact, determine that use of a prechecked 24 checklist was at management's direction or supervisors' 25 direction?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. _
ueneva, 1111nois culae (312) 232-0262
1 1
2706 O
1 A We -- we attempted to find some sort -- something that 2 would indicate that.
3 The supervisors that the statement was attributeed 4 to were no longer there, and we could not find anything 5 that instructed them to do it that way.
6 0 Can you help us with your opinion, Mr. Seese?
7 In your opinion, why would someone -- what purpose 8 would be served in utilizing a Xeroxed checklist?
9 As I see it, it would take two seconds to simply 10 check the 10 boxes on your Form 19 if it was a weld 11 inspection checklist; and you'd only be saving yourself 12 that amount of time by utilizing the Xeroxed checklist, 13 because you have to fill in all the rest of the data for 14 each installation; correct?
15 A That's correct.
16 0 Why would someone do that?
17 A I -- the only opinion that I could venture is that I 18 guess it's human nature for people to try to find 19 shortcuts.
20 0 And this is a pretty small shortcut, but a shortcut --
21 A It's one that I would not have used, because the time 22 you saved -- you didn't gain anything by it. It was 23 minimal.
24 Q But that's the only explanation that comes to you as to 25 why one would employ such a practice: to shortcut two Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueueva, _AAA4uvAs ov20=
(312) 232-0262
2707 O
1 seconds off your inspection work?
2 A The -- the other -- I guess if there was an attempt to 3 -- to create any type of a f alsification of record.
4 But we never had any reason to suspect that, so I 5 would say the thinking in the inspector's mind was 6 strictly to save time, save his effort of making all the 7 checkmarks.
8 Q You never identified any instances where this was a 9 product of ir.tentional falsification, did you?
10 A No. That's what I'm saying. I never saw anything to 11 indicate that.
12 0 Unique numbers weren't put on these photocopied 13 checklists, reflecting actual installation that was 14 documented?
15 A That's correct.
16 Q So the only reasonable explanation that occurs to you is 17 saving the small amount of time it took to check the 18 boxes?
19 A That's correct.
20 Q On Page 114 of your diary, you talk about Mr. Seeders 21 being told that af ter the instances where he was out 22 over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend and took sick 23 days, that Mr. DeWald directed that he would have to 24 supply a doctor's excuse for that time off; correct?
25 A That's correct.
)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. , ,
ueneva, _1111nois oulae (312) 232-0262
I 2708 1 Q Now, isn' t it a f act that the policy prior to this 2 occasion was that so long as an individual called in, he 3 was -- he or she was free to take their sick or personal 4 days at their discretion, subject, of course, to the 5 overall policy that one was expected to be available for 6 work?
7 A I -- I believe you' re correct: that the doctor's excuse 8 came as a result of John's extending the sick days into 9 his Thanksgiving and his subsequent vacation. That's 10 when Irv issued the policy letter.
11 0 Okay.
12 And, in effect, John is saying, "You' re singling me 13 out"; is that correct?
14 He was the case that prompted the change in policy; 15 whether the policy change was good, bad or indifferent, 16 he was being singled out, was he not?
17 A No, because there were two individuals off at the same 18 time period, and the rule was equally applied to both 19 individuals. That would have been Mr. Robbins and Mr.
20 Seeders.
21 0 They singled two out of 100.
22 That doesn't substantially reduce Mr. Seeders' 23 justifiable feeling, does it, that he's being picked on 24 or taken as the first -- perhaps the second use of this
- 25 policy?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illiuolo 60134 (312) 232-0262
2709 1 MR. MILLER: I'm going to object to the 2 characterization that Mr. Seeders' feeling was 3 justifiable or not justifiable. I don' t know how this 4 witness can answer that question.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I don' t know how he's going 6 to answer it, either, until he answers it.
7 MR. MILLER: But to ask him to accept a 8 characterization of Mr. Seeders' feelings about this 9 policy I think is improper.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I think that's part of the 11 question as to whether it was justifiable, so I'll let 12 the witness answer it.
13 A My response to that would be that I can only tell you, 14 from a management standpoint, I felt it was justifiable.
15 It was a condition that was affecting what we were 16 trying to achieve at Braidwood, and it was being f airly 17 applied.
18 BY MR. GUILD:
19 0 I'm not asking you whether the policy was justifiable, 20 but my question was whether or not Mr. Seeders 21 justifiably interpreted these facts as reflecting that )
22 he was being singled out.
23 MR. MILLER: Now he's clearly asking for what 24 Mr. Seeders justifiably believed, and I don't know how 25 this witness can answer that.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, Allinois oviae (312) 232-0262
2710 U,,
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: No. He's asking whether Mr.
2 Seeders was justified in believing that he was being 3 singled out, whether what Mr. Seeders was saying -- that 4 he was being singled out -- was justifiable, in Mr.
5 Seese's opinion.
6 I don't think that's an improper question.
7 You can answer that.
8 A Mr. Seeders being the first one that the policy was 9 applied to, I suppose he could say that he was being 10 singled out; but the policy did continue in effect after 11 that, so --
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: For whatever it's worth, Mr.
13 Miller.
14 BY MR. GUILD:
15 0 On Page 117 we've got a sort of expletive-deleted case 16 here. This is -- 4.A. is the paragraph with the 17 offending language, which I will not read.
18 The offending language has quotes around it; and 19 you tried your best to quote what Mr. DeWald, "Irv,"
20 said in this case, did you not?
21 A Yes, I did.
22 0 And you testified, in response to Mr. Miller asking you, 23 that the context which one should understand these 24 remarks were made in was one where there was laughter 25 and this was treated as a matter of humor; is that your
)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinvio 60134 (312) 232-0262
2711 O
v 1 testimony?
2 A That's correct.
3 0 But you didn't write this down because you thought it 4 was funny, did you, Mr. Seese?
5 A Mr. Guild, I wrote it down in that explicit of a manner 6 because I was trying to portray the type of meeting that 7 it was; that it was not formal management sitting at the 8 head of the case, saying, "You will do this, and you 9 will do that."
10 That language was used to describe an open concept 11 where we were not trying to sit there as Manager and 12 Assistant Manager versus Leads.
13 We wanted them to realize that they were part of 14 the team, and we were -- we were talking as a bunch of 15 guys would, sitting around an office and not in a formal 16 management setting.
17 0 I don't see any notations -- there's no notation here of 18 laughter after these statements, is there?
19 A Mr. Guild, if I knew that the diary was going to be here 20 on this -- at this point, I might have put laughter. I 21 certainly might put a lot of things.
22 That diary -- that diary was intended as personal 23 observations and nothing more.
24 Q But your testimony is that this was in a lighthearted, 25
{) humorous setting and that there was laughter that Sonntag Reporting Servicer,Ltd.
ueneva, 1111nois outag (312) 232-0262
l 2712
(
l surrounded these statements?
2 A That's correct.
3 0 I see. -
4 Didn' t you recognize, at the time that you heard 5 this statement being made by the Quality Control Manager 6 of Comstock and at the time you documented it, Mr.
7 Seese, that this statement reflected abusive language 8 towards Quality Control Inspectors; that it was --
9 reflected a threat and that it was improper and that you 10 documented it because you identified it at the time as 11 improper ?
12 A I certainly did not.
13 0 I see.
14 A I -- I took it for exactly what I've testified.
15 It was a kind of a relaxed atmosphere. We were 16 trying to make the Leads feel like they were an equal 17 part of the team.
18 We -- we presented that whole meeting in a relaxed 19 -- I would take it as no more than you making a comment 20 in your office to another attorney.
21 It was just a bunch of guys working together with a 22 common goal, sitting around rapping, would be a good 23 term.
24 0 Then I don't suppose you'd have any objection to 25 explaining that context and the language that was used Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneve, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 2713 l O
1 to the gentlemen who were the subject of that remark, 2 would you?
3 A No, I wouldn't.
4 Q Do you have any problem with this language, then, being 5 public with your explanation of the context in which the 6 statement was made?
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I'm going to object to that.
8 That's a matter that's been argued by counsel. I don't 9 think that it adds anything to rehash that area with the 10 witness.
11 MR. GUILD: Well, it just seems to me, Mr.
12 Chairman -- and I'll respect the Chair's ruling or 13 observation.
14 It seems to me that if the basis of the ruling was 15 that it would interfere with Mr. Seese's relations with 16 his subordinates -- and he's stated it shouldn' t because 17 the context was understandable -- it seems to me to 18 undercut what counsel submits was the factual basis for 19 the protective order.
20 BY MR. GUILD:
21 0 5.A., where you have the next sort of indiscreet remark 22 that's been deleted from the record -- without again 23 reading the prohibited language, it refers to Mr. Steve 24 Scott, a Quality Control Inspector?
25 A Yes, he was.
J Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, 1111nois oviae (312) 232-0262
.., . _ _ . _ . _ . . ---r- _ -. , _
-.,v . , r.
2714 1 Q He is no longer?
2 A No, sir.
3 0 Did Mr. Scott have any kind of physical impairment?
4 A Yes, he did. He was -- he was an amputee.
5 Q He was an amputee? _
t 6 A Yes.
7 Q Did he have an artificial limb?
8 A He -- he had a hook, as the language says.
9 0 was that also a humorous, lighthearted remark that you 10 documented because you wanted to show that you were just
, 11 sitting around with a bunch of guys, informally talking 12 about these manager problems?
O)
\- 13 A Mr. Guild, if you knew Mr. Scott, you would understand 14 itiwas -- if I would be permitted to add, there have 15 been. occasions where Mr. Scott would:come in in the 16 winter with frost on his hook and come in and say, "I've 17 got frostbite."
18 It was just that kind of a -- it was not intended 19 to be dero 31 tory. He brought that type of humor on 20 himself.
21 Q. It's vre . ring when the victim can share a little humor; 22 it's another thing, is it not, when.a manager, sitting 23 around outside the presence.and hearing of the 24 individual and making a remark in a very derogatory 25 setting -- this is a derogatory setting, isn' t it?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 ,
2715 l
O 1 It's not complimenting the man, is it?
2 A I -- I would think that Mr. Scott would take no more 3 offense at that than I o.d of your discussion of my 4 weight.
5 0 All right, sir. .
6 Well, I said that to your f ace, Mr. Seese.
7 A I agree.
8 Q All right, sir.
9 You didn't see anything improper about Mr. DeWald 10 making that remark about Mr. Scott?
11 A In the context of this meeting, no, sir.
12 0 And that's not why you documented it --
13 A No, sir.
14 0 -- because it was improper?
15 A No, sir.
16 I submit that if that was my intent, I would have 17 used it long prior to it coming out in this. It was not 18 my intent.
19 0 I'm sorry. I missed that.
20 A I would submit to you that if it was my intent to 21 document embarrassing statements by Mr. DeWald, I would 22 have made use of it long prior to these hearings.
23 It was not my intent.
24 Q What do you mean by that? -
25 A Well, you're implying I documented it because I thought l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. _ ,
ucneva, Illinois oulae (312) 232-0262
i 2716 O
1 Irv made some serious mistakes. If that was my intent, 2 I would have done something about those mistakes a long 3 time ago.
t 4 It was not my intent to document. I didn't take it 5 as a threat, and it +asn't perceived that way at all.
6 Q All right.
7 You make reference to the AVO problem again, " avoid 8 verbal orders."
9 Were AV0's control documents at Comstock?
10 MR. MILLER: What page is that?
11 MR. GUILD: It's following 117, but I'm not 12 really looking at a specific quote.
(7
, \l 13 A No, sir, it was not a control document.
14 BY MR. GUILD:
15 ,
Q Did it bear a control number, a tracking number?
16 A Every cne that I've seen does have a tracking number on 17 it.
18 I wouldn't want to say tiiey all did, because I 19 didn't review them all; but as a matter of the NCR that 20 was generated, these were supporting documents.
21 The ones I reviewed did have numbers on that they 22 were trackable.
' 23 0 Were the numbers placed in hand on the documents?
24 A Yes, they were. They were used for the craf t to have 25 something to account their time charges for in the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinui u 60134 (312) 232-0262
2717 1 plant.
2 O But they were not control documents that were specified 3 in the Comstock Quality Assurance Program or in specific 4 Quality Assurance procedures?
15 A No, sir, they were not.
6 0 They had not been approved by Commonwealth Edison as a 7 means of controlling work?
8 A I had -- I have seen signatures or initials from.
9 Commonwealth Edison only approving the expenditure at 10 the time and not condoning the practice.
11 Q Okay.
12 You talk about Mr. Phillips -- this is 117 again --
13 raising his concern about past construction riding 14 " roughshod over QC," and you explained to Mr. Miller the 15 prior practice where craft -- as I understand, the 16 sequence of events worked as follows:
17 Craft called for an inspection. An inspector j 18 identified a discrepant condition, a nonconf orming i 19 condition.
20 Instead of documenting that nonconforming or 21 discrepant condition, the inspector allowed the craft to 22 correct the discrepant or nonconforming condition.
23 Then once the condition was acceptable, he approved 24 the work and filled out an inspection document.
25 There was no ICR or no NCR for the original
) ,
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. j ueneva, 1111nois oulas (312) 232-0262 ;
2718 O
1 discrepant or nonconforming work; correct?
2 A Except that the instruction was on the checklist in the 3 remarks section to note that one weld was repaired in 4 process.
5 0 So there would have been a notation.
6 Did the procedure specify that that's the practice, 7 as modified by your last answer?
8 A No, sir. It was general instructions.
9 Q Just verbal instructions?
10 A That's correct.
11 Q And, in fact, the procedure specified that when an 12 inspector identified a nonconforming or discrepant 13 condition, that that inspector utilize whatever 14 procedure was appropriate for that level of discrepancy, 15 either an ICR or NCR, to first document the identified 16 discrepant or nonconforming condition; correct?
17 A That's correct.
18 Q That condition was then to be controlled and the 19 nonconf orming or discrepant condition corrected, 20 pursuant to that procedure?
21 A That's correct.
22 Q But as you testified, until December of 1984, in fact, 23 the practice was to permit in-process rework without 24 originating either an ICR or an NCR for the discrepant !
25 or nonconforming condition?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Gaueve, Illiiiele 60134 (312) 232-0262
2719 O
1 A Could you repeat your question?
2 Did you say "until 1984"?
3 0 Yes. The date that you gave your counsel was December 4 of 1984, when you stated that the in-process ICR i 5 procedure was adopted.
6 A Well, we -- as a result of an NRC inspection, the NRC 7 did question this point; and at that point we stopped 8 it.
9 There was a formal training class with the 10 inspectors. I believe that took place in March of 1984.
l 11 So the practice did not continue until the 12 procedural revision. It, in fact, was stopped in March 13 of 1984.
14 0 Okay.
15 So in March of '84, no procedure change was 16 implemented; but the practice under the then-existing 17 procedure was corrected?
18 A That's correct.
19 Q And the corrected practice required the origination of 20 an ICR or an :JCR at the time the inspector identified 21 the discrepant or nonconforming work?
22 A That's correct.
23 0 Well, then, until whatever date that was, March of '84, 24 when you had the NRC inspection and the training --
25 until that date, there were discrepant conditions that Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, 1222nois oviae (312) 232-0262
_ - ~ _-
- - _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - . 2
2720 1 were identified by inspectors, but no ICR or NCR was 2 originated to document those discrepant conditions?
3 A That's correct. -
4 0 Isn't it the purpose of an ICR or an NCR, among other 5 things, Mr. Seese, to permit the trending of 6 discrepancies or nonconf orming conditions?
7 A That -- that is the -- one of the purposes, yes.
8 Q For example, to permit one to identify recurring 9 discrepant or nonconforming work by, say, the same 10 craftsman?
11 A Our -- our trend program does not trace back to each 12 individual craftsman.
O k/ 13 The, trending program that's referenced in our 14 ICR-NCR procedure is to each work function, and it does 15 not trace back to the individual craftsman.
16 0 Well, that's a question -- okay.
17 It doesn't today?
18 A No, sir.
19 0 It still doesn't?
20 A No, sir, the trending program today does not.
21 Q So I guess that is not a purpose that's performed by 22 your trending of ICR's or NCR's: identifying deficient 23 welders who have recurrent, say, discrepant weld work?
24 A No. That is done through the Construction Department.
25 It's not part of our quality control trending.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illiiiol o 6G13 4 (312) 232-0262 j
_ 1
2721 1 0 I see. All right.
2 Well, then, would a purpose of your trending ICR's 3 and NCR's be to identify the recurrent use of improper 4 materials, say?
5 A Yes.
6 0 Or the misapplication of construction techniques; say, a 7 weld procedure?
8 A Yes.
9 0 But if you allow the craf t to rework the discrepant 10 condition without documenting it on an ICR or NCR, don't 11 you then understate the trend of that hypothetically 12 recurring discrepant condition?
13 A That's partially correct.
14 But you have to understand that we asked the 15 inspector to use the in-process method on those 16 occasions where it was relatively minor deficiencies 17 that could be readily corrected.
18 If you're talking about somebody who did not use 19 the proper, for example, weld rod and they were going to 20 have to remove a complete hanger, that's not something 21 that would be readily done as an in-process. You would 22 document those kind of conditions.
23 We were dealing with undercuts, welds that perhaps 24 were not quite as long as they should have been.
25 0 When you' re saying "we were dealing," are you talking
{
i i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
I veneva, 1111nois oulag (312) 232-0262
. _ _ _ . . - .u_
l l'
2722
)
l O
1 about before the NRC identified this practice as 2 improper and retrained your people?
3 A Yes.
4 0 You did that pursuant to general oral instructions, as 5 opposed to written work instruction and procedure?
6 A Which are you talking about now?
7 0 The prior practice of allowing in-process repair.
8 A It was done generally verbally, yes.
9 0 And so you -- fine.
10 Your understanding is that the inspectors 11 interpreted those general verbal instructions to the 12 eff ect that they should only ref rain f rom initiating an 13 ICR or an NCR in those instances where the deficiency 14 was minor and readily corrected?
15 A That's right, and that was evidenced by the fact that I 16 was still receiving the ICR's and NCR's every day that 17 were being written.
18 0 Don't you think, Mr. Seese, that that provided a lot of, 19 shall I say, slack for the craft to come up to every 20 inspector and say, " Listen, m - That is minor and 21 readily correctable," and the inspector to say, "Well, 22 no, it's not," and the craf t can say, "Yes, it is," and 23 there to be no standards, since you had no written 24 procedure or policy, and it was simply a general oral 25 instruction?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. I Geneva, Iti-inci s 60114 (312) 232-0262
,-_. ,7 - - ,_. ,, ,,-..___r. _,_.,,.,y _ -.7, _ , , _ , - . _ , __ , _
. _,_m. , . ~ . _ , .. ..,..,,..y . . . _ ~ ~ , .
2723
()
1 Isn't that a pretty vague standard to apply for an 2 inspector in the field? ,
i 3 A Yes, but the inspector was instructed -- if he had a 4 problem with a certain foreman, he was also encouraged 5 to come to his supervisors, j 6 0 Mr. Saklak, for example?
7 A Or myself or Mr. DeWald.
8 0 All right.
9 A In those cases where it dealt with a problem with the 10 foreman, they usually went to Mr. DeWald and he would 11 interface with Mr. Rolan.
- 12 Q On Page 118 Mr. Seltmann is quoted in your diary as 13 saying, "'These are the worst files he has ever seen.'"
14 At this time, at the time Mr. Seltmann was making i
15 this comment, you were having a number of problems, were 16 you not, with your vault filing systems?
17 A Yes. We were undergoing a complete reorganization, yes.
18 0 Well, aside from the one example that you gave in 19 response to Mr. Miller's question -- and_that was i 20 multiple documents related to the same component in j 21 different places in the vault, configuration document, 22 weld document -- you also had a major problem with just
{ 23 retrievability in filing, didn't you?
) 24 A Yes, and they were -- they were very much related.
I i 25 There were so many different places that it could
- l l'
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, lilinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2724 1 have been filed, the retrievability just took a very --
2 you could find a document, but the time span it took for 3 the retrievability was unacceptable to us.
4 0 But aside f rom timing, you had problems with micfiled 5 documents and lost documents, did you not?
6 A Yes, yes.
7 0 It wasn't just a question of them being difficult to 8 find or impossible to find; you couldn't find them?
9 A I -- I would assume there were some that were not found, 10 yes.
11 Q Okay.
12 You talk, on Page 122 of your diary, of Mr.
13 Seltmann and you approaching Irv -- this is Item 2 under 14 12/4/84 - " inspectors coming and going as they 15 pleased."
16 In fact, what you're talking about here -- isn't it 17 that, Mr. Seese, inspectors were clocking in five 18 minutes late and clocking out five minutes early?
19 A No. I think it was more widespread than that.
20 0 Six minutes late, six minutes early?
21 A Okay. That's -- that could be fair; 10 minutes.
22 0 All right.
23 I mean, these were inspectors who were shaving 24 small amounts of time off of -- off of their rather long
/ 25 days and, granted, it was, in your opinion, contrary to l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneve, Pltincis 601-M (312) 232-0262 1
2725
()
1 work rules?
2 A Our opinion was if you take 20 minutes per inspector 3 times 100, you are talking about a sizable amount of 4 time.
5 Q But for an individual inspector, we're not talking about 6 literally " coming and going as they pleased"; we' re 7 talking about them coming perhaps six minutes late and 8 going perhaps six minutes early?
i
) 9 That's what we're talking about here, aren't we?
10 A Up to 10, yes.
11 0 All right.
12 Because, in fact, if they were any longer than 13 that, you would have fired them, wouldn't you?
14 A At this point in time, Mr. Guild, after the election, we 15 were -- the corporate people were taking a rather 16 conservative -- it was very difficult to discharge 17 somebody.
18 You had -- you had to -- you had to talk with our 19 corporate administrative people, and this was the kind 20 of thing -- it was right af ter the election.
21 Naturally the inspectors who favored the union --
22 and they had won the election -- were feeling their 23 oats, quite frankly.
24 Q And naturally management, who just lost the election, 25 were feeling put upon; right?
}
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2726 O
1 A We were trying to determine what course of action we 2 were going to take.
3 0 Isn't it fair to say --
4 A Mr. Guild, we were not getting -- we had hoped that the 5 day the election was decided, our corporate staff would 6 come in and say, "Well, the election was lost, so we're 7 going to do this," or, "The election was won, so we're 8 going to do this."
9 We didn't get that kind of direction, and these 10 kind of notes were thought patterns among ourselves:
11 Where do we go?
12 0 But you --
13 A Where is our direction?
14 0 I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you.
15 A It was not management attempting to -- it was just we 16 were sensing that we perhaps were losing some level of 17 control, and we wanted to establish it end get'it back.
18 Q My only point, Mr. Seese, is that it was a two-way 19 street; if the inspectors, who had just prevailed in the 20 union election, were feeling their oats, as you say,
- 21 management was licking its wounds?
22 A I -- I guess you could say that, yes.
l 23 0 And, in fact, you were pretty assiduous about
- 24 documenting the instances you observed when inspectors 25 were six minutes late or six minutes early leaving?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genevar-I-1-1-inoi s-6013 4 (312) 232-0262
2727 1 A We felt a responsibility to the job regardless of the 2 election.
3 0 You did; you documented it?
4 A Yes.
5 0 You wrote memos to the file, large numbers, documenting 6 every instance you observed where people were slightly 7 late or slightly early leaving?
8 A That's correct.
9 0 On Page 123 of your diary, Mr. Seese, at the bottom, 10 5.B., you have this note about "Sak" asking Irv to tell 11 him "what management can do."
12 "Irv states" -- and I quote, "Irv states that you 13 can' t put some of these things in writing. "
14 Now, I understood your answer to Mr. Miller to be 15 that because there's so many considerations, you can't 16 put them all in writing; but what you write down here is 17 not that. It's "you can't put some of these things in '
18 writing."
19 What specifically did you understand Mr. DeWald to 20 mean when he said "some of these things"?
21 What are the "some of these things"?
22 A Okay. Rick -- Rick was after a detailed list of 23 everything he, as a supervisor, was allowed to do.
24 Mr. DeWald was stressing to him that there are 25 certain instances where common sense had to prevail, Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 00134 (312) 232-0262
2728 O
1 where you couldn't put that all in writing; if you were 2 getting upset with an inspector, walk away from the 3 situation.
4 Those were the type of common-sense things that we 5 felt you should -- you should automatically, as a 6 supervisor, know how to do. Those were the things that 7 Irv was stressing that you couldn't put in writing; you 8 just had to do it naturally.
9 0 Well, now, this was just after the union election, and 10 management was being particularly conservative about 1
11 what they could and couldn't do.
12 Isn't it a fact, Mr. Seese, that there were some 13 things that management could do that, in that 14 conservative atmosphere just af ter the union election, 15 Mr. DeWald wasn't going to put in writing --
16 A No.
, 17 0 -- and they weren't just usually common sense, were 18 they?
19 A No. This was pertaining strictly to -- as a follow-up 1
20 to Rick getting a warning as to his instructions to Mr.
21 Franco Rolan.
22 This is why he asked for the writing, and Irv's 23 statement was based on common-sense things that you .
24 didn't put in writing -- you shouldn' t have to put in 25 writing.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illincia 60134
) (312) 232-0262
2729 O
1 Q On Page 124, another excised characterization,12/4/84 2 continued, we have the words "Seltmann says" and then 3 the quoted language.
4 Who is the fellow in Pittsburgh that is being 5 referred to?
i 6 A Mr. Seltmann was referring to Tom Trumble, who was the 7 Corporate Manager of Administration.
8 0 Was it Mr. Trumble who was providing the management --
9 Comstock management direction that Mr. Seese --.Mr.
10 Seltmann ref ers to, and that is with ref erence to 11 freezing wages?
12 A Yes. Mr. Triamble would have been involved in that, yes.
13 0 Why were Coustock's qualification procedures in need of 1 14 upgrading, Mr. Seese?
15 A It was not a Comstock upgrading.
16 If you're -- maybe I should ask you to let me know 17 what dates you're talking about. Are you talking about 18 the Rev. C that we discussed, where we brought the 19 packages up-to-date?
20 0 I understand it was plant-wide, but my question is:
21 Nonetheless, with reference to the Rev. C upgrade, why 22 were Comstock's Quality Control Inspector qualification )
23 procedures in need of upgrading?
I 24 A They were -- it was an enhancement. It was a ,
l
{} 25 clarification perhaps of some ANSI standards that had 1
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
I 2730
)
O 1 developed over the years.
2 There were policies where perhaps one contractor j 3 would do it one way; another would do it a different i t
- 4 way. So it was a standardization of a site-wide policy, s
- 5 and it provided for a better documentation package for f 6 that inspector. ,
j l 7 0 Well, in what respects, if any, were Comstock's 8 inspector qualification procedures found deficient?
i 9 A The problems with some of the old packages were in the i
10 background verifications, the interpretation of what ,
11 related correspondence would be taken to mean.
12 0 Related work, you mean? i O 13 A Correct, related past --
i j
j 14 Q Related experience? l l ;
j 15 A Correct.
, 16 0 Okay. ;
l 17 A The -- l.
j 18 Q Tightening that requirement up, in effect?
19 A Tightening the methods you had to use to document it, j 20 how you had to assure that it was related.
) 21 It established a hierarchy of certifications, in ,
! 22 effect, where welding was considered the most difficult 1 i
j 23 -- it was considered to require the most experience, and l 24 then it went on to drop -- to show an electrical l
25 mechanical area and further went on into the more i
i I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
j Ger.= v e , I H n o i e 60134 j (312) 232-0262
. ____..-_._ _ - _._~._, ,. _ __,_-_ _ __..___.__,__, _.___._ __ _ _.,__, _ _.,_ _ _ _,
2731 O
%J 1 general receipt inspection and calibration areas.
2 So it provided that type of a hierarchy. It 3 standardized what past inspection background that you 4 could use to justify to move into welding. It was just 5 a general enhancement.
6 0 How about the nature of the testing and examination 7 requirements for certification?
8 A We -- the tett was changed into -- in the past system, 9 you had one 40-question written exam.
10 The new procedure required you to come up with an 11 80-question test bank so that you would have the chance 12 of the same -- of two inspectors getting the same test 13 were drastically minimized; and the chance of passing 14 word of mouth - "This is on the test" -- you never
- 15 knew, when you took the test, what questions would 16 appear, so the test bank was developed because of that.
17 0 Were there any changes with respect to the field 18 inspection test?
19 A The field inspection -- we had the practical exam, but 20 the procedure now required an accept-reject.
21 What that ended up doing -- you had to be able to 22 demonstrate through the testing practice, where 23 practical, that an inspector could identify a reject 24 condition; not just identify that an item was acceptable
~s 25 but also be able to pick out a rejectable item and know Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva M itinai r 60M 4 (312) 232-0262
2732 O
1 how to react to that.
2 O In part of the previous Comstock procedures, it was 3 provided only that the inspector perform a field 4 inspection effectively, and that field inspection might 5 be one that contained no rejectable conditions?
6 A That's right.
7 The past practice was you randomly selected an item 8 to be inspected. The inspector could have gotten a 9 rejectable item or a random sample could have been an i
10 acceptable one.
11 0 It was that change in the QC Inspector certification 12 procedures that necessitated the retest of a number of O
t i 13 Comstock managers; correct?
14 A That's correct.
15 0 Including Mr. DeWald, who flunked his field retest in 16 welding?
17 A That's correct.
18 0 And it was that change in procedure that required Mr.
19 Puckett to have to retest after he tested -- after he 20 passed initially a field practical that contained no 21 rejectable conditions?
22 MR. MILL ER : Your Honor, I believe that we' re 23 getting beyond the scope of my redirect examination by 24 going into the details of the recertification effort.
25 MR. GUILD: I don't intend to pursue it in Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genaye, 11-1-inoir6019-4
- l. (312) 232-0262
_ __ , _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ , __ , [ _ _ _ -
2733 i
(
l any more detail, Mr. Chairman; but it seemed to me the 2 question was asked that was very general, "Why do you
! 3 have to do this," and Mr. Miller spent at least as much I
i 4 time as I have in going through the specifics of the 5 examples stated in the diary.
I 6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You can answer the question, 7 A Mr. Puckett -- it was not a retest in the same manner l
8 that Mr. DeWald or myself did.
9 Mr. Puckett was trying to establish his original i
10 certification under Rev. C. That original certification j 11 required a rejectable practical, so he was not -- he did 12 not hold a cert and that cert being upgraded. His was a A)
\- 13 new cert under the program.
! 14 BY MR. GUILD:
l 15 O My question is: Mr. Puckett's field practical that he j 16 tested was not an acceptable field practical because it t
- 17 did not contain a rejectable condition as Rev. C 18 requi red?
! 19 A That's correct.
I j 20 0 Page 133, please. This is Mr. Rolan, the project l 21 construction site manager, speaking, I take it, bringing 22 up problems: " Torque wrenches held up by NCR-ICR's."
j 23 Now, when you hold up a torque wrench by an ICR or i
l 24 NCR, this is where the torque wrench is found out of <
)
25 calibration and, therefore, a hold is put on it; an ICR
)
I
! Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. i Geneva, Illinois 66134 j (312) 232-0262
2734 -l l
1 is put on that wrench; it's controlled; right?
2 A That's correct.
3 Q And while it's controlled, it's not available for use in 4 the field?
5 A That's correct.
6 Q And isn't it the case that at the time you' re speaking 7 here, which was in 1985, this notation evidences the 8 fact that craf t was pressing for the calibration people 9 to release these tools, such as torque wrenches, which 10 were on hold so that they could be available to perform 11 work in the field?
12 A No.
13 This was Mr. Rolan talking in a meeting with 14 Commonwealth Edison, and QC f rom Comstock happened to be 15 there. He was discussing problems that would affect 16 meeting the goals, 17 So he was not coming back at QC, saying, "You're 18 holding the craft up." It was a general discussion:
19 "We need to decide how we're going to handle the ICR's 20 and NCR's so we can get these wrenches released."
21 Q I don't hear you disagreeing with me.
22 The way I read the notation and heard your answer, 23 it's Mr. Rolan saying that torque wrenches were not 24 available in the field because they were being held up
{} 25 with ICR's and NCR's that were placed on them by the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinvio 60134' (312) 232-0262
2735 1 calibration people.
2 A If that's your phrasing, I agree with that.
3 0 That's true.
4 That was also true, was it not, at the time Mr.
i 5 Seeders was performing calibration inspections: Craft 6 at times wanted the tools released that were held up 7 from use in the field because they were in the process 8 of being processed as out of calibration?
9 A I have no knowledge that that occurred at the time of 10 Mr. Seeders' --
1 11 O You just don't know?
12 A I don't know.
13 0 Page 134 -- you were asked about the RWR program, and I 14 believe that you identified it as the revision work 15 request; that's what "RWR" stands for?
16 A That's correct.
17 Q But I heard you state that it applied to modifications 18 in the control room.
19 Isn't it more generally used within the electrical 20 discipline than just the control room?
21 A Perhaps you get that confused with the rework program, 22 Mr. Guild.
23 The RWR is a unique procedure that covers 24 modifications of existihg equipment, equipment furnished 25 by others; and it falls mainly with the control room.
1 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. _ , !
ueneva, 1111nois culag (312) 232-0262
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ , _ _ _ , . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___. _____,_,___________________.____._____m__
2736 4
CE) 1 However, if a piece of equipment was in the diesel i
2 generator room that was being modified, you could use it 3 there.
! 4 But it's not to be confused with reworks.
5 Q But it's not limited to the control room? l t
6 A That's correct.
7 Q On Page 136 at the bottom of the page, you note that at !
8 a staff meeting of January 18, 1985, several months --
]
3 9 three months before the 24 QC inspectors went to the NRC 10 to enhance their union bargaining position, you and Mr.
11 DeWald and the other Comstock managers were talking l 12 about the fact that Edison's Quality First Program was 1 13 getting anonymous letters " complaining about production 14 pressure" - " pressure of production"; correct?
i 15 A Correct. i 16 Q Did you undertake any investigation of concerns about 17 production pressure that were raised in January of 19857 1
18 A This -- this meeting was a question from Mr. DeWald, 19 asking whether we were aware of any of those conditions.
20 Quite honestly, nobody had came to me at this time
, 21 span that -- and I had no knowledge of what this related 1 22 to. I had not been told of the pressure of production.
- 23 0 Well, now, people had come to you, Mr. Seese; you 24 testified that the second day you were on the job, you
. 25 heard Mr. Saklak pressuring some --
! Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
j Gaueva, irtinat a 60 t3-4 (312) 232-0262
. . _ - .. _ -. .- ._ ~_
2737 I ()
1 A Mr. Guild, you' re asking me about this note, and Irv was 2 asking at this meeting did any of us have any kncwledge 1
3 of an incident that would have caused somebody going to 4 Quality First.
5 0 I see.
l 6 A I believe he was trying to establish whether this was a 7 specific incident of pressure of production or was it 8 part of the ongoing questions with the status report.
9 0 And you didn't know the answer to that question?
10 A I did not know of any specific incident of pressure of 4 11 production. Nobody had come in and said, "I'm being 12 pressured for this reason."
13 0 That's what you meant when you said no one knew any 14 basis for those complaints?
15 A That's correct.
16 0 All right.
17 Did Mr. DeWald indicate what the source of his 18 information was to the effect that Quality First had 19 gotten such complaints?
20 A No, sir.
21 Many times he would be contacted and asked his 22 involvement, but we wouldn't know who -- who > asked him 23 or not.
{ 24 He would get a call from someone in the group, and 25 he would bring the subject up at a management meeting
}
l
- Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
! Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
r (312) 232-0262
. . _ _ __~ . , . _ .. - , _ . . _ . . _ _ , . _ _ . . _ , . . , _ . _ , _ , _ , , , _ . _ . - , . . . . , _ _ , . . . _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ . . . . . _ . . _ , , _ , . _ _ _ _ _ ,
2738 O
1 but not -- he would not be specific as to he was called 2 by Ray Preston or any of the other individuals, no.
3 0 And this was an instance of that sort; he made no 4 reference to the source of this information?
5 A No, sir, he did not, nothing more than what's documented 6 here.
7 0 All right.
8 On 139 you talk about lecturing new inspectors 9 about their access to the NRC.
10 Do you recall making that note in that instance?
11 A Yes, sir.
12 0 I believe, in response to Mr. Miller, you talked about 13 how you used an overlay of a form.
14 Do you recall that?
15 A Yes.
16 0 Do you know whether that is NRC's Form 37 17 You described it as having a map of the United 18 States on it and -- is that what you said?
19 A I believe that it was the form.
20 Not knowing -- it's an NRC form that's required to e
21 be posted in the of fice. Form 3 could, in fact, be the 22 number of it.
23 0 And was the instruction you gave your people founded 24 upon the guidance that was contained in that form?
25 A Yes, it was.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneve, Illinois 60134 -
(312) 232-0262
2739 O
1 0 Did you provide the inspectors, as part of this 2 training, inf ormation f rom any other source, aside from 3 what was contained in that Form 3, if the Form 3 is what 4 you're referring to?
5 And I submit that the one you describe goes by the 6 number of Form 3.
7 A There was also in this meeting a discussion on the 8 Quality First. If you're asking generally --
9 0 No, no. Leave out the Quality First for now, but access 10 to the NRC and the other subjects that you were 11 referring to.
12 Was the Form 3 the source of your instruction?
O>
\- 13 A At that point we would put that overlay up and give an 14 instruction that, "This is your right as an inspector.
15 If you want to contact the NRC or the Department of 16 Labor, these protections are available to you," yes.
17 0 Listen to my question, though.
18 Was the form that you're referring to the source of 19 the information that you used in giving this lecture to 20 the inspectors?
21 A Is that where I got my information that I eas 22 instructing from?
23 Q Yes.
24 A That came from -- from past knowledge, and that form 25 just readily fit what we would have -- without the form, ,
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
, (312) 232-0262
2740 1 we still would have discussed the NRC and their rights.
2 But the form readily fit the lecture because it 3 gave the numbers; it told them who to contact. There 4 was one spot on the form that says, "Who protects me as 5 an inspector," or, "What rights'do I have as an 6 inspector?"
7 So that form lent itself to what we wanted to i
8 discuss and, therefore, I used that as my basis in that 9 lecture, yes.
10 Q The question is: Were there any other bases that you 11 used as the basis for instructing your inspectors on 12 these subjects, aside from that form?
]
13 A Well, we -- we used 10 CFR 50, those type of documents.
1 14 Q That's a big document.
15 A We went through the 18-point -- we went through each of 16 the 18-point criteria with them.
17 0 That's Appendix B.
18 A That's correct.
19 We went through the -- there was a booklet 20 published by Comstock and also another one that was 21 published by Daniels Construction that I used that 22 summarized each of the 18 points, so we went through 23 that with them.
24 I'm not sure --
25 0 I'll be more precise.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genevu, I111nuiEr--601t4 (312) 232-0262
2741 0
1 I'm interested particularly in the subject of 2 access to the NRC and protection against retaliation. I 3 think that's what you've also stated. those two 4 subjects.
5 Aside f rom relying on the f orm, was there any other 6 basis for the instruction that you gave on those two
- 7 subjects?
i 8 A Other than my experiences, having been an inspector, 9 that, "Yes, you have that right," no, there was no other 10 document that I pulled out or --
11 0 Okay.
12 Did your inspectors get a copy of the NRC Form 3?
13 A No, sir.
14 It was posted on the bulletin board, readily 15 available to them at any time throughout the department; 16 but we did not hand one out as a matter of passing it 17 out at the training class.
18 0 Okay.
19 And where -- where is that form posted?
, 20 A Within the Quality Control Department itself.
21 O Where? Can you tell us specifically?
- 22 A There's a bulletin board. It's located right at the top 23 of the steps coming into the department, so it's readily l 24 visible anytime you come into the department.
{} 25 Q Is it posted anywhere else, that Form 3, at Comstock?
Sonntag Reporting Service, , Ltd.
j ueneva, Illinois ovia, (312) 232-0262
_ _ - . - - . - . _ . - _ __ _ - _ _ ~ - - ., _ _-. _ _ _ _ _ _.., _ .
2742 O
~
l A I've seen it down on the construction bulletin board by 2 the entrance to the Comstock building itself. I've seen 3 it on the main bulletin board coming into the plant, 4 where Commonwealth Edison has notices posted.
5 Sc it's readily available around the plant.
6 Q Those are three places that you recall?
7 A That's the three that I can recall right now.
8 Q Now, I recall you testifying a moment ago that you still 9 don' t track ICR's or NCR's by individual craf tsmen; 10 correct?
11 A That's correct.
12 0 On Page 143 of your diary, down at the bottom there,
\- 13 you' ve got Mr. Rolan saying that -- actually, it appears 14 to be Mr. Klena and Mr. Owens saying, "' Find out who 15 this welder is, and run him down the road,'" with 16 reference to ICR's.
17 But I understood you to tell me now that you didn't 18 track ICR's or NCR's by indiyidual welders; so unless l
19 the craft supervision was paying attention,.QC wouldn't 20 be in a position to know who the welder was who 21 accumulated repetitive deficiencies?
22 ' ~
A That's correct. ,.
23 This statement, as/I testified earlier, was made by
~
24 Mr. Rolan. He wanted Mr.'Klena and Mr. Ovens to track 25 , by the individual' welder.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
~
(312) 232-0262
2743 O
1 0 Okay.
2 A The Quality Control Department -- if we know who the 3 welder was, we'll put a note on the ICR, " Welder No.,"
4 and put a name.
5 But the tracking that we refer to here we felt 6 should come from Construction. QC should not be 7 singling out individual craftsmen. That was a 8 supervisory job with Construction.
9 0 You added a new fact.
10 On some occasions you would put the welder's name 11 or number on the ICR when you identified a discrepant 12 weld, for example?
13 A If -- if an inspector knows who the welder is, if the 14 inspector is aware of who the foreman is, he would note 15 that on his ICR.
16 0 Was that pursuant to a procedure that they were to do 17 that as part of filling out their Form 19? .
18 A The current form, the current ICR form, actually has a 19 line on it -- it's either for the foreman's name or the 20 welder's name, but there is, so yes, that is -- that is 21 inf ormation we asked them to furnish.
22 We don't trend it within the Quality Group, but.it 23 was information requested by the project management 24 people.
25 Q So there is welder-identifying information on the 1-Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.,
ueneva, Illinois ovAae
! (312) 232-0262 l
Ly .
2744 O
1 document inspection report?
2 A That's correct.
3 0 It's just that the QC doesn't trend that information?
4 A That's correct.
5 0 All right.
6 Now, does Comstock Construction trend that 7 information?
8 A I understand Mr. Rolan had set up a program in the Wang, 9 the word processing equipment that they use.
10 I haven't seen it. I can't say. I have been told 11 by him that he was tracking it. I have never seen it.
12 0 You don't --
13 A I know on occasion when he had to let welders go, he 14 would say that he was doing it based on their reject 15 rates.
16 0 All right.
17 Put you don't have any personal knowledge -- you 18 haven't acquired any personal knowledge to give you a 19 basis for describing what tracking system, if any, is 20 being used by Construction?
21 A Other than Mr. R61an saying, "I'm doing it on the word 22 processor," I have never seen the report. It's not 23 distributed to Quality Control.
24 0 I see.
25 It wasn't sufficiently important or integral to l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. .
GenewItl-inoi6 601-34 (312) 232-0262
2745 1 your Quality Assurance Program at Comstock that you 2 would assure yourself that such a tracking system was 3 being, in fact, implemented by Construction?
4 A We monitor each welder by the monthly in-process, where 5 we actually go out and watch him do the work in the 6 plant.
7 We also approve and monitor his testing when he 8 first comes in, so we use that to base our quality --
9 that yes, he is competent to perf orm the welds -- and 10 then we go out and evaluate him once each calendar 11 quarter, by the monthly in-process program, to assure 12 that he is still following his procedure, that he still 13 has the proper techniques.
14 But the actual tracking of deficiencies by each 15 ICR, Mr. Guild, is something that the project manager, 16 Mr. Rolan, does.
17 0 The monthly in-process -- a QC inspector overviews a 18 welder performing one weld during that period of time?
19 A That's right. He checks his welding machine; that it's 20 the proper amperage. He watches his techniques, nakes 21 sure he has the ri~ght material.
22 0 That welder knows he's being observed in that instance?
23 A Certainly.
24 0 That's not a substitute for trending or tracking the rT 25 welder's day-to-day work, is it?
V Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. _
ueneva, Illinois eulae (312) 232-0262
2746
)
1 A No, no, certainly not.
2 O You told Mr. Miller that you stopped using goals when 3 the backlog was taken care of in September,1984; isn't 4 that right?
5 A That's -- that's when we stopped using those type of 6 charts, yes, sir.
7 0 Well, did you stop using goals then?
8 That was the question I understood he asked you.
/
9 A There -- there may have been -- in f act, in recent times 10 there was some document review deficiencies that had to 11 be corrected, so we used that goal method to plot out 12 those corrections.
13 0 Well, didn' t you do that, in fact, as recently as April 14 of 1985?
15 Af ter the inspectors went to the NRC, didn't you, 16 in fact, establish goals for the completion of the 17 document review program?
18 A We -- there were no -- we set a target date to complete 19 the document review program.
20 As recently as perhaps two months ago, our status 21 report included a chart plotting the goals, Mr.* Guild, 22 to complete the correction of those deficient documents; 23 and it was laid out similar, where it said that we 24 needed to achieve "this number per week. "
25 0 And those were goals, were they not?
'%)3 -
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinvio 60134 (312) L;2-0262 -
4 2747 O
1 A But not of an inspection, as Mr. Miller was referring to 2 in the questioning, no.
3 0 I see.
4 As to the document review program, you've used 5 goals as recently as a month or so ago?
6 A Yes.
7 0 Those were goals that were based, as we discussed when I 8 first asked you these questions, on management's 9 projection of the number of pieces of work -- in that 10 case, document reviews -- that could be performed in a 11 unit of time?
12 A No, sir.
13 These goals were simply -- we had five weeks to 14 complete the proj ect. To complete it in five weeks, we 15 just did a simple division. We had to achieve that 16 amount per week.
17 It was then Mr. Simile, as the General Supervisor, ,
18 who ensured that he had sufficient manpower put in to 19 meet those goals.
20 As you talked about in the earlier goals, where we 21 said you could do five inspections per day, we built it 22 from that. We built it f rom the job that had to be done 23 in X number of weeks, divided by that ' number of weeks 24 into the documents that needed correcting.
25 0 So you worked backwards, but you still. set numbers of Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. _
ueneva, Illinois oviae (312) 232-0262
2748
/O v
1 units of work to be performed in a unit of time, did you 2 not?
3 A It was attempted to show that if -- if we were going to 4 be completed by our commitment date, we had to achieve 5 this amount of review per week.
6 0 What I had in mind, when I asked you the earlier 7 question about April of 1985, was Intervenors' Exhibit 8 15 in evidence. It's Mr. DeWald's memo to Mr. Rolan 9 about the document review program.
10 If I can share that document with you, doesn't it 11 reflect in this document Mr. DeWald's computation of how 12 much work an individual document reviewer could perform 13 in a unit of time as a basis for projecting the 14 completion of that program?
4 15 (Indicating.)
16 A Without reading the full letter, I believe Mr. DeWald 17 was trying to justify here how many people he needed to 18 hire to do this project.
19 Q Right.
20 But I mean, in order to -- in accomplishing that 21 purpose, he had to compute how many documents a reviewer 22 could perf orm in a unit of time, didn' t he?
23 A Certainly.
24 0 That's a goal, is it not?
25 A Certainly.
(mw]
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneve, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l l
l 2749 i C:)
1 0 That was a goal that was set for that program in April ,
2 of 1985?
3 A But it was not a goal in the context that we discussed 4 earlier.
5 0 I see.
6 You still employ schedules, do you not, of units of 7 work that have to be performed?
8 on the basis of units of work to be performed, you 9 schedule the number of inspectors to be available to 10 perform those units of work, do you not?
11 A There is nothing in the -- the last, perhaps, month 12 since we completed the correction of backlogged 13 docume.nts that reflects a goal, no.
14 The reports that I've issued in my last status 15 reports are merely a statement of, "This is the number 16 of inspections we did ach week. This is the number 17 that were left at the end of the week."
18 There is no goals presented at all.
19 0 The question is not whether or not they were presented 20 in your status reports, Mr. Seese.
21 The question is: Do you, in fact, make projections 22 of how many people it will take to get a given job done 23 in a given amount of time?
24 A Certainly. . .
25 0 And in doing so, you have to use a goal fo the volume Sonntag Reporting Service, , Ltd.
ueneva, 11Ainois oviae (312) 232-0262
2750 0
1 of work; the number of inspections, say, that an 2 individual can perform in a unit of time?
3 That's the building block on which you make a 4 schedule, isn't it?
5 A Yes, that's a fair assumption.
6 0 You didn't stop scheduling as of the end of the backlog; 7 you still scheduled?
8 A You would be scheduling as long as we have people to 9 manage, yes.
10 0 In order to make that schedule, you've got to have a 11 goal; and you still use goals, don't you?
12 A Under your definition of " goals," I would suppose you'd 13 say yes, we still use them.
14 We have a management -- we have a result that we 15 have to accomplish. That's a goal.
16 0 Okay.
17 Mr. Seeders -- I'm changing subjects now, so I'm 18 warning you.
19 Mr. Seeders wrote a Read and Reply Memo to Mr.
20 DeWald about the Saturday overtime work.
21 Do you remember that subject?
I 22 A That was -- that was my Exhibit No. 4, I believe.
e 23 0 I'm not certain of the number, but it's an attachment to- ,
24 your -- it is an attachment to your testimony.
25 A Okay. That would be No. 4, Attachment 2.C. , Seese 4.
?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. !
Geneva, Illiuois 60134 (312) 232-0262 '
2751 0
1 0 Yes, it is.
2 Now, the request states what the work is that Mr.
3 Seeders is to perform on that Saturday, does it not?
4 A That's correct.
5 0 " Clean up MRR's backlog," and an MRR is a Material 6 Receiving Report, is it not?
7 A That's correct.
8 0 A Material Receiving Report is a quality document that 9 is specified in the receiving inspection procedure; 10 correct?
11 A It's -- it's a document that's used at the time you' re 12 doing the receiving inspection, yes.
13 0 All right.
14 And Mr. Seeders was certified and performing the 15 work f rom time to time as a receipt inspector, was he 16 not?
17 A That's correct.
18 0 And when he's going to do work on Saturday to clean up 19 the MRR hacklog, that is within the scope of his work, 20 is it not?
21 A Well, the problem with that was that there was no MRR 22 work done on Saturday.
23 The warehouse wasn't open and they didn't receive 24 any material, so there would have been no MRR work to
(~ 25 do.
Sonntag Reporting Service [_Ltd.
ueneva, 1111nois oulag (312) 232-0262
2752
.e..
O 1 Q He may not have received any material, but Mr. Seeders 2 is referring to an MRR backlog. Whether it existed or 3 not, he's referring to something that is not reading 4 dime novels.
5 He's referring to something within the scope of his 6 inspection duties?
7 A That's true, but there is no backlog.
8 0 Why didn't you say that to him?
9 Did anybody say to Mr. Seedeln, " Gee, John, you're 10 off base here. There's no work of the type you want to 11 perform available"?
12 A You have to rely on how Mr. Seeders presented it to me.
13 He didn't come in and ask, "Can I do anything?"
14 He came in and said, "Do you agree with your 15 supervisor? If so, I want it in writing"; and he walked 16 out of my office.
17 All I had to base my decision on was John's memos.
18 John said he wanted to work MRR's. I knew the warehouse 19 wasn't open, i 20 The supervisor has a right to know, if he's going 1
21 to authorize a man for overtime', what he's going to work j 1
22 on.
l 23 0 Your memo to Mr. Seeders and Mr. Saklak's memo to Mr. l 24 Seeders that preceded yours -- neither of them say what l
v ;- \
25 you just told me.
. 1 l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. l Geneva, Illinels 60134 I I
(312) 232-0262
2753
(:) -
1 Neither of them say, "There is no MRR work to be 2 done this Saturday," does it?
3 A No, It says, "Mr. Seeders, you have not told your 4 supervisor what you want to work on."
5 If you read Item 1 on my response, it says, "You 6 have not supplied the written information requested by 7 your supervisor."
8 Whether Saklak said, "What are you going to work 9 on" -- John never said what he was going to work on.
10 Q He says it in his memo, does he not?
11 I think he already agreed that he wanted to work on 12 the MRR backlog.
13 A But the warehouse wasn't open. He could not have access 14 to work on the backlog.
15 0 That's a helpf ul' explanation.
16 But neither you nor Mr. Saklak said that to Mr.
17 Seeders?
18 A Mr. Seeders did not give us the opportunity to say that.
19 The memo was thrown on ny desk. He demanded an 20 answer in writing. I gave him an answer in writing 21 based on the facts that were before me. ;
l 22 Q Neither your nor Mr. Saklak's memo says anything about 23 the MRR on that subject? l l
24 MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman --
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes. I believe you've l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, Illinois 60134
)
(312) 232-0262 l 1
^
.~
2754 O
1 exhausted this, Mr. Guild.
2 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chai rman, I'm entitled to a 3 direct answer. I could stop and ask the witness to 4 please give me a direct answer, but it seems to me by 5 trying to put the question more and more sharply --
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild, the document 7 ,
speaks for itself.
8 If it's not in the document, you don't need the 9 witness' answer.
10 MR. GUILD: Fine. ,
l 11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We'll take a ten-minute 12 break.
13 ( WHER EU PON , a recess was had, after which 14 the hearing was resumed as follows:)
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Back in session.
16 Mr. Guild, continue, please.
17 MR. GUILD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
18 BY MR. GUILD:
19 Q Mr. Seese, if you would turn, in your prefiled 20 testimony, to Exhibit No. -- Seese Attachment 3, it's 21 the Employee Warning Record of August 17, '84, for Mr.
22 Seeders. I 23 Do you have that document, sir?
24 A Yes, sir.
25 Q It's a warning with an attached single-page document.
l l
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
- Geneve, Illincie 60134 (312) 232-0262
4 4
2755 1
(:') -
1 Now, you signed this document as supervisor, along
- 2 with Mr. Saklak; is that correct?
3 A That's correct.
4 Q But Mr. Saklak himself prepared this document, did he
, 5 not?
6 A He -- he prepared portions of it. I also made some 7 corrections -- made some changes.
8 0 You may have edited it, but Mr. Saklak wrote it, did he 9 not, and presented it to you f or review?
10 A With the exception of the last paragraph.
11 0 Why don't you show me where the -- the last paragraph, 12 second page?
! 13 A Right above the signatures, starting out with, "It is l
j 14 the decision."
15 0 Okay.
16 Other than that, it was written by -- that last 17 paragraph -- it was written by Mr. Saklak and presented 18 to you for review?
4 19 A That's correct.
20 0 Now, in the portions that Mr. _Saklak wrote, there appear 21 a number of f actual sort of assertions.
22 Under the rubric of " examples of this type of
. 23 conduct" -- do you see that, Page 2 --
- 24 A Yes, I do.
- 25 0 -- Page 2 beginning near the top? -- it says, " John i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2756 1 missed giving a scheduled training class on 7/26/84";
2 rescheduled class, 8/2; had a Lead meeting, 8/7; "
John 3 failed to turn in his status for 8/10/84"; John failed 4 to complete a total research," "due 8/13"; leading up 5 until the date 8/17.
6 Now, those are pieces of factual information that 7 Mr. Saklak prepared; correct?
8 A Correct.
9 0 Do you know what Mr. Saklak's source of information was 10 from which he derived the factual data -- the dates, for 11 example -- that he included in his draft of the Seeders' 12 warning?
13 A I -- I would believe he found them the same place I did 14 when I checked these out.
15 So, for example, the training class you could get 16 from the training coordinator, Mr. Dominic. The dates 17 of the Lead meeting and the date of the status turning 18 in -- I didn't -- didn't particularly check those dates 19 out.
20 Some of the items I did go back and verify myself.
21 0 I'm not asking you whether they' re accurate or not.
22 That's not the point of my question.
23 My question is: Do you know where Mr. Saklak 24 derived the factual information, including the dates, 25 that he included in his draft of the Seeders warning?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illiuolo 60134 (312) 232-0262
-w ---
n- 4 w. ,-
~
2757 O
1 A The training class I would believe he got from the 2 training record itself.
3 There's a document filled out. There is a schedule 4 that would have showed when the class was first 5 scheduled for, so that information would be readily 6 available to Rick.
l 7 Q Do you know whether or not Mr. Saklak himself maintained 8 a set of files in which he kept records of derogatory 9 information about Quality Control Inspectors, 10 inf ormation regarding Comstock management job-related 11 information that he maintained in a file subject to his 12 personal control?
13 A No.
14 I have never seen those type of files. I -- I 15 don' t -- I've heard rumors that they exist, Mr. Guild, 16 but I haven't seen them. I couldn't tell you.
17 0 You don't know that Mr. Saklak maintained such a file?
18 A No.
19 Q Have you ever heard the term " Pearl Harbor File" used 20 with reference to Mr. Saklak?
21 A Yes.
22 I've heard that more as a rumor. I've never seen 23 anything like that.
24 Q And do you understand as a rumor that Mr. Saklak 25 maintained something that he referred to as the " Pearl Sonntag Reporting Service, ~Lt'd .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2758 1 Harbor File," in which was contained derogatory 2 inf ormation about inspectors, such as the dates and 3 factual inf ormation about Mr. Seeders as is contained in 4 the warning here?
5 A I -- I was aware of the term " Pearl Harbor File. "
6 I couldn't say what type of inf ormation he had in 7 it. I never saw it.
8 Q How did you hear of the so-called Pearl Harbor File?
9 A Word of mouth from the other inspectors.
10 0 Other inspectors mentioned to you the term?
11 A " Pearl Harbor File." That's where I would have heard 12 the term. .
13 0 All right.
14 Since Mr. Saklak's termination in April of 1985, 15 have you undertaken any inquiry or investigation to 16 determine the existence of such a Pearl Harbor File or 17 other. personal files maintained by Mr. Saklak of the 18 sort that I've just asked you about?
19 A No, I have not.
20 0 Are you aware of any . inquiry or investigation perf ormed 21 by others towards that end?
22 A I believe Mr. DeWald assigned one of the supervisory 23 people to go through Rick's -- the information in Rick's 24 desk and cabinets; not specifically in search of a Pearl 25 Harbor File, but just going through the records to see Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinuiu 60134 (312) 232-0262 I
2759 i
O 1 if he needed them; if not, get rid of what you didn't 2 need.
3 A lot of them were -- I would assume, if it was my 4
i 4 file, would be redundant copies of memos that you were 5 on distribution for; but Mr. DeWald did ask somebody to i
- 6 go through.
7 Q Do you know who Mr. DeWald asked to do that?
8 A No. It was one of the supervisors; but whether it was 9 Tony Simile or exactly which one it would have been, I i
10 don't know. i l
11 Q By " supervisors," could you identify the class of people 12 you're referring to?
O 13 A I would be referring to one of the Quality Control 14 Supervisors and up, which would have taken in Mr.
i 15 Worthington, Mr. Simile, Mr. Tuite.
16 I -- I can't recall all the names that were 17 supervisors at that time, but it would have been that .
18 level.
, 19 Q Anyone elce?
20 A It would have been a management review.
21 MR. GUILD: That's all the questions I have.
. 22 Mr. Chairman.
23 Thank you, Mr. Seese.
- 24 BOARD EXAMINATION i
25 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. . _ . _ . . _ . _ _ ~ . _ . . . . . . . _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ .
2760 C^)
1 Q Mr. Seese, with regard to that system that existed 2 before May of 1984 in which instead of writing up NCR's 3 or ICR's for discrepant conditions -- some discrepant 4 conditions, wasn't there a problem, aside from the 5 tracking problem, with having an interchange between the 6 QC Inspector and the craftsperson with regard to a 7 discrepant condition?
8 Wasn't that also a problem?
9 A As far as getting into arguments, your Honor?
10 0 Well, the fact that there could be pressure from craft 11 to QC under that system.
12 A We -- no, sir. We felt that -- we encouraged the 13 inspector to talk with the welders.
14 It was more of a -- of a training session so that 15 the inspector could show them exactly what he was 16 looking for.
17 We didn't have a history of the welding -- of the 18 welders getting belligerent or even arguing with the 19 inspectors. That was a rare case, and we would deal 20 with it if it ever happened.
21 There was a good relationship there.
22 0 Were you aware that Mr. Saklak and Mr. Seltmann were 23 personal friends outside of just being colleagues on the 24 . job?
25 A I knew they car-pooled together and went out Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinvio 60134 (312) 232-0262
2761
()
1 occasionally, yes.
2 0 Okay.
3 You did know that when you invited Mr. Seltmann to 4 be the observer or witness to the discussion with Mr.
5 Seeders, didn't you?
6 A Yes. I invited him, though, as a -- not a member of the 7 QC Department; as a QA representative, yes.
8 I -- I knew they car-pooled together, but I trusted 9 Mr. Seltmann's judgment.
10 JUDGE GROSS >mN : Mr. Berry?
11 MR. BERRY: Staff has no additional questions 12 for Mr. Seese.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Miller, any redirect?
14 MR. MILLER: Yes. I just have a very few.
i 15 JUDGE COLE: Before you get started, Mr.
16 Miller, there was just one question I wanted to ask Mr.
t 17 Seese.
18 BOARD EXAMINATION 19 BY JUDGE COLE:
20 Q You discontinued your diary on 4/12/85, and you've 21 indicated the reasons for that, sir.
22 There's another gap in the diary that would start 23 on 5/19/84 and go up to and include September 12, 1984.
24 Why is that gap in the diary?
- 25 I don't recall you mentioning that, sir.
Sonntag Reporting Service, _ Ltd.
ueneva, 1111nols culag (312) 232-0262
2762
()
I 1 A No reason. On occasions I would just stop.
2 It would depend on what I was involved in at the 3 time; whether perhaps there were -- I was not attending f 4 any particular meetings or -- there was no reason that I 5 can think of for the omissien at this point, your Honor.
6 JUDGE COLE: All right, sir. Thank you.
7 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 8 BY MR. MILLER:
9 Q Mr. Seese, Mr. Guild asked you whether you were still i
10 making schedules and still setting goals.
11 Could you describe for us how you currently i
12 establish schedules for QC activities?
13 A As I -- as I said when Mr. Guild asked me, the last, i
14 perhaps, month or so, there's been nothing we've set a 15 goal or schedule f or.
] 16 Our current reports monitor only -- only factual I
I 17 reporting of these inspections were done. These were i
18 the number outstanding at the end of the week. So there 19 was nothing that we had established a goal for.
- 20 The last goal we had established was for the
- 21 correction of the document review deficiencies, and it
! 22 was done simply by X number of documents need to be 23 corrected and divide it by the number of weeks.
24 Q I want to be -- let me -- I asked two questions, and l
25 maybe I should have asked just one.
A Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
f Ganava, Illincio 60134
) (312) 232-0262
- , - - - - - - - , , - , - . - - - . , . - - - - . . - - , - - - , - - - - - , - - . < , - , , , - . - , - - - ,,e, ---~-r - ~ , -
,.--------.e, - - - , - - + , - - , . . . - _ . - - - - - - . - - , . , - _ . - .
2763 O
1 Are you currently establishing schedules for --
2 A No, sir.
3 0 -- OC activities?
4 A No, sir.
5 0 How is the work assigned to QC inspectors, then?
6 A First of all, in the welding configuration area, it's an 7 in-process inspection.
8 Each inspector is assigned two or three foremen.
9 He checks with them periodically throughout the shif t to 10 see what they are doing, and he performs his inspection 11 in process at the same time the craftsman is putting the 12 hanger up.
s 13 In the termination area or conduit inspection area, 14 cable tray inspection, craf t completes an installation 15 report. They turn that installation report in to my 16 depa r tment.
17 We make a list of these things that need to be 18 inspected. We then deliver those requests for l
19 inspections to the supervisor of that area, and he 20 assigns them out to the inspectors.
, 21 -
At the time they complete the inspections, then we 22 simply mark that item off of our running sheet to show 23 thic inspection is completed.
24 0 Well, how long has that system of inspection activities 25 and their assignment been in force at Comstock?
(
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2764 1 A Approximately November of 1985.
2 0 Prior to that time, were there schedules set for current 3 inspection activities?
4 A No. There were never schedules set for current 5 inspection activities.
6 0 All right.
7 How was the work assigned prior to November of 8 1985?
9 A The -- the assignment was basically the same as I've 10 described.
11 We would receive an installation report ftom 12 Construction; and we would take that installation p
d 13 report, make copies of it, and issue the one that we 14 received f rom Construction out to the supervisor. He 15 would assign that work.
16 That's always the way we've tracked current 17 inspections.
18 0 How would you know whether or not you had enough 19 inspectors to meet the current inspection requirements?
! 20 A If you noticed, the number of inspections not completed 21 at the end of the week continued to increase steadily 22 week after week.
23 That was an indication that you had a problem 24 there: that you either needed to increase the time or 25 you didn' t have enough inspectors.
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genevd, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2765 pJ 1 So you monitored, by that reporting system, the 2 number of inspections not completed at the end of each 3 week.
4 0 And is that a statistic that's maintained even today?
5 A Yes, si r , it is.
6 Q Now, you were asked by Mr. Guild some questions about 7 Page 122 of your diary, about the " inspectors coming and 8 going as they pleased" af ter a certain date -- or as of 9 a certain date.
10 Could you describe for us whether the " inspectors 11 coming and going as they pleased," if you will -- that 12 is, the five- to six-minute or up to ten-minute-late I
13 start or early quit -- had occurred throughout your 14 tenure at Braidwood?
15 A It was extremely minimal. You might have one person on 16 a certain day or two people, but it was minimal.
17 0 Until what time would you describe this as a " minimal" 18 experience?
19 A It increased dramatically af ter the date of the union 20 election: November 28, 1984.'
21 0 I think you indicated, "It increased dramatically."
22 Approximately what proportion of the QC Inspector 23 staff was starting late or quitting early? l l
24 A It -- it would actually hit the point of 40, 50 percent.
25 For example, like the entire welding group would Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, lili~nois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2766
} '
1 start leaving early. It wasn't just predominantly one l l
2 person here and one person there. It was -- it was -- l 3 it -- it very much appeared to be a concerted effort, so l
4 it was large, noticeable numbers.
5 0 Mr. Guild asked you about problems of misfiled and lost 6 documents in connection with Mr. Seltmann's observation 7 about the filing system in the vault.
, 8 I'd like you to compare, if you would, in terms of 9 significance, the problem that Mr. Seltmann identified
! 10 and that you testified to in response to my earlier 11 question; that is, the fact that the Form 38's and the 12 Porm 19's for the same piece of equipment weren't in the Q 13 same spot, and the problem of misfiled and lost 14 documents.
15 That is, which was the more significant problem?
16 A Oh, the -- not being filed in the same location would 17 have been much more significant, significant in the fact 18 that you needed to retrieve it in,that manner more 19 often.
20 It really -- you had -- you had a certain number of 21 clerks who pulled these documents; and we -- we really 22 believed that. each time you had to pul1~ them out of a 23 different file and put them back in, you increased your 24 chance of error. .
t 25 When you multiply by the f act that the clerk had to Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illincie 60134 (312) 232-0262
2767
\
Q l go to this spot to put a Form 19, this spot to put a 2 Form 7, which was a configuration inspection, we felt 3 that really increased the chances of a filing error.
4 So organizing the files into one set package, which 5 was Bob's observation, was the f ar more critical item.
6 In fact, that would make a big stride in solving a 7 lot of your misfiled documents, by solving what Bob put 8 out.
9 0 Is there, in fact, a procedure that ensures that 10 documentation packages are complete and properly filed?
11 A Yes. Right now there is a turnover group that is going 12 through drawing by drawing, and they are -- they' re
\/ 13 looking at the design drawing f rom Sargent & Lundy.
14 It says that, "This hanger is there." They go to 15 the vault, make sure the inspection document is there.
16 If you find a missing document, they go out and 17 reinspect.
18 Q Finally, you were asked about~yours and Mr. DeWald's 19 conversation with Mr. Seeders when he took sick leave 20 and didn't provide a doctor's excuse; and part of that 21 discussion involved the premarking of the accept problem 22 in the weld checklist. 'Your notes on Page 113 indicate 23 that Mr. Seeders said it was an office-wide practice.
24 At the time that Mr. Seeders,~Mr. Martin and Mr.
^
1 25 .Lobue were indulging i~n this practice, how many other QC i
Sonntag Reporting Service, , Ltd.
ueneva, 1211nuis ouAas (312) 232-0262
~ , , , , - - _._. ..,,.-,c. .-
s 2768 O
1 Inspectors were there suployed by Comstock, if you know?
2 A That would be the time that Irv and I first got there, 3 and at that point ther e w er e 3 8, 4 Q So I take it that 35 of the 38 did not premark their 5 inspection checklists; correct ?
6 A That's cor r ect.
7 MR. MILL ER : I have no f urther questions.
8 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : Mr. Guild.
9 MR. GUILD: I have no f urther questions f or 10 Mr. Seese. j 11 I would ask the opportunity to examine f urther, if 12 ne ces sa ry , on the remaining document that's to be 13 produced, and that's the revised NCR 1827.
14 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Okay. The witness will then 15 be instructed that he's not excused, but when that 16 document is produced, he will be recalled at the option 17 of Mr. Guild.
18 Any obj ection to that?
19 MR. MILL ER : I would hope that Mr. Guild and 20 I could at least explore whether we could stipulate to 21 the contents of what the testimony would be if he was 22 recalled, simply a f actual description of some portion 23 of the document. I am confident perhaps we could. I am 24 confident.
() 25 MR. GUILD s I would be happy to explore that 1
1 Sonnta g R ormr ti ng Serv ice. Lt rL Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4 2769 TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER
(])
1 with counsel.
2 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : Okay. Fi ne. Then you still 3, remain, subj ect to recall, and, hopef ully, counsel will 4 stipulate so that you don' t have to be recalled.
5 Thank you f or testifying.
6 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
7 MR. MILL ER : Our next witness.
8 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Mr. G allo, do I understand 9 th at y ou a r e --
10 MR. MILL ER : Mr. Gallo is about to debut in 11 this phase of the proceeding.
12 MR. G ALLO: We are prepared to go f orward, 13 your Honor.
14 We will call Mr. Gieseker.
15 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Call your next witness to 16 the stand. .
, 17 Mr. Geiseker, renain standing.
18 Raise your right hand.
19 (The witness was thereupon 20 duly sworn. )
21 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : Please be seated.
22 JAMES W. GIESEKER 23 called as a witness by the Applicant herein, having been l
, 24 first duly raorn, was examinod and testified- as f ollows:
25
(]) DIRECT EXAMINATION I
Sonntag Reporting Service, Lt.d.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 i
i i
2770
(} TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER l l 1 BY MR. GALLO 2 Q Mr. Gieseker, will you state your full name for the 3 record and by whom you are enployed?
4 A J ames W. Gieseker, G- I- E- S- E- K-E- R, employed by 5 Commonwealth Edison, Braidwood Nuclear Station.
6 Q Did you have occasion to prepare testimony for this 7 proceeding? '
8 A Yes, si r.
9 Q Hr. Gieseker, I show you a piece of testimony entitled, 10 " Contention 2-C, Testimony of ' James Gieseker," dated 11 April,1986, c7ontaining answers to 34 questions and ask:
12 Are those the answers you prepared as your 13 testimony in this proceedi'ng?
14 A Yes, si r.
15 0 Are those answers accurate and complete to the best of 16 your knowledge and belief ?
17 A Yes, si r.
18 MR. G ALLO: Judge G rossman and Members of the 19 Board, I would at ithis time move the admission of the 20 testimony of James Gieseker into evidence and have it 21 folded into the transcript as if read.
22 At this point my understanding is' that there are no 23 outstanding obj ections with respect to Mr. Gieseker's 24 testimony .
25 Is that true, Mr. Guild; any
(]) JUDG E GROSSMAN :
Sonntaa R enor ti ng_ Serv ice,. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 ,e
2771 Q TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER 1 obj ections?
2 MR. GUILD: That is correct, Mr. Chairman; 3 and we would have no obj ection on it, subj ect to the 4 opportunity to seek, by motion to strike, portions of 5 the testimony not f ounded on cross examination as I
6 appropriate.
7 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Fi ne.
8 Mr. Ber ry.
9 '
MR. BERRY: No obj ection, your Honor.
10 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : Fi ne. The testimony is 11 admitted.
4 12 0 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 . . .
(312) 232-0262
i l
O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI0N ,
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter Of: )
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY )
) Docket Nos. 50-456 (Braidwood Station, Units 1 ) 50-457 and 2) )
CONTENTION 2.C.
O TESTIMONY OF -
JAMES GIESEKER April 1986 O
I O
TESTIMONY OF JAMES W. GIESEKER RE: CONTENTION 2 Q.l. Please state your full name, employer and present position.
A.1. My name is James W. Gieseker. I am employed by Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO). I have been i working at Braidwood Station as an electrical engineer i
since August 6, 1984. My title is Supervising Engineer in the Project Construction Department (PCD).
I Q.2. Please describe your professional and educational qualifications.
' l l
A.2. ,I graduated in 1971 from Valparaiso Univsrsity with a l
) Bachelor of Science degree in ele'ctrical engineering.
I have been employed by CECO since July 19, 1971.
Prior to my transfer to the Braidwood Ltation, I was assigned to the LaSalle Nuclear Generating Station.
While at LaSalle, I worked in three departments: the Quality Assurance Department, the Station / Production Construction Department and the Station Operating Department. I was in the Quality Assurance Department from May 1976 to August 1979, where I conducted surveillances and audits to assure that various site contractors, including the electrical contractor, adhered'to their QA programs. Also, for the specific
()
~ - ~ - ~~ - - - - - ' - - - - * ' - -'"
l l
l
() contractors assigned to me, I reviewed and approved site work instructions and procedures in conjunction with the Engineering and the Station Construction l
Departments. In general, I was familiar with the !
daily operation of the contractors' quality assurance departments. In August of 1979, I transferred into the Station Construction Department, where I worked in I
the electrical group. I was responsible for <
overseeing the electrical contractor's Quality I
Department and was the main contact for Nuclear !
Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspectors in the electrical area. At the time the construction of LaSalle was nearing completion, I transferred into the
() Station Operating Department Technical Staff. As a member of the Technical Staff, I was originally in charge of the Licensing Group, and later the I Enginaering Group. The Engineering Group was responsible for the development and coordination of physical modifications to the operating plant.
Q.3. What are your responsibilities with respect to the Braidwood Project?
A.3. I am presently an Electrical Group Leader. My group has responsibility for working with L. K. Comstock's I
Quality Control Department. L. K. Comstock (LKC) is the site contractor performing the electrical work at O
I.
______,_____-c
e--- - ' -
r- W='TTM'"'*'P-'"'""-'9*"NT" ' ' ' ' '
(} Braidwood. I also assist in the development and review of CECO positions and responses to various i
questions and matters raised in the electrical are'a by the NRC as a result of their inspection activities.
Q.4. To which contention is this testimony addressed?
A.4. Rorem et al. Contention 2. The text of Contention 2 reads as follows:
Contrary to Criterion I, " organization" of 10 ,
C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, and 10 C.F.R. Section '
50.7, Commonwealth Edison Company and its electrical contractor, L. K. Comstock Engineering Company have ;
failed to provide sufficient authority and organiza-tional freedom and independence from cost and schedule {
i as opposed to safety considerations to permit the l effective identification of and correction of quality
.and safety significant deficiencies. Systematic and ,
O- widespread harassment, intimidation, retaliation and l other discrimination has been directed against Comstock QC inspectors and other employees who express safety and quality concerns by Comstock management.
Such misconduct discourages the identification and correction of deficiencies in safety related components and systems at the Braidwood Station.
Instances of harassment and intimidation include at least the following:
- 1. At various times since at least August 1984, including in March 1985, more than twenty five (25)
Comstock QC inspectors have complained to the NRC
! about harassment and intimidation by Comstock i
supervisors. Such harassment and intimidation has been caried out or participated in by QC Manager Irv DeWald, Assistant QC Manager Larry Seese, QA Managsr Bob Seltman and QC. Supervisor R. M. Saklak.
1 Such harassment included widespread pressure to approve deficient work, to sacrifice quality for production and cost considerations and to knowingly ,
violate established quality procedures. Harassment !
and retaliatory treatment included threats of
(:)
l l
_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ .,_ _____ ____ _ _. _.. ~ ._ _ _ _._ _ __ _ _ _. _ ._. _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _. _
O violence, verbal. abuse, termination of employment, transfer to undesirable jobs or work in areas where quality deficiencies could not be noted, assignments to perform burdensome or menial "special projects" and other adverse treatment. Such discriminatory action was taken because of the victim's expression of quality or safety concerns. Former Level II QC inspector John D. Seeders has knowledge of these widespread instances of harassment. By letter of August 17, 1984, Seeders complained to the NRC, Edison and Comstock management regarding instances of harassment directed against him. Subsequently Mr.
Seeders was involuntarily transferred to the position of Engineering Clerk in retaliation for his expression of quality concerns. Such assignment was intended by Comstock to keep Mr. Seeders away from sensitive work areas. Although QC Supervisor R. M. Saklak was finally terminated in 1985 for his mistreatment of QC i
inspectors and other misconduct, the effects of his
' harassment remain uncorrected and systematic harassment continues at Comstock to the integrity and effectiveness of on-going corrective action programs designed only to address other widespread QA failures at Comstock.
Puckett because Mr. Puckett made numerous complaints about safety and quality deficiencies which h= ,
identified in the course of his duties at BrLAdwood.
Mr. Puckett was hired by Comstock in May 1984 in l the newly created position of Level III QC Inspector whose duties included conducting a. review of Comstock procedures, tests requirements for the more than 50 Level II QC Inspeccors, review of the Level II's inspection work, and the resolution of inspection disputes. Mr. Puckett was highly qualified with 20 years' nuclear Navy and nine years' nuclear power experience. See, Resume, Exhibit B. During the course of his employment with Comstock Mr. Puckett was shocked by the widespread deficiencies in procedures,
- qualifications and workmanship. He identified numeros.' instances of improper construction procedures, improper qualification of welders, and material traceability deficiencies. He ultimately recommended a complete stop work order for all welding activity to
' permit effective corrective action. See, Memos of August 10 and August 17, 1984, Exhibits C and D.
O
Finally, he warned QC Manager Irv DeWald that "we O are approaching a complete breakdown in our QC program." August 22, 1984 Memo, Exhibit E. Puckett was subjected to harassment and retaliation because he raised these safety and quality concerns and was terminated on August 27, 1984 by DeWald o'n the pretext that he should have scored higher than his 86% on a qualification test. He filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor, alleging violation of the.
employee protection provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 USC 5851. Letter, September 5, 1984, Exhibit F. The U.S. Department of Labor Area birector sustained Mr. Puckett's complaint finding unlawful discrimination by Comstock against Puckett and ordered relief. Notes of Decision, November 6, 1984, Exhibit G. Mr. Puckett presented his case at a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge on Comstock's appeal. See, Complainants' Pre-Hearing Exchange, Exhibit H. Comstock settled Mr. Puckett's claim before putting on its case. The terms of settlement are subject to a non-disclosure agreement between Comstock and Mr. Puckett. '
I Q.5. When and how did CECO become aware that LKC QC
. Inspector John Seeders had alleged that he had been
(} harassed and intimidated by his superiors at LKC? 1 A.S. Mr. Seeders complained of alleged harassment and intimidation to Irv DeWald, LKC Quality Control Manager, in a letter dated August 17, 1984. Richard Cosaro of Ceco was carbon copied on the letter. Mr.
Cesaro had been the PCD Superintendent, but had transferred from the department in the Spring of 1984. Dan Shamblin had replaced Mr. Cosaro as PCD Superintendent, and had received Mr. Cosaro's copy of the Soeders letter. '
Q.6. What, if anything, did CECO do in response to Mr.
Seeders' August 17, 1984 letter?
O
4 i
() A.6. Mike Wallace, CECO's Braidwood Project Manager, Dan Shamblin and I met with Irv DeWald to discuss the letter. In addition, Mr. Seeders had asked for a meeting with Mr. Wallace to discuss the letter. Mr.
Wallace referred the request for a meeting to Mr.
Shamblin, the PCD Superintendent. Mr. Shamblin gave
_ me a copy of the August 17 letter and asked me to meet with Mr. Seeders because the Lead Electrical Engineer, whom Mr. Shamblin normally would have asked to conduct the meeting, was on vacation at the time. Mr. Seeders 1
and I had our meeting on August 21.
4 Q.7. Please describe what was said in your August 21 meeting with Mr. Seeders.
A.7. I had not met Mr. Seeders before our meeting, so we l
began by introducing ourselves to each other. I then l J
- briefly described my position in PCD. I asked Mr.
Seeders what his concerns were. He indicated that he wanted to inform CECO of harassment that he felt was being directed at him and other QC inspectors by LKC j
QC supervision, and of the fact that he.had written a letter about the problem to Mr. DeWald. Mr. Seeders i
i stated that there was a " low morale" problem in the QC I
Department which he attributed to pressure being placed on QC management who, in turn, passed it on through QC supervision to the inspectors. Mr. Seeders ,
}
- \
. _ _ _ _ _ _ - , _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _~ _ - _ . . _ .__ _ . - . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ .._ _ _. _ ._ _
( stated that he was concerned about his job because he was currently having problems with his supervisor, Richard Saklak. He said that he had worked for Mr.
Saklak for some time without difficulty, but that recently Mr. Saklak had become unreasonable in his work assignments to Mr. Seeders. Mr. Seeders stated that the items discussed in his August 17 letter were examples of the problem of deteriorating morale which he perceived to be taking place in LKC's QC Department. He said that he thought that if the morale problem were not corrected that it might adversely affect the work of other QC inspectors, l
l although he indicated that he himself would continue
(} to perform his work with complete integrity as he had i always done.
- Since I had only arrived on site two weeks i
earlier and was therefore insufficiently familiar with the LKC situation to immediately respond to Mr. !
I Seeders' concerns, I told Mr. Seeders that I would discuss his concerns with Mr. Shamblin and would meet with him again following that discussion. I felt, however, that as an LKC employee Mr. Seeders had acted properly by bringing his concerns about LKC's supervision to the attention of his own upper management by addressing his letter to Mr. DeWald, and i (
1 1
t i told him that he should continue to pursue his concerns with LKC management. j Q.8. What, if anything, did you do as a follow-up to your l August 21 meeting with Mr. Seeders? ;
i A.8. On the day following my meeting with Mr. Seeders, I met with Dan Shamblin to discuss the matters that Mr. l Seeders had raised at our meeting. Mr. Shamblin told I i
! me that CECO was aware of the morale problem and had previously discussed it at length with LKC manage-ment. Mr. Shamblin outlined for me the circumstances which, in his perception, had contributed to the problem, and described to me steps that were being
{} taken by CECO to address it. He further told me that LKC was also taking measures to address the problem, and that he believed, with the steps which had been taken by CECO, LKC management was in a position to be able to effectively resolve the morale problem.
Mr. Shamblin asked me to convey this information to Mr. Seeders at our follow-up meeting. That meeting took place the next day, Thursday, August 23.
1 Lawrence Tapella, PCD Field Engineer, attended that -
l meeting along with Mr. Seeders and myself. I also informed the PCD Lead Electrical Engineer of the events that had taken place when he returned from his ;
1 vacation.
, ()
1
~
4 Q.9. Please describe what was sai'd at your August 23
, meeting with Mr. Seeders.
A.9. I began the August 23 meeting with Mr. Seeders by telling him that I had discussed the matters raised at our August 21 meeting with Mr. Shamblin. I told Mr.
l Seeders that CECO felt that LKC was undergoing a particularly stressful time on the project due to ongoing reinspection programs and other problems, including the physical inconvenience to the QC inspectors-due to a fire in the QC Office and the disabling of LKC's Training Coordinator in an automobile accident. I stated to Mr. Seeders that 1
CECO PCD had already taken action to help address the
{} problem'by adding personnel, including myself and
Il review and approval, so as to provide necessary CECO support for LKC's activities. For examp'le, one of the first tasks on which I worked was the revision of LKC's qualification / certification procedure in order to facilitate the certification of additional inspectors hired by LKC. ,
I further reported that Mr.
l DeWald was in the process of interviewing other QC inspectors to hear their views and suggestions.
l
_9
. - . _ , . . - - . - - . _ . _ . - - - . - , - - - . - . . . - . . . ~ . . , -
a .
(]) I reiterated to Mr. Seeders that CECO sh& red his concern for quality and told him that although he 4
should continue along the path on which he had started-with his August 17 letter and discuss with his own management the resolution of his concerns, that my 1
door and those of Messrs. Tapella and Shamblin were j always open in the event he felt the need to discuss i
i the matter further with Ceco. Mr. Seeders said that
)
he had no further concerns to discuss with CECO at the present time, and that he would come back and talk
{ with us again should he feel the need to do so in the J
future.
j -
- () Q.lO. Was CECO aware, as early as May of 1984, of deficiencies in the calibration area over which Mr.
Seeders then had responsibility?
! A.lO. Yes. Deficiencies in the LKC calibration area had 1
l been disclosed during a CECO audit which was performed i
in May of 1984. Deficiencies in the calibration area i
f are discussed in the testimony of Robert Seltman on this contention item.
i I.
Q.11. Please describe the extent of the deficiencies known to CECO as of May of 1984.
f i -
! (:)
I l
1 . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - . . _ _
l l
() A.ll. CECO QA Audit 20-84-528 covered, among other things, LKC Quality Assurance Manual Section 4.9, Control of Measuring and Test Equipment. A deficiency was identified in the implementation of LKC procedure 4.9.1, Calibration. Specifically, thermometers were found not to have been calibrated as frequently as required by the procedure, calibration records for certain dynamometers, micrometers and pin guages sent to an outside agency for calibration had not been i reviewed by QC for acceptability, and Inspection Correction Reports had not been generated to evaluate the validity of previous inspection or test results for all instruments /guages found to be out of
() calibration. These items constituted Finding No. 2, Item Nos. 1, 2 and 3, respectively, of Audit
, 20-84-528.
i Q.12. Did LKC respond to Finding No. 2 of the CECO audit?
i A.12. Yes. LKC responded to the audit finding by letter i
dated June 12, 1984.
Q.13. Was LKC's response to Finding No. 2 of the CECO audit i satisfactory to CECO?
l A.13. Ceco accepted the response to the audit finding, except that it required additional corrective action f
on Finding No. 2, Item No. 3. The corrective action *
! 9
+ ,
e-.- . . , _ .
. _, _~_.-_ - ,,.- _,.. ._.,..,-- _ _
.p- ,...-..m.-.,_-,_r,-~..,r._,._._-_-.__.-.., ,-m_my.. , , . . _,m.,,,-m__,_-,-
which had been proposed in LKc's response to the audit finding consisted of issuing a Nonconformance Report and two Inspection Correction Reports to document the particular instruments found to be out of calibration and evaluate previous use of those instruments, as well as to provide a training session to Mr. Seeders to emphasize the need for issuance of corrective action documentation for all tool discrepancies. In addition to those actions, CECO requested LKC to make certain that no additional deficiencies of the type identified in Item No. 3 existed, and to take action to prevent recurrences. This request was contained in
- a July 3, 1984 letter from CECO to LKC. .
t Q.14. What was LKC's response to CECO's July 3, 1984 letter?
l
! i A.14. LKC initiated a review of all of their calibration
- records for items similar to those noted in Finding
- 2, Item #3 of Audit QA 20-84-528. LKC informed Ceco QA of this by letter dated July 23, 1984. According to the letter, the review was being performed by Mr.
I Seeders. As the review progressed, additional updates were provided to CECO as follows:
4 4
i 8/14/84 - Review partially completed, update expected 8/24/84.
2 1
~
e i
, 8/24/84 - Report issued indicating all Form #77 4
. Calibration Control Cards had been reviewed. The discrepancies discovered during the review were
files. Update expected 9/7/84.
9/17/84 - Status report on research of the QC Records Vault. Progress update expected 9/21/84.
10/9/84 - Indicates that the review of the LKC Calibration Records was complete and that the results were being evaluated.
10/18/84 Indicates that LKC NCR #3419 had been issued to track resolution of this finding.
4 11/3/84 - Indicates that NCR's #3406 and #3472 had been issued in addition to NCR #3419.
i Procedures had been and were being revised to
- implement the corrective action.
i Q.lS. Did CECO become aware at scme point that LKC had j
. relieved Mr. Seeders of responsibility for performing the review of the calibration records prior to completion of that task and had assigned the task to 3
others?
A.15. Yes. In the August 24, 1984 LKC letter to CECO QA updating the status of the records review, LKC stated that the review of the calibration records was at that time being performed by Myra Sproull, Richard Snyder and Don Coss.
i Q.16. In the Fall of 1994 did CECO become aware that the l problem with calibration and calibration records was
{ more widespread than it had previously known?
l A.16. Yes. The September, October and November status 1
reports of the records review initiated as a follow-up
()
e I
13 4
{ to the Ceco audit finding indicated that the problem existed throughout the calibration area.
Q.17. Please describe the extent of the problem as it was known to CECO as of September of 1984.
A.17. By September of 1984 it had become clear that the problem encompassed both problems of improper 4
4 calibration of equipment and deficient record keeping with respect to a large number and variety of types of 1
instruments. The documentation deficiencies called into question large amounts of work that may have been
- performed with out-of-calibration tools and
- instruments.
The responsibility for maintaining this
(} documentation rested with Mr. Seeders.
Q 18. Did you attend a meeting on September 28, 1984 at which the problem with calibration and calibration records was discussed?
A.18. Yes. -
J Q.19. Please identify the participants in the meeting and describe the discussion which took place as it relates
^
to Mr. Seeders and/or the problem in the calibration area.
)
i i A.19. On Sept $mber 28, 1984 a meeting was held in Dan Shamblin's office. The participants in the meeting
} were:
- i i ,
i
. - _ - . . . _ . . . _ . . . ,._.r_. .. _-.. __,,_._.-.._,_...s. .,...~.____-,_.y..,_ , _ _ . ~ _ _ . _ . . ~ _ . , _ . . _ _ , , , , , - _ - - _ . , .
i i
O D. Shamblin - CECO PCD J. Gieseker - CECO PCD I. DeWald - LKC QC R. Seitman - LKC QA
- R. Schultz - Resident NRC Inspector.
1 The LKC managars at the meeting reported on the results of the calibration records review. They stated that the deficiencies in the area appeared to have been widespread, and that, in their opinion, it was necessary to perform an evaluation to determine 4
whether a report of a significant condition adverse to i
quality was required to be filed pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
i 50.55(e). Mr. Shamblin requested that I perform that 4
i evaluation. The LKC managers further stated that they were considering terminating Mr. Seeders because of 1
his responsibility for the calibration area. Mr.
Shamblin suggested that perhaps the calibration job may not have been appropriate for Mr. Seeders, but that he might be suitable for a'nother position at LKC. The'LKC managers made no final decision at the i
meeting regarding whether Mr. Seeders would be i
- terminated or transferred to another position.
l l
Mr. Seeders' August 17 letter was also discussed j at the meeting. The LKC managers said that they had
) prepared a response to the letter, and that it was i
ready for distribution. They stated that their 1
4 1
(} decision that Mr. Seeders would be either terminated or transferred out of the calibration area was based solely on his poor job performance, and was in no way related to the fact that he had written the letter.
Mr. Schultz said that he understood, but that he felt
{ that it would be inappropriate for him to take a i
1 position on the matters discussed.
j Q.20. What documentation was generated when the scope of the
- problem with calibration and calibration records became known in the fall of 19847
.i j A.20. LKC issued NCR #'s 3406, 3472 and 3419.
j NCR #3406 was generated to document the fact that certain out-of-tolerance tools had been released for use after recalibration and repair (if necessary), but prior to disposition and/or close-out of ICR's and NCR's which addressed the effects of the out-of-tolerance tools on plant hardware.
NCR #3472 documented the fact that 45 wire strippers were found to be out of tolerance.
i NCR #3419 documented various generic calibration or calibration records problems as follows:
- 1. Missing certifications and/or calibration records; i 2. Incomplete or incorrectly completed documents;
- 3. Duplication of tool identification numbers; i
l
-- . - . - - . _ . - ..- . _ - .. ..- ,,-. . . ~ . . -
i l
- 4. Failure to generate corrective action documents I when rejectable calibration results were obtained;
- 5. Failure to perform adequate evaluation and/or QC j review of effect of possible use of out-of-tolerance j tools on past work;
- 6. Release of out-of-tolerance tools for use in the l field prior to closure of corrective action f
documentation.
i Q.21. Please describe the corrective actions planned and/or taken to resolve the deficiencies noted in the three NCR's discussed above.
i A.21. NCR #3406 dealt with a pro,cedural, rather than a i . hardware problem. The use of a tool found to be out
( of tolerance following recalibration/ repair but prior i
{
1 to formal close-out of the ICR or NCR causes no problems with the quality of hardware if, as was the
- case here, the tool meets all requirements prior to i
re-issuance to the field. The LKC Engineering disposition therefore required no additional review of 1
installed hardware. This was acceptable to CECO.
a NCR #3472 was dispositioned by re-termination of i
safety-related and fire protection cables which may have been adversely affected by use of the out-of-tolerance strippers.
t J
1 i i I
i
i
() LKC is currently in the process of implementing the corrective actions to disposition the generic l
concerns of NCR #3419 as follows: *
(1) Lists of tools which have discrepant documenta-tion have been compiled; (2) Further documentation research is being conducted to assure . omplete understanding of'the j discrepancies and, where necessary, what field
)
installations may have been affected; (3) Documents are being completed and/or corrected in accordance with approved procedures; (4) Evaluations are being or will be performed to determine if the document discrepancies would cause
() hardware deficiencies in field installations; (S) Reinspections will be performed where necessary; and (6) Personnel re-assignments and additions have been instituted.
~
I have personally reviewed the proposed corrective actions for LKC NCR #'s 3406, 3472 and 3419 and find them acceptable.
Q.22. What were the actions to prevent recurrence $aken with respect to LKC NCR #'s 3406, 3472 and_34197 i
i
{} A.22. LKC NCR #3406 was a problem with procedure implementation rather than a hardware concern. The LKC inspector involved, John Seeders, was transferred from the calibration area.
LKC NCR #3472 concerned wire strippers found to be outside of manufacturer tolerances established for the hole sizes to be used to remove insulation from conductors. The action to prevent recurrence included -
purchase of a different model wire stripper and new blades with increased hole sizes.
LKC NCR #3419 concerned generic deficiencies identified in the calibration area resulting in the following actions to prevent recurrence: .
[} (1) Transfer of the LKC Inspector (John Seeders) responsible for calibrations out of the QC Department; a
i (2) Revision of LKC procedures 4.9.1, Calibration and !
l 4.9.4, Calibration of Torque Wrenches; (3) Development of new calibration instructions for each type of tool utilizing manufacturers' 4
5 instructions and/or good calibration practices; l j (4) Establishment of an LKC " hold" cabinet in tool t i
crib #4 with QC personnel being responsible for grantine access to the hold cabinet; and l (5) Training of replacement QC personnel in proper j calibration procedures.
I i
G I
l .
I
. . - . - . . _ _ . _ - - , . . _ . . , . - . _ . ._ .., . _.___..-_ ~____.--. - - ..- ~._ _... . - , - ,_ ____ _ - ..- ._ ,. .-- _...-.. _ ,_.
d
'l
~
l With respect to the procedure and instruction ;
changes, the procedures and instructions previously in place were, in my opinion, sufficient to assure that, l if followed, calibrations and calibration record !
keeping would be'done properly. The revisions added an even greater degree of detail in an attempt to make certain that problems in the area would not recur.
i Q.23. Are you aware of any facts which suggest that Mr. Seeders was transferred to a new assignment for any reason other than poor job performance in the calibration area?
l A.23. No.
i
{)- Q.24. Were you aware, in August of 1984, of various
{ s- criticisms of LKC's welding QC program wnich had been 1
raised by LKC QC Level III Inspector Worley Puckett?
1
) A.24. I arrived on site on August 6, 1984, and shortly i
l thereafter became aware that Mr. Puckett had raised certain criticisms of LKC's welding QC program.
Q.25. Please describe the criticisms of LKC's welding QC t
program which Mr. Puckett had raised.
l A.25.
i Mr. Puckett had raised concerns about 1) carbon steel 4
welding, and 2) stainless steel welding.
Mr. Puckett's concern about carbon steel welding was that the weld procedure qualification in use did not i
1 i I l
provide for the welding of ASTM 36 steel to ASTM 446
- steel using an E7018 electrode. His concern about stainless steel was twofold
- (1) that the weld l 1
procedure and welders had not been qualified for l 1
welding in all positions (specifically the 2G j position), and (2) that the stainless steel welding j procedure in use did not qualify the welders to
) perform bi-metallic (stainless to carbon steel) welds.
4 l
Q 26. Did CECO participate in the resolution of the concerns which had been raised by Mr. Puckett and, if so, how j were those concerns resolved?
A.26. Yes. The concerns raised by Mr. Puckett were resolved
.via LKC NCR #'s 3099 and 3145. NCR #3099 concerned i
the lack of a weld Procedure Qualification Record
< (PQR) for welding ASTM A36 steel to ASTM A446 steel 1 using E7018 electrodes. The existing PQR's did, however, provide for the welding of ASTM A500 GrB to ASTM A446 steels. My review of the AWG Code, paragraph 5.5.1.1 indicated that, using E7018 l electrodes, qualification of ASTM A500 GrB to ASTM A446 steel also qualified the welding of ASTM A36 to ASTM A446 with no additional procedure qualification
! testing required. The resolution seemed to me therefore to involve only a minor addition to the l
appropriate PQR's (Attachments C, H and O to LKC 1
t t
)
i
. .._.-----. -,, ..,, , -,,- - - _ .. , .,.-- - ,, , . ~ ___ - - - .,n..n,. _ . _._,,-,,_ -
-n-n n - w. n- ..~.nn-.,-.,
i i
1
(]) procedure 4.3.3). Mr. Puckett, however, had taken the position that the problem was extremely serious to the point where, at his instigation, a stop work order had been issued. Since I did not consider myself an expert in either welding or code interpretation, I l
reviewed the matter with Ceco QA and S&L. Both agreed
- with my interpretation of the Code, and further agreed that the problem was a minor paper problem. We arranged a meeting for August 22, 1984 to resolve this matter with LKC so that NCR #3099 could be processed i
and the stop work order on carbon steel welding lifted.
l Representatives of CECO PCD, CECO QA, S&L and LKC
() attended the August 22 meeting. I stated my under-standing of the problem, explained the interchange-I ability of the two steels under the Code, and i
suggested dispositioning the matter by simply revising procedure 4.3.3 to include a reference'to A36 steel on the appropriate PQR's. The procedure revision was to be accomplished by the next day. No one at the l
meeting, including Mr. Puckett, raised any objection. 1 4
i 1
At the Procedure Review Board meeting the l following day, Mr..Puckett once again raised the same problem, as if the previous day's meeting had never -
taken place. My opinion of Mr. Puckett's usefulness as a Level III weld inspector was, as a result of this
(
j
<-w , , , - - . e. ..--.,..,-w-,--,---,-- ,.-- - ,w ,. . - . , - _ _ , . , , , - . . _ , , . . r-=* -,e w w- * *em------=w,ew e------c - + - ~e----r'ww--e--v-w-+--
t
(} incident, extremely low both because he seemed to exhibit a poor understanding of the AWS Code, and because of his erratic behavior once he identified what he perceived to be a major problem.
Mr. Puckett's concern about stainless steel welding was valid in that welders had not been qualified in the 2G position. The disposition of NCR
With respect to the second portion of Mr. Puckett's concern about stainless steel welding, no action was
(} taken since bi-metallic welds are not used at the Braidwood site within LKC's scope of work.
1 Q.27. Did you attend a meeting on August 27, 1984 concerning Mr. Puckett?
A.27. Yes.
l Q.28. Please identify the participants in the August 27 I
meeting and describe the conversation which took place and the decisions which were announced.
A.28. The participants in the August 27 meeting were Dan
! Shamblin, Irv DeWald and me. The meeting was quite i brief. Its subject was Mr. Puckett's work performance, the status of welding issues he had been
- i
{
v-- --..,---..,---,,-.-,-.,,,,y.
- , . ~ - ,
.. y _.% , - - - . , , - - - - . - - . , - - , , . ,_.---,n-- ,------,w,,.--,---.,-.-,-n-.--
l I
() assigned to resolve, and the status of his attempt to attain certification as a Level III weld inspector.
We discussed the facts that Mr. Puckett had merely l raised issues rather than attempt to resolve them which was what he had been hired to do, that his understanding of the AWS Code was inadequate, and that he had failed in his attempt to attain Level III l
certification, which was the position for which he had j been hired. The concensus of the participants in the meeting was that Mr. Puckett was not suited for the position of Level III weld inspector at LKC. It was therefore decided to terminate Mr. Puckett pursuant to the 90-day probationary period in his contract. That
() was subsequently done.
Q.29. Are you aware of any facts which suggest that Mr. Puckett was discharged for any reasons other than (1) inadequate job performance, and (2) failure to achieve Level III certification?
A.29. No.
Q.30. Are you aware of any claim by Mr. Seeders or Mr.
Puckett that either of them^has ever failed to express a quality concern or compromised the quality of his inspection work due to any perceived harassment or intimidation subjecte'd?
to which he believed he had been A.30. No.
O Q.31. Are you aware of any QC inspector at Braidwood who j claims that he has ever failed to express a quality ;
1 concern or compromised the quality of his inspection work due to the transfer of Mr. Seeders, the dismissal of Mr. Puckett or any other perceived act of j
harassment or intimidation of any QC inspector?
l j A.31. No.
Q.32. Are you aware that allegations regarding the LKC Quality Control department were made to and investigated by the NRC?
A.32. Yes. The NRC reviewed allegations concerning LKC Quality Control in inspection reports 456, 457/85009 and 456/85021, 457/85022.
1
! Q.33. .Did the NRC investigations result in any items of noncompliance? If so, please describe.
i O A.33. Yes. NRC inspection report 456, 457/85009 resulted one severity Level V item of noncompliance. This noncompliance consisted of two parts. The first part involved a welder qualification record that was signed and dated prior to the testing of the welder's coupons by the site independent testing company, and the l
l second part involved the use of welder qualification records that exhibited numerous clerical errors and ommissions.
1 I
i
_ . _ _ _ . . ._ _ _ _ ..__ _.._.____ _ _ _ __,~._ _ _ ___ _ _, ...,-c,___.._.,_________.. ._
.. l
. l
. 1 NRC inspection report 456/85021, 457/85022 n'oted
[}
two severity Level V items of noncompliance. The 1 first was a three part concern that LKC had not qualified personnel in accordance withLprocedures in that:
- 1. On May 25, 1984, an LKC inspector not certified in the area of calibrations had reviewed two inspection checklists der the calibration of torque wrenches.
(} 4.1.2, Position Delinea tion. '
Q.34. What was CECO's responserto these ~ 7 1tems of non-compliance?
A.34. CECO responded to the item of noncompliance noted in insp' action report 456, 457/85-009 on December 20 1'985. The response acknowledged the items oC -
^
. a c noncompliance.; LKC issued-NCR-#4795 to address the velder qualification record._which was apparently -
)
(:)
~
l
- ~
~
- 2 6 --
- b. -
. . - - . _ . - -_. _f
(}
~
signed and dated prior to the~ testing of the we1 der s coupons by the independent testing laboratory. LKC issued NCR #'s 4649 through 4656 to address the clerical errors found in other welder qualification records. Minor problems with welder qualification documentation had previously been identified on LKC NCR #3710, which had been closed prior to the inspection which resulted in inspection report 456, 457/85-009. That NCR had been dispositioned "use-as-is," since the documentation problems involved were minor clerical errors which had no effect on the qualification of the welders.
As a result of the noncompliance item noted in
() inspection report 456, 457/85-009, LKC initiated a review of the remaining welder qualification packages. The review is nearing completion and has not identified any additional concerns other than those identified in the item of noncompliance. NCR
- 's 4649 through 4656 and 4795 have been closed. LKC procedure 4.7.1 has been enhanced to prevent such occurrences. Recent audits by LKC and CECO have found that the program in place has resolved these types of problems.
Ceco responded to the items of noncompliance for which it was cited in inspection report 456/85021, ;
457/95022 on December 4, 1985. The first item of O
- , , - ,,--n., -n,- ,--.,,,.ww-,n,,-,.wn.,-,,wr.,r,- ,-,m-,,w,,,,wmv-,w,ng-,, ,n-e-
l i
r l
i
(]} noncompliance contained three examples of LKC QC personnel not having been qualified in accordance with existing procedures. Ceco disagreed with the first example because the NRC inspector had misinterpreted the signature requirements of LKC inspection checklists. CECO acknowledged that the remaining two items were cases in which procedural requirements were not adhered to. Review of these items indicated that while each was unique, they were both administrative problems. The performance of QC inspections would not be affected by these violations. LKC issued NCR #4527 to address these procedure violations. This NCR has been closed. -
() The second item of noncompliance concerned the failure of LKC to provide documented evidence that welds on 5 hangers rejected by the Independent Testing Laboratory had been reworked, repaired, or used-as-is and reinspected as required. LKC issued Inspection Correction Reports (ICR's) #11,777 through #11,781 to repair and reinspect the identified welds. These ICR's have been closed.
e O -
l 1
(
2772
{} TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER 1 MR. G ALLO: The witness is available for 2 cross examination.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Fi ne. !
4 Mr. Guild.
5 MR. GUILD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. i 6 Good afternoon, Mr. Gieseker.
7 CROSS EXAMINATION 8 BY MR. GUILD:
9 Q When you arrived at the B raidwood' site in August of 10 1984, you arrived in what capacity?
11 A In the Electrical Group of the Proj ect Construction 12 Depa r tment.
13 0 Were you a supervisor at that time, Mr. Gieseker?
14 A At that time we didn' t have c -- the group leader 15 designation that they have now, because that -- that was 16 formed af ter -- some time later; but I was an assistant 17 to Mr. Mennecke, who is the -- at that time was the Lead 18 Electrical Engineer. There was no official title, 19 though.
20 0 Okay. So you were not a supervisor at that time? l 21 A My pay title is Supervising Engineer. l 22 Q I sec. l l
23 A The j ot title -- there was no specific j ob title. i l
24 Q All right. Did you, in f act, supervise anybody at l
l 25 Braidwood when you came on?
(]) l l
l l
Sonntaa Renor ti na Service. Ltd.
Ge5ev a', Illi5ois 60134
(.312) 232-0262
~
2773 TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER
(~ }
1 A Yes, si r.
2 Q Okay. And can you identify who you supervised?
3 A At the time I got there, there was a gentleman by the 4 name of Mr. Skrier.
5 Mr. Tom Rankowski and Mr. Tapella came on at the 6 same time f rame I did.
7 Q And did you supervise him --
8 A Yes, sir.
9 0 -- Mr. Tapella?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Help me understand and the Board understand what the 12 chain of command was.
13 Now, you were responsible for interf acing with the 14 electrical contractor, L. K. Comstock, with respect to 15 their quality control program?
16 A Yes, sir.
17 Q Now, in that capacity, who did you report tc?
18 A Mr. Mennecke.
19 Q And Mr. Mennecke was the supervisor in charge of that 20 work activity interf acing with Comstock's QC program?
21 A h o, sir. The Proj ect Construction Department is 22 basically divided into areas consistent with the 23 di sciplines that are used f or the construction, 24 electrical, mechanical and civil.
25 0 Okay.
- (~)T l
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2774
{} TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER 1 A Mr. Mennecke -- and there are three, ther ef or e, lead --
2 what we call lead engineers, each of those disciplines.
3 Mr. Mennecke is the lead f or the electrical 4 di scipline.
5 0 Okay. So he was the boss with respect to interf acing 6 with Comstock f or PCD --
7 A Yes, sir.
8 0 -- Proj ect Construction Department of Edison?
9 A Yes .
10 Q And you worked f or Mr. Mennecke.
11 Who, in turn, did Mr. Mennecke report to?
12 A At that time it was Mr. Shamblin.
O 13 Q And w ho -- Mr. Shamblin was the Commonwealth Edison 14 Company Proj ect Construction Superintendent; is that 15 right?
16 A Yes, sir.
17 0 And w ho, in turn, did Mr. Shamblin report to?
18 A Mr. Wallace.
19 0 Michael Wallace?
20 A Yes, sir.
21 Q And Mr. Wallace was the Proj ect Manager; is that right?
22 A Correct.
23 Q And then Mr. Wallace was the senior man onsite and he 24 reported off site to whom, Mr. Maiman?
25 Yes.
(]) A snnneng nepnrH ng service. r.e a _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. ]
2775
(} TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER 1 Q Mr. Maiman?
2 A I believe so, yes.
3 0 Mr. Wallace was the top dog onsite or the senior man 4 onsite;?
5 A Yes.
6 0 You had occasion to learn of a complaint that had been 7 vritten by John Seeders, the QC Inspector for Comstock?
8 A Yes, si r.
9 Q His August 17, 1984, letter came to your attention, did 10 it not?
11 A Right.
12 0 All right. And you understood that shortly af ter his O 13 August 17 th letter he sought to meet with the senior 14 Edison person onsite, Mr. Wallace; correct?
15 A That's cor rect.
16 Q But' Mr. Wallace didn' t meet with Mr. Seeders, did he?
17 A That's cor rect.
18 Q And you did?
19 A That's cor rect.
20 0 And as you stated in your testimony, be ca use, 21 essentially, the Seeders coaplaint letter or the request 22 for an audience or a meeting with Mr. Wallace was passed 23 on down these levels in the chain of command and it j 24 ar rived -- it was to your -- it f ell to you with respect 25
(]) to John Seeders?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
.. ~ . - _ . .
2776
{ {} TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER
, 1 A That's correct.
2 Q And part of that was because Mr. Mennecke wasn' t 3 available, he was on vacation; is that right?
i' 4 A That's correct.
5 0 All right. But do you know whether or not Mr. Shanblin j 6 and Mr. Wallace were on vacation at that time?
I 7 A No, they were not on vacation.
8 Q So they were present and available, but they are -- it !
9 was their decision that they were not going to meet.with 10 Mr. Seeders that they handed that task on down to you?
j 11 A That's right.
i
! 12 Q You describe in your testimony your two meetings with a
13 John Seeders, and the tone of your testimony leads me to 14 understand, Mr. Gieseker, that the meetings were cordial 15 in character; is that a f air conclusion to draw?
16 A Yes, si r. ,
17 Q You and Mr. Seeders spoke on f riendly terms?
18 A Yes, si r, cer tainly.
19 Q You state that Mr. Seeders let you know that the purpose l
20 of meeting with you was to inform Commonwealth Edison 21 Company that he believed that there was harassment being i 22 directed by Comstock management at him and other Quality 23 Control Inspectors at Comstock; cor rect?
24 A Right, yes. He indicated that he had written a letter 25
(]) to that effect.
I l i
Annntag R onnr ti ng Rervice. Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 :
(312) 232-0262 ^
2777
{} TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER 1 Q Well, you saw the letter; but did he not inform you in 2 the meeting that that was what he wanted to communicate 3 to Edison?
4 4 A Yes, sir.
5 0 All right. And, in short, I read your testimony, Pages 6 6 and f ollowing, to say that you listened to what he had 7 to say, af ter the first meeting, met with your boss, Mr.
8 Shamblin, Mr. Shamblin sort of filled you in on what was 9 news to you, because you had j ust come on the j ob, 10 basically what Shamblin knew aboub the state of af f airs 11 at Comstock, and you reported back to Mr. Seeders 12 subsequently ?
O 13 A That's cor r ect.
14 Q All right. Now, the question is:
15 Did you undertake any investigation or inquiry into 16 the subj ect when Mr. Seeders came to you initially, and 17 that was the existence of harassment by supervision at 18 Comstock against Comstock Quality Control Inspectors?
19 A In the discussion with Mr. Seeders, he indicated that 20 the -- his concerns were with his supervisor, Mr.
21 Sakl ak, and I knew that Mr. DeWald -- that the letter 22 '
was addressed to Mr. DeWald, who was Mr. Sakl ak' s 23 s upervisor, and that the -- I f elt the appropriate 24 emplqree -- Seeders had inf ormed the appropriate level 25
(]) of Comstock management and it was their responsibility Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2778
{} TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER 1 to look into this.
2 Q So the answer is no, you did not initiate any 3 investigation into the complaint that there was 4 harassment generally of QC Inspectors?
5 A That's cor rect.
6 Q Did you understhnd that Mr. Seeders was, complain'ing to 7 you in addition that, at Comstock, there was production 8 pressure being put on Quality Control Inspectors by 9 Comstock supervision?
10 A Production pressure on -- excuse me. I' m sor ry.
11 Q Yes, production pressure by supervision at Comstock on
, 12 the QC Inspectors.
O 13 A Yeah. The way he phrased it was that pressure was being 14 put on the managers and then the managers were, in turn, 15 putting pr essure on the inspectors.
16 0 All right. Well, by "the managers," did you understand 17 him to mean Mr. DeWald and Comstock QC management?
18 A W ell, at the time I f ocused in on Mr. Saktak, who was 19 his immediate superviscr.
20 Q All right. And where did you understand Mr. Seeders to 21 be asserted that that pressure was coming f rom? ,
22 A I asked him about who his supervisor was. He said it 23 was Mr. Sakl ak, and he indicated that he was having 24 problems with Mr. Saklak; and I asked him how long he ,
25 had been having that, and he said that he had worked for
({}
snnntag neparri ng Sarvi ce: r.ta Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2779 TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER
{~}
1 Mr. Saklak f or some years, but only recently had this 2 concern about he was being harassed and intimidated 3 occur.
4 0 Look, if you would, at Page 6 of your pre-filed 5 testimony, Mr. Gieseker. It's a response to Question 7, 6 the last complete sentence, I quote, "Mr. Seeders stated 7 that there was a low morale problem in the QC 8 De pa rbnent. This he attributed to pressure being placed 9 on QC management who, in turn, passed it on through QC 10 supervision to the inspectors. "
11 Now --
12 A Yes.
13 Q Now, I understand there we are talking about Mr. Saklak 14 and the position of supervisor s right?
15 A Yes.
16 Q And Mr. Seeders and others in the position of QC 17 Inspector; right?
18 A Okay, yes.
19 Q Now, from reading your testimony, it seems that you 20 recogniz e that Mr. Seeders was telling you that there 21 was a l ev el abov e Mr. Saklak that was the problem, and 22 there was pressure being placed on QC management.
23 I ask you again:
24 Didn' t Mr. Seeders mean, by "QC management, " Mr.
(} 25 DeWald?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
27 80
/~
d' TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER 1 A W ell, again, the -- I used the term QC management; but 2 at the time I was talking to Mr. Seeders, we were 3 discussing Mr. Sakl ak.
4 I agreed, he -- he then went on to talk about the 5 low morale and what were the causes f or the low morale; 6 and that was when he got talking about the pressure.
7 Q Ri ght.
8 But when you talked about the pressure, wasn' t .he 9 talking about, as you state in your own testimony, 10 pressure being placed on QC management, which I will 11 interpret to mean those above supervisor, be cause y ou go 12 on to ref er to supervisor --
O 13 A U h- huh.
14 Q -- namely, Mr. DeWald and others, who -- management now 15 -- in turn, to the QC supervisor, Mr. Saklak, to the 16 inspectors, Mr. Seese -- Seeders.
17 Didn' t y ou -- didn' t he -- Mr. Seeders now -- lead 18 you to understand that he was talking about' management, 19 one lev el, superviser at another level and i'nspectors a 20 third?
21 A Yes.
22 Q And did you understand anyone other than Mr. DeWald to 23 be ref erred to when he talked about management?
24 A Excuse me?
() 25 Q Were you understanding Mr. Seeders to be referring to snnneng n apnrH ng serv i ce- Lt d, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2781
(} TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIES EKER 1 any body other than Mr. DeWald when he spoke of QC 2 management?
3 A No. I -- well, I stated earlier I thought he wafs 4 talking about Mr. Sakl ak.
5 Q Okay. But do you see what my problem is?
6 Unless you want to amend your testimony, Mr.
7 Gieseker, I see three levels being ref erred to there.
8 You have identified Seeders and the QC inspectors 9 as the bottom level, as f ar as the QC supervision is 10 concerned, that is Mr. Sakl ak, isn' t it?
l 11 A Oh, I' m sor ry.
12 I think that the -- my -- at the time I thought he 13 was making pressure by Edison or PCD.
14 Q I see.
15 A QC management, and who was Mr. Saklak or -- I guess you 16 could say Mr. DeWald -- and now -- and then the 17 inspectors.
18 0 Okay. Well, that -- so you did understand him to 19 suggest that pressure came f rom the outside, say, from 20 Commonwealth Edison Company's Proj ect Construction 21 Depa rtment, on to Mr. DeWald, who is the management, in 22 turn, on to Mr. Sakl ak, who directly put the heat on the 23 QC Inspectors?
24 A Yes.
25 Okay.
(]) Q Now, having understood that he was really talking Sonntag Reporting Servicef _ Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2782 TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER
{}
1 about your employer, Commonwealth Edison Company, 2 putting this pressure on QC management, the question is:
3 What did you do to f ollow-up on that concern?
4 A W ell, the -- the pr emise of th'e pressur e, if you will, 5 was the low morale or the problem was low morale; and so 6 I discussed it with Mr. Shamblin to find out what he 7 meant by that, or w hat -- if we know there was a morale 1
8 problem at Comstock. ;
9 Q Ri ght.
10 You do explain that in your testimony; but aside 11 from the low morale issue, my question is:
12 Did you do anything to pursue the complaint that
()
13 there was pressure from Commonwealth Edison Company or 14 another source on Comstock management that in turn led 15 to pressure on inspectors and therefore low morale?
16 A No.
17 Q Did you raise the subj ect of Edison pressure on Comstock 18 with your superior, Mr. Shamblin, when you brief ed him 19 on your conversation with Mr. Seeders?
20 A Well, we talked about what the situations in the 21 Comstock house were at the time, and there certainly was i
22 pr es sur e. We didn' t f eel it was undue pressure.
23 There was -- Mr. Shamblin explained to me, though, 24 that there was a number of items, problems that were --
(]) 25 he was resolving, in working with Comstock management to i
Sonntag Reporti pg Servlce, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2783
(} TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER 1 resolve; so there were a lot of items on the agenda, you 2 might say. .
3 Q All right.
1 4 A And so he was working to get those resolved; and then 5 there were things that occurred which I talk about in my 6 testimony, which seemed to impede that, getting those 7 problems resolved; and that we felt attributed to the 8 low morale, quote-unquote, of the QC Department.
9 0 Okay. I want to focus on the sources of pressure.
! 10 I recognize that you said that you don' t think it 11 was undue pressur e, but pressure nonetheless; and the 12 question to you is:
- 13 What were the issues or the sources that were the 14 basis f or pressur e f rom Edison on Comstock to perf orm?
15 A The -- like I said, that when Mr. Shamblin took over, he 16 told me that he had a number of situations in the 17 Comstock house to resolve, the backlog that we have i 18 talked about being one of them, certainly; and there is i 19 a number of corrected action programs of the -- they had l 1
20 identified a number of NCR's in that spring / summer that 21 they had to resolve; there was some NRC concerns; there i
22 was a letter written in the middle of the summer to 23 revise the certification procedures; so then there was 24 an ongoing recertification ef fort, and all those 25 activities had to be coordinated, and it was j ust a lot
( 1 l i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. I Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
27 84 TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER
/}
1 of work f or the Comstock organization to get complemed. 2 Q All right. When you say " backlog," the backlog of what? 3 A It was my understanding that there was a number of 4 installation reports that had been -- that -- on which 5 an inspection had not been performed; so they would have 6 to now go out and do a number of QC inspections on those 7 installation reports. 8 Q Were you aware of the figure 14,000 as a figure from the 9 backlog at the point where Mr. DeWald came on as Proj ect 10 -- as QC Manager at Comstock? 11 A Not at the time I talked to Mr. Shamblin, but I have 12 heard that figure since then. ( 13 ) Q All right. Well, at the time that you talked to Mr. { 14 Shamblin, did he use a figure for- backlog when he 15 ref erred to backlog of inspections? 16 A I -- I can' t remember if he used a specific number or
- 17 not -- excuse me -- but he did indicate there was a 18 ba cklog.
19 Q All right. And do you r ecollect, independently of what 20 Mr. Shamblin may have said to you at that time, then, in 21 August of 1984, what the extent of the backlog of 22 inspections was? 23 A The exact number, no. 24 Q How about a round number, an estimate of the nunber? {} 25 A At this point, no, I can' t tell. Sonntag Rennr hi ng Rarvice, Ltd. Genev a, Illinois 60134 j (312) 232-0262
i l 2785 l l l (} TESTIMONY OF J AMES U. GIESEKER 1 Q Fine. ! 2 Was there a backlog -- Qas there a backlog of any 3 other work that you were aware of at the time, August of 4 - 1984? , 5 A Mr. Shamblin phrased it as a backlog of inspections and, 6 subseq uently , I do n' t -- I can' t remember if we talked 7 about the ICR/NCR backlog or not; but I have learned 8 subsequently that there was a concern about the NRC, 9 about a number of open ICR's. 10 Q ICR's and NCR's? 11 A Yes. j s 12 O How about a backlog of quality documents that needed to 13 be reviewed -- that needed to be reviewed? 14 A I don' t believe Dan and I talked about it at that time, 15 that specific issue; but certainly that was one of the 16 programs that was going on at that time, also. 17 Q All right. 18 A Review of QC documentation. 19 0 All right. Then you otherwise, aside f rom talking to 20 Mr. Shamblin, became aware that there was at the time, 21 August of 1984, a backlog of document review as well? 22 A I -- I can' t remember if it's the exact -- what the 23 number was in August of 1984, but I believe they were 24 working on the QC program at that time. 25 0 All right. Now, you mentioned corrective action (]) Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2786 {} TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER 1 programs as a source of pressure from Edison on 2 Comstock. 3 Can you identify what corrective action programs 4 you have in mind that were outstanding at that time? 5 A The gentleman I mentioned earlier, Mr. Skrier, was 6 following a number of CECO NCR's at the time, which 7 required in each of them a -- a mini program to resolve 8 the concern. One happened to do with the certain type 9 of lug that had been ordered, that was not within the ! 10 Edison standards, that had to be -- a field r eviewe had 11 to be made to determine the use of the lug. 1 12 Another example was: Butt splices were -- its 13 connecting of a -- when you extend a conductor of a 14 field cable inside a cabinet, we have a latitude in our 15 specifications to extend it, because of rew or k, with a 16 butt splice. 17 0 To j oin two pieces of cable together? 18 A Two conductors. 19 Q Two conductors; right. 20 A All right. And at LaSalle the problem originally 21 occurred, and they looked at it, and both Byron and 22 Braidwood had a similar problem, so there is a CECO NCR 23 written, and it required a review of the panels to 24 determine the use of the butt splices and performing an 25 inspection or replacement of butt splices. (]) Sonntag Reporti ng Service. Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
27 87 {} TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER 1 Q All right. 2 A The third one had to do with another problem that 3 generated at LaSalle, involving the underrating -- 4 under-voltage ratings on the terminal block used in the 5 Limit Torque Valve; and what we had to do there .is 6 remcVe the terminal block because it wasn' t of the 7 correct voltage ratings tl at we were using or supplying 8 the valve with'; so we -- 9 Q Is a Limit Torque Valve -- is that a trade name for a 10 type of valve? 11 A Yes, sir, it' s a -- 12 Q Motor-operated valve? 13 A -- it's a motor operator for a valve, and the Limit 14 Torque is the brand name for the manuf acturer. 15 Q Okay. 16 A And they used that -- that -- excuse me -- we supplied 17 the valve with 480 volts. The block was only rated for
- 18 300 volts; so, therefore we had to remove the block and 19 perf orm a lug-to-lug connection f or that motor f eed.
20 Q Did that require quality control inspection? 21 A The -- we had a quality control verification that the 22 block had indeed been removed and it was not being used. 23 There is another requirement in the termination 24 procedure that certainly a QC inspection of the -- when 25 (]) a motor termination is perf ormed, that you have a QC Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2788 {} TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER 1 inspection. 2 That it wasn' t always done at the time, be cause 3 that may not have been the -- the field cable may not ) 4 have .even been pulled to that valve yet; but we j ust l 5 wanted to make sure that the block wasn' t available at
! 6 the time when the cable did get pulled.
! 7 All right. Q ; j 8 A Another concern on that same NCR was some internal 1 l 9 wiring to the valve, and they had to verify that a i 10 certain manuf acturer's wire had been used that was l 11 qualified wire, and they required that QC verification 12 of that, al so. I () 13 Q What other corrective action program did you have in
- 14 findings that were outstanding in August, 1984?
15 A Those are the three maj or ones that I remember. 16 Q Okay. When you said the NRC had concerns or there were l 17 NRC concerns that were outstanding, what are you 18 ref erring to there? 1~ 19 A The basic NRC concern is the -- the outstanding number i 20 of ICR/NCR's that were not closed out. . l 21 Q All right. And then, lastly, you mention that there was
, 22 a CECO letter requiring the revision to the l 23 certification procedures.
I i 24 A Yes, si r. 1 () 25 Q Did that require work on Comstock's part? Sonntag Ronnr ti ng Rervice, T.E d. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2789 (} TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER 1 A Yes, sir. It required upgrading of their certification 2 procedure, which was one of the first assignments that I 3 started on; and af ter we revised the certification 4 procedure, we then started to recertify or' upgrade, the 5 way we termed it, the inspector certifications. 6 0 I will return to that subject later. , 7 But you had personal involvement in the upgrading 8 of the Comstock certification procedures? 9 A Yes, si r. 10 0 All right. Mr. Shamblin, I take it, from your 11 testimony , briefly described these series of forces 12 that, together, constituted pressure to perf orm by 13 Edison on Comstock; correct? 14 A Yes. 15 Q And when he stated those -- when he identified those 16 sources of pressure, did you make the point that Mr. 17 Seeders was complaining that that pressure was being 18 translated through Comstock management, Comstock' s 19 supervision, on to pressure on the individual Quality 20 Control Inspectors? 21 A I don' t remember making that specific point to Mr. 22 Shamblin. 23 Q Did Mr. Shamblin raise that point, in substance, in 24 discussing Mr. Seede r s' complaints? i 25 A I -- no, I can' t r emember that. ({} l t Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd. Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
N 27 90 {} TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER 1 Q Now, in your 'first meetings with Mr. Seeders -- I am 2 looking at Page 7 -- in the same regard, Seeders says to 3 you, looking about the middle of the page now, quote, 4 "He said that he thought that if the morale problem were 5 not corrected, that it might adversely af fect the work 6 of other QC Inspectors, although he indicated that he 7 himself would continue to perform his work with complete 8 integrity as he always had done. " 9 All right. Now, is that, as best you can, an 10 accurate reflection of what was said to you some time 11 ago by Mr. Seeders? 12 A Yes. O 13 Q How did you understand the second half of that 14 stat ement, and that is, "that while he feared that this i 15 pressure might adversely affect the work of other 16 inspectors, " he himself, who continued to perf orm his 17 own work with complete integrity, that the latter aspect 18 related to Mr. Seeder s' own work? 19 A Well, I thought he was simply stating to me that he 20 would not be -- he would always do his work to the best 21 of his ability. 22 0 And could you believe Mr. Seeders when he told you that? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Did you perceive or understand any contradiction then, 25 (]) Mr. Gieseker, that Mr. Seeders was saying, in effect, 1 l l l sonntag naporti ng se rvica: Lta-l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 ?
2791 TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER (} 1 that this morale problem and this pressure was going to 2 adversely af fect or might adversely af f ect everybody 3 else's work but his own, the contradiction being that 4 he, only he or he as compared to the rest, would have 5 enough integrity to withstand the pressure? 6 MR. GALLO: Obj ection. The testimony is that 7 not everyone else, but other QC Inspectors, not , 8 necessarily -- 9 MR. GUILD: Strike "others." I don' t mean to 10 try to distort the language. I I 11 MR. GALLO: I withdraw the obj ection. 12 , MR . GUILD: Let me try it again. I
- 13 BY MR. GUILD
! 14 0 Did you identify any contradiction in what Mr. Seeders 15 was saying, himself as compared to others, that he, 16 because of his integrity, would not have his work 17 adversely af f ected, but others might? , 18 A I thought it was a strange way to say it, but I didn' t 19 pursue it with him. 20 Q Okay. And strange in what way? 21 A Well, I -- I don' t know. I guess I didn' t understand 22 why he feels he would think that it would adversely 23 af f ect others, but not af f ect him. 24 0 What did you do, if anything, to pursue this complaint 25 by Mr. Seeders, and that was that this morale problem i, i (]} Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2792
, TBSTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER
{~ } 1 might adversely af f ect the work of other inspectors? 2 A Well, again, I discussed the meeting with Mr. Shamblin, i 3 and we knew that Mr. DeWald was interviewing some of the 4 other inspectors to try to get an understanding of wha't 5 was going on here, and I thought that was an appropriate 6 way to resolve this, i
- 7 0 You understand that Mr. DeWald was going to interview 8 the other QC Inspectors?
9 A Yes. 10 Q And how did you -- how did you understand that? 11 A We had a meeting at the beginning of the week with Mr.
! 12 Wallace and -- excuse me -- Mr. DeWald and Mr. Shamblin,
! ( 13 and it was mentioned at that time that Irv would perform 1 14 some additional int erview s. 15 0 Oh, so Mr. -- Mr. Wallace had met -- had had a meeting 16 on this subj ect. It wasn' t j ust -- but it wasn' t a i 17 meeting with Mr. Seeders, it was a meeting with you? 18 A It was a very brief meeting. I really can' t remember 19 everything that was said; but, basically, Mike passed on l i 20 that he had been -- that Mr. Seeders had made a request,
; 21 I believe to his secretary, to meet with -- I don' t know
! 22 if Mr. Seeders said Mr. Wallace by name, but wanted to 23 talk with CECO management. Dan was a construction 24 superintendent that was responsible -- responsible for I () 25 the contractors, so Mr. Wallace gave the responsibility ( Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 232-0262 4
(312)
.- - ---,--,,.-,-_--,w- vv r , - - - .,-.-.w. -,..,,--,,.v,.--.w-- +,.-3m - , r,,, .,c,w,m-- ---,,-wvr-y--r-,.,v,-----.m,- - -
,.e , ,,w-,,
l 2793 l TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER [} 1 to talk to John to Dan, and then we -- and Dan -- I 2 believe Dan was the one that asked if Rick was going to i 3 interview some additional inspectors, and Irv said he
- 4 was.
5 0 Is this all -- the discussion you have just related all 6 -- in a meeting with all of these people present, 7 Wallace, Shamblin, yourself and Mr. DeWald? 8 A Right. 9 I talk about that on Answer 6. 10 Q Okay. At that meeting, did Mr. Wallace and Mr. Shamblin 11 acknowledge that they had seen Mr. Seeders' August 17, 12 1984, letter? 1 6 13 A I -- I can' t speak f or Mr. -- Mr. Wallace, but I believe 14 Mr. Shamblin had seen it. l 15 Q Okay. Mr. -- it was your understanding f rom that 16 meeting that Mr. DeWald was going to interview the class i i 17 of QC Inspectors 'that Mr. Seeders was referring to in 18 his comments to you, that he believed -- whose work he i i l 19 believed might be adversely affected by pressure?
- 20 A I didn' t know who Irv was going to interview. I knew j 21 that he was going to talk f or sure with Mr. Seeders, and 22 then I -- so I assumed that he would at .that time figure i 23 out who else to talk to. )
l { 24 Q All right. Well, did you understand f rom the meeting j i 25 with your superiors, Mr. Shamblin and Mr. Wallace, that l (]) i l i Sonntag Reportinq Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 i
2794 {} TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER 1 Mr. DeWald was going to undertake an investigation of 2 John Seeders' more general concern that tbe work of 3 Comstock QC Inspectors might be a3versely af f ected by 4 production pressure? 5 A Again, the -- I don' t think I thought of it in that 6 specific context, Mr. Guild. I knew that he was going 7 to talk with John Lbout his letter. 8 Q Okay. 9 A I -- 10 Q Well, I guess what I am focusing on: 11 You said in this meeting the subj ect came up, that 12 DeWald was committing to interviewing inspectors. 13 A (Indica ting. ) 14 Q And by that commitment, I want to know who you 15 understood he was going to be talking about. 16 A W ell, other QC Inspectors, but I didn' t know which group 17 -- if that was your question -- which subgroup. 18 Q Do you know how many he intended to interview? 19 A No. 20 Q All right. Well, have you subsequently learned whether 21 or not Mr. DeWald undertook a general inquiry to 22 determine whether there was production pressure on QC 23 Inspectors that might adversely effect their work? 24 A G eneral inqui ry ? () 25 0 Yes. Annntag Reporting Service, rtd: Genev a, Illinois 60134
- (312) 232-0262
2795 {} TESTItiONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER 1 A I know that he did, in fact, interview some inspectors. 2 I don' t know if you can consider that a general inqui ry , 3 or not, but -- 4 Q No, I wouldn' t. 5 But do you know whether or not he did undertake a 6 general inqui ry ? 7 A Not to my knowledge. 8 Just the -- with the clarification that -- with the 9 interviews he did perf orm. 10 0 All right. You learned subsequently, did you not, that 11 Mr. DeWald, in f act, only interviewed the people who 12 were essentially eyewitnesses to the run-in with Mr. O 13 Saklak the day of his written warning? ! 14 A I read Irv's report, yes. 15 0 And those were approximately 6 in number, inspectors? 16 A I believe it is 6. 17 Q And you did learn subsequently that Mr. DeWald didn' t 18 conduct any further inquiry' into the question of more 19 widespread harassment or ' production pressure on QC 20 Inspectors, did you not? 21 A Agai n, I di dn ' t -- I didn' t think of it in that aspect. 22 I knew that Irv had interviewed .some inspectors and that 23 was what he based his report on. 24 Looking back now, certainly that was not all the () 25 inspectors that were onsite at the time. Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312): 232-0262
i 2796 ] {) TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER 1 0 Well, when did you learn of the limited scope of Mr. 2 DeWald's inqui ry ? 3 A Irv issued a report, I believe it was late in September, 4 po ssibility, kind of a summary report on this incident; 5 and Mr. Shamblin then transmitted that report to Quality 6 First and when Quality First came onboard. 7 Q You participated in a meeting on the 28th of September, 8 about Mr. Seeders, did you not? 9 A That's correct. 10 0 That was the meeting at which it was determined that Mr. 11 Seeders was going to be involuntarily transf erred out of l 12 QC to engineering? O 13 A Yes, he was, yes. It was -- his termination slash 14 transf er was discussed at the meeting, yes. 15 Q Okay. Well, had you seen Mr. DeWald's report reflecting 16 the limited scope of his interviewing of QC Inspectors i 17 by the time that you participated in the September 28th 18 meeting that dealt with Mr. Seeders? 19 A I don' t recall. t 20 Q Did you see the DeWald report at about that time, by 21 that I mean, in the f all of 1984, or is it something 22 that you have only seen recently in preparing for the 23 hearing? 24 A No, it was in the f all of '84. 25 So you saw it about the time it was written? (]} Q Ennnta g Reporti ng Marv i ce, LFA. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. - -. . . , . . - - - . - _ _ - - ~ . - _ - . . _ _ - . - . - . . - .
}/
~
. i., ::/ _,.
_> ~
~~.
- - .~
N " 2797
^
-. l~
/~% ~ TESTIMONY OF gT6MES W.- GTESFKER Q
- a - -
, : q l'_
1 A Yes, the fal1 c'f'!E4. -
~~
2 O Well, once it came to your attention that Mr. DeWald had 3 only interviewad 6 QC Inspectors and had n,ot conducted a 4 more general; inquiry inte,the ef fects of production 5 pLessure on other TJC Inspectors at Comstock, did you s'. . 6 take any action?,- '
*: .s" .
7 A No. , s. 8 Q Do you recall reading tSI summaries of the interviews 9 that Mr. DeWald prepared' of the 6 QC Inspectors that he 10 did interviee? 11 A I remember reading the report, yes, and those interviews 7g 12 were indeed in that report, I believe, so -- 13 Q Okay. -Do ymon recall a recurring set of responses f rom 14 even those 6 to the ef f ect that, indeed, harassment had 15 been observed by those inspectors? 16 A I don' t renember the words that they said specifically, 17 no. 18 0 Well, if you accept my representation that those 19 responses were contained in those summaries -- 20 A U h- huh. 21 0 -- and read those summaries, did reading those summaries 22 prompt to you take any further action to look into the 23 general question of harassment at Comstock? 24 A No. 25 The time you met on the 28th of September,1984, with {]) Q
~
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I
\
l 2798 l {} TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER l
. 1 . Mr. Shamblin and Mr. DeWald and Mr. Seltmann Lnd Mr.
2 Schul.z of the NRC, to discuss John Seeders, were you , 3 aware that Mr. Schulz had some responsibility for 4 inquiring into Mr. Seede r s' complaints? ! 5 A No, I don' t remember that now. 6 I -- Dan was the one that -invited Mr. Schulz to the 7 meeting. 8 Q Well, you quots 'Mr. Schulz as saying that it would be 9 inappropriate for him to take a position on this matter. 10 A Right. 11 Q Words to that effect; cor r ect ? 12 A Right. He said that at the meeting. O 13 0 All right. And did he state any basis f or that 14 . position? 15 A I can' t specifically renember if he made a statement to 16 that effect, no, I can' t. 17 0 Can you recall anything that Mr. Schulz said at that 18 meeting? 19 A No. Basically he didn' t say much at all, except for 20 that, I do renember him saying that, I believe, Dan d 21 asked him if he had any comments, or something like 22 that, and then Mr. Schulz replied that he didn' t f eel he 23 was -- it was appropriate f or him to make a statement 24 one way or the other. () 25 Q You were aware, weren' t you, that Mr. Seeders -- Sonntag Repor ti ng Service, Ltd. Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
= _ _ -
2799 {) TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER 1 MR. G ALLO: Excuse me. 2 We want a clarification. 3 Was it appropriate or inappropriate to make a 4 statement, to totally clear the record up at this point?
- 5 THE WITNESS
- Excuse me. Now I am conf used.
6 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Did you want the Reporter to 7 read the answer?
'8 MR. GALLO: Read the answer back, please. -
9 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Would you please read his 10 last answer. 11 (The answer was thereupon read 12 by the Reporter.) 13 MR. GALLO: All right. I misheard it and I 14 apologiz e. 15 Thank you. 16 BY MR. GUILD: i 17 0 You were aware, weren' t you, Mr. Gieseker, that Mr. i 18 Seeders' letter was copied to Mr. Schulz, showed a copy 19 on the f ace of the document to B. Schulz of the NRC? 20 A Okay. You' re right, you are right. I do remember that. 21 Q Were you aware that Mr. Seeders had talked to Mr. 22 Schulz ? 23 A I believe -- I believe he -- Mr. Seeders said that he 24 had. I -- I can' t remember. . 25 When he talked to you in your first meeting? (]} Q Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 ,
.. - -. ~. --
2800 {} TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER i 1 A That's when -- I can' t remember when he said it. 2 Q All right. Now, ht the time of your September 28, 1984, 3 menting about Mr. Seeders, were you aware of a complaint i 4 by Mr. Worley Puckett, to the United States Deparbnent 5 of Labor, asserting that he had been terminated in 6 retaliation f or raising quality or saf ety concerns? 7 A No, sir. 8 Q When did you first learn of that complaint? 9 A Oh, I don' t think I learned about that until I got -- 10 well, I didn' t know exactly what the basis of his 11 concern was; but I think that Irv started going to some 12 hearings or something, and I can' t remember when that
' ) 13 started, but that's when I learned of it, when I f ound -
14 that Irv was off site to go to Ohio or someplace, 15 wherever the hearings were. 16 Q Irv DeWald, you mean? 17 A Yes, sir, a l 18 Q So it wasn' t until -- if I told you that was when the 19 company appealed the decision in Mr. Puckett's f avor by 20 the U. S. Department of Labor, and there was a hearing 4 21 before an A&ninistrative Law Judge in Ohio, it wasn' t - , 22 until that point that you learned that there had been 23 such a complaint? 24 A Right. () 25 Q At that meeting there was discussion, was there not, of Sonntag R epor ti ng Rety l t'm; Ltil Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2801 TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER (} 1 whether Mr. Seeders should, in f act, be terminated. 2 MR. GALLO: Ref erring to the 28th? 3 MR. GUILD: Yes, the meeting of the 28th of 4 Sept ember. 5 A Yes, there was. 6 BY MR. GUILD: 7 Q And was it Mr. DeWald who first raised the prospect that I 8 Mr. Seeders might be terminated f rom this, might be 9 terminated? 10 A I believe it was Mr. DeWald. 11 Q All right. And did Mr. DeWald, in f act, state his 12 intention to you to terminate Mr. Seeders?
' O 13 A I believe he did.
14 Q And did Mr. DeWald state why, state a basis f or his 15 decision to terminate? 16 A I can' t remember the exact examples he used, but they -- 17 they stemmed f rom the problems in the calibration area. 18 Q Did Mr. DeWald circulate a letter, proposed letter, 19 reflecting the termination decision? 20 A I don' t remember looking at a letter. 21 Q Okay. Do you recall ever seeing such a letter? 22 A I have seen a letter, yes. 23 Q Did you see it about the time it was written or more 24 recently ? ' (} 25 A No, I think I -- when we got involved with the -- these i ! Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134_.
- (312) 232-0262
w - -- 2802 4 TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER [} 1 hearings is.when I first saw that letter. 2 0 In preparing f or the hearing, you say? 3 A Yes, si r. 4 Q But you do recall Mr. DeWald stating that he had decided 5 to terminate Mr. Seeders and explained some basis f or 6 that decision? 7 A Right. 8 Q Is it true, then, that Mr. Shamblin, Edison Proj ect 9 Construction Department Superintendent, off ered the 10 thought that there might be an alternative to 11 termination, the transf er? 12 A That's cor rect. O 13 Q Okay. And do you know whether or not Mr. Shamblin at 14 the time of the September 25, 1984, meeting, was aware 15 that Mr. Puckett, formerly the Comstock Level 3, had 16 previously filed a retaliatory 'ischarge complaint with 17 the U.S. Department of Labor? 18 A I don' t know. 19 Q What did Mr. DeWald say, if anything, when Mr. Shamblin 20 stated, in substance, that transf er ought to be l 21 considered? l i 22 A What did he say? I can' t remember what he specifically 1 23 said. 24 I j ust -- I kind of remember just seeing him kind 25 (]) of think it over, consider that possibility. i , Rnnnea g Rapnr H ng Rervice,_Ltd
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 i
- - - - . .. . - . . - _ , . , . . . _ . _ _ _ _ - ~ _ __ _ _ , . . . . _ , . _ . _ _ , _ . . . _ _ _ , _ . _ . _ _ _
a 2803 (} TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER 1 I -- I don' t know exactly what he replied to Dan, 2 though. I can' t r emember. 3 0 Okay. Can you recall the substance of what, if 4 any thing, Mr. DeWald said back to Mr. Shamblin at that 5 meeting? 6 A W ell, I think there was -- I think that one thing Irv 7 said is that hc would have to ask engineering if they 8 wanted him, and that he couldn' t speak f or them, but 9 that he would discuss it and consider that alternative. 10 Again, I -- I am not speaking in literal words 11 here. 12 O Okay. O 13 A It's j ust concepts. 14 0 That was the substance of what you recall? 15 A I believe so, yes. 16 0 All right. Well, that suggests that Mr. Shamblin had 17 made the designation or proposed designation of 18 engineering as the place where Mr. Seeders might be 19 transf erred, and did he? 20 A I think -- again, it's -- I believe that engineering was 21 discussed, but -- 22 Q Do you recall at this time that it was Mr. Shamblin who 23 suggested engineering as where Mr. Seeders might go? 24 A At this time I can' t -- I can' t specifically remember if
/~h 25 it was Dan or who it was, but -- \J l
[ Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. J Geneva, Illinois 60134 1 (312) 232-0262
2804 TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER [} . 1 0 Okay. Now, Page 15 of your pre-filed testimony. 2 You state that you also discussed the question of 3 whether a significant deficiency report, a 50.55(e) 4 report, should be made with regard to the calibration 5 document deficiency; is that correct? > 6 A Right. 7 Q And I think you said that this was your responsibility 8 to make such a review? 9 A Mr. Shamblin assigned that to me, yes, sir. 10 Q Did you make such a review? 11 A Yes. 12 0 And did you determine those matters were not reportable? O 13 A Right. 14 Q And what was the basis f or your determination, that of 15 non- repor tability ? , 16 A W ell, basically, we have a checklist that we fill out to j 17 actually document the review. That checklist is 18 attached to the specific -- in this concern, NCR 3419. 19 Q Right. 20 But can you state for the record what the basis was ) 21 for your determination of non-reportability? 22 A Well, basically, at the time we didn' t know if any field 23 installations had, indeed, been af fected by uncalibrated 24 tool s. (} 25 There is a large question in the calibration area Sonntag Reporting Service,_Ltd-Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2805 {} TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. 'GIESEKER 1 about : we had no evidence that we had, indeed, issued i 2 uncalibrated and used uncalibrated tools in the field; 3 so at that time I determined it was not reportable, but 4 I also wrote a Speedy Memo to Comstock to inf orm me if 5 additional reviews -- if 3419 resulted in a number of 6 non-conf orming tools being used in the field, that we, j 7 Edison, would re-evaluate the reportability of this 8 item. l 9 Q So, as you recall it, a decision as to reportability e j 10 turned on the question of whether or not, in f act, 11 non-calibrated tools had been released for use in the i 12 field and had been, in f act, used on work in the field O 13 that would necessitate rework? 14 A That's cor rect. 15 Q All r'ight. And as of the time that you made your I 16 reportability determination, you concluded that there j 17 was no such evidence and, therefore, the matter was not 1 !, 18 repor table? } 19 A Right.
- 20 Q And have you subsequently made any positive I
j 21 determination that the matter was reportable? 22 A The NCR 3419 is still being dispositioned by Comstock i 23 Engineering, and I have received no indication that a 24 large number of discrepant tooled were, indeed, used in 25 (]) the field. i i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. j Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262;
2806 . {} TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER 1 Q Well, you are aware, are you not, that the regulation 2 requires reporting within a certain period of 3 identification of a significant deficiency? 4 A Well, again, I didn' t f eel the problem was -- 5 MR. GALLO: The question: Are you aware of 6 what the regulation provides? 7 Do you need it? 8 A (Continuing. ) Yes, I am aware of that. 9 BY MR. GUILD: 10 Q And so it's not a matter you can sit on f or years if you 11 determine it's reportable, you have to report it within 12 a period of time, do you not? 13 A When you determine it's reportaole, yes, you have a -- a 14 time clock. 15 Q And so as of today, June,1986, the matters that were 16 identified back in the f all of 1984 are not reportable, 17 in your opinion? . 18 A Yes. 19 Q They are not reportable because they are not significant 20 deficiencies, as the term is defined in NRC regulations 21 and Commonwealth Edison Company quality assurance 22 procedures? 23 A That's cor rect. 24 Q Okay. Now, I apologize for skipping back, but in the 25 9/28 meeting, again, did you discuss the subject of (]) I Sonntag Reporti ng sorrica, r+ a. l Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 1 . _
2807 TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER [} . 1 , reportability and Mr. Seeders' termination versus 2 transf er at the beginning of the ueeting? 3 A I believe the -- I believe that the first topic was a 4 concern in the calibration area, and the discussion of 5 NCR -- that they had issued NCR 3419, and Dan asked me - 6 to do the 50.55(e) r eview. 7 0 So the reportability and the calibration concern was 8 first, Mr. Seeders, the personnel action again Mr. 9 Seeders, second? 10 A I believe so. 1 j 11 Q All right. And when if at all did the subj ect of Mr. 12 Seeders' August 17, 1984, letter, come up, af ter those O 13 first two subj ects? j 14 A Yes, I believe the -- it was toward the end of the 15 meeting that Irv indicated that he had a writeup on the 16 letter that he had ready for, I believe he said, I 17 issuance or something like that, and it was toward the i 18 end of the meeting. 19 Q Okay. So it was at the end of the meeting, af ter you ; 20 already decided that Mr. Seeders was either going to be ! l 21 terminated or transf erred to engineering or somoplace, l 22 and af ter you had undertaken to do the reportability 23 determination for the calibration record deficiencies, 24 that you finally got around to dealing with Mr. Seeders' () 25 August 17, 1984, letter; right? I l Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd. Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2808 TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER [} 1 A Just -- maybe I want a clarification. 2 A perf ormance bf the 50.55 review at that meeting? 3 Q No, but talking about the f act that you were going to do 4 it. 5 A Right, okay. 6 Q Those two things came first and then you got around to 7 dealing with his letter? 8 A I believe that was the sequence, yes. 9 Q All right. And only af ter they decided that Mr. Seeders 10 was going to be terminated or transf erred did the group 11 agree together that the decision on termination or 12 transf er, as I am looking at your testimony, Page 16, O 13 was based solely on his poor j ob performance and is in 14 no way related to the f act that he had written the 15 letter -- 16 A That's correct. 17 0 -- that's what it said, words to that ef fect? 18 A Right. 19 Q And then what happened with the meeting? 20 A I believe there was one other item, a similar writeup 21 for Mr. Puckett, I believe, and then the meeting ended. 22 I believe that Irv indicated that he had those two 23 writeups' availability. 24 0 I see. So he also referred to Mr. Puckett in the same () 25 meeting? Sonntag Renor ting SEDLices_._Ltd-Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
t 2809 (} TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER 1 A I believe so, ri ght, uh- huh. 2 Q Okay. Do you recall now -- I know it's been some time 3 -- I asked you earlier whether or not you were aware of 4 Mr. Puckett's claim at the time of this September 28th 5 meeting, and I believe you stated that you weren' t and 6 didn' t learn of that until some months later? 7 A That's cor rect. 8 Q Take your time, " Gieseker, and think about this. 9 Are you now calling that Mr. Puckett's name came 10 up in the 9/28 meeting and it came up in the context of 11 Mr. DeWald saying that he had written -- had his writeup 12 available about Puckett? O 13 A That's right, but -- 14 Q So you were aware that Mr. Puckett had raised concerns 15 -- you were air.at e that he had been terminated? 16 A Right. 17 Q - And you were aware that Irv DeWald had written up an 18 int ernal report on those concerns? 19 A Right. 20 Q Okay. 21 A I -- , 1 l 22 Q I' m sorry, maybe I j ust presumed too much. ; I 23 You just weren' t aware that he had filed a 24 Department of Labor complaint? 25 A That's correct. (]} , Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 2810 I
; TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER 1 0 I see.
2 A What I thought the allegations were were the ones that 3 -- I don' t know if the " allegations" is the right word, 4 4 maybe that's what's conf using here -- but the concerns ) 5 'that were in the Comstock welding area when Mr. Puckett 6 lef t, and that's what I understand Irv's, Mr. DeWald's, l 7 writeup to be about. t 8 0 I see. Okay. 9 And the technical concerns, if I can use it that I 10 way, as opposed to the retaliatory discharge concerns? l 11 A Right. As I stated earlier, I did not know that this -- 12 that he had gone to the Labor -- O 13 0 Okay. 14 A I didn' t know that aspect of it. 15 0 But in any event, the subj ect of Mr. Puckett in his -- 16 at least his technical concerns, it also came up in the 17 context of the Seeders meeting, and in the sense that 18 DeWald said, "I have got the Puckett writeup now done," 19 too? 20 A Right. 21 I believe that the mentions of those two writeups i 22 were toward the end of the meeting, as I recall. l 23 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Do you mean: Did you know 24 that Mr. Puckett had been terminated at that point? () 25 A (Continuing. ) Yes, sir. i Ronnt ng naporH ng Rervice,ltde Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2811 (} TESTIMONY sOF J AMES W. GIESEKER 1 JUDGE Gh0SSMAN: Oh, okay. 2 BY MR. GUILD: i 3 Q Mr. Puckett had been terminated in August? 4 A The end of August, the 29th or omething. 5 0 '19847 i 6 A Ri ght. " 7 Q And did you -- did you -- were you -- were you aware, 8 Mr. Gieseker, at the time of the September 28th meeting, 9 that Mr. Puckett had raised quality or saf ety concerns 10 during the course of his work as the Level 3 at i 11 Comstock? 12 A At the time of the meeting, no. O 13 Well, excuse me, with the exception of the NCR 14 3099, which I was involved in the resolution of; but I i 15 didn' t know of any other concerns. 16 0 Were you aware that you were -- 17 MR. G ALLO: I am not sure the witness 18 finished his answer. 19 MR. GUILD: I am sor ry. 20 A (Continuing. ) Spe cifically, I -- af ter -- I knew Tony, 21 I had met Tony, Mr. Simile. 22 MR. GUILD: Right. ) 23 A (Continuing. ) What he took over f rom Mr. Puckett was l 24 work on a number of welding problems.
/~ 25 l
i (T / And I -- and so that's what I understood Mr. Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) .232-0262
2812 TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER 1 DeWald's writeup to be primarily involved with. 2 MR. GUILD: Okay. 3 A (Continuing. ) So I guess I didn' t -- you conf used me a 4 little bit on your classification of concerns, saf ety or 5 -- I didn' t know if we were talking about the same 6 concerns, I guess, the same that Mr. Simile worked on or 7 some other ones f rom Mr. Puckett. 8 BY MR. GUILD: 9 Q Let me ask you to clarify this, Mr. Gieseker. I r ealiz e 10 you are trying to be responsive. 11 Were you aware, for example, that Mr. Puckett had 12 recommended that work be stopped using the unqualified
-0 13 weld procedure for A-36 to A-4467 14 A Yes, I was.
15 Q That was an issue you worked directly on? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Were you aware that Mr. Puckett had made recommendations i 18 to Mr. DeWald about more programmatic revisions of the d 19 welding program; say, for example, the welder 20 qualification records ? 21 A No. There was a memo that Mr. Puckett wrote -- excuse 22 me -- that I didn' t see until some time later, and I 23 can' t even remember when it was, but it might not be 24 until we got involved in the hearings here. 25 0 Okay. (]) Sonntag Repor ting Sery_ ices _Ltd-Geneva, Illinois 60134
-(312) 232-0262
2813 TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER {} 1 A But I did know there was .a concern about stainless steel 2 welding, and the -- there was an NRC concern that Mr. 3 Puckett worked on with the weld filler metal, I do about 4 those three. 5 Q Okay. But you weren' t aware about a more general 6 concern about welder qualification records until later? 7 A Right. I didn' t read that. If you are referring to Mr. 8 Puckett's that he wrote to Irv, I didn' t read that until 9 -- again, I believe it was involvement with the hearings I 10 her e.
- 11 0 Well, when you are ref erring to a memo, are you 12 ref erring to the memo that he wrote to Mr. DeWald where O 13 he used the language - paraphrasing now - "We ar'e 14 approaching a complete breakdown due to the J ow morale 15 of QC Inspectors"?
16 A Right. 17 Q Et cetera, et cetera? 18 A Right. l 19 0 You recall that, that's the memo you are speaking of ? 20 A Yes, sir. l 21 Q And you saw that only in preparation f or the hearing? 22 A Again, I -- I really can' t r emem ber, I think that's when 23 -- the first time I saw it. 24 0 Were you aware that Mr. DeWald -- I mean Mr. Puckett, (} 25 excuse me -- had recommended that procedures at Comstock l l l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. l Genev a, Illinois 60134 ' (312) 232-0262
2814 {} TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER 1 be requalified to the ANS D 1.3 Code? 2 A Yes. 3 That was an issue that he -- that I believe the 4 first time I became aware of it was in a meeting that we 5 had to resolve the concerns on NCR 3099. 6 0 Which was the NCR that had to do with A-36 to A-446?
, 7 A Yes, si r.
8 0 You were generally aware that Mr. Puckett had made 9 recommendations in the welding program that were beyond 1 10 the specific weld procedure that's the subject of your 11 testimony, but the carbon steel and the stainless steel 12 weld procedures? ( 13 A I was aware that he had concerns above those. 14 Q Beyond those, that he had raised concerns and made 15 recommendations f or changes in the welding program in 16 addition to those two specific weld or types of weld 17 procedur es? 18 A Okay. The only one would be the -- he thought that the 19 1.3 code was more appropriate or should have been used 20 or was the one that was the mandatory one to use, I 21 don' t know exactly the right word, but he was pretty 22 insistent that we should be using the 1.3 code instead 23 of the 1.1 code. 24 0 Okay. () 25 A That came out in the meeting, and then the next day at a Ron nt a g n_ epor ti ng serv i ce,__Ltd: Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2815 {} TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER 1 Procedure Review Beerd. r 2 Q We will return to that. 3 But then were you aware that Mr. Puckett asserted 4 that he had been terminated because he had raised a 5 number of concerns about inadequacies in the Comstock 6 welding program? 7 A No, I didn' t know that. 8 I didn' t hear that, no. 9 Q Okay. Not until you learned later that this Department l 10 of Labor case had been filed?
! 11 A Right.
12 Q Mr. Schulz , the NRC inspector who was present at this O. 13 meeting, did he give any indication that he was aware of 14 Mr. Puckett and his concerns? 15 A I don' t remember Mr. Schulz saying anything about Mr. 1 l 16 Puckett, no. I
- 17 Q Okay. But you recall the words he used were directed at i
18 Mr. Seeders? ! 19 A I believe -- yes, that's -- Mr. Schulz ' comment, as I 20 renember it, was -- was concerning the Seeders problem, 21 yes. l 22 Q I see. Let's turn, if you would, please, to Page 9 in l 1 23 your pre-filed testimony, please. { 24 A (Indicating. ) i 25 First, returning to the question of what Mr. Shamblin (]) Q Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 ) ) (312) 232-0262
l 2816 TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER 1 told you bef ore you met with Mr. Seeders the second l 2 time, under Answer 9, you ref er to, " Ongoing 3 re-inspecting program and other problems. " l 4 Were there any other problems that Mr. Shamblin 5 made to you at that time that you hadn' t mentioned in } 6 response to my earlier questions? i 7 A No, not that we haven' t talked about. t 8 Q Okay. At the bottom of the page you give an example of
- 9 one of the problems or tasks at hand, and that is the l 10 revision of the Comstock qualification certification 11 proce dur e.
12 Now, you state that it was revised to f acilitate 13 certification of additional inspectors. 14 Again, that's Page 9 of your testimony; but isn' t 15 it the case that it was revised, the Comstock procedure , 16 was revised, because there was a site-wide requirement l 17 to upgrade QC Inspector certification procedures? 18 A That's right. There was a letter that was issued in the 19 summer to revise the procedure and then upgrade the '
- 20 inspectors, right.
21 0 Okay. So the purpose of the revision was not as stated 22 in your testimony, to f acilitate the certification of 23 additional inspectors, it was to bring Comstock's QC 24 Inspector certification procedure into compliance with i this Commonwealth Edison Company directive? Q 25 Sonnta g Repor ti ng Rery_ ice,ltrL j Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 -o
4 2817 {} TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER 1 A Well, we had to get the procedure' upgraded because we 2 had a number cf additions to the QC Department during 3 that spring / summer, so to get those guys into the 4 certification program, we had to first get the procedure 5 revised and then we could continue on with their 6 I cer tif ication. , 7 Q I see. But -- I don't mean to make it a chicken and egg 8 proposition; but the fact of the matter is whether they j 9 had new guys to certify or not, you would have had to 10 upgrade Comstock's procedure to meet this Edison
- 11 requirement which was site-wide?
! 12 A Oh, that's certainly -- my only clarification was that ( 13 there -- we had a lot of guys kind of standing around i 14 waiting to get certified, so there was an urgency that, ! 15 because of the delays, may not have been there had it i 16 just been a -- we didn' t have. this influx of new QC I 17 Inspe ctor s, because then you would only have had to have l l 18 done -- as the inspector came for his recertification, ; ! 19 you could have handled it on a more system -- more 20 scheduled basis. The problem was: All of a sudden we l ; 21 had more people in the schedule all of a sudden because j 22 of this beefing up of the QC Department. l 23 Q All right. Now, the directive f rom -- the letter you l 24 ref erred to that was a letter f rom Edison to all the 25 site contractors -- ({} , Sonntag Reporting . Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 6013^4 (312) 232-0262 m., _ .- , , , . < , _ - , - - - . . , - . _ - , - , _ , - . . . , , _ , . - , _ - ~ , . . - , . , .
I 2818 {'; TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER 1 A That's correct. 2 0 About when was that directive issued, do you recall? 3 A It was the beginning of July. j 4 Q 19847 5 A Yes, si r. 6 0 All right. And can you recall what prompted the Edison 7 directive with regard to upgrading certifications? 8 A I don' t know all the specifics. I do know there was a 9 concern -- I believe it generated f rom an NRC inspection 10 -- that practical tests include both accept and rej ect 11 criterias. That was one of the items.
. 12 There was an additional request to make a test bank 13 rather than have -- a test bank of 80 questions, or in 14 the case of a QA test, 20 questions, but for the tests 15 that were given, a test bank so that the questions could 16 be randomly chosen, so there were no two tests alike, in 17 essence.
18 Q Right. 19 A I believe that was a QA addition. 20 I don' t' know the basis f or that one. 21 Q Okay. 22 A I-am sure there are other reasons, but that's the only 23 ones that I can recall right now. 24 Q Okay. The aspect of including rej ectable conditions in 25 the field practical tests, is it your understanding that (]) Sonntag_Repor ti ng_ Service,_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2819
/ TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER
}
1 that stemmed f rom an NRC finding at Braidwood? 2 A Yes, sir. 3 0 And do you know which -- which, if any, contractor that 4 finding related to? 5 A I believe it was Comstock.
- t 6 Q So that as a result of the finding that Comstock's 7 qualification procedures were deficient in that respect, 8 there was a sitewide requirement that all contractors' 9 certification procedures im upgraded to include 10 rej ectable conditions in the field practical test?
11 A That's correct. 12 Q Do you recall whether there was an upgrade to require I-s) 13 verification or witnessing of the field practical tests? 14 A No, I don' t remember that specifically. 15 Q Do you recall any other deficiencies in Comstock's QC 16 Inspector certification qualification procedures that 17 you identified? 18 A No, I wouldn' t. Def iciencies, I -- I don' t know if even 19 the ones we talked about were deficiencies. It j ust 20 seemed that there was an upgrade of the program. That's 21 the way I interpreted it. 22 Q Okay. Page 10 of your pre-filed direct testimony, 1 23 Question 10 is stated, "Was CECO aware, as early as May
)
24 of 1984, of deficiencies in the calibration area?" The () 25 answer is "Yes. " l l Sonntag Reporting Service _i_Ltd. ' Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262 , 1
2820 TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER 1 You go on. 1 i 2 Commorwealth Edison Company, as a corporation, f 3 presumably acts through people. 4 Do you know who in particular was aware, when you
- 5 stated "yes," under Question 107 1
. 6 A CECO Q A Department, they were the one that perf ormed the i 8 Q know in particular who in the CECO QA Department? l 9 A Who the lead of the audit was? ! 10 Q Who in particular, as you respond to the question, was i
- 11 aw ar e, as early as May of 1984, of deficiencies in the
- 12 calibration area, et cetera?
j I O 13 A The electrical area was. I believe that audit was 14 audited by Mr. Hof f er, and then the way the QA 15 Department was arranged at that time was: The i j 16 Electrical Group or the group of QA engineers that would l 17 track or work with the electrical contractor would be i 18 involved in the resolution of any audit findings; so it i l 19 would have been the Electrical Group of the QA 20 Department. I 21 Q All right. You, James Gieseker, didn' t become aware of ~ i l 22 calibration deficiencies in May,1984, did you? [ 23 A No, I wasn' t onsite at that time. i l 24 Q All right. So when did you become aware of such 25 deficiencies? i. ! Sonn*=g Re,=rting Serstice,_Ltd: i Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
2821 (} TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER 1 A W ell, it wasn' t until later in the f all, when we started 2 having problems with NCR 3419, and resolution of those. 3 Q Okay. That was af ter you got on to the site? 4 A Right. 5 0 What's the basis, then, for your testimony at Page 10, 6 responding to the question, "Was CECO aware?" 7 A Well -- 8 Q It's not your personal knowledge? 9 A No, it's not my personal knowledge. It's quite evident 10 from the review of the CECO audit record that the audit 11 record was conducted in May of 1984. That audit report 12 did 1dentify concerns in the calibration area. 13 Q All right. And that audit report is the basis for your ! 14 testimony at Page 10 --
- 15 A Right.
i 16 0 -- in response Question 10? 17 A Yes. 18 Q The Question 11. "Please describe the extent of the 19 deficiencies known to CECO as of May,1984." 20 That, agai n, is based on your reading of the audit 21 report, is it not? 22 A Right. 23 The last sentence in Answer 11 basically sums it .- 1 24 up. The preceding description is just the written words l (} 25 of the Audit Finding No. 2, which would involve 3 items. 1 1 Sonntag Reporting Servi _ce, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 i
- _ - - . _ _ _ . _ - - - _ _ - - ~ _ _-- -- __ _ -- ---- - --- - - -
I 2822 1 i TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER
)
- 1 Q Again, it's not your personal knowledge, it's your j 2 reading of the audit finding to that ef fect?
3 A That's correct. 4 l 4 Q Again, the Question 12, did LKC respond, et cetera, and 5 answer, yes. 4 6 Tha t' s , again, not based on your personal 7 knowledge; you weren' t on the site on June 12, 1984, i 1 8 were you? 9 A That's right. 10 I read the Comstock's response. 11 Q And you saw a doc ~ument and the document had that date on 12 it? i i 13 A That's correct. ' 14 Q And Question 13 was the response to Finding No. 2 to i f
, 15 CECO. i 1
16 You are again not answering for yourself, since you 17 were not around to make a judgment at that time about l j 18 whether the response was or was not satisf actory; 1 j I 19 correct? i ' 20 A That's correct. That response is contained in CECc's l 21 response back to Comstock, which I also read. 4 l 22 0 So you j ust essentially recited your Answer 13 from . 1 i
! 23 another docmaent that you reviewed?
j 24 A Yes, sir. 25 All right. The Question 14 that appears on Page 12, ] (]} Q i Ennntag Reporting Service: thd-Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l l l 2823 ) l {} TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER ! l what was LKC's response to CECO's July 3,1984, letter. 2 Again, this is based now not on ycur personal 3 knowledge, but on your review of a July 23 rd of 1984 4 4 Comstock letter; correct? 5 A Excuse me? I' m sor ry. 6 Q Your Answer 14 is based on your review of a document 7 that is a July 23, 1984, letter, and not your personal 8 knowledge? 9 A If you will -- the part of Answer 14 is the j 10 chronological timing, if you will. 11 I started -- I had come or. site in the end of August
! 12 -- excuse me -- the beginning of August, and so the part 13 of Question 14 or -- excuse me, Answer 14 -- that is 14 indicated on Page 13, where the responses are af ter I 15 arrived onsite, I then was on or given those responses 16 by Mr. Mennecke, :and so I was aware of those responses.
17 Q okay. And your personal knowledge then begins when, f 18 with the 8/14 note here? 19 A No. I -- I ! don' t remember really 'seeing the 8/14, but 20 the -- it would -- where I remember starting to' be aware 21 of this problem was in September. 22 Q The first entry in September is September 17, 19847 23 A Right. 24 Q Page 13 of your testimony? l (} 25 A Right. I Sonntag Reporti_nq Servi _ce, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2824 TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER { 1 It would probably be more correct to say the issue 2 -- the issuance dates of those NCR's, whenever that 3 occurred, and I believe that was also in this same time 4 frame, and I was -- as I was -- . u 5 Q If that clarifies. 6 Let me see if I can figure that out. 7 When were those NCR's -- I see an entry, Page 13 of 8 your testimony, October 18th, LKC NCR 3419 had been 9 issued? 1 ! 10 A Right. , 11 Q And is that when you became aware of this chronology? 12 A Again, it would be whenever I first saw NCR 3419, 3406, 13 which was probably, yes, in that time f rame. I 14 I can' t give a specific date. 1 15 Q All right. Well, now, if it -- if , indeed, 3419 was 16 issued on or about October 18, 1984, this would reflect 17 that you were not aware of this chronology until af ter 18 you had had your September meeting, which you 19 participated in the discussion of Mr. Seeders' 4 20 termination or transf er; correct? i , 21 A Again, I -- I was aware of that. I can' t r emember i 22 exactly when I started, what specific date I started
- i 4 23 learning of this, Mr. Guild.
I 24 Q To the best of your recollection, it's the origination 25 of the NCR 3419, which brought the chronology to your (]) Sonntag R epor ti ng RerXices_Ltde - Geneva, Illinois 60134 4 (312) 232-0262 _ _ . - _ -._._.. _ _ _ _ _ - - _ ~ . _ . _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ .,. _ _ _ _
2825 {} TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER 1 attention first? 2 A W ell, I am sure that there was a -- that we discussed 3 Mr. Seeders' involvement in the calibration bef ore that. 4 I guess that's also the way i could have learned of this 5 or did learn of this, excuse me. 6 Q Hy initial question on this series of -- this question 7 and answer, beginning Question 14, Page 12, was whccher 8 or not you were aware of the July 23, 1984, letter, and 9 you were not at that time, since you weren' t on the 10 site? 11 A That's corr ect. 12 0 And it may have been -- it may have been as late as Q 13 October 18, 1984, when you first learned of the Comstock 14 response ? 15 A No. Again, I remember discussing problems in the 16 calibration area. When I actually read these responses, 17 I guess is what I am getting conf used on. 18 I don' t remember when I actually saw a physical 19 copy of these responses. 20 0 Okay. Well, the first line of your Answer 14 on Page 12 21 says, "LKC initiated a review of all of their 22 calibration records for items similar to those noted in 23 Finding 2," et cetera. 24 A Yes. [') 25 Q LKC inf ormed CECO Q A. This is by letter dated July 23, v Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. - Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2826 {} TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER , 1 1984. - 2 Now, you don' t have any personal knowledge of those 3 facts I j ust read, you asserted those f acts based on l 4 your reading of a document dated July 23 rd; correct? 5 A That's cor r ect. 6 Q The words, "all of their calibration records," are 7 interprative on your part and not based on personal 8 knowledge, are they? 9 A I would have to read the July 23 rd memo again to see if 10 the word "all" was used on that memo or not. 11 0 If the word "all" was not used on that memo, then "all" 12 would be interprative language that you have added that 13 is not based on your personal knowledge *at the time of 14 July of 1984; correct? 15 A Again, I wasn't onsite in July; you are correct. 16 0 Was there any other basis, assuming that the word "all" 17 is not in that July 23, 1984, memo -- and I ask you to 18 assume that f or purposes of the question -- is there any 19 other basis, Mr. Gieseker, for your testimony, Answer , 20 14, where you used "all"? 21 A W ell, okay. 22 With the -- with the clarification that the NRC -- 23 or, excuse me -- CECO's response back to Comstock 24 accepted the maj ority of their response to the () 25 calibration concern; it said, how ev er, "There is this Sonntag Repor ting Service,_.Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2827 TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER ['} 1 one area that we would like you to do more work in"; and 2 that's what I believe Mr. -- or, excuse me, the July 3 23 rd letter replied back to or stated that, " Yeah, we 4 are going to go do that additional look for you. " 5 Q Ri ght. Whatever it says, that's the only basis f or your 6 testimony here? 7 A Yes. 8 Q All right. Your chronology on Page 13, again, in answer 9 to Question 14, ends with December 3,1984. 10 That does not reflect the completion of the action
~
11 on the calibration document review, does it? 12 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Excuse me. 13 Did you say December 3 rd or November? 14 MR. GUILD: I am sor ry. 15 Nov ember. Excuse me. I misspoke. 16 A No, that's the last response that -- that I know about. 17 BY MR. GUILD: 18 Q All right. Well, you are aware, as you stated earlier, 19 that the NCR itself remains open; correct? 20 A Yes.
~
l 21 Well, excuse me, 3419 remains open. 22 0 3419, that's what I meant to say. 23 And that's bdcause the review of those calibration
)
24 records is still in progress; correct? l (} -25 . A' Well, the dispositioning of the NCR is being reviewed by Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2828 TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER 1 the Comstock Engineering Department, ri ght. 2 Q The evaluation of the review? 3 A Right. 4 Q So you think that the matter is not complete. 5 Af ter November 3,1984, did you stop being aware of 6 any further action on the matter? 7 A Basically, it was the -- af ter that date, we were 8 trackf.ng -- or the problem with the resolution of those 9 three NCR's. 10 Q Okay. Have you received any subsequent reports f rom 11 Comstock -- you, Edison -- received any subsequent 12 reports f rom Comstock regarding the status of the 13 - calibration document review? 14 A No. 15 Q Do you expect to get a report when the NCR's are 16 appropriately dispositioned? 17 A Two of the 3 NCR's are dispositioned. 3419 is the only 18 one that's still open. 19 0 Right. 20 So you learned about the other two and you are 21 going to learn about 3419 when it gets dispositioned? i 22 A No. I agreed with the way that it was going to be 23 dispo sitioned. They are j ust now implementing the l 24 dispo sition. l l 25 Q You made a no report on 3419 at all then? snnnt ag ne porH ng Service, r+a. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-C262
-.- . . _ - - - . . . . - - . . . _ . - . - . .\
2829 {} TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER 1 A We will get another report on it. 2 0 Ri ght. 3 A Again, we are -- we are trying to make sure it gets 4 resolved. 5 I guess I don' t understand what you mean by 6 " r epor ted'. " 7 Q Have you taken all the action on the matters on 3419 8 that you expect to take? 9 A Well, the PCD Department, we have assigned a guy to work 10 with Comstock to make sure that this one gets resolved. ! 11 Q Okay.- Who is that? 12 A Mr. Doherty. 13 0 Do you know whether Mr. Doherty has received any further 14 reports on the status of NCR 34197 15 A I believe that he's been ' working with them and with the 16 Engineering Department over there, yes. 17 Q Does he, in turn -- Mr. Doherty, in turn -- report to 18 you? 19 A I -- you know, I have been spending most of my time with 20 the hearing here, but that's -- I have known that he's 21 filled me in that they are working on the disposition, l 22 ri ght. 23 Q All right. 24 A I don' t know if I was responsive there. 25 0 Yes, thank you. l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. I ! Genev a, Illinois 60134 f l (312) 232-0262 l l
2830 gg TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER 1 When you state, then, at Page 14 of your testimony, 2 Mr. Gieseker, Answer 17, quote, "The documentation 3 deficiencies call into question large amounts of work 4 that may have been perf ormed with out-of-calibration 5 tools and instruments. " 6 That statement should be modified with the 7 statements that you have previously made in response to 8 ny questions, and that is to the effect that you since 9 learned that there were not, in f act -- I am not trying 10 to quote your testimony -- but large numbers of tools 11 that were used in the field were in an 12 an-out-of-calibrated condition? 13 A Well, I used the words, "may have been. " 14 What -- what the -- the QC Department identified a 15 probl em, and now the Engineering Department is trying to 16 resolve that problem, and part of their review is this 17 determination. 18 Q Ri ght. 19 The "may have. been. " 20 But that "may have been" was resolved in f avor of 21 some greater degree of certainty that there was not; and 22 that greater degree of certainty is something you have 23 learned since the time when, in September of 1984, the 24 . problem was identified? (} 25 A I' m sor ry. I don' t understand the question. 4 i sonntag napnrH ng s rvico, e r.e a. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2831 {} TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER 1 Q Well, it may have been -- may -- the term "may" perhaps 2 was appropriate in September of 1984, but since then, 3 the results of the review have led you to the conclusion 4 you stated earlier, and that is that there were not 5 large numbers of tools that were released to the field 6 in an uncalibrated condition? 7 A No, no, no. I didn' t know. That is one of the things 8 th at -- the Engineering Department is trying to answer 9 that question. 10 0 Oh, I see. 11 Okay. To the best of your knowledge, there have
- 12 not been a large number of tools released to the field 13 i n --
14 A Right. 15 0 -- an uncalibrated condition? 16 A Right. 17 0 Well, I guess we will return, then, to an earlier 18 question a moment ago. 19 Do you expect to hear one way or the other on that 20 question whether or not there are tools that have been 21 released in an uncalibrated condition? 22 A Yeah. 23 Q How are you going to hear that? 24 A Well, I -- Mr. Doherty is given the -- again, the (^\ t) 25 response - given the assignment to respond to this NCR,
'Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2832 gg TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER 1 and I did talk to him that I did have this memo 2 outstanding to Comstock. 3 Q Right. 4 So you brought Mr. Doherty's attention the f act 5 that, as part of your non-reportability determination, 6 you had sent a Read-and-Reply Memo to Comstock saying, 7 "If anything changed, let me he know," in f act? 8 A Right; accepting your characteriz ation, yes. 9 Q I am not trying to be flippant about it. 10 But, in short, you told them to let you know that 11 there was a change? gy 12 A Right. What I wanted to do with Mr. Doherty. is remind ('~' i 13 him that that memo had not been responded to yet. 14 0 Okay. And what did Mr. Doherty say to you on that 15 score? 16 A He understood. 17 Q So do you expect that Mr. Doherty will give you an 18 answer back to your question? 19 A Well, either they can -- Mike can give me -- excuse me 20 -- Mr. Doherty can give me a response or Comstock can 21 respond to him to his satisf action. I 1 22 I trust Mike's j udgment, al so. 23 0 Is it f air to say that the bottom line, if you don' t l 24 hear anything, it's good news, and if there is a reason ('} w 25 to believe that there, in f act, were tools used in an Sonntag Reporti ng Snrvice, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2833 gh TESTIMONY OF J AMES W. GIESEKER , 1 uncalibrated state in the field, that you will hear 2 back, because Comstock will respond to your 3 Read-and-Reply memo through Mr. Doher ty's insistance ? 4 A Yes. 5 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : Mr. Guild, do you expect to 6 go longer than five more minutes or so? 7 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir, I do. 8 JUDGE GROSSMAN : I think maybe it's time to 9 take our br eak f or the day. 10 All right. Fine. We will recess until 9:00 11 o' clock tomorrow morning. g~, 12 ( WHER EU PON, the hearing of the 13 above-entitled matter was continued to 14 the 4th day of June, at the hour of 15 9: 00 o' clock A. M. ) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ('uj ')+ 25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. i Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 l j
f NO PAGE NUMBER CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER
- O This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the raatter of:
- O NAME OF PROCEEDING
- BRAIDWOOD STATION UNITS 1 & 2 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (EVIDENTIARY HEARING)
'O ( O DOCKET NO.: 50-456/457-OL l PLACE: JOLIET, ILLINOIS DATE: TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original , transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear O 1 Regulatory Commission. l
/ ?I 0 Cgd (slot) -_r<i
( TYPED ) G . Allen Sobtag [ O Official Reporter i Reporter's Affiliation i O(~h 1 \ \.) l o ,}}