Text

Enforcement Conference Rept 50-354/88-20 on 880609.Major Areas Inspected:Dept of Labor Determination That Contractor Bogan Discriminated Against Employee for Raising Safety Concerns.Agenda & Supporting Info Encl
	ML20196J067
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	06/17/1988
From:	Swetland P; NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20196J050	List: ML20196J045; ML20196J067;
References
	50-354-88-20-EC, NUDOCS 8807060317
	Download: ML20196J067 (52)
	v • d • e

e-

'

i.

.

e,

.

v

,

-

,

>

\\

v

i

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

\\-

REGION I

.\\ .

\\-

Meetind.No.

'50-354/88-020

License No.

NPF-57

'

Licensee:

Public Service Electric and Gas Company

P. O. Box 236

Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038

Facility Name:

Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station

Meeting At:

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

' Meeting Conducted: June 9, 1988

Approved By:

-

(, /7!T

~

P'. D. Swetland, Chief

Idat6

Reactor Projects Section 28

'

Meeting Summary:

Enforcement conference at NRC Region I on June 9, 1988 to

discuss the Department of Labor's determination that a contractor (Bogan)

discriminated against an employee for raising safety concerns. The items

discussed include review of the case history, the 1icensee's controls to

prevent discrimination against employees who report safety concerns, and the

potential chilling effect Bogan's actions had on reporting safety concerns.

,

I

CMhf0$j54

PNU

r

s

- - - - - -

- - -

- - .

-

- - -

-

.

. . -

y-

---

--

-

g

_ ,

-

,

f,;

.:

+

x

.

Qi .

'

,

+

,

'

<-

u

DETAILS

,

1.0 Participants

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

.,

S. Nilte.nberger, Vice President and Chief Naclear Off'icer

L. Reiter, General Manager Licensing and Reliability

B. Pre'ston,. Manager, Licensing and Regulation

>

,

C. Johnson, General Manager of Quality Assurance

D. Fryling, Attorney

M. Wetterhahn, Attorney

M. Sesok, Site Representative for Atlantic Electric

A. Giardino, Manager Station Quality Assurance - Hope Creek

'

'1.2

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-(NRC)

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

J. Gutierrez, Regional Attorney

.

R. Rosano, Office of Enforcement

D. Holody, Enforcement Officer

R. Capr'a, Acting Chief, Projects Branch No. 2, DRP

P. Swetland, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 28, DRP

D. Allsopp, Resident Inspector, Hope Creek

,

R. Borchardt, Senior Resident Inspector, Salem

G. Rivenbark, Project Manager, PDI-2, NRR

B. Hayes, Director, Office-of Investigation

2.0. Purpose

,

The enforcement conference was held at the request of NRC Region I, to

discus's the Department cf Labor's determination that a licensee contractor

'

l

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

3.0 Presentation and Discussion

~The Director of the Division of Reactor Projects opened the conference and

requested the licensee to present their perspective on the Department of

Labor's discrimination finding.

The licensee was asked to specifically

i

l

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

ployees who reported safety concerns and the potential chilling effect

Bogan's actions had on safety concern reporting.

i

The senior licensee representative,. disagreed with the Department of

Labor's finding and felt Bogan had ample adverse performance indice'.'as

to warrant demoting the subject employee.

The licersee explained the

Safeteam and Quality Concern Reporting Programs and now they would allow

an employee to report safety concerns without fear of reprisal.

They

..

-

..

-

.

-

. .

-

'

.

. :

.

4

2,

3

,

.

'

further stated that Safeteam monthly reporting statistics, indicated that

'

there was no chillingtsffect on other employees' reporting of safety

Concerns.

'

The licensee claimed that the reporting of five safety concerns was not a

basis for the employee demotion since the individual had actually been

promoted from a. technician to a' supervisor after.all five safety concerns

had been reported.

The licensee indicated that there was no evidence that

the individual's immediate supervisor had knowledge of the employee's

safety concerns prior to demoting the subject, employee.

The licensee's representatives proceeded to explain their long term cor-

rective actions which included their intentions to strengthen contract

requirements regarding employee protection provisions specified in 10CFR 50.7 and to send letters to-present contractors reemphasizing employee

protection requirements.

In addition, the licensee ~ intends to require

contractors to notify them when the contractor becomes aware of cases of

discrimination alleged against them.

The licensee's presentation material

~

appears as attachment 1 to this report.

4.0 Concluding Statements

The Director of the Division of Reactor Projects thanked'the licensee for

their presentation and stated that this information'would be considered

in the NRC's determination of enforcement actions related to these issues.

,

1

i

--

~3--

_.,,,,n..

.n..

- ,...-,

.

- ~~,-

n

_

.

'

ATTACHMENT 1

.

-

NRC/PSE8G MEETING

\\-

JUNE 9, 1988

AGENDA

-

OPENING STATEMENT - S. MILTENBERGER

CHRON0 LOGY OF EVENTS - B. PRESTON

-

DISCUSSION OF SELECTED DOL TRANSCRIPT REFERENCES-

B. PRESTON

QUESTIONS REGARDING DOL FINDINGS - B. PRESTON

-

SAFETEAM AND QUALITY CONCERN PROGRAMS - C. JOHNSON

-

CLOSING REMARKS - S. MILTENBERGER

'.

4

.

-

.

-

._ -

..

.-

..

>

,..-

,

.

<

'

._

EMPLOYMENT OF.AL FRANCIS

s

CHRONOLOGY

.

-

',

,

M

IV1El

June 17, 1984

Date of hire

August 1984

Promot' ion;to supervisor, walk.down

crew-

-

.

...--

.

August.7, 1984

First fiel'd que'stionnaire filed

,

. August 21, 1984

Secon'd fia'id qusationnaire filed

October 23, 1984

Third f'ield hostionnaire filed

.

Tourth. field, questionnaire filed

..

.

November 14, 1984

l

-:

.

. .

.

January 15, 1985

Fifth;. field qu,estibautre filed

'

April 1985

Return.to technicien level at

Francis' request,

l

4

1

May 1985

Promotion to supervisor

l

August 24, 1985

Demotion to technieian

.

August 26,~1985 _

Contact.with'8AF8TEAN

l

-

.-

.

~

.

'

August 27, 1985

Contact with*WRC.

-

,

'

.

-

..

.

..

.

September 11, 1985.

Francis' files with dol .

s

n

.

\\

~

'

oathbor 18, 1985

' ' ' dol' invesfigators .determinatios of

t

po'ssible yielation.. -

'

-

,

'

-

December 19,,i985

- ,' dol '. bearing

.

,.

.

March 21, 1986

Admi'nistrative Law' Judge

.

_

Recommended Decision and Order

-

'

January, 1987

Francis leave.s site'.for other

employment with sogan

-

April 1, 1988

secretary of Labor Final Decision

and order

May 3, 1988

NRC letter te enforcement

conference

,

l.

,

.

_

.

SSINS No.:

6835

IN.84-08

.

tal!TES STATES

NUCLEAR REdut.ATORY C00 MIS $10N

OFFECE 0F INSM CTION AND ENFORCENENT

lR$NINSTON, D.C.

20555

February 14, 1984

IE Infest 4 TION NOTICE NO. 84-08:

10 CFR 50.7

El#LOYEE PROTEIIINI

h:

This information notice calls attention to' 10 CFR 50.7

which prohibits discrimination against an employee for

engaging in certain protected activities, such as

providing the Commission information about possible

violations of requirements imposed by the Atomic Enery

Act or the Energy Reorganization Act.

e

We urge you to review your activities to ensure that

(1) a mechanism exists for employees to raise safety

issues free from discrimination and (2) empicyees are

notified about this mechanism.

Your contractors also

i

should be aware of this matter.

l

1

,

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

-... -- -.- .-

-

.

.-

-

..

a

8

,'

I

HOPE

l $ CREEK

SAFETEAM"

'

.

r

,

-

.

i

\\\\.

HOPE

CREEK-

i

-

'

/s

,

.

p.

.

"

_

$

8

g

'

\\

l

.

,

l

.

. . . -

. - - .

- .- -

. . - - - . . -

_

.

___.

e

,

l'

'

Bulk Rats

,

U. S. Poetage

PAID

I

-

Permit Nc. 533

,

'

Wilmington. DE 19650

HOPECREEK

Tj# CUR

lENT la

,;

j

Volume 6, Number 8

8@6

September,1984

i

SAFETEAMs ARR VES!

Just as an army brings in the re-

serves to ensure victory, so PSE&G is

drawing upon the best available re-

r

-

y

,

n

.

-

.,}

sources to ensure titat all quality and

f

!

m safety concems are resolved before

.

l

construction is complete. PSE&G's im-

1

piementation of SAFETEAM8 at Hope

~

,

Creek represents a major effort to safe-

guard against technical problems that

J)

g

could impede licensing or fuel load.

SAFE (EAM8 fills a critical niche in

-

i

communication on the job. The pro-

-

'

gram's basic function is to provide em-

.

,

ployees with a responsive, confidential

-

'

o

i

service where concems about plant or

O

,,

job safety and quality can be discus-

, .

,

.

'

sed. The program also oversees inves-

,g,

tigation of these concems, and docu-

'

ments any corrective actions that are

s/

taken.

'

The program has two branches. It

o

'

has assumed command of the Hope

.

Creek Hotline; and it also perfomis exit

.

l

Interviews. PSE&G has retained the

\\

services of Utility Technical Services

(UTS), a third party agency, to adminis-

.

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

[

'

tained a separate organization to per-

form the interviews and man the

n___

_ _ _ ..

._

m

phones. This builds an element of

"confidence-in-depth; " in other

A

words, any employee who participates

in this program is guaranteed anonym-

' ity as far as PSE&G, Bechtel, or any

other company contracted to perform

work at Hope Creek is concemed.

(Cononued on Page 3)

.

- - - - -

,

~--w

- - - - - - .

-~

l

=

.

,

September,1984

3

f3 sAFETEAM'

2. Exit interviews

w) (Conbnued from Page 1.)

When an employee term.inates em-

Hope Creek

The SAFETEAM concept was de-

ployment at Hope Creek, he or she will

veloped by Detroit Edison for use at its

be invited, on their last day of work, to

F rmi2nuclearpower plantundercon-

the SAFETEAM Appreciation Center

Hohe *-

struction in Michigan. The program has

(located in a trailer between TB1 and

attracted quite a bit of attention, all of it

the powerblock.) The purpose of this

positive, from utilities, contractors, and

visit is two fold. It gives PSE&G a

1-800-932-0593

government agencies. SAFETEAM is

chance to thank the employee for parti-

in operation at plants under construc-

cipating in this project; and it gives the

(Toll free from NJ, MD, PA, DE)

tion for Commonwealth Edison and

employee a chance to discuss any

Houston Power & Light, which puts us

concems that he or she might have

in the forefront of this "new wave" in

about the project. Exit interviews are

quality communication.

strictly confidential. All records of inter.

How SAFETEAMs Works:

views (including Hotline interviews) are

anonymous when they are routed for

f. The Hotline

evaluation and investigation.

'tECT

d

The Hope Creek Hotline is a toll-free

Employees who visit the apprecia-

h*

^ N S

line to SAFETEAM headquarters. Any

tion center on their last day of work are

9 -

Y

Hope Creek employee or former em-

given SAFETEAM coffee mugs and

.TY,~ ?

,

ployee may use the hotline to express

bumper stickers as an added expiess-

f

'

\\

concems about the design, coristruc-

ion of appreciation.

f

Mb -

cp

tion, or management of the project.

Concerns are classified into catego-

A

Dr

i

The line is "manned" five days a week

ries including nuclear safety, secunty,

4

[.

L.F

- from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday

industrial safety, site management,

%

-l

..M

e

through Friday, and fror- 4:30 p.m. to

and miscellaneous. All concems ex-

9,

r

M

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

cept nuclear safety are investigated by

~b

'

An answering machine records calls

PSE&G. Nuclear safety concerns are

. ,)

(,) made during off hours;and team mem-

investigated by an outside agency, and

Yn

v

'

y

f

"

bers will respond to those calls at the

their reports are reviewed by a special

N'M

'

98

start of the next day of normal opera-

panel of PSE&G representatives. This

9 #

3

tion-

panel is responsible for ensuring that

Y

-

S

The Hotline will also make write-in

corrective actions are taken. At that

j?

,

, , , , ,

l

forms available, and welcomes em-

point, SAFETEAM sends the em-

" , _ " <

-

ployee communication by this means.

ployee a letter outlining what was

Employees are not required to identify

found and what wat done as a result of

themselves when dealing with the hot-

the employee's concern.

I

line, but if they want follow-up informa-

SAFETEAM is writing to hear from

[

tion, their name and address will be

ul

requested.

l

P.Jil McCune,

Letters and articles authored by Mcpe Creek

Editor & Pt)otographer

empioyees are welcome. Please inciude your

name.10 number. and craftdisciohne so that

Hope Creek

Janet Kay Ham.s,

we can retum matenal. All cuesbons and com-

Current

Editorial Assistant

ments regarding this publication shouid be

directed to: Bill McCune, Editor; c'o Bechtel

Shirley Hinkle,

construccon inc.

Published monthly for employees at

Assistant Editor

the Hope Creek Project and their

ramilies.

Kathy Hackett,

It

The contents of this publication may

l

ba repnnted wih permission. Alinghts

reserved.

(

rU'

Bechtel Construction, Inc,

noc,,,,,,y in, y, ws heid by Pubiic sennce

The views stated by our contnbutors are not

P.O. Box B

Electne & Gas Co., or of Bechtel Construccon,

i

Hancock's Bridge, NJ 08038

inc, or of any other company or organaanon

invofved in the construccon of Hope Creek

An Equal opportunity Emploror-M/F

Generanng Stanon.

._

_ ,

-

.

-

RESULTS:

,

Personnel Visits to SAFETEAM

7,733

'

s

Interviews Conducted

2,551

'

.

Concerns Identified

853

--

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

178

Management.......................

323

Nuclear Safety...................

310

.

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

39

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

3

..

n

>

.

O PSEG

~

.

Public Service Electric and Gas Company

P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, MJ 08038 609 339-4800

CortWn A. McNeill Jr, Vice President - Nuclear

November 3,

1985

To the Nuclear Department Employees

Assuring a high level of Quality and Nuclear Safety in the

Operations of our facilities is the responsibility of all

personnel.

The Nuclear Department has implemented a Quality Concerns

Reporting Program designed to provide a means for an individual

to report any Significant Safety or Quality Concern, while

maintaining a high degree of individual confidentiality.

This Quality Concern Program is not intended to replace the

normal lines of communication through appropriate supervisory

levels or the many reporting systems such as regulatory reporting,

Suggestion Plan Program or the Miss Peggy column of the PSE&G

news.

This system does provide,an alternate, confidential.

-

~

means by which any individual can identify a Significant.

-

Quality or Safety concern which he or she feels may have

and adverse impact on safe operation.

I have assigned the General Manager - Nuclear Quality Assurance

as the Quality Concerns contact.

A concern can be initiated

in two ways.

An individual can complete a Quality / Safety

Conctern Form and forward it to the General Manager - Nuclear

Quality Assurance, or an individual can report the concern

by calling 935-6000 extension 3400 and providing the necessary

description information.

Calls may be made between 3:30

and 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday.

l

Although it is recommended that the individual reporting

l

a concern provide his/her identification so that the result

l

of the evaluation of the concern can be provided to the individual,

it is not necessary.

l

This program will provide another way in which we can improve

l

upon overall quality and safety performance.

l

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

l

you that we will maintain confidentiality of all reported

concerns and provide a complete response as quickly as possible.

l

--

l

%

The Energy People

.

muskrat info line!

1

~

.

-

d.%" ' p'

.

Nuclear Department

.g

-

Artificial Island

A

g

PSEG

a[ ,

'

5 g

g l

Dial INFO (Ext 4636)

uEgrs

.

.: p.

i{0,f.h 'I '

-

Friday. November 15. 1985

Both Salem Units head into the weekend at full reactor

power: Unit 1 is producing 1.125 megawatt <3 and Unit 2 is

turning out 1.150 megawatts of electricity.

.

The training center got the good news yesterday that all 1

Salem station programs are now accredited by the Institut

,

of Nuclear Power Operations.

According to center manager

H. Denis Hanson. Salem is the second nuclear station in the

country to have all programs pass the test to join the INPO

National Academy of Training.

Hanson says they've set a

l

goal to get applications for the Hope Creek accreditation

program completed in 1986.

'-

-

.p.

. 1

-

.

. , . .. , . . ,.

.

,

.

, .

.

,

AttentionPSE5G.employeeswhoarecurrently receiving

mortgage interest dif.ferential payments for relocation:

Administrators of ,the' corporate refinancing,Arogram will be

~

-

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

11 a.m.

and fr.om 2 to 4 p.m.

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

refinancing questions.

~ '

.

2

j

"

-

, _ .

,

..

.

'

The Nuclear Department ha.s s t ar,t.e d a :' Qual'i t y Corcerns

Reporting: Program" beginning today.

This new program.

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

,

anyone to confidentially report a quality on safety concern

to top management.

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

' Nuclear

,

.

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

'

Concern contact.

Emp l o y e e~ s , c a n e i t'he'r complete'a form-

outlining their concern or can call 935-6000, extension

3400, between 3:30 and 4: 30 PM. Monday through Friday.

.

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

._

-

_ _ _ .

_

i

a

.:

.

6

--

'

~~

HERE'S MY QUALITY / SAFETY CONCERN

No.

2816

W

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

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

r

Here's MY RECOMMENDED CORRECTIVE ACTION

!

I

l

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

OPTIONAL

NAME:

TRADE or DISCIPLINE:

l

ADDRESS:

BADGE NO.:

.

RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGED:

l

TELEPHONE */ EXT.:

OAF 47

REV.1

10/06

l

!

-_

,ysm-3

.ec w ;: r,.

-..

r

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

.

,

.-

..

. . . .

.

orr

-

..3

t

!

,

l

M Ay .17

-

,

.

/

RECI.:' .:.

BEFORE THE

REFE.i 70

l

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

_

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

-

)

.

In the Matter c":

)

Caso No: 86-ERA-008

)

-

ALBERT FRANCIS,

)

Claimant,

)

vs.

,

_

,

, _ , , , , , _ _ . ,

BOGAN, INC.,

)

Respondent.

)

.

)

(.,

)-)

.

)

s

Pages: 1 through 282, including 1A

and 2A

j

Place: Camden,,New Jersey

Date

December 19, 1985

-

..

Acme Reperting Company

Offic*al Reponers

1220 L Street. N.W.

Wuliington. D.C. 2000$

.

(202) 628-4 88

r

--

- - T., , m

_ .

- ,u u

'-

-

- - -

-

,

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

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

~

_

..

-

--y

-

u m..

.,

. . .

,

. _ ..

-

.

/

'

1-

0FFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

2

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

3

)

4

In the' Matter of:

)

5

ALBERT FRANCIS,

)

Docket No. 86-ERA-008

)

6

Claimant,

)

7

vs.

)

8

BOGAN, INC.,

)

9

. . _

,

. _

Respondent.

)

-

= epc.

~ .

... ...._.

10

Hearing and Appeals Bu'ilding

11

Courtroom 3

2600 Mt. Ephraim Avenue

(

12

Camden, New Jersey

13

Thursday,

December 19, 1985

14

The above-entitled matter came on for hearing,

15

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

16

17

BEFORE:

HONORABLE PAUL H. TEITLER,

Administrative Law Judge

18

-

.

19

20

.

21

22

,

23

24

25

Acme Reporting Company

,

.

-

<

'

~,

.' s #

- my

,.

,

_

"

la

.

1

APPEARAliCES

-

2

On Behalf of the Claimant:

.3

JAMES KATZ, ESQUIRE

TOMAR, PARKS, SELIGIR, SIMONOFF & ADOURIAN

4

41 South Haddon Avenue

.

Haddonfield, NJ

08033

5

.

6

On Behalf of the Respondent:

e

v

7

CHARLES

W.

BOOHAR, ' ESQUIRE

,

PERLINO & LENTZ

-

S

2300 Packard Building

Philadelphia, PA

19102

9

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

-, , , m ... _

- - . . .

.-

,

.

10

,

11

,

(.f

12

.

13

14

15

16

-

,

l

17

18

.

l

19

!

20

21

1

22

!

t

23

'

l

'

24

!

l

,

25

i

.

l

Acme Reporting Company

-

- - - -

- . - .

.

. _ .

- - - - _ _ . -

~

..

, . .

.

-

.

w-

_. ;

.

..

,

.

-

.

_ _ _

.

2

-

.

'

.

L ll D. E. E

1

VOIR

.

2

WITNESSES:

DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS

DIRE

3

A.

FRANCIS

9

83

105

114

50

117

119

97

4

D.

DAVIS

121

139

141

__

..

5

J.

STROSNIDER

155

161

165

..

6

E.

JONES

,169

.187

..

__

7

D.

CAMPBELL

201

208

250

237

--

8

R.

CLASS

-

241

247

256

--

< - - .

. .

.-

._,

.

D.

DAVIS

260

265

267

--

10

.

11

(

n

EXHIBITS:

-

13

EXHIBIT NO.

IDENTIFICATION

EVIDENCE

.

14

D-1 thru 3

9

15

C-1

13

--

16

C-2

17

C-3

21

22

18

C-4 and 5

98

.

,

19

C-6

49

57

20

0-3

96

21

D-4

96

98

22

$

D-5

98

23

0-6

101

--

C-7

121

122

25

'

.

Acme Reporting Company

. .

_

_ _ _ _

-

x.

9

'

,

~~

,

..

.

>

2a

-

.

'

1

EXHIBIT NO.

IDENTIFICATION

EVIDENCE

2

C-8

127

128

.

3

C-9

129

130

"

4

C-10

131

--

5

D-7

157

161

.

6

C-11

269

271

.

,

7

8

9

10

11

'/ -

(

12

.

13

,

14

15

'

16

.

17

.

,,

.

19

l

20

21

l

22

I

e

!

.

23

24

.

25

.

Acme Reporting Company

.

___

,

-

20

,

I

-

'

r

i

su

'sory position again?

l

2

A

1

3

4

And do y

member app

mately when that

,

4

took place?

5

A

It was in t

atter pa

f May.

6

4

In be t'

n May and August 24t

1985, the date

y

of your de'r

on, did you continue to work

super-

.

8

viso

-

9

A

Yes, sir.

M

I

10

C

And could you please tell me, Mr. Francis,

"

11

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

ut

A

Yes, sir, they do.

13

4

And could'you describe the kinds of things

-

14

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

15

A

Always they emphasized the need to follow

16

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

^

17

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

18

The documentation is critical in a nuclear plant.

.l

I

19

G

What do you man by "the documentation is

l

20

cri

1"?

21

A

that the work you do has

e' documented

22

on the correct p

in the

cc.way, and the work

1

23

provides traceabil:*

e you can always go back and

24

tell whe

.nstrument was e

ated, what test in-

25

.. e n t was used doing the calibratt

You have got

.

Acme Reporting Company

-

.. - .

..

-

.

.,

,

.

21

.

'

\\

i

'

1

t

e able to prove that .the work was done.

2

0

And chat the work was done prope

.

3

A

Ye

ir.

4

Q. *

I would

to show '

what I would like to

5

have marked for identifi

n purposes of Plaintiff.'s

6

Exhibit No.

3.

'(The doc

t referred to was

7

8

marked for iden

~ cation

9

as Claimant's Exhibit

4

ll

10

BY MR. KATZ:

,

11

0

14ould you please idsntify that document for

( ,.

12

me?

~ < -

-

m,

. . . < . . . . - - -

..

.

13

A

This is a page out of the General ELployment

14

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

15

training sessions emphasized.

16

0

Who provides you that General Employment

17

Training Manual'?

18

e

A

The utility, PSE&G.

.

19

0

Did you receive a copy of that manual?

20

A

Yes, sir.

I

l

21

KATO:

I would 114e to offer that as

.

l

n

Plaintiff's

' it No.

3.

%

23

JUnGE TEITLER:

A. 2

olons?

24

M ?. . B00hApr

.1,

asice fr,

evance, no.

l

25

J "' '

EITLER;

Okay.

As far as

--

l'

Arm. Dann,einn r,v . nu

-

__

.

30

.

,

i

r,

were you specifically assigned to work on ta

i

!

3

package

-

!

3

A.

Not

cifically.

All of t

suparvisors

l

4

worked, at that tim

n test p

ges and were asked

.

5

to support special pro $oc

s they came up.

6

G

Did you wo

eith you

ois during that

7

time?

f

8

A.

o,

sir.

You can't.

As a 31perv1

you

9

work with ylur too.ls .

d

.

10

0

At any time, were you ever told that your

11

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

12

per evening?

A.

No, sir.

13

.

!

14

G

At any time, were you ever told, or were

1

l

15

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

I

!

16

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

l

I

17

evening?

1

!

18

A.

No, sir.

,

19

Q

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

20

have a certain amount of time each evening to complete

21

the calibration and all of the work in each individual

12

test package?

4

A.

No, sir.

23

24

G

At any time, was a benchmark ever set by

.

25

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

'

.

,,,-,-n

, , , ,

, , , , - - ,

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

-

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

.

-

'

.

l

-

31

'

,

1

be spent on each individual package?

2

A

No, sir.

t

3

0

Why not?

I

t

4

A

It's because the important thing in a nuclear

5

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

6

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

7

The instruments themselves vary in how long it would

8

cake to calibrate them, so many things affect them.

ll

9

4

What kinos o

nings would a .ec

ow len

'

10

it n'

take to calibrate one work package, one

trument

it

as oppos

to another?

i

12

A

Oh

t would depend on the t

of instrument.

13

The device in a

ckage could be a

mple guage, which

would take a short

e,

or it

ld be a complex

14

.

i

15

controller, which coul

ak

ours and hours.

!

16

Also, t h.e location

he device.

The first thing

17

a technician had to

was t

.ocate the cevice in the

l

18

plant,. and someti.

it took ho

to actually find

.

the instrument

gg

20

0

I

it possible to mandate e

t a certain

21

number o

devices be completed by eact c

w every

22

eveni

?

.

A

Not without compromising the quality

the

.

3

24

ork.

25

0

And, once again, wny is that?

Acme Reporting Company

..

.

- -

- - -

- -

- - -

. . .

'

.

-

.

42

.

t

in August, about the midd'le of

A"-

'

-

.

,

2

noted that the/ we.

"c

-In.g on this

"

3

particular .MCC

.a

that s

e along the

-

..,

I

i

1

I

4

aad to bring it to someone else's at.

.

d

5

On August 22nd, we were having GET training and

6

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

7

instructor's office and asked for his advice as to

8

what I should do now.

And he advised me, at that time,

l

he was a little hesitane as to what I should

9

that

--

10

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

11

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

12

get some action taken on it.

And I asked him if they

13

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

'

i

14

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

l

15

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

l

'

16

4

And what happened after that conversation?

i

17

A

Well, the following day --

!

i

18

Q.

Strike that.

Who provided GET training?

A

The utility, PSE&G.

i

19

i

20

0

And the instructor is a PSE&G

--

21

A

Employee, that's right. I believe so.

j

!

22

no wnat clu you co after that conv

-

..

'

k

-

- * '

versation?

A

Immedia

s

23

.

l

24

0-

NO>

ently, in o

try to rese'./e

'

-

.

25

t"

..oblem.

,

e

l

1

Acme Reporting Company

..

-__

_ _ __

_

_.

-.

_ _ _ -

'

.

46

-

,

.

1

JUDGE TEITLER:

Okay, this is marked Exhibi*

-5.

.

2

(The document prevd

sly mark-

3

ed for identifi

ion

l

4

as claimant'

xhibit 5, was

i

5

received

to evidence.)

.

6

BY MR. KATZ:

'

7

0

And was the . C dev

e subsequently corrected?

8

A

Yes, sir.

9

4

Did you know

en

roxi'mately that occurred?

10

A

Within tu

o three we

s after I brought it

11

up to them.

Thi

asn only on on

CC, it was on --

i

l

12

0

You

d brought it up to whom

l

13

A

ad brought it up to the safe t

on the

14

26th a

the NRC on the 27th.

And this involve

ore

15

th

ne motor control center.

There was four of

t.

m

16

the

lant that had the same proble'.

m

17

0

Now previously you mentioned that on August

18

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

Now,. could

'

i

19

you please tell me what the safe team is?

N

A

The safe team is an independent group that

l

21

is on site, supposedly to allow workers or anybody to

22

raise safety questions .that would affect the plant and

,

i

23

by going through the safe team, supposedly you had a

!

24

certain degree of a no nnii ty .

2

G

And you sent : cme ' concerns or you

spoke to

Acme Reporting Company

.

.-

-

..-. -

_

- _.

.

._

.

--a.

.

,

47

1

.

I

i

3.

the safe team on the 26th of August?

'

,

A

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

2

3

was the next step.

I think that you owe the company

,

4

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

1

5

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

-

6

4

The next step, the next step towards what?

,

7

A

If you have something, a problem, you find

}

8

the problem or the deficiency, and you take the first

t

9

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

10

satisfaction, you proceed a little higher and a little

,

i

11

higher.

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

'

12

NRC.

s

I,

d

,

I

13

O

All right.

tiow , can you tell me generally

14

what

quality of the work packages that you w

15

receiving

16

A

I co

ered the work packages

be very poor,

17

and a large number

them had to be

nt back,

l

18

modified, before we cou

even

t to work.

l

19

G

Were there others

o shared your feelings

l

20

as to the quality of

t'

work

ages?

21

A

I think

ically all of

a supervisors did.

l

22

O

And

c would you do if the

rk package was

'

23

poor and

dequate?

Sometimes it could be easily correcte

-

24

25

. ding it back to the test engineer t'o get him to

a-

Acme Reporting Company

m . u.....

-

_

.

' .

.

130

i

.

i

1

document previm

mark-

,

.

'

2

ed for

eation.as

'

3

t 's

s.

bit 9 was

i

!'

4

received into evi.

e.)

5

.R.

KATZ:

6

0

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

7

1985 and August 1985, were any production quotas set

8

for supervisors on the night shift that you were pro-

.

9

viding work to?

10

A

None.

..

.- .-

,,.

. r

a

+

11

O

Between May in 1985 and August 1985, were

12

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

(

'

13

certain number of packages that evening?

-

14

A

There were a number of instances where a

1

'

15

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

'

19

functional testing or support pre-ops.

however, there

17

was never any number as' signed a supervisor that had

18

to be completed that evening.

19

g

So if I understand your testimony, thers

O

might have been a requirement that a specific job be

21

completed, but not a requirement that a specific

22

number of test packages for each individual crew be

t

23

completed that evening?

24

A

That is correct.

are you aware of any benchmarks se:

25

g

Were

--

Acme Reporting Company

,,........

._

-

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

.

'

.

,

131

!

.

I

requiring that a specified number of test packages be

2

completed by a specific crew each evening?

3

A

There was no such quota.

o

<

l

4

Let me show you what I would 11 e to nave

,

5

ma

d as Plaintiff's 10.

-

6

(The document referred t

was

7

marked for identifica* cn as

8

Claimant's Exhibit

.)

l

i

9

BY. MR. KAT.

{

-

!

l

10

0

Please d

ribe what this doc' ent is, and

I

\\

l

.

t

-

11

how it came into your

ossession?

l

'

02

A

Yes, sir.

Thi

documen

again, was drawn up.

13

Ted Robbins had requested

t

an Gage and myself

-

14

sit down and draw up depart.

al responsibility list,

1

15

that was to include respo

ibil

les of coordinators,

16

supervisors, technicia

and ever

ody in the department

i

17

The first page

as my responsi

lity; the second

j

!

18

page was the sup

visor's responsibil

y; the third

'

l

'

'19

page, the tec

icians'; and the focrth , ge was

20

requirement

work assignments by coordin

ors and it

,

21

also inc

des the flow chart, for the depa

ent.

22

Was this the procedures and the reg

rements

23

tha

were followed, to your knowledge, during i ur

.

24

nure from May to August 1985?

3

A

Yes. To the best of my a b.1 1 i t y , these we

Acme Reporting Company

l

an. .>.....

.

. .-

..

-

- - -__________

l

- .

.

'

140

-

9

1a

G

What is the correct program?

l

,

2

A

The correct program would be you would bri

3

it u

to the system test engineer, and that test

.

4

engine

would initiate that document.

5

4

f he does not do so, may any persg

initiate

6

the documen

,

7

A

The

our program was initi

ed or imple-

8

mented, yes.

9-

0

And was th

so through

the period of,your

10

employment with Bogan

om Sep

ber through November

11

of this year?

,

12

A

I really don't

stand, the way you put

k.'

13

that question.

14

4

Well, yo

said that you

regram included the

15

ability of any

sponsible person to

itiate an SDR,

16

if the test

gineers didn't do it, rig'.

17

A

ur pregram was one that was con

nely

18

chang'

okay?

It wasn't necessarily being i

lemented

,

'

19

th

ame each day.

We had a lot of problems.

20

21

4

Have you ever gone to the NRC or the safe team

22

at !! ope Creek?

1

m

A

Yes, I have.

',

,

24

C

When did you do this?

25

A

I went to the

--

Acme Reporting Company

-

--

- - - - - - --

-

- - - - - _ - _

_

',

.

141

.

1

MR. KATZ:

Objection, Your Honor.

2

JUDGE TEITLER:

On what grounds?

3

MR. KATZ:

I dont know what this has

--

o

4

JUDGE TEITLER:

It's cross examination.

Go ahead.

l

.

5

B,Y MR. BOONAR:

6

4

When did you do that?

l

7

A

I went to the safe team to find out what the

l

8

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

9

sometime in June.

.

10

g

of 19857

.

11

A

That is correct.

.

U

G

Was any retaliatory action ever taken against

13

you for going to the safe team?

14

A

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

15

they actually had on the site.

16

0

Where did you learn about the existence of

i

17

it?

l

'

18

A

It was advertised all over the plant.

19

0

So everybody was well aware that you could go'

~

l

20

to the safe team, right?

<

.

'

21

A

I think so.

22

4

Is that true also with respect to the NRC?

l

9

23

A

Yes.

The i; R C , you should have been allowed

24

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

,

M

program, okay.

You should have been able to go to :he

Acme Reporting Company

.

. .. .......

. _ _ _ _ _

.

LA2

.

NRC at any time.

'

0

And everybody that you worked with, who worked

2

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

3

A

I believe so.

4

0

Do you P,now of any instance where anybody

5

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

6

against anybody for going to the NRC or to the safs

-

7

- - - i'

8

A

N0'

I dOU ' D

'

9

0

n

act, it is fair t

say that people were

10

encouraged to bring their concerns to'the safe team and

gg

the NRC

is' tha t not so?

12

A

I w uld not say that.

-

13

>.

G

Everybody knew .that they were there and what

14

the purpose was, right?

gg

A

No, that's not true.

16

0

What is true?

17

A

Y u say everybody knew.

18

'

O

Yes.

.

gg

l

Okay.

Well, you know, based on my assumption

20

,

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

21

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

22

'

all the time.

g

C

Okay.

But this is a subject that was"covered

24

in QA training, that was attended by yourself anc

g

-

.

Acme Reporting Company

,

.

143

4

'

i

1

Mr. Francis and other Sogan supe"visors?

l

'

I

g

A

That is correct.

i

3

4

Did you ever hear anybody say that Al Fran

'.s

,

'

4

was demoted because he initiated or participated in

.

5

an in estigation of Bogan or the utility by the NRC

6

or by PSE&G's safe team?

7

A

No, I didn't.

'

8

4

Do you have any reason to believe that that

9

was the basis of his demotion?

to

A

No, I have no comment as to that.

,

.

11

MR. BOOHAR:

nave no further questions.

l

12

DGE TEITLER:

Do you have any questions, cc

el?

,

I

(.

13

MR.

Z:

I just have one final question

l

14

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

15

BY MR. KATZ:

in terms of

eing the super-

18

4

In terms o

-

l

in terms of bei

the w

coordinator on the

17

visor

--

18

night crew, were you direct

esponsible for distribu-

19

ting work to all of the er

s?

-

20

A

Yes, I was.

21

0

Did anyo

else have that

ponsibility, unded

f

n

Bogan manageme

.

$

are you auki

about that

g

A

?

at that- time

--

,

1

24

time fr

e?

3

Yes, between May and August, 19.85.

Acme Reporting Company

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

.

162

)

.

1

regarding employee protection."

'

2

weren't there in the meeting that took p'

i l

,

.

3

were you,

~ r?

.

4

A

No,

wasn't.

,

.

5

0

And you

ve no personal

owledge of whether

6

he specifically reques

.tha

o you, sir?

7

A

I don't know if g

specifically asked for

8

that, no.

'

.

i

9

0

Is it

true that it is

andard policy

!

l

10

that when an

a brings a 210 complaint

a whistle-

i

~

11

blower c

laint, that those regulations,

a matter

12

of c

se, are provided to that individual?

..

'

13

A

Yes.

' . _

14

0

Are you the on

u d be aware of any

15

210 or whistle-blower complaints that were raised by

,

16

individuals at the Hope Creek Nuclear Power Plant?

17

A

Yes, I was.

18

0

Are you aware of anyone else having raised

19

such a complaint?

20

A

No.

21

0

Sir, world you be aware if safety complaints

22

were raised by individual employees at that plant?

'

t

n

A

Yes, I would,

i

24

0

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

25

the past two years, how many safety complalats would

'

.

Acme Reporting Company

m .. .....

,

-

.

163

.

'

t

you say have been raised?

'

2

MR. GUTIERREZ:

Just for point of clarificatloa,

3

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

l

4

MR. KATZ: Yes, that's correct.

Brought to the

!

$

NRC.

6

JUDGE TEITLES:

If you have any recollectio'n.

.

7

BY MR. KATZ:

8

G

If you nave any knowledge?

9

A

I have not been associated with the Hope

i

10

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

11

there has been approximately a half dozen,

u

O

Could be less?

13

A

Could be a few less than that.

a

14

0

Now, in the course of this investigatio

15

did

NRC have an opportunity to

-- or st

people

16

from the

C,

have an opportunity to re*

the safe

l

17

team report

t.

related to claims

t were brought

18

by Mr. Francis?

i

1

19

A

Yes, we did.

-

did

20

0

And can you t

did the NRC or

-

--

,

21

you do that review'

22

A

I h

reviewed the respons

es.

l

$'

!

23

Q.

nd what was your reaction to th

afe team's

24

fin

.gs?

25

A

I am not sure enat I understana, reaction?

Acme Reporting Company

na,. .....

. _ .

_

.-

,

.

~

l

i

'72

(

,

'

es through a process.

It is reviewed "-

t

g

..e

2

engin

a response comes ba

o the originator

'

'-

'

3

and he approves' or

s of the disposition.

'

4

And if he disape-

of it,

s to go back to site

-

5

enginee

and the process can conti

til some

6

eable solution can be. reached.

7

C

During the period from August of 1984 througn

8

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

9

you know how many questionnaires were generated by

,

10

Bogan's people?

11

A

There-were approximately 514 to 520 field

12

questionnaires that were written by our group.

Mr.

(

13

Francis origina'ted four field questionnaires.

'

14

C

Okay.

And I would like to show you the

15

d o c u r..

s that have been marked as C-4,

Claimant'

9;

16

Defendant

Exhibits

3,

4,

5 and 6,

and ask '

u -wha t

l

.

1

17

those documen

re, sir?

18

A

These ar

teld quencionn

es.

I believe

i

it is in their entirety

I don'

think I ever saw t h ]. s -

gg

l

20

particular one.

l

21

Do you want to k

what

. y are?

22

0

Are th

-- you said

t..

Mr. Francis hac

I

l

23

been involv

in approximately four

ehese.

Are

four?

24

these

-

25

A

Yes, sir, I believe they are.

.

Acme 7eporting Company

ns. . .....

-

.

.-

-

..

_

-_

-

. ._

_

..

.. - - .

.

Id:

is field questionnaire was reopened at a later date,

.

g

and

Design Change Package, was issued, EcN

,

2

0

Wh

responsible for putting fo"

the

i

3

,

'

effort that it takes

resolve the sit'

J.on set forth

4

in that

--

5

It was our respons

y,

Bogan's.

6

C.

And who withi

e Bogan

a' n i z a t i'o n , whose

7

particular responsi

ity?

8

either -- whoever had that

reicular

A.

It

'

9

system,

was either mine or Al's, and in this

10

l

p

cular case, Al had this particular system.

11

,

g

0

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

12

n the site of an NRC inspection team?

13

A.

Yes.

g4

4

What is their job?

15

Basically to look at items that are Q-related

16

items and make sure that work was performed in accord-

g7

ance with procedures.

Be sure that the people th a t.

18

worked are qualified to do the job.

39

0

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

20

safety-related?

21

A.

Yes, safety-related.

In terms of the safety

,

22

4

I

relation to the board, to the nuclear board itself.

g

1

Q

Now, they're there to receive concerns frem

g

"Il

f

'h*

P* El*

"

- t*?

25

A c n. 4-

Reporting Company

na.

.a. ....

l

l . - .

- - . - . . - - . . .

-

.

-

. . . - - -

- - .

-.

,

-

'

.' .

.

,

'

153

-

.

A

Absolutely.

Everybody is completely open and

t

2

anyone can go to the NRC if they have any problems

whatsoever, and make those claims.

3

4

Have you ever heard of anyone in.Bogan

i

4

5

management criticize anybody for going to the NRC?

A

No, sir.

6

G

Have you ever heard anyone in Bogan manage-

7

8

ment suggest that they discourage people from going

g

to the NRC?

A

N

absolutely not.

As a matter of fact,

,

10

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

11

been encouraged, open policy to do whatever is necess-

12

13

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

s.

needs to be gone to because it can be corrected before

g4

15

you get to that point, intercept the problems that

have been identified.

16

t

0

When you say management, you included not only

17

the Bogan management, but also management for the

18

,

utility?

19

A

Utility, absolutely.

20

11

MR. B O O ll A R :

I have no further questions f

s

21

witness.

22

t

Juocs TzIT

a one qecation for

_

23

.

clarificati-

u are say.

w,

in your testimony,

24

h

. e re are, t

your knowledge, a

' ma te ly 500

,

25

Acme Reporting ' Company

- -

.

-

..

-.- - - .

- .-

- - . _

_ , _

-

.

.-

.'

126

'

,

.,

.

.1

e Creek Nuclear Power Plant?

l

.

2

I really don ' t he e the foggiest idea,

.ner

g

3

,than I'g

s Al must havs wrote a letter.

S

.e

is the

'

e

.

4

only one tha-

know of.

I

.

5

4

P. e ' s th

nly.one that yo

now of?

l

6

A.

I have no id

who e

has gone to the NRC.

7

Q

Okay.

And can y

all me, sir, when you were

8

on the walk down crew

nen you

e the supervisor of

9

the walk down c-

and Al was the sup

isor of the

10

walk down

you had no supervisory re

nsibilities

l

,

11

over

. Francis' work, dic you?

12

A

That is correct.

Unfortunately correct.

(.

3

l

13

0

Now, if a field questionnaire does not get

m

14

responded to, and if corrective action is not taken,

,

.

I

15

what should an employee do?

5

16

A

Well, I guess it depends on what avenue is

,

'

!

17

open to the employee.

If the employee has the avenue

>

l

have an SDR written, he could write

i

18

to go to the

--

!

19

an SDR.

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

'!

20

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

21

look, I have a problem here, we are conforming to this,

one, two-tier hierarchy above

22

in this case we had a

--

n

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

j

24

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

25

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

Acme Reporting Company

,

__

..

.

..

- . - -

-

.

. - . .

-

~

.

l

t

197

4

g

go to that level, where we did not get the backing to

resolve the problem.

'

2

3

0

What happens if the problem didn't get re-

'

4

solved,?

What should an employee do?

5

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

6

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

'

resolved.

7

8

0

You would agree, sir, that safety is of utmost

g

concern to all

--

A

Absolutely.

10

.

11

0

And you would agree, sir , would you no t,

that

if an individual sees a safety violation, they have a

.v

12

(

-

13

responsibility to do everything they can to correct

o.

that violation?

g4

A

You betcha I do.

15

16

0

And wouldn't you also agree that if correcting

th a t violation mernt going to the NRC, that would be

g7

,

18

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

'

A

If there was absolutely no other alternative

gg

20

left, because that is to get the job done.

I

21

0

That would be appropriate action to get to

job done.

22

t

Now, sir, it's t

9

as far as you

,

23

.

understand, that

-

--

A

24

.

A

wuse me.

Pardon me.

You are tat

3

As:me Reporting Company

. ..

. . - -

-

- .

_ _ . _ , _ _ _

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

-..

_

.

,

.

203

,

f

1p visors INC and five coordinators.

.

i

>

2

Q

How many technician 1 work under those

aper-

3

vi

es, that are employed by Bogan?

!

4

At present, it is 140.

{

5

4

In the course of your duties

lead INC

6

superviso

have you had' occasion to

parvise Mr. Al

.

7

Francis?

8

A

only

1 lead supervi

r and he was a super-

9

visor at.the time,

i

to

G

okay.

So

t' y

had -- you were his.next

i

'

11

boss; is that correct?

12

A

Yes.

,

.

k

13

0

And was

at in Aug

e of 19857

'

-

l

A

Yes,

.

14

15

0

The

came a time in Augu

of 1985 when

16

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

17

A

Yes.

18

3

And was that on or about August the

h?

6

19

A

Yes.

i

20

4

Were you involved in the decision to cemote

21

Mr. Fr~ancis?

22

A

Yes.

t

23

0

Would you tell His Honor the basis of that

24

decision?

-

25

A

Well, the basis of the decision was from

.

Acme Reporting Company

m . .a.....

I

Y . .

,' .

n

.

,

204

j

,

i

1

various conversations with coordinators and Public

!

-

2

service management, my personal observations, tech-

i

3

nicians' comments, and that is.about it.

.

,

4

'

G

And wnat were the grounds on which the dimotio.4

5

was made?

6

A

Productivity, continuing or solving problems

.

7

that were arising and holding test packages, observation

f

8

of knowing where his technicians were, working close in

9

hand with his technicians, coordination with the

10

coordinators and tha start-up engineers.

11

C

What were your personal observations of

u

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

(

,

13

INC supervisor?

,

%

14

MR. KATZ:

Objection, Your Honor.

There has been

~

15

no foundation laid that this witness had any personal

16

observations of what the nature

--

17

MR. BOOHAR:

!!e

--

.

18

JUDGE TEITLER: I think the last question laid tne

'

,

!

'

19

foundation.

He said he supervised him.

He' made the

-

20

lacision to demote him.

i

l

21

MR. BOOHAR:

And said he had personal observation.

22

JUDG.T TEITLER:

And said he had personal obser-

4

.a

vation.

I

24

Go ahead.

25

Acme Reporting Company

m ,.......

..

-

.

,

205

.

BY MR. BOOHAR:

g

G

What were your personal observations of

2

'

Mr. Francis' performance of duties?

3

,

i

A

tie ll , my personal observations were that you

4

have to continually monitor the amount of productioh

5

that the supervisors that are under my control put out,

6

.

and-the relationship that they have with their techni-

7

cians.

8

That's a very important thing'because every package

9

10

or every test function that the supervisors'do perform

with the technicians that they have under them, is to

11

meet a certain schedule of completion.

This schedule

.

12

('

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

13

~

G

Sir, prior to August 24, 1985, had you had

g4

occasion to discuss with Mr. Francis his performance

15

f duties --

16

-

A

Yes.

g7

as an INC supervisor?

j

4

--

18

'

A

Yes.

.

39

^

4

Approximately when did that occur?

20

A

Well, it happened a few times, but the last

-

21

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

22

,

O

{

4

And were there other INC supervisors who.

23

,

~~

24

A

0"*

U*#'

25

Acme Reporting Company

.

..

.;

205

-

.

cautioned at the same time?

1

4

'

--

2

A

One other supervisor.

,

3

C

And who is that?

l

4

A

Joseph Pinski.

,

5

4

Would you relate the general nature of that

6

conversation, sir?

7

A

Generally, it was just a pep talk to describe

8

that more production, I think, ha d

to be warr.nnted and

9

that a better relationship had to be established with

l

to

the techs.

.

11

0

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

12

the decision to recommend the demotion of Mr. Francis?

13

A

Ch, approximately about the time that he did

14

get demoted.

15

0

Okay.

At that time, were you aware that

16

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

17

ment training environment?

18

A

Nope.

19

0

Were you aware that Mr. Francis had or was

-

,

l

20

about to institute an investigation by the NRC or by

21

the safe team?

22

A

No.

t

i

3

ere you a

ae vicinity who

-w.lon

,

24

actually occurreo,

s I in view of it?

3

,

Acme Reporting Company

-

_.

.-

. - . . - - .

_-

-

.

233

-

.

'

1

4

And accordingly, Mr. Francis objected to

2

ing that, right?

i

3

A

Yep.

J

4

Now, would you explain to His honor

w you

!

5

keep tr

k of these test' packages?

6

A

ell, the test packages are com

teri:ed.

'

7

They are re

ved, they are given a num

r,

they are

8

assigned to th

systems and the respo

ible INC

9

supervisors.

I

e the number of

ackages.

They have

.

10

work sheets that th

have to e

ly with, to bring this I

l

11

up to date of what they

e do' g on a continuous basis.

'

12

O

Now, that compu

,

is that available to you;

13

the computer read-out, i

th

available to you?

%

14

A

At any time

,

i

15

0

And do y

regularly re

ew it, like each

l

,

'

16

morning?

4

9

17

A

Yes

!;

I

i

18

0

at would show you who had pac

es and

{

19

how many .ad not been complied with?

20

Right.

Any of them that are on hold,

ny

1

21

of

em that are being working, any of them that a

22

eing com

" "

,

I

%

i

n

0

What'did you observe with respect to the test i

.

24

packages that were assigned to Mr. Francis.as opposed

.

3

to the ones that were aasigned to other supervisors?

Acmo Reporting Company

.,,, .......

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

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

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

- -

.

-;

-

'

234

t

A

T'here were constant, complaints from the

j

2

coordinators that these devices that Mr. Francis was

i

3

holding had to be worked in order to continue on with

I

i

4

the system.

We would get the packages and either turn

5

them ovtsr to another supervisor to work -- it seemed

6

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

7

4

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

,

8

necessarily mean that the test is done and the data is

9

accepted?-

10

A

NC'

11

7

What does completion of a test package mean?

.

u

A

Completion doesn't necessarily mean that'

k,,-

'

33

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

.

14

details that it came with.

There are certain occasions

15

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

16

engineers on procedures if the procedure does not

17

comply to what or how you are testing a device or

18

calibrating a device.

If the data taken on the ICD

'

gg

card, which is the instrument calibration data sheet,

20

is not correct, the test engineer asdociated in that

21

aystem has the authority to come up and change that

22

data, and initial it.

l-

%

23

If you have an exception to a calibration or a

device or to a procedure, you can write an exception

24

25

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

,

Acme Reporting Company

.. .. .....

-

. . _ .,

.

- .

i

235

.

,

.

1

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

,.

,

2

4

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

,

3

is it considered complete?

When it is sent back to the

I

.

!

4

tes t engineer?

5

A

Complete as far as the INC supervisor is

.

6

concerned, yes.

,

7

When it leaves his heure.

8

C

So that to the extent that you may have testa-

9

fled on direct examination that it's important to get

.

10

completion accomplished, that means doing whatever your

11

job is on the package, right?

12

A

Yes.

(.

13

C

Whether doing that job results in acceptance

s

tg

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

15

or whether that is send back the package and get me

16

one that will work?

17

A

Exactly.

18

ay.

Now, you are on day shift and Mr.

19

Franc

on night shift, or was.

Is there

onsider-

20

able overlap

'een the shifts, espe

y at the

21

supervisory level?

22

A

Not really.

'

t

23

0

What tir

you come

to work?

"

A-

24

-

25

In August?

'

Acme Reporting Company

,,,. .......

.

. . - .

.

--

.

- - -

.

.-

. _ _ _ _ .

.

. _ - _ .

._. --

_.

_

__

.

O

,

l l

-

.

242

t

o

l

1

Q

Okay.

And is that what is called the

'

2

contra

f

3

A

Y

INC.

Yes.

.

4

C

Does B

n have other s

neracts with the

'

5

utility?

6

A

Yes,. we do.

ve roughly seven of them.

7

G

And does

r functi

compass not only

8

the INC contr

but all of the och

neracts of

,

9

the

--

.

10

Yes, all contracts on site.

11

0

So you are a Bogan senior representative on

.;

12

the Hope Creek site?

.

13

A

Yes, sir.

14

4

In the performance of your duties, sir,

i

15

as a Bogan senior representative at the Hope Creek

16

site, have you had occasion to observe the performance

17

of Mr. Al Francis as an INC supervisor?

,,

..

18

A

Yes.

19

0

And what were your observations?

-

20

A

My observations were that his productivity

21

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

22

crew; did not utilize his people properly.

E

n

0

Can you give us any specific examples of

I

24

your own personal observation of Mr. Francis'

--

25

A

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

,

.

Acme Reporting Company

...

.

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

'~

.

,

'

&

243

$

'

!

'

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

,

coordinating, back in the first part of my job.

.

JUDGE TEITLER:

When was that?

3

8

THE WIT!1ESS:

That was from March 25th to roughly

4

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

,

e

k over as the site project manager.

6

JUDGE TEITLER:

Is that day shift *or night shift?.

"

Y

8

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

9

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

g

'

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

'

is scaffolding in the way.

At least, this is what'is

12

{ *s

on the computer print-out.

So I went and pulled the

g

-

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

g

ne

f the day supervisors if they would take tho

15

E*

"9'

""

9

""

""

"9

-

16

,

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

g

E""

"I**

!

18

and'

Well, the package went out, the scaffolding

--

g

came back finished, and the scaffolding had not been

g

removed.

It was still there.

The only problems they

g

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

g

area.

Q

Are there any o ther examples of similar

g

p r o h,l e ms that

--

3

.

Acme Reporting Company

,

_

. s

.

a

i

244

1

A

There was one other that

--

in your own personal experience

2

0

--

3

A

Well, there are several, but there is one

t

4

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

5

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

6

supply air line.

And, again, one of my duties was

7

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

8

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

9

again I asked another day supervisor to investigate

10

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

11

it expedited and taken care of.

12

They went out, and found that the broken air line

13

was merely a quarter-inch piece of tubing.

They

.

14

replaced the piece of tubing and completed the package.

l

15

C

Sir, are you the gentleman who actually

16

in.

med Mr. Francis of the decision to demote

m?

!

17

A

es, I did.

Yes, I was.

18

G

An

en did that occur?

19

A

It was a

'st 24th, so

here around

--

20

between 3:30 and 4:00,

t*

afternoon of the 24th.

.

21

0

And would ye-

ela

' hat happened at the

22

time of the demo

n?

like I

n

A

W

as I remember it, Al c a ,.

,

24

said,

was around 3:30, going on to

4,

somes.

In

25

t

area.

I asked him to step across the hall to

.

Acme Reporting Company

... ....

I

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

.-

_

O

\\

D,

.

I

hf

1

-

l

262

o

1

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

2

s

e."

If he wants to get specific statements to

at

'

3

effe

o'ther conduct to that effect

,

--

l

4

JL

E TEITLER:

he's right, counsel.

e question

i

5

is poorly

rased.

l

6

BY MR.

Z:

,

(

l

7

0

Is it

ur belief, ba

on having worked

l

8

at Hope Creek Nucle

Power

nt, having observed

9

actions of other indiviu

s,

having spoken with other

individuals, that it

a

eral feeling among those

'

10

z

other employees,

t raising s

ey concerns was not

12

operating acco

ng to the program?

(.

-

13

MR. B

AR:-

I am going to object

in, Your

l

14

Honor

f he wants to get specific stateme

from

i

15

ody --

l

1

'

16

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

l

!

37

maybe I can end the inquiry.

18

Did you feel that there would be re taliation on

~

gg

the job if anybody reported a violation to any entity?

20

THE WITNES3:

I don't feel that there is going to

l

21

be retaliation on that job, spdcifically.

Okay.

22

BY MR. KATZ:

4

g

O

What do you feel?

+

A

My personal feelings are that, you know, if

24

,

3

somebody raises too many questions or complaints, tnat,

!

Acme Reporting Company

,-.. .......

_____ _

,

e s .

I

263

l

s'

I

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

g

rganizati n.

That's a personal feeling.

j

2

Q.

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

3

th a/.

ou were a work ecordinator on the night shift,

f

"

.

4

f: mM

1985 to August 1985, were there individu

s

5

!; rom the

i us cr'ews who were assigned to spe

al

6

apsignments?

7

i

That .

c o r r e c t..

They were.

p

4

And woul

ou say that there w

a substantial

g

1

"**#

# ^*

"

""

10

A

At times, mo

definitely

here were.

g

G

At times, they

re sub

antial?

L2

['2

A

That is correct.

g

s

O

And at times, wou

ou say that Mr. Francis

nad a substantial number

ind

duals from his crew

15

assigned to special as- gnments?

16

A

he did.

g

Q

And wou

you say during Au;

t 1985, t'ne r e

18

would be times

en !!r . Francis would ha

a s u b s t a n t i a l-

g

number

f hi

crew members assigned to spo 'ai assign-

20

ments?.

21

A

T

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

thout

-

22

8

looki

at the records, I would have to say yes

-

g

I

C

And if individuals are assigne d to spec.

L

'

24

,

'

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

25

.

I

Acme Reporting Company

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

_

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

.

a

h . ;. ,

!

a,

.

?

265

l

r

c

rect?

g

Yes, that's correct.

2

0

s opposed to otha.r supervisors bein

3

'

stickler fo

racedure?

4

Y***

5

.

0

And do yo

ecall when th

conversations

6

took place?

7

A.

I had a convers

o

ith Mr. Class, this

8

this was on the Thu

before Al was demoted.

was

--

,

9

1

0

Let me ask yo

did h

ever say that his

10

performance was inad

ate?

g

.

A. '

No, I n

r heard him mentJ.

that.

g

C',

I

4

Did

ever say his performan

was sub-

g

t

standard?

15

KATZ:

No further questions,.

.

16

-

CROSS EXAMINATION

g

00HAR:

.

18

0

You said that you had a feeling that if you

9

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

g

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

21

ization.

.

g

6

A

That is my personal feeling.

That is

23

i

'

correct.

0

Can you give me any specific statement to

,

i

!

Acme Reporting Company

-

.... ... ....

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

'

.

'

.

T

266

r

that effect, by anyone in Bogan manageme'nt?

-

t

A

No.

Like I say, that's human nature,

okay?

2

.

That's my personal feeling.

3

'

0

can you give me any specific statement to

4

,

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

5

-

6

to the fact that you won't be brought back on the site

on the next. job if'you go to the NRC?

7

A.

No.

g

'

g

4

So that feeling is based on your understanding

of human nature?

10

A.

That feeling is based on a number of things,

11

12

okay.

My employment history, my past employment hi' story

O

and my personal feelings.

That is correct.

13

Q

But not on anyth'ing that anybody from Bogan

g4

Of

~~

15

.

A

No.

16

,

17

0

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

e

A.

No.

18

.

You were responsible, at night, for assi

g-

19

20

work to

Francis' crew, were you not?

21

A

No,

Mr. Francis.

22

Q

To Mr.

ncis?

.

4

A.

That is

t.

23

0,

i.erformance

his crew?

24

.

That is correct.

25

Acme Reporting Company

i

I

.,.. .......

-

___________-______ ___ __

_

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

-

ML20196J067

Text

Navigation menu

Search