ML20198J494
| ML20198J494 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 02/25/1986 |
| From: | Hunter R BESTCO, INC. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#286-359 OL, NUDOCS 8606030130 | |
| Download: ML20198J494 (161) | |
Text
_ _ _..
,..nm ihndkh[_,d,
% CORNE.sry;tL%
.m
\\.
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA O
C5 q,
w U
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION F7
~ N
- O
J< UN 3
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARE b
.i 9
%g;p,,c 11
< _ %.t]G &
4
'Q*
5
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 6
In the matter of:
Docket Nos. 50-456 7
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY 50-457 8
[Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Vol. II 9
Units 1 and 2]
10
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 11 Isham, Lincoln & Beale 12 Three First National Plaza
- (A) 13 51st Floor
%J 14 Chicago, Illinois 15 February 25, 1986 16 Deposition of:
ROBERT D. HUNTER 17 called for examination by Counsel for Licensee, Commonwealth 18 Edison, pursuant to notice, taken before Garrett J. Walsh, 19 a Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of Virginia, when 20 l
21 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
22 1625 I Street, N.W.
293-3950 Washington, D.C.
l
. y(
1 V
01 l
8606030130 860225 PDR ADOCK 05000456 PDR I
69 1
C0NTENTS O2 3
Witness:
Examination by:
Page:
4 ROBERT D.
HUNTER Ms. Kezelis 70, 128, 5
166 6
Mr. Berry 109, 143 7
Mr. Wright 116, 157, 8
176 9
10 11 EXHIBTS Page:
12 Exhibit No. 1:
70 13 A photocopy of everything 14 Mr. Hunter handed Ms. Kezelis after 15 his deposition of 1/28/86 pursuant 16 to Notice of Deposition.
l 17 1
18 19 20 21 22 l
.lO l
l
~--
68
- - ~
1-
.were present on behalf of the respective parties:
2 3
APPEARANCES:
4 4
For the Licensee Commonwealth Edison Company:
5-ELENA KEZELIS 6
ATTORNEY-AT-LAW
_7 Isham, Lincoln & Beale 8
Three First National Plaza 9
Chicago, Illinois 60602 10 11 For the Intervenors BPI, et al.:
e 12 TIMOTHY WRIGHT, III, ESQ.
13 109 North
Dearborn,
Suite 1300
- 14 Chicago, Illinois 60602 15 16 For the NRC Staff:
17 GREGORY ALAN BERRY, ESQ.
18 office of the Executive Legal Director 19' Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
20 Washington, D.C.
20555 21 j
22 J
- O 1
i i
--r,
,----,,.,,,--r-.------
---,,-.....,.--_,,.,-.,,...-,.,,,.--,-.------,n-,,,
-,--nn,
-.-~-
..-a.
g 70 1
PROCEEDINGS
,O L/
2 Whereupon, 3
ROBERT DOYNE HUNTER 4
was recalled as a witness and, having previously been duly 5
sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:
6 EXAMINATION -- Continued 7
BY MS. KEZELIS:
8 Q
Mr. Hunter, you understand that you are still under 9
oath?
10 A
Yes.
11
[ Hunter Deposition Exhibit 12 No. 3 identified.]
( )
13 Q
Let me show you, Mr. Hunter, what has been marked as 14 Hunter Exhibit Number 3 for identification.
And I will 15 represent for the record that this is a photocopy of 16 everything that you had handed to me after your last i
17 deposition of January 28, 1986, that you had in your 18 possession responsive to the schedule for production of 19 documents attached to the subpoena which had been served 20 upon you sometime previously.
21 I ask you to just take a quick look through that and
(
(
22 identify for me whether that does appear to be a copy of the l
l-O t
F 71 1
original documents you had given me.
2-
[ Witness perusing documents.]
3 A
It appears to be the same.
4 Q
Since your deposition on January 28, 1986, have you 5
had any opportunity or have.you had any telephone 6
conversations with anybody from BPI up until today?
7 A
No.
None whatsoever.
8 Q
Have you discussed your deposition with anybody 9
during that time period?
10 A
No.
None whatsoever.
11 Q
Mr. Hunter, let me show you the fifth and sixth 12 pages of Exhibit 3, which are in handwriting.
13 And I will state for the record that those appear to s
14 be the only two pages in this exhibit which are particularly 15 in handwriting.
16 And I will ask you to identify whose handwriting 17 that is for me, if you can.
18 A
It appears to be my handwriting.
19 Q
Can you tell me what that document or those two 20 pages reflect, what's the purpose of that?
21 A
This is probably the codes that I have worked to for 22 the last 25 years, some time, 25 years either as a craftsman O
72 1
or as an inspector.
2 Q
So that the AWS, D.1.1, and the other D versions --
3 A
Right.
4 Q
-- of the American Society of Welding codes?
5 A
Right.
6 Q
And ANSI -- A-N-S-I --
7 A
Right.
8 Q
What does that stand for?
9 A
American -- ANSI?
10 Q
Yes.
11 A
American National Standards Institute.
12 Q
Thank you.
And there, is this ASME?
13 A
ASME.
14 Q
And that stands for?
15 A
American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
16 Q
Mr. Hunter, this collection of documents in Hunter 17 Exhibit 3, are all those materials which you received from 18 BPI, or were some of those materials in your possession --
19 A
Of --
20 Q
-- without being sent to you by BPI?
21 A
Not -- everything's in here that I know of.
22 Q
Maybe my question wasn't clear.
Did BPI send O
I
73 1
everything here to you that's in Exhibit 3?
2 A
I'm sure they did, yes.
3 Q
And I may have asked this before, I don't recall, 4
During the course of a telephone conversation that you had 5
with Mr. Cassel and Mr. Guild of BPI, was that conversation, 6
if you remember, before or after you received this?
7 A
Well, I'm sure it was before.
8 Q
It was before you received this?
9 A
I'm sure it was.
10 Q
okay.
Did you have only one conversation with a 11 person from BPI?
12 A
Just the one conversation is all what I had, and it i
13 was very brief.
14 Q
During the course of your last deposition, 15 Mr. Hunter, we discussed briefly your visit on March 29, 1985, 16 with a group of 20-plus QC inspectors to the NRC.
17 A
Right.
18 Q
I may be repeating some questions that have been 19 asked of you already, but I will be brief if I can.
20 A
Yes.
21 Q
Is it correct that your allegation to the NRC was 22 that you felt there was more than a little bit of intimidation O
74 1
by more than one supervisor?
I 2
A Yes, that's true.
3 Q
Was that the only allegation that you had to the 4
NRC?
5 A
That was my only allegation, right.
6 Q
Was that March 29 visit the only visit you ever made 7
to the NRC?
8 A
As far as I know, yes.
9 Q
Who did you have in mind when you made that 10 allegation?
11 A
Well, at that time, of course, not only Mr. Saklac 12 but also Mr. Irv DeWald.
( )
13 Q
Okay.
And in what respect did you feel that 14 Mr. Saklac was engaged in intimidation?
15 A
Well, like I say, Mr. Saklac, he wanted to make 16 sure that everybody'd know that he was a man, and as far as --
17 as far as Saklac and myself actually coming to words or 18 anything like that, we never did.
We never come to words.
19 Q
But you observed --
20 A
Right.
21 Q
-- Mr. Saklac having words with others --
22 A
That's true.
I O
i
7,.
75
-1 Q
-- Qc inspector?
2 A
That's true.
3 Q
And who were those other QC inspectors?
4 A
Well, at the time, he was having problems, of 5
course, with not only Mr. Snyder but Mr. Seese --
6 Q
Not Mr. Larry Seese?
7 A
No, not Mr. Seese.
Mister --
8 Q
John Seeders?
9 A
John Seeders.
Right.
John Seeders.
10 Q
Anybody else?
11 A
Oh, there was probably three or four others.
12 Q
can you recall their names?
( )
13 A
Not right offhand.
He was having problems with 14 them.
15 Q
By " intimidation," what did you mean?
16 A
I mean he'd say, " Hey, let's get this done.
Let's 17 get that done," or, "You're going to do it this way, you're 18 doing to do it that way."
19 Q
At any time did any of these statements by 20 Mr. Saklac or words to other Qc inspectors that you heard 21 lead you to believe that Mr. Saklac was attempting to have 22 the QC inspector ignore quality or sacrifice quality for O
r 76 1
quantity?
2 A
Oh, I can't say that offhand that was his intentions 3
at all.
4 Q
Did you ever hear any rumor of any attempt by 5
Mr. Saklac have anybody sacrifice quality for quantity?
6 A
Well, I've heard rumors, you know, that he wanted 7
this form signed off, he wanted that form signed off, yes.
8 Q
And are you referring to something more than the 9
Rick Snyder incident?
10 A
To what, ma'am?
11 Q
Are you referring to any incident other than a 12 Saklac-Snyder incident?
(
)
13 A
Not necessarily, no.
14 Q
can you think of any other incident that you heard 15 of that would have been along those lines of Mr. Saklac 16 trying to get somebody to sign off on anything?
17 A
No.
18 Q
With respect to Mr. DeWald, in what respect did you 19 feel that he was engaging in intimidation?
20 A
Well, when I first come there some two years and 21 four months ago, we used to have a weekly meeting.
of course, 22 he'd bring in all the inspectors at a certain time of the i
l i
t
77 1
month -- certain time of-the week.
And he'd go through the 2
things that he wanted done and he didn't want done and things 3
like that.
4 And a lot of us felt that he was just trying to run 5
the show whether he would do an inspection or not.
He was at 6
one time, of course, an inspector on that job.
And some of us 7
felt that he was trying to either put words into your mouth or 8
put deeds on the inspection form that shouldn't be put on it.
9 Q
Can you give me any specific examples?
10 A
Okay.
When I first come here, I'd been used to 11 writing a report on everything that I looked at, especially in 12 the petrochemical refinery field.
You wrote out a report if 13 something was deficient.
14 The first thing he said, " Don't put anything in 15 Remarks."
And we said, " Wait a minute.
What about that, 16 Irv?
You have to tell the next guy what you actually looked 17 at."
Well, we went round and round about that, and we finally 18 got that straightened out.
So Form 19s still have a Remarks 19 section and you do put in the Remarks section things that you 20 find on your report -- on your inspection.
That was one of 21 the first things.
22 Q
All right.
Let's stop there just for a minute.
O
78 1
A All right.
d 2
Q I don't want you to forget anything else you have in 3
mind.
But what is a Form 19?
What is the purpose of that?
4 A
That is your standard checklist for weld inspection.
5 Q
And Mr. DeWald specifically instructed you not to 6
put anything in the Remarks section?
7 A
Right.
8 Q
Do you recall when that took place?
9 A
Do what, ma'am?
10 Q
Do you recall when that took place?
11 A
First part of 1984.
I couldn't say just the date.
12 Q
Did he tell you why he didn't want you to put 13 anything in the Remarks section of the Form 197 14 A
No.
15 Q
Did Comstock procedures at the time call for remarks 16 to be noted on Form 19s?
17 A
No.
It only called for, I believe, these nina 18 checklists that you check.
That's all it calls for.
19 Q
Okay.
How did this come about?
Had you attempted 20 to put something in a Remarks section and he t d you not to 21 put it in or to take it out or to delete it?
V 22 A
Well, he said you didn't have to do that because the O
79 1
nine points on the checklist take care of everything.
2 Q
Do you recall specifically you had intended to put 3
in on a Form 197 4
A No, I don't.
5 Q
Were you satisfied that the checklist contained 6
everything that should be examined with respect to a weld to 7
determine whether it is acceptable?
8 A
Well, I'm sure that it probably covered everything.
9 But down the road when you come back to that inspection, maybe 10 the next inspector, whenever he reads the form, he doesn't 11 understand it just because they have the nine checks there 12 that says it's good or it's bad.
If you put in your remarks 13 what the problem was, then the next inspector or whoever does 14 the review will have some idea of what the problem was.
15 That's what the Remarks were for.
16 Q
Okay.
To state in words what might not be 17 acceptable about a weld?
18 A
That's true.
19 Q
Was Mr. DeWald giving you an instrbction not to
'l'
.3 20 describe what was wrong with the weld?
21 A
No, he wasn't.
He said there was no reason to put 22 it in there, that's all.
O
r 80 1
Q Did this happen on more than one occasion?
2 A
Well, it happened there for about a month till, like 3
I say, till we finally got it straightened up.
4 Q
How did you get it straightened up?'
5 A
Well, everybody -- most of the inspectors, they told 6
him that you had to put down something to describe your 7
inspection.
In other words, you couldn't just make little 8
checknarks whether the weld was clean or whether it was rusty 9
or what.
In other words, you wanted to put down there why you 10 either rejected or accepted an inspection.
11 Q
And are those forms now filled out with remarks on 12 them?
13 A
Yes, they are.
14 Q
Do you know whether other inspectors were filling 15 Form 19s out with remarks on them at the time that you were 16 told by Mr. DeWald not to do that?
17 A
Well, they put a stop to everybody, so there was 18 about a month there that you'll probably find a Form 19 19 without too muc,h -- too many remarks in the Remarks section.
20 I'd say a month.
It might not have been over two or three 21 weeks, I don't know.
22 Q
And then how was it resolved?
Did Mr. DeWald --
O
r 81 1
A At one of our weekly meetings, you know.
We O) k-2 discussed everything at the weekly meeting, what was -- what 3
should be done and what shouldn't be done.
And someone 4
brought it up and said, " Listen, if a weld inspector goes out 5
there and he rejects something in a configuration and a 6
man comes along to configure it to see if it's in the correct 7
location and he looks up there and he says, well, there's a Ss0 8
pull tag or a yellow flag, I wonder what the problem is, maybe 9
the weld inspector might have caught something on it that 10 everyone should know."
11 So it was just an information item is what it was.
12 Q
okay.
Now, the Form 19 is not physically out with 13 the hold tag, is it?
14 A
No, no.
15 Q
So then if somebody saw a hold tag, they'd still 16 have to go back to the Form 19 to determine what had been 17 identified?
18 A
Well, if it's a rejection, we have what's called a 19 Form 30, which is an ICR, or a Form 14, which is an NCR.
- Now, 20 then they work, usually, the repair crew or the field crew, 21 they do the repairing off of either the ICR or the NCR.
22 That's the way that's taken care of.
O 4
82 1
Q And I guess what I don't understand is when you just 2
referred to the hold tags and how the Remarks section in Form 3
19 would help.
How do those two track?
4 A
Everything that's on the Form 19 rejection should be 5
also stated on your hold tag.
6 Q
Okay.
Are remarks ever put on hold tags?
7 A
That's what we use them for.
8 Q
Did Mr. DeWald direct you not to put any remarks on 9
hold tags?
10 A
Oh, no.
No.
It was just the Form 19, he thought --
11 I think his problem was he thought they was taking too much 12 time to do the inspections.
13 Q
Did somebody -- let me ask you this what type of 14 other information, if any, would a hold tag contain?
15 A
It usually just identifies the item that the hold 16 tag is on, the date the hold tag has been tied or what we call 17 a tie-and-hold tags, the date the hold tag is tied, the y
18 drawing.
That way, when the repair crew comes by, they can 19 take a look at the hold tag, they know what hangers it's 20 supposed to be on, what drawing it's supposed,to be on, and 21 they can go back and check and see what details they have to 22
' repair or something like that.
O
83 1
Q On the Form 19?
I(s,/
2 A
They can check it off the Form 19, right, or off 3
the Form 30 or Form 14.
4 Q
So, with respect to the Form 19, you were putting 5
remarks in the Remarks section which would be identical to 6
the remarks on the hold tags, is that correct?
7 A
Usually, you have more on the Form 19 because your 8
space is a little bit larger.
In other words, you can write a 9
little bit better history on it.
In other words, the Form 19 10 actually should be the history of the hanger or whatever 11 you're looking att that should be the history of it.
12 Q
Are you aware of any NRC requirement or of any code (V)
13 requirement, AWS, as being anything that you're familiar with, 14 or of any Comstock procedures that at that time period 15 required that nomething like a Form 19 should also contain 16 remarks on it?
17 A
I believe most all codes says that as far as 18 documentation, it should be complete, concise, and 19 self-explanatory or something.
I believe that's on that 20 order, at least.
About every code that I know, whenever you 21 fill out a documentation, has that in it.
22 Q
With respect to the Remarks section of a Form 19, is
4 t
84 1
there anything that would lead you to believe that during 2
those couple of weeks or a month when people were not putting 3
remarks down on the Remarks section, is there anything in that 4
that would lead you to believe that constock procedure was 5
violated in any respect?
6 A
No, not necessarily.
I think it was just a 7
communication gap or something, probably, between --
8 Q
Between whom?
4 9
A Mr. DeWald, probably, and -- I don't know whether it 10 would be commonwealth Edison or just constock or who.
But I
)
11 think it's probably just lack of communication there 12 someplace.
i
(
}
13 Q
And is it correct to say that that has been resolved l
14 to your satisfaction?
15 A
That's been resolved, right.
16 Q
And would the problem have lasted more than a month?
17 A
I don't believe it did.
I don't believe it did.
18 Like I say, it might not have been over two or three weeks.
19 Q
Now, that was -- what we just finished discussing --
20 was the first example you could give me of Mr. DeWald's 21 intimidation.
Can you give me any other examples?
d 22 A
Well, I would say that was probably the most 1 ()
85 1
flagrant that I can think of.
2 Q
Can you think of any others at all?
3 A
No, not for myself.
4 Q
Did any other Comstock supervisor or member of 5
management harass you or intimidate you in any respect since 6
you became er. ployed at Braidwood?
7 A
No, there was no one ever intimidated me.
8 Q
Did anybody else ever harass you in any respect --
9 did anybody else ever harass you in any respect other than 10 what you've just described?
11 A
No more than what I would let them ness with me.
12 Q
What do you mean when you say that?
13 A
Well, I'm bullheaded.
14 Q
Did you discuss this problem that you had with 15 Mr. DeWald and the Remarks section on Form 19 with anybody 16 else?
17 A
No, I don't think so.
I've talked to Irv about it 18 several times, you know, and -- in fact, I used to talk to Irv 19 a good bit about different things.
But, no, no one else.
20 Q
You didn't talk to any other member of management or 21 supervision?
22 A
.No.
No more than what would be normal-day, everyday O
i 86 i
^
1 conversation.
2 Q
I mean with respect to the Remarks section.
I 3
A No, no more than, like I say, just, " Hey, we can i
4 change this and we can do this."
You know, you're always 1
5 telling then you ought to make it easier for the inspectors.
I j
6 You know, that's what you go for.
1 7
Q In the way of suggestions of how to change 8
procedures, that kind of thing?
9 A
That kind of thing, right.
]'
10 Q
Did you ever consider discussing the problem that j
11 you had with Mr. DeWald in the Remarks section with the NRC?
)
12 A
No.
( )
13 Q
You didn't feel that it warranted a visit to the l
14 NRC?
I r
l 15 A
No.
he was the manager, so he should know what he i
16 could do and what he couldn't do as far as documentation.
17 Q
In your opinion, did his couple-week or month-long 18 position about the Remarks section on this Form 19 constitute 1
a j
19 a quality or safety concern to you?
Did it have any effect on 20 quality or safety?
4 t
21 A
It shouldn't have had any.
The only thing, like I f
say, it should have give a clearer, more precise history of 22 t
!O i
)
87 1
the Form 19, whether it was acceptable or whether it was D
2 rejectable.
3 Q
Would it be fair to say that once a person had 4
reviewed a Form 19 that didn't have remarks on it, he or she 5
could go out physically to the site of the particular weld 6
involved an take a look at it --
7 A
Oh, yes, you can do that.
8 Q
-- for clarification?
9 A
You can do that, yes.
Whether it's either 10 acceptable or rejectable, you can still go out and --
11 Q
Okay.
And the hold tag would contain some 12 information?
Ih 13 A
LJ If it's rejectable, naturally.
14 Q
Okay.
That would be information you would have 15 liked to include in the Remarks section?
16 A
Right.
17 Q
What kind of remarks would you have put on a Form 19 18 if the weld were acceptable?
19 A
Usually, it's very little remarks go if it's 20 actually acceptable.
You usually put on the drawing number 21 that you used and the rev and all that, of course, and --
22 but very few remarks if it's actually acceptable, because O
88 1
you've got it checked off.
You have no rejection.
2 Q
Okay.
But the information regarding the drawing 3
that you used and the rev and so on would be contained on the 4
form --
5 A
That's true.
6 Q
-- regardless of whether you put any specific or 7
general remarks in the Remarks section, is that correct?
8 A
Well, you see, you have -- you not only have -- you 9
not only have your basic drawing, you also have your 10 connection drawings.
Usually, you have about three different 11 drawings on your Form 19.
12 Q
And you reference those on the form?
13 A
Right.
You have to reference what connections you 14 used; in other words, whether it's -- you know.
15 Q
Okay.
Okay.
16 A
That's usually what goes in the remarks on today, 17 because we're -- have what we call drawing Rev. A's -- or I 18 mean AO's.
So we have all new drawings today that you're 19 inspecting to.
20 Q
Rev. AO's, is that what you just said?
21 A
OA's.
.s 22 Q
OA's.
What does that stand foe, if you know?
.4 O
i 89 1
(Laughter.)
.O k-)
2 A
That I'm not sure.
But anyway, it's after a certain s
3 date, whenever they made the walkdown and done the configuring 4
on the hangers, well, that's how come we have new Rev. A's or 5
O's.
6 Q
They're a new set of drawings --
7 A
Right.
8 Q
-- that reflect the condition of the plant as built 9
so far?
10 A
True.
11 Q
Those are drawings that are issued by sargent &
12 Lundy?
[ ))
13 A
Right.
14 Q
All right.
Other than what you've described today, 15 can you tell me of any other incident or any other exchange in 16 which you felt you were harassed or intimidated by any member 17 of Comstock management or supervision?
18 A
Not myself, no.
19 Q
Other than what was discussed today and, if you 20 recall what was discussed in your deposition in January, are 21 you aware of or have you heard rumor of any instance of 22 harassment or intimidation by Comstock supervision of any QC O
90 1
inspec, tor?
2 A
On the 29th of January 1986 Dick Bowers tried to 3
get Terry Coleman to buy off or change an inspection.
Terry 4
sits right next to me.
Terry wouldn't do it.
Terry is no 5
longer in Doc Review.
He's back in the field.
6 Q
Okay.
That's " document review"?
7 A
Right.
So I don't know whether it's harassment, 8
intimidation or what.
But anyway, I know Terry wouldn't buy 9
the form off the way that Dick Bowers -- and Dick is the 10 supervisor of the vault.
11 Q
Can you spell for me Mr. Bowers' name?
12 A
I believe it's B-a-r-w-o-r, if I'm not mistaken.
13 Q
B-a-w-r?
14 A
B-a-w-o-r, if I'm not mistaken, isn't it?
Dick 15 Bowers.
He's been with Comstock for some time.
He was a 16 manager over at Perry.
I believe that's the way he spells his 17 name, though I'm not for sure.
18 Q
And when you refer to Terry Gorman, are you 19 referring to Thurmond Gorman?
20 A
No.
Terry.
21 Q
Okay.
Were you present when Dick Bowers was asking 22 Mr. Gorman to sign off?
O
-l
91 1
A Yes.
2 Q
Can you tell me specifically what you recall 3
Mr.. Bowers saying to Mr. Gorman?
4 A
He said, "I believe that inspection is not 5
correct."
And Terry said, "Well, I'm not for sure whether it 6
is or not.
The fellow is no longer here."
And he said, 7
"Well, I'd like for you to change this."
And Terry said, 8
"Well, I don't know."
He said, "I believe the fellow made a 9
mistake."
And Terry said, "Well, I don't know that he made a 10 mistake."
So it went around and around for about two hours, 11 and Terry never would sign it.
12 Q
What kind of --
13 A
Terry --
14 Q
Go ahead.
15 A
I think he actually -- Terry did actually done the 16 research, and I don't know whether he physically looked at the 17 problem or not, but anyway I know he did the -- did the 18-research and corrected it that way.
19 Q
What type of an inspection was it, do you know?
20 A
I'm pretty sure it was a configuration inspection.
21 Q
Do you recall who the inspector was that Mr. Gorman 22 said isn't here anymore?
O
92 1
A Not offhand.
2 Q
And what did Mr. Bowers say was not correct about 3
the inspection, if you remember?
4 A
Well, I'm pretty sure that one of the things that 5
was supposed to have been wrong was that the drawing rev was 6
incorrect.
7 Q
And that was a referent on the --
8 A
Basic drawing, yeah.
9 Q
And do you know in what respect it was incorrect?
10 Was the revision --
11 A
No, I can't tell you that.
I --
12 Q
okay.
Do you recall anything else that Mr. Bowers
(}13 said about the inspection not being correct?
14 A
No, not -- not specifically.
15 Q
What was Mr. Gorman in the process of doing that ha 16 would have that inspection report in front of him?
17 A
He didn't have it in front of him.
Mr. Bowers 18 brought it up to him from the vault.
19 Q
And why, if you know, did Mr. Bowers give it to 20 Mr. Gorman?
21 A
Right.
22 Q
Why, if you know?
O
93 1
A I'm not sure why he give it just to Mr. Gorman,
- 2 because there's about six or seven of us sit in there 3
together.
4 Q
And what are all the six or seven of you in the 5
process of doing right there?
6 A
Reviewing documents.
7 Q
This is part of an ongoing document review project?
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
And Mr. Gorman was one of the people who was 10 involved in this document review project?
11 A
Right.
12 Q
Is that document review still going on?
13 A
Yes.
14 Q
Does it have a particular title?
15 A
It does, but like I say, I don't know the number.
16 Q
Is it an audit or is it a review --
-17 A
It is from the -- I'm pretty sure it was one of the 18 audits.
I don't know whether it was an NRC audit or one of 19
.the other audits.
But it's -- yes, it's from one of the 20 audits.
21 Q
Was Mr. Bowers working in the vault at the time 22 that this --
O
94 1
A Yes, Mr. Bowers is the -- Dick Bowers is the vault 2
supervisor.
3 Q
And so it was his responsibility to bring documents 4
out of the vault to all of you working on the document review?
5 A
I'm sure it is his responsibility to get them all 6
cleared, if at all possible.
7 Q
You indicated that Mr. Gorman then did some research 8
on it.
9 A
Yes.
10 Q
Do you recall what kind of research he did?
11 A
Well, I'm sure he looked for all the drawing revs 12 and everything like that to make sure that they were correct
(}13 at the time that the inspection was written.
14 Q
Do you know what, if anything else, Mr. Gorman did?
15 A
No, I can't tell you of that.
16 Q
Do you know what the final resolution of that was?
i 17 A
I'm sure that Mr. Gorman either reconstituted the i
18 inspection or did a new inspection, one or the other.
I'm not 1
19 for sure which.
l 20 Q
When you say " reconstituted the inspection," what 21 does that mean?
22 A
It means reworking the paperwork till it meets all l
' O 1
95 i
1 their -- we have a -- they have a procedure whereby they can 2
reconstitute documents.
3 Q
He either did that or else he went out and redid the 4
inspection himself?
5 A
One or the other.
I'm not for sure which.
6 Q
Did Mr. Gorman ever tell you whether, after having 7-completed his research, he was right and Mr. Bowers had been 8
wrong?
9 A
No.
The only thing I had heard Terry say was that 10 he sure didn't --
11 MS. KEZELIS:
I have to take a very short recess.
12 MR. WRIGHT:
Let's go off the record.
( )
13 (Recess.]
14 MS. KEZELIS: }Backontherecord.
15 BY MS. KEZELIS:
16 Q
Before we were interrupted, Mr. Hunter, you were 17 in the middle of explaining-to me that the only thing you 18 could remember, and then you stopped.
What were you going to 19 say?
20 A
Terry Gorman said that he sure didn't change that 21 inspection the way Dick Bowers thought he would.
22 Q
And what did you take that to mean?
d
=
~~
m
96 1
A I took it to mean that Terry probably did the 2
research and, like I say, either come up with a new inspection 3
or reconstituted the old one.
4 Q
Do you know whether Mr. Gorman talked to anybody 5
else about this?
6 A
No more than what's in our crew, and our crew 7
consists of like, say, approximately seven inspectors with 8
Brian Murphy as our lead.
9 Q
Do you know whether he talked to Mr. Bowers about 10 it again?
11 A
After that day?
12 Q
Yes.
(
13 A
I don't think so.
14 Q
Did Mr. Bowers ever ask him about it again while 15 you were there?
16 A
Not while I was around, no.
17 Q
Is there anything else that you can tell me about 18 this incident that I haven't asked you or that you haven't 19 told me about just now?
20 A
well, that's the general --
21 Q
That's about it?
22 A
That's the general subject.
l l
l
97 1
Q And it was on January 29, 19867 2
A Right.
The day after I talked to you over in the 3
trailer.
4 Q
And for the record, I think that was the day that 5
you brought in your documents --
6 A
Right.
7 Q
-- for inclusion in this deposition transcript, 8
Hunter Exhibit 3.
9 Did Mr. Gorman tell you anything else about this 10 that you can recall?
11 A
Not that I can recall, no.
12 Q
Do you recall talking to anybody other than the
( )
13 people working on this document review project about it?
14 A
No.
15 Q
You didn't talk to Quality First about it, in other 16 words?
17 A
No.
No.
18 Q
You didn't talk to CECO about it?
19 A
No.
20 Q
You didn't talk to the NRC about it?
21 A
No.
22 Q
Was this the first time you had heard Mr. Bowers a
98 s
I 1
make such a request of somebody?
p/
g'j$ @
\\s,
2 A
Well, I'd heard rumors, but hat's all.
That was the 3
first time I was ever -- because I just happened to be sitting 4
right next to Terry.
That's the reason I --
5 Q
What other rumors did you hear about Mr. Bowers?
6 A
That he would like for you to change a lot of the 7
things to where he could put them in the vault.
8 Q
And from whom did you hear that, if you remember?
9 A
All the other inspectors, you know, first one and 10 then the other.
But Dick has never asked me to change one.
11 Q
Do you know who, if anybody else, he has asked?
12 A
No.
13 Q,
Who are the other inspectors who are working on the
)
14 documents right now?
15 A
Okay.
Jeff Hudson.
Anderson, I believe, John 16 Anderson.
17 Q
Anderson?
18 A
Yes.
John Anderson.
Tom Wolkowich or -- you can 19 guess as good as I as to how you spell that because I sure 20 don't know.
Wolkowich, he's a --
t i'
21 Q
Okay.
22 A
A boy by the name of Osmus, Denny Osmus.
- O
\\
l
99 1
Q Anybody else?
2 A
Myself.
And a young lady has been on it by the name 3
of Janet -- last name I can't even -- I don't know her last 4
name.
5 Q
Has she been at the site long?
6 A
Yes, but she's been loaned out.
In other words, 7
she's been on loan most of the time the last month or so.
8 Q
To whom?
9 A
Terminations, if I'm not mistaken.
She's been 10 working with Westinghouse.
11 Q
You indicated that you had heard a rumor that 12 Mr. Bowers asked a lot of the inspectors to change documents
( }
13 from the vault.
Would it have --
14 A
Usually, it has to do with revs on drawings.
And 15 it's true, for a long time probably our weakest point on 16 inspection was keeping up with the revs that Sargent & Lundy 17 put out.
They finally got a handle on it about a year or so 18 ago.
19 Q
And in what respect would Mr. Bowers, to the best 20 of your knowledge about these rumors, have or ask people to 21 change on these - with respect to the revs on drawings -- to 22 update them?
O
100 1
A Not necessarily update them but do the research and 2
see what maybe the revs was changed; in other words, we're 3
allowed, I believe, 10 days or something like that to 4
implement a drawing in the field.
So that a lot of times our i
5 ins actions during that 10 days naturally might be used in a yst -
6 board rev.
So we had to go through all the inspection forms 7
and check those.
That's what a lot of the document review is 8
doing right now is --
9 Q
Okay.
Comparing the dates that revisions --
10 A
Comparing rev --
11 Q
-- to be made --
12-A Comparing rev dates.
Right.
(
}
13 Q
Okay.
And that's comparing the dates the revisions 14-became effectivo --
15 A
'Right.
16 Q
-- to the date that a particular inspection --
l 17 A
Right.
18 Q
-- for that drawing was performed?
19 A
That's true.
20 Q
Okay.
And the kind of thing that you believe 21 Mr. Bowers was asking the inspectors to do was to change the 22 revision code letter for the drawings, Revision A, B, C?
I O
i
101 1
A Dates.
2 Q
Dates?
3 A
Dates, usually.
4 Q
Dates, usually?
Okay.
Let's say, for example, that 5
the drawing contained a date of January 1, 1986.
Okay?
6 A
That's Rev. J, say.
7 Q
Okay.
And what would Mr. Bowers, according to what 8
you have heard, try to have somebody change it to?
9 A
The previous rev.
In other words, instead of being 4-10 J,
you know, it'd be the previous rev.
11 Q
I?
12 A
Usually not I.
(
}
13 Q
H?
Rev. H?
14 A
Right.
We don't usually use I.
15 Q
Okay.
Can you understand or can you give me any
(
16 reason why Mr. Bowers wpuld want to change or would want somebodytochangearehisiontoapredecessorrevision 17 18 drawing?
s 19 A
Well, if the date -- let's just say the date and H 20 match, you know, that's the date that you should have on our
~
21 inspection and that's the date it should be.
But if you 22 didn't and you inspected it to H but actually you're already O
W
,..>-w,-n_
.----z m
-m M
E i
102
$W 1
down to J already, naturally you're going to have a ~1HRT rev.
2 So you had to check to see if there's anything changed on the 3
drawing between the rev changes.
That's what it's all about, 4
to make sure that there was nothing that Sargent & Lundy did 5
to a drawing to change it from one rev to the other.
l 6
Q Okay.
And you're talking with reference now to the 7
10-day period --
8 A
Usually, a 10-day period.
9 Q
Okay.
And if Mr. Bowers noticed that an inspection 10 was performed more than 10 days since a revision had been 11 issued to a drawing, then, according to what you've heard, he 12 would try to have it changed back to a select --
{ )
13 A'
Right.
14 Q
-- the previously existing revision that was in 15 effect.
Is that right?
16 A
Yes, in a round-about way, that's true.
17 Q
Okay.
Can you tell me if you know or if you recall 18 how many times --
19 A
Oh, this happens quite often, of course.
I've 20 changed -- I've changed revs on a good many of them because 21 it was actually wrong.
22 But like I say, in the last year or so we've pretty x_J
103 1
well taken care of -- these are old inspections I'm talking 2
about that we're changing so much of right now because a year 3
and a half ago we didn't have a real good handle on the 4
drawings, in other words.
I think that happens every place.
5 At one time, Sargent & Lundy was coming out with a 6
lot of revs.
In other words, every day a drawing might 7
change.
A basic drawing might change three times in one week 8
or something like that.
9 Q
I want to make sure I understand your testimony.
10 The changes that you have just been talking about to documents 11 to reflect other revisions of drawings, have all of these, to 12 the best of your knowledge -- or have most of these -- dealt (GT 13 with recent inspections or old inspections?
dbd 14 A
These are old inspections we're Stiety-Wall doing.
15 Q
These are inspections that had taken place a year 16 and a half ago, as you said?
17 A
Right.
18 Q
Okay.
19 A
That's true.
20 Q
can you give me a more specific time frame, if you 21 know?
22 A
Well, I would say that -- I would say from early i
O
104 1
1985 to the present time, the drawings and the revs and 2
everything has been pretty well kept up.
In other words, the 3
inspectors don't go out and work with an old void rev very 4
often, a void drawing.
But prior to that, it'd been known to 5
happen.
6 Q
And is one of the purposes of this document review 7
that you're doing now to determine whether the revision listed 8
on the inspections for a drawing was the right one or not?
9 A
That's true.
10 Q
And Mr. Bowers never asked you to make any change 11 to any of the documents you're reviewing that you did not feel 12 was warranted, is that correct?
( )
13 A
That's true.
14 Q
Okay.
Can you tell me how many instances that 15 you've heard of that Mr. Bewers was trying to have the l
16 inspectors make revisions which they felt were not warranted?
l 17 A
Well, most of the inspectors don't mind making 18 revision.
That's not their problem.
The problem is if 19 Mr. Bowers thinks that the inspector was wrong on, you know, 20 some other part of the inspection, that's what the inspectors 21 have a gripe about.
22 Q
And is that what the problem was with Mr. Gorman?
i i
O l
105 1
A I'm pretty sure it was.
2 Q
Okay.
It was an aspect that didn't deal with a 3
particular drawing revision that had been used for the 4
inspection --
5 A
The way I understand it, yes.
,6 Q
-- but it was another aspect of the inspection 7
report?
8 A
Right.
9 Q
Okay.
And you don't know what aspect of the --
10 A
No, I don't.
11 Q
-- inspection report?
Okay.
12 Are you aware of any other instances that you can
()13 recall other than the one you've just described about 14 Mr. Gorman where Mr. Bowers attempted to have a QC inspector 15 change an inspection report?
16 A
Not to my personal knowledge, no.
17 Q
Or change an inspection report with respect to an 18 aspect of the inspection unrelated to the drawing revision --
19 A
Not to my personal knowledge, no.
20 Q
Okay.
So it's been rumor?
21 A
It's just rumors.
l 22 Q
Would the rumor have been among the individuals you O
106 1
identified earlier who work with you on this document review 2
project?
3 A
Maybe some.
j 4
Q Okay.
Can you think of anybody else who might have 5
any knowledge?
6 A
No.
No.
We're just a little group together right i
i 7
now.
8 Q
Have you ever discussed this with any Comstock i
9 management?
e 4
10 A
None.
11 Q
Do you know whether, of the rumors that you've heard j
12 about, that other inspectors that did make whatever changes
( )
13 Mr. Bowers wanted without regard to the underlying work that l
14 should have been done?
15 A
I myself personally don't know that.
)
i 16 Q
Okay.
Do you have any reason to believe that other i
17 inspectors that Mr. Bowers may have asked to make --
j 18 A
I am sure he has.
i l
19 Q
-- changes?
Okay.
Do you have any reason to 20 believe any other inspector would go ahead and sign off l
21 whatever Mr. Bowers wanted them to without regard to the i
l 22 underlying research that they should do?
i-l i O P
i
107 1
A I don't believe that I know of anyone that has.
2 Q
Do you have any reason to believe that any of the 3
Comstock QC inspectors that you know would go ahead and do 4
whatever Mr. Bowers asked them to without regard to research 5
that they personally felt they ought to do?
6
.A I don't know of anyone that would do it.
7 Q
In your opinion, based on what you have observed of 8
other QC inspectors at Comstock, is it your opinion that 9
regardless of Mr. Bowers' request, other inspectors would do 10 what Mr. Gorman did and go ahead and do the research 11 themselves?
12 A
I believe that each and every one of them would.
13 Q
Are there any other instances of harassment or 14 intimidation that you are aware of that we have not discussed?
15 A
Not that I can recall.
16 Q
Are you aware of any other rumors of any harassment 17 or intimidation?
l 18 A
Not that I can recall.
19 MS. KEZELIS:
That completes any questions I have of
(
20 you, Mr. Hunter, at this time.
j 21 MR. BERRY:
I have a few questions for you.
22 THE WITNESS:
All right.
1
!O
i 108 1
MR. BERRY:
I understand that you have a train to j
2 catch, so I will be brief.
3
'4 l
l 6
I 7
l 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 l
16 l
17 18 l
19 20 21 22 i
f 109 1
EXAMINATION 2
BY MR. BERRY:
3 Q
Mr. Hunter, you were, were you not, one of the 26 4
inspectors that went to the NRC on March 29, 1985?
5 A
Yes, I was.
I believe we had Mr. Schultz.
I 6
believe that's who the NRC person was.
And he had on the 7
phone Mister -- offhand I can't say who he had on the phone, 8
but I'm sure he had an NRC person from Chicago.
9 Q
In the regional office?
10 A
Yes, from the regional office.
11 Q
Mr. Hunter, I place before you a copy of a memoranda 12 dated April 5, 1985, from Charles Wilde, the investigation and
( )
13 compliance specialist of Region III of the NRC, to a 14 Mr. Charles Norelius, who is director of the Division of 15 Reactor Projects.
This is Document 63, produced by the staff 16 to the intervanors and the applicant in response to a request 17 for production from the applicant.
18 Particularly, I refer your attention to page 3 of 19 that document.
20
[ Witness perusing document.]
21 You will see that there is a statement, "More than a 22 little bit of intimidation by more than one supervisor."
That O
(
110 1
statement is attributed to you.
2 A
Yes.
3 Q
I believe you were asked by Ms. Kezelis whether you 4
in fact made that statement in the course of that meeting.
5 A
Yes, I was.
6 Q
I believe you replied that you did.
And you were 7
also asked if you had raised any other concern or allegations 8
during that meeting.
And I believe you replied that you did 9
not --
10 A
That's true.
11 Q
-- is that correct?
Now, directing your attention 12 to page 2 of that document, I believe it's the fourth
( )
13 paragraph, the paragraph beginning with the word 14 "Accordingly."
Do you see that?
15 A
With what?
16 Q
The paragraph beginning with the word "Accordingly."
17 A
Okay.
18 Q
In that paragraph, the second sentence, the sentence 19 begins, "They were informed."
Do you see that?
The second 20 sentence in the paragraph.
21 A
All right.
1 22 Q
This paragraph summarizes some of the comments bV
111 1
by the NRC with respect to the QC inspectors.
And apparently, 2
Mr. Wilde's memorandum reflects that the QC inspectors were 3
informed of the Region's plan to bring Commonwealth Edison 4
into the allegation through the legal process.
The memorandum 5-further reflects that none of the allegers expressed any 6
dissatisfaction with this concept.
7 Do you recall being asked by any of the NRC 8
inspectors whether any of the QC inspectors had any objection 9
to the NRC informing the applicant, the utility?
10 A
I believe they did.
11 Q
And to your knowledge, did anybody express 12 dissatisfaction with that proposal?
13 A
I don't think so at the time, no.
14 Q
In fact, were any of the allegations raised by the 15 QC inspectors against Commonwealth Edison?
16 A
None whatsoever.
17 Q
Were they all just focused --
18 A
Comstock.
19 Q
-- on Comstock?
20 A
Right.
21 Q
Mr. Hunter --
22 A
Yes?
O
112 1
Q
-- how would you describe the response or the 2
reception that you received from the NRC inspectors the day 3
that you went to their office with these concerns?
4 A
I thought they were very cordial.
I thought they 5-were very straightforward.
6 Q
Well, have you received from the NRC a copy of the 7
inspection report closing out your concerns, some of the 8
concerns that were raised in this meeting?
9 A
Not thsat I now of.
I may have, but not that I know 10 of.
.11 Is that it?
Oh, I received it then, huh?
12 Q
I don't know that you have.
Now, I place before you 13 a copy of the Inspection Report 85-21; 85 -- strike that.
14 Inspection Report 50-456/85-021; Number 50-457-85-022.
And I 15 ask you if you recognize that document?
16 (Witness perusing document.]
17 A
If I received it, it must be in the packet.
But I 18 don't offhand recall it.
19 Q.
Have you received any correspondence from the NRC, 20 or do you recall receiving any correspondence from the NRC in 21 connection with the concerns that were expressed by the QC 22 inspectors?
i i o I
113 1
A Not to my knowledge.
Of course, like I say, I live 2
away from home, so it could be very easily sent to my home and 3
I've not seen it.
4 Q
Mr. Hunter, directing your attention back to the 5
April 5th memorandum from Mr. Norelius, on page 2 of that 6
memorandum, the same paragraph that we were discussing 7
earlier.
8 A
All right.
9 Q
The last sentence in that paragraph reads that, "The 10 resident inspectors were requested to obtain the Comstock 11 inspectors' address and telephone numbers for follow-up by the 12 NRC; for example, furnishing the inspectors with copies of
()
13 this memo and subsequent reports."
14 A
Yes, I see that.
15 Q
Do you recall whether you provided your address, 16 your home address, to the NRC?
17 A
I'm sure I did.
18 Q
Mr. Hunter, I show you a copy of a March 29, 1985, 19 memoranda authored by Mr. Schultz and Mr. McGregor, intended 20 for Messrs. Wilde and Warnick, all of the NRC.
And it's 21 concerning quality control allegations from L.K. Comstock 22 inspectors.
I represent to you that this is a summary by O
114 1
Mr. McGregor and Mr. Schultz of the meeting that took place 2
that day.
3 A
Yes.
4 Q
Attached to that memoranda is a document, a one-page 5
document, entitled " Attachment," which appears to be a list of 6
individuals attending that meeting.
7 A
Right.
8 Q
And for some there are names and there are addresses 9
as well; and others, there are not.
Will you take a minute 10 and review that list and see if that list is consistent with 11 the people you remember attending that meeting?
12 A
Yes.
()
13 Q
Do you see your name listed on that?
14 A
My name is listed, but no address.
15 Q
No address.
So it's fair to say the NRC wouldn't 16 have any address to send you a document?
17 A
Could have been.
18 MR. BERRY:
Those are all the questions I have for 19 you.
20 MR. WRIGHT:
Mr. Hunter, what time does your train 21 leave?
22 THE WITNESS:
Oh, I don't think till about 5:00.
1 115 1
MR. WRIGHT:
It's about six minutes of 5:00 now.
2 THE WITNESS:
We'll make it all right.
3 MS. KEZELIS:
Okay.
4 THE WITNESS:
I can always hitchhike.
5 MS. KEZELIS:
Oh, no.
6 (Laughter.)
7 MR. WRIGHT:
No, no.
Ms. Kazelis has offered to 8
take you home.
9 MS. KEZELIS:
Let's just go off the record a minute.
10 (Discussion off the record.)
11 12
([3) 14 15 16 17 i
18 19 I
l 20 i
21 l
22 I
i
116 1
EXAMINATION 2
BY MR. WRIGHT:
3 Q
Your statement that there was more than a little 4
intimidation by more than one Qc supervisors, specifically you 5
said Mr. Saklac and Mr. DeWald.
Is that correct?
6 A
That's true.
7 Q
With respect to intimidation, you stated that 8
Mr. Saklac said something to the effect of let's get this 9
done, let's get that done.
What did you -- can you elaborate 10 on that a little bit more?
11 A
No, no more than general.
He just said that we had 12 to get this dor.e or we had to get that done, you know, and if
( )
13 you don't get on the stick, you know, why, we'll send you down 14 the road or something like that.
He never told me that, of 15 course, but I've heard him say it to fellows.
16 Q
Now, in response to Ms. Kezelis' question of whether 17 or not at any time he asked to sacrifice quality over 18 production, you stated that you couldn't say that offhand.
19 A
What was that again, sir?
20 Q
In response to Ms. rezelis' question --
21 A
Right.
l 22 Q
-- regarding whether or not you've ever heard of him l
O i
117 1
sacrificing quality over production, you said no, you couldn't 2
say that offhand.
3 A
That's true.
4 Q
What could you say about that?
What did you know 5
about that?
6 A
Well, let's put it this way:
At one time we were 7
short of inspectors, and it put a heavy load.
In other 8
words, everything we was working was backlogs, in other 9
words.
In other words, they said we've got a certain date 10 we've got -- Commonwealth Edison gives us a certain date that 11 we must have certain areas cleaned up, inspection areas 12 cleaned up.
13 So to me, that was saying, hey, we've got to do this 14 in order to keep the job.
In other words, that used to be 15 their big thing, you know.
In other words, if we're going to 16 stay on the job, we've got to get certain things done.
17 Q
So, what did that mean to you?
18 A
That meant if the inspectors didn't come up with a i
19 certain number of inspections in a certain time, they could i
20 figure they'd be hitting the road.
21 Q
Also, with respect to Mr. DeWald and this whole 22 question about Form 19, you stated that he said don't put i
- o
i 118 I
anything in the Remarks.because it would take him too much 4
i 2
time?
L 3
A It wasn't necessary; it was just killing -- or 1
4 taking too much time to do the inspection when the checklist 1
i 5
itself should cover the inspection.
Right.
j 6
Q sWau there any other thing that he had stated not to 7
do because they were taking too much time?
j.
8 A
No, no more than the pop rally, you know, of every 9
week of let's get this done, let's get that done, you know, 10 let's catch up with this area and that way we can get some 11 time off --
12 Q
Now, with respect to that same Form 19, you stated
(
)
13 that, in your opinion, you thought it was a lack of 14 communication -- I mean ultimately it was resolved -- you 15 thought it was a lack of communication between DeWald, 16 Comstock, or CECO.
17 A
Right.
4 j
18 Q
What do you mean, "a lack of communication"?
1 19 A
Well, I'm sure that -- I'm sure that Con Ed or --
f 20 let's put it this way:
I'm sure that Com Ed would like i
21 everything on that Form 19 as tracing the history of any
[
22 inspection no matter what it was, whereby to me DeWald as l
i i
119 1
manager and maybe Comstock was wanting to get the jobs done 2
where they would look good as to Commonwealth Edison.
In 3
other words, they looked like they was catching righc up as 4
far as inspection goes.
But I'm sure that the company, 5
Commonwealth Edison, wouldn't have wanted something written 6
into a program or did with a program that they couldn't five 7
years from now go back and say, hey, so-and-so did this.
8 Q
Well, if I understand what you're saying, are you 9
saying that you're sure that Commonwealth Edison wouldn't have 10 wanted to sacrifica quality of the inspection in order to get 11 it done?
12 A
That's true.
(
}
13 Q
And you felt that's what Mr. DeWald wanted to do?
14 A
Well, I felt that that was what ne was doing.
I 15 didn't know whether he wanted to do it or not.
16 Q
Okay.
You also stated the only time that you really 17 put any remarks in Form 19 would be if the weld was 18 unacceptable.
19 A
I said the greatest amount of it.
20 Q
The greatest amount.
21 A
Right.
The greatest amount of remarks would be into 22 a rejectable inspection.
4 O
120 1
Q Now, with respect to Mr. Bowers, the vault 2
supervisor, in the conversation where I think I missed 3
something, initially you said that Gorman was transferred from 4
where?
5 A
Gorman is no longer in the document review.
Right.
6 Q
Since when?
7 A
A day or two after this happened.
8 Q
A day or two after this.
Had you talked to 9
Mr. Gorman?
10 A
Oh, yeah.
I see Terry coming in.
We come to the 11 job the same day, so we been there the same length of time.
12 I see Terry quite often.
( }
13 Q
Had you discussed the situation with Dick Bowers 14 and him leaving the document review?
15 A
No.
16 Q
Has he said anything about that to you?
17 A
No, he hasn't.
18 Q
Had you heard any rumors regarding that?
19 A
No.
20 Q
Now, just so I can get this clear in my own mind, 21 when you do an inspection report and you inspect it to a 22 certain drawing, a certain revision, then you mark that O
121 JL revision at a certain date.
1 2
A Right.
1 3
Q Now, if the revision that you mark was void at that 4
time, does that make that a bad inspection?
5 A
It doesn't make it a bad inspection; it's just the 6
traceability of a document -- in other words, if they went 7
back to, let's just say, A and the inspection was actually did 8
on B, and maybe there'd be some revision to the hanger between 9
the Rev. A and B.
So if you don't have the correct rev on the 10 drawing, the drawing will be the same, but if you don't have 11 the correct rev, you're not for sure what revision went on in 12 that time.
(
}
13 Q
What if there was a -- I'a'sorry?
14 A
Go ahead.
15 Q
Now, what if that was a revision to the particular 16 item that you're inspecting to?
17 A
Your inspection would still probably be good l.it 18 wouldn't be null and void, because you actually did the 19 inspection on that date, and if you can trace the re'v to that 20 date, you usually have a correct inspection and a correct rev 21' and a correct drawing.
22 What I am trying to say is a year and a half, two i
?
- O 4
5 i
r
- -. - - - - _. - - -. - - - _. - - - -, -, - -. - - -. - - - - - -. - - - - - -.. -. - - - - -, - - - - _ ~ ~ ~ - - - - _ _ _ -
122 1
years ago, they'd go out there and maybe the rev would be, 2
instead of being A rev -- I mean still being C or D, maybe 3
they was still inspecting it to Rev. A, there could have been 4
two or three revisions made on that hanger between Rev. A and 5
Rev.
C.
That's the way that worked.
6 Q
Okay.
So that it wasn't that it would be a bad, it 7
would just be an inaccurate inspection report.
8 A
Right.
9 Q
So were you to then correct that, what would you 10 have to do?
11 A
Okay.
You do research.
You go to the drawings and 12 you see if there was an revisions made between, let's say, A
()13 and C.
If there's no revisions made on that particular hanger 14 between A and C, you don't have to worry about it, because you 15 know the date that he done the inspection and signed on it and 16 signed off.
So you just change the rev on the drawing.
17 But now, if there is work that's been done between A 18 and C, then you have to go back and do a complete reinspection 19 to make it right.
4 20 Q
So it depends upon what your investigation found --
21 A
Right 22 Q
-- as to what occurred between those two dates?
O p.,,my
,-g
p,.--,---.,mw_
. t;F
('
123 3_
1
- A That's true.
That's true.
1' O'
2
'[
Q.
But that's not something that you can just -- or is cN
~
3 that something that you can just, once you find a document,
.e+
4 can you just write it'off or change the date?
~
5 A
Oh, no,.not when.there's a complete reinspection you g
~*
1 6,*,
cannot.'
7 Q
7g that what Dick Bowers asked him to do?
f 8_
A Well, I'm not sure, but I believe it was.
.i b s9 I Q
Is Dick Bowars still the vault supervisor?
.s%,
~ 10.
A-Yes, he is.<
11 Q[
Has anyone replacod Terry Gorman at this point?
7 12
- A
[No response.]
13 Q
Has anyone replaced him?
f 14s A
No, he left that crew, and no one has been replaced.
~
'15 Q
Now, do you know whether or not there are a number 16 of those inspection report changes that are taking plaGo?
s_
17 A
Yes, there's a good many.
When I say a good many, I
, t C l's' mean in the thousands.
~
,y e
19 Q
And if you were to go back and do what should be i
i 20 done, which is to do the research between the first revision A
21 and the second, and see whether or not there was anything 22 cha'nged and,then, if necessary, go back and do the complate s
f
+
I pv
,. D' ' b
h s
e s
E
^
4 l
s l'
t
.~ 9%
y 4
-__.,._.._,....-_.,__.r.____me.
-_.%....._m_,.._
=_.
124 1
reinspections, how long would that take, if you have any idea?
O2 A
I have no idea.
I have no idea.
3 Q
But would you agree that it would make things -- it 4
would take a much longer time than --
5 A
Yes.
6 Q
Oh, in your research -- I mean, in the work that 7
you're doing in the vault, have you come across inspection 8
reports that showed over 1,000 inspections being done in one 9
day?
10 A
Oh, yes.
11 Q
Ha that been pretty normal?
12 A
At one time.
( ) 13 Q
About how many would you say?
14 A
Oh,I couldn't say offhand how many inspection forms 15 is that way.
But there's a good many.
16 Q
And you said "at one time."
What time would that i
17 be?
l 18 A
I'd say prior to 1982.
19 Q
Prior to 1982?
Do you know any of the inspectors 20 that are associated with these reports?
21
[ Laughter.)
l 22 A
Our present manager, Irv DeWald, has a good many in l
l O
l
125 1
the vault.
2 Q
A good many of one sheet that says more than 1,000?
3 A
Right.
Maybe 75 hangers in one day or thousands of 4
I don't know whether he did them all in one day or 5
not, but that's the day that he said he did.
6 Q
Did you -- anyone else that you know of?
7 A
Well, I believe we had one guy called Dave Parka 8
also in the same category, along with, of course, young Rick 9
Martin, but Rick didn't know no better.
No, don't put that 10 down.
11 (Laughter.)
12 But there's a good many of the old inspections that
( ) 13
-- where they would show, you know, several hangers -- when I 14 say "several," anywhere from 15 to 40 hangers and anywhere 15 from 200 welds to 1,000 welds -- all in one area and you 16 couldn't find -- but really that's part of the inspections 17 that we're doing today.
18 Q
Is the highest you saw about 1,000?
19 A
Probably.
I 20 Q
Okay.
What are you doing with those when you find 21 them?
22 A
Well, we're trying to match paperwork.
If the i
O
~
126 1
paperwork doesn't match them, we reinspect them.
O
\\s /
2 Q
But those were done on a grid?
3 A
Right.
I 4
Q So there's really no way of knowing which one they'd 5
looked at except for --
6 A
That's right.
7 Q
And you're going back and reinspecting everything in 8
that whole general area?
9 A
If it's -- if there's 35 hangers in one area, well, 10 we inspect them.
11 Q
With respect to Mr. Saklak, had you heard of his 12 Pearl Harbor files?
(N 13 A
The what, sir?
d 14 Q
Have you heard of his Pearl Harbor files?
15 A
No, I haven't.
16 Q
Had you heard of a file that he had been keeping 17 with information with respect to the QC inspectors?
18 MS. KEZELIS:
Well, objection.
I'm not sure that 19 that's what anybody has testified to that the Pearl Harbor 20 file has.
But go ahead.
21 MR. WRIGHT:
Okay.
22 THE WITNESS:
No.
O i
127 i
1 BY MR. WRIGHT:
i 2
Q Had you heard of any rumors of that?
3 A
Well, you always hear rumors.
But knowing me, I 4
didn't know it.
5 MR. WRIGHT:
I think that's all the questions I 6
have.
Thank you very much.
7 MS. KEZELIS:
Mr. Hunter, I have a few follow-up 8
questions.
4 9
THE WITNESS:
All right.
10 MS. KEZELIS:
I think that they won't take long.
11.
THE WITNESS:
All right.
12 14 15 16 17 i
18 19 l
20 l
21 22 l
!O 4
.,v.,.,
_y.
.-___..___.___,.m.,_
-~
.~
i-128 1
EXAMINATION I
2 BY MS. KEZELIS:
[
3 Q
You made a statement in response to a question by i
<c 4
Mr. Wright, and I hope I have it down correctly.
If you 5
.didn't do a certain number of inspections in a certain time, 6
or if they didn't do a certain number of inspections in a f
7 certain time, they'd be hitting the road.
Do you recall i
8 saying that?
4 9
A Yes.
10 Q
Are you aware of any specific quotas placed on any 11 ;
inspector to complete a certain number of inspections a day?
12 A
No, I don't think there was ever any quotas put on 13 anyone.
14 Q
Are you aware of anybody who has been fired because 15 he or she didn't do a certain number of inspections in a day?
16 A
I'm sure there's been a few supervisors told a few
{
17 of the inspectors that they wasn't getting enough done.
18 Q
Okay.
You're not aware of any terminations, though?
i 19 A
None that I know of.
20 Q
I may have asked you this during the course of l-21 your first day's deposition, I'm not sure.
Have you ever f
22 heard of somebody named " coffee Cup"?
O l
I i
h'
. _,. _... -,, _ _ _, _... _ _ _ _. _.. _ -..... -.. _, _.. _ _,. _ _ _ _. _ _ -. - - ~. _ _.
.. ~. _ _... - _. _ -, __-
129 1
A No.
2 Q
Have you ever heard that nickname?
3 A
No.
4 Q
Are you aware of anybody getting a reprimand in 5
writing from Comstock management because he or she wasn't 6
completing enough inspections in a day?
7 A
I've heard there'd been a few.
8 Q
Can you tell me who those were?
9 A
No, I don't know.
10 Q
You don't know who the inspectors are?
l 11 A
No.
12 Q
Did you know when you heard the rumor who the
(
)
13 inspectors were?
14 A
No.
15 Q
Do you recall anything else you may have heard about 16 any such rumors?
17 A
Do what, ma'am?
r I
18 Q
Do you recall anything else you may have heard --
l 19 A
No.
l 20 Q
-- any such rumors?
Okay.
But to the best of your 21 knowledge, nobody that you're aware of has been terminated by 22 Comstock management --
l r
- O l
\\
130 i
i l'
A That's true.
2 Q
-- because of a failure to perform a certain number 3
of inspections --
4 A
That's right.
5 Q
You also testified that Mr. Gorman was transferred a 6
day or two after the incident with Mr. Bowers.
2 7
A That's true.
8 Q
How long did it take Mr. Gorman to complete his 9
research regarding the particular document we were talking 10 about?
11 A
I would say two hours or more.
12 Q
Do you where Mr. Gorman was transferred to?
{ }
13 A
If I'm not mistaken, he's over in Unit 2 now.
I 14 don't know what he's doing over there for sure.
i 15 Q
Do you know whether he's inspecting in the field?
16 A
Yes.
He's in the field.
17 Q
Do you know whether Mr. Bowers had anything to do l
18 with Mr. Gorman's transfer?
19 A
That I do not know.
20 Q
Do you know whether Mr. Gorman had asked to be 21 transferred out?
4 22 A
That I don't know either.
' O
_ _.. ~ _ _, - -,.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _
131 1
Q Do you have any reasons to believe that Mr. Bowers 2
had any authority to transfer Mr. Gorman to another work area?
3 A
I don't know whether he had the authority or not, 4
no.
5 Q
Who generally, if you know, has the authority to 6
change work assignments?
7 A
Either Irv DeWald, Tony Simile, or Larry Seese.
8 Q
Do you have any reason to believe, based on what you 9
know about Mr. Bowers and the incident between Mr. Bowers 10 and Mr. Gorman, that Mr. Gorman was transferred out of i
l.
11 document review because of the incident with Mr. Bowers?
12 A
'No, I do not know that.
( ) 13 Q
You have no reason to believe that there is a --
14 A
No.
I 15 Q
-- correlation or relationship between the two?
16 A
Right.
17 Q
During the course of your testimony regarding l
18 drawing revision, say, from Drawing C to F --
i 19 A
Yes.
20 Q
-- I can't always picture what we're talking about 21 in my head, and that helps me a little bit -- do these 22 revisions generally change the placement or the nature I
!O l
l L
132 1
of the welds?
2 A
No, they shouldn't.
But let's just say that 3
Drawing A is out and we have a certain hanger en it.
Okay.
4 Three months down the road we've got down to here to, like you 5
say, G or H or something like that.
In the meantime, Sargent 6
& Lundy had decided that they wasn't making this conduit run 7
or this pk run, so that hanger or that conduit hanger has 8
been deleted.
9 Now, let's just say that the inspector goes out 10 there right after Rev. A come out, you know, and does the 11 inspection.
Okay.
And he puts down there -- and he's looking 12 at what should be Rev. C but he's still got Rev. A in his 13 hand.
And he inspects it to Rev. A.
It doesn't say anything 14 about deleting the hanger, deleting the conduit hanger or 15 anything like that.
You come along here, and G, like I say, 16 when he should be -- and he's already inspected it to Rev. A l
17
-- and G comes along here and says delete it.
Okay.
18 The checklist inspection report in the vault says 19 that on a certain -- certain date Rev. A, he okayed this 20 hanger.
All right.
21 Now, then, that day, though, that he done the 22 inspection -- this is, like I say, back a year and a half, two
! C)
(
i
r 133 1
years ago -- he should have been using Rev., say, C or D or 2
something.
Okay.
It doesn't say anything about the 3
inspection being good, but whenever you check and check the 4
Rev. C or D, that hanger has been deleted.
5 So we have some of those.
We have some hangers 6
deleted that has inspection reports.
We have some hangers up 7
that has deleted reports because maybe three or four revs on 8
down the road they decided to put that hanger back in that 9
area.
lo Q
And the kind of work that you're doing is tracing to g
11 see what the most recent drawing is?
12 A
What we're doing is tracing it to see what the
(
)
13 latest inspection was and what the latest _ revision that the 14 inspection was done to.
And if the dates match, the 15 inspection date and the rev date matches, then we say we have 16 a good, valid inspection.
17 Q
Okay.
And what if Revision G comes along which says 18 remove that hanger but the document itself shows Revision C 19 drawing where the hanger was still there.
Okay.
What do you 20 do then?
21 A
Okay.
If we cannot find a rework or a deletion 22 order, and you don't actually go to the field to inspect it, O
a i
134 1
there's no way that the vault will actually know whether that 2
hanger is still up there or been deleted, been cut down, left i
3 in place, or what.
That's what we're running across some.
4 Q
Okay.
So then, do people generally go out to do the j
5 physical site to determine if the hanger is still out there or 6
not?
7 A
The only way we go out there is if we have a rework
'8 number, what we call an AVO number -- which I've been working j
9
-- AVO rework or something to generate us, something to 4
10 trigger us to look further into that inspection.
11 Q
You also indicate thousands of documents were made i
12 to indicate recent revisions?
( )
13 A
No, correct revisions.
14 Q
Can you clarify what you meant?
I'm still not sure 15 I picture that part of it.
j-16 A
Okay.
Like I told you, a year and a half ago a lot 17 of inspections was done'actually to void revs.
In other
{
18 words, we didn't have a system set up whereby that the --
19 Q
That the most recent revision would get to the 20 inspector who was going to be inspecting that thing?
21 A
Right.
That's true, i
l 22 Q
okay.
O h
i 1.
4
,--,_..-,,--.~,,.,n
_.,,-~
_._n_,_--,--._
-__,,._,n--
,-,___.,m,._.-,__-,.,-,,,,,.---,_....,,-,...______n,-,
135 1
A okay.
So that's what -- this is what we're doing as 2
far as rev revision goes.
3 Q
Other than the Gorman-Bowers incident that you 4
described and rumors that you had heard about that you 5
described -- well, let me start out this way:
In your 4
6 opinion, was Mr. Bowers' request to Mr. Gorman a request to 7
falsify a document?
8 A
To falsify a document?
9 Q
Yes.
j 10 A
I wouldn't say it was to falsify a document, no.
11 Q
Would you characterize it more as an opinion that Mr a
J 12-Bowers had as opposed to an opinion that Mr. Gorman had and i
4
( )
13 Mr. Gorman turned out to be correct?
14 A
That's true.
i 15 Q
Any of the other rumors that you've heard about 16 regarding Mr. Bowers' request that all of you working on these
-17 documents, change documents, have any of those rumors that 18 you've heard about led you to believe that Mr. Bowers was 19 demanding or ordering somebody to falsify a document?
8 20 A
I wouldn't say demanding.
He's not that type of 21 fellow.
4 22 Q
okay.
Was he asking anybody to falsify --
i O
136 1
A I don't think so -- well, I wouldn't say that he 2
asked him to falsify.
3 Q
That's what I am focusing on, falsification of 4
documents.
5 A
I don't think he was actually asking him to falsify 6
them.
7 Q
Okay.
Would it be fair to characterize again the 8
rumors that you heard as Mr. Bowers having one opinion and an 9
inspector perhaps having another opinion?
10 A
I think that's more correct.
11 Q
Is there anything else that you would like to add 12 about that?
13 A
No.
14 Q
Can you recall specifically how many documents you 15 saw reflecting 1,000 or more weld inspections by Mr. DeWald on 16 one document with one date on it?
17 A
I'd say it would be in the hundreds.
18 Q
All right.
You saw hundreds of documents?
g pV<
19 A
I would say it'd have been in the hundreds of that' 20 work 21 Q
Reflecting that Mr. DeWald had performed thousands 22 of inspections?
O
e 137
~s 1
A Well, I wouldn't say thousands --
2 Q
Okay.
3 A
-- but I mean multi, multi inspections.
4 Q
And what number are we talking about?
A couple 5
hundred welds?
6 A
Anywhere from 140 to 1,000, yes.
7 Q
Do you recall what part of the plant those a
inspections may have been related to?
9 A
I would say in Containment 1 and Unit 1.
10 Q
Do you recall ever seeing anything for the Auxiliary 11 Building?
12 A
No, not to that.
( )
13 Q
Did you ever discuss that with Mr. DeWald?
14 A
No more than just me and you talking, that's all.
15 Q
And what has Mr. DeWald said to you about it?
16 A
Well, that's the way it was done then.
17 Q
That he would have performed these inspections over 18 a period of time?
19 A
I'm sure that he -- I'm sure that's what happened, 20 yes.
21 Q
You said that young Rick Martin didn't know any 22 better.
What were you referring to?
O
138 1
A well, he was a young man and just starting out in
()
2 inspection, and Irv was his teacher.
3 (Laughter.)
4 Q
What was it that led you to believe, Mr. Hunter, 5
that Mr. Martin was doing some improperly?
6 A
I don't know that Mr. Martin was doing anything 7
improper.
I'm pretty sure he was just following orders or 8
instructions.
9 Q
All right.
You referred to him and to Dave Park in 10 connection with questions Mr. Wright had of you regarding 11 1,000 or more inspections in a day.
Do you recall seeing any 12 documents reflecting inspections by Mr. Martin that numbered 13 in the hundreds or thousands with one date on them?
14 A
Within the hundreds, yes.
15 Q
Within the hundreds.
Do you recall when the 16 inspection or inspections would have been performed?
17 A
I'd say around 1982.
It could have been '81.
18 Q
Did you ever talk to Mr. Martin about it?
19 A
Well, no more than -- no, no more than normal.
i 20 Q
Do you have any reason to believe that Mr. Martin --
21 do you have any reason not to believe that Mr. Martin 22 performed those inspections over the course of days rather i
i i O l
l
139 1
than one day?
Ii,)
2 A
No, that I cannot say.
s l
3 Q
Is Mr. Park still on the site?
4 4
A No, he's not.
5 Q
Mr. Martin is still on the site?
6 A
Yes, he is.
7 Q
Is there anything else that you can tell me about a
these documents, that you recall, or others similar to them?
9 A
No.
The only thing, they're just awful hard to 10 trace.
11 Q
You indicated that if you wouldn't be able to trace 12 them back, reinspection would be done --
13 A
Right.
14 Q
-- is that correct?
Would that be of all the welds 15 within that grid?
16 A
To what ma'am?
17 Q
Would all the welds within that grid be reinspected?
18 A
Everything that couldn't be traced.
Everything that 19 couldn't be traced is being reinspected.
20 Q
Is there anything else that you can recall about 21 Mr. Martin's performance when you referred to him as " young 22 Rick Martin" and said that he didn't know any better, that
- O e
~n,,,---
n,.,,n,--,,,.,-~-,--,.em,,,,-
,nm
e..,n
.,-,---.~,,_m
~,.,.,
n.,_me,.,m
-r 7--
n-e,--u-p,
140 1
you had in mind when you made the statement?
2 A
No.
3 Q
Is there anything else that you're aware of that 4
would lead you to believe that any inspections or 5
documentation of inspections that Mr. Martin may have 6
performed were inappropriate or inaccurate or incorrect in any 7
respect?
8 A
Personally, I don't know of any.
9 Q
Have you heard any rumors?
10 A
Oh, yes, there's always rumors.
11 Q
What kind of rumors have you heard?
12 A
That, you know, the young man, he didn't know what 13 a weld looks like or he didn't know this or he didn't know 14 that.
15 Q
Are you aware of any Qc inspector alleging that he 16 or she was constantly watched by a supervisor?
17 A
Not right offhand, no.
18 Q
Are you aware of sny allegation by any QC inspector 19 that he or she wasn't permitted to leave his seat?
20 A
Well, the rumors has been that, yes.
21 Q
And was that inspector Rick Martin?
22 A
Yes.
O
141 1
Q Is that what you were also referring to when you O(_s 2
said young Rick Martin didn't know any better?
3 A
Yes.
4 Q
What did you understand to be the reason, based on 5
the rumors you heard, of why Mr. Martin was being more closely 6
supervised?
7 A
Offhand, no more than just rumors is all I've ever 8
heard.
9 Q
Can you recall what those rumors were?
10 A
No.
11 Q
Was there anything else that you had in mind when 12 you mentioned Mr. Martin?
13 A
No.
14 MS. KEZELIS:
Okay.
I have no other questions.
15 MR. BERRY:
How soon does your train leave?
16 MS. KEZELIS:
I have a train schedule.
17 THE WITNESS:
It doesn't matter.
We'll take care of 18 it.
19 MR. BERRY:
Why don't we find out now because I 20 would like to ask you some questions that I refrained from 21 asking because you were trying to meet your train schedule.
22 MS. KEZELISt Let me go get the schedule then.
i O
142 1
Let's take a quick break.
l
@2 (Recess.)
3 MS. KEZELIS:
Back on the record.
4 5
6 7
S 9
10 l
11 l
12 13 14 r
15 16 17 18 g
19 20 l
21 r
22 f
[
l' I
1 l
t I
.)
1 143 1
EXAMINATION t
2 BY MR. BERRY:
3 Q
Mr. Hunter, could you describe Mr. Saklak for me?
4 A
Mr. Saklak, he was, oh, a good bit overbearing.
He 5
was a type of fellow that wanted everybody to know that he was 6
the boss.
And in other words, I would say that 99 percent 7
of the people that he met, there would be a personnel clash 8
there.
9 Q
Was he a big guy or --
10 A
Yes.
11 Q
-- a little guy or --
12 A
Saklak was a large fellow.
I'd say he weighed
( )
13 probably 245 pounds.
Stood about 6'3".
14 Q
How old was he, do you have any idea?
15 A
I would say he's under 30.
16 Q
Thank you.
Earlier to a question posed by 17 Ms. Kazelis, I think it was during the initial examination, 18 she'd asked you whether you'd been harassed by Mr. DeWald, and 19 I believe you answered her there, and I think she had asked 20 you did you know of any other QC inspectors that had been 21 harassed by Mr. DeWald.
And I don't believe we ever received 22 a response to that.
O v
2
144 1
A I said that, myself, Irv had never tried to harass 2
me or intimidate me, but I have seen it happen to other 3
inspectors.
4 Q
Could you identify some of those other inspectors?
5 A
Herschel Stout and Irv didn't get along too well.
6 Q
Do you know why?
7 A
Do I know why?
8 Q
Yes.
9 A
No, I don't know why.
10 Q
Well, how do you know that, that they didn't get 11 along?
12 A
Well, I'd say Herschel was a fellow from Missouri,
(
} 13 and I talked to Herschel a good bit, and just from general 14 conversation, you know, that him and Irv didn't hit it off.
15 Q
Are you from Missouri also?
16 A
What, sir?
17 Q
Are you from Missouri also?
18 A
Yes.
19 Q
Mr. Hunter, I take it you're familiar with the 20 allegation that Mr. Saklak threatened a Qc inspector, stated 21 to a QC inspector that if beating were legal, he'd be dead?
22 A
I think so, yes.
Og
145 1
Q Were you present?
)
2 A
Yes, I was in the same room.
3 Q
I guess the other incidents, the other complaints 4
raised against Mr. Saklak by the inspectors in the course of 5
the March 29, 1985, meeting with the NRC, do you recall any of 6
those offhand?
Do you remember some of those complaints?
7 A
No, not specifically.
8 Q
I will just remind you of one, a comment raised 9
during that meeting by one of the inspectors that Mr. Saklak 10 continually violates procedures during inspector 11 certifications.
Do you recall that?
12 A
Yes, I do.
13 Q
There was another comment that Mr. Saklak had 14 threatened an inspector for not closing an inspection report 15 even though the engineering change notice had not been issued 16 for it?
17 A
Yes, I believe that happened.
18 Q
You heard that.
There was another comment that 19 Saklak had told an inspector to finish an inspection even 20 though drafting errors were noted.
Do you recall that one?
21 A
I don't rc. call right offhand, but I'm sure it 22 happened.
tv
146 1
Q There was a comment raised during that meeting by an
,_ T ekl 2
inspector that Saklak berates inspectors.
Do you recall that?
s-3 A
Yes, he did.
He bullied them.
4 Q
You recall that.
Well, I am not so much interested 5
now in inquiring into the details of these comments.
My 6
question to you is, since Mr. Saklak has left the site, have 7
you experienced any recurrence of that type of activity, any 8
of the present QC supervisers engage in that type of conduct?
9 A
No, none of them have.
10 Q
Would it be fair to say that since Mr. Saklak has 11 left the site, there has been an improvement in the working 12 conditions, the atmosphere in the QC --
)
13 A
I would say the atmosphere has been improved, yes.
14 Q
Mr. Hunter, I want to direct your attention to 15 Inspection Report 85-21 and 85-22.
This is an inspection 16 report.
It's a report of an inspection conducted by 17 Messrs. Mandez and Naisler of the NRC Region III.
I represent la to you that, among other things, this inspection was 19 undertaken in response to that March 29, 1985, meeting with 20 the NRC inspectors to address their concerns and to look into 21 them.
22 Initially, I would ask you did you ever speak with OV
147 rx 1
Mr. Mendez or Mr. Neisler from the NRC?
)
2 A
No, I don't believe I did.
3 Q
Were you onsite during the period of April 30 to May 4
3 -- strike that.
Look, if you will, on the first page of 5
that inspection report.
6 A
First page?
7 (Witness perusing docurent.)
8 Q
Do you see there is a heading there, " Inspection 9
Conducted"?
And then after that there is a series of dates.
10 Do you recall if you were onsite during all those days, during 11 those periods reflected on that page?
12 A
Yes, I'm sure I was.
(A
_ )
13 Q
Did you speak with anyone from the NRC about any of 14 the concerns of your visit to the NRC on March 29, 19857 15 A
Not that I can recall.
16 Q
Directing your attention to page 24 and 25 of that 17 report, under a heading in paragraph F, the heading is "NRC 18 Inspector Summary," and that appears to reflect the NRC 19 inspectors' summary of their findings and overall conclusions 20 regarding their findings on the concerns expressed by the QC 21 inspectors during that March 29, 1985, meeting, and some other 22 allegations that are not pertinent here.
(m
148 1
In particular, I would direct your attention to page 2
25, the first full paragraph.
It's the paragraph that begins 3
with the sentence, "Two adverse issues were identified by the 4
NRC inspectors which were related to allegations made by the 5
QC inspectors."
Do you see that?
6 A
Yes.
7 Q
In particular, directing your attention to the last 8
two sentences in that paragraph.
And the sentence, the first 9
sentence that I am referring to reads, "The problems between 10 L.K.C. management and the QC inspectors generally stem from a 11 lack of communication between management and employees and the 12 bullying tactics of one QC supervisor who was removed from the O
13 construction site."
Do you see that?
U 14 A
Yes.
15 Q
Mr. Hunter, do you agree or disagree with that 16 statement expressed by the NRC inspectors?
17 A
I would say that the lack of communication between 18 management and employees was one of the big concerns.
I 19 wouldn't say that that was the only concern that the QC 20 inspectors had.
21 Q
Do you know what other concerns -- well, strike 22 that.
I think the sentence -- they said, "The problems O
149 1
.between the L.K.C. management and the QC inspectors," and 2
you've mentioned that the lack of communication wasn't the 3
only concern.
Are you using " concern" to be synonymous with 4
" problems" here?
5 A
of inspection?
6 Q
The sentence here states, "The problems between 7
L.K.C. management and QC inspectors generally stem from a lack 8
of communication."
My question to you is are there any other 9
problems between L.K.C. management and QC inspectors other lo than those stemming from a lack of communication?
11 (Pause.)
12 Do you understand my question?
13 A
Yes, I understand what you're saying.
14 They're always talking about certification on the 15 job.
I would say that one of the biggest problems was not 16 certification on L.K.C.'s or constock's job, but people that 17 actually are qualified to be certified.
When I say " qualified 18 people to be certified," I believe if you'll change and go on 19 up on page 24, you'll see one of the problems.
20 Q
And what problem is that that you're referring to 21 on page 24?
22 A
The first instance involves an inspector who was O
150 1
certified as a Level 2 in welding within six months after
()
2 being hired with no prior welding experience.
At one time, 3
L.K.C. had a lot of inspectors certified who had actually no 4
experience as far as craft work.
In other words, they'd never 5
been a craftsman of any type, but yet they come in as quality 6
control inspectors in the building trade.
7 That was my biggest concern when I come to this 8
job.
There wasn't too many weld inspectors, but only about 9
half of them actually had any experience as either a craftsman 10 or had gone to any type of training as a welder or as a NDT 11 inspector.
12 Q
Well, was your concern that these individuals who 13 did not have prior welding or NDT or craft experience, that 14 they were not qualified or competent to be a Qc inspector or 15 that they shouldn't have been because they didn't have the 16 experience and they should have hired someone that did?
17 A
Well, coming from the refining petrochemical field, 18 we call ourselves " qualified" there.
We don't say we're 19 certified.
You're qualified to do an inspection.
And coming 20 to the nuclear field, why, I found out that certification was 21 all they was looking for.
22 So that was my biggest concern, was that actually O
V
^
~
7,. g
- s -,-
f.
,~
s t
gg.
151 l
1
,they had inspectors doing inspection that really wasn't
,1 :
2 qualiffed. 4 hey might be certified, but they wasn't 3
qualifph.
s 4
Q All right.
Does that mean or are you suggesting 5
that there -- strike that.
Did that raise in your mind any 1
6 safety problem or any safety-related question?
7 A
Well, when you cone-back and say " safety-related,"
8, I'm sure that the job as a whole has been~ built to standards
- 9 that will qualify it for a license, but I's.still saying that 10 there are certain inspections khat's in the vault that 11' shouldn't be there.
2 i
12 Q
' can you identify any of those inspections and the
( )
13 typa 'r location or inspector?
o'
[L
. 14 A
.-I can tell you where they're at.
There's c
21 5 inspections been done in Containment 1, Aux --
16 Q
that's the Auxiliary Building?
17--
A Yes.,'the Aux Building.
Containment -- Unit!1.
The old indpections probably wouldn't pass today's criteria, and 18 19 today's criteria is pretty loose.
20 Q
Did those inspections pass' the criteria that was in 21' effect at the time?
i 22 A
I'm sure they did.
'r '
~
4 O
i 152 1
Q Now, the type of inspections that you're referring b)
(j 2
to in the existing Containment 1 or the Auxiliary Building and 3
Unit 1, can you be more specific as to the type of 3
4 inspections?
5 A
Well, I'm talking about weld inspections there, yes, 6
either on Aux steel or on hangers.
7 Q
Now, you indicated that they probably wouldn't pass 8
inspection today.
9 A
Today.
10 Q
Now, is that because the QC inspectors today are i
11 better trained than they were before, or is it because the 12 procedures have changed?
13 A
I'm sure it's both.
I'm sure that the procedures 14 have been more precise, and I'm sure that the inspectors 15 inspect to a closer criteria than they did back in those 16 days.
17 Q
Getting back to page 24 of Inspection Report 85-21 18 and 22, where you indicated that some QC inspectors weren't, I 19 think you used the term, qualified, that they had no prior 20 experience in the craft or welding or what have you.
I guess 21 what I am trying to focus on is the concern, your concern 22 with that, that even though they passed all their other l
l 1
l
i 153 1
courses and all the requirements and met all the standards 2
required for that position, that somehow they were still not 3
capable or competent or qualified to do the job that they were 4
certified to do.
5 A
Offhand, I wouldn't say that they wasn't capable of l
6 doing it.
But they lacked the experience.
Just like you went 7
from kindergarten to graduating from law school, there's a lot 8
of things that you acquired and you retained between the time 9
you was in kindergarten and the time you was graduated from 10 law school.
Is that correct?
11 MR. WRIGHT:
Well, maybe not.
12
[ Laughter.]
(
)
13 THE WITNESS:
I'm sure it is.
So it's the same way 14 about being a craftsman or about being an inspector:
It takes 15 so much actual experience before you reach a competency of --
16 a competency level to actually say that you're a journeyman or 17 that you're a Level 2 or 3, or whatever you want to be, 18 inspector.
And that's my -- that was my problem at the time, 19 is how could they bring somebody from selling Mcdonald 20 hamburgers to being a Level 2?
If he had worked as a Level 1 21 for, you know, a certain amount of time or something like 22 that, I would have no problem, because everybody has to start r
t}[N I
l l
154 1
someplace.
2 BY'MR. BERRY:
3 Q
Do you know anyone that went from selling Mcdonald's 4
hamburgers to become a Level 2?
5 A
No, not offhand.
I really don't.
6 Q
Okay.
And I take it this happened, that they hired j-7 QC inspectors who did not have prior experience in some of the 8
crafts?
9 A
Yes, I'm sure they did.
10 Q
Now, are you suggesting that -- did that affect 11 morale that some QC --
t 12
'A Well, to a certain extent it did, yes.
x 13-Q Did it affect your morale?
14 A
It sure did.
15 Q
Did you ever make that known to any 16 L.K.C. supervisor?
17 A
No.
l 18 Q
Do you know if other QC inspectors felt the same i
19 way?
i 20 A
What was that again, sir?
21 Q
Do you know if other QC inspectors who had had prior 22 craft experience --
i O
155 1
A Oh, yes.
)
2 Q
-- and that they felt the same way?
3 A
Oh, yes.
4 Q
With experienced QC inspectors with prior craft 5
experience, was there any pay differential between them and 6
the --
7 A
No.
8 Q
At no time?
9 A
At one time I'm sure there were, because whenever I 10 come into the job, they were paid anywhere from $6 to $12 an 11 hour1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br />.
So they had a pay scale that some of them went to.
12 Q
Mr. Hunter, what is the atmosphere of the morale of 13 the QC inspectors today?
14 A
I would say not good.
But for more than one i
15 reason.
First of all, the inspectors felt they got sold down 16 the river whenever Comstock turned the contract over to an 17 outfit called Brand Examination and Testing Company, or l
18 BESTCO.
Everybody thought they got sold down the river there.
19 And then it hasn't improved a lot since BESTCO come 20 in, for the simple reason they told us they was going to be i
l 21 set up on the amount of certifications you had and the amount
(
22 of prior certifications that you had.
And it hasn't happened.
. O l
156 1
Q Earlier today Mr. Coss was deposed.
And he O
(m,/
2 testified, in the course of his deposition he testified that 3
he thought that, by and large, that the QC inspector work 4
force out at the Braidwood was a very good one and that they 5
were very -- they were very good inspectors.
Is that 6
consistent with your experience?
7 A
I would say on the whole, yes.
8 Q
I believe Mr. Coss also testified that the QC inspectors -- well, strike that -- that he was unaware of any 9
10 QC inspector, despite the problems with morale and the lack of 11 communication between the inspectors and the management, that 12 they still did their job in a professional manner and that
)
they didn't overlook discrepant' work or refuse to report 13 14 discrepant work or they did their job as a professional would 15 do it.
Is that consistent with your --
16 A
Yes, I'd agree with that.
17 MR. BERRY:
That's all the questions I have for 18 you.
Thank you.
19 MR. WRIGHT:
You've got one?
20 MS. KEZELIS:
Go ahead.
21 l
22
()
157 1
EXAMINATION 2
BY MR. WRIGHT:
3 Q
Mr. Hunter, you said that some of the older i-4 inspections probably wouldn't withstand scrutiny under today's 5
standards, is that correct?
6 A
Some of the older inspections.
It's probably true.
7 Q
Now, if you knew or if I was to represent to you 8
that one of the procedures -- let's take AWS 31.1 --
9 A
Right.
10 Q
-- that in 1980 that was a much more stringent 11 procedure than it is today.
12 A
That's true.
It was.
(
)
13 Q
Now, given that situation, how do you square your 14 statements with that, I mean looking at this particular 15 procedure?
16 A
Okay.
This plant's being built to D.l.1.75.
Is l
17 that correct?
l j
18 Q
Yes.
I 19 A
Okay.
D.l.l.75 allows you to have so much undercut l
l 20 on structural steel.
Is that correct?
21 Q
Right.
22 A
All right.
In 1978,
'79,
'80, whenever I talk about O
158 4
1 the early inspections, the inspector, he allowed that
()
2 undercut, you know.
That means no if's, and's, and but's 3
about it.
About a year and a half ago, maybe two years ago, 4
they come along and put in procedures that was 8/1000dths of 5
an undercut and 12/1000dths undercut on unit strut and pans.
6 Okay.
They also come along and wrote procedures 7
that they didn't allow near as much undercut on structural 8
steel as they did, like I say, back prior to 1982.
t 9
So what I'm saying is that the inspections prior to 10 1982, probably, wo61dn't meet the criteria that we're using 11
- today, 12 Q
But that's an example of a procedure that's become O'
13 more stringent over time --
i 14 A
That's true.
15 Q
-- as opposed to less stringent.
16 A
That's true.
l 17 Q
Okay.
So, for those inspections that were done with 18 the procedure that was more stringent then back in 1980, 19 those would still probably meet the standards today if, in 20 fact, the procedure was less stringent today?
21 A
That's true.
22 Q
Okay.
Now, had you come across any of those that O
1
159 1
were purported to pass the procedures back then in 1980 but, 2
from your review, would not even pass the present procedures?
3 A
Yes, I would say a year ago there was a good many of 4
those that they've been reworked, however, because we run an 5
audit on them and picked up everything that had excess 6
undercut or stuff like that, and it's been reworked since 7
then.
8 Q
Also, are you familiar with the term " penciling in"?
9 A
Yes.
10 Q
What does that mean?
11 A
Penciling in on installation reports?
12 Q
Well, now I was just speaking generally of
(g 13 inspection reports, penciling in in inspection reports.
V 14 A
That is adding to or changing the wording or 15 something like that on a report.
16 Q
Without actually having gone back and done the --
17 A
That's true.
18 Q
So that's a document falsification?
19 A
Right.
20 Q
Now, a few minutes ago Ms. Kezelis asked you whether i
21 or not some of the modifications that had been requested by 22 Mr. Bowers was either a document falsification or a difference O
160 1
in opinion.
Do you remember that question?
m 2
A Yes.
3 Q
And I believe you said that it was more a question 4
of opinions and --
5 A
Right.
6 Q
-- not so much -- okay.
Now, what was that 7
opinion?
And let me give you a specific example --
8 A
All right.
9 Q
-- of Gorman and Bowers and that report that he 10 wanted changed.
11 A
All right.
Mr. Bowers come up from down in the 12 vault and he said this report is not correct and he would like
/
13 to put so-and-so on it.
And Mr. Bowers said, "Well, how do I l
14 know it's not correct?"
And he said, "Well, according to the l
t 15 inspection date and the rev, it couldn't be correct."
And 16 Mr. Bowers said, "Well, the inspector signed the report that 17 he did it on that day and that's what he found in the field."
18 And Mr. Bowers said, "Well, he couldn't have found it in the 19 field."
20 And so they went round and round a little bit like 21 that.
Mr. Bowers -- Mr. Gorman took the report, and I know he 22 j
went to document control and pulled the old documents to see O
161 1
if they was correct or what not.
I know that.
2 Q
Well, in that situation, in order for Mr. Bowers to l
3 have one opinion, wouldn't he have had to do at least one of 4
two things:
number one, do the research necessary, the 5
document research; or reinspect?
6 A
He, Mr. Bowers, should have done the research.
He 7
wouldn't have done the reinspection, but he should have done 8
the research.
9 Q
Had he done the research?
10 A
I couldn't say that.
11 Q
Do you think he told Mr.Gorman that he did the 12 research?
13 A
I couldn't even tell you whether he told Mr. Gorman 14 that he done the research on it or not, because I know Terry, 15 the first thing, Terry says, "Well, I'll research it.
16 Q
And was there any objection to him researching it?
17 A
Oh, no.
18 Q
So when Mr. Bowers asked that he change that 19 information on there, if he had not done the research or had 20 not done the complete reinspection, would that have been a 21 falsification of that document?
22 A
Well, yes, it would have been.
If there had been l
!O h
162 1
neither the research nor the inspection, it would have been a 2
falsification.
3 Q
But Mr. Gorman then went ahead to do the research?
4 A
He did.
5 Q
And that's when he signed it.
Do you know what 6
modification he made on that inspection report?
7 A
I really don't know what all he did to it.
8 Q
But you did say that he told you?
9 A
It took a couple of hours, and I do know that he did 10 the research because I went to Document Control once when he 11 was down there looking at prints.
12 Q
And he told you that he had changed it and it wasn't 13 what Mr. Bowers had wanted?
14 A
Right.
15 MS. KZZELIS:
Well, objection.
I want to state for 4
16 the record I think Mr. Hunter testified it wasn't what 17 Mr. Bowers had expected originally.
I think that's what you 18 said.
And I might be wrong, I'm not sure.
19 MR. WRIGHT:
Okay.
You might be right.
I'm not 20 sure.
Let's see.
21 MS. KEZELIS:
I believe your testimony, Mr. Hunter, 22 was that Mr. Gorman did not change it the way Dick Bowers had O
i -
's 163 4
1 wanted it since --
)
2 THE WITNESS:
Right.
That's true.
3 BY MR. WRIGHT:
4 Q
So, is it fair to say, then, Mr. Hunter, that in 5
that one particular instance, that in that case, had 6
Mr. Gorman done what Mr. Bowers had asked at that specific 7
time, that would have been a falsification of the document?
8 A
Yes, I'm sure it would have --
9 MS. KEZELIS:
Objection.
Let me make my objection 10 first before you answer that question, Mr. Hunter.
My 11 objection'is this:
Mr. Hunter does not know what action, if 12 any, Mr. Bowers took before he went to Mr. Gorman and asked
)
him to do something to that document, and you're asking 13 14 Mr. Hunter to engage in speculation about events preceding the 15 incident which we don't know anything about.
16 MR. WRIGHT:
You're absolutely correct.
17 MS. KEZELIS:
Okay.
18 BY MR. WRIGHT:
i' 19 Q
Would you answer the question?
L 20 A
What's the question again?
1 l
21 Q
Well, I think the record would reflect what your 22 answer was.
I won't try to restate my question.
Let me ask i O l
l
\\
164 1
you a different one.
I 2
When Mr. Gorman told Mr. Bowers that he was going to 3
do the research, if Mr. Bowers had done the research already, 4
wouldn't he have told Mr. Gorman that?
5 A
I would think that he would have told him.
l 6
Q And you say that there were numerous instances of 7
changes being made in the vault at this time, is that correct?
8 A
As far as revs go, yes.
9 MR. WRIGHT:
I don't have any further questions.
10 MS. KEZELIS:
I have.
11 THE WITNESS:
Oh, oh.
12 MS. KEZELIS:
As far as revs go, the statement 13 you just made --
14 MR. WRIGHT:
Oh, I have one further one, if I may?
15 MS. KEZELIS:
Go ahead.
16
- g BY MR. WRIGHT
17 Q
Do you know of any other graduates.from the DeWald l
18 school of weld inspection?
i l
19 MS. KEZELIS:
Objection to that question, and I ask i
20 that you rephrase it, Mr. Wright.
I 21 BY MR. WRIGHT:
i 22 Q
Do you know of anyone else that Mr. Irv DeWald has O
165 1
trained?
2 MS. KEZELIS:
In what area?
3 BY MR. WRIGHT:
4 Q
In weld inspections?
5 A
No, right offhand I don't know whether he's been out 6
in the -- been the instructor on anyone else.
7 Q
Other than Rick Martin?
8 A
Right.
9 MD. WRIGHT:
Okay.
10 J
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 i
19 20 21 22
- O
166 1
EXAMINATION
()
2 BY MS. KEZELIS:
3 Q
In response to a question from Mr. Wright, you 4
stated, Mr. Hunter, that you agreed with his statement about 5
the thousands of documents that have been changed.
In your 6
opinion, did any of those changes constitute what Mr. Wright 7
was attempting to establish; that is, penciling in or 8
falsification?
9 A
As far as falsification, I can't say that they were, 10 no.
11 Q
Okay.
What about penciling in?
12 A
I really don't know how much has been penciled in.
13 I receive old documents every day, not the same material, not 14 the same pen's been used on them.
So I don't know what's been 15 changed and what hasn't.
Some of them are dated, some of them 16 are initialed and dated.
But as far as saying that there's 17 some been penciled in, I couldn't say that they have or 18 haven't.
19 Q
Okay.
So then, based on what you have just told me, 20 it appears that there is a distinction in your mind between 21 penciling in and document falsification?
Or is there?
22 A
Oh, I'm sure that there is a --
O
167 1
Q Okay.
The way that those words mean to you --
2 A
Yes.
3 Q
-- do you believe that penciling in always means 4
document falsification?
i 5
A Oh, no.
6 Q
Okay.
What else does penciling in mean to you?
7 A
Well, penciling in could be one of several things.
8 Penciling in could be because certain revs are left off the 9
drawings or certain details are left off the drawings, and if 10 they pencil them in and they're initialed and dated, we buy 11 that.
12 Q
Okay.
And there is nothing wrong with that, is
( )
13 there, that you know of?
14 A
Not that I know of.
15 Q
Okay.
16 A
I think they.have a procedure for it.
i 17 Q
You have a procedure for it at constock?
i 18 A
Yes.
19 Q
Is that the reconstruction of documents that you've l
l 20 been referring to?
21 A
Right.
That's true.
22 Q
Okay.
Do you know what the procedure number is
!O l
?
... _ _, _ ~
168 1
offhand?
()
2 A
I'm sorry, ma'am, I --
3 Q
That's quite all right.
That's quite all right.
4 You don't, do you?
Okay.
All right.
I just wanted the 5
record to be clear.
I believe your earlier testimony had 6
indicated that penciling in meant to you document 7
falsification, and that's not your opinion, is it?
8 A
That was not my opinion, no.
9 Q
You also testified in response to an earlier 10 question from Mr. Berry that Mr. Stout and Mr. DeWald didn't 11 get along too well.
12 A
That's true.
13 Q
Okay.
And that you had talked to Mr. Stout 14 occasionally about this.
15 A
Yes, we live in the same building, so --
16 Q
Okay.
So you are aware of Mr. Stout's feelings 17 about --
18 A
Yes.
19 Q
-- Mr. DeWald?
20 A
Yes.
21 Q
Did Mr. Stout ever tell you that he had been 22 reprimanded for low productivity from Mr. DeWald?
O
169 1
A I don't think he ever told me that he ever was 2
reprimanded for that.
3 Q
Did he ever tell you he was reprimanded by 4
Mr. DeWald?
5 A
Oh, yes.
6 Q
Did you recall what reasons he had been reprimanded 7
for?
8 A
Coming in late on Monday mornings, usually, coming 9
back from Missouri.
10 Q
Okay.
Did Mr.
Stout have a habit of coming in late 11 to work on Monday morning?
12 A
Well, yes, he did.
(
}
13 Q
Okay.
And did he also have a habit of leaving early 14 on Fridays?
15 A
That I couldn't tell you.
16 Q
Okay.
But you're aware of the Monday morning 17 problems?
18 A
-Yes, Monday morning problem.
19 Q
And Mr. DeWald reprimanded Mr. Stout for that?
20 A
I'm pretty sure he did.
21 Q
Did Mr. Stout ever discuss any other reason why he 22 and Mr. DeWald didn't get along too well to you?
O
170 1
A No.
()
2 Q
Are you aware of any other reasons?
3 A
No, I don't.
4 Q
one more question.
That is this:
Mr. Wright had 5
discussed with you whether or not AWS codes are less stringent 6
today than they were in prior versions.
Do you recall that?
7 A
Yes, he did.
8 Q
And he was referring to the AWS D.1.1 --
9 A
Right.
10 Q
-- 1975.
11 A
Right.,
12 Q
Are you aware of any specific examples that are 13 applicable to Braidwood where a current code is less stringent 14 than an earlier code?
15 A
In certain areas at Sargent & Lundy claims their 16 design takes precedence over the standard codes.
That's the 17 only ones I know of.
18 Q
Okay.
And that's because, as you understand it,
(
19 Sargent & Lundy is the architect-engineer for the plant?
l l
20 A
That's true.
21 Q
All right.
And it is their design which controls 22 when there is a question regarding design as opposed to the O
1 l
171 1
code?
s 2
A Well, my understanding is if they build to AWS 3
D.l.1 and they meet the standard, then they can write their 4
own specs in.
But they have to meet the standards.
5 Q
Okay.
And is that what you would refer to or is 6
generally referred to as the design specifications --
7 A
Right.
8 Q
-- is that what you're talking about?
Okay.
Can 9
you give me any specific example where you feel that a Sargent 10
& Lundy design is less stringent than the AWS code?
11 A
No, not right offhand.
12 Q
Is that what you were referring to in response to
( )
13 Mr. Wright's questions about less stringent codes today?
Or 14 was there something else you had in mind?
15 A
There was something else I had in mind.
16 Q
What was'that?
17 A
I believe Mr. Wright said that did I realize that 18 the code in 1980 was probably more rigid than the code is 19 today.
And I said, well, I'm sure it was because of the -- I i
20 believe they call it -- the NIGC or NCIG 90, whatever it is, q
i 21 What do they call it?
Wait a minute now.
Don't get off on i
22 the wrong foot here.
i O 4
.,m-.am n __ _,. _.
_.,,_.--,,-,,--,,_,,y,--,,,_,,,-,-,_,,.,,m_
_-_-,.,-,_-.v,_,
172 1
[ Pause.]
2 MS. KEZELIS:
I would like for the record to reflect 3
that Mr. Hunter is looking through a little notebook which we 4
have discussed during his prior deposition on January 28.
5 THE WITNESS:
NCIG.01, I believe there's some 13 6
utilities that would like to adopt this code.
7 BY MS. KEZELIS:
8 Q
Do you know whether Commonwealth Edison Company has 9
adopted this code?
10 A
Commonwealth Edison is one of the companies.
11 Q
And in your opinion, does that have any effect on 12 the safety of the plant or the quality of the construction or 13 inspections at the plant?
14 A
on general inspections it shouldn't have any -- any 15 bearing whatsoever, on general inspection.
16 Q
Are you familiar with that particular code?
17 A
I have read it a couple of times is all.
And to me, 18 the utility companies are asking the public to buy something 19 that they themself would like to put into the code instead of 20 having the American Wald Society or one of the standards do.
21 That's the way I read that code.
22 Q
In your opinion, then, it is something that is O
173 1
intended to be utility-specific?
Is that what you're saying?
()
2 A
Intended to be what?
3 Q
Intended to be utility-specific or nuclear power 4
plant-specific?
5 A
I believe it's probably nuclear power plants.
6 Q
Okay.
Can you be any more specific about what you 7
just said or not?
This is your general opinion and belief?
8 A
It's just my general belief.
9 Q
Before you put that little notebook away, 10 Mr. Hunter, I have to ask you this.
During the course of the 11 incident between Mr. Bowers and Mr. Gorman, did you take notes 12 down of that incident in your notebook?
13 A
No.
Just the date.
I have the date down and the 14 time.
15 Q
And you have none of the specifics as to what was 16 said between those two individuals --
17 A
No.
18 Q
-- in your notebook?
19 A
No.
20 Q
All right.
What time was the incident?
21 A
What time?
22 Q
Yes.
O
174 1
A At 2:00 in the afternoon.
()
2 Q
Have you ever addressed that concern that you have 3
about this code to anybody at Comstock or at Edison?
4 A
No.
Commonwealth Edison called us all -- all the 5
inspectors -- over sometime, if I'm not mistaken, in 6
September.
7 Q
Of 19857 8
A In 1985.
And they had a couple of people there to 9
explain the code and explain what the problem was with the 10 utility company.
And that's the only time that they've ever 11 really brought it up out on the plant site.
12 Q
Has this code ever affected -- well, since September 13 of '85, has that code affected any of the particular work 14 that you do on the site?
15 A
The -- some of the new codes -- I mean some of the 16 new procedures have adopted certain sections of this for the 17 construction site out there, yes.
18 Q
And some of it has affected some of the work that 19 you personally are doing on the site?
20 A
Yes.
Some of the inspections.
21 Q
Which inspections are those?
What area of 22 inspections?
l l
10 l
[
175 1
A Welding.
()
2 Q
Welding?
3 A
That's what they was trying to --
4 Q
Is there anything else that you would like to say 5
about this code?
6 A
No.
7 Q
Do you have any other feelings about this code that 8
you would like to say?
9 A
No.
If the utility companies can live with it, why, 10 I surely can.
11 MS. KEZELIS:
Then I have no other questions.
12 MR. WRIGHT:
I just have one or two to follow up.
(
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 O
176 1
EXAMINATION 2
BY MR. WRIGHT:
3 Q
One is with respect to this whole question of 4
penciling it in.
If I got you into trouble, I'm sorry -- but 5
the distinction that I made with penciling it in is that when 6
you pencil in and you do not initial it --
7 A
Initial and date.
8 Q
When you don't initial and date or when you don't go 9
back and do the document research and do the actual 10 reinspection, that's a falsification of documents, isn't it?
11 A
That's a broad term.
I would say that the document 12 wouldn't be valid.
I wouldn't say that it would necessarily
)
13 be falsifying, but I would say that it wouldn't be valid.
14 Q
Okay.
Do you have a distinction in mind between 15 falsification and invalid documents?
16 A
Yes.
Falsification is something to me that's just 17 like it's either right or it's wrong, falsification.
If it's i
18 not valid, there could be several things there.
In other
\\
19 words, it could be not complete, it could be several things, I
l 20 you know, that would make it not reliable.
21 Q
Yes.
My question doesn't really go to the 1
22 inspection report itself, it just goes to the act of penciling l ()
t l
r l
177 1
it in without initials or date or without the research or 2
reinspection.
Now, that item that you've penciled in in your 3
terms would be invalid?
4 A
What now, sir?
5 Q
The item that you penciled in would be invalid?
6 A
That's true.
7 Q
The item that you've penciled in, would it also --
8 well, again, I come to falsification -- falsification in that 9
you did not initial and date it and also that you didn't go 10 back and relook at it?
11 A
If you have all those criteria, that's true, it 12 would be falsification.
13 Q
Okay.
Now, my second question is with regard to the 14 code procedures that Ms. Kazalis just finished speaking to 15 you about.
Now, my question -- strike that.
16 Earlier in your testimony, you stated that some 17 of the inspections that you found bad but they may have been 18 acceptable during the period of time that they were actually 19 conducted?
20 A
According to the procedures.
21 Q
According to the procedures.
Now, what I said was 22 that if a procedure was more stringent then than it is now, is O
178 1
it your opinion that that still would have passed those 2
procedures?
3 A
You're talking about the codes to the procedures?
4 Q
Code.
I'm sorry.
Yes.
5 A
If the code was more stringent then than it is 6
today, but the procedures was written whereby they were 7
allowed to do in certain things at that time.
You would have 8
a code violation, but not a procedure violation.
9 Q
Okay.
I understand.
10 MR. WRIGHT:
Okay, that's it.
Thank you very much, 11 Mr. Hunter.
12 MS. KEZELIS:
Mr. Hunter, thank you very much.
What v-13 I will do, as before, is since it's difficult for me to
(
14 deliver mail to the motel you're staying at, I will ask you to 15 come to the trailer --
16 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
17 MS. KEZELIS:
-- and pick up the original transcript 18 of your deposition.
And then when you're finished reviewing 19 both of them --
20 THE WITNESS:
All right.
21 MS. KEZELIS:
-- I will ask you to have them 22 notarized after you sign them.
O
~'s 179 1
THE WIT:iESS:
All right.
()
2 NS. NEdELIS:
Okay?
3 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
Just give Irv a call.
4 MS. KEZELIS:
Okay.
Thank you very much.
5 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
6 MS. KEZELIS:
I think it's been a long day for 7.
you.
8 THE NITNESS:
It's a long one, all right.
9
[Whereupon, at 6 22 p.s., the taking of the 10 deposition was concluded.)-
11 12
()
13 14 15 f
16 17 18 I
19,
,i n
20 21
. +
s 22
' ~
c, x
1 fk%:
_a
. 4 4 ~l 4
'e
.,, a ),
180 1
CERTIFICATE OF DEPONENT O=
3 I, ROBERT D. HUNTER, do hereby certify that I have read 4
the foregoing transcript of my deposition testimony and, with 5
the exception of additions and corrections, if any, hereto, 6
find it to be a true and accurate transcription thereof.
7 8
9 ROBERT D. HUNTER 10 h-d-f 11 12 DATE
("].13
\\s 14 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC 15 Sworn and subscribed to before me, this the I[
16 day of YM 19[,
l 17 18 19 c
20 NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR 21 My commission expires: ['/I Yd l
22 O
v
181 1
1 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC 2
3 I, GARRETT J. WALSH, the officer before whom the 4
foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby certify that the 5
witness whose testimony appears in the foregoing deposition 6
was duly sworn by me; that the testimony of said witness was 7
taken by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or 8
under my direction; that said deposition is a true record of 9
the testimony given by the witness; that I am neither counsel 10 for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the 11 action in which this deposition was taken; and further, that I 12 am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel l(
13 employed by the parties hereto, nor financially or otherwise 14 interested in the outcome of the action.
15 16 v
17 GARRETT J. WALSH 18 Notary Public in and for the 19 Commonwealth of Virginia 20 21 My Commission expires January 9, 1989.
22 0
1
'l
=
w.-w-,y-r
..,-,_...._,._-.._._.-.-----,m..,-,,,,,-.,.,_..,__-_..___#
y-.
O O
O
- y
%.i Ji4_8t.Wl%~{].
.:. 4,
_,s..
s o
t,e p.
a w
iy; s.
c gi 3
C iii.,.
__._. 1: [
j I !. f d-N j
y
^
j 4
I'f f
1(f x
~1 r
1 r$'
'N ek. h' j,gi
,k r
.I.
"",t ;fr c 3
\\
?
_f ;3
'" "' L~* h w s - n -
'g C
i 5
.W t
m
'p s
o
?(M t
f.
,If,I f
ls
)9 q
n m g
.c a
1 J
i 1
p 3
b s
N l
[
r h
j
a 1-
-, _.p=
a6.m.a k
-d-..
.A4 ma----a 6
--- +
aa a
4 m/
pG-
}'
\\
M.,, _. J 4 6.
s
- - y ?'M M Q $;
.}
g g ~_
3 g
u
. e..
s s
W$?&
Q
'5 e
F
. S, L
e m
-.<g
.,,'w.
P
-a. - e n_
' s
.a i
l
@ %W' m ;r,
['hY
\\
y
, g 2
M
.m g-N g* -
i
..c y
n.:
n Y
si zr v.
t
.w e;
i e,
e i+
I' f l f,.
J
~ ~ ~ $M.5, '
~
en
~-
e r
n M '-
D
- q.,
e l
l l
--.---.-n
(
e d' g L K. COMSTr ' & COMPANY, INC.
- READ ( g R. PLY r y,., L),
l}
~
'~
~
)
W[
~
DATE l'
~
Tm.
A VC O l* C SUBJECT t r' s
- &n o
nedso
.ja
/:
/
T,' 7 ' Y. -
- 7 s
og b
0
$ 0 h~
~
/2 m Pf y9J s*V f A 'sY '$-
I in a ay ei,nl)rh n /
e e </,'l'.'c nN.,
JOs 0 -c(e -
C3 B es d-o J a e - d.'S,'c J,L s.
),'< c ne (Sp1
/ & u n /co/ )
l 7
/
~
SIGNEO e
dc PmwT psueL 64p fpgggg
~
%t +o w ;// % Sck st ]<o f r 4 f. M ct hp!rc.
SIGNED
~
DATE RECEIVER: WRITE REPLY, DETACH STUB, KEEP PINK COPY, RETURN WHITE COPY TO SENDER.
,w
/ t UM 3 f t)( A P
- s
' t ?.
i y
BR AIDWOOD NUCLEAR POWER PLANT gO R.R = 1. P.O. Som 83A2 Bracevihe. IL 60407 s nce '90J Comstock Engineering.Inc.
A COMS70CM group CoupANv PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FORM NEW HIRE []
[>Q YES NO EMPLOYEE NAME N 6.fET~ d Nav 2f TITLE 6 C# f '5 "Ec' G,#
7 CERTIFICATION (AREA) b e'M Ge/ # 4'7~<o.v LEVEL OF CAPABILITY I
CERTIFICATION DATE LAST DAY' WORKED IN AREA EVALUATION:
/1K daal24 Ass,s/Joas<t x Xxio as 2. 2 r> C E A 13 L,. IC l
$0 51 ClC CTC.i
/AJ AbL A s ps'c YS e f d e > > E s c, a,c' s 7 "i o a /
f24 /di s) c. t"- rom FE s (s.9 ea ix! c,DA'Au/ ric s FiEt p
/
/A/S P fc M x./s 7"O /Ccl~??~- 25, TcY d2/ fftC / A 6
(
(a b Al)l-l T It'16 r> $ N k 6 f 2 t<)s7~d u)2/ *TTCAl ?APG V-CdOCC
~
f Pfft.- /fL duxffe is ELwv 77) Grz-Mis era Mais fio D.
l t
t EVALUATED BY:
DATE 3-N~ Ef OC MANAGER, DATE l
l O A~'!.01:T!! C ATLANTA e CH!OA30 e NEW YOAK e
PITTSBUAGH SAN W.'0" 00 e
\\
DATE:
January 15, 1985 BRDt:
14.489 TO:
I. DcWald SUEJCCT:
Certification Package Review Results Notification The following certification package has been reviewed by CECO Site O.A.:
Personnel Certification for:
Robert D. Hunter II Receipt Insnection/Weldinc Name Level Area Ceco Site O.A. has found this certification package to be acceptable based on the minimum qualification requirements for the area of certification.
l0 %.. f*Q. %
(
"' t ~'
\\
I.
O.A. Supervisor v
(0173F) cc:
O. A. File 72.0 J. W. Gieseker O
r s
--,~-------...n-
...-.--n---..,-
,-.--,,,.._--,,,,-,,--_---.,.,...,,.,v--.,----,_.,--n,r,,
i
.~
D /tle/k Och wnicd z~sec4 </
g
>4 !
3;Lc/nc/'s hws on.m -v a r a, J
D<&
,4 iLJ-fp.,,~,
i9;us D /2. ) - >s
^% Lc,y' L/ ~Jkg dos D/. / - pr ou,n
/. x W6dn/L
& k.kh;. s 9./ - L~<,,/ rc,.- r,,st n,.
9 nuJrech 'e~
8 ewin J. A o J rlecJsd k,a i
/)pJ]
B31,8 - tr ne nuce hos T~ s-,w, &,y / A S,'LL.
-~
~,
$e'hpJyshn4 7
' /)ds]
B3/
Pran<c Rpg
[hwhsw e EDld%l AAml,S %3 't ddweeJ PL J s~42h J -
6 %, Ryy 6
h hY
$b YW(
Y
... - - - - - - - -.. -,. - ~ -. - - - - -
An -
..A w-s-
L.7
.!j),,/8 As Ya pa 6Y l
h*
/L W 5 - A PI 4 A h a JAd<u'
/b f nelA 7,.A,
/
s k ~cle d /,O u g SUJ/M r /eb/ Fue.
e
' s./J uo - So s-
&so 004 of & A<</ /lk,c 4 safe $ s..., m
& lins 7~14 49 7~. p+
l s/,;>
/%> no -
&<> /9/
T--- y s, a a < % g % 4 - c/
i Ac h.s } / m' & <
x,, s s Sc/ /93 h ae At JAA4,4oa bll Le nnisi k & le n ) L l 0
/3r) /9.:2
. di,-s. q a~A s,La B < Ms 7-y'c/s A,Ape LLr J Ayc l
Lyn su c.
/).90 S E So.h,/% ava vesee/
. MS
.c QC/- 9 9 s wA J -A-GuoAc+4L n ~ c/
e <<+:pcax 1
u n, m
.p a.i kWb-J pu aeo Y S, l
' sbolrd c lnssilkn),<',
' September 16, 1985
-!1~
,q UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
)
Dockets 50-456
.(Braidwood
)
50-457 Units 1 and 2)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT OF PROSPECTIVE QUALITY ASSURANCE WITNESSES On September 4, 1985, Intervenors filed their Motion for Confidential Treatment of Prospective Quality Assurance Witnesses.
The motion seeks to' protect from public disclosure the identities of both present and potential
_()
quality assurance witnesses'for Intervenors.
Given the
\\,,)
plain insufficiency of the factual showing made by Intervenors insupfkrtofconfidentialtreatment for the 11 Comstock quality control inspectors referred to in Intervenors' August 2, 1985 motion on that subject, there is simply no basis for carte' blanche confidential treatment of Intervonors' witnesses,in the future.
At a minimum, a particularized motion demonstrating the need for confidentiality, p,roperly supported by affidavit, is necessary.
Accordingly, Commonwealth Edison Company
(" Edison") opposes the Intervenors' motion on several grounds.
Intervonors have plainly failed to allege a sufficient factual basis on which to sustain their motion.
Despite O
IA the passage of over 60 days since the admission of the
\\,^')
contention alleging haracsment and intimidation of Comstock quality control inspectors, there is no factual basis for entry of the protective order Intervenors seek, except for the representation of Intervenors' counsel and the unexecuted affidavit of John Seeders, which itself'is based on hearsay reports of fears of harassment by other, unidentified quality control inspectors.
It can only be concluded that Intervenors seek to obviate illusory risks of retaliation and unsub-stantiated claims of intimidation.
Moreover, the requested protective order would defeat the strong public interest which mandates that NRC proceedings be conducted openly and subject-to full public scrutiny.
Finally, as a practical
[)
matter,-Edison will need to disclose the identities of these V
Intervenor witnesses to management personnel at Comstock in 9
order to effectively prepare a defense against Intervonors' allegations and to respond to ongoing discovery.
Therefore, the Intervenors request for a protective order limiting disclosure on a "need-to-know" basis would not stop this information from flowing to the very personnel from whom Intervenors fear harassment and retaliation.
Intervenors have failed to demonstrate the necessary basis for a protective order.
The applicable requirements were summarized by the Appeal Board in Kansas Gas and Electric Company (Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1),
O
9 <-'s
.ALAB-327, 3-URC 408 ~(1976).
There the Appeal Board adopted a four-part analysis,-holding ~that a party secking to protect information from public disclosure must show: ~(1) that the information in question is of a type customarily held confi-dential by-its originator; (2) that a rational basis exists for holding the information confidential; (3) that the information has in fact been kept confidential; and (4) that the information cannot be found in public sources.
3 NRC at.
417.- With respect to the required rational basis, the Appeal Board went on to state that only a " concrete indication" of some risk of "significant harm" would justify withholding information from full public scrutiny.
3 NRC at 417.
Other Boards have reached the same conclusion.
See Pennsylvania i
Power and Light Company and Alleghany Electric Cooperative,
\\_-
Inc..(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-613, 12 NRC 317, 323 (1980) (moving party must show
" good cause" for protective order); llouston Lighting and Power Company (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), LBP 11-11 NRC 477, 480 (1980) (moving party should provide
" factual basis for its view that the protective order is warranted").
Intervenors cite past allegations of harassment and intimidation by disgruntled Comstock quality control inspectors.
Edison does not dispute that these allegations are part of Intervonors' quality assurance contention.
~4-
- However,
[s the mere admission of a quality assurance harassment j
issue in a licensing proceeding is not sufficient to provide a factual basis for issuance of a protectivo order.
Intervenors have not provided a single affidavit asserting a fear of
. retaliation.
Nor have such affidavits been offered to the Board on an in camera basis.
Rather, Intervenors offer only the unsubstantiated representations of the Intervenors' attorney regarding the inspectors' need for confidentiality.
Significantly, those representations are contrary to represon-tations made to the NRC Staff when the alleged incidents of harassment took place.
See p. 2, April 5, 1985 memorandum, Weil to Norelius, attached to Supplomont to July 12, 1985 motions regarding harassment and intimidation of Comstock Quality control (coc) Inspectorn dated July 15, 1985.
The sole documentation supplied is an unexecuted affidavit of John Seeders.
Mr. Seeders has apparently refused to sign the affidavit, despite the fact that his identity is now
_public knowledge, because he has e
"become fearful" that he will be fired if he takes any further " voluntary affirmative steps" in this proceeding.
Intervenors' excuse for failing to provido any shred of factual support for the requested protective order is patently insufficient.
Mr. Secders' identity and his allegation of personal harassment are matters of public record and have been extant for some time.
He asserts no c
-s-
.t:;-
further harassment as a result of the submission of the y,,)
unexecuted affidavit, but only an unspecified fear if he executes it.
The assertions defy credulity and utterly fail to provide the type of " concrete indication" of risk which justifies placing a "vcil of secrecy" over an NRC proceeding.
' Wolf Creek, 3 URC at 417.
The bare assertion of the Intervenors' attorney that he is aware of certain inspectors who fear retaliation is totally insufficient.
An analogous factual situation was presented in liouston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Crock Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-535, 9 NRC 377 (1979).
There an argument was made by an organization seeking to intervene that, rather than identifying one of its members for purposes of determining standing to intervene, t
the organization's attorney would submit an affidavit attenting to the proper standing.
l>espite ascertions that disclosure of the members' identity would Icad to harassment and retaliation, the Appeal Board rejected the argument, noting that such a procedure would ignore the fact that both the Board and the other parties were " entitled to be provided with sufficient information to enable them to determine _for themselves, by independent inquiry if thought warranted, whether a basis existed for a formal challenge to the truth-fulness of the assortions."
9 URC at 393 (emphasis in original).
The Appeal Board was unwilling to accept the O
attorney's "conclusionary assertions not susceptible of g'_
}
verification by either other litigants or the adjudicatory tribunal."
9 NCR at 393.
Intervenors seek to bar the public from this discovery process on the strength of their conclusionary assertions alone.
They have pointed to no concrete factual basis to support their motion because none exists.
- Indeed, Intervonors' very premise--that if certain witnesses' identities are disclosed, some form of retaliation will ensue--defies
- /
common sense.-
As observed by the Licensing Doard, it is highly unlikely that retaliation would occur amidst the publicity which surrounds the Intervenors' contentions and in the face of the strong legal protections which allegers are accorded.
(Tr. 241)
Yet Intervenors would have this
)
Doard close its doors to the public on the strength of nothinq more than the assertion of the attorney who has prepared the motion.
This Board should reject such a proposition as did the Appeal Board in a similar context in Allens Creek:
"We know of no authority for such a novel and unattractive proposition, which to us runs counter to funda-mental concepts of procedural due process."
9 NRC at 393.
- /
Any threat of retaliation and harassnent has been
~
significantly diminished by an extraacous event.
The contentien on that issue identified only Comsteck management personnel as the source of alleged harassment.
As Intervenors noted in their August 12, 1985 motion for confidential treatment, Comstock no longer employs quality control inspectors.
For the electrical scope of work, that function has been taken over by Bestco.
m
s e
^*.
l ' ~~
In addition, Intervenors' " broad, vaa.ue, and
\\'
essentially unsupported allegations" should not be allowed to override the " strong public interest" in NRC proceedings which are as open as possible to full.public scrutiny.
!!ouston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-535, 9 NRC at 377, 399 (1979).
As the Appeal Board has noted:
"That interest would most assuredly be disserved were a licensing board to place a veil of secrecy over some aspect of licensing proeceding in the absence of a concrete indication that it was necessary to do so to avoid significant harm to a competing, equally cognizable interest."
Kansas Gas and Elcetric-Company (Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Stati6n, Unit No. 1),
}
ALAD-327, 3 NRC at 408, 417 (1976).
Intervenors cito Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Powcr plant, Units. I and 2), CLI 24, 11 NRC 775 (1980) in support of their position that the public interest in scrutinizing the proceedings of the NRC should give way to their demand for confidentiality.
The Diablo Canyon decision, however, involved the disclosure of security plans of a nuclear facility.
It is therefore so readily distinguishable from the instant motion as to render it completely inapposito.
In a decision endorsed by the Commission, 11 NRC at 777, the Diablo Canyon Appeal Board had noted the uniquely sensitive nature of the information O
r--
-g-sought to be protected:
"the security plan is very sensi-
[.-
i
)
tive information.
Severe consequences to the public safety may result from its compromise.
Accordingly, precautions must be taken to safeguard the plan."
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-592, 11 NRC 746 (1980).
Clearly, no concerns of this magnitude are implicated by Intervenors' motion.
Edison's objections are also based on practical considerations and fundamental fairness.
Intervenors have alleged harassment and retaliot. ion on the part of the management of Comstock.
Obviously, for Edison to effectively prepare to defend against these allegations, it will be necessary to discuss their specifics with the very officials who stand accused.
Indeed, it will not even be possibic to respond to discovery propounded by Intervonors without full disclosure to Comstock management.
Thus the identities of Intervenors' witnesses must be disclosed to the very officials from whom Intervenors fear retaliation and harassment.
Intervenors attempt to camouflage this fundamental weakness in their argument by conceding that disclosure r.iay take place on a "need-to-know" basis.
Since Comstock officials will certainly need to know, the only result of granting Intervenors motien is the withholding of witness identities from the public at large.
Intervonors have placed in the public light very serious contentions of harassment, intimidation and retaliation.
,v 9
(
~n.
The Board should not countenance the inequity of allowing g
the Intervenors to afr contentions of intimidation and i
harassment without fully disclosing the complete factual basis for the contentions, including the identity of persons having knowledge of the facts.
A public accusation is properly examined in public, with all the procedural safeguards which public scrutiny affords.
For all the foregoing reasons, Intervenors' motion should be denied.
i<cspectf ully submitted, 1,*
.,o lNNW!'/f
[,
//e
Ily A
GIIe of th<
Attorneys for the A;>pj icant,
Commonwealth Edison Company e3 DA1ED:
September 16, 1985
\\
l I SilM1, LINCOLN & 14CALI:
Three First National Plaza suite 5200 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 558-7500 c
s
f 9
~
b ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE COUN5ELORS AT LAW THREf Fim57 NATION nL PLAZA CHICAGO ILLINOIS m2 AOB R fLN N
8 1t20 C NECT C T N
.NW WASM'NGTON D C 2006 November 22, 1985 202m =
Mr. Robert D. Hunter Route 4, Box 141 Centralia, Missouri 65240 Re:
Commonwealth Edison Company (Braidwood Station, Units 1 & 2)
Dear Mr. !!unter:
Isham, Lincoln & Beale represents Commonwealth Edison Company in the Braidwood Station licensing proceedings before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Enclosed is a subpoena from the Licensing Board commanding you to appear at the Braidwood Station for a deposition on December 13, 1985.
I have also enclosed a check for $30.00 as provided by regulation for witness fees for your attendance.
If you have any questions or need to discuss the scheduled date for your deposition, please contact me.
You may call me collect at (312) 558-7472, or Ms. Rebecca Lauer of this office at (312) 558-7343.
Very truly yours,
/9 o
o Elena Z.
Kozelis EZKimb Enclosure
i Mnt'eb &ates af Amerita
. o) r
/
\\ /
NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0515fl5510N v
In the matter of:
COMMOtiWEAI,TH EDISON COMPANY 50-456 (Braidwood Station, Units 'I and 2) > DOCKET NO.
50-457 TO Robert D.
Hunter Route 4, Box 141 Centralia, Missouri 65240 at the Braidwond YO U A RE HEREB Y CO Sis t AND E D t o a pp e a r...........................................:./..................
....N.Y.d.9.aJ... f.9.W.r...E..t h.t i C 0....................................................................
in th e ci ty o f......B.r..a...i..d.w..o..o..d..,....I..l..l..i.. n..o..i..s.............................................
A i
- V on the....l.?.t.h......d2y o f....I2e.9.9.0. 9J./.........19.9.5.......a t..... 9.t.Q0........ 0'clo ek A.St.
4 t o cesdfy>m>: hehalf: a f.......#.9... 4.9.R R#Ed........................................................................
In the above entitled actien and bring with you the doeurnent(s) or object (s) described in the attached schedule.
BY ORDER.0F THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICINSI.NC BOARD BY
'C Herbert Crossman Chairman. Administrative Judce
- ------ - ---- -- 3 9 8 5 November 15.
AYBEPa'.%crnonwealth Edison Ccrpany O
r, tsy.
Anna.m., Lincoln
(. Beale
' Nee nrst. National Plaza Chicaac Illinois 60602 TILUfiObO-
..4 u.
a., c,.s u v bU 10 CI.K. 2.7;0 (f) onannet offtee r **. nf
- e ** ""'*l'*!*. **
- On monen maar prometry. ane,n any owne Communen mar (I) tussn er mettfy rne sus-er er beten the nme seerstree sn ene e,seerne reene of er u unrresonesto er news'et ev'dente for remet. ante by one person to.nem rne sus-not noe,nr to env wree nn uove. ** 1:1 een-eerne es n.neret. ent ** **ner to r** esm er Innen den,el of use monen en lurr sne nssensoir
6
..(~
\\
SCHEDULE OF DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED AT DEPOSITION 1.
Any and all documents related to your em-ployment by L. K. Comstock at the Braidwood Power Station.
2.
Any and all documents related to discussions
[
or correspondence involving Braidwood Station and Inter-
-venors Bridget Little Rorem, et al., agents and employees of Business and Professional People for the Public Interest, or employees of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
3.
Any and all documents related to claims of harassment, intimidatien, retaliation, or discrimination by any L. K.'Comstock employee or manager including Irv DeWald,
()
Robert Seltmann, Larry Seese, Bob Marino, and Richard Saklak.
4.
Any and all documents related to claims of inadequate quality or of safety concerns at Braidwood Sta-tion.
a
~'i
.W September 4, 1985
=
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter oft
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-496
)
50-457 (Braldwood Nuclear Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT OF PROSPECTIVE QUALITY ASSURANCE WITNESSES Intervenors Bridget LiLtle Rorem, d al., by their under-signed counsel, hereby move as directed by the Board at the July 23, 1985, prehearing conference for an order providing for the y,
confidential treatment of identifying information regarding prospective witnesses on Intervonors' Ouality Assurance contun-tion und for the entry of a protective order limiting the dis-closure of such identifying information during the course of this litigation.
Such orders are sought on the grounds that such protection is needed "to encourage those with knowledge of pos-alble surety-related deficiencies in facility construction or operation to put their Information before the Commission."
Texas Generating Com,pann g g.,
(Comancho Peak Steam Electriu Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-714,17 NRC 86 at 92 (1983).
Although the parties, by agreement, have recently sought f
deferral of the close of discovery and the identification of witnesses by a period of about 30 days to account for delays in
%)
1
i Applicant's and Staff's responses to Intervenors' discovery
' f'N requestn, Intervonors present this motion for confidential treat-ment of prospective witnesses at this time in order that a timely resolution of this matter may permit discovery and hearing pre-paration to proceed subject to such confidentiality protections.
It is understood by the parties that Intervenors seek such confidential treatment at this time for the eleven (11) present and former L.K. Comstock Quality Control Inspectors who sought such protection in Intervonors' Motion for Confidential Treatment of Eleven QC Inspector Names filed August 2, 1985; but that such protection, if granted, be available as may be necessary for other prospective witnessen to be Identifled by Intervenors at a later date as provided in the partles' proposed revised schedule.
In addition, Intervenors have filed this dato a Motion To Compel
()
Discovery From Applicant und the NRC Staff which socks, Inter alla, acccess to prospective witnosses employed by Applicant or Braldwood site contrautors, Motion, pp. 9-15.
Intervonors' abil-ity to communicate with these prospective witnesses has been hampered by Applicant's refusal to provide the home addresses and telephone numbers of thone persons and Applicant'n Innlatence that Intervonors' contact be channeled through the company's Braldwood alto uddress and telephone number.
Intervonors antici-pate that an order compelling free access to site employees will permit the identification of further prospective witnesses who may seek confidential treatment.
Intervenors have previously filed a number of pleadings which provido, in part, the factual and legal basis for the
,,U 2
- .a i
reller sought.- In their May 24, 1985, Motion To Admit Arnended l
Quality Assurance Contention, Intervonors Inillally raised claims t
of harassment and intimidation of Praidwood site employees for expression of safety and quality concerns in violation of 10 CFR 550.7.
Motion, pp. 22-24.
On July 12, 1985, Intervenors flied their Motion To Admit Claims of Intimidation and flarassment of Comstock Quality Control (QC) Inspectors and Motion For Protec-tive Order.
On July 15, 1985, Intervonors supplemented their July 12 filing with the newly-discovered NRC Region III memoranda reflecting harassment and intimidation complaints to the NRC by some 24 Comstock QC inspoutors.
Then, as directed by the Board
}
at the July 23, 1989, prehearing conference, Tr. 261, a>:d upon 1
-the request of eleven speelflod present or former Comstock QC Inspectors, Intervonors filed their August 2, 1985, Motion For Confidential Treatment of Eleven OC Inspector Names.
Finally, on August 16, 1985, Intervenors filed their Response to Applicant's Interrogatories and Motion For Protective Order which requested confidential treatment for the Identitles of the eleven Comstock i
+
QC inspectors. sought by Applicant in discovery.
In the Interests of brevity Intervenors only summarize, here, the factual claims of harassment and fear of reprisal which form the basis for the confidentiality protection sought.
1.
Comstock QC Inspector John D. Soeders complained of l
harassment by Comstock management by letter of August 17, 1984, j
to the NRC, Edison and Comstock.
More than 25 Comstock QC inspectors joined Soeders in September 1984 in complaints of widespread harassment by Comstock management.
In reta11ation for 3
i
such complaints to the NRC, Seeders was threatened with termina-
.yx
( )
tion and involuntarily transferred to a lesu sensitive Engineer-Ing Clerk position.
In communications with Intervenors' counsel, Seeders agreed to provide a sworn statement verleeting his discussions with at least 10 other Comstock Inspectors who had knowledge of harassment and intimidation and were willing to testify to such knowledge if they were provided protection from feared retallation.
Seeders affirmed the statements contained in the unsigned Affidavit of John D. Seeders, Exhibit A to Intervenors' July 12, 1085, Motion.
Subnequently, Mr. seederu himself has become fearful that he will be fired by Comstock management or at the direction of Commonwealth Edison Company if he takes any further voluntarily affirmative steps in this prouecding, including executing the affidavit he previously
,_.x I
)
k/
authorized and approved verbatim.
Notwithstanding advice that any such discrimination against a person who participates or gives evidence in an NRC proceeding is prohibited by federal statute and NRC regulations, Mr. Seeders persists in his fear that his cooperation will be met with reprisal.
As recently as August 31, 1985, Mr. Seeders informed counsel for Intervenors that he was af raid that he would be fired if he signed the unexecuted Affidavit prepared for him and previously filed.
At the same time, Mr. Soeders again confirmed the truthfulness of the Affidavit and his willingness to tell the truth if compelled to testify by subpoena.
He stated his firm belief, however, that he would be fired and would never work in the nuclear industry
()
again if he voluntarily participated further in this proceeding.
V h
?.'
see, July 12, 1985, Motion.
' r"N k,)
2.
Former Level III Comstock QC Inspector Worley O. Puckett was harassed and discriminated against by Comstock management for t
his expression of safety and quality concerns including numerous instances of improper construction procedures, improper quallfl-cation of welders, and material traceability deficioneles.
Mr.
l Puckett had been hired explicitly to review the Comstock QA program.
He ultimately recommended a complete stop work order for all welding actlUlty because of widespread deficiencies.
M r.
Puckett was terminated by senior Comstock manageme nt in retalia-l tion for his expression of quality and safety concerns.
On i
November 6, 1984, the U.S. Department of Labor Area Director sustained Mr. Puckett's complaint of unlawful discrimination by l
l Comstock in violation of the employee protection provisionn of
,-s s\\ >i the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 USC 65851.
See, July 12, 1985, l
Motion.
i j
3 On March 29, 1985, a totil of 24 Comstock QC inspectors complained to the NRC of num'erous instances of harassment and technical concerns including threats of physical violence by a l
Comstock supervisor and serious programmatic concerns that qual-ity was sacrificed to quantity qnder the Comstock QA program.
One inspector stated that he had been retaliated against for talking to the NRC, another apparent act of discrimination. in violation of 42 USC 55851 See, July 15, 1985, Supplemen't.
4.
As directed by the Board, after the July 23, 1985, I ()
prehearing conference counsel for Intervonors communicated with
%)
5 e
The [.rotective order to be issued by the Board should pro-
- /~N
} )
vide for lim!'ted disclosure of names and identifying information strictly on a "need to know" basis as required for participation
.by a party in the proceeding.
Disclosure of such protected information should be limited to persons who have executed Affidavits of Non-Disclosure which Af fidavits would be filed with the Board and available to the parties.
A comparatively elaborate form of protective order and affidavit of non-disclosure was approved by the Commission with regard to soeurity plan informa-tion in the Diablo Canyon proceeding.
Paelfle Gas and Electric Company, (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-80-24, 11 NRC 775 (1980).
A copy of the Diablo Canvnn Protective Order and Affidavit of Non-Disclosure are attached hert:Lo, Intervenors submit that a less elaborate order and affidavit (O_,)
whleh include the prinelpal elements of protection would effee-tively meet the needs for confidential treatment here.
Intervenors would undertake to negotiate the contents of such an order and affidavit with the other parties if this motion is granted.
Finally, intervenors note that the confidentiality protee-tions sought at this time concern only the treatment of such information during the present discovery phase of these proceed-ings.
For example, deelslon on the possible necessity (if any) for in camera evidentiary hearings is premature and speculative at this time.
Confidentiality in any form during the evidentiary phase may well not be required, depending on, for example, whleh f-~g prospective witnesses are in fuet called to testify, what stipu-U 7
C '"
~
<1, g, :,..
each of the 16 Comstock QC inspectors identified in the April 5 a
y'k /
NRC Memorandum attached to the July 15 filing.
Counsel provided each inspector with an explanation of the nature of the proceed-ings, the circumstances under whleh their names became known to Intervenors, the Board's decision on Applicant's request for disclosure of their names, and the availability and significance of various measures to limit th6 disclosure of their identitles under a protec.tive order which Intervenors could seek.
We also discussel with them the likely extent of disclosure already occurring and the protections flowinr from public identification t
as partleipunts in this NRC proceeding.
Eleven of the sixteen inspectors re' quested confidential treatment of their names and have asked Intervenors to seek a protective order providing for g3 the maximum prot ection available oven where absoluto confidential-ity could not be soeured.
Each expressed fear of reprisal or
~~
discrimination ranging f rom termination or blacklisting from future nuclear Industry employment to unfavorable work assign-ments and harassment. <
The record al' ready available reflecting complaints of harassment, discrimination and fear of reprisal among Comstock OC
~
Inspectors amply supports the grant of a protective order providing for confidential treatment of identifying inf'rmation.
o Houston Lighting and Power Company, et al.,
(Smith Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), LBP-80-11, 11 NRC 477 (1980); Houston Lighting and Power Company, (Allenn' Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-535, 9 NRC 377 (1979).
q
)
6
lations if any have been agreed upon, the then current needs of s
(
potential witnesses, and other circunstances then prevailing.
There is no present need to speculate about such future circum-stances in order to provide for confidential treatment during the present discovery phase.
WHEREFORE, Intervenors respectfully move for an order providing for the confidential treatment of prospective witnesses and a protective order limiting disclosure of identifying infor-mation as herein described.
DATED:
September 4, 1985 Respectfuly submitted, f
J Ik ( owQ o)
(
Robert Guild y
One of the Attorneys for Intervenors Rorem, et al.
-Douglass W. Cassel, Jr.
-Robert Guild Timothy W. Wright, III 109 North Dearborn 4
Suite 1300 Chicago, Illinois 60602
/~'i (312) 641-5570
'O 8
o UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMICSIO!!
'[
)
ATOMIC SAFETY A11D LICENSI!1G APPEAL BOARD kJ Richard S. Salr. man, Chairman Dr. W. Reed Johnson Thomas S. Moore
)
In the Matter of
}
}
PACIFIC GAS At3D ELECTRIC COMPAt1Y
) Docket flos. 50-275 OL
)
50-323 OL (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant,)
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
PEOTECTIVE OEDER ON SECURITY PLA11 INFORMATIOli Counsel and witnesses for Intervonor San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (Intervonor) who have executed an Affidavit of tion-Disclosure, in the form attached, shall be permitted ~
access to " protected information" upon the following condi-tions:
1.
Only Intervenor's counsel and Intervonor's experts who have been qualified in accordance with the requirements of our decision in Pacific Gas T. Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units and 2), ALAD-410, 5 NRC 1398 (1977),and our Order of Febru ry 25, 1980 in this pro-coeding, may have accccs to protected information on a "nced to know" basis.
- /
As used in this arder, " protected information" has the same meaning as used in the Affidavit of Non-Disclosure, annexed hereto.
, (D N-l
L I
2.
Counsel and experts who receive any protected infor-mation (including transcripts of in camera hearings, filed testimony or any other document that reveals protected infor-mation) shall maintain its confidentiality as required by the annexed Affidavit of Non-Disclosure, the terms of which are hereby incorporated into this protective order.
3.
Counsel and experts who receive any protective infor-mation shall use it nolely for the purpose of participation in matters directly pertaining to this security plan hearing and any further proceedings in this caso directly involving security matters, and for no other purposes.
4.
Counsel and experts shall koop a record of all pro-
'( s_)'
tected information in their possession and shall account for and deliver that information to the Comminnion officia desig-nated by this Board in accordance with the Af fidavit of Hon-Disclosure that they have expeuted.
5.
In addition to the requirements specified in the Affidavit of Non-Disclosure, all papers filed in this pro-ceeding (including testimony) that contain any protected information shall be segregated and:
(a) served on lead counsel and the members of this Board only; (b) served in a heavy, opaque inner envelope bearing the name of the addressee and the statement " PRIVATE.
3 --
- A TO HC OPEllED DY ADDRESSCC OtEY."
Addressces t
J V
shall take all necessary precautions to on-sure that they alone will open envelopes so marked.
6.
Counsel, experts or any other individual who has rea-con to suspect that doctunents containing protected information may have been lost or misplaced (for example, because an ex-pect ed paper has not been roccived) or that protected informa-tion has otherwise become available to unauthorized persons shall notify this Board promptly of those suspicions and the reasons for them.
It is so ORDERED.
~
.rn
'f POR TitC APPC.'.L BO7mJ)
)
/
'YY' t
/[t y?g@gl picharfS/ Sal a
Chairman Done at San Luis Obispo, California, this 3rd day of April, 1900.
P F
F
. UKITED STATES OF A!! ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0t!?ilSSION AT0!!]C SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
. mU
)
In the !!atter of
)
)
PACIFIC CAS AND ELECTRIC C0t!PANY
)
Docket lion. 50-275 OL
)
50-323 OL (D1ablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.)
Units 1 and 2)
)~
)
1 AFFIDAVIT OF NON-D l S C L OS U R E
.1,,
, being duly sworn, state:
1.
l.s used in this Affidavit of Non-Disclocure, (a) " Protected information" is (1)'any form of the physical security plan for the licennee's Diablo canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unita 1 and 2; or (2) any information dealing with or describing details of that plan.
(b) An " authorized person" is (1) nn employee of the Nuclear Regula-tory Com:nission entitled to acccca to protected information; (2) a 4
person who, at the invitntion of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boarq (" Appeal Board"), has executed a copy of this affidavit; or (3) a person eoployed by Pacific Cas and Electric Company, the licensee, aqd authorized by it in accordance with Commf.ssion regula-tions to have access to protected information.
2.
I shall not disclose protected information to anyone except an authorized person, unless that infopnation has previously been disclosed
' n the public record of this proceeding.
I will safeguard protected i
ry Q
-,-,w----,,
e
--w-,.v-,-1
-v-
,=-w--w r
x information in written form (includinC any portions of transcripts of,In,cnnera hearings, filed testimony or any other documents that contain such Information), so that it remains at all times under the control of an authorized person and is not discloced to anyone else.
3.
I will not reproduce any protected information by any mea'ns without the Appeal Board's express approval or directJon.
So long I possess protected information, I shall continue to take these as precautions until further order of the Appeal Bontd.
1 'shall similarly categ[iard anil hold in confidence any data, 4.
notes, or copies of protceted information and all other papers which contain any protected information by means of the following:
(a) my use of the protected information will be made at a facility in San Franci sco to be m.ide avail.ible by Pacific Cas and Elect rJ e Coropany.
-~)
(b)
I will keep and safeguard all cuch material in a safe to be obtained Q
by intervenors at Pacific Cas and Elect ric Cotapany's expense, af ter consultation with Pacific Cas and Electric Company and to be located at all t imes a t the above de ignated location.
(c)
Any secretarial work performed at my request or under my supervicion will be performed at the above location by one secretary of intervenor's designation.
Intervenors shall furnish Pacific Cas and Electric Company, i
i the Board and Staf f an appropr ate resume of the secretary's background and experience.
(d) Necessary typing and reproduction eqisipment will be furnished by Pacific Cas and Electric Company.
(e) All intervenor mailings involving protected information shall
\\
be made f rom the facility furnished by Pacific Cas and Electric Co.
I
. i.
5.
If I prepare papers containing protected inrormation in order to participate in further proceedings in this case, I will assure that any
- l'N secretary or other individual who must receive protecthd information in order to help me prepare those papers han executed an affidavit like this one and has agreed to abide by its terna.
Copien of any suc0 af fidavit vill be filed with the Appeal Board before I reveal any protected information to any such person.
6.
I shall use protected infornation only for the purpose of preparation for this proceeding or any further proceedings in this case dealing with security plan insues, and for no other purpone.
7.
I shall keep a record of all protected information in my possession, including any copies of that information made by or for me.
At the conclusion of this proceeding, I shall account to the Appeal Board or to a Commission employee designated by that Board for all the papers or other materials containing protected information in my ponsession and deliver them as provided herein.
When I have fininhed using the protected information they contain, but in no event later than the conclus ion of this proceeding, I shall deliver those papers and catcrials to the Appeal Board (or to a Commission employee designated by the Board), together with all notes and data which contain protected information for safekeeping duripg the lifetime of the plant.
8.
I make this agreement wit the following understandings: (a) I do not waive any objections phat any other person may have to executing an affidavic such as this one; (b) I will not publicly discuss or disclose any protected information that I receive by any means whatever. b i
i t / Subscribed and cuorn to before me this day of April, 1980 S e t t i e f j e l O 9 ..n. ~ _. - - - c
o/4/85 (/ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: ) ) COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-456 ) 50-457 (Braidwood Nuclear. Power ) Station, Units 1 and 2) ) CEPTIFICATE OF SERVICE I' hereby ~ certify that I have served copies of Intervenors' Motion For Confidential-Treatment of Prospective Quali ty Assurance Witnesses on all parties to this proceeding listed on [ \\ ( ) the attached Service List, by having said copien placed in . envelopes, properly addressed and postaged (firnt :la nu ), and ' deposited in the U.S. mail at 109 North
Dearborn,
Chicoco, Illinois, on this 4th day of September, 1985; except that Administrative Judge Grossman was served via Federal Express " ZAP" mail (same day delivery); Administrative Judges Brenner, Cole, and Callihan, and NBC Staff Counsel Elaine Chan were served via Federal Express (overnight delivery); and Edison counsel Michael Miller was served personally, also on September 4, 1985. B~L toc-Q r 3, \\ .~. O
p-BRAIDWOOD SERVICE LIST 'O 50-456/50-457 OL 'V Lawrence.Brenner, Esq. Elaine Chan, Esq. Chairman and Administrative Judge NRC Staff Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington D.C. 20555 7335 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, !!D 20014 Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Administrative Judge Joseph Callo, Esq. 102 Oak Lane Isham, Lincoln & Beale Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Suite 840 1120 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Dr. Richard F. Cole Washington D.C. 20036 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Docketing & Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission Office of the Secretary Washington D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rebecca J. Lauer, Esq. Wanhington D.C. 20555 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza Aromle Safety and Licensing Chicago, IL 60602 Board Panel O U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1 -Ms. liridget Little Rorem Comminnion ^ 117 North Linden Street Washington D.C. 20555 Essex, IL.60935 Atomic Safety and Licensing C. Allen Bock, Esq. Appeal Board Panel P.O. Box 342 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Urbana, IL 61801 Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Thomas J. Gordon, Esq. Waller Evans & Gordon Michael I. Miller, Esq. 2503 South Neil Isham, Lincoln & Beale Champaign, IL 61820 Three First National Plaza Chicago, IL 60602 Lorraine Creek Route 1, Box 182 lierbert Grossman Manteno, IL 60950 Chairman and Administrative Judge Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Office of Inspection & Enforcement Washington D.C. 20555 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 O
) BPI o ir, Business and Professional People for the Public Interest (' ' ~ 109 North
Dearborn Street,
Suite 1300
- Chicago, Illinois 60602
- Telephone: (312) 6415570 j
September 27, 1985 Mr. R.D. Hunter Route 4, Box 141 Centralia, Missouri 65240
Dear Mr. Hunter:
We at BPI are writing you and a number of other present and former Comstock QC inspectors to report on the status of the NRC licensing hearings for Braidwood and on our efforts to seek confidentiality protection from the NRC licensing judges as requested by a number of you with whom we have spoken. Enclosed are copies of several documents for your informa-tion and comment, including copies of some Comstock file documents about you which we have obtained from the company through the legal process called " discovery" in preparation for the hearings. We are'very interested in your response to this information and will explain what follow-up actions we expect may be required. -s (V \\ First, a few words about the status of the NRC licensing hearings. As part of the hearing preparation process, Edison, the Intervenors (represented by BPI) and the NRC Staff are engaging in various efforts to obtain evidence through " discovery." In response to our questions and requests Edison (and its contractors, including Comstock) have identified and disclosed to us some 58,000 pages of documents related to the Quality Assurance contention, including some which reflect disputes, disagreements and safety or quality concerns by Comstock QC inspectors along with your management's response. It was from among these responses that we obtained the documents about you which are enclosed. ~ Between now and the end of 0ctober we will have the oppor-tunity to seek additional documents, ask further questions and take sworn testimony of site personnel as part of the discovery process. Since the harassment and intimidation issues are very ( D i "a"3 0":,*L =TJ.'"" 2""L's., YOf*' O,=0*' !"""oTrl. O.".Po'%. %',= T"LTA ^%"J" A - ~ c2'..* L'.' ,?:::t2*.*.;; ?T.',:'". % :':. M @ c* UL.~ ~- ~ c~u, u.- t p c-~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~.t t.o. y Eg*f,57'",, . O,if.*J',, E'O,"i s r,' o" E",*l.t OJ.ca w'.* **O. C",','",'",",,,,,h*'"""
- .a;
- ,"
dt ".c-' "
- .'."'2%,.. !=*#a,,
=y,pg,,, 3::a" * $~-- " ' * * * ~ .~, ~ c.'O...ca"" =.,*~ct,:": =" W "1 ~~ a-a "~ s-o o.,. ~
- m. s..
~ i %- ) important we will focus on further discovery in this area, and we ( are particularly interested in your information and suggestions. Delays in responding to our discovery requests have resulted in the postponement of the originally scheduled October licensing hearings until February 1986. Second: a report on our efforts to obtain confidential treatment for a number of Comstock inspectors. As we explained in our July 26 letter and later conversations, if requested by you, we planned to ask for a protective order from the NRC licensing board to limit the disclosure of identifying informa-tion during the hearing process. We have done so by filing an August 2, 1985, Motion For Confidential Treatment of Eleven QC Inspector Names, and a September 4,1984, Motion For Confidential Treatment of Prospective Qualtiy Assurance Witnesses. On September 16, 1985, Commonwealth Edison filed its Response opposing our request for protective order. Copies of these Motions and the Response are enclosed. Eleven out of the 18 Comstock inspectors we spoke with told us they feared various forms of reprisal or discrimination from the disclosure of their identities in this case and asked us to seek maximum protection for their confidentiality. The following seven individuals were either already publicly identified or consented to the disclosure of their names: Worley O. Puckett; John Seeders; Rick Snyder; R.D. Hunter; Herschel Stout; Tim Stewart and Dan Holley. We have continued to protect the identities of the other eleven. A ruling from the licensing board can be expected at any time. As you can see from Edison's Response, they simply deny that there is any factual basis for the protective order beyond the unsubstantiated representations by BPI lawyers of what you have told us and the "past allegations of harassment and intimidation by disgruntled Comstock quality control inspectors."
- Response, p.
3 Edison argues that each request for confidentiality must be supported by an affidavit from the individual stating the specific harm which is feared. While we believe that the docu-mented record of harassment complaints at Comstock is ample basis for granting a protective order, we are alerting you now to Edison's argument that more proof is required. In the event that such affidavits are called for by the licensing board we may need your prompt help in order to meet this requirement. Please let us hear from you with your comments or questions on the hearing process, the confidential treatment matter, the file documents which relate to you personally, or any other matter regarding the quality assurance program at Braidwood. We wish you well in your important work and hope to hear from you soon. Sincerely, e c:;) ob ild Doug assel
ROBERT D. HUNTER I. V PERMANENT ADDRESS Rt. 4 Box 141 Centralia, MO 65240 314-682-2060 EDUCATION University of Missouri, Columbia, M0 and Central Missouri State University, Warrensburg, MO 1976 - 78, courses in Vocational Education - The Teaching of Trade Crafts, Basic Psychology, Manufacturing Techniques. University of Minnesota at Duluth, 1975, summer courses in personnel supervision, project organization and documentatior, and record keeping. Arkansas Polytechnic, Russelv111e Arkansas, 1956-57, General Agriculture. Centralia High School, Centralia, Missouri, 1950 EXPERIENCES U. S. Air Force, June 1950 to December 1953. Honorable Discharge. Served 12 months overseas. HONORS and Participant in pilot program for Education and Industry i ACTIVITIES program. Some of the work and findings has been published. Active in community improvement programs and youth programs such as 4-H, F.F.A., and summer recreation. EMPLOYMENT Brand Examinatior Services and Testing Co. Oct. 1983 to HISTORY (as of July 23,15 '5, formerly under contract present with Comstock Engineering, Inc.) Working to D 1.1 AWS code, Level II Inspector certified to N45.2.6 Project Construction Corporation, 1777 S. 1981 to 1982 Harrison St., Denver, Colorado 80210. Vnitney Canyon Processing Plant,MWoject
- Evanston, Wyoming 82936 Ph. 303-758-7752, Worked under API - 1104, ANSI B 31.1 AMSE B 31.3 AWS B 3.0, D1.1, D10.9, D1.4 State of Missouri, Vocational Education Jan. 1981 to Department, Taught shop safety work habits, June 1981 assembly manufacturing standards and the scope of Q.C.-Q.A. programs.
Self Employed, worked to API 1104 standard Nov. 1979 to 620,650 as well as city, county, state codes. Jan. 1981 \\
Employment History - (Continued) Page 2 e T Pullman Kellogg Construction Company, Feb. 1979 to Norco, LA, ANSI work, Pressure vessel Nov. 1979 boiler work AWS B3.0 API 1104 std. 620-650 Mexico Public School System, Mexico, M0 July 1977 to Vocational Welding courses, I taught all Feb. 1979 related codes and standards that students will find in their trade. Orschlen Manufacturing Company, Moberly, Feb. 1975 to M0 worked under and supervised Occupational July 1977 Safety and Health Act of 1970 - also responsible for writing of programs in P.M. - craft training and occupational safety and health in a manufacturing setting. Self employed, welding shop, Centralia, 1972 to M0 My work in this job shop included the 1974 complete scope of general repair and custoin equipment building. (~')) Allis Chalmers Manufacturing Co. 1970 to s, Gleaner Division, Kansas City, M0 My 1972 and s duties were very broad in the ureas of 1964 to maintenance and plant modification. 1967 Missouri Utilities Co. Columbia, MO 1967 to Pipe welder, This work was code work AWS, 1970 API ANSI B31.1 B31.3 Self employed, farming, Sugar City, CO 1957 to 1964 My work in the area of Metal Trades Manufacturing and Construction has covered all areas from production work, supervisor, manager, quality control, and the instruction of a wide range of jobs and duties. REFERENCES I will be glad to supply the names, addresses, and phone numbers of any former employer or anyone from my community upon request. e V
1
- g, August 2, 1985 I >~x
.( i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ~/ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ^ BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: ) ) COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) ) Docket Nos. 50-456 (Braidwood Nuclear Power ) 50 457 Station, Units 1 and 2) ) INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT OF ELEVEN OC INSPECTOR NAMES Intervenors Bridget Little Rorem, et al., by their under-signed counsel, move for an order providing for the confidential treatment of the names of eleven (11) of the sixteen (16) (x Comstock Quality Control (QC) inspectors, at their request, iden-(f tified in the original version of an April 5, 1985, NRC Staff Memorandum, attached to Intervenors' July 15, 1985, Supplement to July 12, 1985, Mot}on Regarding Harassment and Intimidation of Comstock Quality Control (QC) Inspectors. That April 5,1985, Memorandum was served upon the parties in an expurgated version which deleted the names of sixteen (16) ~ QC inspectors who presented information or harassment complaints to the NRC Staff. An unexpurgated version with names disclosed was served only upon the Licensing Board. Intervenors took such actions in the belief that confidentiality might be desired and warranted for some or all of these individuals notwithstanding the indication in the April 5 memo, at page 2, that confiden- [ )\\ tiality had been offered by the NRC and declined. i \\_ 1
~ t As directed by the Board at the July 23, 1985, Prehearing < 1, -i Conference, Tr. 259-262, counsel for Intervenors communicated I (\\- with each of the sixteen (16) QC inspectors identified in the t April 5 memorandum. Counsel for Intervenors provided each inspector an explanation of the nature of these proceedings, the circumstances under which their names became known to Intervenors, the Board's decision on Applicant's request for disclosure of the unexpurgated memo (Tr. 259), the availability and significance of various measures to limit the disclosure of their identities under a protective order which Intervenors could seek. We also discussed with them the likely extent of disclosure already occurring and the protections flowing to them from public identi-fication as participants in this NRC proceeding. Confidential treatment of their names was expressly requested by nine (9) U(s individuals personally on their own behalf; by the wife of one inspector on her absent husband's behalf and at his direction, after he had received a communication from Intervenors' counsel; and by one inspector on behalf of one other and at his direction, after he, too, had received a communication from Intervenors' counsel. Thus, eleven (11) of the sixteen (16) Individuals seek confidential treatment of their names. Five (5) of the inspectors have consented to the disclosure of their names, including disclosure to Commonwealth Edison and Comstock management. Such consent was given by Tim Stewart, Richard Snyder, R.D. Hunter, Herschel Stout and Dan Holley. (Of these, Stewart and Stout are no longer employed at Braidwood.) A partially unexpurgated version of the memo, which discloses the (m 2
4'-*- names of these five (5) consenting individuals only, is attached bi-hereto. These names, together with the corresponding references In the April 5 memo, were read to counsel for the Applicant and .NRC Staff this day, August 2, 1985 Each of the eleven individuals who sought confidentiality expressed fear of discrimination or reprisal by Edison, Comstock, */ other site employees, or some prospective future employer should they be identified through.the April 5, 1985 Memorandum as having complained to the NRC. The feared discrimination ranged from termination of employment and blacklisting from future employ-ment, to unfavorable work assignments and harassment. Several of the inspectors stated that they had understood from the March 29, 1985 NRC meeting that their specific identities and specific complaints would be disclosed only within the NRC and would not be disclosed either publicly or to Edison and Comstock manage-ment. Several stated that if they knew that their names would be disclosed to Edison and Comstock they would not have gone to the NRC. On the other hand, at least one acknowledged that he had not requested confidentiality on March 29, 1985, but had since reconsidered and, upon reflection, desired now to request confidentiality. All understood that absolute confidentiality ~ could not be secured; each nonetheless requested as much restric-tion on disclosure of his name as could be provided. e/ The individuals advised us that as of on or about July 23, 1985, QC inspectors of electrical work at Braidwood no longer receive their paychecks from Comstock, but are' now " employed" by a separate company called BESTC0. However, they also state that actual direction and control of their work con-tinues to be performed by Comstock supervisors, not BESTC0. O Intervenors intend to explore this subject through discovery. 3
it' Intervenors were served today with Applicant Commonwealth ( i x_/ Edison Company's First Set of Quality Assurance Interrogatories and Requests To Produce Documents Directed to Intervenors Bridget Little Rorem, Et A1. These interrogatories (e.g., Interrogatory -9) seek inter alla the identities of QC inspectors and the Instances of harassment by Comstock management known to Intervenors. Intervenors believe that this question would call for the disclosure of information which, in the view of the eleven QC inspectors, would likely expose them to the feared discrimination and reprisal. As Intervenors have today informed counsel for Applicant, we therefore intend to seek a protective order from the Board with respect to interrogatories requesting such identifying information. We believe that the decision on such a request for protective order should establish the neces-p_ !(_j) sary and appropriate mechanisms for litigating these sensitive and important harassment and intimidation claims. Pending filing and resolution of such motion, however, it is sufficient that the Board simply provide for the continued confidential treatment of the names of those eleven (11) individuals named in the April 5, 1985, Memorandum who seek such protection. DATED: August 2, 1985 5espectfully submitted, Robert Guild Douglass W. Cassel, Jr. b[ b /[ (D M \\ Timothy W. Wright, III Robert Guild 109 North Dearborn Suite 1300 One of the Attorneys for Intervenor Chicago, Illinois 60602 Bridget Little Rorem, et al. (312) 041-5570 ( v' t 4
, _., _. _ _, -....... ~. _. -.. _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.... _ _ _ _. - _ _. _ - -_ _ - - w l. -( i LTYPE OF' l' DOCLHENT: '4 i +
SUBJECT:
Qey p f.{ g, g l-: .DATE:;9'.jg p g PDSONS ' p, g * ~ g"4 ', i INVOLVED: h 'T h c bY e.n.\\ c\\ i t l_ V[.C y-b a-l l RESOLLTION: ~! i ( p h e 1 i .i i 'l i 6 I t 3 p l a f 't: b I s i ^ i ^ h } 1 i. I s (- l f h G i f. ,() ( l*lI! 9 '7. 1 (s.* 1. I 4 16 ee, www.w w- %._
t.lh6 _- 119.~ --~~ /ja Comstock Engineering, Inc. \\. hiern o ran d urn To R. D. Hinter Flie Office: Braidwood From: I. DeWnid
Subject:
Verbal Warnine Date: 04/15/85 Mr. Hunter was observed by the General QC Supervisor in the Aux Building, elevation 451, reading a newspaper. Mr. Hunter was summoned to the QC Manager's office, with the presence of A. Simile at 5:00 p.m. and the situation of being observed reading the newspaper was discussed. The fact was explained to him that other people (craft) have been dis-charged for similar action and that we (QC Management) do not want to discharge anyone for this. It also does not look good to others when an inspector is seen reading a newspaper. He indicated he understood. I. F. Ddiald Quality Control Manager l l l l F l C et n' 1"'1,7 l-}}