ML20198J783
| ML20198J783 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 03/25/1986 |
| From: | Saklak R BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE FOR THE PUBLIC INTERES |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#286-361 OL, NUDOCS 8606030211 | |
| Download: ML20198J783 (156) | |
Text
ORIGINAL ~~?
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A
h
/3 03 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
p 3
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD Y
g
~
4 m
'4(g 5
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 6
In the matter of:
Docket Nos. 50-456 f
7 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY 50-457
./ b-8
[Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, 9
Units 1 and 2)
VOL. II 10
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 11 Isham, Lincoln & Beale 12 Three First National Plaza 13 51st Floor 14 Chicago, Illinois 15 March 25, 1986 16 Deposition of:
RICHARD M. SAKLAK 17 recalled for examination by Counsel for the Intervenors BPI, 18 et al., pursuant to notice, taken before Pamela R. Briggle, a 19 Notary Public in and for the District of Columbia, when 20 21 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
22 1625 I Street, N.W.
293-3950 Washington, D.C.
h l
popolBS!A SES!$P Q
1
(
257 1
.were present on behalf of the respective parties:
_c 2
3 APPEARANCES:
4 For the Licensee Commonwealth Edison Company:
5 ELENA KEZELIS, ESQ.
6 Isham, Lincoln & Beale 7
Three First National Plaza 8
Chicago, Illinois 60602 9
10 For the Intervanors BPI, et al.:
11 ROBERT GUILD, ESQ.
12 109 North
Dearborn,
Suite 1300
)
13 Chicago, Illinois 60602 14 15
~
16 l
17 l
18 l
19 20 21 22 O
l
258 1
C0NTENTS 2
3 Witness:
Examination by:
Page:
4 RICHARD M. SAKLAK Mr. Guild 260, 380 5
Ms. Kazelis 350, 386 6
7 8
9 EXHIBITS Page:
10 Exhibit No. 13:
335 11 A package of documents bearing 12 Bates Number 1588.
14 Exhibit No. 14:
342 15 A memo which references a procedure, 16 4.1.3.
17 18 Exhibit No. 15:
342 l
l 19 A memo bearing page number 14427.
l 20 21 22 lO
259 1
EXHIBITS (Continued.]
Page:
O2 Exhibit No. 16:
344 3
A document dated 1/5/85 entitled, 4
"Comstock Engineering QC Evaluation Form."
5 6
Exhibit No. 17:
363 7
A memo from Seese to Saklak regarding 8
Calibration ICRs.
9 10 Exhibit No. 18:
366 11 A two page document of a draft.
12 13 Exhibit No. 19:
375 14 A copy of the Harassment Contention.
15
~
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 O
~
260 1
PROCEEDINGS
(
2
[10:12 a.m.]
3 Whereupon, 4
RICHARD M. SAKLAK 5
a witness recalled for examination and, having been previously 6
duly sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:
7 EXAMINATION 8
BY MR. GUILD:
9 Q
This is the resumption of the deposition of Richard 10 Saklak.
Mr. Saklak, I will remind you that you are under oath 11 still.
12 When we finished yesterday, we were discussing the 13 circumstances surrounding a complaint by John Seeders.
You 14 encountered Mr. Seeders the day that you issued the written 15 warning to him, engaged in a conversation with another Quality 16 control inspector.
Do you recall that?
l 17 A
I do recall that.
I believe he could have been 18 engaged in a conversation with another inspector, due to the 19 location of his desk in the congested area.
So that may have 20-been the case.
l 21 Q
How about to the best of your recollection, describe l
l 22 the circumstances in which you encountered Mr. Seeders, now 9
O l
261 1
prior to the written warning being issued.
l 2
A The basis for my encounter was to inquire about the 3
task that was given to him by Bob Seltmann.
Bob Seltmann had 4
indicated that he had tried to reach and get an answer from 5
John and John was not responding and passed the responsibility 6
over to me.
7 Q
Again, this is the review of the calibration records 8
we've been discussing?
9 A
That's correct.
Bob was indicating that he needed a 10 reply -- or needed John's results in order to compile the 11 reply and that the reply was due and that he was running out 12 of excuses for extensions to give Commonwealth Edison's QA 13 Department.
14 Q
So that was your task, was to inquire with 15 Mr. Seeders yhat the status of the review was?
~
16 A
That's correct.
17 Q
So what did you do?
[
18 A
I inquired.
19 Q
How about describe the circumstances.
Where were i
l 20 you?
Where was Mr. Seeders?
What was he doing at the time?
21 A
We were in the south room of the QC office.
l l
22 Apparently he was either doing his calibration documents, O
r-262 1
filling them out, talking to other inspectors.
I can't recall
()
2 the exact situation.
3 Q
What time of day was it?
Do you recall?
Was it the 4
beginning of the day?
5 A
No, I think this was somewhere around 12 or 6
somewhere around 10:30 or 11:00.
7 Q
Did Mr. Seeders appear to be performing Comstock 8
related work at the time?
9 A
He had related documents, that would be a part of 10 his job, in front of him.
11 Q
Calibration records?
12 A
That's correct.
/g 13 Q
Did he appear to be working with those records?
V 14' A
I guess that's what he was doing with them.
Like I 15 say, I don't recall the exact situation.
l 16 Q
Was he at his desk?
17 A
He was at his desk.
18 Q
That's his normal place of work?
19 A
That was -- right, his area that he usually 20 occupied.
21 Q
That's where he would be normally working from, 22 calibration records or with calibration records?
O
263 1
A That's correct.
)
2 Q
Do you recall any other persons present?
3 A
I believe a good percentage of the people that 4
usually sit in that room were probably already in that room.
5 Q
Other inspectors?
6 A
That's correct.
7 Q
Can you recall, by name, who was present?
8 A
I can't recall.
I would say a good percentage of 9
the people.
The room was a small room to begin with, so it 10 didn't take very many people to make it appear that the 11 room was filled.
12 Q
These people were present in the course of their 13 normal duties?
l'4 A
That's correct.
15 Q
They had desks also in the room?
16 A
Similar to John's right.
17 Q
Do you recall Mr. Worley Puckett being present at 18 the time?
19 A
That's correct.
20 Q
Do you recall Mr. Puckett and Mr. Seeders in 21 conversation at the time?
22 A
They could have been.
l l
l l
264 1
The close proximity of their desks, would be
)
2 conducive of an easy conversation without having to face the 3
individual, or slightly glancing over the shoulder, to be able 4
to carry on a conversation.
So that could have been in 5
process.
6 Q
Were there desks next to each other, facing each 7
other?
8 A
Basically, I guess you could say it was a back to 9
back fashion.
10 Q
can you estimate for me how far between the desks?
11 A
Five foot.
12 Q
so they were back to back literally?
13 A
That's what I indicated.
14 Q
Did you make some comment, in substance, to 15 Mr. Seeders regarding his conversation with Puckett or other 16 inspectors?
17 A
No, I had no reason to.
18 Q
You don't recall reprimanding or upbraiding 19 Mr. Seeders for not doing his work, but instead engaging in i
(
20 conversation with others?
To that effect.
l 21 A
It doesn't stand out in my mind as such, no.
My 22 main objective was to inquire about the information that John l
e i O i
i
265 1
should have had for Mr. Seltmann.
n 2
Q And did you do that?
3 A
I was getting an avasive answer from John, which was 4
usual for John to give whenever you are requesting any kind of 5
information or function from John.
I think I have stipulated 6
that in the warning that we had written.
7 Q
Well, when you say it's usual for John, what do you 8
mean by that?
9 A
It appears that when John's under pressure or more 10 noticeable responsibility, as in responses to surveillance 11 audits, last minute requests for inspection, that receiving an 12 answer from John becomes extremely evasive.
He acts as if 13 he's never heard of the command before or the request.
He 14 totally evades the entire conversation and drifts into another 15 topic, or at least tries to.
16 Q
You say this usual --
17 A
That's his type of personality.
18 Q
So I'm just trying to establish when you say usual, 19 you mean usual.
That's the way he was always, consistently, 20 under these kind of circumstances, in your observation?
l 21 A
That's correct.
1 22 Q
Had you ever reprimanded or warned or counseled 1
(
l l
l k.
266 1
Seeders with respect to that behavior in the past?
()
2 A
I believe Irv DeWald may have.
3 Q
Had you?
4 A
I don't recall specifically giving John any kind of 5
comment on that type of personality.
6 Q
Well, it's not the personality I'm focusing on, 7
Mr. Saklak, but the behavior that you found unacceptable as a 8
work practice.
9 A
Right, behavior.
I don't recall ever mentioning 10 something like that to him.
But I do believe Irv may have.
11 Q
Well, did any such documents appear in your 12 so-called Pearl Harbor file, reflecting Mr. Seeders prior 13 misconduct in this regard?
14 A
I can't recall offhand.
15 Something that you might want to check --
16 Q
Yes.
1 17 A
-- besides the written warning that I stipulated 18 that type of behavior in, would be in John's reviews by Irv 19 Dewald.
If anywhere, that's where it would be.
20 Q
Did you ever participate in performance evaluations 21 of Mr. Seeders?
22 A
I was in process on performing evaluations of O
267 1
employees on a yearly basis, given a stack of people that
(
2 worked in the office.
And usually, due to time delays and 3
other objects -- not objects, but problems that have popped 4
up, I have had to distribute those evaluations amongst the 5
appropriate lead inspectors for them to help me do,the 6
evaluation.
7 So yes, I was involved in writing an initial 8
evaluation.
I believe Irv would use that in compiling a final 9
evaluation which he would have brought the individual in.
10 Q
How about for Mr. Seeders?
Did you get around to do 11 him?
12 A
I might have done him, I can't-recall offhand.
It 13 ranged from year to year.
Sometimes I got a chance to do all 14 of the inspectors.
Sometimes I only did some of the 15 inspectors.
I usually tried to stay away from the inspectors 16 that I didn't work too closely with because I didn't feel I'd 17 be giving a fair enough evaluation.
I 18 Q
Did Mr. Seeders fall into that category?
19 A
No, I don't think so, because at that time I was 20 more cognizant of what Mr. Seeders was doing, especially in 21 relationship to procedural changes, audits and surveillances 22 that were cropping up.
1
' O
268 1
Q So if,there had been an evaluation of Mr. Seeders, rh 2
and you were involved in it, had done it or had contributed 3
the material that Mr. DeWald relied on for the Seeders' eva'luation, that would have been indicative of your having 4
5 worked closely enough with seeders to have formed an 6
evaluation?
7 A
You could look at it that way, yes.
8 Q
Do you recall, having talked about it a little more, 9
whether you contributed to an evaluation of John Seeders, or 10 did one yourself?
11 A
I really can't recall, offhand.
12 Q
If you contributed to one, as you described, but
()13 DeWald actually formally signed it, shall we say, would your 14 performance role in that evaluation be indicated on the 15 document?
16 A
No, I don't believe so because there were situations 17 where Irv and I took an cpposite opinion and we would sit down l
18 and re-evaluate the seriousness or difference of opinion.
If 19 there was a problem indicated or if there was a conflict of l
20 information given.
l 21 Q
On an evaluation now?
22 A
Right.
And Irv would use that information to e
O
l 269 1
compile a final evaluation.
2 Q
He may take a different ultimate opinion of the 3
performance of the individual?
4 A
That's correct.
My position was only responsible 5
for recommendation.
6 Q
Now when you relied on the input from leads, in 7
Mr. Seeders' caso who would that have been?
8 A
Larry Phillips.
9 Q
Do you recall seeking information from Mr. Phillips 10 about Mr. Seeders' work performance?
11 A
That's indicated in the warning letter that I had 12 written, so it was evident that I do -- and I did -- talk to 13 Larry on John's performance.
14 Q
The reference you're making is to Phillips in a 15 meeting with you and other leads making remarks about Seeders 16 and his responsiveness?
17 A
That's correct.
18 Q
Do you recall other instances in which Mr. Phillips 19 provided you information on Mr. Seeders' performance?
20 A
Usually it was during times that I had lead 21 meetings.
I would ask the leads if they were having any 22 problems with personnel, along with the usual criteria that we O
270 1
brought up at the meeting, problems with the job, problems
)
2 period.
And at that time, Larry Phillips would stipulate that 3
he was having a problem getting John to respond either with 4
daily work to be turned in or -- it was more than once, which 5
I've had more than one of those meetings.
We used to try and 6
have them weekly.
7 Q
How often did Mr. Phillips complain about 8
Mr. Seeders' work performance?
9 A
I would say that it was more than one time, if not 10 two or three.
11 Q
Other than the instances that you documented in your 12 warning to Mr. Seeders, can you identify any other instance 13 where Mr. Phillips complained about Seeders' work performance?
14 A
Outstanding in my mind, I can't recall any other 15 times.
The appropriate times I received those complaints 16 would usually be during the lead meeting.
17 Q
How about, as you've indicated, at the point where 18 an individual's formal evaluation is being performed.
Would 19 you get information from a lead at that point?
20 A
Normally the lead himself would write that 21 information and either I would concur with it or add on to l
l 22 it.
I know that that's what I have done for the '85 O
i
271 1
evaluations -- or the '84 evaluations.
O2 Q
Then you's pass that on to Mr. DeWald?
3 A.
That's correct.
4 Q
And DeWald would formally issue the evaluation?
5 A
That's correct.
6 Q
In those instances, would your contribution be 7
indicated?
I mean, would you send a document that was clearly 8
written by you and/or your leads to DeWald?
9 A
There was a form that we did fill out.
I believe 10 it was the same form that Irv would use to compile final 11 evaluation and if I filled it out, I'd hand it in directly to 12 Irv.
If the lead filled it out, I'd review it, make any
()
13 comments if applicable and hand that in to Irv.
14 Q
What was your opinion of Mr. Seeders' work 15 performance?
16 A
I think I indicated that yesterday.
l 17 Q
I'm not asking you to repeat yourself.
I'm really I
j 18 asking what I gather is a more general -- a more general 19 evaluation of Mr. Seeders' work.
I've heard you make 20 derogatory observations about Mr. Seeders, but I'm really l
21 interested in an overall evaluation.
l 22 A
Derogatory in what respect?
i l
O I
l
=
i 272 1
MS. KEZELIS:
Objection to the form of the question, 2
and I object to your characterization of any testimony.
The 3
record will speak for itself,.as to what Mr. Saklak has and 4
has not said thus far.
5 MR. GUILD:
I'll stand by its accuracy.
But your 6
objection is noted.
7 MS. KEZELIS:
Thank you.
~
8 BY MR. GUILD:
9 Q
How about address the general question cf 10 Mr. Seeders' work performance, please?
If you can, if you 11 have an opinion.
12 A
As I stipulated yesterday, just by -- as I had 13 stipulated in the warning, the work performance was 14 degenerating due to his. behavior pattern, due to his paperwork 15 completeness, compiling of various documents for filing, 16 legibility of writing and proper writing skills, to be able to 17 convey a message on -- a proper message on a Quality control
[
18 document.
19 John appeared to always be moving and doing his 20 work, which usually didn't draw any attention, by myself.
But 21 apparently, after reviewing the condition of the calibration 22 files and how they were organized and how they were -- how O
l
273 1
documents were put to file, I found it hard to believe that he 2
had ever done an adequate job, in accordance with the 3
procedure, as indicated in 3419 NCR.
I literally went down 4
every aspect of that procedure and found the problem.
5 So I guess, in the captionizing of your initial 6
question, is outwardly he appeared to be doing an adequate job 7
until a review of the documentation he was providing us was 1
8 done in depth.
And it became a domino theory after we 9
started.
i 10 One problem let to another.
11 Q
Does that complete your answer?
12 A
Yes.
13 Q
What, in your opinion, was the cause of Mr. Seeders' i
14 degenerating work performance, as you characterized it?
l 15 A
Well, I can only say in part that it could have been 16 John's length of time that.he was working on one -- working in 17 one area.
As far back as I can recall, since day one that 18 John started, he had always been in calibrations.
It could 19 have possibly been because he was burned out from the 20 position, seeing the same work day in and day out, day after 21 day.
i 22 Another possibility, which I'm sure greatly e
O
.=
274 1
influenced his attitude and behavior, was the organizing of
()
'2 the union within the office.
I know it was stirring up quite 3
a few personalities, getting various types of responses, 4
unusual behaviors, unusual critics critiquing.
5 Q
And do you account for Mr. Seeders' behavior --
6 unusual behavior -- strike that.
7 Do you hold the union activity, in whole or in part, 8
responsible for Mr. Seeders' work performance during this 9
period?
10 A
In part, not in whole.
i 11 Q
can you explain that a little more, please?
What do 12 you think the connection was?
13 A
Well, it was obvious, after a certain point in time, 14 that the union was looking to downgrade the program in order 15 to upgrade the union's existence on the job site.
At that-16 time, they were looking for people to vote for the union, the 17 vote had not come down yet.
And there were various types of I
18 propaganda and comments, union activity, that were taking
~
19 place during the company hours that if somebody who wanted to 20 get back at the company would follow behind with no problem.
21 Q
What do you mean follow behind?
I don't understand.
22 A
Well, if the organizers are looking to disgrace or l
l
~
~
O l
+-~7:-
q w--.,.--n-ee--- - -- -. -..
.p--.,
-w.p.-..c-,
-wc--,._.-%-
m
275 1
put down the program, put down the management, highlight some 2
of the problem areas in the department, their followers 3
that are interested in that type of union type of organization 4
would have no problem following behind.
5 It was an attractive shot at the management, knowing 6
that the management couldn't take any action against the union 7
activities.
8 Q
If it's appropriate, connect that observation to 9
your opinion about Mr. Seeders and his work performance?
10 What's the connection?
11 A
What I'm saying is that John was receptive to the 12 union operations and activities.
And that was evident just 13 through John's comments on the program, during that class, 14 which as I said was stipulated in my response letter to his 15 letter, in the warning.
16 Q
Help me understand this a little bit, Mr. Saklak.
17 The class that Mr. Seeders taught.
Why is it necessarily the 18 case, if it is, that derogatory comments that Seeders may have 19 made about the program, the inspection program for 20 calibrations, the general Quality control program at comstock 21
-- whatever you mean by program -- why is it necessarily the 22 case that those comments by Seeders were interpreted as O
276 1
furthering union sympathy, as distinct from comments and
~~
\\
2 criticisms about a program that deserved comments and i
3 criticisms in its own right?
Do you follow my point?'
4 Am I being clear?
5 A
Well, you're indicating that there could be a 6
coincidence involved, that it could be coincidence that the 7
union was present and it was coincidental that John decided at 8
that time to start highlighting the problems in the 9
calibrations area, the calibrations program, the Quality 10 Control Program.
11 I personally believe that's not the case.
There was 12 other avenues in order to bring up and highlight any problems
(
}
13 with any other program in they system.
Bob Saltmann, the QA 14 engineer, had a suggestion forum.
All inspectors had access 15 to speed letters.
It's obvious how many of them wrote to Irv 16 DeWald on the training program.
The doors were always open 17 for any of those kind of comments.
18 In my opinion, critics are a dime a dozen and to 19 find someone that can criticize and then come up with an 20 alternate method in order to resolve the problem is a more 21 valuable individual.
22 John did not offer -- or at least I was not aware of o
O d
277 1
any information to better the system or to properly correct t
2 any problems that he may have had with the program.
3 Q
So you draw the inference from Mr. Seeders' failure 4
to use these other avenues for raising legitimate complaints i
5 or concerns about the program, from that failure you draw the 6
inference that his complaints were motivated by 'other 7
reasons?
His union sympathy, for example?
\\
8 A
That's correct.
9 Q
Is that a more general opinion that you hold L
10 regarding not just Mr. Seeders but other inspectors?
Let me 11 see if I can ask the question more directly.
Do you believe 12 that complaints and concerns that other inspectors may have
[
}
13 expressed about the program at comstock, that were voiced j
14 through -- say going to the NRC, but not through using the
'15 avenues you just identified internal to the program, were 16 evidence of other motives being behind those complaints?
17 A
I strongly believe that that was the case.
Without 18 no question in my mind that that was the sole purpose.
You 19 can't tell me that in one day's time, over one incident, that 20 26 individuals organized and skipped Quality First and went 21 directly to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
22 You can't tell me that when individuals were told to 1
e
- O
278 1
-- or asked, I should say -- to work Saturday overtime for 2
in,-process inspections and union people were coming up to them 3
and saying you better not do it, that's against our policies, 4
that's against our wishes, we have to unite.
And then follow 5
up with flat tires, broken windshields in the parking lot for 6
the individuals that were looking to work rather than to 7
follow in the union activities, that that was all coincidence, 8
that that wasn't just a certain period in time that happened.
9 The facts point, the names point to one direction 10 and one reason why unusual occurrences and activities and 11 comments were taking place.
It's no doubt in my mind.
12 Q
So your opinion, generally, is that the complaints 13 were voices say to the NRC on the 29th of March, 1985 were 14 motivated by the interest in furthering the union, as opposed l
15 to addressing the merits?
16 A
That's correct.
It was a plus in their pocket.
17 Q
Is it your opinion that these other avenues you 18 referred to, for raising grievances or complaints about the i
19 program at Comstock, were effective means for getting 20 management attention and correction for legitimate problems?
21 A
For those items that were brought up, that were 22 legitimately a problem.
I'm not saying that everything that
279 f
1 was brought up was immediately responded to or favorably 2
responded to and favorably in respects to the person writing 3
the letter being happy with the response that they've got.
There were quite obten times that individuals 4
5 would bring up items either to change in a procedure or change 6
a method of doing things that were not practical to change at 7
that point in time, the job was too far along.
The item was 8
considered already covered by another topic in the procedure.
I 9
The management was, receiving good comments with good 10 recommendations, just comment's, and bad comments with no l
11 recommendations.
So there could have been individuals that l
12 thought they had a good point to' bring up that was never taken 13 up, although those individuals were responded to and usually i
14 given s reason why it wasn't'taken.
15 Q
You may have answerdd this in substance, but let me 16 try to put the question more directly.
Do you believe that 17 the existing avenues, within the program for raising 18 complaints and concerns about the Comstock QC program, were 19 effective?
20 A
Yes, I da.
21 Q
Had you had any experience with the effectiveness of I
22 Edison's Quality First program, as one of these avenues for
!O i
l r
280 1
raising concerns?
2 A
I don't believe I got directly involved with the 3
Quality First program, as far as that problem going into it.
4 I do believe that I was involved with the Quality First 5
program in research to finding answers to the initial 6
problems, so it was basically an indirect --
7 Q
The input to the program was confidential, right?
8 A
Well, that's what I'm saying.
So I had a feeling 9
that if I was working up a response to a specific question, 10 that it was for the Quality First answer.
But I would be 11 unaware of who brought the question up, why it was brought up, 12 or what the specific concern was.
13 Q
You just didn't have enough information to know 14 whether or not the Quality First program was addressing a 15 specific --
~
16 A
Quality First program worked in that regard.
l 17 Q
You have to listen to my question.
18 A
Right.
19 Q
Listen to my question, then answer, please.
l l
20 Did you have enough information to know whether or l
21 not the Quality First program was addressing specific concerns 22 that were raised?
l i
l 1
f 281 1
A Ba$1cally no because, to answer your question, 2
because.it was all confidential.
I knew it was operating, 3
though, and that's what I'm trying to indic9 e.
t 4
Q Were you ever aware of any corplaints about the.
5 ineffectiveness of the Quality First program?
6 A
There were comments made when they initially. opened 7
the office, questioning the credibility of the office'itself.
8 Q
Comments made by whom?
9 A
All of the -- well, I shouldn't say all of them.,
A 10 percentage of the people that went through the initial 11 consultation and review that they showed us where the office 12 was, who to talk to, how to make out a form indicating the 13 problem.
14 Q
The people who raised these concerns, Comstock 15 inspectors among them?
16 A
That's cor' rect.
17 Q
And what kind of concerns did they raise about the 18 legitimacy of the program?
19 A
The concern was that the problem would go from the 20 Quality First department directly back to the Comstock 21 management and they felt that the Quality First department 22 sh'ould take their own avenues and methods in order to find out
282 1
what the answer was.
2 So undoubtedly, the problem went right back to the 3
management and they felt that the reason why they were going 4
to Quality First was because they were getting no answer out 5
of the management.
So they felt it was a redundant direction 6
to go in.
7 Q
Do you know about any measures that were taken to 8
address those concerns, about the legitimacy of Quality First?
9 A
Not that I'm aware of, in specifics, no.
I don't 10 know where you would go to address it.
11 Q
Let's return to the subject of Mr. Seeders again.
12 After the written warning was given to Mr. Seeders, do you 13 have any knowledge of management action taken by Comstock on 14 Mr. Seeders?
The transfer, to be precise.
15 A
No, I was totally unaware of that transfer and 16 somewhat caught by surprise.
17 Q
Why were you surprised?
18 A
Because of the time that the warning was issued and 19 the short period of time it took the management to react to 20 it.
It was -- I just didn't expect it to come down that fast 21 or in that fashion.
22 Q
Well, let's talk about --
' O
1 283 1
A I really didn't know what to expect.
I knew that O
2 the warning was issued and the next situation I heard of was 3
that Mr. Seeders was transferred.
4 Q
What was uncharacteristic about the timing, the 5
speed of the action?
6 A
I had indicated to Irv in the past that warnings 7
were not being issued fast enough because any recommendation 8
or warning that I would initially write up seemed to take a 9
period of time before the individual was brought in and issued 10 the warning or the warning was thrown out for any certain 11 reason.
12 It just appeared that this situation went quicker
(
f 13 than normal.
I didn't expect it and I wasn't aware of any 14 other actions being taken by the management.
15 Q
How about the transfer of Mr. Seeders?
Were you 16 surprised by that?
17 A
I thought it was a very diplomatic move, as far as l
18 Mr. Seeders was concerned.
I thought it was a graceful and i
19 positive step to keep John employed on the behalf of our 1
20 management.
l 21 Q
You said you were surprised on two accounts about 22 the management action regarding Mr. Seeders.
First, the O
284 1
timing of it, and you explained that.
And second, it was not 2
what you expected.
You used words to that effect.
What did 3
you mean by that?
4 A
I really didn't know what to expect.
That's 5
probably why I didn't expect the transfer.
Transfers were not 6
a regular -- although I was transferred myself -- was not a 7
regular process that happened between construction and Quality 8
Control.
9 Q
What was a more regular step to take, if there was 10 one?
11 A
Usually the warning was just issued and put to file 12 and that was it.
13 Q
Had there been in your experience with Comstock at 14 Braidwood punitive transfers?
I'll try to explain what I mean 15 by that term.
Transfers of people because of misconduct or 16 deficient work performance.
17 A
I don't believe I could make a direct tie to that 18 and I don't think that I could properly represent those 19 transfers on behalf of the Company.
20 Q
Well, I guess my question is are you aware, do you 21 have any knowledge of any transfers of individuals at Comstock 22 that were on the basis of their work performance or O
285 1
misconduct?
)
2 A
I can't respond to that question.
3 Q
Let's start a little more general, then, and maybe 4
you can respond.
Are you aware of any transfers of 5
individuals at Comstock?
6 A
It was obvious the individuals that were 7
transferred.
Myself I was transferred from the Construction 8
Department up to the Quality Control Department.
Bob Brown 9
was transferred from the Quality Control Department at 10 Braidwood out to the Perry Quality Control Department.
11 Q
Let me show you down, now. Yours wasn't punitive.
12 A
Well, you didn't say punitive; you said let's talk 13 in general.
)
14 Q
Okay.
And as you talk about a transfer, let's talk 1
)
15 about the transfer you identify.
Yours wasn't punitive, was 16 it?
17 A
I don't believe so.
18 Q
Okay.
Now, Mr. Brown's.
That's a transfer you are 19 aware of.
Was it punitive as I have used the term?
20 A
I don't believe so either.
21 Q
For misconduct or deficient work performance.
I 22 A
I seriously doubt that.
O
286 1
Q Now, how about any other transfers that you can 1
v 2
recall at Comstock?
3 A
Brian Baranowski was transferred out to a Texas job 4
that we had.
I don't recall the town off-hand.
5 Q
What was Mr. Baranowski's position?
6 A
Mr. Baranowski was a Level II welding inspector.
7 Q
Was his transfer due to deficient work performance 8
or misconduct?
9 A
Not at all.
Mr. Baranowski was extremely competent 10 in performing inspections.
11 Q
Any other transfers you can recall aside from 12 Mr. Seeders and the ones you have mentioned?
(
)
13 A
Tony Simile was transferred from Perry to the 14 Braidwood site. There were quite a few people transferred from i
15 other nuclear power projects to our Braidwood site.
16 Q
Were any of those due to deficient work performance 17 or misconduct?
18 A
I believe all of those were due to lack of work.
19 Q
At Perry?
20 A
At Perry and at Midland.
21 Q
And the availability of work at Braidwood.
22 A
That's correct.
l O
O l
l
287 1
Q None of those due to misconduct or deficient work 2
performance.
3 A
Not that I was aware of.
4 Q
Any other transfers that you can recall at Comstock?
5 A
An individual by the name of Greg Delle was 6
transferred from Construction Engineering up to the Quality 7
Control Department due to his inability to perform adequate 8
work in an engineering fashion. They felt that his in-depth 9
research and method he used to approach field problems would 10 be better in the Quality Control Department.
11 Q
D-e-1-l?
12 A
D-e-1-1-e, I believe.
13 Q
And what position was Mr. Delle given in QC?
14 A
He started as a Level I inspector, and I believe he 15 never -- or he might have received certification.
I don't 16 think he made it, though.
17 Q
As a Level II?
18 A
As a Level I.
19 Q
Was he retained?
20 A
No, he was let go.
When did Mr. Delle get transferred into QC?
21 Q
l 22 A
Sometime in '83.
I can't recall exactly.
O
288 1
Q What area of inspection did Mr. Delle work in?
()
2 A
He began in conduit inspections, I believe.
3 Q
But not certified, as best you recall?
4 A
We attempted to train and retrain and swing Greg's 5
thought process over to a quality fashion but were unable to 6
get through Greg.
7 Q
Can you recall any other transfers at Comstock? I'm 8
looking for transfers particularly where there is misconduct 9
or deficient work performance.
10 A
Off-hand, that would be about it.
11 Q
How common was it to terminate Comstock a QC 12 inspector for cause for deficient work performance, 13 misconduct?
14 A
Extremely rare.
15 Q
Can you identify any instances in which such action 16 was taken?
17 A
I believe Ken Kruge was discharged due to an l
18 alcoholism problem that he had.
19 Q
K-r-u --
20 A
K-r-u-g-e.
21 Q
can you think of any others?
Mr. Delle, you 22 mentioned.
O
289 1
A Mr. Delle.
O Oh, an individual by the name of Brad U
2 Robins.
3 Q
What were the circumstances of Mr. Robins' 4
termination?
^
5 A
I believe it was due to excessive absenteeism.
6 Q
What work did Mr. Robins do?
7 A
Mr. Robins was an equipment inspector.
8 Q
Level II?
9 A
I believe so, yes.
10 Q
Did he work for you?
11 A
Yes, he did.
12 Q
And approximately when was Mr. Robins terminated?
13 Do you recall the year?
14 A
It could have been early '84.
15 Q
Can you recall any other terminations for cause in
~
16 the QC Department at Comstock?
17 A
The only other person that I can think of was 18 Mr. Puckett, but I wasn't directly involved in that situation.
j 19 MR. GUILD:
Off the record a second.
20 (Discussion off the record.]
l 21 BY MR. GUILD:
22 Q
Do you recall an inspector named Tim Stewart?
!lO 1
290 1
A Yes.
()
2 Q
Was Mr. Stewart still employed when you left the 3
site?
4 A
As far as I know, yes.
5 Q
How did you learn of the management decision 6
regarding Mr. Seeders, the transfer?
7 A
Through Irv DeWald indicating that we would have to 8
put Myra Sproull into that spot to take over the position.
9 Q
In calibrations?
10 A
That's correct.
11 Q
When did you learn that from Mr. DeWald?
12 A
I can't recall an exact day or time or even 13 generally.
It was fairly soon after the warning was written.
14 Q
The record reflects Mr. Seeders' transfer was 15 effective the 1st of October, 1984.
Was it before that?
The 16 warning is the 17th of August.
17 A
Warning the 17th of August.
Before it?
No, it 18 wasn't before it.
It was the day after he physically moved.
19 Q
He physically moved when?
20 A
Whenever his transfer took place, I presume that's 21 when he moved.
22 Q
So you learned of the transfer --
O
291 1
A The day he actually moved.
()
2 Q
And if that was the 1st of October, that's when you 3
learned of it.
4 A
That's correct.
5 Q
And did Ms. Sproull take over permanently the 6
calibration work?
7 A
I believe so, and I believe -- I can't recall in 8
specifics. I believe so.
9 Q
Did Mr. Snyder take the calibration over?
10 A
He was in the process of becoming certified in the 11 area.
12 Q
Did he ultimately take on that area?
1
/
13 A
Yes, he did.
14 Q
Did you participate in a meeting with Edison 15 management and the NRC regarding Mr. Seeders?
16 A
Yes, I did.
17 Q
Do you recall when that took place?
18 A
Not off-hand.
19 Q
After Seeders' transfer?
20 A
I don't believe so.
21 Q
How about immediately prior to his transfer?
22 A
That could have been. I don't recall off-hand.
I O
-r-w w
r m-w w
w y
o s=-, -. - --
--,-ee-
-w w--.---
-r
292 1
believe the NRC should have any kind of documentation on that.
2 Q
They don't keep real good records over there, we 3
have found, Mr. Saklak.
4 Do you recall if Mike Wallace was present?
5 A
Mike Wallace, Bob Schultz, the other in-house NRC 6
person.
7 Q
McGregor?
8 A
Mr. McGregor was there, and myself.
9 Q
Anybody else from Comstock management?
10 A
No.
11 Q
Not Mr. DeWald?
12 A
No.
13 Q
How did you learn of the meeting?
14 A
I was instructed by Larry Seese to show up for the 15 meeting.
16 Q
What did Mr. Seese tell you about the meeting?
17 A
He knew nothing about the content except that the 18 topic of discussion would probably be about John Seeders.
19 Q
Where did the meeting happen?
20 A
At the Commonwealth Edison office, Mike Wallace's 21 office.
22 Q
Can you describe what happened at the meeting?
l lO l
293 1
A Bob Schultz was inquiring about John's work ability, r\\
(_)
2 performance. Mike Wallace was wanting to look into the basis 3
of John's letter that he wrote, if there were indeed any 4
problems.
We discussed the level of difficulty that that 5
inspection category was in comparison to the other types of 6
inspections performed by other inspectors, whether or not John 7
was overworked or whether John had cause to right the letter, 8
make the statements that John did make.
9 Q
Did Mr. Wallace ask you these questions on these 10 subjects?
11 A
Yes, he did, and Mr. Schultz.
I can't recall who 12 asked what, but it was a combination effort.
s 13 Q
And you responded?
(d 14 A
I gave them the answers to the majority of their 15 questions.
~
16 Q
How did you characterize, if you did, the difficulty 17 of the inspection work that Seeders was doing, the calibration 18 work?
19 A
Actually I can't recall off-hand.
I would have to 20 reevaluate it at this point, and I don't know if that would 21 accurately describe the way I described it to them.
22 Q
Well, you recall that as a subject of conversation, O
294 1
and what makes you remember that subject?
()
2 A
Because of the content of John's letter.
He was 3
indicating that he didn't have time, I believe, to do the 4
job.
5 Q
Do you have an opinion at this time, aside from what 6
you may or may not have said to Mr. Wallace or Mr. Schultz, on 7
the question of the relative difficulty of the calibration 8
inspection work?
9 A
I don't think I can accurately describe it at this 10 time.
11 Q
How did you characterize the situation regarding 12 Mr. Seeders' point that he was overworked, in substance?
4-13 A
As I stipulated, in response to his letter I had Ug 14 offered other people to help him out and other means and ways 15 in order to accomplish the task that he had to perform.
16 Q
And you passed on that information, in substance, to 17 Mr. Wallace and Mr. Schultz?
18 A
I believe my response had already been drafted and 19 in front of Mr. Wallace and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
i 20 Q
By your response, you mean your point-by-point f
21 response to Seeders' letter?
22 A
That's correct.
?
i
295 1
Q Exhibit 12.
That document was in front of 2
Mr. Wallace and Mr. Schultz?
3 A
I believe so.
Because I can't recall the day that I 4
met with Mr. Wallace and Mr. Schultz and Mr. McGregor, I can 5
only presume that this was, if not in front of them, shortly i
6 thereafter within their hands.
'7 Q
What else was said at this meeting?
i 8
A I believe Mr. Schultz indicated that they would be 4
9 performing an investigation follow-up on the letter, and that 10 was it.
11 Q
Did anyone ask whether or not you had been the 4
1 12 subject of prior complaints by Comstock inspectors?
13 A
At that meeting?
)
)
14 Q
Yes.
15 A
No.
~
i 16 Q
Did Mr. Wallace indicate any action that was to be
)
l 17 taken by Edison or Comstock management on the subject?
1 f
18 A
No.
19 Q
Did Mr. Wallace indicate anything else other than l
j 20 asking you questions about the substance of Seeders' letter?
21 A
No.
i 22 Q
Was there any discussion of what action was to be i
l l
- ( 2) 1
{
l 4
,-.,nn,-_
-,--,,,-n,,,..,.,n.
n-.--....--,
,--n,
296 1
taken regarding Mr. Seeders?
2 A
No.
3 Q
Transfer, warning, discipline?
4 A
Not at all.
5 Q
And is it your recollection that this meeting took 6
place before Seeders had been transferred?
7 A
I can't give a specific date but I'm pretty sure 8
that that's the time it was.
9 Q
And if that were the case, it would also follow that 10 at the meeting with Wallace and the NRC, you weren't aware of 11 what action was going to be taken with regard to Seeders.
12 A
That is correct.
As I stipulated earlier, I didn't
( )
13 know of the action to be taken until the day John physically 14 moved out of the office.
15 Q
Did you have any further contact with the NRC on the 16 subject of Mr. Seeders?
17 A
I believe Bob Schultz indicated later on that the 18 action taken by Comstock management was commendable in regards 19 to John.
20 Q
How did he indicate that?
4 21 A
Just through a passing comment.
Mr. Schultz would 22 check with me every once in a while to see how things were 1
t v
i
[
297 1
going.
2 Q
Did you have any further contact with Mr. Wallace or 3
other Edison management on the subject of Mr. Seeders?
4 A
No, I did not.
5 Q
What contact, if any, did you have with Mr. Worley 6
Puckett at Comstock?
7 A
The only contact that I can recall was when Worley 8
initially arrived to the site, I gave him a tour, showed him 9
the program, welding program, took him through the welder 10 certification process, the fab shop area, which was downstairs 11 at the main level of the office building, set him up with the 12 procedures to be read, discussed various aspects of the
( ')
13 welding inspection procedure, its relationship to AWS, its b
14 relationship to other plant welding inspection programs.
15 Q
Did this take place over one or more days' time?
16 A
This was throughout his entire employment with 17 L.K. Comstock engineering.
18 Q
Did you have any responsibility during this time for 19 the welding or welding inspection programs?
20 A
Not directly with the majority of the welding.
I 21 think the only areas that I was requesting welding inspectors 22 for and was closer involved with weld inspections was for O
i 298 1
equipment welds.
()
2 Q
Did you supervise any Level II's who were performing 3
visual weld inspections?
4 A
For equipment inspections, that's correct.
4 5
Q Junction boxes?
6 A
Junction boxes, control panels, hangers for the T
7 equipment.
8 Q
Were you certified as a QC inspector for visual i
9 inspection of welds?
10 A
No, I was not.
I 11 Q
In any NDE technique?
12 A
No, I was not.
4
{
13 Q
Did you have any knowledge of the circumstances 14 under which Mr. Puckett was hired for the position that he was i
15 employed in at Comstock?
16 A
I believe he was hired to supervise the entire a
j 17 Welding Department in all welding activities.
i 18 Q
In the QC Department?
{
19 A
That's correct.
And I believe after that was 20 accomplished, he was also to take on the configuration 4
r i
21 inspections of hangers.
22 Q
How did you understand that?
i b
i
- O 4
1 I
i
^
...., - -. -. - ~,,... - - - _.
299 1
A Well, it runs hand in hand.
()-
2 Q
I'm not focusing on the configuration question, but 3
how did you understand that these were to be Mr. Puckett's 4
responsibilities?
5 A
I believe there was an office organizational chart 6
that indicated it.
It was indicated by Mr. Marino, by Irv 7
DeWald.
8 Q
Under what circumstances did you learn this 9
regarding Mr. Puckett's duties from Mr. DeWald and Mr. Marino?
10 A
Through job meetings, management meetings.
11 Q
Were you present during any such meetings prior to 12 Mr. Puckett's employment where his prospective employment was 13 discussed?
14 A
No, not at all.
His employment, or I should say his 15 hiring was handled directly through the Pittsburgh office.
16 Q
Mr. Marino?
17 A
That's correct, from what I understood.
18 Q
Did Mr. Puckett interview at the Braidwood site 19 before he was hired?
20 A
Not to my recollection,'no.
21 Q
How did you first learn of Mr. Puckett's hiring in 22 this position you described?
O
300 1
A Through a management meeting.
()
2 Q
And was Marino present?
3 A
At least at one of them.
4 Q
Okay.
And DeWald as well?
5 A
That's correct.
6 Q
And did they describe the substance of the duties i
7 that you just identified with Mr. Puckett, supervising the 8
welding department and QC, taking on configurations later?
9 A
That's correct.
10 Q
Did you understand that he was to be qualified as a 11 Level III QC inspector under the ANSI standard in the welding 12 area?
13 A
I had specifically requested a Level III for that 14 position earlier due to some of the misinterpretations, 15 interpretation problems that we were having between field 16 welders and QC weld inspectors, interpretations of procedure, 17 method.
It was becoming more complex than I could handle, and 18 Irv, not having all the time to help answer questions, so I 19 had requested specifically a Level III.
20 Q
Who handled these issues other than you, Mr. Saklak?
21 A
Irv.
22 Q
Was there another QC inspector supervisor who was t
V
301 1
more directly responsible than you for welding activities?
2 A
Probably Bruce Brown at that time.
3 Q
Did Mr. Brown handle the problems that you just 4
identified, interpretation problems?
5 A
He was part of them, yes, part of answering.
6 Recommendations.
7 Q
To what extent did it fall on you, the 8
responsibility for handling these problems?
9 A
If I was available and nobody else was available to 10 ask, I got asked the question, and if I didn't have an answer 11 for it, I would have to pass it on to either Irv or Bruce.
12 Q
Compared to Mr. Brown, did he handle more
()
13 responsibility for dealing with welding problems, or you?
14 A
Bruce handled the majority of them.
15 Q
If Mr. Brown was responsible for handling these 16 problems, why did you identify the need for someone in 17 Mr. Puckett's capacity to do this work?
18 A
Because I felt a Level III would have an ultimate 19 decisionmaking power to put to rest any conflicts within the 20 program that seemingly were not coming to a head or coming to 21 an answer.
l 22 Q
Why wasn't Mr. Brown certified as a Level III to i
l i O I
302 1
perform that function?
()
2 A
I don't believe he had the years in to attain a 3
Level III position.
4 Q
Was Mr. DeWald certified as a Level III in these 5
areas?
6 A
Yes, he was.
7 Q
Why didn't Mr. DeWald simply resolve these problems, 8
then?
9 A
Because of his obligation to the other problems 10 within the department.
11 Q
Was Mr. DeWald competent to resolve these welding 12 problems, in your opinion?
D 13 A
If given the time to handle them properly, yes.
14 Q
Was he knowledgeable, Mr. DeWald, in your opinion, 15 in the interpretation of the AWS D1.1 code?
16 A
I would say he was adequate.
17 Q
Was he sufficiently knowledgeable in the D1.1 code 18 interpretation to perform the functions of a Level III in that 19 area?
20 A
I believe so.
21 Q
Did you become aware that Mr. Puckett had identified 22 concerns with respect to the Comstock weld inspection and weld e
O
303 1
qualification procedures?
()
2 A
Indirectly, yes.
3 Q
How did you learn of that?
4 A
Through Irv DeWald.
5 Q
What did Mr. DeWald say on that subject to you?
6 A
He had indicated that Worley was either sending or 7
verbally giving correspondence, information to that effect 8
that there was a problem with the certification, that there 9
was a problem with the weld rod distribution and handling, 10 that there was a problem with the material used in makeup of 11 the hangers, all of which were being researched by Bruce.
4 12 Q
Bruce Brown?
('#^)
13 A
That's correct, and Irv, to determine the accuracy
\\_J 1
14 of the claim.
15 Q
And did they reach a determination on the accuracy i
16 of Mr. Puckett's concerns?
4 17 A
From what I gathered, the majority of what he was 18 claiming, the problems that he was claiming were not i
19 substantial, were not substantiated by his research.
20 Q
DeWald's research?
21 A
No, by Worley's.
Whatever backup Worley had, it 22 didn't apply.
It was unrelated to the application that we 4
O O
~... _ _. -
304 1
were using on the job site.
)
2 Q
And who identified that Mr. Puckett's concerns were 3
not substantiated?
4 A
I believe Irv did.
It may have also been part of 5
the research efforts on Bruce Brown.
I know I had instructed 6
Larry Phillips to do research on the weld rod receiving slips 7
looking for heat numbers and batch numbers that Worley said he 8
couldn't find and Mr. Phillips did find.
9 Q
Before Mr. Puckett took his position at Comstock and 10 you became aware that he was going to be hired for the job, 11 were you aware of his past work experience in any general 12 sense?
13 A
No, I was not.
14 Q
Do you know whether or not Mr. DeWald, Mr. Brown or 15 others in Comstock management were aware of Mr. Puckett's past
~
16 work experience?
17 A
I am sure they would have had to have been.
18 MS. KEZELIS:
Off the record.
19 (Recess.)
20 BY MR. CUILD:
21 Q
Mr. Saklak, were you involved in any respect in 22 Mr. Puckett's training and testing for qualification as a O
305 1
Level III QC inspector at Comstock?
(
2 A
I may have been a part of the initial indoctrination 3
of the program, but after that, no, I was not.
4 Q
That's what you have already referred to when you 5
explained about procedures and such?
6 A
That's correct.
7 Q
Did you become aware of any deficiencies in 8
Mr. Puckett's training or testing with respect to his 9
certification as a Level III?
10 A
I believe he failed the written exam.
11 Q
And how did you learn that?
12 A
I believe Bruce Brown indicated it to me.
l
[
}
13 Q
Do you have any independent knowledge of 14 Mr. Puckett's performance on that exam other than from 15 Mr. Brown?
16 A
No.
Mr. Brown was the only one that would convey 17 progress on Mr. Puckett's training.
18 Q
Did Mr. Brown convey any other information to you on l
19 that subject, Mr. Puckett's training and qualifications?
20 A
Not that I can recall.
21 Q
Were any complaints by Comstock QC inspectors 22 regarding Mr. Puckett's training or testing or qualifications L
306 1
brought to your attention?
O
(_ /
2 A
Complaints by who?
3 Q
By Comstock inspectors.
4 A
You are asking if the inspectors were complaining?
5 Q
Getting complaints from any inspectors about 6
Mr. Puckett's qualifications.
7 A
Not that I can recall.
8 Q
Were you aware of any complaints about Mr. Puckett's 9
knowledg.) and familiarity with the AWS Dl.1 code?
10 A
Any complaints?
11 Q
Yes.
12 A
I was aware that after the results from his concerns
[
}
13 were coming in, that it appeared that he was taking AWS out of 14 context in relationship to our existing procedure.
15 Q
Can you give me an example of what you have in mind?
~
16 A
I can't recall the specifics at this point.
17 Q
Did Mr. Puckett ever discuss with you suggestions 18 for changes to the Comstock weld inspection program?
19 A
Yes, ne did.
20 Q
And what char.ges did Mr. Puckett identify?
21 A
I can't recall specifics off-hand, but he seemed to 22 be uneasy about how the material as far as the metals that we e
O i
\\
+
307 1
were using to put together hangers, the material'itself was 2
not, the heat numbers were not being transferred when taken 3
off of a lot., In other words, if somebody were to cut a piece' 4
of bar stock off a batch of material, that they didn't 5
transfer a heat number, he seemed to be concerned with the 6
weld rod control, saying that the traceability of the weld rod 7
withdrawal slip was not adequate, it was not properly functioning as it should be fun,ctioning for traceability 8
9 purposes.
10 Q
Let me slow you down before you get too far from the 11 first point you made.
Did Mr. Puckett explain'to you the 12 system that he was familiar with in his last position at the 13 Zimmer facility on heat number traceability for material?
14 A
Just a brief review.
Mr. Puckett always put into 15 his conversations example's of if the NRC were to ask'this or 16 the NRC were to ask that in attempts to substantiate his 17 concern, and possibly if he had a method to change the system, 18 why it would be better to ha,ve it that way in response to an 19 NRC question. He always used a hypothetical situation with the 20 NRC.
21 Q
And did he relate to you any experience he had had 22 with the NRC tha't was the basis for his concern?
Let's take O
308 1
the example of the traceability.
()
2 A
It wasn't a direct relationship to his experience.
3 It appeared to be based on his hypothetical questions that he 4
would pose.
5 Q
He didn't say, for example, this is the way we did 6
it at Zimmer, we did it this way at Zimmer because the NRC 7
held us to doing it that way, and I'm concerned, in effect, 8
that if we don't do it that way here at Braidwood, we are 9
going to get in trouble with the NRC?
Words to that effect?
10 A
He may have mentioned that, but not as frequently as 11 just coming off and saying if the NRC asks this or the NRC 12 asks that, fron which I would.just have to presume that is s
13 what he went through at the last job or previous jobs.
14 Q
Well, did the proposed change that Mr. Puckett 15 suggested with respect to heat number traceability for 16 material, in your opinion, Mr. Saklak, did that proposal 17 provide for enhancement in the traceability of materials over 18 the existing program?
19 A
I don't recall where it went from his initial 20 comments on this topic.
21 Q
Were you familiar with the traceability system that 22 was in place at Braidwood at the time?
O
309 1
A' The basics of it, yes.
2 Q
Do you know whether or not in the situation that you 3
identified, the cutting of bar stock, the practice at Comstock 4
was to transfer the heat number to the cut piece from the 5
original piece?
6 A
I believe it was due to the grade of the material 7
that we were using did not require that type of stamping.
8 Q
Your answer is that as you understand it, it was not 9
done at Braidwood?
10 A
That's correct.
11 Q
And did you understand Mr. Puckett to be 12 recommending that such a system be employed?
( }
13 A
That's correct.
14 Q
And in your opinion, does that represent an 15 enhancement of the traceability in place at Braidwood?
16 A
It could, yes.
17 Q
Did you express any opinion to Mr. Puckett on that 18 subject, the traceability recommendations?
l 19 A
The majority of his concerns, I said, he would have 20 to document and propose them to Irv and Bob Saltaan for their 21 consideration.
The procedure was in the process of being 22 reworked, revised, and it would have fallen into a normal flow 6
O
-_ - - _ = - _ _
310 1
pattern.
)
2 Q
Did you take a position, express an opinion?
4 3
A No.
I just received his comments.
4 Q
On the second subject that Mr. Puckett made 5
proposals for change in the system, the weld rod 6
documentation, did you understand Mr. Puckett to propose a 7
more rigorous accounting of weld rod that was issued and used 8
in the field and returned to the point of issue?
9 A
It's a long question.
J 10 Q
I'll break it up if it's too long.
I'm trying to 11 sort of speed things along.
But if I'm making it too complex, 12 let me try again.
13 What did you understand Mr. Puckett's proposal to be 14 with respect to weld rod control?
15 A
That the way the document was prepared in the field,
~
i 16 produced to the crib for the issuance of weld rod and the 17 information on the document itself should have had tighter 18 control, more specific information, tighter control.
19 Q
The slip itself?
20 A
The slip itself and the method that it was used.
21 Q
In what manner did Mr. Puckett propose tighter 1
22 control of the rod?
j f
311 1
A As far as I recall, it was verbally, but he could
()
2 have written it down in writing.
3 Q
I don't mean that.
I mean how did he propose to 4
change the existing system.
5 A
I never had the opportunity to see that proposal.
6 Q
He didn't tell you?
7 A
I don't recall it, no.
8 Q
Do you have enough information to form an opinion on 9
Mr. Puckett's recommendations for changes in the weld rod 10 control system?
11 A
I tended to agree with what he was saying, and I do 12 believe that later on we did adopt a stricter and tighter 13 control of weld rod.
14 Q
Did Mr. Puckett use the NRC hypothetical that you 15 related earlier on this issue?
16 A
Most likely, yes, 17 Q
Did you understand that, either directly or 18 indirectly, he had had an experience with the NRC requiring 19 tighter control of weld rod in his previous employment?
20 A
It would appear to be that.
You would appear to 21 presume that he did run into an experience like that.
When 22 you are hiring an individual to be a Level III welding
' O
312 1
inspector, you are presuming that his background is well 2
covered to substantiate his certification.
Like I said 3
earlier, I did more listening than I did any response to his 4
questions or statements.
5 Q
The third subject.
I note two subjects that you 6
recall Mr. Puckett noting changes or recommendations for 7
changes.
The first was the material traceability for hanger 8
material, for example.
The second was rod control and 9
documentation, and I may have interrupted you when you were 10 trying to recall other subjects.
Were there other subjects 11 Mr. Puckett made recommendations on, to your knowledge?
12 A
The other subject was apparently he had a problem
( )
13 with the configuration of material to be welded together, 14 either with the details that were given on the detailed 15 drawings for hangers or with the method we were using for 16 certification of welders, that process.
I wasn't overly 17 familiar with his referencing to the AWS code in regards to 18 why there was a problem with our details, if there indeed was 19 a problem.
20 Q
By details, are you referring to the specification 21 of a particular welding process for a particular joint?
22 A
Right.
Either it was with the welding process that O
313 1
was listed within -- qualified processes that were listed in 2
the procedure itself, or with the Sargent & Lundy detail on 3
the detailed drawings, hanger detailed drawings.
4 Q
Do you recall any other subjects where Mr. Puckett 5
recommended changes that came to your attention?
6 A
I think that was the majority of it.
7 Q
Okay.
Can you recall any discussion of the 8
qualification of Comstock procedures to the AWS D1.3 code?
9 A
Not in specifics, no.
10 Q
Are you familiar with the AWS Dl.3 code?
11 A
Familiar, but I'm not fluent with it.
1 12 Q
Are the Comstock procedures now or were they at the 13 time of Mr. Puckett's employment qualified to the Dl.3 code?
14 A
I would presume so if all of the signatures required 15 to put it in as a procedure were present on that procedure.
16 Q
Do you know whether or not the procedures were 17 qualified to the Dl.3?
18 A
Specifically, no, I can't recall.
19 Q
Do you know what the application is of the Dl.3 20 code?
21 A
Application to what?
22 Q
What welding processes and work does the Dl.3 code I
\\
\\
1 314 1
apply to?
()
2 A
In regards to procedure?
3 Q
In regards to within L.K. Comstock quality control 4
scope of work.
5 A
I know that there are parts of the AWS code that 6
were used in drafting up the welding procedures, if that's 7
what you are inquiring.
8 Q
I'm focusing on the Dl.3 code.
Do you know what the 9
subject matter of the Dl.3 code is, as distinct from the Dl.1 10 code?
11 A
Not off-hand, no.
12 Q
What knowledge do you have, Mr. Saklak, of the
'I~)
13 circumstances of Mr. Puckett's termination?
O 14 A
None.
15 Q
Well, you know he is not working there now; right?
16 A
That's correct.
17 Q
And how did you come to that knowledge?
18 A
I saw him leave.
19 Q
And what did you understand about the circumstances 20 of his departure?
21 A
That the 90-day probation period was invoked and he 22 was released.
e
315 1
Q And how did you learn that was the basis for his 2
termination?
3 A
I really don't recall.
4 Q
Did you ever discuss or hear from Mr. DeWald or 5
other Comstock management the subject of Mr. Puckett's 6
discharge?
7 A
No.
8 Q
Did you ever talk to Mr. Puckett about the subject?
9 A
No.
10 Q
Did Mr. Puckett ever direct any of his concerns 11 other than what you have mentioned so far to you?
12 A
Not that I am aware of, no.
'"s 13 Q
Were you ever the recipient of any memos or speed 14 letters, nonconformance reports that were initiated or 15 authored by Mr. Puckett?
16 A
He may have issued memos or a letter.
I don't 17 recall seeing any nonconformance reports.
I don't believe he
[
18 was certified.
19 Q
And the program at Comstock required you to be 20 certified to originate a nonconformance report?
21 A
That was an unwritten rule that basically was 22 followed.
i
316 1
Q I will represent to you that Mr. Puckett, in fact, 2
did author a number of memos, but the point of my question was 3
were you the addressee of any of those memos?
4 A
I could have been. I don't recall the specific memos 5
off-hand, and if I did receive them, chances are I would 6
forward them to Irv.
7 Q
Do you have sufficient knowledge of Mr. Puckett's 8
work performance to form an opinion on the subject of 9
Mr. Puckett's work performance?
10 A
No, because I'm not fully aware of what his 11 assignments were to be.
He received his assignments through 12 Irv Dewald.
(
}
13 Q
Do you have sufficient knowledge to form an opinion 14 as to Mr. Puckett's knowledge of the applicable AWS codes and 15 regulatory requirements?
16 A
For the length of time that he was there, no.
17 Q
Do you have enough information or knowledge to form l
l 18 an opinion as to Mr. Puckett's knowledge of nuclear power 19 plant welding?
20 A
No.
He wasn't there long enough.
21 Q
Who made the decision to terminate Mr. Puckett?
22 A
I don't know.
O i
317 1
Q Are you aware that Mr. DeWald had previously 2
performed work as a Level II quality control inspector at 3
Comstock?
4 A
That's correct. Yes.
5 Q
How did you know that?
6 A
I have seen his inspection reports signed by himself 7
in the vault.
That's the main evidence that I have received.
8 Other than that, just word of mouth that he was there before.
9 Q
Has Mr. DeWald ever said to you that he had 10 performed weld inspection work at Comstock?
11 A
Yes.
12 Q
Have you ever heard Mr. DeWald describe the 13 performance of over 1000 weld inspections on a day?
14 A
Irv?
15 Q
Yes.
16 A
That he did that?
17 Q
Yes.
18 A
No.
19 Q
DeWald never said that in your hearing?
20 A
I've never heard him say it.
21 Q
Have you ever heard others at Comstock say that Irv 22 DeWald did 1000 welds in a day or words to that effect?
O
318 1
A No.
()
2 Q
Have you ever heard Mr. DeWald say, in effect, that 3
he had documented 1000 or more welds on a single weld 4
inspection document?
5 A
I haven't heard him say that, although on some of 6
the older forms of weld inspections, they were in a habit of 7
putting more than one hanger on a document, which you may find 8
if you total the sum number of welds up may reach -- I don't 9
think 1000 would be a normal number, but it may total to 1000 10 on one document.
11 Q
Do you know whether Mr. DeWald ever' signed off on a 12 weld inspection document that documented 1000 or more welds?
13 A
He may have because, like I said, the method of 14 filling out those documents did incorporate more than one 15 hanger, which would give you a bigger number of welds per 16 inspection report.
17 Q
How many hangers would you have to have to represent 18 1000 welds, typically?
19 A
Quite a few.
I would say --
20 Q
How about 250?
21 A
Yes, I would say about 250 hangers.
22 Q
How long in the normal course of inspections O
319 1
performed adequately would it typically take to do 250 2
hangers?
3 A
It would depend on the type of hanger.
It would 4
depend on the area.
It could take -- I couldn't even 5
accurately give you a number or a day or a time.
6 Q
Can you give me a range?
You have stated in your 7
previous testimony the differing circumstances generally under 8
which you would inspect welds on hangers -- for example, some 9
easier to inspect, some harder to inspect -- and I have got 10 that testimony in mind, but given that testimony, can you give 11 me a range of what would be reasonable to inspect in a day, or 12 conversely, how long it would reasonably take to inspect 250 13 hangers?
14 MS. KEZELIS:
Objection.
The witness has already 15 testified that would involve a lot of factors.
If you want 16 him to speculate, say so.
17 MR. GUILD:
No, I want him to specify the factors 18 and respond to my question.
19 THE WITNESS:
I don't feel I can answer that 20 question.
21 BY MR. GUILD:
22 Q
Why not?
'O
320 1
A There are too many factors involved.
2 Q
Well, put it this way, Mr. Saklak.
If a document l
3 came back to you in your capacity as a supervisor of quality l
4 control inspectors, how many welds documented or hangers 5
documented on that inspection would trigger your curiosity 6
about the adequacy of the inspection work that was performed, 7
if any?
8 MS. KEZELIS:
Objection.
The deponent has already 9
testified that he understood that in older times --
10 MR. GUILD:
I have heard his testimony and the 11 objection is noted; but can you answer that question?
12 MS. KEZELIS:
I didn't finish my objection, Bob, and 13 I would ask that you not interrupt me.
14 MR. GUILD:
Shoot.
15 MS. KEZELIS:
Thank you.
16 The deponent has already testified what his 17 understanding was about prior times. I believe the record will 18 reflect this is before Mr. Saklak's presence on the site.
19 Mr. Saklak can answer the question.
20 MR. GUILD:
What is the basis of that objection, 21 now?
22 MS. KEZELIS:
Mr. Saklak has already testified --
O
321 1
MR. GUILD:
I heard you say it, but what is the m
2 basis?
Why is that objectionable?
3 MS. KEZELIS:
You are asking him to speculate about 4
something he has no personal knowledge about.
5 MR. GUILD:
I hope the witness would be clear when 6
he answers the question, if he doesn't know, say you don't 7
know.
Don't make up an answer, Mr. Saklak.
I trust that you 8
haven't been doing that.
I don't think there is any need to 9
counsel the witness that he shouldn't make up answers to 10 questions he doesn't know the answer to.
Mr. Saklak has been 11 real careful, I think, in telling me when he doesn't know.
12 MS. KEZELIS:
I agree.
13 BY MR. GUILD:
14 Q
In that respect, can you tell me what, as a 15 supervisor, would be an unreasonably large number of hangers 16 documented on a single inspection report?
17 A
During my supervisory capacity, that practice was 16 abolished.
Therefore, I would never see that.
19 Q
When was that practice abolished, the practice of 20 documenting unlimited numbers of hangers on a single 21 inspection document?
22 A
Shortly after my arriving into the Department.
l l
i l0
322 1
1 Q
Were you responsible for that?
()
2 A
I could have been a large factor in it because it 3
greatly affected organizing cable pan inspection reports where 4
if more than one weld inspection for a cable pan was listed on 5
one document, it would be virtually impossible to properly 6
file that information without making, say, 1000 copies for 7
1000 welds.
I believe I would have recommended that one weld inspection report be written for one cable pan, one hanger, 8
9 whatever the object was that was receiving the weld 10 inspection, just for filing purposes.
Otherwise, the Xerox 11 machine would be going.
12
'Q Was that change that you just described reflected in 13 a procedural change revision?
14 A
I can't recall at this point.
I would presume it 15 would have to be, or it should have been, I should say.
16 Q
Have you ever identified inspection documents signed 1
i 17 by Mr. DeWald that reflected large numbers of welds inspected?
l 18 A
Have I seen them?
(
19 Q
Yes.
l l
20 A
That method that we have been describing all along l
21 here, yes, I have.
J 22 Q
For Mr. DeWald?
l O
323 1
A And other inspectors during that time period.
()
2 Q
Right.
I am focusing on Mr. DeWald now.
Have you 3
seen those?
4 A
Yes.
4 5
Q Can you identify the documents where Mr. DeWald 6
documented performing large numbers of weld inspections on a 7
single inspection report?
8 A
I believe it was in the area of cable pan welds.
9 Q
Can you help me identify those documents any more 10 precisely: what part of the plant was documented, the 11 components that were reflected in the documents?
12 A
Specifically, no.
(
13 Q
Can you give me any more information about the 14 DeWald documents?
15 A
Not in specifics, no.
16 Q
Aside from the issue of Xeroxing and filing that you 17 identified as presented by this former practice of not 18 limiting an inspection report to documenting a single hanger 19 or component, are there any other programmatic reasons why 20 such a practice would be improper?
21 MS. KEZELIS:
I will object to the form of the 22 question.
l
324 1
THE WITNESS:
Outside of the programmatic, which you
()
2 have mentioned, I believe it would indicate that the 3
inspection results are not being transformed immediately after 4
the inspection onto an inspection document, or it may appear 5
that a proper inspection was not performed if that quantity of 6
welds appear on one document.
7 BY MR. GUILD:
8 Q
At that time, the practice called for dating the 9
document at an unspecified point in time relative to the 10 inspections; correct?
11 A
I believe so.
12 Q
The procedure said date and sign, or words to that 13 effect?
14 A
That's correct.
15 Q
Is it then documented with respect to those 16 documents, the former practice, when the weld inspections were 17 actually performed?
18 A
Could I determine that?
19 Q
Is it documented, given that former practice, when 20 the weld inspections represented by that inspection document 21 were actually performed?
22 A
I can't answer that.
I don't understand.
a O
325 1
Q Let me see if I can be a little clearer.
Let's take
()
2 an example of a case where there is hypothetically 200 welds 3
documented on a single weld inspection report.
That would be 4
consistent with the past practice, would it not?
5 A
From what we have been talking about, yes.
6 Q
As far as you know, it was consistent with past 7
practice?
8 A
That's correct.
9 Q
And what there would be is there would be a list of 10 all welds inspected by individual number of by listing of the' 4
hanger or by listing of the detail, some number to identify 11 12 what was inspected; correct?
l s
13 A
That's correct.
14 Q
or perhaps a grid reference indicating what was i
15 inspected.
16 A
That's correct.
i 17 Q
And in a case where there were 200 welds indicated, it is likely that it would have taken more than one day to 18 19 perform the actual inspections that are reflected in those 200 20 welds inspected on the presumption that the weld inspections 21 were done consistent with weld inspection procedure?
22 A
You could make that presumption, yes.
I
- O 1
i i
326 1
Q The weld inspection report under the former practice 2'
-had one date on it, the date that it was signed by the 3
inspector?
4 A
That's correct.
5 Q
Does that date indicate when the inspections 6
themselves were actually performed?
7 A
I wouldn't know because I wasn't there to see how
,8 that type of method was documented.
All I saw was the end 9
result, the document, as much of it as what we have been 10 describing here.
How it was actually accomplished, I wasn't 11 around to see that.
12 Q
Well, did you make any inquiry to find out what the
( )
13 dating indicated as to the time of the actual inspections 14 under this past practice?
15 A
No.
16 Q
Do you know of anyone with Comstock at Braidwood 17 that did make an effort to determine when the actual 18 inspections were performed under the past practice?
19 A
No.
20 Q
Are you aware of any corrective action program that 21 calls for the reinspection of all the welds that were 22 documented employing the past weld inspection practice where O
327 1
multiple inspections are documented on a single report?
2 A
Yes.
3 Q
What corrective action program?
4 A
I believe the inspector reinspection program 5
uncovered multiple welds by Rick Martin, and due to the 6
rejection rate for the reinspected welds uncovered those type 7
of documents.
I don't think the documents themselves were 8
questioned as much as the weld inspection acceptance or 9
rejection was questioned.
10 Q
And what is the scope of the corrective action 11 program that you are referring to?
12 A
That was the inspector reinspection program which --
13 Q
QCIRP?
14 A
Right, which took in a percentage of inspections 15 performed over a given period of time.
The results of that 16 inspection would determine whether any further research would 17 have to be performed on the individual's inspections.
18 Q
Is there any program that calls for the reinspection i
19 of 100 percent of welds that were documented under the former 20 practice where multiple weld inspections are documented on a 21 single inspection document?
22 A
Not that I'm aware of, no.
1 e
- O
-- -~
- - --- - --~- --
' - ~ - ' ~ - ' - * ~ ' ' ~ ' ' ~
328 1
Q Do you know an inspector named Larry Perryman?
/'N Q
2 A
Yes.
3 Q
Do you know an inspector named Joe Hii?
4 A
Yes.
5 Q
Do you recall making a threatening remark about 6
Mr. Hii in the presence of Mr. Perryman?
7 A
No.
I was good friends with Joe.
8 Q
Do you recall an inspector named -- it looks like 9
Gallick, G-a-l-1-i-c-k.
10 A
Dick Gallick?
11 Q
Yes.
12 A
Yes.
13 Q
Do you recall was Mr. Gallick terminated?
14 A
Not that I know of, no.
15 Q
Is he still employed at Comstock?
16 A
As far as I know.
17 Q
Do you recall an inspector with that name, Gallick, 18 who was terminated?
19 A
Not that I know of, no.
20 Q
Have you ever heard Mr. Gallick, the gentleman 21 you do know, characterized as a perfectionist?
22 A
Yes, he is.
That I can vouch for.
O
329 1
Q What kind of inspection work does Mr. Gallick do?
2 A
Excellent.
3 Q
What area of work does he have?
4 A
Welding.
5 Q
Have you ever heard Mr. Gallick criticized, 6
reprimanded or disciplined for being a perfectionist?
7 A
Only amongst his own peers.
8 Q
And how is he being criticized in that respect?
9 A
I presume as a joke.
10 Q
Have you ever criticized Mr. Gallick for being a 11 perfectionist, either in those words or --
12 A
Never.
Never.
( )
13 Q
Is Mr. Gallick a particularly careful and proficient 14 weld inspector?
15 A
Extremely.
16 Q
Exercises exceptional care about the inspection work 17 he performs?
18 A
Extreme care.
19 Q
And as a consequence of that " perfectionism" -- with 20 quotes around that word -- does Mr. Gallick tend to complete 21 fewer weld inspections than other inspectors who are less 22 perfectionist?
O
330 1
A Not noticeably, no.
)
2 Q
Have you ever noticed Mr. Gallick performing a lower 3
rate of inspections?
4 A
Not noticeably, no.
5 Q
Are you familiar with anyone ever criticizing or 6
disciplining or warning Mr. Gallick because of a low 7
productivity rate?
8 A
No.
9 Q
Do you know an inspector named R.D. Hunter?
10 A
- Yes, 11 Q
Do ycu have an opinion about Mr. Hunter's work 12 performance?
/"N 13 A
We were having problems with R.D.'s paperwork b
14 documentation, familiarity with the welding details.
It 15 wasn't until Rod Frisby took Mr. Hunter under his wing to
~
16 coach him and bring him up to an adequate level that 17 Mr. Hunter's work finally was of acceptable nature.
18 Q
Have you ever assigned Mr. Hunter to undesirable 19 work as a punishment or disciplinary action against 20 Mr. Hunter?
21 A
No.
22 Q
Have you ever assigned Mr. Hunter to undesirable O
I f
331 1
work for any reason?
(.)
2 A
Not that I'm aware of.
3 Q
Do you recall directing Mr. Hunter to perform work 4
above the control room, in the ceiling above the control room 5
in a crowded, congested space with difficulty of access?
6 A
No.
7 Q
Do you remember instructing Mr. Hunter to climb a 8
ladder to perform inspection activities in an area such as 9
that?
10 A
No.
He was usually up there anyway.
11 Q
At your direction?
12 A
No, at the lead's direction.
13 Q
You never directed him to do that kind of work?
14 A
No, that was up to the lead to direct the area of 15 activity.
16 Q
Turning back to this Exhibit 10, the summary from 17 your personnel file, Mr. Saklak, there is an entry for 18 November 20, 1984: written warning to R. Saklak from 19 I. DeWald, subject, conduct, first warning (written).
The 20 explanation, and I'm reading, " concerned QC inspector F. Rolan 21 and discussion about the documentation of NCR and referencing 22 it on the termination.
R. Saklak wanted the NCR referenced, O
' O
332 1
but F. Rolan's lead did not feel it necessary."
V 2
Do you recall that incident?
3 A
Yes.
4 Q
Can you describe what happened in that instance?
5 A
Franco's lead was not available at the time, and 6
Franco was questioning how to document a certain aspect of the 7
NCR.
I can't recall in specific off-hand.
I had directed 8
Franco to categorize the NCR as a termination problem because 9
of the items involved in the NCR being on a termination i
10 drawing, wiring diagram.
11 Mr. Rolan disagreed with my directive of type of 12 category it should fall in. I had indicated to Mr. Rolan that 13 by issuing that the way he would have or intended to, the NCR i
14 would be directed to the wrong crew that performed the work.
15 Through further conversation, Mr. Rolan refused to accept my 16 directive as to which category, and I had indicated to 17 Mr. Rolan that I would advise that he do that based on the 18 investigation of his inspections by the NRC and the concern l
19 that the NRC had in his ability to properly make a decision as 20 to accept or reject on a cable pulling activity. He was 21 writing this NCR up on a cable pulling activity when, in fact, j
22 it should have been a termination activity.
- O l
t
333 1
Why the warning was written, I still don't 2
understand.
3 Q
A written warning was written against you by 4
Mr. DeWald?
4 5
A That's correct.
6 Q
Did you use words to the effect, Mr. Franco, Rolan, 7
"when the NRC is done with you, you may not have any 8
certifications"?
9 A
I may have said something to that effect.
10 Q
Had you had a conversation about Mr. Rolan's work 11 with the NRC prior to making that statement?
i 12 A
I had numerous conversations with the NRC.
I was
]
13 trying to represent Mr. Rolan in his decisions that he had 14 made on previous documents that the NRC found a problem 15 with. I tried to explain to the NRC that Franco Rolen 16 documents that they found a problem with were isolhted case 17 conditions. I performed overview evaluations of Franco Rolan's la past cable pulling documents.
This is all during the time 19 period that Franco and I were talking about the way he should 20 write that particular NCR up.
l l
21 Q
How did Mr. Rolan's work come to the attention of 22 the NRC?
e O
c
334 1
A Apparently through a field walkdown.
Bob Schultz, 2
if he would run into a problem, he would come down and 3
research.
I don't think it was any scheduled audit.
I don't 4
believe it was.
5 Q
Was it Mr. Schultz who identified these problems?
6 A
Yes, it was.
7 Q
As far as you know, it was during the course of 8
normal inspection activities by Mr. Schulz, that he identified 9
the Rolan problems?
10 A
That's correct.
11 Q
What sort of inspections were involved?
12 A
All cable pulling.
()
13 Q
Were you being loud and boisterous to Mr. Rolan when 14 you were talking to him?
15 A
I may hcve been above normal speaking level, due to 16 the fact that Franco is deaf.
17 Q
What's the relationship between Mr. Franco Rolan, 18 the QC inspector, and Mr. Rolan, the Comstock Project Manager?
19 A
Son.
20 Q
Is Mr. Rolan Jr.'s wife also employed as a QC 2]
inspector?
22 A
No, she was a QC clerical.
i e
l l
L
335 1
Q What was her name?
()
2 A
Tanya.
3 Q
Did she process NCRa7 4
A She processed the logging of NCRs.
5 Q
I'll show you a packaga of documents that has a 6
Bates number of 1588 on it.
It's a cover sheet that says type 7
of document, subject conduct, and it has your name and 8
Mr. DeWald's name on it.
9 If I can ask this be marked the next exhibit.
10 MS. KEZELIS:
I believe it's 13.
11 (Saklak Deposition Exhibit No. 13 12 was marked for identification.]
13 BY MR. GUILD:
14 Q
Behind the cover sheet there's a one page document 15 that's entitled employee warning record.
Have you seen that 16 document before, Mr. Saklak?
j 17 A
Yes, I have.
18 Q
Now is that a copy of the written warning that 19 Mr. DeWald gave you about the Rolan incident?
20 A
Yes, it was.
21 Q
New attached to that document -- strike that.
22 On the face of the written warning, there appears l O l
s l
L
336 1
the following remarks,
" Warning issued for bypassing the lead
()
2 inspector and not investigating the situation prior to 3
consulting the inspector.
The lead should have been 4
questioned to insure what direction was given to the 5
inspector, therefore following the supervision chain as 6
established."
7 Now was that the warning that was given to you, by 8
Mr. DeWald?
9 A
That's correct.
10 Q
Your signature appears on the block, employee 11 signature.
Is that your signature?
12 A
That's correct.
13 Q
What does that signature signify on the warning?
14 A
That I've read the warning.
I 15 Q
Period?
16 A
As far as I'm concerned.
17 Q
Did you provide any written response to the warning?
18 A
No, because the entire situation was fruitless.
19 Franco apparently had conversation with his father and his 20 father became outraged and wanted me fired.
21 Q
His father, the Project Manager?
22 A
That's correct.
i e
O L
337 1
Q And how did you learn that this conversation took O
2 place, and that Rolan, Sr. wanted to have you fired?
3 A
Irv DeWald indicated it '.o me.
4 Q
At the time he gave you the written warning?
5 A
That's correct.
6 Q
Did Mr. DeWald explain why he was giving you the 7
written warning?
8 A
To pacify Frank.
9 Q
Did he say that, DeWald?
1 10 A
In so many words, yes.
11 Q
Frank, the senior Rolan?
12 A
Frank, Sr., that's correct.
13 Q
How did you get involved in the incident, in the 4;a 14 first instance, Mr. Saklak?
How did you come to deal with 15 Rolan, Jr. about this NCR in the first place?
16 A
Truthfully, I don't recall.
17 Q
Okay.
Let's see if I can refresh your 18 recollection.
Do you recall encountering a woman, Jackie l
19 Joycc, at the xerox machine in the process of copying this 20 NCR?
21 A
- Possibly, i
22 Q
This is a Seese memo.
Was Mr. Seese involved in o
O l
s
c 338 1
this incident?
()
2 A
Not that I know of, no.
3 Q
It's a memo from Seese to DeWald, 11-17-84.
"This 4
memo is issued to document my knowledge of the events of the 5
Saklak-Rolan conversation of 11-7.
One Jackie Joyce came to 6
me and asked me to go into the supervisor lead room and stop 7
an argument between Rick Saklak and Franco Rolan.
Jackie 8
explained that she had an NCR to process, which did not have a 9
checklist.
She had asked Rick if there should be a 10 checklist.
Rick took the NCR and went to the lead room.
A 11 few minutes later, she heard loud voices and came to get me."
12 Does that describe how the incident was initiated?
13 A
I don't recall offhand.
14 Q
Do you recall handing the NCR to Larry Seese, after 15 dealing with Franco Rolan on the subject and saying words to 16 the effect of here, you deal with this?
17 A
I don't recall.
18 Q
Was Seese involved, do you recall?
19 A
I don't recall that at all.
20 Q
Another memo, Seese to DeWald, 11-20, it appears.
21 Do you recall a meeting in which you, Mr. DeWald, 22 Mr. Schirmer, S-c-h-i-r-m-e-r, and Mr. Rolan and Mr. Seese l
w I
339 I
were present?
\\/
2 A
Franco Rolan?
3 Q
It says F. Ro?.an.
4 A
Vaguely, yes.
5 Q
The memo I'm looking at says "Irv asks Rick how he 6
got involved with the problem.
Rick states that Seese gave it 7
to him."
8 Does that refresh your recollection?
9 A
No.
10 Q
Do you recall saying that to Irv DeWald?
11 A
Not offhand, no.
12 Q
Paragraph numbered six, "Irv asks Rick if he used
( )
13 obscenities and Saklak says no.
He admits that their voices 14 were louder than usual."
You told me that your voice was 15 louder than usual, as you recall, correct?
16 A
That's correct.
17 Q
Did you tell DeWald, Seese, Schirmer or Rolan that 18 you were speaking louder because Mr. Rolan had a difficulty 19 hearing?
20 A
It's a known fact.
21 Q
Mr. DeWald didn't need to be told that?
22 A
That's correct.
O m
340 1
Q "Irv stresses - " this is page two of the same O)
\\s,
2 memo, item 11.
"Irv stresses that he is trying to find out 3
what happened.
Franco says 13 days later it is impossible to 4
remember the exact words.
Franco says 'The bottom line is 5
that this isn't the first time, the second time, or even the 6
third time.'"
Do you recall Mr. Rolan saying that, or words I
7 to that effect?
8 A
Vaguely, yes.
9 Q
Is he referring to you?
This isn't the first, 10 second, or third time that you and he had had exchanges of 11 this sort?
12 A
I gather that, yes.
13 Q
Is that true?
)
14 A
As far as words?
15 Q
Yes.
~
16 A
No, that's not true.
17 Q
Was this a -- when they use the word Franco, is that 18 the young Rolan?
19 A
Young, yes.
20 MS. KEZELIS:
Just for the record, that's
(,
21 F-r-a-n-c-o?
l 22 MR. GUILD:
Yes.
That refers to the younger Rolan, O
O
\\
341 1
yes.
(-s) 2 BY MR. GUILD:
3 Q
I'll show you a couple of documents and see if you 4
can help me understand what these are.
This is a December 5
21st, '82 memo Bates number 14386.
That's to your file and 6
the file of Mike Kast for Mr. Corcoran.
7 Have you ever seen that before?
8 A
Not that I can recall.
9 Q
It's a very short memo.
The question is, what does 10 it mean.
It's a reference to a procedure, 4.1.3 -- a 11 paragraph reference.
The body states " Requirements are not 12 applicable to QC supervisors, as they do not apply because 13 they are not performing inspections."
Presumably that relates i
14 to you and your other supervisor colleague, Mr. Kast.
Do you 15 know what procedures the memo has referenced?
16 A
4.1.3 sounds like a certification procedure.
17 Q
Do you know -- do you recall what procedures were 18 determined not applicable to you and Mr. Kast, because of your 19 supervisory positions?
l 20 A
Not offhand, no.
21 MR. GUILD:
Let me mark this as 14, please.
22 lO
342 1
(Saklak Deposition Exhibit No. 14 was 2
marked for identification.]
3 BY MR. GUILD:
4 Q
Another document, page number 14427.
It's a 5
handwritten memo to -- it appears to be Gardner, W.A. Gardner, 6
from R.A. Brown, Sr.
Subject, review R. Saklak, date August 7
20,
'82.
8 You worked for Mr. Brown at the time?
9 A
Apparently.
10 Q
Can you identify that document?
Have you ever seen 11 that?
12 MS. KEZELIS:
Just for the record.
Mr. Saklak is
(
13 reviewing, and I believe these last few documents, Bob, are jf 14 all part of Group Exhibit 2.
!i 15 MR. GUILD:
Right, they are.
16 THE WITNESS:
No, I've never seen this document.
17 MR. GUILD:
Can we mark this please, 15.
4 j
18
[Saklak Deposition Exhibit No. 15 was 19 marked for identification.]
20
'BY MR. GUILD:
21 Q
I have a bad copy, but let me read part.
"Through 22 observation and discussions with the subject employee - "
6 0
343 1
that's you "-- pertaining to Quality Control issues, such as 2
technical aspects, supervisory techniques and status keeping, 3
the following summation is rendered."
4 "It is my opinion that R. Saklak has the potential 5
to progress upward in responsibility.
However, at this time 6
Mr. Saklak lacks the inspection experience and necessary 7
training to properly administer his assigned duties as Quality 8
Control Supervisor."
9 "In addition, Mr. Saklak has yet to submit a written 10 proficiency test for any area of which he is assigned to 11 supervise.
As a result of such, certifications have not been 12 feasible."
(G~}
13 Did Mr. Brown bring the matters I just read, from 14 his memo, to your attention?
15 A
Never.
~
16 Q
"To summarize the foregoing remarks, until such time 17 that Mr. Saklak can exhibit a higher level of confidence, I am 18 reassigning him to a classification code of 8F (Level II 19 inspector).
Perhaps with some actual field experience and 20 concerted OJT, Mr. Saklak will be better prepared to assume 21 the supervisory level."
22 Does that refresh your recollection concerning a O
344 1
transfer back to a Level II position?
2 A
No, I don't recall ever being assigned in that 3
explanation, in that form.
I do recall asking Mr. Brown what 4
was involved, in order to become certified, at one particular 5
time or another.
But as far as that conversation, that he's 6
writing down there, I've never had such a conversation with 7
him.
Nor am I aware of the fact that I was assigned to a 8
Level II position for training.
9 MR. GUILD:
The last one, about 16, please.
10 (Saklak Deposition Exhibit No. 16 was 11 marked for identification.]
12 BY MR. GUILD:
13 Q
I'll show you a document that's been marked 16 for 14 identification.
It's dated 1-5-85 and it appears to have 15 Mr. DeWald's signature.
It's entitled Comstock Engineering QC
~
16 Evaluation Form.
17 Have you ever seen that?
18 A
I believe this was read to me, along with a raise 19 that I received.
20 Q
By Mr. DeWald?
21 A
That's correct.
22 Q
In part, Mr. DeWald states, with reference to you,
I i
345 1
"He is exceptionally knowledgable of all areas in which he
()
2 supervises, although he is not certified in every 3
discipline."
Sorry, continuing, "He is in the process of 4
becoming qualified."
5 What areas is DeWald referring to, in which you 6
weren't then certified but were in the process of becoming 7
qualified?
8 A
Receiving and calibrations.
9 Q
Any others?
10 A
I think those were the only two ereas at the time.
11 Q
Were you supervising any other areas in which you 12 weren't certified?
13 A
Not at that time.
14 Q
Had you, in the past, supervised any areas in which 15 you were not certified?
16 MS. KEZELIS:
Objection, asked and answered.
17 I think we went through this yesterday.
18 BY MR. GUILD:
19 Q
Can you answer the question, please?
20 A
I stipulated that answer yesterday.
21 Q
I beg your pardon, but can you answer it again, 22 please?
Areas in the past that you supervised for which you e
O c
4 346 1
were not supervised?
()
2 A
I believe it was welding, and configurations were 3
the other two areas.
4 Q
And had you ever been certified in welding or 5
configurations?
6 A
No.
7 Q
Do you have an opinion about the work performance of 8
Mr. Robert Seltmann?
9 A
Bob is a good researcher.
Bob's documents are very 10 well written.
Bob's experience, I believe, speaks for his 11 position and some of the works that he's produced in the 12 past.
I've got a high level of respect for Bob's function at 13 the job.
14 Q
Which at what?
15 A
At the time was Quality Assurance engineer, QAE.
16 Q
At what time, the time when you were last employed 17 with Comstock?
18 A
From, I believe, since the day he started until the 19 day I was last employed, yes.
20 Q
In your opinion, is Mr. Seltmann deficient in any of i
l 21 the areas of his work performance?
22 A
Not at all.
O t
L
347 4
1 Q
Do you have an opinion about the work performance of O
2 Mr. Seese, Larry Seese?
3 A
Larry also is well versed in the areas that he has 4
been responsible for.
Larry is an excellent writer.
Larry is 5
a stickler for detail and has excellent comments and 6
recommendations.
1 7
Q What's Mr. Seese's position?
8 A
Assistant Project Manager.
9 Q
QC Department?
10 A
That's correct.
11 Q
In your opinion, are there any deficiencies in 12 Mr. Seese's work performance?
()
13 A
Not that I'm aware of, no.
14 Q
Do you have an opinion about Mr. Simile's work 15 performance?
16 A
Mr. Simile has excellent knowledge of a great number 17 of welding procedures, welding aspects above and beyond our 18 job site.
Mr. Simile has a lot of experience in dealing with 19
-welding problems at previous nuclear plants.
Mr. Simile fits 20 the position to a tea.
21 Q
In your opinion, are there any deficiencies in 22 Mr. Simile's work performance?
O
348 1
A Not that I'm aware of.
()
2 Q
Do you have an opinion of Irv DeWald's work l
3 performance?
4 MS. KEZELIS:
Objection.
I think we've gone through 5
Irv before.
I might be wrong.
6 My objection is asked and answered, as to Mr. DeWald.
7 BY MR. GUILD:
8 Q
I know we covered it, in part, but I would like you 9
to address the question as I framed it.
10 A
I believe Irv has done an above average job, as a 11 Project Manager in Quality Control.
I do believe that some of 12 the tasks that he's taken on have overburdened him, yet his 13 determination to complete the tasks are, in my opinion, well 14 complimented.
15 Q
Have you had an opportunity to observe Mr. DeWald 16 interact with management on the projection or construction 17 side of the comstock company?
18 A
Yes.
19 Q
Has Mr. DeWald, in your opinion, sufficiently i
20 represented the independence of the Quality control Department 21 from the production side?
22 A
I think he's maintained an adequate distance from o
O
349 1
the construction.
)
2 Q
If that's the case, Mr. Saklak, how do you account 3
for your explanation of Mr. DeWald disciplining you in 4
instances where Mr. Rolan, the Construction Manager -- as you 5
described it -- pressured DeWald?
6 A
It's a passive means of keeping Frank in his place.
7 MR. GUILD:
Okay.
I appreciate your patience in 8
coming back.
That's all I have.
9 MS. KEZELIS:
Why don't we take about a two-minute 10 break.
My questioning won't be very long.
j 11 (Recess.]
12 14 l
15 i
16 17 18 l
19 i
20 21
\\
j 22 O
350 1
EXAMINATION 2
BY MS. KEZELIS:
3 Q
For the record, Mr. Saklak, I'm Elena Kezelis.
I am 4
one of the attorneys representing Commonwealth Edison Company 5
in the Braidwood licensing proceeding, and as you testified 6
yesterday, we have met before; is that correct?
7 A
Yes, that's correct.
8 Q
Okay.
During the course of your testimony 9
yesterday, you indicated that you had drawn up a matrix of all
-10 QC activities which were impacting the work load of the QC 11 Department; do you recall that?
12 A
That's correct.
13 Q
You also testified that Mr. DeWald took the 14 substance of what you had drawn up to commonwealth Edison 15 Company, and as a result, commonwealth Edison Company almost 16 shut the plant down; do you recall-that testimony?
17 A
That's correct.
18 Q
All right.
What was the basis for your statement 19 that Edison almost shut the plant down?
20 A
Because of the matrix, it was more understandable, i
l 21 the work impact of the department, the work impact on the l
22 department, and the problems that we were having meeting
!O
351 1
reasonable completion dates on some of the activities we were i
2 trying to perform 3
At that time, the initial response was to shut down 4
the field activities in order for the Quality control 5
Department to catch up.
6 I think I should specify that it wasn't shutting the 7
entire plant down, but the electrical end of it that Comstock 8
was responsible for.
9 Q
Did Edison stop all field activities?
10 A
No, they did not.
11 Q
From whom did you receive the information you've 12 just testified about, that Edison considered stopping 13 Comstock's field activities?
14 A
From Irv and Bob Saltaann and Larry Seese.
15 Q
To the best of your knowledge, all three of them had 16 been in a meeting or meetings with Edison?
17 A
Yes.
We were -- they were going to the meetings, 18 coming back.
We would have management meetings discussing 19 possibilities that we could handle the results coming out of 20 the meetings.
21 Q
Is there anything else that you recall about these 22 meetings?
I e
O s
352 1
A Not offhand, no.
()
2 Q
Okay.
You also testified that you understood that 3
Edison's response to the information that Mr. DeWald provided 4
it was the question of how this was affecting quality.
And 5
you testified that you didn't think there was any 6
relationship, nor that quality was being affected; is that 7
correct?
8 A
That was my opinion.
That's correct.
9 Q
Okay.
What was the basis for your opinion that 10 quality was not being affected, but that instead, as you 11 testified yesterday, you saw the problem as one of heavy 12 workload?
13 A
Because of reviewing the incoming documents and some 14 of the more acceptable results from audit findings or audit 15 results and surveillances, I didn't feel that the quality was
~
16 being sacrificed in order to meet the quantity of work that 17 had to be performed.
18 Q
You also testified yesterday regarding in-process 19 inspections and the manner in which you handled them.
I 20 believe you testified that field construction would call you 21 the day before, and you would then review who was available to 22 cover the in-process inspections; is that correct?
O O
333 1
A That's correct.
()
2 Q
My notes may be in error -- I'm not sure -- but I 3
believe you also testified that you would review who was 4
available to cover all, part, or some of it; do you recall 5
using words to that affect?
6 A
That's correct.
7' Q
What did you mean by that?
8 A
There were occasions where the request from the 9
field was of such a large nature that we didn't have enough 10 available people to put on all of the field requests.
11 Therefore, the field requests would have to be put on hold 12 until we got around to getting to them.
l'3 Q
In other words, then, if you didn't have enough 14 personnel to cover and be in process --
15 A
The work in the field physically would not begin.
16 Q
okay.
You also testified yesterday regarding the 17 Rick Snyder incident, and I believe the words you used in 18 connection with that topic were that Comstock management knew 19 you, the way you had handled things in the past, and the way 20 you operate; do you recall making statements of that nature 21 yesterday?
22 (Pause.)
O
354 1
A I suppose I could have,. yeah.
2 Q
Okay.
I believe it was in connection with your 3
testimony that you felt Comstock was handling the situation 4
differently with respect to you and that you had not met 5
with Edison or the NRC to discuss --
6 A
That's correct.
7 Q
-- the Snyder incident; do you recall that?
8 A
That's correct.
9 Q
Okay.
Do you feel that you -- do you have a 10 well-known manner of handling things or operating things or 11 that you did have one while you were employed on the site?
12 A
Yes, I do.
I think it was well-known throughout
[
}
13 Edison, throughout sargent & Lundy, and Construction Comstock, 14 Corporate Comstock, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, CAT team.
15 I don't think it would have taken too long to know me.
~
16 Q
And what did you believe or feel that these 17 entities' knowledge of your manner of handling things was?
18 A
That I was not the type of individual to beat around 19 the bush.
I would attack a problem head on.
That the size of 20 the problem didn't discourage me, that I would quite 21 frequently offer alternate ways of accomplishing the problem 22 without sacrificing quality, without sacrificing loss of time o
O b
_,_------_m-
- - ~ - - -
355-1 on other projects that were being worked on at the same time.
)
2 That's about it.
3 Q
That completes your answer?
4 A
Yes.
5 Q
Also in connection with the Rick Snyder incident, 6
you testified yesterday that you had given him a bunch of 7
examples of dispositioning by Quality Assurance rather than 8
Engineering.
Do you recall making some kind of statement 9
along those linen?
10 A
That's correct.
11 Q
What did you have in mind when you made that 12 statement?
13 A
Well, it was evident that he wasn't accepting my 14 original advice on how to solve his problemt therefore, to 15 show similar examples of where that's been used before, I 16 cited similar examples in hopes that after reviewing those 17 examples, he would feel more confident in responding to what I 18 was offering to him.
19 Q
Do you recall what similar examples you gave him?
20 A
I know the 34 -- not that wasn't -- yeah, that was 21 it -- the 3419 NCR was dispositioned by Quality Assurance.
As 22 a matter of fact, in the area of calibrations, the majority of O
L
356 1
the dispositions were probably initially written by Quality
()
2 Assurance or counseled by Quality Assurance, due to the fact 3
that engineers were consistently coming up and asking us, "How 4
can we disposition this NCR?"
i 5
Q And you understand -- or you recall NCR 3419 to be 6
one dealing with calibrations; is that correct?
7 A
That's correct.
The documents, the method of 8
documentation, the filing method, the type of -- the method of 9
calibrating the tool, j
10 Q
Do you recall any other examples that you might have 11 given to Mr. Snyder?
12 (pause.]
13 A
I believe I cited -- no.
No, that'n all I can 14 recall.
15 Q
Okay.
In order for the record to be clear, would 16 you describe for us, please, the walking through the 17 Engineering process that you had suggested to Mr. Snyder?
r 18 A
I suggested that he disposition the NCR in the 19 fashion we had discussed, process the NCR through the clerical l
20 department, send it -- walk it down to Engineering, get 21 Engineering's concurrence with it, and then process it back 22 into the Quality Control Department, rather than waiting for O
l
357 1
the mailing system.
)
2 That wasn't an unusual tactic that we used in cable 3
pulling activities.
If there was a priority cable pull that 4
had to commence immediately to meet schedule, problems that we 5
might encounter during our initial walkdown of the cable pull, 6
we would find open NCRs or ICRs that our cable pulling 7
inspectors would walk through the system at various points in 8
order to release the system for cable pull.
O Q
So when you used the term " walking it through to 10 Engineering," did you mean physically taking the documentation 11 to the various stages of processing an NCR, rather than 12 waiting for the internal --
13 A
That's correct.
[
14 Q
-- Braidwood mailing system?
15 A
That's correct.
~
16 Q
Okay.
You also made a reference to Tanya Rolan's 17 basket being the slower way.
By that, did you also mean the 18 mailing system, or did you have another aspect of a 19 dispositioning in mind?
20 A
Tanya was the focal point.
Tanya was the mailing 21 system, especially for that type of document, and Tanya had a 22 lot of documents.
O
]
T 358 1
Q In your -- strike that.
2 You also testified that you believed that Mr. Simile 3
and/or Mr. Snyder then went to Mr. Saltaann regarding what 4
action Mr. Snyder should take, if any, regarding that NCR or 5
ICR; do you recall that testimony?
6 A
Yes, I do.
7 Q
Were you ever made aware of Mr. Seltmann's response?
8 A
No, I was not.
9 Q
All right.
10 A
Mr. Simile indicated that he would handle it from 11 there.
12 Q
So Mr. Simile took over, and you did not know what,
()
13 if anything,' Mr. Saltmann said to Mr. Snyder; is that correct?
14 A
That's correct.
15 Q
You also testified that a procedure was in the 16 process of being changed.
Do you recall that?
17 A
That's correct.
l 18 Q
Do you recall in what fashion the procedure was in i
l 19 the process of being changed, or what revision was under l
20 consideration?
l 21 A
No, I don't recall the revision offhand.
I do know I
22 that it was most likely one of the final items that should e
O
359 1
have been incorporated to the previous revision, that they 2
just didn't have time to work up to get it into.
So it was 3
like an item that was basically left out that should have been 4
in, but substantial research wasn't available at that time to 5
properly substantiate its existence in the procedure, as far 6
as I can recollect.
7 Q
Okay.
In other words, then, your recollection is 8
that the procedure or procedures involved had been revised 9
before and that a final aspect of the procedure or procedures' 10 revisions was in progress when the incident with you and 11 Mr. Snyder took place?
12 A
Yes.
I guess to make it more understandable, the 13 calibration procedure was in the process of being drastically 14 revised, and the welding procedure had already been 15 drastically revised.
16 When I say " drastically," almost rewritten in its 17 entirety, not necessarily all the points being changed, but 18 various aspects rewritten.
So it was -- the calibrating of 19 the ovens was more of a problem to the calibration procedure 20 than it was the welding procedure, so therefore it was an item l
21 that probably should have been tacked into the welding 22 procedure.
The two of them would tie in together.
If the lO l
360 1
welding procedure required it, the calibration procedure would
(\\m /
2 have to follow it.
3 Q
You also testified yesterday that you liked Rich, 4
and I believe you were referring to Mr. Snyder, that the two 5
of you got along, and that " Rich has turned the Calibration 6
Department around."
7 Do you recall that testimony?
8 A
Yes, I do.
9 Q
What did you mean by the statement that Mr. Snyder 10 had turned the Calibration Department around?
11 A
I think up until Mr.-Snyder began taking over the 12 department, the department appeared to be just a day-to-day
( )
13 function that never changed.
A lot of aspects that were being 14 performed on a day-to-day basis weren't really recognized as 15 well as when Mr. Snyder had taken over.
Mr. Snyder
~
16 consistently brought to attention any problems, any 17 recommendations.
Mr. Snyder had assisted in rewriting the 18 initial draft of the calibration procedure.
Mr. Snyder 19 offered many alternate methods to produce a better 20 calibration, a better filing system.
His input was into the 21 calibration area.
He was well recognized.
22 Q
In your opinion, were the recommendations, O
0
361 1
revisions, changes in the filing system and the turnaround
()
2 that you have just described in the Calibrations Department, 3
was this something that, in your opinion, Mr. Seeders should 4
or could have accomplished himself?
5
[ Pause.]
6 A
I think Mr. Seeders could have done a substantial 7
part of that if Mr. Seeders had any concern for that area.
I 8
believe Mr. Seeders looked at that area more as a day-to-day 9
job and didn't have as much concern about it as Mr. Snyder 10 showed.
11 It was evident that Mr. Snyder was into his job.
He 12 enjoyed what he was doing.
He gave 100 percent output on it.
13 Q
You also testified yesterday that Ms. Myra Sproull 14 always expressed doubt about cycry area and that she had 15 gotten certified in the areas in which she worked and that she 16 was extremely capable, or words to that effect; do you recall 17 that?
18 A
Yes, I do.
19 Q
You also testified that she expressed doubts so I
l 20 often that it was ignored; do you recall that?
l 21 A
That's correct.
I l
22 Q
All right.
To the best of your knowledge, were any d'
362 1
requests for refresher courses or getting up to speed by 2
Ms. Sproull rejected?
3
[ Pause.]
_D 4
A Not that I recall.
5 Q
Okay.
Did you ever reject any request that 6
Ms. Sproull might have made to you for a refresher or for time 7
to get up to speed that you recall?
8 A
Not that I recall.
9 Q
You also testified in response to questioning from 10 Mr. Guild that you had found documentation issued or initiated 11 lar Mr. Seeders "wanting."
Do you recall testimony along those 12 lines?.
(
13 A
Can you repeat that?
14 o
vnu also testified in response to questioning from 15 Mr. Guild that you had found documentation by Mr. Seeders 16 "wanting," or something along those lines.
Do you recall that 17 kind of testimony?
18 A
Wanting?
3 19 Q
Lacking or deficient or not understandable.
20 A
That's correct.
21 Q
Okay.
Let me show you a document which is Bates l
22 stamped 00014217 through 14220.
I will state for the record, l
- !O
- l
363 1
it is a Comstock Enginesring memo from Larry Seese to O
2 Mr. Saklak regarding calibration ICRs.
I will ask you to take 3
a look at this for a momelit.
4 (Witness reviewing document.)
5 A
Okay.
6 Q
Mr. Saklak, do you recall having seen that document 7
before?
8 A
In specifics, no, but I can say that it wasn't 9
unusual for Mr. Seese to forward me this type of literature, 10 either by Mr. Seeders or anybody else of my responsibility.
11 Q
So that although you don't recall that specific 12 incident, you do recall having received memos like that; is
()
13 that correct?
14 A
That's correct.
i 15 Q
Okay.
16 MS. KEZELIS:
Let's mark this as Exhibit 17.
17 (Saklak Deposition Exhibit No. 17 10 was marked for identification.]
19 BY MS. KEZELIS:
20 Q
Mr. Saklak, is Exhibit 17 an example of the type of 21 problems you had referred to regarding Mr. Seeders' 22 documentation?
I 1
,,._n,,.--
364 1
A One of many, yes.
N/
2 Q
Okay.
There were more than just that which is 3
attached to Exhibit 17, to the best of your recollection?
4 A
Yes, there are.
I don't know that they would 5
necessarily be formally written with a for al letterhcad, but 6
as you can see, this is a copy of a sticky note attached with 7
comments.
Those were also a method of communication between 8
Larry and myself.
9 Q
And when you received either a document with a lo yellow sticking on it or a document with an official cover 11 memo, such as Exhibit 17, regarding Mr. Seeders' 12 documentation, what, if anything, would you do with those 13 materials?
14 A
Normally I would forward it to the Lead.
If the 15 Lead wasn't around, I would forward it to the individual 16 themself with instruction to correct the deficiencies and 17 forward them through to Mr. Seese.
18 Q
So in this instance, you would generally refer 19 documentation completed by Mr. Seeders either to Mr. Larry 20 Phillips or else to Mr. Seeders himself?
21 A
That's correct.
22 Q
Okay.
Do you recall what reactions, i f any,
365 1
Mr. Seeders would have upon being presented with this type of O
t 2
a document?
s,f 3
A Not specifically, no.
4 Q
Would you explain to hi'm what needed to be done, or 5
would Mr. Seese's cover memo generally explain what the 6
deficiency was in Mr. Seeders' documentation?
7 A
Usually Larry Seese's comments were explicit enough 8
to understand.
It was only during a disagreement with Larry's 9
comments that the inspector or the Lead would come back and 10 dispute the comments to me.
11 Q
Okay.
And in that type of a situation, what would 12 you do?
13 A
Then I would take the -- well, if I agreed with 14 Mr. Seese, there would be no further discussion.
If I agreed 15 with the dispute, then I would take it up with Larry and talk 16 it over with him.
17 Q
Okay.
Let me show you what has been Bates stamped 18 as 00014212 and 14213 and ask you if you've ever seen this 19 before or a copy of it?
20 (Witness reviewing document.]
21 I apologize.
It's not a very high-quality 22 photocopy.
366 1
A This*looks like my printing.
O 2
Q Take a few moments, if you will.
3 A
It looks like a document that I would have -- or 4
notes or pre-or initial draft to a warning that was written 5
up.
6 Q
Would this be your notes or initial draft of a 7
warning that was issued to Mr. John Seeders?
8
[ Witness reviewing document.]
9 A
That's correct.
10 Q
I believe yesterday evening, we showed you a copy of 11 a Seeders Deposition exhibit, which consisted of a warning to 12 Mr. Seeders, and you testified yesterday that you developed 13 the draft basis for the warning that Mr. DeWald issued.
14 Do you recall that tc=timony?
15 A
Yes.
16 Q
All right.
Would this two-page document before you 17 be the draft that you were referring to?
18 A
Yes.
19 MS. KEZELIS:
Okay.
Let's mark that as the next l-20 exhibit.
4 21 (Saklak Deposition Exhibit No. 18 22 was marked for identification.]
t
- O l
l L
3 367 1
BY MS. KEZELIS:
2 Q
Mr. Saklak, let me now show you what has been 3
already marked as Group Exhibit 2, a document Bates stamped 4
14397.
j, 5
[ Witness reviewing document.]
6 Directing your attention to the very bottom of that 7
document, which is a payroll change notice on Comstock Engineering letterhead regarding a change in your 8
9 compensation, I believe, let me direct your attention down to 10 the bottom of the page, the section containing " Remarks," and 11 let me read to you what I'm referring to.
f 12 "This individual handles all daily inspection
(
)
13 activities, technical problems, and client-generated requests 14 in an excellent manner," and quote.
15 There are two signatures immediately following.
Do
~
16 you know whose signatures those are?
17 A
Yes, I do.
18 Q
Can you identify them for me, please?
19 A
Tom Paserba and Robert Marino.
20 Q
All right.
Did you ever have any discussion with 21 Mr. Paserba or Mr. Marino regarding the substance of the 22
" Remarks" portion of that payroll change notice, to the best o
O
368 1
of your recollection?
O( j 2
A No, I can't recall that.
3 Q
Okay.
Directing your attention to the page 4
immediately following, Document No. 14398, which I believe is 5
signed by Irv DeWald; is that correct?
6 A
That's correct.
7 Q
okay.
Also a payroll change notice for you, dated 8
January 5, 1985.
Let me direct your attention to the 9
" Remarks" section again.
10 Do you recall Mr. DeWald ever stating the substance 11 of the remarks contained there to you, specifically that, 12 quote, "He handles all daily inspection activities, technical l
l 13 problems expressed by inspectors, directs all daily inspection 14 activities, which is performed well?"
15 A
No, I don't recall that.
16 Q
Okay.
You also testified -- and I believe that took 17 place today -- regarding again the manner in which Mr. Seeders i
18 had handled a training session.
Do you recall generally that 19 area of your testimony?
l j
20 A
Yes, I do.
21 Q
Okay.
You indicated, I believe, that either he or 22 else people involved in union activities, and I'm not sure d
6 1
(
369 1
which, could disgrace management, highlight problem areas.
Do 2
you recall making that kind of a statement?
3 A
Yes, I do.
4 Q
All right.
Can you give me any specific examples of 5
what problem areas you were referring to or had in mind?
6 A
Probably the biggest area that seemed to be a 7
problem for all inspectors was in the area of cross-training.
8 Q
And what kind of a problem, in your opinion, was 9
present or presented by cross-training?
10 A
Well, the problem was that the program was put into 11 effect before we, the management at the Braidwood site, could 12 effectively plan its activities around our priority, which was 13 inspection of the work at the site.
14 Subsequently, schedules that we were posting were 15 unable to be met either because of individuals not being 16 available to conduct the class, individuals that were supposed 17 to go to the class could not attend the class.
Scheduling was 18 probably the biggest problem with the training program.
I j
19 Q
Okay.
Now you --
l 20 A
And everybody in the Inspection Department that was l
l intorested in cross-training, which I presume the majority of 21 l
22 them were, due to the response that we received, there was no 1
L
370 1
regard for any certain person to go ahead of another person.
()
2 Everybody wanted to get into it all at once.
So it was very 3
difficult for our management to try and coordinate and keep 4
everybody happy and equally trained, being trained, giving 5
training.
Like I said, it was a sore spot with some of the 6
inspectors.
7 Q
When you are speaking about this cross-training, are 8
you referring to the pay scale change in April of 1984 that 9
was dependent upon the number of certifications?
10 A
That's correct.
11 Q
Okay.
And the training session which you had 12 documented and testified about earlier that Mr. Seeders had 13 missed, was this a training session that was scheduled in 14 connection with cross-training demands on the QC inspectors?
15 A
That's correct.
16 Q
You also testified that Mr. Seeders was -- and I 17 don't recall your specific words, I don't have them in front 18 of me right now -- either making fun or speaking in derogatory 19 or degrading fashion about the calibration program, is that 20 correct?
21 A
As stipulated in the warning, that's correct.
22 Q
We may have gone through this already, at least O
L
371 1
Mr. Guild might have, but I don't recall your answer.
Can you 2
now recall or can you identify any specific problems that l
3 Mr. Seeders identified with respect to the calibrations 4
program or procedures during the course of that session?
+..
5 A
No, I can't recall.
6 Q
Do you recall whether, in fact, he did identify any 7
problems in calibration procedures or calibrations program u'
8 during the course of that training session?
9 A
I think, as I stipulated yesterday, he may indeed 10 have been bringing up a legitimate problem, but due to the 11 fashion in which he was teaching the class and the type of 12 attitude he had and was portraying, I couldn't make a
[
determination whether or not it was a problem or just a bitch.
13 14 Q
can you be more specific, and we may have gone 15 through this yesterday already, but can you be more specific 16 about the manner in which -- or the fashion in which 17 Mr. Seeders was portraying calibrations during the training 18 session that he was allegedly conducting?
19 A
If I recall, he was entertaining questions from the 20 class, questions that were obviously on the way documents were 21 to be filled out, the way documents were to be filed.
I can't 22 think of any specifics.
And his response, rather than O
372 1
following the procedure, would go off into an opinionated 9
2 response.
As I've stated, the response was of a poor 3
attitude, with numerous foul language descriptions.
4 At this time, I really couldn't give any more 5
specific's than that.
6 Q
You don't recall any specific statements he made, 7
at this time, or any specific foul language that he used 8
during the course of purportedly responding to people's 9
questions?
10 A
The only other person I know that would have that, 11 possibly, would be any letters written by Jeff Dominique on I
12 the subject.
(N 13 Q
And Mr. Dominique was the training coordinator?
d 14 A
That's correct.
15 Q
You also testified that -- in connection with your
~
16 discussion of union activities -- people opposed to the union 17 experienced flat tires and broken windshields?
18 A
That's ccrrect.
19 Q
Were these QC inspectors who were opposed to the 20 union, who experienced flat tires and broken windshields?
21 A
That's correct.
i l
22 Q
can you identify, if you recall, any specific e
,O i
373 1
individuals?
()
2 A
I believe Harold Hines had his windshield broken.
3 Joe Hii, Jr. had at least two flat tires on separate 4
occasions.
Larry Seese received a -- although he would not 5
have been part of the union vote -- received a damaged lens on 6
his -- turn signal lens on his car.
7 I'm trying to think who else.
8 Q
Are those the only individuals you can recall, at 9
this time, who suffered that type of damage to their 10 automobiles in the parking lot?
11 A
At this time, yes.
12 Q
Did you, personally, ever suffer such damage to an 13 automobile of yours?
14 A
No.
15 Q
Did you understand or did you believe, at the time 16 or times of these incidents, that Mr. Himes and Mr. Hii were 17 opposed to the union?
18 A
I knew that for a fact.
19 Q
What was the basis of your understanding?
20 A
Through conversation with Mr. Himes and Mr. Hii, I 21 knew definitely and our management was aware of their 22 disapproval of voting for the union.
O L
- =.. --.-_..- -.
374 1
Q To the best of your knowledge, were they the only 2
individuals who would have been involved in the union vote, 3
who were opposed to the union?
4 A
No, I knew that there were other inspectors that 5
were opposed.
6 Q
Mr. Saklak, you may or may not know that the 7
Intervenors, represented by Business and Professional People 8
for the Public Interest and Mr. Guild, who is one of their 9
attorneys, filed a harassment contention with the NRC in the 10 Braidwood licensing proceeding.
i 11 And for the record, I'm now handing Mr. Saklak a 12 copy of the harassment contention, which was admitted by the
[
}
13 Licensing Board.
14 MR. GUILD:
Counsel, just so the record's clear, the l
l 15 contention that you're handing him incorporates by reference i
~
16 two or three NRC memos explicitly as reflecting the detailed 17 factual basis for that contention.
So what you have is the i
18 body of the pleading without the attachments.
l 19 MS. KEZELIS:
That's right.
At this point, I intend l
20 to only go into the body of the pleading that you have filed.
l 21 MR. GUILD:
All right.
i 22 i
e i
j
,n---_,
,,----,....---r-..-,n_,,_
375 1
BY MS. KEZELIS:
2 Q
I'll ask you to take a look at that then I'm going 3
to ask you some questions about it.
4 (Recess.]
5 THE WITNESS:
Okay.
6 BY MS. KEZELIS:
7 Q
Mr. Saklak, have you had an opportunity to review 8
what I handed to you, just before the break?
9 A
Briefly, yes.
10 MS. KEZELIS:
Let's just interrupt momentarily and 11 have it marked as hopefully the last exhibit.
12 (Saklak Deposition Exhibit No. 19 was
[
marked for identification.)
13 14 BY MS. KEZELIS:
15 Q
Mr. Saklak, among the allegations reflected in
~
16 Exhibit 19 are that you, among other, Comstock management 17 harassed or intimidated Comstock QC inspectors by widespread 18 pressure to approve deficient work.
Have you ever pressured 19 somebody to approve deficient work?
20 A
Never.
2*
Q Have you ever participated in pressuring any i
22 Comstock QC inspector to approva deficient work?
e l
l i
(
376 1
A Never.
)
2 Q
Have you ever pressured any Comstock QC inspector to 3
sacrifice quality for production and cost considerations?
4 A
Never.
5 Q
Have you ever participated in such pressure?
6 A
Never.
l 7
Q In your opinion, have you ever pressured any QC 8
inspector to knowingly violate established quality procedures?
9 A
Never.
10 Q
In your opinion, was the incident with Mr. Snyder 11 pressure, on your part, against Mr. Snyder to violate 12 established quality procedures?
13 A
No.
)
14 Q
Why not?
15 A
Because the outcome of the conversation arrived at a 16 non-decision on Mr. Snyder's part, a non-action taken.
The 17 problem was passed on to supervisor Tony simile.
And as far 3
18 as I know, that NCR followed the normal path that all other 19 NCRs took.
20 Q
Have you ever pressured anybody not to issue an NCR 21 or an ICR?
22 A
Not to issue?
i i
0 0
377 1
Q Right.
2 A
-Not to my recollection.
3 Q
Have you ever attempted somebody to sign off on an 4
5 A
Not to my recollection.
6 Q
With the exception of the statement that you had 7
made to Mr. Snyder, regarding beatings, have you ever 8
threatened any QC inspector with violence?
9 A
Not to my recollection.
j 10 Q
Have you ever threatened any QC inspector with 11 violence because of his or her expression of quality or safety j
12 concerns?
13 A
Never.
j 14 Q
Have you ever verbally abused any Comstock QC 15 inspector because of his or her expression of quality or 16 safety concerns?
17 A
Not to my recollection.
18 Q
Have you ever participated in a decision to 19 terminate the employment of any Comstock QC inspector because 20 of his or her expression of quality or safety concerns?
21 A
No.
22 Q
Have you ever participated or Effectuated the O
L
378 1
transfer to an undesirable job or work in an area where
)
quality deficiencies could not be noted, with respect to any 2
3 QC inspector, because of his or her expression of quality or 4
safety concerns?
5 A
No.
6 Q
Have you ever assigned a QC inspector to perform 7
burdensome or menial special projects because of his or her 8
expression of quality or safety concerns?
9 A
No.
10 Q
In a few instances, Mr. Saklak, you've just 11 testified, in response to the series of questions I've asked 12 you, not to your recollection I believe were the words you 13 used.
If you have a few moments, could you tell me whether 14 you do, in fact, recall ever threatening or making threats of 15 violence or verbal abuse with respect to the questions I've 16 just asked you regarding any individual's expression of 17 quality or safety concerns?
18 A
No, I have not.
19 Q
Is it your testimony, then, that you have not 20 retaliated or harassed any comstock QC inspector because of 21 his or her expression of quality or safety concerns?
22 A
That's correct.
m w
-_.t,.
-h-J m
379 1
MS. KEZELIS:
I have no further questions.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 L
380 1
EXAMINATION 2
BY MR. GUILD:
3 Q
Mr. Saklak, counsel for the Applicant showed you a i
4 draft of a warning that was proposed for Mr. Seeders.
Do you 5
recall that?
6 A
That's correct.
7 Q
Exhibit 18.
You submitted this, I understand, to I
8 Mr. DeWald for his action?
9 A
No, to Larry seese.
10 Q
To seese.
What was Mr. seese's role in that 11 matter?
1 12 A
I believe that Mr. DeWald was not available at the 13 time.
14 Q
Do you understand that it was ultimately transmitted 15 to Mr. DeWald or was it Mr. Seese who acted on it?
16 A
No, Mr. seese reviewed it and, I believe, in the 17 final draft added some of his own comments to the document 18 which Irv DeWald incorporated into the final --
19 Q
DeWald promulgated the final written warning on the 20 basis of the draft and the editing that you and Mr. seese 21 performed?
22 A
I'd have to look at the warning again.
O L
381 1
MS. KEZELIS:
I can go get it.
I don't have it.
2 BY MR. GUILD:
3 Q
I'll ask you to represent that it's signed by Irv 4
DeWald.
Is there any information you need from the document 5
to answer that?
6 A
Well, if it's signed by Irv, then Irv was definitely 7
the final say-so.
Usually Irv was, so that's the only -- I 8
know Irv wasn't around at that point in the day and I took it 9
up with Larry Seese.
10 Q
In addition to adding things to your draft did they 11
-- they, Seese and DeWald -- delete things, to your knowledge?
12 A
Not that I know of, no.
)
13 Q
Is your draft of the warning that states, page two, 14 "It is the decision of myself and the QC management involved 15 to issue this formal written warning to J. Seeders, along
~
16 with a three-day reprieve from work without pay, in order to 17 allow John to make a decision as to whether or not he wants to 18 continue.with the L.K.C. QC program,"
et cetera.
19 That's your language, right?
20 A
That's correct.
21 Q
When you say it is the decision of myself and the QC 22 management, that's your proposed decision?
O
382 1
A That's correct.
O 2
Q Do you know whether or not, in fact, that reflected 3
the decision of Comstock management, that language?
4 A
Obviously not because he was transferred.
5 Q
Did you discuss the revision of the draft with 6
Mr. Seese or Mr. DeWald?
7 A
Yes, I did.
8 Q
In that respect?
9 A
Yes, I did.
10 Q
What did they have to say on that question?
11 A
If I recall, they agreed with it.
12 Q
They agreed with the language that I read to you?
( )
13 A
That's correct.
L 14 Q
So if that wasn't incorporated in the final version, 15 it was as a result of action that took place after you 16 discussed the matter with Seese and DeWald -- Seese --
17 A
Seese --
18 Q
You only talked with Seese, right?
19 A
That's correct.
Seese and Saltaann.
20 Q
All right.
So any changes that took place, with 21 respect to the recommendation you made about the three-day 22 suspension, as far as you know, were made after you spoke with O
L 2
383 1
Seese and Seltmann on the question?
2 A
That's correct.
3 Q
With respect to Mr. Snyder and the NCR that you were 4
discussing, do you recall it being an NCR as opposed to an 5
ICR, in question?
6 A
I'm pretty sure it was an NCR.
7 Q
You've described your recommendation to Snyder, in 8
response to questions from me and from Ms. Kazelis.
9 As you left the matter last, with Snyder, what was 10 Snyder's position about what he was going to do with respect 11 to the disposition of the document?
12 A
Send it through the system as a normal document 13 would have gone through the system.
14 Q
Tanya's basket, processing in due course, 15 engineering for disposition, back to QC for closure?
16 A
That's correct.
17 Q
Did Snyder explain to you why he believed it 18 appropriate to follow that course, as opposed to the one you 19 recommended, the walk-through?
20 A
No, he did not.
21 Q
He didn't say anything about why he chose the former 22 course?
L
384 1
A No.
O 2
Q Was there any procedural requirement, that you're 3
aware of, that authorized the walk-through process that you 4
recommended?
5 Let me put it this way, or required the more formal 6
processing that Snyder opted for?
7 A
No, there was not, as much as there wasn't a 8
procedural hold limiting you from walking it through.
9 Q
Either alternative was permissible, as you 10 understood the procedure?
11 A
As far as I interpreted it, yes.
12 Q
And did the revision that was pending, or the
( )
13 procedure, have any significance for specifying the way this 14 one should have been processed?
15 A
only in the fact that previous non-conformance 16 reports were dispositioned in similar fashion, which was the 17 basis for revising the procedure.
18 Q
My point is, what did the pending procedure revision 19 have to say, if anything, about the manner in which the NCR 20 would be processed?
21 The choice between the option you suggested to 22 Mr. Snyder and the one you chose?
O
~
1.
385 1
A None, really.
2 MR. GUILD:
Thanks.
That's all I have.
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 O
f 386 1
EXAMINATION 2
BY MS. KEZELIS:
3 Q
Mr. Saklak, this may have been asked of you 4
already.
Do you recall the specific nature of the revision 5
that was pending?
6 A
No, I do not.
- 7 Q
Your answer to Mr. Guild's question just now was not 8
based upon a specific recollection of what the revision was to 9
be, is it?
10 A
No.
As far as the letter designation for the 11 revision?
12 Q
No, what the nature of the revision was going to
^
13 be.
Do you recall specifically?
14 A
No, I don't think the specifics were completed.
15 That's why we gave it to Tony simile.
That's why I felt
~
16 confident with Tony simile taking it, because Tony simile was 17 more in tune with the basis of that revision.
18 Q
Mr. Simile, as you understood it, was responsible or 19 was handling the revision?
20 A
He was inputting the basis for that revision, right.
21 Q
And that's why you felt confident in having 22 Mr. Simile take it over?
O
387 1
A Correct.
2 MS. KEZELIS:
Okay.
I have,no other questions.
3 MR. GUILD:
Thank you.
4 (Whereupon, at 2:27 p.m.,
the taking of the 5
deposition was concluded.)
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15
~
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 O
388 1
CERTIFICATE OF DEPONENT O2
~
3 I, RICHARD W. SAKLAK, 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
-_ d. sh.ffh
)/
8 j
9 RIC SAKLAK b f463'&
t 10 11 jff ff,,
12 DATE 13 14 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC I
15 Sworn and subscribed to before me, this the E) 16 day of t NW 19 17 18 hWk/ -
J$-
Y 19 v
i 20 NOTARY PUBLIC AND FOR
,, _.i.1on..pir.., vgr 21 22
389 1
CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC 2
I, Pamela Briggle, the officer before whom the 3
4 f.oregoing deposition was taken, do hereby certify that the witness' whose testimony appears in the foreg,oing pages was 5
dulyswornbyhe;thatthetestimonyofsaidwitnesswastaken 6
7 stenographically by me, and thereafter reduced to typewriting 8
by me or under my direction; that the transcript is a true 9
record of the testimony give by the said witness; that I am 10 neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the 11 parties to the action in which this deposition was taken; and 12 further, that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney O
13 or counsel employed by the parties hereto, nor financially or h
14 otherwise interested in the outcome of the action.
i 15
~
16 Mk qh 17 18 PAMELA BRIGGLE 19 Notary Public in and for the i
20 District of Columbia
~~
21 22 My Commission expirds:
May 14, 1990 l
4 1
i
/
.e
,a
TYPEdF TOCUMEh7:
i
'$sercT: C enAad DATE: p - Ap " S 4
,1
' PERSONS R ' g"kN f
INVOLVED:
+
7 betOatd RESOLUTION: }",, j -} 4 e n
!O i
i I
l l
l l
,h,8/3 O
j 3/3f,y i
20 j
{00002589 s
t COMSTOCK ENGINEERING, INC.
' pd EMPLOYEE WARNING RECORD f
Employee's Name
/d c,up,e O ggu4 de'-
Seetion O d.
Da:e. of harning f - v' Na ture of harning l
l Substandard Work I -1 Conduct l
l Tardiness l
l Carelessness l
Disobedience l
l Absence 1st Warning R 2nd Warning l
l Supervisor's Signature ed Date /i -2 0 -PV p)
Employee's Signatur
- i ur
'[
/ /, -
Date,.. m r- '
Y Remarks: W,wm i e,- i s s,. #.s re,_
v, w,_ t e o h o,w.w,
s, _,.3
_ pss,c u uer i o u s s ri o a rio re we e.vunn e a det nrt en o n e su i v. u t.
ru,r iaconeet i-a Lee s %ut a i+% s.
t1H e tuyeredtA Tb Lotu o 4 L W 4t-dia crece t,n csi o s o in Tx e tesosc h, h e.tt@-u_ b,U ot o iec. N c-
_s u p s..w i si e c esA.e As u.nm.m a M.
Orignial:
Corporate Personnel File Copies:
Emplovee Supervisor O
- c to. 20-60-35A l'il:
Ms'"
.e, h
^
Comstock Engineering, Inc.
.gy Memorandum
. - ~
~ s S ~g 4
To:
I. F. DeWald ffice: Braidwood I [b F rom L G See5' 9.3~%n, s
8 r.
E t.. : s;O-L,,,...
Sakl ak /kol a r - Personnel 'Cer.fi der.tial.i t
D a t <-
11'17/94
~
Q-Control !c.
,-12-17-32 5/
M,h, ey w L.
Tn:: memo is issued to document my knowledge of the events of the Saklak/holan conversation of 11/7/84.
1)
Jacque Joyce came to me and asked me to go into the Supervisor / Lead room and stop an argument between Rick Saklak and Franco Rolan. Jacque explained that she had an NCR to process which did not have a checklist She had asked Rick if there should be a checklist.
Rick took the NOR and went to the Lead room. A few minutes later, she heard loud voices and came to get me.
m.
2)
I went to the Lead room just in time to hear Rick Saklak point at Franco and say, "When the NRC is done with you, you may not have any certifications."
3)
I interrupted then and suggested they go to a private area and talk.
Rick handed me the NOK and said, "Here, you deal with this."
4)
I walked out of the room with Franco at which time he stated that he completed the documentation the way that his lead told him to.
I took no further action on this subject until you returned to work on 11/13/84. Ee had a brief disuession on this subject in Bob Seltmann's office after work.
This memo is issued per your request of this morning.
Sincerely,
~
g $p'.
L. G. Seese
/ -
r:
Assistant Quality Control
'.ar.ager g
b.g 8
"~
-...i n 20.
p
'J
(
STE LKCE DC7J
. o.:. c m,-
N... -%'0 T, d 0001590
4L Sih
~ '
Comstock Engineering,'Inc.
n-U Memorand k
RECEWED araidwood I. DeWald oi,,m To.
p 20 W g
L. G. Seese' p,
U'.00"STCCK Discussion of Incident of 11/7/84 o.C. C; e.
ll/ p /s; H :wec:
Ss.. A a s./hol t:.
w-[
s.'
11,*23/5' E:35 a.m.
! resent:
I. Dei:.1d, I..
Saklah, D. Schirmer, F. holan, and L. Seese 1)
Irv asks Schirmer:
- What direction did Schirmer give Franco?"
Answer: There was a conflict between the wiring diagram and the I.E. drawing. I instructed him to accept the temination and to write an NCR on the wiring diagram. Schirmer told Franco not to reference the NCE on his approved checklist since the prcblem was an obvious drafting error.
- 2) Franco states that Jacque asked if the NCR needed the checklist.
p He answered no and explained that his lead directed him to do it t
i that way.
Franco states that Rick called him to the lead room and used obscenities and told him that the NR"' was investigating his cable pull Certs.
- 3) Irv asks Rick how he got involved with the problem.
Rick states that Seese gave it to him.
4 )-
Seese states that he did not remember it that way, and suggests Irv asks Jacque Joyce to come in.
- 5) Jacque states that she saw Rick at the copy machine and she gave him the NCR. About 2 to 3 minutes later, she heard loud voices and felt responsible. Therefore, she came and got me (Seese) to step in.
()
Ir. asks Rick if he used cbscenities and Saklah says no.
Et admits that their voicer were louder than usual.
- 7). Irv asks Schirmer to explain why he did not reference the ICR on the checklist. Schimer e=1r.:.ed his logic, b
0006159-t
M: 1. Deucid TROM: L. G. Seese
,f -
i 1
b
- 8) Franco states that Rick jumped the gan on this case.
Franco says
..tha,t Worthington and Simile were witnesses.
s.
9)
Irv states that he wants to get to the point. He wantsI o know t
what was said. He tells Franco that he has been threatening to write a letter, and he wants to get to the bottom of this.
France says : nave every reason to writs ene.
10)
Irv asks Franco if Rick called him a M _ _ _ _ _
T _ _ _ _ _. He says not really. Franco states tnat this is an ongeing,retlem.
c He is tired of doing what his lead says and then getting ju= ped on Tranco states that you know how Saklak loses his temper.
for it.
Irv stresses that he is trying to find out what happened.
Franco 11) says 13 days later it is impossible to remenber the exact words.
Ihe bottom line is that this isn't the first time, Franco says, the second tine, or even the third time."
Saklak explains that he has talked to the NRC inspector (R. Schultz) 12) and told him that this was an isolated case. He states that he Saklak states that the next day Jaccue showed defended Franco.
('~'}
him the_NOR in question. Rick admits that they got very loud.
V During the entire discussion, Franco never told Rick that he was doing exactly what his lead told him.
Saklak states that Franco has a unique documentation ctyle that sometimes make it difficult to understand what he says.
- 13) Franco states that Rick jumped the gun.
Saklak states that he didn't know Franco was so thin skinned.
i l
- 14) Franco asks me (Seese) what was said. I reviewed the items listed on my memo.
I 15)
I suggested that we call Worthington in.
Ken says that he wasn't really listening to words. He didn't hear any obscenities.
Irv asks if it was loud and beisterous? Ken answers yes.
Irv asks why he did..'t step in? Ken states that he did net feel it was out of ha:.;.
i faul't.
He wants everyone up here to act as a 16)
Irv arr:s unc was at team.
l O)
\\
0006199g lL
T
- 1. DeWald TROM: L. G. Soese 17)
Franco says that if it was the first time' you "could blow it
--(8 off."
Several months ago we had a similar problem with John s,
Seeders. Franco states, "My wife doesn't talk to me that way."
f -.
18)
Tony Simile comes in and states that he doen not remember the conversation and doesn't even think he was 2.n tne room.
~
19)
Irv states that Trcr.co enould have told F.ici that 5: hire:r told him to do it that wa..
Irv stresse: taat we sheuld nave f:1; owed the enain cf co: mand.
20-)
Irv says that he feels the following was done wrong:
a) Franco should have said that he did what his lead told him.
b) Saklak should not have made the NRC statement.
or c) Seese should have handled % hen instead of waiting for Irv to come back.
p Irv then requests that Seese and Saklak stay and everyone else leave.
Sincerely, g
^
W ~,~
L. G. Seese Assistant Quality Control P.anager LOS/sm 6
\\
00.%25D3 e
- s. m..
LF~
,4 ~
Comstock Engineering, Inc.
fV)
Memorandum Braidwood R. Saklak File g g,m To:
"Fmm.
I. DeWald T.. Saklaf:/T. Rolan Incident 12 ' ?'54 Contr:1 No. 84-11-C'-06 After interviewing and receiving the circumstances of tne incident and taking into consideration previous incidents and discussions with R. Saklak concerning his supervision pra:tices, the conclusion is:
A) Concerning the incident, Mr. Saklak used very poor judgment and did not follow up the problem with F. Rolan's lead as should have been done.
B)
The discussion between the two individuals should have been stopped by Mr. Saklak when he recognized the discussion was getting out of hand.
,s V
C)
Mr. Saklak should not have made the threatening type statements concerning Mr. Rolan's certifications and the NR".
Tais was extremely poor action on Mr. Saklak's part.
D)
Mr. Rolan was somewhat at fault also in that he did not inform Mr. Sahlak that he had been directed to do the work in that way by his lead.
E). Although Mr. Rolan did not inform Mr. Saklak of his previous instructions, it does not relieve Mr. Saklak of his supervisory responsibilities.
I l
F)
In consideration of the previous items, I elected to issue Mr. Saklak a written warning for poor conduct as a supervisor as the incident could have been handled in a professional I
r.anner without boisterous conversation, and threatening stater.ents of which Mr. Saklak has been previously spoken to about.
f WWuWG I. T. LeWald Quality Centrcl Manager n
i U IT?/s-cc: Fersonal File
~~ Mgr File 00M1594 t
l
- d. A. -
Comstock Engineering, Inc.
(
Memorandu Q 11
+
s I. DeWald Braidwood To:
g a'
L. G. Seese h ['.[Y 1,.s From g,.6 f-11/03/E4 Saklak Warning C.
3 3,, g
)A O*
Meeting in 1. LeWald's office ll/D/84
[
Frr.s e nt :
I. LeWald, R. Seltmann, C. !. ash K. Korthington, T. Simile, I. Seese Irv called all parties together to explain why a warning was issued. Irv explained the chain of command and how it was violated.
Irv stressed that you don't manage by finger pointing.
Irv states that in the case today he talked to all involved and made a management decision.
Irv states that he wanted to get everyone together and explain what happened.
Irv stresses that Rick was only over zealous.
m Tony says he is upset. He has seen inspectors given verbal (V) warnings for legitimate items, but Saklak gets a written warning.
Tony feels that Saklak may have been trying to cover Franco's butt.
Tony argues that with the union vote coming up people are feel:.ng their oats.
Irv and I tried to explain why we chose the course of acticn we took.
Seltmann says Saklak is not going to change.
Irv states, "You can chew a man out and get the results you want without yelling at him."
Seltmann says that yes, Rick gets mad and says thinos he shouldn't, but Franco should have been written up too.
Irv says that he called this meeting to explain his action. He does not expect everyone to agree with him.
Ken says he was in the room, but did not hear the words.
Tony asks of all the individuals that Rick has brought in for warnings, how many were not i'ssued.
Irv answers only Bill Bissett.
t 00U1595 L
- 2. IchM d,
- ;, n Saklak Warning
'(N Seltr. ann says he is tired of seeing Mike Blake coming back J
\\
from lunch before noon. Tony related a situation where Blake refused to take direction from him.
Irv wants these situations brought to him.
Seltmann says Saklak has a lot of growing up to do.
lak needs to deal with it.
Irv stresses that he is not out to burn Sahlak.
Q7 s 3 w //,.75-8 W t.otes Taken Byr ae L. G. Seese Assistant Quality Control.**.anager LGS /sm f
4 e
i t
e e
se,
(-
&Y O~ ~
L. K. Comstock Engineering Company, Inc.
M'emora ndu m RICK SAKLAK/ MIKE KAST FILES (PERSONNEL)
To; O fice: BRAIDWOOD T. F. CORCORAN From:
Subject:
PROCEDURE 4.1.3, PARA. 3.9.1 & 3.9.2 Date:
DECEMBER 21, 1982 REV. DATE 10/29/62 C0hTROL NO: 82-12-21-03 Requirements are not applicable to QC Supervisors as they do not apply because they are not performing inspections.
o T. F. Corcoran QC Manager TFC/tjm cc: files - personnel mlke gasT l
- Mua l Ex. #/4 3/.zg/86 C9 00011356
? hkkk e
~l j6x.4/5' 3/as'/gs s
p
+
A,.s. 6 e
'c e c,.=n ec. % n o,/
5.e
~2h hcu A., $
3 s+7"f, /f
'.v.". 7
/PJJ 0 $4 eT* h v/e w Y:' EA flA/.
~
k ra,/ A e. J&-08-2o-Y e
en $f $.'
/&
bb Y
.Y Sk f
$ lY e9 g
74 'a-
.s-ec7
/p e cc
/ n.-A,/ s 75-Q,,r,fN-.
Q u 2:an.,g rs-e s
. uc,,'
ss 77:, wes ' sya e-fs _, -Crec e.i:o, u
--'z'd~. put s
.<c~ =/ G~'d 4 M,,
/=</4.L.
n -- -r,~
n,a& rec /
rs-is 6
y~~~
/x' / 2 -Gs,w
,<4r rm:
r i.-
.>s s y 2't.o, o-s-s.
, $u.6VCE
- f =7E* TN l 73 eoje u ss
- ,rwxravif A7 sw
& 7:n r
.e-A G e u s-
/I-er 4G s~ s'
-a, m
,,<,ryae rion 7
.c --y
,~..,.; +,- -.,c,f s4,
/a. - p_, s,peo
- svz,r,.
~~ N7'Sy Qvs &p Gnv'/ze /,
S &a Egstsp 2., fua.,o k = c,,, g s.C'. $rdAr a.t PAcoAc/eney 4de a 7o'
- drn,r x
. cue 7,rsu
-7~csi A-
/~y // egg Sy~ c.c s Oss. Ass'.ces-AV s.si c Ag "F
e.- 8,'e n d r
.<s Ars-D R
=c ar,4,.n. a.s g,,-s ur Z;an r As,rM.
C9 000 1 W7 e
-rr w's.v,ra-<
/de
,a yr y ness w, a/
s: w nks 7%/. me. Dwx
.a.u.e.d,'2;,
's sSj/ea.
A n a., c s,' d. ~
. z n s.e ess y 4;g,. a.;.,
-x s c h.n.,,ac-sc (/-a ar rayecrae,). ?=a'up~ ~%.;sto t'sa=7w/ i<d' C. de
.cy-andues & c,.< eaa.ncd' cv r
,#4. ss~w. <,e ae' &
dy' a.p<,pxecd'W s.r.w rc r%
y e.e say /-e'va'.
r c~i. s 4 #i n.-re -s v '
. e. ank 'r, p y, a r.c p~./ A,e' />crem n,#.cgoau/c2/ ro,,oise,& 79!L n N
"L~
. i r
-4...
- ~
"L'-
- c w :. f e. 7,;r.
1 1
i
- c 7kra n ce p;d q
P-QxtxA:
7 x.%,& C
@M7 de/l,.Jfwfse 7
E " ' % d w o r /./ Z 4
1 00011&.3 I
00M5 %CX I:;3:::IIE!::0 ;C I'lA'.*.%.' 0 ; TOF
BF.A!OWOC
'::;;'.IAR STATIC:
n
/
\\
b Name:
R.
Saklak Fosition:
OC Supervisor f
Area of Certification:
Supervisor / Department Head Comments : fir. Saklak's performance over the past year has been very beneficial to the L.K. Comstock Quality Control Program and it's operation. He is an aegressive, energetic and ouality minded individual continually striving for a quality product. He is exceptionally knowledgeable of all areas in which he supervises, although he is not certified in every discipline. He is in the process of becoming qualified. Rick at times has to be reminded of assianments/ reports due and for being over zealous at times when supervising his sobordinates. Although the need for reminders has surfaced on various occasions, when discussed with Rick, thev apoeared to be received as constructive criticism and in a positive manner. With regard to the various reminders, Rick's positive attitude, coupled with his constructive thinkine, continually striving to better the Job, and his knowledge of both construction and Quality Control activities has been extremely beneficial to the QC Dept.
Rick is a pleasure to work with.
O e
1
(_/
1/4
/* S -83
' Signature Date QC Manager's Comments:
I i
l l
l 1
- EakIctRs gC sanager Date g
jllo C9 00011372 i
315/sb l
r I
" gk RF
~
Comstock Engineering, Inc.
- p, Memorandum G
To:
R. Saklak office: Braidwood From
- 1.. C. Seese
Subject:
r'al thration TCR ' a Date: 09/21/84 Centrol No.: 84-09-21-08 The attached two (2) ICR's completed by John Seeders were submitted to me for review. I can not approve them because they violate Procedure 4.11.2, Rev. B, Paragraph 3.2 in that Corrective Action Taken has been signed off prior to requesting an ICR number.
Please have this corrected and resubmit the ICR's to me for approval.
o,2-L. G. Seese Assistant Quality Control Manager LGS /tdr cc:
I. DeWald R. Seltmann QC Vault File 4
37 m wood 4.11.2
~ ~ -
L'. K. COMSTOCK O COMPANY. INC.
ra tt Dw:a. 4CN Curd;2CN EPCIC ll system No.
snt.
/
ce &
~
F cz:
M/
4~4
/f To r A (/
/
RITIF.IN3 Spec.No.[~Mf[d y No.
da Reviewed by Procedure No.
/ -~ (
Quality Control Manager
/
or Designee Other
/'
locationh{ &/h Y f $ $ # $ W S N R W N W $ N Jers o/=. Afsr C40kn77a+' &/6 -W, Description d
[M MM AI MMM cf 7-.9'-F 4 Cow /"k R d g gg)gf ghC. fA fsse wsx f"/fW Date Correctise Ac~. ion aken-stes;4k 4 /be/tx7wcl a sAe % sy7 Av r* ut.cel rat Tfic fixtJ KnieK M of M s 7~ r At C J s + 71s Y.
Action Completed
[ww, N#s#
Date [-//-ff Construcu on Representa uve Corrective Action Cannot Be Completed Because i
O Date construction Representauve Recomunended Corrective Action Comstock Engineer Date l
Client Dispositions q
Date Client Representative g
Verification by QC:
Accepted ( )
~
Not Accepted ( )
Explain Action To se Taken For Action Not Accepted:
Close out:
Date Qualary Centrol Representative
]
00014218 Pat *44Ee AppmovEo
- E VISt o Taft E o msc. o ATE RE VISION FORM.
U PROCEDURE 5/2/79 ifs 94 39
Ok
- ER ALDWOOD 4.9.1 L. K. COMSTOCK Cm COMPANY,INC.
Braidwood Nuclear Pswsr Plant MISSING TOOL REPORT.
ATE OF REPO"4T /
k-Ti OF TOOL MISSING
[d'// / / 8 COMSTOCK TOOL NO.
It A //Y7 8RANO h,[ /{f,.
f- ((- [
DATE MISSED AREA TOOL MISSING FROM L-v g
[m
((/
REMARKS h
M pm NERA OREMAN FOREMAN Rev.10/11/82 Form No. 45 lO O
00014213 y
~
3DM 4 11 2
. L. K. COMSTOCK O COMPANY. INC.
QAtE Diwwx1CM Cw.a ;.2CE EEKQC Sys*em M
No.
Sh t.
l ct Trca::ddA/
IC,[8 To:
M RITI?.IN3
,,.=. ~. /.7 71s y no.
n+
Reviewed by Procedure No.
h, f /
Quality Control Manager A//,#
1 or Designee Other WillW bd) A/07 fMd2 7 C4/iksnk fxf'r8 sis Alc2's-A astd rai ner Mr4 1
- a. ~
-~,-n.
h{
h
$f hS hfI/N8ElW'ff$)
location
!f dCI A/
b
==
Description:==
C
((8 I
M Y-P M #b A'
-/
+<<:/Q4
/> vic B kesd
~
f ~~/ Y
/.
1 Date p&fg'~ ),
Q C.
W smmt remAsrsd w arx u.sisd rw de Aisu Jiva
.I Corrective Action Taken:
A.t wt af Ls.r r tstr M4 Dw.
Action Completed h,b Date 9- / 7 it
' Construcuan Representative Corrective Action Cannot Be Completed Because l N/g
~
~
i Date J-..-...
,t.dASa. fe-tOA)
So I
~
Recomunended Cor
-/
Igs.F 08 d [MIO.
Comstock Enginee /S NC
/N MMS /4.
Date use 419hele su Client Dispositj /[ /d a 4840-g j
l
' & Je' J rfasY,1kb Cfo,::x,vaPaoc40de-s d 4 ^'
l l
Verification by Not Accepted ( )
Explain Action To Be Taken For Action Not Accepted:
l Cicse out:
Da*e Quality Centrol Representative C9000h.;220 O
I Patmanto appaovto ar ve5En TsTLE omic.oATE REvl380N FORMg PROCEDURE 5/2/79 1/3 34 33
.w-
..u
% a $rrnsse fd
$-/7f /
.r -
e
~.
$ $1AMM Al=dat
$ kimsar i
n 7._,
&, U 11 M 1,..
s _.,, -
G rM 11 der r>>>a ' s s >>rm- *Ym~* Ma
- 11 =ss Assn Aarsmr
~ A/A f se M Y '2 V A sstr #A7/Ald TD A *' =)7 aldfAF.=D12sf/
1
.u-A'*'abr 1st m odtf 'pn >$nt.
/, Mr &
n
.1% =v 1AJ /A A
- 2&slAf 11Ah'afd Afy/mWL W1AAD Aln2/Mr ~~ J7 1
muse sim :>ia,,uw &Lin <,r-rim ra A>>a 1.1/tAf $nsul est Ar></ A/1//1) JOA 9r_12712).Sn M r_d*. J/K n..
W1.l_ < O A/Y DN//2lJN)n W A blWhW
_ YAAF W
[*
noin.<asua,are.a - --,.fs m =
fY
~
AAoista.r' *))1~.t" fir 1,/ 1)r/A=9s sfs4 n ior am,s =r eat rsars rir TAfI4 stiftf BA'i ssals>>W Aldif)_ *0Jnsdenal11a/D akek*
A'Asafnf F f d
l 21sss srain;errn A4 mi m14 !
~
f
& Arised / h Af/>
&M_4 A.e) 'J J_L W.
/12 YAnr >J-som1,rn >*i_B<=r
->>e Lisss) 2nis diss n $)y l
s f 1)nlast As* A B'/Dibildt m TALF rh 92// - - ^ T. ennsra*
. l gwassnot alNdH M JM s<! ds*re ser.cs 'neres/sen AA Asses > iM2 > > m M hf A L6Ab.anscrik nfj.t) on f ?YW l.-Sow'}tt $119sIA.!dD TNAf NI!J a e'.a z*eam <-a p y Sarscame mar M P.
n.- ewe av.waw sessve -
AdA) Onto m =ars are 12^ % tb RJI4 _=HaftH TA> $_ $*lO*$$f
=
C'.
/
N m,-n> a w s,,-i~<vr x m i
>-.rAisi,-e,wr 1
ma.a-rw.an'ia.w m n m son a m. ~~
w u-
~ > c. iaAnt l
~ b 'v4 M Disr'e,gensk dirA'
&,c <*A b &, s W44/&D r
n-in ~_,n -,.,, w.
\\
v4Rr Anstub ro 'ns pocE
~- -, -.
~
% {*.
~
F.nl t 'l e.
1.
& M HMMOCD ds'$ N7elTC3 /Al W UYYd4Eff*W sb,i l av:.en,= Sq0;,$mccue, n.oHef HE taes #^F
. Touu,v.uv ade wc. ass s.sca.an.s.u.c av rxt raner.. Oootsyy t
C9
- %.R k k ibs N 3 Nnho
, v-,
u-,.
awas pas ras psudes psf,s anew. hua cespam.mez rar s. - -.- m
,-.s~.....L.
~
- ~_
,, man,,, _.
?
n rx 12 < :/,~ -> - w a1 L n;n-m av % u, m i) 11 M K.*TA T1 M fD 130adi t>& n seswitzn m,
,w n nia-nn, so su.,aroanu,. ~%a> ~ aar is ro O
lA h
}Y k h A Arf 1/$
YJ Y
b'* A ^2 W
~
5
$W WOf2S 21% MMa.tA fb =ratX %
r
~l
%s m n i,* a a r - i s i r n o n 12Le D ie L, n u e r-
.c nLsun n war rn.c =.--> sirrxa>l usa;w - n
- c. y u :,,
5.
d.0d nnA L)f f*+4 14 Sw 99Y)d2_'a t)F F2m r.tsna n-
E w
- 9 s%*, W h AM Od s&
$$ W Alld,s. )
bedA) % E DABY9&hr.
I 6s._ w*rwnk &as m. sw><run
~r, Aer ise mm. ro so m en k t r.. mit M.rus J. L//1 M cosem <rrine rne ir is an,- ~nr
--r ?La,*.,
-n><z o,e a,sa s ua p o ~ n u.
> n er>.
u u. a (hn(Aoruon#
sw nrsED
>n1
-rur
.c, rw nrsww inJ n m w L s e n,n aJ w,u,r:+
v.
M M*
Kt Th8"#1thsM TP3 h = % ALIrWC..a/r 4
- 1w f'h irwr ma M MV-
%W/le.bhe - ---==
m;m, moem,
-,rn m e n-s ou t3,.
-=,..- w_c n.
s..
si m e s. u,.. s - --,
w..
t.
I g.s..
.m A, h.N % * '
- 1..e I.
,, _. - m.a
~
l c G s..
e.5 %..
i.
l_..
. w.
wx co,.
wa s r, s.
ws..
m_.
.v..
- s.. '.
7
=
- m.
i
.~swa. u..
Y t...
c w
u-....-
y-c9,po14213 f
h*W s 7*
4.
- s
.t l'
e h
$%. S v.
. e... w D 4.h t=. s O ss*,
.<v c
S.,
e 6 e i.
,... a,..
)
..v
.e D
9 6
k
br Contrary to Criterion I, " Organization" of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, and 10 C.F.R. Section 50 7, Commonwealth Edison Company and its electrical contractor, L.K. Comstock Engineering Company haye failed to provide sufficient authority and organiza-tional freedom and Jndependence from cost and sche-dule as opposed to safety considerations to permit the effective identification of and correction of quality and safety significant deficiencies.
Systematic and widespread harassment, intimidation, retaliation and other discrimination has been direc-ted against Comstock QC inspectors and other employ-ees who express safety and quality concerns by Comstock management.
Such misconduct discourages the identification and correction of deficiencies in safety related components and systems at the Braidwood Station.
Instances of harassment and intimidation include
[at least the following):
1.
[At various times since at least August 1984,3 more than twenty five (25) Comstock QC inspectors have complained to the NRC in March 1985 73 about harassment and intimidation by Comstock super-t i
visors.
Such harassment and intimidation has been
\\/
carried out or participated in by QC Manager Irv DeWald, [ Assistant QC Manager Larry Seese, QA Manager Bob Seltman) and QC Supervisor R.M. Sakalac.
Such harassment included widespread pressure to approve deficient work, to sacrifice quality for production and cost considerations and to knowingly violate established quality procedures.
Harassment and
. retaliatory treatment included threats of violence, verbal abuse, termination of employment, transfer to undesirable jobs or work in areas where quality deficiencies could not be noted, assignments to perform burdensome or menial "special projects" and other adverse treatment.
Such discriminatory action was taken because of the victim's expression of quality or safety concerns.
Former Level II QC inspector John D. Seeders has knowledge of these widespread instances of harassment.
By letter of August 17, 1984, Seeders complained to the NRC, Edison and Comstock management regarding instances of harassment directed against him.
Subsequently, Mr.
Seeders was involuntarily transferred to the position of Engineering Clerk in retaliation for his e'xpression of quality concerns.
Such assignment was intended by Comstock to keep Mr. Seeders away from sensitive work areas.
Although QC Supervisor R.M.
i kkkK
! 6.h 3
j 3lM/%
/
Sakalac was finally terminated in 1985 for his mis-treatment of QC inspectors and other misconduct, the effects of his harassment remain uncorrected [and systematic harassment continues at Comstock to the present).
The existence of widespre~ad harassmeng impugns the integrity and effectiveness of on-going corrective action programs designed only to address other widespread QA failures at Comstock.
[As stated in Mr. Seeder's affidavit, these Comstock QC inspec-tors are eager to cooperate with the licensing board in identifying and correcting the harassment problems at Comstock, but require board protection from retaliation in order to provide testimony and docu-mentation of their harassment.]
2.
Comstock management, including QC Manager Irv DeWald and Corporate QA Manager Bob Marino harassed, discriminated and retaliated against, and ultimately terminated Level III OC Inspector Worley O. Puckett because Mr. Puckett made numerous complaints about safety and quality deficiencies
~
which he identified in the course of his duties at Braidwood.
Mr. Puckett was hired by Comstock in May 1984 in the newly created position of Level III QC Inspector
/~
whose duties included conducting a review of Comstock
( )l procedures, tests requirements for the more than 50 Level II QC Inspectors, review of the Level II's inspection work, and the resolution of inspection disputes.
Mr. Puckett was highly qualified with 20 years' nuclear Navy and nine years' nuclear power experience.
See, Resume, Exhibit B.
During the course of his employment with Comstock Mr. Puckett was shocked by the widespread deficiencies in procedures, qualifications and workmanship.
He identified numerous instances of improper construc-tion procedures, improper qualification of welders, and material traceability deficiencies.
He ultimate-ly recommended a complete stop work order for all welding activity to permit effective corrective action.
See, Memos of August 10 and August 17, 1984, Exhibits C and D.
Finally, he warned QC Manager Irv DeWald that "we are approaching a complete breakdown in our QC program."
August 22, 1984 Memo, Exhibit E.
Puckett was subjected to harassment and retaliation because i
he raised these safety and quality concerns and was l
terminated on August 27, 1984 by DeWald on the l
pretext that he should have scored higher than his 86% on a qualification test.
He filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor, alleging violation of the employee protection provisions of the Energy 4
e
Reorganization Act, 42 USC 5851.
Letter, September 5, 1984, Exhibit F.
The U.S. Department of Labor i
Area Director sustained Mr. Puckett's complaint finding unlawful discrimination by Comstock against Puckett and ordered relief.
Notes of Decision, November 6, 1984, Exhibit G.
Mr. Puckett presented his case at a hearing before an Administrative Lapr Judge on Comstock's appeal.
See, Complainants' Pre-Hearing Exchange, Exhibit H.
Comstock settled Mr.
Puckett's claim before putting on its case.
The terms of settlement are subject to a non-disclosure agreement between Comstock and Mr. Puckett.
I en 1
O i
5 T i l i
.