ML20199C975
| ML20199C975 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 01/29/1986 |
| From: | Snyder R BESTCO, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20199C974 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8606180451 | |
| Download: ML20199C975 (327) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:r - I 1 ERI y C) 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g DOCTITED Q 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING B D , 4 "\ DCCIETING & I8 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x h{ [$$$c
/
N 6 In the matter of: : Docket Nos. 50- 56 7 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY : 50-457 8 (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, : 9 Units 1 and 2) : 10 ------------------x 11 Braidwood Nuclear Power Station 12 Division Street, Route 53 a
; 13 Braceville, Illinois 60407 t_/
14 Wednesday, January 29, 1986 15 16 Deposition of: RICHARD SNYDER 17 called for examination by Counsel for the Licensee, 18 Commonwealth Edison, pursuant to notice, taken before Garrett 19 J. Walsh, a Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of 20 ------------------------------- 21 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 22 1625 I Street, N.W. 293-3950 Washington, D.C. 8606180451 860616 PDR ADOCK 0:2000456 T PDR
2 1 Virginia, when were present on behalf of the respective O 2 parties: 3 4 APPEARANCES: 5 For the Licensee Commonwealth Edison Company 6 ELENA Z. KEZELIS, ESQ. 7 Isham, Lincoln & Beale 8 Three First National Plaza 9 Chicago, Illinois 60602 10 11 For the Intervenors BPI, et al.: 12 ROBERT GUILD, ESQ. ( ) 13 109 North
Dearborn,
Suite 1300 14 Chicago, Illinois 60602 15 16
- 17 18 19 j 20 i
- 21 22 0
1 l _ . - . , _ _ . _ , ,._._.,_..__.___.._,.....,_...__,,_..m_ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . . __ , _ . - . . . _ _ , _ . - . _ _ _ _ _ -
3 1 CONTENTS 2 3 Witness: Examination by: Page: 4 RICHARD SYNDER Ms. Kazelis 4, 155, 158 5 Mr. Guild 109, 157 6 *** 7 EXHIBTS Page: 8 Exhibit No. 2: 14 9 Series of documents from the NRC with a cover 10 letter from Charles Weil to Richard Synder dated 11 11/8/85 and an attachment dated 11/4/85. 12
) 13 Exhibit No. 3: 39 14 A Calibration Audit Report dated 9/7/84 15 consisting of 27 pages.
16 17 Exhibit No. 4: 59 18 A Comstock Engineering, Inc. memorandum from 19 I.F. DeWald dated 9/25/85. 20 21 Exhibit No. 5 71 22 Comstock memorandum to Irve DeWald dated 3/28/85. l O
n 4 1 PROCEEDINGS O 2 [9:02 a.m.] 3 Whereupon, 4 RICHARD SNYDER, 5 was called as a witness, and having first been duly sworn, 6 testified as follows: 7 DIRECT EXAMINATION 8 BY MS. KEZELIS: 9 Q Will you state your name, and spell your last name 10 for the record? 11 A Richard Snyder, S-n-y-d-e-r. 12 Q Mr. Snyder, what is your residence address? () 13 A 100 Lanten Drive, Gardner, Illinois, 60424. 14 Q Thank you. My name is Elena Kozelis, and I am one 15 of the attorneys for Commonwealth Edison Company, the 16 Applicant in the Braidwood licensing proceeding. 17 Have you ever given a deposition? l 18 A No. 19 Q If at any time you either don't hear me, or don't 20 understand my question, please tell me and I will try to speak 21 up more loudly, or try to rephrase the question, okay? 22 Also, I request that you answer each question O
5 1 audibly so that the Court Reporter can take down your 2 response. He cannot take down shakes and nods of the head. Is 3 that understood? 4 A Right. 5 Q Mr. Snyder, by whom are you employed? 6 A BESTCO right now, I suppose it would be. They are 7 the ones that pay me, so we are loaned out to Comstock, I 8 guess is the situation right now. 9 Q When did you become employed by BESTCO? 10 A July 24th I believe, 1985, was the day I believe. 11 Somewhere within a day or so. 12 Q That sounds about right. And prior to that time you
) 13 were employed by Comstock?
14 A Yes, ma'am. 15 Q Was that Comstock Engineering? i 16 A Yes, ma'am. l 17 Q When did you become employed by Comstock 18 engineering? 19 A 7/2/84 was my first day. 20 Q At the Braidwood site? 21 A Yes. 22 Q And in what capacity were you employed by Comstock O L
6 1 in 1984? 2 A At a level II inspector. 3 Q QC inspector? 4 A Yes, ma'am. 5 Q And is that what you are today with BESTCO? 6 A Yes, ma'am. 7 Q In what areas were you certified during your 8 employment with Comstock? 9 A First, I believe was receipt inspection, 10 calibrations, concrete expansion anchors, and cable pulling 11 was right in there between BESTCO and Comstock. 12 Q Can you give me a rough estimate as to when you 13 obtained the certifications? 14 A Yes. As I think about it, I was certified in receipt 15 calibrations at the same time, because I trained in that 16 order, because that was 10/8/84, I believe, was my certified 17 date by Commonwealth Edison. And took from 7/2 to 10/8 to get 18 me certified. 19 But during that time period I trained in the three 20 areas and got certified all at once. 21 Q Okay. And what about cable pulling if you recall? 22 A No, ma'am, I really don't. I don't work in that O
4 7 1 area, and it is just in the back of my head and I can't really l 2 say. 3 Let's see. It was probably early '85. I don't 4 really know. l l 5 Q Was it before the time that you became employed by 6 BESTCO? I 7 A I believe it was, but it was -- it is vague there, I 8 like I said. 9 Q Once you became certified in receipts, calibrations, i ! 10 and CEA, can you tell me approximately how much of your time I 11 was allocated upon each of those areas? 12 A Yeah. Very little in receiving and CEAs. It seemed ( 13 like I had a background in calibrations, and I didn't know at . 14 the time that is where I was going to end up. e l 15 But that is where I did land, and the other three 16 certification areas I haven't used extensively. l 17 Q so, you would say that since you became certified in l 18 the calibration area, that is where you have spent the ! 19 majority of your time? l 20 A Yes, ma'am. I 21 Q And what was your background experience in 22 calibrations before you came to constock? iO i t _ _ , , . , , _ . . , , . , , _ _ . , , _ _ _ , , _ , _ , - . , , , , _ - _ , . _ . _ . _,_n.., ,n.,,_. _.-
4 8 1 A I had four months training at my last job, Marble v 2 Hill. That was it. 3 Q Were you certified at Marble Hill? l 4 A No. I took six months down there, and the job shut 5 down, so I didn't get to certify. 6 Q What was your position at Marble Hill before the i' 7 shut down? 8 A I was Level II receipt inspector.
- 9 Q And how long have you been in that capacity?
10 A I hired in there December of '81, and I was a { 11 trainee, so I worked through the training process, a Level I 12 process and finally a Level II. I am thinking August of '84
! 13 probably was my Level II cert and receipt inspection.
14 Q Okay. Mr. Snyder, let me show you what has been j 15 marked for identification as Snyder Deposition Exhibit No. 1, 16 and I will state for the record that is a copy of a subpoena 17 which I believe was served on you on or about November 24, 18 1985. 19 Do you recall receiving a copy of that subpoena on 20 or about that date? 21 A Yes, ma'am, I got it through the mail -- excuse me, 22 it was delivered to the house. My wife was home. O
9 1 Q Okay. And I direct your attention now to the last 2 page of that subpoena, which requests you to bring with you 3 today any type of document, if any. Do you have any such 4 documents in you.r possession? 5 A The only documents I have is what I received in the 6 mail through BPI and NRC, and everything in there is all I 7 have. 8 I don't have anything on the side other than what I 9 received in the mail, and I wasn t sure if I should bring it, 10 but that is all I have. 11 Q Do you want to take a look at it? That is probably 12 everything that is responsive to the request in the subpoena. () 13 14 A I figured that those were public records and so forth, and everyone would have them already, but I think I 15 have them in chronological order from the top to the bottom 16 here. 17 Here is my copy of the -- 18 Q I would like the record to reflect that this is a 19 copy of a letter from me to Mr. Snyder, November 22, 1985, and 20 I will state for the record that I filed a copy of that letter 21 with the licensing board and parties, together with the 22 subpoena that Mr. Snyder received. O
i 10 l 1 Mr. Snyder is also producing an April 8, 1985 cover 2 letter from Charles H. Weil, W-e-i-1 of the NRC to Mr. Snyder, 3 together with an inspection report dated April -- excuse me, 4 together with a memorandum dated April 5, 1985, and it 5 consists of six pages and the allegation data input sheet from 6 the NRC, March 29, 1985. Memorandum from McGregor, resident 7 inspector at Braidwood. It is a multi-page document, and 8 another March 29, 1985 memo on NRC letterhead from 9 Mr. McGregor and Mr. Schultz, a four page document. 10 The next set of documents Mr. Snyder has produced is 11 an envelope bearing BPI letterhead, and let me ask you, 12 Mr. Snyder, on the bottom of this envelope in red letters the
) 13 words are written Urgent, Immediate Attention Required.
14 Can you tell me whether that is in your handwriting 15 or not? 16 A No, ma'am. That apparently was on there when I 17 received it in the mail. I didn't write that there. I 18 Q okay. So, in other words that handwriting was on 19 this document when you received it. 20 A Yes. l 21 MR. GUILD: Suspicious looking handwriting. 22 MS. KEZELIS: Maybe we will ask Mr. Guild. l lO
11 1 MR. GUILD: No. My handwriting is bad, but not like 2 that. 3 BY MS. KEZELIS: 4 Q And enclosed in that envelope is a letter dated July 5 26, 1985, on BPI letterhead to Mr. Snyder. It is a three page 6 document and it is co-signed by both Bob Guild and Doug 7 Cassel, together with a photocopy of 42 USCS, Section 5851, 8 Employee Protection, together with a three page document 9 captioned Harassment Contention as Admitted by ASLB Board,
'10 7/23/85, together with an April 5, 1985 NRC meno from Charles 11 Weil for Charles Norelius, N-o-r-e-1-i-u-s.
12 The next set of documents Mr. Snyder produced are ( ) 13 contained in a BPI envelope, und the first document in that 14 package is a meno dated October 16, 1985, on BPI letterhead, 15 addressed to present and former Comstock QC Inspectors, from l 16 Bob Guild and Doug Cassel regarding confidentiality. 17 Immediately following that document is the
- l l
18 memorandum and order of October 4, 1985, issued by the Atomic 2 19 Safety and Licensing Board in the Braidwood licensing i 20 proceeding. t j 21 The next set of documents is contained in an l l 22 envelope bearing BPI letterhead. i l O l I
12 1 The first document in that package is a September 2 27, 1985 letter on BPI letterhead to Mr. Richard Snyder, 3 co-signed by Bob Guild and Doug Cassel, and the document 4 immediately following that is a photocopy of an L. K. Comstock 5 Read and Reply Memo dated March 29, 1985, to Irv DeWald 6 regarding Rick Saklak argument, signed by Mr. Richard Snyder 7 and others. Bates stamp 5200001582. 8 Immediately following that is a series of documents 9 on Comstock Engineering letterhead, as well as without 10 letterhead with Bates stamp numbers. The last four numbers 11 are 1597, and I believe the first four numbers are 0000. The 12 next document is Bates stamped 1598. ( ) 13 The next document is Bates stamped 1584, 1585, and 14 probably 1586. 15 The next document is on Comstock Engineering l 16 letterhead. It is a memorandum dated April 1, 1985, Bates j 17 stamp number 5200001578, 1579, 1580, 1581, 1574, 1575, 1572, i 18 1573, and then a document which is not Bates stamped, but is l l 19 captioned, Index To Richard Snyder File. i [ 20 The next document in this package is another of l 21 several Comstock Engineering memorandum, Bates stamped l 22 5200001574, and 1575. 1572, 1573. I l l lO l k
13 1 The documents immediately thereafter are a series of 2 pleadings filed in the Braidwood licensing proceeding, and 3 they are the Intervenors' notion for confidential treatment of 4 eleven QC inspector names. Intervenors' notion for 5 confidential treatment of respective quality assurance 6 witnesses. Commonwealth Edison Company's response in 7 opposition to Intervenors' notion for confidential treatment 8 of prospective quality assurance witnesses, and these three 9 pleadings are dated respectively August 2, 1985, September 4, 10 1985, and September 16, 1985. 11 The last set of documents which Mr. Snyder has 12 brought with him today is a series of documents from the 13 . Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with a cover letter from 14 Charles Weil to Mr. Richard Snyder, dated November 8, 1985, 15 and the attachment to that document appears to be the November 16 4, 1985 NRC inspection reports that were 8521 and 8522. 17 Mr. Snyder, are those the only documents that you 18 have in your possession that may be responsive to the request 19 for production of documents from you attached to your 20 subpoena? 21 A Yes, ma'am. 22 MS. KEZELIS: All right. And I will ask the court O
14 1 reporter to mark this series of documents as Snyder Deposition 2 Exhibit No. 2. 3 (Above mentioned documents are marked 4 Snyder Group Deposition Exhibit No. 2, 5 for identification.) 6 I am not going to mark my November 22, 1985 letter 7 to you, which is stapled to the subpoena, Mr. Snyder, because 8 all the parties do have a copy of that, and it has been filed 9 with the licensing board. 10 When we take a short break, I will have these 11 documents photocopied, and we will return the originals to 12 you, and these documents will be attached to the transcript. 13 BY MS. KEZELIS: 14 Q Mr. Snyder, Group Deposition Exhibit No. 2 includes 15 a letter dated July 26, 1985, to you from BPI. Can you tell 16 me if you recall, sir, whether you spoke to either Mr. Bob 17 Guild or Mr. Doug Cassel by telephone some time around the 18 time period in which you received that letter? 19 A I was contacted by -- I am not sure who. I won't 20 say. I can't remember names. I am terrible on names, but it 21 was a BPI representative or lawyer or whatever, and -- by 22 phone, and talked with him. O
1 15 1/ Q Can you tell me roughly when that was? s 2 A Not really. I -- yog know, it was after the --
- 3 excuse me, the March 28th incident, but I couldn't be sure. I
, j l 4 couldn't istate a date. I,re' ally have no idea. 'I didn't keep 5 recorda of conversations like that, because I didn't ever 6 think there would be to my benefit to keep those records. I 7 didn't think I would be required to know those dates. 8 Q That i~s quite all right. Do you recall whether that 9 was before or after you r'aceived the July 26, 1985 package? 10 A .It was probably before that, I would say. That is a
<3.
11 , - guess again, but I wedld say it was tofore. '
. 12 /Q Can you recall what the BPI representativa said to
~ 13 you or what you said i:o nia?, ,
14 A I think thap'apparently had heard about the 15 incident, and wanted to maybe hear my input. . 16 IEealizeIwasn'tunderanypressuhetotell 17 anything, and I didn' t'have to tell anything. They were just 18 concerned I think about any harassment or intimidations here 19 on the site. - 20 Q Do you recall whether they told you how they heard 21 x.- about the incident? , c .- 2'2 A I think I was told,it was public record type thing p! > p . 4
. .' L - ,, . _ - - . -- - - - - - . _ _ . - , _ _ _.-... - ._ :~ _, __ -
l 16 1 that the FRC menos could be obtained through publicly -- I am 2 sure it is not broadcasted, but somebody who knew how to go 3 about it could get the records. 4 Q Are you recollecting at this point what the BPI 5 representative said to you, or are you bringing up 6 speculation? 7 A I am almost positive that I was told that through 8 channels they could obtain the information that we gave at the 9 NRC meeting. i 10 Q The March 29, 1985 meeting? 11 A Yes. ! 12 Q Do you recall what you said to the BPI 13 representative? 14 A No more than what I had said. The way he had talked 15 to me that he already knew what we had said, and I had nothing 16 really further to say other than what I said there. 17 I may have went back through what I said at the NRC 18 meeting, but I think there were some other people mentioned, 19 now that I recall. Other inspector names that he might have 20 mentioned that were at the meeting, the NRC meeting, and try 21 to find out mayb'e what their allegations were or what kind of 22 problems they had, which I had no idea really. I don't work O
- - - - -- ,n. -. ,.- --, . . - - , .. ,. .-
l l 17 l l 1 with them guys on a daily basis, and I don't know what their 2 jobs are. 3 Q And the names that were mentioned, were these the 4 individuals who were present with you in the morning NRC visit 5 on March 29th? 6 A I think most of them were the afternoon meeting. 7 The guys that went with me in the morning were -- I don't 8 know, guys that had problems too, and this thing was coming to 9 a head here, and I didn't want to take the whole job with me. 10 I just felt like I didn't want to go by myself 11 either, so that is the reason they went with me. 12 Q You are talking about the other five that went with () 13 you? 1 14 A Yes. 15 Q Do you recall the next telephone conversation that j 16 you had with a BPI representative? l 17 A I really can't. I may have gotten another call, and 18 again, my memory is not the best for eight months ago or 19 whatever, but I may be trying to say what happened. If I did 20 have two conversations, I might be trying to recall both of 21 them and say one conversation, so maybe I did receive the 22 second call, but I can't even say what was mentioned. I don't O I . . _ _ .-- .- . . . . _.
18 1 know. 2 Q Are you certain in your mind whether or not you had 3 more than one telephone conversation? 4 A I am not certain, but I more than likely probably 5 did. I know a l't o of people were contacted more than once. I
, 6 may, after I think about it, I never thought about this too 7 much until now.
8 I may have received a second call. What that 9 conversation was I have no idea. i 10 Q Can you recall anything else that was said or 11 discussed at any telephone conversation that you may have had 12 with BPI representatives? ( ) 13 A Well, I think we did. Management was discussed. i 14 One of these conversations. Whether it was.the first or the 15 second or which one or whatever, but I may have stated that. 16 I thought a lot of the problem was management problems. That 17 is where we were having the problems. I didn't feel like 18 management was keeping up with us as far as growing with the l 19 inspectors that we were getting on site, and in a job that was 20 being inspected, it didn't seem like management was taking up 21 their load. 22 Q In what respect did you feel that management, and by O l
i 19' m 1 management I assume you mean Comstock? 2 A Comstock management. 3 Q Which individuals do you include in that category? 4 A I would say Irv DeWald number one. I suppose No. 2 5 was probably Rich Saklak, although Larry Seese was in between those two, but Larry didn't seen -- he )cuaw what was going on 6 7 but his hands were tied too. He could only do so much. He 8 was kind of in a status department I think. He really had not 9 auch authority as far as running the program. 10 Q Is that what you mean when you say, " status 11 department?" 12 A They just kept trt 't of paperwork more or less. () 13 Q Mr. Seese did? 14 A Yes. His title might have been assistant manager, 15 but I could go to him with a problem and maybe get an answer, 16 but I think the main problem was our manager, Irv DeWald, and 17 then Rich Saklak. 18 At the time I hired in, he was the only supervisor 19 that Comstock had, and I think there were sixty some 20 inspectors when I hired in, and I have been in a lot of 21 different areas of inspection, and there is just really no way 22 that one man can take charge of all those areas, and know what O f
20 1 is going on all the time. 2 Q In what respect did you feel that Mr. DeWald was 3 letting you down? 4 A Well, didn't communicate, I think, right with ! 5 people. We did have weekly meetings, but it was a cut and dry 6 thing and you never got the feeling that he was -- maybe never 7 managed people before. Because he stayed in his office and I 8 know he had a lot of work to do, but that is the only place he 9 would be, you know. 10 of course, you could go see him, I suppose, if you 11 had a problem, but you were supposed to go through the 12 channels which would have been the supervisor and he just () 13 never gave me the impression that he had handled a large group 14 of people; managed a large group of people. 15 I know it is a tough job.. i 16 Q Were those the type management problems you 17 discussed with the BPI representative? 18 A I think so. It was just a morale thing. People were 19 unhappy about different things, you know. Everybody has their 20 own little disagreements I suppose, but it just didn't seem . 21 like they were organized when I hired in. 22 I came from one job onto this one, and it didn't
- - , - - , , , - . . _ _ . - - - , _ , - - , _ , , , ._...n,e..
, 21 1 seem like this was flowing the way it should be, you know. 2 One minute you would have a letter or something say do it this ) 3 way, and then you turn around and they say do it this way, the 4 same day. And you just never could get into one mode where 5 -you were going ahead. 6 It was just nobody knew, you know. 7 Q And what types of letters are this that you are 8 talking about? 9 A I should say memos. Certain ways to do things 10 maybe. How to do a job, or how to go about doing something ^ 11 and then they would turn around and you do it the opposite, or 12 -- you know, in another memo. Just basically that type of () 13 thing, where they tell you to do one thing, and then turn 14 arcund and tell you to do another. 15 Q Were these L. K. Comstock procedures that you are 16 talking about, inspection procedures? 17 A No, I don't think it was procedure wise. They were 18 pretty cut and dried, you know. You do what is there in black 19 and white until something tells you different, but I think a 20 lot of the procedures are vague and still are. You will hear 21 that from a lot of the inspectors, that you can't really go 22 out and do the job right per procedure only. You have to have O
22 1 some training, which we all have to have anyway, but to go -- 2 what I always thought a procedure should say is tell you 3 exactly how to do the job, because that is all you have to 4 work to, but a lot of them weren't that way. 5 Weren't written that way, and so it leaves a lot of 6 vagueness and people don't -- one person can interpret it this 7 way and the other one can interpret it this way, so it is up 8 to the manager, I guess, in the end to say which way was 9 right, but it may be too late for the guy that wasn't doing it 10 the right way per the manager or per whoever would interpret 11 it. 12 Q Let's back up a minute. When you mention the memos () 13 that would come out, one memo would tell you to do something 14 one way, and then on another day another memo would come out 15 telling you to do something another way. 16 Give me any specific examples. 17 A I can't right off the top of my head. I was 18 speaking kind of general there, but that is basically what was ! 19 happening. It wasn't every day, but you know, it was just 20 confusion, I should call it, that we really didn't know what 21 was going on all the time, like you think you should know. 22 Q Can you recall what time frame you were receiving l
l l l 23 ! l 1 these letters or memos? 2 A Well, the first six months of mine I would say were 3 the most confusing part. Not that I didn't -- I was new, yes, 4 but I could look around and see people that had been there for 5 about two or three years and still were maybe uncertain of 6 some things, you know, that you would think they should know. 7 The training of the people themselves, or communication, you 8 know. It just wasn't there that I feel like it should be. 9 Q Mr. Snyder, I am going to ask you to give me 10 specific examples of these generalizations you have just been 11 mentioning to me. Can you give me a specific example of the 12 type of letter or memo that you were talking about? () 13 A Well, you know, they would just -- whenever we were 14 told to do things different, it comes out in a memorandum to 15 the inspectors. Everyone gets one. 16 Q Okay. What kind of things are memorialized in 17 memoranda that come out to the inspectors that would tell you 18 how to do something? 19 A Okay, okay, I can think of one. The ICRs we write, 20 and I don't know when this actually happened. It has happened l 21 two or three times, but we write inspection correction reports 22 for deficiency found in the field, and there is a flow that O
24 1 1 1 that paperwork goes through. l (')
-/
It goes to a clerk, and then she 2 spreads it out, but the memo would say we are going to do it 1 3 this way. We are going to turn these ICRs into Jackie, our 4 ICR clerk. She is going'to give us numbers for them, for our 5 hold tags, and we take the tag back to the field. 6 Well, a day later or two days later, they would come 7 back and say that we hang the whole tag -- we write the ICR , 8 we hang the whole tag, we go to Jackie and she would give us a 9 number -- you know, it is just -- well, that is the only thing 10 really that can stick in my mind, because ICRs, it has been 11 changed two or three times, and I realize the first time you 12 know isn't always the best time, you know, and everybody is () 13 subject to change, but just this kind of confusion, you know, 14 and -- 15 Q ICRs are governed by what procedure in Comstock? 16 A 411.1 I believe is the ICR. 17 Q Do you remember which one is the NCRa? 18 A 411.2. Now, what is said in the procedure, I 19 couldn't say, you know, at this time, but that was the type of 20 confusing memorandums or whatever. It might have been in a 21 general meeting, too, that just told us to do it this way 22 now. After you had done it this way for a couple of days, now i O
4 25 1 you do it this way, and I realize they were trying to get as () 2 good system going, and it takes time in certain cases, but 3 there was a lot of that going on, you know. 4 Q Can you recall during that time period whether 5 Comstock had revised, or was in the process of revising 411.1 6 or 2, whichever the ICR procedure was? 7 A It probably was reved.
! 8 Q I am sorry. When you say, 'reved,' you mean 1
9 revised? 10 A Revised, excuse me. And, you know, I can't say it 11 was revised per every change they made, because their l 12 procedura may have been a general thing. It may not have
/ 13 mentioned that you got your number from the clerk. Just that 14 the ICR was turned in to the clerk. You know, it is general I
15 stuff like that. 16 The procedure may have been changed during those 17 times, you know. I don't recall every change they made, but 18 -- l 19 Q Okay. Can you recall any other specific example? 20 A I wish I could. You know, I really can't. I don't
'21 want to generalize, too, because I know that is not fair, but 22 I know ICR was a good example. They really jumped around, you O
26 1 know, and maybe there were some other people that were 2 affected when I wasn't, you know, in a change like that, in 3 other inspection areas, so it was just a general consensus by 4 inspectors that the management was incompetent, and wasn't 5 doing their job. 6 Q Right. What can you tell me to support your 7 statement that you felt that management was incompetent? 8 A Well, my own personal experience was the time of the 9 Saklak incident -- 10 Q Well, we will come back to that. 11 A Okay, well, excuse me. 12 Q That is all right. Can you give me any other 13 examples? 14 A Personally, no, myself. I just know how some of the l 15 people said they were being treated, and you know, you could 16 just feel the tension, I could, and I was a newcomer, but I 17 could feel friction, you know. 18 Q Are there any othar factors that you can think of or 19 any changes going on in Comstock or among the employees that 20 would account for any tension or friction? 21 A Well, of course, some people say the union may have 22 been causing that, but at the time I hired in, the union O I
27 1 wasn't even talked about, and maybe the money was another 2 thing that -- some people it was found out were making more 3 money than others, and doing maybe less work inspector-wise, 4 and they didn't like that because, you know, it is 5 understandable, I guess, and some people it was found out were 6 getting paid per diem which that, I think, caused a big 7 problem. 8 Q Okay. Do you recall when that was? 9 A When it was? It was in the summer of '84. It may ! 10 have happened before I hired in, but there was a letter found { 11 on a desk, secretary's desk, and it mentions someone's per 12 diam or their raise, and someone got ahold of that letter and () 13 ran copies off, and the secretary was demoted for that because 14 she had left the letter on her desk. 15 Somebody went along and seen the letter on her desk. 16 Q Is that situation you are referring to one in which 17 an inspector was being hired from Florida? 18 A I really don't know who it was. 19 Q Did you ever see the letter? 20 A No.
- 21 Q You just heard about it?
22 A Yes, ma'am. O
._ _ . .. .- _.-. _ - - _ . - _ = _ .
28 1 Q Do you recall who you heard about it from? O 2 A No. It was -- everyone knew it then. I don't 3 really recall the person that I heard it from. It was just 4 that you hear conversations. It was something I think 4 5 everyone knew about when I got here. i 6 Q When you say, 'per diem,' what do you mean? ; 7 A They were getting living expenses, weekly maybe 8 checks from the company, because they may have moved a long 9 distance and maybe that was the only way to get them here, you 10 know, at that time. I 11 It was every man for himself to get the best money 12 he could, and that is understandable. You know, I don't blame ( ) 13 the guy for getting what he can. I think they were told that 14 nobody was getting per diam. 15 Q Do you know what the constock policy was around that 16 time period regarding per dien expenses? 17 A When I hired in, of course this may have been before 18 I hired in -- I think it was. I don't recall the incident 19 after I got here. There was no per diem offered. 20 of course, that is up to management, I suppose. If 21 they want you bad enough, or if you can hold out long enough, 22 maybe you can get it, but my case wasn't that. I was from out O
29 1 of state. 2 I did get paid for my U-Haul. I packed it and 3 hauled it up there, you know. I needed the job when I got 4 this one. 5 Q so they paid your moving expenses? 6 A Yes. And that was the policy as far as I know. And 7- they paid two weeks like a motel, and you pick the time you 8 were going to move, and they will pay two weeks motel bill and 9 -- 10 Q And you were paid two weeks motel expenses? 11 A I didn't stay in a motel. I was staying with 12 friends up here which I didn't charge them a dime for, you () 13 know. They didn't charge me, and I didn't pass it on to 14 Comstock. They did pay the U-Haul and the gas, and that was 15 it. 16 Q Did they offer to pay notel expenses for two weeks 17 for you? 18 A Yes. 19 Q And you chose not to accept that offer. 20 A Well, they would have paid them if I had had any, 21 yes, but I told Mr. Paserba that I didn't stay in a motel. 22 So, you know, I didn't want to go stay in a motel O
30 1 when I could stay a couple of miles over here with some () 2 friends of mine that she worked here and I worked with him at 3 Marble Hill, so that was no problem. They had a large house, 4 and it was easier. 5 Q It was a personal choice of yours. 6 A Right. 7 Q All right. Now, another thing that you mentioned 8 was that when you came here you thought Comstock procedures 9 were vague, and that one individual may do something in one 10 fashion and another individual may do something in another 11 fashion. 12 A Well, they may interpret the procedure two different 13 ways. 14 Q Can you give me a specific example of an area where 15 you felt that Comstock procedures were vague? 16 A Well, I guess in my own case would be the 17 calibration procedure that I inherited when I came here. You i 18 know, like I said, I am just comparing to my last job, and 19 l maybe that is not even fair, but you should be able to go out 20 and do the inspection per the procedure, which should be 21 incorporated in the procedure, but like -- like instructions 22 on how to check this tool. !O f
1 31 1 Q Let me ask you what the calibration procedure was f 2 that you inherited? 3 A 4.9.1, Rev. C, and that was my only first hand 4 experience at that, but it didn't actually tell you how to go 5 take this tool. 6 You know, take this tool and use these pens and 7 check these for wear, you know. My past experience with the 8 procedure was they had every tool broke down and they 9 basically told the inspector how to go about doing it, you 10 know. 11 Of course, there are questions, maybe, but that is 12 what the training takes up, and -- 13 Q Who were you' trained by in calibrations? l 14 A John Seeders. 15 Q All right. And how long did you spend with 16 Mr. Seeders in training? 17 Q Forty hours, I believe. Maybe a little over, 18 forty-five. As soon as I got here, they just started a new 19 training program. Forty hours of on the job training, and 20 then your testing. 21 Q Did anybody give you any training in calibration 22 other than Mr. Seeders? l lO l v, - y .,. . _y, g , u. .---- -. --.---en . s-e---,-
l 32 ' 1 A No,-not on this job. .I 2 Q Okay. And you said you took over calibration 3 procedures eventually, is that right? i 4 A In the area of inspection, yes. 5 Q Okay. And when was that? 6 A Let's see. Well, I was certified October 8th of 7 '84, so that would have been the first day of my -- excuse 8 me. If you back up a week, John Seeders was removed from 9 quality control and placed in Engineering I think around the 10 and of September -- the 29th or so -- and there was a week 11 there when I wasn't certified. 12 Myra Sproull was the only one, I believe, certified (} 13 at the time, and her and I worked together. She signed, you 14 know, everything and done the inspections that had to be 15 performed during that week that John was gone, and I wasn't 16 certified. ( 17 Q Okay. So that one week Ms. Sproull was doing the i 18 calibrations? 19 A Yes. We were working together, yes. I was still in 20 an uncertified mode, but you know there was a lot of work to 21 be done. 22 Q What kind of work was there to be done when O l l . - _ . _ ._ . _
33 1 Mr. Seeders was transferred? O 2 A Well, Myra was green. I could use that word. She 3 was certified, but she hadn't worked in the area for probably 4 months, I don't know, so a lot of things were new to her 5 again, so it took some time to get her built back in, and of 6 course everything was new to me except for the training I had 7 just received, and -- well, I actually trained in July, but I 8 got certified in October, so -- 9 Q All right. During the time period that you were 10 involved in training calibrations, was Mr. Seeders the only 11 person to whom you went with questions regarding vagueness in 12 Comstock procedures?
) 13 A Well, I didn't question the procedures at that 14 time. When you are training, you are trying to grasp what you 15 are being trained.
l 16 I didn't really know the indepthness of it like l 17 I did later. I didn't question the procedure. I was just 18 there to learn, and John was the only one that I was with. 19 Q Was Mr. Seeders the only one who had been handling 20 calibrations? 21 A Yes. I think he had for a couple of years. 22 Q Was Mr. Seedsrs able to explain to you, to your O (
i 34 l 1 satisfaction what was expected of you in that area? 2 A Well, like I said, this training program was maybe 3 the first or second week of the new training program. I didn't 4 see everything during those forty hours that I was going to 5 see later,
' i i
6 I don't think you can see it all in forty hours, and 7 then be -- especially in calibrations. There are all kinds of 8 different tools. Within a week's time you don't see 9 everything, and it was new to John, too, to have to train lo someone. I was his first trainee, and it was something new to 11 him, too. 12 I came from a mechanical calibration line. Just my () 13 four months training I was telling you about, to this i 14 electrical, which the tools are different except the torque 15 wrench is the same, but the other tools are completely 16 different. W 17 So, everything was new to me. I really didn't know 18 enough about the tools to question the procedure, and I 19 accepted them for what they were at the time. That is all you 20 have to work to. 21 Q Let me ask you another question, and that is: You 22 indicated you felt the Comstock procedures were, and are O
35 1 still, vague. Are you talking about any area other than 2 calibrations, which is what you spent most of your time on? l 3 A Yeah. I think that a lot of their procedures are 4 that way. You know, maybe they don't get specific enough, and 5 maybe they can't. There are different things that can happen. 6 I agree that procedure may not cover it, but then 7 that is when you go to your boss, but I have heard vagueness 8 in procedures before on this job. 9 Q Can you identify for me any Comstock procedure which 10 you did, or do now feel, is vague? 11 Q Well, you know, I am not saying that you can't learn 12 the job from the procedures, but there are some things that -- () 13 well, receipt inspection procedure that I was trained to, it 14 was just kind of vague. 15 t I don't know if that is the word for it. The 16 procedure says to contact CECO if there is a slight problem. 17 Well, you know, I questioned that when I was training, because 18 the man that was training me wasn't contacting CECO if there l 19 was a problem when you receive a truck, per procedure. And I 20 was always taught to go by the procedure, so I questioned ! 21 that, but you know, I don't remember the response actually, 22 but it was just that this is the way it is done, and this is . O
i 36 1 the way we do it, you know. 2 Q Who was the individual who,was training you in 3 material receipts? 4 A That was Larry Phillips. And he had been doing that ! 5 for years, too. I realize you get set in a kind of a certain l 6 -- maybe it is called tunnel vision, you know. It is good to i i 7 have a trainee around to question things you are doing, L 8 because I have had trainees, several since I have trained -- 9 and it kind of jars your mind a little because they ask s'ome
- 10 questions that you haven't thought much about, because you are 11 doing this and that, but I was just here to learn, you know, 12 and I had nothing but time to read the procedure, and I
( 13 realize Larry was busy, and you can't sit down every day and 14 read your procedure, and it is so long -- that one was in that 15 case, that it is hard to memorize every step. 16 You know what I am saying. ! 17 Q Do you recall specifically what Larry said to you 18 when you asked him a question? 19 A Well, he would try and answer. Larry wasn't the 20 type at that time that wanted to train anybody anyway. He 21 was in his own area, and I think he had fears of someone 22 taking his job, which I had no intention of doing. O
37 1 1 I just was there to get certified, but maybe he was 2 insecure. I don't know if that is the word, about someone 3 taking his area of inspection away, and him being moved in
; 4 another area which he didn't really want.
- 5 But I think he always tried to give me a fair i
6 answer, you know, but I recall when I did take my receipt 7 practical exam that you have to have an accept test and a 8 reject inspection, and I asked him after I was, I said do you ; 9 want me to talk to CECO about this problem. We had a reject 10 inspection for some reason, and I can't recall what it was. 11 And I think his response was: No, we don't do that. l
! 12 Well, you know, it was right there in the procedure.
13 Q Did you talk to anyone else about that?- 14 A Yes, it was brought up, because Larry had to 15 evaluate my performance as a trainee in the area of inspection 16 so that it would go in my training package, and he made an 17 evaluation that he recommended that I needed more time to 18 learn the paperwork flow of the area of inspection, and when I 19 was told that by -- it was Rick Saklak that got all these l 20 copies. l 21 I proceeded to show Rick that I didn't think I was j 22 the one that was wrong; that Larry was the one that was O
38 1 incorrect on his procedure, so it came down to a -- the 2 evaluation by Larry was destroyed, I suppose, or whatever -- I 3 don't really know what happened to it, but I was re-evaluated 4 I believe by Rick Saklak. I really can't be sure about that 5 either, but someone other than Larry, because they checked 6 into it and Larry had been doing the inspection not per 7 procedure, and it got into a thing where his certifications 8 were pulled for a week or two until he was retrained, I think 9 and I am sure that is all in the package, but I just -- when I 10 asked Larry about contacting CECO about the problem on the 11 truck, he took that that I didn't know exactly how things 12 should go, and I kind of took it personal, too, because I 13 thought I was right. (} ! 14 It all got worked out, you know. 15 Q Do you know whether Mr. Phillips trained anybody 16 else? l 17 A Yes, I know he did. i 18 Q Who? 19 A Julie Bullock he trained before myself. I think she 20 was his first trainee, and again, like I said, this was a new 21 program, and everybody was maybe a little edgy about it having 22 to train people. l O I
- . . - _ _ _ _ . _ _ , .y . _ _ _ , . . . , _ , - - _ , . , - , . . _ , . _ , . . - . . . , . , _ . - . . _ _ , . , _ . . . , _ , . _ , . . - . . . .
39 1 I think before maybe they tried to hire people with 2 the experience or something, but he did train Julie Bullock 3 and I was the second. 4 Q Do you recall if he gave anybody else a practical 5 exam? 6 A Well, I am sure he did Julie. 7 Q How about someone named Terry Gorman. Does that 8 name sound familiar? 9 A Yeah. I heard of that incident. Yeah, he did train 10 more people, I think, after he got his cart back, you know, 11 after his deal with my training was taken care of. He was 12 back training people. ( ) 13 Q Okay. Let's move over to a document which I would 14 like to have marked for identification purposes as Snyder 15 Deposition Exhibit No. 3. l l 16 (Above referenced document is l 17 marked Snyder Deposition Exhibit No. 3 18 for identification.) 19 So, in other words, Mr. Snyder, the concern that you l 20 raised about whether site problems might be reported to . 21 Commonwealth Edison Company are not in accordance with 22 Comstock procedures was resolved to your satisfaction, is that O
40 1 correct? ( 2 A Yes. Like I said, Larry was retrained, and that is 3 the way I would have done it, you know, if I had had a problem 4 after I got certified was to contact Edison, and then maybe 5 let them say you go ahead and do this or that, or you write 6 the NCR or ICR. That is the way the procedure was written at 7 that time. 8 Q Okay. And the inspection that you thought should 9 have been reported to CECO, was it in fact reported? 10 A You know, that was my practical. 11 When we took reject practicals back then it was hard 12 to wait on a truck that you had a problem with. If you got 13 in, and something was damaged or whatever, so I may have taken ( 14 a mock -- what they call a mock reject practical. I can't 15 racall. It was mocked up for me -- 16 Q In other words, it did not involve an actual 17 delivery of materials? 18 A Right. I believe that was the case at that time. j 19 Now, if he happened to have a problem downstairs, he would 20 have grabbed me and say hey, let's do your practical or 21 whatever is the case. 22 But that particular problem -- I have Larry, you l lO
e. 41 1 know, just as part of the test, because you have to be 2 thorough. You want to get certified so that you can get 3 started on work, and I said do you want me to contact CECO, 4 you know, and that was the response, and I knew from training 5 with Larry -- Larry just took care of things himself, and he 6 had been doing it for years, a couple of years, and he knew 7 what had to be done, and he just had his own little way to do , 8 it.
~
9 Maybe it wasn't exactly per the procedure, but I am i j 10 sure it is now. ! 11 Q Okay. All right. Mr. Snyder, let me show you what i 12 has been marked as Snyder deposition Exhibit No. 3, and for i () 13 the record I will state that it is a multi-page document, with 14 Bates stamp numbers S0000554, through 580. It is a f 15 Calibration Audit Report, dated 9/7/84, and it is 27 pages. I 16 And is that your name that appears at the bottom of the first 17 page, Mr. Snyder? 18 A Yes, ma'am. Yes. 19 Q Can you tell me what that document is? 20 A Well, this looks like -- okay. 21 Q Take some time to look at all the pages. 22 A I recall it now. Myra and myself -- excuse me. l l 4
1 42 ^ 1 Prior to my certification. O 2 Q In calibrations? 3 A In calibrations, was told to go to the -- we were 4 put down in the vault, the records vault, and were supposed to 5 find any discrepancies in paperwork that we thought, you know, 6 may have been a problem or something that was overlooked, so 7 we.were sent down there and I don't know, we spent a month or 8 two down there maybe every day in the vault looking through 9 hundreds of packages. 10 Again, I wasn't certified on site. I didn't really 11 know what may have been required, but anything that we thought 12 was a problem we would make note of as we went through each
'13 tool folder.
14 Q Okay. And do you know what the purpose of that 15 project was? 16 A Well, I believe this was a review of how John 17 Seeders was handling the area, or -- I know before this that 18 John was asked by management to make a review of some records, 4 19 maybe for an audit finding, I really don't recall exactly what 20 the review was for, but anyway, we were doing what they had 21 expected John to do, I believe, although we were doing a l 22 thorough examination of these records as far as we could. O l
s I 43 1 Q Who had been? I don't mean to cut you off, but 2 does that complete your answer? 3 A That is fine. 4 Q Who, if you recall, had been responsible for the 5 maintenance of the' documents that you were reviewing? 6
.g A Who initiated them?
7 Q That were in the vault. Who was responsible for 8 ensuring the documents that should have been in the vault were 9 in the vault in their proper places? 10 A That is the vault clerks. The documents are passed 11 to them. 12 _ Q From whom? - 13 A ( ) Back then -- let's'see. How was that. 14 (Pause.] . 15 Okay. It was a basket it beams like as I recall on 16 . the' vault counter, and at the and of each day, or during the 17 day you can toss anything in there that'had to be filed in the 18 vault, and that was all. Therewasnoskatusgoingtoyour , 19 lead inspector like it is now, or going through your i 20 supervisor, and-then it goes through someone else. 21 It is-a,ll status before it goes to the vault. 22 Q And when you say, " status," what does that mean? O .
< r E
,,$,.. J--- ~ ~
~ ~ ' ' ' ~ ~ ' ' ' ' ' '
l I 44 1 A Just tracking more or less. It is -- when I give my i 2 reports to my lead, he writes every report down on a document 3 that has been -- they are all handed to Larry Seese's 4 department, and I think they do the same thing, or they review 5 and make sure that that is correct, and then they are sent to 6 the vault for filing, and they are reviewed by the vault 7 people now and then they -- they are certified vault people 8 inspectors, and then they are filed. 9 But back then, it was just a basket that you would
- 10 put this in, and the girls, when they got time, would file the 11 stuff.
12 Q And what was Mr. Seeders' involvement in any of 13 these documents? 14 A He initiated a lot of them. He was there two years,
, 15 I believe. The only inspector in calibrations. Maybe Don 16 Coss would help him out, but John Seeders handled the job.
17 Q Okay. And you also started to say something along 18 the lines that perhaps you and Myra were reviewing a lot of 19 what Mr. Seeders had done. Can you elaborate on that? 20 A Well, it was not only what John had done. We was 21 going from day one; from Ernst's days here, who was a 22 contractor before Comstock. O .
45 l 1 We was told to go through the complete package, and j 2 they should be in chronological order pretty well, the 3 inspection reports, and see see if something was missing. 4 It was a hard job to do, because I didn't know 5 exactly -- we didn't know exactly what we were looking for, 6 you know. There were things that were missing maybe, but 7 there is all kind of reasons for that, too. 8 Q You said that there were things missing. Were any 9 of those things missing that should have been in place because
- 10 of Mr. Seeders, or during Mr. Seeders tenure as calibrations 11 inspector?
12 A There was reports that should have been there that [ } 13 never were initiated from what I found out after I got 14 certified into the area that per procedure, the Rev. 4.9.1 C 15 that John was supposed to have been initiating a Form'23-A, 16 which is a variable instrument calibration rep'rt o for all 17 tools that were calibrated on site. 18 I believe that is a quote of the procedure, and I 19 found out later that -- I didn't know it at this time because 20 -- but I found out later that those reports weren't initiated. 21 Q And those were reports that were Mr. Seeders' 22 responsibility? (::) - i
* . - - . _ _ _ , - _ _ _ - . _ . , - , , . - . , . . -_,_m,. .-- ..w-,. - - - - - . - -_
t' 46 1 A Yes. 2 Q Did you ever talk to Mr. Seeders about it? 3 A No, no. I just -- I have no problem with John. I 4 get along with him fine, but it is-just high and that is it, 5 you know. 6 Q Now, if you would take a look more carefully at the 7 report that you and Ms. Sproull produced, and tell me which 8 parts of it, if you can, you were responsible for as opposed 9 to Myra Sproull, or was that a joint effort? 10 A Yes, ma'am. I may have spent a few more days in it 11 than Myra, but what we done was just one package after . 12 another, you know. () 13 My notes would be the only way my original notes, 14 before they were typed, would be the only way that I could 15 say which ones I found, and which ones Myra found, and this l 16 wouldn't tell us that. I 17 Q Do you recall off hand or not which ones you -- 18 A No, ma'am. No. There is just no way. 19 Q Okay. Let me ask you a few questions about this, 20 and I will ask you to explain it to me, if you can. First of 21 all, what are Form 77s? 22 A That is a calibration card, three by five, that we i O m -.--.c
47 1 are supposed to -- well, it has a file card -- there is a card
'/ 2 for every tool, calibrated tool, on site, and it is just a --
3 I don't know what they call them, tickler file, I guess, that 4 everything that is due is at the front of the file, you know. 5 Everything is in chronological order, and each week 6 you know what is due by the week's work in there, and it is 7 updated for every inspection. 8 It is signed, the date of calibration, the procedure 9 you calibrated that tool under, the standard you used to .i 10 calibrate that tool, which is the master tool, or whatever you 11 use, and sign it and date of inspection, and the due date then 12 carries over for the next inspection. ( ) 13 Q Okay. Are any of your reviews of Form 77s specified 14 in this? 15 A No. The Form 77s aren't -- they are kept in the 16 vault every night, but just for security reasons. They are 17 taken out every day and taken upstairs in a card box, and we 18 have to have access to them every day. 19 Q Okay. Now, Item Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 7 indicate that 20 as of September 6, 1984, they were still pending. Did you 21 complete those items after -- 22 A Let's see. This was just completed, I think, early O
48 1 this month. 2 Q That is No. 3? 3 A Yeah. What did you say; 3, 57 4 Q Four. i 5 MR. GUILD: That was completed earlier this month? 6 THE WITNESS: Yes. That was on NCR 3419 is what- , 7 they are referring to here. It doesn't say that. 8 BY MS. KEZELIS: I . 9 Q Did you personally perform what is reflected in Item 4
- 10 No. 3?
11 A I worked along with Julie Bullock. There were 12 several of us certified inspectors that looked at these. It 1 ( ) 13 was a thing where we done it in our spare time, maybe, you 14 know overtime hours or whatever, because we had to take care
-15 of daily business.
- 16 Q Okay. And No. 4?
17 A Okay. This No. 4, ICR and NCR files, -- 18 Q If you know. 19 A Well, you see, this is passed on to engineering all 20 this information, so to be completely satisfied, I would say 21 no. i i 22 As far as QC is concerned at this moment -- O r
49 1 Q QC's responsibility is completed. 2 A Right. 3 Q And now -- 4 A Now it is in engineering, and it is going to come 5 back to us, but -- 6 Q And that is in connection with the disposition on 7 corrective action on NCR 30.19, is that correct? 8 A Right. 9 Q Do you recall when that NCR was issued? 10 A The date --- let's see. It must have been around
- 11 October '84 -- November-October, September maybe even, around 12 the time we had found this information.
i 13 Q Around the time Mr. Seeders was transferred? 14 A After that. The NCR was written by Rick Saklak to 15 cover the problems, so it would be covered at least as far as l ' 16 that goes. 17 Q Before you and Ms. Sproull began this audit report 18 for calibration, had Mr. Seeders had any involvement in such 19 an audit, if you know? 20 A I believe the same audit that John was asked to get 21 the information on, I was training with John when they asked 22 him to find something -- I don't know, because he was taken O
50
/
1 into the office and he was the certified inspector that I was i 2 in the background here, but I know he was asked to accumulate 3 information, or lack of information, and I am sure it is the 4 same audit finding. 5 This is what it all boiled down to, and I know John 6 didn't get the job done that apparently they wanted, and I 7 don't know what his instructions were, you know, but I know we 8 came in one Saturday and worked on -- I was still his trainee
! 9 -- and we worked on something to do with this, but after I 10 look back on it, I don't know what -- it doesn't tell me 11 anything what we had done that Saturday, and -- but I was a 12 trainee --
() 13 Q You were still new -- 14 A I wasn't questioning really what we were doing, you 15 know. I was there just helping him out, and I had my notes. 16 We long handed stuff that day, but from what we have here, 17 there is no way that John could have gotten that information 18 in the time frame that he was given. 19 Q Let me ask you. What do you know about what time l 20 $rame Mr. Seeders was given? 21 A Well, I know they asked him a couple of times, that 22 being management, if he had the information they needed, O i
51 1 because they were apparently being pressed by an audit finding i 2 on getting answers to this audit. 3 Q And did Mr. Seeders tell you this personally? 4 A No, I -- well, I just knew, you know. I was working 5 with him, and I knew it was for an audit finding, but what 6 actually the finding was, I can't say. It was something to 7 do, maybe, with missing reports in the vault or whatever. 8 I can't recall exactly.
~
9 Q You didn't know specifically what instructions 10 Mr. Seeders was given? 11 A Right. 12 Q Do you know what kind of time frame Mr. Seeders was 13 given? 14 A Ugh -- 15 Q Or do you know when he was given this assignment? 16 A Well, that was in July of '84, but they apparently i 17 didn't write their instructions out to John, so I don't know l 18 exactly what they were. 19 Q In other words, you are saying that you believe 20 Mr. Seeders instructions were oral? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Right. Because you didn't see them in writing? O l
l 52 1 A Right. I wasn't in the meeting when he was told to 2 do this. i 3 Q That is what I am asking. Trying to find out 4 whether you are speculating right now, or whether you have 5 some basis for making such statements? 6 A I never seen instructions written. 7 Q Okay; okay. Now, let's move to another part of 8 this. Torque wrenches is page 2 of this multi-page document 9 which-is Exhibit No. 3, and it has a caption, and the asterisk 10 indicates more than one occurrence per wrench. 11 Let's turn to the first chart on this page, which 6 12 says: No ICR written for out of cal; and I take that to mean I () 13 no inspection correction report written for out of calibration
- 14 torque wrenches, is that correct?
15 A Yes, ma'am. i 16 Q And the TW means torque wrench? 17 A Yes. 18 Q And each of those numbers is a number assigned to a 19 unique torque wrench, is that correct? 20 A Yes. 21 Q And then next to Torque Wrench No. 832 there is an 22 asterisk, and that means that more than one occurrence was O
i 53 1 found by you or Myra Sproull for that wrench? 2 A Yes, where the wrench was out of calibration on the 3 inspection report, which was a 23 -- Form 23 for the torque 4 wrenches. 5 And there was no evidence in the package or on the 6 Form 77 of an ICR being written for that wrench being out of 7 toleranbe. 8 Q Okay. And whose responsibility _would it have been 9 to write an ICR for a torque wrench being out of calibration? 10 A The inspector that either reviewed 11 Phillips-Getschow's calibration report because they were doing 12 some of our calibrations on torque wrenches, or the inspector 13 that calibrated the wrench itself in our tool crib which'at 14 that time we used to calibrate torque wrenches of our own. 15 Q Okay. And who would that inspector have been? 16 A Well, I couldn't say the time frame here -- 17 Q During the two years that Mr. Seeders was there? I
- 18 A Well, it would have been John Seeders during his 19 time, but there is no date there, so later on back here it 20 tells you more like dates, so it could have been possibly Lisa 21 Oakley who trained John Seeders, you know.
22 Q Now we are speculating. We don't know -- i O
l l 54 i 1 A We don't know who that is, right. () 2 Q Let's move to a section that does reflect a date. 3 A If I may say, from ECRs days, to Comstock days, from 4 what I have seen in the records vault, there is very -- I 5 don't know, sporadic, or what is the word -- 6 Q When was Ernst here, do you know? 7 A I really don't know. I think '80, '81 they 8 left. Maybe Jim knows. 9 Q You are the deponent, Mr. Snyder. 10 A I wasn't there, so I really don't know, but that was 11 -- things were probably up in the air then. 12 MR. GUILD: Counsel, let me ask you if you can allow 13 the witness to please answer the questions. There were a 14 couple of times when you cut him off, and frankly I was 15 interested in the complete answer that never got given. 16 MS. KEZELIS: I am sorry. Please, at any time, 17 Mr. Snyder, you feel I am cutting you off, let me know. l l 18 MR. GUILD: Well, I am letting you know. The last 19 question was, the answer began, or words to the effect, in 20 E. C. Ernst's days things were kind of sporadic, and you cut 21 him off at that point, and he wasn't allowed to answer. 22 MS. KEZELIS: I an asking -- O
55
,. 1 MR. GUILD: I really would like to have --
2 MS. KEZELIS: Mr. Guild, I will give him ample 3 opportunity to answer that question. However, if you make a 4 statement, I believe I am entitled to make one, too.
5 MR. GUILD: He just tried to answer again, Elena. 6 That is the point. If you don't like his answer, you 7 interrupt him. He is entitled to answer the question, and the 8 record should be complete, and should reflect his complete 9 answer. 10 MS. KEZELIS: Mr. Guild, I agree with you 11 completely, but I don't appreciate your postulating on the 12 record. A ( ) 13 Mr. Snyder, would you complete any question that you 14 didn't have an opportunity to complete. 15 THE WITNESS: I was just going to say that the ECR 16 stage, as anyone can see in n:he vault, in calibration I am 17 talking only about, the records are few and far between maybe 18 I should say, but again I don't know the procedures back then, 19 but from that point on -- what I was trying to say that one 20 person isn't responsible for each package. These go back some 21 of them to maybe '78 or '79, and there is maybe a half dozen 22 people involved, inspectors involved in calibrations from the O t
56 1 first inspections made on this job until today. 2 BY MS. KEZELIS: 3 Q Okay. And is what you just said based on the 4 documents that you reviewed in the vault? 5 A Yes. 6 Q And you just said, I believe, that you didn't know 7 what Ernst's procedures were? 8 A Right. I don't know. Maybe per the procedure they 9 were okay. But it is just I know they didn't have near the 10 tools back then that we have today to be responsible for, but 11 -- that is the end of my statement. 12 Q Okay. I am going to give you ample opportunity to [ } 13 say whatever is responsive to the question I ask you. 14 Let's take a look at Document No. 561 of Exhibit 3. 15 I am going to ask you to take a look at TW LKC No. A183, and I 16 take that to mean Torque Wrench, constock? 17 A Yes, ma'am. l 18 Q All right. And the first item under that caption 19 says: No date on the calibration report after 3-7-83. What l 20 does that mean, if you know? 21 A When we took our notes, that is all they were is , 22 notes, so we didn't get into long sentences because of the i l O t
57 1 time that it took to go through each package, so the Form 23 2 was a torque wrench inspection check list. 3 And apparently in this case there was no date of the 4 inspection date, you know, which should have been on there. 5 That is kind of vague, you know. The way this reads is there 6 is no dates on any reports after 3-7-83, which is probably not 7 the case. 8 There is probably the 3-7-83 report doesn't have a 9 date on it, you know. This went through three or four people 10 from our original notes, you see, and had been typed and 11 reviewed and all that, but that -- but that is probably what 12 this means, that that 3-7-83 report doesn't have an inspection 13 date on it. 14 It may be initialed, but there is no date there, and 15 at that time that was all that was required was an initial and 16 a date. Now we have to sign them, you know, and I think that l 17 is what that means. l l 18 Q Right. So, it wouldn't necessarily mean there were 19 no dates for that torque wrench after March 7, 19837 Or that 20 March 7, 1983 was the last documentation with any date on it 21 for that torque wrench for calibration? 22 A That could be, because the next line here says: No O
58 1 cal report between 3-23-83 and 4-12. 2 Well, these were done weekly. Every week. So, -- 3 Q There were a few weeks missing for that particular 4 torque wrench? 5 A Well, there would be one week, probably. 3-14 or 15 6 -- in there somewhere, but then there is nothing between 3-23 7 and 4-12. 8 So, it was just things like that that we were 9 supposed to key on. Our instructions were vague, our -- 10 Q I am just asking you to explain what these notes 11 here mean. 12 A Okay. 13 Q Would it have been, if you know, Mr. Seeders 14 responsibility to issue a calibration report for that type of 15 a torque wrench? ! 16 A If he did inspect it, yes. If the Form 77 says that 17 he inspected it on that date, there should be a Form 23 in the I 18 vault dated that same date by him. So, it was actually two 19 reports you might say. 20 One shows the actual readings, and the other one 21 shows that they did do the inspection. 22 I am wondering if I can get a drink. I Is that
--m - - _ _ ., _ - . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . . . _ _ _ - . _ _ . . . , _ _ _ , _._____._.__..____,_,_..___________,,,..,_,-.,._._-________-.m.._,_
59 1 possible? 2 MR. GUILD: Can we take about a five minute break. 3 MS. KEZELIS: Sure. That is fine with me. 4 [ Recess taken at 10:25 a.m., to reconvene at 10:33 j 5 a.m.] 6 MS. KEZELIS: I would like to have this marked as 7 Snyder Deposition Exhibit No. 4. 8 [ Document marked Snyder Exhibit No. 4 9 for identification.) 10 Q Mr. Snyder, how would you describe your relationship 11 with Mr. Seeders? 12 Did you consider yourself close personal friends? () 13 - A Not close. Right now we just "hi" and that's about 14 it, you know. Since the incident, I have had the impression 15 that John may have felt something -- not his impression, but I 16 just, the way it all looked, that I came in and he goes out, 17 you know, I didn't come here to take anybody's job away from 18 them. 19 But we are not close friends, no. 4 20 Q okay. When you say the incident, what are you 4 21 referring to? 22 A Well, John was transferred to the Engineering
60 1 Department. 2 Q Okay. Now, I'm handing you what has been marked for 3 identification as Snyder Deposition Exhibit Number 4, and for 4 the record I will state that that is Numbers 00002012 through 5 2023. 6 Now, I ask you, Mr. Snyder, to take a look at it and 7 tell me if you recall having seen it or portions of it before? 8 [ Witness reviewing document.) 9 A This is from Irv DeWald. I have seen this, the 10 letter that John wrote to Irv, or had typed up. But I'm not 11 sure if I'm seeing the same thing. 12 I've never seen this. l ("") 13 Q I will represent for the record that that itself is { \m / 14 a summary of Mr. seeders' letter. l 15 A No. This I haven't seen. i 16 Q You have not seen that? 17 A No. 18 Q All right. I will direct your attention to the next 19 page, the next several pages, beginning with Number 2015. 20 Down at the bottom of the page is the signature that 21 looks like Richard Snyder, 9/26/1984. I will ask you if you 22 recognize that to be your signature? O I
, ,.-,--m w--.---- - -- , - - - . - , , . . - - . - _ - _ , . . ,,---,,,..p.,.- , - , _-- , - - , , - - - - - , , -- ,,,,c,,,..w-,-,.,.
61 1 A Yes, ma'am. It is. 2 Q All right. And would you have signed a document 3 without looking at it?
)
4 A No. 5 Q All right. 6 A I just, you know, haven't seen this Irv DeWald 7 letter, I don't believe. 8 If this was all in this context, maybe I'did see it, 9 then. Apparently, because Irv -- I remember the incident and 10 he called us into the office and -- okay, I was wrong. 11 Q All right. Take your time and read through it and 12 see if you recall seeing that. 13 A Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry. ( I thought that first you 14 were referring to another letter. And, okay, do you want me 15 to read my portion here? 16 Q Why don't you read through the portion that begins i 17 -- 18 A I better. 19 Q -- with Document 2015, the middle of the page
- 20 captioned " Richard Snyder" and your signature appears at the 21 bottom of that page.
22 And then flip over to the following page at the top O
62 I where I believe your signature appears again. And please 2 correct me if I'm wrong. 3 A You are right. Okay. l 4 (Witness reviewing document.] ! 5 Yeah. Okay.
- , 6 Q Okay. Do you recall the circumstances under which 7 you signed those two sections of that document?
8 A Yes, I do. Now that I read it -- I mean, I recall 9 the incident but I had forgotten about this. ), j 10 Q Okay. Can you tell me what you recall? t 11 A Well, just what it says, that Rick and John got into 12 that discussion and they both got loud. And like it says, I 13 was new and I got up and got out. I 14 You know, I wasn't involved or in the discussion. I 15 don't know what date that was on or whether I was working with l 16 John at the time. I must have been. 17 But I just left the room. I didn't feel like it was 18 my place to sit there and witness that. j 19 But I did see enough, I guess. 20 Q Okay. And towards the top of the section that 21 begins with your name, there is a reference to your having l 22 worked on a Saturday with John Seeders. l
- O i
l
i 63 1 Was that the Saturday that you mentioned to us 2 earlier today, or could it have been another Saturday? 3 A The Saturday -- no, the same Saturday that we worked 4 on that project, that audit finding. It was just a one day 5 shot, though, that we worked on it, as I recall. 6 Q Okay. And do you recall who asked you to sign those j 7 two pages, or who took your statement? 8 A Irv DeWald. 9 Q Okay. And then you read it and agreed with the 10 statements that were made -- 11 A Yes. 12 Q -- under your name and you signed each of those two 13 pages? 14 A Yes. 15 Q All right. The first response under your name 16 says: "As an outsider just coming into a new environment, 17 Mr. Seeders was instrumental in instigating possible unrest, 18 the incident appeared to be a shouting match." l 19 And I'm quoting directly from that page. 20 As an outsider just coming in, were you referring to 21 yourself in that response, sir? 22 A Yes. I had been here two months but still here I i i O l
i 64
, I was sitting here not certified. I didn't feel like part of 2 the group, you know what I'm saying.
3 Q Sure. 4 A So I felt like I was still a new person, you know. 5 And I didn't know these people really. 6 Q Okay. 7 A Well, you know, other than my contact with them here 8 which had only been brief. 9 Q Okay. And do you recall what you meant when you , 10 said that Mr. Seeders was instrumental in instigating possible 11 unrest? 12 A Yes. But the way this is worded, I want to get this () 13 14 straight. They have a comment in here, " . . . the incident appeared to be a shouting match." i 15 Is he talking about this whole incident of the 16 Saklak -- 17 Q Take your time and try to recall what you can. ! 18 A Well, I know what it was. That was the fire in the 19 Comstock office that happened a couple of months before this, 20 and everyone of us was crammed over into one office, one side. 21 John sat in the middle of the table and everybody i 22 was around the edge. It was a bigger room than this, but it i lO 1 5 i f
- , , - - - - , - - , - , - - - - - - , - , , - - - - ------------------------~-,-,e,n ,-----,en-
, , - - - - - - - ~ - - - -- ,e- - - ,,r--------
l 65 1 was packed in, you know. (O,) 2 Q And John was John Seeders? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Okay. 5 A The attitude, like I said earlier, of inspectors 6 when I got there was not very good. And when I made this 7 comment or statement that John, he just has a big loud voice 8 and he was -- I don't know, I don't want to call him a ring 9 leader. He was just a -- he was well known by the other 10 people. 11 Q What was he well know for? 12 A Well, just because he had been here and everybody 13 knew John, liked John. But he was -- I don't think he was 14 afraid to make a comment on anything either and let everybody 15 hear it, you know, whether it was against management or 16 against, you know, anything. 17 And I think other people -- maybe John kind of 18 enjoyed the attention of other -- and, you know. I don't l 19 know. But there was a lot of aggravation at that time. 20 Q Let's talk about that specific incident. Do you 21 recall -- can you recall now whether you heard anything 22 between them? l lO
i 66 1 1 A Between? 2 Between Mr. Seeders and -- Q 3 A Saklak? 4 Q -- Mr. Saklak? 5 A On that day, yes, I did. I witnessed them shouting 6 at each other. What they said, like, you know, I couldn't 7 quote. I mean, I don't even remember. i 8 Rick was sitting here and John was sitting there, 9 and they were -- I was in the middle again. And it was maybe i 10 something to do with this audit because Rick didn't feel like 11 that John was getting the work done quick enough for the audit i 12 response. ( ) 13 And I believe that's what started that incident. 14 Q Okay. Then, the next response immediately I 15 thereafter is your response to a question as to whether you ' I 16 felt then that there was harassment or intimidation being ' 17 exercised in the QC Department.
- 18 And your response is that you didn't consider 19 Mr. Saltaann inquiring about the audit response as harassment l
20 or intimidation. l 21 And I'm not going to read the entire quote, but can 1 22 you tell me what Mr. Saltaann's involvement was? l l l 1
, 67 1 A Well, he was.the one that had apparently given the 2 instructions to Saklak to get this response taken care of. 3 Q All right. That's the audit response or the 4 calibration?
- 5 A Yes. And I'm sure that they had a deadline on it 6 and they didn't want to, you know, go past the deadline.
i 7 And maybe Bob had already committed himself, Bob . 8 Seltmann, to the deadline. So, it was coming down the line to l 9 John, and he didn't have the job done apparently that they 10 needed. 11 Q Okay. And then it also goes on to say in your l 12 response that Mr. Seeders became offensive to Mr. Saltaann. f-( ) 13 Can you recall in what respect Mr. Seeders became 14 offensive to Mr. Saltaann? 15 A Well, that wasn't -- that was a slight incident. 16 But it was just words, you know. And I don't remember -- I 17 can't say what was said. It was just that I believe Bob 18 Saltaann came to John directly and asked him about the work he 1 j t 19 had performed on the audit response. 4 4 20 And John didn't have the work done at that time I 21 don't believe. And what he said or what happened, you know, I
- 22 don't know, I was sitting there again at the table and it was 1
4 O
e t i 68 1 just a slight comment by John maybe that he didn't have the 2 time to get the job done, or he hadn't gotten the job done. 3 And, again I don't know what instructions he had.. 4 Q Okay. I'm not asking you to speculate about 5 instructions. 6 A Yes. 7 Q I'm asking you to recall, as best you can, in what 8 respect you felt or stated -- why you stated that Mr. Seeders 9 became offensive to Mr. Saltmann? 10 A Well, because Bob Saltmann had asked John -- came in 11 there and wanted to know why. And John apparently was 12 irritated by it. () 13 Q Okay. But you don't recall what Mr. Seeders said to 14 him? 15 A No, ma'am, I couldn't say. 16 Q Okay. Have I pretty well exhausted your 17 recollection about that incident? 18 A Yes. I didn't take notes, you know. I didn't -- Irv 19 did come in and ask this response and I did sign it because 20 from what I seen I had nothing to hide. 21 I was an innocent party sitting there again and it 22 seems like I'm in the wrong place at the wrong time. O
69 1 (Laughter.) 2 Q Is there anything that would lead you to believe 3 after having reviewed these two pages, that anything thst is 4 stated above your signature is incorrect in any respect or 5 wasn't correct when you signed this? 6 A No. 7 Q Okay. All right. Down at the botton of that first 8 page, your response is that a lot of people complain about 9 money and training. 10 And by that, I take it the salary structure change 11 that took place -- 12 A Yes. 13 Q -- in April or so of 1984?
)
14 A Yeah. I wasn't there -- involved in that but I 15 understand there was an increase or something early in '84 16 that was apparently to take care of the problems. 17 But it didn't seem to -- again, like I said earlier, 18 that people are still unhappy about the other people coming in 19 with more money and par diam or whatever, and that was the 20 reason I -- 21 Q All right. 22 A -- stated that there. O
70 Okay. 1 Q And then the training that you refer to, () 2 would it be fair to ray that that was the cross-training and 1 3 the additional fifty cents per additional certification per 4 hour? 5 A Yeah. That had a lot of people upset, because some 4 j 6 people weren't getting trained like they had been promised, f 7 They had been turned back and other people had been trained i
; 8 before them, or whatever. You know.
~
9 Q And people were training each other and everybody 10 wanted to get trained to get -- i { 11 A Right. i 12 Q -- that additional fifty cents per hour? - 13 A Right. That was the only way to get a raise it i 14 looked like then, and -- 15 Q Okay. 16 A -- it really kind of caused problems. I 17 Q Okay. i'; 18 A Nobody wanted to train the other guys, you know. I 19 Q They wanted to go for training themselves. I ! 20 understand. Okay. l 21 Now, Mr. Snyder, I'm going to ask you to take a look : 22 at a document that is to be marked as Snyder Deposition l lO o 1 L
i
/
71 , i 1 -Exhibit Number 5 for identification, j 2 And I will represent to you that that is a Read and 3 Reply' memo or photocopy of one on Comstock letterhead to Irv 4 DeWald. The document is dated March 28th, 1985. And it is 5 - signed by you and two other individuals. 6 A Uh-huh. 7 [The document is marked as Snyder i 8 Deposition Exhibit Number $ for j 9 identification.] 10 BY MS. KEZELIS: ' 11 Q Would you take a look at that, please? 12 A Yeah. I've seen that. () 13 Q Okay. And is it fair to say that that is a document 14 that you wrote and sent to Mr.'DeWald to notify him about'the 15 Saklak incident? 16 A Yes, ma'am. The 28th, wasn't it. The 28th was,the 17 incident and I wrote this the next day. 4 18 Q The next day, okay. 19 A Because that was at quitting time or pretty close, 20 and I just wanted to inform him as the manager in writing, you 21 know, what happened. Kind of covered myself, too. 22 Q okay. Why don't you tell us in your own words what I I f J
. O
,w-~- .- - w-,-e ,. ,------------,-v-,,-----,w - - - - - , - - , - - - - - - , - , - - - - - , - - - , , . --+-n-,-----,---,e ~ ---
72 i 1 happened on March 28th, 1985 between you and Mr. Saklak? 2 A Well, it was just a case of I had written an ICR on l 3 a weld machine and per 491 Rev C I was required to do because 4 I inspected the weld machine, it was out of acceptable 5 tolerance. 6 I wrote the ICR and all the past ICRs written on 7 weld machines had been dispositioned by Engineering, accept as 8 is or -- well, they are not even used as is. All welds are a 9 hundred percent weld inspected by QC so that there was no 10 weld defective. i 11 And it was the time period when 491 Rev C was being 12 revised to Rev D which took the weld machine inspections out () 13 of the procedure. 14 Rick was my supervisor -- 15 Q And that is Rick Saklak?
- 16 A Rick Saklak, and I don't recall if this ICR was l
17 written and already -- well, it must have been written that j 18 day but it hadn't been to Engineering yet, apparently. I l l 19 can't recall the ICR number. l l 20 But, Rick, what it came down to, wanted me to 21 disposition the ICR because we knew what the engineers was 22 going to say, use as is, and to go ahead and close it out. t i O . I I
,. -- e,.--e g-- , . - -- . - - - - - . . n, , , , --r- -
73 1 And I told Rick I couldn't. And my lead, Ray
- 2 Nemeth, was sitting there. He was one of the men that signed 3 this. I looked at him and, you know, couldn't believe really 4 what he was saying because that just wasn't procedure on ICRs.
5 And so -- 6 Q What did you do then? 7 A Well, we discussed it, you know, Rick said that 8 Engineering was going to accept it as is and it was just a, 9 you know, we could get the thing over with and closed out. 10 Well, he apparently walked away to talk to Tony 11 Simbley. 12 Q And who is Tony -- ( ) 13 A Tony Simbley was the general supervisor at the 14 time. And I went to Bob Seltmann's office, our QA manager at 15 the time. And I asked Bob -- because I had been talking with 16 Bob a lot about these calibration problems that we had run 17 across, and felt like I could go ask him and he would help me 18 out, you know. 19 So he agreed that I could not disposition the ICR 20 without -- and close it out with Engineering actually doing 21 the disposition. 22 So, that's all I needed to hear. I think my lead O
m I 74 1 came with me. And then Tony came in the office and asked Bob O2 if we couldn't take care of this, you know, because Rev D was l 3 in the making and should be out any day. I 4 But Bob stated that I had to write the ICR and it 5 had to go through its own channels. And I told Tony -- I 6 asked Tony, whatever, if he would straighten Rick Saklak out ! 7 on it because I had to work for Rick and I didn't want him 8 thinking this way, you know, when he was obviously wrong. 9 And Tony said that Rick was too hot to talk to right 10 at that moment, because Rick was in Tony's office apparently, 11 and he knew I went in to the QA office so I just walked out 12 and went back to my seat. Ray Nemeth was with me, and we sit () 13 side by side, Ray and I. 14 And five or ten minutes later, Saklak came back to 15 my desk and he had his way about him. You know, he -- cocky, 16 I would call it, cigarette in hand, you know, and legs spread [ 17 apart, and telling me that we were going to -- well, here's l 18 what he said: That if beating was legal you would be dead. 19 or I made him so pissed off and that we were going to go round - l 20 and round. 21 And, you know, I realized he said he had a bad day, 22 but I knew he had a reputation for that. He had jumped on me O 1
75 1 one other time, not threatening like this. But I let it go 2 because it was minor. I don't recall what it was about. 3 And I seen him jump on a couple of other guys that I 4 didn't think it was necessary in' front of the whole department i 5 to be jumping on somebody like that. So, I knew he had that 6 reputation. And it was widely known amongst the inspectors 7 and management. 8 So, he left after he said that. 9 Q And did you say anything to him? 10 A I believe I said: Rick, whatever you think you have 11 to do. And, you know, I knew not to get obnoxious with him. 12 I mean, he was a big man. I wasn't going to fight him there 13 in the office. ( ) i 14 I was hoping that -- he was the supervisor, and I 15 knew to keep calm because I wasn't going to agitate him. I-16 didn't want to get involved in that. 17 He had already said what he said. And whether he 18 meant it or not was beside the point I felt. So I sat down
- 19 and wrote this out. I roughed it out on another piece of 20 paper and the next morning wrote the letter to Irv because, l
I 21 like I said, it was quarter to four or so and we got off -- l 22 quarter to five, excuse me. 'I think we was working 'til 5:30 0
76 1 at that time.
'O2 And so that's basically -- it was quick, you know.
l I l 3 And that's what happened. ! 4 Q Okay. How far away from you was he when he made 5 that statement? 6 A Four or five feet. He was not in my face, you know. , 7 Q Okay. Did he touch you in any respect? 8 A No. 9 Q He didn't physically touch you? 10 A .No. I think he knew better than that, you know. He 11 was the kind of man I think that would -- he just blows up 12 easy, you know. And when you get a lot of pressure, it's () 13 probably easy to do. 14 But I had learned when I first came into QC that you 15 don't say things like that, you know, to an inspector whether 16 it's your boss or what. I don't believe.it's right. 17 And I knew what my rights were as an inspector 18 especially since he was wrong. If I had been wrong it would 19 have been different,.you know, maybe. 20 But I still don't think it would require that even 21 if I was wrong, you know. But that's what was said. 22 Q Was this the first time that Mr. Saklak had asked O l
77 1 you to do something that you felt was wrong or in violation of ; 2 -- l 3 A No. 4 Q -- a procedure? 5 A Yes. This was -- excuse me. I'm sorry, I 6 misunderstood you. This was the first time, and I just 7 couldn't believe that he was saying it. You know, we was 8 trying to talk him out of it there and give him time, you 9 know, to think it out and change his mind a little. 10 But he was just --I don't know why he felt that 11 way. He knew better; I know he did. 12 Q Okay. Was this the only time that any Comstock ( ) 13 supervisor ever attempted to order you to do something -- 14 A Yes. 15 Q -- that you felt was in violation of any Comstock i 16 procedure? 17 A Yes. That was the only time. 18 Q Are you aware of anything from anything you have l l 19 heard or in any discussions you've had with other Comstock QC 20 inspectors of any word or any comments by any supervisor to 21 have that person do something that was in violation of the 1 22 procedures or the NRC regulations? l i O l l L. ___
78 1 A Well, I'm aware of it now because of the meetings or O 2 the letters I've got. It's all in this information of what 3 the people say. 4 Q This is what BPI sent to you? 5 A- Well, yes. The response -- when we all went to the 6 NRC some things was said over there that maybe that was l 7 mentioned. I can't say it's right in there, though. 8 - But whatever was said over there was my first 9 experience besides my own here of other people being told to 10 do something that they didn't think was fair or right, you 11 know. 12 Q Okay. Do you recall any specific instance where a ( ) 13 QC inspector was told to do something by a supervisor that was 14 in violation of the Comstock procedures or NRC regulations? 15 A I never personally witnessed it, no. I -- you know, 16 like I said, everybody has their own area to take care of. i 17 And what other people, what happens to them, I don't 18 know and I don't care to know, you know, really. 19 Q Okay. Now, you went to the NRC resident inspector 20 the next day; is that correct? 21 A Yes.- 22 Q Together with five other QC inspectors? O i l l - . ._, _ . . _ , - . _ - . , - - , _ . - _ - -
l 79 1 A Uh-huh. () 2 Q Okay. And whose idea was it to go to the NRC, do 3 you recall? 4 A It was mine. I felt like -- I had the whole night 5 to think about this, you know. It shocked me at first. And I 6 thought maybe I should just let it go. 7 But the more I thought about it, you know, I just 8 --my conscious wouldn't let me let it go, because what was 9 going to happen the next time. 10 And I didn't go to Irv DeWald right away because 11 this had happened before, not a threat maybe but his arguing 12 with other inspectors and they were both reprimanded, written 13 up, or whatever. And I knew that Rick had been told to cool 14 it by management or by Edison, you know, because everyone was 15 aware of his temper. 16 So, that's the reason I didn't go to Irv DeWald 17 first. I felt strongly enough to go to the NRC about it and 18 see what their response would be. 19 Q And this was because,'in your opinion, it was such a 20 shocking incident that Mr. Saklak would attempt to ask you to 21 do something that was in violation of procedure? 22 A Well, that, yes. And the actual threat, whether he O i
80 1 meant it or not I couldn't tell. 2 I mean, you know, he was aggravated and mad at the 3 time I think because he was proved wrong. I mean, not that I 4 tried to prove him wrong but he tried to go out of bounds here 5 which, you know, is not allowed. 6 So, that was the main reason I went over there was 7 because of the threat, you know. He tried to make me do I 8 something but I didn't do it. I don't know. That is a 9 violation, too. 10 If I didn't go through the act and close the thing 11 out, then it would have been my problem, you know. But I felt f 12 the actual threat was -- and he's the type man, like I said, I ( ) 13 didn't know whether he meant it or what was going to happen 14 the next time if I said: Rick, I'll let it go this time. 15 You know, he had been let off before. So -- 16 Q All right. Now -- 17 A- -- I had no problems with Rick up until that time, 18 you know. Really, it was a get the job done thing and I had 19 no problems with him. 20 Q All right. Does that complete your answer? 21 A Yes, I'm complete. 22 Q That's okay. Don't feel obligated to -- well, try . O
81 1 to answer all my questions the best you can. That's all I 2 want to say. 3 You made two statements that I need to clear up. 4 A Okay. 5 Q And it's one there that you can clear up. You said 6 this had happened before. 7 What did you mean when you said that? 8 A He had been -- well, there was an incident with 9 Frank Rolan. I know that he was written up for, or Rick was, 10 and Frank, or both, I believe. I don't know what the incident 11 -- what started it, but I know they were both, you know, 12 called into the office and told to cool it apparent?.y and work 13 ( ) together, you know. 14- Apparently they had.a disagreement and neither one 15 of them would back off of it. i 16 Q Do you know the nature of the disagreement? 17 A No, I really don't. 18 Q Do you know whether Mr. Saklak threatened Mr. Rolan? 19 A I don't believe he did. You know, I don't know, 20 really. I know they had an argument. 21 And I had witnessed Rick one other time -- 22 Q Well, wait a minute. O
82 1 A Okay. O 2 Q Were you present at the Rich Saklak/ Frank Rolan 3 incident? 4 A No. 5 Q Okay. All right. Now, you saw -- 6 A I did witness Rick jumping all over Mike Lekner one 7 day. I was sitting right beside Mike, and it was obvious. I 8 mean, the whole office was there. 9 You'know, we were again in another office where 10 management wasn't around. And so Rick's office was in our 11 office, too'. 12 And Mike was goofing off or joking. It was five 5 13 'til noon, and Mike's kind of a comedian, if you know him. 14 And there happened to be an NRC man there talking with Saklak 15 and Rick took it strongly that Mike shouldn't have been doing 16 that, which I agree, you know.
- 17 But he was -- he had come to Rick -- or, excuse me, 18 come to Mike and was screaming at him, you know, right in 19 front of us all to keep his mouth shut next time, you know, 20 this stuff. And then he walked out of the office and then he 21 come back and pointing to him again and yelled at him.
22 And just for Mike laughing around. He was hot, he O
.- - . .- = . . . . -
83 ., I was red and hot and going to lunch, you know. 2 Q Now, in other words, would it be fair to say then 3 when you used the words "this had happened before" you were 4 referring to Mr. Saklak's outbursts of temper, right? 5 A Temper, right. No, no threats; just temper. 6 Q Okay. So, him yelling or bursting out and yelling 7 or screaming, you are not referring, are you, when you used i 8 this term "this had happened before" to any demand which you 9 know of or any order that you know of or demand that had been 10 made by Mr. Saklak to any QC inspector to violate Comstock 11 procedures or NRC regulations, were you? 12 A No. 13 Q Okay. I just wanted that to be clear on the 14 record. So to the best of your knowledge the only time that 15 Mr. Saklak ever ordered anybody or attempted to order anybody 16 to violate Comstock procedure was when he attempted to order 17 you to do so with respect to that ICR and Engineering t l 18 disposition; is that correct? i 19 A Yes. 4 20 Q And you did not violate Comstock procedures despite 21 Mr. Saklak's request? l 22 A Right. I didn't sign it. 4 O ;
. = . . . - ..- - - - - - _ - . - - - _. . _- . .-
84 1 Q Okay. Now, when you said that you would let it go 2 this time, did you mean your concerns about Mr. Saklak 3 screaming at you or having an outburst or threatening you 4 again? 5 A Well, I didn't tell Rick that. You know, we are 6 just talking general here. 7 Q Okay. 8 A But I felt that whole night, well, if I let it go 9 this time what's going to happen next time. 10 Q And what -- 11 A If I let this threat upon me or even this -- well, 12 mainly the threat. That's really the only thing that really () 13 bothered me, you know, as far as -- I knew I wasn't going to 14 sign out ICR. I knew I was covered, because I had talked to 15 the QA manager. 16 And no matter what he said, I wasn't going to sign 17 that. So, the threat itself was all I thought -- and it 18 wasn't -- I wasn't out to go get him, then. Do you see what
- 19 I'm saying?
20 It was a threat and again whether he meant it or 21 not, I was going to let other people decide, that if I made 22 the NRC aware of it I knew that everybody else would find out, i
GD 1 you know, management, Edison. t ] 2 Q I understand. Okay. So, on March 29th, 1985 you 3 went to the NRC, to the resident inspector, Mr. Schultz, with a 4 five other Comstock QC inspectors and told Mr. Schultz about 5 what had happened with Saklak the afternoon before; is that 6 correct? ' 7 A Well, I believe it was actually Mr. McGregor that we i 8 talked to. 9 Q Okay. I 10 A Mr. Schultz sat in on the meeting I think after we 11 was already started. But, yeah, they were both there, and we j 12 did go there. () 13 Q Okay. And you explained to them what had happened? 14 A Yes. 15 Q All right. And what happened next? l 16 A Well, we sat there an hour or so. The other five 17 guys had things they wanted to get off of their chests, too, i
- 18 about problems which they had or knew of.
! 19 And so they heard everyone there. And someone said, 20 well, they was going to bring more people but -- that wanted 21 to talk to the NRC about problems that they had, but they l l 22 couldn't bring everybody, you know, so McGregor said, well, if L O i e l l 7 - - + , +--9 --.ww.. e-g. gem-w-w-i----.-wp.-:w- w' =w t-"-T'~7 - ' " - ' " " " " - * ' * ' ' ' * - * * * "-
86 1 you come back at noon, you know, he could listen to the i 2 problems. i 3 Q And did you go back at noon? l 4 A Yes. 5 Q All right.
- 6 A Because we was taped into Chicago then over the l
7 phone and talking with one of their bosses up there. And, you 8 know, I guess I -- my incident started this, going to the NRC. 9 But I felt strong enough about it I was going 10 whether anybody else went or not. But I didn't realize that 1
- 11 these other people had similar problems that they felt like
, 12 telling the NRC, you know, especially the nineteen or so, 13 whoever, that went over there. ( ) 14 So that was my only reason for going. But other 15 people had things, too, they wanted to get off of their mind, 16 you know. 17 Q Okay. Now, Mr. Snyder, I want to ask you a question i 18 about the other individuals who went with you at noontime to 19 the NRC. And before I ask you a question about their l 20 identities, I want to tell you several things. 21 First of all, at least one other Comstock QC 22 inspector who has been deposed in the last few days was asked
- O i
87 1 by several individuals not to mention their names regardless 2 of the Protective Order that has been entered in this 3 proceeding. All right. 4 And one of the questions I will be asking you is 5 whether you have made any such promises to any individuals to 6 keep their identities confidential. 7 Secondly, the Licensing Board in this Braidwood 8 licensing proceeding entered a Protective Order in December of 9 1985 which requires any individual who would get confidential 10 information from BPI to keep that information confidential. 11 For example, Mr. Gieseker, who is present here today, from 12 Edison and I have both signed the required affidavits, and I 13 have filed them with the Licensing Board and Mr. Guild. 14 I eventually intend to give this type of 15 confidential information to comstock supervisors in order to j 16 prepare for the hearing. I haven't done so yet. 17 Mr. Guild will be getting forty-eight hours 18 telephone notice before I give any Comstock supervisor any 19 information which is disclosed of a confidential nature. 20 All right. With all of that in mind, can you tell 21 me, if you recall, who the nineteen or so comstock QC 22 inspectors were -- O
88 1 A I -- 2 Q -- who went with you during noontime on March 29th, 3 1985 to the NRC? 4 MR. GUILD: You got ninety-nine percent of it. The 5 last point is that we have asked, and Edison has agreed, in 6 the previous depositions they will treat any information that 7 was provided by you as if it were the same as provided by BPI. 8 MS. KEZELIS: I'm sorry. I thought I had said that.
~
9 MR. GUILD: And you agree that Edison would be 10 governed by the Protective Order? 11 MS. KEZELIS: That is correct. I told you already 12 that anything that is divulged in these depositions will be (} 13 treated in the same fashion as information received from BPI 14 subject to the Protective Order. 15 MR. GUILD: Okay. 16 BY MS. KEZELIS:
- 17 Q So, the first question is, have you made any l
18 promises to anybody to keep their identities confidential? l 19 A No, ma'am. 20 Q Okay. Now, can you tell me, if you recall, who the 21 inspectors were who went with you during noontime? 22 A Well, I can't recall them all, no. i 'O 6 l
89 1 Q Okay. ( 2 A I have seen their names through this material. 3 Well, not everyone's name either. 4 Q Correct. 5 A But, I know several. 6 Q Okay. Why don't you tell me who you recall and then 7 I will ask you a few other names and ask you if you recall 8 whether they were there or not, okay? 9 A Well, let's see, I think the five guys that went 10 with me was Larry Bossong, Larry Perryman, Mike Mustard, Tim 11 Stewart I believe was with us. That's only -- that's four. I 12 can't -- you are not going to hold me to these? () 13 14 Q A No, sir. But I might be able to ask you a -- I was going to say Paul but I'm not -- 15 Q All right. Did all of the individuals who went over 16 in the morning with you go back in the afternoon or during the 17 noon hour, if you remember? 18 A I believe so. You know, again I couldn't say for a L 19 hundred percent sure. But we went on our noontime, because it 20 was decided if twenty of us went over on the clock, you know, 21 it would cause a disturbance in the field or shut down work in 22 the field which we think we should be doing, so we went on our 1 1
90 4 1 own time. 2 Q okay. If you would take a look through the group of , 3 documents that you brought with you today, I believe one of 4 the NRC documents is an April 5 memo, 1985, would reflect the 5 names of the six individuals who went to the NRC in the 6 morning? 7 A Okay. 8 (Witness reviewing document.] 9 Q Mr. Synder, would it have been Mr. Danny Holley who 10 went over with you the -- 11 A It could possibly have been. That's been too long. I 12 Like I say, I have a hard time with names anymore. () 13 Q okay. Why don't you tell me who you recall going 14 with you at the noon hour on March 29th to the NRC? 15 A Well, I think you could include the six. You've 16 already got the names there. 17 Dean Peterson, R. D. Hunter was there, Rick Martin, 18 Hershel Stout, Frank O. Rolan was there, Tim Stewart. 19 Now, everybody that went, I might say, you know, 20 didn't make a comment that day. It was just some people that 21 just went to -- apparently didn't have anything to say. I 22 But -- l
, ,y-- , - -.
e , -
-..,e-, ,------e ..--- - -
;?-
91 1 Q How about Joseph Hii, H-i-i?
, ) 2 A Yes,,ma'am. I remember Joe came in later. I think 3 he followed us, kind of trailed us, because he's now my 4 supervisor and -- but he was still an inspector then. But he 5 had been there for years, and he did I think come in late on 6 the meeting.
7 We had a room full, you know. And everybody is kind 1 8 of blurred now. But I -- maybe Julie Bollock might have been 9 there sitting in the background but I don't -- you know. 10 Q Okay. How about Thurman Bowman? 11 A Yes. Tinker was there. 12 Q I'm sorry, Tinker? 13 A Yes, that's what we call him. 14 Q How about Bob Patey?
-15 A Patey, I think -- he?s not been here forever, and 16 I'm not sure I can even recall his face. Let's see -- I don't
.17 want to say yes if I'm not thinking of the same person in my-18 mind.
19 Q Okay. 20 A The name throws me, you see. I would say I'm not 21 sure on that. 22 Q Okay. How about Terry Gorman? I O
92 1 A Yeah, I think Terry was there. 2 Q Okay. Hershel Stout? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Okay. How about C. N. Garrage? ^ 5 A Yes. Mickey Garrage, yeah. If you've got the names 6 there -- 7 Q No, no. I'm just trying to ask you what you 8 remember about these individuals, if you remember them being 9 there? 10 A You know, I can't picture them all. I -- 11 Q That's fine. 12 A I know there was a bunch of us that went. But -- 13 (} Q Okay. Let me try a few more names just in 14 case. Myra Sproull, was she there, if you remember? 15 A I will say I'm not sure. 16 Q That's fine. How about Rod Frisbee? Do yau know 17 whether he was there? ' 18 A No, I don't remember. I don't want to say yes and j 19 -- 20 Q Please, be very honest. If you don't remember, just 21 say so. 22 A Yeah. I could say I'm ninety-nine percent sure, but i O .
93 1 that one percent they may not have been there, you know. 2 Q Okay. That's fine. 3 A Okay. 4 Q How about Mark Kalchko?~ 5 A I do remember Mark being there. 6 Q Okay. How about Rick Marks? 7 A I don't recall. 8 Q Okay. Can you recall anybody else specifically that 9 may have been there? 10 A No. 11 Q Okay. Have I pretty well exhausted your 12 recollection of the people who were there? 13 A Yeah. I -- ( i 14 Q Let me ask you this. Do you recall anything 15 specifically that other Comstock QC inspectors complained j 16 about to the NRC during that noon meeting? 17 A They all had their own problems, you know. And I 18 didn't try to take it in. I listened, but I didn't try to 19 keep any of it. 20 I know it's all in there, but I remember Rick 21 Martin, he had several problems I guess, that he had been 22 treated unfairly he thought by management. O
<m-w - ._ _
__. , ,_.,_y _, . _ , - . . . - , .
94 1 Q Do you recall what his complaint was? 2 A Well, he was being watched over, which everybody 3 knew. He was having to turn in an hourly status report, where 4 all of us turned in a daily status report which they was 5 making him show every hour he was here what he was doing. 6 And he was -- had a special seat where they could 7 keep an eye on him, they thought. And -- 8 Q Do you know why that was or not? 9- A I really don't. I can't speculate. I've heard, you 10 know, things. But I -- you hear a lot of things. But -- l 11 Q Do you know whether Mr. Martin is still employed 12 there? 13 A I think he is, second shift. (} I never see him 14 anymore. But I'm sure he's still hayb. 1 15 Q Okay. Did you ever speak to Mr. Saklak again after 16 March 28th? i i 17 A No, I haven't seen him. 18 Q Okay. Did he ever attempt to speak to you? 19 A No. 4 20 Q All right. 21 A Not that I know of. i 22 Q Okay. Did you talk to him March 29th at all? l 1
,,,--,..------,---.,-.,,,_,,,,.,,w,
95 3 1 A No. Well, excuse me. Yes, ma'am. I was thinking
) 2 that was -- he did apologize early that morning, the 29th I 3 believe, if I can get my dates right. Yeah.
4 And he came up to'me and apologized and said he was 5 sorry.- He said he was sorry he got so hot. He said he had j 6 had a bad day. 7 And I told him -- we were sitting here calmly then, 8 and I told him that, you know, we can all have bad days but I 9 told him, you know, learn to control his temper which -- you 10 know, I just didn't know what to say. 11 Q Was.it an uncomfortable situation? 12 A Yeah. But I didn't let that change my mind. I had 13 already made up my mind that I was going to do what I did. ( ) l 14 And I couldn't let that sway me, because anybody can 15 apologize, too, after they've done something. I don't know. 16 He was a big boy, and he -- he done it himself, I feel. 17 If it -- I don't know. That's it. 18 Q Do you have anything else you want to add to that? 19 A No, that's all. 20 Q Okay. Was that the last time you saw Mr. Saklak? 21 A No. He was -- I had went to the field and been in 22 and out, you know, and I think I recall him sitting at his O
96 1 desk most of the day, you know. i , 2 Q That was on the 29th? 4 3 A Yes. 4 Q All right. 5 A Shuffling paperwork. 6 Q All right. Did you see him again on the following 7 Monday at work? 3 8 A No. 9 Q Did you see him on Saturday? i 10 A No. I heard he wouldn't be at work Saturday. I I 11 heard it that Saturday that he wasn't going to be in. 12 And I think maybe Irv called me into his office that 13 day, or either it was Monday, and told me that Sak wouldn't be ( ) 14 in -- or, he was off until this thing was cleared up. 15 Q Did Mr. DeWald tell you that Mr. Saklak had been 16 suspended? 17 A Well, the first time I don't think he -- well, maybe 18 he said suspended until this thing was cleared up. You know, 19 he didn't say terminated or anything like that. 20 I knew it was an interin thing, and I thought then, 21 well, you know, it's not over yet. So I didn't know what was 22 going to happen then.
- O A
97 1 Q And what happened after that, if you recall? 2 A Well, just basic interviews by their management, 3 Comstock management. It was myself and my witnesses and I'm 4 sure they talked with Rick Saklak, too, to -- 5 Q okay. 6 A -- get the story straight so everybody was telling 7 the same story. 8 Q And Mr. Saklak was terminated after that, wasn't he? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Okay. Who interviewed you on behalf of Comstock or 11 Commonwealth Edison Company, if you remember? l 12 A Well, Irv DeWald interviewed me first. I don't know 13 what date it was. It was probably that following week, a 14 Monday. 15 I don't believe we done it on Saturday. And then 16 later in the week, Bob Marino came down. 17 Q And who is Bob Marino? 18 A He is a corporate manager, boss, whatever you want i 19 to call it. 20 Q Okay. Who else? 21 A He had a man with him who I can't recall his name, 22 who I think was a lawyer, corporate lawyer, you know, for i O _-,c,._ - _ _ _ . - - - - - - , - - -n ----,,,------,,--,-m- --v,m-- , =, , ' = "
' 98 1 Comstock.
2 Q Doet- la name Glenn Smith sound familiar? 4 3 A Glenn Smith? 4* Q Does that -- 5 A Or, is that his last name, Glennsmith? 6 Q His last name is Smith -- 1
. 7 A Oh.
8 Q -- and first name of Glenn. Does that name sound 9 familiar? 10 A That doesn't sound familiar. But -- 11 Q Okay. l 12 A -- I'm terrible on names. () 13 Q Okay. Who else interviewed you? 14 A Well, later, a couple of weeks or so, the NRC, an 15 NRC inspector came on site and called me in and wanted the 16 story, too. I 17 Q Okay. And do you remember who that was? 18 A Mince, does that sound right? 19 Q Mendez? 20 A Mendez, yeah. l l 21 Q Okay. Who else may have interviewed you if you 22 remember? l O
. , , . . -. , , _,_-- - - - .._---.-..----,.....--__---,.,--,---m -,,,.m.---. . - .-~_-,4. -, . v- - - .
99 1 A I believe that was it. ( 2 Q Okay. And -- 3 A Excuse me. Voluntarily I came'in over here, I think l 4 was the last time I was asked to'come in here, you know. And 5 it Was a voluntary thing. 6 Q Fine. For the record, that's Mike Miller and 7 Rebecca Lauer and myself. 8 A Yes. l 9 Q Do you recall -- how did you personally feel about 10 the way that Comstock reacted to your complaint about 11 Mr. Saklak? 12 A Well, I felt like they had no choice but to act the 13 way they did, because everyone else knew it, the NRC, Edison.
)
14 That was another-main reason I went to NRC, because I felt 15 like it couldn't:be shoved under a rug, or whatever you might 16 call it. 17 You know, that that way :pastock would have to act 18 on it. 19 Q Well, were you satisfied with the vay Comstock acted 20 on it? . 21 A Yeah. Well, I would -- I will say yes. I would l l 22 have been disappointed I think if I had'had to have worked l l-O
100 1 with him again, you know, as him being my boss, not that I had 2 anything against the man but it's just that I felt that way 3 after that. 4 Q Was there anything that you felt that comstock 5 didn't do that it should have done at that time? 6 A No, no. 7 MS. KEZELIS: I have another fifteen or twenty 8 minutes perhaps worth of questions. And I don't know how much 9 time you are going to need. 10 And I believe the next deponent is waiting outside. 11 MR. GUILD: Mr. Snyder? 12 MS. KEZELIS: No. This is Mr. Snyder. After 13 ( ) Mr. Snyder, the next deponent is waiting outside. 14 MR. GUILD: Right. I do have some questions. And I 15 suggest we take a break. We are getting a backlog here. And i 16 I do have some questions. I suggest we finish him. l 17 MS. KEZELIS: How long will your questions last, l 18 Mr. Guild? 19 MR. GUILD: I can't tell you. It depends on what 20 the answers are. I really can't say. 21 MS. KEZELIS: Can you give me a rough estimate? , 22 MR. GUILD: Half an hour. l O l
101 1 MS. KEZELIS: Okay. Let's take a short break and we 2 will see what your schedule is like, and I will have to check 3 what the next deponent's schedule is like. , 4 (Whereupon, a recess is taken at 11:35 a.m., to 5 resume at 12:00 p.m., this same day.] 6 BY MS. KEZELI,S : 7 Q Mr. Snyder, you became an employee of BESTCO in July . 8 of 1985; is that correct? 9 A Right. 10 Q Okay. Can you tell me, in your opinion, whether 11 anything in terms of work conditions or morale changed because 12 of that transfer of employment that you have observed? () 13 A I think morale probably is better. People feel more 14 secure maybe with the union, and most people got quite a bit 15 more money. 16 So that seems to help out, you know, keep people l 17 happier. 18 Q Well, money is an important aspect of employment. 19 A Well, yeah. To get more inspectors you need to pay 20 better money, you know, to get people to come here, you know. 21 Q How much were you making, if you recall, before the 22 transfer of your employment to BESTCO per hour? i
102 1 A' Thirteen fifty, I believe. 2 Q And how much were you making after that? 3 A Sixteen eighty-two. Fifteen eighty-two plus a 4 dollar, but it comes out to sixteen eighty-two. They put a 5 dollar an hour toward a vacation fund for you. 6 Q Okay. 7 A But that goes on certifications still, you know. 8 Q And what is the amount of money that is paid per 9 hour for each additional certification? 10 A It's broken down into areas, electrical, civil, 11 mechanical and it's five percent if you get -- of course, you 12 are not going to get a mechanical cart working for Comstock, () 13 but the union is going to be set up where they are supposed to 14 start training people if you want to be trained in a different 15 area. 16 Q Are you saying that the union is taking over the 17 responsibility for training? 18 A No. Well, Comstock still, I suppose, has the 19 authority to train anyone in an area they want. They train 20 new hires that come in, they have to still get their forty 21 hours plus their tests. 22 But to train one from scratch, you might say, I just O
103 1 don't suppose they can do that here. 2 Q That's Comstock? 3 A Yes. If they wanted to, but I -- you know, they 4 'could just go to the union and say: We need this kind of an 5 inspector, you know. 6 -And if they can't get one through the union I 7 -suppose they would train somebody on site. 8 Q Okay. So, the union's involvement is what? 9 A To supply inspectors, kind of our -- BESTCO is our 10 mediator I guess between us and Comstock, you know. They 11 supply us to Comstock. They pay us. Comstock tells us what 12 to do. () 13 Q Okay. BESTCO pays you? 14 A Right. 15 Q All right. And that's Union Local -- what's the 16 number? 17 A- 306. l l 18 Q 306? 19 A Yes, ma'am. 20 Q And you are a member of that union? 21 A Yes, ma'am. 22 Q All right. Can you tell me when that union was l . _ . . . . _ . , . - - _ --,_.-- .- -- - - - - - -
104 1 vot'ed in? Do you remember? 2 A November of '84. 3 Q Okay. After you becams employed at Comstock? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Okay. And, in your opinion, did morale among the 6 Comstock QC inspectors change once the union was voted in? 7 A Maybe. I don't know. Maybe somewhat. We felt like 8 we were on the right track, you know, to have some protection 9 .from the company so that, you know, hopefully that you 10 couldn't be-singled out or -- you know, reprimanded.what you 11 thought was unfairly or be represented by someone besides 12 yourself. It may have made people feel more secure. () 13 I had worked for that union my last job, . and I don't 14 think that makes all that much difference if the work place 15 is, you know -- I don't know what you call it. If everything 16 goes smoothly, you know. 17 I don't think the union is all that necessary, but 18 some people thought it was better. 19 Q After the union was voted in? 20 A Yes. Yes. But it took months before we ever seen 21 any contract and, well, that was in July of '85 before -- 22 Q That was the contract negotiations you are talking O
105 1 about? 2 A Yes. And that's why I say maybe and maybe not, 3 because things just -- expectations maybe were building for 4 something to happen and it just kept being put off, you know. 5 Q Have you heard any complaints from any QC inspectors 6 about the salaries or the' pay or the certification pay raise? 7 A I think you will always hear people gripe about 8 money, but, yeah, I've heard it since then. ~ 9 .I don't believe everybody is always happy. Some 10 people still think they are not getting the right money, 11 maybe. Or, some people got more than others, a raise. If you 12 want to work for it you can get it, I think. And that's what 13 it comes down to. 14 That's what it was with Comstock. If you wanted to s 15 get out and train for the certs, you could get the money. But 16 everybody can't train at once. 17 And their scheduling was flexible, you know. You 18 could be -- you are going to train one day and then not train 19 that day, you see, because you've got something to do here. 20 Q Okay. Let me direct your attention momentarily to 21 Snyder Exhibit Number 5. 22 Can you tell me whose signatures appear below yours, O
106 1 if you know? Or, who the individuals are? g- .
\ 2 A Ray Nemeth --
3 Q Okay. 4 A -- was my lead inspector at the time. Tim Stewart 5 was an inspector that was sitting a few feet from where that. 6 incident happened with Rick Saklak. 7 Q And who is the other signature? 8 A That was Larry Bossong I believe was going to sign 9 that, not as a witness but as just support, you know. And we 10 decided that he didn't actually witness the incident. 11 He was sitting in the office but he didn't witness 12 it, so it was decided that he shouldn't sign it. 13 Q Okay. And that's why that mark appears through the ( } 14 name " Larry?" 15 A Yes, ma'am. Yes. It should have been initialed and 16 dated. 17 [ Laughter.) 18 Q According to procedure; is that right? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Okay. You also talked about gray areas in Comstock 21 procedures. I want you to just think for a minute and tell me 22 if you can identify things in-house that you feel is a gray O
107 1 area in the Comstock procedures that you personally are 4 2 familiar with? 3 A Well, the only thing that comes to mind which isn't l 4 gray, it's cut and dry, which is brought up in here that the 5 procedure was being. violated by management with their lead 6 inspectors and their supervision, uncertified people telling 7 certified people, you know, what to do in the areas which, if 8 there wasn't any procedure I don't see any problem. 9 But, you know, we are required to work by our 10 procedure and management wasn't working to their procedure. 11 Q Okay. 12 A That's what it comes down to. That's pretty cut and 13 dry; that's not too gray, i 14 But it wasn't working that way. 15 Q Okay. Are you aware of any event or incident that 16 would lead you to believe that any Comstock QC inspector 17 violated any Comstock procedures or NRC regulations because of 18 any harassment or intimidation by any Comstock supervisor? 19 A No, I don't know of any incident. 20 Q Okay. And you may have answered this already. Even 21 though Mr. Saklak threatened you, did you continue to abide by 22 the Comstock procedures? O
+a 108 1 A Yes, ma'am.
2 MS. KEZELIS: Those are all the questions I have. 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 9 10 11 12 0 12 14 15 16 17 l 18 19 20 21 22 O
109 1 EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. GUILD: I 3 Q Mr. Snyder, my name is Bob Guild. For the record, I
)
I 4 represent the Intervenors in the licensing proceeding. I've i i' E- got a few follow-up questions for you. 6 I think you said earlier -- I understood from your ] 7 earlier answers that over the course of your employment with 8 comstock Rick Saklak's behavior, to sort of paraphrase the way 9 you have described his behavior, his behavior was commonly 10 known among the QC inspectors, correct? 11 A Right. 12 Q Everybody understood that Saklak was prone to lose () 13 his temper and to verbal abuse, verbal threats towards people, 14 correct? 15 A That's correct.
- 16 Q And he was, as I understood, the initial supervisor i 17 over all the quality control inspectors under Mr. DeWald?
l 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q And I think you said that he had approximately sixty 20 inspectors under him at that time? 21 A Yes. When I came here I think I was sixty-eight, 22 and he was the only supervisor. l lO
llo 1 Q Now, in that capacity, did Mr. Saklak have the 2 responsibility for reviewing proposed documentation of 3 . deficiencies and workmanship? 4 I can explain what I have in mind by that. Say, for 5 example, work that failed to meet established procedures and 6 specifications that would call for an ICR or NCR, for example? 7 A He asked him did he review the reports or the 8 reject -- 9 Q Yes. 10 A -- work? 11 Q First of all, did he have responsibility for l 12 reviewing reports? , 13 A I don't believe so. The trend was to get the u-
- 14 inspection done, you-know, performed. And have it Level 2 15 reviewed by another inspector and turn it into the vault.
1 i 16 You know, you would write your ICR and process 17 that through.the other channels. And I don't think, unless it 18 was a major problem, that Rick really would get involved, you 1
- 19 know.
9 i 20 Q Well, let's focus on major problems. Under what i 21 circumstances typically do you think Mr. Saklak would get
. 22 involved in the review of an ICR or NCR for that matter?
1 l0
111 ; 1 A Well, maybe if it was on a hot item that, you 2 know, was, you know, holding up an installation or whatever, 3 you know, a major installation, I should say, that -- that 4 needed to be installed. 5 Q okay. l 6 A You know, if management or somebody called and 7 said: Hey, you know, we've got to get this straightened out 8 it would be a hot item then and you would work on that 9 particular one. 10 Q okay. Is that what you mean by hot, something 11 that management wanted to get done on a schedule? 12 A Yeah, right. They work on a schedule here and ( ) 13 they try to keep to it and don't like, you know, I'm sure to 14 get too far behind. 15 And things have to be taken care of, paperwork-wise, , 16 too. 17 Q okay. Can you give me an example of what would , 18 be a hot item? 19 A I would say something electrical. You know, I 20 mean, a component or something. I would almost say 21 terminations or even cable pulling would be, you know, the i 22 hotter items of anything electrical. O
112 1 So, say, hold tag holding up a pull or something, O k/ s 2 you know, that would be considered a hot item if it was a 3 safety-related pull that needed to be installed. They 4 would probably call up and say, you know, if we could clarify 5 this clean it up, you know. I 6 Q All right. 7 A Check out the ICR and see if we can't get it 8 fixed or repaired and go on with it. 9 Q Well, one step before that. If the inspector 10 finds something that is rejectable on a hot item, something 11 that would call for either an ICR or an NCR, depending on what l 12 the procedure was at the time, would that inspector likely ( } 13 bring that matter to the attention of the supervisor, say, . 14 Mr. Saklak when he was in that position? 15 A Well, yeah, I believe -- you know, Rick tried 16 to keep up with everything that was going on. And he was 17 always aware. I 18 You know, I would think that if the inspector l 19 would go to the lead, that the lead would talk to Rick about l i 20 the problem. And there are so many channels an ICR has to go i l 21 through, you know. I 22 But even to get the work performed it has to l
,__. ~ . . ._ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ , . _ _ . _ _ . . _ - _ . - . . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
( > 113 1 come back to the craft. But, just to write up the deficiency 2 it wouldn't necessarily hold up the work. 3 You know, I mean the work has still got to be 4 done in the field to clean up the deficiency. And, yeah, Rick 5 would probably know about it. 6 Q Okay. If it were on a hot item and it were 7 something that would hold up the work, is it likely that 8 Mr. Saklak would know about it before the deficiency was 9 written up, say at the point before an ICR got filed, the 10 point an NCR got filed? 11 A Would he know about it before it was filed or 12 before it was written, the ICR? 13 Q No, I'm a little bit in the dark about the exact 14 process. I'm -- 15 A Okay. 16 Q -- sort of assuming something.. 17 A Okay. 18 Q But let's say an inspector finds a rejectable 19 condition on a hot item, something that the inspector 20 identifies as important -- l 21 A Uh-huh. 22 Q -- would he -- when would he bring that to i ! O
l 114 1 Mr. Saklak's attention, through his lead or directly? 2 A The same day. You know, I mean, I would think 3 that if it was that hot, that Rick would know about it that 4 same day because the lead should be involved. And the lead l 5 should talk it over with the supervisor, you know, because 6 it's going to come to him anyway to -- the project manager 7 would be calling upstairs and seeing, you know, what was going 8 on with the hold tag or whatever. 9 So we try to keep ahead of construction, you 10 know, on that part of it. But he should know right away 11 pretty well_if it was that hot of an item. 12 Q Okay. Under the procedure as it currently exists, 13 or prior revisions, if you know, was Mr. Saklak or other 14 supervisors' review required in the process of initiating 15 either an NCR or an ICR? 16 A The review of the problem in the field? 17 Q Yeah, or the paperwork on the NCR or ICR? 18 A Not that I'm aware of. I think any inspector 19 has the right to go ahead and write that -- 20 Q Okay. 21 A -- NCR or ICR. 22 Q Okay. O
3 115 1 A It does go through the system manager. I think O 2 Larry seese was reviewing most of them before they were l 3 processed. 4 If he felt like it was an, I don't know, unnecessary 5 NCR or whatever he might hold up signing it and then talk with 6 the inspector or talk with Sak and then go back through the 7 channels and see what the problem is, you know. 8 That's the -- the way that is handled, or was 9 handled. It would go through management, more or less, before 10 it would be processed to Engineering. 11 Q Okay. So there would be some kind of review 12 for the validity of the NCR by management? () 13 A Yes. Right. 14 Q And that could include Saklak? 15 A I don't think he had the capacity to sign it. 16 He might have reviewed it, yes. But it would still have to go l 17 through Irv, who Larry Seese was -- I think it was Oc manager, 18 manager designee, is the way it was worded, I believe. 19 Q The NCR procedure? 20 A Yes. So, Larry Seese had that capability, and 21 I think he done the majority of them. 22 Q Okay. And Saklak might learn of it from that 4 4 I i. e-------- -- --. __,n ,_,--n, . , - , , ,,,n_ , , , - - , , , - - , , - , , , , , . . - - - - . , , , . - - , , . , -,,,.-,.g. - , , _ . , , , - , , - - ,,
116 1 process? 2 A Yeah. He might learn of it, because naturally 3 Larry would come back and call Rick and say, you know: What's 4 this about? 5 It would come back to him. 6 Q Okay. And would Saklak ever go to the field to i 7 either review the work itself or to speak to'the inspector or 4 8 lead about the deficiency? 9 A I'm sure that happens. 10 Q okay. 11 A It's still -- you know, that's normal practice, 12 yeah. ( ) 13 Q Well, let's take your specific ICR that you were involved in that led to the altercation -- led to Mr. Saklak's 14 15 threat to you. i 16 What was the piece of work involved? 17 A A weld machine that was found out of tolerance 18 per the procedure, and I wrote the ICR -- 19 Q Okay. How -- I'm sorry. 20 A -- which I knew, it was a repetitious thing, 21 you know. These weld machines, we checked every six months. 22 Normally, I'd find, you know, two or three out of every six l 1 O l
l 117 1 months. 2 But we've got maybe a hundred of them out in 3 the field,.you know. But I just wrote them up per my 4 procedure and let everybody else do their thing, you know. 5 Q Okay. Well, how did that matter come to 6 Mr. Saklak's attention? 7 A Well, I knew they had read our procedure. Rev 8 D was in process, but it wasn't final. And there was -- Tony
~
9 had asked me about it before. He's in charge of the l 10 weld inspectors. 11 He had discussed he thought it was -- they were 4 12 covered by the weld inspectors inspecting the weld out in the 13 field. Him and Bob Rudge, they had discussed the problem, you ( 14 know, because I had wrote numerous of these, you know. 15 And, Bob, when he has a problem he would come l 16 upstairs and discuss it with either the person that wrote the 17 ICR or management and see how they want to handle the thing, 18 you know. 19 So, they had discussed that before. But I really 20 don't know how Rick got ahold of that. Maybe they do go 21 through his desk, or did back then. Things have changed, 22 you know. O J
118 l 1 And, let's see, I'm trying to think, I don't 2 know whether I just wrote the ICR that day or whether I had 3 wrote it a couple of days before and it then it passed over 4 Rick's desk on its way to the ICR clerk, which if I remember ! 5 right we used to have to pass all of our paperwork through 6 there during that time period, through Rick's desk and then it i 7 would be passed on. 8 But, like I said, things have changed in that 4 9 neighborhood since I've been there. { 10 Q Okay. Let me -- 11 A The routing of the paperwork has changed. { 12 Q Okay. Yes. You recall now though that paperwork at 13 that time used to be routed through Mr. Saklak? 14 A Possibly at that time, because I remember it , 15 did happen. But it used to be where we would just turn
- 16 everything in. We would go right to the ICR clerk and give l
i 17 her the ICR. ! 18 But then she was getting flooded with too many 19 ICRs or something, so they made us start going through our 20 supervisor, our lead through our supervisor, and he would see 21 it and, you know, then he would turn it in. 22 Q Okay. Now, was that change in practice reflected in O
119 1 any change in procedure? 2 A I don't believe so. Just the routing of the 3 paperwork. 4 Q Okay. Was it reflected in any kind of meno, do i 5' you think? 6 A I'm sure there probably was. We had menos that
~
7 took care of paper routing, you know, that' sort of thing. Or, 8 maybe even it was a verbal meeting. Back then we used to have 9 weekly meetings. 10 Irv would stand up before us all and have a meeting,
- 11 you know, of the week's progress or this and that, you know.
12 But that no longer happens. l 13 But that -- 14 Q Can you help me understand what period of time, i 15 to the best of your recollection, ICRs and NCRs, paperwork as 16 you describe it, would have been routed through your 17 supervision, including Mr. Saklak before it went to the clerk? l l , 18 A That would be a shot in the dark. I really don't 19 know. I just know that probably up until the beginning 20 of '84, you know. Everything was going to the vault directly 21 and to the ICR clerk. 22 Q Until the beginning of '84 as far as you recall? O l
120 1 A Until the beginning of '85, it would have been. 2 When I came here it was the and of 84 at least, you know, six 3 months or so. The paperwork is going it's own way. 4 It was your responsibility to get your reports 5 to the vault complete, you know, when you were finished with 6 them, or your ICRs to the ICR clerk directly. 7 Q I just sort of missed the sequence there. Try 8 one more time. 9 When do you think Saklak and supervision would 10 have processed paper before it got to the clerk?
\
11 A Some time in '85 -- I'm sure there is a memo on : 12 it somewhere, you know. It's a thing where the clerk, she () 13 couldn't handle everybody coming to her all the time wanting 14 ICR numbers or whatever, you see, and they tried to trim it 15 down by taking it through the lead to the supervisor. 16 And only one or two people going to her, you 17 know, instead of a hundred. 18 Q okay. Is it likely, to the best of your 19 recollection, that supervision including Mr. Saklak was in 20 that process between the inspector and the clerk at the time 21 of the incident in March of '857 22 A That's quite possible. Let's see, if -- I think O
121 1 around that time, if I can recall now, we had just changed the 2 ICR procedure. They changed the whole form. 3 And it says t"pe of inspection on there. Well, 4 4 it was either supposed to be an in-process or a final. That 5 was the only two words that could be in there. In-process, 6 which would be a field inspection; or, a final which to me 7 would have meant the same in calibration. 8 But I just put in-process calibration. Well, 9 the ICR clerk said she couldn't take that. Well, you know, 10 then -- but yet they didn't really specify for calibrations, 11 you know. 12 They made the ICR up mainly for the field 13 inspectors' benefit. So there was a question on that because Ov 14 I wrote in-process calibration, which I didn't see any problem 15 with. 16 That may have brought his attention to the ICR 17 itself. I believe it was on that particular ICR, on the weld 18 machine. And I wish I had the ICR number, but I don't. And I i 19 don't recall what the number was. 20 But that's quite possible, that Rick had it before 21 it went on through its routing, you know. 22 Q Are you aware of -- did Mr. Saklak have to sign O
122
-s 1 any of these inspection documents?
2 A No, not the ICR, no. 3 Q How about NCRs? 4 A No. You know, only if he was closing one. He 5 had a few certs. He was certified in some areas. I don't . 6 recall what. 7 But he could have signed some of them areas, 8 you know, and document and sign it off if he wrote it. I 9 Normally the practice is, you sign off what you write, you 10 know, so it comes back to you. But there for a while, that 11- wasn't happening in '84 when I got there. 12 It was a let-down somewhere, because people were i f 13 closing out ICRs that weren't certified. And that was -- i 14 it's all in these papers here. But -- l 15 Q And would that include Mr. saklak? 16 A No. I wouldn't include him. I don't know whether 17 that was happening with him. 18 Q Okay. You just don't know? 19 A Right. I don't. 20 Q Okay. I guess then I understand that if there 21 was some supervision in the approval chain at the initiation 22 of an ICR or an NCR, it would have.been Hr. Seese? O I , t
. -. __ - . . , ~ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
123 l 1 A They all crossed his desk, yeah. i- '2 Q Okay. And he would sign? He would be the one 3 to sign if signing was required? 4 A Yeah. I think only NCRs were required to be 5 signed by our management. ICRs were the lesser of the two 6 and, you know, they can go -- they don't have to go to Edison
.7 for review. An ICR doesn't. But the NCR is a greater 8 document --
.9 Q Right.
10 A -- and it has to have our management's review 1 11 before it is processed so that you just don't get a bunch of 12 NCRs written for no reason, you know. () 13 Q Okay. And so Mr. Saklak was involved in the 14 review of inspection documentation. At the point of l 1G initiation, it would have been, along with Mr. Seese, and it . 16 was Mr. Seese who actually signed the paper? 17 A Yes. I can't recall if ICRs had to be signed 18 back then by seese but they would have been looked at by him
- l l 19 before they were sent on to process.
i 20 Q How many NCRs have you initiated? Can you give ! 21 me an approximation? 22 A No more than a couple dozen. When I first got i ,O 4
- . * .-.,-,.<e,-s.-----e..,.--~~-,, ,..-,,,----s.-...wm..-.,,,.,,,...,.....m- _,-y,~_ , v g ew%,,
124 1 certified, our procedure said NCRs and then it was another 2 verbal change where they said I was writing too many NCRs, 3 which may be the case. 4 And then they came up with this ICR. So they 5 wanted me to write ICRs and let management decide whether it 6 required an NCR or not. And, so that was what happening. And 7 it's the same way now. 8 Basically we write ICRs. If it's a big finding, a 9 big deficiency, whatever you want to call it, you could write 10 an NCR but it's up to the Engineering Department to upgrade 11 most of them. Most of them I write aren't as critical, I 12 should say. Maybe a weld or something like that. () 13 Q okay. The several dozen NCRs you recall writing, 14 were they written before the calibration procedure was revised 15 to specify ICRa? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Have you written any NCRs since then? i 18 A I don't recall any. I write very few now, you [ 19 know. 20 Q All right. 21 A Engineering upgrades them to an NCR if they feel 22 it's necessary. O
l 125 , l Q You mentioned other complaints in response to 2 some questions from Ms. Kazelis, and one of those complaints 3 was at the March meeting with the NRC. 4 One was a series of complaints by Rick Martin 5 about -- I think you described it as being watched over, being 6 required to submit hourly status reports, being given a 7 special seat so he could be watched; correct? 8 A Right.
~
9 Q Okay. And you said you had an understanding of , 10 why that was being done, although I think you were careful to 11 say you didn't have personal knowledge. 12 What was your understanding of why that was being () 13 14 done? A Just from hearsay that maybe he had -- well, it 15 had to do with his weld inspections is all I know. 1 i 16 It was before I think I may have even been here 17 on site. But whether it was -- I don't really know exactly j 18 whether he wrote something up that shouldn't have been or he 19 missed something he should have wrote up.
- 20 I don't know the specifics.
21 Q Okay. But something deficient in his weld 22 inspection work, as far as you know? 4 O i
*s-- -,,,-w-,,r.,-n---,,---,-,em--,----w,_w ,,--,.-w- wm,-- -
126 1 A Yeah, it was weld inspection. 2 Q In the opinion of his management anyway? 3 A Yeah. 4 Q okay. And who was responsible for watching him 5 and -- 6 A Well, he was working for Larry Seese and everyone 7 knew that he was going through this, or at least inspectors 8 did. And he was -- I recall a couple of times he was back in 9 our area talking about something, and he -- 10 Q He being Rick Martin? 11 A Yes. He was told not to be bothering inspectors and 12 told to get back to work by Mr. Seese, which he knew then he 13 ( ) better get back to work, you know. 14 And he needs his job like we all do. He's got 15 a family, and he was being watched, you know. 16 Q Was he speaking to other inspectors about work 17 related matters? 18 A Well, it may not have been all the time, you 19 know, I'm saying. But if he was caught out of his spot he was 20 told to get back to it from what I had heard and witnessed 21 that one time. 22 Q okay. You mentioned having come over here once O \ - l
127 1 before to see some of the lawyers or Edison, Mr'. Miller, 2 Ms. Lauer, Ms. Katalis. 3 When did that happen? 4 A I don't know. That's been three or four months 5 ago, maybe longer. I just -- a3pparently they called Irv, our 6 manager, and wanted to know if I was available to come over 7 and talk to them. And he said it was a voluntarily thing and 8 I didn't have to come, but I didn't feel like I had anything 9 to hide. And I came over and had a discussion. 10 Q Did you talk about anything that you haven't 11 discussed this morning? 12 A No. It was Rick Saklak, John Seeders was mentioned. () 13 Q Okay. Did you talk about RPI at all? 14 A No. I don't recall. No. 15 Q ' Did they ask you whether you had any contact 16 with BPI? 17 A No, I don't recall. 18 Q Any other' contacts with Ms. Kazelis or other 19 lawyers? 20 A No. 21 Q Are you aware of any other QC inspectors for 22 Comstock being interviewed or asked to come see the Edison
'l 128 1 lawyers? 2 A I don't believe so. I'm not aware of any, no. 3 Q Okay. 4 A Whether they did or not, that -- 5 Q All right. Now, when you went to work to be , l 6 trained by John Seeders, I want to talk to you a little about r 7 that' period of time, do you recall John speaking to you about 8 a recurring problem involving the calibration of torque 9 wrenches that would be sent off after having been found out of 4 10 calibration and would come back from the vendor still out of 11 calibration? 12 A I don't recall any conversation like that. I () 13 know those wrenches were a problem, going out of calibration i 14 often. You know, in the forty hours of training I had, it's 15 not a lot of time. I don't think he discussed that with me. 16 I don't believe so. 17 Q Okay. I'm sort of paraphrasing a practice, or 18 an occurrence. And I may not be doing it accurately. 19 But what I'm trying to focus on is an occurrence j 20 where torque wrenches would be found out of calibration by the , 21 calibration inspector -- 22 A Uh-huh.. O
, - , y .y.- p - - -w
. w .
w---rv ,em e- i------- - - -
129 l 1 Q -- and they would be, for one reason or another, 2 sent back to -- sent out to a vendor to be recalibrated. 3 Are you aware generally of that practice? 4 A Right. Okay. 5 Q I can't recall the name of the vendor but they 6 would supposedly be recalibrated and sent back with a . 7 certification that they had been recalibrated. 8 A Uh-huh. 9 Q All right. And that the calibration inspector i j 10 then on site, a Comstock inspector, Mr. Seeders, for a time i 11 would check them again and find that notwithstanding the 12 certification they were still out of calibration. () 13 14 A I'm sure that happened. here wasn't the best, what we was using -- I know that our equipment 15 Q Comstock equipment? 16 A Yeah, because what I seen them -- how I seen 17 them calibrate torque wrenches I couldn't believe when I first 18 seen it, how they were actually having to check them and then 19 say they were good, because I had worked at my last job, we 20 had the same type tester but they didn't allow these click 21 wrenches, which they called these that we had, on site down 22 there. O
i 130 i 1 They just, the dials only, which are a better 2 wrench. Most people I think agree that they are a better 3 wrench. And the equipment was the same except that they 4 didn't have the arm here, which is an arm that you attach to 5 the dial face and actually crank in the tension. 6 Instead, John had an electrician that had to 7 apply the pressure by hand, which it's not a steady pressure 8 maybe all the time. And I don't see how you can get an
~
9 accurate reading that way. 10 So, his may have been in, it may have been out, 11 you know. I don't think -- there's an NCR on it that 12 discusses that problem. But the sophisticated equipment that () 13 we've got here today is, you know, electronic and all that. 14 And I don't know what they had off-site but I 15 really don't see how you could rely on the way he was checking 16 them here. 17 Q Okay. Because of the equipment? 18 A And another thing, the thing was mounted on a 19 bench, an old tool crib where tools are piled up everyday. 20 It's supposed to be in a controlled area, which 21 you've got two or three cribmen in there all day long when the 22 QC is not there, because you can't live up there in that O
131 1 crib. It's just -- I couldn't really believe what -- the O 2 atmosphere he had to work in, you know, the calibration 4rdder- /qh 3 or whatever you want to call it, you-know. 4 It wasn't a segregated area, and the thing was 5 all scarred up from where they had beat it up, whether it was 1 6 a craftsman or -- 7 Q You are talking about the calibration instrument? 8 A The tester. It had a yearly frequency on it 9 for recalibration which you could check thousands of wrenches 10 in h year's time before you would know that tester was out the 11 next year. 12 Q Did you come to understand that Mr. Seeders, as
) 13 a matter of practice, would take torque wrenches that came l 14 back after having been recalibrated off-site and would l
informally use a Phillips-Getschow piece of test equipment to 15 16 confirm the calibration? 17 A Yes, I knew some of the wrenches did go over 18 the Getschow for confirmation or whatever. He had to take ten 19 percent I believe. They did an overview Getschow daily of our 20 wrenches. 21 PTL didn't have a tester at that time, and Getschow 22 would do ten percent. So, that's why he took them over there, O
~
F l l 132 1 1 okay. ! ( 2 .Q Well, I mean -- did he take them over, is it 3 your understanding, because he identified problems with test 4 equipment, or lack of reliability of the test equipment that 5 Comstock had available? 6 A I really don't know whether that was his reasoning, 7 you know. He may have. But I would think he had had a 8 question, you know, about his equipment he would have wrote it 9 up possibly, say this -- he had the weights there though to ' 10 calibrate that thing. So, if he had a question he could have 11 calibrated it. 12 He could have calibrated it himself. ( } 13 Q Did Mr. Seeders ever discuss with you the problem or 14 circumstances of finding a torque wrench out of calibration, 15 initiating an ICR to document that out-of-calibration, sending [ 16 it off-site for recalibration, getting it back certified, 17 finding it still out of calibration when he used the i l l 18 Phillips-Getschow equipment, getting it-recalibrated but only i 19 -- but relying on having issued the original ICR and not 20 issuing a subsequent ICR to document the second 21 out-of-calibration? 22 A No. He never discussed that that I'm aware of. But O
133 1 that first ICR, as long as the wrench is no longer used in the O 2 field, should -- 3 Q Should cover it? 4 A -- take care of the work that wrench was used 5 with. That's basically what an ICR does. 6 Q All right. 7 A I write them all the time still. But I write 8 it against the tool, but the tool can be repaired, you know, 9 just like the work in the field that that tool was used on has 10 to be checked. 11 Q Uh-huh. 12 A So, basically you are writing the wrench up but () 13 you are writing the work up that that wrench was used with 14 because it has to be evaluated by Engineering or re-torqued. 15 I'm sure he was having those problems, but I 16 didn't know that at that time. 17 Q Okay. Did Mr. Seeders ever bring to your attention 18 the -- his acknowledgment that the procedure called for using L 19 NCRs to document out-of-calibration conditions but that the l 20 practice per management instruction was to employ ICRs 21 instead? 22 A No. I never discussed that with him, because I O
134 1 found out the same after I took over. I was writing NCRs per O 2 procedure and then I was told to write ICRs instead. 3 Q Okay. Do you know -- 4 A You know, they both can get the work done, the 5 rework done, but it's just that one goes to Edison. It's a 6 major problem, a major amount of rework. 7 The other thing, it should be on an NCR. 8 Q What did you and Mr. Seeders discuss on that 9 subject when you were in training, which document was 10 appropriate for out-of-calibration conditions? 11 A I would have to go to my training. I can't 12 remember. I had a reject practical but I don't remember if I () 13 wrote an ICR or an NCR. 14 I really couldn't tell you. 15 Q Okay. Let me turn to Deposition Exhibit Number 16 4. And that's tue packet of information involving 17 Mr. DeWald's interviews with you about the John Seeders / Rick 18 Saklak incident. 19 Do you recall that subject? 20 A Uh-huh.. , 21 Q Okay. First of all, can you describe the 22 circumstances in which Mr. DeWald took this statement? O
*N --
- 135 1 A He brought us all in that were involved or may 2 have witnessed that incident. And it was just us and him, one 4
3 on one. 4 And he sit there and took notes of what -- he 5 asked questions and took notes of our answers. 6 Q Okay. 7 A And apparently had it typed up by the secretary. 8 Q Okay. These then are the typed version of 9 Mr. DeWald's notes -- 10 A Yes. 11 Q -- of the interviews? 12 A Yes. 13 i ( ) Q All right. I note, for example, that on Page 4 14 of 11, that's Bates Number 2016, it's the last paragraph of 15 the second place above which your signature appears, there's 16 the following statement: "Being a new hired employee and 17 working with Mr. Seeders a short while, it is felt that this 18 person has an unbiased opinion of both individuals and his l l 19 judgment of the situation is very honest and forward." l 20 By his judgment, the reference is to you; is 21 that right? 22 A Apparently, yeah. l l l O l
136 1 Q That's not you referring to you; that's Mr. DeWald 2 -- 3 A Yeah. Right. 4 Q -- referring to you? l 5 A Yeah. I told him: I have nothing to hide. I 6 don't know either man very well, and I was sitting here in the 7 middle, you know. 8 Q So, that's a reflection not of a statement that 9 you made but of Mr. DeWald's opinion about your lack of bias t 10 or -- 11 A I think so, yeah. 12 Q -- opinion? () 13 14 A Yeah. All right.
; Q Now, Mr. DeWald's signature doesn't 15 appear below that paragraph but that would suggest that at 16 least in part that paragraph indicates Mr. DeWald's opinion l 17 and not yours?
l l 18 MS. KEZELIS: Just to make it a little bit easier, i l 19 why don't you show him the document? 20 MR. GUILD: I would be happy to. 21 [ Witness reviewing document.) 22 THE WITNESS: Well, I told Irv I had nothing to O
137 1 hide. I was going to be honest and straightforward. And, 2 yeah, he may have -- I don't -- 3 BY MR. GUILD: 4 Q He is speaking about you, and those are his words 5 and not yours? 6 A It is felt that this person, meaning me, has an 7 unbiased -- yeah, apparently that's the way he has written it 8 here, that he's -- 9 Q Saying that? 10 A Yeah. I think that's right. 11 Q Okay. He asked you the question: Have you ever 12 heard Mr. Saklak harass or intimidate anyone? () 13 And the answer that is written here is: No, 14 not since I've been here. 15 A Yeah. 16 Q You certainly knet? at that time, didn't you, 17 September 26, 1984, that Mr. Saklak had a generally known 18 reputation for having a short temper and for using curse words 19 at people and yelling, as you've described? 20 A Yeah, I suppose that -- I had never witnessed 21 that. Well, what's that date on that, 9/26? 22 Q Sure. Would you like to look at. it? O
138 1 A No. Harassment and intimidating, isn't that 2 what it says -- 3 Q Yeah. 4 A -- I had never witnessed that. I didn't call 5 that incident on July 25th or whatever that was as a. 6 harassment or intimidation. 7 They were both in an argument. Whether one was 8 harassing the other, and Bob Seltmann, you know, since it was 9 the same case I felt like Bob Seltmann was trying to handle it 10 in a professional manner, you know. 11 Q Let's focus on Mr. Saklak. 12 A I was aware of his reputation. 13 ( Q You had heard him, hadn't you, raise his voice 14 to people? 15 A Well, I don't believe so, because I never heard 16 him I don't believe until he had first got it out with me over 17 something -- I don't even remember what it was. It was after 18 I was certified, which was October. 19 And so, you know, I never witnessed him verbally 20 abusing anyone. So, you know, I hadn't witnessed that to that 21 point. 22 Q So, is it fair to say that your statement there O
139 1 that you hadn't heard Mr. Saklak harass or intimidate anyone, 2 "
... not since l've been there," that's the words that appear 3 on there --
4 A Yeah. 5 Q -- indicated that you were pretty new on the 6 job and -- 7 A Yes, two months and maybe a little more than 8 that. 9 Q All right. 10 A Which is pretty new, you know. 11 Q All right. Well, it's fair to say alco I guess, 12 then you were not thoroughly familiar with whatever course of 13 dealing had occurred before your arrival between Mr. Saklak (} 14 and Mr. Seeders? 15 A Right. I don't know. I don't want to even care 16 really. I just -- I guess there was problems, but I don't -- 17 Q Okay. Well, is it fair to say then that you 18 really weren't in a position to form a judgment about who was 19 right and who was wrong -- 20 A That's right. 21 Q -- on the 25th of September? 22 A That's right. O
- ,- - - - - , , , - . . . - ~ . , - - - - , - - . , - . - - - - , . ,
140 1 Q You just heard both of them engage in an argument? 2 A That's right. That's all it was that I had seen, 3 but, like I said, I didn't want to sit there and listen. And 4 I got up and walked out. 5 But I had already heard -- I don't recall what 6 they were saying but they were just like this, you know -- not 7 in each other's face; they were both sitting down. But -- l 8 Q Well, you said that John Seeders, he's a big h . l 9 guy, he speaks with a loud voice? 10 A Uh-huh. 11 Q And Mr. Saklak speaks with a loud voice -- 12 A Uh-huh. So they were bumping heads I guess. ( ) 13 Q Well, Mr. Saklak was Mr. Seeders' boss, right? 14 A True. 15 Q And Mr. Saklak had responsibility and authority . 16 over Mr. Seeders, didn't he? 17 A Right. 18 Q Not the other way around? 19 A Right.
. 20 Q All right. To that extent, Mr. Saklak is the
, 21 one who could take some kind of adverse action against 22 Mr. Seeders and not the other way around? O
_ - . _ ._ . . _ _ __ . _ ~ . _ _ _ . ._. 141 1 A That's true. O 2 Q I mean, Mr. Seeders couldn't transfer Mr. Saklak out 3 of the QC Department, could he? 4 A No, that's right. 5 Q And, in fact, Mr. Seeders was the one who ultimately 6 got transferred to the Engineering aid position? 7 A That's right. 8 Q Let's talk a little bit about this audit or the 9 response to the audit that you understood John Seeders was 10 involved in at the time you started training with him. 11 You and Myra Sproull ultimately performed an L 12 audit which you understood John Seeders was supposed to have () 13 been doing. Is that a fair summation of what you have 14 testified? 15 A Well, that's the way it looked to me as being 16 brand new on the job. But there's no way that John could have 17 done that. 18 I mean, you know, I knew he had to have access 19 to the vault, and he did go to the vault on that Saturday we 20 worked. But from what we gathered, that information is very 21 thorough. It took maybe two months to do that. 22 Q Between you and Myra Sproull? l O
142
'l A Right.
2 Q Okay. 3- A Now, again I didn't hear the instructions, never 4 seen anything written, but I understand it was an audit 5 finding. And I don't even know what the audit finding was. 6 It apparently was an Edison finding. 7 Q Yeah. Who was doing the calibration inspection t 8 work at the time that you and Ms. Sproull were doing the -- I 9 will call it the audit -- the review has been identified as a 10 Deposition Exhibit -- 11 MS. KEZELIS: 3. ! 12 BY MR. GUILD: 13 Q Deposition Exhibit 3? ( ) 3, 14 A That was John. He was still there. 15 Q Okay. 16 A That was probably August and September that we 17 were probably in there doing it. 18 Q could you alone, Mr. Snyder, have done both the 19 calibration inspections and the document review that you 20 ultimately were involved in? 21 A No. 22 Q could you have done them in two months, both? O
143 1 A No. 2 Q Okay. ) 3 A No.- This was a piece-by-piece of filing the 4 piece of paper in there. From the instructions we got, and 5 'still they weren't written and they were vague, we were 6 supposed to go to the vault and see what the problems were in 7 the calibration packages. 8 Q Okay. Did John Seeders ever speak to you about 9 the need for help in performing the document review that he 10 was responsible for? 11 A Well, I don't know if he spoke to me about it, 12' but I helped him that Saturday. It was more than a Saturday's 13 work, more than one day's work, but that was my only 14 involvement with John in that audit, as his trainee which I 15 used as material I think as training partially -- it's ; 16 probably in my training package. 17 That was basically all it was. To me, it was 18 training and I wasn't responsible to answer the audit myself.
- 19 Q Do you agree that Mr. Seeders needed help in 1 20 performing that document review, assuming that the document 21 review that was ultimately done over two months by you and 22 Myra Sproull was the task that Mr. Seeders was asked to O
4
-e - - . -
--,--,,..,.,,n.,.., -- -..
144 1 perform?
'2 A -Yeah, I would -- there is no way he could have 3 done both jobs.
~4 Q Were you aware of any problems in the effective 5 filing of documents in the Comstock vault?
6 A You know, it was pretty widely known across the i - 7 department that things got misplaced down there, misfiled.
;- 8 I've seen that happen since,'because they do hire girls off 9 the street to -- and they go in there and they train them. I 10 don't think it's a documented training. Maybe it is now. But 11 back then I don't believe so.
12 And so many pieces of paper went in and out of (j 13 there. It was widely known that things get misplaced. You 3 14 know you put it in the basket, you know, to be filed but I 15 think that was found to be a pretty poor system. 16 That's the reason it's not that way now. 17 Q That's why the statusing is done now that tracks 18 documents that are ultimately sent to the vault? 19 A Yeah. 20 Q And that system wasn't in place at the time John 21 Seeders -- 22 A No.
, 145
.1 Q -- was calibrations inspector?
2 A Right. 3 Q okay. And is it possible, given your understanding 4 of the condition of the vault filing system, that Mr. Seeders 5 could have properly originated inspection documents on 6 calibrations, placed them in the basket to be filed and yet 7 still the documents never got in the proper folders in the 8 vault? 9 A It's possible, very possible. On torque wrenches 10 and the things that he did perform or initiate reports on, 4 11 like I said, he -- for some reason he went two years without 12 reports on crimpers and wire strippers, which the procedure () 13 told him to do. Why everybody let him go like that, I don't 14 know, because it was two years -- or, excuse me, until October 15 or November of '84 you won't find a report in the vault on a 16 wire stripper or a crimper. 17 But it was -- it plainly states in 491 Rev C I l 18 that all calibrated items on site -- 23As shall be initiated 19 for all calibrated items on site. 20 So, that -- 21 Q Well, let's talk about that in a second. 22 A Okay. O I m._._,_ , . . _ _ ._ . - . _ . . _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . , .. _.. _ _ . - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
146 f 1 Q But the first point is, it's possible that the O 2 documents that Mr. Seeders did originate properly as 3 calibration inspector, placed in the basket, never wound up in 4 the proper file? 5 A That's possible, yes. 6 Q Okay. And you would have no way of identifying 7 -- distinguishing those situations from ones in which 8 Mr. Seeders didn't originate a proper document when you went 9 through and did your vault document review? 10 A Well, I don't know what we come up with on crimpers 11 and strippers, which was nothing really, but I have no.way of 12 knowing whether he ever put the -- I know he couldn't have put () 13 all them crimper and stripper reports in there and none be 14 there, you know. l 15 Q Okay. I i 16 A And the same way with the torque wrenches. It's 17 possible, you know. 18 If his card said that -- his 77 form said that 19 he initiated the -- or, performed the calibration there should 20 have been a 23A in the vault. 21 Q Okay. And he may have originated a 23A and put 22 it in the basket but it never got in the file? O
- 147 1 A- Yes, possible.
2 Q Okay. How many -- can you give me an estimation of 3 how many, let's say, documents like a 23A would go into that 4 basket on a periodic basis, say, a day or a week or a month? 5 A By him or by everyone? 6 Q Yeah, by all of'the calibration -- 7 A Well, it's a basket. It could be piled up some i 8 days, you know. It was just up on a shelf, though. And you 9 just put it up there. , 10 And as it showed up, the girl would pull it down. 11 They would separate the stuff and start filing it in the back. 12 Q okay. I'm talking about 23As now, right? 13 A ( ) Well, all of them in general, right. 14 Q Let's focus on one. l 15 A If you break it down into 23s, that will be the 16 done the same way. i 17 Q How about, would there be ten a day of 23As? l 18 A Yeah, that's very possible. Maybe more, maybe 19 more. You know, it varies. 20 Q I'm asking you. I mean, what's your estimate, 21 do you think, on a daily basis or a weekly basis, of say a 22 23A? O
148
,c 1 A Yeah, I don't know. I would say fifty er sixty 1
2 a week. 3 Q Okay. 4 A It's more than that now. But he didn't have 5 near the tools we have now. 6 Q Is that the most populace item, the 23As? Is 7 that the document you use most often for filing in the vault, 8 calibrations? 9 A Yes. Now it's a 23A only covers all torque wrenches 10 and every tool we calibrate. It used to be a 23 was a torque I 11 wrench document and a 23A was called a variable instrument 12 calibration report which was everything else. ( ) 13 Q Okay. Where is the reference, if you have one, i 14 in your Exhibit 3, the calibration audit report to strippers 15 and crimpers, Mr. Snyder? l 16 A Well, that's what I say. I haven't seen it for 17 a while. I don't know if we've got anything in here on wire 18 crimpers and strippers. 19 (Witness reviewing document.) 20 Well, we didn't even go through them because 21 there was nothing there. Let's see, we've got rod ovens and 22 torque wrenches. I was thinking we had done maybe more than
l 149 1 those two, but maybe not. i ( 2 You know, you are talking several tools we went 3 through. But, see I had compiled -- 4 Q When did -- f 5 A -- a pile of stuff in longhand, we had, our notes, 6 and turned them into the QA office and this was -- they 7 were typed up into this, you know. i 8 Q okay. And as far as you know, in Exhibit 3, i 9 that report of September 7, there is no reference to crimpers 10 or strippers and is a lack of documentation? 4 11 A I may have'noted that in my notes. I can't say 12 -- apparently they didn't -- you know, I can't say I even 13 noted it in my notes. But it was one of our findings, I'm
)
14 sure, because we were comparing this to the procedure, you 15 know. 16 And that was one of our questions, why crimpers l 17 and strippers 23As weren't being initiated. But they didn't 4 1 18 put it in there, no. 19 Q Do you know how else -- if it's not in this report, 20 Exhibit 3, how else was that finding documented? 21 A Well, on NCR 3419 covers all that. See, it covers 22 this, too. !O i I '
150 1 Q Uh-huh. 2 A It covers the whole program. And Saklak wrote 3 the NCR, broke it down into nine points, and one of the points 4 was missing -- well, it may just say missing calibration 5 reports which would cover strippers and crimpers and torque 6 wrenches, I would say. 7 Q Okay. 8 A I don't think it breaks them down. 9 Q Are you aware of any specific documentation of . 10 that finding about crimpers and strippers? 11 I just want to follow up on it, and I'm trying 12 to get some reference to a document. () 13 A No. I've seen nothing in writing. 14 Q Did you ever discuss that subject with Mr. Seeders? 15 A No. No. We was in the vault and John was on 16 the outside, you know. And we stayed in there eight hours a i 17 day or, you know, in and out. l 18 But I never discussed it with John, no. 19 Q All right. Did you discuss in your training 20 the subject of 23As on crimpers and strippers? 21 A No. I don't recall why either. I can't understand, 22 you know, why I wouldn't have questioned that because I was O
151 1 memorizing the procedure which you have to do to take a test d 2 anyway almost. 3 And I don't know how unless -- see, John didn't 4 have near the tools we have today, and we do them weekly. We 5 are on a rotation. Crimpers and strippers are checked 6 monthly, but we do so many a week because we can't do them all 7 in one day. 8 But back then, John could do them all in one 9 day, because he didn't have near as many as we have. Now, I 10 don't believe any of my training is on wire crimpers or 11 strippers, to tell you the truth. 12 I did torque wrenches and rod ovens. But maybe 13 that was the week John didn't check crimpers and strippers, 14 because he could do them all in one day, you know, because I 15 can't -- the paperwork takes longer to do than the actual 16 calibration. It does. 17 It takes me eight hours to do forty tools, strippers 18 and the paperwork. 19 Q Okay. Are you aware of whether anyone else 20 calibrated the crimpers and strippers? 21 A I don't think -- Don Coss helped John out on 22 the vacation and things, but whether Don ever did I couldn't O
152 1 say. But there's just no reports down there, documents. 2 Now, you know, on other sites I understand that 3 they don't even calibrate wire strippers so it's no problem. 4 But we -- the only thing that brought this all up in October 5 of '84 was when I did check the wire strippers we found a lot 6 of bad ones, and per the manufacturer's requirements we check 7 them with pin gauges and forty-five of them failed out of 8 forty-five, you know. 9 And I mean, they were obviously wore out, shouldn't 10 have been used in the field, per procedure. So, after doing 11 checking, you know, you go to the vault and there's nothing 12 there. () 13 There's a signed 77 in the card file that says, 14 yes, he did calibrate them but there's no backup evidence to 15 support his inspection, which per procedure there was supposed i 16 to have been. 17 so -- 18 Q And there was a signed 77 for each of these -- 19 A Tools, yes. 20 Q -- strippers? 21 A Yes, sir. And he had the pins to check them 22 with so, you know, I --not all the pins were available. It I O w z - -- -p----,,-,----w- - - - - w-,-p,w------ ,,, -~--- - - w~-- -
4 153 1 was kind of a farce, I guess. We had almost all the pins but
- i 2 not to check the teflon strippers, we didn't have them.
3 So after I got involved, we got them ordered 4 and got them on site. But he could have checked the majority 5 of them. 6 Q Do you know whether he, John Seeders, was operating
- l 7 under any kind of special instructions from his supervision 8 about the strippers and crimpers?
9 A No, I'm not aware of them. They never passed i 10 it on to me when I got involved, if that was the case. 11 Like, nobody knew he wasn't doing that. And I 12 don't see how, but -- you know, with all the audits you go () 13 14 through. I know at the time we were in the vault, Myra and I, there was a CECO auditor in there auditing calibration. 15 And I asked him what they were looking for, and 16 he said well they had certain things they look for, and that's 17 it. You know, they don't dig. 18 See, we were digging into this stuff, you know. You 19 see one problem, you dig in a little more. 20 But he said they just have certain things they 21 have to look for, and if they meet that then everything is 22 okay for that audit. I was just curious, you know, feeling i
- O i
_ , , _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ ___,_,..,__-___.,_,-__.___m_,_, .
, . _ - , . , - -,_y - - . -y_ . - _ . _ ,,-. ,
154 1 him out, to see what they were looking for. 2 We were finding all this stuff. 3 Q Who was Mr. Seeders lead at the time he -- at 4 the time you did your training under Mr. Seeders? 5 A Larry Phillips. 6 Q Is Mr. Phillips certified in calibrations? 7 A No, sir. 8 Q Was there any supervision over Mr. Seeders certified 9 in calibrations? 10 A No, sir, not -- Rick Saklak wasn't. I'm not l t 11 sure about Larry Seese and Irv DeWald. But, you know, they l 12 are Level 3s. I suppose they are certified across the board. 13 But as far as knowing actually the small details of 14 what you are doing, they wouldn't have really known. 15 MR. GUILD: Okay. That's all I have. Thanks 16 very much. 17 THE WITNESS: Okay. l l 18 MR. GUILD: I appreciate it. 19 MS. KEZELIS: Mr. Snyder, I just have one question 20 of you. 21 22 i i
- . - . - - . - - .. ~ .. . . -
155 + 1 EXAMINATION 2 EY MS. KEZELIS: 3 Q Let's come back to Deposition Exhibit' Number 4 4. And Mr. Guild asked you a question or two about a Bates 5 Stamp Number 2016 in Deposition Exhibit Number 4. And he read 6 to you the paragraph appearing immediately above your 7 signature. .' '
-8 "And yon have= agreed that that was a summary by 9 Mr. DeWald of his impressions of what you had told him; is '
10 that correct? 11 A Well, if I remember this interview, you know, 12 or whatever you call it, not word-for-word, but I had told him 13 that I had not worked with these guys, I had nothing.against
~
s_ s - 14 either one of them. I was ~ in the middle' of this. 15 And whether it was a wording problem of his or. . 1 16 whether I actually said I have an' unbiased opinion,;I don't 17 thi,nk I actually said those words, in those:certain words., I 18 don't talk that sophisticated normally. I'm a southern boy, 19 you know. 20 But) -- l i 21 Q Okay. 22 A -- basically he -- that's the way I felt. I 1 i % l: -
, 156 i .
1 had nothing against either man. 4 2 Q Okay. In other words, would it be fair to say 3 that you wouldn't have affixed your signature after that 4 paragraph if you had felt -- 5 A- I -- 6 Q -- that anything that was stated there was untrue or 7 inaccurate? 8 A That's true. It may have been a little juggle of a word there but that's what it comes down to.
~
9 3 10 Q Okay. 11 A That's the way I feel about it. 12 MS. KEZELIS: Okay. I have no other questions. 13 , ( ) THE WITNESS: Okay. 14' MR. GUILD: 'Well, let me just follow up on that. 15 16 17 l 18 19 20
- 21 22 O
157 l 1 EXAMINATION l . 2 BY MR. GUILD: 3 Q Now having considerably more experience with 4 all the people involved, Mr. Seeders not I guess because 5 Mr. Seeders isn't in calibration anymore, but now knowing a 6 lot more about Mr Saklak, at the time you said you never 7 heard of Mr. Saklak harass or intimidate anyone. 8 Since then, he has harassed and intimidated you, 9 hasn't he? 10 A Yes. I 11 Q And you understand that he may have harassed 1 12 and intimidated others? () 13 A Yes. 14 Q And maybe he harassed and intimidated Mr. Seeders on 15 reflectionh 16 A Yes. 17 MR. GUILD: Okay. 18 MS. KEZELIS: I have one final question. 19 4 20( 21 22
.O
F 158 1 EXAMINATION Gr 2 BY MS. KEZELIS: 3 Q Mr. Snyder, I certainly don't mean to suggest 4 that events haven't taken place since you signed thosa 5 documents or those statements on September 26th, 1984. 6 A Uh-huh. 7 Q But at the time that you signed them, they were 8 true then; is that correct? 9 A That's true. Right. 10 Q All right. And the words " harassment" and 11 " intimidation" can you tell me what those words mean in your 12 own definition? () 13 A Oh, well -- 14 Q Let's start with them one by one, okay. 15 A Harassment, okay, just general agitation of a 16 person I suppose, maybe to do more work or to put out more 17 work. I don't think it means to do a better job, it's just to 18 get the job done. General agitation. 19 Q Would you include the word " nagging" in your 20 definition? 21 A Yeah, that could be. I don't think Rick nagged 22 people. He just -- if he had a problem, he went at it, you O
159 1 know, and had a strong way of coming across with it. 2 Q Is there anything else you want to add to what 3 the word " harassment" means to you? 4 A No, I don't think so. 5 Q Okay. And how about " intimidation?" 6 A Well, I know what it means. It's just do this 7 or else, I suppose, or you are going to be down the road or a 8 different job. I don't know how else to put it. 9 Q Does that complete anything that you feel is
< 10 incorporated in the word " intimidation" 'aus has been used today i 11 , by you in your deposition?
12 A Yes. I -- you know, my certain case, I didn't 13 call it harassment or intimidation. I just called it a 14 threat, you know.
- 15 Maybe you call it harassment. Maybe that's what it 16 is, or intimidation. I guess that's what it is, both of them, i
17 you know. 18 But, you know, I think that was my case. But i 19 'it was just a one time deal for me. Some people he might have 20 agitated longer or at more length. I always got along with 21 him I thought. And everybody. I tried to. l 22 But that one incident I would call harassment, 1 !O 1
160 1 intimidation. O 2 Q All right. And that's the Saklak -- 3 A Yes, ma'am. 4 Q -- incident on March 28th of 1985? 5 A Yes. 6 MS. KEZELIS: Okay. I have no further questions. 7 THE WITNESS: Okay. 8 (Whereupon, the taking of the deposition was 9 concluded at 1:13 p.m., this same day.] 10 I 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 O
~-,,.n-,-,n,-n-----,-----.., -
,,.n - - -
161 1 CERTIFICATE OF DEPONENT 2 3 I, RICHARD SNYDER, do hereby certify that I have read the a 4 foregoing transcript of my deposition testimony, and, with the 5 exception of additions and corrections, if any, hereto, find 6 it to be a true and accurate transcription thereof. 8 W f M /b - 9 M RICHARD SNYDER 10 11 ' b h, 12 DATE
- 13 ***
14 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC 15 Sworn and subscribed to before me, this the [ 16 day o O r. coo? , , 19k. , 17 l 18 - 19 blA n e1, CW >s,onAf c 20 ( OTARY P BLIC IN AND FOR 21 My commissio expires: IQY* 4 khoYl& h, o
162 l 1 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC 2 3 I, GARRETT J. WALSH, the officer before whom the 4 foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby certify that the 5 witness whose testimony appears in the foregoing deposition 6 was duly sworn by me; that the tactimony of said witness was 7 taken by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or 8 under my direction; that said deposition is a true record of i ~ 9 the testimony given by the witness; that I am neither counsel , 10 for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the 11 action in which this deposition was taken; and further, that I 12 am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel 13 employed by the parties hereto, nor financially or otherwise 14 interested in the outcome of the action. 15 16 M V 17 GARRETT J. WALSH 18 Notary Public in and for the 19 Commonwealth of Virginia 20 21 My Commission expires January 9, 1989. t 22 O 4 r
- - , - - ---n,,,e w .r-- re,---- -
.,,.7.m---, ,, , , - - - - - - - - - - -,_rn,----e,-----
s#Uew Dqo Ex. # I o I o
.y 3nitch &a2es af Amerka -
\v/
NOCLEAR REGULATORY ^ COMMISSION
/
v 1 In the matter of: COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY 50-456 (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2) > DOCKET NO. 50-457 TO Richard Snyder 100 Lantem Drive Gardner, Illinois 60424
- YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear .a.t..the..B.r.aiducod...........................
g ti.n S. . . .P. .o.w e
... .. .. . . . .N. .u. .c. . .l. .e. .a. .r.
In th e ci ry o f
.............g.r.
g .g.t.a.g..o.y. .g. .g. . ... ............................................ .. ..... ........... O w o n the.... .uM....d.ay of.......D.eS..e.mh.e..r........19.8,,5..... a t.........?..:..Q.9...... 0'c!o ek P.M, to mnifymrx heixdf< mf< ..be...dep.c s ed......... ............................................................... . in the above entitled action and bring with you the doeurnent(s) or object (s) described in the attached schedule. BY ORDER OF THE ATOrd!C SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD BY ( Herbert Grossman, Chairman, Administrative Judge Ct2 Ny mygog,morMea1th Edison Carpany b.
-..o.-..e..m...
e..r... 1 5..1.. 19 85
.Lsnam, Lincoa.n & Beale Tnree nrst Nat.lonal Plaza crucago, Ill.inois 60602 TELEPHONE gig ;;;_7;gg L
10 C.F.R. 2.120 (t) preadinr offeer er. it he is unntasis. une On monon made promptly and in any ownt Commisaan may (1) qua:Ar or modtfy the sub-or 09 before the nme trettfied in the sesspoens poens if it it unreesonable or retusert essdence for complinnee by the perton to schem the sub- not rtlesent to any nsatter in issue. or (.'l ton-poena it directed and on notree to the parry et ditson densal of the monon on tutt and ressentble
\
v RETURN ON SERVICE , Received this subpoena at....b.$d d/4.'u:,.21,../.tE.E.....and o n... d ..d.u.di.[.[G................. ~
.........................o n
/ .2.9....#4 x................
sened it on the within named..M.. .f..v. 2.M. .att by delivering a copy to
/
_ h..... and tendering to h..... the fee for one day's s'ttendance and the mileage allowed by law.1 D a ted ........... ....... ........... 19...... 4W..................................................... Service Fees Tra vel ......... ............. S Services..................... S To t21.. . . . . . . .. .... . .... ..... 5 i Subscribqd and sworn to before -a. 'E8/W ...w.[d'th' ...... 8r.f.d......... da y of.d.6.&..(.rt.*.df.C.............I 9. I fp6A
/
/ L 4-i
' sAf t fik ,
.y NOTE - Affidadt required only if senice is made by a person othe an a United States
.l Marshal or his deputy.
4 i (
\
! y,,, ,,g ,,gg,,,, ,,,g no, s, ,,,ge,,,; pa pn, ernas, , pen gerage of , sugy,,,, isrugg ,a ganarf of en, tinorse States or en offect or scener thereof. :S LlZC 23:3
r
.v s
s - ( SCHEDULE OF DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED AT DEPOSITION
/
- 1. Any and all documents related to your em-ployment by L. K. Comstock at the Braidwood Power Station.
- 2. Any and all documents related to discussions or correspondence involving Braidwood Station and Inter-venors Bridget Little Rorem, et al., agents and employees of Business and Professional People for the Public Interest, or employees of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
- 3. Any and all documents related to claims of harassment, intimidation, retaliation, or discrimination by any L. K.
Comstock employee or manager including Irv DeWald, Robert Seltmann, Larry Seese, Bob Marino, and Richard Saklak.
- 4. Any and all documents related to claims of inadequate quality or of safety concerns at Braidwood Sta-tion.
O
(
. sspa nyhk by h/w fd, r 3
% Business BPI h ( h'M'4
- and Professional People for the Public interest 109 North
Dearborn Street,
Suite 1300
- Chicago, Illinois 60602
- Telephone: (312) 6415570 y
July 26, 1985 Mr. Richard A. Snyder 100 Lantern Road Gardner, Illinois
Dear Mr. Snyder:
As you may have heard, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has ruled that
- before an operating license may be granted for Edison's Braidwood station, the Board must determine whether quality assurance at Braidwood has been adequate to assure public safety. In particular, the Board will receive evidence and rule on whether harassment and intimidation of QC inspectors by Comstock management has interfered with their ability to do their job properly.
We are lawyers for BPI, a non-profit law office. We represent local citizens who are participating in the NRC Board
- O, hearings in order to ensure that Braidwood is proved to be safe before it can receive a license to operate. We have obtained your name from an internal NRC document, which we have but which Edison says it does not have. At a hearing on July 23, Edison asked us to turn over the document with your name in it. We declined to turn over your name because we did not have your permission. -
The NRC Board resolved this disagreement by allowing us until Friday, August 2, either (1) to turn over your name to l Edison, or (2) to find out if you request the NRC Board to issue an order limiting any disclosure of your name in this proceeding. The purpose of this letter therefore is to find out whether you wish us to disclose your name to Edison or, instead, to ask l the Board to issue an order protecting the use of your name. H is essential that we hear from you before August 2, unless you request a protective order, Edison lawyers may force us to turn over your name with no restrictions. (- D T * #
=LL !=T."'t'" =r. '""
t:"."a".'*'
'O'72 " ^ ta"o.", C:, =*ot *",%
. s~,, %'%'E".- ^O"%-
l r r""Of Ott."1 "J.".".*" =217' =iA -->-v-d , , , ~ . " " , , . , , 0:;hI"7,;
- .=.. :::::.::=, ==
O 'E'L O "L,
==-
,:l";.".""*~*
==-
2"".'.~,,,~"'
==:f.. - _ . _
~~~'"""~'
~~~ O,.':".., !=,7.,*J.'?""' ^l:=70':% T;f"**"a ::.' =*,:,,,
I *?.'J #l~** ::::n:",, Orf"'-" :::'.*;P " l ( )
;e- -
i n/ i To help you inform yourself about the NRC proceeding and the decision you need to make, we b*nclose with this letter a copy of the contention -which the NRC Board has agreed to hear concerning
- harassment of QC inspectors by Comstock management. (Even though we have heard that Comstock is no longer responsible for QC i inspections at Braidwood, the NRC Board will still need to i- determine the effect on plant safety of past harassment.)
We also enclose a copy of the internal NRC document which contains your name, along with the names of 16 other Comstock QC inspectors. As you can see, we have " blanked out" all these names, and have already given the document in blanked-out form to 2 Edison. Unless you inform us.that you desire to request a protective order from the NRC Board, we will be required to tell l Edison where your name appears in the document. I L However, if you advise us that you desire a protective order l limiting use of your name, 'we will formally request the NRC Board to issue such an order. (Because BPI is a non-profit legal services office, we never charge fees to anyone for any legal I work.) , l O If you so request, we will ask the Bo?rd to issue an Order which would permit your name to be turned over only to Edison's lawyers. We would ask the Board to order that they, in turn, could not disclose your name to anyone (including officers or employees of Edison and Comstock) unless necessary to prepare for 4 the hearing in this case and unless the person receiving your
- name signs and files with the NRC Board an affidavit s.tating that i he will not disclose your name to anyone else and that he
! understands your legal right to be free from any harassment or i intimidation for information you provide in this proceeding. If you have any questions about your rights or about this case, please feel free to call either of us at (312) 641-5570 (you may call collect). We will be happy to provide further ! information. In any event, we need to hear from you by Friday, j August 2. Finally, in our experience we have found that many nuclear workers who have been harassed for enforcing safety and quality standards are unaware of their important legal rights to obtain j relief from such mistreatment by presenting such complaints to i the U.S. Department of Labor. Complaints must be flied within thirty (30) days of the act of harassment. We include a copy of , the federal law which protects you from such discrimination. We 1 will be pleased to provide further details about your legal rights. You may also wish to obtain advice about your rights from your union. i l
l
- l l
, In closing, we wish to assure you that we support your efforts to assure fair treatment of QC inspectors by Comstock.
management and share your interest in seeing that the Braidwood nuclear station is safely built. Sincerely,
]
Bob Gu Id . Doug Cassel RG:DWC beg Encl. E e e
~
O l, 6 O
=- g = . E-F ENERGY REORGANIZATION 42 USCS { 5851 Q .. I E i w t - b 5 h s_ t ._ i ' {5851. Employee Protection L (a) Discrimination against employee. No employer, including a Commis- ' ' L sion licensee, an applicant for a Commission license, or a contractor or a - subcontractor of a Commission licensee or applicant, may discharge any . r employee or otherwise discriminate against any employee with respect to
; his compensation, terms, conditions, or pnvileges of employment because the employee (or person acting pursuant to a request of the employee)-
(1) commenced, caused to be commenced, or is about to commence or , E cause to be commenced a proceeding under this Act or the Atomic ! - Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or a proceeding for the administration . r E or enforcement of any requirement imposed under this Act or the y Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; E " (2) testined or is about to testify in any such proceeding or; - (3) assisted or participated or is about to assist or participate in any . -
.. J -
E " manner in such a proceeding or in any other manner m such a 1- .c - proceeding or in any other action to carry out the pnrposes of this Act - t B or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. j (b) Complaint, niing and notification. (1) Any employee who believes that be has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against by any person M - in violation of subsection (a) may, within thirty days after such violation _- occurs,61e (or have any person Sie on his behalf) a complaint with the .*.- Secretary of Labor (hereinafter in this subsection referred to as the
" Secretary") alleging such discharge or discrimination. Upon receipt of g
such a complaint, the Secretary shall notify the person named in the complaint of the Bling of the complaint and the Commission. - m (2)(A) Upon receipt of a complaint Sled under paragraph (1), the .- b Secretary shall conduct an investigation of the violation alleged in the - 193 -:* r . r m__ y- .i. g. = - h,,h, ; y _ 4 pL i' 's'f
. e' s .Ab..'fhj Ag:s
. ?
t o,RE ' yy f!$y
.. , g .
l k . ; . i = A,. ^ i -. ' NAe 4 m p[t..N[8[gww p . , ,
,.; w phiTif
. . . . ~ _ < ..
.y .g__s .w hh.f@l y:., n. ...
ap.) k[.iN. , q ,,,,f.Il[ y aggg;
-, ;.c..y-w
.4.
, HARASSMENT CONTENTION AS ADMITTED BY ASLB BOARD, 7/23/85 k Contrary to Criterion I, " Organization" of 10
) C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, and 10 C.F.R. Sec tion 50.7, Commonwealth Edison Company and its electrical contractor, L.K. Comstock Engineering Company have failed to provide sufficient authority and organiza-tional freedom and independence from cost and 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, including in March 1985, more than twenty five (25)
~
Comstock QC inspectors have complained to the NRC
~
about harassment and intimidation by Comstock super-visors. Such harassment and intimidation has been (fx) 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, i verbal abuse, termination of employment, transfer to l undesirable jobs or work in areas where quality i deficiencies could not be noted, assignments to perform burdensome or menial "special projects" and other adverse treatment. Such discriminatory action j 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 f August 17, 1984, Seeders complained to the NRC, ! Edison and Comstock management regarding instances of harassment directed against him. Subsequently, Mr. Seeders was involuntarily transferred to the position of Engineering Clerk in retaliation for his expression of quality concerns. Such assignment was i intended by Comstock to keep Mr. Seeders away from sensitive work areas. Although QC Supervisor R.M. l [x_-) 3 l i
a Sakalac was finally terminated in 1985 for his mis-
- treatment of QC inspectors and other misconduct, the 5' effects of his harassment remain uncorrected and systematic harassment continues at Comstock to the present. The existence of widespread harassment l impugns the integrity and effectiveness of on-going corrective action programs designed only to address other widespread QA failures at Comstock.
- 2. Comstock management, including QC Manager Irv DeWald and Corporate QA Manager Bob Marino harassed, discriminated and retaliated against, and ultimately terminated Level III QC 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 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 quali~fied 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 he raised these safety and quality concerns and was terminated on August 27, 1984 by DeWald on the pretext that he should have scored higher than his 865 on a qualification test. He filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor, alleging violation of the employee protection provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 USC 5851. Letter, September 5, 1984, Exhibit F. The U.S. Department of Labor Area Director sustained Mr. Puckett's complaint l finding unlawful discrimination by Comstock against O 4
Puckett and ordered relief. Notes of Decision, November 6, 1984, Exhibit G. Mr. Puckett presented
.- his case at a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge on Comstock's appeal. See, Complainants' Pre-i 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
O 4 4 9 O I l t, O 5
4 e > * . e UNnto ETAvts
/g,s,0 *ss'.,, NUCLEAR DE GUL ATORY COMMisslON g
i jg sitasoN IIe
,,, aOO5t vt LT mO AD f 8, s, . ,.f .
c ote. e L L ves,ettse Oss sois ,
....+
APR 5 885 MEMORANDUM FOR: Charles E. Norelius, Director, Division of Reactgr Projects FROM: Charles H. Weil, Investigation and Compliance Specialist
SUBJECT:
ALLEGATIONS RE: L. K. COMSTOCK QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM AT BRAIDWOOD (50-456; 50-457) (ATS NO: Rl!I-85-A0072) On March 29, 1985, at approximately 10:00 a.m. the Braidwood Resident Inspectors (L. G. McGregor, R. D. Schulz, and W. J. Kropp) telephoned the Region III Office and advised that six L. K. Comstock quality control inspectors had visited the residents' office that morning. .The Comstock inspectors provided several allegations which are sumarized as:
~
- 1. Comstock is asserting the~ quantity of inspections rather than the inspection quality. Therefore, the quality of the L. K. Comstock inspections is suffering.
- 2. Rick Saklak, Comstock QC Supervisor, was not qualified for his position, as he was not certified in all of the inspection areas which he supervised.
- 3. Saklak was constantly intimidating / harassing the Comstock inspectors.
- 4. Ninety three hanger inspections, containing 1100-1200 welds, were signed off in one day by an unidentified inspector. The allegers considered this to be too many inspections for a single inspector to make in one day without the quality of the inspections suffering.
l l S. 6 (phonetic spelling), a Comstock QA inspector is l assigned to the records vault for the sole purpose of closing I nonconfonnance reports. M never goes to the field to verify the condition before closing the nonconfonnance reports. l
- 6. All of the allegers claimed to have spoken to the Braidwood Quality First Team without gaining any satisfactory response to their Concerns.
The allegers indicated that they represented 50-70 Comstock quality) control inspectors and there would be a job action on Monday (April 1,1985 if something was not done about their concerns.
ls
'y ERarles E. Norelius 2 APR 5 1955 The allegers were q and q(alm,M,h phonetic spellings). None of the j <
a cgers requested confidentiality and each agreed his identity could be used . 1 if necessary.
~
(NOTE: A series of allegations it)volving L. K. Comstock at Braidwood were ; received by Region III beginning March 9, 1985. These allegations (RIII-85-A-0058; RIII-85-A-0062; RIII-85-A-0067; and RIII-85-A-0068) generally encompassed those identified above. Further,6 was the source of ; a'11egation RIII-85-A-0068 which concerns the push of production quantity over inspection quality. On March 29, 1985, the allegations were discussed among the Region III Staff
-(C. H. Weil W. L. Forney, and C. C. Williams). The Regional Administrator, Deputy Regional Administrator and the Director of the Division of Reactor Projects were also infonned of the allegations. It was decided that the allegations should be forwarded -to Comonwealth Edison Company for resolution.
However, the allegers should be contacted before providing the infonnation to Commonwealth Edison and informed of the proposed course of action. Accordingly, at 12:00 p.m. , March 29, 1985, the Region III Investigation and - liance Specialist spoke by telephone with the allegers asse21ed in the ident Inspectors' Office. They were infonned of the plan to bring nwealth Edison into the allegation resolution process and none of the , allagers expressed any dissatisfaction with the concept. Further, they , restated that they did not desire to remain confidential. Other Comstock inspectors accompanied the original six allegers to the Resident Inspectors - Office. The total number of Comstock inspectors eventually nueered 24. In the one half hour period of the telephone call (the call taking place between 12 and 12:30 p.m. during the inspectors lunch period) thirteen inspectors werv , briefly interviewed. None of the additional inspectors requested c nfidentiality. The Resident Inspectors were requested to obtain the Comstock inspectors' address and telephone numbers for follow-up by the NRC (o.g. furnishing the inspectors with copies of this memo and subsequent reports). INSPECTOR COP 94ENT ! [ 6 Rich Saklak continually violates procedures during inspector certifications. Saklak threatened & for not closing an inspection report which still had an open engineering change notice. W refused and Saklak stated, "if beating was legal l you would be dead." @ later checked with QA and found ) that his position on the issue was proper. John Walters (M lead) and Ken Worthington I (M supervisor) told 6 that he would lose ' his job if he did not hurry up and produce more inspections.
/ _narles E. Norelius 3 APR 5 1985 Saklak threatened an inspector (unidentified) for not closing an inspection report even though the engineering change notice had not been issued for it. _
"Comstock wants us to work with blinders on."
6 "More than a little bit of intimidation by more' than one supe rvisor. 6 On November 5, 1984, Saklak told him to finish an inspection even though drafting errors were noted. M complained to Comstock management about this issue, but i did not rece,ive any satisfaction, e observed a base setal reduction problem in a structural weld. @ told his lead, John Walters, and Walters toldM to stay within the scope of his job I
~
and not worry about base metal reduction. h also told Daryl Landers. Landers infonnedh to keep up his production or he would lose his overtime. (See allegatio1RIII-85-A-0068) m Inspector productivity overrides the quality of the inspection. (At that point a show of hands was done. The Resident Inspectors indicated that the Comstock inspectors agreed 100% with that statement). (NOTE: M provided infonnation under allegation RIII-85-A-0067) 6 Comstock emphasized inspection quantity first, not inspection quality. Saklak berates inspectors. Many inspectors have been discriminated against at one time or another by Irv DeWald, Comstock QA Manager. DeWald's attitude is "how can I hang you, not how can I help you." N Constantly intimidated by Saklalf.rSaklak lied to get 6 fired. W stated that he has written statements from several witnesses to back-up his statement. Saklak uses fonns contrary to procedurts. For several months Mwas the only welding inspector, and everything was done on a hurry-up basis. Comstock has consistently been undermanned and has one crisis after another.
i Charles E. Norelius 4 56 4 6 is constantly being watched by his supervision. As an exanple, he recently visited the NRC office. The following day he was transferred without reason from field inspections to a job in the records vault. (NOTE: the - Investigation and Compliance Specialist provided the Resident Inspectors with the address and telephone number for the Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division, and requested that it be given tom should he desire to further this complaint). (On April 1,1985, Daniel P. New, Area Director. U. S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, was contacted any infonned of 6 information pertaining to alleged employment discrimination. New advised that the Wage and Hour Division would await the filing of the written complaint required by 29 CFR 24.3 before initiating an investigation into the matter.) w Hangers aren't even being inspected, just as-built. No inspection reports or nonconfonnance reports are written. Walkdowns are being done and drawings made to show as-built configuration. O Comstock managenent promises more money to inspectors who are certified in multiple areas. Although it's nice to get more money, an inspector cannot remain proficient in all of the certified areas; therefore, the quality of
- inspections goes down.
6 h (phonetic spelling) is both an inspector and auditor. W will inspect something then do the QA overview audit. M believes this to be a conflict of interest. At approximately 12:45 p.m., March 29, 1985 Eugene T. Pawlik, Director Office of Investigations Region III Field Office, was informed of the allegations and concluded that an investigation by 01:RI!! was not warranted at this time. At approximately 1:15 p.m., March 29, 1985 Tom Maiman, Comonwealth Edison Vice President and other Commonwealth Edison officials were telephoned at the Braidwood Facility by Messrs. W. L. Forney, C. C. Williams and C. H. Well. Comonwealth Edison was told that the NRC had received general allegations form twenty-four Comstock inspectors and in general terms the allegations concerned Comstock's push for inspection quantity not quality Saklak's perceived performance and the inspectors perception of the performance of TAC Quality First Program. Maiman stated that Comonwealth Edison would begin to look O into the matters that afternoon and would recontact Region III with an action plan by the close of business on March 29, 1985.
Charles E. Norelius 5 APR 3g At approximately 4:30 p.m., March 29, 1985 Conmonwealth Edison officials telephoned Region III. Commonwealth Edison had decided to act upon the issues with both short range and long range action plans. The long range plan was not developed, but Comonwealth Edison would be in contact with Region III during - the week of April 1,1985, to discuss the long range plan. The short range plan identified below would be accomplished by the close of busines,s on March 29, 1985.
- 1. Comonwealth Edison Management at Braidwood met with onsite Constock management officials in production, quality control and quality assurance. Comonwealth Edison discussed areas identified by the Braidwood Quality First Program and the above identified allegations.
The Comstock officials indicated they were generally aware of the > concerns with Saklak's perfbmance. Commonwealth Edison emphasized the need for L. K. Comstock Company to perform within the Comonwealth Edison l and Comstock quality assurance programs. Comonwealth Edison officials i were not certain if L. K. Comstock site officials had informed Comstock
- corporate of the problems. -
- 2. Saklak was administrative 1y removed from his supercisory position until the allegations are resolved.
- 3. Comonwealth Edison issued a memorandum to all L. K. Comstock QC/QA personnel in which Comonwealth Edison announced a meeting for 8:00 a.m., Monday, April 1, 1985. At that time Connonwealth Edison plans to reesphasize its quality assurance policies, as well as allow the Comstock inspectors to air their grievances. Commonwealth Edison will also announce a method for a private airing of -
grievances should that be desired by an individual Comstock inspector.
- 4. A Cosmonwealth Edison Quality Assurance Project Letter was also issued to reemphasize the Commonwealth Edison Project Quality Assurance Policies.
to O
l l I g Charles E. Norelius 6 - APR 5 385 O At approximately 5:00 p.m., the Regional Administrator. Deputy Regional Administrator and the Director. Enforcement and Investigation Coordination l Staff were informed of the Comenwealth Edison plans described above. _ l
~
Charles H. Weil i Investigation and l i Compliance Specialist
Enclosures:
- 1. AMS Form
- 2. March 29.1985 memo, McGregor.
and Schulz to Warnick and Weil cc w/ enclosures: Alll:RA0 .- RllI:DRS '
- 01
- RIII . ~
E. G. Greenman ' J. F. Streeter SRI-Braidwood 1 l. O
as BPI ('% h% ' Business and Professional People for the Public Interest 109 North
Dearborn Street,
Suite 1300
- Chicago, lilinois 60602
- Telephone: (312) 6415570 j
October 16, 1985 TO: Pres nd Former Comstock QC Inspectors FROM: Bob G and Doug Cassel&
. RE: Confidentiality Enclosed is a copy of the October 4, 1985, NRC Licensing Board Order granting our request for protective order. As you know, BPI asked the NRC judges to protect the confidentiality of those Comstock inspectors who have rec uested such protection. This Order grants our request anc directs us to negotiate the specific -
g such protection with the Edison lawyers. provisions of We are very pleased that the judges have agreed to your requests; we will be in contact with you shortly to discuss this matter further. Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have. RG:DWC: beg Enc 1. ( ~~ 3
=."ra. ~"
n::7.=*" .*.t'
^ C ~~ tan"a'.*'
l.*.::7c " ': !L"o *,T.*:, "*"*
~ o'O r."% ., 'C *oi., 'a'"%L-~
O *0'.."O?. m. lm2::.::. .i.:.* U,:.-" 2:::!."."3 a.- o.~
.o. . W i A. . ~ ~c - ~ c.-* *
-, 4.--~~-.-~
b a ,::;*4'=. 00.'?a* M*". ,'a'** O.* "04' ll.",O'L , t;a. 1- ;. , ~ ~ ~'
*-l .7,.=,, "
2" *.'*"* " .*.*,':::'.3% . i*:%*,1, - * " * *
=,;;;,,, M "."2*"'*"
P.l::: c.'*, O,*c*,C::, "*"*'~
. m. . . -. . o.. -,,,,,,, =
~ ^."
. .4", ',"2.
- -- a L )
I',' I. ). L LBP ' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA t,UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges: Herbert Grossman, Chairman Dr. A. Dixon Callihan SERyc OCT 'i 1985 Dr. Richard F. Cole
)
In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-456-OL 50-457-OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY )
) ASLBP No. 79-410-03 OL
)
(Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, ) Units 1 ano 2) O )
)
October 4, 1985, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granting Protective Order) MEM0RANDUM I. INTRODUCTION IntervenorsBridgetLittleRorem,etal.,havemovedforanorder providing for confidential treatment of the names and otherwise iden-tifying information regarding prospective witnesses on Intervenors'
, Quality Assurance contention. Intervencrs seek the entry of a protec-tive order limiting the disclosure of such identifying informaticn
,C .. 3 during the course of this litigation. The order sought would confer confidentiality protections only during the present discovery phase of these proceedings (although the protections afforded would continue thereafter), but no request is now made for a ruling on in_ camera evi-dentiary hearings that might follow, which Intervenors submit (Inter-venors' Notion at 7-8) would be premature and speculative at this time t~
and may well not ultimately be required. Intervenors seek confidential treatment at this time for eleven present and former L. K. Comstock quality control inspectors and, as
. ~
necessary, for other prospective witnesses to be identified by Inter-venors at a later date. The protective orcer would provide for liti-O ted disclosure of names and identifying information strictly on a "need to know" basis as required for participation by a party in the proceeding. Disclosure of such protected information would be limited to persons who have executed affidavits of nondisclosure to be filed with the Board and available to the parties. Although Intervenors appended to their motion a copy of a form of protective order and affidavit of nondisclosure that was approved by the Commission with regard to a security plan in Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-80-24, 11 NRC 775 (1980), Intervenors submit that a less elaborate order and affidavit would effectively meet the needs for confidential treatment here. Intervenors would undertake to regotiate the contents of such an order and affidavit with the other parties if this motion is granted.
t g-
.? .
$q O
Applichnt and hRC Staff oppose the motion. We grant the motion and authorize Intervenors to negotiate the contents of the order ano affidavit with the other parties, to be submitted to the Board for approval. If an agreement is not forth-coming, Intervenors shall submit a proposed order and - affidavit to the Board. II. FACTUAL BASIS FOR INTERVEN0RS' MOTION Intervenors sumarize the factual claims of harassment and fear
- of reprisal in their motion and rely upon an unexecute'd affidevit of
, one Ccmstock QC inspector, that was appended to Intervenors' prior 1 i motion, of July 12, 1985, concerning the protective order. The unexe-cuteo affidavit indicates that the affiant QC inspector has personal
- knowledge of widespread intimidation, harassment and retaliation at Comstock; has had extensive discussions with at least 30 other Com-l
! stock QC inspectors, who have knowledge of harassment and intimidation by Ccmstock management and who, he believes, would cooperate with the Licensing Board; and has spoken to at least ten Comstock CC inspec-tors, who were eager to present such testimony and provide documenta-tion, but had expressed fear of retaliation based upon harassment which they have already experienced. According to Intervenors, how-ever, the affiant has become fearful of being fired by Comstock man-agement if he takes any further voluntary affirmative steps in this
, - - - e -. . ~ , . . -
. -_ -.--y----w- - - , + y-,-w,.- - --,.,-,,r--cw,-wr---------.m
, v_-.-mrwy,.., -y.v,, w
y n_ _ .-
~<
'O proceeding such as executing the affidavit, and has consequently not signed it. As part of their. factual basis ~ for the motion Intervenors-also refer to the finding of a U.S. Department of Labor area director sustaining an employee's complaint of unlawful discrimination . by Comstock in violation of .the employee protection provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 42 USC 5 $851, and to a March 29, 1985 complaint to the NRC by 24 Comstock ,QC inspectors of harassment and technical concerns, including threats of physical violence by a Comstock supervisor. Intervenors further state that, as directed by the Board, after the July 23, 1985 prehearing conference they communi-cated further with, each of previously identified 16 Comstock QC in-spectors and t!iat 11 of the 16 expressed fear of reprisal or discr,im-O' ination, requested confidential treatment of their names, and asked Intervenors to seek a protective order providing for the mayimum pro-tection available even where absolute confidentiality could not be secure'd.
i III. DISCUSSION , In opposing Intervenors' motion for protective oroer, -Applicant and Staff rely heavily upon Kansas Gas and El'ectric Co. (Wolf Creet. Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-32/, 3 NRC 408 (1976), -as' establishing the standards for granting a' protective order for with- . s holding infomation from the public. Acccrding to Applicant (Appli-O V cant's Response at 3) and Staff (Staff's Respcnse. at 2), the Appeal 9
, .i 5
O(p) Board adopted a four-part analysis requiring that a party seeking to protect information from public disclosure must demonstrate: (1) that the information is of a type customarily held in confidence; (2) that the information has in fact been kept confidential by its originator; (3) that the information is not available from public sources; and, (4) that there is a rational basis for holding the information confidential. ~ We do not f'ind the Wolf Creek standards, which involve the pro-tection of proprietary information, to be of much as'sistance in deter-mining whether the public interest would be served by the issuance of n an order tc protect the confidentiality of prospective witresses. b Nevertheless, Intervenors' showing appears to satisfy the four re-quirements: (1) We take official notice of the. fact that the NRC Staff and Atomic Safety.and Licensir.g Boards (whether or not in pub-lished orders) have customarily granted confidential treatment to quality control inspectors who would otherwise refuse to come forward with information concerning harassment and intimidation for fear of reprisal by the company. (2) The names of the prospective witnesses have been kept confidential, to the extent of being disclosed only to a more limited class than under the proposed protective order. (3) The information is not currently available to those who would not receive it under the protective order. And, (4) there is a rational basis for treating the information confidentially, if we are to believe the representations by Intervenors that the prospective
-l
_.m. _. _ . - ._.
4 O witnesses would be fearful of coming forward with their information without confidentiality because of past incidences of harassment and intimidation, including the three instances of individual reprisal enumerated in Intervenors' motion (at 3-5). The situation here stands in stark contrast to that of Houston Pcwer Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-535, 9 NRC 377 (1979), upon which Applicant and Staff rely so heavily to deny the request for confidentiality. In Allens
~
Creek, the Appeal Board denied " standing" to an intervenor organiza-
. ~
tion that sought to base its representational standing on the resi-dence of a member in close proximity to the facility site, whose name the organization would not disclose to the parties cr~ the Board. The organization proposed subraitting an affidavit by its attorney attest-ing to the proper standing. In rejecting this approach, the Appeal Board noted that such a procedure would deny the Board and the other parties the right "to determine for themselves, by independent inquiry if thought warranted, whether a basis existed for a formal challenge to the truthfulness of the assertions" of intervenor. 9 NRC at 393
/
(emphasis in original). Here, the names of the protected witnesses would be disclosed to the other parties and the Board, and the parties would have every right to depose these witnesses. All of the assertions made in t
<y Intervenors' motion and in the unexecuted affidavit attached to Inter-venors' prior motion could be tested by the other parties.
The Board does not favor conferring confidentiality on witnesses or informa tion. The main detriment is not to the ability of the parties to marshal their known witnesses and information to counter unfavorable confidential testimony. The parties, after all, will have whatever information is disclosed during the confidential discovery, on a "need to know" basis. Rather, the price that will be paid is ir.
' not having the confidential information disclosed to- the public so
~
that further information, unknown _to the parties at this time, might become available to them and the Board. In that' respect, we can only surmise that Intervenors' case would be harmed more than that of the other parties by having the information disclosed to the parties dur-ing discovery kept confidential from the public, because of Interve-nors' more limited access to direct information abcut practices on the site. .But, be that as it may, we do not see any great harm in grant-ing this limited confidentiality at this discovery stage, considering that, while information gleaned through discovery is legally access-l ible to members of the public, it is rarely disseminated to them. i On the other hand, if confidentiality is not offereo at this point, we risk losing the testimony of a number of witresses who mignt make a valuable contribution to the hearing record according to the l prima facie showing made by Intervenors.
.a-sp v
he are further persuaded from Intervenors' motion that Interve-nors have made some effort at informing the prospective witnesses of the limited nature of the confidentiality that would be bestowed by the protective order and the risks attendart upon maintaining their secrecy, as opposed to public disclosure and the full protections that might be afforded them under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 42 USC 5 5851. We are not convinced that their choice of limited con-fidentiality, rather than full public disclosure, is in their best interest. However, we are not fully knowledgeable about their working , conditions. It is possible that any perceived threats to their em-ployment security might emanate more from fellow employees and Icw-level supervisors who might not become privy to the confidential dis-covery, than from higher-level employees who would receive that infor-
~
, mation on a "need to know"~ basis. .
We make no determination that the prospective witnesses should be in fear of reprisal for testifying or that they have wisely chosen to
~
seek confidentiality. We simply weigh the benefit of encouraging their testimony, upon the prima facie showing made by Intervenors of its significance to this proceeding and the witnesses' reluctance to testify otherwise for supportable reasons, against the detriment of inhibiting public access to the information and the cumbersome proce-dures that a protective order necessitates, and find the balance in favoring of issuing the protective order. O
9
'O ORDER For all the foregoing reasons and based upon a consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is, this 4th day of October,1985 ORDERED (1) That Intervenors' motion for a protective crder is granted;
. (2) _ That Intervenors' counsel is directed to ' negotiate the form and substance of the protective order and accompanying affidavit of nondisclosure; and v .
(3) That Intervenors are directed to submit a proposed protective order and affidavit subsequent. to their negotiation with the other parties, with or without agreement. . FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i L % bga_ -- Herbert Grossman, Chairman i ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE t l October 4, 1985 p Bethesda, Maryland
. m._,_______________ __
. 1 as BusinessBPI and Professional People for the Public Interest
( M'T
- 109 North
==Dearborn Street. Suite 1300
- Chicago,==
liknois 60602
- Telephone: (312) 6415570 y
O September 27, 1985 Mr. Richard A. Snyder 100 Lantern Road Gardner, Illinois
Dear Mr. Snyder:
We at BPI are writing you and a number of other present and former Comstock QC inspectors to report on the status of the NRC licensing hearings for Braidwood and on our efforts to seek confidentiality protection from the NRC licensing judges as requested by a number of you with whom we have spoken. Enclosed are copies of several documents for your informa-tion and comment, including copies of some Comstock file documents about you which we have obta~ined from the company through the legal process called " discovery" in preparatien for the hearings. We are very interested in your response to this information and will explain what follow-up actions we expect may be required. O)
\ First, a few words about the status of the NRC licensing s hearings. As part of the hearing preparation process, Edison, the Intervenors (represented by BPI) and the NRC Staff are engaging in various efforts to obtain evidence through "d i s co v e ry." In response to our questions and requests Edison (and its contractors, including Comstock) have identified and disclosed to us some 58,000 pages of documents related to the Quality Assurance contention, including some which reflect disputes, disagreements and safety er quality concerns by Comstock QC inspectors along with your management's response. It was from among these responses that we obtained the documents
! about you which are enclosed. Between now and the end of October we will have the oppor-l tunity to seek additional documents, ask further questions and take sworn testimony of site personnel as part of the discovery l process. Since the harassment and intimidation issues are very (- **" D CTL. ::TL"~" C",e ? T~~P tm" ,
'"::i"S.f:*'
. tL"o.'";;, M*o'%
.e.
"%e. . sn , *"%T4., " J'""le-et
*?O.'5e e*"1%
T8e
. '::::"t::::
o Julen L Seem.n CU:"-" Leon D F.iner M10 Byeon S M. hee WiJL Raben M wessbourd W Counser a- ' v.- herstem hstant He8De ' S f 5L W.yne ten V 9 ry J.mes
- =.. ~. ===
g t. I
=e::::- m ::.".",a-'*
e a,ms =e -*"'a"
.-m.e,t ":::::a oon ll~,:'!.;.;,=n
,,0
="vt=,
me .
#1 t_ -
l
.[
important we will focus on further discovery in this area, and we are particularly interested in your information and suggestions. , Delays in responding to our discovery requests have resulted in ! the postponement of the originally scheduled October licensing i hearings until February 1986. i Seconds a report on our efforts to obtain confidential l treatment for a number of Comstock inspectors. As we explained in our July 26 letter and later conversations, if requested by you, we planned to ask for a protective order from the NRC licensing board to limit the disclosure of identifying informa-tion during the hearing process. We have done so by filing an August 2, 1985, Motion For Confidential Treatment of Eleven QC Inspector Names, and a September 4,1984, Motion For Confidential Treatment of Prospective Qualtiy Assurance Witnesses. On September 16, 1985, Commonwealth Edison filed its Response opposing our request for protective order. Copies of these Motions and the Response are enclosed. Eleven out of the 18 Comstock inspectors we spoke with told us they feared various forms of reprisal or discrimination from the disclosure of their identities in this case and asked us to seek maximum protection for their confidentiality. The following seven individuals were - ! either already publicly identified or consented to the disclosure j - of their names: Worley O. Puckett; John Seeders; Rick Snyder; j R.D. Hunter; Herschel Stout; Tim Stewart and Dan Holley. We have continued to protect the identities of the other eleven. A ruling from the licensing board can be expected at any time. As you can see from Edison's Response, they simply deny that there is any factual basis for the protective order beyond the unsubstantiated representations by BPI lawyers of what you have told us and the "past allegations of harassment and intimidation by disgruntled Comstock quality control inspectors." Response,
- p. 3 Edison argues that each request for confidentiality must be-supported by an affidavit from the individual stating the specific harm which is feared. While we believe that the docu-mented record of harassment complaints at Comstock is ample basis for granting a protective order, we are alerting you now to-Edison';s argument that more proof is required. In the event that such affidavits are called for by the licensing board we may need your prompt help in order to meet this requirement.
Please let us hear from you with your comments or questions on the hearing process, the confidential treatment matter, the file documents which relate to you personally, or any other
. matter regarding the quality assurance program at Braidwood. We wish you well in your important work and hope to hear from you soon.
Sincerely, o. M
- Gg
p . V scheta rcLo oh > Alpho Business Forms . Delmont, PA 15626 nt onet n a os: a r.'s 62 L K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY, INC. (b g . a sooN A! POS$1BL 5.aca ISH L HE ES A; enDc.dd ' J~ M?'35 TO: DATE
$UBJECT ((, g/ v4'f/
L J
,_3
""" On J-38-1S af djyrc,y; mal!h Mf9hk1 A,4/4L E7as/mto sfna :
%hesl AA meywin,ade Oeme e/o(/4 Ap:vedefM c are.'vme. a .v
$L'4 $ $$A VOs/ iUOO C' d4 vF .SO 615L'-
f0O [d/? pe/ lt 6 jour bad, wpa,a y eauedec/ or.vf S'2ltED _ ,y Ml*2(,
.T M D E } , _W,
[ 3-19-1 dal ,N & l W q i~ 3 .1 9 E s
> r li v;Py ~
SIGNED DATE RfCEIVER: WRITE REPLY, DETACH STUB, KEEP PINK COPY, RETURN WHITE COPY TO SENDER, lO 52 '000L15S2 l
m ~
,h*
hwn U
~
Comstock Engineering, Inc. TW1'I J
'O v Memorandum
#94 To File ots.ce.0A/0C Services p ,, R. E. Marino
/
sue, Rick Saklak Incident with Date April 8,1985 Richard Snyder 3/28/85 As a result of Tom Paserba's calls to me on Saturday March 30, 1985, the following steps were planned to inv.estigate the subject incident.
- 1. Travel to Braidwood with T. Trumble.
. 2. Hold opening meeting with QA/QC Management Team at Braidwood Site.
- 3. Inform Frank Rolan, L.K. Comstock Co., Project Manager of planned actions.
- 4. Preliminary meeting with Dan Shamblin, CECO Project Manager.
- 5. Interview employees involved or personally witnessing the events. -
- 6. Hold closing meeting with Rolan.
- 7. Hold closing meeting with Shamblin. .
- 8. Meet with R. Saklak for his input and Company actions to be taken.
Ray Nemeth Interview 4/2/85 at Job Site Essentially verified the same story as Snyder's. However Nemeth feels "outside factions" (ie Union) pushed the issue to this point otherwise it would have been dropped. Tim Stewart Interview 4/2/85 at Job Site He was seated at his desk directly where the incident happened, ie. statement was made. Simply verified story of Snyder. As a result of Saklak's conduct. All eight steps of our plan were completed with documented notes from the personal interview of Step 5. O 20 cv , ,a:9. ,. p .. 54
r- . File e Rick Saklak Incident with Richard Snyder 3/28/85
*h CQA-85-63 Page 2 Richard Snyder Interview 4/2/85 at Job Site There was a disagreement over an ICR on a weld machine that was out of calibration. Saklak felt no engineering evaluation disposition was needed - - others, namely Seese, Seltmann, Simile felt it was needed.
Saklak was greatly upset over this and stated to Snyder "If beating were legal you'd be dead". Snyder took this remark to the NRC Site Resident (Bob Schultz). Schultz in turn informed Region 3 of the NRC of this " Intimidation".
- The following morning Saklak apologized to Rich Snyder with Snyder's Lead Ray Nemeth present.
Rick Saklak Interview 4/3/85 at Holiday Inn, Joliet, Ill. - Paserba, Trumble and I met with Rick off site. Rick admitted to the allegations and temper outburst. He also admitted to past outbursts for which he was repeatedly warned. O y He stated he had had a " pretty rough" day and exploded. We explained CECO involving their contract with us and asking Saklak be removed from the Site as his services were no longer required. As a result he was being placed on layoff as of end of the day Friday, March 29, 1985. - l REM /jk1 cc: T. Trumble File t l F 1.599 l l l ._ . _
I . s SUMMARIZATION R. SAKLAK/R. SNYDER INCIDENT (~l 03/28/85 - Afternoon, discussion with R. Saklak. R. Snyder and (_,/ R. Nemeth concerning issuance of ICR for weld machine out of calibration. R. Saklak wants R. Snyder to write, evaluate and close. R. Snyder disagrees. Approximately 4:30 p.m., A. Simile, R. Snyder and R. Nemeth enter QA Manager R. Seltmann's office with problem. R. Seltmann agrees with R. Snyder and R. Nemeth to write ICR's and process to Engineering. 4:45 p.m., R. Saklak approaches R. Snyder and makes comment " Rich, you make me so pissed off that if beating were legal, you would be dead." 5:00 p.m. R. Seltmann encounters R. Nemeth in men's washroom and tells him of the alleged threat to R. Snyder. 03/29/85 - Morning, Saklak talks to R. Nemeth, wants to apolog22e, Saklak does in front of Nemeth. 11:45 a.m., QC Inspector H. Himes approaches Assistant QC Manager L. Seese that six (6) inspectors had gohe to NRC of fice concerning Saklak/Snyder incident. - ('T ( ,) 12:45 p.m., L. Seese talks to R. Nemeth on previous day incident to get his opinion. 1:00 p.m., L. Seese informs QC Manager I. DeWald of the incident and that six (6) inspectors went to NRC that morning. 1:30 p.m., I. DeWald requests R. Snyder to office, R. Nemeth is requested by R. Snyder to accompany to discuss 3/28/85 incident. 2:45 p.m., D. Shamblin requests I. DeWald, R. Seltmann and D. Ovens to discuss incident in his office at 3:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m., Meeting in Shamblin's office with T. Maiman, T. Quaka, E. Fitzpatrick, R. Seltmann, I. DeWald, D. Ovens and D. Shamblin. Meeting informs L.K.C. of six (6) Inspectors in morning to NRC and 23 more at noon with allegations. Request that Policy Statement 1.0.0 by L.K.C. be ad-hered to. Report to Shamblin by noon on 4/1/85. Shamblin established 8:00 a.m. meeting on 4/1/85 to QA/QC staff. l Ox 52 CH)o bl 5 8 4
(
,__l Approximately 3:30 - 3:45, I. DeWald informs T. Paserba
( of incidents to date. Issues memo to QA/QC staff of
\s- 8:00 meeting in CECO service building.
4:00 p.m., I. DeWald talks to R. Saklak in office con-cerning events of 3/28 and 3/29/85. R. Saklak informed not to report to work on Saturday 3/30/85. Shamblin issues CECO Letter BR-PCD #288 to I. DeWald about L.K.C. Policy Statement 1.0.0. 03/30/85 - T. Paserba, I. DeWald have another meeting with D. Shamblin concerning events.
- 1. DeWald request QC Inspector T. Stewart to office to discuss events. Mr. Stewalt ceniirms incident.
T. Paserba contacts R. Marino of incident. T. Paserba attempts to contact R. Saklak but cannot, Saklak not home. I. DeWald requests that L. Seese and R. Seltmann docu-ment their involvement in the matter. Letters written and issued. 03/31/85 - T. Paserba contacts R. Saklak at home and informs him ()T (_ of indefinite suspension until matters are investigated and concluded. 04/01/85 - T. Paserba issues L.K.C. statement to D. Shamblin of BR-PCD #288 letter. Informs CECO of R. Marino and T. Trumble investigation to start 4/2/85. O] L-Sg'onct1ESS
- b. (Closed) Allegation (Rlll-84-A-0119). On August 17, 1984, the alleacr, an employee of the L. K. Coms,tock quality control department, stated that he was intimidated and harassed by L. K.
Comstock quality control supervisory personnel. On September 21, s 1984, the inspector met with the alleger and four other quality control inspectors. The five individuals did not provide any specific examples or records substantiating intimidation or harassment. During the course of the interview, it was revealed that the main issue is a morale problem which appears to be related to monetary matters and subjective opinions of poor management. The inspector met with Commonwealth Edison Project management and Construction Superintendent to discuss the issue of intimidation and harassment. Subsequently, Commonwealth Edison management met with the L. K. Comstock Site Quality Control management to ensure that all parties understood that any form of intimidation or harassment would not be tolerated by Commonwealth Edison or the NRC. This allegation is con-sidered closed.
~
- 3. Licensee Action on Previously Identified Items
- a. Bulletins The following Bulletins are considered closed because they concern boiling water reactors which are not used at Braidwood:
- 1. E. Bulletin 80 Core Spray Sparsers
~
I. E. Bulletin 80 Scram Discharge Volume I. E. Bulletin 80 Target Rock SRV's
- 1. E. Bulletin 80 Air Operated ADS Valves I. E. Bulletin 80 Jet Pumps
- 1. E. Bulletin 80 BWR Control Rods
- b. Unresolved Items .
(Closed) (456/83-10-05; 457/83-10-05): Calibrated instruments utilized to verify acceptable pipe bends, in numerous cases, are not traceable to inspection records. This item was additionally identified in inspection report number 83-09 and will be tracked by control number 83-09-02(c). The item is closed due to duplicate findings, however, 83-09-02(c) will remain open and be reviewed at a later date for adequate corrective action. (Closed) (456/84-08-05; 457/84-08-05): Six high strength bolts were below the required structural steel torque values. The six bolts
- were re-tightened by the turn of the out method and this problem was
- determined to be an isolated case, as these bolts had been removed and replaced without proper authorization. Training was conducted with regard to the proper procedures to follow in the removing and replacing of items. The six bolts were documented on nonconfnrmance report number 213-795 on June 5,1984.
4 g 000t. :?;r th/N-J tj vsy/ d-31 j l
s ' W iCA ._
- n. *- -
fis/
~
l. Comstock Engineering, Inc.
.f /l Memorandum V
To: R. Saklak File Office: Braidwood F rom I. DOW31d s e ,cu R. Saklak, R. Snyder Incident Date: Anril 1, 19 Control No.: 85-04-01-07 This report describes the series of events concerning the alleged threat made to QC Inspector Richard Snyder by QC Supervisor
. Richard Saklak.
A. At approximately 1:00 p.m. on 3/29/85, the Assistant QC Manager L. Seese informed me (I. F. DeWald) the QC Manager that six (6) Comstock Engineering Inc. Quality Control In-spectors had gone to the Braidwood Nuclear Power Plant Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Res_ident Inspector's office with a concern that intimidation and threats had been made by Quality Control Supervisor Richard Saklak to Quality Control Inspector 3 Richard Snyder. Further discussion with Assistant QC Manager L. Seese revealcd that on the afternoon of March 28, 1985 that QC Supervisor R. Saklak, QC Inspector R. Snyder along with Lead QC Inspector Ray Nemeth were engaged in a discussion pertaining to the issuance of an Inspection Correction Report (ICR) that R. Snyder wanted to issue for a welding machine that was found out of calibration. The discussion between the three individ-uals was pertaining to R. Saklaka wanting R. Snyder to issue the ICR, evaluate and sign off the ICR, bypassing Engineering. R. Snyder refused to do this. The problem was taken to the Quality Assurance Manager R. Seltmann. He gave the resolution that the ICR was to be issued and sent to L. K. Comstock Engineering Department for disposition and that R. Snyder was correct in his refusing to do as directed by R. Saklak. After the discussion with the Assistant QC Manager L. Seese, the following actions were initiated. B. At approximately 1:30 p.m., QC Inspector Richard Snyder was asked to come to the QC Manager's office to discuss the inci-dent that occurred on the afternoon of 3/28/85 between him-self and QC Supervisor Richard Saklak. At this time, he (Richard Snyder) requested his lead QC Inspector Ray Nemeth be included in the discussion, this was granted. s2'OOcu157S
c. Page 2 R. Saklak, R. Snyder Incident The questions asked QC Inspector Richard Snyder were: What transpired between yourself and Richard Saklak on the afternoon of 3/28/85? His response was: The discussion / argument started over the issuance and closure of an Inspection Correction Report (ICR) for a welding machinc found out of calibration, Richard Saklak wanted Richard Snyder to do the evaluation and sign off the ICR closing it. Richard Snyder refused to do so and QC general Supervisor A. Simile, lead QC Inspector R. Nemeth and R. Snyder then approached QA Manager R. Seltmann for clarification. R. Seltmann resolved the issue. He agreed with QC Inspector R. Snyder that L.K.C. Engi-neering Department had to evaluate the ICR prior to R. Snyder signing the ICR off closing it out. After leaving the QA office and at R. Snyder's work area, R. Saklak stated quote "You are so thick minded, if beating was legal you would be a dead man." R. Nemeth and QC Inspector Timothy Stewart were present at this time. R. Snyder stated R. Saklak did, on the following mornir.g of.3/29/85 formally, apologize to him indicating he was wrong in doing what he did the afternoon of 3/28/85. ' (#} C. At approximately 2:45 p.m. a telephone call was received from
\/ D. Shamblin Project Superintendent, Commonwealth Edison Co.
notifying the QC Manager that a meeting was scheduled for 3 p.m. in his office. He requested that R. Seltmann (QA Manager), I. DeWald (QC Manager) and D. Ovens (L.K.C. Assistant Project
. Manager) attend this meeting. The topic of the meeting was the t
alleged threat made by R. Saklak to Richard Snyder and that at 8 a.m. on 3/29/85 six (6) L.K.C. QC Inspectors had gone to the Resident-NRC Inspector's office with the alleged threat. Also-disclosed in the meeting was the fact that an additional 23 L.K.C. Qc Inspectors had gone to the Resident NRC Inspector's office that afternoon. During the meeting, Commonwealth Edison Co. requested that the L.K.C. Qc Department attend a meeting in the 4th floor meeting room of the service building at 8 a.m. 4/1/85. Commonwealth Edison Co. issued a letter (BR-PCD #288) ! to L. K. Comstock & Co. that policy statement 1.0.0 be fully adhered to in the performance of work at the Braidwood Nuclear Power Station. The attendees were I. DeWald, R. Seltmann, t D. Ovens (LKC), D. Shamblin, T. Maiman (CECO PCD), G. Fitzpatrick, T. Quaka (CECO QA). A report is to be issued to CECO Project Superintendent D. Shamblin by 12 noon 4/1/85. This report is to address L. K. Comstock's action, investigation and proposed plan of action so the NRC Region III Director can be notified. O 000915T
l l i Page 3 R. Saklak, R. Snyder Incident f~) k/ D. Upon returning'from the meeting at CECO PCD, the Comstock QA/QC Services Manager T. Paserba was notified of the incident. E. A discussion was held with QC Supervisor R. Saklak also at this time. The following is a summary of the discussion held with R. Saklak. R. Saklak described the events of 3/28/85 in that the argument or discussion was over the issuance / evaluation and closure of an ICR pertaining to a welding machine found out of calibration, QC Inspector R. Snyder refused to evaluate and close out the ICR. The discussion was then brought to the attention of the QA Manager R. Seltmann by QC general Super-visor A. Simile, QC lead Inspector R. Nemeth and QC Inspector R. Snyder. R. Seltmann agreed with QC Inspector R. Snyder and that L.K.C. Engineering has to evaluate the ICR, not the QC
. Inspector. After the resolution was obtained, R..Snyder and R. Nemeth went back to R. Snyder's work area and at this time was when QC Supervisor made the alleged threat to the effect of " Rich, you make me so pissed off that if beating was legal, you would be dead." Further, thru the discussion R. Saklak did state he formally apologized to R. Snyder the following morning 3/29/85 and thought the whole incident was taken care
, of. The fact was explained to R. Saklak that even though the work spaces are not the best, an individual should think before 7-- they speak in a heated manner as they are accountable for their i actions.
At this time, R. Saklak was instructed that he was not to re-port to work on Saturday 3/30/85. R. Saklak then indicated he would not come to work as directed. P. On Saturday 3/30/85 QA/QC Services Manager T. Paserba was on site and with I. Dewald held another discussion with D. Shamblin Project Superintendent (CECO) concerning the alleged threat made by R. Saklak, the 29 QC Inspectors going to the Resident NRC Inspector, and L. K. Comstock's proposed plan of action concerning the above incident. G. T. Stewart Interview QC Inspector Timothy Stewart was asked to come to the QC
~
Manager's office to discuss the incident between QC Supervisor R. Saklak and QC Inspector R. Snyder. Question: Did you hear the conversation between the QC Super-visor R. Saklak and QC Inspector R. Snyder and if so, explain what happened. Response: At approximately 4:45 p.m. on Thursday, 3/28/85, ('^) V Saklak and Snyder were arguing over something to 00M'15SO
Page 4 R. Saklak, R. Snyder Incident i f' r do with an ICR (Inspection Correction Report) of which. Rich Snyder would not sign off because Engi-neering had not dispositioned it. Then they both (R. Saklak, R. Snyder) walked off. They came back later and R. Saklak told R. Snyder how thick
" headed he was and that, "if beating was legal, he would be dead." -
Question: Do you have anything more to add? Response: "No." Question: Did you hear or were you around when R. Sakl'ak formally apologized to R. Snyder on the morning
. of 3/29/85?
Response: "No." H. T. Paserba Comstock Eng. QA/QC Manager on S ':urday 3/30/85 contacted the Comstock Engineering Corporate Manager QA/QC' Services of the incident. T. Paserba then later in the day attempted to contact R. Saklak by phone informing him he was on suspension, but contact could not be made. Contact was 73 made on 3/31/85 informing R. Saklak of his suspension. I. Assistant QC Manager L. Seese and QA Manager R. Seltmann were requested to document their participation and knowledge of the , alleged threat made by R. Saklak and incidents that occurred on 3/28/85. J. This documents the events through 4[l/85. NW I. F. DeWald Quality Control Manager G 52 00001581
. g, ,c .
~
. v, ..
Comstock Engineering, Inc. pg Memorandum G y T ,3 I. F. DeWald ~
~
Office: n rn 4,h m e, g n . ,, a n. Seltmann G ' , ) .**
- f.
~* C t-L ., ;.*;,~ '. 9g Sub,ec t. R. Snyder/R. Saklak Incident *
'$- Date: 01/10 /R $
O I 6 At approximately 4:30 on 03/28/05, QC Inspector R. Snyder came into my office to discuss a problem concerning the issuance of an Inspection Correction Report (ICR) for a welding machine found out of calibration. Mr. Snyder was accompanied by his Lead, R. Nemeth and General Supervisor A. Simile. Mr. Snyder and Mr. Nemoth were both upset concerning the issue R. Saklak_. because of a discussion with their .inanediate supervisor. Their discussion surrounded the fact that the , welding machines have been removed from LKC's Procedure 4.9.1 " Control of Measuring and Test Equipment" Revision D, but the procedure was not approved as of yet. Therefore, an ICR was to be written in accordance with the current 4.9.1 procedure, Rev. C Paragraph 3.3.7 ~The main concern in their eyes was that their supervisor, i O R. Saklak want ed them to m.ike an ev.iluation type utatement on t her ICH and then subsequently close out the document. Mr. Snyder felt that he could not make the evaluation and that this was engineering responsibility. Mr. Nemeth agreed with this, and I told them I also agree with them. Mr. Simile felt that since LKC's wcld procedure 4.8.3 Revision G covered the weld ' machine check in Paragraph 3.24.2.1 and the fact that LKC's pro-posed changes to the program has removed the item from our MTE procedure, an ICR would not be necessary. I explained to all parties that, yes, it is Comstock philos- ! ophy that welding machines will not be calibrated or within the scope of Procedurc 4.9.I when Rev. D is approved. I also explained that due to the timeliness surrounding the approval of Revision D, j Revision C is still in effect and an ICR must be written and sent to Engineering, and, that Mr. Snyder does not have the authority to do what was requested of him. I then instructed them to write an ICR and process it as in the past to Engineering for correctivo l action. At that time, all three individuals loft my office. A short time later I met A. Simile in the hallway of the QC office and he explained that the ICR's would be written and sent to Engineering and that he and LKC Engineer R. Rudge had the 52 00061574
/ H
- e .
Page 2 OG situation worked out. I agreed. A few minutes later I met () R. Nemeth in the men's washroom and it was at that time he expressed his concerns privately to me and also told me of the incident betwcon H. Saklak and H. Snyder that occurred rior t6)our meeting in my office. It was here that-I first cara of R. Saklak's alleged threat to R. Snyder,
- s. -
A/i If. ScItmann 7fff',. OA Manager RS/syh _ cc: T. Paserba O l l l [ l l l l r l O 52 00Gt,15'yS
* .e . *
%i')
~
Comstock Engineering, Inc. eqI Memorandum
/ %./
CONFI DI:NTI AI. Tu. I. F. DeWald CEI QC B!./.I b'.. Of fec t. hom. I** C* 3C""' Saklak/Snyder Incident IJate: 03/30/R5 Yesterday (03/29/85) llarrold !!imes came to my office at 11:45 a.m. and advised me that six (6) QC inspectors had gone
.to the NRC conecrning an incident between Sahlah and Snyder that took place on 03/28/85. l!arrold's description was rather vague. Immediately after he left my office I came to you and reported the information I received.
During lunch I talked with Bob Seltmann about the same subject. Bob informed me that Ray Hemeth had witnessed the events of 03/28/85, at 12:45 p.n. I called Ray to my office. I asked him to _tcll me what happened. The following is the list of events as Ray de:;cribed then:
- 1. Saklak asked Snyder to clone out an ICR without the Engineerinn Dispositio'n.
- 2. Snyder felt that van wrong and talked to Ray.
- 3. Together they went to Bob Seltmann and asked his opinion. Bob agreed with Snyder.
- 4. Later that af ternoon Saklak found out that Snyder
, had talked to Seltmann. Saklak came up to Snyder i and said "If mauling van legal you would be dead noW".
- 5. First thing on 03/29/85 Saklak stopped Ray and told him that he would apologi:.e to Snyder.
- 6. Nemeth went to Snyder and told him that Saklak would
( apologize. Snyder said it was to late. Saklak went to Syder and apologized in the presence of Ray. 9 TO O .' O s .'g ,
,s
..., g
(-
- 7. . y. . : .) . . ..o U L...~,'
- 'f
'W qw.mm.w fV
Page 2 Confidential Mao. 03/30/85 'O 7. Ray noticed that Snyder war. r,one for a while and when he returned he anked him where he wau. Snyder stated that they were at'the flRC. Snyder told him that the NRC would be in touch with CECO within the hour.
. 8. Ray also stated that the morale of the innpectors was poor. Ray wishes that he would have stayed at Perry and taken the layoff when the job ended. lie stated that much of the negative feeling utems frora the union r.plit.
As soon as the conversation ended I came to your office and updated you. Sincerely, (
.g.--
)
r.f-f_ ~ L. C. Scene
~
~
Assist ant Qualit y Control ifanager LCS/tdr ( s 52 00t%1573
+
g: . ** . i i !4 l ! 1.N .D.I;X_ _TO_ _ l.t l C.l .l.A l.t D . .!; N Y D E..l:. F.i lE. i j 00001572-01573 (copy) l<esponil:. t o I nt.errorjitory 52 00001574-01575 name i 4 1 00001578-01581 52 1 ! 00001582 l 00001584-01585 52 i 00001586 . 4 00001597-01598 20, 22 -54 7 4 00001850-01851 20 1 l 4 i-t - i . t f l i i- } k i i } p i 1 o@ ! i s E , t 1 __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . - - ..__-.-e .-.---,.-.m.-. _.-,,..v-
r -
- e. '
,l' !Z." ' ~
l Comstock Engineering, Inc. '
, Memora d6$ .
y .
..~
To I. F. DeWald ,,.h o Office: Arniduon From. R. SeItmann N - ' N.' z' g-[,, *,. 'Q Subject. R. Snyder/R. Saklak incident $ - Date: 01/10/R% i ' h At approximately 4:30 on 03/28/85, QC Inspector R. Snyder came into my office to discuss a problem concerning the issuance of an Inspection Correction Report (ICR) for a welding machine found out of calibration. Mr. Snyder was accompanied by his Lead, R. Nemeth and General Supervisor A. Simile. Mr. Snyder and Mr. Nemeth were both upset concerning the issue because of a discussion with their immediate supervisor R. Saklak. Their discussion surrounded the fact that the welding machines have been removed from LKC's Procedure 4.9.1 " Control of Measuring and Test Equipment" Revision D, b'ut the procedure was not approved as'of yet. Therefore, an ICR was to be written in accordance with the current 4.9.1 procedure, Rev. C Paragraph 3.3.7. The main concern in their eyes was that their supervisor, gs R. Saklak wanted them to make an evaluation type statement on the ICR and then subsequently close out the document. Mr. Snyder felt that he could not make the evaluation and that this was engineering responsibility. Mr. Nemeth agreed with this, and I told them I also agree with them. Mr. Simile felt that since LKC's weld procedure 4.8.3 Revision G covered the weld machine check in Paragraph 3.24.2.1 and the fact that LKC's pro-posed changes to the program has removed the item from our MTE l procedure, an ICR would not be necessary. I explained to all parties that, yes, it is Comstock philos-ophy that welding machines will not be calibrated or within the scope of Procedure 4.9.1 when Rev. D is approved. I also explained l that due to the timeliness surrounding the approval of Revision D, l Revision C is still in effect and an ICR must be written and sent to Engineering, and, that Mr. Snyder does not have the authority ! to do what was requested of him. I then instructed them to write an ICR and process it as in the past to Engineering for corrective action. At that time, all three individuals left my office. I A short time later I met A. Simile in the hallway of the QC office and he explained that the ICR's would be written and sent to Engineering and that he and LKC Engineer R. Rudge had the N 52 00001574
I. , ,. Page 2 i
<. situation worked out. I agreed. A few minutes later I met R. Nemeth in the men's washroom and it was at that time he expressed his concerns privately to me and also told me of the incident between R. Saklak and R. Snyder that occurred prior to our meeting in my office. It was here that I first
/:YO7 heard of R. Saklak's alleged threat to R. Snyder.
- s. -
4 R. Seltmann QA Manager RS/syh _ cc: T. Paserba O O 52 000bl575
V . k h. :=g[ ' Comstock Engineering, Inc. Memorandum
.[O CONFIDENTIAL
- 1. F. DeWald To:
OfR- CEI QC BEAIDW: From: L. C. Seese S& Saklak/Snyder Incident Date: 03/30/85 Yesterday (03/29/85) Harrold Himes came to my office at 11:45 a.m. and advised me that six (6) QC inspectors had gone to the NRC concerning an incident between Saklak and Snyder that took place on 03/28/85. Harrold's description was rather vague. Immediately after he left my office I came to you and , reported the information I received. During lunch I talked with Bob Seltmann about the same subject. Bob informed me that Ray tiemeth had witnessed the events of 03/28/85,'at 12:45 p.n. I called Ray to my office. I asked him to tell me what happened. The following-is the list of events as Ray described them: _
- 1. Saklak asked Snyder to close out an ICR without the Engineering Disposition.
- 2. Snyder felt that was wrong and talked to Ray.
- 3. Together they went to Bob Seltmann and asked his
. opinion. Bob agreed with Snyder.
- 4. Later that afternoon Saklak found out that Snyder
- had talked to Seltmann. Saklak came up to Snyder i
and said "If 2:uling was Icgal you would be dead,"
**w'h ka y
- 5. First thing on 03/29/85 Saklak stopped Ray and told him that he would apologize to Snyder.
- 6. Nemeth went to Snyder and told him that Saklak would apologize. Snyder said it was to late. Saklak went to Syder and apologized in the presence of Ray.
01 1 fif)
.,, *I .
3 : . 7, , ::
- ,* . ry ., u O }
3
* * ~ n f,) * . . ,
k[
. f<
~
wm
(. Page 2 Confidential P.cr.o
. 03/30/85 J
- 7. Ray noticed that Snyder was gone for a while and when he returned he asked him where he was. Snyder stated that they were at the NRC. Snyder told him that the NRC would be in touch with CECO within the hour.
. 8. Ray also stated that the morale of the inspectors was poor. Ray wishes that he would have stayed at Perry and taken the layoff when the job ended. He stated that much of the negative feeling stems from the union split.
As soon as the conversation ended I came to your office and updated you. Sincerely, V y
- )
?~ .y_ C#?_' _
L. C.-Scese - Assistint Quality Control Manager LCS/tdr O , l O 52 00at>.1573
IE . ..' . . J August 2, 1985 6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'{ ) NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: )
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY )
) Docket Nos. 50 456 (Braidwood Nuclear Power ) 50 457 Station, Units 1 and 2) )
INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR CONFIDENTIAL' TREATMENT
. OF ELEVEN QC INSPECTOR NAMES Intervenors Bridget Little Rorem, et al., by their under-signed counsel, move for an order providing for the confidential
~~
treatment of the names of eleven (11) of the sixteen (16)
, Comstock Quality Control (QC) inspectors, at their request, iden-
-/ Lifled in the original version of an April 5, 1985, NRC Staff l
Memorandum, attached to Intervenors' July 15, 1985, Supplement to July 12, 1985, Motion Regarding Harassment and Intimidation of Comstock Quality Control (QC) Inspectors. That April 5, 1985, Memorandum was served upon the parties in an expurgated version which deleted the names of sixteen (16) QC inspectors who presented information or harassment complaints to the NRC Staff. An unexpurgated version with names disclosed was served only upon the Licensing Board. Intervenors took such actions in the belief that confidentiality might be desired and warranted for some or all of these individuals notwithstanding the indication in the April 5 memo, at page 2, that confiden-tiality had been offered by the NRC and declined.
)
1
p ; - _ j i As directed.by t'he Board at the. July 23, 1935,PrehearinN
. Conference, Tr. 259-262,- counsel for Intervenors co:nmunicated ,
with each of the sixteen (16) QC inspectors ident.(fled in the April 5 memorandum. Counsel for Intervenors proyided each I inspector an explanation of the nature'of these proceedings, the -' circumstances under which their names became known to Intervenors, the Board's decision on Applicant's request for ' dis'61osure of the unexpurgated memo (Tr. 259), the availability and significance of various. measures to limit the disclosure of their identitles under a protective order which.Intervenors could seek. We also discussed with them the likely extent of disclosure already occurring and the protections flowing to _them from public'identi-fication as participants inethis NRC prodeeding. t Confidential s treatment of their names .was expressly requested by nine (9) O Individuals personally on their own. behalf; tly.the wife of ohe U , inspector on her 'absen( ' husband's behalf' and at his direction, af ter he had received a communication from Intervenors' counsel; and by one inspector on behalf of one-other and at'his direction, af ter he, too, had received a communication from Intervenors' counsel. Thus, eleven (11) of the sixteen (16) individuals seek confidential tr eatment of their names. Five (5) of the inspectors have consented to the disclosure
, of their names, including disclosure to Commonwealth Edison and Comstock management. Such consent was given by Tim Stewart, Richard Snyder, R . D., Hunter, l'erschel Stout and Dan Holley. (Of i
these, Stewart and Stout are no longer employed at Braidwood.) A r partially unexpurgated' version of the memo, which discloses the !O 2
numes of thase five (5) consenting individuals only, is attached hereto. These names, together with the corresponding references in the April 5 memo, were read to counsel for the Applicant and NRC Staff this day, August 2, 1985. Each of the eleven individuals who sought confidentiality expressed fear of discrimination or reprisal by Edison, Comstock, */ other site employees, or some prospective future employer should they be identified through the April 5, 1985 Memorandum as having complained to the NRC. The feared discrimination ranged from termination of employment and blacklisting from future employ-ment, to unfavorable work assignments and harassment. Several of the inspectors stated that they had understood from the March 29, 1985 NRC meeting that their specific identities and specific
. complaints would be disclosed only within the NRC and would not be disclosed either publicly or to Edison and Comstock manage-ment. Several stated that if they knew that their names would be disclosed to Edison and Comstock they would not have gone to the NRC. On the other hand, at least.one acknowledged that he had not requested confidentiality on March 29, 1985, but had since reconsidered and, upon reflection, desired now to request i
l confidentiality. All understood that absolute confidentiality l ! could not be secured; each nonetheless requested as much restric-tion on disclosure of his name as could be provided.
*/ The individuals advised us that as of on or about July 23, 1985, QC inspectors of electrical work at Braidwood no longer receive their paychecks from Comstock, but are now " employed" by a separate company called BESTC0. However, they also state that actual direction'and control of their work con-tinues to be performed by Comstock supervisors, not BESTCO.
t O- Intervenors intend to explore this subject through discovery. 3
Intervenors were served today with Applicant Commonwealth
=, Edison Company's First Set of Quality Assurance Interrogatories and Requests To Produce Documents Directed to Intervenors Bridget Little Rorem, Et A1. These interrogatories (e.g., Interrogatory
- 9) seek inter alla the identitles of QC inspectors and the instances of harassment by Comstock management known to Intervenors. Intervenors believe that this question would call for the disclosure of information which, in the view of the eleven QC inspectors, would likely expose them to the feared _-
discrimination and reprisal. As Intervenors have today informed counsel for Applicant, we therefore intend to seek a protective order from the Board with respect to interrogatories requesting such identifying information. We believe that the decision on . such a request for protective order should establish the neces-sary and appropriate mechanisms for litigating these sensitive and important harassment and intimidation claims. Pending filing and resolution of such motion, however, it is sufficient that the
~
Board simply provide for the continued confidential treatment of 9 the names of those eleven (11) individuals named in the April 5, 1985, Memorandum who seek such protection. DATED: August 2, 1985 Respectfully submitted, Robert Guild
. Douglass W. Cassel, Jr. bI b' /[ '
l Timothy W. Wright, III Robert Guild 109 North Dearborn Suite 1300 One of the Attorneys for Intervenor Chicago, Illinois 60602 Bridget Little Rorem, et al. l (312) 641-5570 O l 4
i September 4, 1985 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: )
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket-Nos. 50-466
) 50-457 (Braidwood Nuclear Station, )
Units 1 and 2) ) INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT OF PROSPECTIVE QUALITY ASSURANCE WITNESSES Intervenors Bridget Little Rorem, et al., by their under-signed counsel, hereby move as directed by the Board at the ' July 23, 1985, prehearing conference for an order providing for the ( confidential treatment of identifying information regarding prospective witnesses on Intervenors' Ouality Assurance conten-tion and for the entry of a protective order limiting the dis-closure of such identifying information during the course of this litigation. Such orders are sought on the grounds that such' protection is needed "to encourage those with knowledge of pos-sible safety-related deficiencies in facility construction or operation to put their information before the Commission." Texas l Generating Company, et al., (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-714,17 NRC 86 at 92 (1983). l Although the parties, by agreement, have recently sought deferral of the close of discovery and the identification of j witnesses by a period of about 30 days to account for delays in 1 l
. . . , - - . - - . ~ - - - , - . . , - - - - . . .
. l ' l Applicant's and Staff's responses to Intervenors' discovery l 1
equests, Intervenors present this motion for confidential treat-3 4 s_,/ tent of prospective witnesses at this time in order that a timely resolution of this matter may permit discovery and hearing pre-naration to proceed subject to such confidentiality protections. It is understood by the parties that Intervenors seek such 4 tonfidential treatment at this time for the eleven (11) present and former L.K. Comstock Quality Control inspectors who sought
. uch protection in Intervenors' Motion for Confidential Treatment of Eleven QC Inspector Names filed August 2, 1985; but that such Trotection, if granted, be available as may be necessary for nther prospective witnesses to be identified by Intervenors at a later d' ate as provided in the parties' proposed revised schedule.
In addition, Intervenors have filed this date a Motion To Compel gg Discovery From Applicant and the NRC Staff which seeks, inter (') slia, acccess to prospective witnesses employed by Applicant or
*raidwood site contractors, Motion, pp. 9-15. Intervenors' abil-
~
ity to communicate with these prospective witnesses has been , sampered by Applicant's refusal to provide the home addresses and l l welephone numbers of these persons and Applicant's insistence that Intervenors' contact be channeled through the company's l Braidwood site address and telephone number. Intervenors antici-l l nate that an order compelling free access to site employees will Dermit the identification of further prospective witnesses who l may seek confidential treatment. l Intervenors have previously filed a number of pleadings which provide, in part, the factual and legal basis for the v 2
1 relief sought. In their May 24, 1985, Motion To Admit Amended
~
, es Quality Assurance Contention, Intervenors initially raised claims j of harassment and intimidation of Braidwood site employees for expression of safety and quality concerns in violation of 10 CPR 550.7. Motion, pp. 22-24. On July 12, 1985, Intervenors filed their Motion To Admit Claims of Intimidation and Harassment of Comstock Quality Control (QC) Inspectors and Motion For Protec-tive Order. On July 15, 1985, Intervenors supplemented their July 12 filing with the newly-discovered NRC Region III memoranda
, reflecting harassment and intimidation complaints to the NRC by i
some 24 Comstock QC inspectors. Then, as directed by the Board at_the July 23, 1985, prehearing conference, T r. 261, and upon the r_equest of eleven specified present or former Comstock QC inspectors, Intervenors filed their August 2, 1985, Motion For Confidential Treatment of Fleven QC Inspector Names. Finally, on s_ August 16, 1985, Intervenors flied their Response to Applicant's interrogatories and Motion For Protective Order which requested confidential treatment for the identitles of the eleven Comstock QC inspectors sought by Applicant in discovery. In the interests of brevity Intervenors only summarize, here, the factual claims of harassment and fear of reprisal which j l form the basis for the confidentiality protection sought. i f
- 1. Comstock QC Inspector John D. Seeders complained of harassment by Comstock management by letter of August 17, 1984, to the NRC, Edison and Comstock. More than 25 Comstock QC inspectors joined Seeders in September 1984 in complaints of widespread harassment by Comstock management. In retaliation for 3
r such complaints to the NRC, Seeders was threatened with termina-( ) tion and involuntarily t'ansferred r to a.less sensitive Engineer-Ing Clerk position. In communications with Intervenors' counsel, Seeders agreed to provide a sworn statement reflecting hia discussions with at least 10 other Comstock inspectors who had knowledge of harassment and intimidation and were willing to
, testify to such knowledge if they were provided protection from ,
I feared retallation. Seeders affirmed the statements contained in : the unsigned Affidavit of John D. Seeders, Exhibit A to Intervenors' July 12, 1985, Motion. Subsequently, Mr. Seeders himself has become fearful that he will be fired by Comstock - manageme'nt or at the direction of Commonwealth Edison Company if. he takes any further voluntarily affIr'mative s_teps in this I proceeding, including executing the affidavit he previously authorized and approved verbatim. Notwithstanding advice.that any such discrimination against a person who participates or
.gives evidence in an NRC proceeding is prohibited by federal statute and NRC regulations, Mr. Seeders persists in his fear that his cooperation will be met with reprisal. As recently as l August 31, 1985, Mr. Seeders informed counsel for Intervenors ,
- I l that he was afraid that he would be fired if he signed the unexecuted Affidavit prepared for him and previously filed. At the same time, Mr. Seeders again confirmed the truthfulness of i
- the Affidavit and his willingness to tell the truth if compelled l
l to testify by subpoena. He stated his firm belief, however, that l he would be fired and would never work in the nuclear industry I) (_/ again if he voluntarily participated further in this proceeding. l 4 l l~ . s I
See, July 12, 1985, Motion.
, (r"') 2. Former Level III Comstock QC Inspector Worley O. Puckett was harassed and discriminated against by Comstock management for his expression of safety and quality concerns including ~ numerous instances of improper construction procedures, improper qualifi-cation of welders, and material traceability deficiencies. Mr.
Puckett had been hired explicitly to review tne Comstock QA program. He ultimately recommended a complete stop work order for all welding activity because of widespread deficiencies. 'Mr. Puckett was terminated by senior Comstock management in retalia-tion for his expression of quality and safety concerns. On November 6, 1984, the U.S. Department 'o r Labor Area Director sustained Mr. Puckett's complaint of unlawful discrimination by _s - Comstock in violation of the employee protection provisions of
\~/ the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 USC E5851. See, July 12, 1q85, Motion.
~
3 On March 29, 1985, a ' total of 24 Comstock QC inspectors complained to the NRC of numerous instances of harassment and technical concerns including threats of physical violence by a Comstock supervisor and serious programmatic concerns that qual-ity was sacrificed to quantity under the Comstock QA program. One inspector stated that he had been retaliated against for talking to the NRC, another apparent act of discrimination in violation of 42 USC $5851. See, July 15, 1985, Supplement.
- 4. As directed by the Board, after the July 23, 1985, prehearing conference counsel for Intervenors communicated with x
5
The protective order to be issued by the Board should pro-
, w
)
s,/ vide for limited disclosure of names and identifying information strictly on a "need to know" basis as required for participation by a party in the proceeding. Disclosure of such protected information should be limited to persons who have executed Affidavits of Non-Disclosure which Affidavits would be filed with the Board and available to the parties. A comparatively elaborate form of protective order and affidavit of non-disclosure was approved by the Commission with regard to security plan informa-tion in the Diablo Canyon proceeding. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-80-24, 11 NRC 7.75 (1980). A copy of the Diablo Canyon Protective Order and Affidavit of Non-Disclosure are attached hereto. (~' Intervenors submit that a less elaborate order and affidavit O) which include the principal elements of protection would effee-tively meet the needs for confidential treatment here. t Intervenors would undertake to negotiate the contents of such an l order and affidavit with the other parties if this motion is granted. Finally, intervenors note that the confidentiality protec-tions sought at this time concern only the treatment of such information during the present discovery phase of these proceed-ings. For example, decision on the possible necessity (if any) for in camera evidentiary hearings is premature and speculative at this time. Confidentiality in any form during the evidentiary phase may well not be required, depending on, for example, which () prospective witnesses are in fact called to testify, what stipu-
- 7 I
each of the 16 Comstock QC inspectors identified in the April 5
' I'\ NRC Memorandum attached to the July 15 filing. ~
Counsel provided b each inspector with an explanation of the nature of the proceed-ings, the circumstances under which their names became known to i Intervenors, the Board's decision on Applicant's request for ! disclosure of their names, and the availability and significance of various measures to limit the disclosure of their identitles under a protective order which Intervenors could seek. We also discussed with them the likely extent of disclosure already occurring and the protections flowing from public identification as partielpants in this NRC proceeding. Eleven of the sixteen 8 inspectors requested confidential treatment of their names and
~
have asked Intervenors to seek a protective order providing for the maximum protection available even where absolute confidential-O (_-) ity could not be secured. Each expressed fear of reprisal or discrimination ranging from termination or blacklisting from future nuclear industry employment to unfavorable work assign-ments and harassment. The record already available reflecting complaints of harassment, discrimination and fear of reprisal among Comstock QC inspectors amply supports the grant of a protective order providing for confidential treatment of identifying information. l Houston Lighting and Power Company, et al., (Smith Texas Projee. y Units 1 and 2), LBP-80-11, 11 NHC 477 (1980); Houston Lighting i and Power Company, (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-535, 9 NRC 377 (1979). j 6 i ~
~
1ations if any have been agreed upon, the then current needs of
'[ ) potential witnesses, and other circumstances then prevailing. \J.
There is no present need to speculate about such future circum-stances in order to provide for confidential treatment during the present discovery phase. WHEREFORE, Intervenors respectfully move for an order providing for the confidential treatment of prospective witnesses and a protective order limiting disclosure of identifying infor-mation as herein described. DATED: September 4, 1985 Respectfuly submitted, , f V Ik (ODc) t Robert Guild One of the Attorneys for Intervenors Rorem, et al. l l Douglass W. Cassel, Jr. Robert Guild Timothy W. Wright, III i 109 North Dearborn l Suite 1300 i Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 641-5570 8
' ~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULtsTORY COM!!ISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
- Richard S. Salzman, Chairman Dr. W. Reed Johnson Thomas S. !!oore ,
)
In the flatter of )
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-275 OL
) 50-323 OL' (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant,)
Units 1 and 2) ) -
. )
PROTECTIVE ORDER ON SECURITY PLAU INFORMATION Counsel and witnesses for Intervenor San Luis Obispo Mothers for Poaco (Intervenor) who have executed an Affidavit of Non-Disclosure, in the form attached, shall be permitted' O~ */ access to " protected information"~~ upon the following condi-tions:
- 1. Only Intervenor's counsel and Intervenor's experts who have been qualified in accordance with the requirements of our decision in Pacific Gas & Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAD-410, 5'NRC j 1398 (1977),and our Order of February 25, 1980 in this pro-l coeding, may have access to protected information on a "need to know" basis.
l
*/ As used in this arder, " protected information" has'the same meaning as used in the Affidavit of Non-Disclosure, annexed hereto.
O L
2-
<a 2. Counsel and experts who receive any protected infor-mation -(including transcripts of in camera hearings, filed testimony or any other document that reveals protected infor-mation) shall maintain its confidentiality as required by the
'i annexed Affidavit of Non-Disclosure, the terms of which are hereby incorporated into this protective order.
- 3. Counsel and experts who receive any protective infor-mation shall use it solely for the purpose of participation in matters directly pertaining to this security plan hearing and any further proceedings in this case directly involving security matters, and for no other purposes.
]
- 4. Counsel and experts shall keep a record of all pro--
tected information in their possession and shall account for and deliver that information to the commission of5icial desig-nated by this Board in accordance with the Af fidavit of Non-Disclosure that they-have executed.
- 5. In addition to the requirements specified in the Affidavit of Non-Disclosure, all papers filed in this pro-ceeding (including testimony) that contain any protected information shall be segregated and:
(a) served on lead counsel and the members of this Board only; (b) served in a heavy, opaque inner envelope bearing ' the name of the addressee and the statement " PRIVATE. O
---,,m ,,------_-.--..,,-,-,-.---.,-.--.,--.m,--.---.em.,. . .--- ,. - . - . - . , . , ,--,.,---.n--- - - - - - - - - - - --,-,--m-.--,--- -- - - - , - - - - ,
1- -3
' rO TO IIC OPENED DY ADDRESS 1:E ONLY." Addresscos V
shall take all necessary precautions to on-sure that they alone will open envelopes so marked. .
- 6. Counsel, experts or any other individual who has rea-son to suspect that documents containing protected information may have been lost or misplaced (for example, because an ex-
. pected paper has not been roccived) or that protected informa-tion has otherwise becomo availabic to unauthorized persons shall notify this Donrd promptly of thosto suspicions and the reasons for them.
It is so O!OERED. FOR Tilt APPEAL BOARD . l -
?
//t ylg g y l i iticharyS/ Sal Chairman
, Done at San Luis Obispo, California, l this 3rd day of April, 1900. l l l l e . n .r-..-.-, --,--- ._ ..- .s-.----.., _ .- . . - - - - . - . . - - - - - . . - - . . - , - - - - - _ . , - .
-e.-
~
UKITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
'O V
)
In the Matter of ) ,
)
PACIFIC CAS AND ELECTRIC C0!!PANY ) Docket Non. 50-275 OL
) 50-323 OL (Diablo Canyon Nucicar Power Plant,)
Units 1 and 2) ) * -
)
AFFIDAVIT OF NON-DI S CLOS U R E 1, _, being duly sworn, state:
- 1. i.s used in this Affidavit of Non-Disclosure, (a) " Protected information" is (1)'any form of the physical security plan for the licensce's Diablo canyon Nuc1 car Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; or (2) any information dealing with or describing details of that plan.
(b) An " authorized person" is (1) an employee of the Nuclear Regula-tory Commission entitled to access to protected information; (2) a person who, at the invitation of the Atomic Safety and Licensing i i Appeal Board ("Appesi Board"), has executed a copy of this affidavit; or (3) a person employed by Pacific Cas and Electric Company, the licensee, and authorized by it in accordance with Commission regula-tions to have access to protected information.
- 2. I shall not disclose protected information to anyone except an authorized person, unless that information has previously been disclosed in the public record of this proceeding. I will safeguard protected O
l _ _ _ - . _ . . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ . _
~ '
8-
. t$
-2 . '
'I ,
information in written form (including any portions of transcripts of in, camera hearings, (11cd testimony or any other documents that contain touch inf orma tion), so that it remains at all times under the control of an authorized person and is not diseloced to anyone else.
. I
- 3. I will not reproduce any protected information by any means j without the Appeal Board's express approval or direction. So long as I possess protected information, I shall continue to take these precautions until further order of the Appeal Board.
- 4. I shall similarly safeguard and hold in cor.fidence any data, j t
notes, or copies of protected information and all other papers wiilch I contain any protected information by means of the following: 1 (a) my use of the protected infonnatfor) will be made at' a facility in San Francisco to be made availabic by Pacific Cas and Electric Company. l (b) I will keep and safeguard all cuch material in a safe to be ob'tained by intervenors at Pacific Cas and Elect ric Company's experse, af ter consultation with Pacific Cas and ticctric Company and to be located at all times at the above deriignated location. (c) Any secretarial work perfonned at my request or under my supervision l will be performed at the above location by one secretary of intervenor's i designation. Intervenors shall furnish facific Cas and Electric Company, the Board and Staf f an appropriate resume of the secretary's background l and experience. l (d) Necessary typing and reproduction equipacnt will be furnished , by Pacific Cas and Electric Company. i (e) All intervenor mailings involving protected information shall I ' ! be made f roci the facility furnished by Pacific Cas and Electric Co. 1 e , . , , , . _ - - . , --,,,_m c_ -,,..,.~,--.--e.. a --e- ., v. ,- ,_ _ , . . . , , - , , . , , , - , ,,,-.--,-,,-..--,-------,,,-m ,,,,..----,-,n - , , . , , , - -
3
- 5. If I prepare papers containing protected information in order .
to participate in further proceedings in this case. I will assure that any
- ,O secretary or other individual who must receive proteethd information in 1
order to help me prepare those papers han executed an affidavit like l
.- 1 I
this one and has agreed to abide by its terms. Copies of any such af fidavit vill be filed with the Appeal Board before I reveal any protected information to any such person. .
- 6. I shall use protected information only for the purpose of preparation for this proceeding or any further proceedings in this
'- case dealing with security plan insoes, and for no other purpone.
- 7. I shall keep a record of all protected information in my possession, including any copies of that information made by or for me. At the conclusion of this proceeding, I shall account to the Appeal Board
~
or to a Commission employee designated by that Board for all the papers or other materials enntnining protected information in my possession and deliver them as provided herein. When. I have finished using the protected information they contain, but in no event later than the . . conclus ion of this proceeding, I shall deliver those papers and materials 1 to the Appeal Board (or to a Commission employee designated by the Board), together with all notes and data which contain protected information i for safekeeping durlog the lifetime of the p} ant.
- 8. I make this agreement with the following understandings:
(a) I do not waive any objections that any other person may have to - executing an affidavit such as this one; (b) I will not publicly discuss or disclose any protected information that I receive by any means whatever. O
-4_
I i f Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of April, 1980 D 0 t O e 9 8 p 9 9 9 i i I. 9 9 9 9 7 i
9/4/85 () UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: )
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-456
) 50-457 (Braidwood Nuclear Power )
Station, Units 1 and 2) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served copies of Intervenors' Motion For Confidential Treatment of Prospective Quality . Assurance Witnesses on all parties to this proceeding listed on 4 () the attached Service List', by having said copies placed in envelopes, properly addressed and postaged (first class), and deposited in the U.S. mail at 109 North
Dearborn,
Chicago, Illinois, on this 4th day of September, 1985; except that Administrative Judge Grossman was served via Federal Express
" ZAP" mail (same day delivery); Administrative Judges Brenner, Cole, and Callihan, and NRC Staff Counsel Elaine Chan were served via Federal Express (overnight delivery); and Edison counsel Michael Miller was served personally, also on September 4, 1985.
BJ r tu C--Q O
Y BRAIDWOOD SERVICE LIST 50-456/50-457 OL
*( )
Lawrence Brenner, Esq. Elaine Chan, Esq. Chairman and Administrative Judge NRC Staff Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington D.C. 20555 7335 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, MD 20014 Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Administrative Judge Joseph Callo, Esq. 102 Oak Lane Isham, Lincoln & Beale Oak Ridge, TN 37830 suite 840 1120 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Dr. Richard F. Cole Washington D.C. 20036 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Docketing & Service Section U.S. Nuc] car Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary Washington D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Rebecca J . Lauer, Esq. Washington D.C. 20555 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza Atomic Safety and Licensing Chicago, IL 60602 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Q(_/ Ms. Bridget Little Rorem Commission 117 North Linden Street Washington D.C. 20555 Essex, IL 60935 Atomic Safety and Licensing C. Allen Bock, Esq. Appeal Board Panel' P.O. Box 342 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Urbana, IL 61801 Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Thomas J. Gordon, Esq. Waller, Evans & Gordon Michael I. Miller Esq. 2503 South Neil Isham, Lincoln & Beale Champaign, IL 61820 Three First National Plaza 60602 Chicago, IL Lorraine Creek t Route 1, Box 182 Herbert Grossman Manteno, IL 60950 Chairman and Administrative Judge Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Office of Inspection & Enforcement Washington D.C. 20555 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 O 8
, = - s- -
---------,.---,-,-,--,,-,,m- n,.c,
September 36, 1985
~
e.
., UNITED STATES OF AMERICA frN (v) NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
COMMONWEALTil EDISON COMPANY )
) Dockets 50-456 (Braidwood ) 50-457 Units 1 and 2) )
COMMONWEALTil EDISON COMPANY'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT OF PROSPECTIVE QUALITY ASSURANCE WITNESSES _ On September 4, 1985, Intervenors filed their Motion for Confidential Treatment of Prospective Quality
. Assurance Witnesses. The motion seeks to protect from public disclosure the identities of both present and potential g-k, quality assurance witnesses for Intervenors. Given the
('~' / plain insufficiency of the factual showing made by Intervenors in support of confidential treatment for the 11 Comstock quality control i.nspectors referred to in Intervenors' August 2, 1985 motion on that subject, there is simply no basis for carte blanche confidential treatment of Intervenors' witnesses in the future. At a minimum, a particularized motion demonstrating the need for confidentiality, properly supported by affidavit, is necessary. Accordingly, Commonwealth Edison Company (" Edison") opposes the Intervenors' motion on several grounds. Intervenors have plainly failed to allege a sufficient factual basis on which to sustain their motion. Despite 5 0
't the. passage of over 60 days since the admission of the 9 v(< ~) contention alleging harassment and intimidation of Comstock quality control inspectors, there is no factual basis for entry of the protective order Intervenors seek, except for the representation of Intervenors' counsel and the unexecuted affidavit of John Seeders, which itself is based on hearsay reports of fears of harassment by other, unidentified quality control inspectors. It can only be concluded that Intervenors seek to obviate illusory risks of retaliation and unsub-stantiated claims of intimidation. Moreover, the requested i protective order would defeat the strong public interest ,
which mandates that NRC proceedings be conducted openly and
, subject to full public scrutiny. Finally, as a practical f
f-ss matter, Edison will need to disclose the identities of these ! J
\# !
Intervenor witnesses to management personnel at Comstock in ' order to effectively prepare a defense against Intervenors' allegations and to respond to ongoing discovery. Therefore, the Intervenors request for a protective order limiting j disclosure on a "need-to-know" basis would not stop this f I information from flowing to the very personnel from whom t Intervenors fear harassment and retaliation. Intervonors have failed to demonstrate the necessary , basis for a protective order. The applicable requirements 1 were summarized by the Appeal Board in-Kansas Gas and Electric Company (Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1),
~~
(L >) . 4
f
- ALAB-327, 3 MRC 408 (1976). There the Appeal Board adopted f -~s f
( ,) a four-part analysis, holding that a party seeking to protect information from public disclosure must show: (1) that the information in question is of a type customarily held confi-dential by its originator; (2) that a rational basis exists for holding the information confidential; (3) that the information has in fact been kept confidential; and (4) that the information cannot be found in public sources. 3 NRC at 417. With resp'ct e to the required rational basis, the Appeal Board went on to state that only a " concrete indication" of some rish of "significant harm" would justify withholding information from full public scrutiny. 3 NRC at 417. Other Boards have reached the same conclusion. See Pennsylvania
/}
k~/ Power and Licht company and Alleghany Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), A LAB- 6 ] 3, 12 NRC 317, 323 (1980) (moving party must show
" good cause" for protective order); Houston Lighting and Power Company (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), LBP 11 11 NRC 477, 480 (1980) (moving party should provide
" factual basis for its view that the protective order is warranted").
Intervenors cite past allegations of harassment and intimidation by disgruntled Comstock quality control inspectors. Edison does not dispute that these allegations are part of Intervenors' quality assurance contention. ( N
-4 However, the mere admission of a quality assurance harassment A f3 '\s,) issue in a licensing proceeding is not sufficient to provide a factual basis for issuance of a protective order. Intervenors have not provided a singic affidavit asserting a fear of retaliation. Nor have such affidavits been offered to the Board on an in camera basis. Rather, Intervenors offer only the unsubstantiated representations of the Intervenors' attorney regarding the inspectors' need for confidentiality.
Significantly, those representations are contrary to represen-tations made to the NRC Staff when the alleged incidents of harassment took place. See-p. 2, April 5, 1985 memorandum, Weil to Norelius, attached to Supplement to July 12, 1985 motions regarding harassment and intimidation of Comstock - Quality Control (COC) Inspectors dated July 15, 1985. The ("NV) sole documentation supplied is an unexecuted affidavit of John Seeders. Mr. Seeders has apparently refused to sign the affidavit, despite the fact that his identity is now public knowledge, because he has "become fearful" that he will be fired if he takes any further " voluntary affirmative steps" in this proceeding. Intervenors' excuse for failing to provide any shred of factual support for the requested protective order is patently insufficient. Mr. Seeders' identity and his allegation of personal harassment are matters of public record and have been extant for' some time. He asserts no
further harassment as a result of the submission of the [) N_/ unexecuted affidavit, but only an unspecified fear if he executes it. The assertions defy credulity and utterly fail to provide the type of " concrete indication" of risk which justifies placing a " veil of secrecy" over an NRC proceeding. Wolf _ Creek, 3 NRC at 417. The bare assertion of the Intervenors' attorney that he is aware of certain inspectors who fear retaliation is totally insufficient. An analogous factual situation was presented in Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-535, 9 NRC 377 (1979). There an argument was made by an orga'nization ', seeking to intervene that, rather than identifying one of
~
ps its members for purposes of determining standing to intervene,
\s)
( the organization's attorney would submit an affidavit attesting to the proper standing. Despite assertions that disclosure of the members', identity would lead to harassment and retaliation, the Appeal Board rejected the argument, noting that such a procedure would ignore the fact that both the Board and the other parties were " entitled to be provided with sufficient information to enable them to determine for themselves, by independent inquiry if thought warranted, whether a basis existed for a formal challenge to the truth-fulness of the assertions." 9 MRC at 393 (emphasis in original). The Appeal Board was unwilling to accept the .I '
. e attorney's "conclusionary assertions not susceptible of ' irs verification by either other litigants or the adjudicatory (s_-)
tribunal." 9 NCR at 393. Intervenors seek to bar the public from this discovery process on the strength of their conclusionary assertions alone. They have pointed to no concrete factual basis to support their motion because none exists. Indeed, Intervenors' very premise--that if certain witnesses' identities are disclosed, some form of retaliation will ensue--defies
*/
common sense.- As observed by the Licensing Board, it is highly unlikely that retaliation would occur amidst the publicity which surrounds the Intervenors' contentions and
. ~
in th,e face of the strong legal protections which allegers s are accorded. (Tr. 241) Yet Intervenors would have this I ) k/ Board close its doors to the public on the strength of nothing more than the assertion of the attorney who has prepared the motion. This Board should reject ,such a proposition as did the Appeal Board in a similar context in Allens Creek: "We know of no authority for such a novel and unattractive proposition, which to us runs counter to funda-mental concepts of procedural due process." 9 NRC at 393. l
*/
~
Any threat of retaliation and harassment has been significantly diminished by an extraneous event. The contention on that issue identified only Comstock management personnel as the source of alleged harassment. As Intervenors noted in their August 12, 1985 motion for confidential treatment, Comstock no longer employs quality control inspectors. For the electrical scope of work, that function has been taken over by Bestco. O O
F
- ~7- J' t
i In addition, Intervenors' " broad', vague, and
'O's ,) essentially unsupported allegations"'should not be allowed i
to override the " strong public interest" in NRC proceedings which are as open as possible to full public scrutiny. Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station,. Unit 1), ALAB-535, 9 NRC at 377, 399 (1979). As the Appeal Board has noted: "That interest would most assuredly be disserved were a licensing board
. . . to place a veil of secrecy over some aspect of licensing proceeding in the absence of a concrete indication that it was necessary to do so to avoid significant harm to a competing, equally cognizable interest." Kansas Gas -and Electric Company (Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1),
ALAN-327, 3 NRC at 408, 417 (1976). Intervenors cito Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI 24, 11 NRC 775 (1980) in support of their position that the .- public interest in scrutinizing the proce'edings of the NRC should give way to their demand for confidentiality. The Diablo Canyon decision, however, involved* the disclosure'of a security plans of a nuclear facility. .It is therefore so readily distinguishable from the instant motion as to render it completely inapposite. In a decision endorsed by the Commission, 11 NRC at 777, the Diablo Canyon Appeal Board had noted the uniquely sensitive nature of the information L
l
. e sought to be protected: "the security plan is very sensi-tive information.
( Severe consequences to the public safety may result from its compromise. Accordingly, precautions must be taken to safeguard the plan." Pacific Gas'and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-592, 11 NRC 746 (1980). Clearly, no concerns of this magnitude are implicated by Intervenors' motion. Edison's objections are also based on practical
~
considerations and fundamental fairness. Intervenors have alleged harassment and retaliation on the part of the management of Comstock. Obviously, for Edison to effectively prepare to' defend against these allegations, it will be - necessary to discuss their specifics with the very officials who stand accused. Indeed, it will not even be possible to O k- respond to discovery propounded by Intervenors without full disclosure to Comstock management. Thus the identities of
, Intervenors' witnesses must be disclosed to the very officials from whom Intervenors fear retaliation and harassment.
Intervenors attempt to camouflage this fundamental weakness in their argument by conceding that disclosure may take place on a "need-to-know" basis. Since Comstock officials will certainly need to know, the only result of granting Intervenors motion is the withholding of witness identities from the public at large. Intervenors have placed in the public light very serious contentions of harassment, intimidation and retaliation. O
.. The Board should not, countenance the inequity of allowina - .(-
x_/ the Intervenors to-air contentions of intimidation and harassment without fully disclosing the complete factual basis for the contentions, including the identity of persons having knowledge of the facts. A public' accusation is properly examined in public, with all the procedural. safeguards which public scrutiny' affords.
~
For all the foregoing reasons, Intervenors' motion
~
should be denied. Respectfully submitted, by l Ll f //// One of the Attorneys for the Applicant,
.(
Commonwealth Edison Company DATED: September 16, 1985 - ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE " Three First National Plaza Suite 5200 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 558-7500 ,
.. . - . . _ - _ _ - - _ - - - . . _ . - _ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ - - ~ _ . _ . . - - . - _
s g UNB1tD 51 Af t5 I / " e tas.\ NUCLE AR REGULATO!!Y COMMisslON
[ 7 a
-j stEGeoN eli 79, MOO 5t vt LT RO AD h
- CL E 8e E LLYN. ILLINOtt 60937 APR 5 BB5 j
MEMORANDUM FOR: Charles E. Norelius, Director, Division of Reactor Projects FROM: Charles H. Weil. Investigation and Compliance Specialist
SUBJECT:
ALLEGATIONS RE: L. K. COMSTOCK QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM AT BRAIDWOOD (50-456; 50-457) (ATS NO: RIII-85-A0072)
- On March 29, 1985, at approximately 10:00 a.m. the Braidwood Resident Inspectors (L. G. McGregor, R. D. Schulz, and W. J. Kropp) telephoned the i Region III Office and advised that six L. K. Comstock quality control inspectors had visited the residents' office that morning. The Comstock inspectors provided several allegations which are sumarized as: _
~
- 1. Comstock is asserting the quantity of inspections rather than the inspection quality. Therefore, the quality of the L. K. Comstock inspections is suffering.
- 2. Rick Saklak, Comstock QC Supervisor, was not qualified for his position, as he was not certified in all of the inspection areas l
which he supervised. l
- 3. Saklak was constantly intimidating / harassing the Comstock inspectors.
- 4. Ninety three hanger inspections, containing 1100-1i00 welds, were signed off in one day by an unidentified inspector. The allegers considered this to be too many inspections for a single inspector to make in one day without the quality of the inspections suffering.
- 5. Sam Russman (phonetic spelling), a Comstock QA inspector is assigned to the records vault for the sole purpose of closing nonconforinance reports. Russman never goes to the field to verify the condition before closing the nonconfarmance reports.
l 6. All of the allegers claimed to have spoken to the Braidwood Quality First Team without gaining any satisfactory response to their concerns. t l The allegers inspectors indicated and that they there would be a represented job action on50-70 Monday Comstock quality) (April 1,1985 if control l something was not done about their concerns. !O l
l . i
- i. Charles E. Norelius 2 APR 5 19 3
, l The allegers were Robert Wicks, Larry Perryman, Tim Stewart, Mike Mustard, Larry Bossong and Richard Snider (all phonetic spellings). None of the l allegers requested confidentiality and each agreed his identity could be used l if necessary. - (NOTE: A series of allegations involving L. K. Comstock at Braidwood were received by Region III beginning March 9, 1985. These allegations (RIII-85-A-0058; RIII-85-A-0062; RIII-85-A-0067; and RIII-85-A-0068) generally i encompassed those identified above. Further, Wicks was the source of allegation RIII-85-A-0068 which concerns the push of production quantity over inspection quality. On March 29, 1985, the allegations were discussed among the Region III Staff (C. H. Weil . W. L. Forney, and C. C. Williams). The Regional Administrator, Deputy Regional Administrator and the Director of the Division of Reactor Projects were also informed of the allegations. It was decided that the allegations should be forwarded to Coninonwealth Edison Company for resolution. ' However, the allegers should be contacted before providing the information to Comonwealth Edison and informed of the proposed course of action. Accordingly, at 12:00 p.m.', March 29, 1985, the Region III Investigation and Compliance Specialist spoke by telephone with the allegers assembled in the Resident Inspectors' Office. They were informed of the plan to bring O Comonwealth Edison into the allegation resolution process and none of the l allegers expressed any dissatisfaction with the concept. Further, they restated that they did not desire to remain confidential. Other Comstock j inspectors accompanied the original six allegers to the Resident Inspectors
- Office. The total number of Comstock inspectors eventually numbered 24. In I the one half hour period of the telephone call (the call taking place between .
12 and 12:30 p.m. during the inspectors lunch period) thirteen inspectors were briefly interviewed. None of the additional inspectors requested confidentiality. The Resident Inspectors were requested to obtain the ' Comstock inspectors' address and telephone numbers for follow-up by the NRC (e.g. furnishing the inspectors with copies of this memo and subsequent reports). INSPECTOR COPMENT Rich Srtyder Rich Saklak continually violates procedures during inspector certifications. 1 Saklak threatened Snyder for not closing an inspection report which still had an open engineering change notice. Snyder refused and Saklak stated, "if beating was legal you would be dead." Snyder later checked with QA and found that his position on the issue was proper. , O Gene Peterson John Walters (Peterson's lead) and Ken Worthington (Peterson's supervisor) told Peterson that he would lose his job if he did not hurry up and produce more inspections.
. Charles E. Norelius 3 APR 5m Saklak threatened an inspector (unidentified) for not closing an inspection report even though the engineering change notice had not been issued for it. ,_
"Comstock wants us to work with blinders on.*
1 R. D. Hunter "More than a little bit of intimidation by more than one l supervisor." Frank O. Rolan On November 5, 1984, Saklak told him to finish an inspection even though drafting errors were noted. Rolan , complained to Comstock management about this issue, but did not recgive any satisfaction. Thunnan Bowman Bowman observed a base metal reduction problem in a ' structural weld. Bowman told his lead, John Walters, and Walters told Bowman to stay within the scope of his job and not worry about base metal reduction. Bowman also told Daryl Landers. Landers informed Bowman to keep up his production or he would lose his overtime. (See allegationRIII-85-A-0068) H ershel Stout Inspector productivity overrides the quality of the O inspection. (At that point a show of hands was done. The Resident Inspectors indicated that the Comstock inspectors agreed 100% with that statement). (NOTE: Stout provided information under allegation RIII-85-A-0067) Bob Patey Comstock eghasized inspection quantity first, not inspection quality. l Terry Gonnan Saklak berates inspectors. Many inspectors have been discriminated against at one time or another by Irv DeWald, Comstock QA Manager. DeWald's attitude is "how can I hang you, not how can I help you." Rick Martin Constantly intimidated by Saklak. Saklak lied to get Martin fired. Martin stated that he has written statements from several witnesses to back-up his statement. Saklak uses forms contrary to procedures. For several months Martin was the only welding inspector, and everything was done on a hurry-up basis. Comstock has consistently been undennanned and has one crisis after another. O I
Charles E. Nore11us 4 8APR 5w l O Martin is constantly being watched by his supervision. As an exanple, he recently visited the NRC office. The following day he was transferred without reason from field . inspections to a job in the records vault. (NOTE: the - Investigation and Compliance Specialist provided the Resident Inspectors with the address and telephone number for the Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, and requested that it be given to Martin should he desire to further this complaint). (On April I,1985 Daniel P. New, Area Director, U. S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, was contacted any i~nformed of Martin's information pertaining to alleged employment discrimiriation. New advised that the Wage and Hour Division would await the filing of the written complaint required by 29 CFR 24.3 before initiating an investigation into the matter.) Larry Greenman Hangers aren't even being inspected, just as-built. .No inspection reports or nonconfonnance reports are written. Walkdowns are being done and drawings made to show as-built configuration. Mark Kalchko Comstock management promises more money to inspectors who are certified in multiple areas. Although it's nice to get more money, an inspector cannot remain proficient in all of the certified areas; therefore, the quality of inspections goes down. Dan Holley Stan Rithman (phonetic spelling) is both an inspector and auditor. Althman will inspect something then do the QA overview audit. Holley believes this to be a conflict of interest. At approximately 12:45 p.m., mrch 29, 1985 Eugene T. Pawlik, Director Office of Investigations Region III Field Office, was informed of the allegations and concluded that an investigation by OI:RIII was not warranted at this time. At approximately 1:15 p.m., krch 29, 1985 Tom himan, Comonwealth Edison Vice President and other Comonwealth Edison officials were telephoned at the Braidwood Facility by Messrs. W. L. Forney, C. C. Williams and C. H. Well. Consnonwealth Edison was told that the NRC had received general allegations fann
. twenty-four Comstock inspectors and in general terms the allegations concerned Comstock's push for inspection quantity not quality Saklak's perceived performance and the' inspectors perception of the perfonnance of TAC Quality First Program. Maiman stated that Comonwealth Edison would begin to look into the matters that afternoon and would recontact Region III with an action 29, 1985.
O plan by the close of business on March I I
l
. Charles E. Norelius 5 APR 6y At approximately 4:30 p.m., March 29', 1985, Comonwealth Edison officials telephoned Region III. Commonwealth Edison had decided to act upon the issues 1 with both short range and long range action plans. The long range plan was not _
developed, but Comonwealth Edison would be in-contact with Region III during - the week of April 1,1985, to discuss the long range plan. The short range plan identified below would be ac.complished by the close of business on
~
March 29, 1985. i
- 3. Comonwealth Edison Management at Braidwood met with onsite Constock management officials in production, quality control and quality assurance. Comonwealth Edison discussed areas identified by the Braidwood Quality First Program and the above identified allegations.
The Comstock officials indicated they were generally aware of the
. concerns with Saklak's perfbmance. Commonwealth Edison emphasized the need for L. K. Comstock Company to perfom within the Comonwealth Edison and Comstock quality assurance programs. Commonwealth Edison officials were not certain if L. K. Comstock site officials had informed Comstock corporate of the problems. .
- 2. Saklak was administratively removed from his supercisory position until the allegations are resolved.
- 3. Comonwealth Edison issued a memorandum to all L. K.' Comstock QC/QA i
O personnel in which Commonwealth Edison announced a meeting for 8:00 a.m. , Monday, April 1,1985. At that time Comonwealth Edison plans to reemphasize its quality assurance policies, as well as allow the Comstock inspectors to air their grievances. Comonwealth Edison will also announce a method for a private airing of grievances should that be desired by an individual Comstock inspector.
- 4. A Comonwealth Edison Quality Assurance Project Letter was also issued to reemphasize the Comonwealth Edison Project Quality Assurance Policies.
O
Charles E. Morelius 6 APR 5 1985
'O At approximately 5:00 p.m., the Regional Administrator, Deputy Regional Administrator and the Director. Enforcement and Investigation Coordination Staff were informed of the Commonwealth Edison plans described above. .
~
Charles H. Weil Investigation and Compliance Specialist
Enclosures:
- 1. AMS Fom .
- 2. March 29,1985 memo, McGregor.
and Schulz to Warnick and Weil cc w/ enclosures: RIII:RA0 i
- RIII:DRS .
DI:RIII - E. G. Greenman . J. F. Streeter . SRI-Braidwood O
E - s.TE .7 0 4 fi i l
~
- : - . i
!:y F e!t- A '
-- Di I WlE;.r,[. FE '
-ill EE ,
= = -? -l, K ! ! 5 dq l'
):
r
- : u<
* ~ ~ ~
'A]
- : _ ,- > + _ 9
_ : 1
- _ - '
r x9 )Q l
- ,1 -
t 2 %q
!_: 1
- - - ! ! ! j '
p, -
;'. : : ll .'1 [b:I.. _#
i , _i t - - -
- IA ,
,] i j _ _ _
~
[ :,5
- 1 E :
w(
- l.1 ;
- ,h15 - 3 .3
_ -c t ., . , ,. , i -l C : 2.__ -
; l ! (t - -
[.g -
.._ y '
! -l
- II :: !jg! r
- 5 4 ::
iis T2 gr g r.r gg 3) I}f l - - h E ky l f, g
*=Zg,--{ :: - -
t 40 j - g-m ig ? l r Fg It = =g ! :gg : * >7: :
- I a ,
51 2 Att :: :t
! _ _ . :y
- j- (i re t5 g- l--
1 p r
*s r-o - - -
_i - u "8 j_ i_ g .- 0 . $e ,5,h :_YA h j;'y 4 N I -3 '-
-{
Ed W 5 s3 _ _s
.Il4,, -
S : ! :[ = ;f l is t. .j--- . - { [ ; ,g! ( E EE -i -'i ' il Ig : .. ' ! i a <~ g og . 9 :. j C E.
" {<.-
5 5 I l i g gly ll
;E s I I 1 h
t' {9; g,W l (I! f.
~!25 b ~_, f[p U I =
f -f o gs p kf k m ed - - 2 2 i g o 3 .. ( A f a'" %,4 I M i g .ir!4' f
! :: I b M kr lll50
! I
- : g :*i i .... rg ,
g], , g.' (s lI
- I t _
? 0-sh t I A, j
a 3 . g ; : 4( - g k. i
): g: '
sdk ,5W gh f FE
~E =- !.
li Nl l 5 o g ri}T c
- a
.I
- el s~ n. .N E i
- .- -T is t il I3l 4 4h-i 4 v g 4 j ! p-
_kES: e .c Si at !s! !'! s= 2 ::: : s.
'h ! ! !
n g IV 5 N
}m:* *-
h er ri q 9; -
- i , '
i t b l$ r I. : I i' ;! E E E
- E5E E i t. k 4 . - - . - -
I h~ t 6
' ' . * &)Ps'il.-N i
' ii L3 w@N 9[-
~
f 9 0C6,g'g UNITE D ST ATES
/ n NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION V j CEClON lli k 7M AOostvtLT ROAD SLEN ELLYN OLL98vois 60tM o..e*
March 29, 1985 MEMORANDUM FOR: R. F. Warnick, Chief, Projects Branch 1 C. Weil, Investigation Coordinator FROM: L. McGregor., SRI Braidwood .
- R. Schulz, SRI Braidwood
SUBJECT:
QUALITY CONTROL ALLEGATIONS FROM L. K. COMSTOCK INSPECTORS On March 29,~1984 at approxima'tely 08:15 hours, six quality centrol inspectors from L. K. Comstock walked into the NRC Braidwood of fice with numerous allegations which "effect" the quality of work being accomplished by the electrical contractor. The meeting began with the resident inspector advising these men . of the right to remain anonymous and if they choose not to the NRC would like to have their names, phone number or address,in order to obtain further information and/or to advise them of the
.s results of this meeting. The six individuals gave the following
=information:
Inspector X: We were going to have a lot of people come over l but we figured it was better to have a small i number. We have 109 people there now and all are i about to walk if conditions remain the same. 9 Inspector X, who came to the NRC with allegations on March 13, 1985, said: My supervisor Rick said to me "You should close l them" (ICRs) (normal route is through engineering) I "out and be done with the thing." He said "I should evaluate it myself and close it out". Rick said "you know what engineering is going to write and what the disposition will be so close it out". i I said "That's not my function." Rick said "No I wonder we have such a back log of documents you won't evaluate them or close them out". I said "I l have to follow my procedure - It's not my decision , to close out ICR's or NCR's." Rick said "I can put you in the vault or whatever and make you do I l it all". Rick came back to my desk and said "At l times you make me so pissed of f that if beating r was legal you would be dead" I have several l lO
,- witnesses to this statement. I didn't agree with th,e man but he meant what he said. He has jumped on my ass before - he flies of f - just like that - he has done it many times before. The biggest thing is this is not the first time and everybody knows about it, but nothing is ever done. He (Rick) is not certified in my area and he is .- telling me what to do and my Lead is not certified so I am stuck in.the middle so far as procedures go. I gave the NRC these problems March 13, 1985 ~ and I don't know what is being done about it. Rick doesn't want to admit he is wrong, which he was - dead wrong and I didn't agree with the man - its' always been an Engineering function when and ICR or NCR is involved so I don't know where he got the idea I phould close them out. He has jumped on my ass before - he has always been wrong
- what do you expect, the man isn't qualified and yet he is giving orders to inspectors on things he doesn't know anything about - areas where he is dead wrong. It is done just $o get the paper work
- completed so the numbers look good. -
Another Individual: One of the biggest things is this isn't the first time he done this and we are getting () tired of this shit. I know of at least five guys that he has jumped on and nothing gets done - they just give him a new title or transfer him to another area - they have cut j j his responsibility down to four areas, yet he is only certified in one of those four areas and -is still telling . inspectors what they should do. Why is he threatening me with other things - he is telling me what I have to do - he is not certified in my area - he doesn't even have a background in calibration. I know he got John out of there (an inspector removed from his job) - he was railroaded out. It wasn't John's fault because the department was messed up - nobody was certified in that area. Rick had a grudge against John so he got his moved out. They have to do something about this guy - know they have taken some of his power away - I don't know if he is holding that against people or because he has lost files there or what. They got leads now - new leads, and I could walk up to them - except for two guys and ask O them a question in their area and they cannot answer it. They are getting in a bunch of new people and making them Leads - NRC why is that? Because they will do what they are
told to do - sign what needs to be signed and
, get the NCR's or ICR cleared away. This is so because the new people are under a 90 day period of surveillance and could get fired at any time. They want to keep their job - who doesn't. These people are closing out NCR's and they don't even know what the hell they -
mean. They have no idea that there is a disposition, needed on them and they are just ~ signing them off. Our Leads were more or less told in a meeting last Friday that as long as our numbers stay down (the numbers of NCR's or ICR's they generate) they (the inspectors) won't be evaluated. If you don't keep them down to a fair level then you will go back on eight hours you will lose your overtime ahd they will jump all over your ass. This is not one area but in all areas. They are going through out status now (numbers of inspections completed and number of NCRs or ICRs written) they are always interested in
~
numbers - not quality - in fact we had a guy
~
written up last week because he didn't have
- enough numbers. The quality first or what ever you call it sucks.- It's Ceco working for CECO and all this bullshit reporting anything hasn't done a damn bit of good. I have not seen one improvement since it started. ,
We were going;to take 50 guys and walk over here and do nothing until something was done about it. I was in a room - I started doing inspections - I started writing up,NCRs - cable pans - the welds were bad. Then I started on configuration. I started to find many problems and writing up NCRs so they threw me out. They don't want somebody that f will do the inspection they want someone to sign the paper. They went and sent five engineers up to that same room and they did every cable hanger and didn't find one problem - not one - no deficiencies. They are as-built walk downs. They make the problem fit the as built condition so it doesn't look like any problems exist. We have done - I don't know - one hundred and some odd hangers this past week on a walk O . down probably a hundred - all but one or two are no good. 9
One supervisor who was not certified in egy area wanted me to close out several of my ICRs and I refused to do it and so 1 got a disposition from engineering. Rick said "We know what's going to happen in this area - why don't you just' close them out". They are going through our status reports now and the word is out now that they are going to weed out.three inspectors and that what - they are basing it on is the number and not the quality. NRC: Are the new people, the people who get the NCRs or ICRs completed, getting the 10 hours or overtime? Individual: Yes, they are getting bought-off - they are going straight to the* vault closing the documents out - hangers might not even be there. Another craft may have cut it down and this guy is saying
" accept as is" and the hanger is lying on the I
ground. NRC: Do you men find any problems with the 'craf t - problems of intimidations or harassment of any kind in the field? Individual: No, we never have any problems at all - There are O a few inspectors claim they have problems - but I think its mostly a personality conflict. I l The new people are afraid of Rick because of the ' 90 day period - I have had a couple of people (the new people) tell me we are with you but we can't ~ do anything until o'ur 90 days are up. There are approximately 40 or 50 new people. I can show you time sheets if you want to know the truth - how many guys are working Saturday, Sunday working at home and getting paid because they have suction power or whatever you want to call it. We have been training these guys. The easiest way to do it is to walk into the office and ask them how many certs (certifications) do you have and ask him can he accurately do one? For example, Judy asked our Lead if she could get some cable pulling going because she is going on nights. She asked if she could do some actual inspecticas so she could catch on. She just got certified last week. He told her no, she has 40 hours of training and they are going to throw her on night shift with no practical experience in cable pulling. These new O people don't even know where the work points are.
4 I have bitched to Ceco about the engineers (L. K. Carstock has only 6 actual enginears) completing the NCR's with "use as is" I must have over 1,000 NCR and only 5 or 6 'have had actual rework. I have seen a cable pan voided on an NCR. This person passed 93 cable pan hangers with 1,114 welds and all these welds were accepted. These 93 .- cable hangers were completed in one day. They had a guy from QA assigned here for approximately two months who was closing ICRs. QA doesn't do Level . > II inspections in the field. How is this guy i going to do a QA audit on himself? They have now l 1 pulled him out - he was working directly at the vault. ! l Inspector A: I was told flat out Friday that we are making these people (new hires) the Leads because they will get the job done. That's what my supervisor said you know what kind and amount of paper work they will complete. Inspector 8: I _have been inspecting for 15 years and this is the first nuclear job I have seen where quantity
- is first - not quality.
Inspector C: I was a Lead at one time and give it up because of O the intimidation. I was present one day when Rick was using extreme profanity towards one of the inspectors. This inspector asked to please stop it but Rick refused and kept on. His attitude is how can I hang you and not how can I help you. My Lead (Mr. A) told me unless my production is Inspector D: increased overtime would not be warranted. I also witnessed Rick trying to order an inspector (Mike) to sign off an ICR. Rick said it is being addressed - sign it. (he pointed his finger in the inspectors face and said " sign it off - sign it of f - sign it off - now". Inspector E: It is true we have intimidation from more than one supervisor or Lead. Inspector F: I have had so many run ins with Rick. Rick demanded that I should write up an electrician and if I didn't I would lose my qualification. It had something to do with items not up to par or not correct on a drawing. I nspector G: I am now being watched all the time - I must work O to an hourly schedule of specific jobs for each hour. They are keeping book so they can fire me. All of the inspector's stated that they thought quantity was
Urst and quality work or inspections were secondary. W
=
O 9 9 4 m o e i I b l
~ . The resident inspector called the region for a conference call when the second group of inspectors came into the office. The resident inspectors feel that the region should send an inspector to the site to interview these Q.C. inspectors individually and to investigate NCR-1616 and 3CR 2900 which the inspectors claim have been inappropriately dispositioned. It appears at first ;-
glance with the information we have received that a shut down or some other aggressive action of the electrical work may be necessary to establish the quality of past work and the quality . of the ongoing work. The lack of action by CECO QA in this area needs to be addressed along with CECO managements slowness or inability to take corrective action. The resident inspectors appraised Ceco management last fall of the problems in L. K Comstock Quality Control Department. L. McGregor SRI Braidwoo,d
- R. Schulz SRI Braidwood I
i Y D O l
..,,.--,y---- . - . , - - _ _ _
. /se n:s,qg UNITED ST ATES y n NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION U l CEGION HI 799 Roo$EVELT RoAo SLE N ELLYN, ILLINots 501M e...* .
Ma~rch 29, 1985 MEMORANDDM FOR: R. Warnick, Chief, Projects Branch I C. Williams, Chief, Plant Systems Section FROM: L. McGregor, SRI, Braidwood - R. Schulz, SRI, Braidwood
SUBJECT:
TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL WITH COMMONWEALTH EDISON IN REGARD TO L. K. COMSTOCK QUALITY CONTROL PROBLEMS. During the course of the normal work day (Friday, March 29, 1985) the NRC Resident Inspectors were confronted twice by L. K. Comstock Quality Control Inspectors, first by six inspectors and l again later that same day (noon hour) by twenty-four inspectors, all with allegations of 1) intimidation, browbeating threats of cuts in overtime hours, harassment and to put bodily fear in front of the quality control inspectors, 2) quality control inspectors are training their lead inspectors and supervisory personnel who are managing the L. K. Comstock QC organization
.O (management personnel are not qualified or certified within the disciplines which they are governing) and 3) the quality of inspector work has become secondary to managements insistence on quantity of and completion of inspections. This memorandum outlines Commonwealth Edison's corrective action program, as described to the NRC, to alleviate the immediate problems and inspire a conscientious quality assurance and quality control l program at the L. K. Comstock Company.
Present in the residents office at the Braidwood site are L. McGregor, R. Schulz, (NRC) and from Commonwealth Edison (Ceco) l Gene Fitzpatrick and Lou Kline. At the Region III office are, R. ! Warnick, R. Learch (sitting in for P. Pelke) R. Mendez, C. Wiel, and C. Williams. 4 O
WarnickN1111ams 2 March 29, 1985 Mr. Fitzpatrick stated: Commonwealth Edison (Ceco) actions will include both short ters and long ters items. First of all I'll ~ tell you of the short term actions that we have already completed - or are in process of completing which vill be finished before the end of the day. The first thing we did was (Ceco management , Maiman, Fitzpatrick, T. Quake a'nd D. Shamblin) to meet with - l Comstock site management to express our concerns over (1) concerns submitted to the Quality first program and (2) the concerns over the allegations made today. Point 1 of Short Ters: We told L. K. Comstock that Ceco expected them to perform their work in accordance with, or consistent with the quality assurance and qual'ity control requirements and in
- particular with their own policy statement, which is section 1.0.0 out of their Quality Assurance manual. Comstock said they were aware of some of the problems and were investigating them under their program and especially concerns er issues of Mr.
Saklak. - Part 2 of Short Ters: Ceco has requested, a'nd L. K. Comstock~has agreed to administrative 1y remove Mr. Saklak from his duties - pending completion of their investigation relative to allegations concerning harassment by Mr. Saklak. Ceco will be involved in l the review of Comstock's investigation and depending what that l review indicates we may have a clear course of action or we may l have some additional digging. Part 3 of Short Ters: There is a memo being issued this afternooon setting up a meeting (rsquested by Ceco) with all quality control personnel of L. K. Comstock (managers, supervisors, inspectors) to (1) reiterate the Quality Policy (2) to confirm Ceco's concerns about the concerns given to the . Quality First Program and (3) any other concerns that may be lurking out there that we are unaware of at this point and time. We will give them (inspectors) an opportunity to express either ~ openly or privately throughout the Quality First Program or through other vehicles that they may elect to choose other than l the Quality First program. Ceco will make a firm commitment to ! resolve those concerns and any other concerns that they have. Part 4 of Short Ters: We are issuing a joint quality assurance project letter reiterating our commitment to a strong quality program in support of L. K. Comstock corporate Quality Assurance, Quality Centrol policy. O
WarnickN1111ams 3 March 28, 1985
'O These are the four actions we have going or have completed today and we have also an expectation that we will be prepared by the middle of next week, to meet with the residents on the status of _-
a longer range plan. Any questions on what I have said? Region III: When is the meeting to take place? , Ceco:The meeting with L. K. Comstock Quality Control Organization will take place at 8:00 Monday morning. Region III: As you think about this long range plan you might give consideration as to what CECO wasn't doing or what you can do to keep a better finger on the pulse of what is happening at Comstock and other subcontractors so that your guys get feed back, as to the problems as they are formulating rather than waiting till the problems get to the point they are so severe; the individual feels they have to go to the $RC to get some action and relief. Ceco: ~ Yes, that is the ideal situation to be in - we have an
- awful lot of things going on - that for example we were aware in the past of moral problems in L. K. Comstock organization. A lot of that was attributed --- to perhaps the dollar situation and the certification process these guys had to go through.
Region III: Has L. K. Comstock corporate been readied at all with this? i Ceco: No, L. K. Comstock corporat,e personnel are on site for l this meeting today. We will make sure they are informed, but ! that has not been done as yet. O
Warnick/ Williams 4 March 78,1985 Region III and the residents were satisfied with Ceco's comprehensive and extremely swift corrective actions taken this _ afternoon. An agreement was made to keep the NRC appraised of - the meetings to take place early next week and Ceco's long range plans to address quality assurance and quality control problems identified at L. K. Comstock Company. ~ L. G. McGregor R. D. Scnulz o 9 9 s e e O
jae tE8vg UNITED STATES
- +' k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISslON
[1) 5*' e i REGION HI 799 ROOSEVELT ROAD
' f
# GLEN ELLYN. ILLINOIS 60137 April 8, 1985
- Richard A. Snyder 100 Latern Rd.
Gardner, IL
Dear Mr. Snyder:
On March 29, 1985 you provided the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission with information concerning L. K. Comstock Company at the Braidwood Nuclear Station. The NRC has requested the Commonwealth Edison Company to imediately investigate your concerns. The Region III Division of Reactor Projects will audit the Comonwealth Edison inquiry to assure compliance with Code;; and federal Regulations. We expect to complete our inspections within W aext ninety days. We will provide you with a copy of their report upon w .ietion of the inspection. - The enclosed memorandum documents our understanding of your concerns. Please write to me at Post Office Box 2027, Glen Ellyn Illinois 60138-2027, or telephone me at (312) 790-5500 if you have any additional information, corrections to the enclosure, or questions. Your cooperation with us is O appreciated. Sincerely, Charles H. Weil Investigation and Compliance Specialist
Enclosure:
4/5/84 Memo, C. H. Weil to C. E. Norelius O
uNitro states ) l [p %, ',
, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y ,, cIgr.
; ,-l 7 neciou ni 70s noostvtLT noao '
y' cLEN ELLYN. BLLINol5 60137
,0, .....
hovember 8, 1985 Richard Snyder 100 Lantern Rd. Gardner, Illinois
Dear Mr. Snyder:
On March 29, 1985 you provided the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission with information concerning the L. K. Comstock Company. Our inspection into your , concerns has been completed and documented in Paragraph 2.d of the enclosed Inspection Report. - Your cooperation with the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission was greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Charles H. Weil Investigation and O Compliance Specialist
Enclosure:
Inspection Report No. 50-456/85021 l l 9
,. 0. &&
NOV 41985 Docket No. 50-456 Docket No. 50-457 Commonwealth Edison Company ATTN: Mr. Cordell Reed Vice President Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Gentlemen: This refers to the special _ safety inspection conducted by Messrs. J. Neisler and R. Nendez of this office on April 30 through September 5,1985, of activities at Braidwood Station, Units I and 2, authorized by NRC Construction Permit No. CPPR-132 and CPPR-133 and to the discussion of our findings with Mr. D. L. $hamblin on August 30, 1985. - The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies areas examined during the inspection. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a selective ( examination of procedures and representative records, observations, and interviews with personnel. During this inspection, certain of your activities appeared to be in violation of NRC requirements, as specified in the enclosed Appendix. A written response is required. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room. l l The responses directed by this letter (and the accompanying Notice) are not sub. ject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511. We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection. Sincerely, 2'%!=1 S! n:d ty J,~c, : .;,q.3 J. J. Harrison, Chief Engineering Branch O
Enclosures:
- 1. Appendix, Notice of Violation
- 2. Inspection Reports
- No. 50-456/85021(DRS);
No. 50-457/85022(DRS) See Attached List For, Distribution
Commonwealth Edison Company 2 SOV 4 B85 Distribution cc w/ enclosures: D. L. Farrar Director of Nuclear Licensing M. Wallace, Project Manager D. 5hamblin, Construction Superintendent J. F. Gudac, Plant Manager - C..W. Schroeder, Licensing and Compliance Superintendent DIE / Document Control Desk (RIDS) Resident Inspector, RIII Braidwood . Resident Inspector, RIII Byron Phyllis Dunton, Attorney . l General's Office Environmental . Control Division D. W. Cassel, Jr., Esq. - J. W. McCaffrey, Chief. Public O Utilities Division H. 5. Taylor, Quality Assurance Division E. Chan, ELD J. Stevens LPM, NRR The Honorable Herbert Grossman, ASLB The Honorable A. Dixon Callihan, ASLB The Honorable Richard F. Cole, ASLB 1 l l l l lO l l s
!, Appendix NOTICE OF VIOLATION Commonwealth Edison Company Docket No. 50-456 Docket No. 50-457 As a result of the _ inspection conducted on April 30 through September 5,1985, and in accordance with the General Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions, (10 CFR Part 2 Appendix C), the following violations were identified:
- 1. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, as implemented by the Ceco Quality Assurance Manual, Qus11ty Requirement Section 5 requires that Quality
. Assurance carried out for construction activities be described by instructiops-and procedures. ,
Commonwealth Edison ir. its Quality Assurance Manual, Section 10 and L. K. Coastock in its Procedure 4.1.3, " Qualification Classification and Training of QC Personnel", commit to ANSI M45.2.6-1978. ANSI N45.2.6-1978,
- Paragraph 4, states, in part, " Personnel who are assigned the respons-ibility and authority to perform functions covered by this Standard shall have, as a minimum, the level of capability shown in Table 1." Table 1 requires that evaluating the validity and acceptability of inspection, O examination and testing results be at least a Level II. L. K. Comstock (LKC) Procedure 4.1.2, Revision B, Paragraph 3.30, " Position Delineation,"
states, in part, " Quality Control Lead Inspectors...must be certified Level II in designated areas...." LKC's " Master Qualification List by Discipline for Level II Insoectors," classifies 11 functional areas for Level II capability, two o; which are calibration and cor. crete expansion l anchors (CEAs). Contrary to the above, the following instances of failure to qualify personnel in accordance with procedures were identified:
- a. On May 25, 1984, a LKC QC inspector signed the Level II review l , colienn on two LKC inspection checklists, form 23A, " Variable l - Instrument Calibration," for torque wrenches A-531 and A-828, l although the inspector was not a certified Level II inspector in calibration.
- b. Free August 1984 to March 1985 the same QC inspector identified abo,e was designated by LKC to be a Quality Control Lead Inspector -
- in calibration and CEAs, although the inspector had no certification in 15ose areas.
- c. Free March 1985 to May 1985 s second QC inspector was designated
, lead in calibration but was not certified as a Level II in i that area. This is a Severity Level V violation (Supplement II).
IOV 4 jyp-nummmmmmmmmmunendix 2
'O 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII, as implemented by the C'iCo Quality Assurance Manual, Quality Requirement Section 17 requires that records be retained and maintained to furnish evidence of activit*,es affecting quality.
Contrary to the sbove, the licensee could not provide docimented evidence that welds rejected by Pittsburg Testing Laboratory (PTL) on hangers CC-23, CC-36, CC-87 and CC-34 were reworked, repaired, used-as-is, or reinspected. This is a Severity Level V violation (Supplement II).
,suant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, you are required to submit to
.is office within thirty days of the date of this Notice's written statement
.mxplanation in reply, including for each violation: (1) corrective iion taken and the results achieved; (2) corrective action to be taken to
..._........ .. id a further violation; and (3) the date when full compliance will be nieved. Consideration may be given to extending your response time for id cause shown. ,
~ ~
w- ' NOV 41985 (>chV ed J. J. Harrison, Chief Engineering Branch l . O
- . - , _ - - - - - -r
U.5. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C00 MISSION REGION III Report Nos. 50-456/85021(DRS); 50-457/85022(DRS) j Docket Nos. 50-456; 50-457 License Nos. CPPR-132; CPPR-133 i Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company . P.O. Box 767 , Chicago, IL 60690 5 Facility Name: Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Braidwood Site, Braidwood, IL Inspection Conducted: April 30-Nay 3 May 7-10, June 24-25, August 28-30, and September 5,1985 i I f l%4 d /0/p 9/gf Inspectors: R. Mendez I Date
/O- > f--g3 i J. 'l Date 2
Approved By: (.M24Ki&L-C. Williams, Chief plant Systems Section
/# =9 -EP Date '
Inspection Sumnary Inspection on April 30 through September 5,1985 (Report No. 50-456/85021(DRS); 50-457/85022(DR5)) ! Areas Inspected: Special, unannounced inspection of allegations; and licensee I cetions on allegations. The inspection involved a total of 152 inspector-hours by two NRC inspectors including 18 inspector-hours of in-office inspection and 30 inspector-hours during off-shifts. : Results: Two violations were identified (failure to follow procedures - i Paragraph 2.a(2); failure to provide documentation of activities affecting quality - Paragraph 2.d(4)). O , t I
l l l DETAILS !
'O ;. Persons Contacted Commonwealth Edison Company (Ceco)
*M. J. Wallace, Project Manager
+D. L. Shamblin, Project Construction Superintendent
+C. W. Shroeder, Project Licensing and Compliance Superinter. dent
#T. E. Quaka, QA Superintendent
*R. M. Preston, Director-Quality First
#E. F. Wilmere QA Supervisor
+E. E. Fitzpatrick, Assistant Manager QA
#G. E. Groth, Assistant Construction Supervisor
+L. M. Kline, Project Licensing and Compliance Supervisor
#C. Mennecke, Project Construction Department Supervisor
*W. E. Vahle, Project Field Engineering Manager
#E. Netzel, QA Supervisor, Electrical
+J. Gieseker, Project Field Engineer L. K. Comstock and Company (LKC)
#R. Simms, QA Supervisor -
*J. J. Klena, Project Engineer -
+1. F. Dewald, QC Manager The inspector also contacted and interviewed other licensee and contractor personnel during this inspection.
- Denotes those personnel attending the May 10, 1985, exit interview.
! # Denotes those personnel attending the August 30, 1985, exit interview.
+ Denotes those personnel attending the May 10 and August 30, 1985, exit interviews.
- 2. Followup on Allegations On March 29, 1985, 24 L. K. Comstock (LKC) QC inspectors went to the NRC Resident Inspectors' office at Braidwood Station with allegations concerning quality issues. These allegations (NRC Tracking No. RIII-85-A-0072) were subsequently sent by NRC Region III to the licensee for its review and resolution. This action was acceptable to the licensee and the LKC inspectors.
Prior to going to the NRC Resident Inspectors' office, some of the QC inspectors had expressed some concerns to NRC Region III regarding LKC's QA program. These concerns were received by Region III and tracked as allegation numbers RIII-85-A-0062, RIII-85-A-0067 and RIII-85-A-0068. Several of those concerns were similar to the allegations (RIII-85-A-0072) received on March 29, 1985. 2
. During this inspection, discussions were held with LKC personnel including 16 randomly selected QC inspectors and other personnel to review the LKC inspectors' concerns and allegations. The inspectors interviews included soe'e of the inspectors who provided the allegations and concerns. The NRC inspector also reviewed the licensee's acticns regarding the issues expressed by the QC inspectors as documented in allegation No. RIII-85-A-0072. The allegations and concerns expressed by LKC inspectors are addressed below in the order they were received by the Regional Office.
- a. (Closed) Allegation (RIII-85-A-0062)
On March 13, 1985, the Senior Resident Inspector received information regarding lack of qualification of LKC personnel. (1) Concern The alleger cited an example where one QC supervisor was not certified as a Level II inspector in the areas of cable tray, concrete expansion anchors, and receipt inspection. The alleger also named two other QC supervisors who were not certified in
. the areas they supervised. The alleger cited LKC Procedure 4.1.2, Section 1.21, which states in part, " Quality Control i
Supervisor...shall be trained and knowledgeable in the assigned areasofresgonsibilityandcertifiedtoLevelIIcapabilityin those areas NRC Review During interviews of the 16 randomly selected LKC QC inspectors, many expressed the opinion that almost all af the QC supervisors
- were neither qualified nor certified as Level IIs'in the areas they supervised. The LKC inspectors felt that they could not depend on the QC supervisors to answer questions in the areas where QC inspectors were uncertain of QC related matters.
Deficiencies in the LKC QC supervisors' certifications had been previously identified in the licensee's Braidwood QA Audit Report fQA-20-84-556 dated December 19, 1984. The audit report identified certain LKC QC supervisors as not having l sufficient work experience. The report also concluded that ! some supervisors lacked certification as Level II inspectors in I all the areas they supervised. The audit report finding required that training and experience be provided as appropriate j and that supervisors be knowledgeable in the assigned areas of I responsibility. LKC Procedure 4.1.2, Revision C, was reworded such that a QC supervisor is required to obtain certification as a Level II inspector after they attain the position of QC However, supervisors do not perform Level II supervisor. reviews prior to receiving certification in their areas as specified by the governing procedures and regulations. Formerly, the procedure required that the employee be a Level II inspector before becoming a QC supervisor. l 3
This Braidwood audit finding had not been closed out and requires that the subject supervisors receive the required training to become certified Level II inspectors in the areas ) they supervise. Conclusion ! l The allenation regarding supervisor qualification was i substant' ated in that some of the QC supervisors were not certified as Level II inspectors in all areas they supervised. ; While this lack of certification is not contrary to any explicit ; NRC certification requirement, it is contrary to the licensee's ' procedure and therefore 10 CFR 50, Appendix 8 Criterion V. The Ceco Braidwood Site QA had identified the lack of qualifi-cation and/or certification of Supervisors in an audit report on December 19, 1984, before the allegation was made on -
,. March 29, 1985, and adequate corrective actions had been initiated. Therefore, for enforcement purposes this is considered to be a licensee identified item.
(2) Concern _ The alleger cited as an example two QC inspectors who were selected a6 lead inspectors but were not qualified and were therefore, unable to perfom their assigned duties adequately. 4 The alleger stated that one of the lead inspectors did not have any qualifications and that the second lead inspector had qualifications only in receipt inspections. (During the l onsite interviews of the 16 randomly selected QC inspectors, an additional six lead QC inspectors were alleged to be . improperly qualified.) The alleger cited LKC Procedure 4.1.2, Section1.22,whichheindicatedstatedthat"QC.inspectorsbe l certified as Level II's in the area the inspector has lead responsibility". NRC Review The inspector reviewed the qualification records of the eight LKC lead QC Level II inspectors who were alleged to have less than the required qualifications / experience. The results of the review indicated that the inspectors had the required background and training with the exception of those mentioned below: There was one instance where an individual (this QC inspector was alleged to not have any certifications) was assigned as a lead inspector in concrete expansion anchors (CEAs) on March 10, 1985, but did not receive his Level II certification until March 21, 1985, due to achiinistrative , dela(ys. This individual had passed the written and l practical inspection tests for CEAs on March 5,1985, and l l
was previously certified as a Level II CEA inspector at another site. Although assigning this individual as a lead before being certified as a Level II violated procedures, a review of about 2,000 CEA travelers / inspection reports completed before March 21, 1985, indicated that this QC inspector did not sign / approve any CEA quality documents.
- A QC inspector was alleged to have been certified only for receipt inspections but was a lead inspector in other areas for which he was not certified. This inspector was assigned as a lead inspector in concrete expansion anchors (CEAs) and calibration from August 1984 until March 1985. The effective revision of LKC Procedure 4.1.2, " Position Delineation," during the period August 1984 to March 1985 was Revision B that stated, in part,
.. " Quality Control Lead Inspector..;is responsible for immediate direction of fellow QC inspectors in their -
designated area (s) (i.e., cable pulling, welding configur-ation, etc.)...must be certified Level II in designated area ( s) . . . . " While the individual was certified for hanger configuration, there was no documented evidence that this
~
lead inspector was certified in CEAs and calibration during the period August 1984 to March 1985. _ LKC personnel stated that although the QC inspector was i assigned as a " lead" in CEAs and calibration, their review
- of a sample of calibration and CEA documentation did not reveal any quality documents where the inspertar had signed as a Level II reviewer.
ANSI N45.2.6-1978 states that personnel who are assigned the responsibility and authority to evaluate the validity and acceptability of inspection, examination and testing l results shall be certified as Level II. LKC's " Master
- Qualification List" classifies 11 functional areas for l Level II capability, one of which is calibration.
I However, the NRC inspector detemined that, contrary to LKC's belief that t.he QC inspector did not sign any quality documents, on May 25, 1984, this QC inspector i signed two " Variable Calibration Records" under the column l
" Level II Review" for torque wrenches as A-531 and A-828, I although the QC inspector was not certified in calibration.
- A second QC inspector who was designated as lead inspector in calibration from March 1985 to May 1985 was not certified as a Level II calibration inspector. The NRC inspector determined during the records review that this QC inspector did not sign quality records in areas where he was not certified. This issue was identified by the NRC inspector.
O 5
Conclusion This allegation was substantiated. There was one example where due to an administrative error, an individual became a lead inspector in a specified area without first being certified as a Level II inspector in violation of the LKC procedure however, there was no evidence that this individual signed / approved any quality documents in that area before he was fomally certified. Two other lead inspectors were not certified Level 11 in violation of the LKC procedure. Additionally, contrary to ANSI N45.2.6 one of these QC inspectors signed two calibration inspection checklists under Level II review although he was not a certified Level II in calibration. These failures of the licensee to assure that activities affecting quality be accomplished in accordance with instructions and procedures is a violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V
. .. (456/85021-01; 457/85022-01).
- b. (0 pen) Allegation (RIII-85-A-0067) <
This allegation consisted of three parts, two of which were reviewed by the NRC inspector during this inspection. The third issue I involving welding will be addressed during a separate NRC. inspection. i (1) Concern , One part of the allegation related to the alleger who was an LKC QC inspector being reprimanded for absenteeism and poor work performance. The alleger felt that LKC quality control i was under production pressure and that his reprimand was based on his failure to meet quotas set by LKC management. NRC Review j The alleger had been given verbal warnings regarding excessive absences on September 27, 1984, and January 27, 1985, and a written warning on February 20, 1985. On March 19, 1985, the alleger received a second written warning for absenteeism and poor work performance. The LKC action on the alleger's absentecism was prompted by the alleger taking a total of 16 sick /persca l days from June 1,1984, through March 18, 1985. From January 28, 1985, throuDh March 19, 1985, the alleger had perfomed an average of 1.6 inspections per day while the average for his particular speciality (welding inspections) was 9.3 inspections per day. t With respect to the allegation regarding production pressure to ! meet quotas, the inspector interviewed the alleger and other ! selected QC inspectors. All of the QC inspectors stated that LKC management appeared to be more interested in production rather than the quality of the inspections. Some of the inspectors indicated that LKC management was probably concerned 6
about losing the electrical contract with the licensee. Additionally, it was stated by the QC inspectors that one of the QC Supervisors vigorously conveyed the message that manage-ment was more interested in production rather than quality by pressuring QC inspectors to perform more inspections. However, none of the LKC inspectors in61cated that they would accept discrepant work under any cor,ditions. LKC management and the licensee met with LKC QC personnel on May 13, 1985, to resolve the QC inspectors' concerns and reaffirm the licensee's and LKC's commitment to quality and to discuss improving communica-tion between LKC's management and their inspectors. Conclusion This portion of the allegation could not be substantiated. Some of the QC inspectors expressed opinions about a QC , supervisor who projected a production oriented attitude 'that some QC inspectors felt would affect quality; however, there was no evidence that this led to procedure violations or to LKC inspectors accepting discrepant work. (2) Concern - One part of the allegation was that QC inspectors were not being properly trained in conduit spcifications. The individual cited Procedure 4.3.13, Installation of Junction O Box and Equipment", which referenced the conduit specifications for grounding of junction boxes. NRC Review Section 3.5.6.1 of LKC Procedure 4.3.13, states that, " Junction boxes...will be grounded in accordance with the conduit specifi-l cations." Procedure 4.3.13 also references S&L Standards and approved drawings. Currently, QC inspectors who are certified Level II QC inspectors in the area of " Equipment / Junction Box Installation" are required to have knowledge of Procedure 4.3.13. A review of training records of 5 of the 12 QC Level II conduit inspectors indicated that they attended lectures and demonstrations on Procedure 4.3.13. Additionally, records indicated that the QC inspectors had been trained to Specifica-tion L-2790 and S&L drawings 20E-0-3391A and 20E-0-3000D which are the specifications for grounding. During the discussions with the 16 LKC inspectors addressed in Paragraph 2.a above, none of the inspectors could provide an example where junction boxes were not grounded per the applicable conduit drawing or specification. O 7
Conclusion This portion of the allegation could not be substantiated. Installation Procedure 4.3.13 for junction boxes references conduit grounding and it appeared QC inspectors were being l trained in the provisions of the procedure. There were no
- documented examples of failure to ground conduit per the
! applicable specification or drawing.
- c. (Closed) Allegation (RIII-85-A-0068)
Three allegations by LKC QC inspectors were received by the Region on March 20,1985. . The allegations are addressed below: (1) Concern ,
- The LKC QC inspectors stated that tim pressure on quality -
control inspectors to perform a large number of electrical inspections would affect the motivat and their ability to identify all s&jon Tetyof the QCTheinspectors issues. individuals stated that LKC management was concerned about
. production and not quality and that a continued " production push" by management would necessitate a complete re-inspection effort by LKC.
NRC Review During discussions with the QC inspectors, none indicated they would accept discrepant work. Although, the general perception among QC inspectors was that LKC management pushed production, no discrepant quality issues were identified to l the NRC inspector (Also see Allegation RIII-85-A-0067 and~ RIII-85-A-0072). A review of quality documents such as travelers and inspection reports in view of LKC's alleged production push revealed no programmatic problems. Conclusion This allegation could not be substantiated. (2) Concern A QC inspector alleged that he found a structural steel base metti reduction problem in the auxiliary building. The individual said he told the lead inspector and that the lead responded, "Do your electrical assignments." The individual said he told his supervisor about hos concern and that the swervisor responded, " Keep up production or I'll take you off of overtime."' The individual did not think this problem was being handled in accordance with applicable procedures and he
> believed he was being pressured into overlooking problems by having his overtime taken away.
1 8
1-NRC Review O The alleger's statements based on NRC examination and discussion have not been corroborated by the lead or the supervisor during interviews. That is, there is no corroboration that the alleger was told not to concern himself with the base metal reduction problem and that he would be taken off overtime. The alleger had originally identified the base metal reduction problem on December 8, 1984, and documented the discrepancy in a meno to the QC manager. On December 18, 1984, the QC manager sent the meno through the proper channels to the G. K. Newberg, the civil / structural contractor, for resolution. The alleger also referred the base metal reduction problem to a LKC Field Engineer. At the time the alleger brought the base metal reduction concern to the LKC Field Engineer, LKC's procedures and specifications did not allow them to repair structural steel. Subsequently, S&L Specification L-2790 was changed to allow LKC to repair or rework base metal reduction problems on structural steel when caused by electrical rework. This change was incorporated per Amendment 46 and Engineering
. Change Notice 25862 into S&L Specification L-2790.
On July 30, 1985, Inspection Correction Report (ICR) No. 10991 was issued to correct the base metal-reduction problem identified by the alleger. Conclusion This allegation could not be substantiated. Based upon review of documentation relative to this allegation, the inspector detemined that the base metal reduction issue was properly referred to the responsible contractor for disposition. With respect to the alleged threat that the alleger's overtime would be taken away, his overtime has not been taken away based on discussions with the alleger. (3) Concern The LKC QC inspectors alleged that many new electrical inspectors are being. qualified and certified in the areas of welding and configuration in one week. The allegers felt that it was impossible to be adequately knowledgeable in all of the detailed reference tables and drawings necessary to perform the inspections in one week, and that the quality of inspections by inspectors qualified in one week was questionable. NRC Review Many of the LKC QC inspectors interviewed expressed concern about other inspectors being certified expeditiously. Some of n v the inspectors indicated that they had knowledge of unqualified inspectors and supervisors (This is also discussed in more detail in Paragraph 2 for lead inspectors.) 9
The NRC inspector reviewed the certification and qualifications of 10 new LKC QC welding inspectors. (This group does not include the eight lead inspectors reviewed in Allegation RIII-85-A-0062.) The review included the background experience as a QC inspector and/or as a craftsran under a quality program at previous' places of employment, and the results of written and practical exams prior to certification as a QC Level 11 inspector for LKC. The records indicated that nine of ten new inspectors had the proper background and training to be certified Level Ils per ANSI N45.2.6 and LKC procedure 4.1.3,
" Qualification and Training of QC Personnel."
One QC inspector did not have the required experience for certification as a welding inspector. This individual was hired on November 21, 1983, and was certified as a Level II welding inspector on January 4, 1984. This person's background was
- alectrical and he had no prior weld inspection experience.
His lack of qualification was identified by the licensee's i 4 Braidwood QA surveillance in report no. 3372 on February 5, 1984. Initially, Braidwood QA found problems with the certification of this individual since the person's certifica-
. . tion package only contained documentation of previous electrical 1
experience. There was no documentation of welding or welding inspection experience. Braidwood site QA accepted the
- individual's certification based on the person's background a's a QC supervisor in the use of vernier calipers, scales and O torque wrenches. Final acceptance by Braidwood Site QA was accomplished by including the individual's welding experience acquired as a Level II welding inspector at Braidwood. The use of his experience acquired while apparently improperly certified as a Level II welding inspector requires further NRC examination. This significant issue is that the acceptability of his inspection activity during the period when his certification / qualification was questionable remains to be assessed and is considered an unresolved item (456/85021-02; 457/85022-02).
Conclusion This allegation was partially substantiated in that one instance was identified where a new LKC inspector with no previous experience either as a craftsman or as a QC inspector in welding became a Level II welding inspector within six weeks of being hired by LKC. O 10
- d. (Closed) Allegation (RIII 85-A-0072)
On krch 29, 1985, six LKC electrical quality control inspectors presented allegations to the Braidwood NRC resident inspectors regarding the quality of QC inspections, QC supervisor qualifications, intimidation and harassment of QC inspectors, and closing noncon-formances without field verification. A second meeting between the NRC resident inspectors and 24 LKC QC inspectors was held later in the day. The concerns as presented to the NRC resident inspectors were submitted to the licensee for resolution. The licensee agreed to interview the LKC inspectors and attempt to resolve their concerns. In addition to meeting with individual LKC inspectors, the licensee removed a QC supervisor from his position until the allegations were resolved and scheduled a meeting between the licensee and LKC QA/QC and management personnel to re-amphasize the licensee's QA policies and commitments. A sumanary of the LKC inspectors' concerns as expressed to the licensee and the licensee's subsequent actions are documented in Commonwealth Edison's Quality First Group as Braidwooo Record of Concerns numbers QF-85-1188, 1229, and 2026. On April 25, 1985, the , licensee completed its reviews of the LKC QC inspectors' concerns
- and allegations. The concerns and allegations of the QC inspectors are addressed below.
l (1) Concern A QC inspector alleged that "L. K. Comstock is asserting the quantity of inspections rather than the inspection quality. Therefore, the quality of the L. K. Comstock inspections is suffering. Licensee Review - The licensee found that some of the QC inspectors felt that the QC manager pushed production after the Construction knager let it be known that inspections had to be done. However, the licensee also determined from the LKC inspectors that quality was appropriately emphasized. The LKC QC inspectors indicated that one QC' supervisor vigorously pushed inspections but if QC inspectors questioned quality the QC supervisor would refer to
'the procedures so that quality was not sacrificed. In certain instances the licensee determined that this supervisor had been unduly abrasive in his professional relationships with the QC inspectors.
NRC Revi_ew The NRC inspector examined licensee trend analyses of quality assurance deficiencies identified during audits and surveillances of LKC activities. None of the analyses indicated that the O quality of the LKC quality control inspections had deteriorated as a result of the alleged emphasis on increased inspector 11
productivity in that the percentage of inspection findings per
*( report had remained about the same as before. In addition,
( review of three of LKC's quarterly trend analysis reports showed no adverse trends in the quality of inspections as evidenced by no observed decline in the numbers of inspection findings. Review of quality control manning ttbles revealed that the contractor increased the number of inspectors as workload increased. For the month preceding receipt of this allegation the inspector compared the msnber of inspections perfomed and the number of inspectors in the field and determined the average inspector perfomed approximately 21 inspections per week which in the NRC inspector's view was not excessive. None of the inspectors interviewed stated that they had personally perfonned inspections where they had asserted quantity rather than quality. Conclusion i Based on review of trend analyses, personnel manning tables, inspection records and interviews with quality control inspectors, this allegation could not be substantiated since -- there was no evidence that production pressure affected the quality of inspections. 1 (2) Concern ; QC inspectors alleged that "a Comstock QC supervisor was not qualified for his position, as he was not certified in all of the inspection areas which he supervised." Licensee Review The licensee investigation identified one instance wherein a l LKC QC inspector related an incident in which a QC supervisor . wanted an NCR written in a discipline where he lacked i certification. The licensee found that the LKC inspector ! refused to write the NCR until he went out and observed the l situation in the field at which time the QC inspector agreed to write the NCR. The licensee's review also included the adverse audit finding in which site QA identified the LKC , supervisors who did not hold certifications in all the areas they supervise. NRC Review Neither NRC regulations nor ANSI Standards require quality control supervisors to be certified in all inspection areas they supervise. However, this is required by LKC procedures. The NRC inspectors identified an instance where a supervisor / j lead inspector did not have the certifications required by , O procedures. This finding is described in the NRC Review of O Allegation RIII-35-A-0062 above. 12 i
Conclusions
- Based on NRC review of personnel certifications this allegation is substantiated in that one individual was not certified in all areas in which he supervised inspectors. See the conclusion for Allegation RIII-85-A-0062 above for further explanation.
l l (3) Concern ' \ QC inspectors alleged that one QC supervisor was constantly l intimidating / harassing the LKC inspectors to sign off NCRs and l ICRs. Licensee Review i 1
- The licensee investigation substantiated the QC inspectors' allegations against the QC supervisor. The licensee stated
' ' '~ that on March 31, 1985, LKC indefinitely suspended the subject QC supervisor. On April 2,1985, LEC concluded that the accused QC supervisor should be removed from the job site, the licensee concurred and the QC supervisor was removed. NRC Review The NRC inspectors interviewed QC inspectors, including the allegers. The QC inspectors each stated that the supervisor had an abrasive and aggressive personality and was very quick O to lose his temper when inspectors' findings or interpretations were counter to his interpretations of procedures or require-ments. At that time, it was alleged that he would become abusive and berate and threaten the inspector with dismissal; however, none of the inspectors could remember an instance ! where an inspector had actually been dismissed nor did any inspector remember an instance when he had signed off an inspection as a result of pressure from his supervisor. Some i of the individuals interviewed stated that some of the inspectors would goad the supervisor into losing his temper since they enjoyed hit, outbursts. The supervisor was dismissed as a result of his ordering a ? QC inspector to close out an inspection report before the , l inspector received the documentation authorizing the closeout and final disposition. The disposition of the inspection had been reviewed by engineering and the documentation had been sent to, but not yet received by, the QC inspector. The licensee has initiated a training program for LKC QC control supervisors in basic management techniques to prevent a recurrence of the intimidation / harassment issue. O i 13
Conclusion Theallehationthatthesupervisorintimidated,harassedand berated inspectors was substantiated. However, this occurence l has not impacted the QC inspector's perfomance of quality related activities. The action to dismiss the supervisor and implement the supervisor training program are adequate l corrective actions for resolution of this issue. 4 (4) Concern QC inspectors alleged that 93 hanger inspecticas on one check-list containing 1100-1200 welds were signed off in one day by an identified inspector. The allegers considered this to be too many inspections for a single inspector to make in one day without the quality of the inspections suffering. -
'~
Licensee Review This concern was not addressed by the licensee. None of the QC inspectors interviewed by the licensee provided an example
. where an individual accepted hanger inspections without going out to the field to verify the work. _
~
NRC Review I The QC inspectors interviewed identified the person alleged to have performed 93 hanger inspections in one day. The identified person was questioned regarding this issue and he responded that to his knowledge this did not occur. The LKC inspectors could not provide an inspection report or date of the alleged occurrence. Consequently, the inspection checklist where 93 hangers were accepted by the QC inspector who is the subject l cf the allegation was not located during QC records reviews l by the NRC inspector. A similar concern was examined regarding another QC inspector i as follows. On November 12, 1980, a LKC inspector documented the acceptance of 129 hangers and 1,215 welds on one inspection checklist. According to LKC management QC welding inspectors kept daily logs of the hanger inspections. When all of the hanger inspections for an area were complete, the QC inspector would sign off for all of them on one inspection checklist and send the hanger numbers to PTL. This record therefore reflected a number of days of inspection effort. Subsequently, PTL would perform nondestructive tests on 10% of the welds and would accept or reject the welds. In this instance, PTL reviewed 122 (10% of the total) welds and rejected 16 welds on 10 hangers. The LKC QC inspector reviewed the 1,215 welds and found them all acceptable. It is not clear why additional PTL nondestructive tests were not performed to include a larger sample since about O 13% of the welds were rejected by PTL. The licensee stated that there was no instruction to require additional mondestructive 1 14
test based on any identified failure of the sample tested. .. That is. PTL would reject the welds when required based on l the NDE tests and identify the rejected welds to the contractor. The contractor would rework or repair the welds, but the current procedures do not require nondestructive testing ! of more of the welds submitted for test. Additionally, no l record exists which specifically documents acceptance of the individual welds associated with a hanger. The licensee stated that the inspector's inspection logs were not filed with the inspection report. This program area requires further review and evaluation and is considered to be an unresolved item (456/85021-03; 457/85022-03). L A related issue identified during this inspection involved the disposition of the 16 hanger welds mentioned above. On November 19, 1980, PTL completed its report of visual
. inspection of structural welding on the subject-ten hangers.
As mentioned before,16 of the 122 welds reviewed by PTL were rejected and the report was sent to LKC for dispositioning. However, at the time of the exit interview on August 30, 1985, the licensee could not provide documented evidence that the 16 welds had been dispositioned or whether corrective action had been implemented to repair the identified discrepant welds. On September 5,1985, the NRC inspector was informed that two of the ten hangers were deleted by S&L and three of the hangers were repaired; however, the licensee could not provide documented I p evidence that would indicate whether the remaining five hangers i V (CC-23, CC-36, CC-87 and two type CC-34) were reworked, repaired or accepted-as-is. ANSI N45.2-1977, Section 18, states, in part, that " Sufficient records shall be prepared as work is performed to furnish documenting evidence of the quality of items and of activities affecting quality." The licensee has committed to reinspect welds on the ~ remaining five hangers to provide inspection doc eentation. ! Conclusion This allegation could not be substantiated. However, examina-tion of a similar issue involving another QC inspector showed that the record of inspection identifies many welds that were inspected on different days. It is not clear from the existing record (s) whether any specific weld was inspected, only when it was reported. The issue identified above wherein the quality records for the rejected welds on five of the ten hangers were unavailable constitutes a violation of NRC requirements. That , is, the failure to assure that sufficient records be maintained l to furnish evidence of activities affecting quality is a violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII (456/85021-04; 457/85022-04). 4 i 15
1 (5) Concern l A QC inspector alleged that an LKC QA Engineer was assigned to the records vault for the sole purpose of closing nonconfo mance l reports. The alleger stated that this individual never went into the field to verify the condition (work to be accomplished , per the NCR) before closing the nonconfomance reports. , Additionally, this individual was alleged to be both a QC ' inspector and a QA auditor who would inspect first, then do the QA audit. Some LKC inspectors also indicated that QC inspection reports were being signed without the inspector going into the field to verify completed work. Licensee Review The LKC QC inspectors interviewed by the licensee indicated that they had no knowledge of inspectors signing off QC inspection reports in the office or vault w thout going out into the field to verify the condition. NRC Review The NRC inspector interviewed the alleger and the ir.dividual who allegedly closed the reports and performed tha audits, reviewed the closed out reports and audits, and discussed the issue with the QC manager and the LKC site QA manager
; The alleger stated that he had no first hand knowledge that the other individual had closed nonconformance reports in the vault and perfomed audits of inspection activities in which he was involved, but that he had heard that this had happened.
He stated that this had occurred over a period of about two l weeks or maybe two days, but was not sure. - The NRC inspector's interview with the other individual was conducted by telephone since the individual was no longer at Braidwood. He stated that he had been detailed to work for quality assurance to assist in the preparation of a report for submission to the licensee. His duties in the vault were to research nonconformance and inspection reports for material to be included in the report. He further stated that he had closed no reports during that period. He further stated that he had never participated in an audit involving LKC at Braidwood. The QA and QC annagers agreed that the individual did not close reports or perform audits during this period. The NRC inspector's examination of the nonconformance report log did not reveal any reports that had been closed by the individual during the two weeks he was working in the records vault. O 16 i . t
l Conclusion Based on interviews with the alleger, the individual, the quality managers, and the NRC inspection of nonconformance logs, this allegation could not be substantiated. (6) Concern The QC inspectors stated that they had spoken to the Braidwood Quality First Team without gaining any satisfactory response to their concerns. Licensee Review l The licensee interviewed LKC inspectors starting on February 13, 1985. These interviews were completed on March 11, 1985. As 4
- '~ a result, on March 4,1985, the Quality First organization documented a LKC QC inspector concern dealing with the adequacy l of training. As a result of ongoing investigations by the licensee, some of the concerns were combined into investigations
. 1188, 1229 and 2026. At this time the licensee had not - completed its investigation of all the concerns. -The most t recent Quality First concern (QF 85-2026) was documented to track the concerns of the LKC QC inspectors who set with the
' resident inspectors on March 29, 1985. The licensee is investigating the comprehensiveness of the initial Quality i First response to these inspector concerns.
NRC Review The NRC inspector examined Quality First documentation relative to this allegation and interviewed Quality First Team personnel. The inspector determined that the LKC QC inspectors had been interviewed by the Quality First Team in February 1985. These interviews were part of a program to establish baseline data for the Quality First Team and included all QC inspectors from all contractors. The LKC QC inspector's concerns were reviewed within the quality First group and assigned for investigation on March 4,1985. At the time the allegation was made to the NRC resident inspectors, the investigation into QC concerns had l not been completed. The NRC inspector examined the completed report dated April 25, 1985, of the investigation of the QC inspector concerns. The report addresses the concerns expressed during the Quality l First Team interviews and the allegations made to the NRC on March 29, 1985. Conclusion l The allegation was substantiated in that the QC inspectors had O- not received a response from the Quality First Team; however, the NRC inspector determined that the QC concerns were properly 17
addressed and adequate corrective action had been initiated by the licensee. (7) Concern One QC inspector stated that hangers are not inspected, just as-built. No inspection report or nonconformance reports were written. Walkdowns were being done and drawings made to show as-built configuration. Licensee Review The licensee detemined that NCRs 708 and 709 were issued
- to document and provide direction for the overall program to walk down (inspect) hangers that were not installed in accordance with design drawings.
NRC Review The inspector reviewed the hanger reinspection program based on Commonwealth Edison NCRs 708 and 709 and the inspection doc eentation generated through the disposition of these NCRs. The inspection activity referred to in the allegation is being i performed pursuant to NCR 708 and NCR 709. Since the inspection is perfomed to correct the situation described in an NCR, no other NCR would be issued since the problem has already been O identified. The inspector determined that inspection reports are being written for the inspection activities according to approved procedures. Conclusion l Based on the inspector's review of NCRs 708 and 709 and inspection reports related to the NCRs, this allegation could not be substantiated. 4 (8) Concern l A LKC QC inspector alleged that he was constantly watched by his supervisor. This LKC inspector visited the NRC office and according to him was transferred without reason from field
- inspections to a job in the records vault. i Licensee Review The licensee determined that the subject of this concern was i a QC inspector whose personnel certification package is being held by Braidwood QA. The QC inspector in question copied the same inspection checklist several times and later filled in some of the blank spaces in violation of procedures. The QC inspector's work is being re-evaluated.
18
NRC Review The NRC inspector examined a licensee surveillance report that identified deficiencies attributed to the alleger's weld inspections. He was observed with copies of the same inspection checklist on which he could fill in blank spaces, in violation of procedures. The licensee ordered LKC to remove his from fic1d inspection in October 1983. Itans inspected by the allener using the copied checklists were reinspected by other 'nspectors. The NRC inspector determined that the alleger has not been permitted to perfom weld inspections since October 1983 when he was transferred to the records vault. Conclusion ,
- - Based on the inspector's review of documentation relating to the alleger's transfer from the field to the records vault, this allegation could not be substantiated.
. (9) Concern It was. alleged that an inspector cannot remain proficien~t in all of the certified areas without a decrease in the quality of the inspections, and that LKC management promised more money to inspectors who were certified in multiple O- areas.
Licensee Review The licensee determined from discussions with the LKC inspectors that they would be more comfortable if.they could remain in a specified area rather than to move around the site. However, no inspector felt that his request for additional refresher training would be turned down. t NRC Review During the NRC inspector's interview of LKC QC inspectors the QC inspectors stated that they agreed th.t it was difficult to maintain proficiency in more than one inspection area, but they also stated that when an inspector was moved from one inspection area to another area that they could ask for retraining if they felt it was needed. None had been denied retraining when they had requested it. No QC inspector felt that the quality of the inspections he performed had decreased because of his multiple certifications. In interviews with the LKC QC manager and QA manager they stated that it was LKC policy to provide retraining to their personnel at the request of the QC inspector. In addition, O changes in procedures and specifications affecting an area of inspection are transmitted to all inspectors certified in that area whether or not they are working in their certifications. 19
Conclusion Based on interviews with inspectors and managers that revealed that persons M y be retrained to maintain their certification proficiency upon that person's request, the allegation could not be substantiated. I
- (10) Concern QC inspectors alleged that lead QC inspectors are being picked based on who would sign off the most quality documents (NCRs and ICRs).
Licensee Review The LKC inspectors interviewed by the licensee indicated that some of the QC inspectors were picked as leads based on who was signing off the most NCRs or ICRs. However, the licensee concluded that leads were never picked on the basis of who l would sign off the most documents. NRC Review - Some of the inspectors interviewed by the NRC~ inspector stated
- that the selection of lead QC inspectors may have been based on who signed off the most quality documents; however, none
^ could give an example where this actually occurred. No . examples were provided regarding improper signing of inspection reports or violations of procedures. NRC examination of personnel records did not disclose any irregularity in this regard. Conclusion l l The allegation could not be substantiated. There was no evidence i that LKC picked QC lead inspectors on the basis of who signed the most NCRs or ICRs. l (11) Concern . It was alleged that some NCRs have been dispositioned by LKC Engineering as " retrain inspectors". Also, some NCRs have been initiated and dispositioned by Field Engineering without an involvement of QC inspectors. Licensee Review The licensee did not address this concern in its investigation. NRC Review Some of the LKC inspectors interviewed by the NRC inspector l 1' 20 f
. . , ~ . . , , - _ - , - - . , , . - - - - - - - , . --_ _ _ _ -
-- _ . , -_ _ _ - ___ - - - - , . , . . - . - - _ , . . - - - _ - - __--,,n.,_ ,,._-an,, , , . , . . . - , , - - - - - - - - - - - - , - - , - - , - - ,
thought that NCRs were being initiated and dispositioned by 3 Field Engineering without any involvement of QC inspectors. Q However, none could provide an example. WithrespcttoNCRs being dispositioned by LKC as ' retrain inspectors , the QC inspectors mutually agreed that if there was an issue where the finding clearly violated procedures or specifications they could prevail upon LKC Engineering to change their positions. No LKC inspector indicated he or she knew of one instance where a NCR was improperly dispositioned. NRC review of NCR's has not disclosed any significant deficiencies in this regard. Conclusion The allegation could not be substantiated. , (12) Concern . It was alleged that if inspection quotas were not met, overtime was not given to individuals. Licensee Review l The licensee deterniaed that there was one occasion when overtime was not given because the person was not getting work done. It . was reported that the inspector bragged about how little work he was doing. The QC manager stated that " Busy people work l overtime. Don't give overtime to people who sit around." NRC Review Some of the allegers indicated that LKC was more concerned with production rather than quality, but none knew of an example of quality being compromised or inspection quotas being established by LKC quality management. The licensee issues a Daily Status Report which trends inspections. It is possible the inspectors thought that the report was used to stress production. Some of the inspectors indicated they were reprimanded for not prodt. ing enough inspections. These inspectors stated that some inspections take more time than other inspections, and consequently their number of inspections were low. A review l of the records of three inspectors who had been reprimanded indicate that all of them had a history of absenteeism and had j received written warnings regarding their absenteeism; however, l they had not received any written warnings for failure to meet any inspection quotes. Conclusion The allegation that overtime was not given to inspectors who did not meet inspection quotas could not be substantiated. 21
> Nowever, one related instance was identified by the licensee where an individual was denied overtime because the individual was not as productive as was desired.
(13) Concern It was alleged that three inspectors at LKC were supposed to be tersinated, and if they were terminated LKC inspectors were going to walk. Licensee Review The licensee reviewed the situation that led to the LKC QC inspectors threatening to walk out if three inspectors were fired. The licensee concluded that the situation was caused in part by LKC's practice of giving every individual on permanent
. payroll 8 days of personal time plus two weeks vacation a year.
Before individuals used up all their personal days in an ! apparently improper manner, verbal warnings were given. The licensee determined that three individuals had been given verbal and written warnings for absenteeism. The licensee concluded that if the individuals continued their practices,
~ ~
dismissal was possible. NRC Review The NRC inspector ascertained that the three inspectors were not terminated. l Conclusion i This matter is a management and not a regulatory . issue. No violations of NRC requirements were identified. (14) Concera It was alleged that NCR 1616 and ICR 2900 were inappropriately dispositioned. NRC Review The NRC inspector examined the disposition of NCR 1616 and ICR 2900. The corrective action relative to NCR 1616 and ICR 2900 was reviewed and approved by both the contractor's engineering department and the design engineer. Final close out of the NCR and ICR was accomplished by a certified Level II QC inspector on August 8, 1985. Conclusion The NRC inspector determined that the final disposition of the O NCR and ICR was proper and that the closeout of both reports was accomplished in a timely manner. Resed on the NRC inspector's review, this allegation could not be substantiated. 22
- - _ _ - _ . . . . _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ ~ . . _ . . _ _ , , _ , , _ . . _ _ , _ _ _ . . . . _ . _ . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , ,
d
, (15) Concern it was alleged that one QC supervisor continually violated procedures during inspector certifications.
NRC Review The NRC inspector reviewed the procedure for training and certification of QC inspectors. According to the procedure, inspectors are not certified or recommended for certification by QC supervisors. Review of randomly selected inspector certifications show that personnel are certified by management after reccamiendation by the training department and the Level II inspector who conducts the on-the-job training test for inspectors.
. ,. Conclusion Based on the inspector's review of certification procedures and records that revealed that QC supervisors do not certify inspectors, this allegation could not be substantiated..
(16)~ Concern
~
The allegers stated that there were no certified calibration i inspectors. NRC Review The inspector reviewed inspector manning charts and tables and determined that there have been certified calibration inspectors on site since LKC. began work at Braidwood in 1979. l Conclusion - This allegation could not be substantiated. (17) Concern It was alleged that a QC supervisor lied to get a QC inspector fired. Licensee Review The licensee did not review this allegation since it was never brought to the attention of licensee management. NRC Review During discussions with the alleger, he stated that the circumstances surrounding the incident in which he was 'O threatened with dismissal involved a lost company owned tape 23
measure. According to the alleger he was asked by the QC supervisor (who was later removed from his position but not for this incident) if he had a tape measure that had been in the QC inspector's possession. The alleger stated that he did not at which point the QC supervisor made a " profane" statement. The QC supervisor stated (according to the alleger) that the QC inspector was negligent with his equipment and continued ^o use profanity and told the QC inspector to get out of his office. The alleger told the QC su , didn't have to take the abusive language. pervisor On January that 13,he 1983, the QC supervisor initiated action to fire the QC inspector. ! The letter of dismissal states, in part, the QC inspector "has I shown remiss and insubordinate actions in performing those duties assigned by his supervisor along with not being ' responsible for company tools he was issued." The alleger was not fired and did not identify any quality concerns. The QC supervisor involved is the supervisor discussed in Para
- 2.d.(3) above who was dismissed for inspector harassment / graph intimidation reasons.
Conclusion I- - This allegation could not be substantiated. However, no
. , quality issues pertaining to this incident were identified.
- e. ~ Licensee's Summary of the A11ecations and Concerns Discussed Above (Paragraphs 2.d.(1) through 2.c .(17) ~
Regarding the LKC organization, the licensee concluded that certain areas such as tdministration, communications, training and supervision need additional management attention. The licensee also stated in its summary report of LXC QC inspector t.oncerns and allegations that a labor union issue divided management and inspectors. It was the licensee's conclusion that except for the situation which resulted in the removal of one QC supervisor, no serious quality related problems exist. The licensae stated that many issues were resolved with the termination of the subject QC supervisor.
- f. NRC Inspector Summary The inspectors determined that the licensee's examinations and conclusions regarding the allegations that the licensee reviewed were appropriate. The two unresolved items identified by the inspector are not directly involved with the allegations. The first instance involves an inspector who was certified as as a Level II in welding within six weeks of being hired but had no prior welding experience.
inspector based on hisThe licenseeat experience and LKC later certified the QC Braidwood. However, the QC inspector's previous work was never re-inspected to determine his original capability. It is in this context that the unresolved issue was raised by the NRC inspector. This is an isolated instance , 24 4
o and no other individuals were determined to lack the required experience. The second instance involves the lack of instructions and procedures to direct what actions should be taken regarding edditional nondestructive testing of hanger welds when a significant percentage of the test sample of welds is rejected by PTL. Two adverse issues were identified by the NRC inspectors which were related to allegations made by the QC inspectors. One involved lead inspectors who were not certified as Level IIs in their designated disciplines. This violated L. K. Coastock's procedures. The second issue involved' lack of documented evidence to indicate that discrepant welds on 5 hanners were repaired or properly dispositioned. Both of these 'ssues are characterized J as violations in this report. The problems between LKC management and the QC inspectors generally steamed from a lack of communication between management and employees, and the bullying tactics of one QC supervisor who was removed from the construction site. These
- toncerns have been resolved or are in process of resolution by the licensee.
- 3. Unresolved Items
- Unresolved items are matters about which.nore information is required in order- to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of violations or deviations. Unresolved items disclosed during this inspection are discussed in Paragraphs 2.c.(3) and 2.d.(4).
l
- 4. Exit Interview The inspector met with representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspections noted in this report. The inspector also discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspector during the inspection. The licensee did not identify any such documents / processes as proprietary.
t l
- 25 m, _ _ _ , , _ , _ _ , - -
Pagn 1 of 27
~
- ayda 4p & #3 f, ,.
CALIBRATION AUDIT REPORT 9-7-84
- 1. All Form #77 have been reviewed for any discrepancies-completed.
- 2. Discrepancies of Form #77 have been recorded on a prepared checklist.
Completed.
- 3. On 8-24-84 and the following week discrepancies are to be reviewed and cross referenced to individual tool packages in the vault.
Still pending. 4. ICR and NCR files will be reviewed for those reports pertaining to Still pending. individual tool calibrations in question. S. Two file drawers of torque wrenches were reviewed from 8-27-84 to 9-4-84 with the found discrepancies attached. Cogle ted. 6. As of 9-5-84 stationary rod ovens and portable rod ovens are being reviewed. Still Pending.
- 7. Yet to be reviewed are thermometers, lug crigers, wire strippers, Still pending.
dynamometers, and welding machines. ,
- 8. Estimated congletion date 9-21-84, as of 9-6-84 we are approximately 50% completed with the review of calibration records.
O Richard Snyder Myra Sproull 9-6-84 9-6-84 o O S0000554
Page 2 of 27 8 TORQUE WRENCHES
- More than one occurance per wrench No ICR written for out of cal. GIR written instead of ICR for out of cal.
i T.W. T.W. { 833 A887 A985 A172 *A182 833 1 835 A888 All61 A173 A183 840
*832 7989 A1366 A174 A897 A872
! *A872 A019 A1641 A175 A898 A885
*A885 A963 A165 *A176 A902 A984 A886 A974 A171 A177 A903 A391
) A1687 A9702 10080 10081 Reference BY/BR/CEA for disposition No rework mentioned on ICR T.W. ' A835 A973 A888 A928 A904 *832 *A175
*A531 A984 A899 A972 A917 A1161 A176 l A608 A985 A900 A391 A1367 9202 A183 O 840 A872 A896 9202 A390 A839 A906 A907 A920 A393 A1368 A394 A9702 A395 10081
*A168 A531 A185 10080 l A172 A885 A919 A885 A927 A897 A390 *A173 A896 A898 A174
- A902 l A903 l
No missing tool report in file (#45) Missing vendor cal. reports T.W. T.W. 506 A1365 A9701 833 A177
- A884 A480 9202 A181 A886 506 #1 A392 A887 A905 #2 A897 A888 A185 #67 A889 A392 Missing cal. reports No QC verification for rework l T.W.
506 A888 A985 A175 A904 A884 A608 A889 A1362 *A180 A917 A835 A896 A1364 *A183 9430 A885 A919 A1366 A391 A886 A922 A1641 A896 i A887 A983 9202 A098 i A984 A168 A901 SOE059
- , Page 3 of 27 s ,
t PORTABLE ROD OVENS l . Missing cal. reports in file Wrong cal. due date for STD used (Not 9-6-84) A130 A130 A131 A131 - A132 A132 A133 A133 A134 A134 A135 A135 A137 A137 A139 A139 No ICR written for out of cal. No recheck or rework of out of cal. ovens
- l A131 A131 A132 i
A137 O 1 l l 9 1 O es s
- Pr.gn 4 of 27 TORQUE WRENCH LKC #1
- 1. No Certificate of Calibration in folder.
- 2. No purchased date on Form #S.
- 3. Form #8 references repair at Industrial Products on 8-3-82 but no Certs. are in package to back this up.
- 4. 8-27-84 only three cal. reports in folder dated 12-11-80, 1-13-81,
. and 2-23 .81.
- 5. There seems to be cal. reports missing since ICR-1170 written on 3-19-82 reference out of cal.
TORQUE WRENCH LKC #2
- 1. No Cert. of Cal. from manufacturer.
- 2. No purchased date on Form #8.
- 3. Form #8 references repairs at Industrial Products on 8-3-82, but no certs are in package to back this or to say when it returned on site.
t l 1 1 O . S0000557
.*. Page 5 of 27 9 , T.W. LKC #67
- 1. . Nor purchased date on Form #8.
- 2. No Cert. from manuf. to certify tool.
- 3. Wrench unable to be calibrated and apparently removed from site 5-23-79.
- 4. No work apparently used on Braidwood site.
T.W. LKC #A168
- 1. Cal. reports missing during 1981 if wrenches were cal. on a weekly basis as Form #8 states.
- 2. ICR 532 written 2-24-81 no rework mentioned, the T.W. was repaired.
- 3. PTL calibrated T.W. on 8-27-84, 3-9-81 but no mention of ICR or rework - rejected results from PTL on 3-9-81 or 3-27-81.
- 4. Form #23 for T.W. 4168 has two dates 2-10-82 and 2-16-82 for same i
O calibration readings.
- 5. NCR 3006.
T.W. LKC #171
- 1. No purchased date on Form #8 or certification from manuf.
- 2. No reference as to when or why torque wrench was taken out of Program.
- 3. ICR #401 states that T.W. was found with broken racket but no sign of rework is evident.
l O S0000558 y ~-.- -- , , ., ,. .y,--, - . _ - < , , , . - - -~~, -,.--m - - - - - --.,----.--,-~~v- - - - - -
. Paga 6 of 27 T.W. LKC #A172
- 1. No purchased date on Form #8 or Cert. from manuf.
- 2. No rework for ICR 529 is mentioned on disposition.
- 3. No ICR written for out of cal. report dated 3-26-81.
T.W. LKC #A173
- 1. No purchased date on Form #8 or Cart. from manuf.
- 2. ICR 532 (2-24-81) was written for out of cal., no rework is mentioned.
. 3. Cal. reports for 3-9-81, 3-27-81 show out of cal. , no ICR's are written.
T.W. LKC #A174
- 1. N/A purchased date on Form #8 or Cert. from manuf.
- 2. ICR 528 states that wrench cannot be cal. by PTC on 2-19-81, repair or destroy if not repairable. There is no reowrk mentioned - just a signature and date to disposition ICR.
- 3. Wrench is again out of cal. on 3-9-81 and 3-27-81 with no mention of ICR or NCR. .
- 4. Calibration reports from 9-29-80 to 2-11-81 are missing, but there is a GIR written.
T.W. LKC #A175
- 1. No purchased date on Form #8 or Cert. from manuf.
- 2. ICR 528 states the same as on T.W. #A174.
- 3. Calibration reports missing from file according to Form #77.
- 4. Out of cal. reports for 3-9-81 and 3-27-81 with nothing written up to address these problems.
- 5. ICR 517 states wrench out of cal. Corrective action is see what wrench was used on and rework action completed - repaired and S0000559 signature and date 4-10-81 no rework is mentioned.
i Pags 7 of 27
. (T.W. LKC #A175 - Cont.)
- 6. ICR 1183 states wrench out of cal. Corrective action - repair or renove from service. Action completed - repair and recalibrated, GIR was written for rework but there is nothing to state that rework was performed and witnessed by QC.
T.W. LKC #A176
- 1. T.W. out of cal. on 1-27-81 nothing in file as being written up.
- 2. 2-19-81 out of cal. as per PTL written up on ICR 528 same as T.W. LKC #A174.
- 3. 3-9-81 out of cal. as per PTL while still on non-dispositioned ICR 528, nothing else written up this time.
- 4. 3-26-81 results are acceptable as per PTL even though at 30 ft.lb range the wrench was'43% out of tolerance.
- 5. 12-2 7-8 3 T.1 calibration is rejected but no ICR or NCR is evident in the file 1. older.
1 T.W. LKC #A177
- 1. 5-17-82 out of calibration but not written up.
- 2. 8-3-82 sent to Industrial Products for repairs but no certs, or evidence of calibration in file.
T.W. LKC #A180
- 1. No cal. reports from 3-22-83 to 6-20-83.
- 2. No purchased date, no manuf. certs.
O S0000560
Page 8 of 27 T.W. LKC #A181
~O 1. 8-3-82 tool was sent off site to Industrial Products for repairs, no certs. or trace of these repairs or al. in package.
- 2. 5-21-84 wrench was cal. on site but no reaaings are given on form 23.
- 3. Wrong report was used for calibration 23A instead of 23.
- 4. Wrong torquaing range is given of the report.
- 5. Form 23 for cal. date 11-30-83 has no standard no.
- 6. Form 23 for cal. data 11-23-83 has wrong standard no.
- 7. Majority of reports vary as far as the range at which cal. was checked, no consistency.
- 8. Iast cal. report in file A181 is dated 8-1-84, tool is on open NCR 3007 and being used in field according to sign out log in crib #4.
T.W. LKC #A182 iO
- 1. 10-20 Results of PTL calibration were not acceptable, no ICR written.
- 2. 10-30 same as above.- .
i 3. 12- 15 same as above.
- 4. 12-17 same as above.
T.W. IJtC #A183
- 1. No date on the cal report after 3-7-83.
- 2. No cal. report between 3-23-83 and 4-12-83.
- 3. Cal. reports missing from February 1981 and March 1981.
- 4. 5-4-84 cal. report has no readings from wrench only from master.
- 5. Reports missing from October 1980 to January 1980.
- 6. No rework mentioned for ICR #532. 500005G1
- 7. 3-9-81 and 3-27-81 PTL reports out of cal. - no ICR written.
l - - - - - - _ _ _ _ - - - _ -
- Paga 9 of 27 e.
T.W. LKC #A390
- 1. Out of cal on 3-24 GIR written referencing NCR 932 and NCR 1013 BY/BR/CEA.
T.W. IKC #A480
- 1. Wrench was used for four months during 1979, last cal. date 9-4-79, there is nothing after that date to indicate what has happened to T.W. , lost, stolen, or out of cal.?
T.W. LKC 506
- 1. T.W. was used during late 1980 and no reported calibrations since that time - there is no missing tool report or GIR to say what happened to this wrench.
T.W. IKC #A531
- 1. Wrench out of cal. by P.G.C. on 3-23-83 a GIR is written but it references BY/BR/GA as being in tolerances, who says that this was only used on GA's there is no rework to check this.
l .
- 2. Time sheets attached to NCR 1177 show ev9rything being torqued
~
except GA's?
- 3. BY/BR/GA's is being accepted with its 10% tolerance but no CEA
' torquaing was done according to time sheets, other torquaing performed was: cable pan, hanger, conduit. T.W. LKC #A608 j 1. No calibration report for 4-25-83. . l 2. NCR 932 references NCR 1013 - Disposition reads: Retorque all l work which was done using wrenches over 10% tolerance BY/BR/CEA's.
- 3. There is no LKC or PGC cal, reports to say that the wrenches were O out of cal.
- 4. ' Dest report for 8-10-83 shows the range for the wrench as being 10 to 150 in. Ibs. , but under the actual test results it shows the wrench being used at 7 ft.lbs only and tested at 7 f t.lbs only.
--r--,--,-gg . - , , - , - - - ---n,-- .m,---,,w,-,-,
. _ . .- .~ . .- - - . - - .- - - - . - -
, Paga 10 of 27 I
'. l T.W. LKC #A835 n
u 1. out of cal. 4-6-83 but acceptable per BY/BR/CEA no cal. reports from 4-6-83 to 7-2-84. 4 ,
- 2. ,Out of cal. 7-2-84 but no trace of an ICR being written.
T.W. IKC #835
- 1. Apparently we have two wrenches with the same control 9, same range, but different manufacturers. This wrench say taken out
, of service in September 1979 but has a cal. report in folder for 8-13-84. 4 T.W. IRC #833
- 1. Sent to vendor (out of cal.) for repair 3-19-82 and ICR written.
Naturned to site and service with no vendor findings or certs.
- 2. GIR written for out of cal. 6-22-83, there is no cal. report
- showing wrench out of cal. ICR and NCR's written also.
i. l 3. Out of cal. 7-8-83 no ICR written. 1 ! 4. NCR 1177 and ICR 2673 reference foreman time sheets as a basis for I rework. For cable pan torquaing rework there is only a drawing number and no specific pan number. There, are as many as 4000 pans on one drawing. T.W. IKC #832
- 1. Out of cal. 12-11-80, no ICR written.
- 2. Out of cal. 2-9-81, ICR 528 written but no action is taken on j MW8.
- 3. Out of cal. on 3-9-81 and 3-24 no report of ICR or rework.
l 4. ICR 693 for exceeding cal. due date, ICR 693 doesn't mention rework.
- 5. Disposition for out of cal. period 2-9-81 (ICR 528) was written 4-1-82 four months after the ICR was closed out.
l N[PNN
,--..-..-_-,c-. -------.---.-----.-c . . _ . - - . . - - -__
Page 11 of 27
; . T.W. LKC #840 ,
- 1. Out of cal. 3-24-83, GIR written referencing NCR 1013 for rework, the disposition of NCR 1013 states to retorque all work that used wrenches over 10% tolerance BY/BR/CEA. No mention of our 4.9.1 4% tolerance rework.
~ T.W. LKC #A872 i
- 1. Out of cal. 3-24-83, GIR was written referencing NCR 1013 and NCR 932 BY/BR/CZA. N'o write up for being out of 4% tolerance (4.9.1)
- 2. Out of cal. by PGC 8-29-84 6-29-84 no ICR or anything written up.
4 T.W. LKC #A884 i
- 1. Out of cal. 4-5-83, ICR 2406 written, ICR doesn't state what calibrated torque wrench, was used to do rework or if QC witnessed this rework.
- 2. No mis' sing tool report for 8-15-83 in package.
i
~
T.W. LKC #A885 i
- 1. Out of cal. 3-31-83 GIR references BY/BR/CEA, no mention of 4
checking rework per our 4.9.1.
- 2. Out of cal. by PGC 7-28-83, no ICR written up.
i
- 3. Cal. reports missing from folder during August of 1984.
T.W. LKC #A886
- 1. Form #8 has initial cal. data as 8-20-82 but there isn't a report
- in folder.
1 1
- 2. 3-30-82 out of cal. no report written up.
t
- 3. Out of cal. on report 4-2-82, no ICR written, no standard on report.
4. Noform no report #45, of not toolonbeing takenControl Inventory out of service Log (Formor#76) destroy
. or stoleMnN 'S 4
j
Pag) 12 of 27 T.W. LKC #A887
- 1. Sa:ne as on T.W. LKC #A886.
T.W. LKC #A888
- 1. Same as on T.W. LKC #A886.
T.W. IKC #A889
- 1. Same as on T.W. LKC #A886.
T.'. W LKC #A896
- 1. Out of cal. 3-19-83, GIR reference BY/BR/CEA, no mention of rework per IKC 4.9.1.
- 2. Cal. reports missing from April to June.
T.W. IKC #A919 i
- 1. Out of cal. 3-23-83 by PGC, GIR written referencing BY/BR/3A and NCR's 932 and 1013, no mention of rework for 4.9.1 44 tolerance.
- 2. No cal. reports from 11-9-83 to 1-10-84.
- 3. Out of cal.1-17-84 no ICR written, nothing written.
l l ' T.W. LKC #A922 l f 1. No cal. reports after 7-30-84. l T.W. IEC #A963
- 1. Out of cal.1-17-84, no report written up. MNN l 2. Wrench is being issued while on open NCR 2695.
Paga 13 of 2 7 l l T.W. LKC #A973
- 1. Out of cal. by PGC on 3-23-83, GIR written referencing BY/BR/CEA I NCR 932 and NCR 1013, but no mention of rework per 4.9.1.
l T.W. IKC #A974
- 1. Reports for cal. on 11-23-83 show over writes on readings and no accept or zejeet checked off.
I
- 2. Same for report 11-30-83.
- 3. Out of cal. 6-14-84, no report written up.
I ! T.W. IKC #A983
- 1. ICR 5547 written 6-5-84 for out of cal., there is no reject report in folder for that report. ,
- 2. T.W. is being used in field and still on open NCR 3006.
T.W. TJCC #A984
- 1. Out of cal. 3-29-83, GIR written referencing BY/BR/CEA (NCR 932 and NCR 1013), no ICR written as per 4.9.1, no rework mentioned.
i 2. No cal. reports from April 1983 to March 1984.
- 3. No cal. reports in folder after 8-1-84.
T.W. IKC #A985
- 1. out of cal. 3-28-83, GIR written referencing BY /BR/CEA (NCR 932 and NCR 1013), no ICR written as per 4.9.1, no rework mentioned.
- 2. No cal. reports from April 1983 to July 1983.
- 3. Out of cal.1-11-84, no report (ICR) written, no rework.
- 4. No cal. reports between January 1984 and June 1984.
5000EM i .
.. - , , - - - . - - - - ---- - - . - . . . - - - - - _ _ - - - , - - - - . . . - - - - - - - - - . - . . - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pege 14 of 27 (T.W. LKC #A985 - Cont.)
'O
() 5. Form #77 references out of cal. 8-2-84 but there isn' t a report in j the folder.
- 6. No cal. reports af ter 8-1-84.
T.W. LKC #A1161
- 1. Out of cal. 6-18-84, no ICR written, no rework.
T.W. LKC #A1167 4 1. Seems to be OK. 1 T.W. LKC #A1362
- l. No cal. reports from May 1984 to August 1984.
T.W. LKC #A1364 . 1. Cal frequency is weekly but there are no. reports after 7-30-84 I in folder. T.W. IJtC #A1365
- 1. No missing tool report for tool missing 3-28-84.
l T.W. LKC #A1366 j 1. Cal. frequency is weekly, no cal. reports from June 1st to July 7,1984.
- 2. Out of cal. 7-13-84, no ICR written, nothing, forn 77 states out of cal. , ICR written but I can't find anything.
S90005S7 i l I _ __ .
. Page 15 of 27 T.W. LKC #A1641
- 1. No accept reject checked off on report, wrong form used on cal.
i 2. Out of cal. 6-12-84 with no ICR or anything written.
- 3. Torque wrench in the field even though it is on an open ICR 5663 j and NCR 2695.
- 4. No cal. reports from PGC after 7-30-84.
T.t.. IKC #9202 i
- 1. Out of cal. 2-24-81, ICR 532 written no rework mentioned.
- 2. T.W. exceeded cal. 6-15-81, T.W. recalibrated no rework mentioned.
- 3. BY/3R/CEA referenced for out of cal. report 3-31-83, no ICR written for be,ing over +44. Therefore, no rework was performed.
- 4. No cal. reports from April 1983 to October 1983.
- 5. Out of cal. 12-19-83 ICR 3931 written, but there is no "Recommanded corrective Action." Apparently rework was performed because there are time sheets attached to ICR.
+ i a l i i s00005'38
Pcg2 16 of 27 l 1 T.W. #3 - Purch. Date - N/A T.W. #4 - Purch. Date - N/A T.W. #66 - Out of Service 5-15-79 ICR 366 T.W. #68 - Purch. Date & Referenos - N/A . T.W. #170 - Purch. Date & Reference - N/A T.W. #172 - Gone/ Stolen T.W. #184 - Purch. Date & Reference on 98 T.W. #186 - Reference ICR 5663 and NCR 2695 (still opened) addressing OT condition. No check list from 6-12-84 to 7-20-84.
- From 10-23-80 to 3-6-81 and from 3-17-81 to 6-22-81 dates missing on #8.
T.W. #532 - No date on #8 T.W. #580 T.W. #581 '> Sent for repair 9-18-81 , No further record. , T.W. #582 T.W. #606 - No dates on #8 - Missing tool T.W. M07 - No dates on #8 - Missing tool T.W. M09 - No dates on 98 - Tool stolen BY/3R/CEA T.W. M10 - No dates on #4 - Tool stolen . 1 T.W. Mll - No dates on #8 - Missing BY/3R/MA t T.W. M12 - kwved from Service - No reason I i T.W. M13 - Asmoved from Service - No reason T.W. M14 - Lost in 1979 T.W. #731 - stolen #2858 ICR T.W. #732 - Missing ICR 1045 GIR 12-29-82 T.W. 4826 - Missing ICR 2465 T.W. #827 - GIR 11-17-82, 2-26-82 BY/3R/CEA T.W. #828 - ICR 2582 - Missing from vault ICR 2431 - Missing fro:a vault S0000563 l T.W. #830 - BY/BR/MA on Gir 4-5-83 per DA Erown i I I
Pcge 17 of 27
. T.W. #831 - BY/BR/CEA on GIR 4-5-83 per DA Brown Cal. of 8-3-84 out of cal. BY/BR applied T.W. #A838 - Sent for repair 8-3 No other record T.W. #A839 - GIR - BY/BR T.W. #A885 - BY/BR BY/BR Reference on PTL sheet T.W. #A886 - Rej. on 4-2 No record of what happened No ICR or NCR in folder or logs k'. W. #A887 - Rej. cal. No record of what happened to wrench 4-2-82 .
T.W. #A888 - As above (BY/BR) Ref, on PTL cal. sheet T.W. #A889 - As above T.W. #A899 - BY/BR T.W. #A900 - BY/BR (PTL Record) Repaired Rej. 5-18 No paper T.W. #A905 - BY/BR also Ref. on PTL Cal. records - No record 3-19-83 to 7-2-84. T.W. #A906 - BY/BR (Ref. PTL Cal. 5tecord) 4-2-82 T.W. #A907 - BY/BR (Ref. on PTL Cal Record 4-2-82) i T.W. #A920 - BY/BR 4-5-03 Corcoran Memo T.W. #A927 - BY/BR Corcoran Memo 4-5-83 T.W. #A928 - BY/BR Corcoran Memo 4-5-83 , j T.W. #A972 - BY/BR Corcoran Me:no 4-5-83 i i O saca
Page 18 of 27 PCRTABLE ROD OVENS (PRO) A130
- 1. No calibration report for 5-21-82.
- 2. No cal. due date for the standard used on report 12-10-82.
- 3. Cal. due dates for standard don't match the standard cal. due date given on the oven cal. record.
PORThBLE ROD OVENS (PRO) A131
- 1. No ICR written for out of ' cal. on 8-5-82.
- 2. No cal. reports for 8-11-82.
- 3. No cal. due date for standard used during cal. on report 11-12-82.
- 4. Out of cal. per CECO audit 12-10-82 ICR 1980 was written but no rework of old rods are mentioned on signed off ICR 1980, no new cal. report for recalibration.
- 5. Out of cal. 12-20-82 ICR 2023 writte'n, no recheck or rework of old rods was mentioned on ICR 2023, just that the oven was repaired O or recal., also there was no cal. report to back this up.
PORTABLE ROD OVENS (PRO) A132 1 4
- 1. Initial cal. of 9-5-84 oven shows 7-2-80; but there are no reports
- in folder u til 1-14-83.
- 2. ICR 1362 written for overdne cal. but no recheck or rework of old l rods was mantioned.
- 3. Wrong calibration due dates being used on rod oven inspection reports for standard being used.
1 I j PORThBLE ROD OVENS (PRO) A133 ) 1. Initial cal. per form #8 date 7-1-80 but no reports of cal. are in folder until 11-12-82. i 2. wrong cal. due dates being used on rod oven inspection reports for standard being used. S4009571 9
Page 19 of 2 7 . PORTABE ROD OVEN (PRO) A134
- 1. Initial cal. date per form #8 is 7-1-80, but no reports of cal.
are in folder until 12-3-82.
- 2. Wrong cal. due dates being used on rod oven form 23 & 23A for standard being used.
PORTABLE ROD OVEN (PRO) A135
- 1. Initial cal, date was 7-1-80 according to Forms 78 & 8, but no reports are in folder until 12-3-82.
- 2. Wrong cal. due data given for standard used on all reports.
PORTABLE ROD OVEN (PRO) A137
- 1. GIR 12-10-82 and ICR 1975 state rod ' oven out of cal. per 4.9.1, oven was recal. but no sention of recheck or rework of rods is O mentioned, also no recal. report was in the folder per ICR 1975.
- 2. Wrong cal. due date given for standards used on all reports.
- 3. Missing cal. reports.
O S00Co m
,, Page 20 of 27 TORQUE WRENCH A185
'O Reject - 7-17 ICR 764 out of cal. , no rework 3-22 NCR 932 Torque tester out of cal. NCR 1013 wrench A185 out of cal. 8-17 Tool reported missing ICR 2858
*Should there be a missing tool report in the folder? Not in
- folder.
TORQUE WRENCH A391 Reject - records for 6-22-01 do not indicate accept / reject (Form #23) 3-19 wrench was found out of cal., no documentation except a GIR per J. Seeders - Re: BY/BR/CEA 7-3 ICR 1177 written out of cal., no documentation of reject on test, sheets durint that time period cal. TORQUE WRENCH A392 sent to manufacturer 4-19-81, no documetnation (Don' t know why it was sent) 11-30-82 ICR 1909 reported missing 7-16-82. TORQUE WREN G A393 L Review ICR 1137 dated 3-12 tool reported missing but wasn't. ICR 1302 6-21 out of cal. - needle stuck to be sent to manufacturer (No evidence that researded items won rejected) Rejected 6-18-84 by PGC written up on NCR 2695 (6-23-84) and ICR 5663 (4-6-84) both still open. No research 'of effected items BY/BY/CEA TORQUE WREN G A394 Rejacted - 2-22-82 ICR 1169 written 3-16-82 out of cal., a memo dated 3-19-82 indicates no re-verification is necessary. 6-18-84 wrend was fond out of cal. NCR 2695 (6-23-84) and ICR 5663 (6-6-84) both still open. S00000t3
Pcg3 21 of 27 TORQUE WRENCH A395 Re jected - 6-18-84 PGC NCR 2695 (6-23-84) and ICR 5663 (6-6-84) both still open. TORQUE WRENCH A535 There's a service order from snap-on for repair dated 4-10-81. Our mucords indicate the tool as being received new 7-10-81. Control card indicates tool removed from service and states hold tag applied. Is there an NCR7 Also, meno dated 8-6-82 needs explaining. TORQUE WRENQi A536 some meno as ref s above - pertaining to a CECO surveillance 7-16-82 Attachment B. Cal. control card indicates 9-7-83 removed from service hold tag applied "NCR7" TORQUE WREPOf A612 Per cal. control card wrench was stored in warehouse 9-18-79. Removed from service 9-29-80. ICR 533 2-27-81 couldn' t be cal. I checked,ICR - no follow-up was indicated on original ICR but the control card indicates the tool was stored in the warehouse. TORQUE WRENCH A896 Found out of cal. 3-19 unable to adjust. Nemo was written 4-5-83 NCR 932 'Dester out of cal. NCR 1013 - Rework of t,orque wrenches No evidence rework was performed 6-21 out of tol. ICR #5785 written 6-25-84 This torque wrench is missing cal. records 4-23-84 up to 6-14-84 and i 6-28-84 thru this datel Records show ICR 4852 was originated 4-23-84 for broken head bolt "out of cal" there is no cal. record in folder indicating wrench as a rejecti S00005T4
Page 22 of27 1
. TORQUE WRENCH A897 Rejected 7-13-83 ICR 2700 Note: Could not review this ICR because Irv has it.
Rejected 7-28=83 No evidence of ICR or NCR. Rejected 6-6-84 Out of tol. ICR 5663 (6-6-84) and NCR 2695 hejected 7-25-84 Out of cal. NCR 3006 (7-25-84) Asjected 8-7-84 Out of tol. ICR 6356 (8-8-84) It appears this torque wrench was sent off site 8-9-83 and 6-21-84 for cal. to angle repair service - no documentation other than cert. of
. cal. froar company.
TORQtE WRENG A898 T.W. cal. records missing 3-7-83 thru 6-2-83. NCR 932 written 3-18-83 tester out of cal. All wrencites were to be re-tested - no doceer.tation. NCR 1013 (The novel) 3-29-83. They ref s BY/BR/CEA ICR 2304 (3-2-83) out of cal. no documentation. TORQtE WRENCH A901 Missing T.W. cal. record "3-7-83 thru 6-27-84" - 3-7-83 meno was writtan stating retainer pin
- missing no rework was needed.
No Documentation! No mejeets? TORQUE WRENCH A902 l i j 3-19-83 T.W. out of cal. - unable to adjust NCR 1013 wrenches and NCR 932 tester. ! Rejected 7-3-84 by PGC - out of tol. No ICR or NCR Rejected 8-22-84 out of tol - No documentation at this time. i S00005';'5 l l l l~--- - , . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
'* Pege 23 of 27
- TORQUE WRENCH A903
+
Rejected 10-13-82 Memo written 10-13-82 "only" out of cal. according to memo. Tool and equipment sign out log to not issued to field since last cal. date. Rejected 3-23-Ei3 NCR 932 tester BY/BR/CEA Tol. NCR 1013 wrenches TORQUE WRENCH A904(Start) . Rejact 3-28-83 out of cal. - meno dated 4-5-84 NCR 1013 -wrenches out of cal. NCR 932 -tester i (BY/BR/CEA) Reject 7-9-84 no documentation - It's referenced on Control Card ICR but j I can' t find one . Cal readings appear to be missing. TORQUE WRENCH A917 i O Rejected 11-3-82 ICR 1849 1his indicates tool wasn't used on NSR ! material no action necessary. Rejected 6-14-84 Raf t ICR 5663 Tester out NCR 2695 Wren des out
- REF: BY/BR/CEA .
Rejected 7-13-84 out of tol - no documentation. l TORQUE WRENG A918 i l No findings l TORQUE WRENCH A1367 Hoject 6-14-84 ICR 5663 Out of cal. tester i NCR 2695 meject 7-18 No documentation O i S0000576
cavn 4 . u., TCRQUE WRENCH A1368 Rejected 6-6-84 ICR 5663 6-6-84 Out of cal. NCR 2695 6-23-84 TORQUE WRENCH A1369 No rejeetable findings. TORQUE WRENCH A1370 No unacceptable items found. TORQUE WRENCH A1371 No findings. - TORQUE WRENCH A1642 No rejects. TORQUE WRENQt A1643 No rejects. , TORQUE WRENCH A1644 Rejected 7-6-84 ICR 5994 Out of a.al. TORQUE WRENCH A1645 Card indicates ICR 6-6-84 out of cal. need ICR TORQUE WRENCH A1646 No rejects. S00005W
. Pc9e 25 of27 TORQUE WRENCH A1658
'O V No rejects. IORQUE WRENCH A9701 ICR 2858 Missing tool 8-15-83. TORQUE WRENOI A9702 Memo written 10-14-80 by M. Kast to J. Hii - wrench out of cal. - no ICR-only the meno. Out of cal. 3-19-83 unable to adjust GIR - Ref NCR 932 - for tester NCR 1013 - for wrenches REF: BY/BR/CEA Rejected 6-18-84 by PGC - No documentation. TORQUE WRENCH #'10080 Rejected 9-22-80 ICR 479 - Out of cal. Hejected 2-20-81 ICR 529 - No research as to past installations. Out of cal. Dejected 5-27 No documentation - out of , cal. TORQUE WRENCH #10081 Mejected 2-15 per ICR 1170 out of cal. GIR states research was performed per procedure, no rework /re-torquing is necessary, should be reviewed. Rejected 5-27 No doctamentation "ICR" Coss needs to accept / reject box 6-22-83. Rejeeted 6-18-84 NCR 2695 - Mef: BY/BR/CEA TORQUE WRENCH A1685 O No rejects.
.SM(D
Pagn26 of 27
, TORQUE WRENCH A1686 No rejects.
TORQUE WRENCH A1687 Rejected 6-18 No documentation (ICR) out of cal. TORQUE WRENCH A1688 No rejects.
. TORQUE WRENCH A1689 No rejects.
TORQUE WRENQI 9430 Owck ICR #533 for information - no cal reading. 2-27 date of ICR. GIR dated 5-25 indicating ratchet feature was not working so item - was removed from servios no ICR. e O soocs'Z?J
.e Pcg2 27 of27
^
. STA ROD OVEN A509
'o . No rejections indicated per the records. STA ROD OVEN #783 Per audit QA-20-82-39 GIR was written 8-27-82/no ICR or NCR. 30 lbs welding rod destroyed. STA ROD OVEN #784 , GIR dated 10-7-83 indicates thermometer T-2 to be out of cal - no ICR or NCR written. STA ROD OVEN #3401 Reported stolen / missing 5-14-82. ICR 1232 (5-14-82) was written. STk ROD OVEN 03087 O Per QA-20-82-39 audit - oven was removed from service. STA 200 OVEN #4018 No rejections indicated per the records. O S00ce560
3*Ylen 090 SX # '-l ms
. ( ;, J ~~ Comstock Engineering, Inc.
t v
)
Memorandum To: Whom It May Concern Office: Braidwood From. I. F. DeWald
Subject:
Review of J. Seeders Ietter Dated 8-17-84 Date: 9-25-84 Control No. 84-09-25-13 An indepth review of the concerns Mr. Seeders expressed in his letter to I. F. DeWald dated 8-17-84 has been conducted, as documente d. Please review the attached documentation. Respe ctfully, _ 10ced - I. F. DeWald Quality control Manager IFD/snm O Attachmen ts cca F. Rolan T. Trumble R. Marino T. Paserba D. Shamblin R. Schultz Braidwood NRC Inspec. M. Wallace i T. Quaka , QC File I i l l 6 o 54 00002012 55
'* Page 1 of 11 i
(s . . . .- .. . _ ! J. SEEDERS LETTER OF ACCUSATIONS AND CONCERNS On Monday, August 30, 1984 at approximately 8:30 a.m. I was approached by Mr. J. Seeders at which time he handed me a letter i drafted by him (J. Seeders) . - i After reading and digesting the contents of his letter (J. Seeders) , a meeting was held with F. Rolan, L.K.C. Project l Manager; L. Seese, Comstock Engineering, Inc. , Assistant Quality Control Managers R. Seltmann, Quality Assurance Engineer Comstock
- Engineering; and Mr. R. Saklak, QC Supervisor Comstock Engineering,
! Inc. During the meeting Mr. L. Tapella, CECO PCD, came into Mr. Rolan's I office and was given a copy of Mr. Seeders' letter at which time a copy was given to all parties involved and a report was asked for in response to the letter. A copy was telecopied to Mr. R. Marino, Corporate Manager QA/QC Services Comstock Engineering Inc. Telephone conversations were held with myself, I. DeWald, i Mr. T. Trumble Comstock Engineering Inc. and Mr. R. Marino Corporate a Manager QA/QC Services Comstock Engineering Inc. discussing the legal j aspects of Mr. John Seeders' letter and it's inpast. A meeting was also. held with myself (I. NWald), Mr. M. Wallace GCO PCD, Mr. D. Shamblin CECO PCD, and Mr. J. Gieseker CECO PCD discussing the allegations and concerns expressed in Mr. John Seeders' j d letter dated 17 August 1984. Further investigations concerning Mr. J. Seeders' letter was performed as follows. ! Mr. John Seeders was called to my office on 8/21/84 and the items of concern and allegations were discussed to obtain a possible ] 7 root cause for the issuance of the subject letter. Mr. Seeders was
- asked about the 30 inspectors leaving the job site since the estab-l j lishment of the $12.00 per hour minimum wage level for Inval II
{ inspectors of which he had no real substantiating evidence that this l happened, although the fact is that 6 inspectors had left the job site. ! (M. Hellner - 4/19/84, T. Issh - 4/19/84, D. Crispino - 4/19/84, l
- N. Conner - 4/23/84, J. Nolker - 5/24/84, and S. Wallace - 6/25/84) .
The allegation that inspectors were being brought on the job site for a higher salary than $12.00 per hour is correct, although on April 16, 1984 when the $12.00 per hour minimum was established, the salary structure was presented by Mr. R. Marino Corporate Manager QA/QC Services, Comstock Engineering Inc. and the fact was put to the entire QC group that in order to obtain a high quality individual there may be cases where an individual is hired in at a higher salary rate, and that they will be required to obtain the certifications equal to their salary range before their salary will be increased thru certs. Mr. Seeders was one of the first individuals to get the automatic 500 pay raise by getting an additional certification. O . 00002013
. - . -. . ._ . . - ~ - . .. . - . __
J. sesders I.etter of Accusations and concerns - Cont. Pega 2 of 11 l, ) Mr. seeders' statement of copies of letters written to prospective employees being found in the zerox machine is only partially true as I one (1) letter was left in the xerox machine by the Quality Control j Departments Secretary, the individual was S. Wallace and was offered j $14.00 per hour. Inunediate action was taken and the secretary was replaced and relieved of her secretary duties by a newly hired 4 individual. The statement being under constant pressure to train personnel i to get up to their starting salaries is untrue in that the new personnel I have to be trained and the presently qualified inspectors would have to j l do the training to get the first initial certification so that individ- ; uals can perform the intended function of inspection of which they were 1 l hired to do. Level II inspector accomplishing training is also an ANSI N45.2.6 requirement for a level II certified individual to be
- able to perform. Herefore, his statement is unjustifiable.
. The statement to the affect of disciplinary action being taken +
if the training tras not performed is an untrue statement as once again no one was ever given or threatened disciplinary action if they did ! not conduct training for the newly hired individuals it was explained j that a requirement of a level II inspector is to be able to train other inspectors / individuals. i I The statement "For'at least the last six months, we have been
,) subject to endless harrassment and intimidation by Coastocks'
- management to justify the incespetence and disregard for all company l inspectors," is also untrue. If Mr. seeders is speaking for himself, this may be the fact as he has been inspecting the calibration area l of which there has been numerous audit findings in his area of responsibility. There is presently a review being conducted of the i calibration records of which was initiated by a CECO Audit report l QA-20-84-528, finding #2 Item #3. This review is presently revealing i numerous errors in the calibration records area. The review that is l presently underway in the calibration records area that Mr. seeders -
was assigned originally to perform in order to respond to the audit l finding was not adequately accomplished, of which, when confronted j by Mr. seltmann and Mr. Saklak on 8/16/84 caused all parties to ! become irritated due to Mr. seeders' attitude at the time. Mr. seeders was never told to falsify any documentation at any time. His willing-ness to do anything management requires is a slightly soiled statement as he at times is very reluctant to receive instruction or direction pertaining to his performance of which he gets very offensive. His statement Fortaining to inspectors certifications lapsing due to Coastock's negligence is another untrue statement, in that Cosmonwealth Edison had invoked an inspector certification up grade on 7/16/84 for all site contractors to comply with. He certifica-tion procedure and requirements were being revised therefore j certifications were halted due to the new requirements that were i 3 imposed. I i 00002014 1 I
. . J. Se:dera Lottor of Accusttions and Concerns - Cont. i . The statement Mr. Seeders made "Being the only person certified in calibration and receiving," was again untrue as there were at least two (2) other inspectors certified in those areas. Mr. Saklak's direction to him pertaining to "he would have people do my leg work and make out checklist and that I was to sign the paperwork" is again a false statement due to the fact another certifiad inspector was to be assigned that task. Mr. Seeders' accusation appears to be misimplied and turned around to the point of his interpretation of his supervisors direction in a defensive way, this was not mentioned by Mr. Seeders' letter of 8/17/84. At times when direct questions were asked Mr. Seeders would imply our discussion is over as we're not communicating. Mr. Seeders was asked who the six witnesses were that were indicated in his letter he named them'as the following: Ms. J. Lobue, L. Phillips, D. Coss, D. Holley, R. Snyder, W. Puckett, R. Wicks, and M. Sproull. Specific and general questions were asked during each interview, also a general discussion was included. The following are the remarks and questions addressed to each individual that Mr. Seeders had indicated were present during the Friday, August 17, 1984 incident. Richard Snyder Question: You were present during the incident on Friday, August 17, 1984 and know of the letter Mr. Seeders has issued, can you provide any information? Response: I worked with John Seeders the prior Saturday on the review of his calibration records. When the heated discussion between Mr. Saklak and Mr. Seeders pertaining to the status of the review started both individuals became very offensive to each other. I got up and left the room. Mr. Seeders also became defensive with Mr. Seltmann on a previous occasion. As an outsider just coming into a new environment, Mr. Seeders was instrumental in instigating possible unrest, the incident appeared to be a shouting match.
-Question : Do you feel there is harrassment and intimidation being exercised here in the QC Department?
Response No, I really don' t consider R. Seltmann inquiring about the audit response as harrassment or intimidation on Monday, August 13, as John Seeders became offensive to Mr. Seltmann. Question: What do you feel is'the root cause of the morale problem?
. Response A lot of people complain about money and training.
l f- 2d -ff O 00002015
Paga 4 of 11 J. Seeders Letter of Accusations and Concerns - Cont.
) Question: Have you ever heard Mr. Saklak barrass or intimidate
\j anyone?
Responses No, not since I've been here. A summary of the review with Richard Snyder is, to him there is a possible personal dislike for each other between Mr. Saklak and Mr. Seeders, and that Mr. Seeders at times instigates unrest with his fellow workers. Being a new hired employee and working with Mr. Seeders a short while it is felt that this person has an unbias opinion of both individuals and his judgment of the situation is very honest and forward. / / ff '? Og s f-24-Py Interview with W.O. Puckett concerning Mr. Seeders' letter and the incident that transpired on the morning of August 17, 1984. Question: Can you describe the incident that had taken place on August 17, 1984 between Mr. Seeders and Mr. Saklak? Response: On Friday morning, I went back to get a cup of coffee and started a conversation with John Seeders, Saklak told him from the other end of the room he didn't have time to hold a conversation you've got work to do. Mr. Seeders replied "I've got my' work here in my hands." Mr. Saklak then took Mr. Seeders out of the room. I feel there is a personality clash between these two. Question: Do you feel there is harrassment and intimidation being practiced in the QC Department? Response: 'the things I've heard, the morale is low due to no one going to be certified. I personally don't see that Mr. Saklak is harrassing or intimidating the people as l I haven't witnessed any such actions. He-is just doing his job. J Question : What do you feel .is the root cause of the morale problem? Response: Based on onversations' of the on going meetings that
. every time top management comes on site promises are made and not kept, salary differences are the main topics.
! A summary of the review of Mr. Puckett is, he is saated in the l room where Mr. Seeders is seated and has the opportunity to observe the ccaversations and various people throughout the course of the day. And after completing the discussions concerning Mr. Saklak and Mr. Seeders, the interviewer feels that through Mr. Pucketts opinion a very heavy dislike and personality clash exists between these two I individuals. Mr. Puckett is a new employee and would also have an unbias opinion of both individ2als. b s 5 s,oa /6 A/0 "' 6 "
- ~ un m had 9 - a & #d'f 00002016
Page 5 of 11 J. Seaders 14tter of Accusations and Concarns - Cont. Interview with L. Phillips concerning Mr. Seeders letter as Mr. Phillips e is Mr. Seeders Imad Inspector. Question: During the lead meeting just prior to your going on vacation you stated to Mr. Saklak you were having problems in handling Mr. Seeders? Response s At the time my grandfather had just passed away and my l mind was full of various thoughts and I feel my statements r were misconstrued, all I wanted to happen was Mr. Saklak to explain to Mr. Seeders just what he wanted done on the review not that he was unable to get Mr. Seeders to do his work. Question: What do you feel of Mr. Seeders' performance as an inspector? Response: My opinion of Mr. Seede*:s is that he is an efficient
. inspector and performs his job in an efficient manner.
. He has good repore with his fellow inspectors and craft personnel. Question: Do you feel Mr. Saklak intimidates and harrasses people in the QC Department? Mr. Saklak's way of handling people could be construed,as
) Response:
harrassment and intimidation due to losing his temper, his mannerisms, and when expressing himself, I do feel there is a personality clash between the two individuals. Question: What do you feel is the root cause of the morale problem? Response: he inspectors do not trust each other, the pay situation, training requirements and so many people in training drops other inspection areas down, upper management promises on wages. Question: Have you ever had any problems with Mr. Seese? Response: No, no real problems, I don't have that much in the way
. of dealings with him.
In sumanarizing the interview with L. Phillips it is the opinion of the interviewer that previous information that had been discussed during a lead meeting was misinterpreted and understood that Mr. Phillips was unable to get Mr. Seeders to accomplish his assigned work, and Mr. Saklak was just taking the necessary action to get the required work done by Mr. Seeders not harrassing or intimidating him as he has accused Mr. Saklak of doing. We morale problem in Mr. Phillips opinion also as with the other individuals reviewed is s salary, training and upper management problems. Mr. Phillips has
) been employed by Comstock Engineering for several years and has an excellent knowledge of the site, and the problems.
7-A b- 24 00002017
Page 6 of 11 J. Ssedars Letter of Accusstions and Concerns - Cont. Interview with D. coss concerning Mr. Seeders letter and Friday, August 17, 1984. Question: On Friday, August 17, 1984 were you in the welding room and did you overhear the conversation that took place between Mr. Seeders and Mr. Saklak? Response: I was doing a hold tag inspection in the welding room and overheard the conversation. Mr. Puckett started a conversation with Mr. Seeders and Mr. Saklak yelled at John Seeders to the effect if he had so much work to do he shouldn't have time to talk. Mr. Seeders replied to Mr. Saklak to the effect I'm working. Mr. Saklak then took Mr. Seeders to the office. My opinion is Mr. Seeders did not do anything at this particular time to warrant this type of action. I also told Mr. Seese my personal observation was it sounded more like a personality clash, than business related. My opinion and personal observation was the whole situation was blown completely out of hand. Question: Do you feel there is a lot of intimidation or harrassment in the QC Department? Response: I have heard,a few instances but cannot give you any specifics. Question: What do you feel is the root cause of the morale problem? r. Response: On last salary adjustment older people are still lower than people being brought in now, this has irritated people as they have to train them. Also lead inspectors thinking they are lord and master by threatening to write up people, Mr. Klachko for example. Question: Have you ever been told to falsify documents? l Pasponse: No not at all personally if it has happened to someone ! else, I don' t know about it. l l Summary of Mr. Coss's interview leads to the assumption that there is a personality clash between Mr. Seeders and Mr. Saklak, and that thru Mr. Saklak's mannerisms, expressions and temperment that his direction could be misconstrued to various individuals. Although Mr. Coss did indicate there were a few instances of harrassment/ l intimidation that he has heard of could be judged as hearsay as he did not give specifics. His opinion of this particular incident as being handled the wrong way and personality clashes may be somewhat of a general concencous of the total QC inspector group. His remarks concerning salary, management is the same comments that were expressed by the other individuals interviewed. O Dm " G p-qV9'l 00002018 l
Page 7 of 11 J. Sesders Lettor of Accusations and Concarns - Cont. Interview with M. Soroull concerning the incident of Friday, August 17, 1984 and Mr. Seeders letter pertaining to the incident. Question: Were you present for the discussion that took place in the welding room on Friday, August 177 Response: I was not present or involved in the discussion that took place in the welding room. Question: What is the calibration record like? Response: I'm not sure I just started them, I was asked to take over the calibration area by Mr. Saklak the day Mr. Phillips went on vacation. MRR's were also in question and I didn' t feel I was able to jump right in without a refresher training session. I was asked by L. Seese if I was afraid of the job (calibrations) and I told him no, I just didn' t want to take over cold without a refresher training session in the area. Question: Did Mr. Saklak talk to you about doing the leg work on MRR's for Mr. Seeders and what was meant by it? Respons e: he leg work was discussed then the decision was changed to do calibratiops. Question: Do you feel there has been intimidation or harrassment in the QC Department? Respons e Mr. Saklak appears to blow up and become overbearing. Personally myself no - but it has been done to other people, D. Schirmer and Norm Kimble. Question: What do you feel is the root cause of the morale problem? Response: he 500 certification is a can of worms, old people are still trying to get this certs and now a mass exodus to train, new people being paid for carts not yet obtained, lead inspectors need to communicate with their super-visors and inspection people, mass confusion due to l procedure changes. Management, QA division needs to give appropriate answers. l A summary of the interview is that again the general concencous of the individuals is salary, communication and some confusion. M. Sproul1 brought out the fact that salary is the main area of unrest for the QC Department personnel due to the 500 cert and training. It is felt that the harrassment and intimidation is an ' opinionated judgement of Mr. Saklak's mannerisms, expressions and tesperment. There are two individuals indicated by M. Sproull that was felt to be intimidated or harrassed by Mr. Saklak of which will % also be reviewed. The overview of this interviewer has the same %
) opinion that each individual has the same general opinion. w l
N 00002019
l Paga 8 of 11 J. Sesders Letter of Accusations and Concarns - Cont. The interview with R. Wicks concerning Mr. John Seeders letter dated August 17, 1984 and the incident in the Quality control spaces on the subject morning. Ques tion : What do you remember of the happenings on the Friday morning of August 17, 1984 concerning the exchange of conversation between Mr. J. Seeders and Mr. R. Saklak? Response: On Friday morning I was talking to Mr. Saklak and he turned around and went down to Mr. Seeders and started a conversa-tion, then arguing started and Mr. Seeders was taken to the offim. - Question: Do you feel that intimidation or harrassment has been going on? Response Mr. Saklak gets carried away depending on how the conver-sation goes. Through his actions and words he could possibly intimidate people. He has mentioned to me things that could have been taken as intimidation, this was pertaining to the wage level change when I did not want to be a lead inspector any longer. Question : Do you feel Mr. Seeders is doing his assigned job? Responses My perscnal opinion is that he is doing his job coupled with training, receiving, calibration and all the paperwork, plus;the Audit response. Question What do you feel is the root cause of the morale problem? Response: The salary, people being hired for more money than people presently on the job. The training program it is hard to get trained. Procedure changes due to constant revisions. Things seem to be in a turmoil with training and trying to get the work done. Re-certifications not being processed as they should. Upper management visits gets people stirred up and irritated through meeting sessions. The interview with Mr. Wicks was felt to be straight forward to his feelings and opinions of the areas discussed concerning Mr. Seeders. There did not appear to be any indication of a negative attitude towards Mr. Saklak although his opinion that his size and the way he expresses himself at times could be taken the wrong way. In the incident Mr. Wicks mentioned concerning his opting to be removed from the lead QC inspector position was during April 1984 when the new salary level for QC inspectors (Level II) was established and Mr. Wicks felt that his salary was not brought up high enough to warrant his maintaining the lead QC inspector position he was holding at the time. His decline was accepted and he was assigned to de ~ field inspection personnel.
] .
00002320
Page 9 of 11
. J. Saaders Letter of Accusations and Concarns - Cont.
~
J. Iobue interview concerning Mr. Seeders letter dated 17 August 1984 h to the accusations made concerning Mr. R. Saklak. Question: Do you feel Mr. Saklak intimidates personnel in the Quality Control Department? Response Mr. Saklak once told me not to write up ICR's on hangers that had not been weld inspected when a configuration inspection was being performed and after arguing with him the situation was resolved. Although his attitude gives one the impression he has a chip on his shoulder, and he isn't certified in all areas he supervises. I've heard a lot of inspectors talk back to Mr. Saklak and get away with it. here appears to be a personality conflict between J. Seeders and Mr. Saklak. He is bad for morale, his mouth is the main problem. Be incident with Mr. Seeders was handled wrong the way Mr. Saklak handled the problem.- Question: What do you feel is the root cause of the morale problem? Response: The middle group of $12.00 per hour inspectors are still behind the people being hired in for more money. If the older inspectors were brought up in wages the morale problem would.go away. Need more supervision of the inspectors waiting for certification. In summary of the interview, J. Lobue has been enployed with the i, [ QC Department since 1981 at which time she came up through the steps from Level I then to I4 vel II. On April 1984 at the time of the new salary change for Level II inspectors was established she received a considerable raise in salary. J. Iobue's inspection performance is
$[J outstanding as to correctness and being thorough, although Mr. Saklak 0
is disliked very puch by this individual. Throughout the discussion y *f the subject of Fr. Saklak being the QC Supervisor and not totally y certified in every discipline was addressed, reiterating the fact 9 i J ,)g Mr. Saklak is the Supervisor seems to indicate that when he hi k performs his managerial duties it is labled as intimidation and harrassment to personnel under his direction. Mr. :Saklak is presently training in various areas to get certified in all areas of inspection. l D. Schirmer was casually interviewed as to the statement l M. Sproull had made concerning Mr. Saklak's harrassing D. Schirmer. Brough the discussion the subject was indirectly brought up and Mr. Saklak has had various disagreements but in no way was it construed , as harrassment or intimidation. - Norm Kimble was interviewed as to the remarks made by M. Sproull. . Mr. Kimble was asked if he at anytime had ever felt harrassed or intimidated by Mr. Saklak. His reply was no, not that I can remember, although he may have made me mad on occasions. As to Mr. Seeders'
} letter he indicated he wasn't around at the time and really didn't
[$ know just what went on. 1 ( 00002021 1 - . .. 1
'. J. Senders Lettar of Accusations and Concerns - Cont.
- I In reviewing L. Seese's, R. Seltmann,s and R. Saklak's requested
- responses and various other personnel of the Quality control Department the following are the interviewers resolutions to Mr. Seeders allega-tions and accusations against management and the individuals indicated in his letter. The entire issue has stenuned from previous assignment given to Mr. Seeders for completion of which he blatently failed to ,
do and when contacted as to his progress of the assignment did not l have a response, and when management redirection was given he instantly became defensive for his lack of attention to the assignment, therefore, becoming disrespective and blaming other individuals being the cause of the problem in the area of which he is responsible. The harrassment, intimidation and blackmail accusations are Mr. Seeders' version of retaliation because he has been given a warning due to his attitude problem toward management when given direction. Mr. Seeders has on various occasions become arrogant with this interviewer because he was being questioned as to why he initiated various documents the way he did and how the documents should be initiated. Mr. Seeders has stated in his letter several times he acconqplishes all of his tasks to the
- best of his ability and strives to do quality work. Erough the present on-~yoing review of the calibration recos;ds as mentioned previously in this report, the review has disclosed numerous instances i where Mr. Seeders has made Quality errors in his documentation. These nimmerous documentation errors consist of:
A. No Inspection Correction Reports written for out of
; calibration tools.
]
- B. Reference BY, BR, CEA Disposition.
W C. No missing tool reports. D. Missing calibration reports. E. General Inspection Reports written instead of Inspection Correction Reports for out of calibration conditions. F. Inspection Correction Reports written no rework indicated. G. Missing vendor calibration reports. H. No QC verification for reworked items. I I. Calibration due dates written in standards block. ! J. No rework or check made for out of cal. ovens. he above just indicates a few cases of which Mr. Seeders is involved. Through the review one is lead in the direction that would question
; Mr. Seeders' letter in its entirety and that when given direction by management it is taken as harrassment and intimidation due to poor l
- performance of his assignments.
1 t I .
, 00002022
Page 11 of 11 J. S:sders Iett2r of Accusations and Concerns - Cont.
As to the last paragraph of which Mr. Seeders feels formal charges should be brought against the individuals involved in the August 17, 1984 incident it.is the decision that the individuals were acting in the management capacity and no formal charges or reprimands are in order to resolve Mr. Seeders letter, and that the letter Mr. Seeders has issued is to conbat the written warning he was given for his poor cooperative attitude prior to the warning.
Mr. Seeders was removed from the overtime for one week, this was to servo as a cooling off period.
'!herefore, it is the opinion of this reviewer the J. Seeders issue has been thoroughly reviewed for all so called accusations and allegations.
MM - I. F. DeWald Quality Contro1 Manager IFD/ sam Attachments =, cca R. Marino CEI , T. Trumble GI R. Schultz NRC [ j T. Quaka CECO V D. Shamblin GCO M. Wallace CECO { i l o 1 O 54 00002023 55
Y K hpfo h, #V O. SENDER FOLO ON h
~ '
Alpho Business Forms - Delmont, PA 15626 neonos n ,"oOu oN2oa a L K. COMSTCCK & COMPANY, INC. h ""[n[Nr (t.
, READ (/ REPLY ,.-
. .a EM*19 L k le CS Y E tf h e. V b Y T0 DATE J~M?45 SUBJECT p ##-
L _J On 3 38-15 ef 4ffaMmak/ Mf@,Ps? /k 4/44 ] med Jy .u i
&a/md ne io #e sia/e ofen ayr'Asmekus ARA y ou nsde me sopi.ged aff /yag :A, ins leu ( vos wovA/ Je f oed " j6e so dose. ysu ad pef it 6 jour bed, wrepsa 70 eawd ed omss' SIGNED j f*Z )
a-- o 4
/r 3 -A.9 -b}
& 3'l$' W ;
i a : Jfl l SIGNED DATE ' RECEIVER: WRITE REPLY, DETACH STUB, KEEP PINK COPY, RETURN WHITE COPY TO SENDER. O 52'00001582
. . . . _ _ - _ _ - - _}}