ML20205M041
| ML20205M041 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 04/10/1986 |
| From: | Phillips L BESTCO, INC., COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205M039 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8604150004 | |
| Download: ML20205M041 (119) | |
Text
ORIGINAL
~~eb p
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O
, go 3
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOAR 10 P1 :50 4
hkf..La.
5
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x gg',
6 In the matter of:
Docket Nos. 50-456 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 13 Braceville, Illinois 60407 14 Wednesday, January 29, 1986 15 16 Deposition of:
LARRY PHILLIPS 17 called for examination by Counsel for Licensee, Commonwealth 18 Edison, pursuant to notice, taken before Garrett J. Walsh, a 19 Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of Virginia, wh2n 20 21 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
22 1625 I Street, N.W.
293-3950 Washington, D.C.
h O
nraspar g g _cs T
t
2 1
were present on behalf of the respective parties:
(
2 3
APPEARANCES:
4 For the Licensee Commonwealth Edison Company 5
ELENA Z. KEZELIS, ESQ.
6 Isham, Lincoln & Beale 7
Three First National Plaza 8
Chicago, Illinois 60602 9
10 For the Intervenors BPI, et al.:
11 ROBERT GUILD, ESQ.
12 109 North
Dearborn,
Suite 1300 13 Chicago, Illinois 60602 14 15 Also Present:
16 G. Gieseker 17 18 19 20 21 22 O
3 1
CONTENTS O2 3
Witness:
Examination by:
Page:
4 4
LARRY PHILLIPS Ms. Kezelis
'4, 92 5
Mr. Guild 69 6
7 8
EXHIBTS Page:
9 Exhibit No. 1:
f 10 Subpoena directed to Mr. Phillips which 7
11 reflects that it was served on 11/24/85.
T 12 13 Exhibit No. 2:
43 14 Bate stamp document No. 00002030 and 2031.
I 15 16 Exhibit No. 3:
49 1
17 Comstock memo, Bates stamp number 00002012 18 through 2023.
20 Exhibit No. 4:
54 21 Document dated 8/1/85, QC Inspector Harassment 22 Contention.
O
4 1
PROCEEDINGS
()
2 (1:56 p.m.]
3 Whereupon, 4
LARRY PHILLIPS, 5
was called as a witness, and having first been duly sworn, 6
testified as follows:
7 EXAMINATION 8
BY MS. KEZELIS:
9 Q
Will you state your name please, and spell your last 10 name, for the record?
11 A
Larry Phillips, P-h-i-1-1-i-p-s.
12 Q
What is your residence address?
f-13 A
3375 Thomas Hickey, and that is in Joliet, Illinois.
l 14 Q
Thank you.
Mr. Phillips, my name is Elena Kazelis, 15 and I am one of the attorneys representing Commonwealth Edison 16 Company in the Braidwood Licensing Proceeding.
17 Have you ever given a deposition before, sir?
18 A
No, ma'am.
19 Q
All right.
In the event that you either don't hear 20 my question or if you don't understand it, please tell me so 21 and I will either repeat it or try to rephrase it so that you 22 will understand it.
O
- - - - ~ ~ - ~ '
5 1
Additionally, I will ask you to answer all my 2
questions in such a fashion that the court reporter can hear 3
what you are saying.
For example, I request that you don't 4
use nods or shakes of the head in response to a question, 5
because the court reporter can't take those down, okay?
6 A
Okay.
7 Q
All right.
By whom are you currently employed, sir?
8 A
BESTCO.
9 Q
And when were you employed by BESTCO?
10 A
I believe it came in July.
11 Q
July of 1985?
12 A
Yes, ma'am.
13 Q
Okay.
And prior to that time you were employed by 14 15 A
L. K. Comstock.
16 Q
Okay.
And when did your employment with 17 L. K. Comstock at Braidwood begin?
18 A
It first began in early '79 before the plant shut 19 down.
i 20 Q
Okay.
And where did you go after the plant shut 21 down?
22 A
I worked by McGraw-Edison as a purchasing agent.
O
6 1
Q And when did you return to the Braidwood site as a 2
Comstock employee?
i 3
A I believe it was September 13th, 1981.
4 Q
When you returned to the site in 1981 as a Comstock 1
5 employee, in what capacity were you employed?
6 A
Quality control inspector.
7 Q
Were you a Level I or a Level II?
8 A
I believe it was Level II at that time.
9 Q
Do you recall what areas you were certified in in 10 19817 11 A
I believe the first area I was certified in was in l
12 receiving, storage and handling, and I also had configuration i
13 certs.
14 Q
Okay.
And receiving, storage and handling, is that 15 what is also known as material receipts?
16 A
Yes, ma'am.
17 Q
Do you recall when you received the configuration 18 certification?
l 19 A
I would guess October of '81 some time; October or 20 November.
{
21 Q
And since 1981, have you obtained any additional i
22 certifications in any areas?
I O
7 1
A No, ma'am.
()
2 Q
Are both of the certifications that you just 3
mentioned to us active?
You are still certified in both of 4
those areas?
5 A
No, ma'am, just the receiving area.
6 Q
When did your certification in configurations lapse?
7 A
I believe it was October of
'83.
8 Q
Let me now show you, Mr. Phillips, what has been 9
marked for identification as Phillips Deposition Exhibit 10 No. 1, and for the record I will state that that is a copy of 11 a subpoena directed to you in the Braidwood Licensing 12 Proceeding, and it reflects that you were served with a copy O
13 of the subpoena on November 24, 1985.
T 14
[ Deposition Exhibit No. 1 was 15 marked for identification.)
16 Do you recall receiving a copy of the subpoena?
17 A
Yeah, it was on a Sunday.
18
[ Laughter.]
19 Q
Okay.
Did you also receive the attachment to that 20 subpoena, which is the third page, indicating a schedule of l
21 documents which we requested that you produce at your 22 deposition?
O
8 i
1 A
Yes, ma'am.
()
2 Q
Okay.
Do you have such documents in your 3
possession?
4 A
No, nothing personal, j
l 5
Q Have you at any time received any documents from 6
other parties that would be responsive to that list?
7 A
Not to keep in my possession.
Well, wait a minute.
8 I think John Seeders gave me a copy of something he i
9 typed at one time, and at that time I didn't feel it was 10 anything really, you know, that was important, since he had so l
11 many copies out.
I 12 Q
Was that an August 17, two or three page letter that was single spaced?
O 13 14 A
Yeah, because it was right after I came back from 4
15 vacation.
He hit me with it right away.
I didn't even know 4
16 what was going on.
17 Q
Have you ever spoken by telephone to a man by the 1
1 18 name of Bob Guild from BPI?
I 19 A
That doesn't ring a bell, no.
20 Q
Okay.
How about a man by the name of Doug Cassel 21 from BPI?
22 A
No, ma'am.
I
()
1
9 1
Q Have you ever received a telephone call from any
)
2 representative of BPI?
3 A
Not to my knowledge, no.
i 4
Q okay.
Do you recall receiving any documents'that 5
might be responsive to that schedule attached to your subpoena 6
from anyone other than Mr. Seeders?
7 A
I never received anything.
I saw a memo that Rich 8
Snyder had written about some incident he had with Rick 9
Saklak, but I don't believe I ever got a copy of it.
I can 10 remember seeing it.
11 Q
okay.
Do you recall whether there was a Read and i
12 Reply memo on Comstock letterhead?
13 A
It was like a speedy memo-type thing.
}
14 Q
okay.
Let me show you what has been previously 15 marked for identification Snyder Deposition Exhibit No. 5, and l
16 Mr. Phillips, is that the speedy memo that you referred to?
I J
17 A
It sure looks like it.
18 Q
okay.
Let me direct your attention to the very 1
]
19 bottom of that page, and there is a name, ' Larry,' which has a 20 line through it.
21 Is that your signature, sir?
22 A
It doesn't look like it, no.
I don't make my
'L's' O
l 10 1
with as big loop like that.
(
2 Q
Okay.
So that is not your ' Larry?'
3 A
I don't think so.
There are a whole bunch of 4
Larry's up here.
i 5
Q Do you recall ever signing a document such as this j
6 that was signed by Mr. Richard Snyder in connection with the I
7 Saklak-Snyder incident?
8 A
No.
Again, this happened like after I left.
I left i
9 about 4:30, and he said it happened about twenty to.
10 Q
Okay.
When did Mr. Snyder show this to you, if you 11 remember?
12 A
I believe it was a day or so afterwards.
13 Q
Okay.
Now this happened March 28, 1985, if you will 14 accept my statement that it was a Thursday, and March 29th was 15 a Friday.
1 16 A
I believe that was around the time he showed it to 17 me.
18 Q
Okay.
Are you aware of the fact that a number of 19 Comstock QC inspectors visited the NRC resident on March 29, 20 19857 21 A
I know that there were about twenty-five people went 22 over there, and the date I am not sure about, but I do know i O
.i
11 1
there was a whole bunch that went over there.
()
2 Q
Were you one of the people?
3 A
No, not on that occasion, ma'am.
4 Q
All right.
You just said not on that date.
Have l
5 you had occasion to visit the NRC resident inspector on some i
6 other occasion?
7 A
Yes.
Dates escape me right now, but there was about
)
8 six or seven of us that had scae concerns as to how things 9
were being handled at Comstock, and we went and saw Mr. Bob 10 Schultz.
I i
11 Q
Okay.
And he was the resident NRC inspector for 12 Braidwood?
i 13 A
Yes, ma'am.
)
14 Q
Do you recall what year that took place?
15 A
I believe it was early '85 if I am not mistaken.
16 Q
Okay.
Do you recall what Comstock QC inspectors 17 went with you?
18 A
There was Bruce Brown. There was Don Coss, myself, 19
-- now I am getting fuzzy as to the others.
There were a 20 couple of other guys there, and I really can't remember.
I 21 know Mr. Schultz took the meeting down on a tape.
I believe 22 he had us indentify ourselves as we were talking to him.
!O
4 1
12 4
1 Q
Okay.
What was the purpose of your visit to
(
2 Mr. Schultz in early 1985?
1 3
A There were various concerns.
My main concern was j
4 that at the time it seemed like Comstock was more concerned 1
5 with numbers, getting the numbers down and I always was under l
6 the impression that Quality Control didn't have anything to do i
~
7 with quantity, but quality.
And this was one of my major i
8 concerns, and there were other concerns expressed and I can't 9
really right off the top of my head tell you.
i 10 Q
Is that the only time that you spoke to the NRC l
j 11 about that concern?
j 12 A
Anything official. You would see Bob on site, and i
13 you would say: Hi; or things like that.
I can't remember ever i
14 going back over there and talking to him.
I 15 Q
Did he ever talk to you again about it?
l l
16 A
I don't believe so.
i 17 Q
Okay.
Was there a specific incident that caused you 4
]
18 to feel that you ought to talk to Mr. Schultz about L. K.
C.,
.t 19 and it's concern with numbers?
l
{
20 A
No.
It was just a thing that had been building up l
]
21 over the time, and finally, like I said, -- it was six or l
22 seven of us I think that went over, and I felt that I would go i
i 8
llO
-*-,-wv,,v------
y-,.
e---
-w--+w-,,w,
_. em_,
.. e ~ s o m e,-,- w ww
-wm
13 1
over and at least express my concern.
2 And that is basically it.
3 Q
And do you recall specifically what you said to 4
Mr. Schultz at that time?
5 A
Just said that -- about the numbers, you know, -- it 6
didn't seem right to me.
Somewhere along the line the quality 7
was going to suffer if they kept just wanting numbers, 8
numbers, numbers, and I can't remember if I mentioned anything 9
else or not.
10 Q
Did you have any reason to believe at that time that 11 quality had, in fact, suffered?
12 A
I don't know if I believed it at that time, but I believe if it kept going at that pace, wanting numbers to gat 13 14 them down to satisfy their client, that it was going to affect 15 the quality.
16 Q
Okay.
And what led you to believe that comstock 17 was concerned with numbers?
18 A
Well, they would come out and tell you that there 19 were this many ICRs to close, and this many inspections to do, 20 and they wanted you to do so many configurations a day, and 21 weld inspections and things like that.
22 You know, it was something that they didn't keep in O
14 l
1 the dark.
They would let you know about it, you know.
- Hey,
()
2 we need to get these numbers down.
3 Q
Who specifically of Comstock management told you the 4
ICRs and configuration numbers you just referred to?
5 A
I believe it was Mr. Saklak.
It was one of the big I
6 men as far as let's get these things down, bla, bla, bla.
7 You know, he was big on that.
I don't know if he 8
was trying to make a name for himself or what.
9 Q
So, to the best of your recollection, this occurred 10 before Mr. Saklak left the site?
11 A
Yes, ma'am.
12 Q
Did Mr. Saklak ever give you, Mr. Phillips, a
)
O3 minimum number of inspections which you had to perform?
1 j
14 A
No.
In my area, in the receipt end, I could only do 15 what comes in on site, and then I do a number of housekeeping l
16 surveillances and so on that I do, but that is by procedure.
17 So, he never really pressured me.
18 Q
Okay.
Did anybody in Comstock ever pressure you l
19 personally?
1 20 A
No.
21 Q
On what do you base your statement that Mr. Saklak 22 was pressuring people to --
! O
I 15 i
1 A
Just the way he -- his physical appearance.
If you 2
ever met the man, he is quite imposing, and his demeanor is 3
the type that if you get a young kid or somebody inexperienced l
he could, just by not even saying anything, just by his mere 4
i 5
presence could intimidate him, and he would harp on things 6
that you have to get this done, you have to get that done, so j
7 this is what I am basing it on really.
a 8
You know, you could hear him telling people they 9
have so much to get done, and let's get it done, and let's get j
10 on to something else.
l 11 Q
Mr. Saklak was pretty well known, wasn't he, for his 12 size and his temperament?
i j
13 A
Ch, yeah; he definitely was.
14 Q
Do you have any reason to believe that anything you
)
15 had heard Mr. Saklak say to any other constoch QC inspector constituted a quota, or a minimum number of inspections that 16 i
17 had to be performed by that particular inspector?
i.
18 A
Not we were just listening to him tell somebody j
19 that.
It was basically just a kind of a general type thing s
i 20 that he would get on people.
I 21 He wouldn't say:
Joe Smith, you got this many to i
22 do. But when we would have a meeting, a general meeting which i
4 1
L
I 16 1
we used to have all the time, he would say:
Well, this area j
()
2 is down, and this area is up.
3 You had an idea of who he was referring to, but 4
sometimes wouldn't mention names.
l t
5 Q
When you say you had an idea of who he was referring 6
to, is that just because of general knowledge of that person's 7
production, or is it because of Mr. Saklak saying:
You, Joe 8
Blow, you have to do ten today?
9 A
No.
I can't remember at least that he would use 10 specific names, but just the way he -- you knew who was on 11 his list, and you knew who wasn't on his list, let's put it 12 that way.
13 If he didn't like you, he would keep on you.
14 Q
Do you believe at any time his statements in these 15 group meetings constituted something that was more than just 16 Mr. Saklak in his position as a supervisor telling people that 17 there was out there that had to be done?
18 A
Could you rephrase that?
19 Q
Let me try that again.
That was a little long for 20 me, too.
Let me break it up into smaller pieces.
21 A
Okay.
22 Q
You adaid that Mr. Saklak would be at weekly O
17 1
meetings that were held, is that correct?
(
2 A
Yes.
3 Q
And that during the course of those meetings 4
Mr. Saklak would say that certain areas were up, and certain 5
areas were down, there were a number of ICRs outstanding, or 6
number of quality inspections needed to be performed, is that 7
correct so far?
i 8
A Yeah, so far.
9 Q
And is this the same type of weekly meeting that 10 Mr. DeWald organized, or Mr. DeWald held, or were there 11 meetings in addition to these?
l 12 A
Well, most of them were in conjunction with, and a i
13 lot of times Saklak would preside over these meetings.
When 14 Irv would hold a meeting, he would be more low key about it, 4
15 and you know he would try to get his point across in a lot 16 different way.
)
I 17 Q
Their styles were different?
18 A
Oh, definitely.
There was no comparison.
j 19 Q
Okay.
Let me try this question again.
Did anyhing i
20 that you heard in any of these meetings with Mr. Saklak about i
21 outstanding work that needed to be done by the QC inspectors 4
22 lead you to believe that Mr. Saklak was imposing quotas on any 1
! O
18 1
individual?
2 A
I don't know about individuals, but the one thing 3
that really sticks out in my mind in one of his meetings, and 4
he was referring to -- what kind of figures I have no idea, 5
but the term that came out of that meeting, and I will never 6
forget it, was that he looked at us, and he said:
If you jack 7
with my figures, I am going to jack with you.
8 And that, I think, is a word for word quote.
So, at 9
that time, you got so used to his mouth that you didn't really 10 think a heck of a lot about it until time went on, you know.
11 But I can remember that.
12 Q
Okay.
Do you recall what you thought at that time 13 his figures meant went he said it?
14 A
I figured it was inspections that had to be done, 15 that is what I understood it to be, but what areas I have no 16 idea of what he was really raving about on that.
I don't know 17 if somebody had made a mistake compiling figures for him, or 18 if somebody indeed had messed with his figures, but that
{
19 statement sticks out in my mind.
20 Like I say, I won't forget that.
21 Q
Okay.
And when he said: I am going to jack with 22 you; what did that mean to you?
O
19 1
A That means that Saklak had what he called the Pearl 2
Harbor file, and if he found out who was making the mistakes, 3
they went on his list, and he was -- he didn't hide the fact 4
that he had one, you know.
That is what he called his Pearl 5
Harbor file, and he had it in a file drawer next to his desk, i
6 and what was in it I don't know, but the way he talked it was 7
on inspectors who made mistakes, or even supervisors, or Irv l
8 DeWald as far as I know.
\\
9 Q
You personally heard Mr. Saklak refer to a file of 10 his known called the Pearl Harbor file?
11 A
Right.
4 j
12 Q
Do you recall when you heard him make that i
(
13 statement?
1 14 A
On many occasions. Like I say, he didn't hide the 4
1 15 fact.
16 Q
Did he give you any indication of what he had in 17 that file?
i 18 A
No.
He just said it was his Pearl Harbor file, and 19 he let it go at that.
I didn't question it.
i 20 Q
Let me ask you this:
What do the words, i
j 21
' harassment' and, ' intimidation' mean to you?
Can you take 22 them one at a time?
1
! O 4
l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _...~-.._.,-- _ __
20 4
1 A
Harassment to me is just constantly being on a guy, 2
trying to get him to do something whether it is right or 3
wrong, but just constantly on him, and after a while it 4
bothers some people.
5 Q
Nagging?
l 6
A Nagging.
Basically that.
And I think when you take
)
7 it one step further, you get to the intimidation of actually l
8 if you don't do it, we will ruin you, or the chances that you 9
will get run off the job, fired.
10 This deal here, this is definitely as far as I am 1
i 11 concerned intimidation when you threaten to beat a guy up, if l
12 beating is legal.
The actual physical presence is there.
13 At 6'4", and 250, the presence was there, you know.
14 People didn't want to fool with him.
1 15 Q
Do you have any reason to believe that Mr. Saklak 16 actually caused anybody to be terminated because they fooled
)
i 17 with him or jacked with him?
i 18 A
I can't say for sure yes or no.
f 19 Q
You have no personal knowledge?
20 A
I have no personal knowledge on that.
)
21 Q
No former QC inspector has ever told you that he was 1
22 fired because of Mr. Saklak?
21 1
A In my discussion with John Seeders, he may have 2
said something to that effect, but I can't really remember 3
right offhand.
4 If he did -- I know I talked with John.
John and I 5
are friends.
We are not real close friends, but we are 6
friends. It is no secret he and Saklak didn't like each other, 7
and he may have mentioned, well this is why I am downstairs 8
now, but I can't definitely say for sura.
9 Q
When you say:
This is why I am downstairs now, you 10 are talking about Mr. Soeders transfer?
11 A
Transfer down to the engineering section, yes, 12 ma'am.
13 Q
Mr. Phillips, let me now show you what has been 14 previously marked for identification as Seeders Deposition 15 Exhibit No. 13, and it was a letter dated August 17, 1984, 16 addressed to Mr. Irv DeWald, signed by Mr. John Seeders.
17 (Witness reads document.]
18 A
I believe this is the one John showed me when he 19 came -- when I came back from vacation.
20 Q
That is the one we talked about just briefly earlier 21 in your deposition, is that correct?
22 A
Is that the one when I said I came back from --
l l
l I
1 l
22 i
l 1
Q Yes.
)
2 A
Yeah, I think this is the one here.
3 Q
Do you recall whether or not you discussed with 4
Mr. Seeders his writing such a letter before you left for 5
vacation?
i 6
A Before I left for vacation?
7 Q
Yes.
8 A
No, ma'am, I don't remember that at all.
9 Q
And how long were you on vacation?
10 A
I believe it was a week.
11 Q
And the first you knew that Mr. Seeders had written 12 a letter was when he showed it to you, and you --
13 A
Yeah.
I just walked in the office, and he 14 said: Here.
15 He showed it to me more or less; gave me a couple of 16 minutes, but he showed me and he told me what happened.
17 Q
And do you recall what you said to him about that 18 letter once you had read it?
19 A
I think I told him that I thought it was accurate.
20 I believe that is what I said, but I am not, you know, really 21 sure about some of this stuff down here, because like I said, l
22 when I was gone, I don't know what went on.
O
23 4
1 Q
Let's be very careful about wh,at you point to, 1
()
2 because the court reporter can't take down --
3 A
I am sorry.
4 Q
That is quite all right.
j 5
A The paragraph --
1 6
Q Let's take it paragraph by paragraph, okay?
- Now, I
7 would you read the first paragraph to yourself, please?
8 (Witness reads document.]
9 A
The part about the twelve dollar raise is right on l
{
10 the button.
i 11 Q
okay.
12 And that was a change instituted across the board in 13 April or so of 1984?
14 A
Yes, some date around that.
It was Marino who had i
15 us in a meeting and told us all about it.
And then took us in 16 one at as time and told us what our salaries would be.
17 Q
okay.
Do, you recall if Mr. Marino tell you whether 18 that was a Comstock-wide change, or whether that was a change 19 solely for Braidwood?
20 A
I think he said it was a comstock-wide change if I i
21 am not mistaken.
1 22 Q
Let's continue on with that paragraph.
O I
l
l l
24 1
A You mean the first paragraph?
2 Q
Yes, we are still on the first paragraph, right.
3 How about the next sentence.
Do you know whether or not the l
4 Company began to hire inspectors at fourteen and sixteen 5
dollars per hour shortly after that salary structure change?
6 A
As far as hard, physical evidence, I don't have 7
that.
8 There is supposedly -- like it says in the letter, 9
there were copies left on the copying machine telling what 10 these guys were hiring in at, 11 Q
Did you see a copy of that letter, if you recall?
12 A
I can't recall seeing one, but that is not saying 13 that I didn't.
But I do know that was one of the big things 14 going around the office, is here we are making twelve-fifty an 15 hour1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br />, and guys off the street are at fourteen.
16 Q
okay.
Do you recall hearing about a man who was 17 down in Florida who was being offered a job to come up to 18 Braidwood for Comstock?
19 A
No, I don't remember that one.
I 20 Q
All right.
Do you know how many inspectors left 21 after the April 1984 salary change?
22 A
He says in his letter here approximately thirty lO l
l
~., _ _
25 1
inspectors, and I would say he is pretty close on that.
()
2 They had quite a few leave at that time.
3 Q
okay.
Do you know -- did you count how many left at 4
that time?
5 A
No, ma'am.
You just -- all of a sudden you see 6
these faces gone, and you take an approximate total, and I 7
would say he is pretty close as far as that is concerned.
8 Q
Okay.
How about the next sentence.
Some of these 9
people left for lesser salary because of managements attitude 10 toward the employees?
11 A
That I can't say for sure.
I don't know.
I didn't 12 talk to a lot of these guys when they left.
13 Q
And you don't the reason for their departures?
14 A
No.
I know -- well, I would say they were 15 disgruntled at what was going on here with comstock, but to 16 may, yeah, that is why, I couldn't do that.
17 Q
And the general disgruntlements so far as you 18 understood it to be at that time among comstock QC inspectors 19 was the salary increase is based on additional certifications 20 achieved?
Fifty cents per hour --
21 A
Per cert.
22 Q
Per cert, I am sorry.
And then the demands for O
26 1
cross-training among all the Comstock inspectors, those that 2
wanted the additional certifications, and those who were asked 3
to do the training, is that correct?
4 A
Yeah, there was a lot of people disgruntled about 5
having to train people and not be able to get training.
6 Q
To go out and get training to obtain an additional 7
certification in order to increase their salaries.
8 A
Right.
~
9 Q
Do you recall any other factors that led to 10 disgruntlement among constock employees?
11 A
I would say there was more involved.
The way we 12 were treated at one time was we were, you know, just dogs.
13 That is the way we felt, you know.
14 I am not saying just me.
It was the attitude 15 upstairs at that time was -- we weren't being treated well --
16 the morale was down.
It wasn't there, let's put it that way.
17 There was no morale.
18 Q
Now, did the union coming in have any impact on that 19 morale, or did the discussions about whether to go union or 20 not have any impact on morale?
21 A
It lifted the morale I think to the point where we 22 could see more money coming in to us as far as salary is O
27 1
concerned.
2 of course, when there is a big change like going 3
union from a non-union shop like we were, you lose things as 4
well as you gain, and I think right now the morale right now 5
is fairly good.
l 6
I mean, I don't care where you are at, you are going 7
to have people that are unhappy,and I think what a lot of the 8
people are unhappy about now is that some of the benefits that 9
we had are gone.
10 Q
Is that because of the union contract?
11 A
Yeah, when they came in.
They are treated now like 12 craft personnel, whereas before we weren't,and you lose things 13 like personal days and paid vacations, and things like this.
14 Q
So those policies have changed with respect to QC 15 inspectors since the union contract was voted in?
16 A
Yes, ma'am.
17 Q
Was there any disagreement among QC inspectors or 18 any animosity or hostility among inspectors as to whether or 19 not to unionizo?
20 A
There was, you know, some heated discussions. Some 21 guys thought it really was a bad idea, and you know, things 22 can get heated, but I mean as far as wanting to go out and O
n
28 1
punch a guy out, no.
I 2
It was just you know some heated discussions, pros 3
and cons of it.
4 Q
In your opinion did the discussions preceding the 5
vote to unionize sensitize any Comstock QC inspectors with 6
respect to management?
7 A
You mean in the word, ' sensitize,' draw them closer 8
to management?
9 Q
Draw more attention to management versus inspectors.
10 A
I don't believe so.
I don't think so.
I think it 11 stayed basically about the same.
12 Q
Okay.
Have things changed, in your opinion, since 13 the transfer of employment of the vast majority of you to 14 BESTCO?
15 A
Could you repeat that again?
16 Q
Okay.
Has morale, or has attitude been changed at I
17 all because of the transfer of employment of all the QC 18 inspectors from Comstock to BESTCO?
19 A
I think it has gone up a little bit, yeah.
You t
20 don't hear as many grumblings and moaning and groaning as you 21 used to.
22 Q
Okay.
Can you tell me what BESTCO does other than O
l l
E 29 1
issue your paychecks to you?
2 A
That is about all I know of.
Comstock still runs 3
the show upstairs as far as the supervisory people, and - -
4 Q
I am sorry, go ahead.
5 A
I have seen a change like in Irv DeWald.
He isn't 6
an outgoing person to begin with, okay?
That is Irv's way.
7 And Irv has never done nothing to me, but there are just guys 8
that don't like him, and I think basically it is because he 9
has this attitude or this thing about him that he is quiet and 10 he is sometimes sullen, but he never comes out and yells and 11 screams, so I have seen a change, you know, as far as people 12 talking to management or whatever.
13 Q
It is your opinion, perhaps, that management seems 14 to be be more approachable now?
15 A
I think so.
16 Q
Sort of between you and management?
17 A
Yeah.
I think they are a little more approachable.
18 I think with the union being in now, they know that they have 19 got unit that they have to deal with, so I think they have 20 made themselves more approachable, which is good.
21 It makes it a nicer atmosphere over there now than 22 it has been.
It is not perfect, but it is getting better.
O
30 1
Q You mean Comstock management?
2 A
Yes.
3 Q
Let me turn now to the last sentence of that first 4
paragraph on Seeders Deposition Exhibit No. 13.
Quote:
For 5
at least the last six months, we have been subject to endless 6
harassment and intimidation by Comstock's management to 7
justify the incompetence and disregard for all company 8
inspectors.
End quote.
9 Did you agree with that statement of Mr. Seeders in 10 August of 1984?
11 A
Probably at that time I did.
And I don't know --
12 looking back on it now maybe I wouldn't, but I think at that 13 time the morale was such at that place that it just seemed 14 like everything that they did was kind of a harassing type 15 thing to get things done.
16 John was probably more involved in that than I was, 17 and that was because he made himself more visible.
But 18 probably at that time and in the mood and frame of mind I was 19 in as far as -- you know, I had been out here so long, and it 20 just seemed like things were not getting better, that I 21 probably would have agreed to it.
22 Q
Okay.
Would you have agreed to the entirety of that O
31 1
statement?
Let me point your attention directly to it:
To 2
justify the incompetence -- and I personally can't figure out 3
whose incompetence.
4 A
I can't either.
I think he was referring to 5
Comstock's management.
I feel that John felt they were all 6
totally incompetent, and maybe I am reading something into it 7
that is not there, but I don't think they were incompetent.
I 8
think that they were a pawn for somebody higher.
9 Q
Okay.
Would it be fair to say that they had a lot 10 to do, and they had a lot that needed to be accomplished?
11 A
I would say they were probably getting some 12 pressures from Edison to get things done, and -- yeah, that 13
)
would be probably a fair statement.
~
14 Q
Do you feel at any time any Comstock management 15 pressured or harassed or intimidated you to sacrifice quality 16 for safety -- for quantity?
17 A
Myself?
18 Q
Yes, sir.
19 A
No.
20 Q
All right.
Are you aware of any situatio: that 21 would lead you to believe that any other Comstock QC inspector 22 was harassed, intimidated, or pressured in a manner intended O
32 1
to promote quantity over quality or safety?
w 2
A Not in those words, no.
3 Q
okay.
In any other words?
4 A
No, just the feeling that you had at that time.
You 5
go by a gut feeling after being in th business for a while and 6
seeing how things are run, that you get the idea that this is 7
what they were after, okay.
But you have nothing -- you know, 8
you can't say:
Well, here it is in black and white.
9 You can't do that.
They never would put it out in 10 words to say hey, we want the numbers, the heck with the 11 quantity (sic).
At least I can't ever remember them saying 12 that, and I tua* L picture them saying that.
13 MR. CUILD:
You meant to say, ' quality?'
14 THE WITNESS:
Yeah.
They never came right out and 15 said hey, it is numbers we want, the heck with the quality.
16 They have never said that, and I can't ever picture them ever 17 saying it, you know.
18 Like I say, it is a feeling that you get.
19 BY MS. KEZELIS:
20 Q
Can you attribute any particular statement or 21 incident that would lead you to have that feeling at that 22 time?
O
i 33 1
A No specific incident.
Just the-feeling that you got
)
2 that they kept up with the numbers routine.
You know, we have 3
this many things to get done in this much time, and it was 4
just a constant flow of -- this is what we have to do, this is 5
what we have to do, this is what we got to do.
6 You know, you start putting numbers into this i
7 system, and something is going to suffer, you know.
8 Q
In your opinion, did quality suffer?
9 A
In my opinion?
10 Q
Yes, ' sir.
i 11 A
No, I don't think it did.
Because you have got good 12 people over there working, and I don't think they would let it 13 affect them.
i 14 Q
Do you recall at any time any Comstock supervisor 15 attempting to pressure any inspector to violate Comstock 16 procedures or NRC regulations?
17 A
Not to my knowledge, no.
18 Q
Have you heard any rumors about any such pressure by 19 any Comstock supervisor to any inspector to violate Comstock 1
20 procedures or NRC regulations?
21 A
At one time I think there was a rumor going around, 22 and it escapes me right now as to what it was.
But it did
- O
34 1
have something to do with that, but I don't know who or what
()
- 2 or where it has been so darn long ago.
3 Q
Okay.
4 A
It was -- boy, I can't remember, I am sorry.
5 Q
Could it have been the Rick Snyder-Saklak incident?
6 A
It is possible.
It is really possible, but I can't 7
really say, because they were at each other for a while.
Not 8
so much Rick Snyder, but Saklak kept hounding Rick it seemed 9
like.
10 Q
And did you know any of the details, or do you 11 recall any of the details about that?
12 A
I can't recall them, no.
13 Q
Do you recall anything else about this rumor you 14 just mentioned to me?
t 15 A
No, I can't.
I just remember it was some sort of 16 rumor going around abqut getting the job done or something, 17 and the heck with pro edure.
Basically words to that effect, 18 but who, or what, or Where, it has been -- like I say, it has i
19 been quite a long timet.
20 Q
Was it an isolated incident?
21 A
I think it was.
I don't think it was QC-wide.
I 22 think it was jlast something that they wanted to get done, and 1
s
?
i O
1
]
I 35 1
it wasn't getting done or something.
I can't remember it
)
2 right off hand.
3 Q
Okay.
Now, in addition to Comstock management 4
discussion or presentation, particularly by Mr. Saklak of 4
5 numbers and of ourstanding inspections that needed to be 6
accomplished and what you have been talking to me about, are 7
you aware of anything else that would have constituted, in 8
your opinion, endless harassment and intimidation for the last l
9 six months?
10 A
I can't remember, no.
I don't know what John'is 11 talking about there.
My feeling on it would be maybe he is 12 talking about people being on his case for six months.
I 13 don't think it was everybody upstairs, because basically --
14 like I said, at that time I would probably agree with a lot of 15 stuff that John said in there.
When he showed this to me, it 16 was in the morning, and I just kind of scanned it really..
17 This is the first time I really sat down and read the darn 18 thing, because I threw it away I think.
i I
19 Q
Okay.
Before deciding to go paragraph-by-paragraph, 20 you pointed to a section in this letter that you didn't agree i
I 21 with or that you didn't know anything about.
Can you tell me 22 more specifically what you were referring to?
I O
M 1
36 1
A In the third paragraph there, he mentions my name.
2 My lead inspector, Larry Phillips, left August 8th on funeral 3
leave.
At that time Mr. R. M. Saklak -- he says:
And told 4
that I would complete and do the work in both areas, no matter 5
how I did it.
6 I have knowledge of that, because I wasn't here, and 7
for me to say yes, Saklak said that, I couldn't do that.
8 Q
Okay.
Anything else that you either don't know 9
about or don't recall in Mr.
Seeders letter?
I am going to 10 ask you to read it pretty carefully.
11 A
Okay.
In the second paragraph, John says:
On one i
12 occasion I was given a QA audit and was told that I had to
()
complete a total review of all my calibration records by a 13 14 certain date, no matter how I did it, or I would be subject to 15 disciplinary action.
16 I know at that time I was John's lead inspector, and 17 we did have a meeting -- a lead's meeting is what they called 18 it, where Saklak would get together with all of us, and I know
)
19 John was working on an audit like that and it seemed like it 20 was taking a long time.
21 Saklak had given me instructions to get him going on 22 it or just what was the problem with it.
1
' O
37 1
This was right after my grandfather died, and we had 2
this meeting and I told Saklak at that time that I wasn't 3
getting nowhere with John.
What I meant to say, and like I 4
say, the frame of mind I was in at that time, because my 5
grandfather and I, we were very close, what I meant to tell 6
him was I wasn't getting nowhere with John, and could he 7
maybe talk to him.
8 Q
Could Mr. Saklak talk to him?
~
9 A
Saklak talk to him, because -- I know how it came 10 out.
It came out me really being ticked at John, but I never 11 had any trouble with Seeders as far as working with the man, 12 okay, so I think Saklak took that as a wrong thing, and maybe
)
jumped on him a little bit about it, and maybe I should take a 13 14 little fault there because of the way I worded it, but we did 15 have a meeting sometime after that, and about -- about Irv --
16 about Saklak and Seeders, and the problem between the two with
)
i 17 Irv DeWald, and I think I did rephrase that with Irv at that 18 time, because like I said, at that time, you know, I wasn't in 19 a frame of mind to be hasseling with anybody.
20 Q
You were preoccupied with personal problems at that 21 time?
22 A
Yes, I was.
The man died on my birthday.
That is O
1 38 1
something you don't forget.
2 Q
Sorry to hear about that.
Okay.
In other words, it 3
was at your request that Mr. Saklak approached Mr. Seeders?
4 A
Yes, ma'am it was.
5 Q
And talked to him about the audit of calibration 6
documents?
7 A
Right, yes.
8 Q
Were you present when Mr. Saklak talked to 9
Mr. Seeders?
10 A
I don't believe I was, no.
11 Q
Did you talk to Mr. Seeders about that afterwards?
12 A
I told him that Saklak would be talking to him and 13 explaining exactly what he wanted, and I thought maybe I 14 wasn't explaining it right, who knows, so that is why I turned 15 it over to Sak.
16 Q
Did you feel that Mr. Seeders was taking an 17 unnecessarily long period of time to accomplish what he had 18 been assigned to do?
19 A
I don't believe so.
You know, from what I know 20 about calibrations, there is an awful lot of research that 21 John had to do, and going back, however far back he had to go, 22 you just don't get it done right now, you know.
O
39 i
1 I think -- you know, John had other duties as well
()
2 as this QA audit, so sure, it was going to take time.
He just l
3 couldn't drop -- his major job at that time was calibrating 4
tools.
5 Q
Who gave the instruction, or the asssignment to 6
Mr. Seeders to conduct the audit or calibration documents?
7 A
I believe it was Rick Saklak.
8 Q
And then since you were Mr. Seeders lead, 9
Mr. Seeders would speak to you periodically about the progress 10 he was making?
I 11 A
He would tell me I am having trouble here, this is 12 why it is taking so long, because Sak would not every day, but 13 every cc ele of days ask him what the heck is going on, and I 14 would go back to John and find out.
15 And I think Sak was getting to the point where he 16 was getting frustrated as to why it wasn't getting done.
17 Q
Did you have any irtvolvement in this audit yourself 18 or not?
19 A
I don't believe I did, no.
20 Q
You weren't certified in calibrations at the time 21 were you?
22 A
No.
O
40 1
Q Was there any Comstock procedure that required leads
()
2 to be certified in the areas they were supervising?
3 A
I think there is a procedure that says that.
Not 4
only the lead, but I believe it includes the supervisors as 5
well, which Mr. Saklak never was.
6 Q
Were you aware of that procedure in the Comstock 7
procedures when you were a lead for Mr. Seeders?
8 A
At the beginning, no.
9 Q
And how did you become aware of that?
10 A
Just from what people would say, or you would hear 11 about it, you know, and I did read a little bit about it, so I 12 don't exactly the date I was taken out of the lead position, 13 but it -- you know -- I was glad to get the headache over 14 with.
15 Q
Was it sometime after Mr. Seeders was transferred?
16 A
It was after John was transferred, yes, ma'am.
17 Q
Was it -- do you recall that Mr. Snyder and 18 Ms. Sproull worked on an audit in calibration documentation 19 masterial?
20 A
Yes, I was.
21 Q
Were you their lead during that time period, do you 22 recall?
O
41 i
1 A
I want to say yes, and I think maybe I was, and j
2 maybe it was just getting toward the end -- I don't know the l
3 extent of the audit, but I knew that Myra would say sometimes l
4 that things were screwed up in there, you know, and it was i
5 going to take a while to get it straightened up, because I 6
know she spent an awful lot of time on it.
)
7 Q
That was in the vault?
8 A
In the vault.
And anybody who knows Myra, knows she j
9 does as good, thorough job.
l 10 Q
Were you present at any confrontation between l
11 Mr. Seltmann and Mr.
Seeders?
i J
1 12 A
No, ma'am, I wasn't.
i
()
13 Q
So, you don't have any knowledge about anything j
14 Mr. Seeders may have said to Mr. Seltmann about record 15 reviews?
i 16 A
No, ma'am.
17 Q
Okay.
Do you have any personal knowledge of 18 Mr. Seeders being harasssed or intimidated as to the quantity 19 of his work, and never the quality of his work.
20 Well, let me ask you this:
Do you know what that 21 last sentence means?
i 22 A
I think what he is saying is that they wanted him to I
i O I
42 1
just get the job done, and the heck with the quality, and all 2
I have to go by is what John told me, and he did make 3
statements to that effect.
4 Q
Do you have any reason to believe that Mr. Seeders 5
sacrificed quality for quantity?
6 A
I don't believe so.
He always made the statement 7
that he was going to do the job to the best of his abilities.
8 Or words to that effect; that he said he wasn't going to just 9
run through something, you know.
10 And to my knowledge from all the times John was 11 audited, and people looked st his stuff, that CECO was happy 12 with it.
It seemed that way at -least, you know.
)
13 So, I just felt that t e man was doing his job.
14 Q
Okay.
Now was it the same paragraph that you were 15 pointing to that you said you didn't know anything about?
16 A
Yeah.
Like I said, when -- John is talking in the 17 paragraph that I was on funeral leave, and Saklak. confronted 18 him and told him that he was -- I am just going, not 19 word-for-word here -- that he was to complete his job and my 20 job, and he didn't care how he did it.
21 I don't know, you know, if that actually went on or 22 not.
j f'\\
V
__.,y_.
. _ _-_,- ~..-
,. _,,.. _ - ~,. -
43 1
1 Q
Fine, fine.
That is all I really wanted to know.
2 Do you know anything about the events on August 17, 1984, 3
Mr. Seeders discussion on page 2, of his August 17th letter 4
about being put on hold five times throughout the day?
5 A
No, I can't say for sure.
6 Q
You were on vaction at that time?
7 A
Yes, ma'am.
8 Q
Do you recall anything else Mr. Seeders said to you 9
in connection with this letter?
10 A
I know when I came back from vaction and he showed 11 this to me, he said, you know, ne got kind of animated as to 12 Saklak came running across the room when he was talking to
}
13 Worley Puckett, and started screaming at him anl stuff like
/
2 14 that, and you know, John did tell me that he was going to 15 write a letter I believe -- that he told me this before he 16 actually wrote it, and then he showed it to me.
I 17 Q
I would like to have Bates stamp document
~
i
]
18 No. 00002030, and 2031 marked as Phillips Deposition Exhibit 19 No.
2.
J 1
20
[ Document marked Phillips Deposition 21 Exhibit No.
2, for identification.]
22 Mr. Phillips, this is a document to Irv DeWald from 4
1
44 1
R. M. Saklak, and the subject is the J. Seeders-Letter
(
2 August 17, 1984, and it is signed by Saklak.
3 3
Now, I am going to ask you to read through this 4
again, and then I am going to ask you a few questions about 5
each paragraph in which your name appears.
You may not have j
6 seen this document before, but I am using it to refresh your 7
recollection of the events surrounding Mr. Seeders August 17th 8
letter.
9 A
Okay.
10 Q
Have you had an opportunity to review what has been 11 marked for identification as Phillips Deposition Exhibit 12 No. 27 13 A
Yes.
14 Q
I direct your attention to the first paragraph, 15 which is identified with the letter,
'S' in front of it, and I 16 believe that that,
'S' means, ' Statement,' and then the,
'R' 17 following it is the, ' Response.'
18 A
Yes.
19 Q
Okay.
Now, the first statement is:
Mr. Seeders 20 stated that during the absence of his lead, L. Phillips; I, i
21 (John) was the only person certified in calibrations and 22 receiving, i
- O t
45 i
i 1
And then immediately following the letter,
'R',
1
)
2
' Response,' it says, quote:
This statement is falso based on i
q the fact that Myra Sproull who also works in John's area, was 3
4 certified in calibrations and receipt inspections.
5 Do you recall whether some time after August of 1984 1
6 or shortly thereafter whether that was true or not?
7 A
I know Myra was certified in receipts, yes.
She had f
8 done calibrations, yes, ma'am, because she has her name on I
9 quite a few of them downstairs.
10 Q
Okay.
Now, the next time your name appears is in 11 the following
'R.'
And the allegation by Mr. Seeders was i
12 that he was told by Mr. Saklak to do the work in both areas, 13 no matter how Mr. Seeders would do it.
14 And the response is based on a discussion with you 1
15 at a lead meeting on August 7, 1984.
Do you recall a lead 16 meeting August 7, 1984?
i 17 A
Yeah, that is probably the meeting that I mentioned 18 previously that I told Sak about I was having trouble with 1
19 John getting this audit done, I b311 eve, and I probably did 20 mention that Myra could handle one of the two areas, because I know she was certified in receipts, and probably calibrations 21 22 as well.
l 1
4 j
46 1
Because she had done this before.
()
2 Q
She had done calibrations before?
t 3
A Oh, I believe so, yes, ma'am.
4 Q
Were you her lead when she did calibrations before?
i 5
A No, no ma'am.
I don't believe I was.
6 Q
And do you recall saying at that meeting that l
7 Mr. Seeders could handle cross-training Mr. Stout and 8
Mr. Gorman while doing receipt inspections during your I
9 absence?
l 10 A
I don't know if I said that he could handle the 11 cross-training of Mr. Stout and Mr. Gorman.
I may have, you i
i 12 know, but just bringing it out in my memory right now, I i
[
}
13 can't.
But I may have said that.
l 14 Q
Is there anything that would lead you to believe l
l 15 that that statement was wrong in August of 1984?
16 A
No, not really.
4 1
4 17 Q
Okay.
Does your name appear anywhere else?
18 A
Down here toward the bottom.
19 Q
Okay.
Do you know whether or not Myra Sproull was 20 offered or provided to Mr. Seeders as a replacement inspector i
21 for you?
i l
22 A
While I was gone, I couldn't say positive, but
.;O i
1
,--e,...-
,.,,---,---,,-w
,,,....ww,------m-,-+w.------ew.v-+-r---
ep----y-y-,
1 47 i
1 probably, yes.
()
2 Q
All right.
3 A
Myra was certified in many areas, and she was 4
probably one of the top inspectors we had because of her 5
certifications.
6 Q
Did you ever talk to Mr. Seeders about Ms. Sproull's 7
work?
8 A
I can't remember any more.
9 Q
Or her availability to do work while you were gone?
10 A
I may have mentioned it to him, but like I say, I 11 can't remember.
It is a couple of years ago.
12 Q
That is about all you remember?
13 A
Basically, yes.
14 Q
Do you remember anything else about Mr. Seeders i
15 letter, or the events surrounding that letter?
l 16 A
I am pretty sure at that time that he wasn't very i
4 17 happy about training those people, because I think John 18 wanted to get into some other areas too, and make money.
J 19 He was the type of individual who would never turn 20 down overtime.
He would work Saturdays and Sundays if you 21 would let him, you know.
Whether he had financial problems or j
22 not, I have no idea, or whether he just liked to make the l
O
?
48 I
1 money.
2 So I think that might be one of the things that he 1
l 3
was ticked off about was that he wasn't getting the training 4
himself, so he could get this extra fifty cents an hour for l
5 each cert.
6 Q
That was a kind of problem among the inspectors at i
7 that time?
8 A
There was a lot of it.
I know myself that after 9
that came about, I wanted to get an extra half a buck myself, 10 and John provided me with forty hours training in l
11 calibrations, but the book was sent over and turned down 12 because -- I believe it was my practical only consisted of me
[
13 doing torque wrenches and none of these other areas which I 14 had to go back and get some more training in.
15 Q
Did you go ahead and get that additional training?
l 16 A
I believe it is in the books downstairs that I have j
17 forty plus hours in calibrations.
In fact, I think I have 18 fifty-four hours of training in calibrations.
19 Q
But you have never been certified in calibrations,
\\
20 have you?
21 A
No, ma'am, I haven't.
l 22 Q
Is that by your own choice you never went back and l
1 l
i
49 l
1 attempted to obtain that additional training?
O
(,,/
2 A
I have talked to people about it as far as 3
management is concerned at that time, okay, and at that time 4
they had so many people bugging them I think it just fell l
5 through the floor.
6 So, I just made myself content in doing just what I i
7 am doing, because I like what I do.
8 Q
Did anybody ever refuse a request of yours?
]
9 A
No, I don't believe so.
1 10 Q
For certification?
11 A
Right.
I understand that.
12 Do you mind if I smoke a cigarette?
i 13 Q
No, that is all right.
I would like to have this 14 marked as Phillips Deposition Exhibit No.
3, for 15 identification, and it is a Comstock memorandum, Bates stamp 16 number 00002012, through 2023, and'for the record it is a 17 document which is identical to Snyder Deposition Exhibit 18 No.
4, for identification.
)
19
[Above referenced document is marked 20 Phillips Deposition Exhibit No.
3, 21 for identification.]
1 22 Mr. Phillips, let me direct your attention to page 5 O
50 1
of this eleven page document, Bates stamp No. 2017, and I
()
2 direct your attention to the bottom right hand corner of that 3
page.
Your name appears in written form, with the date 4
September 26, 1984, and let me ask you first if you recognize 5
that signature?
l 6
A That is my signature, yes, ma'am.
I 7
Q Do you recall signing that document?
8 A
I believe this was probably in Irv DeWald's office, i
4 9
at the date of 9/26.
10 Q
Okay.
Do you recall meeting with Mr. DeWald?
i j
11 A
Yes, ma'am.
J 12 Q
Regarding Mr. Seeders?
1 l
13 A
Yes, ma'am.
14 Q
On and around that date?
j 15 A
On and around that date, yes, ma'am.
1 16 Q
And would it be your practice or custom to sign a 17 summary of an interview such as this without having reviewed 18 it and without having felt at the time that you signed it, 4
19 that the statements there appearing above your signature were i
20 correct at that time?
i 21 A
I believe so, yeah.
22 Q
You would only have signed it if you felt everything O
i i
51 1
there was correct?
()
2 A
Right. Because Irv did bring us in and show it to us 3
and said if you have any corrections to make, let us know.
4 Q
okay.
And did you have any corrections to make?
5 or do you remember?
6 A
I don't believe so, no.
7 Q
Okay.
Let me direct your attention now to the 8
middle of the page or so, where what appears to be a response
~
9 is:
The inspectors do not trust each other, the pay 10 situation, training requirements and so many people in 11 training drops other inspection areas down, upper management 12 promises on wages.
I 13 Do you recall making that statement, or a statement 14 like that --
15 A
A statement to that effect, yeah.
16 Q
In response to a question about morale?
17 A
Yes.
18 Q
And what did you mean when you said that the 19 inspectors do not trust each other, if you remember?
20 A
Okay.
I think what I was talking about there is 21 that at that time there was a lot of people that felt for one i
22 reason or another, and I can't remember at this time, that you
' O 4
J 52
]
1 just couldn't trust some of the guys you were working with
!()
2 because you didn't know if they had ulterior motives, trying 3
to move into your job, or -- you know, if you made a mistake i
4 if someone was going to run and tell the bosses that you were 5
scrawing up or whatever, and there was no trust at that time.
I 6
Nobody trusted anybody.
Not just each other, but I
l i
4 7
they didn't trust management or nobody.
8 Q
Okay.
Did you feel at that time that you couldn't
~
9 trust your fellow inspectors?
10 A
Some of them I didn't really feel that I -- maybe it 11 was because I didn't know them, okay?
And names escape me at
)
12 that time, because there have been so many people come and go, 13 but there were probably people there at that time that I 14 didn't trust.
3 i
15 I don't know if it was because I was paranoid or if 1
j 16 it was just a spreading thing up there.
1 17 Q
Okay.
And the pay situation, training requirements,-
j 18 and so many people in training, that refers to the fifty cents 19 per additional certification per hour.
l 20 A
Right.
It was like dangling a carrot in front of t
21 somebody, and you start promising people fifty cents an hour, 22 which is a nice little pay hike, you know, if you can get it l
lO i
i 2
~-,._._m._,
._-~
%_,..,_.,-,,,._-,.___,..-,...,,_m,,,..,.,.__.,,,,,,,_..-,,,,_.,,,.,,,.,..,--m,----m__...-,
53 1
every -- I think the requirement is like forty hours, so that is as week, and say you can get two certs in month, that is a 2
3 buck a month -- a buck an hour raise in a month -- so you had 4
a lot of people jumping on the wagon trying to get training, 5
and it did drop the other areas down.
6 When you take the manpower out of there and put them 7
in training, something has to suffer.
And I think what 8
auffered there was not the quality of the work, but the 9
quantity the guys were getting done.
10 And at that time it was kind of a helter-skelter 11 type system.
It was something that was instituted and then --
12 I don't think there was an awful lot of planning done as to
()
13 say, we will take you here, here, and here -- I think in some 14 cases two or three inspectors from one area would want to get 15 cross-trai;.ad all of a sudden, and that area naturally would 16 drop.
17 Q
In terms of the amount of work done?
18 A
Right.
Not the quality, but the quantity the guys 19 were putting out.
20 Q
okay.
Let me ask you this again, and I may have 21 asked you this in several different forms:
Was there any 22 action that you recall on the part of comstock, supervisors, O
54 1
or Comstock management, that would have caused or did cause
(
2 the quality of QC inspecter work to suffer?
3 A
I don't believe so.
4 Q
Okay.
I would like to have one more document marked 5
for identification, and that is the August 1, 1985 QC 6
Inspector Harassment Contention, as Phillips Deposition 7
Exhibit No.
4.
8
[Above mentioned document is marked 9
Phillips Deposition Exhibit No, 4,
10 for identification.)
11 Mr. Phillips, I am going to ask you to take a look 12 at this, and tell me if you have ever seen it or a document
/
13 similiar to it before?
14 A
No, ma'am, I don't believe so.
15 Q
okay.
Take a few moments if you will, please.
16
[ Witness peruses document.)
17 A
[ Witness nods head affirmatively.)
18 Q
Mr. Phillips, have you ever seen a document similiar 19 to that or a copy of that document, or the substance of it 20 before?
21 A
I don't believe I have.
You know, maybe I did, but 22 it'doesn't ring a bell.
s O
55 1
Q Okay.
Were you aware that in the Braidwood Licensing Proceeding an allegation was admitted by the 2
3 licensing board regarding harassment of Comstock QC 4
inspectors?
5 A
I had heard something to that effect, and I figured 6
that is probably one reason Saklak was let go like he was.
7 Q
And you figured that Saklak was probably let go 8
because of the Saklak-Snyder incident?
9 A
Yeah, plus the Seeders incident.
I figured that 10 they probably had had enough of him, you know.
Probably had 11 had enough complaints about him.
12 It says in here there were twenty-five people went 13 ovel, and I would imagine out of those twenty-five, a few of 14 them had something to say about Saklak.
15 Q
Had you ever spoken to a Comstock supervisor or 16 management person about the reasons why Mr. Saklak was 17 terminated?
18 A
I don't think so.
19 Q
Has anybody ever told you the reasons why Mr. Saklak 20 was terminated?
21 A
Not officially, or anything like that.
You hear 22 rumors, you know, that it was like because of the Snyder O
I
56 1
incident, and things like that, but I don't think anybody in management ever came up to me and said hey, this is why he 2
3 was let go.
4 Q
Okay.
And to the best of your recollection, you 5
have never seen this document, or a document such as --
6 A
I don't believe I have.
7 Q
-- Phillips Deposition Exhibit No. 4?
8 A
I don't believe I have, no.
Because, like I said, 9
it doesn't ring a bell at least.
10 Q
Okay, that is fine.
Let me just take a moment or 11 two. I may be almost done with Mr. Phillips.
12 Mr. Phillips, let me direct your attention again to 13 that August 7, 1981 meeting which you referred to as a lead 14 meeting?
Do you recall that?
15 A
Yeah.
That was upstairs on 426 where we used to 16 have a lead office up by the track alley 1.
17 Q
Do you recalling saying at that meeting words to the 18 effect that your directives to Mr. Seeders were not being 19 followed?
20 A
That is the one I was talking about a little while 21 ago, yeah.
That came out totally wrong.
22 Q
And that you were having a hard time motivating O
57 1
John, meaning John Seeders?
2 A
I don't know if I used the word, ' motivating' or 3
not, but I may have, but it was, you know, like I say, it came 4
out wrong at that time.
Like I said, my grandfather had 5
passed away the day before, so I probably was not in the frame of mind that I should have been, but I probably did say that, 6
7 yeah.
8 Q
Okay.
Was that the only time that you may have said 9
to Mr. Saklak that you were having difficulties, or problems 10 of any sort with Mr. Seeders?
11 A
I think so.
I don't remember ever going to Sak and 12 complaining about John, and really, I wasn't complaining
( ;
13 there.
14 Like I said, the meeting with Irv is where I made 15 the correction.
16 Q
Do you -- I may have misunderstood your testimony 17 earlier today.
I believe you told me that Mr. Saklak -- or 18
'Sak' as you have been calling him.
19 A
Right.
20 Q
Would come to you every few days and talk to you 21 about John Seeders?
22 A
Yeah.
He would ask me how he was doing on this QA O
58 1
audit that he was doing, and it was basically -- it wasn't 2
any screaming or yelling or anything like that.
He just 3
wanted to know what progress was being made.
4 Q
And do you recall generally what you would say to 5
Mr. Saklak?
6 A
I would check with John and see what he was doing.
7 Q
And then get back to Mr. Saklak about it?
8 A
Yeah.
9 Q
And what would Mr. Seeders generally tell you?
10 A
That he was working on whatever cards or whatever he 11 was doing in the vault.
He did a couple of times say, hey, it 12 is going to take longer than they are telling me, you know, so
(}
13 I would go back and tell Sak what John had told me.
14 Q
Did Mr. Seeders ever have any questions of you 15 regarding -- let me try again.
Did Mr. Seeders ever direct 16 any questions to you regarding the scope of his work in 17 calibrations or procedural questions in calibrations?
18 A
He would ask me, maybe, my opinion, and you know 19 being not certified in the area, I would have to send him to 20
-- I believe it would be Saklak that I would send him to.
21 Q
So, you would send him to Mr. Saklak?
22 A
I believe so, yeah.
Generally, I think I would.
O
59 1
Q Do you know whether Mr. Saklak was certified in
()
2 calibrations at that time?
3 A
I don't believe he was.
4 Q
Okay.
5 A
That you would have to check the records on, but I 6
think there was more than one area that Saklak wasn't 7
certified in, and he was -- I think the title was supervisor 8
of inspectors, or words to that effect.
9 Q
Did you ever send Mr. Seeders to anybody else at 10 Comstock regarding questions about the calibration documents?
11 A
I may have sent him to Seltnann, being that he was 12 the QA man.
13 Q
Anybody else that you can think of?
14 A
I can't recall, no.
i 15 Q
I have on more series of questions, and this will be 16 very short, Mr. Phillips.
17 Directing your attention to your Deposition Exhibit 13 No. 4, which begins with the paragraph starting:
Such 19 harassment; Quote unquote.
20 Other than what you have testified to today with 21 respect to Mr. Seeders, and other than what we have discussed 22 in the past regarding Mr. Snyder and Mr. Saklak, are you aware 1
O 4
60 1
of anything that would lead you to believe that Comstock QC
()
2 inspectors were pressured to approve deficient work?
3 A
Not to my knowledge, no.
4 Q
Or that they were pressured to sacrifice quality for 5
production and cost considerations?
i 6
A I don't ever remember ever hearing anything like 7
that from management, no.
8 Q
Okay.
Whether Comstock QC inspectors were pressured I
9 to violate established quality procedures?
10 A
Like I say, I can't remember ever hearing that.
I 11 Q
Other than what we have already discussed today, and 12 I am not indicating by saying that that any of those incidents l]
13 constitute harassment or intimidation.
i m/
14 I am just trying to discover what it is you know or 15 don't know or recall.
16 Are you aware of anything that would lead you to i
17 believe that any Comstock inspector was harassed or retaliated j
18 by way of threats of violence because of his or her expression 19 of quality or safety concerns?
l 20 A
No; just the physical thing that Saklak did on that 4
i 21 meno, but I don't know --like I said, I wasn't there, and that 22 is the only thing I have ever heard of in a physical nature.
l O
i ww-,-,,,--.-w,-e n
~--
a
,.,e,-,
.-r e.,--,,-ers-
-n-
,,-..,.,--,-n,
-e,-
-woe-m<-enn-,,-
-m
61 1
Q Okay.
When you say, 'the physical thing that Saklak 2
did on that memo,' which memo are you referring to?
3 A
The memo, Exhibit 5 there, I believe it is.
4 Q
Snyder Deposition Exhibit No. 57 5
A Right.
6 Q
Okay.
7 A
That is the only really time, you know --- outside 8
of the time like I said in the general meeting we had where 9
Saklak said if you jack with my figures, I will jack with you.
10 That could be construed as being something of a 11 physical nature, but you know, I don't think he meant it that 12 time as a physical thing.
()
13 Q
Other than those two incidents.
14 A
Right.
15 Q
Okay.
Are you aware of any verbal abuse of any 16 Comstock QC inspector because of his or her quality or safety 17 concerns?
18 A
The only incident that ever comes to mind is -- I 19 don't know the inspector's name, and I don't even know if he i
20 is here any more, but Irv DeWald make a statement in front of 21 a gentleman from Edison, I believe he was from QA, -- the guy 22 had screwed up on a weld inspection I believe, and Irv made a l
O
62 1
1 kind of a derogatory comment about him.
He used the
'F' word
()
2 again, and he used this in front of a man from CECO, and so 3
really what he did was embarrass the man in front of the 4
client, instead of taking him aside and saying:
Hey, you 5
screwed up, you know, and let's get it straightened out or 6
whatever the policy would have been.
7 But Irv did come back and apologize, and I believe 8
he apologized in the general meeting that he had made a mistake and he would try and change his ways as far as being a 9
10 little more outgoing.
11 Q
Do you recall what the nature of the screw up was?
12 A
Something in welding.
That is about all I can 13 remember.
{
14 I don't know if the guy just flat out blew an 15 inspection, or he looked at something and saw something i
16 totally different, or just what exactly the nature of it --
17 the comment was made -- but like I said, Irv did come back and 18 apologize to the individual that he shouldn't have done it
)
19 that way.
20 Q
To the best of your recollection, however, it was 21 not an incident where Mr. DeWald blew up at an inspector 22 because that inspector pointed out a quality or safety r
O
.m
--..~,-r
. ~..,,.,
4 I
63 1
concern?
4 i
2 A
Not to my knowledge, no.
Irv never really blows up, 3
you know.
He never screams or yells.
That was Saklak's way 4
4 of doing things.
5 Q
Did Mr. Saklak ever blow up at anybody because of 6
his or her expression of quality or safety concerns?
l j
7 A
To the best of my knowledge, no.
He would yell and 8
scream, but I don't think it was over that.
9 Q
Okay.
Are you aware of anybody who has been j
10 terminated because of his or her expression of quality or 11 safety concerns?
4 12 A
The only thing that I can ever remember, and.I was
)
13 never really involved in it, okay, and it is just rumors that j
14 you hear going through the office, and that was this Worley i
15 Puckett deal.
j 16 Q
Did you ever work with Mr. Puckett?
17 A
I just knew him to see him.
He was in the welding 18 area, and that is an area I have never been certified in.
I 19 would talk to him and things like that, but he never would get 1
20 down to brass tacks as far as what he was doing, or this is 21 messed up, or this is right, or this is wrong, or anything 22 like that, with me at least.
I
(
i h
. ~.
w i
64 1
He may have said something to somebody else.
2 Q
What do you recall hearing in the way of rumors i
3 about Mr. Puckett's termination?
4 A
The rumor that I had heard is that he was let go 5
because he was pointing out some discrepancies or whatever in 6
that area, the welding area.
7 Like I say, this is a rumor. I have no firsthand 8
knowledge if that is the reason he was let go, or if he just 9
quit or what the story was.
10 Q
Do you recall who told you that rumor?
11 A
It was just a general knowledge upstairs.
We had 12 heard there was a lawsuit and all kinds of stuff.
}
13 Q
And you never saw Mr. Puckett's personnel file?
14 A
Oh, no.
No.
15 Q
Did you ever speak to a supervisor about 16 Mr. Puckett's termination?
17 A
I don't believe so.
18 Q
Did you ever speak to anybody at Comstock management 19 about Mr. Puckett's termination?
20 A
No, I don't think so.
21 Q
Okay.
So in other words, it was merely just a rumor 22 that was floating around?
O
65
\\
1 A
Yeah.
You know: Puckett got fired, because.
You
()
2 know, it was never anything that you could have in black and i
3 white like a letter or anything like that, you know, it was 4
just stuff that you heard.
5 The place is full of rumors.
l 6
Q Do you know in what capacity Mr. Puckett was 7
employed?
8 A
He was some kind of a supervisor.
I think he was 9
-- I think he was a supervisor over the welding area, but 10 maybe I am wrong.
I know it was something to do with welding, 11 and I know it wasn't just an inspector.
12 I think it was higher up than an inspector; like a 13 lead or a supervisor.
14 Q
okay.
Do you recall whether he was hired to be L 15 Level III inspector?
16 A
Again, that is a rumor that I had heard, because of 17 his -- I think he was in the navy, and I think he had a 18 background in the navy of being with welding or something.
19 Q
Okay. Do you recall in your rumors whether you ever 20 heard that he was certified as a Level III inspector?
21 A
I had heard that rumor.
I don't know --- by 22 Comstock?
It may have been the rumor that I heard, yeah.
l v
1
.--._.---.-_,,s.--
,,-r
-~
__,__y w
66 l
l 1
Q
_That he was certified as a Level III by Comstock?
2 A
I had heard the rumor, yeah.
But again, it was just
)
3 as rumor.
4 l
4 I had also heard that he flunked his welding test, 5
so -- you know, you hear all kinds of stuff.
i 6
Q Anything else that you heard about Mr. Puckett?
7 A
No.
t l
8 Q
All right.
Is that the only instance in terms of 1
9 rumor or otherwise that you have heard that any Comstock i
10 inspector was terminated because of his or her expression of 11 quality or safety concerns?
l 12 A
I believe so.
13 Q
Now, we have already discussed that Mr. Seeders has
}
14 indicated he feels he was transferred to the position he was i
j 15 transferred to as a method of harassment or intimidation, is 16 that correct?
l
{
17 A
Yeah, I guess.
1 18 Q
Are you aware of anything that would lead you to 19 believe other than whatever you may have said today regarding 20 Mr. Seeders, that would lead you to believe that any employee 21 was transferred to an undesirable job, or to work in any area I
l 22 where quality deficiencies could not be noted because of his 4
O 1
J
67 1
or her expression of quality or safety instances?
2 A
I have no other knowledge of that.
3 Q
Okay.
To your knowledge, does Mr. Seeders believe 4
that he was transferred to the position he was transferred to 5
because of his expressions of quality or safety concerns?
6 A
I believe John believes that, yeah.
7 Q
You and John have talked about that?
8 A
A little bit, yeah.
9 Q
Do you know what quality or safety concerns 10 Mr. Seeders believes he expressed?
11 A
I think John was just -- like the other letters and 12 things that he has written, or whatever he said, it was based 13 on they wanted him to get this thing done, and not really 14 concern himself too much with the quality of it.
15 Q
Is that what Mr. Seeders told you?
16 A
In so many words, yes.
I can't give it verbatim.
17 I believe, you know, that is what he was saying.
18 Q
okay.
Are you aware of any comstock inspector 19 who was assigned to assign burdensome or menial special 20 projects and other adverse treatment because of his or her 21 expression of quality or safety concerns?
22 A
I can't think of any offhand.
O
f 68 1
MS. KEZELIS:
Mr. Phillips, I have no further 2
questions.
3 THE WITNE3S:
Okay.
4 MS. KEZELIS:
Mr. Guild?
5 MR. GUILD:
Yes.
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 O
l 69 i
1 EXAMINATION 2
BY MR. GUILD:
I l
3 Q
Mr. Phillips, for the record, I'm Bob Guild and i
}
4 I represent the Intervenors in the licensing proceeding, and j
i 5
I've got a few questions for you.
it i
j 6
A Sure.
7 Q
You were talking earlier about Mr. Saklak using 8
the term " Pearl Harbor file."
9 A
Yes, sir.
10 Q
How did you understand him to mean that?
What 1
l 11 did he mean by " Pearl Harbor file?"
f 12 A
My opinion of Saklak's Pearl Harbor file was anything that he could get on somebody, okay, anything bad 13 14 that he could get on somebody, whether it was a legitimate 15 mistake or what he would interpret as a deliberate mistake, 16 whatever.
I don't know exactly what was in that file or who i
17 was in that file.
I i
18 But if he didn't like you, okay, it was more or i
19 less common knowledge that you were in his file, i
20 Q
okay.
And when you say he would gather information 21 about you in this file, for what purpose would he gather the
{
22 information?
4 1,0 i
I 4
-..,.--,,,-..,y...
.,m
-y.y_,w,,_.
,.._.-,___y_m_~_._._,,...,._,_--s..%_.,
__-_,.m_._,,...
,,---.y__cy-.....
70 1
What did you understand?
2 A
I think a lot of the purpose of his file and 3
why he would gather it is, like.I said, if he didn't like you 4
he would try to get rid of you if he could.
5 I don't think he was ever successful in that, 6
though.
But he, you know, was -- it was common knowledge that 7
he had it, you know.
i 8
And he would make no bones about it. He would 9
say it's in that drawer, my Pearl Harbor file.
And a few 10 times he would pull it out and leaf through it.
11 You never seen what he was looking at.
It could 12 have been blank pages for all you know.
But he did, you 13 know, let you know it was there.
14 Q
Why did you believe he let you know it was there?
15 A
Just more or less -- well, if you want to use 16 the word " intimidate" maybe, you know, or to scare you, you 17 know, whatever his reasons were.
I don't know.
18 I think maybe that could be possibly it.
I 19 Q
Did you ever become aware, from time to time, 20 of people who got on Mr. Saklak's wrong side or on his list, 21 so to speak, finding that they got written up more often for 22 conduct that otherwise wouldn't have been the subject of any O
71 1
kind of documentation or notice?
)
2 A
Not to my knowledge, f
3 Q
Such as tardinesses that wouldn't otherwise get 4
documented or --
5 A
I think on the tardiness, there was an inspector at 6
one time who had trouble with it.
And I don't think they got j
7 along good at the time, and he did get written up.
That was j
8 Shawn Dooley.
Shawn is still here and, you know, is a good i
9 worker and everything.
10 But at one time in his life -- I don't know what the I
11 problem was -- he was tardy and he was absent.
And I don't 12 think saklak liked that.
13 So I think Shawn did get written up on that.
14 You would have to look at the files.
But I believe he did get 15 written up once on that.
16 Q
Are you aware of any other examples of people 17 getting written up by Saklak or management because they had 18 essentially gotten on that list?
19 A
Maybe the Seeders' deal.
I know that, you know, it i
20
-- I think there definitely was a personality conflict between 21 Seeders and Saklak, and I think John did get written up one 22 time.
And that possibly could be part of it.
O a
.. ~
i i
.i 72 1
1 Q
How about Rick Martin?
Did you know Rick Martin?
2 A
Rick Martin.
Yeah, I know Rick.
I know Saklak 3
didn't like him because "he's a holy roller."
Okay.
And I 4
think -- I think there was just something there that Saklak i
5 didn't care for Rick Martin.
1 6
I don't know what the conflict was, whether it f
7 was the quality of Rick's work, being Martin, or it was just t
l 8
totally personal.
I have no idea.
I
~
9 But I know Saklak, he would make digging little 1
j 10 remarks at him once in a while, you know, behind his back, 11 things that weren't serious or threatening, but he would make l
j 12 fun of the guy, in other words, you know.
(}
13 Q
Had you ever heard that Rick Martin had been 14 assigned a special seat where he could be watched for his 15 work?
16 A
I don't remember that.
It's quite possible, 17 you know.
18 Q
Had you ever heard that Rick Martin had been 19 required to submit hourly status rep ts when the rest of his 1
l 20 co-workers submitted daily reports?
I 21 A
Yeah, at one time they were doing that to him I i
I 22 believe.
I believe -- that one had totally slipped my mind, 1
't 4
.I
..-,-,_.,_,-------,-,_._,c.----,
,_,.,...n-
,--.,.,-..,-,_-,-,,,-,--,.--,--,r,-.
i i
73 1
Rick Martin.
But, yeah, they were doing something on.that 2
order.
I don't -- I think it may have been hourly reports.
I 3
don't know.
4 Q
Is that the kind of thing that would happen if 5
you got on Saklak's list?
}
6 A
No.
That was a unique deal there I think.
7 Q
Martin?
l 8
A-Yeah.
He just didn't like Rich.
And I think I
9 maybe it was a way of maybe getting him to quit, you know, l
10 without coming out to be the real heavy.
l 11 Q
Okay.
f 12 A
Like I say, I don't know what the reason was f
13 there, whether it was just -- Rick Martin, you know, is kind i
14 of a funny type of guy, you know, as far as his religion is 15 concerned.
1 16 A lot of time inspectors would interpret him 17 trying to push his religion off on them.
He wasn't doing i
18 that, you know, because he would read the Bible a lot and he i
19 would pray before he would eat.
Or, things like this.
1 20 And it made people uncomfortable and, therefore, he J
)
21 wasn't very popular.
22 So, in -- like I say, I don't think saklak cared for i
l
.!O l
i
i i
74 1
him at all..
So, maybe that's what it was.
(
i 2
Q Did you ever see anything in Saklak's Pearl Harbor 3
file?
1 4
A No, sir, I didn't.
5 Q
You were talking about an opinion held by particular 1
6 inspectors or generally that there was a question about the
)
7 competence of Comstock management.
4 j
8 And my notes reflect that you went on to explain I
i I
9 that it wasn't exactly that they were incompetent but that 1
10 they were pawns for someone higher up.
11 A
Right.
12 Q
Do you recall saying that, or words to that effect?
1 13 A
Yeah.
Today, you mean?
14 Q
Yes, sir.
15 A
Yes, sir, I do.
16 Q
And when you said higher up, you added, say, a
17 pressure from the client or pressure from Commonwealth Edison.
18 A
No, I don't mean -- I don't think I meant it as 19 Commonwealth Edison so much.
I think what I meant by in l
20 pressure from higher up is a man by the name of Bob Marino.
j 21 Q
Okay.
Who is Mr. Marino?
22 A
I think his title, he was head of QC/QA for Comstock i
i t
4
75 1
at one time.
()
2 Q
Off-site?
3 A
Off-site, yes, sir.
4 4
Q Okay.
Is he still in that position?
5 A
To my knowledge, I don't think he is.
6 Q
Okay.
What has happened to Mr. Marino, do you 7
know?
l 8
A The rumor has it, he was kicked downstairs a 1
i 9
little bit.
j 10 Q
Uh-huh.
11 A
Now that, you know, is purely rumor.
I have no 12
-- anything to base that on.
j 13 Q
Any idea when that might have happened?
14 A
Maybe a year ago or so.
l 15 Q
Were you ever present when Mr. Marino came to 16 the site?
i 17 A
Yeah, numerous times.
18 Q
Were you ever present when he addressed the Comstock i
19 QC inspectors?
1 20 A
Yes, sir.
j-21 Q
What kind of a presentation did Mr. Marino make?
22 A
In my opinion, he's a ago maniac.
Me loves s
u
,-~-----s
---,--w,,-------m.,e-,
.v-----
.-+
-g----
.,wm,--e w--
9p,- -,, -, -
m---
-w,-e~+,-e-
76 I
himself.
He's made statements to inspectors that there's
{
()
2 nothing on a nuclear job that he hasn't done and hasn't seen.
3 And he told us one time in a meeting that ha 4
was running a fast train and if you don't like it, get off.
5 Q
Did -- in your opinion, did comstock quality 6
control inspectors have confidence in or trust Mr. Marino?
7 A
They didn't trust him.
8 Q
Why was that?
9 A
The promises with the money basically is I think the 10 whole thing.
He would, you know -- the money would be one.
11 And little promises that he would make about, oh, maybe 12 getting tools for the guys or something like that that 13 they would need.
You would never see it.
14 So --
15 Q
They would ask about tools that they needed and 16 he would say --
17 A
Yeah, some of the tools, you know, he would say:
18 Well, we will get right on that.
19 And it seemed like months and months would go 20 by before you would get an answer on anything, you know.
21 Basically I'm talking about the welding people who would need 22 the mirrors or phillip gauges or whatever they need to do O
~_..
l 77 1
a proper weld inspection, because at that time the tool 2
supplies for those people were low.
3 Q
Okay.
Do you ever r all a discussion about 4
Comstock being behind schedule with the client and the client 5
expecting that Comstock was going to either cure a serious 6
inspection backlog, or backlog in closing ICRs?
7 MS. KEZELIS:
Objection.
That's beyond the scope of 8
any questions I may have asked Mr. Phillips.
9 BY MR. GUILD:
10 Q
I would appreciate if you would try to answer 11 the question.
12 A
Could you repeat it, please?
13 Q
Do you ever recall ever hearing that Comstock 14 was behind schedule with the client due to either a serious 15 backlog in inspections or clearing inspections like open ICRa?
16 MS. KEZELIS:
I renew my objection to this line 17 of questioning.
18 THE WITNESS:
What I do now?
19 BY MR. GUILD:
20 Q
You are supposed to answer it.
21 A
I'm supposed to answer it?
All right.
You heard 22 that, but again, you know, I don't have any firsthand O
E
78 1
knowledge if that's a factual statement or not.
2 Q
Do you recall ever understanding or hearing that 3
Comstock was under risk of losing the contract?
4 A
You always hear that.
l 5
Q Okay.
6 A
You know, you still hear it out here, you know, 7
that Comstock is on the verge of being run off the site and 8
someone new coming on, you know.
9 In fact, when the union went in, you know, the 10 rumor was BESTCO was taking over.
11 Q
Right.
12 A
Meaning Comstock is gone.
That's a rumor that 13 has gone on for a year or two years, that they were on the 14 verge of --
15 Q
What's happened with Comstock in Unit 27 Hasn't 16 Newberg taken over Unit 27 17 A
Yes.
18 MS. KEZELIS:
Objection.
Beyond the scope of 19 any questions I've asked Mr. Phillips.
20 l
21 22 O
79 1
BY MR. GUILD:
)
2 Q
If you would, go ahead and answer the question.
3 A
As far as I know, what Newberg has to do in 4
Containment 2 is basically the cable pan. As far as I know, 5
okay, and this again is rumor and things you hear around the 6
office --
7 Q
Right.
8 A
-- is that the cable pulling and a lot of the 9
electrical stuff will still be done by Comstock people.
10 Q
What is the rumor, or what do you understand l
11 was the basis for Newberg doing the work in Unit 2 that 12 Comstock would have done?
13 MS. KEZELIS:
And my objection stands as to this 14 line of questions.
l 15 MR. GUILD:
Right.
16 BY HR. GUILD:
17 Q
If you would, just go ahead and answer the question?
18 A
okay.
Let me get this fresh here in my head 19 again.
Could you please --
20 Q
Yeah.
What's your understanding of the reason i
21 why Newberg --
i 22 A
Yeah.
What I hear is that because there is so O
80 l
1 auch work to do, okay, at Unit 1 yet that they felt that they 2
were taking the load off of Comstock by turning as much as 3
they have over to Newberg.
4 Q
okay.
Have you ever heard at a general meeting i
l 5
or a meeting of leads or supervisors from Comstock management, 6
Irv DeWald or others, that there was specific pressure by 7
Edison to address an inspection backlog or a backlog in 8
closing ICRs?
9 A
They had mentioned in meetings that, you know, 10 they would like to get these things cleaned up as, you know, 11 the best they could.
12 But that as far as pressuring them to get it 13 done without concern of quality, no.
14 Q
Do you recall, let's say mid-84, the summer of 15
'84, that timeframe, or since discussions at a general meeting 16 or a meeting of leads or supervisors such a circumstance, 17 Edison basically reading the riot act or telling Comstock that 18 they had to get this backlog done in a certain amount of time?
19 A
It may have been some dates put out, yeah.
But, you 20 know, like I said, two years is a long time to really go back 21 for stuff like that.
22 Like I say, my area is really the area that I'm I
um 81 1
more concerned with. And some of this stuff, you know, as far
()
2 as ICRs, NCRs and things like that is concerned, I'm not 3
really --
4 Q
Okay.
5 A
-- in tune with.
So, I may have heard it and 6
just let it go in one ear and out the other.
7 Q
Okay.
I'm referring to Exhibit Number 2, and 8
that's Saklak's memo to Mr. DeWald about John Seeders letter.
9 A
Okay.
10 Q
And Ms. Kezelis asked you a question about it.
11 The first statement that Mr. Saklak takes on is this notion 12 about whether or not others were certified in calibrations and 13 receiving.
14 And you agreed that it was true that Myra Sproull 15 was certified in calibrations and receiving.
16 A
Yes, sir.
17 Q
It is true, though, isn't it, that Ms. Sproull 18 had done very little work, actual work,,in the calibrations 19 area?
20 MS. KEZELIS:
Objection.
You are mischaracterizing 21 Mr. Phillips' testimony.
He testified he thought she had done 22 a fair amount of --
O
)'
x
%\\
82 1
BY MR. GUILD:
2 Q
What I'm asking is, isn't it the case that 3
Ms. Sproull had not done, or had done very little work in the 4
calibrations area?
5 A
She had done -- as far as my knowledge is concerned, 6
she had done quite a bit.
7 But there was~a time period from when she was 8
doing quite a bit.
She was also doing quite a bit of 9
receiving with the girl by the name of Janet Peters for a 10 while.
11 Q
Well, I'm focusing on calibrations now first.
12 A
Okay.
Well, she went into calibrations,g And 13 then after that she was off calibrations for a while' and I 14 believe she was in cable pulling.
15 MS. KEZELIS I would also like to state for 16 the record that Ms. Myra Sproull is waiting outside this 17 conference room to be deposed, and it migNt make more sense to 18 ask her that question, Mr. Guild.
19 MR. GUILD:
Thanks for the advice.
11 don't know why 20 you raised the question then if it would be better he wait for 21 Ms. Sproull.
22 I'm just following up on counsel's lead on that.
O
\\
83 1
BY MR. GUILD:
2 Q
Ms. Sproull also gave a statement to Mr. DeWald 3
that is contained in a document that is now. identified as 4
Exhibit 3 to your deposition.
5 She was one of the witnesses that John had indicated 6
Irv DeWald should talk to about the circumstances of the 7
Saklak incident, remember?
8 A
Well, I was on vacation then.
But I remember I
9 hearing all about it.
10 Q
You gave a statement to Irv, and you are aware 11 that he took statements also from others including Myra 12 Sproull?
13 A
Ch, sure, sure.
Yeah, Rick Snyder was in there 14 with me.
15 Q
Right.
16 A
Sure.
1 17 Q
And Ms. Sproull's statement is what I'm looking 18 at right now.
And it's Page 7 of that document.
19 And Ms. Sproull is asked the following question:
20 What is the calibration record like?
21 And the response reads:
In part I was asked by 22 L. Seese if I was afraid of the job, calibrations.
And I told O
I 1
84 1
him no, I just didn't want to take over cold without a O2 l
refresher training session in the area.
3 Now, that's accurate to the best of your knowledge, 4
isn't it?
5 A
To the best of my knowledge, yes.
6 Q
All right.
And that she had been away from 7
calibrations for some time and she was uncomfortable with 8
taking over calibrations work?
9 A
I think I can remember her making that statement.
10 And I believe she would, because I know Myra is the type of i
1 11 lady and an inspector that if she is going to do something she l
12 wants to do it the best that she can.
13 Q
So, it wasn't simply -- because she was certified in 14 the calibrations area, it doesn't necessarily follow that she 15 was fully prepared or capable of stepping in to fill the shoes 16 of John Seeders who was doing calibrations and was certified 17 in calibrations?
18 A
I could see that she -- yeah, being away from 19 it as long as she was, or however long she was, and the 20 procedural changes that do go on, okay, that she would want to 21 be refreshed as to what's going on before she would step in.
22 I could see her not wanting to go in cold.
O
85 1
Q Right.
Well, I mean, in substance, isn't it a
()
2 fair statement for John Seeders to have made in his letter 3
then that he was the only person who was in effect capable of 4
performing calibrations work at that time?
5 A
That's splitting hairs, sir, a little bit.
I 6
think -- yeah, he would be right in saying that.
But because 7
of -- you know, if Myra hadn't worked in it for a while, yeah, 8
I could see him saying that.
9 Q
I mean, he may have been technically wrong in 10 saying that he was the only. person certified --
11 A
okay, I will go along with you there.
12 Q
But in terms of being the only person actually 13 capable of doing the work, really John was it?
14 A
Probably.
15 Q
I mean, he had been doing it alone for two years, 16 right?
17 A
As far as I know, yeah.
18 Q
Did you have any involvement, Mr. Phillips, in 19 helping John Seeders do the calibrations document review that 20 is the subject of this dispute with Mr. Saklak and 21 Mr. Seltmann?
22 A
I don't believe I --
4 O
86 1
MS. KEZELIS:
Objection.
Asked and answered.
2 THE WITNESS:
I don't believe I did.
3 BY MR. GUILD:
4 Q
Okay.
5 A
You know, he would ask me questions and I would 6
refer him to somebody, because I wasn't certified in the area.
7 Q
Okay.
And you didn't actually go in'and look 8
at the records and pitch in with Seeders in doing that?
9 A
No, I don't believe I did.
10 MR. GUILD:
Almost done.
11 MS. KEZELIS:
Okay.
12 BY MR. GUILD:
13
)
Q Had you ever heard a rumor or come to understand 14 that -- strike that.
I will start again.
15 Had you ever heard that Irv DeWald had performed 16 over a thousand welds in a day, or words to that effect?
17 MS. KEZELIS:
Objection.
Beyond the scope of 18 the questions that I've asked Mr. Phillips.
19 BY MR. GUILD:
20 Q
Could you answer that?
21 A
I've heard that.
22 Q
And where had you heard that?
O
87 1
A Just from weld inspectors that have reviewed 2
files and this inspector reinspection program.
3 Q
Okay.
4 A
In fact, if I -- yeah, I think that's basically 5
where I've heard it from, is these guys that have reviewed 6
this stuff and said:
Jesus, how could he do this many?
7 Q
Uh-huh.
In the reinspection program, the 8
documentation that was identified in the reinspection program?
9 MS. KEZELIS:
And my objection stands as to this 10 continuing line of questioning.
11 THE WITNESS:
Yeah, when they were going back 12 and reviewing the files they were seeing this.
And you would
[
}
13 hear it coming around the office, you know.
14 BY MR. GUILD:
15 Q
Okay.
16 A
How true it is or whatever, I --
17 Q
Give me an idea of what timeframe that would 18 have happened in?
19 A
Probably back in -- well, I came back on site 20 in '81 and Irv at that time was like a welding inspector and a 21 lead inspector.
They didn't call it a lead at that time, but 22 a lot of guys would direct questions to Irv and, you know, he O
88 1
would answer them.
i 2
And I believe maybe even before I came on site 3
as well.
I don't know exactly when Irv came on site the first 4
time.
{
5 Q
I was focus'ing on when you had heard that the 6
reinspection program had identified, you know, the --
7 A
Oh, the reinspection program, this was probably 8
a year ago.
9 Q
Within the last year?
10 A
I would say so.
q 11 Q
Okay.
And can you recall any inspectors who 12 related that they had seen documentation of that?
/
}
13 A
I don't know the inspectors' names.
You know, 14 you just hear it floating around.
I can't pinpoint every 4
15 exact inspector and say he said it or he said it.
16 Q
Okay.
Had you ever heard that subject discussed in 17 Mr. DeWald's presence, either by Mr. DeWald or by others in 18 front of him?
19 A
No, I can't say that I have.
20 Q
Do you believe it was general knowledge or belief 21 that Mr. DeWald had done a thousand welds in one day, or words 22 to that effect?
O
..m.m
..,_.4-
,..r-,
v.--w,
.._-_m,_..,
. -,, - -~~--
,o....
..-..,,,,,y
-..,w_,,,
89 1
MS. KEZELIS:
Objection.
You are asking the 2
witness to speculate.
3 MR. GUILD:
It's not speculation.
4 THE WITNESS:
You would hear it, and I would 5
say it's common knowledge up there, you know, especially the 6
welding inspectors, you know.
7 You would hear them say stuff like that.
8 BY MR. GUILD:
~
9 Q
Well, let me ask you this in that light.
In 10 your opinion, does that reflect favorably upon Mr. DeWald and 11 the belief that he had done a thousand welds in one day, 12 whether he had done it or not?
13 A
I think it's kind of a joke, to be truthful with l
14 you.
You know, the guys don't treat it as -- you know, 15 some of these welding inspectors we've got, this is all 16 they've ever done in their life.
17 And you hear, you know, some of them talking 18 and, you know, it's kind of like a joke.
It's no way, you 19 know, they say that he can do this many.
20 You know, whether that's true or not, I don't 21 know, because I'm not a welding inspector.
22 Q
But the general belief is, as I understand it,
90 1
you couldn't do that many and do an. effective job at doing
()
2 that many; is that the idea?
3 A
The idea I get is, yeah.
Now, whether that's 4
true or not again I don't know.
5 Q
All right.
6 A
Like I say, I'm not an expert in that area by 7
any means.
8 Q
Does that, in your opinion, suggest a lack of 9
confidence in Mr. DeWald's commitment to quality as opposed to 10 quantity?
The belief that he would do a thousand welds in one 11 day.
12 MS. KEZELIS:
Objection.
13 THE WITNESS:
I don't know if it's -- I don't 14 know if that's true or not.
You know, I don't know if the 15 guys think that he wasn't doing a very good job, you know.
16 BY MR. GUILD:
17 Q
Do you think that's doing a very fast job and 18 a very excellent one or --
19 A
Well, he was doing it fast and, you know, they 20 just can't believe he did it that way.
I don't -- maybe in 21 their minds they are saying:
Hey, he couldn't have been doing 22 a very good job if he did that many.
O
i 91 i
1 But, you know, I'm not a mind reader so I can't 2
tell what these guys are thinking.
3 MR. GUILD:
Thanks.
That's all I have.
I 4
appreciate your comments.
5 MS. KEZELIS:
I do have one or two follow-up 6
questions.
7 THE WITNESS:
Oh, sure.
8 ii 9
10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 i
20 21 22
- O
..-.---..,,,..,, _ -,.-.- n,n _,,
_.r,---...
, ~,
w.,..
92 I
1 EXAMINATION 2
BY MS. KEZELIS:
3 Q
First of all, you referred to Mr. Martin as "a 4
holy roller."
5 A
Yeah.
6 Q
What did you mean by that?
7 A
Yeah, okay.
I'm sorry.
That's a -- I mean the 8
man is very religious.
9 Q
Okay.
Do you know what religion it is?
10 A
I believe he is a Southern Baptist, if I'm not 11 mistaken.
12 Q
Okay.
You also made a few additional statements 13
)
regarding the " Pearl Harbor file" of Mr. Saklak in response to 14 a question or two from Mr. Guild.
15 And one of the statements you made I believe 16 was that Mr. Saklak would include tames in that file of people 17 who didn't do things right; is thac right?
18 A
Not the word right.
I think the best way to 19 put it is if you didn't do things the way he thought you 20 should, your name would go in that file.
21 And sometimes I get my words mixed up, too.
22 But that --
O
93 1
Q Okay.
And when you make that statement does
)
2 that, to you, mean that -- is that any indication in your mind 3
of Mr. Saklak's effort to avoid or violate or ignore Comstock 4
procedures or NRC regulations --
5 A
No.
6 Q
-- either directly or indirectly through any 7
inspector?
8 A
No.
I think it was just a personality deal with 9
Saklak.
If he didn't like you, your name was in that file.
10 And I think that was almost common knowledge upstairs.
11 Q
And it had nothing to do with quality of work 12 or --
}
13 A
No.
14 Q
-- violation of Comstock procedures or NRC 15 regulations, to the best of your knowledge?
16 A
No.
That was just basically I think a personal 17 thing.
i 18 Q
Okay.
19 A
And it didn't have anything to do with your quality 20 or anything like that.
21 It was just his way of doing things.
If he didn't 22 like you, he would try to get you -- get rid of you, i
94, 1
Q Okay.
Let me ask you, in your opinion, how long 2
would it have taken for Ms. Myra Sproull to come up to 3
speed?
4 A
Oh, Myra could probably -- you know, she's a 5
very intelligent lady, and you will find this out when you 6
interview her, as far as inspection work is concerned.
7 She could be up to speed probably in a week or 8
less.
9 Q
We are talking about the calibrations --
10 A
Right.
She would have to definitely go through 11 the procedures and knowing Myra, she would want to go out with 12 John or whoever at the time and do some inspections with them 13 watching her.
14 Like I say, Myra is not the type of lady to just 15 jump into some inspection work and do a shoddy job.
She 16 is very, very thorough.
17 Q
Okay.
So, in other words, she would have been 18 very conscientious?
19 A
Oh, definitely.
Definitely.
I think she was 20 probably one of the most conscientious inspectors we had.
21 MS. KEZELIS:
Okay.
Thank you very much, 22 Mr. Phillips.
l O
95 1
THE WITNESS:
Okay.
2
[Whereupon, the taking of the deposition is 3
concluded at 3:47 p.
m.,
this same day.]
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
96 1
CERTIFICATE OF DEPONENT 2
t 3
I, LARRY PHILLIPS, do hereby certify that I have read the 4
foregoing transcript of my deposition testimony, 5
and, with the exception of additions and corrections, if any,.
6 hereto, find it to be a true and accurate transcr3ption 7
thereof.
y f&
8
~
9 A&/
B3 vc 1
10 LARRY PHILLIPS
$$ A2,195'$
hJA.,. )S, R Bb 12 13 DATE i
14 15 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC 1
l 16 Sworn and subscribed to before me, this the AM 17 day of 4 bAlu/J
, 19 18 i
19 20 d
ho h[tho&)
21 NOTARY PUBLIC IN ANI FOR 22 My commission expires:
S$k O
1 1
97 1
CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC
)
2 3
I, GARRETT J. WALSH, the officer before whom the 4
foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby certify that the 5
witness whose testimony appears in the foregoing deposition 6
was duly sworn by me; that the testimony of said witness was 7
taken by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or 8
under my direction; that said deposition is a true record of
~
9 the testimony given by the witness; that I am neither counsel 10 for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the 11 action in which this deposition was taken; and further, that I 12 am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel 13 employed by the parties hereto, nor financially or otherwise 14 interested in the outcome of the action.
15 16 4'ff[
17 GARRETT J. WALSH 18 Notary ~Public in and for the 19 Commonwealth of Virginia 20 21 My Commission expires January 9, 1989.
22 O
ht //f 0h
.- dmm::ab &,a:. gas c:: wmerita g
c
/
\\
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO313tISS10N V
9 In the matter of:
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY 50-456 (Braidwood Station, ' Units 1 and 2) > DOCKET NO.
50-457 e : c......;.4 u, a..... m..
...R.-
TO Larry Phillips 3375 Thomas Hickey Joliet, Illinois.60435 YOU ARE HERE3Y CO313tANDED to apoear............a,t,,,,th,e,,,py,a,1,g,y,9,gg,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Nuclear Power Station in the city o f.........E::ai.dw co.d,...Il. lino.is...................................................................
on the.......12 th........... day o f............De cembe r................... 1 9. 5..........a t......... 9 :
0.clo ek A 'St.
8 J
to geslify: nxbch2 Eof...be...dopaso d..........................................................................
in the above entitled action and bring with you the document (s) or object (s) described in the attached schedule.
BY ORDER F g ATOMIC SAFETY AND !ICENSING BOARD BY Herbert Grossman. Chairman. Administrative Judge AT*0RNEY FOR Co ron'1ealth Edison Ccrrpany November 15, 85 nek cca a. u uer. Esc.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale
'Ihrea First Nat inm1 pl a.f n g4EIllinois 60602 uizI bbb-/200 O
10 C.F.R. 2.720 (f) p,tading orpe,,,,. <f h, 4, uni.etresse, the On morton made promptly and in any twnt Commuaan may (1) qusen er mobfy she sub-et or befort the ttme teettfied in the anbooene porne if it I,t unreasonable or ntu*' *"d**
for esmoleente by the person to s.som the sub-not rslesent to eng metter in issue. Or (21 can.
porne tg directed. and on nortce to the perry et htnan densel of the, mattan en gutt and nosonable unose instante the aabene.en we * * ~. =. * * * *
- ~ *
-~.
l l
e g
(
RETURN ON SERVICE e
1 Received this subpoena at...d.2. b dv' df [d r b'p..........................on 12.ee.... 32,...e.r.c.and an.. 0......
e.v'.:.aY...
t../2a.*t.S S..<fg'... /1./.lbh....p.t.........................
sened it on the within named...
by delivering a copy to h and tendering to h..... the fee for one day's s'ttendance and the mileage allowed by law.3 D a ted........................... 19......
pr.....................................................
Service Fees Tra vel........................ S Senices.....................
S To ts 1......................... S
}
and sworn to before me, a Nd<f.c Ndd.dthis..... 2e.2............
Subscrib d day of..
.f.v..C/ex.dc.c.........I 9 fs u[
j w
b.
,// /
,l n
NOTE - Affidavit required only if senice is made bp a person othe,r than a United States Manhal or his deputy.
N S fees and miltere need not be tenderest to tne ustnest upon sernte of e anbrenne issued in behelf of the L*ntred States or en officer or egency enereof.
- s LSc g2:,$
~.
0 e
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 j
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.
j 3.
Any and all documents related to claims of i
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.
l 4.
Any and all documents related to claims of inadequate quality or of safety concerns at Braidwood Sta-tion.
1
}
l Y
1 i
i w-,,-,
,.m-
-r-.,
c,--,
r,-,
,.--n.-
,--,----en,--,,.
e,n-,,,-m-. -,,,
m,>-w-,,,-
en,m
-,-m
~ _ _ _.
1 August 17,19%
i I
2 DEPOSITION O
Mr. Irv DeWald IC EXHIBIT L.E. Comstock Eng. Co.
Braidwood Nuclear Station Braidwood, II
Dear Mr. DeWald,
As of our $12.00 raise to all Level II inspecotra with $.50 increments for each additional certifications, the overall moral and pride in our work and company has decaped to zero. Less than a week after we were promised that all Level II inspectors would start at $12.00 per hour, the company began to hire inspectors at $1L.00 and
$16.00 per hour.
Copies of letters written to prospective employees were found in the Zerox machine and when we confronted management we were told it was none of our business. Since this time approximately 30 inspectors have left the job. Some for a lesser salary because of managements attitude towards the employees.
I strongly emphasize that management has been confronted by the employees on several occasions about their lack of concern for their employees. We have constantly been under pres-
)
sure to train new people in several different areas to justify their big starting salaries.. Again, we were told it was none of our business and if we didn't do as we were told, we would be subject to disciplinary action. For at least the last six months, we have been subject to endless harassment and intimidation by Constock's management to justify the incompetence and disregard for all ecapany inspectors.
e i
on one occasion, I was given a Q.A. Audit and was told that I had to complete a total review of all g calibration records by a certain date, no matter how I did it or I would be subject to disciplinary action.
I confronted Mr. Pob Seltman who d
is Coastoex's Q.A. Engineer and told him that a proper review of these records could not be ac,complished within that short period of time. Again, I was harassed and intimidated *into being done with my review on the given date no matter how I did it. I never did nor will I ever falsify documentation for anyone or for any reason. I hold my professional attitude and ability above anyone on any manage-ment level.
I have been harassed and intimidated as to the quantity of g work and of g wWagness to do anything management required, never the quality of g work.
Due to Comstock negligence, several inspectors certification due dates were over-looked and allowed to lapse,'therefore making them not certified in many areas.
The attitude and moral of our company as a team further decayed to a dangerous level.
$ Imad Inspector, Larry Phillips, left Aug. Bth on funeral leave. At that time, being the only person certified in calibration.and receiving, I was confronted by Mr. R.M. Sakalac and told that I would complete and do the work in both areas no matter how I did it.
I was told that he would have people do my leg work and make out checklist and that I was to sign the paper work. I feel that this was a violation of NRC regulations.
I refuse to falsify documentation. After this incident I was once again harassed, intimidated, and threatened disciplinary action. On several occasions I asked for help, but was told "Either do it our way or suffer the conse-quences." I feel that this is a total insult to my moral attitude and professional career. On Monday, Aug 13th, I was approached again by Mr. Sakalac and told that if I didn't complete my calibration assignments, couplete my recieving assignments, train Bob Wicks and Tom Dunbar in calibrations and train Terry Gman and Herschel Stout in recieving, "I would never ever be put in Coastock's C.E.A. Training Pro-j gram". Mr. Sakalac then told me that "Sometimes your have to play a little chess in the business to keep your job". Pty reply was that I didn't realise that black-i mail and chess were the same thing. Throughout the week I suffered total harassment, intimidation, threats, and the thought of blackmail. I still managed to maintain the highest level of professionalism doing both jobs to the best of g ability.
Finally
.p.
on F? iday, Aug 17th, I was preparing Thursd y' status wh;n W. Puckott approach 2d ma
~
in conversation and at that moment R.M. Sakalac ran from the other end of the room yelling that I had better things to do then talk to a fellow inspector.
I was told I would be written up for my bad attitude.
I was told there would be a meeting at t
w 9:00 A.M. with management to read my charges.
I was put on hold five times through-cut the day until L:L5 P.M. when I was finally read my charges. At that time I was told it did not matter how I did my job or how good of a job I was doing. I was told that if Comstock management did not like you, you were gone!
I was also told that if I ever wanted to make a living for g family again, I had better bow-down to their way of doing things.
Earlier in the day I had ecnfronted Mr. Larry Seese as to the problem with Mr. Sakalac and ask that he speak with at least six witnesses about 3e incident above. When I asked him about the conversation he had with the witness-cs, I was told it didn't matter what they said.
I was again theatened to either cet like a puppet for the compay or that I would never work again.
1 Since g hire of Aug.1,1982, I have perfomed all y duties in a professional man-ner to the best of my ability. My records will prove that I am a very conscientious person, that I have established an excellent working relationship with Ccmonwealth Edison, Pittsburg Test. Labs and Union Local 176 - Electrical Craftsmen.
In all of y two years with Comstock Company, I have worked accessive overtime in the attempt to secure the stability and competency of L.K. Comstock.
I was informed by Larry Seese that g certification in the field of calibration was always to be considered a part-time job.
Yet I have worked more overtime than anyone else in the office.
I feel that femal charges should be brought against all people involved with the incidents listed above. Please notify me of pending action.
Sincerely, Jord *:. Seeders Y
CC:
R. Cacero Com. Ed.
/
D.R. Stene - INPO r
B. Schultz - NRC i
Attorney at Law gggC6[
F. Black O
e 8
.------.,..,---,_--,-._,_,,,,~,,r-
lO j
TO:
Irv DeWald i
FROM:
R.M. Saklak
SUBJECT:
J. Seeders - Intter 8-17-84 l
As requested I have gathered my response to the subject letter written by John Seeders (8-17-84). The following facts are alligned in reference to the 3rd paragraph which contains statements and accusations made by I
Mr. Seeders.
S.
Mr. Seeders stated that during the absence of his Imad, L. Phillips; I (John) was the only person certified in calibrations and receiving.
R This statement is false based on the fact that Myra Sproull (who also works in Johns area) was certified in calibrations and receipt j
inspections.
1 S
Mr. Seeders stated that he was told by R. M. Saklak tot do the work
}
in both areas no matter how you (John) do it.
R his statement is false based on a discussion with L. Phillips at a i
lead meeting August 7,1984.
Stipulated at the meeting was that M. Sproull could handle the calibration responsibilities and J. Seeders I
could handle cross training H. Stout and T. Gorman while doing receipt inspections during Larry's absence.
j I
{
S Mr. Seeders stated that he was told by R. M. Saklak to have people do his (John) leg work and make out a checklist and that he (John) was to sign the paper work.
R 21s statement is falso based on M. Sproull being certified in the area of calibrations where she could certainly perform and sign the necessary i
paper work.
S Mr. Seeders went en to say that 'after this incident I (John) was once again harassed, intimidated, and threatened disciplanary action.
R Mr. Seeders references to an " incident". If the topic of this incident is what I think he is talking about, cross training H. Stout and T. Gorman. It took me three days (8-8-84, 8-9-84, 8-10-84) to convince i
John that the job could be done with the existing manpower. With in those three days wt constituted harassment, intimidation and dis-ciplinary actior wd to be defJned by Mr. Seeders.
i i
S Mr. Seeders quoted thats on several occasions he (John) asked for help, but was told "either do it our way or suffer the consequences."
R Mr. Seeders was provided with a replacement inspector (M. Sproull) for L. Phillips but failed to acknowledge her availability for reasons un-i known.
4 I
S Mr. Seeders stated that R. M. Saklak told him (John) that if he (John) didn't complete calibration and receipt inspection assignments and train four (4) pecple, he (John) would never be put in the Comstock CEA Training Program.
g400002030
lt l.b.j2ct:
J. Sisdars - letter 8-17 Continuad Paga 2 of.
R This statement is false in tIhat I explained why his attending the up coming classes on 8-14-84 and 8-15-84 could not be possible at that time due to the fact that his area of responsibility and trainers would be unattended leaving only Myra to do the work.
S Mr. Seeders quoted R. M. Saklak as saying: "sometimes you have to play j
a little chess in the business to keep your job."
R his is a misquote. I did relate scheduling cross training to a game of chess in that both require planning ahead in order to be successful.
S Mr. Seeders stated that; he (John) didn't realize that blackmail and chess were the same thag.
R I believe Mr. Seeders did not consult the definition of blackmail. his statement is way out of context if he was searching for a Noun to re-present my directives. ne whole blackmail issue was not introduced by Mr. Seeders until the day of his issued warning 8-17-84.
In closing I can safely say that John Seeders is not an ignorant individual.
His potential of being what he says he is could be obtained only through his own efforts. The direction he has taken is definitely negative as mentioned in the written warning. If I was the only individual that has experienced and seen this conduct I would have to reconsider my thoughts and actions.
Respectfully, Of_
R.
. Sakl Qua ntrol Supervisor RMS/pb
. ~.
O m
00002031
I l E h0
/
I,'
GGh l'
.k
~~
Comstock Engineering, Inc.
Memorandum To:
Whom It May concern Office: Braidwood From.
I. F. DeWald
Subject:
Review of J. Seeders Istter Dated 8-17-84 Date:
9-25-84 Control No. 84-09-25-13 An indepth review of the mncerns Mr. seeders expressed in his letter to I. F. DeWald dated 8-17-84 has been conducted, as documented. Please review the attached documentation.
Respectfully,
!+0c!d -
I.F.mWed Quality Control Manager O
IFD/smm Attachments cca F. Rolan T. Trumble R. Marino T. Paserba D. Shamblin R. Schultz Braidwood NRC Inspec.
M. Wallace T. Quaka QC File O
54 00002012 55
Paga 1 of 11 f..........
\\
4
)
l 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 drafted by him (J. Seeders).
After reading and digesting the contents of his letter (J. Seeders), a meeting was held with F. Rolan, L.K.C. Project Manager; L. Seese, Comstock Engineering, Inc., Assistant Quality l
Control Manager; R. Seltmann, Quality Assurance Engineer Comstock Engineering; and Mr. R. Saklak, QC Supervisor Comstock Engineering, Inc. During the meeting Mr. L. Tapella, CECC PCD, came into Mr. Rolan's 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.
l Telephone conversations were held with myself, I. DeWald, Mr. T. Trumble Comstock Engineering Inc. and Mr. R. Marino Corporate Manager QA/QC Services Comstock Engineering Inc. discussing the legal aspects of Mr. John Seeders' letter and it's impact.
i A smeting was also. held with myself (I. DeWald), Mr. M. Wallace CECO PCD, Mr. D. Shamblin CECO PCD, and Mr. J. Gieseker CECO PCD
)
discussing the allegations and concerns expressed in Mr. John Seeders' l
letter dated 17 August 1984.
O Further investigations concerning Mr. J. Seeders' letter was performed as follows.
l l
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 Mr. Seeders was l
7-root cause for the issuance of the subject letter.
asked about the 30 inspectors leaving the job site since the estab-lishment of the $12.00 per hour minimum wage level for Imvel II j
inspectors of which he had no real substantiating evidence that this happened, although the fact is that 6 inspectors had left the job site.
3 (M. Hellmer - 4/19/84, T. Imsh - 4/19/84, D. Crispino - 4/19/84, 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 i
QA/QC Services, Coastock Engineering Inc. and the fact was put to the entire QC group that in order to obtain a high quality individual t
I 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.
i
)
i i
00002013 i
=_
J. Sied2rs Letter of Accusations and Concerns - Cont.
~
Mr. Seeders' statement of copies of letters written to prospective employees being found in the xerox machine is only partially true as one (1) letter was left in the xerox machine by the Quality Control Departments Secretary, the individual was S. Wallace and was offered 314.00 per hour. Immediate action was taken and the secretary was replaced and relieved of her secretary duties by a newly hired 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 have to be trained and the presently qual? *ied inspectors would have to do the training to get the first initial certification so that individ-uals can perform the intended function of inspection of which they were l
hired to do.
Level II inspector accouplishing training is also an ANSI N45.2.6 requirement for a level II certified individual to be able to perform. Therefore, his statencat is unjustifiable.
l The statement to the affect of disciplinary action being taken if the training was not performed is an untrue statement as once again i
no one was ever given or threatened disciplinary action if they did not conduct training for the newly hired individuals it was explained that a requirement of a level II inspector is to be able to train other inspectors / individuals.
The statement "For'at least the last six months, we have been subject to endless harrassment and intimidation by Coastocks' management to justify the incompetence and disregard for all company inspectors," is also untrue. If Mr. Seeders is speaking for himself, this may be the fact as he has been inspecting the calibration area of which there has been numerous audit findings in his area of responsibility. There is presently a review being conducted of the calibration records of which was initiated by a CECO Audit report i
QA-20-84-528, finding #2 Item #3.
This review is presently revealing numerous errors in the calibration records area. The review that is presently underway in the calibration records area that Mr. Seeders was assigned originally to perform in order to respond to the audit finding was not adequately accomplished, of which, when confronted i
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 i
pertaining to his performance of which he gets very offensive.
His statement pertaining to inspectors certifications lapsing due to Coastock's negligence is another witrue statement, in that Commonwealth Edison had invoked an inspector certification up grade i
on 7/16/84 for all site contractors to comply with. 1lhe certifica-tion procedure and requirements were being revised therefore certifications were halted due to the new requirements that were inposed.
- O
~
00002014
i J. 5 sdars Letter of Accusations and Concerns - Cont.
l l
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 i
direction to him pertaining to "he would have people do my leg work i
and make out checklist and that I was to sign the paperwork" is again l
a false statement due to the fact another certified 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 j
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.
'Ihe 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. Saltaann 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.
f-24 -2Y Da 00002015
Pcga 4 cf 11 J. Seeders Letter of Accusations and Concerns - Cont.
Question: Have you ever heard Mr. Saklak harrass or intimidate anyone?
Response :
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. ff3 f-ZSTR 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 I haven't witnessed any such actions. He is just doing his job.
Question: What do you feel is the root cause of the morale problem?
Response : Based on conversations 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 sununary of the review of Mr. Puckett is, he is seated in the room where Mr. Seeders is seated and has the opportunity to observe the ccriversations 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 individuals.
Mr. Puckett is a new employee and would also have an unbias opinion of both individuals.
Q)
L a u r-
- m, La u,vo OU T?fd da 6 $, rg, 9 - 2 &
- d'y-00002016 6um
i Page 5 of 11 J. Seeders letter of Accusations and Concerns - Cont.
s a
Interview with L. Phillips concerning Mr. Seeders letter as Mr. Phillips 4
is Mr. Seeders Imad Inspector.
4 4
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
At the time My grandfather had just passed away and my mind was full of various thoughts and I feel my statements j
were misconstrued, all I wanted to happen was Mr. Saklak a
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.
l Question: What do you feel of Mr. Seeders' performance as an I
inspector?
Response: My opinion of Mr. Seeders is that he is an efficient j
inspector and performs his job in an efficient manner.
2 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?
p
Response
Mr. Saklak's way of handling people could be construed as harrassment and intimidation due to losing his temper, k
O-his mannerisms, and when expressing himself, I do feel 7
there is a personality clash between the two individuals.
Question: What do you feel is the root cause of the morale problem?
j Response: he inspectors do not trust each other, the pay situation, 5
training requirements and so many people in training drops other inspection areas down, uppor 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 s= marizing 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 i
Mr. Phillips was unable to get Mr. Seeders to accomplish his assigned 9
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. Se morale problem in Mr. Phillips opinion also as with the other individuals reviewed is 2
salary, training and upper management problems.
Mr. Phillips has j=
,}
been employed by Comstock Engineering for several years and has an
{
excellent knowledge of the site, and the problems.
9 O
671A+
7-A b-94 5
00002017 u
u
- u gm g
q
- mw
Page 6 of 11 J. Seeders Letter of Accusations and Concerns - Cont.
Interview with D. Coss concerning Mr. Seeders letter and Friday, August 17, 1984.
Ques tion : 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
~
specifies.
Question: What do you feel is the root cause of the morale problem?
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?
Response
No not at all personally if it has happened to someone else, I don't know about it.
Su: mary 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/
intimidation that he has heard of could be judged as hearsay as he did not give specifics. His opinion of this particular incident as i
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 comunents that were expressed by the other individuals interviewed.
O id:4V "9any 00002018
Pags 7 of 11 J. Saeders Letter of Accusations and Concerns - Cont.
Interview with M. Sproull concerning the incident of Friday, August 17, 1984 and Mr. Seeders letter pertaining to the incident.
Ques tion : 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?
Re spons e :
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: me 500 certification is a can of worms, old people are still trying to get this carts and now a mass exodus to train, new people being paid for certs not yet obtained, lead inspectors need to consnunicate with their super-visors and inspection people, mass confusion due to procedure changes. Management, QA division needs to give appropriate answers.
A summary of the interview is that again the general concencous of the individuals is salary, comununication and some confusion.
M. Sproull brought out the fact that salary is the main area of unrest for the QC Department personnel due to the 50$ oort and training. It is felt that the harrassment and intimidation is an opinionated judgement of Mr. Saklak's mannerisms, expressions and tespe rment. 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 9w 00002019
Pagt 8 of 11 J. Send]rs Lettar of Accusations and Concerns - Cont.
e 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.
Question : What do you remember of the happeni.sgs 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 office.
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 personal opinion is that he is doing his job coupled with training, receiving, calibration and all the paperwork, plus the Audit response.
Question s 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.
ne interview with Mr. Wicks was felt to be straight forward to his feelings and opinions of the areas discussed concerning Mr. Seeders. Rare 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 concarning his opting to be removed from the lead QC inspector position was during April 1984 when the new salary level for QC inspectors (I4 vel 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 acceIted and he was assigned to the i
]
field inspection personnel.
(
kU)OAa
+2(r 8 4 00002320
Page 9 of 11 J. Suders Letter of Accu 2ctions and Conc 2rns - Cont.
[\\
J. Iobue interview concerning Mr. Seeders letter dated 17 August 1984 to the accusations made concerning Mr. R. Saklak.
Question: Do you feel Mr. Saklak intimidates personnel in the Quality Control Department?
Responses 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 arwas 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?
Besponse 2e 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.
i,[ [
In summary of the interview, J. Lobue has been esployed with the QC Department since 1981 at which time she came up through the steps from Ievel I then to Iavel II.
On April 1984 at the time of the new salary change for I4 vel II inspectors was established she received a
'1 considerable raise in salary.
J. Icbue's inspection performance is f
outstanding as to correctness and being thorough, although Mr. Saklak is disliked very Jauch by this individual. Throughout the discussion
[
y'f the subject of Mr. Saklak being the QC Supervisor and not totally certified in every discipline was addressed, reiterating the fact i [y k,T Mr. Saklak is the Supervisor seems to indicate that when he 9
h performs his managerial duties it is labled as intimidation and harrassment to personnel under his direction.
Mr. Saklak is presently training in various ar,'as to get certified in all areas of inspection.
D. Schirmer was casually interviewed as to the statement 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.
00002021
J. Sesders Letter of Accusctions and Concarns - Cont.
)
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 resolutiens to Mr. Seeders allega-tions and accusations against management and the individuals indicated in his letter, ne entire issue has stensned 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 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 3
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 accomplishes all of his tasks to the best of his ability and strives to do quality work. Through the i
present on-going review of the calibration records as mentioned previously in this report, the review has disclosed numerous instances where Mr. Seeders has made Quality errors in his documentation. These numerous documentation errors consist of:
A.
No Inspection Correction Reports written for out of calibration tools.
(
B.
Reference BY, BR, CEA Disposition.
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.
Calibration due dates written in standards block.
J.
No rework or check made for out of cal. ovens.
The 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 a
management it is taken as harrassment and intimidation due to poor performance of his assignments.
~
00002022
Page 11 of 11 J. Se2ders Lettar of Accusstions and Concerns - Cont.
4 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 combat 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 serve as a cooling off period.
l
'!herefore, it is the opinion of this reviewer the J. Seeders issue has been thoroughly reviewed for all so called accusations and allegations,
j 1
20!=4 K -
I. F. DeWald Quality Control Manager IrD/ sam Attachments cc:
)
R. Schultz NRC 1
p T. Quaka CECO D. Shamblin GCO M. Wallace CECO
\\
54 00002023 55
,,nw....- em _ _
_. /f /// / S 3 T R
(AUGUST 1, 1985)
QC INSPECTOR HARASSMENT CONTENTION Contrary to Criterion I, " Organization" of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, and 10 C.F.R. Section 50.7, Commonwealth Edison Company and its electrical contractor, L.K. Comstock Engineering Company have s_/
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 16timidation by Comstock super-visors.
Such harassment and 16timidation has been carried out or participated in by QC Manager Irv
_DeWald, Assistant QC Manager Larry Seese, QA Manager O'
Bob Seltman and QC Supervisor R.M. Sakalac.
Such harassment included widespread pressure to approve deficient work, to sacrifice quality for production and cost considerations and to knowingly violate established quality procedures.
Harassment and retaliatory treatment included threats of violence, verbal abuse, termination of employment, transfer to undesirable jobs or work in areas where quality deficiencies could not be noted, assignments to perform burdensome or menial "special projects" and other adverse treatment.
Such discriminatory action was taken because, of the victim's expression of quality or safety concerns.
Former Level II QC inspector John D. Seeders has knowledge of these widespread instances of harassment.
By letter of August 17, 1984, Seeders complained to the NRC, Edison and Comstock management regarding instances of harassment directed against him.
Subsequently, Mr.
Seeders was involuntarily transferred to the position of Engineering Clerk in retaliation for his expression of quality concerns.
Such assignment was intended by Comstock to keep Mr. Seeders away from sensitive work areas.
Although QC Supervisor R.M.
)
[
ATTACHMENT B PAGE 2
~
l Sakalac was finally terminated in 1985 for his mis-treatment of QC inspectors and other alsconduct, the effects of his harassment remain uncorrected and systematic harassment continues at Comstock to the present.
The existence of widespread harassadnt impugns the integrity and effectiveness of on-going corrective action programs designed only to address 1
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 i'n the course of his duties at i
Braidwood.
Mr. Puckett was hired by Comstock in May 1984 in the newly created position of Level III.QC Inspector
~ wh'ose duties included conducting a review of Coastock procedures, tests requirements for the more than 50 Level II QC Inspectors, rev_iew of the Level II's inspection work, and the resolution _ of inspection disputes.
Mr. Puckett was highly -qualified with-20 years' nuclear Navy and nine years' nuclear power i
experience.
See, Resume, Exhibit B.
During the i
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, i
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 i
pretext that he should have scored higher than-his 865 on a sualification 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 i
finding unlawful discrimination by Comstock against i
i m
,,__,..,.___-.,.,_..ym_.,m_.
ATTACHMENT B PAGE 3
'4 5
Puckett and ordered relief.
Notes of Decision, November 6, 1984, Exhibit G.
Mr. Puckett presented his case at a hearing before an Administrative Law i
Judge on Comstock's appeal.
See, Complainants' Pre-Hearing Exchange, Exhibit H.
Comstock settled Mr.
Puckett's claim before putting on its case.
The terms of settlement are subject to a non-disclosure agreement between Comstock and Mr. Puckett.
G gr O
e l
O
.