ML20206A012
| ML20206A012 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 06/11/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#286-621 OL, NUDOCS 8606160196 | |
| Download: ML20206A012 (220) | |
Text
- ---- - - --- -- -- - --
ORIGl\A_
UNITED STATES
'O NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-456 OL 50-457 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Braidwood Station, Units 1 & 2)
O LOCATION: JOLIET, ILLINOIS PAGES: 3716 - 3934 DATE: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 1986
,b v'I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I OfficialReporters 444 North CapitolStreet Washington, D.C. 20001 8606160196ADOCKggSNhS6 (202) 347-3700 PDG POR I NATIONWIDE COVERAGE
3716
~
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X 5 :
In the Matter of: :
6 : Docket No. 50-456 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY : 50-457 OL 7 :
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 :
8 and 2) :
__________________X 9
10 Page: 3716 - 3934 11 College of St. Francis 500 North Wilcox 12 Joliet, Illinois 13 Tuesday, June 11, 1986.
(~ }
14 The hearing in the above-entitled matter reconvened 15 at 9:00 A. M.
16 17 BEFORE:
18 JUDGE HERBERT GROSSMAN, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 19 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
l 20 l JUDGE RICHARD F. COLE, Member, i 21 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 22 Washington, D. C.
23 JUDGE A. DIXON CALLIHAN, Membe r ,
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 24 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
25 APPEARANCES:
( Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3717 1 On behalf of the Applicant: 2 MICHAEL I. MILLER, ESQ. 3 JOSEPH GALLO, ESQ. ELENA Z. KEZELIS, ESQ. 4 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza' 5 Chicago, Illinois 606.02 6 On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff: 7 ELAINE I. CHAN, ESQ. 8 GREGORY ALAN BERRY, ESQ. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9 7335 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20014 10 On behalf of the Intervenors: 11 ROBERT GUILD, ESQ. 12 TIMOTHY WRIGHT, ESQ. 13 C) 14 15 16 17 18 l 19 20 l 21 22 23 24 25 . 7s V Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 w ,-m e w..e-w -
,r,- ,y. --.. --
3718' em U 1 EXHIBIT INDEX . Marked Received Intervenors' Exhibit No. 36 3870 3872 2 Intervenors' Exhibit No. 37 3878 3879 Intervenors' Exhibits Nos. 38 and 39 3883 3886 3 Intervenors' Exhibit No. 40 3888 3888 4 TESTIMONY OF THOMAS J. MAIMAN 5 DIRECT EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. GALLO 3776 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. GUILD: 3801 CROSS EXAMINATION 8 BY MR. GUILD: 3807 BOARD EXAMINATION 9 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: 3837 CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) 10 BY MR. GUILD: 3838
- BOARD EXAMINATION 11 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: 3847 CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) 12 BY MR. GUILD: 3848 CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRY:
(') 13 BOARD EXAMINATION 3891 14 BY JUDGE COLE: 3899 l REDIRECT EXAMINATION 15 BY MR. GALLO: 3901 BOARD EXAMINATION 16 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: 3905 REDIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) l 17 BY MR. GALLO: 3905 l BOARD EXAMINATION 18 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: 3915 REDIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) 19 BY MR. GALLO: 3915 BOARD EXAMINATION 20 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: 3917 REDIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) 21 BY MR. GALLO: 3918 RECROSS EXAMINATION 22 BY MR. GUILD: 3926 23 24 () Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ueneva, 1111nois ou14e (312) 232-0262 l
3719 - O 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: The hearing is reconvened. 2 This is the 18th day of hearing. 3 We will begin with a few preliminary matters. 4 First, I would like to request that Staff, when it 5 presents its testimony -- I am sorry. Off the record. 6 (There followed a discussion outside the 7 record.) 8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- address the question of 9 what standards are required in particular with regard to 10 welding. 11 So far from the testimony we have had, it appears 12 as though there weren't any required standards other 13 than what the architect-engineer or the construction (]} i 14 company wished to impose on themselves, and there may 15 well be some REG GUIDES or other suggested or required 16 standards. 17 It seems a little difficult to accept the l 18 proposition that nuclear plants can be built to whatever 19 standards the contractors wish to impose. 20 MR. BERRY: Mr. Chairman. 21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Berry. 22 MR. BERRY: The Staff will address the 23 Board's question in its testimony. 24 Ji'DGE GROSSMAN: The second preliminary 1 25 matter relates to the Intervenors' request to have the i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3720 O 1 Hunter and Parkhurst matters considered within or as 2 part of or as an addition to the harassment and 3 intimidation issue. 4 I would note that when Intervenors originally 5 requested that we consider these matters, they requested 6 that these matters be considered as part of the 7 pre-existing harassment and intimidation issue; and 8 without the Board going into the substance of these 9 matters, we directed that they be considered or, at 10 least, that the parties brief the question of whether 11 they would be admissible as late-filed contentions, 12 which the parties have done. (} 13 Now, it appears as though everyone, all the 14 parties, are in agreement that the Hunter matter is a 15 continuation of the Hunter harassment and intimidation, 16 which was part of the original contention, he being one 17 of the inspectors that went to the NRC. 18 By the way, if I mischaracterize whatever is agreed 19 to by the parties, they can correct me. 20 The Parkhurst matter also seems to me at this 21 juncture, now that I have considered the facts, to 22 possibly come within the ambit of the existing 23 harassment and intimidation issue also, in that it might 24 reflect the continuing situation referred to in the 25 admitted contention at the end of Part 1 of contention O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ) ueneva, Illinois ou144 (312) 232-0262
3721 1 2, in which the last two sentences state, "Although QC 2 Supervisor R. M. Saklak was finally terminated in 1985 3 for his mistreatment of QC Inspectors and other 4 misconduct, the effects of his harassment remain 5 uncorrected" -- and here is the important part - "and 6 systematic harassment continues at Comstock to the 7 present. The existence of widespread harassment impugns 8 the integrity and effectiveness of ongoing corrective 9 action programs designed only to address other 10 widespread QA failures at Comstock." 11 In addition to that, it appears to me that the 12 Applicant has put on testimony and will be putting on 13 further testimony with regard to the Quality First (]} 14 Program, in which, as an example, in the testimony this 15 morning Mr. Maiman is going to have -- in his prefiled 16 testimony, Answer 14, he asserts that matters brought to 17 i the Quality First Program are treated with anonymity and 18 they are thoroughly investigated and immediate 19 corrective action is taken. 20 It appears to me that the Parkhurst matter might 21 fit the category of rebuttal assertion and, therefore, 22 might be proper within the ambit of the existing 23 contentions, since, I believe, what is asserted is that 24 Ms. Parkhurst brought her concerns to Quality First and, l l 25 as a result of that, the concerns were given to I ( Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134
- (312) 232-0262
3722 i O 1 management and she was subsequently, consequently 2 terminated. 3 Okay. With that as the background, I guess we will 4 open it for discussion; and I guess even -- 5 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman. 6' JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild.
- 7 MR. GUILD: Let me start, because I need to 8 make a statement for the record.
9 First, I think our position is congruent with the 10 Chairman's recitation. Our view is that these facts, 11 both Parkhurst facts and the Hunter facts, fall squarely 12 within the scope of the pre-existing contention; and (} 13 that was our view at the outset. There is a matter that needs to be corrected, l 14 15 though; and let me state the circumstances. 16 As the Board and parties will recall, the matter, 1. 17 the controversy, about the scope of the existing 18 contention and the status of the Parkhurst and Hunter 19 issues came up during the first week of hearing in 20 Kankakee; and, essentially, the Chairman stated that the 21 Intervenors, should they desire to pursue the matters 22 further, should consider filing new contentions, given 23 the Board's view at the time that they were beyond the 24 scope of the existing contention. 25 My colleague, Doug Cassel, worked on that matter Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd. veneva, AA11nois oviae (312) 232-0262 ( . _ _ . . - _ _ . . _ _ - - . - - - - - ..
3723 O 1 while I continued to try the case in Kankakee; and, 2 indeed, Mr. Cassel filed a pleading that is now the 3 motion for a new contention; and, indeed, there is a 4 factual error in that pleading that I should bring to 5 the Board and Party's attention. 6 Applicant, if you will, pounces on the point that 7 Intervenors knew or should have known of the Parkhurst 8 allegations through the device of a Freedom of 9 Information Act response by the NRC Staff that was 10 answered in January of 1986. 11 Indeed, we did receive, of course, the index that 12 the Staff appends to its pleading, Applicant does as (~3 13 well; and, indeed, we subsequently, in late January, V 14 received all of the FOI documents. They are voluminous 15 in nature, perhaps ten inches, a ten-inch stack of 16 paper.. 17 Among those documents were, indeed, some Parkhurst 18 documents. 19 Now, I must state that I and only I among counsel 20 had any contact with those documents. 21 Mr. Cassel did not and he was simply unaware that 22 there had been any prior Parkhurst documents at the time 23 he drew the pleading; and I must confess that it's my 24 dereliction that I didn't review the pleading carefully 25 enough to identify that factual error; and it is, Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Ueneva, 1111nois culae (312) 232-0262 ;
3724 1 indeed, incorrect. 2 The second portion of the representation which is 3 quoted by Applicant -- it appears at Page 4 of our 4 pleading -- is to the effect that we learned only of a 5 ruling by the Department of Labor, Administrative Law 6 Judge, finding in Ms. Parkhurst's favor on her employed 7 protection complaint through the device of the Board 8 notification; and that is, indeed, accurate. 9 I can continue, because I know the Board wanted to 10 have the issue treated about the timeliness of 11 Intervenors' notice of the Parkhurst complaint. 12 I don't believe the fact that the Parkhurst 13 documents that we were aware of in January came to us (J~T 14 through that device undercuts the position that we have 15 taken on the new contention or the Chairman's view that 16 the facts are within the ambit of the pre-existing 17 contention. 18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Might be within the ambit. 19 I will have discussion on that. t l 20 MR. GUILD: Might be, indeed, Judge. l l 21 If I can continue, if this is of interest, the 22 Parkhurst facts that came to my attention in late 23 January, frankly, did not flag the issue as stating 24 sufficient basis for a new contention. 25 To the extent that it referenced Comstock at all, ( Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ueneva, Allinois oulae (312) 232-0262
3725 O 1 it referenced Comstock tangentially. 2 If you will recall, the Parkhurst facts are rather 3 knotty about who controlled whom and to whom she 4 reported and by whom she was employed. 5 The facts appear to be, as stated in the ALJ 6 decision in April, that she was hired by Comstock but i 7 loaned to Sargent & Lundy. 8 That Sargent & Lundy supervised her work on a 9 day-to-day basis, but that Comstock was responsible for 10 acts of retaliation that took place later during her 11 tenure. 12 The conclusion of the ALJ was that Sargent & Lundy {} 13 and Comstock were to be treated as jointly liable within l 14 his application of labor law and Title 7 principles for 15 joint liability. I 16 I think the facts that emerge now are, as best I , 17 understand them, that Sargent & Lundy -- the work that l 18 she was doing under the Sargent & Lundy supervision was 19 managing the Mylar room. 20 It's, essentially, a room where design drawings or 21 plastic copies of design drawings, Mylar copies of 22 design drawings, are maintained. 23 Now, the fact is not stated in any of the papers I 24 have but I think it's plausible that these are the very 25 Mylars that have been the source of testimony with Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- _ _ . _ _ . . - - - - _ . ._ = . _ _
3726 f 1 respect to the Sargent & Lundy cable pan hanger walkdown 2 program. 3 It certainly seems to me that the Sargent & Lundy l 4 function that we are talking about is the design 5 function that supports the Comstock scope of work. 6 In other words, these are design drawings to which 7 Comstock has reference when they perform their field 8 construction and, perhaps -- and I don't know this -- to 9 which Comstock refers when they perform their field 10 quality control. 11 So I believe there are direct factual ties, aside 12 from the Quality First involvement, between Sargent & 13 Lundy and Comstock; and those ties factually are [} 14 relevant to the pre-existing harassment contention, 15 because of continuing representation by Applicants -- 16 and maybe the NRC Staff as well -- that one of the 17 checks on this process is that there is Sargent & Lundy, i 18 the independent architect-engineer for the project, who, 19 essentially, reviews the final condition of the Comstock 20 work and exercises independent engineering judgment 21 about the appropriateness of the actions taken in the 22 field. l 23 If, indeed, Sargent & Lundy is responsible for 24 harassment and intimidation of employees performing a 25 quality assurance function, then that goes to rebutting, j ( 1 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. veneva, Illinois oviae (312) 232-0262
3727 ("x 1 it seems to me, an aspect of or an element of 2 Applicant's case, that the Sargent & Lundy review should 3 be seen in some fashion remedial or corrective of 4 problems that may exist before Sargent & Lundy sees 5 these things. 6 The significance of the ALJ decision is that, as we 7 state in our pleading, it's the first basis for viewing 8 the Parkhurst claims as an independent contention, if 9 you will. 10 Applicant makes the assertion in their papers that 11 the Commission decision on the admissibility of the 12 balance of our quality assurance contention is r' 13 dispositive of any argument that we are entitled to, U' 14 essentially, await a final -- await an ALJ or await a 15 Department of Labor decision that harassment has taken 16 place. 17 They state, in essence, that we are obligated to 18 have acted before there was a determination that Ms. 19 Parkhurst had been the victim of unlawful harassment, 20 intimidation, retaliation. 21 The fact, though, is that in the case of the i ! 22 amended quality assurance contention, the problem was l
- 23 BPI is now being scored by the Commission for having l
24 waited months after there was by all party's agreement 25 there was a factual basis, a legal basis, for a Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 1 _- - -. .- _ _ .
3728 O 1 contention. 2 We waited because we waited for the remedy to be 3 either proved or disproved. 4 There was a finding by the NRC of a quality 5 assurance breakdown at Braidwood arising from an 6 inspection of the Phillips Getschow scope of work. 7 There were subsequent findings of violations in 8 many other major contractors, the 8309 inspection 9 report. 10 There was the Jame's Keppler testimony in August of 11 '84 that said there were serious problems at Braidwood. 12 All right. Everyone can see and I think the {} 13 Commission found as of those dates, say the Keppler 14 testimony, August, '84, there was a legal basis for 15 filing a quality assurance contention. Essentially, 16 there was a conclusion by someone in authority that 17 there was, indeed, a meritorious quality assurance 18 issue. i 19 We waited, and our position was we waited because 20 there was a Braidwood construction assessment program ! 21 and various other corrective actions. . 22 The Commission scored us for waiting, for choosing 23 to wait at our peril, and rejected our contention 24 because, after there was a solid basis for filing, we 25 waited. O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois bO1J4 (312) 232-0262
3729 O 1 All right. Now, the company can't simply have it f 2 both ways, because on the Parkhurst circumstance now, we 3 -- only as of the decision of the ALJ and the Department 4 of Labor and the knowledge of that decision, which came 5 late April of 1986, only then did we have s bas,is for 6 concluding that there was an independent, bonafide 7 harassment and intimidation contention relating to Ms. 8 Parkhurst; and we filed. 9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, yes; but I am not sure 10 that you can take the Commission's decision as 11 permitting you to wait until there is a final 12 determination. [} 13 14 It would appear to me that if you have notice of the issue and there is no final determination on which ( 15 you can rely for us to take official notice and apply 16 the doctrine of collateral estoppel, then you are i 17 required to make your case here. 18 MR. GUILD: Yes, I agree. l 19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And once the decision comes 20 down that's final in another forum, you can then use 21 those doctrines to request us to apply the findings; but , 22 before that happens, you just have to go and begin your 23 litigation here with regard to those issues. 24 Okay. Proceed, Mr. Guild. l i 25 MR. GUILD: My point is that, obviously, the l ! Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 l ! (312) 232-0262
3730 A V 1 collateral estoppel issue, the collateral estoppel 2 question, is a murky one and not one that is broached 3 any more than this by any of the parties on these 4 pleadings; and I don't mean to do that except to say 5 that the Staff and the company take the position that 6 it's unavailing, that the principle is unavailing at 7 this juncture because, indeed, the decision is not a 8 final decision of the Department of Labor. 9 So it's preliminary as they see it; and my only 10 point is that, as preliminary as it is -- and we don't 11 assert that we can await a final decision of the 12 Secretary of Labor before we act -- but the ALJ decision (} 13 is the first favorable consideration of Ms. Parkhurst's 14 claim, the first verification that there was anything to 15 her claim. 16 The point is this: She had, we now know, been ( 17 turned down by the Department of Labor, the Area l l 18 Director had rejected her claim. 19 The NRC Staff, as we see in an attachment to 20 Applicant's pleading, had performed an inspection 21 report. They don't mention Ms. Parkhurst's claim but 22 now we understand that it was Ms. Parkhurst's 1 23 allegations that were reviewed; and, as the ALJ said, 24 they essentially agreed with the position of the Area 25 Director, that there was no merit to her claims. Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, 1111nois ou144 (312) 232-0262
Y 3731 O' 1 So there. were two rulings against her, if you will. 2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. But the question, 3 again, Mr. Guild is notice, not binding effect of what 4 was done. 5 If you want to make the point that the ALJ decision 6 was the first matter that brought this issue to your 7 notice or brought any tie-in between her termination and 8 Comstock to your attention, that's one matter; and 9 that's the only one that I think you could properly 10 address here. 11 But if you are relying on the ALJ decision as being 12 a matter that you could use in your support, in support 13 of your position, I don't think your argument has any [} 14 validity, because in the absence of that decision, you 15 then had to rely on making your case here. 16 MR. GUILD: Yes. And I don't mean to suggest 17 that it was the legal significance of the ALJ's decision 18 that is the trigger. 19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. I 20 MR. GUILD: I mean to suggest that it's the 21 factual interpretation of that decision that gave us a 22 basis for filing the new contention. [ 23 Let me go back to what was available in January, l 24 because that is, obviously, the crux of the Company's 25 and Staff's position in attacking the good cause factor. Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l . .
3732 0 1 What I have to say is based a lot on hindsight, 2 because, frankly, what I have done is I have poured 3 through these documents with an eye toward now, knowing 4 what I know at this stage of the trial, having completed 5 discovery on all other issues, you know, how do I now 6 interpret the Parkhurst facts that are contained in 7 documents that came to us in late January? 8 I must say that those documents were among a 9 voluminous set of documents even in that set from the 10 NRC. The rest all have to do with the 24 inspectors, 11 and that was the focus of the discovery request by 12 Applicants and our perusal of those documents; and, of 13 course, they came within -- amidst hundreds of thousands (]) 14 of pages of other discovery documents on the full 15 contention that were being reviewed at the time. 16 Ms. Parkhurst filed two complaints with the 17 Department of Labor these papers reveal. 18 She filed a complaint with the Department of Labor 19 in February of '85, after having gone to Quality First 20 with complaints about the Mylar room and after having 21 been subsequently reprimanded by her Sargent & Lundy 22 supervisors, ostensibly for poor work practices. 23 Her complaint to the Department of Labor at that 24 time ended in an April 9, 1985, letter from the U. S. 25 Department of Labor to Ms. Parkhurst, which is one of Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois ou144 (312) 232-0262
3733 O V 1 the -- among the documents filed. It bears a number 2 "19" in the NRC's document list. 3 What it states, in short, is that the Department of 4 Labor planned to take no further action on her 5 complaint. 6 It says, "In order to bring this matter to a 7 satisfactory conclusion, you had requested a copy of an 8 employee performance note which Sargent & Lundy had 9 asked that you sign on February 1, 1985. You also 10 requested an assurance that no discriminatory action by 11 L. K. Comstock followed your complaint. 12 "In response to your complaint, L. K. Comstock was (~T 13 contacted and that firm secured from Sargent & Lundy a V 14 copy of the employee performance noted issue. Enclosed 15 is a copy of that document. 16 "In addition, L. K. Comstock has assured in a 17 letter to this office that L. K. Comstock will not in 18 any way discriminate against you because of your 19 complaint. 20 "Having secured the document copy and assurance of 21 nondiscrimination from L. K. Comstock, this office plans 22 to take no further action in this matter. 23 " Sincerely yours.' 24 So in April of 1985, essentially, the documents 25 presented to us in January reflected that the Department Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. _ ueneva, Illinois oulae (312) 232-0262
4 i 3734 O 1 of Labor closed the matter. 2 Ms. Parkhurst subsequently took a leave of absence 3 with the approval of both Sargent & Lundy and Comstock, 4 because her husband had suffered multiple brain tumors 5 and had been hospitalized for surgery. She was out for 6 three months, with approval. 7 When she returned, she returned and worked directly 8 for L. K. Comstock and she did so for a period of only 9 two weeks. . 10 At the conclusion of those two weeks, she was laid 11 off. 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: When was that, by the way? 13 MR. GUILD: The return to work took place {}} 14 June 3, 1985, and she was laid off June 14, 1985, by Mr. 15 Frank Rolan, the Comstock Project Manager, by Mr. -- I 16 think it's Joe Klena, K-L-E-N-A, the Comstock Project 17 Engineer. 18 All right, Ch. tiubsequently wrote another letter 19 to the Departaient at Labor. That second letter is dated 20 June 18, 1985. 21 The June 18, 1985, complaint, essentially, talks 22 about the illness of her husband, the fact that she 23 believed she had authority to take the leave of absence 24 but that, despite that authority, Comstock was treating 25 that leave as unauthorized and taking some punitive Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ueneva, Illinois oul34 (312) 232-0262
3735 : O 1 action for her and that, subsequently, she was laid off 2 under circumstances she believed to be discriminatory. 3 The thrust of her second letter is not the quality 4 or safety concerns that were the thrust of her initial 5 letter. 6 That was the status of affairs contained within the 7 four corners of the documents that were transmitted by I 8 the NRC Staff to Applicant, made available to us, 9 Janua ry of ' 86. 10 We have subsequently learned that an NRC Staff 11 inspection took place and found that her technical 12 concerns were, in their view, unsubstantiated. 13 There was an Area Director's decision by the []} 14 Department of Labor that was adverse to her. l t 15 An ALJ hearing took place on her appeal in January 16 of 1986 -- we had no knowledge of it at the time -- and 17 it led to the favorable Department of Labor 18 Administrative Law Judge determination that was 19 transmitted to the Board and parties by Board 20 notification in late April of 1986. 21 In short, our position is, on the merits of the 22 admissibility of the Parkhurst matter as a new 23 contention, that it was, indeed, timely filed; that it j 24 was timely filed on the basis of the facts disclosed in 25 the Board notification in late April and that the facts Os V Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3736 O 1 available to us in January were inadequate to , form a 2 basis for a new contention. 3 Now, that said, let me address the question of an. 4 alternative treatment of the Parkhurst facts as within 5 the scope of the existing contention, because it's our 6 belief that that really is the appropriate treatment of 7 those facts. , 8 Our position, basically, is that the Board need not 9 consider or determine the admissibility of the Parkhurst 10 matter as an independent contention. It's not the 11 desire of this party to litigate an independent 12 harassment and intimidation claim. (} 13 It is our desire to offer the Parkhurst record as 14 evidence in support of our existing harassment and 15 intimidation claim, in part for the reasons that the 16 Chairman surmised; and that is that it is indicative of 17 the fact that the Quality First Program is not as is 18 maintained by Applicant: a bona fide and effective means 19 for identifying and resolving concerns about safety and 20 quality, but, in fact, it's a program that gets those 21 concerns, as in this case, back to the object of the 22 concerns. 23 Evidence that the ALJ found reliable was to the 24 ef fect that both the Sargent & Lundy people and Messrs. 25 Rolan and Klena had knowledge of the Quality First Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 3737 l O 1 concerns at the time they took the action against Ms. 2 Parkhurst. 3 It's also relevant, we believe, because it shows 4 two other things. Frank Rolan, of course, is the 5 Project -- Comstock Project -- Construction Manager. 6 We believe that there has been significant evidence 7 that Mr. Rolan was a source of production pressure on 8 Comstock QC management, that, in turn, put that 9 pressure, including acts of harassment and intimidation, 10 on the Quality Control Inspectors themselves. 11 There is independent corroboration that Mr. Rolan, 12 when faced with facts himself regarding complaints of 13 quality and safety -- that is Ms. Parkhurst to Quality [} 14 First -- responded himself with a retaliatory action 15 toward that em'ployee. That is significant. 16 In addition, the Sargent & Lundy connection, we 17 believe, as already alluded to, provides an additional 18 source of concern; and that is that the Sargent & Lundy 19 people, who were performing some aspect of design and
- 20 engineering review of the Comstock work as it related --
21 as Ms. Parkhurst was involved in it, that they, when 22 faced with safety and quality concerns, responded not by 23 addressing those safety and quality concerns but by 24 meeting out retaliatory personnel action against Ms. 25 Parkhurst. O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l l l 3738 l 1 1 We believe that the Parkhurst facts ought.to be 2 considered within the context of the existing 3 contention. That so taken, they will not require any 4 significant expansion of the scope of that contention or 5 the evidence needed to try the contention. 6 Our position is that putting the Parkhurst record 7 before this Board is sufficient. 8 It then becomes a question for Applicant and the 9 NRC Staff how to meet that prima facie showing of 10 harassment, retaliatory action; and should they choose 11 to meet that prima facie showing, we believe that their 12 pleading indicates that three witnesses might be 13 required. (]~ 14 They project what we think is a fairly excessive 15 time for trying three witnesses on this matter, this 16 narrow question; but we think three witnesses ought to 17 be it, ought to be enough. 18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild, I will say right 19 now, without the Board having caucussed on this, that I 20 don't see at this juncture how you can use anything from 21 the Department of Labor record, other than what may be 22 admissions by the company in the record, in this 23 proceeding without having a final determination. 24 It would seem to me that if you are going to use l 25 anything with regard to Ms. Parkhurst, you are going to l () l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois oula4 (312) 232-0262
3739 () 1 have to have her here testifying. 2 You can't rely on any findings that are not yet
! 3 final to take the place of her testimony or whatever may 4 be admissible in this proceeding. .
5 MR. GUILD: Well, sir, I think that I would 6 like the opportunity to address the legal significance 7 of those findings in a more formal fashion; but assuming 8 that that position is the Board's ruling, we believe, 9 certainly, that there are factual matters of record in 10 that proceeding that do stand as admissions or are i 11 admissible on other bases, that, in fact, are relevant 12 to treatment of the Parkhurst matter as part of the (} 13 14 existing contention. j Testimony by Mr. Klena and Mr. Rolan before the 15 Department of Labor ALJ, for example; documentary 16 evidence that was produced in that proceeding from 17 Comstock or Sargent & Lundy, for example. 18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Well, that's fine. 19 That is evidence that is admissible here, not because 20 there was a finding by the ALJ -- i 21 MR. GUILD: True. i 22' JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- but for independent 23 reasons; and if you had any kind of statement by any of l 24 those employees of CECO or Comstock, it wouldn't matter 25 where they were, but that's for independent evidentiary ( Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3740 i (l) 1 reasons. i
~
2 So the point is that, just looking at it offhand, 3 it would seem to me that you would have to make a case 4 here and you couldn't rely on any ALJ finding. 5 MR. GUILD: Yes. We are prepared to do so. 6 One other technical point: Applicant states in its 7 brief that the Parkhurst matters are subject to 8 confidentiality protection. That assertion is 9 misplaced. 10 The Parkhurst matter, according to the face of the 11 documents, was not treated as confidential by the NRC, 12 appropriately so, since she filed a public Department of r' 13 Labor complaint. The DOL complaint proceedings are open
\_]/
I 14 to the public. 15 She filed a complaint; and they immediately sent it 16 to her employer, L. K. Comstock. The record before the 17 DOL is a public record. 18 The Applicant assertion about confidentiality 19 reaches only so far as it extends to the 24 QC i 20 Inspectors who were the principal subject of the Freedom 21 of Information Act response. 22 As to them, there may be confidential treatment for 23 some and we respect that; but the Board should have 24 unfettered access, and the public record can take, i 25 without any protective order, the Parkhurst documents, r b' / ! Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3741 em U 1 since they are all public. 2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Does that conclude yours 3 remarks? 4 MR. GUILD: Yes, it does. 5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Miller. 6 MR. MILLER: Yes, your Honor. 7 I would like to first address the question of 8 whether or not the -- well, let me clear up some factual 9 matters first) 10 Mr. Guild seems to be stretched a little bit by 11 suggesting that there was some connection between the 12 Sargent & Lundy participation in the walkdown program of (} 13 Comstock and Ms. Parkhurst's activities in the Sargent & 14 Lundy Mylar room. I think we can put that to rest right 15 now. 16 The NRC inspection, which is attached to our 17 pleading, is quite clear that the alleger, Ms. 18 Parkhurst, was in charge of mechanical pipe support 19 Mylar. She had nothing to do with electrical drawings. 20 So that connection, which is quite tenuous in any 21 event, simply doesn't exist. 22 Secondly, the question seems to me goes to one of 23 the two key issues as to whether to admit this as a 24 late-filed contention, the good cause for late filing. 25 I can appreciate that Mr. Cassel may not have been Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ueneva, 1111nois oulas (312) 232-0262
3742 O 1 aware of the documents that were turned over to 2 Intervenors; and Mr. Guild has, in fact, acknowledged 3 that in January of this year he was aware of the 4 documents that the Staff had turned over. 5 If one looks at those documents, particularly the 6 documents that come from Ms. Parkhurst herself, take 7 them together, they fairly comprise the facts which form 8 the basis for the Administrative Law Judge's decision. 9 That is, if one looks at the June 18, 1985, letter, 10 which was her second complaint to the Department of 11 Labor, he states as follows: "I went back and talked to 12 Frank Rolan before I lef t," when she was laid of f on (} 13 June 14th, "and he told me I was being laid off because 14 of lack of work in Comstock. I told him that I had been 15 hired for Sargent & Lundy, and he told me they didn't 16 want me back because of my past job performance." 17 Then she refers to the fact that two other girls 18 had just been hired for Sargent & Lundy the week before 19 she got laid off. "I believe this whole thing was 20 Comstock's nice way of firing me because I have been 21 talking to you and the NRC." 22 She then goes on to rehash again the allegations 23 with respect to her performance in Sargent and Lundy's 24 Mylar room and the fact that she was transferred from 25 that position prior to the time she took her sick leave. i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ueneva, Illinois oulae (312) 232-0262
3743 k- 1 I believe that the NRC case law is really pretty 2 clear that in order to justify a late-filed contention, 3 there must be some showing -- and it is the person 4 propounding that contention's burden to make that 5 showing -- that there was an investigation made and that 6 there was not any reasonable way that these facts could 7 have been uncovered at an earlier date. 8 The documents which were turned over by the NRC 9 Staff themselves provide a basis for virtually the 10 entire contention as now submitted by the Intervenors, 11 Moreover, Ms. Parkhurst's name and address were 12 disclosed in these documents; and there was certainly 13 nothing to preclude the Intervenors from following up [} 14 with Ms. Parkhurst directly at that time. They chose 15 not to do so. 16 Mr. Guild has attempted to characterize the 17 Commission's decision with respect to the balance of the 18 QA contention as somehow sanctioning the wait until 19 there was some definitive action by the Administrative 20 Law Judge or some other official record of what went on l 21 with respect to Ms. Parkhurst. 22 The suggestion, I think, is an Intervenors' time to 23 file late-filed contentions doesn't begin to run until 24 there is some sort of official action. I 25 I don't believe that that is the Commission's O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 3744 i O 1 decision at all. It really goes to an evaluation of 2 what facts were available to an intervenor at a given 3 point in time, not tied to any official action of agency 4 or anything else. 5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. I don't think we have 6 to concentrate on that. I believe that is the case, Mr. 7 Miller. 8 MR. MILLER: All right. 9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Once they were given notice, 10 even constructive notice, that the Commission would find 11 that, regardless of the conditions that Intervenors 12 operate under, whether they had a whole stack of {) 13 14 documents or they were undermanned or whatever the situation, the January submittal to them would have 15 constituted notice. 16 MR. MILLER: Yes. 17 I would like now to turn to what I regard as the 18 other very significant factor which weighs against 19 admission of this as a late-filed contention; and that 20 is that what we have, in essence, is a whole new set of 21 facts and a whole new set of players. 22 We are not dealing with alleged harassment and 23 intimidation of Quality Control Inspectors by quality 24 control supervision. They are out of it. They have 25 nothing to do with this contention. O Sonntag Reporting Service, _ Ltd. ueneva, 1111nois oulas (312) 232-0262
)
3745 1 What we have is Ms. Parkhurst, who, I guess, would 2 be characterized in her duties as a clerk in the Mylar 3 room, as a production person; that is, she was in 4 support of a Sargent & Lundy production function, not a 5 Sargent & Lundy quality function, whose job was changed 6 by Sargent & Lundy. She then took sick leave. She came 7 back to Comstock and was laid off. 8 She had made complaints to Quality First; and Mr. 9 Guild is quite right, the Administrative Law Judge's 10 decision says that~Mr. Rolan, for example, acknowledged 11 that he knew of her Quality First complaints. 12 I will assert and it's my understanding the reason 13 he knew about it was Ms. Parkhurst told everybody who [} 14 would listen that she went to Quality First and made 15 these complaints; but be that as it may, what we have is 16 a situation in which there is a production person on 17 loan to Sargent & Lundy allegedly transferred as a 4 18 result of raising concerns about the way in which that 19 operation was being administered, again, by Sargent & 20 Lundy. 21 Then when she reports back to Comstock in June she 22 is put to work as a Xerox operator, which I don't think 23 you can -- I don't know whether it would -- I don't 24 think it was in the Production Department, so, again, a 25 production function but hardly one that rises to any Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l - - . . _
3746 1 safety or quality concern; and there is no allegation 2 that it did, and then is laid off two weeks later and J 3 re-hired. 4 Mr. Klena and Mr. Rolan from Comstock, the Sargent 5 & Lundy supervisors, who evaluated her work at Sargent & 6 Lundy -- and there is more than one of them -- the 7 Quality First investigation individual -- and I don't 8 have the name of that person -- and Ms. Parkhurst i 9 herself are the witnesses that I believe are going to be 10 needed to present to the Board all the facts that bear 11 on this issue. 12 The delay in the proceeding is going to be (} 13 extensive. I have committed on the record, should this 14 be permitted as a contention, to give to Mr. Guild 15 whatever documents we have; but we would expect to 16 proceed in accordance with the Commission's rules of 17 practice to present prefiled direct testimony and go on 18 that basis. 19 I neglected to add as witnesses the Staff witnesses 20 who, at least, have knowledge of some aspects of this, 21 as to, for example, whether or not her complaints were, ( 22 in fact, a safety concern. The inspection report says i 23 they were not. 24 The Administrative Law Judge's decision paints a I 25 picture. It paints a picture in the context of a () l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. _ ueneva, Illinois oulae (312) 232-0262
3747 ( l proceeding in which there was a dispute over $5,000 in 2 back pay and in which two Comstock employees only, Mr. 3 Klena and Mr. Rolan, were called as witnesses for 4 Comstock. 5 Commonwealth Edison wasn't a party. Sargent & 6 Lundy wasn't a party. No one asked Commonwealth Edison 7 about it. No one even told them about it or in terms of 8 the fact of the hearing, what the hearing presentation 9 was going to be or anything else, until the decision 10 came down. 11 So what we have are characterizations of conduct by l 12 an Administrative Law Judge passing on a $5,000 claim in {} 13 14 which he heard, for whatever reason, part of the story from Comstock employees. 15 Our experience to date in this proceeding has been 16 that, as the parties and the Board dig into the facts on 17 any specific issue, there are additional issues that 18 surface that require exploration and additional. 19 testimony from witnesses. 20 We saw this with Mr. Simile yesterday. I 21 introduced 18 Nonconformance Reports and he was examined l 22 extensively on them by me, by Mr. Guild, by the Board. 23 That's not a complaint. 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. We recognize that. 25 You are not pointing the finger at anyone. O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3748 m 1 MR. MILLER: Right. 2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: It's just that it takes 3 time, and I think you have made your case for not only 4 the notice in January but for the fifth factor, which is 5 delay of hearing, which is what you are addressing now. 6 MR. MILLER: Correct, correct. 7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. I think the more 8 important issue relates to not whether it's a new 9 contention -- 10 MR. MILLER: I want to address that as well, 11 as to whether or not it can legitimately be regarded as 12 an expansion of the existing contention. (} 13 14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- not an expansion but within the confines of the existing contention or as 15 rebuttal to the position taken by the company as to the 16 Quality First and anonymity and no retaliation; and I 17 think that is an important fact or an important 18 consideration. 19 MR. MILLER: Let me address that. 20 The two sentences that the Board Chairman read into 21 the record from the original quality control harassment 22 contention that we are now litigating are really, again, 23 directed at QC supervision. 24 That is, the reference in the next to the last 25 sentence in numbered Paragraph 1 of the contention is to Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 3749 O 1 Supervisor Saklak and the effects of his harassment 2 which remain uncorrected and systematic harassment 3 continues at Comstock to the present. 4 I should -- in fairness, I should -- point out that 5 the remainder of the sentence is more general, as the 6 Chairman noted. 7 However, taken in context and with regard to 8 Answers to Interrogatories which we have had for some 9 time now from the Intervenors and which were renewed in 10 January of this year, the focus of this contention has 11 simply been on QC management. 12 I would submit for all the reasons that go to what (} 13 Intervenor should have known in January with respect to Ms. Parkhurst's complaints against Rolan and Klena and i 14 15 Sargent & Lundy are equally applicable to their 16 obligation under the Commission's rules of practice to 17 apprise the parties and the Board of just what the 18 nature of their case is as soon as they know about it. 19 They have an obligation under the rules to 20 seasonally supplement Answers to Interrogatories; and in 1 21 that respect they failed, also, because there has never 22 been a supplement which has in any way indicated that 23 Ms. Parkhurst was either a victim of harassment, 24 intimidation or that the individuals at Comstock 25 responsible for harassment, intimidation included Mr. O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 3750 l l ('#) '" 1 Rolan, Mr. Klena or individuals at Sargent & Lundy, 2 obviously. 3 I do not believe that taking the contention as a 4 whole one can fairly characterize it as encompassing 5 conduct which reaches well outside the Comstock 6 organization for the underlying predicate for 7 harassment. 8 That is what the critical thing is that is missing 9 here that is the hallmark of all of the other claims of 10 harassment and intimidation, that the initial action 11 taken by a management group was not Comstock. It was 12 Sargent & Lundy. 13 Now, I would like to briefly address the question (} 14 of the Quality First connection, if you will. 15 It is quite correct that the Quality First 16 organization is referred to in the memoranda that are 17 attached to the contention. 18 That is, I believe, that at the March 29th meeting 19 one or more inspectors in discussing their grievances 20 with the NRC noted their dissatisfaction with Quality 21 First and its lack of responsiveness. 22 The Quality First organization is mentioned, as has 23 been pointed out, in Mr. Maiman's testimony. 24 In addition, there have been references to it in 25 the oral testimony of witnesses that have appeared to Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, 1111nois culas (312) 232-0262
3751 0 1 date. 2 Applicant has not and does not intend as part of 3 its case in chief or at this point as part of its 4 rebuttal case to introduce evidence regarding the 5 effectiveness of the Quality First organization as a 6 vehicle for resolving the inspectors' concerns. 7 As I say, there are references to it; but in terms 8 of a full-blown, evidentiary presentation and as 9 suggesting that this was the way in which inspector 10 grievances would be dealt with, I don't believe that is 11 our position and it's not one that we would propose to 12 make. 13 Quality First existed. I think that Mr. Guild has
)
14 already cross examined some witnesses and, I dare say, 15 that Mr. Maiman will, perhaps, get some questions today 16 with respect to the effectiveness of the Quality First 17 organization. 18 It is not the linchpin of our direct case with 19 . respect to harassment and intimidation. 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I do recall testimony to the 21 effect that the existing procedures and primarily 22 Quality First was adequate and was the optimum method 23 for resolving employee concerns and I seem to recall 24 some witness relying very heavily upon that. l 25 MR. MILLER: Yes. ( Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
3752 1 i 1 Well, Mr. Seltmann, in his prepared testimony, in j 2 Question and Answer 19 refers, among other procedural 3 mechanisms that are available to Comstock or Comstock i > 4 employees for resolution of grievances or concerns, to 5 the Quality First Program. i 6 And I don't want to -- I can't represent completely l 7 that that is the only place that it appears because -- I 8 am sorry. 9 It also appears in Answer 17. He said in 10 discussing why he rejected Commonwealth Edison's 11 suggestion that they have a special procedure, his 12 prepared testimony said, "I also felt that other avenues { {} 13 already existed, i. e. the NRC, Quality First and others 14 I describe later."
- 15 JUDGE GROSSMAN
- And to put that in context, 16 I believe it came up with regard to the long-term 17 recommendations to the NCR written or the concerns l
18 expressed; and the only matter that, apparently, was l l 19 implemented immediately was the firing of Mr. Saklak. i 20 Then we had these six or seven other -- l 21 MR. MILLER: Right. 22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- long-range, suggested ! 23 approaches; and the testimony, as you point out, was l l 24 that the existing procedures were sufficient and I think l 25 primarily Quality First. (:) ! Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. I ueneva, Illinois 00134 (312) 232-0262
3753 r~T
/ 1 MR. MILLER: I would disagree with the 2 characterization of "primarily."
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine. I am just -- 4 MR. MILLER: Sure. 5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- giving a vague impression 6 of that. Okay. 7 MR. MILLER: But in a sense that proves too 8 much. 9 Quality First is not restricted to Comstock, it's 10 not restricted to Sargent & Lundy. 11 There may be employees at Phillips Getschow, of 12 Pullman and of every other contractor at the Braidwood 13 site who has an opinion with respect to Quality First;
)
- 14 and in that sense Ms. Parkhurst and her allegations 15 stand on no different footing than any other. employee.
16 It seems to me, again, that the Intervenors have 17 known, well, since the beginning of this proceeding of 18 the existence of Quality First. 19 They have had discovery available with respect to 20 -- available to them with respect to -- Quality First; l 21 and to use that as the hook, if you will, to bring in l 22 the Parkhurst allegations at this time seems to me to 23 be, again, unfair, surprise at this point in time to the l 24 Applicant and Staff, for that matter, with respect to 25 the scope of the issues in this proceeding. O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3754 i O 1 This l's not -- well, an individual's 2 dissatisfaction with Quality First, I dare say, is not 3 unique with Ms. Parkhurst; it's probably not original 4 with her; and, in any event, the existence of the 5 Quality First Program and employees' general 6 dissatisfaction with it was known to the Intervenors at 7 the time they filed their original contention. 8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: All right. But here we have
. 9 what was alleged to be a joint action by Quality First 10 and Comstock, in that the notification by Quality First i 11 resulted in the termination by Comstock.
12 So, you know, any general complaints about Quality 13 First are really not in this category. This is a narrow 14 action that we are talking about, which the ALJ found to 15 be, basically, Comstock firing as a result of a i 16 notification by Quality First. f 17 MR. MILLER: Well, I have looked at the 18 Administrative Law Judge's decision and I don't regard
- 19 it as a model of clarity in any respect; but my belief l 20 is that a fair reading of it is that it simply sets out l
l 21 the chronology, states that Mr. Rolan acknowledged on 22 the witness stand, as he did, that he was aware of her 23 Quality First concerns and then states as a fact that 24 after that she was terminated or laid off and it is left 25 to the reader. Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ueneva, Illinois oulae (312) 232-0262
l 3755 O 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. That's fine. I am 2 not suggesting that we are going to rely on the ALJ 3 finding. 4 I have indicated that we can't. 5 MR. MILLER: Right. 6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: But the point is we have to l l 7 consider what your objection is to the Intervenor making l 8 that case, that there was a tie-in between Quality First 9 and the termination by Comstock with regard to whether l 10 that would fit in the contention. 11 So you have to assume that they will make that 12 tie-in. That's what we are really discussing as to l 13 whether they can make that case, that there was a tie-in 14 between Quality First and the termination by Comstock. 15 If they can make that, if they can prove that 16 tie-in, why would that not fit under their original 17 contention or as rebuttal to what you have brought in 18 about the anonymity given to complaints to Quality First 19 and the use of Quality First as a long-range method of 20 ameliorating the problem? 21 MR. MILLER: Well, your Honor, I think that I 22 have addressed generally why I believe that the 23 Parkhurst allegation -- 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. 25 MR. MILLER: But just on the Quality First Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3756 C:1 1 aspect of it, my position is, really, that complaints 4 I ! 2 about 'au ality First have been a part of this proceeding 3 from the very time that this contention was submitted; 4 and there has never been any suggestion by the 5 Intervenor that this was a part of its case. 6 Again, it seems to me to be -- I don't know; and, 7 perhaps, the Board might inquire of Mr. Guild as to 8 whether or not prior to learning of Ms. Parkhurst's ! 9 allegations there was any thought of litigating the 10 Quality First aspect of this. 11 My belief is there probably was. Mr. Guild is a j 12 resourceful and energetic lawyer and leaves no stone 13 unturned in presenting his clients' case and he has l[} 14 cross examined vigorously with respect to Quality First. 3 15 I think that that really is -- to allow the 16 Parkhurst issue to come in on that basis is really 17 having the tail wagging the dog, if you will, on this 18 Quality First issue. I 19 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, let me make two 20 points in response to what Mr. Miller has said. 21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I think we want to hear from 22 Staf f first and then we will get back to you, Mr. Guild.
- 23 MR. GUILD
- Thank you.
- 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Berry.
! 25 MR. BERRY: Mr. Chairman, Staff is in general Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ! ueneva, illinois 60134
- (312) 232-0262
3757 O 1 agreement with what the Applicant has taken so far and 2 also the positions taken by the Applicant and the Staff 3 in our pleading. 4 What I would like to address is the Chairman's 5 question as to whether the Parkhurst contention fairly 6 falls within the scope of the existing contention. 7 I believe, it's important to note here, what did i 8 the parties understand, what did the parties consider? t 9 We have had extensive discovery in this case; and 10 really at no point -- at no point -- has it been the 11 understanding of any of the parties -- it certainly has 12 not been expressed to the Staf f -- that the Parkhurst {} 13 14 matter, the Parkhurst allegation, is part of this case. As we have pointed out, Staff provided the 15 documents regarding Ms. Parkhurst to the Intervenor back 16 in January. We provided those documents in the 17 interests of fullest disclosure when the question was 18 directed to us to any information regarding or bearing 19 on harassment allegations or safety concerns or quality 20 concerns at Braidwood. 21 The Staff made available its files to all the 22 parties back in January. 23 Subsequent to that time, the NRC Inspector that 24 conducted the investigation of Ms. Parkhurst's quality 25 allegations was deposed. [ l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. , Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 l . _ . . - _ _ - _ _
l l 3758 O 1 There is no suggestion or no questioning on the 2 allegations raised by Ms. Parkhurst. 3 We have deposed a number of witnesses. Mr. Rolan 4 and Mr. Klena, to my knowledge, they were not desposed 5 on that. 6 I think throughout the course of this proceeding 7 all of the parties have been operating on the 8 understanding that it has been limited to QC Inspectors, 9 to Comstock inspectors. 10 So now what we have is we are hearing the 11 suggestion for the first time that the Parkhurst 12 allegation has always existed within the scope of the 13 contention. 14 I believe, even today, Mr. Guild has indicated that 15 he had some doubt as to whether the Parkhurst documents 16 relating to Ms. Parkhurst either provide the basis for a 17 new contention or whether it would fairly fall within 18 the previous contention; and I believe when there is 19 that kind of confusion, that kind of uncertainty, that ? 20 there is an obligation on somebody's part -- I believe 21 it was the Intervenor and the proponent of the 22 contention -- to clarify that, to bring that to the 23 attention of either the other parties or the Board and 24 get a clarification of a ruling. 25 So in that respect I would think that there should l l () Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, 1111nois ou1J4 (312) 232-0262
3759 O 1 be good cause for not having done that, and this takes 2 us back to January of this year when the documents were 3 first produced and made available to Intervenors, to the 4 Applicant. 5 That if there is any question as to whether these 1 6, documents either constituted basis for a new contention 7 or fell within -- arguably fell within -- the existing 8 contention, that should have been discussed among the 9 parties or brought to the attention of the Board; and, 10 yet, it wasn't. 11 So that now leaves us in the position where the 12 question is being considered for the first. time; and in
/~)
V 13 the event that the Board does rule that it does -- I 14 mean it is admissible, that it does admit or that it 15 does fall within the existing contention, I believe that I 16 the Staff and the Applicant would be prejudiced. 17 There has been no discovery on this. I believe 18 there would be a delay of the proceedings. 4 19 I know the Staff would present testimony -- excuse 20 me -- would present testimony that -- 21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Let me ask you about two 22 points here. 23 One, why, in light of the fact that there was in 24 the contantion some statement with regard to continuing l 25 harassment, wouldn't the parties be on notice that any l O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3760 O 1 further incident, that is any incident that had not yet 2 come to the attention of Intervenor, would be considered 3 part of that contention? 4 And, secondly, why, in light of the affirmative 5 case made by Applicant as to the avenue of Quality First 6 of being the means of correcting complaints wouldn't 7 this be legitimately considered rebuttal testimony? 8 Okay. Do you understand the two points? One, that 9 the existing contention -- now, my understanding, by the 10 way, before I became part of the Board was that the 11 Board limited the contention to specific incidents that 12 were already within the cognizance of the parties and {) 13 14 limited Intervenor to those specific incidents. Of course, Intervenor couldn't be limited to future 15 incidents at that time, that is incidents that it had no 16 notice of. 17 MR. BERRY: Well, Mr. Chairman, I -- 18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Once it limited its case to 1 19 these specific incidents, why is it further restricted 20 to limiting further incidents that it then in the future 21 became cognizant of? 22 MR. BERRY: One, Mr. Chairman, it is my 23 understanding -- and I believe I came on the case i 24 shortly af ter you did -- but it was my understanding 25 that the contention was limited to specific acts of () Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ueneva, Allinois oviae (312) 232-0262
3761 I i 1 harassment or intimidation against Quality control 2 Inspectors. 3 So that still would bring me back to the point that ] 4 I made originally: There still is question -- there l 5 would still be a question here as to whether Ms. I 6 Parkhurst was a Quality Control Inspector or fell within 7 quality control, the L. K. Comstock quality control work j 8 force. j 9 It is not clear from the documents that were 10 produced -- and they were made available -- that that is l ! 11 the case; and, again, I would think that, given that 12 question, there should have been some discussion. l 13 It should hav'e been brought to -- if the
)
14 Intervenors intended to make that case, I think there 15 was some obligation on their part to bring that matter 16 either to the attention of the parties or to the Board l 17 for a clarification on that. f 18 We have operated throughout this case that the 19 case's contention is limited to LKC Comstock QC l 20 Inspectors; and, to my knowledge, that is why, I assume, ( 21 or is the reason that the Intervenors did not deposed i 22 the Staff witnesses on Ms. Parkhurst, was because, you j 23 know, they recognized as well that she was not a QC ! 24 Inspector. l 25 I believe that the reason they didn't depose Mr. ( , Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3762 O 1 Rolan or Mr. Klena was for that reason. 2 I can't speak for Applicants, but I think we have 3 always operated on the U.derstanding that it was QC 4 Inspectors. 5 Now we have for the first time the claim, in 6 general, that anybody that was affected or may be 7 alleging harassment or intimidation from any 8 organization or any part of the Applicant's work force 9 could possibly fall within the scope of the contention. 10 I th' ink this is an undo expansion of the 11 contention. I think it reads more into the contention 12 then than we have recognized and operated under 13 throughout. [} 14 So it's for that reason that-I still think that at 15 this~ point, one, I don't believe that it's within the 16 scope of the contention; and, two, that I believe that, 17 even if it were, that the prejudice to the other parties 18 would outweigh any benefit that would be derived f rom 19 adding one more tack into the -- 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine. I think we 21 understand your position with regard to the existing
- 22 contention, but you still haven't addressed what I think 23 is a harder problem.-
l 24 That is, why wouldn't this be considered rebuttal 25 to the affirmative case put on by Applicant with regard Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ueneva, 1111nois eulae (312) 232-0262
3763 O 1 to the avenues of redress open and the effectiveness of 2 that avenue being the Quality First Program which 3 guaranteed anonymity? 4 MR. BERRY: I guess Applicant can speak to 5 that, Staff can't; but I would note that it's my 6 understanding.that the Quality First claim, if you will, 7 that they are making is not the prime. It's not a 8 primary claim. 9 To my understanding, they just note that this is 10 one avenue that was available -- one avenue among many 11 that was available -- to the inspectors. , 12 Accepting that, to allow the Parkhurst contention (} 13 in on that I think still is just a big expansion of the 14 proceeding. 15 I mean, it's just limited -- I don't know -- 16 Quality First is just -- and the testimony, I believe, 17 comes from Mr. Maiman and I think Mr. Seltmann did 18 indicate that, also; but it's my understanding that it's 19 not their affirmative defense or their primary defense. 20 So in a sense I suggest that it could be relevant 21 and it could be responsive. I guess the question would 22 be the probative value. 23 The probative value of that would outweigh the time 24 taken up to or the time spent and taken up to present 25 it. Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3764 1 I would just think that the witnesses that we would 2 have to call for testimony that would have to be 3 considered just to address this, what I consider, a 4 minor part of the Applicant's case, I just don't think 5 would be worthwhile in the circumstances; but, 6 technically, I would not say that -- I would say that it 7 probably could, would be responsive as rebuttal to that 8 claim or defense. 9 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, may I have a point 10 of clarification? 11 I am confused. 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Certainly. {} 13 14 MR. MILLER: In the question you asked me about the Quality First connection, if you will, were 15 you suggesting that the. contention as posed would come 16 in as rebuttal or that Intervenora could, if they 17 wished, call Ms. Parkhurst? 18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, you see, that is 19 basically what I am suggesting, is the latter part, and 20 not that this is an independent contention; but that 21 Intervenor, just as a matter of course, would be 22 permitted as rebuttal testimony to focus on the tie-in 23 between Quality First and Comstock here in firing Ms. 24 Parkhurst, as rebuttal to your case put on saying that 25 this was an appropriate avenue and that there wasn't any O , Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd. Ueneva, Illinois eulas (312) 232-0262
3765 O 1 kind of joint endeavor between Quality First and 2 Comstock to retaliate against complaining employees. 3 So it's really not a question of further 4 contention. We asked for that position to be briefed on 5 whether a contention ought to be admitted; but now with 6 regard to rebuttal, we are only talking about an 7 evidentiary point and how broad a rebuttal we can 8 entertain. 9 I would suspect that if we were to say that it 10 seems to fit under rebuttal, that we are not determining 11- the parameters right now until we hear the pgoffered 12 testimony to see how broad it is and how time consuming. (} 13 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, as I have sat here l 14 and considered it -- and, actually, I would like to take 15 a fqw minutes to consult with my colleagues -- but I 16 think we maintain our objection to the contention either 17 as an expansion of the existing contention or a new 18 contention. ! 19 If the question is whether some part of it may be 20 appropriate rebuttal testimony, I don't know that any of 21 us need take a position on that right now. 22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Right now, until that 23 testimony is proffered and is considered for its scope l 24 as rebuttal testimony. 25 I think -- you know, why don't we take a ten-minute l l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. 60134 Geneva, Illinois (312) 232-0262
3766 O 1 break right now and everybody can caucus. 2 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which 3 the hearing was resumed as follows:) 4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. We are back in 5 session. 6 Before the Board makes its determination, we would 7 like to find out if the parties have anything additional 8 to say. 9 I believe Mr. Berry of Staf f does. 10 MR. BERRY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. 11 I would just like to note for the record when the 12 Staff produced the documents relating to Ms. Parkhurst, {} 13 among others, we produced those documents to the 14 Applicant and to the Intervenors subject to the 15 understanding that these documents would be treated as 16 in confidence, within the meaning of the protective 17 order that the Board issued on December 6th. 18 I believe that is probably what Applicant meant in 19 their pleading when they stated they were somewhat 20 handicapped in identifying in particular the Parkhurst 21 documents in the record. 22 The parties have always treated these, the Staff 23 documents, as confidential documents within the meaning 24 of the protective order that the Board issued, which 25 restricts the dissemination, disclosure and A U Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. _ veneva, 1111nois oulae (312) 232-0262
3767 O 1 identification of those documents to parties who have 2 not executed protective order affidavits of 3 nondisclosure and other things. 4 I just wanted to correct that and bring that to the 5 Board's attention. 6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Was there anything 7 further before we make our determination? i 8 MR. GUILD: Yes, Mr. Chairman. 9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild. 10 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir. One moment, please. 11 Mr. Chairman, if I could hand up one of the 12 documents on this question of confidentiality, just so /~T 13 the record is clear, this is a document numbered "7" in V 14 the package. It's an allegation management system 15 tracking sheet, with a notation. 16 I believe the notation is to the effect that I 17 stated on the record, and that is Ms. Parkhurst's claims 18 were public and that, in fact, there was no basis for 19 treating her and her documents as within the scope of 20 the protective order or confidential. 21 We maintain, of course, that it's appropriate to 22 treat the other documents relating to the 24 QC 23 Inspectors as subject to the Board's protective order. 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine. 25 The Board is ready to make its determination. Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3768 l ($) 1 With regard to Mr. Hunter and, apparently, in 2 agreement with all the parties, Mr. Hunter was part of 3 the original contention. He was one of the 24 4 inspectors and anything that happened to him later, 5 which he contends was a continuation of his situation, 6 would fall within the existing contention. 7 With regard to Ms. Parkhurst, we agree with 8 Applicant and Staff as to the incident involving her as 9 not being within the original contention and also agree 10 that the matter stated in the contention of continuing 11 harassment and intimidation did not put the parties on 12 notice that she would be included as an incident of harassment. {) 13 14 Now, with regard to whether the matter concerning 15 her termination could be considered as rebuttal, it 16 would appear, offhand, that there are elements within 17 what was described as the ALJ -- what was described 18 within the ALJ's opinion that might be considered as 19 rebuttal. 20 If Intervenor would offer evidence with regard to 21 the matters contained in the DOL case concerning her, we 22 will make our determination at that time as to whether 23 it is proper rebuttal of the case put on by Applicant 24 with regard to the Quality First Program, in that it was 25 an avenue of redress and also that it was not part of O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, 1A11nois 0U144 (312) 232-0262
3769 1 the harassment and intimidation condition alleged by 2 Intervenor by which matters referred to Quality First 3 resulted in retribution by Comstock. 4 So we will make that determination at the time we 5 find what evidence is being proffered by Intervenor. 6 Are there any further questions on that? i 7 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, I have two. 8 First, I would like to deal with what you described 9 as the agreement of the parties with respect to Mr. 10 Hunter. 11 As we set forth in our pleading, we do not object 12 to exploring on this evidentiary record the 13 circumstances of his termination. [} 14 Intervenors' suggested contention incorporated by 15 reference Mr. Hunter's letter in which he made a variety 16 of complaints having to do with such things as substance 17 abuse and otherwise. 18 Our agreement only goes to the question of the 19 circumstances of his termination and 1 guess -- 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That is as far as the 21 Board's ruling would permit considering Mr. Hunter. 22 The fact that he is one of the incidents and he 23 himself brings in other incidents doesn't permit those 24 other incidents to be litigated. 25 MR. MILLER: All right. Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 1
3770 J O 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That would be outside the 2 scope of the contention. 3 MR. MILLER: Thank you. 4 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, on that point, if 5 it's appropriate to address that point before you move i 6 along to -- before Mr. Miller moves along to another, 7 our position, basically, as treating Hunter as part of 8 the original contention obviates the necessity of i 9 deciding whether the letter should be incorporated as a 10 new contention.
! 11 Having passed to considering Hunter as part of the 12 original contention, there is no need to determine
(} 13 whether the letter should be incorporated as stating new
- 14 contentions.
- 15 JUDGE GROSSMAN
- Okay. Well, you are not 16 offering the letter then for incorporation?
17 MR. GUILD: No, no. 18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. So that is fine; but 19 we --
- 20 MR. GUILD
- Our only position is that the 21 letter is, to the extent that Mr. Hunter can identify it 22 and the other parties, authentic, the letter is evidence
, 23 and evidence of what Mr. Hunter's position was as stated 24- to Quality First when he was terminated; and we really 25 only see it as evidence. (
- Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
! Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 1
3771 O 1 We don't intend to treat it as an invitation to 2 pursue these collateral questions, and that has never 3 really been our position. 4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine. 5 MR. MILLER: With respect to the Board's , 6 ruling on Ms. Parkhurst, this issue certainly has the i y 7 potential for mushrooming into something well beyond Ms. 8 Parkhurst and the circumstances of how she dealt or.was , 9 dealt with by Quality First. 10 We would request that, again, there be a written 11 statement of the scope of the rebuttal testimony related 12 to this issue, so that the Board and the parties will 13 j{ } have evaluation rather than having a witness on the 14 stand, testimony elicited, objections and the Board and 15 the parties scrambling to recall this conversation, this 16 discussion before the Board today and so on. 17 So I respectfully request that when and if this 18 testimony or testimony relating to this cubject matter 19 is proffered as rebuttal or surrebuttal by the 20 Intervenors, that there be a statement in writing as to 21 the scope of the testimony so we are clear on that. 22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild. 23 MR. GUILD: Well, that's an interesting 24 proposition, since Mr. Miller declined to accept an 25 invitation by Intervenors to state what his rebuttal O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3772 n 6 4 1 case was going to be through prefiled testimony or 2 written submission or anything else. 3 MR. MILLER: I have not declined. I beg your 4 pardon. 5 MR. GUILD: Well, then, perhaps, one should 6 consider it in light of what I now see as his commitment 7 to make a statement of what his rebuttal case will be. 8 The only fact that is distinguishing, that is 9 important, is I understand Ms. Parkhurst is still 10 employed by L. K. Comstock. At least, she was as of the 11 ALJ decision. I don't know what her situation is. 12 She is certainly not -- I have had no contact with i {} 13 her and she is not subject to our control, so she falls 14 in the same category as another site employee or former 15 site employee who would be called as an adverse witness 16 or subject to compulsory process. 17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, let'n put it this way, 18 Mr. Guild: 19 If you are going to expand your offering beyond 20 just calling Ms. Parkhurst, I think we would want to 21 know in advance what else you are going to bring in. 22 I mean, if f oa are going to call some other people 23 with regard to heating about Ms. Parkhurst, other than 24 the witnesses you already had planned on calling, I 25 think we want to get notified about that.
- t s, LJ Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, 1111nois bu134 (312) 232-0262
3773 L 1 MR. GUILD: Yes; and I think as long as that l 2 principle applies equally among the parties to the 3 rebuttal case that we anticipate and not just the 4 Parkhurst issue, which happens to be one that arises 5 now, we can all live with that. 6 I don't think surprise ought to be an element of 7 anyone's rebuttal case, including Intervenors; and we
- 8. certainly will apprise the Board and parties of what our 9 intentions are.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Let me point out, by the 11 way, Mr. Miller, this wouldn't be surrebuttal, because 12 Intervenors haven't yet put on their case. They are {} 13 entitled, of course, to rebut your direct case in their case in chief. 14 15 MR. MILLER: I understand. 16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: It would be in the category 17 of rebuttal to your case being put on as part of their 18 case in chief. 19 MR. MILLER: Common law pleading was never my 20 long suit, your Honor. 21 MR. GUILD: I know Mr. Miller had one other 22 thing to say but I interrupted you, Mike, and I 23 apologize; but maybe I should add what I had in mind, 24 too, and invite the other parties to comment. 25 I sort of see the scope issue of what is within the O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- - - . .._ .. . - _ - = - -.
3774 i l l .1 four corners of the contention as establishing what the j 2 subject matter is, if you will, and not taking issue or i 3 re-arguing the Board's ruling with regard to the 4 Parkhurst matter not within the scope of the original . -5 contention. 6 I will rest on the Board's decision that we gave no 7 prior notice of Parkhurst being an allegation as part of i 8 our case, and that is the fact. There is no question 9 about that. 10 But it is significant that the Board understand 11 that the scope of the contention as pled establishes 12 what the subject matter is that is fair for rebuttal or 13 fair for a claim or fair for a defense of the parties;
"}
l 14 and in that respect we believe, of course, Parkhurst is 1 l 15 within the scope of the subject matter. 16 Let me just direct the Board's attention to the i 17 language in the contention that was not the subject of l 18 the discussion so far. i
- 19 This is, again, the contention that was the subject 20 of the stipulation. Language was hammered out very
- 21 carefully among the parties, and then subject, where 22 there was dispute, to a Board ruling on what the 23 language should be.
24 The preamble to the contention states, " Systematic j 25 and widespread harassment, intimidatic.n, retaliation and l l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ueneva, 1111nois eulae
- (312) 232-0262
,,----,,.,,,.-----y ,,,,.-.y--g -m.#------ c.,., . . - - . - -,.-..-,-,-.-.-,--..-....-.__-,-w..---. - -
3775 (~)n
\-
other discrimination has been directed against Comstock 1 2 QC Inspectors and other employees who expressed safety 3 and quality concerns." That's in the first paragraph. 4 Now, that language was there not accidentally. It 5 sort of didn't have Ms. Parkhurst in mind as a 6 particular named person but was intended to cover 7 situations where there was someone who didn't formally 8 hold the position of QC Inspector but, nonetheless, 9 raised a safety or quality concern and was harassed for 10 doing. 11 So the language under No. 1, "Various times since 12 last August, '84, and including in March, '85," that was (} 13 14 language that was resolved by the Board in favor of Intervenors' position that it should be inclusive l 15 language as opposed to exclusive language; and then 16 there is the language that the Chairman observed later 17 in the contention that talks about continuing effects. 18 My only point in saying this is not to re-argue the 19 Board's ruling about whether Parkhurst is in as part of
- 20 our original case, it's not; but I simply want to make 1
i 21 the point that it is fair game, I think, to take a 22 non-QC employee like Ms. Parkhurst, where the facts, as 23 we believe them to exist, impune the company's claim l l 24 that the Quality First Program is an effective vector l l 25 addressing and redressing complaints and demonstrate ( %s) i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. l l Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
I 4 3776 O 1 through Ms. Parkhurst that she was retaliated against
! 2 for raising those Quality First complaints and that 3 retaliation constitutes a violation of Commission 4 regulation.
- 5 JUDGE GROSSMAN
- Okay. I think it's proper 6 for you to have made that statement of position and we
! 7 are not called upon to respond to it. i 8 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir. L 9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. We will now go on to j 10 the next matter, which is Mr. Maiman being called as a 11 witness. 12 Mr. Gallo, would you call your next witness, 13 please? {~} 14 MR. GALLO: Your Honor, I would like to call 15 Mr. Maiman to the stand. 16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Maiman, would you remain 17 standing, raise your right hand. 18 (The witness was thereupon duly sworn.) 19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Please be seated. l 20 THOMAS J. MAIMAN 21 called as a witness by the Applicant, having been first duly 1 . 22 sworn, was examined and testified as follows: 23 DIRECT EXAMINATION i 24 BY MR. GALLO: 25 Q Mr. Maiman, would you state your complete name for the ( i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Ueneva, 1111nols bu144 l (312) 232-0262 I _ _ - - ~ - - , . . . . - . , . _ _ , . . _ . _ _ . . , - _ _ _ _ . _ _ , , ,
3777 O 1 record and business address and position? 2 A Thomas J. Maiman, Commonwealth Edison Company, Post 3 Office Box 767, Chicago, Illinois, 60690. t l 4 I am Vice-President and Manager of Projects. 5 Q Mr. Maiman, did you have occasion to prepare testimony 6 for this proceeding? 1 7 A Yes, I did.
- 8 Q Do you have in front of you a document entitled, 9 " Contention 2.C, Testimony of Thomas Maiman," dated 10 April, 1986. consisting of answers to 17 questions?
l 11 A Yes, I do. 12 0 Is this the testimony that you prepared for this (} 13 proceeding? 14 A It is. 4 15 MR. GALLO: Your Honor, there are a number of. 16 corrections that need to be made to Mr. Maiman's 17 testimony, and I would like to begin by correcting some 18 aspects myself that have to do with the questions asked. 19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That is fine. 20 MR. GALLO: The first correction is on Page 21 4, and, in particular, Question 5. 22 The question reads, "On March 29, 1985, did you ! 23 receive a telephone call," et cetera.
- 24 I would like to correct that to read, "Did you 12 5 participate in a telephone call," et cetera.
i O l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3778 1 1
)
1 Also, with respect to Question 7, I would like to 2 -modify the question to state, "Please describe your 3 understanding of what was said during that telephone 4 conversation." 5 I have one other correction. It's.really not a 6 correction, just simply a statement, and it refers to, l 7 in particular, Page 13, and that part of the testimony 8 on Page 13 that is a part of Answer 12, we are 9 withdrawing the last two sentences. 10 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Beginning, "While LKC?" i 11 MR. GALLO: That's right, Judge Callihan, i 12 beginning at that point and ending with the end of the 13 following sentence. 14 JUDGE CALLIHAN: The end of the paragraph? 15 MR. GALLO: Yes,' yes. 16 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Thank you. 17 MR. GALLO: That concludes the corrections or 18 changes that I would like to make, your Honor. 10 BY MR. GALLO: 2 20 0 I would ask Mr. Maiman at this point if he has any 1 ) 21 correcticns to his testimony. 22 A Yes, I do. 23 0 Would you describe them and explain them slowly, please, f 24 so that the Board and the parties can follow? 25 A I will.
- (
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. 4 beneva, lillnolS OU1J9
, (312) 232-0262
3779 m U 1 On Page 4, Answer No. 6, " Eugene Fitzpatrick," 2 insert the word " Assistant." He is the Assistant 3 Manager of Quality Assurance. 4 On Page 6, in the third line down, cross out the 5 words, "Some of the inspectors' concerns, including a 6 particular," and insert the word "the" before 7 " incident." 8 Q Let me ask you: 9 Mr. Maiman, with respect to the correction you haf;e
~
10 just made on Page 6, why did you make that correccion? 11 A 'It's my understanding and it clarifies what was actually 12 said in the meeting.
'T 13 It pertained to the incidents of that day regarding
(\-) 14 one particular individual. 15 0 Who was that individual? 16 A Richard Saklak. 17 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, at some point I 18 would like to voir dire the witness with respect to that 19 change to his testimony. 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You may, though I would 21 think that you could certainly cross examine him on 22 that, too. 23 MR. GUILD: I would intend to do that as 24 well. 25 BY MR. GALLO: I) V Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 3780 i O 1 Q Would you continue to the next correction, Mr. Maiman? 2 A All right. On Page 7, in the second paragraph, first 3 line, cross out the words, "Then telephoned Mr. Forney 4 and the other." In that same line cross out the words, 5 "And reported to them." 6 Back on the first line, in front of, "Mr. 7 Fitzpatrick," insert the words, "I also requested." 8 After "Mr. Fitzpatrick," insert the words, "To advise 9 the." 10 And in the second line, after the word " officials," 11 insert the word "of." 12 Q How would the sentence now read, Mr. Maiman? {} 13 14 A The sentence now reads, "I also requested Mr. Fitzpatrick to advise the Region 3 officials of the 15 short-range actions," and so on. 16 0 Is there another correction on this page? 17 A Yes. Page 7, Answer 9, insert -- after the first word 18 "on," insert the words, " Friday, March 29th, I directed 19 Shamblin and Fitzpatrick to hold a meeting on." 20 MR. BERRY: Would you repeat that? 21 BY MR. GALLO: 22 Q I have a request to repeat that. 23 Would you repeat that, please? 24 A Yes. Insert, after the word "on," the words, " Friday, 25 March 29th, I directed Shamblin and Fitzpatrick to hold ( Sonntag Reporting Service, _ Ltd. ueneva, Illinois oulae (312) 232-0262
3781 (v) 1 a meeting on." 2 In that same line, cross out the words, " CECO held 3 a meeting." 4 In the second line, before the word " persons," 5 insert, "I instructed them to tell the." 6 In the third line, cross out the words, "Were 7 told." 8 In the fifth line, after the word "were," insert 9 the words, "to be." 10 In the seventh line, after the word "were," insert 11 the words, "to be." 12 On Page 8 -- 13 MR. GUILD: Would the witness read the (J~) 14 statement as corrected, please? 15 THE WITNESS: Yes. 16 Answer No. 9, "On Friday, March 29th, I directed 17 Shamblin and Fitzpatrick to hold a meeting on Monday, 18 April 1st, at 8:00 A. M., with LKC QA and QC perscnnel. 19 I instructed them to tell the persons attending the 20 meeting that CE Company expected all work to be 21 performed in a quality manner and would accept nothing 22 less. They were to be further reminded of CE Company's 23 ongoing policy of soliciting and addressing any quality 24 concerns which they might have, and were to be told that 25 CE Company officials would be glad to discuss any such r k Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3782 i 1 concerns either publicly at a meeting or in private l 2 discussions at any time." 3 On Page 8, the second paragraph, after the word 4 " investigation" in the second line, insert the words, 5 "Under my direction," and cross off the words, "By the i 6 Quality First Group." 1 7 BY MR. GALLO: 8 Q Mr. Maiman, can you explain why you have made this 9 change? a 10 A For clarification primarily. 11 The Quality First Group reports to the Project 12 Manager, who reports-to me; and I just wanted to clarify i {} 13 14 that, whether or not the Quality First undertook this investigation, or in the case which actually took place, 15 I directed Dan Shamblin to move this investigation 16 along, it was still under my direction. ! 17 Q Are there any other corrections? 18 A Yes. On Page 9, Answer No. 10, after the word "yes" in i; 19 the first line, insert, " Comma, there was one, period." 20 In the last paragraph, first line, "1983," should 21 be, "1984," and that was simply a typo. 22 Q Does that complete the corrections that you wish to make 23 in your testimony? 24 A Yes, it does. . 25 0 Is your testimony as corrected accurate and complete to Sonntag Reporting Service, _ Ltd. Geneva, Illinois bu134 (312) 232-0262
3783 C) V 1 the best of your knowledge and belief? 2 A That's correct. 3 MR. GALLO: Your Honor, at this time I would 4 offer into evidence the testimony as corrected of Mr. 5 Maiman and have it folded into the transcript as if read 6 at this point. 7 The testimony is subject to a number of objections 8 prefiled in this proceeding. 9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, let me ask you a 10 question. 11 With regard to your correction of the question on 12 Page 4, Question 7, it seems to me that your original 13 question was proper and your correction is not.
}
14 If it's a matter of his recollection of what was 15 said -- we are not dealing with opinion evidence here. 16 You know, these are direct facts. 17 What was wrong with the -- 18 MR. GALLO: Well, perhaps my correction with 19 the use of the word " understanding conveys the wrong 20 meaning. 21 What I really meant was his recollection. 22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Why don't we change 23 that to recollection? 24 I gather that you were a little concerned about the 25 answer, not really about the question; but let's change r~s () Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3784 A U 1 that to recollection. 2 MR. GALLO: The witness in his answer is not 3 attempting to recite verbatim what was said. 4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I understand that is 5 what prompted your correction. There wasn't any problem 6 with the question. 7 Why don't we go over the objections to this 8 testimony -- 9 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman -- 10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- in whatever order Mr. 11 Guild wishes to pursue it now that we have these 12 corrections here. ('l 13 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, before we do so, v' 14 the changes have obviously been many and, in our 15 immediate reaction, substantial. 16 They may bear on our motion. They may also bear on 17 . the admissibility of the testimony as corrected. g 18 I guess first I would say that I would hope that in 19 the future if there is testimony -- there is to be 20 testimony prefiled and offered and changes are of a 21 substantial nature, not simply typographical errorc, 22 that they would be noticed to the parties significantly 23 in advance of the day the witness takes the stand, 24 because they do alter my Cross Examination and also our 25 motion that is pending. o
)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ueneva, Illinois oviae (312) 232-0262
N j 3785 1 I would ask that we take a brief recess so that we 2 can consider the effect of the changes on our position. 3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That sounds like a fair i 4 request. 5 Mr. Gallo. 6 MR. GALLO: I certainly agree with Mr. 7 Guild's sentiments, and I apologize in this instance. 8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine. Why don't we take 9 five minutes. 10 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which . 11 the hearing was resumed as follows:) , 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Are you ready, Mr. Guild? 13 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir. q
)
I 14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We are back i,n session. 15 Mr. Guild. . 16 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I ask Mr. Wright to j 17 take up the motion to strike Mr. Maiman's testimony. 18 MR. WRIGHT: Judge Grossman, I would suggest 9 19 that we proceed on the motion to strike.
- 20 On our Page 8, we start with Mr. Malman's testimony 1
21 on Contention 2.C. - j 22 What I would like to do is go down the list. I i i 23 have a number of questions that I identify as to the 24 full answer and question or portions of the answer 25 which, we argue, should be struck, which is i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3786 k 1 inadmissible. 2 Some of them have been corrected by the corrections 3 that have been made by Mr. Gallo, and I will indicate 4 those as we go through them. 5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Why don't we start, then, 6 with Question 7. 7 MR. WRIGHT: Question 7, in light of the 8 corrections to his testimony, we will withdraw that 9 objection. 10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. 11 MR. WRIGHT: Question No. 8, which would 12 appear on Page 6 of his testimony, it would have been {} 13 14 the third sentence in the first paragraph, which is the one that was corrected; and it now reads, "The LKC 15 managers acknowledged that they were aware of the 16 incident in which QC Supervisor Richard Saklak was 17 alleged to have harassed and intimidated QC Inspector 18 Richard Snyder." 19 Again, we would maintain our objection based on 20 hearsay if it is, in fact, to be used for the truth of l 21 the matter. 22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, okay. 23 That is overruled. Obviously, it is just a 1 24 statement of what was said. 25 MR. WRIGHT: Well, in light of the changes, I O
\_/
l l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois bu134 ( (312) 232-0262 i
3787 (~'s
.Y l suspect it's a statement of what was said.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, okay. 3 Mr. Gallo, you are not offering it for the proof of 4 the fact -- 5 MR. GALLO: That is correct; a statement of 6 what was said. 7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- that Mr. Saklak 8 intimidated the inspector; though, you know, Mr. Weight, 9 I suggest that we have something that might be construed 10 as -- that can only be construed as favorable to your 11 case that you are now, you know, moving to strike, 12 notwithstanding any technical objections you have'-- 13 MR. WRIGHT: Right. { '; 14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- just as a point of 15 advice. 16 MR. WRIGHT: I understand that, Judge 17 Grossman, but I guess what we are really looking at is 18 what, in fact, the Comstock managers understood, so that 19 is the basis of the objection. 20 The second part of A.8 would have been the second 21 paragraph, in which it states, "Mr. Fitzpatrick also 22 suggested to CECO Project Construction Department," and 23 it goes on, "Immediately issue a joint project letter.- 24 Again, it's not clear that, in fact, Mr. Maiman was 25 there when Mr. Patrick suggested that -- at least it's Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
' s i 3788 i ! C:1 i 1 not: clear from my reading -- and our objection is based l l 2 on hearsay. i l 3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Malman, were you there 4 and did you hear Mr. Fitzpatrick's suggestion? 5 THE WITNESS: I was, in fact, there and I did 6 hear that suggestion. 7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Then that is
- 8 overruled.
- 9 MR. WRIGHT
- Then the other part of the 10 Answer.8 would have been the last paragraph, but I j 11 suspect that is also -- well, in fact, that's been f
i 12 corrected. {}. 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: MR. WRIGHT: Cured, okay. Now, turning to Question 9, we i' 14 15 would object to this question based on the form of this l 16 question, in that, in fact, it was compound and that 17 certain portions of the answer was impermissible 18 hearsay. 19 Those portions that we objected to on hearsay we j j 20 withdraw because they have been corrected. I 21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. l 22. MR. WRIGHT: But we will stand by the
- 23 compound objection question even in light of the Board's 24 ruling, simply because in this situation it's not very 25 clear exactly what is the corrective action or what is i
/~T (o/ L l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. f ueneva, 1111nois ou144 ,
- (312) 232-0262 '
3789 1 the preventive action, and that he is attempting to 2 answer that question and, basically, we are not sure i. 3 what'is what. 4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. We will deny the 5 objection; and Mr. Guild can cross examine on that. i 6 MR. WRIGHT: Turning to Answer 10, which can l 7 be found on Page 9, we objected to this question and i ! 8 answer in that there was no foundation for the question 9 nor the answer, nor is there any time frame associated j 10 with the question; it's also vague. 11 In addition to that, the first paragraph is simply 12 speculation and conclusion, and throughout the entire {} 13 14 answer it's replete with unsubstantiated speculations and conclusions.
, 15 We can take it line by line if you would suggest we 16 go that way; but I guess it's a basic objection.
17 It simply shows, No. 1, a widespread issue. We 18 feel there is no foundation for that. l 19 In addition to that, he doesn't show any firsthand l 20 knowledge; and I guess that is exhibited by the second l- 21 sentence, which states, " CECO's investigation revealed." 22 There is no showing that, in fact, Mr. 'aiman M was 23 involved in that investigation, and I guess that is i 24 really the initial points that we would state; but we 1 25 find throughout that whole answer there is objectionable O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262
l 3790 (v~) 1 testimony given. 2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I think we will reserve 3 judgment on that objection pending Mr. Guild's Cross 4 Examination and continued reassertion of his objection. 5 If he fails to reassert the objection, then it will 6 stand; but if he cross examines and pointo out 7 particulars to which he continues to object, we will 8 rule on those at that time. 9 MR. WRIGHT: Just another point'on that 10 matter, your Honor, before I go on to the next question; 11 and that'is that, again, due to the vagueness of the 12 question -- I think the question seeks to elicit a 13 monologue on the part of Mr. Maiman, and there is really (v') 14 no showing of relevance with respect to that question. 15 I understand your ruling; but I would also want to 16 include that as a basis for our initial objection to his 17 answer to that question. 18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. We will continue with 19 our ruling on that and we will reconsider when Mr. Guild 20 makes further obje'ction to it on his Cross Examination. 21 MR. WRIGHT: The next question is -- well, 22 the next answer is Answer 11 on Page 11. 23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That is the last sentence on 24 that first paragraph? 25 MR. WRIGHT: Yes, what BESTCO believed.
^)
(/ Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. UeMeva, Illinois 60T34 i (312) 232-0262-
- - - _ - - - ~ _ . - - - . - -
3791
)
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes. We will strike that 2 answer -- we will strike that sentence of the answer, 3 "BESTCO believed that a rate of approximately $16.50 per 4 hour could be negotiated." 5 MR. WRIGHT: The second sentence that we
- 6 would object to -- it's found in the second paragraph --
7 starts with the words, "I evaluated this situation and 8 the growing conflict." 9 That really goes back to the foundation point, that 10 there is really no showing of the growing conflict f 11 between LKC management and QC Inspectors, and I guess 12 that is really derivative of the prior question, 't 13 Question 10, which talks about the labor situation. (")% 14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I think the sentence ] 15 would be okay if the witness said, "And what I perceived 16 as the growing conflict." 17 Is that what he intended to say? 18 Mr. Maiman, do you see that sentence?
- 19 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Did you perceive what you 21 considered to be a growing conflict; is that what you 22 intended to say? i 23 , THE WITNESS: Certainly. It was a little bit 24 stronger in my evaluation than a perception; but, 25 certainly, it was a perception. O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 a (312) 232-0262
9 l 3792 l O 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. I think we will add 4 2 the words, after "and," "What I perceived to be." 3 I think that would be a proper statement for him to 4 make, which Mr. Guild can, of course, examine. C MR. WRIGHT: Okay. The next objection would 6 have been to Answer 12. 7 I believe Answer -- oh, that was -- we withdraw 8 that, because they withdrew that latter portion. 9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That has been withdrawn. l 10 MR. WRIGHT: That is right. a 11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That is fine. 12 MR. WRIGHT: The next objection we would find i (} 13 14 would be to Answer 13; and, basically, it's a question here of what Mr. Maiman -- yes, he qualifies it by, "To 15 the best of my knowledge," which suggests that he does 16 not have any personal knowledge; and we find it to be a 17 matter of speculation. i 18 In addition to that, the second sentence, as to 19 what BESTCO is currently providing, we also find that to 20 be objectionable for lack of personal knowledge. 21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I think that this is 22 appropriate for Cross Examination; but to the extent 23 that he has qualified his answer, it appears to have
- 24 cured whatever objection you may have to it, unless you l 25 bring out further matters on Cross Examination which l
O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. , ueneva, 1111nois oulae (312) 232-0262 1
. -- - ~
3793 0 1 completely undermine the answer, even within the 2 limitations that he has given it. 3 So we will overrule that objection. 4 MR. WRIGHT: Is that also true of what BESTCO 5 provides? 6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That is, you are talking 7 about that last sentence, what BESTCO is -- 8 MR. WRIGHT: Yes. 9 JUDGE GROSSMAU: Well, he is apparently 10 stating that as within his personal knowledge. 11 If it's brought out, that he doesn't have that 12 personal knowledge, on Cross Examination, we will 11 3 entertain a further motion to strike it. (v~} 14 MR. WRIGHT: The next answer would be Answer 15 14 on Page 14, the third and fourth sentences. 16 This is, really, again, a question of his personal I i 17 knowledge as to all those concerns that are brought to 18 Quality First. 19 Unless Mr. Maiman can show some personal knowledge 20 that he has looked at all the claims that were brought l 21 to Quality First, I don't think he has the competence to l i 22 testify to that, j 23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, it would appear on its l 24 face that that is the case, and we will strike that; 25 and, Mr. Gallo, if you wish to ask a question that l r" (>) Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
3794 i l () 1 brings up a proper answer, it might be admissible there 4 i 2 and.you can do that. 3 MR. GALLO: What is the Board's ruling to 4 strike, what portion? 5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That is in the first 6 paragraph, "All concerns brought to Quality First are 7 thoroughly investigated, and if they are substantiated, 8 immediate corrective action is taken. The results of i l 9 the investigation, including the nature of any 10 corrective action taken, are promptly reported back to 11 the person who brought the concern to the attention of 12 the Quality First Group."
- 13 It appears from the answer that the witness is
{"} l 14 professing to be omniscient -- 15 MR. GALLO: I don't think that is -- 16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- which on its face would 17 not appear to be proper. l 18 I think there ought to be an appropriate limitation l 19 to the question and to the answer. 20 MR. GALLO: Well, the witness has already 21 testified, your Honor, that the Quality First Program is 22 performed by an individual who reports indirectly to him 23 under his supervision and direction; and the purpose of 24 this testimony that is the subject of the objection is 25 not, in fact, to assert that each and every ( ( Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. veneva, Illinois ovias l (312) 232-0262 l
h
; 3795 O 1 investigation has, in fact, been handled in this manner.
2 Mr. Maiman doesn't know that. 3 The purpose of this testimony is to explain how the 4 Quality First Program operates. 5 Indeed, the prior sentence, to which Intervenors do 6 not object, makes that quite clear. 7 This is just a continuation of that thought; and it 8 applies also to the first sentence in the second 9 paragraph, which is also the subject of objection. 10 MR. BERRY: With that clarification, Staff 11 has no objection. 12 MR. WRIGHT: Your Honor, we looked at this 13 very closely, and we agreed that Mr. Maiman may be [} 14 qualified to talk about what the Quality First Program 15 should do or how it operates or what he understands it 16 to be, but when he starts talking about all the concerns 17 that have been brought to Quality First, that seems to 18 be more of a factual issue, and we don't know that he 19 has necessarily examined all of the concerns that have 20 been brought to Quality First and can make that 21 statement; and that is really the basis of our 22 objection. 23 MR. GALLO: Your Honor, I am prepared to 24 limit the understanding of this testimony to what I 25 described, and I think that ought to resolve the O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 I
3796 (9 a 1 objection. 2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Would you recede from your 3 objection, taking into account Mr. Gallo's limitation, 4 or do you still maintain that it ought to be stricken; 5 and if Mr. Gallo has appropriate questions and receives 6 appropriate answers, you will allow those to stand? 7 Is that the latter course that you -- 8 MR. WRIGHT: That is the latter course. 9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I think that is really what 10 we ought to do, and so we will strike that; and before 11 Cross Examination starts, Mr. Gallo, you can phrase an 12 appropriate question or questions and receive (~} 13 appropriate answe rs. Lj 14 We have one more? 15 MR. WRIGHT: Yes, we have one more, Judge 16 Grossman, and that is contained in the first sentence of 17 the last paragraph, which would appear on Page 15. 18 Basically, our objection is that Mr. Maiman's l 19 testimony as to whether CECO keeps abreast of quality l 20 problems or concerns at Braidwood is certainly an issue i j 21 that we are seeking -- it's an ultimate issue to be 22 determined by this Board, and I don't think that Mr. 23 Maiman is necessarily qualified to make that statement 24 that he has made. 25 In fact -- well, I will cut it off there. \ (~h l
%/
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60174 (312) 232-0262
~
i
l 3797 i 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, Mr. Maiman has limited 2 his answer, and to the extent that you can further 2 3 impeach that answer on Cross Examination, we will 4 entertain a further motion to strike; but I think at 5 this point we will allow the answer to stand for l 6 whatever it's worth. 1 7 Mr. Guild, you can bring out specific deficiencies 8 in that answer. 9 So I guess that completes -- 10 MR. WRIGHT: Well, we have one last 11 question -- ] f 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I am sorry. 13 MR. WRIGHT: -- one last answer, and that is [} 14 Answer 17 on Page 16 and it runs over to Page 17.
- j. 15 That is dealing with the second sentence after the 16 word "no" -- or the sentence "No."
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, I am sorry. I was 18 responding to this as part of your objection. 19 Both the "no" and -- the "No" I think would be j 20 proper.
- 21 I was responding to the second part.
22 MR. WRIGHT: Okay. 23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: So our ruling stands with l 24 regard to the second sentence and the first sentence i 25 there, which is just "No", which would be permissible. l ( I l l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. i Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- t . _ . _ . __ _ _. _ _. _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_. _ _ .. . _ _ _ . __ _ --. _ .. ___
3798 O 1 MR. WRIGHT: Okay. I think I see the 2 confusion. 3 When I said that we had one more, I meant that we 4 had another objection contained within the Answer 14. 5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, within Answer 14? 6 MR. WRIGHT: Right. 7 That would be found at the top of Page 15, which is 8 that first sentence, "In addition to the Quality First 9 Program, CECO keeps abreast of quality problems or 10 concerns at Braidwood through an ongoing program." 11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. We have already ruled
- 12. that we will allow those kinds of opinions, so we will j' .13 overrule that objection.
14 MR. WRIGHT: I take it your ruling with 15 respect to Answer 17, the second sentence, is that -- 16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. What I had responded 17 to was that objection, and so that ruling stands. 18 MR. WRIGHT: Okay, okay. l j 19 MR. GALLO: Judge Grossman, could I get a l 20 clarification on what was stricken from Page 14? l 21 It's clear to me that the Board's ruling affected i ._ 22 the last two sentences in the paragraph -- in the first i 23 paragraph of Answer 14. 24 - JUDGE GROSSMAN: And the first sentence in 25 the second paragraph. l O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, 1111nois bu134 i (312) 232-0262 I
3799 s
\_] MR. GALLO: Thank you.
1 2 MR. GUILD: I am sorry. 3 The first -- 4 MR. WRIGHT: Sentence in the second 5 paragraph. 6 MR. GUILD: Beginning the language at Page 7 14, "All concerns brought to Quality First," continuing 8 through the end of that paragraph? 9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes. 10 MR. GUILD: And then the first sentence -- 11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Sorry. I am sorry. 12 There was no objection to the first sentence of the 13 second paragraph, was there?
/}
14 Okay. I withdraw the ruling. That is still in. 15 " Currently, Quality First holds interviews only when 16 they are requested by a person wishing to discuss a 17 quality concern," was not objected to, so that is still 18 in. 19 I am sorry. I thought it had been. 20 MR. GUILD: Perhaps it should have been. 21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. All that was stricken 22 were the last two sentences of the first paragraph. 23 Okay, fine. That completes it, then? 24 MR. WRIGHT: That would conclude, Judge. 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gallo. Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3800 O 1 MR. GALLO: Might we go off the record, your 2 Honor? 3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Sure. 4 (There followed a discussion outside the 5 record.) 6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You want to quit for lunch 7 now and take a look at that? 8 MR. GUILD: Yes. 9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Why don't we break for lunch 10 now, during which time Mr. Guild can review an 11 already-corrected copy that Mr. Gallo has before we give 12 that to the Reporter to enter into the transcript. I 13 Okay, fine. So we are recessing for lunch. [} 14 So we will return at 1:00 o' clock. 15 (WHEREU PON, the hearing of the
- 16 above-entitled matter was continued to 17 the hour of 1:00 P. M.)
18 19 i l 20 i' 21 !. 22 1 23 l- 24 25 l ! (2) f Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Ueneva, Illinois eu144 (312) 232-0262 l
3801 l O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4 _____________;___;x 5 : In the Matter of: : 6 : Docket No. 50-456 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY : 50-457 OL 7 : (Braidwood Station, Units 1 : 8 and 2) : __________z_;___;_x 9 10 Met pursuant to recess. 11 Wednesday, June 11, 1986. 1:00 P. M. 12 () 13 14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We're back in session. 15 We left off with Mr. Guild perusing the corrected 16 copy of the prefiled testimony, which has been handed to 17 the Reporter. 18 Mr. Guild, do you have any further objection? 19 MR. GUILD: Yes. Let me direct the witness' 20 attention, if I may voir dire the witness -- 21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Sure. 22 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 23 BY MR. GUILD: 24 0 If I may direct the witness' attention to Page 6 of his 25 prefiled direct testimony, there, Mr. Maiman, in answer S on nt a g_!Le gotting_S e rXi c e ,__L t d . Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3802 O
%)
1 to Question No. 8 regarding events of the afternoon of 2 March 29th, you state in part, before you made the 3 correction, the first full sentence on Page 6, "The LKC 4 managers acknowledged that they were aware of some of 5 the inspectors' concerns, including a particular 6 incident in which QC Supervisor Richard Saklak was 7 alleged to have harassed and intimidated QC Inspector 8 Richard Snyder." 9 And you proposed that the words "some of the 10 inspectors' concerns, including a particular" be struck; 11 correct? 12 A That's correct. f l () 13 0 Now, I understood your explanation to be that this 14 clarified what you actually understood from that 15 meeting; is that true? 16 A My recollection of the meeting, yes. 17 . O Well, didn't you understand at that time then, March 29, 18 1985, that, in fact, those LKC managers, Mr. DeWald and l 19 others, had acknowledged being aware previously of 20 additional concerns of Comstock' Quality Control l 21 Inspectors? 22 A That's what I was searching my memory for, and, Mr. 23 Guild, I have to tell you that I cannot positively 24 remember that conversation taking place at that meeting. 25 I was so concerned with the particulars of the O Sonntaq Reporting Service,_Ltd. _j l ' Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 l
3803 (v) 1 Saklak instance that although I have subsequently read 2 and discussed, I can't remember whether or not that was 3 discussed at this meeting. 4 0 All right. 5 Laying aside what the Comstock managers may or may
- 6 not have said at the March 29, 1985, meeting at which 7 the Saklak incident was the focus of discussion, weren't 8 you aware on that day, March 29, 1985, that Comstock 9 managers had been apprised of concerns expressed by 10 their inspectors?
11 MR. GALLO: Objection. The question goes 12 beyond proper voir dire. () 13 The purpose of this voir dire is to determine some 14 basis -- or possible basis for objection to the sentence 15 on Page 6 of the witness' testimony. 16 What Mr. Guild is now conducting is regular cross 17 examination. It seems to me he ought to be constrained 18 to either one or the other. i 19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I think he's trying to 20 find the basis -- explore the basis for the change in 21 the testimony being proffered here. 22 MR. GALLO: The witness has testified to that 23 basis: that that was his best recollection of what went 24 on in the meeting. 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Well, he did state one thing 4 n s-Ronntag_ Reporting _ServiceuLtd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3804 O 1 first, and then he changed it. 2 Mr. Gallo, I think it's either appropriate for voir 3 dire or for cross examination to explore the differences 4 between the two and what the first version represented. 5 He can choose to do it either way. If he chooses 6 to do it on voir dire, that's fine. So that's 7 overruled. 8 You can continue. If there's a pending question, 9 could you please repeat it for the witness? 10 (The question was thereupon read by the i 11 Reporter.) 12 A My answer goes back to the previous one: that I just () 13 don't have a firm recollection of what I knew before 14 that date versus what I knew after that date. 15 That's -- after discussion with counsel where I was 16 unsure of myself, we decided to make that change. 17 BY MR. GUILD: 18 0 Has counsel or anyone else apprised you of the testimony 19 of other witnesses in this proceeding subsequent to the 20 preparation of your prefiled testimony? 21 A I have seen prefiled testimony of other witnesses, yes. 22 0 Have they -- have you been apprised of the testimony on 23 cross examination or redirect examination, the live 24 testimony, of witnesses that have preceded you? 25 A No. I have not had an opportunity to' discuss that. Sonntaa Reporting __Sery_ ice, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 , (312) 232-0262
3805 1 Q All right. 2 You're not aware of what Mr. DeWald, Mr. Seltmann, 3 Mr. Seese and others testified in this proceeding on the 4 subject, then, of what they knew as of March 29, 1985, 5 regarding the concerns of their inspectors? 6 A No. I am under order that I am not supposed to be 7 apprised of that, and I have not been. 8 0 I see. 9 Do you recall discussing the subject of the 10 awareness of Comstock managers of concerns by their 11 inspectors, that awareness by those managers, prior to l 12 March 29, 1985, at your discovery deposition? () 13 A No, I -- I cannot recollect whether we discussed that or , 14 not. 15 Q Do you recall me asking you whether you had met with 16 Comstock Quality Control management shortly after you 17 became responsible for the Braidwood project 18 construction? 19 A Yes. 20 0 Do you recall testifying that you had met with Mr. 21 DeWald and others? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Do you recall at that time that they apprised you of 24 their awareness that there had been concerns expressed 25 by their inspectors? Sonntag Reporting Service,_Ltd.
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262
3806 O 1 A Yes. We discussed some concerns, but they were largely 2 -- exclusively, from my memory, associated with the 3 labor-organizing effort that was beginning -- or, as a 4 matter of fact, underway at that time. 5 0 All right. 6 You don't recall stating in your deposition that 7 they identified - "they," the Comstock managers, 8 identified -- to you in 1984 that there had been 9 concerns expressed by their inspectors regarding 10 harassment, intimidation and production pressure? 11 A I -- I can't say I have a recollection of that, no. 12 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, on the basis of 13 voir dire, I take the witness' answers as given and ()_ 14 accept the testimony, and I'm prepared to move to cross 15 examination. 16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. 17 In which case, is there any objection from Staff to 18 the testimony as changed? 19 MR. BERRY: No objection, your Honor. 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Okay. The testimony then is 21 admitted as corrected and changed. 22 23 24 25 O S o n ntAg_ Rep _o.tt i ng _S_c ry i c e ,_L t d , Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
!o i l 1 i i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4 l In the Matter Of: )
)
!! COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY )
) Docket Nos. 50-456 (Braidwood Station, Units 1 ) 50-457 I
and 2) ) i ( CONTENTION 2.C.
- TESTIMONY l OF
< THOMAS MAIMAN i i i l
)
l i I i l April 1986 i (:) i i i i t a
TESTIMONY OF THOMAS MAIMAN RE: QA CONTENTION 2 (u-) Q.l. Please state your full name, employer and present position. A.l. My name is Thomas J. Maiman. I am presently employed
. by Commonwealth Edison Company (Ceco) as Vice President and Manager of Projects.
Q.2. Please describe your professional and educational qualifications. A.2. In 1962 I received a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering from the University of Illinois, and in 1972 I received a Master of Business Administration degree from Loyola University. I have been employed by CECO since 1965 and have held (} engineering, operating and maintenance positions at various levels of responsibility, including Department Head. Most recently, I have been an Assistant Vice President of Engineering and then the Division Vice President and General Manager of the Fossil Stations Division. I was made Manager of Projects in 1984, and was elected a Vice President of CECO in 1986. Q.3. What are your responsibilities with respect to the Braidwood project? A.3. As Manager of Projects, I have overall respon-sibility for the engineering, budgeting, scheduling, 1 1
.,-,,.,n. . . - - - - -
^
construction, testing and start-up of CECO's nuclear b'
/"
construction projects, including Braidwood. Q.4. To which contention is this testimony addressed? A.4. Rorem et al. Contention 2. The text of Contention 2 reads as follows: Contrary to C'riterion 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 failed to provide sufficient authority and organi-zational freedom and independence from cost and schedule 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 directed againct Comctock QC inspectors and other employees who ! express safety and quality concerns by Comstock () management. Such misconduct discourages the identification and correction of deficiencies in safety related components and systems at the Braidwood Station. Instances of harassment and intimidation include at least the following:
- 1. At various times since at least August 1984, including in March 1985, more than twenty five (25)
Comstock QC inspectors have complained to the NRC about harassment and intimidation by Comstock supervisors. Such harassment and intimidation has
- been carried out or participated in by QC Manager Irv DeWald, Assistant QC Manager Larry Seese, QA Manager Bob Seltman and QC Supervisor R.M. Sakalac.
i Such harassment included widespread pressure to approve deficient ~ work, to sacrifice quality for production and cost considerations and to knowingly O -
4 violate established quality procedures. Harassment Os. 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. Sakalac was finally terminated in 1985 for his mistreatment of QC inspectors and other misconduct, the effects of his harassment remain uncorrected and systematic harassment continues at Comstock to the present. The existence of widespread harassment impugns the integrity and effectiveness of on-going corrective action programs designed only to address other widespread QA failures at Comstock.
- 2. Comstock management, including QC Manager Irv DeWald and Corporate QA Manager Bob Marino harassed, discriminated and retaliated against, and ultimately terminated Level III QC Inspector Worley O.
Puckett because Mr. Puckett made numerous complaints about safety and quality deficiencies which he identified in the course of his duties at Braidwood. Mr. Puckett was hired by Comstock in May 1984 in the newly created position of Level III QC Inspector whose duties included conducting a review of Comstock procedures, test requirements for the more than 50 Level II QC Inspectors, review of the Level II's inspection work, and the resolution of inspection disputes. Mr. Puckett was highly qualified with 20 years' nuclear Navy and nine years' nuclear power experience. See, Resume, Exhibit B. During the course .f his employment with Comstock Mr. Puckett was shocked by the widespread deficiencies in procedures, qualifications and workmanship. He identified numerous instances of improper construction procedures, improper qualification of welders, and material traceability deficiencies. He ultimately
recommended a complete stop work order for all welding activity to permit effective corrective action. See, (')
' Memos of August 10 and August 17, 1984, Exhibits C and D.
Finally, he warned QC Manager Irv DeWald that "we are approaching a complete breakdown in our QC program." August 22, 1984 Memo, Exhibit E. Puckett was subjected to harassment and retaliation because he raised these safety and quality concerns and was terminated on August 27, 1984 by DeWald on the pretext that he should have scored higher than his 86% on a qualification test. He filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor, alleging violation of the employee protection provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 USC 5851. Letter, September 5, 1984, Exhibit F. The U.S. Department of Labor Area Director sustained Mr. Puckett's complaint finding unlawful discrimination by Comstock against Puckett and ordered relief. Notes of Decision, November 6, 1984, Exhibit G. Mr. Puckett presented his case at a hearing before an Administrative Law 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. O rir H e Q de. A O \m) Q.5. On March 29, 1985, did you r:::i;c'a telephone call from Region III officials Forney, Williams and Weil? A.S. Yes. Q.6. Who in addition to yourself and the Region III officials participated in that telephone conversation? A.6. The other participants were Eugene Fitzpatrick, 40urI Manager of Quality Assurance, Daniel Shamblin, Construction Superintendent, and Lewis Kline, Licensing Assistant. fetoNechAd y - -
- ;,J V
k Q.7. Please describe what was said during that telephone conversation. O --
,,,..--,.-%-w--i-- y ,,y--w
A.7. Mr. Forney and the other NRC officials informed us that the NRC had received certain allegations from a number of QC inspectors employed by the electrical contractor, L. K. Comstock Company (LKC). As reported to us by the NRC officials, the inspectors had alleged that LKC had emphasized quantity over quality of QC inspections, that a particular LKC QC supervisor had harassed and intimidated QC inspectors, and that the response to inspectors' quality concerns by CECO's Quality First Group had been unsatisfactory. Mr. Forney stated that the NRC attached a high degree of importance to the inspectors' allegations, and asked what Ceco planned to do about them. I replied that Ceco was equally concerned about the allegations, 5J and that I would promptly investigate and report back to Ihe NRC later that afternoon with a plan of action. Q.8. What action did CECO take on the afternoon of March 29 following the telephone conversation with the Region III officials with respect to the matters which had been discussed? A.8. Immediately following the telephone conversation with Mr. Forney and the other Region III officials, I met with Dan Shamblin, Gene Fitzpatrick and Tom Quaka, Quality Assurance Superintendent, to review the allegations. We then called Irv DeWald, Bob Seltmann i
-- - - - - -,,,--e-- - . - -- . , , - - - - , - ,n. - - - - - - -- . _ - . . ~ , - . - - - - -
() and Doug Ovens, LKC's on-site management, into the The LKC managers acknowledged that they discussion. were aware of er-- -f the in:;;;ter:' crne:rne, i* Audi== = ps 'i-"'./r incident in which QC Supervisor Richard Saklak was alleged to have harassed and intimidated QC inspector Richard Snyder. After some additional discussion, I directed LKC to temporarily remove Mr. Saklak from his supervisory position
]
pending further investigation. I also directed Mr. Shamblin and LKC to arrange a meeting for 8:00 a.m. on the next regular working day, Monday, April 1, for the purpose of reemphasizing to all of LKC's QC inspectors and management Ceco's ccmmitment to quality and its ongoing desire to listen to and act upon quality concerns of inspectors or others. Mr. Fitzpatrick also suggested that CECO Project i Construction Department (PCD) and Quality Assurance (QA) immediately issue a joint project letter to LKC reminding LKC of its contract obligation to fully comply with all quality requirements and informing LKC of CECO's intent to aggressively pursue all concerns brought to Quality First. Such a letter was written and sent on the afternoon of March 29. O . . f i
p Finally, I asked Mr. Shamblin and Mr. Fitzpatrick V to develop, by the following week, a longer-range plan to adequately investigate and address the allegations and to improve the working relationship between the LKC QC inspectors and LKC management. M hCA 4 Mr. Fitzpatrick then telephon;d Mr. Torney and_
*le :ther Region II'I officials -nd r;p:rted ** *Ms the short-range actions which had been initiated and the fact that CECO would be formulating a long-range action plan by the following week.
16 / Q.9. Wha
- rrective and preventative actions were taken sub equent to March 29 to remedy the situation and to en re that it would not recur?
.;t. 4, 'E eL.+<.Jn& M SN A A A.bt g g g A
(\~ A . 9 . mk,ynO n M April 1, Monday, at 8:00 a.m. SEC: h:ld ......in; u cr~akebD 4. A fell t% 1 with LKC QA and QC personnel.& 7ersons attending the meeting M that CECO expected all work to be performed in a quality manner and would accept nothing do be.1 less. They were/further reminded of CECO's ongoing policy of soliciting and addressing any quality de 43 concerns which they might have, and wereltold that Ceco officials would be glad to discuss any such concerns either publicly at the meeting or in private discussions at any time.
The investigation into the Saklak situatioh () revealed that Mr. Saklak had indeed acted improperly. He was therefore discharged and barred from all safety-related work at any CECO nuclear site. CECO's long-range action plan consisted o - u.mdw conducting a thorough investigation W, th: hb211t; First Orcup of all concerns raised by LKC's inspectors, and recommending to LKC a variety of steps to be taken to alleviate those concerns and to improve the working relationships between the inspectors and LKC management. The results of the investigation and CECO's recommendations were communicated to LFC by letter dated April 29, 1985. The recommendations made
,f--
to LKC included the following: f l l I 1. Generation and publication to LKC personnel of a formal procedure governing investigation of concerns brought to the attention of LKC management;
- 2. Communication to all QC inspectors of LKC's i
l policies regarding refresher retraining of inspectors;
- 3. Assignment of inspectors recently certified in an additional area to work in the area of the newly l
acquired certification for a few weeks immediately following qualification in the new area;
- 4. Generation of a formal procedure governing the prc ision of training to craft personnel, including foremen;
- 5. Standardization of on-the-job training for QC inspectors;
f'N 6. Exploration of ways to improve communication
' between LKC management and QC inspectors; and
- 7. Provision of interpersonal skills training to LKC QC management and supervisory personnel.
Some of CECO's recommendations were ultimately adopted by LKC. Q.10. Were there other, widespread issues which affected the LKC QC inspectors? Hu.e u %, .f A.10. Yes j CECO's investigation revealed that the protracted union organizing effort which was then ongoing had resulted in a serious deterioration of the working relationships between LKC QC inspectors and management, as well as among the QC inspectors themselves. While CECO had previously been aware of () the organizing effort and the fact that it was having an adverse effect on relationships within the LKC organization, it now became apparent that the friction was reaching unacceptable proportions. 4 Che organizing effort had begun in 198/ when Local 306 of the United Association of Journeymen and l Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitters Industry (the union) contacted LKC QC inspectors at Braidwood about the possibility of organizing. Meetings on the l 9
subject were held throughout most of 1984, and on O November 28, 1984 the inspectors voted by a margin of 43 to 30 to join Local 306. Contract negotiations between LKC and Local 306 began on April 30, 1985 and continued through July 21, without reaching an agreement. LKC's QC inspectors became increasingly unsettled as the negotiations wore on. While the negotiations included discussion of issues such as training, holidays, vacations and pensions, the major issue was money. The union had demanded a wage rate, exclusive of benefits, in excess of $19 per hour. LKC had offered approximately $16 per hour. Since CECO would ultimately have to pay the i increased cost of any settlement, LKC kept CECO fully informed of the status of the negotiations. During this time, LKC management and QC inspectors were working in an increasingly difficult atmosphere created by the stalled labor negotiations. ! Both sides were trying to show positions of strength, and tempers were short and growing shorter. () .
,__-_.-.-,,-,,-----__--,__-,,-y.,- .
, ,--y , , - _ , . , . - , , , - , _
T 1 l How was this issue resolved? {} Q.ll. A.ll. In about June of 1983 I had contacted Bestco, a company which specialized.in providing QC inspectors for projects such as Braidwood. Bestco was a party to a previously negotiated national labor contract with 1 the union. This national contract could be used at 1 Braidwood with only minor site-specific modifications, including the insertion of a wage rate appropriate for the Chicago area. Bestee-bulieved 4h t - i n wu of approximatel-y- $ 15. 5 0 p= r h"
- r ~ 2 1 d ':; . ... m i L o d .
In mid-July, it became clear that LKC and Local 306 were unable to reach an agreement. I evaluated wOI pc.M4 d<. this situation and the growing conflict between LKC management and the QC inspectors. Although our investigation indicated that the quality of the inspectors' work was not being compromised, work progress was slewing to an unacceptable level. I concluded that agressive action was required to quickly improve the situation. I therefore instructed l Dan Shamblin to notify LKC that CECO would exercise its right to terminate that portion of the LKC contract under which QC inspectors were provided to Braidwood.
-2.-
r _ ,,_.___._m
{} on July 22, 1985 Bestco signed a contract with Local 306 at a wage rate of $16.50 per hour. On July 23, CECO terminated the QC inspection portion of the LKC contract and LKC discharged all of its Braidwood QC inspectors. On July 24, CECO retained Bestco as the contractor which would provide electrical QC inspectors to the Braidwood project, and Bestco offered employment'to all of the former LKC QC inspectors. All accepted employment from Bestco except for three who chose to leave the job. Since July 24, Bestco has provided QC inspectors to inspect LKC's electrical work. The inspectors receive their work assignments from LKC, but all
' administrative and work practice matters are handled by Bestco.
Q.12. Did CECO investigate the allegation that LKC stressed quantity of inspections at the expense of quality and, if so, what were the results of that investigation? A.12. CECO conducted an investigation of the allegation that LKC stressed quantity over quality of inspections. The investigation consisted of interviewing LKC QC managers, supervisors and inspectors, and revealed no evidence to support the allegation and that inspection quality was ever sacrificed for the sake of productivity. While LKC was interested in getting l O i I
work completed in a timely manner and expressed that
' O to its QC inspectors, CECO's investigation found that a good balance between quality and quantity existed, and uncovered no specific instance in which it was ;
alleged that inspection quality was subordinated to l production concerns. hhileLXCdidkeepstatus reporte det-i 6 -nummersa f_.inspecticus pe "wr d , there w;s ne evid=uce of entorcement of any particular inspection suete. There wes en lu=wance in whs v-h overtime was denied te eu inspectos due to icw productivity, but *b=t instance involv;d en inspector vtrh an exca-sive number of absencee :nd who uts' overheard-by . QC ougerviser bragging abeat hvw little verkhewesdoind o G Q.13. What have been the results of implementation of Ceco's short-term and long-term action plans? A.13. To the best of my knowledge, implementation of the short-term anc long-term plans of action has resulted in the resolution of all of the concerns expressed by the QC inspectors and there have been no further allegations. Bestco is currently providing unionized QC inspectors, qualified to the LKC procedures and requir .ents, to do QC inspections of electrical work performed by LKC. l
Q.14. Prior to receiving the March 29 telephone call'from (~ s Region III officials, what steps had CECO taken to ensure that it kept abreast of and acted promptly upon any quality problems or concerns at Braidwood? A.14. In October of 1984, CECO created the Braidwood Quality First Group. The Quality First program operates to provide an opportunity for individuals who may have concerns about plant quality to present and discuss those concerns with anonymity. ill r^"cern; brought to Ouality Fiv=e are thornughly investigated _and. if they are-substantiatedr immediateaorrective-eetien--is taken'r- -The~resuTts'of the-investigationrincluding the _ nature-of-any- corrective action taken-~ art promptly-reported ^back"to~the~perso~n~who~broughtthI concern -to-the -attention-of-the-Quali'ty First-Group,/ O Currently, Quality First holds interviews only when they are requested by a person wishing to discuss a quality concern. However, when the program was getting off the ground in early 1985, Quality First, on its own initiative, held individual interviews with site personnel in order to establish an initial data base. Quality First began these interviews in January of 1985 by interviewing all QA/QC personnel on site. In addition to the Quality First Program, CECO keeps abreast of quality problems or concerns at Braidwood through an ongoing program of audits and surveillances. The program of audits and surveillances is conducted by the CECO Quality Assuranc'e organization, and has been a part of CECO's Braidwood project since construction began. Results of the QA audits and surveillances are transmitted to PCD, and any necessary corrective actions are promptly taksn. Additionally, the results of the audits and surveillances are tracked and trended so as to provide early and continuous warning of any trends which may adversely affect the quality of construction. () Q.15. You have testified that one of the concerns mentioned to you during your March 29 telephone conversation with the Region III officials was that some LKC QC i inspectors were dissatisfied with results they had obtained by reporting their concerns to the Quality First Group. Please describe the procedure followed by Quality First with respect to the concerns expressed by the LKC inspectors. A.15. On the initiative of the Quality First Group, individual interviews with each of the LKC QC inspectors were held between February 13 and March 11, 1985. During the course of those interviews, some of the inspectors expressed concerns relating to inspector training and morale within the QC organization. Record of Concern (ROC) numbers were () .
- d
assigned to these concerns for tracking purposes, and O they were assigned to PCD for investigation. As of March 29, 1985 the investigation of those concerns had i not been completed, and therefore no results had been reported to the inspectors who had raised the concerns and no corrective actions had been taken. Subsequently, the investigation was completed, appropriate corrective actions were taken and the results were reported to the inspectors who had raised the concerns. Q.16. Are you aware of any claim by Mr. Snyder (the QC inspector involved in the incident which led to the termination of Mr. Saklak) that he has ever failed to express a quality concern or compromised the quality of his inspection work due to any perceived harassment or intimidation to which he believes he has been O subjected? A.16. No. Q.17. Are you aware of any QC inspector who claims that he has ever failed to express a quality concern or compromised the quality of his inspection work at Braidwood as a result of any perceived harassment or j intimidation? A.17. No. To the best of my knowledge each of the QC inspectors who has come forward with an allegation of harassment or intimidation has stated categorically that despite that person's perception that he was l I subjected to harassment or intimidation, the quality I of his inspection work was always first-rate and he l 1
never" failed to express any quality concern which he O n a- czco1 r or== via#c tat av 11ea harassment or intimidation of QC inspectors has resulted in any deficiency whatsoever in the quality of construction at Braidwood. O , O --
3807 O JUDGE GROSSMAN : Mr. Gallo, do you have 1 2 anything further? 3 MR. GALLO: I have no further questions. 4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild, you may proceed 5 with your cross examination. 6 MR. GUILD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 7 CROSS EXAMINATION 8 BY MR. GUILD: 9 Q Mr. Maiman, you hold the position of Vice-President of 10 Commonwealth Edison Company and Manager of Projects; 11 correct? 12 A That's correct. And do I understand correctly that upon becoming Manager (]) 13 0 14 of Projects, you first undertook any responsibility for 15 the nuclear construction activities of the company? 4 16 A- That's correct. i 17 Q And that you took that position in the spring of 1984? l 18, A That's also correct. 19 0 Okay. 20 Now, you replaced Mr. James Maley in that capacity, 21 did you not, Manager of Proj ects? 22 A Yes. 23 0 Mr. Maley had previously been responsible for the 24 nuclear construction activities of the company? 25 A That's right. O Sonntag Raporting Rersice,__Ltd.- Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3808 O Including the construction of the Braidwood facility? 1 0 2 A Correct. 3 0 All right. 4 Now, you accepted the position of Manager of 5 Projects at the trquest of the Chairman and President of 6 Commonwealth Edison Company, Mr. O'Connor; correct? 7 A That's correct. 8 0 And Mr. O'Connor asked you to take that position in late 9 February, 1984, did he not? 10 A That's correct. 11 0 He asked you to take that position and explained to you 12 at that time that there were serious Quality Assurance () 13 concerns about Braidwood which had been expressed by the 14 Nuclear Regulatory Commission; correct? 15 A I would rephrase that slightly. 16 When he talked to me, he said the NRC had a 17 negative perception about the quality of the Braidwood 18 plant. 19 0 All righ t , sir. 20 And did you understand at that time or shortly 21 thereafter that those concerns were founded -- concerns 22 by the NRC were founded, in part, upon the i 23 identification of what was characterized as a quality 24 assurance breakdown in the area of mechanical equipment 25 installation and inspection? I Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd. l Geneva, Illinois 60134 , (312) 232-0262 l
3809 O V 1 A Yes, that's how it was. characterized in the NRC report, 2 correct. 3 Q All right. 4 And that -- by that I have reference to Inspection 5 Report 8205 that was published in February of 1983. 6 A Yes. 7 0 And accompanying that inspection report was the citation 8 of a $100,000 civil penalty for the violation that I 9 just identified, a QA breakdown in mechanical equipment 10 installation and inspection? 11 A I believe that's so. 12 0 And at the time that Mr. O'Connor offered you the 13 position of Manager of Projects in February of '84, the f( ) 14 NRC was in the process of completing a major quality 15 assurance inspection at Braidwood that led you to 16 Inspection Report 8309 -- correct? 17 A That's correct. ! 18 0 -- and was anticipating -- Mr. O'Conhor, now -- an e::it l l 19 meeting with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff as 20 a part of that inspection which was to take place in a l 21 matter of days or weeks af ter the meeting you had with l 22 Mr. O'Connor? 23 A That's correct. 24 Q Did you attend that exit meeting? 25 A No. I did not officially take my position until some O Ronntag Reporting service,_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60124 (312) 232-0262
3810 O 1 weeks later. I believe it was a week later. 2 0 All right, sir. 3 You were informed of the results of that exit 4 meeting, were you not? 5 A Yes. 6 0 All right. 7 And did you understand, as a result of that exit 8 meeting and confirmed subsequently in Inspection Report 9 8309 that was published in May of 1984, that the NRC 10 Staff, having inspected the four major contractors at 11 Braidwood, including L. K. Comstock Company, the 12 electrical contractor, identified a number of items of () 13 noncompliance in each of those contractors' work? 14 MR. GALLO: Objection. This whole line in 15 irrelevant and immaterial to the harassment issue. 16 The NRC enforcement actions under Inspection Report 17 8205 and 8309 have nothing to do with the issue before 18 this Board. 19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We're certainly not going to 20 be trying those issues. 21 I believe these are background questions, 22 preliminary questions; and as soon as Mr. Guild sets the 23 framework, he'll get on to more relevant questions. 24 Is that correct, Mr. Guild? 25 MR. GUILD: Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman. O V Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva. Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3811 ( 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I think it will go quicker 2 if we just allow that. 3 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Can I have the 4 question repeated? 5 MR. GUILD: Read the question back, please. 6 (The question was thereupon read by the 7 Reporter.) 8 A I believe that to be the case, although I -- I can't 9 tell you positively that all contractors had 10 deficiencies. 11 BY MR. GUILD: 12 0 The four major contractors -- the mechanical contractor, () 13 Phillips Getschow Company; the electrical contractor, L. 14 K. Comstock Company; the structural contractor, Gustave 15 K. Newberg; and the HVAC contractor, Pullman Sheet Metal 16 Company -- as to each of them, the NRC identified items 17 of noncompliance; is that correct? I 18 A That's true for those four. 19 0 Those are the four major contractors, are they not? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Is it also true that shortly thereaf ter, as a result of l 22 discussions with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, you l 23 and Commonwealth Edison Company embarked on the l 24 Braidwood construction program to address the NRC's 25 concerns about construction quality at Braidwood? O Sonntag Deporting Service-,_Ltd: Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3812 (' U) 1 A Yes, I believe that's -- that's a f air statement. 2 Q All right. 3 I think on your deposition you told me that at 4 those times in the spring of '84, there was a corrective 5 action program referred to that was called the Quality 6 Reverification Program or a title of that sort; correct? 7 A That's -- that's correct. That was the program that was 8 reported to me as being proposed to the NRC in the 9 enforcement conference. 10 0 All right. 11 That's what you understood was to be proposed when 12 you took the position of Manager of Projects? () 13 A That's right. 14 Q And later that program evolved into what became known as 15 BCAP, Braidwood Construction Assessment Program, in June 16 or slightly thereaf ter,1984? j 17 A That's correct. 18 Q And L. K. Comstock and the electrical work performed by 19 Comstock was within the scope of that program, was it 20 not? 21 A Yes. 22 0 Now, when you became Manager of Projects, you had no l ! 23 prior nuclear quality assurance background, did you, Mr. 24 Maiman? 25 A That's correct, although I had participated in the O , S o n n t a g R e po r_ ting _J3 mi c ea_L t_d _, l Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
3813 1 development of the company's quality assurance program 2 f rom other positions that I held in the company, 3 although not directly related to nuclear. 4 0 You had responsibility in the engineering -- in the 5 fossil area prior to your current position? 6 A That's correct. 7 0 All right. 8 And, of course, there are quality assurance 9 requirements that the company has for those programs? 10 A Correct. 11 Q But they are not the nuclear quality assurance program, 12 are they? () 13 A No, they are not, but they're patterned very closely 14 after those developed for the nuclear program. 15 0 And is it fair to state that your education and training 16 in the nuclear quality assurance area has been inf ormal? 17 A That's correct. 18 0 All right. 19 And it's been in your position, your present 20 position, as Manager of Projects? 21 A Yes. 22 O Now, you stated to me in your deposition that you 23 understood from Mr. O'Connor, when you took the position 24 of Manager of Projects -- and perhaps from other sources 25 as well -- that there weren' t any real quality problems Annntag Report-i ng Sarvicealtd-Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3814 A V 1 at Braidwood; there was simply a perception of the NRC 2 of problems with quality at Braidwood. 3 Is that a fair statement in substance of your 4 understanding? 4 5 A Yes, I -- I would say so. 6 We -- we believed that the quality of the plant was 7 -- was good, but that we did have a perception problem 8 that we had to overcome, correct. 9 Q All right. 10 And I understood you to say that the basis for that 11 opinion of yours at the time was from what you learned, 12 through the course of participating in Edison management 13 meetings, from those who had more direct knowledge of (]) 14 the Braidwood construction quality? 15 A That's -- that's correct. 16 Q All right. 17 And among the sources of information that you 18 relied on to reach that conclusion that you. had when you 19 took the job was the opinion of Mr. Walter Shewski; l 20 correct? ! 21 A Among those, that's -- that's correct. 22 0 All right. 23 You identified Mr. Shewski as a source of that 24 opinion; and Mr. Shewski holds the position, and did at 25 that time, of Corporate Manager of Quality Assurance? Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
3815 O 1 A That's right. 2 0 You also relied, for your opinion about the quality of 3 Braidwood construction, on the opinion of Mr. Maley, 4 your predecessor; is that correct? 5 A Correct. 6 Q And on the opinion of Mr. Casaro, who was then the 4 7 construction superintendent at Braidwood? 8 A That's also correct. 9 0 Now, you replaced Mr. Maley in the position of Manager 10 of Projects at the time, you stated. 11 Was Mr. Casaro subsequently replaced as the 12 Braidwood construction superintendent? l () 13 A Yes, he was. 14 0 All right. 15 And was that in the summer of 1984? 16 A Yes. 17 Q He was replaced by Mr. Shamblin, was he not? 18 A Correct. 19 0 And was that a decision in which you were a participant 20 to bring Mr. Shamblin on in Mr. Casaro's place? 21 A Yes, it was. 22 Q And is it true that Mr. Casaro -- that you had 23 identified weaknesses in Mr. Casaro's performance with 24 respect to his attention to detail, to documentation, to 25 paperwork, as you stated it? Sonnt-ng Reporting service d td-Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3816 O 1 A Attention to detail associated with the documentation of 2 quality records, that's correct. 3 0 All right. 4 Did the company also identify any weaknesses in Mr. 5 Shewski's performance as the Corporate Quality Assurance 6 Manager? 7 A Not that I am aware of. 8 0 Wasn't Mr. Shewski's responsibility for quality 9 assurance with respect to Braidwood nonetheless a 10 subsequently -- strike that. 11 Subsequently was Mr. Gene Fitzpatrick added to the 12 corporate quality assurance organization as the -- I 13 believe you corrected your testimony to reflect as the ({} 14 Assistant Manager of Quality Assurance? 15 A Yes, he was. 16 MR. GALLO: Objection. I object again that 17 it's irrelevant and immaterial. 18 Mr. Guild's questions continue to go at the 19 management structure, the management issues involving 20 quality assurance; and that was an issue specifically 1 21 rej ected by the Commission. 22 It's still irrelevant and immaterial. L
- 23 JUDGE GROSSMAN
- I assure you, Mr. Gallo, we 24 are not going to be making findings on those issues.
I 25 These appear to be background questions, which are i ( Sonntaa Reporting S er v ice ,__Ltd . Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 l - - - . - - , -
3817 O 1 permissible as broad questions laying the foundation for 2 the specific questions. 3 I really think it will go a lot quicker if we don't 4 have to -- if we don't ask Mr. Guild to justify each one 5 of these background questions as ultimately leading to 6 something else. We're just not going to be making 7 findings on issues that aren't involved here. 8 MR. GALLO: I certainly agree with the 9 Board's view on that. It's just that, by my count, it's 10 been about 15 minutes of background questions, and there 11 has to be some limit. That was my only basis for the 12 objection. () 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Continue, Mr. Guild. 14 MR. GUILD: I also state that as the witness 15 offers expert opinion evidence and offers evidence as to 16 his understanding, it certainly has to be available to 17 this party to challenge the limits of that witness' 18 understanding and expertise. 19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That's well taken, Mr. 20 Guild. There has been inquiry into that particular area 21 so far. 22 Continue, Mr. Guild. ! 23 BY MR. GUILD: i 24 0 Mr. Shewski's supervision of the corporate quality 1 25 assurance function was indeed supplemented with the
)
Sonntag naporting_ service, r+a_ Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3818 O 1 addition of Mr. Fitzpatrick as the Assistant Quality 2 Assurance Manager ultimately assigned directly to 3 Braidwood; is that correct? 4 A That's correct. 5 Q Was that addition of Mr. Fitzgerald designed to enhance 6 the Edison quality assurance function at Braidwood? 7 A Exactly. 8 0 It was designed to address whatever weaknesses or
, 9 deficiencies had been previously identified by the NRC 10 with respect to Braidwood quality assurance?
11 A I would ref er back to my previous answer that his 12 addition was intended to enhance the quality assurance 13 effort at Braidwood. (]) I 14 Q All right, sir. 15 Well, in fact, Mr. Maiman, the NRC had identified 16 in the 8205 inspection report -- Mr. Keppler's
- 17 transmittal letter, specifically -- Edison management l
18 weakness in the oversight of the Braidwood Quality 19 Assurance Program. 20 A You're -- you're asking me to -- to comment and address 21 a perceived weakness on the part of Mr. Keppler about a 22 department that is not under my control, and so I can 23 only give you my impression of why Mr. Fitzgerald was i 24 added, and that was to enhance the quality assurance 25 effort at Braidwood. O I l Sonntaq Repprting Service,__Ltd.
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3819 1 Q Perhaps you missed my last question. 2 Do you understand that Mr. Keppler, in fact, stated 3 in that transmittal letter of the civil penalty that he 4 had identified weaknesses in Edison's quality assurance 5 oversight of the Braidwood construction work? 6 MR. GALLO: I would object. 7 Unless Mr. Guild is testing the witness' memory, 8 he's entitled to see the document that Mr. Guild is 9 referring to. 10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, first let him answer. 11 He may not need that document. 12 Do you need that document? 4 () 13 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do. 14 A I don' t specifically remember that comment, although I 15 have no reason to believe that it's -- 16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. That's fine. 17 Do you happen to have that document? i 18 MR. GUILD: No, your Honor, but we can put 19 our hands on it. 20 If counsel will stipulate that that's what the 21 transmittal letter says -- 22 MR. GALLO: My memory is not good on that 23 point, either. I will not stipulate. 24 MR. GUILD: Can we go of f the record, then? 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Let's go off the rec 8td. O Sonntag n epnrting_Servica, Err 1 _ Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3820 1 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which 2 the proceedings were resumed as follows:) 3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Back on the record. 4 BY MR. GUILD: 5 0 Mr. Maiman, I'm going to show you a copy of Mr. 6 Keppler's transmittal letter for the 8205 inspection 7 repo r t. It's addressed to Mr. O'Connor of Edison, dated 8 February 3, 1983. I direct your attention to the second 9 paragraph of the letter. 10 Would you read the first sentence of that paragraph 11 for the record, please? 12 A For the record? () 13 0 Yes. 14 A "The results of the inspection indicate serious 15 weaknesses in your management control systems as l 16 evidenced by a breakdown of your Quality Assurance 17 Program as it relates to the installation and 18 installation inspection of mechanical safety-related 19 eq ui pment . " 20 0 All right, sir. 21 Do you now recall, at the time you became Manager 22 of Projects, being aware of Mr. Keppler's findings about 23 Edison's management failure to ef f ectively oversee that 24 activity ? 25 A At the time I did read that cover letter and that Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3821 O 1 inspection report, yes. 2 0 All right, sir. 3 And was not Mr. Fitzgerald's addition as Assistant 4 Manager of Quality Assurance intended to provide 5 additional management oversight of the quality assurance 6 activities at Braidwood? 7 A Mr. Fitzgerald became Assistant Manager of Quality 8 Assurance at the same time that I became Manager of 9 Projects; and as it was related to me, his position was 10 established to enhance the quality assurance effort at 11 Braidwood. 12 0 All right, sir. 13 Now, af ter becoming Manager of Projects in March of (]) i 14 1984, did you become apprised of problems with the L. K. 15 Comstock Company's, the electrical contractor's, backlog 16 of quality control inspection activities? 17 A Open inspection backlog, yes. 18 0 All ri gh t , sir. 19 And did you become aware of the extent of that 20 backlog? 21 A Yes. I have an approximate recollection of what the 22 number was at that time, yes. 23 Q And what is your recollection? 24 A There were approximately in -- in March or April, when I 25 got into it, 8,000 or 9,000 open inspections. O Sonntag Repocting Service: Ltd= Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~
l 3822 O 1 0 Were you aware at that time that the number had been as 2 high as 14,000? 3 A I don't know if I remember that specific number, but I 4 was aware that it had been higher in months earlier, 5 yes. 6 0 Do you recall telling me in your deposition that you 7 didn't believe that it had ever been any higher than 8 10,000? 9 A Yes, I remember that after reading the deposition. 10 0 Have you since seen Mr. DeWald's testimony in this 11 proceeding where he acknowledges that there were 14,000 12 inspections backlogged? () 13 A Yes, and that's where I got the 14,000 number. 14 Q All right, sir. 15 Now, shortly after becoming Manager of Projects, 16 then, you did meet with Comstock's on-site management, 17 did you not? 18 A That's correct. 19 0 And can you identify with whom you met at that time? 20 A I can remember several people: Dick Anderson, Bob
- 21 Marino --
l 22 0 Let me ask you to slow down. l 23 Mr. Anderson is not a site manager. l l 24 Who is he? 25 A He is a corporate Vice-President -- or was at that time Sonntaq Reportino Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3823 s U 1 -- of Comstock. 2 Bob Marino also is a corporate officer off-site, 3 responsible for the quality portion of the Comstock 4 effort. 5 Irv DeWald, who was the QC Manager; Bob Seltmann, 6 the QA Manager. I -- I don't have a recollection of who 4 7 else was in the meeting. 8 0 All right, sir. 9 Now, at that time -- was that early in your tenure 10 as Manager of Projects; say, spring of '84? 11 A Yes, that's in the approximate time frame. 12 Q Now, at that time did those managers apprise you of any () 13 concerns that they were aware of by their Quality 14 Control Inspectors at Braidwood? l 15 A Only the issue that there was a backlog, which -- which 16 I had brought up, and we discussed it briefly and that l 17 they were focusing efforts on reducing that backlog, and l 18 the effort to -- to organize the QC Inspectors by Local 19 306 had recently begun -- or they were aware that it was l 20 being -- or taking place. l 21 Q All right. 22 Your recollection today, as you sit here, is that 23 they raised the question of the union organizing effort i 24 at that time? l 25 A Yes. We had discussed it. O Sonnh g Raporting Service, Ltch ! Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 1
3824 1 Q Do you recall me asking you this same question in your 2 deposition, "What was told to you at that time when you 3 met with the Comstock managers?" 4 A Mr. Guild, I'm sure you asked me that question, but I -- 5 I could not repeat back to you precisely what I said. 6 Q Do you recall saying anything about them telling you 7 about union organizing activities -- 8 A I don't. 9 0 -- when you described the meeting in your deposition? 10 A I don't. 11 Q All right, sir. 12 On the basis of what you learned about Comstock's () 13 Quality Control Program at that time -- now, the spring 14 of '84 -- did you undertake any action to evaluate or 15 investigate whether there were problems -- harassment, 16 intimidation or production pressure -- on Quality 17 Control Inspectors? 18 A No, I did not. 19 0 All right. 20 Now, later in 1984, Commonwealth Edison Company 21 organized what has been referred to in this proceeding 22 as the Quality First Program -- 23 A Correct. 24 0 -- at Braidwood; correct? 25 A Correct. O Sonntaq Reporting Service,_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3825 fh a 1 Q And would you describe briefly what your understanding 2 is of the purpose of the Quality Assurance Program? 3 Not Quality Assurance; Quality First Program. 4 A Yes, I can do that. I tried to do that in my -- my 5 testimony. 6 One of the questions that we had a concern about -- 7 MR. GALLO: I think that part of the 8 testimony was stricken, so you'll simply have to answer 9 Mr. Guild's question. 10 TH E WITN ESS : Oh, okay. I apologize. 11 A (Continuing . ) The Quality First effort was -- was 12 organized in recognition of an environment throughout () 13 the nuclear industry regarding concerns or possible 14 concerns that were being raised about the quality of 15 construction. 16 Our reason for organizing the Quality First was to l l 17 provide an opportunity for any person on-site to express 18 concerns that they may have, particularly for people 19 that may be concerned about discussing those concerns I 20 with their own management or with Commonwealth Edison 21 management. 22 This would provide another outlet, an opportunity 23 to -- with anonymity, if they chose, to identify 24 concerns. 25 It was the intent of the Quality First Program to O Ronntag Deporting s ervica,_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3826 (a3 1 take those concerns, to investigate them or cause them 2 to be investigated and then act on results from those 3 investigations if that was necessary and to report back 4 the results of the investigation to the individual if, 5 in fact, the individual wanted them reported back to 6 them. 7 That, in as concise a fashion as I can, defines 8 what the Quality First purpose is. 9 BY MR. GUILD: 10 0 Well, I really -- you gave me a thumbnail sketch of what 11 the Quality First Program does -- l 12 A Yes. 13 -- and perhaps you missed the import of my question. (]) 0 14 For what purpose did Commonwealth Edison Company 15 establish such a program? 16 A Gee, I thought I answered that. i 17 0 If you stand by your last answer, that's -- that will t 18 suffice, Mr. Maiman. 19 You understood you were answering the question 20 about purpose when you answered last? l 21 A Yes. 22 0 All right. 23 Now, is the Quality First Program at Braidwood l l 24 organized to meet any regulatory requirement, as you i 25 understand it? O l Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l .
3827 O 1 A No. The Quality First Program is something that we 2 undertook on our own to provide that -- that relief 3 valve or that other opportunity for people to express 4 concerns. 5 It is not required by the NRC, and we would not 6 have had to -- to undertake it. 7 Q All right. 8 Having undertaken it, in your opinion, is the 9 implementation of that program, pursuant to the program 10 description policies and procedures, a regulatory 11 requirement? 12 A No. () 13 0 You don't understand, then, the Quality First Program 14 and the effective implementation of that program to 15 represent a commitment by Commonwealth Edison Company to 16 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission? l 17 A No. 18 0 All right, sir. 19 Explain, please, your relationship to the Quality 20 First Program at Braidwood. l 21 A The Quality First Director reports to the project 22 manager on-site, who, in turn, reports to me. 23 0 All right. 24 Who is the Quality First Program Director at 25 Braidwood? O nnnntag Raporting service:, E d-Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
-,e -
- ?
3828 O 1 A Ray Presten. 2 0 All right. 3 And Mr. Preston has a staff, does he not? 4 A Ray Preston has a small staff, yes, he does. 5 0 can you identify how many other persons work in ' c hat 6 program at Braidwood? , 7 A There are two presently assigned. There was at one time 8 four. 9 0 All right. 10 The two persons -- what position's do they hold, the 11 two others besides Mr. Preston? 12 A They are simply assistants to Mr. Preston that work 13 under his direction. (]) 14 0 All right. 15 Do they themselves perform investigative work in 16 the Quality First Program? 17 A They perform interviewc and on occasion will perform the 18 actual investigation work, yes. 19 0 All right. 20 Under what circumstances will they - "they" i i 21 including Mr. Preston -- actually perform the l 22 investigative work? i 23 A Well, it depends on the concern that's being raised. l 24 If it is a -- a concern that can reasonably be 25 investigated in a relatively short period of time by Ray Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3829 O G 1 or one of Ray's staff, they will take it on. 2 If it is a concern of some magnitude or is going to 3 be requiring more manpower than is available through the 4 Quality First Staff, Mr. Preston will assign it to 5 others on-site, including the department f rom which the 6 concern was raised, to pursue it in accordance with the 7 procedures of Quality First and report back to Mr. 8 Preston. 9 0 I see. 10 So it's consistent with the Quality First Program 11 for essentially those in the department out of which the 12 concern arises to conduct the investigation of the () 13 concerns at Mr. Preston's referral? 14 A Yes, it is. 15 The results of those investigations, however, are 16 subject to review by Mr. Preston and his staff. 17 0 All right, sir. 18 The Quality First Program -- does it have any 19 reporting relationship to the Quality Assurance 20 Depa r tment? 21 A No, it does not. 22 0 The Quality First Program, then, reports directly 23 through the production chain of command to you, the 24 Manager of Projects? 25 A That's correct. O v . Sonnt a g Depor ting _Ser_vice,_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3830 O 1 All right. Q 2 When did you first become apprised of complaints of 3 harassment, intimidation or production pressure by 4 Comstock inspectors? 5 MR. GALLO: I'll object to the form of the 6 question. 7 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Overruled. 8 MR. GALLO: I think f airly -- can I make 9 my -- 10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, you can -- 11 MR. GALLO: I think f ai rly -- 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- if you don' t coach the () 13 witness. 14 MR. GALLO: I'll try not to. 15 I f airly understood that the question is 16 understanding that the pressure intimidation was, in 17 fact, perf ormed and conducted by the QC Inspectors. 18 I don't think the question intended that. 19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, okay. I'm sorry. 20 Let's have the question again. 21 MR. GUILD: I'll rephrase it. It was an 22 awkward phraseology. 23 BY MR. GUILD: 24 0 When did you first become apprised of complaints by 25 Quality Control Inspectors that they had been subject to O Sonntag Rep _ortina S_erSJca,_L.t_d. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3831 0 1 harassment, intimidation and production pressure? 2 Comstock inspectors, now. 3 A There are several parts to the answer. 4 I became aware that there were ongoing and 5 escalating differences of opinion between Comstock QC 6 management and the QC Inspectors that was related to me, 7 resulting f rom the effort to organize the QC Inspectors.. 8 0 Let me interrupt you there now. I'm going to let you 9 finish your answer, but your answer was somewhat 10 compound. 11 A Yeah. 12 0 You said "was related to me." Now, I'm going to have to 13 interrupt you. (]) 34 When you say "related to me," who related it to 15 you? 16 A Okay. Largely I get my information on-site by talking 17 to various department heads and managers. 18 In this particular case, it was Dan Shamblin, who l 19 was the construction superintendent -- 20 0 All right, sir.
- 21 A -- who I f requently have conversations with about
( i 22 progress and problems and what have you. I 23 0 Mr. Shamblin's information, now, you' re beginning to 24 relate? ! 25 A Yes. (:) Ronntag naporH ng_Ser_vice4td-Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3832 1 This is where I became first aware in mid, early 2 1984 that the negotiations that had begun were now 3 resulting in some difficult interpersonal relationships 4 between the Comstock management and the OC Inspectors. 5 0 Let me interrupt you again. 6 A Okay. 7 0 You said "mid, early 1984." 8 Is that the time you mean to state? 9 A That's when I first became aware of -- 10 0 The middle of '84? 11 A Yes. 12 0 All right, sir. Proceed. 13 Having known that the negotiations had really started, (]) A 14 you know, sometime before that, I generally felt that 15 they were peaceful and would progress in the normal 16 course. 17 I really became aware of the harassment or 18 intimidation situation on March 29th, when I 19 participated in the phone call with the Region. 20 That was really my first awakening that I 21 personally had -- had knowledge of. 22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: March 29th of what year? 23 THE WITNESS: 1985. 24 BY MR. GUILD: 25 0 when you say " negotiations" in your last answer, are you O Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3833 O 1 referring to negotiations between the union and the 2 management of Comstock? 3 A No. I misspoke. 4 It was not negotiations. They did not take place 5 until April 30th, I believe, the actual negotiations. 6 I'm talking about the union organizing effort, 7 where the union would come in and talk with the QC 8 Inspectors to -- to try to convince them of the benefits 9 of joining the union. 10 0 Now, again, to be clear, April 30, 1985, you just 11 referred to. 12 A That was the actual negotiations. 13 0 Okay. (]) 14 Mid '84 is when you used the word " earlier" -- 15 A That's right. 16 0 -- and by that you meant an organizing eff ort -- 17 A That's right. 18 0 -- correct? 19 A That's right. 20 Q Now, the question I asked you was about your awareness 21 of harassment and intimidation concerns, and your answer 22 was about union and management friction. l 23 Do you identify the two as one and the same, Mr. 24 Maiman? 25 A I identify the one as leading to a situation that ! () Ronntag Repoding Service,_Ltd-Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3834 O O 1 finally resulted or could have resulted in what has been 2 termed " intimidation and harassment." 3 Clearly, the incident that was related to us on the 4 29th of March,1985, that we investigated was an act of 5 -- of intimidation. 6 I -- I view the organizing effort and the 7 difficulties that finally arose as a result of this very 8 long, protracted effort as leading to that kind of a 9 situation, yes. 10 Q All right. 11 When did you first become aware of concerns of 12 harassment, intimidation and production pressure 13 expressed by a former Quality Control Inspector at (]) 14 Comstock named John Seeders? 15 A That would be af ter the 29th and as part of Dan 16 Shamblin's relating the results of the investigation to 17 me. 18 0 You were not previously aware of an August 17, 1984, 19 letter Mr. Seeders had authored, directed to Mr. Casaro 20 and to the NRC and to Comstock management? l 21 A That -- that is. correct. I had not seen that letter, i 22 although I may have been told by Shamblin or someone 23 else that one of the QC Inspectors had a complaint or 24 had written a letter. 25 I did not read that letter or see that letter.
)
Sonntaq Reporting Service r _Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 ' 1
4 N. I 3835 ' } l 1 Q All right. 2 Well, did you understand from Mr. Shamblin prior to 3 March 29, 1985, that in substance Mr. Seeders had 4 complained of harassment and intimidation and production f 5 pressure? 6 A No. I -- I was not aware of his name. 7 Now, Mr. Shamblin may have used his name, but it 8 did not stick in my memory and I have no recall of his 9 particular name. 10 Remember, we were -- we were talking in some detail 11 about the unionizing effort, and most all of our 12 conversations about difficulties between Comstock () 13 management and Comstock QC Inspectors referred back to i 14 the -- to the unionizing effort. 15 0 When you say your " discussions," yours and Mr. 16 Shamblin's? 17 A That's correct. 18 0 Mr. Shamblin, the project construction superintendent? 19 A Correct. 20 0 Do you, as a matter of course, Mr. Maiman, read the 21 Nuclear Regulatory Commission's periodic inspection 22 reports that relate to their inspection activity at 23 Braidwood? 24 A Yes, I do, Mr. Guild, although generally I will read the 25 cover letter and not go into the details unless there is s onntag n epor ti ng service,__Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3836 O 1 something that I f eel is -- it's necessary that I go 2 into the detailed inspections. 3 0 Sir, in that regard, do you recall either reading or 4 having brought to your attention a December, 1984, NRC 5 inspection report that made a reference without a name 6 to the complaint by John Seeders and stated that an 7 allegation had been raised by a Comstock inspector of 8 harassment and intimidation? 9 A I -- I can't recall that. 10 I'm f amiliar with the document that you' re talking 11 about, because I have subsequently read it; but I -- I 12 just can't recall accurately whether I -- I read that () 13 before or close to the date it was issued. 14 0 And you can't recall whether that subject was brought to 15 your attention at about December of 1984 when the NRC 16 published that report? 17 A Mr. Guild, I'm -- I'm confident that it was brought to 18 my attention. 19 But I'm also confident, because we were talking l 20 about this -- this difficulty with the -- the unionizing 21 effort, that it was -- it was put off on that; 22 everything was -- was directed towards these are some of 23 the problems with the unionizing effort. 24 0 And that, as you recall, was the way you interpreted 25 that inf ormation at the time? f~) (/ Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3837 O A That's right. 1 2 0 And is it also fair to understand that you took no 3 further action to investigate the concerns by Mr. 4 Seeders of harassment, intimidetion or production 5 pressure? 6 A I personally did not take any additional action, no. 7 Q Did you make yourself aware of any action taken by 8 others on Mr. Seeders' concerns at that time? 9 A I -- I -- I don't remember. 10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me. I'm not sure 11 whether you answered completely with regard to that 12 conversation that you had with Mr. Shamblin about Mr. () 13 Seeders, in which you indicated now that you don't 14 recall whether Mr. Seeders' name was mentioned. 15 BOARD EXAMINATION 16 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: 17 Q Do you recall whether the substance of Mr. Seeders' 18 complaint was mentioned then? 19 A Judge, I -- I feel confident that the substance of his 20 complaint was mentioned. 21 But what I'm trying to relate is Fecause of this 22 effort to organize the QC Inspectors and the growing 23 conflict, that it was so evident that this is just an 24 example of the difficulties that are -- that are now 25 coming forth between the QC Inspectors and the Sonnt ary Deporting Service-,_Ltd: Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3838 () 1 management. 2 Q So you -- in other words, whatever may have been 3 communicated to you with regard to the substance of Mr. , 4 Seeders' complaint, you attributed it to the 5 union-management -- 6 A That's right. 7 0 -- problem? 8 A That's correct. j 9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. 10 CROSS EXAMINATION 11 (Continued) 12 BY MR. GUILD: () 13 0 When did you first become apprised, Mr. Maiman, of 14 complaints of retaliatory termination by Mr. Worley i 15 Puckett, the former Comstock Level III QC Inspector? 16 A That also was subsequent to -- to the March 29, 1985, 17 meeting resulting f rom the investigation, where all of 18 the -- the facts were -- were spelled out. 19 Q Do you recall learning prior to that date, March 29, i 20 1985, that Mr. Puckett had filed a complaint of 21 violation of federal employee protection statutes
- 22 against your electrical contractor, the L. K. Comstock 23 Company, for retaliatory discharge, a complaint filed in i
24 September of 1984? 25 A Yes. I -- that's the first time that I was made aware
)
l Sonntaq Reporting Service,_ Ltd. I Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3839 i l () 1 of Mr. Puckett's name. 2 Prior to that, I was aware that Comstock was having 3 difficulty hiring a Level III inspector and getting a 4 person qualified and that also the then-current one had ! 5 been discharged for -- for inability to -- to pass the 6 test or qualify. 7 Q Well, now, your last answer seems, on its face, 8 inconsistent with the previous one, Mr. Maiman. 9 You stated to me moments ago that you only first 10 learned of Mr. Puckett's concern of retaliatory 11 discharge after March 29, 1985.
- 12 A .Yes.
() 13 Q But are you now stating that you learned in September of 14 1984 that Mr. Puckett had indeed filed a formal
- 15 complaint with the United States Department of Labor i 16 against Comstock, alleging retaliatory discharge?
17 A I guess what I'm trying to say is that prior to 18 receiving that Department of Labor document, Mr. I 19 Puckett's name was not known to me specifically. 20 0 Which Department of Labor document do you have reference 21 to? 22 A The one that was filed in September, I believe, '84. g 23 Q All right. 24 So indeed you did learn of Mr. Puckett's complaint 25 long before March 29, 1985? l ( l Ronntag_ Reporting _ Service,_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3840 0 1 A Yeah, but I -- I never put the two together. It didn't 2 dawn on me what -- what was the connection between the 3 tw o. 4 0 All right. 5 Well, when you first learned of Mr. Puckett's 6 September, 1984, Department of Labor complaint, did you 7 dismiss that, as well, as simply a manifestation of this 8 labor-management conflict at L. K. Comstock Company? 9 A No. 10 What I was trying to say earlier was that I was 11 aware of the Level III problem that Comstock was having 12 in getting a qualified person and getting somebody 13 qualified and that this individual was discharged (]) 14 because he couldn't qualify. 15 Q That's what you understood? 16 A That's what I understood, that's right. 17 The Department of Labor decision wasn't, I guess, 18 significant enough, in my view, because I thought the 19 Comstock people had a -- had a very good case. 20 Subsequent to that, I believe it was settled 21 without a final decision -- or maybe it was settled 22 because of the final decision. I guess I dor.' t 23 remember. 24 But it didn' t -- it didn' t require me or -- or move 25 me to any further investigation. It was over. Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3841 l-1 Comstock's position was he simply was not a qualified i 2 person, and he was gone. 3 0 Well, now, let's get our dates clear. 4 There was a determination made in Mr. Puckett's 5 favor that indeed he had been terminated in retaliation 6 for having raised quality and safety concerns, and that 4 i 7 determination was in November of 1984. I 8 Did that come to your attention? j 9 A It could have. I -- I don't remember. All I remember I 10 is that it was ultimately settled. 11 0 'All right. 12 For your inf ormation, I'll submit that the ! () 13 settlement took place in January of 1985.
- 14 A Okay.
j 15 Q Did that come to your attention?
! 16 A Yes, j 17 Q And at about that time, the time of the settlement?
18 A I would imagine so. It would be a timely thing, yes. 19 0 All right. 20 So you were aware in due course of the events j 21 involving Mr. Puckett, at least his September, '84, i 22 Department of Labor complaint of retaliatory discharge. i 23 You were aware of that at about the time it was l 24 filed, were you not? l 25 A Yeah, I would have to say yes. (
- l i Sonntag_Repor. ting _Ser.vice,_ Ltd e I Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
3842 O 1 And you were aware of the determination in Mr. Puckett's Q 2 favor by the Department of Labor area director in 3 November of '84? 4 A No. That -- that part I -- I am not sure of. 5 0 You don't know whether you were aware of that at the 6 time or not? 7 A I -- I don't know. 8 I was made aware that he had filed, but I can't 9 tell you whether I knew the interim decision, as opposed 10 to the final settlement. 11 Q Well, are you aware, as you sit here today, that the 12 interim decision was in Mr. Puckett's favor, finding () 13 that on the evidence reviewed, indeed the director 14 concluded Mr. Puckett had been fired in retaliation for 15 having identified safety and quality, concerns? 16 A Yes, I am aware of that finding. 17 0 Okay. 18 When did you learn of that finding, if you didn't 19 learn of it at the time it happened? 20 A As a result of these -- these hearings. 21 0 Only in preparation for these hearings? 22 A That's right. 23 0 I see. 24 Well, you volunteered perhaps this fact, but let me i 25 ask you directly: S on nt a1R_epo_r_ti n_g_S_e r v_i_c e_i __L_t d . Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
3843 O 1 Did you take any action to evaluate or investigate 2 Mr. Puckett's concern that he had been terminated in 3 retaliation for raising quality or safety concerns, as a 4 result of learning of the September DOL complaint? 5 A Okay. I -- I did not take any action on that part. 6 As a matter of f act, Quality First was not in 7 operation at that point; and so I would have to say no, S we did not. 9 0 Well, did commonwealth Edison take any action at all, 10 aside from your action or Quality First's action? 11 Was there any action taken by Commonwealth Edison 12 Company at that time, to your knowledge? i () 13 A On the Worley Puckett -- 14 0 Yes. 15 A -- situation? 16 I -- I don't know. 17 0 All right. , 18 Did you or, to your knowledge, anyone else with 19 Commonwealth Edison take any action between September of i 20 1984 and January of 1985 on the Puckett concern of 21 retaliatory discharge? 22 A I don't know. 23 Q After you learned of the settlement between Comstock and 24 Puckett in January of '86 or thereaf ter, did you or 1 25 Commonwealth Edison Company, to your knowledge, take any () sonntag Repor_ ting _Servica,_ Ltd. I Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262
1 1 4 3844 l lCE) 1 action to evaluate the merits of Mr. Puckett's concern j 2 of retaliatory discharge? , 3 A I did not, and I don't know whether anybody else did. I 4 0 All right. i 5 Let me ask the same question but more generally: i i 6 As a result of learning of the Puckett and Seeders 7 matters, did you or did anyone else with Commonwealth
- 8 Edison Company, to your knowledge, take any action to i
9 evaluate or investigate whether they were representative ' 10 of a more general problem of harassment, intimidation or l 11 production pressure at Comstock? 12 A Can you give me a time f rame? l () 13 Q Sure. Let's take it up to January of 1986, when you l 14 learned of the Puckett settlement. ! 15 As of January of '85 or whenever it was thereaf ter l 16 that you learned of the Puckett settlement, now, did you i 17 take any action to investigate more generally whether 18 there was a problem of harassment, intimidation or 1 l 19 production pressure at Comstock? 20 A Okay. The -- the answer is no, and for the reason again 21 of the organizing effort. 22 The effort culminated in November of 1984 with a 23 vote to join the union. There was an immediate filing 24 of a -- of a court case by -- by L. K. Comstock and one 25 or more of the QC Inspectors who did not want to join Sonntag Reporting Servicey Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3845 O V 1 the union -- 2 0 Let me interrupt you. 3 A Yes. 4 0 I'll let you finish your answer. 5 Were these f acts that you were aware of at the time 6 in January that you decided not to take action or are 7 these facts you've since learned? 8 A No. These are facts that I have followed and been aware 9 of all along as they developed, because of the growing 10 difficulty between Comstock and the QC Inspectors. 11 Q So you're stating facts now -- 12 A Yes. 13 0 -- that you had in mind in January of '85 when you (]) 14 determined to take no action with respect to these 15 matters? 16 A That's right. I' 17 0 I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you 18 unnecessarily, but continue, plea se . 19 A During this time, immediately after the November vote l 20 was taken, everything was put on hold pending the 21 outcome of the court case. 22 In other words, negotiations for wages and benefits 23 and so forth could not begin between the union and 24 Comstock until after the court had made a ruling. l 25 Pending that ruling, we became convinced that the
)
! snnntao Repor. ting _Ser.v. ice.,_Ltd. ' Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3846 1 difficulties that were being experienced by the QC 2 Inspectors and the Comstock management were primarily 3 related to the growing uneasiness as a result of this -- 4 this effort to unionize and the promise of -- of higher 5 wages and better benefits. 6 It was not going to be productive for us at all to 7 do any kind of investigation when clearly, in our minds, 8 that was the cause of the whole situation. 9 Q I see. 10 Well, you came on as Manager of Projects in the 11 spring of 1984, and you learned then -- and you 12 corrected your understanding now -- that there was a () 13 14,000-inspection backlog f aced by Irv DeWald when he 14 became QC Manager at Comstock in the fall of '83 -- 15 A Yes. 16 0 -- perhaps 10,000 at the time you came on in the spring 17 of '84. 18 You knew that there had been NRC violations -- 19 items of noncompliance f ound with respect to Comstock, 20 did you not? 21 A Yes. 22 0 All right. 23 And you knew that there had been concerns expressed 24 by Seeders and Puckett, including concerns leading up to 25 the Department of Labor determination in Mr. Puckett's O Sonntaq R epo r ti ng_S_e rv i ce ,_.L_td . l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3847 O 1 favor? 2 You knew that, didn't you? 3 A I knew the concerns without knowing the names, correct. 4 0 And yet you assumed the conclusion that these concerns 5 were simply a product of the labor-management conflict 6 that was going on at Comstock and that there was no 7 concern about harassment, intimidation and production 8 pressure actually occurring; true? 9 A That was our -- our belief. We knew there was conflict, 10 and conflict that was increasing, correct. 11 BOARD EXAMINATION 12 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN : 1 () 13 0 Excuse me. 14 When you say "our belief," who do you mean besides 15 yourself? 16 A Mike Wallace, the project manager; Dan Shamblin, the 17 construction superintendent; and his management people 18 associated with the Construction Department. 19 0 Okay. 20 And the reason you say "we" and you refer to them l 21 is because they were the sources of your inf ormation; is 22 that correct? 23 A That's correct. 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Okay. I
- 25 MR. GUILD
- Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Sonntag_Repo r_ ting _S e rvic e ,_Ltd - l Geneva, Illinois 60134 ! (312) 232-0262
3848 "N (O 1 CROSS EXAMINATION "2 (Continued) 3 BY MR. GUILD: 4 0 Did you ever test the hypothesis, Mr. Maiman, that 5 perhaps the people on whom you were relying -- Mr. 6 Wallace and Mr. Shamblin -- were indeed a source of the 7 production pressure placed upon the Comstock quality 8 control management? 9 A Well, I would, No. 1, ask you to define what you mean by 10 " production pressure," because indeed they are sources 11 of production pressure. 12 0 All right. 13 So you tested the hypothesis and accepted it? (]) 14 A That's their job. 15 But I don't exactly know what you mean. Production 16 pressure does exist, but unreasonable or inappropriate 17 production pressure I would argue does not exist. 18 0 Well, I accept your view. 19 But then I would ask the question: Since your 20 sources of information were the same persons who were 21 the sources of production pressure on Comstock's quality 22 control management -- Mr. Shamblin on Mr. DeWald, Mr.
- 23 Wallace and Mr. Shamblin on Mr. DeWald -- did that not 24 form the basis for any skepticism on your part, as a 25 manager, as to the reliability of them as your sole Sonntaa Reporting S_e r v_i c.e , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3849 1 i ( 1 source of information regarding the question of 2 harassment , intimidation or undue production pressure on i 3 QC Inspectors? 4 A No. That -- that was not a -- a difficult question for
- 5 me to resolve in my own mind.
6 I have been through labor organizing efforts before i 7 in previous jobs. I -- I know the conflicts that can 8 arise, and I know the statements that are made back and 9 forth on each side. i 10 I -- I know what -- what can result, and so it was t 11 not difficult for me to resolve in my own mind that a 12 situation that ran f airly smoothly in the past could () 13 develop into a very difficult situation and, in fact, ! 14 what can be construed in normal terms of a manager 15 giving work assignments to his subordinates suddenly 16 becomes intimidation and harassment f rom the 17 subordinates' view. 18 0 All right. l 19 So it was your personal experience with 20 labor-management conflict that added an additional basis i 21 for you trusting the sources of information that you 22 had, Mr. Wallace and Mr. Shamblin? 23 A Correct. 24 0 All right. 25 So the first action that you did take, Mr. Maiman, Monntag_Re por ting _S er_vice , _Ltd . Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3850 O to investigate the question of harassment, intimidation 1 2 and production pressure -- undue production pressure at 3 Comstock then occurred af ter the 24 Comstock Quality 4 Control Inspectors went to the Nuclear Regulatory 5 Commission residents with their complaints on March 29, 6 1985; correct? 7 A Generally correct. 8 The Quality First group had done some base-line 9 interviews and had some concerns identified and were in 10 the process of investigating; but af ter the March 29th 11 telephone call, I directed that process to -- to begin 12 in earnest or to pick up in earnest under Dan Shamblin's 13 direction. ( }) l 14 0 Well, I'm speaking about,your action now, Tom Maiman's i 15 action. i 16 That was af ter March 29th, was it not? 17 A That's right. 18 Q And you now know that Quality First had received a 19 number of complaints by some of those same inspectors, 20 perhaps, in January, February of 1985; correct? 21 A Correct. 22 0 All right. 23 Did you know of those complaints by the Comstock 24 inspectors to Quality First at the time they were made? 25 A Not specifically. O Sonntag Reporting Service _, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
r 3851 ( 1 Quality First was charged with the task, by myself 2 and Mike Wallace, to do base-line interviews of all the 3 QA/QC inspectors on-site. 4 Those were in the process of being investigated, 5 although these particular ones at Comstock were on hold 6 pending the resolution of the Court's decision as to 7 whether the union vote was appropriate or inappropriate. 8 Q Oh, I see. 9 So, in fact, there was not a pending investigation 10 proceeding as a result of the Comstock inspector 11 concerns to Quality First; that was on hold because of 12 the labor-management conflict? () 13 A Correct. 14 Q And when was it placed on hold because of the 15 labor-management conflict, those concerns to Quality 16 First? 17 A I would say probably early March -- well, at the 18 conclusion of when the base-lines were -- were i 19 completed. 20 0 Well, was any action taken on the Comstock QC 21 Inspectors' complaints to Quality First, other than l 22 taking down the complaints? 23 Were they, in fact, put on hold when they were l 24 first received? i 25 A Yes. They were assigned to -- to Shamblin's office to R onntag_R e po r_ ting _S ervic a, __Ltd . Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 1 3852 i-
'(
I 1 investigate, and -- and they were at that point put on 1 ' 2 hold pending resolution of the -- of the union effort. 3 0 I see. 4 And they were assigned to Mr. Shamblin, the project 5 construction superintendent, who was the man who was 6 responsible for placing production requirements,
; 7 production pressure -- undue, in your opinion -- not i
8 undue, in your opinion -- on L. K. Comstock Quality l 9 Control? j 10 A They were assigned to him, yes. 11 Q And did you approve at the time the decision to assign
! 12 those production pressure, harassment and intimidation l () 13 complaints to Mr. Shamblin?
! 14 A Yes. > 15 That's -- that's part of our -- our Quality First 16 routine, on a -- an issue that's perhaps this wide in l 17 scope, is to assign it to the Commonwealth Edison 18 manager in charge, recognizing that it's Commonwealth 19 Edison doing the investigation, not the contractor. 20 0 All right. 21 Well, didn't you identify any potential for
- 22 conflict of interest in Mr. Shamblin, the production i
! 23 site manager for Edison, investigating complaints by } 24 these Quality Control Inspectors of undue production l 25 pressure? ( sonntag n epnr &ing_ Service,_Itd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 } (312) 232-0262 _ , . . _ , _ . _ _ ~ . - ~ _ _ _ . - - - . - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - - - - - - - ' ~ - - ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~
3853 tT i V 1 A No, not when you understand Mr. Shamblin's role as 2 construction superintendent and what his -- his 3 responsibilities are. 4 Q All right, sir. So the complaints were put on hold when 5 received and assigned to Mr. Shamblin. 6 Were you aware of those complaints at that time? 7 A I was not aware specifically of what they said, but I'm 8 aware that there were a number of inspectors who had 9 expressed concerns that were to be investigated by 10 Shamblin. 11 0 You changed the tense of your answer there. 12 Were you aware, at the time the base-line 13 interviews were conducted with the Comstock inspectors (]) 14 and they expressed these concerns, that such concerns 15 had been expressed? 16 A No. I was not aware of the content of the concerns. 17 I was aware, when the concerns were grouped and 18 given to Shamblin, that he was going to accept them and 19 take them -- put them on hold. 20 0 And were you aware, at the time that they were grouped I 21 and assigned to Shamblin, of the subject and substance 22 of those concerns? 23 A No, I was not aware of that. l 24 0 Were you aware of anything more than that they came f rom 25 Quality Control Inspectors at Comstock? Sonntag Repor ting _S er.vJ.ce ,_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134
, (312) 232-0262
3854 O 1 A No. 2 0 Were you aware of that fact? 3 A Yes, because the base-lines were done on the Quality 4 Control / Quality Assurance Inspectors. 5 0 They were done on all QA/QC Inspectors? 6 A Throughout the site, yes. 7 0 were you aware that there were inspectors that had come 8 from -- that there were concerns that had come from 9 Comstock inspectors that were then assigned to Mr. 10 Shamblin? 11 A Oh, yes, and those were the only ones, the specific 12 ones, that were put on hold. () 13 0 And how did you become aware then that ComstocK 14 inspectors, among all those on-site who were 15 interviewed, had raised concerns? 16 A Because Mike Wallace and Ray Preston and Dan Sh ar blin 17 and I discussed at the time that we could proceed with 18 the others but it would be somewhat f ruitless for us to 19 investigate these particular concerns as long as this 20 heightened problem between'the QC Inspectors and the 21 Comstock management that was associated with the -- with 22 the unionizing ef fort existed. 23 0 I see. 24 And what at that time did Mr. Preston, the Quality 25 First Director or Manager, state to you regarding the Sonntaq Reportins Service,_Ltd. Gene'ra, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3855 1 subject and substance of these concerns? 2 A I -- I don't remember a conversation about the subject 3 and substance. 4 0 Did he state anything about that subject? 5 A I -- I j ust don ' t r em embe r . I 6 0 All right. 7 Can you recall what he did say in substance? 8 MR. GALLO: Objection; asked and answered. 9 This is the third crack at that one. He said "no" 10 twice. 11 MR. GUILD: No. I asked the question more 12 narrowly, Mr. Chairraan; and I'm trying to capture what he can recall, if anything, about what Mr. Preston had (]) 13 14 to say on the subject. 15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Overruled. 16 You can answer. 17 A I -- I just don't remember the specifics of the 18 conversation. 19 BY MR. GUILD: i 20 0 Do you remember any substance of the conversation at 21 all? t 22 A I don't. I i 23 0 Now, you learned on March 29th that a number of Comstock 24 inspectors had gone to the NRC; correct? 25 A Correct. O Ronntag_Reporti ng_S ervice,_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3856 O And it was thereaf ter that you participated in the 1 0 2 formulation of a plan to investigate and evaluate the 3 concerns by Comstock inspectors? 4 A Correct. 5 0 Okay. 6 Now, you did so because the NRC asked you what 7 action Commonwealth Edison Company intended to take, did 8 you not? 9 A Winether they would have asked me that question or not, 10 we would have responded as we did; but they did, in 11 fact, ask that question, and we did respond. 12 0 All right. () 13 Well, didn't you tell the NRC at that time that you 14 had -- were aware that there were a number of concerns 15 by Comstock QC Inspectors -- going back to Mr. Seeders, 16 then Mr. Puckett, then the Quality First base-line 17 interviews and, of course, leading up to the 24 -- but 18 that you had determined to take no action because you 19 charged it off to being a product of a labor-management 20 dispute? 21 A I -- I did not say that, and I'm not aware that anybody 22 else said that to the NRC. 23 0 All right. 24 Well, that was, in fact, your position up until 25 March 29th: to take no action, because of the pending Sonntaq ReportinLService r Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3857 1 labor-management conflict; correct? 2 A But I'm not sure they asked the question or probed what 3 we were doing or what we knew up to this point. 4 0 All right. 5 Well, did you relate that to them? 6 Did you relate in substance that you were taking -- 7 had taken no action to date because you had understood 8 these complaints to have been -- to have arisen f rom the 9 labor-management conflict? 10 MR. GALLO: Objection; asked and answered. 11 MR. GUILD: It has not been asked and 12 answered. () 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN : of the answer, Mr. Gallo? What is your understanding 14 15 MR. GALLO: The answer is no. He said he 16 didn't tell the NRC anything along that line because the 17 question wasn't asked. 18 MR. GUILD: No. He said he doesn' t recall l 19 the question being asked. 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes. Now the question is 21 whether he had told it to them anyway, even though it 22 was not in response to a question. 23 MR. GUILD: Yes. 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Do you understand that 25 question? S onn ta g_R e po r. ting _S e rvice ,_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3858 1 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do. 2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Can you answer that? 3 A I did not make any kind of a statement like that, and 4 I'm not aware that any of the other Edison people made a 5 statement like that. 6 The immediacy of the situation, what they related 7 to us -- 8 MR. GUILD: "They," the NRC? 9 THE WITNESS: The NRC. 10 A (Continuing.) -- required some immediate action on our 11 part, and I think we were concentrating on that. I 12 don't think we got into the history. I -- I have no () 13 recollection of that. 14 BY MR. GUILD: 15 0 All right. 16 Do you have any basis for believing whether the NRC 17 was made aware by you or others of Edison's position 18 with respect to the eff ect of the union-management 19 conflict on these concerns of harassment, intimidation 20 and production pressure? 21 MR. GALLO: Point of clarification: You mean 22 across all time? 23 MR. GUILD: Yes. l 24 A I don' t -- I don' t have a recollection of that. 25 BY MR. GUILD: O Sonntaq Repo r ti ng Service, L_t d . Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3859 1 0 At any time did you discuss the subject of the union 2 organizing effort at Comstock with any representative of
- 3 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mr. Maiman?
4 A I don't recollect. I don't believe so. 5 0 Nevertheless, under the circumstances, af ter the NRC was 6 in telephone contact with you, you initiated immediate 7 action to investigate the concerns by the 24 Comstock 8 inspectors; correct? 9 A I did. 10 0 And you assigned the investigation of those concerns 11 again to Mr. Dan Shamblin; correct? 12 A That's correct, and supplemented by Quality First as 13 required and Quality Assurance as required. (]) 14 0 Quality First, in turn, assigned those to Mr. Shamblin; 15 correct? 16 You understood that? 17 A That's correct. 18 0 And it was Mr. Shamblin, then, who was charged with both 19 imposing the production requirements on Comstock and j 20 their inspectors and investigating their concerns of 21 production pressure -- undue production pressure; 22 correct? 23 A Well, I would characterize that as perhaps 24 " inappropriate production pressure," if -- if I can do l 25 that. O Monntag_Repnrting Rervica,_Itd, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3860 O Yes. 1 0 2 A Sure. 3 He's -- he is the man that gives the assignments, 4 but -- but understand that his responsibilities are not 5 only production. It's production in accordance with 6 procedures to meet all specifications. 7 Q All right. 8 Now, arising f rom the investigation that was 9 conducted, the only personnel action taken was to 10 discharge Mr. Saklak, the former Comstock supervisor; 11 correct? 12 A That's correct. () 13 0 Now, I'm trying to, if I could take just a moment to 14 look at your prefiled testimony -- 15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: It's time for a break, if 16 you -- 17 MR. GUILD: Yes. That would be fine, Mr. 18 Chai rman. 19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Let's take 10 i l 20 minutes. l i 21 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which ( 22 the prodsedings were resumed as follows:) l 23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We'll resume. l 24 BY MR. GUILD: l 25 0 Mr. Maiman, the reference I was looking for in your ( l Sonntaq Reporting S e rvice ,__Ltd . Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3861 0 1 prefiled testimony before the recess is at Page 8 in 2 response to Question 9, the compound question, "What 3 corrective and preventive actions were taken," et 4 cetera. 5 On Page 8 you state with reference to Mr. Saklak, 6 "The investigation into the Saklak situation revealed 7 that Mr. Saklak had indeed acted improperly. He was 8 theref ore discharged and barred f rom all saf ety-related 9 work at any CECO nuclear site " 10 Now, was Mr. Saklak indeed discharged? 11 A Yes, he was, 12 Q Now, if your counsel could make available to you 13 Intervenors' Exhibit 22 in evidence -- it's a,n April 29, (]) 14 1985, letter from Edison to Mr. DeWald. It embodies the 15 results of investigation and seven recommendations. 16 MR. BERRY: Excuse me. Did you say 29? 17 MR. GUILD: 22, the April 29th letter. 18 MR. GALLO: You want him to review it? 19 MR. GUILD: If you would, yes, while the 20 other parties get it. 21 BY MR. GUILD: 22 0 Mr. Maiman, on Page 3 of that letter I see your name on 23 the CC list. 24 A Correct. 25 Q Did you, in fact, receive a copy of this letter? ( l Ronnt n g ne por ti ng S ervice ,_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l 1
3862 0 1 A Yes, I did. 2 0 Did you review it prior to its transmission to Comstock? 3 A Yes. I reviewed it in draft form with -- with Dan 4 Shamblin. 5 0 And Mr. Shamblin is listed as the author along with Mr. 6 Quaka? 7 A That's correct. 8 0 And did you approve it in the form in which it appears 9 as an exhibit? 10 A Yes, I did. 11 0 All right. 12 Now, in that letter, Page 2, there are the seven () 13 recommendations by Edison; and you approved those 14 recommendations, I take it? 15 A Yes, I did. 16 0 One of those recommendations relates to Mr. Saklak. 17 Can you find it? l 18 A I don't think so. 19 0 I may be in error there. 20 I see. I'm looking at Page 1. Excuse me. j 21 The results of investigation, not the 1 22 recommendations, Page 2. 23 The first item pertains to Mr. Saklak, does it not? l 24 A Yes. 25 Q That documents on April 29th the action taken with ( 1 Sonntaq Reporting Service,_Ltd. l Geneva, Illinois 60134 ( (312) 232-0262 i __ -
3863 O respect to Mr. Saklak, does it not? 1 2 A Yes. 3 Q Okay. 4 And there stated as the last sentence under Item i 4 5 No. 1, "LKC has taken appropriate action on this
- 6 incident in accordance with their corporate policy."
7 Now, by that " appropriate action," do you mean the 8 discharge of Mr. Saklak?
; 9 A That's the way I interpreted it, yes.
l l 10 Q All right. 11 I want to show you a document that's an April 1, 12 1985, letter from Comstock to the Commonwealth Edison
, 13 Company.
14 Do you have that before you, Mr. Maiman? 15 A Yes, I do. 16 Q All right, sir.
- 17 This is a letter reflecting the direction by 18 Commonwealth Edison Company to take action with respect
{ 19 to Mr. Saklak, is it not? l 20 A Not as I read that. 21 This is a letter from Comstock Engineering to Dan 22 Shamblin, saying that they will do certain things. 23 Q Do you understand that those certain things have any 24 reference to Mr. Saklak? i 25 A Yes, Part -- in part, yes. O Ronntag Renorting_Servicea_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3864 O 1 All right. Q 2 Do you understand that Item Roman Numeral I, stated 3 in Mr. Paserba's letter to Edison, quote, "Comstock 4 Engineering, Inc., has enforced Policy Statement 1.0.0 5 relative to the QC Inspector concerns" -- do you 6 understand that that action relates to Mr. Saklak? 7 A I don't know without reading Statement 1.0.0. 8 Q All right. 9 You have no knowledge of what that policy statement 10 meat:u? 11 A Not right here. I -- I need to refresh my memory. 12 Q Do you recall that, in fact, if you look at Intervenors' 13 Exhibit 22, Item No. 4, results of investigation, "LKC (]) 14 Quality Control management is effectively implementing 15 Policy Statement 1.0.0, dated May 1, 1980"? 16 A I see that, and I recall that, yes. 17 Q And you approved this report of investigation and 18 recommendations, did you not? ! 19 A Yes, sir, but I had not committed all Comstock policy 20 statements to memory. 21 0 Just this one, Mr. Maiman. 22 A Or that one. 23 Q Did you understand what that meant at the time you 24 approved the investigation report? i 25 A At the time I approved it, I certainly did understand I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l - -- . _ _ _ . _ _ _ - ._ , _ ._ _ ._ __ _ _
3865 O 1 what it meant. 2 If I could see it, I'm sure I could refresh my 3 memory very quickly. 4 0 As you sit here today, do you know whether that policy 5 statement has anything to do with Mr. Saklak? 6 A I -- I can't be sure. 7 It seems to me that that is a general statement of 8 Quality Control, and I -- I would need to look at it to 9 -- to refresh my memory. 10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: If you wish to lead the 11 witness, Mr. Guild, you can at this point. 12 BY MR. GUILD: 13 0 Let me direct your attention to Mr. DeWald's testimony (]) 14 and attachment thereto, which is indeed Policy Statement 15 1.0.0. 16 MR. GUILD: Could counsel -- 17 MR. GALLO: Can we share a copy? 18 I don't have it. 19 1 R. GUILD: I'll let you do that. 20 (Indicating.) 21 BY MR. GUILD: 22 0 I show you that portion of the attachments to Mr. 23 DeWald's testimony that is in evidence. 24 Have you seen that document before? 25 A Yes, I've seen it. Ronnt-n g R epo r H ng_ Service.,__Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3866 1 Q All right. 2 A Yes. 3 0 You've had an opportunity to examine it? 4 A Yes, yes. 5 Q Now, does that refresh your recollection as to what the 6 meaning of the statement in your report, Item 4, is, 7 "LKC Quality Control management is effectively 8 implementing Policy Statement 1.0.0"? 9 A Yes. 10 0 What does it mean? 11 A I'm sorry. 12 Are you asking me to explain what Policy 1.0.0 13 means? 14 Q No, sir. 15 I'm asking you to explain what the results of your
~
16 investigation were with respect to Item No. 4 regarding 17 that policy statement. 18 A Okay. 19 That No. 1, the policy statement says that the 20 Quality Assurance personnel assigned this responsibility 21 are independent from the pressures of production; that l 22 they were, in fact, ef f ectively implementing that; they l 23 are responsible for the hiring, ce r tifica tion, firing, 24 promoting and so forth; and they have effectively 25 implemented that. O Sonntaa Reporting S e rv_i c.e ,_ Ltd Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l l 3867 I () 1 Q Now, sir, sitting here today, having ref reshed your 2 recollection, what, if anything, does that finding with 3 respect to Policy Statement 1.0.0 have to do with Mr. 4 Saklak and the action taken on him? 5 A He was fired. 6 Q All right. 7 And what does Policy Statement 1.0.0 and its 8 implementation have to do with that action? 9 A I thought I just read that. 10 The Quality Assurance group under Comstock are 11 responsible f or the hiring, certification, firing, 12 promoting, demoting and so forth of the personnel within 13 that department. (]) 14 0 All right, sir. 15 In what respect, then, does implementing that 16 policy statement translate as discharging Mr. Saklak, if 17 it does? 18 A I am completely losing the train of thought where you' re 19 going. 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: If you want to offer the l
- 21 answer, Mr. Guild, if you want to lead him and ask him j 22 if that's correct, it's appropriate to do it now. I l
23 think we' re losing the train of thought. l 24 MR. GUILD: All right. 25 BY MR. GUILD: O Ronntag_Repn r ti n g_Ser_vice,_Ltd-Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l l 3868 (u')T - 1 Q Does implementing 1.0.0 mean that you discharge Mr. 2 Saklak, as you understand the policy statement? 3 A Not necessarily. It -- it says that they have authority 4 to do that. 5 0 All right. ~ 6 It says a lot of things, doesn't it? 7 A Sure. It says many things. 8 0 It's a general statement of policy, is it not? 9 A That's right. 10 0 It has nothing to do with discharging Mr. Saklak, in 11 point of fact, does it? 12 A It has little to do with -- with discharging Saklak, but () 13 certainly there is the word " firing" there -- i 14 0 Yes. 15 A -- and, therefore, it does have something to do with it. 16 Q All right. 17 If I told you, Mr. Maiman, you should implement ! 18 this policy statement, would you understand that to mean 19 that I should discharge a specific person -- that you 20 should discharge a specific person? 21 A No. 22 0 All right, sir. 23 Now, is there any statement in the April 1, 1985, 24 letter, then, from Comstock Engineering to Commonwealth 25 Edison Company that, by its terms, stands for the O l l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
,3869 O commitment to discharge Mr. Saklak?
1 2 A No. I would not read it that way. 3 This took place on April 1st, which was the Monday 4 following the Friday telephone call with the NRC; and I 5 don't think Comstock had arrived at that decision point 6 as yet. 7 0 Well, you had arrived at the decision that Mr. Saklak 8 should at least be suspended and removed from all 9 Quality Assurance duties, had you not? 10 A I arrived at that decision. I directed Shamblin to, in 11 turn, direct Comstock to remove Mr. Saklak from his 12 position, supervisory position, pending investigation. () 13 0 All right. Then let me rephrase the question. 14 Do you interpret anything in the letter from 15 Comstock to Edison as, by its terms, reflecting that 16 they had so removed Mr. Saklak from his supervisory 17 position? 18 A Mr. Guild, I didn't need a letter from -- 19 0 If you could just answer the question directly, I'll be 20 happy to have you explain your answer. 21 A Okay. 22 No, I see nothing there that says that. 23 MR. GUILD: All right, sir. 24 Mr. Chairman, if I could ask that this letter, the 25 April 1, 1985, letter, Comstock to Edison, be marked as Snnnta g Repnr ti ng_ Service,_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3870 A.. (_/ 1 Intervenors' Hearing Exhibit 36, please, and received in 2 evidence. 3 JUDGE GROSSMAN : So marked. 4 (The document was thereupon marked 5 Intervenors' Exhibit No. 36 for 6 identification as of June 11, 1986.) 7 MR. GALLO: Objection. 8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: To its being marked? 9 MR. GALLO: Not to its being marked, but the 10 next ruling I anticipate. 11 (Laughter.) 12 MR. GUILD: I believe the ball is in Mr. () 13 Gallo's court. If he wants to state a ground for 14 objection, he should do so. 15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, are you offering it into 16 evidence? 17 MR. GUILD: I am indeed, Mr. Chairman. ! 18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Do you object, Mr. Gallo? 19 MR. GALLO: Yes, I do. 20 I'm not sure of the purpose of the offer, how it's-21 relevant to the proceeding, but there's a lack of 22 foundation in terms of introducing this document into 23 evidence through this witness. 24 MR. GUILD: Does Applicant disputs the 25 authenticity of the document? Sonntag Rep.ortifLq_SerXice, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3871 i O 1 It came in discovery from Applicant's files. 2 I didn't ask the witness whether he had ever seen 3 this. I'd be happy to do that, but I believe it's 4 self-authenticating. 5 MR. GALLO: Well, I think the question on -- 6 I guess I'm inclined to not object on the grounds of 7 authenticity, but the purpose for which this letter is 8 being -- its interpretation and its purpose for being 9 introduced in evidence is not clear to me. 10 I guess on that basis I would have to object on the 11 grounds that it's irrelevant and immaterial. 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, whether I know the () 13 complete purpose or not, Mr. Gallo, I know that we have 14 in issue the March 29, 1985, complaints by the 24 15 inspectors and the letter with regard to that, and this 16 responds to it. 17 I don't see how it -- by Comstock. 18 I don't see how we could find that it's not 19 relevant, whatever the full explanation of the letter 20 is. 21 So we -- does the Staff have a position on this? 22 MR. BERRY: The Staff doesn't object. 23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: So we'll admit it -- 24 MR. GALLO: The other -- 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- unless you have a f urther Sonntag_Repor_ ting Service,ltd, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3872 O 1 statement. 2 MR. GALLO: The other obvious objection is 3 hearsay from Mr. Paserba. 4 We've heard lots of testimony through Mr. Maiman as 5 to the uncertainty of what Roman Numeral I means, and it 6 -- aside from it not being probative because of that, 7 it's rank hearsay in terms of what it -- 8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. As far as hearsay 9 goes, it's an admission and you can put Mr. Paserba on 10 to offer your -- his explanation of the letter. 11 That's not a valid grounds for objection, so we 12 overrule the objection and we receive it in evidence. 13 (]) (Intervenors' Exhibit No. 36 for 14 identification was thereupon received in 15 evidence as Intervenors' Exhibit No. 36 16 in evidence.) 17 MR. GALLO: What number is it? 18 MR. GUILD: 36. 19 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Yes, Intervenors' Exhibit 20 36. 21 BY MR. GUILD: 22 Q Mr. Maiman, then, your testimony is that subsequent to 23 April 1, 1986, Mr. Saklak was indeed discharged; is that 24 correct? l 25 A That's correct. O Sonntag Reporting Servic_e; Ltd. i Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3873 O 1 And who discharged Mr. Saklak? Q 2 A Comstock Engineering. 3 Q All right. 4 Do you know who by name did the deed? 5 A No, I don't. 6 Q Do you know whether or not Mr. Saklak was told at the 7 time of his discharge, if he was discharged, the cause 8 for his discharge? 9 A I do not know that for a f act. 10 Q Did Commonwealth Edison Company tell Mr. Saklak the 11 cause for his discharge, if he was indeed discharged? 12 A We did not have a conversation with Mr. Saklak. 13 You personally did not -- (]) 0 14 A The answer is no. 15 0 -- correct? 16 A That's right. 17 0 Are you aware of any other Commonwealth Edison person, 18 either by conversation or by written communication, 19 informing Mr. Saklak of the cause of his discharge? l 20 A I am not aware of it. 21 Q Are you aware of a communication f rom Mr. Sak' ak to 22 Commonwealth Edison Company, stating, in effect, that he 23 had never been told why he was discharged and asking 24 Edison to tell him? 25 A No, I'm not aware of that, either. O Fonntag_Re por ting _Servlce ,__Ltd. l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3874 O 1 All right. Q 2 Let me show you a May 17, 1985, letter from Mr. 3 Saklak to Mr. Shamblin, the Braidwood construction 4 superintendent. 5 (Indicating.) 6 Do you have before you a May 17th letter with the 2 7 name " Richard Saklak" at the bottom, addressed to Mr. 8 Shamblin? 9 A I do. 10 0 Have you ever seen that before? 11 A No, I have not. 12 Q Take a moment and read the letter, if you would, Mr. () 13 Maiman, please. I have some questions for you from it. 14 A All right. 15 0 A11'right, sir. 16 Having read it, you still do not recall having seen 17 the document? 18 A No, sir. 19 0 All right. i 20 Does it, in fact, not represent Mr. Saklak 21 inquiring of Commonwealth Edison Company in substance 22 why he had been discharged? 23 MR. GALLO: Objection. 24 BY MR. GUILD: 25 0 Do you understand the letter to represent that? l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3875 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Sustained. 2 MR. GUILD: I don't hear a grounds even 3 stated, Mr. Chai rman. 4 The letter, of course, does speak f or itself. But 5 my question is not what the letter says; it's what the 6 witness understands. 7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, the witness never saw 8 the letter. 9 MR. GUILD: That's trae, Mr. Chairman, but it 10 seems to me I'm entitled to have tue witness analyze a 11 document that he may never have seen before and to form 12 an opinion as to its meaning; and that's the purpose for 13 the question. (]) 14 MR. GALLO: The basis for my objection is 15 twofold: It is, No.1, that the question, as I recall 16 it, was phrased such that, "Doesn't this represent Mr. 17 Saklak's understanding or attempt to take some action 18 through this letter"; lack of foundation and hearsay for 19 that. 20 Secondly, this witness is not competent to testify 21 with respect to this letter, since he just now saw it 22 and his understanding or interpretation really has no I i j 23 probative value in this proceeding. l j 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Well, I agree with that. 25 Mr. Guild, you can ask him to look at the letter, O snnntag Reporting s ervice,_Ltd-Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
3876 O 1 and then you may ask him some questions that are proper, 2 which have probative value and which he's competent to 3 testify about. 1 4 But that last question was not of that sort. You 5 want his interpretation of something that's not 6 admissible. 7 MR. GUILD: Well, sir, I intend to offer the 8 document in evidence, and I do believe it is admissible. 9 Again, this came in discovery from Commonwealth 10 Edison Company. It bears a Bates stamp number on the 11 bottom right-hand corner. 12 I submit to you that there is no dispute as to its () 13 authenticity. It was provided by Commonwealth Edison 14 Company, and I maintain it's admissible. 15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Let me ask this: 16 First of all, is there a question about authenticity? ! 17 MR. GALLO: As far as I know, it's clear to 18 me that this document was turned over through discovery, 19 but that doesn't authenticate it nor does it overcome 20 other objections to the letter. I indeed would object 21 on that ground, among others. 22 I might point out that Mr. Saklak is on a different i 23 footing -- that is, a document from Mr. Saklak, assuming i 24 it is f rom him, is on a different footing from 25 Intervenors' 36, Mr. Paserba arguably being in control i Sonntag_ Reporting Service 4 td: Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3877 O of the Applicant. 1 2 If he attempts to put this in evidence, he has to 3 call Mr. Saklak. 4 MR. GUILD: No, sir. 5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, it depends on what 6 he's going to use the document for. 7 I don't know that we have any authenticity problem 8 here, and we're not going to stand on formality. 9 It was produced in discovery and apparently was 10 received by the company and -- by the Applicant, and the 11 Applicant turned it over. So I just don't think that 12 we're going to stand on that. () 13 Now, what is the purpose for which you are going to 14 be using the letter? 15 If it's with regard to what was communicated to the 16 company and what the company did with regard to that, 17 that's one thing. I don't know if that's the purpose. 18 What is your purpose? 19 MR. GUILD: It is, indeed, Mr. Chairman. 20 Without going into more detail, which will simply prompt 21 the witness -- 22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Coach the witness? 23 MR. GUILD: -- I would stand on simply the 24 fact that it was a letter. 25 I believe it is self-authenticating. It was O Sonntaa Reporting S e r vi ce_,_Ltd . ( Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3878 O 1 addressed to Mr. Shamblin, who the witness entrusted 2 with investigating the Comstock inspector concerns, and 3 is a foundation for following questions which I intend 4 to ask. 5 Indeed, it was authenticated, as I recall, by Mr. 6 Shamblin in his deposition as the letter that he did 7 indeed receive from Mr. Saklak. 8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That it was received by the 9 company? 10 Well, if you have it in for the purpose right now 11 of indicating what the company was notified of by 12 receiving this letter, we'll allow it limited to that O 3 e#reo e-14 If you can develop some further purpose for it, 15 we'll broaden the scope of what the document can be used 16 for. 17 So it's admitted for that limited purpose right now 18 of showing what the company received, what it knew f rom 19 having received this letter. 20 MR. GUILD: If I may ask' that it be marked 21 for identification as Intervenors' Exhibit 37 and 22 received as an exhibit in evidence. 23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. It's so marked, and 24 it's received under that limited scope at this point. 25 (The document was thereupon marked Sonntaq Reportina Serv _ ice, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3879 1 Intervenors' Exhibit No. 37 for 2 identification as of June 11, 1986.) 3 (Intervenors' Exhibit No. 37 for 4 identification was thereupon received in 5 evidence as Intervenors' Exhibit No. 37 6 in evidence.) 7 BY MR. GUILD: 8 Q Mr. Maiman, does this letter not reflect Mr. Saklak's 9 inquiry about the cause for his termination? 10 A It appears to, yes. 11 Q And you see the last line, which says, "I would 12 appreciate hearing f rom you at your convenience"? () 13 A I see that. 14 0 All right.
- 15 Are'you aware of whether or not Mr. Shamblin indeed 16 responded to Mr. Saklak's request for explication of the 17 basis for his discharge?
18 A I am not. 19 0 Look at the body of the letter a moment, would you, 20 please, sir? 21 The second paragraph reads, " Allegedly Commonwealth 22 Edison invoked a contractual agreement that allows CECO 23 to execute the right to hire or discharge a given 24 individual." 25 Is that a true statement, sir? I Ronntag Rapnrting Sarvicau_Ltd-l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3880
)
1 A I believe that's true per our contract with Comstock. 2 0 All right. 3 And, in fact, didn' t Commonwealth Edison Company 4 elect to exclude Mr. Saklak f rom the Braidwood site? 5 A Yes. 6 0 Commonwealth Edison Company did not -- 7 A May I answer a little bit more fully on that? 8 0 Please. Please do. 9 A Pending the results of the investigation, if the 10 results, in fact, were such to confirm that Mr. Saklak 11 acted the way he was reported to have, yes, we would 12 invoke that provision. () 13 0 Well, okay. That's a prospective description of events 14 that were to occur. 15 I'm asking you now, as you sit here today: Did 16 you, in fact, invoke a contractual provision to exclude 17 Mr. Saklak f rom the site? l 18 A I don' t know what transpired in the Comstock decision. 19 I knew the following Wednesday, I believe, that Mr. , 20 Saklak had been discharged. I -- I did not pursue it as l l 21 to why or how; only that the investigation had -- had 22 shown that he did act the way he was reported to have i j 23 acted. 24 MR. GALLO: The question was: Did Edison 25 invoke a contract provision vis-a-vis Comstock? O Sonntaq Reporting Service _t Ltd. , Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l -_ . _ . - .__ _ _ _-
3881 C:) 1 TH E WITN ESS : I'm not aware of that. 2 MR. GUILD: All right, sir. 3 BY MR. GUILD: 4 Q Does that contract provision -- now, again understanding 5 that you're not aware what Edison did on that subject, 6 does Edison have a contractual provision that allows 7 Edison to exclude an employee -- contractor employee 8 f rom the Braidwood site? 9 A Yes, there is that provision. I am not absolutely 10 positive whether it's in the Comstock contract. 11 Q Fine. 12 Now, Saklak's letter states that Edison has such a 13 provision and has the right to hire or discharge. (]) 14 Now, in f act, don't you understand that the general l 15 provision of a contract between Edison and its 16 contractors provides not that you have the right to 17 discharge but that you have the right to exclude f rom 18 the site? 19 A That's a more accurate statement, correct. 20 0 Okay. 21 Now, further along in the letter, Mr. Saklak refers 22 to the name " John Seeders." 23 Do you see that? 24 A Yes, I do. 25 0 All right.
)
Rnnntag Hannr ti ng_ Service,_Ltd-Geneva, Illinois 60134 4 (312) 232-0262
3882 1 "This bothered me particularly in that this 2 situation was not handled the same way the John Seeders 3 incident was handled and for that matter all parties 4 involved in that case were still employed. " 5 Now, do you understand that in the John Seeders 6 incident, no action was taken against Mr. Saklak? 7 A Mr. Guild, I think I have testified in the past that I 8 have very little recollection of the events that 9 transpired associated with Seeders. 10 I could not make a definitive statement on that 11 question. 12 0 You have no knowledge of whether any action was taken () 13 against Mr. Saklak as a result of that incident? 14 A I do not. 15 0 All right. 16 Do you know whether any punitive action was taken 17 against Mr. Seeders, the one who alleged that Mr. Saklak 18 harassed him? ! 19 A I don't know. 20 Q All right, sir. 21 Let me show you two further documents related to i 22 this subject, Mr. Maiman: a June 6, 1985, letter; from 23 Mr. Shamblin to Mr. Saklak and a June 6,1985, letter 24 from Mr. Shamblin to Mr. Marino at the L. K. Comstock 25 Company. Sonntaq Reporti_n1 Service; Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 1
3883 O 1 (Indicating.)
- 2 MR. GUILD
- Mr. Chai nnan, if I may, I ask 3 that those documents be identified respectively as 4 Intervenors' Exhibit 38 -- that's the June 6th 5 Shamblin-to-Saklak letter -- and 39, the June 6th 6 Shamblin-to-Comstock letter.
- 7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I'm sorry. The -- .
8 MR. GUILD: The short letter, Shamblin to 9 Saklak, is 38, Mr. Chairman. The two-page document, 10 Shamblin to Comstock, is 39 for identification. 11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. They are so marked. 12 (The documents were thereupon marked () 13 Intervenors' Exhibits Nos. 38 and 39 for identification as of June 11, 1986.) 14 15 BY MR. GUILD: 16 0 First, Mr. Maiman, have you ever seen either of these 17 . documents before? j 18 A No, I have not. 19 0 Take a f ew moments and review them, please, if you 20 would, and let me know when you've had an opportunity to 21 do so, sir. 22 A All right. I've read them. 23 Q All right, sir. l 24 Now, the June 6th letter appears to represent, does 25 it not, Mr. Shamblin responding to Mr. Saklak's May 17th O Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd. j Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3884 O 1 letter -- 2 A Yes, it does. 3 0 -- the letter that's been received in evidence as 4 Exhibit 37? 5 Mr. Shamblin states that he is forwarding that to 6 Mr. Marino of Comstock, does he not? 7 A Yes. 8 0 And in short, in the second paragraph -- it's a very 9 brief letter -- Mr. Shamblin is telling him that it's 10 Comstock's responsibility to tell Saklak what the reason 11 was for his discharge? 12 A Correct. () 13 0 All right. 14 Now, Exhibit 39 reflects Mr. Shamblin forwarding 15 Mr. Saklak's letter to Mr. Marino, does it not? 16 A Yes. l 17 0 And Mr. Shamblin states in the first sentence, second i j 18 paragraph, first page, that it is "best handled" by 19 Comstock to provide a detailed explanation of the basis 20 of Mr. Saklak's discharge? 21 A Right. l 22 0 Then it goes on to relate what Shamblin told Marino in a l 23 previous conversation; correct? 24 A That's right. 25 0 In part, it reads that Edison took the position that l l Sonntaa Repotting_ Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 I (312) 232-0262
3885 1 Saklak be removed from position -- his OA/0C position at l 2 Braidwood; correct? 3 A Yes. 4 0 That Mr. Saklak not be employed in a OA/QC role or , 5 saf ety-related role f or any other contractor at 6 Braidwood or any other Edison nuclear site? 7 A That's correct. 8 Q But that Mr. Saklak is not barred f rom any other role at 9 Edison nuclear sites; correct? 10 A That's correct. 11 0 And that, "We intend" -- the second page - "we," 12 Edison, " intend to respond to Mr. Saklak, stating that () 13 we have forwarded his" letter to Marino of Comstock? 14 A Correct. 15 0 "We trust you will resolve this matter," Mr. Shamblin 16 ends. 17 Do you know whether or not L. K. Comstock, Mr. 18 Marino or others, in fact, ever did resolve this matter 19 by informing Mr. Saklak of the cause for his discharge? 20 A No, I do not. 21 Q Isn ' t it apparent to you, Mr. Maiman, that when~Mr. 22 Shamblin writes Mr. Marino of Comstock on June 6,1985, ~ 23 months af ter Mr. Saklak's discharge, that Mr. Saklak was 24 obviously not informed by Comstock or Edison of the l 25 grounds for his discharge prior to that date? () Sonntag_ Reporting Ser_vicee_Ltde Geneva, Illinois 60134 . (312) 232-0262
3886 1 MR. GALLO: Objection. The question asks for 2 the witness to speculate as to what he believes is 3 apparent to him. 4 It has no probative value -- that is, the answer 5 has no probative value. 6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, it's true; it doesn' t. 7 Did you have any further questions that depend on 8 that conclusion? 9 MR. GUILD: No, sir. 10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, then, that's 11 sustained. 12 MR. GUILD: I move that Exhibits 38 and 39 be () 13 received in evidence. 14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Any objection? 15 . MR. GALLO: No objection. 16 MR. BERRY: No objection. 17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Received. 18 (Intervenors' Exhibits Nos. 3 8 and 39 for 19 identification were thereupon received in 20 evidence as Intervenors' Exhibits Nos. 3 8 21 and 39 in evidence.) 22 MR. GUILD: I have one more document for you, 23 Mr. Maiman. 24 (Indicating.) l 25 BY MR. GUILD: i l Sonntaq Reporting Service __Ltd. r
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 I
. (312) 232-0262 l
1 3887 ] O Mr. Maiman, this is a form that has the -- is addressed 1 0 2 to Mr. Preston of the Quality First organization. 3 It has inserted at the top "Comstock Engineering, 4 Inc. ," a date of 8/20/85 and appears to relate to Mr. 5 Saklak. 6 A Yes. 7 0 Have you ever seen this document before? 8 A No, I have not. 9 Q Down at the bottom there appears to be the signature of 10 Mr. DeWald. 11 Do you recognize it as such? 12 A Yes. () 13 Q All right. 14 Now, are you aware that such a document, a form of 15 this sort -- lay aside the entries that appear on the 16 document -- is used to document the termination of 17 employees and to communicate such inf ormation to the 18 Quality First organization so that they can conduct exit 19 interviews in the course of their program? 20 A Yes, I am. I 21 0 Is that what this form is? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Now, at the bottom of the form, do you see entries under ! 24 a heading that says " reason for termination"? 25 A I do. l ( nnn na g nepn r t i ng_ Serv _ ice,__Ltd-Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3888
)
1 0 .ind what is the reason stated there for Mr. Saklak's 2 termination of employment? 3 A The box "other reason" is checked, and " laid off" is 4 typed in. 5 0 Is there any information that appears on this form that 6 indicates that Mr. Saklak was terminated for misconduct i 7 or any other cause? 8 A Not on this form. 9 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chai rman, I ask that this 10 document be marked as Intervenors' Exhibit 40 and 11 received in evidence. 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Any objection? () 13 MR. GALLO: No objection. 14 MR. BERRY: No objection. 15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Admitted. 16 (The document was thereupon marked 17 Intervenors' Exhibit No. 40 for 18 identification as of June 11, 1986.) 19 (Intervenors' Exhibit No. 40 for 20 identification was thereupon received in 21 evidence as Intervenors' Exhibit No. 40 22 in evidence.) 23 BY MR. GUILD: 24 0 Mr. Maiman, your testimony, then, at Page 8, where you 25 state that Mr. Saklak was discharged for acting Sonntag Dapor. ting Service,__Ltd Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3889 f 1 improperly, does not indeed reflect the action that was 2 taken against Mr. Saklak. . 3 Mr. Saklak was, in fact, laid off, was he not? 4 A I -- I will accept your terms, although I don't quite i 5 understand the significance. 6 He was no longer employed by Comstock. 7 Q Do you know whether or not Mr. Saklak has a punitive 8 discharge record as a result of the actions taken 9 against him? 10 A I do not. 11 Q Do you know whether or not the cause " laid off" is what is reflected in Mr. Saklak's personnel records as the 12 () 13 grounds for termination? 14 A I do not. 15 Q Do you know whether or not Mr. Saklak's misconduct in
- 16 harassing or intimidating Mr. Snyder was, in fact, 17 communicated to any other prospective employer as the 18 grounds for Mr. Saklak's termination?
19 A I do not. I 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild, I hope you' re not 21 going to belabor this issue,.which is somewhat 22 tangential to the main issue. l i 23 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I certainly don't l l 24 believe that that's an accurate characterization of the i ! 25 significance of this evidence and would hope that the () Sonntag Depnrtin9 Service,__Ltd: Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3890 1 Board would reserve judgment on that question, because 2 f rankly I think that when Commonwealth Edison Company, 3 in the one instance that they'll admit to having 4 identified harassment and intimidation, in fact, lay s 5 the man off and doesn't take any punitive action against 6 him -- that for them to come forward here and to say 7 that they effectively and thoroughly take action when 8 there's wrongdoing simply does not square with the 9 facts. 10 MR. GALLO: I would suggest that Mr. Guild 11 save that argument for his findings. 12 MR. GUILD: I would like to, and I would hope () 13 the Board would reserve judgment on the conclusion of 14 these facts at that time. 15 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Okay. That's a fair 16 req ue st, Mr. Guild, and also a fair comment by you, Mr. 17 Gallo, about putting the arguments in the brief. 18 BY MR. GUILD: 19 0 Accepting that Mr. Saklak was laid off, as the document 20 reflects, was any punitive action taken against any 21 Comstock supervisor or manager as a reEult of the 22 investigation of the Comstock inspector concerns? 23 A Not that I'm aware of. 24 MR. GUILD: I have no further questions, Mr. 25 Chai rm an. O Sonntaa Reporting Service,_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3891 O 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Berry? 2 MR. BERRY: Could I have a moment, your 3 Honor? 4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Sure. 5 If you need a moment, tell us and we'll go off for 6 a while. 7 How long do you need? 8 MR. BERRY: Five minutes. 9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. We'll take a break 10 for five minutes. 11 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which 12 the proceedings were resumed as follows:) () 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We're back in session. 14 Mr. Berry? 15 CROSS EXAMINATION 16 BY MR. BERRY: 17 0 Mr. Maiman, in response to a question put to you by Mr. 18 Guild, you indicated that you were aware at the time 19 that Comstock was having difficulties or problems with 20 the Level III inspector at Braidwood. , 21 Do you recall that testimony? 22 A Yes. l 23 0 Could you describe for the Board and the partier, what l 24 problems you were aware of that Comstock was having with l l 25 the Level III inspector?
}
Sonntaa Reporting S e rv ice ,__Ltd . Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3892 g U 1 MR. GALLO: Clarification: At what point'in 2 time are we talking about? 3 Maybe I missed the question. 4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: With regard to Mr. Puckett? 5 MR. BERRY: Right, right. 6 The question was put to him by Mr. Guild when he 7 was aware of complaints by Mr. Puckett, who had filed a 8 complaint to the Department of Labor. 9 I believe the testimony was that he knew that 10 Comstock was having problems with the Level III, but at 11 the time he didn't recollect it was Mr. Puckett. 12 BY MR. BERRY: () 13 Q Do you recall that testimony, Mr. Maiman? Yes, I do. 14 A 15 0 Could you explain for the Board and the parties what 16 problems you were aware that Comstock was having with 17 the Level III inspector at Braidwood? l 18 A Yes. I can explain my level of information at that time l 19 -- and that was very briefly -- but that they were l i 20 having problems certifying the Level III that they had l 21 recently brought in. The time frame was during the 22 summer months, 1984. l 23 Q What was the source of your information? 24 A It would have been Mike Wallace or Dan Shamblin. 25 0 Were any other problems communicated to you? (~_-) Sonnt&q Reporting Service,__Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3893 O 1 A Not that I recall. 2 0 I believe also you responded to a question from Mr. 3 Guild regarding production pressure -- allegations of 4 production pressure by QC Inspectors at Braidwood; and 5 you indicated -- and I believe your testimony was -- 6 that production pressure does exist. 7 Do you recall -- do you recall that testimony? 8 A Yes. 9 0 could you explain for the Board and the parties what you 10 mean by " production pressure"? 11 What do you understand that to mean? 12 A If I can take some time to do that -- that's not a () 13 simple, one-sentence explanation -- I'd be glad to try. 14 0 Pl ea se . 15 A I think it's clear that in any work endeavor that any of 16 us individually or -- or as a group undertake that 17 requires dedication and commitment, there is associated 18 with it some level of pressure. That's how we 19 accomplish things in -- in life. 20 In the nuclear power business, clearly the most 21 difficult of all construction environments, there is 22 pressure. The only way we're going to move forward 23 towards completion is by exerting and I will use the 24 words " management pressure" to orchestrate the orderly l 25 progress towards completion. O Sonn69 Repor. ting _. Service-,_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3894 (.,_/. 1 Now, understand that that's my role. My company 2 has -- has entrusted me with the completion of Braidwood 3 and the people that work for me. 4 I have three principal responsibilities in that 5 area, and that is the engineering and construction of 6 the plant but also the licensability of the plant and 7 then the operability of the plant. If I fail in any one 8 of those, I have -- I have failed completely. 9 The cornerstone of all of those activities is 10 quality. 11 If I am successful in building the plant and 12 completing it in a certain time for a certain cost but I () 13 cannot demonstrate quality, I'll never get it licenced. 14 This Board knows better than anyone that licensability 15 is an absolute necessity. That's -- that's where the 16 quality comes in and the documentation of that quality. 17 If I succeed in the first two, the construction and 18 the licensability, and it doesn' t operate, well, then I 19 have not succeeded, either. So there's a -- there's a
- 20 three-part effort, all of which have equal priority.
21 The only way that I'm going to succeed in getting 22 that plant to completion is with some orchestrated 23 management pressure in all areas. 24 Part of that pressure says you proceed on 25 construction with the understanding that you follow Sonnag DeportingJ ervice Ltde l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3895 O 1 procedures and you meet specifications and then document 2 what you've done so that you can demonstrate the 3 quality. 4 0 Given that, in your opinion, is there -- is there some 5 point where the accomplishment of the task or the means 6 used to accomplish the task become improper? 7 A The answer to that is yes, there could be, but -- but we 8 have the opportunity to control so that it doesn't 9 become improper. 10 Generally the way we do that is to make sure that 11 the department or group has the necessary resources to 12 meet the requirements that we are placing on them. () 13 That's one of management's responsibilities: to 14 monitor that and make sure that those resources are 15 available and are being used properly. i 16 0 In your opinion, as the manager and as the person 17 responsible for the -- overseeing the construction and ! 18 the operation of the f acility, would a quota, a daily l 19 inspection or production quota, on the Comstock , 20 inspectors -- would that be proper? 21 A A daily quota? i 22 0 A quota; weekly, monthly; a specific amount of 23 inspections done in' a particular unit of time. 24 A Let me say that would not be improper if it was used for i 25 the proper reasons. I Sonntaa Reporting S e rvice;_L_t_d . Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3896 fT U, 1 There is such a term as " productivity." Generally 2 Commonwealth Edison requires the contractors to keep 3 productivity documents; and, as a matter of fact, we 4 keep productivity measurements. 5 Generally what we will do is measure a group's or a 6 department's productivity because, from my standpoint, 7 if you have 10 people, I don't particularly concern 8 myself with the productivity of each one of those 9 individuals. I concern myself with the overall 10 productivity of the group. 11 If they are doing, for example, 150 -- and let me 12 take QC Inspectors because that's what we're talking () 13 about -- 150 inspections per day and there's 10 people, 14 then on avere.ge they're turning out 15 inspections per 15 day. 16 It may be that one of those inspectors only did 17 two. It may be another inspector did 20. It depends on 18 what the work assignment was, whether they had to crawl 19 over things or whether they could just walk down a 20 scaffold that was already built. 21 But any manager -- I don' t care what activity he's 22 in or she's in or what line of work that they' re 23 addressing themselves to -- has to keep some kind of 24 measurements. It's one of the ways you establish pay 25 levels. _( . Sonnt_a3 Repor_ttng Service.,_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3897 1 Q Now, how about individuals? 2 I'm going to take your answer -- in your previous 3 answer, you mentioned monitoring, measuring these groups 4 under your departments, under your control. Let's take 5 individuals, for example. 6 A Yes. 1 7 0 Is there anything improper with keeping track of an 8 individual inspector's production? 9 A From my own personal standpoint and assuming that you' re 10 basing that on some good example, no. It depends on how 11 that information is going to be used. 12 If -- if, in fact, it is held up to a particular 1 l(]) 13 person in a way to coach them to improve, to do better, 14 then I see no problem with that. 15 You have to understand that in a workplace, there 16 are some people who are better, more skilled, than l 17 others; and they traditionally daily turn out more work 18 than others. 19 There are other people that -- that are not capable 20 or not -- not able to produce that level of work. 21 That's not to say one is better than the other. They're 22 different, and you accept that as part of the work 23 force. It's a cost of doing business. 24 Q Let me move on to -- direct your attention to 25 Intervenors' Exhibit 22.
- O Sonntag_ReportingJervice ,_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l _.
- - - . . . . _ - - = - ._. . .- .
3898 I
) ; CE) l j 1 MR. GALLO: Do you still have that?
2 THE WITNESS: Yes. , 3 BY MR. BERRY: 4 Q This was a letter that Commonwealth Edison sent to Mr. 5 DeWald of L. K. Comstock, forwarding the results of
, 6 Quality First's investigation into concerns that they 7 received and had been made aware of by the NRC.
i 8 Also, it lists a number of recommendations that 9 Edison made to Comstock. 10 A Yes. 11 0 I direct your attention particularly to Page 2, 2 of 3, 12 and the first recommendation. 13 Would you read that? (]) 14 A Yes. 15 Q Do you know whether -- whether Comstock adopted that 16 particular recommendation? 17 A No, they did not adopt that recommendation. 18 0 What was the basis for Edison making that i
- 19 recommendation?
I 20 A Partly in communication in the -- in the effort to 21 improve communications, but also to make it aware to the i I 22 Comstock people just what the. routine was in
- 23 investigating concerns, again in the effort to better
! 24 communicate. I i 25 Q Was Edison satisfied with Comstock's reasons for not !( l l Sonntaq Reporting S e rv ice ,__Ltd . Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
3899 C) 1 accepting this recommendation? 2 A Yes, we were; and I will explain them, if you wish. 3 Q Pl ea se. 4 A Comstock replied to us that they felt that it was more 5 appropriate to have a site-wide procedure or method of 6 investigating these kinds of concerns. 7 We -- we essentially agreed with that, since it did 8 not seem appropriate for us to have one organization 9 that had a method when we had so many other contractor 10 organizations on-site. 11 What we were in the process of doing was putting 12 together the Quality First policy statement, and we 13 incorporated into our Quality First policy statement (]) 14 what we felt were all of the necessary words to -- to 15 have a -- essentially a good communication on how 16 concerns were going to be handled site-wide. 17 So it obviated the need for this No. 1. 18 MR. BERRY: Thank you, Mr. Maiman. 19 JUDGE COLE: I have just one or two 20 questions, Mr. Maiman. 21 BOARD EXAMINATION 22 BY JUDGE COLE: 23 0 Concerning the concerns of the Quality Control 24 Inspectors and when they were put on hold, do you have a 25 knowledge of the datet during when these -- any quality O)
- q. '
Annntag nepor_ ting _ Service,_1td. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 imm ii isur
3900 A V 1 control issues were put on hold because of unionizing 2 problems? 3 A I -- Judge, are you speaking of the ones that were 4 identified in the base-line interviews with Quality 5 First? 6 0 Well, any of the ones that you have a knowledge of, sir.
- 7 I know you testified that it was f ruitless to 8 proceed on such QC Inspector-identified or -perceived 9 problems while unionizing problems existed.
10 During what period of time, to your knowledge, were 11 issues put on hold because of unionizing problems? 12 A Yes. I was referring to the base-line interviews that () 13 were conducted in January and February of 1985 and then 14 subsequently turned over to the Construction Department 15 for investigation in -- it would be very late February , 16 or early March of '85. 17 They were then put on hold, for the reasons I -- I 18 expressed, until such time as the March 29th meeting was 19 held, in which case I -- I directed that they proceed. 20 0 All right, sir. 21 So they have proceeded, and they have completed i 22 their assignment? 23 A Yes, they have. 24 JUDGE COLE: All right, sir. Thank you. 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gallo, do you want a few R onn t a g R e po r. ting _S ar_vic e , _Ltd - Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3901 0 1 minutes to discuss? 2 MR. GALLO: Okay. I'll take advantage of 3 that. 4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Let's take a few 5 minutes. 6 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which 7 the proceedings were resumed as follows:) 8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Back on the record. 9 Mr. Gallo? 10 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. GALLO: 12 Q Mr. Maiman, you were asked a series of questions by Mr. 13 Guild with respect to what you knew about the matters (]) 14 raised by Mr. Seeders in his August 17, 1984, letter to 15 Mr. DeWald prior to March 29, 1085, 16 Do you recall that testimony? 17 A Yes, I do. 18 Q As I recall, you testified that you had not seen Mr. 19 Seeders' letter to Mr. DeWald of August 17th prior to 1 20 March 29th; is that correct? 21 A That's right. 22 0 Now, prior to March 29th, were you aware that Mr. 23 Seeders had complained in August, 1984, about production 24 pressure? 25 A No. O Sonntag Reporting _ Service,ltd: Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3902 l 1 0 Were you aware that Mr. Seeders had complained about -- 2 again, prior to March 29, 1985, were you aware that Mr. 3 Seeders had complained about alleged harassment and 4 intimidation from Mr. Saklak? 5 MR. GUILD: Asked and answered. 6 Unless the witness is going to now change his 7 testimony and has refreshed his recollection, the 8 questions have been asked and they've been answered. 9 JUDGE GROSSMAN : My recollection is he had no 10 knowledge. 11 Are you going to be changing that testimony? 12 THE WITNESS: No. () 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I believe they were asked 14 and answered, but okay. If you want to -- 15 MR. GALLO: Yes. It was my view that the 16 record was very confused in that, and I was going to -- 17 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Okay. That's fine. Why 18 don' t you -- we'll overrule the objection. 19 MR. GUILD: I don't believe it is confusing, 20 Mr. Chairman. I stand by my objection; asked and 21 answered. 22 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Continue, Mr. Gallo. 23 Is there a pending question? 24 MR. GALLO: Yes, there is. 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Do you want tb reask it or 0) n S om nta_g_Rer_orti ng_Re tri c e ,_Lt d , Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 3903 A V 1 -- do you recall the question, sir? 2 THE WITNESS: If I could have it read back, 3 I'd appreciate it. 4 MR. GALLO: I'll restate it. 5 BY MR. GALLO: 6 0 Again, prior to March 29, 1985, were you aware of Mr. 7 Seeders' complaints of harassment and intimidation 8 allegedly conducted or induced by Mr. Saklak? 9 A No. 10 0 If your prior testimony -- well, it's my recollection of 11 your prior testimony, in answer to questions from Mr. 12 Guild, that you had answered those questions in the 13 affirmative. (]) 14 Is that your recollection? 15 A No. My recollection is: Was I aware of some goings-on 16 with Mr. Seeders? 17 0 I believe the words were, "Were you aware of the Seeders 18 incident?" 19 Do you recall answering questions phrased in that 20 fashion? 21 A Yes. 22 0 when you answered those questions, what did you have in 23 mind as to what the term " Seeders incident" meant? 24 MR. GUILD: There was no such question asked, 25 Mr. Chairman. The record simply is inaccurately being O . Sonntaq R epoJ ting _S_e r vi c.e ,_L_td.. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3904 1 characterized by Mr. Gallo. I never used the word 2 " incident." In fact, I asked the same questions Mr. 3 Gallo asked again, and I got the same answers the 4 gentleman has given a second time. 5 I believe if he is essentially trying to clear up 6 his own failure to recall the record, these are improper 4 7 questions on redirect. 8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: The question, as I 9 understand it, is whether he was aware of the Seeders 10 incident, and we'll allow that question. 11 Were you aware -- 12 MR. GALLO: My question was: When he () 13 answered questions posed by Mr. Guild referring to the 14 Seeders incident, what was it that he understood that 15 term to mean, as he testified to? j 16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And Mr. Guild indicates that 17 he never used that term. l 18 MR. GALLO: Well, I guess the best evidence 19 of that, your Honor, is the record, which neither one of 20 us have befor_ us. 21 I feel just as convinced that my recollection of 22 the record is correct as Mr. Guild says it isn't. 23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I'm suggesting a way in
. 24 which we don' t have to have the Reporter go back and .
- 25 read her tapes, which is just to'ask him whether he was
() Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3905 O 1 aware of the Seeders incident and what did he understand 2 that to be. 3 Now, I think that's a pref erred way of doing it. 4 MR. GALLO: All right. 5 BOARD EXAMINATION 6 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN : 7 0 Could you answer that question -- both those questions, 8 one at a time: 9 Were you aware of an incident involving Mr. 10 Seeders, although his name was not known to you? s 11 A That's -- that's correct, your Honor. 12 My awareness at that time was there was an , () 13 individual who was assigned to do some instrument 14 calibrations that they found was not doing those 15 calibrations properly and would result in some 16 reinspections of the work that was done using those 17 instruments. That was the extent of it. 18 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 19 (Continued) 20 BY MR. GALLO: 21 0 That was the extent of your knowledge with respect to 22 matters that you later learned referred to Mr. Seeders; 1 23 is that correct? 24 A (No response.) j 25 0 Let me restate the question. It wasn't clear. 3 Sonnt a g Deporling._Senvice,_Ltd. 1 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3906 O V 1 A Please. 2 0 What you just testified to as the Seeders incident was 3 the extent of your knowledge as it existed prior to 4 March 29th, af ter you later learned that it was -- that 5 that information was associated with Mr. Seeders? 6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, Mr. Gallo, we'll go so 7 far. 8 My recollection is that the witness indicated that 9 he had some other opinions or understandings -- I'm l 10 sorry; understandings at that time, and that related the 11 inspector, who was Mr. Seeders, to the labor-management 12 dispute. () 13 I don' t really think that you can now ask him an 14 exclusive question like that. I think it does 15 mischaracterize the record. 16 MR. GALLO: Well, I believe that the 17 labor-management dispute that you ref er to involved Mr. 18 Puckett. 19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I believe, if you'll read 20 the record, that also with regard to the Seeders 21 incident, the witness attributed any discontent to the 22 labor problem. 23 Is that a correct characterization, sir? 24 THE WITNESS: Yes. 25 MR. GALLO: All right. I had interpreted O Sonntaq Rehr tino S_ervi_g_e,_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3907 1 your remarks to refer to the Department of Labor 2 activity. 3 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Oh, no, no. 4 MR. GALLO: All right. 5 BY MR. GALLO: b Q Well, let's get at it, then. 7 Again, prior to March 29th, you were aware of the 8 matter that you learned involved Mr. Seeders with 9 respect to the calibration matters that you've testified 10 to. 11 What other matters were you aware of that you later 12 learned involved Mr. Seeders prior to March 29, 1985? () 13 A I don't have any other recollection. 14 Q So in sum, you were aware of an individual involved in 15 some calibration problems prior to March,1985 -- that 16 is, March 29, 1985 -- and that's the extent of it? 17 A That's right. I subsequently found out it was Mr. 18 Seeders. 19 0 That was post-March 29th? 20 A That's correct. 21 Q Let's focus on Mr. Puckett. 22 I believe you testified that prior to March 29,
. 23 1985, you were aware that Mr. Puckett filed a complaint 24 with the Department of Labor in September,1984; is that 25 correct?
O
- S onn tagJe po r_ti ng_.S e rvic e ,- Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 3908 l-O 1 A I was aware because we received a copy of that 2 complaint , yes. 3 0 And that was on or about September, 1984? 4 A I believe so, yes. 5 0 In any event, it was prior to March 29, 1984 -- 1985? 6 A Right, correct. 7 0 Did you receive a copy of the complaint yourself? 8 A I did not receive one myself, but I had an opportunity 9 to read one. 10 Q Did you read a copy of the complaint? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Do you -- did you -- what did you understand to be the () 13 nature of the allegations in the complaint? 14 A I -- 15 0 I'm talking, now, at the time you read it. 16 A Yes. 17 I -- I would have to say my recollection is -- is 18 so poor that I could not restate what it was. 19 MR. GALLO: May I have a minute? 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Sure. Off the record. 21 (There followed a discussion outside the 22 record.) 23 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Back on the record. 24 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, it's Exhibit 25 in 25 evidence. Sonntaq Repo r ting Service; Ltd. ! Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
--- -- - - - - - n
3909 () 1 MR. MILLER: Pardon me? 2 MR. GUILD: Counsel is looking for the 3 document. 4 MR. GALLO: Which one is it? 5 MR. GUILD: Exhibit 25, Intervenors' 25. 6 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Your Exhibit 25? 7 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir. 8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Intervenors -- yes, the 9 Puckett letter to DOL, yes. It is dated September 5, 10 1984. That is in evidence. 11 BY MR. GALLO: 12 0 You testified, Mr. Maiman, that the court case filed by () 13 L. K. Comstock interfered with the labor negotiations, 14 with the contract negotiations, between the union and L. l 15 K. Comstock. 16 Do you recall that testimony? 17 A Yes. 18 0 What was your understanding -- what is it -- what was 19 your or what is your understanding with respect to this l 20 court case, as you call it, that had the effect of 21 interfering with these negotiations? 22 A Well, I don't know the specifics of what the filing was; 23 only that the vote was taken in November and shortly 24 thereafter L. K. Comstock and then separately one or l l 25 more of the QC Inspectors themselves filed with the (s-l l Sonntag Reporting _ Service,_Ltde Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
~
3910 O 1 court that the vote or the unionizing effort was 2 improper and, therefore, the negotiations f or wages, 3 benefits and so forth could not begin until after a 4 ruling was to be forthcoming. i 5 O Now, you were asked a number of questions by Mr. Guild 6 with respect to an NRC inspection report that was issued 7 in December, 1984. 8 Do you recall that testimony? t 9 A (No response.) 10 0 Do you recall being questioned on that report? 11 A Can you tell me which report that was? 12 Was that 8205, 8309? 13 Q No. It was a December, 1984, report referring to the ( ]) 14 so-called Seeders incident. 15 A Mr. Gallo, I don' t remember. 16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Is that 8509? 17 MR. GALLO: No. 18 JUDGE GROSSMAN : That isn' t it? i 19 MR. BERRY: It's 8402. 20 BY MR. GALLO: 21 0 I hear f rom the Staf f the number of the report is 8402. 22 Does the number do anything to refresh your l 23 recollection? 24 A No. I'm sorry. 25 0 You were asked by Mr. Guild whether or not you perceived O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3911 O V 1 a conflict of interest by assigning the investigation of I 2 the Comstock QC Inspector concerns to Mr. Shamblin, 3 because he was superintendent of construction at 4 Braidwood; and I believe your answer was, "No, if one 5 understands Mr. Shamblin's role as a construction 6 superintendent." 4 7 What was there about Mr. Shamblin's role as a 8 construction superintendent that led you to conclude
, 9 there was no conflict of interest?
10 A Well, I think I covered that already when I defined my 11 responsibilities that carry through to Mr. Wallace and 12 to Mr. Shamblin in that not only must we build the plant () 13 but it must be licensable. 14 In order for it to be licensable, you have to have , 15 the proper procedures, meet the necessary specifications i 16 and be able to document that you, in fact, have done 17 that. That's part of what Comstock quality control 18 people are -- are involved with. 4 19 For Dan to be able to take on that investigation 20 and do it objectively is entirely within the -- the 21 scope of his responsibilities. 22 Q Do you have any knowledge as to whether, in fact, he j 23 discharged those responsibilities effectively with 24 respect to this investigation? 25 A Well, the knowledge that I have is the report that was f ( t Sonntag Repor ting Service,__Ltde Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4 3912 O V 1 put together and which he discussed with me in -- in the 2 preparation of the letter which he issued to Mr. DeWald 3 on April 29th. l 4 Q And what information in the report that you received 5 from Mr. Shamblin and the letters that you refer to I 6 leads you to believe that it was an objective assessment 7 by Mr. Sharblin and his co-workers? 8 A The report of findings and the -- the recommendations. 9 0 who are the other co-workers, if any, that worked with i 10 Mr. Shamblin on this investigation? 11 A Well, I'm not sure I'll be able to recall them all, but 12 Messrs. Quaka and Netzel from QC; Mennecke -- I -- I () 13 don't remember them all. Mennecke was a Lead Engineer. 14 0 What department were Mr. Quaka and Mr. Netzel f rom? 15 A Quality Assurance. 16 Q Is this Commonwealth Edison Quality Assurance? 17 A Yes, it is, i l 18 Q And they were members of this investigation group that 19 you -- i 20 A That's right. 21 0 -- established?
- 22 A Yes.
23 0 What organization is Mr. Mennecke from? 24 A He is from Dan Shamblin's Construction Department. l 25 0 were there any participants f rom Quality First? C) Sonntaq ReportinLService,_L_td. Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262
9 3913 O 1 A Yes. I'm sorry. 2 Ray Preston participated personally. 3 0 I show you Intervenors' Exhibit 39 and ask you to turn 4 your attention to the very last sentence on the first 5 page. It starts out with, "We recommended." 6 As a preliminary matter, can you tell me who the 7 "we" is who is being referred to there? 8 A Commonwealth Edison, but specifically myself and Dan 9 Shamblin. 10 0 Would you read the entire sentence, please? 11 A "We recommended to the L. K. Comstock and Company, Inc., 12 that Mr. Richard Saklak not be employed at any other L. I~T 13 K. Comstock nuclear site in any QA/QC role." V 14 0 Now, would you say that that was a punitive action taken 15 by Commonwealth Edison with respect to Mr. Saklak? 16 A It was intended that way, and I would certainly say that 17 it was. 18 Q Now, with respect to Mr. Saklak, your testimony l 19 concerning Mr. Saklak's status -- that is, whether he 20 was discharged or, quote, " laid off" -- a number of 21 documents have been introduced into evidence bearing on 22 that question. 23 Can you tell me whether or not, aside from the 24 writings that you've been shown, you had any 25 conversations with either Mr. Shamblin or Mr. DeWald or () Ronntag Reporting _Ser_vice,_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3914 O 1 Mr. -- yes, or Mr. DeWald about the employment status of 2 Mr. Saklak on or around the months of March and April of 3 1985? 4 A With Mr. Shamblin on the Wednesday, which I believe 5 would be April 3rd, he informed me that Mr. Saklak is no 6 longer working for L. K. Comstock. 7 Q Did you understand -- did Mr. Shamblin explain the basis 8 for his statement? 9 A He had been informed by Comstock -- and I don't know who 10 -- that Mr. Saklak had been terminated. 11 He also inf ormed me that he had written a letter to j 12 our security people for entering Saklak's name into the () 13 computer; that Saklak could not be employed at any other 14 Commonwealth Edison nuclear site in a Quality position. 15 0 Was it your understanding at that time that Mr. Saklak 16 had been discharged, as opposed to laid off? 17 A I -- I did not pursue that. 18 Q Did you have any understanding at that time on that l 19 point? ' 20 A No, I did not. He was terminated. I didn't pursue it i 21 farther. 22 0 What did you -- did Mr. Shamblin describe the action as l 23 Mr. Saklak being terminated? l l 24 MR. GUILD: Objection. It's leading. l i 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, Mr. Gallo, I think the Sonntaa Reporting S_ery_ ice, Ltd. l l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3915 O 1 witness has pretty much indicated that he really doesn't 2 distinguish between those two terms, and so to tie him 3 to one as a choice of the two terms I don't think is 4 fair. 5 BOARD EXAMINATION 6 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN : 7 Q Is that correct? Am I understanding your testimony 8 correctly that you really don't distinguish between 9 those two terms? 10 A Judge, I do distinguish between the two terms. I 11 obviously understand the -- the distinction. 12 But at the time, I did not ask the question or () 13 delve into it. 14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. 15 MR. GALLO: Fair enough. 16 A (Continuing.) I just don't know. 17 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 18 (Continued) 19 BY MR. GALLO: 20 0 Looking at Intervenors' Exhibit 36 -- 21 A Mine are not marked. 22 Q Oh, yes. You don't have it. Actually, it's 22 that I'd 23 like to have you look at. j 24 A Okay. 25 0 Turning to the bottom of the first page and the O Sonntag Repor_ ting __ Service,_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3916 O 1 reference to Item No. 4 and the further reference to the 2 LKC Policy Statement 1.0.0, in the context of what was 3 known about the Saklak matter at the time that that 4 letter was written, No. 22, did the ref erence to the 5 Policy Statement 1.0.0 have meaning?
, 6 A From my perspective, no, it did not have meaning.
7 As you know, I was having trouble with Mr. Guild's 8 question. 9 That policy statement, 1. 0 . 0 , is simply Comstock 10 QC's statement as to how their organization is, No.1, 11 independent from the production organization and how it 12 will be administered. () 13 0 Well, did you understand it to have meaning to L. K. 14 Comstock, the addressee of the letter -- 15 A Yes, it did have meaning to -- 16 0 -- as it applies to Mr. Saklak? 17 A* No. 18 0 You did not, all right. 19 In answer to a number of questions f rom Mr. Berry, ! 20 you described your definition and understanding of 21 " production pressure" and distinguished, I believe, 22 between management pressure that was appropriate, in i 23 your opinion, and that which was inappropriate. 24 Do you recall that testimony? ( 25 A Yes. 'CE) Sonntas Reporting _Se_rvice_, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
3917 1 Q Now, did that testimony, when you gave those answers -- 2 was that intended to describe a situation that you and 3 your managers -- that is, Mr. Shamblin and others -- 4 imposed with respect to L. K. Comstock QC management? 5 MR. GUILD: Objection; leading. 6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I believe Mr. Maiman 7 answered Mr. Berry's question, and that's what he 8 intended to do. 9 MR. GALLO: Well, if that's the understanding 10 of the state of the record, then I'll withdraw the 11 question. < 12 It wasn't clear -- I'll not mince any words. The () 13 purpose of the question was it wasn't clear to me, based 14 on the question asked, that it was intended to elicit 15 the situation as it existed at Braidwood, as opposed to 16 some hypothetical situation, because the question didn' t 17 pinpoint it to the type of pressure that was -- 18 BOARD EXAMINATION 19 BY JUDGE GBOSSMAN: 20 0 The question, if I understand it, was: Did your answer 21 to that question apply specifically to the Comstock 22 situation? 23 A No, it didn't, your Honor. It was a generic statement. 24 As I understood Mr. Berry's question, he was asking 25 me about production pressure in the generic sense, and I O M onnta gJ1e por. ting _S e r.vic e_,_Ltd . Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3918 l O 1 responded to it in that fashion. 2 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 3 (Continued) 4 BY MR. GALLO: 5 Q Now, you had answered a number of questions about 6 production pressure that were asked by Mr. Guild; and in 7 answering those questions, you distinguished between 8 improper pressure, I believe -- Mr. Guild used the term 9 " undue pressure" -- as distinguished from, I guess, 10 appropriate pressure. 11 Can you explain the difference for me? 12 A Yes. () 13 0 Not in the abstract, now, but as it applied at 14 Braidwood. 15 A Okay. 16 As it applies to Braidwood and specifically to the 17 GC group for Comstock, appropriate pressure is to define 18 what our objectives are and what we expect a particular 19 group -- in this case, the QC group -- to meet and then 20 be willing to listen to, in this case, Mr. DeWald's 21 responses as to whether or not he can meet those i 22 objectives or if he has to take some different kind of 23 action, such as adding more people, in order to meet 24 tt:ose obj ectives. 25 I would consider improper pressure to be on the () Sonntaq ReportinLServicef_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3919 1 order of, "Mr. DeWald, here are your objectives. I I expect you to meet them in any way you can, and don't be 3 asking me for more people." 4 I think there's clearly a difference between the 5 two. 6 0 Can you give me an example of appropriate pressure, in 7 your judgment, that was utilized by either you or your 8 managers with respect to the LKC quality control 9 management? 10 A Well, I think the -- the unf olding of the -- of the 11 events that took place, from my experience, beginning in 12 March of 1984, when we had a significant backlog of open () 13 inspections, to where we are right now, where we have a 14 very low level of open inspections. 15 0 What management steps did you take to reduce that 16 backlog you've just referred to? 17 A We defined our -- our objectives to Mr. DeWald, asked 18 him to come to us with his plan of how he was going to 19 reduce the backlog, including the number of NCR's, 20 including the number of ICR's. It responded to his 21 plan. 22 Part of that plan included an increase in the 23 number of inspectors, an increase in the number of 24 certifications available to do those inspections; and it 25 just -- certifications, for example. Early in '84 we O Sonntag_ Reporting _ServiceuLtd, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4 3920 O 1 were dealing with approximately 100 certifications. We 2 now have close to 300 certifications, and that's a 3 significant increase in the inspect capability of the QC 4 organization. 5 0 What do you mean by -- when you use the term 6 " certifications"? 7 How does that improve -- how did that improve the 8 situation in reducing the backlog of inspections? 9 A By being able to put more people qualified to do a 10 particular inspection out in the field, and that may be i 11 one individual being qualified in more areas or more 12 individuals being qualified. () 13 0 I see. ! 14 Did, in fact, that happen, to your knowledge? 15 A Yes, it happened. 16 0 Were additional -- was L. K. Comstock authorized to hire 17 additional inspectors? 18 A Yes. 19 When I came on in March of 1984, I think we were 20 about at a 70 level of inspectors. We now have well 21 over 100 inspectors. 22 0 Did you or any of your managers establish quotas for L. 23 K. Comstock QC management in terms of completion of 24 inspections? 25 A I'm not aware that we established quotas. S on n t a g_Repo rt i n g_S e ty.i c e ,_L td . > Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3921 O 1 I'm aware that we had discussions with Mr. DeWald
- 2 and others about reducing the backlog, realizing that 3 our -- our target dates, our fuel-load dates, requi re r
~ 4 the backlog to be near zero. 5 Q Did you establish an expectation with Mr. DeWald that 6 you expected a certain number of inspections to be done 7 by a certain time? 8 A I did not. 9 We participate in goals meetings with Comstock on a 10 quarterly basis, in which they present to us their plan, 11 which includes objectives; and they act to carry those 12 out. () 13 Q Did you participate in these goal meetings with 14 Comstock? 15 A Yes, I did. 16 0 Was Mr. DeWald at this meeting? 17 A Yes, he was. 18 0 What were the goals that he offered? 19 A I'm unab'e to relate that to you. They ' re -- they ' re in 20 the goals books, and they're -- 21 Q Well, do you recall at all what objectives he was 22 addressing by his goals? 23 A Yes: keeping current with current work and working down 24 the open backlog. Numbers I can't give you. 25 0 All right. () S onnta g_R e po r_ ting _S e r.vi c e , _Ltd . Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3922 r3 s 1 And how did either you or your -- Mr. Wallace or 2 Mr. Shamblin react to those goals presentations by Mr. 3 DeWald? 4 A Favorably; and as witnessed by where we are right now, 5 they were -- they were adequate, appropriate. 6 O Did they become objectives set in concrete that had to 7 be achieved in any event? 8 A No. 9 MR. GUILD: Objection. You can't lead the 10 witness. 11 Mr. Chairman -- 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gallo, I'm not sure how () 13 appropriate it is for you in the first place to build on 14 f riendly questions f rom a nonadversary party. 15 MR. GALLO: I don't believe I'm doing that, 16 your Honor. 17 The testimony was by this witness that he was 18 answering in the generic sense to Mr. Berry's questions 19 and had nothing to do with -- 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I'm talking about Mr. 21 Berry not being totally an adverse party here or maybe 22 not at all -- but the questions not being critical of 23 direct examination, and then you're going and building 24 on those questions on redirect but then carrying it to 25 an extreme. l O Sonn_ tag Reporting _Servic.er _Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3923 A (_) 1 I think, you know, it's just a little too far. 2 MR. GALLO: I had intended, really, to follow 3 up -- my questions to follow up on the questioning by
. 4 Mr. Guild, not Mr. Berry.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That's another story, but I 6 think you' re going a little bit beyond that. 7 BY MR. GALLO: 8 0 Mr. Maiman, I show you a letter dated March 29, 1985. 9 It's one of the letters that was attached to a 10 contention filed in this case on harassment. It's from 11 Messrs. McGregor and Schulz to Messrs. Williams and 12 Warnick of the NRC. () 13 The subject is the telephone conference call with 14 Commonwealth Edison with regard to LKC quality control 15 problems. 16 Do you recall having seen this letter before? 17 (Indicating.) 18 A Yes, I have. 19 0 I direct your attention to the third paragraph -- I'm 20 sorry; Page 3 of that letter -- 21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me. What exhibit are 22 we on now, Mr. Gallo? 23 MR. MILLER: It's an attachment to the 24 contention. 25 MR. GUILD: It's not in evidence. O R onnta g _R e po r_ tin g _S e r vi c e ,_Ltd . Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. . -- . . - . - -. . -- - - . - =- . - --
8 l 3924 iO 1 MR. GALLO: It's an attachment to the 1 2 contention. It's dated March 29th, and it's one of the 3 letters written by one of the resident NRC inspectors to 4 the Region III personnel at Glen Ellyn. 5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. I 6 BY MR. GALLO: 7 Q Now, I direct your attention, Mr. Maiman, to Page 3 and, 8 in particular, the -- what appears to be the third j 9 paragraph f rom the bottom. i 10 MR. GALLO: Just for the sake of clarity of - I 11 the record, I'll ask the witness to read the passage I'm l
- 12 referring to and then ask my question.
13 BY MR. GALLO: (]) l 14 Q Would you read this paragraph, what is the third I . 15 paragraph from the bottom on Page 3? 16 A Okay. 17 "CE Company: Yes, that is the ideal situation to 18 be in. We have an awful lot of things going on that, 19 for example, we were aware in the past of morale 20 problems in L. K. Comstock organization. A lot of that i 21 was attributed to perhaps the dollar situation and the 22 certification process these guys had to go through." , 3 23 0 Now, do you understand that the reference to Ceco with ! 24 the colon after it is a characterization by the authors i ! 25 of the letter as to a CECO response to a Region III
)
Sonntaq R eporting_S e rXi_ge.,_Ltd.. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3925
)
1 question? 4 2 A Yes. 3 0 And what do you understand the reference, if you do, to 4 "past morale problems in L. K. Comstock organization" 5 and "a lot of that was attributable to perhaps the 6 dollar situation," et cetera? 7 A Well, that's the -- the effort by Local 306 to organize 8 the QC Inspectors. 9 0 Now, one other question: Was this the telephone 10 conversation that you participated in on March 29th? 11 A No. 12 0 It was not?
,O 13 A No. \-)
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I take it, Mr. Gallo, you're 15 not going to rely on what was just read into the record 16 as evidence. 17 MR. GALLO: No, no. That was a foundation 18 for a question that I'm now not going to ask, because of 19 the answer I got to the last question. 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine. That was my 21 understanding. 22 MR. GALLO: If I could have a moment to check $ 23 my notes -- 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Sure. 25 MR. GALLO: That's all the questions I have. O Sonntag Reporting Service,_Ltd: i Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3926 O 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild? 2 MR. GUILD: Yes, Mr. Chairman. 3 RECROSS EXAMINATION 4 BY MR. GUILD: 5 0 Mr. Maiman, I want to hand you a copy of Intervenors' 6 Exhibit 25 in evidence, Mr. Puckett's September 5, 1984, 7 letter to the U. S. Department of Labor that you state 8 you read. 9 I'd ask you to f amiliarize yourself with the 10 document again, if you would, please. 11 (Indicating.) 12 A Okay. () 13 0 I understood your answer to Mr. Gallo to state that at or about the time the letter was written to the DOL, at 14 15 or about the time it was transmitted to Commonwealth 16 Edison Company, you had an opportunity to read it, did 17 you not? 18 A Yes. 19 I'm not sure whether it was transmitted to us or 20 Comstock, but it was forwarded to us and I did have an 21 opp 3rtunity to read it. 22 0 By whatever process, it got to you and you had an 23 opportunity to read it? 24 A Yes.
- 25 0 All right, sir.
! () l Sonnt_aq R epo r_ti ng_S ervic_e ,_Ltd . I Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3927 l l( l 1 And having had such an opportunity at about -- in I 2 the fall of '84, in any event, I direct your attention 3 to the letter, at the top of Page 2, where Mr. Puckett 4 states, "It is my contention that I was terminated 5 because I was too quality-conscious. That would be like i 6 saying a person is too good a driver to drive on our
; 7 highways."
1 8 Do you recall noting that statement by Mr. Puckett 9 in his letter when you read it? i 10 A I don' t -- I don' t recall it specifically, but it's --
- 11 it's there and I'm sure I read it.
l 12 0 The third paragraph appearing on Page 2 reads, "In a 13 review of the L. K. Comstock procedures and l() i 14 documentation, I found numerous noncompliances. I 15 reported these to management, and their first reaction 16 was to try and justify them rather than initiate action 17 to identify and correct them. 1 j 18 "I finally recommended, through a memo, that work l 19 be stopped, before any action was taken. Management was i 20 very upset that I recommended this stop-work order, even
- 21 though I am required to do so by the Construction 22 Federal Regulations. I was terminated after I submitted 23 the stop-work order due to management being l
j 24 quantity-conscious rather than quality-conscious. " 25 Do you recall noting Mr. Puckett's concerns to that ! () Sonntag_ReportingService,_Ltdm_ i Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1 3928 O 1 effect when you read the letter in the fall of '84? 2 A Yes, I do. 3 Q Having read those concerns by Mr. Puckett, is it still 4 your recollection that you took no action to investigate 5 those concerns and concluded that they were simply 6 matters that had arisen because of the labor-management 7 conflict at the time? 8 A I took no action to investigate those concerns, but I 9 did ask Dan Shamblin to give me a further briefing on 10 that. The labor actions were -- were not at issue in 11 this particular case -- 12 0 Excuse me. () 13 By "that" you mean the union-management disputes? } 14 A Yes, yes -- 15 0 I see. 16 A -- but that Mr. Puckett -- and, as I mentioned, I didn't 17 recall Mr. Puckett'c name at the time -- the Level III 18 that Comstock had employed at that time was not 19 qualified. 20 0 That was the substance of Mr. Shamblin's report back to 21 you? 22 A Yes. 5 23 0 All right. 24 And that was the extent of your action on the 25 matter? i ( j S_o_n_n ta g R ep_o r ti ng_S e r vice , Ltd. a Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4 3929 d CE) 1 A Yes. 2 0 Mr. Gallo asked you about what you understood by your 3 references to the court case, and I think you stated 4 that you understood that it was a challenge to the union 5 election of November of '84 -- 6 A Yes. 7 0 -- by Comstock and by one of the members of the j 8 bargaining unit, a QC Inspector. 9 A one or more. I don' t know if it was just one, but
! 10 that's correct.
1 11 0 All right. 12 And did you understand those to be unfair labor () 13 practice charges brought by Comstock against the union? 14 A I -- I'm not sure of what the reasons were. 15 All I know is that there was a challenge before the , 16 courts. 17 0 Before the National Labor Relations Board? 18 A I -- I don't know. j 19 I thought it was a circuit court, but it -- it 20 could have been the Board. 21 0 Do you understand that ultimately, whatever those t 22 appeals or challenges were, they were resolved in favor 23 of the legitimacy of the union election and against L. ! 24 K. Comstock management? 25 A Yes. ( Sonntag_ Reporting _S ervice ,_Ltd. 1 Geneva, Illinoic 60134 (312) 232-0262
3930 1 0 And when did you learn that? 2 A I believe that was sometime late in April. It must have 3 been, because negotiations then began April 30th. 4 0 1985? 5 A Yes. 6 0 of course, already the QC Inspectors had gone to the 7 NRC; and you took the action, with respect to those 8 concerns, to which you've already testified? 9 A That's right. 10 0 No further action, then, was required once the 11 labor-management issue was resolved; that it placed all 12 those concerns on hold, since you already initiated the () 13 actions you've testified about resulting f rom the NRC 14 meeting? 15 A That was a lot of questions. Please say it again. 16 (Laughter.) 17 0 okay, all right. 18 April came; and the basis on which all these 19 concerns had been put on hold no longer existed, since 20 the court challenge was at an end, resolved against
- 21 Comstock; correct?
22 A No. That's -- that's not a fair characterization. 23 Negotiations now began -- 24 0 All right. 25 But didn't I understand your testimony -- () i i Sonntag_ Reporting _ Service,_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3931 0 1 MR. GALLO: Objection. 2 Have you completed your answer? 3 MR. GUILD: Please complete it. I didn't 4 mean to interrupt you. 5 A (Continuing. ) I was just going to say that the
- 6 negotiations now began, and that means for E a first 7 time the union and LKC sat down to work out wages, 8 benefits and what have you.
9 That, on a temporary basis, eased the situation 10 completely . 11 MR. GUILD: I'm going to have to ask you now 12 to be responsive to my last question. () 13 THE WITNESS: Okay. 14 MR. GUILD: I'll try to be clearer. 15 BY MR. GUILD: 16 0 Your previous testimony was to the effect that the 17 concerns expressed to Quality First by the Comstock 18 inspectors, including concerns preceding those by 19 Puckett and Seeders, all had been put on hold because of 20 the pending labor-management dispute, particularly 21 including the court challenge to the election; correct? 22 A Yes. I 23 0 Okay. 24 The court challenge having been over, there was l 25 then no reason to maintain these issues on hold, was O Sonntag_Repor ting Service,_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 3932 O 1 there? 2 A Well, in fact, they were not on hold at that point. 3 April -- March 29th I took them off hold and -- 4 0 Indeed, there were no remaining issues to take off hold, 5 because you had already taken whatever action you took 6 March 29th? 7 A Yes. 8 Q You took no additional action to investigate QC 9 Inspector concerns once the labor-management dispute was 10 resolved by the court decision or the NLRB decision, did 11 you? 12 A No. () 13 MR. GUILD: I have no further questions. 14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Berry? 15 MR. BERRY: No questions. 16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gallo? 17 MR. GALLO: No questions. 18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, thank you very much, 19 Mr. Maiman. You're excused. 20 THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor. 21 (Witness excused.) 22 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, relying on a guess 23 by Mr. Guild as to how long his examination will take, 24 we did not ask Mr. Snyder to travel out f rom the power 25 plant. O Sonntaq Reporting Service,_.Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3933 O 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We certainly wouldn't want 2 to start with him now at 20 minutes to the quitting 3 hour. 4 MR. GUILD: I could take another 20 minutes l 5 with Mr. Maiman if Mr. Miller would like me to occupy 6 the rest of the day. 7 MR. MILL ER : You had your chance. We excused 8 the witness. 9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: It's the end of the day. We 10 don' t need any gravity. 11 MR. GALLO: Or gratuity. 12 MR. GUILD: Or the gratuitous expression that () 13 I was 15 minutes short of my estimate that I would be 14 done. 15 MR. MILLER: I wasn't being critical at all. 16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I don' t think Mr. Miller did 17 it critically. He was covering his own flanks on that. 18 MR. GUILD: I'd like to do the same, Mr. I 19 Chairman, for the record. Thank you. ! 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Let's end it now. i 21 I guess there's no further business today, so we'll 22 reconvene at 9:00 o' clock tomorrow morning. 23 We'll start off with the next witness, who is Mr. l 24 Snyder? l l 25 MR. MILLER: Correct. l l l S onntag_R e po rti ng_S e rvic e. , __Ltd ._
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 L
a. 3934 i O 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. 2 (WHEREUPON, the hearing of the i 3 above-entitled matter was continued to l 4 the 12th day of June, at the hour of 9:00 ) j 5 o' clock A. M.) I
- 6 7
8 1 1 9 1 10 3 11 ! 12 1 O 3 14 ! 15 1 16 ! 17 i 16 1 19 20 21 j 22 23 e l 24 25 lO l
- S o n n t a_g._ R e po r t iES_e_r v_i c e ,_kt d .
- Genesa, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAI REPORTER
' This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of: .
NAME OF PROCEEDING: BRAIDWOOD STATION UNITS 1 & 2 . COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (EVIDENTIARY HEARING) DOCKET NO.: 50-456/457-OL PLACE: '
'JOLIET) I L'LI N0I S ATE: i-O JUNE 11; 1986, WEONESDAY were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory commission.
(siet) hr u 2% (TYPED) (,$llru bo.v. br-Official Reporter Reporter's Affiliation O .}}