ML20206L468
| ML20206L468 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 08/14/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#386-450 OL, NUDOCS 8608200193 | |
| Download: ML20206L468 (263) | |
Text
_ -- .
ORIGINAf_
O UN11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO:
BRAIDWOOD STATION 53-456/457-0L UNITS 1 8 2 COMMONWEALTH EDISON O
l LOCATION: J0LIET, ILLIN0IS PAGES: 10671 - 10930 i
DATE: THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 1986 l
/
0, O\
ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
O offt&iw
. 444 North CapitolStreet Q[-._
r
, Washington, D.C. 20001 (202)347-3700 NATIONWIDE COVERACE
i 1
10671
.b 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. 5 0-456 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY : 50-457 OL
! 7 :
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 :
8 .and 2) :
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X 9
10 Page: 10,671-- 10,930 11 College of St. Francis
(~3 '500 North Wilcox-
\_/ 12 Joliet,_ Illinois 13 Thursday, August 14, 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.
20 JUDGE RICHARD F. COLE, Member, 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 i
10672
, 3 kJ l
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 60602 6 On behalf ~of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff:
7-ELAINE I..CIIAN, 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
~)
x/
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 C:)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
.)
10673
- r~ ,
Q ),.
1 TESTIMONY OF JOHN -H. NEISLER and ROGELIO MENDEZ 2 CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. GUILD (Continued) '10700 3
BOARD EXAMINATION
- 4. BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: 10894 5 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRY: 10895 6 ,
BOARD EXAMINATION 7 BY. JUDGE COLE: 10912 8 BOARD EXAMINATION BY JUDGE CALLIHAN: 10915
.9 CROSS EXAMINATION
~
10 BY MR. MILLER: 10916 11 RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. GUILD: 10925 3 }
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 i
i-24 C) 25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 ,
10674 f
l' EXHIBIT INDEX 2 Marked Received 3 Intervenors' Exhibit No. 92' -10706 10706 4 Intervenors' Exhibit No. 93 10707 -10713 5- Intervenors' Exhibit No. 94 10714 10718 6 Intervenors' Exhibit No. 95 10722 10723 7 Intervenors' Exhibit No. 96 10723 10912 8.
9 10 11 12 13
-14 15 16-17 18 19-20 21 22-23-24 25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 cuun -
10675
%.)
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: The' hearing is' reconvened..
2 This is the --
3 JUDGE COLE: 53rd.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- 53rd day of hearing.-
5 We ended yesterday's hearing with the question of 6 disclosure of documents in possession of Intervenors, 7 which they receivedLanonymously and which they are 8 willing to disclose', to at least a certain extent,'under 9 protective order.
10 I do want to correct two things that appeared, that 11 I said yesterday, one being-the necessity to produce the fs 12- . documents or to show the documents to the witness before U 13 the witness is questioned on the document.
14 'On further reflection I really don't think that 15- that is a necessity. If.the-documents are already-16 within the universe of documents known by the witness, 17 there is no need to produce the docunents in advance; 18 and if they are not within the ken of the witness and 19 the spontaneous answer that the witnesc has not seen 20 that document, I don't think would constitute trial by 21 ambush.
22- Especially in light of the fact that these are, at 23 least predominantly, if not exclusively, Staff documeats-24' we are talking about, if they hadn't been brought to tae
- 25 attention of a Staff witness, maybe they should have
( ])
Sonntag Reporting Service, _ Ltd.
VenOVa, __
1111n015 DU1J4 (312) 232-0262
A 10676 k_[
1 ~been if they are relevant to the case.
2 So I will depart from what I said yesterday on that 3 score.
4 The second thing is I didn't mean to indicate that 5 the Staff couldn't appoint its own spokesman to present-6' its case.
7 What I meant was that in doing so,.the Staff could 8 not exclude any other Staf f people who, in fairness, 9 ought to be heard, for having differing opinions,
-t 10 whether they would fit under the category of dissenting 11 opinions or differing professional . opinions or having 73 12 merely differences that reflect on the character of-the
' V 13 Staff's investigations, to the extent that they are 14 relevant.
15 Of course, under the rules the Staff can appoint 4
16 its spokesman; but it can't shield entirely its 17 operations f rom scrutiny.
, 18 Now, Mr. Berry, I think we put the ball in your 19 court as to whether you could voluntarily enter into a 20 protective order.
21 MR. BERRY: Yes. Thank you, your Honor.
. 22 Before I respond to that, I would just like to 23 -
address, just briefly, the two points that the Chairman 24 made.
(} 25 I agree as to the documents -- Staff documents -- i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10677 4
N 1 -th'at are within the possession and control of the Staff, 2 there is an obligation of the trial lawyer, the Staff-3 trial lawyer, to prepare his witness for that, to make 4 those documents available and known to the witnesses if 5 it appears that they may be helpful in preparing them 6 for their examination.
7 We would just like to point out, though, that all 8 documents -- in particular I have reference to 9 Inte rvenor Exhibit 90 -- are, quote, not, quote, Staff 10 documents.-
11 Staff counsel, as I indicated yesterday, had never s 12 seen this document.
] 13 I have consulted with other members of the Staff in 14 .the Regional Offices; and, to my knowledge, they were 15 not aware of this document.
16 As I indicated yesterday, this appears to be a.
17 private communication between the author and the 18 recipient.
I 19 There is no indication it had been circulated to 20 any other individual within the NRC; and except for the 21 fact that it's written on NRC letterhead, this document, 22 I could categorize it as a private communication between-23 two individuals.
24 The only reason I bring this up is that there may
.() 25 be certain documents that, nominally, we could Sonntag Reporting Service, _ Ltd.
Ueneva, Illinois 6u134 (312) 232-0262
10678
,O 1 categorize as Staff documents, that I think ought,-in 2 fairness, be disclosed to a witness; and I would think 3_ _that Intervenor Exhibit . 90 would fall within that 4 category.
5 But, in general, documents'that are known and 6 available to Staff counsel and the Staff, I don't 7 believe -- I agree with the' Board. There shouldn't be 8 any obligation on any other party to disclose those 9 documents to a witness before they can ask. questions on 10 them.
11 The other point is: I also agree with the Chairman 7s 12 that it is the Staf f's prerogative to present the
-() 13 witnesses which in its opinion are best able to present 14 its case; but we have no right, we have no power, to 15 preclude the other witnesses from testifying if they 16 wanted to.
17 As I'have indicated before,-we haven't sought.to do 18 that. We haven't tried to prevent any witness, any 19 member of the Staff, from testifying or giving evidence 20 in this case if they want to. So that is just for 21 clarification.
22: As far as the protective order, I have consulted 23 with my colleagues in the office of the General Counsel 24 and I am informed that Staff would be amenable to
() 25 receiving the documents under a protective order.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10679 V
'l I believe that' there were previous protective 2 orders issued in this case in which the Staff has 3 received documents f rom the Intervenor, and it's my 4 information that a similar arrangement would be 5 acceptable here.
6 In particular, what I am. referring'to is, you'will 7 recall at the sessions that we held in Kankakee, I 8- believe that Intervenors had some documents that they 9 produced in camera to the Commission and later disclosed.
10 to the Applicant. Staff requested access to the same-
- 11. information and it was provided.
- ~ - 12- We entered into a protective order, whereby.
13 disclosure would be restricted to counsel; and in the 14 event Staff counsel deemed it necessary to disclose that 15 information to the technical members of the Staff 16 because it may bear on matters within their purview, 17 that we would seek leave of the Board and notify the 18 Board before we would do that.
19 We have no objection to agreeing to a similar 20 arrangement here.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Now, I would ask ycu, 22 by the way, not to mail any of these documents to Mr.
23 Treby, who, I would assume, would want to be party to
-24 that protective order. Whatever you have to show him, I
(} 25 would like to have hand carried.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, 1111nois bu134 (312) 232-0262
10680 1 Strange things happen in the mail' rooms in 2 government.
3 MR. BERRY: That is fine. The documents will.
4 not be in my possession.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Miller, I take it you 6 have no problem with the' protective order?
[ 7 MR. MILLER: Well, your Honor, as I mentioned 8 yesterday, assuming that the documents have remained 9 confidential to the Intervenors and have not been 10 disclosed to other members of the public, I will agree 11 to a protective order.
12 If they have, in fact, been disclosed to members of F
O 13 the public, then I will not agree to a protective order.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You have consulted with your
]
15 client and your client is in favor of full disclosure of 16 all of those documents.
17 MR. MILLER: Absolutely, yes, sir.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild, what do you say i 19 about that?
20 MR. GUILD: My position hasn't changed, 21 Judge.
22 Mr. Miller's exception or caveat is one that 23 swallows any possible protection; and I simply can't 24 accept a protective order that has an escape clause for i
() 25 Mr. Mille r, as he seems to insist.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ge~neva,-- IITDiolii 6DIT4 (312) 232-0262
l l
10681 i g-
\_)
1 MR. MILLER : W ell, it's not an escape clause, 2 your Honor.
3 I think that the parties and the Board are entitled 4 to a representation from Intervenors that these 5 documents have, in fact, been maintained confidential 6 and not disclosed, as they see fit, to members of the 7 press, other members of the public and withheld f rom the 8 aoard and the parties to this case. That's all the 9 representation that I am asking for.
-10 If that representation is made, then I will 11 certainly agree to a protective order; but if it is not, 12 then I don't see why we should be limited in our use of 13 the documents, when the Intervenors have, apparently, 14 unlimited discretion as to whom and under what 15 circumstances the documents are disclosed.
16 MR. GUILD: Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I am not --
17 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Well, the documents are 18 Intervenors' documents.
19 My feeling is that we are looking at the practical R2 0 consequences and I don't want to get bogged down with Il technical rules of waiver.
27 If, in fact, the reporters are sworn to 23 confidentiality and to the satisfaction of Intervenor so 24 tha t, as a practical matter, there is no dissemination
() 25 to the public, I don't want to get stuck on a technical S on n t a g_ Rep _o r_t in gle_ryi cA_htd .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10682 f.s b
l' waiver position where we then say, "Well, that is 2 equivalent to full public dissemination," when, in fact, 3 it isn't.
4 I mean, there is, nevertheless, an attempt'at 5 maintaining confidentiality and why should we go ahead 6 and breach that, considering what the consequences are, 7' consequences being exposure of a whistle blower, which t 8 we are not going to participate in.
9 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, I guess I am a 10 little bit puzzled as to where the power over protection 11 of individuals who seek redress for being whistle 12 blowers lies.
Os 13 This Board is a duly constituted Board of the 14 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has obligations 15 with respect to seeing to it that the regulations of the 16 Commission .are upheld, including 50.7 and others.
17 The notion that it is Intervenors who should have
-18 the discretion as to whether and under what 19 circumstances these documents are disclosed to the
- 20 public, that it is their representation that these r
i 21 documents are being maintained confidential, that is of 22 determinative weight in the Board's deliberations, is 23 something that, frankly, I can't understand.
,. 24 The thought that by disclosing these documents,
() 25 which have, apparently, been disclosed to a member of Sonntag Reporting S_e rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10683 p
L) 1 the press,:in a public forum, with a sitting Board that 2 is able to take, in my judgment, whatever action is 3L necessary to protect this- individual, is simply - I 4 can't fathom it, because it seems to me that.what1the 5 alte rnative the . Chairman is suggesting will lead .to is 6 that at a time and place of Intervenors' choosing,.the 7 documents will be disclosed; and, in fact, we will then 8 be scrambling to keep up.
. 9 I- don't think .that we should be hostage to the whim 10 of the Intervenors, when, for whatever purpose, they.see i
11 fit to disclose the documents.
7s 12 This Board has adequate powers,-it seems to me, to
, 's ~
13 both regulate discovery in the case, which is its
. 14 obligation, and to protect any interest of any 15 ' individual that is coming forward.
16 Indeed, I am a little bit puzzled by all of this, 17 because, apparently, the source is anonymous; and I have i
18 not heard Mr. Guild state on the record that the 19 anonymous: communications included a plea for withholding 20 of the documents, only that the documents were received
] 21 anonymously.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, Mr. Miller, I wish the 23 Board did have the powers to protect that you attribute i to us; but I don't believe that practically we do have 24
() 25 all that.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10684 x_/
1 I don't know what positions or what organizations 2 the whistle- blowers are in, but I doubt that our powers 3 to protect are absolute and universal.
4- Now,-the question of whether Intervenors should 5 have the right to disclose documents, those are 6 Intervenor documents, which-they are attempting to 7 protect in order to protect ~the sources.
8 I think they are somewhat equivalent to requests we 9 have all the time from utilities for protection of' 10 proprietary information. Of course, it's the utility
'll itself that has the interest in protection and not the other parties; and the utility, of course, at any time
-v (4 )
=12 13 ~ could publicly disclose what it seeks at that moment to 14 protect as proprietary information.
15 So I don't see that it's unfair for a party to seek 16 to protect its own documents, especially when it is in 17 the interests of protecting its sources.
18 Now, I don't question that at some time in the 19 future the _Intervenor may wish to publish the document i 20 when the source of the document is no longer under
'21 threat of retaliation, just as a company may wish to in 22 some future time disclose what it has as proprietary l
, 23 information at a certain time.
24 I don't think that entering into the protective
()
25 order precludes a company from in the future determining l
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10685 k ,,,b 1 that the matter doesn't need any. protection because of a 2 proprietary interest.
3 So I don't see that as being an argument that is 4 really valid -- '
5 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, I -- ,
i 6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: --
in this case.
7 The point is I think we ought to protect whatever 8 the sources are in the interests of encouraging,-for one 9 thing, sources to make known what is important to the -
10 public interest or what they consider important to the 11 public interest; but you certainly can --
g, 12 MR. MILLER: Well, your Honor, I'think there-
~
. 13 is an important distinction between the company's i
14 protection of any proprietary matters, which certainly 15 hasn't arisen in this proceeding but which does 16 occasionally arise; and that is if the company discloses 17 .those proprietary matters to an outsider, it is deemed 18 to have waived any claim of confidentiality. That is my 19 only point here.
20 These documents have been disclosed to a member not 21 of the Intervenor organizations, nor of Intervenors' 22 counsel, but a third person.
23 Now, apparently, a promise has been extracted f rom 24 that person; but I don't believe that that makes any 25 difference at all. The --
{ }.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10686 a
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, that's why I say, Mr.
2 Miller, I don't want to get stuck on technical questions 3 of waive r.
4 I am sure proprietary information that companies 5 seek to preclude disclosure of is shown to someone along 6 the line in furtherance of the company's operations or 7 the company's business, who may not actually be in the 8 company, consultants or people that can assist the 9 company in some form or another; and I don't want to get 10 hung up on technical rules.
11 To my way of thinking, as long as the attempt is
, , 12 made to preclude dissemination to the public at large,
( )
13 there is a certain amount of or a certain extent of 14 confidentiality that has been given to the document by 15 the company in a proprietary matter or in this case by 16 the Intervenor to those documents.
17 It's only to that extent that we are attempting to 18 preclude further dissemination.
19 N ow , I don't know that you can fit everything into 20 a neat category; that once you disclose to a limited 21 audience, that it's total disclosure to everyone of 22 eve rything . I am just saying that that appears to me to 23 be a very technical rule. .
24 What we are dealing w.th is a limited area of
(} 25 disclosure, that is to the public at large.
Sonntag Reporting Service _, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~- - - . . _
10687 r,
, k) 1 I don't believe that there has been dissemination 2 of these documents to the public at large.-
3 Now, we are talking about a protective order that 4 -would preclude that.
5 Now, if there has been an act which amounts to 6 disclosure to the public at large, well, that's right, I 7 believe there would be a waiver; but I don't think we 8 ought to get hung up on a technical interpretation.or a 9 technical' argument of waiver, because there has been a i
10 limited disclosure within what Intervenor considers to 11 be its operations according tolwhat its principles are q 12 and its mode-of operations, b 13 So I don't think that the argument being' made of a 14 technical waiver to someone who-has.been sworn to 15 confidentiality -- and, apparently, is maintaining that 16 confidentiality -- amounts to waiver..
17 MR. MILLER: Well, your Honor, I will just ,
18 observe that the notion that a member of the press, 19 whose, after all, occupation is the preparation and 20 dissemination of the news to the public at large, is j 21 somehow analogous to a consultant to a corporation that 22 is maintaining proprietary information seems to me to be 23 inapposite; and I would urge the Chairman not to issue a l 24 protective order, since these documents are, apparently, 1
() 25 in the hands of a member of the press.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
, ueneva, 111inois 60T34 (312) 232-0262
10688 I )
v 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I don't see that 2 disclosure to an investigatory reporter is in any way 3 outside of the operations of the Intervenor group. I 4 think it's part and parcel of what their operations are 5 all about.
6 Now, I don't -- you are assuming now, I believe, 7 Mr. Mille r, that the dissemination to the reporter was 8 for the purpose of publishing the documents.
9 I would guess that it was for the purpose of 10 furthering any investigation that the reporter may wish 11 to make in those areas and that the document itself 3 12 would not be published but would of fer leads to the
? ;
13 reporter.
14 Maybe I am mistaken on that, but we will let Mr.
15 Guild talk about that.
16 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, the notion that the 17 Chicago Tribune is a part of the Intervenor organization 18 and that this Board extends its protections to the 19 operations of BPI in terms of its campaign against the 20 Braidwood plant, wherever it takes place, I object to.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: No. First of all, I am not 22 assuming that what it professes to have as its rationale 23 and its raison d'etre is actually the case. That's not 24 part of our inquiry.
l (~)
U 25 But I don't see anything inconsistent with what it l
Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10689 m
1 claims as its basis for existence in its turning over 2 those documents to an investigatory reporter, an 3 investigative renorte r.
4 If it were totally inconsistent with its operations 5 or even partially inconsistent, maybe we could assume 6 that there has been a disclosure to the public or an 7 attempt to disclose to the public rather than a 8 furtherance of its operations; but it doesn't seem to me 9 to be inconsistent. It seems to fit within the 10 framework of what the organization claims to be 11 dedicated to, at least in this type of proceeding.
rs 12 It may also be involved in rate matters and other
'~'
13 things; but as far as we know, its existence right now 14 is dedicated to the safety matters that are involved in 15 the hearing here; and I don't think we want to attempt 16 to question motives as far as they are professed by a 17 pa r ty .
18 MR. MILLER: Well, your Honor, I really have 19 spoken on this at length and I will stop but I just have 20 one final point to make; and that is this:
21 The purpose of this hearing, after all, is to 22 determine whether or not Braidwood is to be granted an 23 ope ra ting license. There is a specific contention that 24 deals with alleged harassment and intimidation of QC
(~) 25 Inspectors. These documents are relevant to it, v
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ,
veneva, 11T11r013 60114 (312) 232-0262
n ,
-10690
- N,.]
1 It does not seem to me that disclosure of these 2 documents to a member of the press is necessarily in.
3 furtherance of the aims of the organization, BPI or the 4 Intervenors, in this proceeding; and I suggest.that it 5 is the aims of the organization within the four corners-6 of this proceeding that ought to be the focus of the 7 analysis as to whether the documents ought to be turned 8 over.
9 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, at some point, 10 before the Board makes a decision, I would like to be 11 heard.
gg 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine. Why don't we G 13 hear all the parties on this?
14 Mr. Guild.
15 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, let me just put 16 this in a little bit of perspective.
17 First, the only reason'we are here is because of 18 information that has come to BPI's attention f rom 19 sources that are anonymous, from whistle blowers.
20 DNe would not have known about the 24 inspectors or 21 about any complaints of harassment at L. K. Comstock if 22 we had to rely solely on the published reports of the 23 Nuclear Regulatory Commission or information from 24 Commonwealth Edison Company or information that was
(} 25 otherwise public.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10691-
[v) l' . We got an anonymous tip and'that anonymous tip'was 2- the subject of what Mr. Miller alluded to earlier --
3 Counsel, Mr. Berry, alluded to earlier, the transmittal 4 in' camera to the Commissioners earlier this year.
5 That's what got us in this case in the first~ place.
6 So, frankly, it's apparent -- and.it should be.
7 apparent to Mr. Miller and I' believe on'some reflection 8 he would agree -- that the only reason.that we are able
- 9. to litigate this case is because we rely on sources of 10 .information that are people who are motivated to bring 11 to light information they think is otherwise not being f3 12 fully considered and they bring it to our attention.
~
11 3 It's our life blood, of an organization litigating 14 an issue such as this, is to get information from 15 persons who wish to, apparently, remain confidential.
16 Indeed, the role of the press is critical to our 17 ability to adequately ferret out further information in 18 support of our case; and we have made that point to this 19 Board before.
20 To the extent these proceedings are conducted 21 behind closed doors and effectively out of the public's 22 scrutiny, persons who may have knowledge of relevant 23 facts will not know that those facts are of interest to 24 anyone, will not have any basis for being spurred to 25 come forward to of fer evidence in this. proceeding.
f)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, lilinois 5~0TI4 (312) 232-0262
c: -
f L
L 10692 1 That is another key source of information, is 2 people who, as we have seen in this case so far, may 3 read an occasional press treatment of these proceedings 4 or these issues and they be spurred to consider how 5 their knowledge and their information fits into the 6 larger picture.
7 It should go without saying that being able to 8 pursue these facts by a variety of means that are not 9 the same kinds of techniques available to Commonwealth 10 Edison Company or the NRC Staff is critical.
11 We don't have a team of investigators. We don't 12 have a team of enginee rs. We don't have free access to 13 the principals. We have to rely, therefore, on these 14 other sources of information.
15 Let me be clear: In this particular instance I 16 can't make any binding commitments on behalf of an 17 investigative reporter or the press. I simply am unable 18 to do that.
19 I can only tell you that I believe that it is 20 consistent with the interests of my client and also with 21 the interests of this unknown source of this 22 information, about whom I must make some judgments and 23 some surmises that are not necessarily anything beyond
. 24 that, to protect that person's identity f rom those who, v
) 25 I believe, are the most likely source of potential Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 1
n - , ;,
y a a
_s
$a vs
- y. o jf; y I I ,
- x 10693 mo $h ,p ;'
4%
_ ; ;Y ,e A g, t, i ,
g . .
.j 4
- f. , -(3 \ !
1 retaliation. , ;\- r 6.,a 2' It'sajudgmentonmh~FarL;hnt;-trankly,that 9
. sa .
3 % -judgment is that the most likely sources of retaliation if L4- ,
are from Applicant's organization a'nd f' rom the ,
g',1 'A b -
5 , l.
organization of the NRC Staf f. I f\ .c s-t \ ); Ai; Thht's my judgment, and it may.not be supported by 6 ,
L 7
anything,}more than surmise on my 'part; but it is, .(
R.
O 4 8 indeed, critical that identifying information,(if it's. ~ y v
9 G to be disseminated to ;the parties in this proceeding,. be p
10 ,L
'i u; <; limited as I propode within a protective order N to p . ;h o.
o ,-
11- t' ' counsel, because those counsel are subject-to the s ,,y .
n >.
12 +- ; control of this body and~they are subject to their oath.
n):
('"
4 X, .st 13 Q- It 's on a quite di'f ferent footing that disclosures, "
A <v 14 h if any, are made to an investigative-rep'o iter, indeed, D o j c, 15- 11( because that investigative reporter, once you;just
.s sqq ,. 1, q -
surmise, has an interest not }b exposing sources but in
'I 16f/ v .
B 17 encouraging sources as well, cources that are not me,
'18 sources that are not my, documents'but scarces that are 19 in furtherance of its other invesfigative methods.
-20 So I am really back to ,the point where I started; 21 and that is, Judgd, I can't' make any guarantees about 22 ( the information that I can't' control.
2 3. - All I can;say is I think that the judgments that n '
24' 'i i',
this counsel andsother counsel for Intervenors have made Q
b 25
'are proper. All I can say is we think they*are in the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Y veneva, Illinois 60134 No (312) 232-0262 i~
-. - - -, -~. . - , . , - . . , , ~ . . , - , , _
10694
,3 XJ 1 best interests of protecting the source from 2 retaliation. 'We are willing to disseminate this
-3 information unde r : a protective order.
4 But the alternative is not using the information at
'S all; and I think all of us suf fer if we don't, because I
- 6 think that this is important evidence that.is of:the 7 same character as'the evidence'that brought us in_this 8 proceeding in the first place.
9 I am certainly willing to discuss particulars of' a
~
10' protective order with other parties, with other counsel.
11 I think we have some time. We are going to be s s 12 concluding this week's session tomorrow'and we. won't be-r
'~'
)
13 reconvening for another week. So I think there is time 14 to work out the details.
15 I don't anticipate using any further documents of 16: this character today, so I don't think it's a matter 17 that has to be resolved immediately; but I would urge 11 8 the Board to issue a protective order and under the 19 terms that we have discussed.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Is there anything further?
-21 MR. BERRY: Yes.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Berry.
23 MR. BERRY: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
24 I will just address briefly one of the points that
/~T . 25' Mr. Guild made with respect to that the public wouldn't
\-)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
9 4
10695 n
i f l ~know about these documents,: about the matter which we
- 2 Lare litigating in-this proceeding, were it not for the
'. 3 LNRC Staff.
4- I just: point out'that, for" example, the witnesses-5 fon ~the stand issued -a report.
1 That report'was made
~
6 public.. It was-made public~and_ avail'able'to all-: members-7 of the public.
8 Of course, dur'ing the pendency of the
'9 . investigation, NRC didn't issue a press release. RNe
-10 don't issue press releases-when individuals come?to us 111 -in confidence, but it's not true.that the public would not ever:have known about it were itLnot.for the-IO: ;.12- 13 Intervenors.
14 The other point,- just getting back to .the
.15 - protective order, the Staf f's interest in this 16- proceeding is safety and the quality:of the Braidwood 17 site. We have no interest'in other matters-relating to 18 Commonwealth Edison and the Intervenors, rate-making-19_ proceedings, things of that nature. That is just not i 20 our interest.
p L 21 We wouldn't publish, we wouldn't widely disclose or.
22 disseminate any of the information that we would receive 23 from Intervenors, Applicants or anyone that provides
~24 information to the NRC if it wasn't necessary. I don't
(
l'
(} 25 anticipate that, even assuming there were no protective l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
! ueneva, Illinois oviae l- (312) 232-0262 l
C .
o-10696 q.
V 1 order issued in this case, that the NRC Staff would
- 2 disclose -- would publish, would publish -- these
- 3. documents.
4 But I do think if, for example, an investigative 5 reporter -- these documents appear in .a newspaper or <on 6 television or so, that I would think, at least with 7 respect to that particular document, that I would be 8 inclined to agree with Mr. Miller -- and I think as the 9 Judge indicated earlier -- that, certainly, there should 10 be no restriction of protection attached to that 11 document any longer; but until then, -so far as I know,
-12 these documents have not found their way into print or
'~'
13 broadcast; and I think for our' purposes now that we 14 receive the-information subject to whatever protective 15 terms that the Board and the parties were to agree upon 16 if the Board were to issue; and in the event it's such 17 that Intervenors later disclose that document to the 18 public, then the protections with respect to that, those 19 particular documents, should be lifted.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, certainly. I don't want 21 anyone to construe my remarks as suggesting that the 22 protective order would remain in effect as to any 23 document that is otherwise publicly disclosed. So, 24 certainly, that is part of it.
25 Why don't we take a break now?
{[
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
a- 10697 p
(.)
11 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which 2- the hearing was resumed as follows:)
3-- JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. We have decided that
-4 we would go along with a protective order as discussed 5' here, at least initially, in which the information is.
6 restricted to the trial counsel; but, of course, any
- 7. pa r ty that feels that there has to be wider 8 dissemination can always come to the Board'and-request 9 that that be done or, at least, informally request of 10 the Intervenor, who has that information, to allow it to.
11 be released.
,y 12- Now, I would expect that there will not be the u >
13 necessity to come to the Board with regard to 14 dissemination of the actual facts stated in those 15 documents; and my understanding is that Intervenor is 16 not that concerned about the facts themselves being 17 disseminated, although that is under the protective
.18 order until agreement is made between the parties or 19 some order is entered into by the Board.
20 My understanding is that the primary concern is the
'21 disclosure of the document itself, which would, perhaps, 22 lead to a source; and that is the main concern. I may 23 be mistaken on that; but, of course, the entirety of 24 those documents would be under protective order; but 25 whatever the parties can reach agreement on themse]ves,
-( }
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
5 Geneva, 1111nois 6U134 (312) 232-0262
r:
10698
(^5 y/
1 they don't have to come to the Board for.
2 M.R . GUILD: ' Judge, I think that is correct.
3 I think that our concern is the documents
~
4 themselves and identifying information that may be 5 contained in them.
6 I certainly envision being able to agree in between 7- the parties as to the facts that are contained in the 8 documents that are'not identifying in character -- and 9 we can agree informally -- those that we can agree can 10 be more formally disseminated.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine.
. f-s 12 JUDGE CALLIHAN: I don't think it's clear-
~U 13 from what he said. I think it ought-to be repeated.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Just to repeat that as_far 15 as the extent of our order, we are including the 16 entirety of the documents subject to any further 17 agreement by the parties.
18 It wasn't clear to my fellow Board Member that we 19 were saying that and I just want to make that clear for 20 the record.
21 Of course, we are assuming that we will receive 22 those documents, too; but that was the underlying basis 23 for this entire discussion.
24 Now that we have concluded on this, we can go on to
(} 25 the --
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
c- 1 10699 )
l us i
Mr. Chairman.
1 MR. BERRY:
2 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Mr. Berry.
3 M R. BERRY: Just a couple of matters that I 4 would like to bring to the Board's attention before we 5 resume.
6 First is throughout the proceeding the Board has 7 indicated on a number of occasions that they would like 8 to hear testimony from the Staff on particular matters.
9 One that comes to mind is the instances in which a stop 10 work should be issued, when a nonconformance is 11 identified. There are others.
12 We planned to address the Board's questions and 13 concerns and we are going to do that. We are hopeful of 14 filing prefiled testimony.
15 To my understanding, Mr. Schapker will supplement 16 his earlier prefiled testimony to contain that; and we 17 are hopeful to have that available to the parties before 18 Mr. Schapker takes the stand.
f 19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine. We appreciate that.
20 MR. BERRY: Also, we, the Staff, also plan to 21 present Mr. Weil as a witness in this proceeding and we 22 are in the process of preparing prefiled testimony for 23 Mr. Well, also.
24 I don't anticipate that he will testify before we 25 resume the week after next; and we are hopeful and we
(])
< Sonntag_Repotting_ Service,_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
e 10700
/~i L.;
l- plan to make copies of his prefiled testimony-available 2 to the Board and to the parties well in advance of his 3 appearance as well.
- 4. JUDGE GROSSMAN: Thank you, Mr. Berry.
5 Now we can resume with Mr. Guild's Cross 6 Examination of~the witnesses.
7 MR. GUILD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
8 Good morning, gentlemen.
9 BY MR. GUILD:
10 0 When we were concluding yesterday, I was examining you 11 with respect to what has been received.in evidence as 12 Intervenors' Exhibit 91.
13 It's a September,1984, memo f rom Mr. Schulz, the 14 then resident at Braidwood, to Mr. Forney, his Section 15 Chief, documenting some concerns expressed to him at
'16 that time by a number of Comstock QC Inspectors.
17 You testified you had not seen this document 18 before. Mr. Mendez, I believe your testimony was that 19 you had not discussed the specifics with Mr. Schulz 20 about prior problems that Comstock had had that had been 21 brought to CECO's attention, problems alluded to in his 22 March 29th memo.
23 Do you recall that testimony?
24 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That's right, yes.
() 25 Q Now, again, the Intervenors' Exhibit 91, the September l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.~
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~
~
T T
-(pj 10701
- 1 ~- _ 25, 1984,: memo makes the points.'that there was a~ general
~
2u problem with low morale,..a concern about potential work:
~3. performance effects in the future from this=10w morale;
-4 . and if you look at' the paragraph _ numbered 4 on the first-5 .page, there is a reference to a general feeling of 1
6 intimidation by :R. LM. -Saklak and L. G. Seese toward QC
- 7. Inspectors' interest in quantity at the expense of-
'8 - adequate job performance.-
9 Do you see those references,. Mr. Mendez?
10 A -(WITNESS MENDEZ)'Yes.
11 0' .W ere you' aware of'any complaints dating back.to the' 12 Septembe r, '84, time-frame of intimidation by Saklak and 13 Seese at the time you began your inspection activities 14 in April of 19857 15 A' (WITNESS MENDEZ) Not before March 29, 1985.
16 Q All right, sir. Now, the second page of the memo, 17 Exhibit 91, states, " Tapes were made during the 18 conversation, have been submitted to William Porney.
19 Tapes were made with the" --
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me. I am not 21 entirely clear as to what the answer intended to the 122 prior question.
23 Were you saying that you were not aware at the time 24 you conducted the investigation of the prior complaints 25 or are you saying that you were not aware prior to your
(}
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
! Geneva, Illinois 60174 j' . (312) 232-0262
, 10702 f~3 V
1 conducting the investigation of the-prior complaints, 2 which is an entirely different matter?
3 Perhaps I' didn't grasp the whole question. I 4 assume the question was: Were you aware at the time you 5 conducted your investigation of prior complaints?
6~ A (WITNESS'MENDEZ) I think the question was about 7 intimidation by Rick 'Saklak.
, 8 MR. GUILD: Saklak and Seese.
9 A -(WITNESS MENDEZ) And Seese.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Prior complaints about Mr.
11 Saklak, yes.
12 A (WITNESS MENDEZ)'Before March ~29th I had no knowledge of 13 who Rick Saklak was or if he intimidated anyone.
14 MR. GUILD: I see. Well, I appreciate the 15 clarification, Judge. Let me follow up.
16 BY'MR. GUILD:
17 Q During the course of your investigation, Mr. Mendez, 18 were you aware of complaints against Saklak and Seese 19 going back to the September, 1984, time frame?-
20 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I wasn't.
21 Q All right, sir. Now, then, Page 2 of the document 22 reflects that tapes were made of the conversation with 23 the consent of the five named Comstock QC Inspectors and 24 that those tapes were submitted to Mr. Forney, the
'25 Section Chief.
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10703 s_
%_/
1 Are you aware, as you sit here today, Mr. Mendez, 2 that there were tape recordings made of those September, 3 1984, complaints by Comstock inspectors?
4 A- (WITNESS MENDEZ) I was not.
5 0 Are you aware today, aside from looking at the document?
6 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No.
7 0 I take it that your management did not bring to your 8 attention that they had records of interviews with these 9 five inspectors dating back to September, 1984?
10 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That's correct.
11 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I might inquire,
- 12 while we are on this point, whether or not Staff counsel
'~
13 is aware of such tapes and whether or not, if he is, 14 such tapes might be made available to the parties.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. For the purpose of 16 your receiving the tapes?
17 MR. GUILD: Indeed, indeed,.
18 JUDGF GROSSMAN: I don't want to inquire into 19 the inner workings of Staff counsel.
20 Do you have tapes or know of tapes that could be 21 made available, that are discussed here, to Intervenors 22 and Applicant?
23 MR. BERRY: No, I don't, your Honor; but I 24 will look into it and report back to the Board what I
/^') 25 find out.
LJ Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
c;:
H 10704 k,)
- 1 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, the record should 2 reflect, of course, that,Intervenors' Exhibit 91', which -
3 ' bea rs a number in the lower 'right-hand corner ' 0119-1, 4 was one of the. documents that were made available.
5 recently by the NRC Staff,'this month,,in any event, in 6 discovery.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And, in addition ~to-the 8 tapes, I assume any transcription of the tapes would fit' 9- into that category.
10 BY MR. GUILD:
11 0 The final paragraph of the memorandum, Mr. Mendez, 12 . recites that Commonwealth Edison site management was
'~'
13 made aware of the morale and intimidation issues as they 14 were on two previous recent occasions but were not made 15 aware of the individuals that expressed the concerns.
16- At the time you conducted your inspection 17 activities, Mr. Mendez,-were you aware that Commonwealth 18 Edison Company management had'been made aware on the 19 September occasion of complaints by QC Inspectors of 20 poor morale and, apparently, on two-previous occasions?
21 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No.
22 O Mr. Mendez, I am going to show you a document that bears 23 a n umbe r 00119-2 in the lower right-hand corner.
24 Again, it's another one of the documents that were 25 recently disclosed by the Staf f. It has a form on the L(])
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
_ . _ _ _ _ - , . _ _ _ _ ,._ , _ . _ _ , . _ ~ _ _ - , _ . _ _ , _ _ . _ _._
10705 1 first page entitled, " Outgoing transmission service L2- request," and then there is a one-paragraph memo second 3 page.
4 It appears to be from Mr. Schulz, the then site 5 resident, to Mr. Forney, Decembe r - 28, 1984.
6 If you would look at the second page, the document-7 appears to reflect that Mr. .Schulz, indeed, did meet 8 with Commonwealth Edison Company personnel, the Project 9 Manager and the Construction Superintendent to discuss 10 intimidation and harassment.
. 11 Edison, in turn, appears by the document from Mr.
g- 12 Schulz to have met with the Comstock management.
13 First, have you seen the memo from Schulz to, 14 apparently, Bill Forney?
15 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I haven't seen it.
16 0 Were you aware that Schulz met with Mr. Wallace and Mr.
17 Shamblin, the Project Construction Superintendent, to 18 discuss intimidation and harassment issues at Comstock 19 in the December,1984, time frame?
20 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No.
21 Q Mr. Neisler, I didn't mean to leave you out, sir.
22 Were you aware of the September,1984, complaints 23 by Comstock inspectors to the NRC of harassment and 24 intimidation that are reflected in Intervenors' Exhibit 25 91?
O).
x-i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10706 1 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No, I am not.
2 Q I take it you weren't aware of them at the time of your 3 inspection activities, sir?
4 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No.
5 0 Were you aware of Mr. Schulz's communication to Edison 6 management on what appeared to be three occasions up 7 until as of September,19847 8 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I was not.
9 0 Were you aware of Mr. Schulz's December,1984, 10 communication with Mr. Wallace and Mr. Shamblin about 11 intimidation and harassment?
,- 12 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No.
13 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that 14 the document transmittal slip and the one paragraph memo 15 from Mr. Schulz to Mr. Forney be marked and received in 16 evidence as Intervenors' Exhibit 92.
17 (The document was thereupon marked la Intervenors' Exhibit No. 92 for 19 identification as of August 14, 1986.)
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Is there any objection?
21 MR. MILLER: No.
22 MR. BERRY: No objection.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Received.
24 (The document was thereupon received into 25 evidence as Intervenors' Exhibit No. 92.)
( })
Sonntag Rep _or t ing Se rvice.,_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10707- t
.l 1 BY'MR. GUILD:
'2 0 .All'right, sir. Moving.a little-further in this series, ,
3' I will show you .a document that bears a number in the 4- lower right-hand corner of 01193.
5 This is the third document in the. series recently 6 disclosed by the Staf f, September 13, 1985, memo, Weil 7 to Norelius.
Subject:
Alleged harassment and .
8 intimidation of L. K. Comstock Company Quality Control 9 Inspector at Braidwood.
10 Mr. Chairman, I would ask this document be marked 11 for identification as Intervenors' Exhibit 93.
12 (The document was. thereupon marked 13 Intervenors' Exhibit No. 93 for 14 identification as of August 14, 1986.)
15 BY MR. GUILD: -l 16 Q Now, I understand, gentlemen, that your inspection 17 activities were underway at the time this document ;
18 appears to have been prepared, Septembe r 13, 1985; is r 19 that right?
20 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, that's not correct.
21 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I was complete.
22 O You had completed your inspection but had not yet 23 published your report?
24 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes.
() 25 0 Your report was still pending publication, I guess?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
- Gentvr; TITinUtr60134 ~
(312) 232-0262
i
! 10708 i
1 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) In draft.
! 2 0 In draft, all right, sir.
3 Have you seen these documents before?
4 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I haven't.
5 Q Mr. Neisler?
6 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No.
I
! 7 Q All right, sir. Now, had you read the December 31, 8 1984, inspection report for Braidwood Station bearing 9 the numbe r 84-34, the portion containing the ~uoted 10 paragraph that appears in the body of Exhibit 93, the 11 language being, "On Septembe r 21 1984," et cetera?
7m 12 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No.
t !
~
13 Q Mr. Neisler?
14 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No.
15 0 All right, sir. Now, I take it at the time of your 16 inspection, when you conducted your inspection 17 activities, Mr. Mendez, you weren't aware of the 18 complaints by Mr. Seeders in August of 1984 regarding 19 harassment and intimidation and associated quality 20 conce rns?
21 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That's correct.
22 Q All right, sir. If you take a look at this series of 23 documents, there is a page at the end -- I am looking at 24 now Inte rvonors' 93 -- there is a form at the end that 25 bears the caption, " Employee personnel interview
( )
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Il linoi.s 6613~4 (312) 232-0262 L
W~
10709
(~N
\ )
1 statement, U. S. Department of Labor."
2 Have you ever seen that document before?
3 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I haven' t.
4 0 It has exclusions from it or expungements from it.
5 There are blacked out names, et cetera.
6 Were you aware, Mr. Mendez, at the time you 7 conducted your inspection activities of a complaint to 8 the U. S. Department of Labor in the fall of 1984 by a l 9 Mr. Worley Puckett, a former Level III Quality Control 10 Inspector at Cemstock?
11 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I was not.
(~w 12 Q Mr. Neisler, were you aware during your inspection d 13 activities?
14 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No, I was not.
15 0 All right. I submit to you, sir, that the attached --
16 as you sit here today, gentlemen, of course, you are 17 aware of Mr. Puckett and his complaints, are you not?
18 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes.
19 0 You have heard testimony in this proceeding about Mr.
20 Puckett, have you not?
l 21 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes.
22 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Yes.
l 23 0 All right, sir. I submit, gentlemen, that the third 24 page appears to be a statement given in Mr. Puckett's l
() 25 Department of Labor proceeding.
Sonntag Rep ~orting Service, ~ Ltd.
Geneva, Ill~1n61s 60134~
(312) 232-0262 L
10710 s
,e '
1 It bea rs a date of -- _well, it's a little hard to 2 read; but I think It's September 18,1984. Maybe it's 3 Octobe r 18, 1984, upper right-hand Lcorner.
4 And it appears from its context to be- a statement-5 of Mr. John Seede rs.
6 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, I object to the 7 characterization of this document by counsel.
8 These witnesses have, apparently, not seen the 9 document before.
10 I do have objections to the introduction, 11 certainly, of the third page of this document- and I f- 12 don't think that it's appropriate to characterize it for
(~)/ the record prior to the time that it's offered.
13 14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, of course, what Mr.
15 Guild is saying is not evidence. He is just indicating 16 that it appears to him.
17 But I am glad you brought it out, brought it to the 18 attention of the witnesses not to accept Mr. Guild's say 19 so as to who actually authored the document.
20 MR. GUILD: Indeed.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You understand that he is 22 suggesting that. You may agree or disagree with the 23 authorship as stated by Mr. Guild.
24 MR. GUILD: Indeed, I think that's
() 25 appropriate, Mr. Chairman, to say that.
! Sonntag Reportitg Service, Ltd.
Geneva, ITlinois 60T374~
! (312) 232-0262 1
f-I 10711 n\j 1 I didn't mean to suggest that it's established one
-2 way or-the other.
3 BY MR. GUILD:
4 Q But if you look at the first page of the document.there.
! 5 is a quote from the attached. statement, and that quote i
6 says, "I was asked to falsify documents by Comstock. I L 7 was asked to sign off on work other employees had done.-
8 When I refused, I was harassed and intimidated. 'I was 3 9 transferred to another department."
l l 10 I submit that those are concerns that are matters 11 of record expressed by Mr. Seeders in this proceeding; ,
7-q 17, but, be that as it may, were you aware that, at the time l
']
'~
13 you conducted your inspection activities, Mr. Mendez, 14 that there were concerns expressed by a Comstock 15 employee, expressions made in October of 1984 that a 16 Comstock inspector had been asked to falsify documents, 17 to sign off work other employees had done and, upon his 18 refusal, he was harassed, intimidated and transferred to 19 another department?
20 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I wasn't aware of Mr. Seeders or his l
21 allegations.
l 22 O Were you aware of allegations to that effect by anyone 23 made in the October, 1984, time frame, a Comstock QC 24 Inspector, Seeders or others?
i
(} 25 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Just a general allegation about Saklak l Sonntao Reporting Service,__Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134
! (312) 232-0262
10712
~
1 telling QC Inspectors to sign off NRC's.
- 2 Q All right, sir. Were you aware that anyone asserted
-3 that they had been asked to sign off work that other-4 employees had done, Mr. Mendez, as you conducted your 5 inspection activities?
6 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I was aware of the same, the same 7 Saklak-type intimidation allegation.
8 To sign off work other employees had.done, I don't 9 think so.
10 Q Okay. Mr. Neisler, did any such concerns come to your.
1 11 attention as you conducted your inspection activities?
i 12 (WITNESS NEISLER) If you mean previous allegations from
(-)
\m/
A 13 Seeders and other persons, no, I did not know of them.
14 0 All right. Well, I don't mean to limit it to Mr.
15 Seeders, because, of course, it isn't established as a 16 fact that this is Mr. Seeders' complaint.
4 17 But were you aware of any other Comstock inspectors 18 who made allegations to the effect that appear on the 19 bottom of Intervenors' 93, the September 13, 1985, Well 20 to Norelius memo? !
21 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I was not.
22 Q The second page recites that Weil wrote to the Alleger 23 and he discussed the matter with Pawlik, Mr. E. T.
24 Pawlik, of the Region OI Field Office, who agreed to l 25 this approach.
l (])
I Sonn tag _Repo r t ing_S e rvice.,_ktd .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 i
l 10713 I')
v 1 Were you aware of such an exchange between Wail and 2 Pawlik, either by way of this memo or otherwise,.in 3 September of 1985 as you were preparing your draft of 4 your inspection report.
5 Mr. Mendez ?
6 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I was not.
7 Q Mr. Neisler?
8 A (WITNESS NEISLER) In this instance, no.
9 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I would move the 10 admission of Intervenors' 93 in evidence, 11 MR. MILLER: Your Honor --
rg 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN Yes. I think we couldn't O 13 accept that unlimited.
14 Certainly, Mr. Miller has a right to obj ect to the 15 employee personal interview statement as being used to 16 prove the contents of that statement.
17 MR GUILD: Yes.
18 I don' t mean to of fer it for that purpose, Mr.
19 Chairman, just simply to reflect what the NRC Staff had 20 available to it at the time by way of its concerns.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: On that limited basis, we 22 will accept the Intervenors' Exhibit 93. It's received.
23 (The document was thereupon received into 24 evidence as Intervenors' Exhibit No. 93.)
() 25 DY MR. GUILD:
Sonntag Reporting Service, ~ Ltd.
Gineva, Illinois 60134 -
(312) 232-0262
10714
(~%
L) ~
'1, O Centlemen, to round out this series, I show you 0119-5, 2 a February 24, 1986, document.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I am sorry. This is 4 Intervenors' Exhibit 94; is that it?
5 MR. GUILD: Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman.
.6 (The document was thereupon marked 7 Inte rvenors' Exhibit No. 94 for 8 identification as of August 14, 1986.)
9 BY MR. GUILD:
10 0 Gentlemen, there is a long series of cc's there and I 11 see that, Mr. Mendez, you are down there on the list; 12 right?
O 13 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes.
14 Q Mr. Neisler, I don't see your name or I missed it.
~15 Mr. Neisler, do you recall seeing this document 16 before?
17 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No.
, 18 0 Mr. Mendez, do you remember getting it?
19 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I don't think so.
20- Q Mr. Pelke 's name appears on the signature block with the
'21 title Project Inspector.
22 What is Mr. Pelke's position, gentlemen, with 23 regard to the Braidwood Station?
24 A (WITNESS NEISLER) lie has a duty of and responsibility
(} 25 to, we will call it, track all items, both allegations, Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. -
uenmTa, 1111Niv 60134 (312) 232-0262
10715 L
I
(./
1 licensing procedures, inspections and'the general status 2 of the Braidwood site.
3 Q All right, sir. Is he resident at the site?
4 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No.
5 Q He works out of the Regional Office in Glen Ellyn?
6 A (WITNESS NEISLER) He is at region.
7 0 Mr. Mendez, do you recall seeing the document before at 8 any time?
9 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I don't remember seeing this.
I 10 0 The document recites some of the history we have just 11 talked about. There was an allegation, Schulz closed it 12 with Inspection Report 84032, the December, '84, b 13 inspection report.
14 It is noted the original allegation stated, "I 15 never did nor will I ever falsify documentation for 16 anyone or any reason," quote.
17 Had either of you gentlemen at the time you 18 performed your inspection seen an August 17, 1984, 19 letter authored by Mr. John Seeders that contained that 20 language, the quoted language? l 21 Mr. Mendez?
22 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No.
23 0 Mr. Noisle r? ;
24 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No.
25 0 All right. The file was re-opened, it reciten in Mr.
O- i Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd. i Geneva, T1iTnoin 65134 (312) 232-0262
10716 O
V 1 Pelke's memo, on September 11, 1985, based on receiving 2 an October, 1984, statement from the Department of 3 Labor.
4 It makes reference to a -- what appears to be the 5 Well, Norelius memo that is Intervenors' 93, a September 6 13, 1985, memo.
7 They sent a letter to the A11eger, it states in 8 Polke's memo, and as of this date no response. The 9 Allegation Review Board determined to close the
-10 allegation.
11 All right. "If any further information is received r- 12 from the A11eger, the file will be re-opened."
~
13 Well, as you sit here today, gentlemen, do you know l 14 whether or not the file has been re-opened?
! 15 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No.
16 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No.
17 0 You have no knowledge or can you state that it hasn't, l 18 the file has not been re-opened?
l 19 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I have no knowledge of whether it was 20 opened or closed or whatever.
21 Q Mr. Mendez ?
l l 22 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I don't have any knowledge.
l 23 0 All right, sir. Now, you have heard Mr. Seeders' 24 testimony here in this proceeding, haven't you, Mr.
O 25 "e = d e= 2 Sonntag_ Reporting _ Service,_Lt.d.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
- (312) 232-0262 L_ _ -_ _ _ _ _
10717 (o]
1 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) This is the first time I have ever seen 2 Mr. Seeders.
3 0 But you did hear him in this proceeding, did you not?
4 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes, I did.
5 Q Did you get any further information out of Mr. Seeders 6 from listening to his testimony about the assertions 7 that he was asked to sign off calibration inspection 8 documentation after the leg work was done by others by 9 Mr. Saklak?
10 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I don't think I was present when he 11 said that.
s 12 0 Did you ever read the transcript of his testimony?
\ ) 13 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I didn't.
14 0 Mr. Neisler, did you catch that testimony or the 15 transcript of that testimony?
16 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I wasn't here through all of Seeders' 17 testimony.
18 I read his deposition, which you took earlier, in 19 which he made that contention.
20 0 Did you take any action to re-open his file when you 21 read his deposition testimony?
22 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No. I didn't open it in the first 23 place, so I didn' t re-open it.
24 0 All right, sir. Did either of you gentlemen become 25 aware of the Allegation Review Board meeting that is
(])
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
GsneTa, I1Tindis-~60134~ ~
(312) 232-0262
10718 O
1 documented in this memo that discussed the Seeders' 2 matter,-if it was the Seeders' matter indeed?
3 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No.
4 Q Mr. Mendez?
5 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I wasn't.
6 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that 7 'Intervenors' 94 be received in evidence.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Is there any objection?
9 MR. MILLER: No.
10 MR. BERRY: No.
3 11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Received.
12 (The document was thereupon received into
'~'
13 evidence as Intervenors' Exhibit.No. 94.)
14 BY MR. GUILD:
15 Q Gentlemen, I want to show you a document that has been 16 received in evidence, that is Intervenors' Exhibit 11.
17 It's a Novembe r 6, 1984, U. S. Department of Labor 18 determination letter in Mr. Puckett's retaliatory 19 discharge complaints against L. K. Comstock Company.
20 MR. BERRY: What is the date on that?
21 MR. GUILD: It's a November 6,1984, letter, 22 Inte rvenors' 11.
23 BY MR. GUILD:
24 Q Gentlemen, have either of you seen that before today?
(} 25 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I haven't.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ueneva, 11Tinwrtr-~60134 (312) 232-0262
10719
'x-1 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I think I saw this as an exhibit to 2 Puckett's deposition. -
3 Q You read Mr. Puckett's deposition, Mr. Neisler? ,.
4 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Yes. -
5 0 All right, sir. Had either of you seen this letter 6 during the conduct of your inspection activities that 7 are the subject of your testimony?,
8 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No. ~
9 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No.
10 0 Were you aware that the U. S. Department of Labor had 11 reached a determination as is reflected in this letter, s 12 that Mr. Fuckett's discliarge w'as discriminatory and in -
)
13 violation of Federal law?
14 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No.
15 Q Mr. Mendez, were you aware that fact?
16 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) At what point in time?
17 0 During the conduct of your inspection activities.
18 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I wasn't.
19 Q Gentlemen, another document. Thic is a document that 20 was marked previously au Mendec/Neisler Deposition 21 Exhibit No. 10.
22 It's a memo from Gardner, BCAP Inspector, to 23 Wa rnick and Weil.
Subject:
Allegation from CECO that 24 certain LKC inspectors will attempt to discredit certain
() 25 LKC manage rs.
Sonntag Reporting _ Service,_.Ltd. ___
Geneva, Illinola 60134 (312) 232-0262
10720 1 Have either of you gentlemen seen this document 2 before?
3 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I saw it at the deposition.
4 0 All right. Mr. Mendez?
5 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I saw this after -- at the completion 6 of our inspection.
7 Q All right. And, again, at your deposition, I take it, 8 Mr. Mendez?
9 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I think I saw it some time after our 10 report was issued, that is Mr. Gardner showed it to me.
11 0 I see. After you' issued your inspection report that is em 12 the subject of your testimony?
NJ' 13 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes.
14 Q And, Mr. Neisler, you didn't see it then, not until your 15 deposition; is that your testimony?
16 A (WITNESS NEISLER) That is correct.
17 0 All right, sir. Now, Mr. Mendez, do you recall having 18 this matter brought to your attention, the allegation 19 from Mr. Shamblin of Commonwealth Edison Company that 20 there were some troublemakers who were going to 21 discredit Comstock management, namely Mr. Zych, Mr.
22 flimes, Mr. DeWald and I take it that last gentleman's 23 name is to be Seese?
24 Were you aware of such a claim by Commonwealth
( 25 Edison Company, Mr. Mendez, when you conducted your
})
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. '
GencvnTT111ncir~ G0134-
~ - - - - - -
(312) 232-0262
, . _ . . . _= - . .
.% s 10721
-\
O .
inspection activities?
1_(
2' yl A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I wasn't.
3 h Mr. Neisler, were yo'u?
4h A- (WITNESS NEISLER) No. 6 ,1 5' QJ The last paragraph I will direct' your attention to.
i 6 "Mr. Shamblin stated that legitimate 7 items will be investigated but that the six 3' i aforementioned QC Inspectors were perceived as 9 troublemakers. The fact that they were 10 involved with some union activity was also 1
11 mentioned." jlp s 12 Mr. Mendez, did the substance of a complaint that 13 there were troublemakers invol"ved with imion activity 14 trying to discredit Comstock management come to your 15 ( attention during the conduct of;your' inspection c ;
O.
16 activities?
17 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I don't.think I heard the name 18 troublemakers, but I knew that there was some union i
19 activities going on at the time.
20 Q Were you aware that it was Edison's position that it was 21 the union activities and the troublemakers, without 22, using that term, perhaps, associated with those 23 (, activities, who were discrediting Comstock management 24 through the March 29th concerns? Were you aware of that 25 general position?
,l ' y, I
c_ Sonn tag _ Reporting _ Servi _c_euLt;d , __
t- Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10722 (Q
ts 1 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I think I heard Shamblin say that.
2 I don't think it was a Commonwealth Edison 3 po sition.
4 0 It was Mr. Shamblin's position?
5 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes.
6 Q Mr. Shamblin, of course, was the Proj ect Construction 7 Superintendent employed by Commonwealth Edison Company?
8 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes.
9 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Excuse me, but along these 10 lines you indicated yesterday that you had also heard 11 from NRC management that the matter you were asked to 12 investigate was really a labor-management type of 13 matter?
14 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I think it was our region's position it 15 was mainly a management-labor dispute.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: All right.
17 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I would ask this j 18 document be marked as Intervenors' Exhibit 95 and 19 received in evidence.
20 (The document was thereupon marked 21 Intervenors' Exhibit No. 95 for 22 identification as of August 14, 1986.)
23 MR. MILLER: No objection.
24 MR. BERRY: No obj ection.
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Received.
(])
Sonntag Report _inJ Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10723-
<x 1
- 1, )
1 (The document was thereupon received into 2 evidence as Intervenors' Exhibit No. 95.)
-3' BY MR. GUILD:
4 0 -All right. One more, gentlemen. I will show you an 5 April 17, 1985, memorandum, Pelke to Weil.
Subject:
6 Braidwood Allegation Review Board meeting on April.12, 7 1985.
8 Mr. Chairman, I would ask this document be marked 9 Intervenors' Exhibit 96 for identification.
10 (The document was thereupon marked 11 Intervenors' Exhibit No. 96 for s, 12. identification as of August 14, 1986.') _
.d 13 BY MR. GUILD:
14 Q Gentlemen, first Mr. Mendez, have you'seen this document 15 before?
16 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes.
17 0 It bears Mendez/Neisler Deposition Exhibit No. 9 at the 18 top.
19 Had you seen it before it was shown to you at your 20 deposition, Mr. Mendez?
21 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes.
22' Q Did you see it at about the time of its authorship, 23 April of 1985?
[_ 24 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Right around April 17th, yes.
(} 25 Q Mr. Mendez, had you seen it before your deposition, sir 1
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10724 -
v 1 -- I am sorry. Mr. Neisler. I am looking at Mr.
2 Neisler.
3 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No, I had not.
4 Q Had you seen it before today -- I am sorry -- before 5 your --
6 A -(WITNESS NEISLER) You said had I seen it before the 7 deposition.
8 Q Exactly.
9 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I saw it at the deposition.
10 I had not seen it before.
11 Q Exactly. Thank you.
e 12 Mr. Mendez, this appears to be the minutes, if you.
('s' l
13 will, of an Allegation Review Board meeting, whereby.
14 various allegations were assigned, some of which were-15 assigned to you.
16 I take it you got this memo to inform you that you 17 had been assigned a number of these allegations?
18 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. This formally assigned the 19 allegations to me.
20 Q Were you present at that Allegation Review Board 21- meeting?
22 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I wasn't.
23 O All right, sir. Now, look at the second page, Mr.
24 Mendez, of the memo, if you would, please, the very last
(} 25 unde rlined item.
Sonntag Reporting Service., Ltd.
' Geneva, 1111nols bU1J4 (312) 232-0262
" i 10725 V
1 .It - doesn't have an allegation number; but it.says, 2 " Memo from R. Gardner to'C. Weil/R.-Warnick: Allegation 3 from CECO that certain LKC inspectors will attempt to 4 discredit certain LKC managers. This memo will be-5 incorporated with file 72 and should be reviewed by R.
- 6. Mendez. A new allegation number will not be assigned."
7 Now, looking at this memo which you received, does 8 this refresh your recollection about having seen the 9 memo that was received as Intervenors' 95?
10 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I don't think I ever saw the memo until
'll after the inspection, f s. 12 Q Do you recall having seen this memo?
d 13 The April 17, 1985, Allegation Review Board memo 14 summarizes the concern from Edison that is noted in 15 Intervenors' 95.
16 You read, of course, this memo, did you not,' the 17_ April 17, 1985, Review Board memo?
18 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes, I did.
19 Q Did anybody discuss with you the substance of that 20 Edison allegation?
21 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) You are talking about the memo from 22 Gardner to Wa rnick.
23 0 Yes.
I 24 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) And to Well?
() 25 0 Yes.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10726 1 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I don't think so.
2 Q Let me ask you this, Mr. Mendez:
3 You were assigned this allegation to revier as part 4 of 72. This refers to a memo from R. Gardner to C. Weil 5 and R. Warnick.
6 Can you explain to me why you didn't ask to see the 7 memo mow from R. Gardner to Weil and Warnick so you 8 could conduct an inspection of this allegation?
9 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) At the time I asked Chuck Weil to give 10 me all of his information on the allegations, 0062, 67, 11 68 and 72; and as part of 72, I don't think this was in 12 the files, either that he neglected to give me this
(-)
V 13 particular memo or it wasn't in the files at that time.
14 0 Well, after you looked for it and made a review, 15 whatever --
16 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I don't think I looked for it.
17 Q Okay.
18 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That is, he gave me the file and I took 19 everything in that file.
20 0 All right. And if something was not in the file, you 21 just didn't pursue the matter?
22 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That's correct.
23 Q You didn't ask for this memo, in short?
24 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes.
() 25 Q Okay. I apologize if I asked this question or close to I
Sonn ta_g_ Rep.o r tin LSe rv i ce,_L td . l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10727 L) 1 it before; but did'anybody explain to you-in any more 2 detail, Mr. Mendez, what the subject matter was of this 3 CECO allegation that is- documented in the April 17th 4 review board minutes?
5 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) What was the question again?
~6- Q All right, yes.
7 Did anybody explain to you in any more detail, 8 other than what is contained in this memo, what it was 9 you were supposed to inspect to on this allegation?
10 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I don't.think so.
11 Q All right, sir. Now, let's look down the memo. This is j3 12 Intervenors' 96 for identification.
O 13 We have 0058, which is_not among the allegations 14 you inspected to, I take it.
15 The allegation'regarding Comstock's training 16 program, pushing through individuals for certification
-17 as Welding Configuration Inspectors, you didn't inspect 18 to this allegation, Mr.-Mendez?
19 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I didn't.
-20 Q Mr. Neisler?
21 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No, I did not.
22 0 Well, did you have any contact with Mr. Kropp, who 23 appears to be the gentleman assigned this one?
24 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Not rega rding this allegation.
25 Q Mr. Mendez, did you have any contact with Mr. Kropp on
(}
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10728 4 .,
\_)
1 the subject of this allegation when you were performing 2 your inspection activities, the subj ect of your 3 testimony?
4 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I didn't.
5 Q Okay. 0062 assigned to Mr. Mendez.
i 6 Allegations regarding qualification of QC 7 Inspectors, that was the subject of 'your inspection, was l 8 it not?
9 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes.
10 Q Okay. 67, three-part allegation, was 67 part of your 11 inspection scope?
s 12 A .(WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes.
- 13 Q Now, Part 2 is stated to involve double flare bevel tube
. 14 steel welds, assigned to Muffett.
15 Was Mr. Muffett assigned inspection activities of 16 that allegation, part of that allegation?
17 A (WITNESS L'ENDEZ) My-understanding is that Schapker 18 reviewed the allegations.
19 Q Is that review contained within your inspection report 20 on this subject?
21 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No.
I
- 22 Q Is it reported elsewhere, to your knowledge?
23 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I think this portion of the allegation
' has been closed out, so I would assume that a report has 24 l
() 25 been issued.
3 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 601~34 (312) 232-0262
u 10729
- . (J IL Q Okay. How about the Part 2 -- I am sorry.
2 Part 1 and Part 3 were assigned to you,-Mr. Mendez; 3 right?
4 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes, sir.
5 Q Do you know whether or not 68 is shown as assigned to 6 you, Mr. Mendez, and you' inspected that allegation; 7 correct?
8 A~ (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes.
~
9 0 71 down at the bottom, do you know whether that relates 10 to L. K. Comstock or not?
11 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No.
.es 12 Q And, of course, on the second page, 72, which is the- -
(/ 13 group allegation for the 24?
14 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes.
- 15 0 You did -- you and Mr. Neisler did -- inspect to that?
16 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) If I can say something, I remembe r 17 reading this paragraph.
18 (Indica ting . )
19 0 Which paragraph are you referring to now?
, 20 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) The subsequent paragraph, memo from 21 Gardner to Chuck Weil and Warnick, about those 22 allega tions .
23 I don't think that is really an allegation if you
- 24 have a construction manager say that somebody is going
("3 25 to discredit somebody.
%)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10730
.n N.]
1 147 purpose was that QC Inspectors sere the Allegers 2 and not Shamblin, so I don't think I really paid much 3 attention to that.
4 Q Okay. But, of course, as you stated, your management, 5 Mr. Williams, informed _you that the view was that this 6 was a labor-management dispute.
7 You heard that from Mr. Shamblin when you conducted 8 your inspection and you recited that in your findings, 9 did you not?
10 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Well, that's their opinion; and I_think:
11 in the end that was my conclusion.
~. 12 0 I see. But you weren't influenced by the allegation
\.]
13 -that is documented in the April 17, 1985, memo from 14 Comstock saying that inspectors were going to try to 15 discredit --
16 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That's correct.
17 0 -- management?
18 All right, sir. Now, I take it you had the 19 Allegation Review Board memo that we have just discussed.
20 and you had some communication with your management, Mr.
21 Mendez, to the effect of: Should we not just get out 22 there and start working on this inspection or move more 23 expeditiously, in effect; and your management said, "We 24 are going to leave it to Edison to at least conduct 25 their initial review."
{}
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, 1111nois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10731 q
'w) 1 You then undertook on the 30th of-April to-go to 2 the site in-due course and begin your inspection 3 activities.
4 Is that your testimony?
5 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes, yes.
6 Q All right, sir. Now, when you began your inspection 7 activities, of course, Edison had already closed its 8 investigation of the matters and had issued a report on 9 the 25th of April?
10 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes.
11 Q And you had that report when you began your inspection?
s 12 A: (WITNESS MENDEZ)-I don't think it was a report. I did
(_) 13 subsequently obtain the -- some of the-documents, 14 quality concerns.
15 Q You had the files that represented whatever the product 16 was of' Edison's investigation of these matters as you 17 conducted your inspection?
18 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes.
19 O All right, sir. Now, let me lx3 a little clear about 20 some of-the matters that Mr. Miller asked you about.
21 Did you have a copy of- the April 5th memo, the memo 22 prepared by Mr. Weil, that contained the names of the 23 Allegers at the time you initiated your inspection, Mr.
24 Mendez?
,( ) 25 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes, I did.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10732
,q V~
l Q All right. So you knew the names from that memo and 2 associated with specific complaints?
3 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. This was the only memo where the 4 names appeared.
5 0 All right, sir. And did you have a list of those who 6 had attended the March 29, 1985,- meeting with the 7 residents?
8 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I don't think I did, no.
9 Q It's not contained in the documents that are before you, 10 the Intervenors' Exhibits 42 and 42-A; but one version 11 of 42, one of those March 29th memos, had attached'to it
- 12 a list of names and addresses that appeared to have been k_3) 13 prepared from those who attended-the March 29th meeting 14 with the residents.
15 Do you recall ever having seen such a list?
16 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Not on April 30th, no.
17 Q Did you see such a list during the course of your 18 inspection?
19 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I think I might have,'yes.
20 0 And that provided the names that were additional to the 21 names that were listed in the April 5th memo?
22 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No. It was just from talking to 23 inspectors.
24 0 No, sir. The list of names-and addresses of those who
(} 25 attended the March 29th meeting included names that were Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
-l 10733-Q:
1 in addition to the names that happened to turn out'
- L listed.in the April 5th memo. Some _ persons, perhaps,
'3 didn't speak during the April 5th meeting or names were 4 not: associated with allegatioar-5 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) It:really wasn't my rationale-for 6 -talking to additional people.
7' My rationale . was talking to the inspectors 8 themselves. They provided additional names; and it 4
9 turned.out that_four of them'happene{ to be part of the 10 group that came to the re:sidents' of f'ce on -- of fices 11 on -- March 29th.
-, r4 12 0 I guess what I am trying to understand, Mr. Mendez, is 13 just what inforna': ion you had that-would identify who 14 the-Allegers were.
15 You had the April 5th memo; and do you recall, as 16 you sit here today, whether you had, also, a list of all 17 those who attended the March-29th meeting and who chose 18 to leave their names and addresses?-
19 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I don't think I used the list, although 20 I did have the list.
21 0 You did have it available to you?
22 A _(WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. ,
23 0 When you determined, by whatever means, who you wanted 24 to initially intersiew, Mr. Mendez, physically, how did I'l
\J-25 you go about perforning the-interviews with them?
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10734-
/\
b 1 Where did you conduct the interviews, for a first
~
2 question?
l 3 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) hit was in back of the residents' 4 office, the senior resident's office. I 5 Q Now,- this is on the Braidwood site; correct?
6 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes, the-service building.
7 0 This is in the Commonwealth Edison Company service l 8 building; is that right?
9 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes.
10 Q On the second floor?
11 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) - Yes.
12 0 It's a set of offices the NRC maintains for the
(- ~
13 residents' offices?
14 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) You-have two offices, yes.
15 Q All right, sir. Did you conduct these interviews during 16 normal business hours, first shif t, let's say?
17 A (WITNESS'MENDEZ) Mostly. There were one or two 18 inspectors that )rked on second shif t.
19 Q For them, did you talk to them during their regular l 20 shift, during the second shift?
21 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes.
22 Q All right, sir. Now, how did you notify the 23 individuals, the QC Inspectors, that you desired to i
i 24 conduct an interview with them?
25 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I asked Chuck Schroeder to make
{])
i S o nn.t a g_Re p o r_t i n g_S e.ryic e,__Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10735 1 available so many inspectors.
2 Q Who is Mr. Schroeder?
3 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) He was the Licensing Supervisor.
4 Q Employed by Commonwealth Edison Company?
5 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes.
6 0 All right, sir. -Mr. Schroeder, the Edison Licensing 7 Supervisor, was given a list of names of persons that 8 you wanted to interview?
9 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes.
10 0 All right, sir. And Mr. Schroeder, in turn, contacted 11 L. K. Comstock management and provided them with a list 12 of names of persons you wanted to interview?
13 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes.
14 Q In turn, L. K. Comstock management would call these 15 persons of f the job, either on the first or second 16 shift, depending on what shift they worked, and inform 17 them that the NRC wanted to speak to them?
18 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That's correct.
19 Q So, of course, Comstock management was aware that you 20 were interviewing these people, interviewing them, and 21 knew by name who you were interviewing?
(WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes, they know.
22 A 23 Q All right, sir. Who in particular for Comstock 24 management performed the function of notifying the 25 inspectors that the NRC wanted to interview them, do you
(])
Ltd.
Sonntag Repo_r.llinoistijn_
Geneva, I Service,
~
(0134~
(312) 232-0262
~
l 10736 IQ) 1 know?
'2 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I wasn't aware of that.
3 Q Do you'know if it was any of the principals who were the 4 subject-of the harassment and intimidation allegations, 5 say Mr. DeWald, Mr. Seese, Mr. Simile, any of those 6 gen tl emen?
7 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I was never informed who was 8 responsible for providing the QC Inspectors to me.
9 Q Uh-huh. Did you make any --
10 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Making available.
11' O I am sorry?
f- 12 A (WITNESS.MENDEZ) Making available the QC Inspectors.
k 13 Q Did you make any effort to adopt any safeguards to 14 assure that those who were the subject of hirassment and.
15 intimidation allegations would not be informed of the 16 identities of the persons who you were going to 17 ' interview on that subject?
18 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) What was the question again?
19 0 Yes, sir.
20 Did you make any safeguards or protections to 21 ensure that the subjects of the harassment and 22 intimidation allegations wouldn't know the identities of 23 those you intended to interview on that subject?
24 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I really don't understand the question.
25' I --
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
vereva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10737
[ M,
\d 1 Q Did you try to protect the identities of the persons you 2 were interviewing f rom the subj ects of their complaints, 3 from DeWald, Seltmann, Seese, Simile or any other 4 Comstock management?
5 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) You know, I provided Edison with the 6 names.
7 Comstock knew who those people were.
8 Q Right.
9 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Some had made allegations, some hadn't 10 made allegations.
11 Q Right.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I think, Mr. Guild, your 13 question is confusing the question when you use the 14 words, "subj ect of the investigation. "
15 He believes, I think, that you are referring to the 4 16 Alleger rather than the person being alleged against.
17 MR. GUILD: All right, sir. I will try to be 18 more clear.
19 BY MR. GUILD:
20 Q Mr. Mendez, you were aware, of course, when you read the 21 April 5th memo, that a number of different people in 22 Comstock management were the subject of the harassment 23 and intimida tion allega tions, Mr. DeWald, Mr. Seltmann, 24 Mr. Seese, et cetera?
l () 25 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes.
Sonntag Reporting Service,_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10738
,y
'%)
1 Q All right, sir. My question to you, sir, is:
2 Did you make any effort, adopt any means or 3 safeguards to ensure that those gentlemen, Mr. DeWald, 4 Seltmann, Seese, Simile, et cetera, Comstock managers, 5 would not know that you were interviewing specific named 6 Comstock inspectors?
7 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I didn't.
8 Q But then once you brought them in, once they were 9 brought in -- they were secured through the course that 10 you have identified, Schroeder to comstock -- you then 11 assured them that what they told you and their r- 12 identities would be maintained confidential?
(_) 13 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes.
14 Q Didn' t that strike you as somewhat of an empty 15 assurance, given the course of events that brought them 16 to your office, Mr. Mendez ?
17 MR. BERRY: I object to that.
18 JUDG E GROSSMAN: The witness can handle that 19 question, I think. He can give his opinion as to the 20 effectiveness of his method.
21 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I think at the time the QC Inspectors 22 had the April 5 th memo, Chuck Norelius to Chuck Weil.
23 Comstock/ Edison knew who some of the Allegers were 24 already. QC Inspectors had copies of this.
25 For the people I spoke to, I also chose people who
(])
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, IrlTnois 60~174 (312) 232-0262
10739 g
(_)
1 had never made any allegations. So anything they would 2 'tell me, it would be very difficult for Comstock to make-3 a determination or Edison to make a determination who 4 :made what allegation.
5 So it was in that context that I told them that. I 6 explained to~each QC Inspector.that whatever he told me-7 would be held in confidence.
8 BY MR. GUILD:
9 0 Well, did you inform them that whatever protections you 10 could give them at that point, the point where they were 11 sitting across the. table from you, might not effectively 7s 12 protect their confidentiallity? :
- b. 13 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I don't think they were really 14 concerned about that. ,
15 They had gone to the residents' office. Comstock 16 knew who they were. Edison knew who they were.
- 17 I don't think they were really -- except for two or 18 three, I don't think most of them cared.
19 Q But I guess I take it from your answer that you saw no 20 need to make such an explanation and you did not?
21 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I did.
22 O And you did not?
23 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I did. I explained to each one that 24 anything they told me would be held in confidence.
i
(} 25 Q Perhaps I am being confusing.
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ge n eva ,- Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
y 10740
%.) .
Il You saw no need to tell them that such protection 2 might not help them, because everyone knew who they 3 were,.in effect?
4 .A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Well, no. That I would bust my butt to 5 try to keep out their names or, at least, the subject of 6 the allegation tied to their names.
7 0 It was your understanding at the time you conducted the 8 interviews that the April 5th memo with the names 9 included was disseminated widely?
10 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes.
11 Q And that Comstock management knew of the identities of
~s 12 persons who had go to the NRC?
gd 13 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes.
14 Q And that Commonwealth Edison management knew the~
15 identify of persons who had gone to the NRC?
16 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I think so, yes.
17 There is also something else.
18 Q Yes.
19 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Quality First had already interviewed 20 the Comstock QC Inspectors. So to try to protect them 21 or protect their identity was kind of superfluous.
22 O Supe rfluous?
23 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) It wouldn't have made any difference.
24 Quality First had talked to them and all of these other 25 events had gone on at that time. Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ueneva, Illinois bu134 (312) 232-0262
10741 v 1 Q All right, sir. Quality First meaning Edison's 2 allegation management program? 3 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes, yes. 4 Q Did you understand through that program that their 5 identities would be known to Commonwealth Edison
~
6 personnel outside of the Quality First allegation
.7 management program?
8 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That's right, that's correct.- Quality 9 First makes sure that the names weren't made available 10 to Commonwealth Edison. 11 0 Well, I am asking you as a fact, did you assume that 12 their names, when given to Quality First, or identities V,-3 13 would, in fact, be known outside of the Quality First - 14 organization? 15 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) My understanding is, was, that 16 Commonwealth Edison would not know the identity of the I . 17 people Quality First spoke to. 18 Q That was your belief, was that they wouldn't know? 19 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) They wouldn't be made available to me, 20 either. 21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Why don't we take a 22 ten-minute break? 23 MR. GUILD: Fine. 24 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which (} 25 the hearing was resumed as follows:) Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 i
10742 7-V' 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We will resume, Mr. 2- Guild. 3 MR. GUILD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 4 BY MR. GUILD: 5 Q Before the recess, Mr. Mendez, I was asking about your 6 interviews with the Comstock inspectors and you told me 7 that they took place in the site residents' office. 8 Did you interview anybody, Mr. Mendez, in any other 9 location aside from the site residents' office? 10 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I wouldn't say interviewed. I did talk 11 to one of the QC Inspectors.
-j ;- 12 Q Casual talk as you walked through the plant?
O 13 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes.- 14 Q How about interviews; did you interview anyone other 15 than in the site residents' office? 16 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Interviews, no. 17 Q Mr. Neisler, let me ask about your approach. 18 Did you follow generally the same approach that Mr. 19 Mendez has described? 20 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Not really. 21 Q All right. Why don't you tell me what you did? 22 How did you identify the people that you wanted to
- 23. talk to?
24 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I identified -- I took the list of (} 25 names that Mendez had, I picked some people off of Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. -- Geneva, ITT1nctE-~60134 (312) 232-0262 a
1: 107.'3 i ', Q,l
'l 'there,'I informed Edison QA that I wanted to interview-2 those~ people.-
3 I then also asked'them for office space where I 4 could interview the people. 5 Q Asked Edison-this? 6 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Yes.
-7 Q Edison'QA?.
8 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Right. 9 And they arranged for~an office in the Quality 10 First. I guess that's.a double-wide trailer they are 11 lusing, and I used that_ office for the interviews. 12 O Okay. Who did you use as 'your contact person with f-)
"~#
13 Edison QA, Mr. Neisler? 14 A (WITNESS NEISLER) That would have been Netzel and 15 Tapella. 16 0 . Larry Tapella? 17 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Right.. 18 0 And Ed Netzel? 19 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Right. 20 0 Both of them worked in the electrical area and dealt 21 with Comstock; right? 22 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Right. 23 0 You provided a list of names that you derived from Mr. 24 Mendez' list to Tapella or Netzel; they, in turn,
-/~3 25 contacted Comstock management, who, in turn, secured the V
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10744 :
- ~
- kj 1 attendance of the man you wanted to speak with -- man or
-2 woman you wanted to speak with?
3 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I assume that's what they did.
.4 I don't know how they got them. They showed up.
5 0 And they showed up at. the Quality First trailer? 6 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Right. 7 Q All right, sir. .You, of course, had seen the April 5th. 8 memo with the names in it, had you not, Mr. Neisler? 9 A (WITNESS NEISLER) That's ~ correct. 10 Q And you were aware.at the time you conducted your 11 interviews that there were various members of Comstock's
,f-)
12 management who were the subject of these harassment, V 13 intimidation and production pressure complaints? 14 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Yes. 15 Q DeWald, Seltmann, Seese, et cetera, those names? 16 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I was aware. 17 Q All right, sir. Did you adopt any measures or 18 safeguards to assure that the Comstock managers who were 19 the subject of these harassment and intimidation 20 complaints would not know of the identities of the 21 persons you were going to interview? 22 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I did not. 23 Q Can you recall the names that you passed on to Edison, 24 Mr. Neisler, the names you derived in the way you have (} 25 just described from Mr. Mendez' list? Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Ueneva, Illinois ou144 (312) 232-0262
10745 N. 1 A (WITNESS NEISLER) It was Peterson, Holly, Bowman, 2 Bullock, Walker or Walter -- Walters, I guess his name 3 is, and it's either Hunter or Snyder, I am not sure 4 which, one guy who was from Missouri, anyway. 5 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Hunter. 6 Q Do you recall it being Hunter now, Mr. Neisler? 7 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I don't recall it being Hunter. 8 I remember talking to the individual about where he 9 was from, and he was from Missouri. 10 Q All right, sir. We have all seen Mr. Hunter and Mr. 11 Snyder in these proceedings. They are a little hard to p 12 miss. d 13 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Well, there is not niuch resemblance, I 14 agree; but -- and -- but I think I talked to both of
- 15 them.
16 Q All right, sir. Are those the names you recall from the 17 list? 18 A (WITNESS NEISLER) And I had also asked, give me a couple 19 of other people whose names -- and they gave me another 20 guy, who I don't remember his name now. 21 Q All right, sir. What, if anything,, Mr. Neisler, did ) 22 you have to say about the subject of confidentiality? 23 A (WITNESS NEISLER) The people had not asked for 24 confidentiality, so I didn' t have any comments on it. 25 You just didn't raise the question at all? (a~) 0 Sonn_ tag Reportins Service,_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 ,
-, , _ , --- .- ,- ,-- , -p - - -
a ---- ,,-+- - - - , v.
10746
,i- .
\.J
.1 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No.
2 Q All right, sir. Now, gentlemen, I am looking at what 3 has been marked as Intervenors' -- rather, as Staff 4 Exhibit 17, your inspection report, and I am looking.at 5 the -- which page? I am looking at Page 2 of the detail 6 section. Will you turn to that, please? 7 All right, sir. Do you have Page 2 before you? 8 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Right. 9 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 10 0 All right, sir. I see listed there under 1, persons 11- contacted, the statement.that there were exit interviews e3 12 attended by denoted personnel on two occasions, first, b 13 May 10, 1985, and second, August 30, 1985. l 14 Mr. Mendez, does that, those facts, reflect that as 15 of May 10, 1985, you had completed your inspection and 16 had at least prepared or were preparing to draft an 17 inspection. report reflecting findings? , 18 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No. It's fairly common with 19 allegations to exit two or three times before finally 20 exiting. 21 0 Uh-huh. Well, let me ask you more directly: 22 As of the 10th of May, had you made any findings? 23 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes, I did. 24 0 All right, sir. And you communicated those findings to s () 25 the persons who are indicated on this list, Commonwealth Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. _ Geneva, 1111nois 00134 (312) 232-0262
10747 sr L/ . 1 . Edison Company and L. K. Comstock Company personnel? 2 A- (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. f' < 3 Q And did you shortly.thereafter prepare a draft'of an 4 inspection report? . , 5 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes, _I did. 6 Q During May,1985, did you prepa reff"draf t of an 7 inspection rep <>rt? 8 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes., 9 Q Now, you submitted.that draft of an. inspection report to 10 your management, did you not, for review?
. s 11 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes,'uh-huh.
rss 12 0 To whom did you submit such a report, a drafti2 d 13 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) It was through our general cha'i ,
~
14 Cordell Williams, J. Harrison, Chuck Well.. 15 0 Williams, Harrison, Well, any others on the review list? 16 A '(WITNESS MENDEZ) Forney, Pelke. 17 0 All right, sir. And your draft was a, proposed report 18 for publication, for review and publication, was it not? 19 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) With allegations, it's usually done a 20 little differently. 21 It.goes through the no'tmal chain,-people have 22 comments on it, a million questions on it. 23 They are not generally like our normal inspections, 24 which is we complete our inspection, we issue the (} 25 report, it goes through -- that is, it goes through Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
d 10748
,3 L)
I concurrences and it's finally issued. 2 With allegations of this type, people generally 3 have a hundred questions on.-- 4 Q On the -- 5 A' (WITNESS MENDEZ) On the subject of the allegations.
-6 Q I am sorry. They have what?
7 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) A hundred questions. 8 Q A hundred questions? 9' A -(WITNESS MENDEZ) They have very many questions. 10 Q All right, sir. So, typically, an allegation ~ inspection 11 may be more complex than -- strike that. 7- 12 Typically, an allegation inspection-is not simply V). 13 left to the -- to document the findings of the inspector 14 -- I am sorry. Let me try it one more time. 15 Unlike a typical inspection, where the inspector 16 submits a draft and, typically, it gets reviewed for 17 grammar and effectiveness of presentation, in this case, 18 because it's an allegation, there is a more careful 19 review; is that the testimony? 20 A- (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes, yes. 21 Q All right, sir. But, in any event, you prepared what 22 you submitted to be a proposed report for publication? 23 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Like I said before, allegations of this 24 type generally take much longer because of the review. (} 25 The review process is much, much closer. Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ueneva, 1111nois eulas (312) 232-0262
.m ,r
; ;--. 3:?
s / ~i , t- ?I 10749 L l4 r d'
'q
~ g' L,j ,,
1 Q Ye s .' ' But you intended what you submitted as-your 2 report, did you not? 3' .A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. j} 4. Q All right',gsir. I take it you have not' retained a copy 5 ,
'of that draft report?
6 / l. A (WITNESS MENDEZ)L d' hat's cor rect. 7 , O What happened to it? 8- A (WITNESS MENDEZ) There were so many drafts, there wasn't 9 any need to keep any of them. , , . 10 , O Well, you didn't keep it; is that right? O 11 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) They get sent back to me. I'didn't - ,m 12 , keep them. ;(
! )
13 0' =All right. You didn't keep any of-the drafts that you 14 had? s 1 15 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That's right. 16 Q Do you know whether anyone else in the agency received 17 those drafts? 18 I take it they 'i 4 through this chain? 19 A s (WITNESS MENDEZ' l' : soF else ---well, everybody sees a , 20 , draft of the report. 21 Q On the chain of review; correct? ( 22 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes; but I ard the only one who keeps 23 them. l-
- 24 Q Do you know whether any of these individuals retained 25 copies of this draft?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 , (312) 232-0262 l ' . . _ ~ . __ . - -
10750 (3-
\_) . ,
1 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No. , 2- Q Is that you don't know whether they did or you cnn say 3 with confidence they did not? 4 A .(WITNESS MENDEZ) I don't know if they did. 5 Q All right, sir. As of the exit interview May 10, 1985, 6 how much time had you spent on site, Mr. Mendez ? 4 7 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) About eight, nine days -- eight, nine, 8 ten days. 9 Q Had you conducted all of the interviews with the persons 10 that you set out to interview in the manner you have' 11 described at that point? f~g 12 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) 95 percent of the interviews -- well, V all the interviews were complete by that time. 13 14 Q All right, sir. You submitted your draf t inspection 15 report in May then after these eight or nine days of 16 work; and what happened? (WITNESS MENDEZ) You might ask our management about ^ 17 A 18 tha t. 19 0 Well, I might but I am going to have to ask you first 20 because you are the witness right now. 21 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I really don' t know. 22 I spent maybe a week-and-a-half writing a report, 23 submitting it for draft. Generally, allegation reports 24 get sent through a lot of drafts, not only for grammar. () 25 Q Sure. Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, ITlTn~ois 60131 (312) 232-0262
t 10751. j~y E-l 1 A' (WITNESS MENDEZ) It just -- it went through a lot of 2 drafts. 3 0 I guess what I want you to do is tell me what' happened 4 next. 5 You submitted _the draft for review, as you_have 6 testified; and what next did you' hear back? 7 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Not a whole lot, not until about the
- 8. middle of August, late August.
9 Q All.right, sir. So your draft report was submitted up-10 to the chain of command for review and they just sat on 11 it? fs 12 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) More or less, yes. d 13 0 Mid August what did you hear? 14 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Well, I think we had to resolve the 15 questions that Chuck Weil -- I am not sure if Chuck Weil
-16 had the questions on it. His assistant did have 17 questions on the allegation report, plus any other 18 questions that any of the people that are part of'the
.19 ch..<n of command had.
20 That is, usually we may go back and interview more . 21 people, look at more documents. If somebody had a 22 concern, we physically review that concern. 23 So at that point we just had to go back and make 24 sure that it was complete and make sure that all, 1 25 everything we set out to do, was covered. That is, any ! (~) s_- i l l Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10752 O
;L.)-
1 allegation, any concern anybody had was complete.. 2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me. I just want to 3 make sure that you are not skipping anything. 4 If you look at the page before Page 2, there is a 5 June 24th, 25th date; and.I want to make sure that.that
~
6 relates to Mr. Neisler rather than you doing something 7 further after your first draft was sent in some time in 8 May. 9^ Do you understand what I am saying now? 10 We had a jump from May to-August. I just want taa 11 make sure that nothing happened June 24th and 25th on 12 your end of it. O~ 13 Is that so? 14 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) This was my -- this was not ' an 15 inspection time, that is, on-site inspection time on 16 June 24th and 25th. 17 It was additional procedure reviews that I had 18 during that time on the-24th and 25th. 19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: So you did have some 20 activity then? 21 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Are you satisfied with the 23 extent of the explanation? j 24 MR. GUILD: Yes, Mr. Chairman. (} 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine. Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ueneva, Illinois 60134 ! (312) 232-0262
.- g. .. . . . . . -
t
;10753. ,
p[ v ,
-1 BY'MR. GUILD:
2 Q You had submitted your. draft prior _.to the.24th-and 25th 2 3' of June? - 3 4 AJ (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 1 5 Q All1right, sir. .You' heard nothing back until mid^
. 6 . August; and I take it in yourelast- answer you described 1 7 generally how things worked.
[ 8' ~But'in-this particular case I want you to tell me,, 1 ,
-9 'if you would, please, what first did you hear back,about
. 10- this inspection-in mid August? l 11 1 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) It's part of what I mentioned before.' i
- i. . 12'
.The allegation specialist generally has more . questions:
- -~
! 13 "Look . at more documents. Talk : to more people. . Did you 14 look--at this specificLinstance?" i p 15 Q 'Let me interrupt you, Mr. Mendez, because I .really want Y ! 16 to'be clear that I am hearing an answer to my question, - ! 17 not a general description of how things work.
- 18 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No. That is what happened.
I 19 0 That is what happened?. 20 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That is what happened.
'21
- Q You mentioned Mr. Weil --
- i. 22 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I don't know what specifically I'was i'
i 23 asked to do, what more, how much more paper work I was 24 going to look at and what particular documents I was
;( ) 25 supposed to look at; but I do recall that there was i
f Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. l
! Geneva, Illinois 60134
; (312) 232-0262
. ~ . - - . - - , - - -. w-.-- -.-. _ . - . . - , - . . . . . , . _ - . - . - . . - . . .
10754 _ r^'; (./ 1 comments made on the draft.- 2 Q Well, now, let me back up a little bit. 3 You mentioned Mr. Weil and I think you said his 4 assistant; is that right? 5 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) ~ Yes. 6 Q Who was Mr. Weil's assistant? 7 A (WITNESS _MENDEZ) Bernie Stapleton. 8 0 -What. position;does Mr. or thi. Stapleton hold? 9 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No. He is -- 10 0 A man, all right. 11 A (WITNESS.MENDEZ) He is the assistant to Charlie-Well. gs 12 0- What are his duties in that capacity, do you know? 13 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Allegation specialist. - 14 Q He is in the allegation business, that end of the work? 15 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 16 0 Okay. .Did you hear from Mr. Stapleton on this matter? 17 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Oh, yes, I did. 18 Q And did he speak to you orally or did he give you 19 something in writing? 20 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No. It was something in writing. 21 Q Did he give you a markup of your inspection report? 22 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I think there were comments, comments 23 made by a lot of people, by Stapleton, by I think even 24 Mr. Little. (} 25 0 Written comments by Mr. Little? Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ueneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~ 10755
/--3 1 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) By my Section Chief.
2 0 ,Ilam sorry. Let me get the answer to that question.
'3 Written comments by Mr. Little?
4 A' L(WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 5 Q By your Section Chief, who would that be, Mr. Williams? 6 A- (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 7 Q Were these comments marginal notations in your report or 8 were they documents separate from your report? 9 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Both. 10 Q What was Mr. Stapleton's role? Did he make comments 11 himself? 12 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Stapleton probably wrote most of the 13 comments, had most of the comments on the report. 14 Q Comments by Little, Williams and Stapleton. 15 Did any others submit comments? 16 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) There probably were but the ones I 17 recall was Stapleton -- the majority of the comments 18 were from Stapleton, Little and Williams. 19 Q All right, sir. Did you make any inquiry, Mr. Mendez, 20 during this period of time as to why you had not gotten 21 back your draft inspection report and why it had not 22 been published? 23 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I didn't, but my understanding is 24 allegations take a long time. () 25 0 All right. Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10756
'(~% - .
Q) ~ l A -(WITNESS MENDEZ) They 'take a long time - to resolve. 2 0 Were you aware.-during this~ period of time that 3 Intervenors had filed a~QC Inspector harassment and
~
4 intimidation contention that relied in whole or in part. 5 upon the facts that were'the~ subject of your. inspection? 6 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) There was some talk;about that,'yes. 7 I think it was just hearsay more or less, but it-8 could be. 9 0 You'1 earned that there was such a filing in the office 10- discussion in the office?
-11 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I didn't know if there was a . filing.-
12 All I knew was that it may be a hearing contention. 2 13 As far as filing, I wasn't aware of that. 14 0 :But, in substance, you understood from this discussion, 15 from hearsay, from. talk around the office, that there 16 may be a hearing on the subject of harassment at
-17 Comstock?
18 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 19 Q All right. Now, can you identify the substance of any 20 comments that Mr. Little made on your draft report? 21 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I can't, no. 22- 0 Can you identify the subjects of any commente Mr. Little 23 made? 24 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I can't. (} 25 0 Can you recall anything at all about comments that i j l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. !- Geneva, Illinois 00134
- (312) 232-0262
10757 p V 1 Little made? 2 A1 (WITNESS MENDEZ) No. 3 O' Did you ever have- any conversations with Mr. Little 4 about your inspection or inspection report aside from 5 written canments on your draft? 6' A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I don't'think I did. 7 Q I am going to ask you ti.e same series of questions about 8 the others. 9 Can you recall anything at all about the comments 10 that Mr. Williams, your Section Chief, made in the 11 inspection report? g3 12 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Mr. Williams made several comments. G) 13 One I remember was keep Saklak's name out of the 14 inspection report. When I identified just minor 15 comments about -- not identifying QC Inspectors or QC 16 supervisors, making their identity unknown, and just 17 making it clear where I spoke to an Alleger, it was an 18 Alleger and not just some QC Inspector I spoke to. 19 0 Had you, I take it, proposed a draft report that 20 contained names, identifying names? 21 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Just the QC supervisors. 22 Q All right, sir. The subjects of the allegations -- 23 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I had Saklak's name in it, 24 Worthington's name in it. 25 0 All right, sir. Did Mr. Williams explain to you the ( }) , I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 j (312) 232-0262 l
- , _ _ _ - _ _ . . , - , . . _ . _ . _ . _ _ .-, .._ ,_ -___...-_____1
, _ , . . -, . .~ . .-_-
10758
- i. ..
3 tu v['T l- basis for that comment- or recommendation? j 2 A .(WITNESS MENDEZ)'Well,;just. generally to keep. ;
- 3 everybody's name outoof-the inspection report..
~4 Q All right, sir. .Do you recall'or_can.you.recallLthe
~ ~
.5 1 substance:of any;other comments made1by your Section-6 Chief, Mr. Williams?
~
7 A- (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I don't. . 8 Q How about Mr. Stapleton; can you recall anything'about, l SL Mr. Stapleton's comments? 10 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) It was~just..very general comments.- Had i 11 I looked at enough documents;toL reach a. conclusion?.
- ; -f 12 What NCR's, ICR's I looked'through. Did I speak '--- -
J
~-.
~
- 13. general type comments and I can't remember the subject i 14 of some of the comments; but it was just-had I spoken to-15 a particular person who made -- who had a concern.
16 .They had quite a few comments on the inspection
-17 report.
18 Q All right. Did'you have any conversations with Mr. 19 Stapleton on the subject of your inspection? + 20 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I don't think I did, although I did 21 uspeak - to Stapleton. That is, I don't know if we talked 22 about the inspection report. 23 Q Did you talk about your inspection ifLnot the report-24 with Mr. Stapleton? () 25 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Just very generally. That is, I can i . Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262 i - .
10759 cv A-] 1 recall talking to him about it but I don't recall what 2 we talked about. 3 Q All right. How about with Mr. Williams; did you have 4 any conversations with your Section Chief, Mr. Williams, 5 about either your inspection or the inspection report? 6 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Mr. Williams always has comments about 7- our inspection reports. 8 Q. Aside from the written comments that you have recounted, 9 as you recall, in any event, can you recall any . I 10 conversations with Mr. Williams on the subject? 11 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Not any specific comments, no. 12 Q Can you recall the general subject of any comments or (-)i 13 conversations that you had with-Mr. Williams about your 14 inspection? 15 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I don't. 16 Q Now, Mr. Mendez, as far as you know, how did Mr. Neisler 17 then come into the picture? 18 How did you learn that Mr. Neisler was going to be 19 assigned? 20 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Oh, I think I was informed by my Branch 21 Chief, J. Harrison, that John would assist me in the -- 22 just trying to complete the allegation, allegations. 23 0 When did you learn of that? 24 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Right before I went to the site, before () 25 I went back to the site. i , Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134
- (312) 232-0262
~ -
2 ,
.I 10760 g
N.s 1 Q Well, it appears from.the inspection report that after-2 some hiatus there was an inspection activity conducted 3 August 28th through 30th. 4 Is that.when you went back to the site with Mr. 5 Neisler? 6 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 7 Q' How long before the.28th of August then did you learn 8 that Mr. Neisler was going to assist you? 9 A. (WITNESS . MENDEZ ) Right around the 26th, 27th. 10 0 -Okay. Mr. Neisler, let me turn to you. 11 Who informed you that you were going to perform () 12 work on this inspection? 13 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Raymond Love. 14 0 What is Mr, Love's position? 15 A (WITNESS DEISLER) He was the acting Section-Chief or the 16 Section Chief of the section I was in at the time. 17 0 What, in substance, did Mr. Love tell you? 18 A (WITNESS NEISLER) He told me that I was to go to i 19 Braidwood the next day. That was on the -- which was 20 the 28th of August, and assist Mendez with his 21 inspection. 22 Q Did he tell you anything about the nature of the 23 inspection that you were to assist Mendez with?
- 24 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Not other than he was involved in a s- 25 series of allegations.
1 i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
Y 10761 q, N,/ J. Q Was there any discussion of the character of those 2 allegations? 3 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No. 4 Q Did you know who the subject of the allegations was? 5 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I came by the office the next morning 6 and I was showed this. They showed me a copy of this -- 7 (Indica ting. ) 8 Q The April 5th memo? 9 A (WITNESS NEISLER) -- the April 5th memo with the names. 10 blacked out, and I read that and went to the . site. 11 Q All right, sir. Mr. Neisler, did you discuss with 1 12 anyone the comments that had been made to Mr. Mendez' ' ~ (-) ( 13 draft inspection report? i 14 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No. I only talked to Love. , + 15 Q Did you talk with Mr. Mendez about that draf t report and 16 comment he had received on it? ^ I 17 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No. i Mr. Neisler, were you aware that Intervenors had raised 18 Q , 19 questions about harassment and intimidation at Comstock? 20 A (WITNESS NEISLER) At that time, no. 21' Q When did you first learn of that fact? I
- 22 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Probably about December, when my 23 Section Chief told me that I had to go downtown and give
.24 a deposition in January.
() 25 0 Surprise, uh-huh. i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
- Geneva, IlTInois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
i 10762 i
.(
1 Mr. Mendez~didn't discuss the subject with you when 2 you performed your inspections?
-3 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No.
4 Q Did Mr.-Love inform you why you had been given the 5 designation to perform this work, Mr. Neisler? 6' A (WITNESS NEISLER) He told me that we, Region 3, had 7 committed to the Licensing Board to have the inspection 8 done by 1 September, if I remember correctly. 9 Q Mr. Love told you this? 10 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Yes. 11 Q The inspection report is dated October 29th, so I guess 12 you didn't make the 1 September deadline. 13 A (WITNESS NEISLER) We completed inspection. 14 0~ All right, sir. Now, what I would like to do,'if you 15 can, gentlemen, I would like to identify what additional 16 activities you undertook at the point when you returned 17 to the site after the sequence of events you have just 18 testified to, returned to the site on August 28th. 19 What activities did you do, Mr. Mendez, on that 20 occasion? 21 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I know I talked to other.QC Inspectors. 22 In particular I remember Julie Bullock. 23 I didn't hold any formal interviews with anyone. I 24 looked through more records. () 25 The first time I had gone through the QC records Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. l' Geneva, Illinois 6DIT4 ! (312) 232-0262 l
m; - 10763
,/~\
1 vault I had found Irv DeWald's QC inspection report. 2 O The 1,000 weld checklist? 3 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That's' correct. 4 So I attempted to look further through the records 5 to see if I could find it. 6 I also looked at other calibration records, 7 configuration records, welding, to see if I could find 8 any additional discrepancies or any pattern of 9 discrepancies that hadn't- been previously identified. 10 Just in general, just to look through more records. 11 Q Okay. What did you speak to Ms. Bullock 'about? (g 12 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I think there was a concern about she
.Q 13 being denied additional training; and she mentioned that 14 she was misquoted, that she had never said that, that 15 she had never been denied any training.
16 0 Where did you hear otherwise?. What got you onto Ms. 17 Bullock as to that question? 18 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Somewhere in-all of these memos there 19 was a written question that said that Julie Bullock had 20 been refused additional training. 21 Q In what area, were you informed? In what area had she 22 been denied training, as you understood it? 23 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I think cable pulling. 24 That's one of the reasonn why we had to go back. () 25 In reading through these memos, there was one or two Ronntag Reporting ServlCE,_Ltd. __ Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
r 10764 t 1 things that I had missed, Julie Bullock, that sort of 2 thing, a couple of statements that QC Inspectors had 3 made that I hadn't picked up on. 4 0 When you did your initial activity? 5 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 6 Q In the memos, you mean the March 29th and the April 5th 7 memos? 8 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 9 Q Now, what, Mr. Mendez, did you understand Mr. Neisler's 10 role was going to be? 11 We now know that he conducted additional (~) 12 interviews?
\~'
13 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That's right. 14 0 Why was Neisler to do additional interviews? 15 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) My understanding is we can cover more 16 ground with two inspectors there. 17 He talked to additional QC Inspectors while I 18 conducted additional document reviews. 19 Q Well, what additional ground did you understand that you 20 were to try to cover by way of further interviews, Mr. 21 Mendez? 22 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Just what we do, cover more ground with 23 two inspectors. 24 0 Well, you had already performed all of the interviews t ( ) 25 that you were going to perform by the time -- 1 i Sonntag_ Reporting Service, Ltd. ~ ~ ~ - - - - - ~! Geneva, ITffnois 60D1 (312) 232-0262
10765 p L/ 1 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That is correct. 2 0 -- you submitted your draft inspection reports? 3 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That's correct. 4 Q You didn't conduct any further interviews when you went 5 back to the site; right?
- 6. A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That's why John conducted those further 7- interviews.
8 Q Well, what did you understand the purpose was of Mr. 9 Neisler's interviews?~ 10 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) To see if.somewhere along the line'in 11 my initial review, initial interviews with the Comstock s 12 QC Allegers, whether I had missed anything. b 13 So it was, in part, John's responsibility to see if i 14 anything had not been brought up to the front. 15 0 All right, sir. So it was your understanding that Mr. 1 16 Neisler was going to re-interview people that you had i 17 already talked to? 18 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No. It was up to his discretion a i whether he wanted to talk to the same people I talked to 19 20 or other QC Inspectors. ; 21 Q Mr. Neisler, the ball is your court. 22 Was it your understanding -- was it your decision , 23 to re-interview people that Mr. Mendez had already l 24 spoken to? j () 25 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I did not re-interview them sonnta g n epor_ ting _. se rv i ces_Ltd. i Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10766 f) v 1 intentionally. 2 'At the time I got the list of people from Mendez,
'3 -he.had various names with X's and whatever,on them,_so'I 4 picked the ones without the X's, which were the ones 5 that I' thought he had not talked to.
6 I found later that he had interviewed most_of them. 7 0 Okay, all'right. So you wound up talking to people he 8 had already talked to?- 9 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Yes. 10 0 And I take it, since you, Mr. Neisler, were= working _from 11 the April 5th memo, that you covered much of the same 12 ground that Mr. Mendez had already covered with those (~ v 13 same people? 14 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Generally, I asked them questions 15 covering all the allegations that were listed on that 16 memo. 17 Q All right, sir. Well, when you completed your 18 interviews with these people then, Mr. Neisler, and it
'19 became apparent that you had talked to someone that Mr.
20 Mendez had already interviewed, did the two of you sit 21 down and compare notes and line up your findings? 22 A (WITNESS NEISLER) We did that when we were assembling 23 the inspection report. 24 Q Did you identify any factual inconsistencies between the 25 results of your two interviews of the same persons? ( }) Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 6DIl~4 (312) 232-0262
10767 l 1 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No. 2 0- Did you concur in your conclusions resulting from the 3 separate interviews of the same persons? 4 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I don't remember any disagreements we 5 had on the report and what was said in it. 6 Q How about conclusions as to individual interviews? 7 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No, I don't think we had any 8 disagreements there. 9 Q So is it fair to say then, Mr. Neisler, that your 10 re-interviewing process confirmed the results of Mr. 11 Mendez initial interviews? o 12 A (WITNESS NEISLER) You could say that. b(s . 13 Q All right. Then a second exit interview was conducted 14 on August 30, 1985. 15 I take it both of you gentlemen were present for 16 that? 17 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Correct. 18 Q And that you shared your findings, whatever additional 19 findings you had made, with those persons, as indicated 20 on Page 2 of the details of your report, who attended 21 that meeting; is that true? 22 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I don't think there was any additional 23 findings. l 24 0 All right. Why don't you tell me the substance of what l l () 25 was discussed then at that second exit interview on l sonnteg nepArling lery_ict,_Ltd, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10768 7_
'u 1 August 30, 1985.
2 A (WITNESS NEISLER) That interview, like all exit 3 interviews, when we finish an inspection, we tell the
-4 Licensee representatives, whoever they may be at the 5 exit interview, - the scope of the ' inspection, what we 6 have covered, what we have looked at and whether or not 7 there are any. violations or'any issues that were 8 unresolved at the interview; and we did the same thing 9 here.
10 0 okay. Well, what, in substance, did you-tell them on 11 the August 30th exit interview? 12 A (WITNESS NEISLER) First we told them that we had V(~S 13 completed our field inspection of these allegations. 14 And I think Mr. Mendez then, he again told them 15 that he had found violations and that there were some 16 unresolved issues left, as were later identified in the 17 report. 18 Then that was the gist of the exit interview. 19 Q All right. Did you discuss your conclusions with 20 respect to harassment and intimidation? 21 A (WITNESS NEISLER) At that time, no. 22 O Mr. Mendez, to return to the exit interview you 23 conducted on May 10, 1985, at that time did you identify 24 the prospective items of noncompliance? O uJ 25 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I think at that time there was only one Sonntag_Reportijn Service, ~ Ltd. Geneva, IT11nois 6Of34 (312) 232-0262
10769 l3 kJ 1 violation and three open items. I don't know if they 2 were open or unresolved. I think there were three 3~ unresolved items. 4 When I came back the second time,.I hadn't felt 5 that Edison had taken proper corrective action on one of , 6 the unresolved items, so it was a second violation. 7 That's really the only thing I changed at the 8 second exit interview. 9 Q Which unresolved item become an item of noncompliance at 10 the second exit? 11 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) It was the second list that I reviewed' 12- where it was 1,215 welds, and PTL had identified 13 . discrepancies, problems, with some of the welds; and 14 Edison still hadn't taken corrective action to repair 15 the welds, rework the welds. e 16 0 That is Item of Noncompliance No. 2, Severity Level V 17 violation of Appendix B, Criterion V"II? 18 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That's correct. 19 Q It appears at Page 2 of the appendix to your inspection 20 report? 21 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. , 22 0 Now, were there any additional unresolved items that you 23 Identified -- 24 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, no. () 25 0 -- at the second exit? Sonntag Reporting Stry_Lce,_ktd, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 10770 1 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No. 2 0 In the first exit interview, Mr. Mendez, did you 3 communicate your conclusions with respect to harassment p 4 and intimidation? 5 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I might have, yes. 6 0 What, in substance, did you state your conclusions to be 7 at that first exit interview, May 10th? 8 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) It was a general feeling. I didn't 9 feel Comstock communicated with their QC Inspectors. 10 0 Anything else? 11 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Nothing other than the unresolved items r3 12 and notice of violation. s ; 13 0 So if you would turn to Page 25 of your inspection 14 report, Exhibit 17, looking at the paragraph just before 15 the one that is numbered 3, the second to the last . 16 sentence, "The problems between LKC management and the 17 QC Inspectors generally stemmed from a lack of 18 communication between management and employees and the 19 bullying tactics of one QC supervisor who was removed 20 from the construction site." 21 Did you communicate, in substance, that conclusion 22 to Edison at the May 10th exit interview? 23 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I don't think it was necessary to talk 24 about Rick Saklak. () 25 Ile had already been removed from the site. Sonntag Reporting Service, i 60f34-Ltd.
~~
Geneva, ITITnois (312) 232-0262
g- . l
. . ~ . .
- 10771
.)
1 0 -So did you mention just the communications problem? 2 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Let's go off the record. 4 (There followed a discussion outside.the 5 record.) 6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Back on the record. 7 BY MR. GUILD: 8 Q Page 24, E, Licensee conclusion, do you see th'at 9 section? 10 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 11 Q All right. "The Licensee also stated in its summary 12 report of LKC QC inspector concerns and allegations that
~
13- a labor union issue divided management and inspectors. 14 It was Licensee's conclusion that except for the 15 situation which resulted in the removal of one QC 16 supervisor, no serious quality related probicms exist. 17 The Licensee stated that many issues were resolved with 18 the termination of the subject QC supervisor." 19 Now, under a little F there below you state, "The 20 inspectors determined that the Licensee's examinations 21 and conclusions regarding the allegations that the 22 Licensee reviewed were appropriate." 23 Did you communicate in substance your agreement 24 with Licensee's conclusion at that first exit interview? () 25 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I don't recall. I think I did. Sonntag_Renorting_Smice.,_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~ 10772 1 Q Did you discuss at the first inte rview -- strike that.
2 Did you make that statement at the second exit 3 inte rview? 4 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I don't think so. 5 0 All right, sir. You identified additional persons that 6 you spoke to, gentlemen, who were not listed in the 7 April 5th memo, who were not A11ege rs; and those 8 included Mr. Rissman, Mr. Williams and Mr. Nemeth; 9 correct? 10 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 11 Q All right. 12 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I interviewed those initially when I 13 first went to the site. 14 Q All right. Those gentlemen were not selected randomly? 15 They were selected because they had been identified 16 as the subjects of allegations? 17 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I believe Rissman and Nemeth uere. 18 Q And Mr. Williams, his name came up in the context of an 19 allegation, did it not? 20 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) It wasn' t an allege. tion. Somebody -- I 21 had asked somebody if he knew of anyone who would accept 22 discrepant work or could be pressured by Saklak to 23 accept discrepant work. 24 Q And Kermit Williams' name came up in that context? l 25 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Kermit Williams, yes. Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Gen eva ,71ITnHI s 6013'4
- ~
(312) 232-0262 E- - -
10773 m U 1 Q Can you recall who identified him in that context?
'2 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I don't. I can't.
3 Q The other gentlemen you identified or you interviewed 4 that were not among the list of those who went to the 5 NRC, they were not identified at random, were they? , 6 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No. There was a fourth individual but 7 I can't remember his name. , I 8 He was also identified by one of the original 12. 9 Q I see, sir. Now, you state that you used a set of 10 written questions, Mr. Mendez, to conduct your ;) ! 11 inte rviews ? e-) 12 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That's correct. x- , 13 0 All right, sir. I take it from your earlier answers 14 that you have not retained a list of those questions? t 15 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes, I haven't. I don't. I have the l 16 questions. 17 0 You have the questions, all right, sir. ! 18 Can you recite the questions today? 19 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Generally, they follow the outline of 20 the March 29th, April 5th memos, which is, "Has Saklak [ 21 intimidated you? Han anybody lost overtime after 22 identifying any safety related issue?" 23 I asked Francisco Rolan about drafting errors that 24 he brought to the attention of Rick Saklak. () 25 I asked Therman Bowman about the base metal I So nn t a g__R epo r tin.g_Se rv i.c e,_L td , ___ j ; Geneva, Illinois 60134 ~ l j (312) 232-0262
10774 b 1 -reduction problem. 2 I asked Herschel Stout the production pressures. 3 Q Let me interrupt you for a second. You are identifying I 4 named persons who were the subject of allegations. 5 Did I understand that you asked the generic 6 questions to everybody or just to the persons named? 7 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No. I asked each one all of these 8 questions. That is, I asked Therman Bowman about 9 production push, if he knew anything about Rick Snyder 10 or Rick Martin, those type of questions. 11 Q Let me be a little clearer then. 12 If there is an allegation that is associated with a
\
13 specific individual, let's say, Mr. Bowman, the base 14 metal reduction problem, did you ask other persons 15 whether they knew of Mr. Bowman involved in a base metal 16 reduction problem? 17 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) (No response.) 16 Q How exactly did you f rame the question? 19 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) As far as Therman Bowman was concerned, 20 I asked him about that particular instance; but I also 21 asked other QC Inspectors if they had been -- not all of 22 them were -- not all of the inspectors were welders, 23 welding inspectors. 24 So that's why I asked them had they been refused i () 25 overtime for identifying discrepant conditions out in l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. i ~ Con ~eVa, ~'Illino'is '~ 60134 (312) 232-0262 a
...-_-... - _-- ,--- -,.--,.-. - .-- ---.~ ,,, .-.- . -~ .,.,--., .- , _,,,-- - , . , . -- - - -.--
,~ 4 l ^ 10775 f. F L ~ 1
'uJ ' ,
1 ~the field. -
~;
2 Q So you rephrased the questio'n deoending on-the .., - - 3 inte rviewe r -- l' ; , . ,j' L 4 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. ,n 5 Q The inte rviewee , ' I . guess?J ' i: 6 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. . . 7 Q Did you ask other persons'whether they were aware of the 8 Therman Bowman concern involving base metal reduction 9 problems and denial of overtime aside from Mr. Bowman? . 10 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I don't think I asked anybody else , 11 about this particular inc,ident. ,
-f l
12 Q Okay. So you didn't use the same 50fguestions for 13- everybody? v 14 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) They changed.. 'The elect rical, -(X:. 15 Inspector, I would ask-him a different question
~ '
16 regarding discrepant conditions out'in the field.' 17 Q All right, sir. But let'n'take base metal reduction 18 problems as an example. ' I
~
19 You didn't ask everybody you interviewed whether 20 they knew of base metal redu,ction problems? 21 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) '. That 's right. - 22 Q Nor did you ask everyone you interviewed whether they 23 knew of reduction of overtime for identifying base metal 24 reduction problems? 25 (WITNESS MENDEZ) Just denials of overtime,>not in [~) ss A S onn tag __Re p ortin g_S try_ic cuLtd . Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
[ 10776 n U 1 relation to base metal reduction problems. 2 Q Fine. All right, sir. You were explaining to me what_ 3 the questions were that you asked. I interrupted you 4 while you were making ~that explanation. 5 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Generally, it was from many of the 6 statements that the QC Inspectors had made. 7 It was the March 29th memo, Warnick to McGregor and 8 Schulz, Inspector X. 9 I tried to pick out as many concerns as we had and 10 tried to categorize them into intimidation, harassment, 11 production _ push, that sort of thing. 12' Q I take it you had these questions written out in ( 13 advance; is that correct? 14 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Approximately 75 or 80 percent of the 15 questions. 16 As I went along, I_had additional questions, plus 17 the quality concern documents provided by Commonwealth 18 Edison. 19 Q Right. But you had written out 50 questions; is that 20 your testimony? 21 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) It was approximately 50 questions. I 22 could have asked somebody 45 questions, I could have-23 asked somebody else 35 or 60 questions. 24 Q How did you document the answers to these questions? () 25 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I had them numbe red. I had each one Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, In Tnois 60D4 (312) 232-0262
; \
, 10777. 1 numbered. 2 Q Did you use a form"for documenting the interviews with 3 each person? 4 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Nell, if I asked them Question 10, I 5 knew what Question 10 was. 6 Q Do you know what Question 49 was? 7 A (WITNESS MENDEZ)( Not right now I don't. 8 Q So you had a, list of numbers Snd'those numbers 9 corresponded to;your fiied set of questions and you 10 wrote notes by numbers for each person? 11 A (WITNESS ,MENDEZ) That's correct. p 12 Q' What were the questions that you derived that were your v 13 own,' Mr. Mendez, and were not taken f rom the April 5th 14 memo? 15 i A (WITNSSS MENDEZ) Some of my own? 16 Q Well, I thought I heard your earlier testimony was that 17 you had a few questions yourself that were not the -- 18 that were not from the April 25th memo. 19 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) It was general follow-up questions. 20 If somebody gave me a positive answer, naturally, I < i' 21 would ask the following questions. I j ust wouldn' t say, 22 "Okay. So and so intimidated you"; but I would ask 23 follow-up questions. I-24 Q That's understood, but did you have any of your own l 3 25 questions among the 50 that you set out with aside from i Sonn tag _R_ep_or ting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134_ (312) 232-0262
10778 O 1 follow-up questions? 2 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I believe there were but I can't recall 3 any at the moment. 4 Q All right, sir. What questions did you derive from 5 Commonwealth Edison Company's Quality First files, not 6 the NRC memos? 7 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Some of the questions on my own was 8 about Irv DeWald discriminating against people. 9 I think it was an upper management Comstock person 10 -- Paserba, I believe it was -- who discriminated 11 against, in general, the QC Inspectors. I think he had 12 promised them more money, those type of questions. 13 Q All right. Do you recall any others that you derived
. 14 from the Edison Quality First file review?
15 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I can't. 16 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, it's approximately 17 the noon hour. 18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine. Why don't we 19 break for lunch until 1:15. 20 (WHEREUPON, the hearing of the 21 above-entitled matter was continued to 22 the hour of 1:15 P. M.) 1. 23 24 25 (:) Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, I1Tihois 60131 (312) 232-0262
10779
/' . (_)s 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Are we ready, Mr. Guild?
2 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir. 3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. We are back in 4 session. 5 Mr. Guild, please continue. S ! 6 MR. GUILD: Thank you. 7 BY MR. GUILD: 8 O Mr. Mendez, I want to ask you a few questions about your 9 background. I am looking at Exhibit 2 to your 10 testimony. 11 By whom were you employed between 1976 and 19817 fx 12 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Commonwealth Edison. V. 13 And in what capacity did you work for Edison? Q 14 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I was -- I was an engineer with 15 Commonwealth Edison. 16 0 Was your management aware that you had formerly been 17 employed by Commonwealth Edison when they had assigned 18 you to investigate these issues involving production 19 pressure on Comstock quality control. from Commonwealth 20 Edison Company? 21 A (WIINESS MENDEZ) I know my section chief was aware of 22 tha t. 23 0 Did you discuss that matter with him, your prior 24 employment by Commonwealth Edison Company? 25 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) He is fully aware of the fact that I 1() Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, IITInois 601T4 (312) 232-0262
10780 k_,) 1 worked for Commonwealth Edison. 2 0 All right, sir. 3 Let's turn to a Allegation 0072, and that's the 4 allegation that tracked the concerns expt.ssed by the 24 5 Inspectors, expressed March 29, 1985. I believe 6 beginning at Page 19 of your pre-filed testimony, 7 gentlemen, and Page 11 of your inspection report, 8 Exhibit 17, you take up these issues. 9 First, at Page 19 of your testimony, Answer 39 10 states, "We interviewed most of the QC Inspectors," and 11 I take it that's a joint answer, both you and Mr. gs 12 Mendez, and you, Mr. Neisler, are answering that (-) 13 question; is that correct, Mr. Neisler? 14 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Yes, to that extent. 15 0 All right, sir. 16 Page 20, the first line reads, "I also reviewed 17 trend analyses of Applicant's Quality Assurance audit 18 and surveillance report findings." 19 That speaks in the singular; and who should I 20 understand is answering that portion of the question? 21 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I answered that portion. I wrote the 22 testimony for that particular item, so -- 23 Q All of it. 24 So when it was written, it's referring to Mr. () 25 Neisler alone? l Sonntag Reporting Service,._Ltd. I Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 )
1 l 10781 i 1 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Correct. 2 Q And Mr. Mendez, that's not referring to you; you are not 3 stating that you made that review? 4 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That is correct. 5 Q- Now, I'take it, then, Mr..Neisler, it's your testimony 6 at Page 20, quote, "These records did not reveal a 7 significant decline in the number or type of identified 8 deficiencies." 9 A (WITNESS NEISLER) That's correct. 10 0 Well, what exact decline in the number or type of 11 identified deficiencies did you identify in your records 12 review ? O 13 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I didn't identify any specific 14 decline. They stayed at about the 'same level. 15 Q Well, what level was that, sir? 16 A (WITNESS NEISLER) If you mean a number, I have no idea. 17 I looked at charts and the charts maintained a 18 straight line, more or less. It was depending on the 19 amount of work where the graph went. 20 0 What data-base did these charts depict? 21 A (WITNESS NEISLER) These in some cases depicted quality 22 assurance audit findings, I had some Comstock quarterly 23 reports, and -- well, the quality assurance audit 24 findings for Commonwealth Edison, Comstock quarterly () 25 reports which showed numbers, how many inspections Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Il~Tinois 6~0134 (312) 232-0262
- . , . .- . .. . . ~ . - - - . . - . - . . - - _ - - - -
10782 jq V 1 completed, how many inspections rejected, or items 2 rej ected, et cetera, over a period of time. 3 Q Let's focus on that point. 4 What was the data that you reviewed with respect to 5 numbers of inspections performed, acceptances and 6 rej ections ?
- 7 A (WITNESS NEISLER) The numbers of inspections performed, 8 - r ej ections, they usually ran somewhere between a 9 thousand and 2,000 in a month.
10 0 1,000 and 2,000? 11 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I realize that's a little -- a little 12 wide a range; but the numbers I remember right now, th ey (3 Y 13 were in the 1,000 to the 2,000 range. 14 0 All right. 15 1,000 to 2,000 what? 16 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Inspections. 17 0 What kind of inspections? 18 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Quality Assurance -- Quality Control 19 inspections. 20 Q Well, weld inspections, calibrations inspection? 21 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I did not-try to determine whether 22 they were weld inspections or other inspections, since 23 there is no real -- I didn' t feel there was any real 24 significance there. () 25 Q So you don't know what kind of inspections they were Sonrttag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10783 3
.J 1 looking at?
2 A (WITNESS NEISLER) They would have been weld 3 inspections, configurations inspections, they could have 4 been-cable pulling terminations, whatever else they have 5 there. 6 0 It could have been all or some or any of them? 7 A (WITNESS NEISLER) It could have been all. 8 0 Were they all? 9 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Okay. They were all. 10 0 Well, Mr. Neisler, you are the man testifying and I am 11 not trying to give you any answer. g' 12 A (WITNESS NEISLER) All I am telling you is: I look at a
\-
13 number of inspections done, number of inspections 14 accepted, number of inspection rejected, which is what 15 this report consisted of. 16 It did not, for my ' purposes, tell me whether they 17 were weld inspections, whether or not they were cable 18 inspections, hanger inspections, cable pans or what have 19 you. 20 0 Well, I guess I have two questions.
-:21 First, did the report identify what sort of 22 inspections they were? I l
23 A (WITNESS NEISLER) As I remember, no. 24 0 Okay. In your judgment, Mr. Neisler, what do you mean () 25 by the term "significant," as you use it in your l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. l l Geneva, IIIIKols 60134 i (312) 232-0262 1 1
.- a
k 10784
'11 testimony at Page 20?
i- .2 A (WITNESS NEISLER) The significance, if I have seen a 3 change of 10; to' 25 percent one way . or other, I thought 4 there was a problem. 5 Q Did you review inspection data on-an inspector or you 6- just took an average? 7 A (WITNESS- NEISLER) No individual inspector. I looked at 8 the whole number. 9 Q For .the entire QC Department? 10 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Right. 11 Q Were these data displayed by day? 12 A (WITNESS NEISLER) They were displayed, as I recall, O' ' 13 mostly by . week. 14 Q By week? ? 15 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Yes. .
- 16 Q What data were displayed by week?
17 A (WITNESS NEISLER) The Comstock reports were by week; 18 the audit findings or reports were audits over a period i 19 of time over the last year or so. 20 0 Can you identify the reports that you reviewed that are 21 the basis of this testimony? 12 2 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No. 23 Q I take it, Mr. Neisler, you didn' t do any sampling 24 re-inspection of the Comstock inspection stork? l~ 25 (WITNESS NEISLER) I did not, no. (]) A i. I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 L (312) 232-0262
. - . . - _ _ . - - , _ . . = _ _ _ _ - . - . - . . . . - - . . - - - , ... - .- -
10785 V 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Neisler, 2 Would you wait until the question is completed? 3 The Reporter is going to have a hard time taking it all 4 down. 5 MR. GUILD: Mr. Reporter, did you get that? 6~ THE REPORTER: Yes, sir. 7 BY MR. GUILD: 8 Q Page 11 of the inspection report, gentlemen, the 9 statement that the NRC inspector examined trend analyses 10 of quality assurance deficiencies, et cetera, is that 11 referring to you, Mr. Neisler?
~3 12 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Yes.
d 13 And not you, Mr. Mendez ? Q 14 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That's correct. 15 Q Now, Page 12 of the inspection report, under that same 16 heading, there is the statement that, "For the months 17 preceding receipt of this allegation, the inspector 18 compared the number of inspections performed and number 19 of inspectors in the field, and determined the average 20 inspector performed approximately 21 inspections per 21 week which, in the NRC Inspector's view, was not 22 excessive." 23 Again, that's you, Mr. Neisler? { 24 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Tha t 's me. (~T 25 Q All right, sir. ! s/ I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, IllTnois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10786
. (-
L.I 1 How did you obtain the data on which you made that 2 calculation, sir? 3 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I added the number of inspections 4 that had been performed during the week, during the 5 weeks in that month. I divided by the number of 6 inspectors that were inspecting, and I got the number. 7 Q All right. 8 Well, so that isn' t simply an approximate, that is, 9 indeed, an average? 10 A (WITNESS NEISLER) It's approximate, because it came out 11 to 20 point something. 12 Q All right. 13 So you rounded up or rounded down? 14 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Yes, I rounded up. 15 Q Next whole number and all that? 16 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Right. 17 Q Did you average all types of inspections and all 18 inspectors? 19 A (WITNESS NEISLER) That was all types inspections. 20 Q All certified Level II Inspectors? 21 A (WITNESS NEISLER) They -- that was just the Level II 22 Inspectors, correct. 23 Q You counted all the Level II inspectors? 24 A (WITNESS NEISLER) W ell, I counted all the inspectors () 25' and all the people that Comstock had, certified Sonntag_ReporAing_Se_ry.ce,_Ltd. i Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10787 O 1 inspectors or qualified inspectors. 2 Q Do you mean supervisors or Leads? 3 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Supervisor, Leads -- no,. Leads are 4 inspectors. They are inspectors. 5 Q so let's do this. 6 How many inspectors did you count on in your 7 calcula tion ? 8 A (WITNESS NEISLER) If I remember, there were about 90 of 9 th em. Now, that's what I think the number is, as I 10 remember. 11 Q Can you remember how many inspections you calculated had gw 12 taken place during the weeks?
%.)
13 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Something like -- the number that I 14 remember is someplace around 2,000. 15 Q During a week? 16 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Right. 17 Q Now, when you say "a week," I take it that's a normal 18 work week of five eight-hour days; is that right?
- 19 A (WITNESS NEISLER) That is the normal -- not a normal 20 eight-hour day, that's a total number of inspections for 21 the week.
22 There are no normal eight-hour days in -- at a 23 nuclear power construction site. 24 0 Is it a seven-day week, a five-day or a six? 25 (WITNESS NEISLER) Whether it was a five-day, six-day or (]) A Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, IITI~nois 601'34 (312) 232-0262
.= . . - . . - .
10788 r J
,m k) 1 seven-day week, they took the beginning of the week or 2 ending, and they didn' t' differentiate between a five-day -
3 week or a six-day week or a seven-day week.
'4 Q 'Wouldn' t. you agree that a five-day week is 5 significantly shorter than a seven-day week for purposes 6- of calculating amount of work performed?
7 A (WITNESS NEISLER) It would be approximately two days 8 shorter, yes. 9 Q All right.
- 10- And -- well, exactly two days shorter, in fact?
j 11 A (WITNESS NEISLER) W ell - . 12 Q You engineers always like to round numbers. 13 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Well, okay. For your purposes I 14 would say -- 15 Q All right. 16 A (WITNESS NEISLER) -- exactly- two days. Plus or minus 17 is no t -- , 18 Q Mr. Neisler, you made the conclusion that these 21 . 19 inspections per week, in your view, were not excessive, 20 and I am trying to understand what standards you used to I: 21 evaluate those. - 22 Did you use a five-day week or a seven-day week? 23 A (HITNESS NEISLER) I used neither. 24 I talked to the inspectors I interviewed, who were 4 () 25 the allegers. I arked each of them what he thought Sonntaq Rep _o_rting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10789 s 1 should be the number of inspections that he would . 2 normally do in a day's time. The -- and what he thought 3 would be some unreasonable or not unreasonable' number. 4 0 Okay. 5 A (WITNESS NEISLER) And I received numbers. I think the 6 lowest' was 10 and the high was 30. 7 Q Numbers of inspections? 8 A (WITNESS NEISLER) -Numbers of inspection. 9 0 What kinds of inspections were those? 10 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Most of the people I was talking to 11 were weld inspectors. , 12 Q All right. 13 Were those conduit inspections or cable tray hanger " 14 inspections? 15 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I think there was a combination'of 16 bo th. 17 Q What conduit hanger inspector told you about that 18 average? 19 A (WITNESS NEISLER) The craduit hanger I think he told me 20 he did from up to -- Le gave me a figure for a high of I 21 about 35. 22 0 How about the cable pan hanger inspectors? ! 23 A (WITNESS NEISLER) The cable pan hanger inspectors? 24 Do you mean the hanger structure or the cable pan () 25 attachment? Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, IITI~noIs 60I34
; (312) 232-0262
10790
~ %)
1 Q Would you tell me, did you ask both' of them? 2 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I didn't break it down, as far as
.3 cable pan attachments; but the hanger itself they told 4 me they can do 10 a day.
5 0 All right. 6 So, well, if it's -- if it's a seven-day week that 7 we -are calculating, at 21 a week, that is an average of 8 3 a day and, in your opinion, is that a reasonable. 9 amount of inspection for -en inspector to perform? 10 A (WITNESS NEISLER) In my opinion, no. 11 0 It's not? g- 12 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No. (>S 13 Q What is a reasonable amount? 14 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I think from observing QC Inspectors 15 for several years, I would say tbst probably one an 16 hour. 17 0 Okay. So 8 in an eight-hour day,10 in a ten-hour day? 18 A (WITNESS NEISLER) That would be a good approximation. 19 Q All right, sir. 20 Well, if you use a eight-hour five-day week, do you ! 21 mean, you are declaring that data made available to you 22 was that these inspectors were doing a little better 23 than 4 inspections per day, however many hours there 24 were in the day, 8, 10, what have you.
,() 25 Is that a reasonable number of inspections, in your So n n t a g_Re po rt.i n g_ S_ery_ ire,_kt d .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i., 4 '10791
- r.-
..O , 1 -opinion?.
i' 2 A: .(WITNESS NEISLER) I don't think so,.not.from a data . 3' they gave me. 4 Thelinformation thatDthey gave me, they were-5 telling me. that they could .do 50 and up a week, and the 6 figures came out of about at 20 or:a little over. -
~
l .7 Q You think they. might have been bragging a~ little bit? 8 A. (WITNESS NEISLER) It's possible.
-9 Q Well, what was the standard of inspections that you used 10 ~ when you reached your judgment that 21 inspections per
; 11 seven-day week, five-day week, eight-hour day, -ten-hour
~ 12 ' day,'whatever standard you were thinking about, was not 13 excessive, as you stated in the inspection report at'
, 14 Page 12? 15 MR. BERRY: Asked and answered. i' ! 16 A. (WITNESS -NSISLER) The standard I used was -- 17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Do you mean -- was there an l 18 obj ection ? . f 19 Mh. 3ERRY:- Obj ection. l~ 20 It was asked and answered. The witness just I 21 provided the basis. 22 JUDGE GROSSNAN: 1 believe that's the case, l I l 23 Mr. Guild i 24 MR. GUILD: If that's the Chairman's view, , 25 that's fine. (]) I l Sonntag Repor_tijn Service, Ltd.
- ~
l Geneva, Il11nols 6~0134 ! (312) 232-0262
. _ _ . . . . . _ _ . . _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . . . - _ _ . _ , . , _ . . _ _ . . . _ - . ~ . _ . _ ._.,.__, ,. .___ _.... . _ . ,,__., _ __,.___- _ -,~. . . ,
. .m b
~
'10792'
- 1. BY MR. GUILD:
2 Q Why-did you pick the month you looked at, Mr. Neisler, 3 for the purpose of performing the evaluation that you 4 testified to or that's identified in 'your inspection 5 report? 6 A (WITNESS NEISLER) That was an easy _ month, considering 7 that this was the conth in which, at the end of that 8 month, they had made their allegations. It would have 9 been, in any. opinion, fresher iln their mind at that time t 10 how ' hard they had been worked, and if they had been 11 saying that or complaining that- they had been harassed r- 12 because they were not meeting their production 13 schedules, that was the most recent time. 14 I didn't -- so I felt that that was fresher in 15 their mind and I would use that. 16 Q All right, sir. 17 The inspectors themselves didn't suggest that that 18 was the month you should look at to identify work 19 performance effect from the harassment and intimidation 20 they testified to? 21 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No one sugge.Sted that month to me. 22 Q That's the only one month you looked at? 23 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Right 24 Q Skip from Concern 1 of Allegation 72, to No. 4, ple ase. () 25 That has to do, of course, with Mr. DeWald and the Sonnta_g_Repotting Service,_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 _ . ~ _ _ _ __ _ - - - _ _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ . __ ___. . . . _ . . . .
t 10793 s_/ 1 number of welds. 2 Now, Mr. Mendez, I believe you testified that you 3 attempted to identify a particular checklist involving. 4 Mr. DeWald, and that you were unable to do so. 5 But I understand that you said that you identified 6 a number of other inspection checklists that had large 7 numbers of weld inspections documented on a single list; 8 isn't that true? 9 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 10 0 All right, sir. 11 And did you identify any others, aside from the one 12 that you mention in your inspection report and 1.3 testimony, where there were in excess of 1,000 welds. 14 documented on a single checklist? 15 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I don't think I found a checklist 16 with more than a thousand. 17 0 All right, so the -- 18 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Although I did see some up to six or 19 seven hundred. 20 0 Whose checklists were the six or seven hundred? 21 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Some were Yanketis, most of them were 22 Yanketis, and another inspector -- I can' t recall his --- 23 his name at the moment. 24 Q How about from Mr. Martin, Mr. Martin? ,
~T 25 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I don't think I fou1d one -- found an (G
Sonntaa Report ing Service, Lt l. 6013T-- Geneva, Illinois (312) 232-0262
10794'
,\
U 1 inspection checklist with that many, maybe four or five 2 hundred. 3 0 A checklist with four or five hundred for Mr. Martin? 4 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 5 Q Okay. Now, you identify in your testimony Answer 50, 6 and it's in your inspection report at Page 14, that you , 7 found a checklist containing 1,215 welds. 8 Who was the QC Inspector that completed that 9 checklist? 10 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That was Thomas. 11 Q What is his first name now? 12 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Last name Thomas. 13 Q What is the first name? 14 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I don't recall. 4 15 MR. BERRY: Dave 16 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Dave Thomas. 17 MR. GUILD: You hud some help. 18 Dave Thomas; does that refresh your recollection? 19 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 20 MR. GUILD: All right. Thank you. 4 21 BY MR. GUILD: 22 Q Now, I believe your testimony was that you understood 23 that there had been a re-inspection of Mr. Yanketis' 24 work? () 25 A .(WITNESS MENDEZ) That's correct.
-- ___So n n_t a g_ Rep o tt i n g_S e r3ti c e ,_L td .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10795 f 1 Q And Mr. Martin's work? 2 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 3 Q And do you know for a fact that their work was 4 re-inspected? 5 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes, it was. Yes, I do know that for 6 a fact. 7 It was based on the general office audit back in 8 '84. I went back and re-inspected all of the work. 9 Q You didn't go back and.re-inspect, did you? 10 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I didn't. 11 Q You understood from some document that you saw that 12 there had been a complete reinspection of their work? 13 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Several documents. 14 Q Now, let's -- at this point let me ask you what you are 15 relying on to arrive at the conclusion that there had 16 been re-inspection of their work. 17 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I don't know if the re-inspection had 18 been completed, but I know that general office -- it was 19 a general office audit also. There was NCR's and ICR's 20 that were written against Yanketis and Martin. 21 Q Well, yes, I heard your testimony to that fact. 22 What I am trying to understand is why you are 23 confident or from the basis -- on the basis of what 24 information was given you, you have confidence that
~'i (J 25 there had been a complete re-inspection of all of this Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, 11TInois 6013'4 (312) 232-0262
l 10796 i i [ \ I
'(_/
1 work. 2 Did somebody tell you that?
'3 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I saw the NCR's, ICR's, I saw those 4 documents.
5 Q All right. 6 That prompted a re-inspection of the work, that is 7 as you understand it? 8 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I don't recall. 9 I think there were some questions about Rick 10 Martin's work and also Yanketis' work. 11 Q What was the basis for the question about Mr. Yanketis' 12 work?
- O-13 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I don't have the ICR in front of me, I 14 couldn't tell you; but I did see that at one time, 15 though.
16 Q Well, was it because there was such a large number of 17 welds documented on a single checklist that they 18 understand that they re-inspected Yanketis' work? 19 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No. t 20 0 So it was some independent cause that led them to do 21 tha t? 22 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 23 0 Well, I take it, then, that as far as you know, there 24 was no general re-inspection of all of the welds t () 25 documented on checklists where there were large numbers Sonntag Reporting _ Service,__Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10797 (3 _ G) 1 of welds listed for that reason? 2 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That's correct. 3 O So there may be other checklists .out there that have 4 -large numbers of welds that didn't happen to have their 5 welding re-inspected for some independent reason? 6 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That's possible. 7 Q You didn't identify those in your inspection report or 8 raise any question about that, though, did you? 9 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I didn't raise Yanketis or Martin only 10 because I knew their work ~was being re-inspected.. 11 Q You were informed their work was being re-inspected? w 12 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I saw documents to that effect. 13 Q All right. 14 Well -- 15 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Correction -- 16 Q For example, do you know that Mr. Martin -- all of Mr. 17 Martin's work was re-inspected? 18 Let's turn to that question. 19 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I Jc7't. I don't know whether all 4 20 cf it was being re-inspected. 21 Q So why did you reach the conclusion that you didn't need 22 to mention Martin's large number of weld checklists if 23 you didn't know, Mr. Mendez, that all Martin's weld work
- 24. was re-inspected?
() 25 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I just know generally that his work Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. G'eneva, IlTI~nols 60174' (312) 232-0262
10798 1 was being re-inspected. 2 Q Well, weren' t you informed that only Mr. Martin's work 3 that had been the subject of photocopied checklists was 4 being re-inspected? 5 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I' knew about that, but I also knew-6 about questions about his QC inspections. 7 0 .All right. 8 Your belief was that every single weld that Rick 9 Martin inspected was re-inspected by someone else? 10 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I just saw that a large percentage -- 11 I don't know what large -- I know that a large number 12 was being re-inspected. 13 Q And you knew that from looking at a piece of paper that 14 said that some of Rick Martin's work was being 15 re-inspected? 16 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 17 0 Were you present, Mr. Mendez, when the -- in this 18 proceeding when the subj ect of Mr. Yanketis' checklist, 19 documenting the inspection of -- I will get a number for 20 you here -- 1,166 welds was discussed, Intervenors' 21 Exhibit 18? 22 I will show you the document. 23 This is a large stack of papers, but there is a 24 checklist included in Intervenors' Exhibit 18, a () 25 Yanketis checklist, for 1,166 welds. Sonntag Reporting _ Service,__Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 i
10799. t
- I C,-, -
i 1 Were you present during 'the Lexamination on that
.2 subj ect,' ' sir, Mr. DeWald and others? ' .
3 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Not with '-- I think- I did see this at
~
4 a later' time, but not when DeWald was here. 5 Q All right. ; 6 You have seen this during the course of this 7 proceeding ? [ 8 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. ! 9 Q Did you come upon' the Yanketis 1,166 weld checklist in l' { 10 your document review looking for the 1,000 plus i 11 checklists during your inspection? 12 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I didn't.
~ '
13 Q Do you know ~whether all the welds on this checklist had
- 14 been re-inspected?
L j _15 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I don't. l 16 Q Do you know whether all of Mr. DeWald's checklists, when 4 17 he was a Level II welding inspector, have been 18 re-inspected, all of his welds have been re-inspected?- { 4' 19 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I don't. 20 Q You are aware that Mr. DEwald, if he didn' t do -- if you 21 weren't able to find a checklist reflecting 1,000 or 22 more welds, you are aware that Mr. DeWald documented 23 hundreds of welds in single checklist, aren't you? , 24 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I think I did see some documents that 25 documented more than 100 welds. Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. j Geneva, IIITnois 60134 i (312) 232-0262
- , - - - , , - , _ . _ , - , . . _ _ . , , - - , -- -- _ -.,~._._-_.--.-- _ _,, .----.._,.-_-_ -,,--,- ._-
10800- , f
)
v 1 Q How about more than 500 -welds? 2 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I didn't 3 MR. GUILD: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I am 4 looking'for a document here. 5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: It's on 17, Intervenors. 6 MR. MILLER: Intervenors' Exhibit 19. 7 MR. GUILD: Okay. Hang on a second. 8 My document control is falling apart. 9 MS. KEZ ELIS : (Indica ting. ) 10 MR. GUILD: Thank you. Il BY MR. GUILD: ys 12 Q Let me show you Intervenors' Exhibit 19, Mr. Mendez.
\
13 It's Mr. DeWald's checklist of March 12, 1981, and 14 it reflects the inspection of 551 welds. 15 Have you ever seen that checklist before? 16 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I haven't. 17 Q You didn't find that in the course of your review, did 18 you? 19 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That's correct. 20 Q Do you know whether those welds have been re-inspected? 21 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I don't know. 22 MR. GUILD: Thank you. 23 (Indicating.) 24 BY MR. GUILD: () 25 Q But you decided to identify the 1,215 weld checklist in ! Sonn_ tag _R epo r t'ing_S_e_rvi ce, Ltd, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10801 i)
\ /'
1 your inspection report. That's the one you identify 2 with inspector Dave Thomas; and let me understand: , 3 Why did you list that on?, and not list the others, 4 the other large -- with large numbers of welds? , 5 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Only because I didn't see a 6 re-inspection program being performed -- re-inspection 7 of a weld being performed on the welds that Thomas had 8 inspected. 9 Q All right, sir. : 10 How did you determine that there had been a 11 re-inspection of Mr. Thomas' work? fj 12 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I wasn't aware of that. I did ask the 13 question, and I don't think anybody gave -- provided 14 that information to me. 15 During the course of my inspection, I didn't run 16 across any NCR's or ICR's written against Dave Thomas. 17 Q I see. , 18 Have you retained a copy of the checklist that's 19 referred to in your inspection report and testimony 20 regarding Thomas' 1,215 welds? 21 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I do have a copy of it, yes. ! 22 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, that document has 23 not been provided to us in discovery, and I would ask 24 that Staff search its files and make it available, that () 25 document to us, plesae. Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, IITrn~51s 60I34 - (312) 232-0262 1
, - . . , .~ . - , , - - , _ - ,
c - L 10802 I
/^T GI
- 1. JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Berry, I assume you can 2, check with Mr. Mendez at some time, locate it and you 3 will supply it?
.MR. BERRY:
4 Yes. I i 5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine. 6 BY MR. GUILD: 7 Q Now,.I take it from your last series of responses, Mr. 8 Mendes, that when you found a number of these large weld. 9 checklists, you asked somebody whether these welds were 10 the subject of any re-inspection? 11 a (WITNESS MEUDEZ) Yes. w 12 Q And who was that somebody? rh l, 13 A (WITHESS MENDEZ) It was information that I obtained 14 through discussions with at least one QC Inspector, that 15 was Rick Martin. I also spoke to Larry Seese about it. 16 Q So Martin -- Mr. Martin was helping you with your . 17 document review; and I take it you discussed matters 18 with him when you came across a document? 19 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 20 - Q All right. 21 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That's right. 22 0 And did you later ask Mr. Seese about specific 23
- inspectors whose work you had come across?
24 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes, I did. () 25 0 All right. SRnntag_ Rep _o_rt.ing Se rvice, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10803 1 And which inspectors did you ask Mr. Seese about? 2 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Rick Martin and Rich Yanketis. 3 Q What did Mr. Seese tell you about those two people? 4 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I asked him to provide, at least at 5 one time, I had the Inspection Correction Reports, or 6 NCR's, and general office audit performed by 7 Commonwealth Edison. 8 Q You asked for those things or he provided those things 9 to you in response to a more general question? 10 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I asked questions and I asked him to
,8 11 provide any documents to me.
12 0 On what subjects? ,. 13 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) On the re-inspection. 14 Q All right. 15 You asked Mr. Seese whether these inspectors' work 16 had been the subject' of re-inspections? 17 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 18 0 And he produced these document.i in repponse? 19 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. - 20 Q All right. , 21 So you relied,then on what Mr. Seese told you and 22 what he produced by w'ay of documents? ; 23 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. ,
'I 24 Q Can you identify any more particularly the NCN.'s, .ICR's
() 25 and general office data 'thit you relied on tojconclude Sonntag Reporting Service,' Ltd. , Geneva, IIITn51s 60137 (312) 232-0262 ,
10804
^ /T \ ,)
I that there had been a re-inspection of this work? 2 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I just know that,-and I saw those 3 documents at one time. 4 0 Did you maintain copies of those documents? 5 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No. 6 They are easily obtainable. 7 Q How would one go about obtaining those documents? 8 A Just ask Larry Seese.
- 9 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Seese is not 10 here; but I would appreciate it -- I would request that 11 Applicant.or Staff, whoever has.those documents, make 12 available whatever documentary materials Mr. Mendez 13 relied upon for the conclusions that he has just 14 testified to.
15 JUDG E GROSSMAN: If you can determine, or 16 someone can, that category, I suppose you ought to ask , 17 Mr. Seese, and maybe he lists it in his notebook. 18 (Laughter.) 19 MR. GUILD: I think he -- 20 MR. MILLER: He could search the note book as 21 a first shot; but, your Honor, might I just inquire of 22 Mr. Mendez, just briefly: 23 Do you recall the year in which the general office 24 audit was conducted that you saw the audit report for? 4 () 25 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) '83, '84. So mi t a g_ R e po r t i n g_S_e_rv i c e,_.L td . Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. - . = . . - - - - -- . ..
W g - 10805
. c.. ,
e
'l MR. MILLER: Okay.
2 v A .(WITNESS MENDEZ) f r It's ' not, that dif ficult to obtain. I 3 LMR. MILLER:- I think .the -19 83' general office
~
4 [ audit has,_in fact, been turned over a-long time ago:in , 5 routine discovery, andI think in response to' a specific
'6 , request earlief' by Mr. Guild during the course of the
-7 4 Y.' '
hearing. 3 p 8 I am happy to do it again, but if he does have ~it,
; f, 9 -I_ don't see a'ny need to.
10 MR.-GUILD: I am not sure which ' document he.'s ,, 3r b, 11 referring ' to.' Thede undoubtedly are many audit reports-I 1 12 that have be'en turned over. l .. y 13 If Mr. Seese responded to Mr. Mendez' request with 14 'a specific report, I would appreciate knowing or having 15 - ' that document, whatever Mr. Seese turned over. ' h 16 f JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. You are reque$ ing a . 17 tha t Mr. Seese provide you with the particulars " r c - I IS', MR. GUILD: Indeed. 19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- of which documents, and 20 chances are you have those documents already, but you i; i 21 want to know which ones? i; <
.>+
22 MR. GUILD: I want to know specifically which
- 23_ ones; and if I have them already I apologize for asking 241g again, but, really, the question is what did Mr. Seese
. e
() 25 turn over to Mr. Mendez, that's the basis for his i ! Sonntag Report jin Service, Ltd. ~ ' Geneva, Illinols 6~0131 (312) 232-0262
\
10806 O 1 findings. 2 JUDGE GROSSHAN: It would save time, rather 3 than have Mr. Seese come back. 4 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) It's very simple matter that, once you 5 know the NCR number, you can just go to the QC vault and 6 they provide those documents. You have free access. 7 Anything I want I can have. 8 MR. GUILD: I am not quite in that position. 9 I have to go through this somewhat convoluted process 10 getting these documents. 11 A (WITNESS MEUDEZ) All right. 12 MR. GUILD: Let's go to Concern No. 6, the 13 subject of quality of the Quality First Program. 14 BY MR. GUILD: 15 Q Now, Mr. Neisler, you looked into this, I take it? 16 A (WITEESS NEISLER) Yes. 17 Q All right, sir. 18 Now, do I understand correctly that the inspector 19 complained to you that -- well, you understood from the 20 memos that the inspectors basically thought that the 21 Quality First Program was, in substance, a sham; is that 22 a fair understanding of what the Inspectors 23 characterized -- how they characterized the program? 24 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Not necessarily a sham. ll) 25 If I remember, they said, you know, they had gone Sonn_ta_g_Repo.rting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
'10807 1 to Quality First and that was Edison working for Edison, 2 so " Quality First sucks," or something, I think was 3 their words.
4 Q All right. 5 Did that amount to about the same thing, in your 6 opinion?. 7 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Probably, 8 Q All right, sir. 9 Now, you report in your testimony in your 10 inspection report that you knew, in fact, ' at the time
-11 they went to NRC on 29 March, the inspectors had not-12 received any response from Quality First and, therefore, 13 there was some basis for their believe there was a 14 tardiness on the part of the Quality First Program.
15 Is that your finding? 16 A (WI'INESS NEISLER) It was not my finding. 17 This was a conclusion -- this -- of what I got from 18 the inspectors. 19 0 All right. 20 Well, you confirmed, did you not, that at the time 21 they went to the NRC, there had not indeed been 22 responses by Quality First to their complaints? 23 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Tha t's correct. 24 0 All right. 25 But that as soon as the 24 inspectors went to NRC, (]) Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, I1TFnois 601T4 (312) 232-0262
10808 k_3) 1 and the turn of events followed that, NRC management got
~2 on the horn to Edison management, the ball got rolling -
. 3. and Quality First completed their reviews and issued a 4 report, April 25, 1985; correct?
4 5 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No. 6- Q Well, let's start with the end. -They did issue a report-7 that day, didn't they? 8 A (WITNESS NEISLER) They issued a report on April 25th. 9 Q All right, sir.
'10 A (WITNESS NEISLER) My inspection did not prove that they 11 did it because the NRC was involved or because it was
~ 12 the routine time frame for them.
. 13 Q All right, sir. 14 Well, in fact, their report got written af ter the 15 24 went to NRC? 16 A (WITNESS NEISLER) The report was published, April 25th. >- 17 Q All right. 18 Well, Mr. Neisler, did you learn that, in fact, 19 Commonwealth Edison Company management had directed 20 Quality First to put all complaints by Comstock's 21 quality control inspectors on hold from the February 22 time frame when they were received until the afternoon 23 of the 29th of March, when the 24 inspectors went to the 24 NRC? () 25 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No, I had not learned that. SoAn t a g_R epo r t i n g_Se_rv i c e,_L td, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10809 1
'1 Q Did you hear that in the hearings? Have you learned 2 that fact since --
3 A .(WITNESS NEISLER) I had heard that in the hearings, 4- yes. 5 Q Mr. Tcm Maiman, Vice-President of' Commonwealth Edison 6 Company, testified to that effect, didn't he? 7 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Well, I wasn't here for this, but I-8 had gotten the information. 9 Q All right, sir. 10 .You didn't have those facts when you performed your 11- inspection, I believe? g- 12 A -(WITNESS NEISLER) That's correct, I did not. 13 Q Wouldn't you agree that, at least as to the complaints I 14 of the 24 Comstock QC inspectors, that, in fact, Quality i 15 First was indeed a sham?
- 16 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No.
17 0 They didn't do anything on their complaints, though, did 18 they ? 19 A (WITNESS NEISLER) They -- all right. 20 From what -- at the time of my inspection, with the 21 information I had, it appeared that -- and looking at 22 who was assigned to investigate what QC concern and this 23 sort of thing, I did not feel that -- that two months, . 24 from February to April, was an excessive amount of time. 25 0 All right.
- ()
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, IlTlii61s 6013'4 (312) 232-0262
10810 TN L.) 1 You agree now, don't you, knowing what you know, 2 that, in-fact, having Edison executive direct that no 1 3 investigation be conducted on these quality concerns by 4 the Comstock inspectors, until after they went to NRC, 5 that, indeed, as to them, up until the point when they-6 went to the NRC, it was a sham? 7 A (WITNESS NEISLER) If you -- if that's your definition 8 of " sham," I will say yes. . 9 I think at the time I am not sure why they' wanted 10 -- they wanted to put them on hold; but -- 11 Q All right, sir. fg 12 Let's turn to Concern No. 8. Mr. Mendez, I O 13 believe, this was yours. 14 Right? 15 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes, sir. 16 Q Involving Mr. Rick Martin; correct? r 17 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 18 Q One thing we didn't quite get clear when Mr. Miller was 19 asking you about that was whether at the time you 20 performed your inspection you are aware that the 21 residents had simply erred in their reporting of Mr. 22 Martin's complaints stated March 29th, and that, in 23 fact, Mr. Martin had subsequently made a correction 24 which, indeed, Mr. McGregor duly transmitted to the () 25 region. l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I l 10811. i i '/'T i b'%.) 1 .Did you11 earn that? Did you know that fact at.the. ;
- 2 time you performed your inspection? -
3 A' (WITNESS MENDEZ) McGregor never once mentioned about a 4 correction. 5 Q Did' you ask Mr. McGregor' about whether or not any of the 6 inspectors had made corrections to their concerns? 7 A (WITN2SS MENDEZ) I. asked him about the allegation. He 8 never got my attention. 9 Not knowing that. there was -- there was a c 10 correction, I wouldn't know what to ask. 11 Q' Well, sir, it was in an NRC memorandum transmitted by 12 Mr. McGregor to-the region. 13 You never were aware of that, though? 14 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I wasn't. 15 Q So you didn't inspect - in fact, you didn't perform an ^ 1 16 inspection to the concern that Mr. Martin stated? 17 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That's-correct. 18 I only -- only asked him about his particular C 19 concern that's documented in the April 5th memo. 20 Q All right, sir. 21 And you concluded, based on an erroneous assumed 22 concern, that the erroneous assumed concern was not 23 substantiated? f 24 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Well, I didn't ask about thrt, if he () had any problems in L.K. Comstock and why they had moved 25 l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
- Gsneva, ITITn61s 60 T3~4 I
(312) 232-0262
. - , . - , . . , - . . . , . , . . , , _ . , _ , , , _ , _ _ , , , _ ...,,,....,___,..,.,,.__,..m....,_, ,....c,.,_.,._,, , , , , . m.,,.,, .
10812 o L.J . 1 him in the vault; but if he had any other problems, and 2 ha said no, that the reason why he had been moved around 3 had nothing to do with him being singled out nor 4 anything for going to the NRC. 5 0 W ell, did you -- 6 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Moved around, you mean from 7 the field into the vault? 8 A- (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes, uh-huh. 9 BY MR. GUILD:
-10 Q Because the moving f rom the field to the vault' was 11- because of long-since-past circumstances dealing with' 12 pulling his certification, the photocopied checklists, ~)
u.J 13 et cetera, et cetera? 14 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That's correct. 15 Q Now, Mr. Mendez, apparently your interview with Mr. 16 Martin didn' t elicit the information that we now have as 17 a matter of record, and that was as a matter of record t 18 at the time NRC region -- when you performed your 19 inspection. 20 MR. BERRY: Obj ection. 21 I mean, that's not a fair characterization of the 22 evidence. 23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Overruled. 24 You can continue. () 25 BY MR. GUILD: Sonn_ tag _Regorting Service;_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10813 O, N} 1 Q Mr. Martin was interviewed in investigating an 2 erroneously stated allegation? 3 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I am not sure it's so erroneous. I 4 think his correction was that he talked the NRC, and was 5 moved from the outside vault to the inside vault. 6 Q You know that now? 7 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes, I do now.
.8 0 You didn't know that when you performed your inspection?
9 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Tha t's correct. 10 0 Well, did Mr. Martin appear to you to be a truthful and 11 forthright individual when you interviewed him? 12 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Sometimes. (-)g
\_
13 0 Well, I take .it that means you think he wasn't; tha t 's 14 what you are trying to infer? 15 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I spoke to him several times, and 16 sometimes his stories weren't exactly the same as they 17 were before. 18 Q Let's talk about that particular story, in Mendez. 19 Was Mr. Martin truthful to you, in your opinion, in 20 recounting the circumstances involved in this l 21 allegation? 22 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I know that now -- well, I can only go 23 by the information that was given me at that moment. 24 0 I want to understand whether you think Mr. Martin was l () 25 being truthful to you when you interviewed him on this l l l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. CEneva, IlT1n61s 60134 (312) 232-0262
10814
- ' (~'s s_)
1 allegation, sir. 2 A- (WITNESS MENDEZ) I don't have any reason to doubt him.
'3 Q All right, sir.
4 Mr. Martin testified in this proceeding. 5 Can you explain the circumstances of his transfer 6 and they appeared to be consistent with the 7 documentation' that Mr. McGregor transmitted to the 8 region, making the correction? 9 MR. BERRY: Obj ection. 10 It is not consistent with the document that was 11 transmitted to the region. s 12 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I don't think that
.] 13 it's the liberty of counsel to interrupt my question.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: If the preface is unfair, 15 perhaps this might lead the witness; but let's hear Mr. 16 Berry's obj ection to the characterization, because it 17 seemed to be accurate to me, but I may be mistaken. 18 MR. BERRY: My recollection, Mr. Chairman, is 19 that the documents, and I believe the Staff exhibit, the 20 document transmitted to the region by Mr. McGregor, in 21 which Mr. Martin made certain changes, that he did not 22 change the whole business about being transferred from 23 the field, he made other changes to it; but his 24 testimony was he neglected to make the change about f (~T 25 being transferred from the field, and the objection is ' u/ Sonnt_ag_ Reporting Service,_Ltd. l ' Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. =
10815' V l- that counsel's questioning assumes that he made that 2 change as well. 3 So -- 4 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I don't know why 5 there is a different set of groundrules for this counsel 6 than from either -- 7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: No, there isn' t -- 8 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, may I, sir? 9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Certainly, you may speak. 10 MR. GUILD: It seems to me that when~ counsel 11 for the Applicant poses a set of facts, and I object on s 12 the grounds that they are an incorrect set of gb 13 assertions, I am told that I am not to be heard on the 14 matter, and I am told repeatedly -- this is at least the 15 second time today -- that I have had an objection on
- 16. some presumed error in my set of assumed facts.
17 Counsel will have his bite at this apple, and I 18 submit that fundamental fairness shall allow me the same i 19 privileges as other counsel to pose facts, even facts
.20 that might indeed be erroneous.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. What you are saying 22 is not correct, Mr. Guild. 23 When counsel is suggesting hypotheticals to an i 24 expert witness, he's entitled to use whatever l 25 hypotheticals he wishes, and if the facts don't support (]) t Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Il~1Tn61s 60134 (312) 232-0262
10816 1 it, the answers he gets are worthless. 2 You are not posing hypotheticals, you are stating 3 what a witness has said and what transpired; and,
-4 apparently, there is an obj ection' that you are doing it 5 incorrectly.
6 In the past we have had objections like that and we 7 have had the Board rule that if it was not -- if the 8 suggestions were not in accordance with what actually 9 h appened, that the questions be rephrased. 10 MR. GUILD: Sure; but -- 11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You let me finish, Mr. (g 12 Guild.
\.)
13 .On occasion, the Board has interjected on its own, 14 when it considered a question unfair in that it 15 misrepresented what the record actually contained. 16 Now, this happens to be the case in which you are 17 stating what was in the record. 18 You are not posing a hypothetical for an expert 19 witness, and what you are stating may be incorrect. 20 Now, it appears to me that Mr. Berry is at least 21 correct in saying that Mr. Martin corrected some, but 22 not all of what appeared in the NRC memorandum. 23 I don' t recall specifically whether the move from 24 the field to the vault, as opposed to the move from
/~)
U 25 outside the vault to inside the vault, was one of the 4 Sonntag_ Reporting Service,_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10817
/^T V
1 matters that was corrected by Mr. Martin; and I will 2 wait -- I will await further word from counsel as to 3 which it was. 4 MR. GUILD: May I just simply withdraw the 5 question, Mr. Chairman? 6 MR. MILLER: All you have to do look at Staff 7 Exhibit 16, your Honor. 8 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Staff Exhibit 16. Okay. 9 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the 10 question. 11 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Well, yes, that's true, you rw 12 are withdrawing the question; but I still would like to t ') 13 refer to Exhibit 16; and it appears that what Mr. Martin 14 corrected was the fact that'he didn't visit the NRC 15 office, but that he discussed some matters with the NRC 16 official at his work place, or apparently he didn't 17 correct the matters of the moving from the field to the 18 vault. 19 Fine, why don't you proceed with a different 20 question, Mr. Guild. 21 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I want my questions 22 to be understood as a hypothetical, just as Mr. Miller's 23 were. 24 JUDG E GROSSMAN: No, Mr. Guild, that is not a 25 hypo th e tical . You are suggesting -- (]) Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. G5neva, Y1Trn5?.s 6 01~3 4 --
~ ~
(312) 231-0262
10818 q f 1 MR. GUILD: Fine, judge. 2 JUDG E GROSSMAN: You are suggesting afmatter 3 of record, and you were incorrectly stating that record, 4 and that was not a fair question, and any time you do 5 that, we will come in and correct what you are saying. 6 MR. GUILD: Fine, judge. 7 Let's understand ourselves, Mr. Mendez. 8 I am stating hypothetical facts, and I don't ask 9 you to accept them, except for purposes of my question. 10 I intend to demonstrate them otherwise. 11 I believe that's consistent, Mr. Chairman, with 12 everything that Applicant has done. U 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: It isn't. 14 Mr. Mendez is not speaking as an expert to evaluate 15 your hypotheticals. 16 I think we will take a five-minute recess now. 17 (whereupon a recess was had, after which 18 the hearing resumed as follows:) 19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We are back on the record. 20 Mr. Guild, continue. 21 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, may I be heard? 22 On the last question that Mr. Guild posed, as I 23 understand it, there was a ruling that he not be
- 24 permitted to ask the question; is that correct?
() 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes; that's correct. Son n t a_g _R e.po r_t i ng _S e r v i c e ,_L t d . Geneva, Illinois 60134 : i (312) 232-0262 l
10819 /~N V 1 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, I find myself in a 2- somewhat unique position of supporting Mr. Guild's right 3 to ask the question. 4 Just in the brief argument heard on it, .it seems to 5 me that these gentlemen had been tendered in part to 6 express their opinion in part as to whether or not the 7 events that they investigated on behalf of the NRC Staff 8 constituted harassment and intimidation, as that term is 9 used in NRC parlance; and on that limited basis, it 10 seems to me that they occupy the status akin to experts, 11 in that they are, in fact, providing opinion testimony 12 on a set of facts that were made known to them through 13 the course of their investigative work; and I 14 respectfully suggest that perhaps a question which 15 varies those facts, and ask them for their opinion on 16 the assumed set of f acts, might well be proper. s 17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Miller. 18 The question was not if the NRC had corrected its 19 record and sent it out to the field, would you have 20 referred to that, the question was -- the question 21 posed, not as an assumption, but as a fact of record, 22 that something was transmitted to the field that, in 23 fact, was not, and it was not a hypothetical question, 24 it was not intended to be a hypothetical question, it () 25 clearly misstated the fact of record, and whatever the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, IIITndis 60134 (312) 232-0262
i
-i 10820 l
'l
,O T.
%-).
1 witness answers to that is of absolutely no value, 2 because it didn't happen, and it is something that, of 3 course, might disconcert the witness, but improperly, 4 because it just did not happen, and the witness does not 5 have to defend something like that. It was not within 6 the realm of a hypothesis to an expert witness. 7 I agree. that the witnesses are, to a certain 8 extent, experts, and when they are asked about their use 9 of expertise with a variance of facts as a hypothesis or 10 hypotheses, they can certainly answer that way. 11 MR. MILLER: Perhaps I just misheard the very-12 last question that Mr. Guild asked. sO 13 I certainly agree with the Chairman's 14 characterization of earlier questions in the line; but I 15 thought that perhaps the last question had cured that 16 problem, but I may be wrong. 17 MR. GUILD: I disagree with the 18 characterization of my intentions or what I said; but I 19 really do withdraw the question. 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: As to your intentions? 21 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir. 22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I don't recall ever saying 23 anything about your intentions, Mr. Guild. 24 MR. GUILD: I think the record will reflect () 25 you did. Sonntag_Repo r ting _Serrice,_Ltd, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10821 p V 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Is there something that you 2 wish to bring before the Board for our determination? 3 MR. GUILD: I don't mean to argue the point : 4 any further with the Chairman. 5 You just mentioned my intention, of what I 6 intended, and I disagree with your chacterization, and 7 that's all I want to say on- the record. 8 I do believe the record will reflect that that's 9 the word you used, si r. 10 May I proceed? 1 11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, you may. 12 BY MR. GUILD: 13 Q Mr. Mendez, let's see if we can sort of put all this in 14 order. 15 The fact of the matter is, you since learned that 16 the set of facts that you assumed to be true when you 17 conducted your inspection with regard to Mr. Martin's 18 allegation Concern No. 8, of Allegation 0072, were 19 simply not the actual facts that transpired, nor were 20 they the facts that the alleger maintained had 21 transpired. 22 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I could only go by what the 23 information Rick Martin provided to me, which was -- I 24 asked him if he had been moved from the field to the () 25 vault for talking to the NRC inspectors; and he said, Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, IlTindis 60134 (312) 232-0262
10822 4
' p).
-1 "W ell, that wasn' t the case."
2 0 All right, sir. : 3 You have since learned, have you not, that Mr. 4 Martin never maintained that that's what took place, 5 that he maintained that he had talked with Mr. Schulz at
~
6 a location where he was assigned to work that was in the 7 outer corral of the Comstock QC vault and that 1 8 subsequently he was moved inside the vault or closer to l 9 the vault and that he believed such a transfer, such a 10 -move, was retaliatory. 11 Those were the circumstances? 12 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That's what I was trying to get at. l 13 Q Well, let me ask you directly. 4
+
14 Isn't that what you learned was that Mr. Martin 15 maintained after? 16 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) We are talking two sets of time. 17 Q And I agree with that.
- 18 As you sit here today, don't you now understand 19 that that was what Mr. Martin maintained happened?
20 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes; but that's not what he said. , 21 Q Let's take that and -- l 22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Had you finished your answer i 23 before, Mr. Mendez ? 24 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) What happened was, I talked to Martin () 25 two, three, four times during the course of my i; Sonn ta_g_R epo r ting _Se_rv.l.ce, Ltd_, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10823 ,/s f 1 inspection, and each time he had a chance to el,,aborate 2 on a set of circumstances; and I did further question 3 him about intimidation and harassment, and he said that 4 it had .nothing to do with intimidation or harassment. 5 I don't know if he mentioned at the time, but he 6 had been moved from outside to the inside of the vault; i 7 but I did ask him about intimidation and harassment, and 8 he said he wasn't, that -- that he wasn' t being singled 9 out, that he wasn't being picked on, and that's just. the 10 way he felt at that particular time. 11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Was that true in the context 12 of his being moved from the field to the vault? 13 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I can't really recall. I don't think 14 I-asked him that specific question. 15 MR. GUILD: May I proceed, Mr. Chairman? < 16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, you may. 17 BY MR. GUILD: 18 0 As you sit here today, you understand -- do you 19 understand, Mr. Mendez, that Mr. Martin maintained that 20 he was transferred from the outer vault to the inner 21 vault because he had a conversation with Mr. Schulz, the 22 Resident Inspector? 23 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. - 24 0 All right, sir. () 25 Now, my question to you, Mr. Mendez, ist Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, IITi'nifia 60134 (312) 232-0262
10824
.iO s/
1 -Having conducted whatever interview techniques you 2 used with-Mr. Martin, having asked him questions on the 3 general subjects or the specific subjects, and having 4 elicited an erroneous set of facts from Mr. Martin, 5 doesn' t tha t, -certainly, call, in your mind, into 6 question the effectiveness of your interview techniques? - 7 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Like I said before, I spoke to Martin 8 three, four times. At'any one particular time, he never 9 made that fact known to me. 10 Q If you had asked him? 11 A If I would have known. 12 Q Indeed. 13 You simply accepted an erroneous sets of facts from 14 Mr. Martin; and doesn' t, sir, that call into question 15 the effectiveness of your interviewing technique, in 16 your opinion? 17 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, I obj ect to the 18 characterization of Mr. Martin's facts as erroneous. 19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You are badgering the witness t 20 now, Mr. Guild, 21 I think he's responded fully to whatever content 22 there is to your question. 23 MR. GUILD: I would certainly believe the 24 witness is capable of answering himself; but I will be () 25 more than happy to move on if the Chairman is directing Sggnt.a.g_R epor tin.g Se rvice,_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
\
10825 (D v 1 that I cannot get an answer to that last question. 1 2 I don't believe I am badgering Mr. Mendez. I think i 3 Mr. Mendez 'is fully capable -- 4 JUDG E GROSSMAN - If your question-is: 'Does 5 his reflection 'on this matter indicate that 'there was
. 6 something-inadequate about his interviewing technique,
'I 7 we will allow that question.
; 8 Does that make you feel as though, Mr. Mendez, that 9 your interviewing technique was inadequate?
10 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Well, he had a chance at every moment
- 11 to tell me what his concerns were.
j 12 If he-had provided that information to me -- I 13 don't know if he did or not -- but at- that moment, he 14 didn't feel. intimidated or harassed or anything. 15 Had he felt intimidated or harassed, he may have 16 brought that to my attention. 4 17 MR. GUILD: I believe I am entitled to a 18 responsive answer both to my question and the Chairman. 19 The witness has refused to answer the question, ' 20 declined to answer the question.
! 21 I believe the answer does call for either an 22 affirmative or negative answer and an explanation, and I 23 still don't understand what the response is to either my J
24 first question or the Chairman's question. t l () 25 MR. BERRY: I would have a separate objection l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. gen eva, IlHndli-~60134 (312) 232-0262
. .- . _ . ~ _ . - . . . . __ __ - ._._ _ . _ _ _.. . . .. _
q I 10826 \: I h 2)-c ' U. . 1 to the question and the questioding as to the 4 2- characterization of " elicited an erroneous set of y . a n' 3 facts." l 1 - .
- 4 I don' t believe that
- he exhausted all .
r i 5- possibilities. [ 6 I obj ect to the . term, " erroneous." 7 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, is there a ground r u }, 8 for that obj ection that I can respond to?
-9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, Mr. Guild,1I think I 5
10 am going to order you to move on.. I think the question. 11 is really not.even a fair one, 12 There is an implication in your questioning, in i 13 your line of questioning now, that Mr. Mendez could have [; . 14 anticipated that Mr. Martin had. actually been moved f rom 15 outside the vault to inside the vault. 16 MR. GUILD: No, sir. 17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And.unless.he's clairvoyant, ., i 18 I don't think he could have anticipated that; and he .; 4 19 couldn't have asked him specifically about that. 1 20 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman -- i
! 21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And so I just don't see-any j
j 22 purpose to this line of questioning. , I 23 Unless Mr. Martin volunteered something that i- i j 24 happens to be a very specific matter, the witness 25 couldn't be expected to know about that; and what he's I (]) Sonntag_Repo tting_S.e ry_iseuLtd,
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 4
(312) 232-0262
,,.,,....,--.-_.m._-, .-y,,.,m_..w...,v,--- ...,__ _ ,- ._ m.....m.,,_ .-. ...w.,, _y y%__ _.,,.m7_c,,wm,,
10827 r-)
~'
'l- saying is he interviewed Mr. Martin three or four times, 2 and I understand his saying that to mean that Mr. Martin-3 had an opportunity - to tell him that on three or. four 4 different occasions. That's all you are going to get 5 from the witness, and I don't think-it's worth sitting 6 around and continuing to repeat the questions.
7 Now, if you want to rephrase the question and ask 8 one that has some value, do it. 9 MR. GUILD: May I be heard, Mr. Chairman? 10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes. 11 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, you simply g- 12 misunderstand the question or I misphrased it. 13 The fact of the matter is, it doesn't presuppose
-14 the witness is clairvoyant at all, it simply presupposes 15 that the witness conducts an interview that elicits the 16 facts that are material to a concern, where ever that 17 fact might be.
18 I don't presuppose that the witness had in mind 19 some preconceived set of facts at all; I simply think -- 20 and, counsel, I think it's a very fair question and it's 21 not an unfair question to ask of a witness who is asked 22 to conduct an investigative series of interviews, 23 whether or not the interview techniques employed 24 elicited the material facts that were involved, and in () 25 this instance, I submit the record reflects the witness' i !' Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Irffnois 60134 (312) 232-0262
F 10828 p, V 1 testimony reflects that he didn't. 2 MR. BERRY: The testimony reflects that -- 3- JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. That's right; and we 4 don' t note any further -- if there is a follow-up 5 question that you wish to pose, you may do that, Mr. 6 Guild; but I don't think we ought to spend any more time 7 on this. 8 MR. GUILD: I had a pending question, and I 9 guess that that question was objected to and overruled 10 and the obj ection was sustained? 11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We ruled that you ought to g'g 12 rephrase that question. V 13 MR. GUILD: All right sir. 14 BY MR. GUILD: 15 Q Mr. Mendez, your testimony was that you don't think Mr. 16 Martin was lying to your Mr. Martin had a very specific 17 -- assume for me that Mr. Martin had a very specific set 18 of facts in mind when he complained as he did, that he 19 had been transferred by his supervision as a consequence 20 of talking to Mr. Schulz. 21 That is a very specific set of facts; and those 22 facts were not facts that you elicited in the course of 23 your dealings with Mr. Martin. He didn't tell you about 24 Schulz and moving from outside the vault to inside the 25 vault; is that what I understand your testimony to be? (]') Sonntag_ Reporting _Seryice,_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
r 10829 O
'l A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I don't know if at any one time I 2 spoke to him about that.
3 Q No, sir. : 4 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Bu t -- 1 5 Q At any one time did Mr. Martin state those facts to you? i 6 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I don't -- I don't believe he did. 7 Q Now, when you stated, at Page 26 of your pre-filed 8 testimony, in Answer 61, "According to the alleger, 9 after he visited the NRC Resident Inspector's office, he 10 was transferred without reason from field inspections to 11 a job in the records vault." 12- That is not based on anything Mr.. Martin told you 13 in your interviews with him, is it? 14 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I asked him the question, "Did you get 15 transferred from the field to the records vault?" 16 Q Did Mr. Martin tell you that -- I am going to change the 17 person here. 18 But "After I visited the NRC Resident Inspector's 19 office, I was transferred without reason from field 20 inspections to a job in the records vault," did Martin 21 tell you that? 22 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No. I asked him the question, "Did 23 you get transferred from the field inspection, from 24- fleid inspections to the records vault?" () 25 Q After he visited the NRC, did you put that in the Sonntag Rep ~orting Service, Ltd. d6neva, Illi~n61~s 60134 (312) 232-0262
F' 10830 (M V 1 question? 2 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 3 Q And he said what? 4 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) He said no, he hadn't. 5 The reason why he was moved from the field 6 inspections, in short, his field certifications had been 7 removed. 8 Q Mr. Mendez, perhaps we are just not communicating. 9 If you look at Page 26 of your testimony, Answer 10 61, do you see the sentence I just read, "According to 11 the alleger, after he had visited the NRC Resident 73 12 Inspector's office, he was transferredd without reason d 13 from field inspections to a job in the records vault." 14 Now, the alleger there is Mr. Martin? 15 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 16 Q Did Mr. Martin make that statement to you, that you 17 recount here in your testimony? 18 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) This comes from the April 5th memo. 19 0 I see. 20 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) It's the question I asked him. 21 Q Yes, you drew that statement from the April 5th memo; is 22 that right? 23 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That is correct. 24 0 You didn't draw it from an interview with Mr. Martin? 25 A (WITNESS MENdEZ) I interviewed him. f( ) Sonntag_ Reporting _ Servi _ge, Ltd, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
, 3 , l. 3,,
t1 .
./
10831 1 n ' .i ,
\
V 1 Q Indeed you did; but Mr'. ' Martin never raid that, did he, 2 he never said that he had been t,ransferred from the 4 3 field to the records vault af ter b'e had v'isited the NRC 4 Resident Inspector's office?
< y
']'#
,4 g 5 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) He told rae that. I don't' know at what 6 point. He did mention that the -- abol:t him talkino 1to
. /
7 the NRC, and him NbAing \ ' removed from field ihope,ctionu#to 8 the vault. , 9 Q If you want to supposeltwo facts together; b'st Mr. ' 10 Martin didn't, did he? [ ' 11 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, he didn' t; at that time he di,dn' t. , q 12 Q And this was simply an erroneous statement in your V testimony as to a statement'or r.ttributioh to Mr. 13 i' 14 Martin; isn't that true?
.i 15 MR. MILLER: I obj ect to <the f orra of the 16 question.
i 17 I believe that that's contrary to theifacts of , 18 record.
~~~
'\
19 BY MR. GUILD:
. i 1 10 0 You have erroneously attributed this' to -- Mr. Mar' tin's 21 statements to you. He didn't -- he never said that to 22 you, the statement, Page 26 of your,tebcimony?
23 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Did I aak him otbur' questions, had he 1 24 been -- l 25 J UDG E G ROSSMAN t So r ry . You have a pending Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, IllTnoTs"6013~4 , (312) 232-0262 1 1 -.]
l 10832 ./ V ;
%.) '
1 obj ection. 2 MR. MILLER: No, Mr. Guild cured my obj ection 3 when he reformulated the question. 4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, okay.
-5 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I apologize if this 6 seems belaboring, but I am trying to get a responsive 7 answer to what it seems to me to be a very clear 8 question of fact.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We haven't interrupted. I 10 just want to make sure that we paid attention to Mr. 11 Miller's obj ection. 12 MR. GUILD: I hope you will not be unclear, 13 Mr. Mendez, but we will proceed further. 14 BY MR. GUILD: 15 Q Do you see where I am speaking, Answer 61? 16 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Tha t's right. 17 Q And you put, "According to the alleger," do you see that lo sentence? 19 A- (WITNESS MENDEZ) He could have corrected me at any. 20 time. 21 0 That's not my question, sir. 22 You attribute that statement to Mr. Martin? 23 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That's correct. 24 0 But, in reality, you really attributed -- you really () 25 drew that statement from the April 5th memos isn't that sonntag_ReporAing_Sertice, Ltd, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10833 l s I true?
'{
2 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That's right. 3 0 Thank you. 4 All right. Now, let me return for the moment to 5 this thousand weld checklist, Mr. Mendez. 6 The checklist in question that you found, the 7 Thomas checklist, evidenced a PTL overinspection; 8 ' correct? 9 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That's correct. 10 Q And as I understand from reading the inspection report, 11 there was no evidence available to you that -- either at 12 the time you formed your initial inspection or up until 13 ,the time you finally -- you had your final exit in 14 August, there was no documentation evidencing that the 15 licensee had taken corrective action for the rejectable 16 welds that PTL had identified on Mr. Thomas' checklist; 17 is that correct? 18 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That's correct. 19 0 Now, what is your understanding of the purpose for which 20 PTL was performing the overinspections that were 21 documented of the Thomas weld inspections at that time, 22 the 1980 time frame? 23 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) They performed the 10-percent overview 24 of all inspectors' work. (} 25 0 All right. Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, IIITnois 60~13~4 (312) 232-0262 l 1
n
~.,(
i 10834 73 (V l' And I take it they -- they drew a 10-percent sample 2 of the welds on a particular checklist for 3 overinspection? 4 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 5 Q All right. 6 And they documented the results of those 7 overinspections on a PTL document listing each weld and 8 the results of their overinspection for that weld? 9 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Tha t's correct. 10 Q All right. 1 11 And it was from that overinspection documentation 12 that you determined that there was a 13 percent reject 13 rate of the welds of Mr. Thomas that had been 1,c 14 overinspected on that checklist?
;s 1
.Ib 15 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes.
-16 Q All right.
17 Now, what is your understanding, Mr. Mendez, as to 18 the program followed by PTL for follow-up or sample
,,. 19 expansion, based on the results of their initial 20 overinspection of Comstock weld inspections?
21 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I think back in '81, '82, we had no 22 clear-cut criteria; that is, if he had a high percentage 23 of rej ect rate, there wouldn't review -- no further 24 review of the inspector's work. 25" What was the cutoff, if there was any at the time, for (]) Q i Sonntag_ Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10835 1 expanding the sample of the PTL overinspections? g 2 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) There wasn't any. 3 Q There was no -- 4 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That's correct. 5 0 -- criteria. 6 What was done with the PTL overinspection results, 7 as you understand the program, in that time frame ' 81, 8 '82? 9 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Comstock's program is' supposed to 10 rework, repair or reject the weld. 11 Q All.right, sir. 12 So you understood the program called for fixing the O., 13 actual rejectable conditions that - the overinspectors 14 found? 25 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That's correct. 16 Q But in the instances of the Thomas checklist, there was 17 no documented evidence that they had done even that? 18 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) On some of the welds. 19 Q On some of the rejected welds? 20 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes, sir. 21 Q I see. 22 Did you find evidence that they had done rework on 23 some of -- on others of rejected welds? 24 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I think it was a total of 16 rejected () 25 welds, and of those 16, I think 5 had not been Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, IllTnois 6~013'4 (312) 232-0262
10836 fl. v 1 corrected. 2 Q Okay. Were the others simply-deleted? 3 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) There were some were deleted. 4 Q Were some indeed corrected as you saw the documentation? 5 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 6 Q And how were the -- how did you determine, from a 7 documentation review, that any of the welds had been 8 reworked or corrected, the-defective welds? 9 A (WITNESS ' MENDEZ) The documents show to that ef fect. 10 0 What were those documents, do you recall? 11 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I don' t.- s 12 Q Did those involve ICR's or NCR's? b 13 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Rework. 14 Q Rework documents? 15 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 16 Q Is that what they were or are you just speculating? 17 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I am just speculating. 18 Q All right.
- 19. But, in any event, they were unable to establish l
20 that there had been appropriate disposition of all of 21 the welds that were determined to be rejectable by PTL 22 in the 1980 overinspection? 23 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That's correct. 24 Q I see. All right. l () 25 Do you have any understanding of their being any l S_o_nn_ tag _ Rep _or ting Se rvi ce, L td_, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 10837 7 U. 1 point, during the program at Comstock, where there was 2 an implicit threshold for sample expansion as a result 3 of the PTL overinspection findings? 4 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) There is now. 5 Q And what is the -- what's the threshold now? 6 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I am not sure. I am not sure what it 7 is. 8 Q All right. 9 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) But they do have certain levels, so 10 many are rejected. They continue to re-inspect until 11 they reach auto level where all of them are r- 12 re-inspected..
' V) 13 Q Did you determine that the 13 percent was a signficant 14 rejection rate?
15 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes, I did. 16 Q All right. 17 And by what standard or measure did you reach-that 18 conclusion ? 19 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Thomas didn' t rej ect a single weld.
- 20 Q Of the -- of the entire thousand plus?
21 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) 1,200 welds. Out of 1,2 00 welds, 2:2 Thomas never rejected a single weld. 23 Q All right. 24 And so 13 percent found to be improperly accepted 25 in the PTL reject as compared with 100 percent f() Sonntag_ Reporting Service, ~ Ltd. Geneva, Il1Tnois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10838 O 1 acceptance rate for Mr. Thomas' initial inspection was 2 excessive, in your opinion? 3 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 4 0 Was there a particular threshold that you had in mind 5 when you had a rate of rejection .in effect, that you had 6 in mind, when you evaluated his overinspection results? 7 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, there wasn' t. 8 Q Well, you understand there are some thresholds now at 9 Comstock for the PTL overinspections? 10 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 11 Q -Do you know when such a threshold, whenever it might g3 12 have been, was adopted? , 13 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I believe in the 1983 period. 14 Q All right. 15 And whatever that threshold might have been in 16 1983, when they adopted a threshold, what would occur if 17 the results of the PTL overinspection evidenced a 18 rejection rate that was in excess of that threshold? 19 What action would transpire then? 20 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) By PTL? 21 O Well, by anyone, PTL or Comstock. 22 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Actually, I think it's PTL. 23 If they -- if the person is higher than the 24 pre-established criteria, they do a -- they expand their () 25 sampling. Sonn t a g_R epo_r t i n g S e r v i ce ,._Ltd . Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
A 10839 i
- f V
1 Q All right. 2 Do they -- do you understand that PTL expanded the 3 sample beyond the population of welds contained on' that 4 single checklist or did they essentially expand the 5 sample, let's say, in the Thomas example, from 16 welds 6 up to inspecting all 1,200 on the checklist? 7 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, th ey didn' t. 8 PTL just did a 10 percent overview,~which is 9 approximately 120 welds. i 10 Q All right. 11 So I am still not understanding you. gg 12 Let's say they find an excessive reject rate in the (,/ 13 -- in the 120 that they did, with Mr. Thomas. This is 14 all hypothetical now, because they --- nothing did
, 15 happen.
16 With Thomas' overinspection that we know of, they. 17 found an excessive reject rate in the 120 they do 18 overinspect. There is a threshold. That threshold has 19 been exceeded. What do you do? 20 Do you know what happens then? 21 MR. MILLER: Your Hodor, I object on grounds
! 22 of relevance to this witness' testimony.
23 I mean, Mr. Guild is inquiring into the details of 24 the PTL overinspection program. It's a part of i () 25 ' pre-filed testimony that Applicant has submitted so far Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, ITITnoi~s 6~013T (312) 232-0262
l 10840 I v l- in its rebuttal case; but it seems to me that these 2 detailed questions on the PTL program to this witness go 3_ well beyond the scope of his Direct Examination or any 4 Cross. 5 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, the subj ect is a 6 matter that was an unresolved item in Mr. Mendez' and 7 Mr. Neisler's inspection report, and that is what, in 8 fact, they did with the PTL overinspection data, and I 9 believe that it's germane, not only to the inspection 10 tha t they conducted, to their testimony, but, obviously, 11 to whether or not there were any checks to assure that 12 there were no adverse work performance effects of
-13 production pressure or harassment and intimidation.
14 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, I agree that, at 15 Page 15 of Staff Exhibit 17, there is 3 reference to the 16 specific PTL overinspection report dealing with Mr. 17 Thomas' work in 1980; but we have long since left that 18 subject and are now talking about sample expansions that 19 were established by PTL in 1983, that apparently have no 20 relationship to the issue that Mr. Mendez addressed in I 21 bis inspection report. 22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Is that correct, Mr. Guild? 23 MR. GUILD: No, sir, it's not. 24 The -- it's obvious -- it should be obvious that () 25 the Staff expressed some concern. They raised -- if he Sonn. tag _ Reporting Service,_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10841 fh v 1 tied an-unresolved item with respect ~to what indeed was . 2 the practice of making use of the PTL overinspection 3 results -- and I submit that in the Thomas case, nothing
-4 happened -- at least the evidence suggests that they .did 5 no re-inspection or there were welds for which 6 rejectable conditions were identified five years before.
7 that had not been re-inspected or were not documented as
~8 re-inspected.
9 The question then is: What -- to what use was the 10 PTL overinspection data put at all? And I believe,lif 4 11 the witnesses are concluding that one should not 12 question the work performance effects of production 13 pressure on'Comstock inspectors that they found no. 14 adverse evidence of poor inspection work, that the use 15 to which the PTL overinspection data has been put is 4 16 obviously important. 17 Indeed, it is also the subject of Applicant's 18 rebuttal testimony; but that day will come. 19 I think, for now, it's enough to understand what 20 Mr. Mendez understood about the PTL overinspection 21 program. 22 MR. BERRY: Mr. Chairman. 23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I am not sure that I 24 am in a position now to make a definitive determination 25 as to how relevant the PTL overview was, overview (]) Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneya, IT1Tnois 6~0T3T (312) 232-0262
10842 l (-) 1 inspection; and since it is discussed here in the 2 report, I will allow a few more -- we will allow some 3 further questions now; and to me that one question, 4 whether it's in the pending one or a few questions back, 5 has not yet been answered as to whether, when the i 6 witness indicate? there was to be an expansion from the 7 first sampling, that would have expanded the sampling 8 within that particular inspection report or whether that
~'
9 increased sampling would go to other inspections lar that 10 inspector; and I don't think we got an answer to that. 11 Was that the question, Mr. Guild? gS 12 MR. GUILD: It was, Mr. Chairman, yes. V 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Can you give us your 14 understanding Mr. Mendez ? 15 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I thought I answered that belief. 16 There was no increased sampling back in 1980. 17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. But when they adopted 18 the determinations or the particular percentages back in 19 1983, the particular limitations that they had, where i 20 they would increase the sampling if the percentage was 21 over a certain amount, did they go on to taking into 22 account further work by that inspector or only that same 23 original inspection work, and just increase the 24 percentage with regard to the inspections covered
,25 originally?
Sonntag_Re_ porting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10843
/^\
L ), 1 Do you follow the question? 2 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) My understanding is they were -- they 3 would increase the sample just on that one particular i 4 sample checklist, I mean, QC inspection checklist. 5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: On that particular j 6 checklist. 7 They wouldn't go on to any other checklist, they 8 would just increase the sampling on that checklist? 9 In other words, if we translated to Mr. Thomas' 10 1,200 or so welds, and assume that there was some bench 11 mark that they used for determining whether he passed 12 the test, and they went and discovered that a 10-percent 13 sampling indicated that he exceeded the bench mark, 14 would they then investigate a higher percentage of those 15 1,200 welds, or would they go on to other checklists to 16 include in the sampling? 17 Do you follow that question? 18 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 19 I am not sure you have the same set of 20 circumstances you did back in 1980. 21 Today, there are no chccklists with 1,200 welds; 22 but I think it's part of the corrective action programs, 23 as a part of trending analysis, that sort of situation 24 would be identified by Comstock or by Commonwealth () 25 Edison during their Q A audits. Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, 1TITnois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10844 [' 3 1 I am not sure that you can have that situation 2 occur today; that is, you won' t have 1,200 welds on a-QC 3 inspection checklist. 4 JUDG E GROSSMAN: You mean they.would have all 5 the welds ever inspected by that person? 6 A (WITNESS MENDEC) L ). 7 JUDGE GRf SSMAN: They would havc some portion 8 of his welding a n - ections, wouldn' t they, some number 9 of inspections? 10 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I am not real sure how it works today, 11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Well, tha t's -- i f 12 that's the answer, then -- 13 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Since I don't inspect welding. 14- JUDG E COLE: So you are not sure how they 15 implement the increased sampling program? 16 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That is right. I just thought they 17 had a threshold and they re-inspect based on that 18 threshold. 19 MR. GUILD: All right, sir, 20 BY MR. GUILD: 21 Q Mr. Mendez -- Mr. Neisler, as well -- Page 15 of your 22 inspection report, the last sentence in the -- well, 23 second to last sentence in the top paragraph reads on 24 this subject, "The licensee stated that the inspectors' 25 inspection logs were not filed with the inspection ({J S_o nat a g_Re p o_r t ti ng_s_eari c e_,_L_t_d . Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10845 v 1 report." 2 I assume that means the handwritten notes that were 3 used to document in the field the inspection results; is 4 that right? 5 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 6 Q About the note books, as we have heard them testified 7 to. 8 "This program area requires further review and 9 evaluation and is considered to be an unresolved item," 10 and then there is an unresolved item identification 11 number. 12 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 13 Q Are you aware of -- either gentlemen -- of any further 14 action on this unresolved item? 15 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No. 16 Q Mr. Neisler. 17 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No. 18 Q Has there been any further action or arg you just not 19 aware that there is? 20 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I am not aware of what it is. 21 Q Mr. Mendez ? 22 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I am not aware of it after the March 23 -- as of March, '86, I -- did I ask this question, and 24 it was still open? The licensee still considered this () 25 unresolved at that moment. Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, IITFnois 6013~4 (312) 232-0262
4 10846 V l Q I see. 2 As of March of 1986? 3 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 4 Q Do you know whom at the NRC this item had been assigned 5 for follow-up? 6 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I am not sure. 7 Q Has it been assigned to anyone? i 8 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I believe it's been assigned to Ralph 9 Westberg. 10 0 To whom? 11 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Ralph Westberg. s - 12 Q Westburg? 13 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 14 0 What area of work did Mr. Westberg do? 15 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) He's an electrical engineer;-but he 16 inherited my open items. 17 Q He interited your electrical work? 18' A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes; my work in general. This isn't
- 19. an electrical problem.
20 Q Okay. Thank you. 21 JUDG E GROSSMAN: If he had followed up on any 22 of these items, would he have notified you by now? 23 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 24 He has already closed out one of the unresolved 25 items in the report. (]) Sonntag_ Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10847. ps
\
l MR. GUILD: Which one did Mr. -- 2 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Inspection of -- one, it's a notice of 3 violation -- 4 MR. GUILD: Yes. 5 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) -- on the Leads not being certified. 6 BY MR. GUILD: 7 0 That's at that time -- once that Applicant asked -- the 8 licensee asked be withdrawn; is that the one or the 9 other one? 10 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Well, it was a three-part violation. 11 The Applicant asked that one of the three parts be rs 12 withdrawn. (J 13 0 That was what? 14 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) The other two parts were corrected. 15 Q And those have been closed? 16 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 17 Q And Mr. Westberg did one or more of those, one or both 18 of those? 19 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes, sir. 20 Q Did he do both or one? 21 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Both. 22 Q We will return to that momentarily. 23 Now, let me direct your attention to Concern No. 5, 24 please, Mr. Neisler. () 25 It has your name by -- it's Page 23 of your Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, IIITnois 6013~4 (312) 232-0262
10848 (~')
.v
- 1. testimony.
2 Now, I understand, Mr. Neisler, that the 3 in6ividuals involved here were Mr. Holley, who was the 4 alleger, and Mr. Rissman, Mr. Stan Rissman, who was
.5 th e --
6 A (WITNESS NEISLER) That's correct. 7 Q All right, sir. 8 Now, the concern as stated in your inspection 9 report states that an LKC QA engineer was assigned to
- 10 the recorda vault for the sole purpose of closing 11 Non-Conformance-Reports.
12 Did Mr. Holley identify Mr. Rissman as that QA 13 engineer? 14 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Yes. 15 Q Was Mr. Rissman, in fact, a QA engineer? 16 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Mr. Rissman was a Quality Control 17 Inspector. 18 0 was he performing duties of a non-quality-control 19 nature, akin to a quality assurance engineer? 20 A (WITNESS NEISLER) He was performing duties that I would 21 consider to be more clerical. 22 Q All right, sir. 23 He was performing duties in the vault that were of 24 a clerical nature? () 25 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Yes. Sonntag_Renor_ tin _g_S_e rvi_cA _Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l l
.10849 a
b .l 1 Q Pursuant to the direction of Mr. Seltmann, the Quality <- ~2 Assurance Manager? l 3 A. (WITNESS NEISLER) -That is correct. 4 Q And, in fact, Mr. Rissman' was not performing quality 1 5 control functions at the time. He was preparing a 6 report called the Braidwood Good News Story at Mr. ~ 7 Seltmann's . direction, was he not? 8 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Well, my information he was not 9 preparing' a report, he was just getting information for. 10 the report for Seltmann. 11- Q Well, he was compiling information that would ultimately rS 12 be a part of the Braidwood Good News Story; correct? - V 13- A -(WITNESS NEISLER) Right. 1 14- Q And in doing, so he was reviewing' NCR's and audit 15 reports and various other quality documents to acquire 16 data and derive historical information'about the quality 17 assurance program at Comstock? 18 A' -(WITNESS NEISLER) That was my understanding.
- l 19 Q All right, sir.
20 How about Concern 7, please?
- 21. Mr. Neisler, again, this is yours.
22' And this is Mr. Perryman's concern, is it not? l- 23 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Yes, I believe so. 24 Q Okay. Now, your inspection report reports your j () 25 investigation of this subject to Page 18. i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. j Geneva, IIllnois 60131 i (312) 232-0262 E _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . . . - _ - . - _ _ _
1 l 10850 ' 7%
\_]
, 1 You conclude in short that no ICR's or NCR's were 2 written for this program because the program itself was , 3 keyed to an NCR, it was a corrective action, an NCR? 4 A (WITNESS NEISLER) That's correct. 5 0 Well, you know, Mr. -- did you hear Mr. Perryman's 6 testimony ? 7 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Yes, sir. 8 Q Mr..Perryman said he knew that, didn' t he -- at the time 9 he raised the concern, didn't Mr. Perryman tell you that 10 he understood that the cable pan walkdown program was 11 indeed responsive to an NCR? 12 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Yes, Mr. Perryman's main complaint Os 13 was that Sargent & Lundy had been using a Comstock 14 checklist for the walkdown. 15 0 That he believed that the QC inspector's signature on-16 the configuration checklist might improperly be taken to 17 evidence the QC verification of the configuration of 18 those hangers? 19 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Tha t's correct. 20 Q And that he and others in the walkdown program brought 21 those concerns to their management attention and, in 22 short, the management was not at least immediately 23 responsive to those concerns. i 24 Did he tell you that? () 25 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I think it was more that their Sonntaq R eEo r ting _Se rvice_,_Ltd.
. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10851 1 management was not responsive to the concerns. 2 0 Well, did he, in fact, tell you that his management, 3 ultima tely, after rejecting several repeated requests to 4 be transferred back to their normal in process 5 inspection activities, gave them a retaliatory transfer 6 to the night shift, even knowing that Mr._ Perryman's 7 mother was ill with cancer, and that he was needed at 8 home. 9 Did he tell you that? 10 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No. Well, they had put them on the 11 night shif t and that was it. 12 Q He told you about being transferred to-the night shift? (~ 13 A (WITNESS NEISLER) To the night shif t; and he didn' t 14 mention retaliatory, he did say that they put him on the 15 night shif t. 16 Q Did he tell that you Mr. Simile told him and Mr. Bossong 17 that they are going to get that transfer, but that they 18 wouldn' t like where they were going, that being the 19 night shift? 20 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I don't think so. 21 Q Did you hear Mr. Perryman's testimony here? 22 A (WITNESS NEISLEP) Yes. 23 Q Did you hear Mr. Bossong's testimony? 24 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I didn' t hear Bossong. () 25 Q You heard Mr. Perryman's; and your inspection on this Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. deneva, IIITnois 6013~4 (312) 232-0262
I 10852 G(3 1 subject covers about half a page on Page 18 of your 2 inspection report. 3 You don't make any reference whatsoever to the 4 transfer to the night shift or the dispute about the 5 procedures, the misuse of the QC verification of 6 configuration, none of those things. 7 A (WITNESS NEISLER) That's correct. That's based on my 8 -- on the fact that's the hierarchy at a construction of 9 a power plant. 10 The use of the checklist -- Sargent & Lundy, who is 11 the architect engineer, determines what checklists will 4 12 be used. 13 They can -- they can use a Comstock checklist, they 14 can use a checklist from a civil contractor, whoever 15 they want in their walk downs; and-that was their -- 16 they were running the show for these two NCR's; and, 17 therefore, the QC Inspector might obj ect to using this 18 company's checklist, but there is nothing wrong with 19 Sargent & Lundy using it. 20 Q So you determined there was no substance to their 21 concern? 22 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Basically, yes. 23 Q But you didn't even recite what these concerns were, Mr. 24 Neisler. () 25 A (WITNESS NEISLER) These concerns were -- they were Sonn tag _Repor ting _Se_rv_i_ce, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10853 r^'s C/ 1 using these firms . lists, and that was -- I did not. find 2 a problem there, and I didn't have any good reason to 3 write a non-problem. 4 Q I see. All right, sir. 5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Do you mean, it wasn't 6 mentioned to you that the inspectors thought that their-7 signatures might be misconstrued on those checklists? 8 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No, it did not. That didn't come up 9 on their signatures. The fact they are using a Form 7 I 10 or a form whatever, number, I think it was a Form 7 or 11 Form 19; but that was the issue that came up to me, was
<g- 12 they were using the wrong forms.
O 13 BY MR. GUILD: 14 Q You interviewed Mr. Ferryman-for 15 minutes or a half an 15 hour? 16 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I don't know if Perryman -- I talked 17 to him. 18 Q You are not sure you even talked to him? 19 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I think I talked to some of the other 20 guys involved. I am not sure who I talked to or where I 21 got my information on that. 22 0 I see, i 23 A (WITNESS NEISLER) But I did -- I did get the 24 information from the -- you know, they were transferred 1 () 25 to the night shift and this sort of thing. i Sonntag Reporti_ng~ Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10854
,~
U 1 Q But did you learn at tne time you were conducting your 2 inspection tnat Mr. Perryman was the source of this 3 allegation? 4 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Actually, at the time, yes, I think I 5 did. 6 Q But you didn't interview him? 7 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No. I was under the impression that 8 Mendez had already interviewed him. 9 Q Mr. Mendez, did you interview him on the subject? 10 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes, I did. 11 Q Did Mr. Perryman share with you his concerns about the gs 12 signature on the checklist? ( 13 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I think it was before the -- he had 14 problems with signatures on the checklist. 15 Q I beg your pardon? 16 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) His problem -- I think the signature 17 on the checklist came out at a later time. 18 Q Later than what? 19 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) May 10th. 20 0 Later than when you interviewed him? 21 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 22 O Oh, I see. 23 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) When I talked to him, his concern was 24 that they are referencing an NCR or ICR for each () 25 particular configuration hanger they found out of design Sonntag_ Reporting Se rvice,_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10855 I )
\J l r equir ements.
2 O You didn't' review the series of memoranda and the 3 revisions to the walkdown procedure that are now in 4 evidence in this proceeding? 5 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Walkdown procedure, yes. I-looked 6 through NCR's 708 and 709, 7 Q Did you review Mr. Perryman's memoranda that are in 8 evidence questioning a transfer and documenting his 9 description about how his signature may be misused, 10 misinterpreted on a configuration checklist? 11 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I think this is -- it come after-May 7x 12 10, 1985. i
)
13 0 It came after May 10th? 14 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 15 Q Oh, inde6d. 16 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I spoke to him the first part of May, 17 Q I see. I see. 18 So you wrote your inspection report, published 19 inspection report of November of 1985, but -- 20 A (WITNESS MENDE3) No. 21 0 -- but ycu happened to catch Mr. Ferryman before the 22 events that have been the subject of his testimony about 23 the memorandum and the transfer and those sorts of 24 things? v) (~ 25 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) As f ar as memorandum, I wasn't aware i I Sonntag Rep _ortina Service, Ltd.- _j GenliRFa, IITITioiT~60114
~~- ---
(312) 232-0262 L
i l I 10856 I
,~ \
k_ 1 or any. I tnink it came after May 10th. I 2 Q Okay. 3 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Jonn Neisler -- 4 Q Mr. Nelsler? S A (WITNESS MENDEZ) -- Jonn Nelsler re-inspected tnis 6 portion or tne allegation, so I didn't nave my nana on 7 it.
-8 Q All rignt.
9 How about Concern No. 9, please, gentlemen, Page 19 10 or your inspection report, Page 27 or your testimony. 11 Tnis is tne multiple certirication issue. I 12 Let me just asK you alrectly: 13 Doesn't it maKe sense, Mr. Nelsler, tnat 1r an 14 Indivlaual spent 90 percent plus or nis time coing weld 15 inspections, but ne nappens to nold a certirication in 16 rour ocner areas, enat ne's going to De less proticient 1/ in ene tour otner areas tnan ne is in ene area tnat ne 18 coes 90 pe r cen t or nis worn in cue welaing area? 19 A (WITNBSS NE1SLEH) Yes, cnet maKes sense. 20 Q anu cua t in otoet to move luto an area wuere ne's really 21 cone no suustantial amount or work Duc ne nolas a 22 cer tirica tion, ne's certainty going to r equire mor e enan 23 uimply starting up rresn witnout rerresner training or 24 on-tne-Jou training, in oraer to ou proricient? () 23 A (WITNESS NB1SLEN) I EninK Go, yes. t l SonntagJepoGans_Se_rncen_Ltc, __ _j Geneva, Illinois 60134 , (J12) 232-0262
10857 fx 1 Q So tne question really is enat* s way you rocus, isn't 2 it, not on ene availability or retresner training -- 4 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Yes. 4 Q -- on enis issue? 5 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Yes. 6 Q All rlgnt, sir. 7- You asked people whetner.tney were ever denied U rerresner training; ana I tninK today it is your 9 reasonaole generality unat you unaerstana eney were not? 10 A (WITNESS NE1SLER) Eacn person 1 Interviewea sala they 11 were never cenlea rerresner training. 12- Q All right. v 13 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Ana I asKea a couple or Enem ana Eney 14 sala uney naa asKea ror it, tney nao got it. 1D Q OKay. 16 Well, ano enen you looK at une training recoras ano 17 saw enat enere were people wno nau rerresner training? 18 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Tnat's correct. 19 Q All rlgnt. 20 Do you Know wnetner or not in ract people wno ala 21 90 pe r cen t or tnelr work in one area, 11Ke Ene Welaing 22 area, were ever callea upon to perrorm work in areas 23 outside tnat primary area, otner areas wnere eney were 24 certitied? () 25 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Whether they actually were, no, .I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, IIITnois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10858 b) v 1 don't know that anyone was actually moved from one 2 certification to snother, other than I think the one 3 instance that we had here where someone was moved from 4 welding to cable pulling or whatever; that's -- 5 Q That's -- for example, whether anyone that held a 6 certification in calibrations, but did 90 percent of his 7 work in the weld inspecting area, was ever asked to fill 8 in and do calibrations work? 9 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No. 10 Q You didn't make any review to determine whether or not 11 there had been assignment of people outside of their gm 12 primary area into other areas where they might have held
.Q) 13 certifications, but in which they did not routinely 14 work?
15 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No. 16 0 I take it that follows, Mr. Neisler, you didn't review i j 17 training records to correlate whether or not persons who 18 had been transferred out of their primary area into 19 another area where they were certified were then given 20 refresher training? 21 A (WITNESS NEISLER) The training records would have not 22 shown that an individual was transferred from one area 23 to another, the training records would have shown that 24 he had received refresher training. () 25 0 All right. Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
c , , _ I. J 10859 ' r 1 A (WITNESS NEISLER) They would have not told where heLhud 2 gone to. 3 0 Whatever records you would have to consult to make an 4 evaluation of the pointr> .I have just printed to you, you 5 didn' t make such an ev!41uation? 6 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No. 7 0 Wouldn' t that have been the evaluation that would have
, 8 told you whether or not pe'ople who worked 'outside their -
9 primary area were, ,in f act, gi.ven adequate training so 10 that they can be proficient in that second area? 11 A (WITNESS NEISLER) If I would have had someone who said 12 they were refused training, yes. 13 Everyone I talked to said it was readily available. 14 All they had to was ask. / 15 I didn' t feel it was necessary. , , s , 16 0 I see. - 17 But this was a widespread concern th'at people were' 18 not able to maintain proficiency ~in' multiple 19 certification areas, was it not? 20 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I don't think it was that widespread. 21 Tne allegation itself came from one individual, and 22 the people I asked, none of them thought it was a real 23 problem. ! 24 Q Did you identify more than a single individual, Mr. () 25 Neisler, who expressed concerns about multiple l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ~~ ~ - Geneva, TITiif61 T 60134 (312) 232,-0262
10860 O 1 certifications and proficiencies? 2 A (WITNESS NEISLER) The only one I saw was one out of 3 this April 5th memo. , 4 0 I am going to Page 19 of your inspection report, under 5 Concern No. 9, NRC review, concerning NRC inspector 6 interview of the LKC QC inspectors, plural, the LKC 7 inspectors plural indicated that they agreed it was 8 difficult to maintain proficiency in more than one 9 inspection area, et cetera. l 10 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Yes, they all felt it was difficult, 11 LKC QC Inspectors. 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Neisler, were you aware 13 of the fact that, when you performed these interviews in 14 this area, that the inspectors were given an additional 15 50 cents an hour per certification? 16 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Yes, I was, judge. 17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Didn't that indicate to you 18 that it would be to the inspectors' personal benefit not 19 to have their multiple certifications questioned? 20 A (WITNESS NEISLER) It did. 21 In fact, that's why I think -- well, my feelings 22 that they all -- they all told me was very difficult to 23 maintain them. 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, but shouldn't you have () 25 questioned the other conclusion that they reached that Sonnt ag Report _ing_ Servi _g_e; Ltd. ; Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
, 10861 O E 1 they dould maintain them, even though it was difficult?
2 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Actually, judge,,this was the first 3 of these particular multi-certification QC programs I 4 have come across. 5 These-are normally very much -- they are certified. 6 The QC's are qualified in a much broader area. You 7 don't have welding and configuration all multiples, 8 various certifications, you will have one certification 9 for cable pan terminations, and one for hangers, and 10 welding and this, and this is what you usually run into. 11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: So you weren't familiar with 12 th s highly specialized -- O 13 A (WITNESS NEISLER) This highly specialized -- this 14 system appeared to me at this time to be devised to give 15 the QC inspector more money, and instead of like I am 16 used to seeing on the other plants, where they -- they - 17 qualify them as an electrical QC inspector. 18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Mr. Guild. 19 MR. GUILD: Thank you. 20 BY MR. GUILD: 21 Q Concern No. 10, gentlemen, Page 28 of your testimony, on 22 Page 20 of the inspection report. 23 Now, am I clear that the Leads who were identified 24 in this concern were Mr. Nemeth and Mr. Phillips, Mr. 25 Mendez ? (]J Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, IITfniils 6 013 4~~~~ (312) 232-0262
j 10862
)
1 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I don't think Nemeth and Phillips 2 ever signed off that many ICR or NCR's. 3 Q Right. I know that you concluded that; but who were the 4 Leads that were identified by the QC inspector you 5 talked to as involved in the practice that was the 6 subj ect of the complaint?
- , 7 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I can name just about every Lead that 8 ever was at Braidwood.
9 Q I see. Okay 10 Well, did they single out any Leads, with respect 11 to the issue of selection of Leads, because of g 12 willingness to sign off quality documents?
%)
13 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I believe Phillips and Nemeth were 14 singled out. 15 Q I see. 16 So those were the only two, the two you that 17 remember? 18 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) There also were other names; but 19 Nemeth and Phillips are the ones I remember most. 20 Q Did you make any special review of Mr. Nemeth and Mr. 21 Phillips having had them identified in this regard? 22 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 23 0 What was that review? 24 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I went through the NCR ICR log, for a 25 one-and-a-half year period, and I saw no irregularity. (]) Sonntag Rep _or_ti.nq Service,_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10863 1 Q Now, how does the log tell you the information that you 2 needed to determine this question? 3 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) The log lists the -- identifying the 4 inspector and the person who is closing the particular 5 ICR, -is closing it of f, 6 Q It lists the inspector who actually went to the field 7 and inspected the item, if there is a hardware item 8 involved, doesn't it? 9 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Indentities the inspector who tound 10 the problem, indentitles to tnem wno closed out the ICR. 11 Q Rignt; Dut ir it's a matter or doing a rield inspection 12 to close-out an ICR or an ICR, the Lead wouldn' t be the O 13 one to sign in that case at all, would he? 14 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Well, the allegations on -- they were . 15 being picked on who could sign off the most ICR's and 16 NCR's, they were inspectors at one time. They were 17 later selected as Leads. 18 0 Oh, I see. 19 So you understood the concern to be how readily 20 they signed of f quality documents before they became i 21 Leads; the basis to have their promotion? 22 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 23 0 I see. 24 And not their performance as Leads? (} 25 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Both. Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. dineva, IITITidis 60134 (312) 232-0262
10864 l ("T
\/
1 Q Okay. But you agree with me, don't you, that if a field i 2 verification is called on for an ICR, and that's
. 3 generally what happens, ICR's get reworked and they get ;
4 signed off by an inspector who does a field inspection; 5 right? 6 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 7 Q Did you see, typically, that would be done 8 systematically, someone who worked for a Lead, you 9 wouldn't see the Lead's siguature in the ICR log? 10 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I don't recall what the procedure or 11 the practice was at that time, 12 Q All right. f-)s (_ 13 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I was just looking at it in general to 14 see if there were any irregularities in the NCR ICR 15 logs. 16 Q All right, sir. 17 Let's look at Item No. -- Concern No.14, please. 18 Mr. Neisler, I believe this is yours. 19 Now, I take it from your earlier answers that you 20 didn't have an alleger in mind with respect to the . 21 improper dispositioning of these two documents, the NCR 22 and the ICR? 23 A (WITNESS NEISLER) That's correct; I didn't. 24 Q These were just documents that were identified by Mr. 25 Schulz and Mr. McGregor and their memos of their March ({} Sonn_ tag _Repor_ ting Se rvice,_Ltd, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10865 j ( \ 1~ 29th meeting, as having been provided as citations-from I 2 an unidentified source; correct? 3 A (WITNESS NEISLER) That's correct. 4 Q So you didn't have any allegation as to what was the 5 problem with these -- these NCR's and ICR's, when you 6 went to look at them? 7 A (WITNESS NEISLER) That's correct. 8 Q And you didn't know what allegation you were 9 investigating, except that there was something 10 supposedly wrong with those two documents? 11 A (WITNESS NEISLER) That's correct.
- q. 12 Q Not knowing what that something was, you didn't find 1 () 13 anything wrong with those two documents?
14 A (WITNESS NEISLER) If there had been something 15 identified, it would have not changed my conclusion, my 16 review. 17 0 Well, that's easy to say, not knowing what the problem i 18 was; but no problem was brought to your attention with f 19 these two, just the fact that they were the source of 20 some complaint; is that's correct? 21 A (WITNESS NEISLER) That's correct; but I reviewed each 22 of those -- well, each one of the ICR's and NCR's, and I l 23 found that they were properly dispositioned, that there i 24 were no problems with these particular documents. There l i () 25 had been one area at one time, there had been a Revision Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. (Mneva, IllTnifis 6013~4 , (312) 232-0262
10866 1 1 written to the NCR, and because it had been closed 2 out, 1 had been closed out a few days before the other, , 3 and to make the paperwork check, they had written a 4 revision. 5 0 Okay. What was the subj ect of the NCR? 6 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Cable pan welds. ] 7 Q And what was the non-conforming concern of those 8 welding? 9 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I don't remember what the condition 10 was right now. I would have to see the NCR to tell you. 11 Q Okay. And what was the disposition of that NCR? t 12 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I think part of it was -- some of it ()g 13 was a -- 14 MR. BERRY: This is the part that was a 15 walkdown. That was one of the confusing items. 16 Like~I say, I haven't seen the thing except Mr. 17 Miller showed me one of them yesterday. 18 0 All right. l 19 A (WITNESS NEISLER) The last one -- the first time I had 20 seen it now in a year. 21 Q All right. ' 22 Part of it was used as it -- 4 23 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Part of it was used in certain areas 24 and part of it covered rework or reinspection. I am not l 25 really sure what it is right now. (]) _Sonntag_ Reporting _ Service, Ltd. l Geneva, Illinois 60134 : (312) 232-0262 1 _ . . _ . _~ _. . _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ __. -.
10867 1 As I say, I told you I would have to -look it up. 2 Q You don't recall? l 3 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No. 4 Q Do you know what aspect required rework or walkdown? 5 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I told you I don't know. 6 0 Did you ask any QC inspector about what their concern 7 was with the disposition of this NCR? 8 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No. 9 Q Did you, Mr. Mendez ? 10 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes, I did. 11 Q You did?
- 12 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes, sir.
13 Q And did you get any responsive answers?- 14 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I don't think so. I think the person 15 having this concern -- I really don't know who had this 4 16 concern? , 17 Q Right.
. 18 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) And none of the inspectors usually had 19 any problem with this.
't 20 0 Did any of them know about it? Did they ask you for
- 21 anyone else from the NCR? .
22 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No. 23 Q So you sort of did a survey and nobody owned up to know j 24 anything about that NCR? 25 A (WITNESS MENDEE) That's right.
-( )
I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, IllTri~ois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
10868 O 1 Q I cut you off and I apologize; but you were going to 2 volunteer something, Mr. Mendez ? 3 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No. That's all .I have. 4 Q All right. 5 Mr. Neisler, h:.w about the ICR in question? 6 I take it that the second document was indeed an 7 ICR, and that's 2,900? 8 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) The same. 9 Q They represented -- 10 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I think the ICR and the NCR were on 11 the same subject. One was written to document the 12 finding from the other 13 0 I see. 14 Do you know what the relationship was between the 15 ICR and an NCR7 16 A (WITNESS NEISLER) , If I remember correctly, the ICR was 17 witten and then an NCR was written to cover it, to cover 18 the ICR. I 19 Q Because it was a pressure evaluation required? 20 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I think, yes. 21 Q And some decision by Edison apparently? 22 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Sargent & Lunday. 23 Q I see. 24 And if Sargent & Lunday got involved -- () 25 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Right. Sonn tag _R_epo r t.ing Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 10869 l (~%. l (_/ - l 1 Q I take it the same answer applied to an ICR; you never l 2 found out who the source of the concern was about the 3- closure of the ICR? 4 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Oh, after Schulz, I finished looking 5 and went back through where the allegation came from. I 6 started wondering if McGregor and Schulz were the 7 source; but -- 8 Q All right. 9 Did you ever ask them? 10 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No. 11 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I didn't. 12 0 I'm sorry? 13 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No, I did not ask them. 14 0 Mr. Mendez ? 15 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Well, I asked them in relation to the 16 NCR's and ICR's, and they had no problem with the 3 17 disposition of these two documents. 18 Q Schulz and McGregor? 19 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. I reviewed them and they took 20 corrective action and they had no problems with them. 21 Q You brought them to their attention? 22 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, no, no, I asked them if this -- 23 Q If they had seen them? 24 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I had asked them. It was the question () 25 I had to Schulz and McGregor. Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. G~sneva,- IllTn~6Ts 6013'4-(312) 232-0262
10870 . v ' 1 Q I see. 2 A' (WITNESS MENDEZ) What corrective action had been taken 3 on this and if they thought the position of the NCR and 4 ICR was proper. 5 Q Okay. This, in fact, was the work that Mr. McGregor and 6 Schulz had done before you got on-site. 7 Limited -- following that, limited followup had i 8 been done on these allegations. They had looked at 9 these two documents? 10 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 11 Q All right. 12 Did you ask Mr. McGregor and Schulz who was the 13 source of the allegation or concern about thesa 14 documents? 15 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I didn't. 16 Q Did they pass on the information as to their 17 understanding, McGregor and Schulz' understanding of 18 what the' concern had been? 19 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I don't think they had an 20 understanding. 21 Q They had no understanding? 22 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That is, they found no . sroblem with , 23 the two documents. 24 Q Right. I understand that. That's your testimony. 25 But did they know or have any understanding of what ({} i f Sonn_ tag _Repotting_Sn aire,_Ltd, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
-10871-I - es i
kI 1 the beef was on the part of the inspector or whoever the 2 source of the documents were? 3 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No. 4 MR. BERRY: Can the Reporter read back the 5 last answer. 6 (The answer was thereupon read 7 , by the Reporter.) 8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Why don' t we take a 9 10-minute break; and could you tell us whether we are 10 going to Mr. Schapker today? MR. GUILD: 11 I hope so. 12 I am wrapping up here. I am moving close-to the 13 ends of the list, judge. 14 It's certainly not going to be much time with Mr. 15 Schapker, becaues we have -- i 16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: It's a question of whether I l 17 have to read his pre-filed testimony now; but I guess I ; 18 will. 19 MR. GUILD: Perhaps. 20 Off the record. 21 (Whereupon a recess was had, after which 22 the hearing resumed as follows:) 23 24 . () 25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, IllTrJis 60131 (312) 232-0262
10872-l JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild. BY MR. GUILD: 2 3 Q Gentlemen, let's look at concern No.15 of Allegation 72 4 relating to the 24 Comstock . Inspectors' concerns. 5 Now, I take it, Mr. Neisler, that you don' t know 3 6 who the source of this allegation was? 9 7 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Well, that was out of one of these-8 documents where people were identified as X, Y, Z and 9 whatever by letter. 10 0 All right, sir. 11 And the obj ect of the concern was Mr. Saklak? 12 (WITNESS NEISLER) That's correct.
-) A 13 0 All right.
14 And you knew that from looking at the~ document? 15 A- (WITNE6S- NEISLER) Yes. 16 Q Okay. 17 And the subj ect of the concern was that Mr. Saklak 18 continually violated applicable procedures -- or 19 procedures with regard to the certification of 20 Inspectors? 21 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Yes, that was the subject. 22 Q All right. 4 23 Well, this is another instance, is it not, Mr. 24 Neisler, where you didn't know what the allegation was ; () 25 that you were inspecting to because you never talked Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Cineva, IITIK61s 6013~4 I (312) 232-0262
10873 o C: 1 with anybody who you identified as being the source of 2' the allegation? 3 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Oh, I knew what the subject of the 4 allega tion was. 5 It was that a QC -- that, in this case, Saklak was
.6 violating certification procedures.
7 0 Well, but you had no more detail to go on than that,-did 8 you? 9 A (WITNESS NEISLER) That was -- that was what I had. 10 Q You didn't have any notion of in what respects it was 11 asserted that Mr. -Saklak was violating procedures by way
;q 12 of certification of Inspectors?
kJ I did not know how he was violating 13 A (WITNESS NEISLER) 14 the procedures, no. 15 0 All right. 16 And you couldn't find any evidence that he was, and 17 that was the end of the matter? You concluded that it 18 didn't happen? 19 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Oh, I found that Saklak was not 20 involved in certification of Inspectors. i 21 Q Well, he had no formal role? He didn't sign 22 certification documents, did he? 23 A (WITNESS NEISLER) He didn' t sign certification -- he 24 did not recommend people for certification, he did not () 25 approve their certification, and so, therefore -- and he Sonntag Reporting Servicef Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10874 G 1 did not train them for -- to be certified. 2 Q How'did you reach those determinations? 3 A This is all laid out in Comstock's qualification and 4 training procedures. 5 Q So you read the procedure and you saw that a person with 6 Mr. Saklak's position had no explicit role in those 7 procedures and, therefore, you concluded that there was 8 no substance to this allegation? 9 A -(WITNESS NEISLER) That's correct. I concluded if he 10 had no role in the certification, I could see no way he 11 would be violating the rules. r-) LJ 12 0 All right. 13 No. 16, Concern No. 16: 14 Again, Mr. Neisler, this concern had to do with the 15 absence of -- lack of certified Calibration Inspectors. 16 Who was the source of this allegation? 17 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Thia was a statement made by one of 18 the people, in the March 29th memo from Schulz and 19 McG rego r, that no one was certified in the calibration 20 area. 21 Q Okay. 22 Well, do you know -- you don't know who the source 23 was, the alleger? 24 A I don' t know who the source was. () 25 Q I take it, therefore, you don't know any more detail Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, 11'1Tnois 6013~4 (312) 232-0262
10875 1 than what was contained in that memo about the 2 allegation? 3 A (WITNESS NEISLER) About the allegation, no -- 4 0 All right. 5 A (WITNESS NEISLER) -- correct. 6 Q You don't know, for example, what period of time the 7 allegation was referring to? 8 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I did not know what period of time 9 the allegation was supposed to cover, no. 10 Q Okay. 11 I mean, were you aware that for a considerable 1
-) 12 tim e, there was a single Calibration Inspector named
(\-) 13 John Seeders? Did you know that during your 14 inspection? 15 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I did not know that. 16 Q Did you know whether any more persons, aside from Mr. i 17 Seeders, performed calibration inspections during the 18 period of time that he was assigned that task? 1 19 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I did not know that, either. 20 Q Did you know, at the time that you performed your 21 inspection, that a single Inspector performed virtually 22 all the calibration inspections, and that was Mr. 23 Snyder? 24 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I didn' t know that Mr. Snyder did 25 virtually all the calibration inspections; but I would (]) Sonn_t_a_g_Repo r ti ng_Se rv ice, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10876 f)/ 1 not expect more than one individual at a time to be 2 doing it. 3 Q All right, sir. . 4 Now, on this one, would you help me, Mr. Neisler; 5 and let me trace the source of this concern. 6 How did you derive it from Intervenors' Exhibit 42 7 and 42 A, the two March 29th memos and the April 5th 8 memo? 9 JUDG E GROSSMAN: We're still on Concern 16? 10 MR. GUILD: Indeed, yes. 11 A (WITNESS NEISLER) In the second paragraph from the 12 top -- I 'mean, the second paragraph on that page ---
~) ~
13 BY MR. GUILD: 14 Q Which one are you looking at, sir? 15 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I doesn't have a number on the page, 16 so it would be 42A. It would be No. 62, 62 at the 17 bottom of the first page. 18 MR. BERRY: That was the March 29th 19 memorandum. I believe the witness is referring to the 20 March 29th memorandum. 21 A (WITNESS NEISLER) The March 29th memo, "Subj ec t : 22 Quality Control Allegations From L. K. Comstock 23 Inspectors." 24 BY MR. GUILD: () 25- Q It's McGregor and Schulz to Warnick and Weil; is that Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. G iin e v a , t I T I~n~6 1 s 6013'4 (312) 232-0262
10877 s_- 1 right? 2 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Yes. 3 Q Okay. 4 It says Inspector X on the first page? 5~ A (WITNESS NEISLER) Right. 6 Q Okay. 7 And which page are you referring to now? 8 A (WITNESS NEISLER) It's on the second page. 9 Q Okay. 10 And where -- 11 A (WITNESS NEISLER) This is -- it says, "Nobody" -- down eg 12 toward the bottom, it says, "It wasn' t John's f ault 13 because the department was messed up. Nobody was 14 certified in that area." 15 0 Oh,-I see. 16 And that's the source of ~the information that-you-17 used to investigate Concern ilo. 16? 18 A (WITNESS NEISLER) That is correct. 19 0 Well, what if you interpreted that language, Mr. 20 Neisler, as no supervision was certified in that area? 21 Do you know whether that was the case during the 22 period of time that's referred to in the March 29th 23 memo? 24 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I think that, yes, during the -- I 25 don't know if -- during the time frame that we're (]) Sonntag Reporting Service,_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10878 a
. ,/
1 talking about, I don't know. 2 I do know from some of the earlier-allegations that . 3 it had been alleged that Saklak was not certified in 4 that area. 5 Q All right. 6 Essentially Mr. Seeders was disciplined.for 7 calibrations problems as alleged here where it wasn't 8 bis fault since no one in supervision was certified in 9 that area? Did you understand that to be the fact? 10 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I didn't understand that to be the 11 fact, no.
,f 3 12 Q Well, if you read the allegation that way, is that true; i i 13 do you know?
14 A (WITNESS NEISLER) You can read it that way and 15 interpret it that way. 16 Q That's not the way you interpreted it? 17 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I did not interpret it that way. I 18 didn't. 19 The reason that I picked this up primarily is when 20 we start saying nobody is certified in calibration, that 21 rings a bell, not -- no supervisors, such as -- a 22 supervisor doesn't have to be certified, anyway; and at 23 the -- all right. At the time I was reading this, I had 24 not seen the Comstcck procedures. () 25 I knew there were no requirements by us or ANSI Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Cdineva, IlTI~n51s 601T4 (312) 232-0262
~
_ . _ .. . .. .~ o 10879
- x. /
1 that supervisors be certified, so I aut omatically looked 2 at the people doing the work. 3 Q But even reading the March 29th memo, Mr. Neislt r, you 4 understood plain reading of the memo, even without 5 names, it stated that someone got railroaded out, by the 6 name of John, from the calibrations area? 7 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Right. L 8 Q Did you make any inquiry as to whether or not someone 9 named John who did calibrations had been involuntarily i 10 transferred or removed from the job or railroaded out? 11 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No, I didn't. fS 12 JUDG E GROSSMAN: By the way, I'm not sure we V 13 got an answer to the question, which was: 14 Assuming that what they were referring to was there 15 was no certified calibration supervisor, was the 16 allegation true? 17 Do you know that? 18 A (WITNESS NEISLER) The allegation would have been true. 19 I also know if -- if I'd have interpreted it just 20 that way, I would not have inspected it. 21 (Indica ting . ) 22 BY MR. GUILD: l 23 Q I see. 24 And that's because you don' t think there's any (J 25 regulatory requirement? l Sonntag_Repor_t.ing Service,._ Ltd. ' Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
F 10880
;~\
() 1 A (WITNESS'NEISLER) That's because there is no 2 regulatory requirement. 3 Q Well, -the substance of the allegation, Mr. Neisler, is 4 that the department was messed up and that an individual S was railroaded out, removed from his job. 6 You didn't investigate those allegations, I take 7 it? 8 A (WITNESS NEISLER) We had other allegations the same 9 way. 10 That particular one I did not investigate. 11 Q I see. 12 Now, I take it you didn' t either, Mr. Mendez ? (-~' 13 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I didn't. 14 0 And you didn' t -- neither -- and you didn' t try to find 15 out whether anyone else had investigated that 16 allegation, did you, Mr.- Mendez ? 17 John was railroaded out, it wasn't his fault, the 18 department -- the calibrations department was messed up. 19 You didn't -- you yourself didn't investigate those 20 subjects, nor did you determine whether they had been 21 investigated by anyone else? 22 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That's correct. 23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me. 24 Mr. Neisler, are you saying that, at the time you () 25 conducted this investigation, you had formed a
- Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva,'ITrlisiia 6~013~4 l (312) 232-0262
10881
,c ,3 V
1 conclusion as to what the requirements were with regard 2- to supervisors being certified in the area of 3 supe rvision ? 4 A, (WITNESS NEISLER) No. I'm saying that at the time I 5 read these allegations, I was aware -- I was not aware 6 that Comstock's procedures had a requirement. 7 I was aware that there are no regulatory 8 requirements. 9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, okay. i 10 I'm sorry. 11 BY MR. GUILD: i 12 0 All right, gentlemen. I have no more questions on the
~~
13 subject of the Allegation 0072. 14 But you, in addition, investigated a number of 4 15 other related allegations involving Comstock QC , 16 Inspector concerns. 17 You did, didn' t you, Mr. Mendez, in this Inspection 18 Report? 19 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Any other -- any other Comstock -- 20 Comstock allegations? 21 0 Yes.
- i. 22 You did investigate other Comstock allegations? ,
23 3062, for one; correct? 24 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. () 25 Q Now, 62 was -- let me direct your attention, please, to So nn t a g _.Re po tt i n g _S_c ryi c e., _ Ltd . Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
.n --
10882 (~T x_/ 1 Page 3 of the Inspection Report -- let me lay hands on 2- my copy here. Okay -- and to Page 9 of your prefiled 3 testimony, please.
-4 Now, this is an allegation that came from Mr. Rick 5 Snyder, and it came, as your report documents -- weeks 6 before the group complaint to the Residents on March 7 29th, Snyder came to the site Resident, March 13, 1985, 8 did he not?
9 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes.
- 10. Q And Mr. Snyder raised concerns about the qualifications 11 of QC supervision, Leads and supervisors --
12 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 13 0 -- correct? 14 Now, Mr. Snyder's concern was with a question of 15 whether they were certified, but also with whether they 16 were' qualified in the sense of being knowledgeable and 17 proficient; isn' t that true?
'18 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I don't recall that, really.
19 Q Well -- 20 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I don't recall if it's both or one or 21 the other. 22 Q All right, sir. 23 What you inspected to, though, was whether or not (- 24 the Leads and the supervisors were certified? 25 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes.
/}
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. l Geneva,- TlTInois 6013 4'~ (312) 232-0262 l J
-n, ~ _s - - -
( . 10883 1 Q And whether their certifications -- excuse me -- met the 2 requirements of the then applicable Comstock program and 3- procedures? That's what you- inspected to? 4 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 5 Q All right.- 6 You didn' t inspect to determine whether or not they 7 wer e -- they, the Comstock QC' Leads and supervision, 8 were knowledgeable, proficient and qualified in the 9 sense of being capable of effective performance of their 10 supervisory duties; isn' t that the case? 11 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Are you talking about the QC gS 12 supervisors? t !
'~
13 Q Yes, supervisors and Leads. 14 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) As far as the supervisors are 15 concerned, it had already been identified by 16 Commonwealth Edison QA. 17 0 W ell, that's not really my question. We'll turn to that 18 in a moment. 19 But it is true, isn' t it, Mr. Mendez, that you only 20 evaluated whether, as you interpreted them, the Comstock 21 procedures and program were complied with by way of the 22 paper certification of Leads and suparvision? You 23 didn' t perform any evaluation of their actual work 24 performance or qualifications? 25 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That's right.
/)
_Sonntag_Reporti.ng Service,_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10884 n. \ ,/ 1 Q So whether Mr. -- if Mr. Snyder's concern was beyond -- 2 was to the actual qualification of his supervision,
'3 their knowledge and proficiency, tha t's not something 4 you looked into?
5 A (WI'INESS MENDEZ) Tha t's right. 6 Q Now, a number of other Comstock Inspectors that you 7 inte rviewed -- well, let's be clear about it. _, 8 Page 3 of your inspection report, "During the 9 interviews" - "During interviews of 16 randomly l 10 selected L. K. C. QC ' Inspectors, many exp.ressed the 11 opinions that almost all of the QC supervisors were
') 12 neither qualified not certified as Level II's in the i
13 area they supervised. 14 "The L. K. C. Inspectors felt they could not depend 15 on the QC supervisors to answer questions in the areas 16 where QC Inspectors were uncertain on QC-related 17 -matters." l 18 Mr. Mendez, you understood that many of the 16 that 19 you interviewed to be concerned not just with whether 20 they were certified as required by the Comstock 21 procedure, whether they met the paper requirements of 22 the procedure, but whether they were, indeed, 23 proficient, knowledgeable and qualified to serve as 24 effective supervisors? () 25 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Well, if they weren't certified, they Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. , Geniva,~~IITIn~61s 6 01~34 ~- (312) 232-0262
10885 l l
- s. . >
yJ l weren't qualified. 2 0 Did you understand that the Inspectors were expressing 3 concerns to you about the substantive qualification of 4 theit supervision? 5 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I sort of understood it as being both: 6 You are not certified, you are not qualified. 7 0 Yes, sir. All right, sir. 8 Now, let me see if I can sort out a little bit of 9 this. 10 You identified an item of non-compliance with 11 respect to the question of the certification of Leads; 12
-) correct?
13 1A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 14 Q And that the Leads involved were Mr. Phillips and Mr. l 15 Nemeth, were they not? 16 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 17 Q All right. 18 Now, I'm looking at the Appendix, the Notice of 19 Violation, where Viola tion lA, B and C are set forth. 20 And for Mr. Phillips, can you identify which of 21 those items of non-compliance relates to him, please? 22 A (WITNESS MENDE3) Probably A, B. 23 G All right, sir. 24 And how about C: Was this Mr. Nemeth? 25 A Yes. (a') (WITNESS MENDEZ) Sonntag Repo.rting Service,__L_td. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
]
10886 V("h 1 Q All right, sir. 2 Now, at Page 10 of your testimony, Mr. Mendez, you 3 conclude, Answer 22, "Although L. K. C. Procedure 4.1.2 4 required a QC supervisor to be certified as a Level II, . S this procedural violation is not significant from a 6 safety standpoint. This is because L. K. C. QC 7 ' supervisors did not perform Level II reviews in t.ny 8 areas for which they were not certified"; correct? 9 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 10 Q All right. 11 So your inspection finding then rests upon whether 12 or not the uncertified Level II supervisor or Lead 13 actually signed the quality document; in this case, 14 performing the Level II review function; is that 15 correct? 16 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Rephr.tse the question. 17 Q Sure. 18 You determined that there was no problem here of 19 safety significance because you found no incident, 20 instance, where the supervisor signed the Level II 21 review on a quality document? 22 I'm reading your testimony. "This is because L. K. 23 C. QC supervisors did not perform Level II reviews in 24 any areas for which they were not certified." 25 W ell, there is two reasons for that. (]) A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Sonntag Rep ~orting Service, Ltd. Geneva, ~IITi~nois 6013~4 (312) 232-0262
At-s , J
/
'f 10887 k}.J . 8 1 One is they don't perform Level II reviews, and 2 second, it was something that the Braidwood site's QA 3 was taking' corrective action on.
4 Q All right. ~Well, that's another matter. 5 Now,. you determined not to initiate an item _of 1 -
)
6 non-compliance, although you identified a violation of 7 Appendix B, and you_ reached .-- you restedithat' ; i 8 determination on the fact that you. understood that the 9 matter had been preidentified -- self-identifiedlbyIthe i - 10 licensee -- ' 3- , 11 A That's correct u- , 12 0 -- is that correct? , J' s v 13 Now, let's lay that question aside and we'll return , 14 to that. 15 But on the substance of your finding, you concluded 16 there was no safety significance to the . finding about 17 uncertified Leads or supervisors because, as it states 18 at Page 16 -- I'm sor{y, Page '10 -- e xcuse me - , Answer 19 22, "L. K. C. QC supervisors did not perform Level II 20 reviews in any areas for which they were not certified"? 21 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That's correct. s 22 Q Now, by the Level II reviews, you mean signing the 23 quality document in the Level II review box? 24 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. () 25 0 All right, sir. S.onntag_Repo.rtir.g Service,_LtJ. _. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 10888
- O
\_/
1 What duties did the L. K. C. QC supervisors 2 perform, if any, in areas for which they were not 3 certified, Mr. Mendez ? 4 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) What duties they performed? 5 0 Correct. 6 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I really don't know, other than just 7 supervision of the QC Inspectors. 8 Q Did they direct the work of Level'II Inspectors in those 9 areas, the areas for which they, as supervisors, were 10 not themselves certified? 11 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yeah, I would suppose -they would. 12 They would get the list -- or a list of inspections 13 needed to be inspected for that day and pass out the 14 work. 15 (Indicating.) 16 Q All right, sir. 17 And direct the performance of that work; isn't that 18 correct? 19 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I don't think they ever told the QC 20 Inspectors how to perform the work. 21 0 Well, sir, wouldn't it be your understanding of the t 22 scope of responsibility of the QC supervisor to direct 23 the performance of inspection activities of those who 24 report to him? () 25 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I don't know about the particulars of Sonntag Reporting ~~ Service, Ltd. Geneya, IITrno1s 6013'4 (312) 232-0262
10889
~
1 1 the QC inspection itself, but his job is to manage the 2 QC Inspectors. 3 0 All right. 4 To determine how many inspections they perform, to 5 determine where they perform them, to evaluate the job-6 performance of those would report to them as
- 7. su pervisors ?
8 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes'. 9 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, I think there were 10 three questions. 11 JUDG E GROSSMAN: I think he answered yes-to gS 12 all of them.
\_)
13 (Laughter.) 14 BY MR. GUILD: 15 0 Well, you understood, did you not, Mr. Mendez, that 16 essentially the performance of a Level II review was 17 really only a paper work function to review the 18 document, the four corners of the document before them, .., 19 for completeness and clarity or words to that effect? 20 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Tha t's correct. 21 Q It didn' t involve any evaluation of the actual ' 22 performance of the QC inspection that was documented on 23 that report; just a review of the paper? 24 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 25 0 All right, sir. _( ) Eo n n t a g _ R e po rAi n g_Snr_v.Lc_c ,_Lt d . Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
h 10890 rN
%d 1 So whether or not the QC supervisor did or did r 2 sign the Level II review in areas that they weren't 3 certified in, the real issue that these QC Inspectors 4 were complaining to you about was the fact that they 5 were being supervised in the performance of their 6 inspection duties by Comstock supervision who were not 7 certified or qualified in the areas over which they 8 supervised; isn' t that the case?
9 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) There was no regulatory requirement 10 that requires that QC supervisors being certified in 11 areas ofLresponsibility. fs 12 There is no ANSI standard, no regulatory b 13 requirement. 14 Q Is there any regulatory requirement that QC supervision 15 be qualified to supervise in the areas over which they 16 exercised supervisory authority? 17 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) There isn' t. There is none. 18 Q I guess I've got another job available to me, then, 19 because if there's no requirement that you be 20 supervised, I -- that you be qualified in the areas you 21 supervise, I guess that I would be as. qualified as 22 anyone to do that kind of work, Mr. Mendez, I mean, in 23 point in fact. 24 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) The only requirements come out of the 25 Comstock QC procedures. (]) Sonntag Reportin_g Service, Ltd. Geneva, IITIn_o_is 60134 (312) 232-0262
10891 (v3 1 Q All right, sir. 2 Well, don' t you believe, Mr. Mendez , as a Nuclear 3 Regulatory Commission Inspector, that the effective 4 performance of a quality assurance program -- effective 5 implementation of a quality assurance program requires 6 that management over Quality control Inspectors be 7 proficient, knowledgeable; in fact, be qualified to 8 exercise those supervisory responsibilities? 9 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I would suppose it's helpf ul. 10 It's not necessary, it's not required. 11 Q You don't think that is a requirement of 10 CFR Part 50 12 Appendix B to implement a QA program with effective 13 su pe rvision ? 14 A We' re talking about Level II certification, ANSI N4526, 15 and there is no requirement for QC supervisors. 16 Q I see. 17 Well, Mr. Mendez, I ask you to assume that QC 1;8 supervision at L. K. Comstock is not qualified -- by 19 " qualified," I mean not simply not certified, but I mean 20 not knowledgeable by experience, by study, by learning, 21 not proficient in the areas over which they exercise 22 supervisory authority -- they are unqualified, and that 23 those who work under them are not given effective 24 supervision in the performance of their quality control 25 inspection duties -- I'm talking about the Level II's (]) Sonntag_ Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10892 1 now. 2 Now, Mr. Mendez, can you state with confidence, 3 sir, that there would be no safety significance to the 4 lack of qualification of QC supervision in the
'5 circumstances I've asked you to assume?
6 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) As supposing that QC management -- or 7 Comstock management is not qualified? 8 I don't know if that's the case; but if they 9 weren't, if they were not certified Level II's, there 10 wouldn' t be any violation of any NRC requirements. 11 Q W ell, I asked you to assume beyond simply lack of 12 certification as Level II's. I asked you to assume that 13 they were not proficient, knowledgeable, qualified in a 14 substantive sense. 15 And my question, again, to you, Mr. Mendez, is: 16 Having made that assumption, can you state with 17 confidence that there would be no safety significance to 18 that lack of qualification? 19 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Comstock management doesn' t perform QC 20 inspections. 21 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I'd ask that the 22 witness be directed to respond to the question. 23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes. 24 The question was whether there would be any safety 25 significance from your point of view. (')i u. Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
~
Geneya, IIITnF1s 6013~4 l (312) 232-0262
10893 1 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I don't know. 2 My -- my understanding is that.QC Inspectors . 3 perform the inspections. If management doesn't perform ' 4 those inspections, I don't see where safety is R 5 compromised. 6 (Indicating.) 7 That is, I don't know. I don't know if there's 8 been a situation like that. 9 BY MR. GUILD: 10 Q All right, sir. 11 In any event, Mr. Mendez, we can say with , ,c 3 12 confidence that in the inspection that you performed, i V 13 that was the subj ect of your testimony in this
- 14 proceeding, you performed no evaluation of the actual 15 qualification, in terms of work performance, of Comstock' 16 management?
17 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That's right, that's correct. 18 Q You didn't evaluate Mr. Saklak's qualification in that 19 sense, did you? 20 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) What for? 21 Q You didn't valuate Mr. DeWald's qualification in that 22 sense, did you? i 23 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I didn't. 24 Q Nor the qualification of any other Comstock management? 25 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That's correct. (} S_o_nn_ tag Regortina Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134_ (312) 232-0262
'10894 .C') .
V. ' 1 MR. GUILD: Tha t's all the questions _ I have, 2 Mr. Chairman. 3 BOARD EXAMINATION 4' BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: 5 Q Mr. Mendez, let's assume, though, with regard to that , 6 example of unqualified supervisors, that the actual QC 7 . Inspectors had asserted that their own inspections 'were 8 in some way inadequate because they lacked qualified
.9 su pe rvision.
10 would you consider that of safety significance? 11 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I think I would, 12 But in this particular instance, I don't think a 13 single QC Inspector expressed that. Th ey f elt tha t th ey 14 were being pushed around by QC sapervisors that weren't
'15 certified, not because they felt that they were 16 compromising their own inspections, which is -- which is
, 17 really . some thing else. 18 Q So you read the allegations, then, as not implying that 19 the quality of. the Inspector's own inspections was 20 suffering from lack of qualified-supervisors; is that 21 so?
.22 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I don' t think a single QC Inspector i
23 stated tha t. 24 Q And, therefore, you concluded that that was not-the 25 content of their allegation? f { }- k Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, flTIhols 601Y4 (312) 232-0262
10895 N.J l A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 2 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Okay. 3 MR. BERRY: Mr. Chairman, could I have just 4 one moment? I'd like to take a brief recess. 5 MR. GUILD: Sure, fine. 6 Why don't we take five minutes. 7 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which 8 the hearing was resumed as follows:) i 9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Berry, your redirect. 10 MR. BERRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 11 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 12 Bi* MR. BERRY: 3 13 Q Mr. Neisler, could you explain to the Board and the 14 party what the purpose of an NRC inspection is? 15 A (WITNESS NEISLER) An NRC inspection -- well, we have 16 more than one type. 17 We have your routine inspections where we use our 18 proceduralized inspection program. 19 We have our special inspections, which we use for 20 either -- either for response to some event or to 21 inspect allegations and this sort of thing, follow up on 22 our allegations. 23 In our special inspection, which is what this is 24 here, if we receive, in this case, allegations, our 25 prime purpose is to go out to the site and determine (]) Sonnt ag_Repor ting _SArvice, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
A n a D-
. 10896
_q. s
' k-)
I whehher or not the conditions at the site are going to 2 affect the ultimate safety -- if it's a construction-3 site, the ultimate safety of the nuclear systems on :that 4 site, 5 Q Do you know what the purpose of an investigation is? 6 A (WITNESS NEISLER) An investigation is where there's -- 7 is similar-to an inspection, except they are more 8 oriented toward determining whether there's some 9 criminal activity at the site. 10 They are not concerned with hardware, they are not 11 concerned with whether or not -- with the safety
<g 12 significance of something that -- of an occurrence on b_ 13 the site.
'I 14 Q Do you know who performs an investigation? 15 A (WITNESS NEISLER) The investigations are performed -- l' 16 well, that's by the NRC's Office of Investigations. 17 There is a branch office in each one of the 18 Regions. . 19 Q Do you know if an investigation was conducted into the 20 allegations that you inspected? 21 A (WITNESS NEISLER) To the best of my knowledge, no. 22 Q Do you know why? 23 A (WITNESS NEISLER) The Office of Investigations usually 24 does not: tell us why. (} 25 They will tell us if they feel that allegations -- Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10897 (~'s A.J 1 in particular, whether or not these allegations warrant, 2 in their opinion, them to perform an investigation. 3 Q Gentlemen, - do you know if a copy of your Inspection 4 Report was made available to the Office of 5 Inves tiga tions? 6 A (WITNESS NEISLER) It's my understanding that all 7 Inspection Reports concerning allegations -- copies of 8 them are sent from -- go to, rather, the -- the Region 9 III Branch of the office of Investigations. 10 Q You were asked a number of questions today and yesterday 11 about the methodology of your inspection, how you y-) 12 conducted your inspection.
'v 13 Now, have either of you ever been a Resident 14 Inspector?
15 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Yes, I have. 16 0 Where were you a Resident Inspector? 17 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I was a Resident Inspector at the 18 Calloway site. 19 Q Could you describe for the Board and the parties the 20 interaction or -- the interaction, the relationship, 21 between a Resident Inspector and the Regional-based 22- Inspector performing an inspection? 23 A (WITNESS NEISLER) When a Regional-based Inspector is 24 scheduled or assigned to perform an inspection at a -- 25 at a site where there's a Resident Inspector, he (^N Sonntag_Rephrling_ Service,_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10898 ( V 1 notifies either the Resident Inspector or his section 2 chief back in the Region that he is going to be on site 3 at a certain day. 4 When he gets to the site, he contacts the Resident
-5 Inspector, let's him know he's there, tells him what S he's going to be doing while he is there, and he asks 7 him if there's any particular area that he thinks he 8 should be inspecting.
9 If he's doing allegations, he asks the Inspector 10 what he knows about the -- the Resident Inspector.what 11 he knows about the allegations that are the subject of
-e- 12 that inspection.
13 Mr. Mendez, when you arrived at the site and you: met Q 14 with the Resident inspectors, did they tell you what 15 they knew about the allegations? 16 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) They told me what they knew about some 4 17 of the allegations. 18 Q Did they make any suggestions to you as to where you 19 should look or who you should talk to? 20 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) They gave me a couple names, I think; 21 " Talk to Sam Rissman, talk to Julie Bullock"; showed me 22 ICR 2900, NCR 1616. 23 Q Mr. Mendez, I believe you testified you had the April 24 5th memo, that disclosed the identity of certain (} 25 allegers, in your possession? Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinols 60T34 (312) 232-0262
10899 (^T (/ 1 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 2 Q. Well, did you know the identity of the individuals who 3 make statements reflected in the March 29th memo? 4 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I didn't, not until after the -- 5 not until after I started the inspection. 6 Q Did you ask the Resident Inspectors to identify those 7 individoals for you? ! 8 A -(WITNESS MENDEZ) 'Yes, I'did. I asked Mr. McGregor if 9 he knew who Inspector X was. 10 Q And what did Mr. McGregor tell you? 11 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) He told me he didn't know. 12 Q Well, did you ask him to -- if he knew the identity of 13 any .of the other individuals identified as making 14 statements in the March 29, 1985, memo? 15 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I didn't. I -- after he didn't 16 know the identity of Inspector X, I felt that he 17 probably wouldn't know the identity of the rest of the 18 Inspectors. 19 Q Did you think he knew the identity of Inspector X? 20 MR. GUILD: Obj ection. 21 I mean, it clearly calls for speculation on Mr. 22 Mendez' part. 23 I don't think it has any evidentiary value. 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Could you repeat the () 25 question, please. Sonn_ tag Repor_ ting Service, __ Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
a. t . 10900 1, - 1 1 (The question was thereupon read by the 2 Reporter.) 3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You are referring to did who 4- know?. 5 I'm sorry. 2 6 MR. BERRY: Mr. McGregor. 7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Who had already told him 8 that he didn' t- know the identity. 9 Well, . over ruled. You can answer the question.
- 10 A (WITNESS MENDEZ)' Well, at this time, I did believe-11 him; but as'it turns out later on, looking through
- 12 documents, Lit became clear that Inspector X was Rick
)
13 . Snyder, 'and he should have known who Inspector X was. 14 BY MR. BERRY: , 15 Q Why should he have known? 16 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Right at the beginning, he talks --
~
17 right at the - beginning of the April 5 th memo, I think, 18 or one of these memos, he talks about a QC Inspector who 19 had gone to him on March 12th and 13th. i 20 Here it is. "The QC Inspector says he gave the NRC 21 these problems March 13, 1985." 1 22 MR. GUILD: Where is the witness referring . 23 to? 24 BY MR. BERRY: [ i (} 25 0 What document are you referring to? Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. i G~sneva, 1111ndis 60174 j (312) 232-0262
' , - . - _ - . - . , _ . , m ,. - __.-._, ___.. _ _ . . .
. , _ _ ~....___.__..__,__._._._.._..,_..,.._a-
10901 g% J l A (WITNESS MENDEZ) March 29th, Intervenor Exhibit 42A, 2 the bottom, No. 62, and the first -- third sentence from 3 the top, more or less, .where it says March 13, 1985. 4 Q Mr. Guild showed you a document, Intervenor Exhibit 91. 5 Do you have that before you? 6 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 7 Q. Well, did you speak with Mr. Schulz, the other Senior 8 Resident Inspector, during the course of your 9 inspection, of the matters reflected in your Inspection 10 Report? 11 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I tried to speak to Mr. Schulz, yes.-
- w 12 Q Well, did you?
\)
13 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) WcAl, he seemed' kind of in a hurry 14 every time I tried to ask him a question. 15 The only one that was really available was 16 McGregor. 17 Q Mr. Mendez, now, you testified that you were involved, 18 pa r ticipated, in a telephone conference on March 29th 19 with Resident Inspectors? 20 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 21 Q Do you recall if there was ever a time, during any of 22 these -- during any of these telephone conferences, 23 where it was only NRC personnel on the line? 24 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 25 Do you recall if Mr. McGregor or Mr. Mendez -- Mr. i (~) Q Sonntag Report _ing Se rvice, ___Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
10902 T (^)
\_/
1 Schulz made the recommendation orally that work should 2 be stopped? 3 A -(WITNESS MENDEZ) I -- I think they did, yes. 4 Q Do you recall if they stated the basis- for that - 5 recommendation? 6 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I don't think anybody-explained 7 it. 8 They were more concerned that 24, 26 Inspectors had 9 gone to their office. . 10 Q Mr. Neisler, you testified that you reviewed Mr. 11 McGregor and Mr. Schulz ' memorandum of March the 29th. 12 A (WITNESS NEISLER) : Ye s. 13 Q I'd like you to turn to the last page of that 14 memorandum, and the sentence reads -- the sentence 15 starting, "It appears at first glance. " Let me direct , 16 your attention to that sentence. 17 Do you see that? 18 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Right. 19 Q When you read the memorandum, what did you understand 20 the Resident Inspectors to mean by "that a shutdown or 21 some other aggressive action on the electrical work may 22 be necessary"? 23 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I interpreted that as -- to mean 24 that the -- the Residents are suggesting that the NRC () 25 issue a stop work order, or at least a corrective action Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, IT1Tnols 60134 (312) 232-0262
-10903
~ G(~h ' 1 letter, that. would stop all work -- either all work on 2 the site or all electrical work on the site. 3 They are not -- they don't have any boundaries on 4 what they are saying here. 5 (Indicating.) 6 Q. But do'you recall, at the time you read that, if you 7 agreed or disagreed with the recommendation or had an 8 opinion one way or the other? 9 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I don't think I would -- when I read-10 that, I don' t think I -- well, when I read it, I didn't 11 feel that I saw anything that would warrant a shutdown.
-12 (Indicating.)
U.
,- 1 someone who is certified in that area, qualified in that .
2 area, provides competence of_that paper and documents. 3 0 Is that your understanding, Mr. Neisler? 4 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Yes, generally. 5 MR. BERRY: I have no further questions, Mr. 6 Chairman. 7 JUDG E GROSSMAN: . By the way, Mr. Guild, I 8 don't believe you offered Exhibit 96. 9 Did you intend to?
-10 MR. GUILD: I did, Mr. Chairman.
11 I- just neglected to. g- 12 I would offer it at this time. . - % )) 13 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Any obj ections to that? 14 That is an -NRC document f rom Pelke to Weil on -- 15' MR. MILLEL: Yes, sir, I have no obj ection to 16 tha t. 17 MR. BERRY: I don't think I do, your Honor. 18 Is that the April 24th -- 19 JUDGE COLE: April 17th. 20 MR. GUILD: April 17th, 21 MR. MILLER: April 17th is this one. 22 MR. BERRY: I have no obj ection. 23 JUDG E GROSSMAN: That's admitted. 24 (The document was thereupon received into
'() 25 evidence as Intervenors' Exhibit No. 96.)
Sonn_tas Rep _o_r_ ting __Se rvice,_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
5 10912
.,+.
D 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Judge Cole has some 2' questions. 3 BOARD EXAMINATION 4 BY JUDGE COLE: 5 Q Mr. Mendez, how long have you been working as an 6 Inspector dealing with allegations? 7 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) With allegations? 8 Q Yes. 9 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Well, I've t2een an Inspector for five ~ 10 years. 11 I think the first allegations I reviewed was 1983. 12 Okay. ' () 13 Q Well, what portion of your time do you spend 14 working on allegations? More than half ? 15 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Five percent of the time. 16- Q Five percent? 17 A Five, ten percent of the time. 18 Q Mr. Neieler, how about you? 19 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I spend 50 percent or more of my
~20 time on allegations. . 21 Q All right, sir.
22 I note on Page 7 of your filed testimony that -- I 23 guess this is to you, Mr. Mendez, when the Allegations 24 0062, 67 and 68 were given to you, that you received
'T 25 redacted versions of the summaries of the allegations or (G
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
- Geneva, 11TI~n61s 60114 (312) 232-0262
- L -.
- 1. 10913
,m k-)'
I the material pertaining to that. 2 A (MITT 1ESS MENDEZ) That's correct. 3 Q During your work on allegations since you began, not 4 .just for thic case, have you found that to be a 5 hindrance in your investigation of allegations? 6 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, it hacn't. 7 0 How about you, Mr. Neisler? 8 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Not normally. If the allegation is 9 clear, -it's no hindrance at all. 10 If the allegation is unclear, ,either poorly written 11 or transm !tted or however, cometimes it gets -- -it is -- g-) 12 makes it more difficult, because you can't find' exactly
~
13~ what the individual meant. 14 (Indicating.) 15 Q Do you .inow why it is done that way, sir, that redacted 16 versions are -- 17 A (WITNESS NEISLER) That is to protect the 18 confidentiality of the perscn making the allegation. 19 It is the practice to not even let the Inspector 20 who is working the allegation know who made the il allegation. 22 Q All right, sir. 23 Mr. Mendez, in response to a question concerning 24 Exhibit 42, you indicated that there were 12 names 25 listed and the names of Inspectors were listed. '( ]) Sonntag Repor tinLSery_1ce, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10914
..~
b/ - 1 Did you happen to get an unredacted version of the 2 April 5th memo? 3 Was that intentionally or by accident or what? 4 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No. This was the only time that I 5 found names on -- in an allegation memo, mostly because 6 I think_ the Inspectors themselves didn't ask for the 7 confidentiality. 8 (Indica ting . ) 9 Q All right, sir. 10 In your summary report - or in your Staff Exhibit 11 17, your investigation report,- you refer to the 16
,
1 Tha t's all I have. 2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Do you want to ask any 3 questions? 4 JUDG E CALLIHAN: Yes. 5 BOARD EXAMINATION 6 BY JUDGE CALLIHAN: 7 0 I have one clarifying question, and either of you can 8 take it. 9 Now, this has to do with a qualification 10 certification of supervisors, inspection supervisors. 11 And in Answer 42, Page 20 of your testimony, you
, 12 have made a statement that whereas the requirement of 13 certification was not a standard or regulatory matter, 14 it was a requirement of NRC procedures.
15 Is that always the case or is there a time frame in 16 which -- always, in the sense of what we're considering 17 here, of course -- or was there some time when the NRC 18 did -- I beg your pardon -- L. K. C., Comstock did not 19 require certification of its supervisors? 20 A (WITNESS NEISLER) There was a short period of time, 21 during some of the procedure changes, when they did not 22 require that these individuals be certified, and I 23 think, for some reason, they put it back in -- they put 24 it back into the procedure. () 25 Q Now, have you got a rough idea of what that period was? Sonntag_Repor_ ting _ Service,_Ltdm
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1 - . m 10916. - i u - t 1 A (WITNESS NEISLER) Not righ't now. 2 JUDGE CALLIH AN: Thani you, '
- 3 That's all I have, r
4 . JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Miller. ] 5 CROSS EXAMINATION
'6 BY MR.' MILLER:
~
~7 Q Mr.:Mendez, you were asked by Mr. Berry about the'Marchi 4
8 29th telephone conference in which you participated. 9' .During that telephone conference, you testified 101 that Mr. McGregor recommended that work be stopped at -l 11 the site. d_ 12 Mr. Berry then asked you the reasons that Mr. -- if " '~ 13 you recalled the reasons that Mr. McGregor gave,1and3 I *
-14 think your answer was that' you couldn't recall.
1 . .n-15- I'd like to call your attention to the deposition
- 16. that you gave on March 13, 1986, and I'm going to:ask ;
e 17' you to look at Pages 361 through 363. f i 18 (Indicating.) 19 You are free to examine other portions of: the
- 20 deposition, if you wish, but I want to direct your 4
( 21 specific attention to the portion beginning Line-6 on i
'22 Page 361 and thereafter, and after you had read those ,
23 pages, I'm going to ask if your recollection'is , i' 24 refreshed as to the basis on which Mr. McGregor made his i
'25 stop work recommendation, 8
!' Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. l
- Geneva, ITTrn'51s 60134 232-0262
} (312) e
10917 O V 1 11R. BERRY: What pages were those? 2 MR. MILLER: ~361 to 363; specifically 362.. 3 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Up to what page? 4 BY MR. MILLER: 5 0 Well, you can continue reading. 6 But have you now completed Page 363? 7' A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 8 Q All right. 9 Having. looked at those three pages of-the 10 transcript of your deposition, Mr. Mendez, is your 11 recollection refreshed as to the basis on'which Mr.
'12 McGregor made his stop work recommendation on March.29, 13 1985?
14 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I'm not sure that it's ref reshed. 15 I still have the same recollection; that is, the 16 same general feeling not -- not any one particular thing 17 that made Schulz and McGregor want a stop work order. 18 0 Well, Mr. Mendez, r. t your deposition, on Page 362, the 19 question was asked, at Line 16, "What was the subject of - 20 that telephone conversation, as best you can recall?" 21 "A McGregor was concerned that if things 22 weren't straightened out, the QC Inspectors would walk 23 out on Monday, and he wanted to prevent that from 24 occurring." t () 25 Does that refresh your recollection as to the basis Son ntag_Rego rling_Egry_i c e, L td ,__ Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10918 p q()
-1 on which Mr. McGregor made his stop work recommendation?'
-2 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) That was my understanding, yes.
3 Q Now, you were asked by Mr. Guild, . Mr. Mendez, as to 4 whether or not_you discussed the March 29,-1985, 5 memorandum from Mr. McGregor and Mr.- Schulz to Mr. . 6- Warnick and Mr. Weil, and specifically he directed your i 7 attention to the last page -- I believe. your own counsel 8 did, too, on redirect examination -- the memorandum 9 which, in writing, recommends that a shutdown be taken. 10 I want to ask you a question about the other March 11 29, 1985, memorandum, the one from McGregor and Schulz
, l 12 to Warnick and Williams, and once again, I want.to turn 13 to the last page of that document.
14 This~is also a part of Intervenors' Exhibits 42 and 15 42A.
.16 The specific sentence that I want to ask you about
( 17 reads, " Region III and the Residents were satisfied with 18 CECO's comprehensive and extremely swift corrective 19 actions taken this afternoon." 20 When you arrived on site on April 30th, Mr. Mendez, 21 did you discuss this memorandum with Mr. McGregor and 22 Mr. Schulz? 23 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I don't think I did. l 24 Q Did either one of them ever say anything to you to j f]) s. 25 indicate that they were dissatisfied with Edison's l I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. [ Geneva, IIITnois 60174 l (312) 232-0262
'l 10919
(~~) ;
%./
1 comprehensive and extremely swift corrective actions? 2 A -(WITNESS MENDEZ)' No, I don't think they were 3 dissatisfied with Commonwealth Edison. 4 Q Did you discuss with them what might appear to be a 5 contradiction between the two memoranda, one of which 6 says, "We better shut at least -the electrical work 7 down," and . the other one says," We're satisfied with 8 Commonwealth Edison's swift and extremely comprehensive 9 corrective action"? 10 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I didn't. 11 MR. GUILD: I believe it's comprehensive and 12 extremely swif t. 13 MR. MILLER: I beg your pardon. I didn't 14 mean to transpose the adjective. 15 BY MR. MILLER: 16 Q Now, -Mr. Neisler, I'm -- well, my notes are-probably 17 incomplete and I need some help. 18 This had -- I'm talking now -- and I want to ask 19 you some questions about Concern No. 7, which is Mr. 20 Perryman's concern about the as-built inspections of 21 hangers. 22 My notes indicate that at some point.during the 23 interview process, you were told by Mr. Perryman of his 24 transfer; is that correct? () 25 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I don't think I was told by Mr. Sonn tag Rep _o_rling_S_ervice,_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10920 (~Y u 1 Mendez, since he had talked to him at some point, 2 anyway. 3 0 Well, let me represent to you that Mr._Perryman's 4 transfer took place May 31st. 5 A _ (WITNESS NEISLER) Well, I inspected on August 28th. 6 Q Right. 7 And my question is, to either one of you: 8 When did you learn of Mr. Perryman's transfer? 9 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I never knew that he was transferred. 10 0 Do you recall communicating somehow to Mr. Neisler,11r. 11 Mendez, that Mr. Perryman was, in fact, transferred? es 12 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) If I didn't have any knowledge of it,
.U' 13 I wouldn't have told John.
14 Q Welt, Mr. Neisle r, is it your recollection that you may 15 have learned of this perhaps at this hearing?
-16 A (WITNESS' NEISLER) I -- I knew about it before the 17 hearing. I'm not sure where I got it, but -- now that 18 it's brought up, but I did -- I knew about it before the 19 hearing.
20 Q So it is correct, is it not, that Mr. Perryman was only 21 inte rviewed by Mr. Mendez, and that interview took place 22- on or before May 10th of 1985? 23 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 24 Q Now, at that interview, Mr. Mendez, did Mr. Perryman () 25 tell you that he had been withholding his inspection ! Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ! GTneva, IITIna s 60131 (312) 232-0262 1
- .. .. . . . _ - .. . . - . ~. . . . - _ .
4 -h 10921-
- lO:
1 reports from his supervision until the form was_ changed-2 to his satisfaction? I 3 A. (WITNESS; MENDEZ) 'No, he didn't. J4 Q _ Did you subsequently learn that Mr. Perryman had written- +
~5 a memcran'dum' in which h'e--had said that .if he was not t 6: transferred,:the quality of his inspections would 7 -suffer? .
t 8 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) _ ' Repeat. the question, .please. , ! 9 Q Have you ~ subsequently learned that Mr. Perryman wrote a.
~
10 ' memorandum to his supervision and management which- said, 11; in_effect, "If' I'm not transferred from the cable pan f E 12 walkdown program, the quality of- my' inspections will f -
,~, suffer"? .
f 14 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Oh, I have since the completion of our L 15 ' ins pection . i ! 16 Q And when did you first become aware of that? L 17 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) During his testimony.
- 18 Q Now, let me back up 'tx) Concern No.-6, which is the 1
- 19 Quality First Program. .
20 Mr. Neisler, you were examined by Mr. Guild on that 21 s ubj ect. 22 Could you describe generally the nature of the i l- 23 Quality First documents that you reviewed? l 24 A (WITNESS NEISLER) There were some very thick books of i
' l()' 25 concerns from all the Inspectors, all the personnel 4
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ? Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 10922
/
V 1 inte rviewed. 2 When I say " thick," I'm talking about maybe -- 3 maybe an inch thick, a group of those. 4 They were not identified by who expressed the 5 concern, but they were identified by the -- by who the 6 person was responsible for doing the follow up or 7 resolution, .fi you will, on the concern. 8 I saw some other papers in there that had just the 9 raw concerns before they were -- before the resolution 10 was complete, and I saw the. final copy of the Comstock 11 concerns. 12 I did also at -- there was a list of dates when 13 they were interviewing various organizations on site 14 that I saw; and the -- I think that's about all that I 15 did see. 16 0 Were there any contemporaneous -- were there any 17 documents that were contemporaneous with the events 18 surrounding the allegation, memos, procedures and so on,
- 19 in the files that you looked at?
20 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I don't think I saw any. 21 Q All right, sir. 22 Did you form an impression as to the thoroughness 23 or lack of thoroughness of the investigation that was 24 conducted? 25 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I thought the investigation covered [v'] Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, IIITiiols 6~0174 (312) 232-0262
i 10923 (';
" %.J '
1 all the concerns, yes. 2 When you say " thorough," I felt that they were -- 3 they were -- they had addressed the concerns and .they
-4 had responded.
15 '(Indi ca ting . ) 6- Q Now, Mr. Guild asked you a series of questions that had 7 the word " sham" in them, and ultimately I think you said 8 that if the delay in responding to the concerns because 9 of Mr. Nemeth's directive that they be-placed on hold 10 for about six weeks was considered a sham, then, yes, it 11 was a sham. g 12 My question to you, sir, is: L..) 13 Is there any other basis on which you would 14 characterize the Quality First investigation as a sham? 15 A (WITNESS NEISLER) None that I can think of. 16 Q Now, my final question, I think, goes to Mr. Mendez, and 17 it has to do with the testimony that you gave in-18 response to Mr. Guild's questions with respect to the 19 manner in which the interviews were conducted. 20 You described for Mr. Guild the steps you took, the 21 people you contacted, the way in which those interviews 22 were arranged. 23 And I believe you testified that it was your 24 impression or belief that both Commonwealth Edison
'25 Company and Comstock knew of the identities of the QC
() Sonntag_ Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10924 i p O 1 Inspectors from the April 5th memorandum that had been 2 prepared by, I guess it was, lir. Weil and Mr. Norelius?
- 3. A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes.
4 Q. What is the basis for that belief, Mr. Mendez ? 5 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) ' There is several references about 6 Inspectors not requiring confidentiality. In the second 7 page of the April 5th memo, I think there was several 8 references. 9 Q Well, did you see a copy o'f the April 5th memo in the 10 possession of any employee of Commonwealth Edison 11 Company or any management or supervisory personnel from
. 12 Comstock ?
13 A- (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, .I didn' t. I 14 Q Did any of those people in that capacity tell you that
-15 they had the memorandum in their possession?
4 16 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No. 17 Q Was-there ever any comment, offhand or otherwise, made 18 by an employee of Commonwealth Edison Company or 19 management or a supervisory person from Comstock that 20 led you to believe that they, in fact, had the April 5th 21 memo? 22 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Anyone from Comstock management? 23 Q Yes, sir? 4 24 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No. () ~25 Q My original question included Commonwealth Edison. I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 6~0I3~4 (312) 232-0262
10925 s 1 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Commonwealth Edison? 2 I don't think so. 3 MR. MILLER: I have no further questions. 4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: About how long do you think 5~ you will take on recross, Mr. Guild?. 6 MR.-GUILD: Just a few minutes. I think I can 7 finish it promptly. 8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Go ahead. 9 RECROSS EXAMINATION 10 BY MR. GUILD: 11 Q Mr. Mendez, you were shown a copy of the March 29, '85,
~s 12 NRC memo that has Inspector X on it, and you stated that
~
13 you inquired of Mr. McGregor who Inspector X was and he 14 told you he didn' t know. 15 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 16 Q Do you recall that testimony? 17 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 18 Q Well, there are two Inspector X's that appear on the 19 front page. 20 Do you know which Inspector X Mr. McGregor was 4 i 21 referring to when he said he didn't know? 22 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I asked him aFout Inspector X in 23 general. 24 0 All right. () 23 Well, one Inspector X, from the context, you later Sonn_ta g_Repor ting _S_e rvi ce, Ltd_, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10926 t'~ ()T 1 deduced was Mr. Mr.rtin -- 2 A Yes. 3 0 I'm sorry. Mr. Snyder. I misspoke. 4 ' Correct? 5 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) 'Yes. 6 Q Mr. Snyder is the one that said, "My supervisor said, 7 ' Rick, you should close them out, ICR's,'" et cetera, et 8 cetera. That's the bottom paragraph. 9 You concluded that was Mr. Snyder; right? 10 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) Yes. 11 Q But the first Inspector X, you don' t know who - that is, 12 do you? (. f w) 13 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) No, I don't. 14 Q Maybe Mr. McGregor was communicating just simply what he 15- knew, which was that -- 16 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) It's possible. 17 0 -- he didn't know who X was? 18 All right, sir. l- 19 A (WITNESS MESDEZ) I asked him a genersi question, if he 20 knew Inspector X. 21 Q Okay. 22 Now, there's some talk, gentlemen -- Mr. Neisler, 23 about your interpretation of the McGregor and Schulz 24 stop work recommendat. ion as to the electrical work. () 25 Of course, you weren't talking about an operating Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, IlTInois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10927
;p v
1 nuclear plant and you weren't talk about complaints from 2 craf tsmen, but you were talking about complaints ' from 3 Quality Control Inspectors who have a responsibility to 4 implement the quality assurance program and to verify 5 the acceptability of safety-related work; isn't that the 6 case, Mr. Neisler? 7 A (WITNESS NEISLER) That's the case, yes. 8 Q And if those Quality Control Inspectors were not free to 9 perform their quality control function, work that failed 10 to meet acceptance criteria might, indeed, be allowed to 11 go unidentified in the field; isn't that true? 12 A (WITNESS NEISLER) If they were not free to perform 13 inspections, according to their approved procedures, and 14 if there were no overview, nobody to watch them, it's 15 possible. 16 Q And, in fact, Appendix B explicitly recognizes that 17 quality assurance personnel, including Quality Control 18 Inspectors, must be organizationally independent f rom 19 cost and schedulo pressure in order that they are free 20 to perform their QC function? That's a requirement, a 21 paraphrase, is it not? 22 A (WITNESS NEISLER) That's close. 23 Q Now, you described, Mr. Neisler, your understanding of 24 what the limits were of the responsibilities -- () 25 responsibility of QC supervision in general, as a f Sonntag_ Rep.o.r_ ting Service,_ Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
T 10928
/^T- - V 1 general principle.
2 You, I believe, stated that in some instances they i 3 _have a Level III, who's the guru for the Level II 4 Inspectors? They go to him with technical questions; 5 right? 6 A (WITNESS NEISLER) That's correct. 7 Q Do you know that Irv DeWald was the guru at L. K. 8 Comstock, the Level III Inspector? 9 A (WITNESS NEISLER) No, I did not., 10 Q Mr. Miller read a part of your deposition testimony, Mr. 11 Mendez. Let's read a little bit more here. 12 362, Mr. Miller stopped at Line 20. Let's read 13 that question and then answer series and go one, two 14 more. 15 Line 16 on 362: 16 "O What was the subject of the telephone 17 conference, as best you can recall? 18 "A McGregor was concerned that if things 19 weren't straightened out, the QC Inspectors would walk 20 out on Monday. He wanted to prevent that from 21 occurring. 22 "O Did Mr. McGregor disclose the basis for l , 23 his fear that they would walk out?" l 24 At the time of your deposition, Mr. Mendez, you () 25 recalled: Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, llTrnois 60134 (312) 232-0262 L
r-10929 P (~'T C/ 1 "A In part, the QC Inspectors seemed to be 2 dissatisfied with their' management and the resolution of 3 some of the concerns they had. They weren't being 4 resolved in a prompt-manner. He felt that because of 5 all tha t, they would walk out. 6 "Q Was Mr. McGregor explicit about what the 7 concerns were that were bothering the QC Inspectors? 8 "A I'm not sure he was explicit. He did 9 mention harassment and intimidation, push for 10 production." 11 MR. BERRY: Is that a question? 12 MR. GUILD: No. I simply- read the deposition () s 13 for the record. 14 Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. 15 MR. BERRY: I have no further questions. 16 MR. MILLER: Nor I. 17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, thank you, gentlemen, 18 Mr. Mendez, Mr. Neisler. 19 You are excused. 20 I believe you will probably not be called back, 21 but, of course, you might. 22 You are going to be here, anyway, I assume, so -- 23 A (WITNESS MENDEZ) I don't think so. 24 A (WITNESS NEISLER) I hope not. () 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- we'll adjourn until 8:00 Sonntag_RepottinS_ Service,_Ltd. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10930
-p yt 1 tomorrow morning.
2 (Witnesses excused.) 3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Are you offering Staff 4 Exhibit 17? 5 MR. BERRY: Yes, your Honor, I would ask that 6 Staf f Exhibit 17 we admitted. 7 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Is there any obj ection? 8 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir, there is a pending 9 obj ection; and I renew the obj ection f rom the beginning 10 of -- from when it was first offered, 11 Perhaps we could just argue this tomorrow. I don't-
- s. 12 think that it's necessary to have the witnesses present.
J 13 It may require some discussion; but it really goes 14 to a variety of the objections that the Board heard 15 argued. 16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. We'll discuss it 17 further tomorrow, then, and we are recessed. 18 (WHEREUPON, at the hour of 5:10 P. M., the 19 hearing of the above-entitled matter was 20 continued to the 15th day of August, at 21 the hour of 8:00 o' clock A. M.) 22 23
*4 i
25
-( )
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Geneva, ITlTn~61s 6013~4 (312) 232-0262
CERTIFICATE OF-OFFICIAL REPORTER
-.O 1 / 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 G 2 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY DOCKET NO.: 50-456/457-OL PLACE: JOLIET, ILLINOIS O- DATE: TilURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (sigt) 3 % $. (TYPED) Gary L. Sonntag Official Reporter Reporter's Affiliation O O \ /}}