ML20207B402
| ML20207B402 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 11/18/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1765 OL, NUDOCS 8611240327 | |
| Download: ML20207B402 (134) | |
Text
.
l
%mU
-Q
Uh11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
?-
If IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO: 50-456 OL 50-457 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY i
(Braidwood Stat. ion, Units 1 and 2) b
/
r I
j-
. ('
l
[
LOCATION:
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS PAGES:
17202 - 17325 DATE:
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1986 I
01 O\\-
l I
AG-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
r}
OfficsalReporters 444 North CapitolStreet Washington, D.C. 20001 r
8611240327 861118 (202)347-3700 l;
PDR ADOCK 05000456 t
j i
PDR 3
NATIONWIDE COVERACE D;i. - - ~ -...
i
___._.,_.___._,__.....,_....m_....
02.
g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO: 50-456 OL 50-457 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Braidwood Etation, Units 1 and 2) 9 LOCATION:
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS PAGES:
17202 - 17325 i
DATE:
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1986 l
h'0 i j
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
ial Reporters 444 rth Capitol Street Washingten, D.C. 20001 86112403p7 oottie (202)347-3700 PDR ADOCK 05000456 T
pup NADONWIDE COVERAGE
17202 N) 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
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 8
and 2)
- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;x 9
10 Pages 17202 - 17325 11 United States District Courthouse Courtroom 1743 p.\\
12 219 South Dearborn Street
[\\_,)
Chicago, Illinois 60604 13 Tuesday, November 18, 1986.
14 15 The hearing in the above-entitled matter reconvened 16 at 2:00 P. M.
17 BEFORE:
18 JUDGE HERBERT GROSSMAN, Chairman 19 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 20 Washington, D. C.
21 JUDGE RICHARD F. COLE, Member, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 22 U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
23 JUDGE A. DIXON CALLIHAN, Member, 24 Atomic Saf9ty and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 25 Washington, D. C.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
(
17203
\\s 1
APPEARANCES:
]
2 On behalf of the Applicant 3
MICHAEL I. MILLER, ESO.
PHILIP P.
STEPTOE, III, ESQ.
4 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza i
5 Chicago, Illinois 60602 i
6 On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff:
7 GREGORY ALAN BERRY, ESO.
8 ELAINE I.
CHAN, ESO.
+
i U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9
7335 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20014 10 On behalf of the Intervenors:
11 ROBERT GUILD, ESO.
12 V
13 i
14 i
j 15 16 17 l
18 i
i 19 i
20 l
21 22 23 24 j
25 f
\\
j Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
j Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17204 hk 1
~
1 TESTIMONY OF ROBERT V.
LANEY 2
DIRECT EXAMINATION 3
17242 4
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION BY MR. GUILD:
17244 1
Prefiled testimony of 6
Robert V.
Laney 17245 7
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. GUILD:
17246 8
CROSS EXAMINATION l
9 BY MR. BERRY:
17304 10 BOARD EXAMINATION BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
17310 11 i
BOARD EXAMINATION 12 BY JUDGE COLE:
17311 13 BOARD EXAMINATION BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
17318 i
14 BOARD EXAMINATION 15 BY JUDGE CALLIHAN:
17319 16 17 18
)
19 20 21 22 i
23 24 25 l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
-. ~.
17205
\\
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
The hearing is reconvened.
2 This is the 91st day of hearing.
I 3
Do we have any preliminary matters before we get on 4
to the next witness?
5 MR. GUILD:
Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, we do, if j
6 I may have just a moment.
t 7
Yesterday evening I conducted a discovery interview i
8 with Dr. Hulin and with Mr. Laney as well.
During the j
9 course of the interview with Dr. Hulin, it was disclosed
)
10 that Dr. Hulin had conducted additional work beyond that i
~
11 reflected in his prefiled direct testimony, consisting 12 principally of interviewing second shif t cable pulling 13 inspectors, some eight in number; eight of 12, as I
)
14 understand it.
15 Dr. Hulin responded to a number of questions that I 16 had about the responses given by those inspectors and 17 directed my attention to some rather cursory notes that 18 he had prepared of those interviews, interviews which 19 took several hours each.
Those notes were made 20 available to me last night.
I 21 This morning counsel for Applicant disclosed that i
j 22 in addition to Dr. Hulin being present during those f
i l
23 interviews, counsel for Applicant, Mr. Gallo and Mr.
i l
24 Peter Thornton, were also present and that the 25 interviews were -- that verbatim transcripts were made 4
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 j
(312) 232-0262
i 17206 i
OV 1
of those interviews.
2 I requested of counsel this morning that those 3
verbatim transcripts be made available to me, and 4
counsel informed me that they intended to assert a work 5
product privilege and declined to make those available.
6 Mr. Chairman, at this time I would move that 7
Applicant be directed to produce the verbatim 8
transcripts of the interviews that Dr. Hulin conducted, 9
prior to Dr. Hulin taking the stand.
10 There are a number of particulars in which Dr.
11 Hulin's recollection of what was said to him is faulty, 12 a number of instances where what I would say apparently 13
-- what I would characterize as apparently important 14 information was given to him in these interviews --
15 complaints about quality problems, concerns about 16 arbitrary or retaliatory personnel action taken by 17 supervision, and a number of other concerns, perhaps --
18 as to which his notes reflect that some information was 19 given him, but his recollection was faulty.
20 If indeed there is a verbatim transcript, obviously 21 the verbatim transcript will obviously reflect what was 22 told to him.
23 We believe that these transcripts are clearly 24 discoverable.
First, they' re discoverable within the 25 general standard of discoverability as either relevant Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 g
(312) 232-0262
. _ _. _. _ _. _. _ _ _ _ =
17207 8
- O 1
or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 2-relevant or admissible evidence.
3 As to the question of whether they are indeed work i
1 4
product, I would ask that Applicant state for the record l
5 whether they continue to assert that point; and I'd like i
6 to be heard in response if they continue to maintain 7
that objection.
j 8
MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, Mr. Guild has given i
9 a broad overview of discussions that took place I
10 yesterday and this morning as well.
There are a few t
l 11 facts that I believe are significant that I'd like to
,l 12 add.
13 First of all --
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Nothing of what he has said 15 is incorrect so far; is that correct?
16 MR. MILLER:
Nothing is incorrect, but there i
i 17 are important additional facts I think the Board ought t.
18 to be aware of.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Fine.
20 MR. MILLER:
The circumstances under which l
21 these interviews were taken arose when Mr. Archambeault 22 made his allegations first to the NRC and then testified 23 before this Board.
24 Dr. Hulin was concerned with respect to both the l
25 substance of Mr. Archambeault's testimony and his Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17208 f)
V 1
assertions that these reflected widespread attitudes 2
among at least the second shift cable pulling 3
inspectors.
4 He wanted to do a further investigation in order to 5
determine whether or not the conclusions that are 6
expressed in his testimony remain valid af ter 7
consideration of this further evidence, if you will.
8 In addition, as counsel for the company, we had an 9
obligation to explore these circumstances to determine 1
10 what our litigation strategy would be with respect to 11 both Mr. Archambeault and to any further issues that
}
12 might arise as a result of our investigation.
~j 13 We had very much in mind our obligation to inform 14 the Board and the parties of relevant new information 15 that came our way as a result of these interviews or as 16 a result of anything else.
The interviews were 17 conducted jointly, as Mr. Guild describes.
18 The fact is, as Dr. Hulin told Mr. Guild yesterday 19 and as he repeated to me, in preparing his testimony, in 20 expressing his conclusions, he relied on his notes.
He 21 did not rely on the verbatim transcripts that were 22 taken.
He had, if you will, his own agenda with respect 23 to the issues that he wished to explore, and he explored 24 them.
)
(
25 He made such notes as, in his judgment, were Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17209 OV 1
necessary to either bolster his conclusions, contradict 2
his conclusions or provide a stimulus to his 3
recollection on certain salient points.
4 It is for that reason, conscious of our obligation 5
to supply the information on which an expert relies, 6
that we made the notes voluntarily available to Mr.
7 Guild yesterday.
Dr. Hulin, as I said, has not relied 8
on the verbatim transcripts.
i 9
We believe that our claim of work product is well 10 founded, and we do indeed persist in it.
i 11 It is quite clear, since at least Hickman versus 12 Taylor, that statements that are taken by counsel are 13 protected within the work product doctrine that was 14 enunciated in that case and then codified in the Federal 1
15 Rules of Civil Procedure and in the Rules of Practice of i
16 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
f 17 The Appeal Board itself, in the Midland decision, d
18 has explicitly recognized that an attorney's work 19 product is enccmpassed in interviews, statements, 20 memoranda, correspondence, briefs and so on, and has i
21 indicated that such work product is entitled to 22 protection within the ambit of section 2.740 of the 23 Commission's Rules of Practice.
24 This Board itself has recognized the work product 25 privilege in withholding from disclosure certain studies I
j Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
l 17210 1
that were commissioned by counsel in connection with 2
this very proceeding, and the decision is reported in 3
Volume 23 of the NRC reports at Page 177.
4 There this Board --
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
What's the date of that?
6 MR. MILLER:
The date of the decision, your 7
Honor, is March 28, 1986.
8 That had to do, as you may recall, with the study 9
undertaken by Torrey Pines Technology at my request.
l 10 The study was done by Mr. Marcus again at my request.
11 As I say, the protection was --
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
That, of course, 13 dealt with an expert that you weren't using at trial.
14 MR. MILLER:
That's correct.
15 If indeed Dr. Hulin had relied on the transcripts, 16 I would have absolutely no hesitation in turning them 17 over.
18 But it seems to me that all we get into is a 19 collateral matter as to whether or not Dr. Hulin's notes 20 are themselves accurate, whether the bases for his 21 opinions are absolutely coincident in terms of the way 22 things are expressed in his notes and the way matters i
23 may have been expressed in these transcripts.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Are you suggesting that an
(
25 expert can have a selective memory now?
N Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, 1111hois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17211 1
What you're suggesting, I think, is that he i
2 selected out what he intended to rely on.
l 3
MR. MILLER:
Not at all.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN :
Now, what if what he heard 5
that he doesn't rely on contradicts what he does rely 6
on?
i 7
You don't think that's appropriate for discovery?
8 MR. MILLER:
Well, I think it might very well be appropriate for discovery.
If Mr. Guild had sought 9
10 to take the depositions of these inspectors, he may or a
11 may not have been able to elicit facts that would have 12 contradicted what Dr. Hulin -- the bases for Dr. Hulin's 13 opinions.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, not just discovery but 15 impeachment.
16 MR. MILLER:
And impeachment as well, that's 17 correct.
18 Dut what is now sought is by way of, really, a i
19 bootstrap to require us to turn over transcripts which, I
i 20 in fact, do reflect, in terms of the questions asked and i
21 so on, the theories, the mental impressions of the 22 attorneys at that point in time, when Dr. Hulin has i
23 turned over what he has stated to Mr. Guild and what 24 he's prepared to testify are the bases for his opinion.
25 To permit cross examination f rom an attorney's work Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17212
~
i 3(d 1
product in an effort to perhaps contradict or, as you 2
say, impeach his note-taking ability is what I think 3
we' re talking about here.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN :
Excuse me.
5 Who asked the questions of these witnesses?
6 MR. MILLER:
Dr. Hulin asked questions from a 7
prepared outline, which he has turned over -- which 8
we've turned over to Mr. Guild.
The answers in-these 9
handwritten notes are keyed to the outline.
It was 10 those subjects that he was interested in.
11 The transcripts contained those questions and then-12 additionally questions from Mr. Gallo and, to some 13 extent, Mr. Thornton as well on subjects that relate to i
14 the general subject matter of Mr. Archambeault's 15 concerns but which were not necessarily the focus ofiDr.
16 Hulin's inquiry.
17 Dr. Hulin, as a trained psychologist, had certain 18 subject matters that he wished to inquire into; and both~
19 the subject matters and the responses on which his
~
20 expert opinion is based have been made available.
i 21 The other matters, it seems to me, are just 22 collateral to his testimony and really represent both an 23 unwarranted invasion of our work product and a very late 24 expansion of the scope of this proceeding.
b 25 There was no inhibition, it seemed to me, certainly
( j Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
/5 t
17213
{
e f$ '
/
Ul
'l from Mr. Guild asking for leave to take discovery of the 2
other second shift QC Inspectors.
They were a known 3
population o'J individuals, and he declined to do so for q
l' m 4
whate9er reason.
s 5
Now, to take advantage of the fact that we have 6
done an investigation for our own strategic purposes 7
and, I represent to the Board, have uncovered nothing
~
8 which would call for a disclosure to the Board of a j
9 material fact bearing on the scope of this contention, 10, '
it seems to me, is just inappropriate and contrary to 11 the NRC's Rules of Practice.
12 j
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Guild?
13 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, if I might, let me 14 ',
hand up to the Chairman copies of the outline of 15 questions and the notes that Dr. Hulin made available.
16 I intend to examine Dr. Hulin from these documents.
17 (Indicating.)
18 For our purposes now, though, let me simply suggest 19 that as a factual matter, what Mr. Miller is saying that A
20 is unavailable to Intervenor is the opportunity to 21 impeach the expert opinion evidence that they are 22 offering through this witness.
23 Indeed, the witness presents prefiled direct i
24 testimony; and apparently after his testimony was 25 largely prepared -- you'll note the testimony was y
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
f, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 7
17214 (M
\\
NJ 1
October, but I understand it was prepared much earlier; 2
I can't recall the exact point in time, but it was 3
earlier in this proceeding -- the Archambeault matter 4
came up.
The witness wants to determine whether or not 5
he can still defend his prefiled testimony in light of 6
the Archambeault matter.
7 If you recall, his prefiled testimony says he 8
interviewed three Quality control Inspectors.
His 9
interview last night reflects that he has no notes from 10 those interviews and can't recall who he interviewed.
11 So he goes out, and he interviews eight inspectors.
T 12 Those inspectors he has notes of, and he takes verbatim 13 transcripts of the interviews.
14 On the basis of those interviews, he insists that 15 he can still support his expert opinion; in short, that, 16 in his belief, there's no adverse work performance 17 effects from harassment and intimidation.
18 Well, there are a number of points in the notes 19 where, simply in his notes themselves, that general 1
u 20 conclusion appears to be contradicted.
21 Let me point just to the very first set of notes.
22 That is the notes associated with [NAME DELETED).
23 That's the first name on the first set of notes.
24 Under Item 5 there, you'll note that --
)
25 MR. MILLER:
Bob, that name is now on the
(
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17215 r~~s a
i b
I record.
2 MR. GUILD:
It's been pointed out to me that 3
Applicant seeks to maintain the anonymity of the 4
persons.
At least for purposes of this discussion, 5
let's do that.
6 If I could ask that the Chairman direct that the 7
Court Reporter delete the name I made reference to.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes.
9 Could you please do that, and we won't even bother 10 with a -- does anyone want that in camera for any 11 reason?
[ 'T 12 MR. MILLER:
No.
V 13 JUDGE GROSSFAN:
Let's just take that name 14 out.
15 MR. GUILD:
If I can direct the Board's 16 attention to Question B-5, management is the general 17 topic.
18 "Overall, do you feel there is an acceptable 19 professional relationship between LKC QC Inspectors and" 20
-- and then the supervision management production.
l 21 For the first individual who is interviewed, the 22 notes by Dr. Hulin appear to reflect an answer, "With 23 respect to LKC supervision, yes, up to a point.
Taken 24 out of welds and configuration with no explanation.
i s
25 Another QC Weld Inspector rejected many welds.
I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, 1111nois 6U134 (312) 232-0262
I 17216 f) 1 "An unnamed individual" -- the interviewee 2
apparently was the Lead -
"was told to tell" this 3
individual "to back off on weld rejection.
Two weeks 4
later" the individual, the interviewee, "was not the 5
Lead."
The individual "was making calls within the gray 6
area but was rejecting everything."
7 Now, Dr. Hulin's recollection stopped at those 8
notes.
He simply had no recall, although he recounted 9
that the individual had a detailed statement to make 10 about this subject and Dr. Hulin said he asked him 11 questions and the individual provided more information.
[ 'N 12 But none of that information was documented in this 13 set of notes nor could Dr. Hulin recall in any further 14 detail.
15 There are numerous other examples, some specific 16 hardware complaints by the interviewees or by the 17 interviewees from sources involving other inspectors, 18 specific complaints about personnel action taken against 19 interviewees or others.
20 Again, generally Dr. Hulin's recollection was 21 faulty beyond the notes.
22 Last night I got no indication that there even was 23 a transcript.
Dr. Hulin said, "That's the best I can 24 do.
There's simply my notes.
It was months ago, and I p) 25 can't recall any further."
(
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17217 OV 1
This morning I hear from counsel that indeed not 2
only was Dr. Hulin not alone at these interviews, a fact 3
that was not disclosed last night -- although I didn't 4
ask; that's true -- but that there was a verbatim 5
transcript available of these interviews.
6 As a factual matter, then, Dr. Hulin's testimony is 7
not based on his notes, as Applicant would rather 8
disingenuously believe; it was based on information that 9
he gleaned from interviews with inspectors.
10 What was said at those interviews to Dr. Hulin is 11 the basis for his opinion evidence, and I submit that
'N 12 what was said at those interviews should be made 13 available to Intervenor to test, through cross 14 examination, the basis for Dr. Hulin's opinion evidence.
15 Now, I think with that it's enough said that 16 Intervenors have a demonstrable need for this 17 information; a substantial need, in the language of 18 Federal Rule 26 B-3, which codifies Hickman versus 19 Taylor.
20 Indeed, Mr. Miller is correct.
In Hickman, the 21 Supreme Court tried to deal with the knotty question of 22 attorney work product, and indeed Hickman involved 23 statements prepared by a lawyer of a witness' 24 recollection of an accident involving two boats, as I l
f'N()
25 recall.
j Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17218 a
1 But what Mr. Miller doesn't tell us is that in this 2
case it's Dr. Hulin who is conducting the interview.
3 It's Dr. Hulin who is conducting the interview as a 4
basis for expert opinion evidence.
5 What Mr. Miller doesn't tell you is that despite 6
Hickman versus Taylor, even if the matter is found to be 7
attorney work product prepared in anticipation of 8
litigation with an attorney involved in some form or 9
fashion, such as sitting there although not asking 10 questions, that does not shield the matter absolutely 11 from discovery.
12 26 B-3 makes it clear that even if it's found to be 13 work product, the matter is discoverable where there's a 14 demonstrated substantial need.
The language reads 15 specifically, "Only upon a showing that the party 16 seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials 17 in the preparation of his case and that he is unable 18 without undue hardship to obtain a substantial 19 equivalent of the materials by other means."
20 I think there's substantial need, and let's talk 21 about other means.
22 Well, we now know who -- I know under protective 23 agreement who Dr. Hulin interviewed.
I alternatively 24 would ask at this point that the Board allow me to s
)
25 depose the persons that Dr. Hulin interviewed.
That q
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17219
(
l U) 1 indeed is a source of information about facts known to i
2 them.
3 But it is not sufficient for my purpose even if I 4
could get that remedy, and here is why:
Because it's 5
not what those individuals know.
I don't want to call 6
those people as witnesses for this purpose, to impeach 7
Dr. Hulin's testimony.
8 What's important is what they told Dr. Hulin, not 9
what they were telling me.
I believe that as a matter 10 of law, it is not substantially equivalent to say I 11 could interview or depose the persons interviewed by Dr.
12 Hulin.
Since we know that there was a verbatim 13 transcript, the best record of what was said to Dr.
14 Hulin is in that transcript.
15 Now let me add one last point:
If Mr. Miller's 16 concern really is not simply a question of shielding 17 what those individuals told Dr. Hulin from Intervenors' 18 discovery but if it really is disclosing Mr. Miller or 19 Mr. Gallo or Mr. Thornton's theories of the case, mental 20 processes, opinions, first I'd suggest that if they 21 communicated those opinions to someone else -- namely, 22 the QC inspectors being interviewed -- they could hardly 23 have wanted to hold them very closely.
I 24 Secondly, I would suggest that if there is a need 25
-- and I believe Applicant would have to show this --
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17220 1
they can ask this Board to delete some portion of a 2
transcript if that particular portion transgresses the 3
interest that Mr. Miller seeks to protect; that is, 4
disclosing attorney mental processes in such an extreme 5
fashion that it should be protected from disclosure.
6 But I think to suggest that the entire verbatim 7
transcripts of interviews should be non-discoverable 8
sweeps f ar too broadly to protect even the interest that 9
Mr. Miller seeks to protect.
10 I don't think this is late discovery.
I'm moving 11 on this after I heard about it first an hour and a half f 'N 12 ago.
I'm being as prompt as I can about seeking this 13 information.
14 So I would respectfully request that the verbatim 15 transcripts be disclosed.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN :
Mr. Berry, do you have a 17 position on this?
18 MR. BERRY:
Mr. Chai rman, Staff first learned 19 of this controversy 15 or 20 minutes ago, so we had not 20 been advised by either of the parties that this problem i
21 had come up.
22 My only thought on this is, as Mr. Guild pointed 23 out and Mr. Miller, that I believe we are bound -- or 24 the dispositive provision here is Rule 26 B-3 of the O
25 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17221 rm l
s_
1 I would think that the question should turn on 2
whether these materials -- whether Intervenor can obtain 3
the substantial equivalent of these materials without 4
undue hardship.
5 In that connection, I would just point out that for 6
Mr. Guild -- for this Board to rule that Mr. Guild is 7
entitled to take depositions of the Comstock inspectors, 8
that is going to take a substantial amount of time and 9
that would impact on this hearing here.
10 Just on what I've heard from the parties, the 11 parties' arguments so far, it does appear to the Staff 12 that it may well be that these materials may have some v}
13 relevance and use in impeaching Dr. Hulin.
14 I'm not certain, since I'm not privy to all the 15 other inf ormation that's in the possession of Mr. Guild 16 that's been produced to him by the Applicant, whether 17 that information is critical.
18 We have had testimony from some of the QC 19 Inspectors on this issue of, say, the cable pulling 20 inspectors.
All of the parties have some information on 21 that issue, and that information may well be enough to 22 serve Mr. Guild's purposes.
23 So at this point, Mr. Chairman, the Staff really 24 cannot offer the Board much guidance or information on (G) 25 this, since we're just not familiar with it; but I do Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17222 s
1 believe that it's Rule 26 B-3 that the Board must look 2
at to reach a determination.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, Mr. Miller, I don't 4
see how the presence of an attorney can be used to 5
immunize what is otherwise discoverable.
We've said 6
that in the past.
7 If you're going to offer an expert, you have to be 8
prepared to allow all of his discovery, in whatever 9
form, to be utilized by the other side.
You had a 10 choice, which you could have exercised, of not calling 11 Dr. Hulin and treating him as an expert.
You didn't do 12 that.
13 But once you decide that you're going to use him, 14 he can't have a selective memory.
Your presence or Mr.
15 Gallo's presence at an interview that he is using to 16 further his testimony can't immunize that information 17 from being discovered by the other side to use to 18 impeach him.
19 Now, it's obvious that the notes are not the 20 substantial equivalent of what was in the verbatim 21 testimony, as apparently the expert has himself 22 admitted.
23 So we just can't allow an expert to have a 24 selective memory here.
He has to be accountable for O) 25 everything that he has heard in the way of preparing his
(
V Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17223 1
testimony.
2 It's clear f rom the outline that this was all 3
received in the context of Dr. Hulin's outline, not of 4
yours or Mr. Gallo's outline.
5 Obviously, while Mr. Gallo was around to fill in 6
the gaps and to elicit favorable opinions, if necessary, 7
from these interviewees to support what he hoped the 8
expert would conclude, it was really the expert's 9
opinions that governed the context of the interview.
10 I don't see how this can be considered work product 11 that would tend to disclose basically Mr. Gallo's
['}
12 conclusions or opinions rather than the expert's.
V 13 MR. MILLER:
Well, your Honor, with all due 14 respect, I think you take a very narrow view of our 15 responsibilities as counsel for an Applicant; that is, 16 to suggest that we simply seek to elicit favorable 17 information when we are developing our case is simply 18 not accurate.
We don't operate that way.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
In the context of Dr.
20 Hulin's interview.
21 I'm not suggesting that that was the only interview 22 you had with these people, but the purpose of the 23 interview was to further Dr. Hulin's testimony.
24 MR. MILLER:
Well, I think that's where we --
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
In that context, I would Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17224 OU 1
assume that Mr. Gallo was motivated by filling in 2
whatever gaps that he thought there were in Dr. Hulin's 3
information.
4 MR. MILLER:
No, sir.
5 I represent to you that Mr. Gallo had other 6
interests that he was pursuing that were unrelated to 7
the outline that was prepared by Dr. Hulin and that Dr.
8 Hulin followed, and that is substantially reflected in 9
the notes that Dr. Hulin took.
10 I believe that somehow the burden has gotten turned 11 around just backwards here.
The fact that we do a 12 conscientious job in an effort to determine whether 13 there are additional facts that need to be brought 14 forward to the Board and the parties now becomes 15 something that we investigate, frankly, as counsel at 16 our peril, because upon a representation that somehow 17 this information is going to be different than what is 18 found in these notes, we are required to disclose the 19 interview that is conducted by counsel as well as by the 20 expert.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Miller, your peril is 22 that you risk not being able to call that expert.
If 23 you determine that he is peripheral to information 24 that's going to hurt your case, then you have to make a C
25 reasoned determination as to whether you' re going to
(
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 6U134 (312) 232-0262 l
17225 1
treat him as an expert retained for trial or as an 2
expert you decide not to retain for hearing.
3 Then you give up the good with the bad.
4 But that's a calculated risk.
Once you decide 5
you're calling him, he's got to be open to discovery.
6 MR. MILLER:
He certainly is.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Then he is treated as an 8
expert used for trial, not merely used in preparation to 9
whom the order that you alluded to would apply.
10-MR. MILLER:
Well, your Honor, I believe that 11 the federal cases are just to the contrary on that and O
12 that, in fact, trial preparation material, including 13 communications from counsel which form the basis for an 14 expert opinion, have been upheld by courts on appeals as 15 improper invocation of the work product privilege.
16 I think it is improper to require us to disclose 17 the interviews that were conducted by Mr. Gallo when the 18 expert stated to Mr. Guild -- and he is prepared to 19 testify here -- that he did not rely on those verbatim i
20 transcripts in determining whether or not the opinions 21 expressed in his prefiled testimony were subject to 22 revision in any way.
i l
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
But, Mr. Miller, it's not a l
l 24 question of whether he relied on them.
It may well be 25 true that he didn't.
1 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
f Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
f l'
f 17226
(~'s 1
But he's not entitled to have that selective a 2
memory so that if he hears something adverse to his 3
position, that he doesn't rely on that.
That's proper 4
impeachment.
5 MR. MILLER:
Well, your Honor, the fact is 6
that you can tell from the excerpt that Mr. Guild read 7
to you that Dr. Hulin hardly attempted.to ignore matters 8
that arguably were inconsistent with his stated opinion.
9 Indeed, that's what he was looking for when he conducted 10 these interviews.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
And I'll say, Mr. Miller,
}
12 looking through his outline, it follows to a T what his a
13 prepared testimony was all about.
14 I don't think that what he heard was necessarily 15 anything that Mr. Gallo elicited f rom the witnesses 16 outside of the scope of his testimony if he followed his 17 outline, even generally.
18 What is protected is work product or matters that 19 relate to the conclusions and opinions of counsel, not 20 the conclusions and opinions of the expert witnesses as 21 may be disclosed by the questions asked.
22 It just doesn't appear to me as though this falls 23 within work product, and I think we'll have a short 24 recess on this.
25 Do you wish to --
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 6U134 (312) 232-0262
17227 O
1 MR. MILLER:
Well, your Honor, I'm really 2
anxious to get on with this, and what I will consider --
i 3
maybe we ought to take just a brief recess -- is turning 4
over those portions of the transcripts that reflect the 5
questions asked by Dr. Hulin and the answers that he 6
received.
I believe you'll find that they are -- I 7
don' t know if they' re verbatim, but they' re very close 4
8 to his notes.
9 But the questions that were asked by Mr. Gallo 10 really do disclose counsel's theory of matters that were 11 before this Board.
I can't understand what showing has 12 been made by Mr. Guild as to disclosure of those 13 elements of the interview at bare minimum.
I persist --
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I --
15 MR. MILLER:
Go ahead.
I'm sorry.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I didn't mean to interrupt 17 you.
18 I was just going to ask you whether these questions 19 asked by Mr. Gallo follow the questions that were asked 20 by the expert witness or were they interspersed 21 throughout the context of the outline of questions that 22 Dr. Hulin had prepared?
23 MR. MILLER:
I can't make a generalization on 24 that.
Some were interspersed; very few.
Others were (O) 25 separated at the conclusion of Dr. Hulin's questions to Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17228 (Q
t I
G 1
these folks.
2 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, if I could have one 3
moment, there is a point in these notes where Mr. Gallo 4
is referred to by name.
It may be illustrative.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I'm sorry, Mr. Guild.
Are 6
you talking to us?
7 MR. GUILD:
Yes.
I'm sorry.
8 There's a point in these notes where Mr. Gallo's 9
name is mentioned.
The reference is something like 10 "Gallo to follow up."
I'm looking for the reference 11 just by way of illustration.
'}
12 It seems to suggest that Mr. Gallo interjected or V
13 interceded or made some follow-up question in the midst 14 of Dr. Hulin's questioning of the witnesses.
15 Let me find the reference in a moment.
16 But I might just point out that the line of cases 17 that I see interpreting 26 B-3 essentially fall into two 18 categories:
fact matters and opinion matters.
19 It is true, as Mr. Miller suggests, that the courts 20 are much more assiduous in protecting genuine attorney 21 opinion matter.
If Mr. Miller had written a brief or a 22 memorandum of law, that would certainly fall in the 23 category that would receive more protection because it 24 genuinely reflects his deliberative process, his 25 attorney work product in that respect.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17229 o
1 The courts are much less likely to simply take a 2
work product assertion at face value where the matters 3
are genuinely fact matters.
4 That's what we have here.
We have questions that, 5
if Mr. Gallo asked them on deposition, might indeed 6
disclose what he thought was of interest or important.
7 It might disclose his mental process because of the 8
question asked, but it wouldn't be protected.
It would 9
seek to elicit a fact.
10 Now, he asked those questions in the presence of 11 Dr. Hulin and the witness.
If Dr. Hulin's memory was f'h 12 better, I guess I could ask Dr. Hulin what questions Mr.
J 13 Gallo asked.
He may cr may not tell me; but if he told i
14 me, that question would certainly not be protected.
It 15 would not be objectionable on the grounds that it seeks 16 to elicit work product or Mr. Gallo's theory.
17 Certainly if I called up the interviewee and asked 18 him, "What questions did Mr. Gallo ask you," and he told 19 me, that would not be beyond the realm of my privilege.
20 The point, though, is both of those sources are 21 likely to be fallible.
The best source, the source for l
22 which there is no equivalent, is the verbatim l
23 transcript.
l 24 I think we're talking about fact matters here and l
)
25 not work product in any sense that Mr. Miller can Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
I (312) 232-0262
\\
17230 r3 k
i J
l engender protection.
2 If there is something of grave damage or in that 3
category, I'm certainly amenable to Applicant being able 4
to make a showing that a certain portion should be 5
deleted because it's so revealing.
6 But I think that is legitimately a burden that 7
falls on Applicant and not on Intervenors.
8 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, it really is ironic 9
that the Board has really been quite accommodating of 10 authorizing discovery long after discovery cut-off datec 11 have occurred; and it was certainly within the realm of 4
IN 12 possibility for Mr. Guild to have sought to take U
13 discovery by way of interview, deposition or whatever of 14 these individuals or others.
15 He didn't seek to do so.
For our own purposes --
16 not just to accommodate Dr. Hulin in his wish to make 17 sure that the integrity of his testimony was not damaged 18 by any event subsequent to his examination, but for our 19 own purposes -- we conducted these interviews.
20 Perhaps we should have done them separately, 21 although that had its own set of problems, but we 22 didn't.
23 It seems to me that it is simply outside -- I 24 should state it the other way.
It is well within the b(
25 attorney work product privilege to keep confidential the j
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, 1111nois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17231 (m
1 interview as conducted by an attorney of a potential 2
witness, because that's what these folks were at the 3
time that we interviewed them.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
We'll take five minutes.
5 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which 6
the proceedings were resumed as follows:)
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
We'll rule on that E
right now.
9 It doesn't appear to the Board that this fits in 10 the category of work product.
It's discoverable as far 11 as an expert witness is concerned.
The entire interview N
12 was in the context of the expert seeking the interview.
13 Counsel is competent enough to know that if counsel 14 wanted to use the interview for t<.0 pu r po se s, that there 15 should have been two separate interviews.
16 But once you're using an expert that is going to be 17 used for hearing, there is no way you can immunize the 18 information-seeking session that the expert is present 19 at.
20 If there is anything in particular in there that 21 counsel feels it is imperative not be disclosed with 22 regard to the mental impression of the attorney who 23 solicited an answer to some question, we'll be amenable 24 to reviewing that; but not as a wholesale matter.
(G) 25 I would think that at least the bulk of the j
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
)
17232
-s
)
1 1
questions that were put to the witness by Mr. Gallo'or 2
Mr. Thornton were in the context of what the expert 3
thought was important to his testimony.
4 So our direction is, unless there's anything 5
specific that you wish us to view in camera, that the i
6 entire verbatim transcript be turned over to Mr. Guild.
7 Mr. Miller?
8 MR. MILLER:
I'm going to have to review 9
them, your Honor.
I'll tell you that there were, in 10 fact, two different purposes to be served, and I'm going 11 to have to review the questions.
I N 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Fine.
13 If you do bring something up of that nature, we'll 14 be amenable to reviewing that.
So we won't direct that 15 this be turned over immediately, but we certainly don't 16 want to delay preparation for the expert.
17 Is he scheduled for tomorrow?
18 MR. MILLER:
Thursday.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
For Thursday.
So it ought 20 to be soon.
21 So now is there anything other of a preliminary 22 matter?
23 MR. GUILD:
Nothing here, Judge.
24 MR. BERRY:
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
25 I'd like the record to reflect that the Staff Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17233 1
counsel is making available to the Board and the parties 2
a copy of the prefiled testimony of Mr. Gardner.
3 A copy of it was served by mail yesterday, and I'm 4
also handing out copies to the Board and the parties 5
right now.
6 (Indicating.)
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Steptoe?
8 MR. STEPTOE:
Judge Grossman --
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Oh, Mr. Guild -- is that 10 another preliminary matter?
11 MR. STEPTOE:
No.
I}
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
You're ready to call your b
13 witness?
14 MR. STEPTOE:
Yes.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Guild, do you have a 16 further preliminary matter?
17 MR. GUILD:
I do, Mr. Chairman.
18 MR. MILLER:
I have one point of inquiry on 19 the Board's direction.
20 I note that these transcripts are being turned over 21 to assist in the cross examination of Dr. Hulin and for 22 that purpose only.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes, and I didn't mean just 24 to Mr. Guild; of course, to Mr. Berry and Miss Chan, D
( ))
25 too.
We're not asking for copies of that, that's u
l l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 1
y127232-0262-
17234 0
1 correct.
2 Fine.
I guess, Mr. Steptoe -- Mr. Guild?
j 3
MR. GUILD:
Yes, sir.
I just forgot this a 4
moment ago.
5 I found in my office this morning correspondence 6
from counsel for Applicant, Miss Kezelis and Mr. Gallo, 7
to the Secretary of the Commission; and the substance of 8
the correspondence was, "We agree to be bound by a 9
protected order as referred to" in some document.
10 "Please send us your in-camera order."
I j
11 I sort of scratched my head because I frankly i
12 didn't know what prompted them to send this letter to 13 the Secretary.
But I do know that I have never received 14 the order on our motion to disclose matters which were i
15 the subject of the in-camera briefings, et cetera.
16 I thought I would say that for the record because 17 if there's something in there that I'm supposed to know i
18 about or need to know about in order to act in a timely 19 fashion, I'm unable to do so.
l l
20 Perhaps if counsel for Applicant can simply tell me 21 what prompted them to --
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, I'll tell you, though, 23 I'm in fear of violating the protected order myself.
24 Apparently the Commission issued two public orders:
25 one being a protected order and the other indicating Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
J 17235 1
0 1
that counsel must sign that protected order or agree to 2
it before they can receive an in-camera order.
3 Now, I suppose that I'm not -- am I violating 4
anything by mentioning that?
5
( Laugh te r. )
6 It's very hard to -- I can't talk around it.
As 7
far as I know, there's nothing secret about that part.
8 So in order for you to receive the in-camera 9
confidential order, you must first sign a protected 10 order.
11 MR. GUILD:
All right, sir.
12 I have yet to see the second of those public 13 orders, then; that is, the protected order.
I didn't 14 know there was such an order in existence.
So I guess l
15 I'll check my mail a little more carefully.
16 Perhaps if Applicant has received the second order, 17 they can share a copy of it with me.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, I would hope that you 19 would receive that.
I don't know if there are any time l
20 problems here.
i 21 MR. BERRY:
Mr. Chairman, I'm not familiar 22 with the second order that the Board just referred to, 23 the protected order, although I've been away from the 24 office for the last few days.
I'm not sure.
There may 25 well be that.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, IJ 11nois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17236
'~'s (O
1 As f ar as the other point that you raised, I've had 2
an opportunity to review the protected order; and there 3
are restrictions on all the parties as to what they can 4
do with that information.
So far the Board has not 5
breached any of those restrictions, as I recollect them.
6 I guess generally I think it prohibits the Board 7
and the parties from just discussing --
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
The substance?
9 MR. BERRY:
-- the substance of the matter 10 that arose much earlier this summer.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
That's fine, and please (m
s 12 don't mention any names now.
I think we all know what 13 matter that is.
14 But you' re saying you don' t know that there were 15 two public orders and one protected order?
Am I wrong 16 on that, Mr. Miller?
17 MR. MILLER:
I beg your pardon, sir?
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Were there two public 19 orders, one being a protected order and the other being 20 a --
21 MR. MILLER:
I can't answer that.
Mr. Gallo 22 is the only person in our office, to my knowledge, who 23 has received -- who is on the Commission's service list; 24 and he and Miss Kezelis have been communicating.
They O) l
(
25 both signed something and sent it back to --
l l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17237 (m
a 1
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Sometimes I get the feeling 2
that I'm not on the Commission's mailing list, either, 3
or at least General Counsel.
4 (Laughter.)
5 I don't get everything that they file with the 6
Commission General Counsel, so I'm not even sure I'm 7
glad I received any of this, since I like to stay out of 8
what may be protected territory as much as I can.
9 But I would suggest that Mr. Guild try to receive 10 copies as soon as he can, because there may be some time 11 limits that are expiring.
,.n.
[
12 The protected order I believe was served on 13 November 10th.
14 Now, whether your time, Mr. Guild, would run from 15 that date or would run f rom the time that you actually 16 receive it, assuming that you took the necessary steps 17 in time to receive that order, is I think debatable.
18 But I think you ought to try -- if you decide to 19 comply with the protected order, that you ought to try 20 to do that as quickly as possible.
21 MR. GUILD:
Well, since I only understood 22 there was this Catch-22 involved this morning, I raised 23 the matter on the record.
24 Perhaps if the unprotected protected order is a
(
(
25 public matter, I'd simply ask the Board or the parties Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 1
(312) 232-0262
17238 I) v 1
to make a copy available today so that I can know what 4
2 steps I must take next.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay, fine.
4 Judge Cole has both of those public orders that I 5
referred to here, and we will allow you to have at least 6
a look at these copies --
7 MR. GUILD:
Sure.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
-- and make copies of these.
9 (Indicating.)
10 JUDGE COLE:
This will be off the record, 11 Nancy.
I 'N 12 (There followed a discussion outside the 13 record.)
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Let's take a 10-minute 15 recess now.
16 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which 17 the proceedings were resumed as follows:)
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Let's go back on the record.
19 Mr. Guild?
20 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, we have read the 21 public order of the NRC, the November 7th protected 22 order, and are frankly very troubled by the procedure 23 that appears to be applied by the commission's order.
24 I'm not prepared to take a position at this time, C
25 without some more reflection, on whether Intervenere are Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ueneva, Illinois eu134 (312) 232-0262
17239 1
prepared to agree to such a protected order or not, 2
since agreeing to such a protected order may impact on 3
our ability to be heard on matters that are already 4
within our knowledge and are matters which are already 5
determined relevant in this licensing proceeding, absent 6
access to any protected information.
7 What I was going to suggest, Mr. Chairman, is if 8
the Board would entertain an in-camera session tomorrow 9
morning, the first thing, I'd like to be able to be a 10 little less circumspect about what my concerns are about 11 the protection of our interests on this record by f 'T 12 stating matters that may or may not be protected but G
13 matters that are important in attempting to protect our 14 interests.
i 15 I'll have a clearer position on the Commission's 16 protected order at that time.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, I'm not sure that it 18 would be appropriate to do that before this Board.
If I 19 understand it, we are now out of it, and it would really 20 probably be more appropriate to address whatever you 21 have to the Commission in the form of a written 22 memorandum or -- not a memorandum, but a written motion, 23 perhaps for reconsideration, if you have some objections 24 to what the Commission has done.
25 I'm not denying you the opportunity of saying Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
(
17240 OV 1
something before the Board, but I'm not sure it's 2
appropriate.
3 MR. GUILD:
Perhaps if I could just be heard 4
briefly tomorrow morning in camera.
When you hear what 5
I propose as the subject of discussion, I think I can 6
get a very quick reading f rom the Board of whether 7
that's appropriate for consideration or not.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, I don't want to be put 9
in a position of giving you a quick reading of anything 10 because I don't wish to rush in where angels fear to 11 tread.
O 12 (Laughter.)
13 I think the Commission has suggested pretty much 14 that we are not involved in that issue any longer.
So I 15 don't want to get involved in that if that would be 16 contrary to the Commission's position.
17 MR. GUILD:
Let me reflect a little more 18 overnight, and let me try again in the morning.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
But we're not denying you a 20 request for an in-camera session of things that relate 21 to this case.
22 MR. GUILD:
All right, sir.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Fine.
24 Are we ready for the witness, then?
25 MR. GUILD:
We are.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17241 I)
U 1
MR. STEPTOE:
Yes, Judge Grossman.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Oh, I'm sorry.
Miss Chan?
3 MR. BERRY:
Before we do that, Mr. Chairman, 4
I would just point out for the benefit of Intervenors 5
that the Commission is reluctant to entertain motions 6
for reconsideration.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Oh, okay.
I'm sorry.
I was 8
not --
9 MR. BERRY:
I was just pointing that out for 10 Mr. Guild's benefit, although he does have that option.
11 The Commission has expressed an interest, with a view
()
12 f rom both the case law and the regulations, that they do V
13 not favor motions for reconsideration.
14 I believe Miss Chan has two other brief matters to 15 bring to the Board's attention, Mr. Chairman.
16 MS. CHAN:
Last week we had discussed the 17 matter of Mr. McGregor taking the stand this week; and 18 the Board had suggested that, if possible, Mr. McGregor 19 be made available on Wednesday.
20 In consulting with Mr. Gallo, who has spoken to Mr.
21 Geocaris, Mr. McGregor will appear or be available to 22 appear on Wednesday at 1:00 P.
M.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
That's fine.
So let's try 24 and conclude everything else before Mr. McGregor is
)
25 scheduled to appear.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
{
(312) 232-0262
17242 b'
s 1
Now let's take your second matter.
2 MS. CHAN:
The second matter is the Staff
'3 follow-up f rom the in-camera briefing of the Board.
4 The Board had requested that the Staff inspector 5
follow up on a few matters, and he has done so and is 6
willing to supply that information to the Board in 7
another in-camera briefing, if requested.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay, then, fine.
We do 9
request that, and we can set Thursday at 8:30 for that.
10 MS. CH AN :
Fine.
I will verify it with the 11 inspector and tell you this afternoon.
f '}
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
Thank you.
\\_./
13 Mr. Steptoe?
14 MR. STEPTOE:
Judge Grossman, Applicant's 15
.next witness is Robert V.
Laney, and I ask that he take 16 the stand and be sworn.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Would you raise your right 18 hand?
s 19 (The witness was thereupon duly sworn.)
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Please be seated, sir.
21 ROBERT V.
LANEY 22 called as a witness by the Applicant herein, having been 23 first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
24 DIRECT EXAMINATION
.(~'s 25 BY MR. STEPTOE:
Qs-)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 x
\\
(312) 232-0262
17243
!m) v 1
Q Mr. Laney, would you please state your full name and 2
your business address for the record?
3 A
My name is Robert V.
Laney, 24 Trout Farm Lane, Duxbury, 4
Massachusetts, 02332.
5 0
What is your present occupation, sir?
6 A
I'm a consultant primarily in the field of nuclear 7
energy management.
8 0
Have you written the testimony -- the document entitled 9
" Testimony of Robert V. Laney," which was filed with the 10 parties and Board in this proceeding on September 24, 11 1986?
h 12 A
Yes.
G 13 0
Do you have any additions to make to that testimony?
14 A
I have -- yes, I do.
15 On the final page of the appendix to my testimony, 16 I want to add four items to the list of material that I l
17 have read in preparation for today's testimony.
18 I've read Mr. DelGeorge's rebuttal testimony, Mr.
l l
19 Shamblin's rebuttal testimony, Mr. Archambeault's 20 rebuttal -- or testimony -- not rebuttal, but testimony; 21 and this morning an abstract of Mr. Puckett's testimony.
22 Other than that, there are no other changes.
23 0
Okay.
l 24 Did reading any of these four additional sources
)
25 change any of your opinions and conclusions as expressed l
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17244 1
in your prefiled testimony?
i 2
A No, no, it did not.
3 0
Is your testimony true and correct, to the best of your 4
knowledge and belief?
5 A
Yes.
6 MR. STEPTOE:
Judge Grossman, I move that the 7
prefiled testimony of Robert V.
Laney, with the 8
additional remarks made by Mr. Laney, be admitted into 9
the record as if read.
10 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, just a point of 11 clarification by way of voir dire, if I might.
I')
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Certainly.
U 13 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 14 BY MR. GUILD:
15 0
Mr. Laney, when you mentioned the De1 George and Shamblin 16 rebuttal testimony, do you mean to say their prefiled 17 rebuttal testimony, sir?
18 A
I think in both cases it was both their prefiled and 19 their rebuttal examination before the Board.
20 MR. GUILD:
Thank you, sir.
21 I have no objection to the receipt of Mr. Laney's l
l 22 testimony.
23 MR. BERRY:
Nor I, Mr. Chairman.
l 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
The testimony is admitted
)
25 and will be bound in the record as though given here at u/
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, 1111nois 6u134 (312) 232-0262
t i
r i
I 17245 I
l f
L@
I the hearing.
2 I
3 i
l 4
1 j
5 l
t i
6 7
r j
8 I
Il 9
l i
i 10 11 j_
13 14 1
l 15 1
16 1
17 i
18 f
i 19 t
20 i
- l 21 i
i 22 i
i 1
I J
23 1
i 24 4
4 1
i 1
I l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
4 Geneva, Illinois 60134 1.
(312) 232-0262
t
()
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT V.
LANEY Q.1.
Please state your name and business address.
A.1.
My name is Robert V.
Laney.
My business address is' 24 Trout Farm Lane, Duxbury, Massachusetts 02332.
Q.2.
Please describe your educational and professional background.
A.2.
I am a graduate of the U.
S. Naval Academy.
I hold a Masters degree in Marine Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an MBA from the University of Chicago.
During and following World War II, I was on active Navy duty at sea and ashore.
(~T I was Engineering Officer on a carrier, destroyer and
\\../
battleship.
From 1948' to 1960 I served under Admiral H.
G.
Rickover as Project Manager in the Naval Reactor Program and later as Technical Representative of the AEC and the Navy at the Westinghouse Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory during the design and construction of various nuclear power plants for Naval vessels and the Shippingport nuclear power station.
l While working in the Naval Reactors Program, I acquired extensive experience in designing and constructing naval nuclear power plants.
This included construction and operation of a landbased P) submarine prototype power plant and the Shippingport nuclear power station.
a
\\
/
\\
(s While Naval Technical Representative at the Bettis Plant in Pi..sburgh, I led the development of the first comprehensive quality assurance program for the industrial plants supplying critical reactor components for naval vessels.
In 1960 I became Nuclear Manager at the Quincy (Mass.) Shipyard of Bethlehem Steel Company where I was responsible for the construction and installation of nuclear plants in the nation's first two nuclear powered surface ships:
After General Dynamics Corp.
acquired the Quincy yard in 1964, I became Vice President and General Manager of the Quincy Division.
I-)
As General Manacer, I was responsible for U
ccnstruction and delivery to the Navy of several nuclear powered submarines.
This required retraining shipyard personnel accustomed to constructing surface ships to build nuclear submarines to the most exacting standards of quality.
Quality control procedures and practices were strengthened and inspector training extended.
I was closely involved in setting and main-taining 0.C.
standards and in helping to resolve quality-quantity conflicts.
This retraining of crafts, strengthening of 0.C.,
and subsequent construction took place in a unionized shipyard of several thousand employees.
I acquired T~S l
(/
experience in various phases of union-management rela-tions, such as contract negotiations, wage administra-tion, grievance resolution, and overtime, sick and p.ersonal time and disciplinary procedures.
In 1970 I joined the Argonne National Laboratory, op-erated by the University of Chicago,'as Associate Director responsible'for nuclear reactor research and development.
I later became Deputy Director, with responsibility for all applied energy research and development; for the oper-ation of Argonne's several research reactors; and for gen-eral laboratory administration, quality assurance, and per-sonnel and union relations.
Since leaving Argonne in 1979, I have been an inde-
~
pendent consultant in the nuclear energy field.
O.3.
Would you please describe your professional experience since leaving the Argonne National Laboratory?
A.3.
I have:
a)
Served on a senior advisory Panel, reporting to the fs
(
)
Chairman of the Board of the Commonwealth Edison Company, whose mission was to assess the adequacy of the Company's initiatives taken as a result of the accident at Three Mile Island.
b)
Served as member of an Advisory Committee to the Chief Executive Officer of the General Public Utilities Corporation, whose mission was to evaluate two particular areas of concern after TMI:
(1) personnel selection and training, and (2) man / machine interf ace and communications problems.
c)
Formed and served as Chairman of a review team whose purpose was to improve engineering support for the nuclear construction program of the Washington Public Power Supply
(( )
System (WPPSS).
4)
Served as consultant to Houston Power and Lighting Company to evaluate their Engineering Quality Assurance Program for the South Texas Nuclear Station.
f
/\\
\\
)
e)
Formed and served as Chairman of a Panel which audited the Washington Public Power Supply System's program to verify the design and construction of their WNP-2 nuclear station.
f)
Testified before the Department of Public Utilities i
on behalf of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the matter of the cancellation of Boston Edison's Pilgrim II Nuclear Power Station, g)
Testified before the Department of Public Utilities on behalf of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with regard to the duration of a refuel-ing outage of Boston Edison's Pilgrim I Nuclear Station.
/7,
()
h)
Served as member of a special study group formed to advise the Nuclear Eegulatory Commission on means to improve the qual-ity of construction of commercial nuclear power plants.
i)
Assisted Admiral Rickover in preparing an assessment of GPU Nuclear Corporation's management capabilitity to operate TMI-1.
j)
Provided testimony in the Byron licensing hearing concern-ing the implication of the CC inspector requalification pro-gram to construction quality, k)
Served as a member of an independent oversight committee to evaluate and advise Commonwealth Edison on the Braidwood Construction Assessment Program.
1)
Chairman of a panel of experts to evaluate Houston Lighting l
and Power's conduct of a design verification program for South Texas.
m)
Chairman of a panel to evaluate VEPCO's operation of the North Anna Station.
n)
Member, GPU Nuclear Corp. Board of Directors, and Chairman of the Board Safety Committee.
A copy of my resume is attached to this testimony as Attachment A.
Q.4.
What is the relevance of your experience to evaluating the significance of the Amended Contention?
A.4.
My thirty-eight years of nuclear experience in naval reactors, nuclear shipbuilding, and commercial nuclear power plant con-sulting has frequently required me to become intimately in-volved with means of achieving and confirming high standards of construction quality while meeting demanding production schedules.
The inherent interplay and conflict between work quality and work quantity is not peculiar to commercial nuclear power plants, nor for that matter, to nuclear construction.
It is present in all intensive construction work having mandatory s
quality standards, such as nuclear shipbuilding.
Hence, my ex-perience in Naval nuclear construction and as a consultant in commercial nuclear construction are both relevant to the issues of this Braidwood hearing.
Nuclear submarines require extremel:
high standards of quality for obvious reasons.
Achieving such standards, evaluating the means for doing so, and assuring others that this has been done is no less vital in submarine than in commercial work.
Although commercial nuclear plants and Naval nuclear plants differ in many ways, they do not diffe:
in the underlying principles by which high quality is achieved.
Much of the experience acquired in one is transferable to the other.
4 In addition to Navy experience, I have participated in several programs of construction quality validation i
I of commercial nuclear power stations.
It was my re-sponsibility, te a member of review teams, to assist the licensees to plan and conduct programs to assess the adequacy of safety-related construction work and the reliability of 0.C. inspections.
This was achieved through a combination of hardware reinspections, document reviews, and analysis.
The teams on which I served reviewed and ap-proved these validation programs, audited their perform'ance, and provided independent evaluation of their results.
I also served recently as member of a review group which was appointed by the NRC to provide independent review and comment on an NRC Report to Congress, titled
" Improving Quality and The Assurance of Quality in the Design and Construction of Nuclear Power Plants" (NUREG 1055) dated :4ay, 19E4.
As indicated by the title of this report, this activ-ity gave me an additional insight into the recent i
history of nuclear construction projects, including some which have been successful and some which have not, and the opportunity to form my own opinions as to the reasons why.
The knowledge acquired on this project has been helpful in my assessment and evaluation of l
Braidwood's construction history and the current Con-tention.
Q.5.
How did you prepare for testifying in this case?
N_-
A.S.
I read the intervenor's motion and supplement to it; the admitting order; several Comstock policies and pro-cedures; non-conformance report 3099; testimony of various witnesses; abstracts of depositions of sev-eral LKC inspectors; and selected Board Examination of some witnesses.
A list of these documents is appended as Attachment B.
I also interviewed Irving DeWald, Comstock QC Manager; Thomas Quaka, CECO QA Superintendent; Daniel Shamblin, CECO Construction Manager; and Randall Kurtz, S&L Assistant Head of. Quality Control.
()
0.6.
To what spetific topics does your testimony relate.
A.6.
My testimony relates to the following three topics:
(),
- (m First, how is effective quality control maintained under conditions of construction schedule pressures?
The quality-quantity issue is at the heart of the contention that harassment and intimidation of inspectors discouraged them from identifying deficiencies in safety-related components and systems.
Such harassment was said to include pressure to sacrifice quality for production and cost considerations. It became apparent to me in reading some of the Board's examination of witnesses that they (the Board) were keenly interested in in-spector independence and the difficulty of maintaining quality standards in the face of schedule pressures.
()
I decided to address this topic, believing that I might give a useful perspective from my own experience which would assist in the proceedings.
Second, recognizing the extraordinary set of prob-lems confronting Comstock's Quality Control organization beginning in 1983 and continuing into early 1985, what would experience tell us of their likely influence on individual inspector's behavior?
Whether there was a reduction in the reliability of inspectors' work performance is the crucial question.
In reading the testimony, I realized that there may be several ways to assess the credibility of inspections performed in 1984 and early 1985.
Of these, my experience n
is suited to making an evaluation of whether production s-pressure, understaffing, heavy overtime, pay inequities, aggressive and unpopular supervision, and a unionization _ _ _ _ _ _.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
()
drive would affect the inspectors' performance of their work.
Third, are Comstock's procedures on non-conform-ances (4.11.1), corrective action ( 4.11. 2 ), and stop work (4.11.3) adequate procedures and were they correctly applied in the case of NCR 3099?
The authority of an inspector to stop work under appropriate circumstances is an important consideration in the overall quality control situation.
The fact that he: is given the power to do so tells something about manage-ments quality attitude.
The conditions under which the authority is exercised may tell us something about the values placed on work quantity and work quality.
It appeared from the Board's questions to witnesses that they perceived NCR 3099 to be a useful example of how Comstock's stop-work policy was exercised.
I believe that my experience may be useful in evaluating the policies and procedures involved and' how they were applied in this instance.
Q.7.
Please give your observations on maintaining quality control under conditions of construction schedule pressure.
A.7.
The interplay between quality of work and quantity of work is obviously a pervasive one.
It operates in designing power plants as well as in constructing them.
Maintaining an ap-propriate balance is an ever-present challenge to the craft worker and the inspector, and to their supervisors and manager O
Appendix B, Criterion I properly requires that persons performing quality assurance functions must be provided suf-ficient independence from cost and schedule to allow them to __.
3 identify and assess quality problems.
However, a fuller un-derstanding of the process by which c.onstruction quality is o
/~)
(_-
achieved makes it apparent that, in the interest of quality, this independence should not be absolute.
If it were, the Quality Conurol organization would become too isolated to contribute effectively to the total management effort on which construction quality depends.
A Quality Control organization, properly used, contributes to achieving quality, but it does not create quality.
Quality is created primarily by competent design and good craftsman-ship.
Quality control is an instrument which management uses to feed back information telling management whether the design is being followed and whether work quality is acceptable.
This information enables management to take timely corrective (G"g action when a 2ed is indicated.
To be eff_ctive,, Q.C. must be knit into the total manage-ment team which includes design, procurement, construction and project management.
Furthermore, its information feedback to other team members must be timely -- that is, it must follow closely on work performance if it is to have maximum usefulness Recognizing how essential this team concept is to achiev-i ing quality, various ways have been used successfully to pro-l vide O.C. the independence needed to do its job while allowing it to have the necessary close relationships with construction and project management.
In the Braidwood situation, Comstock's Q.C. reports organizationally through an off-site regional QA Manager to Comstock's Corporate O.A. Manager, who reports
()
in turn to Comstock's Vice President, Operations, located at Corporate headquarters.
Comstock's GC is thus afforded organ-izational independence from Comstock's on-site production manager.
The Comstock Q.A./Q.C. organization is under the
)
surveillance of Commonwealth Edison's on-site QA/QC, which reports through CECO's Corporate off-site QA Manager to CECO's Chief Executive Officer.
CECO's site QA organization is thus afforded organizational independence from the on-site Project Construction Department.
In an example from another station which was constructed successfully,a different organ-izational pattern was followed.
The licensee set up a single QA/QC program for the project, with QC reporting to the construction organization and with QA performing surveil-lances of construction and construction QC, auditing the entire project function, and assuring that QC was granted sufficient independence.from production pressures.
It is instructive to note that the NRC, in its 2J-port titled " Improving Quality and the Assurance of Quality in the Design and Construction of Nuclear Power Plants" (NUREG 1055), May, 1984, makes two observations, auoted below, which bear on QC's relationship with construction management.
These observations are based on the NRC's appraisal ar.d analysis of six U.S. nuclear construction projects.
"QA can be a management tool, but to be so, it must be a part of the team of engineering, con-struction management, and project management.
To be effective as a management tool, QA must be integrated into the project."
(page 3-24)
(])
"There did not seem to be a particular QA/QC organizational structure, function, authority, etc., that characterized plants with or without._
()
quality-related problems.
...No pattern of OA/OC organizational structure or delegation correlated with whether plants had experienced major quality problems or not."
(page A.27)
To be effective, I believe that a OC organization must be engaged in the total enterprise, be conscious of and work to achieve the overall objectives of quality, schedule, and cost, and still, when appropriate, assert an independent view on quality issues.
With this in mind, the quality-quantity relationship and the OC-construction management relationship can best be exam-ined in the context of overall program objectives and functions.
0.8.
How does this overall program perspective help our understanding of the quality-quantity problem?
A.8.
As noted earlier, the quality-quantity interaction in a construction project brings with it inescapable competi-tive forces.
In accommodating these, a construction project must meet three separate, sometimes competing, objectives -- quality, schedule, and cost.
These three are obviously interactive.
In the end, however, each must satisfy its own unique measure of adequacy.
(G.)
Like a stool resting on three legs, a project fails if e
29
(_/
it fails in any one of its objectives.
Utility man-agement cannot trade off one of these objectives to preserve another, for to do so merely invites failure of a different kind, because schedule and cost have only limited elasticity and quality has none.
0.9.
How does this bear on quality control under construc-tion schedule pressure?
A.9.
From a total program perspective, all team members,
/~T including both craft and inspection personnel, must
%-)
el a responsibility to satisfy these three broad requirements.
In my experience, people who are engaged in this kind of work -- managers, supervisors, in-spectors, and mechanics -- recognize and accept these obligations, including the built-in conflicts which accompany them.
The constructor knows that adequate quality must be achieved, while satisfying schedules.
The inspector understands that his inspections must be performed effectively, but, consistent with that, should not unduly interfere with the progress of con-struction.
In my opinion, it is not consistent with the pro-()
gram objectives or the functional relationships which I have identified to suggest that the quality control 1 _ _. - _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
)
1 organization or individual inspectors are wholly free of schedule obligations any more than it would be to suggest that constructors have no quality obligations.
The OC organization must use its best efforts to pro-vide adequate numbers of qualified inspectors to per-form required inspections at a rate and in a manner
+:hich allows reasonable work schedules to be met.
Concurrently, inspectors must have " sufficient inde-pendence from cost and schedule" so that where ad-equate quality is in question, they have " freedom to identify quality problems."
(Criterion I)
In addition to this broad obligation to work
()
towards meeting overall schedules, there is still another reason that the CC crganization must perform timely inspections at a rate which is consistent with the rate of construction.
The reason is that timely in-spections contribute to achieving good quality.
De-layed inspections and excessive inspection backlogs are threats to quality.
Q.10.
How can timely inspections be assured and how do they contribute to quality?
l l
A.10.
For the work in a nuclear plant, good quality depends
(
on the craft's ability to perform quality work and on Quality Control's inspection of a sample of or all of i
I k -.
..r kO N/
that uork to provide additional assurance of its ad-equacy o_r to note and correct deficient conditions.
The exercise of the " control' in quality control is accom-plisned by utilizing inspection results as a basis for drawing inferences about the quality of uninspected portions of the work and for determining when process adjustments are needed.
The construction manager must maintain current knowledge of the discrepancies being found by QC, whether they are singular or repetitive discrepancies, and whether their frequency is trending up or iown.
To be most useful for process control, this kind of knowledge should be drawn f rom work re-(}
cently performed.
If the inspected sample is drawn from work performed some months ago rather than yester-day or last week, detecting and correcting adverse quality trends is obviously made much more difficult.
This need for current feed-back of quality con-trol information to construction management has two corollaries which seem to me to be important to the present proceeding:
First, quality control managers must schedule their future inspection work to conform with ex-pected construction work.
They must adjust the numbers of inspectors to the inspection work to be done and use overtime as appropriate as means
(
of providing timely information to construction managers, enabling them to control the quality of work being produced.
I believe it is evident 1 4
,m that this could not be done without maintaining records of inspections performed, backlogs of uncompleted inspections, and schedules of in-spections to be performed in the future.
- Looking, bcth to the past and the future, such schedules will necessarily employ actual and estimated average levels of inspector productivity.
Second, the Program Director, and especially his Construction Manager, has a vital need for periodic information which is available only from the QC organization concerning the results of inspections being performed, kinds and causes
(~}
of discrepancies, and inspection backlogs and their trends.
Such information is essential to assist him in maintaining control of work process quality and in developing future construction plans and schedules.
This close relationship between production schedules and QA commitments was noted in the previously identified NRC study on imjroving quality in constructing nuclear power plants, NUREG 1055.
Reporting on a case study of a nuclear construction project which successfully avoided significant quality-related problems, the report notes that "The licensee balanced schedule and i
QA commitments.
The licensee responded to several
()
setbacks by defining solutions and applying whatever resources it took to resolve each problem and recover.
i schedule.
Emphasis on maintaining schedule did not compro-s s
mise cpal;;y.
Good r.anagement practices can produce quality i
amidst cc:r.:.itment to schedule."
(page A.27)
I believe the Construction Manager at Braidwood had a need as well as a responsibility to keep closely pnsted on Comstock's inspection backlogs and their plans and progress for working off those backlogs.
The conduct of weekly in-formation meetings by the Construction Manager for this pur-pose, as indicated in testimony, appears to be no more than normal prudence.
Had he done otherwise he would run a risk of failing in both his quality and production responsibilities.
0.11.
In your opinion, did the Comstock inspection backlog v
require establishing inspection quotas for each in-spector or group of inspectors?
A.ll.
No.
A quota, as I believe the term is being used, lays down a mandatory number of inspections with the requirement that that number be performed by an in-spector in a certain time period.
It seems apparent that such a mandatory number could not possibly take account of individual job conditions which would in-fluence the amount of time required for each inspec-tion -- e.g. readiness of work for inspection, accessibility of work for inspection, readiness of
()
work documentation, craft assistance for gaining inspection access, and other unique conditions affecting a particular inspection or group of inspections and the -
nb time required to perform them.
Quotas would obviously deprive an inspector of " sufficient independence from cost ano schedule" to perform his work effectively and would threaten one of the basic requirements for control of quality.
The use of quotas in the above sense, as alleged by the intervenors in some of the testimony and examination of this case, is palpably impractical.
Managers, supervisors, and inspectors alike are obviously familiar with the diversities of their working environment and know full well that quotas could not work.
However, average expected levels of inspector
(])
performance, with flexibility to allow for variable work conditions, are needed.
00 management must match the number of inspectors required to the schedule of inspections to be performed during a future time period, utilizing experience factors for attrition, new personnel from recruiting and training; absenteeism and vacations; and average productivity levels.
Staffing plans and work schedules designed to assure that QC has sufficient qualified personnel to keep control of current work quality are, in my experience, accepted as necessary tools of QC management.
Without them there could be little confidence in effective, timely inspection.
It has been my experience that inspectors under-stand that their organization hac a schedule responsibility, just as they understand that the craft has a quality responsibility.
Working amid production pressures is a normal part of the inspector's job.
Q.12.
What was the extraordinary set of problems confronting Comstock's O.C. organization from 1983 to early 1985 to which you referred in A.6.?
A.12.
In late 1982 Comstock 's QC organization was directed to increase the sampling fraction for several important categories of electrical work from 35 percent to 100
}
percent.
This obviously caused a substantial increase
.a QC workload which was beyond the capacity of the QC staff then in place.
Large backlogs of uncompleted inspections developed.
Adding to this backlog was another commitment requiring Comstock QC to review a very large backlog of documents.
These presented a formidable challenge to the i
Comstock QC management, both at Braidwood and at Comstock's Corporate headquarters.
In addition the i
pace of electrical construction depended on a timely recovery from the backlogged condition.
In response to these large backlogs of uncompleted quality control work, the following actions were taken
()
by Comstock:
An intensive recruiting drive was mounted which ultimately increased the number of inspectors --
from 36 to nearly 100 ir. less than two years.
New managers and supervisors were also added.
To aid the hiring camp'ign, new recruits were a
paid higher salaries than were currently being paid to more senior employees.
As a result, inspector salary level impactior occurred.
Repeated salary scale adjustment s which followed did not alter the senior inspectors' perception of salary instability and inequity.
Extended use of overtime, including for some a fifty-eight hour work week, created a condi-tion in which inspectors became accustomed to receiving substantial overtime pay.
There-after, reducing cvertime for any reason aroused dissatisfaction because it caused a loss of income which had come to be expected.
Inspectors were offered opportunities to earn additional pay by qualifying for additional j
types of inspections; however, this opportunity was partly frustrated in the beginning by lack i
of a full-time training coordinator which limited chances for prompt qualification.
4 Increased attrition occurred as experienced inspectors left for better paying jobs.
l j ()
4 Thus, over a short period of time the organization, t
k already facing work backlogs, experienced explosive i
growth, new management, salary instability, extensive
. = _
. n(/
overtics, and increased attrition.
Such a formidable collection of problems is not unexpected when an organization is confronted with a workload far beyond its immediately available means and finds that it is unable to add new personnel at che necessary rate because of a tight hiring market, uncompetitive salaries, and training lead time.
Resorting to extensive overtime can help for a limited period, but continued use usually brings lower productivity and increased absenteeism, followed by dissatisfaction when overtime is reduced.
The unicni:ation drive in the summer of 1984 appears to have : re at a time when the existing icvel of empicyer-empicyee problems, includi..g wide re-sentment of an ccerbsaring supervisor, had already been exacerbated by the unusual circumstances noted above.
Q.13.
In your opinion, what effect would the problems which you have enumerated have had on the attitudes and be-havior of the inspectors?
A.13.
I believe they would have had se'veral effects.
- First, there would have been loss of confidence in Comstock's A
(_j OC management because they were apparently unprepared for such a substantial increase in work demand, and, in' retrospect, seemed slow to adjust to it.
Their
= _ - -
i
=..
)
handling of recruiting, pay adjustments, and training incentives must have appeared to the inspectors as late, inadequate, and, in respect to salaries, unfair to senior employees.
Comments made to the NRC during the inspectors' visits on March 29 and in inspectors' testimony show wide dissatisfaction with man;gement and compensation.
f Accompanying this loss of confidence and resentment there would probably be a greater aggressiveness in i
noticing and openly criticizing other management actions.
I would expect a noticeable increase in outward ex-4 pressions of inspector dissatisfaction with supervisory pressur.s.
Minor personnel difficulties would tend to become difficult problems and problems would tend to 4
become weighty grievances.
The level of sensitivity j
to all usas of authority and to perceived affronts or inecuities would rise.
Individual inspectors' testiraony 4
on the visits of March 29 to the NRC office demonstrate this.
These revealed a spectrum of complaints, including undeserved supervisory discipline, favoritism in overtime, production pressure, dissatisfaction with Quality First Teams, and insufficient inspectors.
I believe that a unionization drive, in these 4
circumstances, would heighten existing unrest, magnify personal differences between supervisors and f ()
inspectors, and elevate the intensity of employer-employee controversies.
Activism in support of employee i
i l.- -
' f%
grievances is one of the customary ways of demon-strating the patential of union power.
The intensive criticism of Saklak during the March 29 visits, for' affronts extending over a substantial period 6f time, is an example of genuine resentment finally reaching the point of action, possibly under the stimulEs of union encouragement.
ii 0.14.
How does this bear on the issue of harassment and intimidation?
e A.14.
It shows, in my opinion, that the group job actions of the inspectors, both these taken and those. con-templated, can be explained through an understanding a
f of their whole work environment.
Their beha,vior under the circumstances should.not have been unexpected.
However, the central issue raised by the' contention i
is not these. group actions of the inspectors.
It is that widespread harassment and intimidation of in-spectors discouraged them from identifying and correct-
[
/
ing deficiencies in safety-related components and systems.
In support of this contention intervenors cite examples of employer-employ'ee confrontations over 1
work quantity and work procedures, cases of inspector r
\\
discipline, and the two group visits to the NRC to complain of production pressures and supervisory l
harasst:ent.
no
s
.9
.;~
e f
(),
The intervenor would have us believe that the complaints
'[,
of production pressures and supervisory harassment which the inspectors made to the NRC on March 29 must be part of an
~
overall behavior pattern which included widespread misin-spections, either deliberate or in some manner taking place without the inspectors' knowledge.
Quite to the contrary, I
(
believe that the inspectors' action of taking their grievances f
to'the NRC is entirely understandable when one considers all of the motivating forces at work.
In my opinion, this was a job action taken by a group of angry, frustrated inspec-1 l
tors who had lost confidence in and contact with their manage-ment.
g)
Despite the inspectors' complaints on March 29, they have i
U subsequently testified that the effectiveness of their in-spections was not adversely affected by the production pres-i sures and harassment of which they spoke, and that they con-
~
tinued to do their jobs in a professional manner.
In my
{
opinion this is a consistent and believable position.
7 I see a compelling distinction between an inspector's be-havior as an individual practitioner of his craft and his be-L havior as a member of a group presenting grievances.
V ;,~
i An inspector usually works alone at the inspection site.
1[a He is engaged in a professional task to which he brings only l
'two essential qualifications -- his technical skills and his personal integrity.
I have learned from dealing with inspec-f ()
tors that they are proud and protective of both.
These l
i represent their job security and their families' live-t lihood, but, even more important, these are their l
].,
badge of acceptance in the work arena.
I suggest to
A
]
this Board that an inspector working alone at his job will scrupulously protect there, his most basic assets, unaf-fected by external group dissension.
i As a member of a grievance-bearing group, however, the i
inspector would behave much as any other person in like cir-cumstances.
There was intense pressure on LKC inspectors to reduce inspection backlogs and keep pace with construction.
While this was normal under the circumstances, it could be ex-pected to cause some supervisor-inspector friction.
Additiona factors such as salary inequities and extreme overtime tended to amplify such problems.
The behavior of an overbearing, abusive supervisor provided a focus and a
'(
target for a range of persistent grievances.
Had there been healthy management-employee relationships, such prob-lems might have been resolved with less difficulty, but under the collective stress of events and with unionization pressures, this was not possible.
Group protest actions resulted.
Group protest actions taking place in an atmosphere of mistrust and tension and encouraged by union activism are, in my opinion, consistent with the simultaneous per-formance of effective inspections.
The inspectors' group actions emphasized group complaints.
They sought relief from affronts suffered in common.
On the other hand, individual inspections performed during this same O
period were guided by each inspector's professional values, whien were deeply felt and personal.
-M-
(~/1 I believe that these separate, concurrent courses s
of action are consistent with one another.
They remind us that, whereas conditions of employment are negotiable, an inspector's professional code is not.
Q.15.
Have you reviewed Comstock Procedures 4.11.1 "Nor.-
conforming Items," 4.11.2 " Corrective Action," and 4.11.3 "Stop Work," and if so what is your opinion as to their adequacy for use by a construction contractor engaged in nuclear construction?
A.15.
Yes.
I have reviewed these three procedures, as well O'
as Comstock's Policy Statement 1.0.0 which provides that Cuality Assurance personnel be " independent from the pressures of rroduction."
In my opinion these doc-uments vest in the Quality Assurance Manager, the Quality Control Manager, and Quality Control Inspectors adequate authority, responsibility, and procedural direction for the topics covered.
I see no significant flaw in any of them.
Q.16.
Would you review the circumstances of NCR 93099 and state whether you believe that Comstock handled it cor-rectly and in accordance with the policies and procedures.
referred to in my previous question?
, 1
A.16 Yes.
NCR #3099 states that Comstock did not have a welding
. p (sl procedure qualified to AWS Dl.1-1975 Code which was suitable for welding ASTM A36 material to ASTM A446 material.
It further stated that all previous welding of these two mater-ials was therefore " indeterminate."
Investigation revealed that the NCR was incorrect on Loth points.
The Weld Procedure Specification 4.33 then in use, supported by a Procedure Qualification Record, was suitable for welding either A500 or A36 to A446 under the provisions of AWS Code contained in para graphs 5.5.1.1, 8.2, 10.2, and Table 4.1.1.
3ecause of the previously validated procedure, earlier welding of A36 to A446 using procedure 4.3.3 was not correctly characterized as inde-terminate.
There was no reason to question the soundness of
(}
these earlier welds or to consider removing or replacing any of them.
Frocedure 4.3.3 did not specifically list A36 material, and because of this omission, the procedure was unclear and I
may have been in error.
This condition was corrected by addin A36 to the procedure's list of acceptable materials.
It is worth noting that, because of this omission, the suitability of Procedure 4.3.3 would not have been readily ap-parent to anyone unfamiliar with the background of the proced-ure, the Procedure Qualification Record which suppurted it, and the provisions of the AWS Code concerning procedure qualification.
A question arises as to whether the welding of A-36 to
()
A-446 should have been stopped until the procedure was cor-rected by the addition of A-36.
In my opinion this would have been inappropriate for two reasons.
- First, the NCR was incorrect in both of its principal points, w
It was incorrect in stating that Comstock did not have a qualifiet procedure to weld A-36 to A-446, and it was incorrect in stating that all previous welding of A-36 to A-446 was indeterminate.
Second, the Comstock Stop Work Procedure 4.11.3, Paragraph 2.1, commenting on the authority of the Quality Control Manager, states "This permits immediate stoppage of any activity in the event that, in the opinion of the Quality contro2 Manager, further processing or use is likely to cause need for significant repair or removal, or when a hold tag has been ignored." (under-lining addad).
There was no evidence that any faulty welds had been made and there was no reason to believe 4
that continued welding of A36 to A446 using Frocedure 4.3.3 would cause faulty welds or a need for repair or removal.
Under any circumstances, stopping work is disruptive and costly.
In this case no purpose would have been served by stopping work, and the Stop Work Frocedure did not require or suggest it.
I believe the decision not to stop work was correct.
1 cm i
%)
(
RESUME ROBERT V. LANEY 24 Trout Farm Lane Duxbury, MA 02332 t
Phone: 617-585-8912 i
Robert V. Laney is a consultant in nuclear energy and energy project management.
He has broad executive and technical experience in power plant design and operation; in energy research and development; and in the construction and operation of large energy projects.
His working experience includes extensive periods in operating power plants for the U. S. Navy; in the Navy nuclear power development program; in nuclear ship construction; and in assessment of nuclear plant design,in energy research and developme construction, and operation.
While an officer in the Navy, Mr. Laney, in 1948, became one of a small group of engineers chosen ~ by Admiral H. G. Rickover to assist him in developing nuclear power plants for naval ship propulsion.
He served as Project Manager for the development, design, and construction of the
(
land prototyp-of the Sea Wolf nuclear power plant and participated in the construction of the first nuclear submarines, the U.S.S. Nautilus and Sea Wolf.
These were followed by responsibilities in applying nuclear power to surface ships and the first nuclear power station at Shippingport, Pennsylvania.
While Naval representative at the Bettis Laboratory in Pittsburgh, Mr. Laney developed the first comprehensive quality assurance program for the Navy's network of nuclear propulsion plant suppliers.
In 1959, as a civilian, Mr. Laney moved into nuclear ship construction at the General Dynamics Shipyard in Quincy, Massachusetts.
In 1963, he was appointed Vice-President and General Manager.
In this capacity, he was responsible for the design and construction of a number of nuclear powered surface ships and submarines.
In 1970, he turned to the development of more advanced energy technologies when he was asked by the Univer-sity of Chicago to become Associate Director of the Argonne National Laboratory, devoted to developing a range of new energy options.
He later became Deputy Director with additional responsibility for engineering development and Laboratory 1
administration.
During this period he directed programs for developing breeder reactors, improved coal combustion,
(])
conservation technologies, high-efficiency batteries, and nuclear fusion.
Exhibit A
-m P
(
He retired frcm Argonne in 1979 to become a s
private consultant in nucisar power.
Some of his recent activities are listed here:
1979-80 Participated as member of Senior Advisory Panel to the Chairman of Commonwealth Edison to evaluate the Company's nuclear energy program in light of Three Mile Island.
1979-80 Participated as member of an Advisory Committee to the President of General Public Utilities to evaluate personnel selection and training, man / machine interface, and c:mmunications at Three Mile Island.
1980-81 Assisted the Department of Energy to find suitable ways to solidify and remove high-level radioactive wastes stored at West Valley, NY.
1980-82 Led a team which evaluated and advised the Managing Director in ways to improve the nuclear engineering and construction programs of the Washington Public Power Supply System.
1981-82 Led a committee Of experts formed to advise the D3partment of Energy concerning the merits of various A
processes for v trifying high-level nuclear waste.
1982 Testified hefere the Department of Public Utilities on behalf of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the matter of the cancellation of Boston Edison's tilgrim II Nuclear Power Station.
1982 Testified before the Department of Public Utilities on behalf of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with regard to the duration of a refuel-ing outage of Ecston Edison's Pilgrim I Nuclear Station.
1983 As consultant te Houston Lighting and Power Company, performed an evaluation of the Engineering Assurance Program for their South Texas nuclear station.
1982-83 Led a panel which audited the Washington Public Power Supply System's program for verifying the design and construction of their WNP-2 nuclear station.
1983 Assisted Admiral Rickover in preparing an assessment of GPU Nuclear Corporation's management competence to operate TMI-1.
1983-84 Participated as member of a special study group which advised the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on c'~
means to improve the design and construction quality of commercial reactor plants.
1984 Provided testimony in the Byron licensing haaring concerning the implication of the QC inspector requalification program to construction quality.
1984 Became a member of GPU Nuclear Board of Directors m.
. '(^
1984 Chairman of panel of experts responsible to evaluate Houston Lighting and Power Company's program for assuring the design adequacy of its South Texas nuclear station.
1984 Chairman of a panel of experts responsible to conduct a continuing evaluation of Virginia Electric Power's operation of the North Anna nuclear station.
1985-86 Served as a member of an independent oversight committee to evaluate and advise Commonwealth Edison on the Braidwood Construction Assessment Program.
Mr. Laney holds a B.S. degree from the U. S. Naval Academy, an M.S. degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and an MBA from the University of Chicago.
MS
i ROBERT V.
LANEY -
Employment History January 25, 1984 to Present Member GPU Nuclear Board of Directors and Chairman of Board Committee on Safety November 1, 1979 to Present Consultant in Nuclear Project Management 1972 to November 1, 1979 Deputy Director, Argonne National Laboratory, University of Chicago.
Responsible for all applied re-search and development, and for Laboratory administration of this 5300 person institution.
1970-1972 Associate Director, Argonne National Laboratory, responsible for nuclear reactor research and development.
1964-1970 Vice President and General Manager of Quincy (Massachusetts)
(
Shipyard Division of General Dynamics.
(8500 employees) 1960-1964 Nuclear Design and Construction Manager of Quincy Shipyard of Bethlehem Steel Company.
1954-1960 As U.
S.
Naval Captain, technical representative of the Atomic Energy Commission at the Westinghouse Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory, Pittsburgh.
1948-1954 Reactor Development Project Manager in the Naval Reactor Program of the Atomic Energy Commission and the Navy's Bureau of Ships, Washington, DC.
1939-1948 Active duty Naval officer; various duties at sea and ashore.
Engineer office on carrier, destroyer, and battleship.
(~
=,..
ATTACEntgr g 4'
m 1.
" Motion to Admit claims of Intimidation and Harassment of l
Comstock Quality Control Inspectors",date July 13, 1985.
2.
" Supplement to July 12, 1985 Motions Regarding Harassment and Intimidation of Comstock Quality Control Inspectors, dated July 15, 1985.
3.
" Memorandum and Order Admitring Harassment and Intimidation Issue," dated May 2, 1986.
4.
Comstock procedures 4.11.1 " Nonconforming Items; 4.11.2 " Corrective Action;" and 4.11.3 "Stop Work."
5.
LK Comstock Policy Statement 1.0.0, May 1, 1980.
6.
LK Comstock Non Conformance Report 3099, August 17, 1984 7.
Testimony of:
D. P.
Ilgen, dated April 25, 1986 Richard D. Arvey, dated May 2, 1986 David J. Mckirnan, dated May 2, 1986 i
William S. Little, undated Rogelio Mendez, undated John H. Neisler, undated Jerome F.
Schapker, undated Thomas Maiman, dated April, 1986 James Gieseker, dated April, 1986 Irving F. Dewald, dated April, 1986 Robert V.
Seltman, dated April, 1986 Larry Seese, dated April, 1986 Anthony T.
Simile, dated April, 1986 Randall Kurtz, dated April, 1986 James Louden, dated April, 1986-J. R. Vannier, dated April, 1986 8.
Abstracts of Depositions of Richard Saklak, March 24, 1986 Herschel W. Stout, Jr., February 24, 1986 Dean L. Peterson, undated Michael S. Mustered, March 5, 1986 ichard Snyder, January 29, 1986
?
f
,7
&cmwe
')$ '
06rs e, u
m w
i
.,.a 4~
'(
Myra Sproull, January 29, 1986 Timothy H. Stewart, January 28, 1986 Larry A. Perryman, March 3, 1986 Richard L. Martin, March 3, 1986 Danny R. Holley, January 28, 1986 R. Doyne Hunter, January 28, 1986 9.
Certain Board Examinations, Sonntag pages:
1790-1819 2223-2226 3003-3026 1948-1952 2235-2246 3039-3041 2091-2095 2331-2383 2116-2128 2516-2526 2166-2172 2759-2762 2179-2183 2897-2927 2187-2190 2963-2965 2204-2212 2981-2984 fS-
17246 s
1 MR. STEPTOE:
That concludes my direct.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Guild?
3 MR. GUILD:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
4 Good afternoon, Mr. Laney.
I'm sorry to keep you 5
waiting here while these preliminary matters were 6
discussed.
7 CROSS EXAMINATION 8
BY MR. GUILD:
9 0
You have worked before for Commonwealth Edison Company, 10 before engaging in the work that's the subject of your i
11 testimony --
12 A
Yes, I have.
13 0
-- on several occasions?
14 I believe first you were employed in 1979 by 15 Commonwealth Edison to advise them on TMI-related 16 matters; is that correct?
17 A
That's correct.
18 0
As they might impact Edison's operating f acilities?
19 A
That's correct.
20 0
All right, sir.
21 And subsequently you were retained by Commonwealth 22 Edison Company to present testimony in the Byron 23 proceeding?
24 A
That's correct.
25 0
And you did so?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17247
'^(d N
1 A
Yes, I did.
2 0
on the subject of the qualification of Quality control 3
Inspector s?
4 A
No, no.
The testimony was on the value of the 5
reinspection data which was taken for the purpose of 6
validating Quality Control Inspectors.
7 My testimony was on the value which that data had, 8
if any, on the quality of the construction.
9 0
I see.
10 I meant to say the general issue in that proceeding 11 to which your testimony was addressed was the
()
12 qualification of Byron CC Inspectors, was it not?
13 A
That was the subject of the program, but my testimony 14 did not relate to the qualification of inspectors.
15 0
Understood.
All right, sir.
16 And then subsequently you were retained to serve on 17 the Independent Expert Overview Group for the Braidwood 18 Construction Assessment Program?
19 A
Yes, sir.
20 0
All right, sir.
21 And finally you were retained to perform the work 22 that's the subject of your testimony in this proceeding?
23 A
Yes, sir.
24 0
All right, sir.
( )
25 Now, I take it that you have been paid a fee to Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17248
(-s 3 s
V 1
perform all of those services for Edison?
2 A
That's correct.
3 0
All right, sir.
4 And can you tell us what the basis is for your fee 5
for the work that's the subject of this testimony, sir?
6 A
In 1979, which was my first assignment for this client, 7
my memory is it was perhaps $50 a day.
Today it's $100.
8 0
All right, sir.
9 And can you estimate what your total --
10 A
Excuse me; $100 an hour, not a day.
11 (Laughter.)
12 On the current job, my estimate in round numbers --
13 and it's only an estimate, Mr. Guild --
14 0
Yes, sir.
15 A
-- is about $15,000.
16 0
All right, sir.
17 In addition, I understand that you've done a number 18 of other pieces of work for the commercial nuclear power 19 industry and that you currently serve on the Board of 20 Directors of General Public Utilities, the operator of 21 Three Mile Island?
22 A
Yes, sir.
l 23 0
And I take it that you also were remunerated for serving 24 on the GPU Board?
l 25 A
Yes.
I l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
T 17249 1
Q All right, sir.
2 Nou, your work prior to becoming a consultant 3
included work involving the construction of Navy ships, 4
nuclear-propelled submarines as well?
5 A
And surface ships.
6 0
And surface ships?
7 A
Yes.
8 0
All right, sir.
9 And that was at the Quincy shipyard in 10 Massachusetts, was it not?
11 A
That's correct.
12 0
All right.
13 Now, I understand that you served in two capacities 14 there:
One was as the senior production manager in 15 charge of the nuclear aspects of that work?
16 A
Yes, sir.
17 0
All right, sir.
18 A
And engineering.
I was a nuclear superintendent for all 19 nuclear work.
20 0
And later the General Manager of the facility?
21 A
Yes, sir.
22 O
And in that capacity I take it that the person holding 23 the position that you had formerly held reported to you?
24 A
That's correct.
25 0
All right, sir.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17250 G'
1 In both positions you were responsible for matters 2
involving cost and schedule as they impacted the 3
construction of surface ships --
4 A
I was.
5 0
-- and submarines?
6 A
Yes.
7 0
And in the latter position -- that is, the position of 8
General Manager -- you were responsible both for cost 9
and schedule considerations as well as Quality Assurance 10 considerations?
11 A
Well, I was responsible for quality in both positions.
IN 12 0
That wasn't exactly my question.
13 I take it that you were responsible for quality in 14 that you had to assure that the engineering and 15 construction work was done to standards?
16 A
Yes.
17 0
All right, sir.
18 But I understood from our discussion yesterday 19 evening that in your former position -- that is, the 20 nuclear --
21 A
Superintendent.
22 0
-- superintendent -- that the Quality Assurance 23 organization of the company reported not to you but to 24 your superior.
25 A
That's correct.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
j Geneva, 1111nois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17251
.m 1
0 All right, sir.
2 And so you, in effect, were the senior man in 3
charge of the coat and schedule matters, the production 4
side; and there was another man -- or woman, perhaps --
5 in charge of Quality Assurance who did not report to you 6
directly at that time?
7 A
Yes, that's correct.
8 Q
But then when you took the latter position -- that is, 9
the General Manager position -- you were the first-level 10 manager of the company to whom both Production and 11 Quality Assurance reported?
[d 12 A
That's correct.
13 0
All right.
14 In that capacity, it was your responsibility to 15 balance the Quality Assurance and the cost and schedule 16 considerations, as they both impacted upon the work 17 under your direction?
18 A
That's correct.
19 0
But during your course of work in the construction of 20 nuclear-powered submarines and surf ace ships, your 21 responsibilities have been as a manager, a manager over 22 the production side of the work; correct?
23 A
Well, as we've just covered, not exclusively the 24 production side.
I had responsibilities for the quality C) 25 as well as the production.
(
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17252 r~'N 1
0 I didn't mean to suggest exclusively.
2 In the former position, you didn't have Quality 3
Assurance responsibilities directly; the Quality 4
Assurance arm did not report to you?
5 A
That's correct.
6 0
But in both positions you had cost and schedule and 7
production responsibilities?
8 A
That is true.
9 0
And to the extent that you had relations with persons 4
10 who performed Quality Assurance functions, your 11 experience with them would be the experience of a person 12 who also had production cost and schedule 13 responsibilities?
14 A
That is true.
15 0
And in that capacity, f rom what you told me last night, 16 I understand that you had dealings with persons who 17 performed inspections of the construction work in 18 positions analogous to Quality Control Inspectors at a 19 commercial nuclear power plant?
20 A
Yes.
21 0
They didn't call them " Quality Control Inspectors," I 22 take it.
23 A
Well, I might just answer that by saying that when I 24 first went to the Quincy yard, there was no Quality
)
25 Control Department as such because they were building Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17253 D
(G 1
tankers.
They had inspectors, but they had no broad 2
Quality Control organization.
One of my early jobs was 3
to create one.
4 This meant bringing into the trades and the 5
activities of the yard a type of overview that they had 6
not been accustomed to --
7 0
Yes, sir.
8 A
-- and this introduced considerable tension.
9 But the institution of Quality Assurance in the 10 shipyard, anticipating the nuclear work, was one of my 11 responsibilities.
(G) 12 O
All right, sir.
13 And you served at the shipyard for a period of what 14 appears to be 11 years:
1959 until 1970?
15 A
1970, that's correct.
16 Q
All right, sir.
17 And that was the period you referred to where there 18 was this development of a Quality Assurance program?
19 A
The early part of it was.
20 When I went there, as I say, they were building 21 tankers.
The Long Beach, the first nuclear surface 22 ship, was just beginning construction.
i 23 When I left the yard, they were building only 24 nuclear submarines; so the whole transition took place 25 in the early years that I was there.
l l
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134
A 17254 CT sg 1
0 All right, sir.
2 Now, you have undertaken in this testimony to 3
review the record in this proceeding, and you identified 4
specifically what the sources were that you have 5
reviewed.
6 But they, as you understand it, represent portions 7
of the record in this case; is that right?
8 A
Yes -- well, I would -- I would direct your attention to 9
my Attachment B on a page and a half, which lists the 10 things which I read.
On an earlier page I list the 11 interviews which I held.
That's on Page 7.
12 I just amended the attachment by adding the four 13 additional items of testimony which I read.
14 But if you take what appears on Page 7 and what 15 appears in Appendix B, that covers the material that 16 I've reviewed.
17 0
I see.
18 A
The items which I added this morning, I might say, Mr.
19 Guild, became available to me after I had prepared my 20 testimony and have not influenced it.
21 0
Thank you.
That's helpful.
22 Your opinion is based, then, on the review of those 23 materials which you have read as well as based on your 24 experience which you describe in your testimony?
' ()
(j 25 A
Yes, sir.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17255 1
Q All right.
2 And is it fair to say, Mr. Laney, that the 3
materials that you've read, including those interviews 4
referred to at Page 7 that you conducted -- that those 5
same matters are available to this Board in the record 6
of this proceeding?
7 A
Yes, they are.
8 0
All right.
9 And you have read portions of the transcript of 10 this proceeding, for example, where members of the Board 11 have asked questions of witnesses.
(J h
12 Have those questions been a guide to you in 13 identifying the subjects which you have elected to focus 14 on in your testimony?
15 A
Yes.
16 0
All right, sir.
17 Now, as a person with the experience you have, you 18 make a point, Mr. Laney, that there is an inherent 19 conflict between cost and schedule, on the one hand, and 20 Quality control considerations, on the other.
21 Is that a fair understanding of your testimony?
22 A
Yes.
23 0
All right, sir.
24 And that it's the task of a manager or of 25 management to appropriately and effectively balance 1
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
f l
17256 I
those conflicting interests?
2 A
No, that isn't a part of my testimony, although that is 3
one of the duties of a manager.
4 But that duty also devolves upon the craft.
The 5
craftsman himself --
6 0
Yes, sir.
7 A
-- must serve both quality and production.
8 0
Well, I want to focus for a moment on management.
9 Can we agree that there is a responsibility that 10 management has --
11 A
Yes.
(T 12 0
-- to appropriately and effectively balance those 13 considerations?
14 A
Yes.
15 0
All right, sir.
16 Now, when a manager has those conflicting 17 considerations in mind -- and a production manager does 18 have all three considerations -- that is, cost, schedule 19 and quality -- in mind, does he not?
20 A
Yes.
21 0
-- is he in a different position, in your opinion, from 22 a Quality Assurance individual -- let's take a Quality 23 Cvntrol Inspector -- with respect to the obligation to 24 consider cost, schedule and quality?
25 A
Yes, I think he's in a dif ferent position.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 6U134 (312) 232-0262
r-L 17257 00 1
0 All right.
2 Can we agree that it's the primary responsibility 3
of the Quality Assurance individual -- say, a Quality 4
Control Inspector -- to assure quality --
5 A
Yes.
6 0
-- to recognize and implement the quality requirements?
7 A
Yes.
8 0
All right, sir.
9 On the other hand, it's the production side, the 10 manager for production, who must consider not just 11 quality but the cost and schedule matters?
12 A
Yes.
V) g 13 0
All right.
14 Now, I think you allude to the fact that in order 15 to be effective, that both the quality side and the 16 production side must work together as a team.
17 I believe you use that term.
18 A
Well, I would just say the inspection side, to 19 distinguish between inspection and Quality Assurance.
20 0
Let's take inspection --
21 A
The inspection side.
22 0
-- Quality Control.
23 Do I understand correctly from your testimony that 24 it's your belief that the Quality control Inspectors and j
q}
25 the production-side people, craf ts and craf t l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17258 V) 1 supervision, must work together as a team?
2 A
Yes.
3 0
All right, sir.
4 And you mention how it's necessary for the quality 5
people, Quality Control people, to be aware, for 6
example, of the schedule requirements of the production 7
side in order to have available enough manpower to 8
fulfill the Quality Control function, for example?
9 A
Yes.
10 0
And you mention that it's also important for the 11 production people, on the other hand, to have access to 12 the results of the Quality Control inspection so that 13 they may take that inf ormation about quality into 14 account in managing the the craf t side of the work?
15 A
Yes, sir.
16 0
And I believe that you emphasized that in order to be 17 effective, Quality control inspections must be performed 18 in a timely manner --
l 19 A
Yes.
20 0
-- so that they can provide timely information, as we've l
21 just discussed, to the production side?
i 22 A
Yes.
23 0
Now, aside from the question of providing inspections --
l 24 inspection results -- excuse me -- in a timely fashion 25 to the production side of the organization, can we agree i
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 17259 i
1 that there is no other consideration that a Quality 2
Control Inspector is responsible for giving to matters 3
of cost and schedule?
4 THE WITNESS:
I'd like to hear the question 5
again.
I'm not sure I remember it all.
6 MR. GUILD:
Could the Reporter read it back, 7
please?
8 (The question was thereupon read by the 9
Reporter.)
10 A
Well, you mention in the question " timely results."
11 If we mean by that -- and I think you do -- that it 12 implies that the inspector has some responsibilities 13 towards schedule, then I would say yes, in answer to 14 your question.
15 I want to be sure that my view that I've expressed 16 in my testimony is that Quality Control Inspectors are 17 not without schedule responsibilities.
It is not first 18 and foremost, but they do have such responsibilities.
19 BY MR. GUILD:
20 0
Well, let me pursue that, because I'm not sure that I 21 understand your point now.
22 A Quality Control Inspector has the task of 23 controlling quality, assuring that the requisite levels 24 of quality are achieved in the work.
25 Do we agree?
- l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1 17260 1
A But not exclusively, no.
I don't really agree with 2
that.
3 0
Well, is that a fair characterization of the primary 4
responsibility of a Quality Control Inspector?
5 A
Well, again I would want to amend that to say that the 6
craft, first of all, has a responsibility for quality --
7 Q
Yes.
I'm focusing right now on the --
8 A
-- and that the inspector has a responsibility to verify 9
and to provide feedback on the quality provided by the 10 craft.
11 0
Yes, sir.
Please listen.
The focus of my question 12 right now is the Quality Control Inspector, and I don't 13 mean to imply that the Quality Control Inspector is the 14 only person who gives consideration to these matters.
15 But can we agree, sir, that the Quality Control 16 Inspector -- that his primary responsibility is to 17 assure the quality of the product that's inspected?
18 A
Yes, we can agree on that.
19 0
All right, sir.
20 And you believe he has secondary responsibilities, 21 which include meeting schedule requirements, for 22 example?
23 A
Yes.
24 Q
And those are requirements that are imposed on him by 25 the organization in order to effect the organization's Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17261 n
1 goals of meeting schedule, for example?
2 A
That is correct.
3 Q
All right, sir.
4 But what I want to focus on is the Quality Control 5
Inspector's task.
6 Aside from timely reporting of his results for 7
purposes of feedback to the production side, is there 8
any other basis for the Quality control Inspector to 9
consider schedule in the performance of his quality 10 function?
11 A
No, I don't think there is.
Ih 12 Q
All right, sir.
U 13 And can we agree that to the extent that an 14 inspector requires time, part of a schedule, to assure 15 quality, that taking that time to assure quality may 16 conflict with the organization's goal of meeting a 17 schedule?
That's inconsistent with that task?
18 A
Yes.
It has to come out of the same piece of time.
19 0
All right, sir.
20 But we can agree, can' t we, that since the Quality 21 Control Inspector in this equation -- that is, an 22 equation involving craf tsmen, production supervisors, 23 Quality Control Inspectors, Quality Control supervisors 24
-- since the Quality Control Inspector is the sole CN 25 factor in that equation whose primary responsibility is
()
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
,~
17262
}
(V 1
quality, it falls primarily on that individual, the 2
Quality Control Inspector, to assure that he has 3
sufficient time to perform his Quality Control function?
4 A
And also, though, it falls on his supervisors so that he 5
doesn't have too many inspections to perform; namely, 6
that he's provided enough inspectors so that time is 7
afforded for the inspection.
8 There's a limit to what the inspector can do --
9 0
Yes.
10 He has to rely on --
11 A
-- if he doesn't have enough help from others.
12 0
Yes.
13 He relies on his Quality Control management to give 14 him the freedom to take that time necessary?
15 A
That's correct.
16 0
All right, sir.
17 Now, you perf ormed a review -- based on the 18 evidence in this record, the portions of the evidence 19 that you refer to and on some interviews -- of the 20 circumstances that prevailed for a period of several
(
21 years at the L. K. Comstock Company, did you not?
22 A
I don't know what " circumstances" you refer to.
23 0
Well, sir, let me direct your attention to, for example, l
24 Pages 19 and 20 of your testimony.
25 You respond there to a question that reads as
(
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
A I
17263
L s I
follows:
"What was the extraordinary set of problems i
1 2
confronting Comstock's QC organization from 1983 to 3
early 1985 to which you referred in Answer 6?"
4 A
Yes, I'm with you.
Yes, I understand.
5 0
All right, sir.
6 And you reviewed the circumstances that prevailed L
7 at Comstock at Braidwood during that period of time?
8 A
That's correct.
9 0
And you, I take it, agree with the formulation in the 10 question; that is, that those circumstances reflected an 11 extraordinary set of problems?
12 A
Yes.
13 0
And those problems included, did they not, problems of 14 cost and schedule pressure?
j.
15 A
Well, there was a list in my testimony of a half a dozen 16 problem s.
17 0
And, in your opinion, do they include cost and schedule
,18 pressure?
19 They do, don't they?
20 A
I wasn't so much conscious of cost.
Most clearly, they 21 involved schedule pressure because of the backlog.
22 0
All right, sir.
{
23 They had too much work to do and too few people to i
24 do it?
O) 25 A
That's correct.
q-1' Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17264 O
1 Q
All right, sir.
2 Now, you reached certain conclusions on the basis 3
of the record and your interviews and your experience in 4
this proceeding.
5 Is it fair to summarize those conclusions that the 6
reaction by those inspectors to the circumstances 7
prevailing during that period of years, the 8
extraordinary problems, is not surprising, is 9
predictable; but, in your opinion, it is not 10 inconsistent with them continuing to perform effective 11 Quality control inspections?
12 A
That's correct.
\\
13 0
All right, sir.
Now, let's return to that conclusion in 14 a moment, but first let's talk about some more of the 15 underlying basis for that conclusion.
16 Now, when you speak of a timeliness in a Quality 17 Control inspection, do I understand that timeliness is 18 required for optimal usefulness because the production 19 side needs to have e measure of the quality of the work, 20 production work, ob niable to it at a time when they can 21 effectively identify adverse trends and take corrective 22 action?
23 A
That's correct.
l 24 Q
All right, sir.
(
25 Is that a fair summary of the primary reason why Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17265 (U
1 it's important for inspections to be timely?
2 A
Well, not quite.
3 If you also include the realization that some 4
inspections are done in the course of the craftsman's 5
work --
6 0
Yes, an in-process inspection.
7 A
-- they too must be timely or he stands by, waiting for 8
an inspector.
9 0
Indeed.
10 If he were doing in-process inspections and the QC 11 Inspector was actually looking over the shoulder of the
(
12 craftsman, then it's necessary, in order to get the 13 production work done, for the inspector to be available?
14 A
Correct.
15 0
Laying aside in-process inspections, though, assuming 16 that the inspection reviews completed work, work that's 17 been finally installed, in that circumstance timeliness 18 is necessary in order to provide a feedback mechanism to 19 production management?
20 A
Well, it's -- oh, timeliness is desirable.
Timeliness 21 isn't essential; that is, late information is better 22 than no information.
23 0
Yes, sir.
24 A
But the more timely information avoids the possibility i
)
25 of doing more rework.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17266 s
i 1
0 Yes.
2 Timely information -- timely in what sense, Mr.
3 Laney?
4 A
Timely in the sense of the time which elapses between 5
when the work is done and when the construction people 6
find out what the verdict is on its acceptability.
7 0
When they get their test graded, in effect?
8 A
That's correct.
9 0
All right, sir.
10 Let me find the reference in your testimony to that 11 point, if I might; and let's look first at Page 16 of 12 your prefiled direct testimony, Mr. Laney.
13 In your answer to Question 10, appearing on Page 14 14, which reads, "How can timely inspections be assured 15 and how do they contribute to quality," there you refer 16 to the Project Director when you say "second" on Page 17 16.
1 18 Do you see that, sir?
19 A
On 16?
20 Q
Yes, sir.
21 A
Yes.
22 0
okay.
23 The construction manager "has a vital need for 24 periodic information which is available only from the Oc 25 organization concerning the results of inspections being m/
I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17267 v
1 performed, kinds and causes of discrepancies and 2
inspection backlogs and their trends.
3 "Such inf ormation is essential to assist him in 4
maintaining control of work process quality and in 5
developing future construction plans and schedules."
6 All right, sir.
7 Now, what is " optimal timeliness," as you use the 8
term there, sir, for Quality control inspection?
9 A
The sooner, the better.
A day, if possible; the next 10 morning, if possible.
11 Q
All right, sir.
12 A
The value of the information is optimal the sooner after v'
13 the work is performed that it becomes available.
14 Q
All right.
15 Look at Page 10 of your testimony, about the middle 16 of the page.
17 A
Yes, sir.
18 0
"To be effective, QC must be knit into the total 19 management team, which includes design, procurement, 20 construction and project management.
21 "Furthermore, its information feedback to the other 22 team members must be timely; that is, it must follow 23 closely on work performance if it is to have maximum l
24 usefulness."
b(
25 Now, the same answer here for " maximal usefulness":
j Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17268
/^\\
l as soon as possible?
2 A
Yes.
3 0
A day?
4
'A If possible.
5 0
If possible?
6 A
Yes.
It has to be evaluated information, and a day 7
probably is impractical.
8 But I'm familiar with circumstances where welds 9
were radiographed at night, and the radiographs were 10 read in the morning; and the data on the quality of the 11 weld was available to the Welding Department the next 12 day.
13 0
In the nuclear submarine field?
14 A
Yes, yes.
15 0
All right, sir.
16 Well, are you aware of whether or not the L.
K.
17 Comstock Quality Control inspections were " timely," as 18 you've used the term?
19 A
Well, I think during some of the period that we' re 20 discussing here, beginning in 1984, perhaps a little 21 earlier than that, it was not timely.
22 There was a significant eacklog of old work that 23 had not yet been reinspected -- had not yet been 24 inspected.
)
25 0
Are you aware of what measure Comstock and Commonwealth Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17269 (3
()
1 Edison Company used f or " timely"; that is, for work that 2
was denominated backlogged?
3 A
They strove for 30 days, but hoped for better.
4 0
Yes.
5 A
I don't know how firm the objective of 30 days was, but l
6 I think that was their point of aim, 30 days or 7
better --
8 0
Yes.
9 A
-- in feedback.
10 0
Yes.
11 Well, are you aware, Mr. Laney, that some
(~ )
12 inspections were more than a year old --
N~J 13 A
Yes.
14 0
-- the time elapsed between completion of work and 15 performance of inspection?
16 A
Yes, I am.
17 0
Are you aware that some inspections were even older than 18 that --
19 A
No.
20 0
-- perhaps --
21 A
No.
I don't really have a great understanding of that.
22 But realizing that the backlog of several thousand 23 items existed during the better part of a year, then 24 obviously some of those items must have been that old.
25 0
Yes, sir.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17270 I
i v 1
And many items were several months old, as you 2
understand that?
3 A
Yes, yes.
4 0
We can agree, can't we, that given that backlog and that 5
lack of timeliness, that the Quality Control inspections 6
for L.
K.
Comstock, at least during that period, clearly 7
failed to serve the function that you refer to as 8
"providing feedback to the construction management"?
9 A
Well, they failed in meeting the optimum; but as I 10 pointed out earlier, feedback information is useful at 11 any time.
It's better sooner.
12 Q
Yes.
All right, sir.
13 Now, let's talk about quotas a moment.
14 We can agree -- I guess no one would disagree in 15 all frames of reference:
Rigid quotas in the frame of 16 reference of a Quality Control Inspector's work is bad, 17 isn't it?
4 18 That's your testimony, in substance?
19 A
Well, I don't know that I used the word " bad."
20 Would you elaborate on that or maybe refer me to my 21 testimony?
22 0
Sure.
I'm look looking in particular at Page 18.
23
" Quotas would obviously deprive an inspector of 24
' sufficient independence from cost and schedule' to 25 perform his work effectively and would threaten one of Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17271 1
the basic requirements for control of quality."
2 It would be bad, wouldn't it, in that sense?
3 A
Yes.
4 I'm using the word " quota" -- and I assume you are, 5
Mr. Guild -- as a firm requirement; so many inspections 6
per hour or per day, no matter what.
7 0
Yes.
8 At Page 17 you provide your definition of that 9
term, I guess, the definition that you apply when you 10 concluded that would be bad.
11 That is, "a mandatory number of inspections with 12 the requirement that that number be performed by an 13 inspector in a certain time period."
14 A
Yes.
15 0
All right, sir.
16 But you opine that using what you call " average 17 expected levels of inspector performance," not quotas, 18 is not only not bad; it's needed?
19 A
Well, you should, when you take that quote, include the 20 balance of it, which says "with flexibility to allow for 21 variable work conditions."
22 0
Right, and that's what is implied by the word " average,"
23 isn't it?
" Average" includes some which are greater --
24 A
Yes.
b) 25 0
-- and some which are lesser?
(
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. = -.-..-.
i 17272 O( >
1 A
Yes, fair enough.
2 Q
All right, sir.
3 Now, I take it that using what you say is not a 4
quota -- that is, an average expected level of inspector 5
performance with flexibility, et cetera -- requires 6
someone to establish what is a reasonable level of 7
expected performance?
8 A
Yes.
9 0
All right.
10 And in order to use that measure, one also then has 11 to compare actual inspector performance against that 12 reasonable measure?
13 A
Possibly.
That's one way to do it.
14 Q
All right, sir.
15 Well, if you're doing this for -- you do this for 16 more than one purpose?
17 A
Yes.
18 0
You do this for scheduling work in advance, planning; 19 correct?
20 A
Yes.
21 Q
And you also do it for measuring your effectiveness in 22 meeting that plan?
23 A
Well, more importantly, you do it to determine whether 24 you need to be hiring and how soon and how many and what 25 kind.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17273 bv 1
0 All right.
That's perhaps one interest.
2 But you determine that piece of information, 3
whether you ought to be hiring, based on a comparison of 4
how you're doing with how you expected to do; is that 5
right?
6 A
I think that's correct.
7 0
All right, sir.
8 A
I think the average level that you assume, for purposes 9
of forward planning, is certainly based in part on what 10 you have customarily achieved plus any improvements 11 through increased efficiency or other measures that you I
T 12 have been able to bring about.
So you project, based on
]
13 all of those factors --
14 0
Yes.
15 A
-- what you expect that you may do in the next time 16 period.
17 0
All right, sir.
18 Well, let's take the down side of that, and let's 19 assume, Mr. Laney, that your experience fails to match l
20 up with your expectations; that is, your actual rates of l
21 production for Quality Control Inspectors expressed on 22 the basis of, using your term, average expected levels 23 of inspector performance fails to measure up.
l l
24 You get less inspections done per unit of time than 25 you projected that you would get done, all right.
l l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
17274 1
Now, that happens, does it not?
2 A
Sure.
3 0
Okay.
l 4
Now, when that happens, that might reflect some S
erosion in the efficiency of the Quality control I
6 Inspector; correct?
7 A
It might.
8 0
It might affect an unrealistic set of expectations, on 9
the other hand?
10 A
It might reflect that.
11 Q
All right.
12 There are basically two sides to the equation, are 13 there not?
i.
14 You fail to meet your projections; either your 15 projections were unrealistic -- they were too high -- or 16 your ability to meet those projections was too 17 optimistic?
You expected too much of your people?
18 A
Yes, or you have not afforded them all of the assistance 19 or other means that you might.
20 0
Or they're not performing up to what you expect?
21 A
So you would adjust your average expectation.
l 22 0
Yes, or you would do something to increase their 23 productivity?
I 24 A
Yes.
25 0
All right.
r Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
[
(312) 232-0262
17275 r~~s IU) 1 And that "something" might be making them more 2
efficient by providing them better tools?
3 A
Uh-huh, yes.
4 0
It might be making them more efficient by providing them 5
clearer instructions, mightn't it?
6 A
Yes.
7 0
It might be making them more efficient by providing them 8
better training?
9 A
Yes.
10 0
All right.
11 But it also might be making them more productive by f'
12 simply driving them harder?
(.
13 A
Working overtime?
14 0
Okay.
Working overtime is one possibility.
15 In that case you may not increase your rate of 16 production over unit of time, but you increase your 17 total production over time; correct?
18 A
Yes.
19 0
All right.
j 20 There are limits to overtime, and you acknowledge 21 that, don't you?
22 At some point individual efficiency begins to 23 decline if you use too much overtime?
24 A
Yes.
25 0
People stop -- if they have to work nights, extended l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
17276 q
1 shifts every day, they may be absent on occasion more 2
often simply because they can't keep up the workload?
3 A
That's true.
4 0
All right, sir.
5 And it certainly may adversely affect performance 6
even if they're on the job; at some point people just 7
don' t perf orm any more, even though they' re there longer 8
hours?
9 A
That's true.
10 0
They get tired, for example?
11 A
Yes.
I}
12 0
So overtime, simply working people more hours, is not D
13 always an effective means for increasing production, is 14 it?
15 A
Overtime, like so many things, has to be used where it's 16 appropriate and suspended when it ceases to be.
17 0
Indeed.
All right, sir.
18 But now laying aside adding more hours of work --
19 that's overtime -- or adding more people to do the work 20
-- that's more inspectors -- another means for 21 increasing production is simply driving the inspectors 22 in the same unit of time harder, making them produce 23 more units?
24 A
Well, that wouldn't strike me as being one of the 25 avenues by which you would expect to pick up very much.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17277 J (
\\
1 I can think of two or three others that you haven't l
2 mentioned that you would do first.
3 0
Why don' t you mention the ones you can think of first?
4 A
Well, one would be what I think was done in the Comstock 5
case, which was to reach out and get people f rom other 6
organizations that could assemble -- do the research to 7
assemble the data that the inspectors needed, rather 8
than having them do it.
9 0
That's one thing.
10 What else?
11 A
So, in effect, they expanded their number of inspectors Ih 12 in the field.
b 13 0
All right.
14 What else?
15 A
Sir?
16 0
I'm sorry.
You had another thing in mind that could be i
17 done?
l 18 A
There were some modifications made to procedures.
I 19 don't remember the nature of those, but the aim was to f
20 improve efficiency of the inspectors.
21 It was clear that -- in theory, at least -- it l
22 would.
l l
23 0
Did that reduce the task required of the inspectors?
I j
24 A
Of the inspectors.
1 l
25 Somebody else was able to do it for them by
(
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
)
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
17278 1
modifying the procedures so that the inspector did not 2
have to do it himself.
3 0
All right, sir.
You've mentioned two items.
4 But those both involve adding further raw materials 5
to the process?
6 A
More resources, that's right.
7 0
More resources?
8 A
More resources.
9 0
What I'm suggesting, though, is:
Isn't it also 10 possible, when one is f aced with a failure to meet your 11 schedule requirements and you don't want to add more 12 resources or you can't add more resources for one reason s
13 or another -- time or people or you can't reduce the 14 task -- that you drive the existing resources harder; 15 you drive the inspectors harder in a given unit of time 16 to perform more of the same work?
i 17 A
Well, as I think I mentioned earlier, these people, as I 18 understand it, during much of this period were working 19 excessive overtime, in my judgment.
20 0
Yes.
21 A
That is, 58, 60 hours6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br /> a week.
22 I would not think that attempting to extract more 23 inspections per time period out of those inspectors 24 would be fruitful.
25 0
Because they had already passed their optimal Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17279
(~~h
\\~-)
1 efficiency; is that your opinion?
2 A
Possibly.
3 Q
So they were not performing at their optimal efficiency?
4 A
That I do not know.
5 But it does not r>trike me as a situation where 6
further " driving," to use your word, would be expected 7
to yield the results.
Resources, assistance, task 8
division were much more fruitful avenues to follow.
9 0
Yes, sir.
10 Well, aside from what you would believe is 11 fruitful, you, as you sit here today, Mr. Laney, agree 12 with me, don't you, that one way of increasing 13 production is to simply drive a worker harder?
14 A
Not when they're working 58 or 60 hours6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br /> a week.
I don't 15 agree with that.
I think you might very well lose 16 productivity.
17 0
Well, sir, do you know whether or not -- first of all, 18 as a general proposition, let's talk as a general matter 19 and not specifically with respect to Comstock.
Then 20 we'll return to Comstock.
21 But as a general matter, if you have a certain 22 number of people and a certain job to get done and 23 they're not getting the job done, either you add more 24 resources by way of time or people or you make them more 25 efficient or more productive?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17280 P
\\
1 A
That's what I said, more efficient.
2 0
All right, sir.
3 And if you don't add the tools to make them more 4
efficient, one way of making them more productive is to 5
simply drive them harder?
1 6
A I don't think so.
I mean, I'm taking the general case, 7
not this case.
8 0
Right.
9 A
But the general case includes, I presume, substantial 10 overtime, and I know that people that are working 58 or 11 60 hours6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br /> a week aren't going to take any driving.
It's
(}
12 not going to improve their effectiveness.
v 13 0
That's your opinion?
14 A
That's my opinion.
15 0
All right, sir.
Well, something has got to give; we can 16 agree on that.
17 But you can' t know empirically, can you, Mr. Laney, 18 that the "something" that gives isn't the quality of the 19 work that's performed, because that's certainly one way 20 to get more productive:
to do more units of work but to 21 do each one less well?
22 A
Well, as I indicated in my testimony, I think this 23 requires a total and direct regression, if you wi?l, of 24 the inspector's basic values --
(O) 25 0
Now we get down to the question of the values of the l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17281 (g"%
i 1
inspectors.
2 A
-- and I think that is not -- that is not a reasonable 3
proposition and that this is not an avenue that would be 4
likely to achieve -- or that you would not achieve 5
additional inspections by that means.
6 0
Now, I'm going to ask you some more about the basis for 7
that opinion.
8 But you can agree with me, can't you, as a general 9
proposition, Mr. Laney, that it just follows logically 10 that one means for achieving greater levels of i
11 production is to press your workers harder at the 12 sacrifice of quality in a unit of production?
13 A
Well, you know, this suggested driving a horse by 14 whipping it will make him run faster.
That happens up 15 to a point, and then it doesn't happen anymore.
16 So I think as a general thing you cannot say that, 1
17 all other considerations aside, just pushing and pushing 18 barder is going to achieve more results.
That's very 19 likely to be untrue as a general proposition.
20 0
Well, that's an interesting point.
Let's see how firm 4
21 you are on that principle.
22 Is there a point up to which you can drive someone 23 harder or is it your opinion that as a general 24 proposition you can never extract a higher rate of
)
25 production from someone?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17282 m
1 A
No.
Of course.
2 0
All right, sir.
3 A
But I can't help but reflect on the circumstances in 4
which these people were working and the conditions under 5
which they were working and the long period of intensive 6
overtime that they were working.
i 7
I've experienced that myself, and I know -- and I 8
have an informed opinion -- what would happen under r
9 those circumstances.
10 If you said, "Let's get more work by everybody 11 pushing harder," I think you would get a flareback,
(~'}
12 really.
You would get a contrary reaction, because i
v 13 people have limits.
14 I think that people working under those conditions, 15 under those circumstances, might very well have reached 16 those limits and couldn't be driven to do more.
17 0
Well, could they be driven to do no more but to do what 18 they did less well to sacrifice quality in the abstract?
19 A
Well, I thought I answered that a moment ago when I said 20 that as a general thing, my experience with inspectors
[
21 is that that's the last thing you would expect them to 22 do; they will resist that above anything else.
23 0
Now, that's with the case of the inspector.
I want to 24 return to your opinion about inspectors, but --
25 A
You're not talking about inspectors now?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 t
17283 1
Q No. sir.
I want to talk more first about the more 2
general case; that is, people performing any unit of 3
work.
i 4
Are you still resisting the notion that one way of 5
meeting requirements of production without having 6
additional resources -is to simply sacrifice quality in 7
the units of production in order to do more?
4 8
A Well, that's not an acceptable way to go, because that 9
doesn't resolve the problem.
j 10 0
Obviously.
11 A
You don't resolve this problem by sacrificing quality.
i O 12 0
obviously you don't.
l 13 But if the only measure is meeting a quota or an 14 average expected level of performance that's measured in 15 numbers --
16 A
But that isn't the only one.
17 0
Understood.
Let's return to that in a moment.
18 But if all someone is telling you is, "You've got 19 to make X in a given period of time," and it's simply 20 beyond your capability to do that in an effective and 21 ef ficient and a quality fashion, isn't it apparent, Mr.
22 Laney, that one way of achieving that quota or that
{
23 average expected level of performance is to sacrifice I
24 the quality of the work on the units of performance and 25 accomplish the task that way?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17284 rs 1
A Well, I think you're reformulating the question.
2 We're dealing with a question where a person is put 3
in the position that he has to serve two independent 4
objectives:
quality and produc. ion.
5 Now you're saying, "Let's forget quality as a 6
measure" --
7 Q
Yes.
8 A
"of what he must achieve and just tell him to forget l
9 quality and just go for numbers."
10 0
Then would you agree with that?
11 A
Then I would agree with you.
12 0
All right, sir.
That's fine.
That's helpful.
\\
13 Let's assume, for purposes of discussion, that 14 there is no effective measure of quality.
Let's assume 15 that no one oversees effectively the quality of the work 16 that's done, but the measure is only --
17 A
Is this a hypothetical?
i 18 Q
Yes, a hypothetical.
I ask you to assume that, sir.
19 The only measure is the units of production.
Let's 20 say the units of production are numbers of completed 21 inspection reports turned in in a unit of time; say, per 22 day.
23 In that case can we agree that if there was no 24 effective oversight of the quality of the work, that the O) i 25 way of achieving a given quota or average level of 4
U Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17285 8
1 expected performance might include sacrificing the 2
quality of the work on those units of production?
3 A
No.
You have phrased the question "if there were no 4
effective oversight."
5 I don't think that the inspector's behavior depends 6
on whether he has oversight or not.
7 0
I see.
8 A
So if you wanted to phrase the question such that 9
quality is no longer an objective of the process and ask 10 the same question, I might --
11 0
Then you'd agree with me?
12 A
I might agree with you.
\\
13 0
All right, sir.
14 A
But I don't think it has any pertinence to what we're 15 discussing.
16 0
And that's because you believe that there is an inherent
{
17 value -- you've characterized it as integrity -- in i
l 18 Quality Control Inspectors that, aside from effective l
19 oversight of the quality of their work, would keep them l
20 from sacrificing quality to meet that production goal?
f 21 A
Yes.
l 22 0
That's your opinion?
j 23 A
That's their career.
24 0
And that's your opinion, is it not?
25 A
Yes, it is.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17286
(
1 O
We'll return to that point in a moment.
2 Now, you haven't, I take it, done any empirical 3
review of the quality of the L.
K. Comstock Quality 4
Control Inspectors' work, have you?
l 5
A No.
6 Q
All right, sir.
7 You rely, if you do, if you are aware of any such 8
reviews, on the work that's been done by others, I take 9
it?
10 A
Yes.
11 Q
And I take it, then, you yourself can't express an I~'N 12 expert opinion on whether or not the Comstock Quality Q
4 j
13 Control Inspectors failed to identify defective 14 conditions at significant rates?
15 A
I have no separate independent knowledge of that, no.
16 O
All right, sir.
17 You do know, however, that there were extraordinary 18 problems facing the L. K. Comstock Company?
19 A
Yes, sir.
20 You refer to the ones that I relate here in my 21 testimony?
22 O
Yes, sir.
i l
23 A
Yes.
l 24 0
There was a work backlog facing L. K. Comstock Company O
25 in 1983 to 1985?
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, 1111nois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17287 (V
1 A
1984.
2 I think it was worked off by late '84, was it not?
3 0
By late '84, 1983 to '84.
4 And you' re aware that at the outset that consisted 5
of in excess of 14,000 uncompleted Quality Control 6
inspections?
7 A
Yes, sir.
I knew it was a very large number.
I didn't 8
know precisely what it was.
9 0
All right, sir.
10 The problems, these extraordinary problems, 11 included an explosive growth in the number of Quality 12 Control Inspectors and in the size of the organization?
13 A
Yes, sir.
14 0
It included new management, Quality Control management?
15 A
Yes.
4 16 0
All right.
17 It included salary instability; correct?
18 A
Yes.
19 0
That included paying new-hires at a rate higher than 20 experienced inspectors with seniority who were already 21 at the site --
22 A
Yes.
23 0
-- causing resentment and complaints by those 24 inspectors?
l 25 A
Yes.
I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17288 1
Q All right.
2 It also included establishing a salary scheme in 3
the spring of '84 that was not effectively available to 4
enhance individual salary, because they couldn't get the 5
training needed to get the additional certifications?
6 A
Yes, yes.
7 Q
And those together represented salary instability, did 8
they not?
9 A
Uh-huh, yes.
10 0
And those extensive or extraordinary problems included 11 extensive use of overtime, an unreasonable use of 12 overtime, in your opinion?
13 A
I don't know if I used the word " unreasonable."
I 14 considered it perhaps excessive, but I was not in the 15 position to say it was unreasonable.
16 Q
Excessive, all right, sir.
17 And it also included increased attrition; that is, 18 the resignations of experienced inspectors who left the 19 site in order to work in more -- either at higher pay or 20 under better working conditions?
21 A
Yes, sir.
22 Q
And add to those extraordinary problems a requirement 23 imposed on the L. K. Comstock Quality Control Department 24 to alleviate this backlog on a schedule established by 25 Commonwealth Edison Company.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17289 OU 1
That existed, too, didn't it?
2 A
Yes.
3 I would not be able to say that it was established 4
solely exclusively by Commonwealth Edison without 5
Comstock's participation.
I just don't know.
6 0
Yes.
7 A
Normally you would expect that a schedule of that kind i
4 8
would include the input and the concurrence in its 9
reasonableness by the people who read schedules.
10 But I don't know in this case how it was arrived 11 at.
(O h
12 0
You simply don't know whether or not it was imposed by 13 Edison --
14 A
I don't know.
15 0
-- and acquiesced in by Comstock QC management?
16 A
I don't know.
17 0
All right.
18 And added finally to that was a requirement imposed
(
19 by Commonwealth Edison Company to review 100 percent of l
20 the Comstock quality documents because of prior 21 widespread deficiencies in the preparation of those 22 documents?
23 A
I didn't know the reason for the document review.
I'm 24 aware that there was a document review and that that b)
(
constituted part of the backlog of work.
25 l
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
= - - -
17290 O
i V 1
Q Yes.
2 A
But the origins of it and the causes of it I'm -- I was 3
not aware of and I am not aware of.
4 Q
And I take it, to be fair, you' re not aware whether that 5
requirement was imposed unilaterally or imposed with 6
agreement --
7 A
I don't know.
8 0
-- by Edison on Comstock?
9 A
No, I don't know.
10 0
All right, sir.
11 But you're aware that that work had to be done?
12 A
Yes.
13 0
And you're also aware that in this environment the L. K.
14 Comstock Quality Control Inspectors raised widespread 15 complaints of acts of harassment, intimidation and 16 production pressure by their management imposed upon 17 them?
1 F.
A Yes, I'm aware of that.
19 0
All right.
20 And that that led to the Comstock inspectors going 21 en masse, some 24 or perhaps more inspectors, to 22 complain to the NRC Resident Inspector in March of 1985?
23 A
Yes.
24 Q
Now, Mr. Laney, in your experience, which appears to 25 have been extensive, are you ever aware of such a large Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 17291 1
number of Quality Control Inspectors ever as a group 2
complaining to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission at any 3
other site?
4 A
Not to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, although I've 5
experienced strikes by unions representing inspectors --
6 0
Yes.
7 A
-- which exhibited a mass unhappiness.
i 8
0 Yes, but you never heard of another instance where as 9
large a number as occurred at Comstock at Braidwood made 10 complaint to the NRC, are you?
11 A
I've never heard of one, no.
12 0
I take it one of the people that you didn't interview --
13 and I don't see any reference to his testimony -- is the 14 former Supervisor of Quality Control Inspectors; that l
15 is, Mr. Dichard Saklak?
16 A
No, I did not.
17 0
You certainly were aware, were you not, that Mr. Saklak 18 figured prominently among the objects of the inspectors' 19 complaints?
4 20 A
Yes.
21 0
And you were aware, were you not, that Mr. Saklak was 22 responsible at periods of time for supervising the 23 Quality Control work of the inspectors?
i 24 A
Yes.
I think you're saying that at one time he was the 25 sole --
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
j Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17292 f~
1 0
Indeed, you're aware of that fact?
2 A
Yes, I was aware of it.
3 0
And even when he wasn't the sole supervisor, he shared 4
the supervisor responsibility with others but supervised 5
certain disciplines of inspectors himself?
6 A
Yes.
7 0
All right, sir.
You didn't read Mr. Saklak's testimony 8
or interview him.
9 Were you aware of Mr. Saklak's qualifications or 10 lack of qualifications as a supervisor of inspectors?
11 A
Well, only to the extent I may have learned of them h
12 throuah reading Mr. DeWald's testimony.
I don't d
13 remember at this point whether ne said anything about 14 it.
15 He said a good deal about Mr. Saklak --
16 0
Right.
17 A
-- but I don't know whether he said anything about his 18 qualifications.
19 0
Well, were you aware that Mr. Saklak lacked 20 certifications in a number of the areas of inspection --
21 A
Yes.
22 0
-- the disciplines for which he supervised inspectors?
l 23 A
I was aware of that.
24 0
For example, he supervised Mr. John Seeders in the area O.
()
25 of calculations?
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17293 i
\\,)
1 A
Yes.
2 Q
Were you aware that Mr. Saklak was not certified in that 3
area?
4 A
Yes.
5 0
Mr. Laney, in the face of those extraordinary problems 6
and the inspectors' complaints about harassment, 7
intimidation and production pressure coming out of that 8
environment, you believe that the inherent qualities of 9
Quality Control Inspectors account for the fact that the 10 work performance of those inspectors may not have been 11 adversely affected by those pressures?
12 A
Yes.
13 Q
All right.
14 Now, I take it that you're not holding yourself out 15 as an industrial psychologist?
16 A
No, sir, I'm not.
17 0
All right.
l 18 Or a psychologist of any sort, at least beyond the i
19 folk wisdom that any of us has in human psychology?
20 A
That is correct.
21 Q
All right, sir.
22 And I take it that, as you testified, you haven't 23 done an empirical measure of the work quality of those l
l 24 inspectors.
25 Have you done any other empirical measures of their Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ueneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17294 Ob 1
work performance at Braidwood?
2 A
No.
3 0
Your opinion, then, is based not on the expertise of a 4
psychologist nor on the basis of empirical measures of 5
work performance by these inspectors, but it's based on 6
your experience, which you bring to this subject, as a 7
manager and as a consultant in the field of nuclear 8
power; correct?
9 A
Well, if you're inviting me to say what basis do I have, 10 I'd be --
11 0
Well, sir, I'm asking you about your background and your 12 qualifications.
13 That is your background, is it not?
14 A
May I answer?
15 0
Yes.
16 A
We've discussed the shipyard; and I'd just like to 17 repeat that when I went to the shipyard, they were 18 building tankers.
One of my jobs was to create a 19 Quality Control organization, staff it, train it, direct 20 it and transf orm the work attitudes and the habits in 21 terms of quality of the shipyard so that they were 22 capable of working on a nuclear submarine.
23 This put the inspectors in the new quality 24 organization under intense pressure f rom the trades, who 25 were jealous of their work standards and very resentful
,/
\\_
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17295 OV 1
of having quality inspectors imposed upon them; and it 2
put those inspectors under very severe pressure.
3 My experience with those inspectors was that they 4
stuck to their guns, they faced down the trades, and 5
they took the recriminations and maintained their 6
standards.
7 Now, that was an experience that we've discussed 8
that extended over a number of years.
9 I was then at the Argonne National Laboratory in a 10 somewhat similar experience that may be relevant.
11 They, too, did not have a formal Quality control b
12 organization, strange as that may sound today.
The V
13 reason they didn't is because science doesn't look 14 kindly on Quality Control.
15 We established a Quality control organization 16 because we were starting work on the breeder reactor, l
17 and the Department of Energy, at that time called ERDA, l
18 insisted that we have a formal Quality Control 19 organization.
Again we had to establish, recruit, train l
20 and put an organization in place where there wasn't one.
j I
21 The engineering side of the laboratory and the 22 service side and the procurement people and the machine 23 shop and so on accepted formal Quality Control, although 24 somewhat unwillingly.
But the scientists never did.
25 They fought it tooth and nail.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
17296
/N 1
Again, the Quality Control Inspectors could have 2
been expected to yield and back off from the scientific 3
part of the laboratory and say, "We will not attempt to 4
carry out the policies that we've been directed to carry 5
out."
6 Instead, they forced the issue into the f ront 7
office of the laboratory, where it was decided -- in 8
retrospect, probably wisely -- to not require formal 9
Quality Control of scientists in their laboratory 10 because it was not a very good idea.
So the procedures 11 and the policies were revised.
12 Now, these two instances gave me a feeling for the 13 persistence and the strength with which Quality control 14 people will defend the ideas that they're supposed to 15 set out, and it's these that I use to apply to the 16 current situation and say to you, "Here is how I think a 17 group of people would react under these circumstances."
18 It's not totally analogous, but I think it's 19 related.
20 0
All right, sir.
That's helpful.
I appreciate that 21 explanation.
22 I take it that in those two settings you formed 23 your opinion on the basis of observing Quality Control 24 Inspectors --
O 1
25 A
Yes.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 i
17297 OO 1
0
-- or persons in analogous positions?
2 A
Yes, yes.
3 0
I take it that you also formed your opinion on the basis 4
of talking to inspectors --
5 A
Yes.
6 0
-- and formed an opinion based on what they told you?
7 A
Yes.
8 0
But in both those jobs, Mr. Laney, you were a manager 9
responsible for the production side of the 10 organization's responsibilities, weren't you?
11 A
Yes.
12 0
And when you talked to these inspectors or the persons 13 in the positions that were analogous to the inspectors, 14 you had the interests of quality and cost and schedule 15 on your shoulders, did you not?
16 A
Yec.
17 0
And these inspectors or persons in analogous positions 1
18
-- they had a primary interest in quality, did they not?
19 A
Yes.
20 0
Now, given your position as a manager with those 21 interests and the inspectors' position as inspectors 22 with their interest, don' t you agree, sir, that those 23 inspectors may have told you in whole or in part what 24 they wanted you to hear?
\\
25 A
Well, one of the jobs of a manager is to get beyond that Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17298 1
F 1
point.
It's certainly possible.
I would go further and 2
say that there is probably an underlying inclination.
3 But I repeat:
The job of a manager is to see 4
through that and go beyond it and understand.
5 0
Understood.
6 And so you have to be able to separate out --
7 A
Yes.
8 0
-- and weigh what's told you in light of the identity of 9
the teller --
10 A
That's true.
11 0
-- as well as the identity of the listener; in this 12 case, the boss?
13 A
Yes.
14 0
But you recognize that inherently there may be a lack of 15 accuracy in what in this case an inspector tells a 16 production manager?
17 A
In which case are we referring to?
18 0
In the case of your experience at the shipyard and at 19 the lab.
20 A
Well, I guess the point of my two stories, each of which 21 spanned about 10 years of time -- the point was that the 22 inspectors thought enough of their underlying 23 responsibilities not to take the easy road but to hold 24 out for defending the responsibilities they had been
)
25 given --
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 17299 t
i
(
- v j
1 0
Understood.
2 A
-- and force the issue up to the highest level.
3 0
Understood.
4 Let's assume that one of those inspectors or a 5
person in an analogous position at the shipyard or at 6
the lab talked to you, and he says -- you say to that 7
person, "Well, I know the heat is on and the pressure is 8
on and schedule and cost considerations, but it's not 9
affecting the quality of your inspection work, is it?"
10 You wouldn't be surprised to hear unanimous 11 statements from those inspectors in substance saying, I}
12 "No.
My integrity is such I would never allow this b
13 pressure to affect my work"?
14 A
I would be very unlikely to ask such a naive question as 15 that.
16 Q
And that's because --
17 A
Because --
18 0
Isn't that because you would expect that the answer that 19 you got wouldn't necessarily be accurate?
20 A
Because I would have other means of finding out the 21 answer.
22 Q
And wouldn't it be because --
23 A
It would be, in the first instance, derogatory.
24 0
Let me ask the question if I might, Mr. Laney, and have 25 you address the points I'm asking you about.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17300 i
0 1
Isn't the reason you wouldn't ask the question in 2
the first instance because such a naive question would 3
have been unlikely to elicit a truthful and accurate 4
answer?
5 A
No, because I would have other means of finding out.
If 6
I suspected that that were true, as a manager, I would 7
have two or three other ways to find out the truth of 8
it.
9 0
I'm sure you would, but let's return to my question.
10 Let me understand you, then.
11 If I were to formulate the question and say, "Has 12 the quality of your inspection work, sir" -- putting 13 yourself, Mr. Laney, in the position of an inspector and 14 I in the position of a manager.
15 If I say to you, " Inspector, has the quality of 16 your inspection work been adversely affected by the l
17 extraordinary problems that we are experiencing here:
l 18 the backlog, the change in management, the schedule 19 requirements imposed on us by our clients," and you, as 20 an inspector, answered me, "No.
I have integrity, and I 21 would never allow that pressure to cause me to pass an 22 item that was not acceptable or adversely affect my l
23 work," would you simply take that answer at face value
(
24 as reflecting an accurate and complete statement?
l 25 A
No.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
l 17301 s
ka 1
0 Why not?
2 A
Well, for the very reason you point out:
that it's 3
self-serving.
You would not ever accept a self-serving 4
answer all by itself.
5 0
All right, sir.
6 A
You would look for corroboration or the opposite by some 7
other route --
8 Q
All right, sir.
9 A
-- if you had reason to be suspicious.
10 0
All right, sir.
11 Now, you're aware, Mr. Laney, that in this case, as
(
12 you refer to it, a number of inspectors who you make
(
13 reference to, when asked the analogous question --
14 perhaps that same question, "Have you ever allowed these 15 acts -- harassment, intimidation, production pressure --
16 these extraordinary problems at Comstock, to cause you 17 to accept a rejectable condition" -- that the general 18 answer that was given was no?
I
(
19 A
Yes, I'm aware of that.
l 20 0
And you cite that f act in your testimony, don't you?
21 A
I don't know.
I may.
I just don't remember.
22 0
okay.
Well, let me show you the reference.
It's at 23 Page 24, the middle of the page.
24 I read:
"Despite the inspectors' complaints on
! o) 25 March 29th, they have subsequently testified that the
(
i j
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 i
17302 uJ l
effectiveness of their inspections was not adversely 2
affected by the production pressures and harassment of 3
which they spoke and that they continued to do their 4
jobs in a professional manner."
5 A
Yes.
I don't see that, but I'm sure it's there.
I just 6
haven't located it.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
It's right in the middle 8
page, sir.
9 A
(Continuing.)
"They continued" -- all right, sir.
i 10 BY MR. GUILD:
11 Q
Do you see that, sir?
I~'h 12 A
Yes, I do.
13 Yes, that's correct.
14 0
You recognize those facts, that testimony.
15 Then you offer the following opinion, and I read:
16 "In my opinion, this is a consistent and believable 17 po si ti on. "
18 That's your testimony, is it not?
Do you see that, 19 sir?
20 A
The reference to --
21 Q
I'm just asking you whether that's your testimony.
22 Do you confirm that's your testimony, Mr. Laney?
23 A
What you just read?
24 0
Yes.
25 A
Yes.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 17303 1
Q Now, isn't it also believable, given what you've just 2
testified to, that when asked those questions, the 3
inspectors did not respond accurately and completely but 4
provided an answer that was self-serving in the same way 5
that our hypothetical inspector would have responded to 6
the question that I posed about adverse effects on his 7
work?
8 A
I agree that they would be likely to do so, and I would 9
not, therefore, accept that all by itself --
10 0
Yes.
11 A
-- as corroborated.
IN 12 I do want to point out that the antecedent of what 13 you read is not merely that paragraph.
14 0
It's the rest of your testimony.
15 A
"In my opinion, this is a consistent and believable 16 position."
I refer both to the paragraph in which that 17 appears and the preceding paragraph.
Those two together 18 are what I refer to as what I believe to be a consistent 19 and believable position.
l l
20 0
And that is, making the complaints that they made to the i
21 NRC?
22 A
Namely, while troubled to the extent that they were, 23 they could still perform reliable inspections.
24 It is those two together which I believe to be
{T q }
25 consistent with my experience as how inspectors behave.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17304 1
MR. GUILD:
If I may have a moment, Mr.
4 2
Chairman.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Certainly.
4 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, if I could ask for 5
a brief recess, I want to read my notes.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Certainly.
7 Why don't we take 10 minutes -- well, why don't we 8
take five minutes and see how we're doing.
9 MR. GUILD:
Fine.
10
( WH ER EU PON, a recess was had, after which 11 the proceedings were resumed as follows:)
I' 12 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, that's all the l
13 questions I have of Mr. Laney.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Berry?
15 MR. BERRY:
I just have just a few questions, 16 Mr. Laney.
17 CROSS EXAMINATION l
l 18 BY MR. BERRY:
19 0
Mr. Laney, why do scientists dislike Quality Control?
20 A
Scientists believe -- and I think correctly, Mr. Berry 21
-- that in scientific work, they alone understand what 22 quality work is.
Their work is esoteric, and again I 23 think we agree with this.
24 We concluded, in the face of their objections, that O
i 25 so long as they were working in their own laboratory
()
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, 1111nois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~_
17305 G
1 with their own equipment and tools, that there was 2
nothing an inspector could do to help them; he would 3
just be in the way.
So we got out.
4 0
Also, Mr. Laney, you responded to one of Mr. Guild's 5
questions that if you had reason to -- you wouldn't 6
accept a, quote, "self-serving" answer if you had reason 7
not to believe it.
8 A
I think what I said, Mr. Berry, is that I would not want 9
to rely solely on those self-serving answers but would 10 look for corroboration.
11 But in the absence of -- well, I'll put it this f~'N 12 way:
that those self-serving answers have weight but 13 not sufficient weight without other corroboration.
14 0
Let's take the example that you and Mr. Guild were 15 discussing:
Quality Control Inspectors.
16 You asked the Quality Control Inspector whether the f
17 quality of his work had suffered because of excessive 1
18 overtime, new management, the other circumstances l
l 19 attending the Comstock Quality Control operation during l
l 20 the period we' re discussing here; and the answer you got l
l 21 from the Quality Control Inspector was, "No, it hasn't l
l 22 affected my work."
23 What, if anything, would you do to find the l
24 corroboration?
p i
(
25 A
Well, I think you would -- you would look at Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 1
I
(
17306 s
1 overinspection as one obvious example.
You would look 2
at the BCAP results as another, each of which were 3
confirmatory; that is to say, they gave you another 4
measure of the inspection work independent of his 5
statement.
6 You would also look for consistency over time; that 7
is, did the accuracy of the inspector's work vary during the periods when he was under excess pressure and then 9
change again later on?
10 So there are several ways that you could seek 11 independent validation of that.
I~'\\
12 Q
Mr. Laney, Mr. Guild pointed out to you that a number of 13 inspectors had testified in this proceeding and 14 indicated that -- stated that their work had not been 15 affected -- the quality of their work had not been 16 affected by, I guess, the work conditions at Comstock 17 during the period involved in this proceeding.
18 In your opinion, does it have any bearing that they 19 were under oath when they gave that answer, as 20 contrasted with their supervisor asking that same i
21 question on the job?
22 A
Yes, that would have some bearing on the weight that I 23 would give to their testimony, the fact that it is under 24 cath.
)
25 I think most of us are made more alert, more Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17307 9(a 1
conscious of our duty when we're under oath.
2 0
Finally --
3 A
It would add to the weight of it.
4 0
Thank you.
5 Finally, Mr. Laney, I believe you had indicated, in 6
response to a question by Mr. Guild, that one way of 7
increasing inspector efficiency was to have other people 8
do an inspector -- do research for him.
9 Do you recall that?
10 A
Yes.
11 0
I want to show you Intervenors' Exhibit 23.
This is the l
I\\
12 August 17, 1984, letter from Mr. Seeders to Mr. DeWald.
13 In Paragraph 3 of that letter, Mr. Seeders indicates 14 that Mr. Saklak informed him that he would get others to 15 do the legwork for him.
16 (Indicating.)
17 Have you had an opportunity to review what's been 18 marked as Intervenors' Exhibit 23 bef ore?
19 A
No.
20 0
You've never read this?
21 A
No.
22 0
I would direct your attention to the fourth sentence in 23 Paragraph 3 of Intervenors' Exhibit 23.
Of course, 24 you're free to review the entire letter or the entire
)
25 paragraph if you want.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17308 1
I would just ask you -- I have a question for you 2
af ter you've had an opportunity to review it.
3 A
That sentence beginning "at this time" or "I was told"?
4 Is that the sentence?
5 0
You may want to review the surrounding sentences to 6
familiarize yourself with the context.
7 A
All right.
I've read the first four sentences, yes, 8
sir.
9 0
Okay.
10 Is what Mr. Seeders refers to as " legwork" in 11 Intervenors' Exhibit 23 -- is that the same or similar s
12 to what you meant when you responded to Mr. Guild that 13 you'd have -- that you could have uther inspectors --
14 other persons do inspectors' research to increase their 15 efficiency?
16 MR. GUILD:
Objection, Mr. Chairman.
17 MR. STEPTOE:
Objection.
18 MR. GUILD:
My objection is that the witness 19 is clearly not competent to speculate what Mr. Seeders' 20 understanding is when he uses that term.
That is the 21 predicate to the question, as I understand it.
22 MR. BERRY:
Any other objection?
23 MR. STEPTOE:
I'm in the unusual position of l
24 agreeing with one of Mr. Guild's objections.
25 (Laughter.)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
-=
17309 O
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Let's hear that question 2
again -- or why don't you rephrase it, Mr. Berry?
3 MR. BERRY:
I'll try, Mr. Chairman.
4 BY MR. BERRY:
5 Q
Do you agree, Mr. Laney, that Mr. Seeders, in his 6
letter, states that another individual and other 7
individuals would be available to perform some tasks 8
that Mr. Seeders otherwise would have been required to 9
do himself in order to complete his assignment?
10 Do you understand him to be making that complaint?
11 A
The sense of this three or four sentences is that 12 Seeders had been given an assignment by Saklak and told 13 that he would have to complete it no matter how he did 14 it.
"I was told that he would have people do my legwork 15 and make out my checklist and that I was to sign the 16 paperwork."
l 17 That is not what I had in mind when I referred to l
18 doing the research preliminary to performing an i
19 inspection.
20 0
What is it that you had in mind?
21 A
I had in mind collecting the drawings, the 22 specifications, the procedures, the checklists and all l
23 of the elements that make up an inspection package.
24 As I understand it, it is not unusual for ar.
]( j 25 inspector to do that himself.
He knows what he needs, Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17310 OV 1
and he goes to the vault.
He goes to the sources of it, 2
and he collects it.
3 Yet it's entirely possible for a knowledgaable 4
person of lesser experience and perhaps with no 5
inspection qualifications, given the list of what he is 6
to assemble, to assemble it, thus saving minutes or 7
hours of the inspector's time.
8 "Research" is not perhaps the right word, but it 9
was that sort of ef ficiency-enhancing activity that I 10 had in mind when I said, "Get somebody else to do the 11 research.
Put it in the inspector's hands so he's saved I~
12 the time to do it himself.
Then he goes and does the k
13 inspection and fills out the inspection reports."
14 It's quite different from that.
15 MR. BERRY:
Thank you.
I have no further 16 questions, Mr. Chairman.
17 BOARD EXAMINATION 18 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
19 0
Mr. Laney, if a QC Inspector were to admit that he let 20 production pressures influence the quality of his l
21 inspections, what would happen to him?
l I
22 A
Well, the least is I think he would be discharged.
But 23 under some circumstances, I guess he would be liable for i
1 l
24 severe civil penalties.
D)
(
25 0
Okay.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 17311 V
1 Mr. Laney, if a QC Inspector were of the type that 2
would let production pressures affect the quality of his 3
work, do you think he would be of the type who would 4
likely admit that here, whether he's under oath or not?
5 A
No.
Judge Grossman, could-I ask 7
that that 1:.st question and answer be repeated?
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Sure.
9 MR. STEPTOE:
I didn't quite hear it.
10 (The record was thereupon read by the 11 Reporter.)
12 JUDGE COLE:
Mr. Laney, just one or two 13 questions, sir.
14 THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
15 BOARD EXAMINATION 16 BY JUDGE COLE:
17 Q
Have you visited the Braidwood site, sir?
18 A
Yes, sir.
19 0
I believe you testified earlier that you've made no 20 conclusions concerning the quality of the construction 21 at Braidwood, sir.
22 Had you made any of your own conclusions relative 23 to the quality of construction at Braidwood?
24 MR. STEPTOE:
Excuse me, Judge Cole.
I have 25 to interpose an objection.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i l
17312
(-)
, k/
s 1
If he answers that question -- I understand why 2
you're interested in his conclusion; but if he answers 3
that question, it would be opening up a further line of 4
cross examination.
5 I'm reluctant to do that.
We have not offered Mr.
6 Laney as a witness on that point, and I have to make the 7
objection now.
8 JUDGE COLE:
That's a reasonable objection.
9 I will not overrule your objection, and I'll withdraw 10 the question.
11 (Laughter.)
I~'
12 MR. STEPTOE:
Okay.
b}
13 BY JUDGE COLE:
14 0
Mr. Laney, you interviewed several people in preparation 15 for your testimony, and then you read certain selected 16 portions of the transcript.
17 A
Yes, sir.
18 0
The persons you interviewed in preparation for your 19 tectimony were people associated with management; is 20 that correct, sir?
21 A
Yes.
I believe they all were.
22 0
Well, there was Mr. DeWald, the Quality Control Manager; 23 Mr. Quaka, the Quality Assurance Superintendent --
24 A
Yes.
()
25 0
-- Mr. Shamblin and Mr. Kurtz.
Mr. Kurtz is with Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17313 s
'J 1
Sargent & Lundy, of course.
2 A
Yes.
3 0
Why didn't you interview any Quality Control Inspectors?
4 A
Well, I had access to extensive examinations of the 5
Quality Control -- of a large number of Quality Control 6
Inspectors.
7 I was seeking to understand, by talking with people 8
like Shamblin and DeWald, the degree to which this 9
situation is analogous to other situations with which 10 I'm familiar.
11 I felt I could learn that best by seeing what kind I\\
12 of people they were, what their standards were, how they 13 went about managing a difficult job.
14 My time was limited, so I elected not to go the 15 other route where there were obviously 20 or more people 16 that I might have talked with.
17 So I conserved time, and I felt I touched on the 18 things that were important to my testimony by talking to 19 the managers that I talked with.
20 0
All right, sir.
21 I also notice that you read certain Board 22 examinations.
In my review of the transcript page -- I 23 didn't review each individual page, but I looked at my 24 notes to see who was on the stand during the period of 25 those particular Board examinations.
Those people also Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illfhois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1 17314 rN
\\
l V
1 appear to be management only.
2 I guess my concern, sir, is:
How did you decide to 3
look up only those Board examinations and why didn't you 4
look at the Board examinations of the Quality Control 5
Inspectors?
6 A
I'm not sure that I didn't.
7 0
Well, I'm just looking at the --
8 A
I listed a number of inspectors here.
9 0
-- at the lists identified in the last page of your 10 prefiled testimony --
11 A
Yes.
I
12 0
-- in Appendix B, I guess it is.
13 All of those pages of transcript that are listed 14 are for DeWald, Seese, Seltmann, Gieseker and Louden; 15 and none of those are inspectors.
16 A
No, they're not.
17 0
They' re all managers.
18 A
I was conjecturing whether -- when I read abstracts of 19 depositions of the list here of about 10 inspectors:
20 Saklak, Stout, Peterson, Mustered and so on -- whether 21 indeed that might have included Board examination.
22 It isn't clear in my mind whether I did or didn't.
23 0
The Board is not included in the depositions --
24 A
I understand.
25 0
-- although certain of the same kinds of questions might s
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17315 (3
V 1
have been asked.
2 A
I understand.
3 I'm simply saying that I don't recollect whether 4
the depositions adequately cover all that I read about 5
those.
6 0
All right, sir.
Then I have one final question, if I 7
can phrase it properly.
8 Are you convinced, sir, based on the communication 9
and information that you have collected from Quality 10 Control Inspectors at Braidwood, that the kind of 11 information that you received f rom that would be the I~'N 12 kind of information upon which you can base a decision 13 as to whether these kinds of people might have been 14 subjected to or did perform their duties in a way that 15 would not be consistent with the way it should be done?
16 A
I came across nothing in what I have read or the 17 interviews that suggests that.
18 0
Are you satisfied that you had enough information upon 19 which to base that decision, sir?
20 The reason why I ask that is it seemed to me that 21 your interface with the Quality Control Inspectors was 22 not as in depth as it was with management.
23 Could it be that you might have gotten a distorted l
l 24 view from management?
25 A
Well, the conclusions I express in my prepared testimony Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
(
17316
/~N 1
certainly do not -- I would not want it to be construed 2
to mean that I would not, were I in your position, seek 3
other information.
4 I don't think what I have said or learned here 5
about inspectors is sufficient itself by any means.
All 6
I can say is that insofar as this evidence or 7
information that I've examined, I see nothing that is 8
inconsistent with f aithf ul perf ormance of inspection.
9 To me it makes a consistent pattern of behavior.
10 But were I in your position, I would certainly want 11 to go into other confirmatory evidence, as I'm sure that 12 you have and will.
13 Q
All right, sir.
I have one last question, then.
14 You've had considerable experience in nuclear 15 construction, and you've indicated that you initiated 16 Quality Control at the shipyard in Massachusetts at i
17 Quincy.
18 A
Yes.
19 0
That was not too long ago, but some time period ago?
20 A
25 years.
i 21 0
Quality control at nuclear power plants -- is it f air to 22 say that this is an evolving process which has changed I
i 23 over the last 25 years considerably?
I l
24 A
Considerably, yes, sir.
'N l
1 25 Q
Have you kept your hand in this business since you lef t l
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 6U134 (312) 232-0262
17317
,m 1
the laboratory, sir?
2 A
Yes, I have.
3 0
or the shipyard, I mean.
4 A
Yes, I have.
I've been very active in a number of 5
related fields.
6 0
Well, I'm talking about a more practical kind of 7
hands-on experience with Quality Control Inspectors, 8
sir.
We've come to some -- you've made some conclusions 9
about inspector behavior --
10 A
Yes.
11 0
-- based upon your extensive experience in dealing with
(}
12 people f rom a management viewpoint.
\\~J 13 I guess my question really is, sir, in view of the 14 fact that Quality Control at nuclear power plants has 15 been changing and you haven't actually been working on a l
16 construction site; you've been looking at it in a more 17 supervisory or administrative role from afar.
18 Is that not true, sir?
l 19 A
Not entirely, Judge Cole.
l 20 First let me say that following my experience at 21 the Quincy shipyard, I spent nine years at the Argonne 22 National Laboratory, where we were also setting up 23 inspections and QA procedures not related to 24 construction; that is true.
O) 25 Since leaving the shipyard in 196 9,1970 -- I mean,
(
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17318
'~h (G
1 since leaving Argonne, I've worked in projects involving 2
construction assessment at the Washington Public Power 3
Supply System, at the Byron plant, in south Texas --
4 design, not construction.
5 I participated in the NUREG 1056 study as a not 6
full participant but an overviewer and commenter and 7
critic of that study, whose purpose was to examine how 8
the quality of construction in nuclear power plants 9
could be improved.
10 That was a countrywide effort conducted by the NRC 11 in 1954 -- 1984, published in '84.
fh 12 0
All right, sir.
V 13 A
As I say in my opinion, that exposed me to extensive 14 insights into a number of construction problems and how 15 they got to be the way they were, because that was the 16 focus.
17 So those things have helped me keep up with --
18 0
All right, sir.
19 A
-- the development of the art of Quality Assurance.
I 20 JUDGE COLE:
That's very helpful.
Thank you.
21 That's all I have.
(
22 BOARD EXAMINATION l
23 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
24 0
Mr. Laney, I don't want the record to suggest that 25 you've selected out materials so as not to have them l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17319 f)
U 1
appear in your Attachment B.
2 I would assume you didn't go through the entire 3
transcript and decide on your own what to refer to.
4 A
No, I did not.
5 0
You had to rely on counsel for that?
6 A
That's correct.
7 0
Okay.
8 A
And those pages were I think the initial material they 9
sent me so I could develop some kind of an insight into 10 what was going on here and what was of interest, and 11 then it branched out from there.
12 BOARD EXAMINATION 13 BY JUDGE CALLIHAN:
14 Q
Mr. Laney, early on in Mr. Guild's questioning, there 15 was mentioned to you the responsibilities of inspectors 16
-- and perhaps even some of management -- in maintaining 17 a schedule or developing a schedule.
18 In particular, as I recall, you said an inspector 19 had the responsibility of reporting his findings 20 promptly to allow corrective actions and so forth.
21 A
Yes, sir.
22 Q
I say that just for purposes of identification.
23 Would you think that an inspector also has some 24 responsibility to effectively and promptly and q )
25 efficiently perform his inspections --
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
d 17320
(
l A
Yec.
2
/
Q
-- once the assignment of a particular item to him has 3
been made by his supervision or his Lead?
s 4
A Yes, I would agree with that.
5 0
You were asked about contact with inspectors.
I come 6
also to the end of your testimony, Attachment B; and I 7.i find that you looked at, quote, " abstracts of 8
depositions" --
9 A
Yes.
10 0
-- of a number'of individuals, some of whom have 11 appeared here and others we recognize also as 12 inspectors; a number'of inspectors.
13 Now, what did you look at?
What's an abstract of a 14 deposition?
15 A
Well, I'm not sure I'm a good adthority on that.
16 It appears to be a tdwrite of a deposition where 17 the main points are abstracted and arranged in order, l
18 presumably the order in which they appear in the 19 deposition, so that it's a series of? three-or four-line 20 paragraphs.
21 The title of it is " Abstract of Deposition of 22 Inspector X."
L 23 Q
So it's a document prepared for you and no doubt others, 24 not by yourself but by some other individual --
(
25 A
That is true.
4 Sonntag. Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17321 V
1 0
-- most likely, counsel?
2 A
Very likely.
3 0
All right, sir.
4 Do you feel, however, that f rom those abstracts --
5 of which we have no knowledge, I point out -- that f rom 6
those abstracts you acquired a flavor of the 7
proceedings, of the complaints, if we might so 8
characterize some of the sayings of the inspectors?
9 A
Well, I think the flavor is probably the one quality 10 that might be missing in the abstracts; that is, the 11 vernacular is missing, the tone that might have come 12 through.
~
13 I don't doubt the abstracts are fully factual, but 14 I think " flavor" -- when you use that word, they 15 probably don't give you flavor as much as you would 16 like, although sometimes they say " laughter" or l
17
" heatedly" or something of that kind like a stage 18 direction.
1 19 But I think you lose something from the reading of l
20 the testimony.
It saves time, but you pay for it.
21 Q
Referring to an earlier reraark of yours a few moments 22 ago, we have, I'm certain, in the record some statements 23 by various individuals of newspaper-reading on the job, l
24 of organization meetings during the discussions of the 25 bargaining unit, and -- with much less certainty, I must
~
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
17322 1
say -- of sleeping on the job.
I really must protect 2
myself and say I can't remember chapter and verse on the 3
last, but perhaps I do.
4 Do these things fit into my first inquiry of you 5
about the responsibility of the inspector to get on with 6
his job as expeditiously as possible within the bounds, 7
of course, of his integrity and his knowledge and his 8
experience and his desire, hopefully, of always doing a 9
good job?
10 Do these detractions that I have cited really fit 11 into that pattern?
[~\\
12 A
Well, if I understand that these people who were goofing 13 off are inspectors, then clearly they were not doing 14 their job with the alacrity that they ought to have, if 15 I understand your question, Judge Callihan.
16 0
That's a fair response.
17 In view of that, in your experience and judgment 18 based on your broad experience, is the action or the 19 actions of Mr. Saklak really new or strange or unusual 20 or different?
21 A
I think some of his outbursts are extreme.
The lesser 22 ones are not uncommon, but he was -- in some of his 23 outbursts, he was clearly going beyond a reasonable 24 limit, in my opinion.
)
25 Yet I have to say that many good supervisors, both Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1 17323 1
of craf ts and of inspectors, have and do exhibit strong 2
temper s.
Frequently it's one of the things that makes 3
them a good supervisor:
They're intolerant of delay, 4
and they're intolerant of goofing off.
Therefore, as a 5
leader, they're good.
6 But I must confess that Mr. Saklak did himself in, 7
I think, by his extreme behavior in one or two instances 8
that I read about, where he went beyond reasonable 9
limits and was degrading.
10 I think it lessened his effectiveness as a leader i
11 and a supervisor in front of his men by doing that.
He I~
12 hurt himself.
13 0
In your experience -- and I'm not going to attempt to 14 put anything quantitative on this, I assure you.
15 But in your experiences, is some of the, quote, 16 "Saklak methodology," unquote, necessary in construction 17 work to keep things mering?
18 A
Yes.
19 0
I'm making no quantitative attempt on your part of 20 either of those.
21 A
Yes.
I get your question, yes.
22 0
Also, in your experience, do you believe -- or maybe I 23 should put it firmly in the negative -- can you evaluate 24 the effect on productivity on the part of the inspectors
(
-- to put this statement very broadly, can you comment 25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
17324 1
on the effect on productivity of the obvious fact that 2
work at Braidwood was, quote, " winding down," unquote?
3 I must use the word "effect" again.
4 What effect on attitudes and that sort of thing 5
does the approaching completion of Braidwood have?
6 A
Well, I think you can capture the sense of that, Judge 7
Callihan, in the statement that the last 1 percent.of 8
the job is the biggest 10 percent of all.
9 That is, closing out a construction job is very, 10 very difficult.
The wi3] to complete begins to trickle 11 away as work approaches its conclusion, because what's 12 trickling away is the livelihood of a number of people.
13 It's an end-of-the-job effect that is widely 14 recognized, and it presents the managers with very l
15 imposing challenges.
16 0
Have you, in your experience -- and you must have had l
17 some experience in work that was near closing.
18 Have you observed these claims and allegations of 19 harassment, intimidation and so forth?
20 A
You mean becoming more numerous --
21 0
Yes, and more severe, perhaps, even.
22 A
-- at the end?
23 No, sir, I haven't observed that.
24 JUDGE CALLIHAN:
Thank you very much.
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Why don't we adjourn until i
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
+., - - - - - -
-,n.y
_.,m
17325 1
9:00 o' clock tomorrow, and then we'll go to Mr. Laney's 2
redirect.
3 MR. STEPTOE:
Yes.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay, fine.
So we're 5
adjourned, then, until 9:00.
6 (WHEREUPON, at the hour of 5:15 P.
M., the 7
hearing of the above-entitled matter was 8
continued to the 19th day of November, 9
1986, at the hour of 9:00 o' clock A. M.)
10 l
11 1
12 i
l 13 f
14 15 16 l
17 l
18 e
19 20 21 i
22 23 24 25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
NO PAGE NUMBER CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER O
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STETES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
BRAIDWOOD STATION UNITS 1 6 2 COMMONWEALTil EDISON DOCKET NO.:
50-456/457-OL (llEARING)
PLACE:
CilIC AGO, ILLINOIS O
(/
DATE:
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the originai transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sigt)
M (TYPED) jh l
Official Reporter Reporter's Affiliation i
b
- o
~
- - - - _ _ _, - - -