ML20209F202
| ML20209F202 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 09/04/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#386-709 OL, NUDOCS 8609120078 | |
| Download: ML20209F202 (200) | |
Text
_
ORIGINAL UN11ED STATES o'
1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
BRAIDWOOD STATI0l1 50-456/457-OL UillTS 18 2 COMM0liWEALTH EDIS0tl
'O l
LOCATION:
CHICAGO, ILLINDIS PAGES: 11,890 - 12,075 DATE:
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1986 I
, I
,1
, f, 0 i-0\\
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
OfficialReporters l
444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700
!@;"l;.;.T[4 NAMMDE COVERACE o
J
e
- 11890 i
- m V)
,(
i' 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
_x-5 In the Matter of:
6
- Docket No. 50-456' COMMONWEALTTI EDISON COMPANY 50-457 7
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 8
and 2)
__________________X 9
10 Page:,.11,890 - 12,075 N--
United States District Court House e
12 Courtroom 1919 Chicago, Illinois 60604 13 j
Thursday, September 4,1986 14 15 The hearing in the above-entitled matter reconvened i
16 at 9:00 A.
M.
17 i
BEFORE:
18 l
JUDG E HERB ERT GROSSMAN, Chairman l
19' Atomic Safety and Licensing Board I
U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 20 Washington, D.
C.
l l
21 JUDG E RICH ARD F.
COLE, Member, L
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 22 U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Washington, D.
C.
23 JUDG E A.
DIXON CALLIHAN, Member, l
-24 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ennneag n.pnrei n g n ru i c,
r+ a.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11891 I
'\\
./
1 Washington, D.
C.
2 APPEARANCES:
3 On behalf of the Applicant:
JOSEPH GALLO, ESQ.
5 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza 6
Chicago, Illinois 60602 7
On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory 8
Commission Staff:
9 ELAINE I.
CH AN, E SQ.
GREGORY ALAN BERRY, ESQ.
10 U.
S.
Nuclear Pegulatory Commission 7335 Old Georgetown Road
[s i 11 Bethesda, Ma ryland 20014
'\\
]
12 On behalf of the Intervenor:
13 ROB ERT GUILD, ESQ.
14 15 16 17 18 19
)
20 21 l
l 22 23 (D
(,)
24 nnnn eng nonn rei ng gorui cn; r+ a ;
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
)
11892
\\
%-sll L
. lf EXHIBIT INDEX I.
D.~
RECE IVED i
2 Staff Exhibit No. 7 11931 3-Applicant's Exhibit No. 119 11955 11956 4
Staff Exhibits Nos.
18 through 23 11941 5
6 TESTIMONY OF CHARLES H. WEIL Page-No, t
7' DIRECT EXAMINATION 1
BY MR. BERRY:
11917 i
8 CROSS EXAMINATION 9'
BY MR. MILLER:
11949 10 BOARD EXAMINATION BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
11972-
' ll CROSS EXAMINATION C~
12 BY MR. GUILD:
11976 13
' REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRY:
12056 l
- 14 RECROSS EXAMINATION j
15 BY MR. MILLER:
12058 i
- 16 RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. GUILD:
12066 17 l
BOARD EXAMINATION 18 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
12070 19 BOARD EXAMINATION i
BY JUDGE CALLIHAN:
12070 20
. 21 22 23 24
' 25 a
I Ronntag Reporting Mervice. Titd _
j Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11893 t
]
..J l
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
The hearing is reconvened.
2 This is the 60th day of hearing.
3 Let's determine, before we put Mr. McGregor back on 4
the stand, whether we have any preliminary matters.
5 I do have one.
6 We still haven't gotten that updated Specification 7
L2790 from Applicant; and in addition to that, the 8
thought occurs to me that we never did get a copy of 9
that specification as signed by Comstock.
All we have 10 is the addition signed by Ernst, and I don't know 11 basically how this was done procedurally, but I would
[
)
12 think that there should have been a contract x_/
13 specification signed by a new contractor taking Ernst's 14 place.
15 So when you have that -- when you attempt to supply 16 us with that updated specification -- that is, I believe 17 it was Amendment 46 -- we would like the signed copy by 18 L.
K.
Comstock.
19 MR. GALLO:
Your Honor, my colleague 20 indicates that it was 4 8.
The request was through 21 Amendment 4 8, 22 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
It was Amendment 4 8.
Okay.
23 I'm sure whatever the transcript says is correct.
24 MR. GALLO:
In response to your point, I l'_
r
( j!
25 expect that we will provide the Board the original Sonntag Reporting Service Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11894
/
I I
L,:
1 contract documents beginning with Ernst and spanning 2
through the takeover by L.
K.
Comstock, along with 3
supplemental testimony with respect to the matters 4
raised by the Board, and I believe we'll have a 5
conformed copy of L2790 through Amendment 48 at that 6
time as well, but we have not forgotten the Board's 7
r eques t.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay, fine.
9 But I hope you don't leave it until the last day of 10 hearing, just in case it doesn't fully cover what we 11 have.
(
)
12 We did ask you for it, I believe, over a month ago, L;
13 and the sooner we have it, the more we can see whether 14 it completes the documentation of the contract 15 s pecifica tion s.
16 MR. GALLO:
Well, I hope to make a delivery 17 of the contract documents involving Ernst and Comstock 18 tomorrow.
19 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
Oh, okay, fine.
20 MR. GALLO:
I'm not certain at this point 21 whether the conformed copy of L2790 will be available 22 tomorrow, but it will be certainly by the next time we 23 meet af ter tomorrow.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay, good.
(
'\\
(_,)
25 Now, any further preliminary matters?
ennn eng nopnreing mo rui ca _
- r. ea.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11895 X
1 Excuse me.
I believe there was also the request for updated Form 1701, but I'm not sure whether.we 2'
l..
3 receded from that.
I would have to check the -
l 4
transcript, unless that is known to Applicant's counsel i
5 now.
j 6
MR. GALLO:
I think --
f-
.7 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
You see, the longer we wait 8
on these things, the hazier our recollections become, 9
and we have to go search a voluminous transcript to 10 determine that.
11 MR. GALLO:
I don't believe we have any
/~'
12 trouble addressing that aspect as well.
(
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay, fine.
14 MR. BERRY:
Mr. Chairman --
15 MR. GALLO:
I have one other preliminary 16 matter.
17 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
Sure.
18 MR. GALLO:
Yesterday we took the deposition 19 of -- I'm trying to pronounce his name right -- Mr.
I 20 Archambeault,_ and during a part of that deposition, at
~21 which time I was asking the questions, we went in camera 22 to ask some questions with respect to the Staff 23 documents that had been produced under protective order, 24 and through my inadvertence, Mr. Gieseker remained in
)
2.5 the room for a part of that examination.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
11896 p;
i 1-
\\g 1
When it was brought to my attention that he was-2 still in the room, by Mr. Berry, we asked him to leave, 3
and he was excluded from further examination.
4 However, I've talked to Mr. Gieseker, and he agrees 5
that he will be bound to the same protective order that 6
binds counsel as well with respect to those of Staff 7.
documents; and I apologize for that inadvertent breach 8
of the protective order.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
10 Of course, he's not to become privy to any further 11
- documents because he signed the protective order, but f~y
( )
12 with regard to what he's already unintentionally become 13 privy to, he will be bound by the protective order.
14 I assume you've indicated that to him, Mr. Gallo?
15 MR. G ALLO:
That's understood, your. Honor.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes, okay.
17 MR. BERRY:
Mr. Chairman, I'd just like the 18 record to reflect that this day the Staff has served on 19 the Board copies of a document generated on September 20 2nd.
It's a memorandum from Mr. Weil to Mr. No relius, 21 and it refers to Allegation III-86-A-0096.
22 Yesterday, prior to the deposition, Staff served 23 copies of that memorandum on counsel for Applicant and 24 Intervenor.
25 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
Fine.
I'm glad to see we're ennneng nnpnr eing se rvi nn r+a_
f Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11897
[
l v
1 getting these things hot off the press these days, Mr.
2 Berry.
3 Anything Mr. Guild?
4 MR. GUILD:
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
5 I wanted to inform the Board and parties as early 6
as possible, in light of the deposition testimony of Mr.
7 Archambeault yesterday, it is Intervenors' intention to 8
call Mr. Archambeault as our witness during the course 9
of the presentation of our case.
10 Since Mr. McGregor is at present our last witness, 11 it would be our intention to call him expeditiously at
)
12 the convenience of the Board and parties, but it is our 13 intention to present him as a witness.
14 I don't mean to entertain or suggest the need for 15 argument on that point now, but I wanted to just bring 16 that point to the Board and parties' attention.
17 We are expecting a transcript of Mr. Archambeault's 18 testimony -- deposition testimony, I think Friday, 19 Monday at the latest; and should the Board or parties 20 wish to discuss the details of that matter, we would be 21 prepared to be heard at that time.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, is there going to be 23 any obj ection to that, Mr. Gallo or Mr. Miller?
24 MR. GALLO:
Can we consult?
(
a
,)
25 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
Well, you are not required I
annneng nopnreing ca rui co, r+ a.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11898
)
x..
1 to respond now.
2 MR. GALLO:
Well, give us an opportunity to 3
discusa Mr. Guild's suggestion during the recess or 4
during the lunch break and we will respond.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Fine.
6 Then, Mr. Berry, you can also give us your position 7
on tha t.
8 MR. BERRY:
Very well, your Honor.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
If that concludes all the 10 preliminary matters, we'll return to Mr. McG rego r.
11 Mr. McGregor, you remain under oath, and Mr. Gallo 12 will continue with his cross examination.
'w, '
13 Before that, I notice that you had been reviewing 14 the transcript of Friday's session.
15 Did you have anything to correct in there, Mr.
16 McGregor?
17 THE WITNESS:
Nell, I didn't find the 18 stateiaent that I was looking for, and probably someo'ne 19 in the courtroom can look for it or I'll look for it at 20 a later date, and it is very important, because it 21 addresses some issues that you probably aren't aware of, 22 your Honor.
23 And I'd like to take a few moments, i f I m ay, to 24 discuss this; and in conclusion, I would like to request i
~
( )
25 that I be removed from this witness stand today until I gnnntag ongnr ei ng no rui co, r.e a z Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11899 f%
1
, i_.I 1
can. be represented by a lawyer.
2 The~ depositions that I took some time ago in 3
December,~ at that particular time, I was basically-4 harassed and intimidated, in my estimate, by Mr. Gallo, 5
being questioned on how I was going to write ~ my
'6 testimony and what I had written, and he went on and on 7
relentlessly for-a period of time as to how I was going 8
to write a testimony and what I had written.
9 Through no objection from the Commission,- this -
10 continued on until fin' ally we dispersed with the
-11 depo sitions.
[
)
-12 Subsquent to that, I have written up my deposition;
%/
13 and I have no idea where the deposition -- where my 14 testimony -- where it's at.
~
15' It's quite evident, in my opinion, that safety 16 issues and safety concerns are really not being 17 addressed by Commonwealth Edison, nor are they being 18 addressed by the Staff in the positions that they are 19 taking.
I 20 It's only f rom you that-I can possibly pry out an 21 objection from the Commission when I'm being harassed 22 and intimidated and called a whistle blower, and it just 23 goes on and on.
i 24 I am down here, as I understand it, subpoenaed by C
25 the Commission, I do believe, yet without representation sonntag neporeing service. r.t a.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312),232-0262
11900
[
}
v 1
from anybody.
2 secondly, there is an ongoing investigation of me 3
by the Commission in which they've been dragging their 4
feet since March, probably, I fear, in reprisal on -- on 5
the hearings that are been conducted.
6 And this hearing -- or this investigation started 7
out as criminal charges brought against me by the 8
Commission; and what I was looking for was something 9
that Mr. Guild -- Mr. Gallo -- I'm sorry -- brought out.
10 He held in his hand the letter that I had written to the 11 Commission on Mr. Worley Puckett's concerns.
I forget
()
12 which Intervenors' or whatever number they -- the record xs 13 indicates.
And he says, "Mr. McGregor, in fact, isn't 14 this your recording," and then he changed his wording to 15 say, "Isn't this your record," and that's what I was 16 looking for in that testimony, because that has direct 17 bearing on this investigation that the Commission is 18 supposedly conducting on me.
19 And so without too much further adieu from me, 20 until I can be represented by my lawyer, until I have 21 proper representation, and until this investigation, 22 which the Commission has been ongoing for some time, is 23 completed, then I respectfully request that any further 24 testimony on my behalf will be halted until that time.
l',,
\\
(,,/
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
W ell, I would take it gnnnFng nnpnreing enruico; r+a Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
'11901 fm
'(
)
\\_/
1 there's no objection. from the parties on that?
2 Mr. Berry.
3 MR. BERRY:
Mr. Chairman,~could I_have-a 4
moment?
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I'm sorry.
We can' t hear 6
you.
7 JUDG E COLE:
He said, "Could I have a 8
moment."
9 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
Oh, okay.
l'0 Do you'wish to take a recess now while the parties 11 consider what their positions will be?
-(~N 12 I don't think there's much question, but that if
}
13' the witness is under investigation and wishes to consult 14 with his attorney, what the Board's ruling is going to 15 be on that, but certainly the parties can indicate their
. li6 positions on this and voice whatever objections _ they 17 have.
18 So, Mr. Berry.
19 MR. BERRY:
Mr. Chairman, I'd like a moment i
20 to consult with my colleague.
.The Staff may have a j
21 statement that we want to make in response.
22 At this point, I see nothing objectionable on the 23 witness expressing a preference or desire to retain 24 private counsel.
I certainly would respect that wish; O)
(,
25 but the Staff may have some information to share with ennn eng nannreing na rui ca, r+a.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11902
.. (
/
1 the Board.
,2 I'd like the opportunity to consult with people in 3
~a position to know before the Board makes its ruling.
-4 J UDG E ' G ROSSMAN:
Okay.
Why don't we take a 5
five-minute recess now.
6 (WHEREUPON,' a recess was had, after which 7
the hearing was resumed as follows:)
'8 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
Okay.
.We' re ready to go 9
back on the - re' cord.
10 Mr. McGregor, you characterized the matter as 11-criminal charges.
gm 12 I assume that that's not accurate, and that what-q 13 you must be referring to-is some sort of preliminary 14 -
inqui ry ?
15 THE WITNESS:
One moment, sir.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Sure.
17 THE WITNESS:
At 0920 hours0.0106 days <br />0.256 hours <br />0.00152 weeks <br />3.5006e-4 months <br /> on 3/13/86 Mr.
18 Campbell -- he's an investigator for OI A -- in witness
'19-of my supervisor, Mr. Duane Boyd,.said that you are 20 charged with Criminal Misconduct No. 1.
-21, Now, I don't know what Criminal Misconduct No. 1 22 -
is, my attorney hasn't found that out; and we're 23-still -- we are still proceeding with action in this 24 case, your Honor, meaning myself and my attorney.
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Do you wish to indicate the nnnn t-ag nepnr a ng se rvi ce. r+a.
L Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11903 l'
'i Q,l 1
nature of that or do you prefer not to state it?
2 We're just trying to get a handle on it.
3 THE WITNESS:
If you and your colleagues --
4 if the Board would wish, I'll meet with you privately 5
and I'll tell you what the concerns are.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
But this is under 7
investigation by OIA at this point?
8 THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir, yes, sir, it is.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay, okay.
10 I don' t wish to inquire any further into the 11 matter.
(
)
12 Well, the question I had was whether it arose from LJ 13 anything that transpired that's within the subject 14 matter of the proceeding, but if you are hesitant about 15 even stating that, we won't insist on an answer from 16 you.
17 I take it you prefer not to respond?
18 THE WITNESS:
That would be correct, your 19 Honor.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
21 THE WITNESS:
I -- I would like to have my 22 attorney here, and we'll -- we'll handle one of these 23 cases at a time.
24 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
Mr. Berry, do you have a
,a k) 25 po sition ?
nnnntag nopnreing noruicn, r+ a _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11904-
-m s,/..
m 1
MR. BERRY:
Mr. Chairman, the Staf f respects 2
Mr. McGregor's. desire to have his personal attorney 3
present with him when he testifies.
We understand that 4
and we respect that.
5 Of course, Staff counsel's, as you know, role in l
6 this proceeding is to represent the Staff.
7 We don't represent parties in their private 8
capacity; and certainly any party witness is entitled to 9
have --
10 JUDGE G ROSSMAN:
You will have to speak up, 11 Mr. Berry.
(
12 MR. BERRY:
-- to have representation, you f
13 know, by a privately-retained attorney to protect their 14 private interest.
15 Mr. McGregor is certainly. entitled to that, and the j
16 Staff doesn't question that.
17 Staff Counsel is not privy to the details of any 18 ongoing investiga tion to which Mr. McGregor alluded 'to.
19 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
Were you aware that there 20 was some investigation?
21 MR. BERRY:
I heard rumors to that effect, 22 Mr. Chairman, but no one has spoken to me about it, and 23 I'm not sure if any of the members of the Staff 24 litigation team has personal knowledge of this matter.
25 As you know, OIA -- they conduct their snnneng pannreing ga rvi ca, r. t a.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11905
<3 1
investigations,. you know, confidentially and they don't 2
take people into their confidence.
3
.Just one second, your Honor.
4 OIA, they don' t take people -- they don' t share 5
results or the matters which. they are investigating with 6-those who don' t have a need to know.
7 I must note, your Honor, that I have just been i
j 8
informed by my cocounsel, Miss Chan, that she was aware-9 of,' and also Ms. Moore, who has also entered an 10 appearance in this proceeding, she was aware.
i 11 I understand that they spoke -- OIA had spoken with 12 Ms. Chan and Ms. Moore.
I've had no contact with OIA.-
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
That's Janice Moore?
14 MR. BERRY:
Yes.
15 But, again, Mr. Chairman, you know, the Staff has 16 no problems, readily accedes to Mr. McGregor's request 17 he be excused from further participation in this i
18 proceeding until his attorney can be present.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, I think you ought to 20 also find out how long this investigation is going to 1
21 last, Mr. Berry.
22 Even though the witness may be represented by I'
23 counsel, if the investigation is just waiting to be 24 closed out, I think maybe it ought to be closed out 25 before we have Mr. McGregor testifying again, f
I sonntaa nenortina snevicn. r.e a.
Ged eva', Illidols 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
r
'11906 4
4 Q1 1
MR. BERRY:
Well, I'll certainly make best I
2' efforts to obtain that information, Mr. Chairman.
J 3
As you know, the Office of General Counsel doesn't 5
4 have much control or influence over-the Office of 5
Investigations or the Office of Inspections and Audit.
~
6 I would note, also, that -- and, again, I'm not 4
7 privy to the' details of the ongoing investigation of Mr.
8 McGregor, but it's my understanding that the subject 9
matter of the investigation does not relate to any of 10 the matters that are the subject of Intervenors' 11 inspectoc harassment contention.
(
12 Consequently, it's my understanding that whatever 13 the subject matter of this investigation is would not be 14 a subj ect for inquiry into this proceeding.
15 Certainly the Staff would object to any probing of 16.
the details of that in~vestigation.
17 MR. GUILD:
I'm sorry.
18 Mr. Chairman, is that the Staff would object?
19 MR. BERRY:
Yes, yes.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
You are speaking about the 21 subject matter of the investigation?
22 MR. BERRY:
Yes, that's correct.
23 It's my understanding that the subject matter of 24 that investigation would have no bearing on 'the
(
25 matters -- any of the mattars that are the subject of nnnnenn nannreinn enruica_
r+ a
~
i Gebeva', Illi5ois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 11907
/
1 Intervenors' harassment contention.
It's my 2
understanding that the two matters are separate and 3
discreet.
4 So the Staff -- Mr. McGregor is appearing in this 5
proceeding as a member of the NRC Staff and not in his 6
private capacity, and, cons eq uently, it's his activity 7
and actions as a member of the NRC Staff with respect to 8
admitted contentions that are relevant here.
9 Matters beyond that are irrelevant, and certainty 10 the Staff would obj ect to any inquiry into such matters.
1 11 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Gallo.
12 MR. GALLO:
Your Honor, Applicant, of course, (is) 13 respects the witness' wish and we support his request 14 for counsel.
We have no obj ection that he be allowed to 15 step down until his attorney can be made available for 16 this proceeding.
17 I have, I guess, three additional statements.
18 One is that we are not ready to concede, as the 19 Staff is, that whatever the activities are that are 20 being investigated are not relevant to this proceeding.
21 They may well be relevant to this witness' 22 testimony in this case.
23 Secondly, I assume that the witness' statement, as 24 he began his discussion this morning, that safety
(
,)
25 concerns are not being addressed by the NRC Staff or Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11908 I
I
'J l
Commonwealth Edison -- I assume that is not testimony in 2
evidence in this case.
3 If so, I would request that the witness be subject 4
to cross examination on that point.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
At this point while he is 6
not being represented by counsel?
7 MR. GALLO:
Well, it seems to me he can't 8
have it both ways.
He can't come in and gratuitously 9
present testimony and then step down for another day.
10 I expect that at least two statements were a part 11 of his prepared remarks and weren't intended as part of
,.(j 12 his testimony.
I could be wrong.
13 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, I don't think it 14 really turns on the witness' intention.
15 The fact is the witness is under oath and the 16 witness did make sworn testimony, and I believe that it 17 is testimony for all purposes.
18 I certainly concede that Mr. Gallo has a full right 19 to examine the witness on that testimony, but I don't 20 think it's appropriate or necessary or burdensome at all 21 to Applicant to defer that examination until the time 22 Mr. McGregor has counsel present.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, Mr. Gallo, we are not 24 in the practice of accepting direct testimony with only p_
(( )'
25 partial cross examination, so that your concerns are annneng nonnreing snruicn, Lea.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 11909 i
w/
1 irrelevant, really.
2 We couldn't end up accepting any of the testimony 3
until the witness has been subject to full cross 4
examination.
5 The question is whether he ought to be subj ected to 6
further examination now; and if your position is that he 7
has to be or you are pursuing -- are you pursuing that 8
r eques t, Mr. Gallo ?
9 MR. GALLO:
Can I ask a preliminary question 10 as to whether or not the Board agrees with Mr. Guild, 11 that it is testimony?
That is, the statement that he
(
)
12 made early this morning is testimony?
~/
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, it is testimony, Mr.
14 Gallo; but we're not about to accept any testimony until 15 the parties have the right to fully examine the witness, 16 and you haven't had that right so far, so we can't 17 possibly be accepting the testimony, but it certainly is 18 testimony.
19 MR. GALLO:
I would not press at this time to 20 examine the witness.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
22 Mr. Guild, do you have -- oh, Mr. Gallo.
23 MR. GALLO:
One final point, your Honor.
24 Mr. McGregor, in his statement, indicated that he
,,s
(.,)
25 felt harassed and intimidated at the deposition.
He was ennneng nnnnreing spruico,. r.e a.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11910 l
l
%/
1 harassed and intimidated by me.
2 I,
of course, take exception to that 3
characterization, and would simply suggest that it was 4
necessary to pursue him on answers to questions because 5
he managed to avoid and be non-responsive to my 6
questions.
7 Tha t's all I have.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Guild, do you have 9
anything further?
10 MR. GUILD:
No, sir, I don' t have anything 11 f ur the r, f) 12 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
Okay.
At this time, then, v
13 we'll excuse the witness.
14 I think, Mr. McGrego r --
15 MR. GALLO:
Your Honor, before he's excused, 16 can we have some sort of game plan for future action 17 with respect to Mr. McGregor?
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes.
Well, that's what I 19 was going to suggest.
20 Mr. McGregor, you are still under subpoena, and 21 you've partially testified and so you are still under 22 control of the Board.
23 Now, I think the way to proceed would be for your l
24 attorney to contact the counsel for the parties and see p_
\\
(
)
25 if you can work out some arrangement for reappearing s
snnneng nnpnreing gnrutcn, Lea.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
}
(312) 232-0262
11911 i
Lj 1
here and some ground rules that can be observed during 2
your testimony, and if you can't reach agreement, you 3
can bring the matters or your attorney can bring the 4
matters to the Board and we can then take some action in 5
applying some ground rules; and I hope you could do that 6
as soon as possible, and perhaps have your attorney 7
pursue the matter with Staff as to completing their 8
investiga tion.
9 I think that would be the most productive way of 10 going about it; and we may have further questions for 11 Staff as to when that investigation is going to be n
(
)
12 completed, and we think that that ought to be a top
%J 13 priority.
14 THE WITNESS:
Well, your Honor, I agree with 15 you 100 percent.
16 First of all, I feel that it is appalling that I 17 have to hire a private attorney to represent me as a 18 member of the Staff f rom continual harassment and 19 intimidation by Commonwealth Edison.
Never th eless, be 20 that as it may, we'll proceed.
We -- my attorney has been, since -- the report was 21 22 supposed to have been out in July, the 4th of July, the 23 week of the 4 th of July.
We've been continually 24 pressing OIA to get that report out, and they just keep
- k.,)
25 dragging it on and on and on and on.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11912
(
l v
1 I can only assume that they are holding it up for 2
reprisals on my testimony here with the Commission..
3 Unfortunately, my attorney is on vacation right 4
now.
When he returns -- I think he's on two weeks or so 5
of vacation.
6 When he returns, I'll be in contact with him.
7 I need the depositions tha t -- I'm sorry -- the 8
testimony that has been taken here over the past 9
two-and-a-half or three days that directly affects me.
10 He'll need, naturally, some time to proceed with that; 11 and then after the Commission gets done with their
(
)
12 investigation, we'll be more than happy to -- to
'w.J 13 continue this proceeding.
14 MR. BERRY:
Mr. Chairman, the Staff would be 15 more than happy to discuss with Mr. McGregor's counsel 16 any arrangements that can work to the advantage of all 17 parties that have an interest in this matter, and we'll 18 proceed to do so.
19 I'm not in a position now to state whether it's 20 Staf f's position that Mr. McGregor's testimony should be 21 suspended until the completion of the investigation.
22 I'm not certain tha t's necessary, what the Staf f's 23 position will be, but we'll certainly look into it.
24 If a report was supposed to have been issued in i
r
(,,)
July of 1986, I will certainly endeavor to find out why 25 gnnn eng nnnnr ing co rui cn, r+ a =
e Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11913 I
i n.J 1
it hasn't been issued and what the status of it is.
2 Again, as I indicated, it's my understanding that 3
the subject matter of that investigation has no bearing 4
on the matters which we're litigating in this 5
contention; and it would be our position that inquiry 6
into those matters, into that OIA investigation, would 7
be beyond the scope of this proceeding.
The Staf f would 8
obj ect to any inquiry into that matter.
9 So, again, we will be in contact -- or certainly 10 would consent to any discussions with Mr. McG rego r 's 11 private attorney, and we can work out a
(
)
12 mutually-satisfactory arrangement for all parties LJ 13 concerned.
14 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
Well, I'm not sure that we 15 won't inquire further if that investigation isn't closed 16 within a short time.
17 If it was to have been closed by July 4th, it would 18 seem as though it could be closed by now.
19 I don' t know that it's not relevant when the 20 witness has to appear here somewhat under a cloud.
I 21 think that could very well have an intimidating effect 22 on his testimony; and I'm not saying that there couldn't 23 be reasons why the investigation wasn't closed.
Maybe 24 OIA has its own problems with investigations and hasn't
\\
\\ _,./
25 had time to complete that.
I have no idea.
Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, T,td.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 1
\\
11914 i
s_/
1 But we certainly think that an ef fort ought to be 2
made to close this as quickly as possible.
3 MR. BERRY:
Well, I certainly agree with you, 4
Mr. Chairman, that, as to the extent Mr. McG rego r 's 5
uncomfortable appearing in this proceeding, that is 6
something that the Board should take note of.
7 We seem to throw around the words intimidation and 8
harassment pretty loosely here; and at this time I would 9
take exception to any suggestion that the Staff has 10 engaged in any conduct or is contemplating conduct in 11 retaliation for Mr. McGregor's testimony in this
,, ~,
(v) 12 proceeding.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, before you draw that 14 implication from my remarks, you should read the 15 transcript carefully.
16 MR. BERRY:
Okay.
17 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
If there's nothing further, 18 we'll excuse Mr. McGregor now with the suggestions that 19 we had made to him with regard to concluding that aspect 20 of -- that is, the investigation and coming here free of 21 any inhibitions, if that works, or if not, we'll set 22 some ground rules.
23 So, Mr. McGregor you are still under direction of 24 the Board, but for the time being, you are excused from
,o(,)
25 testifying.
sonntag nnporting snruico, r+a_
Geneva, Illinois 60134
[
(312) 232-0262
11915 l
1 THE WITNESS:
Thank you, your Honor.
2 (Witness excused.)
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I take it now we have Mr.
4 Well ready for examination or is he not here yet?
5 MR. SERRY:
Mr. Chairman, I advised Mr. Weil 6
to be available for testimony af ter the luncheon recess 7
today.
8 It was my expectation that we would not complete 9
Mr. McGregor until after the luncheon recess, and 10 accordingly I so advised Mr. Well, so due to this 11 unexpected circumstance this morning, Staff f
}
12 embarrassingly finds itself without a witness ready to
,.a 13 take the stand.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
When do you think he 15 can be available?
16 MR. BERRY:
I'm sure if we called him now, 17 probably in an hour.
He's in the Regional Office in 18 Glen Ellyn.
19 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
Well, why don't we then 20 adjourn until 11:00 o' clock.
21 W el.'., there's no point to starting him at 12:00 22 o' clock, so why don't we have an early luncheon break 23 and --
l 24 JUDGE COLE:
It's only 10:00 now.
,em k) 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Oh, I'm sorry.
Oh, okay.
1 snnneng nnpnreing sorutcn; r+ a Geneva, Illinois 60134 L
(312) 232-0262
11916 t
8
- s. _ 7' 1
I'm still on Washington time here.
2 Yes, why don't we call him immediately and have him 3
come here, if he can, within the hour, and then we'll 4
start his testimony.
5 So we're in recess until about 11:00 o' clock, as 6
soon as Mr. Berry informs us that his witness is --
7 MR. GALLO:
Your Honor, perhaps we could stay 8
in session until we hear whether or not Mr. Weil can 9
come immediately.
10 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
Okay.
That's fine.
11 Let's go off the record.
73
)
12 (There followed a discussion outside the (J
13 record.?
14 JUDG E G ROSSMAN:
Back on the record, 15 Okay, fine.
Why don't we wait around until we hear 16 further.
17 MR. BERRY:
Mr. Chairman, we succeeded in 18 reaching Mr. Weil at his home, 19 Apparently the next train downtown is not until 20 11:20, and that would get him here around 12:30, close 21 to the 1:00 o' clock hour.
22 The alternative to that is he would have to drive 23 in, and he informs me from his home, that it would be 24 close to between 11:30 and quarter to 12 before he can
')
/
i i
/
25 arrive, anyway, even if he were to drive.
That would snnneng popnreing snevicn r+a_
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11917 i
)
a 1
bring us within 15, 20 minutes of our luncheon recess.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay, that's fine.
3 MR. BERRY:
So what I told him to do was take 4
the train and be here at 1:00 o' clock.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes, tha t's fine.
6 We'll resume, then, at 1:00 o' clock.
7 (WHEREUPON, the hearing was continued to 8
the hour of 1:00 P.
M.)
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
We're back in session.
10 Mr. Berry, could you please call your next witness, 11 MR. BERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
((_.-)
12 At this time the Staff would call Charles H.
13 Weil --
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Weil, would you --
15 MR. BERRY:
-- to the stand.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
-- stand, please, and raise 17 your right hand.
18 (The witness was thereupon duly sworn.)
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Please be seated.
20 CHARLES H. WEIL 21 called as a witness by the Staff, having been first duly 22 sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
23 DIRECT EXAMINATION 24 BY MR. BERRY:
/
i
(,)
25 Q
State your full name and your business address, spell Ronntag Reporting Rnrvice. Tt d _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11918 1
your last name, please.
2 A
Charles H.
- Weil, W-E-I-L, U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory 3
Commission, Region III, 799 Roosevelt Road, Glen Ellyn, 4
5 Q
Mr. Weil, do you have before you a document, 20 pages in 6
length, with a 1-page attachment, entitled "NRC Staf f 7
Testimony of Charles H.
Weil Regarding Bridgette Little 8
Rorem, et al.,
Subcontention 2.C"?
9 A
Yes, sir.
10 0
Was that document prepared by you or under your 11 direction?
12 A
Yes, sir.
4 13 Q
Are there any changes or corrections you wish to make to 14 that document?
15 A
No, sir.
16 MR. BERRY:
At this time, Mr. Weil, I would 17 like to place before you a document, and I would ask the 18 Court Reporter to mark it for identification as Staff 19 Exhibit 18.
I t ' s a r
- c. u -
t 23, 1984, memorandum from W.
20 L.
Forney to C.
H. Weil.
21 (Indica ting. )
22 (The document was thereupon marked Staff 23 Exhibit No. 18 for identification as of 24 September 4, 1986.)
,~
25 BY MR. BERRY:
nnnntag nonnreing noruton; r+a.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
11919 O
i
(
\\
l %)
1 Q
Mr. Well, is the document that's been marked for l
2 identification Staff Exhibit 18 the document you refer-
'3 to in Answer 5 of your testimony on Page 2?
4 A
Yes, sir, it is.
5 Q
Mr. Weil, I'd also show you a document -that's received l
6 in evidence as Staf f Exhibit 12, and it's a letter dated 7
August 29th f rom yourself to Mr. John Seeders, and ask 8
you if you can identify that document.
9 (Indicating.)
10 A.
Yes, sir, I can.
11-It's a letter I prepared to Mr. Seeders-(O; 12 acknowledging his allegations to the NRC.
LJ 13' Q
Is that the document you refer to in your Answer 6?
14 A
Yes, sir, it is.
15 MR. BERRY:
I place before you now, Mr. Weil, 16 a document I would ask the Court Reporter to mark for 17 identification as Staff Exhibit 19.
18 (Indicating.)
19 For the record, this is an August 27, 1984,
/
20 memorandum from Charles H. Weil to C.
E.
Norelius.
21 (The document was thereupon marked Staff l
22 Exhibit No.19 for identification as of l
l 23 September 4, 1986.)
l 1
24 BY MR. BERRY:
25 Q
I would ask you:
I gnnntag nonnering gnrvico, r+a.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) ] 32-0262
P 11920
.,Ds
[\\}
1-Is-Staf f Exhibit 19 the document you refer tolin 2
Answer 7 of your prefiled direct testimony?
3
'A Yes, sir, it is.
4 MR. BERRY:
I place before you another 5
document, Mr. Weil, and ask the Reporter to mark it as 6
Staff Exhibit 20.
It's a January 25, 1985, memorandum 7
from Eugene T.
Pawlik, the Director of Office of 8
Investigations Field Office for Region III, to Charles
.9 H. Weil.
.10 (Indica ting. )
(The document was thereupon marked Staff 11 12 Exhibit No. 20 for identification as of i
.13 September 4, 1986.)
14 BY MR. BERRY:
15 Q
I would ask you if-you can identify that document.
16 A
This is a memorandum prepared by Eugene Pawlik, who is 17 the Director of the Region III Field Office Office of 18 Investigations, to myself responding to information that 19 I had sent him on Mr. Seeders' allega tion.
20 The information I sent-him, -I believe, was a copy 21 of an' Inspection Report.
22 MR. BERRY:
I would ask'the Court Reporter to 23 mark for identification as Staff Exhibit 21 a memorandum 24 dated October 26, 1984, from C.
H. Weil to R.
L.
25 Spessard and E.
T. Pawlik.
Annn eac Dannr eing ca rvi ca: r+a.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11921 i
1 (The document was thereupon marked Staff 2
Exhibit No. 21 for identification as of 3
September 4, 1986.)
4 BY MR. BERRY:
5 0
I'd ask you, Mr. Weil:
6 Is this the document you refer to in Answer 5 8 of 7
your prefiled testimony on Page 15?
8 A
Sir, could I have that question number again, please?
9 Q
Answer 5 8 on Page 14.
10 A
No, sir, it's not.
11 Q
Would you identify what's been marked as Staff Exhibit
[
)
12 21?
w.-
13 A
Sir, Staff Exhibit 21 is a memorandum that I prepared 14 after conducting an interview with Mr. Worley Puckett, 15 and in this memorandum, I transmitted to the addressees 16 copies of the transcript that was taken during the 17 interview of Mr. Puckett as well as -- there may also 18 have been copies of documents that Mr. Puckett gave us, 19 too.
20 MR. BERRY:
I'd ask the Court Reporter to 21 mark for identification as Staff Exhibit 22 a December 22 16, 1985, memorandum from Eugene T.
Pawlik to Charles H.
23
- Well, 24 (The document was thereupon marked Staff p_
\\
(,)
25 Exhibit No. 22 for identification as of snnntag nonnreing snruicn, r+ a -
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11922 p
L) 1 September 4, 1986.)
2 BY MR. BERRY:
3 Q'
I'd ask if you can identify that document.
'4 A
.Yes, sir.
This is a response from Mr.. Pawlik.to me 5
af ter he' reviewed the interview transcript of the Mr.
6 Puckett interview as well as having read the Region III 7
Inspection Report into those' allegations.
8
.Q Thank you.
9-MR. BERRY:
Finally, I would ask the. Court 1:
3 10 Reporter to mark for identification as Staff ' Exhibit 23 11 a November 7,1985, memorandum f rom Charles H. Weil to f
j 12 E.
T. Pawlik.
O j
13 (The document was thereupon marked Staff' 14 Exhibit No. 23 for identification as of 15 September 4, 1986.)
-16 BY MR. BERRY:
4 17 Q
I'd ask you, Mr. Well, if you can identify that 18 document.
4 19 A
Yes, sir.
This is a memorandum in which I transmitted i
20 an Inspection Report tx) Mr. Pawlik for his review.
21 That Inspection Report covered allegations made by i
22 a number of Quality Control Inspectors working for L.
K.-
-23 Comstock at the Braidwood plant.
24 0
Okay.
25 Mr. Well, I'll place before you a document that's nnnneng nonnreing no rut en
- r. e a.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11923 m
)
N._/
1 been received in evidence as Staff Exhibit 6.
It's a 2
December 4, 1985, letter f rom yourself to Worley O.
3 Puckett, and ask you if you can identify that document.
4 (Indicating.)
5 A
Yes, sir.
It is a copy of a letter I sent to Mr.
I 6
Puckett, and the purpose of which was to send him the
}
7 Inspection Report in which Region III had reviewed his I
8 allegations at Braidwood.
9 Q
Next I want to place -- I show you a document that's i
10 been marked for identification as staff Exhibit 7, which 11 is a September 6, 1984, memorandum from C.
H. Weil to C.
s
[
).
12 E.
Norelius and R.
L.
Spessard and ask you if you can
'x_/
13 identify that document.
14 (Indicating.)
l l
1 15 A
Yes, sir.
It's a memorandum documenting the concerns we 16 initially received from Mr. Puckett in late August, 17 1984.
18 Q
Did you prepare that document?
19 A
Yes, sir, I did.
20 0
I notice, Mr. Well, that along the margins of this 21 document there are some handwritten notations.
22 Can you identify the handwriting?
23 A
Yes, sir, I can.
That's my handwriting.
24 Q
What is the significance of the marginalia notations?
(,,)
25 A
Those were cross-references for my use, cross-references Ronntag Reporting Rnrvicn.
T.t d _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
n 11924 U
g 1
to the transcript of - the Mr. Puckett' interview..
'2 MR.. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, my copy of this 3
document places me at somewhat of a handicap since it -
4 seems to cut off a number. of those references that the 5
witness has just referred to.
6
_I'm wondering if counsel has a better copy of that
'7 document.
8 MR. MILLER:
Mine, too.
9 MR. BERRY:
All right.
10 MR. GUILD:
I surmised that's whose those 11 references were;_but since the pages were cut off on my
(
12 copy --
13 MR. BERRY:
All the copies were made off the 14 same document, and I'm sure that this infirmity may 15 affect the Board's copies as well.
16 We'll endeavor to --
17 JUDGE COLE:
What number is that?
18 MR. MILLER:
Staf f Exhibit 7.
19 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
S7.
20 MB. BERRY:
We'll endeavor to obtain a more 21 complete copy; that is, if the witness cannot identify 22 the page numbers himself.
23 MR. MILLER:
Here's the same thing.
24 (Indicating.)
25 MR. GUILD:
Well, the question is, Mr.
ennn ag nonnri-i n g nn evi co. r.ta _
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11925
,m
\\
\\
/
.s 1
Chairman, if the witness is going to stand cross 2
examination now and if, as we now understand, these are 3
intended to represent cross-references to the Puckett 4
interview transcript, without a legible copy it's 5
impossible for us to examine him on this.
6 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
Do you have a legible copy 7
anywhere, Mr. Berry?
8 MR. BERRY:
I'll check.
9 I'm not of fering the marginalia as evidence, Mr.
10
- Chairman, 11 JUDG E G ROSSMAN:
Which one are you referring
,/m l
2 12 to?
\\m /
f 13 MR. BERRY:
I said we are not offering the l
l 14 marginalia on this document as evidence.
i l
15 MR. GUILD:
Well, that's a convenient thing l
16 to say at this point, Mr. Chairman, where it was not I
17 offered with any restrictions at the time it was 18 initially -- I recede from that observation.
19 In order to be able to -- if it purports to reflect 20 an accurate summary of Mr. Puckett's allegations, in 21 part in reliance on the transcript of Mr. Puckett's 22 interview, which is what counsel has maintained 23 previously in this proceeding, from what I understand is 24 the substance of Mr. Weil's testimony -- his prefiled O) 25 testimony, those cross-references obviously have s
sonntag nopnr ting sn ruf en. rta.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11926 r
-\\,/
1 evidentiary significance.
2 Whether the Staff wishes to rely upon them or not, 3
of course, the party is disadvantaged by not being able 4
to read those.
5 MR. BERRY:
Well, I don't understand that 6
objection at all.
7 The document, Staff Exhibit 7, as well as Staff 8
Exhibit 10, which is the transcript of that interview, 9
are a part of the record in this proceeding and have 10 been made available to the parties.
11 I mean, the parties are free to compare the (n')
12 transcript to the notations -- to the memorandum, Staff
- y ;
13 Exhibit 7.
14 JUDGE G ROSSMAN:
You never answered that 15 question.
16 MR. BERRY:
Apparently not, your Honor.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Oh, okay.
18 MR. BERRY:
It is not with us here in the 19 courtroom today.
20 JUDG E G ROSSMAN:
Well, Mr. Guild, we're going 21 to get this in sooner or later.
22 How necessary is it for you to get all the page 23 references?
Are you going to go over each one of 24 these?
(7 i
)
25 MR. GUILD:
Wire trying to do that, but we' re i
gnnntag nnpor H ng se rvi ce, t.Ed.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11927
.LJ 1.
finding it difficult since. we 'can' t. read the references.
2
'Now we understand, indeed, they are Mr. Weil's 3
marginal notations and they do make a. cross-reference.
4 If the Board will recall, Staff made quite_a point 5
earlier of -- at one time tried to of fer the 6
transcripts, because they purported to suggest that they 7
relied on Mr. Puckett's interview testimony to formulate 8
the issues that were then the subj ect of inspection.
9 We now know there's a cross-reference between Mr.
10 Pawlik's rather seminal document, the summary of 11 allegations that Mr. Schapker relied upon in performing
(
12 bis inspection; that that summary has cross-references 13 to specific transcript references.
14 We're unable to check those because the copy cuts 15 off the pages.
16 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, I think that during 17 Mr. McGregor's examination, this document was referred
+
U 18 to, and at that point Staff Counsel made a 19 representation that the handwritten comments were Mr.
20 Weil's comments.
j' 21 I would hate to see the examination of Mr. Weil 22' deferred simply because of what appears to be an 23 inadvertent mechanical problem with one document.
l 24 Perhaps the Staff could see whether the original of 25 this document exists in the Regional files and arrange i
nnnneaa nonnreina se rvi en. r ta.
G eheva', Illi5ois 60134
. -0262 (312) 232
11928 N./
.l' to 'have someone bring it 'down for. us.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Why don' t we do that.
-3 I think you can proceed now.
4 Are you offering 7 now?
5 MR. BERRY:
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
6
'J UDG E G ROSSMAN:
Do you have any --
7 MR. GUILD:
Obj ection ?
8 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
-- voir dire on 7, Mr.
.9 Guild?
10 MR._ GUILD:
No, sir, I don't believe any is 11 necessary.
12 I object to its being received in evidence.
It's-v 13 not a correct copy of what _ It purports to be and the 14 omissions are material.
15' JUDGE GROSSMAN:-
Well, we'll admit the 16 document and allow whatever examination you can offer 17 with regard to the document, Mr. Guild; and if you find 18 that -- we'll ask the Staff, of course, to supply a 19 complete document to substitute for what we're 20 receiving, and whatever further testimony you will have 21 to elicit, Mr. Guild, we'll have to do it at a later 22 date if you can't do it from the document as it appears 23 now.
24 It may be that you will go through one or two of O
s,)
25 these references that you can certainly make out on the i
nnnneng nopnreing snevico, r+ a ;
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11929 a.
1 first page and decide that it is not worth the while to 2
pursue the others.
3 Now, I would point out that you obj ected to the 4
transcript and we did not admit the transcript, and so 5
you would not be able to brief the cross-references 6
without anything further, and if you don't present 7
examination, decide you are not going to, there really 8
isn't any purpose for not admitting the document the way 9
it is.
10 I don' t know if you follow me, Mr. Guild.
11 MR. GUILD:
Well, let me see if I understand,
,\\
(
)
12 Judge.
,s 13 As I recall, Staff Counsel examined a previous 14 witness -- and I apologize that my memory is a little 15 faulty on the point -- but a previous witness and made a 16 specific reference to the transcript.
17 I think the state of the record was counsel had 18 offered the transcript of the interview, it was objected 19 to as simply a wholesale effort to put in this document 20 without any effort to cull through it to determine 21 whether, indeed, there was evidence in it that would 22 contradict Mr. Puckett's testimony.
23 Staff Counsel then resorted to the transcript and a 24 couple of particulars, and stated, "Well, didn' t you say
/
\\
(,j 25 thus and such," I believe in the course of his cross nnnneng nopnreing nnruico, raa.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
{
(312) 232-0262
11930 l
)
'w) 1 examination of Mr. Puckett.
Mr. Puckett said, "Yes, I 2
guess I said that, but, you know, I would add now such 3
and such."
4 My point is that there's been resort made to this 5
transcript and questions offered by the Staff to the 6
effect that Mr. Well is the source of the accurate 7
translation of the Puckett phone call to McGregor and 8
the Puckett interview into the issues that were then the 9
subject of Mr. Schapker's inspection, and it just seems 10 to me it's not the -- the burden is not on Intervenor to 11 either not offer or of fer this connection because the (3v)
Staff has already made the connection.
'12 g
13 It should be our prerogative to confront and 14 cross-examine the Staff's assertions; and that's where 15 we meet the problem at this juncture, and that is the 16 difficulty of being able to effectively cross-examine 17 Mr. Weil.
18 JUDGE GROSSUAN:
Okay.
Mr. Guild, I've 19 recognized that problem, and I've indicated that if you 20 need further cross examination, once you receive the 21 complete document, you will be entitled to it.
22 MR. GUILD:
Fine, Judge.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
But that as far as your use 24 of the document outside of further cross examination --
(D I )
25 that is, your use of what's necessary to complete the nnnneng nnnnreing enrulen, rea; Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11931 1
document -- you would have no use for it absent cross 2
examination on those points, because the transcript 3
itself is not in evidence and so you couldn't just rely 4
on the cross-references and then the transcript when you 5
are briefing the case unless you've examined on each 6
point.
7 MR. GUILD:
- Exactly, 8
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
So --
9 MR. GUILD:
Understood, 10 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
So as long as that's 11 understood, why don' t we just proceed this way,
[j) 12 admitting this document, with the understanding that the x
13 complete document will be substituted at the earliest 14 possible time by Staff, and that if you need examination 15 on that substituted document, you will be entitled to 16 that examination; but hopefully, just by examining on 17 the references that you could make out, you will decide 18 it won't be necessary and we'll have the substitution 19 made, but it won't hold us up at all.
20 Okay.
So why don't we just proceed on that basis; 21 and so we' re admitting Staff Exhibit 7 at this time.
22 (The document was thereupon received into 23 evidence as Staff Exhibit No. 7.)
24 BY MR. BERRY:
('
)
25 0
Mr. Weil, I place before you a document that's been Rnnntag Reporting Rervice. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11932
,m.
(
)
v 1
marked for identification as Staff Exhibit 14 and ask 2
you if you can identify that document.
3 (Indica ting. )
4 A
Yes, sir, I can.
It is a copy of an Inspection Report 5
in which Mr. Seeders' allegation was reviewed by Staf f.
6 Q
Is that the Inspection Report referred to in Answer 9 of 7
your testimony?
8 A
Yes, sir, it is.
9 Q
Is this a copy of the Inspection Report that you 10 transmitted to Mr. Seeders?
11 A
Yes, sir.
/~s
[V) 12 MR. BERRY:
At this time, Mr. Chairman, I 13 would move into evidence Staff Exhibits 18, 19, 20, 21, 14 22 and 23.
15 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
I'm sorry.
16 18 through 23?
17 MR. BERRY:
Yes, your Honor.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Any objections ?
19 MR. MILLER:
None from Applicant.
20 MR. GUILD:
Let me have a moment, Mr.
21 Chairman.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Sure.
23 How about 14:
24 Are you also offering that?
'O)
(
25 MR. BERRY:
14, yes, your Honor.
nnnnEng nonnreing norutcn, t.ea Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
t 11933
(
\\J l
MR. GUILD:
I have no objection as to 18 2
through 23, Mr. Chairman, but I certainly do obj ect to 3
the receipt in evidence of Staff Exhibit 14 through Mr.
4 Weil.
5 Mr. Weil disclaims any pride of authorship in this 6
document.
It's Mr. Schulz' Inspection Report, 7
including, in part, his results of the inspection of the 8
Seeders matter.
9 Mr. Weil can attest to the fact that he did what he 10 did with regard to the Seeders' allegations and that he 11 subsquently put this document, authored by another, in
[J
}
12 the mail to Mr. Seeders, and that's really not a matter L.
13 of dispute.
We would be happy to stipulate that he sent 14 the document to Mr. Seeders.
15 But to the extent that Staff means to offer this 16 Inspection Report without tendering a competent witness 17 who is, indeed, the author of the report, as Mr. Schulz, 18 we would certainly object to it being roccived in 19 evidence.
20 MR. BERRY:
Well, does counsel dispute the 21 authenticity of the document?
22 I don' t think so.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN :
I'm sorry, Mr. Derry.
We
[ _
24 can't hear you.
)
(,/
25 MR. BERRY:
Mr. Chairman, I believe it was Manntag Reporting Ma rvi ce, Ttd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11934
[
/
1 last Friday that the Chairman remarked that the 2
documents that reflect the concerns of Mr. Schulz or 3
actions taken by Mr. Schulz -- that should be treated 4
with -- accorded a little more leniency than the 5
documents authored or relating to other individuals, 6
because of the circumstances that are attending Mr.
7 Schulz' unavailability in this proceeding.
8 I believe, with recpect to the matters for which 9
Staf f Exhibit 14 is of fered, tha t there's been extensive 10 testimony on this subj ect at this time.
11 I believe Mr. Seeders himself testified that the (n) 12 meeting took place and that the matters reported in
%J 13 Staff Exhibit 14 on Page 4 of the report reflect what 14 transpired at that meeting.
15 I believe also Intervenors have introduced a 16 document authored by Mr. Schulz that reflects the very 17 matters that are reported in Staff Exhibit 14.
18 I believe at this point that, really, there's no 19 significant dispute among -- or there can really be no 20 significant dispute regarding the trustworthiness or the 21 reliability of the matters reflected in Staf f Exhibit 22 14, 23 I think that at this point -- I mean, it's just an 24 overly-artificial restriction to keep the document out, rs i(,)
25 and, to complete the record, I believe it would be nnnn tag nnnnr ti ng sn ru i ce,_
- r. t a.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11935
,r-x i
)
x_./
1 helpful to the Board to have the benefit of this 2
document as well.
3 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, it stands on quite 4
a dif ferent footing from the other documents, and the 5
reason it's on a different footing is those documents 6
were of fered by an acknowledgcd adversary party and they 7
represent admissions against the interest of Staff.
It 8
has an adversary position in this litigation.
9 It's one thing for a Staff document that is of 10 admitted authenticity to be offered against the Staf f, 11 and in those circumstances, the document has evidentiary
,m (v) 12 value with or without a witness to stand cross 13 examination on that document.
14 But here we have a member of the public, this 15 Intervenor, seeking to preserve its rights to conf ront 16 and cross-examine an NRC Staf f Inspection Repor t.
17 I believe it's the rule of this case, as well as 18 the authority at the NRC, that the Staf f is under an 19 obligation to tender a witness who can stand cross 20 examination on an Inspection Report, one who's competent 21 to stand cross examination; and Mr. Well clearly can do 22 no more than say, "I've seen this paper before and I 23 sent a copy to Mr. Seeders."
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes.
(3
/
)
25 I don't even understand, Mr. Derry, wl.y you don't Ronntag neporting snrvien, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
)
(312) 232-0262
11936
,,-~~
(
)
%J 1
even have an available witness to sponsor this document 2
to the extent that he had input into it, at least.
3 Mr. Gardner apparently is available.
4 Isn't he the gentleman who has been in the 5
courtroom most of the hearing; not today?
6 MR. BERRY:
Well, he's not here today.
7 It's our understanding, Mr. Chairman, the ruling 8
that the Board made some time ago -- and I respect that 9
ruling -- is that only the author of the document has to 10 be present to sponsor it, so that would be Mr. Schulz.
11 It was under that rationale no other Staff member ey
(
)
12 would suffice.
\\._/
13 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
I keep reading Schulz and 14 Gardner in every place in which the Inspector is 15 identified here in the report, and I don't see why Mr.
16 Gardner can't come and speak for himself.
17 MR. BERRY:
Well, I believe that Page~4 of 18 Staf f Exhibit 14, the part that relates to Mr. Seeders, 19 was authored and the investigation was conducted by Mr.
20 Schulz.
21 Now, Mr. Gardner had no input into that matter and 22 has no personal knowledge.
Of these matters comprising 23 the other matters in the Inspection Report, he may have 24 knowledge of; but I understand that the only witness who (O )
25 has personal knowledge of the facts recounted in that gnnneng nonnreing noruten_
r+ a.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11937
,e i
1
' s' 1
Inspection Report, the portion which the Staf f would 2
offer, which would be the top paragraph on Page 4, would 3
be Mr. Schulz.
4 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor --
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Excuse me.
Ilold of f for a 6
second.
7 MR. BERRY:
Mr. Chairman, I would invite the 8
Board to compare that portion of Staf f Exhibit 14 with 9
Intervenor Exhibit 91.
In most material respects, they 10 are identical; and it's our position at this point that 11 it's overly-restrictive to exclude Staff Exhibit 14 in
(
')
12 light of the testimony and the other documentary
\\_/
13 evidence that's been presented in this proceeding.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, there is no comparison 15 between admissions of a party opponent and extrajudicial 16 matters being of fered by the party itself.
17 But I'm sorry, I cut Mr. Miller off, and he ought 18 to be entitled to respond to whatever.
19 MR. MILLER:
Thank you, your Honor.
20 I guess I don't understand the basis of the 21 obj ection.
22 The exact words that are found in the paragraph 23 that Staf f Exhibit 14 relates to Mr. Schulz' 24 investigation of Mr. Seeders' allegations are found as
( )
25 well on Intervenors; Exhibits 92 and 93.
Ronntna AnnnrPlna Anrufco. L E rl _
Ge d eva', Illidols 60134 (312) 232-0262
11938 h
1 If I understand the Board's rulings, once a 2
document is admitted in evidence, it is usable by all 3
parties for all purposes.
4 That certainty accords with what my understanding 5
of the admission of a document into evidence signifies.
6 I guess in one sense Staff Exhibit 14 is perhaps 7
cumulative.
The exact same words are, in fact, used in 8
describing the substance of Mr. Schulz' understanding of 9
Mr. Seeders' allegations and his evaluation of them.
10 But I agree with the Staff.
It does seem 11 overly-restrictive to exclude Staff Exhibit 14, rh 12 It may well be that its only purpose, given the (U}
13 substance of Intervenors' Exhibits 92 and 93, is to 14 demonstrate that Mr. Schulz' observations were, in fact, 15 recorded in an Inspection Report and that the Inspection 16 Report was transmitted by Mr. Weil to Mr. Seeders; but 17 it seems somewhat artificial to exclude Staf f Exhibit 14 18 altogether.
19 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, in fact, it has a 20 much dif ferent stature, and that's because it's being 21 offered -- if there was no purpose to offering it, I 22 don't know why the Statt's of fering it, and it's their 23 offer that I'm responding to.
24 If, in light of Mr. Miller's observations, the
(,/
25 Staff wants to reconsider and withdraw it, their offer nnnnean nnnnrH nn nnevicn. r. e ct.
Gobeva', Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11939
, ~.
(
)
q/
1 of the Inspection Report, that seems wholly consistent 2
with Applicant's position.
3 It seems to me, though, that Mr. Miller really 4
understands that there's a status to an Inspection 5
Report as reflecting the results and conclusions of the 6
Staff review of the matter that is, indeed, in a 7
dif ferent stature than simply the memoranda that were 8
offered by Intervenor as admissions against the Staff.
9 We do oppose it; and we think that notwithstanding 10 the admission of other documents on the same subject 11 that are memoranda of and involve Mr. Schulz' work on
))
12 that matter, Staff is still under an obligation to 13 tender a person who is competent to stand cross 14 examination on an Inspection Report, and that's what 15 this is, and we oppose its admission without Mr. Schulz.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, I'm inclined to agree 17 with Mr. Guild on this.
18 All we see on Page 4 is a summary conclusion of a 19 Staf f Inspector who is not available for examination, 20 and if other documents supply that and they are in, 21 well, Staff can rely on those documents; but to ask us 22 to rely on this conclusory statement here when, in fact, 23 Mr. Schulz is available, if Staff wishes to attach any 24 importance to his opinions, I really don't think is
)
25 comething that we ought to make it easy for the Staf f to
(
nnnneng popnreing gnruten, r.t a z Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11940 I,
)
v 1
avoid the ordinary rules of fair play as far as 2
examination goes.
3 I don' t see that this paragraph is going to add 4
very much to your case; but to the extent that you want 5
the Board to rely on that, I think you can get Mr.
6 Schulz here very easily, and if it's of any importance 7
to you, you will; but I don't see that we just want to 8
allow a summary statement on your own behalf of matters 9
that one of the Staff people put forth.
10 So the ruling --
11 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor --
O) 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
So the ruling is it isn't gv 13 adm itted.
14 To the extent you have Mr. Gardner come on and he 15 wishes to vouch for certain parts of Staff Exhibit 14, 16 once he has made himself available for examination, we 17 will certainly admit those documents.
18 That's consistent with the way the Board has ruled 19 in the past.
20 MR. BERRY:
Yes, I understand, Mr. Chairman.
21 I would just note my objection to the record as I 22 said before.
23 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
Fine.
24 So we are not admitting 14 now, but we have
/( )
25 admitted the others.
Sonntag Reporting Rnrvice, f.t d.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11941 G
1 (The documents were thereupon received 2
into evidence as Staff Exhibits Nos. 18 3
through 23.)
4 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, I would just like a 5
point of clarification.
6 I take it that the parties are free to rely on 7
other documents which, in ef fect, repeat the substance, 8
if not the exact words, of this summary paragraph?
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, to the extent that the 10 document has been of fered -- to the extent that it's 11 been admitted -- I can't recall all the limitations we
(~h
(
j 12 adopted with regard to all of the exhibits that we've v
13 admitted; but you know the rules of evidence as well as 14 other counsel here, and you can certainly rely on 15 admitted documents to the extent that they are admitted.
16 MR. GUILD:
Let's take one example, Mr.
17 Chairman.
We might just so we can leave our position on 18 the record.
19 Intervenors' Exhibit 93 is Mr. Weil's document.
It 20 was offered by Intervenors.
In it, there is a 21 one-paragraph quotation from Mr. Schulz' Inspection 22 Report.
It has quotes around it.
23 Now, the fact that Mr. Weil read the document and 24 quoted language from it, presumably accurately, does not
'O
(,)
25 establish through Mr. Weil's mouth or through this ennnenn nonnreinn noruinn. r.r a.
G e neva', Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11942
[N AsJ l
document a finding of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2
to the effect of a quoted language.
3 That simply would make it available for someone to 4
put in wholesale, without sponsorship, facts that that 5
witness could not himself attest to or stand cross 6
examination on.
7 So it's our position certainly that Applicant and 8
Staff can't simply rely on Mr. Weil quoting Mr. Schulz.
9 The real point here is that the Staff's work is to 10 be fairly subject to examination by an adverse party; in 11 this case, Intervenor.
We understand the authority to (nv) require that Staf f tender a competent witness to stand 12 13 cross examination.
14 J UDG E G ROSSMAN :
Well, we' re not going to 15 make any rulings on which way you can use admitted 16 documents.
17 Presumably the more there is to substantiate a 18 document in the record, the more weight will be given to 19 it.
20 We're not going to go through a whole course on i
21 evidence now in advance of the brief writing.
(
22 So we've made our ruling, and we don't have l
23 anything before us now, and we can continue with the l
24 witness.
1 O()
25 Mr. Berry, you haven't yet presented his testimony, sanntag nepneting snrvice, r.td.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11943 Cx k
]
s.s 1
MR. BERRY:
Yes.
2 At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the 3
document entitled "NRC Staf f Testimony of Cha rles H.
4 Weil regarding Bridgette Little Rorem, et al, 5
Subcontention 2C," be received in evidence and bound 6
into the transcript as if read.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Any objections?
8 MR. MILLER:
No, sir.
9 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, as long as it's 10 understood that where Mr. Weil recites as f act what was 11 told him by another, that that does not create -- it
(/')
12 does not stand for evidence of those facts.
It stands 13 only for what he understood or what he was told.
14 Much of the substance of Mr. Weil's testimony 15 consists of what he recounts Mr. Puckett telling him and 16 what he understood what Mr. Puckett told him, for 17 example; and I believe consistent with earlier treatment 18 of prefiled testimony on motions to strike, it was 19 understood that such testimony was received not to prove 20 the substance of those facts, but only the understanding 21 and hearing of the witness.
22 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, I don't understand 23 that limitation a t all.
24 This is a witness who is here for cross O(,)
25 examination, who is recounting his observations, if you 9^nntag_acporting Seruice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11944 7'N i
\\
Q) 1 will, his sensory impressions of words that were spoken 2
by another man who came here and testified, and it 3
stands as evidence.
4 Obviously it's his understanding, since the words 5
were spoken in English and Mr. Weil understands English; 6
but beyond that, any further limitation on the use of 7
Mr. Weil's testimony just seems totally inappropriate.
8 MR. GUILD:
A sensory impression, Mr.
9 Chairman ?
10 MR. MILLER:
No, sir, not a sensory 11 impression.
[ \\
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Excuse me, gentlemen V
13 I don't know that what Mr. Guild is saying in any 14 practical sense limits your use of those statements, Mr.
15 Miller, because I think they are only used for 16 Impeachment purposes, and as such, we're not concerned 17 with proving the contents of what the witness relates 18 Mr. Puckett told him.
19 I think that would only be used to Mr. Guild's 20 benefit, in any event, so I think this is a purely 21 academic discussion.
22 I don't understand that there is any limitation as 23 to the use for impeachment in anything that Mr. Guild 24 said, and there just doesn't seem to be any reason to (A) 25 limit the testimony, a
Monntag Reporting Rnevicn, f.E d,
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11945 I
)
u-1 Mr. Berry, do you have a comment on that?
2 MR. BERRY:
No, Mr. Chairman.
3 MR. GUILD:
I guess we've got -- let me be 4
clear, Mr. Chairman.
i 5
It seems to me wherein Mr. Weil says, "I understood 6
from Mr. Puckett," or, "Mr. Puckett told me," tha t's 7
apparent what the limits of his knowledge are.
He's 8
relying on the statement of another; in this case, Mr.
9 Puckett.
10 Fine.
The limits are clear in the record and the 11 testimony will speak for itself.
A
(
)
12 When the witness says, though, "Mr. Pucke tt's
(_/
13 concern was," it's apparent that that really means, "My 14 understanding of Mr. Puckett's concern was"; and all I 15 want to have clear is I have no objection to the 16 admission of this testimony so long as it is understood 17 that the witness is not claiming competence for 18 omissions or competence beyond that that's apparent.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I didn't understand that to 20 be your obj ection.
21 Now, do I hear any problem with that limitation 22 f rom either Mr. Miller or Mr. Derry, that if the witness 23
- says, "Mr.
Puckett's concern was,"
that the witness is 24 saying, "My understanding of Mr. Puckett's concern"?
I
)
i
/
25 MR. BERRY:
Well --
w_-
gonneng pepnreing ne _ru i cn ; r+a.
Genova, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11946 e'~N U
1 MR. MILLER:
I'm looking ~ a t the testimony, 2
.your Honor.
3 In those instances, the witness' answer purports to 4
be a recitation of what Mr. Puckett said.
5 There ' are a few instances where that does not 6
appear to be the case, 7
The question that is asked the witness is "What, if.
8 anything, did Mr. Puckett say was his~ concern," with I
9 respect to a certain item, and then the answer begins,-
10 "Mr. Puckett was concerned," and so forth.
11 Clearly it's responsive to. the question,~,.. and --
)
12 w ell, I don't'know.
We'll have to await cross 13 examination; but presumably 'it's based on what Mr.
14 Puckett told him.
15 (In dica ting. )
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, I don't think we'll 17 have to await cross examination.
18 Mr. Berry, are we to accept tha.t on face value or 19 are you willing to accept the limitation that when the 20 witness states it that way, that[he's saying, "My 21 understanding of Mr. Puckett's' concern was," because, 22 obviously, the witness is not competent to read Mr.
23-Puckett's mind?
24-Now, if you are willing to agree to that r y.
( )
25 limitation, which I think the answers were poorly sonntag nnporting snevico, r+a.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1 11947
.( D b
1 phrased to that -extent -- if you are willing to accept 2
that as a limitation, I don't see that we'll have any 3
problem because it can't mean anything but that.
4 MR. BERRY:
Well, I don't know, Mr. Chairman.
5 You know, in the example that Mr. Miller indicated, 6
it-is clear from the testimony that the witness is 7
recounting what Mr. Puckett said to him, what he j
8 understood that to mean, that he's recounting actually 9
what he heard the witness say, and there may be g
.10 instances where it was his understanding of the 11
. concerns.
(
12 So I'm not prepared at this time to say in all 13 respects wherever it says, "In my view, Mr. Puckett was 14 concerned," that that means, "This is my understanding,"
15 and in some cases, this is what Mr. Puckett -- what he i-16 heard Mr. Puckett.say.
17 MR. GUILD:
I must move to strike --
18 JUDG E G ROSSP.nN:
Excuse me.
Mr. Miller, 19 where were you reading from?
20 MR. MILLER:
I was looking -- for example, 21 Question 53 on Page 13 is probably a good example.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, that was not the best i
23 phrased answer I've ever read.
24-Well, presumably that is the witness' answer and (O) 25 not an attorney's answer, so tha t's certainly ennneng nonnreing carutca; r+a.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
[
(312) 232-0262
11948
. f~'%
\\
)
3~
/
1.
understandable, Mr. Derry; but I assume that what is 2
meant there is that Mr. Puckett expressed a concern that 3
he understood to be such and such, and I can't see how 4
we can accept it any other way.
5 MR. BERRY:
Fine, Mr. Chairman.
i 6
J UDG E G ROSSMAN :
- Okay, i
7 You will accept the limitation that that was his 8
understanding of what was stated by Mr. Puckett?
9 MR. BERRY:
Yes.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
All right, 11 So, then, if that's the only objection, we'll admit
( )
12 the testimony with that understanding.
13 MR. GUILD:
All right, sir.
14 There are other examples, of course, of that same 15 phenomenon.
16 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
Okay.
l 17 Well, that's a general limitation with regard to 16 all of these answers, and none of which can the witness 19 have read Mr. Puckett's mind.
20 So it has to be his understanding of what tir.
21 Puckett expressed to him; and with that, we're admitting 22 the testimony to be bound in the transcript at this i
l 23 point.
24 25 1
l gnnntaa nonnreinn Aprvico_
T+ a _
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
11949 i
l v
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Anything fur ther, Mr. Berry?
2 MR. BERRY:
No, Mr. Chairman.
3 The witness is available for cross examination.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes.
We decided we' re going 5
with Mr. Miller first.
6 MR. MILLER:
Hello, Mr. Weil.
We've met 7
before.
My name is Mike Miller, I'm one of the 8
attorneys f or Commonwealth Edison Company.
9 CROSS EXAMINATION 10 BY MR. MILLER:
11 Q
Mr. Weil, I'd like to ask you to turn to Answer 19 on s
(
)
12 Page 5 of your prefiled direct testimony.
\\s 13 In that answer, you refer to your preparation of 14 what's been received in evidence as Staff Exhibit 7, a
15 September 6, 1984, memorandum that you wrote to Mr.
16 Norelius and Mr. Spessard, and you state in the answer 17 that you prepared the memorandum in order to consolidate 18 the information that Messrs. McGregor and Williams 19 received from Mr. Puckett.
20 I'd like to show you a document that is in evidence 21 as Applicant's Exhibit 72, and it is a memorandum from 22 Mr. McGregor to you dated August 28, 1984.
23 (Indicating.)
24 What I want to ask you is whether or not you had Ch
( _,!
25 that document available to you when you prepared your gnnneng nnpnreing noruicn; r+a; Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11950 f%
1 September 6, 1984, memorandum.
2 A
Sir, I believe I would have, because I -- my 3
understanding -- I don't have the September 6th document 4
in front of me.
5 0
Well, let me get that for you or maybe your counsel will 6
get that, 7
A That would help, please.
8 MR. BERRY:
I'm -tendering the witness Staff i
9 Exhibit 7, 10 (Indica ting. )
11 A
(Continuing.)
Mr. Miller, I believe I would have,
)
12 because it's indicated on my September 6th memorandum.
13 It is Enclosure 1 to it.
14 MR. GUILD:
Can the witness keep his voice 15 up, please?
I can't hear him.
16 MR. BERRY:
Is the microphone on?
17 BY MR. MILLER:
18 Q
Now, the next to the last paragraph in Applicant's i
19 Exhibit 72 is a recommendation by Mr. McGregor that the 20 Construction Assessment Team, so-called CAT Team, come 21 to Braidwood immediately and so forth.
22 You address -that' request in the very last paragraph.
23 of Staff Exhibit 7, do you not?
i 24 A
Yes, sir, I do.
25 Q
Okay.
nnnneng napnreing noruten, r+ a -
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11951 l
~./
1 Now, there's an indication in the cc. 's that this 2
was sent to SRI-Braidwood.
3 Do you know whether or not it was, in fact, sent to 4
Mr. McGregor?
5 A
Sir, I couldn't state that specifically.
6 It's indicated on the distribution that he should 7
have gotten them.
Whether he received it, I couldn't 8
answer that question.
9 0
Okay.
10 Well, the last paragraph indicates that his request 11 for a CAT Inspection is not within the purview of the f
)
12 Region III Investigation Compliance Specialist.
,/
13 That's you; right?
14 A
That's correct, sir.
15 Q
Why isn't it within your purview?
16 A
That would be a decision to be made within one of the 17 technical divisions.
18 Q
All right.
19 Now, the sentence goes on -- the last paragraph 20 says, "On September 4, 1984, McGregor was telephoned and 21 it was suggested that he contact the Director, DRP on 22 the matter.
23 Did you place that telephone call?
24 A
I can't recall whether I placesdit or Mr. McGregor
,r-
'.,)
25 placed it, but, obviously, from there, we did have a s
gnnneng popnri-i ng sn ru f en
- r. ta.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1 l
11952
(
),
As 1
telephone call.
2 Q
Did you, during the course of that conversation, suggest-3 that Mr. McGregor contact the Director, DRP?
4.
A My recollection of the phone call, sir, I have none
'S today; but from the memorandum,- it; indicates to me. that 6 -
I did.
7 0
What, if anything, did Mr. McGregor say to you when you 8
made that suggestion to him?
9 A
Again, sir, I have no recollection.
10 0
All right..
11 Now, are any of the other individuals 'who are shown O
12 as getting copies. of your September 6, 1984, memorandum,
(}
13I the director of DRP?
14 A
Yes, sir.
The-top line, " Memorandum for C.
E.
- Norelius, 15 Director, Division cf Reactor Projects," DRP being the 16 Division of Reactor Proj ects.
17 Q
So your memorandum was, in fact, addressed to the 18 individual who-you suggested to Mr. McGregor could, in 19 fact, direct the CAT Team be sent to Braidwood; correct?
-20 A
Yes,. sir.
21 0
Subsequent to sending your September 6, 1984, memorandum 22 to Mr. Norelius, did you have occasion to discuss with 23 him Mr. McGregor's recommendation that the CAT Team be 24 sent to Braidwood immediately?
25 A
I don' t have any recollection of such a conversation.
nnnneng nannreing naru!ca; r.ert Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11953 V
1 Q-okay.
2 Well, if you turn to Answer 23, which is found on-3 Page 6 of your l prefiled testimony, Mr. Well, you 4
indicate that you asked' -- or that -- I'm sorry -- an 5
individual named Calvin D. Ward attended Mr. Puckett's
'6
' interview.
-7 Ilow did Mr. Ward come to attend that interview? -
8 A
Sir, as a customary practice, when I conduct interviews, 9
I.try to have with me a Staff technical representative 10-that has expertise in the area of which we will be 11 interviewing.
/*\\
/
12 In this case, Mr. Ward wa's assigned ~to me as that
-- 13 representative.
14 Q
All right.
15 What was your understanding at. that time of Mr.
16 Ward's expertise?
17 A
Mr. Ward is a Welding and Non-Destructive Examination 18 Inspector.
19-Q How long have you known Mr. Ward?
20-A The better part of six years.
21 Q
Has he participated with you in any other interviews of 22 individuals who make allegations?
23 A-Yes, sir.
24 Q
And what subj ects have those allegations been concerned 25 with?
nnnneng nannrH ng carut cn; i+a Geneva, Illinois 60134
.(312) 232-0262
11954 j
(
')
is 1
A The one case I can recall involved the Midland nuclear 2
plant.
3 Q
Excuse me?
4 A
The Midland nuclear plant.
5 Q
Yes, sir.
6 But what general subj ect about that plant was the 7
subject of that meeting?
8 A
As I recall, it had to do with welding on, I believe, 9
borated water storage tanks.
10 Q
Now, I'd like to turn to Page 63 -- I'm sorry, I'm 11 sorry.
Let me have just a minute.
(
'1 12 We have two Question and Answer 63's on Page 16.
N._ /
13 I think the top one should probably be -- well, 14 it's a little bit confusing.
15 MR. BERRY:
The bottom one should be 65.
16 MR. MILLER:
Okay.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
65 is mismarked as 63.
18 That's all, Mr. Miller.
19 MR. MILLER:
Yes.
It's Answer 65, then, I'm 20 concerned with.
21 BY MR. MILLER:
22 O
You refer, in that answer, to the NRC policy to advise 23 applicants of potential allegations as soon as possible.
24 Is that a Region III policy?
/,_ 5
(,)
25 A
No, si r, it's not.
l Ronntag Reporting Rervice,. Ttd_
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11955
- j 1
Q What is the source of that policy?
2 A
It was made by the Executive Director for Operations.
3 MR. MILLER:
I'd like to have marked, as 4
Applicant's Exhibit 119 for identification, a memorandum 5
f rom William J. Dircks, Executive Director for 6
Operations, to EDO Office Directors and Regional 7
Administrators, subj ect, release of information to 8
licensees, and it's dated April 24, 1984.
9 (Indicating.)
10 (The document was thereupon marked 11 Applicant's Exhibit No. 119 for
(
)
12 identification as of September 4, 1986.)
v 13 BY HR. MILLER:
14 Q
Mr. Well, you have before you a document that's been 15 marked as Applicant's Exhibit 119 for identification.
16 I ask you whether you have seen that document 17 before.
18 A
Yes, sir, I have.
19 Q
Is that the policy -- does this document embody the 20 policy to which you refer in Answer 65 on Page 16 of 21 your prefiled direct testimony?
22 A
Yes, sir, it does.
23 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, at this time I'd ask 24 that Applicant's Exhibit 119 be received in evidence, p_
f
(,/
25 MR. GUILD:
No obj ection.
Annneng napnr eing no rvi co.
- 7. t a.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11956
\\v' 1
MR.- BERRY:
No objection.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Admitted.
3 (The document was thereupon received into 4
evidence as Applicant's Exhibit No.119.)
5.
BY MR. MILLER:
6 Q
Continuing'with --
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, we could take official l
8 notice otf that, 'if that's what you are going to point 9
out, Mr. Berry.
10 MR. BERRY:
Tha t's correct.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
But as long as it's offered
[v)'
12 this way, we'll just admit it.
13 BY MR. MILLER:
14 0
Turning to Answer 66, Mr. Weil -- I believe it's the 15 fourth sentence in the answer -- where you are. talking i
16 about the circumstances under which disclosure is not 17-made to an Applicant, and you talk about that an 18 applicant should not be notified if the knowledge so 19 obtained would enable an Applicant to compromise the 20 NRC's subsquent follow-up investigation of inspection, 21 and then you go on to say, "The latter consideration is 22 especially significant in cases where wrongdoing is 23 alleged on the part of the Applicant."
24 Would you define the word " wrongdoing" as you use f)i g
25 it in that sentence?
sonntag nnporting servien_ r.ta _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11957
-Q 1
A We-generally use the term " wrongdoing" to mean a 2'
criminal type of action which would be investigated by 3
the NRC's Office of Investigations.
4 Q
Well, could you provide us with an example or two of 5
what would be characterized as wrongdoing?
6 A
Yes, sir.
7 Falsification of records, forgery, material false 8
statement.
9 Q
Do you know whether or not there was a determination 10 made, prior to the release of these allegations to 11 Commonwealth Edison Company, that wrongdoing, as you m(d
\\
12 have now defined it, was or was not involved?
13
-A My-recollection, sir, is, from the information we had 14 available to us, we did not suspect that wrongdoing was 15 involved.
16 0
So, in fact, a determination was made with respect to 17 that issue prior to the time any release of the 18 information was made to Commonwealth Edison?
l 19 A
-Yes, sir, tha t's true.
20 Q
Now, turning to Page 18, Questions and Answers 68 and 21 69, you refer to an April 5, 1985, memorandum that you 22 prepared.
23 I'd like to show you a document that's been 24 received in evidence as Intervenors' Exhibit 42 and ask 25 you whether that is the April 5, 1985, memorandum to gnnntag nepnrting se rvi ce. r.ta _
t Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11958 n
1 1-U 1
which you refer in those answers.
2 (Indicating.)
3 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, is that 4
Intervenors' 42A or 42?
5 MR. MILLER:
No.
I've shown him 42, which is 6
the blacked-out version.
7 MR. GUILD:
Tha t's fine.
8 BY MR. MILLER:
9 Q
Is that the April 5th memo to which you refer in answer 10 to Question 69?
11 A
Yes, sir, it is.
(
12 MR. MILLER:
May I have just a minute.
13 BY MR. MILLER:
14 Q
Now, first of all, Mr. Weil, can you tell us what 15 sources you referred to in preparing that memorandum?
16 A
The source of information for the information contained 17 in the first page was a telephone discussion with the 18 Resident Inspectors at Braidwood and members of the 19 Region III Staf f in the Region III office.
20 Continuing, there are other various sources, 21 including a group of Inspectors that were put on a 22 telephone speaker phone that afternoon.
23 0
W ell, I guess I'm even being a little bit more specific
-24 in terms of asking you about the sources.
(,)
25 When you prepared your memorandum of April 5th, did Annntag n.pnreing nervic.
r+a-Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11959 (v/
1 you have any documents or writings of any sort before 2
you to assist you in its preparation?
3 A
Looking at what's listed as enclosures, there appears to 4
be a March 29, 1985, memorandum, and considering the 5
dates involved and also having it attached to this, I 6
would assume that March 29, 1985, memo was available to 7
me.
8 Q
All right, sir.
9 I'd like to show you another document -- excuse 10 me -- which is a part of Intervenors' Exhibit 42.
It's 11 a memorandum from Mr. McGregor and Mr. Schulz to Mr.
~x
}
12 Warnick and Mr. Well, yourself, and it's dated March 29, 13 1985.
14 (Indicating.)
15 Have you seen tnat document betore, sir?
16 A
Yes, sir, I have.
17 0
Is that one of the documents that you had before you 18 when you wrote your April 5, 1985, memorandum, which is 19 also a part of Intervenors' Exhibit 42?
20 A
I would say yes, sir, since I reference it as an 21 enclosure.
22 Q
Now, in the April 5, 1985, memorandum, Mr. Weil -- let 23 me just read for a second here -- on the second, third, 24 and fourth pages, there is, if you will, sort of a
(
)-
25 tabulation.
One column has the heading " Inspector"; the
( j j
snnnean nannreinn 4.rvic..
r+ a -
Ge5 eva', Illi5ois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
11960
.(
}
N.J l
second column has the heading " Comment."
2 When you prepared that portion of the April 5th 3
memorandum, what source documents, if any, did you refer 4
to to get the comments attributed to the different 5~
Inspectors?
6 A
Sir, that came from notes I took during_the telephone 7
conversation of March 29, 1985, with these people.
8 Q
All right.
9 Did you save those notes?
10 A
No, sir.
Once they were reduced to writing, they were 11 destroyed.
n
( )\\
12 Q
How could you tell who was talking?
's.
13 A
They were asked to identify themselves as they stepped 14 up to the speaker.
15 Q
Was there anyone-else at your end of the conversation 16 who was taking notes?
17 A
No, sir, just myself.
18 Q
Do you know whether Mr. McGregor or Mr. Schulz was 19 taking notes?
20 A
Other than getting names and addresses of the 21 individuals, I couldn't answer your question.
22 I do know they took names and addresses.
23 Q
Did you record the comments by any other means?
24 A
No, sir.
O( )i 25 Q
Was the process an orderly one?
That is, did people Monntag Repor ting Re rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
119J1 Ci Gi 1
speak one at a time during the course of the 2
conversation?
3 A
For the most part, yes.
4 There were a couple times where there seemed to be, 5
if you will, mutual agreement in the background and 6
maybe laughter and this type of thing, but for the most 7
part, it was orderly.
8 Q
All right.
9 Did there come a point in the conversation where 10 you had to ask an Inspector to repeat what he or she.had 11 said so that you could take it down?
,m V)
(
12 A
Tha t's quite possible.
13 I don't recall.
14 Q
Af ter you wrote up your notes, did you check with any of 15 the other participants in the conversation who were NRC 16 Staff members as to whether or not your notes were an 17 accurate reflection of what the Inspectors -- that is, 18 the Comstock QC Inspectors -- said?
19 A
As far as NRC employees, I don't believe so.
20 0
Now, again, this document indicates that it was sent to 21 the SRI-Braidwood.
22 At any time af ter April 5, 1985, did Mr. McG rego r 23 tell you that your April 5, 1985, memorandum was 24 incomplete ?
)
25 A
Yes, si r, he did.
\\
nnnneag n.nnreing g.rutc.;
r_+ a Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11962 I
i xa' 1
Q When?
2 A
Some time subsequent, I believe, to the mailing of this 3
memo to each one of the Inspectors that was involved.
4 Q
Did he describe for you the particulars in which he 5
believed it to be incomplete?
6 A
Yes, sir, I believe he sent me a copy that had one or 7
two annotations on it.
8 0
What did you do with that, that document?
9 A
At the moment, sir, I don't recall.
10 Q-Well, what changes, if any, did you make in the April 11 Sth memorandum as a result of Mr. McGregor's comments?
n(/)
12 A
At this moment, I do not recall.
x_
13 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, I'd like the Board 14 to ask Staff Counsel to ascertain whether that document 15 with Mr. McGregor's comments on Mr. Weil's April 5 th 16 memorandum exists, and if it does exist, we would 17 certainly like to see it.
18 MR. BERRY:
Your Honor, I believe it's Staff 19 Exhibit 16, 20 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
I'm sorry.
Mr. Berry, you 21 believe what?
22 MR. BERRY:
I believe it's Staff Exhibit 16 23 to which the witness is referring.
24 I'll show him the document and see.
(3( )
25 (Indica ting. )
Ronntag Repo rti ng Rervi ce.
T&d_
Geneva, Illinois 60134 j
(312) 232-0262
11963 h
-1 BY.MR. MILLER:
2
-Q Do you have a copy of Staff Exhibit 16 before you?
3 A-Yes,. sir, I do.
4 0
Is this the communication from Mr. McGregor to which you 5'
. referred in_ your response, Mr. Weil?
6 A
Yes, sir, it is.
7 0
I'm looking at -the. second page of the exhibit.
It's 8
numbered Page -3 of your April 5, 1985, memorandum, and 4
9 then down towards the-bottom of the page, there is'the
~
-10 written word, "Two," and then two names and then a paren 11
-and PTL and then a close paren.
D
- 12 Do you - see that?
13 A
- Yes,
)
_ sir,- I do.
14 0
Then just two lines below that, the word "several" is 15 crossed out and the word "two" is written in?
16
.A Yes,. sir, I see that, too.
l 17 Q
-Now,- did you understand tha t. these were. corrections or
-18 additions that Mr. McGregor himself suggested?
19 A
I bel'ieve that these corrections had -come from the 4
I 20 people that I had talked to.
21 0
Tha t is, the Comstock QC -Inspectors to whom these 22 comments are attributed; correct?
i 23 A
Yes, sir.
24 Q
On the very next page, there is an asterisk in the k,
25 second line, and then above the line, another asterisk, j
nonntaa n nnreino naruic._ r.e a _
I.
Ge5 eva', Illi5ois 60134 l_
(312) 232-0262
1 11964 7
y~\\
1 and it says, "I spoke to him in my work area."
2.
Did you understand that that change was a change 3
that Mr. McGregor initiated?
4 A
It appears to have been a Mr. McGregor-authored change.
5 Q
You believe this one to have been authored by Mr.
6 McG rego r ?
7 A
correct, sir.
8 0
Other than -- well, do you find any other corrections or 9
additions, other than the two or three instances that 10 you have now testified to on this record, in what's been 11 received in evidence as Staff Exhibit 16?
n 12 A
Mr. Miller, I believe those_to be the only changes.
( )i 13 0
Other than the changes that are reflected in this 14 document, Mr. Weil, did Mr. McGregor make any other 15 suggestions to you as to how your April 5, 1985, 16 memorandum should be changed?
17 A
I have no recollection of such a conversation.
18 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, the record should e
'19 reflect that Staf f Exhibit 16 is an in-camera document.
20 It's wholly appropriate to examine Mr. Weil on that 21 doc umen t, since he apparently is an addressee of it, but 22 it is an in-camera document.
23 MR. MILLER:
Yes; and I phrased my questions 24 and the witness has been pretty careful, too, in his
)
25 answers that there haven't been any in-camera sonntag nenoreing service. r. e a.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312),232-0262
W 11965 j
V 1
disclosures.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I don't think there's any 3
reason to examine further on the document.
4 It's pretty clear as to who instigated the 5
changes --
6 MR. GUILD:
Yes.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
-- f rom the alleger's own 8
testimony, and I don't think there's any issue about 9
that.
10 BY MR. MILLER:
11 Q
Now, when you reviewed the March 29, 1985, memorandum f~x
(
).-12 that Mr. Schulz and Mr. McGregor had authored, did you
%J 13 inquire as to the means by which they obtained the 14 recitation of the facts that are found in that 15 memorandum ?
That is, did you understand that it came 16 from notes or that the Inspectors' comments had been 17 recorded by some other means?
18 A
At this point in time, I'm not certain.
19 I can certainly say that looking at the document, 20 there's a large amount of detail, which would suggest 21 that maybe a recording device of some sort was used.
22 MR. GUILD:
Which document is this?
23 MR. MILLER:
The March 29, 1985, memorandum, 24 BY MR. MILLER:
C()
25 Q
Did you ever inquire as to whether or not there were, in
\\
ennn e = g n.pnr e i ng ne rv i ce,_
rfa.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 t
11966 V
1 fact, recordings made of the March 29, 1985, meeting 2
with the six Inspectors?
3 A
I cannot recall a specific conversation on this 4
docum ent.
5 I recall having a conversation on that subj ect and 6
asking whether a recording instrument was used, but I 7
don't remember at this point in time if this was the 8
case or it was another case.
9 Q
All'right.
10 Can you recall whether or not your request involved 11 allegations by Comstock QC Inspectors at Braidwood?
A}
12 I
A As far as involving Comstock Inspectors, I couldn't 13 answer.
Seeing as how those people were at Braidwood, 14 those people being Mr. Schulz and Mr. McGregor, the 15 answer your question as far as Braidwood would be yes.
16 To Comstock, I can't answer.
17 Q
Did you ever observe any tapes or other types of 18 verbatim recording prepared by Mr. Schulz or Mr.
i 19 McGregor ?
20 MR. GUILD:
May I ask the purpose of this 21 line of questioning, Mr. Chairman?
22 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
I'm sorry.
23 What?
24 MR. GUILD:
Could I ask the purpose for this
)'
25 line of questioning?
s I
l Ronntag Reporting Service. T,td _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11967 (m
I
'd 1
Its relevance is not apparent.
2 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, the --
3 MR. BERRY:
Your Honor --
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, you may ask that.
5 I take it you just want to discover whether there's 6
anything that exists that we don't have?
7 MR. MILLER:
Tha t's correct.
8 If there isn't, I'm certainly going to drop it.
9 MR. GUILD:
The question still has to be 10 relevant, Mr. Chairman; and I obj ect on grounds of 1
11 relevance.
12 There's no foundation for inquiring into it as f ar 13 as I know in this line, and that's why I asked through 14 the Chair that he would state what his purpose is --
15 what relevance he sees in this line of questioning.
.16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, if we had those i
17 verbatim transcripts, I think, or recordings -- we'd i
18 certainly like to have them.
19 The objection is overruled.
l t
20 Mr. Berry, did you have something to say?
21 MR. BERRY:
Yes.
I was going to inquire into 22 the relevancy of this line of questioning, also.
23 In response to whether tapes exist of this E
24 conversation, I don't know.
I mean, I don't know that O(,)
25 the conversation was taped.
nnnneng n.pnreing n ruice, t.ei Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11968 m
I (J
1 All I can do is look into it and report back to the 2
Board; but on this record, we have no evidence that 3
there were.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, I'm going to overrule 5
the objection; just let the witness answer.
6 Do you know of any recording devices or any other 7
way that Mr. McGregor or Mr. Schulz had used in 8
recording conversations there?-
9 THE WITNESS:
Sir, if I could, I would like a 10 minute with counsel.
11 I think my answer may be exempt under 10 CFR 2790A.
l
)
12 MR. GUILD:
I'm sorry.
I couldn't hear the
'd 13 witness' answ e r.
14 THE WITNESS:
Under 2790A.
15 MR. GUILD:
Can we approach the bench, Mr.
16 Chairman, before the witness consults with counsel and 17 examination continues?
18 MR. BERRY:
No objection.
19 MR. GUILD:
'Can we approach the bench?
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Certainly.
21 MR. BERRY:
Would you like the witness 22 e xcused ?
23 MR. GUILD:
Yes, if we could.
24 Just ask him to stand a little f urther away from 25 the bench.
Ronntag Reporting Rervice. T,t d.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11969 i
.V 1
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
You could just walk out in 2
the hallway.
3 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
4 (Witness e.xcused.)
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Of f the record.
6 (There followed a discussion outside the 7
record.)
8 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
Let's go back on the record 9
now.
10 It appears from the discussion we had off the 11 record that there is a possibility that, if there were f's]
12 tapes made or any recording of conversations by anyone, 13 without the knowledge of any other party, there may be 14 either state or federal statutes involved.
15 We are not in the process of furthering any kind of 16 criminal charge here or anything to do with any other 17 proceeding other than the subject matter that we have 18 involved here.
19 If the questions asked by Mr. Miller were to 20 further his discovery, there are sufficient methods of 21 discovery within the rules under which we operate so 22 that we don't need the questions like this of a witness.
23 We have in the past allowed scme questions that 24 were not relevant to the subject matter in order to 25 further our attempts to get documents that we tnought gnnn eag n.pnr ei ng se rvi ce. r. t a _
i Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11970
-<m I
)
Q,/
1 were not produced, but it seems to me that in this case 2
this would not really contribute to that, and the other 3
routes that are prescribed by the rules ought to be used 4
in order to see if there are any transcripts or 5
recordings, and so we're not going to allow that line of 6
questioning.
7 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, I want to assure the 8
Board that I was endeavoring to determine whether, in 9
fact, transcripts of recordings or the tapes themselves 10 do, in fact, exist f or discovery purposes.
11 There have been certainly statements made about tne
[
l 12 incomplete nature of the Statf investigation; and to the V
13 extent that those tapes exist, they may or may not be 14 pertinent to further evidentiary presentation on that 15 issue.
16 So I would request that Staff Counsel be asked to l
17 ascertain whether, in fact, those tapes exist and i
18 whether copies of them will be made available to counsel 19 for the other parties.
20 I have no wish to examine Mr. Weil further on this I
l 21 matter, but I do think that this is an issue that we l
22 should have some resolution of through the Staff and its i
l 23 counsel.
l 24 With respect to relevancy of the inquiry, that was (h
1 ( )
25 certainly my purpose.'
l Ronntag Reporting Mervice, T} d _
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11971
,a.
$v/
1 There may be other occasions to refer to this, 2
however, in the future.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, Mr. Berry, you've been 4
asked in the past for all relevant information.
5 It would seem as though a transcription of these 6
exact conversations would fit in that category, and so 7
unless there are -- if there are any in existence, tha t 8
you are aware of, you certainly ought to either turn 9
them over to counsel or indicate on what basis you would 10 obj ect to that, 11 MR. BERRY:
Yes, your Honor.
(n 12 Staff will inquire into this matter, and if it 13 ascertains that tapes do exist and no privileges will 14 attach to them, Staff Counsel will certainly produce 15 them to the parties.
16 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
Okay.
17 Why don't we move on, then, Mr. Miller.
18 MR. MILLER:
Yes, sir.
19 BY MR. MILLER:
20 0
In Answer 68, Mr. Weil, you state that you asked the 21 original six Quality Control Inspectors whether they l
22 wished to remain anonymous.
23 I take it tha t that r equest was made -- well, was l
24 that request made during the course of the conference CT i
i
(
)
25 call?
j nnnntag n.pnreing n ruica, r+ a _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 i
o t
11972
.x i
\\
V 1
A Yes, sir.
That was the purpose of the conference call.
2 0
Was the request made before or af ter the additional 18 3
Inspectors were present?
4 A
Before, sir.
5 Q
Did you speak with each of_the six Inspectors 6
privately -- that is, not using the conference feature 7
of the telephone -- or did you speak to them all 8
together on the conference squawk box?
9 A
Sir, the whole purpose of my phone call was to speak to 10 those six, and those six were spoken to as a group on 11 the telephone speaker.
'l 12 MR. MILLER:
I have no further questions of t' t./
13 Mr. Well.
14 BOARD EXAMINATION 15 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
16 0
Mr. Weil, in your understanding of the word 17
" wrongdoing," I take it, from your answer, that you 18 don't include in that definition or in that word 19 harassment and intimidation?
20 A
I believe it could be, sir.
21 O
Well, now, it could be.
22 Now, what if that harassment and intimidation were 23 alleged to be for the purpose of pressuring someone to 24 violate Appendix B to Part 50 by promoting quantity over
)
25 quality:
snnntag nepnreing nervice, r+a.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11973 7-(
)
LJ' 1
Would you consider that as part of the definition 2
of wrongdoing?
3 A
I think I would have to answer, I guess, in two parts.
4 As far as the pressure to do something contrary to 5
the job, the requirement of the job, yes.
6 As far as quantity over quality, I'm not certain.
7 Wrongdoing is a phrase that the Office of 8
Investigations uses to define their scope; and many 9
times there might be an issue where a wrongdoing is 10 indicated, but it's not referred to the Office of 11 Investigations, or they will ask for more inf ormation, r~x
(
)
12 if you will; and this was the case here, because they V
13 asked for more information.
14 Maybe I'm going too far beyond your question.
15 Q
Well, do you understand I'm asking the question in the 16 context of this Policy Statement by Mr. Dircks in which 17 you define what --
18 A
In that context, I believe we felt that the issue needed 19 some exploration by the Staff before we could come to 20 the conclusion that wrongdoing was there.
21 Q
Well, I'm not asking you to address the particular 22 situation that we have.
My question is a little more 23
- general, 24 You indicated that, in applying the Policy
)
25 Statement, if my understanding of your answer is
_j gnnneng n.pnreing g.ruic.; r.e a -
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11974 f)
!y ;l 1
correct, you would include in wrongdoing things like 2
falsification or fraudulent behavior.
I'm n,ot sure 3
exactly what you indicated.
But this was in the context 4
of whether you would report allegations to the licensee; 5
and my question is:
6 In general, if there is an allegation of harassment 7
and intimidation, would that fit under the phrase -- or 8
under the word " wrongdoing," so that you might not 9
report that first to the licensee without making your 10 own investiga tion?
11 A
Generally, we have taken the thought that it has to be a m
)
12 specific example with specific witnesses, a specific (J
13 case, and in a general -- more general sense, where it's 14 just general words, if you will, tha t it's -- it's been 15 felt that, and also where you have the issue that the 16 licensee is not directly involved.
17 Q
Well, I'm not asking you to justify.
18 A
I'm very confused, sir.
I'm very confused with your 19 question.
20 Q
Well, my problem was with your blanket exclusion, and 21 tha t's the way I understood it, from what you would 22 include in wrongdoing, the blanket exclusion of charges 23 of harassment and intimida tion.
24 Now, were you intending to exclude that
(
25 categorically from the pSrase " wrongdoing" or are you sonntag n.poreing service, i.e a.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11975 1
%J l
saying that harassment and intimidation would fit under
<2 the phrase " wrongdoing" in some instances?
3 A
Yes, sir, in some instances, it would.
4 MR. BERRY:
Mr. Chairman, it's my 5
recollection of the witness' testimony that he 6
identified, by way of illustration or example, instances 7-that would constitute wrongdoing.
8 J UDG E G ROSSMAN:
Well, he did; and my 9
understanding was that they were just examples of 10 falsification or f raudulent behavior.
11 I wanted to know whether there was any implicit nC)
I 12 exclusion of charges of harassment and intimidation, and 13 I understand no, there isn't.
14 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
~15 0
Now, referring to another topic,.the March 29, 1985, 16 telephone conference with the 24 or 26 Inspectors:
17 Did you know in advance that there would be these 18' complaints by the Inspectors directly to Region III 19 people ?
20 A-Sir, am I to understand did I know in advance the other 21 18 or so people would came in?
22 Q
Yes; that there would be a session in which Inspectors 23 would be voicing their allegations.
24 A
No, sir, that was not the intent of that call at all.
O 25 The purpose of that telephone call was to speak to g_,f snnnemg n pnreing n,ruica, r.e a _
Geneva, Il linoi s 60134
}
(312) 232-0262
11976
/'s b
1 the six individuals that had originally come into the 2
Resident Inspector's office, discuss with them whether 3
they felt we could go ahead and use their identitles, if 4
necessary, identify them to Commonwealth Edison if it 5
would help to resolve -the issues, and also discussing 6
the approach of taking this issue to commonwealth Edison 7
to help them with their issues.
8 The other 18 people came as a total shock to me 9
when I got on the phone.
10 0
Okay.
11 But then you did understand that the Inspectors --
-( )
12 the QC Inspectors -- would be perhaps elaborating on 13 their allegations?
4 14 A
That was a potential; but that was not the intent of the 15 phone call.
16 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
Okay, all right.
17 I don't have any further questions.
18 Mr. Guild.
i 19 MR. GUILD:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
20 CROSS EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. GUILD:
22 0
Well, let's see if we can get this clear or clearer, Mr.
l 23 Weil.
24 I'm looking a t your April 5,
'85, memo.
(
y j 25 Do you still have a copy of that, sir?
l l
sonntag neporting service, red.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11977 y
\\
\\_-}
1 A.
Yes, sir.
2 Q
All right, okay.
3 Now you've got the recitation of summary of the 4
concerns from the first page from the sources that' you 5
identified this morning -- this afternoon.
6 You've got Pages 2, 3 and 4, with the summary 7
comments attributed to various Inspectors by name, and 8
then at the bottom of Page 4, you state, "At 9
approximately 12:45 P.
M.,
March 29,
'85, Eugene T.
10 Pawlik, Director, Office of Investigations, Region III 11 Field Office, was informed of the allegations and
[)
12 concluded that an investigation by OI, Region III," or,
'\\..J 13 "R III is not warranted at this time."
14 Now, did you make that contact with Mr. Pawlik?
15-A Yes, sir.
16 0
Okay.
17 Was anyone else a participant in that contact with 18 Mr. Pawlik?
19 A
I don't believe so, but I couldn't be specific at this 20 late date.
l 21 Q
Okay.
j 22 And did you relate to Mr. Pawlik what it was that 23 he and OI were being asked to consider investigating at i
24 that time?
( j 25 A
I would think it would be more along the lines of, "Here nnnn tag n pnr eing se rvi ce. r, t a.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
4 11978 i-O V
1 is ~what we have been told," and let -- give him all the 2
information that I have.
'3 Q
Right.
4 But you.gave him -that information?
~
5 A
Tha t's correct.
6_
Q Whatever information Mr. Pawlik had to reach his 7
determination that an OI investigation was not warranted 8
at that time was information that you, Chuck Weil, 9
provided Gene Pawlik?
i 10 A
That's correct, sir.
[
11 Q
All right.
U) 12 Well, were you aware, at the time you spoke to Mr.
3 13 Pawlik at shortly after noon, that a Quality Control 14 Inspector supervisor at the L.
K. Comstock Company, the 4
15 very day before, had made a physical threat -- a threat 16 of physical violence toward a Quality Control Inspector 17 in connection with that Inspector's performance of his 18 quality control duties?
19 A
I don't think so.
20 I'm not sure what you are referring to.
21 Q
W ell, I'm referring to the event that is noted in Mr.
22 McG regor and Mr. Schulz ' March 29, 1985, memo to you.
'23 That is, Intervenors' Exhibit 42.
24 At the bottom of the page under Inspector X, it R25 states, "After recounting the circumstances" -- that is,
(,
Sonntag Reporting Service. T,td _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11979 7 8 i )I 1
performance of inspection duties, " Rick came back to my 9
2 desk _and said," quote,
"'At times you make me so pissed 3
off that if beating was legal, you would be dead,"' end 4
quote.
5 Were you aware that the Quality Control Inspector 6
of Comstock Company had been physically threatened with 7
those words or words to that effect by a QC supervisor, 8
and, again, now, at the time you talked to Pawlik of OI 9
over the noon hour on March 29th?
10 A
Sir, I don't believe I would have had that March 29th 11 memo.
A) 12 However, I think I probably, you know, was aware of 4%j 13 it going-back to Page 2 of my April 5th memo.
14 0
Well, what --
15 A
It was -- basically the same words are there:
"If 16 bea ting was legal, you would be dead. "
17 Q
All right.
18 So at the time you talked to Pawlik, you were aware i
19 that there had been, the preceding day, a threa t of 20 physical violence by a supervisor at Comstock directed 21 at a QC Inspector?
22 A
I don't know if it was the preceding day, but certainly 23 I was aware of this statement, "If bea ting - was legal, 24 you would be dead."
(v) 25 0
All right.
nnnnemg n nnreing c.ruic r+ a Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11980
/m 1
Did you relate that knowledge to Mr. Pawlik?
2 A
I would, in all likelihood, have.
3
-Q Do you recall at this time or are you surmising?
4 A
I cannot recall at this time -- it's been over a year --
5 but knowing the relationship that we have, we don' t hold 6
much back -- we don't hold anything back from each 7
other.
8 0
Okay.
9 Well, wouldn' t you agree, Mr. Well, that now 10 looking back on it even with a year distance, tha t 11 probably the most salient fact that you were aware of at D)-
12 the time from the six Inspectors was that the beating tLJ 13 were legal language, had been used by a supervisor 14 against one of those allegers, and that that is what 15 brought the six Inspectors to the Region -- to the 16 Resident -- Braidwood Resident's office?
17 A
I don' t know if that was the issue that brought them 18 there.
19 0
You didn't have that awareness at the time you received 20 the call from McGregor and Schulz and heard from the six 21 Inspectors with your own ears?
22 A
Sir, my recollection is that the six original Inspectors 23 were coming to speak about the problems that they had 24 with a particular supervisor and the pressures tha t he O()
25 was placing on them to perform.
Ronntag Repor Fing Re rvi ce.
T. td.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
s 11981.
.f N.
i J
1-0 Right.
2 Rick Saklak, to ime precise, the~QC supervisor, and 3
that he had -used those words against Rick Snyder, who 4
was one of the six Inspectors that came to you -- to the 5
Resident's office that morning.
6 You knew that, didn' t you?
7 A
Well, sir, I don't have in front of me -the document with 4
8 the names.
I couldn't comment whether it was Rick 9
Snyder.
10 Q
Do you recall those names?
11 I mean, they are sort of etched on our memory.
[ )
12 Do you remember those names, Saklak being the v
13 accused supervisor and Snyder being the victim?
14 A
Sir, Saklak does stay in my mind; Snyder does not.
15 0
All right, sir.
16' Now, you more than likely recounted those facts to 17 Mr. Pawlik, the OI man'.
18 Is it your testimony that neither you nor he 19 identified those facts as representing an allegation of 20 wrongdoing as you have used that term today?
21 A
Well, I think the thing tha t's -- tha t has to be brought
- 22 out here -- well, there may be a threat, but there's no 23 threat of present physical force.
24 Q
How is that?
(
j 25 A
Well, there's no words that there was going to be --
nnnneag n nnr eing ne rvi c..
r.F a _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11982 l
l c,
)
v 1
there was no force -- there was no force taken against 2
the man, there was no presence of force, and that is at 3
least my understanding of what needs to be demonstrated, 4
and that is to have physical force present.
5 Q
For what?
In order for what?
6 You sort of made a statement, but I gather that 7
there's an implicit end of that.
8 A
For -- for a violation of Section 235 of the Atomic 9
Energy Act.
10 0
I see.
Okay.
11 By making that reference, I gather it is your
/3
(
12 understanding that a violation of Section 235 of the 13 Atomic Energy Act constitutes wrongdoing?
14 A
Tha t's correct.
15 Q
And that's threatening Quality control Inspectors?
16 A
With force present.
17 0
All right.
18 As you interpret that?
19 A
Yes, sir.
20 0
Okay.
I 21 Well, let me ask you further:
I 22 Violating the Employee Protection Provisions of the l
l 23 Energy Reorganiz ation Act, the federal statute that's 24 been codified as 10 CFR 50.7, is tha t wrongdoing?
()
25 A
That is an issue that is investigated by the Department Ronntag Repor ting Ae rvi ce. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11983 fN A_,b i
s i
1 ---
of Labor and not usually an issue of wrongdoing as used 2
by the NRC Office of. Investigations.
3 Q
Well, in fact, there's a memorandum of' understanding.
4 between the Department of Labor and the.U.
S.. Nuclear i
5 Regulatory Commission on joint enforcement of ' that 6
statute, is there not?
7 A
There is a memorandum. of understanding, yes.
i 8
Q And, in. fact, the NRC's enforcement policy explicitly 9
references 10 CFR 50.7 as the basis for certain -levels l
l 10 of enforcement action.
11 You -are aware of that, aren't you?
\\
- 12 A:
I believe'that's correct.
/.
13 LQ W ell, then,_ isn't a violation of'50.7 actionable against~
14 a licensee as wrongdoing as you understand it?
s 15 A
Not wrongdoing as defined by the Office of L
16 Investiga tions, and that's the phrase that we operate 17 with.
18 Q
All right, sir.
So Pawlik wasn' t interested in violations - of the 19:
20 Employee Protection Provisions; that is, discrimination 21 against employees for having complained to the NRC'--
i 22 MR. BERRY:
Obj ection.
i 23 BY MR. GUILD:
i 24 0
---performing their duties -- can I finish the question?
y 25
-- performing their duties under the licensee's j.
s 1
sonntag nennreing n.rvice, r+ a.
4 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 11984 m
(
)
. s,/.
1 equality assurance program, as Quality Control 2
Inspectors, and in response, been the subj ect of 3
retaliatory personal action 4
That's my paraphrase of what I understand the rule 5
prohibits.
6 My question to you is:
7 Is Mr. Pawlik interested in that misconduct?
8 A
The answer to your question is yes, but with a 9
qualifier.
10 You also have to take into consideration that both 11 10 CFR 50.7, which is basically Section 210 of the
[J) 12 Energy Reorganization Act -- it's also, I believe, 13 codified in 29 CFR 24.3 -- calls for the Department of 14 Labor as the lead agency, and has placed a covenant, if 15 you will, that the man must file with them within 30 16 days of the alleged discriminatory act.
17 So because of that 30-day window of opportunity, we 18 believe that the man must first consult with -- file his 19 complaint with the Department of Labor before we will 20 become involved with it.
21 Now, taking it a step further, should Department of 22 Labor have a finding, then I think I can answer your 23 question and say, "Yes, that does come under the 24 enforcement policy."
b
(,/
25 0
All right, sir.
4
)
sonntag Reporting service. r,t a.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11985
,g-I
)
'.wd
.1
. But if I understand your last answer correctly, 2
until those conditions precedent take place -- and that 3
is, -the man files a complaint with the DOL, DOL. acts-4 favorably upon the complaint -- it is not'a matter-of 5-interest with regard to the enforcement policy. of the 6'
Commission, the NRC?-
7 A
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by -- what you mean by 8
" matter of interest."
9 It's an item that we track through the allegation 10 system, whether the' man filed or didn't file, and then 11 we make a later determination.
O
/
i 12 0
Yes.
rO 13 But only if he takes those conditions -- those 14 steps that are precedent; if he files a complaint and 15 the DOL acts f avorably upon them?
16 A
Yes, sir.
.17
.Q It's your understanding, then, I take it, that the NRC 18 has no independent regulatory interest aside from the 1!r question of -- strike that.
20-The Department of Labor puts the man back to work 21 and provides for monetary damages in the event of 22 unlawful discriminatory conduct.
23 Is that a fair summary of what their role is in the 24 matter?
25 A
I believe that's correct, nnnneag n pnreing se rvice.
- r. E d.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11986 7m
-(
)
a 1
Q All right, sir.
2 The NRC, by contrast, can't put the man back to 3
work or provide monetary relief for -- either of those 4
things, can they ?
5 A
That's my understanding, th ey can' t.
6 Q
Right.
7 The NRC, on the other hand, is interested in the 8
safety of nuclear power plants; whether they are built 9
and operated in conformance with the Commission's 10 regulatory requirements --
11 A
Correct.
,o i
i 12 0
-- true?
'w) 13 In part of your performance of your duties, you 14 rely on information that comes your way from allegers, 15 from persons who are employees of licensees or their 16 contractors, who may bring to your attention instances 17 of potential violation of the Commission's regulatory 18 requirements?
19 A
Correct.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Off the record.
21 (There followed a discussion outside the 22 r eco rd. )
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Let's go back on the record.
24 Mr. Guild.
l f~'s
'\\
25 BY MR. GUILD:
1 l
l RnnnFag nepnreing naruico; f.F M -
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 11987 n
v 1
Q Now, with that as sort of a foundation of understanding, 2
is it your position, Mr. Weil, that the Commission has 3
no independent interest in enforcing 50.7, 10 CFR 50.7,-
4 against licensees whether or not the individual victim 5
of discrimination pursues his personal employment 6-remedies with the Department of Labor?
7 MR. BERRY:
May I have the question repeated?
)
8 (The question was thereupon read by the l-9 Reporter.)
10 MR. BERRY:
Objection.
The question is vague 11 in that the question asks if the commission has an
()
12 independent interest in enforcing 50.7.
It's not clear l
13 what Mr. Guild means by " enforcing 50.7."
14 He spoke earlier about putting the man back to l
15 work.
There may well be other means of enforcing it, l
16 and the objection would be that the question is vague in i
17 that respect of what he means by " enforcing 50.7."
18 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, I have a different l
19 objection, and that is that the examination goes beyond i
20 the scope of Mr. Weil's direct examination or any cross 21 examination that I conducted.
l 22 That is, the launching pad for that line of l
[
23 examination by Mr. Guild was an examination of Mr.
24 Weil's knowledge of the threat made by Mr. Saklak to Mr.
25 Snyder.
Sonntag_ Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11988
/~T
]
1 But we've long since departed from that aspect of 2
the testimony and are now involved in an exploration of 3
whether or not Mr. Weil understands the Commission's 4
enforcement policy with respect to certain violations of 5
50.7, a subject that is not addressed anywhere in his 6
direct testimony.
7 MR. GUILD:
Well, Mr. Chairman, in fact --
8 MR. BERRY:
I join in that objection as well.
9 MR. GUILD:
Are all the objections on the 10 table now?
Can I be heard?
11 In fact, the witness, in his own prefiled direct
(
12 testimony, defends the decision to notify the licensee 13 as founded upon the apparent absence of wrongdoing, and 14 indeed the Chairman asked questions on this very 15 subject.
16 I think it's appropriate to test the witness' 17 understanding of what -- test the basis for that premise 18 that there was an absence of evidence of wrongdoing.
19 Further, of course, the witness has testified 20 generally to the regularity of the Commission's 21 processing of these allegations, among other things, the 22 referral to the Office of Investigation; and the Office 23 of Investigation, for purportedly good reasons, is 24 declining to investigate.
25 We think those matters are certainly appropriate Sonntag_Re por. ting _Ser_vice.,_Ltd -
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 11989
\\
,LJ l
subjects for a fair opportunity to cross-examine.
2 MR. BERRY:
Mr. Chairman --
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, I think if, instead of 4
saying " enforcement of 50.7," you had stated in your 5
question " pursuing an investigation," at least Mr.
6 Berry's objections might have been obviated.
I'm not 7
sure.
8 Is that so, Mr. Berry?
9 MR. BERRY:
That is correct to that 10 objection, Mr. Chairman.
11 MR. GUILD:
That would be fine by me.
I
()
12 certainly didn't mean to confuse the witness.
13 It seemed a clear enough question to me, but I'll 14 be happy to have it understood as " pursuing an 15 investigation of a violation of 50.7," as opposed to 16
" enforcing 50.7."
17 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, there is nothing --
18 if I may, following up on my objection --
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes, you may.
20 MR. MILLER:
-- there is simply nothing in 21 the March 29, 1985, memorandum or in Mr. Weil's April J
22 5th memorandum that talks of retaliation against an 23 inspector and that inspector pursuing or not pursuing i
24 his rights under Section 210 of the Energy 25 Reorganization Act.
I believe that we really --
Sonntag Repor. ting _ Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 11990 hv 1
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, it looks like we're 2
getting far afield here.
3 Now, I understand -- I can't pinpoint it, but I 4
understand the testimony prefiled and the testimony this 5
morning on direct to refer to the NRC's action in 6
turning the matter over to CECO -- that is, the March 7
29, 1985, matter -- rather than investigating it itself, 8
and the wAtness justifying that action.
9 I believe these questions go to that particular 10 aspect.
11 Now, why don' t you -- am I correct on that, Mr.
12 Guild?
13 MR. GUILD:
Yes, in part, Judge.
That is 14 indeed the point.
That's in his direct testimony.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Could you point that out to 16 me, by the way?
17 MR. GUILD:
Sure.
It's at Page 16, Answer 18 65, and then the following, 66, on Page 17.
The i'
19 wrongdoing language is in 66, Mr. Chairman, halfway 20 down:
"The latter consideration is especially l
21 significant in cases where wrongdoing is alleged on the 22 part of the applicant."
{
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
l 24 And in addition to Answer 66, there was a 25 supplementation of the testimony by some documents that Sonntag_ Reporting service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
t.
11991 1
were also offered and admitted this morning.
2 Mr. Guild is entitled to pursue the question of 3
whether this was a matter that should or should not have 4
been followed up by the NRC, rather than turned over to 5
CECO.
6 So we'll allow Mr. Guild to rephrase whatever the 7
pending question was, and let's start off from scratch 8
on that.
9 MR. GUILD:
All right, sir.
I will.
10 MR. BERRY:
Before Mr. Guild begins, I hate 11 to interrupt his examination, but it it's convenient to
()
12 all the parties, we would welcome a brief recess.
But 13 I'll leave it to Mr. Guild.
14 MR. GUILD:
That would be fine by me, Mr.
i 15 Chairman.
A recess would be. fine.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
Let's take a 17 10-minute recess now.
l I
18 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which 19 the proceedings were resumed as follows:)
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Are we ready?
l 21 MR. GUILD:
Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
Mr. Guild, please 23 continue.
24 BY MR. GUILD:
O(,/
25 0
Mr. Weil, let's see if we can start back where we left i
Sonntaa Reporting Sety.ic.e,_Ltd.
j Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 i
11992
[V 1
off prior to the colloquy and the objections.
2.
Would you agree that 50.7 and the Energy 3
Reorganization Act provisions for employee protection 4
were enacted in part to assure that the Nuclear 5
Regulatory Commission's sources of information in 6
enforcing safety standards at nuclear plants remained 7
open?
8 A
I believe that's true.
9 0
All right.
10 And that it seems common-sensical that if a person 11 is to be subject to reprisal, discrimination or
()
12 retaliatory treatment for cooperating in enforcing NRC 13 regulatory requirements, the Commission will have 14 deprived itself of the source of support for 15 conscientious employees in seeing that its regulations 16 are enforced?
17 A
That was a pretty long question.
I lost you about 18 two-thirds of the way through.
19 O
All right.
Let me try to break it out a little bit.
20 A
Okay.
21 Q
If, in order to enforce NRC regulatory requirements, an 22 employee of a licensee or a licensee contractor has to 23 face retaliatory treatment, discrimination or reprisal, 24 the effectiveness of the Commission's regulation of
(
25 licensees may be adversely affected?
Sonntag_Reportino Service, Ltd.
J Geneva, Illinois 60134
[
(312) 232-0262
11993 3
(G
\\
1 A
I believe that's true.
2 Q
All right.
3 Now, then, if that's so and we have a common 4
understanding of that, aside from whether or not a 5
victim of unlawful reprisal pursues his personal remedy 6
with the Department of Labor to get his job back or to get damages, doesn't the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7
8 have an independent interest in assuring that licensees 1
9 respect and honor the employee protection provisions of 10 federa1 law and NRC regulations?
11 A
I believe it does.
12 0
All right.
13 Now, then, didn't you understand that the six
{
14 inspectors who came to the residents' office the morning 15 of March 29, 1985, were telling you that they were 16 meeting harassment and intimidation and production 17 pressure; in effect, that they were meeting adverse 18 action at the hands of their employer for the 19 performance of their duties as Quality Control l
20 Inspectors?
21 A
I believe that's probably true.
22 0
And wouldn't you understand those allegations at least l
23 potentially reflecting violations of the employee i
i 24 protection provisions of U.
S.
code and NRC regulations?
25 A
The potential probably existed.
i Sonntag_ Reporting Service. Ltd.
j Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
r 11994 O
1 0
All right, sir.
2 Then under those circumstances, wouldn't it be 3
appropriate to treat those allegations seriously and 4
assure that the NRC was -- the NRC's investigation of 5
those concerns was not hampered by the premature 6
disclosure of those concerns to the licensee?
7 MR. MILLER:
I object to the form of the 8
question.
First of all, it's two questions.
The word 9
" seriously" is either vague or argumentative.
I'm not 10 sure which, but --
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Overruled.
I don't want 12 prolonged argument on this so the witness forgets what 13 the question is.
14 Do you understand that question?
15 THE WITNESS:
Could I have it again, please?
16 MR. GUILD:
Read it back, please, Miss 17 Reporter.
18 (The question was thereupon read by the 19 Repo r te r. )
20 A
First of all, I believe we treated them seriously.
21 Secondly, I don't believe there was a premature 22 disclosure because the allegations involved the L. K.
23 Comstock Company.
There's no indication from the 24 information given to us that commonwealth Edison was 25 directly involved.
Sonntagleporting_Herv_ica - Ltd-
-Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
k 11995
>fV 1
BY MR. GUILD:
2 0
All right, sir.
3 Did you have any indication that Commonwealth 4
Edison Company, the licensee, was involved at all at the l
5 time that you and Mr. Pawlik discussed the matter and OI 6
declined to pursue the matter and at the time that you 7
decided to make your disclosures to Commonwealth Edison 8
Company?
i 9
MR. BERRY:
Was that one question?
10 MR. GUILD:
Yes.
)
11 A
I believe that Commonwealth Edison did not know of the l
()
12 specific issues in terms of what was described of Mr.
13 Saklak and what he was or wasn't doing with his 14 subordinates.
15 I believe that at some point in this case -- and 16 probably during one of those phone calls -- I learned 17 that Commonwealth's Quality First team had been apprised 18 of something and I believe that something had to do 19 with the production pressure and -- well, I guess that's 20 it, the production pressure.
21 BY MR. GUILD:
22 0
All right, sir.
23 So at some point --
24 A
I'm trying to recall the best I can.
You're talking 25 about some time ago.
This is getting very foggy.
SonntAgJ eportingle micea_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11996
/%
1 0
Sometime during that day, you learned that Quality First 2
had been involved in considering some aspect of the 3
Comstock QC Inspectors' concerns as you recall today, 4
the production-pressure-versus-quality concern?
5 A
I believe that was the issue that was taken to Quality 6
First.
7 0
And were you informed of that fact before you decided 8
that it was appropriate to make the disclosures that you 9
made to the licensee?
10 A
I believe so, but I also believe there's an independence 11 between the Quality First team and licensee management.
)
12 0
I'm sorry.
You also believed in the independence?
13 A
I believe there is an independence.
14 Q
Oh, I see.
15 And you believed that at the time?
16 A
Yes, sir.
17 0
Were you aware that the Vice-President of Commonwealth 18 Edison Company, in fact, the very gentleman you spoke 19 with that af ternoon and disclosed these matters to, Tom 20 Maiman, had explicitly instructed the Quality First team 21 not to pursue any investigation of the Comstock QC 22 Inspector concerns because he and commonwealth Edison 23 Company deemed them all simply reflective of a i
24 labor-management dispute?
25 A
Sir, I believe the first time I've heard of that is Sonntag_Repor. ting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l-11997 1
today.
2 0
Well, if that fact were known to you, would that bear on 3
the propriety of disclosing these concerns to the 4
licensee at the time you did it?
5 A
I think it would have.
6 Q
Did you make any inquiry to determine whether or not Mr.
7 Maiman, the very executive that you discussed these 8
concerns with that afternoon, had previous knowledge of 9
the concerns of harassment and intimidation and 10 production pressure by Comstock QC Inspectors?
11 A
I do not recall.
-12 Q
Would you agree that previous knowledge on his part of-13 such concerns would have been a relevant consideration 14 in your determination to disclose the concerns of March 15 29th to the licensee?
l 16 A
If I had known that, I would have brought it to 17 management's attention.
i 18 0
You would have what?
19 A
I would have notified my management.
20 Q
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission management?
21 A
Yes, sir.
i 22 Q
Is that because you believe it's a relevant l
23 consideration?
24 A
Personally, yes, I do.
l 25 Q
Now, at the time you made your decision to disclose to SonntAgl epsttina Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I r
11998
('
k s
the licensee, were you aware that the site residents, 1
2 Mr. McGregor and Mr. Schulz, had previously brought 3
concerns of morale problems with Comstock Quality 4
Control Inspectors and at least allegations of' 5
harassment and intimidation to the attention of 6
Commonwealth Edison management in the fall of 1984, to 7
be precise?
4 l
l 8
A I don't think so.
9 0
And would you agree that that fact was pertinent to the I
10 decision to disclose to the licensee?
7 11 A
I'm not sure I understand your question.
()
12 I think it would be pertinent to a decision of 13 disclosure.
l 14 Q
Yes, all right.
l l
15 Did you make any inquiry as to whether there had I
16 been previous concerns expressed by the NRC residents to l
l 17 Edison management in this very same area, the area of 18 Comstock QC Inspectors' harassment and intimidation?
19 A
Sir, I have no recollection in this area, but I can only 20 suggest that the Resident Inspectors were part of the 21 telephone calls between various members of the Region 22 III Staff and management.
23 I would assume that if they had that concern, they 24 would have raised it.
I have no recollection of whether 25 they did or did not.
l l
Eonnt ag_Beporting_S.ervices_Ltd -
Geneva, Illinois 60134
-0262 232 l
(312)
11999 V) 1 Q
Well, sir, if you look at Intervenors' 42 -- that's the 2
March 29,
'85, memo from Mr. McGregor and Mr. Schulz, 3
the former Resident Inspectors at Braidwood, addressed 4
to you and Mr. Warnick -- on the last page they make h
5 recommendations.
6 In those recommendations they observe that, quote, 7
"The lack of action by CECO QA in this area needs to be 8
addressed along with CECO management's slowness or 9
inability to take corrective action.
The Resident 10 Inspectors apprised CECO management last fall of the 11 problems in L.
K. Comstock Quality Control Department."
)
12 A
Sir, I'll note that this memorandum is dated the same 13 date that the decision was made and the highly 14 unlikeliness that this memorandum was in my possession 15 at the time I had input to that decision, so I have no i
16 idea what was in the residents' minds, what they knew or 17 did not know.
18 Surely this shows that after -- after I received
{
19 this memorandum, I'm aware of that, that input by the 20 residents.
i 21 But as far as what was occurring on March 29, 1985, 22 I have no recollection of them voicing their concerno in 23 this area.
24 0
Well, do you recall the NBC residents in the phone f
25 conversation, aside f rom the memo of March 29th, in l
l Sonntag_ReportingJ ervice,l td. _
1 Geneva, Illinois 04034 l
(312) 232-0262
12000
-m v'
1 their phone calls with the Region, urging that 2
inspectors be sent to the site immediately -- the 3
following Monday, to be precise, since there was an 4
intervening weekend between the Friday of these events 5
and the following working day on Monday -- inspectors to 6
be sent to the site to conduct sworn interviews with the 7
allegers?
8 A
Yes, sir, I do, and I also recall that they were 9
instructed by their supervision that they would be the 10 ones assigned f or the follow-up.
11 0
And that they were -- you heard that your management, as 12 you just testified, stated that they intended to assign 13 Mr. McGregor and Mr. Schulz to do those follow-ups?
14 A
That is my recollection.
15 0
But neither of those events took place, did they?
16 Neither were Schulz and McGregor assigned to follow 17 up nor were inspectors detailed by the Region Monday 18 morning to take sworn statements from the allegers?
19 A
Well, the inspectors that were to do those interviews on 20 Monday were Mr. McGregor and Mr. Schulz.
It was -- the 21 assignment, as I recall, was made to them.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Excuse me.
23 This was to be the next Monday?
24 TH E WITN ESS :
That's my recollection, sir.
25 BY MR. GUILD:
j Sonntag_Ecpotting_Setrice. Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 L
(312) 232-0262
12001' (V
L 1
Q So your understanding on Friday, March 29th, was that 2
Mr. McGregor and Mr. Schulz themselves were being 3
instructed by regional management to conduct the 4
interviews with the allegers and to take sworn 5
statements from them?
6 A
I wouldn't use the phrase " management."
I'd say their 7
immediate supervisor.
8 0
Who was that?
9 A
Bill Forney.
10 0
All right, sir.
11 Well, why didn't they do it, if you know?
/^N iv) 12 A
I don't know, sir.
13 Q
Are you aware of anyone else at the Region 14 countermanding that directive of Mr. Forney's?
15 A
Not that I know of, sir.
16 Q
So it's your testimony that when you made the decisions 17 of March 29, 1985, including the decision to turn this 18 matter over to the licensee, that it was -- that 19 decision was made with the understanding that indeed the 20 site residents the following Monday would be authorized 21 and instructed to conduct sworn interviews with the 22 allegers?
23 A
Not sworn interviews, but interviews.
24 0
To take statements from the allegers?
25 A
To take statements, to interview them, anyhow, to obtain Sonntag__Repor. ting _Eervice. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12002
'd 1
their information.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Do you know that they 3
wouldn't be sworn statements or you just don't know 4
whether they would be sworn or unsworn?
5 THE WITNESS:
Sir, sworn statements -- the 6
authority to administer the oath has to be specifically 7
delegated.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
You believe that Mr.
9 McGregor and Mr. Schulz don't have that authority?
10 THE WITNESS:
As a matter of fact, I don't 11 think th91 do.
There's only one person -- excuse me --
)
12 there's three people that I know of in the Region.
I'm 13 one of them.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
15 BY MR. GUILD:
16 Q
Mr. McGregor and Mr. Schulz,'in a memo to you and Mr.
17 Warnick of March 29th, state, quote, "The Resident 18 Inspectors feel that the Region should send an inspector 19 to the site to interview these QC Inspectors 20 individually," and to investigate.
21 And your belief is that McGregor and Schulz 22 understood on March 29th that that inspector for the 23 Region was to be them; is that right?
l 24 A
Sir, my recollection is that their supervisor told them
,,)
25 that they would be doing the follow-up interviews.
l l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
'~a 12003 O
1 Q
I see.
2 And again it was with the understanding that there 3
would be NRC Inspectors conducting follow-up interviews 4
the following Monday that you made your recommendation 5
-- I'm sorry -- that you made the decision, participated 6
in the decision, to inform the licensee of these 7
' concerns?
8 MR. BERRY:
Objection.
That's not the 9
witness' testimony.
It's a mischaracterization of the 10 witness' testimony.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I'm sorry.
It's not what?
12 MR. BERRY:
It's a mischaracterization of the 13 witness' testimony.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, he's asking the 15 witness whether it was with that understanding that he 16 participated in the recommendation to turn the matter --
17 the information over to the licensee.
18 Was that your understanding at the time when you 19 made the decision or participated in that decision?
l 20 THE WITNESS:
Sir, I'm very confused at the 21 moment as to where we' re going with the questions.
Let 22 me try and just recount the chronology.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
That's fine.
24 THE WITNESS:
That might be the easiest way b
(,)
25 for me to help here.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12004 d
1 A
The decision to turn this over to the licenses wss made 2
a little before noon, which prompted the phone call to 3
the six individuals to ask how they felt about it as 4
well as the release of their identity.
5 The decision -- or at least the instruction that I 6
recall Mr. Forney making was much later in the day; I'd 7
say probably during a phone call that occurred, 8
personally, after my quitting time.
9 I quit at 3:45.
This was going on until like 5:00 10 in the evening.
I remember being there much into the 11 evening.
So it was done late in the day, versus the 12 decision made before lunch.
13 Does that help?
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes.
I think that explains 15 it.
16 MR. GUILD:
Yes, it does.
17 BY MR. GUILD:
18 0
Were you aware of a phone call between Mr. Keppler, the 19 Regional Administrator, late that. afternoon or early 20 evening with Mr. McGregor and Mr. Schulz?
21 A
I don't believe so.
i 22 0
Had you heard f rom any source that Mr. Keppler on March 23 29, 1985, had assured McGregor and Schulz that someone j
24 from the Region would be out to interview the Comstock
,)
25 inspectors the following Mon 6ay?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12005
~h (O
1 A
I would have no idea.
2 It sounds to me like that would be sort of a 3
privileged communication between the Regional 4
Administrator and the employees talking to them.
It 5
doesn't sound like something I might be a party to.
6 0
I don't mean to mince words with you.
7 Are you aware of such a communication?
8 A
I don't think so.
I just don't have any recollection.
9 It doesn't sound familiar at all.
10 0
All right.
11 So now to get it clear, your recommendation to turn
)
12 the matter over to the licensee was not founded in any 13 respect on the assumption that there would be regional 14 or resident NRC Inspectors interviewing the allegers on 15 Monday morning?
16 A
Not on Monday morning, but anything turned over to the 17 licensee is audited by the inspecting staff.
18 0
I see.
19 So there would be a follow-up and a review of the 20 licensee's own investigation, an " audit," as you use the 21 term, at some later point?
22 A
Well, it could be anywhere from an audit of what they 23 had done to an independent inspection to determine the 24 veracity of their results.
25 0
All right.
Let's take the matter head on.
SQnntag Reporti ng Servi co _. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12006 O
%J l
On Page 4 of your April 5th memo, the notation with 2
respect to the Pawlik communication and the decision of 3
OI not to pursue the matter -- what was the basis for 4
that decision?
5 A
Where are we at, sir?
6 Q
Page 4 of your April 5th memo, towards the bottom of the 7
page, approximately 12:45 P. M.
8 A
Okay.
9 Your question is, please?
10 Q
The question is:
What was the basis for the decision by 11 the Office of Investigations not to pursue the matter at n()
12 that time?
13 A
Specifically I can't recall.
I can only hazard a guess 14 that it was due to the nonspecificity of --
15 Q
I don't want you to guess, now.
If you can't recall --
16 A
I have no recollection.
17 0
All right, sir.
18 You participated in that decision?
19 A
I participated in that conversation.
The decision was 20 made by Mr. Pawlik.
21 Q
You and Pawlik talked about the matter, and Pawlik 22 announced his decision at the time you talked about it?
23 A
That's correct.
24 0
And you have no recollection of the basis for that 25 decision by Mr. Pawlik?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12007 v
1 A
At this point in time, no.
2 0
Okay.
3 Now, did you have any concern, Mr. Weil, that the 4
disclosure of these matters to the licensee, the 5
, concerns of the 24 Comstock inspectors, might place any 6
of those inspectors in jeopardy, in jeopardy of reprisal 7
or retaliation from Comstock management?
8 A
No, because we did not identify who those inspectors 9
were.
10 0
Oh, I see.
11 You just told Commonwealth Edison Company that the l
()
12 allegations of the sort that had been made were made, 13 but you didn't give them names?
l 14 A
That's correct.
15 0
What efforts, if any, did you make to ensure that 16 Commonwealth Edison Company did not obtain sufficiently 17 identifying inf ormation f rom you so that they could 18 identify those inspectors and, in turn, be in a position 19 to take retaliatory action against them?
l 20 A
My recollection of the telephone call with Commonwealth 21 Edison was that we were -- we discussed in very general t
i 22 terms that they were having a problem with their Quality f
I 23 Control Inspectors, how the inspectors felt in general l
24 and that they had a real problem with their immediate 25 supervisor, Mr. Saklak.
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12008 OQ 1
I don't recall going into much more than that.
2 0
But you think that Commonwealth Edison Company and 3
Comstock could surmise from what you told them, at the 4
very least, that the victim of Mr. Saklak's threat of 5
physical violence the day before, Mr. Snyder -- at the 6
very least, that Mr. Snyder had been to the Nuclear 7
Regulatory Commission?
8 A
That is always a possibility.
9 0
Well, what action, if any, did you take to assure that 10 Mr. Snyder was not in a position where he would be the 11 victim of any reprisal for that -- for expressing that 12 concern?
13 A
I don't understand.
14 0
What don't you understand, sir?
15 A
I don' t -- I don' t understand -- you' re asking me to do 16 something of a future type of action, it seems to me, to 17 guess, to have a crystal ball here.
18 I don't understand this.
I'm confused.
19 0
It seems to be a pretty straightforward question, but 20 I'll try to rephrase it.
21 At the time of your disclosure to Commonwealth 22 Edison Company, what action, if any, did you take to 23 assure that Mr. Snyder would be protected f rom reprisal?
24 A
Mr. Snyder, I assume, is one of the six?
25 0
Yes.
The record reflects that Mr. Snyder was the object l
l l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12009
()
1 of Mr. --
2 A
Okay.
3 0
-- Saklak's wrath the day before and one of the six 4
inspectors that came to the residents' office.
5 A
Okay.
As I stated, I called those six inspectors and 6
told them exactly what we were going to do, and they had 7
no problem with what we were going to do.
8 0
Well, that may be maybe another question for you, Mr.
9 Weil, but did you do anything to assure that Mr. Snyder 10 would not be the subject of reprisal?
11 A
Yes.
(
12 O
What?
13 A
Why -- why would I assume he would be?
14 0
I beg your pardon?
15 A
(No response.)
16 Q
Did you take any action to assure Mr. Snyder's 17 protection f rom reprisal for having complained to the 18 Nuclear Regulatory Commission?
19 A
Mr. Snyder would be protected under the starutes.
20 0
The statutes that you don't investigate.
21 MR. BERRY:
It's argumentative at this point, 22 Mr. Chairman.
23 MR. GUILD:
I withdraw the question.
24 BY MR. GUILD:
O)
(,
25 0
What action, if any, did you take, Mr. Weil, to assure Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12010 pb 1
Mr. Snyder's protection?
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I believe the witness' 3
answer is to the effect that he didn't think he had to 4
take any action in addition to the statute.
5 Is that correct?
6 THE WITNESS:
That's my understanding, sir.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
8 BY MR. GUILD:
9 Q
The statute that the Department of Labor enforces?
10 A
And the NRC enforces.
11 0
After the Department of Labor gets a complaint, rules in N
12 favor of the complaint and refers the matter to the NRC?
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Guild, I think you're 14 being argumentative now.
15 MR. GUILD:
I think the record is absolutely 16 clear on the witness' understanding and how the process 17 works, Mr. Chairman, so I withdraw the question.
18 BY MR. GUILD:
19 0
I take i t, Mr. Weil, that you acknowledge that your
(
20 April 5,1985, memo is not a complete and accurate 21 recording of the statements made by the 24 Comstock QC 22 Inspectors on March 29, 1985?
23 A
I don't know if I'd phrase it as " complete and 24 accurate," sir.
I would tell you this:
that --
25 0
Why don' t you answer the question directly and then Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
[
L 12011 0
1 explain?
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Guild, I think he's 3
about to answer the question.
4 A
I'm trying to explain how I operated in this case, which 5
was I took notes during the telephone call, reduced 6
those notes to what is recorded in this memorandum.
7 These were very short, if you will, bullet-type 8
statements, one-line statements, made by these 9
individuals.
So I would say that these are accurate to 10 the degree that they were very short and they were 11 fairly easy to record.
()
12 BY MR. GUILD:
i 13 0
Well, then, your answer is that indeed this is a 14 complete and accurate record of the statements made by 15 the individuals on March 29, 1985?
16 A
I believe it is, yes.
17 0
Well, sir, if we just sort of line this memo, your April 18 5,1985, memo, up against the March 29, 1985, memorandum 19 written by Messrs. McGregor and Schulz, memorializing 20 the statements of only six of these inspectors, and even 21 lining them up subject matter by subject matter -- do 22 you have both the documents available to you, sir?
23 A
Yes, sir.
24 Q
Looking at the March 29th memo, beginning " Inspector X,"
25 it goes on with Inspector X for a page and a half single Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 3
(312) 232-0262
12012 1
1 spaced, indented.
2 Now, Inspector X, I submit the record will reflect, i
3 in this case is Mr. Snyder.
If you look at Page 2 of.
4 your April 5th memo, Mr. Snyder is the first individual 5
shown on Page 2 under the " inspector" column.
Your 6
summary of April 5th relegates Mr. Snyder's comments to 7
a paragraph and a sentence.
8 Mr. Snyder's comments in Mr. McGregor and Mr.
1 9
Schulz' memo extends beginning with the second paragraph 10 on Page 1 and continues through to the bottom of Page 2, 11 the unnumbered second page.-
()
12 It may go beyond that, but at least that's.my 13 recall that his statement -- he is also listed as 14 another individual, although he's the same Mr. Snyder.
i 15 Now, sir, don't you acknowledge that your April 5th 16 memo is simply a summary of much more detailed i
17 statements that were made by these individuals; say, Mr.
18 Snyder as just one example?
l 19 A
No, sir.
j 20 Q
You fully and completely recounted in your April 5th 21 memo Mr. Snyder's statements in that telephone call?
22 A
Yes.
23 If I may, by way of explanation, please, the 24 inf ormation in this March 29th memo f rom the Resident 25 Inspectors was done during their interview, it indicates Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1 12013 s_
1 here, about 8:15 in the morning.
This is a series of 2
interviews with the six people that came in early in the 3
morning.
4 The information you're referring to in my April 5th 5
memo, beginning on Page 2, are these quick, if you will, 6
one-line statements that these people made between 12:00 7
and 12:30 on the telephone.
They were very short and 8
very brief.
9 0
All right, sir.
10 All I'm trying to understand right now, Mr. Weil, 11 is:
Is it your testimony that you fully and accurately
()
12 recounted Mr. Snyder's statements that noon?
13 A
Yes, sir.
14 0
All right.
15 Did you summarize at all, Mr. Weil, in transferring 16 what you heard on the conference call to your notes and, 1
17 in turn, from your notes to the written document that's l
18 your April 5th memo?
l l
19 A
I don't think so, but with the passage of time it l
20 certainly is possible.
21 0
Well, if you did summarize, where did you summarize?
(
22 A
I don' t think I did, but it's -- I'm -- I'm giving, you l
l 23 know, doubt here.
It may well be a summary.
l l
24 I don't think it was.
I think it is a recitation 25 of these very short statements that they made.
Bear in l
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
]
- [
232-0262 312 l...
T 12014 c
g~g U
1 mind this telephone call was only a half hour in 2
duration.
3 0
Well, I could run a clock or we could look at a 4
reporter's transcript of the words that were said in a 5
half an hour, and wouldn't you agree that the words 6
spoken in a half an hour, particularly words spoken by a 7
number of people who are trying to get their statements 8
~ heard in a limited period of time, would comprise far 9
more than the words that appear on Pages 2, 3 and half 10 of Page 4 of your April 5th memo?
11 MR. BERRY:
Objection.
It's argumentative,
/T 12 Mr. Chairman.
( j 13 The witness -- the question was asked and answered.
14 The witness has stated a number of times his 15 recollection of the events that led him to report the 16 matters that he reported in Intervenors' Exhibit 42.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
We'll overrule.
He can l
18 answer that question.
l l
19 A
Sir, again, I believe that these represent one-line type 20 of statements given to me during that telephone call.
l 21 BY MR. GUILD:
22 0
I heard you say that, and that's your belief and your l
23 recollection.
But could you address the last point?
24 I'm simply trying to test your recall, which you n)
(,
25 acknowledge is not great at this point.
l l
l Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 12015 O
(m-)
1 Isn't it apparent, Mr. Weil, when one looks at the 2
summary that you've written here and if you assume that 3
there were 13 people talking during a half an hour 4
period of time -- isn' t it apparent that you did not 5
write down fully what they said?
6 A
I will say that it is possible.
I don't think it was 7
probable.
I think I recorded their one-line statements 8
as they gave them to me.
9 0
Are you aware of anyone else who heard that conversation 10 raising the concern that, in fact, you didn't fully and 11 completely record what the allegations were by the 24 (A) 12 inspectors?
13 A
I believe that I have recorded everything that was said 14 by those people when they stepped up to the telephone.
15 0
That's not my question, either.
16 Are you aware of any concern by any other 17 participant in that call that you didn' t completely and 18 accurately recite the statements made by the 24 19 inepectors?
20 A
I guess only to the extent that there was that 21 subsequent correction from Mr. McGregor.
22 0
Were you aware that Mr. McGregor got a correction from 23 one of the inspectors and passed it on to you, as 24 counsel pointed out to you?
25 A
Yes, sir.
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12016
)
%J 1
Q Are you aware that Mr. McGregor had a more general 2
concern that you didn't fully and accurately memorialize 3
the concerns by the 24 Comstock inspectors?
4 A
I don't recall any such conversation.
5 0
Are you aware that the residents expected that the 6
Region, having been given sufficient notice that there
~
7 was to be a conference call at which Comstock inspectors 8
were to voice concerns -- that the Resident Inspectors 9
expected that the Region would have available a Court 10 Reporter or a stenographer to make a verbatim transcript I
11 of the statements made?
~
12 A
I've never heard that before.
13 0
Did you give any consideration to doing such a --
14 A
Sir, the purpose of that telephone call was to speak to 15 six men, and six men only, and ask them about releasing 16 their identity to Commonwealth Edison as well as 17 releasing their concerns to Commonwealth Edison.
18 0
All right, sir.
19 A
These other people came into this telephone call as a 20 total surprise to me.
21 0
Well, did you give any consideration, taking you at your 22 word, Mr. Weil, that once the men came in and it became 23 apparent to you that they were going to make a whole 24 series of statements about harassment, intimidation, 25 production pressure, specific incidents in some cases, s
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12017 OV 1
names of people -- did it ever occur to you that might 2
be the point to say, "Stop.
Let me get a stenographer,"
3 or, "Stop.
May I turn a tape recorder on and record 4
your conversations to ensure that I have accurately 5
recorded the concerns that you're expressing?"
6-A To answer your question specifically, no, it did not 7
occur to me.
It's not my practice to telephone -- to 8
tape-record or otherwise use any stenographic means on a 9
telephone call.
10 What I did in this case, as I do in all of my 11 cases, is to go back to the individual.
In this case, A
12 we sent letters with copies of the memorandum, the April
()
13 5th memorandum, attached to it, as well as the March 14 29th memorandum, to each of the people that we had 15 addresses for; and f rom those folks we only got this one 16 or maybe two corrections that Mr. Miller brought up 17 earlier.
18 I can only surmise at this point that it must have 19 been a fairly good recounting if I only got one 20 correction back.
21 Q
And was that the conclusion that you reached after that 22 course of action?
23 Was it your conclusion that because you only got 24 one correction back, you should rely on your April 5th 25 memo as a complete and accurate recording of those Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12018 O
1 allegations?
2 MR. BERRY:
Asked and answered.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Move on, please, Mr. Guild.
4 That's sustained.
5 MR. GUILD:
Let me put a question, Mr.
6 Chai rman.
Here is the point I was trying to make, and s
7 perhaps I was not artful in putting the last question.
8 The witness has indeed stated his opinion about the 9
accuracy of his April 5th memo, and that's not the point 10 of my effort at the last question.
11 The point is he surmised, as he sits on the stand, 12 that having gotten only one correction, that stands for i
13 the accuracy of the memo.
i 14 What I want to be clear on is that that was his 15 understanding at the time that he circulated the memo 16 and received the one response and not just his surmise i
17 from the stand today.
l 18 That's the point of the question.
I don't mean to 19 ask a question that's already been answered, but I do 20 want to have that point clear f or the recor-3..
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
All right.
You may answer l
22 that question.
23 A
There was no indication that anything was wrong.
24 BY MR. GUILD:
25 Q
Now, Mr. Well, I'm looking at your statement of l
Sonntaa Recortina Service. Ltd.
(
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 12019
,/-
1 professional qualifications; and while you're not a 2
technically trained engineer or welding specialist, you 3
do appear from your resume to be an experienced 4
investigator.
5 A
Yes, sir.
6 0
All right.
7 And you've investigated criminal matters, have you 8
not?
9 A
Yes, sir.
10 Q
Now, if you were investigating a criminal matter, Mr.
11 Weil, would you -- would you rely on handwritten notes 12 of a conversation and the witness' subsequent failure j
13 some days or perhaps weeks later to make any corrections l
14 to your handwritten summary of that statement -- would I
15 you rely on such a practice as an effective 16 investigative tool in a criminal investigation?
17 A
Not at all.
18 0
You'd conduct -- you'd take a sworn statement from that 19 individual, wouldn't you?
20 A
Yes, sir.
21 Q
And you'd take a sworn statement because using the 22 device of a sworn statement ensures a higher degree of 23 completeness and accuracy, doec it not?
24 MR. BERRY:
Staff will stipulate to that.
25 MR. GUILD:
I don' t want the Staff's l
t f
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12020 OV 1
stipulation.
I'd like the witness' answer.
2 THE WITNESS:
Should I answer?
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes, you may answer.
4 4
A Correct.
5 BY MR. GUILD:
'6 Q
And if you were conducting this matter, this 7
investigation, the investigation of the allegations of l
8 the 24 Comstock inspectors, as you would a criminal i
9 investigation, Mr. Weil, you yourself, as an experienced 10 investigator, would yourself, or with others acting for 11 you, have gone out quickly before the trail was cold and
()
12 taken sworn statements from these individuals?
13 A
That's correct.
14 Q
I gather that once the matter was in the hands of the 15 regional inspectors, Mr. Neisler and Mr. Mendez, you had i
16 no further involvement in the investigation of the 24 i
t l
17 inspectors' concerns?
18 A
That's true.
There is probably no likelihood.
I had 19 very little, if anything, to do with the case af ter I 20 wrote the memo and sent it to the division.
21 Q
All right, sir.
r l
22 Are you aware of any further action on -- strike
{
23 that.
24 Are you aware of any further consideration by the O)
NRC of pursuing an investigation of Mr. Saklak for
,(
25 Sonatag Reporting Service, Ltd.
4 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12021 i
1 violation of either the employee protection provisions 2
of the Energy Reorganization Act, 50.7 of the Code of 3
Federal Regulations or the prohibition against 4
threatening the inspectors, contained in federal law?
5 A
I don' t have a recollection.
I don't know if it's in 6
the inspection report or not.
7 O
Do you have any independent knowledge of any such action 8
against Mr. Saklak?
9 A
No, sir.
10 0
Are you aware of any investigation of that sort against 11 any Commonwealth Edison Company or L.
K.
Comstock
()
12 supervisor or manager?
13 A
Commonwealth Edison?
14 No, sir.
I believe that there was an Office of 15 Investigation representative who spoke to the Board in 16 camera about an ongoing case.
l 17 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, that's fine.
That's 18 as far as we're going to go on that one.
19 MR. GUILD:
That's fine.
20 BY MR. GUILD:
21 Q
Are you aware of any investigation of Comstock 22 supervision management or Edison supervision management 23 for violations of 10 CFR 50.7?
24 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, excuse me.
By its 25 terms, 50.7 refers to the licensee, permittee or l
Sonntag Repnrting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12022 1
applicant for a Commission license or permit or a 2
contractor or subcontractor.
3 I do not understand that it is directed at 4
individuals, as the premise of Mr. Guild's question 5
seems to suggest.
I object on that basis.
6 MR. GUILD:
Well, Mr. Chairman, counsel, of 7
course, is correct; but the fact of the matter is that 8
Commonwealth Edison Company does not act but through 9
people and it has to investigate the acts of people in 10 order to enforce that regulation.
11-JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Rather than argue it, Mr.
(
12 Guild, why don't you just change your question to 13 reflect the terms of the regulation?
14 MR. GUILD:
Because I really prefer the 15 question the way it was originally asked, Mr. Chairman.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, it's sustained.
17 Rephrase the question.
j 18 BY MR. GUILD:
19 0
With the understanding, Mr. Weil, that the regulation i
20 applies to licensees, permittees and their contractors, 21 have you investigated -- are you aware of any NRC 22 investigation of the violations of 10 CFR 50.7 by Edison 23 or its contractors or employees of those contractors?
24 A
Edison in total or just as it pertains to Braidwood?
i
,/
25 Q
No; Braidwood.
)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12023
(- ~\\
\\)
1 A
Braidwood?
2 Not offhand.
3 0
Let's talk about the John Seeders matter, Mr. Weil.
4 Now, did you read Mr. Seeders' August 17, 1984, 5
letter addressed to Mr. DeWald but copied to Mr. Schulz, I
6 the resident?
7 A
Yes, I have.
8 0
Was Mr. Seeders alleging wrongdoing in that letter?
9 A
He's alleging a falsification of records in there.
10 0
And did you notice that Mr. Seeders alleged that he had 11 been the victim of harassment and intimidation?
()
12 A
He uses those words.
13 0
Well, did you understand ~it to reprecent an allegation 14 of harassment and intimidation?
15 A
I understood it in the sense that he had what I would 16 describe as a possible employer-employee problem.
I 17 don' t know if we -- I don' t think we had enough 18 information to make any determination whether it's 19 within the 50.7 scope.
20 0
All right, sir.
Well, that's where I want to start.
21 What did you do to determine whether or not the 22 licensee, permittee or contractors had violated 50.7 in 23 Mr. Seeders' case?
24 A
The Resident Inspector -- I believe it was Bob Schulz --
25 was assigned that issue, the Mr. Seeders issue, one of Sonntag_ Reporting servic.. r+a.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12024
\\
/
1 which was to try and understand from Mr. Seeders what 2
the problems were.
3 0
Okay.
I understand that you didn't do it, but Mr.
4 Schulz did it.
5 But do you have an understanding of whether or not 6
Mr. Schulz or anyone with the NRC confirmed that Seeders 7
alleged that he had been the sictim of harassment and 8
intimidation?
9 A
From what I understand f rom the inspection report that 10 Mr. Schulz wrote, Mr. Schulz obtained information from 11 Mr. Seeders that this was an employer-employee type of
()
12 dispute and not necessarily -- not an issue of 13 harassment or intimidation by a licensee against one of 14 their employees for having discussed the safety issue 15 with the NRC.
16 0
Well, that's your understanding from being informed of 17 the result that Mr. Schulz reached?
l 18 A
That's absolutely correct.
l l
l 19 0
And you have no independent knowledge of that, I take l
l 20 it?
l 21 A
That's true.
l 22 Q
All right.
l 23 Well, at some subsequent point you learned that l
l 24 perhaps Mr. Schulz had misjudged the Seeders matter and
! (,)
25 that indeed there were outstanding concerns by Mr.
I l
Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l~
12025 7x )
(V 1
Seeders that he had been the victim of a retaliatory 2
transfer and that he had been transferred against his 3
will because he refused to falsify documents?
4 MR. BERRY:
Objection to the characterization 5
that Mr. Schulz " misjudged" Mr. Seeders' allegation.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Overruled.
7 You can answer that question.
8 THE WITNESS:
May I have the question again, 9
please?
10 MR. GUILD:
Will the Reporter read it back?
11 (The question was thereupon read by the
( 'N
, ()
12 Reporter.)
13 A
I can't say as I know of any transfer.
14 BY MR. GUILD:
15 0
You weren't aware that Mr. Seeders had been transferred 16 against his will, either face termination or face a 17 transfer out of his position as a Quality Control 18 Inspector into Comstock Engineering?
19 A
As I sit here, I can't recall that.
l 20 0
All right, sir.
l 21 So you authored what's been marked and received in l
l 22 evidence as Intervenors' Exhibit 93, a September 13, 23 1985, memo --
24 MR. BERRY:
May I show the witness?
25 MR. GUILD:
Yes.
If you have a copy, I'd l
l l
Sonntaa Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12026 1
appreciate you showing the witness.
2 MR. BERRY:
(Indicating.)
3 BY MR. GUILD:
4 0
-- a memo to Mr. Norelius on this subject, did you not?
i 5
A Yes, sir, I did.
{
6 Q
At the bottom of that memo, you quote a statement that i
7 Mr. Seeders had given to the U. S. Department of Labor 8
in a retaliatory discharge investigation involving L.
K.
i 9
Comstock, quote, "I was asked to falsify documents by 10 Comstock.
I was asked to sign off on work other 11 employees had done.
When I refused, I was harassed and 12 intimidated.
I was transferred to another department"?
I 13 A
I see that.
14 Q
You wrote that memo, didn' t you?
15 A
Yes, sir.
I see that statement now.
16 Q
All right.
17 Now, having seen the memo, does that refresh your 18 recall that indeed you were informed that Mr. Seeders 19 asserted that he had been retaliatorily transferred?
20 A
It's obvious that I, yes, had the information.
I have i
21 no recollection today, though.
22 0
All right, sir.
23 Now, take a moment and review the documents, if you l
24 would.
It attaches an employee personnel interview l
25 statement.
All the names are blacked out.
I submit the l
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12027 73 1
record reflects it's Mr. Seeders' statement given to Mr.
2 Puckett's Department of Labor investigation.
3 Were you aware of those facts?
4 A
I'm aware of the enclosure, yes.
5 0
I'm sorry?
6 A
I'm aware of the enclosure, yes.
7 0
okay.
8 And that Mr. Seeders' statement to the Department 9
of Labor was given October 18, 1984, almost a year 10 before you wrote your memo to Mr. Norelius?
11 A
That's correct.
I didn't get it until September 11, f'~N
( )
12 1985, as this document so states.
13 0
All right, sir.
14 But that was made by Mr. Seeders shortly af ter the 15 events he recounts, all right.
It was given apparently 16 either under oath -- yes, it appears to have an oath at 17 the bottom -- to a federal agency in an employment 18 discrimination case involving Mr. Puckett.
19 Are you aware of those facts?
20 A
I'm aware of the document now that you've given it to 21 me, yes.
22 0
All right.
23 Now, sir, knowing that Mr. Seeders gave a sworn 24 statement to a Department of Labor -- to the Department 25 of Labor in October of 1984, where he asserted the claim Sonntag Repor. ting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12028
(--
5 1
that you quote in your memo, and knowing that Mr. Schulz 2
closed the matter in his December report, opining that 3
it was merely a communication problem, my question, sir, 4
is:
Now knowing that Seeders made the sworn allegation 5
that you quote, does that, in your mind, cast doubt upon 6
the effectiveness of Mr. Schulz' inspection?
7 A
Not at this point, because if we go and read the memo, 8
it also refers to letters that I had written to Mr.
9 Seeders, asking for some follow-up and clarification.
10 I never got a response from Mr. Seeders, so I can't 11
-- can' t say that there is any doubt raised.
(
12 O
All right, sir.
13 So the fact of Mr. Seeders' nonresponse to your 14 letters is the determinative influence on your not 15 doubting the result of Mr. Schulz' work; is that true?
16 A
I guess that would be part of it.
17 I don't have any reason why I would have doubted 18 Mr. Schulz' inspection in the first place.
19 0
Well, how about in the second place?
20 In the second place, you got a sworn statement from 21 the subject of Mr. Schulz' inspection, who says it's not 22 a communication problem at all, in effect; that he was 23 the victim of harassment, intimidation and retaliatory 24 transfer because he wouldn't falsify documents.
(N
()
25 Isn' t that inconsistent with the conclusion that l
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12029 p) c 1
Mr. Schulz reached in his inspection report:
that it 2
was merely a communication problem?
3 A
Sir, all I can say is Mr. Schulz' inspection report 4
reported what Mr. Seeders told him; and here is 5
something, as you point out, that might be 6
contradictory.
7 0
Yes, "might be."
8 A
I don't -- as we sit here today, I do not know who to 9
believe.
Maybe Mr. Seeders had a problem.
10 0
I'm sorry.
Maybe Mr. Seeders --
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
"Had the problem" or "had a O) 12 problem."
(
13 MR. GUILD:
All right.
14 BY MR. GUILD:
15 Q
Well, sir, does it surprise you in the least, Mr. Weil, 16 that after -- when the NRC writes Mr. Seeders 17 approximately a year af ter the fact and asks him for 18 further information, that there may be some other 19 reason, unrelated to the truthfulness of the Seeders 20 allegations, why Mr. Seeders did not respond to your 21 letter and give you further information?
22 A
There's always that possibility.
23 Q
Did you make any further inquiry, aside f rom sending him 24 your written request for further information, to 25 determine whether there was some other circumstance that Ennntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12030
[\\
v 1
explained the Seeders nonresponse?
2 A
No, but I would -- I would have to assume from p;1or 3
experience that when I've had allegers that disagree 4
with what's said in the inspection report, they get back 5
to me and tell me what's wrong with the report.
6 0
Well, did you consider the possibility in this case, Mr.
~
7 Weil, that Mr. Seeders, having been transferred to 8
Engineering, continued in fear for his job, thought 9
himself lucky that he still was' employed, having a wife 10 and children, and was fearful that the NRC, having 11 failed to respond over a year, was simply going to get
[v) 12 him in further trouble if he answered your letter that 13 came after the September -- that came in response to 14 learning of his Department of Labor statement?
15 liR. BERRY:
I take it that's a hypothetical 16 question?
17 MR. GUILD:
It is, yes.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, Mr. Guild, you can't 19 expect that the witness could have supposed all this.
20 Is that your question?
21 MR. GUILD:
Yes, it is.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN :
Well, why don' t you move on, 23 Mr. Guild?
24 That question is meaningless,
,/
25 MR. GUILD:
It happens to be true, Mr.
y Sonntas_Emporting Service. Ltd.
)
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
y l
12031
,0 U
1 Chairman, as I read the record.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, I can't imagine the 3
witness could have imagined all these circumstances, any 4
witness.
The only answer that can be given is, "No, I
5 didn' t consider that. "
6 MR. GUILD:
Let me see if I can break it 7
down, Mr. Chai rman.
8 BY MR. GUILD:
9 0
Mr. Weil, did you consider perhaps that the victim of a 10 retaliatory transfer might fear that he would be the 11 victim of a retaliatory discharge if, after a year of
()
12 inaction, he responded to your letter and gave further 13 evidence?
14 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, I object to the 15 question on another ground, in that as posed it really 16 misstates the record, which has been reinforced today:
17 that there was not indeed a year's passage of time 18 without any communication to Mr. Seeders.
19 I think it creates a misimpression.
It's one thing f
20 to ask a hypothetical question.
It's another to simply 21 slide over facts that are of record that are contrary to i
22 the premise in the question.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, I believe, Mr. Guild, l
24 you had already asked a question and received an answer 25 as to whether he considered that there was any other Sonntag... Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
J 12032 1
reason for Mr. Seeders not responding, and the answer 2
was no; is that correct?
3 THE WITNESS:
I'believe so, sir.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I think that covers the 5
waterfront.
6 Why don't we move on?
7 BY MR. GUILD:
i l
8 Q
Would it be material, Mr. Weil, to your consideration to 9
close the matter, the Seeders matter, if the reason for 10 his nonresponse was continued fear of reprisal?
11 A
I have no idea what, you know, somebody was thinking, 12 the fear of reprisal.
j (
13 All I can say is that we responded to Mr. Seeders.
14 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, I would like a 15 direct answer.
I'd like to move on.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes.
I think that's a 17 reasonable question.
18 MR. BERRY:
I have an objection to the
?
)
19 question.
20 Does the question assume that Mr. Weil knew that 21 was the reason why Mr. --
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN :
No.
He's not asking whether 23 he knew that, but he's asking whether, if that were the 24 case, that would be relevant to his conclusion here.
(
25 MR. BERRY:
The problem the Staff has with Sonntag Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 12033 v
1 that is:
How could that even be relevant?
How could he 2
take that into conside' ration in making a conclusion if 3
he had no knowledge of that?
4 It would seem to me that unless Mr. Weil knew that 5
that was the reason or suspected that that was the 6
reason that the witness did not respond, the question is 7
meaningless.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, the hypothetical is 9
clear that he's asking whether that would be a relevant 10 fact to his conclusion, and the witness may answer that.
11 Do you understand the question?
Do you recall it?
)
12 THE WITNESS:
Judge Grossman, I'm very 13 confused, but I think I can plow through it.
14 A
Had I --
15 MR. GUILD:
Please don't try to plow through 16 it.
17 Could I ask the Reporter to read it back?
18 The answer is meaningless with Mr. Weil stating r
i 19 that he didn't understand the question.
i 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
He's saying he understands 21 the question; he thinks he can plow through the answer.
'22 Is that correct?
(
l l
23 THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
l l
24 A
(Continuing.)
Had there been a communication from Mr.
l l
25 Seeders -- or any alleger, for that matter -- that there l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12034 O
1 was more to the case, we certainly would have taken that 2
information and passed it up to the Staff for whatever 3
course of action need be.
4 I had no idea Mr. Seeders felt this way.
There was 4
5 no communication with Mr. Seeders, and that's all I can 6
-- that's all"I really can offer.-
7 I think you' re telling me new inf ormation that I --
8 if I had it back two years ago, it may have cast a 9
different shadow on things.
10 MR. GUILD:
All right, sir.
11 BY MR. GUILD:
12 0
Did you give any consideration to taking a formal 13 statement f rom Mr. Seeders yourself, as the Department 14 of Labor happened to do in the Puckett matter?
15 A
Myself, no.
I was not assigned the case.
16 0
All right, sir.
17 The institution of the Nuclear Regulatory.
18 Commission -- to your knowledge, did the NRC ever give 19 consideration to taking a sworn formal statement from 20 Mr. Seeders?
21 A
I can only say I don't know.
I have no knowledge.
22 0
All right.
23 Now, Mr. Weil, do you participate in the 24 Allegations Review Boards that pass on these 25 allegations?
Sonntag_ Reporting Service, Ltd.
j Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l.
12035 C'\\
.V l
{
l A
Yes, sir, I do.
{
2 0
In what capacity, sir?
3 A
I'm one of the Board Members.
)
l 4
Q So you vote, in effect?
I l
5 A
Well, " discuss" is more like it.
6 We don't really vote per se; we have discussions 7
and come to a general consensus of the approach that 8
should be taken.
9 Q
All right, sir.
10 And who else are participants in the Allegations 11 Review Board?
()
12 A
The Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Projects.
13 Q
How about some names, please?
14 A
Names?
15 That's his title.
His name is Ed Greenman.
l 16 Q
That's the --
17 A
That's the Director.
38 Nick Chrissonomos, the Deputy Director, Division of 19 Reactor Safety.
20 Allegations that would involve physics types of --
21 the representative is Wayne Schaefer f rom the Division 22 of Radiation Saf ety and Safeguards.
23 The regional counsel, who is Bruce Berson, does 24 come, as well as Mr. Pawlik.
25 Q
Mr. Pawlik?
Sonntag Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
)
12036 v
1 A
Pawlik, who is with the Office of Invectigations.
2 0
All right, sir.
3 And was there an Allegations Review Board held with 4
regard to Mr. Seeders' allegations?
5 A
No, sir.
Mr. Seeders' allegation came in before the 6
Allegation Review Board went into effect.
7 0
All right, sir.
8 So how was the decision made on how to handle Mr.
9 Seeders' allegation?
10 A
I believe it was identified to the Division of Reactor 11 Proj ects, who he works for, and they would have made a
[a) 12 decision as to how it was to be handled.
13 0
Who works for them; Mr. Schulz?
14 A
Mr. Schulz worked for the Division of Reactor Projects.
15 0
Yes.
I said Mr. Seeders' allegation.
16 Schulz got the allegation, and so his superior made 17 the decision about how to handle it; is that your 18 testimony?
19 A
Yes, sir.
20 Q
And did you participate in that decision?
21 A
I may have.
Again, time -- time has elapsed, and I --
22 0
Well, what was the practice before there was an 23 Allegations Review Board?
l 24 Did you have any role in that?
25 A
Yes, sir, I did.
l l
Sonntag_ Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 t
(312) 232-0262
12037
(~N 1
0 What was that role before the Allegations Review Board 2
existed?
3 A
It was to discuss -- well, document, as you've seen in 4
the records, and discuss with the Section Chief, you 5
know, the general approach to it, what should be done.
6 Q
All right.
7 So in due course you would have had that same 8
involvement in the Seeders matter?
9 A
I think that's a fair assumption.
10 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, could I ask for 11 about a five-minute recess at this point?
(
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay, fine.
13 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which 14 the proceedings were resumed as follows:)
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Berry, you've indicated 16 off the record that you do have a document that you 17 produced during discovery which has the handwritten 18 cross-references on -- what exhibit was that?
19 JUDGE RIGHT:
Staff Exhibit 7.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
-- Staff Exhibit 7 that's 21 been typed in and is available for Mr. Guild if he 22 wishes to use it?
23 MR. BERRY:
Yes, that's correct, Mr.
24 Chairman.
s_,)
25 Back in January of this year, the Staff produced a Sonntag_EcpQrting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12038
[
1
's 1
document to counsel for Applicant and counsel for 2
Intervenors.
It would be Document 114 of that 3
production, and it's a two-page memorandum, a two-page 4
document.
5 The second page is a cross-index of the items 6
listed on Staff Exhibit 7 as they correlate to the 7
transcript page.
8 I'm making a copy available to counsel for the 9
Intervenors in the event that he needs it.
1 10 (Indicating.)
11 The document reflects that it was prepared by the
(
12 witness along with Mr. Ward.
I have no doubt as to its 13 authenticity, but we can establish that through.the 14 witness.
15 MR. GUILD:
Shall I proceed, Mr. Chairman?
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes, you may.
17 Let me understand.
We're not going to make that 18 time limit, are we?
19 MR. GUILD:
I'm pushing, Judge.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
Proceed.
21 BY MR. GUILD:
22 O
In fact, Mr. Weil, there was indeed an Allegation Review 23 Board held on Mr. Seeders' concerns after you adopted 24 the device of the Allegation Review Board, and that's 25 reflected in the February 24, 1986, memorandum that's Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
)
Geneva, Illinois 60134 L
(312) 232-0262
12039 1
Intervenors' Exhibit 94.
2 Do you recall such a February 21,
'86, meeting 3
regarding the Seeders matter?
4 A
It's very likely I vas there.
It's very likely it 5
happened.
My recollections are vague.
6 0
Well, you now have a copy of the document.
7 (Indicating.)
8 A
Yes.
I've read the document.
9 0
Does that refresh your recollection about such a meeting 10 involving the Seeders matter?
11 A
I can't recall anything other than what I've just read.
'O 12 0
I don' t want you to testify from the document.
13 You have no recollection of there being an 14 Allegations Review Board meeting on Seeders, then?
15 That's still your testimony?
16 A
The document says there was.
I assume there was.
I 17 don't have any independent recollection of it.
j 18 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Excuse me.
l l
19 Would you have been cc'd on that if you had been i
20 present?
21 THE WITNESS:
I'm cc'd on all of them to copy 22 into the files.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Oh, yes.
I'm sorry.
You 24 are -- you do have a --
25 THE WITNESS:
I'm a member of the Board.
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12'J 40 O
1 Whether I went to that specific one or was out of town, 1.
2 I don' t remember, and it's not -- there's no attendance 3
list reflected.
4 BY MR. GUILD:
5 Q
You don' t recall getting this memo, I take it, the 6
February 24,
'86, memo I just showed you and you just 7
reviewed, written by Mr. Pelke, reflecting this meeting?
8 A
I probably received it and filed it, yes.
9 Q
Do you have any recollection today?
10 I'm trying to decide whether it's fruitful to 11 pursue this line of questioning.
If you have no
)
12 recollection, Mr. Weil, I won't pursue it.
13 A
Sir, I read the memo yesterday.
I saw the memo in 14 there.
15 Q
So your recollection was refreshed yesterday?
16 A
Well, the existence of the memorandum, yes.
17 The existence of anything that goes with it, no.
18 Q
All right.
19 Now, what was the basis for the Allegation Review 20 Board determining, if it did indeed, as the memo appears 21 to reflect, not to pursue the Seeders matter in February 22 of 19867 23 A
I believe it was shown in there that it was due to his 24 not answering the letters we had sent to him.
25 Q
All right, sir.
Sonntag_ Reporting service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12041
/~h u
1 Now let me show you Intervenors' Exhibit 101, Mr.
2 Weil.
It's a handwritten memo from Mr. McGregor, then 3
the Braidwood Resident Inspector, to you, dated February 4
6, 1984, subject:
allegations at Braidwood, with some j
5 attachments.
6 (Indicating.)
7 A
Yes, sir.
]
8 0
Do you recall receiving that set of documents?
f 9
A Yes, sir.
10 0
All right.
11 What did you do when you got them back in -- excuse (G) 12 me, if I may -- back in February of '84?
13 A
This case was discussed with the Office of 14 Investigations, and they opened an investigation on it.
15 I believe that was also discussed with the judges here 16 in camera by Mr. Pawlik.
17 0
Well, the matter -- this particular matter is no longer 18
-- no longer a secret.
19 The fact of the matter is, though, the office of 20 Investigations did not open an investigation on the 21 matter reflected in the first attachment for some 22 considerable pericd of time.
23 Are you aware of that fact?
24 A
I believe they opened the case soon thereafter, but 25 whether they started the investigation in close Sonntag Reporting _ Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12042 OO 1
proximity, I don't know.
I think you may be correct on 2
that point.
3 0
Well, are you aware, in fact, that with regard to the A
threatening notes lef t addressed to a Quality Control 5
Inspector referred in the notes as " Opie" -- and I 6
submit the record identifies him as Rick Martin -- that 7
although the notes were lef t in September of 1983, it 8
wasn't until 1986 that the Office of Investigations 9
undertook an investigation of this matter?
10 Are you aware of that fact?
11 A
.That may well be the case.
()
12 O
Do you know why that happened?
13 A
I believe it's because they had other priority cases 14 they were working on.
15 0
Well, do you take these notes that f rom their terms 16 appear to threaten physical violence to a Quality 17 Control Inspector -- the record reflects they were 18 apparently written by a craftsman whose work was the l
19 subject of that QC Inspector's work.
20 Do you take those notes to reflect a possible l
21 violation of the statutory prohibition against 22 threatening inspectors?
23 A
Yes, sir, I do.
24 Q
Do you have any idea why, taking it that way as a L
25 possible violation of that federal law, it took the Sonntag_. Reporting service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
12043 1
length of time it did for the Nuclear Regulatory 2
Commission to undertake an --
3 MR. BERRY:
Objection.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Guild, aren't we going a I
5 little f ar afield now?
6 Are we within the scope of direct examination?
7 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that i
8 Mr. Weil, as put forward by the NRC Staff as standing 9
for the proposition that one can rely on the 10 completeness and thoroughness and the regularity of the 11 inspection activities that they perform that are within 12 the scope of this case, just because he doesn't want to 13 volunteer the f airly dismal record on the Martin 14 complaint, doesn't seem to me as precluding an adversary 15 f rom inquiring into the matter to the extent it reflects 16 on his reliability.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, Mr. Guild --
18 MR. BERRY:
Mr. Chairman --
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
-- this is beyond the scope.
20 I don't think we're going to have to argue Staff's T
21 reliability right now, but it is beyond the scope of the 22 direct examination and so you ought to proceed to a l
23 different topic.
24 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, I offer to show, as 25 a matter of an offer of proof, that Mr. Weil, if asked, Bonntag_ Reporting _ Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
.. -0262 (312) 232
f 12044 O
1 would not be able to provide any explanation, any 2
legitimate explanation, for why the Nuclear Regulatory 3
Commission delayed the inordinate time it did in making 4
any response to the physical threat -- threats of 5
physical violence directed against a Comstock Quality 6
Control Inspector.
7 I believe, sir, that would be relevant to this 8
Board's consideration of the effectiveness and 9
reliability of the Staff's inspection of the harassment 10 and intimidation allegations in this case.
11 I'd ask you to consider that as an offer of proof.
(
12 JUDGE GROESMAN:
Okay.
We will do that.
13 MR. BERRY:
I believe not, Mr. Chairman, 14 simply for the fact that it relates to the Office of 15 Investigations.
16 The Office of Investigations is an entity -- is an 17 office responsible solely to the Commission itself.
The 18 Staff has no control over the Office of Investigations, 19 and the activities of that Office cannot be attributed 20 to the Staff.
21 We're not here litigating the OI's response to the 22 matters set forth in the Intervenors' contention.
The 23 issue, to the extent that it's been permitted by the 24 Board, is the Staff's responsiveness.
The witness has 25 offered to explain his input in that matter.
Eonntag_ Reporting _Eervice, Ltd.
)
Geneva, Illinois 60134
{
(312) 212-n262 i
12045
[G 1
The question regarding the responsiveness of the 2
Office of Investigations is simply far afield.
3 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, I dicagree with 4
counsel's position.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, Mr. Guild, I thought 6
you were going to move on.
7 MR. GUILD:
I don't know what prompted 8
Staff's response.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I think what prompted 10 Staff's response is your position, and Staff is now 11 putting in the record its response.
()
12 So why don' t we move on to another topic?
13 MR. GUILD:
If I may say, Mr. Chairman --
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
No, you may not.
We're 15 wasting time with that, Mr. Guild.
16 Why don't you just move on to another topic that's 17 within the scope of direct examination?
18 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, I made an offer of 19 proof; and with all respect, I believe I should be 20 entitled to state my legal position for the record, as 21 other parties are.
22 I feel I'm being deprived of doing so, but I will 23 follow the Chair's instructions.
24 BY MR. GUILD:
25 Q
Let's talk about Mr. Puckett, Mr. Weil.
Sonntag Repar_ ting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 12046 (N
)
V 1
Have you had an opportunity to review NRC Staff 1
2 Exhibit 7, your September 6,1984, memo with regard to 3
the Puckett allegations?
4 A
I don' t have it before me.
5 0
I'm sorry?
6 A
I do not have it before me.
7 MR. GUILD:
May I ask counsel to make 8
available a copy to your witness, please?
9 JUDGE COLE:
What number is that?
10 MR. GUILD:
NRC 7, Staff 7.
11 MR. BERRY:
7.
(v\\
12 (Indicating.)
13 JUDGE COLE:
Oh, okay.
14 THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
15 BY MR. GUILD:
16 0
All right, sir.
17 Now, these are summaries of Mr. Puckett's concerns, 18 are they not?
19 A
Yes, sir.
20 0
They are not complete and accurate statements of Mr.
21 Puckett's expression of those concerns, are they?
22 A
Sir, if I may, the first page -- the second page down 23 through Subparagraph 14 is information as related to me 24 by Cordell Williams, who was the chief of the Plant 25 Systems Section of Region III at the time.
It's his Sonntag_Repor. ting service. Ltd.
)
Geneva, Illinois 60134 1
(312) 232-0262
1 12047 U('"N 1
information that I recorded from him.
2 0
All right.
3 In what form did Mr. Williams provide you that j
4 information, sir?
5 A
He had notes of a conversation with Mr. Puckett, and I 6
may have also taken some notes during a conversation 7
with Mr. Williams.
8 Q
All right, sir.
9 So your answer to my last question is you just 10 don't know whether these are complete and accurate 11 statements of Mr. Puckett's concern because you relied 12 on someone else's notes of those concerns, in part?
13 A
As they are written here.
14 But I think, going further in time, what we used 15 this document for during the Mr. Puckett interview was 16 as an outline, and we covered these issues as well as 17 giving any opportunity to bring forward other issues.
18 This probably does reflect an accurate description.
19 But you're right:
I cannot attest to it as 20 written.
21 0
What's " Document 4"?
22
' Jon't know what you're referring to.
23 A
Sir?
l 24 0
what is " Document 4" that you just made reference to?
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Could you repeat the answer, l
Sonntag_Repotting Service. Ltd.
3 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
k l
i 12048 i
1 Miss Reporter?
2 A
I don' t believe I said " Document 4."
3 (The answer was thereupon read by the 4
Reporter.)
+
5 MR. GUILD:
Oh, okay.
6 BY MR. GUILD:
7 Q
And then after you had written the document based on 8
inf ormation you got f rom others, you conducted an i
9 interview -- participated in an interview with Mr.
10 Puckett, and then it was transcribed?
11 A
That's correct, sir.
12 0
And thereafter you went back to the transcript of that 13 interview and made the marginal notations that appear on 14 your September 6,
'84, memo, citing to portions of the 15 transcript alongside the summaries that you had made 16 based on the Williams notes?
17 A
That's correct, sir.
18 Q
And you don' t purport this September 6,1984, memo to be 19 a complete and accurate statement of what Mr. Puckett 20 later said in a transcribed interview, do you?
l r
21 A
I -- I'm confused.
i 22 0
You didn't prophesy?
23 A
I'm confused, to be honest with you.
i 24 0
You didn't prophesy what Mr. Puckett was going to say at 25 a later date in the transcribed interview, did you, Sonntag_ Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
):
(312) 232-0262
12049 (V
1 completely and accurately?
2 A
The transcribed interview would be a complete and 3
accurate reflection of what he said.
4 0
Indeed, indeed.
5 This was a summary that preceded that interview; 6
correct?
7 A
That is correct.
8 Q
And in instances where it indicates in the margin, you 9
made an effort, after you had transcribed the interview, 10 to tie in that interview statement to the prior summary 11 that you had prepared?
()
12 A
That's correct.
13 Q
All right.
14 But since the subsequent interview had not taken 15 place, you don't purport this summary, NRC Staff Exhibit 16 7, this September 6th memo, to completely and accurately 17 restate the Puckett interview?
18 A
No.
I would only say that the Puckett interview 19 transcript does that.
20 Q
All right.
21 It speaks for itself?
22 A
Yes, sir.
23 Q
All right.
24 But it was the September 6, 1984, memo, Staff 25 Exhibit 7, as you understand it, that was the basis in Sonntag_ Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 1
(312) 232-0262
I 12050 0
1 part for the NRC inspection of Mr. Puckett's concerns, 2
that conducted by Mr. Schapker?
3 A
Yes, sir.
4 0
For example, do you see anywhere in your September 6, 5
1984, memorandum a statement of concern that a clerk was 6
making changes to welder qualification records and that 7
such changes might reflect the falsification of quality 8
documents?
9 Is that concern expressed in your September 6,
'84, 10 memo?
11 A
I don't believe so.
12 0
All right, sir.
13 But in Mr. Puckett's interview at Transcript Page 14 37, beginning Line 20 -- I'm sorry -- beginning Line 9, 15 Mr. Puckett recounted a concern that a Comstock clerk 16 had indeed been making line-through changes to welder 17 qualification records, altering the material 18 specifications on those records.
19 Do you recall Mr. Puckett expressing that concern 20 at his interview?
~
21 A
I believe so, yes.
22 0
In fact, he identified the clerk by name and identified 23 the material specification changes that he recalled 24 having seen made on qualification documents.
25 You and Mr. Ward asked him why he thought they Eonntag_ Reporting _Eervice. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12051
/'~h.
\\,
1 would make such -- why such changes would be made, and 2
he expressed an opinion about that, did he not?
3 A
Yes.
I have some recollection.
4 0
I'm sorry?
5 A
I have some recollection.
6 MR. MILLER:
Excuse me, Bob.
Can I have the 7
page there?
8 MR. GUILD:
Sure.
It's 37.
9 BY MR. GUILD:
10 0
All right.
11 At Page 3 of your September 6,1984, memo, Item
(
12 11.C., you state as overheard that, "An inspector 13 inspected 1,000 welds in one day.
The alleger provided 14 the name of a possible witness."
15 Now, that first sentence is a summary, I take it, 16 of a Puckett concern, is it not?
17 A
Yes.
18 Q
And the second sentence is an addition that you made?
19 A
That's probably --
t l
20 0
Commentary about --
21 A
-- probably correct.
22 0
All right, sir.
t 23 Now, that first sentence -- that doesn't completely 24 and accurately restate Mr. Puckett's concern on that l
25 subject, does it?
Eonntag_Reportina service. Ltd.
3 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12052 bl G
1 A
I believe he went into more detail in the transcript, 2
yes.
3 0
Well, in particular, at Page 49, beginning at Line 6, 4
Mr. Puckett begins, in response to a question by either 5
you or Mr. Ward -
"Let's move on to another possible 6
falsification issue," one of you gentlemen say, "and 7
that was that you had overheard that an inspector had 8
made 1,000 weld inspections all in one day.
9 "A
Yes.
10 "O
Could you elaborate, please?"
11 The answer begins at Line 12 and goes on with some 12 follow-up questions for several following pages to 13 describe overhearing the Quality control Manager, Mr.
14 DeWald, claiming to have done 1,000 weld inspections in 15 one day.
16 A
It sounds vaguely familiar, yes.
17 0
In fact, you asked him where he thought the welds were, 18 and he told you where he thought they were.
19 Do you recall that?
20 A
Not really, but I will make the assumption, if you've 21 read the transcript and you' re asking your questions 22 from it, that that's probably true.
23 0
Do you recall that Mr. Puckett stated that he had 24 examined some of the welds himself and that he, in his 25 opinion, would have found them rejectable, had he been Sonntag Reppiting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (31?) 23?-n76?
12053 O
1 performing the visual weld inspection?
2 A
I believe that's in there.
3 Q
All right.
4 And yet in your September 6,1984, memo, there's no 5
connection made between the 1,000 welds in one day and 6
any particular person, let alone the Quality Control 7
Manager; nor is there any statement that Mr. Puckett 8
said that he observed, in the field, welds inspected by 9
Mr. DeWald and believed that they were rejectable?
10 A
Well, that was -- that would be the purpose of the 11 follow-up interview:
to obtain more information f rom 12 him.
V 13 0
All right, sir.
14 At Item 5 on the first page of your September 6, 15 1984, memo, 5.A.,
you state Mr. Puckett's concern as I
16 follows:
"L. K. Comstock Company does not have any weld 17 filler material controls, as the procedure is only now 18 being written."
19 Now, in your opinion, Mr. Weil, does that statement 20 fully and accurately reflect Mr. Puckett's concern on 21 that subject?
22 A
Well, again, this inf ormation carae f rom -- f rom Mr.
23 Williams; and when I interviewed Mr. Puckett, he 24 expanded on it.
25 So I'd have to make the statement that I got the l
Sonntag_ Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
[
i 12054 (s
1 information during the subsequent interview.
2 0
Well, in fact, Mr. Weil, you're quoting yourself, in 3
effect.
Your question at Transcript 76 reads:
4 "O
When we broke, we were discussing 5
material traceability.
We've pretty much 6
entered into what is outlined as S.A.
7 Comstock does not have any weld material 8
controls, and the procedure was being 9
written at the time of your termination.
10 I think we had pretty much explored --
11 "A
Well, they had.
They had a procedure
()
12 that was supposedly to control.
Well, it 13 was a fillet" -- I take that to mean 14
" filler" -
" material control procedure, 15 but they had no controls.
That's why we 16 were rewriting the procedure:
so they 17 could regain a little bit of control on 18 the filler material."
l 19 Do you recall Mr. Puckett giving that testimony?
20 A
Well, it's before me in the transcript, so the answer 21 has to be yes; but independent of here, no.
22 O
All right, sir.
23 Well, Mr. Puckett indeed corrected you, Mr. Weil, 24 in your misstatement of his concern when he noted -- he 25 interrupted you, apparently -- that they indeed had a i
Sonntag_Repor_ ting _ service. Ltch Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
i 12055 1
procedure but, in effect, he didn't believe it wan 2
adequate.
3 Isn't that the substance of his interview 4
statement?
5 A
I believe that's true.
6 0
Did you make any correction, then, to your September 6, 7
1984, memo to more fully and accurately reflect Mr.
8 Puckett's true concern?
9 A
No, I didn' t correct that memorandum.
10 But I forwarded the transcript to the divisions 11 that were going to be resolving the allegations.
They 12 had the information.
13 Q
Well, Mr. Weil, aren't you aware that Mr. Schapker, in l
14 fact, continued to misstate Mr. Puckett's concern and 15 that 5.A. appears verbatim as stated in your September j
l 16 6,1984, memo in his later inspection report on this 17 issue raised by Mr. Puckett?
i 18 A
I don't know, but I make the assumption, from what 19 you' re saying, that that's true.
20 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, if I could just 21 have a moment.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Certainly.
l 23 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chai rman, I have no further l
l 24 questions of Mr. Well.
25 Thank you, sir.
l Sonntag_ Reporting service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12056 1
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Berry?
2 MR. BERRY:
Yes, very briefly, Mr. Chairman.
3 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 4
BY MR. BERRY:
5 0
Mr. Weil, Mr. Guild asked you -- he asked you a question 6
about the reference where Mr. Puckett -- whether your 7
Staff Exhibit 7 reflects that it was a clerk that made 8
certain changes in documents.
9 Do you recall that?
10 A
Yes.
4 11 Q
He referred you to Page 37 of the transcript of your
(
12 interview with Mr. Puckett --
13 A
Yes.
14 0
-- and he asked you if you had made any changes to 15 what's been marked as Staff Exhibit 7, which is your 16 September 6th memo?
17 A
Yes.
18 0
I'm going to show you what's been received in evidence 19 as Staff Exhibit 22.
1 20 (Indicating.)
l.
21 I direct your attention to the second -- the last i -
22 paragraph on Page 1 of that memorandum and ask you 23 whether --
24 MR. GUILD:
Excuse me a second, Counsel.
Can j
i 25 I catch up with you?
i Eonntaglepar_ ting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
-0262 (312) 23 2 i
i 12057 1
MR. MILLER:
22 or 21, Mr. Berry?
2 MR. BERRY:
It's 22.
It's the October 26, 3
1984, memorandum from Mr. Weil to Mr. Spessard and Mr.
4 Pawlik.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I' m sorry.
It's not Staff 6
Exhibit 22.
7 MR. BERRY:
I stand corrected.
It's 21.
I 8
stand corrected.
9 MR. GUILD:
What number is it?
10 MR. MILLER:
It's 21.
11 MR. BERRY:
21.
12 MR. GUILD:
May I look on?
13 I can't find it.
I don't mean to slow down the 14 examination.
I just can't find my copy.
15 MR. BERRY:
(Indicating.)
16 BY MR. BERRY:
i 17 0
I'd ask you, Mr. Weil:
Does Staff Exhibit 21 reflect 18 further documentation by you of a concern on Mr.
j 19 Puckett's part of record falsification?
l 20 A
I guess it does.
It calls -- to me, it calls out where 21 record falsification could be found in the transcript.
22 0
Well, let me show you -- let me call your attention to I
23 the same portion that Mr. Guild drew your attention to.
(
24 That's Transcript Page 37, Line 9.
25 (Indicating.)
l t
Sonntag_Ecporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
( 312),_,23 2-0 2p 2_
12058 v
1 A
Yes.
2 Q
Does that refresh your recollection as to whether that 3
concern of Mr. Puckett was documented by you?
4 A
Well, it's called out specifically in that last 4
5 paragraph on Page 1 of my October 26th memorandum.
6 Q
Finally, Mr. Well, Mr. Guild indicated that during your 7
interview with Mr. Puckett, that he corrected you with 8
respect to weld filler material control.
9 Do you recall that question?
10 A
Yes, sir.
11 Q
Was that the purpose of your interview with Mr. Puckett?
12 A
The purpose of my interview was to obtain all of his 13 information in as much detail as he could give us.
14 MR. BERRY:
I have no further questions, Mr.
15 Chairman.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Miller?
t 17 RECROSS EXAMINATION 18 BY MR. MILLER:
19 0
Mr. Well, did you have any direct contact with Mr.
20 Senapker regarding his investigation of Mr. Puckett's 1
21 concerns?
22 A
I really don't recall any.
It's possible that he may 23 have asked me questions about the transcript or 24 something along those lines.
25 0
I see.
I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12059
\\~ J 1
Do you know whether or not Mr. Schapker got a copy 2
of the transcript?
3 A
I believe he worked f rom the transcript.
4 0
Now, in response to questions by Mr. Guild, I think you 5
stated that there was no Allegation Review Board when 6
Mr. Seeders' allegations were first made in August of 7
1984; is that correct?
8 A
That's correct.
9 0
Now, in fact, there was a review of Mr. Seeders' 10 concerns in which you participated, was there not, at 11 that time?
12 A
There may well have been.
13 Q
All right.
I'd like to call your attention to Staff 14 Exhibits 18 and 19 in evidence.
15 (Indicating.)
16 I ask you whether or not those reflect a review of 17 Mr. Seeders' allegations with respect to their 18 transmittal to OI for possible investigation.
19 A
I guess you could characterize it as that.
20 0
Well, can you tell us what the process of review was 21 that is documented on Staff Exhibits 18 and 19?
22 A
What I normally do is take the allegation as received 23 and documented -- take that information to the Office of 24 Investigations, discuss it with them, whether they plan 25 to initiate an investigation or not, then come back and, l
Eonntag_ Rep.orting service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12060 w
I as shown here on my August 27,
'84, memorandum -- I 2
guess it's Staff Exhibit 19 -- make up such a document 3
to show that we had the coordination.
4 It also serves -- its principal purpose -- that is 5
its secondary purpose.
6 Its principal purpose is to get the information out 7
to the technical division that will be resolving the 8
allegations.
9 0
Now, at the bottom of Staf f Exhibit 19, there's a 10 statement, " basis."
It's at the bottom of the page.
11 Did you -- is that your write-up, Mr. Weil?
()
12 A
Yes, sir.
13 0
Was it based on comments that you received from any 14 other person?
15 A
Yes.
16 Q
From whom?
17 A
That would be from Gene Pawlik in the Office of 18 Investigations.
19 Q
All right, sir.
20 So does that, in fact, represent your joint 21 evaluation of Mr. Seeders' allegations?
22 A
It represents our joint discussions.
23 0
Now, on the basis of what you knew at that time, Mr.
24 Weil, did you have any basis for believing that 25 documents had, in fact, been falsified, as mentioned in Sonntag_ Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12061 1
Mr. Seeders' allegation?
2 A
No, sir.
I believe, to the contrary, that this letter 3
said that he had refused to falsify documents.
4 0
All right, sir.
5 Now, Mr. Guild asked you some questions about the 6
investigation into the concerns expressed by the 24 QC 7
Inspectors on March 29, 1985; and in connection with 8
that portion of your testimony, you discussed how you 9
would have handled this matter had it been a criminal 10 investigation.
11 Do you recall that line of examination?
12 A
Yes, sir.
13 0
All right.
14 I think you said that in a criminal case, you would 15 have used sworn statements and would have gone out 16 quickly before the trail was cold.
17 Do you believe, Mr. Weil, that in connection with 18 the investigation into the concerns expressed by those 19 24 QC Inspectors, that the NRC's investigation as it 20 occurred, in fact, followed a cold trail?
21 A
I really can' t answer ycur question because I was not 22 involved in any of the follow-up and I don't even think 23 I've read the inspection report.
24 0
Well, in your judgment, were the circumstances that were 25 described by the 24 QC Inspectors on March 29th Sonntag_ Reporting service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12062 h
l 1
analogous to the commission of a crime that required l
2 criminal investigative methods to be employed?
3 A
From the information we had at the time, I don't believe 4
so.
5 0
Now, you were asked quite a long series of questions by 6
Mr. Guild with respect to the NRC's enforcement of 7
Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act and the 8
regulation 50.7 in 10 CFR Part 50.
9 Now, I believe you responded to Mr. Guild by saying 10 first that the NRC only tracks allegations of 11 retaliatory discharge if a person files with the (O) 12 Department of Labor.
That's what my notes indicate, and 13 perhaps I misheard your answer.
But let me just -- I'd 14 like to clarify that just for a second, if I might.
15 In any action -- in any claim of retaliatory 16 discharge, there is both the fact of the discharge and 17 the expression of a safety or quality concern that led 18 to the act of retaliation; isn't that correct?
l 19 A
That's usually the case, yes.
20 Q
All right.
21 Now, when you were responding to'Mr. Guild, did you 22 mean to suggest that the NRC does not investigate the 23 first half of the equation; that is, the safety or 24 quality concerns expressed by the alleger?
25 A
No, sir.
That we would always -- we would always take Sonntag_Henorting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 12063 m
1 that to be -- into consideration.
That would be our --
2 that would be one of the things we would inspect, yes.
3 0
All right.
4 So, then, what are the limits, if you will, of the 5
Staff's investigation when there is an allegation that 6
there has been a retaliatory employment practice because 7
of an expression of a safety or quality concern?
8 A
Well, the Staff would look at a safety concern and try 9
and establish it.
10 The second part, the harassment and intimidation, 11 would be an issue with the Department of Labor.
If it
)
12 was outside that 30-day window of opportunity, it could uJ 13 possibly be an issue for the Office of Ir.vestigations.
14 Q
If it's outside the 30-day window of opportunity?
15 A
Yes, sir.
We defer to the Department of Labor for that l
l 16 first 30 days, since the man has that small 30-day 17 window of opportunity to make his complaint known.
l 18 0
I see.
l l
19 So if he didn' t -- doesn' t avail himself of that, l
l 20 then you investigate all aspects of the circumstances 21 that have led to some sort of asserted retaliation or 22 harassment and intimidation?
23 A
I don't know if I can say "all aspects."
We're talking I
24 in generalities here, and I think we would try to look 25 at the safety issue first.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12064 Y(D s
1 In discussing the safety issue, we would also talk 2
to other people that were involved with the issue, get a 3
feel for whether there was any discussions of 4
discrimination, if you will, retaliatory action to the 5
employee, to get a feel.
6 Then given that inf ormation, if we had obtained it, 7
we would discuss with the Office of Investigations 8
whether they would initiate an investigation.
9 Q
Well, in fact, when there are allegations of harassment 10 and intimidation, the NRC Staff looks into those 11 allegations, don't they?
()
12 A
We try to do something, yes.
13 Q
Well, I'm talking more generally.
I'm not relating it 14 to an alleged retaliatory discharge or transfer, but 15 that an employee has been harassed and intimidated into 16 overlooking a quality issue or a saf ety concern.
17 A
Yes, sir.
We try and get a f eel f rom other employees as l
18 to whether that type of atmosphere exists.
19 0
Now, Mr. Guild asked you then specifically about the, 20 again, March 29, 1985, incident and whether you had any 21 concern that the disclosure of the allegations in some l
22 sort of general sense to Commonwealth Edison might lead 23 to reprisals against the inspectors that were involved.
1 24 I wanted to ask you, Mr. Weil:
Do you have any 25 knowledge, as you sit here today, of any reprisals that Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- - -. =
12065 O
1 were taken against any of the 24 inspectors that went to j
2 the NRC in March of 1985?
3 A
Sir, you're getting into an area that I would like to 4
consult with counsel on because I have open cases.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, I believe it goes 6
beyond the scope of the examination anyway, so --
7 MR. MILLER:
All right.
Let me narrow it, 8
then, down.
9 BY MR. MILLER:
10 Q
Do you have any knowledge of any reprisal against 11 Richard Snyder?
()
12 A
Like I said earlier, the name had escaped me, so --
13 0
Sir?
14 A
The name had escaped me earlier, and I couldn't answer 15 your question now.
16 0
Lastly, Mr. Weil, do you know whether or not Mr.
17 McGregor and Mr. Schulz, in fact, conducted interviews 18 of Quality Control Inspectors the Monday following that l
19 Friday, March 29, 1985?
20 MR. BERRY:
I believe that was asked and 21 answered.
l 22 MR. MILLER:
Well, I think he was -- no, I l
23 don't believe he was asked whether he --
l 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I believe his answer was he l
25 didn't know, but let's -- if I'm wrong and your Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
l Geneva', Illinois 60134
{312) 232-0262
12066 3
1 recollection is different, Mr. Berry, maybe the question 2
hadn't been asked.
3 MR. BERRY:
Well, I'll withdraw the 4
objection.
5 A
To -- to the extent that I didn' t have much involvement 6
with this case af ter -- as a matter of fact, _I had very 7
little involvement -- I don't think I can really give 8
you a definitive answer.
9 I don' t know, but the way things have unfolded here 10 today, it sounds to me like maybe they didn't.
11 BY MR. MILLER:
. ()
12 O
You' re not aware of any directive f rom anybody that 13 would cause them not to conduct those interviews?
14 A
I don' t know why there would be.
l l
15 MR. MILLER:
No further questions.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Guild?
Go right ahead, l
17 Mr. Guild.
I 18 MR. GUILD:
Thank you, Judge.
19 RECROSS EXAMINATION l
20 BY MR. GUILD:
l 21 0
Counsel asked you about NRC Exhibit 19, Mr. Weil, and 22 that was documenting the basis for a decision not to --
23 for OI not to pursue the Seeders matter.
That basis is 24 stated at the bottom of the document, and I believe you 25 acknowledged the authorship.
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
)
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
i 12067 O
1
'I take it that that determination that you reached 2
on August 27th was based on simply an interpretation of 3
the Seeders August 17, 1984, letter?
4 A
Yes, sir.
5 Q
You didn' t seek or rely on any information or f act 6
beyond that letter?
7 A
I believe that's probably all we had to work with.
8 Q
All right, sir.
9 Now, in February of '86 when the Allegations Review 10 Board did get around to considering the Seeders matter 11 after a series of events that you recounted now,
()
12 Intervenors' Exhibit 94, you closed the memo -- Pelke 13 closes the memo, after noting that the Board decided not 14 to pursue the Seeders matter, by stating, "If any 15 information is received from the alleger in the future, 16 a new file will be opened."
17 I want to ask you, sir, whether or not you, the NRC i
5 18 Staff, will consider the evidence in this record, l
19 including the testimony of Mr. John Seeders under oath
{
20 here, in deciding whether or not to reopen the Seeders 21 allegations of harassment, intimidation and retaliatory 22 transfer.
+
l 23 A
That is something that counsel would have to discuss i
l 24 with us.
25 Q
Facts are facts, and if Mr. Seeders has now sworn under l
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12068 O
1 cath as to the events that took place, that is new 2
inf ormation that's available to you, is it not?
3 A
If you're using "you" as the plural, the NRC, yes.
4 If you're using "you" singular as me, I don't know 5
what you're speaking to.
4 6
0 All right, sir.
7 Well, the sworn testimony in this proceeding is 8
available to you and other members of the Nuclear 9
Regulatory Commission Staff, is it not?
10 A
I guess it is.
11 Q
All right, sir.
()
12 And are you going to review Mr. Seeders' testimony 13 in this proceeding and consider those facts?
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Guild, I think that's 15 outside the scope of this hearing, so move on.
16 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, I respectfully 17 request an opportunity to get an answer to that question 18 or to make an offer of proof on that subject.
19 It seems to me that if the witness has stated -- if 20 the position of the Agency is that but for additional 21 inf ormation, they would pursue the Seeders matter -- and 22 I submit hypothetically, although I believe the record 23 stands behind me on this, that that additional i
24 information now exists in the form of admitted exhibits 25 and sworn testimony -- it's a legitimate line of inquiry i
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12069 O
1 to ask this witness whether or not he'll take that 2-information into account.
)
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, it may be legitimate 4
in your feeling about what ought to be done, Mr. Guild, 5
but it is outside the scope of the hearing now.
So you 6
ought to confine your questions to what we have in 7
issue.
8 MR. GUILD:
All right, sir.
Well, I respect 9
the Chair's ruling.
4 10 I would offer to show, from the testimony of the 11 witness on this line, that either the witness will i
12 decline to make any commitment and, therefore, no facts, 13 in essence, would move the Region to consider the 1
14 Seeders matter, as they ought to do, or that they 15 haven' t considered those f acts, although they' ve been 16 matters of record in this proceeding now for some l
17 months.
18 Those facts I submit, Mr. Chairman, the inaction of i
19 the Agency now with the record before it, amply refutes i
20 the suggestion that failure to move on the Seeders l
21 allegations is based simply on a lack of information.
22 The information is ample, and it's a matter of record in 23 this case.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
You've made your l
25 offer.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
12070
/~N U
1 MR. GUILD:
I have no further questions.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Just one question.
3 BOARD EXAMINATION 4
BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
5 Q
It indicates in Staff Exhibit 19 that there was to be a 6
follow-up by Region III.
7 Was there actually a follow-up?
8 A
Yes, sir.
That was the inspection conducted by Mr.
9 Schulz.
10 JUDGE CALLIHAN:
I have one question on the 11 reorganization.
(G) 12 BOARD EXAMINATION 13 BY JUDGE CALLIHAN:
14 0
We know from the various filings that the Division of 15 Reactor Projects, the Division of Reactor Safety, is an 16 arm of the Office of Investigation, OI.
17 Where in this complex do you sit, if I may put the 18 question very succinctly?
19 A
Very succinctly, I work for the Regional Administrator.
20 I sit on his Staff.
21 0
It's a Staff position?
22 A
It's a Staff position.
It's called the Enforcement i
23 Investigation Coordination Staff.
It's comprised of the 24 enforcement specialists and myself as the Allegation
((_,)\\
25 Coordinator plus our director.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
=
12071 i
1 We're a small segment of the Regional 2
Administrator's personal staff.
3 JUDGE CALLIHAN:
I see.
Thank you.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
Thank you very much 5
for testifying.
You' re excused now.
6 (Witness excused.)
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
So we'll begin on -- we're 8
adjourned for the day and we will begin at 9:00 o' clock 9
on Tuesday.
i 10 Off the record.
l 11 (There followed a discussion outside the 12 record.)
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
We are back on the record.
14 We've had a prolonged discussion as to the next 15 presentation -- that is, next week -- as to whether we 16 would go into Applicant's rebuttal case or whether, as 17 Mr. Guild requests, there would be some gap between 18 completing Staff and Intervenors' case and then going on 19 to at least the technical portion of Applicant's 20 rebuttal case, the matters that we have had prefiled.
21 Intervenor is willing to go further on the factual 22 rebuttal by Mr. Simile and Mr. Kurtz involving matters 23 that we've heard on Applicant's case in chief and 24 Intervenors' case in chief, and we will have a prolonged 25 discussion of that on Tuesday morning.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
j Geneva, Illinois 60134 1
(312) 232-0262
12072
\\
G 1
Now we have the question that we wish to resolve 2
now with regard to a deposition that is going to be 3
taken tomorrow, in which the subject is covered by a 4
protective order, and Mr. Miller has requested some 5
relief from that protective order which the Staff has 6
requested that we impose and which we have.
7 Mr. Miller would like some expansion so that he can 8
have some technical people advise him and not just have 9
the matters known to the trial attorneys, as the 10 protective order now stands.
11 Have I stated that correctly, Mr. Miller?
12 MR. MILLER:
Yes, sir, you have.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Berry?
14 MR. BERRY:
May I inquire as to who Mr.
15 Miller would have in mind?
16 MR. MILLER:
Yes.
Mr. Gieseker.
17 JUDGE CALLIHAN:
Just one, Mr. Miller?
18 MR. MILLER:
Yes, sir.
19 MR. BERRY:
Ordinarily, Mr. Chairman, the 1
20 Staff would not seek any expansion or lightening up of 21 the protective order.
22 Under the circumstances of this case, to the extent 23 Mr. Gieseker would agree to be bound by the conditions l
24 and terms of that protective order, the Staff will i
25 accede to Mr. Miller's request.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
F
~
12073 l
r~N
,,/
1 MR. MILLER:
Okay.
2 MR. GUILD:
May I get similar treatment, Mr.
3 Chairman, for my associates who have so f ar been 4
excluded from --
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I assume you would.
6 Do you have anyone in mind now?
7 MR. GUILD:
Well, I don' t have any technical 8
support, but I do have some interns and law students 9
that work with me.
I'd like to be able to include them 10 in the scope of the protective order.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Do you have a named
)
12 individual, Mr. Guild?
13 MR. GUILD:
I don't have a name right now, 14 but I'd be happy to share it with the Staff before I 15 disclose any information and see that they agree to be 16 bound by the terms of the protective order.
17 MR. BERRY:
I'm not sure that --
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I would think it's risky-for 19 Staff to give you advance approval of any person.
l 20 If you have someone in mind who has -- as you've 21 indicated, if the person has no technical expertise, I j
22 don't see any reason to make that exception.
i 23 MR. GUILD:
Well, I respectfully suggest, Mr.
l 24 Chairman, that when I asked for relief from the 25 protective order so that I could do the deposition l
Sonntaa Reporti ng Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 i
12074
\\
(O 1
yesterday, I was denied that relief by the Staff and the 2
Board.
3 It just further handicaps this party.
I don't 4
happen to have engineers in my employ, so I'm unable to 5
have Mr. Gieseker, who can sit and assist me.
6 I rely on the assistance of law students who are in 7
the employ of BPI, and I can't give you names simply 8
because there are only a few of them and I can't be sure 9
that any particular named person will be the one who has 10 time available to assist me.
11 MR. BERRY:
Mr. Chairman, I believe all along
()
12 the Staff has indicated that disclosure be made to the 13 parties' legal team.
14 I didn't understand that the Intervenor was 15 handicapped in that respect.
The members of his legal 16 team that would have a need to know of these documents 17 would not be precluded f rom reviewing them --
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
That sounds fine.
19 MR. BERRY:
-- subject to the same terms and 20 conditions of nondisclosure.
21 MR. GUILD:
That's fine, Mr. Chairman.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Let me point out, Mr. Guild, 23 that we did listen to your request last week, and we 24 evaluated your reasons for needing further disclosure.
25 It wasn't as though we offhandedly dismissed your I
Sonntag Reparting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
12075 A
s, 1
request.
2 MR. GUILD:
Yes.
I understand.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
In any event, since Staff is 4
agreeable, I'm sure you can work out some arrangement 5
for tomorrow's deposition.
6 Now, is there anything further while we're still on 7
the record?
8 MR. MILLER:
No, sir.
9 MR. GUILD:
I would expect, Mr. Chairman, 10 that the deposition tomorrow would not be in camera.
11 The deposition of yesterday wasn't in camera but for a
()
12 portion that dealt directly with the Staff documents, 13 and I would hope that it not be in camera.
14 MR. BERRY:
I would think the same ground 15 rules apply as yesterday.
16 MR. GUILD:
I guess we have no dispute, Mr.
17 Chairman.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
We're finally i
l 19 adjourned until Tuesday at 9:00 o' clock.
l l
20 (WHEREUPON, at the hour of 5:45 P.
M.,
the 1
21 hearing of the above-entitled matter was 22 continued to the 9th day of September, 23 1986, at the hour of 9:00 o' clock A. M.)
24 25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
I NAME OF PROCEEDING:
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2)
DOCKET NO.:
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS DATE:
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sigt)
MA, 22 (TYPHb)
GLENN SONNTAG Official-Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Reporter's Affiliation C
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.