ML20212Q215
| ML20212Q215 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 08/28/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#386-622 OL, NUDOCS 8609040089 | |
| Download: ML20212Q215 (218) | |
Text
n OTGWAL
,n'" UN11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO:
BRAIDWOOD STATION 50-456/457-OL UNITS 1 8 2 COMMUNWEALTH EDISON (HEARING)
O .
LOCATION: CHICAGO, ILLINOIS PAGES: 11,549 - 11,768 DATE: THURSDAY, AUGUST 28, 1986
/ 6I ts ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
O OfficialReporters 444 North CapitolStreet Washington, D.C. 20001 (202)347-3700 oK 6 NATIONWIDE COVERACE
11549 lv) 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 : Doc ket No. 5 0-4 56 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY : 50-457 OL 7 :
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 :
8 and 2) :
_ _._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x 9
10 Page: 11,549 - 11,768 11 United States District Court House p* Courtroom 1919 t 12 219 South Dearborn Street
\~- Chicago, Illinois 60604 13 Thursday, August 28, 1986.
14 i
15 The hearing in the above-entitled matter reconvened j 16 ,at 9:00 A. M.
t 17 BEFORE:
18 j JUDGE HERBERT GROSSMAN, Chairman 4
19 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board e
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 20 Washington, D. C.
21 JUDGE RICHARD F. COLE, Member, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1 22 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washington, D. C.
I 23 JUDGE A. DIXON CALLIHAN, Member, 24 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
/N U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(,,) 25 Washington, D. C.
Sonntag Reporting Service., Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4 11550 1
i
~~3
\,
2 On behalf of the Applicant:
3 MICHAEL I. MILLER, ESQ.
JOSEPH GALLO, ESQ.
4 ELENA Z. KEZELIS, ESQ.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale :
5 Three First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60602 ;
6 On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory 7 Commission Staf f:
8 STUART TREBY, ESQ.
ELAINE I . CHAN, E SQ.
9 GREGORY ALAN BERRY, ESQ.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 7335 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Ma ryland 20014 11 On behalf of the Intervenors:
O 12 13 ROBERT GUILD, ESQ.
4 14 15 16 17 l
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
, nnnneng nopnreing_sarvico_ r+a.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232_ _- 0 2 6 2. . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __. _._.
11551
(
\m /
1 TESTIMONY OF LEONARD GEORGE MC GREGOR 2 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continuing.) 11,553 BY MR. GUILD.
3 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 4 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN 11,659 i
5 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Con tin uing. )
BY MR. GUILD 11,664 6
CROSS EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. GALLO 11,711 i 8 EXHIBITS MARKED RECEIVED 9
Intervenors' Exhibit 90 11,669 10 Intervenors' Exhibit 105 11,614 11,627 11 Intervenors' Exhibit 106 11,635 11,642 12
- Intervenors' Exhibit 107 11,682 11,696 13 Applicant's Exhibit 117 11,717 11,718 14 15 i 16 1
17 18 1
19 l
[ 20 b 21 22
'23 24 25 l
t Ronntag Report i ng Ro rv ico,. T&d.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11552 f\
\_/
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: The hearing is reconvened.
2 This is the 58th day of hearing.
3 Do we have any preliminary matters before we recall 4 the witness?
5 (No response.)
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: None.
7 Mr. McGregor, could you please resume the witness 8 stand?
9 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
10 Yeste rday I misspelled Guldemond's name a 11 incorrectly, if you want a correct spelling on that.
() 12 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
THE WITNESS:
Fine.
I think I spelled it with an O.
14 His name is spelled G-U-L-D-E-M-O-N-D.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine. Mr. McGregor, you 16 remain sworn.
17 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
[ 18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Mr. Guild.
19 MR. GUILD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
! 20 Good morning, Mr. McGregor.
21 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
22 MR. TREBY: Excuse me, one small point before l
j 23 Mr. Guild begins.
l 24 The name that Mr. McGregor has just corrected 25 appea rs on transcript Page 11,433, so that we will be Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232 0262
11553
, (m)
~J.
I able to link up the correct spelling with Mr.
2 Guldemond's name versus, I believe it was, Guild that's
-3 in the transcript at 11,433.
4 MR. GUILD: I am not an employee nor have I 5 ever been an employee of the Nuclear Regulatory 6 Commission, Mr. Chairman.
7 JUDGE COLE: And your first name is not Bill.
8 MR. GUILD:- It is not Bill.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Could you repeat the 10 correction, please, now that I have the place?
11 Well, that's all right, the Reporter can give that-
\
, j 12 to me.
~s 13 (The record was thereupon read by the 14 Reporte r. )
15 UUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine. Proceed, Mr. Guild.
4 16 MR. GUILD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
- 17 DIRECT EXAMINATION
, 18 (Con tin uing. )
l 19 BY MR.. GUILD i 20 Q Mr. McGregor, when we recessed yesterday, we had been l
l 21 discussing a document that has been received in evidence 22 as Inte rvenors' Exhibit 104, and that's a memorandum 23 that was composed by you and Mr. Schulz, addressed to l
! 24 Mr. Greenman, regarding your exclusion from the Advisory I
I( 25 Committee on Reactor Safeguards full committee meeting Sonntag Reporting Se rvice Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
[. -
(312) 232-0262
11554 O
Q 1 that had been held February 7,1985.
2 THE WITNESS: Excuse me one moment.
3 You,r Honor, may I get those papers from my 4 briefcase?
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Certainly.
6 THE WITNESS: Sorry. Go ahead.
7 BY MR. GUILD:
8 Q Yes. Now, I take it that, despite the fact that you and 9 Mr. Schulz had been excluded from the ACRS full 10 committee meeting, that in your place the BCAP Inspector 11 attended and presented views about the quality of
() 12 13 construction at the site; and despite the fact that, as reflected in Intervenors' Exhibit 103, the October 31, 14 1984, memo, your superiors had assigned Mr. Gardner, the 15 BCAP Inspector, a predominant inspection of past work 16 activities -- and that is a quote from that exhibit --
17 you continued to receive concerns, allegations and 18 information from persons employed at the Braidwood site 19 about those issues, about the quality of past and 20 ongoing construction activities?
21 MR. TREBY: I object.
22 BY MR. GUILD:
23 0 Is that so?
24 MR. TREBY: I object to the form of the 25 question.
l Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 _ _ _ . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ -
1 11555
?\
V 1 What we had was a long statement by Mr. Guild, some 2 of which is accurate and reflected in the document and 3 some of which is not accurate and reflected in the 4 document.
5 It ends up with some sort of a question at the end 6 of it which is unrelated to the preamble.
7 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I think the witness 8 is capable of answering the question. I don't mean to 9 mislead him.
10 Perhaps, if I misstated something of importance and~
11 Counsel wishes to raise the point, I will be happy to
, f\
J 12 rephrase the question, if that's a problem.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, could you rephrase the 14 question, so that if you really want an answer that 15 incorporates any of that preamble, that you ask that l'
16 preamble as a separate question.
17 MR. GUILD: All right, sir.
18 I did think those were matters established already 19 in the record. I was trying to summarize.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, that's fine.
21 If you just want to establish or if you just want 22 to set the framework, why don't you just preface it by 23 saying, "Well, my understanding is from your testimony 24 that such and such occurred and such and such occurred."
q_ ) 25 MR. GUILD: Fine. That would be acceptable, Sonntag_Repo r t-i ng se rv ice . Ltd.
J Geneva, Illinois 60134
[ (312) 232-0262 j
l 11556 I l
()
\s /-
\
l 1 Mr. Chairman. l 2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: "And whether or not it's ;
3 correct after the events that I describe," and then ask 4 your question and we won't have any problem that way.
5 MR. GUILD: That would be fine,- Judge. I 6 will do that.
7 BY MR. GUILD:
8 Q I understand from your testimony yesterday -- and I will 9 try to summarize it again -- that your supervision, 10 essentially, re-assigned the predominant inspection of I
11 past work activities to the BCAP Inspector, Mr. Gardner.
0)
( 12 I understand further that the residents were
, 13 excluded from the full committee meeting of the Advisory 14 Committee on Reactor Safeguards and in your place the 15 BCAP Inspector made a presentation about quality 16 construction at Braidwood.
t 17 Now, that's my understanding and my summary of the 18 record.
i 19 The question I have for you --
l 20 MR. TREBY: The point I believe is not 21 accurate is that there is nothing that says that the 22 BCAP observer went in their place.
i 23 He happened to have been someone who went but that 1
24 doesn't mean that it was in their place.
O)
(, 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, okay. Whether or not I Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 .._._ __ _ __ _
11557 O
't/
1 they went in your -- the BCAP Inspector or inspectors 2 went in your place, you can disregard that 3 characterization and then just answer Mr. Guild's
) 4 question, which is coming up.
5 BY MR. GUILD:
6 Q Again, No. 3 time:
7 Did you still continue to receive complaints and 8 information from employees at the Braidwood site 9 regarding the quality of construction?
10 A Yes, sir, we did.
11 Q And, in fact, as is reflected in Intervenors' Exhibit 41
( 12 in evidence, on March 13, 1985, you received an 13 allegation from an L. K. Comstock inspector on the 14 subject of the qualification of supervision at L. K.
15 Comstock.
16 Do you recall that, sir?
17 A Yes, sir, I do.
18 0 Let me show you a copy of that document.
19 Mr. Chairman, this is Intervenors' 41.
20 The document I am showing you, Mr. McGregor, 21 appears to be a memorandum to Mr. Forney over your 22 signature, with several pages of attachment.
23 Is that, in fact, a memorandum that you authored to 24 Mr. Forney?
25 A Yes, sir, it is.
Ronntag Reporting servien, r.ta _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i
- )
11558
.[
\
l MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, may I approach.the
, '2 bench'briefly?
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I am sorry?
4 MR. GUILD: May I approach the bench?
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Ce rta inly.
6 Do you wish to have the witness --
i 7 MR. GUILD: He can stay, I'think; and we ,
- t j 8 don't need this on the record. !
I 9 (There followed.a' discussion outside the
)
10 record.)
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We are back on the record.
J g 12 BY MR. GUILD:
i 13 Q Mr. McGregor, we took a moment there to determine P 14 whether or not the Alleger who has previously testified 15 did so in open session; and we have reached the l 16 determination that he did.
- 17 Sir, can you identify who brought this allegation I. 18 to your attention?
I l 19 A Well, Mr. Snyder came into my office -- I believe that i
20 was his name -- on this particular date and wished to I 21 give me an allegation.
22 And I asked if he wished to remain anonymous, and 23 he said he did, so I then referred to him as Mr. X and 3
24 proceeded to take the allegation and submit it to the 25 region.
I 1
Sonntag Reporting _ service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262
., . _ . . . .. . _ . . _ . . _ _ _ - . . . _ _ _ __- . __ _ _ - ~ . . . _ _.
1
- 11559
?
^
A h
l
-l Q All right, sir. Now, your memorandum to Mr. Forney of 2 March 13, 1985, Intervenors' 41, af ter noting that the
{
3 Alleger, Mr. X, wished to remain anonymous, states, 4 Paragraph 2, "The individual stated that L. K. Comstock 5 has a QC general supervisor, supervisoru and Lead .
, 6 Inspectors who are not qualified / certified in all 4
7 disciplines," and then it gives an example of Mr.
8 Saklak.
9 Now, is it your understanding that Mr. Snyder i 10 expressed a concern only about the question of whether 1^
11 or not supervisors and leads were properly signing l
12 inspection report forms or was Mr. Snyder's concern 13 _about their qualifications more generally to exercise
} 14 supe rvisory responsibilities?
I
- 15 A He expressed a concern because these individuals were
{ 16 not qualified and they were in lead positions, such as l 17 the Lead Inspector or the supervisor position; and i 18 people were having -- people, other inspectors, some of l' 19 them Level II's, were having -- problems in the field l 20 within their inspection activities, and so they would 21 come to these people for advice.
{
22 And in most cases -- well, in the case of Mr.
j 23 Saklak, they were told to sign the papers, anyway; and i l
[ 24 his conce rn was these people, these lead people, were 25 not qualified to give advice, to advise these inspectors I
i SODatAg_ Rep _orting service. Ltd.
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 ,, - -
11560 I
s-1 on how to close an item or how to inspect it, because 2 they weren't qualified to the L. K. Comstock procedures.
3 Q All right, sir. And did Mr. Snyder, Mr. X in your 4 memorandum, provide you copies of relevant portions of 5 Comstock procedures that supported his position that 6 such lack of qualification was, in fact, in 7 contravention of those procedures?
8 A Yes, sir.
9 The information that he gave me was a copy of 10 their, Comstock, procedurec :o which they were -- it was 11 very explicit in the procedure, because it called for,
( ) 12 "The Supe rvisor shall," "The Lead Inspector must be."
- 13 Those types of words are used in there in reference 14 to his qualification. He shall be qualified as a Level 15 III, he must be qualified as a Level II. Those are the 16 proced ures .
17 Then he gave me a list of the master qualification l
18 of all the Comstock employees a'nd what they are 19 qualified -- the levels that they are qualified to E
- 20 Then he also gave me an organizational chart of L.
21 K. Comstock's work force at Braidwood and the names of 22 the individuals that were in these lead positions or 23 supervisory positions. .
24 Hence, it was a ve ry easy, I thought, allegation to 25 look at, in that it seemed very clear-cut to me that the i
Sonntag_Repnting Se rvice f Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 ,
11561 O("'\
1 individuals that he brought out were not qualified in 2~ the lead positions they were in or supervisory 3 positions.
- 4 Q All right, sir. Now I am showing you an attachment to 5 the memorandum that you wrote to Mr. Forney. <
6 Attachment 3 appears to be a list of named 7 indiv id uals. They appear from the record to be Quality 8 Control Inspectors under various headings for
, 9 disciplines within the Comstock scope of work.
1 10 Is that the master list that you referred to of
! 11 qualifications?
12 A Yes, sir, it is.
~
13 Q Now, there is a handwriting that appears at the top of' t
i 14 that document, names of certain persons with supervisory 15 titles next to them.
~
- l. 16 Whose handwriting is that, sir?
17 A That's mine, sir.
l 18 0 Is that notations from what Mr. Snyder told you in his 19 identification of the persons holding superviscry 20 positions?
21 A It was; but, nainly, it was an indication to the region l 22 to help identify these people on the master f 23 qualification list in respect to the allegation.
[ 24 Q All right, sir. That 's Attachment 3.
25 Attachment 4, the next page, is the organizational l
i
)
Sonntag__Repor ting Se rv ice . Ltd.
J Geneva, Illinois 60134 1 __ _ _ _ _ _ .____
(312) 232-0262 _ , , _ _ _ _ _ _ _
11562 i-O
- i l chart . that Mr. Snyder provided you?
2 A Yes, sir, it is.
i 3 Q And Attachment 1 is the excerpt from the relevant
! 41 Comstock procedures, also provided by Mr. Snyder?
' 5 A Yes, sir, it is.
$ 6 Q And you transmitted this as a package with your 7 ' memorandum to the region for action?
! 8 A That's correct, sir.
! 9 -Q Did you get any response from the region?
4 10 A No, sir.
1 i 11 Q Did the region invite you to participate in an
. 12 Allegations Review Board consideration of this conce rn 13 by Mr. Snyder? .
1 1 14 A No, sir.
15 Q Now, did Mr. Snyder explain to you what area of work he
! 16 was performing at L. K. Comstock? ,
, 17 A I believe he did.
18 Q Do you recall whether he talked about the area of 1
- 19 calibration inspection?
i 20 A I -- I don't recall at that meeting if he did. He could j 21 have.
22 Q All right. Your memorandum, in part, reado, "L. K.
J l 23 Comstock had approximately 60 people in the QC office J
j 24 and now there is around 120 people telling QC Inspectors 25 what to do and many of these people are not qualified."
1
) Rctnntag Reporting _So rvice, Ltd.
- Geneva, Illinoin 60134 i (312) 232-0262
11563 A
1 Was it your understanding that there had been a 2 rapid increase in the QC Department at L. K. Comstock?
3 A I don't know if I would call it rapid, but there was an 4 increase during the period '84 '85 or in '84, I guess.
5 It was an increase in inspectors.
6 Q Did you understand Mr. Snyder to be raising concerns, in 7 part, about the qualifications of the new persons who 8 were hired on?
10 This line about what he understood from Mr. Snyder 11 is simply cumulative to what Snyder already testified 12 to, and I don't know why we are rehearsing it again.
13 MR. GUILD: Why we are rehearsing it again, 14 Mr. Chairman, is not because we have any doubt about it 15 being established in the record; but Mr. McGregor is the 16 cog of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspectors to 17 whom the allegations were referred.
- 18 The question really at this stage is the NRC Staff, 19 having of fered conclusions based in part upon allegation 20 of investigation of these allegations, which I 21 understand on which Applicant wants to reply, it's seems
- 22 to me to be an appropriate question to find out what Mr.
l 23 McGregor knew and what he did about it.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: There were questions raised
( ,)
I 25 with regard to the scope of the allegations that had l
r Sonntag_RcPorting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
i 11564 I n
v 1 been raised and whether the inspections were to the full 2 extent of the allegations, and this, apparently, goes to 3 that issue.
, 4 MR. GALLO: Well, your Honor, I would request 5 that Mr. Guild be directed to ask more neutral questions 6 of the witness and cease leading him on these matters.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: While on their faces these 8 questions seem to be leading, they pinpoint the 9 controversy that has already been raised on the record.
10 It was apparent to me in the prior line of i
11 questioning when two alternatives were put to the
( 12 witness, that it was on its face a leading question but 13 that specific issue had been raised with regard to 14 whether the allegations by Mr. Snyder were as to who was 15 signing the forms rather than who was qualified to give 16 advice -- I am sorry. Let me make it a little more 17 precise.
18 The question had been raised as to whether Mr.
19 Snyder was complaining about people signing as Level 20 II's who were not certified as Level II's or whether his 21 allegations were with regard to supervisors not being 22 qualified to offer advice.
23 So we allowed the question, even though on its face 24 it was or it appeared to be leading, because the
. 25 controversy had already arisen in those specific terms; Sonntag_ Reporting service. T.e d .
4 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 - - . , - . .-
11565 D
(G 1 and it appears that this question is along the same 2 line.
3 So we will allow some leeway when we have already 4 had the issue crystalized that way.
5 MR. GUILD: I will try to rephrase this last 6 question, Mr. Chairman.
7 I believe the former question didn't suggest one 8 answer or the other as being --
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: No, it didn't; but the fact 10 that there are two alternatives -- only two alternatives 11 -
given is generally an indication of a leading
( 12 question.
13 MR. GUILD: I agree.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: But in this context it i
15 seemed to be acceptable, btt please try and phrase them 16 neutrally.
17 MR. GUILD: I will.
I 18 BY MR. GUILD:
19 Q Mr. McGregor, let me start again.
l 20 The sentence that I quoted reads again, "L. K.
I 21 Comstock had approximately 60 people in the QC office 22 and now there is around 120 people telling QC Inspectors 23 what to do and many of these people are not qualified."
24 I guess what I really want to know is: What did 25 you mean when you said, "these people are not I Sonntaglep_otting Se rvice_, Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262 .-
I 11566 q '
Q '
1 qualified"?
2 Which people is the reference to?
3 A Well, ' that's a direct copy from my notes of Mr. X; and ,
4 he_ discussed with me -- what he was referring to there 5 was -- and this also appeared again on the 29th of 6 March, the same accusations, that people were being 7 hired and placed in these positions for their first 90 8 days' employment with L. K. Comstock.
! 9 And, of course, they knew that during this first 90 I 10 days, they were being observed and they could be removed 1 11 from L. K. Comstock at the end of 90 days if they didn't j 1.2 perform.
- 13 Many of these inspectors, such as Mr. X and some of f 14 the 26 that appeared on the 29th of March, are senior or i 15 were senior inspectors who had refused to take the l
l 16 position as a Lead Inspector, because, as they stated, f
I 17 of the harassment they were getting.
18 So 1.he Lead Inspectors were then being filled with 19 people who were, basically, new hirees and were not <
j 20 qualifled.
- 21 Q In the opinion of the A11egers, in the opinion of the
! 22 people who brought these concerns to you?
l 23 A That's correct, and basing their opinion on L. K.
i 24 Comstock 's procedure.
l 25 Q I see. Thank you.
Bonntag_ Reporting _Se rvice. Ltd. i l Geneva, Illinois 60134 ;
i (312) 232-0262
11567 O
G 1 Now, inde ed , a f te r Mr . Snyde r , M r . X, brought these 2 concerns about qualifications of leads, supervisors and 3 the general supervisor to your attention, two weeks 4 later there were further allegations from L. K. Comstock 5 Quality Control Inspectors that were brought to_your 6 ' attention; correct?
7 A That's correct.
8 0 would you describe the circumntances on the 29th of 9 Ma rch , 1985, in which further concerns by Comstock 10 inspectors were brought to your attention, sir?
11 A On the morning of the 29th of March -- it was a Friday
() 12 13
-- at approximately 8:15 or 8:30 or in that time frame six L. K. Comstock inspectors walked into my office and 14 asked if they could speak with me.
15 So I walked over to the men and of fered them cof fee 16 and sat down and asked Bob Schulz and, I think, Mr.
17 Wayne Kropp, also, the Resident Inspector for 18 construction, Bob Schulz, the senior construction 19 resident, to come to my office and witness these 20 complaints.
21 I recognized Mr. X, Mr. Snyder, as the gentleman 22 who was in on the previous two weeks on the allegations 23 we just discussed; and at that time I asked them if they 24 wished to remain anonymous and, if so, we would honor 25 their concerns.
I Sonntag_Repor. ting _Se nicea Ltd. -
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i
. 11568
,O
\ }
v 1 They began with a discussion of the problems that 2 they were having.
3 Q Let me interrupt a second, sir.
4 A Yes, sir.
5 0 When you asked them if they wanted to remain anonymous, 6 did you get a response from any of them?
7 A The reason I asked that was because I recognized Mr.
8 Snyde r, Mr. X.
9 Q Yes.
10 A And his -- if I recall right, his immediate response 11 was, "No. I realize I asked for anonymity two weeks ago
() 12 13 or whenever it was, but it's gone too far and it doesn't matter anymore."
14 Q Do you recall Snyder saying words to that effect?
15 A Yes, sir..
i 16 0 Was there any response from the other five that you j 17 recall?
18 A I don't believe the other five -- I don't recall.
19 0 All right. Continue, if you would. I interrupted your 20 answer.
i l 21 A Their first discussion with me was that -- or with us, I 22 should say, the residents was that -- they had intended 23 to walk off the site -- I think there was about 100 of 24 .
them -- because of the problems they were having in 25 their inspection activities.
Sonnt ag_ Rep or11ng_Se rv_ ices _Ltd -
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) . ~ - -232_0262
L 11569 C
1 We then continued to listen to their complaints, 2 allegations, which we took notes on; and after I took 3 their concerns or allegations, I immediately called Mr.
4 Chuck Weil in the region, the Enforcement Coordinator.
5 Q Let me interrupt you a second again.
6 Did you call Mr. Weil while the six were still 7 present in your office, Mr. McGregor?
8 A No, sir.
9 Q How long were they in your office before, I presume, 10 they left and you called Mr. Weil?
11 A I would have to estimate maybe a half hour to 45 12 minutes .
j 13 Q All right, sir. Continue.
(
14 You called Mr. Weil after they left.
15 A And I briefly. told him of the concerns that were just 16 given to us, the allegations, and that as soon as our i
17 notes were typed, we would fax those notes up to him. '
i 18 He acknowledged that, and that was- the end of the
! 19 conversation.
l 20 Q Just to be clear for the record, when you say you faxed t 21 them, you used some means for transmitting a facsimile?
f 22 A Yes, sir. I am sorry. A facsimile machine that can ;
23 transmit via a telephone system.
i 24 0 So the recipient receives what, in essence, is a l
l 25 photocopy or a duplicate copy of the typewriting that
! I J
} sonntag_ Reporting service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11570
\
l you submit?
2 A Yes,' sir.
3 Q Did you have your notes typed up, Mr. McGregor?
4 A Pardon me?
5 Q .Did you have your notes typed up and telefaxed, the 6 notes of the --
7 A Yes, sir.
8 Q When did you fax those notes to Mr. Weil?
9 A Well, as we all know, things progressed quite rapidly i 10 that day; and we really didn't get a chance to get those
[ 11 typed until, I would assume,1:00 or 2:00 o' clock in the 12 afternoon.
l 13 Q All right, sir. What happened between the time you 14 spoke to Mr. Weil on the telephone and the time you 15 ultimately faxed the notes to Mr. Weil?
i
, 16 A After the conversation with Mr. Weil, I called Mr.
i 17 William Forney, our Section Chief, and also told him of
{ 18 the same six allegations or the six men that came in and i
- 19 gave allegations and what we were doing and what we had 20 -- and that we had informed Mr. Weil.
l 21 He thanked me for the information, and that was the l 22 end of that conve rsation.
I 23 I guess about a half hour later I received a call i
24 -- a phone call -- then from Chuck Weil, asking me to 25 get in contact with these six individuals again, if I I Ronntag_ Reporting se2vice, Lta.
i Geneva, Illinois 60134 le-,-.e +,.-9-%y....,__.,_ .
(312) 232-0262
(
- 11571
] 1 could, and ask them if they would like to come back to 2 the office for a telephone conference with the region.
I 3 And I think I must have misunderstood Mr. Weil 4 because I thought he said that.the regional 4
5 administrator wanted to talk to them and that's what I
{_ 6 relcyed to the six individuals.
i 7 They said they would -- well, I did go out and I
- 8 did contact them in the field and they said, "It's no
! 9 problem."
L 10 I suggested to them that maybe if they wanted to I
11 -
bring their lunch pails and come into the office ~at 12 12:00 o' clock noon, they could eat their lunch there and i
13 spend their lunch hour rather than take up their I 14 inspection time, so they agreed to that.
15 As I was walking away from the group, they stopped
, 16 me and asked me, "How many people should we bring? "
l 17 I said, "Well, sir, as many people as wish to make i
j 18 allegations, have them appear."
t i
19 I then went back to the office and called Mr. Chuck 1
l 20 Weil again and told him that the men said they would be 21 there at 12:00 o' clock noon.
22 At 12:00 o' clock noon there was approximately 24 f
! 23 people walked into my office; and there seems to be some
! 24 difference in numbers, mainly because later on in the l
( 25 noon hour I think two or three left and two or three new Ronntag_ Reporting service, r.td .
Geneva, Illinois 60134
+
(312) 232-0262 j
11572 rs (x_-)
1 personnel came on.
2 So once they were in the room, I advised them of 3 their right to remain anonymous. If they did not, I 4 said that the commission would be interested in their 5 name or their telephone number or an address or 6 something where they could contact them to get in touch 7 with them or to be able to ask them more questions or 8 to, if they needed or wanted information as to the 9 Commission's investigation of this report, they could 10 receive it.
11 They acknowledged that, and I don't believe any of
/
( 12 them hesitated to give their name and telephone number
- 13 and address when they responded during the 14 conve r sa tions .
15 0 Let me interrupt again now.
16 So as the conversations proceeded, did individuals 17 at that time give their name, address and telephone 18 number orally?
4 19 A Yes, sir.
20 Before we made the telephone call, I told them the 21 way we would -- from my desk there was a long table that 22 extended out; and most of them were around that.
23 Of course, we didn't have that many chairs for 26 24 people or 24 people, so they were lined up against the O)
(_, 25 wall; and so I merely said, "We will start on this end l
Sonntag_Repor_ ting _ Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 .
11573 d
1 of the table and we will start moving down one by one.
2 Give your name, telephone number, if you wish. If you 3 don't, just tell them, 'I am an individual out here and 4 I wish to remain anonymous,' and give your concerne.,"
5 So they did. We went completely around the room, 6 and I don't recall of anybody asking for anonymity.
7 I am sure they all gave their name, address, 8 telephone number, box number, something that they could 9 be identified by.
10 Q All right, sir. Now, I understood from your previous 11 answer that at this point you had a telephone hookup, a CN; 12 conference call with the region; is that right?
(
13 A Well, we would initiate the telephone call to the 14 region; and these instructions I gave the inspectors: I 15 didn't want the meeting to become an unruly meeting, a 16 shouting match or whatever.
17 So I gave them a few instructions as to bow this 18 meeting would be conducted and then I made the telephone j 19 call to the region.
20 Q All right, sir. Before they started giving their 21 statement s , the call was -- the connection was made and 22 the conference call was in effect; is that true?
23 A Yes, sir. No allegations were made unless the region l 24 was in with the conversation.
b)\
l \
s_,
25 0 All right, sir. Now, who was present with you aside i
RQnnkag Reporting Service. Ltd, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 .
I v-11574 CN V
1 from the QC Inspectors in your office?
2 A Mr. Schulz, the Senior Resident for the construction, 3 and Mr. Wayne Kropp, the Resident Inspector for 4 construction.
5 0 Who did you understand was on the other end of the 6 conference call at the region?
7 A Well, I was a little ehecked, I guess, because of my 8 misunderstanding of what Chuck told me, Mr. Weil.
9 The regional administrator was not there. It was 10 Mr. Wa rnick . I think Cordell Williams.
11 I don't recall. I would have to refresh my memory (h}
12 by looking at the article -- looking at my report to see 13 who all was there.
14 Q Let 's do that.
15 Mr. McGregor, I have a series of documents that 16 have been previously received in evidence as 17 Intervenors' Exhibits 42 and 42-A, I believe.
18 They are, taken together, two memoranda that have a 19 date of March 29th on them and one memorandum that has 20 the date April 5, 1985.
21 One version of the April 5th memo has names that 22 have been blanked out from it as a result of a 23 protec.tive order that was issued in this proceeding.
1' l s 24 Now, with that explanation, let me show you -- and 25 I take it that you have seen the version of the April I
l l
(. Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice. Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
o i
11575 4
O 1 5th memo that has the names contained in it?
2 A Yes, sir.
3 MR. GUILD: That is an in camera exhibit, 4 Inte rvenors' Exhibit 4 2-A.
5 Mr. Chairman, I take it it's acceptable to show the 6 witness that in camera exhibit?
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Certainly.
8 BY MR. GUILD:
9 Q Now, 42 includes, first of all, two March 29th memos; 10 and perhaps you can identify them.
11 The first one is on top here and it's from McGregor 12 and Schulz to Warnick and Weil; subject: Quality 13 control allegations from L. K. Comstock inspectors. It 14 be. gins with "Mr. X," in the body.
15 second is a March 29, 1985, memo, McGregor and 16 Schulz to Warnick and Williams; subject: Telephone 17 conference call, et cetera. It's of several following 18 pages.
19 Now, beginning with those two, can you identify 20 those memos, sir?
21 A The first memorandum is my memorandum and Mr. Schulz's 22 memorandum of the 29th of March of the six inspectors 23 who came into the office early in the morning.
24 Q All right. That's the typewriting, the typewritten 25 version of your notes from that early morning session?
Sonntag Reporting Se rvice Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11576 V
1 A Yes, sir, it is; yes, sir.
2 Q All right. How about the second memorandum, March 29th?
3 By the way, the first memorandum is the one that 4 has Mr. X in the body; is that correct?
5 A That's correct, sir.
6 Q All right. The second March 29th memo.
7 A This is a memorandum that we wrote up the latter part of 8 that day and it's covering a meeting that we had with 9 Commonwealth Edison with regard to the allegations that 10 took place earlier that day, 11 Q All right. I am going to ask you some more questions
( 12 about that when we get to that point in the sequence of 13 events; but when you say "we," do you mean yourself and 14 Mr. Schulz?
15 A Yes, sir.
16 Q Now, just for identification purposes, I am going to 17 show you the April 5, 1985, memo, Intervenors' Exhibit 18 42-A, the in camera version.
19 There are brackets around the names. I understand 20 the brackets were added at a later time, Mr. McGregor.
i 21 Can you identify that memorandum?
22 A This memorandum would be a transcript of the notes that 23 were taken at Region 3 on the 12th -- I mean on the 29th 24 of March at 12:00 noon.
25 Q All right.
Sonntaa ReDortina Service. Ltd.
~
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 l - . _ .
(312) .
232-0262 _ _ - _ . _ _- .-.. ,-
11577
(%
\v]
1 A And it's authored by Mr. Chuck Weil, the Investigation 2 and Compliance Coordinator.
3 Q All right. I will return to that one in a moment as 4 well.
5 All right, sir. Now, the point where I interrupted 6 you and showed you these documents was I had a pending 7 question that asked: Who was on the receiving end of 8 your conference call with the region?
9 By looking at these memoranda, can you refresh your 10 recollection on that score?
11 A Chuck Weil, William Forney, Cordell Williams. I am f% 12 looking for Robert Lerch. He is a Project Inspector at
()
13 the region and he took the place of Mr. Paul Pelke, who 14 is the Project Inspector for Braidwood.
15 Mr. Pelke was not in the office at the time and Mr.
16 Robert Lerch took his place. He was one of the 17 individuals with Warnick and Cordell Williams.
18 I think Roger Mendez was also there.
19 Q All right, sir. I am looking at -- let me interrupt you 20 again -- the second March 29th memo. This is the 21 subject, " Telephone conference call with Commonwealth 22 Edison Company."
23 Now, there are a number of individuals at the 24 region who are listed there, including Messrs. Lerch and 25 Mendez?
sonntag_ Reporting service. T.t a _
Geneva, Illinois 60134
) 232-0262 (312)
11578
/m 1 A Yes, sir.
2 Q Now, there are two conference calls we are speaking 3 about on the 29th, is that right, one eith Edison and 4 one with the Allegers?
5 A There was actually three calls. There were three calls 6 made to the region that day.
7 There was a call made at noon with the allegations; 8 and after the allegations were made, the men left the 9 room. We continued our conversation with the region; 10 and at that time Schulz and I, we requested that the 11 region send regional inspectors out Monday morning to
() 12 13 take statements from these individuals; and if they had any f alsified records or if they had any proof to show 14 of their allegations, that we wanted it.
15 The region then advised us to get in contact with 16 -- we also told them of the intent of the L. K. Comstock 17 inspectors to walk of f the site.
18 We were told then to get in contact with the senior 19 management of Commonwealth Edison; and I think, if I 20 recall correctly, it was about 1:00 o' clock or 1:30.
21 Mr. Fitzpatrick and Lou Klein and -- I forget. I think 22 Mr. Tom Maiman was at the site.
23 Mr. Wallace was not there. Mr. Shamblin was not at 24 the site. The QA supervisor, Tom Quaka, was not at the
)
j 25 site at that particular time.
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 .. . _ _ . _
._~ - __
11579 O
1 So those gentlemen came over and we then called the 2 region and we had a conference call with the region; and 3 the region asked Commonwealth Edison as to -- well, they 4 told them of the allegations but they were -- the 5 Commission was very brief and did not get into any 6 detail as to the number of people that came over, the 7 specifics of the allegations.
8 But the region did tell them rhat there was a grave 9 matter, that a large number of inspectors had approached 10 the residents with concerns of harassment, intimidation; 11 and they, the Commission, wanted Commonwealth Edison to 12 take some appropriate action.
13 Q All right. Let me interrupt and see if I can get some 14 specifics, so I can understand.your testimony a little 15 better.
16 After the 24 or 26 QC Inspectors left your office 17 and you continued your call with the region, you said
, 18 they, the region, instructed you to contacted Edison 19 management .
! 20 Who, in particular, gave those instructions, sir?
21 A I honestly don't recall. Probably Mr. Forney.
22 Q Why is it your belief that Mr. Forney did?
l 23 A Well, he was our direct supervisor and he would be ,
f
! 24- speaking to us.
l 25 Q Was Mr. Warnick still on the call at that time?
l '
i
{
i Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
. (312) -232-0262
F !
l 1
11580 f3 1
1 1 A Yes, sir.
2 0 Was Mr. Warnick the senior regional official ,
{
i 3 par ticipa ting?
4 A Yes, I would say he would be the senior region official, 5 yes.
6 Q Did Mr. Warnick participate in the instructions to you 7 and the other residents as to the follow-up?
8 A Most of that discussion we were excluded from by -- on 9 the telephone system, there is a button that you can 10 press and have a conference without it being put on the 11 phone .
() 12 13 So for some time the region discussed what they wanted to do and then they came back on the conference 14 call with us and explained what they wanted done.
13 0 I see. So you weren't privy to whatever discussion took 16 place during that period of time.
17 The decision, though, was communicated to you 18 ultimately after the region came back on the line by 19 your direct supe rvisor, Mr. Forney?
20 A I believe it was Mr. Forney.
21 Q All right, sir.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me. Just a point of 23 correction.
24 I believe you gave the name of the QA Manager for '
O
\ _)
s 25 Ceco or Comstock who was present at the meeting. I am Sonntag Reporting Service Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 ._ _ _ _ . . _ _
r l I
l l
l 11581 i l
V 1 not sure you gave the correct name.
2 Could you give it again?
3 THE WITNESS: Tom Quaka, who is the 4 Commonwealth Edison QA Manager.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I am sorry. I heard it 6 incorrectly.
7 THE WITNESS: We tried to reach him and I 8 mentioned that he was not on site.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: As long as I have 10 interrupted for one thing, did anyone who was privy to 11 the call with Region 3, either in Region 3 that you know
( 12 of or on your end, object to contacting CECO immediately 13 as was directed?
14 THE WITNESS: Well, Mr. Schulz and I were a 15 little bit concerned that -- not immediately. We were 16 concerned that statements should be taken from those 17 individuals at the earliest convenience, which would 18 have been Monday morning.
19 We did not take notes at the office, because we 20 felt that it was the region's responsibility to take the 21 concerns that were being given to them.
22 I still have concerns today that those people were 23 not conf ronted immediately and a type of a deposition or 24 statements taken from those individuals and concerns 25 that they had for data, whether it be falsification of Renntag Reporting Rervice, T& d .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
11582 a
1 records or whatever, be confiscated at that time, the 2 reason being was -- Schulz and I discussed it many days 3 and that was we can get ourselves into a position where, 4 if the company, Commonwealth Edison, did not take 5 appropriate action and this continued to be a problem at 6 the site, we said in the hearing process, somebody is 7 just liable to walk up and hand the Judge a stack of 8 paper and tell the Judge and tell the Commission that 9 the Commission white washed the job; and we wanted -- if 10 there are papers, if there is falsification of records, 11 we would like to know abcut them right now.
/'N 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Did you express these 13 concerns in that telephone call with the region?
14 THE WITNESS: Not to the extent I did right 15 now, but we did express our concerns that the region 16 should send inspectors down at the earliest convenience 17 to interview these inspectors and take statements from 18 them.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Did you indicate --
20 MR. GALLO: Excuse me, Judge Grossman.
21 Can we get an answer to your first question, 22 whether or not anyone objected to the direction to 23 contact --
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That is what I was following 25 up with.
l Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 _ _ __ , - _ _ - _ _
11583 b
1 Did you combine that with an indication that you 2 wished to hold off the notification to CECO?
3 THE WITNESS: No, sir.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. I am sorry. I 5 interrupted. I didn't think it would be that lengthy 6 and I don't want to take --
7 MR. GUILD: That's quite all right, Mr.
8 Chairman.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- questions out of turn 10 when counsel have prepared a line of questions.
11 BY MR. GUILD:
12 Q So I take it from your previous answer, Mr. McGregor, 13 that you did not make a record of the conce rna that were 14 expressed at noontime by the large group of inspectors, 15 the 24 or 26, but relied on the record, if any, that was 16 being kept by the region at the other end of the 17 conference call?
18 A That's correct, sir.
19 Mr. Schulz and I had discussed it. We even 20 discussed it with the residents -- I am sorry -- with 21 the -- we mentioned it to the L. K. Comstock inspectors 22 when they came in.
23 Since the region had well over two hours advance
)
_ 24 notice that the telephone call would be made at noon, we 25 felt that they had ample time to assemble whatever Sonntaa Recortina se rvice. Ltd.
~
Geneva, Illinois 60134
) (312) 232-0262
I 11584 O
1 personnel they needed, if necessary a Court Reporter or 2 whatever, to take the statements the men had.
3 Q All right, sir. Did they have a Court Reporter present 4 at the noon conference call, to your knowledge?
5 A I don't know, sir.
6 0 The April 5th memo that has been received in evidence as 7 Inte rvenors ' Exhibit 4 2-A, the in camera document, to 8 your knowledge, does that represent the sole record of 9 the noontime statements by the large group of Comstock 10 inspectors?
11 A Well, sir, I would have to compare what is written here
() 12 13 with what was -- compared to the six that we took notes on; and I would hardly say that they are the same.
, 14 There are some sketchy quotes in here and 15 approximately two or three pages and that constitutes 16 about 45 minutes of allegations by L. K. Comst ock
! 17 inspectors.
18 0 Well, I think you got ahead of me one step there, Mr.
l 19 McGregor.
l 20 First, are you aware of any other record of the I
21 noontime conce rns expressed by the 24 inspectors aside
- 22 from the April 25th memo? ,
I j 23 A No, sir.
l l 24 Q All right. Now, I gather from your last answer that, in 25 some respects, it's your view that the April 5th memo by l
l Sonntag Reporting Service Ttd.
! Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11585 O
1 Mr. Weil does not fully and completely document the 2 concerns that you heard given at noon?
3 A Yes, sir, that's correct.
4 Q When did you first -- of course, the document is not 5 dated until some days after the Friday statements.
6 When did you first receive a copy of the April 5th 7 memo, Mr. McGregor?
8 A I don't know. I would -- mail service to the site is a 9 week to ten days, at the best.
10 So some time probably April 15th, April the 20th, 11 somewhere in there, maybe.
() 12 13 Q All right, sir. Were you asked by the region or by Mr.
Weil or anyone else to review the April 5th memo for 14 completeness and accuracy? ,
15 A No, sir.
16 Q Then when did the -- you may have answered this already 17 and I apologize if you did.
18 The first March 29th memo, the one that has Mr. X 19 identified in it, to Warnick and Weil, was it faxed that 20 day, March 29th?
21 A Yes, sir; yes, sir.
22 Q And was it faxed before or after you had the conference 23 call in which the Commonwealth Edison Company personnel 24 participated?
(,,)
25 A I don't recall.
Sonntag_ Reporting Service. Ltd.
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11586
/
1 Q Was it prepared before or after the conference call in 2 which the CECO personnel participated?
3 A I honestly don't know.
4 We transcribed our notes, the secretary typed them 5 and she gave it to us to read the draft and I glanced at 6 it and told her to send it.
7 Just exactly when they transmitted that memorandum 8 I really don't know; but it was some time -- probably 9 1:00 o' clock.
I 10 Q All right. Let me direct your attention to the last l 11 page of the March 29th memo to Warnick and Weil, the one l
l p)
( 12 with Inspector X in it. It contains a single paragraph 13 and above the names your name and Mr. Schulz's name.-
14 Does that paragraph represent the resident 15 inspectors' reccmmendations to the region on this 16 matter?
17 A That's correct.
18 Q Can you describe how that portion of the nemorandum was 19 prepared, Mr. McGregor?
l 20 A It was a joint effort between Mr. Schulz and myself.
21 Q All right. Did you prepare that portion of the 22 memorandum in handwriting before the meeting with the
- 23 Commonwealth Edison Company personnel?
4 24 A I think this took place before the 1:00 o' clock meeting, Q 25 Commonwealth Edison.
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 ._
11587 (G
1 Q All right, sir. Now, this paragraph recounts the 2 recommendation that you have recounted orally a.lready, 3 and that is, "The resident inspectors feel that the 4 region should send an inspector to the site to interview 5 these QC Inspectors individually, inspect NCR 1616 and 6 ICR 2900, which the inspectors claim have been 7 inappropriately dispositioned."
8 The latter part you hadn't, of course, mentioned 9 yet this morning.
10 What were the circumstances in which those 11 documents -- the deficiency documents -- were brought to
() 12 13 A your attention?
The NCR's you are speaking of?
14 Q The NCR and ICR, yes, sir.
15 A I don't recall if it was brought to us during the i
16 meeting of the six individuals at 8:30 or early in the 17 morning or if it was brought to our attention and the i
18 region's attention at the 12:00 o' clock conference call.
19 Q But was it brought to your attention by the Comstock l
20 inspectors that day?
l 21 A Yes, sir.
l 22 Q Can you recall who by name identified those documents?
I l 23 A No, sir.
l l 24 Q All right, sir. You continue in this paragraph, "It 25 appears at first glance with the information we have l
l Ronntag Reporting Aprvice, Tkd _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262 .-
i 11588
~s 1 received that a shutdown or some other aggressive action 2 of the electrical work may be necessary to establish the 3 quality of past work and the quality of the ongoing 4 work. The lack of action by CECO QA in this area needs 5 to be addressed, along with CECO management's slowness 6 or inability to take corrective action. The resident 7 inspectors appraised CECO management last fall of the 8 problems in L. K. Comstock Quality Control Department."
9 First, the recommendation that a shutdown or some.
10 other aggressive action in regard to the electrical work 11 be taken, stated to be based, "upon the information we 12 have received," now, when you refer in this memo to the 13 information that you have received, are you referring to 14 the allegations made that day by the Comstock Quality 15 Control Inspectors?
16 A I suppose we could say it was probably the straw that 17 broke the camel's back.
18 We are looking at a collection of information that 19 we had with L. K. Comctock and now an unprecedented 20 amount of inspectors come into our office under their l 21 own free will and we felt that it was time now to take 22 some aggressive action to correct the problem.
23 Q All right, sir. So it was in light not only of the 24 inspectors' concerns that day but previous experience as 25 the residents on site with L. K. Comstock?
Sonntag Reporting Service _. Ltd.
_ Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11589
( ,
1 A Yes, sir.
2 0 When you refer to the lack of action by CECO QA in this 3 area, are you referring to action with regard to 4 previous complaints by Comstock Quality Control 5 Inspectors? *
, 6 A Yes, sir.
7 0 Including the Seeders matter?
8 A Yes, sir.
9 Q The Puckett matter?
10 A Yes, sir.
11 0 Complaints by Mr. Snyder that had occurred two weeks
() 12 13 A before?
Yes, sir.
14 Q Ccmplaints by Comstock inspectors to Quality First a 15 month or so before the March complaints to you?
16 MR. GALLO: Objection.
17 He is leading the witness with all of these.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Pardon?
19 MR. GALLO: He is leading the witness with 20 all of these suggestions.
21 It seems to me a more neutral question should be 22 asked. He could ask straightforward what other previous 23 experience he had in mind.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, he has already
(%
( ) 25 mentioned this one, so we will allow that question; and i sonntag neporting servica_ r.e d .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
F l l 11590 fh
\ ,)-
l 1 then if there are any others, just state what others.
2 MR. GUILD: All right, sir. l 3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Were you aware of that 4 Quality First --
5 THE WITNESS: No, sir, we were not.
6 I did do a number of interviews with the Quality 7 First director and looked at his program.
8 Yes, I could have asked for specifics on 9 individuals, although this is a program that 10 Commonwealth Edison has initiated and I specifically 11 thought that the Commission should let that program grow 12 and be a productive program without the Commission 13 interfering with it.
14 So I never requested specifically any L. K.
15 Comstock inspectors or names of individuals who 16 complained.
17 I did receive a complaint f rom one of the L. K.
18 Comstock inspectors who said -- I asked him if he had 19 gone to Quality First; and he said no, because it's just 20 another -- I don't want to characterize it.
21 "It's just another CECO office. You will get a 22 pink slip from there just as well as anywhere else."
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Was that complaint made to 24 you before you made this recommendation?
i
) 25 THE WITNESS: Was that complaint made before Ronntag Repor ti ng Se rv i ce . T,td _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11591
//"Tg U
1 I made the reccanendation?
2 Yes, sir, I think it was.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Did that also go into your 4 consideration when you made this recommendation?
5 THE WITNESS: Oh, I suppose it had something 6 to do with it.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Were there any other things 8 that you took into account in making this 9 recommendation?
10 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
11 We did have a meeting with Mr. Wallace, the site
() 12 13 manager, some months previously. It might have been the fall issue that we are talking about there.
14 We met with Mr. Wallace. We, Mr. Schulz and myself 15 meet with Mr. Wallace and Mr. Saklak, in Mr. Wallace's 16 office, because we had through our work in the field 17 found very low morale and a lot of distasteful 18 accusations being submitted by QC Inspectors, most of 19 them on the side.
20 They aren't in the form of an allegation; but it's 21 just -- you would ask a guy, "How are things going 22 today?" And he might give you an answer that would 23 imply that things were not very well managed at his 24 site.
25 So we did confront Mr. Saklak and Mr. Wallace with SQDntag Reporting Se rvice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~ - _ _ -
f 11592 er 1 the morale problems with L. K. Comstock and their 2 inspecting abilities.
3 After the meeting I, basically, told Mr. Wallace 4 that we are concerned about the issue and that we felt 5 CECO should look into it.
6 We felt that Irv DeWald -- there was some 7 statements made that Irv DeWald was about ready to crack 8 or was having a nervous breakdown, whatever; and we 9 brought that up, also.- ,
10 We said, "If extra personnel, if extra inspectors, 11 are needed to complete this job, if you need more
( ) 12 personnel in management to see that these jobs get 13 assigned and get done, then I think you should look at 14 it. It's really a CECO problem."
15 And Mr. Wallace assured us that he would look into 16 it.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: So that was also in your 18 consideration when you made this recomraendation --
19 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- that meeting with all of 21 these discussions?
22 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Was there anything else that 24 you can recall that went into your consideration when O
( ,) 25 you made this recommendation?
Ronntag Report i ng Se rvi ce T, t d _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I l
l 11593 l
<3 s- )
l 1 THE WITNESS: Well, through the history at 2 Braidwood, when I got there, as I stated before, Mr.
3 Brown was the QA Manager -- QC Manager.
4 BY MR. GUILD:
5 Q At Comstock?
6 A At Comstock.
4 7 When I made inferences to Mr. Wallace on my 8 conce rns about the records and the quality assurance of 9 that organization, within a few days or a week or so, i
10 that man disappeared or was fired or asked to leave the 11 company.
() 12 13 Mr. Cochran came on board and was there approximately a year and he left.
14 JUDGE COLE: Mr. Corcoran or Cochran?
15 THE WITNESS: I am sorry, Corcoran, Corcoran.
16 He was fired.
l 17 There were CECO audits that showed concern for the 18 records that were being established or that were not 19 being established by L. K. Comstock.
20 This continued to be a problem with Comstock, in 21 that I think they actually took the records out of-the
. 22 vault three separate times to redo them, to correct 23 them.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: So that, too, was in your 25 consideration?
J i Ronntag Reporting Rorvice, if d _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11594 l
/Y 1 1 THE WITNESS: Yes.
2 We are looking at a hodgepodge or a myriad of 3 things that we saw over the period of a few years at the 4 site, and I guess it's safe to say that enough is 5 enough, and that was our recommendations.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild.
7 MR. GUILD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
8 BY MR. GUILD:
4 9 Q Just to try to pin down one point:
10 Mr. McGregor, there was a document received in 11 evidence earlier -- the number escapes me right now --
p)
( 12 but it reflects Mr. Schulz's processing of John Seeders' 13 allegation in the fall of 1984.
14 In part, it reflects a meeting between, at least, 15 Mr. Schulz and some representative of Edison management, 16 at which Edison management, in substance, said they 17 would convey to Comstock an injunction against harassing 18 and intimidating QC Inspectors.
19 Now, do you recall whether or not the meeting that 20 you have just referred to involving yourself, Mr.
21 Schulz, Mr. Mike Wallace and Mr. Saklak was in 22 connection with the John Seeders matter?
23 A No, sir.
< 24 Q You don't recall or it was not?
s,,/ 25 A It was not. Mr. Schulz met with -- he handled the Sonntag Reporting Service _. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11595 I
v 1 Seeders matter entirely and that recommendation in the 2 back of that is part of his recommendation; and, in 3 fact, he actually wrote it and we discussed and he also 4 brought up the Seeders problem at that time.
5 As I said yeste rday, I did not interfere with Bob's 6 work on the seeders investigation, allegations, and he 7 completed that himself.
8 Q When you say, "Mr. Schulz wrote it," you mean Mr. Schulz 9 drafted the paragraph that is the last page of your 10 March 29th memo?
11 A He drafted the sentence that said immediate shutdown or
() 12 13 Q some other type of corrective action.
And did you concur with that recommendation?
14 A Yes, sir, I did.
15 Q Did you concur with the rest of the observations in that 16 paragraph?
17 A Yes, sir.
18 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, could we take a 19 brief recess?
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Certainly. Ten minutes.
21 (W HEREUPON, a recess was had, after which 22 the hearing was resumed as follows:)
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Let's resume, Mr. Guild.
24 MR. GUILD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
25 BY MR. GUILD:
i Ranntag Reporting Rorvice. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 .
(312) 232-0262
a 11596
~
l Q Mr. McGregor, a portion of Intervenors' Exhibit 42 is 2 the second March 29, 1985, memorandum; subject:
3 Telephone conference call with Commonwealth Edison in 4 regard to L. K. Comstock quality control problems.
- 5 Now, from the text of this memo it appears that i
6 it's a memorialization of that conference call, what 7 happened that day.
. 8 Is that a correct understanding?
9 A The conference call that I had mentioned that we had 10 with the region and Commonwealth Edison at approximately J
11 1:00 or 1:30, somewhere there, I don't believe there is
( ) 12 a documentary on that or a memorandum on it.
13 This is -- after that conference call, Commonwealth 14 Edison told the Commission that they would return a 15 conference call later that day, approximately 4:00, l 16 4:30, and present their corrective action with regard to
, 17 the allegations.
18 So at approximately -- I will approximate 4:00 or 19 4:30, then Mr. Fitzpatrick and Lou Klein from 20 Commonwealth Edison came over and presented their 21 short-term and long-term program that they were going to 22 put forth to correct the concerns that we had with the 23 Allege rs .
24 Q All right, sir. So between the time 1:00 and 1:30 and 25 4:00 and 4:30, the Edison people arrived at a short- and f
. Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 - . . _ _ _ _ _. -_ __
11597 1 long-term plan which they then presented to the region?
2 A Well, I think they -- yes, sir, in essence, they did.
3 They gave four parts to the short program, and I 4 don't think they really explicitly said too much about 5 the long term, although they were going to come up with 6 a long-term program.
7 0 I stand corrected.
8 They prepared a short-term plan and presented the 9 short-term plan to you that afternoon three hours later, 10 approximately?
11 A Yes, sir.
( 12 Q All right. Now, the memo that I have directed your 13 attention to indicates that it's from you and Mr.
14 Schulz.
15 Who wrote that memorandum, sir?
16 A Well, I think I wrote it from my notes and Mr. Schulz's 17 notes.
i 18 Q Did Mr. Schulz review it --
1
- 19 A Yes, sir.
20 0 -- before you sent it in?
21 A Yes, sir.
22 Q Now, I want to look at the first page of that memo and 23 in the body of the first long paragraph it states, "This 24 memorandum outlines Commonwealth Edison Company's
( ,j 25 corrective action program as described to the NRC to Scnntag Reporting Service Ttd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11598
,q 1 alleviate the ims ediate problems and inspire a 2 conscientious quality assurance and quality control 3 program at the L. K. Comstock Company."
4 Now, does that characterization reflect what the 5 Commonwealth Edison Company people described?
6 A Yes, sir.
7 0 The last page of the memo, Page 4, states as follows, 8 " Region 3 and the residents were satisfied with CECO's 9 comprehensive, extremely swift corrective actions taken 10 this afte rnoon."
11 Now, did someone with Region 3 in this conference
( 12 call express that sentiment in substance?
I 13 A No, sir, they did not.
14 Q Did they, someone at Region 3, make any statements about 15 the short-term program?
4 16 A I think in our conversation they did feel that 17 Commonwealth Edison was taking appropriate action and 18 they didn't have concerns with their short-term action 19 program.
20 0 They, the Region 3?
21 A The region.
22 MR. GALLO: Excuse me.
23' Could I have the last answer read back, not the one 24 that he responded to but the previous answer.
I 25 (The answer was thereupon read by the
(
1 Ronnt ag Report i ng Ra rv i ce . T.td _
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 . - - -
11599 A
T'
{V 1 Reporter.)
2 MR. GALLO: Thank you.
3 BY MR. GUILD:
4 Q Now, when you say "they," you mean kne regional people 5 on th'e other end of the line?
6 A That's correct.
7 Q All right, sir. That is Mr. Warnick, Mr. Williams and 8 others?
9 A Yes, sir.
10 0 All right. When the reference is made to, "The 11 extremely swift corrective action taken this afternoon,"
( 12 is that a reflection of the short time span between the 13 time the Edison people were informed of the problem by 14 the region and the subsequent three-hour later 15 commituent to the short-term plan?
16 A Well, that, plus it was the first corrective action that 17 we had seen Commonwealth Edison do in this ongoing 18 problem with L. K. Comstock for a number of years.
4 19 So we -- or in the past history of L. K. Comstock.
20 So we -- I am sorry. I thought that that action 21 they took that afte rnoon was pretty expedient when you 22 compared it with the past history.
23 Q All right, sir. The characterization, " Extremely 24 swift," was a relative one, relative to their previous 25 responses?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
h f
11600
.v 1 A- Well, I think Mr. Saklak was administratively removed 2 that day. That was the first thing that happened.
]
3 The following morning they were going to -- I 4 forget their short-range program there but'it was --
5 again, this is on a Friday, so they had committed to 6 rectify this problem over the weekend.
7 Q They suspended Mr. Saklak that day; is that your 8 understanding?
9 A Well, if it wasn't that day, I don't know. I wasn't 10 there specifically. I was told that he was suspended i
).
11 and administratively suspended.
( ) 12 Then later on, probably Monday or Tuesday of the 13 following week, he was terminated.
I 14 Q All right, sir. But as of Friday afternoon when Edison
{ 15 management responded back, they informed you that it was 16 their intention to --
17 A Yes, sir.
18 Q -- sus pend him --
19 A Yes, sir.
l 20 Q -- pending investigation or words to that effect?
i 21 A Yes, sir.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild, please try not to 23 assume anything in your questions and leave them 24 open-ended.
- 25 MR. GUILD
- I don't think there is any Ennntaa Renortina Re rv i ce . T, t d _
l Ge5eva~, Illi5ois 60134 (312) 232-0262 _ _
l' 11601
(
1 controve rsy about the last point.
2 I am just trying to --
3 JUDGE . GROSSM AN: No, it was not the last i 4 question. It was a few questions ago where you were 5 referring to.--
6 MR. GUILD: All right, sir.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: There were other things that 8 he was referring to, apparently, including this Saklak i 9 disposition r.ather than just the phrase you suggested, 10 the short-term action.
11 MR. GUILD: All right, fine.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I am sorry. I stand 13 corrected. That was part of the short-term action 14 program. '
15 But, revertheless, rather than suggest the answer, j 16 please leave the questions a little more open-ended.
{ 17 BY MR. GUILD:
18 Q WhendidyoupreparethissecondMarchb9thmemorandum, 19 Mr. McGregor, the one that documented the call later 20 that afternoon with Edison?
21 A I don't recall if -- I am quite sure it was. typed the
(
i j 22 next morning and transmitted '--- or Monday morning and
- 23 transmitted to the region.
24 Q All right, sir. So at that point, the region had on l
l .
25 Monday or when ever it was you faxed -- did you fax the l .
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illin ois- 60134 i: (312) ^232-0262
l- l 11602 l (3
m) 1 second one as well?
2 A Yes, sir, I think we did.
1 3 0 At the point where you faxed the second memorandum, the 4 region had in writing both your memorandum of the 5 morning meeting with the six inspectors, Inspector X and i 6 others, and your memorandum of the meeting with CECO 7 that afte rnoon?
8 A Yes, sir, they should have had both of them.
9 Q Now, did you have any further contact with the region 10 the afternoon of Friday, the-29th of March, after your 11 conference call with Edison with regard to the subject 12 of follow-up to the Comstock Quality control Inspector 13 conce rns?
14 A Well, sir, we had a scheduled conference call with Mr.
15 Kepple r .
16 0 Who is "we," the resident inspectors?
17 A The residents -- I am sorry. We did not schedule it.
18 Mr. Keppler schedules telephone conversations with 19 dif ferent residents periodically; and I would assume 20 that probably at least a month or two prior to this 21 date, we had been advised that Mr. Keppler would be 22 having a conference call with us on the 29th of March.
23 I do believe we received the call that day that Mr.
24 Keppler was indisposed or extremely busy or whatever and 25 that he would make the conference call later that Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11603 D.
b 1 af te rnoon.
2 0 On March 29th?
3 A On Ma rch 29th.
4 0 All right, sir.
5 A So I think it was around 4:30 or 5:00 o' clock in the 6 evening we then received a ccnference call with Mr.
7 Keppler.
8 We waited there until he called us.
9 Q All right. Who.else, if anyone, was present besides 10 yourself at the Braidwood end of the line?
4 11 A Well, I had advised the residents, Mr. Schulz and Mr.
O)
( 12 Kropp, to be prepared to discuss with Mr. Keppler the 13 construction activities and everything that he could be 14 concerned of; and, of course, we all were in the room 15 when the phone call was made.
16 Q All right. Who did you understand, aside from Mr.
17 Keppler, if anyone, was on the other end of t.he line?
18 A We were not advised of who was on the other end of the 19 line except Mr. Keppler.
20 Q All right, sir. And did any reference to the Comstock 21 Quality Control Inspector concerns come up during that 22 conference call or that call with Mr. Keppler? Excuse 23 me.
24 A Yes, sir.
25 He said he had been advised of the problems that Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i i
. 11604 A
1 had occurred that dry. He felt that the -- if I 2 remember correctly, that things were handled quite 3 expeditiously; and I don't remember if he put it to us 4 in a question but he did make a statement to the effect 5 that he would see if he could have some inspectors down 6 there Monday to interview these people.
7 And we said we thought that was a very good idea.
8 Q All right. Were there any inspectors sent out from the 9 region the following Monday to interview the Comstock 10 quality control Allegers?
11 A Not that I am aware of.
12 0 Was there any explanation given you or the other 13 residents, to your knowledge, Mr. McGregor, of the 14 reason why no inspectors were sent out the following 15 Monday on the Comstock conce rns?
16 A No, sir.
17 0 When did you next hear anything from anyone else at the 18 Commission about the Comstock concerns, Mr. McGregor?
19 A It was about a month or so later, I believe.
4 20 Mr. Mendez came out to the site and informed us 21 that he was assigned to investigate the March 29th 22 allega tions .
23 0 When you say "us," you mean yourself and the other 24' residents? '
('~)/
y_, 25 A Yes, sir.
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. _ . . -. -. - - . - . ._. . . - - - - - . . ~ .
i-11605 O
- I Q All right. Mr. Mendez' testimony reflects that that was i
2 on or about the 30th of April, 1985.
l 3 Does that sound like the right date?
4 4 A Yes, sir. It's a month later.
L 5 Q Did you speak with Mr. Mendez about the concerns?
6 A Yes, sir, I did. I assisted him by calling Mr. Charles 7 Schroeder, CECO employee, Licensing Coordinator or -- I 4
8 forget his title.
- 9 Q Mr. Schroeder had the position of dealing with the NRC 10 representative on licensing matters?
11 A Yes, sir. It wasn't Licensing Coordinator but there is i 12 -- anyway, I requested from Mr. Schroeder these-
- 13 individuals and we gave him the names of L. K. Comstock i
14 employees that we wanted to inte rview, not we but Mr.
15 Mendez, and we set up a timetable for them to come over 16 to our office.
17 I gave Mr. Mendez my office to conduct his l
18 investigations in, so that he could have a little more l!
l l 19 privacy to interview them in, which he did.
- 20 Q Before those actions took place, did Mr. Mendez describe
- 21 to you an inspection plan that he intended to follow in t
j 22 reviewing these allegations? i
! 23 A No, sir, not to me.
1 24 Q Did you discuss at all with Mr. Mendez how he planned to 25 conduct the inspection or inte rviews with the Comstock l
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i-(312) 232-0262
r .
11606 N D)
Q '
1 ,
inspectors?
2 A No, sir, I didn't.
- '3 Q Did Mr. Mendez ask for your assistance in making _the
[
4 arrangements for the interviews?
5 A Yes, sir, he did.
6 Q Did Mr. Mendez ask your advice as to how these 7 inte rviews should be conducted?
8 A No, sir.
9 Q Were you aware of any experience or expertise on Mr.
10 Mendez part in the conduct of investigative type 11 activities?
- - () 12 A No, sir, I am not.
- 13 Q Do you know whether Mr. Mendez took formal sworn
- 14 statements from any of the individuals involved in the
[ 15 Comstock concerns, either the Allegers or the subjects l
16 of the allegations?
l 17 MR. GALLO:~ Objection.
18 This is cumulative of what has already been asked 19 of Mr. Mendez.
l 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I don't know what type of i
r t .
, 21 objection that is, Mr. Gallo. No one is committed to 1 i 22 what another -- what Mr..Mendez said, is that conclusive i
23 of everything he testified to? I don't think we have i
24 given that kind of weight to anyone's testimony.
).
i j 25 Overruled.
i l- Sonntaa Reportino Service. Ltd.
~
l Geneva, Illinois '60134 i (312) 232-0262
11607 f
V 1 MR. GALLO: I believe Mr. Mendez was asked 2 whether he took any sworn statements.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, yes; but Mr. Mendez is 4 not conclusively correct on everything that he says, not 5 as far as we are concerned.
6 Overruled.
7 BY MR. GUILD:
8 Q Do you know whether Mr. Mendez took any sworn 9 statements, Mr. McGregor?
10 A No, sir, I do not, 11 Q Did Mr. Mendez volunteer any explanation why a month had
/"
( 12 transpired between the date of the allegations and his
\_
13 arrival at the site to undertake the inspection?
14 A No, sir, he didn't.
15 Q Mr. Mendez was a participant in the conference call on 16 March 29th involving regional people at which you and 17 Mr. Schulz had advocated that there be an immediate and 18 prompt response, was he not?
19 A I believe he was, sir.
I 20 Q On that basis, is it your understanding then that Mr.
21 Mendez was aware that you and Mr. Schulz had advocated 22 that there be an immediate interview of the 24 or 26 23 inspectors?
24 A Yes, sir. !
l !
25 Q Did you also understand that Mr. Mendez was aware then Ronntag nepnr t i ng se rv i ca , r,ta .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 - . _ - _ - _ .
l
11608'
/"N
( J-s- - ,
1 1 that waiting a month was -- waiting a month for him to 2 undertake his inspection was -- contrary to, at least, 3 the recommendations you and Mr. Schulz had made?
4 A Yes, it was definitely contrary to what we had 5 recommended.
6 Q Was it your understanding that Mr. Mendez was aware of 7 that?
8 MR. GALLO: Objection.
9 The question was whether or not he was aware of --
10 whether Mendez was aware or not.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That is right. And Mr.
(v) 12 Guild is trying to correct that.
13 The answer was not responsive to the question.
14 MR. GALLO: I will withdraw the objection.
15 BY MR. GUILD:
16 Q Is it your belief, Mr. McGregor, that Mr. Mendez 17 understood that you disagreed with the delay in 18 responding to these concerns?
19 A Certainly, since he had set in on the telephone 20 conversations and was privy to the memorandums that we 21 sent to the effice.
22 He should have been more than knowledgeable on the 23 request from the resident inspectors.
24 Q All right, sir. Now, Mendez was also a participant --
25 Mr. Mendez was also a participant -- in the conversation Sonntag_ Reporting service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11609 p
k-s 1 where the 24 inspectors -- approximate 24 inspectors --
2 made t heir allegations known, was he not?
3 A Yes, sir.
4 Q Mr. Mendez, therefore -- and Mr. Mendez had the April 5, 5 1985, memorandum of Mr. Weil that, in your opinion, only 6 partially documents those statements.
7 He had that memorandum, did he not? '
8 A Yes, sir, he had that memorandum.
9 Q Mr. Mendez was, therefore, in a position through 10 firsthand knowledge to know whether the April 5th memo 11 accurately reflected the full statements made by the v
\ 12 Comstock ins,pectors?
13 MR. TREBY: I object.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I don't understand that 15 question, either, Mr. Guild; and you should be not 16 leading quite as much. You don't have to.
17 You can ask it rather than -- but I think you ought 18 to rephrase the question.
19 MR. GUILD: Let me see if I am clear, at 20 least on my premise. Perhaps I am not.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Why don't we have a repeat 22 of the question, Mr. Reporter?
23 MR. GUILD: I would be happy to just rephrase 24 it, Mr. Chairman.
25 JUDGE GROSSM AN: Okay, fine.
Sonntag_ Reporting Service. Ltd.
) Geneva, Illinois 60134
[ (312) 232-0262
11610 O
O 1 BY MR. GUILD:
2 0 Your opinion is, Mr. McGregor, that the April 5th memo 3 by Mr. Weil does not fully and accurately reflect the 4 statements by the inspectors.
5 That is your testimony, is it not?
i 6 A I believe I said it didn't. I don't believe it 7 contained all of the allegations or all the information 8 that was given during the 45 minutes that the 24 or 26 9 inspectors were in the office.
10 Q All right, sir. Mr. Mendez was a participant in that 4
11 conference call and heard with his own ears what those
[)
v -12 QC Inspectors had said?
13 A Yes, sir.
14 0 Mr. Mendez also had the April 5th memo from Mr. Weil?
t 15 A Yes, sir.
16 Q Now, is it your belief that Mr. tiendez, given those i 17 facts, had an understanding of the degree with which the 18 April 5th memo accurately reflected the statements made 19 by the Comstock inspectors?
, 20 A I don't know if he was aware of that or not.
21 Q All right. Do you understand that Mr. Mendez performed 22 his inspection to the allegations as stated in the April 23 5th Weil memorandum?
t 24 A Yes, sir, he did.
n/
s, 25 MR. GUILD: Excuse me one moment, Mr.
.t Sonntag Repor ting Se rv ice, Ltd.
J Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4 11611
\d m 1 Chairman.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Sure.
3 BY MR. GUILD:
4 Q Now, Mr. McGregor, NRC Staff Exhibit 17 is the November 5 4, 1985, inspection report authored by Mr. Neisler and 6 Mr. Mendez on the subject of these allegations.
7 Page 2 of the details of that report refl<2 cts that 8 on May 10, 1985, an exit interview was conducted with 9 respect to that inspection.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me. What document is I
11 this?
() 12 13 MR. GUILD: This is NRC Staff Exhibit 17.
It's the Mendez and Neisler inspection report.
4
- 14 BY MR. GUILD
15 Q Mr. McGregor, the details page reflects there was an i
16 exit conducted -- a first exit inte rview conducted --
17 May 10, 1985, on that inspection.
18 Were you a participant in that exit meeting?
19 A I believe I was, sir.
20 Q Now, did you --
21 A If I didn't -- if I did not attend the specific exit, 22 Mr. Mendez did exit with me and told me of his findings 23 before he went to the exit.
24 I don't recall.
25 0 All right, sir.
ROnntag Reporting Service, Ltd. .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11612 1 A The report should -- well, I guess it wouldn't.
2 Q I am not sure it does, but let me show it to you and, 3 perhaps, you can help me.
4 Showing you Page 2 of the NRC Staff Exhibit 17, the 5 details page of the report.
6 A We are not listed in this report.
7 However, this is the final report which is done --
8 Q It's dated Novembe r 4th.
9 A No, we are not. Our names do not appear as attending 10 the exit meeting.
11 Q Yours and Mr. Schulz's don't appear?
O) e 12 A That's correct.
13 0 You discussed Mr. Mendez' findings with him prior to 14 that exit meeting; is that your testimony?
15 A Yes, sir.
16 Q Did you review a draft of Mr. Mendez' inspection report 17 at about that time?
18 A Shortly after that exit, yes, I did review a draft of 19 his report.
20 Q All right, sir. Did you make any comments to Mr. Mendez 21 or anyone else with regard to that draft inspection 22 report?
l 23 A Well, I was amazed to see that on the 29th of March we 24 received the numerous allegations that we did and, n,
s, 25 basically, a month-and-a-half later there was Sonntag Rep _orting_ Service. Ltd-Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232
_ ._.._.,_-0262_ _ _ _ _ . - _ . _ .. _ _,._ -._ _ _
11613
/~'hl
\
%J l essentially no conce rns whatsoever.
2 I called Mr. Cordell Williams, who was the 3 Supe rvisor of Mr. Mendez, and I simply stated to him 4 that I had read that report, which hadn't been issued 5 yet, and I asked him if he would read it carefully and 6 before it was issued, simply because I, again, explained 7 to him our conce rns of the QC Inspector problems being 8 white washed.
9 Q Now, you said -- ,
10 MR. GALLO: You said what?
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: White washed, I believe.
q) 12 BY MR. GUILD:
13 Q When you said "him," you mean Mr. Williams?
14 A Yes.
15 Q And by "our," you mean yourself and Mr. Schulz?
16 Who dc you mean by "ours"?
17 A Schulz and I, although I talked to Williams. I made the 10 call.
l 19 Q All right.
20 A I said if that is the Region's position and-that is the l 21 absolute that they got out of this inspection, so be it, l 22 issue the report.
23 And Mr. Cordell Williams was very appreciative of i 24 the call and he said he would look into it.
25 And then later -- that report was not issued and .
l Monnhng Dopnrfing Anrulco, f FA _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 .
11614 i
1 Mr. Neisler then came out to the site with Mr. Mendez 2 and the reinspection took place.
3 Q A continuation of the inspections?
4 A A continuation.
5 Q All right. And as it appears in the report, after Mr.
6 Neisler was on site for some days in August, there was a 7 second exit interview August 30, 1985.
8 Did you attend that exit interview?
9 A No, sir.
10 Q Were you provided an opportunity to review the draft of
. 11 the inspection report that was produced after Mr.
( 12 Neisler joined Mr. Mendez on the inspection?
I 13 A No, sir.
14 MR. GUILD: All right. Let's turn to another 15 subject. ,
16 Mr. Chairman, I am showing the witness a document 17 that appea rs to be from W. S. Little, Director, 18 Braidwood Project, to R. D. Schulz. It's over Mr.
19 Little's apparent signature. There is a date in hand i 20 7-19-85.
21 I would ask that be marked as Intervenors' Exhibit 22 105 for identification.
23 (The document was thereupon marked 24 Intervenors' Exhibit No. 105 for
- 25. identification as of August 28, 1986.)
sonntag_Repor ting _Se rv ice . Ltd.
! Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232
~. ._.-_--.. ._ __.. __-_ _ ___.. _ _ _ ._ _.. _-0262
=
11615
(
1 BY MR. GUILD:
2 Q First let me ask you, Mr. McGregor, to examine the 4
3 document and tell me if you can recall ever having seen i
4 this before.
j 5 A I think Mr. Schulz showed it to me but I am not sure.
, 6 Q All right, sir. Were you aware of any expressions by 7 Mr. Schulz of dissatisfaction with the Region's handling 8 of Braidwood corrective action programs?
9 That is a paraphrase of the first sentence of the 10 memo.
i 11 MR. TREBY: I object.
[\m / 12 We are now discussing matters not related to the 13 harassment and intimidation issues but what is described 14 here as the material traceability verification program.
15 It is outside of the scope of this proceeding.
16 MR. GUILD: I don't mean to try the MTV i 17 program at this time, Mr. Chairman, but I do think it is 18 appropriate that corrective action programs that include
! 19 corrective action relating to the L. K. Comstock l
20 Company, the subject of concerns by the residents, which 21 we will offer to show, were, in part, the basis for the 22 residents not being called to testify in this 23 proceeding, the exclusion from participation in 24 inspection activities of ongoing work at Braidwood
, ) 25 Station and undermine the reliability of the Staff sOnntAg_Repor ting se rv ice . Ltd-J Geneva, Illinois 60134 j (312) 232-0262 . _ . _ . _ _ . . _ . _ , _ .
11616 t'%
k 1 position in this case.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, we will allow it as 3 general background into this whole area, though would 4 certainly not allow specific questions with regard to 5 the programs that are covered here.
6 MR. GALLO: I would like to note my objection 7 as well for the record.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine.
9 MR. GAL,LO: I would also object to Mr.
10 McGregor continuing to have Exhibit 105 in front of him 11 while Mr. Guild is asking him questions.
A) He has testified already that he doesn't recall (G 12 13 whether or not he has seen this memorandum.
14 Mr. Guild wants to prthe him with respect to 15 matte rs that are related in the memorandum, and the 16 memorandum should not be before him to prompt his 17 an swe rs.
18 I request that the memorandum be not used by Mr.
l 19 McGregor to testify with respect to questions about Mr.
20 Schulz's concerns about corrective action plans.
21 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I don't understand
! 22 the nature of the objection.
( 23 This witness is not a witness that is in the 24 employee of the Intervenors. This witness is a 25 representative of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Bonntag E porting Service. Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
m _ _ _ _ _
k k-1 11617 l \ws '
1 I intend to of fer this document as an admission. I 2 don't believe Staff will dispute its authenticity. If i 3 they do so, I certainly don't ask them to waive any such j 4 dispute.
L 5 But whether this witness can swear that he has seen 6 this docunent, whether he is the author of the document, 7 whether he has any relationship to the document at all 8 is not a precondition to be using it as an aide in Cross 9 Examination.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gallo's objection really I
11 isn't to the admissibility of the document, which you
( ) 12 haven't offered yet; but he feels that the. document in 13 itself prompts the witness.
, 14 Now, is there any way, Mr. Guild, that you can
! 15 phrase your questions independently of the document but 16 you using the document to frame your questions rather
! -17 than have the witness see the positions taken by Mr.
18 Schulz?
i l 19 I think that would obviate any problem we have 20 here.
21 MR. GUILD: I will try.
22 MR. GALLO: Well, the document is still i
l 23 before Mr. Schulz; is that right?
j 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I' am sorry. Mr. Little's 25 position rather than Mr. Schulz's. I misspoke.
l 4
Ronntag_Ilep or E 1 ng Re rv i co , T td.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11618 O
1 MR. GALLO: I appreciate Mr. Guild's 2 cooperation but I believe that Exhibit 105 is still 3 before Mr. Schulz.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Why don't I --
5 MR. GUILD: Mr. Schulz is not the witness.
6 It's Mr. McGregor.
7 MR. GALLO: I am sorry. Mr. McGregor.
8 MR. GUILD: Could I have the previous 9 question read back, please? *
-10 (The question was thereupon read by the 11 Reporter.)
) 12 A Yes, sir, I was.
) 13 BY MR. GUILD:
14 Q All right, sir. Do you know what the Top 20 -- put 1
i 15 quotes around that term -- so-called Top 20 corrective j 16 action programs at Braidwood refers to?
i 17 A Yes, sir, I do.
18 Q Can you identify not individually the 20 but what those i
!. 19 are as a generic term of art?
{ 20 A In 1984 I met one day with Mr. Warnick, who was our j 21 Branch Chief, and I expressed my concern with him that
( 22 Cemmonwealth Edison had numerous corrective action j 23 programs going --
f 24 MR. TREBY: I object.
! 25 The question was: Do you know what the Top 20 are.
l 1
I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
j' Geneva, Illinois 60134
- (312) 232-0262
11619 O
1 MR.' GUILD: And I am asking for'his --
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I believe he is getting to 3 the answer. It's, apparently, a lengthy answer. ,
4 I think if we have some patience, we will get to 5 the point.
6 A (Continuing.) If he wants a short answer, I will say, 7 yes, I initiated the Top 20.
8 MR. GUILD: No, sir. I would like a complete 9 answer, Mr. McGregor; and I would really ask that - the 10 witness's answers not be interrupted for counsel.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. I unde rstand.
12 Counsel --
13 MR. TREBY: I-haven't interrupted the 14 witnesses.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Counsel is a little
- 16 apprehensive that he may be waiving his rights by not 17 objecting as soon as possible, so he made his objection.
] 18 But it appeared to us that the witness was getting i
19 to the full answer; and we do want the long answer, Mr.
l 20 McGregor, not the short one.
l 21 THE WITNESS: All right, sir.
l 22 JUDGE GROSSM AN: So continue.
i j 23 A (Continuing.) And I explained to Mr. Warnick the f 24 number of corrective action programs that were being 25 placed upon Commonwealth Edison and rightfully so, and i sonntag_ Reporting se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
! (312) 232-0262
i 11620 b,O 1 the Commission and the residents were satisfied with 2 Commonwealth Edison's actions at the time.
3 My concern was that we almost got to the point 4 where how many more corrective actions can the Licensee
, 5 handle? Can he continue to process the corrective 6 action programs that were being assigned to him?
7 And Mr. Warnick's response was that, yes, they 8 would have to and that they would have to hire more 9 pe rsonnel to do it.
10 At that time it became sort of a dead issue; and in 11 December of 1984 when the CAT team came on the site, the
[)
v 12 CAT team, the director of the team came into my office 13 and discussed with me Braidwood. f 14 At that particular time I again brought up the list 15 of Top 20 corrective action programs that were ongoing 16 and the enormous or potential enormous programs that 17 could impact upon Commonwealth Edison; and if -- and i
18 that then appears as a concern of the CAT team as being 2 19 a -- as evidenced by the report, that it was a concern 20 for the Construction Assessment Team that commonwealth 21 Edison could be in a problem area where they could not 22 handle the corrective action programs that were being
- 23 placed upon them.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I think you missed a step in s_ 25 your explanation as to when there was the first mention Sonntag_ Rep _orting service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 ____
k 11621 f3 1 of a Top 20 or maybe I missed that.
2 THE WITNESS: I mentioned the Top 20 to Mr.
3 Warnick in early '84 and then again to the Construction 4 Assessment Team in December of 1984.
5 From that time -- and I guess I am really sorry 6 that I ever mentioned it to them, because it'seemed to 7 really gather some momentum after the CAT team put it in 8 their report.
9 BY MR. GUILD:
10 0 Well, the designation Top 20 corrective action program, 11 does that refer to a list of specific programs as you 12 understand the term, Mr. McGregor?
(O}
13 A During the course of our action there were either items 14 of noncompliance or concerns that the residents had. I 15 think one of them was Schulz's, the block wall problem.
16 These problems were then addressed by Commonwealth 17 Edison, and they programmed to go out and correct those 18 deficiencies and were in progress, and there are a 19 myriad of these corrective action programs that were 20 going on.
21 Q Taken together they comprise the Top 20; is that 22 correct?
23 A Yes, sir, the typing problem, the HVAC problem, et 24 cetera.
(O)
', 25 JUDGE COLE: I don't understand why you said Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 232-0262 (312)
i 11622
( )
v 1 you were sorry you ever mentioned it.
2 THE WITNESS: Well, it just -- I don't know.
3 It never got any -- it never got any preference, any 4 preferential treatment until after the CAT team took it.
5 Then it came down as though it was some type of 6 degrading problem with Commonwealth Edison, something 7 that was,.you know, the hit list, the Top 20; and -- I 8 don't know -- somebody mentioned, "If they have got the 9 Top 20, they must have another 20," or, "What 10 constitutes the Top 20?"
11 You know, it just kept festering and festering; and O}
g G
12 I didn't think it needed to have that much attention.
13 BY MR. GUILD:
14 Q All right, sir. The Top 20 corrective action programs 15 were the subject of NRC inspection activities?
16 A Yes, sir.
17 0 Were you or Mr. Schulz assigned to inspect to any of 18 those Top 20 corrective action programs?
19 A Yes, sir, we were. All of those corrective actions,
! 20 whether they are the Top 20 or not, were usually 21 addressed by a 5055(e) or an NCR or some type of 22 Commonwealth E,dison documentation in which we were 23 following the corrective action programs.
l 24 Q Did the region assign other inspectors to inspect the j ,( ,,- 25 Top 20 aside frcm -- to follow up and close the Top 20 l
l
[
nonntag_Repor_tinglerv. ice _, Ltd -
Geneva, Illinois 60134 1 (312) 232-0262
___ __ . . - .. . -. - _ - _ ~ _ . _ _ ..
11623 A
U 1 issues aside from -- the resident inspectors?
2 A I d,on't believe there was any assignments per se to 3 other inspectors until late '85, in the s umme r of ' 85.
4 Mr. Schulz and I requested to Mr. Little that the 5 Regional Office assign dedicated inspectors to come 6 down. We preferred one on the mechanical, one on the 7 electrical, probably one in civil or HVAC area to take 8 some of these problem areas and follow them.
9 In this particular case -- well, in the electrical 10 area, Mr. Mendez then was assigned as the principal i
- 11 inspector for Braidwood.
( 12 Specifically what time it was, I don't know. I 13 would assume in maybe June, July, time frame.
- 14 0 1985?
- 15 A Yes, sir.
16 0 Were you on site at that time?
17 A Yes, sir.
18 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to 19 of fer Intervenors' Exhibit 105 in evidence.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I take it the same
- 21 objections?
- 22 MR. TREBY
- Well, plus an additional one.
23 In discussing this thing, Mr. Guild has raised as a 24 purpose for this contention to show why certain j 25 witnesses were or were not profferred by the Staff.
(
Sonntag_Repariing_gervice. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 _
11624 (D
i,j 1 That, I believe, is an improper purpose.
2 The regulations clearly indicate that the Executive 3 Director of Operations can determine who will be the 4 witnesses for the Staff; and if this document is 5 intended to address that in some way, that's not a 6 proper purpose.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I heard Mr. Guild make that 8 statement but I don't even see how the document could be 9 used that way.
10 MR. TREBY: I don't, either, but I did want 11 to be --
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I agree that if it is, that 13 would be objectionable.
14 So we would admit it, with the understanding that 15 it wouldn't be used that way.
16 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, could I be heard 17 before the Chair rules on that?
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine.
19 MR. GUILD: It seems to me, aside from this 20 document in particular, if the Chair is no.i ruling that i 21 it is an improper subject of inquiry why the Staff
, 22 failed to select certain witnesses to present their 23 knowledge of facts at Braidwood, why, in fact, the Staff 24 resisted efforts by Intervenors to compel the attendance n
v 25 of certain witnesses, including this witness, Mr.
sonntag_Repor_ ting service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11625 O
1 McGregor, we believe that such a ruling would be 2 unfounded.
3 We think it's a proper inference. The Staff of the 4 NRC is not immune from the normal principles that apply 5 to drawing negative inferences from the failure to offer 6 witnesses who, obviously, have material knowledge as to 7 disputed facts.
8 We think it's very simple, a matter of~saying Mr.
9 Schulz and Mr. McGregor, who, obviously, had central 10 knowledge on these issues, were not called as witnesses
} 11 by the Staff; and there are appropriate negative i
- 12 inferences that can and should be drawn from that fact.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, in point of fact, Mr.
i 14 Guild, there is a distinction made between the Staff as
,! 15 a party and the other parties under the regulations with l 16 regard to the calling of witnesses.
j 17 I believe it's 10 CFR Section 2.720 H, is it, Mr.
18 Treby? ,
i 19 MR. TREBY: That is correct, I believe it is. .
- 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN
- But as a general matter, we 21 don't allow inquiry into the tactics of counsel in
'22 calling one witness or another; and it's not a question j 23 of any inference that you want to present in your brief.
24 We are dealing with evidence now that you are j 25 profferring in order to establish something like that, i
Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 '
(312) 232-0262
i 11626 10 t, )
u 1 and we don't entertain that kind of evidence with regard 2 to any party.
3 So we will admit the document, with the limitation 4 that we just expressed, that it would not be used for 5 the purpose of reflecting on the Staff's not profferring 6 witnesses which it does not choose to prof fer.
7 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I will respectfully 8 ask an opportunity to address that legal issue or, brief, 9 because I believe that --
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You certainly have that 11 opportunity, as you know.
( ) 12 All exceptions to rulings are automatically taken 13 and you can certainly oppose any ruling that the Board 14 has made.
15 MR. GUILD: What I mean to say, Mr. Chairman, 16 is I accept the ruling of the Chair with respect to this
- - 17 document; but I hope that the Chair and the Board is not i
18 from the bench foreclosing my making argument on brief 19 that certain inferences can, indeed, be made regarding 20 the Staf f case notwithstanding the regulation, which, I 21 acknowledge, does put the Staff in a different position.
22 I don't believe that relieves them of the status of 23 ,
-- I don't believe that relieves them of the allocations 24 of burdens of proof or principles of evidence that I 25 alluded to; but I don't mean to argue the point, at Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11627 O
~1 least for now.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You, perhaps, didn't hear 3 everything I said, Mr. Guild; but I indicated that you 4 can make whatever inferences you wish on brief; but we 5 are not admitting the documerit for that purpose --
6 MR. GUILD: Fine.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- or as one of any purposes 8 for which we are admitting the document.
9 You are certainly entitled to brief that point.
10 Okay. That concludes it.
11 MR. G ALLO: Your Honor.
i 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes.
13 MR. G AL LO : Your Honor, I would like to note 14 for the record my objection to 105 on relevancy grounds 15 for the reasons argued yeste rday.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine.
17 (The document was thereupon received into 18 evidence as Intervenors' Exhibit No.
19 105.)
20 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I now propose to 21 place the exhibit before the witness.
22 THE WITNESS: I just took it from here. I i
~23 have it, yes.
24 BY MR. GUILD:
/
'N , 25 0 Would you take a moment and examine the document, Mr.
l
.90nntag_ Rep o r t i ng_Selv i ce , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 -, . . - - _ - _
11628
-\
4 1 1 McGregor?
2 Now, Mr._McGregor, have you had an opportunity to 3 examine the document?
4 A Yes, sir.
5 Q The second sentence makes reference to a decision to e
! 6 assign DRS technical and engineering experts to each of 1
- 7 the Top 20 corrective action programs.
- 8 Are you aware of such a decision, sir?
l 9 A I think the decision that Mr. Little is referring to 10 here is, basically, the request that the residents made 11 previous to this, that assigned inspectors be --
, 12 principal inspectors be assigned to Braidwood to help in s i 1 13 the different areas of the different disciplines that we l 14 had comprised in the 20 corrective action programs.
15 Q All right. Were you aware of any unhappiness on Mr.
l 16 Schulz part with that decision?
17 MR. GALLO: Objection.
18 I renew my objection on the use of 105 as a Cross 19 Examination tool in the way that Mr. Guild is using'it.
- 20 It's simply there to assist the witness to frame 21 answers to questions that can be asked without the l! - '
i , 22' memorandum being there.
i l 23 He is asking and th'is particular line started out,
)
! 24 "Did you read the second sentence? Yes, I did. Are you 25 aware of the 20, who made the decision to establish Sonntaa neoortina Se rvice,. Ltd.
l! Geneva, Illinois 60134
- (312) 232-0262 - - . , . -
i l
11629 l
[^'N, I
\~ l 1 1 these?"
2 It seems to me that the only purpose of having 105 3 there is to assist the witness in answering the question 4 rather than -- and it's not a proper test of the 5 witness's recollection or memory to have this aide in 6 front of him while he is testifying on questions, on 7 questions that he should be asked without this 8 assistance. ,
9 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I don't know of any 10 principle of law that we followed in this case that 11 would prohibit this counsel from presenting a witness on
( 12 the stand with a piece of documentary evidence and 13 examining from that document.
14 The Applicant has not been restrained from placing 15 the AWS Welding Code in front of a witness and asking 16 them to consult the document before they answer a 17 question about the AWS Welding Code nor any other piece 18 of documenta ry evidence in this case.
19 Now, this matter is in evidence. I believe it's in 20 evidence appropriately as admissions from the NRC Staf f.
21 I am not obligated to simply take Mr. McGregor's 22 recollection as the limitations on the testimonial 23 evidence I can adduce from him.
24 I have every right, as Applicant has, to place an n( ,
, 25 exhibit before this witness and examine him.
Sonntag Reporting Se rvi ce Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 -
i 11630
(- - !
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes. I don't know of any 2 rule, Mr. Gallo, that precludes that as a general 3 proposition.
4 With regard to particular questions that you think 5 are leading because of a reference to an item in the 6 document, you can certainly voice objection and we will 7 try to cure it.
8 In particular, the point that you are raising now, 9 that one sentence indicates discussions with other 10 residents, including, I would assume, Mr. McGregor; and 11 I don't see any reason to keep him from seeing that
() 12 13 particular item that, apparently, was a joint matter with him and Mr. Schulz and Mr. Kropp.
14 So we will overrule the objection now, but feel 15 free to object to any particular question that appears 16 to be leading either because of the document or for some 17 other reason.
I 18 Do you want that question repeated?
19 Is there a pending question?
20 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir, there was.
21 (The question was thereupon read by the 22 Reporter.)
23 A Yes, sir, I was.
, s 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Also, I want to point out
(_,) 25 anothe r thing.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 - .. . - ---.
-- = . - . - - . - . - - - ... . .. -- .
4 11631 1 We do not hcvc Mr. Schulz herc and we are going te . o 4
2 have to do the best we can to elicit whatever was 3 relevant as far as Mr. Schulz's involvement.
1 4 I think an official NRC document, which j 5 memorialized Mr. Schulz's concerns, would certainly be 6 one appropriate means of doing.that within the bounds, l
7 of course, of fairness, and we will take whatever steps
! 8 we can to see that the parties are afforded due process l
9 in the matter.
- 10 Continue, Mr. Guild.
11 BY MR. GUILD: ,
( 12 Q Wh'at is your understanding of the nature of Mr. Schulz's
- 13 disagreement with that decision?
, 14 A Mr. Schulz came to the site as a Quality Assurance i- 15 Inspector in 1983 and he was following up on an 16 assistance request form that I had submitted to the 17 Commission on small bore piping and the traceability of 18 it and some more problems within that area. We won't 19 get into that.
l
- 20 That was 83-09 and then early -- I am sorry. That 21 was in 19 83.
22 Then in early 1984, approximately April, he was I
I 23 assigned to the site as the Senior Resident Inspector, i
24 conctruction, and he continued on to follow and inspect l
l 25 this MTV, material traceability program, which was one i
l l
Sonntaa Renortino Service. Ltd.
Geneva', Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11632 A
( I RJ l of the Top 20 corrective action programs that 2 Commonwealth Edison was doing.
3 And I might say that I think Mr. Schulz and the 4 Licensee was doing a very good job in correcting this 5 problem.
6 He walked into the Commonwealth Edison office one 7 morning. He had requested some data that they were 8 collecting. It was some I. B. M. printouts of some 9 pipes that they had inspected, et cetera, et cetera.
10 So he walked into the office and he asked Mr.
11 Schroeder if they have the data ready for him that he 12 had requested.
(
f-~)s 13 Mr. Scnulz informed him that Mr. Little had 14 informed Mr. --
15 Q I am sorry. You meant Mr. Schroeder or Mr. Schulz? Who 16 spoke?
17 A Mr. Schroeder, Chuck Schroeder, Commonwealth Edison 18 employee, informed Bob Schulz that he could not give him 19 the information.
20 Mr. Schulz then asked why, and Mr. Schroeder told 21 him that he had received a call from Mr. Little and that 22 this information was restricted and it could only be 23 given to Mr. Muf fett.
t 24 0 Who is Mr. Muffett?
25 A He is an inspector from the region.
I Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) _
232-0262
- 11633
/ 'T b
1 Q With DRS?
2 A Yes -- no -- yes, sir, DRS.
3 Q All right.
4 A Mr. Schulz said all right and he came into the office 5 and, I guess, to put it mildly, he was ve ry upset.
6 Q He told you about this, what transpired?
7 A Yes, sir, he did.
8 He then picked up the telephone and called Mr.
9 Little and disagreed wholeheartedly with Mr. Little's 10 actions.
, 11 I thjqk Mr. -- Bob did write up, I think, a letter
( ) 12 on that. I am not sure.
13 0 Schulz?
14 A Yes, sir, Mr. Schulz.
15 Q All right. Now, Mr. Little's memo to Mr. Schulz is 16 dated July 19, 1985.
17 Does that date of the content of this memo refresh 18 your recollection as to when Mr. Schulz recounted to you 19 that he had hdd this course of dealing with Mr.
20 Schroeder and when Mr. Schulz then made the phone call 21 to Mr. Little?
22 A No, sir, I don't; but I would assume it was within three 23 or four days of Mr. Little's letter.
24 MR. GALLO: Objection.
25 Move to strike starting with, "I would assume."
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 11634 i'
i V
1 The preface to that sentence was, "I don't 2 remember."
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, is it your -- are you 1
4 just assuming or are you approximating now?
5 THE WITNESS: I am approximating. '
6 It was -- the telephone call to Mr. Little, 7 naturally, had to be prior to Mr. Little's letter which 8 he sent out to Bob.
9 He sent that out to Bob on the 19th of July, so
'10 approximately a week to ten days prior to that is when 11 Mr. Schulz was denied the information from Commonwealth 12 Edison, and then he called Mr. Little that same mornir.g.
13 BY MR. GUILD:
14 Q All right, sir. Now, the Little memo to Mr. Schulz, in 15 its last full paragraph, directs that Schulz provide me 16 in writing by July 29th your concerns about how either i 17 Region 3 or the Licensee is handling the.MTVP and by-18 July 29, 1985, any concerns you may have about other
, 19 CAPS. I take that to be corrective action programs.
20 Are you aware of whether or not Mr. Schulz 21 responded to Mr. Little's requests?
4 22 A Yes, sir, he did.
23 MR. GUILD: I show you a document that I L
24 would ask be marked as Inte rvenors' Exhibit' 106 for 25 identification.
{
1 Ronntag Reporting Service _. T,t d .
? Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 .-
11635 O
V 1 (The document was thereupon marked 2 Intervenors Exhibit No. 106 for -
3 identification as of August 28, 1986.)
4 BY MR. GUILD:
5 Q This is a memo reply to W. S. Little memorandum, July 6 19, 1985, from R. D. Schulz. It shows a copy to Mr.
7 Keppler.
8 Have you ever seen this document before, Mr.
9 McGregor?
10 A No,t this specific one; but the only reason I am saying 11 that is because I -- the writing that is up on the top,
) 12 I am not familiar with that; but the rest of the
)
13 - d oc umen t , Bob showed it to me when he authored it.
I 14 Q There is handwriting at the top that appears to read, 15 " Copy, Norelius, Muffett. Return to Little."
16 You haven't seen that handwriting, as you have 17 testified?
18 A No, sir.
! 19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild, before Mr. Gallo 20 even objects, I think it would be appropriate to ask 21 some questions first, without having Mr. McGregor read i
22 that whole letter; and then to refresh his recollection, 23 once you have offered the document, if he doesn't have 24 any present recollection, he can refer to the letter.
(, 25 Do you have any --
Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
) (312) 232-0262
l l
11636 l O
s- l 1 MR. GUILD: I will do as the Chair instructs, 2 Mr. Chairman.
3 I would approach it otherwise and would ask an 4 opportunity to examine directly from the document; but 5 if the Chairman directs me otherwise, I will certa' inly 6 follow your instructions.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Why don't we try it one way 8 first? Why don't we try it the way I suggested and see 9 if you can't get responsive answers without having the 10 witness even peruse the document.
11 MR. GUILD: Mr. McGregor, will you hand the f% 12 document back to the Chairman, please?
t )
\/
13 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. It's on the Judge's 14 table, overturned.
15 BY MR. GUILD:
16 0 would you recount your recollection of what the 17 memorandun said that Mr. Schulz showed you that 18 documented his reply to Mr. Little, please?
19 JUDGE GROSSM AN: Well, Mr. Guild, what I had 20 in mind was asking him questions about the substance of 21 meetings that were referred to here, not about his 22 recollection of the document, unless you don't intend to 23 ask him about the meeting or the substance of what is 24 covered here.
25 I am looking at the second paragraph and I assumed Sonntag Reporting Se rvice. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11637 V
1 you were going to ask about that.
2 MR. GUILD: I would like to, Mr. Chairman; 3 but, again, I think there is no dispute even now that 4 the witness, one, reviewed the document at Mr. Schulz's 5 behest and has seen it before and is, therefore, aware 6 of its contents.
7 I can establish what recollection he has of its 8 content. That seems to be a pointless exercise to me; 9 but he is not my employee, Mr. Chairman. This is an NRC 10 Inspect or.
11 I should be entitled, it seems to me, to use a 12 piece of documentary material to shape, guide and (A) 13 restrict my examination of a witness.
14 I don't know why there is any difference here.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, the question is 16 whether by doing that you are leading the witness into 17 something.
- 18 I think it is appropriate to ask your questions 19 directly first without having the witness take a 20 position based on his own past memorandum or someone 21 else's; and then if you have any discrepancy, if it's 22 appropriate, you can have the witness refresh his 23 recollection.
l 24 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, if the Board has --
(,_, 25 JUDGE GROSSM AN: And then if he has a Rnnntaa Renortino Service. Ltd.
Gedeva', Illidois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
11638 7-~
\
%/
l 1 refreshed recollection, that's fine.
2 If he doesn't, you can proceed further by -- I 3 don't want to go through the whole procedure; but it's 4 already prescribed. We are asking that you follow it i now.
6 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I will sa'y if the 7 Board has questions they would like to examine the 8 witness about based on having handed the proposed 9 exhibit to the Board, I would ask you to do so.
10 I have no alterior motives in presenting this 11 before the witness. I have a series of questions to
/x 12 ask.
13 If the Board Chairman has in mind a particular 14 question that in the Chair's opinion would be better 15 elicited without prompting, I would ask you to ask the 16 question.
- 17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Maybe we are passing each 1
18 other in the night, Mr. Guild.
19 MR. GUILD: Absolutely.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: It's with regard to your l
i 21 prepared questions I have the problem.
22 If your prepared questions are directed towards the l
i i 23 substance of this memorandum, I am asking that you ask 24 those questions directly without having reference to the 25 memorandun first.
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
j Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262 . . - .- _ ._
\
11639 3 4 1 Then if we have trouble with the witness's 2 recollection, he may refresh his recollection with 3 reference to the memorandum; and if he has trouble 4 afterwards, he can be asked as to his participation in 5 the memorandum and whether it memorializes his past 6 understanding.
7 Now, why don't you just proceed along those 8 grounds?
9 MR. GUILD: Over my objection, Mr. Chairman 10 -- I would prefer to do otherwise -- I will do as you 11 say.
(%
12
() BY MR. GUILD:
13 Q Do you recall requesting a meeting with the regional 14 administrator to discuss an anticipated meeting on the 15 subject of the MTV program, Mr. McGregor?
, 16 A Well, I did not contact the regional administrator.
17 I contacted Mr. Little and we felt that -- we 18 meaning Mr. Schulz and I felt that -- it would best 19 serve everybody's interest if there was a meeting within 20 Region 3 on MTV program prior to Commonwealth Edison's 21 presentation of their corrective action on the program; 22 and I think it was some time in June.
23 Q All right.
24 A I --
g_,) 25 Q Did such a meeting take place?
Sonntag Reporting Se rvice. Ltd.
, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 - -
11640
-m 1 A Pardon me?
2 Q Did such a meeting take place with Mr. Little?
3 A Yes,'it did.
4 Q Would you describe what transpired at that meeting?
5 A Well, Commonwealth Edison presented their program, their 6 corrective action program, and the status of the 7 program, how many spool pieces or whatever they had.
8 There were a number of graphs shown. I don't recall it 9 all.
10 Q Let me interrupt you a second.
11 A Yes, sir.
( 12 Q Did you have a meeting with regional management prior to
, 13 there being a meeting with Commonwealth Edison?
14 A No, sir.
15 Q Did you request one?
16 A Yes, sir.
17 0 What response did you get to your request?
18 A No response.
19 Q That request was made by you to Mr. Little?
20 A Yes, sir.
21 Q Thereafter, was there a public meeting or a meeting in 22 which Licensee also participated?
23 A Yes, sir.
24 Q You proceeded to describe that.
25 Would you continue with your description?
Ronntag Reporting Marvice,- Ltd_
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11641 1
O . . I 1 A Well, there were some heated discussions or excited l H
I 2 discussions between Commonwealth Edison and Mr.'Schulz; 3 and I should think that -- I can't speak for Mr. Schulz. ,
i 4 He could.best describe the concerns that he addressed at l 5 that meeting. .
6 Q Well, sir, Mr. Schulz is not with us.
7 A Yes, sir, I know.
8 Q I ask if you would recount, to the best of your 9 recollection, what you heard Mr. Schulz raise as 10 concerns at that meeting? ;
11 A I think there was an inference made by Commonwealth 12 Edison that it was the Commission that was -- that the 13 Commission had demanded or put upon Commonwealth Edison 14 these corrective action programs.
~
15 And Mr. Schulz objected to that, in that it was 16 Commonwealth Edison's -- it was-a problem that 17 Commonwealth Edison had gotten themselves into through
! 18 their own lack of quality assurance in the MTV program; 19 that it was not a program that was demanded by the 20 Commission.
21 I think that's what went on at that day, and that i
22 also perpetrated Mr. Little to write this memorandum 23 about Mr. Schulz's unhappiness with the MTV program.
! 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Why don't we take our break l
25 for lunch now?
l
_SQDntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois 60134
( (312) 232-0262
11642 f
1 I know we are in the middle of a line of 2 questioning, but I would think you would prefer to be 3 able to rephrase some of your questions during lunch, 4 Mr. Guild; but it's your choice. You can continue for a 5 little while if you prefer.
6 MR. GUILD: Let me just offer the document in 7 evidence before we break for lunch, Mr. Chairman?
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, no we have the same 9 objections?
10 MR. TREBY: That's correct.
11 MR. GALLO: The same objections.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Received.
13 (The document was thereupon received into 14 evidence as Intervenors' Exhibit No.
15 106.)
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We will recess until 1:15.
17 (WHEREUPON, the hearing of the 18 above-entitled matter was continued to 19 the hour of 1:15 P. M.)
20 f
21
, 22 1
23 24 25 Sonntag Reporting Service Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11643 0'\
U 1 UNITED STATES OF A!!3RICA 2 NUCLEAR RIGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEIORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
__________________x 5 :
In the Matter of : :
6 : Docket No. 50-456 OL COMMONW EALTH EDISQ1 COMPANY : 50-457 OL 7 :
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 :
8 and 2) :
__________________x 9
10 Met pursuant to recess.
i 11 Thursday, August 28, 1986.
1:17 P. M.
- 12
) 13 14 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : We are back in session.
15 Mr. Guild, please resume.
16 MR. GUILD: '" ank y ou, Mr. Chai rman.
17 Mr. Chai rman, I propose to examine f rom a document 18 that has been received in evidence as Intervenors' 106, 19 and I would like to have it placed bef ore the witness, 20 ifImay.
21 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Fi ne. Why don' t we do that.
22 TH E WITN ESS : Yes.
23 BY MR. GUIL D:
24 Q Mr. McG regor, I want to direct your attention to the 25 second to the last paragraph that appears on Page 1 of
(
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
G enev a, Illinoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
11644 N/
1 that docunent.
2 " A gai n, ny only dissatisf action with NRC 3 management" -- it reads in f ull, "My only 4 '
dissatisf action with NRC management is that negative 5 comments surf ace readily, hme ev er, recognition f or 6 positive perf ormance has not been provided as indicated 7 by ny past perf ormance appraisal in relation to the 8 findings I have identified w hile assigned at B raidwood. "
9 Are you aware of any rel ationship, Mr. McG regor, 10 betw een Mr. Schulz's inspection findings and his 11 perf ormance appraisals?
s 12 MR. TREBY: I obj ect on the same basis that i
13 we had in the past; but, pa rti cul arly , getting into 14 matters of perf ormance appraisals are clearly personnel 15 matters and are not an appropriate subj ect f or this 16 proceeding.
17 MR. GUIL D: Mr. Chai rman, it seems to me that 18 while that may be true in the abstract; in the abstract, l 19 of course, perf ormance appraisals of NRC inspections are 20 of little interest to this party or the public where 21 there is the possibility that such appraisals are 22 protected by the inspection results of subj ect 23 inspe ctor s.
24 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Ov er r ul ed.
25 MR. G ALLO: I would like to off er a diff erent O'
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a. Ill inoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
1164E !
V 1 obj ection.
2 It seems to me that Mr. McG regor is going to be 3 asked to testify with respect to conversations he had 4 with Mr. Schulz based on perf ormance appraisals 5 perf ormed by some other management or other of ficial 6 within the region or the NRC generally.
7 It seems to me such testimony would be based on 8 double hearsay and have no probative value.
9 I might point out that the individual that is being 10 irquired of is Mr. Schulz . Mr. Guild had the 11 opportunity and still has the opportunity to call this p 12 man as a witness, and it's pr ej udicial to -- in 13 addition, it's prej udicial to try to elicite inf ormation 14 in this f ashion as a part of his direct case.
15 I obj ect on those dual grounds.
16 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : I' m sor ry. I didn' t catch 17 the last part of it.
18 Why is it prej udicial, Mr. Gallo?
19 MR. GALLO: Because we will have no basis 20 upon which to cross-examine with respect to the hearsay 21 matters that will be elicited f rom this witness.
22 MR.. GUILD: Two points, Mr. Chai rman --
23 JUDG E GROSSMAN : I don' t understand why you l
24 can' t cross examine on that. The witness is still here 25 for your cross examination.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
11646 7
1 Do you mean you can' t examine Mr. Schulz on that?
2 MR. G ALLO: That's right.
3 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Certainly you are entitled to 4 subpoena him as w ell as Mr. Guild.
5 With regard to the first part, Staf f is a party ,
6 too; and while this may not be an admission against 7 Applicant, it is certainly against Staff as f ar as the 8 evidentiary admission goes.
9 MR. G ALLO: As I understand the rule on 10 admissi ons, it's not based on the double hearsay from a 11 witness. It's based on something more probative that s 12 stands f or the admission, not the double hearsay from a 13 witness who is not a party to the matter being inquired 14 of.
15 JUDG E GROSSMAN : I don' t understand that 16 comment, Mr. Gallo.
l 17 Admissions are outside the scope of what's 18 characteriz ed as hearsay, and it doesn' t matter in what 19 form that statement is made if the witness is privy to 20 statements made or opinions expressed by someone who can l 21 off er an admission -- what is characteriz ed as an l 22 admission -- of a party opponent. The witness can 23 testify to that, and it isn' t hearsay. If there le 24 another statement ref erred to, in a sense, that is also 25 cov er ed.
V Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinoi s 60134
- (312) 232-0262 i . . _ , _ , . . , _ . _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . , _ . . . , _ _ _ _ _ , _ . , , , _ _ , , _ _ _ , _ , . , _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___
11647 i
' l (r8) l l
1 But the point is: Whatever might be the problem 2 with confirming this with Mr. Schulz can be' obviated by 3 any of the parties that wishes to do so.
4 We would personally like to have these questions 5 pr esented to Mr. Schulz , but we are not insisting that 6 any party put itself in j eopardy by calling him to the 7 extent that the party may feel that he is unreliable; 8 but we will j ust have to do the best we can, unless 9 there is a real infirmity to the testimony or evidence 10 adduce d, 11 MR. GUILD: One point, Mr. Chai rman, not on 12 this motion but on the observation made.
13 We had an opportunity to call Mr. Sch ulz . The f act 14 of the matter is that we receeded f rom calling Mr.
15 Schulz , in part, because he inf ormed this Counsel that 16 he f eared retaliation if he were to testify in this 17 pr oceeding.
18 It's not j ust because of this party's interest, but 19 because of an expression by the potential witness that 20 to call him in this proceeding and subj ect to him to J
21 retal iation. That, in addition, was the basis f or --
22 JUDG E GROSSMAN : At which point --
23 MR. TREBY: I obj ect to that, because I think 24 it's improper f or Mr. Guild to make statements such as
(~'N 25 Mr. Schulz is f earf ul of retaliation. We hav e no w ay of i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
G enev a. Ill inoi n 60134
- (312) 232-0262
11640
\
d 1 knowing whether that's an accurate or inaccurate 2 sta tement.
i 3 As a matter of f act, I could make a statement that 4 I had a conversation with Mr. Sch ulz , and he told me --
5 he didn' t mention the word " retaliation"' at all.
6 JUDG E GROSSMAN : We have already heard f rom 7 Counsel for the Staf f on that matter, and I did want to 8 say bef ore you even started speaking that we don' t want 9 to have a hearing with Counsel involved and of f ering 10 testimony. So it j ust doesn' t enter into the record as 11 evidence, we don' t want to base anything on those i
12 sta tenents.
13 But, nev erthel ess, any party is still able to 14 subpoena Mr. Schulz and bring him here, of course, at 15 their aen risk as to what he might say; but if they wish 16 to limit the questions to what's being brought up here,
- 17 they certainly may.
18 They can also contact Mr. Schulz to determine-19 whether or not if he came he would support the 20 statements that are made and at least set their own 21 minds at rest on that matter; so, anyway, let's j ust 22 hear this and hopef ully --
23 MR. TR EB Y: I have one other point; and that 24 is that the Board indicated this was some sort of 25 admission by the Staf f, a..d I guess I have some question Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinoic 60134 (312) 232-0262
11645' em 1 about that.
2 This is a memorandum that Mr. Schulz wrote. It ' s a 3 statement by him that he has some concern about his 4 perf ormance appraisal. It could mean that he thought he 5 should get an outstanding and he got an excellent.
6 MR. GUILD: That is the point of the question 7 that is pending.
8 MR. TR EB Y: Whatever it is, I don' t see how 9 that is an admission against the Staf f. This is j ust 10 Mr. Schulz's comment about his perf ormance appraisal.
11 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : Mr. Treby, I was very clear 12 af ter I mentioned admission to make sure I put it in an
\
C# 13 evidentiary sense.
14 I am talking about an evidentiary admission of a 15 party opponent, not any colloquial use of the word or 16 any nonlegal use of the word " admission. "
17 It j ust happens to be a statement by an employee 18 within the scope of his employment, whichever way it 19 cuts, for or against the party who employed the person 20 at the time, which is being used by a party opponent in 21 the case, and it doesn' t connote that it is f avorable or 22 unf avorabi c to the Staf f in this case, but only that l'
- 23 technically it's considered an admission and not hearsay l
24 and can be used by the party opponent in evidence.
25 So that is all -- that is as f ar as we are going.
l l
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
! Genev a. Illinoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262 1 .
ll65C 1 We will hear some hopef ully brief questions on this and 2 then move on.
3 MR. GUILD: There is a pending question, Mr.
4 Chai rman, and I ask in to be read.
5 JUDG E COLE: Mr. Gallo, that is awfully far 6 back.
7 MR. GUILD: W ell, si r, at the risk of not 8 stating it properly again and inviting obj ections f rom 9 other Counsel, I really would pref er it be read back.
10 I apologiz e.
11 (The question was thereupon read by the 12 Reporter.)
O' 13 THE WITNESS: The relationship that I think 14 Bob -- well, first of all, I could state that Bob was 15 not bashf ul in -- Mr. Schulz was not bashf ul in voicing 16 his opinion about the reluctance of the commission to 17 give him superior performance or some type of an award 18 for the findings and f or the work that he had been doing 19 at B raidwood. He f reely stated that many, many times at l
20 the site to many inspectors.
21 And his ref erence to negative comments, I am sur e, 22 are exmnples that we j ust discussed in the previous 23 letter of -- Mr. Little's letter back to him requiring 24 him to give him support of evidence on why he is unhappy j 25 with the MTV program, what had happened.
l r l
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ,
G enev a, Illinoi s 60134 i (312) 232-0262 l
1165]
C
(
l There were many other instances that I am not aware 2 of, and I don' t want to bring them up because I don' t 3 have the details on it.
4 Bob had private conversations with Mr. Little, and 5 he r elated to me; but nev erthel ess, it was always a 6 negative feeling that Mr. Schulz came out of as to his 7 work at B raidwood. His -- his -- the plot, I guess, 8 could even have thickened.
9 In September of each year appraisals are supposed 10 to be given. In September of ' 85, Mr. Schulz was not 11 given an evaluation and was instructed to be extra 12 attentive to his work f or the next three months and he 13 would be reappraised three months later.
14 BY MR. GUILD :
15 Q Three months af ter September,1985?
16 A- Yeah. The appraisal period ends on 30, September ; so w e 17 would actually start f rom 1, October to the three-month 18 period.
19 Q All right, si r.
20 And Mr. Schulz recounted these f acts to you, si r?
21 A Yes, si r, he did.
22 Q Did Mr. Schulz continue to perf orm inspection activities 23 during the period when his September,1985, perf ormance 24 appraisal was withheld?
25 He continued to work at the site, yes, si r --
O A Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
! Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) '232-0262
j 11655
" \.
.(V 1 Q Di d --
2 A -- at B raidwood.
3 Q Did Mr. Schulz express to you any opinions about his 4 effectiveness as an inspector during the period that his 5 1985 annual perf ormance appraisal was withheld, 6 September 30th and the following three months?
I 7 A Yes, si r, he did.
8 Q Would you recount that opinion?
9 A He said basically that he was ineffective. He could not 10 voice his opinion in any of the inspection efforts, and 11 he j ust had to say, "Yes, si r. " He was f earf ul of his
- 12 next appraisal, which would become unsatisf actory and I 13 his release f rom the government.
14 Q I' m sor ry . The last part of your answ er was --
15 A That he would receive an unsatisf actory evaluation, and 16 that could lead to his removement as an inspector f rom 17 the Commission.
18 Q I see.
19 And did Mr. Schulz subsequently seek other 20 suployment outside the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?
21 A Yes, si r, he did.
22 Q Before his three-month extended evaluation period was -
23 ov er ?
24 A Yes, si r.
25 0 Of course, Mr. Schulz subsequently found that employment
, Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
I Genev a, Illinoi s 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
11653 d[s 1 and lef t the agency and went to work f or Tennessee 2 Valley Authority, didn' t he?
3 A That's correct.
4 Q Are you aware of whether or not Mr. Schulz had attained 5 that outside employment before he was given his extended 6 or def erred 1985 evaluation?
7 A Ye s, si r. He did receive employment with TVA before his 8 evaluation was given to him, if that was your question.
9 0 Yes.
10 And af ter he received that outside employment, the 11 agency then gave him his, up until then, def err ed 12 evaluation; is that correct?
13 A I think in J anua ry or -- Mr. Schulz told me that when he 14 was leaving the Commission they gave him his evaluation.
15 Q Did Mr. Schulz recount to you whether the Commission 16 Staff gave him any explanation at that point as to wry 17 his evaluation had been def erred for the previous three 18 months?
19 A His evaluation carries -- the explanation he gave was it 20 was an administrative error.
21 Q Mr. Schulz recounted to you that he had been told it was 22 an administrative error?
23 A Yes, si r.
24 0 Do you know whether or not, according to your 25 under standing, Mr. Schulz received a f avorable or Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
G enev a, Illinoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
11654
\_ / '
1 unf avorable evaluation as he was leaving the agency?
2 A I think he told ne he received a satisf actory 3 ev alua tion.
4 Q Now , is that a good or a bad evaluation? What -is the 5 scale of which satisf actory is given?
6 A It's -- I suppose it's basically j ust satisf actory. You 7 are doing satisf actory work. That is, it's not 8 outstanding work. It's not excellent work. It's work
, 9 that is acceptable by the Commission. _
10 Q Did you review any of the inspection reports that Mr.
11 Schulz published during the period in which his 1985 s 12 annual evaluation was under suspension?
\/ 13 A N o, si r. I was transf erred to -- I was transf erred to
~
14 Dresden then.
15 Q You were no longer at the Braidwood site?
16 A That's correct, si r.
17 Q Mr. McGregor, let me show you a document that has been 18 received in evidence as Intervenors' 90.
19 This is a July 11, 1985, memor andum. It appears to 20 be f rom Mr. Schulz, and it has you down as the 21 addr es se e. It's entitled Restriction of Inf ormation.
22 I am going to ask you, sir, whether you can 23 identify that document.
24 (Indica ting. )
25 A Yes, si r.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
, G enev a, 1111noi n 60134 (312) 232-0262
11650 0 1 0 Did you receive that memorandum?
2 A Yes, si r, I did.
3 Q At about the time it's dated there?
, 4 A Yes, si r, the same date.
5 Q Now , the first portion of this memorandum -- if I can 6 look on it with you -- recounts, in substance, the 7 circumstances you described earlier: Mr. Schulz ' s 8 dealings with Mr. Schroeder about the MTV data; in turn, 9 his dealings with Mr. Little that you understood 10 preceded Mr. Little's memorandum to Mr. Schulz that we 11 discussed earlier.
12 A Yes, si r.
\ 13 , Q All right.
14 Now, the bottom portion of the last paragraph on 15 the first page ref ers to a G AP FOIA. I take that to be 16 the Government Accountability Proj ect and the Freedom of -
17 Inf ormation Act request.
18 First of all, were you aware cf such a Freedom of 19 Inf ormation Act request yourself?
20 A Yes, si r.
l 21 Q And were you aware of Mr. Schulz having submitted 22 documents responsive to that request, in his opinion, to 23 NRC regional management.
24 MR. G ALLO: Obj ection.
! 25 Ir r el ev ant.
l l
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
11656 .
(
l MR. GUILD: Mr. Chai rman, I will submit that 2 that Freedom of Inf ormation Act request, in f act, was a 3 request that I asked be submitted, and it was submitted 4 on my behalf by Miss Billyguard of the Government 5 Accountability Proj ect seeking access to documents that 6 underlie Inspection Report 83 09.
7 That Inspection Report, of course, covers the 8 special Quality Assurance Inspection reports. It covers 9 the f our maj or site contractors, including among whom 10 are the electrical contractors of the L. K. Comstock 11 Company.
12 I submit that the f ederal statute that obligates
\~- 13 the agency staff to produce documents which under that 14 statute are public inf ormation and that this party in 15 this litigation relied on the agency honoring its 16 obligation under that law to make documents that are
! 17 public publicly available. This party relied on that 18 inf ormation, in part, in preparing this case.
19 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Was that at the time you had 20 a contention pending that hadn' t been ruled on by the 21 Boa rd? What was the circumstance that required an FOIA 22 request rather than a discovery request ?
23 MR. GUILD: W ell, si r, if I am looking at the f
24 date of J uly 10, 1985, at that time I believe there was 25 a pending contention.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
11651 0
1 There probably was a pending discovery request; but 2 for all ny discovery request s, to the best of my 3 ability, I have supplemented them by Freedom of' 4 Inf ormation Act requests, because it's a supplemental e
5 device that of ten tends to elicit documentation, as this 6 record will reflect is not produced in f ormal discovery.
7 It was sought as a discovery device in this 8 proceeding; and I do believe, first, that documents 9 responsive to that request are relevant to the Quality 10 Control Inspector harassment contention; and, second and 11 mor e generally, the Agency's f ailure to permit their
~~ 12 Resident Inspectors to provide responsive documents in
\- / 13 their possession on this particular request or, more 14 gener ally , is itself evidence of the reliability of the 15 Agency's position on the issues in this case.
16 JUDG E GROSSMAN : W ell, I don' t want to get 17 into that right now, but we have had some unhappy 18 experiences with documents produced' f or other parties 19 and f or the Board in this proceeding by Staf f -- or not 20 produced, actually.
21 This is somewhat in the nature of th'e f ailure to 22 produce, and I think we do want to find out what has 23 transpired so that boards don' t get notifications, 24 parties don' t get documents distributed to them, ev en 25 af ter allegation boards say that the Board ought to be
'\s Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
11650 v
1 notif ied.
2 We are going to allow that question, and we think 3 we ought to have an explanation en the record as to why 4 every .-- why there are problems that way. Maybe if we 5 get to the source we can finally end up with all the 6 relevant documents in the case.
7 MR. TR EB Y: Mr. Chai rman, I disagree with the 8 characteriz ation that the Staf f has not provided the 9 documents.
< 10 The record will speak f or itself, but I think that '
l 11 their production of documents depends on what the 12 questions are asked and what the interpretation is with f-sg k-- 13 regard to the scope of the issue and also what the 14 Commission policy is with regard to Board notifications, 15 all of which has been discussed in the record before.
16 JUDG E GROSSMAN : I hate to the interrupt you, 17 Mr. Treby, but let me also add that we are not wholly 18 satisfied with the production of documents on Staf f's 19 own Counsel, because we don' t doubt that on a number of 4
20 occasions when Staf f Counsel indicated it had no 21 knowledge of the documents that it had no knowledge of 22 documents that were clearly relevant; but continue, Mr.
~
23 Treby.
- 24 MR. TR EB Y
- The matter that is being raised 25 here is some unknown FOIA request. We don' t even know Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
. ~ . - -
11650 O 1 what the r equest was. We don' t know what the response 2' was.
3 I have seen many POIA requests that are answered by 4 the agency in which they indicate that certain documents 5 are not being disclosed because of various exemptions 6 that are provided by law, and they indicate there are X 7 number of documents that are not being disclosed.
8 We have no inf ormation, based on this statement 9 her e, that indicates that that wasn' t the case here; and 10 to sit here and accuse the Agency of not complying with 11 the FOIA, based on this memorandum, I think, is not 12 j ustif ied.
O 13 JUDG E GROSSMAN : W ell, let.me voir dire on 14 this.
15 VOIR DIRE EXAMIN ATION 16 BY J UDG E G ROSSMAN :
17 Q Are you f amiliar with the documents, si r, that are 18 ref erred to in that third paragraph?
19 A Yes, si r, I am.
2C 0 Were they documents that relate to the proceeding we 21 have here -- I don' t mean to the proceeding, but to the 22 subj ect matter of what we are hearing here?
23 A' They were Mr. Schulz's work and his Inspection Report 24 related to 8309 QA Inspection report. I think some was 25 also related to the MTV program.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
G enev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1166C b
G .
1 We received either a phone call or a f ax f rom the 2 region requesting this inf ormation, all inf ormation f or 3 this FOIA.
4 Schulz was reluctant to send someone up to the 5 region. He said, "It's pr etty damaging" or it's -- he 6 had the negative and the positive sides to his 7 inspection.
8 I advised him and so did some of the other 9 inspectors at the site that it was not our prerogative 10 to de cide what we could or what we should not send out 11 to -- out of the FOIA, so Bob took all of the reports 12 and all of the material that he had and bundled it up O_
s ' 13 and he sent it to the region.
14 What the region did with it, I don' t know.
15 Evidently Mr. Schulz told me sometime later on that his 16 report and the work was screened and it was not all 17 submitted to the Commission.
18 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Excuse me.
19 Mr. Guild, ref resh my recollection as to what 20 Inspection Report 8205 covered.
21 MR. GUILD: 8205 was the civil pe nal ty, 22 Judge, that was the mechanical saf ety related equipment
'l 23 of Mr. McG regor's work. It w as Febr ua ry of 1983.
24 6309 was published In May of 1984. It was the 25 comprehensive QA team inspection.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva. Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11661
/ .
f I V
1 Mr. McGregor was not an inspector on that 2 inspe ction, but Mr. Schulz was. Mr. Schulz at that time 3 .or in the eldst of that inspection was assigned to the 4 Braidwood site.
5 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Did 8209 cover this issue 6 that we have here or any aspect of it?
7 MR. GUILD: 83 09, Judge. .
6 JUDG E GROSSMAN : 8309, 9 MR. GUILD: 8309 was the first comprehensive 10 inspection of the electrical contractor, L. K. Comstock 11 Compa ny. It evaluated its QA program and had a number s 12 of items of noncompliance.
Os 13 Not one of those was specifically harassment, but a 14 number of those, we believe, are material to evidencing 15 the effectiveness of the Quality Assurance Program at 16 Comstock and the Commission's inspection of those 17 activities.
18 They are background certainly to 83 09. 8309 was 19 the Inspection Report, that transmittal letter which was 20 introduced through Mr. O' Connor.
21 It had language for Mr. Keppler to the effect thet 22 the results evidenced f ailure by Commonwealth Edison 23 Company to ef fectively monitor site contractors' QA l 24 programs, and there should be increased CECO management 25 attention to the Braidwood site QA program.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
G enev a, Illinoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
\ .- . .-. ,- . .- . . - . . . . .. - . - - - . . . - - _ . ,
i 11661 l
('D
~~-)
1 It made general findings on Quality Assurance and 2 specific findings on Comstock, although not harassment 3 findings on Comstock.
4 MR. G ALLO: I believe if the Board is going 5 to assert obstruction of process by the Staf f, that it 6 ought to convene the proceeding and indicate the charges 7 and let the Staff in on that and not burden this record 8 with that point.
9 JUDG E GROSSMAN : It is the first time I have 10 heard of charges, Mr. Gallo.
11 Are you making charges because you happen to be 12 representing one of the parties that didn' t receive some O- 13 of those documents? I would hesitate to voice those 14 kinds of charges on the record, Mr. Gallo.
15 MR. GALLO: Your remarks to that effect --
16 JUDG E GROSSMAN : But since you have no 17 reluctance to do it, is it your intention of bringing 18 any charges?
j 19 MR. G ALLO: I believe you misunderstood, 20 Judge.
l 21 I interpreted your remarks to Mr. Treby as 22 asserting the Board's view or at least the Chief Judge's 23 view of the charges. I have none.
24 JUDG E GROSSMAN : That is a very fanciful 25 interpr etation, Mr. Gallo.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a. Illinoi s 60134 l
(312) 232-0262 l
1166
\~ J 1 I pointed out on the recoru that there have been 2 omissions and documents that parties have requested in 3 their receipt of that. I think that is a matter of 4 record.
5 Now, whether you can imagine motivations and 6 improper actions that might have led to that is a matter 7 that you may wish to bring up. We certainly do not 8 intend to --
9 MR. G ALLO: I am not bringing it . up. The 10 last 10 minutes of inquiry seems to be an inquiry of the 11 Chief Judge to the very points I make.
12 Perhaps I misunderstand this.
O%~ / 13 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Perhaps you have.
14 The point I am trying to make is something has - gone 15 wrong, and we would like to find out what it is so wo 16 can correct it and make sure we get all the relevant 17 documents.
18 Now, if you have an explanation as to why it went 19 wrong, and that includes charges against any of the 20 parties, you are certainly free to voice that on the 21 record as you have; but we certainly don' t have any
, 22 intention of . speculating in that respect.
23 MR. G ALLO: W ell, I withdraw the suggestion 24 that the Chief Judge had levied any charges, but I will 25 suggest that your inquiry as to what went wrong be the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
^
d
)
11664 (3
1 subj ect of a separate inquiry in this ancillary 2 proceeding so that the Staf f could def end adequately on 3 that point.
4 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Mr. Gallo, we are trying to 5 get all the documents that are relevant to the case into 6 the proceeding bef ore we conclude the hearing.
7 If there is someway we can find out how to do that 8 while the hearing is still going on, we would wish to 9 explore it so we don' t end up having to rehear some 10 aspect of the case because of newly-surf aced docmnents 11 that are highly relevant to the case.
12 So we will allow a little further inquiry into
)
_/ 13 this, and then hopef ully we will move on.
14 MR. GUILD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
15 I apologiz e. I have lost my train of thought. If 16 there was a pending question, I have forgotten it.
l 17 If the Reporter would help me.
18 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Maybe we have fully concluded 19 on that topic, so let's go on to something else.
20 BY MR. GUILD:
l 21 Q The second page of Intervenors' Exhibit 90, Mr.
22 McG regor, makes an observation -- I don' t believe I gave 23 you a copy. Let me share it with you.
24 The first paragraph -- why don' t you take a moment 25 and ref resh your memory on that, pl ease.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i i
l i
11660 1 1
() 1 (Indicating. )
2 The first paragraph recounts what you have 3 testified to previously, and that is your opinions with 4 respect to the Comstock matter.
5 The final paragraph on Page 2 of Intervenors' 6 Exhibit 90 ref ers to the question of Intervenors' 7 interrogatories in this proceeding:
8 Quote, "The maj ority of the Intervenors' 9 interrogatories required to be answered by the U. S. NRC 10 have been assigned to the Division of Reactor Saf ety 11 instead of the senior residents at Braidwood who are 12 more f aniliar with the issues. Al so, the answers being 7-~
\_ / 13 provided by the region are not complete and, again, tend 14 to purposely restrict the flow of inf ormation. "
15 Now, Mr. McG regor, are you aware yourself of 16 interrogatories that were submitted by Intervenors in 17 this proceeding?
, 18 A Yes, si r.
19 MR. G ALLO: I am going to obj ect.
20 It is irrelevant.
21 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : Again, this relates not to 22 the subj ect matter in issue but as to whether and how we 23 can get complete compliance with what we require in the 24 way of discovery and production of documents, so we will 25 allow this inquiry here.
%./
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
G enev a, Illinoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
11666
~/
.kJ l BY MR. GUILD:
2 Q Did those interrogatories, Mr. McG regor, include 3 interrogatories on the subj ect of the Quality Control 4 Inspector harassment issue, the Comstock issue?
5 A I don' t recall if they did.
6 0 All right, si r.
7 I submit the record reflects that they did.
8 Do you recall answering any interrogatories or 9 having any interrogatories submitted to you f or answer?
10 A Yes, si r. I w as -- yes, my recollection now, I do 11 recall it was Interrogatory -- the Commission had 12 numbered it, I believe,12-HC or HI, harassnent O
13 intimidation, and I was requested to answer that 14 int er rogatory .
15 0 All right, si r.
16 Did you prepare an answer to that interrogatory?
17 A Yes, si r, I did.
18 Q All right.
19 To whom did you submit that answer?
l 20 A To the region.
L 21 0 Do you know whether that answer was ever submitted in 22 this proceeding?
23 A I -- no, si r, I do n' t. I hat- never seen my answer in 24 this proceeding.
(N 25 0 Were you ever asked to sign an affidavit attesting to
( )
! Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
11661
/^i b
1 swear to the truthf ulness of an answer on the subj ect of 2 the harassment and intimidation contention?
3 A I don' t think I was.
4 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chai rman, I submit that the 5 Answers to Interrogatories by Intervenors called f or the 6 identification of the person answering those 7 interrogatories and that the practice in the proceeding 8 was to submit af fidavits f rom the author of those
/
9 answ ers.
10 BY MR. GUILD:
11 Q Are you aware of a complaint by Mr. Schulz to the -- in 12 substance, as recounted in the last paragraph of his I
\s 13 menorandum to you, Intervenors' Exhibit 90, with respect 14 to interrogatory answers that he submitted?
15 A Yes. He discussed it specifically -- rather, he asked 16 specifically on the MTV program.
17 Mr. Schulz had worked, I will say, long hours and a 18 lot of hours on that problem at Braidwood, and he 19 felt -- and rightf ully so -- that he was the most 20 knowledgeable person appointed to that problem.
21 I don' t believe it was assigned to him to -- I can 22 be wrong, but I don' t think he was assigned to answer 23 the interrogatory, though.
24 0 Mr. Schulz makes the point in this paragraph that, i
25 " Matters of which the residents were more f amiliar were
\
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
' Geneva, Illinoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
1166E
(
1 assigned to the Division of Reactor Saf ety
, 2 interrogatories f or answers. "
3 Do you know what subj ect matter those 4 interrogatories included?
5 A I think most of them -- no, si r, I don' t. I don' t 1
. 6 recall specifically what they were.
4 7 Q The last sentence, "Also, the answers being provided by a
! 8 the region are not complete and, again, tend to 9 purposely restrict the flow of inf ormation. "
4 10 What is your understanding of Mr. Schulz's concern 11 on that subj ect? ,
i 12 A I do n' t kn ow , si r.
\% 13 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I am not certain l 14 what the status of Intervenors 90 was.
15 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : My recollection of this is 16 that it was not admitted because we were lacking 17 authentication of the document, but that we had 18 determined that at least the first paragraph on Page 2 i
19 was relevant to the proceeding.
f 20 On that basis, we would have admitted the document, 21 other than the f act that no one could vouch for the f act 22 that it had indeed been a Nuclear Regulatory Commission 23 document.
24 Am I mistaken on that, Mr. Berry ?
25 MR. B ERRY: That sounds correct, Mr. Chairman.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11660 O
V 1 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Okay. At this point, then, 2 since the offer is pending, we will receive the 3 document.
4 (The document was thereupon received into 5 evidence as Intervenors' Exhibit No. 90.)
6 MR. TR EB Y: Well, the Staf f obj ects on the 7 grounds of relevance. Also, we have not obj ected to 8 each and every question, but we think that it's clear 9 that we don' t believe that any of the questions relating 10 to production of documents should have been permitted.
11 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : Fi ne.
I 12 MR. GALLO: I also obj ect, f or th e r ecor d, s- 13 your Honor, on relevance grounds.
14 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : Does that include an 15 obj ection to the first paragraph on Page 2 being 16 relevant to the action here?
17 MR. TR EB Y: No, for the Staf f, it doesn' t 18 incl'ude the first paragraph.
19 MR. G ALLO: N o. To the first paragraph on l
20 Page 2, the obj ection is not relevance but simply that
! 21 it is cumulative to what has already been testified to 22 and, ther ef or e, excludeable under the rules of 10 CFR 23 Par t 2.
24 JUDG E GROSSMAN : I am sor ry. It 's -- what 25 particular obj ection is that?
I O .
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. = . . . ~ . - . = . . . .- .
4 1167('
O U
t 1 MR. GALLO: I believe that 10.CRF Part 2 2 provides that emnulative evidence is inadmissible under
) 3 one of the provisions of the Commission's rules of '
4 practice.
5 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Just on the grounds that this 6 is canulative?
7 MR. G ALLO: Yes, yes.
l 8 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chai rman, I think if ,
1 P S Applicant would conceive the points that are ref erred to 10 in that paragraph are established without further i
11 evidence, I will recede f rom of f ering that portion of l 12 the document.
, 13 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Do you agree to that, Mr.
l 14 Gallo?
- i. 15 MR. GALLO: The record will speak f or itself, 16 but I believe it's cumulative based on what Mr. Gallo j 17 elicited f rom other witnesses.
l 18 JUD3 E GROSSMAN : Okay. Mr. Gallo, let me
( 19 point out that since there is some dispute on those
! 20 facts that these -- this paragraph is certainly one that 21 can rebut any claim of a recent f abrication of any of f 22 the testimony with regard to these f acts; but in any i
- 23 ev ent, there is no reason for the Board to recede from
- 24 the direction that it be admitted; so we have admitted 25 the document.
l,
. Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
. Geneva. Illinois 60134
.; (312) 232-0262
11671 0
1 BY MR. GUILD:
2 0 Mr. McG regor, in that same paragraph, the paragraph that 3 just has been discussed by the parties and Board, Mr.
4 Schulz recounts your and his disagreement with the 5 decisions by the region not to send personnel to the 6 site immediately to investigate.
7 The last sentence reads, "NRC management at Glen 8 Ellyn instead opted to turn the issue over to the 9 Licensee."
10 Mr. McG regor, first, did you disagree with the 11 region's approach to allowing the Licensee to complete 12 its investigation of the so called harassment and
- s. / 13 intimidation concerns before the NRC undertook its own 14 inspection?
15 A No, si r, I did not.
16 0 Your position was that it was appropriate that they 17 inf orm the Licensee, as you testified earlier, that the 18 i region inf orm the Licensee?
19 A I' m not so sure it was -- I don' t know if it was l
20 appropriate or not.
i 21 The -- as we all know, the issue came to a head on
, 22 Friday, the 29th of March in the latter hours of the 23 day, and we were under the opinion that Monday morning 24 there would be NRC personnel down there to take i 25 statements f rom these persons.
! s m, I
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11675
%J l I don' t think that anything would be lost or 2 anything would be gained -- anything would be lost over 3 the weekend, nor nothing would be gained try trying to 4 send down inspectors immediately. First of all, you 5 wouldn' t be able to even contact the inspectors.
6 So Monday morning was an uppropriate time to, we 7 thought, start on the investigation of these 8 allegations; however, they weren' t -- subsequently they 9 weren' t investigated until the end of April.
10 0 All right, si r.
11 So you didn' t obj ect to allowing the Licensee to 12 know about these matters on Friday af ternoon, March 13 29th, under the assumptien that the NRC would send 14 personnel to the site the follcwing Monday?
15 A W ell, as I stated bef or e, ther e w as v ery littl e 16 inf ormation given to commonwealth Edison.
17 The specifics that we received f rom the 26 and the
- 18 6, there was very little inf ormation given to 19 Commonwealth Edison that detailed that inf ormation nor 20 did we give them the number of inspectors that was 21 inv olved. This in contrary to what's been written in i 22 the paper and whatever.
! 23 Commonwealth Edison was not appraised as to the 24 number of people that came into our of fice. They were 25 not appraised to the 6 that came over.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinoi n 60134 (312) 232-0262
11673 O
C 1 We merely told them that we had received 2 allegations f rom numerous Comstock employees, the 3 seriousness of these allegations of harassment and 4 intimidation and that we f elt there was going to be an 5 immediate walk-otit of the Comstock QC Inspection ef f orts 6 and that Commonwealth Edison should take some 7 appropriate action.
4 8 Q All right. That was the position you had on Friday 9 af ternoon?
i 10 A That was the position we had Friday af ternoon, and with 11 the thought process that Monday morning we would -- we 12 even expected that we would be assigned -- in f act, if I x_. 13 recall correctly, Mr. Schulz volunteered to the 14 Commission in our discussions that he would -- he would 15 follow up on it.
16 But the assignment of an inspector to f ollow up on 17 an allegation is solely the responsibility of the Region 18 III Board that assesses these allegations. We could 19 have taken it upon the residents to start that 20 investigation Monday morning had we so been directed.
21 Q But you were not?
22 A That's correct, si r.
23 0 Mr. Schulz volunteered to regional management, and was
, 24 that on March 29th during the conf erence call with the l
25 region?
l i Sonntag Repor ting Service, Ltd.
l Gengr_a, Illinoi s 60134 L (312) 232-0262
l 11674 O 1 A Yes, si r, that would have been af ter we had discussed 2 with the 26.
3 Af ter they lef t our of fice, we had probably a 5 or 4 10-minute conversation with the region, and I think Bob 5 at that time said he would be glad to partake in the 6 inv estigation.
7 Q And Mr. Schulz said that to Mr. Warnick and the others 8 at the region?
9 A Yes, si r, I believe he did 10 Q All right, si r.
)
11 Now, the docunent I have j ust examined you f rom is 12 dated July 11, 1985, and at that time you were still 13 Senior Resident Inspector at the Braidwood Station, were I 14 you not?
15 A Yes, si r.
16 Q You continued in that capacity for the month of July, 17 the month of August, and then you were reassigned to 18 Dresden; is that correct?
19 A On the 24th of August in the late in the evening, I 20 received a f ax f rom the region that directed me to 21 attend a boiling water simulator school at the Dresden 22 simulator starting Monday morning, August the 26 th at 23 0400 hour0.00463 days <br />0.111 hours <br />6.613757e-4 weeks <br />1.522e-4 months <br /> s, at which time I did attend that school for 24 the last week in August.
25 That f ollaging Saturday I took my vehicle and moved s
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l GenREA, Illinoi s 60134
! (312) 232-0262 l
11675 A
U 1 my books and equipnent that belonged to me and personal 2 notes, and that Saturday I moved f rom Braidwood to 3 Dr esde n.
4 Q All right, si r.
5 I take it that going to a boiling water reactor 6 simulator school was not within the scope of your 7 inspection activities at the Braidwood station, was it?
8 A W ell, it w as v ery taxi ng, because I would go in the 9 morning and then leave ,the school and come back to 10 Braidwood in the af ternoon at 2:00 or 3:00 o' clock to 11 try to close up as much as I could and prepare for -- I 12 had meetings scheduled with CECO, and I think I had some l
\m / 13 specialty meetings scheduled.
14 In most cases that had to be postponed i
15 indef initely.
16 Q My point is, I guess, Mr. McG regor, I understand that 17 Braidwood is a pressuriz ed water reactor, and you i 18 weren' t going to a BWR school to learn to be more a 19 eff ective resident at B raidwood, were you?
20 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : Had you already been notified 21 that you were no longer going to be at Braidwood at that 22 point ?
23 TH E WITN ESS : Yes, si r. I had been notified 24 in September that I was going to be the senior resident
(N 25 at Dresden.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geney3, Illinoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
11674 O 1 BY MR. GUILD:
2 Q How did you first learn you were to be transf erred to 3 the Dresden Facility as a senior resident?
4 A I don' t recall the date on the letter. It seems to me 5 -
it was in J une or maybe April. I f or get.
6 It was a letter by Mr. Norelius to myself and Mr.
7 Tom Tongue, the senior resident at Dresden, that on ,
8 September 1st, a move would take place.
9 Q Well, si r, can you be more precise about when you first 10 learned this, when the letter was dated?
11 A I think it was June. I' m not positive, but I think it 12 was in June of 1985.
_ 13 Q All right, si r.
14 Well, let me see if I can ref resh your 15 recollection. :
16 Mr. Mendez came to the site April 30th to begin his 17 inspection on the 24 comstock Inspector concerns.
18 As of that date, were you aware that you were to be j 19 transf erred to Dresden?
! 20 A I don' t think I was.
! 21 Q All right, si r.
l 22 You subsequently received Mr. Mendez's draf t
! 23 inspection report and contacted Mr. Williams and made i
! 24 your comments about your criticisms of that Inspection 25 Repor t and your recommendations.
I l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1167T l
O 1 When you made that contact with Mr. Williams, had -
2 you at that point been inf ormed that you were to be 3 tranaf erred to Dresden? 1 4 A I don' t recall.
5 Q Did you discuss your proposed transf er with anybody in 6 the NRC management?
7 A We did with Mr. Nor elius, both Mr. Tongue' and I.
8 We considered it an inappropriate time because of 9 the hearing process that was coming on at Braidwood; 10 al so, because of the SALP that was to be written f or 11 Braidwood and the SALP that was to be written f or --
12 this is the SALP Report, the Systematic Evaluation of k/ 13 the Licensee Perf ormance.
14 JUDG E CALLIH AN : Is th at S- A-Ir- P or S- E-Ir- P?
I 15 THE WITNESS: S- A; sy st emati c --
16 MR. GUILD: Assesment of Licensee 17 Perf ormance ?
18 THE WITNESS: Yes, si r.
f 19 BY MR. GUILD:
10 Q One of the those was to be perf ormed at both Braidwood
! 21 and Dresden?
22 A And Dresden; right.
23 We thought that a more appropriate time would have 24 been af ter these things had passed in January.
! 25 Q Did you request a transf er off the B raidwood site, Mr.
I
(
Sonntag Reporting Service, I.td.
i Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11670
(
%-)
1 McG regor ?
2 A N o, si r, I did not.
3 Q Did you have any conversation with Mr. Little about this 4 transf er ?
5 A N o, si r.
6 Q Did anyone explain to you -- did anyone ask you whether 7 you wanted a transf er?
8 A In February, Mr. Nor elius conf ronted me one day and 9 asked me if I would consider becoming the senior 10 resident at Dresden.
11 I told him that I would rather stay at Braideood.
12 I was very interested in the work that we were doing O. 13 there, and I f elt it was important that I stay there 14 because -- until we get the plant licensed and f uel 15 loaded. I wanted to be there at least that long.
16 Q Fe br ua ry , 1985 ?
17 A Yes, si r.
18 Q What was Mr. Nor elius's response?
19 A I don' t recall exactly, other than I think he j ust said, i 20 "W ell, think about it and give it'some more 21 consideration. "
22 Q All right, si r.
23 Mr. McG regor, did you carry with you f rom Braidwood 24 any of the items of noncompliance or open or unresolved 25 items that you had identified?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geney_g, 1111nol_s 60134 (312) 232-0262
l
- l 11675 '
O N-w :
1 A No, si r, I did not -- well, no, let me correct that 4 2 statement.
3 At the time I had an ongoing inspection with -- and 4 I did submit a B raidwood Inspection Report, I think in 5 October or November.
6 One of the -- I don' t recall all of the context of 7 that Inspection Report, but one of them had to do with
, 8 the diesel generators and closing out some bulletins for i
9 the region, and I think it addressed the tendons in 10 containment.
11 I had noted that a couple of the tendons had water
, ~~s 12 leaking f rom them, and this was an ongoing inspection
, \~- 13 process. I think I lef t it as an unresolved item and 14 turned it over to Tom Tongue in that inspection.
15 0 What was the nature of your concerns? Wer e these the 16 emergency power source diesel generators?
17 JUDG E GROSSMAN : W ell, Mr. Guild, I think now l 18 we are getting beyond background to Inspection Reports 19 and other matters that relate to this case, and this 20 document apparently does not cover any of the issues 21 that we have here.
l 22 MR. GUIL D: Mr. Chai rman, I had not reached 23 the document y et. I am still examining f or that.
24 If you would give me an opportunity, I would like 25 to address your concern about this particular document, ,
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Gengyg, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 L_____._ _ _
l
. 11680 4
1 and I have a pending question that was unrelated to the j 2 document.
3 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Well, okay. I was j ust
! 4 pointing out that it seems that we are going f ar afield i
5 nas in the line of questioning and as suggested, al so, j 6 by the document; but could I hear the pending question, 4
7 if - there is one?
8 (The question was thereupon read by the
) 9 Repor ter. )
10 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : W ell, that relates, Mr.
11 Guild, to an issue that we don' t have here now, and the
- 12 point of time is beyond what we are exploring as f ar as
! \_ / 13 background to the Inspection Reports and --
14 MR. GUILD: Let me pose the question, and I --
15 Mr. Chairman, let me pose one more question, .and perhaps l 16 you will consider whether this ties the matter in i
i 17 sufficiently.
18 BY MR. GUILD:
- l 19 Q Did you submit a draf t Inspection Report finding 20 deficiencies in the emergency diesel generators at 21 Braidwood that was never published, Mr. McG regor?
22 MR. TR HB Y: I obj ect to the question.
23 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Sus tained.
24 I think we ought to abandon the topic now, which is 25 beyond the time f rame that we ought to be involved in i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l GengEA, 1111noi n 60134 (312) 232-0262 ;
i
1168]
v 1 with regard to background to the Inspection Reports that 2 are involved in the hearing.
3 MR. GUILD: Well, Mr. Chairman if I can be 4 heard briefly.
5 It does relate to the Staf f's impression of this 6 witness's identification of concerns. I don' t mean to 7 try the issue of diesel generators.
8 What I do mean to suggest, though, and I submit an 9 off er of proof that -- or an of f er to show this witness 10 has submitted Inspection Reports f rom Braiddood that the 11 NRC Staf f has suppressed and that obviously -- it seems 12 to me, obviously, in any event, bears on the credibility d/ 13 of the Staf f's presentations to this Board when an 14 Inspection Report is prepared by a member of the Staf f 15 and is not allowed to be issued.
16 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Well, we will maintain our 17 position with regard to that, and your off er of proof is 18 in the record.
19 Let me point out the distinction bebeeen this line 20 and what we allowed previously, which was with regard to 21 matters contenporaneous with the inspections being 22 perf ormed by other NRC personnel who were in a different 23 position than the resident inspectora. This j ust does 24 not have any relationship to that.
25 I take it you haven' t asked us to mark f or Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a. Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
{
11682 A
1 identification that prior document?
2 MR. GUIL D: N o, si r, but I am submitting a 3 document that is a multi-page document that includes 4 another copy of -- I take that back.
5 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : I see you are asking us to 6 mark this new item as Intervenors' Exhibit No.107.
7 MR. GUILD: Yes. I don' t intend to mark the 8 first. You can throw it away. I am not going to use 9 it.
10 (The document was thereupon marked 11 Intervenors' Exhibit No.107 for 12 identification as of the lith day of
\s 13 March, 1986.)
14 BY MR. GUILD:
15 Q Mr. McG regor, I place bef ore you a document that appears 16 to be f rom Mr. Little to Messrs. Muff ett, Jacobson, 17 Kauf man, Mendez and Kropp.
18 Subj ect : B raidwood final walkdown inspections. It
! 19 has been marked f or identification as Intervenors' 107, 20 It appears to bear a date of March 19, 1986. Attached 21 to it are two memoranda The first dated January 30, 22 1986, Schulz f rom Littl e. The second, Janua ry 30, 1986, 23 McG regor f rom Little.
24 Let me ask you, sir, whether or not you can 25 identify the series of documents that have been marked Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geney_gdlinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 11682
./O 1 as Intervenors' 107.
2 (Indica ting. )
3 A Yes, si r, I can.
4 0 All right.
5 Now, the first page, the cover page, Little to the 6 other gentl emen, Muf f ett, et al, notes in the second 7 paragraph, "During our seminar on B raidwood on Februa ry 8 12, 1986. Messrs. McG regor and Schulz expressed 9 dissatisf action with CECO's program for walkdown 10 inspections to identify potential piping interf erence 11 probl em s. " ,
12 Now, did you attend a seminar on that date on the
s./ 13 subj ect of Braidwood?
14 A Yes, si r, I did.
15 0 And did you and Mr. Schulz express concerns regarding 16 the adequacy of the walkdown program to identify
. 17 interf erence problems in the piping, electrical cable 18 tr ay s, and HVAC areas?
19 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Mr. Guild, this is still on 20 the same topic that we j ust discussed.
21 Now, if you wish to authenticate the document and 22 make an of f er of proof of the document, we will 23 certainly entertain that; but it appears as though we l
24 will rule at this time that the document is not
/N 25 rel ev ant.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a,__Ill inoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 11684 s
l 1 MR. GUILD: Would you entertain some argument 2 bef ore you rule? I have not been heard, and I would 3 like very much to be heard.
4 I think the Chair is j umping to a conclusion, and I l 5 respectf ully ask to be heard on this.
6 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : Fi ne. Why don' t we have l 7 argument on this whole topic that you are bringing up, 8 incAuding the document.
- 9 MR. GUILD
- Yes, si r.
10 If you recall, there har been extensive testimony 11 in this case about the adequacy of walkdown inspections i
12 of cable trays and cable tray hangers. I 13 Cable trays and cable tray hangers were the subject 14 of inspection by Quality control Inspectors who 15 testified in some detail in this proceeding. The cable
- 16 trays and cable tray hangers installed in the Braidwood 17 plant run through the same air space where piping
! 18 systems or HVAC systems run. In some cases, the HVAC 19 systems share the same hangers as the electrical cable
, 20 tr ay s.
1 21 There has been, and I submit in these documents, 22 reflected a concern expressed by the two former j 23 residents at Braidwood about the adequacy of l 24 Commonwealth Edison Company's program for resolving i
, 25 interf erence problems through the use of what's ref erred l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, 1111noin 60134 (312) 232-0262
1168!
O 1 to as a final walkdown inspection bef ore fuel load.
2 '8ft seems to me that on a co'uple of counts, that is 3 directly relevant to the issues we have in this case.
4 The first. and more general point of relevance, 5 this witness's recommendations and viaws on the subj ect 6 have been expressed, and this witness's recommendations 7 and views on the subj ect, as were the views of other 8 resident s, have been ignored by the region in f avor of 9 the use of overview lines on final walkdown inspections 10 by the Division of Reacter Saf ety Inspectors, Muffett, 11 Jaco bson, Kauf man, Mendez and Kropp, who were assigned l 12 in place of the residents to resolve the number of 13 issues that are directly relevant to the harassment.
14 Mr. Mendez has been bef ore us already.
l 15 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : Is Applicant relying on the 16 walkdown inspections that you are ref erring to now in 17 support of its position here, Mr. Guild?
l 18 MR. GUILD: I certainly understand them to l 19 have relied on them.
l 20 We have heard testimony from Mr. Simile and others l 21 that there are walkdowns of the cable tray systems to 22 identify a configuration proble.
23 You heard Mr. Perryman, Mr. Bossong, Mr. Peterson 24 and others talking about their disagreenents with the 25 adequacy of the walkdown system to identify problems Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
G enetr a . T11 4 nn4 c. K a l '4 A (312) 232-0262
. . . .. _ _. . . _ . _ -. ~ . _ _ - _ . . _. . . . _ ._ _
i 11684 i
1 ef f ectiv ely.
2 It seems to me that even at this stags of the case 3 Applicant has put in issue the effectiveness of their 4 walkdown programs.
5 I submit that on rebuttal we are going to hear 6 quite a bit about it.
7 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Is this a subj ect cf the 8 rebuttal case that Applicant is submitting?
9 MR. MILL ER : Your Honor, the rebuttal case 4
10 that Applicant submits insof ar as it relies on programs 11 that look at the quality of the installed hardware F
12 within Comstock relies on two programs: BCAP and PTL i
O 13 over inspection final walkdown are not a part of our 14 rebuttal case.
15 I might point out, al so, that the question of 16 walkdowns came up in the testimony, as Mr. Guild's 17 directly recited, of Mr. Bossong and Mr. Per ryman, but 18 it had to do with the detail of specific walkdown 19 programs and not in connection with possible 20 interf erences with other contractor's work.
21 That was not a part of the program that was i
22 involved with those QC Inspectors, and it did not f orm a 23 part of the allegations that they brought bef ore this 24 Boa rd.
25 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I submit, then, at 1
Sonntag Repor, c___.._ ,, tin, _g
_ , Service,,,
_ en . Ltd.
(312) 232-0262
11681
)
1 the very least, taking everything Mr. Miller says as 2 true -- and I dispute a number of his points -- that we 3 are going to hear on rebuttal case that, first, the NRC 4 relies on the final walkdowns.
5 If you look at the cover memo, the DRS Inspectors 6 are indeed -- when they are speaking here about hearing 7 testimony, draf t hearing testimony, I take it that 8 principally had to do with draf t hearing testimony on a 9 variety of other issues; not the harassnent issue, but 10 the DRS Inspectors who are listed in the cover memo were 11 being instructed, since the walkdown had not been 12 completed, to simply rely for their draf t testimony on Os 13 the expectation that such a walkdown would find and fix 14 whatever problems there were out there.
15 Mor eov er, in =-
16 JUDG E GROSSMAN : But these are issues that are 17 not in litigation right now.
18 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, when you get to the
~
19 rebuttal case, at the very least, you are going to hear 20 from Commonwealth Edison that you should rely on the 21 adequacy of the inspections that have been performed on l 22 the L. K. Comstock -- within the L. K. Comstock Company 23 of the work with respect to the very issues of the l 24 configuration of the cable trays that are out there.
) 25 Time and again we' have heard not only about the d
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
(312) 232-0262 i
11680 4
\
l walkdown that I pointed out that Perryman, Bassong, 2 Peterson walkdown ref ers in the Asmussen memo, the 3 response by management at Comstock to not worry about 4 those problems because they get caught on final 5 wal kdow n.
6 Final walkdown is being off ered by Applicant as a i 7 panacea in this case, and you are going to hear about it 8 in rebuttal.
9 If they don' t raise it, I am going to raise it, 10 because final walkdown is the only basis that they 11 assert f or confidence that all of these problems, 12 including interf erence problems, have been fixed.
13 You have a Resident Inspector on the witness stand 14 who has expressed, along with his colleagues, serious 15 reservations about the adequacy of reliance on those 16 wal kdow ns, apparently in conflict with the position 17 taken by the Division of Reactor Saf ety.
18 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : I understand the point you 19 are making about some disagreement within the NEC, but 20 the question.-- but the point that the Board has made is 21 that that disagreement is not relevant to what we are 22 hearing here to the extent that it comes af ter the time 23 period that we are interested in with regard to the 24 assignments f or the Inspection Reports.
25 We understand f rom Mr. Miller that Applicant is not Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ,
uenev a, 1111noi s t> u i,5 4 (312) 232-0262
11685 '
a 1 relying on a particular walkdown or walkdowns that are 2 ref erred to in this document.
3 MR. GUILD: All right, si r.
4 If I can have a stipulation f rom Applicant and the 5 NRC Staff that in this case or in rebuttal they will not 6 rely on the results of any walkdown inspections of the 7 electrical equipnent -- electrical cable trays, 8 conduits -- looking at Mr. McG regor's memo, which is 9 Attach 2snt 3 here -- electrical conduits, electrical 10 cable trays, electrical j unction boxes and electrical 11 conduit f or cable tray interf erences to HVAC ducts, they 12 will not rely on any walkdowns f or those purposes, I x_- 13 will recede f rom further examination.
14 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : N ow , I understand Mr. Miller 15 is saying that whatever is covered here is not going to 16 be r elied on.
- 17 Now, bef ore we get to any stipulation, we haven' t 18 yet heard f rom NRC Counsel, so w e don' t ev en know of a 19 position that NRC takes; but if Mr. Miller on 20 reconsideration not to recede f rom his disavowal of any 21 reliance on this, we will entertain that, too.
22 You maintain you are not relying on any of these l
l 23 walkdowns?
l 24 MR. G ALLO: We do not rely on them as part of 1
/N 25 our rebuttal case.
U l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
G enev a, Illinoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
11690 s
1 There has been a document introduced during Mr.
2 Miller's examination of Mr. DeWald the very first days 3 of this hearing in which an individual within Comstock i
! 4 management made some representations to a QC Inspector 5 regarding walkdowns.
6 That was then covered by memorandum f rom Mr. Dewald 7 that told the inspector if he had any concerns about 8 certain installations, he should perf orm a reinspection; l 9 and other than that, I do not believe that walkdowns 10 hav e, other than the Bossong-Perryman issue that I 11 ref erred to earlier, come up.
12 Certainly, the issue specifically addressed here, 13 the question of interf erences with the installations of 14 other contractors, is not a part of our case and will 15 not be a part of our case, and to that I will stipulate.
16 MR. GUILD: I understand that Applicant 17 maintains that the adequacy of final walkdowns was a
- 18 valid management position to assert to Mr. Asmussen when l 19 he raised concerns about the adequacies of past 20 inspection work.
21 MR. MILL ER : I don' t take the position one way 22 or another. It was a f act. It was asserted. The 23 document was produced; and, as of a certain date, it was 24 what a lower level management employee of Comstock wrote l 25 to Mr. Asmussen.
l i
I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a. Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11691 A
(JI l JUDG E G ROSSMAN : My question is whether or not 2 Applicant is relying now in this proceeding on any of 3 these walkdown inspections to confirm or to prove that 4 its construction activities in the area that we are 5 dealing with now were proper and adequate.
6 Now, are you disavowing that or are you saying that 7 that is a strong possibility or it is present? What is 8 the position, Mr. Gallo?
9 MR. GALLO: Your Honor, could we take a short 10 recess?
11 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : Yes. That would be 12 appropriate, and then we will also hear f rom Staff.
O 13 (Whereupon a recess was had, af ter which 14 the hearing resumed as f ollows:)
15 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : We are back on.
16 MR. MILLER : Your Honor, I have consulted with i 17 my colleagues, and we were not going to interpose an l 18 obj ection to the document when it was of f ered.
l 19 In response to the inquiry that was posed as to l
20 whether or not Applicant relies on walkdowns, we 21 certainly do not rely on the walkdowns described in this 22 document involving interf erences between piping and HVAC 23 and electrical installations; but rather than take the 24 chance on f ully predicting what the terms may be in our 25 rebuttal case, I am not prepared to stipulate that there Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11692 0 1 will not be any ref erence to walkdowns during of the 2 course of what remains of our presentation on that 3 basis.
4 JUDG E GROSSMAN : I take the Staff takes the 5 same position on that?
6 MR. TR EB Y: W ell, I am not sure it's the same 7 position.
8 The Staf f would also not be willing to enter into 9 any stipulation, because walkdowns are one of the things 10 that the Staff relies on to reach its ultimate view as
! 11 to the readiness of the plant f or licensing, as w ell as 12 many other things.
O 13 JUDG E GROSSMAN : So, in other words, Staff 14 goes a little further in actual reliance on walkdowns.
15 Okay. I want to make it --
16 MR. TR EB Y: But I am not sur e that -- well. I 17 don' t want to be misunderstood.
18 I am not sur e that that will be, in f act, part of 19 our rebuttal ca se, if any, on this matt,er. It's j ust l
20 that we don' t want to preclude the use of walkdowns.
21 It's our view that walkdowns is really not a 22 subj ect of this proceeding; but on another level, I 23 assume that this document is being of fered, al so, as 24 part of the theme that the Intervenors are trying to 25 raise here that the views of the Resident Inspectors are b(N Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Genev a. Illinoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
~
a 11693 1 nct listened to or considered.
2 If the docmment --
3 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : Agai n, Mr. Tr eby , the point I 4 wanted to make -- I hate to interrupt you -- was that we 5 are not admitting this docunent on the basis that we 6 admitted the prior documents and the testimony with 7 regard to the interna.1 NRC matters that related, in our 8 mind, to the quality of the Inspection Reports.
9 This is beyond that time f rame and beyond those 10 particular items; so if that were all that was involved 11 in these documents, we would not admit the documents.
- -- 12 But on what has been said by the parties with V 13 regard to the possible relevance of the walkdown 14 programs, it appears that we ought to, when the offer is 15 made, admit the documents and allow some testimony on 16 that ground.
17 of course, once a docmnent is in, the parties are 18 free to make whatever inf erences they want on brief, but 19 we will not allow the admission of the document and the 20 fact that it contains matters internal to NRC as opening 21 up the gates f or a further questioning in that area.
22 MR. TR EB Y: Well, we don' t -- Mr. Chai rman, 23 we certainly didn' t think this whole area should have 24 been raised in the first place.
g 25 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : I understand that.
Sonntaa Repor tina Service, Ltd.
Geneva! Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 I
11694 O 1 MR. TR EB Y: But with regard to this, we are 2 now talking about a discussion of the Inspection Reports 3 that were going to be part of the overall case when the 4 whole Q A/QC matter was raised at this seminar that was 5 held Febr ua ry 12, 1986, related to all matters' including 6 QA/QC matters.
7 So if we have allowed all the other materials that 8 are in, I don' t think that this one should be excluded 9 just because it happens to be beyond the time that Mr.
10 McG regor was at the B raidwood site. That did not stop 11 his participating in discussions with regard to
< ~
12 preparation f or this hearing.
\- / 13 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : W ell, I didn' t mean beyond 14 the time he was at the site. I meant beyond the time in 15 which the Inspection Reports were written that we were 16 discussing which Staff and Applicant relied upon to a 17 certain extent in their cases.
18 Now, are there other reports that go beyond this 19 time that are contemporaneous with this particular l 20 document that are in issue here?
21 MR. TR EB Y: No. All the contention items l 22 with regard to harassment and intimidation have been 23 closed out.
24 My point is, though, that discussions were held on 25 that subj ect on February 12th. I may well want to ask l
Sonntaa Reoortina Service. Ltd.
I, GeEeva! Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
11695 C'
b) 1 questions about that, and I don' t want to be precluded 2 by the Board now ruling that because this document --
3 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Okay .- Well, then if you see 4 nothing dif f erent because of the time f rame or the 5 particular matters discussed in here between this 6 document and the others that you have posed your 7 obj ections to, then we will admit the document when it's 8 prof f ered under the same ruling we made bef ore with your 9 outstanding obj ection to the whole line.
10 So that preserves your obj ections, and we will have 11 the documents in, th en.
O 13 So that we are clear, we obj ect to the whole line 14 but --
15 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : Yes, I made that clear in my 16 statement.
18 MR. GUILD: I am inf ormed there is no pending l
i 19 question, Mr. Chai rman.
20 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : You are inf ormed that what?
l 21 MR. GUILD: That there is no pending l
22 question.
23 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : That's correct, nor have you 24 off ered the document yet.
25 MR. GUILD: I do offer it at this time.
! Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11696
- 1 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : Okay. With those standing 2 obj ections, we will admit the document, but also because 3 it apparently has some matters relevant to the walkdowns 4 that the parties might -- the other parties might be 5 relying on.
6 (The document was thereupon received into 7 , evidence as Intervenors' Exhibit No.107 8 in evidence. )
9 BY MR. GUILD:
10 Q Mr. McGregor, were you invited to attend the seminar on 11 or about February 12, 1986 dealing with Braidwood?
g 12 A Yes, si r, I w as.
\ml 13 Q What was the subj ect of that seminar?
14 A Concerns -- concerns that all inspectors, whether they 15 be resident or regional inspectors, of problems at 16 Braidw ood, unresolved open items; it covered the 17 complete gamut of problems at Braidwood to be brought to 18 the table and discussed.
19 Q All right.
20 Wer e such problems discusr.ed -- advanced by the 21 inspectors and discussed?
22 A Yes, sir, th ey wer e.
l 23 Q All right.
24 Did you raise any questions or concerns at that i 25 meeting?
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a. Illinoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
11691 1
\
1 A Yes, si r, we did.
2 Q And among those concerns, did you raise a concern about 3 interf erences involving electrical installation, cable 4 tr ay s, co nduits, cable tray hangers, junction boxes, et 5 cetera? ,
6 A Yes, si r, I did.
7 Q Would you identify the concern that you raised?
8 A The clearance problem at B raidwood has been -- as my 9 letter to Mr. Little expresses, it had been a problem 10 for quite some time, and it had been discussed many 11 times with the Licensee.
1 s 12 We had taken pictures of pipes that are adj acent to 13 junction boxes in such a manner in close proximity that 1
14 you can' t get the j unction box open; conduits that are 15 in contact with reactor cooling water gystems that would 16 be operating near 560 degrees, which would be contrary 17 to the cable -- the ability of the electrical cable j 18 within the conduit to withstand the heat.
19 There were a number of pictures that we had 20 dissimulated and produced, I think, in probably the f all l 21 of '84 in a meeting with Commonwealth Edison and 22 Ser geant L undy.
23 We submitted the pictures; and at that meeting, 24 Sergeant Lundy, their senior proj ect manager for the 25 site at that time,. said to us that, .
"I understand your l
l
- Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd-Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
f 11690
~>
1 conce r ns. These are negative clearances, and we will 2 address them. "
3 0 What did you understand the term " negative clearance" to 4 mean?
5 A There is no clearance.
6 Q There is a direct contact?
7 A There is a direct contact in the number of cables, 8 pi pe s.
9 The -- I think the EVAC system, there was a picture 10 on -- it was either an HVAC or a cable tray on the 11 auxillary feed water system that was actually pushing --
-~ 12 it was either the cable trg/ or the HVAC system. It was
> \- / 13 actually in contact with it and had moved it somewhat.
14 0 In contact with a pipe?
15 A Pardon me?
! 16 0 In contact with a pipe?
17 A Yes, si r.
18 So at that particular time we were quite satisfied 19 with their acknowledgement of the problem and that there 20 was a problem.
- 21 We weren' t getting to the nit-picky of the code as 22 to was it an inch-and-five-eighths or three inches away i
j 23 or the allowances that you had between specific pipes or 24 conduit.
25 We were basically looking at a number of these i Sonntaa Renorti no Service. T.t d.
G enev a, Illinoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
1169!1 10 1 negative clearances and that were and that are real 2 probl ems.
3 Subsequent to that meeting, we had -- we were 4 called f or another meeting with CECO, and it was chaired S riainly by Warren Vahle, who was assigned to Braidwood as 6 the fuel engineer or Lead f uel engineer, and he 7 expressed a different opinion with the clearance issue.
8 The meeting was not productive at all.
9 0 What opinion did Mr. Vahle express on the clearance 10 question?
11 A He expressed an opinion that there were no problems with 12 the -- with the clearances, and that in their final
( 13 walkdown they would resolve any problems with 14 cl earances.
15 0 What is a final walkdown as you understood Mr. Vahle to 16 be using the term?
17 A Well, ~it's difficult to get a position f rom Commonwealth 18 Edison, would it be system by system? Would it be hand 19 ov er pipe by pipe ? We never really received a specific 20 answer on their system -- their final walkdown.
21 Subsequent to that -- I am getting a little bit 22 ahead of my story -- is now their position that they 23 would look at systems that only are in excess of 180 24 degrees and resolve any clearance problems with systems
% 25 that are greater than 180 degrees; and, natur ally, some (d
4 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Ill inois 60134 (312) 232-0262 i
11700 1 of the negative clearances we had, for instance the 2 junction box, would never be receiving the 180 degree 3 temperature or greater.
4 0 Let me stop you there.
5 Do I understand correctly that in certain higher 6 temperatures there is thermal movement of components 7 such as piping systems?
8 A Yes, si r. That is the basis f or the 180 degrees.
9 Q All right, si r. ,
10 So that would presume, would it not, that where 11 there were no clearance problems to start with, if i
12 elevated temperature were experienced in operation, a O 13 pipe might move from thermal motion and there4r create 14 an interf erence with an adj acent electrical system?
4 15 A That's true; and there would not be necessarily a 16 walkdown of cable trays versus HVAC duct work or the 17 piping systems or drainase systems or nonessential lines 18 that would not attain temperatures greater than 180 19 degrees.
20 0 So there would be no walkdown of electrical systems per 21 se since they didn' t experience any thermal expansion 22 themselves ?
23 A That is what I understood, yes, si r.
24 Q Now, that position was communicated by Mr. Vahle about 25 what time?
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Gedeva! Illisois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11701
-~
V 1 A I think it was in the f all of '84.
2 0 All right.
3 Now, did you bring any concern at that time to the 4 attention of others in the NRC?
5 A Not at that time.
6 I -- at the meeting -- af ter the meeting, I 7 conf ronted Mr. Schroeder and told him that I was 8 conf used as to what our position was now, because a f ew 9 weeks earlier we had established, and I thought, what 10 the architect engineer Sergeant Lundy would do to 11 rectify the problem.
12 We had assumed that this clearance problem had or O' 13 would be addressed and, if necessary, lines rerouted or 14 whatev er.
15 Mr. Schroeder said to me that they wanted to bring 16 Mr. Vahle up to speed since he j ust got there, which 17 immediately raised some concerns with me.
18 I mentioned to Mr. Schroeder that NRC meetings were 19 not held to bring their field engineers up to speed on l
l 20 problems and that I resented what went on and that if we i
21 had another meeting like that it would be conducted in 22 the region.
23 Q Did you receive any further response from the Licensee-l 24 about addressing this concern about the narrowed scope 25 of the walkdowns that were to be performed?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l G enev a, Ill inoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 1
11701 l
I
-)
1 A No, si r.
2 Q At the meeting, the seminar on February 12,1986, you 3 and Mr. Schulz , I take it f rom Mr. Little's memo, 4 expressed concerns about the adequacy of the final 5 walkdown program to identify interf erence problems, 6 including interf erences involving the electrical system; 7 is that correct? ,
i 8 A The Commission related to us that they were -- they knew 9 that Commonwealth Edison had agreed to conduct the same 10 walkdown of the systems that was done at Byron.
11 My concerns were that -- which is all right. I 12 have no disagreement with that, but we couldn' t rely k-- 13 solely on a temperature system or systems that had 14 elevated temperatures to correct the interference 15 probl em.
16 If the Byron program adj usted itself to looking at 17 all systems and looking f or and resolving clearances and 18 especially negative clearances such that you can' t open 19 the j unctions box, then there was no problem with that 20 type of a walkdown.
21 Q All right, si r.
22 Now, I am tq(ing to piece together some dates 23 here.
! 24 Mr. Little's memo to the Division of Reactor Saf ety 25 Inspectors with regard to their reliance on walkdowns
! Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
l l G enev a.' T111noi n 60134 (312) 232-0262
11702 0
O 1 for closeout of issues involved in the former QA 2 contention refers to a seminar on February 12th.
3 Mr. Little apparently says af ter you expressed 4 concerns -- you and Mr. Schulz -- quote, "I asked that 5 they document their concerns so that they could be given 6 proper consideration. Their concerns are documented in 7 Attachments 2 and 3."
8 All right, sir; but Attachments 2 and 3, first, Mr.
9 Schulz's memo to Mr. Little on the subj ect and, se cond, 10 your memoranda to Mr. Little on the subj ect both bear a j 11 date of January 30, 1986. some week or more bef ore the 12 February 12th meeting.
13 Can you explain that apparent date inconsistency, 14 Mr. McG regor ?
15 A I believe there was another memorandum written by Mr.
16 Little requesting inf ormation f rom Schulz and myself 17 with regard to the clearance problem at Braidwood. I am 18 not clear on that.
l 19 There was a memo that -- there was another memo I 20 that fostered the January 30th memos by Schulz and 21 my sel f.
. 22 Q All right, si r. Not the --
23 A Because -- well, here it says Schulz says, "In ref erence 24 to your Janua ry 27 th,1986 memo" --
25 0 I see.
i Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11704
("
1 A And the front page is not -- he wrote that in January 2 19th -- I'm sorry. March 19th of 1986.
3 There was another memo that Mr. Little had faxed to 4 us on our concerns at Braidwood, and this is in response 5 to that January 27th memo.
6 Q I see.
7 So there was something else that prompted Mr.
8 Little to ask you to document your concerns, and his 9 request to document 'your concerns did not come af ter the 10- February 12th meeting. It came on or before January 11 27th. You answered him in the January 30th memo?
()1213 A
Q Yes, si r.
Did you reiterate the same concerns at the February 12th 14 seminar?
15 A Yes, sir, we did.
16 Q Mr. McGregor, are you aware of concerns about 17 overreliance on final walkdown inspections also 18 expressed by the NRC's Construction Assessment Team?
19 A Yes, sir.
20 I do believe they also were concerned with the 21 accuracy of a walkdown of systems prior to start up 22 because of the unavailability to look at some of the 23 systems, to actually see the conduit because of other 24 interferences. They believed that it was not practical (O) 25 to do a good walkdown that late in the game.
nnnneng nonnreing noruica; r+ a -
t Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 11705 rx 1 Q Do you understand, also, that the CAT team expressed 2 concerns that the production pressure that naturally was 3 enhanced at the end of construction would adversely 4 affect the thoroughness and effectiveness of the E
5 walkdown?
6 MR. GALLO: Obj ection.
7 He is leading the witness.
8 JUDG E GROSSMAN: It is leading.
9 MR. GUILD: It's a question of what the 10 witness' understanding is; and if there's any doubt of 11 my accuracy of the paraphrase of the CAT inspection 12 report, I would be happy to have that admitted as well, 0}
13 Judge.
14 It's really not a matter of dispute, I don't 15 believe, as to what it says. It's a matter of whether 16 this witness understands that his views were also 17 concurred in by the NRC CAT team.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: It will save time to allow 19 the leading question.
20 You may answer the question.
21 A Yes; not only the production, but I think more 22 importantly' the start up and preop of start up is very 23 pressed for time on any site at any Licensee.
24 Usually that work is around the clock, 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a b)
(, 25 day nonstop, and it would be very detrimental to the L SnnnFag Parnr eing Sarvica; Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 __ __ _
j
11706
. ym I
- (J 1 start-up program to have to go out and reroute cable 2 trays or reroute piping systems.
3 BY MR. GUILD:
1 4 Q At the last minute?
5 A Yes, si r.
6 Q Mr. McGregor, you worked as the Resident Inspector at 7 Braidwood, as you testified, for a period of years, 1982 8 until you were transferred to Dresden in September, 4
9 1985.
10 As you testified, you didn' t request a transfer at 11 Dresden, and when asked, expressed reservations about 12- the appropriateness of that transfer.
(
13 What is your belief, sir, as to the reasons why you 14 were transferred f rom the Braidwood site to Dresden?
15 A Well, I am sort of in a mixed emotion on that.
16 We normally, we being the Commission, transfer 17 Resident Inspectors approximately every five years and, 18 I guess, agreed to that thought process when I first 19 moved. ,
20 Subsequent to that time, though, I heard from independent sources at Dresden and at Braidwood that --
21 22 and I don't know how much truth there is to it or if 23 there's any truth at all. I had heard that the 24 Licensee --
( 25 MR. GALLO: Obj ection, obj ection.
t nnnnenn nannreinn na rw i ca _ r+a_
G edeva', Illi5ois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 11707 O
l 1 MR. GUILD: Allow the witness to answer the.
2 question, please, Mr. Chairman, and I would be happy to 3 have Mr. Gallo fully put his objection on the record, 4 but I would like the witness to be able to complete the 5 answer before counsel further interferes within 6 answering this matter.
7 JUDG E GROSSMAN: The obj ection is to the form 4
8 of the answer rather than to the question, I believe.
- . 9 MR. GALLO
- That's right, that's ~ righ t.
10 He was asked as to what his belief was as to why he 11 was transferred, and at.this point he is enbarking on 3
12 information he obtained from sources that he has not
! 13 identified.
14 He made it clear he doesn't know whether it's 15 truthf ul or not. That answer he is about to give has no 16 probative value. It should not be allowed.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gallo, let me ask you:
i
- 18 If he answers first as to what his belief is and 19 then he is asked what basis he has for his belief and
- 20 that includes what he started to say now, would you find 21 those questions objectionable?
i 22 MR. GALLO: W ell, if the first question would
. 23 not be -- or asked be objectionable and after it was
! 24 determined that he had no basis for his belief, then a 25 motion to strike would be appropriate.
t l
1 1
?
RnnnVnn DonnrF4nn Rorv{co; T&R i Geneva, Illinois 60134
- (312) 232-0262 -
11708
,m U .
1 In this instance the witness has furnished us ahead 2 of time the basis for the motion to strike, and therein 3 lies the basis of my objection.
4 In the normal course one is not that fortunate, but S in this instance the witness has furnished the basis for 6 the obj ection, and I interposed it as timely as-I could.
- 7 MR. ' GUILD
- Mr. Chairman, it seems to me Mr.
8 McGregor is being more forthright than even Applicant -
9 could ask for from a witness and is expressing whatever 10 reservations he has about the information on which he 11 forms his belief.
( 12 Nonetheless, I think it's absolutely critical in 13 fairness tnat this witness be allowed to complete his I answer to that question, and obviously the basis of --
14 15 the reliability of the witness' answer as to his belief 16 will have to depend on the basis for that.
17 I submit that this Board should be very concerned 18 to know whether or not there's any hint that this 19 witness' transfer was on any basis other than the 20 appropriate and regular needs of the agency.
1 21 MR. GALLO: Your Honor, this issue is no 22 different than any other issue. It must rely on 23 probative evidence. This witness' answer so far made it 24 clear to what he is about to testify to is not of that O
Q 25 caliber.
nnnnean onnnreinn caruina. r+a.
G e n eva', Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11709
,r \
\v) 1 MR. GUILD: I disagree, Mr. Chairman. ,
2 JUDG E GROSSMAN: First we do want to hear 3- what the witness' belief is; and_then when it comes to 4 the foundation for his belief, I think we ought to 5 tighten that up.
l 6 It may well be that there is nothing objectionable 7 about the foundation for his belief depending on what i 8 the basis is and from whom that foundation was derived, s
9 so why don't we get your present belief, although it may -
10 not be fully one way or the other, but whatever your 11 belief is.
. r -
1 12 A (Continuing.) It's my opinion that I now believe today i
(
13 that I was transferred from Braidwood because 14 Commonwealth Edison nad approached the Commission and ,
15 requested my transfer. That became common knowledge at 16 Braidwood. .
17 I inquired why; and I was given the reasons that 18 Commonwealth Edison -- that McGregor was now vacillating 19 and that they didn't know what position he was taking.
20 BY MR. GUILD:
21 Q On what, Mr. McGregor?
22 A I would assume on the items of noncompliance. I don't 23 know. It befuddles me because I have held the same 24 position over since I was assigned there, and I hold the 25 same position as I do over at Dresden now, gnnn en g nannr ei ng ma rvi cn; r+a_
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i t
, 11710 fD d
t j 1 I have always been straight forthright with t'he- '
l l 2 Licensee. We had perfect communication with Mr. ;
I '
{ 3 Wallace, specifically any time of the day or night, so I 4 don't understand their concerns, Commonwealth Edison's 1 5 concerns.
! 6 Q When you say the matter was " common knowledge at * !
I, i l
7 Braidwood" site, common knowledge among whom, sir? l l ;
i 8 A Commonwealth Edison employees.
l 9 Q And that knowledge got to you --
j- 10 A Yes, sir. !
11 0 -- in one form or another?
12 A Yes, sir.
j 13 Q Are you free to divulge the source of that information?
) 14 A No, sir, I'm not.
t
! 15 MR. GUILD: No further questions, Mr. [
l 16 Chairman, i ?
l 17 Thank you, Mr. McGregor.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN:- Mr. Gallo. ,
19 MR. GALLO: May I have a few minutes?
l i l 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Certainly; 10? j 4
21' MR. GALLO: 10 would be fine, i l 22 (W HER EUPO N, a recess was had, after which !
I l' 23 the hearing was resumed as follows:)
l 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gallo, do you have Cross 25 Examination?
I L i r cnnnean nennreinn carnica_ r+ r1 r
[l Geneva, Illinois (312) 232-0262 60134
[
l l
11711' l i
f , ,
~-
1 CROSS EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. GALLO:
3 Q Mr. McGregor, I believe in answer to one of Mr. Guild's 4- questions -- he asked you questions about Intervenors' 5 Exhibit 41, which refers to, as I understand your 6 testimony, an allegation that was made by Mr. Snyder to 7 you, and you recorded the allegation in your memorandum 8 of -- T'm sorry. Feel free to look through it.
9 (Indica ting. )
10 In your memorandum of March 13th, you advised Mr.
-11 Forney of the allegation and included in there several attachments; is that correct?
( 12 13 A Yes, sir, . that's correct.
14 0 I believe in answer to one of Mr. Guild's questions, you 15 indicated that you never heard from Mr. Forney or anyone 16 in the region with respect to this matter; is that 17 correct?
18 A That's correct.
19 Q I have here a memorandum dated March 19, 1985, from Mr.
- 20 Weil to Mr. Norelius, and it refers to your memorandum 21 of March 17, 1985.
22 (Indica ting . )
(. 23 JUDGE COLE: March 17th or March 13th?
l l 24 THE WITNESS: Ma r ch 13 th --
D k,,) 25 MR. .GALLO: Yes, right.
I nnnneag nnpnreing noruica_ r+ a _
G en.ava , Illinois 60134
- (312) 232-0262
l 11712 i
(")
L/
1 THE WITNESS: --
that I read.
2 BY MR. GALLO:
3 0 It refererences to this case March 17, 1985. That may
- 4. be an error, but attached to the memorandum is a copy of 5 the letter.
6 I'll show it to you.
7 (Indicating.)
l 8 MR. GUILD: May I examine the document, Mr.
9 Chairman, before counsel shows it to the witness?
4 10 (Indica ting. )
11 BY MR. GALLO:
( ) 12 0 At any rate, attached to the Weil to Norelius March -19th 13 memorandum is your March 13th memorandum and its 14 attachments; is that correct?
15 A Yes, sir, it is.
16 Q Now, this memor~andum from Mr. Weil to Mr. Norelius 17 indicates that the allegation is not going to be 18 investigated by OI, is that correct, because they don't 19 believe it's warranted?
20 A That's correct, it is.
21 Q In the last paragraph, does it indicate that the 22 allegation will be carried in the open allegations file?
l 23 A Yes, sir.
l 24 Q Does the Weil March,1985, memorandum indicate that a Pi
( 25 copy was sent to the Resident Inspectors?
l /
L i nnnnenn nonnreinn coruico. r+a -
Ge5 eva', Illi5ois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
11713 1 A It says " SRI Braidwood," yes.
2 0 Is that what that means, SRI Braidwood?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Does that refresh your memory now as to whether or not 5 you were advised of the follow-up action by the region 6 with respect to the allegation by Mr. Snyder?
7 A It's possible that I did although I don't recall 8 receiving this, and I do not know that it is in our 9 files at Braidwood. It's possible.
10 Q You just don't recall at this time? <
11 A No, sir, I don't recall.
(A)
%J 12 Q Did the residents at Braidwood, while you were at 13 Braidwood, routinely receive copies of memorands issued 14 by the region with respect to matters within their 15 cognizan ce ?
16 A Not routinely.
17 We were not always advised as to the region's 18 ,
position or we were not always completely advised as to 19 what the region's position was.
20 0 Wasn't it the practice of the region while you were at 21 Braidwood with respect to allegations reported by the 22 Resident Inspectors to pass along to the region that the 23 Resident Inspectors were routinely copied with respect 24 to the disposition in terms of the handling of the (O,) 25 allegation within the region similar to this March 19th 4
Snnntng Repar king Sa rvi ce, r.ea -
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11714 A
1 memo of Mr. Weil?
2 A I wouldn't say routinely because I do recall on at least 3 two occasions contact to Mr. Weil in requesting 4 documents f rom him to update our files.
5 One of them specifically was the QC Inspector -- QC 6 Manager Mr. Tom Corcoran. The Braidwood file did not 7 contain any reference to that investigation. .
8 There were a couple more that we did have 9 information received from the region and thus he sent it i 10 that way.
11 Q But generally it was the practice to send copies of 4
6 12 those typss of memorandum down to the Resident
~
13 Inspectors down to the region; is that correct?
14 MR. GUILD: Obj ection.
15 He testified it wasn't generally the practice.
16 MR. G ALLO : He disputed my character use of 17 the term " routinely".
18 BY MR. G ALLO:
19 Q Generally it was a practice, wasn' t it, Mr. McGregor?
20 A I suppose you could characterize it as generally that 21 was the mailing system.
22 Q That was the practice?
23 A That was the practice, yes.
24 0 Thank you.
25 A It all depends if the person who types the copies there ennnenn nonnretnn coruica. r.e a l -- Ge5evi, Illi5ois 60134 ,
(312) 232-0262
,_ . - - . . . = . ... - -. . . . . . .
4 l
11715' O
1 puts in " SRI Braidwood" and that it -- if that was lef t 2 off, it wouldn't get mailed to us.
j' 3 0 I understand, I understand; but in this case it's on the j 4 March 19, 1985, memo?
5' A Yes, sir.
6 Q Now, let me ask you again after the further questions
?
7 I've asked you whether.or not looking at the March 19th 8 memo -- and feel free to look at the second page as ,
9 well -- whether or not that refreshes your memory of i 10 being notified -- receiving a copy of this memo sometime 11 after March 19th?
{ This is, by .the way, an
, D) 12 13 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
e:thibit in the case, isn't-it?
1 14- MR. BERRY: No, Mr. Chairman.
15 MR. G ALLO: ' I'm not aware that it is -- -
16 MR. BERRY: No, Mr. Chairman.
i 17 MR. G ALLO : -- although I certainly don't 18 stand to be the expert on that sco're.
19 MR. BERRY: No, it is not, Mr. Chairman, not .
- 20 yet.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We saw that in some other
. 22 conte xt, I believe.
23: MR. BERRY: I don't believe it was this one; f
i 24 a similar document maybe, but I don't believe this 25 document has made a previous appearance in this case. ,
i
{;
cnnn&ng ponnr Fi ng no ruico; r.F M ;
Geneva,-Illinois 60134 3- (312) 232-0262 o . _ . - . . _ _ . _
11716 O
V 1 MR. G ALLO: I would -- I'm sorry. There's a 2 pending question.
3 BY 'MR. G ALLO:
4 0 I'll ask again af ter you had a further opportunity to 5 look and consider at the Weil memo to Norelius dated the 6 19th of March whether that refreshes your memory about 7 being notified of the handling of the Snyder allegation.
8 A Well,:I do recall Mr. Snyder coming back into the office 9 and -- let's see. He came in on it> 13th, and he came 10 back into the office approximately a week to ten days 11 later, which then would put it about the 20th; and he 12 requested f rom me, because I had. told him when he came 13 in if he wish to contact me, "I- will let you know whatL
-14 the region is doing on that," and I specifically 15 remember Mr. Snyder coming in and asking me.
16 I think he also asked me or I reiterated to him on 17 the 29th of March that I had not received any indication 18 as to what the region had been -- what the region's 19 process was on the allegations. When we received this 20 and if we received it, I don't know.
-21 Q You don't recall?
22 A No, sir, no, sir.
23 It could be at the site, but Snyder did come into 24 my office approximately a week to ten days after he gave 25' me the allegation requesting information from me as to
'l ennneng nonnreing norv4c., r+a_
L Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) '232-0262
4 11717 O
1 what the region had done with this allegation.
2 Q At- Snyde r's request, did you call Mr. Weil and ask him 3 . what was going on with ' respect to the matter?
4 A No, I didn't.
5 I showed Mr. Weil my letter to the region.
6 0 You mean Mr. Snyder?
7 A I'm sorry; Mr. Snyder, yes.
, 81 I showed him my copy of the letter that we had j 9 transmitted to the region. He was satisfied with that; i
10 and I told him that "When the Commission acts upon it, 11 I'll let you know. "
j 12 0 What about' your own concern with respect to handling the 13 allega tion ? Did your own concern prompt you to call Mr.
'i 14 _ Weil with respect to what'was going on on this matter?
T 15 A Well, no, it wasn't; no idea.
16 MR. GALLO: Your. Honor, I would like to mark 17 as Applicant's Exhibit -- I'm just looking for the --
18 Exhibit 117 --
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That's correct.
20 MR. G ALLO: --_the March 19, 1985, memorandum ;
l 21 from Mr. Weil to Mr. Norelius.
. :22 (Indica ting . )
23 (The document was thereupon marked
.24 Applicant's Exhibit No.117 for 25 identification as of August 28, 1986.)
j snnneng nnpnr eing na rwi ca, r+a _
4 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
M 11718
[%
. N.
1 MR. G ALLO : I do not have sufficient copies 2 at the moment to provide to the Reporter and the 3 parties, but I will take care of that at the first 4 . opportunity no later than tomorrow morning.
4 5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Tha t's fine.
6 MR. GUILD: Mr. Gallo, in offering the 7 document,- I have no objection for it to be received in 8 evidence.
9 I would only suggest that he might want to remove 10 the last couple pages so we only have one copy of Mr.
11 McGregor's document, which is Intervenors' 41 in
[v ) 12 evidence, try to keep the paper and save a few trees.
13 MR. GALLO: All right. I certainly would 14 of fer it into evidence and would agree --
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, let's keep all the 16 pages in there. Tha t's fine.
17 MR. GALLO: All right.
18 MR. TR EBY : Staf f has no objections. It f 19 deals with the scope of the contention.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Tha t's admitted, 21 then.
22 (The document was thereupon received into 23 evidence as Applicant's Exhibit No. 117.)
24 MR. GALLO: If I can have just a moment, Your
- )
[f 25 Honor.
nnnneng napnreing naruten, r+ a _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. . . . .-. = . - . . . - .- - . -. . . .
11719 j] .
- o is- 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Sure.
-2 BY MR. GALLO:
. 3 Q M'r . McGregor, you were asked some questions about a 4 memorandum you wrote to Mr. :Weil on August 28, 1984, j
5 concerning a telephone conference -- or a telephone call 6 you had with Mr. Puckett, Applicant's Exhibit 72. ,
7 (Indicating.)
8 Do you recall being questioned on that exhibit?
.9 A Yes, . si r, I do.
, 10 Q I believe you answered in response to one of Mr. Guild's JUL questions that you never heard from either Mr. Warnick j f 12 or Mr. Weil or anybody else at the region with respect 13 to the . disposition of this matter of your 1
14 recommendations; is that correct?
15 A Tha t's correct.
j 16 0 I have here what is Staff Exhibit 7, which is a i
17 memorandum from Weil, Norelius and Spencer and is dated
}
18 September 6, 1984, and it appears.to deal with the 19 problems raised by Mr. Puckett identified in your 20 memorandum to Mr. Weil, Applicant's Exhibit 17.
21 (Indica ting . )
22 Can you confirm that for me?
23- A Yes, si r, it does.
3
-24 (Indicating.) -
25 -Q' Do you recall seeing this document before I showed it to t
i j snnneng nann re i ng goru t c.; r+ a ;
j Geneva, Illinois 60134 >
(312) 232-0262
____._..__.._..._.,_.~.,__._._._.______._._.__.__.___;
11720 O,
'(\- ')
1 you just now, Mr. McGregor?
2 (Indicating.)
3 A Yes, sir, I do.
4 Q Does looking at this document refresh your recollection 5 as to whether or not you got further feedback from the 6 region with respect to your August 28, 1984, memo to 7 Warnick and Weil?
8 A Well, I think there's confusion here tnat when the 9 residents supply the region with an allegation, tha t 10 somehow the region owes the Resident Inspectors an 11 answer or supply him with information. The region has a
/~N i
(V 12 13 prerogative to assign anyone they want to it whenever they want to, and they can inform anybody they want to.
14 That particular document you have there we did 15 receive at the site. At specifically what time in the 16 time frame I don't recall.
17 I do recall a special memo, and I imagine we could 18 go to the site and retrieve that record, and it might be 19 dated as to when we received it.
20 0 But it does reflect a follow-up on your memorandum of 21 August 2 8 --
22 A Yes, sir.
23 0 -- 1984, by the region, does it not?
24 A Yes, sir.
25 Q So you were mictaken before when you said that you nnnntag napnr eing sn rui nn, r.e a .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
-. . .. . -. . ~ = - - . - -. .- . ..-
5 11721
\;
1 weren't aware of any reply to your. August 28, 1984, 2 memorandum ?
3 A I don't know if. that's exactly the way the question was 4 presented to me; but for the sake of argument, yes, I am 5 wrong, if that pleases the Court.
6 Q You indicated that it's not a requirement for the region 7 to notify the Resident Inspectors with respect to the 8 handling of allegations ^once the matters are transmitted 9 to region for handling.
10 Did I understand you correctly?
11 A Yes, sir.
()12 11 3 Q So, therefore, if you didn't hear about a particular allegation that you had referred up, you wouldn't be 14 surprised.
15 It wasn't necessarily required for you to get the 16 document, that r equest, or to ge t f ollow-up on . th e 17 submission of the allegations of the region?
18 A Yes. If the allegation was sent to OI or to some other 19 independent office for some reason, the Commission might 20 not want to supply us that information.
21 Q so it's a matter of the proper discretion within the 22 region ?
23 LA I would say so.
24 0 .But in the case at least of Mr. Puckett.in your August 25 28, 1984, memorandum concerning your conversation with nnnneng nannreing servic.; i+a.
Geneva,~ Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4 11722
- . ry 4
1 Mr. Puckett, you did receive a copy of that? - You. recall 2 that?
3 That is a copy of the follow-up to --
4 A From Mr. Spencer.
5 0 -- Weil from Mr. Spencer.
6 A Yes, sir.
7 Q Mr. McGregor, I believe in response to'a question from 8 the Board as well as a question from Mr. Guild, you 9 indicated that you were fearful that the handling of the 10 allegations by the NRC from the 24 inspections -- I'm 11 sorry -- from the 24 Inspectors might appear-to be a h
[V 12 13 whitewash.
Is that an accurate reflection of what your 14 testimony was earlier?
15 A I don' t believe I characterized the Commission as doing 16 whitewash. The handling of the concern for the 24 17 Inspectors was directly turned over to Commonwealth 18 Edison.
19 Our concerns were that if statements weren't taken 20 from there individuals and at some later-date in the 1 21 hearing these individuals come forth with falsified 22 documents, unquestionable proof that they had been 23 harassed and intimidated, they could say to the Hearing 24 Board that they took their concerns -- 24 or 26 of them
,)25 took their concerns to the Commission, and the nnnneng - napn'r ei ng ne rv i na, r.e a _
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11723
\_J l Commission immediately turned it over to Commonwealth 2 Edison, and it was whitewashed or nothing was done about 3 it.
4 Q But the region didn't do that, did they? They assigned 5 it for investigation or inspection by Inspectors within 6 the region; isn't that correct?
7 A That's correct.
8 Q Now, were you concerned at all that the region might 9 whitewash the investigation and come up with a j 10 whitewash?
11 A No, I wouldn' t characterize it at that.
[d \ 12 13 Q
A The answer to my question is no?
No. ,
14 Q Now, in answer to several questions from Mr. Guild, you 15 indicated that you read a draf t of the investigation
- 16 report -- I should say inspection report -- prepared by ,,
17 Mr. Mendez, and you had several questions with respect 18 to it.
19 You called Mr. Williams, and later Mr. Neisler was 20 assigned, and the inspecti>n of the 24 Inspectors' 21 allegations was pursued further; is that correct?
22 A Yes, sir, that's correct.
23 Q Now, have you had an opportunity to read the 24 Neisler-Mendez inspection report, which is NDC Exhibit 25 No. 17?
nnnntag nnporting servien_ r+a.
Genova, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
c:
11724
-Q v
1 It's dated November 4, 1985 --
2- MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman --
3 -BY MR. G ALLO:
4 Q -- concerning the 24 Inspectors.
j 5 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, let me raise an 6 ' anticipatory obj ection.
7 Of course, we happen to have Mr. Gallo establish i 8 whether Mr. McGregor has read the document, but j 9 anticipating that the line of questions is intended to i
- 10 go beyond that point and to ask Mr. McGregor to reach
'll some conclusions or express opinions about the content 12 of that document, I would obj ect.
i 13 That is beyond the scope of the witness' Direct i
i 14 Examination and one way or the other -- and I don't
-15 presume what Mr. McGregor's opinion may be on any 16 particular point -- is going to invite an excursion
! 17 that's going to take us quite a bit further than we've 18 already_gone so far with this witness.
[- 19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: What does Staff feel about 20 that?
21 MR. TREB Y: Well, first of all, this is all i
22 s pecula tive.
L 23 We don't }'now what the question Mr. Gallo is going
! 24 to ask, but if he should ask a question -- my 25 recollection of the Direct Examination of Mr. McG rego r i-gnnneng nannreing norutc., r+a_
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11725 (V \
1 was an inquiry into what he thought of the .first draf t 2 he saw and whether he had seen a copy of the next 3 document.
4 To the extent that there's any question as to 5 whether there were revisions or not, it seems to me that i 6 that's an appropriate question.
7 MR. GUILD: His answer was, Mr. Chairman, he 8 was not provided a draft of the final inspection report.
9 That ended the matter.
10 MR. GALLO: Yes. The Direct Examination by 11 Mr. Guild with respect to the Neisler-Mendez report, NRC 12 17, of this witness, was whether or not he had attended
(
13 the interview prior to his issuance and whether or not 14 he had an opportunity to review the report prior to his 15 issuance, f 16 It seems to me that the whole line of questioning 17 developed -- and he stopped there, stopped there. He i
18 did not ask him any questions with respect to the 19 content of the report.
l 20 I intend to ask this witness whether or not he i
21 disagrees with any of the findings.
22 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Let's see. Those are the 23 questions that Mr. Guild is anticipating.
24 MR. GALLO: Well --
b)
(, 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You wish to maintain that Annntag RaporH ng narvica: r+a.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 .
(312) 232-0262
I i
11726 I b
U 1 and pursue that line, Mr. Gallo?
2 MR. GALLO: Yes.
3 I think that his objection on the basis of scope of 4 Direct iu simply not permissible.
5 I mean, the whole issue here is not the inuendo 6 that's been developed so far. It's whether or not this 7 report that I'm about to question on is adequate.
1 i
8 This witness has testified with respect to several 9 criticisms of the author of the report, and I think it's 4
10 appropriate to delve into his opinions with respect to 11 the findings themselves.
IC ) 12 13 JUDG E GROSSMAN: The obj ection is overruled.
You may continue, Mr. Gallo, 14 MR. GUILD: If you note my obj ection, Mr.
15 Chairman, I reserve my rights to fully pursue the 16 matter --
17 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Yes.
18 MR. GUILD: -- in Direct.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I certainly intend to allow
,20 you your rights to pursue this.
21 MR. GUILD: Thank you.
22 DY MP. G ALLO:
23 0 Mr. McGregor, my question was whether you've had an 24 opportunity to review and read the Neisler-Mendez 25 inspection report dated November 4, '85, NRC No. 17.
nnnneng nannreing snevina; r. e a _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262,
11727 7
i ) -
LJ l A Since I lef t the site on August 26th of 1985 and have 2 not been on the site specifically as a Resident 3 Inspector nor am I on the routing of that inspection 4 report, I would not be privy to that report.
5 Q Well, does that mean that you haven't read it?
6 A That's correct, sir.
7 0 You don't know what it contains?
8 A I discussed it with Mr. Neisler but to no depth or no 9 conclusions.
10 0 When did you discuss it with Mr. Neisler?
11 was this while you were still at the Braidwood
/3 12 site?
q; )
(
13 A No, sir, no. I don't know.
14 I'll say January, February of this year.
15 0 1986?
16 A Yes, sir.
17 0 What was the occasion of Mr. Neisler discussing the 18 report with you?
19 A Well, I have been friends with Mr. Neisler for many, 20 many years, and I stopped into his office to see him on 21 an occasion as I was at the office, and I don't know; 22 just in casual conversation he mentioned the report had 23 been completed on the Braidwood 26 Inspectors.
24 0 Was this at the region?
/
( ) 25 A Yes.
sonntag nnporting servien. r.Ed .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11728 O
l' Q Did you have occasion then to discuss the contents of 2 the report with Mr. Neisler?
3 A No. We didn't go into detail.
4 Q You didn't -- did you look at the document?
5 A No, sir.
6 Q Did he tell you what was in it?
7 A I think he said they had a couple citations that. were --
8 a couple items of noncompliance.
9 0 What did you respond to Mr. Neisler when he told you 10 that?
11 A Well, that's their inspection report. I'm not going to go back -- and they were assigned it, and I'm not going
( 12 13 .to go back and reinspect their work or doubt their work.
14 What has happened has happened, and I'm not in a 15 position to take it upon myself to start a reinspection 16 program with whether the inspection works.
17 Q Do you have any basis for doubting the validity _of the 18 conclusions drawn in the inspection report by Mr.
i i 19 Neisler and Mr. Mendez ?
20 MR. GUILD: Objection; lack of foundation.
l 21 The obvious basis is he hasn't read it.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gallo, do we want to
[- ,
- j. 23 take time now to educate the witness on what the
!- 24 contents of the report are?
L 25 He doesn't know what they are other than what he l
. ennnean nonnreinn n _ruico; r+a; 1 Geneva, Illinois 60134 232-0262
~
(312)
11729
.m (v) 1 characterizes as a shallow conversation about the 2 report.
3 If you wish, I don't think we can do it today,
^
4 but --
5 MR. GALLO: No. I am not asking the witness 6 to read the report to give me an opinion now. I just 7 want to know if he has -- I understand he has not read 8 the report.
9 I want to know if he has -- and I understand that
-10 for that reason he may not have a basis for criticizing 11 the Mendez-Neisler report. I want to know if there's 12 any other basis in his judgment for so doing.
[G\
13 MR. GUILD: I think --
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I believe he has already 15 established that he doesn't have a basis now.
16 The Board doesn't have any objections to your 17 educating him for questions at a later time, maybe even 18 tomorrow, on that report, but it doesn't seem like you 19 have a foundation for asking --
20 MR. G ALLO : I don't intend to do that, Your 21 Honor. I don't intend to do that.
22 BY MR. G ALLO:
> 23 0 Is the Judge's conclusion correct, that you have no
'l 24 basis for criticizing the Mendez-Neisler report?
25 MR. GUILD: Judge, I have an obj ection, and
! nnnnenn nnnnreinn nervicn. r+a. '
G eneva', Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l i
I I
i- 11730 )
7-~3 V
1 that there is lack of foundation.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Let me ask the question:
3 Do you know enough about the report to of fer 4 judgment one way or the other on its validity?
5 THE WITNESS: I would not characterize that 6 report in any way since I haven't read it; and as I 7 stated before -- and I wish counsel would object to this 8 because it is not, and I repeat, it is not the 9 Commission's responsibility to go back and reinspect f 10 some other Inspector's work, and I'm not going to do 11 tha t, and I'm not going to make a judgment on that.
,( 12 BY MR. GALLO:
13 Q Now, you indicated that you had read the earlier draf t 14 prepared by Mr. Mendez; is that correct?
i
, 15 A That's correct.
16 0 You apparently felt sufficiently concerned about it that 17 you called Mr. Cordell Williams to alert him to your 18 concerns; is that correct?
- 19 A That's correct.
20 0 Now, what was -- what were your concerns with respect to 21 that draft?
22 A Well, as I stated earlier, a month earlier than his 4
23 report, we had 45 minutes of allegations from 26 24 Inspectors that came into our office. They were very 25 specific then, and I don't recall all of those nnnneng napnreing garutca, r+ 4 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- i. 11731 G
1 allegations now, and Mendez' report was very mundane.
2 It didn' t speak of any obj ective evidence that he
- 3 had found. It was basically a very, very shallow 4 report, and I called Mr. Williams and asked him to 5 please review that again and review it with Mendez and 6 see if this is what we want to say in that report, if 7 Mendez has any more inspection efforta he wants to add
- 8 to it or whatever, because it is contrary to what we had 9 received 30 days earlier. It's 180 out from our i 10 inf ormation we received f rom the allegations.
11 0 What specific criticisms other than in those general 12 terms did you convey to Mr. Williams?
13 A I didn't criticize the report. I merely ctated my 14 concerns with the report that it did not address the 15 allegations that were put forth to us on the 29th of 16 March.
17 I asked them to please reconsider and take a look i
~
18 at it.
19 Q Did Mr. Williams ask you what allegations were not t
20 addressed in the draf t?
21 A No, sir, he did not.
22 Q Did you tell him -- identify for him the allegations 23 that weren't addressed in the draf t?
24 A No, sir, I didn't.
25 Q Can you tell me what they are?
gnnneng ponnreing garuinn, r.ea _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
.I 11732
%) -
1 A No, I can't.
2 Q I take it in response to your telephona conversation, ,
3 Mr. Neisler was sent out 'to assist Mr. Mendez in the 4 continuing of the investigation; is that correct?
5 A We would have to assume that Mr. Neisler evidently 6 talked to Mr. Mendez, and whacever their conversation 7 was I'm not privy to.
8 I can only tell you that at some later date Mr.
9 Mendez and Mr. Neisler came back out and completed the 10 inspection.
11 O Wasn't it your understanding that Neisler was assigned
( 12 to assist Mendez in completing the inspection?
13 A Yes, sir.
14 0 It would appear that in this instance at least someone 15 at the region paid attention to your comment; is that 16 correct?
17 A I suppose.
18 MR. GALLO: Could I have a moment, Your 19 Honor?
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes; certainly.
21 BY MR. G ALLO:
22 Q Let me be clear, Mr. McGregor.
23 Do you have any similar concerns that you've 24 indicated with respect to the inspection of the 24
/)N
\ 25 Inspectors; that is, the review of their allegations?
gnnneno nonnreina garvica_ r+ a .
Gedeva', Illi5ois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11733
-I
\
1 Do you have any similar concerns with respect to 2 the Schapker inspection of Mr. Puckett's allegations?
3 MR. GUILD: I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman. The 4 question seems vague to me. Similar to what?
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I think you should define it i 6 because we covered a lot of ground.
- 7 BY MR. G ALLO
8 Q You indicated some concerns about the timing of the 9 follow-up of the inspections by the region with respect 10 to the 24 Inspectors' allegations and also at least with 11 respect to a draft of that inspection report.
( 12 Do you have any similar concerns with respect to 13 the inspection conducted by Mr. Schapker on the Puckett 14 allegations?
15 A No, sir.
16 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Excuse me.
17 Are you offering your opinion that you believe it 18 was timely and that it was adequate?
19 Is that what your answer is?
20 THE WITNESS: I didn't understand the 21 question to that. I understood the question: Do I have 22 any other concerns. Do I have the same type of concerns 23 with Mr. Puckett's allegations and the subsequent 24 inspection of Mr. Puckett by Mr. Schapker.
25 My answer to the question is: No, I don't have any nnnnena nannreino snevica_ r+ a .
Gedeva', Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11734 LJ l
1 other concerns with Mr. Puckett's allegations 6nd tha 2 follow-up inatructions by Mr. Schapker.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, you see, I s till don' t 4 understand what that means, and I don' t think it's clear 5 on the record.
6 , Does that mean that you approve of -- the two items 7 that were mentioned by Mr. Gallo in his question were 8 dissatisfaction with timeliness and, I believe, lack of 9 comprehensiveness of that draf t with regard to the other 10 matter, 11 Now, he asked you whether you had the same coacerns
()
,,m 12 with regard to the Puckett matter; and your answer is, 13 no, you didn't.
14 Now, does that le'n that you dsn't know of how the 15 Peckett matter was handled, or are you saying you 16 believe it was timely and you believe that the report 17 was comprehensive?
18 I don't want to let the record stay with just the 19 fact that you don't have concerns without knowing what 20 that means.
21 T!!E WITNESS: W ell, first of all, I think Mr.
22 Gallo incorrectly is quoting me an saying that I had 23 concerns with the region's timeliness in response to 24 allegations, and the only response that we are talking
.O
( ) 25 about that had any time to do with it was the i
nnnntnn nonnrF4nn no rv 4 en. T.F A . 1
) G e5eva', Illi5ois 60134 l l (312) 232-0262 _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ -
11735 i !
L.J 1 allegations that came from the 26, and we thought that 2 Monday morning there should be a follow-up on that.
3 Now, he characterized my -- as I understand it, he 4 characterized all of these allegations that have been 5 brought forth here, and I am concerned that the 6 Commission is not timely addressing these, and that is 7 not true.
8 When we received allegations -- I'll reiterate it 9 again for the Board -- we simply submit those to the 10 region; and whatever the region wants to do with it, 11 it's their business.
n
( 12 I submitted the allegation that Mr. Puckett gave n, )
13 the information, and whatever the Board wants to do with 14 that allegation, that's their business.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: The allegation board?
16 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir; yes, yes, sir, the 17 allegation board.
18 JUDG E COLE: Not this Board.
19 THE WITNESS: Not this Board.
20 So had we made recommendations that I don't know, 21 somebody fly to Cincinatti or wherever Mr. Puckett lived 22 and see him immediately, I suppose now we could say that l 23 was a timely thing that I thought ought to be done, but 24 that's not true. The only timeliness that we are
( ,) 25 talking about is the 26th, and I don't see what he is --
l nanntag nnpnreing nnruicn, r.Ed .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11736
()
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. In other words, your 2 concern about the timeliness with regard to the other 3 item was that you recommended a certain tim'e frame for 4 taking action that wasn't followed, and you were 5 dissatisfied with that, with the 24 Inspectors. You 6 recommended that action be taken immediately the next 7 Monday, and that was not followed.
8 In the case of Mr. Puckett, there was no 9 recommendation on your part with regard to timeliness 10 and, therefore, you don't offer an opinion as to 11 whether -- is that what you are saying? You don't offer
[V ) 12 an opinion?
13 THE WITNESS: Yes. On all of the allegations 14 we received, whether he wants to talk about the Opie 15 memorandum or anything else, we did not -- and it is not 16 ' the position of the senior Resident to demand some type 17 of inspection ca that.
18 We did, however, feel that the 26 Inspectors --
19 there's never been a case like this in the United States 20 where 26 Inspectors walk in with allegations of 21 harassment and intimidation. On their own free will 22 they did not discuss wages or labor problems. Th ey 23 discussed peer problems with harassment and 24 in timida tion.
25 We felt, again, that this should be addressed nnnnEng napnreing snruicn; r. E d .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~ ._.. ... . . - . . _ -- . . .
11737 i
- 1 directly by some Inspector taking testimony or '
v
- _2- statements from those people as soon as possible.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. I'm not trying to get-i-
- 4- any substantive answers-from you. I'm only ' trying to i
5 get a clear exposition in the record as .to what you 15 meant-in response to your not having any concerns.
7 Similar to what was expressed here in regard to 26
! 8 Inspectors in the case of Mr. Puckett and with regard to-9 the . timeliness, you -indicated that the basis was 2 :10 entirely different, that there was not a request for 11 immediate action so that you couldn't have those
! .12 concerns with regard to Mr. Puckett.
13- Am I understanding that correctly?
, 14 THE WITNESS: You are absolutely. correct.
I :15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Now, with regard to !
16 that draf t, you were presented with a draf t, and your 17 comments indicated that you were unhappy because the 18 draf t did not address all the allegations .that you i
i 19 heard.
20 Now, are you saying now that with regard to =the
. 21- inspection relating to the Puckett matter that there !
1
- 22 wasn' t that same f ramework either and, therefore, you 23 have no expression to make of satisfaction or 24 dissatisfaction?
25 I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm i
Sonntaa Renortina Se rvice. Ltd.
I: Geheva', Illihois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~
11738 m
1 just trying to understand what the answers meant.
2 THE WITNESS: The Puckett -- Mr. Worley 3 Puckett's allegations to me, again, were transmitted to 4 me over the phone. I submitted them to the Commission, 5 and at that point I basically had dropped the issue. I 6 forgot about it.
7 We went on about our inspecting issues, and it was 8 assigned to some Inspector who happened to be Mr. Jerome 9 Schapker. He did the inspection on it. We were not 10 a dvised. We were not -- and I don't know why, and it 11 doesn't matter. Mr. Schapker did his inspection, and so 12 be it.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. So if I understand 14 correctly, you are not approving or disapproving of what 15 he did.
16 When you say you have no concerns, you are just not 17 concerned with the matter; is that right?
18 THE WITNESS: That's right. It was something 19 that was given to the Commission. It's their problems, 20 not mine.
21 If I had concerns, I would have addressed them in 22 the report to the Commission that I felt that somebody 23 didn't do an adequate inspection or material was left 24 out or whatever. It would be documented that we had 25 concerns, nnnneng nennrH ng snevie o, r+a, l
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4 i' 11739 i
1 1 (Indica ting . )
.2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You may follow up on that, I
3 Mr. Gallo, if you think the record is still unclear. E 4 MR. GALLO: No. I think that the matter has i
5 been amply inquired into.
- 6 BY MR. GALLO
7 Q Mr. McGregor, do you have Intervenors' Exhibit 42 over.
8 .
there?
i j 9 This is the March 29th memo.
- 10 A~ Yes, sir, I have it in front of me now.
! 11 (Indicating.)
12 Q Could you refer to the last paragraph on the last page i-of the March 29th memo that starta out, "On March 29th
~
13 14 at approximately 0815 hours0.00943 days <br />0.226 hours <br />0.00135 weeks <br />3.101075e-4 months <br />, an Inspector X," in the
! 15 middle of the page. ,
i 16 A I'm sorry, sir. What page?
4
- 17 0 Very last page. It's the single paragraph with your I 18 name and Mr. Schulz' name under it, i
19 A Beginning with, "The Resident Inspectors call the region l
i 20 for conference call when the second group of Inspectors
. 21 came to the office"?
i 22 Q Yes, that's the page.
)
i 23 A Yes, sir.
- 24 0 I believe in answers to several questions from Mr.
t 25 Guild, you indicated that at least your basis for
, i nnnntag naporeing snevino_ r.e a _
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 . . - . - . . - . . . - - . - , - -
1174'O
%J 1 agreeing with the sentence that has the word " shutdown" 2 or some other impressive action was based in part on the 3 various events that occurred earlier and which you f elt 4 that Edison had not followed up on sufficiently.
5 Is that a fair characterization of your previous 6 testimony?
7 A Yes, sir.
8 Q Further, that your basis for the statement in the 9 sentence I referred to or at least your agreement with 10 that sentence was the allegations that you had heard on 11 the 29th from the 6 Inspectors and the 24 Inspectors; is
[)
v 12 that correct?
13 A Yes, sir.
14 0 I think one of the items that you referred to in terms 15- of your understanding of a previous matter that had not 16 been addressed timely or adequately by Commonwealth 17 Edison was the Puckett matter; and you just testified 18 that with respect to the Puckett matter, your only 19 involvement was taping the telephone -- or was the 20 telephone conversation that you had with Mr. Puckett i
21 that's reflected in Applicant's Exhibit 72; is that i 22 correct?
! 23 A Sir, I don't recall saying that Commonwealth Edison
- 24 didn't do a timely investigation of the Puckett matter, 25 and that's what you said.
I l
nnnneag napnr eing ne rvi na, r.ea _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11741
(
t
'x 1 Isn't that what he said?
2 Q I'm sorry.
3 Well, my notes of your testimony indicate that one 4 of the reasons that you felt that the statement in this 5 March 29th memo on stopping work or other aggresive 6 action was a lack of action by CECO QA and CECO 7 management on among other -- for among other reasons the 8 Puckett matter?
9 A That's different that the timely action by Commonwealth 10 Edison to address the Puckett matter.
11 Q Well, you see that as -- all right. We will just' strike Ih 12 timeliness. We will just stick with the lack of action O by CECO QA and management slowness or inability to take 13 14 corrective action.
15 Now, can you answer my question that I posed 16 earlier:
f 17 Was your only involvement in the Puckett matter the 18 telephone call that you recorded in your letter of l
19 August 28, 1984, and sent to Mr. Well?
! 20 A I believe it was.
21 Q Now, that matter was investigated as we've already seen i 22 on the record by Mr. Schapker and others at the region; 23 is that correct?
24 A Tha t's correct.
25 0 Now, in what way was, in your judgment, CECO QA lacking snnntag napnreing nn rui en_ r+ a .
4 Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
f 11742 7
\. )
v 1 action on the Puckett matter, based on your knowledge?
2 A Mr. Puckett was fired-or terminated from his work at the 3 Braidwood site by Commonwealth Edison and/or Comstock 4 employees.
5 His subsequent problems were addressed to the labor 6 board; and if I recall right, the labor board agreed in 7 favor of Mr. Puckett that he was unjustly fired.
8 That to me seems to be a pretty serious act that 9 either CECO or L. K. Comstock took and it was reversed, 10 the decision was, anyway, 11 Q I'm sorry. The decision. What decision was reversed?
q 12 A oh, well, the labor board said that he should not have (v) 13 been fired or that he was fired because of his 14 involvement in identifying problems to his company.
15 I should think that if we were to look at 10 CFR 16 Appendix B and look at Commonwealth Edison's Quality 17 Assurance department and when problems were identified 18 by this individual, that appropriate, corrective action 19 taken by Commonwealth Edison in the form of an NCR or 20 whatever was necessary to get this problem corrected 21 should have been addressed.
22 Q Now, you refer to the Department of Labor Administrative 23 Board's decision.
24 In fact, it was a decision by the administrative C'
(,)% 25 law judge, nnnneng nnpnreing nnrufen, r+a _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11743
'O 1 Is it your understanding that that decision was not 2 binding but yet at the Department of Labor that it was 3 still subject to further_ review by the secretary?
4 A I have no knowledge of what decisions were made or 5 monetary values given or anything.
6 0 Well, are you aware of the procedure that I've d
7 described?
8 A No, sir.
9 Q Are you aware that ultimately the matter between Mr.
10 Puckett and Comstock that was before the Department of 11 Labor was settled?
[
V) 12 13 A'
0 Am I aware of it?
Yes.
14 A No, sir.
15 0 I'll submit to you on this record that that's a state of 16 the situation with respect to the evidence of the 17 record.
- 18 Does that in any way change your judgment with 19 respect to the lack of action by CECO QA?
{
i 20 MR. GUILD: Obj ection.
21 It's a --
l 22 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Well, Mr. Gallo, are you 23 going tc tell him also when the matter was settled and 24 the terms of the settlement or at least when the matter 25 was settled --
nnnntag nonnreing snevino, r+ a .
Geneva, Illinois 60134
. (312) 232-0262
11744 O
k%j )
1 MR. GUILD: More importantly, Mr. Chairman --
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- or is it really 3 irrelevant?
4 MR. GALLO: I'll withdraw the question.
5 BY MR. G ALLO:
6 Q Let me ask you this question, Mr. McGregor:
7 Are you aware of the corrective actions -- strike 8 that.
9 Are you aware of the actions taken by Commonwealth 10 Edison and L. K. Comstock with respect to addressing Mr.
11 Puckett's concerns?
s 12 A What is the date of the Commonwealth Edison Corrective (J't 13 Action Program or these actions that you are speaking 14 of? When were they placed into effect?
15 Q Do you recall that Mr. Puckett was terminated in the end 16 of August of 1984?
17 A Yes, sir.
18 Q Do you recall that Mr. Tony Simile was hired within a 19 few weeks thereafter --
20 MR. GUILD: A few days before.
21 BY MR. G ALLO:
22 0 -- a few days after?
23 MR. GUILD: Before, the record reflects.
24 MR. GALLO: I stand corrected.
(O)
/
25 A Yes, tha t's true.
v nannhng nopneving nervien; r.v a .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11745
, -y
( )
1 BY MR. G ALLO:
2 Q Are you aware of the activities that are taken by Mr.
3 -Simile to address the concerns of Mr. Puckett beginning 4 in September, October, 1984?
5 A No, sir.
6 Q I represent to you, Mr. McGregor, that Mr. Simile had 7 made significant progress in addressing Mr. Puckett's 8 concerns in the 30 or 60 days af ter he got on the job.
9 With that knowledge, if you assume that knowledge 10 is correct with that change, your agreement with the 11 last sentence -- or not the last sentence, the sentence (G
.\_J
) 12 we are testifying to with respect to Intervenors' 42 --
13 MR. GUILD: Objection.
14 If the witness is being atked whether he --
15 assuming hypothetically those facts to be true, he 16 changes his answer, I have no problem; but if Mr. Gallo 17 by saying "he represents" is saying that the record --
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: No. He is asking him to 19 annumo that. Un mada that clon r. Hn nald he 20 represents, and then he said he is asking the witness to 21 assume tha t.
22 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir but the use of word 23 " represents" makes it appear as if those are facts, and 24 they are not.
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, the witness is Sonntag_Repor H ng na rui cn, r+ a .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11746
(
iO i
'%.J l knowledgeable about what was said. ,
2 He is being asked to assume something, but I'm not 3' sure that the question is clear as to what would change.
4 The last sentence --
5 MR. G ALLO: Yes. I'm sorry.
6 BY MR. GALLO:
7 Q I'm referring in particular to, Mr. McGregor, your 8 agreement with the statement that appears in the last 9 paragraph, and I'm quoting now, "The lack of action by 10 CECO QA and also the CECO management slowness or 11 inability to take corrective action insofar as your
[)
C/
12 agreement is based on the Puckett matter."
13 A Mr. Gallo, I think the record should show that Mr.
14 Puckett had been hired, and he was on site for some 89 15 or 87 days -- or 89 days and was fired on the 90th day, 16 and I think the record can show that Mr. Puckett had 17 brought to the attention of his management during this 18 90 days that he was there periodically problems within 19 Comstock's recordkeoping and whatever it was, welder 20 qualifications, et cetera.
21 Again, I'll have to ask you where was Commonwealth 22 Edison's Quality Assurance department and where was 23 Comstock's Quality Assurance department to put into 24 of fect a corrective action program not 30 or 60 days 25 after Mr. Puckett was fired but when they were brought SonntagJtepor F 4 ng Sa r"i cce -Ltd:
J Genova, Illinois 60134
[ (312) 232-0262
11747
/ )
t, i ss/
1 to his attention three or four weeks or six weeks or two 2 months prior to his firing.
3 0 so your point here -- your criticism on a lack of action 4 by CECO Q A or CECO management is based on your belief 5 that no action was taken to respond to the Puckett 6 concerns until after he was fired; is that correct?
7 A Tha t's correct.
8 0 Are you aware of the various activities -- strike that.
9 Are you aware of the various Puckett concerns that 10 have -- that were reflected during the period of time 11 that Mr. Puckett was on the job?
,~
12 A Just what he related to me and I put in my memo to the (v) 13 office.
14 Q Are you aware that Mr. Puckett recommended a stop-work 15 order based on his finding that welding in a 5-G 16 position was not qualified for?
17 A I was not -- I have heard that.
18 0 But at the time you agreed with the formulation of the
- 10 contence in quection, did you kno,i that?
20 A No, sir.
21 MR. GUILD: The question meaning that "the 22 lack of action by CECO QA and CECO management slowness 23 or inability to take corrective action."
24 BY MR. G ALLO:
O
( ,) 25 Q Would you agree that the adoption of Puckett's nonntag_Repor_ ting norvicc, r Ed.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11748 f-'s (Q 4 1 recommendations to stop work in that instance was the 2 proper action by Comstock QC department and CECO QA?
3 A Without knowing any of the details what. Mr. Puckett was 4 talking about, I don't think it's f air for me to comment 5 on that stop-work order or work order be issued.
6 0 Well, let me ask you, Mr. McGregor:
7 Is it fair of you to agree with this statement in 8 the sentence about " lack of action by CECO QA and CECO 9 management slowness and inability to take corrective 10 action" without knowing those f acts?
11 A Mr. Gallo, you are trying --
12 0 Can you answer my question?
('m /n) 13 A I am going to answer your question.
14 You are taking one case, Mr. Puckett, and you are 15 trying to characterize this whole paragraph to Mr.
16 Puckett's case, and that's not true.
17 We discuoced all of the areas that Commonwealth 18 Edison did not address with response to Comstock 10 prob 1cmo, and we can't characterisc one specific 20 allegation to change the whole paragraph, 21 Q Well, would it be fair to say, then, based on your 22 answer that your understanding of the Puckett matter 23 played a very small role in your agreement in p_,
24 concurrence with this criticism of CFCo QA and Ceco k _,) 25 management that appearc in thio last paragraph?
9onntag Roporting Sarvica; Ltd; Genova, 1111noin 60134 (312) 232-0262
11749
/%
1 A I characterize it as not a small role but t. role in it.
2 0 Were you aware at the time that you agreed with this 3 sentence that we've been focusing on in Intervenors' 4 42 -- were you aware at the time that Mr. Puckett had 5 recommended a stop work with respect to the welding of 6 A36 material to A446 material?
7 A I am not sure. I don't recall.
8 0 Were you aware that indeed a stop-work order on that 9 activity was issued by Comstock QC7 10 A At what -- what was the date that stop-work order was 11 issued?
( ) 12 0 During August of 1984.
13 A I don't recall. I don't recall that.
14 0 Have you since learned that that was the case, that Mr.
15 Puckett had recommended a stop work for that welding 16 activity and a stop work was issued?
17 A Yes, I have since learned that, yes.
18 Q Did that cause you at all to reconsider whether the 19 PuckoLL maller ought to serve as a basis for your 20 criticism, CECO QA or CECO managament as reflected in 21 the sentence we've been focusing on?
22 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Repeat the 23 question, please.
24 MR. GALLO: Could we have it back?
25 (The question was thereupon read by the Sonntag_Rcpa". ting _Scrvica4tde Geneva, Illinois 60134 f312) 232-0262
11750 m
1 Reporter.)
2 A No, it doesn't change my opinion.
3 DY MR. G ALLO:
4 Q Mr. Puckett, I believe -- I'm sorry. Mr. McG rego r, I'm 5 leaving Mr. Puckett. We are going to go to a new 6 subj ect.
7 I believe that the centence that has been the focus 0 of my questions with respect to Mr. Puckett that also 9 one basis for your agreement with this sentence; that 10 la, the criticism of Ceco QA and CECO management 11 olowneso, was the Seeders incident that occurred in f
) 12 August of 1984; is that correct?
13 A Yes, sir.
14 0 Were you involved in the inspection inquiry into the 15 Seeders allegation?
16 A No, sir, I was not.
17 0 That was Mr. Schulz, wasn't it?
18 A That's correct.
19 0 uould it be fair to any that your involvement in that 20 matter was limited to reading Mr. Soeders' August 17th 21 letter and having a discussion about it with Mr. Schulz ?
22 A Yes; except -- the discuanlone were quite limited.
1 23 0 Neto quite what?
24 A Limited. I didn't go into great detail with Mr. Schulz 25 on that allega tion.
l l nanntag_ Reporting _Scrulcc 4 td:
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 _-__-__ _ _ _
11751 b
\ /
1 Q Now, focusing on the sentonce criticizing " lack of 2 action by CECO QA and CECO management slowness and 3 inability to take corrective action," in your agreement 4 with that statement based on your understanding of the 5 Seeders allegations?
6 Let's take CECO QA first.
7 What lack of action in connection with the Seeders 8 mattera would you attribute to CECO QA?
9 A Since I've just testified that I am not familiar with 10 the Seedora allegation, and so I don't know what you 11 want me -- what action you ask me that the QA abould I) 12 take.
(- /
13 0 You testified earlier that the seeders matter served as 14 one bacia for your agreement for this sentence that was 15 in there.
16 A I think if you look at the record, Mr. Gallo, it sayo 17 that Mr. Schulz brought that into the paragraph, and la there wan no teacon to object to that.
19 Q Right; but my question was:
20 If you had testified earlier in answer to Mr.
21 Guild'a queationa that one baala for your agreement with 22 the contence in question was your understanding about 23 the Soedera matter, you were mistaken; la that correct?
24 A That I wan mirtaken? No, ai r. I think you are trying 25 to confuse the laaue.
nanntag_ Reporting n n rv hm 4Lde Coneva, 1111noin 60134 (312) 232-0262
+ha A __ _ L + -
11752
(/
s_
1 Q Well, lot me try it again. Perhaps that was a 2 badly-phrased question.
3 I asked you with respect to CECO QA what lack of 4 action you would attribute to that organization in terma 5 of the Soodora matter; srd an I recall your testimony, 6 you indicated that you had a very limited involvement 7 there and you really couldn't identify any lack of 8 action by CECO QA.
9 In that a fair statomont or isn't it?
10 A Unlena I know the specifica of the Soodora caco, the
$ 11 Seedora allegation, I wouldn't know what portion of the h 12 Quality Anaurance department should have acted or what
[G 13 critoria they abould have acted upon.
- 14 0 Now -- I'm corry. Go ahead.
15 A When wo draf ted this memo, Mr. Schulz discuaned in the 16 lack of Commonwealth Edison'a ability to respond to the 17 Soodora responso. Now, ao be it.
18 Q That would also be --
10 A And I can't anawor for Mr. Schulz.
20 0 I understand that would also be the case with respect to 21 any criticism on the Sooders matter with respect to Ceco
- 22 management an articulated in this contence?
l 23 A Tha t's true.
24 Q Now, you and I agree on this point, and I only have one 25 last quantion, which las 1
! nannta g _.Repartin g _Scruica ,_Ltd e Genova, I111noia 60134 <
~
11753 o \
i
'd 1 If you had testified previously to the contrary 2 that the seeders matter played as one basis for your 3 agreement with the criticism in the sentonce that we've 4 been focusing on, then were you not mistaken in that 5 prior testimony, if that's indeed the way you testified?
6 A I didn't testify that way.
7 0 But if you did, were you not mistaken?
8 A I don' t know. I mean, what are we playing?
9 0 Accept my premise.
10 A We are playing a game.
11 0 Can't you accept my premise?
12 If you did, weren' t you mistaken. The record will
)
13 chow whether or not you did.
14 A I suppose.
15 MR. GUILD: The promise la what, Mr.
16 Chairman?
17 I think the question is vague and unduly confusing 18 to the witnens, and certainly it la confusing to thin 19 counnel.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Overrulod. The witnons has 21 answorod, and let's go on to the next.
22 MR. GALLO: What la the answer?
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: "I suppoco."
I 24 DY MR. GALLO:
25 0 Doon that mean yes?
l S o nn ta g_Rc por ting _S crXice,__Ltd -
Geneva, I111 nolo 60134 (312) 232-0262
11754 Ch
!,vI 1 MR. GUILD: Obj ection.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I suppose so, I believe the 3 answer fa.
4 Ti!E WITNESS: I would have to have the 5 question rephrased or submitted again.
6 I don't understand your supposition that we are 7 putting on us.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, Mr. Gallo, it's really 9 an unnecessary question because you've established the 10 facts with your prior question and answer.
11 MR. G ALLO: All right.
(v) 12 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
the witness to --
And you really don't need 14 MR. GALLO: I'll recede from that.
15 BY MR. G ALLO:
16 0 One of the bases that you testified in responac to Mr.
17 Guild's questions concerning your agreement with the 18 lack of action criticism by CECO QA or of CECO QA and 19 the lack of -- that la management'a slowncas or 20 inability to take corrective action, again, by Ceco, was 21 the Snyder complaint or allegation that was made to you 22 on March 13, 1905; la that correct?
23 A Tha t's correct.
24 0 Now, what lack of action with respect to this matter
) 25 would you attribute to Ceco QA?
nonntag_nnporting nnruice, ifd.
Geneva, Illinoin 60134 (312) 232-0262
11755 (D >
\
v 1 A Well, I think, Mr. Guild, if you research --
2 Q Gallo.
3 A I'm sorry; Mr. Gallo, I'm sorry.
4 0 Tha t's all right. I do it, too.
5 A I was Puckett.
6 (Laughter.)
7 A (Continuing.) I think if we went back and nearched the 8 records of Commonwealth Edison, you will see that 9 Commonwealth Edison Quality Assurance department did, in 10 fact, recognize this problem approximately a year before 11 Mr. X came into our offico, and I forgot the audit
[L/ ) 12 number, but they recognize that in one of their audits.
13 How eve r, it's quito evident that Commonwealth 14 Edison or whoever we want to point our fingers at did 15 not make correctivo actions to inaure that personnel who 16 were chonon for supervisors within Comatock, who were 17 Lead personnel within Comstock, who were the alte QA la manager within Comstock woro called to the requiremento 19 of their procedure.
20 Af ter this allegation was brought out and it was 21 inspected by Mr. Hendez or como time framo after that, 22 then I do bellove Comstock then changed their procedure 23 ao that they didn't have to be qualified to a Level II; 24 is that correct?
25 Q Well, you are testifying as to what you are -- la that Sonntag_ncpor H ng nn roi cc,._Ltd e Geneva, 1111noin 60134 (312) 232-0262
11756
,o (v) 1 your understanding?
2 A Yes, ycs, that's my understanding.
3 0 So your complaint here is not that the matter hadn't 4 been identified previously, but you believe that the 5 corrective action could have been faster and apparently 6 it was; is that your --
7 A Yes, sir.
8 If your people can give us the date of that QA 9 audit that was performed -- and I'm quite sure it was at 10 least a year prior to the allegation -- I should think 11 that a year is more than sufficient time to correct the I
b) probl em. ~
12 13 0 You made mention to the f act that Mendez had uncovered 14 this question and had addressed it during his 15 inspection.
16 Am I recalling your testimony just now correctly?
17 A I think he did in his inspection, or maybe it's in -- I la think it's in the final inspection. I'm not sure.
19 0 In the Mendez-Heisler inspection report?
20 A Yes, sir.
21 Q I thought you hadn't read it.
1 22 A I haven't.
l 23 0 llow do you know about this matter?
I l 24 A Well, I think Mr. Noisler -- I told you that Mr. Neisler 25 discussed with me portions of it; and if I recall, I I
nonntag nnpneting nnevice, r.Ed.
Geneva, Illinoin 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 11757 7
$ 1 O'
1 think there was an item of noncompliance issue on that.
2 I'm not sure.
3 0 I thought your earlier testimony was that you didn't 4 look at the inspection report when you talked to Neisler 5 at the region --
6 A I didn't.
7 0 -- and that you didn' t discuss its contents. I thought 8 that was your testimony ten minutes ago.
9 A Well, Mr. Neisler -- I think we said we generally 10 discussed the inspection down there and there were a 11 couple items of noncompliance or citations written.
A)
(U 12 Q Well, your testimony now is that you did discuss some 13 aspects of the Mendez-Neisler report? i 14 A I think the record will show that that is exactly what I 15 said previously.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I believe that's correct.
17 Ile said that the discussion was shallow but that he did -
18 discuss it.
19 DY MR. G ALLO:
20 0 Based on that discussion with Mr. Neisler, did that give 21 you any basis for disagreeing with the conclusions 22 reached by Neinier and Mendez in the report of November 23 4, 1985, NRC 17?
24 MR. GUILD: Objection; lack of foundation.
i y ,) 25 MR. G ALLO: I just established the i
l Sonntag_ Reporting servicc,._Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11758 p
-v) 1 foundation.
2 MR. GUILD: Lack of foundation, Mr. Chairman.
3 Mr. Gallo is seeking to return to the thin ice that 4 he wisely got off of last time, and that was trying to 5 elicit an opinion from the witness who stated he has no 6 foundation for expressing an opinion.
7 MR. G ALLO: All right.
8 MR. GUILD: He has no foundation now. He has 9 had no foundation.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Why don't you ask him 11 directly as to whatever particular solution there was O)
(
V 12 was an appropriate one rather than tie it into the 13 report which --
14 BY MR. GALLO:
15 Q Now, based on your conversation with Neisler, do you 16 have any reason to disagree with the resolution of the 17 matter by Mendez and Neisler concerning the audit 18 finding that is referred to by Mr. Snyder; that is, the 19 allegation that was cause of the audit finding for Mr.
20 Snyder?
21 M11 GUILD: Obj ection.
22 It's totally vague.
23 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Are you asking him whether 24 he agrees or disagrees or doesn't know enough or --
25 MR. GALLO: Yes.
nnnntag nnporting snrvien, tra .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11759
/3 U
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Are we going to have one of 2 those answers that don't mean anything again?
3 MR. G ALLO: Let me try the question again.
4 BY MR. GALLO:
5 Q Do you have any basis to disagree with the resolution of 6 the matter made by Mr. Snyder as it was inspected to you 7 and reported in the Mendez-Neisler report based on your 8 discussion with Mr. Neisler at the region?
9 MR. GUILD: Obj ection; lack of foundation.
10 You can search the report again, Mr. Chairman, and 11 the witness has established conclusively that he has no 12 foundation, no competence to express a opinion on that 13 report.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gallo, we're not trying 15 to make it difficult for you.
16 MR. GALLO: I'll try it again.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We have two problems here.
18 MR. GALLO: I understand the point.
19 DY MR. G ALLO:
20 0 Is there any basis for disagreement on the handling of 21 the allegation raised by Mr. Snyder based on your 22 conversation with Mr. Neisler at the region?
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Gallo.
24 I know it seems like I'm giving you a bad time, but 25 one of the objections is still there, and that is:
RonnEng nnport{ng Marvien, T.td.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11760 O
V
-1 When you say, "Do you have any basis for 2 disagreeing," and his answer is, "No, I don't have any 3 basis," if it is, it doesn't say anything to us.
4 We don't know whether he agrees, he disagrees, he 5 doesn't know anything about it. There's an absence of 6 something, but we don' t know why.
7 MR. G ALLO: All right.
8 BY MR. GALLO:
9 0 Do you agree with the handling of the Snyder allegation 10 as discussed based on your discussions with Mr. Neisler 11 at the region?
g 12 A Based on my limited discussions with Mr. Neisler at the 13 region, I agree with'how the allegation was handled.
14 0 Could you identify --
15 MR. GUILD: Excuse me.
16 Mr. Chairman, if the witness' last answer and the 17 question are understood as limited solely to the 18 conversation he had with Mr. Schapker as the foundation 19 for that question, I have no objection; but if --
20 JUDGE COLE: Mr. Neisler.
21 THE WITNESS: Neisler.
22 MR. GUILD: Excuse me; Mr. Neisler. I'm 23 sorry.
24 But if this answer is to be taken as agreeing in 25 more general terms with the conclusion reached, then I Sanntag Ranarking Seruica: Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11761 (O
b 1 object again or move to strike at this point on lack of 2 foundation.
3 MR. GALLO: I thought the question was 4 finally quite clear.
5 MR. GUILD: No. I thought --
6 MR. G ALLO: I don't understand counsel's 7 comment. !
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, we don' t know what was 9 stated in the conversation, and there are implications 10 that are indeterminate, and I think we' ought to grant 11 the motion to strike unless -- well, Mr. Guild, do you 12 wish to voir dire on that answer?
- 13 MR. GUILD
- I think the record is absolutely i 14 apparent, Mr. Chairman, that the witness has no
! 15 foundation for expressing an opinion and that there is 16 no basis for relying on this probative evidence of an 17 opinion one way or the other.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gallo, I don't think l '19 we've established a foundation as to what he has asked, 20 whether he agreed with or disagreec with, and that's ,
21 what the problem is.
22 It appears that he had some agreement, but we don' t 23 know what he is agreeing to, and there are a lot of l 24 implications that can be made from that. The record is 25 just too unclear in the face of an objection to allow i
nnnntng nepnrking nnrv{nn. r.t r1 i
Geneva, Illinois 60134
,(312) 232-0262
11762 ,
D U
1 that kind of question and answer.
2 If you wish to elicit what exactly was told to him 3 or if you wish to tell him what the resolution was and 4 ask him if that was adequate, well, then we know what he 5 is talking about when he answers yes or no, but we don't 6 know what he is answering to now.
7 BY MR. G ALLO:
8 0 When you had your discussion with Mr. Neisler, did you 9 discuss wi'th him Neisler's conclusion with respect to ,
10 the Snyder allegation?
11 A I would like to take about a minute to answer your 7 12 question, Mr. Gallo.
13 0 Can you just answer it and then explain?
14 It's a . pretty simple question.
15 A Repeat the question again.
16 Q My question is:
l 17 When you had your conversation with Mr. Neisler at 18 the region, did you discuss with him his conclusion with
! 19 respect to the Snyder allegation of March, I believe, l
l 20 13, 1984?
il A No, sir, I don't believe that was a part of our 22 discussion.
- 23 As I said, it was a very shallow, very limited i; . 24 discussion in passing.
j s 25 0 You seem to show quite a bit of knowledge with respect l
l nnnnynn nonnrFinn noruteo. r> A .
G edeva', Illi5ois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11763 A
t )
\J 1 to the matter and the Mendez investigation when you 2 answered my earl:er question.
3 What did you talk to Mr. Neisler about on this 4 item?
5 MR. GUILD: Obj ection, Mr. Chairman.
6 The characterization is simply improper and it is 7 also incorrect.
8 The witness simply said he was informed through 9 this conversation that there had been an item of 10 noncompliance on the subject at the lack of 11 qualification of supervisors period. He showed no great
[)
w:
12 degree of knowledge, and that's an improper 13 cha ra cte riza tion.
14 MR. GALLO: Well, I'll rephrase the question.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Just ignore the preface, Mr.
16 McGregor, and see if you can answer the question as to 17 what you did discuss.
18 A Well, sir --
39 BY MR. G ALLO:
20 0 In terms of this Snyder allegation.
21 A Right. It is improper for one NRC Inspector to make 22 comment on another NRC Inspector's report on his final 23 report. The Inspector that signed that report is 24 responsible for it. That's his work, and he is 25 responsible for it.
Annntaa.nnnorh{na_Pnruinn. Ltd_
Ge 5 eva', Illi5ois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11764 O
kj 1 If I have concerns with that report or any other 2 report, that I'll have to submit them in writing, and I 3 did not stop in to see Mr. Neisler to discuss with him 4 his report or to nit-pick his report or do anything in 5 that manner.
6 0 I'll accept that.
7 A As I told you, Mr. Neisler is a friend of mine. I have 8 known him since 1960, and I just stopped into the 9 office; and in passing he mentioned that they had 10 completed the report on the Snyder thing and they had a 11 couple of items of noncompliance or whatever.
(
) 12 I could really care less, and I don't want to 13 discuss my opinion of what Mr. Neisler did or what Mr.
14 Mendez did in that report because I'm not going to 15 discuss that and that's their report and they'll stand 16 back on that report.
17 Q All right, sir.
18 Now, you and I, I think, can agree that you didn't 19 go in to see Mr. Neisler to nit-pick his report or to 20 criticize his report; but as a matter of f act, you did 21 .go in, you talked about at least the Snyder aspects of 22 the report; isn't that right? -
23 A Every time I'm in the region, I stop in and see John.
24 Q All right. Answer my question.
\, ) 25 Didn't you discuss the Snyder allegation with Mr. i nnnneng nonnreing snevicn, r+a Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11765 rh U -
1 Heisler that day?
.2 A Mr. Neisler brought it up to my attention.
3 Q All right, sir. He brought it to your attention.
-4 You had some discussion with respect to the matter; 5 isn't that correct?
6 A I would imagino -- yes, sir, probably a minute or a half 7 a minute.
8 Q. All right. What was the substance of the discussion?
9 A I honestly don't know. Other than what Mr. -- I've 10 already said Mr. Neisler said they had completed it.
11 There were a couple of items of noncompliance that they 12 had issued.or whatever.
33 MR. G ALLO: Your Honor, I would ask the. Chair 14 to instruct the witness to answer the question.
15 I understand he said he didn't know, but he made a
!- 16 rather emphatic declaration that he wasn't about to 17 answer any questions in - that connection, and I don't i 18 know whether his answer, that he doesn't know, is based l
19 on that or based on fact that he doesn't know.
. 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, Mr. Gallo, he has 21 indicated that it would be improper professionally for 22 him to comment on an inspection report made by another
[ 23 Inspector.
! 24 Now, does Staff want to be heard on that?
25 MR. TREBY: We believe that the matter has nnn n t-a g pannrH ng nervica. r+ a .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11766
( )
G' 1 been discussed, that Mr. Gallo has asked his question.
2 I think the record will reflect that Mr. McGregor 3 has indicated everything he has to say on the matter, 4 that it was a very brief conversation, maybe 30 seconds.
5 The matter was raised by Mr. Neisler and the substance 6 of what he said was, "We finished our inspection. "
7 There's notice of nonconformance and that's --
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: There's also further matter 9 that I wish you to comment on, Mr. -Treby, and that is.
10 whether Staff has a position as to whether it's 11 appropriate for or permissible for one NRC Inspector to 12 offer his professional opinion on another Inspector's (O}
-13 work here, which apparently is what we have involved 14 here, f
15 MR. GALLO: I'm not aware of any such
- 16 privilege. I'm not aware of any such privilege that 17 attaches to NRC Inspectors or NRC activity. j 18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, I thought we were going 19 to disclaim. That's exactly the issue here as to 20 whether you can give one NRC Inspector someone's reports 21 and say, "Do you agree or disagree with that".
22 I think this is an appropriate time to break, and 23 we will hear further discussion of that tomorrow morning 24 because that's what it amounts to is whether it would be
-((_)\ 25 appropriate for that type of examination to take place.
nnnneng nnnnreing norutca, r+a_
l Geneva, Illinois 60134
[ (312) 232-0262
11767 i We will reconvene at 8:00 clock tomorrow morning.
1 2 Mr. Gallo, you have something further you'want to l 3 put on the record?
4 MR. GALLO: I just want to' note on the record 5 that I promised the Board and the parties the memorandum 6 concerning the matter of one of the new allegers covered i .7 by allegation. I think it is 96, and that memorandum is i-8 -just about finished, and I will be able to serve it in
- 9 the morning.
10 JUDG E COLE: You are also going to give us 11 copies of Exhibit 117; right? <
[J \ 12 13 MR. GALLO:
MR. GUILD:
Yes, sir.
I have one other matter.
- 14 The Board requested copies of the protective order 15 disclosure documents, and I would appreciate the t 16 courtesy from Applicant if you could reproduce a set of
- 17 tho se.
i j 18 JUDG E COLE: They've been provided, Mr.
I j 19 G uild.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Are we ready to go off the 1
4 21 record?
E
. 22 MR. GALLO: Yes.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine. We are adjourned i
24 until tomorrow at 8:00 clock.
.25 (WHEREUPON, a t 5 :10 P. M., the hearing of i
l i .
nnnneno nonnreino narvica_ r.e a .
Geneva, Illinois 60134-(312) 232-0262
.. ... . .. . . . - - - . ~ . . - . - - - - . - - - . ~ . . . . . _ . - . - . . . - - . . .
i ,
1 11768 l 1
ll 1. the above-entitled matter was continued ]
i 2- to the 29th day of August, - 1986, at the ;
3 hour of 8:00 A. M.)
4
. (
! .5 i
! 6 1 ,
i i 7
( !
, 8 !
i l j 9 ,
- l l 10 J
) 11 .
~12
!' 13 &
1 i
L 14 .
! 15 i ,
i 16
! 7 17 l
l' 18 t' 19 l 20 i
! 21 ,
4
- j. 22 l
23 l i
! 24 .-
25 3
i
! I
! gnnneng napnreing garutc.; r+ a z Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262 [