ML20214S489
| ML20214S489 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 12/04/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1842 OL, NUDOCS 8612080304 | |
| Download: ML20214S489 (112) | |
Text
o UN11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O&GWAL IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-456 OL 50-457 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2)
LOCATION: WASHINGTON, D. C. PAGES: 18462 18572 DATE: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1986
,p0 L 1
8 '
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, LNC.
0 OfficialReporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 8612030304 PDR 861204 (202)347-3700 T
ADOCK 05000456 PDR NA110N%3DE COVERACE
CR29094.1 18462
'OMT/sjg r l- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA k_;
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 5
In the Matter of: :
(Braidwood Station, :
7 Units 1 and 2) :
8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 9
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
10 Suite 402 444 North Capitol Street 11 Washington, D. C.
Thursday, December 4, 1986 13
.( }
The telephone conference in the above-entitled matter 14 convened at 10:16 a.m.
15 16 BEFORE:
17 JUDGE HERBERT GROSSMAN, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
I JUDGE RICHARD F. COLE, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
JUDGE A. DIXON CALLAHAN, Member 22 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 23 Washington, D. C.
24
() 25
-- continued --
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
18463
- 3. 1 APPEARANCES:
(%.
2 On behalf of the Applicant:
3 MICHAEL I. MILLER, ESQ.
4 PHILIP P. STEPTOE, III, ESQ.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza 5
Chicago, Illinois 60602 6
On behalf of the Nuclear 7 Regulatory Commission Staff:
8 GREGORY ALAN BERRY, ESQ.
, 9 ELAINE I. CHAN, ESQ.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 10 Commission 7335 Old Georgeto'en Road g Bethesda, Maryland 20014 12 Op behalf of the Intervenors:
O v
13 ROBERT GUILD, ESQ.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
. 24 1
O 25 i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
(77
's 18464 ESEEEEl{
f'j V
1 EXEIBITS 2 NUMBER IDENTIFIED RECEIVED REJECTED 3 Exhibit 209 18467 18467 Exhibit 210 18468 18468 4 18470 18470 Exhibit 211 Exhibit 212 18477 18477 5 18480 18480 Exhibit 213 Exhibits?214 thru 216 18481 18481 Exhibit 217 18484 18484 Exhibits 218 thru 222 18484 18484 7
Exhibit 223 18495 18485 8
Exhibit 224 18486 18486 Exhibit 225 18489 18489 9 Exhibit 228 18492 18492 Exhibits 229 thru 231 18493 18493 10 Exhibit 232 18496 18496 Exhibit 233 18497 18497 11 Exhibits 234 andi235 18498 18498 Exhibits 236 thru 239 18499 18499 12 Exhibit 240 18502 18502 Exhibits 241 andc242 18503 18503
() 13 Exhibits 243 Exhibits 249 thru 248 thru 254 18506 18509 18506 18509 14 Exhibit 255 18510 18510 Exhibits 256 thru 259 18512 18512 15 Exhibit 260 18515 18515 Exhibit 261 18518 18518 16 Exhibit 262 18520 18520 Exhibits 263 and 264 18521 18521 17 Exhibit 265 18523 18523 Exhibit 266 18526 18526 18 Exhibit 267 18527 18527 Exhibits 268 and 269 18528 18528 19 Exhibit 270 18529 18529 20 Exhibit 271 18532 18523 Exhibit 272 18533 18533 21 Exhibit 273 18534 18534 Exhibits 274 thru 284 18536 18536 22 Exhibit 187 18553 18553 Exhibit 285 18572 18572 23 24
( 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
i '
941 01 01 18465 1 OMT/bc 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 (10:16 a.m.)
3 '
JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine. I'm not sure we 4 caught everyone who was present. I take it, Mr. Guild, 5 Ms. Chan, Mr. Treby, Mr. Miller, Mrs. Steptoe, Judge 6 Callihan, all of you are present?
7 MR. MILLER: Mr. Treby is not here. Mr. Barry is 8 present.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, that's fine. Okay, but, 10 otherwise, we're the same cast as yesterday?
11 (Chorus of "Yes, sir".)
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine. We'll continue. I 13 guess this is the 99th day of hearing. And we ended 14 yesterday while we were on Intervenor's Exhibit 209.
15 By the way, let me say to the reporter that we 16 would like a listing of all the exhibits that we have 17 discussed, even if they're not admitted. Those that were 18 discussed ought to be marked as being identified anyway in 19 the index.
. 20 THE REPORTER: Very well, Judge.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine. So we were on 209 22 and I was about to ask Mr. Miller why we shouldn't have some 23 document in that would indicate what the respective 24 functions were of level I's and level II's.
N 25 These are Roman numeral I and Roman numeral II ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3ho Nationwide Cmerage 80433MM6
- . . _ . . . _ _ _ , ~ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ . , _ _ _ _ _ - . . __ _. , , ..__ , . _._. -
941 01 02 18466 1 OMT/bc 1 inspectors.
2 Mr. Miller?
3 MR. MILLER: Yes, your Honor. I think, as I 4 started to explain yesterday when Mr. Guild was cut off and S the conversation, or the conference terminated, it is my 6 recollection that the only significance of the 7 differentiation between a Level I/ Level II inspector has to 8 do with whether or not BCAP properly identified as an 9 observation the fact that Comstock was using Level'I's in a 10 manner that was not appropriate under the ANSI standard.
i 11 That was a separate subcontention item, which the
, 12 Commission struck when it stuck the balance of the quality 13 assurance contention.
14 And it seems to me that the relevance of the 15 difference between Level I's and Level II's in the i harrassment and intimidation contention is just so marginal 16 17 as to make it inadmissible.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I really don't see any 1-19 issue here. But I don't see any reason why we shou 1Cn't f 20 have at least one document indicate the respective 21 functions.
22 I don't know that it's really worth arguing 23 over. Is there any reason why what was stated in this memo
-g 24 is at variance with the company's position at all?
? \m/
25 MR. MILLER: I don't believe so.
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336M46
- - ~ - , . . . , - . - , , . , , , , , . - , ,, , , , . ,,, , . . . . . -.. . . - ,-----.---- --. -. - .
941'01 03 18467 1 OMT/bc 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Why don't we just th'en 2 admit this document?
3 So we'll admit 209 and let's go on to 210.
4 (Exhibit 209 identified 5 and received.)
6 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir. This is Guild speaking.
7 210 is an early statement, a statement of December '82, of 8 job site work rules. It establishes that, indeed, the work 9 stops for the day shift at 4:15, brassing out can begin at 10 4:25, although the formal end of the shift is at 4:30.
11 I believe that, indeed, is at variance with some 7s 12 testimony that -- it is a narrow point, but had to do with
\
! 13 employees observed by Mr. Roland --
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, I recall that. Now, is 15 there a variance? Stop work. I see. Stop work for the day 16 shift. Okay. And this is where Mr. -- someone observed --
17 I believe it was Mr. Martin?
18 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir, that's my recollection as 19 well.
20 l JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, okay, now, Mr. Miller?
1 21 MR. GUILD: The other point is -- Mr. Miller has 22 it all -- turn to the second page of the document. Item 23 No. 11 reflects that employees who are unable to report to
. - 24 work due to illness are expected to call their contractor.
25 Now, I recall Mr. Cedars stating that that was l
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37tX) Nationside Coserage 8@336-(M6
941 01 04 18468 2 OMT/bc 1 his understanding of the policy. And shortly after he was 2 reprimanded for not calling in to his immediate supervisor, 3 there was a change in policy in this document.
4 The best I recall now, the record testimony about 5 what Cedars' understanding was at the time of his absences.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Is that in accordance with your 7 understanding, too, Mr. Miller?
8 MR. MILLER: Well, dealing with the first point, 9 my recollection of Mr. Martin's early quit, frankly, 10 (laughing), I don't recall it.
i 11 But, if that's the basis on which the documents
> 12 are offered, for those two points, I'll recede from my
! 13 objection then.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine. So we'll admit 15 Intervenor's 210.
16 (Intervenor's Exhibit 210 identified 17 and received.)
18 JUDGE CALLIHAN: May I point out that there's no 19 date on the document? There's no signature, whose the 20 author? That sort of thing.
21 MR. MILLER: Well, on page 2, Judge Callihan, 22 there appears to be a date in the upper lefthand corner. I 23 assume that -- I agree with you, there is not a date on
- 24 the...although the control number indicates that it's 25 December.
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8 % 336-6646
941 01 05 18469 1 OMT/bc 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, yes, it shows December 2nd 2 on the front, I guess. Or that 's the control' number. Well, 3 I think it's sufficiently identified.
4 Okay, fine. Why don't we go on to 211.
5 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir, 211 reflects early 6 instruction from Commonwealth Edison Company to Mr. Roland, 7 Comstock, with respect to the identification deficiencies in 8 systems control, corpora'ted supplied hangers.
9 If you recall, there is some imprecision about 10 whose responsibility it was to do what with respect to weld
! 11 inspection on these hangers.
-s 12 The impression, at least at some point in time, 13 was left that Comstock inspectors were not obligated to 14 identify discrepancies that-had not been Comstock 15 installed.
16 Here we have a directive in December of '82 which 17 says, as I read it, in any event, that identification of 18 hangers with the discrepancies, even if caused by systems 19 control, should be made by and recorded by Comstock quality ,
20 control.
l i 21 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, this is Mike Miller.- I 22 believe that the only issue as to whether system control P
23 discrepancies should be included or not was for purposes of
, gg 24 the CSR sample in which all weld discrepancies were
\_)
L 25 attributed to Comstock inspectors, whether or not they i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tC Nationwide Coserage 8(n33MM6
. - - _ . . - _ . - - . _ , . . ._ . _ -147 3700__
. _ . = . . _ . . . . _ , , , , . ._ _ , , - - - _ . - . . - _ , . . , . . . _ _ .
941.01 06 18470 4 OMT/bc 1 involved system control welds.
2 It was our position, as expressed in the 3 testimony, that including the systems control discrepant 4 welds was in fact a conservative assessment af inspector 5 qualification.
6 This document may suggest that it's not 7 necessarily conservative if the Comstock inspectors were 8 otherwise directed to take account of systems control weld 9 discrepancies.
10 But, in terms of the relevance to the issues 11 before the Board, I don't think it exists.
12 MR. GUILD: I think Mr. Miller states succinctly O 13 what exactly the relevance is, Mr. Chairman. It's a narrow 14 point but, indeed, if Edison is going to rely on the 15 conservatism of the BCAPs approach, this document seems to 16 undermine that assumption.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I would agree with that.
18 Why don't we admit 211 then. Let's go on to 212.
19 (Intervenor's Exhibit 211 identified 20 and received.)
21 MR. GUILD: 212 is a series of document, Judge, 22 and I ask that you direct your attention to the third page 23 first. This is an employee suggestion from employer.- Hall, 24 Bushey and Spool, concurred in by Mr. Sachlach, addressed to O 25 Mr. Corcoran. This is referred to in Mr. Sachlach's ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347-3700 Natior1%IdC C0%Crage RXk3b6M6
941 01 07 18471 2 OMT/bc 1 deposition, and I don't have the specific cites in his 2 deposition, but the understanding I had from that deposition 3 was that employees had brought the suggestion to him.
4 He investigated and concurred. It relates to 5 what he believed and-the employees believed was the 6 improper use of leftover cable for safety-related 7 installations. Cable that was not properly OC verified as 8 being traceable or being of the appropriate type and grade.
9 There was observed, as I understand, reels of 10 cable, lef tover cable, on the turbino floor that will be 11 used for safety-related pole.
12 Sachlach investigated this, confirmed the OC 13 inspector's views and transmitted this memo. The second 14 page reflects the transmittal by Mr. Corcoran, the OC T
15 manager, of the memo with comments to Mr. Roland, the 16 production manager.
17 Again, with Mr. Sachlach's note at the top, "The 18 given two reasons for not using this cable on safety-related 19 poles is valid. A request should be given to F. Roland to 20 instruct the field not to use this " cable" in storage for 21 safety pole."
22 Corcoran concurs again and suggests that Roland 23 address the traceability and adequate protection issue.
4 24 What Roland does is expresses some pique about the matter, 25 refers to the carrot letter and says: Of course the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-33MM6
941 01 08 18472 2 OMT/bc 1 inspectors should know all along, know that this was going 2 to be used for nonsafety-related pulls only. "Please direct 3 your inspectors to concentrate their efforts in more 4 conservative activities -- more constructive activities" --
5 excuse me - "such as inspecting instead of wasting time in 6 items already identified."
7 As I recall Mr. Sachlach's deposition testimony, 8 it was his belief that, indeed, this memo by Roland simply 9 failed to address the issue at all. That is, the past use 10 of such cable for safety-related pull.
11 And he retained this series of documents in his 12 file.
O 13 Now, my recollection's a little foggy on this 14 point, but I believe he referred to this as a document that 15 was included in what he called the silver bullet files.
1
'16 Those were documents documenting conditions on the plant i
, 17 that he believed of safety significant discrepancies that
- 18 were unaddressed, in his opinion.
19 That's the purpose for of fering 212. We believe 20 it's relevant.
- 21 JUDGE GROSSMAN
- Well, Mr. Guild, you keep i 22 referring to deposition testimony. Do we have that 23 admitted?
24 MR. GUILD: No, you don't. And what I would seek
\ )
25 to do is I would -- I don't think it's necessary to have Mr.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-370t) Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6 4 6
- --, -. ,, - , _ , ~ - - - , , - - . _ _ - , . - , - . , . .
- =- _ . . - . -
, 941 01 09 18473 l
1 OMT/bc 1 Sachlach return to the witness stand and explain this. But, 2 if I can offer the portions of the deposition that I've 3 attempted to paraphrase, although I believe, accurately, I 4 would offer the portions of Mr. Sachlach's deposition that 5 reflect my paraphrase of foundation for these memos.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, Mr. Guild, if you didn't 1
7 want to question Mr. Sachlach about that when he was on the 8 stand, and he had already discussed this matter, why should 9 we consider putting in corroborating documentary evidence?
10 It's an issue that apparently you didn't care to 4
11 cover.
12 MR. GUILD: The reason why is simply --
13 MS. CHAN: Ann Chan...uh --
14 MR. GUILD: Excuse me, Ms. Chan. Let me answer 15 that question. The reason was very clear, and that was 16 Mr. Sachlach, who was an adverse witness, I had no basis to 17 credit or not credit his testimony when he gave it at 18 deposition.
19 And I simply, without corroboration, in the 20 absence of the Pearl Harbor file, which had not been 21 produced, although subpoenaed at the time, or requested at 22 the time, I simply chose not to run the risk that the 23 evidence that Mr. Sachlach was giving in deposition could i
24 not be supported.
25 Now, belatedly, the documents are produced and, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Coserage M4336-6M6
, _ _ - . . _ . - . _ _ . . _ _ _ _-347 3700. - . _ _ .
941 01.10 18474 1 OMT/bc 1 indeed, there appears to be evidence in documentary form, 2 the best evidence supporting Sachlach's recollection; which 3 was indeed quite - presented sometime after the fact.
4 Now the documents seem to support Sachlach I
5 testimony.
6 I don't believe it reflects any lack of diligence 7 or calculated choice on Intervenor's part that we should be 8 punished for. Now we have the documents and I think it's 9 appropriate that the matter be introduced in evidence.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Ms. Chan?
11 MS. CHAN:. Your Honor, Mr. Berry questioned s 12 M r. Sachlach on cross-examination about just this item. And 13 he did mention that this document was in his silver bullet 14 file. And the use of scrap cable in safety-related work was 15 a problem, and that he told Roland to stop that use.
16 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, this is Mike Miller.
17 At transcript pages 8,240 and 8,241, actually, I 18 see that I'm the attorney who asked the question that 19 elicited Mr. Sachlach's description of this incident.
4 20 Be that as it may, the relevance of this to any 21 assertion of harrrassment and intimidation by Comstock 7
22 quality control supervisory personnel seems to me to be 23 absolutely minimal.
24 Indeed, just looking at the documents, it appears
~) 25 that quality control, management, supervision did what they ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-370) Nationwide Coscrage 800-3M-6M6
P 941 01 11 18475 1 OMT/bc 1 ought to'do in supporting their inspe'ctors' request that .
2 this matter be brought forward to construction.
3 And it seems to me to be a very late expansion of 4 the contention. If we're going to have to assert or deal 5 with an assertion that somehow Mr. Roland.was unresponsive 4
6 to the quality control department, including inspectors'
.i 7 supervisors in the persons of Mr. Sachlach and the manager, 8 Mr. Corcoran.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Miller, if you broke the ice 10 here and brought the issue in, I think, you know, we have no 11 choice but to let the docume'nt in.
12 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, let me'tell you exactly
~
i (2) 13 how I brought it in. Mr. Sachlach was being interrogated 14 regarding the whereabouts of this file. And I asked him:
I 15 Is there any identifying mark on the tabs of the 16 file?
17 And he said: Well, there was one folder in there 18 that said " silver bullet".
i 19 And then I asked him: Did that have any 20 significance, Mr. Sachlach?
21 And he said: Yes. And then, uh...related in l 22 response to that question the incident that is apparently 23 documented in Exhibit 212.
24 So it was really an effort to determine the t
25 location of these documents that led to Mr. Sachlach i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37W Nationwide C onerage ik&336-6M6
. - - . , - , - - . . . . , , . - - ~ _ - - - . _ , , . , , . . . . . . - - , , . , , - - . , , , . , . , , . _ . , , _ ~ , _ , - . . . _ . _ _ _ _ , _ , , , . - - , , _ . , , , . n- .. ,_ - - _ , - -
941 01 12 18476 1 OMT/bc 1 volunteering this information on the record.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Berry , did you follow up on 3 this?
4 MR. BERRY: I believe so, Mr. Chairman. I have 5 the -- I just got a copy of the transcript in from of me.
6 And if the court will bear with me for one moment, I'll see 7 if I can put my finger on the cite page.
8 (Pause.)
9 MS. CHAN: Your Honor, perhaps we can go on to
- 10 someone else's response while Mr. Berry looks for the
- 11 citation.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Is there some other 13 response on this same document?
, 14 MS. CHAN: Yes, if there is one.
15 MR. GUILD: No, I have nothing further to add, 16 Mr. Chairman, I don't believe.
17 MR. MILLER: Nor do I.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes. Well, if the area was
- . 19 already covered in testimony, I think we'll let the document
- 210 in. I just didn't care to let it in if it were a deposition 21 and hadn't been used by the parties when they had the 22 chance.
! 23 But, since it did come in, I think we'll just 24 allow it in. So we'll receive Intervenor's 212.
[
O 25 MS. CHAN: Your Honor, the cite is at 8,253.
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
21)2 347 37(0 NationsidC Coverage 8(0-336-6M6
?
941 01 13 18477
- 2s -[OMT/bc . 1 (Intervenor's Exhibit 212 identified 2 ->
and received.)
3 ,, JUDGE GROSSMAN: And Mr. Berry did in fact
- 4 -examine further on this?
5 MS.-CHAN: Yes. The question:
6 -"Referr'ing to your silver bullet file, do you 7 . recall whether you determined whether scrap cable was used 8 in the safety-related cable pulls?"
9 And then Mr. Sachlach responds.
1 10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. I think it's of marginal 11 significance, if any, but since it was questioned, we might 12 just as well have the document in that confirms the O 13 testimony.
'14 So let's go-on to Intervenor's 213.
15 16 17 <
4
. 18 19 l
20e i
22-J 23 I
24 O
25 l.
! -. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I w.w.- s.u-+ c-, -
941 02 01 18478 1 LIVEbw 1 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir. 213 reflects and 2 instruction that, this is Mr. Kast, who was a supervisor of 3 welding inspectors in June of '83. The work is to be handed 4 out in a fashion that 20 installation reports in to one 5 inspector at a time, and that that's the practice for 6 assigning work. ,
7 You'll see that as the documents -- we go through 8 these documents, that there are, indeed, measures of what 9 can most charitably be referred to as average expected 10 levels of inspector performance. The quote is, if you want 11 to look at it, less charitably. And we believe that this
-; 12 document, the foundation document establishes that that's
.g) 13 how the work was being handed out. A batch of inspection or 14 installation reports were being handed to inspectors 20 at a 15 time in June of '83.
16 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, this is Mike Miller. I 17 really think that this goes to the minutia of work t
18 assignments. There is no indication that this document, 19 that any set number of inspections were to be performed by a 20 inspector in each day, it has to do with the number of 21 pieces of paper that he carries around with him on a daily 22 basis. It just seems to be irrelevant.
1 23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild, where are these other 24 documents? Are those the ones that immediately follow this, 25 that is, Intervenor's 214 to about 224?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage R4336-646
941 02 02- 18479 1 .LIVEbw 1 MR.. GUILD: I'm not certain that those are them, 2 Judge. 215, we'll get to in a moment, Mr. De Wald's plan 3 for addressing the backlog. There you will see that he does 4 have an expected level of average performance per day. 214 5 is Mr. De Wald's. As soon as he comes on the job in August 6 of '83, De Wald reinstitutes the practice of having daily 7 inspector status reports by individual inspectors showing 8 productivity levels, a matter that had been that 9 Mr. Corcoran had suspended in November of '82, reflected in 10 proposed Exhibit 208 that was not admitted, that we 11 discussed yesterday.
12 And it may be there are other pcints as well,.
O 13 Judge, when we get through these documents. I can't give 14 you specific references to the others at this time, but 15 where average expected levels of performance per unit of 16 time are soon.
17 And, indeed, I think what the Sacklack files will 18 help us is put Applicant's assertions that the status 19 reports were simply innocuous planning documents into the 20 real perspective prevailed, and that is that there were 21 expectations of.....
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Well, we're not going to 23 make any judgment, of course, on whether these documents
- p. 24 confirm or do not confirm your allegations, Mr. Guild, but V
25 you've made some showing that it could be used in that ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage tKO-336-6M6
~ -
941 02 03 18480 l LIVEbw 1 respect.
2 So we'll admit 213.
3 (Intervenor's Exhibit 213 4 identified and received.)
5 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Callihan here. On 213. Were 6 these not blank reports that were just handed out? Just 7 forms to be filled out as inspections were made?
8 MR. GUILD: Judge, the impression I have -- this 9 is Guild speaking, Judge Callihan. The impression I have is 10 that these were the way that work was assigned. They were 11 installation reports that reflected completed installations
- s 12 by the craft, not the blank check lists or inspection
(~
13 reports. I assume that they were given access to blank 14 check lists to fill out, but my understanding was that these 15 were installation reports that detailed the installation, 16 say, of a hangar or some other electrical component.
17 JUDGE CALLIHAN: So these were the assignments to 18 inspectors --
19 MR. GUILD: Yes.
20 lI JUDGE CALLIHAN: -- in the form of information i
21 , from the craft?
l 22 ' MR. GUILD: That's my understanding, Judge. They 23 ! took the installation report showing the drawing numbers and 7s 24 the location of the hangar, for example, and - you know,
( !
25 l the attached references to the acceptance criteria, l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, :m.u, _ x_ m o_ -o _
1
941-02 04 18481 1 LIVEbw 1 basically, the specifications. And they took all that to 2 the field. But that's my understanding of what the 3 reference to installation report is.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Fine. We're received 5 213.
6 214. +2 7 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir, 214 --
4 8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: 214 is not objected to. We'll 9 receive that.
10 (Intervenor's Exhibit 214 11 identified and received.)
12 MR. MILLER: No objection.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: 215 is not objected to either.
14 We'll receive that.
15 (Intervenor's Exhibit 215 16 identified and received.)
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We'll received 216.
18 (Intervenor's Exhibit 216
! 19 identified and received. )
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: 217 is objected to.
21 MR. GUILD: 217, I show, is not objected to by 22 either Applicant or Staf f, Judge.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, I show 217 as objected to by 24 Applicant, but not by Staff.
O 25 MR. GUILD: All right, sir. If I can get to some ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(O Nationwide Cmerage 80l)-336-6M6
941 02 05 18482
\
1 LIVEbw 1 notes here.
2 (A pause.)
-3 Let's see here. 217 is a document late -- it's a 4' February '85 document. It essentially reflects Edison's 5 instructions to contractors on how to handle competing 6 requests by various audit groups. The priorities are 7 assigned, reflected in the 1 through 6 priorities at the 8 bottom of page 1. It's simply a document -- I'm not 9 quibbling with the priorities that are assigned, but simply 10 showing that in February of '85, there were significant 11 competing pressures, questions about quality raised by a 12 variety of sources, and those identified by the bottom, the 13 Cat Team, National Boiler Board, NRC Residents, the CECO OA 14 audits, OA audits going on. There were internal audits
~15 going on. There was SCAP, and there were apparently some I
16 others, surveillance type groups. I don't know what that 17 exactly means.
- 18 It simply reflects that there was, indeed, a 19 number of pressures on contractors arising from the various 20 sources at that time.
21 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, this is Mike Miller.
22 Looking at the document, it apparently is 23 directed to site contractor management. The example that is
, 24 given in the second paragraph has to do with a Phillips 25 Gothow Engineering Group.
i I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3M) Nationwide Coverage 8e3364M6
.. _ . - - . _ - . . _ . .- . . ... ~ . . -
A 4
941 02 06 , 18483 t 1 LIVEbw' 1 There is simply no reference anywhere to quality 2 control organizations at all.
-3 In any event, the establishment of-priorities as 4 to which groups to respond to, it seems to me, they have-i 'S very 'little to do with production pressure or anything A
6 -else.
l
- 7 I just think this is off the wall, frankly.
. 8 MR. GUILD: Well, if you recall, Judge, that 9 there - you know, Mr. Seders, for one, at a time period [
10 some months before this, August of '84, said that, you know, 4
11 he was being told to complete his audit respond by a certain l
12 date, regardless of how he got the job done.
O 13 Pressure is obviously on - pressures to address 14 audit questions from the variety of sources suggested here 15 are production pressures, because, to the extent the quality j 16 control must respond to them, they must put of f other work, i
- 17 or they must short-change their response to the auditor or 18 short-change their response to their quality control board.
f 19 I - think it directly relates to -- if addressed to
- 23 Comstock, it was from Mr. Sacklack's file, and I think it 21 provides foundation for the view that there were pressures 22 continuing through '85 of this sort.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. It doesn't seem as though 24 there's any relevance enough for us to admit it. So we'll
- O-25 not admit 217.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationaide Coserage 8@336-u46
941 02 07 18484 1 LIVEbw 1 (Intervenor's Exhibit 217 2 identified and rejected.)
3 MR. GUILD: All right, sir.
4 I think the next one is 223, your Honor.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. First of all, we will --
6 let me just check and see, yes. 223. That means that we 7 will receive Intervenor's 218 through 222.
8 (Intervenor's Exhibits 218-222 9 identified and received.)
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And now we'll go on to 223.
11 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir. 223 is certainly objected 12 to by the Applicant. It appears to reflect in October of 13 '82, the Edison position on what, in fact, is the objective h
14 measure of current, in terms of quality control 15 inspections. It confirms that at that early date, the 16 instructions to the contractor, in this case, Comstock 17 Quality control, was that there be little or no lag in 18 inspections, and that the -- that is the language used in 19 this memo -- such that there could be, as has been referred 20 to in the record, feedback in a timely fashion from quality l
21 control to those who were directly construction activities.
22 Of course, the significance is that there was 23 deep lags of 14,000 over a year in some cases between 24 installation and installation inspection, despite the fact 25 that Edison was directing Comstock in '82, October of '82, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-37tN) Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
_. . ~ .--__-.m. _ _ _ , , , _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ , , . , _ , , . _ _ . . . , _ . , . . _ , _ _ , , - . _ _ . . . _ _ . - . _ . _ _ . , _ , _ , _ . _ . . . , . _ . . . - . _ -__ _ .__ _. _ ,,,,,_
r9941 02 08 18485 U 1 LIVEbw 1 to essentially maintain inspections current.
2 MR. MILLER: Your Honor.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes. Mr. Miller?
4 MR. MILLER: Yes. As I read this document, it 5 apparently deals with the much more limited issue of 6 in process inspections. And the second, third and fourth 7 paragraphs on the page are apparently a definition of "in 8 process" rather than referring to all Comstock inspections.
9 And once again, the relevance of this guidance on what 10 constitutes due process inspections to the issues of alleged 11 harassment, intimidation and production pressures just seems
,3 12 to be nonexistent.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes. It doesn't seem relevant 14 to me, either. We will not receive Intervenor's 223.
15 (Intervenor's Exhibit 223 16 identified and rejected.)
17 MR. GUILD: All right, sir.
18 223. This simply documents that as of October of 19 '82, the qualifications of site Oc personnel were being 20 upgraded, and the nature of the upgrades is specified in the 21 body of this memorandum. That is, the 40-hour on-the-job 22 training requirements and lectures, although waivable under 23 the stated circumstances, the testing requirements.
s 24 This, if you recall, simply documents what I
%] N 25 understand the references, generally, in the record to be to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Cos erage
- XK 3 Ef44
i 941 02 09 18486 1 LIVEbw 1 the point at'which, in the fall of '82, there were upgrades 2 of OC standard site one. That was the target date for the 3 OCIRP or the cut-off dates for the OCIRP, as I understand 4 it.
5 -
This simply is a foundation document to establish 6 when that happened.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Is there any problem with that, 8 Mr. Miller?
9 MR. MILLER: I'm not sure that this is really a 10 matter that's material to any issue, but I regard the l
11 document as noncontroversial. .
- 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN
- Well, that's what I think, too.
f 13 I don't think it's worth wasting any time about. If it sets
- 14 a particular date in which the time f rame has already been 15 discussed, we might just as well leave it in.
4 16 So we'll receive 224.
17 (Intervenor's Exhibit 224 18 identified and received.)
i 19 MR. MILLER: 225, I reflect as objected to by the l 20 Applicants.
l 21 It reflects a response to audit on the subject, 22' among others, of calibration, f rom November of '82, and the 23 important point of the Comstock quality control response to 24 Mr. Marcus' comment that isn't OA, is that the language that i 25 appears on the first page -- it appears that there were ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3XU Nationwide Cmcrage Nx13346M6
941 02 10 18487 1 LIVEbw 1 missing Form 23s, calibration reports. The language there
-2 reads -- I quote -- under " Discussion," middle of the page.
3 "All information supplied by the three 4 items listed above, is used to fill 5 out the expected calibration card, 6 Form 77. This card is our formal 7 record of whether a tool flash 8 equipment is within calibration.
9 Action taken, based upon the above 10 discussion requirements on OKC 11 Procedure 4.941. No action was 12 taken."
Os 13 And that.was essentially because the card, the 14 Form 77, as stated here, is the formal record.
15 Now this is relevant to discussion regarding 16 Mr. Seders, of course, whether the absence of Form 23s or 17 some other subsidiary document is relied on my Applicant as 18 a basis for taking punitive action against Seders.
19 Here we have a prior position expressed by the 20 company. This is Mr. Sacklack. In fact, if you look at 21 page 4 of the document, it is prepared by Mr. Sacklack and 22 concurred in by Mr. Corcoran, a prior inconsistent position, l
23 which appears to support Seders' position, and that is, that 24 the Form 77s were the record documents.
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Miller, do you agree that ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationnide Coserage Kn336-6646
941 02 11 18488 1 LIVE bw 1 that is the implication in this document?
2 MR. MILLER: Your Honor,' I have gone back to see 3 .whether the quality control procedure, 4.9.1 that was 4 introduced into evidence and that was effective during 5 Mr. Seders' inspection activity was the same one that was 6 effective in November 12, 1982.
7 Second, as the Board will undoubtedly recall, Mr 8 Seders' inspection activities were, themselves, stimulatd by 9 a subsequent Commonwealth Edison audit finding. And what we 10 don't know is whether or not Commonwealth Edison agreed or 11 disagreed with the resolution of this that was proposed by 12 Mr. Corcoran in November of 1982.
O 13 Finally, the document goes on to discuss numbers 14 of other audit items having to do with inspector 15 certification, and so on, that, again, are totally 16 irrelevant to any issue.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, Mr. Miller, I think all we i
18 can do with regard to this document is afford you some 19 additional allowance to bring in any contradictory document 20 that you wish to bring in. Apparently, it does address some 21 ; testimony that we've had with regard to the Seders' matter, I i 22 but I think we certainly ought to afford you the opportunity 23 to bring in any kind of rebuttal document that responds to
- 24 this particular document or to the subject.
1 25 So we'll admit 225, but we won't cut you off, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Natioriwide Coserage 80tk3%6M6 L.
941 02 12 18489 1 LIVEbw 1 Mr. Miller, if you wish to bring in another document. And I 2 guess we'll give you until the beginning of next week to do 3 so.
4 MR. MILLER: All right, sir. I'll take a very 5 quick look and take it from there.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes.
7 (Intervenor's Exhibit 225 8 identified and received.)
9 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, it appears that 226 10 through 229 are not objected to.
, 11 MR. MILLER: I didn't object on the grounds of 12 relevance, but I would like to call the Board's attention to I
13 Exhibit 228.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
15 MR. MILLER: Again, what we have here is a
- 16 document addressed to individuals and unattributed l 17 handwriting on it.
~
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And it uses a word I'm not t
i 19 f amiliar with.
20 MR. MILLER: Nor me either, your Honor.
(
21 (Laughte r. )
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Does anyone know what that word 23 is that's after "not even" in the parenthetical?
24 MR. GUILD: My guess was, Judge, that it was 25 "interimed," and meaning a procedure that had not been 1
't i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(u) Nanonaide Coverage NWA34fM6
E l
941 02 13 18490 1 LIVEbw I approved on an interim basis, as we heard testimony about 2 procedures that, as they get approved for use, in the 3 meantime, while they're being, you know, processed through.
4 So I think the reference -- I understand the 5 reference, anyway, to be the procedure that wasn't even at 6 that stage.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, is there anything -- I 8 believe this may be some handwriting of Mr. Sacklack. I 9 don't know that -- that it's just the handwriting that 10 identifies it.
11 (Laughter.)
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: But, is there any agreement as O 13 to whose writing.that is?
14 MR. MILLER: I don't know. There are other 15 documents in here that I do not object to that do not have -
16 that were clearly authored by Mr. Sacklack, and they're 17 totally in handwriting, but this one, I just -- I don't.....
18 MR. GUILD: It seems to me to be pretty obviously 19 Mr. Sacklack's handwriting. Now I'm not a handwriting 20 expert, but this is a document, among several, where I would
! 21 hope that Applicant would stipulate that it's Mr. Sacklack's 22 handwriting.
- 23 JUDGE GROSSMAN
- Well, Mr. Miller, do you agree
- 24 that it is?
I 25 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, I can't agree or i
1
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L mm.m., s_ u. m.... ..o -
941 02 14 18491 1 LIVEbw I disagree. If one looks, for example -- i$t me -- oh, 2 there's a later sample status report that is filled out.
3 MR. GUILD: Yes. It's 239.
4 MR. MILLER: Is that the one, Bob? Thank you.
5 If one looks at 239, that is clearly 6 Mr. Sacklack's handwriting, even though there is no 7 signature or anything like that on it.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: 239, I don't see any handwriting 9 at all.
10 MR. GUILD: 239, Judge?
11 MR. MILLER: 239?
- 12 It's all in handwriting, I belilovbe.
' ~ '
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, I see. Okay. In the -- oh, 14 okay. That 's correct.
15 l b MR. GUILD: A comparison of those hands appears 16 to reflect they're the same author, and indeed, I believe, 17 228 is Mr. Sacklack.
18 ' Not only from the form of the handwriting, but l
the tone of the commentary.
19 l 20 ,
21 l 9
22 2 3 ll l
g3 24 '
1 {
25 i
11
! ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
9 :o: i.,n., ~ .m. om , s .nis ,-
990 08 14 18492 1 DAV/bc 1 MR. GUILD: Again, I think that's an appropriate 2 inference that the Board could draw in any event. I just 3 hope that applicants would acknowledge that.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I think maybe we're not 5 going to admit the handwriting here.
6 (Pause.)
7 And I don' t really see the relevance here 8 anyway. Well, of the handwriting.
9 MR. MILLER: Judge, I'm sorry. The Board's not 10 admitting 2287 11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I'm thinking that we ought 12 to admit 228 but exclude the handwriting. And I think O 13 that's what we'll do. We'll admit 228 but exclude the 14 handwriting.
15 (Intervenor's Exhibit 228, excluding 16 the above-mentioned handwriting, 17 was identified and received.)
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. So now just in case I 19 haven't made it clear, we were admitting 226 and 227. And 20 now we've partially admitted 228. We're up to --
21 MR. GUILD: 229 was not objected to, as I 22 understand it.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: 229 is admitted then, and Staff 24 objects to 230.
25 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir.
ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
n .- 8 _ ~ ..... ~
0990 08 15 18493
. DAV/bc 1 (Intervenor's Exhibit 229 identified' 2 and received.)
3 MR. GUILD: Here, March '83, Mr. Corcoran --
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Now let's make sure. Staff, is 5 this objection on relevance grounds or just because there's 6 someone named in here that you don't wish to have the 7 document in because of?.
8 MS. CHAN: I believe it was because we did not 9 wish to have the document in because of the author.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, okay, well, then we've 11 overruled that objection. I don't think we have to bother.
12 We'll admit 230.
13 (Intervenor's Exhibit 230 identified 14 and received.)
15 MR. GUILD: All right, 231 does not appear to be 16 objected to.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, we'll receive 231.
18 (Intervenor's Exhibit 231 identified 19 and received.)
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: 232 has been objected to by 21 Staff.
22 MR. GUILD: And by applicant as well, your 23 Honor.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, that's correct.
O 25 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir. May I have a moment?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
wmm s _ m r _ ,, -
0990 08 16 18494
(" \
\/ DAV/bc 1 (Pause.)
2 MR. GUILD: Here's a comment coming from a QC in 3 personnel, Janet Peters by memo to Mr. Corcoran. Corcoran 4 forwards the memo on to Frank Roland. Corcoran states to 5 Frank Roland:
6 "You promised the wearer results."
7 And Roland responds back, you know:
8 "Your comments bewilder me."
9 And then goes on explaining. The substance of 10 the dispute, the technical matters are not of particular 11 interest to Intervenor. It's again documentary evidence of 12 a hostile relationship between Mr. Roland, the production (k ') 13 manager, and management of quality control.
14 It's one that's reflected by a number of these 15 documents. It belies what Edison's position has been in 16 this case, and that is that there has been a consistently 17 cooperative relationship where, you know, quality control 18 does not buckle under to production, and where quality 19 control, when they point up problems to production, gets 20 listened to and responded to effectively.
21 l They're simply consistently through these memos, 22 , there's a reflection on Mr. Roland's part of turning aside i
23 l QC suggestions, of treating QC with some...
I 24 l JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Miller. . .?
(~)
'- 25 l: MR. MILLER: Your Honor, again, first of all, it I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
nwy, 8_g- yy
.- - . - . =. . . . - . . - _ - - - _ - - - - .
- 0990 08 17 18495
[h
- L/ DAV/bc 1 ' was never certainly my understanding that any part of the 2 contention had to do with the nonresponsiveness of Comstock 4
3 Production to Comstock Quality Control management.
4 The contention, certainly on its face, does not 5 so indicate. On the substance of this memo, I just really, f 6 even if that were an issue, here is a concern that is raised 7 and it is in fact responded to.
8 I don't quite know where in the findings we will l 9 discuss whether or not there is a balk for completed cable 10 cars. I mean, that doesn't seem to have to do with anything 11 in this litigation.
12 MR. GUILD: No, sir. And I agree with that, 13 Mr. Chairman. I don't mean to suggest -- I hope Mr. Miller
, 14 understood that I'm not asking that Edison address the 15 technical substance of this memo.
l j 16 But Mr. Roland has never testified in this case.
17 We simply have Edison's description, applicant's 18 description, of how responsive the construction site is.
19 And of coursa our view is that the way production 20 pressure gets transmitted to quality control inspectors is through Commonwealth Edison Company project construction 21 l 22 department to the Comstock Production side, Mr. Roland on to 23 the QC supervision.
24 This is evidence of that.
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Ms. Chan, were you objecting on ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 147 3700 Nationante coserage N RL3 tMM6
A941 03 01 18496 t
'mt OMT/bc 1 grounds of relevance? Or only because someone's name was on 2 here?
3 (Pause.)
a 4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Ms. Chan, have we lost you?
5 MS. CHAN: No, your Honor. There were two 6 reasons. First, we think it's minimally relevant to 7 criterion one. And, secondly was for the reason stated by l 8 the Board about this response of the individual on page 2.
i- .
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, it's rea.1.ly being used
't 10 primarily for Mr. Roland rather than for what's on page 2, 11 if I understand it. And we certainly wouldn't be 12 entertaining what was referred to here on page 2.
13 But, now as to Mr. Roland, do you agree with 14 Mr. Guild that there is some relevance as to the attitude of 15 Mr. Roland, who was there throughout the history of what we 16 have been hearing?
17 So that there is some relevance to the case?
18 MS. CHAN: Yes. We believe it has some minimal
, 19 relevance to the affect on the DC management.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes. Okay. We'll admit 232 and i
21 we want to make it plain that it is really for the first j 22 j page rather than the second page, which only puts it in i 23 context.
24 (Intervonor's Exhibit 232 identified i
j 25 and received.)
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmcrage *xk 33MM6
A941 03 02 18497 r~N i
kw) OMT/bc 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Let's go on to the next 2 one, which --
3 MR. GUILD: Is 233. '
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes. Was objected to by both.
5 Fine, 233.
6 MR. GUILD: May I have a moment, Mr. Chairman, to 7 look at those here?
8 (Pause.)
9 I see, 233 is apparently the original memo that's 10 referred to in 232. It is the origination memo of, 11 apparently, from Bruce' Brown, concurred in by Sachlach, 12 transmitted to the quality control manager, that then
(~%
kl 13 ultimately went to Mr. Roland.
14 You'll notice that the addressee is in hand on 15 the face of 233, indicated to be F. Roland.
16 Again, it's not the substance of the matter, it's 17 simply a foundation for Mr. Roland's response as reflected 18 on May 3, '83, a memo, Intervonor's 232.
19 l JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, it really isn't 20 necessary. I think we get enough context in 232, so we 21 won't admit 233.
22 i MR. GUILD: All right, sir.
23 f (Intervenor's Exhibit 233 identified l
24 l and rejected.)
O
\/ 25 l JUDGE GROSSMAN: We're on now...?
t l
l ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- ic un., s .,_ ,m o , m ii m .
A941 03 03 18498 b%dOMT/bc 1 MR. GUILD: 234 appears to be not objected to.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, 234 then will be admitted.
3 (Intervenor's Exhibit 234 identified 4 and received.)
5 l JUDGE GROSSMAN: 235 is objected to by both staff 6 and applicant.
7 MR. GUILD: Yes. This again is not -- the 235, 8 quality control manager to Mr. Roland. Roland responds in 9 handwriting on the document. It's to reflect Mr. Roland's 10 attitude. Substance of a matter of a technical dispute is 11 not something we propose to place in issue.
12 It's simply Roland's comment:
13 "Why are you wasting time and money writing memos 14 such as this when a simple telephone call..."
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Ms. Chan, I assume that 16 you admit to the relevance but it's only because of the 17 names that appear here. Is that correct?
18 MS. Cil AN : That's correct, your Honor, for the 19 same reasons we've articulated before.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. I think we'll let this in 21 for the same reasons as before. And it is only with respect 22 to Mr. Roland's attitude here. That's our only interest.
23 So we'll admit 235.
24 (Intervenor's Exhibit 235 identified 25 and received.)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- n. , ~ . ~ ,.. .. ,3 -
A941 03 04 18499 i
'l OMT/bc 1 MR. GUILD: 236 is --
2 MR. MILLER: Excuse me. This is Mike Miller.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, yes. Certainly, we'll hear 4 you. I thought the arguments were the same as before.
5 MR. MILLER: I'd just like to observe for the 6 record that admission of a document such as this, which
, 7 inferences are going to be made about the tone of 8 Mr. Roland's response as indicating some sort of production 9 pressure merely expands the scope of the contention 10 infinitely.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Fine. We've covered this 12 in the prior discussion. And it appears to be a series of O\/ 13 documents in which Mr. Roland has taken somewhat of an 14 abrasive attitude, whether it was warranted or not.
15 And so it's only being admitted for that reason, 16 because of the interplay between Mr. Roland and OC.
17 Fine, let's go on to 236.
18 MR. GUILD: 236 through 239 appear to be not 19 objected to, Mr. Chairman.
JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, 236 then to 239 are 20 l 21 1 admitted.
22 I (Intervonor's Exhibits 236 thru 239 i
23 l identified and received.)
l 24 l JUDGE GROSSMAN: And...?
(~')
\'
25 : MR. GUILD: I see that 240 appears to be objected ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- <,:n, ~ _ - - , -_
A941 03 05 18500 m-
, OMT/bc 1 to by Staff.
2 MR. MILLER: This is one of the documents, your 3 Honor, that I identified for the Board yesterday as having 4 previously been made available to Intervenor.
5 MR. GUILD: Yes. And I simply have not had the 6 opportunity to track back through my files. But I accept 7 Mr. Miller's representation that it was previously made 8 available.
9 This is a document that I think is relevant.
10 Clearly, it's Mr. Feltman's -- looks to be his initial --
11 trend analysis when he came on site as a OA engineer, 12 October of '83.
13 And in this document, October '83, he identifies 14 general problems, adverse trends in the welding area.
15 And if you look at page 5 of the document, his 16 summary, you'll note there that he focuses on what he-17 characterizes as welding problems.
18 He recommends corrective action which includes to 19 address these welding problems -- problems of inspection and 20 installation, better training program for both craft and 21 quality control, a better ratio of welders of inspectors or 22 inspectors to wolders, et cetera, appearing at page 5 and 23 6.
24 We believe that the document's clearly relevant.
O 25 And if Intervonors missed this needle in the haystack, if it ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 ,w,. n . , us c-,. .. u -
A941 03 06 18501
(~3
\-/ OMT/bc 1 was available, which I accept that it was, we would ask that 2 it be admitted, notwithstanding our failure to include it...
3 (Interruption by sirens.)
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Ms. Chan, on what grounds were 5 you objecting?
6 MS. CHAN: The staff had objected in that we 7 believed that this material was cumulative and that all this 8 information is already in the record.
9 JUCCE GROSSMAN: Was this trend analysis in the 10 record some way?
11 MS. CHAN: Not all the details of the trend 12 analysis.
(~)
\- 13 MR. GUILD: No, I don't believe it's in the 14 record at all except that -- unless someone acknowledges 15 that there are widespread problems in the weld inspection 16 program. There's certainly no document that pins down in 17 time OC-management identification of these problems. And 18 this document does that.
19 It's intended as a foundation. It certainly l
20 l doesn' t expand the contention in any respect. And, again, I i
j 21 ; think it reflects probably favorably on Mr. Feltman. But 22 f it's a foundation piece of evidence.
23 l JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, just on the grounds that
! j I 24 l it wasn't offered before, well, though I think those are l ([) ')
l
' 25 , weighty grounds -- I really don't understand why, if l
L !
l I l f ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2f !2-347-ri a) Nationu n.le Coscrage M1lL336 th
A941 03 07 18502 p.,
\ ,! OMT/bc 1 Mr. Guild had this, he didn't offer it, because it does seem 2 relevant to the case he put on and to a number of things 3 that we heard.
4 MR. GUILD: I didn't have it, J udge. I may have 5 had the opportunity to have it, but I certainly did not have 6 it and make any conscious decision not to offer it.
7 Again, it was certainly part of a large number of 8 documents that I'll accept Mr. Miller's representation were 9 made available.
10 But I didn't make any conscious decision not to 11 offer it. So if I was derelict in not having identified it 12 earlier, I'd ask the Board to excuse that...
[)
\- 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, I think we'll admit this 14 and we'll allow Mr. Miller again to have whatever allowance 15 he wishes from any kind of rebuttal document, or rebuttal 16 testimony if he wishes on this.
17 So you have that opportunity, Mr. Miller.
18 MR. MILLER: Thank you, sir.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, 241.
MR. GUILD: Thank you.
20 l 21 ! (Intervonor's Exhibit 240 identified 22 j and received.)
MR. GUILD: 241 appears to be not objected to, 23 l l
24 l nor 242.
i
(~5
\- JUDGE GROSSMAN: 241 is received and so is 242.
25 l i
l l
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I mm , s _ac c~ ,e mm -
A941 03 08 18503
.m k- OMT/bc 1 (Intervenor's. Exhibit 241 &-242 2 identified and received.)
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: 243 was objected to by both 4 applicant and staff...
4 5 MR. GUILD: Yes, if I may catch up.
6 Mr. Sachlach directs a memo to Mr. Medikey of 7 Commonwealth Edison Company employee, October of '83, again 8 raising the question of inspection responsibilities for 9 vendor welds.
10 He identifies specific hangars and says they were
, 11 inspected before erection for possible defective welds.
I
- 12 These hangars are believed to be vendor-manufactured welds 13 and are not nonconforming to present welding procedures.
i 14 "They'll be inaccessible later. The welds are j 15 heavily painted, have no vendor-welder 1.d. stamps. What do 16 you want us to do?"
j 17 Simply reflecting a continuing uncertainty, lack 18 of specificity about the directions and how to handle these i
19 problems.
- 20 Then, if you look at 244, it really falls in the 21 same category, and I'd ask that we just address that at the i 22 same time. It's the company's response. It appears to be j 23 Mr. Ilansen from PCD riding back to Comstock.
24 And he says:
25 " Continue installing pan hangars in unit two i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347 371t) N.itionskle Conetage 8(Xk))f*6646
, . . - . . - -- - . . - - . . = . _ - . - . - - . -. .
4 j % .
I A941 03 09 18504 OMT/bc 1 wingwalls. Continuing LKC field weld inspection only," with j 2 an emphasis.
l
~
3 "An analysis of all manufacturer's welds are 4 being done by another inspection company."
4 5 This is Edison again clearly saying, when 6 confronted with nonconforming weld conditions apparently i
7 caused by Systems Control Corporation, just directing t 8 Comstock QC not to -- not to perform quality control 1
i 9 documentation of those problems.
j 10 MR. MILLER: Yes, your Honor, but -- this is Mike 11 Miller. Yes, 245, we've objected to all three documents,
?
12 243, 244 and 245. They all deal with the same situation.
i Q
v 13 And I think Mr. Guild has accurately. characterized the
]
i 14 issue.
i 15 But, again, the question of who had inspection f
{ 16 responsibilities for systems control welds is really i
l 17 irrelevant I think to the issues before the Board.. ;
18 MR. GUILD: I'm sorry, I missed 245, Judge.
l 19 Mr. Miller's right. It obviously goes to the situation, i 20 too. And just to round out the discussion, 245 appears to 21 l suggest that, at the time, that is, November of '83, the >
i i 22 l process -- there was going to be some effort to identify l l l 23 l which welds were done by whom.
i i There's a suggestion in 245 that they are to go 24 l
. 25 out and stamp the vendor manufactured welds so they can be [
1 I
l 1
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
x.-,, s m ... m .,,,, -,
A941 03 10 18505
'kl OMT/bc 1 distinguished with a unique stamp from the Comstock 2 identified welds.
3 All of'this goes to particularly the conservatism
. '4 or nonconservatism of the CSR, or the applicant's rebuttal
,. 5 case, attributing unidentified discrepant weld conditions to
'6h Comstock, suggesting of course that that wasn't the 7 conservative approach given these documents which evidence 8 an identification of the problem early on and some effort to 9 deal with it; at least 245 suggests that they were going to
-10 try to mark the welds to distinguish between the two.
11 12
,- V("h^
13
.14-15
! 16 l 17 jl 18 719 l 20 i
21 22 i
23 24 25~ .
t
\
1
{
1 ACE-FEDERAL mm.3. ,,_ REPORTERS;lNC.
m_.,. ,_
0941 04 01 18506
(,-
~. OMTbur 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, Mr. Miller, doesn't this 2 cut the other way? Doesn't this support you as opposed to 3 that document that we let in a few minutes ago, the number 4 of which escapes me now?
5 MR. MILLER: Having let in the earlier ones, I 6 guess I would just as soon have these three in as well.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Pardon?
8 MR. MILLER: I say, having let in the earlier 9 documents --
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, I think so. I think it 11 1 would be unfair to you to have let the other one in without 12 these in, also.
r"T O 13 So why don't we let in -- Intervenors will 14 receive them -- 243 through 245.
15 (Intervenor's Exhibits 243 16 through 245 identified and 17 received.)
18 MR. GUILD: 246, 247, and 248 appear to be not 19 objected to, Mr. Chairman.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, we will admit 246, 247, 21 and 248.
- 22 (Intervenor's Exhibits 246 23 through 248 identified and 24 received.)
25 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, if I could just call l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage R&336M46
0941 04 02 18507 7x k- OMTbur 1 the Board's attention once again on Exhibit 248 to the 4
2 handwriting.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, okay.
4 MR. MILLER: I am -- on my copy the right margin 5 is cut off.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And it is, I believe, on all the 7 copies.
I 8 MR. GUILD: Yes, mine as well.
9 MR. MILLER: Bob, do you believe -- excuse me, I 10 don't mean to speak directly to Mr. Guild, but I assume this 11 is attributed to Mr. Sacklack.
, 12 MR. GUILD: Well, I better not be too hasty in 13 saying that. That is certainly my first assumption on 14 looking at it, but let me look again. Comparing 239 --
15 MR. MILLER: It does not look like Sacklack's 16 printing.
17 MR. GUILD: I think you are right. I think it is l 18 Mr. Sacklack and someone else.
l 19 I don't have any problem not admitting the 20 handwriting, Judge, on this one, since there appears to be 1
21 some uncertainty.
i 22 JUDGB GROSSMAN: Okay, fine. We will exclude 23 from 248 the handwriting that appears on page 1, but the 24 document then is admitted without that.
- 'N 25 MR. GUILD
- All right, sir.
i l
. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80(K336-6M6
0941 04 03 18508
-/ OMTbur 1 Let me_see, 249 appears'to be objected to by the 2 Staf f, Mr. Chairman.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That is correct.
4 MR. GUILD: This document is simply a foundation 5 document. It is from --
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Does Staff object to this on 7 grounds of relevance?
8 MS. CHAN: Yes, the Staf f had objected on terms 9 of relevance.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Mr. Guild?
11 MR. GUILD: It simply reflects a communication 12 from Edison to the contractors. This was in Mr. Sacklack's 13 file. You will note in the upper righthand corner there's 14 R. Sacklack written on it.
15 Mr. Roland, the project construction supe manager 16 for Comstock, transmitting this to Mr. De Wald. You will 17 see copies to De Wald at the bottom. January of '84.
18 Let me see now.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I take it this fits in 20 with your general position that at that time there were 21 production pressures on OC inspectors?
22 MR. GUILD: Yes, this is essentially the 23 transmittal to Quality Control supervision of expected 24 production milestones, essentially the fuel load schedule 25 and el ;trical installation requirements, that of course ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-37(X) Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
0941 04104 18509
' 2. OMTbur 1 QC inspectors were expected to work to.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, it seems to fit in with, 3 that whole area. 'So we will admit 249.
4 (Intervenor's Exhibit 249
. 5 identified and received.)
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: The next one that we have a 7 problem with, I believe, is 260. So we-will let in -- I am 8 sorry, there are objections to 255 and 257 by Applicant 9 again on grounds that these were documents that were 10 previously produced.
11 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir, I am --
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: So we will let in 250 through 13 254. We are receiving those.
14 (Intervenor's Exhibits 250 15 through 254 identified and 16 received.)
17 MR. GUILD: Okay.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And let's see what 255 has to 19 offer.
20 MR. GUILD: 255 appears to document a meeting at 21 which conflicts between Craft and Quality Control were 22 discussed. Comstock Quality Control, Mr. De Wald referring 23 to the backlog, Frank Roland talking about, you know, craft 24 considerations.
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, this seems to be more ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8t4336-646
=_ ~
0941 04 05 18510
. r) b -l OMTbur 1 relevant than most of the documents that we have discussed, 2 and I guess the only objection being that you received this 3 earlier, and this again is the kind of document I would 4 expect that if you had seen, Mr. Guild, you would have 5 offered.
6 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir, and I certainly would have 7 if I had had it before me. Again, I don't dispute 8 Mr. Miller's representation that it was available. But if 9 it is chargeable to my neglect for not having offered it, it 10 wasn't a conscious decision, and I would ask the Bcard'to 11 accept that.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, Mr. Miller, we will let 13 this in under the same conditions that you can prepare 14 rebuttal to it if you wish, and by next week, the beginning 15 of the week, if you inform us, we might then schedule 16 something or receive some other document that you may wish 17 to offer.
18 So we will let in 255.
19 (Intervenor's Exhibit 255 20 identified and received.)
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: 256 is not objected to.
22 MR. GUILD: 257, Judge, on the same grounds, I 23 take it.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And 257 is similarly one that 25 Mr. Miller indicates that he had produced to you.
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. !
202 347-37(0 Nationaide Cos etage 8h336-6M6
i t 0941 04 06 18511
,m .
(L).u OMTbur 1 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir.
-2 Again, I don't recall naving seen this document, 3 although it may well have been made available. This appears 4 to reflect the preparation of the coupons, those coupons 5 used by Comstock to --
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, this deals with the 7 Puckett incident, I assume.
8 MR. GUILD: Yes. And the importance, I think, is 9 that it has Mr. De Wald communicating to Mr. Quanko of 10 Edison QA. The purpose for which the coupons were produced 11 were fabricated, and the language that is important is to 12 ensure that the weld inspectors can identify various defects 13 prior to certification and also prior to the practical exam 14 which is given in the field.
15 First, it suggests that the exam was still to be 16 a practical exam in the field. Of course, in Mr. Puckett's 17 case, he is asserted to have been terminated, not for l 18 flunking a field exam but for flunking a test using these 19 coupons.
20 Second, the defects -- the coupons were supposed 21 to have been prepared to test the identification of 22 defective conditions, and we believe that that is not 23 consistent with the way the coupon -- the Puckett test was 24 graded, which was for identifying nonrejectable conditions
(,
25 as well.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
0941 04 07 18512 OMTbur 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, Mr. Miller, if you wish to-2 argue the point. We let Mr. Guild put his position on the 3 record on this.
4 If you wish to -- I see you don't object on 5 grounds of relevance -- if you wish to state anything, 6 fine. Othe rwi se , we will just admit it and give you the 4
7 same allowance we have given you with regard to those other 8 documents that you had previously produced.
9 MR. MILLER: Thank you.
10 (Intervenor's Exhibits 256 and 11 257 identified and received.)
- . 12 MR. GUILD
- 258, 259 --
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, so we will admit 257 14 then.
15 And 258 has not been objected to. We.will admit 16 that.
17 (Intervenor's Exhibit 258 18 identified and received.)
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: 259 is not objected to, and we 20 will admit 259.
21 (Intervenor's Exhibit 259 22 identified and received.) ,
23 MR. GUILD: 260 is objected to by the Staff, and 24 it appears to also be one of the documents Mr. Miller
(')
\# 25 identified as having been earlier produced.
s T
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage MG 336-6M6
0941.04 08 18513
)
f~/'
N, OMTbur 1 MR. MILLER: That is right, and Applicant.also 2 objects on grounds of relevance, your Honor.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
4 MR. GUILD: Addressing all those points, this is 5 De Wald to Roland, committing to completing -- this is a 6 schedule document -- completing the schedule for the review 7 of the ADOS.
8 The ADOS of course were the subject of 9 Mr. Hunter's work. They also are the subject of generally 10 QC inspection activities.
11 This document establishes that they were working 12 to a schedule to complete that program.
7 13 The importance, in addition, that attaches to the I
14 document and in the form in which it comes, which only comes ,
15 now, is that it is from Mr. Sacklack's file, and you will 16 note that there is handwriting at the top which I believe is 17 clearly Mr. Sacklack's, and it says "Special Project."
18 There is a series of documents that follow that 19 appear to be Mr. Sacklack documenting a pile-up of work, 20 work that was on his shoulders, and this is one of those i
21 documents. This is one of those projects.
22 We believe it is evidence particularly as to the 23 pressures on Mr. Sacklack, which we of course believe he 24 transmitted to the inspectors under his supervision.
! 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Miller?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336- % 86
I i
0941 04 09 18514 i /
'-4 OMTbur 1 MR. MILLER: Well, your Honor, this document on 2 its face doesn't indicate anything about Mr. Sacklack. ;
3 Indeed, it ref ers to a Mr. V. Brown, who I believe at that 4 time was also a supervisor, and it just refers to an 5 estimated completion date using two OC inspectors.
6 I just think it is irrelevant.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: It seems to be very marginal to 8 me, Mr. Guild.
9 MR. GUI LD: It is a foundation drcument, Judge, 10 but I do believe it should be admitted to allow the 11 Intervenors to make whatever argument they might, including 12 this as among a number of other documents that are kJ 13 foundations from Mr. Sacklack's file.
14 This is, you will note, copied to him with a 15 check at the bottom and I believe what appears to be his 16 handwriting at the top.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Ms. Chan?
18 MS. CHAN: Staff has ob3ected on grounds of 19 relevance because the Staff maintains its earlier position 20 that there was nothing improper with management having a 21 ? scheduling of work.
l 22 i JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, do you agree, though, that d
i 23 ' if all of the pieces are put together and it indicates that 24 there were a lot of scheduling matters that were coming up,
,/~T 25 that it might add to -- it might support Intervenors' ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3710 Nationwide Coserage Sh336-6M6
t 0941.04 10 18515 u OMTbur 1 position?
2 My problem is that it does seem marginal. .I can 3 see'how it can be used.
4 MS. CHAN: If the Intervenor is suggesting that 3 t 5 this.is improper production pressure as opposed to the 6 normal requirements of production, then the objection still 7 stands.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I think we will let this one in 9 then, and Mr. Guild can make whatever argument he wants, 10 though it does, as I said, appear to me to be very 11 marginal.
i 12 (Intervenor's Exhibit 260
+_
'ss' 13 identified and received.)
a 14 MR. GUILD: Yes,. sir..
15- 261 appears to be not objected to.
16 MR. MILLER: I believe we had an objection to the j
17 relevance of'that one and 262 as well.
18 MR. GUILD: Well, my notes says otherwise.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, no, there hasn't been, 20 but, Mr. Miller, you can certainly raise that now.
21 MR. MILLER: I am sorry.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Do you wish to raise that 23 relevance objection?
i 24 MR. MILLER: Yes, sir, I do.
f- 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, okay, fine.
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 ' Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
.0941 04 11 18516
' \-l OMTbur 1 MR. MILLER: Well, this document apparently deals 2 with the unit concept trend analysis and all it requires is 3 that the unit concept reports be trended, and then there is-4 a reference to -- in the body of one of the items that are 5 ' identified as deficient for the QC Department, whatever that 6 means, a reference to inspecting all the electrical hangers 7 of a certain size -- with base plates of a certain size, and 8 then a handwritten comment, and I just don't understand the 9 relevance of this document to the issues.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine.
11 By the way, I heard a ringing noise, and I just 12 want to make sure we didn't lose anyone.
13 Mr. Guild, are you still there?
14 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir, I am.
15 MR. MILLER: I am still here.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Ms. Chan, you are still there?
17 MS. CHAN: Yes, sir, Staff is still here.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, and Mr. Miller was just 19 talking.
20 And, Judge Callihan, you are still there, are 21 you?
22 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Yes.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Judge Callihan?
24 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Yes.
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, okay.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage Wh336-6M6
0941 04 12 18517 g.
l-l. OMTbur 1 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, if I might, this again 2 appears to be Mr. Sacklack's notes. I don't mean to ask for 3 the technical issues to be litigated, but here we have 4 Mr. De Wald, the Quality Control Manager, telling 5 Mr. Sacklack, among other QC supervisors, that an adverse 6 trend has been identified within Mr. Sacklack's area of 7 responsibility apparently, and here we have Sacklack noting 8 this as yet another source of pressure on him.
9 Again, this is May of '84.
10 A note at the bottom in Sacklack's handwriting 11 apparently disputing that these were within the scope of his 12 work in the past and essentially taking issue with being b)
s- 13 criticized by his management.
14 One more source of pressure. I am not trying --
15 we are not trying to establish here the technical merits of 16 the various positions of either Mr. Sacklack or Mr. De Wald 17 or the unit concept findings, just simply a foundation 18 evidence that the mounting pressures on Mr. Sacklack again 19 explain his in turn pressuring the inspectors who worked for 20 him.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, it seems as though 22 Mr. Guild can make that argument f rom the document, so it 23 appears to me to be relevant.
24 So we will admit that document.
25 I see Staff has not objected to that.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8 6 336-6646
0941 04 13 18518 q
\-1 OMTbur 1 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Callihan here.
2 What about the handwriting?
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, is the handwriting 4 acknowledged to be that of Mr. Sacklack?
5 MR. MILLER: Yes, I will acknowledge it is 6 Mr. Sacklack's.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, so that is fine.- So we 8 are admitting 261, including the handwriting.
9 MR. GUILD: Thank you.
10 (Intervenor's Exhibit 261 11 identified and received.)
12 MR. GUILD: 262 seems to be objected to by
. - (d-13 Applicant.
14 Cable pulls are being stopped. These'are the 15 result of some Shultz findings. Again, it is not the 16 technical findings that is of interest to Intervenor at this j -17 stage. What is of' interest is that we have again one more 18 source of pressure on Mr. Sacklack.
19 The copy is indicated by the checkmark at the 20 bottom as coming to Mr. Sacklack. It is his handwriting at 21 the top. It is a cable pulling problem, another one 22 mounting up on OC supervision.
23 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, I guess the relationship 24 between this document and pressure on Mr. Sacklack just
( 25 seems quite --
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-370t) Nationaide Coverage 8%336 6M6
0941 04 14 18519
'- OMTbur 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, I don't see that either the 2 same way I did on the prior document. There doesn't seem to 3 be any time pressure here, even that can be inferred.
4 Did we have any problem with regard to the 5 stoppage of safety-related cable pulls in the testimony?
6 MR. GUILD: We had --
7 MR. MILLER: I don't believe it was addressed in 8 anyone's testimony, your Honor.
9 MR. GUILD: We had -- well, I am not sure that 10 there was, to tell you the truth. What the document 11 reflects is an inspection finding by Mr. Shultz that I don't 12 believe was directly the subject of testimony.
'/ 13 What it does reflect, of course, is that in 14 response to Mr. Shultz' finding cable pulling activities 15 were stopped and there was a necessity for a revision of the 16 cable pulling -- or cable installation procedure, 4.8.8, by 17 a certain time, and I think the inference that can be drawn 18 is that Mr. Sacklack gets this memo, it is another source of 19 pressure, another task on him.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, it seems to be a one-day 21 pressure, Mr. Guild. I don't think that we really ought to 1
be considering this.
22 l 23 l MR. GUILD: All right.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: At the most, Mr. Sacklack was rx
)
being hurried on 5/10/84 until 4:30 on 5/11. So I think 25 l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
E-347-3700 Ntionwide Coserage Mn31MM6
0941 04 15 18520
/^s j OMTbur 1 we will exclude this document. We are not admitting that.
2 MR. GUILD: All right, sir.
3 (Intervenor's Exhibit 262 4 identified and rejected.)
5 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, on the next document, 6 Intervenor's 263, we have no objections to the document, 7 but -- and I really am not the one to be raising this, I 8 guess, since these come from our files -- but I have -- the 9 legibility of the handwriting, particularly in the lower 10 righthand corner of the first page.
11 Perhaps Mr. Guild could --
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: There is some handwriting there?
/"T
(_/ 13 MR. GUILD: Yes, it is very faint.
14 I have no problem simply excluding the 15 handwriting on this document, Mr. Chairman. I don't believe 16 the handwriting is material to the basis for our --
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, that is all the 18 handwriting then?
19 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir, I have no problem I
eliminating that, 20 l t
21 ^ JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, so we will admit 263 22 ! without the handwriting.
I 23 l MR. GUILD: Well, J udge, let me just make one 24 caveat. If you will notice, there's attachments. These are
/~'t i
\/ 25 ' the sample forms, and they have instructions on them. Those ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3C-347-37m Nationwide Cos erage *4346t46
... . -- .~ . . -. -- . . -. . ,
, 0941 04 16 18521
< \-s- OMTbur. I handwritings appear to be clear, and I would ask that those 1- 2 be included.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, yes, okay. I take it there 4
4 is no objection to those handwritings, Mr. Miller.
5 MR. MILLER: No, sir.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine. So we are just 7 excluding the handwriting on pages 1 and 2, but not on the 8 attachments.
9 (Intervenor's Exhibit 263 10 identified and received.)
t' 11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Intervenor's 264 was not l
12 objected to, so we will admit that.
, 13 (Intervenor's Exhibit 264 14 identified and received.)
I~
l 15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: 265 was objected to by 16 Applicant.
17 Mr. Guild?
18 19 20 l 21 22 1
23 l
! 24 lO 25
! I f
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I- 202-347-3700' Nationwide Coserage s00-33Medo
0941 05 01 18522
ul LIVEbw 1 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir, Mr. Cwako is apparently 2 telling everybody at the site that they are not to access 3 the SECO QA MRR file, that is Material Receiving Report 4 file nor interrogate any personnel for SECO, PTL, et cetera 5 engaged in MRR processing, for the purposes of obtaining MRR 6 status.
7 There was evidence offered to suggest that 8 Mr. Puckett was somehow derelict in not having performed a 9 complete review of the SECO files. Those are the material 10 receipt -- material certification -- I'm searching for a 11 term of art, but they were essentially the files reflecting 12 the heat (?) numbers and other identifying numbers for weld ts k_) 13 rod. And that if Mr. Puckett had simply accessed those 14 files which were accessed in preparation for this 15 litigation, he would have been able to have, you know, 16 completed the review that was later completed by others.
17 And this document is of fered to reflect that 18 perhaps accessing those SECO files was viewed as not quite 19 as simple or available an option as applicant would 20 suggest. Mr. Cwako apparently saying, in no uncertain 21 terms, that he doesn't want anybody messing with these SECO 22 MRR files.
23 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, my recollection of 24 Mr. Puckett's testimony is that he described the steps he l'
k-)/ 25 ' went through in searching for those material certifications, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2 2 347-3700 %tionwide Coserage & 4 334 6646
J 0941 05 02 18523
- (~s A-) LIVEbw 1 including dealing with certain Commonwealth Edison 2 personnel, and I, for the life of me, can't recall whether 3 he even identified them or indicated whether they were 4- quality assurance individuals or, as Mr. Cwako's memo i 5 indicates, the cognizant PCD engineer. But he -- I really j 6 think that this'is way off on the edges of relevance to any 7 issue in the proceedings.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Ms. Chan?
, 9 MS. CHAN: Staff did not have any objection on 10 the relevance ground.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I'm asking you whether you 12 recall whether this relates to Mr. Puckett's matter.
13 MS. CHAN: Yes. We believe it relates to 14 Mr.~Puckett's matter.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, you do? Okay. Then we'll 16 allow it in, and the parties can make their arguments.
17 So we're receiving 265.
18 (Intervenor's Exhibit 265
{ 19 identified and received.)
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: 266 was objected to by both 21 Staff and Applicant.
22 Mr. Guild?
4
}
l 23 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir.
24- Here we had Edison essentially telling the j
O 25 contractors, Comstock, among them, that they should not l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3AU Nationwide Coserage 800 336-fM6
. - - . ~ - - . - . - -,. ...- --.. - - - , , - - . , . , , , - - . . - - - - , , . . - . , , , , - , - .-- - ,,-- - -
0941 05 03 18524 l)
's2 LIVEbw 1 concern themselves about the documentation of clearance 2 problems. That is, cable tray, conduit and other components 3 of the case of the electrical contractor. No NCR field 4 problem sheets (inaudible) are required, it says, 5 Mr. Casero.
6 This of course, is noted by -- there's 7 Mr. Roland's handwriting in the bottom, copies to QC. And a 8 note at the time from the quality control manager, post and 9 return to me, and a note from CHS, Mr. Stiles, QA engineer, 10 I want to say, noting that these separation violations are 11 to be picked up on, " final walk down." This is back in 12 1983, we have Edison saying, don't- worry about these quality 13 problems. They are going to be caught on final walk down 14 We think this evinces an attitude on the part of 15 Edison project construction department to discourage quality 16 control from identifying obvious discrepant conditions 17 involving the separation problems. Putting it off to this 18 mythical final walk down.
L 19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Ms. Chan, were you objecting to 20 the relevance here or only because someone's name appears?
21 MS. CHAN: Both. But we were objecting to the 22 relevance, because we think the connection is too tenuous.
23 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, my recollection is that 24 the only reference, prior reference to this issue of 25 ' clearances and how they were going to be resolved, occurs ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M-347 37to Nationwide Cmerage mk336-u46
0941 05 04 18525
[
\-4 LIVEbw 1 in Mr.-McGregor's testimony. And what I heard Mr. Guild 2 saying, in essence, was that there is now a substantive 3 issued before the Board as to whether or not it is 4 appropriate to defer the resolution of clearances until the 5- fir al walk down, or whether they should have been dealt with 6 at some earlier stage.
7 I don't see that that is something that is 8 comprised within harassment, intimidation and production 9 pressure contentions and really opens up just an entirely 10 new subject matter at this very, very late stage in the 11 proceedings.
12 MR. GUILD: I don't mean to expand the subject 13 matter at all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Miller perhaps 14 misunderstood me. I think the document evidences an 15 attitude on the part of Commonwealth Edison Company, and 16 indeed, there is other evidence of record that Mr. McGregor 17 shares the concern -- shares a concern about deferring 18 identifying discrepant conditions to final walk down, but 19 again, that reflects an attitude about concern for quality 20 and safety matters on the part of Commonwealth Edison 1
21 Company, and that's the purpose of offering this document.
22 MS. CHAN: Your Honor?
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes.
, 24 MS. CHAN: Staff believes that Mr. Guild is i 25 trying to get in some of this reliance on final walk down, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j - >- sm_ c_,.
1 l
0941 05 05 18526 l'% l 5-4 LIVEbw I which was dismissed, one of the contention subparts, which 2 was dismissed, and the Staff continues to object on l 3 relevance grounds.
4 MR. GUILD: I'm explaining one more time, Judge, 5 that desire to litigate either something that was previously 6 dismissed, if it was, I take Ms. Chan at her word on that, 7 or that it is a substantive issue reflecting in this 8 document. It is the attitude about quality that is of 9 concern to Intervenor hore, as it relatcc to the admitted 10 contention.
11 MS. CHAN: Your Honor, the Staff does not believe-12 that the attitude is relevant, if that is the position that 13 Mr. Guild is trying to take.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, it seems to us that we're 15 not going to allow any findings with regard to the specific 16 substantive issue of walk downs, but as just one small piece 17 in Mr. Guild's chain of attitude, I will allow it for 18 whatever he could make of that, but we're certainly not 19 going to entertain any findings on that substantive matter.
20 So we will admit the document for that marginal 21 relevance then. So we're admitting 266.
22 (Intervenor's Exhibit 266 23 identified and received.)
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Now, 267 was not objected to.
25 So we will admit that.
f I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
h C .147-3700 Ntionwide Co.crage 80tL33MM6
.m._ _.. - , , - . . . . . , , , . . - , _ . . , . . . _ _ . - . . , , , . _ - , , - . _ , , _ . _ - - _ - , . - - , - - - - . . _ - - - - _ _ _ - , , _ , . _ -
0941 05 06 18527
( i
'wl LIVEbw 1 (Intervenor's Exhibit 267 2 identified and received.)
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: 268 was objected to by both 4 Applicant and Staff. Mr. Guild?
5 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir. The issue here is -- again 6 goes to two points. First, the subject is whether or not 7 beam stiffeners are within the scope of work of Comstock 8 Quality Control or not. And Mr. Sacklack raised a question 9 about that issue. It is not clear to him, as of June of 10 '84, and he writes a memo asking about the question. The 11 memo is preceded by a memo to -- it kind of came to him from 12 someone -- another quality control person, Mr. Frisby.
f-13 The point of the evidence is twofold. First, if 14 you recall in the CSR aspect of Applicant's rebuttal case, 15 they made the point that a conservatism was to impute the 16 absence of beam stiffeners to Comstock, even though, as they 17 state, the installation of beam stiffeners -- inspection of 18 beam stiffeners was the responsibility of Newburg.
19 This memo goes to the question of whether, 20 l indeed, that is a conservatism at all. It appears to be 21 uncertain, as of June of '84, to Mr. Sacklack just what --
who's responsible for beam stiffeners.
22 {
23 And second, again, more generally, it goes to the 24 question of whether or not there was a clear or not clear bl
\' direction to quality control supervision about what was 25 i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3760 Nationuide C0%erage !RU3MM
l
'l l
-. 0941 05 07 18528 LIVEbw I within the scope of their responsibilities.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Miller?
3 MR. MILLER: Well, your Honor, with that 4 explanation, I'll --
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You'll recede.
6 MR. MILLER: Yeah.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Fine. So we'll admit 8 268.
l 9 (Intervenor's Exhibit 268 10 identified and received.)
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And we'll admit 269, which is 12 not objected to.
13 (Intervenor's Exhibit 269 14 identified and received.)
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And Applicant objects to 270.
16 MR. GUILD: Mr. Sease, who was in charge of the 17 status department at the time, writes the memo that's j 18 appended, June 22, '84, to De Wald, making the point that 19 Sacklack's area of responsibility is falling behind, and 20 that is, inspecting to these rework requests, things that I 21 have been fixed, I gather, and are again ready for final 22 inspection. De Wald writes to Sacklack and says, "You're l 23 f alling behind," as of June of '84. "The turnaround time 1:
J I
i 24 for rework review is one day."
25 Now what we have here is two things. First, l ,
l t
i i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
.m s _ m c _ ,. ,, _
0941 05 08 18529 (ki)
LIVEbw I again, evidence that Sacklack, under increasing pressure, 2 June of '84, his work's falling behind, and secondly, DeWald 3 stating one of those expected levels of average performance 4 again. Quota, schedule, production requirements. That is, 5 reworks are expected to be turned around in one day.
6 Both points are relevant, and we think 270 should 7 be admitted for those purposes.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Miller?
9 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, I don't know. If you 10 read the entire memo, it, in fact, says what Mr. Guild says, 11 but then Mr. De Wald goes on to say, look, if there's a 12 problem, let's get it corrected, but well --
(m
\-) 13 J UDGE GROSSMAN: I don't think we ought to be 14 arguing the merits. It looks like both sides could use the 15 document for their own argument. So we'll admit the 16 document.
17 (Intervenor's Exhibit 270 18 identified and received.)
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Now, the only other one 20 we have is 270 -- the only -- well, 271 and 272 were not 21 i objected to, so we'll admit those docen ents.
22 : MR. MILLER: No, sir. I had an objection to 271, l
23 I thought. This is simply a memorandum of the --
24 ! JUDGE GROSSMAN: I'm sorry. So we won't admit
(~') I k/ 25 ! 271 yet, if at all. I hadn't noted your objection to that, i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
-- m- -
1 0941 05 09 18530
s I LIVEbw 1 perhaps I failed to catch it, but you object on grounds of 2 relevance, Mr. Miller?
3 MR. MILLER: Yes. This is simply a memorandum 4 that apparently Mr. Sacklack's handwritten notes of the 5 meeting on the site, when BCAP was originally explained to 6 various individuals, and I don't, again, see the relevance 7 of the document to the issues before the Board.
8 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, what this reflect is --
9 first of all, I didn't note Mr. Miller had any relevance 10 objection to this either, when --
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. I think Mr. Miller 12 probably just forgot to include this in the listing, because 13 Judge Cole didn't have it either, but be that as it may, why 14 don't we discuss it now anyway.
15 MR. GUILD: Yes. In any event, what it reflects 16 is that, indeed, BCAP had a schedule, BCAP's schedule, as it 17 appears in Mr. Sacklack's notes, the third page of the 18 document, included completing inspections by November 26th 19 of 1984 and completing the BCAP report by December 17, 20 1984.
21 Those schedules were not only schedules that were held by BCAP, that is, by Dr. Caushell and the Task Force, 22 l 1 23 they were BCAP schedules which were communicated generally, I i 24 l including to the L. K. Comstock Quality Control supervision
/~T f l 25 down to Mr. Sacklack's level.
I i I,
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage M3346646
0941 05 10 18531
/^
t
\- LIVEbw 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well., now, didn't we have this 2 schedule on record already, M'r.' Guild?
3 MR. GUILD: We certainly had Dr. Caushell's 4 acknowledgment that the number of 84 reflected a projected 5 completion date of the report. I don't think we've ever --
6 I don't recall the dates, other dates, including the 7 November date for completion of inspection, but even if we 8 did, J udge, I think the point here is that this was a fact 9 known and communicated by Applicant to people generally, 10 including Mr. Sacklack.
11 MR. MILLER: But Mr. Sacklack, of course, had 12 absolutely no responsibility for any of the BCAP matters.
13 MR. GUILD: Well, whether he did or not, the 14 question is certainly how broadly Applicant committed to a 15 schedule. And Dr. Caushell makes the point that the f
16 schedule was never, you know, etched in stone, that it was simply, you know, goals, and gives the impression, after the 17 18 fact, that it was not a driving influence on the completion 19 of work, and I think that this suggests that it was much 20 more generally a commitment by Edison to complete this at a 21 much earlier date.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I don't think there's any 23 significance in the fact that it was communicated in some 24 way to Mr. Sacklach, although I don't really know in what 25 way. Was he brought in as a recording secretary? Because I
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cowrage EL)36-6M6
0941 05 11 18532
/m w LIVEbw 1 don't see that he was invited to the meeting or was on the i 2 carbon copy list.
3 MR. GUILD: This may very well be in 4 Mr. Worthington's handwriting, as a matter of fact, because 5 he is shown as getting a check mark -- there's a check mark 6 opposite his name on the first page.
7 MR. MILLER: Yes, that's true.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And I would guess that it 9 probably wasn't Mr. Sacklack, from the omission of his 10 name.
11 But now why shouldn't -- Mr. Miller, why i 12 shouldn't we have the scheduling in the record some way of 13 the CSR?
14 MR. MILLER: Well, your Fonor, I think that both 15 Dr.' Caushell and Mr. Gardner testified as to what the 16 schedule was and how it was amended from time to time as 17 necessary.
. 18 MR. STEPTOE: Judge Grossman, this Phil Steptoe.
l 19 My recollection is, there was actually an exhibit showing 20 that schedule.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Fina. We already have that, so we're not going to admit this.
22 l 23 (Intervenor's Exhibit 271 24 identified and rejected.)
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Now 272 was not objected to, and I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37(U Nationwide Cos crage aNL336 fM6
0941 05 12 18533 (j LIVEbw 1 so we will admit that.
2 (Intervenor's Exhibit 272 3 identified and received.)
4 cs JUDGE GROSSMAN: And 273 was one of those 5 Cocuments that was not -- that Mr. Miller indicates that had o been discovered by you earlier, Mr. Guild.
7 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir.
8 MR. MILLER: Did I neglect to inform the Board 9 and parties that I an objection as to relevance?
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, yes, you hadn't, but you 11 also have that objection, so we'll hear from Mr. Guild on 12 it.
/~'t
(/ 13 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir. This is simply evidence of 14 Mr. De Wald's, as we see it, telling inspectors that they're 15 not to be telling craft what to do.
16 ; Ironically, the earlier commitment by Edison is 17 , to the goal of in-process inspection, so that QC inspectors 18 can provide feedback input direction in some form or 19 fashion, if you will, to the craft, as they are performing 20 an in-process inspection or as their inspection is closely 21 following the installation that's being inspected.
22 Well, now once we have in-process inspection in 23 : the 1984 time frame, we have a direction that under no 24 circumstances, repeat not,to direct the craft at any time (3
kJ 25 during any function, that their responsibility is to verify ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347-37tu Nationwide Coserage $43%f646
-0941 05 13 18534
/~T k-/ 'LIVEbw 1 if there --
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, Mr. Guild, we don't have 3 an issue though of craft pressure on -- that is, the craft 4 persons in the field pressuring the QC inspectors.
5 MR. GUILD: I agree, Judge, but what we have here 6 is, we have Mr. De Wald, essentially telling his inspectors 7 to back off. What is of interest here is De Wald's 8 direction to the inspection force, and that is, that they-9 not take the initiative and intercede with craft.
10 We think that reflects on QC management. It is 11 not a question of what the reflection is on craft.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, it doesn't appear to me 13 that anything in here suggests any impropriety.
! 14 MR. GUILD: No, sir. I don't think so either. I i
15 agree with that.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And I just don't see how this 17 kind of pressure, which is to separate the QC function from 18 the craft function, relates to the pressure that we're 19 supposed to be dealing with. So we will exclude 273. We'rc 20 not admitting that.
21 MR. GUILD: All right.
22 (Intervenor's Exhibit 273 23 identified and rejected.)
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Now all the others have 25 not been objected to, and that is Intervenor's 274 through ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-f646
. . . _ . - _ . __ . _- _ _ _ ~
0941 05-14 18535
(")
\-1 LIVEbw 1 284, so we'will admit those.
2 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, I find --
3 ' JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Miller, were 4 there others omitted?
5 MR. MILLER: No, not at all, except that I find G that my stack I don't have a copy of Exhibit 279, and-I was 7 just wondering whether --
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: See whether there is a 279.
I 9 MR. GUILD: It should be 9.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We have a 279 here. It's a 11 speed -- or whatever " read and reply" memo.
12 MR. GUILD: It's f rom Mr. Bsong to
(
\ 13 Mr. Worthingon, Mike. It's July 30, '84. It has Bates 14 number of 756, last three digits, 756.
15 MR. MILLER: Could you just characterize it 16 briefly for me, please.
17 MR. GUILD: Yeah. "I'd like to suggest that you 18 see to 100 percent reinspection on all. cable pan, riser 19 hangars. Current inspectors are finding items that were not 20 looked for on previous inspections."
21 MR. MILLER: I have no objection to that.
22 , JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Fine.
23 So our ruling then stands, and we're admitting 24 Exhibits 274 to 234.
25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage *D-33&N4
e 0911 05 15 18536 p
Nd LIVEbw 1 (Intervenor's Exhibit 274-284 2 identified and, received.)
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. That concludes that 4 portion of the agenda for today. -
5 The next item is the Gedecki deposition.
6 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, excuse me, before . you 7 move to that subject, of. course, there were a number of 8 exhibits that were admitted without objection. You've.
9 extended to the Applicant an opportunity to respond by a 10 certain date to the ones that happen to.come up in 11 discussions-that were objected to, but were received.
12 Do I take it that that similar proviso applies to i O)
\- 13 the documents that were received?
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes. Applicant does have the 15 right to come in with further evidence, if it wishes on 16 these. Of course, we hope not to take too much further 17 time. We'd like to conclude the hearing, but why don't we i
18 leave it until the 9th of December.
l 19 Is that sufficient time, Mr. Miller, for you to 20 make a decision?
21 MR. MILLER: It certainly is, your Honor.
22 23 24 O
\_/ 25 i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage &XM36-6646
, . - _ . - _.m .,,_...___m_,., _ _ , - . - _ . , , , , , , _ . _ _ _ , , . . , . . . _ . . _ _ _ . , , , , , . _ _ , . _ . . . _ . . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ , _ _ . _
0941 06 01 18537
-OMT/bc 1 MR. MILLER: It certainly is, your Honor.
2" JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine. And if you have an 3 earlier decision, why don't you then communicate it earlier 4 to us and we'll see that the parties are contacted. Or you 5 can contact the parties first, actually, and tell them what 6 you intend to do and then perhaps set up any further 7 scheduling subject to our approval.
8 All right, fine.
9 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Callihan here. Is the December 10 9 communication to be verbal or written?
11 MR. MILLER: Verbally. I'll try to do it on the 12 telephone, your Honor.
rm 13 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Thank you.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Now are we ready to get 15 to the Kidecci deposition?
16 (No response.)
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. I see no objection. I 18 had thought that not all of it was to go in, and that some 19 portions might go in. I have reread that deposition. And l 20 it appears to me as though it either all ought to go in or 21 none of it ought to go in, because to take things out of 22 context, I think would distort the deposition.
I 23 { Now I don't know what the parties' feelings are 24 on that. I personally don't think that Kidecci's deposition 1
(~h x/ 25 j adds up to a plus or minus for anyone. That's a personal l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37m Nationside Cos erage 8M 3364M6
0941 06 02 18538
\-l OMT/bc 1 opinion. I can see how parts of it could help one party.
2 But I think, in sum, it really doesn't mean anything one way 3 or the other because the conclusion, even if you agree with 4 everything that Mr. Kidecci says, you come to the 5 conclusion...I think one must come to the conclusion that 6 you really don't know whether Mr. Puckett was competent in 7 the area of procedures or codes.
8l In any event, at the time he left Zimmer and the 9 decision has to be made as to whether he was properly 10 terminated, and what happened at Bravewood in any event.
11 Now, if the parties don't agree with that, we 12 might as well hear it right now because I don't think that
(
k 13 you can discuss the admissibility of that deposition without 14 touching somewhat on the substantive matters covered.
15 Mr. Miller?
16 MR. MILLER: Yes, your Honor, by and large, I d \
17 U agree with your assessment of the Kidecci deposition.
18 Frankly, as the evidence has unfolded, I tend to agree with 19 your overall analysis of its significance.
20 l And, to me, it is essentially background for the l
i 21 : events that took place at the Bravewood site involving 22 l Mr. Puckett.
1 23 i There is one exception in our judgment, however, 24 and that is the fact that Mr. Kidecci was in fact consulted A
25 ; by Mr. Puckett even while Mr. Puckett was at Bravewood.
I l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mm, s. . r- --
. ~ _ . _
i 0941 06 03 18539 OMT/bc 1 Mr. Kidecci's version of those conversations is-
- 2 something that has to be placed in context with 3 Mr. Puckett's recitation of what took place.
4 But, I don't...looking at the deposition ar, I did 5 very recently, I frankly do not anticipat.e extensive 6 reliance on it in the findings. But I do believe'it 7 provides relevant evidence and would ask, in accordance with 8 your observations, that the entire' document, entire 9 deposition be received.
10 As I gather, I don't know whether there's been a 11 ruling with respect to the Stout and Klatchco depositions.
12 I'm just not certain of that. Those are the ones that were 13 going to be designated by Mr. Guild.
14 And I think we agreed that those two depositions 15 would simply come in in their entirety.
16 That would be a satisf actory resolution as far as 17 I'm concerned.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Now, Mr. Guild?
19 MR. GUILD: Well, sir, Mr. Miller's general 20 agreement with the chairman simply doesn't reflect the 21 commitment that he's not going to rely on other aspects of 22 the Kidecci deposition.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: No, Mr. Guild. I would expect 24 that he would and whatever is in there that benefits his 25 case.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 370i) Nat sortwide Cmcrage 80ik 3364M6
0941 06 04 18540 h'4 .OMT/bc 1 MR. GUILD: Yes, and I agree with the chairman's 2 observations that there are things that cut both ways. I 3 would expect extensive designations of things that I found 4 favorable to Mr. Puckett.
5 But what essentially is going to have to happen t
6 is we don't make the designations now and the whole document 7 comes...I'm buying a pig in a poke and I'm going to have to 8 go through extensively in findings and litigate what 9 happened to Mr. Puckett at Zimmer, which I think is just 10 irrelevant.
11 I think that, frankly, the applicant has to live
, 12 with the fact that they took Mr. Puckett on the basis of his 13 resume, that his resume is an honest statement of his 14 background, that they interviewed him to their satisfaction, 15 but that they never sought anything other than confirmation 16 of the facts of his resume from his private...
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, let me say that, taking 18 the deposition in toto does not mean that we can't set some 19 ground rules as far as the use of the deposition. And I 20 certainly have no intention of entertaining findings ,
21 relating to what happened at Zimmer.
22 And so I don't think that we're going to be i 23 litigating that. Now, of course, having read the deposition 24 just recently, I don't even know what Mr. Kidecci --
25 apparently, it seems to me, on direct, he seems to implicate ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 147 Natio1 wide Coverage MU-3% M
---, .= _3700. __ _ . _ --- _ .- _ _ . - . _ , - _ . - - - - - - - - _ . - . - - - - . - - , - - . - - - - - . . -
0941 06 05 18541 n
%) OMT/bc 1 Mr. Puckett and some adverse findings by the NRC. But, 2 then, later, seemed to back off that and indicated that he 3 himself was the responsible man, and that items that he may 4 have implicated Mr. Puckett in could not have really been 5 handled by Mr. Puckett personally because he just wouldn't 6 have had the time to do that.
7 And he basically signed off on the same kinds of 8 things that Mr. Kidecci signed off, that the NRC 9 subsequently disagreed with.
10 Am I reading that incorrectly again, Mr. Miller?
11 or correctly?
12 MR. MILLER: I'm not sure, your Honor. I don't
(~)/
s- 13 have that...
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: But the point is I don't think 15 that what happened at Zimmer is really our concern here.
16 And I would expect, even if we admitted the deposition, that 17 we would tell the parties that we're not going to entertain 18 findings, proposed findings as to whose fault certain things 19 were in the Zimmer facility; because that's not part of the 20 case we have here.
21 We never litigated Zimmer and we indicated on a 22 number of occasions that we didn't care to. The only item i
23 ! that relating -- the only basic thing about Zimmer that 24 we're going to entertain is Mr. Kidecci's opinion of A
-J 25 Mr. Puckett, whatever that is worth. But not as to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m.m.3- m _ m r_, ~3-t
0941 06 06 18542 q-
-l OMT/bc 1 specifics of what happened in the NRC review of Zimmer and 2 who was culpable.-
3 MR. MILLER: Well, that touches on another 4 troubling. aspect of this, Mr. Chairman, and that is, of' 5 course, applicant elicits testimony from Mr. Kidecci:
6 "What is your opinion of Mr. Puckett?"
7 First, they get the opinion as reflected in his 8 evaluations over time. That cuts a couple of ways. But to 9 the extent it cuts against Mr. Puckett, we will be searching 10 the Zimmer record to try to establish that Mr. Kidecci's a
11 adverse evaluations had to be considered in the context of J
12 Kidecci coming in, finding what he found.
(3
\/ 13 Now, he also then is asked:
14 "If you had been contacted, in effect, what would 15 your opinion have been about Mr. Puckett's qualifications 16 for the Bravewood position?"
17 He wasn't contacted, of course. And he 18 volunteers an opinion and it's adverse to Mr. Puckett.
, 19 Now, that I think is wholly objectionable. It's i
20 irrelevant on the face because he wasn't contacted. It's 21 also suspect given that of course Mr. Kidecci was employed 22 by NPS, a consulting firm that is an agent of Commonwealth
! 23 Edison Company.
, 24 His employer, NPS, was an agent of Commonwealth 25 Edison Company at the time Mr. Miller first contacted him, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage SOIL)) M 646
0941'06 07 18543
./'T -
\-j OMT/bc 1 went with other counsel to see him in New Jersey, 2 interviewed him on this subject, brought him to Chicago, 3 interviewed him on this subject. And then took his 4 deposition and of course elicited the opinion that he sought 5 from Mr. Kidecci.
6 I can't cross-examine that opinion. I can tell 7 you what I've just said,'that there are reasons to doubt 8 its...
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I think the reasons to 10 doubt it, Mr. Guild, are somewhat apparent in the 11 deposition. And so one could -- there are things that cut 12 the other way. At the same time Mr. Kidecci offered that 13 opinion, there were things that tended to suggest otherwise, 14 including his last recommendation.
15 I think that was brought out on the deposition.
16 So I don't want to talk about what the Board's opinion is, 17 or what my opinion is, but I'm just saying that there are 18 things that cut both ways.
19 Whether we let the Kidecci deposition in or out 20 isn't really going to be a determinant. I don't know. I 21 can't speak for the other Board members.
22 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir. I guess, let me actually 23 round out my views. First, that he states opinion about 24 Puckett's qualifications for the Bravewood position.
25 Then he states technical opinions about the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 N,ationu kle Cmcrage MA336M46
- - - - - - - , , - - . - _ _ _ , - - _ - - . . _ _ - , , - - . , _ _ ,--- _, _ . . - , - - - _ _ _ _ . - , _ , . _ _ - - . - _ - - - , - . . . , _ _ , . - - - - , , . . _ . - . . , . . ~
'0941 06 08 18544
. fy
\ lf OMT/bc 1 . resolution, you know, of the procedural and code 2 interpretation issues.
3 Those were the sub' ject of Mr.-Miller's latest 4 efforts at a designation. He had technical opinions of 5 Kidecci principally, although lus's lef t in all of~
6 Mr. Kidecci's opinion evidence about Mr. Puckett's 7 qualifications.
8 In short, I think, in order to counter-9 Mr. Kidecci's absent opinion -- I mean, the opinion he's not 10 offering available for cross-examination, live from the 11 witness stand, I've got to search the record at the 12 deposition and the record more generally that I can find.
nss 13 I simply believe that the whole matter is 14 irrelevant and should be -- that the entire deposition 15 should be excluded principally for that reason.
16 To the extent that the Board finds that 17 Mr. Kidecci's testimony is relevant, I believe that he is ,
18 not unavailable. And that, in fairness, if they're going to 19 rely on his' opinion evidence, not factual evidence such as, 20 you know, who was hired when and at what point did 21 Mr. Puckett hold this job.
I 22 If you're going to rely on the Kidecci opinion 23 evidence as to Mr. Puckett's qualifications or as to the 24 resolution of technical matters, then I believe due process 25 requires that we have an opportunity to cross-examine ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
me.m ~ _ c_.,. se u-
-T 0941'06 09 18545 A-li OMT/bc. 1 Mr. Kidecci on the merits and that applicant, if they want 2 to rely on those things, should produce Mr. Kidecci for the 3 hearing, as they produced him for the deposition.
, 4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Miller?
5 MR. MILLER: I thought we crossed the last bridge 6 a long time ago. Mr. Kidecci is in fact in Germany. I'm 7 informed he has severed all connections with NPS. He was on 8 a leave of absence when his deposition was taken. .
9 He is now in a totally unrelated business in 10 Germany. And I believe that he qualifies as a witness who 11 is unavailable.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, Mr. Guild, I think we'll
/~}
k- 13 have to accept those assurances. We did discuss that many 14 times. And we have no indication that Mr. Miller's 15 information is incorrect.
l 16 And so, as far as unavailability goes, we'll just 17 have to accept the fact that he is unavailable. And to the
[ 18 extent that parts of his deposition, or all of it, might 19 otherwise be admissible evidence if he were called to 20 testify, then we ought to admit it.
i 21 Now I will say, my own opinion, that is, as one 22 of three Board Members, is that there is very little 23 relevance of Mr. Kidecci's deposition to the case.
24 I sense that my fellow board members think
{ 25 othe rwise . And I just don't think it's that worthwhile to
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
xmm, m m w o m ge mim
, _ - _ . . -. _ , . _ - ~ . , _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ . - _ _ , , _ . _ _ _ - , . . . , . . _ . . . _ , . _ _ , , _ _ , . , ~ . _ - . _ , . _ - , .
0941 06 10 18546 K-1 OMT/bc 1 pursue whether my view is correct or the other board 2 member's view is correct on that because I really don't 3 think that the deposition can add up to very much as far as 4 our decision in the case.
5 Now I say my feeling is it's irrelevant because 6 however you view the deposition, we are still back to the 7 same question, which is going to be decided by the board, 8 and that is whether what occurred at Bravewood was a 9 grounds...whether that was grounds for properly terminating 10 Mr. Puckett or whether it wasn't.
11 Now what Mr. Kidecci's opinion of Mr. Puckett 12 might have been really doesn't offer us anything as far as
(~')
\_/ 13 that goes. We really still have to judge it on the basis of 14 what Mr. Puckett's activities were at Bravewood, what his 15 recommendations were and how he functioned at Bravewood.
16 And I don't believe that, in that, there's going 17 to be any disagreement by the board. But let me go off the 18 phone for a second and consult with one of my colleagues 19 here, anyway.
20 h (Pause.)
21 I
22 l 23 4
24 ;
(~)
- 25 l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- o:n , Nam uc cene mmo u.48
0941 07 01 18547
(~;
ij OMTbur 1 (Pause.)
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I just want to let the parties 3 know we are still here and we are still discussing it.
4 But so f ar it seems that Judge Cole agrees that 5 if any of it comes in we ought to let all of it in but we 6 ought to at least have that guideline that we are not going 7 to entertain anything relating to anyone's culpability or 8 performance at Zimmer. That is just not part of what we 9 have here involved.
10 MR. MILLER: Your Honor?
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild.
12 MR. MILLER: This is Mike Miller, your Honor.
f k}s 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Miller, yes.
14 MR. MILLER: I would just like to point out for 15 the Board that it was during the cross-examination of Mr. De 16 Wald by Intervenors that Mr. Puckett's resume was introduced 17 and that his qualifications were squarely put in issue, and 18 Applicant believes that the question of Mr. Puckett's 19 qualifications for the job, including what his 20 responsibilities in fact were at the Zimmer plant over a 21 period of time which preceded his employment at Braidwood, r
22 ! are relevant.
I 23 f They are background information, and I cgree with 24 the Board that the question essentially turns on his
' 25 performance at Braidwood, but it is our position that --
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3mm ~ _ m o_,, m_
~
0941 07 02 18548 r 'y v2 OMTbur 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, are you saying now you 2 wish to use that impeach what Mr. Puckett said in his 3 resume?
4 MR. MILLER: In part, yes, sir.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, you are certainly entitled 6 to do that.
7 What we are excluding really doesn't relate to 8 that, and certainly if you feel that you can make an 9 argument that he misrepresented in his resume, you are 10 entitled to make that argument.
11 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, that is exactly the 12 point.
(O
\/ The limited purpose of the examination of Mr. De 13 14 Wald on this subject was because Comstock by way of a 15 document had taken the position with the unemployment people 16 that Mr. Puckett had f alsified or misrepresented his 17 background in his resume, and when cross-examined and 18 confronted with that statement, De Wald said he didn't know 19 about it but that as far as he was concerned the Puckett 20 resume was accurate, to the best of his knowledge.
21 ! Nothing suggests otherwise in this record. But 22 the only reason that Intervenors raised that issue was 23 because there was evidence of a pretextual basis for i
24 : excusing the retaliatory discharge of Puckett, and that was 25 our effort to -- and I believe we carried the day on this --
f l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, :o: m. s,_ m c-- mm
0941 07 03 18549
(~h
\-/ OMTbur 1 to establish through De Wald that that was indeed a 2 pretextual basis.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I am not saying that if 4 you can conclusively establish that it was pretextual that 5 Applicant wouldn't be wasting its time on that particular 6 issue, but we are not going to decide the merits right 7 here.
8 MR. GUILD: All right, sir.
9 I guess I just feel -- and the parting shot is 10 that if -- I think the Board's resolution of taking the j 11 whole deposition in is probably the most balanced over my 12 objection that the whole matter being relevant. It is just 13 that it will invite, unfortunately I believe, efforts _to try 14 to protect the parties' interests by extensive reference to 15 a matter that is of very limited relevance, at best.
16 I of course believe there is something for 17 everybody in the Goedechi deposition; it is just that we 18 shouldn't be wasting our time addressing that in findings. *
- 19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, Mr. Guild, I couldn't i
20 agree with you more, but I am speaking only as one of three 21 members here, not for the Board on that.
22 But nevertheless, the parties are going to have 23 their page limitations, and if they want to spend it on the 24 Goedechi deposition they are entitled to do that.
\
25 But we certainly don't have to give it any more i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37m Naiona nte rmerage 80t>336-(M6
0941 07 04 18550
/^)
ul OMTbur- 1 treatment than it is worth, and we just haven't fully 2 decided how much it is worth, and all I am giving you is my 3 personal or from-the-hip observation here.
4 MR. GUILD: I guess I would only ask that if --
5 since we are mindful of those page limitations and holding 6 to our belief that the matter shouldn't occupy much time, 7 Applicant does have the inherent advantage of not only 8 having the 200-page page limit but an opportunity to reply, 9 which is not made available to the other parties, at least 10 under the rules.
11 And I would just ask at this time that if 12 Applicant devotes attention to the Goedechi matter in its p)
\- 13 findings, that Intervenors be given either an opportunity 14 for supplemental response to that matter alone, either in 15 our principal findings or by way of reply, because this 16 really w.ould be truly a matter of reply, I think.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, are you talking about 18 their opening proposed findings, Mr. Guild?
19 ; MR. GU D: I will have those for a period of I
20 time -- yes, sir, I am. I am talking about that. All I am 21 l saying is that if I have to occupy a considerable portion of I
22 i my findings defending Mr. Puckett from the Goedechi 23 deposition because Applicant chooses to make reliance on i
24 1 that, I believe that I should be compensated for having to I')
\-
25 l I
do it.
I I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
.m ~ _ m- --
. . - - . . ~-
t -
0941 07 05 18551 I
O)'OMTbur
\- 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, Mr. Guild, you both have 2 page limitations, and if the parties find that there is some j 3 reason why they have to exceed slightly those-limitations, 4 they can always apply to us.
5 MR. GUILD: All right, sir.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine.
7 So we will at this point admit the Goedechi 8 deposition in toto, with the limitation that we have already 9 discussed.
j 10 Now, the next matter we have --
4 11 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Excuse me just a minute.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes.
13 JUDGE CALLIH AN: Before we leave Goedechi,
- 14 Mr. Miller, as a layman, a point of information.
15 In your December 1 letter about this deposition, 4
16 you used the word " designations" in the first paragraph:
l 17 Enclosed, a copy of the deposition of Goedechi 18 with numbered designations by the Applicant.
19 In this context, what do you mean by 20 " designations"?
1 21 MR. MILLER: Just the markings in the margin or
- 22 at the bottom of each page, your Honor.
23 JUDGE CALLIHAN: These are your underlinings and c 24 your A's on the margin?
25 MR. MILLER: Yes, sir, although we think --
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
! 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-334 6646
0941 07 06 18552 OMTbur 1 JUDGE CALLIHAN: What is the significance, then, 2 to be specific? What is the significance of the A on the 3 right margin?
4 MR. MILLER: Well, it was --
5 JUDGE CALLIHAN: In or out.
6 MR. MILLER: -- to indicate that it was the 7 Applicant's designation, but in view of the Board's ruling, 8 I think it is moot.
9 JUDGE CALLIHAN: It is academic now?
10 MR. MILLER: Yes, sir.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes. Let me put it in the right 12 context. I think I am the one that is responsible for
/%
(-) 13 requiring the designation. Until I had a chance to read the 14 depositions thoroughly, I thought that we could by 15 designation eliminate those matters that should not come 16 before the Board from the Goedechi deposition.
17 But it appears that it would be taking things out 18 of context to pass on designations or partial designations 19 of the record, and so I will take responsibility for having 20 l initiated that process, and then having decided that it 21 probably was not the wisest course of action.
j 22 ; JUDGE CALLIHAN: Callihan still.
l 23 l Whereas I wasn't privy to your discussion in 24 ! Bethesda, I feel if we are going to take any of this we r^s !
- 25 ought to take all of it.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mmm, ~ _m- m , ~.
-.~ . -- -. _ - _ . .
. 0941 07 07 18553 r")
k-J OMTbur 1
~
JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, okay, fine. No, I had 2 hoped -- I thought that probably you would have agreed with 3 that, and so that is fine.
4 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, is this going to be 5 designated an Applicant's exhibit then?
J 6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I believe so.
7 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Excuse me, is that Mr. Guild?
8 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir.
9 JUDGE CALLIHAN: What was your question, please?
10 MR. GUILD: I asked whether or not they wanted 11 this to be an Applicant exhibit, the Goedechi deposition.
12 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Thank you.
4 13 MR. GUILD: Judge Callihan.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Are you numbering that, then, 15 Mr. Miller?
16 MR. MILLER: Yes. I think that would probably be 17 the most expeditious.
18 Why don't we just refer to it then as -- it would 19 be Applicant's Exhibit 187.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. So Applicant's 187 then i 21 is received under the limitations we have discussed.
22 (Applicant's Exhibit 187 23 identified and received.)
i j 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Now, the next item that --
4 25 MR. MILLER: Your lionor, that brings up -- excuse i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j a,m, ,,. ~ _m _ ,, m u-
0941 07 08 18554 O
N-/ OMTb'ur 1 me -- a very mechanical point, but I am sure it is of
! 2 interest to Mr. Guild as well.
3 Typically, when we were in session copies of 4 exhibits were given to the court reporter for inclusion in 5 the official record.
6 Ilow shall we handle these exhibits that have been 7 admitted today and yesterday?
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I guess you ought to send a copy 9 to the reporter. ,
10 Mr. Reporter?
11 Tile REPORTER: Yes, sir.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I take it the best way would be 13 for them to send a copy to you and then you would deliver it 14 to the Secretary in the usual manner that you do.
15 Tile REPORTER: That is correct, sir.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. So why doesn't everyone 17 do that.
i 18 MR. MILLER: All right, if the court reporter i
! 19 will identify his name and address for the record, that i
- 20 would be helpful or he can communicate --
} 21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Send it in to Acc.
i i
22 But go ahead, Mr. Reporter.
i l 23 T!!E REPORTER: Yes. Send it to Ace Federal I
( 24 Reporters.
25 Do you have the address?
l I
i
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3hni Nationwide Emerage *XL336 6M6
0941 07 09 18555 OMTbur 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: All right.
2 MR. MILLER: I don't have the address, 3 Mr. Reporter.
4 THE REPORTER: Okay, 444 North Capitol Street.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: North Capitol Street.
6 MR. MILLER: 444?
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes. North Capitol Street, and 8 that is Washington, D.C. 20001.
9 MR. MILLER: Is it to anyone's attention, 10 Mr. Reporter? !
11 THE REPORTER: To the attention of me perhaps, 12 Joe Maggio. .
P O- 13 MR. MILLER: How do you spell your last nan.e, 14 sir?
15 THE REPORTER: M-a-g-g-i-o.
16 MR. MILLER: All right, thank you. I will.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Thank you.
18 THE REPORTER: Yes, sir.
f 19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine.
i j 20 Now, we are up to the next item, which is the .
i 21 software that we have been discussing, and I don't know ;
22 whether we ought to put this on the record, and perhaps 5
! 23 , not.
}
24 Maybe we ought to go on. Do we have any further l
O 25 matters?
i l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
! 20:0474?m Nanon*ide Gnerage m)4fM6 ,
0941.07 10 18556
[~'J OMTbur 1 MR. BERRY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This is Gregory N-t 2 Berry of .the Staf f.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes.
4 MR. BERRY: Mr. Chairman, on November 26, 1986 5 the Staff issued an inspection report. That would be 6 Inspection Report No. 50-456/86036; 50-457/86028.
7 This is an inspection report that addresses the 8 Staff follow-up and investigation of the allegations 9 relating to Mr. Martin and Mr. Arsenboe.
10 We would ask that the Board take official notice 11 of the issuance of this report. We understand that under 12 a longstanding rule of the case in this proceeding that the 13 report is not admissible for the substance of the matters 14 documented therein, inasmuch as Mr. Westburg, the author of 15 the report, did not testify in the proceeding.
16 Wo do believe, though, Mr. Chairman, that it 17 is -- and we would ask that the Board take official notice 18 of the issuance of the report to document and demonstrate 19 that the Staff in fact did take action on those allegations, 20 although the report would not be admitted for the substance 21 and the truth of the matters documented in that report.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: lias the report boon made 23 i available to all the parties and the Board members?
24 MR. BERRY: Yes, it has, Mr. Chairman.
25 MR. MILLER: I haven't received it as yet, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m ,a:. s _ m. u_,, -
0941 07 11 18557 C)
\-J OMTbur 1 Mr. Berry. This is Mike Miller.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild, how about you?
3 MR. GUILD: I got one yesterday, Mr. Chairman.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. I guess, Mr. Miller, you 5 ought to be getting one.
6 And I don't recall getting one, but if you say we 7 have, Mr. Berry, I will take your word for it and we will 8 take official notice that it has been distributed.
9 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I would of course 10 object to the Board making any finding, taking notice in any 11 respect to a report that is not in evidence and that is not 12 competent evidence.
O' s- 13 I believe the only way that Mr. Berry or the 14 Staff should be entitled to rely on this report is to offer 15 it through a competent witness. I just see, frankly, no 16 relevance to suggesting that official notice be taken of its 17 existence otherwise and that if he wants to make more of the 18 report than its existence, which would be relevant, then he 19 has to offer a witness.
JUDGE GROSSMAN: We are only taking notice of the 20 l 21 fact that the investigation has boon performed and that 22 findings were made and were documented in an inspection 23 report.
24 MR. GUILD: All right, sir.
25 J UDGE GROSSMAN: But as to the substance of those i
1 ACE-FEDERAL REl'ORTERS, INC.
-. . - :"! "T" - :-~~ .
~T'"
_ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ . . . _ .~ _ . _
- 0941 07 12 18558 OMTbur 1 findings, we are not accepting that.
2 MR. GUILD: All right, sir.
- 3 Mr. Chairman, then I would ask that the Board
- . 4 take official notice of the finding that a Severity Level 4 5 violation was entered against Commonwealth Edison Company 6 for -- and I quote
" I 9
7 ... contrary to the above NRC 8 inspection, revealed that the i
i 9 L. K. Comstock Company i
10 correc'tive action system l 11 allowed recognized nonconforming l
l 12 conditions in the Unit 2 upper 1
i 4
13 cable spreading room to go i
i 14 undocumented for 15 days after ,
i 15 their discovery."
16 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, I object. I mean, once l 17 again, without an opportunity to cross-examine the author of l 18 the report, which has been the Board's position all along, 19 I think that that is simply unfair.
i 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I agree with that. I
~
21 don't see how any party can make use of the findings unless 6
j 22 we are going to have further hearing on that and question i
23 the inspector who documented that, wno drafted the report.
i 24 MR. MILLER: Yes, sir. I guess my only question 25 is for what purpose would the NRC Staff have the Board take r
4 i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- 20244747tM) Nationwide Courage Nuk3M fM
0941 07 13 18559 OMTbur 1 official notice of the existence of the report?
2 I am just out of an abundance of caution trying 3 to anticipate some reference to this report in findings, and 4 I can't for the life of me understand why it would be
.5 relevant to take notice of it.at all.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. I believe it is only to 7 indicate that thyy brought the investigation to a 8 conclusion, and that is it basically.
9 Is there anything further, Mr. Berry?
10 MR. BERRY: You are exactly right, . Mr. Chairman.
11 Throughout this proceeding it has been suggestad that the 12 NRC has dilly-dallied and has not, pursued with diligence )
13 matters brought -- concerns brought to its attention.
14 This would just reflect that with respect-to the 15 allegations addressed in the inspection report that the 16 Staff did take action and completed its investigation.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, I don't think it is worth 18 having any further discussion of this. We have indicated 19 what the limitations are to what we have taken official 20 notice of.
21 MR. MILLER: I only say that I disagree with 22 1 Mr. Derry being able to make that -- reach that conclusion 23 on the basis of any such official notice.
24 That is a substantive fact, the diligence of the 25 Staff on this matter, and it can't be gotten at by this i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202447 3ho Nationwide Cot ersge Nut))&ua6
0941 07 14 18560
'O L1 OMTbur 1 device.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, let's go on to other 3 matters.
4 Are there any other matters?
5 MR. GUILD: A couple, Mr. Chairman. This is 6 Guild speaking again.
! 7 -A dangling. item. I had asked that -- through the 8 course of 'Mr. Mendez's examination he identified that he had 9 found a weld -- L. K. Comstock weld inspection checklist i .
10 documenting more than a thousand welds on a single 11 checklist.
1 12 As I recall -- and my memory is very hazy on this 9
13 -- the Board admitted that document. It was to be produced 14 by the Staff and then circulated. I neglected to circulate j 15 it, although I have been carrying the file around for some
- 16 time.
I 17 It is a staff document that bears a Staff j 18 identification number of 0072-1, and it is a November 12th, i
19 '80 PTL transmittal form for an inspection performed
! 20 November 1980 by Mr. Omnis documenting more than a thousand
[ 21 welds.
22 This apparently was the Mendez checklist. It is 23 referred to in his inspection report, which is in evidence.
24 I want to check the record and see what number I l O 25 gave this, but I just wanted to remind --
.i i
i
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m,. . ~ _ . < _ , , ~3-
'Ns.
I l
l 0941 07 15 18561
(~) ,
\-[ OMTbur 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That has already been given a 2 number?
3 MR. GUILD: That is my recollection, J udge.
4 Again, it is pretty' hazy, and I apologize for not having 4
5 checked it out before today. But I came across it last 6 night.
7 JUDGB GROSSMAN: Can one of the other parties 8 help us on the number and verify that it had been admitted?
9 MR. MILLER: It is an Intervenor exhibit?
10 MR. GUILD: That is my recollection, yes.
11 MR. BERRY: This is Mr. Berry speaking.
12 My reccllection is similar to Mr. Guild, that it'
/N.
\-) 13 was identified and possibly even admitted, although the 14 precise number of the exhibit escapes me at this time.
15 Ms. Chan is trying to track down our exhibit 16 list, and we may have a number for the parties just 17 momentarily.
18 MR. GUILD: I just might mention more generally, 19 J udge , that the counsel anticipated at some point getting 20 our heads together and seeing if there were any loose items 21 like this. This happens to be the only one that came to my 22 attention, but there may be others that we should bring to 23 the Board's attention.
24 I would just ask leave to do that.
(~'\
.N / 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, fine. We are going to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coscrage 800-336-6M6
0941 07 16 18562 Cs Nd OMTbur 1 hear from Mr. Miller next week, and maybe we ought to keep 2 the record open until next week, even though we have already 3 set the briefing schedule.
4 Now, if Mr. Miller's response to us next week is 5 that he needs further hearing, then we will adjust the 6 briefing schedule, but if not, even though we might keep the 7 record open now, we are still going to have the same times 8 that we specified.
9 Is everyone in agreement with that?
10 MR. MILLER: Yes, your Honor, 11 12 r3
's 13 14 15 16 17 18
, 19 i
20 21 22 23 24 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202-347-3700 Nationside Coserage 8&k3%6M6
. . - .-- ,,. , .. - - - . , . . , , .. -~ . . . - , . - , ,. , , _ . . . . - - . , - -
941 08 01 18563 1 OMT/bc 1 MR. GUILD: Yes, your Honor. And I think it's 2 highly unlikely that applicants will be asking for the 3 hearing to be reopened.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. But, in any event, let's 5 get...so we'll do that. We won't close the record 6 officially. Well, maybe we ought to close it officially and 7 then reopen it.
8 What's your thought on that, Mr. Miller?
9 MR. MILLER: I think that's satisfactory, your 10 Honor.
11 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I'd ask that you hold 12 the record open. Closing the record has some significance
'~'
13 and until, in fact, the evidentiary record is closed, I 14 think it should remain open.
15 We understand what the basis is for remaining 16 open at this point.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, the basis being only to 18 hear from Mr. Miller further and for you to clear up any 19 other loose ends that we don't clear up today.
20 So we'll keep it open until the 9th. And then 21 , we'll issue probably a written order unless we have to have i
22 l a transcribed conference.
23 MR. GUILD: Judge, I have one other matter. The
,. 24 ;
applicant circulated on the 1st of December and on the 3rd 25 of December a series of documents, that Mr. Steptoe ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(t) Nationwide Cmcrage N G336-6M6
941 08 02 18564 1 OMT/bc 1 circulated for me, responsive to requests I made during 2 Mr. Gardner's testimony. And that was on the subject of an 3 investigation conducted by quality assurance of Production 4 Pressure in the BCAP program, if you'll recall.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes.
6 MR. GUILD: Mr. Gardner's recollection was that 7 the investigation was Production Pressure allegations by 8 BCAP CSR inspectors. It turns out that the investigation 9 was of Production Pressure allegations not by CSR inspectors 10 in particular, but by one or more RCAP task force 11 engineers.
12 Apparently, a quality first - quality first, in
/, i 13 a baseline quality first interview, one or more engineers 14 expressed concerns about production pressure. And that led 15 to an investigation by Mr. Fitzpatrick of the Edison quality 16 assurance organization.
17 He interviewed some 61 BCAP engineers in the 18 spring of 1986 -- excuse me -- spring of 1985. And some --
19 the typed written summaries of the interviews were made available to me by Mr. Steptoe's - yesterday.
20 ll 21 l They reflect that some 10 of the 61 gave answers 22 l that equivocated in some respects to questions about the 23 ' existence of production pressure.
- 24 The conclusion was chat while there was some 25 equivocation, nobody ' fessed up to having allowed production ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I m- s_mm. m.33-
1 941 08 03 18565 1 OMT/bc 1 pressure to influence their personal work. And they thought 2 that others acted the same.
3 The one inspector, not named but reflected in one 4 of these documents -- I'm sorry -- one engineer, not named 5 but reflected in one of the interview summaries identified 6 as engineer 53 stated that he was told -- he understood from 7 BCAP management -- excuse me.
8 (Microphone dropped.)
9 MR. GUILD: Excuse me. Did somebody drop off the 10 line?
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Did we lose anyone here?
12 MR. STEPTOE: Applicant's still here. This is
~
13 Phil Steptoe, Judge Grossman.
14 (Speakers polled, all present).
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Judge Callihan?
16 (No response.)
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I guess Judge Callihan 18 isn't with us.
19 MR. GUILD: This is a procedural matter, Judge, 20 , and perhaps I could just make the --
l 21 l JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, we still have a quorum l
22 i here with Judge Cole and myself, so why don't you just i
continue. And I don't know that it will be important enough 23 f 1
- 24 i to warrant continuing until we get Judge Callihan back.
f i !
^'
25 So why don't you just continue?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationuide Cos crage 80lL3346646
941 08 04 18566 1 OMT/bc 1 MR. GUILD: The note of interview reflects that 2 there were instructions that no one in the BCAP task force 3 was permitted to go home until the assigned work was 4 completed, that essentially people were required to stay 5 weekends to complete some preassigned task in BCAP in order 6 to meet the BCAP schedule.
7 This statement was attributed to none other than 8 Dr. Koshel, the director of the BCAP program. And while 9 it's somewhat of a cursory note of Dr. Koshel's interview by 10 Mr. Fitzpatrick, Dr. Koshel appears to acknowledge that he 11 made such a remark, although he adds that he always told
_ 12 people that they shouldn't sacrifice quality in the 13 meantime.
14 The short and long of it all is that contrary 15 to--and these statements were attributed to Dr. Koshel in 16 the January 1985 time frame -- the short and long of it all 17 is that Dr. Koshel, this is inconsistent with Dr. Koshel's 18 testimony that Dr. Koshel, at the same time that he was 19 supposedly making this mid point look to address the NRC 20 inspector's concerns about the CSR spections going too 21 fast, he was apparently issuing directives at least that 22 were perceived by the BCAP engineers as instructing them to 23 meet certain production requirements for the schedule 7, 24 completion, including not being allowed to leave the site
(/ 25 until they finished assigned work.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2(C-347-37(x) Nationwide Coserage M633MM6
941 08 05 18567 1 .OMT/bc 1 There appears to be no evidence that there was 4
2 any investigation of the effects of such directions on B0AP 3 CSR inspectors, at least none was made available to me.
4 I would ask that the documents that were made 5 available by Mr. Steptoe, particularly Mr. Fitzpatrick's i
6 report and the summaries of the Fitzpatrick interviews of 7 the engineers, be included as an exhibit.
8 And I take it that Mr. Steptoe circulated only 9 the transmittal for parties but not the enclosures.- I think 10 the staff has an enclosure but not the board.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, that's correct. -We did 12 not get the enclosure. We just got the summary report.
13 Mr. Steptoe?
i 14 MR. STEPTOE: Judge Grossman, this is Phil 15 Steptoe. I think that --
16 VOICE: Mr. Callihan's back in, sir.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, good. Thank you.
t- 18 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Thank you.
i t i 19 MR. STEPTOE: This is Phil Steptoe talking, Judge 20 Callihan. Mr Guild has just summarized the documents that I 21 provided to him and to the staff on December 1st and 22 December 3rd. I don't agree in all respects with that L
l 23 summary. There are a couple of points in which I think I r
- 24 would have stated things differently.
1O l 25 For example, I believe that the attribution of 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 x.w.n - - c - ,. -
941 08 06 18568 1 OMT/bc 1 the statement that nobody goes home on the weekend until the 2 work gets done was through a man named Mr. Hof fman, whose 3 been engineering-supervisor and indirectly attributed to 4 Dr. Koshel.
5 And I believe there was only one engineer who 6 complained about this in the 51 interviews. But, generally, 7 my concern is that this document is not inconsistent with 8 any testimony we've had to date. It's basically a totally 9 new matter. That is, whether too much pressure was put on 10 the BCAP engineers.
11 In general, the BCAP engineers, just as 12 background, often flew in from their homes. They didn't
'J The inspectors did. But these people 13 move their homes.
14 wanted to leave on the weekend. Sometimes, they were not 15 allowed to, I guess.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, the sum of what I hear is 17 that you really don't object to having them admitted, though 18 you don't think that it has much significance.
19 Is that right, M r. Steptoe?
20 MR. STEPTOE: Well, I don't think it has'much 21 significance. I think it's a new matter being brought up at 22 the lith hour, something that at least the response of BCAP 23 to this investigation -- all those documents were in the 24 BCAP files and could have been discovered earlier.
b~J 25 But I've made that argument before, Judge ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33MM6
941 08 07 18569 1 OMT/bc 1 Grossman and I think in resisting discovery, I'd like to
.2 make it again in resisting introduction of these materials 3 into evidence.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: It seems to me though the 5 materials cut both ways here, too, and I'm not sure that 6 they don' t support your position more, Mr. Steptoe.
7 In any event, at this stage, I think our best 8 course is just to let it in, though I hesitate to say for 9 whatever it's worth. But why don't we just do that?
10 Have you given the documents a number, Mr. Guild?
11 MR. GUILD: It would be Intervenor's 285, Judge.
12 Well, yes, 285. That would be the next in sequence after O 13 the last admitted document.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, then --
15 MR. STEPTOE: Judge Grossman, if you are going to 16 let it in, I just want to make sure what we're letting in.
17 And the only documents that I did not hear Bob mention are, 18 in my first transmittal dated December 1, 1986, also part of 19 the BCAP report filed, were the followup memos of 20 essentially lectures that -- Koshel and one of his 21 subordinates gave to BCAP inspectors and BCAP engineers on 22 quality and production pressure.
23 And since those were a part of the quality first 24 file --
25 MR. GUILD: I don't have any problem putting them i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i - ,. xm_ m c_, mu-
941 08 08- 18570 1 OMT/bc- l' all in, Phil. [
l 2 MR. STEPTOE: You don't have a problem?
3 MR. GUILD: No, no.- Just for simplicity,'let's
-4 put the whole transmittals in.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: .Okay. So we'll admit 6 Intervenor's 285,.and again these are to be supplied to the-7 reporter but also to the board members who have not gotten
, 8 copies of some of the attachments.
9' MR. STEPTOE: I'm still a little confused'on 1
10 what's going in. Bob, can you tell me?
11~ Do you intend to put in the followup? As part of 12 the followup, they went to PCD, gave similar lectures to all
,O 4
13 the contractors. And I sent you those documented training t_ 14 sessions for Comstock and PTL. And there was one for Seco 15 II(A), too. Do you intend to put those in?
16 MR. GUILD: Yes, I'll put the whole thing.
17 MR. STEPTOE: The whole thing in. All right.
[ 18 MR. GUILD: And I'll circulate them for the board
- 19 and the reporter.
20 MR. STEPTOE: All right. Thank you.
21 MR. BERRY: Mr. Chairman, this is Mr. Berry of i 22 the Staff. There has been reference made to a December 3rd 1
23 letter from Mr. Steptoe -- only Mr. Guild and myself. As we 4
4 24 speak, the staf f has not yet received the December 3rd i
25 transmittal. It's kind of flying in the dark with respect ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8043%M46
__. .-.__.__..-_.,.__.....m._. . - _ , . . , . _ . . , _ , , . . . _ _ . . . . . . _ - . _ . _ _
, - . . . . . . - _ . _ . - - - - . . - . -. ~-
9'41 08.09 18571 1"LOMT/bc 1 to,-you know,.the matters documented and that transmittal.
l 2 We .have the December 1st' letter and the 3 attachment to it._ We have no objections to the receipt'in-l 4 evidence of that document as Intervenor's 285, with the 5 ' conditions and limitations and explanations-that are on 6 record already.
~
7 But, with respect to the remainder of it, the
[ 8' documents attached to the December 3rd transmittal, we're 9 not in a position to agree or disagree to...
j 10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Well, I think it's better 11 for .us just to make the ruling now. Staff will just have to
, 12 take the pig in a poke the same way that we'are going to, 13 without having seen the documents.
14 So we'll admit the whole thing. But, of course, 15 if staff subsequently finds something objectionable, we will I
16 entertain that objection. So, Mr. Berry, you can contact'us
! 17 after you receive the documents with any objection you may 18 have and we'll reconsider our admission of the document.
19 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Callihan here.
20 Mr. Steptoe, this is your December 3 two page
' :21 document?
22 MR. STEPTOE: Yes, Judge Grossman, we're talking 23 about the attachment -- I'm sorry, Judge Callihan. Yes, i 24 that's correct. We're talking about the attachments, which 25 you did not recoive.
i
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-34-6M6
941 08 10 18572 2 OMT/bc 1 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Yes, I have it.
2 MR. GUILD: And Dr. Callihan, I will circulate 3 the whole document to those that haven't received it 4
4 - already.
5 JUDGE CALLIHAN: All right.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine. What further 7 matters do we have?
8 MR. GUILD: That covers Intervenor's.
9 MR. MILLER: Applicant has nothing else.
10 MR. BERRY: Nor does the staff.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine. Then we're up to 12 the software.
O 13 (Intervenor's Exhibit 285 identified 14 and received in evidence.)
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And I think perhaps we ought to 16, conclude this session now with the reporter and then 17 discuss what agreements we can reach on that. So that we 18 will just ask that the reporter go off, but the rest of us 19 remain on and that we'll try to conclude this entire 20 discussion in a very short time.
21 So, thank you, Mr. Reporter, and the hearing now 22 is adjourned and we will close the record at some later 23 time.
24 (Whereupon, at 12:53 p.m., the conference call 25 was concluded.)
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER 4
(l
\s This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of: ,
NAME OF PROCEEDING: COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2)
DOCKET NO.: 50-456 OL, 50-457 OL PLACE: WASHINGTON,'D. C.
DATE: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United' States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sigt ME (TYM) [
JOSEPH R. MAGGIO Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Reporter's Affiliation O
.. . . - . . . _- _. ._. -