ML20238C765
| ML20238C765 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 06/25/1987 |
| From: | Hofmann H BECHTEL GROUP, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20238C505 | List:
|
| References | |
| CIV-PEN, EA-84-137, NUDOCS 8712310204 | |
| Download: ML20238C765 (200) | |
Text
- - -
~
ONUYf_
g, Uh1TED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 'l IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-320 (Civil Penalty)
GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION License No. DPR-73 (Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2)
DEPOSITION OF HENRY LEE HOFMANN
,Q -
LOCATION: SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA PAGES: 1 - 206 DAlli: THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 1987
,g. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
444 rt C eet Washington, D.C. 20001
$$ 23kf)$$ $712095cogo (202)347-3700 T
NATIONWIDE COVERAGE
1 BEFORE THE 2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
In the Matter of: )
5 )
s GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION ) Docket No. 50-320 6 ) (Civil Penalty)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear ) License No. DPR-73 7 Unit No. 2) ) ,
8 BE IT REMEMBERED that, pursuant to Notice of 9 Ta king D e po sitio n , and on Thursday, the 25th day of June 10 1987, commencing at the hour of 10:25 a.m. thereof, in 11 Conference Room 2200 C e n t r al, Law Ot tic e s of Thelen, 12 Marrin, Jo hn so n & Bridg es, 2 Embarcadera Center, San 13 Francisco, C ali1o r nia , before me, J AM ES W. HIGGINS, Notary 14 P ublic in and for the Cit y and County of San Francisco, 15 State of Calif ornia, per son ally a ppe ared 16 HENRY LEE HOFMANN 17 c alle d a s a witness by the N u cle a r Re g ula to r y Co mmissio n ,
18 who, being by me fir st d uly swo r n , was thereupon examined 19 and interrogated as hereinaf ter set torth.
20 UNITE D STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS SION, 21 represented by GREGORY A. BERRY, ESQUIRE, and GEORGE E.
22 JOHNSON, ESQUIRE, appeared as c o u nsel on behalf of the 23 Commission.
24 THELEN, MARRIN, JOHNSON & BRID G E S ,
25 represented by KENNEDY P. RIC H AR DSON, ESQUIRE, One Kaiser 9
2 !
I
() 1 Plaza, S uite 1950, Oa kla nd , C alif o r nia 94612, appeared as 2 counsel on behalf of the respondent. l l
3 SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TRO W BRIDG E, l l
4 represented by J. P ATRICK HICKEY, 2300 N Street, N. W.,
5 W a shing ton , D. C. 20037, a ppeared as counsel on behalf of 6 the respondent.
7 000 8
9 10 11 12
,_ 13
. 4
'v/ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8
l l
l L ___-- -_ --
1 3
1.
l --
..(v ) 1 CONTENTS 2 PAGE WITNESS:
3 HENRY LEE HOFMANN 4 4 Examination by NRC Representatives 5
6 7
8 EXHIBITS 9 HOFMANN'S IDENTIFIED 10 8 No. 1 11 No. 2 9 12 No. 3 10 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 l
20 21 22 23 24 25 O i
_.____._______________________J
L 4
/ i 1 DEPOS I TI ON V I 2 10:25 a.m. !
3 MR. BERRY: We will go on the record.
4 HENRY LEE HOFMANN 5 was c alle d as a witness by the C o m mis sio n , being d uly 6 sworn by the Notary P ublic to tell the tr uth, the whole 7 truth, and nothing but the truth, te stifie d as t ollo ws :
I 8 EXAMINATION 9 BY MR. BERRY:
1 10 Q State your f ull name for the record, sp ell l l
11 your last name.
12 A My t ull name is Henry Lee Hotmann. My last 13 n a me is spelle d H -o- t- f-m- a-n-n .
-ys s
I \
%/ 14 Q By whom are you employed?
15 MR. RICHARDSON: Excuse me. Can I in q uire ,
16 when did we go on the record?
17 MR. BERRY: Just now.
18 MR. RICHARDSON: Just now?
19 MR. BERRY: Yes, with the fir st q u e stio n . l l
20 BY MR. BERRY:
21 Q By whom are you employed?
22 A Bechtel Power Cor po r a tion.
23 Q And how long have you been e m plo y e d by 24 Bechtel Power Co r po r a tio n ?
A Sin c e 1969, Ma y 12. !
25 e I i
i
l 1
5
( 1 Q Mr. Hofmann, have you ever been deposed 2 before? i I
l 3 A No.
4 Q Are you f amilia r with what a d e po sitio n is?
5 A Generally.
1 6 Q Let me e x plain it to you, i
7 This d e po sition , w hic h is e s se n tially a !
8 c o n v e r sa tio n between you and I, will allo w me and my 9 client, the United States Government Nuclear Re g ula tor y 10 Co mmissio n , to learn from you so me in f or ma tio n that will l
11 be helpful to us to u nd erstand what you know the matters 12 rela tin g to one Richard Parks, and the events surro unding 13 his e m plo y m e n t at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, O 14 d uring the period 198 2 to 1983.
15 So, I will be asking you some qu estio ns 16 today about your in v olv e m en t and your k no wle dg e of such 17 events. From time to tim e , the lawyers may interpose an i
18 o bj e c tio n . I will ov e r r ule it and you will . a n sw e r the 19 q u e stio n , unle ss tne y instr uct you not to answer. I don't 20 anticipate that that will happen too often, that they will 21 in str uct you not to answer; but, if it does, we will take 22 that up then.
23 It is not my in ten tion to try and tric k you 24 or to pull an ything over you. I am interested in what you 25 know and what inf ormation you have. So, there f ore, it yo u i
m_ - - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l 6 !
i 1 don't understand the q ue stion that I ask you, I wo uld like J '
2 you to tell me that you don't u nd e r st an d . If there is i
3 something about the question that you don't understand, or {
4 makes it dif fic ult for you to answer, you just poin t that '
5 o ut to me and I will tr y to correct it, 11 necessary.
6 At the c o n cl usio n of your d e po sitio n , the 7 court reporter, here, is ta king down all my questions and 8 your answers. So, therefore, you will have to speak i
9 a udibly. The court reporter can't pic k up a nod of the 10 head, or a sha ke. You have to answer yes or no and spea k 11 audibly.
12 When we have c o m ple t e d , the court reporter i 13 will bind the transcript containing all my que stio n s and
/ )
V 14 your answers, and any c ollo q u y between the co unsel. A 15 copy of that transcript will me made a v aila ble to you tor 16 your r e vie w. You will have an o ppo r t unit y to make any 17 corrections to any of your answer, any of your te stimo n y ,
18 to ac c ur a tely r e tle c t your state of kno wle dg e. I sh o uld 19 indicate to you that, 11 you do make c o r r e c tio n s or 1
20 chang es to your testimon y, then , I ha ve the opportunity to 21 question you abo ut those c hanges.
22 Af ter you have received the tr an sc ript , I 23 will ask you to have it no t a riz e d , sig n it, and return it I
24 to your lawyer, w h o will return it to me. j i
25 Do you understand ever ything I have said so 9
l i
a l
7 l ; 1 far?
' n./
2 A So far.
3 Q Mr. Hof mann, are yo u--
4 MR. RICHARDSON: Before I forget, with l 5 re9ard to other Bec htel witnesses, with the wi tn e ss's 6 concurrence, if the wit n e ss concurs, we have sim plifie d 7 that procedure, Mr. Berry. It was through a stipula tio n 8 that the transcript, altho ug h not notarized, after it has 9 been reviewed by the witne ss, can be used as though it 10 were sig n e d and notarized. So, I wo uld ho pe that that 11 practice can carry forward to this d e po sitio n , if Mr.
12 Hof mann should conc ur with that approac h.
13 THE WITNESS: Yes.
14 MR. BERRY: All rig ht, t h a t 's fin e .
15 BY MR. BERRY:
16 Q Mr. Hofmann, are you ta king any me dic a tio n 17 at the present time?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Is there any p h ysic al or other ailm e n t or 20 m ala d y that you have that may in t e r f e r e or hamper your 21 abilit y to c o n tin ue this d e po sitio n ?
22 A Not to my knowledge.
23 0 If at a n y time during this d e po sitio n you 24 need, want to ta ke a r ece ss, stre tc h yo ur legs, get a cup 25 of coffee, or c o n sult wit h your lawyer, just let me know l
1 ,rn
_/
8
- 1 and I am sure that we can accommodate you, t
2 A I will.
3 MR. BERRY: I wo uld ask the court re por ter 4 to mark this as Hotmann Ex hibit No. 1.
5 (The document re fe rred to was 6 marked Hotmann D e po sitio n 7 Exhibit No. I for 8 identification.)
9 BY MR. BERRY:
10 Q I am going to hand you a document, 11 p r e vio usly marked by the court reporter as Hofmann 12 De po sitio n Ex hibit No. 1, and I will ask you it you have 13 seen that document before?
14 (The document was proftered to the witness.)
15 A No, sir.
16 0 You have not?
17 A No; not to my r e c olle c tio n .
18 O I take it, then, that you have not seen it 19 before this date?
20 A Tha t 's rig ht.
21 O You keep that and ta ke a loo k it.
22 MR. BERRY: I will give another document to 23 the court reporter and ask the court reporter to mar k this 24 for ide n titic a tio n as Hoimann De po sitio n E x hibit 2.
25 (The document referred to was ga
%,/
1
9 marked Hofmann ,D e p o si t io n v) 1 2 Exhibit No. 2 for 3 identification.)
4 BY MR. BERRY:
5 Q Have you seen that doc ument, Mr. Hofmann?
6 (The document was prottered to the witness.)
7 A No, sir ; I ha v en 't.
8 Q Are you f a milia r with the contents ot the 9 document?
10 MR. RICHARDSON: Ob j ec tio n . The q u e stio n is 11 vague and a mbig uo us. Here, a g ain , you will have to be a 12 lot more s pe ci fic .
13 MR. BERRY: What is vague about the 14 question?
15 MR. RICHARDSON: The very v ag uen ess is, 16 that, there are n umerous elements in the letter, and it is 17 not clear what you mean by contents.
18 BY MR. BERRY:
19 Q Are you f amiliar wit h the so u r c e s of t his 20 document?
21 MR. RICHARDSON: The same o b j e c tio n . There 22 is a lot of substance in the document, so yo u will have to 23 be more s pe c i fic .
24 MR. BERRY: I can ask him merely about the 25 document. It there is something that is vague or that he o
v
10 q
{
a ,
doesn't understand, he is not f a milia r with, he can t ell l
) 1 s .-' i 2 m~. l I
3 MR. RICHARDSON: That is not a proper 4 question. Don't answer that q ue stion . ]
I 5 Re ph r a se yo ur question, please ?
j j
6 MR. BERRY: Let me ask the court reporter to 7 mark for ide n tific a tio n Hofmann De positio n E x hibit 3.
8 (The document referred to was l l
9 mar ked Hof mann De position No.
10 3 for id en tifica tio n. )
11 MR. BERRY: Hofmann De po si tio n No. 3 is a 12 letter dated May 29, 1987, by J. Pa t ric k Hic ke y to Mr.
13 George Johnson of the Nuclear Reg ulator y Commission.
8 14 BY MR. BERRY:
15 0 I wo uld ask you, Mr. Hotmann, have you seen l
16 this document bef ore?
17 (The document was prottered to the witness.)
18 A No, sir.
19 O Mr. Hofmann, how were you inf ormed that you i 20 were going to be deposed today?
21 MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Hofmann, Mr. Berry is 22 now getting into an area of communications between the 23 clie n t and an a tto r n e y. And, insofar as you received 74 in f o r m a tio n from an attorney, you are not liberty to 25 respond to the q u e stio n w hic h elicits tha t in f o r ma tio n . 1 I
ll 1 MR. BERRY: That is a silly obj e c tion .
)
2 BY MR. BERRY:
3 Q Mr. Hofmann, did you your lawyer tell you 4 that your attendance was requested at a deposition?
5 MR. RICHARDSON: Obj e c tio n. Don't answer l
6 the q ue stion . It c alls for in f o r ma tion protected by the 7 a tto r n e y- clie n t privile g e.
8 MR. BERRY: Factual in f or ma tio n , that is not 9 covered by the attorney-client p rivile g e .
10 Mr. Ric ha r d so n , I wo uld ask you to 11 reconsid er tha t ob j e c tion . Yo ur obj ection, in my o pinion, 12 is not w ell- f o u nd e d . The q ue stio n simply asks the witn e ss 13 to answer, to state, how he was notified that his 1
4 14 pa r ticipa tio n in this d e po si tio n was r e q u este d.
15 P a r tic ula rly in lig h t of the fact that, by the wit ne ss's 16 own te stim on y, no one -- his lawyer or anyone else --
17 provided him with a copy of the Notice of De po sition that 18 was served on counsel for GPUN in this case.
19 MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Berry, with all due 20 respect, communic ations of an y nat ure during the co urse of 21 a c t u al or potential litig ation are protected by the 22 a tt o r n e y- clie n t privile g e and, to a large extent, by the 23 attorney work product p rivile g e .
24 MR. BERRY: It is your po sitio n that, in 25 lig h t of my question asking Mr. Holmann as to how he--
(3 V
12 MR. RICHARDSON: The holder of the p rivile g e
) 1 2 is not only Mr. Holmann. but his employer. I am oblig a te d 3 to maintain the p rivile g e wherever it may a pply . I agree 4 with you that, altho ug h I am o blig e d to invoke the 5 p r iv ile g e as to that q u e s tio n , I thin k the question is 6 rather remote from the issues in t hi s c a se . Mr. Hofmann 7 is, indeed, here.
8 MR. EERRY: Just so I und er st a nd your 9 p o si tio n , Mr. Ric h a r d so n. Your position is that the 10 witness is precluded by the a tto r n e y- clie n t privile g e from 11 answering a q ue stio n put to him by me as to how he was 12 notified that his presence was requested at a d e po sitio n ,
13 de s pite , de s pite t ailu r e ci bis co un sel to make a v aila ble
)
s 14 to him a copy of the N o tic e of De po sitio n that was file d 15 in this case by the United States Nuclear Reg ula to r y 16 Co mmissio n . That is your po sitio n , that that is protected 17 by the a tto r n e y- client p rivile g e ?
18 MR. RICHARDSON: Yes. As far as that 19 in f or ma tion is transmitted thro ug h a c on v e r sa tion w hic h is 20 privile g e d and c o n fide n tial between me and the clie n t ,
21 yes, indeed, that is my po sitio n .
22 BY MR. BERRY:
23 Q Mr. Hotmann, can you tell me where you were j l
24 on March 25, 19877 l l
25 A March 25, 1987? !
l 8
)
l 13 l
1 Q Strike that, I am sorry.
2 On April 28, 1987.
3 A April 28, 19877 I would have to look at my j 4 records.
5 Q Why don't you refer to Hofmann De po sitio n !
6 Ex hibit 2 and see if that refreshes your r e c olle c tion .
7 MR. RICHARDSON: Well--
8 BY MR. BERRY:
9 0 If you can r e c all.
10 MR. RICHARDSON: I will need to confer wit h 11 iny client.
12 (Whereupon, a five-min ute recess was ta ken.)
13 MR. BERRY: We have been in recess for fiv e 14 minutes w hile the witness was c o n s ultin g with his 15 attorney.
16 MR. RICHARDSON: That is correct.
17 MR. BERRY: I b elie v e Mr. Ric ha rd so n has a 18 statement to make.
19 M R t. RICHARDSON: I was about to point out 20 that, I have indeed conf erred privately with Mr. Hofmann.
21 The reason is, that, Mr. Hofmann's job is necessarily one 22 which must be carried out wit h a g r e a t deal of. competence 23 and se c r ec y, if you will . I t hin k, as he will probably 24 eXP l ain it you inquire about the nature of his de partment, 25 he was larg ely engaged in the in v e stig a tio n of rather l
14 )
I I
1 1 se n sitiv e matters. . I was concerned that e x a min a tio n 2 concerning his ac tivitie s and his whe reabouts, during the 3 time period covered by your previous questions, might get j 4 into a confidential area. I am persuaded that there is a j 5 great risk of that. But, in an ticipa ting your next one, 6 .two, or three q u e stio n s, Mr. Hofmann is pre pa r ed to - tell 7 yo u g e n e r ally' t he lo c a tion where he was during that time 8 period. But I am atraid ha is not a t lib e r t y to tell you 9 about the specif.ico of his engagement.
10 MR. BERRY: W e 'll see about that.
11 BY MR. BERRY:
12 Q Mr. Hofmann, g e ne r ally where were you on 13 April 28, 1987?
V 14 A On or about that date, I was in Ankara, 15 Turkey.
16 Q Exc use me?
17 A Ankara, the Ca pitol of Turkey, the Country 18 of Turkey.
19 Q Were you conducting an in vestig atio n?
20 MR. RICHARDSON: Well--
21 MR. BERRY: Is there an o b j e c tio n to the 22 question?
23 MR. RICHARDSON: I want to confer priv ately 24 with Mr. Hofmann. W e will c on t e r a t the table here.
25 ( Witness conf erred wit h his co unsel.)
15 1 (Discussion off the record.)
' Ci 2 BY MR. BERRY:
NJ 3 0 What were.you conducting on April 28, 19877 4 A I was in Ankara, Turkey, conducting company 5 business.
6 Q Mr. Hofmann, what is your job title?
7 A My job title is Chief Auditor, Investigations ~.
8 O Does that mean you donduct investigations? Or 9 conducting investigations comes under your scope of work?
10 A Investigations come under my scope of work.
1 l 11 Q What else comes under your scope of work 12 besides investigations?
( 13 MR. RICHARDSON: By " scope of work" I take it
(
14 you are referring to duties which you regularly perform?
15 BY MR. BERRY:
16 0 Your job description?
17 A My scope of work is investigations. However, I 18 do have some management responsibilities relative to the 19 internal activities of the internal audit organization.
20 Q And what does that mean, management duties with~ l 21 respect to the internal --
l 22 MR. HICKEY: I am sorry, I couldn't hear you, j i
23 Mr. Berry. You vere facing down when you spoke.
!i 24 BY MR . BE RRY .:
("s\
\ </
25 0 Yes. What does that mean, duties incidental l________._--_
16 2 1 to the internal affairs or whatever it was you said?
(3 A I said that I'm a part of the -- I wanted to (u) 2 3 related to you that I'm a part of the internal auditing 4 department's management team. And those items are responding 5 to the needs of scheduling, of audit members to some degree.
6 I'm asked for my opinion about people,.their 7 capacities, from time to time and members of our group. I'm 8 -- when we have inquiries from the Bechtel' management, I 9 . sometimes am asked as to how I might contribute to responses 10 in thoce terms and so forth. )
11 Q Mr. Hofmann, approximately what parcentage of 12 your time to you spend conducting investigations?
('N
%-)
13 MR. RICHARDSONi .By' conducting invortigations,-
j 14 are you referring to actually .doing an investigation himself?
15 MR. BERRY: I will withdraw that question.
16 BY MR. BERRY:
17 Q Is it fair to say, Mr. Hofmann, that your.
18 responsibilities in the position that you are in include 19 general administration of your department in the absence of f l
20 the manager and, upon his direction, special investigations 21 relating to possible ethical irregularities that affect 22 Bechtel worldwide?
l 23 MR. RICHARDSON: I see you are referring to
- 24 his resume which Mr. Hofmann also has before him. Would it 25 be easier to refer to a particular passage that ---
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - ._ _ __ . _ _ _ __ -- - _ _ _ _______-__a
17 L- 3 1 MR. BERRY: Page 3 of the resume, yes., on the
'r%
( 2 resume that I have, under " Position Summary and Responsibili'-
3 ties."
l 4 BY MR. BERRY:
5 0, Do.-you see that where I just read from?
.6 A Yes.
7 Q Is that information correct today?
8 A Yes.
-9 0 See where it says "Special investigations 10 relating to possible ethical . irregularities"?
11 A Yes.
12 Q My question to you is, what percentage of your 13 time would you estimate you spend' conducting investigations 14 of the type that you describe in your resume on page 37 15 A Maybe 80 to 90 percent of my time.
16 Q About how many -- this is 1987 -- how many 17- investigations of this type have you conducted?
18 MR. RICHARDSON: You are referring to during 19 the course of his ---
20 MR. BERRY: Since he has had the position, yes.
21 MR. RICHARDSON: --- employment? Okay.
22 THE WITNESS: Oh, generally speaking, I'd 23 say between 200 and 300 -- 200, perhaps, around 200, more or 24 less. J 25 l
// .
18 I
4 1 BY MR. BERRY:
n.
() 2 Q Mr. Hofmann,.can you tell me where you were 3' during the period March 10 to March 15, 19837 4 A I was in the -- during that period of time I 5 was in.the Gaithersburg area.
6 0' All right. Anywhere else?
7 MR. BERRY: Strike that. Unless he has I 8 something more to add.
9 BY MR. BERRY:
'10 0 And what were you doing during that period of 11- time?
12 A I was conducting a special investigation.
13 Q And what was the subject matter of that d(N 14 investigation that you were conducting?
9 15 A Subject matter of that investigation was 16 Quiltec.
17 Q Did you reveal any sensitive company information 18 answering that question, Mr. Hofmann?
19 A Say that again, please.
20 Q Did that question that I just put to you that 21 you answered require you to disclose any sensitive information 22 or information that Bechtel regards. as sensitive or 23 confidential or privileged?
l 24 MR. RICHARDSON: Well, do you mean from his O- 25 personal point of view? Obviously, the fact of the 1
J
19 5 1 investigation and what happened have already been disclosed to numerous people outside of Bechtel. So I think the
) 2 3 question is a bit ambiguous.
4 MR. BERRY: All right, let's get a little more 5 specific.
6 BY MR. BERRY:
7 0 Why is it, Mr. Hofmann, that you can answer the 8 last set of questions that I put to you, but you weren't able 9 to answer the question that I put to you before asking you 10 where you were on April 28, 1987, and what was the nature of
- 1) the business that you were conducting on that night?
12 What is the difference between those two g 13 incidents?
14 MR. RICHARDSON: Well, Mr. Berry , you are in 15 effect arguing with me and the confidentiality which Mr. ,
I 16 Hofmann's employer places on the nature of his duties.
17 I am obliged by your question to state the 18 company's position that with regard to investigations which 19 have not become the subject of legal proceedings in which !
20 the contents and results of the investigations have been l 21 disclosed with the consent of Bechtel. !
22 Investigations which have not been so disclosed 23 remain highly confidential, not only because of the interest
,_s 24 of the company but because of the interest of the people who
( )
participate in the investigations as potential alleged 25 i
i
20 1 . wrongdoers, those who participate as witnesses, their 2 superiors, these are matters which are sensitive from a 3 company., standpoint, from a personal . standpoint and ought not 4 to be disclosed.
5- MR. IIICKEY : Could I just make one sugger, tion?
6 It.might be possible for Mr. Ilofmann -- I don't know this --
7 to respond to a question about whether his activities on 8 April 28 on Ankara, Turkey, had anything to do with Richard 9 Parks and Three Mile Island.or not.
10 And that might clarify if there is any 11 relevance under the terms of this proceeding to the question 12 that Mr. Berry is asking.
13 MR. BERRY: I thank you for your suggestion,
(]
14 Mr. Hickey.
15 BY MR. BERRY:
16 O Mr. Hofmann, you knew you were going to be 17 deposed, that there was a request to take your deposition on 18 April 28th? You knew that, didn't you?
19 A Yes.
20 0 Mr. Hofmann, did you bring any documents to 21 this deposition today? I notice you have a pile of documents 22 in front of you.
l 23 MR. RICHARDSON: Well ---
24 MR. BERRY: Let me strike that.
)O 1
25 MR. RICHARDSON: --- the Notice of Deposition
l- 21 1 . asked that'Mr. Hofmann produce documents relating to his
,x
([) 2 investigation of Mr. Parks. He does have with him'a binder
! or a file, if you will, concerning Mr. Parks. Some of the 3
4 contents are privileged and will not be produced.
5 But there are, I. represent, some documents.in-6 here which do pertain to his investigation which I believe 7 have already been produced. And some of the documents in this 8 binder he has reviewed in preparation of this deposition. !
9 MR. BERRY: The documents that are privileged, 10 have they been identified?
- 11. MR. RICHARDSON: I don't know whether they have 12 or have not.
('l 13 BY MR. BERRY:
LJ 14 0 Mr. Hofmann, have you ever received a request 15 from a lawyer from Mr. Richardson's law firm or from Mr.
16 Hickey's law firm asking you whether you possess documents 17 responsive to a discovery request in the proceeding that we 18 are engaged in?
19 MR. RICHARDSON: Objection,that calls for 20 privileged information. Don't answer the question.
21 MR. BERRY: Well, any privilege there is has 22 been waived. There is on record in this proceeding responses t
23 to interrogatories submitted by the staff to GPUN requesting !
!. - 24 information and the identify of individuals providing that 1( y' 25 information, j i
4 i
u 22 q J
L 1 on a number of occasions you are identified _and
() 2 you 'are listed. Disclosure of that information' effectively 3 waives any privilege'that could possibly be asserted to the 4 question that I:put to the witness'.
5 I would, therefore, ask~Mr. Richardson to l' 6 reconsider that objection and have.the witness answer the 7 question.
8 MR. RICHARDSON: I decline to reconsider the 9 objection. Let me make it very clear to-you, Mr. Berry, I 10 have no objection to your inquiring of Mr. Hofmann as to his 11 knowledge of documents which you believe are pertinent to 12 your proceeding.
,r'T ' 13 And you may pose any question to him concerning GJ 14 the existence or the nature of nonprivileged documents which 15 are 'within the scope of discovery.
16 MR. BERRY : Fine. Mr. Richardson, I would ask 17 you, the documents which you indicate are privileged that 18 Mr. Hofmann has in front of him right now as we speak, could 19 .you state the basis for the privilege being asserted?
20 MR. RICHARDSON: Yes.- Either the attorney work-21 product privilege, or the attorney-client privilege , or both.
- 22 MR. BERRY: And you are not in a position now 23 'to say whether they have been, in fact, previously identified !
'4 in discovery?
O 25 MR. RICHARDSON: I am quite confident that an
__m___u.-.m______ . _ _ _ - . .__
23 1 objection to one or more requests for. documents propounded n
.( )
. w-2 by the NRC staff, that one or'more of those requests called
)
3 for production of documents relating to Mr. Hofmann's j 4 deposition. And that an objection based on.those privileges' '
5 was made.
6 MR.' BERRY: Well,'that is not quite what I asked .
7 What I asked was, have the documents been identified?
8- MR. RICHARDSON: I am-going to have to, frankly, 9 plead: ignorance in response to:your question, Mr. Berry.
10 Because I don't know whether the NRC staff has in fact asked 11 for a specific identific'ation of documents claimed'to-be 12 privileged. _.O r is they have, I do not know whether GPU-has
'(-'}
/ 13 submitted such a list of privileged documents. I' don't know.
14 MR. BERRY: Fine. I don't want to belabor this 15 point.here. I would just state briefly in response to that 16 that it is an obligation of.the party to whom a request for 17 production of documents is made to identify any document-18 which it regards as privileged.
1 19 There is no requirement that the other party,
.20 the requesting party, ask that there'be a privilege.index l
21 compiled. But be that as it may, let's ---
22 MR. RICHARDSON: Well, if you wish to enlighten 23 me as to that requirement, I will be pleased to be educated. ;
- 24 But I am not aware of that requirement.
25 MR. BERRY : I just did.
24 1 BY MR. BERRY:
I (\ '
%q) '2 Q Mr. Hofmann, let me direct your attention back L
3 to Hofmann. Deposition Exhibit No. 1. 'That is, the Notice 4 of Deposition (indicating).
5 Now, I realize that according to your testimony 6 you have not seen this document before today,. although you 7 will note on'page~3 of.it there is attached to it a 8 certificate of service executed by myself.that indicates that 9 it was mailed on the 25th day of March 1987 to a Mr. Blake 10 of the law firm of Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge and a 11 Mr. Stephen Hock of Thelen Marrin Johnson & Bridges.
12 By the way, do you know Mr. Hock?
i
({])
13 A I've met him. j 14 0 You will note, Mr. Hofmann, the second paragraph 15 . of Hofmann Deposition Exhibit 1 states that- Mr. Hofmann will 16 be examined as to the issues covered by the attached 17 Presiding Officer's Memorandum and Order following the 18 Prehearing Conference.
l 19 "Mr. Hofmann shall bring to the deposition all l l
20 records, notes, memoranda, files and documents in his 21 possession or subject to his custody or control that relate 22 to any of the matters set forth in Paragraphs 2 through 5 of i l
23 the attachment to this notice ," and that' attachment is the e 24 Presiding Officer's memorandum thatuI just' referenced.
7
(-
25 And, two, a consideration, investigation, l
_____________-_-_______:______ _ l
25' lL I j evaluation-or. resolution by Bechtel or GPU Nuclear, Inc., of h])
.(. 2 any of the safety concerns or claims of harassment, intimida-3 tion, discrimination or threat of reprisal raised by Richard L . .
4 Parks in his af fidavit of March 21, 1983.
l.
5 'Have you had an opportunity to read that? ]
6 A I just. read it with you.
-7 Q Do you have any-documents ~in your possession g that are responsive to this Notice of Deposition?. And if so, 9 I would like for you to identify for me'the documents'that 10 you have that are so responsive . and not privileged, or' not 11 subject to a claim of privilege.
12 MR. RICHARDSON: I have got to pose this
(i 13. objection. .The request for documents included in the Notice
.LJ 14 of Deposition is somewhat vague and ambiguous, especially
.15 for a layman.
16 What I suggest is, simply ask him what documents 17 he has relating to Richard Parks.
i 18 BY MR. BERRY:
19 Q Did you understand the question that I asked 20 you, Mr. Hofmann?
21 A No, not thoroughly. j 22 0 Do you recall that when we started this )
l 23 deposition that I asked you, if you didn't understand a j 24 question I asked, just to state that to me and we would t
25 endeavor to correct that.
l 4
26 1 A I recall.
) 2 Q Did you forget that?
3 A No, I didn' t forget that. But you're speaking 4 legalese.
J 5 0 I just wanted to make sure. Mr. Hofmann, what 6 documents do you have in your possession that relate to Mr.
7 Parks? I i
8 A I have the work papers that were generated i
9 during the investigation and they have this sequence of l 1
10 events, interviews with various people, et cetera.
11 Q I understand from your counsel that some 12 documents in that notebook that you have before you are glgg 13 subject to a claim of privilege.
14 At this time I would ask that you either remove i 15 them or redock them, and I would like to examine that notebook 16 that you have before you.
17 A Sure, all right.
18 (Pause.)
19 MR. RICHARDSON: I just tendered to Mr. Berry i 20 the nonprivileged documents in the file of Mr. Hofmann which l 21 relate to Mr. Parks. In addition, the policies which I think 22 you already have, 2-1, the GPU conflict of interest policies.
l 23 MR. JOHNSON: I don't recall, but I think you
,s- 24 may have submitted that as part of your response to ---
)
I~' 25 MR. HICKEY: I think so. !
- - _ _ _ ._ _ h
l 27 l
1 MR. JOHNSON: One of the Phil Clark responses
/~x
- i 'I 2 to one of the NRC . reports or --- 1 i \/
3 MR.' HICKEY: I believe we produced them in 4 discovery too. !
i
'S' MR. JOHNSON: All right. I 6 MR. HICKEY: There are at'least ten copies of it in the NRC -- but'I do believe we produced it specifically !
7 8 i:t discovery in this case.
9 MR. JOHNSON: .Are these two documents, these' l
10 .two GPU documents.of March 4th,'w'ere they produced previously 11 in discovery as well? . one is a letter to Dr. Roger W. Griebe, l
12 March 4th, and the other one is a letter from Mr. Arnold to 13 Mr.. Keen ---
(~"A' 14 MR. HICKEY: Dated?
15 MR. JOHNSON: Dated March 4,.;1983, also with l 16 an attachment, a memo of the same date. )
17 MR. HICKEY: That one has, the latter one. And 18 I believe the earlier one you identified has, too. I i
19 MR. BERRY: Just so the record is clear, the 20 first document that Mr. Johnson referred to is a March .4,1983, 21 letter to ' a Dr . Griebe , G-R-I-E-B-E, of Energy, Incorporated, !
22 in Idaho Falls, from R. C. Arnold, the President of GPUN 23 Nuclear, believe. And the subject is " Investigation of
]
24 potential safety issues at TMI 2." I
/T l 25 The second document Mr. Johnson referred to is l
l l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ i
28 1 a. letter from Mr. Arnold, dated March'4, 1983, to a Mr. L. P.
p AG3 2 Keen, and the subject there concerns of Mr. L. P. Keen 3 .regarding-TMI 2 activities.
4 And there is an attachment to that letter of 5 the same date and the subject is concerns of Mr. L. P. Keen 6 regarding TMI 2 activities.
7 MR. RICHARDSON: So there is no misunderstanding 8 we have produced in the course of the last'15 minutes a large 9 -number of other documents. What Mr. Berry referred to are ;
I 10 two of the documents that were produced. (
l 11 MR. BERRY: That is correct.
12 BY MR. . BERRY :
O 13 0 Now, Mr. Hofmann, if you need to refer to any NJ 14 of these documents in the course.of your testimony, I will 15 hand you the' documents back (handing witness documents).
16 Now, Mr. Hofmann, I noticed that the documents 17 that were just tendered by you to me were assembled.in I 18 guess a folder -- a binder-folder. Does that indicate that 19 was the investigation file for the Parks investigation that 20 you conducted relating to the alleged Quiltec involvement?
21 A Yes.
22 0 Is that the complete file?
23 A Yes.
24 'O When did you assemble those materials in the f
25 folder? I
)
29 1 MR. RICHARDSON: Well, since there are a great.
i e m.
(. ) 2 many documents,'Mr. Berry, it is kind of difficult to answer i
i 3 that question.
4 MR. BERRY: I understand.
5 MR. RICHARDSON: If you refer to specific 6 documents, I am sure the witness will give you his best 7 recollection.
8 BY MR. BERRY:
9 Q Did you compile:thatifile'in the' folder during 10 the course of your investigation, or is that something you i
11 did recently? l 12 A I compiled that -- this -- these documents in
() that folder upon completion of the investigation.
(- .
13 14 0 And is that customarily your practice that when 15 you perform investigations the results of that investigation 16 would be compiled in a file or folder similar to the one that 17 you brought to your deposition today?
18 A That's correct.
19 0 Mr. Hofmann, during the course of that
-1 20 investigation, did you record any of your opinions, your '
21 conclusions, your theories or beliefs regarding the truthful-22 ness or -- strike that.
23 During the course of your investigation did ,
)
p-s 24 you generate any memoranda or documents reflecting your
(,- I 25 opinions or impressions of your thought process, conclusions l l
i i
l 1
_ _ ____ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ . _ l
l 30 1 reached during that investigation?
r (x) 2 MR. RICHARDSON: I don't mean to impede your t
3 inquiry, Mr. Berry, but a lot of those words I think lawyers i 1
4 are familiar with. I don't know whether Dr. Hofmann is. I 5 So if you could ---
6 MR. BERRY: All right.
7 MR. RICHARDSON: --- try to 2ake it as simple, 8 and are you asking about whether such things were recorded on 9 documents separate .from those which were produced to you?
10 MR. BERRY: I just assumed that Mr. Hofmann 11 would be familiar with some of that. I note from his resume 12 that he does have a Minor in Law. But I understand that.
('^
q,.]' 13 I am not trying to trick him, I am not trying 14 to be overly technical ---
15 MR. RICHARDSON: I have a law degree and I have 16 been practicing for a number of years and I am still getting 17 accustomed to those terms. Perhaps if you could just make 18 that question more direct.
19 EY MR. BERRY:
20 0 Mr'. Hofmann, did you generate any memorandum or 21 documents reflecting your conclusions reached after inter- i 22 viewing any of the subjects that you interviewed during your 23 inve stigation? .
24 Do you understand that guestion?
25 MR. RICHARDSON: And you include within the l
l u___________..__. _ . . . _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _. _ _ _. ]
31 I scope of your question the documents that.we produced today?
,m 2 MR. BERRY:
.No.
3 MR. RICHARDSON: So you are asking separate and i j
4 apart from the documents which you had today, Mr. Hofmann, 5 are there documents which record your conclusions with regard 6 to an interview?
7 MR. BERRY: No, we are going.to have a long.
8 series of questions. If we are going to have to break it 9 down as small as you seem to want, Mr. ~ Richardson' ---
10 MR. RICHARDSON: No, but the question,-Mr.
11' Berry, seemed to refer to documents which are~ prepared after 12 a specific interview which record conclusions ---
/Y 13 MR. BERRY: I withdraw- the question. ~'
LJ 14 MR. RICHARDSON: --- concerning that specific 15 interview.
16 MR. BERRY: I withdraw the question.
17 MR.- RICHARDSON : Or are you referring to
- 18. conclusions with regard to the investigation as a whole?
- 19. MR. BERRY: The question is withdrawn.
20 BY MR. BERRY:
21 0 You interviewed, for example, Mr. Hofmann, a 22 Mr. Konga, didn't you?
i
\
23 A Yes.
1
.- 24 Q And after you interviewed Mr. Konga, did you 25 write a note to your file, to yourself, recording your
- c. ,
f 32 ,
l 1
1 impressions of Mr. Konga's truthfulness to you? ]
1 r-(N)
%/
2 A I -- I -- no. I l
1 3 0 Did you form an opinion as to whether Mr. Konga 1
4 . was being truthful to you?
t 5 A I have no reason to disbelieve Mr. Konga.
~
6 Q So you didn't form an opinion as to whether he 7 was being truthful?
8 A (No response.)
You did or you --- d 9- Q 10 A As far as I know, he was truthful with me.
11 .Q All right, did you reflect'that anywhere? Is 12 that conclusion reflected anywhere in your report?
13 MR. RICHARDSON: By reflected -- . ;
('J')
14 BY MR. BERRY:
15 Q Is it written down?
16 MR. RICHARDSON: The words,."Mr. Konga was I i
1 '
17 truthful," is that what you are asking him?
18 MR. BERRY: No, I am not asking those words. ;
19 But to that effect, something to that effect.
20 M:R. RICHARDSON: Well, that is where it becomes 1
21 penurious. It may be the witness's practice to record the ]
l 22 negative when he thinks he is not being truthful. I think j 1
23 you have to be more precise. j R
24 BY MR. BERRY: l'
/d' 3 25 0 Do you agree with that, Mr. Hofmann?
~__- -. -- -- --__-_-___ -.._.-_____ _-. _-_. ._.
3 l
33 1 A I gather facts as best -- as related to me. The
) 2 facts speak for themself.
3 0 And you also form conclusions, don't you?
4 Isn't that part of your job?
i 5 A (No response.) d 1
6 MR. RICHARDSON: If you have difficulty with 4
(
7 the term " conclusion," I am sure Mr. Berry will define it for 8 you.
9 THE WITNESS: Well, let's try to define the 10 word " conclusion" then.
11 BY MR. BERRY:
12 0 You do not understand what the word conclusion g
13 means?
14 A Well, you're speaking in terms of the legal 15 aspect of that word and I want to be sure I understand it.
16 Q I am speaking in terms of the investigatory 17 aspect of the word?
18 A I enlist facts, I enlist information from 19 people.
20 0 Mr. Hofmann, if you received a request to 21 conduct an investigation and you want on to complete your 22 investigation, is it not part of your job to report back 23 your findings as well as what you conclude those findings
,3 24 of fact mean? That is not part of your job, is that what w~,)
(
I 25 you are telling me?
34 1 MR. RICHARDSON:' Oh, I think that misstates'his '
em.
l preliminary.' effort to understand what you were getting at.
2
! s [J 3 MR. BERRY: If that misstates it,he can tell j 4
4 me. He said he does not reach conclusions, he reaches facts.
5 And I want-to understand.
6 BY MR. BERRY:
7 0 Is my understanding of your testimony' correct, 8 that it is not part of your j ob to reach. conclusions , only 9 to deal in facts, is that what you-are telling me?.
10 MR. RICHARDSON: Well, the question is now j
. 11- vague and ambiguous unless you. explain what you mean'by 12 conclusion, separate and apart from fact.
j{ J 13. Are you referring to an ultimatefconclusion 14 whether- somebody committed an impropriety?.
15 BY MR. BERRY:
16 Q Is it part of your,. job, Mr. Hofmann, to 17 evaluate the fr. cts?
18 A To analyze ---
19 0 You've got it.
20 A --- the facts and evaluate the facts?
21 O Yes.
22 A Yes, I.believe so.
23 Q Now, did you evaluate the statements that were j-s 24 made to you by Mr. Konga during your interview with him in
's_,/ '
25 connection with the Parks investigation?
l,
.w._________ui.____.._.-_- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
P:;
35 i i
)
1 A In -- I have no reason to believe that they I rN:
!%)') 2 would be anything but truthful. I recorded what Mr. Konga i
I 3 told me as best I could.
4 O And would your answer be the same, if I were 5 to ask you the same. question with respect to Ms. Rose - Riddle?
6 A Yes.
7 0 And would your answer be the same with respect 8 to if I asked you the same question with respect to Mr. l 9 Blizzard? l 10 A Yes.
11 0 !!ow about Mr. Buler?
12 A Sure.
() 13 0 Mr. Theising?
14 A Reviewing the facts as best I can find them.
15 0 Your testimony is that you had no reason to l
16 doubt what they told you. That is what your testimony was.
l l 17 A That was the testimony in' the case of Mr.
18 Konga.
19 Q And I asked you, would your answer be the same 20 if I asked you the same question with respect to a number of 21 people. And the record reflects what your answer were. l 22 I will give you an opportunity to change your 23 testimony now if you think it is necessary?
24 MR. RICIIARDSON : Well, the one difficulty we 25 have is, the witness is testifying from memory with regard l
36 1 to what you are referring to as statements. But as we both
, ~x .
() 2 know, Mr. Derry, Mr. Hofmann's notes contain a great number 3 of statements.
4 And so, in that sense, your question is a 5 classic compound question.
6 MR. BERRY: It is not exactly ---
7 MR. RICHARDSON: I will let you ask him if 8 from memory he can recall any statement being made by these 9 people which he thought was false.
10 But if you are referring to the notes themselves ,
11- I think you ought to be a bit more specific and'let him refer 12 to particular statements.
13 MR BERRY: Thank you, Mr. Richardson.
{ ])
14 BY MR. BERRY:
15 0 Mr. Ilofmann, you refreshed your recollection 16 in preparation for your deposition, didn't you?
17 A Yes.
18 Q You reviewed that file, didn't you?
19 A Yes.
20 0 You reviewed those statements in that file, 21 didn't you, Mr. Hofmann?
22 A (No response.)
23 Q Didn't'you?
l 24 MR. RICHARDSON: By statements, are you 25 referring to his notes of the interviews?
1 37 i 1 MR. BERRY: I am referring to the statements in
.J(s/- xi 2 the file that he hac before him that represents his 3- investigation file of Mr. Parks. That is the same file that 4 'you.and he-just spentthe last 15 minutes reviewing and 5 making available to the staff.
6 And I am sure Mr. Hofmann understood what I 7 meant by that.
8 BY MR. BERRY:
9 Q Didn't you, Mr. Hofmann?
10 MR. RICHARDSON: That is argumentative. Is
! 11 your question whether before this deposition he had reviewed' 12 the interview notes which are presently --- ,
() 13 14 DY MR. BERRY:
MR. BERRY: I will ask the question.
15 0 Did you review the interview notes, the notes 16 of the interviews you conducted in connection with the Parks 17 investigation before your deposition, Mr. Hofmann?
18 A Yes.
19 0 And ycu reviewed -- in fact, you reviewed every 20 document in that file that you brought today, didn't you?
21 A (No response.) ;
22 Q You reviewed the entire file, didn 't you , Mr.
23 Hofmann? !
24 A Negative.
25 0 You did not review the entire file, is that
II 1
l 38 l
1 your testimony?
/~8 2 A Yes.
3 MR. RICHARDSON: Asked and answered.
4 BY MR. BERRY:
5 0 What part of the file didn't you review, Mr.
6 nofmann?
i 7 A That part of the file that was considered to 8 be privileged.
9 Q So the documents that Mr. Richardson, your 10 counsel, made available to you earlier this morning, you 11 reviewed all of those documents, that:is correct, isn't it?
12 A- No, sir.
()
'w]
13 Q- You must know pretty well what statements were' !
14 made to you by the people you interviewed, don't you?
\
15 MR. RICHARDSON: Well, are you referring to all 16 of the statements, in which case it is a compound question?
17 Or are you referring to whether these notes when read' by Mr. .
18 I!offman had refreshed his recollection to some extent?
i 19 MR. BERRY: All of the statements, the one l 20 that you referred to as a compound question. I believe that '
l 21 if Mr. Hofmann does not recall any of those individuals, he 22 can tell me that.- But that is the question to him and I 23 request an answer.
i 24 MR. RICHARDSON : Then I have got to impose an
,f-( 25 objection that the question is compound. And in addition,
____ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ . J
I 39 1 that the question is vague and ambiguous. Are you asking h 2 whether, having. read these notes, which are now concealed, he 3 has a vivid memory of each and every statement contained in 4 the notes?
5 MR. BERRY: Well, vivid is your. word, Mr.
6 Richardson. I am asking the witness if he is f amiliar with 7 the statements made to him by the subjects that he interviewed 1
8 during that investigation.
9 MR. RICHARDSON : So, my objection is as before, j 10 that is not clear. Are you asking him whether, from memory, 11 he can recall each and every statement in these notes which 12 are now concealed?
ggg) 13 or are you simply asking him whether reviewing 14 his notes to some extent refreshed his recollection as to 15 portions of the interviews?
16 BY MR. BERRY:
17 O Mr. Hofmann, your deposition is scheduled today 18 and tomorrow. I plan to endeavor to make every effort to 19 complete your deposition today. And I am going to try to do 20 that.
21 But at the rate we are going, we are not making 22 very much progress. So, I feel obligated to point out to you 23 at this time that you may be here for a long, long time.
24 A All right.
25 //
'40-1 MR. RICHARDSON: I will briefly state that I
(%.) 2 resent that kind of admonition. I view it as a threat and 3 if I hear much more of that I will take it to the Judge.
4 So let's proceed.
5 MR. BERRY: I believe that you are entitled to
- 6. do that, Mr. Richardson. I believe that you are obstructing 7 this deposition by raising specious objections. I believe 8 your objections are not well-founded.
9 And I would request, respectfully, that you 10 reconsider before you make these objections that needlessly.
11 impede the completion of this deposition.
12 BY MR. BERRY:
q} 13 O Now, Mr. Hoffman, did you evaluate the 14 statements made to you by Mr. Parks during your interview 15 with'him in March of 1983?
16 A In what respect to you mean evaluate?
17 0 In respect to an investigator conducting an 18 interview of a subject.
19 A Yes.
20 0 When I asked you if you evaluated Mr. Konga's 21 statements, for example, you said no, do you recall that?
22 MR. RICHARDSON: I do not recall that testimony 23 at all. He had difficulty with what you indicated by
- 24 maluate. Then you rephrased the question as to whether he I
L 25 thought Mr. Konga was truthful and he said he thought Mr. j l l
41 1 Konga was truthful.
.f x-( ). 2 MR. BERRY: The record will speak for itself.
3 MR. RICHARDSON: I am sure it will.
4 BY MR. BERRY:
5 0 All right, did you reflect in writing your 6 evaluation of Mr. Parks' statements to you?
7 .A Just a second. I did not reflect in the 8 interview notes that' I took relative to Mr. Parks whether I thought he was truthful or whether I thought he was !
9-10_ untruthful.
11 I just recorded to the best of my ability at .
12 the' time what he indicated to me, what I understood him to 13 tell me.
('J')
G 14 0 And you stated that you did not reflect that in 15 the interview notes. Is it reflected anywhere else in any 16 other document?
17 A Reflect, again, if you would be so kind?
18 FWflect what?
l 19 0 Your evaluation of the truthfulness of Mr.
20 Parks's statements to you.
21 A I don't recall that I did. It is not my hadit.
22 0 Do you have an opinion on that subject today?
23 A Is that something I ought to know?
24 MR. RICHARDSON: Opinion as to what?
i
(,-)s 25 MR. BERRY: On the subject of Mr. Parks's l
l 1 - - - - - ---
42 1 truthfulness to-you during the ----
I y( ). 2 THE WITNESS: Oh, that's what you mean.
3 BY MR. BERRY:
4 0 --- course of the statements he made to you in 5 connection with the interview that you conducted in March 6 1983. Do you have an opinion on that? '
7 A I don't feel it is appropriate to second' guess 8 going back, twenty-twenty vision, that's something different.
9 0 We are not second guessing. You didn't have an 1
10 opinion before. I am asking if you have one now?
]
11 A Is that relevant to this matter?
12- .0 That is not for you'to decide, Mr. Hofmann.
13 MR. RICHARDSON: Not really. But if you feel
{ ])
14 that you have a comfortable, reasonable basis for giving an 15 opinion as to Mr. Parks's tendency to tell the truth, you 16 may give that opinion.
17 But just because somebody asks for an opinion 18 doesn't mean you have to have an opinion, Mr. Hofmann. If 19 you don't have an opinion, then that is an answer as well.
20 MR. BERRY: That is certainly true. I don't 21 want you to make up testimony.
22 THE WITNESS: I think I would decline to give 23 an opinion.
f- 24 BY MR. BERRY:
!q,]s l 25 0 -And on what basis are you declining to answer
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - - _ _ _ - - - - - . -- -- _ _ _ _ -.-_-___a
( 1 43 1 the question?
- 2 MR. RICHARDSON
- Well, I respectfully submit
,j -
3 he is not declining to answer the question. He has answered l 4 the question.
5 THE WITNESS: I don't want to give an opinion. l 6 BY MR. BERRY: ;
7 Q Do you have an opinion? That was the question.
I 8 I have not asked you what the opinion is yet. I asked you, 9 do you have an opinion?
10 A As to the man's truthfulness in the ---
11 O Yes.
12 A All right. .
i MR. RICHARDSON: Now, is this truthfulness in g 13 14 general or with regard to the statements with ---
15 MR. BERRY: Mr. Richardson, the question hasn't 16 changed.
17 BY MR. DERRY:
18 Q It has always been the truthfulness, your 19 opinion regarding the truthfulness of the statements that 20 Mr. Parks made to you during the course of the interview you 21 conducted in March of 1983?
22 A Well, at the time there was no reason for me 23 to -- I thought he was quite open and truthful. And that f1 24 because of that, he was truthful. !
)
~
25 Q Now my question to you was and is, is thet l
l
44 1 your opinion tefay? <
n-() 2 A I really have no documented evidence to 3 indicate that it should change.
4 Q Let's ' talk about you, Mr. Hofmann. I have 5 before me a copy of a resume for you m'ade available ,to the 6 staff in discovery by'GTUN and the resume that I have bears 7 the date of April 1982. _
8 Do you have a copy of the same resume, Mr.
9 Hofmann?
10 A I assume it'is.
11 MR. RICHARDSON: You are free to look'at this 12 one, if you want.
/'~T 13 MR. BERRY: It appears to be the same.
%J 14 BY MR. BERRY:
15 0 I note that the date of this resume is April 16 1982, which is over five years ago. Are there any changes 17 that you would like to make to update your' resume, Mr.
18 Hofmann?
19 MR. RICHARDSON: Well, I think you are referrinc 20 to the second page which bears the date 1982. I noted that 21 there is an entry on the last page of 11-83 So I just point 22 out it was updated beyond April '82.
! 13 MR. BERRY: It is correct that the last page )
24 does --
fO L .25 MR. RICHARDSON: Did you include in your l
N--__-___-__-__-___ Y
'45 ,
i r 1 question the items contained in this multi-page resume. which ha go -beyond April of ' 827 2
' . ((-} - i l 3 MR. BERRY: Yes.
4 BY MR. DERRY:
5 0 My question to.you is, is.your resume-accurate 1
6 as it appears?
7 A Yes-g Q There are no changes that you would make to . it?
9 No additional changes?
10 MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Berry, that is unclear.
11_ Are you saying, . is it accurate with regard to the time frame 12 that it describes? Or are you asking.whether since ---
13 MR. BERRY: Yes.
14 MR. RICHARDSON: --- these pages were prepared, 15 has he acquired duties or responsibilities in addition to 16 those?
17 MR. BERRY: That is correct.
]g MR. RICHARDSON: Do you understand, Mr. Ilofmann?
19 Since April of '82, have you acquired distinctions or duties 20 which are not set forth on this ---
21 THE WITNESS: This resume reflects the duties 22 and -- my duties and responsibilities accurately and to date.
23 BY MR. BERRY:
i 24 Q Mr. : . .<-.._, where it says the date of April 25 1982, there is an "R" on there. What does that mean? Is i
46 1 there any significance to that?
l im A I really can't tell you what the "R" means.
- \] . 2 3 I don't know.
4 0 I notice the resume on the third page from 5 November '983 to the present, your supervisor appears to be 6 a Mr. G. V. Hedigan?
7 A That's what it says.
8 0 Is he.still your supervisor?
9 A Yes, he is.
10 0 And your duties today are still the same as l 11 they were in November of 1983?
12 A In November of 1983,.did you say?
13 0 Yes.
14 A Yes.
15 Q You have not received any promotions since 16 November 19837 17 A No, sir.
1 18 Q And I take it you haven't be.:n demoted either?
19 A That's right, I've not been demoted.
20 Q Mr. Hofmann, have you ever received any awards 21 for outstanding performance, employee of the month, things of j l
22 that nature?
23 A No, sir, 24 Q Does the company give awards for exceptional (f 25 service?
. _ _ _ _ __ . - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ __________-_-_-____________L
41-1 MR. RICHARDSON: I have got to ask a little
) 2 question -- do you include, for example, merit increases in 3 your definition of award? I am not sure whether -- are you 4 using a plaque or a diploma, that kind of thing, or a 5 certificate?
6 MR. BERRY: Yes, a citation ---
7 MR. RICHARDSON: Right.
8 MR. BERRY --- a ceremony before the division 9 head.
10 MR. RICHARDSON: So he doesn't include a raise 11 in compensation ---
l 12 MR. BERRY: Strike that. Let me rephrase the 13 question.
ggg 14 BY MR. BERRY:
15 0 I notice on your resume, Mr. Hofmann, it states 16 that a --- l 17 MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Hofmann, this is only a 18 tie clip. Did someone.present^this'to you?
19 THE WITNESS: That's an award?
20 MR. BERRY: It's very nice.
21 THE WITNESS: I'm glad you like it. {
l 22 MR. RICHARDSON: For the record, Mr. Hofmann l 23 is referring to what appears to be a silver tie clip bearing
-s 24 the Bechtel logo.
-i
~~
)
25 MR. BERRY: Silver? I thought it was stainless l
l
_ __o
48 1 steel.
i 2 BY MR. BERRY:
3 Q Mr. Hoffman, I notice on your resume that there 4 is a block that states " Position Held," " Summary of 5 Responsibilities" and "Significant Accomplishments. "
6 If you had received an award, for example, say 7 " Outstanding Investigator for 1985," would something like that !
8 be listed on your resume?
9 MR. RICHARDSON: Well, I think perhaps a 10 foundational question ought to be asked as to whether such 11 awards ---
12 THE WITNESS: Yes.
13 MR. RICHARDSON: -- are handed out.
ggg 14 MR. BERRY: He can tell me that in the answer.
15 THE WITNESS: Sure can. There ~. F.
- no such award.
16 BY MR. BERRY:
17 Q There is no such awared as Outstanding 18 Investigator? Or there is no such award given in recognition 19 of outstanding performance?
20 A Your question, as I recall it -- and I may be 21 wrong -- had to do with oustanding investigator. And I'm 22 telling you that there is no such award to my knowledge.
23 Q That is correct, and I am glad you caught that.
s 24 And that is why I am following up and asking the more general
')
25 question.
1
'l A
'q 49 l
l
.1 A And what was that, again, if you would be so
.r'< 1 2 ' kind? '
i . -(vl 3 0 Are awards given for outstanding performance, 4 or to recognize exceptional performance?
l 5 ,
MR. RICHARDSON: I think he has already answered I 6 the question. You are again referring to a certificate, 7 plaque, that kind of thing? l l
8 MR. BERRY: All right. i i
9 BY MR. BERRY: )i i
10 Q Now refresh my memory and to what the answer i 11 was?
12 A There -- I have not received any plaque ---
r'3 13 O No , no , no , that is not the question. The QA 14 question was, are awards of that sort given? Does the company 15 give those awards?
16 MR. RICHARDSON: Reward?
I 17 BY MR. BERRY:
18 0 In recognition of outstanding performance of 19 an employee?
20 A I don't -- I don't recall if -- what time frame 21 are you speaking of now?
22 Q Now, today. I 23 A Today?
24 Q Yes.
('~'
25 A The controllers organization does have an award l
50 l
} for service -- a service award of sorts, yes.
k
') 2 0 Now, what is a service award?
3 A Well, I mean by that efficiency effectiveness, 4 that type of thing, for their people, 5 0 All right, now - -
6 A Contributions.
7 0 --- do you fall within the controllers g organization?
9 A No, I do not.
10 0 Does internal audit have a similar award 11 Policy?
12 A We do not.
g 13 0 How about in 1983, did they have one?
14 A Did whom have one?
15 0 Internal audit?
16 A No.
17 0 1984?
18 A No.
19 0 1985?
20 A No-21 0 In 1986?
22 A No.
23 0 At anytime during your tenure in internal audit?
,_ 24 A No.
(,)
'~' I have got a couple of minutes 25 MR. RICIIARDSON :
51 1 before the noon hour. You are in charge. If it is your' plan p)
( 2 to have a traditional' noon hour lunch, now is probably the 3 time to get down there and beat the lines.
4 MR. BERRY: Is that agreeable with you, Mr.
5 Hoffman?
6 THE WITNESS: Whatever is the program.
7 MR. BERRY: I am here to accommodate you.- And 8 that is fine with us. Why don't we adjourn until 1 o' clock.
9 MR. RICHARDSON: 'Just so you know, Mr. Hofmann 10 ' has some commitments tomorrow and his availability tomorrow l
11 is very much in doubt.
12- But we are prepared to stay as'long as possible l
()
v .
13 todev to try to complete'this. Or if we can't complete it, 14 then we will just have to reschedule it for some other date. l 15 MR. BERRY: - That is fine. ,!
l 16 (Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the deposition was 17 adjourned, to reconvene at 1 o' clock p.m., that same day.) i 18 ;
19 20 21 22 23 1
24 i .s'
'(]
5 i
52
)
I Q 1 2
ar.Isaneen s e s s 1 2 E-1:00 p.m.
l 3 MR. BERRY: We are back on the record. l 4 Mr. Richardson, do you have anything. .
I 5 MR. RICHARDSON: Sure have. j 6- During the break, I took a look at the 7 documents which I referred to this morning.
8 This morning, I advised Mr. Johnson and Mr.
Berry that ye ste rda y, when meeting with Mr. Hotmann, we 9
10 dis c o v e r e d some documents whic h had pr e vio usly been 11 o v e rloo ke d , b ut w hic h we t hin k are probably responsive to 12 the N RC 's previous re quest for documents concerning 13 documents which interpret Dir ec tiv e 2-1.
' (~
14 This morning , before the de position be gan, I 15 advised Mr. Jo hri son and Mr. Berry that we had ' discovered 16 these documents, but pointed out that they are of a 17 confidential nature; and, that, alt ho ug h we wo uld be 18 willin g to produce them to the NRC, we wished to do so on 19 the b a sis of a stipula te d p ro te c tiv e order, w hic h wo uld 20 ensure that these documents wo uld not be disclo se d to 21 People o utside the NRC attorneys, except on order of the 22 Court.
Mr. Berry, after conferring with Mr.
23 Jo hn son , said that a stipula te d pro te c tiv e order was not 24 25 a c ce pta ble. He asked us to review more closely the O
l
53 ,
I L
1 doc uments ' in -_ que stion. W ell, d u ring the break, we have 2 done so.
l 3 As to three of the doc umen ts, alt ho ug h we 4 b elie v e that they-are c on fid e n ti al, they.are in t e.r n al 5 Bechtel documents, that the -in formation contained in the 6 documents is su f ficie n tly g e n e r al that the in te re sts of .
i 7 Bechtel will not be sig nific a n tly harmed it they are 8 disclosed wit ho ut a p ro tec tiv e order. .So, rig ht now, I 9 will hand these doc uments to Mr. Berry.
10 MR. BERRY: Okay.
11 MR. RICHARDSON: The :iir st is a one-page 12 document e n title d " No tific a tio n Procedure R ela tiv e To 13 Dir e c tiv e 2-1." At the bottom, it be ars the date 1-11-83.
14 I will note that thera was a second page i
15 st a ple d to this document, whic h we are not disclo sin g 16 because we believe it is not re spon sive , to the re que st.
17 The second documeat, whic h I am now 18 producing, is a t wo- pa g e typewritten' doc ument. In the 19 upper rig ht-han d corner it sa ys, " Audit Number: blan k, 20 File n umber: T-201. Ov er to the le f t, in the upper le f t-21 hand corner, there is the title, "VI, General ( c o n tin ue d . ) "
22 Beneath that, there is a su b he a din g "D. C he c klist on 23 Bechtel Dir e c ti v e 2-1: ' B usin e ss Ethics, Co n flic t of 24 In te r e st and Security of In f or ma tion.' "
25 The third document is eit he r a printed or O
54 1 typewritten document. In the upper rig ht- ha nd corner it
," L, 2 bears the he ading " O r g ani z a tio n Man ual, Sec tio n IV, Page 3 102, July 22, 1983." The main heading of the document, 4 whic h is in the middle, to p po r tio n of the page is
" De sc riptio n of Operations Intern al Auditing . " j 5
1 6 The fourth document -- whic h I am not at- l 1
7 lib e r t y to disclose witho ut a stip ula te d p ro te c tiv e order 8 -- does set forth in c o n side r able d etail the me thod olog y 9 of the in te r n al a udit group with regard to how they 10 conduct in v e stig a tio n s. If that in f o rmatio n were 11 disclo se d to peo ple who do not have a le gitima te in t e re st 12 in kno win g -- o utside Be c h tel management; and, in d e e d ,
13 mangers within the in te r n al a udit -- we feel that co uld .
1
\
14 harm the e f fic ac y and the integrity of the in v e stig a tio n s 15 carried out by the in t e r n al a udit de pa rtment. And, 16 therefore, primarily . f or the reason I just stated, this 17 document is plainly c o n fid e n ti al. We sim pl y cannot 18 Produce it to you, absent a protective order or some other 19 suitable mechanism w hic h would preserve its 20 confidentiality.
21 Let me make it clear that we are prepared to 22 Produce this to you, right now, witho at a protective order 23 being entered, if we can agree on the record that the 24 p a r ties will sti p ula te to the entry of a reasonable 25 pr otec tiv e order whic h will sa fe g ua rd the c o n fiden tialit y l O !
l
_j
55 I
.b' 1 of this doc ument.
V 2 MR. BERRY: In response to Mr. Ric h a r d so n 's 3 remarks, the Staft is not prepared to stipulate to a
-e pr o te c tiv e order covering the Be c ht el document at this 5 time.
6 Our po sitio n , as stated this morning, is:
7 we do not b elie ve that these documents are privile g ed. - .
l 8 So, at this point, we will agree to disa g r e e 'on the 9 privileged nature, or not, of the Bechtel document. We 10 can take that matter up after today, or so me other time.
11 It is not necessary to re solv e that matter now. However, 12 we state 'our po sitio n that we. belie ve the document is no t 13 privileged f rom the description provided by Mr. Ric ha rd son
{O
() 14 of the doc ument. It appears to be unquestionably relevant 15 and material to this proceeding.
16 The staff, at t his time , is not r e que stin g 17 Bechtel, GPUN to produce the document. We a pp r ecia te j 18 their concerns and we don't fin d this ne c e ssa r y at this 19 poin t to r e solv e this matter.
20 MR. RICHARDSON: Let me e m ph a si z e that 21 w he t her it is a p ro t e c tiv e order or some other s uit a ble 22 mechanism, what we are a s king for not so me thin g w hic h l 23 wo uld impede your p ro se c utio n of this civil pe n alt y 24 proceeding. You ce r tainly sho uld be free to use-this 25 document in question. You certainly should be f ree to use i
56 l
4 1
1 the document in question in any reasonable way . to 2 prose c ute this case. But our concern is: we want so me
~1 3 p ro te c tio n a g ain st this document being disclosed to the 4 o utside wo rld , if you will, and peo ple who, if they obtain .
l 5 kno wle dg e of the contents of the documents, then that j 6 c o uld lead to a si t u a tio n where the pu r pose s of Mr. l 7 Hofmann's department cannot be ade quately f ulfilled.
8 MR. BERRY: I u nd e r st a nd your po sitio n , Mr.
9 Ric h a r d so n , and I don't want to belabor this point by 10 spending an y additional time on it. j 11 I wo uld just state, you know, briefly, to 12 that, that it is g ener ally the r e g ula tio n ot the Nuclear 13 Re g ulato r y Co mmissio n pro hibits a ut ho rizing unn e c e ssa r y I V b f 14 disclosure of and ma te rial comes within this in f or ma tion, o
.15 Our r e g ula tio n s provide that certain documents, and 16 describes the types of ma t e rials that are made a v aila ble 17 to the public . To the extent that there is a privile g e 18 attaching . to this document, that p rivile ge wo uld obtain 19 and wo uld bar the disclo su r e of that document to those 20 wit ho ut -- who sho uld not be en title d to it.
I 21 It is for that reason that the Staff 22 g e n e r ally , as a matter of p r a c tic e , very r a r ely enters 23 into pro te c tiv e orders. Certainly they do not enter in to them wit ho ut, you know, v olun t a rily. And, as a matter of 4 24 1 25 fact, that is my practice. l u
l l
b _ __ _____________._____ _______ _ __.____ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l 57 l l
1
.a 1 I will state that we belie v e -- c e r tainly we-I 2 would like to have possession of the document. Certainly 3 we b elie v e it is m a t e ri al, it is' relevant. But we 4 u nd e r st a n d and appreciate your concern, that' you are ,
. a.
5 disinclined to make it a v ailable witho ut so me assurance !
l 6 from'the Sta tt, an assurance that the Sta tt, at this time, -
7 is not prepared to give.
8 So, I think it is best that we just leave 9 the matter in abeyance for the present, and press ahead.
10 It it becomes nec e ssa r y to r e visit the subject, c o unsel 11 can take this up.
12 MR. RICHARDSON: Okay.
13 Brietly, with regard to the . the sis 'f or o ur l 10 V 14 withholding the document, I t hin k I hava, in a g e n e r al 15 way, described the basis reasons. And I use the adjective ;
I 16 " c on fid en ti al" as a g e n e r al d e sc riptiv e of our. concerns. l 17 But I wo uld like to reserve the rig ht to contend that, 18 apart trom the c o m pa n y's right to privacy, _the 19 c o n fide n tial se n sitiv e ob j ec tiv e s of Mr. Hotmann's group, 20 there may very well be implie d privile g e s under v a rio us 21 st a t ute s whic h wo uld also support the ac tual, or 'q u a si-22 p rivile g e d , character of this par tic ular doc ument.
23 MR. BERRY: That is u nd e r stood . Thank you, 24 Mr. Ric ha rd so n .
I 25 //
O 1
i 58 l I
I
(
i 1 BY MR. BERRY:
2 O Why don't we return to the subject that we 3 visite d before the luncheon recess.
4 Do you recall that I had asked you--
5 MR. RICHARDSON: A c t u all y , Mr. Berry, Mr.
6 Hofmann brought so me t hin g to my a tt e n tio n a min ute ago.
7 Did you wish to clarify, or make some statement.
8 THE WITNESS: It had to do wit h matters of 9 distin c tio n. If I understood your q ue stio n , you asked 11 10 I had received any plaques or acknowledgments, g en e r ally.
11 MR. BERRY: Yes.
12 THE WITNESS: And I in dic a te d to you that I 13 had received this tie clasp. I would also advise you that i i
() 14 I was a member of the Dir e c to r s Adviso r y Gro up, selected 15 as a member of the Directors Ad viso r y Group during the 16 1981-82 years. I w o uld t hin k that that c o uld be 17 cla ssi fie d -- c er tainly we didn't get a pla q ue ; but it is 18 quite an honor to be asked to become a part of this group.
19 BY MR. BERRY:
20 Q I n o tic e on your resume that that is 21 reflected under the heading " Ed u c ation and P e r so n al 22 De velo pmen t Pr og r a ms. " Is tha t correc t?
23 A That is correct.
24 O Dir ec to r s Advisor y Gro up (DAG), where it is 25 listed in t he same bracket as the school yo u attended, the S
59 1 '.
p t.
'[ 1 subject and the date you graduated f rom colleges?
2 A Yes.
L 3 Q Do you r e c all, Mr. Hofmann, that - .before 4 we. broke for lunch -- I had asked you a series of n 5 q u e stio n s along the lin e of whether you performed an 6 e v alu a tio n of the tr uthf ulness of v ario us individ u als you 7 interviewed in c o nn e c tio n with your . investig atio n of Mr.
8 Parks. Do you recall that subject matter?
9 A Yes.
10 Q And I had asked you whether you evaluated 11 the tr uthf ulness of Mr. Konga, f or ex ample ; do you r e c all 12 me asking you that?
13 A Yes.
i t '
14 Q Did you also evaluate the tr uthf ulne ss of 15 Dr. Thie sing ?
16 A Yes; but I did not ma ke any notes as to the 17 evaluation.
18 Q But you formed an o pinio n as'to Dr. l l
19 T hie sin g 's tr uthf ulne ss?
20 A Yes.
1 21 Q What was that opinion? 1 22 A I had every reason to believe that he was an 23' honest person.
24 Q You believe he was telling you the tr uth?
25 A And that he was t ellin g me the tr uth, as O
1 l
_ _ _ _ . - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .l
60-I 1 be st he knew it.
2 Q Is that your opinion today? ;
I A I have not seen Dr. T hie sin g sin c e the j 3
4 in te r vie w , to my recollec tion ; and that contin ues to be my 5 OP i nion to day.
6 Q No in f or matio n has come to your a tte n tio n i
7 that would cause you to change that o pinion?
8 A No, sir.
9 Q Thank. yo u.
10 Mr. Hofmann, I want to direct your atte n tio n 11 to your resume, the' subject that we were on before we 12 broke for lunch. Can we agree that a copy of the resume 13 that you have before you is identical to the resume .that I
-14 have before me?
15 I will re pre se n t to you that a copy of the 16 resume that I have was received by the staf f in discovery 17 trom GPUN.
18 So, can we agree that your copy is the same 19 as mine?
20 A The appear to be the same.
21 Q There is nothing that lead you to b elie v e 22 o t he r wise , is there?
23 A Nothing that I have observed, no.
24 Q Now, Mr. Hofmann, I no tic e d you received a 25 degree from, I g uess, L e wis and Cla r k Colle g e in 1950.
O
61
[ 1 Was that in a c co u n ting ? i V j I
2 A Yes.
3 Q And, in 1952 you received a master's degree 4 from Mills Colle g e in lib e r al arts.
5 A Th a t's rig ht.
6 O Did you have a specialty or an area of 7 concentration? s # 4 8 A Yes.
eh $
tr 9 Q What was it? %
')
10 A Dance. Pg
\g ,.-
11 Q Cla ssic al?
12 A Mills has a dance department. It is 13 essentially what would be considered to be a modern dance-gs I )
(/ 14 type of a c ti vit y. Not cla ssic al b alle t , but tap or tango, 15 or wha tever.
16 Q What else did you study at Mill s Colle g e 17 be side s d a n ce , 11 an yt hing ?
18 A The dance c o u r se is a two-year co u r se , and 19 there is no other -- within the c u r ric ulum, which would i 20 allo w the g r a n ting of a master of arts degree, there is no 21 -- you study dance.
22 Q And, se ver al years a f ter that, you received j 23 an MBA trom Stantord University in finance. That was your 24 Partic ular area of concentration?
25 A That is correct.
,A j t
i 1
l
62- )
J
- 1. Q Did you have a minor at Stanford?
2 A No, sir ; it is a general two-year course.
3 Q Okay.
4 Have you r e c eiv e d any other ed uc a tio n al -l 5 training, since you graduated from Stanford,'from.an f 6 a c c r e dit e d university or college? ;
7 A From an a c c r e dite d university or c olle g e , I 8 have no received an other credentials.
9 Q I said ed uca tion al tr aining , not n e c e ssa rily -
10 a degree.
l' 13 A I go to the normal kind of seminars relative 12 to IBM, use of IBM e quipment, and that type of thing; b ut 13 that d oe sn ' t lead to a degree.
)
(_/ 14 Q And you have taken courses along that line?
15 A Yes.
16 Q W ell, I will f oc us in on that. Outside from l
l 17 learning, taking IBM computer courses, and things, f an y 18 other kind of courses or seminars that you have attended?
19 A Studied so me French f or awhile. l 20 Q Anything else, any other subjects?
21 A Not to my r e c olle c tion , at this tim e .
22 Q Never attended a polic e academy, have you?
23 A A police academy? 1 24 0 Ye8-25 A Heavens no!
63 Q Ever have any training in police wor k?
') 1 2 MR. RICHARDSON: I wish you wo uld be more 1 3 s pe ci fic , 11 you co uld , by you what you mean by " polic e 4 work"?
5 MR. BERRY: Law enforcement.
1 6 (After a pa use. )
7 Did you not hear me?
8 MR. RICHARDSON: Are you talking about 9 training w hic h wo uld p r o vid e so m e o ne with the skills to be 10 a polic e ma n , or an FBI Ag ent, that kind of thing?
11 MR. BERRY: Yes, yes; le t's start with that.
12 THE WITNESS: The reason that I didn't 13 answer you rig h t away 1s, that I wo uld imagine that the 14 polic e academies have a curric ulum wh2c h are ver y detailed 15 in certain areas of e x per tise. And, I have never attended 16 any polic e academy; nor have 1, to my r e c olle c tio n , ever 17 attended any couree w hic h was sponsored by the polic e 18 organizations.
19 BY MR. BERRY:
20 Q Have you ever heard of a Law Enforcement i 21 Assistance Administration?
22 A Law Enforcement A ssis t a n c e -- no, si r ; I 23 don't t hin k I have.
24 Q So you would not know it you ever attended a 25 seminar or a course sponsored by them?
(m
64 1 A W ell, if I had attended, I wo uld thin k I 2 probably would be aware of the name of the organization.
3 Q. I wo uld t hin k so, Mr. Hofmann. And, also,
/,'
4- if you had attended, you wo uld probably reflec t that on j 5 your resume, wo uldn 't you; that wo uld be so me t hing that 1
6 you would put on your resume, wo uldn't it? !
7 A I wo uld t hin k so, yes.
8 Q Do you know how to take fing er prin ts, Mr.
9 Hofmann? .
10 A No, sir.
11 Q Do you know how to a d ministe r a lie 12 detector?
13 A' Heavens, no!
~
14 Q Do you know how to conduct a stakeout?
15 A A what?
16 Q A sta keo ut?-
17 A No, sir I sure don't know to conduct a 18 stakeout.
19 Q Do you know how to place a wiretap?
20 A No, sir I do not know how to place a 21 wiretap.
22 Q And I ta ke it that you have never done it?
23 A I have never placed a wire tap.
24 Q Or conducted a sta keo ut?
25 A Or conducted a stakeout.
O V
(;
65 I 1 Q Or taken ting e r prin ts?
h.O 2 A' Or taken ting e r prin ts.
3 0 Or administered a lie de tec tor?
-4 A Or administered a lie detec tor test.
5 Q I no tic e that, in 1952 to 1954, you were in 6 the Army. Where were you stationed?
7 A W ell, le t 's see. Sta tio ne d ? I was 8 sta tio ned . f or the greatest part of my Army duty in 9 Okinawa.
10 Q Ac c o r ding to your resume, it r e flec ts that 11 you were a budget fisc al spe cialist.
12 A Yes, sir.
13 Q What were your d uties as a budget fiscal
(*
14 specialist?
15 A W ell, it was a long time ago. If you w a n t -'-
16 me to get into specifics, I am not going to be a ble to 17 help you out. .j 18 0 Only g e n e r ally. j 19 A What it is, is a bookkeeper, r e vie win g ;
20 reports, r unning tapes; that type of thing. _l 21 0 Performed investigations in that capacity?
22 A N e g a tiv e , none.
23 O Then, I g uess, on your disc h a r g e , I take it 24 it is an honorable disc h a r g e ?
25 A What was that?
O
_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _u
66 l
) 1 Q Upon you discharge f rom the Army, and I take 2 this was an hono r able disc ha r g e?
3 A It was an h o n o r a ble disc h a r g e.
4 Q l see that you took a po si tio n with TV 5 S t a tio n KMJ in Fresno, C allt o r nia , and you directed liv e 6 commercial prod uctions in the st udio ?
7 A Yes, sir.
8 Q And you directed TV commercials?
9 A That's right.
10 Q You did not perf orm any police wor k in that 11 ca pacity, did yo u?
12 A 1 didn't perform any polic e work in that 13 capacity.
rx
)
U 14 Q Did you conduct any in v e stig a tio n s of any 15 kind?
16 A W ell, only to d e te r min e whether the makeup 17 was in the case.
18 Q And then you went back to school for your 19 MBA at Stanford. Did you t ell me before that that was a 20 two-year program, or a one-year program?
21 A It was a two-year program. )
22 Q So there is mist a ke in your resume, or is 23 it- it says 1958 to 1959?
24 A Yes, it mig ht be.
25 Q I no tic e that, rig ht before you lef t the TV O
~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _
67 1 Station in 19 57, so sho uld that be--
2 A Yes; it sh o uld be flip p e d around. I 3 in te r r upted my Stanford sc h ooling to go to KUIT in Santa 4 Barbara for about a year ; then, I went bac k to Stanf ord.
5 Q So, just to help me out, so that I can 6 f ollo w this. So, it was 1956 you started Stanford, and 7 1957 to 1958 you worked at the TV Station ; then, in 1958 1
8 to 1959, you came bac k to Stanf ord?
9 A W ell, le t's see, when did I go to Stanford.
10 It must have been in -- it's too long ago. I wo uld have 11 to get the diploma.
12 Q It appears that you received your MBA in 13 1959, it that is--
14 A Yes, that's tr ue.
15 Q That is something that you mig ht want to 16 correct in your resume.
17 A I appreciate the thought, than k you.
18 MR. RICHARDSON: Or, it mig ht be correct if 19 the beginning of 1958 to the end of 1959, that is two 20 years.
21 MR. BERRY: Co uld be; c o uld well be .
22 BY MR. BERRY:
23 Q You have alr e ad y indic a te d that you didn't 24 -- that you concentrated in fin a n c e and b usin e ss at 25 Stanford, rig ht?
O
68 i
. r-1 A. Yes, so.
2 Q No police work of any kind?
! 3 A No police work or any kind.
4 Q And you understand that, when I sa y " polic e 5 work," I don't just mean being a cop on the beat; I mean, 6 g e n e r ally, law enforcement and crime p r e v e n tio n . Do you 7 understand me that, when I reier to " p olic e wor k," to 8 include that; does your answer r e fle c t that doiinition of 9 police work?
10 A- Yes.
11 MR. RICHARDSON: Co uld you repeat that, do 12 you have it written down? Or, do you have that mind?
13 MR. BERRY: I will re pe a t it.
14 BY MR. BERRY:
15 Q Do you und e r st an d that, when I say " polic e 16 wor k," I am not limiting it to just being a co mmissio ned 17 p olic e o f fic e r ? I mean, what I mean generally is law 18 enforcement, crime pr e v e n tio n , crime d e t e c tio n ,
19 in v e stig a tio n , d e te c tiv e work-type thing.
20 A Yes, sir ; I understand that you in clud e all 21 of those wit hin that category; and, in each and every 22 case, I tell you that I was active in any one of them, or 23 all of them.
24 Q Okay.
25 And would your answer be the same 11 I asked
'O l
l
69 1
1 you the same question with respect to your employment with 2 the Croc ker National Bank f rom June 1959 to May 1969?
3 A Yes, sir; it wo uld he the same.
4 Q And how about if I asked you the sa me 5 question with respect to your e m plo y m e n t with Bec htel 6 Power Co r po r a tio n , as a se nio r systems a n alyst from May 7 1969 to January 1971?
8 A It wo uld be the same.
9 Q And how about if I asked you the same 10 qu e stio n , wo uld your answer be the same re g ardin g your l l
11 e mplo yme n t as in the fin a nc e and accounting de par tment ,
12 treasury o per a tio n s wit h the Bec h tel Power Co r por a tio n I
12 trom January 1971 to February 1973?
14 A Yes, sir ; it wo uld be the same.
15 Q And, wo uld your answer be the same if I 16 asked you that q ue stio n wit h respect to your e m plo yme n t 17 from February 1973 to January 1977, as the e x ec utiv e 18 se r vic e s manager of the Bec htel's e xec utive c o mpen sa tio n 19 and administration de par tment?
20 A Yes, sir ; it wo uld be the same.
21 Q And, wo uld you answer by the same with 22 respect to your po sitio n from January 1977 to June 1978, 23 as chief a udito r , a d minist r a tion , in the Bec htel's 24 internal auditing department?
25 MR. HICKEY: I don't know ab o ut the wit n e ss ,
O
)
70 1 but I have lost track of what the question is when you say 2 " wo uld your answer be the same" to the same qu e stio n . k 3 Could, would you mind restating the que stio n?
4 MR. BERRY: I will ask the reporter to read 5 it back, fin e . It was the police work qu estion , but I 6 don't want to take the risk of tr ying to repeat it, j ust 7 to r e ph ra se it, just as I did. So, we will eit he r have 8 the r e po r te r read it back, or if that refreshes your 9 recollection as to' what the line et questioning was.
10 MR. HICKEY: W ell, it is your d e po sitio n . I 11 wo uld t hin k you mig ht want to have the que stio n clearer.
12 ~But I remember you a sking him a que stio n about polic e 13 work, yes.
14 BY MR. BERRY:
15 Q Mr. Hofmann, you are clear as to what the 16 q ue stion is, aren't you?
17 A W ell, quite t r a n kly, the various ele m e n t s 18 within the ov e r all canopy of police work, I would 19 appreciate your ref reshing my recollection.
20 MR. BERRY: Will the court reporter read 21 back the q ue stion.
22 (Whereupon, the qu e stio n was read as 23 1 11UW8 24 " Que stio n :Do you understand that, when I say 25 ' Polic e wor k,' I am not limiting it to just being a O.
71 1 co mmissio ned polic e of fic er ? I mean, what I mean 2 g e n e r all y is law enforcement, crime pr e v e n tio n ,
3 c rime d e t e c tion , in v e stig a tio n , d e tec tiv e work-type 4 thing."
5 BY MR. BERRY:
6 Q Mr. Hofmann, you have had a chance to rehear 7 the definition and what the question is. Are there any.of-8 your previous answers that you would like to change?
9 A W ell, w hic h--
10 0 We have covered your employment--
11 MR. RICHARDSON: W e ll, w hic h previous 12 answers?
13 MR. BERRY: --f rom the United States Army up 14 un til the ~ e x ec utive services manager.
15 ( After a pause.)
16 THE WITNESS: I don't belie v e there is 17 an yt hing that I wo uld want to change. None of my pa st 18 a c tivit y has been in v olv ed with crime pre v en tio n or law 19 enforcement or investigations under the general concept of 20 polic e work.
21 MR. BERRY: All rig ht.
i 22 BY MR. BERRY:
23 Q Let us ex pand tha t a little bit. Has any of l 1
24 your past ex perience from 1952, when you jo2ned the 25 Unite d States Army, to January 19 7 'J , when you left the O
72 i
l (v ) 1 po sition a s e x e c utiv e services manager, did you have any i
2 e x perience in c o n d u c ti n g in v e stig a tio n s and ethical 3 irregularities?
4 A No, sir; I did not attend an y classes and I 5 did not attend any police courses.
t 6 Q And you did not conduct any in v e stig a tio n s 7 into alle g a tio n s ot e t hic al ir r e g ula ritie s?
8 A Not d uring the time trame yo u men tioned. j 9 Q During that time period that I mentioned --
j 10 and I will r e pe a t it a g ain : 195 2 thro ug h Jan ua r y 197 7 --
11 did you have any e x pe rie nc e in c o nd uc ting in ve stig a tion s 12 into alle g ed c o n flic ts of ir. t e r e st .
13 A No, sir.
,/~
b}/ 14 Q During the period Jan uar y 1977 to June 1978, 15 you were e m plo ye d as a c hie t a uditor , a dminist r a tio n , for 16 the Be c h tel Co r po r a tio n internal a uditing de pa r tmen t ; is 17 that correct?
18 A Yes, sir.
19 Q And, is it correct that you were r e spon sible 20 tor data processing a udits?
23 A Yes, sir.
22 Q Wha t is a " data processing a udit"?
A It has to do with the co m plia n c e of a c tivit y 23 24 to Publis he d in te r n al procedures, as to coding, use of 25 equipment--
0
73
( 1 Q That is something like making sure that they
)
2 use the right key punch cards?
3 A Pardon me, say that again?
l 4 0 Is that so me t hin g akin to c he c kin g to 5 de te r mine w het her the key punch operators are using the 6 right cards, key punch cards?
7 A That, plus a number of other thin g s. But it 8 all has to do with co m plia n c e to established procedures.
9 Q That are d ata processing proced ures?
10 A And in the data processing area.
11 Q Just like n umber punc hing ?
12 A Sir?
l 13 MR. BERRY: I will wit hd r a w that q ue stio n .
- gx 14 BY MR. BERRY
l 15 Q Did you ever conduct an in v e stig a tio n l
l 16 regarding an alle g a tio n of ethical irregularity during one 17 of your data processing audits?
18 MR. RICHARDSON: I gather by your que stio n 19 that you are asking whether, at the o utset, the purpose of 20 the in v e stig a tio n wo uld be to in quire into a possible 21 e t hic al --
22 MR. BERRY: --Ir r e g ul a rit y, yes.
23 MR. RICHARDSON: As opposed to an a udit 24 whic h mig ht turn up so mething whic h is then dee med to be a 25 poten tial subjec t--
0
1 74 l
l l
(v ") 1 MR. BERRY: The q u e stio n that I asked )l 2 initially was the one r e phr ase d by your co unsel. l 3 THE WITNESS: Let me try to e x plain to you 4 that, when we perform a data p ro c e ssing a udit , it is wha t j
5 we consider to be a co m plia n c e a udit , not an in ve stig a tiv e 6 a udit ; not an in v e stig a tio n. It is given certain 7 o r g a ni z atio n al elements within the data p r o c e ssin g i 8 o r g a ni z a tio n , each of which have established procedures as 9 to what to do, how to p r o c e ss, that type of thing.
10 BY MR. BERRY:
11 Q Is that so m e t hin g simila r to a r o utin e 12 quality assurance survey?
13 A It is what we c on side r to be a co mplia n c e
/ ')
(./ 14 a udit. In our procedures, there are v a rio us controls l 15 b uilt in. And, do our p eo ple , in the d a y-to-d a y a c tivit y, l 16 respect these controls, and do they do what they are 17 supposed to do, as outlines in the procedures.
18 Q Are these--
19 A These are c o m plia n c e a udits.
20 Q Are these reg ularly sc hed uled a udits?
21 A These are reg ularly sched uled a u dit s c in the 22 sense that we add, d u ring this period of time , at least 23 ne and, as I r ec all -- and I may be wrong -- upwards of 24 three difie r e n t a uditors who are s p e ci ali z e d in data 25 p r o c e ssin g , and cond uc te d data p r o c e s sin g c o m plia n c e 9
l t
75 i l
1
.kv .
1 audits.
2 Q Did the y ever' conduct unannounced data l l
3- com'pliance a udits?
)
4 A They never c o nd uc te d unannounced data )
1 5 p r oce ssing a udits.
6 Q Okay.
7 You cond uc te d , or did you conduct any 8 yo u r self , and data processing a udits?
9 A No, sir. l 10 Q You never did?
11 A No, sir.
12 Q Did any of the data p r o c e ssin g a udit s 13 conducted by the a udito rs disclose any ethical o
14 irregularities?
15 A Not to -- none of the c o m plia n c e data 16 p r o c e ssin g a udits, to my r e c olle c tio n , disclo se d and 17 ethical i r r e g ula ritie s.
18 Q So what was -- since you did not perform any 19 of the a u dits, what was your r e s p o n sib ilit y , or your 20 in v olv e m e n t in this area?
21 A W ell, as I in dic a te d to you before, I have 22 ,, so me understanding of systems and of computers. I do not 23 hold myself, at this current ti m e , nor did I at the time 24 we are speaking of, to be q u alifie d to be an expert in 25 computer proc e ssing . However, I co uld spea k the lang uage.
O
-.-_______.-g 76'
)
I just want to know what you did, Mr.
1 Q l
2 Hofmann.
l 3 A And I can r e vie w work papers from the l i
4 a udits. I can r e vie w tindings that did come as a re s ult l, 5 of the a u dit s. I can review the a udit reports to see that 6 they are in proper language and that the facts are as we 7 understood them to be.
8 Q And is that what you did?
9 A That's what I did.
10 Q During any of these data pro c e ssing a udits 11 that were conducted during the period January 1977 to June 12 1978, did any of those a udits disclose any evidence of a 13 c on ille t of in te re st?
' ,/
14 A That is a long time a go.
15 Q Yes, I und-erstand; I just want your best 16 recollection.
17 A And my best r e c olle c tio n is: they did not 18 disclose any irregularity, in the e t hic al sense.
19 Q You answered that q u e stio n before. This 20 que stio n was a c on flic t of in t e re st.
21 A To me, that is an ethic al matter.
22 Q Ethical ir r e g ula rit y and c o n flic t of 23 interest are synonymous to you?
24 A Yes.
25 Q Now, you me n tio n e d that you did not, you O
77 (J) 1 don't regard yourself qualified to be an expert in I t hin k 2 you: said data pr oc e ssing ; yo u kne w a' lot abo ut it, but yo u 3 did not regard yo ur self as an expert. Am I fairly 4 summarizing your . testimony?
5 A Generally.
6 Q In what areas do you consider yourseli to be 7 qualified as an expert?
8 A At what point in time ?
9 Q Now.
10 A W ell, I have, in so me degree o f humblene ss, 11 some degree of expertise in the area of inve stigations.
12 Q And how long have you had -- do you consider 13 yourself an expert?
' A Well--
14 15 MR. RICHARDSON: By that, are you asking him 16 does he f eel he has expertise in the area?
17 MR. BERRY: I am asking if he c o n si d e r s 18 hf.m self an expert in that, in v e stig a tio n s. I mean, that 19 is a st r aig htf or wa r d question.
20 THE WITNESS: I have the e x pe rie n c e , I 21 t hin k, that is necessary to indicate that I have 22 c o n sid e r a ble amount of e x pe r tise in the area --
at this 23 time.
24 MR. BERRY: Right.
25 //
O 1
i
78 1 BY'MR. BERRY:
2 Q And how long have you considered yourself to 3 be an expert in investigations?
4 A Well--
5 MR. HICKEY: That wasn't quite his 6 testimony.
7 BY MR. BERRY:
8 Q It is not your te stimon y that you are an 9 expert in in ve stig a tion s?
10 MR. RICHARDSON: I thin k his answer was that ,
11 he has the experience to indicate "I
. have a c o n sid e r a ble 12 amount of e x per tise ," -is wha t he said.
13 MR. BERRY: I will put the question to you r
~
. s 14 again.
15 BY MR. BERRY:
16 Q Do you c o n si d e r yo u r sel f an expert in 17 in ve stig a tio n s, Mr. Hofmann?
l 18 A Tell you what? What is your de finitio n of l 19 an " e x pe r t " ?
l 20 Q An " e x per t," trained.
21 A Trained. In what regard?
22 O You don't ask questions at a d e po sitio n .
23 The q u e stio n s that you can ask me are to repeat the 24 q u e stio n , t hin g s of that nature. But it is your 25 d e po sition that is being taken.
i
79 1 MR. HICKEY: You did offer him the
'2 o ppo r t unit y to see k cla rific a tio n of your questions, Mr.
3 Berry.
4 MR. BERRY: Yes. I mean by an " e x pe r t" --
5 well, st ri k e --
6 MR. RICHARDSON: W ell , I t hin k you were 7 mid wa y in d e fining it.
8 MR. BERRY: W ell , strike that; strike- the 9 que st ion .
10 BY MR. BERRY:
11 Q Has Bechtel ever employed an y exper ts of an y 12 kind as consultants or agents?
,s 13 MR. RICHARDSON: Do you include lawyers in 14 that category?
15 MR. BERRY: Yes; I am not limiting it.
16 THE WITNESS: Has Be c h tel ever hired an l- 17 ex per t?
18 W ell , I wo uld assume that we have so m e 19 experts that we have hired, yes.
20 BY MR. BERRY:
21 Q Now, when yo u mention "e x per ts," how do you 22 d e fine " e x pe r t " ? What do you mean by " e x pe r t " ?
23 A You mentioned " e x pe r ts. "
24 Q And you agreed with me. Now, I am asking 25 you, when you stated, Yes, the y hir e d e x per ts, I am O
80 i ! 1 1 asking you what you mean by an " expert"?
\
N.)
2 A That the y have experience in a cer tain field 3 of a c tivity. I I
1 4 Q All rig ht.
1 5 In a pplyin g that d e finitio n , do yo u con sider {
6 yo u r self an expert in in ve stig a tion s?
7 MR. RICHARDSON: I thin k he has alr e a d y 8 te sti fie d to that. Can't we move on?
9 MR. BERRY: Tha t's the q u e stio n .
10 BY MR. BERRY:
11 Q Applying your d e finitio n , are you an expert 12 in in ve stig a tion s, Mr. Hofmann?
13 A I have experience, probably more so than 14 anyone else in B e c h t el, r ela tiv e to in v e stig a tion s. And, 15 as a r e s ult , I wo uld thin k tha t I have c o n side r a ble amount 16 of e x pe r tise .
17 Q Are you Bec htel's c hie f e x per t in vestig ator ?
18 A I wo uld t hin k I am.
19 0 Okay.
20 A Now, what abo ut, also d uring the sa me period 21 that we have been disc ussing -- January 1977 to June 1978 22 -- you were also, a c c o r din g to your resume, r e s po n sible 23 f r pe r s nnel administra tion. Did that that have an yt hing 24 to do wit h in v e stig a tio n s?
25 A No, sir.
9
81 1 Q Was that just like being the administrator
-2 or the manager of the department; is that what that means?
3 A W ell, you are implying to me tha t .it is an 4 u nimpo rt an t f unc tio n.
5 Q I am not implyin g an yt hing of the kin d . I 6 am just trying to understand--
7 A . W ell, that was my impression. I am sorr y if 8 I misu nd e r sto od . But I wo uld indicate to you that the 9 pe r so n n el administ r a tio n is, in our vie w, ver y impor tan t.
10 It . has to do with the performance of our peo ple , so that 11 they can perform their f u nc tio n pr o f e ssio n ally ; and, that 12 we can make a contribution to our company. All- o f that 13 has to do wit h per sonnel administration.
14 Q I am just trying to understand what it 15 means.
16 Is it fair to say that that is just being a 17 supe rvi sor?
18 MR. RICHARDSON: W ell, a supervisor in what 19 sense?
20 MR. BERRY: Sup er vising the per sonnel in the 21 administration se c tio n of the in te r n al a uditing 22 department.
23 MR. RICHARDSON: And are the duties tha t he 24 just described, are they supervisory in nature?
25 MR. BERRY: No, no. Is what you have listed O
82 1
( 1 as pe r so n n el administr a tio n on your resume, if I were to 2 suggest to you that that just means that you were a 3 supervisor, would I be in a c c u r a te in m a kin g that 4 - sug g estio n ? That is the q ue stio n .
5- MR. RICHARDSON: I am going to object. I 6 thin k the que stion is rather vag ue .and ambig uo us.
7 But, it you know what he means--
8 THE WITNESS: W ell, I wo uld c o n sid e r it a 9 Part of the management t u nc tio n ; and I wouldn 't c o n side r 10 me, at that point in time , to be a supervisor. We have 11 team leaders who are supervisors. It is a management 12 function.
13 BY MR. BERRY:
{
14 Q Did you have supe r viso r y r e spo n sibilit y in i 15 that po sitio n as c hie t' a uditor during the period that we 16 are disc ussing ?
17 A Yes, g e n e r all y, yes; I was a part of the 18 management of the o r g a ni z a tio n . There is a ditterence in 19 the scope; there is a dif f e r e nc e in the category between 20 supervisor and a manager, at least in our view.
21 Q All rig ht, let me go back.
22 MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Berry, I sa y this to 23 try to be helpful. I thin k that the distin c tio n the 24 witness is d r a win g is that between a line supervisor, 25 so me b od y who is the imme dia te su pe r viso r of a rank and -l
83 I
l
- G - 1 tile e m plo y e e , 11 you will, as o ppo se d to a member of 2 upper management who may be se pa r a ted from the rank and 3 tile by one, two, or three levels of e m plo y e e s.
4 Is that--
5 THE WITNESS: Yes, that is g en e r ally tr ue.
6 BY MR. BERRY:
7 Q And, also, the last item on -- the next to 8 the last item, says, "and a udit qu alit y c o n t r ol. " So, I 9 take it, in your p o sitio n as c hie f a udit o r ,
10 a dminist r a tio n , you are r e spon sible for a uditing qu alit y 11 control; is that correct?
12 A T ha t's what is sa ys.
13 Q What does that mean, to be r e spon sible for 14 a uditing q u alit y control?
15 A Every audit has work papers. When we send 16 c o m plia n ce a uditors o ut to the tield to r e vie w c on t r olle r s 17 a c tivitie s, personnel a c tivitie s, data p r o c e ssin g 18 a c tiv itie s , and a myriad of other things, each a uditor 19 works in d e pe n d e n tly under one team leader. They all 20 perf orm their f unc tion according to an a udit work prog ram.
21 They conduct in te r vie ws, they perform an alyse s, they 22 create doc umen ta tion. They gather this doc umentation to 23 support their c o n cl usio n , whether it be a finding, or whether it be that t he y didn 't find an y dittic ulty. Then, 24 25 they bind all t he se work papers together into one unit in
%j
84 1 r ela tiv e to that pa r tic ula r a udit.
2 When the y come bac k to the office, the y give 3 that b u n dle of work papers to me. I r e vie w and a n aly z e 4 those work papers to determine whether there is quality to 5 their ac tion s.
6 O That is ver y helpf ul; I u nd e r st a nd now. So 7 the data p r o ce ssing co m plianc e a udito rs, at le a st they l 8 reach c o n clusio ns?
9 A Data pro c e ssing , all a udito r s -- W ell, sure.
10 But they report it to me, pa r tic ula rly.
11 Q Then you conduct a special in v e stig a tio n s.
12 What kind of special inve stigations did you conduct?
- 3 A Matte r s in v olvin g a possible viola tio n of l
O- 14 our Directive 2-1. l 15 Q And 2- 1 is -- what?
16 A Business e t hic s , conflicts of in t e r e st ,
17 sec urity of in f o r m a tio n , using Be c h tel polic y.
18 Q Now, Mr. Hofmann, who else conducted, how 19 many other pe o ple c o nd uc te d special in v e stig a tio n s ,
20 be side s yo u r self ? !
i 21 A How many?
22 Q Xes.
23 A Over what period of time?
24 O During the period we are spe a king about:
25 Jan uar y 197 7 to June 197 8.
O
85
( 1 A How many? W ell, le t's see. Perhaps two, 2 that I can r e c all offhand, besides myself.
3 Q And, would it --
were there, perhaps, three 4 investig ators thro ug hout the e n tir e period, January 1977 5 to June 1978; and at all time s during that period, was 6 the re abo ut a approximately three in vestig ators?
7 A W ell, that is not what I understood you to 8 say. I understood you to say: how man y peo ple cond ucted 9 special in ve stig a tio n ?
10 Q Yes.
11 A Not how many special in v e stig a to r s were l
12 there.
13 0 Okay, I u nd e r st a n d . Thanks for that 14 cla ritic a tion ; that's very helpful.
15 A What was the q u e stio n , ple a se ?
16 Q W ell, were there special in v e stig a to r s?
17 A At points in tim e , yes, within this time i
18 trame, 1'
19 0 And were you a special investig ator?
20 A Yes; I conducted special in v es tig a tion s )
21 d u rin g that time frame.
22 Q W ell, see, here is my problem.
l 23 A Okay.
24 MR. RICHARDSON: Are we talkin g abo ut a job 25 title--
0 l
L___________________.______ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . . _ . _ _ . _ . . . _ _ . _ _ . .
86 MR. BERRY: Yes.
w] 1 2 MR. RICHARDSON: --or somebody who just does 3 this?
4 MR. BERRY: Right.
5 BY MR. BERRY:
6 Q When you said that you had pe o ple that 7 perf ormed special inve stigations, I took that to mean that l- 8 they were special investigators. You corrected me on that-9 and appeared to draw some distinction as between a pe r son 10 that is a special investigator and a person that performs 11 special inv e stig a tio n s. i 12 A~ Are you spea king, are yo u stating to me --
13 perhaps I mis u nd e r st o od. Are you sa ying to me that my
[-
14 title was, at that time, a specia] in v e stig a to r ?
15 Q I am asking? .
16 A My title at that time was not a special 17 investigator.
18 Q Did anybody have a title of special 19 investigator?
20 A No one had a title o f special in vestig ator.
21 Q Did anybody have an area of concentra tio n or 22 per f o r ming special in v estig atio n s? I mean, it there was a 23 special investigation to be performed, that one of c er t ain 24 peo ple would be a ssig ne d to perform the in v e stig a tio n .
25 A When you sa y "an area of co n c en t r a tion , " i O
.Q l
I 87
.'v ) 1 that mean to me that more than 50 per cent of their time 2 was in volved in special in vestig ations. And, I wo uld tell )
3 you that that wo uld be dit tic ult for me to answer.
I 4 Because I don't belie v e it is so.
5 Q W e ll , how about, as I said, let us assume 6 that there was a special in vestig ation nec e ssa r y.
7 A Yes.
8 Q One had to be carried out.
9 A Very good.
10 Q Now, in that department that you were 11 working in, were there c e r tain peo ple who wo uld be, who 12 were r o u tin ely a ssig ne d to perform those special 13 investigations?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Were you one of them?
16 A I was one of them.
17 Q And how many others were among that group?
18 A W ell, there was myself and my superior.
19 Q And who was your supe rio r?
20 A Mr. Bryant, J. S. Bryant.
21 MR. RICHARDSON: Are we still talking abo ut 22 the Jan uary 1977 to June 1978 time f rame?
23 MR. BERRY: Yes.
24 BY MR. BERRY:
25 Q And how many special in vestig ations did you g-
/
88-
- .( 1 conduct?
- 2 A Now this goes back to 1977?
3 Q Well, we are limi tin g -- we are still 4 ' dealing in the period Jan uar y 1977 to June 1978.
5 A W ell, now my r e c all isn't all that specific 6 about how many special investigations happene'd clo se ' to 7 ten years ago. As a con se quence, I would have to tell you 8 that, g ene r ally spea king , on the a verag e, about 20 or more 9 special in ve stig a tion s wo uld be ha n dle d each year, over 10 the last ten years.
'11 Q Records are ke pt , I mean Bec htel m ain tain s l
i- 12 records as to the s pe ci al in v e stig a tio n s that are 13 conducted by the inter nal auditing department, doe sn't it?
l i 14 A Yes.
15 Q So you can fin d out that in'f o r m a tio n if --
16 can't you?
17 A I can find that in f o r ma tio n o ut, yes. i
\ ?
! 18 Q It is just a matter of going back and ;
19 c he c king the records for the period Jan uar y 1977 to June 20 1978, isn't it? l 21 A That is correct.
l 1
I- 22 //
23 ll 24 ll 25 //
b)
~
i
\
89
! 1 1 BY MR. BERRY:
- tm i Q Mr. Hofmann, I am redirecting your attention to
) 2 i
3 your resume and, again, during the period January 1977 to l 4 June 1978. When did you conduct your first special 5 investigation, if you recall?
L 6 A Sometime during that period. I can't be more 7 specific.
8 Q Now, you testified earlier that a special 9 investigation, those are the ones that involve the Bechtel 10 Directive'2-1, is-that correct?
11 A Yes.
12 O Are those investigations of a different
' ('T 13 quality from other type of investigations performed by the
,(>
14 internal auditing department?
15 A You use the term " investigations" rather 16 liberally there . Now, I think you'll find that what I told 1'
17 you is that the re are special investigations and there are 18 compliance audits.
l 19 'O Yes, I believe you did tell me that. So l
20 special investigations are in fact the only type 21 investigations that are conducted?
22 A That have to do with Directive 2-1, yes.
23 Q What degree of importance does the company 24 attach to a special investigation?
25 MR. RICHARDSON : Ask him whether ---
90 2 1 BY MR. BERRY:
) 2 Q I said, what degree of importance does the 3 company attach to a special investigation?
4 MR. RICIIARDSON : I have to ask, what do you 5 mean by degree of importance?
6 THE WITNESS: Now do you establish ---
7 MR BERRY: Of priority.
8 MR. RICHARDSON: Well, priority is a relative 9 concept. .In relation to what?
10 BY MR. BERRY:
11 Q Why are special investigations conducted?
12 A It is a part of the charter of the internal ggg 13 auditing department that special investigations be conducted 14 as required.
15 Q Why is it important to. conduct a special 16 investigation at all?
17 A Well, I'll tell you. It has to do with 18 integrity. Our company is totally and completely committed 19 to integrity. And as a result, as an example, we have a 20 Bechtel policy called Directive 2-1.
21 So that indicates that there is a degree of 22 importance to the activity of special investigations.
23 Q Are there any other investigations policies l , .3 24 other than Directive 2-1 that require special investigations?
l 25 MR. RICllARDSON : The term "special investigation. "
i b ___ __
91
'3 1 is obviously if you will a term of art within his department, h 2 Are you asking in a more general way whether some departments 3 or divisions.of the company which may - -
4 MR. BERRY: As I understand the witness's 5 testimony ---
6 MR. RICHARDSON: --- perform investigations?
7 MR. BERRY: As I understand the witness's 8 testimonyr the. internal auditing department conducts special 9 investigations pursuant to the policy expressed in Directive 10 2-1.
11 BY MR. BERRY:
12 O Is that correct?
g g- 13 A That is correct.
14 Q Now, what I am asking.is, are there other 15 special investigations conducted by the internal auditing 16 department pursuant to some other directive?
17 A Now when you say pursuant, I want to make it 18 clear that the basis that we operate under or on, rather, 19 as far as special investigations has to do with the possible 20 violations of Directive 2-1.
21 During a particular special investigation, we 22 may find that other policies or procedures which are set, 23 published, distributed, understood, have been violated. But 24 the basis for our function is Directive 2-1 and the charter 25 of the internal audit organization.
92 v4 1 0- The three ' documents which your counsel was so i%
( ,) 2 good to make available to us, is the charter of the internal 3 auditing department amont those documents (handing witness 4 documents) ?
5 A It is entitled " Description of' operations ,
6 . Internal Auditing." That is the same thing as what I
/
7 referred to as the charter.
8 Q And this is- the charter that you are ---
9 A Right.
l 10 Q Now you mentioned that its integrity is pretty 11 important to Bechtel?
12 A' I didn't say that.
j))
13 0 It is not important to Dechtel?
G 14 A It isn't pretty important to Dechtel. It is 15 very important to Bechtel.
~
16 0 All right, so understood. Very important. And 17 I would assume that the integrity of Bechtel employees is 18 very important to Bechtel?
19 A It would follow.
20 0 Is it fair to say that Bechtel would prefer to 21 avoid engaging any of its employees -- strike that. Let me 22 begin again.
l 23 Is it f air to say that Bechtel has an interest f
24 in avoiding having any of its -- strike that, too. Sorry, let 1
25 me begain again.
93 1
L 5 1 Is it fair to'say that Bechtel also is n
L( ) 2 interested in preventing the integrity of any of its employees 3 from being unfairly called into question? )
4 A The use of the double negative bothers me.
5 O. All right. Bechtel, the company you work for, 6 they are. interested in preserving their integrity, that is 7 correct, isn't it?
8 A Yes, sir.
9 Q And they are interested in making.sure that 10 their employees' integrity is beyond reproach, too, is that 11 correct?
12 A That's right.
('~s 13 O And Bechtel wouldn't encourage conduct that 14 would unfairly call into question the integrity of one of its )
15 employees, would they?
16 A There's that double negative-again, I think.
17 0 What is the double negative?
18 A Restate the question and I will te'll'you.
19 0 Well, do you understand the question?
20 A I'm not sure I do. Because it sounds unusual.
21 Please bear with me. Perhaps you could say it in a different 22 way.
23 Q All right, I will try. It is important to e 24 Bechtel, isn't it, that the integrity of any of its employees
^~'
25 is not unfairly challenged, isn't it? !
r 94 q 6 1 A The reputation of a Bechtel employee is i n
'i
). 2 important to the company.
3 0 And you can appreciate, can't you, Mr. Hofmann, 4 that if you were to conduct an investigation of a Bechtel 5 employee,1there is the possibility that the integrity of that 6 employee may be called into question, isn't that right?
7 A That is correct. However, that is not.the only 8 reason why an investigation was conducted.
9 Q Yes, I understand that. But that possibility 10 does exist, that the integrity or the reputation of a Bechtel 11 employee could be harmed by having a special investigation 12 being conducted against him, couldn't it?
13 MR. RICHARDSON: Referring to the actual b< i 14 conduct of investigation prior to its conclusion? Or the 15 investigation as a whole, including the conclusion of the 16 investigation?
17 MR. BERRY: Prior to the conclusion.
18 MR RICHARDSON : So the pendency of the 19 investigation?
20 MR. BERRY: Yes. Being the subject of an 1
i 21 investigation.
22 THE WITNESS: There is a risk, I would assume . .
23 BY MR. BERRY:
e 24 Q And what measures, if any, would Bechtel take
'~'
25 to minimize that risk?
-i 95
-7
'l MR. HICKEY: Are we talking about a particular O]
% 2 time period?
3 MR. BERRY: No.
4 MR. HICKEY: You had a hypothetical phrase in.
5 your question, thattis why I am puzzled. What measures would 6 Bechtel take?
7 MR. BERRY: All right.
8 BY MR. BERRY:
9 0 What measures does Bechtel take?
10 A Well, I'm sure that I would find it difficult 11 to enumerate all of them.
12 0 Well, would one of them be assigning an experienced investigator?-
) 13_
14 A I would think that that would be appropriate.
15 There are others.
16 0 It is a fact, though, isn't it, that the first 17 . investigation that you conducted during the period January 18 1977- June 1978, that Bechtel didn't assign an experienced 19 investigator, did they?
20 MR. RICHARDSON: Are you assuming a situation 21 where somebody who has not done an investigation and is asked 22 to do a special investigation without any guidance or l 23 supervision?
l 24 or are you ---
25 MR. BERRY: Without any experience of having !
96 8 1 conducted those investigations before.
m l 2 MR. RICHARDSON: Oh, I see.
3 THE WITNESS: Now, is that a question?
4 BY MR. BERRY:
5 -Q Yes, there is a question.
6 A When I first became involved with special 7 investigations during the time frame January '77-June '78, I 8 worked with Steve Butler of our legal department. We went 9 out together. And representatives of Thelen Marrin Johnson 10 & Bridges.
11 Q Well, who conducted the investigation then, the 12 lawyers or ---
A Jointly.
((} 13 14 0 --- yourself?
15 A Joint. j l
16 Q The lawyers and Bechtel, all right. In June 17 you got a new supervisor, Mr. McQuin? I 18 A THat's right.
19 Q But your duties remained the same? !
20 A Quite right, too.
I l 21 Q And that was about another year and a half. Do 1
22 you recall how many special investigations ~you conducted ]
Ii 23 during that period, June 1978 to December 19797 24 A All I can tell you is that, on the average, in l
l 25 the last 10 years, we have conducted approximately 20 or more l
l
- _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____-____-_____A
- 7. -
1 97 l 9 1 investigations each year.
/N
-( ) . 2 Q I.am interested in that information,.Mr. Hofmann , i
.3 In the event we don't complete your deposition today or 4 tomorrow and it has to be rescheduled, I would appreciate it i l
5 if you can make some effort to find out that information for 6 me,' exactly how many investigations you conducted during that 7 _ period.
8 MR. HICKEY: I think that is a regurest that l 3 is appropriately _ directed to counsel.
10 MR. BERRY: All right.
11 BY MR. BERRY:
12 O And then since January 1980 -- well, let me ask 13 you. Is there any difference in your duties since January
('s_-) -
14 1980 from what your duties were during the period January 1977 15 to June 1978?
16 A Yes, I think there is. There was more -- I've 17- been more involved with special investigations and didn't 18 have data processing people or auditors reporting'to me.
J 19 0 Does that mean you had an increase in the i 20 number of special investigations conducted?
21 A I would assume so. It's possible.
22 Q These individuals , your supervisors , Mr. +
23 McQuin, Mr. Gasser, Mr. Pace, Mr. Hedigan, do you know if any y 24 of them had any experience or any background in law enforce-V 25 ment?
I
_ - _ _ - - - _ _ - - - - _ - - - - - - - _ - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - . - - -- - - - - - -- - --- J
98 10 1 A I don't believe I can speak to that' issue.
e \
( )' 2 O LIs that because you don't know? )
3 A That's because I'm not qualified to answer the i
4 question.
5 0 All right, well Idon't want you answering any 6 . questions you are unqualified to.
7 Do you recall, Mr. IIoffman, I asked you'what 8 measures does Bechtel take to minimize the harm to the-9 reputation or integrity of a Bechtel employee that is the 10 subject of.an investigation.
11- And one of them we discussed was selecting 12 an experience investigator. .And you said there were others.
("~% 13 If you would identify for me some of the other measures that w..)
14 you have in mind?
15 A Let's see, the senior management of a division 16 or a service organization within Bechtel would have the 17 authority to call internal auditing and request a special 18 investigation.
19 And by that, I mean that there is some degree i 20 of significance, some degree of substance, that has been 21 determined before we're called in.
22 Q How much degree -- or how much substance does 23 there have to be?
- g 24 A I can't speak for each of the managers in our
( ,)
25 total organization world-wide. But when they feel that there i
99 l
11 1 is a need to objectively inquire into a matter, many times
- 2 they call us to perform a special investigation.
3 Q Is there any guidelines or guidance been made j 4 available to those managers which they should consult in 5 making the determination as to whether internal auditing ;
6 should be called in?
7 A If you look at Directive 2-1, I think you will 8 find that there is some guidance as to the responsibilities 9 involved.
10 Q I have Bechtel Directive 2-1, the 1979 version, !
11 and I have a 1985 version. I understand there is a 1982 12 version, 13 Let me show you the one that I have and why gggg 14 don't you point out and identify for me, if you can, where in i
15 the 1979 version of Dechtel Directive 2-1 it provides 16 guidance to the managers as to when they should call for a 17 special investigation by the internal auditing department?
18 (Handing witness document.)
19 A Well, what I meant to imply was that the --
20 just the mere publication of such a directive to the 21 managements of Bechtel throughout the world indicates that 22 this is one way in which we hold integrity in high esteem.
23 And this whole document is a measure by which
~s 24 our management can determine whether there may be a
/ )
25 possibility of a violation.
100 l
12 g- So in other words, Mr. Hofmann,, is it fair to 1 [
l' , ,,
( 2 say you are unable to identify for me anywhere in that 3 document any guidance where it would indicate to a manager 4; the circumstances in which he'should call for a special 5 investigation conducted by the internal auditing department?
6 A That is not true.
- 7 MR.' RICHARDSON: That misstates his testimony.
8 MR. BERRY: Well, that was the question. {
l 9 BY MR. BERRY:
10 0 And I would.like for you: to point out to me l 11 where in that document does it state, for example , or to the 12 effect that when condition X, Y and Z are-present, the i
i 13 manager should call for a special investigation by the
{}
14 internal auditing department?
l 15 MR. RICHARDSON: I think the policy speaks for l 16 itself.
17 MR. BERRY: Are you raising an objection, Mr.
18 Richardson.
19 MR. RICHARDSON: Well have the question read 20 back, please.
21 (Pause.) I 22 BY MR. BERRY:
23 0 Mr. Hofmann, can you identify for me in Bechtel l
24 Directive 2-1 where, specifically,.it provides guidance to ,
(es')
%./
i 25 the managers as to when and under what conditions they are i
101
.13 1 to request a special investigation conducted by internal p
'2 audit?
l 3 A On page 2 of your document, second paragraph, 4 it recites that a division'slecial operation or service 5 manager.will.in turn notify the appropriate operating company 1
6 and at his/her' option the manager of internal auditing.
7 Now, it's implied that if the manager of 8 internal auditing is notified, then we're talking about a 9 special investigation.
10 0 All=right. Well, perhaps you didn't understand
- 11 what I was asking. I am not asking whether the manager has
.12 the authority to request a special investigation by internal 13 auditing..
(v) -
14 I am asking what guides the manager in making 15 the determination that a special investigation by internal ~
16 auditing should be conducted?
17 I am asking you to identify for me in Bechtel 18 Directive 2-1 where it provides guidance on that subject, 19 if you can?
20 A By -- by -- when you refer to guidance in 21 determining whether to bring in internal audit, are you 22 asking whether there are divisions and the directive.which 23 describe what a violation of a policy is?
24 Q I believe the question is clear. Did you JO,s 25 not understand the question, Mr. Hofmann?
l
102 14 1 A I did not understand the question, Mr. Berry..
43
.N ) 2- Q All right, let's take it from the top. We can 3 agree, can't we, that a manager can request that the 4 department of l internal audits conduct a special l
5 investigation, can't we?
6 A A manager can request a' special investigation, 7 yes.
8 0 He can do that?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Now, under what ---
11, A He doesn't have to, but he can.
12 0 That's correct. Now, under what circumstances
,C) 13 should he request the internal. auditing department to
%d 14 conduct a special investigation?
15 A It is a judgment call on the part of the 16 manager ' as to whether he should or should not ask for a i
17 special investigation.
18- Q Now, is there anything in Bechtel Directive 19 2-1 that provides guidance to the manager as to when he 20 should exercise his judgment,-as to how he should exercise 21 his judgment to request a special investigation?
22 A As to how he should exercise his judgment?
23 Q Yes.
f- 24 A The directive ---
(_/ I am 25 Q What factors is he to take into account?
103
~
15 1 sorry, did you not complete your previous answer?
e A
l
( k)' 2 Now you. asked another question. . So I'm going l
3 to'have to ask your indulgence again. .
4 0 Well, before you do that, I-going 'to make it 5 easy and I will just repeat the question. And-I will wait 6 until you answer it before I ask another one.
7 A Thank you.
8 O In Bechtel Directive 2-1, does that document 9 contain any guidance that the manager can resort to in 10 determining whether he should request a special investigation 11 by internal audits?
12 A There is guidance ---
l And'can you identify from ---
13 Q
('/
(_ -
14 A --- throughout the entire paper as to whether 15 there is the. possibility of a violation.
16 Q Does~it say, for example -- did you finish?
17 A And then it is his good' judgment as to wheter 18 he feels he wants the internal auditing organization to 19 conduct a special investigation. j 20 Now, you must understand ---
21 Q I am trying to understand. .
22 A I'm sure you are -- that it would be 23 presumptuous to dictate to our management when things would f 24 happen. Management has the judgment, the experience, to (
v 25 effect decisions.
_ _ _ _ - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--_______________________________j
104 16 1 We are a service organization.
("
( j 2 0 So a manager decides when he .wants a special 3 investigation performed by internal audit, ors whether his 4' organization will perform the investigation,itself?
5 A That's right.
l 6 Q And it is up to him to decide whether he is 7 going to do that?
8 A That's'quite right.
4 9 0 And there is no requirement -- or there is no l 10 language in Bechtel Directive 2-1 that says, in effect or in
'll substance, that if X is present, you must regurest an 12 investigation be performed by internal audits, is there? <
v)
(-
13 A" No, but there is a requirement that .says that ;
14- if.there is a problem of significance, th'at the manager of 15 internal auditing may or may not be advised.
i 16 O And you can agree, can't you, Mr. Ilofmann, that 17 nowhere in Bechtel Directive 2-1 is the term " problem of 18 significance" defined, is it?
19 A Not to my knowledge, no.
20 0 So what is significant to one manager may be 21 insignificant to another, isn't that true?
22 A Well, I can't speak for the management. And i
23 everyone's different, of course.
1 24 0 But it's possible, isn't it?
'( 25 A Well, you're different than I am.
i l
l J
l
. _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _-_-_ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .__
105 17 1 MR. RICIIARDSON : Well, anything is possible.
.x i-v) 2 Do you want to frame a .better question?.
3' MR. BERRY: No, I don't want to frame a better 4 question. The' question is clear on its face. It is highly 5 relevant. There is nothing ---
6 BY MR. BERRY:
7 0 We have agreed that significant is not 8 established. So what one manager regards as a'significant 9 matter another manager may view the same circumstances 10 insignificant. That is possible, isn't it?
.11 MR. RICIIARDSON : Objection, calls-for 12 speculation.
r '
v) 13 MR. BERRY: What speculation does it call for?
I can understand you don't want to answer the question.
14 i
15 MR. HICKEY: There was an objection to . the form 1 16 of the question.
17 MR. BERRY: All right, the objection is noted-18 for the record.
19 BY MR. BERRY:
20 0 Can you answer it?
21 A Quite frankly and in all honesty, everyone's 22- dif ferent. They all have their own disciplines and back-23 grounds and judgment factors that enter into them. And I
)
. 24 think that would be presumptuous of me to try to indicate l
25 what, if anything, our management would do.
._____D
106 18 :1 Although I do -- I can say with some. degree of
(
&) 2 certainty that they are all committed to 2-1.
l 3 0 And why is that not speculation on your part, 4 Mr. Hofmann? How do you know that?
5 A Well, I can't be with every manager 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> 6 a day living his life in 'his shoes throughout the world at 7 any one point-in time,'I just can't do it.
8 0 Well, how do you know that all the managers 9 are committed to Bechtel Directive 2-17 You don't know that, 10 do you?
11 A Well, I would - I don't -- they haven't --
12 they haven't signed an affidavit to me, no, they' haven't.
.( ) 13 0 So you are just speculating, aren't you?
14 A (No' response.)
15 0 Mr. Hofmann ---
16- MR. HICKEY: Did he answer that question? Were 17 we asking a question or making a comment on the record?
18 MR. BERRY: He answered the question.
19 MR. HICKEY: Well you said something just before 20 the reporter changed the tape and I didn't hear any response 21 to it.
l 22 MR. BERRY: I was suggesting --- !
23 MR. RICHARDSON: I don't think it was a i
24 question. It was an argumentative statement that the witness L
25 is engaged in speculation. l
107 1 MR. BERRY: Yes, and I will ask you not to gs
'(',) 2 speculate. j 1
3 BY MR. BERRY :
4 Q Mr. Hofmann, are you. aware that Bechtel 5 Directive 2-1 was revised in 1985, March 22, 1985?
6 A I assume you have some reason for that.
7 statement, so ---
8- O Yes, the reason.that I have is that I received 9 in discovery from your lawyers a copy of Bechtel Directive 10 dated March 22, 1985. And at the bottom of it, it states 11 that it replaces the issue dated April 22, 1982.
12 A So be it.
Are you aware of the circumstances requiring O]
L-13' O 14 revision of Bechtel Directive 2-17 15 A From time to time we review our directives and i 16 update them.
17 0 Why was Bechtel Directive 2-1 updated, to use 18 your term, in March 1985?
19 A I really don't know the specifics.
20 0 Why don't you take a look at it (handing 21 witness document) ---
22 MR. RICHARDSON: I am going to object to this 23 as beyond anything which is relevant to this case. That l
, 24 particular version I think was produced inadvertently, but
%/
25 it has been produced and so be it. ,
1
108 1 But I think the relevant time frame of this rs-( u)T '. 2 case is 1983,.the particular time period when this investiga-3 tion ~was conducted by Mr. Hofmann took place.
4 MR . BE RRY : I respectfully disagree, Mr.
5 Richardson . I'believe there are significant revisions in 6 the Bechtel directive, the 1985 version of Bechtel Directive 7 2-1, and I would suggest that those revisions may relate'to 8 the investigation conducted against one Richard Parks in 1983.
9 BY MR. BERRY:
10 0 You conducted your' investigation against Mr.
11 Parks -- strike that.
12 Which version of Bechtel Directive 2-1 was in 13 effect when you conducted'your investigation,of'Mr. Parks?
(~')
v 14 A I conducted an investigation of Quiltec, not 15 Mr. Parks. And the directive that was in effect was dated 16 April 22, 1982.
17 0 May I see that?
18 (Pause.)
19 RBY MR. BERRY:
20 0 Okay, Mr. Hofmann, was a request for an 21 investigation by the department of internal audits requested? l 22 A (No response.)
23 0 Did a Bechtel manager request the department of 24 internal audits to conduct an investigation of Quiltec?
25 A Yes.
109 l.
1 0 Which manager requested it?
fx ls i 2 A As I recall -- and, again, I might be wrong - -
~J _
3 but,it seems to me that it was Buzz Breuner.
4 Q Buzz Breuner ---
5 MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Berry, I am sure -it is 6 not intentional, but when you walk back and forth, there'is-7 kind of an irritating squeaking sound.
8 BY MR. BERRY:
9 0 Is that Herbert Breuner?
10 A - H-something' Breuner .
11 Q Did he make a written request?.
12 A No.-
\. 13 0 -Did he follow-up with an~ oral-telephone 1(/
G.
14 . conversation?
15 MR. RICHARDSON: Did he follow-up from what? ,
i 16 MR ~. BERRY : . Strike that.
17 BY MR. BERRY: l 18 0 How did Mr. Bruener make his request?
l 19 A iblephone.
20 0 And to whom did he speak?
21 A It's my recall he spoke to me.
22 0 How long did the conversation'last?
23 A This is 1987 and that was several years ago.
24 Ifow long did it last. Long enough for me to get an idea as
/ i 25 to what Buzz had on his mind.
110 1 Mr. RICIIARDSON: Ile didn't put it in his 2 question, Mr. Ifofmant, but I think what Mr. Berry meant to 3 ask you was, as bes' tou recall, do you recall the length of 4 the conversation? I1 ,ou do.
5 THE WITNESS: I don't recall that it was a'--
6 of the length of the conversation.
\
7 BY MR. BERRY:
8 0 Would that be memorialized in any writing?
9 A That telephone conversation?
s 10 Q Yes.
11 A Mot to my knowledge,
- 12. Q You don't recall writing a' memo. to yourself 13 reflecting the conversation that you had with Mr. Breuner?
g 14 A No, I don't.
15 0 If there were such a memorandum, it would be 16 in your investigation file, wouldn't it?
17 A Yes, it should be .
18 Q And it is not in there, is it?
19 A That's right.
20 Q You reviewed that file and you didn't find it, 21 did you?
22 A That's right.
23 0 All right. Did Mr. Breuner follow-up this 24 telephone conversation with you with a written explanation 0 25 of the matters that you and he had discussed over the
111 1 telephone which led him to request that you conduct a special
&)
( 2 investigation?
3 MR. RICHARDSON: You refer to a written- 1 l
4 communication, such as a memo --- .
5 MR. ' BERRY : Requesting a special investigation.
6 MR. RICHARDSON: --- authored by Mr. Breuner?.
7 MR. BERRY: Or ---
8 MR. RICHARDSON: And addressed to Mr. Hofmann?
9 MR. BERRY: No, not limited to being addressed 10- to Mr. Hofmann. l 11 BY MR. BERRY :
1 12 Q' Did the Department of Internal Audits' receive 13 from Mr. Breuner or anyone else at Bechtel Gaithersberg or
(J) 14 TMI a written request that a special investigation be 15 conducted of Quiltec?
16 MR. RICHARDSON: You are speaking about request
~
17 an investigation as opposed to written material submitted to:
18 Mr. Hofmann? i i
l 19 MR. BERRY: Yes, a request that an investigation 1 20 be conducted. It may have well contained other matters. But 21 there was a request for an investigation.
l 22 MR. RICHARDSON: All right, a document which j 23 expressly requests an investigation.
, 24 THE WITNESS: Not to my knowledge. And I would 25 tell you that in order to preserve the reputation of people
112 1 that might be involved in such an investigation, matters of 2 this sort are not routinely dictated or typed by a secretary.
3 And in order to maintain.the highest degree 4 of confidentiality that we're able to do, they telephone.
5 BY MR. BERRY:
6 0 Well, why wouldn't they just write it out and 7' not have the secretary type it up or dictate out, just write 8 it in his own hand?
9 A I can't answer that question for Mr. Breuner.
10 But I would tell you the reason why he may not have. I know 11 that I didn't get anything from him in wrtiten form at that 12 point in time.
13 Q And is that usual, that there is no written
(}
14 request or any documented request made to the Department of 15 Internal Audits?
16 A I would tell you that it is held so strictly 17 confidential that only the people who need to know about 18 matters relative to a possible violation of 2-1 are involved.
19 And that in order to preserve the reputation and the 20 sensitivity -- the security of the matter, telephone calls s
21 are usual.
22 O But that doesn't extend to the investigation 23 itself? I mean, there is no concern there about memorial-24 izing information learned regarding the allegation in O 25 writing, is there?
7 - - _
l 113 f 1 A What is memorializing?
I km ,) .. 2~ Q Writing it down, preserving it.
l 3 A I.would tell you that all' matters involving 1
4 special investigations , even during the evolvement of the I 5 special investigation are held in strict confidence.
6 0 But they are not just oral, I mean, they'are I
7 written down though, aren't they?
, 8 A Well, that's true, but they are very controlled.
l 9 Q What I am trying to understand is why couldn't 10 the same controls apply to the request itself? And why'isn't 11 that in writing?
12 A What -- it -- the more that is -- I can 't
('l 13 answer your question.
(
%,J 14 0 All right. But in any event, it is not done?
I 15 A That is a -- I.can't recall when it was done.
16 It may have been, but not in this matter.- Not that I can l
17 recall.
l l
18 0 In any of the'special investigations that you 19 have conducted has that been done? And by "that," I mean a i 20 written request that internal audit conduct a special 21 investigation?
22 A I cannot recall of an instance. '
l 23 O And you have conducted I believe your previous 24 testimony was about 200 special investigations?
'7-
.b 25 A I cannot recall with any specificity that that I
i .
J \
l l
l 114 ;
! l l 1 is so.
,es
's. s 2 0 That what is so, that you have conducted .--- I 3 A That they supplied me with some written request.
t 4 Q So how would you know, Mr. Hoffman, that you 5 fully understood what the allegation was?
6 A Well, I would suggest to you that that's'the 7 reason for the investigation, Mr..-- to try to more fully
.f 8 ' understand what the situation is.
I 9 0 All right. How would you know that you were 0 10 investigating the right thing, if you didn't have a written i 11 account of the allegation that you were to investigate in 12 the-first place was? j 13 A (No response.) -
(]
14 O Either coming in or memorialized after the 15 telephone conference?
16 MR. RICHARDSON: At this point, I think the 1
-(
17 questioning is getting a bit argumentative. Why~ don't you -l l
18 just ask him how he goes about ---
'1 19 MR. BERRY. No, I don't want to ask.him how he i 20 goes about.
21 MR. RICHARDSON: ---
finding'out what the
- 22 circumstances are. Then the lawyers and the judge can draw
{ l 23 their own conclusion as to whether that is adequate or I I
I
,-sq 24 inadequate.
l 25 MR. BERRY: The question is not argumentative, l
l
- - - - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ . I
115 1 Mr. Richardson. The question is clear. The question: is
' ,r
()
2 important. The question is relevant. l 3 BY MR. BERRY:
4~ O Could you answer the question, Mr. Hofmann?
5 Or state'that you can't answer the question?
6 A would you restate the question, please?
7 0 If you are forced to rely on your own memory 8 because you don't receive a written account of-the allegation 9 leading to the request for the investigation, how do you know 3 l
10 that when you perform your investigation you are investigating l 11 the right thing?'
.i
'12 MR. RICHARDSON: That misstates what he ---
rN 13 MR. BERRY: Well, let him correct it.
O 14 MR. RICHARDSON: He hasn't testified that he.
15 goes completely from memory.
16 BY MR. BERRY:
17 Q All right, let's t'ry i't aga'in.
18 If the manager doesn't ---
19 MR. RICIIARDSON: For clarification -- you do 20 include notes or you do not include notes that he takes as 21 part of the written record of the circumstances presented to 22 him, is that right? You are eliciting something other than 23 note-taking?
24 MR. BERRY: Yes, I haven't included note-taking, 25 MR. RICHARDSON: All right.
116 !
i 1
1 MR. HICKEY: You say you included or excluded?-
(,,j 2 MR. BERRY: I did not include --- :!
3 MR. RICHARDSON: He is excluding.-
4., BY MR. BERRY: .
5 'O If;the manager doesn't provide you a written request 6 and you don't write a memorandum to your file documenting 7 what the request was, how do you know that when you finally 8 get around to conducting'the investigation that.you are-9 investigating the right thing?
~
10 MR. RICHARDSON: Well, here you -- now you have 11 brought it back in the question. When you say memorandum to 12 the .~ file , you are by definition saying that his notes
- 13. concerning what management tells him are not a memorandum to
(')'(
~.
14 the file,.right? Is that part of the question?
15: otherwise, it is confusing. .l i
16 MR. BERRY: All right. Well, we will take out 17 "to the file . " Does that eliminate the confusion?
18 MR. HICKEY: Not to me. What is the question l l
19 now? i 20 MR. BERRY: All right.
21 BY MR. BERRY:
22 Q Mr. Hofmann, ou have testified that the 23 requests for special investigations are generally made orally.
j 24 In fact, you have testified that you don't ever recall an !
/
b' 25 instance where you received a written request for special
117-1 investigations.
m
() 2 My question to you is, given that, how do you 3 know that when you get around to conducting your investigation ,
4 to start your investigation, that you are.even going to l 5 investigate the right thing? How do you know.that?
6 A There is enough information communicated 7 verbally to satisfy that there would be some significance to 8 the matter. And in my mind, we're just speaking about ,
l 9 communication, whether it's verbal or written.
10 Just oecause it's written doesn't mean that 11 it's right or total or complete. And after the -- the first 12 thing we do is when we go to the field, we sit down with the (J 'N 13 likes of Mr. Breuner and we speak to the specifics in 14 hopefully more detail. 1 15 0 When you receive the telephone calls, do you 16 take notes during the conversation?
17 A In this matter? l 18 0 As a general practice. Is it your practice to 19 take notes?
20 A Yes.
21 Q Did you do that in this case?
i 22 A Well, I re -- I don't see any notes in the 23 files. I don't -- maybe I didn't.
- 24 0 If notes had been taken, they would be in the p
Gs 25 file, wouldn't they?
118 1 A I would think so.
,m
() 2 0 And they are not in ~ the file , are they?
3 A Icdidn't see them.
4 Q What did Mr. Breuner tell you? Before you 5 refer to your documents, do you have a present recollection 6 as t'o what Mr. Breuner told you? l 7 MR. HICKEY: Which occasion are we talking 8 about?
I 9 MR. BERRY: When he requested a special 10 investigation.
11 MR. HICKEY: I think that'is pertinent. i
- 12 THE WITNESS: Excuse me?
-(~). 13 MR. HICKEY: I don't have anything, go ahead.
ej 14 THE WITNESS: Well, again, this is many years 15 ago and it's very difficult for me-to be very specific.. But l i
16 it had to do with job shop. operations that might be active j i
17 on the Three Mile Island- job .
j i
18 BY MR. BERRY: ,
i
-t 19 0 And why was that significant?
20 A Well, we understood that there might be some !
21 akilled technical people who were leaving Three Mile Island {
i 22 because of having been recruited by a job shop operation.
23 Q Were they Bechtel people that were leaving?
~ 24 A I don't recall that that was part of the l
.[jv
\
25 conversation. ,
l l'
\
\
119 1 Q If they weren't Bechtel people that were (f 2 leaving, why is that important to Bechtel -- to use your 3 term, why did that have such a degree of substance to'Bechtel )
4 that an investigation is warranted?
5 A Because we understood -- or there was an under- 1 6 standing that perhaps a Bechtel employee or employees might 7 have aided and abetted the job shop operation to the 8 detriment of the client.
9 Q What information did you have, did you receive 10 from Mr. Breuner that led you to believe that a Bechtel 11 employee may have aided and abetted the job shop operation?
12 A At what time? s 13 Q At the time Mr. Breuner relayed this information
{}
14 to you and requested that you conduct the special 15 investigation?
16 MR. RICHARDSON: In other words, you are 17 referring to the phone call?
\
18 MR. BERRY : Yes.
19 THE WITNESS: He just -- he just -- as I riscall 20 it -- again, I might be wrong -- but as I recall it, he 21 verbalized much the same as I did there. -
22 BY MR. BERRY:
23 Q Do you recall what questions you asked him --
l 24 well, strike that.
O 25 Did you ask any specific follow-up questions to o
4
- 120 l-.
I 1 flesh out the general information that-you just said that you
[ (,,y
~'
! 2 received from him as related to me?
3 MR. RICHARDSON: During that phone conversation?
4 MR. BERRY: Yes.
5 BY MR. BERRY:
6 Q During that phone conversation?
7 A I really don't recall what I might have asked ,
8 him.
9 Q~ And you can't-reconstruct that from your notes, 10 can you?
- 11. A Ik), I don't believe I can.
12 Q' 'Did Mr. Breuner identify the Bechtel employee 13 who may be aiding and abetting the job shop operation?
('~J')
(.-
14 A. Well, with all degree of certainty, I can't --
15 I can't -- at that point in time, I can't testify that'that 16 was so.
17 0 And you have no recollection?
18 A That's right. l j
19 Q And when did Mr. Breuner call you? {
20 A well, it was several days prior to my leaving 21 for Gaithersberg.
22 Q Did Mr. Breuner indicate to you how long he had f 23 the information before he contacted you?
24 A I don't recall that that was a point -- that 25 he -- I don't recall that he said anything about that. ,
l i
i 121 1 0 Do you recall asking?
,s._
(v) 2 A I don't.
3 0 You stated earlier, Mr. Hofmann, that a special 4 investigation is warranted when there is -- I believe you used 5 the term -- a degree of substance to the matter, do you l 6 recall that?
7 A Yes, I remember my use of the word " substance." l 8 Q The degree of substance, is that limited to the 9 subject matter or the type of allegation, or does it also j 10 include sufficient information or sufficient credible l 11 information to believe there may be some truth to it?
12 A Substance would indicate to me, in my term, that , I 13 first of all, there may have been a violation of .2-1, that
('~JT c
14 it was within our province of interest, jurisdiction. . That 15 the general circumstances were such that a principle needed 16 to be resolved.
17 0 A principle?
18 A 2-1 is a philosophy.
19 O All right. ;
20 A It's a corporate statement of philosophy.
i 21 Q A special investigation could be conducted, for 22 example, you received an allegation that an employee was !
23 stealing company property, couldn 't it?
l
,- 24 A Yes.
25 0 Dut if I were to call you up -- I am a manager
'122 1 for Bechtel ---
,r s , '
( ,/ 2 A Pardon me?
3 0 If I were a manager for Bechtel and I called you 4 up and said, Mr. Hofmann, I think John Doe is stealing company 5 property, investigate. What do you do?
6 MR. RICHARDSON: Are you asking whether that 7 has actually happened?
- l 1
8 MR. BERRY: No ---
9 MR. RICHARDSON: You are posing and asking what 10 his ---
11 -MR. BERRY: Yes, what would be the --- !
12 MR. RICHARDSON: --- to that precise !
(~
. LA' 13 hypothetical? .!
14 MR. BERRY: Yes, to that hypothetical.
i 15 BY MR. BERRY:
16 0 With your procedures and your practice, what 17 is your next move?
18 A Well, you're asking me a hypothetical question.
19 0 Has that ever happened?
20 A Wait a minute, let me finish my statement if I 21 man. Will you be indulgent? You are asking me a hypo-22 thetical question. At a point in time, if a question of that !
i 23 sort came, there would be a whole myriad of circumstances jx 24 that would exert energy on that issue.
N 25 All of those unidentifiable myriad of
123 1 circumstances-would play on whether there is significance, p,
() ,
2 And I'm not in a position to identify those myriad of 3 circumstances.
l 4 0 Have you ever received an allegation, Mr.
5 Hofmann, that an employee was stealing company property?
6 A , Not in this particular element here . Not in 7 this investi,mlion.
8 Q Do you mean the Parks investigation?
9 A That's right. ;
i 10 Q I'm not referring to the Parks investigation.
11- Any of the 200 investigations that you have conducted?
12 A Yes.
13 0 And somebody called you up and said, I believe
(')T u
14 John Doe is stealing company property. That has happened 15 before, hasn't it?
16 A Yes.
17 O And what is your next move? What do you do 18 or what did you do when you received that in formation?
i 19 A I'd let ---
20 MR. RICHARDSON: Since I believe the purpose ' j 21 of these questions are to ascertain what Mr. Hofmann's normal 22 approach or practice is, I think it is a fair line of !
23 questioning.
24 But I want to admonish Mr. Hofmann that he 25 should not divulge any of the specifics or details or
124 i
n 1 characteristics of.a particular actual investigation which m
j . 3 ,/ 2 might directly or indirectly disclose the identify of the 3 people involved.
4 MR. BERRY: I am not asking him ---
5 MR. RICHARDSON: Or the case involved.
6' MR. BERRY : I am not asking you to identify 7 an individual.
8 BY MR. BERRY:
9 0 As your counsel pointed out, correctly, I am 10 interested in your methodology, in your approach, in your --
11 how you go about conducting investigations.
12 If you received an allegation, what do you do?
13 What is your next step?
('))
14 A All right, I receive an allegation and I go-to 15 my superior.
16 Q Even though somebody calls you up on the 17 telephone and says, I think John Doe is stealing company 18 property, you say, " Goodbye. Thank.you," hang up the phone 19 and go to your superior?
20 A well, that's very simplistic. And I don't 21 think you intend to purvey that.
22 0 That is the impression I was getting from your 23 testimony. I would like you to correct it if it is incorrect.
24 MR. RICHARDSON: Well, I think he is -- as best 25 as he can, he is trying to describe what he does. He has l
125 1 testified ---
./m
( l 2 BY MR. BERRY:
LJ 3 0 You can understand ---
l 4 MR. RICHARDSON: -- that after he gets a 5 request for an investigation, you asked what is his next step.
~
6 He.says he goes to his superior. Can't we just-proceed?
7 MR. BERRY : We are proceeding. ;And we are
-8 proceeding according to the staff's desire.
9 BY MR. BERRY: '
1 10 What I am interested in is what you talk about i
11 on the telephone because we don't have records. You don't' -l 12 write anything down. So ---
13 MR. RICHARDSON: That is very -- you are
- %-(~]) .
14 arguing with the witness. I mean, you may not like the 15 testimony, you may want to argue this or that to the judge 16 at the trial of this case. That is your prerogative.
17 But I really think we could move a lot more 18 quick?.y if you simply ask questions which ascertain what the i 19 facts are, as he believes they are.
20 MR. JOHNSON: I think he is attempting to do 21 that. A few minutes ago, or I don't know how many more 22 minutes ago, he. asked the question, what his normal practice ]
.1 l
23 was and you objected. I i
, 24 Now he is willing to answer and Mr. Berry is 25 asking his question.
4
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - J
126 1 MR. RICHARDSON: I don't recall that objection,
( 2 but I'am quite willing to have the witness talk about his 3 n rmal practice.
4 MR. BERRY: The' telephone convers'ation is an 5 imPortant element. And from what I understand from the 6 testimony so far, the telephone conversation that internal !
7 audit received is an important part of this case.'
g There is much information we don't have access 9 to because no records are kept. That is the witness's 10 testimony. So as best as he can understand and recollect, I 13 want to focus in on what transpires during the telephone 12 call.that he receives -- that internal audit receives A 13 requesting a special investigation.
'V 34 BY MR. BERRY:
15 0 I want to know what you. do when you are on 16 the phone to the individual, what questions you ask, if any 17 you ask? i jg MR. BERRY:. And that is the subject we are l 39 going to explore when we come back in five minutes.
20 MR. RICHARDSON: All right. ]
4 21 (A recess was taken.)
22 MR. BERRY: On the record. .
23 BY MR. BERRY :
24 0 When we broke , Mr. Ilofmann , we were discussing ,
25 the telephone call from Mr. Breuner when he requested you !
l l
l
1
} 127 l
1 conduct a special investigation.
lk 2 Did Mr. Bruener tell you during that conversa-3 tion what involvement or alleged involvement the Bechtel 4 employee had in aiding and abetting the job shop?
5 A He must have.
6 Q WHy do you say he must have?
7 A Because Bechtel has a responsibility -- well, 8 let me rephrase that. If a Bechtel employee was involved
?
9 in some possible irregularity, well then it would fall under 10 Directive 2-1.
11 Q So you are assuming that Mr. Breuner told you?
12 A Quite frankly, I can't recall the specific
(;
13 language that was transmitted over the telephone wires.
14 0 I am not asking you to recall the specifics, 15 but generally did he describe for you the involvement of the 16 Bechtel employee?
17 A He must have described the situation in enough 18 detail so that we felt there was substance. "We," myself and 19 my boss, substance to the allegation.
20 0 Did he tell you that the alleged involvement of 21 the Bechtel employee was that a secretary had typed resumes 22 for Quiltec?
23 A Again, I would have to answer the question in 7- ,,
24 the same way. I'm sorry, I cannot recall the specifics, you
(
%/
/
25 see. But I can tell you that there was enough substance to !
h -_a- _ _ _
3 i 12R l
L 1 -- for us to feel that we had jurisdiction in the matter.
t
(
l.. ,
- l 2 Q And you are only assuming that.because you l
3 subsequently conducted an investigation, isn't that true?
4 A .( No response.)
5 MR. RICHARDSON: Could you state that agaiti? I-l 6 missed it..
7 BY MR. BERRY :
i 8 Q You are assuming that you had enough'information 9 because eventually.you conducted an investigation?
10 A I conducted an. investigation because we felt 11' that there was substance to"the allegation.
12 0 But you don't remember what the substances was, 13 that is right, isn't it?
{}
14 A I don't recall now several years after the fact 15 what the specific thoughts were.
16 0 Well, was that.-- before you refer to your notes 17 -- from your present recollection, was that part of the 18 allegation, that a secretary had typed resumes for Quiltec?
19- MR. RICHARDSON: We are again focusing on the 20 first telephone call?
21 MR. BERRY : Yes.
22 THE WITNESS: Possibly.
23 BY MR. BERRY:
., 24 O All right. I want to show you, Mr. Hofmann l
l 25 dated March 24,1983, from an S. M. Pace. Do you know Mr.
i l
129 1 Pace?
iA) 2 A S. M. Pace I know.
3 'O Who is Mr. Pace?
4 A Well, as the resume indicates, Mr. Pace was a 5 supervisor of mine at one point in time.
6 0 Was he your supervisor in March of 19837 7 A He was my supervisor in March of '83.
8- 0 All right. And,the memorandum.is addressed to 9 Mr. H. F. Brush. Do you know an H. F. Brush?
- 10 A Yes, sir, I know'an H. F. Brush.
11 Q Who is Mr. or Ms. H. F. Brush?
12 A It is a Mr. H. F. Brush and if I might-take a' 7 13 look at that document you're holding?
,g"%
14- Q We will get around to that. I will show you 15 the document in a minute. But can you tell me who Mr. H. F.
16 Brush is?
17 A At that time he was an executive vice president 18 of Bechtel.
19 0 Yes, I want to show you the document - -
20 A And if you'd let me continue?
21 Q Please.
22 A And our executive sponsor. The executive sponsor 4
23 for the internal audit department.
,. 24 Q What is an executive sponsor?
25 A In our Bechtel organization, we have -- senior j l
i
.130 e
1 management has designated certain senior members.of senior 4.,a) -
2 management to be responsible for'certain organizational i
3 elements within the Bechtel organization in total.
4 Harvey Brush had executive responsibility for 5 ' internal. audit, et cetera.
6 0 Yes, well on March 24, 1983, Mr. Pace wrote 7 Mr. Brush a memorandum which is captioned " Strictly Confiden-8 tial." And the subject is Three Mile Island, possible 9 employee involvement with job shop operations.
10 The memorandum reflects that copies were 11 distributed to a J. M. Komes,La C. W. Sanford, a J. W.
12 Weiser, and a R. M. Loomis.
. 13 Let me.show you this document and ask you if 14 you have ever seen it (handing witness document).
15 MR. RICHARDSON: Are we going to mark it? )
16 MR. BERRY: I am not marking it. I don't have l<
17 an extra copy for the court reporter.
18 MR. JOHNSON: For the record, it is already a 19 .part of the Breuner deposition, I believe.
20 MR. BERRY: That is correct. ,
1 21 THE WITNESS: And the question was, have I I
22 seen it? l 23 BY MR. BERRY:
,m 24 Q Yes.
s'D) The answer is yes.
25 A I 1
l 1
l I
i,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . __ _ . . _ _ . . . . . . _ _ _ . _ _ . . . _ . _ d
131 1 Q In fact, Mr. Ilofmann, you wrote this memorandum, r
(x) 2 didn't you?
3 A I had a great deal to do with the wordsmithing, 4 yes.
5 'O And.those are your initials down at the bottom 6 where it says "SMP:IILII, " for H. Lee llofmann, isn't that 7 correct?
8 A That's right.
9 Q And what is this document?
10 A This document indicates what'the allegation --
11 what we understood the allegation to be initially. This 12 document, in addition to that, indicates that there was an 13 investigation conducted.
- (] .
14 This letter or this memorandum also indicates ;
15 certain information that came to light during the conduct'of 16 the investigation. This memorandum also indicates that the 17' division had taken certain disciplinary action relative to ;
18 its employee.
19 It indicates also what the division intended to 20 do to minimize a reoccurrence of the situation. And that we ,
1 21 closed the investigation.
1 22 Q So this is the document that closes out the ,
1 23 file?
I 24 A Yes.
O 25 0 And is it customary to issue an interoffice I
i 1
1 1 1 L_ _ _ _ _ - - . _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ . - _ - _ _ _ _ __ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _______ _ ___ ____J
B 132 1 memorandum to the executive sponsor closing out an 2 investigation?
, 3 A Yes, it is.
4 O And are they always captioned " Strictly 5 confidential"?
6 A Always captioned strictly confidential.
7 0 I assume that this means that this is a 8 confidential document, a strictly confidential document?
9 A We make every attempt to label every kind of 10 memorandum of that sort with the words " Strictly confidential. "
11 Q Why do you have so many people on the 12 distribution list?
gggp 13 A It is the manner in which we by practice notify 14 on a need-to-know basis the individuals that have.a primary 15 concern with this matter.
16 Q Who is Mr. Weiser?
17 A Mr. Weiser was general counsel for Bechtel.
18 Q And where is he located?
19 A San Francisco.
20 0 You mean, all of these documents, or'all closure 21 reports , or closure memoranda, are provided to the general 22 counsel?
23 A Yes.
24 0 You are sure about that?
O 25 A No question.
~
s
\'
133 L -1 O And'who is Mr. Loomis?
,,s-i ) _
2' A Mr. Loomis is the attorney who was. resident in 3 the Gaithersberg office , the Bechtel attorney who was 14 resident in the Gaithersberg office..
5' O Why did he have a need to know?
6 A It is our policy to relate our activities to 7 appropriate counsel so that we do not cause -- that we 8- continue to be within the law.
9 0 And when you stateLpolicy, is that policy'2-17 10 A No, sir. It doesn't say that there. Although 11' it does refer in 2-1 to legal advice.
12' , O When you stated "it is our policy," what I am
(^T ; 13 asking you .is, is the policy you are referring: to Bechtel wJ 14 Directive 2-17 15 A Perhaps I used- the term " policy" when I should 16 have used the_ term " practice."
17 Q All right. Now, I know who Mr. Sanford is. So 18 to complete the list, who is Mr. Komes?
19 A Komes.
20 0 Who is he?
21 A He is the -- Mr. Sanford's superior, or was.
22 Q What was his title, if you recall?
23 A I'm not -- well ---
,-s. 24 Q Deputy general manager, does that sound ---
(v). l 25 A No.
_ 2___ _ __ __. _ .-_--_ _ _ _ _ --_-_ .-._. - -- . . _ - _ _ _J
134 1 Q Anyway, Mr. Hofmann, I want to direct your f^q ,
U)
?,.
2 attention to the fourth paragraph on page'1 of the' document 3 we have been discussing.
4 And the first sentence , in fact,-states, 5 "Bechtel Directive 2-1 was violated." Let me ask you, what 6 was the' violation?
7 A I'm not hot but it's ----
8 MR. RICHARDSON: Take your time, Mr. Hofmann.
9 If you are need.to ---
10 BY MR. BERRY:
11- Q You are free to read the entire document again.
12 Even though you have authored it, it may be some time since 13 you have had a chance to review it.
(A' L
14 A- Very kind of you, counsel.
15 (Pause.)'
16 THE WITNESS: Would~you state the question 17 again, please?
18 BY MR. BERRY:
19 0 Yes. What was the violation that you referred 20 to in paragraph 4 of the document we have been discussing 21 which is the March 24, 1983, memorandum from Mr. Pace to Mr.
22 Brush?
23 A Well, I refer to Bechtel Directive 2-1 and f-- 24 there are a number of areas which applied, and would cause 25 me to indicate that there was a directive violation.
t 135 i
1~ Q Yes, and I am asking you to identify for~me ---
r kw) 2 MR. RICHARDSON: I think you are interrupting 3 him. 1 4 THE WITNESS: And I would tell you that one 5 indication of violation would be that -- and I quote from the 6 directive -- "Any action taken by Bechtel or its employees 7 shall be fully justifiable and should not be a cause of 8 concern or unfavorable publicity or embarrassment if 9 disclosed."
10 second ---
11 BY MR. BERRY:
12 Q- Well, before you get to the second, that was 13 one of the violations that you discovered in your
(]>
s-14 investigation?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Now, what constituted --'well, first of all, 1
17 who d com). 4ted the violation? l 18 A Are we still on the initial question as to 19 why --- !
20 0 Yee, when you said Bechtel Directive 2-1 was i
21 violated, violated by whom?
~
22 A The -- what do you call it, the senior startup I
23 engineer.
L 24 Q And was the senior startup engineer the only
(- 25 individual whom.you discovered in the course of your l
l C______.-_-_-.__-__-_--- - - - - - - - 1
136
! 1 investigation violated Bechtel Directive 2-l?
.r'N-
"y), 2_ A' There was -- no.
3 0 Who else did you discover had violated.Bechtel 4 Directive 2-l?
5 A Ms. Riddle, l l
6 Q Anyone else? I 7 A No, sir.
8 Q Now ---
9 A Now, will you tell me continue as to the other 10 portions of the directive that were in violation?
11 Q Absolutely.
12 A " Avoid any arrangement" -- and then put three 13 dots - " relationship, act" -- put three dots - "which is (v)
14 or appears to be contrary to the best interest of. Dechtel 15 or 'its clients" -- put three more dots.
16 Q Did Mr. Parks violate that provision? ,
-l 17 A It would appear so.
18 Q Did Ms. Riddle violate that provision?
19 A It would appear so.
l 20 0 Did anyone else -- did you discover anyone else )
21 violating that. provision in the course of your ---
l
-22 In the course of your investigation, did you ;
23 discover a violation of that provision by any other Bechte-24 employee at the TMI site?
.O 25 A No. I'll read -- would you let me continue, l
1
7____-___
l 137, 1 please, with other indications as to violation?
L+( yY 2 0 All right, what is the next violation that you
.s-3 discovered?
4 A No, this was all part of the same. violation, a 5 violation of Directive 2-1. Various provisions that pertain 6 to the situation. !
7 0- All right', what is the next provision?' !
8 A " Serving as an" -- dot , dot, dot - " agent or 9 representative of" -- dot, dot, dot -- "to any company, firm 10 or business other than the Bechtel organization wnen in such 11 service conflicts with Bechtel's interests or detracts from {
12 or infringes in a significant way on the employee's time " --
( 13 dot, dot, dot, dot.
d 14 O May I see that?
15 (Document proffered counsel.)
16 BY MR. BERRY:
17 Q And where were you reading from?
18 A He re (indicating).
19 0 Now, did Mr. Parks violate that provision?
20 A If I may take a look at it?
21 (Document proffered witness.)
22 THE WITNESS: It would appear that he may have 23 acted as a representative of another company.
24- BY MR. BERRY:
25 0 And on what do you base that?
138 1 A Because he instigated the typing -- so he' told I,]f 2 me -- of resumes which were to be used by Quiltec.
3' O Didn't he also tell you that he was doing it 4 as a favor to a Mr. Keen? !
5 A .The point is that he did it. l 6 0 'The question I asked you, did Mr. Parks tell' 7 you that he had Ms. Riddle type the resumes as a favor to'Mr.
8 Keen?
9 A Yes, he did. 'j 10 0 And according to your own testimony, you had'no 11 reason to disbelieve that?
12 A .What's-that to do with the problem?
13 0 All right, now as I ---
( ])
14 A As to the violation?
15 0 As I read the section you are quoting from ---
16 MR. BERRY: Unless you have an objection, Mr.
17 Richardson?
18 MR. RICHARDSON: No, no, no.
19 DY MR. DERRY:
20 0 As I read the section you are quoting from that il you claim Mr. Parks violated,. it states that the following 22 practices will be considered as deviations from policy.
23 Is a deviation a violation of policy?
24 A It depends upon the circumstances. l
,fs t/ )j 25 0 You are familiar with Bechtel Directive 2-1,
____--___________-_-__-_w
139 1 1 aren't you, Mr. Hofmann?
(
\
) 2 A I am familiar with Directive 2-1.
3 Q And you have conducted over 200 investigation 4 under Bechtel Directive 2-1, haven't you?
5 A That's what I testified to.
6 Q Now, if anybody would know whether a deviation 7 from policy should be deemed a violation of policy, it should 8 be you, right?
9 A I --
10 MR. RICHARDSON: The question is unclear. Are 11 you asking him to ---
12 MR. BERRY: I am asking-him as an expert
~T 13 f amiliar with Bechtel Directive 2-1 --- !
(G 14 MR. RICHARDSON : He has acknowledged that. So 15 what is the ---
16 THE WITNESS: I thought so.
17 MR. BERRY: He didn't acknowledge it.
18 BY MR. BERRY:
19 Q Is a deviation from policy the same as a 20 violation of the policy? That is the question.
21 MR. RICHARDSON: He answered that question.
22 MR. BERRY: And what was his answer?
23 MR. HICKEY: His answer was, it depends on the 4 24 circumstances, I thought I heard him say. You can have the p)
V 25 answer read back if you want.
l 140 1 BY MR. BERRY:
() 2 Q All right, what circumstances determine whether 3 a deviation from policy is considered a violation and whether 4 it is not considered a violation?
5 A That's a. general question and I would think 6 that it depends upon the' circumstances.
7 0 I am sure that in the 200 investigations that 8 you have conducted that you have had to draw that distinction 9 before, haven't you?
10 A Well, all I can speak to as this -- the issue 11 here.
12 Q Did you not understand the question that I.put 13 to you, Mr. Ilofmann?
14 A Well, I'm trying real hard.
15 Q It was a simple question. My question was, in 16 the 200 investigations that you have conducted, have you 17 ever had to distinguish between a deviation from policy that 18 you regarded as a violation and one that was not regarded as 19 a violation? j 20 A Do you want me to answer that? I 21 Q If you can.
22 MR. RICHARDSON: I think you can answer that 23 yes or no ---
24 THE WITNESS: All right.
25 MR. RICHARDSON: --- if you have a basis for
1 141 4 j
1 doing:it without revealing any of the specifics of any other f
(~% k case, j k] 2' 3- THE WITNESS: Depending upon the circumstances.- i 4 BY MR. BERRY: 1 5 Q That is what we are trying to get at, what 1 6 kind of circumstances determine whether you have a deviation 1
7 -- whether a deviation from policy is a violation of it, or-8 whether the deviation is de minimus and it is not a violation !
9 of Policy? That is what we want to know, if you can tell us.
10 MR. HICKEY : Whether the deviation is what?
11- MR. BERRY: The deviation is not considered a 12 violation of the policy.
13 ' THE WITNESS: 'If an act is committed which is
(]
v 14 'a -- the directive is broad in its terms. But it is meant 15 that way so that it can apply to various -- to a multitude 16 of variations.
17 And when we had the condition that we had here 18 with the Quiltec organization, it would appear that it was a 19 violation of policy.
20 BY MR. BERRY:
21 0 That wasn't the question I asked, and I have 22 asked it a number of times and I haven't gotten an answer 23 yet.
24 A okay.
l o 25 0 I suspect that -- I can see why you wouldn't l
142 1 want to answer it.
() 2 MR. HICKEY: Well, wait a minute. What does 3 that mean?
4 THE WITNESS: Please ---
5 MR. RICHARDSON: That is argumentation. Wait 6 for the question.
7 THE WITNESS: --- don't prejudge me.
8 BY MR. BERRY:
9 Q I am not prejudging you. All right, did your 10 investigation reveal any evidence that Mr. Parks was an 11 officer of Quiltec?
12 A I have no evidence to indicate Mr. Parks was an 13 officer of Quiltec.
(~}
14 Q Did you have any evidence or did you discovery 15 any evidence that indicated Mr. Parks was a director of 16 Quiltec?
17 MR. HICKEY: As of the date of this memo you 18 are asking, I assume?
19 BY MR. BERRY:
20 Q Yes, as of the date of this memo.
21 A I have no evidence to indicate that Mr. Parks 22 was a director of Quiltec.
23 0 Did your investigation uncover any evidence 24 indicating that Mr. Parks was an employee of Quiltec?
O 25 MR. RICHARDSON: By employee, do you mean >
143 1 somebody who is ---
(y
\ MR. BERRY: Yes, I mean by ---
\ 2
%)
3 MR. RICHARDSON: 2xcuse me, I haven't finished
, 4 my. observation.- Do you mean somebody who'is on the payroll, 5 so to speak, being paid for services? or do you mean in a 6 more general sense somebody who is engaging in. activities on 7 behalf of somebody else'in furtherance.of some objective of 8 the principal?
9 MR. JOHNSON: I think you should stop coaching 10 the witness, Mr. Richardson. I believe'that that would be 11 . considered coaching the witness.
12 MR. RICHARDSON: I disagree.
(~N 13 MR. BERRY: Very well.
y1 14 BY MR. BERRY:
15 0 To avoid many misunderstandings , do you. see ,
16 .Mr. Hofmann, in Bechtel Directive 2-1, the dire ^tive you are i
17 very familiar with having conducted over 200 investigations, 18 do you see the term " officer, director, employee, committee 19 member," do you see the term " employee"?
20 A I see it.
l 21 Q Now, did your investigation of Mr. Parks uncover (
22 any evidence that indicated that Mr. Parks was an employee of !
l L 1 23 Quiltec as defined in Bechtel Directive 2-l? )
24 A Did you throw that at me?
-( -
25 No, I handed it to you.
Q
l 144 1
l l 1 A You handed it to me?
(N_ 2 O Yes. Did you?
s% )' ' ~
3 A I didn't indicate that it was necessary for 4 anyone to be an officer, director or employee of ---
5 O Mr. Hofmann, that is not the question.,
6 MR. RICHARDSON: Please let him complete his 7 answer.
8 MR. BERRY: No, I would' appreciate if you would 9 instruct your witness to be responsive to the question.
10 BY MR. BERRY:
11 Q The question was, did you find any evidence to 12 indicate that Mr. Parks was an employee of Quiltec as the
'13 term employee is used in Bechtel Directive. 2-l? It is either
~}
14 yes or no.
15 MR. RICHARDSON: I beg to differ with you, Mr.
16 Be rry . Some questions can be answered' yes or no. Other .
l 17 questions cannot and require elaboration. And the witness j i
18 is fully entitled to give whatever response he thinks 1 19 addresses your question.
20 MR. BERRY: What the witness is required to do
)
21 is answer the question yes or no. If he needs further 22 elaboration to make his answer thorough and. complete, he is ,
1 23 free to do so.
f
" 24 But I would like a yes or a no answer to that
/) ,
's / question that clearly calls for a yes or a no.
I i 25 I c____ __- _- _ _ - _ __
1
'145 1 MR. RICHARDSON: All,right, you have expressed 2- pur desires.
-\u) -
3 My advice to you, Mr. Hofmann, is as I just 4 stated it. You give whatever answer you think is the'most 5 appropriate, whether it is yes or no or an explanatory ,
1 6 answer. .Do'as you see fit. ,
7 Now, given the interruption, I think we may -l 8 need the question reread.
9 MR BERRY: I will repeat the question. !
10 //
11~ //
12 13 (v~i 14 15 16 17 I
18 19 20 21 r 22 23
,4
~
l 0 25
! r N-146 c.
(' O In the course of your investigation of Mr.
% ')) 1 2 Parks of Quiltec. did you find any evidence that indicated 3 that Mr. Parks was an employee of Quiltec.' as the term 4 " employee" is used in Bechtel Directive 2.1?
I 5 A No.
6 Q Did you find any evidence that Mr. Parks was 4 7 a committee member of-Quiltec --
8 A No.
9 Q -- at that time, as used in Bechtel Directive 10 2.1?
11 A No.
12 Q Did your investigation uncover any information 13 that indicated that Mr. Parks was an agent of Quiltec, as t
l hs) 14 the term " agent" is used in Bechtel Directive 2.1?
15 A Quite possibly. j 16 Q Did you or didn't you?
17 A It would appear that he acted, in my terms, 18 as an agent and a representative. j 19 Q What are your terms " agent" or " representative" ?
20 A Some -- well, now, you're the legal people, j 21 I'm not. I just --
22 O I want to know what your terms are.
23 A Well, I could think that someone acting on 24 behalf of another might be an agent." Also, there may be 25 some fine distinctions in the definitions of terms, perhaps t' '1 L)'
i l
i
, y -- 147
/
T 1 I could also be a representative.
<J 2 Q Was Rose Riddle an agent of Quilf.ec?
3 A You know, I don't really think so.
4 Q- Why not?
5 A The same conditions weren't there.
6 Q What conditions were missing?
7 A Rose Riddle acted in response to wanting to 8 present a favor. She was a person who made -- came forward 9 and she disclosed what we understand to be her involvement 10 in the Quiltec matter, disclosed it; while in.the other case, 11 in the case of Mr. Parks, he was closer to Mr.-King, he was 12 a person who had a greater responsibility than Ms. Riddle-in 13 that his salary grade was greater than Ms. Riddles, I'm sure.
t ,,) ~
s/ 14 And he was aware that -- of the Quiltec relationship.
15 0 What relationship? He was aware of what 16 Quiltec relationship?
17 A Let's see.
18 (Xefers to document.)
19 Q Do you want to identify the document you are 20 referring to?
21 A My notes of the conversation I had with Mr.
i 22 Parks dated March 14, 1983.
23 He indicated some knowledge about Quiltec, 24 that it had to do with start-up operations, that there was j 25 some contact between Larry King, Ben Sloan and Mr. Parks I
L
, i 1
' I) 148
()
N/
1 during the summer of 1981 relative to Quiltec and its start-up 2 activities, that Quiltec paid big bucks, that Quiltec was ;
3 owned, he believed, by Mr. Sloan, half ownership and that Mr.
4 Sloan was a vice-president of Quiltec, that Mr. King, his 5 superior, was probably a one-half owner of Quiltec and the 6 President of Quiltec --
7 Q Okay.
8 A -- and that --
9 HR. RICHARDSON: Well, have you finished your 10 answer, Mr. Hofmann?
11 MR. BERRY: I didn't stop him. Are you 12 finished with your answer?
13 THE WITNESS: It was my considered opinion that
,n f
's- 14 Mr. Parks was well aware of the activities of Quiltec, the 15 purpose of business, and how those resumes might be used.
16 MR. BERRY: Okay.
17 BY MR. ">ERRY :
18 Q You stated that you didn't regard Mrs. Rose 19 Riddle as an agent or representative of Bechtel and --
20 MR. RICHARDSON: Quiltec, you mean.
21 MR. BERRY: Yes, Quiltec.
22 BY MR. BERRY:
23 Q And you listed two reasons. One, was that 24 she came forward and disclosed her involvement. Do you 25 recall stating that a few minutes ago?
O V
i 149
() 1 A Yes. 1
%_f
^ O Well, that's not exactly true that Ms. Riddle 2
1 3 came forward and stated her involvement, is it, Mr. Hofmann? i l
4 A It isn't?
l 5 0 Aren't you aware tnat Ms. Riddle was interviewed 6 by a Mr. Troblinger and a Mr. Santee about that very matter?
7 A And aren't.you aware that she talked to Mr.
8 Ki P l er and asked Mr. Kipler as to'what is happening in the 9 Quiltec matter and Mr. Kipler indicated to her what he was 10 aware of. The name Quiltec came up, and Ms. Riddle volun-13 teored at that point, Quiltec.
12 Q And that was six months after she had engaged 13 in the conduct that you say does not make her an agent?
o
(_) 14 ER. EICKEY: Well, wait a minute. There is no 15 foundation for that and it's even not an accurate statement 16 of the record.
17 MR. BERRY: It is an accurate statement of the 18 record.
19 BY MR. BERRY:
20 Q She came forward and volunteered the information 21 in late February or March of 1983. Are you aware of that?
22 A That's possible.
23 Q Do you have any information to dispute that?
24 A No.
25 0 And you are aware that the resumes were typed l
em i 1 V
i 150
('v ) I in the summer of 1982?
2 A I am.
3 Q That's several months before March of 1983, 4 isn't it?
5 A If a person has --
6 Q Can you answer that question, Mr. Hofmann?
7 A Yes, it is several months before that.
8 Q So she typed the resumes and knew about typing 9 the resumes for several months before, to use your term, 10 she came forward, isn't that true?
11 A Well, that's true.
12 Q Okay, now you also said that another factor 13 why you didn't consider Ms. Riddle an agent was that she was V 14 doing a favor for Mr. Parks, is that true?
15 A That's what I understand from the record.
16 Q And isn't that what Mr. Parks was doing, a 17 favor for Mr. King?
18 A There is a difference in basic understanding of 19 the circumstance between the two individuals, and that 20 should not be overlooked.
21 Q Did Mr. Parks tell you that he was doing --
22 that he had Ms. Riddle type the resumes as a favor for Mr.
23 King?
24 A I do recall something along that line. However, 25 the --
i
("
(.t l
l l
L______-. - - _. - _ _ - . _ ___-.____________________________.-___-.____.o
151
[') 1 Q Did you find --
%.)
V 2 A Wait a minute.
3 Q Go ahead.
4 A However, the base resource of knowledge i 1
5 relative to right or wrong may well be different between ,
J 6 the tow individuals.
l 7 Q So you're assuming that a senior start-up I
8 engineer is smarter and has a firmer sense of right and 9 wrong than a secretary?
10 A I'm telling you that, per Mr. Parkc' testimony, 11 he was much more thoroughly oriented relative to Quiltec as 12 a company and Quiltec's activity and much more knowledgeable j
?,
13 about what the use of those resumes was to be.
%- 14 Q But in any event, Mr. Parks told you that he 15 had the resumes typed as a favor to Mr. King?
16 MR. RICHARDSON: That's been asked and answered ,
17 BY MR. BERRY:
18 Q That's what he told you, isn't it? ;
19 A Possibly. I would have to look in the record.
20 I assume so.
21 Q And you didn't find any evidence that contra-22 dicted that, did you?
21 A No.
24 Q Okay.
25 Are you aware that Ms. Riddle - 's c'got paid l
l
/ \
k% )I
152
() 1 for typing the resumes, didn't she?
'9 2 A That's my understanding from Mr. Parks.
3 Q She benefitted financially from her conduct, 4 didn't she?
5 A You're aware that she didn't want to take 6 payment, too.
7 0 I'm aware that some of your notes indicate 8 that. But it is a fact she got paid, didn't she? She 9 accepted the money?
10 A Yes, she did.
11 Q In fact, you even asked her what'the denomina-12 tion of the bills was she' received?
13 A That's right.
'- 14 Q And she told you she received three twenty 15 dollar bills, a ten dollar bill and a five dollar hill?
16 A I believe that's in the record.
17 0 You didn't.ask her for the serial numbers of 18 the bills, did you?
19 A I guess I slipped up.
20 Q Now, Mr. Parks, he didn't get paid at all, did 21 he?
22 A I can't answer that question.
23 Q Your investigation didn't reveal any evidence 24 to suggest that Mr. Parks received a dime --
25 A That's right.
(-
v
153 I')
1 0 - .from Quiltec?
lb 2 A That's right.
3 Q And yet Mr. Parks is the agent and Ms. Riddle 4 is not? Strike that. I withdraw the question.
5 I!ow , in the memo that we were discussing a
6 carlier, the March 24, 1983 memorandum from Mr. Pace to Mr.
7 Bush, we state that Bechtel 2.1 was violated, we pointed that 8 out. It's a fact, isn't it, Mr. Hofmann, that that memo-9 randum doesn't explain in detail what provisions of Bechtel 10 2.1 were violated, it doesn't explain how it was violated, 11 does it?
12 A This memorandum was meant to be a summary.
13 Q Well, is there a general or detailed document
?s k/ or detailed memorandum existing.anywhere?
14 15 A Not in one memorandum is there the detail.
16 Your papers support that.
17 Q But we can agree that it does not explain in 18 any kind of detail what provisions of Bechtel 2.1 were 19 violated?
20 MR. RICHARDSON: When you say " explain", are 21 you referring to citing provisions in the directive, as opposed to explaining the grounds, the factual grounds, for i
22 l
I 23 the conclusion?
24 MR. BERRY: Yes, reading that memorandum one 25 wouldn't have any idea of what clause in Bechtel Directive l ?
\s
154 l
( 1 2.1 was violated, would he?
'i 2 MR. RICHARDSON: I think it calls for a 3 speculation.
4 MR. BERRY: Well, the witness is capable --
5 that doesn't call for speculation. The witness is capable of 6 answering that question.
7 MR. RICHARDSON: It does call for speculation.
8 Why don't you ask him whether the memorandum allows him to 9 determine --
10 BY MR. BERRY:
11 Q Mr. Hofmann, we discussed various provisions 12 of Bechtel Directive 2.1, didn't we?
1 13 A Yes.
rs k- 14 O None of those provisions are cited in this 15 memorandum, are they?
16 A Not specifically, no.
17 Q Not even generally?
18 MR. RICHARDSON: Can we ask you what we mean 19 by generally?
20 MR. BERRY: Well, the opposite of specifically, j 21 as you used the term, that's what I mean by generally.
22 THE WITNESS: Circumstances were described 23 in the memorandum which on their face relate to violations 24 in the directive.
25 ///
i I
l l 155
- (^TI 3 BY MR. BERRY
\ i-/ '
l d 2' O On Bechtel Directive 2.1, page 5 of 7, of l 3 A Pril 22, 1982 version, which is Attachment A, the heading 4 is " Applicable Conduct at Variance with Policy", there are 5 listed nine items which are examples and not a single one 6 of those items is cited in this memorandum, isn't that true?
- 7 MR. RICHARDSON: What do you mean by -- put in 8 the item --
9 MR. BERRY: Cited, cited, Mr. Richardson.
10 MR. RICHARDSON: What do you mean by cite?
)) MR. BERRY: . Citation. You're a lawyer, Mr.
12 Richardson, you are familiar with the term " cited". There 13 is no reference at.all, anywhere, in.this memorandum to any r~N
(_) 14 of these nine examples of variance with policy, is there?
15 MR. RICHARDSON: I guess he is incorporating 16 my definition of citation, so you want me to give my 17 definition?
18 MR. BERRY: I'll rephrase the question. You 19 understand the term " reference", don't you, Mr. Hofmann?
20 THE WITNESS: I think so.
21 BY MR. BERRY:
22 O Okay, well, there is not a single reference to 23 any of the nine items of examples of conduct at variance with 24 policy listed in this memorandum, is there?
25 A I have not cited -- the memorandum does not
. 'w(})
156
) I cite specific paragraphs or sentences in the directive.
(~'J q 2 However, the text of the memorandum as it is stated would 3 reference violation of Directive 2.1.
4 0 All right.
5 In this memorandum --
6 THE WITNESS: Can I have my directive back,.
7 please?
8 MR. BERRY: Oh, sure.
- 9. (Returns the document to the witness.)
10 BY MR. BERRY: !
11 0 -- you state that the individual involved - -
12 that the division has verbally reprimanded the engineer.
]
13 That's on page two, the first sentence. See that?
kl 14 A Yes. "The division has verbally reprimanded 15 the engineer." .
16 Q Who verbally reprimanded Mr. Parks? And-I 17 take it it is Mr. Parks that is being referred to?
18 A It would be Mr. Parks that is being referred 19 to.
20 Q Yes, who reprimanded Mr. Parks?
1 21 A Management of the lhe Power Division.
l 22 Q And who was that?
l 23 A I can't give you a specific name.
24 Q Were you there?
25 A No. l (2)
i 157 s i o So you don't have any personal knowledge that
(~'2
\_ ;
l
[L 2 that occurred?
3 A I was told that that was so.
4 0 I notice this says it was a verbal reprimand?
5 A Yes.
l- 6 'O So I take it there is no-documentation of the 1 reprimand?
8 A Not in my files.
9 Q Have you ever seen any?
10 A NO-ij Q Who told you that Mr. Parks had been repri-12 manded?
13 A I believe it was Andy Wheeler.
f)
(_/ Q This memorandum was written on March 24. Do 34 15 you know when Mr. Parks was reprimanded?
16 A No. Only that he was.
17 0 Only that you heard that he was?
18 A Granted.
19 Q And were you aware that there was a meeting l 20 on March 22nd with Mr. Wheeler between Mr. Wheeler and Mr.
21 Parks in which Mr. Wheeler reviewed with Mr. Parks certain 22 appropriate policy writings?
23 A I do recall something of that sort. !
i 24 0 Does that refresh your recollection as to the 25 meeting in which Mr. Parks allegedly was verbally reprimanded
/^-
\._
1 i
l
158
()
v 1 A That sounds like a vehicle by which that could
\ // 2 be accomplished.
3 Q Are you aware -- have you ever had an opportuni-4 ty to review Mr. Wheeler's notes of the meeting of March 22nd
, 5 with Mr. Parks?
6 A I don't believe I know those.
7 Q Would it surprise you if I-were to tell you 8 that you could read those notes and search in vain for any 9 indication that Mr. Parks had been " verbally reprimanded"?
10 MR. RICHARDSON: Well, I strenuously differ it with your interpretation of the notes.
12 MR. BERRY: That's the question.
13 BY MR. BERRY:
pm
\~) 14 0 Would it surprise you?
15 A Well, I'm not so sure it would surprise me.
16 Because not everything that is conducted during any particula c s
17 meeting is jotted down for the record. I mean, there are a l 18 lot of things that are not.
l 19 0 Yes, that's something not significant enough i 20 to be jotted down for the record, isn't it?
21 MR. RICHARDSON: Don't answer that. That's 22 completely argumentative. )
23 MR. BERRY: No, that's not argumentative at 24 all.
25 MR. HICKEY: What is the question?
es v
(- -
l l f 159
^
1 BY MR. BERRY:
(s-) '
TI 2 O When you state in your memory that the division 3 had verbally reprimanded the engineer and reviewed with him 4 certain appropriate policy writings, assuming that Mr.
5 Uheeler is the one that reprimanded Mr. Parks, and there is 6 no reference to a reprimand by Mr. Wheeler of Mr. Parks, 7 isn't it a reasonable inference that no reprimand took place?
8 A I don't -- I indicated to you that that meeting 9 that you described would appear to me to be the logical 10 vehicle by which a verbal reprimand might have been effected.
11 But it may well have been that the verbal reprimand was 12 effected at some other time and other place. I don't know.
13 Q B'y verbal you mean orally?
's 14 .A Yes. What do I say in the memorandum?
15 0 You say verbally in the memorandum.
16 A Okay.
17 Q Are you aware, Mr. Hofmann, that your employer 18 has taken a position in this proceeding that as a consequence 19 of your interrogation of Mr. Parks for his alleged involve-20 ment in Quiltec that no adverse action was taken against 21 him?
22 MR. RICHARDSON: Wait a minute.
23 MR. HICKEY: Wait a minute.
24 I;R . RICHARDSON: If you want to show him ---
25 MR. BERRY: I don't have to show him anything, e
l l
1 l
160 l
1 I'm not going to show him anything. I'm asking his awareness
(}t l
T 2 of certain facts that I'm representing to him.
3 BY MR. BERRY:
4 O Can you answer the question?
5 A I'm deferring to counsel right now.
6 0 Well, counsel has stated his piece. If he has l
7 an objection 1t will be noted for the record and you can 8 answer the question.
9 MR. RICHARDSON: Well, I'm going to object to 10 that question. Your position seems to presuppose some --
11 MR. BERRY: Well, you're not denying that's 12 your position, are you, Mr. Richardson?
13 MR. RICHARDSON: Of course I am.
14 MR. BERRY: You are denying that?
15 MR. RICAHRDSON: I know of nothing which 16 indicates that that position or contention has been made.
l 17 MR. BERRY: Are you denying the position, are i
! 18 you denying --
19 MR. HICKEY: Where is the position that we're l
20 talking about? I'm not aware of Bechtel taking a position l 21 in this proceeding that I can recall. Are we talking about 22 a paper that GPUM filed?
23 MR. BERRY: Yes. In response to Mr. Hickey's 24 question, I would refer him to various filings that Bechtel 15 has made in this case in connection with the issuance of the O
162 1 A All right.
J'v) 2 Q That no adverse action was taken against Mr. j 3 Parks in connection with his alleged involvement with 4 Quiltec?
5 A. (No response) 6 0 You are or you aren't?
7 A I am not.
\
1 8 Q Okay, fine.
9 A I don't think I can answer the question.
10 Q You answered it.
11- Now, Mr. Hofmann, we can agree -- and I believe 12 you stated earlier in reponse to another question I put to 13 you -- that the policy of Bechtel Directive 2.1 is a broad 73
\') I4 policy. Do you remember saying that?
15 A I used the term, yes.
I6 Q And, as a matter of fact, it states that each 17 Bechtel employee is responsible for strict compliance with I8 this policy and shall avoid any arrangement which is or 19 appears to be contrary to the best interests of Bechtel or 20 its clients, or ain any way might impair the performance of 21 duties or the exercise of independent judgment or action 22 with respect to the interest of Bechtel or its clients.
23 I would like for you to explain for me, tell 24 me, what does that mean, to avoid any arrangement, agreement, 25 vestment, employment relationship, act or interest which i s
[v i
163
[T u
I or appears to be contrary to the best interest of 3echtel?
2 A Or its clients.
3 Q Or its clients, yes. What does that mean?
4 A Well, it is general language which could 5 refer to any number of arrangements or relationships which i 6 might lx3 contrary to the best interests of Bechtel or its i
7 clients.
8 Q What does "best interest" mean -- strike that.
t 9 We can agree that "best interest" is not 10 defined anywhere in Bechtel Directive 2.1, is.it? j 11 A No.
12 O And it's basically left to the reader's
,_ 13 interpretation of what "best interest" means, isn't it?
! l
\-v/ 14 A It has to do with interpretation of the ) 1 15 circumstances at hand during a certain time, a certain focus.
16 0 Okay, it can change from one time to another 17 depending on the circumstances, all of that, right?
1 18 A I would say that's reasonable. ]
l 19 Q And' depending on who is interpreting it, one ]
I 20 person might, based on the same set of facts, reach a f 21 conclusion that certain conduct is in the best interest of 22 Bechtel and another person could review that same set of 23 facts and reach an interpretation that it is not in the 24 best interests of Bechtel?
15 MR. RICHARDSON: Objection. It calls for es i4 p
i 161
/'^h
\_.)
1 NLV to GPUN.
TV 2 MR. HICKEY: I don't know what you're talking ;
3 about. !
l 4 MR. BERRY: I'll put it to you and we'll put 5 it to you directly. Is it your position that no adverse )
6 action was taken against Mr. Parks in connection with his 7 alleged involvement with Quiltec?
j 8 MR. HICKEY: You'r'e asking me a question?
9 MR. RICHARDSON: I object, i 10 Mr. Berry, this is a deposition. If you !
11 want to propound requests for admissions or contention' j 12 interrogatories, and assuming they are properly formulated,
,~m 13 then that is a way to elicit the other side's contentions
(
N-) 14 with regard to factual matters. Let's proceed with the 15 deposition.
16 MR. BERRY: Mr. Richardson, I will conduct 17 the deposition the way I see fit. I would appreciate it 18 if you would stop obstructing and impeding this exaraination.
19 BY MR. BERRY:
20 0 The question to you, Mr. Hofmann, is: Are 21- you aware that a position taken by the Respondent in this 22 case --
23 A Talk to me about Respondent, please. What 24 does that mean?
25 Q GPUN and its agent, Bechtel.
O
i J
164 j i
I
( } sheer speculation, it's vague and ambiguous. So don't answer I 2 the question.
3 MR. BERRY: Of course, I disagree with the 4 objection. It does not call for speculation. Besides, we 5 have an expert in interpreting this policy, in enforcing 6 this policy, a man who by his own account has conducted over 7 200 investigations of this policy, who has testified that 8 he is the chief and most experienced investigator in all of 9 Dechtel worldwide in conducting investigations'under this 10 policy.
11 If this man cannot answer questions regarding ;
1 12 the interpretation of clauses and language used in this
_ 13 policy I submit that there is not a single individual in all
- 14 of Bechtel that can.
15 MR. RICHARDSON: That's a speech, not a 16 question. !
l 17 BY MR. BERRY:
18 Q Mr. Hofmann, how would a person like Mr. Parks 19 determine whether an arrangement or an agreement or invest-20 ment or relationship, employment act that he is about to 21 undertake would or would not be in the best interests of i 12 Bechtel?
23 MR. RICHARDSON: Are you asking how Mr. Parks 24 during the time frame in question --
25 MR. BERRY: No, I'm saying how is Mr. Parks as o
%)
l l
l 165 i l u l t
['_'^d x
') 1 an employee reviewing this procedure in trying to conform ]
q 2 his conduct to the requirements of the policy so as to j 3 determine how he should guide his conduct?- ,
^4 MR. RICHARDSON: Well, I'm not trying to l i
5 impede you, Mr. Berry. But the difficulty with the question j 4
'6 is that it sounds like you're trying to ask how an employee {
7 in general would do that. !
8 MR. BERRY: That's what I'm asking. l 9 MR. RICHARDSON: Okay. I l
10 THE WITNESS: I thought his question was 11 relative to Mr. Parks.
12 MR. RICHARDSON: Well, it wasn't clear to me,
,.s 13 that's why I asked for clarification.
- '-) 14 THE WITNESS: Specifically, Mr. Parks. Is 15 that --
16 MR. BERRY: I believe I said an employee such 17 as Mr. Parks.
II
- MR. RICHARDSON: The difficulty is that Mr.
19 Parks, I think, as we all know, was not given the policy.
20 MR. BERRY: Yes.
II MR. RICHARDSON: So if --
22 BY MR. BERRY:
23 Q How would an employee in June conform his 24 conduct to the requirements of Bechtel policy 2.17 i
25 A Well, given this investigation relative to
,r s m-a u_______.__ ._. _ . . _ _ _ _
7 166
[~')
v 1 Quiltec, we're talking about the use of resources. Now, 2 resources can come in different packages. One package that 3 a resource can come in is human skills, people who have 4 skills in certain technically oriented areas. If these 5 people who have these highly technical skills are somehow 6 encouraged to remove themselves from a client organization 7 to some other organization and they are motivated by a 8 Bechtel employee to do so or there is an association relative 9 to that motivation, then I would think it would not be to 10 the best interest of Bechtel or its clients.
11 Q And, of course, you didn't find any evidence 12 whatsoever during the course of your investigation that led 13 you to conclude or believe that Mr. Parks or that these 14 individuals alleged to be leaving Bechtel's clients were 15 motivated to do so by Mr. Parks, did you?
16 MR. RICHARDSON: Motivated?
17 MR. BERRY: " Motivated" is your witness' 18 term.
19 MR. RICHARDSON: Encouraged.
20 MR. BERRY: He said " motivated".
2I THE WITNESS: Maybe you want to read it back.
22 MR. BERRY: Read the witness' last artwer 23 back.
24 (Whereupon, the Reporter read the previous answer of the witness back.)
,in
(
167 I j
v) 1 MR. BERRY: Let me rephrase the question.
2 BY MR. BERRY:
3 Q It's a fact, isn't.it, Mr. Hofmann, that during 4 the course of your investigation you didn't find any 5 evidence at all to indicate that Mr. Parks had motivated 6 any GPUN employee to leave GPUN to go to another company, 7 did you?
8 A I found what I believe to be an indication 9 that he was associated with employees leaving TMI, yes.
10 0 Yes, I know, you told us that. ,
l l
It But the employees that left, do you recall 12 the names of any of those individuals?
13 A Herlihee -- just a moment.
,. .rm
(_/ 14 Q Take your time, Mr. Hofmann.
15 (Witness refers to his notes.)
16 A There was Mike Herlihee. A man named l=
l 17 Lyonaries, Rickert.
18 Q And did you interview Mr. Rickert?
19 A No.
20 Q So Mr. Rickert didn't tell you that Mr. Parks 21 motivated him to leave GPUN, did he?
22 A No.
23 O Did you interview Mr. Lyonaries?
24 A No.
25 0 Mr. Lyonarios didn't tell you that he was
168 I motivated to leave GPUN by Mr. Parks, did he?
/v) 2 A No.
3 O And you didn't interview Mr. Herlihee, either, 4 did you?
.5 A No, I did not.
6 Q So Mr. Herlihee didn't tell you he was 7 motivated to leave GPUN by Mr. Parks, did he?
8 A That's right. j 9 Q So therefore --
10 A However, it's interesting that Mr. Herlihee's 11 resume was typed, presented for typing, that Mr. Record's 12 resume was presented for typing, as were a number of others
,2 13 by Mr. Parks prior to these people exiting from the job site.
I'~') 14 Q Of course, all of those resumes were typed by 15 Rose Riddle before they exited from the job site, too, 16 weren't they?
17 A That is correct.
18 0 Okay.
19 A However, as I explained earlier, we have a 20 different level of understanding relative to the two indivi-21 duals as to the ramifications of the Quiltec operation.
22 Q Ms. Riddle, she was typing resumes and a 23 proposal to be submitted to Beaver Valley, wasn't she?
24 A Let me just check my notes.
25 (The witness refers to his notes.)
/m A
169
(
1 A I don't see in the notes of my interview with 2 Ms. Riddle that there was mentioned to be without them.
3 Q Just so I understand your testimony, Mr. Hofmann ,
4 is it because Mr. Parks as a favor to Mr. King -- strike that.
5 Is it because Mr. Parks had Ms. Riddle type some resumes of 6 certain GPUN employees that you conclude from that that Mr.
7 Parks encouraged them to leave GPUN's employment?
8 A It isn't only because he committed the act, but 9 that he knew, was'more well aware of, the circumstances that ,
1 10 might result from that act, that I believe that Mr. Parks 1
11 was in violation.
12 Q If when Mr. King asked Mr. Parks if he could 13 arrange for a secretary to type the. resumes and Mr. Parks g)
\- 14 refused.but he knew the purposes for which the resumes were 15 being typed -- do you follow me so far?
16 A I think so.
17 Q -- and, although Mr. Parks refused to have the l
18 resumes typed, he did not disclose the information that he 19 had learned to anyone else would that constitute a violation j
20 of Bechtel Directive 2.1?
21 MR. RICHARDSON: That is what 4 s called a 12 hypothetical question -- l 23 THE WITNESS: I would think so.
24 MR. RICHARDSON: -- Mr. Hoffman, and if you feel l 25 you have a basis for rendering an opinion you may render an (A
s _- )
f' l
l t _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
i 170 g 1 opinion. But' if you feel you need more facts or circumstances
}
2 in order to render an opinion you may ask counsel for all 3 of the information which you feel is needed for the opinion.
4 MR. BERRY: Yes, and as an expert an expert 5 can answer hypothetical questions.
6 MR. RICHARDSON: And, again -- well, let me 7 emphasize that.even experts are often unable to answer 8 hypothetical questions if they feel that a sufficient factual 9 hypothetical basis has not been provided on which to render 10 the opinion.
11 MR. BERRY: Your point is well taken, Mr.
12 Richardson.
13 Now, having heard all that, do you need the j O 14 question repeated to you, Mr. Hofmann?
1 1
15 THE JIITNESS : I don't wish to.
16 k idhrdM\
MR. eFrRREs Okay, I need to make a phone call.
17 Can we take a shor three minute break?
QVY M 18 MR. IARDEON: Sure.
19 MR. BERRY: And then you can think about the 20 question and pick up when we resume.
21 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
22 MR. BERRY: Back on the record.
23 Before the recess, Mr. Hofmann, I had asked you 24 a question and it has been some time ago. So let me repeat 25 the question.
1
'171 r
L l[3 1 BY MR. BERRY:
l V >.
2 Q If Mr. Parks refused Mr. King's request to 3 arrange for a secretary to type the Quiltec resumes but did i
4 not disclose the information that he had learned -- and by 5 that I mean the existence of the Quiltec -- would he have L 6 violated Bechtel Directive 2.1.
l 7 A Not disclosed the information he knew about 8 Quiltec and refused to comply with Mr. King's request?
9 Q Yes.
10 A. If he had refused -- well, this is really i
11 quite hypothetical, because it hasn't, to my knowledge, 12 happened.
13 0 I understand it's a hypothetical.
- _ ,es j s-)
14 A If a person is tempted and refuses then it L 15 seems to me he has indicated that he want's to do the right 16 thing.
[
17 Q But yet he is aware that, in this case, Mr.
18 King was " encouraging" GPUN employees to leave their employer ,
19 Bechtel's client, and Mr. Parks, assuming that he did not
)
20 bring that information to the attentionof responsible 21 personnel, is that failure to bring that attention to higher- l I
22 ups a violation of Bechtel Directive 2.1? )
23 A I think you will find that I indicated 24 associated with the motivation of people to leave Bechtel 25 and/or the client, the Three Mile Island job, if he had
. ,n i
v/
l
[
[
I J
172
(] 1 substantive information that pirating of skilled employees v
2 was occurring then it would be his duty as a Bechtel employee 3 to advise his supervisor that this was happening.
4 0- .And if he didn't advise his supervisor would 5 he be in violation of.Bechtel Directive 2,1?
6 .A He would be.
7 Q Now, you said that if the person --
i' 8 A Excuse me. He would be in violation of 2.1, 9 yes, 10 Q And you said that if the' person had substantive 11 information of pirating -- what do you mean by substantive 12 information?
13 A Well, something more than hearsay, something 7m 14 more than just gossip, something more, perhaps background 15 knowledge of the conditions, the people, the purpose, 16 resumes, hard copy. i i
17 0 What if the person knew that Quiltec was-a l 18 job shopper and that a Mr. King was involved in the job shop 19 and had heard indications -- and had heard that former GPUN 20 employees had left GPUN to work for this job shop, Quiltec, 21 and in fact they had left?
22 A If one of our employees knew that for a fact 23 then I would think that he would be duty-obligated to bring 24 it forward to his supervisor.
25 Q And if he didn't know it for a fact, I mean, l
i
! l L_ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
j
173-(~\ 1 confirmed it for a fact --
'O 2 MR. RICHARDSON: Excuse me, when you say --
3 are you including in the hypothetical the fact that the 4 employee knows that they were induced to leave --
5 MR. BERRY: No, not induced.
6 MR. RICHARDSON: -- GPU to go to the tA.her l 7 company?-
8 MR. BERRY: No induced wasn't in the question 9 and I don't think it was in the answer. ,
10 MR. RICHARDSON:' Well, do you understand that, j 11 Mr. Hofmann?
12 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure I do, quite frankly.
1 13 MR. BERRY: Will you road the last question.
r-k -)> 14 back'and answer?
15 (Whereupon, the Reporter read back the previous 16 question and answer.)
17 MR. BERRY: Having heard the last two questions j l
18 and answers, Mr. Hofmann, would you like to change any of )
I 19 your previous responses?
20 THE WITNESS: I don't believe so. j I
21 MR. BERRY: Okay.
22 BY MR. BERRY: ,
1 13 Q According to Bechtel Directive'2.1, Mr.
24 Hofmann, employees are to avoid any arrangement, agreement...
25 act...which'is or appears to be contrary to the best interest s (v .
l
174 j j l
/~}
%)
of Bechtel or its clients. 'Now, given that. general statement 2 of Policy of Bechtel I would ask you if an employee had a strong suspicion that Quiltec was, to use your term, l 3 j 4 " pirating" employees from GPUN and yet sat on the information--
1 5 A Pardon me? l I
6 0 And. sat on the information or did not disclose 7 that information to his supervisors or higher-ups would that l
i 8 act or failure to act constitute a violation of Bechtel !
l 9 Directive 2.1? !
10 MR. HICKEY: I have an objection to the form 11 of the question. I think that " strong suspicion", which l 3
1 12 is an important element of the question, is vague and subject 1 13 to differing interpretations.
(^3/
(_ 14 MR. BERRY: So what is vague, the adjective i 15 " strong", Mr. Hickey?
16 MR. HICKEY: The phrase " strong suspicion".
17 MR. BERRY: All right.
18 BY MR. BERRY:
19 0 The same question, Mr. Hofmann, and delete l l
20 the " strong". Just has suspicion? '
21 MR. HICKEY: Then my objection is to the 22 word " suspicion". l 23 MR. BERRY: And what is the objection?
i i 24 MR. HICKEY: That it's vague and ambiguous.
25 MR. BERRY: Objection is noted.
[
(_-)'
i t _ _ _ _ _ _ . -
175 s
i 1 BY MR.. BERRY:
.V 2 .O Answer the question if you can.
3 A In the case of Mr. Parks -- and that is the
- 4. point here,;I'm sure -- he did have knowledge as to the 5 circumstances and Quiltec and the ramifications of his act. i 6 If he did'not come forward to his supervisor then he would 7 be in-violation of 2.1 because it would not be in the best 8 interest of Bechtel or its clients to have skilled technical 9 people pirated away from that job site.
10 0 And -- !
11 MR. RICHARDSON: Have you finished your answer?
12 THE WITNESS: I think so.
s 13 BY MR. BERRY: i, 14 O And that would be true whether it wa's Mr. Parks ,
15 or anyone else?
16 A As long as there was a base of knowledge that 17 lent substance to the suspicion.
18 Q And how long would he have to hold on to that l l
19 information without acting on it for it to constitute a 20 violation?
21 A What is a reasonable time?
22 0 I'm asking you, you you're the expert.
23 MR. RICHARDSON: Well, again, Mr. Hofmann, 24 if you feel there are insufficient facts and circumstances 25 included in the hypothetical question you may ask for further f')
v l'
176 fi 1 information-from'Mr. Berry.
- \) -
2 THE WITNESS: Please define what-you mean.
3 MR. BERRY: Mean by what? What in the
-l 4 question don't you understand, Mr. Hofmann? ,
5 THE WITNESS: Well, I understand English, but 6 I'm not sure exactly what you intend.
7 MR. BERRY: Well, it's not your purpose to. l l
8 understand what I intend here. Do you understand the 9 question?
10 THE WITNESS: Would you repeat the question?
11 BY MR. BERRY:
12 Q How long would a person have to have knowledge 13 of the information and withhold it before it would constitute O
-\> 14 a violation of Bechtel Directive 2.17 15 ,
MR. HICKEY: I have an objection to the form l l
16 of the question.
17 MR. BERRY: All right, objection is noted.
18 MR. RICHARDSON: I think it is currently vague (
l 19 and ambiguous. Unless you provide more circumstances so i i
20 that the witness can get a handle on -- 1 1
21 MR. BERRY: That objection is noted. The 12 witness hasn't indicated any inability to answer the question 23 and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from suggesting )
24 to the witness that he is unable to answer the question.
25 MR. HICKEY: The witness asked you what a
,rm
( -)
s l
l
177 reasonable time was. That indicates some problem with the (x~s') 1 2 question. l 3 MR. BERRY: And I asked the witness, as an 4 expert, who is thoroughly familiar with Bechtel Directive 2.1 ,
5 who has conducted over 200 investigations of violations of 6 Bechtel Directive 2.1, a man who would know far, far better 7 than yourself or anyone in this room what constitutes a 8 violation of Bechtedl Directive 2.1, the question is put to 9 him. If the witness cannot answer the question, let the i l 10 witness say so. ,
1 i
11 MR. RICHARDSON. My problem is that you 12 simply have an abstract problem that you're positing. Anybody l 13 who has knowledge of pirating. You're not providing any
(~) 14 further circumstances, and therefore it's unclear whether l'>
15 you are eliciting an absolute rule, X number of days which 16 doesn't vary, depending on the circumstances --
17 MR. BERRY: That wasn't the witness' concern 18 at all. The witness' only concern was how long is a 19 reasonable time. You're injecting something else in there 20 that the witness hasn't expressed any difficulty with the 21 question in that regard. The only problem i,s that the 22 witness appears to be unclear as to how long a reasonable 23 period of time is, which I don't believe was stated in the 24 question.
25 I just asked how long would a person have to i
a 178 sit on information before it would constitute a violation
( 1 2 of Bechtel Directive 2.1. Now, we know the hypothetical, 3 the circumstances are the same ones we have been discussing 4 for the last ten minutes, and that is --
5 MR. HICKEY: Uait a'minut6, that'was never --
6 MR. RICHARDSON: That sure wasn't cleared up.
7 MR. BERRY: It was clear to your witness.
8 THE WITNESS: Don't speak for me.
9 MR. BERRY: Well, you didnt speak up, Mr.
10 Hofmann, and I --
11 MR. RICHARDSON: Let's cool it on the
! 12 argumentation. If there are other circumstances could you l 13 please tell us what they are?
14 .MR. BERRY: I'll repeat them again. The l 15 cuestion wasn't argumentative. I don't mean to be argumenta-16 tive. I'm interested in facts and I'm interested in 17 exploring your expertise, Mr. Hofmann.
18 The record will reflect that your testimony 19 is that in the case of Mr. Parks if he was asked by Mr. King 20 to have resumes typed up and he refused to do it and he did 21 not make that information known to his supervisor or 22 responsible officials that that would constitute a violation 23 of Bechtel 2.1. Then I asked you --
24 MR. HICKEY: I have to object. I don't think l
l 25 that's an accurate statement of his testimony.
I O
l' l
i i
179 r
(y; 1 MR. BERRY: Well, is that an accurate statement l 2 of your testimony, Mr. Hofmann?
l 3 MR. RICHARDSON: Well --
4 MR. BERRY: Let the witness answer that 5 question.
6 THE WITNESS: No, I defer to counsel.
7 MR. HICKEY: He's not taking notes of the 8 testimony.
9 MR. BERRY: All right, can we stop right here?
l 10 And if you're going to have an objection and have a discussio: 1 11 here I would request the witness be e::cused.
12 MR. RICHARDSON: I would like to make my L
l 13 objection.
l\/ 14 MR. BERRY: Does your objection require the 15 presence of the witness?
16 MR. RICHARDSON: Yes, it does.
l l 17 MR. BERRY: Other than to coach the witness?
18 MR. RICHARDSON: My objection is that your 19 question misstates the prior testimony. !
-20 MR. BERRY: And I asked the witness did my 21 question accurately reflect his testimony. It does or it l
12 doesn't and the witness is in the best position to answer
}.
l 23 that question.
{ 24 MR. RICHARDSON: Don't answer that question 25 because it requires you to speculate as to which questions
/
I, s-l-
i l
1 i
E_________1______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
180
(
x 1 Mr. Berry has in mind. If you want to ask him a specific 2 question he will give you the best answer that he is capable t
3 of.
4 MR. BERRY: Mr. Hickey, how does the question 5 misstate the testimony?
6 (No response) 7 That's your objection, Mr. Hickey.
8 MR. HICKEY: That's my objection.
9 MR. BERRY: In what respect does it misstate 10 the testimony?
11 MR. HICKEY: I don't believe that is what the 12 witness said.
13 MR. BERRY: What did the witness say, Mr.
f3 k/ 14 Hickey?
15 MR. HICKEY: Ask the court reporter if you 16 want to know.
17 MR. BERRY: No, I asked the witness.
18 Read back the last question, Mr. Court Reporter .
19 (Whereupon, the Reporter read back the previous 20 question.)
21 MR. BERRY: Mr. Hofmann, in the last question 22 by me that was read back did I mischaracterize your testimony ?
23 MR. RICHARDSON: Same objection. Why don't l
24 you simply --
25 MR. BERRY: I don't want to ask the question I
t_-
l f
4p 181 i
f'i 1 again. I'm going to ask the witness, Have I mischaracterized
\J 2 your testimony, Mr. Hofmann?
3 MR. RICHARDSON: Don't answer that question 4 because it asks for -- 1 5 MR.. BERRY: Are you instructing the witness 6 not to answer?
l 7 MR. RICHARDSON: Yes, I am. Because it's 8 asking him to refer back to a lengthy deposition where there i
9 was considerable testimony with regard to what Mr. Parks 10 knew,.his knowledge of the surrounding circumstances, the 11 purpose of the transaction. It's not clear whether your 12 question incorporates that larger body of testimony or 13 whether you simply are' segregating out the points expressed 14 in that question, segregating them out and separating them 15 from the rest of his testimony concerning his understanding 16 of what Mr. Parks knew.
17 MR. BERRY: Now, you would join in that 18 objection, Mr. Hickey?
19 MR. HICKEY: The objection has been made. I s 20 didn't make any objections.
21 MR. BERRY: So the answer is that you are not I l
22 joining in the objection?
23 Mh HICKEY: I don't know that I'm required 24 to join or aLetain. Why do you ask? ,
25 MR. BERRY: Because every now and then you pipe m
---_ A
l l 182 l gh I -
1 up with an objection, sometimes you don't. I'm just trying
.x 2 to understand whether Mr. Richardson has raised the same 3 objection to the same question before which you raised an 4 objection to, and I'm asking if you continue to' adhere to 5 the objection that you raised previously?
6 MR. HICKEY: I didn't withdraw any objection.
7 MR. BERRY: Fine. q l
8 MR.' RICHARDSON: I have no problem with your !
i 9
asking without referring back to this lengthy deposition to 10 ask him whether -- l 11 MR. BERRY: All right, I understand what you're 12 saying. We'll ask the question again.
i 13 MR. RICHARDSON: -- as far as he was concerned f
. r'~\ \
52 14 whether that would be a violation of the d'.rective.
15 MR. BERRY: Do you remember the last cuestion s 16 that the Court Reporter read back?
4 17 THE WITNESS: Oh, my. I certainly don't recall j i
18 every word, I must tell you right now.
l l
19 MR. BERRY: Let's try it again.
20 BY MR. BERRY:
21 Q If Mr. Parks declined Mr. King's request to 22 arrange for a secretary to have the Quiltec resumes typed --
23 A If he did?
24 0 Yes, if he did. -- but yet he did not share with l
i 25 his supervisor or any other responsible official of Bechtel O l I
L
i 1
183 I
V,') I the information that he knew would he be in violation of 2 Bechtel Directive 2.l?
3 MR. HICKEY: Objection to the form.
4 MR. RICHARDSON: Objection. The question 5 is still vague and ambiguous. Do you include, for example, 6 in the hypothetical the body of knowledge which the witness 7 has previously testified that Mr. Parks had concerning the 8 overall Quiltec scenario?
9 MR. BERRY: I'll try it again. !
-10 BY MR. DERRY:
11 Q -If Mr. Parks was asked by Mr. King to arrange 12 for-a secretary to have some resumes typed for Ouiltec and 13 Mr. Parks knew that Quiltec was a job shop and that Mr. King Q
k_/ 14 was involved in the job shop, and that employees of GPUN 15 had left GPUN to take other employment but Mr. Parks did 16 not share that information with his supervisor or any otPer 17 responsible Bechtel official, would Mr. Parks conduct 18 constitute a violation of Bechtel Directive 2.1?
19 MR. RICHARDSON: Okay, that's a long question 20 and we'll have it read back by the Court Reporter. But 21 first let me ask this point of clarification: You are 12 including in the hypothetical --
23 MR. BERRY: Well, when we read the question 24 back we'll hear what's in the hypothetical.
25 MR. RICHARDSON: Are you including in the
()
i >~/-
I hypothetical the fact that the people who are the subject 2 of the resumes that are being typed up are current GPU 3 employees? Because you then said that another fact is that 4 some GPU employees have left GPU to go to work for Quiltec.
5 MR. HICKEY: No, he said to take other 6 employment. That's another question I have. Is it assumed 7 they left to take other employment with Quiltec or just that 8 they had left?
9 MR. BERRY: Yes, assume they left to take 10 other employment with Quiltec. q 11 MR. RICHARDSON: Okay, well, whose resumes are 12 being typed up, current employees or former employees?
13 MR. BERRY: Current employees, m
N- 14 MR. RICHARDSON: Current employees.
15 MR. BERRY: Do you have all of those facts, 16 Mr. Hofmann?
17 MR. RICHARDSON: Well, we can just review it 18 on the record.
19 MR. BERRY: We're going to have the question 20 read back, but these additional matters are not included in 21 that question. So I want to make certain that you have the 22 additional matters fresh in your mind before we read the 23 question back.
24 MR. HICKEY: I assume you don't want to 25 clarify for the witness what the purpose of the record --
m
!u 1
i
l l
l 185
(N 1 what you mean when you mean when you say that Parks knew L) 2 that King was involved in Quiltec? Does that mean something 3 specific?
4 MR. BERRY: Well, no, I don't want to clarify 5 .it anymore. I believe that that's what the witness has 6 testified to before. But before we do that, do you need l
l 7 more amplification on that point, Mr. Hofmann?
l 8 MR. RICHARDSON: Well, let's let him listen 9 to the question as it is read back. But I think Mr. Hofmann 10 understands that if he feels he needs amplification or 1.
13 clarification he will ask for it.
12 (Whereupon, the Reporter read back the previous 13 question.)
(D
\_/ 14 MR. BERRY: Now, at the end of this question, 15 Mr. Hofmann, I'm going to ask you if the conduct that I 16 describe represents a violation of Bechtel Directive 2.1.
17 It's a somewhat lengthy question and I apologize for it, 18 because I don't know how to make it any shorter and satisfy 19 all parties involved. So if you would bear with me I will i
20 go as slow as I can and try to be as clear as I can.
21 BY MR. BERRY:
22 Q Mr. King asked Mr.. Parks to arrange for a secretary l 23 to type some resumes for Quiltec, okay? Mr. Parks knows that 24 Quiltec is a job shop. Mr. Parks ' suspects that Mr. King may 25 have some financial, proprietary, or employment relationship
l 186
'T
[d 1 with Quiltec. Mr. Parks suspects that other former 2 employees of GPU have gone to work for Quiltec. Mr. Parks 3 declines Mr. King's request to arrange for the resumes to 4 be typed but he does not report the information that he 5 knows to his supervisor or to any otherresponsible Bechtel' 6 official.
7 Given that set of facts,.Mr. Hofmann, has 8 Mr. Parks violated Bechtel Directive 2.1?
9 MR. HICKEY: I have an objection to the form.
10 I think it's vague.
11 MR. RICHARDSON: I have an objection that it's-12 vague and ambiguous and unless further clarification is made 13 I think it's an improper hypothetical question. For example,
,/ -
k' 14 it's still unclear to me whether the resumes are resumes 15 of employees who are currently employed by GPU when Mr. King 16 makes this hypothetical request. It is also unclear,'when 17 you say that Mr. Parks suspects, as to what is the basis for 18 these suspicions. Is it rumor, gossip, hard evidence?
19 MR. BERRY: Have you finished, Mr. Richardson, 20 or do you have more?
21 MR. RICHARDSON: I have finished my own 22 objection.
23 MR. BERRY: What is your objection, Mr. Hickey?
-24 MR. HICKEY: My objection was that the form of 25 the question is vague.
I o
187
[^T 1 MR. BERRY: And how is it vague, Mr. Hickey?
\-) !
2 MR. HICKEY: I think the ways stated by Mr.
3 Richardson state most of them.
4 MR. BERRY: Are there any other ones, Mr.
5 Hickey?
6 MR. HICKEY: Yes, I think the way that'you use ,
I 7 the word " suspect" makes ambiguous and vague both the firmnes s 1 8 of the belief that this hypothetical Mr. Parks has and the 9 basis for that belief.
10 MR. RICHARDSON: I would also add that it~is 11 not clear from your question whether you are including as 12 part of Mr. Parks' body of knowledge all of the knowledge j 13 which Mr. Hofmann ascertained that he had through the
('
(_)/ 14 interviews'which he conducted. In other words, are you 15 basically simply changing the fact that he did not agree 16 to have the resumes typed up, or are you eliminating his 17 past association with Mr. King, his knowledge of what Mr.
18 King was doing, what Quiltec was doing, all of the other 19 elements of Mr. Parks' knowledge.which came to light during i 20 Mr. Hofmann's investigation?
21 MR. HICKEY: I have one more, if you are looking )
12 for further areas where it might be clarified, Mr. Berry.
23 MR. BERRY: All of your objections right now, 24 Mr. Hickey. {
25 MR. HICKEY: Okay, I was just about to add one.
I (D
%/
188
() 1 MR. BERRY: Let's have them all so we can have 2 them in one place on this transcript, all of your objections.
3 And why don't we excuse the witness while we resolve this 4 matter?
5 MR. HICKEY: Well, I think I only have one more .
6 It relates to the phrase " financial, proprietary or employ-7 ment relationship with Quiltec," because I don't know what 8 that assumes Mr. Parks knows. I think that phrase is vague 9 and ambiguous.
10 MR. BERRY: We didn't say he knows, we said 11 he suspected.
12 MR. HICKEY: I already objected to suspected.
13 MR. BERRY: Now, are you instructing the 14 witness not to answer the question, Mr. Richardson?
15 MR. RICHARDSON: I don't believe I have.
16 MR. BERRY: Okay, well, the objections are 17 noted for the record. Mr. Hofmann, answer the question.
18 MR. RICHARDSON: He is free to answer the 19 question if he feels that he is capable of doing it --
l 20 MR. BERRY: You have had plenty of --
l 21 MR. RICHARDSON: -- based on the information 22 that is supplied by the question.
l 23 MR. BERRY: And the information supplied by l
24 your lawyer, the coaching supplied by your lawyer. If you 25 are able to answer the question, please do, Mr. Hofmann.
O
t 189 f
1
' f. i 1 MR. RICHARDSON: I don't think that kind of d
j 2 argumentation is necessary. We're not.trying to coach the-3 witness --
4 MR. BERRY: You are coaching the witness, Mr.
l 5 Richardson.
6 MR. RICHARDSON: Excuse me, Mr. Berry, I'm-l 7 speaking.
8 As the attorney representing Bechtel, GPU and 9 Mr. Hofmann I have an obligation to this witness to make sure 10 that a fair and proper question is posed. And to do my job i
11 I am fully entitled to pose objections to point out where 12 additional clarification is needed. Indeed, I think I would 13 be remiss if I didn't with regard to a hypothetical question s
14 of that nature.
15 Now, I have made my objections, I have not 16 instructed Mr. Hofmann not to answer the question, he is 17 free to answer the question if he feels he is able to based 18 on the information provided by the question. So let's 19 proceed.
20 MR. BERRY: I would respond to that objection 21 but the witness -- as hazy as the witness' recollection is, 22 ' we better see if we can get an answer before he forgets it 23 again. Do you need the question read back?
24 THE WITNESS: Given the information that Mr.
25 Parks would have as to Mr. King's involvement with Quiltec, i
r
-_____-_____a
l
! 190 l
/^
( 1 that means from a standpoint of what Mr. Parks thought as to Lx L 2 the ownership interest of Quiltec, and the general conditions 3 on the job site relative to skills of highly qualified 4- technical people, they being in short supply, generally 5 in the probability or possibility that there might be a 6 pirating action going on depriving our client of necessary 7 people for the successful completion of the job, Mr. Parks 8 knowing this and/or suspecting it and not divulging it to l
9 hia Bechtel supervisor would be in violation of Directive l
10 2.1 because he had substantive knowledge of the circumstances .
l 11 MR. BERRY: Could you read that answer back, 12 please?
13 (Whereupon, the Reporter read back the previous
. ,e~
k- 14 answer.)
15 MR. BERRY: May I bring this back to where 16 we were?
17 BY MR. BERRY:
18 Q How long would Mr. Parks have had to have 19 held onto that information before reporting it to his superio ts 20 in order for it to constitute a violation of Bechtel 21 Directive 2.1.
12 MR. HICKEY: Object to the form of the question .
23 It's an incomplete hypothetical.
24 MR. BERRY: Objection is noted.
25 MR. RICHARDSON: I'm going to object as well.
O v
I 191
-l
'(n J
i 1 I think the question.is vague and ambiguous without further 2 explanation as to circumstances of when people --
3 MR. BERRY: All right, we understand your 4
objection, Mr. Richardson, and I'd.appreciato it if you would 5 stop coaching the witness. I 1
6 MR. RICHARDSON: Allow me to complete the 7 objection.
8 MR. JOHNSON: You're making the same objection 9
again, this is the third time you're making the same 10 objection. And it.seems to me that it is out of time.
I II MR. RICHARDSON: Insufficient explanation as '
12 to the circumstances surrounding Mr. Parks' ability and
.q 13 opportunity to report.the information as well as the circum-p.
I4 stances surrounding when and how people are leaving the 15 GPU organization.
I6 MR. BERRY: Mr. Richardson, your objection is 17 made in bad faith and I would request that you refrain from 18 this objection. You know as a member of the Bar, Mr.
Richardson, that a hypothetical question does not have to 20 include each and every fact or circumstance which counsel 21 for the deponent or witness would like for it to appear. If 22 there is missing information in the question the witness 23 as an expert is very capable himself to make that known in his 24 response to the question. You know that.
25 You also know, Mr. Richardson and Mr. Hickey,
,~ .
(t-l l
l
192
] 1 that in a deposition counsel is not to make speaking objec-2 tions. You make your objection for the record, your 3 oojection is noted, the witness answers the question. It 4 has become apparent to the staff that the sole purpose for 5 the objections that counsel for Bechtel and counsel for-e i 6 GPU are making is clearly to impedo the copletion of this 4
7 deposition. It is certainly to avoid the witness having to 8 answer a legitimate question put to him.
9 You recall, Mr. Hickey, we had a conference 10 with the judge in this case not too long ago and the judge 11 indicated to you that the actions of your client -- and to 12 use the judge's terms -- smacked of evasion.
13 MR. HICKEY: No, he didn't.
14 MR. BERRY: And that's clcar here. And it's 15 coming through here today. Yes, it is, Mr. Hickey. You l
16 and Mr. Richardson are not reluctant to resort to any effort l
l 17 to prevent the staff from pursuing its legitimate discovery.
1 l 18 By interposing needless, repetitious, frivolous objections 19 you are effectively hampering the completion of the staff's
'l 20 legitimate discovery rights, and I would respectfully request 21 you to refrain from doing that.
12 MR. HICKEY: I disagree with your characteri-23 zations, I don't think they are supported by the record. I 24 don't think it's necessary for you to make such a speech and 25 I think it's done for a motive that will be clear on the O
.i 193 ;
l
/~') I record, too. So I'm going to continue to state my objections i xj 2 to any question that you put that is objectionable. 1 3 MR. BERRY: Well, that just brings us'to the 4 other point, Mr. Hickey. If I heard Mr. Richardson respond 5 to the question of the Court Reporter earlier this morning, L 6 Mr. Richardson indicated that he represents GPU in this !
7 proceeding.
8 MR. HICKEY: He's representing GPU and is )
1 9 co-counsel with me.in this deposition. 4 10 MR.' BERRY: And who is representing the j l
jj deponent in this proceeding? Are you representing the 1'
12 deponent, Mr. Hickey?
13 MR. RICHARDSON: No, he is not, I represent .
k 34 Mr. Hofmann. -
15 MR. BERRY: You are representing him. And you 1
16 represent GPU, that's correct, isn't it, Mr. Richardson? l 17 MR. RICHARDSON: That's correct. ]
1 18 MR. BERRY: TGy are we having. dual objections I 19 from two lawyers in this proceeding'when you're both aware 20 that t(tat is not the normal or customary practice, particularly 21 when yoi raise the same objections, speaking the objections 22 on an inordinate number of occasions. And I would request 23 that you two consult with each other and determine who is 24 going to raise the objection on behalf of'the Respondent in 1
25 this case.
o}
I l
1 194 1 MR. HICKEY: Do you have a question?
2 MR. RICHARDSON: Your points are noted, Mr.
3 Berry, and they are disputed for reasons that Mr. Hickey and 4 I have already expressed.
5 MR. BERRY: With respect to your last 6 objection to my last question, Mr. Richardson, the hypo-7 thetical question was the same as the previous question that 8 the witness answered, that the witness understood and ;
9 answered. The only difference, the only change to that to question, was the witness was asked how long Mr. Parks in 11 that case would have had to sit on that information before 12 it would constitute a violation of Bechtel Directive 2.1. ,
l 13 You repeated the same objections that you made two questions
, j i
'w / 14 ago, when clearly none of your objection went to the last
)
15 circumstance. !
16 Now, I believe that is clearly improper and 17 And I I am beginning to believe that it is. intentional. l 18 would respectfully request you, Mr. Richardson, to refrain 19 from improper objections. And unless you're instructing the 20 witness not to answer the question I would request the 21 witness to respond to the last question posed to him by the 12 counsel for the staff.
23 MR. RICHARDSON: Very briefly, my last f i
24 objection incorporated my previous objections and it added 25 -- as I feel obliged to do -- I pointed out some specific ]
l'
,rs
! ]
v 3
\
l
195
(~~} 1 problems that came to my mind with regard to the new element v
2 _that you added, which in my mind compounded the vagueness k 1
1 3 and ambiguity of the question. I'm not going to. belabor it,' )
4 I stated.my objections. I have not instructed the witness i 5 not to answer and he is free to answer if he can.
6 MR. BERRY: We'll have a standing objection, j 7 you can have a standing objection to that hypothetical'and I 8 there is no reason for you to restate and repeat at length 9 the various points you claim make the question improper.
i 10 Will you answer the question, Mr. Hofmann?
-11 THE' WITNESS: Itihas been'several minutes', sir, l 1
12 since we have discussed the question and I would respectfully 13' ask you to kindly repeat it again if you please.
fs
\_ 14 MR. BERRY: Is your recall that poor, Mr.
15 Hofmann?
16 THE WITNESS: I'm concerned.
17 MR. RICHARDSON: That is arguing with the 18 witness.
19 BY MR. BERRY:
20 Q How long would Mr. Parks have to be in 21 possession of the information without reporting it to his 22 supervisors in order to constitute a violation of Bechtel 23 Directive 2.1?
24 MR. RICHARDSON: Same objections as I stated 25 previously. Go ahead.
l (v '
i _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l
)
196 l
/~T 1 THE WITNESS: If Mr. Parks was aware of the N-)
2 Quiltec matter and had' substantive knowledge, as we believe l
i 3 he did, about the intent of the Quiltec operation then once 4 he became aware of that he should have reported it to his 5 Bechtel supervisor.
6 BY MR. BERRY:
7 Q You stated that you' believed'that Mr. Parks 8 had substantive knowledge about the intent of the Quiltec 9 organization,'you just stated that. On.what basis do you i
10 base that belief? j jj A I base that belief on the basis of the. inter-
}
12 view I had with Mr. Parks wherein he indicated the purpose 13 of Quiltec from a corporate standpoint, where he indicated ;
t' i
(_)% 14 that Mr. King probably had a half ownership in Quiltec, et
]i' 15 cetera.
16 Q What was the intent of Quiltec? You stated i
17 that you believed that Mr. Parks had substantive knowledge 1
18 regarding the intent of the Quiltec organization. What 39 was the intent of the Quiltec organization that Mr. Parks i
20 had substantive knowledge of?
21 (Witness refers to his notes.)
22 Do you need to refer to your notes to help you 23 answer that question, Mr. Hofmann?
, 24 A That's what I'm doing.
I 25 Q okay, would you identify, when you find it, the
,x t )
v
197 t,~I . 1 document that you are referring to?
N_)
2 (Witness refers to his notes.)
3 MR. RICHARDSON: _
Well, I've got 6:00.
4 MR. BERRY: You indicated that your witness 5 was willing to'go to 6:30, and I would like to complete.this 6 line of questioning before we adjourn for the day.
7 'MR. JOHNSON: He's in the midst of an answer.
8 I think he ought to be given the opportunity to answer the 1
l 9 question.
10 MR. RICHARDSON: Fine.
11 THE WITNESS: Mr. Parks indicated that Quiltec 12 had to do with the start-up activities. And to me that 13 meant that there are specialists, highly trained, skilled 14 people, who understand what start-up activities are.
15 BY MR. BERRY:
16 0 Now, do your notes reflect when Mr. Parks 17 learned that Quiltec was involved with start-up activities?
18 A Well, Mr. Parks indicated that during the 19 summer of 1981 Larry King, Ben Sloan and himself spoke about 20 Quiltec. So he knew about it apparently in 1981.
21 0 Now, are you aware that Mr.'Kitner also knew 22 about Quiltec?
23 MR. RICHARDSON: Objection. No foundation j l
24 laid. ,
25 MR. BERRY: Objection noted. l O 1
I 198
[~') 1 BY MR. BERRY: ;
v 2 Q Mr. Hofmann, can you answer the question from 3 your present recollection without referring to your notes? !
4 THE WITNESS: Do I have to respond?
5 MR. RICHARDSON: If you understand the 1
6 question -- and he is entitled to ask what you know just from . 1 I
7 your memory -- but if you feel that you need to look at any H 8 documents you may ask Mr. Berry's permission to do so.
9 .MR. BERRY: Do you understand the question? 3 l
4 10 Are you aware that Mr. Kitner knew about Quiltec?
l 11 MR. RICHARDSON: That is, I think, demeaning )
i 12 the witness and I think it's been a long day and we should l l
13 adjourn.
/
u 14 MR. BERRY: I object to adjourning the 15 deposition. I would like to complete this'line of question-16 ing. The witness has indicated and counsel for the witness 17 has' indicated that they are willing to go to 6:30. I would 18 like to complete this line of examination and/or proceed 19 until 6:30. And I object to this deposition being adjourned 20 in the middle of my examination, to be adjourned to some 21 later date, and in the meantime the witness having the 12 opportunity to consult with his counsel to prepare to respond >
23 to this line of questioning.
24 I object and I would ask for an answer to i
25 that question and counsel's and the witness' indulgence to ln t
s-
199 fl 1 proceed along this line until this line'is complete or.until V
2 we reach the hour of 6:30.
3 MR. RICHARDSON:. I beg to differ with you. We 4 said we were prepared to go to 6:30 if.there was a chance ,
I 5 of completing the deposition. You have represented'that 6 there was no such chance and then we-agreed to go to'6:00.
7 MR. JOHNSON: The record will say that:after 8 that you also agreed that you were ready to go to 6:30.
9 MR. HICKEY: Well, one' thing that the record 10 won't say but should say is that the manner in which Mr. ;
11 Berry asked the last question was done in an exaggerated 12 way pausing between every syllable as though he were talking 13 to a child and excessively articulating.each phrase, which
\- 14 seems to me, as it apparently seems to Mr. Richardson, to 15 have been done in a manner to demean and insult the witness.
16 And at that time it's time to stop the i 17 deposition.
I8 MR. BERRY: Well, I object t your characteri- i i
19 zation, Mr. Hickey. But if it appears to you or to your 20 co-counsel that the question -- and the record reflects 21 what the question was -- demeaned the witness, that certainly l 22 was not my intent. And I would apologize to the witness 23 and to counsel.
24 But I would request respectfully before we 25 adjourn that we have an answer.
1
,f~~ l O) i . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
200 i 1 MR. RICHARDSON: Let me confer with Mr. Hickey C
2 momentarily.
3 THE WITNESS: May I come with you?
4 MR. RICHARDSON: Yes, you may.
5 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
6 MR. BERRY: On the record.
7 MR. RICHARDSON: It is now after the' hour of 8 six and in light of the fact that you cannot complete this
{
9 deposition today, as you have indicated to us, Mr. Berry, 10 and in light of the fact that I think the atmosphere of this 11 deposition has been reduced to one of antagonism and, let's 12 say, high emotion --
13 MR. JOHNSON: You may sit down if you like.
\ - 14 MR. RICHARDSON: And I'm not necessarily 15 attributing that to any premeditated design. Perhaps, it's 16 the result of overzealous advocacy, I don't know. But given
]
1 17 this state of affairs we are not willing to continue further
{
18 this evening.
19 However, as we discussed previously, we will 20 resume this deposition at another time which accommodates 21 everyone's schedule and interest, and hopefully tempers can 22 cool.and we can proceed in a more expeditious fashion at the 23 next session.
24 MR. BERRY: I object to the adjournment of this 25 deposition. There is a question pending, a question pending
]
/^T
? )
%J l
201 1 that can be answered with a simple yes or no. Mr. Richard-IL )i 2 son has refused to instruct his client not to answer the 3 question and seeks to adjourn the deposition in the middle ,
4 of an important line of questioning by the counsel for the i
5 NRC staff.
6 I also object to Mr. Richardson's characteri-7 zation if any of them apply to the conduct of counsel for the 8 staff in this case. I believe that the record amply 9 indicates what has transpired during this deposition. We 10 have evasion on the part of the witness, we have coaching 11 on the part of counsel, we have frivolous objections, we 12 have unfounded objections, we have at almost every turn a
- 13. conscious effort on the part of counsel for the opposing (M) r
14 parties to impede the staff in pursuit of its proper l 15 discovery rights. i 16 To the extent that that naturally would not 17 lead to'-- could hamper the deposition, that has transpired I 18 in this case. I believe that it is highly improper, and 19 staff registers its objection to the adjournment of this 20 deposition while a question is pending on an important )
l 21 line of questioning to be continued for another day, during 22 which time the witness will have ample opportunity to consult 23 -with his lawyers to frame his testimony to respond to this 24 important set of questions.
25 I would respectfully request counsel for GPUN
/
V))
202
() I to reconsider its position and permit the witness to answer 2 the question that is pending.
3 MR. RICHARDSON: Well, I will do this, for 4 fear that it may take us a long time to reascertain the 5 question by having the Court Reporter read it back; he may 6 respond to whatever the pending question is. But after 7 he responds we will call it quits for the reasons that I l
8 stated.
9 BY MR. BERRY:
10 0 Are you aware that Mr. Kitler had knowledge 11 of Quiltec.in 1982?
12 MR '. RICHARDSON: Well, I --
13 MR. BERRY: I'll rephrase the question.
14 BY MR. BERRY:
15 Q Are you aware that Mr. Edward Kitler, a 16 Bechtel employee, was aware of Mr. King's involvement in 17 Quiltec in 1982?
18 MR. RICHARDSON: On its face it calls for 19 speculation, but I gather what you mean to ask is whether 20 he has -- whether Mr. Kitler indicated to him.
21 MR. BERRY: It doesn't call for speculation, 22 Mr. Richardson. Either the witness knows this, he is aware 23 of it, or he is not aware of it. It's not speculation. He 24 has personal knowledge of that fact or he doesn't have 25 personal knowledge. And he can just simply tell rae. And if l
i 203 )
[~') I he needs to refer to his notes, as he is doing now, that's wp 2 fine.
3 MR. RICHARDSON: Well, the objection is that 4 the question is vague and calls for speculation. But you l 1
5 may' respond to the question if you can.
l 6 (Witness refers to his notes.)
7 THE WITNESS: Mr. Kitler indicated to me 8 during a conversation, an interview, that I had with him that !
l !
L '
9 he was aware that there was an organization called Quiltec.
L 10 MR. BERRY: I stated I would only ask one 11 question and we will leave it at that until we reconvene I
12 at a' time to be. agreed upon.
13 MR. RICHARDSON: If he was to round out what i
k' 14 he just said, go ahead. But please do it briefly.
15 BY MR. BERRY:
16 Q Did Mr. Kitler indicate to you that he knew l 17 that Mr. King was involved in Quiltec?
18 MR. RICHARDSON: Objection. The question is.
19 vague as to what you mean by involved.
20 THE WITNESS: You said in 1982, I believe?
21 MR. BERRY: Yes. ;
i 22 THE WITNESS: I have no indication that Mr.
1 23 Kitler'was-awcre -- from my files I have no indication that 24 he was aware of that in 1982 -- excuse"me, that Mr. King was ,
i 25 a part of Quiltec.
,A V
o
204
(~'s BY MR. BERRY:
,q) 1 2 Q And if that fact were established and you !
3 didn't find it out that would say something about your 4 investigative abilities, wouldn't it?
5 A (No response, just laughter by the witness.)
6 MR. RICHARDSON: Let's pick up.
7 MR. BERRY: There is an objection to that 8 question?
9 MR. RICHARDSON: Yes, there is an objection.
10 MR. BERRY: Okay.
11 MR. RICHARDSON: If you wish me to state 12 the objection, the question is argumentative, it is vague, 13 it is ambiguous. We don't know what you mean by saying f- s (sl 14 something about his investigative abilities. It's not clear' 15 what you mean. It's vague as to how this fact comes to 16 light in connection with the investigation.
17 MR. BERRY: All right, now, you haven't 18 instructed him to answer the question. Can you answer the 19 question, Mr. Hofmann?
20 MR. RICHARDSON: If you are able to, Mr.
21 Hofmann. Same objections I stated.
22 THE WITNESS: I don't believe I want to answer 1
23 the question.
24 MR. BERRY: Can you answer the question?
25 THE WITNESS: Say again the question.
/ ,
( /) l
205 j
1 MR. BERRY: I will leave it at that, that 2 you don't want to answer the question.
3 MR. RICHARDSON: Well, let the record reflect 4 that he asked you to repeat the question.
5 BY MR. BERRY:
6 Q If it were established that Mr. Kitler knew i
7 that Mr. King was involved in Quiltec in 1982 and you didn't.
8 discover that during the course of your investigation that 9 would indicate a flaw in your investigation, wouldn't it?
10 A I said that from my understanding of Mr.Kitler' s II interview that I have no record of Mr. Kitler knowing that 12 Mr. King was involved With Quiltec in 1982.
13 MR. RICHARDSON: For the record -- you were O 14 too fast -- I want to repeat the objection which I stated 15 previously.
16 MR. BERRY: We got the objections down, I 17 believe, Mr. Richardson. If you can just say that you 18 incorporate your objection that you made already we can let 19 it go at that.
20 MR. RICHARDSON: I think that's what I just 21 said.
22 MR. BERRY: Okay, I thought you were getting 23 ready to restate it. That's fine.
24 Well, Mr. Hofmann, I guess we'll have to pick 25 this up at another time. Your attorney, your counsel, will 1
206
() I be in touch with you and we will select a date that is 2 convenient with you and for everybody concerned. And I'm 3 sure everything will go fine and I fully expect to complete 4 your deposition the next time we meet.
5 MR. RICHARDSON: Let me emphasize that Mr.
6 Hofmann indeed wishes to finish the deposition, that he 7 would be willing to resume tomorrow but there are very 8 important personal family matters that he has to attend to.
5 I
9 MR. BERRY: I understand.
10 Thank you, Mr. Hofmann.
11 (Whereupon, at 6:20 p.m., the deposition was 12 adjourned, to reconvene at a time and place to be set 13 hereafter.)
14 15 16 l
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0
th 1 2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss 3 City and County of San Francisco )
I, JAMES W. HIG GIN S , ' a Notary Public in the 5 State of C alif o r nia , hereby c e r tif y that the witness in 6 the f or e going de po sitio n was by me duly sworn to te stif y 7 the truth, the whole truth and no t hing but the tr uth in 8 the wit hin-e n title d cause; that said de po sitio n was taken 9 at the time and place therein sta ted ; that the te stimon y 10 of the said witness was reported by me and Jason Woerner, 11 and thereafter transcribed by me and under my direction 12 into typ e writing ; that the foregoing is a f ull, c o mple te V
p 13 and true record of said testimony.
14 I further c e r tif y that I am not of co u nsel 15 or attorney for either or any of the p a r tie s in the 16 or in any way foregoing de po sitio n and c a ptio n named, 17 interested in the outcome of the ca use named in said 18 caption.
19 IN WITNE SS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 20 hand and affixed my seal this 26th day of June 1987.
21 22 N tary Public,(1 QE c3 toF the 5 &' Y AaixV 23 .
City and C nty of omCIAL SEAL > San Frar isco, 24 eta pues ! State of California o ano counn r or s n 5,.hwa e.co y <g
_ _ My Come f apares Sept. 23, l990
__