ML20199E867
| ML20199E867 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 06/17/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#386-805 OL, NUDOCS 8606240133 | |
| Download: ML20199E867 (200) | |
Text
- - - - - - - - - - -
ORIGlNAl
'O UN11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-456 OL 50-457 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Braidwood Station, Units 1 & 2)
(O LOCATION: JOLIET, ILLINOIS PAGES: 4385 - 4619 i
DATE: TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 1986 l0 0 ( ,
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. _
Q
' OfficialReporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 8606240133 860617 6 (202)347 3700 PDR ADOCK 0500 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE
4385 O
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
2 _ _ ; ; _ _ _ ; ; _ _ _ _ _ ; ; ;X 5 :
In the Matter of: :
6 : Docket No. 50-456 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY : 50-457 OL 7 :
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 :
8 and 2) :
- _ .. ; _ _ ; ; _ _ ; _ ; _ _ ; ; ;x 9
10 College of St. Francis 500 North Wilcox Street Joliet, Illinois 60435 11 12 Tuesday, June 17, 1986.
13 The hearing in the above-entitled matter reconvened 14 at 9:00 A. M.
15 16 BEFORE:
17 JUDGE HERBERT GROSSMAN, Chairman Atomic Saf ety and Licensing Board 18 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
19 JUDGE RICH ARD F. COLE, Member, 20 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -
21 Washington, D. C. ,
22 JUDGE A. DIXON CALLIHAN, Member, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 23 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
24 APPEARANCES:
- ( On behalf of the Applicant
3 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
{ UenGVA, 1111D015 OU1J4 (312) 232-0262
4386 O
1 MICH AEL I. MILLER, ESO .
2 JOSEPH GALLO, ESQ .
EL EN A Z . KEZELIS, ESQ .
3 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza 4 Chicago, Illinois 60602 5 On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff:
6 ELAINE I. ' CH AN, ESQ.
7 GREGORY ALAN BERRY, ESQ. ,
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8 7335 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20014 9
On behalf of the Intervenors:
10 ROBERT GUILD, ESQ.
DOUGLAS CASSEL, ESO.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ,
21 22 23 s 24 C:)
l l Sonntag Reporting Service,4 Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois bM4 (312) 232-0262
4387 O
1 EXHIBIT INDEX Marked Received 2 Applicant's Exhibit No.'39 4402 4439 3
Applicant's Exhibit No. 40 4543 4616 4
Intervenors' Group Exhibit 5
No. 42 4601 4604 6
Intervenors' Exhibit No. 42A 4602 4604 7
Staff Exhibit No.1 4617 4618 8
9 WITNESS INDEX 10 TESTIMONY OF RICH ARD DAVID ARVEY 11 DIRECT EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. GUILD: 4389 13 CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. MILL ER : 4392 14 BOARD EXAMINATION 15 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: 4425 16 CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRY: 4428 17 BOARD EXAMINATION 18 BY JUDGE CALLIHAN: 4432 19 BOARD EXAMINATION BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: 4436 20 CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) '
21 BY MR. MILLER : 4441 22 BOARD EXAMINATION BY JUDGE COLE: 4447 23 BOARD EXAMINATION 24 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: 4449 25 TESTIMONY OF RICHARD SNYDER
'(Continued)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. __
ueneva, AAArnois ouAag (312) 232-0262
4388 O
1 CROSS EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. BERRY: 4451 3 BOARD EXAMINATION BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: 4479 4
BOARD EXAMINATION 5 BY JUDGE CALLIHAN: 4494 6 BOARD EXAMINATION BY JUDGE CALLIHAN: 4504 7
BOARD EXAMINATION 8 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: 4505 9 BOARD EXAMINATION BY JUDGE COLE: 4511 10 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. MILLER: 4516 12 BOARD EXNMINATION
(} BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: 4573 BOARD EXAMINATION 14 BY JUDGE COLE: 4577 15 RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. GUILD: 4580 16 RECROSS EXAMINATION 17 BY MR. BERRY: 4606 18 REDIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) 19 BY MR. MILLER: 4608 20 BOARD EXAMINATION BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: 4614 21 BOARD EXAMINATION 22 BY JUDGE COLE: 4615 23 BOARD EXAMINATION BY JUDGE CALLIHAN: 4615 24 BOARD EXAMINATION 25 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: 4616
{
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4389 1
0 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: The hearing is reconvened.
2 This is the 22nd day of hearing. Unless there are 3 preliminary matters, we'll go right on to Dr. Arvey's 4 testimony.
5 I take it there are no preliminary matters, and, 6 Mr. Guild, would you please call your witness.
7 MR. GUILD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
8 Do the members of the Board have copies of Dr.
9 Arvey's prefiled testimony?
10 I have extras with me in case there is a need for 11 one.
12 Dr. Arvey, do you have a copy before you?
13 THE WITNESS: Yes.
14 MR. GUILD: Intervenors call at this time as 15 their witness Dr. Richard Arvey, please.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Dr. Arvey, would you please 17 stand and raise your right hand.
18 (The witness was thereupon duly sworn.)
19 RICHARD DAVID ARVEY 20 called as a witness by the Intervenors herein, having been 21 first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
22 DIRECT EXAMINATION 23 BY MR. GUILD:
24 Q Dr. Arvey, would you state your full name and your 25 business address for the record, please?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, AAArnois oviae (312) 232-0262
4390 O
1 A Richard David Arvey.
2 I am at the Industrial Relations Center at the 3 University of Minnesota.
4 Q All right, sir.
5 You caused to be prepared in this proceeding 6 prefiled testimony consisting of questions and answers, 7 14 in number, a document that you have before you, dated 8 May 2, 1986?
9 A Yes.
10 Q And attached thereto a copy of your vita marked as 11 Exhibit 1 to your testimony?
12 A That's correct.
13 Q All right.
14 And is this testimony testimony prepared by you, 15 sir, for this proceeding?
16 A It is.
17 0 If I were to ask you the questions set forth in this 18 prefiled testimony, Dr. Arvey, would your answers today 19 be as stated in the document that you have before you?
20 A 7es.
21 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chai rmr.th, I would ask at this 22 time that the testimony of Dr. Richard Arvey be bound 23 into the transcript as if read.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. I take it Applicant 25 persists in its objections?
! Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4391 O
1 MR. MILL ER : Yes, sir, we do.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: What is Staff's position?
3 MR. BERRY: No objection. I think the Board 4 yesterday --
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. We had a full 6 discussion of this yesterday, so we will admit the 7 testimony now.
8 9
10 11 12
( 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 i
20 21 22 23 24 25 l O l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois e6134 l (312) 232-0262 i
a g
() , May 2, 1986 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: )
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-456
) 50-457 (Braidwood Nuclear Station, )
Units l'and 2) )
TESTIMONY OF RICHARD D. ARVEY .
01: State your name, address and occupation. i A1: My name is Richard D. Arvey. I am a Professor of Industrial Pelations at the University of Minnesota.
() -
02: State your field of study and work.
A2: I am an industrial-organizational psychologist. I hold a Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Minnesota and have taught at. several Universities during the past 15 years. My field of study involves, among other issues, the kinds of factors that influence work behavior, and the kinds of methodologies which may be applied to studying individuals in organizations.
I am a member of the Editorial Board of the Academy of Management Journal and of Personnel Psychology. In addition to' teaching, publishing and research, my consulting clients I have included Ford Motor Company, Southwestern Bell Telephone
{
1 c _
m _ _u
Company, the American Petroleum Institute, Control Data O Corporation, Exxon Corporation, Shell Oil Company and Wells Fargo Bank, among others. I have conducted research for the Office of Naval Research pnder a grant to investigate the effects of discipline on organizational behavior, and for the National Science Foundation. I have published and presented numerous articles and professional papers. A more complete statement of my professional cualifications appears !
in my vita attached hereto as Arvey Exhibit 1.
03: Has any of your research and writing been of relevance to the possible impacts of harassment and intimidation on work performance?
A3: Yes. In the field of industrial and organizational psychol-ogy, there are certain fundamental principles which have general applicability to: work place settings. On the basis of these principles the likely effects of harassment and t
intimidation may be analysed. The testimony of Dr. Daniel Ilgen in this case, for ex' ample, sets forth some of the more pertinent of these general principles, and shows how they may be applied to the evidence of harassment and intimida-tion in this case. In my opinion, he has set forth an
, appropriate conceptual framework for such analysis.
In addition, my research and publications have also addressed issues specifically relating to the effects of pu'nishment, discipline and harassment in organizations. I
[]} have studied the impact of punitive behavioral styles 2
L__ __., _
~
exhibited by supervisors on employees and the impact of such O styles on employee morale and performance. In 1980 I co-authored the article " Punishment In Organizations: A Review, Propositions And Research Suggestions," in Academy of Manage-ment Review, 5, 123-32. (This article was reprinted in Hampton, D. Summer, D. Webber, R. (1982), Organizational Behavior and the Practice Of Management, Scott, Foresman &
Company). During June 1980 through June 1982 I studied the effectsofdisc.iplineonorganizationalbebaviorasprinci-pal investigator for the Office of Naval Research. In 1984 I co-authored the article, " Discipline In Organizations: A Field Study," in the Journal of Applied Psychology, 6 9,, 448-
- 60. In 1985 I co-authored the chapter, "The Use of Disci-j pline In Organizational Settings," in Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B. ( Ed s.) , Pesearch'In, Organizational Behavior, JAI Press Inc. Most recently, I have served as an expert wit-ness for the defendant organization ip a case dealing with sexual harassment. In.this role, I reviewed the research and research methodologies involved in studying sexual i
harassment in organizations and the potential impact of harassment on individual employees.
I 04: Have you reviewed or studied materials pertaining to the I l
Braidwood Nuclear Generating station?
- A4: Yes. I have reviewed several documents. I have reviewed i
th'e Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Quality Assurance criteria for nuclear power plants (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix
(]}
3
B), the Braidwood Quality Control Inspector Harassment and O Intimidation contention and supporting documents, including the two NRC Staff memoranda dated March 29, 1985 and one dated April 5,1985, which I understand were attached to Intervenors' July 15, 1985 filing with this Board.
05: What is the purpose of your testimony?
A5: I have been asked by counsel for Intervenors how, from the perspective of industrial and organizational psychology, one could seek to determine whether perceived or experienced harassment and/or intimidation from the Comstock supervisors
~
and management figures might have influenced the work behav-ior of individual inspectors, and, more specifically, might
- have compromised their emphasis on quality.
O .
06: Given evidence of the experience or perception of harassment and/or intimidation how might one, from a behavioral scientist perspective, proceed to study the effect of such harassment on inspector performance?
A6: There are several behavioral science methods by which one might attempt.to determine whether harassment has any speci-fic impact on work behavior. For exapple, one might attempt to. design a survey instrument or an experiment to test this proposition or hypothesis. Other examples include the pos-sible use of longitudinal methods relying on archival data, a turalistic observational" studies, or in-depth inter-
"n'
(~T views. However, each methodology, in varying degrees, has :
, s_/ )
~
i 4
i I
l
. _ - .. . . . . _ . - - - .- .-~ _. ._ __ _ . . . __
l difficulties in terms of its implementation at the Braidwood O facility currently.
Q7: Could you elaborate on these methodologies and problems?
Let's take the survey methodology first.
N7: Yes I will. Survey methodology is a commonly applied social science tool. Surveys are used to study a variety of pheno-mena in a wide variety of situations. For example, surveys are conducted to assess employee satisfaction and opinions, to assess political sentiments, to measure employee feelings about employee benefits, and so forth. NoticethatIhereis a wide range o'f phenomena which might be " measured" using survey or questionnaire methods. Some of the phenomena measured may be clearly perceptual or affective in nature.
O That is, we are clearly talking about measuring employee feelings or attitudes towards some object. In other cases, however, surveys might be used to assess perception of behavior events. That is, whether employees ex'perienced some actual behavioral event which occurred. In this case,'
it is the perception of some external event which is being measured and not the experience' or feeling associated with
) some event. Obviously there are measures which blur this distinction. The point I am making is thah survey methodol-ogies attempt to measure a variety of phenomena, some of.
which are more subjective and some which are more objective in' -na tu r e. In the present context,'a survey tool might be implemented which has as its objective the measurement of l
l l
5 l
the impact of harassing behaviors on employee behavior.
(
Such an instrument would probably ask employees to think back over their careers with the organi:ation or at least over the past two or three years and self-report such
, effects.
Given this type of scenario, I believe there are a number of potential problems using such a survey approach which make statistical estimates considerably shaky or imprecise. First, there is the problem of individuals who are apparently already sensitized to these issues. There apparently has been a great deal of information floating about concerning this harassment issue in this organization.
One can detect this from the depositions involved in this
, case. The question which naturally arises is whether individuals will accurately report the effects of harass-ment. Respondents may be influenced by the perceived rewards or punishments which may accrue to them by reporting ,
in any particular way.
A second major problem is the recrospective nature of such a survey. People are not particularly accurate when asked about events which occurred in the past. Evidence suggests that the longer the time period which intervenes between the event and the survey, the less accurate the respondents are in their recollections. We have a good deal of evidence which suggests that individuals are not particu-la'rly accurate in recalling instances which occurred even
() quite recently (such as car accidents, criminal acts, e tc.) .
6 1
A third problem with a survey approach in this instance is that because respondents may be sensitized to the issue they may define harassment, or effects of harassment, differently than if they had not been sensitized. Moreover, any survey or questionnaire may potentially " prime" them to recall events in a particular way, when they might not have so perceived the events prior to the survey or when the issue became so prominent. Even if a survey is constructed carefully in an effort to not to provide " cues", this problem is difficult to avoid because the intent of the survey is to somehow capture the particular content domain.
A fourth problem associated with such a survey is that of representativeness. Most studies of this sort to do not have everyone complete the survey. Thus, one is lef t. wi,th O- questions of whether there exists any possible bias in the data which is captured. For example, if 50% of the popula-tion responds to the questionnaire, is this 50% of those individuals who were the "ones" who experinced harassment and the other 50% those who did not? Or can one safely generalize to the population as a whole? With issues such as the effects of harassment on inspection performance, I am not confident that we can really ever determine with certainty the representativeness of the sample.
Another major problem has to do with whether such survey responses are reliable and valid. Reliability has to do with consistency of measurement. The question of whether respondents who answer a question or set of questions at one 7
_ _ . , . . . _ _ v
time will answer the same on another occasion. If consi-
]
stency is not achieved, then any results are largely uninterpretable. While there are a number of methods which J
might be employed to assess the reliability of such survey instruments, one must review these data carefully.
More important, however, is whether survey responses such as these are valid. That is, do they reflect reality?
This is a major question with a survey methodology of this sort. There typically is no external verification of whether the responses are accurate or not. In this case, how could any verification be made of the impact of harassment on the performance of specific individuals without compromising the confidentiality of the individuals? In a similar vein, we do know that the perceptions of one group of employees sometimes differ considerably from those of others asso-ciated with the organization. For example, in some of my own research, my data reveals that employees have quite different perceptions 3f certain punitive aspects of their jobs compared to supervisors. Or.that the correlation between the supervisors and their own employees for similar kinds of events differs considerably. Who is correct?
The point I am making here is that survey guestion-
. naires take the respondent answers typically at " face value." However, there are severe validity and accuracy issues involved, especially in the present instance.
i
() 08: Are there some additional problems with survey research of 8
. . - - . - - , . .. . , . . - -- - . .-.- . .-. .- ~
~
this kind?
O A8: Yes. Another major problem I see is the extreme difficulty in scientifically determining whether experiences of harass-ment had performance implications. That is, most surveys would ask the respondents to self-report the impact of harassment. In this case, a survey would probably attempt to gather data concerning their perceptions about whether their quality.went down, up, or was unchanged. Regardless of the leading nature of such questions, we again have no external verification of whether quality was impaired or influenced. Thus survey methodology yields little informa-tion concerning cause and effect relationships. The infor-mation may provide some cues or hints but there is a need for additional verification.
A final comment on this is that employees are seldom going to admit that they personally did something in viola-tion of policy (e.g., approved welds without all research required) because of their fears of self-incrimination. In fact, there are some ethical issues raised by asking employees on a survey instrument to self-identify themselves as engaging in behaviors which are against policy.
09: Given these limitations, are survey methods useless for attempting to study social science phenomena?
A9: Not at all. Questionnaire and survey methods may be quite useful. However, a good deal of work needs to be carried
{} out to establish the reliability and validity of such 9
measures. In my opinion, the survey methods are much better at assessing present opinions, attitudes, and senti-ments about the work place than attempting to measure on a retrospective basis whether certain kinds of behaviors occurre'd or did not occur. That is, there generally needs to be a time boundary on the period being measured and the survey should study something which took place relatively recently if not presently.
i Moreover, attitudes and feelings may be assessed directly because nobody else could verify these feelings 1
other than the persons yielding the responses. However, retrospective measures of behavior are notoriously defi-cient.
Another big limitation of a survey method in this instance, as I have mentioned, is the reactive nature of the specific situation. In my opinion, these two factors place considerable limitations on any interpretations based on a survey study. However, not all survey methods will be subject to these problematic features; survey methods might be designed to permit the assessment of reliabil.ity and l 1
validity. l Q10: What about an experimental methodology?
A10: I was talking about some kind of experimental paradigm where an actual experiment is set up. There could be an l l
- instance where workers are subjected to conditions of harassment and compared .to a control group set of workers 10
~
~~. -._ -
i who were not harassed. The impact of their work quality could be reviewed. This kind of experiment is almost impossible to conduct in a situation like the Braidwood plant. Again, there is too much knowledge about the situa-tion. Second, there are major. ethical problems of using harassment experimentally. And third, I suspect that there i'
is no realistic manner in which a study such as this could be implemented.
i Oll: Are there any additional studies which might be employed?
All: Another methodology is to use longitudinal methods where l archival data arae gathered and inspected over-time. Dr.
l Ilgen has described these as behavioral " trace" studies and l
I'will let him comment on this type of design.
012: Are there any additional " tools" which a behavioral scientist might use or bring to bear in attempting to study this phenomenon?
f A12: One might attempt what is called a " naturalistic observa-l tional" study where the investigator install's'him/herself in the actual work place and keeps accurate track of the stream of behaviors which occur. For example, a supervisor might interact with a sub, ordinate and this behavioral epi-f sode is observed by the investigator. The behaviors and the consequences of the behavior are recorded and classi-f'ied according to a coding scheme worked out. Later anal-
- p yses are performed on these data. Naturally, not all l V 11
-_-m =,. _
1 behavioral episodes can be observed and thus some kind of sampling plan must be employed. Moreover, there are poten-tial problems of employees and supervisors changing their behaviors as a result of being observed. In fact, when the object is to study aversive kinds of behaviors in the work place, my hunch is that both supervisors and employees are on the "best behavior" and that these kinds of episodes will not be witnessed. However, this is only a hypothesis and needs verification. Most fundamentally, however, this type of study cannot be done retroactively; it can only study present behavior.
013: What about the in-depth interview approach?
A13: An in-depth interview could potentially provide reliable Os information, subject tc at least two conditions (as well as a number of the limitatior.s mentioned earlier with respect to survey research). These conditions are, first, the respondents must be assured total anonymity and confiden-tiality. Otherwise their perceptions of the desired response are likely to affect their actual response.
Second, the questions must be designed in such a way as to guard against biasing the answers one way or the other.
Q14: In sum, what are your recommendations to the Board in this case?
A14: With regard to the issue of determining the impact of
{} harassment and/or intimidation on inspectors with preci-12
~
sion, any one social science methodology is probably not sufficient. My recommendation would be to use multiple methods and complement these data with some kind of infor-mation dealing with the work itself (such as reinspec-tions).
If I were attempting to deal with this issue strictly using behavioral science methods, I would probably use an interview approach followed by a carefully constructed survey.
I also believe that, as explained by Dr. Ilgen, the use of archival data and behavioral trace measures has hoten-tial usefulness. By implication, I do not believe that it would be helpful to design an actual experiment using this population or to conduct a naturalistic observation study.
i O A major point I want to make is that we will not be able to conclusively assess any cause and effect relation-i ship in a scientific fashion, but that we can gain know-ledge of the impact of harassment and intimidation on inspector performance using multiple behavioral science procedures. However, these estimates will be imprecise at best. Therefore I recommend that data concerning the work i itself be ascertained prior to reaching a conclusive deter-mination.
13
1-ARVEY EXHIBIT 1 VITA Richard D. Arvey ,
4 e
O --
S e l
I l
>*~'v'-*-n- - * = ~ , , _e_ , _ _ __
? .
August, 1985 VITA i
RICHARD 0 AVID ARVEY Ncme Address Business Address 4912 Ewing Avenue South Industrial Relations Center Minneapolis, Mit 55410 University of Minnesota 537 Management & Economics Building 271 - 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 Home Phone:(612) 929-7681 Business Phone: (612) 373-5392 Date of Birth: 7-5-44 Social Security Number: 557-64-2944 Licensed by Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists Certificate number 2-1877-6 EDUCATION 1962-1966 Undergraduate - Occidental College, Los Angeles, California Major: Psychology Degree: B.A. - June, 1966 1966-1970 Graduate - University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota Major: Psychology Supporting Field: Statistics - Measurement Major Advisor: John P. Campbell Degrees: M.S. - June, 1968 Ph.D. - August, 1970 Thesis: The Effects of Two Kinds of Subjective Probabilities on the Performance of a j Laboratory Task l
O 1 l
5 l
)
(j, Richard D. Arvey Dr. Richard O. Arvey is a Professor of Industrial Relations at the University of Minnesota. He is also president of Richard D. Arvey and Associates, Inc. located in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Arvey has been active as an Industrial / Organizational Psychologist for over 15 years. After rec'eiving his Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota in 1970 and working briefly with Personnel Decisions, Inc., a consulting firm in Minneapolis, he joined the Department of Industrial Management at the Univer-sity of Tennessee, Knoxville. While there he taught and conducted research in the areas of personnel selection, motivation and organizational behavior, and ccmpensation administration. In 1978 he was a visiting professor for one year at the Department of Psychology, University of California-Berkeley.
Subsequently, he joined the staff of the Department of Psychology at the University of Houston and taught there for five years. In 1983, he joined the Industrial Relations Center at the University of Minnesota where he teaches and conducts research in a broad array of areas. He is an Adjunct Professor with the Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota.
His areas of interest and research include the following: Selection and placement of employees, the employment interview, employment testing, discrimi-nation and bias in selection and employment, job analysis and classification, e motivation and job satisfaction, work redesign, aversive control system in employment, job evaluation and comparable worth, wage-based sex discrimination, O, e"e tre'"4"9 >"e deveion=e"t-Over the years, Arvey has conducted many research activities which have provided leadership in the human resource profession. He has served as the academic advisor to over 50 graduate students working toward their Master's or Ph.D. degrees and published more than 75 articles, chapters, or techni-cal reports. His best known work is his book Fairness in Selecting Employees published in 1979.
He founded Richard D. Arvey & Associates, Inc. in 1983 and has had a sizab'le number of consulting experiences including doing work with the American Petroleum Institute, Exxon, Southwestern Bell, and National Car Rental.
He serves on the Editorial Board of two national professional journals, is a Fellcw of the Division of Industrial / Organizational Psychology, American Psychological Association, and has served in numerous professional offices and positions.
O
Position and Dates Senior Associate Personnel Decisions, Inc.
9/59 - 9/71 2515 Foshay Tower Minneapolis, Minnesota Supervisor: Dr. Marvin Dunnette Assistant Professor Industrial / Organization Psychology Program 9/71 - 8/74 Associate Professor Department of Industrial &
9/74 - 8/77 Personnel Management College of Business Administration The University of Tennessee Knoxville, Tennessee Visiting Professor Department of Psychology 9/77 - 6/78 University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, California 94720 Associate Professor, Professor Department of Psychology 9/78 - 8/93 University of Houston Houston, Texas 77004 Professor Industrial Relations Center 9/83 - University of Minnesota
{} Adjunct Professor Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Department of Psychology 12/83 - University of Minnesota Books:
Arvey, R.O. (1979). Fairness in Selecting Employees. Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley.
Papers Published in Chronological Order:
Arvey, R.D. (1971). Consistency in high school and predictability in college.
Experimental Publication System, February, 10,, MS no. 388-6.
Arvey, R.D. (1972). Task perfccmance as a function of perceived effort-performance and performance-reward contingencies. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8,, ?23-443.
Arvey, R.O. (1972). Some comments on culture-fair tests. Personnel Psychol-ogy, 25, 443-448.
1 l
l l
l
_ . . . . ~.. .. . , . . . . . . . . . . ... -._ - . . . _ . . _~
O ^rver a o ""ssio s 3 5 ">>"e o- (1972)- ae'et' "sh'as betweea "i""esot Multiphasic Personality Inventory scores and job performance measures of firemen. Psychological Reports, 31, 199-202.
Arvey, R.D. & Hoyle, J.C. (1973). Evaluating EDP personnel. Datamation, 19, -
69-73.
4 Arvey, R.D. & Mussio, S.J. (1973). A test of expectancy theory in a field setting using female clerical employees. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 3_, 421-432.
Arvey, R.D. & Mussia, S.J. (1973). Determining the existence of unfair test discrimination for female clerical workers. Personnel Psychology, 26, -
559-568. ,
Arvey, R.O. & Mussio, S.J. (1973). Testing, job performance, and aging.
Industrial Gerontology, ,16_, 22-29.
Campbell, J.P. , Dunnette, M.D. , Arvey, R.D. & Hellervik, L.W. (1973). The development and evaluation of behaviorally based ra'.ing scales for first level retail managers. Journal of Apolied Psychology, 57, 15-22.
Dunnette, M.D., Arvey, R.D. & Banas, P. (1973). Why do they leave? Personnel, 50, 25-39.
, N Gor don, M.E. & Arvey, R.D. (1973). Attitude measurement in highway corridor studies: Past, present, and future. High Speed Ground Transportation Journal, 7, 322-340.
Hoyle, J.C. & Arvey, R.D. (1973). The development of behaviorally based rating scales for systems analysts, programmer / analysts, and computer operators.
Proceedings of the Special Interest Group on Computer Personnel Research of the Association for Computing Machinery, Tenth Annual Conference, 85_,
103.
Arvey, R.D. (1974). Motivational Models and Professional Updating. Mono-graph: Maintaining Professional cnd Technical Comoetence of the Older Engineer, American Society for Engineering Eoucation.
Arvey, R.D. & Hoyle, J.C. (1974). A Guttman approach to the development of behaviorally based rating scales for systems analysts and programmer /
analysts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 264-267.
Arvey, R.D. & Mussio, S.J. (1974). Avalidationstratelyforthenon-sample.
Professional Psychology, 264-267. i.
Arvey, R.D. & Mussio, S.J. (1974). Job expectations and valences of job rewards for culturally advantaged and disadvantaged clerical employees.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 5_9_, 230-232.
Arvey, R.D. & Neel, C.W. (1974). Moderating effects of employee expectancies on the relationships between leadership consideration and job performance O- of engineers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 4_, 213-222.
_ - . = . . _ .
Arvey, R.D. & Neel, C.W. (1974). Testing expectan / theory predictions using behaviorally based measures of motivational effort for engineers.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 4, 299-310.
Gordon, M.E. , Arvey, R.O. , Daffron, W.C. & L'mberger, D.C. (1974). Racial differences in the impact of mathematics training at a man-power develop-ment program. Journal of Applied Psychology, g , 253-258.
Arvey, R.O. & Bega11a, M.E. (1975). Analyzing the homemaker job using the Position Analysis Questionnaire (PA0). Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, ~
513-517.
Arvey, R.O. , Gordon, M.E. , Massengill, O.P. & Mussio, S.J. (1975 ). Otffer-ential dropout rates of minority and majo ity job conditions due to
" time lags" between selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 28, 175-180.
Gordon, M.'E. & Arvey, R.D. (1975). The relationship between education and satisfaction with job content. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 889-891.
Arvey, R.D., Dewhirst, H.D. & Boling, (1976). Relationships between goal clarity, participation in goal setting, and personality characteristics on job satisfaction in a scientific organization. Journal of Apolied Psychology, 61, 103-105.
I Q Arvey, R.D. & Neel, C.W. (1976). Motivation and obsolescence in engineers.
Industrial Gerontology, 3_, 113-120.
i Dewhirst, H.O. & Arvey, R.D. (1976). Range of interests vs. Job performance and satisfaction. Research Management, XIX, 18-23.
Arvey, R.D. & Dewhirst, H.O. (1976). Goal setting attributes, personality variables, and job satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 9, -
179-189. -
Dipboye, R.L. , Arvey, R.D. & Terpstra, D.E. (1976). Equal employment and the interview. Personnel Journal, 55, 520-524 Arvey, R.D. & Dewhirst, H.D. (1979). Relationships between diversity of interests, age, job satisfaction and job performance. Journal of Occupa-tional Psychology, 5_2, 17-23.
i Dipboye, R.L., Arvey, R.D. & Terpstra, 0.E. (1977). Sex and physical attrac-tiveness of the interviewer and interviewee as determinants of employment i
decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, g , 288-294 Gross, R.H. & Arvey, R.D. (1977). Marital satisfaction, job satisf action, and task distribution in the homemaker job. Journal of Vocational Behavior, H,1-13. !
i Arvey, R.O., Passino, E.M. & Lounsbury, J.W. (1977). Job analysis results as O
l influenced by sex of incumbent and sex of analyst. Journal of Applied '
Psychology, g , 411-416.
i
. m. _ _
~
Arvey, R.D. & Mossholder, R.W. (1977). A proposed methodology for determining similarities and differences among jobs. Personnel Psychology, 30, 363-374 Arvey R.D. , Dewhirst, H.O. & Brown, E.M. (1978). A longitudinal study of the impact of changes in goal setting on employee satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 31, 595-608.
Zultowski, W.H., Arvey, R.D. & Dewhirst, H.D. (1978). Moderating effects of organizational c limate on relationships between goal-setting attribute and employee satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, g , 217-229.
Zultowski, W.H. & Arvey, R.D. (1978). Post-secondary education requirements in employment decisions: A legal perspective. Professional Psychology, August, 507-525.
Dipboye, R.L. Zultowski, W.H., Dewhirst, H.O. & Arvey, R.D. (1978). Self-esteem as a moderator of the relationship between vocational interests and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, g , 289-294.
Webber, R. & Arvey, R.D. (1978). The women industrial psychologist: An emerging reality. American Psychologist, E , 963-965.
Arvey, R.O. & Gross, R.L. (1977). Satisfaction levels and correlates of satisf action in the homemaker job. Journal of Vocational Behavior,10, O 13 Arvey, R.D. (1979). Unfair discrimination in the employment interview: Legal and psychological aspects. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 736-765.
Reprinted in:
- 1) Dreher G.F. & Sackett P.R. (1983) Perspec.tives on Employee Staffing and Selection, Homewood, IL: Richard O Irwin, Inc.
Arvey, R.D., Maxwell, S.E. & Mossholder, K.M. (1979). Even more ideas about methodologies for determining job differences and similarities. Personnel Psychology, E , 529-538.
Dipboye, R.L., Zultowski, W.H., Dewhirst, H.O. & Arvey, R.D. (1979). Self-esteem as a moderator of performance-satisfaction relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 15, 193-206, Arvey, R.O. & Ivancevich, J.M. (1980). Punishment in organizations: A review, i
j propositions, and research suggestions. Academy of Management Review, 5, 123-132.
Reprinted in: Hampton, D., Summer, D. & Webber, R. (1982)
- 1) Organizational Behavior and the Practice of Management.
Scott, Foresman & Company.
Maxwell,, .t.E. , Camp, C.J. & Arvey, R.D. (1981). Measures of strength of asso-iation in completely randomized designs. Journal of Applied Psycho-pd h 66, 525-534
e Mossholder, X.W., Dewhirst, H.O. & Arvey, R.O. (1981). Vocational interests C, and personality differences between develcpment and research personnel: A field study. Journal of vocational Behavice, 19, 232-243.
Arvey, R.O. , Davis, G. A. , McGowen, S.L. & Dipboye, R.L. (1982). Potena al sources of bias in job analytic processes. Academy of Management Journal, 25,, 618-629.
Arvey, R.O. , Maxwell, S.E. , Gutenberg, R.L. & Camp, C. (1981). Detecting job differences: A monte carlo study. Personnel Psychology, 34,, 709-730.
Arvey, R.D. & Campion, J.C. (1982). The employment interview: A summary and review of recent research. Personnel Psychology, 35, 281-322.
Reprinted in:
- 1) Schuler, R.S. & Youngblood, S.A. (1984), Readings in Personnel and Human Resource Management (2nd edition).
St. Paul: West Publishing Co.
- 2) Journal of Library Administration (1983), .3_, 61-90.
- 3) Dreher, G.F. & Sackett, P.R. (1983) Perspectives on Employee Staffing and Selection. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
Wheeler, C.L. & Arvey, R.D. (1981). Division of household labor in the family. Home Econcmics Research Journal, _10,, 10-20.
Maxwell, S.E. & Arvey, R.O. (1982). Small sample profile analysis with many variables. Psychological Bulletin, 92_, 778-785.
Arvey, R.D., Davis, G.A., & Nelson, S. (1984). Discipline in organi:ations:
A field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 448-460.
Arvey, R.D. & McGowen, S. (1983). The use of experience requirements in selecting employees: A legal review. Personnel Selection & Training Bulletin, 4, 28-42.
Gutenberg, R.L. , Arvey, R.O. , Osburn, H.G. , & Jeanneret. P.R. (1983). The moderating effects of decision-making /information processing job dimen-sions on test validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 9 322-333.
Mossholder, K. & Arvey, R.D. (1984). Synthetic validity: A conceptual and ccmparative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 6_9, 322-333.
Arvey, R.O. , Maxwell, S.E. , & Abraham, L. (1985 ). Reliability artifacts in comparable worth procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 7_0, 0 695-705.
R.O., Cole, 0.A. Fisher J. , and Hartanto, F.M. (1985). Statis-Arvey,icalpoweroftraIningeva,luationdesigns.
t Personnel Psychology, 38, 493-507.
Fossum, J. A. , Arvey, R.O. , Paradise, C. A. , and Robbins, N.E. (in press ).
Modeling the skills obsolscence process: A Psychological and Economic Integration. Academy of Management Review.
~
Arvey, R.D. Sex Bias in Job Evaluation Procedures (submitted). Personnel Psychology.
Gordon, R.A. & Arvey, R.D. (in press). Perceived and actual ages of workers.
Journal of Vocational Behavior.
Chapters:
Arvey, R.D. & Campion, J.C. (1984). Person perception in the employment interview. In Cook, M. (Ed. ), Interp0rsonal Perception. Methuens.
Arvey, R.D. & Shingledecker, P.S. (1982). Methods in research in personnel management. In Rowland, K. & Ferris, J. (Eds.), Personnel Management, Allyn & Bacon.
Arvey, R.D. & Jones , A.P. (1985 ). The use of discipline in organizational settings. In Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B. (Eds. ), Research in Organiza-tional Behavior, Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press Inc.
Arvey, R.D. (in press). Potential Problems in Job Evaluation and Processes.
In Gomez-Mejia, L.R. The Practice of Compensation: An Applied Persoec-tive. Reston Publishing Corp.
Book Reviews:
Arvey, R.D. (1972). Review of Klein, S.M. Workers under stress: The imcact of work oressure on group cohesion. Personnel Psychology, 25, 589-590.
Arvey, R.D. (1973). Review of Fredericksen, N., Jensen, 0. & Beaton, A.E. with a contribution by Bloxam, B. Prediction of organization behavior.
Personnel Psychology, 26, 299-302.
Arvey, R.O. (1973). Review of Schultz, O.P. Psychology and industry today.
Personnel Psychology, 26,, 437-439.
Arvey, R.O. (1974). Review of Wilsen, J.A. (Ed.), with the assistance of Byham, W.C. The four day work week: Fad or future? Personnel Psychol-002, E , 203.
Arvey, R.O. (1975 ). Review of Yoder, D. & Heneman, H.G. , Jr. (Eds. ), Motiva-tion and commitment, ASPA Personnel Psychology, 28, 640.
Bullock, R.J. & Arvey, R.O. (1983). Review of Zammutop, R.F. Another approach to organizational effectiveness. Contemporary Psychology.
Arvey, R.D. (1983). Review of Munchinsky, P.M. Psychology Applied to Work.
Contemocrary Psychology, 28, 12.
O i
l_ . _. -
_ _ _.u.
- 1
. l i
O Technicei Reseerch eepers to grivate orgeeizetioes:
Arvey, R.O. & Hough, L. (1970, September). A description and evaluation of the 4
Minneapolis Teacher Cadre Training Program. Conficential report to the Minneapolis Public School Systems.
Dunnette, M.D. and Arvey, R.D. (1970, May). Evaluation report: SouthHig School flexible modular schedule. Confidential report submitted to Minneapolis Public Schooi System.
Arvey, R.D. (1971, September). A procedural manual for conducting va'idity studies in the Minneapolis Civil Service. Confidential report to the ,
Minneapolis Civil Service, Personnel Department.
Arvey, R.D., Dunnette, M.D. & Hellervik, i..W. '(1971, June). Job motivation demonstration project. Confidential' report ^to the Ford Motor Company.
Dunnette, M.D. & Arvey, R.D. (1971, July). Job expectations and job perces-tions among college,graduatas working for Ford Motor Company. Confiden--
tial report submitted to the Ford Motor Company.
u Dunnette, M.D., Arvey, R.D. & Arnold, J.A. (1971, July). Validity study results for jobs relevant to the petroleum industry. Manuscript prepared under tne general oirection of the AI.1erican Petroleum Institute Project Advisory Committee on Selection Techniques.
O Hellervik, L.W. , Dunnette, M.D. & Arvey, R.D. (1971, July). Development an pretesting of behaviorally defined job performance measures for foremen in Ford Motor Company's Transmission and Chassis and Automation Assembly Divisions. Confidential report submitted to Ford Motor Company.
Arvey, R.D. & Gordon, M.E. (1975, January). Final report: Validation of test instruments for the identification of successful and unsuccessful police patrol offices. Report sucmitted to the Municipal Technical Aovisory.
Service.
Arvey, R.D. (1976, June). Emolayment test validation project for maintenance jobs. Confidential report submitted to Mead Paper.
Arvey, R.D. (1978, December). A review of selection procedures at Houston area Southwestern Bell Telephone Company. Confidential report to Southwestern Bell Telepnone Company.
Arvey, R.D. & Davis, G.A. (1983, July). Development of a performance appraisal instrument for blue-collar jobs in the petroleum-petrochemical industry, deport suomitted to fne American Petroleum Institute, July.
Arvey, R.O., Fossum, J. A. , Robbins, N. & Paradise, C. (1984, June). Skills Obsolescence: Economic and Psychological Perspectives. Confidential report submitted to Control Data Corporation.
O
~ ---
=
Arvey, R.D. & Strand, J. (Nov, 1985). Motivational Aspects of volunteer Firefighters: Recruitment Concerns. Technical Report suomitted to the Fire Information, Research, ano Education Center, University of Minnesota.
Pacers Presented:
Arvey, R.D. (1970, May). High school variability as a moderator of college success. Paper presented at Midwestern Psychological Association Conven-tion.
Arvey, R.D. (1971, January). The. development and evaluation of behaviorally based rating scales for department store managers. Paper presented at an Air Force Officer Evaluation Systems Workshop, San Antonio, Texas.
Arvey, R.D. (1971, May). Chairman of symposium, "The Psychologist in Police Settings". Midwestern Psychological Association Convention.
Gordon, M.E. & Arvey, R.D. (1974, September). The relationship between education and job content: A reconsideration. Paper presented at American Psychological Association, New Orleans.
I Arvey, R.D., Habinger, R. & Dewhirst, H.O. (1975, March). Relationships between diversity of interest, job performance and job satisfaction.
l Paper presented at South Eastern Psychological Association Convention.
1
! n Arvey, R.O., Dewhirst, H.O. & Brown, E.M. (1977, August). A longitudinal study V of the impact of changes in goal Setting on employee satisfaction and effort. Paper presented at the 37th meeting of the Academy of Management.
Arvey, R.D. (1977, April). Subjective factors in employment decisions: A legal review. Paper presented to the Southern Regionasi international Personnel Management Association, Knoxville, Tennessee.
Arvey, R.O., Passino, E. & Loundsbury, J. (1977, August). Sex effects in. job analysis. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Convention, San Francisco.
Arvey, R.D. (1978, August). Federal regulations and their impact on Indus- ;
trial / Organizational Psychology. Paper presented at the American Psycho- l logical Association Convention, Toronto.
{
Arvey, R.D. (1979, July). Unfair discrimination in the employment interview:
Legal and psychological aspects. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the International Personnel Management Association.
Arvey, R.D. & Ivancevich, J.M. (1979, August). Punishment in organizations: A review and research suggestions. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Convention, Atlanta.
Arvey, R.D. & Maxwell, S.E. (1979, August). Comparative differences among l quantitative methodologies for determining job differences / similarities. j pd Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Convention, New York. l
. . . . . n -
..y y, w+y. - --
4 . .
l O Arver, R.D. & McGowen, s. (1982, Au9ust). The use of experience receiremeets in selecting employees: A legal review. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association.
Arvey, R.D. & Fossum, J. A. (1985). Age and obsolescence: A review and discussion. Paper presented at American Psychological Association, Los Angeles.
Court Cases:
! 1978 Kilkowski vs. Psychology Examining Conunittee servec as expert witness for plaintiff presenting testimony concerning reliability and validity of employment interview.
1979 Carter vs. Gallager Expert witness for City of Minneapolis (Defendant). Testimony revolved around appropriateness of content validity; strategies for selection purposes.
1980 Mireles, et. al vs. Arthur Brothers, Inc.
Expert witness for plaintiff regarding discrimination against Hispanics in promotional practices.
1983 E.E.0.C. vs. Western Electric O Expert witness for plaintiff (E.E.0.C.) regarding the employment interview as possible vehicle for selection bias and discrimina-tion.
Grants:
Coinvestigator with H.O. Oewhirst on National Science Foundation Research Imorovement Grant (NM44352) to investigate the impact of a Management-Sy-cojectives program from January, 1974-July, 1976 (S85,000). .
Principal Investigator on National Science Foundation Grant (DAR-7822145) to investigate quantitative methods of detecting job differences, April, 1979-1981, (540,000).
Principal investigator for Office of Naval Research Grant to investigate the effects of discipline on organizational behavior, June, 1980-June, 1982,
($105,000).
~
Principal investigator of McKnight Foundation grant to" investigate sex based wage discrimination, $10,760, summer 1985.
Principal investigator of McKnight Foundation grant to investigate sex stereo-typing in job evaluation procedures, $10,000, summer.1984.
O l j
l l
l
Workshoo Presentations:
Job Analysis: Analyzing Performance Reouirements for Guideline Ccmpliance.
Worksnap leaoer for a three day seminar sponsored by International Personnel Management Association, 1984.
E.E.O.C. Updating. Workshop leader, one day professional workshop for person-nel psycnologists, sponsored by Division of Industrial /0rcanizational Psychology, American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada, 1984 Basic Compensation. Workshop leader, one day workshop, sponsored by Industrial Relations center, 1985.
Comparable Worth. Workshop leader, several one day seminars, sponsored by International Personnel Management Association, 1985.
Other Areas:
Served on Tennessee Commission on the Status of Women, 1975-1976.
Chairperson, College of Business Editorial Advisory Council, 1975-76. This Council reviewed and made recommendations concerning all of the College publications. .
O Occasional reviews for Journal of Applied Psychology, Organizational Behavior &
Human Performance, Psychological Bulletin.
Invited member of Society for Organizational Behavior - an organization consisting of 50 organizational psychologists who meet informally once a year.
Editorial Board, Academy of Management Journal, 1982-85, 1985-88.
Editerial Board, Personnel Psychology,1985-Present.
Chairperson, University of Tennessee task force on long range planning for student services and programs,~1977.
Fellow, Division 14 - Industrial / Organizational Psychology of American Psycho-logical Association.
Member of Academy of Management.
Elected President of Houston Area Industrial / Organizational Psychology Associa-tion, 1980-1981.
i J
l
'~~_~~,"~'**'**~~~~***~"*~**"
. ~._
Consulting Exoerience:
1971- Ford Motor Company. Conducted research project to determine reasons for nigh level of turnover among college graduates.
1972-1975 Cumberland Clarklift, Knoxville, Tennessee. Long term consult-ing arrangement involving organizational development efforts of diagnosis, feedback, and change processes.
1975- Knoxville Utility Board. Developed and administered company-wide attitude survey.
1975-1977 Mead paper Company. Test validation project to develop tests to help select employees into maintenance craf tlines.
1977- Wells Fargo Bank, San Francisco. Reviewed and interpreted opinion survey results.
1978- Southwestern Bell Telephone Company. Evaluation of present selection system of hiring non-exempt employees.
i 1979- Exxon Corporation. Development of task-inventory for manage-ment, professional and technical employees.
1981- A & S Steel Incorporated. Assessment of job candidates.
O 1981- Texas Rural Legal Aid. Consultation concerning discrimination Case.
1982- Diamond-Shamrock. Validation study.
1982- Shell Oil Company. Organizational development effort to investigate tne effects of discipline on employee morale and satisfaction. .
1982- Vitrotec, Monterrey, Mexico. Consultation concerning the reduction in force process. <
1982- American Petroleum Institute. Project developing performance appraisal instruments for blue-collar jobs in the petroleum-petrochemical industry.
1984- MSI Insurance. Project involving restructing and reorganizing 150 employee division.
1984- Hickory Farms. Validation of employment interview.
1985- National Car Rental. Test validation project for sales person-nel.
1985- University of Minnesota Hospital. Consultation concerning O comparable worth pay equity increases.
O 1985- eoiice 5 Fire commissio#. cit 7 or "ii eekee- co-eirector or project to develop selection procedure for police sergents.
References:
Dr. Marvin D. Dunnette Department of Psychology University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Dr. Mario F. Bagnanno' Industrial Relations Center University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Dr. John P. Campbell -
Department of Psychology University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Dr. Robert D. Pritchard
, Department of Psychology University of Houston O Houston, Texas 77004 O
O i
L_.__ _ __. .
4392 1 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, Dr. Arvey is 2 available for examination by the Board and parties.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Mr. Miller, it's your 4 cross examination.
~
5 MR. MILL ER : Thank you, Judge Grossman.
6 Good morning, Dr. Arvey.
7 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
8 CROSS EXAMINATION 9 BY MR. MILLER :
10 Q Dr. Arvey, I'd like first to address certain of your l
11 qualifications.
12 It is correct, is it not, that you have never
} 13 worked on a construction site?
14 A That's correct.
15 Q And prior to your preparation of testimony in this 16 proceeding, you have never been involved in any way with 17 a nuclear power plant?
l 18 A That's correct, l
19 Q With the exception of reviewing the papers of graduate l l
20 students, you've never worked as a QC Inspector?
21 A That's correct. -
l 22 Q And with four exceptions, af ter 1978, none of your 23 publications that are listed in your vita involve
( 24 fieldwork at all but are, rather, experiments, reviews l 25 or computer simulations; isn't that right?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l l
(312) 232-0262
. _ ,.... . ~ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ - _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ - . . _ . _. . . _ . - - _.
4393 O
1 A That's correct.
2 Q And only one of those papers that report ficidwork 3 involved an industrial organization, and that's the work 4 that you did for Shell Oil Company and the Department of 5 the Navy; is that correct?
6 A That's correct.
7 Q In the work that you did for Shell Oil and the 8 Department of the Navy, you interviewed approximately 57 9 -- more than 2,000 or so workers at the Shell Oil 10 refinery; correct -- you or your colleagues? .
11 A As one component, yes.
12 Q Yes.
( 13 And, in fact, those interviews were used solely as 14 the basis for t2ue creation of a questionnaire which you 15 then circulated to the workers at that refinery; 16 correct?
17 A That's correct.
18 Q And it was the questionnaire and the results that you ,
19 got f rom the questionnaire that formed the basis f or 20 your paper "Use of Discipline in an Organization: A 21 Field Study"; correct?
22 A That's correct.
23 Q And it is correct, also, that there was no actual 1
24 observation by you or any of your colleagues in the 1
25 field of the effect of punishment at the Shell Oil i
()
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, AAAinois ovise (312) 232-0262
4394 i
()
1 refinery?
2 A That's correct.
3 Q In preparation for your testimony, you spent between 12 4 . and 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> in reviewing certain documents that were 5 provided you by the Intervenor and preparing the written 6 testimony wh4ch has been admitted into evidence; and 7 that time is exclusive of the time spent in your 8 deposition and here today; is that correct?
9 A That's correct.
10 Q And you're being paid $2,500 for your services; correct?
11 A Correct.
1 12 Q Now, the definition of " harassment" that you used in
( 13 your testimony is as follows:
1 14 "It is an uncomfortable, unpleasant, undesirable 1
15 event in the working context that is typically performed 16 by a supervisor or management person towards an 17 employee"; right?
18 A I would add that it's usually conducted in some kind of l 19 persistent f ashion or repeated type of fashion, i
l 20 Q It's also correct that " harassment," as you use the term 21 in your testimony, need not be directed at behavior 22 modification by the employee; is that right?
23 A That's correct.
24 0 So that as you use the term in your testimony, it may or 25 may not -- that is, harassment may or may not be O
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 4395 s
CE) 1 directed at causing the employee to alter the manner in 2 which he performs his duties; correct?
3 A That's correct.
4 Q All right.
5 Can we agree that there are certain activities that 6 are not harassment, as you use that term?
7 For example, it is not harassment to set 8 productivity standards for QC Inspectors?
9 A That might be correct -- that's correct.
10 0 Similarly, it is not harassment to discipline an 11 employee for loafing or for chronic absenteeism?
12 A Well, for both the production standards and the
( 13 disciplinary aspects, if the -- if the behaviors on the 14 part of the supervisors are done in an adverse fashion 15 or a threatening f ashion or in a persistently aggressive 16 or hostile fashion, then I would submit that that is 17 indeed harassment.
18 Q Dr. Arvey, were you deposed by me on May 16, 1986?
19 A Yes.
20 0 And in that deposition, you were sworn to tell the i 21 truth, were you not?
22 A That's true.
23 Q I call your attention to Page 64 of that deposition.
24 Were you asked these questions an ' did you give 25 these answers:
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
uenev,a , IA11nois ouAas (312) 232-0262
j 4396 O
1 "O Is it harassment to discipline an 2 employee for, for lack of a better word, 3 for loafing?
4 "A I guess I would say not.
5 "O Is it harassment to discipline an 6 employee for chronic absenteeism?
7 "A No."
8 Were you asked those questions and did you give 1
9 those answers, sir?
10 A Yes.
11 0 Thank you.
12 Now, let me present you, Dr. Arvey, with some 13 facts; and I'm going to ask you whether or not they 14 constitute harassment, in your opinion, as you have 15 defined that word.
16 MR. GUILD: I take it these are to be 17 hypothetical facts, Mr. Chairman, as counsel is going to 18 use the term?
19 MR. MILLER: Well, they are in the form of 20 the question hypothetical, but I represent to the Board 21 that eventually there will be testimony that will 22 indicate that they are not, in f act, hypothetical.
23 MR. GUILD: Fine.
24 BY MR. MILLER:
25 Q A Comstock Quality Control Inspector observes a defect O
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
., 1 I
4397 4
I
()
1 in the work of another contractor. He calls that to the l
2 attention of his supervisor, who, in essence, tells him '
i 3 to mind his own business.
l 4 The inspector persists and writes a memorandum 5 directed to his management, documenting the discrepancy.
6 His management passes the information along to the 7 contractor whose work is defective, and the condition is 8 corrected.
9 Would you agree, Dr. Arvey, that the situation I 10 have just described does not constitute " harassment," as 11 you have defined that term?
12 A I think that's the same hypothetical we went through in
() 13 the deposition.
14 0 Yes, sir, it is.
15 A I think -- I agree with that. That's not harassment.
16 JUDGE COLE: That's not harassment, sir? l f
17 THE WITNESS: That's not harassment.
4 18 BY MR. MILLER :
19 Q Dr. Arvey, there are certain f actors that must be taken 20 into account in assessing the effect of any perceived or 21 experienced harassment, are there not?
I !
22 A Yes.
l 23 Q And one of those factors is that individuals, even while 24 they are experiencing harassment, try to do the best job l 25 that they can; is that right?
O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. _ _
ueneva, 1Alinois culag (312) 232-0262
~,.._, - ... -- .. ._ _ -- _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . ,
4398 1
i
( l 1 A Well, I'm not sure about that.
] ,
, 2 It's conceivable that an individual that's being 1
3 harassed in an organization may decide to change their I 4 behavior or their productivity or it somehow influences 5 their work behavior.
i 6 The actual impact of harassment here is not -- in 7 terms of your specific question, that individual may 8 change their mind or behave in some other way besides 9 trying to do their best.
10 Q Yes, sir.
11 But is that a factor that we should take into 12 acco unt: that even during harassment, individuals try 13 to do the best job that they can, as an inspector or in 14 any other occupation?
l 15 A I suppose, yes.
j 16 0 Thank you.
17 Now, Dr. Arvey, you'll have to again accept my 18 representations that with respect to Comstock, which is 19 the contractor about whom this hearing is being 20 conducted, there is a training program for Quality 21 Control Inspectors and that that training program
- 22 consists of one hour of a general lecture, eight hours I
i 23 of lecture on the specific inspection activities that 24 are to be performed by the inspectors, 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of 25 on-the-job training, a written examination and a
)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
_w 1
f 4399 O
1 practical examination.
2 It is correct, is it not, that such a training 3 program would lead the inspectors to de a more 4 conscientious job than if that training didn't exist?
5 MR. GUILD: Obj ection, Mr. Chairman. The 6 line of inquiry is clearly beyond the scope of Dr.
7 Arvey's testimony.
l 8 The line of inquiry pursued in deposition is 9 probably appropriate as a discovery matter, but the 10 witness' testimony and the purpose of that testimony is 11 clearly set out in Question and Answer 5.
12 It has not -- does not have to do with eva'luating 13 these hypothetical circumstances, the Comstock training 14 program, the particulars of specific interaction between 15 an inspector and a supervisor.
16 I'm sure Dr. Arvey has some interesting thoughts on 17 the subject and he shared those thoughts with Mr. Miller 18 in deposition, but passing on those f acts is clearly 19 beyond the scope of his testimony.
20 The Board entertained exhaustive argument on the 21 subject yesterday on what exactly was the purpose and 22 scope of the testimony. Mr. Miller focused on what he 23 thought the narrow scope of the testimony was at great 24 length in his motion. I
~ .
1 25 He simply can't have it both ways now and treat the 0 ,
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, AAAinois ouAas (312) 232-0262
4400
()
1 testimony --
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, the objection is 3 overruled. I think if it's within the expertise of the 4 expert, Mr. Miller can pursue that line of questioning.
5 I believe in this case the witness has answered the 6 question. I believe the Reporter has gotten the answer; 7 is that correct?
8 THE NOTARY: No.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You didn't catch "no" in 10 there when Mr. Guild objected?
11 Did the witness answer the question?
4 12 MR. MILL ER : Perhaps the Reporter could 13 retrace her steps.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes. Could you read the 15 question and see if you picked up an answer there?
16 (The question was thereupon read by the 17 Reporter.)
18 A Yes.
> 19 MR. GUILD: Before we leave the subject, it 20 seems to me that the Board's feeling for the scope of 21 the witness' testimony doesn't bear on the light of the 22 inqui ry. In that light, I would ask the Board to 23 seriously reconsider the observations it made on the 24 record on this point, the scope of the witness' 25 testimony.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 601J4 l (312) 232-0262 l
_ - - _ _ _ _ , _ _ , . _ . _ ~
4401 O
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild, when you offer an 2 expert, you have to be prepared f or the expert to be l 3 questioned beyond just what you offer his expertise for.
4 MR. GUILD: We are, Judge.
l 5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: An expert can be used
- 6 against you in that way.
i 7 We' re not going to -- there are broader limits than
- 8 just what you present in your testimony. There are some 9 limits, and we'll see how far we go in this.
i 10 But it's f air game. If you offer an expert, you 11 have to expect that his expertise might be used against
- 12 you.
13 MR. GUILD: Well, Judge, it just simply seems 14 to me that Dr. Arvey's expertise is at issue within the 15 scope of his testimony.
l 16 He is not tendered as an expert ~on training 17 programs; and when Mr. Miller inquires about his l 18 thoughts on training programs in discovery, that's fine.
! l 19 But it simply is beyond the scope'of his testimony. l 20 Now, if the Board weighed Applicant's motion to 21 strike focused on the purported scope of his testimony 22 and if its -- if its observations were, with respect to
- 23 Applicant's position, that the scope of his testimony
, 24 was as stated in their motion, it seems to me
! 25 disingenuous for Applicant to now come back and argue Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
- Geneva, illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- -.. - ... ... - - .... - ...,. .-. - . - - - - - . - . . . _ . . - . . . - . . - . - . - . ~ . -
4402
'O 1 that the questions being posed to the witness are 2 relevant within a scope f ar broader than what they 3 purported the witness' testimony to be limited to.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Mr. Guild, let me 5 tell you right now that af ter the Board makes a ruling, 6 we don't appreciate having further argument on it.
7 You have an automatic exception, and you can make 8 whatever argument you wish in briefing the case and on 9 appeal.
10 But we've made our ruling, and I don't believe your 11 position is correct anyway.
12 So let's have the er.d of this.
() 13 BY MR. MILLER :
14 Q Dr. Arvey, it's also a f act that the presence of Nuclear 15 Regulatory Commission employees, resident inspectors at 16 the Braidwood site to whom a Quality Control Inspector 17 could complain, would make a Quality Control Inspector 18 less likely to be responsive to any pressure to overlook 19 saf ety concerns or construction discrepancies?
20 A It would seem so, yes, 21 MR. MILLER : I'd like the Reporter to mark as 22 Applicant's Exhibit 39 for identification a copy of an 23 NRC Form 3.
24 (The document was thereupon marked 25 Applicant's Exhibit No. 39 for O
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4403
( 1 1 identification as of June 17, 1986.)
2 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, could I be i l
3 understood as having a continuing objection on the scope ;
4 grounds?
5 I won't repeat it. I don't mean to perturb the 6 Chair, but I really do want to persist in my objection 7 on that score.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, that's fine. I think 9 you should, with further testimony, repeat that 10 objection.
11 What's objectionable is to continue arguing with 12 regard to particular rulings once a ruling has been
( 13 made.
14 MR. GUILD: I understand.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: But as far as renewing your 16 objection, I think you' re required to do that or you 17 would waive any further objection.
18 MR. GUILD: That's what I wanted to 19 understand.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That's fine.
21 MR. GUILD: The Chair's position is I should i
22 renew the objection when it arises again?
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, fine.
l 24 MR. GUILD: I want to be understood as l 25 having --
i l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 50134 (312) 232-0262
4404
}
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: If your objection is to this
! 2 entire line of questioning --
3 MR. GUILD: It is.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- then you've satisfied l
J 5 your requirement by indicating there's a continuing i 6 objection.
7 MR. GUILD: Thank you.
8 MR. MILLER : Dr. Arvey, I neglected to give 9 you a copy. I'm sorry.
1 10 (Indicating.)
i
- 11 BY MR. MILLER
12 0 Dr. Arvey, I have to apologize for this copy, but can we O 13 agree that this form states that it is the 14 responsibility of employees to report violations of 15 Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements, if they 16 observe them, to representatives of the NRC?
l 17 MR. GUILD: Objection. The form speaks for
) 18 itself.
19 If he's asking him to read something that's not 20 legible, he should supply a legible copy for the record; 21 but the document does speak f or itself, Mr. Chairman.
22 MR. MILLER: It's just --
)
i 23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes; overruled.
24 A Yes.
25 MR. MILLER: All right.
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois 60134 !
(312) 232-0262 '
l l
--.,,,,---....-...n. . . - - . - . - - - - , - - - - , _ . . . - , , . - , - - - - - . , , . - . , - , - - , , , , . - . , , . . . . - ., -. .
4405 O
1 BY MR. MILLER :
2 Q And to the extent that the Comstock QC Inspectors are 3 made aware of this f orm and its contents -- that is, 4 that it describes their responsibilities -- that makes 5 it more likely, does it not, that they will resist 6 pressure by supervisors to overlook quality def ects?
7 A Yes.
8 Q When inspections by Quality Control Inspectors are 9 documented and signed, that increases the likelihood 10 that a QC Inspector will resist the supervisor's efforts 11 to get him to overlook quality problems, also; isn' t 12 that right?
13 A In the absence of having not done that?
14 0 As opposed to if the -- if the inspections were not 15 documented and signed.
16 A That's correct.
17 Q Now, I'm going to again represent some facts to you and 18 then ask you for your opinion on them.
19 The Quality Control Inspectors employed by Comstock 20 perform the first level of inspection of a completed 21 installation. There is an organization within Comstock 22 that is known as the Comstock Quality Assurance 23 Department, which performs periodic audits and 24 surveillances of both the hardware and the inspection , l 25 documentation.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. _
ueneva, AAAAnois ovAae (312) 232-0262
4406
.l 1 In addition, there is an organization which is 2 known as Pittsburgh Testing Laboratories, Inc., which !
3 has no affiliation with Comstock, which performs a 10
, 4 percent random sample overinspection of the work of the 5 Comstock inspectors.
6 This same organization performs what are called 7 unit concept inspections, in which it goes into a 8 specific area of the power plant and inspects all the ,
9 components and equipment and installations in that 10 specific area.
11 There is also an organization within Commonwealth l
12 Edison Company, the utility that is building the power O
13 plant, which is its own Quality Assurance Department,
- 14 which performs periodic audits and surveillances of both 15 the hardware and the documentation of the Comstock scope 1
16 of work.
17 Finally, there are employees of the Nuclear 18 Regulatory Commission, both the resident inspectors that 19 I described earlier and other inspectors employed by the 1
20 NRC, that themselves inspect on a periodic and random 21 basis hardware and documentation within the Comstock 22 scope of work.
23 Now, having described all those multiple layers of 24 review, do they make it more likely that a Comstock QC 25 Inspector will resist any effort by a supervisor to have Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 1
i (312) 232-0262 ,
l
4407
(
1 the QC Inspector overlook defective construction?
2 A Yes.
3 Q On Page 4 of your prepared testimony, Dr. Arvey, in Answer 5, you use the term " perceived harassment."
4 5 Do you see it there?
6 Is it correct, from your viewpoint, that perceived 7 harassment is or can be as significant as actual 8 harassment?
9 A Yes.
10 Q A perception is just that; it is how an individual 11 understands or perceives an external event, and it may 12 not depend on the actual content of the event itself or
() 13 indeed have anything to do with the intent of the -- of 14 the person who is responsible for the event; is that 15 correct?
i 16 A That's correct.
17 0 All right.
- 18 And some of your scholarly work, sir, has focused 19 on the difference in perceptions between subordinates l 20 and supervisors; that is, in one of your articles on 21 punishment, you observed .that what a supervisor might i
j 22 believe was punishment might be perceived by the 1
j 23 employee as actually something that was not punishment l
24 at all but that the supervisor was really doing him a 25 favor s, is that correct?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, IAAinois ouAae (312) 232-0262
.- -- =_ .
i 4408 i
"([)
1 A Not that specific illustration, but you're correct in 1
2 the -- in your observation there.
! 3 Q Getting back to perceived harassment for a second, I 4
4 take it that we can agree that an innocuous comment by a 5 supervisor may be perceived by an inspector as 6 harassment; correct?
7 A Well, I'm going to qualify that a little bit because in 8 my earlier definition of " harassment," I'm thinking of 9 that as more of a repetition, something that has r
10 occurred over time with some -- some degree of
- 11 repeatability. -
! 12 But your general observation is correct that
( 13 somebody might interpret something differently than --
14 than another individual.
15 Q And so to the extent that a supervisor made a comment 16 repeatedly, such as, " Gee, we have a lot of inspections i 17 to do," that might be perceived by the QC Inspector as 18 an exhortation to pick up the pace of the inspections; 19 correct?
20 A That's correct.
21 Q And he might even go further and regard that as, oh, an l
22 implied direction f rom the supervisor to overlook 23 defects that he found; correct?
24 A That could be true.
)
- 25 Q Now, in Answer 8 on Page 9 of your prepared testimony, Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
-. ., .,w ,, s e ew r + m '-e-w,,,~.- + % - ,ew,,e w- .**e,. e , - * *we< + , ~ , , - .,.-r.,.. ----ew .v.,--.- .a <=~ < ~ ,.. e -w - . . - . - - - . . , +-r.,--,w.*vw,,--,-----,,--.--,-
4409 i
O 1 you testify, in the second paragraph in Answer 8, that 2 " employees are seldom going to admit that they 3 personally did something in violation of policy"; that 4 is, for example, they' re not going to admit, according 5 to your testimony, that they overlooked construction 6 defects or that chey sacrificed the quality of their 7 inspections simply to get a greater number of 8 inspections; correct?
1 9 A That's correct.
10 Q All right.
1 11 And the result of that is for perceived harassment, i
12 there is not going to be any way to know what the
() '
13 effects of that harassment are; correct?
14 A It would be very difficult.
15 Q And accordingly, the last sentence of your testimony, 16 the very last sentence, recommends that " data concerning 17 the work itself be ascertained prior to reaching a 4
18 conclusive determination" about the effects of 19 harassment; correct?
20 A That's correct.
I 21 Q And that would be some sort of a reinspection program; 22 correct?
23 A Correct.
j 24 Q Dr. Arvey, there is nothing at all, given the testimony 25 that you've just given here, to suggest that the conduct
- Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. _
ueneva, 1111nois culag (312) 23.2-0262
- .2 - - . ,.- . ::.: -. . :_- -.::--.___. - , , _ . u.-. :. . -. - . . -
4410 0
1 of a reinspection program would be f ree f rom the ef fects 2 of perceived harassment resulting f rom innocuous 3 comments by supervisors that may lead to undetected
! 4 quality problems; right?
5 TH E WITN ESS : Would you repeat your question?
) 6 MR. MILLER: Read it back.
7 (The question was thereupon read by the 8 Reporter.)
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Let me say, Mr. Miller, I'm 10 not sure I understand'that question. I would suggest 11 you rephrase it.
12 MR. MILLER : I'll be happy to.
l 13 BY MR. MILLER :
14 Q Dr. Arvey, there's nothing about a reinspection program 15 that will necessarily result in one of the inspectors 16 involved in that reinspection program not perceiving 17 that he is being harassed; correct?
}
18 A Do you mean that if you do a hardware inspection, that j 19 will be independent of the perceptions that an 20 individual might have?
1 1 21 Q Correct.
j 22 A You mean there's no linkage between the two types of --
23 Q Well, let me be a little bit more precise.
l 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Miller, my understanding l
- 25 of your question is
- Isn't it possible that inspectors Sonntag Reporting. Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 -
(312) 232-0262
4411 1
I l
1 O 1 participating in a reinspection program might also be 2 harassed or intimidated or perceive that they are being 3 pushed to a certain result?
3 4 MR. MILL ER : Correct.
5 THE WITNESS : Oh, I see what you mean.
6 A That may be true, but I don't know enough about how you
) 7 would actually do a reinspection program.
8 I would assume that if you were trying to do this
! 9 fairly scientifically, you would have an independent i 10 group of individuals outside the organization going in 11 and doing some kind of hardware sampling procedure.
12 MR. MILLER : Yes, sir.
() 13 A (Continuing.) You wouldn't actually use the same 14 inspectors that perhaps had been the precipitants of i
15 th e --
16 MR. MILLER: But, Dr. Arvey --
i 17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Precipitants of what, sir?
4 18 A (Continuing.) -- of the quality compromise.
I 19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
20 A (Continuing.) You don't want to have the same people l 21 doing the quality check on their own quality; right?
22 bY MR. MILLER :
23 Q Well, the -- but can we agree, Dr. Arvey, that a I
l 24 reinspector f rom a different organization may perceive i
25 an exhortation to complete the reinspection or to j ()
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois e6134 i
(312) 232-0262 i
.,,,-..,-..-_-,._--...~----.-...-,-,+..m.. ..-..m. ..--__4...--.-..._....,---.-~.-..4.-.,----....---..-._,.
4412 0
1 overlook quality from an innocuous -- seemingly 5
2 innocuous comment made by his supervisor as well?
l
, 3 A I think you' re getting at sort of an infinite regress; 4 you'll never get free of these sorts of pressures and 5 distor tions and so forth.
6 Q Isn't that true?
7 A Well, I don' t -- I think you can design a study in which
! 8 many of these kind of things are inde.ed eliminated or at 9 least diminished considerably.
10 If your objective is to do a fairly neutral, i
11 scientifically objective study on a hardware sampling 12 plan and you've made it very clear that your purpose is
' v 13 to determine the degree of quality compromising, I think 14 that you could set something up so it would really 15 diminish any kind of production pressure on those 1
1 16 people.
17 Q Isn't it a fact that with respect to the reinspectors, 18 since perceived harassment is as significant as actual 19 harassment and since they similarly will not 20 -
self-identify any def ects, based on your testimony, 21 we'll never know --
22 MR. GUILD: Objection.
23 BY MR. MILLER :
24 0 -- whether or not the --
i I 25 MR. GUILD: Objection. Excuse me.
(
l Sonntao Reporting Service, Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 L____-_____ __ - - _ - -- . . _ . - - - . _ , _ . - _ _ _ _ _ - . _ - - - -
4413 O
1 MR. MILL ER : Can I finish my question, 2 please, your Honor?
3 MR. GUILD: No, sir. You've already !
4 misstated the fact, and the f act is critical to whatever 5 question is going to be completed, Mr. Chairman.
6 That is, the misstatement was that perceived 7 defects are defects in the work, when the predicate 8 questions were defects in the individual's inspection 9 activity.
10 You've mixed apples and oranges. You talked about 11 defects on reinspection --
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, Mr. Guild, you have an 13 expert on the stand here, and he's able to use his own 14 intelligence and knowledge to answer -- and expertise to 15 answer the questions. I don't think you have to go that 16 far to protect him.
17 If you find that there is, in your own mind, a 18 misstatement in the premise and you want to clarify 19 that, you have an opportunity on redirect to do that.
20 I think we can allow an expert certain leeway to 21 answer tough questions.
22 MR. GUILD: I don't disagree with the 23 Chairman's observation at all.
24 My only point is that particularly when the 25 questions are far, far beyond the scope of the purpose 1
O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. _ ,
ueneva, AAAAnoAs ouAae
/
(312) 232-0262
4414
()
I for the witness' testimony, simply having an expert on 2 the stand does not excuse erroneous premises in 3 questions which are indeed far beyond the scope of his 4 testimony.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild, you're again 6 bringing back your prior objection. If you want to keep 7 on bringing that back, we' re going to have some problems 8 here.
9 I don' t -- I don' t care to answer that again, but l
- 10 let me tell you
- A deposition was taken of your expert.
j 11 You had a choice -- I believe most of these questions 12 that Mr. Miller is asking now are ones that he asked on 13 deposition, and you certainly had a forewarning of the 14 fact that some of the witness' expertise might be used 15 against you.
16 You had your choice. You chose to put your expert 17 on notwithstanding that that might be the case, and you 18 just have to suf f er the consequences.
19 MR. GUILD: Judge, I don' t think that I'm 20 going to suffer --
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: But that has nothing to do 22 with your immediate objection, which is that there was a 23 misstatement in the premise.
24 With regard to that, the expert can take care of 25 himself; so we'll deny the objection. Mr. Miller can O
j Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
50134 Geneva, Illinois (312) 232-0262
4415 O
1 ask to have the question repeated or he can rephrase it.
2 MR. MILLER: I would like to have the partial 3 question that I was in the process of asking repeated so 4 I can -- I don't believe I misstated any facts. If I 5 did, I want to correct them.
6 MR. GUILD: He did, Mr. Chairman.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I'm not making a 8 judgment on that.
9 MR. GUILD: I understand that.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I'm saying that if there is 11 such a misstatement, you can bring it out on redirect.
! 12 Now, could the Reporter please repeat the partial 13 question? i 14 (The question was thereupon read by the 15 Reporter.)
16 . THE WITNESS : Let me just sort of --
17 MR. MILLER: Let me just finish the question, 18 Dr. Arvey.
19 THE WITN ESS : Okay.
l 20 BY MR. MILLER:
21 Q We'll never know whether or not the reinspection 22 program, in fact, identified the def ects in 23 construction?
24 A Right.
, 25 You' re talking about a hardware inspection process Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, AA11nois oviae (312) 232-0262
4416 O
1 here; is that correct?
2 Q Yes, sir -- well, I assume that when you say that --
3 well, I'll ask you.
4 A That's what I'm talking about.
5 Q Okay.
6 A All right.
7 Your point is directed towards if there is a i 8 reinspection team or group that's -- that's involved 9 with this process, will they be influenced by some of 10 the similar kind of pressures for production or 11 intimidation or elements here f rom their supervisors 12 that will influence their report or -- is that correct? ,
O 13 Q Well, my question is: Isn' t it a f act, given your 14 testimony about perceived harassment, that an -- a 15 seemingly innocuous comment f rom the reinspector's 16 supervisor could be interpreted or perceived by the 17 reinspector as a push to complete the reinspection 18 program within a given period of time? l 19 A Well, that's -- that's true.
20 Let me -- let me make an additional comment.
21 Q Let me just ask one more question and --
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Wait a second.
23 Was that a complete answer that you just gave --
24 MR. GUILD: It was obviously not.
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- or do you have something I
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 s
4417 O
1 further?
2 THE WITNESS : I have something additional.
3 A (Continuing.) It seems to me that if you were going to 4 do this, that what you'd want to do is to develop a --
5 and we do this in other elements of the social sciences 6 or when I'm working with organizations -- that you would 7 set up a group or a team of individuals that might be 8 balanced with regard to any kind of constituency 9 representation or that you' re trying to make as one of 10 the objectives of this team to be as totally objective 11 and neutral in the observations that they make as you 12 possibly can so that you would develop a reinspection 13 team that has that as one of its objectives.
14 Now, your point about whether they could ultimately 15 be influenced or perceive some of the comments by their 16 supervisors is correct.
17 But I would think that if you're setting this kind 18 of thing up, that you would want to develop some checks 19 and balances on those kind of pressures.
20 BY MR. MILLER:
21 Q Checks and balances would include perhaps a quality 22 assurance review of the work of these reinspectors, for 23 example?
24 A I suppose so. I -- you know, you' re asking me a design I
25 -- to design two different groups here.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
1 - . - . .- . , . . . .. . .. .. . .- - . . - - . . - . .-
4418 O
1 The question is: How do you ever avoid these kind 2 of things? l 3 One of the ways you can do that is to set up a 4 series of checks and balances, group compositions, 5 instructed neutrality; and there are a variety of 6 methods of trying to ensure objectivity among work teams 7 or groups that are charged with particular 8 responsibilities.
9 Q And some of those techniques are some of the very ones 10 that you've testified about here today already, aren' t 11 they?
12 Training would be a way of establishing --
() 13 A Yes.
14 Q -- a balance?
15 The existence of an independent outside agency to 16 whom the inspectors or reinspectors could bring any 17 complaints that they might have and so forth; correct?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Now, of course, if -- if the Comstock QC Inspectors 20 would self-report instances where the quality of their 21 inspections suffered as a result of perceived or actual 22 harassment, then there would be no need for a 23 reinspection program, in your judgment; correct?
24 THE WITN ESS : Would you read that back to me, 25 please?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
weneva, 111Anois ouAae (312) 232-0262
4419 l
()
1 (The question was thereupon read by the 2 Reporter.)
3 A It sort of gets at some of my earlier comments in the 4 deposition and in the testimony about whether or not 5 those self-reports are accurate or not.
6 If they' re accurate, that would be true. If 7 they're not accurate, then you'd need a reinspection.
8 BY MR. MILLER :
9 Q Now, Dr. Arvey, your personal reputation as a careful 10 and accurate researcher and writer is important to your 11 continued success as an author of articles in scholarly 12 journals, as a professor and as a consultant, isn' t it?
O 13 A That's true.
14 Q And you' re retained by attorneys and sometimes directly 15 by corporations as a consultant; isn't that right?
16 A That^s correct.
17 Q At your deposition, you identified your vita, which is 18 attached to your testimony, which lists the corporations 19 for whom you've worked and the various consulting 20 assignments you' ve had; right?
21 A That's correct.
22 Q And the journals in which you have published your 23 papers; correct?
24 A Correct. ,
25 0 In f act, at your deposition, you identified the O
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. _
ueneva, A111nols culag (312) 232-0262
i.
4420 0
! 1 attorneys by name for whom you had worked and given 2 expert testimony or had consulted; correct?
3 A Correct.
4 0 It is conceivable that I or members of my law firm might 5 wish to retain you as an expert in your field; correct?
6 A That's correct.
7 Q Okay.
8 But you had no hesitancy in describing to me at 9 your deposition a situation in which a time deadline --
10 that is, a production requirement -- affected the 11 quality of your work, did you?
12 A It took me a while to remember one.
13 Q But you just testified as candidly and forthrightly as 14 you've testified here today about that instance, didn't 15 you?
16 A (No response.)
17 Q You have to answer, sir.
18 A I'm thinking.
19 Yes.
20 Q Now, you've never had any experience on a construction 21 site nor as a Quality Control Inspector who had to sign 22 inspection forms for each inspection that he conducted.
23 You've really testified to a situation in which the 24 analog of production pressure overrode, if you will, the 25 quality of 'your work; correct?
) ,
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4421 1
1 A That's correct.
2 0 In fact, Dr. Arvey, you have no basis for your opinion 3 that a Quality Control Inspector would act any 4 differently than you did, do you?
5 A Well, I think there's a considerable difference.
6 I wasn't in danger of losing my job, which is what 7 I would assume the quality inspectors at Comstock would 8 be at least thinking about under those kind of contexts.
9 Q Dr. Arvey, you just testified that I'm a member of the 10 constituency that employs you -- attorneys, consultants 11 -- and yet you had no hesitancy, in a proceeding in 12 which you were sworn to tell the truth, to, in fact,
() 13 disclose fully an instance in which production pressure 14 overrode the quality of your work.
15 A The distinction I'm drawing here is that you are a _
16 potential future employer and can have no specific 17 repercussions on my present employment security, in
- 18 contrast to the current inspectors.
t 19 Q And are you subject, Dr. Arvey, to any statute which 20 protects you f rom retaliation by an employer if you do, ;
l 21 in fact, identify a situation in which production j 22 requirements overrode the quality of your work? l 23 A No specific kind of protection device, no.
24 0 Okay.
25 Are you -
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, 1111nols oulas (312) 232-0262
4422 l
(
l JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Miller, aren' t we going 2 a little f ar afield?
3 MR. MILL ER : I'm just about finished.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Is there an employment 5 situation for which he should be protected or not 6 protected?
7 MR. MILLER: No, sir.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: He's not in an employment 9 situation.
10 MR. MILLER: I agree with that, your Honor.
11 I have one or two more questions, and then my cross 12 examination will be concluded.
( 13 BY MR. sMILLER:
14 Q Dr. Arvey, isn't it a fact that to the extent such a 15 statute exists for Quality Control Inspectors at a 16 nuclear power plant, that they are more likely to 17 self-identify these defects?
18 A Well, in the abstract, yes, but --
19 MR. MILLER: Thank you very much.
20 I have no further questions.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Wait. No. The witness is 22 entitled to answer completely, and, you know, this is 23 not -- this is not the first time you've cut him off.
24 So continue with your answer. l 25 A (Continuing.) The question is, in a broad sense: When O
Sonntag Rerotting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- . . ..... .... .. ..... . .. . . . . . -.=.. -. ._ . _ . - . . . - . . . . . . . . .
4 4423 O
1 will people self-identify for committing policy 2 violations?
3 It's a very complex kind of phenomenon, and I don' t 4 know whether I have the answer to that.
5 There's a number of situations where we -- that 6 I've seen and know about f rom my prof essional experience 7 where people will not self-identify for crimes.
8 I mean, we have petty thef t. We have thef t in 9 organizations that people will admit to or -- excuse me.
10 They will identify other individuals as having committed 11 those kind of crimes, but they won't self-identify. The 12 admission of guilt is another kind of context -- or 13 responsibility is another situation.
14 In the Challenger context, which we're fairly 15 familiar with, there's a lot of people saying that there 16 were quality violations and so forth; but nobody came 17 forward to self-identify themselves as the culprit, as I 18 understand. Why is that?
19 There are a number of kinds of things we can 20 speculate about. No. 1, the individuals might think 21 that they really were not in violation. They may not 22 perceive themselves as being in violation, where they 23 may perceive other people being in violation.
24 They may also have a normative structure that's 25 involved where they may see and report what they O
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, 1111nois aulae (312) 232-0262
_ _ . . ~ . _ _ _ . . _ ... . . . . . _ - . .. _ ... . _ . - .
4424 O
1 consider to be fairly severe violations but not report 2 their own minor violations, even though they may be 3 against policy.
4 Another kind of feature that could be associated 5 with this particular phenomenon is the rewards and 6 punishments that they forecast that might accrue to them 7 for self-identification. .
8 In the context of Comstock, although I have not 9 studied it specifically, this is a highly charged kind 10 of issue: What's going to happen to somebody if they 11 self-identify? Will they be transferred? Will they 12 -
lose their job, regardless of the stated policy?
( 13 So there's all kinds of possibilities that 14 influence whether or not somebody self-identifies or 15 not.
16 My hunch or my opinion is that people are not going 17 to come forward with that kind of information easily, 18 even under oath.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Miller?
20 BY MR. MILLER:
21 Q What is the basis for your hunch with respect to --
22 A The analysis that I just went through.
23 Q In fact, if somebody commits a petty thef t and 24 self-identifies it, they subject themselves to criminal 25 prosecution; isn't that right?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4425 O
1 A I believe so.
2 Q And if someone identifies a quality concern at a nuclear 3 power plant, there is a specific statute that protects l 4 them f rom a retaliatory job action, and that f act is 5 made known to the QC Inspectors. l 6 A That may be true, but even in the ' context of having that 7 knowledge in their heads, they still may resist 8 divulging that information.
9 Another example that I'm familiar with is in the 10 sexual harassment area, where women are very reluctant 11 to testify or to come forward with those charges even 12 when policy says there will be no retaliation. Why is 13 that?
14 It's because either they don't believe it or they 15 know enough about the organizational realities out there 16 that ultimately it may come. back to haunt them in some 17 fashion.
18 Q Or they may be embarrassed at having to disclose that?
19 A Right, for a number of reasons.
20 Q And, of course, the embarrassment of having to disclose 21 that there was sexual harassment directed at oneself 22 isn't present when one is identifying a quality defect?
23 A Right, that's true.
24 MR. MILLER: No further questions.
25 BOARD EXAMINATION I
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ,
ueneva, Illinois oulae 1 (312) 232-0262 e + gr+ r ** - - - #
4426 O
1 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
2 Q Dr. Arvey, one of the questions asked by Mr. Miller was 3 to the effect, if I recall it correctly, that wouldn't a 4 self-reporting system make unnecessary a reinspection 5 program?
6 That question presumed that the inspectors were 7 fully cognizant of whatever deficiencies there were in 8 their original inspection so as to be able to 9 self-repo r t.
10 A That's true.
11 Q Do you agree that that is necessarily the case; that the 12 inspectors, if they were pressured in some way to 13 conduct somewhat deficient inspections in the first 14 place, would be fully cognizant of that fact?
15 A Well, they may not be.
16 If you' ve -- I don' t know what the normal or 17 average number of inspections were a day or a week or 18 something like that.
19 They may know that they compromised their quality 20 or f ailed to inspect certain kinds of welds, but they 21 may not remember when or where.
22 I think that's the question you' re getting at: Do 23 they have sufficient memory to --
24 Q Well, it's not just memory.
25 Are they fully cognizant of their --
O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4427 O
1 A That they did it, righ t, that they actually failed to.
2 Q Yes.
3 , A Right.
4 Q Are you saying that they would be fully cognizant or 5 they might not be?
6 A It's a possibility that they may not be. People might 7 compromise the quality of their inspections in this case 8 and not be cognizant of that -- of those events 9 occurring.
10 Q Now, another question asked by Mr. Miller indicated --
11 and I want to find out what your understanding of the 12 question was.
13 It had in it that inspectors do the best they can, 14 notwithstanding that there are pressures to do 15 otherwise.
16 Now, did you understand that question to presume 17 that that is always the case -- that inspectors do the 18 best they can, notwithstanding pressures -- or did you 19 understand that to be an assumption in the question?
20 Do you recall that question?
21 A I remember the question. I'm frankly not quite sure 22 what it means. I mean, I think I had the question in 23 the deposition. It was sort of unclear then, too.
24 I take it to mean that people try to do the best 25 job they can in general or on the average.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd._
Ueneva, 1111nois aulae (312) 232-0262
4428 O
1 Q That they try to do the best they can?
2 A Right.
3 Q Did that -- does that presume that they always do --
4 that they do the best they can or that they try to do 5 the best they can?
6 A I think it presumes that on the average that there are 7 exceptions. There are times when they may not do their" 8 best job, when they may be attempting to sabotage the 9 organization; but in general people try to do -- to 10 fulfill the obligation of their employment contract.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Okay, fine.
~
12 Mr. Berry?
() 13 MR. BERRY: Yes.
14 CROSS EXAMINATION 15 BY MR. BERRY:
16 Q Dr. Arvey, I believe you just indicated to Mr. -- to the 17 Chairman that it's possible that QC Inspectors l 18 compromise the quality of their work without even being 19 aware of that.
20 I don't understand that.
21 A Let me give you an example. When I write a letter, I ,
1 22 can proof read it but I can miss some things. I mean, l l
23 most people do. j l
24 That's a very simple example. I happen to be a 25 very poor proof reader or quality inspector of my own --
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 ;
(312) 232-0262
4429 O
1 of my own work, and so I will let some things go through j 2 and not be aware that I have compromised the quality of ;
3 my own work.
4 The same kind of phenomenon could occur here.
5 0 Certainly in the example you just gave, that's not due 6 to harassment or intimidation or anything; right?
7 A Correct.
8 0 If an inspector's supervisor told him, for example, to 9 not complete the remarks section of a particular 10 inspection form but the procedure required that the 11 inspector complete the remarks section and the inspector
- 12 wasn't aware of that provision and he just did what his 13 supervisor -- you know, his supervisor told him, has he 14 compromised -- did he compromise the quality of his 15 inspections, in your opinion?
16 A Let mb make sure I understand the question.
17 If they sign the form but they fail to make the 18 inspections?
19 Q No. l l
20 In completing the inspection form, an inspector's 21 direction f rom his supervisor was that it's unnecessary 22 to complete a particular section of it but the inspector 23 was not aware -- he was not aware that that was an t
24 incorrect instruction; so he just followed the orders, I
25 the directions that he's been given by his supervisor.
. 1 i
! Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ,
! Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
- (312) 232-0262
4430 0
1 In your opinion, your definition, does that 2 compromise the quality of the inspector?
3 A I don't believe so if he's actually carried out the 4 inspections.
5 What he's violated there, I think, is a policy 6 statement; but the quality of the inspection had not 7 suffered, because he carried out the inspection in your 8 hypothetical, as I understand it.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: If the quality of the 10 inspection is dependent upon a full report of the 11 inspection, including a requirement that remarks be 12 complete, then would the quality of the inspection have
( 13 suffered f rom the instructions?
14 THE WITNESS: Under that kind of theoretical, 15 yes, I believe it has.
16 MR. BERRY: May I have a minute, Judge?
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Sure.
18 BY MR. BERRY:
19 Q Dr. Arvey, in the example that we've been discussing, if 20 the procedure required that the remarks section be 21 completed and it was not but the inspection was done, 22 what has been compromised; the quality of the inspection 23 itself or the quality of the documentation?
24 A Well, I'm confused now.
25 Q I'm sorry.
O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. _ . . _ _- . . . _ . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ . . ~ . _ . _ - . _ . . ._ _ ._. _ . . _ . . . _ - - _ _ -
4431 O
1 The quality of the hardware?
2 A Well, I mean, I'm going to -- it depends on what you 3 define as an " inspection" or a " quality inspection."
4 The hypothetical you gave is that it --
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Speaking to the Chairman, 6 y e's .
7 THE WITNESS : Yes.
8 A (Continuing.) -- that it includes both the hardware 9 and the form. That is, in essence, the definition of 10 that task.
11 Under your provision, you're making a distinction 12 between the hardware and the form and calling just the
( 13 hardware the " quality inspection" and the form an " extra 14 task," I suppose.
l 15 Which is it?
16 BY MR. BERRY:
17 0 Well, the purpose of any reinspection that you proposed 18 in your testimony is to --
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Berry, are you speaking 20 of the reinspection, now, of the hardware?
21 MR. BERRY: Well, I believe the testimony is 22 that to ascertain the extent of any possible harassment 23 or intimidation, they would ultimately have to go back 24 and do a reinspection.
25 I think the witness' testimony is the reinspection O
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
l 1
(312) 232-0262
- . . . . . . - - , . - - - - .. . . . - . _ . . - , - . . . - - , - . - . - - . . . - - . . . . ~ -
. - - . - - . . . . _ . . . . _ . . . . . . ~ . , ~ . - . - - . - . , . . . , . . . _ . . - - .
4432 0
1 would be directed toward the hardware.
2 THE WITN ESS : That's true.
3 BY MR. BERRY:
4 Q Am I correct? l 5 A Right.
6 Q So isn't it ultimately the hardware, the quality of 7 construction, that we' re looking for?
8 A That's the ultimate objective, as I understand it.
9 MR. B ERRY: Thank you, Dr. Arvey.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Did you have anything f or 11 the witness?
12 JUDGE COLE: No.
O 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Did you have anything?
14 JUDGE CALLIHAN: I've got a couple of 15 questions.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Do you want to ask him now?
17 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Yes.
18 BOARD EXAMINATION 19 BY JUDGE CALLIHAN:
20 Q In one of your recommendations, Dr. Arvey, you cite near 21 the 'end of your testimony that, quote, "I would probably 22 use an interview approach, followed by a carefully 23 constructed survey," unquote.
24 That, together with other references that we' ve 25 heard this morning to reinspection programs or it's i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 ,
l (312) 232-0262 l
s 4433 O
1 sometimes called overinspection programs, brings this to 2 mind:
3 What, in your judgment, are the compelling f actors 4 that one would have to recognize and meet in 5 establishing an adequate and satisf actory reinspection 6 program for the purpose, obviously, not only of judging 7 the performance of inspectors but -- what's more 8 important -- the quality of the work?
9 To repeat my question , what -- in addition to the 10 obvious one that's already en mentioned, what factors i
11 would have to be brought into the formulation of a 12 proper and satisf actory overinspection or reinspection 13 program?
14 A Of the hardware that you' re referring to?
15 Q Yes. This is hardware.
16 A That's a good question.
17 The problem I have is I don't know anything about 18 the hardware. I don't know how many people it takes to 19 do a reinspection or how long it takes or how many 20 people need to agree that an inspection meets quality 21 standards and so forth, so I really resisted trying to 22 get into how you would do that without further study on ;
23 my part.
24 I really need to know more about the actual ,
I 25 hardware, the number of' hardware issues, the number of, Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, Illinois aulae (312) 232-0262
l 4434 l O
1 you know -- what's the -- what's the maximum possible 2 reinspections. I'm not even sure how many welds there 3 are out there.
4 So I really have deferred on trying to tackle that 5 prvoiem at this point.
6 Q Within the limit, of course, in the extreme, one could 7 do 100 percent of all the welds or all the pipe 8 joints --
9 A Right.
10 0 -- or whatnot.
11 That may not be practical from a cost standpoint.
12 A Sure.
. 13 Q Do you have a judgment of what would be adequate 14 sampling?
15 That's obviously~what we're talking about.
16 A Sure.
17 I certainly don' t -- from my limited knowledge, I 18 don't think we need 100 percent.
19 Can you give me a feeling for how many welds there 20 are out there that we' re talking about?
.21 Q No, I really can't.
22 A Are we talking 10,000?
23 Q There must be thousands and thousands, yes. ,
! 24 A If I were to speculate, I don't think you need -- if I
25 you've got that kind of number, if you do a truly random i
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 t I (312) 232-0262 ,
b
4435 O
1 sampling kind of procedure, you could do like 10,000 or 2 a tenth, a 10 percent sample, as long as it's clearly a 3 random sample of those products or those particular 4 welds.
5 You know, beyond that, I just really wouldn't want 6 to speculate about the design of that -- of that 7 process.
8 Q Would you consider anonymity -- and I'll come back and 9 define that in a moment in this context.
10 would you consider anonymity an important part of a 11 reinspection program?
12 I'll define " anonymity" as the absence of i -
13 knowledge, on the part of the reinspector, of the 14 identity of the first inspector, on the one hand, and 15 even of the craf tsman.
16 A I think that would be a valuable safeguard, yes.
17 I think that you -- you might even try to get a 18 reinspection team f rom some individuals outside the 19 organization, if you were really trying to maintain 20 neutrality and confidentiality here, too.
t 21 0 Well, I think that's sort of foregone, and it was that 22 point that you made earlier to which I alluded, of 23 course, that it would certainly be desirable to follow l
24 that.
I I 25 A Yes.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, 1111nois oulag (312) 232-0262
4436 O
1 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Thank you very much.
2 THE WITNESS: Sure.
3 BOARD EXAMINATION 4 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
5 Q Dr. Arvey, with regard to this random sampling rather 6 than 100 percent, that, I take it, would be to 7 determine, in the first instance, if we had a 8 significant problem; is that correct?
9 In other words -- well, let me ask you the whole 10 thing, even though they may be -- it's more than one 11 question.
12 If, in the first instance, from a random sampling 13 you determine that there was a significant hardware 14 problem, might it then be necessary to conduct a 100 15 percent reinspection program?
16 A That's a good poin$. I think you' re -- I would agree 17 with that.
18 Suppose you find -- you do a 10 percent survey or 19 sampling and you find that of that 10 percent -- let's 20 say you' ve done 1,000 welds, for example -- that 30 21 percent have significant defects, that would be a clear 22 indication that a much larger sample, if not the total 23 universe or population, needs to be reinspected.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Thank you.
25 Mr. Guild?
s
, Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. i Geneva, Illinois 601J4 (312) 232-0262
4437 1 MR. GUILD: May I have a moment, your Honor?
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Did you wish to take a 3 recess now?
4 MR. GUILD: If we could, I'd like to take 5 five minutes.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Why don' t we take a 7 seven-minute recess?
8 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which 9 the proceedings were resumed as follows:)
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We' re back in session.
11 Mr. Guild?
12 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, if I can inquire 13 about the status of the document Mr. Miller had marked 14 for identification Applicant's 39, the NRC Form 3, I 15 didn't understand him to offer it in evidence at this 16 time.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I didn' t even understand 18 that you had marked it for identification.
19 Had you?
20 MR. MILL ER : Yes, I did.
21 Your Honor, I would offer it. .
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You are offering that?
23 MR. . MILL ER : At this time, yes, please.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Any objection?
25 MR. GUILD: Yes, we do object to that 1
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. I ueneva, 1111nois ouAas (312) 232-0262 1
. . - - - . . . . - - - - - . - - - - . - - - . - ~ .-. . . . , ~ - - - - - -
l
4438 s
O 1 document being received through Dr. Arvey.
2 I don't dispute that it's an authentic copy, 3 although it looks like it's cut off a little bit on the 4 right-hand side.
5 It's simply a document that was put in f ront of Dr. >
6 Arvey. He's obviously not competent to either sponsor 7 the document or offer any commentary on it except by way 8 of what Mr. Miller chooses to ask him.
9 I don't argue with the document being in evidence, 10 but I believe really properly it ought to be sponsored 11 through the NRC so they can explain what it is and what 12 the circumstances of its public5 tion are.
() 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, it was used for a 14 limited purpose. I think that was achieved with the 15 examination of Dr. Arvey on it.
16 Do you have any further purpose for it?
17 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, I'm searching my 18 memory as to whether or not Mr. Seese testified this was 19 a portion of the materials that he used in his training 20 of QC Inspectors.
21 It is my recollection that he did so. I don't 22 believe it was identified or moved into evidence at that 23 point in time, and I would do so now.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, tell me what the 25 document is.
O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4439 O
1 MR. MILLER: This is an NRC Form 3, and I do 2 apologize for the quality of the reproduction. Perhaps 3 we can get better ones.
4 I believe that Mr. Seese testified that this was a 5 document that he used in his training of Quality Control 6 Inspectors at L. K. Comstock, and my examination of Dr.
7 Arvey establishes that one of the elements -- at least 8 one of the elements of this NRC Form 3 is pertinent to 9 his evaluation of whether or not the inspectors are 10 likely to resist pressure to overlook defective 11 construction.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Is it correct, Mr. Guild,
( 13 that Mr. Seese did lay that foundation?
14 MR. GUILD: I simply don't recall. If Mr.
15 Miller says it's so, I take him at his word.
16 MR. BERRY: Mr. Chairman, it is the Staff's i 17 recollection that Mr. Seese did testify that this was 18 one of the materials that he used in the training i
19 classes or orientation classes that he conducted with 20 his newly-hired QC Inspectors. ,
21 Furthermore, certainly the Staff doesn't question f
22 the authenticity of this document. As I understand it, 23 this is a copy of the notice that the NRC regulations 24 require to be posted in all nuclear sites.
25 The Staff doesn't object to the admission of this Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, Allinois oulae (312) 232-0262
. ,.. .-__ -.._ ,. . . ~ .- - ,. . - . - . . . - .. -
4440 1 document at this time. Certainly through Dr. Arvey it 2 has limited relevance for that, but there will be Staff 3 witnesses available to explain --
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, if that's the case, 5 Mr. Berry, we can take official notice of the fact that 6 that's so.
7 If anything comes up that contradicts that, we'll 8 take that into account, but at this point, then, we will 1 9 admit this into evidence.
10 (Applicant's Exhibit No. 3 9 for 11 identification was thereupon received in 12 evidence as Applicant's Exhibit No. 39 in O 13 evidence.)
14 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, could I ask simply 15 that Applicant provide a better copy of the document for 16 the record?
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You' re certainly entitled to 18 that, Mr. Guild.
19 Mr. Miller? 1 20 MR. GUILD: One point I would make is that as 21 a result of the Board's ruling in the Catawba !
22 proceeding, this form was revised by the Director of 23 Inspection and Enforcement; and I just cannot make out 24 on this poor copy the revision date that appears in the 25 left corner.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 I
i 4441 l
()
1 It is important, since it provided a change in the 2 provision with respect to employee protection rights, 3 and so I would appreciate a clearer copy.
4 MR. MILLER: Fe'11 do that.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. We would expect that 6 we'll be getting a copy that's relevant to this case.
,7 If it turns out this has been revised after -- very 8 recently, I would expect that we would have the
. 9 appropriate copy.
10 MR. MILLER: I agree with that, your Honor.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine.
12 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, Intervenors have no 13 redirect examination for Dr. Arvey.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Miller?
15 MR. MILLER: I just have a very few 16 questions, Dr. Arvey.
17 CROSS EXAMINATION 18 .(Continued) i l
19 BY MR. MILLER:
20 Q At the time you prepared your testimony, Dr. Arvey, the )
21 background materials that you reviewed are the ones that 22 are set forth at Page 4 of your prepared testimony; that 23 is, the statement of the contention, and there are three 24 Staff memoranda -- NRC Staff memoranda you referred to; j 25 correct?
O Sonntag Reporting Service, , Ltd.
ueneva, 1112nois oviae ,
(312) 232-0262 l
4442
}
1 A Correct.
2 MR. GUILD: There's also more than one other 3 document referred to in that same portion of his 1
4 testimony.
5 Look at Page 3, Mike.
6 MR. MILLER : I'm sorry. I 7 BY MR. MILLER :
I 8 Q And you also reviewed the Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, 9 the NRC's quality assurance regulation; correct?
10 A Correct.
11 Q In response I think to Judge Grossman and Judge 12 Callihan, you indicated that a 100 percent reinspection 13 is not necessary, at least in the first instance; that 14 perhaps a 10 percent what you characterized as a 15 " sample" would be sufficient.
16 Is that a sample that is called statistically 17 selected or is that just a percentage figure that you 18 adopted in your answer?
19 A That's a percentage figure.
20 I think I'd like the Examining Board to take note 21 that that's speculation and sort of off the top of my 22 head here. I really would need to get the specifics of 23 the plant and the numbers and all that before I really 24 designed a study of that sort. l l
25 0 In f act, a 10 percent sample is considerably larger than l l \
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ,
Geneva, Illinois 6U1J 4 l (312) 232-0262
4443 0
1 most statistically-based samples that operate at a 2 confidence and reliability level of, say, 95, 99 3 percent?
4 A Well, I'm talking about -- in the context of the 10 5 percent figure here, I'm talking about the percentage of 6 the population that you would draw for your 7 reinspection. In other words, 10 percent of the 8 population of welds out there; you would reach in and 9 randomly grab 10 percent.
10 I'm not referring here to any statistical 11 confidence intervals or significance tests.
12 Q I see.
( 13 And, in fact, 10 percent is significantly larger 14 than any number necessary to reach, say, a 9F percent 15 confidence level with a 99 percent reliability?
16 A I think what you' re doing, Mr. Miller, is confusing the 17 sample size or percentage size with the rules of thumb 18 that you would use to determine statistical significance 19 and/or confidence intervals.
20 The confidence intervals usually are as you've 21 stated, 95 percent or 99 percent, or the significance 22 levels of .05 or .01. But that's diff erent than the 10 23 percent sample size that I was, off the top of my head, 24 suggesting as a selection.
25 0 Well, I'm the first one to admit that my knowledge of O
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, 1111nois oulag (312) 232-0262
., . .. - ~ - , , , , --.
, . . . = , , , , -- .
4444 l
()
1 statistics is really pretty primitive.
2 But if you'll just bear with me, in order to reach 3 certain statistical -- or be able to make certain 4 statistical statements with a certain reliability and 5 confidence level, there are minimal sample sizes that 6 must be examined; correct?
7 A That's not true.
8 You can find significance even with really small 9 samples. Your statistical test takes into account the 10 small sample size involved. It's harder to achieve 11 statistical significance because of a small sample, but 12 it doesn't preclude you doing that.
13 Q In any event, your 10 percent number was really just
! 14 kind of a, as you say, off-the-top suggestion?
15 A That's correct.
16 Q To the extent, Dr. Arvey, that such a 10 percent sample 17 reinspection has already occurred by an organization 18 independent of Comstock, wouldn't that be the first 19 place one would look in order to determine whether there 20 was a -- I don't know what you would say -- pervasive 1
21 problem or a problem with def ects that had been 22 overlooked by the Comstock QC Inspectois?
23 A When does that inspection occur in the process?
24 Q Assume with me that it occurs roughly contemporaneous 1y 25 with the inspection by the Comstock QC personnel; that Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
, (312) 232-0262 l -
4445 O
1 is, within a relatively short period of time af ter the 2 Comstock QC Inspector has completed his or her 3 inspection, there is, as a matter of routine, a 13 4 percent random-sample overinspection by Pittsburgh 5 Testing Laboratory of the weld inspections that have 6 been completed.
7 A Your question is: Is that sufficient?
8 Q No.
9 Wouldn't that be the first place you'd look in 10 order to determine --
11 A Oh, I suppose you would look at that inf ormation, right.
12 0 And when you prepared your testimony recommending that
( 13 the work itself be -- that " data concerning the work 14 itself be ascertained" -- that's the _ast sentence in 15 your testimony -- you were unaware of the Pittsburgh 16 Testing Laboratory activity which I've just described to 17 you?
18 A That's correct.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Miller, are you staying 20 within the scope of your redirect or are these questions 21 that you should have asked in the first place that we' re 22 getting right now?
23 MR. MILL ER : I believe that your Honor and
- 24 Judge Callihan opened up this examination yourselves.
25 JUDGE COLE: We did.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois culae (312) 232-0262
l 4446 l l
(5) 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, there's a certain 2 ' amount that we opened up, that's correct, but -- okay.
3 I just want to keep you to the limits here.
4 BY MR. MILLER :
5 Q I'm also correct that by an analysis of this data, this 6 overinspection data that I've just described, one could 7 determine whether there was, in fact, significant 8 hardware problems such as would warrant further 9 reinspection; correct?
l 10 A I believe you're correct.
11 Q Lastly, Dr. Arvey, I think Judge Grossman asked you 12 about your opinion as to whether the inspectors 13 themselves may, in f act, not be cognizant of def ects 14 that they' ve overlooked. I think then, in response to 15 Mr. Berry, you discussed the proofreading ex&mple.
16 If the question is put to a QC Inspector who would 17 be sitting in the very same chair that you are and it is 18 asked generally and specifically and the inspector is 19 allowed to be as discursive as he wished in describing 20 his activities, is it nonetheless your opinion that that 21 testimony is simply unworthy of belief by this Licensing 22 Board?
23 A I don' t -- I would not submit that to be true.
j 24 I think you have to, as any Examination Board, try 25 to find corroborating evidence and try to find ways to O
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4447 l
()
1 corroborate whether the evidence presented is, in f act, i
2 correct; and you've got a number of checks and balances l l
3 here in the hearing that can try to triangulate on that 4 evidence to determine its truthfulness or accuracy.
5 MR. MILLER: Thank you.
6 I have no further questions.
7 BOARD EXAMINATION 8 BY JUDGE COLE:
- 9 Q I just have one question, Dr. Arvey, related to 10 something that Mr. Miller just brought up, just a small 11 point concerning this Pittsburgh Testing Lab 10 percent 12 overinspection and the statistical reliability or 13 significance which we might attach to that.
14 As the population size f rom which we draw this 10 15 percent sample increases, is it safe to say that the 16 significance which we give to the results is greater?
17 We have a large number of, for example, welds in 18 the population being sampled.
19 Does the validity or significance of the results 20 increase as the sample size increases, as the size of 21 the population upon which we dr'aw. those samples 22 increases?
23 A That's correct.
24 Q In your studies, have you looked at any rules of thumb 25 for different percentage samples out of different O
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, Illinois oulae (312) 232-0262
4448 l
()
1 population size?
2 Do you recall any of those rules?
3 A Yes. The question is a good one.
4 Generally in the social sciences and the 5 populations that we' re dealing with -- they' re usually 6 employee populations, and we -- many studies in our 7 field will try to get 100 percent. That's our objective 8 because we' re talking 200 or 300 people, at the most.
9 Then when we send out questionnaires or surveys or 10 try to get some kind of measurement system on all those, .
l 11 typically we f ail. Usually it's somewhere between 50 to 12 40 to 30 percent, and so there's always this question of 13 whether you've got a select sample of representation 14 here.
15 Now, your situation, at least in the hardware, is 16 of an entirely different ballgame because you have a 17 much larger population and you can indeed randomly 18 select and get that kind of inf ormation. So you don't 19 have any problem with the representation of that sample 20 to that population in general if you've done your 21 sampling correctly. ,
1 22 And you' re -- kind of pursuing the line that you' re 23 getting at, to the degree that you've done a good random 24 sample, you can saf ely generalize to that larger 25 population. The sample size, though, becomes -- has Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 )
l
i 4449
'()
1 more fidelity to that population the larger your sample 2 is.
, 3 Do you follow the point I'm making?
4 Q Yes.
5 A Now, in terms of guidelines about what you should need, 6 I don't feel very comfortable offering that right now, 7 because most of my stuff is in the social sciences. J 8 Q I understand, sir. I'm in the same position.
9 But with sample sizes on the order of 10,000 or 10 more, what is your feeling about the reliability --
11 A Oh, very precise.
12 0 -- about the reliability of a 10 percent random sample?
13 A Oh, very precise.
14 BOARD EXAMINATION 15 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
16 Q Sir, without knowing the particulars of the Pittsburgh 17 Testing Laboratory's study or reinspection or i
18 overinspection program, can you determine in advance the 19 validity of that particular reinspection program?
20 A Well, if I knew -- I don't have that now. l 21 But if I had a lot of information about their 22 sample procedures, their methodology, the checks and l 23 balances that are involved, the neutralities and so 24 forth, I think I could offer some -- some degree of I -
25 confidence in that program.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. _
ueneva, 1111nois culag (312) 232-0262 l
4450 0
1 Q Okay.
2 But you do not have that inf ormation?
3 A No. I have no inf ormation about that at all.
4 This is sort of -- other than the name, I don't 5 know anything about it.
i 6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Berry?
7 MR. BERRY: No other questions, your Honor.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild?
9 MR. GUILD: No questions, Mr. Chairman.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Thank you very much, Dr.
11 Arvey.
12 THE WITNESS: Thank you. I appreciate being
, 13 here.
14 (Witness excused.)
15 MR. GUILD: I understand we have another 16 witness coming, but can we take a brief recess?
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. We've excused Dr.
18 Arvey, and I guess the next witness is Mr. Snyder coming 19 back on the stand. All right.
20 (WHEREU PON, a recess was had, after which 21 the proceedings were resumed as follows:)
i 22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We're back in session.
23 We lef t off yesterday with Mr. Berry ready to begin 24 his cross examination.
25 Mr. Snyder, let me remind you that you remain under l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
4451 O
1 cath.
2 Mr. Berry?
3 MR. BERRY: Good morning, Mr. Snyder.
4 THE WITN ESS : Good morning.
5 RICH ARD '5NYDER 6 recalled as a witness by the Applicant herein, having been 7 previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further as 8 f ollows:
, 9 CROSS EXAMINATION 10 BY MR. BERRY:
- 11 Q Mr. Snyder, yesterday you were asked some questions by 12 Mr. Guild toward the latter part of the day, asking you 13 whether you had any knowledge of any inspector who had l
l 14 made errors but had not been disciplined or terminated.
15 Do you recall that testimony?
16 A Yes, sir.
17 Q And I believe you identified Mr. Coss as an individual i 18 who made errors in his work and hadn't been disciplined 19 or terminated.
20 A Yes, sir.
21 Q Do you know whether the errors made by Mr. Coss were the I 22 subject of an audit finding by Commonwealth Edison or an l
+
23 item of noncompliance by the Nuclear Regulatory i
j 24 Commission?
25 A No, sir. I do not know how that came about.
l Conntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, Illinois ou14e 1
, (312) 232-0262 l
\
l 4452
(
l Q Do you know -- do you know or are you aware that in 2 order to address an adverse finding or an issue of 3 noncompliance by the NRC, that the recipient is required 4 to take adequate measures to prevent recurrence of that 5 type of error or deficiency?
6 A Yes, sir.
7 Q Would you agree that one way to minimize the recurrence 8 of a particular deficiency or type of error is to remove 9 or replace the person who made the error?
10 A Yes, sir.
11 Q Could this explain why Mr. Seeders could have been
, 12 transferred?
13 A I'm sure, yes, sir.
14 Q How about Mr. Martin?
, 15 A Yes, sir.
It; O I believe also you had indicated that Mr. Saklak was --
17 appeared to be under some strain, I g sess, because he 18 was the only -- only supervisor supervising all the
- 19 other inspectors.
20 Do you recall that?
21 A Yes, sir.
22 Q Did Mr. Saklak also -- did his area of responsibility 23 also include supervising the welding inspectors?
24 A I -- I cannot recall for sure.
25 I originally had said he was in charge of everyone.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4453 O
1 When I hired in in '84, July of '84, I cannot recall who 2 was the -- in charge of welding, whether that was Worley
, 3 Puckett at that time.
4 I know that Mr. Saklak was in charge of at least 5 everyone else other than welding. Now, he may not have
. 6 had that duty of welding supervisor.
7 Q Did you know Mr. Puckett?
l 8 A Yes, sir; not well, but I remember the man.
9 Q Did you know -- do you know what his responsibilities 10 were?
11 A He was hired, from what I know, as the Level III weld --
- 12 welding supervisor.
( 13 I'm not sure if he was working in that capacity.
- 14 Maybe he was, since he was hired, but he -- he was going
! 15 through the testing and the training.
16 Q Do you know if, in fact, Mr. Puckett supervised any weld j 17 inspectors?
18 A I do not know for sure.
I
! 19 If he wasn't the supervisor at that time, then Mr.
t
) 20 Saklak would have been closely involved, I would say, 21 because Mr. Puckett was apparently not certified because 22 he had never passed his test.
l 23 Q Mr. Snyder, I'd like to direct your attention to two i
24 exhibits, Applicant's exhibits, Applicant's Exhibits 24 25 and 35.
! O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, AAAAnois ouAas .
(312) 232-0262
1 i
j 4454 i
O l
1 Do you have those before you?
2 A I've got 35.
3 Is 24 the procedure?
4 Q Yes, it is.
5 A Okay. Yes, sir, I have them.
6 Q I want to direct your attention to the last page of 7 Applicant's Exhibit 35.
8 A Yes, sir.
9 Q Is this document what is called a GIR?
4 10 A Yes, sir, Form 104.
11 Q That's a General Inspection Report?
12 A Yes, sir.
13 Q I believe in response to a question by Mr. Miller, that i
i 14 you had indicated that it was a violation -- that Mr.
i 15 Seeders had violated procedure by not issuing an ICR, an 16 Inspection Correction Report, for this particular 17 wrench, torque wrench No. A174.
18 Do you recall that testimony?
19 A Yes, sir.
20 Q Now, I believe you indicated the violation of Paragraph
! 21 3.3.7 of Procedure 4.9.1, which is Applicant's Exhibit 22 24; is that correct?
23 A Yes, sir, I would say.
24 Q I'd like for you te explain to me, to the Board and to 25 the other parties as well why precisely an ICR was I
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
! (312) 232-0262
1 i
4455 \
O 1 required to be written for this particular deficiency.
2 Because the GIR that was written by Mr. Seeders 3 appears to reflect that the torque wrench was broken or 4 had a broken collar spring but it wasn't necessarily out 5 of calibration, whereas the procedure speaks to tools 6 outside the calibration limits.
7 Could you explain why a GIR was improper in this 8 case?
9 A Yes, sir. I'll try here.
10 This goes back to again I think the vagueness of 11 the procedure; but Mr. Seeders took it upon himself, in 12 my opinion, to state on this GIR that the tool -- there O 13 was no problem with the tool. It did have a broken 14 collar spring, and he stated that the calibration was 15 not af f ected by t? :.s condition.
16 Now, I know : was not a professional -- an expert 17 on torque wrenches. Neither am I, and that's more or 18 less an engineering determination to say who -- excuse 19 me; to say whether this tool was good or not.
20 In that respect, I would say, if you refer to the 21 Paragraph 3.3.7, that you would not know whether that 22 tool was acceptable tolerance or not.
23 So in my opinion, I would write the ICR and not 24 make this determination; let the engineer do so on an 25 ICR.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd., ,
ueneva, IAAinois ouAag (312) 232-0262
4456 O
1 -Q Now, this GIR -- is it processed the same as an ICR or 2 is there --
3 A No, sir. It's more or less just an information sheet, 4 the way I see it.
5 I think it's causing more problems than it -- than 6 it was good, because too many people may have used it 7 when they shouldn't have, and I believe -- the top of 8 this GIR is cut off, but this GIR was originally set up 9 for one procedure only. I want to say 4.8.3. If you 10 could ever get ahold of a good copy, it would have it at 11 the top.
12 So the original GIR's were only to be used for this 13 certain procedure, area of inspection, and people used 14 it for all other uses as well.
15 Q Do you recall -- I'm sorry. Did you complete your 16 answer?
17 A Yes, sir.
18 Q Do you recall what procedure or what area or activity 19 Procedure 4.8.3 relates to?
20 A I may have my procedure numbers turned around. It could 21 be 4.3.8. s 22 0 The calibration procedure?
23 A No, sir, it was not calibration.
24 I cannot recall. We had to go through these 25 recently. They were pulled out of the vault, and we had i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 4457 i
l l
CE) 1 to -- there was an NCR written on that problem. The NCR l 2 nuncer was 4946. I recall that because recently we went 3 through these, and they were all taken care of on this 4 NCR, supposedly.
5 I never read the NCR, but it was a generic NCR, 6 written by management, against all the GIR's that were 7 used improperly, and they were reviewed -- re-reviewed 8 by us. -
9 In my case, the calibration GIR's were reviewed by 10 me and a couple other certified inspectors, and the 11 other areas reviewed the GIR's that applied to those 12 areas.
13 0 Mr. Snyder, you were also asked some questions yesterday 14 by Mr. Guild relating to I guess your first visit to the 15 NRC.
16 A Yes, sir.
17 0 That w,ss on March 13, 1985.
18 Do you recall that testimony?
19 A Yes, sir.
20 0 I believe your concern was that some of the Comstock 21 management personnel, supervisory personnel, were not 22 certified in the particular areas they supervised; is 23 that correct?
24 A Yes, sir; my supervisor as well as my Lead, yes, sir.
25 0 You also have a concern that these individuals were not O
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, AA11nois oulae (312) 232-0262
4458
()
1 qualified. ,
2 A Well, again I think I -- the way that was worded, I
! 3 believe he said " qualified" - " certified" in that memo.
4 Maybe -- maybe I'm wrong here, but I believe you have to i,
i 5 be qualified to be certified.
t 6 I stated that my Lead had no prior experience, 7 although per Commonwealth Edison procedure and Comstock, 8 the 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of training was acceptable enough, as well 9 as testing, to be certified, i
l 10 So it was just a concern of mine that I had.
l 11 Q Okay.
i 12 I believe -- Intervenors' Exhibit 41 is a I a v 13 memorandum f rom Mr. McGregor to Mr. Forney.
l 14 MR. BERRY: Can you make that available to 15 the witness?
16 THE WITNESS: Sir, I don' t have a copy.
17 MR. GUILD: Yes. I have a copy.
18 (Indicating.)
I 19 THE WITNESS : Thank you.
I i 20 BY MR. BERRY:
i j 21 Q Do you recall seeing that -- that document yesterday?
i j 22 A I -- yes, I recall. I've never read the cover letter i 23 here.
I 24 MR. GUILD: Judea, copies h' ave not been made 1
l 25 and distributed. I apologize. There's only the single
! ()
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l ~
_. _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . - . ~ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ __-..- _ _ _.__ _ .____ _ _.. _ ._. _ .
4459
)
1 copy that's bef ore the witness and --
2 A (Continuing. ) Yes, sir, I remember.
3 BY MR. BERRY:
4 Q If you haven't read the covering memorandum, please take 5 a f ew moments to read it now.
6 MR. GUILD: The marked exhibit also had the 7 four attachments, Judge.
8 MR. BERRY: (Indicating.)
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Do you need them?
10 MR. BERRY: No.
t 11 A Yes, sir, I've read it.
12 BY MR. BERRY:
13 Q Does Intervenors' Exhibit 41 -- does that accurately 14 reflect the concern that you -- that you had?
15 A Well, yes, except the word -- he says " qualifications" 16 again down about two-thirds of the way: "
The Lead 17 Inspector Ray Nemeth does not have any qualifications."
18 That should be " certifications," I believe, and not i 19 " qualifications." I cannot determine if a man is 20 qualified f or that job.
21 Again, I believe they make the same statement down 22 here that Larry Phillips had two or three years -- had 23 not been qualified in anything but receipt inspection.
24 There's a big difference there, I think.
25 0 With that clarification, does that --
i O
1 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, AAAinois ouAag (312) 232-0262 i
. . _ _ . . , . _ . . . . . . _ - , __ . . _ . - . - , _ . .__m ,, _ - . _ . , , , , - . . _ . -
4 4460 l
l O
1 A Yes, sir.
2 0 -- does the memorandum otherwise accurately reflect the 3 concerns that you expressed to Mr. McGregor?
4 A Yes, sir.
5 0 Was Mr. McGregor receptive to your concerns when you 6 came to him that day?
7 A Yes, sir. I sat down with him in his office, and we 8 talked maybe an hour; I don' t know.
9 Q Did you tell Mr. McGregor everything that you knew about 10 this matter so that the NRC could investigate it 11 further?
12 A Yes, sir. That's why I took him the information
( 13 attached, because he could get right on it, and I had my 14 facts with me then.
15 Q You didn't hold anything back f rom him, did you?
16 A No, sir.
17 Q Did you have any reluctance or any hesitancy to --
18 A No, sir.
l 19 Q -- tell him anything?
20 A He was very helpful, I thought, very attentive, and he i 21 -- I believe he did tell me he would get back with me i
22 after we finished our conversation; and if I recall, he 23 did. I think he called me on the phone and told me the
\
l 24 progress of what was happening. ,
)
4 25 Q That concern -- the concern expressed in Inte'rvenors' I I
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. .
ueneva, 1111nols oulag ,
(312) 232-0262
4461 0 Exhibit 41 doesn't involve harassment or intimidation by 1
2 LKC management, does it?
3 A No, sir.
4 Q Now, on March 29th you went -- returned to the NRC 4
5 resident inspector's office; is that correct?
6 A Yes, sir.
7 Q You went to complain about Mr. Saklak?
8 A Yes, sir.
9 Q And five other inspectors went with you?
10 A Yes, sir.
11 Q And they basically went through -- did they also
~
12 complain about Mr. Saklak?
() 13 A I think one or two of them did mention his name again.
14 They had -- the other five men had worked there longer i
15 than I had and knew him better than I did, probably.
16 Q They went to back you up?
17 A Yes, sir.
18 Q Did you or any of the other inspectors that accompanied i 19 you to the NRC that morning, March 29, 1985, have any 20 allegations or complaints about any of Edison's i
21 personnel?
]
22 A Not that I recall.
I 23 0 What did you hope to accomplish when you went to the NRC i
l 24 that morning? ,
i i
! 25 A Well, it was -- I was just reluctant to go to Comstock l 1
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. _
ueneva, AAAAnois ouAag (312) 232-0262
)
4462 0
1 management, and I didn't know anyone well enough to go 2 to Edison.
3 I probably wouldn't have anyway, but Quality First 4 -- we had been to Quality First one time. I think when 5 they started the Quality First Program, they called us 6 all over one at a time, and I expressed concern at that 7 time -- I can' t recall the date -- about my supervisor.
8 I never got a response, but I just decided to take 9 it to who I thought would get something done or who the 10 top people on the job were.
l 11 0 When you say "get something done," what did you mean by i 12 that -- what do you mean by that?
) 13 What did you -- was there anything in particular or 14 specific that you had in mind that you hoped to 15 accomplish, hoped to achieve?
16 A Well, I thought, from the threat I'd received, that 17 something should be done about it. I -- I didn ' t know 18 what would be done.
19 I assumed the ultimate would be a termination for 20 Mr. Saklak, although that was not up to me. That's the 21 reason I went to the NRC. I thought that Comstock 22 management would again write him up or whatever and he 23 would still be my boss, and then I had to work for the 24 man.
25 Q And after you went to the NRC, was Mr. Saklak Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 i
4463 O
1 terminated?
2 A Yes, sir.
3 0 So did that address your -- did that address your 4 problem or -- that prompted you to go to the NRC?
5 A Yes, sir. That was my only concern, and yes, sir, it 6 did take care of the problem.
7 0 Mr. Snyder, I'm going to read an excerpt f rom an 8 inspection report conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory 9 Commission into the allegations -- one of the 10 allegations that were expressed -- raised by you and 11 some of the other inspectors on March 29,1985, at the 12 second meeting, the roughly lunchtime meeting.
( 13 A Yes.
14 Q I'm going to read f rom Page 13 of the inspection report, 15 which would be Inspection Report 852122, Concern 3, 16 where the NRC inspectors state -- and this is in 17 response to -- regarding Mr. Saklak -- that Mr. Saklak, 18 quote, "had an abrasive and aggressive personality and 19 was very quick to lose his temper when inspectors' 20 findings or interpretations were counter to his 21 interpretations of procedures or requirements.
22 "At that time it was alleged that he" -- Mr. Saklak 23 -
"would become abusive and irate and threaten the 24 inspector with dismissal. "
25 Would you say that's an accurate description of Mr.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, 1111nols oviae (312) 232-0262
4464 l
l
- (:) :
1 Saklak?
2 A I would say yes, pretty accurate.
3 0 Can you tell us who else, if anyone, among Comstock 4 management or supervisory personnel also easily lost 5 their temper when challenged or questioned on 6 procedures?
7 A I know of no other -- no other person like that that 8 lost their temper like that.
9 Q Could you tell us who else, if anyone, in Comstock 10 management or supervisory personnel had an abrasive 11 personality?
12 A No, sir.
13 Q Do you know -- could you tell us who else, if anyone, 14 among Comstock management or supervisory personnel 15 berated inspectors?
j 16 A No, sir.
17 0 Could you tell us who else, if anyone, among Comstock f 18 management or supervisory personnel verbally abused
, 19 inspectors?
, 20 A No, sir.
j 21 Q Bow about the same question with respect to threatening l 22 them with firing?
! No, sir, I know of none.
23 A i
l 24 Q How about the same question with respect to threatening, 25 inspectors with physical harm?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
_ . . _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ .._ _ . _ - _ _ _ _
4465
(
l A No, sir.
2 0 Who replaced Mr. Saklak, if you know?
3 A Joe Hii.
4 Q Did Mr. Hii follow Mr. Saklak's management style?.
S A No, sir.
6 0 Since March 29, 1985, did they -- the date that you went 7 to the NRC to complain about Mr. Saklak, has anyone at 8 Comstock in the Comstock management or supervisory QC 9 position ever engaged in the type of conduct or similar 10 conduct of which you complained to the NRC?
11 A No, sir. '
12 Q Well, then, didn' t Mr. Saklak's departure, then, reduce l 13 considerably the tension between management and the QC 14 Inspectors?
t 15 A I would say yes.
16 Q I'd likc to direct your attention to Transcript Page
- 17 4271. I believe that would be the Friday transcript.
I 18 At Line 2 -- starting on Line 2, there is a l; 19 question and answer. I'll makt it available to the 20 witness.
f, j 21 (Indicating.)
22 MR. GUILD: Mr. Berry, might I ask if you are 23 done with Intervenors' Exhibit 41?
l 24 ER. BERRY: Yes, yes, I am.
l 25 MR. GUILD: I'll send it upstairs for Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, Illinois cul3e l (312) 232-0262 '
l l
-m-l 4466 l
(:)
1 copying.
2 BY MR. BERRY:
3 Q Starting on Line 2 of Transcript Page 4271, there 4 appears a question and answer.
5 Do you see that?
6 A Yes, sir.
7 Q Would you read that to yourself up to -- Line 2 to Line 8 47 9 A Yes, sir.
10 Q And the question was:
11 "Q After Mr. Saklak was terminated, did the 12 tension that you have described -- was
- ( 13 it reduced?
14 "A No, not completely. I would say no."
15 I wonder if you could explain to us the source of 16 . any ' remaining tension.
17 A I think in your previous question you asked me whether 18 it was considerably reduced, to which I answered yes.
19 Q Correct. I did.
20 A And when I answered yes, I had in mind the union, if you 21 want to call it union friction there.
22 That wasn't going on so much in March or April of 23 '85. I think -- yes, sir. Excuse me. It was.
24 People were anxious to get the union involved --
excuse me; in session, if you want to call it that, so O , 25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 50134
- (312) 232-0262
. . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . _ . . . .-- . . . . . . - . . - . . . - ..-- _ = . - . . - - .
4467 O
1 they could start supporting us as employees, because 2 prior to that there was no support. We was -- it was 3 won on the company. I think that was bothering a lot of 4 people because --
5 0 Was there any other source of tension, aside from 6 collective bargaining, the question of the 7 labor-management dispute?
8 A None that I recall, no, sir.
9 0 We've discussed what has been commonly referred to 10 throughout this proceeding as the "Saklak-Snyder 11 incident."
12 Now, when Mr. Saklak made the statement to you that
( 13 prompted you to complain to the NRC, did he appear to be 14 upset?
15 A Yes, sir.
16 Q Do you -- do you know why he was upset?
17 A I believe it was because I went to Mr. Seltmann's office 18 to verify my stand on the issue and I went around him, 19 more or less, or over his head; but that was the only 20 thing I seen that I could do. He was obviously wrong, 21 and I was right.
22 Q Is that why -- in your understanding, is that why he 23 made the statement that he made to you?
24 A I think so, yes.
25 Q I believe at the second meeting that you had -- you Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l ueneva, A111nols oulae l (312) 232-0262
. . _ . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . ... . - , - . . .. ~ . . . . _
1 4468
(
1 attended at the NRC offices on March 29,1985, the 2 concern was expressed by one of the persons, inspectors, i
3 attending that meeting that quality -- production 4 overrode quality; and there was a show of hands, and all l 5 of the inspectors raised their hand in agreement with 6 that statement. ;
7 Do you recall that testimony?
8 A Yes, sir.
9 Q In what way -- and I'd like you to be specific, if you i
10 can -- did you f eel Comstock management exalted !
11 production, quantity over quality?
12 A Well, they were on a tight schedule, and we were behind
( 13 in inspections, f rom what I recall at that time, j
14 It's not that they told us to overlook quality, but !
15 ,
there comes a point there, I'd say, when you can do so 16 many inspections and then maybe overlook quality. ;
17 I think that was the general feeling there: not l 18 that anyone was overlooking quality, to my knowledge, !
19 but it was obvious that we were behind -- QC was behind I 20 many hundreds of inspections. l 21 Q Mr. Snyder, you were hired in what; July, 1984? l 22 A Yes, sir.
I 23 Q Do you know why you were hired? :
24 A No, sir. They never told me. I did not know. ;
25 Q You didn't know that it was in part because of the l;
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. !
Geneva, I).11nois 50134 l (312) 232-0262 l t
4469 O
1 backlog they needed additional inspectors; that they, 2 Comstock, hired -- recruited additional inspectors to 3 expand the QC inspection work force?
4 A Well, yes, sir. That -- I think that's correct.
5 Q In your opinion, is it consistent with an anti-quality
! 6 attitude to increase the inspection work force to 7 accomplish the task, as opposed to, say, for example, )
! 8 working the existing QC work force harder?
9 A You lost me in your question there, but --
10 Q Maybe I lost myself. )
11 A I don't want to give you a wrong answer here.
12 Q All right.
13 In your opinion, are you more likely to have a 14 quality product or do quality work if you have more 15 people to do the work rather than working the people 16 that you have harder or longer? s 17 A Yes, sir, I would say.
18 0 Do you know of any instance in which a QC Inspector was 19 asked to sacrifice quality?
20 A No, sir.,
21 Q Mr. Seeders -- he was transferred in part for -- because 22 there was bad quality to the calibration records; is 23 that correct?
24 A Yes, sir.
, 25 Q Is that action, the action of transf erring Mr. Seeders Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
weneva, 1111nois culae (312) 232-0262 l
4470
(
l 1 -- is that consistent with an attitude that exalts 2 quantity over quality?
3 A Again, you've lost me there.
4 0 Let me start again.
5 Would you say a manager was not -- was not really 6 interested -- would you say a mankger was not 7 quality-conscious even though he -- strike that. I'll 8 start again.
9 Would you say a manager was not quality-conscious 10 if he transferred a person out of an organization if 11 that person was not doing quality work?
12 A I'd say the manager would be quality-conscious in that 13 act.
14 Q Do you know a Mr. R. D. Hunter?
15 A Yes, sir.
16 Q Be's no longer employed at the site, is he?
17 A No, sir.
18 Q Do you know whether he was terminated?
19 A Yes, sir.
20 Q Are you aware of the reasons --
21 A Yes, sir.
22 0 -- why he was terminated? l
. l 23 A Yes, sir.
24 0 What were those reasons?
25 A My understanding'was he had done a weld inspection on a f
O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
, (312) 232-0262 l
4471 O
1 painted weld, which is not acceptable per the procedure.
2 0 If you conduct an inspection that's not per the 3 procedure, in your opinion, would that be a quality 4 inspection?
5 A No, sir. The procedures are approved by your management 6 who you work for, so --
7 Q So if you terminated a person for not following 8 procedures, procedures designed to ensure quality, would 9 that manifest an anti-quality attitude on the part of 10 management?
11 A No.
12 Q I believe you testified that you've had a helper since O .
13 December of 1985 --
14 A Yes, sir.
15 0 -- correct?
16 Who is your helper?
17 A Sean Dooley.
18 Q Do you ' supervise Mr. Dooley's work?
19 A No, sir. I'm not his Lead. He's merely a helper. We 20 still have the same Lead and supervisor.
21, O So you' re co-equals?
22 A I -- he misses more time than I do, so I'd say I do more 23 of the work than he does, but only because I've done it 24 longer and know more about it than he does.
25 He's still -- he's certified, but he's still new at I
Sonntag Reporting Servicer ,Ltd.
ueneva, 1111nois oulae (312) 232-0262
44' m l O
1 the job, more or less.
2 O Where does he get his assignments from?
3 A Well, we have a daily assignment that comes with the -- l l
4 the tools that are due for that day, so we split the !
5 work, though.
6 Q When you split the work, do you indicate to Mr. Dooley 7 which items he should take or does Mr. Dooley just 8 indicate, say, "I'll take these, and you take these" --
9 A That's usually --
10 0 -- or how is the work distributed?
11 A That's usually the way it is. We decide who is going to 12 do what that morning. It's basically how much paperwork
() 13 or s'omething else you might have going.
14 We cover the area. That's basically all we have to 15 do, and our Lead lets us do that. He doesn't like to 16 interfere, more or less, unleas he has to. I think 17 that's proven to be effective in our case.
18 0 I believe you testified that you' re a hard worker; that 19 you look for things to do; you try to be active or try 20 to keep busy and things to that effect.
21 Does that fairly summarize what you testified to 22 previously?
1 23 A Yes, sir.
24 Q I believe you also indicated that there are some
- 25 inspectors at Braidwood that don' t work as hard as Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. _ _
ueneva, 1111nols oulae (312) 232-0262 t - - . -
4473
() I 1 others?
2 A Yes, sir.
3 Q Mr. Snyder, in your opinion, if a manager or supervisor 4 were to say to an inspector whose work habits they 5 approached -- were similar to those of Mr. Marschner, 6 whom we talked about before, if they were to say to an 7 inspector like that that, "You' re working too slow. You 8 and Mr. Snyder -- you do the same work, but Mr. Snyder 9 -- he just gets more done. He's more efficient. Unless 10 you improve, we might have to replace you with someone 11 who can work as hard and work as well as Mr. Snyder," in 12 your opinion, would there be anything improper in that?
13 A No, sir. I think a pep talk would be proper.
14 Q I'm going to direct your attention to the March 29, 15 1985, memorandum f rom Messrs. Schulz and McGregor to 16 Weil and Warnick. I believe I can make a copy available 17 to the witness.
18 MR. MILLER: You do not have a copy of the 19 March 29th memorandum?
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Do you have your own copy, l
21 Mr. Berry?
22 MR. BERRY: I' ll j ust --
f 23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Just for yourself, do you 24 have a copy of it?
25 MR. BERRY: Yes.
O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. _ ,
ueneva, LLAAnoAs ouAae (312) 232-0262
4474 i
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We'll get a copy to the 2 witness.
3 MR. MILLER: Let me provide you with one, Mr.
4 Snyder -- have you got it?
5 TH E WITN ESS : I don't think this is it.
6 (Indicating.)
7 MR. MILL ER : I don't think so, either. Here 8 you go.
9 (Indicating.)
10 THE WITNESS: Thank you, 11 BY MR. BERRY:
~
12 Q I believe in response to some questions put to you 13 yesterday by Mr. Miller, you had indicated that the 14 individual designated Inspector X was yourself.
15 A Not that first Inspector X. I did not say that.
16 0 All right.
17 The second Inspector X, where it says " Inspector X 18 who came to the NRC with allegations on March 13, 1985" 19 -- that is yourself?
20 A Yes, sir.
21 Q And on the second paga of that memorandum, where a 22 statement is attributed -- the first paragraph and the 23 statement attributed to, quote, "another individual" --
l 24 that was yourself, also?
25 A Yes, sir.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4475 i )
1 Q Reading those -- as I read those two paragraphs, it 2 appeared to me that you weren't reluctant to speak 3 f rankly to the inspectors that morning.
4 Is that an accurate perception on my part?
5 A I would say so, yes.
6 I was upset about the whole deal, and you hear a 7 lot worse words than that, so I didn't think that was 8 abnormal at the time.
9 Q And I guess those two paragraphs that we .just discussed 10 -- do they appear to also accurately reflect the 11 concerns that you expressed to the NRC inspectors
, 12 McGregor and Schulz that morning?
) 13 A Yes, they ' re pretty accur' ate.
14 As I stated before, Mr. McGregor was taking notes, 15 and this is not exactly word for word the way it -- the 16 way it was said.
17 I'm not sure if this second paragraph even followed 18 my first paragraph in my statement, but it's pretty 19 accurate.
20 0 Basically it captures the gist of your concerns?
21 A Yes, sir.
22 MR. BERRY: Can we go off the record for a 23 second, your Honor?
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, let's go off the 25 record.
1 I
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. l l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
! 4476 l
O 1 (There followed a discussion outside the ,
I 2 record.)
l 3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Back on the. record. j l
- 4 BY MR. BERRY
- ,
i l
i 5 Q Mr. Snyder, directing your attention to Page 2 of the 6 April 5,1985, memorandum f rom Mr. Weil to Mr. Norelius, 7 comments attributed to the inspector -- to yourself --
8 do they accurately reflect the concerns that you j 9 expressed during that meeting?
10 A Yes, sir.
11 0 Do you recall if you were informed during that meeting 12 whether the NRC would be conducting an investigation of
() 13 the concerns expressed by the QC Inspectors?
14 A I do not recall exactly. I'm sure that we knew that --
15 I knew earlier, from my early-morning meeting on March 16 29th, that Mr. McGregor said he would be getting back 17 with me and checking back into it. So I knew this was
- 18 just an extension of that, I assumed.
19 0 You were later formally notified by the NRC that they 20 would be conducting an investigation of your concern and 21 other concerns, were you not?
l 22 A I received several pieces of paper af ter that, and I'm I
23 sure, yes, sir, I was inf ormed.
24 Q Did you ever meet a man by the name of Mendez?
25 A Yes, sir.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
. . . . . . . _- . . . _ , - .. -. = . _ . _ . - .. - _ . . _.
4477 l 4
- ()
1 Q Who is Mr. Mendez?
2 A Well, he works f or the NRC; an inspector, I suppose.
3 Q Did you ever meet a man by the name of Neisler, Mr.
4 Neisler?
5 A I don't recall. I may have met him, but not talking to 6 him on these subjects.
7 Q Did you understand that Mr. Mendez had been assigned by 8 the Region III office of the Nuclear Regulatory 9 Commission to investigate your concerns and other
. 10 concerns of the LKC Comstock QC Inspectors?
11 A Yes, sir.
12 Q Were you aware or did you understand that the NRC would O 13 consider Mr. Mendez' findings in determining whether the l
- 14 Braidwood f acility had been built in such a way so that 15 it could operate saf ely?
16 A Well, I knew who he worked for.
I 17 In my particular case, I had no quality problem 18 with my incident, and I didn't -- I knew he was 19 conducting an investigation. ;
20 I didn't know who else he interviewed, so I really !
i 21 didn't know what, other than investigating my incident, l 22 he was doing.
I 23 0 Did you understand that the information that Mr. Mendez 24 would obtain f rom you would be used by him in making his 25 report?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. _
uenev a , 1111nois oulag (312) 232-0262
4478 i
()
, 1 A Oh, yes, sir.
2 Q Did you f eel an obligation to him to be candid and 3 cooperative? l l
4 A I think I was.
5 I never did see the excerpts f rom that meeting, but i 6 I talked with him quite a while, if I remember right.
7 Q Did you feel any responsibility to respond truthfully 8 and fully to Mr. Mendez ' questions?
9 A Yes, sir. I had no -- nothing to hide, and I felt no 10 pressure to -- to hide anything.
11 Q Did you respond truthf ully?
12 A I think so.
13 Q Did you respond fully?
14 A It's been a while, but I'm sure, yes, sir.
15 Q Did you knowingly fail to disclose any information that 16 would have been important to Mr. Mendez' investigation 17 of your concern?
18 A No, sir.
19 Q Are you aware that the purpose of your testimony in this 20 proceeding is to help enable the Atomic Safety and 21 Licensing Board to reach a determination on the matters 22 set forth in the contention?
23 A Yes, sir.
24 Q Do you feel any obligation to testify truthfully and 25 fully in this proceeding?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
, Geneva, Illinois 50134 (312) 232-0262
4479 O
1 A Yes, sir, I have.
2 0 Mr. Snyder, have you ever knowingly accepted discrepant 3 work?
4 A No, sir.
5 Q Have you ever knowingly failed to identify a 6 nonconf orming condition?
7 A No, sir.
l I
8 MR. BERRY: I believe that completes my 9 examination.
10 BOA'RD EXAMINATION 11 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
12 0 Mr. Snyder, with regard to the torque wrench referred to 13 in Applicant's Exhibit 35 -- that is, LKC No. A174 -- is 14 that torque wrench usable with a broken collar spring?
15 A If it's the spring -- well, I really couldn' t say what 16 the spring is. If it's the spring I'm thinking of, it's 17 to hold a pin in to hold the head of the torque wrench 18 on, which could allow the pin to f all out or cause play 19 there.
20 That's -- that's the way -- what I see this spring 21 as. It's -- it's not really what this says. This says 22 " broken collar spring.."
23 If you know the design of a torque wrench, the only 24 spring on the outside -- the only spring is on the 25 inside of that tool, which is not visible f rom the O
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. _
ueneva, AAAinois ovise (312) 232-0262 1
. . _ . _ - _ -__ -.__.- ..-._ . - . . . ~ _ - - . . . . _ . . _ . . _ _ _. - - - - . _ . _ _
4480 O
1 outside, so --
2 0 Is that the spring that would set the force or pressure?
3 A Yes, sir, it could very possibly be.
4 You would almost need a manufacturer's instructions 5 ,
to show what the collar spring was.
6 Q So you don't really know what was broken here?
7 A Mo, sir. That's why I stated that I don' t think : hat 8 determination could have been made on this document --
9 the accuracy --
10 0 That's your determination?
l 11 A Yes.
/
12 O You don' t know that Mr. Seeders' might have known what 13 was --
14 A That's true.
15 Q Is there any reason for you to believe that this broken 16 collar spring indicated that there had been any 17 miscalibration in the past -- that is, bef ore the collar 18 spring was broken -- which resulted in the collar spring 19 breaking?
20 A Well, if the spring breakage affected the setting of the 21 torque wrench, I'd think it would affect -- could affect I
22 some work, but us not knowing exactly what he's talking 23 here --
24 Q Well, isn't it possible that the instrument could have 25 been working properly and then all of a sudden the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 4481 l l
l C
1 spring broke, making it unusable?
2 A That's possible, yes.
3 0 In that case, there wouldn't have been any 4 miscalibration in the past; is that so?
5 A Well, the only way to determine that would be to do an 6 immediate calibration of the wrench.
7 Q An immediate -- well, af ter the collar spring is broken, I
8 it might be unusable?
9 A Well, that's correct. So then you don't know. It's an 10 indeterminate thing.
11 If the -- as it was breaking, unless it's something 12 that just snapped, it would still, in my opinion, be 13 indeterminate. That's why we have engineers there.
14 That's why I rely on them.
15 Q Now, I don't understand that conclusion following.
16 What if a -- in the example I gave you, a collar 17 spring -- the torque wrench is operating properly and 18 all of a sudden the apring breaks, making it unusable.
19 A Uh-huh.
20 Q Does that suggest that the calibrations done in the past 21 were not proper calibrations?
22 A Well, it depends where it broke and if the craf tsman 23 knew it was broke. They could have used it af ter that 24 fact, even, and then brought it back to the crib.
25 Q Well, are you telling me it's a matter of judgment, now, Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. _
ueneva, 1111nois culae (312) 232-0262
_. - .-- - = _ _ . . _ - . -
4482
\
()
) 1 as to whether there was any miscalibration in the past?
i 2 A It's a matter of -- I think since he wrote this GIR, he 3 should have maybe explained that, that the tool was i
4 taken immediately, you know -- it was broken, that it
! 5 was taken immediately to the crib.
i 6 It could -- it would be, I suppose, a judgmental 7 thing; but it's a damaged tool either way, as I look at
- 8 it, and it should require -- the calibration would be 9 indeterminate, in my opinion, of that wrench.
10 If you get an engineer involved and he says there's T
l 11 no problem, then -- then he's paid to do that, to make i 12 that determination.
-(:)-
l 13 Q But that's your determination, and you indicate you j 14 don't really know what was wrong.
15 Is it possible that another inspector would be more I
16 familiar with the tool and be able to make a better 17 judgment than you as to whether the current defect in l
18 the tool had anything to do with the propriety of the
! 19 past calibrations?
20 A I don't think there would be any other inspector any j 21 more knowledgeable on it. I mean, I think you would l
22 simply write the ICR.
23 Q Well, that's in the case that you can't make your own l 24 independent judgment, but I'm assuming that an inspector i
25 might know more than you and be able to make a judgment J
4 1 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 601J4 (312) 232-0262
4483
()
1 as to whether the current defect had anything to do with i 2 how the calibrations were done in the past.
l 3 Isn't that possible?
i 4 A Yes, sir, I'd say that's possible.
5 0 Well, if that were the case, would there be any reason 6 for writing an ICR, which would alert the inspectors to 7 check past calibrations?
8 A If you positively knew the tool damage was not affecting i
9 the calibration, I would say he could make a statement 10 like this.
11 Q That it was not necessary to write the ICR, and you 12 could write the GIR; is that right?
13 A Yes, sir.
- 14 There's another form called a QAS-1 that's similar 15 to this that should have been written on; but if he's
]
16 positively sure, that's an inspector's prerogative, I l
17 suppose.
i l 18 Q Did you indicate that it was your understanding that Mr.
19 Hunter was fired after one bad inspection?
I 20 A Well, when I was asked yesterday, when we were I
- 21 discussing if I was aware of another inspector being l 22 dismissed because of his work, I forgot about Mr. Hunter i 23 because that was a recent incident.
t i 24 I don't know how many inspections he performed like l
25 that, but my understanding was that that's the reason he 1
j
() -
I 1
! Sonntag Reporting Servics, Ltd. _
- ueneva, AA21nois ovia, i (312) 232-0262
...--....m._,,-,-- . - . _ _ . _ ___,_,...,.-,
-..,. .-..-.. _.--,, .--- -- -, ,._,,_--c . - , _ _ - , - - - - . -
4484 O
1 was dismissed.
2 Q So when you said he inspected a painted weld, you didn't 3 know whether it was one weld or a number of welds?
4 A That's correct.
5 0 Okay.
6 Now, do I understand correctly from the bulk of 7 your testimony, in answer to Mr. Miller's questions, 8 that you went to the NRC on March 29, 1984 --
9 MR. BERRY: 1985.
10 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
11 0 -- I'm sorry; 1985, with the expectation or anticipation 12 that Mr. Saklak might get terminated from your going to 13 the NRC?
14 Isn't that what you just indicated to Mr. Berry; 15 that you expected that might happen?
16 A I expected that could happen, yes, sir.
17 0 Okay.
18 Do I understand correctly, then, from your l l
19 testimony to Mr. Miller, that you told the NRC a number 20 of things that were not true that could have resulted in 21 his being terminated?
22 A No, sir. I told them nothing that was untrue.
23 0 Oh, okay.
24 Now, I understood, f rom your answers to Mr. Miller, ,
25 that the immediate incident in which Mr. Saklak used l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. !
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 1
4485 I 1
l l
(
1 some perhaps let's characterize it as " intimidating 2 language" was the first time he used that approach to 3 you.
4 Isn't that basically what you indicated to Mr.
5 Miller?
6 A He had jwsped on me, if you want to call it that, one 7 other time.
8 It was not that intimidating. It was something
- 9 work-related that I cannot even recall but in a loud 10 voice, and he had me in the corner where I was seated i 11 and proceeded to tell me I was wrong in front of the 12 whole room.
j 13 0 Okay. That's correct. You did mention that one other i 14 incident, and I apologize for indicating this was the 15 first time.
16 But now if I read what was stated in this 17 memorandum of March 29, 1985, you indicated to the NRC 18 that this had happened many times bef ore and that there 19 were at least five guys that he had jumped on in 20 addition to you.
21 Now, were those statements correct?
22 A I don't know if I said five men besides myself. Let's 23 see. I've got -- I've got that here.
24 0 Well, let's look at Page 2. 1 1
25 A "I know at least five guys that he's jumped on."
J 0
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. _
ueneva, 1111nolB OU1J4 (312) 232-0262
)
4486 f
()
1 I indicated that -- I think the other day that I 2 did not know if I was including my first incident there, I and I know of the Mike Lechner incident, the Franco 3
4 Rolan incident and even my last incident.
4 5 I don't know --
I 6 Q Well, you're not talking about incidents here; you're I
7 talking about five guys.
8 A Yes, sir.
9 0 Whether or not you include yourself, that assumes that 4
10 there are either four others or five others -- at least i 11 four or five others, doesn' t it?
12 I mean, that's what the statement says to me.
( 13 A Yes, sir, that's what that states there, but --
14 Q Well, was that a true or an untrue statement?
15 A Well, I cannot think of five -- four -- even four other 16 men that I witnessed. I was talking, I believe, about i 17 witnessing myself.
18 But as I stated, Mr. McGregor took notes here, and
- 19 some of these statements aren't exactly as I recall j 20 saying them, not exactly word for word. But maybe i
j 21 you' re going to have that when he's taking notes and
! 22 then it gets typed later, I think.
23 But as I sit here now, I cannot recall four other 1
! l 1
24 men that -- or five other men that I aitnessed that. I 25 hear of things -- you hear of things going on, but this i
l l
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
! Geneva, lilinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 i..._.._...._. . .. _ _..... _ _ ... _ _ _ . _ .-. _ _ ..... _ - _ .. - _ -._ _. - _
4487 O
, 1 may have been a general statement in my -- at that time 2 that I made. ,
j 3 Q Well, I think Mr. McGregor was very specific. :
i I
4 Do you think he heard you say "two" and wrote l
5 "five"?
6 A Well, I was not trying to stretch the truth here, I 7 don't believe.
8 Maybe at that time I did recall and I cannot simply
, 9 remember now, because, like I said, you hear people say i
10 this and that and I honestly cannot recall the other --
11 maybe I was thinking -- I did mention the John Seeders 12 incident, which I just failed to mention, so that was 13 another incident that I -- another man there.
14 So I cannot say who the other one or two would be.
15 Q Well, let's talk about John Seeders.
16 If I read this correctly, you indicated that Mr.
17 Seeders was moved out for something that wasn't his l 18 fault.
i 19 Now, do I understand correctly from your testimony j 20 yesterday that -- and the day before that you were 21 indicating that it was John Seeders' fault?
) 22 A Well, it was. He had to do with that problem, yes, he 4
l 23 did.
24 But I still felt like the management -- it was as 4
25 much their problem as his. He had improper supervision, i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ueneva, Illinois culae
- (312) 232-0262 I
4488 1 and I think it starts f rom that.
2 0 Well, the question I have is: Which is the true 3 statement; the one that you gave to the NRC, which 4 indicated that it wasn't his fault, or what you seem to 5 be saying now, which is that it was his fault?
6 Now, which was true?
7 A Well, the way this is worded, I said, "It wasn' t John's 8 fault because the department was messed up. Nobody was 9 certified in that area," meaning that his Lead and 10 supervisor was not certified.
11 Q Well, you say more than that. You say that you -- you 12 not only say that, but you f ollow it up with the f act 13 that -- what you say is a f act that, "The reason that 14 John was moved out was that Rick," meaning Rick Saklak, 4
15 "had a grudge against him."
16 So you' re saying that it wasn't John's f ault and 17 that the reason he was moved out was because Mr. Saklak :
l 18 had a grudge against him.
19 Now, was that a true ctatement when you made that l
20 to the NRC? i l
21 A At that time, yes, sir. I still believe that it was not 22 totally John's fault, and I did not say that here.
1 23 0 Mr. Saklak -- Mr. Snyder, you say " totally" now, and 24 yesterday my recollection is you said " solely" a number 25 of times.
O .
- Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
) (312) 232-0262 i __ - .. __ . . _ . _
4 4489 O
1 But I don't read that statement to the NRC to 2 include either of those words, and the gist of what I 3 recd there and the statement itself indicates that John 4 Seeders had no f ault and was moved out because of a 5 grudge that Mr. Saklak had against him. l 6 Now, is that an inappropriate reading of what's 7 stated in there?
8 A I think that's what that says there.
9 0 Well, now, when you made that statement or those 10 statements, were they -- were those statements true?
11 A Ye s, si r . Just because I didn't elaborate there -- and, 12 like I said --
() 13 Q Well, now, you didn't elaborate; and at the time you ;
14 made the statements, you knew that they could result in 15 Mr. Saklak being terminated.
16 Did you mean to mislead the NRC with regard to what 17 the situation was?
18 A No, sir, I did not.
19 I believe, if I recall right, that I was asked --
20 there is no questions in here at all about the NRC 21 asking me -- that I see here what they asked me.
22 Now, I know that Mr. McGregor asked me questions 23 that were not in here -- that are not here; and if I 24 recall, John Seeders' name was brought up by the NRC, 25 and that question -- there's no questions at all here.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd._
ueneva, IAAinois ovAa=
(312) 232-0262 J
! 4490
()
1 So, you see, all this is run together as my 2 statement, but it was not that way.
3 0 Well, what you' re telling me now is that some of the 4 questioning is left out --
5 A That's correct. There was obviously questions, 6 0 -- and it's telescoped -- all of the answers are i 7 telescoped into some narrative that is purported to be
! 8 yours; is that right?
l l 9 A I agree, yes, sir.
10 0 Okay. ,
i 11 But you' re not disputing the accuracy of that 12 narrative, only basically the form of that narrative; 13 isn' t that so?
14 A That's correct.
15 Q So do we take it that at the time you went to the NRC, 16 you were of the opinion that it wasn't John's f ault and 17 that he was moved out because Mr. Saklak had a grudge 18 against him?
I 19 A Yes, sir. At that time I felt it was a management 20 breakdown, and that's what my opinion was there.
21 Q But now you have a different opinion?
22 A No.
23 It's only that -- I think it was brought out that l 24 it was -- John Seeders was the inspector involved, and l 25 it was his responsibility to follow the procedure, which O
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
j Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
- - - - , . -- , , _ - . _ . . , + . , , _ .
l
4491 l
() l 1 was apparently not being done -- or he should have 2 brought up some questions if he had questions.
3 I think that was brought out here. I didn't -- we 1
4 didn't get that involved here with the NRC.
5 0 Well, now, at the time you went to the NRC, you didn't 6 take the matter of Mr. Saklak being termin. ted casually, 7 did you?
8 A No, sir.
o 9 Q You yourself were out of work for six months; I assume
, 10 you understand how that f eels?
11 A Yes, sir. I knew that this was no small matter. I was 12 not af ter the man's job.
13 I simply felt like -- that if I had to work for 14 that man, that he needed to be corrected or straightened 15 out. This had happened before, and I felt strongly 16 about it and I knew it was a serious allegation.
17 0 Well, now, you thought you had a very good chance, 18 didn't you, of having him terminated if you didn't --
j 19 isn't that so?
20 A I think that I felt that would probably happen because, 21 f rom knowing what I knew about inspector protection and 22 harassment and intimidation, if he was proven wrong, 23 yes, that would happen.
i 24 0 You' re f amiliar with the statement that if you shoot at 25 the king, you have to make sure that you kill him.
l l O l
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, AAAlnois oulae (312) 232-0262
4492
^
l ( Laughter. )
2 Are you f amiliar with that statement?
! 3 A No, sir, I am not.
4 Q But the f act is, if you didn't feel that there was a i 5 good chance of Mr. Saklak being terminated, you wouldn't 6 have gone to the NRC, because you had to live with Mr.
4 7 -- you would have to live with Mr. Saklak af terwards; is i 8 that so?
l 9 A That's correct.
10 My own feeling, too, was if that was me harassing
. 11 or intimidating him, that you wouldn't have to go that l 12 far to terminate me, and that's the reason I didn't stop 13 at management.
1 14 I told Irv DeWald that, because Rick had been 15 warned repeatedly and still was doing the same thing.
16 Q Now, this is also your statement, isn't it, that, 17 "They," being management, "are always interested in 18 numbers, not quality. In fact, we had a guy written up 19 last week because he didn't have enough numbers"?
20 Is that your statement?
21 THE WITN ESS : Where are we here?
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We' re up at the middle of 23 Page 3.
j 24 THE WITNESS: Let's see. I have to find 25 where you' re at.
.!(
l
! Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 50134 (312) 232-0262
i 4493
(
1 MR. MILLER: The middle paragraph, Mr.
2 Snyder, the one that begins, "This is not."
3 THE WITNESS: Oh, "This is not," the second 4 paragraph on that page.
5 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes.
6 Q 7 Is that your statement?
8 A Let's see. Let me read this.
9 I'm not sure, sir, if that is my statement or not.
10 I don' t recall saying that.
11 Q Okay.
i 12 A Now, I know 'we went through this bef ore, and I stated 13 that they ran a lot of this together in and out.
14 This paragraph at the bottom of Page 2 is not my 15 statem ent, so, you see, they run this together and you I
) 16 cannot tell who said what.
I 17 0 Okay. So you' re saying you don' t believe that's your 18 statement.
19 How about the statement at the end of the paragraph 20 just above that, talking about "the Leads being told at i
21 a meeting last Friday that as long as our numbers stay l l
22 down, the inspectors won't be evaluated"? ,
l 23 Was that your statement? :
24 A No, sir, that was not my statement, but I am familiar i
25 with that incident.
! Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. :
! Geneva, Allinois 66134 l
, (312) 232-0262 l l
' 4494 l
l O
1 Q Well, now, back to the first page.
2 Did you tell the NRC that Mr. Saklak tried to get 3 you to close out documents, ICR's, without f ollowing 4 proper procedure?
i 5 A Yes, sir. I think that's on the first page there under 6 -- the paragraph on the bottom. I explained that to 7 th em .
8 Q And were you referring only to one incident there?
9 A Yes, sir, although the weld machine ICR was a general --
10 generic problem.
11 But I was only referring to the one incident, you 12 know, although it says "ICR's," plural.
13 BOARD EXAMINATION 14 SY JUDGE CALLIH AN:
15 Q Mr. Snyder, just in passing, against what do you 16 calibrate a torque wrench?
17 , A Well, Phillips Getschow calibrates ours anymore. I do 18 not calibrate torque wrenches now.
19 They used to have a machine, a dial -- with a dial l 20 face on it that -- you actually applied torque onto that j 21 machine and compared the readings of the wrench to the
~
22 meter.
23 That's basically the same way it's done now. They 24 have a computerized machine that checks them now, but 25 the other on-site contractor does that for us. We do Sonntag Reporting Serhice,- Ltd. l Geneva, Illinois 60134
, (312) 232-0262
~
l
4495 1
1 not check our own.
2 0 Which other contractor?
3 A Phillips Getschow.
4 0 To what degree, in your recollection -- and you can 5 quantify it as best you can -- were uncalibrated or 6 out-of-calibration tools issued to craf tsmen?
7 A When I came there in July of '84 and until I took over 4
8 in October of '84, the out-of-tolerance wrenches or l
9 tools were simply placed on a tool shelf in that tool 10 crib in the open with no protection as far as someone 11 picking them up. It was not a controlled area, which is 12 what it comes down to.
( 13 Per the regulation --
14 Q Excuse me.
15 Is the "it" there the crib?
16 A Yes, sir.
17 When I got there in October, I demanded a tool crib 18 from Mr. Seltmann, a place to lock up tools so that I 19 knew they were there, because I was not going to be 20 responsible for tools that were laying out on the shelf 21 that anyone could come in there and pick up, even if 22 they had a hold tag or not.
23 You just have to be able to sleep at night and be 24 able to do your job to -- and that's part of the NRC !
25 requirements, is to control those tools, which was not I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, 1111nois oulas (312) 232-0262 )
1
! 4496 l
(
1 being done, in my opinion.
2 Q Following up on that a bit -- and this may be beyond
, 3 your experience, so don' t hesitate to say so -- granted
- =
l 4 if there was, as you just implied, some issuance of 5 uncalibrated or out-of-calibration tools to craft, what i
6 was the effort, if any, to your knowledge, to remedy the 7 use of those improperly calibrated devices when it .
8 became known, if it did become known, that it had been 9 improperly issued to a craf tsman?
10 A Well, there were several NCR's written during the summer 11 of '84; none for that reason that I recall.
12 I wrote that NCR 3406 to get all the tools back 13 from the field so we could see what we had, as well as 14 get some of the ICR's closed that were piling up on i
15 these tools, because per procedure the tool was supposed 16 to be on hold if an ICR was written on it.
17 But to track one of them tools and to find out if 18 it was actually ever issued in an out-of-calibration 19 state I don't believe was done. I don't believe it was 20 simply done.
21 There was no NCR written, and I don't know of a way 22 to really determine whether -- whether you could track 23 that.
2'4 The only thing we had was a Form 3, and the 25 craf tsmen filled that out. So you see, in my experience l
O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 6U134 (312) 232-0262 i
4497 O
1 in my last job, QC kept close track of that tool, and 2 that was not being done.
3 But you have a craf tsman saying that his buddy has
~
4 taken this tool out and then he brought it back. That's I
5 all I have. If you can rely on them craf tsmen to do 6 th at , that's fine.
7 But it comes down to a point where you have to 8 answer for those records, and I always felt that there
, 9 should have been an inspector there logging those tools 10 in and out. But that's still not -- is not done, and 11 the opinion was that it wasn' t necessary.
12 Then you get into a union argument with the craf t O 13 and with us as inspectors. The craf t would set a 14 precedence of issuing those tools out for five years, so 15 you -- you get into a union problem, and apparently they 16 didn't want to get into that problem.
17 0 Who is "they" in the answer?
18 A Management.
19 I discussed my concern with Mr. Seltmann and even 20 my supervisors, Rick Saklak and Joe Hii. I was told 21 more than once that we would get a separate crib to 22 issue out calibrated tools, but that was never done. So 23 it's still in the same place.
24 We do have more control, I feel like, because I can 25 lock the tool up. I do know where the tools are on a O
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, 1111nois ouAae (312) 232-0262
4498 i
C) l 1 week-to-week basis.
2 Q Your last remark refers to something that I was seeking. l 3 You' ve got to help me with this.
4 Somewhere in your testimony in the discussion of 5 cribs and the personnel in cribs, I remember you making 6 a statement -- I may be wrong -- that there were, say, 7 at least two people in a crib at tool-issue time; and I 8 think you said that someone issued calibrated tools, 9 with the implication that somebody else issued l
l 10 noncalibrated tools.
! 11 Now, I say that just to maybe emphasize a detail l
l 12 that I don't remember, so let me now ask the question:
13 I think you just said, in effect, that f rom a 14 particular crib, both calibrated and uncalibrated tools 15 could be issued; true?
16 A Yes, sir.
17 Q To whom were the calibrated and the uncalibrated tools 18 issued and how was the distinction made and what 19 difference in the records occurred in those two 20 instances? -
21 A Well, first of all, I think I said there was possibly 22 four men working in that crib when I came there in '84, 23 but -- three to f our.
24 One man generally always took care of the 25 calibrated tools and logged it in and out on the Form 3,.
I 1
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4499 O
1 although the other men could have came back there and 2 got a calibrated tool. There was nothing that said they 3 couldn't. They just tried to stay away f rom them.
4 Now, if you issue a crescent wrench out to this man 5 as well as a torque wrench, a-calibrated torque wrench 6 -- he gives you his brass, which is his identification 7 badge, and the men will take it and give him the tools.
8 There's a list written down, saying, "This brass number 9 got this crescent wrench."
10 Then on the calibrated tool, you go back there and 11 they keep another list that says, "He got this torque 12 wrench, same brass number. " That's the only difference 13 there.
14 At the end of the day -- or during the day, the 15 Form 3 would be updated because there's so many tools in 16 and out daily. We have 60 or 70 torque wrenches alone 17 that go in and out of there every day.
18 These men aren't used to the paperwork. They've 19 been electricians all their life. They're not -- and l
20 they' re retirement age, and they are not used to that i 21 kind of paperwork. It's not their f ault. They ' re not 22 used to it like me as an inspector is used to it, you 23 know.
24 But the Form 3 was being kept poorly. You could 25 not rely on it for information when I got there in '84.
O l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, Illinois cul34 (312) 232-0262
l 4500 O
1 Too many blank spaces and -- and I tried to change that, 2 run it like I thought it should be and with the 3 permission of my supervision.
4 I did have problems with the craf tsman there simply 5 because he didn't want to do it the way it was supposed 6 to be done per procedure.
7 Ultimately he was moved out -- this craf tsman was I
8 -- and another one put in his place, and they started a 9 training program for these crib men because there was 10 nothing documented that said these men had had any 11 training as f ar as how valuable a calibrated tool was.
12 They never had that, and they were just O 13 electricians put in there to do this job. They didn' t 14 know what they were going to be doing until they got in 15 there, and then they probably wished they wouldn't have 15 been in there.
17 But now they do have training classes for these men i.
18 just so they have something documented they can f all 19 back on, saying, "This man was given training." But I 20 -- I work with these men daily, and I help them out, any 21 questions they have.
22 So you have two tools, calibrated and uncalibrated, 23 leaving in and out of there daily around the clock now 24 because they have first, second and third shift.
25 Q Briefly, what does a properly-filled-out Form 3 purport O
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
'4501 0
1 to say?
2 A Well, it just simply says the date that the man brassed 3 it out, the day he brought it back and his brass number.
4 That wasn't happening. All we was getting was the 5 date that it was going out of the crib, and then he i 6 would draw a line clear down the page saying, "Same day i
7 returned."
8 But that didn't tell you anything because if there 9 was a week s difference in the dates going out, you 10 don' t know when that tool came back.
11 So all that was going to lead you to at that time 12 was that man's time sheet, which was a poor way, in my
( 13 opinion, to follow a tool -- by the foreman's time 14 sheets -- because they could say anything on them time 15 sheets.
16 If you knew Craf tsman 300 took out this wrench on 17 6/16, you'd go to his foreman's time sheet and see what 18 he done on 6/16. Now, he may have took that wrench out, 19 but it never did say on the time sheet what he did use 20 it on. So it was a very poor method, I thought.
21 Now we have a traveler that goes with each torque 22 wrench, which I helped initiate, because it actually 23 says -- it goes actually with that wrench in a little 24 bag on the wrench, and they fill it out af ter they use 25 it -- the craf tsman does.
l O
l I
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. , .
ueneva, Illinois oulag I
(312) 232-0262
. ....._ ....... , ,. ~ . . _ _ , _- - , _ _ _ -,-. -_. .
4502 l
O 1 At the end of each calibration period, that list is 2 taken out and a new one put in. That's the only way --
3 one of the only ways to track that wrench accurately, 4 and it's been accepted by our Engineering Department.
5 N ow , on the termination tools, the crimpers and 6 strippers, they have a computer that tracks those tools 7 off of termination cards. The man -- as he uses that 8 tool, he states what tool number he used and what its 9 due date was so that when that termination card comes to 10 the office, it goes through the IBM, that inf ormation.
11 If you have a wrench -- a tool that's bad then, you 12 simply punch that number into the computer, and it will 13 show you what equipment that tool was used on.
14 Q Speaking f or a moment to two groups of people -- one, 15 craf tsmen; and the other, inspectors -- is there some 16 difference ? n authority for issuance or recordkceping 17 and so forth in the tool crib between those two groups 18 of people or are they all treated alike as regards 19 issuance of calibrated tools?
20 A You mean the records?
21 Q Yes.
22 A 99 percent of those records are kept by the craf t out 23 there.
24 If I wanted to go out there and put something in 25 there for inf ormation -- they also have a comments l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. i I
Geneva, Illinois 0U134 l
(312) 232-0262
4503 O
1 section on that Form 3, but I have a time or two 2 referenced an ICR number on that comments section.
3 But 99 or nearly 100 percent is kept by the crib 4 man.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We'll take a break for lunch 6 now and continue afterwards. We'll return at 1:30.
7 (WHEREU PON , the hearing was continued to 8 the hour of 1:30 o' clock P. M.)
9 10 11
~
12
() 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ;
25
{)
snnntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois o0134 !
(312) 232-0262 l
4504 O
1 2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3 NUCLEAR REGUr.ATORY COMMISSION 4 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5
__________________x 6 :
In the Matter of : :
7 : Docket No. 50-456 OL COMMONW EALHI EDISCN COMPANY : 50-457 OL 8 :
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 :
9 and 2) :
__________________x 10 11 College of St. Francis 12 500 North Wilcox J oliet, Illinois 13 Tue s. lay , June 17, 1986 14 1: 30 o' clock P. M.
15 Present : As bef or e.
16 17 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : Okay. The hearing is 18 reco nv ened, and Judge Callihan was questioning the 19 witness, and will continue with that.
20 BOARD EXAMINATION 21 BY J UDG E CALLIH AN : ,
22 Q Mr. Srrf der, is there anything pending in your answer?
23 We j umped rather pr ecipitously because of lunch, and I 24 don' t knw whether you f inished.
Q 25 A I think I was finished. -
R=*a g D-r ti ng Service; Ltd_
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4505 O -
1 Q You were finished.
2 Hav e y ou, your self, in the months or years of your 3 experience as an inspector, felt any coercion on 4 schedul e, quality versus quantity, and that sort of 5 thing?
6 A N o, si r.
7 Calibrated tools j ust have to be done when they are 8 due; and over the past f ew months, I' ve had the 9 opportunity to space the tools out so th ey di dn ' t --
10 they cmme due on a schedule that wasn' t so tight as when 11 I started out, so you make the schedule fit, you shorten 12 the period of due date. You can' t lengthen it, but you O
a 13 could shorten it and make it due more f requent than 14 normal . ,
15 JUDG E CALLIH AN : O kay . All right. Thank you 16 veqr much.
17 That's all I have.
1 18 BOARD EXAMINATION l 19 BY JUDG E GROSSMAN :
20 Q Mr. Sarder, in response to Judge Callihan's questions, 21 you indicated that when you began calibration 22 inspe ctions, there was a problem with both the tool 23 handling and the documentation which, from what I 24 understand your description would be, made it impossible 25 to keep track of the tools and make the proper
(])
Conntsg Repor ting Sersice, Ltd. i Genev a, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
4506 l
($)
1 inspe cti ons.
l 2 Is that a f air summary of what you said? l 3 A Yes, si r, basi cally. l 4 The tools were not being controlled.
5 If you want to call laying on a tool crib shelf i 6 " controlled, " then that's how they were; and the tools 7 that should have been on hold -- I am saying now, you 8 have got tools that are -- are up to date -- excuse me 9 -- and curr ent, that would be laying out there -- but 10 there were also -- all tools that were on hold were also 11 laying there.
12 Q Okay. I don' t want to go through all the specifics; but 13 considering that -- well, in view of what you have 14 indicated with regard to the problems -- and you 15 indicate that you were aware of these at the time -- do 16 you know if Mr. Seeders had complained about these same 17 conditions?
18 A No, si r, I do not.
l 19 Q You don' t know now whether he complained about --
20 A I don' t know now whether he -- well, he had -- as I did i 21 find out, I guess, yest erday , that he had complained 22 about some things, but whether he complained about that 23 situation I do not know.
24 Q Okay. But in any event, you knew of those conditions 25 and, yet, you compiled a report with regard to
(]) '
l Senntag R eper ti ng Serv ice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4507 O \
l deficiencies in Mr. Seeder s' inspections under those 2 conditions; isn' t that's correct?
3 MR. MILL ER : Your Honor, I think I really 4 have to obj ect.
5 I do n' t -- if the report is the one, Applicant' s 6 Exhibit 28, I don' t believe that there had been prior 7 characterization by the witness or counsel that this was I 8 a compilation of Mr. Seeder s' inspection deficiencies.
9 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : Oh, okay. Let me ask the 10 withess this.
11 BY JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
12 Q Wasn' t Applicant's Exhibit 28 a compilation of O 13 deficiencies in the calibration inspections?
14 A Yes, si r. ,
15 Q And wasn' t a good part of that related to Mr. Seeders' 16 work?
17 A Yes, si r.
18 Q And you knew at the time that the report was going to be 19 used against Mr. Seeders or you had an expectation that 20 it would be, didn' t you?
21 A W ell, I did not know Mr. Saklak's intentions, you know, 22 we were j ust told to go through these files and find any 23 pr obl em s --
24 Q Well, my recollect. ion of your prior testimony was that l
] 25 you were aware that Mr. Seeders was on the spot at the Sonntsg Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~
4508 O
1 time, and that the report was real.ly geared to compiling 2 a record against him.
3 Isn' t that a correct paraphrase of your testimony ?
4 MR. MILL ER : Your Honor, again.
5 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : W ell, let me call for the 6 witness to answer that. If it didn' t, he can tell me it 7 isn' t.
^
W eII, I think maybe, in the back' ~of my ' mind, that we had 8 A 9 ideas that that could be what it was used f or.
10 BY JUDG E GROSSMAN : . ,
1 11 Q Well, do you think now, knowing, of course, every thing 12 you know, that it was f air to evaluate Mr. Seeders on O 13 deficient inspections, when you acknowledged that it was 14 impossible to perf orm adequate inspections considering 15 the conditions that prevailed at the time?
16 A I would say it was not f air; right.
17 Q Okay. Now, if a QC Inspector, unlike yourself, as you 18 have testified, had been influenced into making improper 19 inspe cti ons, that is, buying things of f that, when 20 things were actually wrong and should have been w ritten 21 up in ICR's or NCR's, what do you suppose would happen 22 to him if he came and testified that he had improperly 23 perf ormed the inspections?
24 A Well, I really have no idea what the -- the law would 25 say he done something improperly.
Sonnta'; Rep ^rting Sevice, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4509 O !
l 1 Now, what his consequences would be, I cannot say.
2 Q Well, do you think it's very possible that he might be 3 terminated f or admitting he did something like that?
4 A Well, that' s po saible.
5 I suppose -- I think it would be broader than that.
6 May be --
7 Q I beg your pardon?
~ ~
~ "8 A I imagine it would be a broader thing than that; though, 9 but that's quite possible.
10 Q Do you think it would be probable that he be terminated 11 for indicating that he had improperly inspected a number 12 of items in response to pressure? ;
0 13 A I would say, yes, it's likely.
3 14 Q Well, now, if an inspector did not himself improperly 15 inspect items, but observed another inspector improperly 16 inspecting items and buying then off when he shouldn' t 17 hav e, according to your terminology, would he have been 18 obligated to take some action himself?
19 A Yes, si r.
20 Q And what would that be, writing up an ICR or NCR?
21 A Probably first go into management, then probably an NCR 22 would be written, yes, si r.
23 Q Now, if he f ailed to do something along those lines, 24 would he, himself, be derelict in his duties?
Q 25 A I would say yes.
Cennteg Reperting Geivice, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4510 O
1 Q Now, if there were such an inspector who had observed 2 something like that, and had not perf ormed his 3 obligations in writing that up or bringing it to the 4 concern of management, cnd he were called to testify 5 here and indicated that he had been derelict in his 6 obligations by not taking action, what do you suppose 7 would happen to him?
8 A Quite possibly termination. I- I can' t think - I --
9 I don' t kncw beyond that.
10 Q Do you think, knowing the work f orce the way you do, 11 that is, your f ellow QC inspectors r that there are any 12 sizable number of inspectors or anyo.ne,that you work 13 with, who, if he had been derelict in his duties, either 14 with regard to not taking the proper action on his own 15 inspe ction, or not taking action with someone else's 16 improper inspection, who would come here bef ore the ,
17 hearing Board and admit that he had been derelict in his 18 obligations on either score, knowing what the 19 possibilities arc of his being terminated? ,
20 Do you want that question repeated?
21 THE WITNESS : Pl ease.
22 It was rather 1engthy there.
23 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : Would you read it back.
l 24 MR. MILL ER : Your Honor, I must obj ect to l
25 th at. You are asking this witness to speculate on the 90""*ag Reparti ng Ser'? ice; Ltd_
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
_ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . . . _ _ .. . _ . _ . . _ . . , ~ . . . . . _ . . . . _ _ _ . . ,
1 4511 1
1 O l 1 truthf ulness and voracity of other men. ]
2 JUDG E GROSSMAN : N o, no, no, I am not, Mr.
3 Miller. I am asking him his expert opinion with regard 4 to his f ellow workcts.
5 He is in an appropriate position f or that. He 6 certainly can give that j udgment; and the only ones who 7 can give that j udgment are workers such as Mr. Snyder.
8 Now, you understand the question, I believe. You 9 have heard it twice.
10 MR. MILL ER : Your Honor, I persist in my 11 obj ection; but it's been overruled.
12 A Well, you are asking if they 'would come here and admit 13 to their deficiency on observation?
14 I would think, under oath, yes, they would.
15 BY JUDG E GROSSMAN :
16 Q Do you think they would come here and say that they 17 wer e?
18 A If they were subpoenaed here and asked that question, I 19 suppose. If they weren' t telling you the truth, they 20 would be violating their oath.
21 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Nothing else. ;
22 JUDG E COL E: Just a couple of questions, Mr.
23 Sny der, about the operations of the tool crib.
24 BOARD EXAMINATION 25 BY JUDG E COL E:
Senntag Reperting Seciice, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- _. , . - . . . _ .. . _l
4512 0
1 Q Could you briefly tell me how the tool crib operated, 2 when you started working with Comstock?
3 A It was j ust basically the same way it still is.
4 The craf tnen -- the men comes to the window, asks 5 for a calibrated torque wrench, they yell back f or the 6 number of the size wrench and the other men brings it 7 f orw ard, gets the men's brass number, writes it down.
8 Sometime during that day, this goes out on the Form 9 3 to that man, and when the wrench comes back at the end 10 of the day , it's logged back in.
11 Q All right, sir. Do you ever hand out any tools?
12 A N o, si r.
O 13 Q These men that are working in the tool crib: Are they
! 14 ther e all day ?
15 A Ye s, - si r.
16 Q How many are there there?
17 A Pr ese ntly , ther e is 3 -- 4. Excuse me, 4.
18 Q And they are f ull time passing out and rece!.ving tools?
19 A Yes, sir.
20 Q I see. How do you fit into this with -- in 21 accomplishing your tasks ?
22 A W ell, I have a desk back at the main office.
23 Monday morning usually we get started, is our 24 busiest day. We probably do 100 various tools on a 25 Monday, me and my helper, calibrationwise. )
({}
co nn*=g Reporting Service Ltd_
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4513 4
O 1 Q Just a minute, Mr. Sny der.
2 All the tools are either in the hands of the craf t 3 working or are stored in the tool shed; right?
4 A That's correct. We don' t carry them around ourselves, 5 normally .
6 Q Okay. How do you get the tools to perf orm whatever you 7 have to do with them?
8 A W ell, in the morning, I will fill out a request f or my 9 crib men to take five torque wrenches over to Phillips 10 Getschow.
11 When he gets there, Phillips Getschow will sign my
. , 12 request that the wrenches did arrive there. They will 13 calibrate then during that day; and the next morning 14 that man will take another group of wrenches over and 15 pick up the ones that were calibrated and bring them l 16 back to the crib; and then -- excuse me -- I will go 17 over in the morning to Phillips Getschow, take care of 18 paperw or k, resticker the wrench -- verify that the 19 wrench is accurate within our tolerance -- resticker the 20 wrenches and then go to the crib, send the man with five 21 more wrenches to get yesterday's wrenches and bring them 22 back. It's j ust a cycle that goes on five days --
23 Q So you get involved by initiating a request to send 24 tools f or calibration, you give that to your crib man?
25 A Yes, si r.
(])
Sonntag Reporting Sersice, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4514 .
O 1 Q Iie then takes care of getting it over to Phillips 2 Getschow, then your next step is to then, the next day ,
1 3 go to Phillips Getschow, verify that they have, in f act, 4 being calibrated, fill out the necessary paperwork, and 5 then -- and then start off with some other cycle, 6 sending another request f or tools? -
7 A Yes. That would be the torque wrench case.
8 A wire stripper and crimpers, like I say, we do 9 them on Mondays, sometime on Monday and Tuesday, me and 10 my helper. These are logged out monthly to a foreman, 1
11 because they keep them by the month, and he distributes 12 them to his men; and then they bring them back on their I
j O 13 due date, which is on a Monday or Tuesday, and we do 14 them.
) 15 They pick them up that evening or the next day and 16 they are -- they are ready for another month's use.
17 Now --
- 18 Q All right, si r. That's fine, i
19 A Okay. -
l 20 Q In the beginning part of your comments about the 21 operations of the crib, you indicated it operates the 22 same -- about the same now as it did when you started?
23 A Yes.
24 Q And I believe you testified earlier that -- or at least
- Q 25 I got the impression -- there were a lot of problems Senat=0 Reprting Service; Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. . . . . . . ~ . _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . - _ - . _ . - . _ - _ . . - - _ . . - . - . . _ . . _ - _ . . _ _ _ . . - . _ - _ . - -
4515 O
1 with that operation?
2 A Yes.
3 Q And I also got the impression f rom you that this has 4 been straightened out. f l
5 Now, could you clarify that, si r? l 6 A Yes. I' m sorry.
7 I was ref erring only to the manner in which the 8 tools are handed out.
9 They are being properly logged out now, because per 10 our Rev. D procedure, I have to periodically do my own 11 surveillance on the Form 3. We do have the 1
12 QC-controlled area, which -- our lock box, which is 13 probably a 6-by-6-by-6-deep box, with only -- only I 4
14 have the keys to them, and I have never had anyone break 15 into it. It's stamped on the door, "QC hold area, " and 16 that's where all of our tools that I have on hold are 17 kept, and my standards that I check tools with are kept 18 there.
19 Q Okay. Now, with respect to certain types of tools that 20 are calibrated by Phillips Getschow, you put your hold 21 tag on at Phillips Getschow?
22 A Yes, sir. I carry than with me.
23 Q Okay. Then how do they get into a QC hold area af ter
- 24 that?
O 25 A They were both over that morning with the rest of the Cennteg Repes tius Service, L td.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4516 O
1 wrenches that my crib man goes and gets; because, 2 actually , I am not supposed to be carrying them, for the 3 union problems there, but our union f unctions; and so he 4 brings it over; and I am over there every Monday, and I 5 simply lock it up.
6 Q You lock it up or do you have --
7 A Yes.
8 Q -- do you have your crib man lock it up?
9 A No, si r, I lock it up. He never had my keys.
10 Q So you always have to be over there when those tools are 11 received? .
12 A Yes, sir. We are over there every morning, either Shawn 13 or myself.
14 JUDG E COL E: All right, si r. Thank you.
15 That's all I have.
16 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : Mr. Guild. !
17 MR. GUILD: Yes, si r. l l
18 MR. MILLER: Do n ' t I --
19 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Did I skip you, Mr. Miller? !
\
20 MR. MILLER : I think so. That's correct. We 21 went f rom Mr. Berry.
i 22 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : Okay. I am sorry.
23 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 24 BY MR. MILLER :
Mr. Snyder, Judge GroESman asked you some questions Q 25 Q Son =*eg Ferrting Service; Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. . _ .-. . --. - . - . _ = . _ - . - . - - . .-. .. . .----- . -.
4517 ,
l O
1 about whether it was f air to Mr. Seeders to evaluate him 2 on the basis of -- I don' t know. My notes may not be 3 accurate -- poor inspections. I think he said that it 4 was the f ault of others, and you agreed that that was 5 not f air.
6 I would like to get a fuller understanding of that, 7 sir.
8 Applicant's Exhibit 28 does not involve an 9 evaluation of the control of the tools in the field 10 under the use of the Form 3, does it?
11 A No, si r, it does not.
12 Q All right. Now, in f act, when you were describing the O 13 control of the tools in the field, that was a function 14 that has been perf ormed by the craf t when Mr. Seeders 15 was an inspector and while you have been an inspector; 16 cor r ect ?
17 A Yes, si r, as f ar as issuing the tools out, yes.
18 Q When you stated in response to a question f rom the 19 Chairman, or perhaps it was f rom Judge Callihan, that 20 the tools were not controlled, you were ref erring to the 21 issuance and receipt .back of the tools by the crib 22 attendants; correct?
23 A Well, actually, what I think I meant there was the 24 openness of the ' tools laying around. The tools that O 25 were on hold could possibly have gotten out of the crib Senntew Reportiny Seiiice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4518 O
1 without QC knowledge, because we are not stationed out 2 there.
3 Q Is that the only circumstance you were referring to, 4 when you were talking about tools not being controlled, 5 that, since the out-of-calibration tools that were on l
6 hold were stored on an open shelf, that it was possible l
7 that they were being wrongly issued by the crib 8 attendants to the craf ts people?
9 A Basically, yes.
10 I guess, if you want to define the word " control,"
11 my opinion was that the Form 3 may not have told us 12 enough about the tool; but, because it sent you 2 time 13 sheets, and stuf f like that --
14 Q All right. But the only reason you will go to the time 15 sheets would be to discover on what components the tool 16 had been used if it were found to be out of calibration; 17 correct? i l
18 A That's correct, ri ght.
19 Q And until someone had generated an ICR f or an l
20 out-of-calibration tool, there was no way to even begin 21 the search f or the work on which the out-of-calibration 22 tool had been used; isn' t that right?
i 23 A That's right. '
24 There is no need to begin to search if the tool was O 25 eood.
4 n= * = 0 D e,mr ti ng Service; LtA-Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4519 l O
1 Q And if the tool was out of calibration, but no ICR was 2 issued, then no one would know to even begin the search 3 of the time sheets to find where that out-of-calibration 4 instrument had been used; correct?
5 A That's cor rect.
6 Q All right. Now, I take it that if a tool is in 7 calibration, that the issuance and receipt back by the 1
8 tool crib attendants and the control of the tool- is not -
l c
9 of concern to the Quality Control Department; correct?
10 A If the tool is good, that's -- you don' t care where it's 11 at.
12 I don' t.
O 13 But if the tool is there on hold, which is supposed 14 to not -- not supposed to be used, it would be my 15 concern.
16 Q Correct. Okay. I j ust wanted to --
17 A Yes, okay.
18 Q The tools are on hold or tools that are out of 19 calibration; is that correct?
20 A Yes, sir; as long as that tool's got a calibration 21 sticker on it, that I put on it, it's good until proven 22 out of tolerance. l 23 Q Right. I 24 And that would occur the next time it came up f or 25 its calibration inspection; correct?
(])
l l
Cennteg Repecting Sezsice, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 i
4520
.l i
0 1 A That's correct. A man has no reason to think otherwise 2 in the field.
3 Q All right. Now, when you were creating Applicant's 4 Exhibit 28, there was no evaluation of Mr. Seeders, 5 either explicit or implied, on the basis of the control
! 6 of the out-of-calibration instruments by the tool crib 7 attendants, was there?
8 A No.
9 Q Now, you stated that you demanded - I think was the
- 10 word you used -- a locked cabinet --
11 A Yes, sir.
J J
12 0 - for -- this is f or the out-of-calibration tools in O 13 the tool crib, and that was the response to your demand, 14 Mr. Snyder ?
i 15 A Well, you know, I didn' t pound on the desk, I j ust told 16 Mr. Seltmann we had to have this controlled area, 17 because I was not going to be responsible for tools that 18 should have been locked up in the field, that were 19 getting out to the field.
i 20 You know, it's possible, and I would - I f elt 21 better myself about having the controlled area, which I 22 considered the least we could have for what we were 23 working with there.
24 Q Was Mr. Seltmann responsive to your request?
Q 25 A Yes, sir. It was within a f ew daya that was built and i
S^aa*=0 D epar tia; Service; Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
--,y g ,,,,--gp,wy-.=,ec--- g - ,,y-- ~p w -,.r..- --,.--e- , - , . , m,,.--ee%,+ -,-.w, y,eg. -,--,w ,ap e %-.. .--- -e-,,--%,we-.+e- ,..aw w ,.
4521 0
1 installed. ,
2 Q Now, you had been on the j ob approximately -- less than 3 a year, is that right, when you made that request?
4 A A f ew months, yes.
5 Q Just a few months?
6 A That was probably in October of '84.
7 Because it was right off the bat. I could not --
8 could not work like that, I mean, of course, myself, 9 knowing those tools can be anywhere.
, 10 Q Is there any reason that you could think of that Mr.
11 Seeders couldn' t have made the same request?
12 MR. GUILD : Obj ection. It simply calls f or 13 this witness's speculation.
14 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Overruled.
15 A No, si r. I see no reason.
16 BY MR. MILLER :
, 17 Q Now, I think you also stated that you had probles with 18 the tool crib attendant, with one of them.
19 How soon af ter you became a certified calibration 20 inspector did you - were you aware of those problems 21 with the tool crib attendant?
22 A Well, it was j ust a matter of : The Form 3 was not being 23 completed as required, and that's the only form, I 24 believ e, that the craf t is supposed to fill out f or us; O 25 and - escuse me, thae. s 1 of of 2 that I know of.
l l OGnnt&5 Espusting 36sv1G6, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262 l _ __ _ -.,_ __ _.. - - . _ _ _ .
4522 Q
1 But he simply didn' t want to cooperate. He had i
1 2 been there 2 or 3 years, probably, and was kind of set 3 in his ways and did not want to change.
4 I guess- I looked like the new kid on the block that 5 was going to change the whole block, 'and I explained to 6 him, but he was upset because I requested this lock box, 7 that I didn' t trust him, and I told him that was not it; 8 so we didn' t hit it off very good f rom the start.
9 Q So this was in October; correct, al so --
10 A Yes, si r.
11 Q - whcn you had this interchange with the tool crib 12 attendant; and within how long a period - well, did you 13 request that he be transf erred?
14 A No, sir.
15 Q Did you complain about his f ailure to fill out the Form 16 3 properly?
17 A Yes, sir.
18 Q To whom?
19 A I talked with my supervisor.
20 Q That's Mr. Saklak?
21 A Yes, sir, it would have been Mr. Saklak.
22 And I explained we was going to have to get this 23 taken care of, you know, get the Form 3 's taken care of, 24 because that was all we had to say who had that' tool --
Q 25 Q- Wak there -
l Sean*eg Re,=r* ing Service; Lti Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. ~ . . . . . _ . . _ . . . . - . , . - , . . . _ . .
4523 O
1 A -- and he agr eed.
2 Q Mr. Saklak was responsive to your complaint and the tool 3 crib attendant was, in f act, replaced; correct?
4 A Yes. I think he was replaced later that spring, 5 actually; but it was j ust something that took a little 6 time to get a replacement in there; but there was a 7 problem there, and it was finally taken care of.
8 Q All right. Now, do you know whether or not Mr. Seeders 9 ever complained to Mr. Saklak about this tool crib 10 attendant?
11 A No, si r, I don' t know.
12 Q Any reason, in your, opinion, why he could not have made O l'.4 the same complaints that you did about this?
14 MR. GUILD: I obj ect, Mr. Chairman.
15 It calls f or speculation.
16 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : W ell, he's already answered 17 that question.
18 MR. MILL ER : No, si r, he answered about the 19 lock box.
20 Now I am asking about the complaint with respect to 21 the tool crib attendant.
22 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Fine.
23 You may answer.
24 A I see no reason why he couldn' t have complained.
Q 25 BY MR. MILLER :
Conntag "epcrting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4524 O
1 Q I think you also stated that you helped initiate a 2 traveler system for the torque wrenches; correct?
3 A Yes, si r.
4 0 When did you do that, Mr. Snyder ?
5 A That was in November of 1984.
6 Q Okay.
7 A It was j ust: We had no means, besides the time sheets, 8 to track a torque wrench.
9 The crimpers and wire strippers had the DBM 10 computer to help us out on them or help Engineering out; 11 but the torque wrenches only had time sheets; and it was 12 widely known at that time that the time sheets were not 13 that reliable to say what his men had done that day.
14 Q All right. So you made the suggestion that there be a 15 traveler system on the wrenches.
16 To whom did you make that suggestion?
17 A W ell, it went through my supervisor and then it went to 18 Engineering or probably to Mr. Seltmann, to Engineering.
19 The Engineering -- engineers actually dr ew the --
20 dr ew it up, but it went through the supervision.
21 Q And Mr. Saklak was still your supervisor in November; 22 correct?
23 A Yes, si r.
24 Q All right. And how long did it take to get that O 25 erav 1er system implemented?
Sonnte; Reporting Service; Ltd_
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
4525 O
1 A That was very soon af ter Engineering agreed that it 2 would be a lot easier to track these torque wrenches by 3 that traveler; an;i it was in that same month, November, 4 within a week it was -- as soon as it could be drawn up, 5 it was implemented.
6 It's not in the procedure -- I believe it is now --
7 not in our calibration procedure, it's in a procedure 8 for the craf t -- to use this traveler; but it's 9 inf ormation more than we had.
10 Q All right. And is there any reason in your opinion t. hat 11 Mr. Seeders couldn' t have suggested this traveler 12 sy stem?
O 13 MR. GUILD: If I could note as having the 14 same continuing obj ection about the witness speculating 15 about Mr. Seeders, I won' t raise it again. '
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Ov er ruled.
17 You may answer.
18 A I see no reason why he couldn' t have.
19 MR. MILLER : Thank you.
20 BY MR. MILLER :
21 Q Now, Judge Grossman asked you some questions about 22 Applicant's Exhibit 35, which was the GIR report.
23 A Yes, si r.
24 Q t.nd the broken collar spring f or torque wrench A174.
Q 25 I think ultimately af ter a number of questions f rom Cenntag Reporting CGrvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 ,
(312) 232-0262
4526 I
1 - Judge G rossman, you stated that if an inspector knew )
- I 2 that the broken collar spring hadn' t aff ected the l l
3 calibrations, it might be okay to write a General i
4 Inspection Report.
i 5 Can you ref erence any procedure, Mr. Snyder, which 6 authoriz es the initiation of a General Inspection Report ;
7 in circumstances such as you have previously testified 8 to with respect to this broken torque -- broken collar 9 spring on torque wrench A174? -
l 10 A Only the procedure I stated earlier that is on the top 11 of this copy -- I don' t know how it's woriled in that 12 procedure -- to use this f orm; but I don' t recall saying 13 I would use this form, but I may make the notation on 14 the 77, or if it was me, I would have wrote the ICR, but 15 that --
16 Q Why would you have written the ICR?
17 A Maybe John knew something I didn' t know about here; but 18 if there is a question about the tool, you -- I would 19 write the ICR.
20 I don' t know.
21 Maybe he didn' t questioned the tool.
22 He said no work was aff ected by this condition, so 23 - but that to me is an engineering statement.
24 Q Mr. Sny der, have you ever been criticized by anyone for O 25 writing zoo many IcR. s2 Sean*=g Reparting S=zvice; Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4527
()
1 A No.
2 Q Do you know if Mr. Seeders was was ever criticized for 3 writing too many ICR's?
4 A No, I don' t know.
5 Q The same condition would, in your j udgment, more 6 appropriately be written up by an ICR rather than a GIR; 7 correct? ,
8 A W ell, I think intially you could write an ICR.
9 I have seen this GIR several times for that problem 10 now.
11 Initi ally , if you write the ICR and it turns out 12 that engineering buys it off, you could ref erence the O 13 ICR that they accepted this problem on, you know, and 14 that would clarify that story.
15 I think you should take it to Engineering and let 16 them help you evaluate that.
17 That's normally the way I do it.
18 Q Then that's the function of an ICR is to get Engineering 19 involved; correct?
20 A Yes, yes.
21 Q One of its f unctions?
22 A Yes.
23 Q It's also a control document as opposed to a GIR, which 24 was not; correct?
25 A Yes, si r.
(])
Genntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4528
(
l Q Let me return j ust briefly to your statement to Mr.
2 McG regor and Mr. Schulz on March 29, 1985.
3 First of all, Mr. Snyder, you had been threatened 4 by Mr. Saklak the late af ternoon preceding the morning 5 that you went to the NRC; correct?
6 A Yes, si r.
7 Q And I believe you said that you were upset --
8 A Yes, si r.
9 Q -- by the incident with Mr. Saklak; ccrrect?
I 10 A Well, yes. It bothered me, yes.
11 Q You said -- you may have testified that you stayed up
, 12 most of the night?
O 13 A N o, no, I think I slept. It did not keep me up.
14 Q But you were thinking about it overnight?
15 A Well, yes. I had talked to my wif e about it, and --
j 16 Q It was a matter of some concern to you; isn' t that 17 correct?
18 A Yes. -
19 Q When you went to the NRC, were you f ocusing on Mr.
20 Saklak in your grievance against him? .
21 A W ell, that was the reason I went, yes.
l 22 Q All right. Now, did you -- when you talked to Mr.
23 McG regor, did you make a statement to Mr. McG regor 24 first, about the specific incident that is the one that 25 begins on the beginning of Page 1 of the March 29, 1985,
(])
cann*=g nepar&ing S=rvice; Ltd:
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4529 O
1 memorandum in which you describe the specific f acts of 2 the incident with Mr. Saklak the evening bef ore?
3 A Did I start it out that way?
4 Q Yes, si r.
5 or did Mr. McGregor happen to ask you a question as 6 to why you were here or something to that effect?
7 A Well, yes.
8 He, I think -- when we went in the door, we said we 9 needed to talk to him, or I said I needed to talk. I 10 was -- I was the first one in there, I believe. "I 11 would like to talk to you, " and, you know, he -- I am 12 sure he said something. I know he said something during O 13 this conversation that we all had, because I j ust didn' t 14 start -- you know, pretty soon I started this 15 conversation here of mine, but I am sure he said, ;
16 "What's on your mind" or, you know, "What do you have on 17 your mind?"
18 0 Then, af ter you finished your description of the 19 incident. the night bef or e, did Mr. McGregor ask you 20 questions about your knowledge of any other similar -
21 incident ?
22 A Ye s, si r. I remember a couple of questions.
23 Q All right. Those questions are not reproduced in Mr.
24 McG regor's narrative, ar e they ?
25 A No, si r.
(])
i Ocnntsg Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
, ,, . . ..-, , , _ ._, _ , ~ . . _ , _ . _ , .
l 4530 O
1 Q You responded to those questions as best you could, 2 didn' t you?
3 A Yes, si r.
4 0 Do you recall whether Mr. McGregor asked you in i
5 substance, whether, when John Seeders was -- well, the 6 words " railroaded out," do you see where those appear?
7 A Yes, sir.
8 Q Are those your words ?
9 A Yes, I believe that is my words.
10 Q All right. Was that in response to a question f rom Mr.
11 McGregor as to -- well, was that in response to a 12 question f rom Mr. McG regor?
13 A Yes, I believe Mr. McG regor did mention John's name. I 14 just didn' t bring it out of the blue here.
15 I don' t say John Seeders, so, you know, th at' s -- I 16 do remember some questions.
17 Q Did Mr. McGregor ask you any question about Mr. Seeders' 18 performance as a Quality Control Inspector in the 19 calibration area?
20 A I don' t recall that, no. I think his question was 21 something like, ref erring to John and Rick's incident, 22 you know, Rick Saklak and John, back in '84, or the 23 whole -- that whole time f rame there, the summer of ' 84.
24 Q Now, I think in response to some earlier question f rom !
1 25
[]} me, and in talking about Mr. Seeders and his i Sonntac Reporting Service r Ltd. l Genev a, Illinois 60134 -
(312) 232-0262
4531 O
1 deficiencies in the calibration records, you said that 2 he had observed that someone was building a case against l 4 3 him: !
4 Isn' t that what you were attempting to do in your 5 comments to the NRC regarding Mr. Saklak, that is, build 6 a case against him because he had threatened you the a 7 evening bef ore and -
8 A Well, I was j ust explaining what I -- my opinion here, 9 what I had observed, since I had been there, and Mr.
10 Saklak -
11 Q But the focus of your comments was on Mr. Saklak, 12 because you wanted the ,NRC to be specifically aware of 13 his management style, his threatening behavior to you 14 the evening bef ore, so on; isn' t that right?
- 15 A That's correct.
16 0 To the extent that you off ered other explanations f or 17 his behavior that might lead the NRC to question whether i
18 or not Mr. Saklak was, in fact, abusive without any i 19 cause ; cor r ect ?
20 A That's correct.
- 21 I simply -- since I did witness, you know, the 22 whole incident between him and John, from their argument i 23 the day I walked out to -- the whole thing I seem like I l
24 was in the middle of, so I had to -- I kind of seen both !
!Q 25 sides of that.
00nntag Repe; ting Oervice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 '
4532 O
1 Q Nw , in fact, at the time that you went to the NRC on 2 March 29,19S5, you knew, didn' t you, that Mr. Seeders 3 had brought his complaints about Mr. Saklak to, not Mr.
4 McG regor specifically, but Mr. Schulz, the other person 5 who was in the room?
6 A I knew he had talked with Mr. Schulz; in f act, I think I 7 remember John saying they were neighbors, so they talked 8 together about --
9 Q Did you understand Mr. Schulz and Mr. Seeders had an f 10 acquaintanceship outside of any passing acxIuaintanceship 11 they may have had as a result of John Seeders being a QC 12 Inspector and Mr. Schulz being an NRC Inspector?
13 A I think it was all on the j ob.
14 I am sure they talked at home, you knm, as 15 neighbors; but I don' t knw whether they talked work at 16 hem e.
- 17 Q Did Mr. Seeders ever say anything to you that indicated 18 that he had a personal relationship with Mr. Schulz ?
19 A No, sir, I only knew that John said they were neighbors.
20 Q Okay. But, in f act, you knew from Mr. Seeders' August
! 21 17 th letter to Mr. DeWald, August 17, 1984, that be had 22 sent a copy to Mr. Schulz of the NRC; isn' t that right?
23 A W ell, I didn' t knw of that letter.
24 Let's see. What is this?
l Q 25 I first seen that letter sometime in the summer of l
l Rann*= 0 Perr&ing Service; ' Ltd; I Genev a, Illinois 60134 I (312) 232-0262 l
\ - . - - - . _ _ - . .- . . - _ _ . _ - .
-. .-.- ~. - _ . -- _ _ - -
4533 O
1 '85 or f all of -- let's see.
2 Excuse me -- sunmer of ' 85.
3 Q Well, Mr. Sny der, I believe you testified on exmmination l
4 by Mr. Guild that you first saw this letter in the f all 5 of 1984 at a union organizing meeting in a motel in 6 either Chicago or Joliet; isn' t that correct?
7 A W ell, I -- I can be of f on my dates; but, yes, it was 8 the union or NLRB hearing; but I am sur e -- I don' t know 9 if I said the f all -- that was when our union vote, was 10 in November of '84; but these NLRB hearings weren' t 11 until when we were having -- Comstock and the -union was 12 not coming to an agreement, and these hearings were, I 13 would say, early -- late -- late spring, early summer of 14 '85.
15 Now, I don' t know what I said earlier.
16 If I did say fall, I was w rong there, be cause --
17 Q So you didn' t see the letter until af ter the time that 18 you went to the NRC in March of 1985?
19 A I would say yes, sir.
20 Q Well, since we have got the letter bef ore us, let me 21 just hand it to you. It's Intervenore' Exhibit 23 in 22 evidence.
23 (Indicating. )
24 Do you r ecall what the -- well, first of all, let 25
(]) me back up.
Censtag Repezting Gez fice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 I
4534 lO 1 At this meeting, in connection with negotiations 2 between Comstock and the union that took place in the 3 spring and early summer of 1985, who was the individual 4 who had custody of the letter, who showed it to you?
5 A I believe it was Danny Holley.
6 Q All right, si r.
7 Did he tell you vPf he wanted you to look at it?
8 A No, sir. I -- we were standing, 4 or 5 of us, in the 1
9 hallway there waiting, they were taking us in one at a 10 time in that hearing; but I don' t recall. I didn' t even 11 know he had it.
- 12 I maybe averheard him talking of it, and he handed O 13 it to me and I read it right there on the spot.
14 I -- I think I had heard of -- I had heard of the 15 letter prior to this, prior to my reading it.
16 Q Well, I am a little bit puzzled, Mr. Snyder, by a
- 17 reference to a hearing.
- 18 Were you called as a witness at an NLM hearing?
19 A I never did testify.
4 20 We went up there. I can' t recall if I was called 21 or if it was a volunteer thing.
22 Q But you understood that there was an Administrative Law l
23 Judge or some other official --
} 24 A Yes.
f Q 25 Q -- of the NLM 7 nnn ne n g n oyre i n g n rs, J r., r!* 4 Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 4535
()
1 A Yes. I 2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Miller. I 3 don' t' know if we are moving on.
4 Is this j ust the same as what you asked originally l I
5 on direct, the questions, or are there some -- 1 6 MR. MILL ER : I believe that Mr. Guild asked 7 some questions which led to the disclosure for the first 8 time that this witness had seen the letter at the 9 hearing.
10 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Okay. I' m sor ry.
11 MR. MILL ER : That's the only reason f or this 12 line of examination.
13 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : Okay. I' m sor ry.
14 BY MR. MILLER:
15 Q Okay. Now, Mr. Sny der, Mr. Guild asked you whether you 16 were aware that, in that letter, Mr. Seeders had 17 complained about the lack of certification of his lead 18 and supervisors, and you said you didn' t know.
19 Could you j ust look at the letter quickly and tell j 1
20 me whether, having looked at the letter, you can l 21 ascertain whether, in f act, that letter contains any 22 complaint by Mr. Seeders regarding the lack of 23 certification of his supervisors or lead inspectors?
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Let's go of f the r e' cord
() 25 while he's looking at that.
1 Senntey awpor tius Servico, L L d.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4536 O
1 (There f ollowed a discussion 2 outside the record.)
3 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Back on the record.
4 A well, I missed it the first time here.
5 I am skimming too f ast here.
6 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Well,'Mr. Miller, I don' t 7 know what's profitable about whet we are doing now.
8 This is a letter that the witness didn' t see at the 9 time, and you' re only asking him whether he can find 10 something in the letter.
11 MR. MILLER : Well, there was a -- you know, I 1 12 believe that he agreed with Mr. Guild that the --
O 13 without Mr. Guild showing him the letter --
14 MR. GUILD: He didn' t at all, Mr. Chairman, I 15 merely prof f ered that to him. He said he didn' t know.
16 I asked him to assume that as a fact later on, and he 17 assumed that as it a f act in answer to f urther 18 questions.
19 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Well, rather than --
20 MR. GUILD: The document speaks f or itself.
21 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Instead of waiting 22 interminably here, the beginning of the third paragraph 23 says something.
24 Does that help you at all?
Q 25 A (Continuing. ) I see that he says at the time, "being naan*=0 Reparting Service; Ltd; Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4537 O
1 the only person certified in calibration and receiving. "
2 Now, if he's ref erring to -- well, that's exactly 3 what he says here; and if that's what you see, Judge.
4 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : I am looking at the first 5 page on the --
6 A (Continuing. ) Yes, si r.
7 JUDG E GROSSMAN : - the first sentence on the 8 third paragraph.
l 9 A (Continuing. ) Well, he's talking about inspector 10 certify -- inspector certification which he's talking
- 11 of.
l 12 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Ckay. So that's not related O 13 to what the question is. That's fine.
14 I am just trying to speed it up.
15 MR. MILLER: I appreciate it, your Honor.
16 MR. GUILD: It's the f ollowing 2 sentences in i
I 17 that same paragraph, is the ref erence that the witness
- 18 just read f rom.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
20 A (Continuing. ) At the time being the only person -
21 certified in calibration and receiving.
22 BY MR. MILLER:
23 Q Now , Mr. Snyder, you were asked by Mr. Guild as to when 24 you completed the document that is in evidence as Q 25 Applicant's Exhibit 28. That's your report.
Cennteg Repesting Cezvice, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
--. - ~ . - - - .
(
l 4538 l,
, C:)
1 You testified, I think, that some of the pages were 2 completed af ter September 7,1984; correct?
3 A Yes, si r, I would say so.
4 Q Well, can you explain f or us how the pagination, which 5 is shown on the first page, Page 1 of 27, and completes 6 the end, Page 27 of 27 -- was that put on there on i l
7 September 7th or at some later date?
8 A I co uld not say , si r.
9 Q All right. If you look at numbered item 7.
- 10 A U h- huh.
4 11 Q It states that there are certain categories of tools 12 that are y et to be r eview ed.
13 A Yes.
14 Q Isn' t it a f act that it is those tools that were 15 reviewed by you subsequent to September 7,1984, and 16 that, in fact, the review of torque wrenches and --
17 excuse me, there is one other category of tools in here, i
i 18 portable rod ovens was, in f act, in the state that it 19 appears in this document as of September 7, 19847
)
i 20 A That's the way that looks, yes, si r.
21 Q All right. Sir. Now, would you get out Applicant 22 Exhibit 26, also?
23 A Can you help me?
l 24 Q I am sor ry . It ' s Mr . Seeders' handw ritten -- :
() 25 (Indicating. )
[
Rnn nV a n D annr V 4 n n Raru4ca. T.k A _
Gedeva, Illi5ois 6dl34 (312) 232-0262
_ ._ ._, - - - - .. . . . _ . -. _.= -.- - ,_ .- . .. . - _ . - - _ - . - , .
4539 O
1 A Yes.
l 2 Q -- document.
3 (Indicating. ) l 4 Now, on the 4 th page of the exhibit, Mr. Seeders 5 has a listing of torque wrenches, does he not?
6 A Yes, si r.
7 Q I believe you testified earlier that Mr. -- as f ar as 8 you could tell, Mr. Seeders was going through the Form 9 77 's on the torque wrench, on July 21, 1984, and you 10 were going through the Form 77 's with the other tools; 11 cor rect ?
12 A Yeah. I think I did say that.
O J3 Yes, si r.
14 Q Now, if you turn to the second page of your report, 15 Exhibit 28, Applicant Exhibit 28?
16 A Yes, sir.
17 Q Do you find any of the torque wrenches listed by Mr.
- 18 Seeders in his report in the upper-lef t-hand block of 19 Page 2 of your report?
20 I will to save the suspense. I have identified 21 i one, and I will talk to you about it in j ust a second.
22 A Okay. You wanted me to keep looking here?
23 (Indicating. )
24 Let's see. A885 must be the one you' re talking O 2s aeoue.
~
00nntag neperting Servics, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4540
()
1 Q That's the one that appears in both placea; is that 2 cor rect ?
i 3 A A885.
4 Q Mr. Seeders' conclusion is expressed that no f urther 5 action need be taken, all research completed as per 6 4.9.1-C, that's f ound at the end of his report; and he 7 includes torque wrench A885.
8 Now, if we look at Page 11 of 27 of your report, do 9 you remember that torque wrencb? We find that your
- 10 review showed it out of calibration July 28th, '83, with 11 no -- no ICR written up.
12 A Yes, si r.
O 13 Q Mr. Seeders -- Mr. Sny der, I beg your pardon -- do you 14 know whether, outside of torque wrench A885, what the 15 basis was f or Mr. Seeders' choice of the torque wrenches i 16 that he reported on in Applicant Exhibit 267 17 A No, si r. This report -- I have looked at this 4 few 18 times since then. It means very little to me. I cannot l 19 understand. There's several more torque wrenches than i 20 that. I don' t know what tha't means.
l 21 Q All right. I take it the f act that, outside of torque l
22 wrench A885 that appears in your report, the fact that i 23 the other ones do not appear in your report under the 24 block on Page 2 of 27, no ICR written f or out of f
(} 25 calibr ation, of course, means that either thq(' were Scantag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4541 O
1 always in calibration or that you were able to locate an 2 ICR when they were found to be out of calibration; 3 correct?
4 A That's correct.
5 0 So that Mr. Seeders f ortuitously report on a number of 6 torque wrenches f or which the records were in 7 conf ormance with the procedural requirements of 4.9.1; 8 right?
9 A Yes.
10 0 Mr. Seeders' report was to close-out Commowealth Edison 11 Company Quality Assurance Audit Finding; correct?
12 MR. GUILD: I obj ect. ,
13 The witness simply has stated already that he's not 14 capable of answering what the purpose of the report was 1
15 for.
16 BY MR. MILLER :
17 Q Well, in any event, Mr. Snyde r, is it correct that you 18 understood that one purpose of your review was to 19 close-out that commomealth Edison Company Quality 20 Assurance Audit Finding; right?
21 A Yes, it had something to do with an audit finding, yes.
22 Q All right. Mr. Guild examined you on Procedure 4.9.1 23 Rev. C, and you were asked about Paragraph 3.3.7 in the 24 requirements, that a QC Inspector initiate an ICR, and I O .
25 ehinx you agreed that ehere was nothing specific in thae Sonntag nepcrting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4542 l
l 1 paragraph that stated that a QC Inspector was to ;
i 2 initiate such a document; correct?
3 A Yes, si r. It doesn' t come out and say that.
4 Q All right. You were trained by Mr. Seeders with respect 5 to this procedure. ,
6 What did you understand -- well, did you understand 7 that there was any other individual, other than the QC 8 Inspector, that was to initiate the ICR7 9 A No, si r.
10 Q And, in fact, did you observe Mr. Seeders f rom time to
) 11 time initiating ICR's f or out-of-calibration
! 12 instruments?
( 13 A I cannot recall, si r. I am sure he did. It's been so 14 long and I only worked with him a couple of weeks,
- 15 may be.
16 Q In any event, it has been your practice, has it not, 17 since you were certified as a Level 2 Calibration 18 Inspector, to initiate an ICR for an out-of-calibration 19 instrument?
20 A Yes, si r.
21 Q Now, there is, in f act, a specific procedure that deals 22 with the initiation of ICR's, isn' t there?
23 A Yes, si r.
24 Q Do you know whether that procedure specifies which 25 individual shall initiate an ICR?
(])
Sonnte; Reperting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
! (312) 232-0262 1
I..,._.~...____-._- . _ _ . . . . . . . _ . _ _ _ . . . . . . . _ . _ . . - _ , , _ _ . _ _ . _ . . ._ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ , _ _ _
4543 O
1 A I don' t know har it's worded for sure. It is f or the QC 2 Inspector -- it's a procedure for the Inspector.
3 MR. MILL ER: All right. Now, I would like the 4 Reporter to mark as Applicant's Exhibit -- I think we 5 are up to 4 -- No. 40 -- a document has that a L.K.
6 Comstock & Company procedure tracking sheet for
- 7 procedure 4.11.2, Revision B. It shows Commonwealth I
8 Edison interim approval, Febr ua ry 21, 1984, and it was 9 superseded December 7,1984.
10 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : This is Applicant's Exhibit 11 40?
12 MR. MILLER : Yes, si r.
()
13 (The document was thereupon marked
_ 14 Applicant's Exhibit No. 40 for 15 identification as of the 17th day of 16 June, 1986.)
17 BY MR. MILLER:
18 Q All right, si r. Mr. Sn](der, can we agree that this 19 procedure sets f orth the circunstances under which an 20 inspection correction report is issued?
21 A Ye s, si r.
22 Q Is this one of the procedures that you studied prior to 23 the time that you were certified?
I 24 A Yes, si r.
25
(]) Q All rignt.
Cenntag Repesting Gesfice, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 i
4544 O
1 JUDG E COL E: Why don' t we j ust go of f the 2 record f or a minute.
3 It's getting a little warm in here and we are 4 trying to f ound out how to fix that problem.
5 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Why don' t we take a 10-minute 6 recess.
- 7 (WHEREU PON, a recess was had, af ter which 8 the hearing resuned as f ollows
- )
9 JUDG E GROSSMAN : We are back on the record.
10 During the recess, the parties have agreed that 11 they would like to discuss the document that Mr. Cassel 12 has brought bef ore us, and Mr. Miller has indicated that O
13 he doesn' t obj ect to having his examination interrupted 14 for a discussion of this, so we will proceed.
15 I guess the ball is in your court, Mr. Cassel.
16 MR. CASSEL : Thank you, Judge; and, also, I 17 express my appreciation to Counsel for Applicant and the 18 Staff for not obj ecting to what I hope will be a brief 19 digr ession.
20 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, I was j ust -- now I 21 an going to interrupt.
22 I was wondering whether we might excuse Mr. Snyder 23 while this discussion is taking place.
24 JUDG E GROSSMAN : I think that's the best 25 thing to do.
(])
Sonnte; Reporting Serviceg Ltd_
Genev a, Illinois 60134
- (312) 232-0262
4545 O
J Mr. Snyder, would you please.
2 THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you.
3 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Go on out.
4 MR. CASSEL : Now the fun starts.
5 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : Proceed.
6 MR. CASSEL : Judge, yesterday in the mail, 7 from an unidentified source, I received a document which 8 purports to be an NRC document, memorandum from Region 3 9 files, dated August 2,1983, signed by R. C. Knopf, 10 Chief of Proj ect, Branch 1, stating allegations by the 11 predecessor of Mr. DeWald as QC Manager for Comstock at 12 Braidwood, allegedly reporting to the NRC certain 13 allegations which are set forth here in the document, 14 which -- copies of which have been supplied to the 15 Judges and to the other parties.
16 This type of document f alls within the scope of at 17 least two document requests filed by Intervenors to the 18 Staf f on August 2,1985, they being Requests No. 54 and 19 55, concerning any complaints by any present or former 20 Braidwood employee of harassment, intimidation, 21 retaliation or other discrimination by Commonwealth 22 Edison or any contractors, Ebat's No. 54, and No. 55, a 23 request to describe in detail any and all complaints by 24 Comstock Quality Control Inspectors or other QA 25 per sonnel, including but not limited to those ref erred
(])
Oennteg Repesting Sesiice, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
f 4546 i
O 1 to in a particular report.
j 2 The document title was Rorem, et al . , Quality 1
3 Assurance Interrogatories and Requests To Produce, First i
j 4 Set.
i 5 To our knowledge at least, this document, if indeed :
j 6 it is an authentic NRC document, was not produced in
! 7 response to our request.
{ 8 Immediately upon receiving this document -- and 9 it's the first time, of course, that we have seen it --
10 we wanted to bring it to the Board's attention and to
< 11 inquire of the Staf f whether there are other documents l
12 related to this matter as our first irquiry; and, if so,
) 13 a request that they be produced; and, second, whether 14 the Staff is satisfied that it has really made a
! 15 thorough search of the documents of Region 3 in response l
l 16 to our requests f or such documents, and we thought it ;
! 17 best to raise theap matters; and we are, of course, not i
! 18 suggesting any untoward conduct here, but we want to i 19 have the issue resolved.
l 20 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Mr. Berry.
21 MR. BERRY: Yes, your Honor.
22 This document first came to our attention over the i 23 luncheon recess, and over the luncheon recess, the Staff I 24 made some inquiries into this.
l Q 25 As I understand, this document relates to certain enon .a n nn
- 4 m m c.. 4m.- r. ,=
Genwa, Illinois 60134 ,
(312) 232-0262 !
. . - . , - - . - - . . . , . - - . . . - , . - - - - - , - - - - . - - - - . - - - . . , .. . - . - - - . ~ . . . . - - . - - - . - - - - - - - . - - - - - -
4547 l -
O l 1 allegations that I understand are under investigation by l 2 :he Office of Investigations.
I 3 I believe, in the discovery response, the Staff l 4 response to the interrogatories, indicated by Mr.
5 Cassel, the Staf f indicated that -- indicated two
- 6 things; first of f, that it was limiting its discovery 7 responses to those allegations to QC inspectors; and l
(
8 secondly, I believe that the Staf f also indicated that i
9 there were other matters or other allegations that were 10 under investigation by the office of Investigations.
11 It's my understanding that this particular document
- 12 would f all within that -- those 2 classes, the 2 l 13 allegations that the Staff indicated were under
, 14 investigation by the office of Investigations.
15 I understand the office of Investigations is 16 presently conducting its investigation into this matter.
17 That investigation is ongoing; it hasn' t been completed.
18 So I believe that, you know, that addresses, I 19 guess, the first claim of the Intervenors.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Well, Mr. Berry, do I 21- understand correctly that these allegations are not 22 confidential allegations --
23 MR. BERRY: I --
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: - at this point?
O 25 MR. .ERRx: At this peine your sonor, I l
Genntag Reperting Gezvice, Ltd.
j Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262
4548 O
1 really don' t know.
2 I have not seen this document bef ore. I was not 3 aware of it until -- until this af ternoon.
4 I j ust --
5 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Well, what we are talking 6 about now on the record is something that may or may not
- 7 be confidential, or do we know that this is not 8 condifidential ?
9 MR. BERRY: The OI investigations are
- 10 confidiential.
11 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : Just because you are asking 12 about these inv estigations, the f act that something is l 13 public, and even OI investigates and covers that matter, I
14 doesn' t conf er confidentiality on what's already been 15 public.
16 Are these allegation public?
17 MR. BERRY: My understanding is that the i l
18 Staf f has not produced this document.
- 19 JUDG E GROSSMAN
- Well, that's apparently the 20 first problem, that Staff hasn' t; and reading the
! 21 document, ,it ref ers to someone threatenedI with being 1
} 22 fired if he does not keep quiet.
23 Now, to me, if we have the right parties, there is 1
24 no -- there is no question but that we are talking about 25 intimidation.
(])
i S^a n* = g R epor ti a; Service; Lti Genev a, Illinois 60134 j (312) 232-0262
4549 4
)
1 Now, I don' t want to j ump to any rash conclusions, 2 but those words look pretty ominous to me.
3 Now, bef ore we go further, we want to know whether 4 these charges are no longer confidential.
5 Are they public; can Staf f tell you that?
l 6 MR. BERRY: Your Honor, I am inf ormed that 7 Region 3, I guess, who was the recipient of these 1 8 allegations, has treated and continues to treat these i 9 allegations and confidential, and they haven' t -- the 10 Staf f has not published it, they have not produced it, j 11 and we treat it confidentially, and I would assume that 4 12 OI would do the same.
(
13 But I would also like to address the second point 1
14 about the search and the thoroughness of the Staff's l 15 search for documents.
! 16 We believe that the Staff has condacted a thorough 17 search f or documents. The Staf f has, in f act, made 18 available to the parties the entire allegations files, 19 allegation files certainly relating to the QC Inspectors
'l l 20 at B raidwood.
21 In this connection, we would note that Parker's l 22 allegation, the complete Parker's allegation file, was 23 made available to all the parties, even though 24 technically be wasn' t within the scope of the 25 co ntention.
({)
I i
Oennteg Repertiny "ezfice, Ltd.
! Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4550 i
! O !
I I believe there was also one other allegation file 1
i 2 related to Braidwood that was also produced.
i 3 In fact, in the region, there is Mr. Weil. He' s 4 the allegation coordinator, the allegation specialist, 3 and he's the custodian of all the documents on matters 6 related to allegations brought to the NRC I; elating to 7 saf ety concerns, harassment or intimidation, and it was 8 a search of Mr. Weil's records that produced and 9 resulted in the production of the documents that the
- 10 Staff made available to the parties on January the loth, i
) 11 Mr. Weil's office is the central eepository of any l
12 documents that would be responsive to Intervenors' O 13 harassment and intimidation allegations, and the Staff
! 14 has conducted a search of those files and has updated 15 that search seasonanly.
16 JUDG E GROSSMAN : I hate to interrupt, Mr.
17 Berry, and if you haven' t concluded, but has this been 18 shown to Applicant, Applicant's counsel, at this point?
19 MR. BERRY: Not by the Staf f. I mean, to my 20 knowledge, this document has not -- has not escaped or 21 lef t the offices of Region 3 Staf f, except f or -- I 22 guess Intervenors have it f rom some source; but the 23 Staff has not -- it was not made available by the Staf f 24 to the Intervenors, to the Applicant or to any other l
Q 25 party that I know of. It's an internal document and l l
c .,- n+ a n m +4 - c. wic.. r. a Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 _ l
4551 0
1 hasn' t been produced or published.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Is there anyone in the roam 3 on Staf f who is f amiliar with this document and the ,
, 4 investigation?
5 (No Response.)
6 MR. BERRY: Excuse me.
l 7 Could you repeat the question?
8 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Is there anyone here with us 9 ' who is f amiliar with this document who had seen it 10 bef ore and is f amiliar with the ongoing investigation?
11 I don' t mean as a member of OI, but --
12 MR. B ERRY: Let me say bef ore your Honor, 13 over the luncheon recess when this matter was brought to 14 my attention, I asked Mr. Little to make some inquiries 15 into this.
16 It is my understanding that he first -- first saw 17 this document today as well, but he has been in contact 18 with officials in the region, and he may have some 19 additional inf ormation.
20 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Well, we have a very 21 difficult situation.
22 We have a document in which the person has asked 23 for confidentiality. It's a f airly old document, almost 24 3 years old.
() 25 How ev er, it was produced under circunstances that Cenntag neperting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4552 l O
1 would appear to breach any confidentiality. It was 2 mailed to Intervenors.
3 Now, we have no one in the room, I take it, who is 4 asking f or confidentiality of this document?
5 Are you so asking, Mr. Berry?
6 MR. BERRY: Yes, we would, your Honor.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Oh, you are asking f or 8 confidentiality.
9 Well, I don' t think, if Intervenor right now is 10 putting us on notice -- if you are putting us on notice 11 -- that they wish to bring this into the proceeding, we 12 are so noticed; and it appears to me to be very relevant 13 to the proceeding; and it Intervenors haven' t heard of 14 this bef ore, I would expect that there is a pretty good 15 cause for their not having raised it sooner; but I think 16 we ought to get a report f rom Staff on that, first of 17 all, as to w hy y ou, your sel f, Mr. Ber ry , or Staf f 18 Counsel, as a group, was not notified about this 19 particular document so that Staf f Counsel could 20 determine on its own whether the interrogatory answers 21 were proper; and then, secondly, what the status is of 22 the investigation and the document itself, what is still 23 confidential, if anything, and then you ought to report 24 back to us on that.
25 I don' t know if there is anything else that we can
(]) .
Rann*=0 nepar&ing Service; Lti Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4553 O
1 do now, Mr. Miller. We haven' t heard f rom you.
2 MR. MILLER: W ell, I am not sure I have very 3 much to contribute, except to figuratively wave my hand 4 over the situation, because this is something that is a 5 perennial problem in these proceedings, one which I 6 don' t believe there is any satisf actory resolution f or.
7 If there is, in f act, an OI investigation that is 8 not yet concluded, then I believe that all the parties 9 - and, indeed, the Board - are virtually powerless to 10 obtain additional inf ormation f rom OI as to what the 11 status -- well, we may find out what the status of the 12 investigation is as to whether or not it's open or 13 closed - but our collective ability to learn anything 14 further about the investigation or to have OI provide a 15 witness who will explain it, is entirely problenatic at 16 this point.
17 JUDG E GROSSMAN : There is a third thing that 18 Staff ought to investigate.
19 I can' t keep track of all the many changes with 20 regard to what OI is supposed to be telling us.
21 My recollection is, the last procedure required OI 22 to inf orm us of relevant investigations. I think there 23 had been some problem with who made that determination 24 as to what was relevant; but I would certainly like O 25 Seaff to report back on the status of the OI obligation Sennius Rem Liny 5&viw, LLa.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4553 l l
O 1 do now, Mr. Miller. We haven' t heard f rcan you.
- 2 MR. MILLER
- Well, I am not sure I have very 3 much to contribute, except to figuratively wave my hand 4 over the situation, because this is something that is a 5 perennial problem in these proceedings, one which I 6 don' t believe there is any satisf actory resolution f or.
7 If there is, in f act, an OI investigation that .is l
8 not yet concluded, then I believe that all the parties 9 - and, indeed, the Board - are virtually powerless to 10 obtain additional inf ormation f rom OI as to what the 11 status -- well, we may find out what the status of the 12 investigation is as to whether or not it's open or 13 closed - but our collective ability to learn anything 14 further about the investigation or to have OI provide a 15 witness wn) will explain it, is entirely problematic at
! 16 this point.
17 JUDG E GROSSMAN : There is a third thing that 18 Staf f ought to investigate.
19 I can' t keep track of all the many changes'with 20 regard to what OI is supposed to be telling us.
21 My recollection is, the last procedure required OI 22 to inf orm us of relevant investigations. I think there 23 had been some problem with who made that determination 24 as to what was relevant; but I would certainly like O 25 Staff to repore bacx on the status of the OI o 11gation Sennie s no m.Lius 3.sviv , L La.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4554 O
1 tu inf orm the Board on where this fits in under that.
2 MR. BERRY: Yes, your Honor.
3 MR. CASSEL : J udges, there is one additional 4 fact that I should bring to the Board's attention. What 5 bearing it will ultimately have I don' t know.
6 For ~ some days an investigative reporter has been 7 working in our of fice, digging through our files, 8 reading documents, and we have given him pretty much 9 f ree r eign.
10 When this document arrived yesterday, he saw it and 11 I saw it. I don' t know whether he is going to make any 12 use of it, but it is -- this particular document is in .
13 the public domain. Whether anything beyond it will be 14 in the public domain I don' t know.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, it appears to me that i
16 we can' t clamp a stamp of confidentiality on something 17 that was transmitted the way it was. You know, 18 Intervenor received an anonymous communication. They 19 are certainly entitled to use it whichever way they 20 want.
21 I think that they might be advised, whether it's I 22 best advised to keep it confidential until we straighten 23 things ought here or not, you know, that really is a l 24 matter for you.
O 25 We are certainly not requiring that you keep it S^"nMg Reparting Service; Ltd_
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
.l I 4555 1
iO
.i
! 1 confidential.
2 We are not going to publish it now, within this 3 hearing, until we hear back f rcm Staff; but we certainly 4 have no desire to hinder your exercise of your Amendment 5 rights, and you certainly can do whatever you want with 6 it.
7 MR. MILLER: Well, your Honor, it seems to 8 me, how ev er, that pending an explanation f rom the Staf f, 9 that if the Intervenors have any regard for the 10 integrity of the NRC investigative process, that they 11 will exercise their best efforts to renain -- have it 12 remain confidential.
13 As you pointed out, this document is 3 years old.
14 It is hard?.y a new revelation, and it seems to me that, 15 in weighing the stated request f or confidentiality that
- 16 appears on the f ace of the document, and the -- and an 17 OI f ormal practice, as I understarid it, to conduct these 18 investigations in confidence, that the Intervenors ought 19 to restrain themselves f or the minimal time necessary 20 until we can find ought generally what the status is of 21 this investigation. ;
I 22 - JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, okay. '
23 Intervenors, you have got some f ree advice here.
24 What you do with that, you know, is really up to you.
j i
Q 25 What we are doing is j ust not publishing it now, Suuutew a- W sLius S.Kiice, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 ,
(312) 232-0262
4556 O l 1 publicizing what's in there, until we hear f urther f rom !
l 4 2 Staff. <
l 3 I think that that concludes it. There really 4 doesn' t seem to be anything f urther.
5 Mr. Berry, do you have anything?
6 MR. BERRY: No, your Honor. Staf f would look 7 into it properly and get back to the Board as soon as we 8 find out.
~
9 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Okay.
10 ,
MR. CASSEL : Thank you very much, Judge. I 11 appreciate the courtesy, and likewise to the parties.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Now we can return to O 13 the witness, and if someone would -
14 MR. GUILD: I will find him, Judge.
15 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Let me state something 16 further regarding this.
17 Mr. Guild is not in the room.
18 Do you want this on the record?
19 There is a further question f or the Staf f to look 20 int o, and that is whether, in general and in particular 21 in this case, whether the OI investigation concludes 22 when the person is no longer employed, and whether any 23 grant of confidentiality terminates, which I understand 24 to have been the practice in the past; so we do want to Q 25 have specific attention paid to that.
Can*ag Reparting S^rrice s Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4557
()
1 I don' t know if you got the gist or the whole part 2 of that.
3 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Off the record.
4 (There followed a discussion 5 outside the record.)
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We are back on the record, 7 and the witness has returned to f urther examination f rom 8 Mr. Miller.
9 BY MR. MILLER :
10 Q Mr. Sny der, I would like you to look at Paragraph 3.2.1, i 11 which is the third page of the exhibit, and it's the
' 12 bottom right-hand corner.
(I 13 A Yes, si r.
14 Q First of all, is an out-of-calibration instrument a 15 deviation that can be corrected in process by the 16 Construction Department, as that term is used in the a
17 first 2 lines -- the first 3 lines of Paragraph 3.2.l?
18 A W ell, there is a diff erence here. They call -- in ;
19 process is like a weld inspection now, or cable pull 20 inspection, where you are actually looking over the 21 craf tsman's shoulder.
22 In this case here, with calibrated tools, you are 23 not actually looking over that tool, as it's being used
! 24 all the time. There may be a QC Inspector around, but 25 in some cases not.
(]}
1 Genntag Reperting Gervice, Ltd. I Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) '232-0262
4558
- (
l But an out-of-tolerance tool would still, in my 2 opinion, be a deviation.
3 Q And, ther ef or e, an Inspection Correction Report would be 4 initiated in accordance with this procedure; is that 5 right?
6 A Yes, sir.
7 Q All right. Now, this procedure indicates that af ter the 8 -- I have been calling them the wrong thing, I think 9 they call them the Inspection Correction Report and, in 10 fact, the proper name is an Inspection Checklist Report; 11 is that cor rect?
12 A No, si r. I think that's a -- I think that's an O 13 incorrect thing there in the procedure.
c 14 It is Inspection Correction Report, to the best of 15 sy knowledge.
16 Q All right. And that's what the title is in the Form 30 17 that's attached to this procedure?
18 A Yes, I am sure it is.
19 Q All right. In any event, the instructions are that the 20' inspector completes it and submits it to the QC Manager 21 other his designee, who reviews the ICR f or clarity, l
22 completeness and legibility.
23 Is your practice, so f ar as you know it, co nsistent 24 with this procedural requirement in terms of submitting 25 a completed ICR to the QC Manager or his designee?
(])
Senntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ,
Genev a, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 )
,/ -3 l 1
4559 O
1 A It was at this time.
2 I don' t believe it's done that way now. I think 3 the manager designee looks at it, the ICR, af ter it 4 comes back f rom the field, af ter the QC Inspector closes 5 it.
6 Q All right. In fact, you were shown an ICR yesterday, by 7 Mr. Guild.
8 Let me show you two -- these are attached to --
9 these are a part of Attachment 5 to Mr. DeWald's 10 pr e-filed testimony. There is 1 that is signed by Mr.
11 Seeders, and it's got the date of September 17, 1984.
12 There is another also signed by Mr. Seeders, and it 13 bears the date 9/14, and although the last 2 digits are 14 cut off, I would represent to you that that's also 1984.
15 The second one has a little -- in the original -- a 16 yellow sticky tab attached to it, with some comments 17 from Mr. Seese.
s 18 A Yes.
19 Q Now, have you ever seen either one of these ICR forms 20 before, that is, in the f orm that I am showing to you 21 with the writing and the --
22 A Yes, sir. I don' t know that I have ever initiated one 23 that f orm -- in that f orm, but I have seen them, yes.
24 Q Well, until Procedure 4.11.2 was changed, did you 25 '
(]) routinely submit your completed ICR to Mr. Seese for his Coastag Espes ting Gesvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4560
(
1 review ?
2 A Yes, si r.
3 Q From time to time -- well, did he ever have occasion to 4 bounce one back to you because it wasn' t properly filled 5 out?
6 A Well, yeah, he might have had a question about it or 7 any thing, yes.
8 Q And then you would respond and get the proper --
9 A Correct.
10 Q -
get it taken care of ?
11 A Yes.
0 12 Q Now, on these two ICR's that are attached to Mr.
O 13 DeWald's testimony, there is a date already filled in 14 opposite the signature of Mr. Seeders; correct?
15 A Yes.
16 Q And when you submitted the ICR f orms to Mr. Seese, prior 17 to the time 4.11.2 was changed, would you also have it 18 filled out with the date?
19 A Yes, sir.
20 Q And, in your practice, Mr. Snyder, what did that date 21 indicate?
22 A That's the date I wrote the ICR.
23 Q And is that on or close to the date that you observed
.4 2 the condition that was deviating?
25 A Yes, si r. It's a -- I would say the day or the next
(]) i 9onntag Reporting Ser' rice; Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4561 1
1 day, j 2 Q All right. Now, it is only af ter Mr. Seese's review, 3 under the version of 4.11.2 that we have been looking 4 at, that's Revision B, that the ICR is f orwarded to the 5 QC records clerk f or completing the inspection 6 correction log; right? l 7 A Yes, si r.
8 Q And is that your understanding of the routine that was 9 followed during the summer and f all of 19847 10 A Yes, sir, I suppose that was the channel we went j 11 through.
12 Q Well, you sound a little uncertain, Mr. Snyder.
13 . Do you recall that that's, in f act, what happened 14 or do you know?
15 A Well, I recall yesterday I think I said that we might 16 have gave it to the clerk directly, and I could not 17 recall what the process was. l 18 There is -- it's changed 3 or -- 2 or 3 times, but 19 whatever it said here was the way it was going at that 20 time. l 21 Q All right. The -- this version of the procedure said 22 that af ter the ICR clerk, or the what's referred to as 23 the QC records clerk, logs in the ICR, that the 24 initiating inspector is given a copy with the words, O 25 ror Ref erence only on it, oc the ICR.
l Cenntag Reperting Service, Ltd. I Geneva, Illinois 60134 I (312) 232-0262 l'
4562 O
1 Do you recall personally having received such 2 copies with that legend back f rom the QC records clerk 3 who logged the ICR in?
4 A Yes, si r.
5 0 In your experience, Mr. Snyder, have you ever had a 6 situation in which you initiated an ICR and, while this 7 procedure was effective, did not receive back f rom the 8 QC records clerk a copy of the ICR af ter she had logged 9 it in?
10 A Not to my knowledge, no. )
11 Q Has any other inspector, to your knowledge, ever claimed 12 that he or she filled out an ICR, while this procedure O 13 was in ef f ect, and did not receive back f rom the QC 14 records clerk a copy. of the ICR marked "For Ref erence 15 Only "?
16 A I never heard anyone complain about it.
17 I think the copy was j ust to give you the ICR l
18 number back, so you didn' t have to bother the -- her f or 19 it, probably; but even if you didn' t get the copy back, l i
20 you could ask her f or the number, but I don' t recall l l
21 hearing anyone complain about that.
22 Q So that when you got the copy back f rom the QC records 23 clerk it had the ICR number, which she had taken f rom 24 ,
the next number -- next open number in her log book; Q 25 correct?
Canntag Reparting Service; Ltd_
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4563 O
1 A I would say yes, that's -- that would be the reason f or 2 the copy back.
3 You can either throw that away or, you know, af ter 4 you used your number, if you needed the number, do 5 whatever you want with it.
6 I don' t think you were required to keep that copy 7 for ev er.
8 Q Are there -- there was a time in this process, 9 contemplated by 4.11.2 Revision B, that the ICR that the 4
10 inspector had filled out was not personally in his j 11 po ssession, it was either in Mr. Seese's hands or he 12 transmitted it to the QC records clerk f or logging; O 13 cor r ect ?
14 A That's cor rect.
15 Q I think Mr. Guild yesterday asked you about filing 16 mishaps, lost documentation and so on.
17 A U h- huh.
18 Q Do you have an opinion, Mr. Sny der, as to whether it is 19 plausible or likely that each and every one of the 20 missing ICR's that you recorded in the upper lef t-hand 21 block of the Page 2 of Exhibit 28, was properly filled 22 out by Mr. Seeders or some other QC Inspector, and then 23 ,
somehow lost prior to the time it got a number and 24 showed up in the log? i 1
25 MR. GUILD: Obj ection. Lack of foundation.
(])
Constsg Repor ting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4564 0
1 JUDG E GROSSMAN : W ell, he can answer that f or 2 whatever it's worth.
3 You can answer that.
4 A In my opinion, that the ICR's f or all of these were not 5 written.
6 BY MR. MILLER :
7 Q In other words, they were never written by the QC 8 Inspectors ?
9 A In my opinion?
10 I cannot -- just f rom the f acts I have seen, when 11 we did our review, we followed through on several of 12 these, and could not find any -- any ICR's written.
O 13 Q You say you f ollowed through.
14 How do you attempt to f ollow through?
15 A Well, you can go -- we went to the ICR log originally; 16 but then you can go to the ICR files which, around that 17 time -- well, the log says the same as the file, so it 18 was j ust a general follow through, the whole thing we 19 did do. It all tied back together; so if we did have a 20 question, we -- we had the ICR files right there beside 21 us to look into; but I guess there wouldn' t have been a 22 need, since we originally went through the ICR log and 23 recorded all calibrated ICR's.
24 Q Now, you have had occasion, have you not, to fill out Q 25 the Form 23 or Form 23-A, and put it in the basket on S= *=g Reparti ng Service; Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . _ . . . _ . . - . . . ._ . _ . . _. ~ .._
4565
/
O i 1 the quality control record's clerk desk f or ultimately 2 filing in the tool package in the vault?
3 A Yes, sir.
4 Q In your experience, Mr. Sny der, have any of those been ,
5 misfiled or lost? i 6 A Yes, si r. :
7 Q How many ? i 8 A Sev er al.
9 The reason I know that is because this NCR 3419, we l 10 have continually went through calibration reports again, '
11 af ter this initial research, and we find then misfiled !
12 reports f rom one number in another number package, and i
O 13 there are some reports that j ust are not there; and per l
14 my 77, I did initiate those reports; because you can' t 15 just make up -- you could, I guess, make up that 77, but ,
t 16 I don' t, without a report in my hand, to take the !
17 inf ormation off of; but as I stated yesterday, there are 1 18 some documents, they say be there, but they are misfiled ;
i 19 if they are.
20 Q All right. Your review of the files has been f or the ;
21 purpose of closing out NCR 3419?
22 A Yes, si r. )
23 We have been -- well, this is the third time we ]
24 have went through all these calibration files now.
25 I did this initial research, Exhibit 28, and then,
(])
1 i Cenntag Repesting Geifice, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 1 __ - . _
4 4566 O
1 af ter NCR 3419 was written, we had to start back through 2 each folder again and try to itemize each discrepancy, 3 which has been done; and now there is - going back a 4 third time to try and correct some of those 5 deficiencies, as f ar as paperwork problems that couldn' t 6 be corrected with Engineering.
7 Q Do you know whether you f ound any of the missing 8 calibration reports that are identified on Page 2 of 9 Applicant's Exhibit 28?
10 A No, sir, I could not say.
11 Ray Nemeth is nowhere involved in that that I have, 12 because I have the daily duties of calibration.
O 13 Ray was taken off of his j ob and put on this NCR, 14 and he probably has inf ormation on these, but I could 15 not say.
16 Our second review of these files did not require us l
! 17 to look f or these reports, just to, again, say what was 18 wrong, because when I did this original one, I w as -- I 19 wasn' t certified, and, again, the engineers wanted it 20 for -- in the NCR, updated inf ormation.
21 Q Mr. Guild asked you some questions about Applicant's 22 Exhibit 32, which was one of the packages of Form 77 's 23 and calibration reports, and he examined you regarding 24 what Mr. Seeders was likely to have done if he was 25 l
(]) trying to f alsify or otherwise not f ollow procedures.
maan*=0 Reporting Service; Ltd_
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4567 O
1 Now, the basic document that would cause an ICR to 2 be written is, in fact, the calibration report f rom 3 Phillips Getschow; correct?
4 A That's correct, in this case.
5 Q In this case, it's the last page of the exhibit, and it 6 indicaes, does it not, that the tool is out of 7 calibration?
8 A Yes, si r.
9 Q All right. Mr. Seeders, under the procedures -- well, 10 he had to do something with that tool, did he not?
11 A Yes, sir.
12 Q And he also had to ,do something to indicate that the l () 13 disposition of the tool was properly documented; 14 cor rect?
15 A Yes, sir.
16 Q And to the extent that he simply filled out the remarks 17 column of Foan 77, which indicated that an ICR was 18 written, that would be accepted by anyone looking at the 19 Form 77 as indicating that, in f act, an ICR had been 20 written; right?\,
21 A Yes, sir.
- 22 Q And it was only when you did your research that you l
23 discovered that, in f act, there was no record of an ICR 24 having been written; correct? ,
I 25 A That's correct.
(]) l l
l l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. !
Geneva, Illinois 60134 r l (312) 232-0262
4568 O
1 He could have also stated it on the Phillips 2 Getschow report, which is the way I do it. I say, "Out 3 of tolerance," and I give the ICR number on the Getschow 4 report, al so. That way it ties to the card and it j ust.
5 gives you a complete story.
6 But he didn' t do that here in this case.
7 Q Is that a technique that you j ust devised yourself or 8 did Mr. Seeders tell you that that was the way to do it?
9 A No, si r, I j ust tried to do the best j ob I could 'by 10 keeping everything tracking each other. It's a very 11 simple way to f ollow-up on it then.
12 Q All right. You were asked by Mr. Guild regarding the O 13 March 13th allegations that you made to the NRC 14 Inspector.
15 Did you ever learn, Mr. Snyder, what the 16 disposition of that allegation was?
17 A Yes, I did get something in the mail; and I think Mr.
18 McGregor called me at work on the phone and talked to l i
19 me.
20 I don' t recall.
l 21 I know what ultimately happened there. The 22 procedure was changed or whatever; but, of course, Mr.
23 Hii, I think my next supervisor, was certified in 24 calibr ation, and so that -- as well as Mr. Nemeth Q 25 ultimately was certified and took care of that problem, Sonntag Rep ^rting Service; Ltd_
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. . ~ . . _ _ . . . _ . .. -
4569 1 in my case.
2 Q And that really was your concern, calibration was the 3 only area where there wasn't either a lead or a 4 supervisor who was certified; correct?
5 A That's correct.
6 Q It's a fact, is it not, that you learned from the NRC, 7 as a result of their investigation, that Commonwealth 8 Edison Company had identified this very same deficiency 9 and the lack of certification in a Quality Assurance 10 Audit that they had performed of Comstock's l
11 certification procedures?
12 A I do not recall.
O 13 Is it all in here?
14 Q Well, let me see if I can refresh your recollection.
15 MR. GUILD: Counsel, what number is that?
16 BY MR. MILLER:
17 Q All right. One of the things that you received from the 18 NRC Staff was Inspection Report 8521, 8522, completed by 19 Mr. Mendez and Mr. Neisler, and the Inspection Report is 20 dated October 29, 1985.
21 Did you receive -- do you recall receiving that 22 document along with othe'r documents from the Nuclear 23 Regulatory Commission?
24 A I'd have to look. I really don't recall.-
(} 25 I stated earlier today that I didn't think that I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4570 l
1 had received that, but maybe I have.
2 I got so much stuff in the mail that I -- if you 3 say I got it --
4 Q Well, I'd like to show you -- I don't want to mark it 5 for the record --
6 (Indicating.)
7 A Okay. I think I do recall these closed allegations, and 8 then there was a review.
9 At -- at the end of this, I believe they made their 10 judgment or something on this.
11 Q Well, let me just show you a letter to you from Mr.
12 Weil, dated November 8, 1985, which states that certain 13 allegations, although they are identified as March 29, 14 1985, have been closed and documented in the Inspection 15 Report, Paragraph 2D, which relates, among other things, 16 to Mr. Saklak's --
17 (Indicating.)
18 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, in anticipation of 19 this line of questioning --
20 BY MR. MILLER:
i 21 0 -- threats to you.
22 MR. GUILD: -- if Mr. Miller wants to 23 establish the fact that the NRC found something, to I
24 establish the fact that Commonwealth Edison Company i
/'T 25 found something, I submit that he can't do it through (J
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4571 1 Mr. Snyder.
2 If he simply wants to know what Mr. Snyder's 3 understanding is, Mr. Snyder has stated what his 4 understanding is.
5 Showing him the document is not going to establish 6 the fact.
7 MR. MILLER: Well, he said he didn't recall.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, Mr. Miller, I had my 9 own question as to what the relevance is of this, 10 whether the witness received a report or not.
11 I appreciate your wanting to cross all the T's and
_ 12 dot all the I's, but, still, if it doesn't mean anything 13 to us --
14 MR. MILLER: Well, your Honor, it seems to me 15 that one of the issues here is whether or not there was 16 a countenancing of procedural violations and other 17 aspects of harassment and intimidation by Commonwealth 18 Edison Company, and I think that it is probative to the
, 19 extent that Commonwealth Edison Company itself 20 identifies these matters before any allegations are 21 brought to the NRC.
1 22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, the witness isn't 23 going to establish that.
24 What you are asking him right now is whether the l 25 NRC notified him of an investigation. That's all he's
[}
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l _ _,
i 4572
(
1 competent to talk about; and that has no probative value 2 for us unless it's a foundation for something else, and 3 there isn't anything else that I can see the witness' 4 being notified would help us with.
5 MR. MILLER: Well, you may be right.
6 I'll just save it for the NRC inspectors.
i 7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: All right.
8 BY MR. MILLER:
9 Q Finally, Mr. Snyder, I think you testified the other day 10 that you would occasionally write yourself up for errors 11 in your work that you discovered after the fact.
12 Do you recall that?
13 A Yes, I have a couple of times wrote ICR's that -- on 14 mistakes I had made.
15 Q All right. And the fact that it was your mistake and 16 that you had identified it was clear from the face of 17 the ICR that you wrote up, was it not?
18 A Yes, sir, I stated such in the ICR.
19 Q Have you ever been disciplined by anyone in management 20 or supervision for having self-identified those 21 deficiencies in your work?
22 A No, sir.
23 Q Have you ever been complimented for being so thorough?
24 A Once recently by my now supervisor .cn1 an audit finding
(} 25 that we -- no problems were found, so that was it.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262
i 4573 CE) 1 MR. MILLER: I have no further questions at 2 this point in time.
3 BOARD EXAMINATION 4 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
i 5 Q Mr. Snyder, in response to questions by Mr. Miller, you 6 indicated that a report, which you compiled or helped to 7 compile, which is Applicant's Exhibit 28, did not 8 involve the lack of control by construction of the 9 calibrated tools in the field.
10 Do you recall answering that? ;
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q But the report did involve, did it not, inspections CE.) 13 conducted on these tools under the conditions that you 14 described concerning lack of control; isn't that so?
15 A Yes, sir.
16 Q Okay. Now, in response to Mr. Miller, Mr. Miller's 17 questioning, concerning the lack of control of the tool 18 crib, I believe you agreed with him that that affected 19 miscalibrated tools; that is, the inspector's work with 20 regard to tools that were not properly calibrated.
21 Do you recall indicating that?
22 A That affected tools that were out of tolerance laying 23 there, yes, sir.
l Okay.
24 Q Now, in a case i'n which a tool was in tolerance l
(} 25 but was not returned to the tool crib in time for an Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l l
4574 O
N.)
1 inspection of the calibration by the calibration due 2 date, wouldn't that also affect the inspector's 3 requirements to inspect?
4 A Yes, sir.
5 Q And, in fact, if the tool were not returned by the 6 calibration due date, but then was subsquently returned, 7 that would even further compound the inspector's 8 problems, wouldn't that?
9 A I'm not sure if I understand your question.
10 0 Well, let's say -- okay.
11 Let me give you an example. The tool calibration 12 date is, let's assume, January 5th and the tool doesn't O 13 come back then, but then comes back on January 20th.
14 A Yes, sir.
15 0 Well, then, doesn't the inspector have a very pronounced 16 problem of not only accounting for his lack of 17 inspection on the calibration due date, but also with 18 regard to what he would put down for. January 20th after 19 the calibration date has already passed?
20 A Well, if it was overdue till the 20th, you would 21 initially write it up on the 5th or 6th -- the 6th it 22 would have been overdue. I would write it up as -- as a 23 missing tool, because if -- you don't know where it's l l
24 at.
i 25 Now, if it showed up the 20th, then I would get
)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4575 i
1 with the engineer, say, " Hey, this ICR showed up today." '
]
i .
l 2 He may give me the ICR back or -- or we may make another 1
l 3 statement on the ICR saying that the tool showed up on 4 January 20th, but all work from January 20th,--
5 Q That's how it should have been handled?
6 A In my opinion, yes.
- l. 7 Q Okay. Now, what happened -- let's assume a hypothetical l 8 situation in which it was the practice of craft not to 1
l 9 return tools by the calibration due date, but to keep 10 tools out in the field and then to return them helter 11 skelter.
! 12 Is it conceivable that a QC Inspector would have i C) 13 some problem with regard to initiating a number of ICR's i 14 or reports because of the practice, notwithstanding what 15 the book requires?
l.
- 16 A Yeah, that would be a lot of paper work involved, i
17 writing all the ICR's; but I would think after you wrote 18 so many, that there was -- something would change for 19 that.
i 20 Q Well, let me ask you:
21 I gave you a hypothetical situation, and I've heard j 22 you describe the problems with control over the tool i
! 23 crib.
24 Was that, in fact, the situation that existed at
! 25 the time that you replaced Mr. Seeders in calibration
(} ,
i
}
Sonntaa Renortina'Rervice. Ltd.
~
i Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1 4576 ,
l l
O 1 inspections?
2 A The tools were being turned in overdue?
3 0 Yes.
4 A No more than normal, no, sir, I don't believe so.
5 Q Well, I'm asking you what the normal situation was at 6 that time.
7 What was the norm at that time? Were tools being 8 returned regularly or were they being kept out in the 9 field?
10 A Oh, they were returned as regular -- yes, sir, 11 regularly.
12 (Indicating.)
13 0 Okay.
14 A You are always going to have some tools that don't show 15 up.
16 Out of 3 or 400 tools, there's always going to be 17 some that don't make it back on time.
18 0 Okay. Mr. Miller asked you, with regard to a number of 19 areas, if there was any reason why the complaints that 20 you had, with regard to these particular problems, 21 primarily problems created by the way craft handled the 22 tools, couldn't have been raised by John Seeders.
23 Do you recall those questions?
24 A Yes, sir.
25 Q Is there any reason that you have to believe that Mr.
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
.. , .- .. _ - . . - ~ . .- . .
i 4577 O
1 Seeders didn't make these same complaints?
2 A No, sir, I have no reason to believe that.
3 JUDGE COLE: I just have one or two questions, 4 Mr. Snyder.
5 BOARD EXAMINATION 6 BY JUDGE COLE:
7 Q In response to some questions by Mr. Miller with respect 8 to calibration of tools, I believe you stated that you, i 9 after a calibration, and provided that the calibration 10 demonstrated the instrument to be properly calibrated,
' \
g 11 the calibration -- you put a calibration sticker on the 12 tool?
() 13 A Yes, sir.
14 Q And I believe you stated that that was to be considered 15 calibrated until proven otherwise? '
. 16 I think those were the words that you used.
17 A Yes, sir, unless it was dropped in the field or 18 something.
19 You know, that would be done by $he craft man, 20 and -- and hopefully he would turn the ' tool back in and 21 say, " Hey, I dropped this," and we woul rather know 22 then than a month later, you know.
23 Q All right, sir.
24 Now, Judge Grossman asked you about tools being
(} 25 returned after the due date.
! l Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
, , ,e ~n
4578 C)
(-
1 How would you handle that?
2 Is a tool assumed to be out of calibration after 3 the due date for a calibration check or or how do you 4 handle that?
5 A Nell, we give them until midnight of the day it's due, 6 which, theoretically, that's overdue the -- the next 7 morning.
8 My practice had been, if they turn it in before 9 10:00 o' clock in the morning -- we start at 8:00 --
10 through my supervisor -- in fact, we talked about this 11 just a couple weeks ago, and it was determined that 12 there's been a -- a bad problem of getting tools turned O
13 in on time by certain craft people, and -- and to not 14 give them any leeway, write it up, if it wasn't there by 15 4:30, my quitting time of that day it was due, so that's 16 the way we are handling it now.
17 Q All right, sir.
18 So what if it comes in after that; say two days 19 after that?
20 A Oh, it would be written up.
- 21. Q And what does that mean?
22 A An ICR' written. I would say the tool is overdue --
23 excuse tre.
24 If the tool came in, yes, I would have it in -- say
(} 25 the tool was overdue.. Well, I would write it the day it Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4579 !
O 1 was overdue, which would be the -- the 6th in his 2 hypothetical question or example, and -- and if it came 3 in the day after I write the ICR, then I -- again, I 4 have to go down, get with the engineer, because he's got 5 an ICR there that says the tool didn't show up on its 6 due date, and he's going to assume the tool is no good.
7 You have to do a reinspection of what that tool was 8 used with; but if it showed up two days later an'd it was 9 a good tool, I can tell him, we can make that note on 10 the ICR.
11 Q How do you know it's a good tool, sir?
12 A Well, after recalibration.
O
\/ 13 Q Okay. So you bring it over and have it checked?
14 A Yes, sir.
15 Q And if the check is satisfactory --
16 A Yes, sir.
17 Q -- then you would do what?
18 You would go to the engineer?
19 A Yes, sir; because two days prior to that I wrote the ICR 20 as -- and we keep a tight rein on these tools as far as 21 if it's overdue or not, so I know there's only a couple 22 a week that we're working with here.
23 So I go down there and we talk with each other. If 24 you don't, then you've got this ICR going off on its own 25 for rework when it's not necessary; and it costs -- and
[
l Sonntag ReDortino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1 4580 !
l
() l 1 it does cost a lot of money.
2 Q So the engineer then could disposition that based upon a 3 successful check of the calibration?
4 A Yes, sir, the tool showed up acceptable and recalibrated 5 acceptable and returned to the field.
6 Q And no need to check the work that was done between the 7 end of the calibration period and the time that the tool 8 showed up to you?
9 A That's right, sir.
10 And I would close that ICR out, if it came back 11 that way.
12 JUDGE COLE: All right, sir.
O 13 Thank you.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild.
15 I haven't skipped you again, Mr. Miller.
16 MR. MILLER: No, sir.
17 MR. GUILD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
18 RECROSS EXAMINATION 19 BY MR. GUILD:
20 Q Mr. Snyder, the torque wrench, ratchet type, is thq type !
i 21 that's required to be recalibrated weekly?
22 A Yes, sir. .
23 Q And how many of those do you have now that you are 24 responsible for calibration inspections for?
{} 25 A One.
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illip 's 60134 (312) 2. 1262 l
4581 A
V 1 Q How many did you have when you took over. calibrations?
2 A Probably 60, 70,.maybe.
3 Q All right. So there were roughly at least 3,000 4 instances a year when just those torque wrenches had to 5 be recalibrated?
6 A Yes, sir.
7 Q And for each of those 3,000 instances, an entry had'to 8 be made on the Form 77's; correct?
9 A Yes, yes, sir.
10 Q And a Form 23 had to be initiated, completed?
11 A If the inspection was performed by Comstock QC, yes.
12 Q All right. And how many -- in how many of those 13 instances, would you estimate, when you were doing the 14 3,000 of these torque wrench calibrations a year, you 15 would identify an out-of-calibration condition among the 16 torque wrenches?
17 A Quite a few. It was a fourth, maybe, maybe a third.
18 There was very -- a lot of ICR's written on torque 19 wrenches. It was a big problem that -- when I first got 20 there, I'd always been taught -- well, taught at Marble 21 Hill that we did not use quick-type torque wrenches, 22 ratchet type, whatever you want to call them, because of 23 their inaccuracy. We used dial-type wrenches only; and 24 there was concern -- I mean, you just can write and
~3 25 write and write ICR's, and it costs a lot of money to
/
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4582 l
N 1 process that paper when you -- finally we got 2 Commonwealth Edison to purchase new dial torque wrenches 3 and -- a year ago, I believe, and -- which they are 4 calibrated monthly, and they are a lot more reliable to 5 do the job.
6 Q So, essentially, you replaced the type of tool used; 7 that a tool that was less likely to go out of 8 calibration became the subject of your calibrations and 9 now you only have one --
10 A One.
11 0 -- of the dial type -- I'm sorry -- the click type?
12 A Yes, sir, the click type.
O 13 It's a big, 600-pound wrench, which is used very 14 little, but it's still calibrated weekly.
15 Q All right. Now, the type of torque wrench that was the 16 subject of Mr. Miller's examination, the five 17 examples -- or six examples, Applicant's Exhibits, I 18 believe they are, 30 through 35, can you tell what type ;
19 of torque wrench those were? '
20 Were those the click type?
21 A I would say yes, sir, because you can tell by the 22 frequency on those cards.
23 Q Weekly?
24 A Yes, sir -- at least not monthly, yes.
(~3 25 Q Okay.
%,/
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4583 n
v 1 A And, in fact, one of them -- one of these, Exhibit 34, 2 says " ratchet." That's my writing at the top of that 3 card.
4 Exhibit 33 says " beam type," which was also a 5 weekly -- excuse me. I believe that was monthly. We 6 only had two of them.
7 So I tried to write on the card what type it is; 8 but most of these were ratchet here.
9 Q By " ratchet," you are speaking of the --
10 A Weekly --
11 0 -- weekly calibrations?
12 A -- calibrations.
O
\~'
13 Q All right, sir.
14 Now, when you write an ICR for one of these, a hold 15 tag is supposed to be put on the torque wrench and the 16 torque' wrench is removed from service, is it not?
17 A Well, yes, nowadays, 18 I don't believe that's the way that previous old 19 procedure read. It said something about red flagging, 20 but I don't believe it said a hold tag on 4.11.2 there.
21 Q So the old procedure didn't speak about a hold tag at 22 all?
23 A That's correct.
24 I noticed that -- again, when I got there on that :
(~T 25 job, that it didn't require a hold tag for some reason, V
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd. ,
Geneva, Illinois 60134 !
(312) 232-0262
4584 0
.1 but red flagging; but I was taught, you know, to tag the 2 individual tool, and there was hold tags available to do 3 that.
4 Q I had that part of the procedure, and let me see if I 5 can find it again.
6 MR. MILLER: It's just above 3.2.2.
7 BY MR. GUILD:
8 Q Do you have Page 2 of 4, Exhibit 40, 4.11.2 of the 9 procedure?
10 A Yes, sir, 11 Q Page 2 of 4, "The initiating inspector will flag the 12 item to be repaired with a red survey tape or 13 equivalent."
.c 14 A Yes, equivalent could mean a lot of things.
15 Q But at the time you didn't use -- well, you didn't use a 16 red survey tape, did you?
17 A No, sir.
18 Q And even though that's what the procedure called for, 19 the practice you followed was to use a tag instead?
20 A Yes, sir.
21 I -- I just couldn't see tying a tag -- the red 22 p ta'e. All it was was one-inch wide ribbon. I couldn't 23 see that.
24 Your tag actually says what's wrong with that tool.
f- 25 Q Well, in fact, the ICR procedure is not really written V)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 4585 O
1 with tool calibration in mind at all, is it?
2 A No, sir, it wasn't.
3 Q I mean, as you stated to Mr. Miller, tool calibration is 4 not an in-process deviation -- or an out-of-calibration 5 condition is not an in-process deviation, is it?
6 A That's correct.
7 0 It's not like a weld that can be corrected at the time-8 without going outside Comstock?
9 That's really what they are speaking to, are they 10 not?
11 A Yes, sir. It was -- they had forgotten, really, I 12 think.
13 In fact, this came up in the next revision. There 14 was questions by myself about calibration, because they 15 failed -- it works a little different in calibration, 16 and they just forget about it and didn't put it in 17 there.
18 We got it straightened out verbally, I did with Mr.
19 Seese, but -- and that's the way we still do it today.
20 Q Nevertheless, at the time that you took over 21 calibrations, when an ICR was issued, whether you used 22 tape or a hold tag, the tool itself was removed from 23 service, wasn't it?
24 A Yes, sir, it should be.
25 0 And I believe you testified that over a period of time,
)
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 4586 l O
1 there were a lot of unclosed.ICR's on tools that kept 2 them out of service, because they were in an on-hold 3 condition?
4 A Well, they actually were being issued back to the field, 5 because I come to find out, when I wrote NCR 3406 --
6 that was the reason, to get those tools back from the 7 field, because they were on three or four open ICR's or 8 NCR's, and -- and actually you got an inventory, also, 9 because when I took over, I didn't know where these 10 tools were; but -- but, again, when we pulled them all 11 out of the field, then there was problems, because there 12 was not enough tools to do the job in the field.
O'- 13 Q All right. Well, let me lead you -- we'll go back one 14 step.
15 On what basis was a tool that had been removed from 16 service, put on a hold pursuant to an ICR, instead taken 17 off hold and released to the field for work?
18 A Well, in the procedure, it's Rev C 491. It states that 19 the Project Manager would be the one to remove the 20 equipment from service and to return immediately to the 21 warehouse for storage, well, and/or recalibration.
22 Q Right.
23 A Which that -- in that case, that is acceptable, then.
24 Q All right. So in those cases where the tool was the 25 subject of an ICR, not dispositioned, is supposed to be Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 4587 ,
t
~
O l -on hold, the Project Manager simply failed to insure 2 that the field -- that the tool was not returned to the 3 field and used?
4 4 A If it was recalibrated, that's true.
5 Q Well, I'm missing something.
, 6 You've --
7 A I'm sorry.
8 Q The ICR -- you may well know the answer and I'm just not 9 asking the question effectively, Mr. Snyder, so let me 10 see if I can do it a little clearer.
11 The ICR is initiated for an ICR out-of-calibration 12 tool?
' ( 13 A Yes, sir.
14 Q The tool, pursuant to the procedure in the ICR, is l 15 placed on hold? ,
16 A Yes, sir.
17 Q It's not supposed to be used in the field because it's
, 18 been determined to be in an out-of-calibration 19 condition?
20 A Yes.
21 Q All right. Now, before the ICR is closed, somehow the j 22 tool gets back out to the field; is that your testimony?
j
{ 23 A It should have only if it was recalibrated per the 24 procedure here.
4
(} 25 Q Well, if it was recalibrated, shouldn't the ICR then Sonntaa ReDortina Service, Ltd. m Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262
4588 O-s 1 have been dispositioned and the tool released from hold?
2 A Well, if the topl was good, the ICR could have been 3 dispositioned right there and the tool released, yes.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, excuse me.
5 I understood you to say that notwithstanding the 6 procedure, that the tool was returned to the field.
7 Now, isn't that what you just stated?
8 THE WITNESS: I said upon recalibration.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Upon recalibration?
10 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
11 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir.
12 BY MR. GUILD:
b' 13 Q But the problem is --
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Who returned it to the 15 field, then?
16 THE WITNESS: Well, evidently the crib man or 17 the inspector that said, " Hey, this" -- he restickered 18 the tool. It was recalibrated acceptable.
19 So then the tool was reissued to the field with a 20 good calibration sticker on it.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, so that was proper?
22 THE WITNESS: Well, the way this is worded 23 here, yes, it says the tool.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: But I understood you to say 25 a few minutes ago that it was something done that was
{
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4589 gm V
1 improper, which was that the tool was returned to the 2 field when it should not have been.
3 Isn't that what you indicated?
4 THE WITNESS: I don't know of that happening.
5 I -- I did not indicate that. I'm sorry if I did.
6 MR. GUILD: Let me see if I can phrase that a 7 little better.
8 BY MR. GUILD:
9 Q You talked about an NCR, Mr. Snyder --
10 MR. GUILD: Counsel for the Applicant?
11 MR. MILLER: 36.
12 A 3406.
O 13 BY MR. GUILD:
14 Q -- Exhibit 36, and that documented conditions where 15 tools were being used in the field for which.there were 16 open ICR's; right?
17 A Yes, sir.
18 Q Now, why were the ICR's still open when the tool was in 19 the field?
20 A Simply because the engineering hadn't performed their 21 research and evaluation.
22 Now, the tool -- each one is an individual case; ;
l 23 but if you look at the 77, and the tool was 24 recalibrated, it was put back in the field.
{) 25 Basically, this 3406 NCR,was written because of the Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 1
. = - - . - - - .-. .. . - . - - . - -
3 l 4590
(:)
1 outstanding ICR's.
2 Q I see. ,
! 3 So somebody else fell down -- in this case, the 4 engineers failed to effectively disposition the'ICR, it 5 remained technically open, the field -- the tool was in 6 calibration, as reflected in the calibration inspection 7 documents, and was in use in the field?
8 A Yes, sir.
l 9 Q All right. And that's the subject of your NCR?
1 l 10 A Yes, sir.
11 Q Okay. Now, the premise for my first question along this 12 line was that when an ICR was open on a tool, the tool l 13 was on hold and not to be used in the field.
l
! 14 Now, unless the tool was recalibrated, was my 1
l 15 statement -- was my statement correct; that is, that t
16 the -- so long as a tool was the subject of an ICR, not ,
17 recalibrated, it remained on hold?
18 A That should be the case, yes, sir.
- 19 Q All right. So long as there was an ICR written then 20 against the tool and it had not been recalibrated, it 21 was not a tool that was available for use in the field?
b I 22 A It should not have been; that's correct.
i 23 Q Were there ever occasions when the craft pressed for i
1 24 access to tools that were not available for use in the
{) 25 field because they were the subject of pending ICR's?
Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd. l
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 '
- (312) 232-0262 '
_ . . _ - . _ _ . , _ _ , - . , . - . ~ . _ _ _ , _ _ _ ~ - - . . _ _ . _ , _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ . . . . . _ _ _ . _ . _ . . _ , . - . _ , _ . .
4591 O
1 A Well, like I said, especially when I wrote -- we 2 withdrew these tools per 3406 NCR, there was a lack of 3 tools in the field, and there was some concern that 4 there was enough tools to do the job with.
5 Q All right. Well, aside from the instance you have just 6 identified where you initiated this particular NCR, were 7 -
there occasions where the craft made you -- where you 8 became aware of complaints by the craft that calibration 9 ICR's were holding up tools from issuance to the field?
10 A The crib man that I worked with, he always made a 11 comment, "Why do you got them tools locked up," and I 12 would explain to him, but he really didn't understand O 13 it.
14 But he -- he never did pressure me to release a 15 tool that I wouldn't release normally.
16 0 Well, do you know whether or not -- aside from pressure 17 from the crib man, do you know whether or not the 18 project construction side, Mr. Rolan's side of the shop, 19 ever communicated to your supervision -- say Mr.
20 Saklak -- that calibration ICR's were holding up tools 21 that were needed in the field?
22 A There was a concern, yes, especially after I wrote this 23 NCR, that I had too many tools locked up, and I did have 24 a bunch of tools locked up.
(} 25 Q Okay. Lay aside that one instance wherein the NCR Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4592
! (G J l created the circumstances you have described.
2 Were there any other circumstances where you became 3 aware that craft was saying there were too many tools 4 locked up?
5 A No, sir, not to my knowledge.
6 There's always been hiring of more and more 7 electricians, and they just have to simply purchase more 8 tools, and usually they hire the people, you know, l 9 before the tools, so it's -- there's an interim period i
10 there before the new tools get on site, and maybe there 11 is a shortage sometimes, but that is not my problem.
12 (Indicating.)
1 'T d 13 Q All right, okay.
14 A I'll calibrate any tool they -- they supply me and the 15 information to calibrate, but if I don't have it, I i
16 can't -- can't give them that tool.
17 Q Do you know whether or not Mr. Seeders, when he was 18 performing calibrations inspections, was ever made aware 19 of craft complaints through his supervision, Mr. Saklak, I
20 that calibration paper work was holding up too many 21 tools from the field?
i 22 A No, sir, I'm not aware of that.
23 MR. GUILD: Let me distribute to the Board and 24 parties copies of Intervenors' Exhibit 41.
("g 25 It's the March 13th memorandum that's been received V
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4593
()
1 in evidence.
2 (Indicating . )
3 ,
BY MR. GUILD:
4 Q Now, I believe you testified, Mr. Snyder, that when you 5 went to the NRC the 13th of March, 1985, you asked that 3 6 your concerns be maintained confidential and that you be
~
7 treated with anonymity, as an anonymous source; correct?
4 8 A Yes, sir.
9 Q And I think you stated, in response to Mr. Berry's 10 questions, that Mr. McGregor seemed responsive to your i
11 concerns and attentive and said that he would get back 12 to you, and that you were forthright and forthcoming lO 13 with him?
I ja 14 A Yes, sir.
i
! 15 Q And isn't it a fact that Mr. Mac McGregor's assurance, i
16 that you would be treated as a confidential witness.cn:
17 source at that time, enhanced your willingness to be
- 18 forthright and to freely discuss your concerns with him?.
i 19 A I -- I don't know that I -- I -- I still would have said i 20 the same thing.
- 21 I -- I don't know if he asked me if I would rather i s
- 22 remain anonymous or if I requested it. I really don't ;
i l 23 recall; and I just simply didn't want anyone else to
- 24 know I was o'ver there, and I still would have said what 25 I said here, and gave -- I had the information.
[}
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
t Geneva, Illinois 60134
[ (312) 232-0262 i
4594 I
O 1 I didn't know, when I went, that I was -- my name 2 wouldn't be mentioned. I didn't know how that was 3 handled. I had never been there before.
4 Q All right. You did state, either in response to a 5 question or on your own initiative, that you, as it says
- here, Mr. X, who wishes to remain anonymous with 6
} 7 complete confidentiality?
8 A Yes. Whether he asked me or whether I stated that, yes.
9 Q All right. Now, March 29th, when you went in in the 10 morning -- the memorandum of March 29, '85, McGregor and j 11 Schul: to Warnick and Weil, that you have examined, 12 reflects the identification of the -- you and the other
() 13 five inspectors by these anonymous code and letter 14 designations A through G and Inspector X --
15 A Uh-huh.
16 Q -- correct?
17 A Yes, sir. -
18 Q And is that anonymous treatment on the basis of an 19 expectation on your part that that -- those concerns 20 expressed that morning would be treated confidentially?
21 A I -- I -- I think I told him it didn't matter to me at 22 that time, because they knew who I was after the i'
23 incident was -- would have been put on paper.
t j 24 Q They, Commonwealth Edicon and Comstock?
- 25 A Or Comstock. l (g~}
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4595
() ;
1 I needed no reason to keep my name out of it 2 personally, because they were -- would be aware of the 3 incident after I had talked with the NRC. ,
4 They did not know of it at that time, Comstock 5 management, nor Commonwealth Edison, and it was obvious 6 who the inspector was in my case.
7 Q All right. Do you know whether any of the other persons 8 who went with you expected that their concerns would be 9 treated in confidence that morning?
l 10 A Sir, I really don't recall.
11 Q Do you recall whether the subject was discussed that t
12 morning? !
') 13 A Yes, sir, I believe it was; and I told Mr. McGregor I 14 didn't care if my name was brought out. It was obvious 15 it didn't matter in my case; but the other men, I -- I 16 really cannot recall what their response was.
17 O All right. That afternoon, you came back with 24 18 altogether -- or at least that's the count.
19 Do you know whether it was 24 or not? :
20 A It was somewhere in there, yes. I -- I don't know.
21 Q You didn't count heads that day? ,
i 22 A No, sir.
23 It was a roomful.
24 Q A roomful of people. ,
{) 25 Do you know whether any of those inspectors who i
Sonntag Recorting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
4596 O
1 came in the afternoon along with you had an expectation 2 that their complaints to the NRC that day would be 3 treated in confidence?
4 A Well, I think some of the people probably would hope 5 their name maybe would be withheld for various reasons, 6 I suppose, whatever they might say, and just 5 ear, 7 maybe, that they had never been there, either, to the 8 NRC office; and there was a lot of tension going on at
! 9 that time, and no one wanted to be seen maybe as a l
10 tattletale-type thing, you know, on -- on the company, l
1 11 because it was strictly business; but it was just -- in l
l 12 my case, it didn't matter.
( 13 All right, sir.
Q 14 Was the subject of confidentiality discussed that 15 afternoon?
16 A I don't know, sir.
17 I -- I know we were put over the phone to the 18 Chicago office. I believe the man -- man on the other 19 end did say it was being taped.
20 Now, as far as whether --
21 Q When you say "the man on the other end," you mean the 22 other end of the telephone?
23 A An NRC representative, yes.
24 Q Someone who wasn't present in the room with you?
{} 25 A Yes, sir.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4597 O-1 Q All right.
2 A It was Mr. McGregor's boss, obviously; and he had called i 3 him -- after us six had went over and said that, 4 apparently they had arranged this phone conversation so 5 that this man didn't have to come down; but --
6 Q All right. You don't recall specifically whether the
]
I 7 subject of confidentiality was discussed at that time?
8 A I cannot say for sure, no, sir.
9 Q All right. Now, later -- well, do you recall that names 10 and addresses of those present were taken by the NRC 11 that afternoon?
12 A I believe so, yes. We passed around a clipboard and j 13 signed it.
j 14 Q Did you understand that those names and addresses were l 15 taken for the purpose that -- of the NRC reporting back l 16 to those present who desired a report on responses to
! 17 their concerns?
18 A Yes, sir, you have refreshed my memory.
19 I believe that was the case on that.
i j 20 Q Okay. Did you unders,tand that the giving of names and i
- 21 addresses represented a consent to use -- to use that ,
i 22 person's name in a public document?
) 23 A No, sir, I don't recall that.
24 Q All right. And did you subsquently get in Ithe mail 25 copies of the three NRC memoranda that had been the i
(q l
i Sonntaa Recortina Service, Ltd.
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262
_ . . , , . _ . . -.-.-._ ..__._. _...___.~.__ _ ._ .. -, _. _ _ _ . _ .. . .
4598
(~
(_)/ I 1 subject of some discussion here that -- that 2 memorialized the complaints of that morning and that 3 afternoon, the 29th of March?
4 A Yes, sir.
5 Q The complaints -- the documents, memoranda, that you 6 got, counsel for the parties have shown them to you a 7 couple of times.
8 For the record, though, the April 5th memo, when 9 you got a copy of it in the mail, Mr. Snyder, did it j 10 contain the names listed in the -- in the text?
11 MR. MILLER: Your IIonor, I'm not sure of the 12 relevance of this whole line of inquiry as to this
\ 13 point, as to whether or not the specific documents that 14 Mr. Snyder received from the NRC did or did not contain 15 names.
~
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, I don't know what the 17 relevance is, either.
18 I've been indulgent because you haven't really 19 taken that much time in examining.
20 MR. GUILD: I appreciate the indulgence, Mr.
21 Chairman.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: But I hope you do have some 23 relevant tact that you are moving to here.
24 ,
Do you, Mr. Guild, or did that question and answer 25 complete the topic?
[}
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4599
(
, 1 MR. GUILD: No, sir, but shortly it will, and 2 I hope it will satisfy all concerned as to its i
3 relevance.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine.
5 MR. BERRY: The Staff has been waiting 6 anxiously for relevance.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Pardon?
]
8 MR. BERRY: The Staff is waiting anxiously 9 for relevance.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That's fine. We all are.
11 A I did rece_ve some pages from this -- these meetings 12 that were blacked out.
() 13 I'm thinking later I received something similar to 14 this.
l 15 BY MR. GUILD:
16 Q All right. Now, if I can refresh your recollection, you 17 recall various communications from BPI, myself or Mr.
18 Cassel and others, that you brought with you to your 19 deposition, among which was a copy of that memo with all 20 the names blanked out?
21 A Yes, sir. ;
i 22 Q All right. Now, before you got one with the names !
- 23 blanked out from BPI, did you get a copy of that April j 24 5th memo from the NRC that had the names listed in it?
{} 25 A I'm thinking yes. I cannot be positively sure.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva,-Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4600 O
1 Q All right. At the time you got the March 29th memo --
2 and do you recall getting that one?
3 That's the one that has the Inspector X, et cetera.
4 A Yes, sir.
5 Q There are two of those documents.
6 And the April 5th memo, in whatever form you first 7 got it -- and I submit to you that the NRC copy sent to 8 all the inspectors had names in it -- do you recall 9 reading the document?
10 A Yes, sir, 11 Q And after reading the document at the time you got it, 12 and when that -- would that have been shortly after the O 13 meeting, say, in April of 1985?
14 A Yes, sir.
15 Q All right. After you read the documents at the time, 16 including the document that had your name listed in it, i
17 did you subsquently have any contact with the NRC to 18 bring any changes or corrections or additions to those 19 memoranda to their attention?
20 A I think Mr. Mendez -- I can't remember the date I.
21 interviewed with him, but I think that was the only 22 contact, except maybe a phone call by Mr. McGregor, 23 nothing to -- to verify or clarify those statements.
24 Q You made no changes to the -- the memos that described !
l 25 your statements at that time? -
[ ,
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4601 1 A No, sir, no.
2 Q All right. And your contact with Mr. Mendez, it was 3 1cng after the fact when he was performing his 4 inspection activities, was it not?
5 A Yes, that's true.
6 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that 7 the three memos that have been the subject of some 8 discussion and are -- have been attached to the 9 Contention be marked for identification as 10 Intervenors' -- as a group exhibit, Intervenors' 11 Exhibit -- it appears to be 4 --
12 JUDGE COLE: 42.
13 MR. GUILD: Judge, let me make sure I'm 14 looking at the right list here.
15 I apologize, Judge. I'm without my associates.
16 JUDGE COLE: The last one we received was 41 l
17 based upon my record.
18 MR. GUILD: Was that Applicant's 41? s, 19 JUDGE COLE: No, sir; that was yours.
20 MR. GUILD: So if I could ask that these be 21 marked as Intervenors' Group Exhibit 42.
22 (The document was thereupon marked 23 Intervenors' Group Exhibit No. 42 for 24 identification as of June 17, 1986.)
25 MR. GUILD: I would move the cdmission in i
)
Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 4602 i 4
(
l evidence of -- of a separate exhibit, and I'd like to 2 have it marked for identification as 42A, and that would 3 be a copy of the same documents except for the April 5th 4 memo.
5 I would include a copy of that document with the 6 names listed in it, a non-expurgated version of that I
7 document, and I would move that 42A be received as an 8 in-camera exhibit.
9 (The document was thereupon marked 10 Intervenors' Exhibit No. 42A for 11 identification as of June 17, 1986.)
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. First, let's hear O 13 about whether there's any objection to either of these 14 from Mr. Miller.
15 MR. MILLER: Yes, your Honor.
16 I object to both of them.
17 If they are offered for the truth of the assertions 18 contained therein, they are clearly hearsay as to 19 Commonwealth Edison Company.
20 These inspectors are going to come and testify, as 21 Mr. Snyder has, under oath. ,
22 MR. GUILD: I don't offer them for the 23 purpose of proving the substance of the matters I 24 contained, only that these are statements that were made
(} 25 to the NRC and recorded as the witness has testified --
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1 l 4603 (2) 1 as this witness has testified.
, 2 I certainly recognize that Mr. Miller makes the 3 point that the witnesses cte going to testify, and in
- 4 the flesh, and that that's the appropriate way to hear 5 their concerns, but as to what the NEC got, as to what 6 they said on that occasion to the NRC, we offer the 7 document as evidence.
2 8 MR. MILLER: Well, if it's limited to 9 inspectors having come to the NRC on the dates indicated 10 and that this is what Mr. Schulz and Mr. McGregor 11 recorded as their understanding of what the inspectors
! 12 said, for that purpose alone, I would have no objection.
() 13 MR. GUILD: And, of course, that's been 14 explained through this witness as to his particular 15 statements; and, obviously, he can't speak for others 16 and has not been asked to speak for others.
T l~ 17 MR. MILLER: Right.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Berry?
'l 19 MR. BERRY: With that limitation, the Staff 20 has no objection.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. So if we understand 22 it, it -- well, I don't think I'll repeat it.
I 23 But I just want to make sure everybody recognizes
, 24 that, with regard to what this witness himself has 4
(} 25 identified as his statement.=, what the document does is l
Sonntaa ReDortina Service, Ltd.
l Geneva', Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
, _ _ _ - _ _ , -. ._ _._.-_-. . ~ _ - --~
4604 c
b' I
1 a little broader than with regard to the others, in that 2 he's commented on it, he's been.here.
3 With regard to the others, it's in for the fact 4 that they made certain statements that the NRC people 5 recorded in whichever manner they recorded.
1 6 MR. GUILD: Yes.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine.
i 8 Under the limitations we've heard, the documents l 9 are admitted; and I understand no one has objection to I
f 10 having that in-camera --
11 MR. MILLER: No, sir.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- document, so we'll have O 13 Intervenors Exhibit 42A as an in-camera exhibit.
. 14 (The documents were thereupon received 15 into evidence as Intervenors' Exhibits
- 16 Nos. 42 and 42A.)
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Do you have that prepared, 18 Mr. Guild?
19 MR. GUILD: I don't, Mr. Chairman, and I will 20 submit that tomorrow. 1
),
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. But you do have 22 Intervenors' Exhibit 42 prepared or will you submit that
! 23 tomorrow, also? l 24 MR. GUILD: 42A I have prepared. That is the 25 document with all the names in it.
i i.
- Sonntaq Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4605 O
1 So 42A, the in-camera document, I do have, indeed.
2 42 must be expurgated, and I will do that tomorrow, 3 for the record.
4 MR. BERRY: Now, just so I'm clear, is 42A 5 the set of three -- three documents or just the April 6 5th one?
7 MR. GUILD: It is a set of three documents.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: A set of three documents 9 with the April Sth document not being expurgated.
10 MR. BERRY: Okay. ,
11 MR. GUILD: That's correct.
12 Mr. Chairman, I just would state that, as to the O 13 April 5th document and the expurgati6ns, the deletions 14 that I will make are the deletions that are contained in 15 the document that was circulated to the parties and 16 Board subject to the Board's protective order.
17 Those call for the deletions only of 11 of the 16 18 names for those inspectors who c'w a and received 19 confidential treatment as confidential witnesses.
20 I have that document in my files, and I will supply 21 that for the record.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. So you are not 23 supplying -- you are supplying us now with documents 24 Intervenors' 42A, are you? ,
MR. GUILD:
I
{} 25 Yes, sir, I am.
l Sonntag Reportina Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
-, r,r , , ,
- - - . --, e ,- ,- . , , ~ -
4606 O
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And the Reporter knows the 2 procedures for keeping that in camera?
3 THE NOTARY: Yes, sir.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine.
5 MR. GUILD: And that concludes my examination 6 of the witness, Mr. Chairman. That's all the 7 examin'ation I have of Mr. Snyder.
8 Thank you, sir.
9 THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Let's go off the 11 record.
j 12 (There followed a discussion outside the 13 record.)
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Back on the record.
15 We're going to get both Intervenors' 42 and 42A 16 tomorrow, and at that time 42A will be kept in camera 4 17 pursuant to procedures that are known to the parties and 18 the Reporter and the Board.
19 Fine. That concludes your examination of Mr.
20 Snyder.
21 Then we will go to Mr. Berry.
22 RECROSS EXAMINATION 23 BY MR. BERRY:
24 Q Mr. Snyder, you received from the NRC Staff a copy of 25 what lias been marked as Intervenors' Exhibit 42A.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4607 1 There was a letter -- there was a letter 2 transmitting those documents, was there not?
3 A Yes, sir.
4 0 I'll just show it to you.
5 (Indicating.)
6 MR. BERRY: Let the record reflect I'm showing 7 the witness a document dated April 8th from Charles Weil 8 to -- to Richard Snyder.
1 9 I believe this might be the same document that Mr.
10 Miller tried to show him earlier.
11 BY MR. BERRY:
12 Q Is that -- is that a copy of the letter that you O 13 received from the NRC transmitting a copy of 14 Intervenors' Exhibit 42A?
15 A Yes, sir, I'm sure it is attached to mine.
16 0 Okay. You will notice that it says -- the second 17 paragraph of that letter states, "The enclosed 18 memorandum documents our understanding of your 19 concerns."
20 A Yes, sir.
21 Q It say, "Please write to me," at an address for the !
22 regional office, "Oor telephone me if you have any 23 additional information, corrections to the enclosure or 24 questions." !
/~ 25 Do you see that?
()' ,
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd. l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4608
(
l A Yes, sir.
2 Q Now, did you write or contact Mr. -- the NRC office 3 after you received what's been marked as Intervenors' 4 Exhibit 42A?
5 A No, sir.
6 MR. BERRY: Thank you.
7 No further questions.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Miller.
9 MR. MILLER: I just have a very few, Mr.
10 Snyder. j 11 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 12 (Continued) 13 BY MR. MILLER:
14 Q Judge Grossman, in the last round, I think, asked you 15 some questions about whether if a - = tool that was in 16 calibration was not returned by its calibration due 17 date, would it affect Mr. Seeders' inspection, and I 18 think you answered yes.
19 In fact, that situation is directly covered by 20 Procedure 4.9.1, Rev C, isn't it?
21 A Yes, for an overdue tool.
22 Q And what does the procedure tell the inspector to do ,
1 23 when the tool is overdue? '
24 A To -- let's see. " Require initiation of an ICR. The
(~T 25 ICR will identify the items that have not been
()
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4609 1 calibrated, denote the date of calibration expiration,"
2 so forth.
3 Q Okay. And how does the inspector know that the tool is 4 due for calibration?
5 A By the Form 77.
6 Q In other words, he would look at them for the week and 7 he would see that tool number X was coming up for 8 calibration that week; correct?
9 A Yes, sir.
10 Q And if it didn't show up physically so that he could
't 11 calibrate it, he would know that it was either lost or 12 still in use somewhere out in the plant?
O 13 A That's correct.
14 Q And in those circumstances, he would initiate, according 15 to the procedure, an ICR; right?
16 A That's correct. .
17 Q In response to a question from Mr. Guild, you indicated 18 that when you arrived on site, there were 60 to 70 19 ratchet-type torque wrenches that were in use and that 20 that they required weekly calibration.
1 21 Were all of those tools actively in use when you 22 -
arrived?
~
23 A Not every one of them, no.
24 some of them would have been off site for repair, a 25 few of them may have been held because they were damaged
[}
l Ronntaa Renortina Service. Ltd. l Geneva, Illinois 60134 1 (312) 232-0262 l l
4610
( '
1 or something. ;
2 I -- I don't recall -- know how many.
3 (Indicating.)
i 4 Q ?iould you describe for the Board and the parties how 5 1hng it takes to calibrate a ratchet-type torque wrench?
6 A A half-hour, depending, I suppose, on the -- now it i 7 takes longer than it used to.
8 It used to be they would just make one check.
9 Phillips Getschow runs it through three times and 10 averages those readings; and -- but it used to be just 11 one check, so it may be less than a half-hour.
10 Probably -- probably quite less than a half-hour. 15 O 13 minutes, for one check, maybe less.
. 14 (Indicating.)
15 Q All right. And when you arrived on site, were -- well, i'
16 who actually performed the calibration check of the 17 ratchet-type torque wrenches?
18 A John Seeders.
19 Q Did he physically perform the calibration check?
20 A No, sir. The crib man, again, was involved there. He I
21 would apply the pressure of the wrench to the tester and 22 John would set in front of it and -- and watch the dial 23 on the tester.
24 (Indicating.)
25 Q All right. That was for wrenches that were calibrated Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l t
1 4611 l O
1 at Comstock; correct?
2 A Yes, sir.
3 Q What about the wrenches that were sent to one of the 4 other contractors on site; Phillips Getschow, for 5 example?
6 A The individual contractor's QC would do the inspection.
7 Q Would Mr. Seeders or you be present while that 8 inspection was taking place?
9 A No, sir.
10 Q There was a time, was there not, when all of the I 11 wrenches were calibrated by the other contractors; 12 right?
13 A Yes, sir. I'd say August or September of '84 that 14 happened.
I l 15 Q All right. Prior to that time, some of the wrenches l
16 were -- j 17 A Yes, sir.
18 Q -- calibrated --
19 A 10 percent. I think they done a 10-percent overview, 20 Getschow did, of our wrenches.
21 Q All right.
22 JUDGE COLE: Excuse me, Mr. Miller.
23 When you say " calibration," you mean a calibration 24 test or a calibration?
25 THE WITNESS: A test, a check, of that
)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ;
Geneva, Illinois 60134
, (312) 232-0262
4612 O
1 wrench -- accuracy of that tool.
2 JUDGE COLE: So it wasn't a calibration, 3 though? It was a calibration test?
4 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
5 MR. MILLER: Thank you, Judge Cole.
6 That's what I intended by my question.
7 BY MR. MILLER:
8 Q Did you understand that I was referring to --
9 A Yes, we use that word pretty generally, " calibration";
10 but yes, sir.
11 Q All right. Now, prior to the time that you began 12 sending all the wrenches to Phillips Getschow, were all O 13 the wrenches checked by Comstock or were some checked by 14 Comstock and some sent for their initial check to 15 Phillips Getschow?
16 A Prior to the 100-percent --
17 Q Yes, sir.
18 A -- check of Getschow's?
19 Well, no. John did 90 percent, I guess, and 20 Getschow did the 10 percent.
21 Q All right. So it was -- his responsibility was to do 90 22 percent of 60 to 70 wrenches weekly; correct?
23 A Yes, sir.
24 Q All right. And in addition, there were other 25 instruments that had to be calibrated' monthly; correct?
[ }.
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. )
Geneva, Illinois 60134 )
(312) 232-0262 j 1
4613
()
1 A Yes, sir.
2 Q Now, among those instruments were portable rod ovens; 3 correct?
4 A Yes, sir.
, 5 Q And were all -- when you arrived at the Braidwood site, 6 were all of the portable rod ovens in service?
7 A No, sir.
8 Q Some had been taken out of service because they weren't 9 needed?
10 A Yes, sir.
11 Q Did Mr. Seeders, nonetheless, perform periodic 12 calibration checks on those portable rod ovens that were 13 out of service?
1 14 A No, sir.
15 Q Based on your observation of Mr. Seeders' work, was he 16 rushed in performing the calibrations that were his 17 responsibility when you arrived on the site?
- 18 A I would say not rushed, no, sir.
19 Q Now, let me see if I can understand a little more 20 clearly NCR 3406.
21 There are tools that are listed on the attachment 22 to the NCR, and I think you testified earlier that the 23 last page of that NCR indicates that all of those tools 24 were recalibrated before they were sent back to the 25 field for use; is that correct?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
_ , . , .l
4614 O
1 A Yes, sir, that's what that first sentence says.
2 Q All right. So that in terms of the work that was then 3 being performed in the field, insofar as these tools 4 were concerned, they were in calibration? ,
5 A Yes, sir.
6 Q All right. In fact, the procedural violation was that 7 the ICR or NCR, which included not just a recalibration 8 of the tool but a review of the past work done with that 9 tool, had not been finally closed out?
10 A Yes, sir.
11 Q And it was on the basis of that procedural violation 12 that you initiated NCR 3406; correct?
O 13 A Yes, sir.
14 MR. MILLER: Thank you.
15 No further questions. ,
16 BOARD EXAMINATION 17 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
18 Q When you came on site, Mr. Snyder, where were the Form 19 77's kept with regard to tools that were out in the 20 field?
21 A It's the same card catalogue I have today. It's -- it's 22 turned in every night to the vault for storage and then 23 taken out every morning, again, to upstairs where our 24 office is at our desk so that we have them there, 25 because we work with them, you know, all day long.
)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 i
i 4615 l l
l O
1 (Indicating.)
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine.
3 Any further questions with regard to what --
4 JUDGE COLE: Just one question.
5 BOARD EXAMINATION 6 BY JUDGE COLE:
i 7 Q Mr. Snyder, you indicated that it took about 30 minutes 8 to conduct a calibration test?
9 A For a three check of the three times through of the 10 tool, yes, sir, I would say.
11 JUDGE COLE: All right, sir.
12 That's fine. I was just wondering, if Mr. Seeders O 13 was going to do 60 or 70 wrenches a week for each, what 14 he did with his spare time.
15 That's okay. Thank you.
16 BOARD EXAMINATION 17 BY JUDGE CALLIHAN:
18 Q Coming back to your file of Form 77's, you just said 19 that you got them out of the vault in the morning and 20 put them back at night.
21 When you were running three shifts, what do you do?
22 A Well, QC -- the majority of QC Inspectors only work J
23 first shift.
24 JUDGE CALLIHAN: I see now.
25 Thank you.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. . . . . . . . , . . . . _ . . _ . .. .- _ . . - , _ _ . . _ , - - . ~ . - . _ _ . . _ . . . . . _
l 4616 l
l
!()
1 BOARD EXAMINATION 2 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
3 Q And none of these Form 77's traveled with the tool out 4 to the field?
5 A No, sir.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Was there anything further 7 that anyone had with regard to what we just heard now?
8 (No response.)
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine. The witness --
10 MR. MILLER: Yes, sir, there's just one 11 technical matter.
12 I'd like to move the admission of Applicant's O 13 Exhibit 40, which is the Comstock Procedure 4.11.2.
14 MR. GUILD: No objection.
15 MR. BERRY: Which exhibit was that?
16 MR. MILLER: That's Comstock procedural --
17 MR. BERRY: No objection.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Is that the one that we 19 heard was not applicable to, basically, the 20 calibrations?
21 Fine. No objection. We'll admit it.
22 The testimony will speak for itself.
23 (The document was thereupon received into 24 evidence as Applicant's Exhibit No. 40.)
25 MR. BERRY: I should have had marked for
[
s Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
4617 0 .
1 identification the document that I had.shown the 2 witness.
3 I'd like to have it marked for identification. It 4 slipped my mind before.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Which is that, the cover 6 letter to Mr. --
7 MR. BERRY: Snyder, yes. i 8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- Snyder?
9 MR. BERRY: Yes.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: As Staff's Exhibit 1; is 11 that what we have?
12 ,
MR. BERRY: I believe it's the first one.
13 (The document was thereupon marked 14 Staff Exhibit No. 1 for identification as 15 of June 17, 1986.)
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
17 You are not attempting to introduce it now or are 18 you?
19 MR. BERRY: Well, yes, I'd like to move it 20 into evidence as well.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Any objection to that?
~
22 MR. MILLER: No, sir. .
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild?
24 MR. GUILD: Could I see the document?
25 MR. BERRY: Sure.
[}
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4618 i
O 1 (Indicating.)
2 MR. GUILD: I have no objection, Mr.
3 Chairman.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. This is just the 5 cover letter?
6 MR. BERRY: Yes.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. That is admitted as 8 Staff's Exhibit 1.
9 (The document was thereupon received into 10 evidence as Staff Exhibit No. 1.)
11 MR. GUILD: Mr. Berry, could you read the 12 date of that letter, please, for the record.
13 MR. BERRY: Yes. April 8, 1985.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: April 8th.
15 MR. GUILD: Thank you.
16 MR. BERRY: Mr. Reporter, I believe it would 17 be okay if I provide you with copies tomorrow.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. We have that in the I
19 record. You will provide copies tomorrow, then.
20 Okay. The witness is excused.
21 Thank you for testifying.
22 (Witness excused.)
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Miller, it's time to call 24 your next witness.
25 MR. MILLER: Fine.
l Ronntag Renorting Rarvice. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~- .
4619 O
1 THE WITNESS: See you all later. Good luck 2 to you all.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. We're off the record 4 now.
5 (There followed a discussion outside 6 the record.)
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: On the record.
8 Since we have to be out of here by 5:00 today, i 9 we'll conclude this day's hearing session and we'll 10 reconvene tomorrow at 9:00 o' clock. -
11 (WHEREUPON, the hearing of the 12 above-entitled matter was continued to O 13 the 18th day of June, 1986, at the hour 14 of 9:00 A. M.)
15 16 17 l l
18 19 l
20 j 21 22 23 24 5
C) i Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262
NO PAGE NUMBER CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the I
matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING: Braidwood Station Units 1 & 2 Commonwealth Edison Company 2 (Evidentiary Hearing) 1 DOCKET NO.: 50-456/467-OL PLACE: Joliet, Illinois
\-) DATE: Tuesday, June 17, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sigt) i 61't46/ 3M' (TYPED) Nancy ) . Ho[pU Official Reporter Reporter's Affiliation N