Q. What is a stop work order?

A. A stop work order is a method that we use to make a significant impact on a vendor when he has significant problems. Stop work orders are given out when an auditor is out an audit or out doing some field oversight or some of the things we do and they find an issue where the process or the work is going to impact the final product and going further with the process in that manner will have a detrimental effect

be it a service like a calculation or a manufactured part. So if you start with a bad weld prep say, the end of a pipe isn't made correctly so the welds correctly, if you let them go on and continue to weld with that bad weld prep you would end up with a bad assembly. So you stop work to stop that from happening.

The other thing is if there are problematic problems their QA program isn't giving the, sufficient enough reliability or, or giving you reasonable assurance that part is going to perform as designed, you may want to stop it right then and there too, the production of the part or the service. Say you can make the supplier make a change prior to going out so you, you have a guarantee or warrantee that your parts or your services are in good shape.

17. Turning now to Respondent's Exhibit 10 in the binder in front of you. Recognize that memo?

A. Yes.

Q. Who wrote that memo?

A. I wrote it.

Q. When did you write it?

A. In the, it would have been days before June 12th, 1999.

Q. What happened that caused you to write this memo?

A. Well, there was a change in philosophy in ComEd at the time. We, we used to be a company that kind of separated church and state I would say. Quality and production. Duing this time there was a change going to where quality was being more integrated into the everyday work into the processes. What another, us going to a line organization, us going to an organization supplying, the supplier organization put us more in a line with where our, where our work was. Now what this did was this letter here makes us report to nuclear supply and it was a change reflected in the quality assurance TOPCO report at the time. So that was sent to the NRC for approval and their approval was given on that.We had other groups that did this too.

(Page 754).

17. Prior to January of 1999 did David Helwig have any authority whatsoever over the SES organization?

A. No, he did not. (Oscar Comment: This is Lie. Refer to my Exhibit CX-32. SES was transferred from QA to supply under Helwig in Jan 1998 and not June 1999 as ComEd claimed in RX-10. Roger Sproule is also a witness if ComEd does not accept its own document, my CX-32).

Q. Prior to June of 1999 did Mr. Helwig have any supervisory authority over SES other than this budgetary?

A. No, he did not. (lie, See CX-32)

Q. You've mentioned the NRC approved that move. Do you recall when that occurred?

A. It would have been whenever this letter states. (oscar: i.e. Exh.11). Well, maybe it doesn't state. That would have been in revision 66B whenever that was enacted. I'm not sure when it was. (Oscar comment: NRC has violated criterion 1 of 10CFR50 App. B for this approval)

Q. Can you describe for me Shirani's level of performance during the time he was an auditor in your section?

A. Oscar was always one of my top performing auditors.

Q. What were his strengths?

A. His strengths were his technical knowledge. He, he was very good, he was, doing the design audits. He was very thorough and he was, well, he uncovered issues that were relevant. (Oscar Comment: Why Bastyr and his boss wanted me out so bad?)

17. Did you nominate Mr. Shirani for any positions during the re staffing process in 2000?
1. Yes, I did.

Q. What positions?

A. I nominated him for my own position . I nominated him for nuclear oversight had people with similar positions come on who were in charge of auditors out at the sites. I nominated him for one of those. And I also talked to people who put his name in for a possible supervisory position in engineering. (Oscar comment: How generous? If he was so generous why did he refuse to apply for any jobs for me after my US T00l & Die audit August 4, 2000?) Where is the record of his other job nominations for me?)

Q. Do you recall any conversations with Mr. Shirani about an interview he had with vice president of supply Honorio Padron?

A. Yes. Mr. Shirani told me about the interview. Actually it kind of came up in a strange sort of way. We were at a group meeting and once again I was asking Mr. Shirani where he was the afternoon before and he told me he couldn't tell me where, where he was, he couldn't tell me why he was there but he could tell me where he was. And I said that was fine and next thing I know he blurted out he was on this interview. And he kind of generally, I don't remember what position it was but he generally, he kind of told what it was about. And I asked him how it went and he said it went wine, it went fine but Mr. Pardon told him that he was good employee, he had good skills but he belonged in the nuclear department. That's where he belonged. (Oscar comment: Why Ms. Gillis took him out of nuclear 7 days later when Oscar talked to NRC, Dr. Landsman?)

Q. Now Mr. Shirani testified that this interview happened during an audit when he was in one of the locations. Is that the position you're talking about now or a different one?

A. I thought it was that position. I could be mistaken.

(Oscar comment: see how they are all trying to cover up. I did not interview for any positions prior to this June 2000 where I was pulled from US Tool & Die Audit to leave and fly to Philadelphia and visit Honrio Padron, whose office was in Chicago. Where is their documents. Exelon is lying under oath. All the three so-called interviews were fony and Exelon could not provide any documents for two of the interview including Padron’s. It was intended to disturb my US Tool & Die audit or to give me a false hope to potentially soften my audit report findings and when I did not, they falsified my Coorective Action Reports (CAR) QA Records. And Bastyr refused to nominate me for any positions, Refer to my Attachment 4 to NRC Report Dec, 3, 2001)

Q. But it was a position he had interviewed for sometime --

A. Yes.

Q. -- in -

A. Yes.

Q. -- some time in 2000?

A. Yeah, yes.

Q. Okay. This is later in 2000?

A. I'm, I'm thinking so. After, after we kind of, it could have been after the merger. I'm not exactly sure of the time frame.

Q. What happened in that conversation?

A. Mr. Shirani came in with a job posting for a, for this job, I'm sorry, the officer who takes care of, of minority issues. And I don't remember the exact title, I'm sorry. And Mr. Shirani asked for my help in applying for this position. He asked if he could apply for it first and I generally when one of my employees ask for an outside job I let them interview for it because it doesn't do any good to hold them back.

So what I did is I worked with Mr. Shirani to help tailor his response so his experiences would help support the requirements of the job.

Q. And did you provide any assistance to him?

A. Yes. He, he brought it back a couple times. I reviewed it, we made some changes and he submitted the changed document.

Q. Do you recall any conversation with Mr. Shirani about a possible position in Ruth Ann Gillis' organization?

A. Yeah. Mr. Shirani came to me and I'm not exactly sure when it was either. My guess would be it was post merger, probably later in the year of the merger and said he was interest, he had been approached about a possible job in the financial organization. He said he wanted to talk about that or I can't remember if we just talked about it or write a letter. But he asked me the same thing. Basically to help

him look at his experience and see where that, we might be able to help him understand how to sell himself, how to market himself to be appealing for that job.

Q. Did you express any opinion to Mr. Shirani on your interest in him taking a job in finance or Ruth Ann Gillis' organization?

A. Well, in both cases I asked Oscar to stay because I needed him (Oscar comment: What a lie under oath). He was a good technical person. He did excellent audits. We had a lot of work. He was familiar with the dry cask storage work that was going on at the time so it was loss to loose him. So, yes, I did ask him to stay.

Q. How did you first learn that Mr. Shirani wouldn't be taking a position in finance outside of nuclear?

A. Mr. Shirani told me he was -

Q. What did he tell you?

A. He told me that he'd been offered a job in, in that organization. That he was torn between that and the other job that I mentioned and but he decided to take that job --

Q. Was the U.S. Tool and Die audit in any way critical of Exelon nuclear?

A. To the best of my recollection no it wasn't.

Q Did that audit have any impact on Exelon nuclear's operation?

A. No, it didn't.

Q. Do you know whether the dry cask loading efforts that related to that audit proceed as scheduled?

A. Yes, it did. It proceed right on schedule.

Q. Did you ask Mr. Shirani if a stop work order should issue from the U.S. Tool and Die audit?

A. Yes, I did. (Oscar Comment: now compare his notes on Exh. RX-46)

Q. What did he tell you?

A. We went over the issues, made sure that we both understood them and he explained to me why a stop work order wasn't needed because the issues weren't at that level in his opinion. (Oscar comments: I was getting sick of these lies at DOL hearing)

Q. Do you know whether Mr. Shirani ever filed any problem identification form or corrective action report suggesting that a stop work order should have been issued on the U.S. Tool and Die audit?

A. Not to my knowledge. (Oscar Comment: Because he falsified the records that issues were closed and CAP Group did nothing about it).

Q. Did you have any other conversation with Mr. Shirani about the NRC's request to see a copy of that audit?

A. It was more probing to find out what Mr. Landsman's feeling were. (Oscar Comment: Bastyr, Planing, and Ainger harshly threatened me for my contact with NRC)

Q. By whom?

A. By myself.

Q. Probing who?

A. Mr. Shirani, I'm sorry.

Q. And what did you ask him?

A. I was asking him what his, Mr. Landsman's attitude and demeanor was because we had had some issues with Mr. Landsman earlier, and it's just nice to get those kind of information things so you can share them with the project team and the people who deal with Mr. Landsman so we can anticipate any issues coming up that he might have.

Q. You're aware that Mr. Shirani conducted an audit of General Electric in September of 19, excuse me, in 1997?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you aware that Mr. Shirani lead a follow-up of that GE audit?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Who made the decision to place Mr. Shirani as the lead on the follow-up audit?

A. I did. I assigned the audit duties for the group.

Q. If you could turn to Respondent's Exhibit 18 please and tell me if you recognize which I believe in the record already as Complainant's Exhibit 11 and tell me if you recognize this e-mail?

A. Yes. This is an e-mail that I wrote to Tom Joyce.

Q. Do you recall approximately when during the actual follow-up audit you sent this e-mail?

A. It would have been when the auditors, well, it was on Friday at 1:40 so my, my thought was it was either after the auditors have completed auditing or after they did the exit meeting. But anyway it was after they were through assembling data and coming up with their conclusions.

Q. And the e-mail you start "we can finally get some sleep tonight". Can you tell me what you were referring to there?

A. Yeah, there was a lot, there was a lot of concern with this audit because we had a major project going at the time which was the power outbreak mode and I don't know if this says what unit, what site it was for and I don't know if I actually remember right now. But one of the concerns is when you're doing audits you're looking at calculations. Some of these calculations can be used in other calculations, you know, sub parts of the calculations, and they could have very well been used in some with the power operating mode calculations. We were on a very tight schedule for this power op mode and there was concern that in pulling the thread Mr. Shirani would naturally be led to some of these calculations. So what I was asked was to let the, Mr. Joyce and the superiors in the company know this if we started heading this way because they wanted to be able to discuss it with GE and take whatever compensatory action they needed to take with GE to keep them on track for schedule.

Q. Do you recall in conversation with anyone regarding his interest in returning to nuclear?

A. Yeah, at one point Mr., Mr. Yessian, my supervisor, the VP of the company, called me into his office and said that he had found out that Mr. Shirani was interested in coming back to the nuclear division and he was asked if there was room for him in my group. I looked at Kevin at that point and said well, I wouldn't mind having him back but unfortunately I'm at head count which means I had my allotted numbers of billets filled and that I didn't have any more billets. So it was, if Kevin wanted to be one over budget like I would be one over budget

I'd be happy to take him back and Kevin said well, you know we can't do that, we're not allowed to do that. And I said well, I guess that's the answer to your question, Kevin, I cannot take him back.

Page 787 to the end.

Q. Mr. Bastyr, you were identified for us as the company representative and you were asked to sit at the table, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you weren't here this morning for Kevin Yessian's testimony, were you?

A. No.

Q. Would he, one of the last things you gave testimony before our break was sometime in 2001, sometime in September maybe August you had conversation with Kevin, is that right, about Oscar returning to nuclear?

A. Yes.

MR. GROSS: I'll object as to the mischaracterization as to the month that it occurred.

BY MR. McDERMOTT:

Q. Do you recall when it occurred?

A. Yeah, it would have been, let's see, so it would have been after January of 2001.

Q. After January of 2001. Was it, when after January 2001 if you know? You recited the conversation, if I can go over one will you approve it. Wasn't that essentially it?

A. Right. That was essentially what the conversation was.

Q. Did he come to your office?

A. At that point I didn't have office. I have an end cap cubicle so he came to my cubicle.

Q. So at your cubicle. And do you remember when?

A. I'm, I'm trying to work through the chronological steps in my head if you can give me a second. It would have been, it would have been January 2001 probably later in the month.

Q. Was it after Oscar left?

A. Or, I can't remember when exactly it was but I know it was in January, that's as close as I can get

Q. January, that's the same month that Oscar left.

A. I'm pretty sure that's when it was. I know that now. I'm not sure when it was in that time frame.

Q. But he had just left his cubicle, is that right?

A. Like I said I don't remember if it was, I think it was in January but I'm not 100 percent sure.

Q. Well, Kevin had only been employed here for the month of September, October, November, December and if it was early in January he hadn't even been here six months, correct?

A. It's possible.

Q. You didn't hear his testimony then today that he never had a conversation with Oscar after Oscar took the job in

A. No.

Q. And yet when he talked to you he said he had talked to Oscar, is that correct?

A. No, he didn't.

Q. What did he say to you?

A. He asked me about taking Oscar back into the group.

Q. He didn't tell you that, that wasn't how you answered it?

MR. GROSS: Objection. Mischaracterization of his testimony.

JUDGE LESNICK: Well, I think he's trying to clarify that. I'll allow it.

MR. McDERMOTT: I am trying to clarify.

MR. GROSS: He's putting words in his mouth.

JUDGE LESNICK: Well, it's cross. He can --

THE WITNESS: My intent was to say what happened which was Kevin came to me and asked me if I would take him, Oscar back into the group if I have room for him and the need for him.

Page 792

BY MR. McDERMOTT:

It's Complainant's Exhibit No. CX-32.

Q. Can you identify that document?

A. Yes. It's a career opportunity application from, where were we at this time, when was this written, '97 so it would have been sometime in '97.

Q. You note the numbers indicated that it's '97 12 meaning December?

A. That would be my guess.

Q. All right. And isn't it true at this time you had Oscar submit or rewrite a portion of his job description because you were reclassifying jobs in SES for the next fiscal year?

A. My thought would be I do remember that we had to reapply for jobs, let's see, 12/97. Yes, it probably would have been right around that time period.

Q. Okay. And the time of Oscar's job change is that correct at this time?

A. I'm sorry, can I take another look at that? Position, senior lead auditor. It, it might have I'm not sure what job was in place before that.

Q. Does the title quality assurance administrator sound familiar?

A. That's very familiar.

Q. And it is now, Oscar now becomes as of the first of the year a senior lead auditor?

A. The titles changed.

Q. And it has your phone number 286-3260, is that correct? Was that your phone number for some time?

A. Yes, it does. That is my phone number at --

Q. That's where the whole operation moved to --

A. Yes. (Oscar Comment: This is exactly one of my allegations that NRC ignored)

Q. (Exhibit No. 30, that was the authorization to act in your absence?

A. Yes.

Q. Now your response to Mr. Gross' question was you felt that you had the trust, you had trust in Oscar to act correctly, correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. In your commitment for results the document that was unsigned and Mr. Gross asked you about this specifically. You grade Oscar "C" in integrity and trust. That's the same year, am I right?

A. Yes.

Q. Did something happen between May 22nd and when you completed that form, whenever it was you completed that form?

A. Yes. As I explained in my testimony, as the year progressed, well, maybe I did say as the year progressed, but during that year --

Q. Well, let's just say between May the, after May the 22nd, if this is correct and your testimony is truthful --

A. Right.

17. And continued in his responsibility for the dry cask project, correct?
1. Yes.

Q. Another Holtec audit that results in nine findings, correct? All in one year?

A. I'm not sure about the Holtec audit and nine findings.

Q. I'm sorry, U.S. Tool and Die?

A. Okay.

Q. He was doing that?

A. Yes.

Q. And nine findings?

A. Yes.

Q. But he gets a B2?

A. Correct.

Q. Now you said he was sometimes absent or many times absent you couldn't find him, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Isn't it the case that you have an attendance sheet in your office?

A. Yes. And that attendance sheet was not always completed or filled out.

Q. By Oscar Shirani? Shut him down Shirani didn't put, you know, whatever reason he was gone for he didn't put his name down that he'd here or there?

A. Not in all cases.

Q. I see. You also mentioned with respect to or, yes, you identified and again you can look at the Exhibit 18, Respondent's Exhibit 18. Your testimony on direct indicated that this was as, this was not necessarily something, you were hoping John could get a good night's sleep and you wanted John and the senior people to get a good night's sleep not necessarily that because Oscar would find out anything related to the now almost two year old GENE audit, correct? It was more -

A. I'm not sure I understand your question where you're going with this.

Q. I'm not sure I understood your answer when, and that's why I'm asking you this question.

A. Okay. That's fine.

Q. You mentioned for the first time out of anybody testifying for the Respondents something called the power uprate mode is what you called it?

A. Right. A project. I'm not sure what the exact term was.

Q. Okay. But in identifying this document and trying to explain what you meant when you were writing to Mr. Joyce you said you wanted management to know that Oscar was not leading --

A. No, no.

Q. -- or Oscar's audit was not leading that way.

A. There's a term we, I'm sorry. Are you through with your question?

Q. That's all right, go ahead.

A. Okay. There's a term we use in auditing called pulling the string. Now what is it you review a document and it'll have maybe have some statements that you aren't sure are correct. So you'll go to the basis for that document and you might go, it might lead you to another document and another document. So what can happen with audits like Oscar was doing, he was doing calculation audits, in many times calculations are used in sub parts of the calculations, calculations are very big large voluminous documents. Subparts --

Q. Can be used in other areas.

A. -- could be used in other areas.

Q. I see.

A. Or power up rate, up grade mod, up grade mode would be an area where some of them might be used. And in pulling that string because management knows how audits work and know that auditors have the ability to look anywhere they need to look to prove what they need to prove, they were worried that that string would lead them, would lead Oscar to identify some calculations that might have affected the power operate mode. (Oscar Comment: NRC did not understand and did reject my allegation in this regard)

Q. That's exactly the way I took your testimony.

A. Okay.

Q. Except you added one very, one important phrase and that you wanted, senior management wanted to make sure that nothing he did would keep the power up rate mode on schedule.

A. Well, they want the mode to stay on schedule. I mean and they want to take compensatory actions, they want to figure out what actions get back on schedule if those calculations are found --

Q. I got it.

A. -- and work is going to have to be done again.

Q. Doesn't that in and of itself demonstrate to you that the difficulty with quality assurance being in any way associated with energy supply? That you've got a quality assurance auditor out on the Pacific coast trying to wrap up an audit that you have, in your deposition testified and wrapped up and a month after it was completed in 1997 but really didn't get wrapped up until this very time.

MR. GROSS: Object to the mischaracterization.

MR. McDERMOTT: Well --

MR. GROSS: And the length of the question. Is there a question in there?

MR. McDERMOTT: There was a question.

BY MR. McDERMOTT:

Q. Isn't your concern, I mean I believe your testimony, I believe it to be true and I believe you talked, I'm sorry, you wrote and probably talked to Tom Joyce and expected him to talk to others up the chain. But isn't that exactly what's wrong with putting auditors in any way shape or form in the same bed, in the same car, in the same pen, in any kind of same organization with supply? Because you yourself as an SES manager here today identified that exhibit not as some kind of string back to 1997 --

MR. GROSS: I'll object and ask that the argument be reserved for post hearing.

JUDGE LESNICK: I'm going to allow it.

MR. McDERMOTT: Thank you.

BY MR. McDERMOTT:

Q. Doesn't that answer of yours really reduce the question of where Q and A and public safety should fit in a organization like Exelon Corporation?

A. No, because I have received the same type of questions when I reported to Nuclear oversight by upper management of the company.

Q. I have no doubt.

A. And since I have --

Q. That's my point. I have no doubt.

A. And since, when I worked for Nuclear oversight or when I worked for supply it did not make a difference. You got the same letters. Is this going to affect our project. How is this going to hurt our project. And I still had the same chain of command if I had those issues and they were putting undue pressure on me to take them up through Nuclear oversight and the vice president of the nuclear oversight.

Q. I had no doubt. I have no doubt in Exelon Corporation that the vice president of nuclear oversight has exactly the same --

A. No, no. I didn't say that, sir.

Q. Oh.

A. I said that these exact same people would ask the exact same questions whether I reported to the nuclear oversight manager or whether I reported to the supply manager or supply VP or nuclear oversight VP. These were typical questions that were asked.

Q. These same people who, now you're going to have to define that for me. You mean Tom Joyce and --

A. No. The same type of people. Production people.

Q. Right. Except you're being paid by the production people, correct.

A. I'm getting paid by Exelon.

Q. We understand that. We understand.

A. The signature on my check does not come from the production people.

Q. Your budget is in production at the time of this letter?

A. My budget is with a high enough level of management that allows me to be independent from production as I think it almost as it states in the C.F.R., in the nuclear rules.

Q. I think it's 50?

A. 10 C.F.R. 50 appendix B.

Q. Appendix B criteria one?

A. I'm not sure of the exact criteria. I use reference books as reference books.

Q. I understand. You identified, Exhibit No., and if you can refer to it please, 46. And you identified the portion that Mr. Shirani authored and you identified the portion you are author of, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. I believe you heard the testimony of the first witness called in this matter, Mr. Ross Landsman, correct.

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Do you know Mr. Landsman?

A. I don't know him personally.

Q. Did you ever see him before --

A. Yes, I have seen him before.

Q. -- this day. Have you ever attended a work shop with him or anything?

A. No.

Q. You'd seen him, that's it?

A. I've seen him. I attended a meeting with the NRC with him.

Q. Okay. Did you hear his testimony that and when I asked him to compare what you wrote, what's the acronym you used for this? The Exhibit 46?

A. Supervisory review.

Q. All right. It's just simply called a supervisory review?

A. Yes.

Q. Where does it go?

A. This then goes to a team of people who do corrective action reviews. What they do is they look at the issue. They look at my comments and they determine if the corrective action suggested is enough to correct the problem.

Q. Who is this team?

A. This team is made of, they call it the CAP group, the corrective actions program group. It's a team of people from different disciplines, engineering, nuclear oversight.

Q. All Exelon?

A. All Exelon.

Q. All right.

A. That look at this and determine what corrective actions were taken. If the suggest corrective actions are enough. If they're not they add corrective actions.

Q. Did they add any corrective actions based upon what you wrote?

A. I don't know because I don't have the rest of the document that I can see. I'm not sure.

Q. Do you recall --

A. Can I read through it.

Q. Sure.

A. Here. Corrective actions taken. Sorry I did misstate, too. I did have the rest of the document. I apologize.

Q. You do not have the rest of the document?

A. I do have it. I apologize. It ends, it ends at my, okay. here's the problem. At this time a problem identification form went into a different program so it became a different document. And that document

would, that computer program would house the information about the corrective action taken. This was a twofold system. This was an Access system the other system was a mainframe system.

17. Your company produced this for us in discovery and produced the big bundle audit that Mr. Landsman testified he'd received a copy from licensing back in December 19, 2000.

MR. GROSS: I'll object as to the mischaracterization of what we produced. And questioning Mr. Bastyr on what we produced.

BY MR. McDERMOTT:

Q. You heard Mr. Landsman's testimony?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you agree with him that your statement that you have admitted authoring here cannot be a true statement in light of the actual audit?

A. No, I don't.

Q. How was it you can say after review, I'm sorry. How can you say the subject findings were thoroughly evaluated and all issues were resolved satisfactorily during the audit by the team not to have any impact on the Dresden Station unit one Dry storage cask?

A. From reading the audit report.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. From reading the audit report and making that determination.

Q. Even though there are nine findings one of which is cared for on the premises eight of which remain open, is that correct?

A. Yes. That's correct, yes.

Q. So you arrived at a different conclusion than the NRC person arrived at reading it?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. At the same time? And upon what skill experience and training did you rely to come to that conclusion?

A. My 27 years with ComEd, Exelon and all the other different names of the company.

Q. Nobody asked you. You do not have a Bachelors in Engineering?

A. No, I don't.

Q. You're not a licensed engineer?

A. I am not.

Q. Do you have any special certificates in any field related to --

A. Yes. I have a diploma in management.

Q. From where?

A. Rhor University.

Q. All right. You have a diploma in management. Do you have any certificates related to nuclear engineering? You heard Mr. Salehi say that even while he had a PHD or I'm sorry he didn't have a PHD, while he had certain certificates ComEd trained him?

A. Yes. ComEd has trained me. I've been through systems description courses for both BWR and PWR plants. I've been through -- mechanical fundamental -

Q. But you're not a licensed operator?

A. No, I'm not.

Q. You have certificates but you have no licenses for anything?

A. No, I don't.

Q. And you read the Holtec audit and determined, this document could you produce, this was a truthful statement and it could go to a CAP team, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. For further action?

A. Yes.

Q. Now you also identified Exhibit No. 15. You said that Mr. Shirani authored this letter or prepared this letter for you, is that correct?

A. Well, it's got his prepared by signature on it so, yes, I did.

Q. Was it, did he choose or did you choose Mr. Gillenwater? Is that the name? To perform the follow-up corrections?

A. I chose Mr. Gillenwater.

Q. So he would prepare this document but not necessarily control the content of the document?

A. No, he controlled the content of it. He may have not controlled who performed the follow-up.

Q. You told him who to put in there?

A. Pardon?

Q. You told him who you wanted to perform the follow-up?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Okay. Then tell me what Mr. Gillenwater's expertise are?

A. Mr. Gillenwater was the utility employee at the Clinton Station, Nuclear Navy background. I'm not sure what his educational background is.

Q. Was he an engineer?

A. I don't know that off the top of my head.

Q. Isn't it true he's a nuclear engineer?

A. I don't know that right now off the top of my head.

Q. Why did you pick him?

A. Because we have a group of utilities that share resources to oversee the work at U.S. Tool and Die. In this group of utilities we just added Mr. Gillenwater to perform inspections and oversight at the site for us. The reason we did that is because he had the quality background and inspection background at the, the audit type background so we could have the economy of having him being there without having to send our own staff there constantly.

Q. All right. So you say he's at U.S. Tool and Die?

A. Yes, he is.

Q. He's on the site?

A. Yes.

A. I'm, I'm not prepared to answer at this time. I don't have --

Q. I hope somebody is, especially with these dry cask. You also identified a document that you said you wrote that was signed by somebody else. I believe that was Exhibit No. 10.

Would you look again at Respondent's Exhibit No. 10. In your testimony you said you wrote that exhibit, that document?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Your wrote it to Mr. Perry?

A. Yes.

Q. And it was in respect to Exhibit No. 11 you also had participated in making this decision sometime prior to the published date of January the 20th, 1999, am I correct?

A. I'm not sure I understand the question.

Q. Well, if you're going to move a budget from one area to another there's got to have been some discussion prior to the date of it happening, correct?

A. Well, the QA manual had to be submitted for approval. Somebody had to change the QA manual.

17. And that would have occurred when?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Your wrote it to Mr. Perry?

A. Yes.

Q. And it was in respect to Exhibit No. 11 you also had participated in making this decision sometime prior to the published date of January the 20th, 1999, am I correct?

A. I'm not sure I understand the question.

Q. Well, if you're going to move a budget from one area to another there's got to have been some discussion prior to the date of it happening, correct?

A. Well, the QA manual had to be submitted for approval. Somebody had to change the QA manual.

Q. And that would have occurred when? outside of nuclear?

A. It was my understanding we weren't using that system.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. It was my understanding we weren't using that system and also I nominated Oscar in the nuclear division because I thought his skills were better used there.

Q. So I understand your testimony. Did Oscar challenge your understanding on that?

A. I was on the road a lot then I'm not sure of the change of events. I got e-mails when I was gone. I'm not sure exactly when I saw him when he sent the e-mails.

Q. You knew about the deadline however for the nominations prior to the deadline?

A. I just --

MR. GROSS: Excuse me I'm sorry?

BY MR. McDERMOTT:

Q. You knew about the deadline for managers to nominate their people prior to the deadline?

A. Just from the e-mails that Mr. Shirani sent me.

Q. And you may not have gotten them before the deadline?

A. It's possible.

Q. Did Oscar telephone you at all?

A. I don't remember. I don't recall.

Q. It is still your feeling however that his career at that time as you understood it should have been in nuclear?

A. I thought it fit best in nuclear.

Q. For the company?

A. For the company.

Q. Do you recall your deposition?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Do you recall being asked a series of questions about Oscar discussing his job outside of nuclear and in finance?

A. I remember being asked about it.

Q. You testified today almost identically to your testimony at deposition that hey, we're all here for the money, is that essentially it?

Q. I'm not, you know, I'm not criticizing.

A. I like the money.

Q. So when Oscar came to you and I asked you in deposition in December the 7th and told you he had this job offer you discussed it with him?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And when Oscar told you what the salary was you knew it to be more than he was making at present?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And you knew he was making more than you were making at that time?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And when you said it, hey, we're here for the money, you meant it?

A. Yes.

Q. And you told him you wouldn't stand in his way, right?

A. Yes, I told him I prefer for him to stay but I won't stand in your way.

Q. Did you have to sign one of those sign off forms to, well, I guess not. You're moving to a new division does that -

A. Yeah, it wasn't an internal posting so --

Q. So it wasn't -

A. I don't even know how it works.

Q. Okay. But had it been an internal posting he would have had to come to you and say I'd like to apply for this job over here and get this job over here?

A. Yes, as he did with the other position.

Q. Okay. And he did that with you on other occasions?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. But he didn't have to do that this time?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Was that because of the clout of the person who offered him the job?

MR. GROSS: I'll object. Lack of foundation as to his knowledge.

JUDGE LESNICK: I'll let him answer if he can.

THE WITNESS: I can't answer that question because I don't know how, what even the process is for that. This was the first time I was exposed to it. I don't even know if there's a procedure for it.

BY MR. McDERMOTT:

Q. That's all right. You've been with ComEd and then Exelon for about 20 years?

A. 27 years.

Q. 27 years. I thought it was 1982? No?

A. No.

Q. I thought you started with them in 19 --

A. 1975.

Q. Oh, 1975. I missed it. I'm sorry.

A. I entered the nuclear division in 1982.

Q. I see. At a station?

A. Yes.

Q. Which station?

A. LaSalle Station.

Q. Had you ever heard the term power up rate prior to 1998?

A. I don't know.

Q. Pardon me?

A. I, I don't know when I learned that term.

Q. When did you become familiar with the power up rate program?

A. When Exelon or whoever we were at the time, whatever generation of the company we were at that time announced that they were going to do that.

Q. And do you remember when that was?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Was it '95?

A. I have no idea, sir.

Q. But you do know of its existence?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Did you get a bonus last year?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you get a bonus, now last year would have been 2001, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you get a bonus in the year 2000?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you get a bonus in the year 1999?

A. I'm not sure about that one. I'm not sure when the bonuses started?

Q. Did the bonuses start at approximately at the same time that power up rate started?

A. I don't know, sir.

Q. You don't know or you don't remember?

A. I don't know.

Q. What changed in the organization or the company that allowed for the, allowed for people to get bonuses? Especially people in Q and A? The quality assurance or SES like yourself?

A. I'm sorry I don't understand that.

Q. Why would you suddenly get bonuses? You worked for the company for 27 years. Did you ever get bonuses before?

A. No.

Q. Something new, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you're not sure you got one in '99?

A. I'm not sure.

Q. But you're sure in 2000?

A. Yes.

Q. And you're sure in 2001?

A. Yes.

Q. Was it a percentage of your annual salary?

A. Yes.

Q. And you knew what the percentage was because they told you what it was, correct?

A. There were guidelines associated with it.

Q. And it's commonly known and widely published within the company that bonuses are tagged to production, correct?

A. That's part of the equation.

Q. Okay. Did that all occur since Mr. Kingsley's come to Commonwealth Edison and now Exelon?

A. My guess it would have been around the same time that we started becoming deregulated and Mr. Kingsley came.

Q. I didn't hear you, you trailed off?

A. And when Mr. Kingsley came.

Q. When you say deregulated, deregulated in what sense?

A. In, in mono, sales stable in Illinois, deregulation act.

Q. Right. State deregulation. I don't want the record to be confused. You were never deregulated visa a via any federal regulations that existed as far as you know?

A. Not as far as I know.

Q. Okay. But you were deregulated in the sense of they treated differently among other power and energy producers within the state of Illinois?

A. Correct.

MR. GROSS: I'll object. Calls for a legal conclusion.

MR. McDERMOTT: A legal conclusion?

THE WITNESS: May I answer?

MR. GROSS: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

MR. McDERMOTT: I have no other questions of this witness.

This document was posted online December, 2003 by Russell D. Hoffman. For a complete guide to Oscar Shirani's allegations please visit:

http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environment/whistleblowers/OShirani/Oscar_Shirani.cfm