We met in San Jose soon after I joined ComEd. Mr. Ed Netzel, a QA Manager, represented the ComED's QA views. During the meeting that we held GE's team was led by Mr. Dave Helwig. I stressed that there needed to be a compromise and the result should be based on the principle of win-win proposition and a win-lose or lose-lose proposition were not alternatives we were seeking. Of the various statements I made that day in that meeting, Mr. Helwig only objected to the lose-lose proposition. (I am enclosing the copy of the file I used to discuss ComEd's position in that meeting) He stated that GE was not in a losing position as ComEd engineers were circumventing and bypassing the SWO, and had been requesting GE to do the work in spite of the SWO. With that in mind, he saw no incentives to modify his positions, change his path or improve his QA program. He strongly felt that his programs, his products were flawless and needed no room for improvement. However, his staff agreed that they would modify their positions and would comply with most of our requirements. After working with GE's manager of QA and Engineering Manager, they met our requirements. It made no sense to me why Mr. Helwig would be upset by the use of the word "lose-lose" proposition. Until GE's products improved to an adequate quality level, our own engineering staff would render the quality measures. This was a stop gap measure until GE would clean up their act (under Mr. Helwig's domain) and improved their QA program. During the working session with various GE managers (James Klapproth, R. Nichols and others), they did tell us that ofcourse GE was losing as they had allocated a great amount of resources to meet our requirements. Working long hours including weekends to improve documentation or elevating their own QA to a higher plateau had placed a great burden on GE. However, they realized the enhancements were necessary as GE's reputation in the nuclear industry was at stake. GE's own management team revealed that they too were dismayed with Mr. Helwig's comments. They confided any other posture would result in confession of guilt and Mr. Helwig would not be one to accept that posture.

Later that day, I met with Mr. Helwig sin a one-on-one meeting and tried to appease his views and soften his stance. I explained to him that the reason I had contacted Dr. Steve Specker (GE's Vice President and Mr. Helwig's Manager) were because a) I personally knew Dr. Specker, and b) when I had tried to call Mr. Helwig from the Downers Grove Office, I was advised that he was not interested to talk to me. This led me but no choice to try to get Dr. Specker's intervention to resolve this issue. I needed a confirmation of our agenda and our meeting prior to our team's departure to San Jose. In response to these views, Mr. Helwig reflected that this misunderstanding was due to GE's internal problem and he did not appear to be upset over this issue. If there is one common element and a uniform view held by all those who have known me in the nuclear industry is my professionalism and tactfulness in resolution of conflicts.