ML20099L331
| ML20099L331 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/16/1985 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#185-147 LBP-84-54, OL, NUDOCS 8503200565 | |
| Download: ML20099L331 (37) | |
Text
{-
~
.e 3/16/.85
/
UNITED STATES OF AMERICN."
28CHETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONf USNRC BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD - 20 fd0:
w PM In the Matter of l
~
Docket Nos. 50-445 h I
Grftcande 50dp6 p TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC i
CCCMD V( ss ed' COMPANY, et al.
I P " C-l (Application for an (Comanche Peak Steam Electric j
Operating ~ License)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
(
SUPPLEMENT TO CASE'S 1/7/85 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF BOARD'S 12/18/84 MEMORANDUM (CONCERNING WELDING ISSUES)
As discussed in CASE's 1/7/85 Motion for Reconsideration of Board's 12/18/84 Memorandum (Concerning Welding Issues) (LBP-84-54) (pages 1-5 and 64), and in CASE's 3/7/85 Motion to Stay Ruling Regarding CASE's 1/7/85 Motion for Reconsideration of Board's 12/18/84 Memorandum (Concerning Welding Issues) (LBP-84-54), we are filing this Supplement for several reasons: First, it is-necessary for accuracy. We believe that the Board erred in certain instances, and that the Board's Memorandum is not an accurate reflection of what is actually in the record. We should be provided with the opportunity to prove this to the Board.
Further, CASE believes that the Board has been unduly harsh in its minute examination of the testimony of CASE's witnesses, while at the same time the testimony of Applicants' witnesses has not been subjected to the same minute scrutiny (which is understandable, since the Board relied heavily upon Applicants' Proposed Findings in writing its Memorandum).
Credibility of the witnesses was a key factor in the Board's determinations on the welding issues, and credibility must be weighed and balanced. CASE does-not believe that the Board will be able to make the same findings 1
pc)3 8503200565 850316 PDR ADOCK 05000445 0
,regarding crediblity once CASE has completed its supplementation of what is actually in the-record (as discussed herein and in our previous pleadings, there is far more to support the Stiners' credibility than the Board has acknowledged or given them credit for), plus the answers to discovery which has been duly authorized by the Board, plus information which should be contained in the Staff's SSER's or other Board Notifications yet to be received (and/or a Board Notification by CASE, if n'ecessary, following release of the information from the Staff), plus the new and significant information which CASE expects to receive shortly (some of which is attached hereto; we fully expect that once we file this, the flow of information will stop).
This opportunity should be afforded to CASE and its welding witnesses (see discussion, CASE's 1/7/85 Motion for Reconsideration, pages 1-5 and 64, and CASE's 3/7/85 Motion to Stay Ruling). The precedent for allowing this has already been set in these proceedings; indeed, the Board has already allowed Applicants to relitigate the Walsh/Doyle issues without a showing of good cause by Applicants for doing so (see Board's 2/8/84 Memorandum and Order (Reconsideration Concerning Quality Assurance for Design), at pages 1-3, and pages 34-35). The Board has also, in effect, invited Applicants to rehabilitate their witnesses (see Board's, 12/18/84 Memorandum (Reopening Discovery; Misleading Statement), at page 9).
Further, the Board appears ready to allow Applicants to now have yet another opportunity to prove their case, again without a showing of good cause (see transcript of 2/5/85
' telephone conference call, beginning at 24051/16).
It is patently unfair and prejudicial for the Board to allow Applicants such undeserved privileges while at the same time denying CASE the comparatively infintesimal opportunity to supplement our welding findings (which were themselves not completed initially because of Applicants' misrepresentations to the Board).
2
I CASE has asked for re'latively little such relief in these proceedings (especially when compared with the amounts of time-the Board has allowed Applicants.and NRC Staff, and considering CASE's comparatively meager resources).
. CASE's review of the record in conjunction with the Board's Memorandum is much more difficult and time-consuming than simply preparing initial proposed findings, and must be performed at the same time we are working on other necessary matters.
If the Board feels that it must establish a cut-off date by which CASE is to complete our analyses and complete our supplementation /1/, CASE suggests that an appropriate cut-off date would be that date by which Applicants and NRC Staff file their last responses to CASE's answers to Applicants' Motions for Summary Disposition and to CASE's Motions for Summary Disposition (with advance notification so CASE can file.
simultaneously).
The Board has recognized the importance of allowing the parties to assist it.
For example, the Board is currently relying upon the NRC Staff's review of Applicants' response to the TRT findings to assist the Board in making a future determination as to whether or not a 100% reinspection of construction / hardware should be imposed. And in its SeptemberL23,-1983, Memorandum and Order (Emergency Planning, Specific Quality Assurance Issues and Board Issues), the Board recognized that CASE should be-allowed to assist the Board; the Board stated (page 11):
Llf. Excluding the answers to discovery which has been duly authorized by the Board, plus information which should be contained in the Staff's 1
SSER's or other Board Notifications yet to be received (and/or a Board l
Notification by CASE, if necessary, following release of.the information from the Staff), plus.the'new and si,gnificant information i
which CASE expects to receive shortly (some of.which is attached; we fully expect that once we file this, the flow of information will
.stop).
l 3
i l
f "We consider that it is the Board's obligation to make a reasoned assessment of its record.
It must act on the contentions and make reasonable decisions about whether to act on any potentially serious safety matters raised in that record. Whether we act on contentions, in pursuit of our obligation to compile a complete record on those contentions, or in fulfillment of our sua sponte responsibility, we seek to act in a reasoned fashion and will accept any assistance that may be helpful.
Since CASE is equipped to help and willing to do so, we would be foolish to bar it from helping us."
CASE realizes that the Board has indicated that certain of the welding issues are subje,ct to further pursuit depending upon what the NRC Staff uncovers in its investigations (Board Memorandum'at bottom of page 1 continued on page 2) (and we would hope that the Board would recognize and find that any findings of such investigations which support the testimony and concerns of Henry and Darlene Stiner also reflect favorably upon their credibility, and correspondingly reflect unfavorably upon the credibility of Applicants' witnesses). We are dealing here not just with the issues, but also with the credibility and lives of people - people (Mr. and Mrs.
Stiner) who have gone far beyond the call of duty to attempt to provide the Board with the truth about the welding problems at Comanche Peak, and who are still committed to doing so.
As matters crand right now, they have been, in effect, kicked in the teeth for their trouble.
The manner in which the NRC deals with individuals such as Mr. and Mrs.
Stiner is vitally important. First, it affects the Board's understanding and decisions regarding the issues. And ultimately we are also dealing with the credibility of the NRC.
CASE assumes that the Board acted in good faith and felt that it ruled fairly. However, the fact is that the Board's Order has provided Applicants with the means to place a brand upon Henry and Darlene Stiner, and carefully selected portions of the Board's Order have now been bandied about all over the plantsite, as a warning to any other potential whistleblowers who might dare to come forward (see attached 4
p 12/18/84 NEWS CIRCUIT BREAKER,:which was obtained by CASE since our 1/7/85 pleading). This NEWS CIRCUIT BREAKER was distributed all over the jobsite at the time of the Board's 12/18/84 Memorandum. Thus, Applicants have been able to effectively use the Board's Order to further intimidate and reinforce previous intimidation of OC inspectors, craftspeople, and other employees at Comanche Peak.
/2/
DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC PORTIONS OF BOARD'S MEMORANDUM We will refer to these items by the page number on which they occur in
-the Board's Memorandum.
Pages 9, 31, 69-71, re Credibility of Applicants' Witnesses:-
At page 9 of the Board's Memorandum, the following statement was made:
" Applicants' witnesses provided credible and consistent testimony on
-direct and in response to the cross-examination questions of all parties.
In addition, in response to cross-examination questions Applicants' witnesses stated'that they were instructed to tell the-absolute truth when testifying and that if their testimony reflected problems with the plant, it would not adversely impact their employment at the plant (Tr. 11518-9, 11652,'11703, and 11744-5).
In short,.the Board finds no inconsistencies from Applicants' witnesses which would call into question their credibility... " (Emphases added.)
1
/2/ It-is noteworthy that Applicants' writer of this NEWS' CIRCUIT BREAKER makes light of the Board's stated concerns regarding certain'ofL l
Applicants' welding practices; this does not reflect the fact 'that ~
Applicants thought the Board's concerns important enough that
-Applicants tried an end-run around to the Board to attempt to prematurely involve the Appeal Board, and_ sends a distorted signal to Applicants'. employees about the acceptability of certain welding practices and of' violating procedures. Further, that writer makes the contrast between the credibility of-the Stiners'and the alleged consistency of Applicants' witnesses; as discussed herein, the record reflects that this " consistency" is not as perfe*ct as Applicants' Proposed Findings-(and the Board's wording which followed the language, of Applicants' Proposed Findings) would have one believe.
5
C And at page 31 (regarding weave welding), the following is stated:
"... there were no inconsistencies of any moment in any of Applicants' witnesses' testimony." (Emphasis added.)
However, at pages 69-71, there are discussions which obviously call into question the credibility (and/or competence) of Applicants' witnesses (i.e., unauthorized repair welds, lack of deficiency paper, no contemporaneous investigation, conflicting testimon'y regarding individuals being terminated'when they violate procedures, lack of adherence to procedures, possibility of QC procedures being ignored, significant violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, etc.).
The Board's Memorandum appears to be inconsistent regarding these various statements, and CASE urges that the Board delete or revise the quoted wording on page 9 so that it agrees with the Board's statements on J
l pages 69-71.
In addition, CASE calls the Board's attention to the following:
C. Thomas Brandt: There are'several matters which call into question the credibility of Mr. Brandt's testimony:
1 Ihe-Board stated in its 9/23/83-Memorandum and Order (Emergency Planning, Specific Quality Assurance Issues and Board Issues) at page 27:
"We would note that Mr. Brandt is a senior employee of applicant and has strong motives for favoring the applicant's interest in this case.
Furthermore, his new testimony about downhill welding is suspect because he did not choose to make this simple, direct response to this allegation earlier in1 the case.
Mr. Brandt also was involved in the firing of Mr. Atchison for pretextual reasons.
/70/.
"/70/
LBP-83-34,-18 NRC
, July 6, 1983, slip op. at 2.
(We do not know whether or not Mr. Brandt played a role in the pretextual dismissal of Mr. Hamilton.)"'
The statements made by the Board on 9/23/83 are just as true today, and this should be considered by the Board.
6
Mr. Brandt's credibility is called into further question by the 11/30/84 Recommended Decision and Order in William A. Dunham vs. Brown &
Root, Inc. proceedings by the Administrative Law Judge (which is part of the record and copy of which has been supplied to the Licensing Board in the intimidation hearings). On page 7 of that Recommended Decision and Order, the ALJ stated:
"Credibilit'y, however, is a relative concept, and the reputations of Respondent's principal witnesses, Brandt and Purdy, for untruthfulness in relation to discharging subordinates is a matter of record. See Atchison v. Brown & Root, Incorporated, 82-ERA-9 (ALJ, December 3, 1982, and decision of the Secretary, June 10, 1983). Under all circumstances, I find that their self-serving testimony is biased in the extreme and is no more worthy of belief than Complaintant.
' Consequently, the issues herein have not been decided on the basis of credibility of witnesses but on the probity of the direct and circumstancial evidence adduced and the inferences fairly and reasonably drawn therefrom."
Thus, the ALJ clearly indicated that Mr. Brandt's testimony was not to be believed or relied upon.
The Licensing Board in these proceedings cannot ignore the body of evidence in the record regarding the lack of credibility of Mr. Brandt (for example, his testimony in the Intimidation hearings and in the CAT hearings
/3/). The Board should make clear that it will take all of Mr. Brandt's testimony in the record of these proceedings into account when arriving at its conclusions regarding his overall credibility. The Board cannot and should not rely upon the testimony of Mr. Brandt to bring out the truth regarding the manner in which Comanche Peak has been designed and/or constructed.
/3/ See Tr. 8403-8424, especially 8415/4-11 (Mr. Tolson), 8416-5/8417/5
~~'
(Mr. Brandt), and 8417/6-8418/8.
7
Neither can the Board ignore the fact that Mr. Tolson has now resigned (about the same time that Messrs. Chapman and Vega were transferred to non-nuclear duties) H/.
Also, at page 74, last sentence continued on top of page 75, the Board noted that "Mr. Muscente implied that it is sufficient for a welder 'to take his torch and play it over this material until he g'ets it up to what we refer to as hand' warm.'
Tr. 10028 (Muscente)." This algo reflects unfavorably on the credibility of Applicants' witness Mr. Muscente.
In addition, the Board should acknowledge that the various statements made in the Board's Memorandum at page 69, first full paragraph, through page 71, at the end of the second full paragraph, all reflect unfavorably on the credibility of Applicants' witnesses.
Further, Applicants' Witness Mr. Green stated that the idea for some of the wording in his prefiled testimony (specifically regarding the subject of safety being " paramount" because he lived near the plant) came from Applicants' attorneys (Tr. 11745/14-11747/9, especially 11747/2-9).
Since Applicants' witnesses were not cross-examined regarding each and every statement attributed to them in their prefiled test 3 mony (and CASE should not have had to cross-examine on each such statement), there is no way of knowing at this point in time whether or not this was the only such instar.ce L4,/ CASE realizes that the Applicants have not yet seen fit to inform the 4
Board regarding these events, and all CASE has at the moment is newspaper articles (see attached article, and articles attached to CASE's 2/25/85 Fourth Set of Interrogatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce Ret Credibility); however, we have included questions regarding this and other welding matters in our*2/25/85 Fourth Set of Interrogatories (for example pages 24-27, question 11; pages 30-32, questions 13-19 and 21-23).
8 l
l L
F where the ideas in the testimony came from the attorneys rather than the witnesses.
(CASE has filed discovery requests regarding this, however; see Footnote 4, page 8, of this pleading.)
In addition to the preceding, further inconsistencies in Applicants' testimony and/or representations made by Applicants' counsel in their Proposed Findings are identified and discussed elsewhere in this pleading.
The Board should also take those inconsistencies into consideration.
Page 16 of Board's Memorandum, next-to-last paragraph, regarding pencil grinders:
The Board stated:
"Mrs. Stiner testified that welders did not generally have and could not easily obtain pencil grinders (Tr. 10285-86). Other welders and foremen (Messrs. Pickett, Braumuller, Fernandez, Coleman, Brown and even Mr. Utiner) testified that they had pencil grinders and, when asked, they testified that pencil grinders were readily accessible in the areas in which they were working (Tr. 10614, 11469, 11547, 11621-22, 11643, 11666). On this direct conflict of testimony, we find that Mrs. Stiner lacks credibility."
CASE believes that the Board has inferred more in its Memorandum than is warranted by the record.
At page 4, middle paragraph, of the Board's Memorandum, the Board states:
"Mrs. Stiner was in a qualified welding position (though not welding the entire time), from February 27, 1979 to August 3, 1980."
On page 5 of the Board's Memorandum, last paragraph, it is stated:
"Mr. Celeman also worked as a welder in the same areas as Mrs. Stiner.
0 9
r 9
However, there is no indication that Messrs. Pickett, Braumuller, Fernandez, or Brown were employed in the same areas at the same time as Mrs.
Stiner.
Further, at Tr.10614, which Applicants have referenced in support of their statement that "even Mr. Stiner" testified that he had a pencil grinder, Mr. Stiner was discussing the incident regarding the reporting of a gouge in a pipe for which he believed he was fired. The Board's Memorandum at page 4 states:
"... [Mr. Stiner] was rehired and was again qualified as a structural welder on June 22, 1981. He welded for approximately three weeks before he was again terminated... "
Thus, Mr. Stiner's testimony regarding pencil grinders concerned a time period some 11 months after the last date on which Mrs. Stiner was in a qualified welding position.
Also, Mr. Stiner cannot properly be included in that part of the statement in the Board's Memorandum which states "when asked, they testified that pencil grinders were readily accessible in the areas in which they were working."
Page 19. footnote 2, of Board's Memorandum, re: inconsistencies in testimony of Henry and Darlene Stiner:
The Board's Memorandum at page 19, footnote 2, states:
"While many additional inconsistencies are contained in their [Mr. and Mrs. Stiner's] testimony (see e.g., Tr. 10744-58, 11153), the Board will not take the time to detail them."
(It should also be noted that the same information is contained in footnote 23 of the Board's Order.)
10
If there are other such inconsistencies, the Board should state specifically where they are, so that CASE and the Stiners will have the opportunity to review the record and, if necessary, clarify the record in this regard. This is especially important under these particular circumstances, where Applicants have misled the Board in so many instances regarding what is actually contained in the record.,
Page 23. Footnote 7. of Board's Memorandum, re: violation of procedures under time pressure:
It is stated at page 23, footnote 7, of the Board's Memorandum:
"Mr. and Mrs. Stiner alleged that welders routinely violated procedures under the direction of their foreman even though they knew that they could be terminated if they were caught (Tr. 10284, 10287-88, 10312-14)."
(it should be noted that all of the transcript citations in the above concern testimony of Mrs. Stiner; however, Mr. Stiner did give similar testimony.)
Mrs. Stiner also made very clear that one of the primary reasons for this was because of the lack of time available and the push to hurry and get things done (Tr. 10284, 10287).
Even Applicants' witness Mr. Green stated (when asked how he saw his job at Comancho Peak when he was a foreman during the time Mr. Stiner worked for him) (Tr. 11744):
"To build it as safe as 1 could and without as many delays as we could help, you know; without delays." (Emphases added.)-
Mr. Green's statements in this regard lend further credibility to Mr.
and Mrs. Stiner's allegations, and illustrate the attitude of foremen at the plant. The Board should take this into consideration.
11
Page 38 of Board's Memorandum, second full paragraph regarding downhill l
welding:
Page 38 of Board's Memorandum, second full paragraph, states:
"Signficantly, applicants testified that there was no situation where it was easier to do a downhill weld than an uphill weld (Tr. 11488-89, 11854-57)." (Emphasis added.)
However, the record reflects that Applicants' " witness Mr. Baker testified that in some circumstances running a downhill weld could be faster l
l than making an uphill weld (Tr. 11845/1-11847/25). This would supply a-reason for a welder to make an illegal downhill weld (rather than procedurally-called-for uphill weld), and contradicts Applicants' purpose for the quoted statement (which'was obviously to try to convince the Board that there would be no reason for making an illegal downhill weld).
It should also be noted that the transcript citation 11854-57 does not appear to support the statement being made.
Further, the transcript citation 11488-89 is testimony only by Applicants' witness Mr. Brown; thus, only one of Applicants' welding witnesses made this statement (acccrdJng to the transcript citations in the Board's Memorandum), rather than several of Applicants' witnesses, as is implied by the terminology " applicants testified."
Page 57. first full paragraph re Weld Rod Control -- safety concern; embrittlement:
At page 57, first full paragraph (this same wording is repeated on page 58, first full paragraph) regarding Mr. and Mrs. Stiner's concerns over the j
impact of welders exchanging weld rods, it is statedi j
12
r
"... however, in later testimony, Mr. Stiner stated that this was not a safety concern (Tr. 11150)."
But at Tr. 11151/7-9, Mr. Stiner indicated that one of his concerns was that "they would not be following their own procedures." As the Board itself pointed out at page 69 of its Memorandum:
" Violations of procedures are important in their own right because they contribute to the workers' understanding of the extent to which procedures are to be taken seriously and followed scrupulously."
The overall cumulative effect of violations of these and other procedures is one of the global issues which the Board will have to consider
.in its overall findings regarding this case.
Further down the page on page 57 of the Board's Memorandum, third paragraph, it is stated:
"The NRC Staff testified that if weld rods had been exposed to ambient air at CPSES for two to three days (such as alleged here) the ' worst-case effect' would be porosity in the weld (which is due to are instability and off-gassing of water vapor) which should be detected during the normal visual inspection by the welder and OC (NRC Staff Testimony at 33, 35)."
This statement is not entirely accurate. The actual statement was that porosity in the weld would be the principal indication.
It also ignores testimony at the top of page 33 of the Staff's testimony which states:
"In addition, in both low and high alloy steels, water absorbed into the weld rod coating will also be turned into vapor, which can cause porosity and embrittlement." (Emphasis added.)
(And there then follows a discussion of the applicable portions of the 7th Edition of the AWS Welding Handbook and the 1974 ASME Code.)
Further, at Tr. 12263/24-12265/11, there is additional testimony in this regard by NRC Staff Witness Mr. Collins to the effect that, while underbead cracking is not a significant concern for A36 and A500 low / mild carbon steels, it is nonetheless a concern.
Mr. Collins stated:
13
r
"... In terms of restraint welding, you can generate cracking in welds... you can create underbead cracking in a highly restrained weld.
"Let me just go further in that statement, with electrodes -- if they're maintained properly - then the chances of you getting underbead cracking is (sic) very, verm (sic) minimal."
l The potential for embrittlement and underbead cracking is an important consideration which should not be overlooked. The Board's Memorandum on page 26, last paragraph, discusses steel used at Comanche Peak to construct hangers (i.e., A36 steel). And on pages 66 and 67, there is a discussion regarding the tests which Applicants performed on SA36 plate material.
At Tr. 10024/21-25, Applicants' Witness Muscente testified:
"These samples [of SA36 plate material) haven't been tested for brittleness, obviously. However, we are talking about a material that we know considerable about over many years of experience with it.
It's a material well known in the industry - "
(Emphasis added.)
One of CASE's continuing concerns throughout these proceedings has been Applicants' lack of attention to the interactions between, and interdependence of, various aspects of regulatory and code requirements.
This is a classic example the possibility of embrittlement and underbead cracking is increased by improper maintenance of electrodes. Yet Applicants have continually downplayed the importance of weld rod control in these proceedings.
In this particular instance, Applicants have not performed a test which should be performed. The Board should so find.
In addition, the statement that porosity in the weld should be detected during the normal visual inspection by the welder and QC does not necessarily mean that such porosity will be detected (or that is conscientious QC inspector will be allowed to properly deal with porosity should he find it). This aspect of the welding issue,s is also impacted by 14
r the issue of intimidation and harassment of OC inspectors. The Board should recognize this in its findings.
Page 63 of Board's Memorandum, re: Welding of Misdr'illed Holes (Plug Welding) - by Darlene Stiner:
Darlene Stiner (like Henry Stiner) also performed " plug welding" (which, if done properly, is referred to as the repair welding of misdrilled holes) which was illegal in two ways (1) The plug welding was not properly documented or inspected by QC; and (2) the technique utilized did not result in what could be regarding as properly performed repair welding of misdrilled holes, but was rather a bootleg plug weld in which slag (and air, to a lesser extent than was entrapped in those plug welds performed by Henry Stiner) was entrapped.
Referring to page 63 of the Board Memorandum, it is apparent from the testimony of Darlene Stiner that (like Henry Stiner) when she spoke of plug welding at Comanche Peak, she was not referring to properly done repairing of misdrilled holes.
In her 9/82 prefiled testimony (Tr. 4154-55):
"I made the statement to them [NRC investigators] that it happens at Comanche Peak all the time, that plug welding is also a common practice. When I was a welder, I even got so good at making plug welds that I could do it with one rod... I told them that the way it would be handled, you would wash it over one side... On the side you're welding on, you fill the hole, but on the other side you'll have slag and coating, etc. Then when you flip it over, what ytsu've actually got is a hole about 1/2 full. Then I would take my hammer and chip out all I could chip out. Then I'd take the other half of the rod and wash it over the other side. With the end result, you couldn't teli just by looking, but you would have all that slag trapped in the middle...
Sometimes I would plug weld one area and they would come back and make an overlapping hole which would mean that only d very thin bit of metal separated the new hole and the hole which was filled up with slag and stuff."
15
i At pages 22 and 23 of her prefiled testimony for the 2/84 hearings (CASE Exhibit 919, bound in following Tr. 10333), Darlene Stiner stated:
"I feel this is a very important issue because when plug welds are done, there is slag entrapped inside the welded area.
I don't personally, through personal experience, know of any way to make a plug weld without entrapment of slag. One side is welded, then flipped over to make the other side weld. When side #1 is welded, slag rolls under and gathers on the bottom of the weld. The piece is then turned over and you have to chip out the slag as best you can before finishing the weld, thus entrapping slag which is held in cracks, etc."
Apparently Darlene Stiner attempted to remove more of the slag than Henry Stiner did; however, it still is clear that there was entrapped slag and air remaining inside after she had completed the repair (because she just washed the rod over the second side).
It also is apparent that Mrs.
Stiner used a different technique from Mr. Stiner, in that, while Mr. Stiner utilized a stringer bead, Mrs. Stiner washed the electrode back and forth in a weave welding motion.
Properly vs. Improperly Performed " Plug Welds":
CASE believes it should have been obvious from the testimony in the record that both Darlene Stiner and Henry Stiner had performed improperly-made plug welds (in addition to their being illegally performed because of lack of proper documentation and inspection); see CASE's 1/7/85 Motion for Reconsideration at pages 31-39; see also the line of questioning at Tr.
12232/18-23, 12233/20-25, 12234/14-15, 12238/2-4, 12244/17-19.
However, it was difficult to get anyone (except Mr. and Mrs. Stiner) to discuss the type of illegally performed plug welding which had been performed. But when NRC Staff expert witness Mr. Collins did discuss it, he confirmed the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Stiner that slag could have been covered up when such illegally-performed plug welding was performed. He testified (Tr. 12242/22-12243/21):
16
~
i 1
"Q: [By Mrs. Ellis]
I think that you apparently are used to it being done right or used to thinking in terms of it being done right. Could it not have been done in the manner that we have described, so that you do have a significant amount of slag entrapped inside?
"At Well, yes.
I couldn't conceive of anyone not attempting to do it right.
I could not conceive of anyone just going in and intentionally doing it wrong.
But yes, you are correct.
Someone that has the intent of doing that, of covering up things of this nature, there is (sic) methods of achieving it, yes.
"I can't conceive of why they would want to do it.
" JUDGE BLOCH: The objection here is that sometimes they were doing it when it wasn't properly authorized, and they thought they were doing something wrong. That was what the attempt was to prove, and under those circumstances, they are trying to do it very fast, not to be caught at it.
" JUDGE MCCOLLOM:
If someone were trying to do it fast, would you expect them to be covering the slag up, in that process?
" WITNESS COLLINS:
I think they could conceivably, yes. They could cover slag up in the process. Going too fast or trapping it in the weld, not removing it as they make their bead pass, just chipping out what was available for chipping out and welding right over the remaining part of it that was entrapped."
This contradicts the testimony of Applicants' Witness Mr. Baker when he testified at page 35 of Applicants prefiled testimeny (Applicants Exhibit 177 bound in following Tr. 9976) that an are cannot be established without first removing the slag. This confirms the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Stiner and calls into question the credibility of Applicants' witness Mr. Baker.
The Board should so find.
And at Tr. 12244/17-25, Mr. Collins testified:
"BY MS. ELLIS:
"0: Again, sir, I think you're indicating you're talking about when it's done correctly.
Is that right?
"At (WITNESS COLLINS) Yes, that's the only thing I can compare with
-- basis for comparison.
" JUDGE BLOCll Suppose you're trying to rush and do it incorrectly.
Could you do it in three minutes?
17
" WITNESS COLLINS:
I would have to defer to the people who made those calculations."
No one who testified in these proceedings is in a position to make such calculations than are Mr. and Mrs. Stiner, since they are the only witnesses who testified that they ever performed such illegal plug welds. The Board should so find.
Page 63. middle of page. continued on page 64 of Board's Memorandum, re:
counterfeit hanger vs. plug welding:
At the middle of page 63 continued on page 64 of the Board's Memorandum, it appears that two separate incidents have been erroneously combined. The incident regarding Mr. Wilkerson's having caught Mrs. Stiner making unauthorized repairs had to do with one counterfeit hanger (not three plug-welded hangers).
(See 9/1/82 profiled testimony of CASE Witness Darlene Stiner, CASE Exhibit 667, admitted at and bound in following Tr.
4124, page 47 (Tr. 4171), line 3, through page 48 (Tr. 4172), line 6.) Mrs.
Stiner never testified that she was ever caught performing illegal plug welds. CASE believes that this is an important distinction, for the reasons discussed herein.
Applicants' Witness Mr. Baker testified regarding the effectiveness of the QC program for inspection of the welding of misdrilled holes (" plug welding") (Tr. 10038/4-10043/9).
Mr. Baker stated (Tr. 10040/4-8):
" JUDGE BLOCH:... Were there any repairs made in hangers on safety-related systems?
" WITNESS BAKER:
I have not been able to identify any case where we have ever ' plug' welded on any ASME pipe support."
18
And at Tr. 10040/14-10041/3, Mr. Baker stated:
" JUDGE BLOCH:
. So your testimony is that these never were welds on ASME materials?
" WITNESS BAKER:
I say I have not been able to identify it.
It's standard practice on the ASME pipe supports that if we have to repair the base material in any way, that it requires a repair process sheet authorized by welding engineering. We have, to my knowledge, never issued a repair process sheet to repair any holes on ASME hangers.
" JUDGE BLOCH:
If the craft, for one reason or another decided that they had to repair a hole that was made in the wrong place on such hangers, I take it there was no procedure in effect by which they could have done it; is that correct?
" WITNESS BAKER: Not on ASME Class 1, 2 and 3 hangers or pipe supports."
He further testified (Tr. 10041/17-18):
" WITNESS BAKER
... ASME is used primarily for piping and pipe supports of all classes."
And, at Tr. 10041/22-10043/9, Mr. Baker testified:
" JUDGE BLOClit... I believe you said you don't have any way of knowing about whether or not there were such repairs made on ASME materials; is that what your answer was?
"WITN"SS BAKER: Yes, sir.
I'm saying that, in questioning my staff, that we have no knowledge of ever issuing a repair process sheet for this type of repair.
" JUDGE BLOCH: Except with respect to the Stiners.
. have you ever heard that anyone else has made allegations or statements that there l
were repairs made in these hangers in this fashion?
" WITNESS BAKER:
No, sir.
" WITNESS MUSCENTE:
I have never heard anybody make that allegation.
" JUDGE BLOClit So there is no direct or indirect information that would lead either of you to believe that repairs of the kind alleged here were ever made in ASME materials?
" WITNESS BAKER: That's correct.
19
" WITNESS MUSCENTE: That's correct.
"BY MR. REYNOLDS:
Mr. Baker, had there been any such repairs, would you likely have known about it?...
"The context of my question is your role on the job site. Do matters such as this come to your attention?
"At (Witness Baker) Not normally. Thuy are handled by my staff. But in pursuing this question, I understand that in the early days of the program, that it was expressly told to the craft not even to request to do this type of repair on ASME hangers."
At Tr. 11765/18-11766/20, Mr. Baker again testified that he had not been able to identify in any case where they have issued an RPS for the welding of misdrilled holes on ASME supports. However (as can be reasonably inferred from the testimony of Mr. Coleman that he was not even aware that any form of paper, such as a Repair Process Sheet, was needed for him to repair misdrilled hole in the Unit I cable spread room), it is now obvious that this does not mean that such illegal " plug welding" was not done on ASME supports, and it may well be that the three supports on which Applicants now admit Mrs. Stiner performed illegal plug welding were themselves ASME supports, especially in light of further testimony by Mr.
Baker at Tr. 11785/13-16:
"BY MR. REYNOLDS:
"Q Mr. Baker, what type of hangers were fabricated or modified on the fab tables in the turbine building [where Mrs. Stiner performed illegal plug welds]?
"At (Witness Baker) Sraall bore hangers, all classes."
It should be noted that Mr. Baker testified (Tr. 11781/24-11782/8) that there were three hangers, whereas the NRC Staf f's prefiled testimony (admitted at and bound in following Tr. 12146) states (page 28) that there were two hangers involved.
20
O Further, the Staff's testimony (page 28) regarding their interview with l
'Mr. Wilkerson confirmed that the problem was not plug welding, but rather "the welding of a short piece of angle iron to an existing angle iron l
section, in order to extend the dimension of the angle iron." This is l-consistent with, and confirms, Mrs. Stiner's testimony regarding the i
l counterfeit hanger.
i l
Mr. Stembridge was interviewed by NRC Staff Witness Mr. Taylor. The Staff's testimony (pages 29 and 30) states:
Mr. Stembridge " recalled a situation where he had two supports that could not be -installed because they would not fit into place.' He instructed the fitter to modify the supports to make them fit, but did not give any specific directions how to modify the supports." Mr. Taylor further testified that he then held a joint interview 4
with Mr. Stembridge and Mr. Wilkerson, and. that "Mr. Wilkerson stated that he recalled only one support which had the problem with improper welds; Mr.
Stembridge added that an additional support was under the table." Mr.
Ha11 ford (the individual who " tipped-off" Mr. Wilkerson) then joined. the interview and stated that he observed what he believed was improper welding, did not receive a satisfactory answer from Mr. Stembridge, and then reported his concerns to Mr. Wilkerson.
As can be seen from the preceding, the statement that is made on page 64 of the Board's Memorandum that " Staff testimony supported the results of Applicants' investigation (NRC Staff Testimony at 27-30)" is not completely accurate. The Board should revise its Memorandum to reflect what is actually in the record.
l l
21 1
I
Also, this is yet another instance where an employee (Mrs. Stiner) was caught deliberately violating procedures and was not fired, which further calls into question the credibility of Applicants' witnesses' testimony (see second full paragraph on page 70 of Board's Memorandum).
' The wording of the entire paragraph at the bottom of page 63 continued on page 64 of the Board's Memorandum is taken word for word from Applicants' 9/7/84 Proposed Findings. When one reviews the testimony, it is clear what is stated there. How, then, are the inconsistencies between Applicants' testimony, the Staff's testimony, and Mrs. Stiner's testimony to be explained?
Applicants have now admitted through their own testimony that there was unauthorized plug welding performed by Mrs. Stiner on three hangers that had misdrilled holes in them and that this was performed at the instruction of her foreman, Mr. Stembridge. However, the other inconsistencies detailed above stand' unexplained in the record.
It is also important to note that the one, two, or three hangers involved were not cable tray supports, but pipe hangers (see Applicants' Witness Baker at Tr. 11785/13-16) -- perhaps ASME pipe hangers.in which case the testimony of Mr. Baker in that regard would have been misleading at best.
CASE submits that there are three possible reasons for Applicants' having misrepresented the record in this regards (1) Applicants are attempting to give the impression (which is not consistent with Mrs. Stiner's testimony) that these three 22
instances were the only instances where Mrs. Stiner performed illegal plug welding at the instruction of Mr. Stembridge or others.
(2) Applicants are attempting to give the impression that illegal plug velding was never performed on ASME pipe hangers.
(3) Applicants are attempting to divert the Board's attention from testimony in the record by Mr. Stiner, Mrs. Stiner, and NRC Staff witness Mr. Taylo* regarding counterfeit pipe hangers, an issue which has never been adequately addressed in these proceedings and which Applicants would obviously like to avoid if at all possible.
. or all of the above.
Page 64 of Board's Memorandum, re: " demotion" of Mr. Stembridge:
On page 64 of the Board's Memorandum, regarding unauthorized repairs which Mr. Stembridge had directed Mrs. Stiner to make, the Board states:
"The hangers were subsequently scrapped and Mr. Stembridge was demoted to and remains in a non-supervisory position (NRC Staff testimony at 28-30; Tr. 11786)."
And on page 70 of the Board's Memorandum, middle of page, it is stated:
"... Mr. Stembridge was merely reduced in rank."
These statements are not reflective of what is actually contained in the record. On page 28 of the Staff's testinony, it is stated:
"Mr. Baker also stated that Mr. Stembridge voluntarily demoted himself from a supervisory position... "
(Emphasis added.)
And on page 29, it is s:ated:
"Mr. Wilkerson also confirmed that Mr. Stembridg*e demoted himself from a supervisory position to a craftsperson..." (Emphasis added.)
J 23
The record does not support the idea that Applicants took any sort of disciplinary action (much less their alleged firing of anyone who deliberately violates procedures) in the case of Mr. Stembridge. This is an important distinction to make, and goes directly to the heart of not only the credibility of Applicants' witnesses and their counsel who prepared their Proposed Findings, but also toward Applicants' commitment to quality.
l Page 65 of Board's Memorandum, first full paragraph, re: difficulty and/or I
_ impossibility of welding over unacceptable slag deposits:
On page 65 of Board's Memorandum, first full paragraph, there is a discussion of the welding of misdrilled holes and the following statements are made:
. Applicants stated that it was very difficult to leave significant slag deposits using low hydrogen electrodes, like those used at CPSES, because th a normal welding technique provides assurance that slag remains fluid, floats to the top of the weld and is removed (Applicants Exhibit 177 at 36)... Applicar.ts testified that it was very difficult to weld over unacceptable slag deposits using normal welding techniques (Applicants Exhibit 177 at 36, 37)."
(Emphasis added.)
However, it is important to note that Applicants' Mr. Baker also testified at page 35 of Applicants Exhibit 177 (bound in following Tr.
9976):
"(Although there are some types of welding electrodes manufactured that produce a slag cover that can be welded over, the low hydrogen electrode utilized at CPSES results in a slag covering that is so heavy that an are cannot be established without first removing the slag."
(Emphasis added.)
Obviously, it is impossible to weld without having established an arc.
Mr. Baker's statement was even stronger than that discussed in the Board Memorandum, but was at the same time also contradictory to other statements 24
made in Applicants' own prefiled testimony. This contradictory testimony reflects adversely on the credibility of Applicants' witnesses, and the Board should so find.
Mr. Baker's testimony is again inconsistent regarding his discussion of the test Applicants performed in their attempt to simulate the conditions referred to by Mr. Stiner.
Mr. Stiner stated in his testimony (CASE Exhibit 919, bound in following Tr. 10333, bottom of page 8):
"... on several occasions, I was instructed to repair hangers where the weld was in excess of four-core-wire diameter where the parent metal was heated so hot that the parent metal for four or five inches out from the weld was blue tempered, causing brittleness."
Mr. Baker testified (Tr. 10021/19-1002274):
"We tried to simulate a test. We didn't know exactly what Mr. Stiner had observed, but we picked a thin material, quarter of an inch thick, using 6 x 8 tube steel with short sections where we wouldn't have any type of heat sink. We welded on this again, violating the heat input parameters of the welding procedure, using excessive weave beads.
We, welded on it continuously for 37 minutes, stopping only long enough to change electrodes." (Emphasis ad6,d.)
Mr. Bakers' testimony is not consistent with Applicants' testimony at pages 35-37 of Applicants' Exhibit 177 (as quoted in the preceding). This testimony als6 reflects adversely on the credibility of Applicants' witnesses, and the Board should so find.
Page 65 of Board's Memorandum,, towards bottom of page, re: painting of ground-down illegally performed plug welds:
On page 65 of the Board's Memorandum, towards the bottom of the page, it is stated:
. if the weld was (sic) not relatively free of slag, there would in all likelihood be unacceptable surface indications remaining on the face of the weld. Tests techniques corroborated this."
25
And at the bottom of page 68, continued on page 69, the Board stated:
"... based on.
. Staff testimony that as long as the surface of the weld repair of a misdrilled hole was acceptable (as both Mr. and Mrs. Stiner stated) the weld would provide acceptable structural strength... "
However, the Board's conclusions ignore the testimony in the record by Darlene Stiner and Henry Stiner that each of them would grind the weld down flush with the base metal, then paint it with grey paint (which was readily available) so that no surface indications would be visible.
Darlene Stiner testified in her prefiled testimony for the 2/84 hearings (CASE Exhibit 919, bound in following Tr. 10333) at page 23, lines 11 and 12:
"We ground and painted the surface so OC would not have been able to detect such a weld."
See also Darlene Stiner's testimony at Tr. 10232/2-14 and 10235/16-10237/13.
Also in the same prefiled testimony for the 2/84 hearings, Henry Stiner testified at page 22, lines 15-19:
"I was told to grind the plug weld down to the top of the parent metal and buff the surface so that you could not tell it was there, then take a can of grey paint like they use on the metal and paint it so no one could see it.
This is what all or most of the welders do."
See also Henry Stiner's testimony at Tr. 10684/6-14.
Additional weight and support is given to the Stiners' testimony by the testimony of NRC Staff witnesses.
In the prefiled testimony of the Staff 4
(bound in.following Tr. 12146) at page 27, Messrs. Gilbert and Taylor state:
"Although, ' plug welas' with uncorrected surface indications would be visible,-Mr. Stiner (as well as Mrs. Stiner) stated (CASE Exhibit 919, p'p. 22-23) that the repair welds were ground down and painted.
Therefore, there would be no visual indication of the location of'such unauthorized welds."
NRC Staff witness Mr. Gilbert also stated (Addendum to Page 27 of Staff Testimony at pages 1 and 2, bound in following Tr. 12146):
26
l l
"I did find indications of plug welds in 3 supports in the North Cable Spreading Room... I found indications of 2 ' plug welds' in the web of each of the three supports.
I found these indications by observing the surface of the support very closely, at times shining a flashlight at an oblique angle.
By close observation I could see, in these six instances, areas where surface grinding had produced a surface smoother than that of the base metal. This same smoother surface indication also appeared on the back side of the web.
This indicates plug weld repair work had been done on these supports and had been ground smooth before painting." (Emphases added.)
~
[
The Board should reconsider its conclusions regarding this particular matter, and find that the Board can and should rely upon the testimony of Henry and Darlene Stiner and the NRC Staff's witness regarding this issue.
In addition, the information in the record bears favorably on the credibility of Mr. and Mrs. Stiner. Conversely, the information in the record bears unfavorably on the credibility of Applicants' witnesses. The Board should so find.
Page 67, bottom of page continued on page 68 of Board's Memorandum, re:
. ceptable structural strength of plug welds:
At the bottom of page 67, continued on page 68 of the Board's Memorandum, the Board discusses its reluctance ordinarily to accept any test of a single sample to be dispositive of any safety issue. The Board indicated that it relied upon the NRC Staff's support of Applicants' conclusions and stated specifically:
"If the ' plug weld' was (sic) made well enough not to be readily discernable after surface grinding, which was the case for both Mr. and Mrs. Stiner, the Staff testified that the weld and the surrounding base material would be at least as strong as the original base material before it was drilled (Staff Testimony at 26)."
And at page 68 of the Board's Memorandum, it is stated:
27
"... based on.
. Staff testimony that as long as the surface of the weld repair of a misdrilled hole was (sic) acceptable, as both Mr.
and Mrs. Stiner stated, the weld would provide acceptable structural strength, the Board finds that even if some weld repairs of misdrilled holes were not properly inspected and contained defects as alleged by Mr. and Mrs. Stiner, it is unlikely to have an adverse impact on the safety of the plant."
However, this statement by the NRC Staff (and thus the Board's conclusion which relied on the Staff's statement) w'as made based on the assumption that'the plug welding had been properly performed. As discussed herein and in CASE's 1/7/85 Motion for Reconsideration (pages 31-39),
neither Darlene nor Henry Stiner performed what could called properly performed plug welding (or welding of misdrilled holes). There has been rul test performed on the type of bootleg improperly performed illegal plug welds which Darlene and Henry Stiner testified they had performed, or on the illegal plug welds found by the NRC.
The Board should reconsider its conclusion to rely upon only the one test regarding this matter.
There is another important aspect of this matter which has not been addressed in the Board's Memorandum, but which should not be overlooked. As discussed previously herein, in her 9/82 prefiled testimony, Darlene Stiner testified (Tr. 4155):
"Sometimes I would plug weld one area and they would come back and make an overlapping hole which would mean that only a very thin bit of metal
. separated the new hole and the hole which was filled up with slag and stuff."
And at Tr. 11543/21-11544/1 and 11545/13-20, Applicants' Witness Fred Coleman confirmed that most of the misdrilled holes that he rewelded were very close to the original hole in the base plate, so that when the hole was drilled the second time, he actually was drilling through filler material 28
for the biggest part of the hole.
(CASE has not yet completed our review; however, we believe that such welding of overlapping holes is contrary to the code.)
Also, at pages 67 and 68 of the Board's Memorandum, it is stated:
"The Staff further testified that an Inspection Report 81-12 (Staff Exhibit 178) determined that ' plug welds' were,being utilized by welders in accordance with Brown & Root welding procedures (NRC Staff Testimony a,t 26, 30)."
However, in the back-up notes of the investigator for Inspection Report 81-12 (Staff Exhibit 178) (CASE Exhibit 666C, attachment to 9/1/82 prefiled testimony of CASE Witness Henry Stiner, CASE Exhibit 666, both admitted at Tr. 4202), there is information which supports the testimony of Mrs. Stiner and Mr. Coleman; at page 666C-11 there is a note attributed to Individual A
-(Mr. Stiner) regarding this. And on page 666C-34 (notes of unknown origin),
it appears to be indicated by the investigator that he had talked with a number of welders and none confirmed that this practice had been observed; however, this is not consistent with the investigator's notes at page 666C-23, where Individual E appears to indicate that he/she has plugged holes and seen them overlap holes, and that the engineering disposition was to use as is.
The investigator's notes that none confirmed that this practice had been observed is also inconsistent with the sworn testimony of CASE Witness Darlene Stiner and of Applicants' Witness Fred Coleman.
(This again calls into question the reliability and credibility of Inspection Report 81-12, and is an additional reason that the Board should not rely upon the conclusions in that report.
It is an additional reason to question the reliability of other NRC Region IV inspection reports through the years.)
29 1
)
The testimony-of both Mrs. Stiner and_ Applicants' own witness, Mr.
Coleman, in conjunction with the investigator's back-up notes regarding statements by Individual E, calls into serious questio;t the Board's conclusion that the weld would provide acceptable structural strength.
It is. obvious that this type of repair could not be depented upon to provide the same structural strength as would be provided had t.he misdrilled holes
~
been an acceptable distance apart. Even if the plug welding had been performed proper'ly (which it was not), the structural strength could have been' decreased because of the closeness of the holes; and obviously, if the plug welding had been performed improperly, the structural strength would be even more questionable. The Board should so find.
In addition, if (as CASE believes) the welding of such overlapping holes is contrary to code (s), this would be another instance of Applicants' violation of codes, without any deficiency paper having been generated.
Further, Mr. Coleman's testimony and the investigator's back-up notes attributed to Individual E confirm and support Mrs. Stiner's testimony in this regard, and bears favorably on Mrs. Stiner's credibility; the Board should so find.
Page 70 of the Board's Memorandum, re: lack of oversight by welding technicians, QC inspectors, and welding engineering personnel:
At page 70 of the Board's Memorandum, it is stated:
" Fred Coleman, who was a welder at'the plant, testified that there were many misdrilled holes repaired in the Unit I cable spread room.
Tr.
11542.. Additionally, Mr. Coleman was not even aware that any form of paper, such as a Repair Process Sheet, was needed for him to repair such a hole.
Tr. 11544-45."-
And at page 71, the Board stated:
30
a "We are particularly concerned about the extent to which welding procedures and, possibly, QC procedures may have been ignored. The possibility of QC procedures being ignored is supported by the testimony of Mr. Fred Coleman, who stated that QC inspectors were present in the cable spreading room during the time he was welding misdrilled holes.
Tr. 11542."
CASE submits that the implications of Mr. Coleman's testimony go even beyond those indicated by the Board.
At page 2 of Applicants' prefiled testimony (Exhibit 177, admitted at and bound in following Tr. 9976), Mr.
Coleman stated:
"I am currently a QC welding inspector at CPSES... During the period August 1976-August 1983, I was either a structural welder or welding foreman (assisting about 5-15 welders) at CPSES."
Attachment C to Applicants' Testimony (Educational and Professional Qualifications of Mr. Coleman) indicates that Mr. Coleman has been a QC inspector C since September 4, 1983.
It is reasonable to assume that all of the plug welds performed by Mr. Coleman or performed under the direction of Mr. Coleman when he was a foreman were all performed without any form of paper (such as a Repair Process Sheet) being utilized. Further, this calls into question the adequacy of the training of Mr. Coleman as a current QC or inspector and other QC inspectors (both past and present).
In addition, this calls into question tha, credibility of Mr. Baker's testimony.
(Applicants' Exhibit 177, page 12):
" Welding technicians are assigned to each area of the plant where welding is taking place. These individuals continuously monitor the welders they are assigned. They know each welder's capabi?ity and, more importantly, what each welder is doing and how he or nhe is doing it... Further, welding engineering (apart from QA/QC) also conducts unannounced inspections of each active welder every approxi. mate fourteen days of welding." (Emphases in the original.)
During the time when Mr. Coleman was performed plug welding without the proper documentation, where were the welding technicians? the QC inspectors? the welding engineering personnel?
(See,also Tr. 12267/13-31-
c.'.
e i
-12272/12 regarding testimony of NRC Staff Witness Mr. Taylor concerning drawbacks or inadequacies in the weld technician program.)
The obvious and immediate way in which the discrepancies between the testimony of Messrs. Baker and Coleman might be interpretted would be that the welding technicians, the OC inspectors, and the welding engineering i
personnel had all just missed catching Mr. Coleman performing illegal plug welding. However, there is another possibility:
that (at least some of) the welding technicians, QC inspectors, and/or welding engineering personnel.
knew (or at least suspected) that such illegal plug. welding was going on, I
and did not report it because they were intimidated, harassed, and/or were afraid of making waves and possibly losing their jobs. This is a possibility which the Board cannot-ignore, based on testimony in the Intimidation and Harassment portion of these proceedings.
This also raises an additional question regarding the credibility of Mr. Coleman's testimony. He testified that he'didn't know he needed a Repair Process Sheet when he' made plug welds. One would assume that, since he is-now a OC inspector, that he now knows that Repair Process Sheets are needed and that he now knowsLthat Repair Process Sheets were needed at the time he made plug welds. Yet there is no indication in the record that Mr.
Coleman promptly identified and corrected this' problem or that he ever. wrote 1
Nonconformance Reports (NCR's) or other reports of nonconforming conditions regarding those illegal plug welds which he performed when he was a welder.
1
.As discussed herein, the Board should also recognize the further 1
' mplications of Mr. Coleman's testimony.
i With-further reference to CASE's 1/7/85 Motion for Reconsideration, at pages 38 and 39 (re:Epage.10, last. sentence of second paragraph; and page 59 and 32 l
g,,='.
'first full paragraph of page 60; re: Welding of Misdrilled Holes by Henry Stiner, where CASE urges'that the Board-acknowledge that Mr. Stiner was right when he stated.that he had made plug welds in the North Cable Spreading Room, as has now been substantiated by the NRC Staff):
In the NRC Staff's'prefiled testimony (Addendum to Page 17 of NRC Staff Testimony on Welding Fabrication Concerns Raised by Mr. and Mrs. Stiner, bound in following Tr. 12146), page 1, NRC Staff Witness Mr. Gilbert acknowledged that the reason he looked at the North Cable Spreading Room was because of the concerns raised by-Mr. and Mrs. Stiner. And when asked on cross-examination, NRC Staff Witness Mr. Gilbert testified that the reason he looked at the North Cable Spreading Room was "That was the acea alleged to have been welded with misdrilled holes."
(Tr. 12254/12-17.)
This is further support for CASE's motion that the Board should find that Mr. Stin'er's testimony in this regard was consistent, and further that the Staff's finding illegal plug welds in the location Henry Stiner said they were-bears favorably on his credibility.
For the reasons stated herein and in our previous pleading, CASE moves that the Board rule favorably on the matters raised by CASE herein and'again reurges our Motions made in CASE's.1/7/85 Motion for Reconsideration of Board's 12/18/84 Memorandum-(Concerning Welding.lssues) (LBP-84-54)'.
Respectfully submitted, A /I
~
OJ
[JMrs.)JuanitaEllis', President CASE (Citizens Association for Sourd Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75'224-i 214/946-9446-1 33
g W
I December 18, 1984 ASLB FINDS STINERS TO BE WITHOUT CREDIBILITY The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has concluded that Henry and Darlene Stiner, former Comanche Peak. workers who made numerous allegations concerning welding practices, are not credible witnesses.
"The record demonstrates that Mr. and,Mrs. Stiner are individuals who possess memories that produce different versions of the same facts when questioned at different times and possess selective recall of_ facts and details favorable to their' claims, accompanied by a failure of memory as to other facts regarding those claims," the board concluded in a memorandum issued late Monday.
In contrast to the Stine s, the board said it " finds no inconsistencies from (the company's) witnesses which would call into question their credibility."
l The ASLB ruled that with two exceptions, the allegations raised by the Stiners are without merit. The board said it still had questions regarding two welding practices, but said "there is reasonable assurance that these allegations are not reflective of i
any condition that could adversely impact the safe operation of the plant."
The board said part of its conclusion that the Stiners had no credibility stemmed "from our realization that both of the Stiners misunderstood the technical foundation for the weave welding procedure which was the crux of a substantial portion of their complaint about the plant."
Furthermore, the board said it found that Henry Stiner was fired because of a long-standing absenteeism problem at work, not, as he claimed, because he reported a problem to a QC inspector.
I The board noted a number of inconsistencies and contra-dictions in Henry Stiner's testimony last September in hearings in s
Fort Worth and pointed out Stiner's " willingness to provide adverse testimony to (the company) without sensitivity to whether the matter is beyond his expertise."
Darlene Stiner "apparently relied heavily on what her husband told her" and " responds to questions by significantly overstating the facts," the board said.
e
FORT WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM 2/27/85 Official who took Heat at Comanche Peak quits By BRUCE MII.LAR before the U.S. Atomic Safety and star Telegrarn u rner II:ensing Board. The adequacy of ULEN ROSE - A key figure in the plant's quality control program Texas Utilitics Electric Co.'s defense plays a vital role in whether the of its beleaguered quality control board recommends a federal opera-program atComanche peak nucicar ting license.
power plant has resigned, a plant Tha licensing board has had ex-spokesman confirmed Tuesday, tensive hearings on a!!egations that
. RonTolson.whoformerly headed pla nt supervisors. including Tolson, the utility's on-site q, uality control haveharassed andintimidated qual; program, resigned his job as a staff ity controlinspectors attempting to engineer Feb.15 to take a position carry out their responsibilities. No with a Dallas engineering consult-decision has been reached.
Ing firm. Tolson's resignation be-The NRC report also criticized came ef fective fou r days before util-utility management forits handling ity officials announced the of a controversial March 1984 "T-replacement of the quality control shirt" incident with which Tolson program's top two managers.
became closely identified.
" People change jobs every day.
Eight electrical quality control in-It's not unusual. it's dif ficult to sepa-spectors came to work wearing T-rate 'he two, but there is absolutely shirts hearing the slogan,"Coman-no connection whatsoever" be-che Peak nitpickers. We are in the
, tween Tolson's resignation and the businessof picking nits."Theslogan
' reassignment of two of his former wasa rcsponsc Loorders from a man-supervisors, company spokesman a ger not t o" nit-pick"i n inspec tions.
Dick Ramsey said in an interview.
Tolson testified that he found the Ramsey said it was strictly a coin-slogan personally offensive and ot-cidence that Tolson lef t the compa-dered the men detained for four a
ny shortly before his former boss, hours while their desks were Dave Chapman,and Tolson's succes-searched,according to hea ring testi-sor, Antonio Vega, were trans-many.
f erred. Utility of ficials said they re-Tolson resigned from his quality placed Chapman and Vega with control job the same morning af ter three outside experts to add " fresh Dallas-based utility executives over-perspective" to the quality control ruled him and ordered the inspec-program.
- tors sent home for theday instead of "Tolson resigned entirely volun, beingfired.accordingtotestimony.
tarily," Ramsey added.
TheJan.8NitC report faultedTol-The plant's quality control pro-son and utility management for
. gram, including Tolson's manage-knuckling under to the pressures ment of the program, has been a and complaints from construction continuing controversy at hearings workers.
e o
e
{.
di t-c ccedETEo i
"SNRC l
'85 m 20 A10 59 i
= UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFRC: O iECRtTARY 4
00CKfT"6 4 SERvlCf.
34ANCW BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD I
In the 11atter of
}{
i q :. _. ;, :
}{
3-N
" *" t" M ' '
4 i.
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
}{
Dockee Nos. 50-445-1..'.
i.: A..1 i
C0!!PANY,.et al.
}{
and 50-446-1 l
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
}{
i Station, Units 1 and 2)
}{
L CERTIFICAE OF SERVICE i
By my signature below, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of CASE's 3/16/85 Supplement to CASE's 1/7/85 Motion for Reconsideration of Board's 12/18/84 Memorandum (Concerning Welding. Issues' (LBP-84-54) have been sent to the names listed below this 16th day of March
,198j5, by: Express : tail where-indicated by
- and Firsc Class Mail elsewhera.
I i
- -Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch-
- Nicholas S. Reyn u s Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bishop, Liberman, rook, Purcell 4350 East / West Highway, 4th Floor
& Reynolds Bethesda, Maryland 20814 1200 - 17th St., N. W.
Washington, D.C.
20036
- Judge" Elizabeth B. Johnson Oak Ridge National Laboratory
- Geary S. Mizuno, Esq.
P. O.
Box X, Building 3500 Office of Executive Legal-Oak Ridge ~-Tennessee
_37830 Director U.
S.' Nuclear Regulatory l
- Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean ~
Commission Division'of Engineering,
' Maryland National Bank Bldg.
Architecture and Technology
- Room 10105 Oklahoma State University 7735 Old Georgetown Road Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Bethesda, Maryland ~
20814 1
- Dr.-Walter M.! Jordan
' Chairman, Atomic Safety and. Licensing l
1881 W. Outer Drive.
3oard Panel Oak Ridge,. Tennessee 37830 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, p. C.
20555 1
1 i
1 a.u
.~.
e...
i Chairman Renea Hicks, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Assistant Attorney General j-Board Panel Environmental Protection Division U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Supreme Court Building Washington,-D. C.
John Collins
{
Regional. Administrator, Region IV U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Dre, Suite-1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 Lanny A. Sinkin 114 W. 7th, Suite 220 Austin, Texas 78701 Dr. David H. Boltz j
2012 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 3
Michael D. Spence, President Texas Utilities Generating Company Skyway Tower 400 North Olive St...L.B. 81~
_ Dallas, Texas 75201 l
Docketing and Service Section (3 copies)
Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Washington, D. C.
20555 5
I w
- s i-lJ i'
(p.) Juanita Ellis, President
. CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk
{
-Dallas, Texas' 75224 J-214/946-9446-i l
i
. t c-2.
t y
t r--
=
yt
,y p,a w
-~<a gw y-
-v
-