ML20137U838
| ML20137U838 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 02/12/1986 |
| From: | Gieseker J COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137U809 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8602190349 | |
| Download: ML20137U838 (350) | |
Text
.- - -. ..
PIED _CORRESPONM
- r i
A
{v) 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00LMETED USNRC 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION N FEB 18 #1 :46 3
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD 4
fflCE CF u u,x ,,o y METiw & ;E RVlg~
BRANCH 5 _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 6 In the matter of: :
7 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY :
Docket Nos.
50-456 8 (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, :
50-457 9
Units 1 and 2) :
10 _________________ _ _ _x
! 11 12 Isham, Lincoln & Beale
, ~ , .
33 Three First National Plaza r 1 i /
, 34 Chicago, Illinois 15 Wednesday, February 12, 1986 16 17 18 Deposition of JAMES W. GIESEKER, called for 19 examination by counsel for Intervenors, taken before 20 ____________________________________________________________
21 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
22 1625 I Street, N.W. 293-3950 Washington, D.C.
a "N 8602190349 860214 PDR ADOCK 050004'.s6 i [\~) ~~ T PDR
2 m Suzanne B. Young,'a Notary Public in and for the District
~
(
_/
1 of Columbia, commencing at 10:10 a.m.at Isham, Lincoln 2
and Beale, Three First National Plaza, Chicago, Illinois 3
on Wednesday,-February 12, 1986, when were present on 4
behalf of the respective parties:
5 APPEARANCES:
6 For the Licensee, Commonwealth Edison Company:
7 JOSEPH GALLO, Esq.
8 FREDERICK C. WILLIAMS, Esq.
9 Isham, Lincoln & Beale 10
.Three First National Plaza 11 Chicago, Illinois 60602 12 13 i
['"w 8 For the Intervenors, BPI, et al.:
ROBERT GUILD, Esq.
15 109 North
Dearborn,
Suite 1300 16 Chicago, Illinois 17 18 For the NRC Staff:
19 GREGORY A. BERRY, Esq.
20 Office of the Executive Legal Director 21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 22 Washington, D.C. 20555 I
/ \
w/
4
3 b.
I 1 N, p E_ K 2 Witness Examination By: Page No.
3 JAMES W. GIESEKER Mr. Guild 4 4 Mr. Gallo 209
~5 Mr. Guild 232 6 Mr. Gallo 240 7
8 9
10 11 12 Exhibits s 13 Exhibit No. _ Description Page NO.
+
14 Gieseker No. 1 Notice of Deposition dated 1/30/86 5 IS
-Gieseker Group Notebook containing all 16 Exhibit No. 2- documents supporting affidavits. 6 17 Gieseker No. 3 Question and Answer is No. 6. 7 19 20 21 (Gieseker Group Exhibit No. 2 was retained by Counsel and 22 a copy was not given to the reporter.)
4 4 "s
O
- As/ 1 P R O C-E E D I N G S 2
10:10 a.m.
3 Whereupon, d
JAMES W. GIESEKER, 5
called for examination by counsel for Intervenors, Rorem, 6
Et Al, after being duly sworn under oath, was examined and 7
testified as follows:
8
. EXAMINATION 9-BY MR. GUILD:
10 Q Mr. Gieseker, would you state your full name and 11 your business address for.the record, please?
12 A James W. Gieseker,~ Commonwealth Edison Company, 13 Braidwood Station.
t
\- Id' O My name is Robert Guild. We have met off the 15 record. I am counsel for the Intervenors, Rorem, Et Al, 16 in the quality assurance contention at Braidwood.
17 The purpose of my deposition today is to ask you 18 some questions-regarding two affidavits that you submitted
- 19 in support of Edison's Motion for Summary Disposition of 20 December 12, 1985.
21 You did submit two affidavits, did you not?
22 A Yes, sir. In fact, I believe I submitted three.
5
-( ) 1 O Oh, Well, I missed the third one. One with 2 respect to.sub-item 3C, correct?
3 A Yes, sir.
4 Q And one item 19B, correct?
5 A Excuse me. 9C and 10F.
6 Q 10F. Excuse me. 'Okay.
7 I have asked the reporter to mark a document as 8 Deposition Exhibit 1 for identification. It is a January 30, 9 1986 document entitled, "Intervenors, Rorem, Et Al, Notice 10 of Depositions," and it is directed to you, among others.
11 (Gieseker Deposition Exhibit No. 1 12 was marked for identification.)
13 BY MR. GUILD:
14 O Can you identify that document, Mr. Gieseker?
15 A Yes, sir. I have read it before. My name is 16 spelled incorrectly, but I did receive it.
17 O I apologize.
18 Gee, you have an "r" at the end.
19 The second page of that notice speaks to the 20 issue of documents supporting your affidavits. Did you 21 bring any such documents with you?
22 A Yes, sir.
~.)
i 1
'6 i 1
-MR. GALLO: Yes. If-I can interject at this
.-[Q 2 point, pursuant to your notice of deposition, I asked Mr.
3 Gieseker to collect the various documents in particular 4
associated with item 3C that he used in connection with 5 working on that particular matter. Some of those documents
'6 had been previously furnished to you and were Bates 7 stamped. Some of'those documents were sent to you on 8 February 10 under cover of my letter.
9 Mr. Gieseker has a notebook before him which 10 contains all of the documents in both categories plus 11 documents I believe you may not have seen before. Here is 12 a copy for your use.
13 MR. GUILD: Let me ask the court reporter to
(
O) 14 mark the binder that Mr. Gallo has just provided to me as 15 Geiseker Group Exhibit 2.
16 (Gieseker Deposition Group Exhibit 17 No. 2 was marked for identification.)
18 MR. GALLO: I want to make a correction to Mr.
19 Gieseker's affidavit that he submitted in connection with 20 subcontention. item 3C, in particular the answer to question 6 21 of that affidavit. I would like to make it, after I 22 finish, Exhibit 3.
O
7 l
('j 1 Mr. Gieseker, I have handed you a single sheet L ,I 2
of paper that has on it 06, which is question 6 from your 3
affidavit submitted on December 19 in sup~ port of 4
Applicant's Motion for Summary Disposition with respect 5- to subcontention item 3C, and it appears on this single 6 sheet of paper, the answer. to question 6, that is different 7 from the answer in your affidavit submitted on December 8 ~19; is that correct?
9 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
10 MR. GALLO: Can you tell me whether or not-you 11 wrote the answer 6 that appears on the single sheet of 12 paper?
13 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
()v 14 15 MR. GALLO: Is it accurate and complete, to the best of your knowledge and belief?
16 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
17 MR. GALLO: Bob, if it is agreeable to you, I 18 would like to make this Geiseker Exhibit 3.
19 (Gieseker Deposition Exhibit No. 3 20 was marked for identification.)
21 MR. GALLO: That is the only correction that we 22 wanted to make to the affidavit.
(Discussion off the record.)
A
8 1 BY MR. GUILD:
2 Q Mr. Gieseker, I want to ask you --
3 MR. BERRY: Bob, before we start, could we 4 just wait a moment?
5 On February 7, 1986, the Staff filed its 6 responses to Intervenors third set of interrogatories, and 7 in its response to Interrogatory 7, the Staff indicated that a it was relying in part upon a document produced by Region III.
9 management to the ACRS on February 7, 1985.
10 The Staff also indicated that that document 11 would be made available to the parties. I am at this 12 -time producing a copy of that document. It is a March 5th 13 memorandum from C.E. Norelius to Director, Division of
() 14 Reactor Projects, to'Mr. H.L. Thompson, Director, Division 15 of Licensing.
to There is an attachment consisting of 25 pages.
17 MR. GUILD: Anything else?
18 (No response.)
19 BY MR. GUILD:
20 0 Mr. Gieseker, I want to ask you about the basis 21 for the correction to your testimony, but before I do that, 22 I would like for you to identify the documents that you have i
- O l
9
-%/f] 1 produced and, if.you could, go through-the binder and 2 identify those, please.
- 3. A Okay. Basically, what the binder is.is for my
- d. use in following my responsibilities in these contention 5 items. The first page is simply a copy of what you marked 6 as Exhibit 1, I believe, and then the binder is basically 7 divided into three' sections, one for each of the three 8 affidavits I signed: that is, contention item 3C, 9 contention item 9C, and contention item 10F. Each of the 10 subsets, then, it is my working papers to follow the item.
11 Many of these I believe you already have. For 12 example, the first tab under 3C is a copy of the Motion for 13 Summary Disposition,' and I am sure that you have received
() 14 15 that except for the correction that we added in this morning.
0 All right.
16 A The second tab is our responses to specific 17 interrogatory 6, which involved the Level I reverification 18 program,which we have used the term LRP, or what I call LRP, 19 which'is short for Level I Reverification Program.
20 The third tab is responses to interrogatories 21 58 and 59 concerning contention item 3C.
22 The fourth tab -- the first part of it is a
10
() I 2
flow chart which we developed in_trying to finalize the procedure, the LRP procedure. Following tha t is the draf t 3 version of PM-18, which will be the official number for the 4 LRP procedure.
5 The next tab is blank. It didn't have anything 6 on that. The following tab is some additional information.
7 The first item in there is --
8 0 Let me stop you one second. The draft procedure, 9 is that to be a Comstock or Commonwealth Edison procedure?
10 A It will be what we call a PM procedure, and that
. 11 stands for Project Management, so it will be a CECO 12 project procedure.
13 0 All right. Thank you.
() 14 The next tab is blank, md then?
15 A And then the additional information section, I 16 as I call it. _The first thing is Audit Report G84-122, 17 which is a general office audit report that was conducted in 18 September of 1984.
19 The next item is OA surveillance No. 41-78, 20 which was used to --
21 MR. GALLO: You have confused him. You are still 22 in the same area?
O
11 (n) 1
'THE WITNESS: Excuse me. I am still'on the same 2 tab.
3 BY MR. GUILD:
d Q Let me just catch up with you. After the 5 general office audit --
6 i
A That is the QA surveillance that was used to 7
close out one of the items during that office audit.'
8 O Can you give me a number on that?
9 A 41-78. It's up in the corner.
10 The next sheet is just a memorandum from the 11 lead auditor of that September 1984 audit to Dan Shamblin 12 indicating that the audit had been closed.
13 Q And the date of January 9, 1986?
) Id A Yes, sir.
15 Then the following packet in that same section 16 is just for my reference. The first sheet is out of our 17 FSAR, Final Safety Analysis Report, which talks about our 18 commitment to Reg Guide 1.58, and that is page number A1.58-1, 19 The second item stapled to that is a copy of 20 Reg Guide 1.58, and the third item stapled with that is a 21 copy of ANSI N45.26, 1978.
22 The next few sheets, one is a memorandum from i
1
- O i
12
.( ). i myself to Lisa Styles of Isham, Lincoln & Beale.
2 Q Let me catch up with you. That is a telecopy 3 form?
4 A Yes, sir, dated 9/25/85. And I transmitted to 5 her a copy of a Comstock procedure. The first sheet is 6 page 7 of 13, Revision F, as in Fred,'and a copy of a 7 Form 19, which is their welder inspection checklist, and that 8 is Revision E.
9 The next sheet.is the same -- or a subsequent 10 revision to that same page, page 7 of 13, Revision G, as in 11 George.
12 Q Wait a second. Slow cown on second here. I see 13 page 7 of 13 followed by a Revision F.
( ) 14 A Yes. If you look down at the bottom of the page, 15 at the bottom it says F. Then the Form 19, Revision F.
16 Q I thought you said Revision E.
I'7 A Excuse me. At the bottom it is Revision E.
18 Q Which Revision is it?
19 A The Form 19 is Revision E. The procedure 20 revision of 4.8.3 is Revision F.
21 Then the next two pages is again page 7 of 22 Revision G of Procedure 4.8.3, and the Form 19, which is the i
O
13 1 Revision G.
2 'What we-are trying-t.o do is show the page and-3 the checklist, how they change from Revision F to Revision 4 G.
.5 The next sheet is just a sample of Form 91, 6 which is the weld inspection checklist used by Ernst 7 Electric. I 8 The next page is a sample copy of a Form 19, an 9 earlier version of the weld inspection checklist used by 10 Comstock.
11 The next page is a listing of some preparatory 12 things that we did for the LRP procedure, trying to 13 establish the inspection dates for the Level I inspectors.
' 14 I talk about it in my testimony, and'this is just one of 15 the earlier working sheets that we used.
16- Q It is a document entitled " Contention 3C, 17 Inspector Information"?
18 A Yes, sir. There is no'date on it. It was just 19 a working document.
20 The next sheet is more working documents. It is 21 a memo. It says, "To R. Brown, L.K. Comstock QC," and 22 it's dated 12/11/85, and it's a cover memo followed by a O
14 f-~ i listing of Level I, Level II inspectors and their 2 certifications and certification dates.
-3 0 I have a pretty poor copy of the cover memo.
4 A And I don't have a much better one.
.5 Q Can you read the text of that cover memo?
6 A " Attached are potential QC inspectors to be 7 included in the above program. Those inspectors with an a asterisk have performed no welding inspections prior to the 9 listed dates." And it is signed John Downwald, and Mr.
10 Downwald works for a consultant to Commonwealth Edison, 11 Nuclear Power Services, or NPS.
12 The reply is, " Attached information is provided 13 as requested. If you have any questions, please contact
/N 14 me." Or something like that. And the signature is -- I 15 can't see the signature, but I believe it was probably Mr.
16 Brown who was returning'the memo.
17 0 Let me be clear, now. The source of the la attachments, the listings entitled " Level I, Level II Weld 19 Certs, comes from Mr. Brown in response to the memo, or is 20 attached by Mr. Downwald in the memo to Mr. Brown?
21 A Mr. Downwald's memo to Mr. Brown and then Mr.
22 Brown's reply.
i V 1
_ _ . _ . , - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - - ' ~ ~
- ' - ~ ' " '
15
.MR. GALLO:
' ['v) 1 But you haven't answered his 2 question.
3 BY MR. GUILD:
4 Q Downwald transmitted the attached lists to 5 Brown? Or is it'the other way around?
6 A I believe the attached list comes from Mr.
7 Brown.
e Q so Brown replied with the lists.
9 A Yes. -It says -- Oh, I'm sorry. I understand it to now. If you look at the fourth page of the memo --
11 Q The fourth attachment?
12 A Yes, or the fourth page of the entire thing.
13 Q It's a handwritten list of names?
(A,) 14 A Right. That's the list that was provided by Mr.
15 Downwald to Mr. Brown.
16 The second two pages, which lead off entitled, 17
'" Level I/ Level II Weld Certs," is the reply from Mr. Brown 18 to Mr. Downwald, 19 Q Those are the typed pages?
20 A Yes, sir.
21 Q And who is Mr. Brown?
22 A Mr. Brown works for L.K. Comstock QC Department in the training area.
16
() 2 1 -
The next sheet is another memo authored.by Mr.
Brown, dated August 19, 1985, and it was inquiries during 3
our quality control inspector reinspection program, which d
talked about some of the old inspectors. And again, it 5
was information -- we were trying to confirm who was a 6
Level I and who was not a Level I, and this was information 7
that we gathered during the QC IRP program, which;is the 8
quality control inspector reinspection program.
9 The last page in that section is a letter from 10 or Outhored by Mr. L.G. Seese of Comstock, dated 7/17/85.
11 Again, it is information on inspectors.
12 That completes the first section on 3C in the 13 notebook.
l() Id O Are those the documents that you brought forward 15 on 3C?
16 A Yes, sir.
17 The second section is my working papers on j
18 Contention item 9C. The first section is blank.
I' The second section contains the Motion for 20 Summary Disposition for Contention item 9C.
j 21 The next section is the responses to Interrogatorie s
- 22 58 and 59 concerning Contention item 9C.
1 1
J
- O
. , - - ._--..,_m,,.,_ . . _ _ _ _ - _ . - _ _ , , . . . _ , . . - . _ - _ _ _ _ _ . - ~ - , , . _ ,., _ _ , . . - . . - - ~.......__.m, _ _ _ . . _ , - _ _ _ _ _ . - -
17
-\ -
1 The next section is blank.
2 The following section is a QA surveillance 3 report No. 4680, which I believe is a follow-up on the d NRC item concerning Contention item 9C.
5 The next section is additional information, and 6 that contains NCR 32075, which was also mentioned in the 7 closecut of Contention item 9C.
8 That completes the section on Contention item 9C.
9 The last section of my book concerns Contention tu item 10F. The first section is blank.
11 The second section contains a copy of the 12 Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention item 10F.-
13 The next section is the responses to Interrogatories-14 58 and 59 and Contention Item 10F.
15 The next section contains a copy of the Common-16 wealth Edison Licensee response to NRC items, and it is 17 a letter from D.L. Farrar to Mr. James G. Keppler, chted 18 June 21, 1985.
19 The next item or section is a copy of a quality 20 assurance surveillance number 5186, and it is a follow-up 21 on the NRC item by the Quality Assurance Department which 22 concerns Contention item 10F.
O
18 j- 1 The last section is a copy of L.K. Comstock i'
2 NCRs 41-39 and 45-13, which were both involved in -the closecut 3 of the NRC item which is discussed in Contention item 10F.
4 That completes the book.
5 0 Mr. Gieseker, your counsel asked that a document i 6 be marked as Exhibit 3. That appears to be a. correction 7 -to question and answer 6 of your affidavit with respect a to sub-item 3C.
9 Can you e Xplain the basis for the correction, 10 please? ,
11 A Yes, sir. In, I believe it was, early January 12 this year, Mr. Jacobsen of Region III came to the site to 13 follow up on the NRC item of noncompliance, and during i
14 that visit by Mr. Jacobsen, Mr. Jacobsen interviewed some 15 Comstock Level.II inspectors who reviewed the checklist 16 completed by Level I inspectors..
17 I sat in on those interviews, and during those 18 interviews it'was apparent to me that there was an 19 inconsistency in the implementation of the review by the i
20 Level II inspectors. So I then revised my response to 21 question 6 of the Motion for Summary Disposition.
22 O All right. When did that interview'take place,
{
O l d i
1
.-m.- - , . -,., _ . - _ . ,, ...- . , - , - - _ _ - . _ _ - - - _ . _ _ . _ - _ . _ _ _ _ , _ ~ . . _ _ - , , _ _ _ , . . , , . . _ _ _ _ , , e .-~ --..- ,.-, w,..e.- ...... . .
' 19 b) kJ 1 Mr. Gieseker?
j 2 A I believe it was in early January 1986.
3 I can't remember the specific date.
4 Q Did you make any notes of that interview?
1-5 A No, sir. It was an informal interview, and l '6 again, it was conducted by Mr. Jacobsen and I just sat in 7 on it.
3-8 Q Do you know whether the results of those 9 interviews are reflected in any NRC document, an inspection l 10 report or other notes of interview?
11 A Not to my knowledge.
12 O Has Mr. Jacobsen reported on that inspection, 13 to your knowledge?
() 14 A Not to my knowledge.
Who were the Level IIs that were interviewed?
15 0
! 16 A Dan Holly, Mark Klachko. Mike Mustard. Irv 17 DeWald. I believe there were two others, and I cannot ,
3 18 remember their names. There were four or five, or five
! 19 or six that we interviewed, or that Mr. Jacobsen inter-20 viewed.
4 21 Q And what was the nature of the inconsistencies 22 in the Level II review?
)
1 O
i i.
y.-- -r m-+- ---w,,----*p--m-y,~- -w2w - , - --,..w----m---%m-.g,-.- 4.
-et----- - - - ,--,y-e-ye--p-w--- e- 9 <wg.- y see,
I 20
() 2 1 A They basically spanned the whole, or what I call the whole range of the review. One of the inspectors said 3 that when he was doing the Level II review, he didn't know 4 if the original inspectors was a Level I or a Level II, and 5 one of the what I all kind of the middle-of-the-road 6 understanding of the requirements would be -- one of the 7 gentlemen said that,_yes, I knew the original inspector 8 was a Level I, but -- and I participated in his training, 9 perhaps, but I did nothing special in my review of.the 10 checklist, i.e., I did nothing different if~the guy was a 11 Level I or a Level II, even though he did know that the 12 gentlemen was a Level II -- excuse me, a Level I.
13 Then there was one inspector who s aid --
() 14 Q Let me stop you right there. By nothing special, 15 did you understand him to mean nothing different than he 16 would have done if he were reviewing another Level II's 17 work?
18 A Yes, sir.
19 And then a third example was one of the guys, 20 one of the inspectors said, yes, I knew the guy was a 21 Level I and I knew that I was taking responsibility for his 22 inspections. He was quite sensitive to the fact that the
'l I
O
21
.r]
N i person was a Level I. He did not,- however, indicate if he 2 did anything different with the checklist if it was a Level 3 I or a Level II. He was very adamant with the fact that he 4 -was accepting the Level I's work by signing off the checklist.
5 0 Did he indicate what the nature of'his reviewe 6 - was?
7' A If my memory serves me correct, I believe that a he was familiar with the work of the Level I and --
9 0 Did he confirm --
10 MR. GALLO: Did you finish your answer?
11 MR. GUILD: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to 12 interrupt you.
13 THE WITNESS: And by that, I was led to understand
(} I4 that he had worked with the person either in training or in is the field and was knowlegeable of the competence of that 16 Level I.
17 BY MR. GUILD:
1e Q Did you finish?
19 A Yes, sir.
20 Q Did you understand from that inspector, the 21 third case that you mentioned, that he actually reviewed the 22 welds that the Level I inspected?
A He did not indicate that he reviewed the welds
(
s_-
22 I
specific for a checklist, but he did mention that he
-2 would go out every once in a while and review the guy's 3 work'. But he did not tie it to a specific checklist. I d
don't know if he took a particular checklist and did, like,
'S one out of three checklists or anything. It wasn't that
'6 explicit.
7 Q He didn't physically verify the acceptability 8
of the welds that the Level I inspected?
9 A Not for the specific checklict, but he had looked to or was familiar with the Level I's work, the way he put it.
Il So he had looked at some welds, maybe not those specific 12 welds for the checklist he was signing off, but he was 13 knowledgeable of the Level I's competence.
() id 15 0 All right.
Now, who were the inspectors that stated the to cases that you just put forward?
17 A The third case is Mr. Holly, I believe.- The is second case was --
19 0 Let's be clear. The third case was he knew the 20 Level I's work.
21 A Right. He was accepting the Level I's work.
22 O And he knew he was reviewing the Level I's work.
O
23 l
s A
} 1 Right.
l 2 O The second case?
l 3 A Was Mr. DeWald. And as I said before,,Irv
! 4 mentioned that he had been participating in the training of 5
many of the Level I's and so was in that respect knowledgeabic 6 of their work, but he did nothing different when he 7 reviewed the checklist.
e 0 All right. No different than what he would do 9 in reviewing Level II's?
10 A Yes, sir.
11 Q And the first case?
12 A I can't remember who the first case was. I just 13 can't remember. I think it was Mr. Mustard, but I did not 14 take notes.
15 Q And what is the significance of the correction to 16 your testimony that is based on the interviews that you 17 observed?
18 A Well, as f ar as I'm concerned, the LRP program 19 will address the quality of the Level I's work, so I don't 20 really think there is any significance --
21 MR. GALLO: Compare the two answers and then 22 answer his question.
f l
l-i l
O
- t. s i
24 l
.x l O,. 1 (Witness reviewing document.)
V 2 THE WITNESS: Ob. Well, originally when I wrote 3 the answer to the question in the Motion for Summary' d Disposition, I was at the point where I didn't feel as 5 strongly that the Level I Reinspection program was 6 - required. After the interviews, when I realized an 7 inconsistency in the implementation of the program', I felt 8 stronger that the program was needed to determine the 9 adequacy of the Level I's welds.
10 0 In the first paragraph of your original answer 11 to question 6, you describe the lack'of documentation of
'12 the review by the Level II's as W procedural inadequacy.
13 A Yes, sir, f Id O And you distinguish that inadequacy from the is absence of information concerning the 'E.C. Ernst practice 16 with respect to Level I's. Do you still distinguish the
'* 17 Comstock practice from'the Ernst practice?
f 18 A Oh, yes. The'Ernst practice, there was no
<* 19 review of the checklist by anybody. There was just one 20 signature on the checklist, and that was by the person that h performed the inspection. The Comstock checklist always
' 22 had two reviews. There was an inconsistency in the review l
0 v
h,_- - --.a a u -
, 25 I
signature that we just discussed, but there were always two 2 signatures on the checklist.
i 3 O All right.
4 The statement that you make in your original i
5 answer is as follows with respect to LKC. He then said 6
Commonwealth Edison Company does not agree that this 7
documentation deficiency amounted to a violation of the ANSI 8
standard. -- the quobe is - "because LKC Level II's were, in 9
fact, reviewing and accepting Level I results in accordance 10 with ANSI N45.2.6 1978 Code."
11 You no longer have that confidence?
12 A Right. That's the basic reason that I changed 13 the_ response, is because after the interviews, I could not
() id 15 be as explicit with that statement anymore.
0 Let me ask you some preliminary questions, Mr.
s 16 Gieseker, before we get into some more detail on the 3C 17 issue. Can you tell me who prepared your affidavit, first i 18 on the 3C issue,and then I want to turn to the other two 19 subcontentions.
20 A As indicated by the affidavits themselves, we
, 21 were provided questions by our attorneys, Isham, Lincoln
! 22 1
& Beale, and we then wrote responses to the questions, and 4
1
!O 1
l
26
(~') I we went through that. We' discussed our responses with LJ 2 them, and in some cases we wrote some of the questions, 3 and then after the questions were rephrased, we went back 4 or I went back and rewrote the answers. So it was kind of 5 a process of questions and answers.
6 Q All right. Did anyone else participate in 7 writing responses or writing your affidavit other than 8 yourself and counsel?
9 A No, sir.
10 0 Fow let's look at your affidavit supporting 11 item.3C. What changes were made in the questions or 12 answers in this affidavit testimony, Mr. Gieseker?
13 A Could you be more specific?
rs 14 Sure. You described a drafting and editing
( ) Q 15 process.
16 A Yes, sir.
17 0 In general terms. And I would like for you to la identify the changes that were made that were a product-19 of that drafting and editing process.
20 A I guess I don't remember any specifically right 21 off the top of my head. I could go through here --
22 O Please take a minute and go through.
I O
27 O
() 1 (Witness reviewing document.)
2 A One that comes right to my mind, one of the 3
first things is that the questions we originally wrote d basically involved L.K. Comstock, and we had in our early 5
responses talked about 14 inspectors, and we realized that 6 the E.C. Ernst contractor, which is the electrical 7
contractor prior to Comstock, they also used Level I's, 8 so we had to expand the questions to include both Ernst 9 and Comstock. And when we did that, some of the numbers 10 changed.
11 For example, the original 14 number changed to
- 12 17. But as indicated in Exhibit 1, only 13 of those m
13 inspectors actually performed weld inspections.
k_-) id O When did that change get made, Mr. Gieseker, 15
- the one you just identified with respect to the Ernst --
16 A It was early in the question and answer procesh, 17 but I don't remember the specific date.
18 Q December, November, October?
19 A Well, we worked on this in early December because 20 I believe I signed my affidavit either the 19th or 20th of 21 December.
22 Q All right. How did it come to your attention iO l
l
d 28
- )
~N q j) l' that you had omitted the Ernst Level I's up until that 2 point?
3 MR. GALLO: The questioner had omitted the 4 Ernst.
5 BY MR. GUILD:
6 0 Well, whoever had omitted the Ernst.
7 A Well, that's what happened, is that the questions 8 came out talking about Comstock. Even in the NRC item of 9 noncompliance I believe it talks about Ernst/Comstock, and
~
10 so I j'ust knew that we had also used Ernst. So we just 11 wanted to make it clear that the program covered both of 12 the contractors Level I's.
i 13 O All right. So it was an error by counsel and not O
\s / 14 by you;~ correct?
15 A Yes, sir.
16 O Any other changes?
17 A Well, some of them were -- the ones I can't 18 remember, like some of them, it was just phraseology and 19 clarification of what my sentence meant or didn't mean, so 20 I can't remember specifics on that. Question 11 talks 21 about the welding, what is the welding work.
22 When I went to answer that one, in talking with l
- i V
- _. ,_---m __-
29 1 ( 1 counsel we decided we should get'a representative from k' 2 Sargent & Lundy who is the architect engineer for Braidwood 3 to talk about the welding work because my responsibilities 4 for Commonwealth Edison are in the construction department.
5 I don't.have any design responsibilities, and it was 6 determined to be a design question.
7 0 Why was that? -
8 A Well, it is describing what -- the question 9 involves what is the welding work performed at Comstock?
l 10 Now, I can tell you from the construction aspect, but they 11 wanted a representative of the engineering department to 12 state from a design point of view.
i3 Q When you say "they," do you mean counsel?
f 14 A ihey, yes. Yes.
15 0 Any other changes?
l 16 A. In question 13, a similar situation is that we 17 described the sampling process. I could describe the 18 sampling process based on my conversations with Dr. Frankel 19 because what we did is we presented ---or I discussed it 20 with Dr. Frankel what we wanted to do, i.e., I t'old him the i
21 parameters of the work that was done by the Level I's and 22 discussed with him then what a statistical representation or
'l I
f d
k i
b 4
f
30 !
\
(~D 1 that sample would be, but again, I indicated to the lawyers V
2 that I was not a statistical expert, and we then decided 3
to elicit Mr. Frankel's affidavit to support the statistical d
basis for the Level I program.
5 0 All right.
6 A Question 16 was changed. Originally, if you 7
-read the earlier -- I think the earlier responses to 8
the contention item, we were going to use the weld inspec-9 tion criteria in effect at the time of the original 10 inspection, anii we changed that to do the current weld 11 inspection criteria because what we were looking for is 12 design-significant discrepancies. We were not -- so we were 13 trying to establish the acceptability of the welds them-() 14 15 selves; we were not trying to prove any training program or any programmatic requirements .at the time of the 16 initial inspection. So we changed it to just use the 17 current inspection criteria.
18 I believe that's it.
19 All right.
Q 20 MR. GALLO: Off the record.
21 (Discussion off the record.)
22 BY :MR GUILD:
O Mr. Gieseker, if you would turn to your affidavit,
31 7s
. (_,} I
~
with respect to sub-item 9C, would you describe, please, 2 how that affidavit was prepared, that testimony?
3l -A Basically the same way. as the previous one, and 4
we were provided or I was provided written questions by 5 counsel to which I provided written draft responses.
6 0 All right.
7 Can you identify any changes that were made to a
your testimony that grew out of that editing process?
o A All right.
10 (Witness reviewing document.)
11 Question 7 -- and when I talked about the 12 purpose of the cable pans, we determined that again we 7-s 13 should get a representative from the designer to talk about 14 the E70 series electrode versus the E60 series electrode, 15 again because I have no design ?;esponsibilities on site.
16 The only other item I remember off-hand is in 17
~
question -- I guess it's question and answer 10, the 1ast
. 18 paragraph, which is on page 6. My counsel asked me if there 19 were any other additional inspections done by the NRC, and 20
~
I did not know that at the time. I had to go ask our 21 licensing department, and they provided the reports which 22 I based this final paragraph on.
j \
32
()
,~
1 It looks like we skipped a number. Question and 2 answer 10 goes to question and answer 12. I believe it's 3 just a typo. I don't believe we omitted a question and d answer.
5 0 All right.
.6 Do you recall any other changes that were made 7-to your testimony and affidavit respecting Item 9C?
8 A Again, with the clarification that some of it 9
was. phraseology and wording and I can't remember specifics to on that.
11 Q Turn, if you would, then, to your affidavit with 12 respect to Contention sub-item 10F. And again, could you 13 describe how that testimony was prepared and .iny changes
' fi
- V- ~ 14 that were made?
15 A Certainly. Again, it was the same process as the 16 previous contention items 3C and 9C. I was provided the 17 question and answer -- or the questions, and I wrote the 18 answers. Again, it was an iterative process with 19 phraseology being. discussed, and as far as the questions 20 themselves, for this item itses very straightforward.
~
I 21 don't remember any changes in the questions themselves.
4 22 Okay.
O Take a moment and look at them.
.\
33
(i 1 (Witness reviewing document.)
U 2 A I guess one minor thing. In answer 6, the last 3 sentence there, again, I have no design responsibilities d on the site, and the NCR 4139 which was issued to resolve 5 the spacing of the concrete expansion anchor was disposi-6 tioned by Sargent & Lundy, and Mr. Jacques provided an 7 analysis of what S&L does when they look at an as-installed 8 spacing for these anchors.
9 Q Okay. Do'you recall any.other changes?
10 A Oh, okay. Answer 9 was the same thing.- I was 11 asked if there were any other. inspection reports that had 12 talked about the inspection of junction boxes, and again, 13 I didn't know it at the time, but we went to the licensing
() 14 15 department, which supplied us with a copy of these two reports. Oh, excuse me. It's one report. 45/56, 85/32 and 16 31. And that's what I used for the basis of this last 17 paragraph.
18 0 All right.
19 Can you recall any other changes?
20 A No, sir.
21 O Let's go back to item 3C, then, Mr. Gieseger, 22 please. Has Commonwealth Edison conducted any review of 1
4
34
j i what Level I' quality control inspectors at Braidwood actually 2 have done?
3 MR. GALLO: Do you mean 'irr connection with 4 Comstock?
5 BY MR. GUILD:
6 0 No. I mean in general, at all, in any respect.
7 A Not to my knowledge. We have only talked about 8 the Level I, the use of Level I's for Comstock. However, 9 in our response to the item of noncompliance when we said --
10 we wrote a letter to Comstock saying from this point on only 11 use Level II inspectors to inspect welds. We wrote a similar 12 letter to all other contractors.
13 O All right. And when was that letter written, fen
( ) 14 approximately, if you don't recall the specific date?
15 A I believe it was the spring of '85. I certainly 16 could get.a. copy of that letter. I don't recall the 17 specific date.
18 O All right.
19 Did that letter or any other letter.or 20 communication from Edison ask the contractors to identify 21 any prior inspection work performed by Level I's?
22 J4R. GALLO: I'm going to object at this point.
O
I l
l 35 p 1 The question is beyond the scope of the summary disposition 2
affidavit, and'I thought we were going to limit the 3
inquiry to the scope of the summary disposition affidavit.
4 I mean you are not focusing on the 3C Comstock problem; you 5 are asking questions with respect to other contractors.
6 MR. GUILD: I am asking the question generally, 7
and I believe it is relevant; but I would ask you to answer 8 the question, nevertheless.
9 TEE WITNESS: I don't know of'any that the 10 construction department wrote. Quality Assurance -- I don't 11 know what the word is -- administers the contract for the 12 independent test lab, PTL, Pittsburgh Testing Laboratories, 13 and they wrote a letter similar to ours. I don't know if a
(%
s_) 14 they asked for -- you know, I don't know if they asked any 15 additional information on the use of Level I's or not.
16 BY MR. GUILD:
17 Q By "they," you mean site quality assurance?
18 A Right.
'19 Q Wrote to PTL?
20 A Right, be we, the construction department, 21 administers the contracts for the contractors that are or 22 have been hired to do the construction, _and then Quality 4
0 u>
36
(,,) 1 Assurance administers the contract for the independent 2 test lab.
3 Q And the independent test lab, PTL, employs 4 quality control inspectors?
5 A Right. Yes,. sir.
6 0 Why was a letter then sent to contractors other 7 than L.K. Comstock in the spring of '85 instructing them to 8 no longer employ Level I's?
9 A Just to reinforce our decision at that time to 10 only use Level II's to do weld inspections.
1 11 Why was such an instruction relevant to the other Q
12 contractors?
. c . 13 A Well, we just wanted to make sure that they
' 14 did not start -- that their use of Level I's and Level II's 15 was consistent with what we were supplying Comstock. Just 16 to be consistent among the contractors.
17- O Do you know whether any contractors other than 18 Ernst and Comstock employed Level I's in performing quality 19 control inspections?
20 A I do not know.
4 21 ~MR. GALLO: I just want to make my prior objection 22 clear. .It was not based on relevancy grounds; it was based i
I r# \
l O.
l
37
['*) i on the understanding you and I have that the scope of this
%J 2 deposition, at least, is limited to summary disposition 3 affidavits, and Mr. Gieseker has not been prepared by counsel 4 -with respect to a broader range of questions you might ask 5 with respect to other areas, and it was on that basis that 6 I objected.
7 MR. GUILD: I am trying to limit my examination 8 to the scope of the summary disposition motions, and some 9 portions of which may involve some grey area's that are not to specifically addressed in Mr. Gieseker's affidavit. But 11 my belief is that the last subject was relevant to the 12 Motion for Summary Disposition.
13 BY MR. GUILD:
()
rm 14 O With regard, then, to Comstock and Ernst, what is work did the Level I inspectors perform, Mr. Gieseker?
16 A They performed visual inspections of welds.
1:7 Q And was that work governed by a written procedure?
4 18 A Yes. For both contractors -- I might mention just 19 for clarity that the Ernst was the first electrical contractor 20 on site, and in the beginning of 1979 it was replaced by 21 Comstock, so they were not there at the same time. But l' 22 during each of the tenures for the two contractors, their work was governed, their inspection work for welds was l
l i
l .)
1 l
l i
._ - _ - , _, , ._ _ . . - . . _ _ , . _ . - ~~-, _ _
38
(-}
~
1 governed by the site approved procedures.
2 O All right.
3 Did you provide me a copy of an excerpt from 4 one of those procedures?
'5 A Yes. That was a Comstock 4. 8.3. It is the -L.K.
o' Comstock weld inspection procedures. That was in the last 7 section of general information. It's in the tail end of 8 that, Mr. Guild. The one that'had the telecopy form from 9 myself to Lisa Styles of Isham, Lincoln & Beale.
10 0 That is several pages of a procedure that are 11 attached to the 9/25/80 copy?
12 A es, sir.
13 Q Now, does that excerpt from the procedure describe J
/ 14 the work activities that-the procedure specified to be 15 performed by the Level I inspectors?
16 A In partial, certainly. I only supplied Ms. Styles
- 17 with page 7 of 13, so it's an incomplete document that you 4
la see here. But certainly it provides the weld inspection 19 criteria to be used by either a Level I or a Level II 20 in the case of Revision F for visual inspections of welds.
21 In Revision G, which is the next copy of page 7, we eliminated 22 the use of the Level I and it indicates only a Level II can O
V 1
i
~l I
39 '
l 7-~ ,
(m,) I inspect welds.
-2 Q Do those excerpts describe the nature of the 3 inspection work that the Level I's perform?
d A In partial. If you will note at the top of the 5 page, it talks about some of the criteria for the welds; 6 but-again, it's only a portion of the procedure.
7 Q. All right. You are referring to 3.21, plate a
cut edges, 3.22, verification of welder stamp.
9 A Right.
10 Q Those are two of inspection attributes that the 11 Level I's inspected to?
12 A Yes.
7s 13 Q And I take it that the preceding pages, they were i
/ 14 additional inspection attributes?
15 A Yes, sir.
16 Q All right.
I'7 Turn to the attachment to Revision F, and that 18 is the Form 19. Does that represent a weld inspection 19 checklist that was employed by Comstock when Level I's 20 performed visual inspection of welds?
21 A Yes, sir.
22 O What do the items that are listed in the body of b
v
, ~. ,.----n,-- - ,, - _., -w.
40
() 2 I the form there' represent, Mr. Gieseker?
A That's a summary o f the inspection criteria to 3 be looked at by the visual weld inspector. As you note, 4 it references some-of the paragraphs in the procedure' 5 itself which elaborate on the attribute being looked at.
6 So this is just kind of a brief reminder of what the item 7 is.
8 O All right. And then adjacent, in the right-hand 9 column -- there are three columns. The word "Acc." for 10 accept?
11 A Yes.
12 O "Rej." for reject?
13 A Yes, sir.
I 14 0 And "N/A" for not applicable?
-15 A Correct.
16 Q And what is the~ task of inspector at this time, of.
I'7 the Level I inspector?
18 A Well, for either the Level I or the Level II 19 inspector, they would visually inspect the welds, and 20 during that inspection would look at the attributes that 21 the individual item addressed and determine that to be 22 acceptable or rejectable and indicate on'the' inspection (3
V
41
(~') 1 checklist. If the item was then rejectable, they would
'%. .)
2 initiate the appropriate corrective action documentation.
3 0 Would the completion of the weld inspection 4 checklist by the QC inspector, the Level I or the Level II, 5 indicate that that inspector had inspected the subject 6 weld to that attribute?
7 A Yes, to'the best of my knowledge, yes.
8 Q What is the significance of the "N/A" column, 9 Mr. Gieseker?
10 A It's a column that we put on all the checklists 11 if for some reason that specific item was not applicable 12 during that particular inspection.
13 0 Under what circumstances would the inspector
(~~),
i 14- be permitted to employ the "N/A" column?
15 A Well, whenever he felt that that attribute didn't 16 apply for that particular inspection.
t 17 Q And when would that be?
18 A Oh, I can't really think of any examples off the 19 top of my head. Well, one good -- if the item was -- for 20 example, if the attribute that was found to be not acceptable 21 was one of the elements here, say the top one, 3.2,and all 22 t) additional elements were found to be acceptable, the
\
42
. )7 3) 1 inspector would indicate that as being the item that was 2 found rejectable, and when it was repaired, in the subse-3 quent reinspection there would be a requirement only to 4 inspect that attribute. They wouldn't necessarily have to 5 inspect the whole other weld again that had already been 6 QC accepted.
7 So in that case, they may N/A the rest of those 8 attributes.
9 Q Are there any other circumstances in an initial 10 inspection where the N/A column would be appropriate?
11 A Not to my knowledge for this particular checklist, 12 no.
13 Q Now, do you have a copy of Mr. Kostel's n
14 affidavit with respect to 3C?
, Appended to Mr. Kostel's 15 affidavit are three figures. Figure 1, Mr. Kostel at page 16 4 of his affidavit describes it as depicting a typical cable 17 tray support system. Figure.2 is a detailed -- he describes is the same page as detail of the connection of the horizontal-19 to-vertical connections.
20 A Yes.
, 21 Q Page 5 -- I'm sorry. Figure 3 shows Connection i
22 1, which is the attachment of a vertical conduit support to a plate embedded in concrete or a structural steel member.
Do you agree with Mr. Kostel's description of G
4
_ - - - - . . _--______i
43
() I those three figures?
2 A Yes, sir.
3 Q Now, what I would like for you to do is, using 4
those figures if they are appropriate, relate those depic-S. tions of typical installations that are-to be inspected by 6 Comstock to the use of the Form 19, the weld inspection 7- checklist. Describe for me how the Level I or Level II e inspector would inspect the welds that are shown in the 9 figures to Mr. Kostel's testimony.
10 A Okay. Again, what it is, it is a visual weld 11 inspection, and the weld inspector, Level I or Level II, 12 would go up to the particular hanger -- and let's take 13 Figure 1, for example, cable tray hanger.
He would visually 14 inspect each of the welds that was required by the design 15 drawing to the attributes listed on his weld inspection 16 checklist.
I 17 Q All right. Figure 1 is on~e hanger?
18 A Yes, sir.
1 19 Q Figure 1 to Mr. Kostel's affidavit.
20 A Right.
21 Q How many welds are shown on Figure 1, the 22 example of a cable tray hanger?
4 O
gv-- A-,-+--- , . . - - ,,,~n -, ----l- . - - , , - . - , . - - , . _ , - , - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - -.----.-c-- - - - - - - - - -
4 44 l I
'"% 1 A I would have to look at the specific design
{O 2 drawing to tell you the exact number, but typically --
3 MR. GALLO: Why don't you just say there are 4 no welds shown on that if that's right.
5 THE WITNESS: Correct. This is just a for-6 information sketch. There are no welds -- well, I think 7 Mr. Kostel is trying to depict some welds in his Connection.
8 3, the circle.of the Connection 3, but basically, I think 9 he is intending to show the locations of where the welds 10 would be.
11 A more explicit --
12 0 Let me stop you one second. Where you said his 13 depiction of Connection 3 on figure 1, there appears to be 14 a circle, and in the circle there is a rectangular figure 15 with hashed lines around the perimeter. Does that indicate 16 a weld?
17 A I think that's what he'is trying to represent.
18 0 All right. I'm sorry. I interrupted you. You
, 19 were going to explain?
20 A Yes. Figure 2 is a closer representation of what i
1 21 you actually would see on a design drawing, where it has the 22 actual weld symbols, okay? And that's how the inspector i
e 1
i
~. _ . . - -
45 m
( ,) I would determine what the weld was to be.
2 O Does Figure 2 indicate one of the typical 3
connections that is shown on Figure l?
d A The Connection 2 would be close to Connection 1, 5 probably the closest to Connection 1.
6 Q Connection 1 appearing on Figure l?
7 A Yes, sir.
8 -Q And that's the connection of the vertical member 1
9 to the plate, the horizontal plate in.the ceiling, for 10 ' example?
11 A- Right.
12 O Are these representations, the Figures 1, 2 and 13 3 to Mr. Kostel's testimony -- are they typical of a drawing
\_) 14 that a Level I or Level II QC inspector would use to 15 inspect to?
16 A Oh, no, sir.
]. The design drawings, like I said 17 before, are much more specific and detail excactly what the 18 weld is to be and the configuration of 'he t weld.
19 Q Do you know what the source of the figures that 20 4
Mr. Kostel shows in this affidavit are?
4 21 A No, sir.
22 O Do you know whether they were prepared for I
4
l 46 rx
( j 1 purposes of supporting his testimony?
2- A I don't know where they came from.
)
3 Q Are you familiar with drawings of that sor't? I i
4 Are they used in any respect in performing quality control i l
5 functions or construction activities?
6 A No, sir. In fact, I am missing the third page 7 here.
a O Well, I will show you the third.
9 A Yes, this is a cable pan hanger. Again, a 10 typical representation of a cable pan hanger, and Mr.
11 Kostel is again showing you where the typical welds would 12 be performed. Again, it's a vertical member attachment to 13 an imbed or ceiling plate. These connections here would be f%
(_,) 14 bolted connections.
15 0 All right. You are indicating first the vertical >
16 connection to the plate is circled and indicated as l
17 Connection 1 on this Figure 3.
l 18 A Yes, sir.
( 19 Q And the last indications are dashed lines that l l 20 appear to be tubes that are bolted on?
21 A Right.
l Those are meant to represent actual 22 conduit, pieces of conduit that are attached to that specific hanger.
O
47
/~"'N 1 Q With bolted connections?
-N I '
2 A Yes, sir.
3 Q All right.
4 So the figures for Mr. Kostel's testimony do not 5 reflect specifications or design drawings that would have 6 -been employed by the Level I or II QC inspectors; correct?
, 7 A Yes, sir.
8 Q .But they do indicate the typical installations 9 that would be the subject of a visual inspection by a Level I 10 or a Level II; correct?
11 A Yes, sir.
12 Q Now, help me, if you can, Mr. Gieseker, correlate
- 13. what.the Form 19, the weld inspection checklist -- what
() 14 scope of work would it comprise relative to the installation 15 depicted on Figure 1 to Mr. Kostel's affidavit? Do you 16 follow me?
17 A I believe so. I will'give you two cases. The 18 first case. If the hanger was assembled and supplied to us 19 by a subcontractor, for example, Comstock responsbility 20 would be just to install that hanger to the imbed, in which 21 case they would place the hanger in position and weld it 22 to the imbed or structural steel, and that would involve what Mr. Kostel calls Connection 1 in his figure 1 and i
48
() I would typically be fillet welds that would attach those 2 two leg members in this particular case to the imbed.
3 The Level I or Level II inspector would go up 4
and inspect those welds, and the number and the orientation 5 and the configuration would be as described on the 6 installation detail on the design drawings. He wou.ld 'look 7
at each one of those welds to the criteria indicated on 8 Form 19. If any of those welds are, in his opinion -- if 9 any of .those welds didn't meet one of the criteria in Form
'10 19, then he would initiate the appropriate corrective 11 action.
12 O All right.
13 A Okay. It should be noted at that time those
() 14 cable tray representations that are indicated on Mr. Kostel's 15 Figure 1 would not be installed. Those would be installed 16 at a later date. Typically, we put the hangers up first 17 and then we would follow on with the cable tray in the 18 example of Figure 1.
19 Q Now, going back to Figure 1, what portion of 20 that installation is the tray?
21 A If you look on the two horizontal members 22 represented on Figure 1, you will see two boxlike shapes
~
with x's through them. Those four pieces are meant to O
I 4
- - . . . , - - . , - _ _ , _ _ , - . , , - - _ , , _ , ,.n_,,n-,,,,,,..-..~-,_.c - . . _ , - - , , - . - . - - . . , . _ _ , , - , , . . , - . , , . , ,
49 J'~; I represent the cable tray.
(
v) 2 Q All right. So what is the installation that 3
would be received in your Case 1 from the supplier and d
installed by Comstock?
5 A In Case 1 we see the whole hanger H frame, which 6
would be the two vertical members with-the two horizontals.
7 O Absent the actual cable trays themselves.
8 A Yes, sir.
9 O And Comstock would install the trays at a later i 10 date?
11 A Yes, sir.
12 O Okay. Now, for the installation of the hanger, 13 the H member supplied by a vendor,-would there be one Form Id 19 that would reflect the QC inspection of that installation?
(}
15 A There would be one -- there would be one QC to inspection f or the initial inspection of the installation 17 of the hanger. If, for. example, there was a discrepancy-18 noted, there may be subsequent inspections to that same l'
hanger..If there was a rework issued to a design that 20 affected this hanger-and the hanger was reworked, there 21 could be additional subsequent inspections that were 22 performed on the rework of that hanger.
(v
50
(')N.,
's . 1 0 All right.
2 Then for the initial installation inspection, 3 there would be one Form 19 that would reflect the visual 4 inspection of a Connection 1 as depicted on Mr. Kostel's 5 Figure 1 to his affidavit, and a comparable visual 6 inspection of the companion connection for the other 7 vertical member.
8 A It would be documented on the same Form 19.
9 Q All right. So there would be two welded to connections documented on a single Form 19 in that case; 11 correct?
12 A Right. The Form 19 is catalogued, for lack of s 13 a better word, by the hanger number itself. So the 14 hanger includes whatever orientation. There could be one 15 leg or there could be two legs or there could be more legs lo to a hanger.
17 O All right. And if there were more legs to a 18 hanger than in your first case where the hanger was 19 received already preassembled and needed simply to be 20 installed, then the Form 19 for initial installation would 21 reflect more connections.
22 A Yes, sir.
A U
51
/m
- 1 Q Three legs, three connections, four legs, four
}
2 connections?
3 A Typically, in general, yes, d Q Now, using that typical representation again, 5 Mr. Kostel's Figure 1 to his affidavit, how many welds are 6 ir.Uicated in Connection l?
7 A Well, as we said earlier, there is no specific 8 weld detail issued here, so I wouldn't know how many in 9 this particular case the designer asked to be installed.
10 I believe~, again, he just meant to show the typical place 11 where a weld would be.
12 Q Let's assume, if it is a reasonable assumption --
13 and you tell me if otherwise -- that Figure 2 is a
) 14 representation of the Connection 1 appearing on Figure 1.
15 Is that a reasonable assumption?
16 A It is typical,'yes.
17 0 Okay. In that case, the tube steel that is 18 shown as the vertical on Figure 2 we would assume is a 19 horizontal --'is the horizontal that's shown in Figure l?
20 A Yes.
21 Q How many welds would then -- assuming that 22 Figure 2 shows Connection 1 on Figure 1, how many welds i
1 52 (h.
(_) I would be reflected in that con'nection?
2' A Okay. This is to the best of my knowledge.
3 I am not an expert in' weld details. But basically what 4 s this is telling us is there la weld on the top of the 5 plate that attaches -- that actually attaches to the tube 6 steel, in this case, top and bottom, and there is a 7 second -- so that's actually two welds. Then a third weld 8 on the top of the horizontal member, and the fourth weld 9 on the bottom of the horizontal member.
10 And again, I'm not a certified welder and I 11 can't tell you what those specific weld details mean.
12 O The weld symbols A and B that are shown on this 13 Figure 2?
/_ \
I 14 A Yes, sir.
15 Q Now, if in your Case 1, your typical Case 1, 16 this was a hanger that had been received preassembled and 17 was just to be installed by Comstock and inspected by 18 Comstock QC, would there typically be the weld B's that 19 are indicated on Mr. Kostal's Figure 2?
20 A I believe so, typically, yes.
21 O So typically they would weld -- if Mr. Kostal's 22 Figure 2 is typical, four welds for that particular O ,
53 (m) I connection.
2 A No. If the hanger was pre-received, typically 3 they just do the two welds, the A welds.
d Q That's what I mean to say. Okay. So 5 typically, if it was preassembled, the B welds would already l 6 be done. That's what I meant to say.
7 A Yes.
8 Q And the A welds would be the welds performed by 9 Comstock.
10 A Yes, sir.
11 0 'And inspected by Comstock.
12 A Yes, sir.
l 13 Q So Figure 2 to Mr. Kostal's affidavit indicates
(~T
%,) Id two welds in that connection that would be subject to the 15 inspection by the Comstock inspector?
16 A Typically, yes.
17 Q And assuming Figure 1 is typical and there are 18 two connections for the preassembled. hanger, there would 19 be four welds that would be subject to inspection.
20 A Yes.
21 Q And the acceptability or the condition of those
~ 22 four welds would be reflected in one Form 19 for that
~s 4
-- . _ . _ . , - - , . . --_.--.x- _- ., , . . . . . - _ , . . , - -
54 (o) 1 .particular hanger on initial installation.
2 A Yes, sir.
3 Q There would be a, subsequent Form 19 reflecting d the installation of the cable trays to the hanger?
5 A Yes, sir.
6 0 When the cable trays are installed, would there 7
be one Form 19 for all four trays if they were initially 8 installed? Using Figure 1 as the example.
9 A I believe so.
10 0 You have some hesitance about saying that?
11 A Well, there is no reason that they couldn't 12 inspect one tray at a time, or they could do them all. It 13 depends on what was there when they went up to do the
/O (m-) Id incpection. And I don't know -- you just have to depend on 15 'what was there at.the time.
16 T0 Clarify my statement, the cable tray is 17 identified by what we call node numbers on the side of the 18 tray, okay? And that's how the installation is turned in 19 to the QC Department. Based on.that, they would go up and 20 they would do the inspection.
21 1:ow, they may have the installation reports for 22 all four cable pans when they go to do the inspection or s
(
55
- f~h, (s-) I they may have one of the four or any combination, in which 2
case they could do whatever the installation report 3
indicated had been installed.
d Q All right. And the procedure doesn't dictate 5
one way or the other whether you do all four at once or 6 four separately?
7 A Not to my knowledge, no.
8 Now, what is a node?
Q N-o-d-e?
9 A Node, yes. It's the method used to route cable 10 in the cable pans. The cable pans contain node demarkers, 11 and as the cable is routed through the pan, the direction, 12 or getting the cable from point A to point B is governed by 13 the nodes that'the cable goes by. So it's a way of k' 14 identifying the cable tray to provide for cable routing 15 through the tray.
16 All right.
O 17 Well, do the Form 19's for the inspection of 18 welds on cable tray installation correlate with the hanger, 19 the unique hanger?
20 A For which? I'm sorry. Could you clarify that?
21 For.which -- if we are talking about trays now, or connec-22 tions?
i O
56 q)
("~% 1 Q We will ta'lk about trays, connections.of a tray 2 ~to the hanger. That is a welding installation task ~that is 3
subject to inspection by Comstock, right?
d A Uh-huh. I believe the Form 19 indicates the 5
hanger number, but there is a-second inspection of the 6
cable' tray which is governed by the node number of the 7 cable tray.
8 Q And what is the nature of that. inspection'?
9 A Well, it is the configuration inspectionfor the 10 cable tray itself.
- 11 Q Sc that is a separate inspection, a configuration 12 inspection of the tray?
13 A A separate procedure, right.
O
(_ l 14 Q And is that procedure subject to the Level-I 15 reverification program?
16 No, sir.
A.
17 Q So configuration is something separate?
18 A Yes, sir.
19 The configuration inspection is governed by a 1
Q 20 separate visual inspection of welds?
21 A Yes, sir. It's.a completely separate procedure.
22 O All right.
! (s i-l l'
i
1 57 1 1
() 2 i Now, for the typical cable tray and hanger shown by Mr. Kostal in his Figure 1, how many welds would 3 be called for inspection?
4 A For the whole hanger?
5 Q Yes.
6 A Well again, it depends on -- it depends on the 7 configuration of the hanger and it depends on whether or 8 not -- I assume that you are talkingabout Level I or Level 9 II Comstock inspectors. It would again determine whether 10 that hanger was supplied by a subcontractor or not.
11 Q Again, I am following your Case 1. It is a 12 preassembled hanger. You get the H member. You just 13 described the installation connections that were inspected,
() 14 and those are at the top of the Figure 1 drawing there.
15 Now you say later you come by and you install the trays 16 themselves.
17 A Right.
18 Q And I would like for you to identify what 19 additional welds would be reflected in the tray installation.
, 20 A Okay, I understand now. That installation is l 21 what we call the cable pan hold down weld, which Mr. Kostal,
! 22 I believe, is trying to represent by his Connection 3 on his
- O
58
(N 1 Figure 1. And that is what we call a stitch weld, meaning
)
2 it is a weld -- it's a series of welds spaced by what the 3 design requirements indicate the spacing to be.
4 I believe, if my memory serves me correct,the 5 hold downs are typically two to four stitch welds per piece 6 of tray.
7 0 All right.
8 So, if I understand you correctly, Connection 3 9 on Mr. Kostal's Figure 1 would be three to four welds?
10 A Right. This would be one, two, and there may be 11 ones on the other side of this member. That's what I'm not 12 sure of. Do you see what I'm saying?
13 0 I am unclear. Connection 3 in the circle is how m
14 many welds, how many stitch welds?
(xs)
IS A I believe that that is just one. I think what 16 they are -- well, I believe it is only one weld. I don't 17 know why it is represented in the box.
18 MR. GALLO: You know, of course, that you can ask 19 Mr. Kostal the same question and get a more definitive 20 answer since it is his figure.
21 MR. GUILD: Maybe so.
22 BY MR. GUILD:
0 All right. For the actual installation of the i
f s k
us
_. -_ . . . ~ _ - -.
- i ' ' !
l 59 l gj 1 cable tray that is-depicted on Figure 1, per tray, and there i -2 are'four trays shown there, how many welds would there be 3
). per' tray?
- j. d A Well, again, I believe it is two to four per i
j 5- tray.
~
6 Q All right. And there are four trays,'so that.is l *
- .7 eight to sixteen welds?
s' 8- A Yes.
9 Q Now looking at the Form 19, Rev. F, that is
~
10 Rev F to the procedure, and'it appears.to be Rev. E of the 11 -Form 19; correct?
12 A Y e s ,- sir.
13 Q Where would the identities of the welds Id actually inspected be reflected on that checklist?
g i
15 A Okay. Up in the. top part of the Form 3.1 would 16 describe the drawing and the drawing revision, th'e ~ item -
$ 17 type, and:then the item number.
18 Q ' Item type.would be what in our example that we
- 19 have been following, Figure l?
20 JL It would be the type of cable pan hanger.
l.. 21 And then the number would be the specific number of that i
22 . hanger.
t 7
J
60 1
[\
%) 1 Q The item equipment number?
2 A Yes, sir. And then just to the right of that it 3 says number of welds inspected, and that is where he would 4
indicate the actual number of welds he inspected.
5 And then the next would give the location of the 6 item that was inspected.
7 Q And how would the location be specified?
8 A Typically by the drawing coordinates. You know, 9 the building is divided into drawing coordinates and to they would indicate that.
11 Q And elevation?
12 A And elevation. And then the FCRECN, et cetera 13 is any additional design documents that would affect the O(_) - 14 drawing. That was indicated.at the top there. And then the
, 15. details inspected would be the connection details.
16 O The detail is -- how is detail meant?
17 A Detail is meant as that circle that Mr. Kostal 18 represented on his example. That is what we call or could 19 be what we call a typical detail, okay? So the S&L drawing 20 system only represents that detail once, and then it is 21 referred to in the design drawing to say for the hanger that 22 you are installing, use this detail. And in that case, that O
w ,- , , _ - - - - - - . , , - , -
-e-,-n , , - - - - - - ,
61
.fss} 1 is.the detail-they would list there.
2 O So assuming the detail as used in Form 19 is 3
equivalent with connection as used in Mr. Kostal's Figure 1, 4
if in your Case 1 the Level I QC inspector inspected a 5
hanger that had been received preassembled and just installed 6
it,' details inspected would' indicate inspection of Connection 7
1 and the other vertical connection that is not identified 8 on Mr. Kostal's Figure 1.
9 A Typically the same.
10 0 What do you mean, the same?
11 A It's the same detTil. That's why Mr. Kostal 12 only circled it once. Tyr teally we would use the same 13 detail to attach this leg as this leg as this leg
(). 14 (indicating).
4 15 0 You are indicating the left leg as the right 16 leg, 17 A Yes, sir.
18 O And then what would be entered on the Form 19 19 unde:. the details inspected if that were the case?
20 A Well again, typically there would be a detail 21 number so that the weld inspector would know exactly what t
22 the design requirement was, and that is the number that would be listed under details inspected.
O
62 i O Now, in your example, Connection 1 you described
/'")%
N-2 as typically consisting of two welds; correct?
3 A Typically,.yes.
4 0 If the right vertical member were a similar 5 connection,-that would be four weld total for the installa-6 tion;' Correct?
7 A Yes, sir.
8 Q The Form 19 for that installation inspection, 9 then, would reflect'under number of welds inspected the io number 4?
ii A Yes, sir.
12 Q And it would indicate'under details inspected 13 the Connection l?
s~
/\ 14 A Yes.
D; 15 Q That detail was inspected?
16 A Right.
17 Q At the bottom of Form 19 there is a space for a 18 signature over the line that says "QC Inspector." Is that on where formally the Level I signed?
20 A It was the inspector -- it was the QC inspector 21 that performed the inspection, either Level I'or Level II, 22 who would sigr there.
4
- O
- - - - - - - - . , - - , , - ~,y- , - - - --- ...e.,.,_4-- -----
.v-..-i
63
, A)
(
%J 1 Q And then to the right of that is another signature 2 block, and it says Level II inspector.
3 A Yes, sir.
4 Q Would the Level I sign there?
5 A No, sir.
6 Q So the Level I, if the Level I performed the 7 inspec'. ion, would orly sign on the lef t of those boxes where a it says QC inspector?
ll 9 A Yes, sir.
10 0 And the Level II inspector would sign to the 11 right.
12 A No, sir. I un left-hand' signature is the person 13 that performed the inspection, be that a Level I or a Level f%
t s ) 14 II inspector. The right-hand signature is a reviewer, 15 which is done after the initial inspection, and the reason 16 the Level II inspector -- it says Level II there -- is that 17 the review must be done by a: Level II. It cannot be done is by a Level I.
19 Q. All right.. And tdum Level II box, the right-hand 20 signature box or signature space is the reviewer's signature,
- 21 not the signature of the inspector who actually performed 22 the visual weld inspection.
V u v
64 13 t a
\ms/ 1 A That's correct.
2 0 Now, to the right of each of those signature 3 lines, there appears a blank that says "date." What does 4 the date blank on Form 19 indicate?
5 A To the best of my knowledge, it's the date that 6 the' inspector signed the blank.
7 O All right. Does that indicate the date that 8 the inspection was performed in the case of the left 9 signature box, that for the' Level I?
10 A Typically.
11 'O Necessarily?
12 A I'm sorry?
1 f-~ 13 0 Necessarily? Does the procedure call for dating
' 14 the signature box.for the left signature-on the date that is the irapection was performed?
16 A Not to my knowledge.
17 O Did the procedure specify the completion of the 18 date portion of the Form 19 in any respect?
19 A I believe that the words were " sign and date" 20 the report.
21 0 Do you know whether or not Form 19s were signed 22 on dates other than the dates on which the' inspections were 4
O
.-_m-_ . . _ . , .
65
) I performed?
2 A There was -- the only item I do know is that j 3 there was a practice back in the early project where the 4
4 results would be -- welds would be inspected for.a number 5 of days and then recorded on one-form, and I believe the 6
date then was the date, again, P.at the QC inspector signed
- 7 the checklist, and in those cases it is obvious that all the J
s welds weren't inspected on that day, but that was the date 9 that the inspector turned in the report. That's the only 10 exception. Typically it's the date that the weld is 11 performed, the weld inspection is performed on. Or, you 12 know, Mr. Guild, it could be like if it was done late in 13 the day, there is some time to do the paperwork.
14 So it's typically done the same day.
15 0 Though in that case, done at the end of the day, 16 the inspection is done at the end of the day and Form 19 17 perhaps is signed off the next day?
18 A. I believe that could be a case, yes.
19 Q Now, describe some more, if you would, Mr.
20 Gieseker, the practice that you mid was followed in the early 21 days of the project.
22 A What I am basing my matements on, some conversations 4
I 1
. _ , - , . _ . , , . , . . , _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ , , . _ _ _ . . , _ , m., ,__ . . - . _ . , , _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ . _ --,,.m , . , , - . . . , , . _ _ _ , _ _ , , . .
66
(,7~)j 1 with the Comstock personnel that were.here, and basically 2 that's what they said, that they would inspect welds for --
3 they would do all the visual inspections but then they-4 would " turn the welds in" on one day. So the checklist 5 would list a number of welds, and if it was -- the thing
.' 6 that brought it to our attention was that there was a large 7 number of. welds indicated and there were a number of welds a to be inspected, and it was unreasonable to think that all 9 those welds were inspected in one day, so we asked them to what the practice was.
11 Q How did that come to your attention?
12 A Well, there was an allegation that the NRC was 13 following up on, and I believe -- fes, that's how I 14 originally heard about it.
15 0 Are you familiar with the allegation involving i
16 Mr. DeWald, his weld inspection practices when he was a 17 Level II inspector?
18 A I am f amiliar with that allegation, but it wasn't --
19 when I was asked about the practice, there was no indication 20 of who the inspector was, okay? And it was -- at that time.
21 But it was an allegation about a number of welds being 22 inspected on one day.
O I
,r , - - n -- ,- - - . . - -
- n. - - , , , - , . - - . , - - - - - - - . - . - - . -
67
( i O Well, Mr. DeWald aside, what did you do when 2 you became aware of the allegation that you referred to, 3 large number ~of welds listed on a single Form 19?
4 A Well, I talked to Comstock management.and asked 5 them, you know, what was the practice back then.
6 Q Who did you talk to? -
7 A I believe it was Mr. Seltmann and Mr. DeWald.
8 O Can you tell me when you did this?
9 A No, I can't specifically. I t was when Mr. Mendez 10 of Region III was doing his report on the allegations. That 11 report spanned a number of different trips to the site, and 12 I can't tell you specifically which trip it was on.
13 Q And what did Mr. DeWald and Mr. Seltmann tell f_
-- 14 you about the past practices in this regard? i is A Basically, like I said before, that there was 4
to a practice that the welds would be inspected for some number
- 17 of days. There seemed to be no consistency in that. And is then just recorded on one day. So that led to some large 19 numbers ir. the welds to be inspected, and they signed the 20 report off the date that they signed it, and there was no 21 indication in the report itself that this inspection covered 22 a range of days.
i 4
O
68 I 1 So, looking back'at the report, it was easy 2 for somebody to conclude that this practice perhaps occurred 3 on one day.
4 Q When you say large number of welds indicated, 5 what numbers?
6 A Well, I saw examples of 50, in the fifties. I 7 saw one'that was -- the highest number I remember seeing 8 is.258, I believe.
9 -Q 258?
10 A Yes, sir.. Oh, excuse me. There is one other 11 one that was like 1215 or something, which is the subject 12 of Mr. Mendez' -- that's the one that Roger Mendez asked me 13 about, and that was, I believe, 1215.
14 0 Who performed the visual inspections involving 15 the 1215 welds?
16 A I can't remember. The inspector, you mean?
17 Q Yes.
18 A I can't remember the gentleman's name.
19 0 Was it Mr. DeWald?
20 A No.
21 Q The 1215 that you reviewed, those welds were 22 associated with a single Form 19, you say?
A I believe it was a Form 19. My hesitation is it
! could have been a Form 91 by Ernst, but I believe it was a O
4 69 Comstock inspection, an earlier version than ti.e ones we
'(} 1 2 have here, I believe.
l 3 Q Did the earlier versions of the Form 19s differ 4 in any material respects from the Revision E that we have 5 been. referring to?
i 6 A I believe so. I Can't tell you specifically what 7 the differences are, though.
8 0 Do you know whether they are listed as does the 9 Rev. E information at the top, number of welds inspected?
10 A Yes. Lists number of welds. That's the number, 11 the 1215, that's how I know that 1215 number.
12 Q So on that document, an earlier revision of 19, t
13 perhaps, under a box that says words to the effect of number 4
, () 14 of welds inspected, the number 1215 would appear?
15 A Yes, sir.
16 Q And did that eurlier version indicate the item 17 inspected location, details inspected or to that effect?
18 A To that effect. Again, I can't remember the 19 exact similarities between those two documents.
20 0 Well, it would be easy enough to write 1215 on a I 21 box that says number of welds inspected, but the Form 19, 22 Rev. E that we are looking a t, Mr. Gieseker, calls for i
1 O
I
, , _ _ . . , _ _ . , _,.._,___._,_c
- ,,v,- . _ . _ . _ , . , _ - - , _- _ - . - - - . - - _ _ . _ . - _ , , , _ - . _ - _ , , . . , . . _ , _ . , - , , _ - , . - . , _ - . . . , _ _ - - . . _ , . - , - . , , . _ - . . , - -
70 (G,) I showing'the specific details inspected. And if one inspected.
2 And if one inspected 1215 welds, and typically the detail 3 calls for'two to four welds, that would be an awful lot of d in a line on Form 19, wouldn't it?-
details to indicate 5 A Right, unless it was the same detail.
6 0 All right. So, using your example, Connection 1 7 from Mr. Kostal's Figure 1 was one detail.
8 A Right. But again, as I said, it's a generic 9 detail. It's a typical detail. It could be the same detail 10 used on a whole line of hangers, 11 0 All right.
12 Now, let's assume that it's a whole line of 13 hangers, and let's assume -- tell me if this is not a Id reasonable assumption. If we are talking about four welds 15 per detail per connection, and you did 1215 welds and we 16 have got 300 connections $1at are being inspected on that 17 single inspection document -- correct?
18 A Yes. In your example, yes.
l' O Well, is my example reasonable? I am trying to 20 follow how the paper flow works and how one'would complete 21 this.
22 A It's reasonable from the -- I can't speak to the O
71
,a
() i numbers involved. What I mean is that if the detail calls 2
for four welds or eight welds, now the number of hangers 3
goes, in your example, from 300 to 150 or something to that 4 effect. But yes, ^he similarity -- I agree with the 5 process that you are describing.
6 Q Okay. So if it's 150 to 300 different hangers i
that were inspected, each to detail Connection 1, which is 8
a typical detail, how would the scope of that inspection 9
as covering 150 to 300 hangers be indicated in the inspection 10 document, either this Form 19 or a predecessor document?
11 A Okay. The two ways that I am familiar that they 12 did it is they actually list the hanger numbers, so there
~~ 13 would be a long list of hanger numbers, or in some cases
( ,)
_ 14 they listed what we call a grid and describe the location, 15 line 12 line to 15 line, column line L to M, or 16 something like that. That's what they call a grid.
17 0 Is that a two-dimensional descripcion of an area 18 where hangers would appear?
19 A Right.-
20 0 And how would one know which specific items were 21 inspected if the inspection document indicated only a grid 22 identification?
i i U
72 1 A- It's difficult.
{
2 -Q How would you do it, if you could?
3 A Well, we would -- the practice at the time was 4 if it was a grid and all that was on the checklist was --
5 you know, from a definition of the boundaries of the grid, 6 we would have to look for more specific documentation 7 indicating what the actual hanger inspected was. One source 8 of that is the PTL overview inspections. PTL did overview 9
inspections on the weld inspections performed by site 10 contractors, and they would provide-a report, and that 11 report-typically indicated the specific hangers that they 12 looked at. In that case we would know those hanger 13 numbers.
() 14 is Q All right. I am following you now. PTL might, by_ chance, overview that particular inspection; is that what 16 you are saying?
17 A No, not by chance. I believe that the requirement 18 was that v eld inspections performed by each contractor were 19 submitted to PTL and they chose a certain percentage to 20 overview.
21 Q My point is that in some at random process, PTL 22 selected those particular installations to overview.
O
- .- _- _ _ _ _ ~ _ _- - -. - .- . .-- . ~ . . _ _ _ -
73
- O)
\, i A Yes, sir.
2 O And in the way of documenting which particular 3 installations were contained in a grid only description-on i
4 an inspection-document,.you might by chance, as a result of 5 the at random selection by PTL, find another source of 6 documentation of which specific equipment was the subject i
7 of the original Comstock or Ernst inspections.
} 8 A Well, the PTL report when it is returned to 4
9 Comstock is always attached to that original inspection 10 report. So we know that the-percentage of PTL inspections,
} n which specific inspection report they apply to. I might i
12 add that the grid ~ system, if you would like to call it
- 13 that, we no longer use that because we need more specific I \m/ 14 documentation for the components, i
j 15 0 When was the grid system used?
j-3 to A I can't give you an exact date. It was early i
i 17 in the project, is about as close as I can get. I really 18 haven't done any research to find out explicitly when the i >
j 19 process was.
- 20 Q Was it used by Ernst?
1
,! 21 A Yes.
22 O Used by Comstock?
1 iO 1
4 l
. - , , . - - , . - _ -- _. .____...___.,,,-...- - - , - - , . . . _ , - _ , . . . . _ - . _ . _ . . . - _ . - . . - . - - . . . , - . _ - - , - . - -J
74
( )- i A. Early in the project I believe it was. I have 2 sesn examples of both Comstock and, I believe, Ernst weld 3 inspection forms that indicated the grid system.
4 0 Is there any other source of identification of 5 what grid identification comprises in terms of equipment 6 installations other than the PTL document the '- indicated 7 specific hangers, for example?
8 A For that particular inspection report, that would 9 be it.
10 Q How were grius defined initially i r the 11 inspector to specify a grid description on an inspection 12 document?
13 A Well, the grid system is the mapping system for
) 14 the entire plant. It's indicated on the drawings. That's is how you find the location of a device or any component on 16 the drawings. It's this two-dimensional grid system, okay?
17 So what the inspector would do, what he was is trying to do is just indicate on his checklist the area that 19 he inspected these welds in, without specifically listing 20 each individual hanger. And as I said, now we require them 21 to list the specific hanger as opposed to the grid system.
22 O So you can tell what the grid identification is O
75 1 that the inspector indicated on the form, right?
2 A Yes, sir.
3 0 You just can't tell which hangers within that 4 grid were inspected; right?
5 A Yes, except for the clarification with the PTL 6 report that I mentioned.
7 0 What are you doing about the ones that you can't 8 tie to a PTL document?
- 9. A Well, we have told Comstock in our effort to 10 do area turnover, where it's the time that we make sure 11 that we have the quality control inspection documents that 12 we require, that a generic grid report.is not acceptable, 13 that we have to have a more specific inspection document 14 to the component actually inspected. And this may entail
)
15 some.-- you know, if the items in that grid haven't been 16 subsequently reworked for some other reason or reinspected 17 for some reason, then it may entail going out there and 18 reinspecting it a second time.
19 Q Has there been any reinspection on that subject?
20 A On that, because of the specific grid system, 21 because we are just getting into that area of turnover 22 process, but certainly there have been items reworked i
I O
76
() 2 i throughout the history of the project which would affect the amount remaining in the " grid" that had not been 3 subsequently reinspected.
4 Q Do you know how many' inspection reports indicate 5 only a grid description of the subjects of inspection?
6 A No, sir.
7 Q Is it five, ten, one hundred, one thousand?
8 Order or magnitude?
9 A Oh, I would say it's -- order of magnitude, it's to less than one hundred, but I am guessing.
n Q Do you know how many welds are included, visual 12 weld inspections that are described or documented only by 13 grid description?
b ,/ 14 A No, sir.
15 0 In the case of one, at least, it was 1215; correct?
16 A In the case of one, yes.
1.7 O Had Edison or Comstock with respect to that 18 particular example, the 1215 welds on a single inspection 19 report, prior to the NRC's investigation that you described --
20 had Edison or Comstock previously identified inspection or 21 inspection document deficiencies regarding that item?
22 A Not to my knowledge.
4 O
1
77-1 Q Do'you know whether any of the inspection 2 -documents that describe the items inspected with reference ~to 3 a grid description only were performed by Level I inspec-4 tors?
END 6 5 A Yes, I believe there was.
6 7
8 9
10
^
11 12 13 l 14 15
! 17.
18 l
! 19 4
20
, 21 l
22 i
l
'O
_ - -_~ -- -
Dy 78 4
() 1 2
Q A
Do you know how many?a How many what?
3 0 How many inspection documents showing a Level I 4 inspection reference just a grid description only.
5 A I believe it was five.
l 6 Q Five inspection reports?
7 A Yes, sir.
.i
< 8 O And you're looking at a document --
i 9 A Exhibit 1 to the motion for summary disposition.
I 10 MR. GALLO: Exhibit 1 to his affidavit.
1 11 BY MR. GUILD:
L 12 Q All right. Can you tell me where you drew the 13 answer to that question?
g ,/ 14 A I believe it was inspector ID number C41, and he 15 has five reports. I believe that was a Level 1 that used -- -
, 16 I believe all five of those reports are " grid" reports.
J 17 O Do you know how many welds were indicated in the j 18 five inspection reports that C41 did?
19 A No, sir, I did not look at the reports or the J
1 20 inspection checklists specifically.
21 0 Do you know if any of the other inspectors shown f
2' on your Exhibit 1 employed the grid reference only?
l .
J f
-- _., _ ~ .____ _ , _ _ .._ _.. _.. .-.. . . , _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ , ,
79
)
) 1 A I do not know.
2 Q How do you happen to know for 417 3 A When we were -- when I was asking about the d
specific inspections, the quantity of inspection reports per f
inspector, and in that conversation it was pointed out to me
.6 by NPS, who was my consultant, that those five happened to 7
be all grid reports; and that therefore,they.wouldn't be a reinspected.
9 In Q your Level I reinspection program?
10 A Right.
11 0 Why is that?
12 A l Because you can't -- as I said before, you 13 can't say -- you can't determine what hangers were in the j -
Id grid at the time.
15 O Do you know whether there are any other Comstock 16 or Ernst incpection documents that reflect the performance 17 of more than 1000 weld inspections on that -- on a single 18 inspection document?
I' A I only know of specifically one.
20 0 And that is the 1215 case you were talking about?
21 A Right, that's the one that was talked about with 22 Mr. Mendez. Yes.
1 1
i
)
j i
I
_ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ .__ . _ _ _ _ . = - . _ _ _ _ _ _.
80 f
/' 1 Q. 'Have you made any effort to identify weld 2
inspection documents reflecting inspection work by Mr. DeWald?
' 3 A Yes.
4 Q 'Have you-identified any weld inspection documents 1- 5 l reflecting more than, as you characterized it, a reasonable 6
number of welds inspected on a single document?
7 MR. GALLO: Wait a minute, that's not his characterization. The large number of welds led him to a
' 9 question whether or not they were done in a single day, and 10 found that -- and as a result, uncovered this practice, that 11 they were the result of a number of days' inspection. That i 12 j doesn't make them unreasonable per se.
I 13 i MR. GUILD: I'm not'trying to mince words with him or put words in his mouth; it was your word, unreasonable.
15
] I'm just trying short circuit the discussion.
16 BY MR. GUILD:
1 17 Q Did you identify any weld inspection documents 18 reflecting Mr. DeWald's work that showed a large number of 1 19 unreasonable -- an unreasonably large number of welds to 20 be done'in one day?
21 A Right. Yes, I did.
' 22 O And how many of those did you identify?
t l
i 4
O I
i
. , - - - , ~ - , . . , _ _ - - - , . _ , . _ , , - - , . . . . . , . _ _ . , - - - - - , , , , - - - , , _ . . _ . . _ - ~ _ - - . - - - - - . - - - - , , . ~ . ~ - - - . - - - -
81
't a
() 2 1
A I believe there were four or five.
0 .When did you identify those?
', 3 A After the deposition of Mr. Holly.
d O Did you do that in an effort'to search for the 8
5 documents he said he saw in his document review?
6 A Rig'ht. Mr. Holly indicated one specific drawing 7
l number and I asked Comstock to give me all the inspection 8
reports performed by Mr. DeWald on that drawing.
O All right. And did you review those documents?
I 30 A Briefly.
. Q And did those indicate any performance by "I
Mr. DeWald of what would have been an excessive number of I 13 weld inspections in a single day, if they had been done in i
'd l one day?
15 A Yes.
1, 16 0 And what was the largest number of welds indicated
"' in a single one of those inspection reports?
- 18 A If my memory serves me correctly, it was 258.
f O Have you spoken with Mr. Holly about the matter 20 since the deposition?
21 A No, sir.
22 0 Have you made any other effort to identify 2
a O
1 1
. . _ _ . . _ _ . , _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ , - . , . _ - _ . . , . . . _ _ _ . _ . . . _ _ , _ _ _ . , , . _ . . _ .
82 7s
~-- 1 O Have you made any other effort to identify 2
inspection documents showing Mr. DeWald's inspection work 3
that indicate a large number of welds performed on a single d
document?
5 A I have not, sir.
6 Q Are you aware of there being any other effort to 7 identify it?
8 A I don't know of any. Oh, excuse me, I do. I'm 9 sorry. I believe the counsel asked Mr. - -
10 MR. GALLO: Wait a minute. What counsel are you 11 referring to?
12 THE WITNESS: Elena.
13
,/~s MR. GALLO: Are you about to discuss a conversation
" Id between Elena Kezelis and some Edison person, or Comstock is person?
16 THE WITNESS: Yes. Me.
17 hR. GUILD: Just to make it clear wh'ere I'm 18 going, I submitted a request for the production of documents l'
shortly after Mr. Holly's deposition, and it sought 20 documents that one, indicated Mr. DeWald's. Work on the 21 drawing that Mr. Holly described. Those documents were made 22 available to me by Ms. Kezelis, and at the time she said, i
1
[ h L) 9
2 83
['] 1 "We are still looking for others that relate to the
%.)
2 second portion of my request," which were any documents 3 showing Mr. DeWald's performance of a large number of welds.
4 MR. GALLO: Can we take a brief recess so he t
5 can. tell me what he is going to tell you so I can see whether 6 or not I can interpose a privilege -- should interpose a 7 privilge objection?
8 MR. GUILD: Sure.
9 (Discussion off the record.)
10 BY MR. GUILD:
11 O Mr. Gieseker, before the break I had asked you 12 a question about a search for documents reflecting Mr. Dewald' s 13 Work, and would you complete your answer on that?
f%
() 14 A Yes, sir. To my understanding, Elena Kezelis 15 asked Irv --
16 Q Mr. DeWald?
17 A Excuse me, Mr. DeWald -- to get a copy of all of is his inspection reports that he did when he was a weld l'
inspector, and under the OCIRP program, quality control 20 inspectcr reinspection program, we looked at -- we gathered 21 as one of our data bases all the inspection reports performed 22 by inspectors that were here at the time.
Oy V
3
~
i 84 Mr. DeWald's time as a QC inspector was bounded
!()
2 by the program dates, okay? So under the QCIRP we had all 3 the records indexed -- inspection records by Mr. DeWald --
4 indexed under Mr. DeWald's name. We index them by inspector.
5 And so, I called Elena and I told her.that rather than have 6 Comstock research their vault again, we had already done that 7 under the QCIRP program, so could she look at those. And a originally, she wanted to Xerox, and I said well, the number
! 9 of records is approximately a file drawer and a half; a og complete file drawer and then a half of a second one. And ii so she said that she would come out to the. site and look at 12 .those and then determine which ones she wanted. ANd to 13 my knowledge, that hasn't occurred yet. That's why the
) 14 process isn't done.
15 0 All right. And has anyone reviewed those 16 documents which I understand then to be Mr. DeWald's weld ,
17 records, to identify aeld records indicating large numbers 18 of welds performed on a single document?
19 A NO.
20 0 Weld inspections rather?
11 A No.
22 Q Now, would those be weld inspection documents t
i lO 3
i
85 hs 1 indicating Mr. DeWald's work as the actual. inspector or as 2 the reviewer?
3 A As the inspector.
d Do you know Q if Mr. DeWald performed work as a 5 reviewer, a Level II reviewer of Level I inspector work?
6 'A oh, certainly. In the earlier discussions this l 7 morning I talked about the four inspectors that we had I 8 interviewed with Mr. Jacobsen, and Mr. DeWald was one of L
9 those. So yes, he has reviewed inspection checklists as i
10 the reviewer.
11 0 Do you know how many inspection reports Mr. DeWald 12
, served as the Level II reviewer on?
4 13 A No, sir.
(_) Id Q Do you know whether any of those inspection 15 reports indicate a large number of weld inspections performed 16 on a single inspection report?.
I'7 A No, sir.
18 What was the purpose of the Level II review?
Q 19 A On theweld inspection checklist?
20 Q Yes.
21 A The procedure indicates that if it was a Level I 22 that had done the initial review --
O .
5
~ 86
[
1 MR. GALLO:
(s_-)- Do you mean the initial inspection?
2 THE WITNESS: Excuse me, the. initial inspection; 3 1.e., the lefthand signature, then it was for acceptance of d
the installation. If it was the original inspector had been 5
a Level II, then it was just for form and completeness of 6
the document.
I BY MR. GUILD:
8 O And if it was a Level I, would it be for acceptance of the installation and. form and completeness of l0 the document?
II A Certainly.
12 Q So if there were an~y weld inspection documents 13 indicating the Level II review.by Mr. DeWald, for example,
/~' .
~k of ir.stallation inspections performed by Level I's, his 15 Level II review would indicate that he approved the 16 inspection do'cument for form and completeness as well as
'I that he accepted -- he reviewed, excuse me, the acceptability
'8 ~
of the installations.
I' A Well, yes, he accepted -- yes, he accepted the installation.
21 O Had you ever heard of the claim that Mr. DeWald 22 had done over 1000 weld inspections a day, other than
, i d
O Y - - - -
="D-- 1-- --+& --e _' -'e- --w -------s- - - - ' -----e-e -------- - - - ---
=
6 87
.,-m I
listening to the statements being made in the depositions -- ?
2 Nc, that was the first time that I heard it, was A
3 from Mr. Holly and during Mr. Holly's deposition.
d O Had you ever understood that that was a belief 5 on the part of Comstock QC inspectors? Either general 6
knowledge or a belief on the part of one or more inspectors 7
that Mr. DeWald had done such a practice?
8 A No. Mr. Holly's deposition was the first time that I had heard that. feeling expressed; that he was saying 10 it was common knowledge, I hadn't heard that before.
Il Q You are aware of an allegation to that effect had 12 been made to the NRC, weren't you?
13 g. We_ll again, the allegation that I reviewed with r}) 'd Roger Mendez -- I didn't know who.the alleger was, certainly, 15 but I didn't know who --
16 MR. GALLO: The accusee?
37 THE WITNESS: The accusee --
18 BY MR. GUILD:
Q- The subject of the allegation?
20 Yes, that's a better statement.
A 21 Q Mr. DeWald's name wasn't attached?
22 A No names were given to us.
O
'7 88
.f M
( l .Did you read Mr. Mendez's and Mr. Neisler's O
2 inspection reports on the subject?
3 A Yes.
d O Are you aware that that makes specific reference 5
to the present Comstock QC manager who was formerly an 6
inspector, and interviewing him on that allegation?
' 7 A Yes, but to my knowledge when I read it, I was 8
thinking -- basically what I did was to ask Irv what the ,
practice was, or Mr. DeWald what the practice was.
10 0 You didn't pick up on inspection reports
' referenced to asking Mr. DeWald specifically whether he had 12 done more than 1000 welds in a day?
I3
~ A Well, I don't remember that. I could have read
\
I it but I don't remember that specifically.
'S O Whb identified initially the concern regarding 16 the practice of the use of Level I's to perform visual-
' '7 inspections of welds?
'8 A I believe it was Mr. Gardner of NRC Region III.
I' O Was there initial concern expressed by anyone 20
- prior to Mr. Gardner making his inspection and inspection 21 finding?
4 22 A -Oh, yes, I'm sorry. The copy of the audit that I
i (G
l l
89 (m) uJ have in here, the general office audit,84-122,.which was 2
back in September of 1984, did have an open item on the 3
current practice of Comstock weld inspectors.
Q Okay. How about directing my attention to that.
5 Is that in the additional information por*: ion?
6 A I believe so, yes.
7 0 Ok. I have got the audit report. It's the 8
first. document?
A Page 13 of that report is the specific item. At
'O the bottom it says 5., question number 28.
Q Do you know how that audit question came to be 12 included in the scope of that audit?
'3 A- No, sir.
Q Now, that audit question doesn't relate to the 15 acceptability of.the weld installations that were the 16 subject of the Level I's inspection work, does it?
A Could you be more specific?
18 Q Well, the recommendation that appears on page 14 calls only for deleting the' reference to Level I's, or 2
more precisely, define the limited nature of the Level I 21 capabilities; correct?
A Right.
O
)1 90 i
fx s- 1 Q It doesn't relate to the adequacy of the past 2 work inspected by the Level I's.
3 A That's right.
4 -O How did that get translated; that audit question 5 and the recommendation resulting from that audit question 6 get translated into a Concern about the effectiveness of 7 the Level ~I's inspection work and the acceptability .of the 8
welds that were the subject of the Level I's inspection?
9 A I think it's only the first part of that, and to it was the usage of Level I's, okay? During the --
11 basically, the concern of the auditor, as I understand it, 12 was that the-procedure said you can use Level I's or Level 13 II's to inspect welds.
(f~s\
And he asked us, what is your current
\- 14 program? And we said, well, we only have Level II's 15 inspecting welds right now. He said, why don't you revise 16 your procedure to say that? And that's what we did.
17 0 When you say "he said" and "he asked," did he 18 ask you.'
19 A Well, what I'm talking about is the particular 2J auditor -- the discussions during the pre-exit -- you know, 21 the performance of the audit, so it would be discussions 22 during the audit exit.
91 10 s
1 Q And did you participate in those discussions?
2 A Yes, with both the auditor and Mr. Gruber, 3 which was the lead auditor.
d O All right. So you are testifying about the .
'5 questions by the auditor based on your personal knowledge 6 of what he said to you..
End.7 7 A Yes.-
8 r
9 10 11 12 4
13 14
{
15 l
! - 16 4
17 18 I. ~19 a
20 21 22 4
I i
f i
n , ,---e.- -.. ,. , . _ , - -.
TAPE 8 92 1
O Why wasn't the question of the effectivenesr of 2 the Level I's past work raised at that time?
3 A I don't know.
4 Q Do'you agree with the. observation that'is 5 reflected on page 13 under paragraph 5 of question 28, and 6 that is Level I inspectors would be required to pass judg-7 ment on the acceptability of observed conditions to utilize 8 the' checklist supplied by this procedure? With reference
~9 to the Comstock welding inspection procedure.
10 A I agree with that statement.
11 Q And does that accurately characterize the
, 12 judgment required of Level I's under previous revisions of 13 the checklist and the welding inspection procedure?
i
,-~) 14 A Yes, that's consistent, I believe.
15 O Mr. Gieseker, if you have that understanding and
.i 16 you evaluated the attributes that were called out in the-17 checklist for visual weld inspection that called for 18 judgment on the acceptability of observed conditions by 19 the Level I, why didn't you raise the question about the
, 20 effectiveness of the inspection work performed by the Level 21 I's up until the date of this audit finding?
22 A Well, in my opinion, the Level I's can inspect l
I
~ . . . . _ . ._
93 ym
() I welds to a prescribed procedure, and they always did, to 2
the best of my knowledge, when they performed inspections 3
nave the appropriate contractor procedure. Therefore, they 4
were working to:.a prescribed procedure, and ANSI 45.2.6 i
5 allows Level I's to perform inspections to a procedure.
6 Q And to pass judgment on the acceptability of 7
observed conditions of welds as required by the weld 8 inspection checklist?
9 A As required by the procedure, yes, and documented 10 on the checklist.
11 Q And does that inspection activity, employing' those-12 procedures and those acceptance cr'iteria specified in the
_s 13 weld inspection checklist, constitute data gathering, in 14 your opinion?
15 A Not in the context that he uses data gathering.
16 I believe that they were inspecting welds in accordance 17 with the inspection procedure.
18 Q All right.
19 A ANSI has a section on data gathering, and my 20 interpretation of that is -- what it says is that to be a 21 data gatherer, you don't have to be certified to anything.
- 22 The situation may be that you are up in the scaffolding l
s, :
0 l
.%.. . - _ - l
'94
(}
' %J i doing an inspection and calling down the results to me, who 2 is writing it down on the floor. I up here have to be a certified to some level. I down on the floor -- or excuse 4 me, you would if you were doing the inspections. Me down 3 on the floor recording the results, based on what you are 6 telling me, is what I consider a data gatherer.
7 Q In that example, the guy filling out the form a l's a Level I, and the guy up on the scaffold looking at the 9 welds themselves and calling down the data would have to be 10 a certified inspector in the ANSI requirements?
11 A Well, the guy on the scaffolding, in my opinion, 12 could either be a Level I or a Level II if he is working to 13 an approved procedure. The person down on the floor, there
() 14 is no requirement for him to be certified to anything.
is O All right. So it doesn't even have to be a Level 16 I.
17- A Correct.
18 O Do you agree with the statement that appears in 19 the last paragraph on page 13 of the audit report that you 20 have referred to: " Commonwealth Edison Company's QA 21 Department will only allow a Level I inspector to operate in 22 the capacity of'a data gatherer. That data, in turn, must
95 q,) I be analyzed for acceptance by an inspector of a high'er level.
2 A The data gatherer that he is talking about, I 3 believe, is the use of the Level I the way we were using 4 him, which was the Level I was doing the inspection in 5 accordance with the checklist and recording that " data" on 6 the checklist and then signing his name. And then the 7 second review that he is talking about there is our Level II e review.
9 Q So you agree with the statement that is made in 10 the last paragraph of page 13?
11 A Right. What I am saying, I guess, is his use 12 of data gatherer here isn't the same use of or description p_ 13 ~ of the data gatherer that I was just talking about, with A.l 14 somebody'being up on the scaffolding and'somebody being down 15 on the floor.
16 Q. Assuming that he is using the term " data gatherer" 17 as that term is used in the ANSI standard, do you agree with 18 the statement that appears in the last paragraph of page 13?
19 A Which term used in the ANSI standard?
20 Q Data gatherer.
21 A No, I don't agree with it if he is using the 22 data gatherer here the way that data gatherer is talked about
. in ANSI, no.
D a
4
96 (m
\_,) 1 Q Does the Commonwealth Edison Company QA Department 2 employ any other use of the term " data gatherer" other than 3 the term'" data gatherer" as that same term is.used in the 4 ANSI standard?
5 A I don't know.
6 O Do you know what he is talking about, then, if he 7 is not talking about data gatherer as used in the ANSI 8 standard?
9 A I think what he is simply talking about here is 10 recording'the objective evidence on the checklist, and he 11 is indicating that. And you could call it data, you can 12 call objective evidence. There are a' lot of different terms 13 that we use to describe the actual completion of the b 14 inspection form.
15 O Okay. So to the best of your knowledge, the 16 question about the use of Level I's to perform visual 17 inspections was first raised in this general office audit?
18 A Right.
19 0 Okay. And how, then, did BCAP become involved 20 in the Level I issue?
21 A Boy. I did not specifically participate in the 22 BCAP program as part of;the BCAP task force, but to my
/
97 1
understanding, that was one of the items that was raised,
{'
2 which was after this audit, was raised in -- let me say 3
the first part of 1985, I believe, when they were doing a d
document review and they saw that the inspection checklists 5 were signed by Level I's.
6 Q .So to the best of your~ knowledge, the BCAP 7
concern on the Level I's was independent of the audit 8
observation?
9 A Yes, to the best of my knowledge, yes.
10 0 They weren't simply relying on what they'saw in 11 the audit to raise the issue; they raised it on the basis 12 of the document review?
13 A To my knowledge, they didn't know about the audit.
Id
{) Q Okay. Now, in your Group Exhibit 2, beh'ind the 15 general office audit that we have been talking about, there 16 is a QA Surveillance Report 4178.
17 A Yes, sir.
I8 O How did the Level I issue arise in the context 19 of that surveillance report?
20 A If you will note at the top of that surveillance, 21 it says Braidwood QA Surveillance Report No. 4178, Follow-up 22 to Audit Report GA-AG84-122. What this surveillance is is
~ i f l v
l 1
1 1
98
[~ I the documented evidence that the Quality Assurance Department
' N))
2 uses to close out audit items.
3 O And it's a follow up to the general office audit d
that we just talked about?
5 A That's correct.
6 Q Maybe I am miDsing dates, then. I have a general 7
office audit of September 1984.
8 A Right.
9 O And I have a surveillance that is dated February 10 of 1984. And you said the surveillance follows on the 11 audit?
12 A Yes, sir. I think that's a typo. If you look 13 down in the " reported by" signatures, those dates are '85.
f'N
() 14 I think the typo should be 1985.
15 0 I always believe what I read until told otherwise.
16 So the surveillance happened after the audit 17 finding and closed it out? '
18 A Certainly.
19 Q Was the surveillance before or after the NRC 20 inspection finding with regard to the Level I issue?
21 MR. GALLO: Do you need to look at the inspection 22 report?
1 e
99-
}
J 1 THE WITNESS: Yes, I guess so. I would have to 2 compare dates. I don't remember. They were both in the 3 same time period. Exactly which followed which, I don't 4 know.
5 MR. GUILD: It would be helpful if we could.
6 (Discussion off the record.)
7 BY MR. GUILD:
8 O Mr. Gieseker, did the surveillance that led to 9 the report that we were looking at, the February 12, 1985, 10 come before or after the BCAP identification of the Level I 11 issue?
12 A I don't know. I did not generate the surveillance.
13 The QA Department did. I just don't know.
(b
() 14 O Do you know anything about.the BCAP's identificatic n 15 of the concern about Level I's?
16 A A little bit.
17 Q Bad question. Good answer.
18 You told me that they identified it in the course 19 of a document review. They saw the checklist that was 20 signed off by the Level I?
21 A I think I can clarify it. The context that I i 22 know is in this same NRC report, BCAP was giving a finding I
(O
100 h,rm 1 or something -- I don't know what level it was -- and
- 2 that's how I know'they were involved in this Level I issue.
3 0 You know about it from reading the inspection d-report?
5 A Right.
6 Q Did you do any independent review of BCAP's 7
involvement in the Level I issue?
8 No, not a review. Just discussed it with some A
'9 of the BCAP -- I think it was Mr. Orlov, just to understand
'O what it was, but that's all.
Il Q Did you have that discussion at the time that 12 the audit and surveillance were dealing with the. issue or l3 subsequently?
Id A It was subsequently. It was when the audit 15 Okay.
report was actually received.
16 Oh, the inspection report, you mean, the NRC Q
17 report?
18 Yes, right, because once we receive the A
19 inspection report from the NRC, then we have a specific 20 time requirement that we have to respond to. I believe it 21 was Mr. Orlov who was working on the BCAP respcnse to their 22 item, and I was working on the response to this item. So i
v
101
()
q_ I that's why we discussed it.
2 O You were responding to the 3C issue.
3 A Right.
4 Q And Mr. Orlov was dealing with the issue as it 5 related it BCAP?
6 A Right.
7 Q The observation?
8 A Right. It's a different part of the same 9 report.
10 0 Before that, before you read the inspection 11 report, did you know that there was an issue involving 12 BCAP's identification and documentation of the Level I
.13 inspector issue?
O
\_ / 14 A Yes. I knew it as kind of a side issue, I guess.
15 Mr. Gardner, who was the author of the item, I believe, 16 discussed the use of Level I's with Mr. Netzel of the QA 17 Department and myself one day. So that was, I think, the 18 first time that I basically knew that the NRC had a concern i
19 in this area. And Mr. Gardner was just trying to understand.
1 20 what the usage of our Level I's were.
21 MR. GALLO: How does that relate to BCAP, your 22 knowledge about BCAP? '
f v
102 P
1 THE WITNESS: I guess it doesn't. It's not.
(
2 BCAP. It's just this Level I issue.
3 BY MR. GUILD:
d Q All right.. And was Mr. Orlov or anyone from 5 BCAP a participant in the discussion that you had with Mr.
6 Gardner?
7- A Not to my knowledge. No. The answer is no.
8 MR. GALLO: Why don't we break now and get that 9 document.
10 (Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m. the taking of the 11 deposition was recessed, to resume at 1:55 p.m. the same 12 day.)
13
\_,) "
15 16
-17 18 19 20 21 22 I
O
103 r^'si t
1 AFTERNOON SESSION V 2 (2:05 p.m.)
3 MR. GUILD: Let's go back on the record, d Whereupon, 5 JAMES W. GEISEKER, 6 having been sworn previously, was further examined and 7 testified as follows:
8 EXAMINATION 9 BY MR. GUILD:
30 .O Mr. Gieseker, yourave the inspection' report.that 11 Mr. Neisler and Mr. Mendez conducted?
12 A Yes.
13 Q It deals with the Level I issue?
14 MR. GALLO: No, it's Mr. Gardner. It's 85-06.
}
15 MR. GUILD: I'm sorry. Mr. Gardner's report 16 dealing with the Level I issue.
17 BY MR. GUILD:
la O And take a moment, if you can, and see if that I
19 clears up the question of the' sequence of events.
20 A Right. The surveillance, with the one correction 21 to the typographical error, is dated February 12, 1985, and 22 .the NRC report is dated March 8, 1985. So the surveillance f preceded the inspection report.
4
i -
104 A
(ml 1 Q Can you tell from the body of the report -- let's 2
.take a minute and see if there'is an indication of when Mr.
3 Gardner made the findings that were the basis for that 4 report.
5 (Witness reviewing document.)
6 A Okay. On page -- it must be page 1 -- there is 7 not an actual page number, under the inspection summary it 8 says the inspection on February 4th through March 1, 1985.
9 So this report dated March 8th covers that timeframe.
10 Q I was going to turn to the section that deals 11 with the Level I issue and see if Mr. Gardner was any more '
12 specific on~when he made the observations. I'm looking at 13 page 3. Well, the. reference at page 3 states, "As l
14 previously reported in NRC Inspaction Report 85-02, the 15 inspector observed that the BCAP documentation review 16 checklist instructions for Population AWS Dl.1 electrical l'7 welds stated that the acceptable certification level for 4
18 L.K. Comstock eletrical weld inspectors who inspected and 19 accepted welds was a minimur of Level I," et cetera.
20 So the observation initially by the NRC appears '
j 21 to precede the report we have been talking a bout that had 22 been documented in 85-02.
A The other thing I might mention is on page 3 7
O 1
10'5
()
7s 2
1- of the Surveillance 41-78. The first QA follow-up is dated at the bottom of that page 12/12/84 and gives follow-ups 3 on Concerns 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
4 Q Okay.
5 And it is Concern No. 5 on page 4 that you have 6 reference to noted on that 12/12 follow-up?
7 A Yes, sir.
8 0 I don't have Inspection Report 85-02, but do you 9 recall the NRC noting the Level I concern in that report?
10 A Yes, I believe I do remember it, but I can' t 11 remember how they characterized it. I believe it was -- I 12 don't know. I don't remember what it said about it.
13 MR. GUILD: Mr. Berry, do 30u happen to have a copy 1
A>
s 14 of that report? ,
15 MR. BERRY: Well, it's not in the notebook.
16 BY MR. GUILD:
17 Q Let's return to the Surveillance itself. The 18 audit that the surveillance closed or followed up on was 19 September of 1984; correct? That is84-122?
20 A Yes, sir.
21 Q When was the first action taken in the surveillance 22 with respect to the Level I issue?
A I don't know. Again, I'm not the author of the surveillance; the QA Department is. The only . thing I can O
106 (m)
%)
i say is the first date that I see in the surveillance is the 2 one previously mentioned on page 3, which is 12/12/84.
3 O All right. What does the date 12/12/84 indicate 4 as it is employed on page 3 of the surveillance?
5 A It's titled -- it says "QA Follow-up," so that's 6 one of the dates that they did a follow-up on the concerns 7 raised during the audit.
8 Q Well, I'm asking you, if you know, to relate this 9 to what you know of the practice of the QA Department's 10 auditors. When they put a date such as 12/12/84 by QA 11 Follow-up, does that indicate that the actions there listed 12 under that heading were taken on that date?
13 A Well, they were recorded on that.date. That is
() 14 the date that they actually wrote the follow-up. I can't is tell you if they had been -- you know, I don't know how long 16 it took them to prepare this information so that on the 12th 17 in this' case they wrote it down.
is O So you don't know what the signficance of the 19 12/12 date is?
20 .A Not specifically in this case.
21 O What was the subsequent follow-up with respect 22 to the Level I issue after 12/12, if any?
I 1
v
107 g)
- 1 A Well again, indicated on page 4 of that 2
same surveillance, there is a QA follow-up dated 2/1/85, 3
and again, Concern 5 is addressed in.that follow-up section.
d Q And it notes that there.was final approval for 5
a revision to the Comstock inspection procedure.
6 A Yes, sir.
7 Q Now, when it s'ays final approval, what does that 8
term indicate, " final approval"?
9 A Okay. The process that we issue procedures is 10 that the revision is generated by the contractor, it is 11 reviewed by site personnel of the construction department 12 and the QA Department, and then it is sent downtown for 13 review by Sargent & Lundy, and when it comes back from s
(~',/
q 14 the Sargent & D;ndy ' review, that date is considered the 15
" final approval" if indeed the procedure was found 16 acceptable to Sargent & Lundy.
17 Q Is it the day'of the Sargent & Lundy review? Is 18 it the day it returns to the site?
19 A No. It is the date that the production department 20 returns a memo to Comstock saying that Rev. G of, in this 21 particular case, 4/8/83, was approved.
22 All right.
O And if I were looking on the face of that procedure or any other procedure and looking for the a
108 e~
k_,s) I date of final approval, how would that be indicated on the 2 procedure?
3 A I don't believe that the date of final approval 4 is on the procedure. That is in their records. The
(
5 effcctive date of the procedure is on the front part of the 6 procedure, and the effective date is the date that they 7 issue it to the field for use.
a O Is that a date that follows the date of final 9 approval?
10 A Yes, sir.
11 Q Is there a specified time lapse between final 12 approval and effectiveness?
-s 13 A In the document control procedure for Comstock,
(/ 14 there is a specified time that they have once they receive 15 a procedure approval to issue it to the field, and I believe to that.is ten working days for a procedure.
17 Q The procedure itself does not go into effect
- 18 until that effective date.
19 A Right.
20 Q And up until that date, prior revision of_the 21 procedure if there is one is applicable?
22 A Yes. With the one exception that the other G
109 1
/ 'N (s,/ 1 aspect of the process is that we can give an interim 2 approval when site QA and Construction review the procedure 3 and find it acceptable. We can give the contractor interim 4 approval, and the contractor can then work to the procedure 5 in parallel to the procedure being issued downtown for 6 final approval. And the only additional situation there is 7 that when the procedure comes back, if it wasn't approved, f
8 then we have to review the work that was done by that i 9 procedure during the interim process.
10 0 When you say "we," do you mean Commonwealth 11 Edison Company?
12 A "We" meaning PCD and the electrical contractor, yes ..
f-~x 13 Q Was there an interim approval given for the 14 provision sith respect to the Level I inspectors?
15 A I can't remember.
16 Q For example, the letter that was directed to the 17 site contractors with respect to the future use of Level I's, 18 did it precede the effective date of the revision to the 19 Comstock weld inspection procedure?
~
20 A No. The letter that was written in response to 21 the audit item was written in the spring of '85.
22 O I think your counsel may have 85-02, Mr.
Gieseker. Do you see the reference there to previous l
l O
-- , . _ _ _ _ . , , - - _ . _ , . - . . - _ - . , ----,c y - , -
110 e
1 note with respect to the Level I issue?
2 A It looks like on page 4, under paragraph 4, 3
the paragraph is titled " Review of CSR Documentation 4
Review Checklist,""and then there is a paragraph which 5
talks about the use of Level I's.
6 0 All right. And what is the inspection period 7
for that inspection report? Or if there is a date in that 8
body that pinpoints when the inspector made those findings, 9 could you identify it, please?
10 (Witness reviewing document.)
11 A On page 1 it says, under inspection summary, 12
" Inspections on Jar.cary 2 through February 1, 1985."
13 O Do you see any reference in the body to a date (ms 14 that is more precise for the inspector's findings on the 15 Level I issue?
(Witness reviewing document.)
16 17 A Cn page 4 under paragraph 4, there is no more 18 specific date.
19 0 All right. Thanks.
20 Let's look back at page 5 of the Surveillance 21 4178, Mr. Gieseker. Does that reflect subsequent action on 22 the' Level I issue after the 1st of February, 1985 when the n
s_ -
111
' () i final approval of the weld inspection procedure was received?
2 A On page 5,the top part continues or indicates 3 a 2/12/85 update, of which item 5 is mentioned, and also 4 an additional 7/9/85 QA follow-up.
5 0 All right.
6 The 2/12 follow-up of Concern 5 states, "This 7 concern remains open pending the establishment of a program 8 for evaluating the acceptability of previous work performed 9 by Level I inspectors. This open item is considered open 10 pending resolution of Concern 5."
11 Now, that appears to me, Mr. Gieseker, to be the 12 first indication that there was any concern for the 13 acceptability of the Level I's previous work. What were b( ,j 14 the circumstances of the Edison surveillance identifying a is concern with regard to-the acceptability of previous 16 -Level I work?
17 MR. GALLO: Or do you know?
18 THE WITNESS: I don't know. Again, this is a 19 QA-authored document, andt don't know why they made that 20 update on 2/12/85.
21 BY MR.' GUILD:
I-22 O Do you know whether -the auditors or those n
v i
l l
112 r- !
(%) I responsible for the surveillance report had any contact 2
with the NRC on this' issue prior to writing the 2/12 -
3 follow-up item?
d A I don't know. Well, excuse me. I do know that 5
I mentioned earlier that we had talked with -- Ed Netzel 6 and I had talked with Mr. Gardner, but I can't remember when 7 that date is in conjunction with the 2/12/85 date.
8 Q Okay. Looking at the cover page.to the 9
Surveillance, there appears there Mr. Netzel's signature as 10 a reviewer of the follow-up action; right?
11 A Right.
- 12 O With the date of July 10, 1985.
13 A Yes.
- m k ,)
m 14 Q Now, did this audit - did Mr. Netzel approve 15 or review follow-ups on an interim basis, say, after the 1
16 follow-up on-2/12 was written?
1:7 A Well, if you look at the same.page, the.first 18 three signatures are the dates that the surveillance was 19- initially issued, okay?
20 Q The 3/7 date?
21 A 3/7, 4/5 and 4/8. When the surveillance is issued, 22 that's when those three signatures are signed. And then, if i-
-a
113 (D
^
\~ / 1 the surveillance is issued open,'i.e., there is something 2 that has to be followed up in it, then there will be no 3 signatures in the second three signature blocks. -
d The FU action -:
Q 5 A Follow-up action verified, reviewed and approved.
6 And when the surveillance is finally closed, i.e., the .
7 follow-up action is completed, that's when this second i
8 section of. signature blocks will be completed and the 9 surveillance will be reissued at that time.
10 0 So on page 5 of the body of the surveillance, 11 after the block at the top - 'it's dated 2/12/85 -- there is 12 the notation that this item is considered open -- there.is
-s 13 emphasis on the word "open" -- pending resolution of Concern
%- 14 5. Now, does that' indicate that the surveillance would be 15 treated aus yoa just indicated, and that is it would be 16 reported and approved by the auditor and lead auditor, that l'7 the follow-up action portions of the title page would remain 18 open?
19 A That's correct.
20 0 Page 5's further QA follow-up on July 9, 1985, 21 and by that heading, there appears initials and a date, 22 July 10, 1985. Do you know whose initials they are?
4 U
1 i
114
[\
-%)
1 A Yes, sir.
2 O Whose are they?
1 A Dick Spence, or Richard E. Spence, S-p-e-n-c-e.
4 Q And who is Mr. Spece? ,
5 A He was a consultant that wo'rked for the QA 6 Department at that time.
7 0 In what capacity? ,
8 A I am not sure. I believe he was involved with 9 the BCAP effort.
-10 Q By whom was he employed?
11 'A I don't know. I don't know the firm he worked 12 for.
13 Q Does his signature indicate BCAP review or A)
(, 14 approval of the follow-up item with respect to the Level I.
15 issue?
16 A I don't know.
17 Q Do you know what it indicates?
18 A I think that he was primarily -- that he primarily 19 authored that section.
20 Q Well, he is not an auditor, is he?
21 A Not to my knowledge.
22 Q Did he have any other formal role in performing
115 I QA surveillances?
2 A Not to my knowledge.
3 -Q Is it consistent with surveillance practice that 4 a consultant would participate in a surveillance and write-5 a section of a surveillance follow-up?
'6 A I don't know.
7 Q Do you know in.what capacity Mr. Spence authored 8 the follow-up of July 9, 1985 on this issue?.
9 A Mr. Spence was at that time following the QCIRP 10 program.
11 Q The QCIRP?
12 A Yes, sir. And in that capacity, this paragraph 13 talks about that program. I be'lieve that was his involve-(>~).
14 ment.
15 Q Okay. What responsibility did Mr. Spence have 16 for the OCIRP?
17 A Well, he was kind of the QA representative for 18 the program.
19 Q He had QA responsibilities with regard to the l
20 QCIRP' program?
-21 A He was their representative. I don't explicitly I
22 know what his duties were, although we just -- wl.en we had I
iO i
i
116
() 1 meetings and that type of stuff, he was the QA representa-2 tive.
'3 O' -For Edison?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Now, the follow-up action, that 7/9/85 follow-up 6 was verified, according to the cover page, by Christopher 7 Hayes. Who is Mr. Hayes?
8 A Chris Hayes is one of the QA engineers working
'9 in the QA Department.
{ 10 Q Okay. And Mr..Netzel reviewed it?
11 A Right. He is a QA supervisor in the QA Depart-12 ment.
, 13 O And Mr. Quaka approved it?
14 A He is the QA superintendent, the site QA' super-15 intendent.
16 Q And would those verifications, reviews and 17 approvals indicate that those gentlemen in their capacities
. 18 were approving the follow-up that Mr. Spence wrote that 19 appears on page 5 under the date of 7/9/85 regarding the l 20 Level I issue?
i 21 A Yes.
, 22 Q When did'you become aware, Mr. Gieseker, of this i
V i
117 s
( ) I treatment of the Level I issue with respect to the
.%/
2 adequacy of past Level I work? By that I mean the 3
follow-up of July 9, 1985, page 5 of-the surveillance d
report.
5 A Well, basically back in the 2/12 timeframe when 6 the indication that the item is open based on establishing 7 a program to evaluate the acceptability of the previous 8 So the February of '85 timeframe.
work.
Q In February of '85 you were to establish a 10 program to review that past work; correct?
II A Well, again, these are not my words, they are 12 gge s words.
13 I didn't mean you, Mr. Gieseker, I mean 0
ns,j ld Commonwealth Edison Company, Comstock, you institutionally 1
15 you were committed to establishing a program to review that 16 past work; correct?
17 What'QA is saying is that they are A Right.
18 keeping the item open until such a program addresses the l'
acceptability of the Level I.
20 Was it your understanding in February of '85 0
- 21 that the QCIRP was to be that program?
22 A Well, not necessarily in February of '85. We
()
118' f%
\m / 1 started talking about how we were going to address this 2 concern: of QA's.
3 Q And what did you talk about?
4 A Well, just how we were going to resolve the 5 matter.
6 Q And did you identify the QCIRP,as the program 7 that would do that?
8 A Oh, yes. We discussed it because QCIRP is a 9 review of inspectors' work prior to the fall of '82, which to is basically the cut-off dates for the QCIRP. And the 11 reason QCIRP was discussed is that most of the Level I's 12 we thought were used during that timeframe.
fg 13 Q Did you consider at that time using any other I\,m/] 14 programs to review the Level I's'past work?
15 A 13ot at that time. We were reviewing to see if 16 we could use QCIRP to answer this question.
17 Q And as of July, you, Edison reached the determina-18 tion that you would use QCIRP for that purpose?
19 A Right. At that time that's what we thought we 20 would use.
21 Q Did the QCIRP program or procedures explicitly 22 cover Level I weld inspection within the scope of the QCIRP?
A
119 b(_j/ 1 A Yes. The QCIRP procedure covered any inspector 2 certified at Comstock -- well, either at Comstock or Ernst, 3 be that at a Level I or a Level II.
4 Q Did'it say,either at a Level I or Level II or 5 did it just say all inspectors?
6 A I Can't remember the specific wording.
7 0 I'm looking at page 5 of the surveillance, and 8 they have quotation marks around the words "all inspectors,"
9 and they cite to a specific paragraphaof what appears to be lo the QCIRP procedure.
11 A That is PM-ll, yes, sir.
12 Q And the parenthetical is that all inspectors 13 should be understood to mean Level I, II or III.
7 t
\-- 14 A Right.
15 Q Doyou know whether or not the program or 16 procedures explicitly identified Level I's as within that 17 coverage?
18 A No, I can't remember the explicit words of 19 PM-ll, but the intent was that both Level I's and Level II's 20 be included in the program.
21 Q How do you know that?
22 A Well, one of my other responsibilities at the O
G
l'2'O 1
~
ts 1- site is implementation of the QCIRP program.
\
)
'2 0 .Okay. And in that capacity you are aware that 3 Level Ils were within the scope that was intended for the 4 QCIRP?
5 A Certainly. I was one of the authors of. PM-ll, 6 but I can't remember the specific paragraph words of whether 7 or not we said all or said 1, 2 and 3.
8 Q 'And when did you author the.PM-ll? How far back 9 does that go?
10 A I should know this.
11 Q Did the QCIRP exist as of February 12, 1985 when 12 the last follow-up item was noted in the surveillance 13 regarding the Level I's?
l T 14 A I'm sorry, Mr. Guild. I can't remember the issue
\, )
15 date of PM-ll.
1 16 Q Can you give me a ballpark? Was it '85, '84?
17 MR. GALLO: He says he can't remember.
4 18 BY MR. GUILD:
19 Q Let me ask it another way.
20 Do you recall the QCIRP procedure was written 21 with the purpose of addressing the concern about past Level I 22 work in mind?
O
121
]
(dD 1 A Well, not specifically. We were concerned 2 about the training program for the inspectors, and QCIRP 3 is meant to make a statement on 'that, and that included both 4 Level I's and Level II's. So the level of the inspector was 5 never a question. It was always meant to include any of
~
6 the levels of certification that the' training program would 7 b'e involved in for the particular contract.
8 O And it was meant to test the effectiveness of 9 the training program?
-10 A Right.
11 .O It wasn't designed to deal with the issue that 12 the Level I concern dealt with, and that was the appropriate-13 ness of the work of Level I's in performing visual weld 14 inspections aside from their training?-
15 A Correct. It was meant to raake a statement on 16 the training program.
17 O Page 4 of your affidavit, Mr. Geiseker, question-18 8 addresses the subject: why was the decision made to 19 develop and implement the LRP instead of relying on existing 20 QCIRP? And you state two reasons.
21 MR. GALLO: Wait a minute. He still doesn't 22 have it.
v 1
l
l 122 l l
1 MR. GUILD: Okay.
./'G)'
2 (Pause.)
3 BY MR. GUILD:
4 0 One reason being that some of the Level I 5 inspection work took place after the cut-off of the QCIRP.
6 A Right.
7' Q And secondly, you state that the QCIRP was 8 designed tc test the training of QC inspectors.
9 A Right, the training program.
10 0 And you end by saying that af ter discussions with 11 counsel for Commonwealth Edison Company, we determined that i el it is unlikely that the QCIRP can be completed on a schedule 13 consistent with a timely Licensing Board decision in the
() 14 case; therefore, the LRP was developed for the specific 15 purpose of responding to -- I guess it should read --
- 16 Contention Item 3C.
17 A Yes,. sir.
18 Q Now, what is the projected completion date for 19 the QCIRP?
20 A Currently it is in late March, I believe, of 21 1986.
22 Q Did you understand at'the time of July 9, 1985 O
4
---,,-r=- -
, . . - - - - . , , , - . - . . . . - . . - ~ , . , - - , . . .-. . - , . , . - , - - - - - . , , - - - . - - - - . - - - - - - - , - - - .
123
/
( ) I that, as noted in the surveillance, . the QCIRP would be 2 used to establish.the acceptability of past Level.I work, .
3 that the QCIRP would be completed in sufficient time to --
4 would be c.ompleted consistent with a schedule for a-timely
-5 Licensing Board decision?
6 A In July, no.
7 Q Maybe I'm not being clear. In July of '85, 8 Edison stated that the QCIRP would be relied upon to 9 establish the acceptability of past Level I work; ccrrect?
10 A Correct.
11 Q And at that time, when you made that reliance, 12 did you understand that QCIRP would be done in time for 13 timely licensing?
/O
(_ ) 14 A No. We don't even remember discussions about 15 licensing, when the licensing would be done or not done.
16 0 So what changed between the time -- on this 17 subject, what changed between the time, between July of 18 1985, when you i."ially committed to rely on QCIRP for 19 this purpose, and the subsequent decision to go to the LRP 20 instead?-
21 A Okay. In December when we wrote this, or when I 22 wrote this affidavit, the licensing commitments were more explicitly known. And the second thing is that when we t
V
124
() 1 actually -- by December of 1985, I had done more review of 2 'actually.who the Level I's'were that would be in the*, program 3 and what specific dates they had done their inspections.
.4 And we found for a couple of the inspectors 5 their inspection period as a Level I extended past the 6 cut-off date for QCIRP. I did not know that in July of '85.
7 0 Okay. Well, I guess to put this in perspective, a when do you project that the Level I reverification program 9 will be Complete?
10 A Right now it's scheduled for the end of 11 February.
12 .Q. Today is the 12th of February, Mr. Gieseker, and 13 the end of February is fast upon us. W' hat has been done on 14 the LRP and what is lef t to be done?
15 A What we have done is we have gathered some of 16 the preliminary information as far as the records -- the 17 apprcXimately 9000 records, and we have sorted them to get 18 the 475 that we need, and we have started preparing --
19 MR. GALLO: That you need for what?
20 THE WITNESS: Excuse me. The 475 that we need for 21 our sample. And we haven't started any inspections because 22 we don't have the proced' ire done yet, but we are preparing those packages, and the way that we intend to approach it O
1 i
)
125 i
i
'( 1 is have a large number of inspections ready for the 2- Comstock inspection personnel, and then they can go out and 3 inspect it in short order, we believe.
d BY MR. GUILD:
5 Q When do you plan on beginning the actual 6 inspections?
7 A As soon as we get the procedure done, which a could be as soon as the beginning of next week.
9 0 When you state that you project completion of the 10 LRP by the end of February, complete in what form, Mr.
11 Gieseker?
12 A Well, what we intend to do is we have to do the 13 inspections and then do the engineering review of the x_f Id results, and then issue a report. Like you said, the end 15 of February is fast upon us. That may be an incorrect --
16 MR. GALLO: Optimistic?
17 THE WITNESS: Optimistic schedule. But we intend 18 to get it done as quickly as posolble.
19 BY MR. GUILD:
20 0 Do you know what a realistic schedule is for the 21 LRP7 22 A As quickly as possible is a realistic schedule.
i
126
() 1 2
Q Well, if end of February is optimistic, what is realistic?
3 A Oh, I would say by the end of March, beginning 4 or middle of April.
5 0 Well, for comparison purposes, is your end of 6 March projection for the-QCIRP realistic?
7 A I think that is optimistic _also at this time.
8 Q What is the realistic projection for the QCIRP?
9 A Probably the beginning of the summer.
10 Q What does that mean, June?
11 A June, July, yes.
12 Q And complete for QCIRP the same -- the same 13 definition of complete, a' report, a final report?
() 14 A Yes, sir.
15 0 Including whatever engineering evaluations are 16 required of the results if there are any?
17 A Those have to be done before we can issue the is report.
19 Q I am directing your attention to some documents 20 that you made available, Mr. Gieseker, with respect to the 21 LRP, and the first is the flow chart. If you could help 22 me identify some of these people and some of the steps.
.. . - . ~
127 c' 1 What is the CTF?
}
2 A' That is the CECO Task Force. It is a term we use 3 just to indicate the control by the Commonwealth Edison 4 Company,'and in this particular case we have a consultant 4
5 which is working with us, which is Nuclear Power Services, 6 NPS, I mentioned before, and Mr. Dunawald works for that 7 company.
~
8 MR. GALLO: We were wondering how to spell 9 Ounawald. I see now. There it is.
10 BY MR. GUILD:
11 Q What is Mr. Dunawald's position?
- 12 A I don't know what his specific. title is, but he 13 is the prime person in NPS that does the day-to-day function-l' h
, ( ,) 14 ing of the QCIRP program, and.also now the LRP program.
15 Q What kind c background does Mr. Dunawald have?
16 What is his training; do you know?
17 A No, I don't know.
18 O Generally what services is Nuclear Power Services 19 providing for Commonwealth Edison?
20 A In respect to the OCIRP program and LRP program, 21 they are just helping us administer the program. I believe 22 also they are doing some work for the Engineering Department o
i e
> O v
i
_.m--,
-128
[d) 1 in instrumentation design. I'm not familiar with that 2 aspect.
3 0 Okay. Any other work that you are aware of?
4 4 A Not that I am aware of.
1 5 0 Who also is on the SECo Task Force?
6 .A Myself, a representative from Quality Assurance--
7 Q Who is that?
i 8 A At one time it was Dick Spence, and then when he 9
left, Mr. Tony D' Antonio took responsibility, and Tony has 10 left the Department also, and I believe it is -- I'm not 11 sure who the current representative is.
1 12 O Mr. Spence was a consultant?
i 13 A Right.
Id Q And you don't recall who he worked for?
15 A l'o . No, he never mentioned. '
lo Q Okay. Mr. D' Antonio --
17 A He works for the Commonwealth Edison Company and j 18 was assigned to the Quality Assurance Department.
i 19 0 Okay. And what were his duties? Did he have 20 any responsibility for the QCIRP?
i 21 A Right. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Spence was the i 22 QA representative to the SECo Task Force and implementation i
i a
,1 O
, , - . - , - - - . - . , - . .,._._m ,-.._.,,.-,_,,m., ,,,,,my..,,_ , ,._..,__...my - , , . , .....,,..-,.,_,y,-w ~ ,,, _ ,y - ,
129
.C ij\ 1 of the QCIRP, and when he left, Mr. D' Antonio was that QA 2 representative.
3 0- And Mr. D' Antonio is no longer > assigned to that 4 position?
5 A He was transferred to the station just recently, 6 and I don't know who they have reassigned.
7 Q But there is to be a QA representative on the 8 CTF?
' A Yes.
'U Q And who else is on CTF7 A An S&L representative.
12 Q And who is that?
A Mr. Bruce Parduhn.
('- 14 O Can you spell his last name?
A P-a-r-d-u-h-n, I think.
'O Q What is Mr. Parduhn's position?
A I don't know his specific title either, but he is
'8 a Sargent & Lundy representative that controls the engineer-ing review of when a discrepant item is identified to Sargent & Lundy for their design review. He is the 21 coordinator for that.
2 O Does he perform any of the design review himself?
. . . . .- . . .- . = . .. . - - .
130
'f N 1 A I do not know that, d 2
-Q Does he have any responsibility.with regard to 3
the QCIRP?
' d A Yes, the same aspect of the QCIRP.
5 Q Do you know whether he performed any design 6
review of QCIRP discrepancies?
7 A No, I do not know.
8 O Anyone else on the Task Force?
9 A No.
10 Q Does the Task Force meet? Does it perform a 11 function as a group?
12 A 3 Yes. Periodically during the QCIRP timeframe, 13 we met approximately every other day just to follow the
() Id flow of the program.
15
,. O Okay. But you said during the timeframe as if it to were past history. Is it over?
17 A Well, we are getting down to complet1ng inspec-18 tions, and now the portion of the program is basically an 19 i engineering house to do the reviews of the items that were 20 identified. So there is not really any need to meet every 21 day, so it is just kind'of on demand now.
1 22 Q Has the CTF met with respect to the LRP?
O
~w r .-, .-. -m- . - - . - . . . , , . , - . _ , - ,
131
/~~
\
(,f 1 A Yes, briefly, in trying~to get the efforts to get 2
the procedure going and discuss the flow chart, that type 3 of thing, d
O And when did you do that?
5 A Oh, it's been on and off. There has been no 6 specific -- I can't remember a specific date, but it has 7
been in the past month or so that we started finalizing on 8 what we wanted to do with the program.
9 Q It met more than once?
10 A Oh, yes.
11 Q Are there minutes or documents that memorialize 12 your meetings?
13 A Not to my knowledge. Basically, it has just been 14 informal discussion of how to get the program up and going.
15 This is a result of- one of the meetings, like this flow 16 chart where we are trying to decide the flow of documentation.
17 0 When was the last time the CTF met?
18 A 'When was the last time we met? I believe the last 19 time we met was when we came up with this, which was 20 approximately a week ago.
21 By "this," you mean the flow chart?
O 22 A Yes.
132 i
1 Q So that chart didn't exist prior to a week ago?
{
2 A Right.
3 Q The page behind the flow chart is an untitled 4 typewritten document, items 1 through 7. It appears to 5 describe what happens in the program.
6 A Right.
7 Q And when was that written?
8 A At the same time the flow chart was made.
9 O Does it describe the flow chart, in effect?
10 A Yes, that's what's it's trying to do, is give 11 a better explanation of what the specific functions of each 12 ~ of the blocks are.
13 O And who wrote the narrative description?
m 14 A I believe this is Mr. Seltman who wrote this.
15 Q Mr. Seltman of Comstock?
16 A Right.
17 0 What role does Mr. Seltman have in CTF?
18 A He is not a member of the'CTF but is the QA 19 manager for Comstock, and the majority in the.LRP,the 20 majority of the efforts will be in the Comstock house, or 21 a large amount. And so he was in on the discussion.
22 O He wrote the procedure, or the description of the
- O 1
133
()
I process?
2 A Yes, sir.
3 0 Did he~ participate in the CTF meeting that you 4 talked about?
5 A Right. Yes.
6 O Anybody else besides the CTF members and Mr.
7 Seltman?
8 A Well, I don't even think that all the members 9 of the CTF were there. We came up with the chart and then to we discussed it. We passed it out to different people to 11 see if they agreed or disagreed. In the meeting that we 12 generated this, I believe it was myself, Mr. Seltman, Mr.
13 Groth, which is up at the top, and that's it.-
) 14 Q And who is Mr. Groth?
15 A He is my supervisor.
16 O How about helping me identify a few of these 17 people. Who is Mr. Bradfute.
Is A Heworks in the Comstock Engineering Department, 19 and the name under his, MacLean, works for NPS,who is 20 assigned to work in the Comstock Engineering Department for 21 Mr. Bradfute. To th e lef t, the document control, Mr.
22 Sauer is, I believe, the doc control supervisor for a
l l
134 i Comstock. To the left, the field access, Mr. Rod Petersen, 2 who is one of the production superintendents for Comstock.
3 Right underneath that, the GKN means Gus K.
4 -Newberg, who is the contractor that is responsible to 5 direct the scaffolding on site. Then to the right, going 6 over to QC inspection, Mr. Darrell Landers. Ile works for 7 Mr. Seltman and is, as I understand it, the QC general e supervisor that will be responsible for the inspection 9 effort that's required for the program.
10 Then you go down, and if the item has been it rejected, it goes to Mr. Landers to issue a DR. That means 12 a discrepancy report. Then it goes to the third party at 13 Sargent & Lundy, and that is the responsibility of Mr..
14 Parduhn, we discussed, and if the item is acceptabic, it 15 goes to the LRP status, which is just an in-house Comstock 16 recording that the item has been completed.
17 0 That's Mr. MacLean again, the consultant?
18 A I think it's a lady. I think "P" is for Pat.
19 O The same Pat MacLean as under the Nuclear Power-20 Services?
21 A Yes, sir.
22 And then you go down to the CTF, who is Mr.
O
i L
135 l:
t .
i 1
Dunawald again, and then the results, if it is a DR, it goes i
2 to Sargent & Lundy, which would be Mr. Parduhn, although 3 his name is not indicated in there. ' And then the disposition i
4 DRs, after the engineering review, if.there is any rework 5 or whatever required, it will go back to Comstock to issue 6 the appropriate inspection -- or the appropriate corrective 7 action document to repair anything that requires repair after 8 the engineering review.
9 0 Okay. Who will be performing the actual 10 reinspection work under the LRP?
11 A Currently certified Level II. inspections for 12 L.K. Comstock. Inspectors.
13 0 And how many Comstock inspectors are going to i
14 work on LRP?
15 A Well, we don't know right now. We are going 16 to use the currently' approved procedure.
I'7 0 The weld inspection procedure, you mean?
18 A The currently approved Comstock welding inspection 19 procedure. So they could use any of their currently 20 certified welding inspectors.
21 O Okay. Well, did I understand from some of --
22 MR. GALLO: Can we go off the record a moment?
n v
136
() 1 (Discussion off the record.)
4 2 BY MR. GUILD:
3 Q Did I~ understand correctly that the inspectors 4 who performed this work would be dedicated solely to the
)
i 5 LRP for the duration of the program?
f i
6 A Right. The intent of the program is to build 7 up a lot of items that require inspection by inspection ;
- 8 area, go out and clean the welds and then send the QC 2
j 9 inspectors so they can be utilized most effectively and
- 10 their' time period can be as short as possible. So 1.
11 basically we could send a group of inspectors in and say 12 do these inspections in this area, and it will minimize the 13 impact on the day-to-day operation of the Comstock-
) 14 program.
i 15 0 All right.
i 16 Have you selected inspectors to perform that
{
17 work, the inspection work?
18 A Not to my knowledge. Not yet. We haven't 19 started any inspections.
20 Q Have you identified the number of inspectors 21 that would be required to perform that work?
22 A No, I haven't.
- o 5 l i 1
137 1
Q Do you have an estimate of the number? '
\
2 A I believe that Mr. Landers and Mr. Seltman have
'3 talked about a number, but I do not remember them telling 4 me a specific number. They are familiar with the 5 ' quantity, the 475 items that will have to be -- the number 6 that will have to be inspected.
7 Q Have you projected how much time the actual 8 inspection work will take, reinspection work?
9 A We are trying to get the program done as quickly 10 as possible, so that's why we have the latitude of using i
11 as many of the currently certified inspectors that they 12 have.
J I
13 Q So you haven't projected how long it will take to
() 14 do the work?
l 15 A No, not specifically, I guess. No, I haven't.
i 16 0 Do you have a general projection of how long it I
17 will take?
18 A If we can do it by an area basis, which will be 19 the most effective use of the inspectors, and we have all 20 the welds clean before they go out there so that there is 21 no waiting around for the inspectors, two to three weeks may 22 be an acceptable amount, and they may be even able to beat e
's Y
-. . . . = -. . . . _ . _ - - - --
4 138
( 1 that.
4 2 O Who is perforn.ing QCIRP reinspections of' i
3 Comstock work?
4 4 A Comstock QC inspectors.
- . 5 O' Are there specific Comstock QC inspectors that 6 are dedicated to the QCIRP effort?
l 7 A Yes.
8 Q And how many are they of that?
I 9 A At this time I don't know the exact number. They i
j 10 are winding down the field inspection portion of the QCIRP i
.11 program. As.I mentioned earlier, their workload is falling 12 now to the Engineering Department. So Comstock still has 13 some inspections to do, b ut as of. today, I couldn't tell you s 14 exactly how many inspectors are assigned to that program 15 specifically.
16 Q How many were assigned peak, or on average?
17 A In the weld inspection area, they had as many
}
18 as seven at one time.
19 O Can you tell me who the inspectors were that did i
20 the weld inspection at Comstock under the QCIRP?
l 21 A No. No, sir.
2 22 O Who supervised those inspectors?
i 2 .
i
' v a
l
139 l ;
('^h 1 A Tony Simile. S-i-m-i-1-e.
V 2 Q Does he still supervise the QCIRP work for {
3 Comstock?
4 A Yes.
5 0 Who was under Mr. Simile in supervision over the j
t 6 QCIRP work, if you know? !
l 7 MR. GALLO: I object at this point. We are '
8 getting far afield from the scope of his affidavit on 9 3C. I haven't objected to any questions about why QCIRP 10 was initially selected as a corrective action in the 11 decision change, but now you are getting into the details 12 of QCIRP, which seem to have no relation, really, to the 3C 13 issue.
(D )
t 14 MR. GUILD:
v Well, I disagree.
15 BY MR. GUILD:
16 0 Could you tell me who was under Mr. Simile in 17 supervising?
18 A Mark Klachko.
19 0 What position did Mr. Klachko have?
20 A I believe he was what they. determined lead 21 inspector for that effort.
22 Q For the OCIRP?
I t
,J
I 140 i
/N 1 A Yes, sir.
b -
2 Q And below Mr. Klachko, the Level II's?
I 3 A I'm not familiar with who they were.
4 Q But that's in the chain of command, the
$ Level II's would report to Mr. Klachko?
6 A Certainly, yes.
7 O He was the lead?
, -8 A Right.
i 9 O Do I understand correctly, Mr. Gieseker, that to if a weld is subject to the.QCIRP, has been selected for f
11 reinspection under.the QCIRP, that it will be excluded from 12 the sample of the LRP?
13 i A No.
() 14 Q Tell me what is the relationship, then, between 15 welds that have been ampled for the QCIRP?
16 A Okay.
] If the weld was selected under QCIRP and 17 reinspected under QCIRP, then those results can be used if i 18 that same item is reselected under the LRP procedure.
19 Simply we see no reason to go back and reinspect.the same 20 item twice. -
j 21 0 Do you would rely. on the results of the OCIRP 22 for reinspection of that work?
s J
O i
ll
. _ , _ _ . - . . -- - -,-- - ----- - - - - - -- '------ - -~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' '
141
(T I A Yes. If that item.was reselected in the LRP.
\~-l 2 If the weld is selected for reinspection under Q !
i 3 another correction action program -- for example, under 4
the construction sampling reinspection of BCAP -- would it l 5 be included in the sample for the LRP? i 6 A I don't --
7 0 If that same weld were selected as an LRP 8
sample, would it be included in the LRP sample?
9 A The results of that reinspection?
10 0 In any way, shape or form. Would it be included 11 in the LRP sample? Let me be clear.
12 If a weld is selected and reinspected under 13 CSR and that same weld were selected for inclusion in the b T Id LRP sample,would the results of the CSR inspection be (d
15 relied upon?
> 16 A Mo.
17 No?
Q 18 A No, sir.
19 0 What would be done with the reinspection of 20 that weld?
?
21 A It would be reinspected under the LRP program.
22 Why the different treatment from the QCIRP7 O
I
( ~h t/
142
) .3 A We never considered the CSR results, reinspection 2
results. We just didn't consider them. ;
3 0 Why not?
, A Well, I don't know.
1 5 0 Were there reinspection results? l 4
6 A CSR?
7 0 Yes.
8 A Well, the BCAP program was a program that was 9 implemented under the BCAP organization, and we never-in considered those results, and we never considered using j 33 those results in our LRP or OCIRP programs.
12 O Have you evaluated the results of CSR reinspec-13 tions to determine whether they would be appropriate for ;
, j, reliance in the OCIRP or the LRP?
j 15 A No.
i i 16 0 Why not?
!. j7 A It just never occurred to me.
4 j ig MR. GALLO: If we adopt your idea, we will give
{ i, you a credit.
u
.20 MR. GUILD: Thanks.
21 BY MR. GUILD:
22 0 How about any other corrective action program
)
i
! I i
P f
l
1 i i 143 !
l n
.i I and its relationship with.the LRP? '
2 No.
4 A The only tie is between -- if we reinspected
.3 something under QCIRP, we could use that- in the LRP. That's j 4 i
the only connection that I am aware of.
5 O Turn to page 6 of 16 of the draft PM-18 1 1
6 LRP procedure, Mr. Gieseker. Paragraph 3.1.7 states, "The '
- 7 LRP is not applicable to those plant components which are
i B being reinspected, reworked and/or repaired to a !
4 9
1 controlled program such.as corrective action programs and
{
10 NCRs."
i i
11 Now, is that an accurate statement of the LRP's 12 policy and procedure on that subject? !
i l 13 A Well, what that means is if the item has be'en
! 14 reworked and subsequently reinspected, then we can't j 15 establish the original inspection by the Level I inspector.
16 Therefore, 4 we would have to consider that item not 17 ;
j applicable.
I
, 1B Q Well, I read the statement as more~ expansive than 2'
19 your characterization.
If they are being reinspected,
{ 20 wouldn't that be interpreted to mean an item that had been !
i 21 selected for the CSR, for example?
22 A Well, that may be interpretation, but that's not i
4 i
f
.l i
I k
4 1-e l
144 I I the intent of the program.
i j 2 O All right. So the intent of the-program is I l 3 only where the actual condition of the original weld has j 4 been altered through rework? i j
l 5 A Right. If we can't substantiate what the {
- 6 original inspector looked at, then we have to go on to 7 select a different item.
!- e O So the condition that would preclude reinspection 9
under LRP, interpreting 3.1.7 of that draft procedure,would ;
j 10 be reinspection and rework or reinspection and repair, not 11 simply reinspection alone; is that correct?
- 12 A Excuse me. Could you be more specific?
)
l 13 Q Sure. The condition that would exclude an item i
j 14 from the LRP sample is that item's having been reI'nspected 15 and reworked or reinspected and repaired under another
), 16 corrective action program.
!. 17 A Okay. Well, maybe I didn't make myself clear.
18 There are cases -- if one of the corrective action programs 19 had a 100 percent reinspection of an item, then we may i 20 exclude it. And the example that I am thinking of is cable 21 pan -- well, I don't know if that is a weld, though. No,
, 22 excuse me. The example I was thinking of didn't involve i
l !
t l l
i l r ,
l 4
i
.-,--n.,---n,_-,.-,,,
..,n-- .~n,__L,,,.,,-.-,-,,- . - - . _ _ . --,n.,,,,.-._n,_a,-,_--,,.,_'
1 r 145 l
~~ 1 welding, so it wouldn't be appropriate to the LRP.
~s 2 O Okay. Well, other than welds where there has been '
3 a physical change to the condition of the weld, rework or !
4 repair, are welds which have been identified in any other i
5 corrective action program excluded from the LRP sample?
6 A I can't think of any examples of that right j 7 now.
I e Q Well, is that the intent of the procedure, to i 9
exclude welds that have been included in another 10 corrective action program although not physically altered 11 by rework or repair?
12 A If we had another corrective action program that ;
13 looked at a significant quantity of welds, and that 14 corrective action program involved the reinspection of t]'T 15 those welds, then we could exclude it under the LRP 16 because we are trying to prove quality of the welds, and 17 if that weld quality has been proven under some other 18 corrective action program, we would take credit for it.
19 Q That is what I am trying to identify. What 20 else, side from LRP, are you trying to take credit for?
21 You told me one thing, and that is OCIRP.
22 A And to my knowledge, in welding that is the only thing that we are taking credit for.
t i
I i
i
[s_s
146 l
'()
V 1
Q And as far as you know, you are not going to l I
2 take credit for CSR or any other corrective action programs 3 in the welding area.
i 4 A }
That's right.
i 5 Q Now, what is the status of the proposed j 6
procedures, LRP procedures for which I have a draft? i i
7 A Well, this is the basic draft that -- this is 8
the latest draft, and I am working on finalizing that 9
draft so it can be issued again, hopefully -- we want to 10 get the program started in the inspection area, so we hope-11 to get it out by the beginning of next week.
12 Q Mr. Gallo was kind enough to make available a 13 copy of this yesterday to me, and his cover notes that it
) 14 is a draft that has been received from the office of Nuclear 15 Power Services. Who at NPS draf ted the procedure?
16 A Mr. Dave McGath.
1:7 Q And who is Mr. McGath?
18 A He is the project director for NPS. He is the 19 main person. I don't know what his specific title is. He 20 is the main representative for NPS on site.
21 Q And is he located at the Braidwood site?
22 A Yes, sir.
i l
l
r 147
(~'>\
\-
1 O This is what revision of the draft procedure?
l
[ 2 A 2. ;
3 0 What does OD stand for there?
4 A I think it means just Draft 2. Second draft.
5 O What changes have been made from the first to the 6 second draft?
7 A I don't remember.
8 Q And when was the second draf t written?
9 A Oh, probably about a week or so ago I got it.
10 0 When was the first draft written?
l 11 A Oh, before that. There has been so much going 12 on lately, I can't remember exactly.
13 O Before Chris tmas? January?
()
v 14 A No, it was after Christmas. It was probably 15 early January. s 16 O When did you first have contact with Dr.
17 Frankel on the subject of the LRP?
18 A December of '85, I believe.
19 Q Had Dr. Frankel donc previous work for Edison 20 on reinspection programs?
21 A Yes, sir.
22 O What work are you aware of?
148 A i Q 1 A In my dealings with him, he was a consultant 2 on the OCIRP program.
3 0 Anything else?
4 A I believe he was a consultant in the BCAP effort, 5
also, and they used him up in Byron, I believe, also, on j 6
I believe it was the OCIRP program up there. If there are 7
other ones up there, I'm not aware.
8 O And you had contact with Dr. Frankel on the OCIRP 9 program?
10 A Yes.
11 Q And when did you have contact with him on that 12 work?
13 A It was at the conception of the OCIRP program.
O V 14 Again, I'm sorry I can't remember the issue date of the 15 procedure, but it was some months in advance of that.
16 Q Okay. 1985?
17 A No. It was probably - yes, it was probably --
18 probably 1985, early 1985.
19 Q And what was Dr. Frankel's involvement in the 20 QCIRP?
21 A Well, we were, again, talking about the sampling 22 process we were going to use.
O ,
i 149 l
[ ) 1 O And what was his involvement on that?
\vi 2 A Well, he was the consultant on the statistical 3 ramifications of the sampling process. !
4 0 What did he do? l 5 A Well, he attended various meetings that we had 6 on the program. He supplied the random number tables that i
7 we selected the inspection reports from. i 8 O Did he make any other contribution to the 9 sampling process in the OCIRP? ,
10 A General input during the meetings that we held.
11 0 Did he provide any written contribution to the 12 QCIRP? Aside from supplying the random number tables.
13 A Not to my knowledge.
eq
() 14 0 What was the nature of his oral comment, oral 15 contribution to the OCIRP?
16 A Well, it has been some timeframe since the 17 meetings. Basically, he was there to give advice on the is statistical -- the selection process and the statistical 19 aspects of the program. I can't remember any specific 20 comments that he had.
21 0 You are not aware of him submitting anything in 22 writing on the OCIRP?
I
'~
l s_/ I
150 l
1 A Other than supplying the tables, no.
2 O Now, how about the LRP? When did Dr. Frankel )
a become involved in the LRP? ;
4 A Early December 1985.
5 0 And what was his involvement? !
l 6 A Again, we needed him to provide the statistical j 7
consulting as to the selection process we were going to use 8 in the LRP program.
9 0 What did he contribute on that su ject?
10 A Okay. Given the population that we identified of !
l 11 the approximately 9000 oral reports, he supplied us with the 12 number "475" for the random selection quantity.
13 0 When did he cb that?
t'*)
( 14 A I believe it was in December also.
15 0 Describe for me how you supplied him with a 16 description of the population of weld reports.
17 A phone conversations, basically.
18 0 Okay. You called him?
19 A Right.
20 0 And how did he supply you with the sample size, 21 the 475 number?
22 A The telephone. And I can't remember -- he had r
w)( !
i 151
("'}
(/
i some meetings out here. He stopped by a few times and 2 we discussed it, but basically it was by phone.
3 ,0 Did he submit anything in writing reflecting his 4 contribution to the selection process?
5 A The only thing in writing I know is his affidavit 6 in support Of the Motion for Summary Disposition. ,
i 7 0 Okay. He didn't submit anything in writing j e describing how one ought to -- how Edison ought to design 9 the sampling process for the LRP?
10 A Not in writing, n O What information was available to Dr. Frankel 12 regarding the description of the population?
i3 A Again, it was basically verbal from me, describ-f)
V i4 ing the fact that we had some 9000 inspection reports, and 15 described the inspection reports and described the
, 36 number of inspectors, and then asked him what statistical i7 statement we could make about those items.
is 0 Did he ask you to describe the nature of the in work performed by the inspectors?
20 A I had explained it to him. He was familiar with 21 that from his involvement in the OCIRP program also.
27 0 Was familiar with what?
l i
O
-, w- - -----
. - - - - - - - - - - -~ .. ------,,-..-.m., - - . - - - - - . _ - - - , . - - - - - , ,
152 i
(~\
( j 1 A The inspection report.
{
2 O Are you talking about the Form 197 3 A Yes. The fact that the inspection report is d
for one item but it may actually indicate more than one weld. l 5
0 I am focusing on another point right now. Did o
he ask you about the nature of the work performed by'the 7
Level I QC inspectors?
8 A Well, all I said -- the nature of the work? I guess I don't understand that. I told him it was a weld 10 inspection.
11 Q All right. Did you tell him it was a weld 12 inspection performed by a Level I inspector? Did you discuss 13 with him the qualifications of the persons performing the f Id weld inspection?
15 A Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. What I explained to him 16 was that there was a question on the usage of the Level I's 17 and that we had approximately 17 inspectors, and 13 had 18 actually done work, and there were some 9000 reports, and 19 the reports contained a certain number of welds, you know, 20 depending on the report, and that we wanted to make a 21 statistical statement on the acceptability of the welds 22 inspected by the Level I's as a group.
l
() ,
i l
l l
_ _ . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ - _ - - - - . - - - - - - - ---- - -- ----~ -- - - - --- ' -~ ' ' ~ - "
153 O 1 Q Okay.
N-] i 2 Did he ask you what the nature of their work was, '
3 the Level I's work?
\
4 A I guess I can't remember. I explained to them i 5 it was weld inspection, but I'm not following your question.
6 By the nature --
7 Q Well, did he ask you for any further description, e besides identifying it as weld inspection,of what the Level 9 I inspectors did? What the work was that was being to reviewed?
11 A Well, I'm sure I told him that it was the 12 electrical contractor and they were inspecting electrical 13 welds on components. Again, because he was familiar with
) 14 the OCIRP program, I'm sure he understood what type of.
15 weld inspections, that it was visual --
16 0 What I guess I am trying to understand -- and if it 17 requires reference to something he got under OCIRP, then you 18 better tell me, but what I would like to know is what 19 information did Dr. Frankel seek from you, what information 20 did he have otherwise, and what information did you provide him that was a basis for whatever his professional i
21 22 contribution was to the LRP?
i i
l 154 I
(_,/ 1 MR. GALLO: Wait a minute. That's three 2 questions. '
3 MR. GUILD: I would be happy to break it down, 4 but I'm just trying to let you know where I'm going with 5 this.
6 BY MR. GUILD:
7 O If your answer is, well, he already knew that a because he had been involved in some other program, I 9 understand where you are going, but I need some more 10 specifics.
11 A Okay.
12 Q So let's talk about first the nature of the
,_ 13 work that was being performed by the Level I inspectors.
( r l /
ssf 14 What information did Dr. Frankel seek from you, Mr. Gieseker, is regarding their work, if any?
16 A The only thing I can recall, Mr. Guild, is that 17 I explained to him the fact that we were using --
18 MR. GALLO: llis question is what did Frankel ask 19 you about the nature of the work?
20 THE WITNESS: I can't recall right now.
21 BY MR. GUILD:
22 O What did you tell him about the nature of the work?
'(
x_- ;
155
() 2 1 A Again, I explained to him that it was for the electrical contractor, it was a visual welding, it was !
3 the Level I -- I can't remember if I explained the Level 4 I, Level II issue to him, but I said there is a subset 5 of people, Level I's, and we have got a population of o documents generated by those people, these 9000, and that 7
the documents themselves -- we don't know the exact 8 quantity of the welds, so we would want to make a 9 statistical statement, and can we use the weld reports to 10 select the population?
it O What is the population?
12 A The population of the inspection sample.
13 0 The population of the welds?
( ,) 14 A No, the weld reports.
15 0 Population of weld reports?
16 A Yes, and that's the 475 number.
17 Q That's the 9000.
18 A Right. The 9000 is the total population of weld 19 reports generated by the Level I's.
20 0 And you told him you wanted to make a statistical 21 statement about the 9000 weld reports?
22 A Right. !
l i
(~')
s.
s i
156 i l
(~N t
i 0 Did he ask you whether there was participation '
2 by any other inspectors in reviewing the acceptability of I
a the work approved by the Level I's? '
4 A I don't recall that. No.
5 0 Did you explain to him that there were Level I '
6 reviewers who participated in some fashion in reviewing 7 or approving the inspection reports that were signed by the ;
Level I's? l 8 -
9 A I don't remember.
io O Did Dr. Frankel ask you about those subjects?
11 A I don't remember if he did or not.
i i
12 O Did Dr. Frankel have available to him -- well, 13 did you provide Dr. Frankel with copies of the relevant f h 14 Comstock and Ernst visual inspection procedures?
w]
15 A No, ie O The visual weld inspection procedures?
17 A No.
is 0 Do you know whether Dr. Frankel was familiar 19 with those visual weld inspection procedures?
20 A I don't know. His involvement -- his involvement 21 in the QCIRP is we did discuss inspections by Comstock 22 inspectors, and the inspection checklists and the fact that t.
(N l
(_ l
I 157 I j the checklist could have or indicate a number of different
(/
1
\s - '
2 welds.
3 Q Do you know whether Dr. Frankel obtained the ;
I d
Comstock visual weld inspection procedures other than l
)
5 through you? Perhaps, say, through the QCIRP?
6 A Not to my knowledge, i 7 0 .All right.
8 Now, did Dr. Frankel ask you how many welds total 9 were in the population of welds inspected by the Level I 10 inspectors?
11 A Well, we told him that the welds -- we didn't 12 know exactly the total population of welds, but we did know 13 the total population of weld inspection reports.
Id O And you told him that much?
( }
x_/
15 A Yes.
16 0 Both that you'didn't know the total population 17 of welds -- right?
18 A Yes.
19 0 -But that you did know the number of weld 20 inspection reports?.
21 A Yes.
22 l
l i
1 I
i i
~
/
l
158
}
1 0 Did he ask you what the total population of l
[
2 welds were?
i 3 A Not to my knowledge. I think we estimated, d you know, but I don't know.
1 5 0 Did you provide that information to him?
6 A I can't remember, Bob.
7 O What is your estimate of the total population 8 of welds?
9 A Well, the average runs anywhere from two to .
10 ten, and so you can multiply that times 9000 and get a i
11 ballpark figure of the total number of welds.
12 O Well, that provides a ballpark figure of j 13 between 18,000 and 90,000 welds if my quick math is right, t
j 14 and is that your estimation of the total population of
?
j 15 welds?
16 A Yes.
l I 17 Q- And did you provide that estimate to Dr. Frankel?
18 A I can't remember if I multiplied it out for him, 19 but I believe he knew that there was a range of welds j j j 20 that could be inspected or any given inspection report.
i l 21 0 okay. Did he ask you what that range was?
I l 22 A I can't remember.
l-3 4
i l
- - . - . - - . - - ._ . . .. .. - . , . =.
)
2-159 !
1 Q Did you tell him that the typical inspection
.2 report contained two to four welds? i t
'A '
3 Two to ten. That's the number I believe --
d O
, That's the number you told him?
5 A Yes.
6 MR..GALLO: Can we at some appropriate time 7 maybe take five minutes?
.8 MR. GUILD: Sure. Do you want to do it now?
i l 9 All right.
10 (Brief recess.)
1 11 BY MR. GUILD:
a 12 O Mr. Gieseker, I was asking you .about .information i
13 that you provided to Dr. Frankel on the LRP, and you told .
- 14 him that typically there were two to ten welds contained '
i 15 in each weld inspection report.
16 A Right.
17 O i Now, what was the basis for your characterization 18 that two to ten represented a typical range?
19 A Based on my knowledge of the QCIRP program, I 4
20 had asked that question during that program, and the 21 average was seven to eight but the range was from two to 22 ten.
i, l
!O
+
i
- . . . . ,.. . , _ . - - . - ~ , . , . .,. - _ . . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ ~ _ , , , - _ . - . , . _ , . _ . . _ , . _ . . - . . - _ . - . . . . _ _ - . . - _ , _ . . _ . . , . .
, - - --.- - . - . - - - . . . .- . . --- _ - - - - . ~ . .- . . -
160
, y[ ) 1 Q How was that average computed?
2 A 'Well, when the QCIRP results come in, the r _
3 reinspectors record exactly the number of welds that he 4 4 reinspected, and that is where that average seven to eight i 5 and two to ten came from.
6 Q Now, did that reflect the welds that were 7 inspected by the-Level I's?
8 A The Level I's -- yes. There are Level I's in
. 9 the QCIRP program, so I assume that the sample would be i
10 the same.
- 11 Q Did Dr. Frankel ask you what were the largest 12 number of welds reported on an inspection report?
f 13 A No. I believe I just gave him the range.
) 14 O And the range you gave him was two to ten?
l 15' A Yes, sir.
16 Q Did you inform him that there were as many as 17 1215 welds reported on a single inspection report?
18 A No, we never talked about that.
19 Q Did you give him any number greater than ten as 20 reflecting the range of welds included on a single inspection s
, 21 report?
4 l 22 A No.
l I
i i
~.,m-+.-nw,nn-- ,, . ,-.- ,-m. e,-,_+me,,-,-r- m,,,m.,,,v-_w,.g.-..e-w , , , ,,.a.~w,m,m -.-,7-, -n,-n,v,,e-m-,wv,,-,,w---s .-
161
. t ) 1 0 .W ere you aware at the time that you spoke with 2 Dr. Frankel that there were inspection reports that I
j 3 reflected the inspection'of welds numbering in excess of
- 4 ten?
I 5 A I can't remember. I don't remember ever
- 1. .
6 mentioning that to Mr. Frankel, however.
I 7 Q Well, when did you learn that there were more j 8 welds than ten reported on Comstock or Ernst inspection 9 reports?
i 10 A Well, as I mentioned earlier, it was with my 11 work with Mr. Mendez and his allegation. Remember the --
12 Q Yes.
13 A Okay. And I never asked myself -- I never knew r~
( ,%) 14 who that was. And I believe we did look at -- I did look 1
15 at that inspection report that Mr. Mendez -- the report j
16 that had the 1215 on it, but I ngver asked myself if the 17 guy was a Level I or a Level II.
q 18 0 All right. But as far as you know, you never l 19 told Dr. Frankel that there was a range of welds reported 1
20 on inspection reports in excess of ten? 1 4
1 21 A Right. You know, we talked about the easiest 22 way for us to do the program was to take a random selection f
O
-.,n--~.----
I !
162
{
t'D
(_,) 1 of the inspection report, and I asked him if that was an 2 acceptable way to do it, and he indicated that because there 3 was more than one weld on a report, that he termed it, I 4
believe, a cluster sample and explained that it was okay if 5 you can identify the entire population of 9000 and some o reports to make the statistical statement on those, a sample 7 of those 9000 reports, regardless of the number of welds 8 that those reports entailed.
9 O Did you tell him that you wanted to make a 10 statistical statement about the population of inspection il reports or about the population of welds inspected?
12 A We wanted to make a statement about the welds, 7s 13 but we wanted to use the reports to select the sample from.
Id Q Did you tell him that you wanted to make a 15 statistical statement about the welds?
16 A Right 17 0 And he never asked you what the population of 18 welds was?
19 A Other than the estimate of from two to ten.
20 0 Did he ask;that just to be clear? Did he ask 21 what is the population of the total welds?
22 A I can't remember specifically if I offered that f
\ / '
s_/ !
163 1
information or if Dr. Frankel requested it of me.
2 O Have you since informed Dr. Frankel regarding 3 the higher range of welds reported on Inspection reports?
l 4 A No, sir.
5 O Do you know whether he has learned of that 6 greater number other than through you?
7 A No, I do not know.
e 0 How many other times did you talk with Dr. i 9 Frankel about the LRP? By other, I mean you referred to 10 one telephone conversation.
11 A I believe myself and Mr. Steptoe talked to him 1
12 during the preparation of his affidavit.
13 0 When was that?
Id
) A Well, it was shortly before the 20th. I don't 3 15 remember specifically what date.
16 O And where did you talk to him?
17 A This telephone conversation again.
18 O And what did you discuss then?
19 MR. GALLO: Wait a minute. I'm sorry. I lost 20 track. I gave counsel his inspection report. What was 21 the --
22 MR. GUILD: The question was are there O
164
!() I conversations that Mr. Gieseker has had with Mr. Frankel?
, 2 And he identified another one with Dr. Frankel and Mr.
3 Steptoe prior to the preparation of Frankel's affidavit 1
4 of 12/20.
5 MR. GALLO: Well, I am not privy to that 6 conversation, but it sounds to me that any questions y concerning what was said is privileged as communication with a counsel or work product or both, and I would assert that 9 objection to that question.
1 to MR. GUILD: Well, nonetheless, I would like to n have the witness answer the question of what was said 12 regarding the LRP.
13 MR. GALLO: I will instruct the witness not to O( j 14 answer en the basis of the privilege assertion and objection 15 that I have made.
16 MR. GUILD: I don't know any other way to get i:7 the.information. We have laid the foundation. That is 18 facts. It has nothing7to do with legal advice or work 19 product', Joe; it's a question of what did your expert, 20 Dr. Frankel, seek out and what did he, in fact, receive 21 in terms of basic facts that were the foundation for his 22 opinion evidence as offered through his affidavit. I don't i
O
_-7.,. -.,.---.-.~.-----_-,_-,_,,,_.-...,.,-c_ , . , - , , - - - . _ _ - _ , , , . .
165 O know any other way to reach that than through the
( ,/ 1 2 communications that Dr. Frankel has had with the witness, 3 and that's why I asked the question. I don't have any 4 interest in transgressing work product or attorney-client 5 Privilege, but I do need to get the basic facts.
6 I don't have any difficulty if you would like 7 to consult with the witness before he answers the question.
8 MR. GALLO: Well, if you could ask specific 9 questions, but when you ask what was said, that calls for 10 an answer that covers the entire waterfront.
11 MR. GUILD: Let me try. I will try.
i 12 BY MR. GUILD:
,, 13 O Did Dr. Frankel ask any further questions in 14 this conversation regarding first the nature of the work 15 of the inspectors, the Level I inspectors?
16 A My involvement in this second conversation was 17 that I knew the phone number for Mr. Frankel, and Mr. Steptoe 18 wanted to send him some questions that he was to answer for 19 his affidavit, and all I did was arrange those questions 20 would be express mailed to Mr. Frankel. So there was really 21 no discussion of the LRP. It was just an administrative 22 call that he was going to be home to receive the questions.
O
166 i Q All right. So he didn't ask any further 2 questions about the LRP in that conversation?
3 A Right.
4 Q And you didn't provide any further information?
J 5 A Right.
6 Q And have you had any further communications with 7 Dr. Frankel about the LRP?
8 A No.
. 9 O Has Dr. Frankel received the draft of the LRP 10 procedures?
11 A No.
f 12 Q Has Dr. Frankel received the LRP flow chart that i3 you have identified?
f 14- A No.
v Has he received the narrative that is appended 15 O 16 to the flow chart that was written by Mr. Seltman?
17 A No.
is O Has he received any other information, to your 19 knowledge, regarding the LRP?
20 A Not to my knowledge. ,
21 0- Has Dr. Frankel received copies of the NRC's 22 inspection reports that discuss the Level I inspector concerns?
-m - , - . , . - - - . . - - - , - , , - - - - _ - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - . - , - - - . - , . - - - - - - -
167 x
s- 1 A Not to my knowledge.
2 O Has Dr. Frankel received copies of the audits 3
or the audit and surveillance that discussed the Level I 4 concern?
5 A Not to my knowledge.
6 O Do you have a copy of Dr. Frankel's affidavit?
7 A Yes.
8 Q I direct your attention to page 9.
9 A Okay.
10 Q There in the middle of the page is a paragraph 11 that reads as follows: "In discussions with Mr. Gieseker,.
12 it is clear to me that engineering judgment-will also provide
(g 13 the basis for certain inferences that would be made from the g"j/ 14 results of the LRP."
15 A Yes.
16 Q Describe those discussions?
17 A I believe in talking with Mr. Frankel the is statistical statement was based on the total population of 19 9000 and some records. If you look at Exhibit 1 --
20 0 To your affidavit?
21 A To my affidavit.
22 -Q -- some of the inspectors had a very small 1
4 v'
168 gj 1 quantity of inspection reports. An example would be C21, 2 who has three. Example is C41. That would have five.
3 C45 would have 12. So as an engineer, I just added the d requirement to the program that if the random selection 5
process doesn't pick up a minimum of five reports for any 6 given inspector, that we would add that as a minimum, th'se o 7 five to the inspection sample.
8 O Well, how do you do that for C21, who only had 9 three?
10 A Well, we do them all then, obviously.
11 So you don't do a minimum of five for him?
Q 12 A Right. Excuse me. More correctly, do a minimum 13 of five, or if they don't have five, we do them all.
1d O Now, is there any other engineering judgment that 15 you are aware of that will provide the basis for certain 16 inferences from the results of-the LRP as discussed by Dr.
17 Frankel on page 9 of his affidavit?
18 A Well, the statistical statement that the 475 19 sample quantity gives us this 99 percen t reliability with 20 99 percent confidence -- so there is an additional one 21 percent there that could still be in question. And my-22 engineering judgment is that we would have to rely -- we would s.
v
s 169 ,
1 .have to --
i [~)')
2 O I'm sorry. I missed that last part.
3 A Would have to address that one percent.
4 Q And how would you do that?
5 A Well, basically, I know that the program -- that 1
~
6 the training program for the Level I's was the same as the 7
Level II's, and this whole issue is not based on somebody 8 identifying a hardware problem in the field. It has all been 9 with paperwork review.
I feel confident that even though 10 the statistical statement only makes a 99 percent reliability 11' and confidence statement, I feel confident there is no other 12 design significant discrepancies in that remaining one
- 13 percent..
, ) 14 0 You feel confident today of that fact?
15 A Based on the results of the program.
16 Q You don't know what the results will be.
17 A Right.
18 Q How can you express an engineering judgment about 19 results you don't'know about, Mr. Gieseker?
20 A If the program is -- if you read the whole
- 21 paragraph here, the program is meant to provide a 99 percent 22 reliability plus 99 percent confidence statement. If we find 1
j t
i h
4
, , - . ,-.r.... , - . . - - - , - - - - ~ - - - + - ~
e 170 en
( ,) I any problems, we are. going to expand the sample to again i 2 regain the 99 percent reliability with 99 percent 3
confidence. That could, if the number of design significant d
discrepancies preclude -- or may require that the entire 5
population is inspected.
6 0 All right. Are there any other respects in i
7 which engineering judgment will provide a basis for certain 8
inferences from the LRP results?
9 A Not that I can think of.
10 Q Dr. Frankel continues on page 9: "In this context, Il it should be noted that the choice of sample size that would 12 support the objective statistical inference was the result 13 itself of engineering judgment on the part of Commonwealth Id Edison Company."
15 What engineering judgment was made in that 16
. regard, Mr. Gieseker?
~ 17 A I don't know exactly what Mr. Frankel used for 18 that statement. I would assume he used the 99 percent l'
reliability with 99 percent confidence with respect to some 20 other lesser percent confidence, percent reliable, like, say, 21 You know, if we would have selected a smaller
] 90 percent.
22 inspection sample, we wouldn't have been able to make a
.3.
e i
f S
I
171 r
t
\_, I strong 99 percent reliability.with 99 percent confidence 2 statement. We chose to do that. j 3 Q All right. And that was an engineering judgment? !
4 A Yes.
5 O Well, did you understand it as.an engineering 6 judgment when you made'that decision? Do you know what 7 Dr. Frankel is talking about there or not?
8 A I guess -- my understanding of what he is talking
~
9 about is that the choosing of the 99 percent as opposed to 10 some other lesser percentage -- he is referring to some i
11 other thing. I guess you will have to talk to Mr. Frankel.
12 Q How about a greater percentage? How about a
- 13 higher level of reliability and a higher confidence level?
14 A Well, in discussions with Mr. Frankel, going 15 above the 99 -- adding higher numbers of inspection samples 16 would give a smaller benefit, like -- so it wasn't really 17 worth the effort, in my opinion, to any higher than 99 and
- 18. 99.
19 Q Did you consider doing a 100 percent. reinspection 20 of the Level I visual weld inspection work?
1 21 A Well, yes. We considered it. But we tho0ght 22 that the sample inspection would give us a clear underscand-ing'of the quality of Level I's work without spending the
.(
. . - - - . + - - ., ..- - - . - . _ _-- - , . - - - - ,e -,. - _ . - , _ _. . . , , y - _ - -
h 172 4
(} 1 time and effort to do the entire sample or an entire 2 reinspection.
, 3 0 What consideration did you give to doing a 4 100 percent reinspection?
5 A Basically, the consideration is when we found 6
Out or were attempting to find out the entire sample size 7 of reports that were inspected by Level I's, an example would 8 be if we found out that there~was only one Level I and he 9 did one report, then I would say we are going to do a 100 10 percent sample; but when we find out that the sample was 11 9000, we thought that that would spend a lot of time and 12 effort and we could accomplish the same confidence in 13 Level I's work by doing a sample.
() 14 0 Well, not the same confidence.
15 A A 99 percent reliability with 99 percent 16 confidence.
1:7 Q And did Dr. Frankel tell you that you could is conclude -- make a valid statistical inference concerning 19 the population of welds inspected by the Level I inspectors 20 with' a 99 percent reliability and a 99 percent confidence level from the sample of inspection reports that you have 2:
22 described in your affidavit?
i k
O 1
1 , y +- . , - - , -. , , . . . , - , . _
173
.m
! k_,) 1 A .That was my understanding, yes.
2 Q Did he tell you that? Did Dr. Frankel tell you 3 that?
d A Yes.
5 O I think you volunteered earlier, Mr. Gieseker, 6 that you are not an expert on statistical matters;. correct?
7 A Right.
8 Q You rely on Dr. Frankel to perform that expert 9 function.
10 A Yes.
i 11 O You are going to save me. time asking you to 12 define terms of art that are used by experts in statistical 13 methods? I am being somewhat casual about it, but you 7-~sI
(
N/ 14 don't hold yourself out as an expert in statistical matters; 15 correct?
16 A No, sir.
17 Q Do-you know what a cluster sample is as the 18 term is used by ' experts in the field of statistical 19 analysis?
20 A In my discussions with Mr. Frankel, my interpre-21 tation of what he termed a cluster sample was the example 22 of the weld reports, where you sample the reports but the
- . ~ - . .
l 174
/ I reports may have more than one item, a cluster.
2 O Do you know whether the population that is being 3 sampled in the case of the LRP is a homogeneous p6pulation 4 as that term is used by persons with expertise in statistical 5 analysis?
6 A I don't know.
7 Q Do you~know whether it matters? By "it," whether 8 the population that is being sampled is an homogenous
. L
-9 population?
10 A No, I don't know.
11 Q Dr. Frankel at page 3 of his affidavit said he 12 consulted with you, Mr. McGath; and again, who is Mr.
13 McGath?
() 14 A McGath was the. person that --
l 15 0 I think you mentioned it before.
2 16 A Yes. He was. the ' lead person for NPS on site.
I'7 O He is the gentleman who drafted the procedure;
. 18 is that correct?
19 A That's correct.
20 0 At page 10 of Dr. Frankel's affidavit, he addresses 21 the point'about the weld inspection reports reflecting 22 the inspection of more than one weld. He states: "As a O
175 f)
G i result, if on the basis of the results of the LRP a 2 statistical statement is made of reliability 99 percent a with confidence 99 percent, the actual reliability level 4 and confidence level are most likely somewhat higher than 5 those claimed levels."
6 Do you know what Dr. Frankel means when he uses 7 the term "most likely"?
8 A No, sir.
9 Q Do you know whether he has expressed that in 10 quantitative terms?
11 A My understanding of that was,I believe,the 12 fact that you are actually looking at more than 475 welds, 13 some higher number of welds, and if you recalculated 99 f%
( ,) - 14 and 99, it would come up with higher than 99 and 99 based on 15 the actual number of welds inspected. That is what I thought 16 that meant.
17 Q Do you know, is that possible? Is it possible to is simply take the total number of welds inspected and therefore 19 draw a higher level of reliability at a higher level of 20 confidence about the inferences from the LRP results?
21 A I don't know that.
22 Q Do you know whether Dr. Frankel has expressed Pi
\~J 1
176' (s) 1
.his "most likely" characterization in quantitative terms?
2 A I have to give you the same answer. I think h'e 3 means that you are actually looking at --
4 MR. GALLO: Either you know'or you don't.-
5 THE WITNESS: No.
6 BY MR. GUILD:
7 0 Are you aware whether he has made any 8 calculations, for example?
9 A No, I am not aware that he has made any 10 calculations, no.
11 O He says somewhat higher than.these claimed 12 levels. Do.you know whether he has made a calculation of 13 .any higher level of reliability, higher-confidence level as t'
'\ ,,N) 14 a result of the number of welds that are sampled in the 15 number of inspection reports sampled?
16 A I don't know.
17 Q Let me get you to look at Mr. Kostal's affidavit 18 supporting Summary Disposition on 3C, Mr. Gieseker.
19 At page 4 of his affidavit, the top of the page, 20 in response to question 5 Mr. Kostal states: "These S&L 21 evaluations will be performed in exactly the same way as 22 the evaluations of AWS welding performed by S&L for purposes of the Byron quality control inspector reinspection program."
O
177
)
i Is the method by which S&L is to make those 2 evaluations described in the-LRP procedure?
3 A No, sir.
4 0 It's not. Where is the method of S&L evaluation 5 described?
6 A S&L has internal work instructions, I believe,
- 7. that describes their' involvement with the program.
8 Q Have you reviewed those?
9 A 'No, sir.
10 Q Has the CTF reviewed those?
11 A No', sir.
12 .Q How is design significance defined as Sargent 13 &
Lundy employs the term in its evaluations to be performed
()
14 of deficiencies in the LRP?
15- Do you know?
16 A No, I don't know. I mean I read the answer, Mr.
I'7 Kostal's answer also.
is O Other-than what he says in his affidavit, you 19 don't have any further knowledge?
20 A No, sir.
21 O Is that term defined in the LRP program proce-22 dures?
O
178 1 A No.
2 Q Page 6. Mr. Kostal describes how discrepant 3 welds are to be evaluated. He states: " Arc strikes and-4 spatter are cosmetic discrepancies, and they would only
)
, 5 create a strength problem if there was a large amount in a 6 given weld."
7 How large.an arc strike would create a strength 8 problem in a given weld?
9 A I don't know.
10 O Do you know whether are strikes will create a 11 strength problem in any given weld?
12 A Arc strikes are one of the things that we inspect 13- for in our procedures.
.f ms ) 34 Q Do you know whether they will adversely affect 15 the strength of a weld?
i 16 A I believe so, but I Can't quantify yes or no.
i 17 Q Do you know whether arc strikes are only 18 cosmetic discrepancies?
19 A No.
20 Q Do you know whether the description of-engineer-21 ing evaluation on page 7 of Mr. Kostal's affidavit -- for l
22 example, to reduce the effective size of a weld by two inches from 12 inches to 10 inches to account for i
- O y .-,_-_,-m_._ _, . , ,m.,- - -
.,,m.-
- y. -_
7 , _ , . , -- _ , , , , , - , .- -- -
- 179
/~\
(_-) 1 detectable porosity -- represents a conservative design 2 evaluation of that discrepancy?
3 A In my opinion, it sounds conservative.
4 Q Do you know what the conservative and less 5 conservative seismic design analyses are that Mr. Kostal 6 refers to on pages 7 and 8 of his affidavit?
7 A No, sir.
8 Q Are any of those matters set forth in the LRP 9 procedures?
10 A No, sir.
11 Q Mr. Gieseker, what review has been made of the 12 reliability of the L.K. Comstock and Ernst weld inspection 7s 13 documents?
(ss) 14 A I don't understand the question on 15 reliability.
16 0 Well, I understand and use the term " reliability" l'7 to represent accuracy, trustworthiness, completeness, the 18 degree to which the user of the document can have confidence 19 in the data that is reflected on the document. For 20 examples, results of visual weld inspections, identity of 21 the inspector, the identity of the equipment or installation 22 being inspected, for example. Critical inspection data.
O
180 1 In that sense, has there been a review performed of the 2 reliability of the Comstock and Ernst weld inspection
~
3 documentation?
4 A There is a program of review of the' quality 5 control records called the QC Document Review.
6 Q Does that relate to Comstock?
7 A Yesi sir, a Q What is the purpose of that review?
9 A To review the quality control records,to 10 establish procedures, to assure completeness.
11 Q Reliability?
12 A Reliability.
-13 Q Is it to do that? I'm not trying to put words
() 14 15 in your mouth, but is that a purpose of the program, to assure reliability of the Comstock records?
16 A In the aspect that they are complete, it's a 1:7 review of the form, like I said, to a prescribed checklist 18 controlled by a procedure.
.19 Q All right. Does it include among its purposes
, 20 to assure that the Comstock weld inspection documentation 21 includes the data that I used as examples in my definition 22 of reliability, the reliability of the inspection results, l identity of inspector, equipment and installation n .
- - - - .-,.e-w -p.p , _ - - - - -.m--m- ,+ -,----_.,-,.,m,.y-,,,---*.,-.m-.w_- , , y-w---m.-m-9-- -r- e, .-
181
/ 1 inspected?
2 A Yes. It covered items like was the inspector 3
certified to do that inspection at the time the inspection i
4 checklist was completed, verified that the drawing revision 5 indicated -- these are examples, Bob. Verified that the 6
revision of the drawing was i'n effect that the checklist.
7 was filled out. Those types of items.
8 Q All right.
9 And was the conduct of such a review founded s
to on concerns about the reliability of Comstock quality i
j 11 control documents? '
4 12 A-This review was an old item that resulted in the 13 50.55(e) issuance, and the program stemmed out of that.
Ph
, g) l 14 O Is this review complete?
j 15 A It is very ne'ar-complete.
16 O How near complete?
i l'7 A I believe the review of all the inspection 18 checklists is complete, and then they have to resolve any 19 problems,and the resolution of the problems is ongoing.
20
~The two exceptions are the two later types of documents 21 that were added into the review, which is the general 22 inspection report and the welder qualification report.
That review is --
182 E
i 1
O What is a general inspection report?
2 A It is a document in the Comstock system that is
- 3 used -- it's a multipurpose inspection form. If you want d
to do an inspection that is not governed by a specific 5
checklist and you want to document the inspection, you use '
6 a general inspection report.
7 0 What problems are identified in the' completeness 8
or reliability of the Comstock weld inspection reports?
9 A l
Excuse me?
10 0
- Were there problems identified in the reliability, I 11 completeness ot the Comstock weld inspection reports, the 12 Form 19s?
13 A Yes. The review did indicate some problems, yes.
\s 14 Q Did it indicate problems in the example that you 15 cited with regard to the certification of inspectors, the 16 verification of revisions to drawings and completion of 17 checklists, for example?
18 A I have not personally done a trend on the
- 19 results of that inspection. I am sure that there were 20 discrepancies noted, but in what area they were, I can't 21 speak to.
22 O I recall seeing a recent NRC inspection report that observed the status of the Comstock document review program, and would you accept as an approximation of the.
,e O
183 i
I characteri'zation that of the documents reviewed, 2 approximately 20 percent were found to reflect document a deficiencies?
4 A I can't remember the specific number, but that 5 sounds reasonable.from the reviews I have seen.
6 Q And those deficiencies would require ' correction?
7 A Yes, sir.
l 8 O Mr. Gieseker, do you know why in past' times, as 1
9 you described, weld inspection results were aggregated and to submitted after a period of time on a single Form 19 or 11 other weld inspection document?
12 A No.
l 13 Q Did you ask Mr. DeWald and the others that you
/
\ 14 -asked to describe that practice why they did that?
15 A I didn' t ask that specific question, Bob. I 16 'just asked was it the practice to do that. I didn't 17 specifically ask that question, though.
18 Q Do you think it is potentially significant, the 19 reason why the weld inspection reports were held back md 20 aggregated and submitted in a single batch?
21 A No.
22 O How did you come to include the provision in i
- O
. _ _ _ _ = . - - . . - - . - . _ - . . = _ _ ._ - ._
1 184 1
the LRP for expanding the sample, first in the event of I
()T
\_
2 design-significant deficiency where it is found in the 3
initial cut, and second, to expand to 100 percent in the
- j. 4 event that a design-significant deficiency was identified 5 in the second expanded sample?
t 6 A Well, we asked Mr. Frankel the question that, 7 okay, we will do the sample of 475; what if we find a 8 design-significant attribute, okay? And then the 4i 9
discusssion was how do we regain the 99/99 percent confi-10 dence? And since we didn't know how many, if any, l'
design-significant discrepancies we would find in the 12 original sample, we decided just to make the program state r.
- 13. that, given that result, we would then expand the program
.( 14 to regain the 99/99.
15 The possibility is that if we find a sufficiant 16 number of the design-significant discrepancies, that we
- 17 won' t be able to e
- <pand .the program any less than 100
- 18. percent.
19 MR. GUIbO: That is all I have got.for you on 20 subject number one, Mr. Gieseker. I hope to briefly touch
- 21 on the other two, and I will get you done quick.
22 BY-MR. GUILD:
O Let's turn to the Summary Disposition Motion l
_ . - _ _ . - _ , , . , - _ . . . . _ . , , . . , , . . _ - . _ , , .. - -,_,___m.. . . . , , .-_._-.c_ , _ _ _ . - , _ .
185
\
1- with respect to subcontention 9C. What was your involvement J
2 in the identification or.the response to the item of a noncompliance which is reflected in 9C? And that has to do L
4 with the.use of the 7018 weld rod for the E6013 rod, 5 inspection report 84-13.
6 A I provided the PCD response to Licensing, which 7 was then used as the basis of the response to the Commission.
8 0 What involvement did you have in the decision 9 by Comstock to disposition the NCR with respect to this 10 nonconformance by performing the engineering evaluation of 11 the substitute rod as opposed to completing the commitment 12 to 100 percent review of the weld rod issue slips?
l 13 A Well, they proposed that change to the NCR, and
() 14 I reviewed it and accepted it. And in addition to -- I is believe there was myself, Mr. Shamblin and the OA representa- ;
! 16 tive also -- I don't know who that was -- who accepted it l'7 for the Commonwealth Edison Company. It would be that last 18 section, Bob.
19 You have an earlier version, I guess, or I have 20 an earlier version.
0 This is NCR 3275, and I am looking at Rev. 1.
~
21 It l
22 has a date of 11/7/85 on the. top on the first page.
I i
i I 4
r O
4
i 186 i
f~
()y 1 A Yes. We just have the copy of the NCR that 2'
hasn't been signed off by QA yet. I believe we sent you in 3
the update-to the interrogatories a completed copy of this d
NCR, in which case these signatures would be completed.
5 Q By 'these signatures," you mean the boxes. below l 6 your name on the copy I have that is in evidence or an 7 exhibit. .
8 A Yes.
i 9
O And that would show QC verification of corrective 10 action.
11 'A Right.
17 Q Now, who proposed to revise the disposition of 13 the NCR?
Id A The Comstock engineering department.
15 0 Who, in particular?
16 A
{ It is signed by Mr. Dave Bradfute, Assistant 17 project Engineer.
18 '
O And did he speak to you about the matter or did s
19 you see the paperwork?
j 20 A Yes. If you will read in the disposition, a 21 letter was written by Mr. Simile to Mr. Netzel of the QA 22 Department proposing this change.
1 i
l O
-r , , -e,- . . , - , ,- , - , , . , , , .--+m .-.,-,,n -, .-,m _-a , ,~n- - , , . . , , - , , , - - - - - v-~~.-n- - --
187 V()
i Q Is that' letter attached?
2 A It should be the last part. Yes, there it is.
. 3 0 I see it. 2/9/85. Simile to Netzel.
4 A Yes, sir.
5 I might point out also that the memorandum right 6 in front of that, I discussed some of the aspects of this ;
7 with Mr. Jacques of S&L, and that documents that phone 8 conversation.
9 Q When was'the ECN issuea that that memorandum of
- 10 the telephone conversation references that allowed the 11 substitution of the E7018 for the E60 electrode?
12 A I don't have the specific date, but it was some-13 time after the NCR was issued. Mr. Netzel was the one' l ) 14 that asked'me that question. He said does the issuance of i
15 ECN 23-028 provide engineering justification to accept i
16 substitutions that may have occurred prior to the issuance 17 of the ECN? That's the question I was trying to ask'Mr.
1 18 Jacques, and he agreed, yes, it did.
19 Q Now, how did the ECN come to be issued?
20 A Well, when the subject came up, we discussed it 21 with S&L, saying, hey, we could have used E7018 when we 22 should have used -- when the drawing said E6013. We believe i
1 l
1
(
188
()
O I
using-#7018 is technically okay, do3pu agree? They agreed 2 and they issued the ECN.
3 4
_ Q Now, you, meaning project construction, said d
that to S&L?
5 A I believe th'e specific request came through 6 Comstock to S&L.
7 Q Is that a request or is the ECN itself in this 8 package?
9 A Excuse me. The ECN is not attached. It's 10 certainly no problem with giving you a copy of that, but.
11 I do not have one in my possession right now.
~
12 Q Do you know how extensive the improper or 13 unauthorized, shall I say, at the time substitution of 14
(%) E70 electrode for E60 was?
15 A The only numbe~r I know is identified by the NRC 16 inspector, which is the five out of 300 or something like 17 that.
18 Q Do you know whether any further review was 19 performed as the original disposition of the NCR called for 20 that would have identified further any additional
~
21 substitutions of electrode E70 for E60?
22 A I can't remember off-hand exactly how many
[ additional ones were reviewed by Comstock. I believe
189 a
1 additional forms were reviewed, though, but I don't know 2 the exact number.
3 O And do you know the results of-that review?
4 A -There was, to my knowledge, no different type of 5 things than were. identified by the original NRC inspector.
6 Q Well, aside from different. type, were chere any 7
additional cases of substitution of E70 for the E60 elec-8 trode?
END 14 9 A I don't know.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 I
20 i 21 22 O
tl5cy 190 i
1 Q Do you know whether the substitution of the E70 2 for the E60 electrode creates any enhanced problems in 3
workmanship for the welding?
4 A No. In fact, in talking with Mr. Simile,.who 5
is the Level III weld inspector for Comstock, generally
> 6 the welders prefer to use the E7018 electrode.
7 O So you're not aware of any problems in workmanship 8
1 occasioned by'the use of the E70 in place of the E60?
9 A Not the E70 in turn for the E60. The E60 is 10 a little harder rod to use, I think. .I may not be il classifying this right, but my information is they prefer 12 using the 7018.
13 Q Excuse me. For what application did you have s/ 14 s in mind?
15 A Well, most of the predominant welding onsite is 16 with the 7018 electrode. The E6013 electrode is only used 17 for the cable pan hold-down welds that we discussed earlier.
18 l And I believe the original reason for that is because it's l'
a little deeper penetrating rod.
20 0 The E60?
t 21 A The E6013. But in my understanding from talking 22 with Mr. Simile, they basically prepare the cable tray the i
O .
4 1
-~ -- . - - _ . _ _, -,_ m._ -
2 191 I
same way no matter which rod they use. That is, they 2
remove the galvanizing, so they do it for~either rod.
3 Now, the 6013 is deeper penetrating. They may d
not have to remove galvanzing but they did it anyway and 5
they did it with the 7018. So from that respect, I didn't 6
see any difference in using the two electrodes.
7 0 Would you agree that the E60 was specified for a
use with the smaller gauge galvanized base metal, typically found in cable pan welds that you spoke of because of its 10 greater suitability for use on galvanized material and II material of a thinner gauge?
12 A The reason I understand that we used 6013 is
'I3 for its deeper penetrating, and that may be because of the galvanizing. But since you remove the galvanzing anyway, 15 that doesn't present a problem.
16 O Are you aware of any difficulty in removing the galvanizing?
18 A Any difficulty?
O Yes. Is the galvanizing completely removed in 20 weld prep prior to the use of the E70 or the E60 weld rod?
21 A To my knowledge, yes.
22 0 Are you aware of any problems with use of the i 4 l
I O
3 192
- i. () 1 E70 rod in the event that the~ galvanizing is not completely 2 removed?
3 A That question came up with -- and I can't d
remember how it was related, but Mr. Jacobsen of the NRC 4
5 asked'that same question. So what we did is we qualified 4
6 the procedure with 7018, specifically not removing the 7
galvanizing, and those were accepted and Mr. Jacobsen j 8 closed out his concern.
9 Q Are you aware of any problems with increased 10 porosity occurring through the use of the E7018 electrode 11 on the galvanized material?
12 A No, sir.
13 0 When did you requalify that procedure? The use ld of the 7018 without removal of the galvanizing?
15 A I can't specifically remember. I believe it 16 Was the end of last year sometime. I can't specifically 17 remember.
18 Q End of 19857 l'
A Yes, sir.
20 Q Is that requalification relfected in any of the 21 documents you have given me?
22 A Not here, no, sir.
e i
V
,,m. -
- , - , ,.--, ,,-. , y ,,_.~.,-..n.--n-,,n - . , - -
4 193
() 1 2
Q Have you made any inspection of actual workmanship in the field to determine whether or not any 3 adverse effects on weld quality 'have occurred as a result 4
of the substitution of the E70 for the E60 electrode?
5 A None other than the normal QC inspection that's 6 required; a visual inspection of this type of weld.
7 No special inspections were perforn.ed.
8 Q Okay. Let's move on to the final item.
9 MR. BERRY: Before you move on, Bob, I just want 10 to get one clarification. I think Mr. Gieseker' indicated 11 that Mr. Jacobsen closed out the item.
12 MR. GALLO: He closed out some concern.
13 MR. BERRY: It was unclear to me whether we
<m 14
) were referring to Item 9C, because if that were the case --
15 THE WITNESS: No, it's a separate item that 16 involved whether or not we remove the galvanizing or 17 don't remove the galvanizing.
18 MR. BERRY: Okay.
19 BY MR. GUILD:
20 Q Do you know what that item was of noncompliance?
21 A I'm sorry, no. I'm not even sure it was an 22 item of nonconformance, Bob. It was a concern of some type.
l 1
I v
5 1 194
[') 1 Q It wasn't this particular item of noncompliance LJ 2 that's reflected in 9C, though?
3 A Right. I don't remember.
4 0 10F, let's look at that one. Mr. Gieseker, what 5 was your involvement in the identification or the response 6 to the item of noncompliance that has been identified as 7 10F, and it was -- I'll tell you the inspection report 8 number. It is -- it has to do with the mislocation of the 9- Comstock junction boxes.
10 A Right. Again, I provided the response to'our 11 Licensing Department who provided the NRC with the 12 Commonwealth Edison response to the item.
13 Q And how about corrective action or followup?
(~m.
t ,) 14 A Well, I just verified that the NRC's that were is involved have been closed out, and we supplied those to you 16 I believe, Mr. Guild, in our last set of updates which we 17 just sent out. That should be a duplicate set of the two 18 that are in the back of the book here.
19 0 What was the cause of the item of noncompliance?
20 A It seems to be an inadequate inspection by one 21 of the Comstock QC inspectors.
22 Q Is this a difficult attribute to inspect?
)
%/
t
6 195 1
A' I am not a certified inspector, but in my 2
opinion it is -- it's a straightforward inspection.
3 Q How was the inspection of this attribute carried d
out? How does an inspector do an inspection of the location 5 of.the junction box anchors?
6 A What he would do is he would have the design 7-document which indicated what the installation was~to look at, a
and he would compare the physical installation to the 9
design document, and if there was an agreement it would be 10 acceptable and if there wasn't, it would.be unacceptable.
11 Q And how does h'e make the comparison to the design 12 document?
13 A By physical measurements and just visual Id inspection of the box and the attachment.
15 Q How would physical measurements be taken?
16 A Ruler, a tape measure.
17 Q Do you know whether the inspector in this 18 instance employed a ruler or a tape measure to verify the I9 acceptance of these attributes?
20 A No, sir.
21 Q Is it reasonable to believe, in your opinion, 22 Mr. Gieseker, that the failure of the inspector to identify O
7 196 vm I
() the mislocation of these anchors was a result of an error 2 in measurement? Did an inspector read his tape wrong and 3
read two inches instead of two and a half inches, as the d
design drawing specified, if that were the requirement?
5 A It could have been. I really don't know how 6 the inspector rade the mistake.
7 Q Well, how far off was the installation from the 8 specification?
' 9 A- I believe the NRC report says up to three inches.
10 If you look on NCR 4139, whi:h is the back, the first NCR 11 there, look on the third page -- that is an "as built."
12 That is a drawing of the actual -- I can't tell you off the 13 top of my head. What I believe the gentleman measures --
i
' id you see those dimensions on the righthand side that says 15 'the " spacing of the anchors"? The 4 3/4, the 10 inches, 16 11 1/1 inches, down the righthand side?
17 0- Yes.
18 A I believe that is the spacing violation that l'
we're talking about. It's either that side or the left side.
20 And that's what the gentleman failed to confirm with the 21 design drawings. And I can't really -- the only thing I 22 remember is the NRC report, w'tich I believe he said up to
~>
l 8
197
() 2 I three inches or something like that, that some of the dimensions were off.
'3 0 Well, this document which appears to be sheet d
2 of 2 of a continuation sheet to that NCR-4139 -- you believe 5 it to-represent'the as-built condition of the junction box 6 anchors; correct?
7 A Right.
8 Q And it appears to show that the top anchor is 9
4 3/4 inches from the top of the junction box.
10 A Well, I might point out something. If you look 11 on the righthand side, it says'three one-half inch hex head 12 cap screws. On the lefthand side of the box it says,.
13 three 1/2 inch CEA's, concrete expansion anchors. Those are 3 14 the concrete expansion anchors that I believe the NRC 15 inspector was saying were not in accordance with the 16 drawings.
17 0 I see, all right. I have a hard time reading 18 the numbers on the as-built ones.
19 A The first number is 4 7/8 inches from the top.
20 0 And that reflects the concrete expansion anchor 21 is that distance from the top of the junction box?
22 Yes, sir.
A The centerline of the anchor. And then O
4 9
4 198
,e~
\
I the next spacing I believe is 9 3/4 inches, which is the 2
centerline of the first anchor to the centerline of the 3
second anchor. And then 11 3/4 inches between the centerline of the second anchor and the centerline of the third or 5
t bottom anchor.
6 And then there's a dimension of 4 3/4 inches to I believe the wall ends there. The concrete wall. It's that 8
dashed line underneath the box. And then there's anothe r dimension from the bottom of that wall or opening, whatever
'U it is, to the bottom of the box which is 10 7/8 inches.
O All right. And can you tell me what the design 12 ~
specification called for in terms of the placement of that i
(
, A No, not off the top of my head. I would have to
[ get the design drawing out. I don't have that with me.
16
- 0 Well, do you dispute.the NRC inspector's finding that the anchors were accepted even though they were three 18 inches from the required location per the specification?
. 19 .
! A No, sir.
Q Well, let's work with a three-inch di'mension.
21 Assuming that it is three inches off, does that seem to reasonably represent a measurement error? He read the tape
] wrong?
9 a
i
10 199 A
I ) 1 A It seems -- the measurement seems straightforward 2 to me. I don't know how the man could miss it by three 3 inches.
4 0 Do you know whethe'r he actually performed the 5 inspection at all?
6 A No, I don't know.
' 7 Q He signed off the inspection report.
8 A He signed off the inspection report, yes.
9 Q Does it appear reasonable that he may not have 10 done the inspection at all and simply -signed off on the 11 inspection report?
12 A I have no evidence of that. I don't think it's 13 reasonable. There's no reason for him to do it that I i- /
( 14 know of.
15 0 Well, my question to you is: how can someone 16 miss something, an obvious attribute, by three inches if you i
17 have a ruler or you're provided with some other measuring 18 device, a tape or a ruler --
19 MR. GALLO: I'm sorry. I'm going to object when 20 you are finished.
21 BY MR. GUILD:
22 Q Do you know of.any other explanation for why the 2.4 ;
., , l l
. - - - - . - - - _ _ _ . . -. -,-._,_._,,--_.m.-, _ _ _ - , . _ . . , - , _ _ - - , . . , , . , _ _ . , . , , - , _, _ __ _ . . . _ ___
11 l
200 s
O)
(
1 inspection attribute was mis-inspected?
2 MR. GALLO: Objection. You have asked him that 3 question, this is the third time. He said he doesn't know 1 4 how the mistake was made. You are trying to get him to 5 agree with you that the inspection was so' simple that the
- 6 only way it could have been made was that the inspection 7 wasn't done at all. He has disagreed with that. The a question has been asked and answered and I think we ought to 9 move on to something else.
10 BY MR. GUILD:
l 11 Q Well, how do you know that the inspector simply didn't'do the inspection?
12 If you do.
13 A I don't'know. All I know is that-the gentleman I
) 14
\_/ filled out an inspection report.
15 0 Was any review made to determine why the 16' discrepant inspection was documented?
17 A Not to my knowledge.
18 0 Why it was three inches off?
i 19 A Not to my knowledge.
20 Q Now, the corrective action for the discrepancy 21 was what, Mr. Gieseker?
i 22 A The corrective action was to -- for the hardware f
a s
12 201 (Qj 1 portion of it -- that is, we asked to have Sargent & Lundy 2 look at the as-built installation to see if we could leave 3 the box the way -it was installed, and that is 4139. And d we also have action to prevent reoccurrence. We obviously 5 retrained the inspector, and then'also in answer to the item 6 of noncompliance, we also reinspected six other junction boxes ,
7 safety-related junction boxes, also inspected by that 8 inspector.
9 It turns out there were actually seven' inspected, 10 but one had been subsequently deleted by another rework, il so we obviously couldn't reinspect that one.
12 Q The corrective action for the NRC itself, 4139, 13 was simply to accept the installation as is and retrain the D Id inspector?
15 A Right.
16 You determined to inspect the additional boxes 0
17 that the same man had accepted only after the NRC identified 18 the item of noncompliance?
19 A Excuse me?
20 You determined to reinspect the man's additional Q
21 junction box inspections only after the NRC identified the 22 item of noncompliance?
i
- r O
I
. . - .-.. . . ~ -- - . _- . - - . . . . . . _ . . . .
13 202
' A Right. '
Well, we didn't know the gentleman had 2
- mis-inspected the box-until the NRC identified it.
3 '
Q All right. My question is.why wasn't that
~d specified as a corrective action for the NCR; the reinspection g
b 5 of that man's additional work?
5 6 7
8 %
A 9
10 11 i
12 ,
13 f
14
{'
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 l
1
tl6 y 203 ;
) 3 (Witness reviewing document.)
2 A Well, my answer is that when we wrote the NRC 3
4 we were also writing the response to the item of non-d compliance, and we documented the additional inspections 5 in the item of noncompliance, and we didn't mention it on 6
4139. But we did -- then our QA Department identified that 7
to us; that we had forgotten to address additional work 8
inspected by this inspector, so that was one of the reasons
~
j that the 4513 NCR which was issued,-which does reflect 10 l that the additional boxes of the -- the safety-related boxes il by that inspector were inspected.
12 O Okay. Now, how did QA bring to your attention i 13 the failure to provide for the reinspection of the man's Id other work?
i 15 A I believe when Mr. Kropp was closing out the 16 item, he reviewed our licensing response and was talking 17
- with our QA Department, and during that discussion it was is brought up that the 4139 didn't mention anything about these d
additional inspections. So the QA Department asked us to 20 address that also.
21 ~
O You had already committed to the NRC in your 22 response that you would do the additional inspections?
1 4
4 l
l 1
2 204 1
A We had already done them, physically done them.
2 And you just hadn't documented that as a Q
3 corrective action to the NCR?
d A We didn't put that on NCR 4139 because that was 5 mainly to address the hardware issue, which was the 6 installation of the box.itself.
7 Q So then you originated a new NCR 4513, and that a documents the inspection of the other work; correct?
9 A Right.-And that is a letter that is -- the 10 last attachment C to 4513 dated 5/31/85 from Mr. Seltman, 11 and this letter was written during the time that we responded 12 to the original noncompliance by the Commission.
13 0 What certification does an inspector have to
'd inspect the junction box attributes that were the subject 15 of this item of noncompliance?
16 A one of the certification areas in the Comstock l7 program is equipment, and under equipment, junction box
'8 inspections are included. And there's a procedure that l'
governs the installation of equipment / junction box and also 20 the inspection of them.
21 Q And in order to be qualified to inspect these 22 attributes does the inspector have to be certified o i
O 1
3' 205 f i
l T) i specifically for junction box inspection?
N.)
2 A He has to be certified in the area of equipment, 3 and equipment includes junction boxes.
4 0 'So he is certified in the general area of 5 equipment and that includes training and qualification in 6 the area of inspection of junction boxes?
7 A Yes, sir.
8- 0 Do you know how many Comstock inspectors are 9 certified in the area of equipment inspection?
10 A No, not off the top of my head.
11 Q Do you have an estimate?
12 A No.
13 Q Is it one or two?
) 14 A No, it's more than one. I would say it's 15 probably 10 to 20, and that's a guess.
16 O Do you know how many safety-related junction 17 boxes -- or how many safety-related junction boxes have 18 attributes of the' sort that are the basis for this item of 19 noncompliance? In other words, do they have concrete 20 expansion anchors or other bolted attachments?
21 A I don't know the specific quantity, but most of --
22 the typical installation of a junction box is to mount it to O
4 206
,j]
V 1 something so it's either concrete expansion anchored into 2
the wall or it has cap screws that connect it-to a hanger
~
3 of some sort.
d Q And do you know how many junction boxes there 5 are? Safety-related junction boxes?
6 A No.
7 0 Do you have an estimate? Is ten, 100, 10007 8 Oh, it's thousands.
-A 9
O And are they within the scope of Comstock's 10 work?
13 A Yes.
12 0 And inspection work?
13 p -
A The safety-related ones, yes.
Id Q So Comstock installs and Comstock provides QC 15 inspection of the safety-related junction boxes?
16 A Right.
'7 0 Have there been any audits or surveillances in 18 the area of the inspection of junction box installation?
I' A Yes. As a minimum, there is the surveillance 20 that I attached in our response here, or in my booklet.
21 Q And where does that appear?
22 A It's just right in front of the tab we were just f
O
5 207
' looking at. And we would have to ask the QA Department of 2
other audits and surveillances.
3 Q And does this address the subject of junction d
box installation?
5 A Yes. It addresses a specific item of non-6 compliance. In addition, I believe the NRC inspected some 7 additional boxes, also.
8 I mentioned very early in this process the fact 9 that one of the NRC reports that we talked about in our 10 motion for summary disposition looked at some additional
" boxes.
12 O Okay. I knou where to find them. The surveillance
'3 that you talked about simply observes what we have just
" 'd gotten done discussing about the disposition of the item 15 of noncompliance in the NCR?
16 A Yes.
'7 0 It doesn't represent any additional surveillance 18 or audit of junction box i'nspection activity, does it?
A Yes, that's right. From looking at it.
20 Q And has Edison or Comstock conducted any 21 additional reinspections of junction box installation to 22 determine whether or not similar deficiencies exist in O
6-208 3
inspection of the placement of concrete expansion anchors r ap screws?
2 A Not specifically in relation to this. It is a 3
,, part of the overall QA program to periodically go out and' 5
do audits, to cite installation procedures. -Also, Comctock
, is. required by their audit program to audit installations, 7
and the QA Department does surveillances. So I'm sure that
, additional junction boxes have been looked at through that
, process but I don't have specific documents to show you.
3g Q In terms of the corrective action for this 33 deficiency, though, only the inspections performed by this 12 specific inspector were looked at, correct?
A The only followup that I'm aware of by the OA 13
,, Department is the surveillance I showed you.
15 0 And that reflects the inspection of the to additional boxes by this man?
37 MR. GALLO: Could we just go off the record 3,
a moment?
,, (Discussion off the record.)
20 BY MR. G m D:
21 0 The question was that there were no further 22 inspections done as a response or corrective action for this U
l
7 209 I discrepant inspection of junction box location other than 2 to look at the six additional safety-related boxes that 3 were inspected by this particular man; correct?
d A Yes. I assume on that last one you meant by 5 Commonwealth Edison Department -- excuse me, Commonwealth 6 Edison Company or Comstock?
7 Q Right. You mentioned the NRC.
8 A I mentioned the NRC, right. Okay.
9 Q BUt none other by Comstock or Edison?
10 A Not that I know of, no.
11 MR. GUILD: That's all I've got. And thanks.
12 MR. BERRY: Staff doesn't have any questions 13 for Mr. Gieseker regarding the items for which this Id deposition was convened.
15 MR. GALLO: I have some questions.
16 EXAMINATION 17 BY MR. GALLO:
18 Let's turn to 3C, the subcontention item, and Q
19 particularly Mr. Kostal's affidavit. On page 4, Mr. Guild 20 made reference to the last sentence in the incomplete 21 paragraph at the top of the page, and I believe he asked 22 you whether or not the method for evaluation of A8 WS O
l i 8 -l
\
210 l O ,
welding to be performed by Sargent & Lundy was included in 2
the LRP procedure that you were in the process of work-ing.
on, PM-18. And.I believe you answered no. Do you recall that testimony?
5 A. Yes, sir.
6 0 Then further along, Mr. Guild asked you whether the term " design significant" was included within the same 8
procedure, PM-18, and you said'no. Do you recall that?
A Well, I believe -- I understood the question to
'O be was it defined in the procedure.
" All right. And --
Q 12 A And I said no, it is not defined in the
'3 O procedure.
la O All right. And then finally, he asked you
'S whether or not the seismic loadings and the. mechanism for
'O determining the seismic loadings as described in answer number 10 to Mr. Kostal's affidavit were set forth or
'8 discussed in the procedure, PM-18. Do you recall that question?
20 A yeg, 21 Q And what did you tell him in response to that?
22 A I said it is not defined. The procedure simply I
I O
9 211
) 1 says that a design review will be performed, and it doesn't 2 describe that process in any detail.
3 0 Well, my question to you is: in your judgment, 4 should the procedure, PM-18, include those matters in the 5 detail discussed in Mr. Kostal's affidavit?
6 A No. We simply made the commitment in the 7 procedure to have that review done and that's what the 8 reference to the design review -- the specifics of how that
.9 is to be done need not be in the procedure, in my opinion.
10 0 Why not? Can you explain?
11 A Well, that's governed by the Sargent & Lundy 12 design -- it's just -- that level of detail is not required 13 in our PM procedure. The procedure is an administrative Id procedure to conduct the program.
15 0 To conduct the program.
16 A Yes.
17 0 You mean the actual reinspection called for is by the LRP?
19 A Right.
20 0 And I believe you testified you are the 21 administrator of that program? Is that correct?
22 A Yes.
9*
't O
10 212 A
h I Q And during the course of the program, if design--
2 strike that. If discrepant weld conditions are referred to 3
Sargent & Lundy for evaluation, on what basis will you rely d
on the informatica they provide you?
5 A As far as their review of whether or not the --
6 we will accept the S&L evaluation if they determine the 7
item to be design-significant.
8 0 And what is the basis for your reliance on their judgment, their engineering judgment, in these matters?
'O A Well, they are the architect engineer of the plant and they established the design parameters for the 12 plant, so they can then determine if the discrepancy is
'3 design significant.
'd O And on what basis do you determine that their is opinion is reliable for purposes of your reliance on their 16 advice?
A They are the architect engineer that Commonwealth
'O Edison has hired to design the plant. Maybe I don't understand your question.
20 0 Well, do you just rely on what Sargent & Lundy 21 tells you on the basis of faith and human nature, or is 22 there some further basis beyond that?
O
(.~.)
r I
11 213 I
A Well again, Sargent & Lundy is the designer of 2
the plant and'their pro ~ gram is controlled to a quality 3
assurance program the same as the other contractors on the site. I am not voicing the specifics of that program -- .
5 Q Who at Sargent & Lundy will do the actual design evaluation of any discrepant welds that might be uncovered during the LRP?
8 A I believe it would primarily be by the structural department.
'O O Do you know who in t'he structural department II will perform these reviews?
12 A No. None other than the overall coordinator,
'3' Mr. Parduhn, who we talked about earlier. I don't know ta the specific persons that would actually physically do the
'5 review.
O Have you worked with Mr. -- how do you pronounce that fellow's name?
'8 A Parduhn.
O Have you worked with Mr. Parduhn before in
- U connection with the evaluation that he might have performed 21 on design-significant evaluations for the Braidwood Project?
22 A Mr. Parduhn is also the coordinator for the O
12 214
/~~N (N s#' 1 Quality Control Inspector Reinspection Program, and that's 2 when I first started working with him.
3 Q Has Sargent & Lundy done any design evaluations d in connection with the QCIRP program?
5 A Yes.
6 O Have you reviewed any of those evaluations?
7 A Not personally, no.
8 Q Let's turn to Mr. Frankel's affidavit, and in 9 particular, Answer 12. In the middle of the answer, 10 Dr. Frankel says that the sample size will be 475 11 inspection reports, but he indicates that in fact, more than 12 that number of welds will be inspected. Hwe the actual 13 475 weld inspection reports been identified yet?
(']
U Id A Yes.
15 Q Have the number of welds that have been represented by 16 those reports been totaled?
17 A No.
tl7 18 In your opinion, would Dr. Frankel need to know Q
I' that number in order to come up with any quantitative 20 computation to attempt to quantify the term he uses in 21 Answer 10, "most likely somewhat higher"?
22 A No. He indicated that the number that we should i
V i
l 1
13 215 I
use is the 475 checklists.
2 O Now listen to my question. If you wanted to 3
quantify the term -- you see it on'the next to the last line d
in' Answer 12 - "are most likely somewhat higher." If 5
he wanted to quantify that term would he need to know the
'6 number of welds represented by the 475 inspection reports?
~
7 A If he wanted to quantify.it, yes.
8 O And does he know that number?
A Not now.
'O O Do you know it?
'I 1
A No.
12 O All right. On page 9 of Dr. Frankel's affidavit, 13 Mr. Guild asked you a series of questions about the use of ,
l engineering judgment in connection with statistical
'8 l inferences, and this is down at the bottom of page 9. 'It's 16 the last paragraph in Answer 11. Just take a moment and
'I read that paragraph to yourself.
Is (Witness reviewing document.)
I' A Okay.
20 l 0 You indicated in answer to Str. Guild's question l
21 j some uncertainty as to what exactly what was the engineering 22 judgment being referred to by Dr. Frankel in this paragraph.
I O
f
- - - = - ,. .. _
14 I 216 ;
() 1 Now that yo~u have re-read it, can you testify with any 2- greater degree of certainty a's to what he was referring to 3 when he was talking about the use of engineering judgment?
d A Well, I believe what he is getting at there is
- 5 that we decided to request a 99 percent reliability, 6 99 percent confidence as opposed to some other level of i 7 confidence, some lesser level, i
8 O Like 95, 95?
9 A Correct, like 95, 95. And then the last i
j 10 sentence here, he says, given 99, 99, I came up with the 11 calculation to support that.
12 O And was the engineering judgment used to
]
j 13 determine whether it ought to be 99, 99 or some lesser i 0
\ Id
- degree of reliability in competence level?
f 15 A Right. Yes.
j 16 O Did you make that engineering judgment?
17 A In discussions with Mr. DelGeorge.
18 4 0 You and Mr. Del George discussed this matter?
19 A The 99, 99, right. Yes, sir.
t i 20 0 And did you consider some other confidence and i
21 reliability level in that discussion?
22 A Well, we talked about the -- you know, what is l
!O f
{
4 :
15 _
217 s.
I the best -statenent we can make about these, the welds, and 2 we decided that a 99, 99 was a very forceful statement, p "'
- n 3 and if we trled to go above 99, 99 it wouldn't be d
appreciably!..iorthithe tadditional inspection effort. So we 5 decided 99 was a very stringent statement that we could 6 make and we decided to use 99, 99.
-._7 Q On the basis of engineering judgment; is that 8 correct?
iq ' :,~ . ,
to O At the top, the point that you have just made is Il referred to.-- no, strike that. It isn't referred to.
12 It's in your affidavit that you indicate that to go higher 13 than 99, 99 might not be a useful exercise. Is that a Id correct paraphrase of your affidavit?
15 A Right.
16 Did you make any computation as to -- let's say Q
37 that instead of inspection 475 inspection reports out of is ~
the 9000 inspection reports, let's say you inspected 2000 l'
inspection reports. Did you make any computation as to 20
~
what improvement that would give to the 99, 99. reliability 21 and confidence level?
22 A I didn't make any calculations,.but that was O
! 16 218- i 1
i
!() i in discussion with Dr. Frankel, and I can't remember 2 exactly which discussion. But he indicated that you can 3- greatly increase ~the number of inspections and only increase i
, 4 the reliability and confidence statement by 99.1 or .2 or 5 something. I don't remember the specific figures, but I was
)
6 led to believe that it wouldn't be cost-effective to us.
l 7 Q All right. Mr. Guild asked you a series of i
! e questions about the reliability of the Comstock and Ernst _}
s 9 inspection reports; that'is, the checklist Form 19 and the I
10 Ernst equivalent. And you described in answer to that si question a corrective action program being conducted by i
12 Comstock with respect to their documentation. Do you j
i 13 recall that line of questioning? Well, what's the name of 14 that corrective action program again?
15 A The QC document review -- quality control
. 16 document review.
l 17 0 And do you recall in answer to Mr. Guild's 18 questions that that review has uncovered -- strike that.
19 Do you recall in answer to Mr.. Guild's questions that that i
20 review has uncovered some errors in the inspection checklist 21 used by the Level I inspectors for Comstock? Is that also i
22 true of Ernst?
A The document review includes all the records in t ,
h 4 3 i
i !
7 lO
17 i
219
() 1 the records vault which would include any Ernst records, 2 yes.
3 O Do you know whether or not discrepancies or 1 4 errors were uncovered with respect to Level I inspection
- 5 reports filled out by Ernst Level I inspectors?
6 A Well, I am not specifically knowledgeable of any.
7 O Do you know specifically whether any errors or a discrepancies were uncovered during the QC document review 9 concerning the Form 19 checklist filled out by Comstock 10 Level I inspectors, which are the subject of the LRP?
11 A Not specifically.
12 O Do you know whether any errors or discrepancies 13 were uncovered with respect to any Form 19's filled out by
.O 14 Comstock Level I inspectors?
! 15 A Well, I don't know of a specific, but I do know 16 that there were problems found with the Form 19's, as 17 Mr. Guild indicated. I don't know the exact percentage.
Is I do also know that the percentage that required 1 .
19 actual reinspection in the' field is quite a bit less than 20 the --
21 O Well, I recall your answer to Mr. Guild. You 22 agreed with him that generally there was about a 20 percent 4
O
. . _= - . .- - - .- . ~ -- .-. _
18 220 (s) I error rate in the documentation that was -the subject of 2 the reinspection of the QC document revier.
3 A I believe that's an across-the-board approximate 4 percentage.
5 Q Was the QC document review a 100 percent i
6 reinspection of Comstock documents?
1 7 A Yes.
8 Q Now when a discrepant document was uncovered in 9 the QC document review, what kind of corrective action was to taken?
11 A A Level II certified inspector in that area would 12 have to review the documents to resolve it.
13 0 Well, do you go back and -- will the Level II
( 14 inspector go back and reconstruct the documentation, or 15 how will this be done, if you know?
16 A Okay. I'll give you an example. If the drawing l'7 in effect at the time was supposed to be Revision F, and is say that the inspection checklist indicated Revision D. One 19 thing that the QC inspector would look and see is if the 20 drawing -- or the item identified on the inspection checklist 21 changed between Revision D and Revision F. If it did not, 22 then we can conclude that that would be a good -- still a
>I
19 221 O
~ 1 valid QC inspection.
2 If the item did change between Item D and Item F, 4 3 we would look to see if there is a subsequent inspection d
for that item. If there wasn't, then we would go out and 5 reinspect the item, or the Level II would.
6 O Well, I want you to correct me if I'm wrong.
7 I don't know what inference Mr. Guild will draw, but the e
inference I drew from the answers to his questions in this area was that there was a degree of unreliability attached 10 to the Level I inspection checklist that would be used for H purposes of the LRP activity. And that that reliability 12 might be as high as 20 percent.
13 N And I guess the first question I have for you
'# 3d is: do you agree with that inference that I have just made?
15 A Well, not specifically because you must understand i
16 the program that -- the original inspection checklist 17 identified by the Level I, we just wanted to find out what 18 component he inspected. And then we would go out with a l'
brand new inspection checklist and inspect that item.
20 So if for example, -- say the worst thing that 21 could happen is a guy' wrote down the wrong equipment number, 22 which is not very plausible but it could happen, I guess, atypo error of some type. And then the reinspector would
. O
20 i 222
() 1 get out there and he wouldn't be able to reinspect it.
2 So the reinspector might get a ding if the original inspector 3 would have a ding against him if that item couldn't be 4 reverified.
5 Q We're talking the LRP activity now, so if the 6 wrong connection or hanger number was listed on the Comstock 7 or Ernst checklist and the reinspector went out based on 8 the checklist and found that that number or that particulhr 9 hanger didn't exist or was not in that particular location, 10 or was able to determine that something was wrong, what 11 would he do then?
12 A The reinspector?
13 O The reinspector.
14 A Well, he would give the problem back to the 15 Engineering Department to see if they could supply any 16 additional design information that ma'y have affected the
< 17 item. If the item was totally unrecreatable, then we 18 would have to select another document and reinspect to 19 get our 475.
20 0 All right. What if the error in the Comstock 21 or Ernst checklist was an " accept" rather than a " reject"?
22 A On the original checklist?
t 8
21 223
{s~}/
1 O Yes, on the original checklist.
2 A It wouldn't affect the program at all because 3
we are reinspecting the item.to see if any design-
< d significant attributes exist out there now. If the original
- 5 inspector had missed an item that was rejectable, then the 6 reinspector would pick that up and that would be a 7
disagreement that would have to be analyzed by S&L for e design significance.
9 Q So if the error was reject and he really 10 intended accept, that would be a discrepant weld, regardless
' l 11 of how the error was made; whether it was an inadequate 12 inspection or whether it was just simply an error.in.the 13 recording. Is that' correct?
i Id A I didn't follow that question. I'm sorry.
15 0 All right. It's a complicated question. Let 16 me try to make it simple.
17 I am trying to understand your last answer. If 18 the error by the original inspector was simply a recording l'
error as opposed to an improper inspection, it would show 20 up regardless as a discrepant condition for purposes of 21 S&L evaluation, assuming a second inspector picked it up as 22 well.
22 224 A
- 1 A Right.
2 0 And that's the point you're making. Okay, tl8sy 3 Looking at this checklist -- and because of d
the lateness of the hour I will try and shortcut my 5 question. Looking at this checklist and looking at the 6
Section 3.1 items, if we assume a mistake, a recording error 7
by the original tevel I inspector, how, if at all, with 8
respect to the items listed under 3.1, would that affect 9- the LRP program results?
10 A Well, this is --
11 Q I want you to take your time because there are 12 six or seven items listed under 3.1.
13
(~* A Well, I guess -- what is filled out in the Id reinspection checklist is the information on the top here, is and what the reinspector would have to do is he would go 16 out to the drawing indicated, the current drawing, and try 17' to find that piece of equipment.
18 If he went out to the drawing, for example, and I
i 19 there wasn't any piece of equipment there, then he would 20 have to do further investigation to find out if that item 21 had been deleted or not.
22 Now, what we do upfront to minimize this work is g I
23 225 fs
~- I we look to see if the items have indeed been reworked or 2
deleted, okay, in which case there wouldn't be something 3 to reinspect.
d Q What if the Level I just simply wrote down the 5
wrong -- the original Level I wrote down the wrong drawing l 6 number?.
7 A Well, if we couldn't find the item, then we would 8
have to pull another item to reinspect.
O What if he wrote down the wrong number of welds 10 inspected? Again, the original Level I inspector. How
- 11 would that, if at all, affect the results of the LRP program?
12 A It wouldn't affect it because the reinspector 13 inspects to the detail that is indicated.
s If the detail Id says there should be five welds there, the reinspector looks 15 for five welds.
16 I should also note that in the procedure, if for 17 some reason the report is totally not understandable, we 18 can't find it out there, then we throw it out of the program I'
and select another inspection report in its place. But we 20 You know, make Comstock address this in their own program.
21 Hey, you've got a document out there that doesn't make sense.
22 We don't address it inside the LRP program, but i
.I O
24 226
)
I we don't just let them ignore the fact that the document 2 doesn't make sense. We make them address that in their 3 normal QA program.
d 0 You referred in your answer to if the wrong 5
number of welds were inserted in the column indicating 6 number of welds inspected that the reinspector would 7 determine the right number of welds by looking at the 8 detail. To what are you referring when you say that?
9 A Okay. In the last line there it says " detail 10 inspected." That is meant _a be the design detail that 11 says what that connection should look like. And at that 12 time the reinspector will look at it and say okay, this 13 design detail says I am supposed to have this configuration 14 of welds and that's what I'm going to reinspect for. If 15 I don't see that then I'm going to indicate it as a 16 rejectable item.
17 0 What if we have multiple errors? That is, we've la got the wrong number of welds inspected and we also have an 19 inaccurate reference under the " detail inspected." How would 20 that, if at all, affect the LRP result?
21 A Well, if the reinspector goes out there to 22 reinspect an item and it doesn't match the design that he is
- - - ~
Q.,Y
25 227
('^N N I m- inspecting to, he rejects the item.
2 O What do you mean, he rejects the item?
s 3
A Well, he says, for example, -- if he goes out d
there and the design detail says there should be three welds 5
and there's something wrong with those welds, then he will 6
indicate it as an item -- as a discrepant item.
7 0 Do you mean a discrepant weld, or do you mean 8
an inspection report that has to be replaced by another 9
inspection report?
10 A It. depends on how bad the description is that II we're talking about. Like I said before, if the description 12 is.a typo error and the reinspector can -- for example, 13 there's a transposition in the hanger number that is obvious f w}
N- 14 to the reinspector -- he just may say that that should be 15 corrected in accordance with Comstock's procedure to correct 16 those typographical errors.
I7 If the errors are so severe that the report is 18 not understandable, then we say you select another report l'
for the progran but you must address this now not 20 understanc+.ble document in your own program.
21 O A11 right. Do you have an opinion as to whether 22 or not the discrepancies in the checklist used by the (v
+
26 228 r~ l
--)
t' -
.1 Comstock Level I inspectors that were uncovered curing the 2 QC document review have any significant impact, or will have 3 any significant impact ~on the LRP activity?
4 A Te ny knowledge, there has not been a problem 5 with identifying the checklists that have been incompletely 6 filled out that would affect the inspection.
7 Q But you have found in the QC document review some a errors in checklists?
9 A Yes.
10 0 All right. And do you have an opinion as to 11 whether or not those' errors will affect your LRP' activity?
12 A To my knowledge, no.
13 Q And can you explain why not?
- L 14 A Well, one of the basic things that I understand 15 they are finding is an incorrect revision to a drawing.
16 For example, the example I gave earlier of the drawing that-1:7 was in the field at the time was -- from the dot control was 18 D but the QC inspection report indicates C. And we looked 19 at those and we saw that the item that.the report is on 20 didn't change between Items C and D, and that's an 21 acceptable inspection report then. So those types of items 22 wouldn't affect the LRP at all.
i e
i I
27 229 t
es
\ 1 Q And if the inspection report is unsuable because 2 of errors- in the reporting of data on that report, is it
'3 my understanding that.you will simply just replace that d report with a newly selected item?
5 A Yes.
6 Newly-selected report?
Q 7 A Right. If the information makes the report not 8 understandable, then yes.
9 Q How do you select the new inspection report to 10 replace the one that you found unsuable?
11 A That is the next random number.
12 4
Q Two more on this checklist. Looking at the 13
(~ checklist, let's use Mr. Guild's example'that he used early
id on about the connection with four welds. Let's assume a 15 hypothetical inspector has put or inserted in the number 16 of welds inspected four welds. And let's go to Item or 17 a ute 3.2 as to whether or not the weld was sufficiently attri' 18 cleaned. And let's assume that there was an " accept" checked l'
on this hypothetical checklist. What does that mean in 20 terms of the four welds? Does it mean one of the four was 21 acceptable, or all four were acceptable?
22 A All four were acceptable.
O l
-28 230
,7- g i i
\s / Q What if there was a check in the " reject" box?
2 What does that mean?
3 A It means that one or all of the welds were not sufficiently cleaned, and what typically they will do is 5
they will indicate like a 1 or a 2 or a star or an asterisk, 0
and in the remarks column they -would --
Q Well, wait a minute. Where would the star or 8
asterisk go?
A Near or in the reject column. And then they
'O would go down to the remarks column and explain the discrepancy or they would indicate the corrective action 12 document that they generated to resolve that, such as an 13 inspection correction report or an NCR.
Q Would this other reference you're referring to 15 explain which of the welds were rejected, or whether or not 16 one or more of them was rejected and what the condition was?
i A Right. It would give the description of the 18 1 item that is described to be discrepant by the QC inspector.
'19 In addition, a procedure for a weld inspection requires 20 that the weld inspector mark the area of rejectability on 21 the weld itself to help the repair crew find the actual 22 d '. screpant area.
U
29 231 A
(_sl 1 Q I think you indicated in answer to one of 2
Mr. Guild's questions an example of when the n/a; that is, 3 not applicable, box would be used. A situation where if d
during the original inspection the only attribute that was 5 marked " reject" was, let's say, 3.3 dealing with the fillet 6 size and fillet size throat, and that was marked n/a and 7
the rest of the attributes were marked -- I'm sorry, let 8 me start again. I have just mis-stated myself.
9 That if during the original inspection all the 10 attributes were marked or checked " acceptable" except one, 11 then on the reinspection the only item that might be marked 12 would be the one item that was initially rejected,.and all
- 13 the other attributes would be marked n/a. Is that the case
- Id in each and every instance, as you understand it?
15 A No. I believe it's done both ways. It can 16 either be just that one specific attribute or the inspector 17 may choose to inspect all the rest of the attributes, also.
is Q Do you know what would determine which approach 19 would be used?
20 A I believe it would have to be the policy of 2'
the QC Department at the time, and certainly there is I
O
30 232
/7
(_j/ 1 inspector preference there, too. Either way is acceptable 2 to me.
3 Q Would the nature of the weld discrepancy play 4 any role in such a decision?
5 A Oh, certainly. If the item that was rejected was 6 sufficient to require complete replacement of the weld, for 7 example, obviously then we would have to perform a complete 8 reinspection of the weld.
9 0 I see. All right.
10 Do you recall answering some .2stions with 11 respect to -- no, I guess that's all the questions I have.
12 MR. GUILD: I have a few more that have been 13 inspired by Mr. Gallo.
k- 14 EXAMINATION (Further) 15 BY MR. GUILD:
16 Q You stated in response to Mr. Gallo's questions 17 that the 475 sample reports have been selected already?
18 A Yes, sir.
19 O All right. If.you would turn in your affidavit 20 to your Exhibit 1, Mr. Gieseker, that exhibit lists the 21 Level T QC inspectors who are the subject of the LRp; does 22 it not?
- e. I f
't
i 31 233 O
(_ / 1 A Yes, sir.
2 O And in the rightmost column it lists the 3 number of inspections performed by each of those inspectors; 4 correct?
- 5 A Right.
6 O And those numbers represent inspection reports 7 that identify that inspector as the inspector who performed a the visual weld inspection?
9 A As a Level I, yes.
10 Q As a Level I, correct. Having selected the 475 11
- reports, can you tell me how many inspection reports have 4
i 12 been selected for sampling with respect to the inspections 13 conducted by Inspector C0l?
O\ 14 A I believe I have a document in my briefcase that i is gives the breakdown of the items -- the number that was to selected for each individual inspector.
17 I Q All right, if you could put your hands on that a
18 I would appreciate it.
t19ay 19 A I guess I don't have it with me.
, All it was is i
20 I asked NPS to give me a breakdown of how many inspections l
21 were selected for each of the inspectors, and I probably 22 didn't keep it because it changes as the 475 are looked'-at O
1
.- . .. _ _ - . . _ _ _ ~ - . - ._- - .
32 234 A
' '- l by the Engineering-Department, and if the items have been !
2 subsequently deleted or reworked, they ask for another 3 inspection report. So the.quantitie's for each particular d contractor or inspector can change.
} 5 0 All right. When was the sample drawn? The 475.
! 6 A Initially, about -- oh, about a week ago. 'Maybe 7 a week and a half ago, q
s Q How many welds are represented in the inspections 9 that are to be sampled for each of the inspectors under 10 the LRP?
r 11 A I don't know.
f 12 MR. GALLO: That's what he just said in answer 13 to my question.
3d j BY MR. GUILD: i 15 Let me direct your attention to the same Q
16 exhibit with respect to Inspector C41. He is shown as !
17 l having five inspections. That would be for five inspection -
18 . reports; correct?
l'
- A Right.
20 And that was the inspector as to whom each of
- Q 21 those inspection reports identified the area inspected by -
- grid; correct?
i t
4
+- ,.--,r_ , - , ,-y-__---- -. . _, ,em_y___,. . . - _ . , _ _ . _ _ , . , , , , , , , , _ . _ _ . , , _ _ _ , , - _ . _ _ . , _ _ , - _ _ , , , - - ,.__ -
33 235 A Yeah, I believe that was the one, yes.
) 1 2 O All right. How are you going to cample C41's 3 inspection reports?
4 A Well, if they are all grid reports we won't be 5 able to sanple.
6 0 so you will not sample for C41.
7 A Under the LRP program, no. Right. If they are e all grid reports, yes.
9 0 Are they or are they not all grid reports?
10 A Well, as I stated earlier, I believe that is 11 the gentleman with the five grid reports. To the best of 12 my knowledge right now it'is..
13 0 Well, might it be someone else?
() 14 A No, because the number that sticks -- it has got 15 to be one of the Level I's indicated on the chart here, Bob.
16 But the reason that I think it was five is because the 17 number five sticks in my head, and that's the reason that is I believe it's C41.
19 Q And do you recall there being one inspector, all 20 of whose -- for whom all reports were grid reports?
21 A Yes, sir. And it was, as I say, the number five 22 sticks in my head.
O
34 236 m
(s] O You mentioned in response to a question by-2 Mr. Gallo that with respect to the engineering judgment 3
concerning the sample size, you reached the conclusion, d
-along with Mr. Del George, to specify the sample size that 5
Dr. Frankel relied upon; correct?
6 A Right. We asked -- we determined the 99 and 99 7
as opposed to some other confidence / reliability, and then 8
Mr. Frankel said, to do that you need 475 reports.
O All right. Now, was there a discussion between
'O you and Mr. Del George about performing a 100 percent l'
reinspection of the Level I weld work?
12 A I can't specifically remember the entire
'3 conversation, but it was a conversation about what the O
sample size should be.
15 0 And you reached the conclusion based on the 16 cost-effectiveness I think you said, that the 99, 99 was
'7 the appropriate sample size?
18 A The cost effectiveness statement was the fact
" that if we do -- we can get to 99, 99 with 475; we-cannot 20 appreciably go higher than 99 because then -- and I can't 21 remember the exact numbers, but the quantity of additional 22 inspection reports gets rather large with the very small O
1
! 35 237 t mm I
incremental increase in the level of confidence and
, 2 reliability.
3 Q And that was a cost--effectiveness judgment on d
your part and on.the part of Mr. Del George?
5 A Well, cost-effectiveness and engineering judgment,
't 6 and the fact that 99, 99 is a very rigorous statement in 7
and of itself. And making it 99.1 or 99.2 wouldn't be 8
j appreciably any better than the 99. statement.
9 0 What cost did you attribute to the existence of 10 a safety-significant defect that remained unidentified and 11 uncorrected because of failure to perform a 100 percent 12 reinspection?
13 A We never discussed that. I mean, I never put a Id value on it.
15 Q What position does Mr. Del George hold with the i
16 company?
17 h A He is a vice president, I believe, or assistant
! 18 vice president.
19 0 Does he work in the Engineering Department of the 20 company?
21 A I'm sorry, I don't specifically know his title.
22 Would you accept that Mr. Del George works in the O
- O i
t
, , _ , . - - . . . . - - _ . _ - - . . - . . . - - , - , - . .- ,_-,,..__..,_,.-r-. --
, _ _ _ . - - . . . . _ , , , -c- . .-- , , - _ - -- , - - - . _ - _ - - , - - - .
238 36 g
O I Licensing area and not in the Engineering Department?
2 A Mr. Del George used to work in Licensing. I 3
don't know if he works in the licensing area right now or d
not. I know that he is the management person that has 5
been involved in the licensing hearings with us.
6 0 All right. He is not in management over the 7
Engineering Department, is he?
8 A I'm sorry, I don't specifically know his title.
O Do you know whether he has engineering to responsibilities for the company?
II A I do not know.
12 0 Why have you undertaken part of the LRP prog am I3 prior to the approval of the LRP procedures that govern p
~s those portions of the program that you have undertaken?
15 A Okay. We felt that these preparatory items 16 were just routine administrative items, and that -- we we 17 went ahead with them in parallel with developing the
'8 program so that we could get the program completed in the l'
most expedient manner.
20 0 Was that decision-approved by the CTF, the CECO 21 Task Force that oversees the LRP?
22 A Well, as the responsible person in the CTF,
. k i )
v l
-. -- - - . - -- - _ .=.
37
. 239
<s i I,)
s 1 obviously I knew about it and discussed it with Mr. Groth 2 who was my supervisor.
3 Q And it was okay by him?
4 A Yes, sir.
- 5 0 Was the Sargent & Lundy representative aware of 6 the decision to go forward prior to the approval of the i
7 LRP procedures?
8 A I don't know that.
9 Q ,How about the CECO QA representative?
10 A I don't know that, either, j 11 Q. The Nuclear Power Services representative?
'12 A Certainly. Yes, they knew about it.
13 Q They performed the sampling.
14 A Right.
15 Q How were the Level I inspectors, who were the
~
16 subject of the LRP, identified?
- 17 A Some of the certification books for the
! 18 inspectors were reviewed and determined the -- any 19 Level I's that were certified in welding and the time 20 period for which they were certified.
r 21 Q And what documents are reflected in those books?
22 What was the document you referred to that indicated the s
)- ,
O
_ - -- . o
38 240 r~s v ) 1 Level I --
2 A It's their certificate of certification.
3 Q And you relied on the data that appeared in 4 those certificates of certification that identified the 5 inspector by name and number and the dates of the Level I o certification?
7 A Right.
8 Q Have there been any deficiencies identified in 9 the Comstock document review program in the certificates 10 of certification by Comstock or Ernst?
11 A I don't believe the certification books are 12 included in the QC document review.
13 0 Do you know whether there are.any deficiencies t i
\m / 14 in certificates of certification with respect to the 15 accuracy of the data that is included in those documents?
16 A Not off the top of my head, no.
17 MR. GUILD: Okay, that's all I have. Thanks.
18 MR. GALLO: Well, you have prompted a couple 19 questions.
20 EXAMINATION (Further) 21 BY MR. GALLO:
22 O Do you know whether or not Mr. Del George is an i
i
/T
(/
I
39 241 engineer or has an engineering education?
( i 2 A I believe he is an engineer, yes.
3 0 Are you aware that Mr. Del George participated 4 in the development of the Quality Control Inspector 5 Reinspection Program in the Byron case?
6 A Yes, he did.
7 0 Are you aware that he worked with Dr. Frankel e in connection with developing the sample processes for that
! 9 reinspection program?
10 A Yes, he did.
n Q Let's go to Exhibit 1. This is your Exhibit 1.
l 12 Let's assume that the five inspections for Inspector C41 i 13 are " grid" inspections.
b s ,/ 14 A Yes, sir. ,
15 0 Will you be able to make a statistical t i
16 statement -- strike that. If I understand what the term j " grid inspections" means, it's that you are not able to, on i7 is the basis of just the grid inspections alone, determine 19 exactly what connections were reinspected or were inspected 20 by a Level I inspector; in this case, C41. Is that correct?
21 A That's correct.
l 22 0 Will you be able to make any statistical statement O
i 1
.--.,-,_.-._.-.-_-._.___,-__.__.-_.--...__~_m___.--_-_-.-. . - _ - _ . . . _ . . . _ - . , _ _ - - . - - . _ - ~ . - -
40 242 I with respect to Inspector C41's five inspection reports?
2 Assuming that they are grid inspections?
3 A No.
4 Q Therefore, will the LRP address his inspections 5 at all?
6 A Only to the extent that they were selected and 7 were found to be non-reinspectable because of their generic 8 nature.
, 9 Q Well, let's assume that that is the case. How
{ 10 will C41's inspections be handled, if at all, by 11 Commonwealth Edison and Comstock with respect to the~
12 validity of those inspection reports?
13 A During the area turnover process of the contractor, 14 he must verify that he has the appropriate quality 15 inspection documentation for any given area that is required--
16 Q Who is he?
1 17 A Comstock Quality Control. And if we do not have 18 a document that specifically indicates the component 19 requiring inspection, then we'would generate a new one.
20 There have been a number of reworks that could 21 have reinspected these items by Mr. C41, which could have 22 prompted subsequent reinspections. Andif not, if there is i
l
, -__ _ o
41 243 1
no QC inspection of the installed component, and the program 2 requires'one to be, then we would generate a new one at 3 that time.
d O Let me see if I understand what you told me.
5 Let's assume that C41 has prepared one of these five 6 inspection reports and it is a grid type inspection, and 7
ycu search the Comstock documents and you find no rework 8 activity or no PTL over-inspection activity so that there I 9 are no reinspections. .
, u) A Okay.
11
, 0 Then what would you do in that circumstance i
! 12 with respect to that inspection report during the turnover 13 from Comstock?
Id A We would request that Comstock perform an l
15 inspection of that item.
16
, Q In other words, you reinspect those items?
J 17 Yes, sir.
A
- la O Since you are not able to determine from the l'
Level I -- or in this case, Mr. C41's five inspections what 20 connections were inspected, how will you be able to 21 identify -- or how will Comstock be able to identify what 22 connections to reinspect?
O t
42 244 1 A All right. To clarify my earlier statement, we 2 can't identify what the status of the area was at the 3 time the " generic grid inspection" was performed. But we 4 can, during area turnover, say here is the drawing area as 5 defined by the design drawing, and here's all the things on 6 the design drawing that should be installed, and do we have 7 an inspection report for each one of those~ items. And if a we don't, then we would reinspect the item.
9 O So you would necessarily catch it through that 30 process; is that it?
II A Yes, sir.
12 MR. GALLO: That's all.
13 (Whereupon, at 6:10 p.m., the taking of the O. 14 instant deposition was concluded.)
15 to .(Signature Waived.)
17 18 19 20 21 22 O
245 I l
fw CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC 2 ,
I, Suzanne B. Young, the officer before whom 4
the foregoing deposition was taken, pages 1 through 245, 5
do hereby certify that the witness whose testimony appears 0
in the foregoing deposition was duly sworn by me; that the testimony of said witness was taken by me and thereafter 8
reduced to typewriting by me or under my direction; that f
said deposition is a true record of the teatimony given by y~
the witness; that I am neither counsel for, related te nor
'11 employed by any of the parties to the action in which this 12 deposition was taken; and further, that I am not a relative II or employee of any attorney'or counsel employed by the 14 parties hereto, nor financially or otherwise interested in 15 the outcome of the action.
14 17
}g L t Add u.s :
[@/stWU
' 8ZANNE*B. YOUNG 19 Notary Public in and for the g District of Columbia 21 o 22 My C mmission expires tuu Ni /M /9[f I
t
. j s- 1/30/86 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA gg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$h/
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: )
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-456
) 50-457 (Braidwood Nuclear Power )
Station, Units 1 and 2) )
NOTICE OF DEPOSITTUN F Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.740(a), Intervenors Rorem, et al.
hereby give notice that they shall take the depositions of the U following witnesses, who are employees of Commonwealth Edison Company or its contractors: James W. Geiseke; Kenneth T.
Kostal Edward M. Shevlin; George Orlov and Thomas E. Quaka.
The depositions shall commence on Wednesday, February 12, 1986, at 10:00 A.M., and shall continue thereafter until completed, at the offices of Isham, Lincoln and Beale, Three First National Plaza, Chicago, Illinois; or at such time and place between February 12-14, 1986 as the parties may agree. The depositions shall be taken before a certified court reporter, and shall be on the subject of the witnesses' knowledge of the quality assurance deficiencies at the Braidwood nuclear power station alleged in Intervenors' Amended Quality Assurance Contention.
l l
1
The deponents shall bring with them all documents in their possession, or subj ect to their control, which are the basis for the witnesses' affidavit in support of Applicant's December 20, 1985, Motion For Summary Disposition.
DATED: January 30, 1986 Submitted by,
,a Robert Guild f One of the Attorneys for
, s Intervenors Rorem, et al.
Douglass W. Cassel Robert Guild Timothy W. Wright, III 109 North Dearborn Suite 1300 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 641-5570 O
p)
N._
1/30/86 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: )
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-456
) 50-457 (Braidwood Nuclear Power )
Station, Units 1 and 2) ) .
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have . served copies of Intervenors _
Rorem, et al. Notice of Depositions on each-party listed on the attached Service List by having said copies placed in envelopes, properly addressed and postaged (first class) and deposited in the U.S. mail at 109 North
Dearborn,
Chicago, Illinois 60602, on this 30th day of January, 1986; except that NRC Staff Counsel Mr. Treby was served via Federal Express overnight delivery and Mr. Stahl, counsel for Edison, was served by messenger on Friday, January 31, 1986.
I l/r\.
1 '/
l
O
'k / BRAIDWOOD SERVICE LIST 50-456/50-457 OL Herbert Grossman Elaine Chan, Esq.
Chairman and Administrative Judge NRC Staff Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Conaission Washington D.C. 20555 Washington D.C. 20555 Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Administrative Judge Joseph Gallo, Esq.
102 Oak Lane Isham, Lincoln & Beale Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Suite 840 1120 Connecticut Avenue N.W.
Dr. Richard F. Cole Washington D.C. 20036
. Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Docketing & Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary Washington D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rebecca J. Lauer, Esq. Washington D.C. 20555 Isham, Lincoln & Bealc
[Nx. lThree First National Plaza Atomic Safety and Licensing Chicago, IL 60602 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ms. Bridget Little Rorem Commission 117 North Linden Street Washington D.C. 20555 Essex, IL 60935 -
Atomic Safety and Licensing C. Allen Bock, Esq. . Appeal Board Panel P.O. Box 342 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Urbana, IL 61801 Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Thomas J. Gordon, Esq.
Waller, Evans & Gordon Michael I. Miller, Esq.
2503 South Neil Isham, Lincoln & Beale Champaign, IL 61820 Three First National Plaza Chicago, IL 60602 i
Lorraine Creek Route 1, Box 182 Manteno, IL 60950 Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection & Enforcement 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
{)
l
h AD 3 I u Q.6. Do you agree that LKC's and E.C. Ernst's use of Level I QC inspectors constitutes a violation of ;
ANSI N45.2.6 and 10 C.F.R. Part 50 Appendix B? l A.6. Commonwealth Edison Company agrees that the lack of documentation showing the methods used by Level II inspectors to establish the acceptability of the :
results of Level I inspections is a procedural inadequacy.
I agree that the NRC Staff concern is a reasonable one and Commonwealth Edison has developed the LRP to address it. I initially thought that this matter was not
/~'s of sufficient significance to warrant the b issuance of an item of non-compliance by the NRC. However, I have since interviewed several of the Level II inspectors employed by L. K. Comstock Company and I have learned that not all of the Level II inspectors were effectively implementing ANSI N45.2.6-1978 with respect to the acceptance of inspection results compiled by LKC Level I inspectors. Thus, I conclude that the overall practice employed by LKC for use of Level I and II inspectors was not in w,
conformance with the ANSI standard.