ML20140E711
| ML20140E711 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 03/24/1986 |
| From: | Georgiev G COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20140E700 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8603280142 | |
| Download: ML20140E711 (56) | |
Text
WTED O
V
,1 2
GRIGINAl.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA- h A D roca !!
6' 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOAR g MAR 2s7 885'**k Doctrnna 5".ng Eg;gica j?
9 5 % h 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 7 In the matter of: : Docket Nos. 50-456 8 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY :- 50-457 9 [Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, :
10 Units 1 and 2] :
11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 12 7735 Old Georgetown Road 13 Bethesda, Maryland 14 Monday, March 24, 1986 15-16 17 Deposition of: GEORGE B. GEORGIEV, called for examination 18 by Counsel for Licensee, Commonwealth Edison, pursuant to 19 notice, taken before Marilynn M. Nations, a Notary Public in 20 -------------------------------
, 21 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
22 1625 I Street, N.W. -293-3950 Washington, D.C.
O , i geR""8sMSI88llg6 h
~
L 2
1 and for the Commonwealth of Virginia, beginning at 1:10 ,
- 2 o' clock p.m., when were present on behalf of the respective i
3 parties:
i 4
~5 APPEARANCES:
6 For the Licensee Commonwealth Edison Company:
7 JOSEPH GALLO, ESQ.
8 Isham, Lincoln & Beale 9 1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 1100 10 Washington, D.C. 20036 11 12 For the Intervenors BPI, et al.:
13 TIMOTHY WRIGHT, ESQ.
( )
14 109 North
Dearborn,
Suite 1300 15 Chicago, Illinois 60602 16 17 For the NRC Staff:
18~ STUART TREBY, ESQ.
19 Office of the Executive Legal Director 20 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 21 Washington, D.C. 20555 22 '
O
3
'l CONTENTS O2
' Examination by Counsel ,
- . 3 Depasition of
- for Applicant for Intervenor for NRC i
4 5 GEORGE B. GEORGIEV 3 46- --
i' 6
7 i
. 8 9
i 10 EXHIBITS I'
11 GEORGIEV DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NOS. marked for identification 12 i
l O' 14
<>r e i 1o 1111c eien > s L
i 15 1
! 16 17 4
18
> 19 4
j 20
! 21 1
22 r
i
!O l
l
l 4
1- PROCEEDINGS
~
2- 'MR. GALIO: . On the record. This is the third in a 3 series of depositions taken today. This witness is 4 Mr. Georgiev. Again, this deposition has been arranged with 5 the cooperation of staff and I appreciate 'it.
6 Please swear the witness.
.7 Whereupon, 8 GEORGE B. GEORGIEV, 9 having been called as a witness on behalf of the Applicant, I- 10 'was first duly sworn by the Notary Public, was examined and 4
11 testified as follows:
12 EXAMINATION 13 BY MR.'GALLO:
[
14 Q Would you state your full name and business address 1
'. 15 for the record, please?
16 A My full name is George B. Georgiev and I work for I
17 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Washington, D.C.
18 Q Are your offices in Bethesda?.
19 A Yes, sir, it is.
20 MR. GALLO: Mr. Georgiev's statement or professional i
j 21 qualifications has been furnished by counsel and I would.like 1
- 22 to mark it for identification as Georgiev deposition exhibit I
1 O
4
-a,. ._-.--.-.--..----------., . - . . . _-v~. ,,.-_--._,-_m . . _ _ - - . - . . . - - . _ - . . . . . . . - , - , , , , , - . _ - - _ . , _ .
5 1 No. 1.
[\
\ms> 2 [The document referred to was 3 marked Georgiev Exhibit No. l.]
4 MR. GALID: Mr. Georgiev's educational background is-5 set forth on the statement of professional qualifications and 6 I need not ask those questions.
7 BY MR. GALLD:
8 Q Mr. Georgiev, your statement of professional 9 qualifications indicates that you worked for Ebasco.
10 A Yes, sir, I did.
4 11 Q From 1969 to 1972. What was the nature of the 12 failure analysis that you performed on nuclear power plant 13 components?
14 A Generally speaking, if a pipe fails, we didn't have 4
15 that many on nuclear power plants, but we had in fossil plants 16 -- if some corrosion occurred with the pipe or in the 1
17 boilers, some of the pipes overheat, then they were sent to 18 our laboratory and we performed a failure analysis as to 4
19 determine what caused it and who is responsible, you know, for 20 the blame.
4 21 Basically, on the nuclear power plants,.I haven't at 22 least done any failure, but we used to qualify it like welding
)
($$) I
4 6
1 1 procedures and processes to be used on our construction sites
]
i 2' later on.
7 i
l 3 Q What type of piping system did you work on at-4 Ebasco?
5 A Virtually all kinds for the balance.of plant,.all l-
! 6 kinds of piping.
1
! 7 Q I am not clear from your testimony just to what 8 extent you actually worked on nuclear power plant piping i
j 9 systems.
3-l 10 A Well, I was a metallurgist and we used to have a.
i 11 metallurgical laboratory.in which we performed various testing 2
j 12 of failed components or if our field people needed some answer ,
( ) 13 like relevant to the welding procedures, they submitted their 14 coupons to us. We would section them. We would examine them l
}
15 under the metallograph and wrote up a report. That involved 16 all the plants that Ebasco was building and engineering, for 17 that matter.
s -
2 18 Q Do you recall a nuclear plant that Ebasco was 19 involved with at that time?
l 20 A Yes, Vermont Yankee was one. Vermont ~ Yankee and 21 Waterford was one.
i 22 Q Waterford?
4 O
i 1
1 i
, ._, . _ - , , . . . .,_,,,-_,.,.._.-,,..,y,, ..-.._m .4.. ,, ,,. , --...., _,, , , . - , - . , _ . . . _ _ - _ _ , . . , , . . , - - . , , , , , , - - - . - - .
s 7
1 A Yes, Waterford. St. Lucie. Again, mine was more~to 2 the support function.
3 Q Do you' recall if you ever analyzed any piping 4
4 samples or coupons from Vermont Yankee?
5 A No. We.did a lot'of welding procedure
. 6 qualifications, but we did not analyze it. There were not
);
7 failures at that time.
- 8 Q- All right. Let's move to when you were working at i
} 9 Burns & Row. It says that you~are a certified NDT level III !
4 j 10 examiner, is that correct?
I ,
11 A That is correct.
f 12 Q Are these examples of inspection methods, are these
{ ( ) 13 non-destructive methods?
l 14 A Yes. Those are the most common non-destructive j 15 examination methods that I used to test hardware, piping,
(
I 16 welds.
17 Q While your statement of professional qualifications 18 does not indicate, I assume that we are talking :about 4
- 19 non-destructive examination of tields, is that correct?
1
) 20 A That.is correct.
j 21 Q Do you consider visual weld inspection a type of 7
i r
22 non-destructive examination?
1 i i
i O I
._._.-._,;.___-..._...,-......:-- . _ ,... ._..,. . -.-..,.,.~..._ .. - _,.... _,_._,- _ - . . - - - . . . _ _ - _ . _ , . ~ , , . . _ , . _ _ . . _ . . , , _ , _ . ,
l
- . 1 j 8 j i
i 1- A Yes, I do. I 2 Q Are you qualified as a level III'for that purpose?
3 A I would say yes, but I don't have formal 4 certification such as the one from the Welding Society, but
~
l 5 yes, I have' inspected many, many welds visually. j i 1
- 6 Q You don't have the certificate for a level III?
-7 A That is correct. The system is such.that if the i
J 8 company for whom you work certifies you, if you change a
] 9 company, the-new company has to re-certify you for their
! 10 purposes. As I stated in my resume here,-I was certifle'd'for j
] 11 Burns & Row, but ever since I have not'been certified by'any l
J 12 one of the'other companies that I worked for including NRC.
() 13 14 We don't have certified level III in NRC.
{ Q Have you ever been certified for any level for-i f 15 visual weld inspections?
l 16 A No, I have not.
i i
17 Q Can you describe your duties generally while you -
18 were at Parsons, Company working at Fermi?
t s
j 19 A. Yes. I was working for the Quality Assurance i 20 Department and was reporting to the director of quality 1
4 21 assurance for the Fermi-2 project. '
i 22 I was assisting them in the welding metallurgy area
.t i
1 :
1 i
j i
!.-_____._.._-.-___- . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ - - . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . - . _ . . _ . - . . _ , _ _ _ - . . - . . . . ~ . ~ . . . - _ - . _ . . ~ -.., _ , i
4 9
l' of the quality assurance aspects. Basically, we had broken j- 2 the plant by areas and my areas were~all pressure vessels 3 except the reactor pressure vessel, the pipe, fabrication and 4 actually the nuclear fuel and we had all the suppliers and -
- 5 contractors that we went on occasion on a surveillance basis j 6 and performed audits.
.i 5 7 Again, my responsibility was for the metallurgy i
8 welding aspects t.o make sure that they were doing a good job.
j 9 Q Did you join the NRC in 1975?
I 10 A Yes, on May 5, 1975.
i 11 Q You indicate that you represented NRC on ASME code i
12 committees.
13 A
( ) That is correct.
1 14 Q Is this the actual name.of a code committee, the t
- 15 Committee on Fabrication and Examination?
J 16 A Yes. It is a sub-group on fabrication and l
4 i
l 17 examination, committee on nuclear power. So it is just like a l 18 subcommittee.
I 19 Q When you say " examination," what does that include?
20 A That includes all the examination of welds under the 4
- 21 5,000 rules of the ASME code. We write all the rules and 22 amend them as needed.
5 j
ll l
O
_ . . . . . . , . . _ . _ . . . . _ _ _ _ . - _ , _ _ . , _ _ - - . . _ , . . _ . . _ . - . - - . . _ , , _ , . _ . , . _ _ - _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ . , _ _ . , . _ . - - , - . ,.m_, .
i-10
- 1 Q Are you still.a representative of that committee?
I f 2 A Yes, I am.
3 Q What role do you play? Are you a working member or.
4 an observer?
t
- 5 A No. I am an active member, working member, of this 1
6 committee.
i j 7 Q Who is your subcommittee chairman?
j 8 A Floyd Moschini.
9 Q How do you spell that? '
l
. 10 A F-L-O-Y-D M-O-S-C-H-I-N-I.
j.
l 11 Q Do you know what company he is with?'
12 A Westinghouse Corporation.
13 Q Are you on any other ASME committees besides the one
( }
14 you have just described?
l 1
- 15 A No, sir, I am not.
I l
! 16 Q Your present membership is on the ASME code 17 committee?
l l 18 A That is correct.
1 i
19 Q Now, does your inspection work include inspection of l 20 welds made under the ASME code?
l 21 A Yes, it does. It does. '
l l 22 Q Does it also include, does your inspection work also :
i i
i l
I l
i l i
11 i
1 include welds made under the AWS code?
l 2 A Yes.
3 Q Are you on any AWS code committees?
4 A No, I am not.~
j 5 Q Can you describe for me what your background is in 6 the AWS weld area?
7 A I have been working as a materials metallurgical' 8 welding engineer since basically 1969 and along this work, we i 9 wrote the specification for various hardware, piping systems,
! 10 and in doing so you have to have intimate knowledge of all of 11 the codes, the welding codes, AWS, American Water Works, API, 12 ASME.
13
( ) Basically, my work has been to write the l 14 specification for the welding metallurgy aspect to make sure 15 that what the people responded during the bid evaluation you 16 are able to assess them, you know, what kind of proposal they 17 do and also once they get the job, you monitor them. You 18 periodically audit them to make sure that what you ordered is 19 there.
] 20 So to answer your question, yes, I am intimately i
21 familiar with the AWS code. I have used it for years and that 22 is it basically.
i i
O i
.. -- . . - - . . - - . -. ., , . .- - . . - . = _ - - _ . - - . - -
1 12 1 Q I may have asked you this' question, but are you on 2 any AWS code committees?
I~
3 A No, I am not. I am not even a member.
j 4 Q Do you have'an idea of which code, if there is one, 5 that has more rigorous welding requirements?
f 6 A It is very hard to say because the whole-philosoph/
i j 7 is different. The AWS allowed the-engineer to specify l
8 whatever he wants while the ASME code is-rigid in this
!} .
) 9 respect. They have certain rules, you either meet it or not.
}
} 10 This is not to say that the AWS is'less stringent than ASME.
l 11 It is just a different philosophy.
l 12 The only correct way to assess this item is to have
( ) 13 a particular application and then compare it on-a case-by-case j 14 basis. Then you can come up with a conclusion.
j 15 So to summarize, I really can't answer this from a
! 16 technical point of view correctly.
) 17 Q Your statement of profest;ional qualifications 18 indicates that you are a team leader for welding and NDE l
1 j 19 sections on CAT inspections. Is.that still your activity?
i 20 A Yes, that is correct.
21 Q Do you know Kavin Ward out at the region?
i 22 A Yes, I know Kavin.
l I.
!, O
(
l i
.- _- . - - _ . _ . . _ _ . - . , _ _ . , _ - _ - _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . - . _ _ - , _ _ . ~ . _ _ _ . _ . - . . - , _ -
4 & J_$ # 4AL g. .J 4 ex4 . p6J - .h_.,-
- 4-y..,a ~.*b wa+4 m.4__.& .g. _44M,a %, 4 4 l
4 13 1- Q Do you and he work in the same area?
2 A We worked on Zimmer during a reactive inspection --
!: 3 Q I mean the same technical area.
j 4 A More or less, yes. He is stronger in NDE than I
- 5 am. I am more of a metallurgist type.
i 6 Q How many CAT team inspections have you participated-7 in?
i ~
j 8 A I have participated in 11 of them.
j j- 9 Q Has it been exclusively in the area of welding and 7 j 10 NDE?
- j. 11 A Exclusively. I have been team leader on all 11.
l j 12 Q Can you just indicate the names of some of those ,
i %
i 13 plants to the extent that you can remember?
[ }
, 14f A I think it would be easier'for me to tell you the ,
l .
four that I haven't been on and this I can do easily.
j 15.
l
- 16 Q All right.
17 A I missed the Millstone. I didn't go on Millstone.
18 I didn't go on WPPS-2 and I didn't go on Bellefonte and I j 19 didn't go on Comanche Peak. I went to all of the rest of
/ 20 them.
}
21 Q All right. Do you have the CAT team inspection l
22 report in front of you?
I i
i i
,i 1-l.
l-
14 1 A I do.
2 Q I want to make sure that we are both looking at the 3 same document.
4 A All right.
5 Q Do you have the whole report or just excerpts?
6 A Just the thing that I have participated in putting 7 it together, which is section IV, the cover letter, the 8 executive summary, which is Appendix A, and I do have. Appendix 9 B, which is potential enforcement actions. Those are the four 10 documents that I have.
11 Q All right. What portions of the report are you 12 responsible for?
13 A- I am responsible for section IV and then we do
{ }
14 provide draft opinions, if you want to say it, concerning the 15 executive summary and the potential enforcement actions which 16 we derived them as a basis -- after we read'the report, then 17 we sit back and say what does it mean with relation to the 18 other and we provide drafts to our branch chief, Mr. Heishman.
19 Q Did you provide then the statement that appears in 20 Appendix A on page two at the bottom of the page?
21 A .(Perusing document.]
22 Yes, welding and nondestructive examination. Yes.
O 1
l
15 1- Q Did you write this paragraph?
1 2 A Yes. I wrote this paragraph.
3 Q Did you also write in Appendix B, it would be the-4 paragraph on page B-2, it would be paragraph numbered five?
5' A Yes.
t 6 Q I take it that you wrote all of section IV?
7 A Yes, that is correct.-
8 Q Do you recall receiving any comments from l
9 Mr.Heishmanorekherswithrespecttowhatyouwrotein 10 Appendix A?
11 A [ Perusing document.]
1 12 Q The bottom of page two on Appendix A7 13 A No.
( ) I don't recall if it is something editor'ial, 14 but basically I wrote it.
15 Q How about any comments you might have received from.
)
16 Mr. Heishman or others on paragraph five appearing in Appendix 17 B?
1 18 A Again, it might be editorial, but no change in
- 19 substance. That is what I wrote.
1 J 20 Q Would that also be true for section four?
21 A Yes, some editorial and if he reads it and ha 22 doesn't understand something, then he would just put a '
i l
!O
. . . - , ..._.,yr_m-.,.. - - , - . . _ - . . , , . ~ . ~ , - . - _ - - - _ _ _ . . . ~ - , - . . . , , . . ,. ., .- . . , . , ,
16-1 question mark and we have to go and explain or re-write it so 2 that he can' understand, but no technical changes.
3 Q I may have asked you this question before, but I 4 want to make sure, did you write section IV yourself?
. 5 A Yes, sir, I did.
6 Q How did you prepare yourself for this inspection?
-7 A Basically prior ~to the inspection, we require the 8 licensee to submit to us the latest procedures, specifications 9 and also the safety analysis report and then we read the
)
i 10 specs, we read basically what codes and standards over and
+
11 above welding requirements apply to this site.
12 That is the extent of the preparation. Then we go' i 13 on the site and just do the inspection.
( )
14 Q Did you use any consultants during the course of 15 your inspection?
16 A Yes, sir, I did. I had three consultants, j 17 Mr. Walter Sperko, Mr. Ed Martindale and Mr. John McCormack.
- 18 Mr. Ed Martindale and John McCormack are NDE experts and 4
19 Mr. Walter Sperko is like me. He is a welding metallurgy 20 type.
21 Q Do you know whether or not he is certified as an 22 inspector for visual inspection of welds?
i O
l I _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ - - ~ . _ _ _ _. _ _ _ - . _ . . , _ _ _ _ _ _ __
.= __ . .- .- -
- 17 i
1 A I know he is not formally certified. We really 2 reviev more than just theLvisual. We review the whole aspect.
3 Q I have a couple more preliminary questions. Are'you 4 familiar with that part of the Intervenor's contention that 5 deals with this welding question?
6 A Only what our counsel provided. It is 1D, sub-one 7 and I believe it is 10E.
I 8 Q Yes, 10E is the one I was-referring to.
s-9 A Yes.
10 Q Is 10E the equivalent of item five in appendix B?
11 A Yes, sir. I believe that is almost like a copy of 12 it, yes.
()13* Q What was the other number that you indicated?
14 A That is 1D-sub-one and I believe that comes from 15 Appendix A, item one, pertaining to all of our conclusions.
- 16 Q You said 1D, right?
17 A Yes, 1D, sub-one.
18 Q Yes.
19 A This is like on the report, Appendix A, sub-one. As 4
20 a matter of fact, it is the same. That is where it comes 21 from.
1 22 Q Doesn't that in turn rely on the statement, item b
. (- / ;
4 i
1 18 1 five, in the enforcement appendix?
/~~~w
'\_-) 2 A Yes.
3 Q They are related?
4 A They are related. Yes, sir.
5 Q Same item?
6 A Same item, a look from a different point of view.
7 Q I understand.
8 I guess you know you are going to be a witness in 9 this case, is that correct?
10 A I don't know. I know'I have been singled out as a 11 potential, but it is up to our lawyers to determine.
12 Q Have you begun to prepare testimony on either of
/\ 13 these two items?
N.]
14 A I have beer. directed to begin to prepare it, yes.
15 Q Have you started to do that on this item?
16 A Very preliminary. I kind of started to draft it, 17 but nothing is complete yet. I have to write the Palo Verde 18 report first.
19 Q I am sorry?
20 A We are writing the CAT report for Palo Verde, so 21 that has higher priority than this one.
22 Q I see.
ID U
19 1 [ Laughter.]
2 A But I will meet the deadline.
3 MR. TREBY: You-all can appreciate the difficulties i 4 we have.
5 THE WITNESS: I will do it even if I have to sleep 6 under it.
7 [ Laughter.]
8 BY MR. GALLO:
9 Q Now I.want to make sure I understand item five that 10 is set forth in Appendix B of the CAT report. I understand
'll the words in item five, but what part of your write-up and 12 discussion in section IV supports the statement in item five?
13 A (Perusing document.]
( }
14 Section IV-5b(1), Inspection Findings. What we say 15 there, we say that 52 out of the 1050 structural welds l 16 inspected involving 62 pipe. supports / restraints were found I
17 to be deficient with respect to the specified acceptance .
18 criteria. Those are the basis for this.
19 Q That would also include the table?
- 20 A Yes. The table is the detail. That is, you can 1
i 21 find each individual discrepancy tied to the support and what 22 it was. What I just read is the integrated like, lump it 4
O t
. . -. -. -_ - . _- ~ _ . - . . .- , . _
1 20 1 together.
l I
i 2 Q' You inspected welds on other installations besides j
3 just pipe supports, isn't that right?
l .
4 4 A That is correct, yes.
{
! 5 Q But the potential item of noncompliance was limited 6 to the results of your inspection on the pipe supports?
l
! 7 A Yes, the reason being because the pipe supports have
- j. 8 to be inspected by quality control inspectors and basically
. 9 the numbers versus what we found indicated that there.is need 10 for some additional attention in this area. Those are f 11 basically the basis.
- 12 Q In the beginning of your section on this matter, 13 you indicate that a representative sample was selected.- It is
]
}
14 right there under the first paragraph of paragraph "b." The j 15 sample you refer to, is that the sample of all the I 16 installations that you identify, that is HVAC, structural
! 17 steel and tanks and pipe supports?
]
l 18 A Can you refer to the number, the page number?
l l 19 Q Yes, it is IV-1.
I 20 A Yes. That refers to all of them, yes.
{
1 l 21 Q Do you believe your sample of the pipe supports was i
i 22 representative?
1 i
~,.m-m._. . . - ~ , - . . , , _ . . . ,_,,___.._,___.___m.-..__,~,_.,,-,..-,_-__... , , . _ , . . - - , . . . , , . . . , - , _ , ~ , _ - . - - - . . . - . - , -
21 1 A We are conservative inspectors and basically we 2 select welds for inspection that we think we are going to find 3 something in it. It is not a random sample from a pure 4 statistical point of view. It is a biased sample in the 5 respect that we wanted to be conservative. If there is 6 something, we want to find it.
i 7 So those are the words. That is the philosophy 8 under this, that it is a representative sample.
] ,
9 Representative in this case means more as to we selected welds 10 to include various welding processes, various structural 11 members, different configurations, different contractors. We i
12' tried to grab all the contractors on the site, various-l
( ) 13 specifications, different drawings, this kind of thing; we 14 have a bag of everything. That is what it means, 15 representative.
16 Q Returning now to page IV-5, you found 52 of 1050 17 structural welds inspected were found to have discrepancies of 18 one type or another. What inference, if any, do you draw with 19 respect to the total population of structural welds contained 20 on pipe supports?
]
4 21 A Within the piping area?
j 22 Q Yes.
. O l
i
22 1 A Well, our position has been that we shouldn't be 2 finding any when we go out there. There have been previous i
3 . inspections so we expect to find very.few, and when we found 4 52, we thought -- the team, me and the other three consultants j 5 -- that is.a little bit more than what it should have been
! 6 even though we realize that was a first-line inspection. They 7 had a follow-up' welding program in place, that they had not j 8 finished it, but we still said that that is more than what it 4
9 should have been. That is the intent of what we meant there.
! 10 Q How did you determine that this was more than it i
I 11 should have been?
i
- 12 A Arbitrarily, really; our experience from other sites
) ( ) 13 and basically the consensus of other people who also were 14 there.
l 15 Q At what point would you not have been concerned? If 16 52 out of 1050 bothered you, at what point would you have not
! 17 been concerned? '
i j 18 A I am trying to answer this question. I would say l 19 in very general terms less than that, but I would like to
! 20 qualify that the nature of the discrepancies involve like i
21 undersized welds, most of them, and we had four missing welds i
22 which means that the inspector who was supposed to inspect 1
O i
l
't 23 1 'thembeforeusdidn'tseeit,andthosearek[ndofmore
' h/
s- 2 obvious than if you took to other defects like overlap or undercut which are minor in nature.
3
- 4 so when you combine the discrepancy ~we are talking 5 about where it is easy to spot by-comebody, then we drew the 6 conclusion so that is how. Basically, the number, five out of 7 this, if it were a different type of discrepancies, it might 8 have been okay.
9 You always can find something wrong witn the welds, 10 but it is strictly a judgment coll. .
11 Q I am interested in that last comment. How is that, 12 that you can always find something wrong with the wolds?
() 13 A The structural welds, basically, if you use the 14 strict AWS code where it has the var ous -- easy to be judged 15 one way or another conditions -- like weld profile, contours.
- 16 I mean, you look at the weldc( It doesn't look what i .,
17 you think it should and you can reject..it. ' overlap, that
! 18 also could be rejected, a'nd various other aspects.
I 19 Q What you are saying is that the visual weld 20 inspection is based on subjective evaluations?
21 A For certain types of defects, yes. I would rather 22 use the word " discrepancy." For the one that we identified, 1
i 1 t i l
l 24 1 the undersized and'the missing welds, that is not a subject of 2 judgment. It is black and white.
3 Q For undersized welds, does an inspector measure the 4 weld to determine whether or not it is undersized as a. matter 5 of routine?
6 A Yes, they are supposed to.~
]
1 7 Q What kind of measuring device is used?
8 A They use a fillet weld gauge which are basically j 9 go/no-go gauges. You. place it against the weld and if the
11 doesn't fill, it is not acceptable.
?
12 Sometime what the inspectors do, they don't go all
}
13 the way across the whole length of the weld, but they look for 14 the narrowest end and measure this, the logic being if_that
)
l 15 filled the gauge, that it will be okay. They'do that, too,- in j 16 some cases.
I 17 Q So you explain here on page IV-5, 33 were l 18 undersized, three were just short and 11 more were just 19 underfilled. What does that mean, underfilled?
! 20 A Underfilled pertains to full penetration welds when 21 you have to fill in the full cross-section of the member and i
i j 22 when they were underfilled, they stop short of flush finish.
I i O
25 1 MR. GALLO: Let's go off the record for a moment.
(x 2 (Discussion off the record.]
3 BY MR. GALLO:
4 Q As I recall your previous answer to my last 5 question, you were explaining what an underfilled penetration 6 weld was. Is that a kind of discrepancy that you believe is B
7 obvious like the missing weld or the undersized weld?-
8 A Yes, sir. It could be readily seen, yes.
9 Q Is there a measurement for that as well?
10 A It has to be flush with the adjoining surfaces.
11 That is the measurement.
12 Q That is the touchstone for determining whether it is 13 adequate or not?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Your last sentence in this paragraph on page IV-5 16 says, "As a result of this finding, the-licensee issued NCRs 17 and most of the welds were determined to be adequate for the 18 intended applicahion."
- 19 First of all, what is your basis for that 20 conclusion?
21 A Well, what CECO did as we were doing our inspection 22 and we were identifying these discrepancies, they wrote lO 4
26
~
1 nonconformance reports for each one that we identified and
\~s/ 2 they submitted these discrepancies to Sargent & Lundy which is 3 the architect / engineer for the Braidwood project.
4 As we were doing our inspection, then they came up 5 with this position of this nonconformance report, and by the 6 time we were ready to write the report, most of the welds at 7 the time, they had assessed them, evaluated and submitted to 8 us their calculations and basis for their disposition.
9 We reviewed them, and basically they had done a' 10 proper assessment of the welds, and that is the basis for 11 saying that. In fact, later on we received all of the welds 12 that were discrepant in'our finding, that they were reviewed 13 by them and each one of them was accepted a's-is as being
( )
14 adequate.
15 Q Did you review that evaluation?
16 A Yes, sir. We reviewed the calculations. First of 17 all, while we were on the site we reviewed the-sketches that 18 the field quality control people have made to make sure that 19 the proper condition is reported to engineering.
20 Q Are you talking about the weld maps?
21 A The weld maps, yes. They had to map everything and 22 we more or less went there and looked to make sure that they
)
J s
i 27 ,
j .
1 don't cheat, that the correct description is transmitted to v 2 the architect / engineer. t 3 Q What you mean by that is that if it was an 1
l
'4 undersized weld that they had the complete amount -- only the j- 5 actual anount of weld material that was there.
, 6 A Exactly. They had to take a picture of the weld, i L
7 which is not a real picture, but it is a drawing of the weld i
8 recording the sizes from dimension "A" to "B", from."B" to "C" ~
l 9 and as it changed, you know, recording just the actual.
10 condition. '
11 Q Did you disagree with any of the evaluations you.
?
12 reviewed?
13 A
( ) No, we did not. They had taken.all of'the 14 conditions and the map into consideration and basically what-4 15 it showed is that even t' hough the welds were undersized, the i
16 architect / engineer has put more than adequate safety margin.as
^
i 17 far as the size.
18 So even though they didn't have what'they originally 19 wanted, when you look at the actual application, they-were 20 'okay.
j 21 Q So the 33 undersized welds could be left as-is?
22 A Yes.
i LO 4
4.
$ 1 i . - -. . . ~ , - . . - - , - . - . , - . . - - . . - - , - - - . ~. -- . - -
I
3 A That was for the short, for everything that we have, 4 for the missing welds, too.
- 5 Q Did they replace the missing welds or did they 1
i j 6 decide that they didn't need them?
i 7 A They decided they didn't need them.
8 Q The next paragraph says, "Eight of-1400 pipe welds 9 inspected were found to deviate from the specified acceptance 10 criteria." Before we-get into that, the structural welds that 11 we have just been talking about, are they governed by the.AWS t
12 code?
13 A It is a mixed-bag. We have some which are governed
( )
14 by.the ASME code, subsection NF, rules which pertain to pipe
~
15 supports, and some are AWS-modified by the 16 architect / engineer. So basically when we~say the specified 4
17 acceptance criteria could be one'of all-this combination, we 18 review what the specification required, what the drawing
. 19 required and what their commitments'to us stated that they
- 20 will do.
21 Q What code governed the undersized welds?
22 =A The undersized was the AWS.
i
+
29 1 Q The AWS?.
2 A -Yes.
1 3 Q These are the so-called skewed fillet-T welds?
- 4 A . Skewed, yes.
5 Q S-K-E-W-E-D.
6 A Yes.
7 Q All right. Let's return to page IV-5. Item (5) 8 ' appearing on page IV-6, you in'dicate that the minimum wall' 9 thickness was not maintained on the particular piece'of' pipe 10 that was the subject of your inspection.
f Was that because of.
i 11 the grinding that occurred?
! 12 A [ Perusing document.] -
[
()13 Yes. That was as a result of grinding and the main
, 14 reason that the people grind now pipe-is that if,they had an 15 arc strike and they went back-and removed it.
t
, 16 Q That is an arc strike?
4 17 A Yes. That-is the reason they ground.
l 18 Q In this case, they had ground'so much that they had' .
4 19 impinged on the minimum wall requirement?
20 A The minimum wall requirement, yes, sir.
t-21 Q I am curious as to why in writing your report you: i 22 isolated these items. It-just seemed to me, for example, .the i
($) l i
30 1 first one, the excessive convex B shape, it was just another 2 type of weld discr'epancy and you might have included it in 3 your original findings.
4 A No , because those are pipe welds. These seven items i
5 are pipe welds. .Those are the actual pressure retaining pipe, 6 Q I see.
7 A That is governed under the ASME code. The one we 8 talk about, those are structural welds there. They are more 9 permissive, if you want to say.
10 Q In other words, the AWS code-and section NF of the 11 ASME. code are more permissive than the governing section on 12 these eight items?
( 13 A Yes, this is oversimplifying. What I mean by more
}
14 permissive is that the engineer may specify five welds when 15 actually only two will do the job adequately and that when you 16 go and find that three welds, he can still say, "okay, I am
! 17 satisfied.'"
18 While on the pipe welds, if we find something 19 significantly wrong, that is a violation of the law which our 20 federal court recognizes by incorporating the ASME codes.
21 Most.of them are not really that significant with 22 this but we list them because those are facts. We went in 4
O
31 1 there and that is what we saw.
(s
\~s 2 Q What section of the ASME code is applicable to pipe 3 welds?
j 4 A- Pipe welds is section three.
4 5 Q What subsection of that is it?
4 6 A I can't --
7 Q It is not NF, is it?
4 8 A No , it is not NF. If it is class two, it is NC; if '
l t
9 it -is class three, it is ND; if it is' class one, it is NB;'but
- 10 -I don't believe it is any class one in this one~.
i 11 Q I was going to ask that question.
12 A No, it is not.
()13 Q Are these class two and three pipe?
14 A Class two and three mostly. Some even could be i
15 B-31(1) which is the pressure piping. _You see, we are not 16 that specific because our module, it is supposed to provide r
- 17 informat' ion as to the workmanship. That is why we don't 18 itemize it in that detail.
19 Q Are these eight items shown on table.IV 20 A [ Perusing document.]
i 21 Table IV-1 pertains to pipe supports. . Table IV-2 22 also pertains to pipe supports and table IV-3 and'IV-4, pipe, t
- O
-32 1 except that in this particular case what we did in.the report, f%
s- 2 instead of putting our notes to the system, we just went ahead 3 and listed them in the main section of the report and we 4 -identify them by number. Like if you get on page IV-5, item 5 one, it says PG-25-52C, FW 2, and that is the drawing 6 identification, FW is the fillet weld that tells you it is 7 fillet weld number.two, and what the discrepancy was and NCR 8 3009, that will tell you the licensee action.
9 They acknowledged that they were wrong and they 10 generated a nonconformance. So we can get all the information 11 if we are on the site, or they can when they read our report.
12 Q Did these eight items influence your potential item 13
( ) of noncompliance item, section five?
14 A No, sir. The potential enforcement actions that we-15 recommend were strictly based.on the structural welds.
16 Q Thank you. I don't think I have any more questions 17 on those.
18 Let's go to table IV-1.
19 A [ Perusing document.]
20 Q This table IV-1 shows the listing of the 52 21 structural welds, is that correct?
22 A That is correct.
fD U.
33 4
1 Q You answered to one of my previous questions by 2 indicating that the undersized welds were all skewed fillet-T
- 3 welds, is that right?
4 A (No response.]
5~ Q No, that is not right?
6 A I don't believe I said so. If I did, I was wrong.
7 Q I misstated your testimony. Look at t'he footnote on j 8 page IV-15.
9 A (Perusing document.]-
10 Yes. Again, in table -- the notes on the table 11 IV-1, we are more specific. If ina go ' item by item, we will-12 find out which were skewed. Like, for instance, item (4),
! 13 1CV02001C, those were-non-skewed fillet welds.
( } In item one, 14 the flare bevel welds undersized,.so they are not skewed and
- 15 that again on item seven, eight, nine, ten -- they were skewed 16 connections.
17 So basically we said in these notes what was skewed ,
18 and what was not. We haven't done it up in front because we 19 didn't attempt to determine'whether the problem was isolated 20 to skewed versus non-skewed connections. We just-lumped them 21 together but the skewed connection is one of the items that' 22 needed attention.
t
34 1 Q What kind of connection is involved when a skewed'
[
( 2 . fillet-T weld is used?
, 3 A Basically by definition a skewed conn'ection is 4 classified anything if you get a 90-degrees, 30-degrees to the 5 right and 30-degrees to the left of the 90-degrees, that is a 6 right weld and anything below this side and this (indicating) 7 and that other side is a skewed connection, by definition, 8 less than~60-degrees and more'than, I believe, 130.
9 Q Let me ask you to repeat that because I didn't 4
10 realize that you were gesturing'as you were explaining and I 11 missed some of that.
12 A Well, basically if you have~a right angle weld and
( ) 13 you draw an imaginary line 30 degrees from this end and 14 30 degrees from this end, everything within this is all 15 right. Below, on this side and below here, is skewed or by 16 angle it is less than 130 degrees and l'ess than 60 degrees is 17 considered skewed.
18 Q Is there a different welding technique used?
19 A No, sir. No. It is a different inspection ~
i 20 technique because of the geometry of the angle. If you get to 4
21 a skewed connection, the effective throat of the weld 22 diminishes. So you have to build up more weld metal if you i O
i 35 l
1 don't have different weld end preparation and different. size, s 2 they do it'different. Like some size, what they do is they 3 notch the plate and then they put the welds so you end up with l l
4 a partial penetration' weld. Other size, they build up more 5 weld and go with a modified fillet. gauges to make sure they 6 have the size.
7 Our architect / engineers, they specify weld length 8 which is different from the. size and they have tables to 1
9 convert it to weld size. The problem'at Braidwood is they 10 were calling sizes, specifying like a regular size and when 11 you go and use the regular fillet gauge, they didn't have the 12 weld size. Because of the geometry, you lose it.
13 Q What does the term " effective throat" mean?
( )
14 A The effective throat is if you have a right angle 15 triangle, the height of-the triangle is the effective throat 16 so if you'get to a different configuration, this height 17 diminishes if you want to keep the same size.
I 18 Q Does the weld material in the area of the effective 19 throat provide the critical ~ weld strength?
20 That is the only item that they normally
~
4 A Yes.
21 cannot. meet it because the' effective throat is the only item.
, 22 Then the skewed connection, they cannot meet-it.
O t
36 1 Q What do you mean by " meet it"?
T 2 A Well, basically, that is the sketch (indicating).
- 3 That is the right angle. That is the skew.
4 (Witness drawing diagram.]
5 This arrow (indicating], that is the effective 6 throat. So if the angle increases, these dimensions 7 diminishes,.too. So in order to compensate, you have to build 8 more weld metal. So, yes, the answer is yes~. The effective 9 throat is the~only item that changes for this.
10 MR. TREBY: I am not sure that the record is going 11 to reflect that drawing at all.
12 MR. GALLO: I thought I might attach it as an 13
( ) exhibit to the deposition, but it is on the back of one of his 14 papers.
15 THE WITNESS: I wasn't quite prepared to go in that 16 detail.
17 MR. TREBY: Can you describe it in words just what.
i 18 you have drawn?
19 THE WITNESS: I can use the height of the triangle, 20 the imaginary triangle which was formed in the fillet, and 21 state that the height of the triangle diminishes as the angle 22 size increases. In essence, that is what has happened.
37 1 MR. TREBY: What you have drawn is essentially 2 triangles that illustrate what you have described.
3 THE WITNESS: The size of the weld, yes.
4 BY MR. GALLO:
5 Q As the angle increases, the effective throat 6 diminishes?
7 A Diminishes, yes.
8 Q And it is necessary to increase the amount'of weld 9 material?
10 A Of the weld metal to meet the size.
11 Q How is it determined how much metal, additional weld 12 metal', is needed?
13 A It is strictly by geometry. It is determined by the-
- 14 angle size of the skewed connection and what most of the I
15 people, the architect / engineers, in fact Sargent & Lundy has
, 16 it, they have tables which specify that if you have a skewed 17 connection and the angle on the skewed side is certain, you 18 have to increase by that many inches. .The inches are measured 19 from the actual point of joining the-two members going on 20 both sides of the members and the less the angle is or the 21 larger if you are going on the other side, then the higher the 22 weld length has to be to get the actual effective throat to 1
i I_ _ _ . - - - -
38 i-1 meet the certain size.
4 2 Q Now when this type of weld was found to be 3 undersized --
4 A Yes.
1 5 -Q -- what was undersized, the amount'of weld material 6 needed?
., 7 A Of the effective throat, yes. The effective throat,-
8 it needed more weld metal to meet the size, the specified-9 size, and that was specified by'the drawing by the i 10 architect / engineer, yes.
11 Q -How was the inspector to measure to make sure the -
i 12- effective throat was adequate?
13 A They do.have most of the sizes and there are two1
( )
14 ways of doing it. On some of the sides, they have the 15 modified fillet weld gauges which are capable of measuring l
i i
16 this size, and on the other size,.they go by weld length 1
17 dimension, which is measuring the size from the joining point
! 18 or the two members to the place it is supposed-to be to have i
19 the required size.
l '
20 What an inspector does, if that is the way they are
~
21 going to measure the length, then convert it to size and if he 22 finds it in the table, then he accepts the welds. That is one ,
O i
1
.- _. . - , - . - . _ - . . - - - .- . . . - - . . - - - . - - --- -,--..~-_. . . -... ,_. - ~ - - . - - . , ~ . , .
i 39 l 1 way of doing it. The other way to..do it is to have these 2 modified fillet ~ gauge that they actually go with the same 3 approach, go/no-go, as the regular fillet welds.
4 Q Are they able to run the modified gauge alongside of
- i. 5 the welds so they can see its depth?
6 A Yes. They can do it. All they need is this special i
i 7 gauge,'which are self-made, more or.less. This is how they l 3 8 look, sort of longer. I 1
!' 9 Q If I understood-your testimony _previously, Sargent &= j 2~
10 Lundy evaluated these fillet welds that were undersized and i
j 11 found them to be of satisfactory strength, anyhow, and left'- ,
l 12 them as is.
1
() 13 14 A That is what Sargent & Lundy did, yes.--
i Q Are you aware of-the corrective action that was [
j 15 taken in connection with this item?
I
^
. 16 A Not really. I know that they generated this 17 nonconformance.
~
l' We reviewed the calculations, but~as far as-i
! 18- from a programmatic point of view, what they are going to do s
l 1
l 19 in the future, it was up to the region and our Region III .I i
i j 20 people have been following up.
I 21 Q- Was any_ retrospective inspection required,.in-your
{
l 22 opin'on?
i 4
1, 0 i
40 1 A When we were at the site, they have instituted the b)
\m 2 Braidwood Construction Appraisal Program, BCAP, and as far as 3 the welding is concerned, they haven't done the piping yet.
4 The only program they did is the HVAC and the piping 5 inspection was in process, so they haven't decided what to do.
6 So the BCAP Program was institu.ted or was supposed 7 to go after ours and see what they come up with. As far as to 8 whether that is completed or not, I really don't know.
9 Q Did you attend that meeting on March 10, 1986 10 between the Region and the Braidwood CAT members?
11 A I believe I did not. Wait a minute. I think I did, 12 if that is the one. I would have to check.
13 March 10 was a Monday. Mr. Keshishian was there.
( ) Q 14 A Yes, I was there, yes. I was. I am sorry.
15 Q Was this matter discussed at that meeting? Did t.he 16 region brief you on what corrective action the applicant had 17 taken?
18 A Kavin Ward and the people who are doing the work 19 were not in the meeting. There were different people. It was 20 vaguely mentioned. I would say, no, not a regular briefing.
21 So I can't tell what Braidwood'did or what'the Region did and 22 how good was it. I can't tell that. I know the Region O
41
~
1 considered it a closed item, but what their basis, why, I
~ q 2 don't know.
j 3 Q You say'that when you.were out at the site, Edison l 4 had suggested.that perhaps a reinspection that was a part of 5 the BCAP Program would serve to deal with the retrospective i
P 6~ matter here, is that correct?
j' 7 A They had the BCAP Program instituted and there was a
., 8 committee. They had the resources and the commitment to go 1
9 and perform this BCAP. .But they haven't completed -- in fact, 10 I would say most all of-the area.except the HVAC, they have 11 not.
I 12 Q Was it your undert .nding that they were going to
()
13 look at the pipe ~ supports?
l 14 A Yes, the pipe supports, the structural ~, they were 15 going to look in a general way -- most of the major areas, a
16 electrical.
j 17 Q They were going to look.at the welds in connection I
j 18 with the pipe supports?
! 19 A The welds, too.-
1
.20 Q Look particularly for the concerns that you had j -21 identified?
j 22 A No. That.was an independent problem. What they 1 l
I O
I
- n. . . . - . - .-- - ._ .-. -. - . . - . - . - . .- -
42 i 1 did, they wanted somebody to go as a second-round inspection l A 2 after the first line QC and look at walds on a sampling basis 3 to see whether the welds are what is supposed to be there. I 4 am sure the BCAP took into consideration our findings.
5 Q What if BCAP did not exist at the time you were out 6 there? Do you think a reinspection was necessary of these 7 pipe support welds, of the ones that you-had not looked at?
8 A I would say yes. I would say, in fact, we do 9 recommend it -- maybe not in the same words, but we do say in 10 the Appendix A that the effectiveness of the first-line QC 11 need to be improved, which in other words means that they did 12 not do what they were supposed to do 100 percent, you know.
1 13 We also, under potential enforcement action in 14 Appendix B, we say that their program needs to be improved as 15 far as inspecting of the structural welds. So, yes.
16 Q What that means to me, though, is that you have to 17 improve it for the future. Does it also mean that you have to 18 go back and check the previous welds that required inspection?
19 A Well, you have to keep in mind that when we went 20 there we knew that they had this BCAP Program instituted. We 21 knew that they were going to go back, that they were committed 22 to do it.
f
43 1 When we finished.our inspection, we pointed out that' f'
2 what they had decided to do is a good thing to do.
3 Q This is a hypothetical question, but answer it if 4 you can. What would you have done if there had been_no BCAP 5 commitment in terms of a retrospective examination?
6 A That is a difficult question. On the structural 7 pipe welds, it is difficult to argue from the safety point of 8 view. Here you havs 152 welds that don't meet something and 9 you go back to the architect / engineer and the f 10 architect / engineer says to leave them as is, they are 11 adequate.
12 Then when you_get to the assessment and take into
( }
13 consideration how the nuclear power plant is built and the 14 weld inspections ~, somebody obviously did not do 100 percent 15 what they were supposed to do and it is a difficult question.
16 It depends where you-stand, I guess. How much is enough or 17 what do you want.
18 Q What is your opinion?
19 A I probably would have done.something on a sampling i
20 basis to make sure that_something major didn't go through the 21 cracks, like a review of critical joints, for instance, or 22' critical supports, to make sure-that all_that is supposed to
l
- 44 1 be there is there. In a sense, they used this as a basis.to i
2 justify the lesson on the minor. things. Th'at is what I would 3 have done.
i
) 4 Again, we are a conservative organization. . You talk -
j 5- to somebody.and it is strictly judgment. Somebody else, you i'
6 know --
i h 7 Q You would have sampled on.a reinspection basis even t 8 though there were no design-significant defects identified by 1,
9 Sargent~& Lundy?
j 10 A Exactly, simply because the logic being that if they 11 miss the smaller things, let's make sure at least to look at a !
12 little bit of the important things like the major component 13 supports and look at a few of them.
)
j 14' Q Would you have looked at the pipe supports generally !
, 15 or just, say, since these undersized welds seem to be the
] 16 predominant problem, looked for that sort of thing?-
17- A Mostly sizes. . Basically, me and my.other 18 consultants, we are metallurgists, when we reviewed the f 19 welding, we don't review only the sizing. We review their j 20 welding process. We review their welding procedures. We 21 review the~ material compatibility, the different types,.you-22 know, how they are suitable to be welded together and the 4
i
!O c
.e .-,-e4s.---,,wa mn . ,.-+n,-~-,,.weg.,-,- ---n-e-,--,,-,,-,--,,,-,,, n n a ,.w,-,w,--.r-e-re. .
..w-.,,-, . -~nn - ., - v,-,..,,..-,-v--,-,-- .,y,- 4
45 1 total picture. We didn't find problems with this end of the 2 program, but our concern was the workmanship that they didn't 3 find undersized welds and so forth.
4 So, yes, the second would have been more for sizes 5 rather than the question of the basic engineering, the basic 6 suitability.
7 Q Would that have included full penetration and 8 missing welds as well?
9 A You will find them. If you look for undersized, you 10 will find the missing and the underfilled.
11 Q They are all the in the same --
12 A They are in the same connections, yes, same
{} 13 category.
i 14 MR. GALLO: I have no further questions. Your 15 witness, Mr. Wright.
l 16 17 18 l
19 20 21 22 4
O
46 i
1 EXAMINATION ,
l 2 BY MR. WRIGHT:
3 Q Good afternoon, Mr. Georgiev. I'am Timothy Wright, i
j 4 counsel for the Intervenor.
5 As I ~ understood the questions and . answers, -you are 6 the author of section IV, is that correct?
i 7 A That is correct, Mr. Wright.
a 8 Q I would like to turn your attention to IV-1,-section 3
9 "B" in " Discussion"~second paragraph.
i j 10 A [ Perusing document.)
i .
11 Q You state that NDE activities were' appraised through l
- a. 12 the review of radiographs for both field and vendor-fabricated' 1
( ) 13 welds. Who selected the radiographs that you reviewed? ;
14 A We selected, myself and two~ consultants. Basically.
. 15 we reviewed a sample of each vendor that ever did the work on 1
16 this side. We had-a list and we said we want this radiograph,
(
17 we want this radiograph, we want this radiograph. 1 I !
18 Q Did you actually go around to the vault?
I l
19 A From the vault, yes. '
! 20 Q The last sentence of that same paragraph states that 21 a sample of film which was stored at the Westinghouse storage i
22 facility was also brought to.the site for review.
i t
!O
-w- ,- w -,rv ~---w,- gw,-v r r +,e-rv,-v v r r- ww- -v gwe oreor---,v,r e w--- e = eren- , - - m -w- - , ,-~
. _ _ - . _ __ . _ . _ _ _ _ . . _. -_ .. _.. _ . . . m-. .
4 4
47 1 A Yes,. sir.
k 2 Q Who selected those radiographs?
i i 3 A I did.
i 4 Q From Westinghouse?
l !
4 5 A No. I selected from this list -- well, before we go 6 to the inspection, we request the licensee to submit us a~ list l -7 of.all NDE vendors to supply a radiograph and identify to us 8 which undersized in the vault and which are of the size of
~
9 various vendor facilities.
10 Then when we go there, we review a sample of each
]
j 11 one which is undersized and then'we normally select two to 12 four different vendors and we have the film flown;in for this 13 component and what we do, we tell them, we get the drawings,
( )
1 14 we say, "We want this seam from here to here," [ indicating) i 4
i 15 and identify which seam. aor:in other cases, we request to fly
}
l i
16 in all the radiographs'for this component, and that is what we ~
17 did for the Westinghouse.- We selected, I believe,.two. I i
t 18 would have to refresh my memory.
19 Q The last sentence'of that paragraph says in essence 20 that the BCAP observations were identical with the NRC CAT 21 findings which tend to indicate that the BCAP was effective in f
- 22 identifying weld deficiencies in the HVAC-area, d
k t
1 l
i
}
i
-. _ . . - . . _ ,._, , , . - - - . . . - , . - - . , . . .- - . - - - , - - - - . . _ , - - , ~ , - - - - - - - . , , . - - - - - .- . . - - , = - . - . - -
j 48 l
1 What were the BCAP observations, if you know? !
ks 2 A That was the heating, ventilation and air 3 conditioning area. I performed the inspection on this one and-I 4 what we did, I went and selected my sample, between 20 and 25 5 supports, six to ten duct pieces -- my own. I said, "We don't 6 care what BCAP did, let's see what we are going to find."
l 7 We went and found undersized welds burned through j 8 the duct and then we selected four welds which BCAP has.
i 9 completed and went after them and reinspected them to see 10 whether they had identified the things that we are going to
- 11 identify.
12 In essence, what we found was what they had found, which indicated to us that they have been conservative with
() 13 14 respect to identifying what they see because sometimes what 15 you find, an engineer may be satisfied, but from inspection, 16 you are supposed to report what you see. That is what these 17 words are supposed to mean.
18 Q These involve four welds?
19 A Four supports. I have to look at this section --
20 let's see. HVAC, that is section IV-10. Okay, three 21 supports. If you look on page IV-10, we say that three 22 supports were previously inspected by BCAP'and also found to
i 49 1 contain-- so we have inspected three BCAP supports, involving O
!s / 2 30 welds and two BCAP' duct pieces in order to assess their 3 effectiveness.
1 4 You see, three supports they have -- it depends on 5 the configuration, how elaborate it is. It could have-
- 6 anywhere from 30 to 150 welds.
7 Q Due to that analysis that you first stated, that you 8 just stated, meaning that you looked at the welds and you 9 recorded some of the defects and you looked at what BCAP had
, 10 actually said about those welds, and from that you determined 11 that BCAP was effective in identifying the weld deficiencies 12 in the HVAC area?
13 A Yes.
( ) That is an extrapolated conclusion. Basically 14 with three supports that I selected -- and I looked and I i 15 identifi'ed these deficiencies and I didn't have their. findings 16 before I went in, and then'we went back and pulled what they 17 said, we compared notes and they were essentially the same.
18 There were very slight insignificant differences, but 19 essentially what they said, that was what I found.
20 So based upon this, we said that what they had done j 21 for this area, you know, seemed to be okay. The others, they 1 22 haven't done anything.
l '
- O I
k
- - - , ., -- ,, , ,-..- - -n - - ...- ,n- . -, e.~ , - , - .. -
50 1 Q That was the full basis for this statement right O
2 here?
3 A Yes. You see, they haven't finished anything, only 4 the HVAC, BCAP had completed when we were there.
5 Q Looking at the first full paragraph on IV-2 about in 6 the middle of that paragraph you make a statement, and I will 7 read it, "'ina team believes that this apparent lack of 8 independent interpretation of radiographs prior to their 9 storage in the vault may have contributed to the licensee's 10 inability to identify questionable or deficient radiographs'."
11 My first question is, what inability to identify 9
12 questionable or deficient radiographs are you speaking of?
y 13 A Okay. Well, basically you have to look at the last
! 14 table which is table IV-6 and then we have notec_ telling you 15 in which vendors we found what, and then also in other_ areas, 16 the NDE pipe welds, like on page IV-6 and IV-7, and then if 17 you read throughout the report, we basically have organized
- 18 them by area. Normally the NDEs are in the piping area, the t
19 containment liner and the vendors, which supply it so those 20 three areas, we review radiographs.
21 We found radiographs that had something in the weld, 22 you know, the film wasn't what it is supposed to be. That O
-,4&,
e 4
' :l-51 1 doesn't mean the weld is bad, butl.the film got artifacts which 2 shouldn't be there, certain. documentation irregularities, and 3 some welds even we found incomplete coverage.
4 So when we sat down and saw what we found there, we 5 said that they should have found them themselves. They 6 shouldn't have waited for us to come, and then once we came to 7 this conclusion we sat back and said let's see why this has 8 happened.
9 When we went and read their procedure, I think in 10 SQI-20 it tells us that these people, the CECO, review only i
]
11 10 percent of the radiographs before they store them in the
1 12 We said, " Hey, those are your radiographs.
~
vault. You should
( ) 13 reviep 100 percent and not only 10 percent." - That is the l 14 basis why we wrote this.. We said because we 'found these i
15 deficiencies with these welds, we look at your procedure and 16 we find that you have reviewed only 10 percent of what,was in ti 17 the vault and if'we did not find anything, that may be fine, 18 but since we found something, we think you were deficient in ~
19 identifying deficiencies.
~
20 Q There is no code requirement that they do reviAw-1 21 100 percent of those radiographs, is there?
22 A No , sir.
, i
. O e
-- . - - , --e-- r-.- + , ,. -
52 1 Q Is there a CECO requirement, if you know?
2 A CECO's requirement is the 10 percent. That is the 3 CECO procedure, SQI-20 is a CECO procedure. They. review 4 10 percent and when they review them, they don't read the 5 film. All they review is for -- well, all the paperwork is 6 there in the package, so it is not like a peer review if you 7 want to say it. Somebody reading it is different. We thought 8 even though there is no specific requirement requiring them 9 to, that in view of what we found, they should have reviewed
, 10 it, and that is what we say.
11 Q Did you recommend that they review 100 percent?
12 A We did recommend it, yes.
13 Q Do you know whether or not they are now reviewing 14 100 percent?
- 15 A I don't know, no, sir.
16 Q In response to a question asked by Mr. Gallo -- and 17 let me direct you to the page, it is IV-5.
18 A [ Perusing document.]
19 Q Specifically, the question was in regard to the 33 20 welds that were undersized and the fact that they were
~
21 accepted by Sargent & Lundy to be used on an as-is basis, is 22 that correct?
53
-1 A That is correct.
2 Q I think you stated that all the welds -- well, in 3 response to Mr. Gallo's question, you stated that everything 4 could be used as is.
5 A Yes, the reason being that-when we wrote this 6 report, we have one or two of these nonconformances-still not 7 supplied to us, but in a few days after the report got through 8 the approval chain, they submitted all of them.
9 Q Okay.
10 A You know, with the calculations and everything.
11 Q So at the time that you wrote the report, you knew 12 that most of them had been determined to be adequate.
13 A That's right, yes.
14 Q Subsequent to the report, you found that all of them 1
15 were found to be adequate.
16 A All were found, yes.
17 MR. WRIGHT: I don't have any further questions.
i 18 MR. TREBY: I have no questions.
19 MR. GALLO: I have no questions. Thank you, 20' Mr. Georgiev. #
21 MR. TREBY: We will waive signature.
22 [Whereupon, at 2:40 o' clock p.m., signature having O
I
, - -in - , ,- r- - - , - , . -
_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _. .-_._. . _ ___. .._. _ _. ~ . __.__ _ ... . . . _. ___ . _ _ . ,
i 4
54
, 1 been waived by the deponent with the consent of counsel, the 2 deposition was adjourned.)
3 4 i 5 l l
l
. 6 i
7 l 8 1
i 9
1 10 11 i.
$, 12 ,
7 1 13 ,
14 i
[
i 15
, 16 t
i 17 i
i
- 18 l
i 19
- 20
I
- 21 i
i 22 I
-,mg---g----e,w-yr-w-w,,,w--ey.-w ,y- ,- - - , -,y,+-,-- 1m.-9,-yv w -,q. g,a y,. .y,,,9.,y . -e,m-+m,_,,.g_.%g'g., pen-e-
55 1 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC 2
! 3 I, MARILYNN M.. NATIONS, the officer before whom the 4
4 foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby certify that the 5 witness whose testimony appears in the foregoing deposition ;
l 6 was duly sworn by me; that the testimony of said witness was l
7 taken by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or 8 under my direction; that said deposition is a true record of 9 the testimony given by the witness; that I am neither counsel 10 for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the 11 action in which this deposition was taken; and further, that I 12 am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel i()13 employed by the parties hereto, nor financially or otherwise 14 interested in the outcome of the action.
. 15 16 D- '
17 MARILYNN M. NATIONS 18 Notary Public in and for the 19 Commonwealth of Virginia 20 21 My Commission expires January 15, 1989.
22 Q
1 l
l EXHIBIT '
. Geor George D. Georgiev i dm*gie v'n' 1 Organization: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I M Q Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Title:
. Senior Construction Engineer Birth Date: March 3, 1941 Education: B.S. Metallurgy - Metallurgical Institute of Sofia, Bulgaria, 1955 M.S. Management - American University, Washington, DC, 1978 Professional Registration; Registered Professional Engineer'in the State of California Experience:
March 1980 - Senior Construction Engineer - Reactor Construction Present Programs Branch - Team leader for the welding and NDE sections of the NRC construction. appraisal team. Provides technical expertise relevant to the inspection of construction activities.
1975 - 1980 Senior Materials Engineer - Division of Systems Safety, NRR -
Responsible for the review and preparation of safety evaluation reports related to licensing of Nuclear Power Plants.
Representing the NRC on ASME Code Committee on Fabrication and Examination.
1973 -~1975 Senior Metallurgical /QA Engineer - The Ralph M. Parsons Co. -
x Assigned principal field consulting engineer for the Enrico Fermi 2 project in Monroe, Michigan with primary responsibility for the following areas: pipe fabrication and erection; pressure vessels and nuclear fuel.
1972 - 1973 Metallurgical /QA Engineer - Burns & Row, Inc. Oradell, NJ -
Principal metallurgical engineer for Three Mile Island 2 and Forked River Nuclear Power Plant projects. Certified NDT level III examiner for the company with responsibilities in the areas of radiography, ultrasonic, magnetic particle and liquid penetrant examinations.
1969 - 1972 Materials Engineer / Quality Administrator - Ebasco Services, Inc.
New York, NY - In charge of Ebasco Metallurgical Laboratory.
Performing failure analysis involving fossil and nuclear power plant components.
1968 - 1969 Metallurgist - Avildsen Tools, Inc., New York, NY - In charge of the Metallurgical Laboratory. Responsible for mechanical and metallurgical testing of steels as related to tool and drill manufacturing.
l O
l
^
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __