ML20195F206
| ML20195F206 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 06/05/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#286-575 OL, NUDOCS 8606110155 | |
| Download: ML20195F206 (300) | |
Text
'
ORIGIhAL .
)
1 O UlNITED STATES ,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-456 OL 50-457 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Braidwood Station, Units 1 & 2)
O LOCATION: JOLIET, ILLINOIS PAGES: 3051 - 3307 DATE: TH'IR$ b aY JUNE 5, 1986 9
Ls -
1 D \
Ae-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
O OfficialReporters 444 North CapitolSt:eet Washingtort D.C. 20001 8606110155 PDR e60605 ADGCK 0500 6 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE
3051 O 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
__________________X 5 :
In the Matter of: :
6 : Docket No. 50-456 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY : 50-457 OL 7 :
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 :
8 and 2) :
__________________X 9
10 Circuit Court of Cook County Sixth Municipal District 11 16501 S. Kedzie Parkway, Markham, Illinois 60426 12 Thursday, June 5, 1986.
14 The hearing in the above-entitled matter reconvened 15 at 9:00 A. M.
16 -
BEFORE: -
17 JUDGE HERBERT GROSSMAN, Chairman 18 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 19 Washington, D. C.
20 JUDGE RICHARD F. COLE, Membe r ,
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l
, 21 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
22 JUDGE A. DIXON CALLIHAN, Member, 23 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board t
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,
24 Washington, D. C.
25 APPEARANCES:
1 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 0u144 (312) 232-0262
. . . _.____---_____,,,,_m_- _ _
3052 O 1 On behalf of the Applicant:
2 MICHAEL I. MILLER, ESQ.
ELENA Z. KEZELIS, ESO.
3 Isham, Lincoln & Ber. e.
Three First National Plaza 4 . Chicago, Illinois 60602 5 On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff:
6 ELAINE I. CHAN, ESQ.
7 GREGORY ALAN BERRY, ESQ.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8 7335 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20014 9
On behalf of the Intervenors:
10 ROBERT GUILD, ESO.
11 12 O 13
(_/
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 \ .
O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 6U144 (312) 232-0262
_ _ - __ _ __ m m _ -_-- -
3053e
] 1 EXHIBIT INDEX Marked Received
, Applicant's Exhibit No. 5 3084 2 Applicant's Exhibit No. 6 3086 3
WITNESS INDEX 4
TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH RUSSELL VANNIER 5
DIRECT EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. GALLO 3066 7 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION BY MR. GALLO 3078 8
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 9 BY MR. GUILD 3092 10 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. GALLO 3120 11 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION (Continued) 12 BY MR. GUILD 3141
() 13 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. GALLO 3142 14 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION (Continuing) 15 BY MR. GUILD 3145 16 BOARD EXAMINATION BY JUDGE COLE 3146 17 BOARD EXAMINATION 18 BY JUDGE CALLIHAN 3149 19 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. GUILD: 3157 20 CROSS EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. GUILD: 3180 22 BOARD EXAMINATION BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: 3211 23 CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) 24 BY MR. GUILD: 3212 25 BOARD EXAMINATION 0 BY JUDGE CALLIHAN: 3221 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3054 O
O 1
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) 2 BY MR. GUILD: 3221 3 CROSS EXAMINATION BY MS. CHAN: 3228 4
BOARD EXAMINATION 5 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: 3234 6 BOARD EXAMINATION BY JUDGE COLE: 3240 7
BOARD EXAMINATION 8 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: 3242 9 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GALLO: 3246 10 BOARD EXAMINATION 11 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: 3262 12 REDIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. GALLO:. 3265 O 13 RECROSS EXAMINATION 14 BY MR. GUILD: 3275 15 BOARD EXAMINATION BY JUDGE CALLIHAN: 3287 16 BOARD EXAMINATION 17 BY JUDGE COLE: 3288 18 TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY SIMILE 19 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MILLER: 3290 20 21 22 23 24
(^)
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3055 l
O 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Good morning. The 14th day 2 of hearing is now convened.
3 I have some problems with what I think is a 4 deficiency in some of the evidence that we have heard 5 pertaining to Code Sections D.1.1 and '1.3 and 6 particularly with the disregard of the best evidence 7 rule.
8 We have heard testimony with regard to the contents 9 of certain documents containing standards and certain 10 other documents, namely promulgations by the American 11 Welding Society and the effects of these promulgations.
- 12 This is all, I think, brought to a head by the
~
13 question put to Mr. Louden, that was objected to --
14 well, the answer was objected to -- by Mr. Guild; and we 15 allowed a restatement of the question; and the 16 restatement, basically, was proper but the answer went 17 beyond that.
18 The questior. was whether there were any official 19 promulgations with regard to the adoption of D.1.3, and 20 the answer then went on to discuss the content of those l
21 promulgations; and that, obviously, is not competent 22 testimony.
I
! 23 Now, if there were no material issues here, I l
24 suppose we might accept some shorthand testimony on contents of documents; but it, apparently, is a pretty
[ } 25 Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3056 O 1 live issue, and I think we want to have the best 2 evidence on that.
3 I might also say that this was highlighted in some 4 questions that Judge Callihan asked with regard to legal 5 requirements of standards and whether the agreement 6 between Comstock and Sargent & Lundy actually contains 7 legal requirements or whether there are any other 8 overriding requirements; and I can think, in terms of 9 electrical codes, when you contract with an electrical 10 contractor to provide certain electrical equipment under 11 the code and then the code is changed, I don't know that 12 a private contract would, nevertheless, still govern; 13 and the area is a little murky.
14 The point being that it's the documentation that 15 really ought to be the basis for our determination and not just some testimony on someone's opinion as to what 16 17 the content of the documentation is.
l 18 I think I have said enough so that you understand l
19 what the problem is, Mr. Gallo; and I think the problem 20 didn't just arise in the past but also is presen't in the 21 testimony of Mr. Simile with regard to what the status 22 was of D.1.1 and D.1.3.
23 So we do ask that we have the documentation to 24 support the testimony or, actually, the documentation to 25 support the position; and, of course, the witness to l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
! Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3057 O 1 supply whatever foundation is necessary but not to 2 testify as to the contents, which ought to govern.
3 MR. GALLO: Judge Grossman, could I be heard 4 on your point?
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Sure.
6 MR. GALLO: I certainly understand the point 7 that you have made; and, frankly, I disagree with it.
8 Yesterday the Board asked for copies -- whether or 9 not copies had been made available of D.l.1 and D.1.3 10 and, generally, for a better understanding of the 11 provisions of the code; and I had volunteered that Mr.
12 Kurtz' testimony would provide that information.
( ) 13 It seems to me that the additional insight provided 14 this morning can also be provided by Mr. Kurtz.
15 It's too late to provide the kind of documentation 16 the Board is seeking for Mr. Simile, since he is going 17 to follow right af ter the next witness. As a matter of 18 fact, Mr. Miller is with him now assisting in his 19 preparation.
20 So I would welcome the opportunity through Mr.
21 Kurtz to provide the kind of best evidence that the 22 Board is describing.
I 23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Well, I am not saying
- 24 that it has to be done through Mr. Simile.
l 25 I am just saying what I consider to be a defect in O .
Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
, (312) 232-0262 l
-s - -
-a
- .....m a A _..__. _ _ &_ _ . _ _ - _ _ ___ _o
3058
~
)
1 the testimony or, basically, incompetent evidence to 2 establish these points; and at some time in your case 3 you ought to make sure that we have the competent 4 evidence.
5 And you understand the problem as well as I do, so 6 I am sure you will provide that.
7 By the way, I think this ought to be important to 8 Staff, also, not just for presenting to the Board but 9 because there was that question with regard to the NCR /
10 on what the appropriate code would be; and if some 11 evidence develops here that might be of interest to 12 that, I think you really ought to follow up on that;
( ) 13 and, perhaps, Staff'has done some work in this area that 14 we are not aware of.
15 Okay. That's one point.
16 Now, a second point, entirely different, relates to 17 our granting Applicant this dispensation to call Mr.
18 Puckett when presenting its own case in chief, even 19 though the order had been established before.
I 20 I made -- when we had the discussion on the 21 exclusion of witnesses, I don't know if you were 4
22 present, Mr. Gallo, possibly not.
23 MR. GALLO: I was not but I am aware of the 24 Board's ruling.
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. I did make a point l
O I
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 L _ -:-. -- - --
3059 O 1 there that when it came to rebuttal testimony, I really 2 did want the witnesses fully prepared to rebut 3 testimony. Even though it probably was unnecessary when 4 laying down the rule to say that with regard to 5 rebuttal, the same witnesses who were excluded were now I
6 to be fully apprised of what goes on so they will be 7 prepared to rebut.
, 8 I think this applies to Mr. Puckett, since a lot of 9 the testimony we have heard is directly contrary to Mr; 10 Puckett's position; and I want to make sure that he has 11 the opportunity to carefully evaluate the testimony that 12 has been presented in opposition to his position, so
( ) 13 that when he is called, we don't have a lot of vague l'4 testimony without centering in on the particulars.
15 And, perhaps, that is what Mr. Guild was concerned 16 about, was that he would not be able to prepare Mr.
17 Puckett sufficiently within that new order of calling 18 witnesses.
19 So I want to point this out and I want to make sure 20 that if we have to have some recess for some hours to 21 see that Mr. Puckett is fully apprised of what has gone 22 on and is able to respond to all the questions that were 23 brought up, that maybe we give that opportunity, because 24 we don't want to have to recall Mr. Puckett nor do we g 25 want any vague testimony on the record. We want i %)
I Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l _ __ _ __. .. _ __
3060
( ,
~1 1 everything directed.
2 So I just want to point that out. If the parties 3 have any comment on that', I would like to hear it right 4 now.
5 Do you, Mr. Gallo?
6 MR. GALLO: Well, I am not sure how we can --
7 how we, the Applicant can -- effectively assure that Mr.
8 Puckett is apprised of all of those --
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I don't expect you to. You 10 are adverse to Mr. Puckett.
11 But the point is that Intervenor may need some few 12 hours to prepare Mr. Puckett. I don't know what the
( ) 13 arrangements are; and what I am --
14 MR. GALLO: Maybe we could hear f rom Mr.
15 Guild on that point.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Sure. Mr. Guild.
17 MR. GUILD: You certainly touched on a number t
18 of issues that were of concern to us when we objected to i
19 the change in the sponsorship of Mr. Puckett, if you
! 20 will, and the order in which he be examined.
21 Normally, I think, the course would be that, as has 22 happened here, a witness is put on Direct and 23 immediately following the Direct, in due course, it 24 comes to your right to cross examine, you are expect.ed 25 to stand and examine the witness at that stage; and a O
{ Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- .-_.a_ .x a _ . .
mm ~ ~mww.- -
a
l 3061 l I
() 1 recess for purposes of collecting your thoughts or 2 preparing the witness to stand Cross Examination may not j 3 be permitted.
4 Mr. Puckett, obviously, stands on a very different 5 footing; and I think one small device, although it's not 6 fully adequate, I think, to address the Board's concern, 7 to permit Mr. Puckett to weigh and consider the 8 questions put to him on examination by Edison before 9 Intervenor has to go forward with its Cross or Direct, 10 whatever you want to call it, that intervening time 11 certainly would be helpful.
12 Mr. Puckett, obviously, has not been present during
( ) 13 the hearing. He is not subject to our control or in our 14 employ.
15 So I expect when he arrives, he will arrive and 16 present his testimony and depart, subject to the Board's 17 pleasure of recall.
i 18 But it's just not physically possible for him to be i 19 fully apprised of the evidence that, obviously, for days f 20 and days that has been elicited that is, indeed, adverse 21 to him.
i 22 I certainly will try to apprise him of what has l
23 been said; but, again, I don't represent him and he is 1
i 24 not subject to my control.
I So I think the device the Chairman has identified l ( ) 25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
! Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 I - - -- m _ - -
m-_ - ~ = - . _ _
-=. m
. - _ - _ - .. - - -- = _. - _
. 3062 J
() 1 is the only one that occurs to me, given the Chair's 2 ruling that Edison will have the prerogative of calling 3 him first.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I don't think that 5 it's appropriate to allow you that time after Direct 6 Examination.
7 What I have in mind is time before Direct j 8 Examination that you may need to apprise him of what the i
j 9 issues are.
10 This, again, came to a head yesterday, because the.
11 discussion of D.1.1 and D.1.3 indicates that there are 12 sone complexities to the differences in position between
( ) 13 Applicant's witnesses and Mr. Puckett. It's those 14 complexities that make me think that you might need just ,
15 some time.
I 16 Now, I just want to point it out. I don't think i
17 there is any need for any ruling now; but if you need a l1
( 18 few hours when Mr. Puckett -- just before Mr. Puckett is 19 s due to testify in order to apprise him of what you think l 20 the main issues are that have been brought out, you l
21 ought to ask us at that point and we will do whatever is I
22 necessary and we will make our determination then.
t l 23 MR. GUILD: That is appreciated.
j 24 I, frankly, thought you were, in fact, identifying 25 a device that would be useful to the Board, to be some
- Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ceneva, 1111nolS OU1J4 (312) 232-0262
3063 i
() 1 period of time between the time that Applicants examine 2 Mr. Puckett and the time that we would be required to 3 examine him.
4 I just would note that, while it's tended to be 5 more happenstance than by decision of the Board or by 6 decision of the parties, on a number of occasions 7 Applicants have had overnight to, essentially, prepare 8 their witnesses for Redirect Examination.
I '
9 If the Board is genuinely interested in having Mr.
10 Puckett respond fully to very difficult, technical 11 points, I think the Board should r'eflect that, pe rhaps ,
j 12 an opportunity for Mr. Puckett to reflect between the a
( 13. time that Applicants examine him to the time that 14 Intervenors do might be fruitful.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We will take that into 16- account, too, both before and af ter, depending on the 17 complexity of what the issues are.
18 Mr. Miller, you weren't here, so you don't know l
19 what occurred in the exchange.
, 20 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, I apologize for not i 21 being here for the entire exchange; but I gathered that 22 the Board is considering some sort of break in the f
23 testimony af ter Mr. Puckett is examined by Applicant.
l 24 MR. GALLO: The Board is suggesting --
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We were thinking primarily l
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3064 O before Mr. Puckett was examined; but Mr. Guild has also 1
2 suggested that there may be some complexities in the 3 Direct Examination of Mr. Puckett.
4 As I pointed out to begin with, one of the main 5 considerations I had when discussing the exclusion rule 6 was with having the adverse party given sufficient time 7 to prepare rebuttal to positions.
8 I just want to make sure that, since Mr. Puckett is 9 adverse to your witnesses, that he be fully apprised of 10 what is at issue and given the opportunity to prepare 11 the rebuttal to it.
12 So now we have in question both the time before he
T 13
(_/
testifies and the time after his Direct; and we are not 14 making any ruling now. We will play it by ear, but we 15 will try to be fair and allow the opportunity for 16 preparation.
17 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, I guess I had always 18 contemplated that Mr. Puckett, who is not employed by 19 any party, if he wished to cooperate, for example, with 20 Mr. Guild or with me, for that matter, that either one 21 of us could interview him before his testimony and give 22 him such guidance as might be appropriate in terms of 23 the issues that are going to be -- that he is going to 24 be examined object.
25 I don't plan on doing that on behalf of the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- ~. -
3065 O(~~
1 Applicant. He is, as you point out, adverse to our 2 position and I prefer to examine him as an adverse 3 witness.
4 I certainly have no objection and think it's 5 perfectly proper for Mr. Guild to make whatever advance 6 arrangements he can with Mr. Puckett as he sees fit.
7 The issues, I think, are now well known. They seem 8 to be within the four corners of the Comstock welding 9 procedure, the AWS Code, the Sargent & Lundy 10 specifications.
11 Whatever Mr. Guild thinks is appropriate, I have no 12 objection to, certainly.
( ) 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Mr. Miller, we are 14 apparently on the same wave length here.
15 Though I mentioned that we may have to recess for 16 an hour or two, Mr. Guild, apparently, now, I would 17 assume, is a little beleaguered, since his associate is 18 no longer with him, and so he can't do everything at the 19 same time.
20 Now, I understand that you certainly don't want to i 21 delay the hearing and we do not, either; but we just 22 want to make sure that there is just adequate time to do 23 this.
! 24 So we will consider that when the occasion arises.
25 MR. MILLER: Fine.
O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- _- . _ _ mm ...m _ _ _ _ _ ~ ---m_,
3066 O And I don't think we have to 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
2 discuss it any further.
3 The third thing that I just want to take care of 4 now on the record is to return the in camera materials 5 that we received yesterday.
6 These were -- I didn't open mine and the others 7 were opened but before they were read I indicated that 8 we did not wish to have those read, and so they are not 9 read by the Board and no one knows what the settlement 10 agreement consisted of, which is what the in camera 11 materials are.
12 I just want to assure Applicant that that is the 13 case.
14 Okay. Now we are ready to have our next witness 15 called, unless there are other preliminary matters.
16 MR. GALLO: I would request the Board's 17 indulgence to take a five-minute recess so I can brief 18 Mr. Miller on the first point raised by the Board, since 19 it relates to his preparation of Mr. Simile.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Fine. We will take 21 five minutes.
22 , (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, af ter which 23 the hearing was resumed as follows:-)
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gallo, please call your 25 ,
next witness.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois OU1J4 (312) 232-0262
]
3067 O 1 MR. GALLO: I should note for the record, 2 Judge Grossman, that while we were in brief recess, we 3 provided Mr. Guild the attachments to NCR 1827, which I 4 understand Mr. Miller had promised to provide Mr. Guild 5 previously.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine. Thank you.
- 7 Who is your next witness then?
8 MR. GALLO: Mr. Vannier, who is at the
- 9 witness table.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Sir, will you please i
11 stand and raise your right hand.
12 (The witness was thereupon duly sworn.)
O 13- JUDGE GROSSMAN, 21.ase he eeated.
14 JOSEPH RUSSELL VANNIER 15 called as a witness by the Applicant herein, having been 16 first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
17 DIRECT EXAMINATION j 18 BY MR. GALLO 19 Q Will you state your full name and occupation for the 1
l 20 record, please?
i 21 ,A Joseph Russell Vannier. I am a senior quality control
- 22 engineer with Sargent & Lundy.
j 23 Q Mr. Vannier, did you have occasion to prepare testimony I 24 ;
for this proceeding?
! 25 'A Yes, I did.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 -
. - - , . . _ - . , #- ..-_W" --^~h A
3068 I O
1 Q I show you a document entitled, " Contention 2-C, 2 testimony of J. R. Vannier," dated April, 1986, 3 consisting of answers to 24 questions -- excuse me, 25 4 questions, and ask if this is the testimony that you 5 prepared for this proceeding?
6 A Yes, it is.
7 Q I note that attached to your testimony is Vannier 8 Attachment No.1, which is the resume, which is entitled 9 resume, and I ask if that's your resume?
10 A Yes, it is.
11 Q Was it prepared by you?
12 A Yes.
( 13 0 Are there any corrections to your testimony?
14 A I have some corrections in my testimony I would like to 15 point out, if I may.
16 Q Take them one at a time and slowly so that the Board and 17 the parties can find the right line and page.,
18 A I have Page 4 --
19 Q Here is an extra table.
20 A Thank you. On Page 4 of my testimony, I have some 21 dimensions I would like to clarify or correct.
22 I direct you to A.10, Answer 10, and in the first
! 23 line of A.10, we have a dimension at the end of the 24 first line and it says, "2-2/4."
. 4 In my handwritten copy of this I had 2-3/4, and
{ } 25 l
l Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- . ~ . _ .
3069 A .
V 1 that's the dimension I would like to establish.
2 On A.11, again, the first line, and, again, the 3 last dimension,1-5/8 inches,;I would like to change 4 that to 2-5/8, which is what I intended it to be.
5 On Page 7, Answer 19, A.19, again, the first line, 6 I have a dimension 2-2/4. That's what is typewritten.
7 I would like to change that to 2-3/4. Evidently, 8 my 3's looked like 2's to the typist. So that would be 9 2-3/4.
10 On the first page of my resume under registrations, 11 the third line, it says, " Certificate No.," and there is 12 a B as in boy.
( ) 13 I,would like to change that to 8 as in 7, 8. The 14 Certificate No. would be 8006.
15 On the last page of my resume, the last paragraph 16 or second paragraph, it says I worked for a company 17 called INOX.
18 The name of the company was IND-X Corporation.
19 And that completes the changes that I have.
20 Q Is your --
21 MR. GUILD: Mr. Vannier, is that D as in dog, 22 IND?
23 THE WITNESS: Yes, D as in dog, hyphen, I 24 guess, X.
25 BY MR. GALLO:
O Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
.. ._ . _ _ =z. -
m - = _,
3070 0 1 Q Is your testimony as corrected accurate and complete to 2 the best of your knowledge and belief?
3 A Yes.
4 MR. GALLO: Before I offer Mr. Vannier's 5 testimony into evidence, I should note that there are 6 two prefiled objections to the admissibility of the 7 testimony.
8 As the Board is aware -- well, one of the 9 objections questions the foundation of the test coupons 10 used by Mr. Vannier; and the Board is aware that 11 discussions between myself and Mr. Guild have continued 12 for the last day or so in an attempt to reconcile that
( ) 13 particular issue.
14 We have not been total y successful in reconciling 15 that issue.
16 However, I think that we have reconciliation so 17 that we can go forward on the basis of an agreement that 18 I will state.
19 The other objection is one of irrelevance and 20 immateriality, and there is no agreement on that one.
~
- 21 I would propose that, with the approval of the i 22 Doard, we deal first with the irrelevance objection and i
23 then move to the foundation objection if the Intervenor 24 objection is overruled.
25 MR. GALLO: I would --
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. m_ __- -
3071 O 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gallo -- I am sorry.
2 MR. GALLO: I was going to offer argument on 3 the first point.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: If you w' ant to, fine.
5 MR. GALLO: The' objections to Mr. Vannier's 6 testimony appear on Page 7 of Intervenors' April 28th 7 motion to strike.
8 On the relevancy question, it is stated that 9 Intervenors object to the testimony of Mr. Vannier in 10 its entirety as irrelevant and immaterial.
11 No further illumination is provided as to why the 12 testimony is irrelevant and immaterial.
O 13 Agg11 cane does nee aeree that thae ob3eceien has -
14 merit.
15 Mr. DeWald in his testimony indicates quite clearly 16 that one of the bases that figured in the dismissal of 17 Mr. Puckett was his inability to pass the field 18 qualification test that had to be passed in order to be 19 certified as a Level 3.
f 20 Mr. DeWald indicates in his testimony at.about Page, 21 44 that Mr. Puckett failed that test.
22 What Mr. Vannier has done is taken the same test I
23 coupons that were used by Mr. Puckett and upon which he l
l 24 was tested and upon which Mr. DeWald determined that Mr.
25 Puckett had failed -- Mr. Vannier has taken those same l
I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 t
__w. _ _ _ _ . . - ~ _ . ,_ . .. . . . . ; . . x; 2 r - :=-- ,
m_ _ _
3072 O 1 test coupons and taken the test performed by Mr. Puckett 2 and graded it using his expertise as a Level 3 weld 3 expert; and, essentially, his testimony corroborates the 4 testimony of Mr. DeWald that Mr. Puckett failed this 5 test.
6 And, secondly, Mr. Vannier's testimony demonstrates 7 the extent or the lack of knowledge exhibited by Mr.
8 Puckett on welding matters and welding questions under 9 the AWS Code when he took the test.
10 That is reflected in the testing process or the 11 grading process that Mr. Vannier went through and as is 12 explained in his testimony.
O 13 Wieh ehee exg1anation, r ee11 eve it'e c1 ear thae 14 the vannier testimony is both relevant and material to 15 this proceeding.
16 JUDGE bROSSMAN: Mr. Guild.
17 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, it's our position, 18 first, that the test in question is a test of which Mr.
19 Vannier has no competent knowledge.
20 Mr. DeWald was the witness who should have been the 21 competent, if you will, sponsor of any testimony 22 regarding the evaluation of the Puckett welding test.
23 As Mr. DeWald states in his testimony, he is the 24 one who graded it.
25 The DeWald test was evaluated under circumstances Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
__ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ ._.._m . _. _ ._....m__ w _ ._. ...
3073 l
O 1 that we believe. cast very significant doubt as to the 2 probative value of the examination result.
3 Let me recite the chronology. We would offer to 4 show that the meeting at which Mr. -- Mr. Puckett took 5 the test in question on August 22, 1984.
6 That's the same day that they had the meeting about 7 the NCR 3099 that has been the subject of testimony from 8 Mr. Gieseker and Mr. Louden.
i
- 9 On August 23rd testimony will show that Mr. Puckett i
10 was given this, what he characterized in his deposition
, 11 and will testify to, I trust, impossible assignment to 12 review all of the weld rod slips and all of the welder
( ) 13 qualification records at Comstock and to complete such 14 assignments in one week's period of time.
15 August 23rd there was the procedure revision 16 meeting of the Procedure Review Board testified to by 17 Mr. Gieseker.
18 August 24th according to the prefiled testimony of 19 Mr. Simile, Tony Simile, Mr. Puckett's replacement as 20 the Level 3, Mr. Simile was contacted by the Comstock i
) 21 management in Pittsburgh and told that he would be l 22 working at the Braidwood site. This is before Mr. -
23 Puckett's termination.
24 August 26th, a Sunday, Mr. DeWald grades the
, 25 Puckett exam according to the dates of Mr. DeWald's 1
t l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3074 O 1 signature which appear on Mr. DeWald's version of the 2 Puckett test.
3 Monday, August 27th, there is a meeting between Mr.
4 Shamblin, Mr. DeWald, Mr. Gieseker, concerning Mr.
5 Puckett, at which the decision is formally ratified or 6 made, if you will, to terminate Mr. Puckett.
7 August 27th, that same day, Mr. Simile reports to 8 Comstock headquarters in Pittsburgh and is given his 9 assignment to report to Braidwood the next day.
10 And, indeed, on August 28th M,r. Simile reports to 11 Braidwood. On that same day, August 28th, a Tuesday, 12 Mr. Puckett is told by Mr. DeWald that he is fired.
Ou Au righe. sow, under ehese circumseances our 14 position is that Mr. DeWald simply used the test, this 15 test taken on August 22nd, graded on August 26th, after i
16 they had already decided to replace Mr. Puckett with Mr.
17 Simile, as a pretext to terminate the man.
18 That is, essentially, the legal conclusion that was 19 reached by the U. S. Department of Labor in the Area 20 Director's determination.
21 .
Applicant had Mr. DeWald, the witness who was
! 22 competent to testify and stand Cross Examination on that 23 test, on the witness stand; and aside from the passing 24 reference in his testimony that, in fact, he had flunked 25 him on that test, there is no testimony presented from Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3075 O 1 Mr. DeWald as to his evaluation of the test results.
2 Intervenors, therefore, don't have the opportunity 3 to cross examine and test through confrontation, Cross 4 Examination, the validity of Mr. DeWald's test 5 evaluation, which we would love to do.
6 Instead, what Applicant does is they go out and 7 bring a man in who has no personal knowledge of the test 8 to, essentially, rehabilitate what we believe to be the 9 questionable and unreliable test results.
10 Independent but related, we object on the grounds 11 of lack of foundation and believe, having talked to Mr.
12 Vannier off the record, having talked to counsel, that
( ) 13 there are serious questions about the authenticity of 14 the coupons that Mr. Vannier has before him on the 15 witness table and performed his evaluation of.
16 The chain-of-custody question and the authenticity 17 question goes to foundation, also relates to the issue 18 of relevance, because it, in our opinion, significantly i
19 impugns the probative value of the evaluative evidence 20 that Mr. Vannier presents.
21 On those grounds we believe that the testimony in 22 its entirety should be stricken as irrelevant and 23 immaterial.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. With regard to the i
25 relevance of this testimony, it is clear that the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
<,---& -% . . ,..- .%. -EL . m ... ; .m .-- 4
3076 il O 1 testimony -- if the foundation problems are resolved, it j 2 is clear that the testimony -- is relevant, in that it 3 supports the basis for Applicant's firing of Mr.
j 4 Puckett, their position with regard to that.
5 You certain1y have the opportunity, Mr. Guild, of i 6 recalling Mr. DeWald and questioning him adversely with 7 regard to this matter here; but, certainly, since you do 8 question the basis for this reason given for firing Mr.
9 Puckett -- one of the reasons -- Applicant certainly has
- 10 the opportunity to bolster its position by having the j 11 expert brought in.
! 12 Now, Mr. PQckett also has the opportunity of
! O 13 direce1y eeseifying with regard to ehose eese coupons l 14 and rebutting whatever foundation, the testimony that l
15 will be offered by Mr. Gallo.
l i 16 So it appears that we would have to accept the 17 testimony subject to the proper foundation being 18 supplied and, of course, subject to your rebutting that t
l 19 foundation testimony and subject to your impeachment of 20 Mr. DeWald, if you care to recall him and impeach his 21 testimony.
22 I don't see that there is any other course open to l 23 the Board.
I
( 24 Is there any further comment on that?
i 25 MR. GALLO: Well, on the question of Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
! Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 1
3077 6 1 foundation, your Honor, I readily concede that I cannot 2 establish totally the foundation for those coupons 3 through this witness alone.
4 This whole matter was explored with Mr. Guild 5 yesterday and I believe it's fair to state that an 6 agreement was reached, whereby we would attempt to take 7 this witness on the foundation question as far as 8 possible and that Mr. Guild would not object to me later 9 calling other witnesses to fill the foundation gaps, as 10 long as he had a proper notice and an opportunity to i
11 cross examine on those witnesses.
12 I think that's an accurate reflection of our
( ) 13 discussion yesterday.
14 In the meantime, the testimony would come in 15 subject to that condition.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, fine. So that's the 17 Board's ruling, that we will accept the testimony 18 subject to the proper foundation being laid, primarily 19 the chain of custody and direct testimony with regard to 20 these being the coupons.
21 I ask whether anyone has any further comment.
22 Mr. Berry?
23 MS. CHAN: The Staff agrees with the Board'on 24 this issue.
25 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, we would seek an Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3078 O opportunity to examine the witness by voir dire as to 1
2 the issue of foundation.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. At this point?
4 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir, unless Mr. Gallo wants 5 to go forward and of fer additional foundation testimony; 6 but we are prepared to go forward on the foundation 7 issue first at this stage.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Well, I didn't 9 understand that you were going to do that.
10 So when I admitted the testimony subject to the 11 foundation, I didn't give you an opportunity to voir 12 dire further on that.
( ) 13 You prefer that we reserve the ruling on the 14 testimony until you have concluded your voir dire?
15 MR. GUILD: Yes.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Then we will retract 17 our receiving of the testimony pending the voir dire, 18 af ter which Mr. Guild can renew his objection.
19 MR. GALLO: I would accept Mr. Guild's 20 invitation to af firmatively ' establish as much of the
~
21 foundation as is possible with this witness.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine. You,will~ proceed, Mr.
23 Gallo, we will have the voir dire and the possible 24 renewal, without waiving Mr. Guild's right to further 25 demonstrate the lack of foundation and, therefore, O
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois ou134 (312) 232-0262
=n es - M .._.-s,. ....,,Ge '
...E
1 3079 )
i O 1 strike the testimony later.
2 Continue, Mr. Gallo.
3 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 4 BY MR. GALLO s
5 Q Mr. Vannier, at Pages 2 and 3 of your prepared testimony 6 you refer to test coupons.
7 in Answer 6 you say, "I reviewed 12 test coupons 8 that had been used' to test Mr. Puckett."
9 Are those the -- first, can you identify those 10 coupons for me at the present time?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Are they in the courtroom?
~ O 13 A Yes.
14 Q Would you go proceed, please?
15 A They are these coupons here.
16 (Indicating.)
17 Q Those steel configurations?
18 A The steel configurations that are welded together, yes.
19 Q Now, can you explain the circumstances by which you 20 obtained those coupons?
21 A I was relatively new at the site of Braidwood and I was 22 in the process of giving a lecture demonstration to some 23 draftsmen to explain welding symbols and that type of 24 thing and I wanted to show some actual weld 25 configurations.
Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- .- _. a
3080 0 1 I needed some samples that I could actually show 2 them rather than have drawings and that type of thing.
3 So I had a gentleman working for me, who had been 4 trained under Comstock -- I don't know how long. The 5 gentleman's name was Mr. Kosieniak and he was working 6 on --
7 Q How do you spell that?
8 A Pardon? ,
9 Q Could you spell Mr. Kosieniak's name, please?
10 A K-0-S-I-E-N-I-A-K, Paul Kosieniak.
11 And he said, "I know where we can gat some 12 samples," and he made a phone call to comstock to a Mr.
( ) 13 DeWald and he got permission to pick up some samples.
14 So Mr. Kosieniak and myself went over to the 15 Comstock building and went upstairs to the training 16 center and we picked up these samples here at that time.
17 I had no idea what was -- what these samples were, 18 just that they were welding configurations.
i 19 I picked them up, and they have been in my 1
20 possession -- tha't was in December of 1984 and they have 21 been in my possession -- in my office ever since.
22 Q Did you subsequently learn that these were Mr. Puckett's 23 coupons that were used for his test?
24 A Yes, I did.
25 Q How did you learn that?
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3081
)
1 A I learned that when I was asked to evaluate Mr. f 2 Puckett's test and --
3 0 When was that, approximately?
4 A I am sorry. I can't give you a date.
5 Q Can you give me a year?
6 A 1985, late.
7 Q Late in '85?
8 A Yes.
9 Q All right. You were saying that you were asked to 10 evaluate?
11 A Yes.
12 So I said, "Well, I have to have a copy of the
( ) 13 test." .
14 I got ahold of Comstock; and a Mr. DeWald and a Mr.
15 Simile brought copies of the test over to me, along with 16 a key sheet.
17 I said, "That's fine, but we don't have the samples 18 that the gentleman, Mr. Puckett, was tested on." They 19 said, "We can' t find them. "
20 I don't know how the next thing occurred, but I 21 happened to pull out some samples and I said, "I have 22 some samples that I got from comstock," and I believe 23 that was almost several months previous; and they said, l
24 "Yes, those are the ones."
i
! 25 So at that time that's how I b2came aware of what
~
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
! Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3082 O 1 the samples were.
2 Q When did they --
3 'MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I don't mean to 4 interrupt unduly, but I would ask the record to reflect 5 that Mr. Vannier states what others told him, which is, 6 ,
indeed, hearsay as to the substance of what he was told.
7 I understand he is re' lating his understanding and 8 what he learned, and that I think is appropriate; but 9 the substance of what, say, Mr. DeWald told him, 10 obviously, is not independent establishment of the facts 11 of what Mr. DeWald told him.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That is correct, of course.
() 13 What Mr. Vannier is testifying to now does not 14 establish the facts that he indicated that the others 15 had told him. It only goes as far as his having heard 16 the statement.
17 BY MR. GALLO:
18 Q What did you understand Mr. DeWald to mean when he said, 19 "Those are the ones"?
20 A That he recognized these samples.
l 21 They had also been used for training over there, so 22 I guess they were generally familiar with these samples.
23 I don't think they had a lot of other samples over 24 there and I think they were generally familiar with 25 these configurations.
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 601J4 (312) 232-0262 1 -
_m ._ m _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - -
3083
/
O JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me. The same 1
2 objection holds for all of this testimony --
3 MR. GALLO: I unde rstand.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- with regard to the 5 speculation and, also, with regard to what was told.
6 The only value is that he heard these 7 representations made but not that they were true or that 8 certain situations existed that he can surmise.
9 MR. GALLO: Where are we on this?
10 BY MR. GALLO:
11 Q Well, did you understand at that time during that 12 conversation with Mr. DeWald that these were the coupons
() 13 used for the Puckett test?
14 A I did.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me.
16 You understood that these were the representations 17 made to you that these were the coupons?
18 THE WITNESS: Yes.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
20 BY MR. GALLO:
21 Q Aside from your conversations with representatives of 22 Comstock and the fact that you picked up these 23 particular coupons at Comstock's offices, do you have 24 any other basis for determining or concluding that these
! 25 coupons were the ones used by Mr. Puckett during his l
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
.. _.. . m.._ _ - _ _. m
3084 i O
1 test?
2 A Well, as I reviewed the test and the coupons and the key 3 sheet -- the key sheet was -- is it all right to talk 4 about the key sheet?
5 Q Sure. 'Go right ahead.
6 A -- and the key' sheet all match the coupons which are 7 numbered, the weld samples -- there is a sequence,1 8 through 14 I have here -- and the key sheet.
9 (Indicating.)
10 Q Let me interrupt you, Mr. Vannier.
11 A Yes.
12 MR. GALLO: It might be helpful to your 13 testimony if I mark as Applicant's Exhibit 5, first of 14 all, the test taken, Mr. Puckett's test that was l
15 referred to by Mr. Guild in his argument.
16 I have here a docubent of four pages, the name at 17 the top is W. O. Puckett, dated August 22, 1984, and it 18 is the test that is referred to by this witness.
19 The test indicates the grading comments, if I can 20 use that terminology, of Mr. DeWald.
21 Let me mark this as Applicant's No. 5, as an 22 exhibit, and make it available.
23 (The document was thereupon marked 24 Applicant's Exhibit No. 5 for 25 identification as of June 5, 1986.)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 t
3085
- h 1 BY MR. GALLO:
2 Q Do you have a copy of this?
3 A Yes, I do.
4 MR. GALLO: I previously furnished Mr. Guild 5 a copy yesterday.
6 MR. GUILD: Yes, I have a copy.
7 BY MR. GALLO:
8 Q Now, would you examine what has been marked as 9 Applicant's 5?
10 MS-. CHAN: Mr. Gallo, do you have a copy for I
11 the Staff?
12 MR. GALLO: I am sor ry. Yes.
l () 13 BY MR. GALLO:-
i 14 Q Would you examine what has been marked as Applicant's 5, 15 . which is this document right here?
16 (Indica. ting . )
l 17 A Okay.
18 Q Can you identify it for me?
I 19 A Yes.
20 Q Well, please do so.
21 A- That's a copy of the Puckett test.
22 MR. GUILD: Objection.
23 The witness clearly is not competent to offer that 24 conclusion.
25 g JUDGE GROSSMAN: This is a copy of what was l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
. .. n . . ~ . - . _ .- . .
3086 I O 1 represented to you to be the Puckett test?
2 THE WITNESS: Yes.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine.
4 THE WITNESS: That was delivered to me by Mr.
5 DeWald and Simile.
6 MR. GALLO: Fine. I would like to mark --
7 BY MR. GALLO:
8 Q I want to show you another document. It's this one 9 here.
10 (Indicating.)
11 Let me-give copies to the Board first.
12 And I will ask you, first of all, who did you get
( ) 13 that document from? _
14 A I got that, also, from Mr. Simile and Mr. DeWald.
15 Q What did they represent it to be?
16 A They represented it to be the, quote, unquote, key sheet 17 that was used -- that was made up to go with these 18 samples.
19 MR. GALLO: I would like to mark for 20 identification what Mr. Vannier has identified as a key 21 sheet as Applicant's 6.
i l 22 This document consists of four pages and is most i
~ 23 readily identified by the fact in the middle of the page 24 are the words, " Tom Vogt" -- that is V-O-G-T - " key."
25 (The document was thereupon marked l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
_. _ . _.. _ ; _. .... .___m_- - _. - - - -
-_ m -_- m
3087 s
O 1 Applicant's Exhibit No. 6 for 2 identification on June 5, 1986.)
3 BY MR. GALLO:
4 Q Now, can you explain, Mr. Vannier, what this key sheet 5 is and --
6 A The key sheet --
7 Q Let me rephrase that question.
8 What that key sheet was represented to you as by 9 Mr. DeWald and Simile.
! 10 A The key sheet was represented to me by Mr. DeWald and i 11 Mr. Simile as being Mr. Vogt's evaluation of these weld 12 samples for training and testing purposes.
() 13 0 ,
Who is Mr? Vogt?
14 A Mr. Vogt was a, I believe, corporate but he is a Level 3 15 for Comstock.
i 16 Q Level 3 what?
i 17 A Level 3 Weld Inspector, I guess.
18 I am sorry. I don't know Mr. Vogt.
19 Q How was that key used in connection with the Puckett 20 test, to your knowledge, based on your understanding of 21 .w hat was told to you by Mr. Dewald?
l 22 A The Puckett test was graded against the key sheet.
I 23 And if you will note'on Exhibit 5, they actually 24 quote in the grading of the Puckett test -- they quote 25 from the key sheet; and that ties the two together.
Sonntaa Reportinq_ Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 1
3088 1 Q What is there about the test and the key sheet that 1 2 causes you to believe that these are the coupons that
. 3 were used by Mr. Puckett during his test?
( A Well, in evaluating the test and reading the key sheet, 5 there are characteristics that would be somewhat 6 difficult, in my opinion, to duplicate. There is 7 description.
8 For example, on Page 1 of both the test and the key 9 sheet we have, " arc strike."
10 (Indicating.)
11 Q Point clearly so that the parties and the Board can 12 follow.
() 13 Where are you pointing to on Page l?
14 A To Question No. 3.
15 Q All right.
16 A And No. 3 clearly marked on this sample is, " arc ~
l 17 strike."
l 18 That in itself would be easy to duplicate, but then 19 we get to a more complicated condition; and that is No.
l 20 '9 on both the key sheet --
l l 21 Q What page are you referring to now?
22 A I am referring to Page 3 of the Puckett test, and I I
23 guess it would be Page 3.
24 There are no page numberings on it.
25 Q Well, the third or what sheet?
O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
3089 1 A It's the third page, again.
2 Q The third page?
3 A Yes.
4 I have --
5 Q You mentioned No. 9. What does that mean?
6 A That's Question No. 9, the ninth question.
7 The characteristic that is on the sample, that is 8 on the test and that is on the key sheet is that there 9 is a -- it's a sort of a trick question in that it calls 10 for a quarter-inch fillet weld and the actual 11 configuration is a flare bevel grove weld; and that'\s 12 noted by both parties, that and other things, the slag
() 13 ' inclusions.
j 14 Q I couldn't understand your last point.
15 A All right.
16 Q You indicate that it's a trick question.
17 Would you explain that again, please?
l 18 A Well, the test, as I understand it, was simply these 19 symbols without any answers.
20 The Applicant took that symbol and evaluated No. 9 21 sample in accordance with that, in accordance with that 22 symbol.
23 Q You keep referencing No. 9.
24 Is there a relationship between the No. 9 shown on 25 the key in the test and one of these coupons?
l Sonntaq Reporting Se rvice, Ltd. -
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3090 l O Yes, there is.
1 A 2 Q How do you know which one that is?
3 A The figures are marked and were marked when I got them 4 on the samples themselves.
5 For example, this is No. 14.
6 (Indica ting. )
7 Q How about showing us No. 97 8 A No. 9 is a little harder to show you, because it's 9 obscured by this; but this is No. 9.
10 (Indicating.)
11 Q Now, what is there about the coupon that leads you to 12 believe -- strike that.
( 13 What is there about what is written on the key and 14 on the test under No. 9 that leads you to believe that 15 the No. 9 coupon is the one that was used for the test?
16 A On the key sheet on Page 3, it says, " Wrong weld symbol 17 for tube."
18 On the Puckett test Mr. Puckett says --
19 MR. GUILD: Objection.
20 i THE WITNESS: All right. I unde rstand.
21 MR. GUILD: A cooperative witness, Mr.
22 Chairman.
23 BY MR. GALLO:
24 Q The documents?
25 A This document shows, "Except but it's not a fillet.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3091 e () 1 It's a flare bevel."
2 Both of those describe this condition.
3 (Indicating.)
4 4 Q So by association you believe the coupons to be the same 5 as reflected in these documents?
6 A I do.
7 MR. GALLO: Judge Grossman, members of the 8 Board, with respect to the~ key sheet, Applicant will 9 call Mr. Vogt to establish the foundation, that this ,
10 document, which Mr. Vannier believes to be his key 11 sheet, is, in fact, that key sheet.
12 We will also call Mr. DeWald to establish that that
( 13 key sheet was provided to Mr. Vannier.
14 We will also call Mr. DeWald for the purpose of l 15 establishing that he gave the Puckett test to Mr.
16 Vannier.
17 On the question of chain of possession of the 18 coupons themselves, all that this witness can testify to 19 is that he obtained the coupons that are in front of him
- 20 from Comstock and found them located in the training 21 facility or training center at Comstock in the cabinet.
22 I would like to ask -- it occurs to me I would like 23 to ask -- the witness one question additionally.
24 BY MR. GALLO:
25 Q Do you remember who gave the coupons to you at the time i
l Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 1
3092
() 1 you received them?
2 A You mean when I went to the training center and picked 3 them up?
4 Q Yes.
5 A I believe it was a Mr. Dominic.
6 Q But is your memory not absolutely clear?.
7 A Not absolutely.
8 MR. GALLO: All right. On the question of 9 chain of possession, I will establish through this Mr.
10 Dominic, who is an employee of BESTCO now -- he is a 11 Level 2 Inspector -- that at the time that these coupons 12 were turned over to Mr. Vannier, that they were in his
} 13 custody and he, indeed, had provided them to Mr. Puckett 14 for purposes of taking the test and after Mr. Puckett 15 took the test, he retrieved them and kept them under ,
16 lock and key in the training center until they were 17 turned over to Mr. Vannier.
18 There is one added complication'in this chain of 19 logic that I am trying to establish. Mr. Vannier you 20 have just heard testify that he doesn't remember exactly l
21 the name or the person he received the coupons from. He 22 has a vivid memory that he obtained the coupons from 23 Comstock in their offices and, indeed, in the training
, 24 center but he does not recall the individual.
l Mr. Dominic, who I have also interviewed, does not
) 25
. Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 6U1J4 l
(312) 232-0262 t .
3093 O
1 recall the individual at Sargent & Lundy he gave them 2 to. He knows they were given to Sargent & Lundy.
3 As Mr. Vannier has testified, he was in the company 4 of another Sargent & Lundy person, a fellow by the name 5 of Paul Kosieniak; and Mr. Dominic remembers him.
6 I have not' yet had the opportunity to interview Mr.
7 Kosieniak but I have reason to believe that he will 8 recall the circumstances and that will close the loop on 9 the chain of custody.
10 Through this rather complicated process, I believe 11 I will be able to lay the foundation that, indeed, these 12 are the coupons that were used by Mr. Puckett during his 13 test.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine. Have you completed --
15 MR. GALLO: That is all the direct that I can 16 elicit from this witness on the foundation question; and 17 if Mr. Guild wants to pursue it further, that is his 18 prerogative.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild, voir dire.
20 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. GUILD 22 Q Then from what I have just heard, I think it's clear, is 23 it not, Mr. Vannier, where you state at Page 3 of your 24 testimony, "I reviewed 12 test coupons which had been 25 used to test Mr. Puckett," that you have no personal Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
( 312). 232-0262
. .. - . . - , , - - . - . ~ , - - .
i 3094 l
1 knowledge as to the fact that Mr. Puckett, indeed, did 2 test from these coupons?
'3 A That is correct.
4 Q Now, you go on to state that two additional coupons had 5 been used as well. However -- they, however, are 6 missing.
7 Now, do you deduce or conclude that there are two 8 missing coupons because you only have 12 and there were, 9 indeed, 14 reflected on the test completed by Mr.
10 Puckett or what you understand was completed by Mr.
11 Puckett?
12 A The number sequence is from 1 to 14, minus No. 6 and No.
( 13 7, so I assume there were a 6 and 7, but I did not get 14 possession of those.
15 Q All right. The answer to my question is, yes, Mr.
16 Puckett, indeed, apparently, if this is Mr. Puckett's l 17 test --
l l 18 A Yes.
19 0 -- completed an exam for 12 coupons; is that' correct?
l 20 A For 14.
21 .Q I am sorry. For 14 coupons?
22 A Yes.
l 23 Q And you only have 12?
24 A Yes.
f 25 Q And are you confident that you did not receive those two Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois bu134 l (312) 232-0262
3095 Iv ')
1 additional coupons?
2 And they are Nos. 6 and 7; is that correct?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Are you confident that you did not receive Coupons 6 and i
5 7 from Comstock?
6 A I am confident that I did not receive them, yes.
7 0 Can you tell me what the basis is f.or your confidence 8 that you didn't lose the two coupons, Nos. 6 and 7?
9 A Simply that I had custody of these coupons and that I 10 kept them and they were given to nobody else. This was 11 all I had.
12 I don't -- I didn't -- I don't know what we are --
() 13 Q Did you make an inventory of the coupons that you 14 received from Comstock?
15 A No, I did not, no. '
16 Q Is there any document listing the coupons and their l 17 identity that you received from Comstock?
l l
18 A No.
19 Q You just don't recall having had any additional coupons, 20 say, Nos. 6 and 7, that you no longer have in your 21 possession?
22 A I had no -- in the numbe r sequence I always missed No. 6 23 and No. 7.
l 24 I have other samples that I did not receive from 25 Comstock demonstrating different conditions, they are O
! Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
-- _-- _ _ - c __.
- - - _ _ . . = _ - . . .
3096 O 1 not numbered; but I did not have 6 and 7.
2 Q Now, is it your understanding from Messrs. DeWald and 3 Simile that up until the point when you obtained these 4 coupons, the ones that you have before you, that they 5 had been used by Comstock for the purpose of 6 administering qualifying tests to weld inspectors?
7 A That is my understanding.
8 Q Have you used the coupons for that purpose?
9 A No, I have not.
10 Q I think you stated that you obtained the coupons because 11 you wanted to use them as a demonstration?
12 A Yes.
( ) 13 Q All right. And have you, in fact, used them as a 14 demonstration for training purposes?
\
15 A Yes, I have.
16 Q Have you used them since December,1984, until thq, 17 present for that purpose?
18 A Only on rare occasions when we wanted to talk about a 19 flare groove weld or some particular configuration but l 20 no lectures or demonstrations or anything like that l
21 since that time.
22 Q Well, that's my question.
23 You obtained them in December of 1984; correct?
24 A Yes.
25 Q Did you use them in a lecture or demonstration at that Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 n.. ;: _ . _ . - - -
a g m...m=-. &- _.-~Ka mM
3097 O 1 time?
2 A Yes, I did.
3 Q All right. Did you use them ever again for 'that 4 purpose?
5 A No.
6 Q Just that one time?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Are those coupons in the identical condition today that 9 they were in when you received them from Comstock?
10 A No, they are not.
i 11 Q You made some changes to the coupons yourself, have you 12 not?
() 13 A Yes.
14 Q And are those changes in the nature of adding markings 15 to the coupons --
16 A Yes.
17 Q -- to describe the nature of the conditions?
18 A Yes, yes.
3 19 MR. GALLO: Let him finish his question.
l 20 BY MR. GUILD:
21 Q Have you made any other alterations or have any other 22 alterations occurred to the coupons' physical condition 23 since the time you obtained them from Comstock?
24 A No.
25 Q Didn't you tell me the other day that they are now rusty Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
, ~- 1 - .m~a.-- a a+ a. -saaMm _ m a_
3098
) '
1 and they weren't then?
2 A They may be. I am not aware of that. It's a possible 3 condition.
4 Q Well, I mean, the question I am asking you right now is:
5 Didn't you tell me yesterday that they are rusty 6 and they weren't rusty at the time you got them?
7 A No. They may -- they may have rust. We were talking 8 about a probability that rust may have occurred.
9 I have been very careful not to clean them since 10 they have been in my possession.
11 Q Well, that's helpful; but are they, in fact, in a rusted 12 condition now?
() 13 A I have seen some indications of rust.
14 Q Were they in a rusty --
15 A Particularly on one sample.
16 0 Were they in a rusty condition when you got them?
17 A I believe they were, yes.
18 Q Are they more rusty today than they were then?
19 A It would be hard for pe answer that, because rust was 20 not a factor in the -- the rust is so minute and I was 21 merely in our conversation the other day -- I was merely 22 pointing out that that could have occurred, that they --
23 Q All right, all right. That's fine. That is responsive.
24 MR. GALLO: Did you finish your answer?
25 You said that rust is not a factor.
O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
s Geneva, Illinois 601J4 (312) 232-0262
3099 O 1 A (Con tin uing. ) There is no rust mentioned in the test 2 anywhere and I did not consider that to be a factor. I 3 did not consider any rust to obscure any defects or 4 anything like that.
5 BY MR. GUILD:
6 Q Well, you didn't consider it; but rust, as a fact, as a 7 general proposition, can obscure defects, can it not?
8 A Yes; but I consider these clean enough for inspection 9 purposes as they are.
10 Q Have any other persons aside from yourself handled these 11 coupons since they came to you from Comstock?
12 A Not that I -- not that were -- they were in my presence.
O)
(_ 13 Q Well, that's not the question.
14 Have others handled them, whether in your presence 15 or not?
16 A It's possible I handed one to somebody or that we would 17 put one on my desk and they might turn it over or i 18 something like that.
19 Q Did that, in fact, happen?
20 A I am sorry. I can't answer that fully.
21 I am pretty sure it did.
22 0 Would it refresh your recollection: I handled the:2 23 yesterday, did I not?
24 A Yes.
25 Q In your presence?
O Sonntaq Reporting Se rvice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
-_ ~..
3100 C) -
1 A Oh, yes, of course.
2 Q And Mr. Gallo handled them yesterday?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Did others handle them yesterday?
5 A Dominic may have. I am not sure. I am sorry.
6 Yes, I am sure he did.
7 0 Others may have handled them since they came into your 8 possession?
9 A Yes, in my presence.
10 Q Now, you stated that you obtained some additional 11 confidence that these were, indeed, the coupons that Mr.
12 Puckett tested from because you found a similarity
( ) 13 between the descriptions by Mr. Vogt, apparently, cn his 14 key, also by Mr. Puckett on his test answers, with the 15 physical condition that you observed for various 16 coupons; is that correct?
17 A Yes.
I 18 Q Did you identify any dissimilarities between the 19 conditions that you observed on the coupons and the 20 conditions that are described in either the key or Mr.
21 Puckett's test?
22 A I believe in one instance I mentioned some grinding in 23 my evaluation that I don't think either one of those --
24 let me review this material.
25 MR. GALLO: Now, I am not sure the witness Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, 1111nois ou1Je
! (312) 232-0262 l
L .. .. _ _. _ _ _ _ _ . _ -
_- - - - _ --. - m
3101 1 understands the question.
2 MR. GUILD: I think the witness understands 3 the question fully.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, I believe so, too.
5 Mr. Gallo, please be patient. You will hcVe a 6 chance to come back on voir dire.
7 BY MR. GUILD:
8 Q Without consulting your testimony -- and I would ask you 9 to just try to do this on the basis of your recall -- do 10 you recall that there was, indeed, a coupon that you 11 found in the condition that was not as described by 12 either Mr. Vogt in the key or by Mr. Puckett in his test O 13 enewers2 14 A That clearly was not the same condition; is that what 15 you are asking me?
16 Q Well, I don't mean to add an adjective " clearly."
17 I am asking you: Did you identify any conditions 18 that were not the same as when you observed the coupons 19 as were described in the Vogt or Puckett tests?
. 20 A (No response.)
i 21 Q I think you understood when I asked you the question 22 earlier.
23 Am I now being unclear in my question?
24 A I didn't hear the question part of it. You were giving 25 me a --
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois culae (312) 232-0262
-. - - .- ..._ _ ... _ ~ .-
-_- _-nn
3102 0 1 Q Let me try dgain.
2 You stated, generally, that you compared the 3 physical condition to the Vogt and Puckett descriptions 4 and you found there was an identity?
5 A Uh-huh.
6 Q Correct?
7 A Yes.
8 Q And that led you to conclude that these were the same --
9 A Yes.
10 Q -- coupons tested by Mr. Puckett?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Now, I asked you: Did you identify any dissimilarity?
) 13 Did you identify any instances, Mr. Vannier, where 14 the coupons did not, as you identified the coupons, 15 looked at the coupons, did not reflect the description 16 of the condition by Mr. Vogt or Mr. Puckett?
17 A Well, for example, on one coupon, where they both --
18 where the key identified slag, I found additional slag.
19 Q So you found slag that -- you found slag in your 20 observation of the coupon that -- was not described in 21 Mr. Vogt's key?
22 A That did not seem to be in his, yes.
23 Q Could you identify which coupon that was, and please do 24 refer to your testimony now, if you need to?
25 A Oh, okay.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3103 l
C:)
1 No. 5 would be an example.
2 Q Well, No. 5, can you direct me to a page in your 3 testimony?
4 A It would be -- all right. '
5 Q The question and answer, I mean.
6 A It would be Page 5 of my testimony.
7 Q All right. And that's question and answer 14?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Could you explain what dissimilarity you identified that 10 is reflected on that coupon, please?
4 11 A Well, it's the same condition.
12 Mr. Vogt indicated two areas of slag and I think I i
( ) 13 had three or four. It's all in the same toe or location 14 of the weld.
15 Q Now, when you say Mr. Vogt identifled two areas of slag, 16 I am looking at his key under Question 5 and there is a 17 drawing to the right. In the right-hand column on the 18 lower portion of the drawing there are two places that 19 show slag. j 20 Is that what you mean?
\
21 A Yes.
22 Q What condition did you identify by reviewing the coupon 23 that was dissimilar or different from the condition 24 described by Mr. Vogt?
25 A Simply, that, generally, there was more conditions of O
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3104 O 1 slag than was indicated by Mr. Vogt. They are small and 2 may be insignificant, but he has indicated lengths of 3 3/32, so you have to;take into consideration other 4 conditions, also, or you should.
5 0 But those slag conditions are not described by Mr. Vogt 6 in his key?
7 A He didn't indicate any additional slag.
8 Q But you see those slag conditions -- those additional 9 slag conditions -- in your examination of the coupon?
10 A Yes.
11 Q And that is a dissimilarity in the condition of the 12 coupon as compared to the description of the coupon in
( ) 13 the vogt key?
14 A I am sorry?'
15 Q That is a dissimilarity between the coupon as you see it 16 and the description of that coupon --
17 A Extension of the same condition, I believe.
18 In other words, I think that he considered -- I 19 think that he considered the two major conditions.
20 I took into consideration some additional slag 21 indications.
22 Q All right. Nonetheless -- the explanation is helpful; 23 but, nonetheless -- it is a dissimilarity between the 24 Vogt description and the physical condition of the 25 coupon as you see it?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 L
3105 O I don't consider it a dissimilarity, because I also saw 1 A 2 the ones that he is indicating.
3 Q There are additional conditions that you observed that 4 are not described by Mr. Vogt?
5 A Yes.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me.
7 I thought I heard you say that the other conditions 8 -- the other instances of slag should, also, have been 9 taken into account because they were comparable to the 10 dimensions of those two slag conditions, namely, the i 11 3/32 of an inch.
12 Wasn't that what you indicated?
13 THE WITNESS: Not comparable in size, no; but I 14 when you have a'3/32 inch, then you have to take into 15 consideration how close lesser indications of slag are, 16 or you normally do. That's in the criteria.
I 17 BY MR. GUILD:
18 Q All right. So, Mr. Vannier, that is one instance in 1
19 which you identified a dissimilarity between the coupon 20 as you saw it and the description of the coupon.
21 Did you --
22 MR. GALLO: Objection.
I 23 That is not the witness's testimony at all.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine. That is not evidence.
1 25 That is Mr. Guild's summary.
1 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60144 (312) 232-0262
3106 I I
O 1 BY MR. GUILD:
2 Q Did you identify that dispirit condition?
3 The dif ference between the Vogt condition and your 4 observation, did you set forth that difference in your 5 testimony?
I 6 A No ;. ,
7 O All right. Were there any other instances where there 8 were dif fering conditions -- I will say dissimilarities 9 but I mean a broader, not judgmental characterizat' ion --
10 dissimilarities between the conditions that you observed 11 in the coupons and the Vogt or Puckett descriptions of t
12 those coupons? ,
() 13 A The ones that I can think of primarily are in definition i 14 of terms.
15 For. example, two closely related discontinuities 16 are overlap and incomplete fusion; and I believe, 17 perhaps, where Mr. Vogt and Mr. Puckett indicated 19 overlap, I called it incomplete fusion, just a 19 definition of terms. w 20 The two, as I can demonstrate, are very closely 21 related discontinuities, so --
22 Q So when you characterize a condition as, say, incomplete ,
l 23 fusion, that same condition may have been described by l
l 24 Mr. Vogt or Mr. Puckett as overlap?
l
! 25 A Yes.
I
~
So_nntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312)- 232-0262 i _
3107 l l
l O 1 Or vice versa?
Q 2 A Yes.
3 Q Were there any other instances of dissimilarities or 4 differences that you observed in the condition of the 5 coupons from the description by Vogt or Puckett?
6 A I don't believe so.
7 Q All right. Well, let's try one out here.
8 Let's look at Coupon No. 14. Let's look at the 9 Vogt key for No. 14. Let's look at the Puckett -- and 10 that is contained in Applicant's Exhibit 6 for 11 identification, the Vogt key.
12 Let's look at the Puckett test or purported Puckett
( 13 test with Mr. DeWald's writings on it, Exhibit 5 for 14 identification.
15 Let's look at your own testimony where you describe 16 the condition at Page 8, Answer 23.
17 Now, at Page 8, Answer 23, Mr. Vannier -- do you 18 have that before you?
19 A Yes, I do.
I 20 MR. GALLO: No, you don't.
21 BY MR. GUILD:
22 Q At that point --
23 '
MR. GALLO: Wait a minute.
24 The witness isn't prepared for this. He doesn't r- 25 have the right page in front of him.
V)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60144 (312) 232-0262
3108 O 1 BY MR. GUILD:
2 Q Page 8 of your testimony, Answer 23.
3 MR. GALLO: You are not listening to the 4 question. Page 8 of your testimony.
5 What page in the key, Mr. Guild?
6 MR. GUILD: It's -- I don't know the page, 7 Mr. Gallo; but it's Question 14.
8 MR. GALLO: 14 in the key.
9 MR. GUILD: 14 in the key, 14 in Mr.
10 Puckett's exam and 14 in the test where it appears at 11 Page 8.
12 MR. GALLO: No; the key.
( 13 Do you have Item 14 in front of you?
14 THE WITNESS: Yes.
15 MR. GALLO: Now, do you have Item 14 on the 16 test in front of you?
17 THE WITNESS: Yes.
i 18 MR. GALLO: Where is that?
l 19 THE WITNESS: This is the test.
20 ,
(Indicating.)
21 MR. GALLO: No, no, the Puckett test. Just 22 relax.
23 All right. The witness has all the papers in front 24 of him.
25 BY MR. GUILD:
O f
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3109 O In your testimony at Page 8, Answer 23, Mr. Vannier, you 1 Q 2 state, "There is a base metal grinding adjacent to the 3 weld which should be evaluated," and that is with ,
4 respect to Coupon No. 14.
5 Did you, in fact, observe a base metal grinding 6 adjacent to the weld for Coupon 14?
7 A Yes.
8 Q And is it there on the coupon before you?
9 A Yes. -
10 Q Check it and look at it.
11 Is there a base metal grinding?
12 A. Yes, there is.
() 13 (Indicating.)
14 Q And you are pointing your finger at it, are you not?
15 A Yes.
16 0 You state further at Page 8 of your testimony, Answer 17 23, "Mr. Puckett correctly rejected the weld for size, 18 incorrectly for undercut," and I emphasize now, quote, 19 "and did not evaluate the length or base metal grinding.
20 Accordingly, I reduce Mr. Puckett's score."
21 Is that your testimony?
22 A Yes, it is.
23 Q Now, that base metal grinding that you observe today on 24 the coupon --
25 A Yes.
O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 6U1J4 (312) 232-0262
- - , - ._ _ - - .n .,- - - n. _ n
3110 O 1 -- is described nowhere for coupon 14 in either Mr. l Q
2 Vogt's key or in Mt. Puckett's test answer, is it?
3 A That's right.
4 Q There is no description of any base metal grinding with 5 respect to Coupon 14 as that coupon was described at the 6 time Mr. Vogt prepared the. key and Mr. Puckett took the 7 test; correct?
8 A It's not on there. No, it's not on their test and it's 9 not on the key.
10 Q Did you place the base metal grinding on coupon 14, Mr.
11 Vannie r?
12 A I placed -- I placed the -- as I told you, I marked the 13 coupons when they first came into my possession; and.
14 this is a demonstration of excess grinding that I marked 15 on at that time.
16 Q You made the mark d,escribing excess grinding?
- 17 A Yes, yes; and this was for the demonstration, not for 18 any testing or anything like that.
19 Q My question to you, sir, is: Did you make the base 20 metal grinding?
21 A No.
22 Q Was the base metal grinding on the coupon when you got l 23 it?
l 24 A Yes.
l gg 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me.
'd Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3111
( l 1 How observable is the base metal grinding?
2 THE WITNESS: Could I show it to you?
3 MR. GUILD: Yes, please do.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Certainly.
5 Which is it, there?
6 (Indicating.)
7 MR. GUILD: Point it out.
8 THE WITNESS: It's this, and let me get a 9 flashlight.
10 (Indicating. )
11 JUDGE COLE: It seems to be something that 12 would be rather obvious.
() 13 THE WITNESS: Yes.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. That's all we wanted 15 to know.
16 THE WITNESS: And it's also marked here.
17 (Indicating.)
18 BY MR. GUILD:
19 Q It is, indeed, obvious, is it not, Mr. Vannier?
l 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I believe Mr. Vannier 21 already answered that it is obvious; is that correct?
22 THE WITNESS: Yes.
l 23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Proceed.
24 BY MR. GUILD:
- Q Mr. Vannier in your testimony that you submitted to this
) 25 i
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, 1111nols 0u144 (312) 232-0262
._.g. G 3 7
1 3112 i
O 1 Board, did you identify the fact that that base metal 2 grinding was not, indeed, described in either Mr. Vogt's 3 key or Mr. Puckett's exam?
4 A Yes. I said it should have been evaluated, yes.
5 Q Well, you counted Mr. Puckett off for that, did you not?
6 A No; primarily for his lack of weld -- the weld length.
7 Q That's not my question.
- 8 A Okay.
l 9 Q Do you count --
10 MR. GALLO: Wait a' minute.
11 I have to object to the process we are involved in 12 here. This witness is being rushed by the rapidity of
() 13 Mr. Guild's questions. _.
14 This is not a criminal trial. I think the witness 15 should be permitted to answer his question. Mr. Guild i
16 ought to just take it easy and ask his questions.
! 17 The same record will be established.
l 18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. I agree with that, 19 but I also agree that Mr. Guild rushed in when the 20 answer was not responsive to the question.
21 Could you repeat the question and the answer?
22 (The question and answer were thereupon 23 read by the Reporter.)
l 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, the question was:
25 Did you count Mr. Puckett off for missing that
! Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois 60134
. (312) 232-0262 L
l 3113 l 1
l O grinding, not what you primarily counted off but whether 1
2 you did deduct some for that, for not identifying the 3 grinding?
4 THE WITNESS: The reason I am -- the grinding 5 is acceptable.
6 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I ask the witness 7 answer the question affirmatively or negatively in his 8 response.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes. Please, Mr. Vannier, 10 answer.the question.
11 Let me explain the process. Your attorney --
12 excuse me.
13 The attorney for the company will have an 14 opportunity to bring out matters that you may not be 15 able to state.
16 THE WITNESS: All right.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: As long as you give a l
18 complete answer, you will just have to leave it up to 19 Mr. Gallo to bring out the parts that may not be 20 answered.
21 Do you understand that?
22 THE WITNESS: Yes.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: He will have an opportunity 24 to question you further.
25 THE WITNESS: Okay.
, Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3114
(
l JUDGE GROSSMAN: Now, I believe there is that 2 pending question as to whether you did --
3 A Yes.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: The answer is yes?
5 THE WITNESS: Yes.
6 BY MR. GUILD:
7 Q In fact, Mr. Vannier, you did not disclose to the Board 8 and parties the fact that you observed this base metal 9 grinding on the coupon that you received, No. 14, but 10 that no such base metal grinding condition was described 11 by either Mr. Vogt in his key or by Mr. Puckett in his 12 test; isn't that a fact?
() 13 THE WITNESS: That I did not reveal that?
14 MR. GUILD: Yes, you did not.
15 MR. GALLO: I am going to object to the 16 question. It's irrelevant. The question of disclosure 17 is not pertinent here.
18 The question is the man's testimony, and he is 19 asking two questions: first about Mr. Vogt and next
) 20 about Mr. Puckett.
i 21 I think we ought to take them one at a time.
22 MR. GUILD: Excuse me, Mr. Gallo.
i 23 I think counsel is --
l 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me.
j 25 We had a Board discussion and I missed the question l
l.
l
- Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134
. (312) 232-0262
3115 1 and I prefer to have the question again and without any 2 further discussion.
3 Please, Mr. Reporter, will you repeat that 4 question?
5 (The question was thereupon read by the 6 Reporte r. )
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That's the question.
8 Did you reveal that to the Board or the parties in 9 your testimony?
10 A Yes, I did.
11 BY MR. GUILD:
12 Q Can you indicate where you did so, Mr. Vannier, please?
() 13 A In Answer 23, "And'did not evaluate the length or base 14 metal grinding."
15 Q You make it appear in your testimony that that is 16 something that is to be counted against Mr. Puckett, 17 because it was a condition that he failed to observe; 18 isn't that right?
19 'A In my opinion, conditions should be evaluated.
20 ' If he would say -- if he would just indicate that 21 he saw an indication and then say, "I evaluate that as 22 being acceptable," I would be much happier with that 23 completeness of the answer.
24 MR. GUILD: That is unresponsive.
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Vannier, please respond O
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3116 O 1 to the questions that are put to you.
2 The question was whether you reduced Mr. -- you 3 indicated in your testimony that you reduced Mr.
4 Puckett's score because of that.
5 MR. GUILD: I will withdraw the question, Mr.
6 Chairman.
7 It is answered in the testimony.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Pardon?
9 MR. GUILD: I withdraw the question.
10 It is so stated in his testimony. I asked the 11 question before.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That's fine, but we still
() 13 didn't get an answer to the overall question of where in i
14 the testimony did you point out that the weld sample 15 dif fered from both Mr. Puckett's answer and the sample 16 key sheet tha't you received, that is what has been 3 17 marked for identification as A.6.
I 18 A (Continuing.) I only said that he did not mention it.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You only said that Mr.
20 Puckett didn't mention it?
21 THE WITNESS: Yes.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: But you didn't mention that 23 it was also not mentioned in the sample key sheet?
i 24 THE WITNESS: No.
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You did not, okay.
O Sonntaq Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- = . . . - -_.__.m ___ _ - - _
3117 1
0 1 BY MR. GUILD:
2 Q Isn't it a fact, Mr. Vogt, that --
3 MR. GALLO: Mr. Vannier.
4 MR. GUILD: I am sorry. Mr. Vannier, excuse 5 me.
6 BY MR. GUILD:
7 Q Isn't it a fact, Mr. Vannier, that one of the bases for 8 your conclusion that these were, indeed, the identical 9 coupons that Mr. Puckett evaluated in his test was your 10 physical observation of the similarities between the 11 coupons' physical condition and the condition of those 12 coupons described by Mr. Vogt in the key?
() 13 A Yes.
14 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I have no further 15 questions on voir dire on the issue of foundation.
16 I do believe on the basis of the testimony elicited l 17 that it is established that there is no reliable l
18 foundation established, first, through this witness's 19 testimony, on which to found his evaluation of these 20 test coupons as purportedly reflecting an evaluation of 21 Mr. Puckett's test results.
22 The key, I think -- err, the keys to this 23 foundation issue are twofold:
24 First, there is, indeed, a chain of custody
, 25 problem. Where the two missing coupons are is unstated.
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
' _. _ _.m.._ _ _ m ._ _ -
i 3118 l l
O 1 .The witness lacks specific knowledge about the 2 chain of custody except for what is provided to him by 3 others who have not testified.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Before we go further on 5 that, Mr. Gallo, did you indicate that you wanted to 6 further examine on voir dire?
7 MR. GALLO: Well, I think it would serve no 8 useful purpose. I do not' understand the objection.
9 I thought we had an agreement that there would be 10 the opportunity to provide the foundation on chain of 11 custody and the adequate foundation to establish 12 legitimacy of these things.
( ) 13 I do not understand Mr. Guild's objection.
14 MR. GUILD: I don't --
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gallo, at least you be 16 responsive to the questions that are asked.
17 Did you have any further questions on voir dire, 18 before we get into the argument?
19 MR. GALLO: Well, I do, if Mr. Guild is l 20 changing his agreement from last night.
21 I thought the understanding was that we would take 22 this witness as far as he could, recognizing that he 23 cannot establish the foundation, and that other 24 witnesses would have to be called to do that.
25 I do not understand how now that admitted infirmity l
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
- (312) 232-0262
, _ - ____ x ._- - _ , -
l l
3119 1 should serve as a basis for his objection today.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild, I am sure, did 3 not stipulate that he will waive whatever infirmities he 4 can find in Mr. Vannier's testimony.
5 MR. GALLO: I am not asking him to do that.
6 I am just saying that his objection at this point 7 is untimely based on yesterday's agreement.
8 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I stand by the 9 agreement.
10 The agreement is that we don't have a technical 11 objection to the chain of custody problem; and I am 12 perfectly prepared to allow Mr. Gallo to supply, at a 13 later time, testimony f rom competent witnesses, as he 14 has said he is prepared to do, on the chain of custody.
15 I didn't complete my statement. I don't recede 16 from the agreement I made with him. He is free to do 17 that.
- 18 I believe on the basis of Mr. Vannier has said, 19 even assuming the best possible evidence on the chain of 20 evidence, there is a fatal infirmity on the basis of 21 this testimony.
22 I would defer to Mr. Gallo if he has further 23 examination on the foundation question.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Let's take a ten-minute 25 break now.
Sonntag~ Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60144 (312) 232-0262 l .
3120 0 1 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which 2 the hearing was resumed as follows:)
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gallo, we had asked 4 whether you wanted to examine further on voir dire.
5 MR. GALLO: Yes. Thank you, your Honor.
6 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 7 (Continued.)
8 BY MR. GALLO 9 Q Mr. Guild asked you about rust on these coupons, Mr.
10 Vannier. I give you and show you one of the coupons.
11 Could you tell me just what this is, what I have 12 handed to you?
() 13 A These are test samples 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 from the test.
14 (Indicating.)
15 Q Now, is there rust on this coupon?
16 (Indicating.)
17 A Yes, there is rust on the base material. There is 18 evidence of rust on the sample.
19 (Indicating.)
20 MR. GUILD: Can the witness indicate what he 21 is looking at for the record, please?
22 BY MR. GALLO:
23 Q You say there is rust on the base material and there is 24 rust --
25 A (Indicating.)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
, (312) 232-0262 ,
3121 1
1 Q Yes. You have to talk. You can't --
2 A Okay. There is a light coating of rust on the sample 3 itself; and if you look very carefully, you will see 4 some rust on the weld.
5 Q I believe you testified that there was rust on these 6 samples when you received them; is that correct?
7 A Yes.
8 0 Can you determine whether or not, as your best 9 recollection, whether with respact to test Coupons 1 10 through 5 the rust is greater now than it was when you 11 received it?
12 A I can't tell. I --
() 13 Q All right. With respect to test samples 1 through 5, 14 does the rust that you pointed out in any way mask the 15 usefulness of the coupons for test purposes?
16 MR. GUILD: Objection.
17 There is simply no foundation for that question.
18 MR. GALLO: All right. Let me try it again.
19 BY MR. GALLO:
20 Q. Would the rust you pointed out in any way affect the 21 ability to use these coupons for test purposes for a 22 Level 3 welding test -- ,
23 A No.
24 0 -- of the type taken by Mr. Puckett?
25 A No.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
_ . . - . , _ _ .._,2 - -
. . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . ._.___-.:.______m...___m.-
- -m
I 3122 0 1 Q Could you explain why not?
2 A Because in no way does it obscure any condition that 3 could be rejectable.
4 Q And is that the case with the remaining test coupons 5 that are on the -- that are here?
6 What are the numbers, first of all?
7 A Okay. Going in sequence, we have -- I am missing 6 and 8 7 -- 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.
9 (Indicating.)
10 JUDGE COLE: Mr. Vannier, you mentioned 7.
11 7 is missing; is that correct? ,
12 THE WITNESS: 6 and 7 are missing.
( 13 ,
BY MR.' GALLO:
14 Q Would your last answer also apply to Coupons 8 through 15 14?
16 A Yes.
17 Q You testified to Mr. Guild's questions that these 18 coupons had been handled.
19 I believe you acknowledged that they had been j ,
20 handled by Mr. Guild and handled by me and others; is 21 that correct?
22 A Yes.
23 Q To your knowledge, have they ever been dropped on the 24 floor or dropped, period, not necessarily on the floor?
25 A Not to my knowledge; but it would -- it would not be Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. 3123 O 1 surprising.
2 0 Well, do you know, yes or no, if they have been dropped?
3 A I do not know, no.
4 Q While they were in your possession, have they been 5 dropped?
6 A No.
7 MR. GALLO: All right. I apologize for that 8 formulation of the question.
9 BY MR. GALLO: ,
10 Q In your opinion, would the handling or did the handling 11 as occurred yesterday, in terms of looking at the 12 coupons by Mr. Guild and myself and by others, in any
() 13 way affect the basis upon which the test coupons would 14 be used for test purposes of a Level 3 Inspector?
15 A No.
16 0 Why not?
17 A In handling these coupons, the only thing that could 18 have happened would be the quality would be improved by 19 the slag falling off, which would be a normal -- which 20 would not be an abnormal thing to happen.
i .
j 21 Slag is not really bonded to the material, it could 22 fall off; and, therefore, the test coupons would look 23 better than they did when I -- but as far as any other l
24 condition --
25 Q You didn't finish your sentence.
l l
I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, Illinois eu134
- (312) 232-0262
...s--,
-- --- - . _ . _ _ _ w
3124
/~N i V
1 Would look better than what?
2 A Better than they were before that happened.
3 Q I am sorry. I interrupted you.
4 Did you complete your answer?
5 A And I see no -- I see no way that they could be -- that 6 anything detrimental could occur to them.
7 Q Mr. Guild asked you a number of questions of why in your 8 testimony on a couple of occasions you did not reflect 9 that there were differences between what the Vogt key 10 showed and what your own evaluation showed.
11 Do you recall that, those questions?
12 A Yes.
() 13 Q Can you explain why your testimony doesn't reflect those 14 differences?
15 A Yes. I attempted, first of all, to review the coupons 16 without either the key or the test and to be objective 17 and to describe what I thought the condition I thought I 18 saw on those samples.
19 And then after I did that, in no way did I try to 20 match that up with what they had seen. I didn't try to 21 do that. ,
22 I still saw -- I still maintain that I saw -- those 23 conditions that I described to begin with.
24 Q What was your purpose in using the Vogt key in 25 developing your testimony?
O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
_ . _ . _ _________m_ _ _ _
3125
'O
(/
1 A To evaluate the test that was given Mr. Puckett.
2 Q Did you use the key in your evaluation of the coupons?
3 A I believe I did to some extent, but I made my evaluation 4 first and then I tried to tie the three things together.
5 Q You made your evaluation and then compared it to the 6 key; is that correct?
7 A Pardon me?
8 Q I say, did you make your evaluation of the test coupons 9 and then compare your results against the Vogt key; is 10 that correct?
11 A Well, I wasn't --
12 Q Let's try it again.
() 13 A All right.
14 0 Tell me what you did in preparing your testimony for 15 purposes of describing the coupons.
16 A Okay. First of all, attempting to be objective, I made 17 an evaluation; and having done that then, I compared --
18 Q An evaluation of what?
19 A Of the test samples.
20 'Q All right. How did you do that?
21 A I inspected each one as an inspector would inspect and I 22 r.oted my comments on them.
23 Q Did you use the Vogt key in conjunction with that 24 inspection?
25 A Not in that part of it, no.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- --.---.- .-... - - - ,w ._- o
3126 O 1 Q All right. Please continue. Then what did you do?
2 A Then I took the key -- then I started getting into the 3 tests and the key, the comparison of the test and the 4 key; and from tt 3 valuations that I had made, I tried 5 to establish the properness of how Mr. Vogt had 6 evaluated Mr. Puckett's test.
7 0 I see. What results did you reflect in your testimony?
8 A In my --
9 Q Testimony, prepared testimony.
10 MR. GUILD: Sir, could I have the last 11 question read back, please?
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: What results did you reflect G in your testimony, is, I believe, the --
(_j 13 l 14 A The results I reflected was --
15 MR. GALLO: No, no.
16 BY MR. GALLO:
17 Q What results did you -- do you understand the question?
18 THE WITNESS: I am --
19 MR. GALLO: If you don't understand the 20 question, just say so.
21 THE WITNESS: I am afraid I don't.
22 JUDGE COLS: Mr. Gallo, I believe I heard 23 something that I didn't understand and I would like to 24 stop here and try to straighten it out.
25 You indicated that you used Mr. Vogt's evaluation O
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
[ n
._. w - .
3127 O 1 of Mr. Puckett's test.
2 Did you misspeak?
3 THE WITNESS: No. I compared -- I compared 4 Mr. Vogt's with that but I judged the test -- I judged 5 Mr. ruckett's test -- in relation to my evaluation.
6 JUDGE COLE: All right, sir.
7 BY MR. GALLO:
8 Q What did your testimony -- what does your testimony 9 contain in terms of these evaluations?
10 A That Mr. Puckett, in my --
11 Q I am sorry.
12 You conducted your evaluation, is that correct --
() 13 A Yes.
14 Q -- of the coupons; and you also reviewed Mr. Vogt's 15 evaluation of the coupons; is that correct?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Which of those two is reflected in your testimony?
18 A My evaluation.
19 Q Why didn't you reflect Mr. Vogt's evaluation?
! 20 A Because in judging -- in my opinion, I was judging 21 whether or not Mr. Puckett had passed or failed the 22 Level 3 test.
l l 23 Q Based on your evaluation?
l 24 'A Yes.
i 25 Q Not on Mr. Vogt's?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60144 (312) 232-0262 i
~~m- mn- ma,,, m .m p. ~ - -.
3128 i A No.
2 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Before we leave that, Mr.
3 Gallo, please.
4 These samples came into your possession, as I 5 remember, in December of 1984?
6 THE WITNESS: Yes.
7 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Your testimony refers to 8 consideration of these samples in light of the subject 9 under discussion in December,1985.
10 Now, with respect to those two dates, when did you 11 make your initial evaluation of the welds'.
12 Did you evaluate them when you received them in 0 13 19842 14 THE WITNESS:
No, not that date. It was when 15 I was told to evaluate the Puckett test.
16 JUDGE CALLIHAN: And that was later?
17 THE WITNESS: Before that I had made no 18 complete evaluation of them whatever.
i 19 JUDGE CALLIHAN: And that was in late 19857 20 THE WITNESS: Yes.
l 21 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Thank you.
, 22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me.
23 Did you find that Mr. Vogt or whoever did that 24 sample key had found things that you didn't find 25 originally?
(
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 P
e&im A - 4 hb s W ke .e as S E
"$ ' NY '
3129 n
v 1 THE WITNESS: Mr. Vogt found -- no, I don't 2 believe so.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gallo.
4 BY MR. GALLO:
~
5 Q Let's look at Coupon 5.
6 Is this the coupon where you found additional slag 7 when you examined it?
8 A Yes.
9 Q There was a difference between your evaluation and Mr.
10 Vogt's evaluation; is that correct?
11 A Yes.
12 0 Can you explain, again, for the record, what that
() 13 dif ference was?
14 A On Mr. Vogt's key he indicates two areas of 3/32 inch 15 slag. That's on, I guess, the second page of Mr. Vogt's 16 key.
17 Q How does that differ from your evaluation?
18 A In scrutinizing the weld closely, I find several 19 . indications of slag that Mr. Vogt didn't mention. They 20 are small but they are there, nonetheless; and that's on 21 the same toe of the weld, the same portion of the weld, 22 that Mr. Vogt has indicated there was slag.
23 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, may I approach the 24 witness and examine the coupon while he is testifying?
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Certainly.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, Illinois eulse 232-0262
~
(312)
. .- .:.- - .. . _ -= _ .
3130 O 1 MR. GUILD: If I could just ask the witness 2 to point to the place where he just indicated.
~
3 THE WITNESS: Well, if you will look at the 4 key, he has got slag here and he has got slag here.
5 (Indicating.)
6 But in addition to that --
7 MR. GALLO: Wait a minute. We have others.
8 THE WITNESS: I am sorry.
9 MR. GALLO: No. Go ahead. You are doing 10 fine.
11 MR. GUILD: You are referring to the Vogt key 12 now?
() 13 THE WITNESS: This is the Vogt key.
14 (Indicating.)
15 MR. GUILD: You need to keep your voice up 16 for the Court Reporter.
17 A (Continuing.) This is the Vogt key, and Mr. Vogt ,
18 indicates two areas of slag greater than 3/32 and he 19 indicates them in this position. This is not a 20 completely accurate map; but, in addition to that, I see 21 areas of slag down in here.
22 (Indicating.)
23 That's less than 3/32; but, perhaps, what we are 24 running into is I like to have completeness.
25 MR. GUILD: And am I indicating that slag?
O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
.m. _a __-2__z_._ _- m . _,_ _ - - - - -
. - _ - _ - _ _ ~_ -- . - ._ _ . _ - . .
3131 t
() 1 (Indi.cating . )
2 THE WITNESS: Yes, there and then the ones he j 3 is talking about.
4 (Indicating.)
5 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Is the 3/32 inch direction 6 in the direction of the weld or is it perpendicular, is 7 it the depth?
} 8 THE WITNESS: It's in any dimension. It's 9 the surface.
10 JUDGE CALLIHAN: It's a surface dimension?
11 THE WITNESS: Yes.
I 12 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Thank you
() 13 THE WITNESS: Because we have no way of 14 determining the depth.
15 JUDGE COLE: Sir, could you point out to me
- 16 these two locations of slag indicated on Mr. Vogt's .
- 17 evaluation?
- 18 THE WITNESS: I believe that he is talking 19 about this and I believe he is talking about this.
20 (Indicating.)
21 MR. GALLO: Do it again.
I 22 THE WITNESS: Okay. In this area.
1 j 23 (Indicating.)
{ 24 JUDGE COLE: That's about one inch along the 25 length of the weld. -
O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
, Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 l
s --
. .. - - - - . - . _ . - - - - - _ _ = - _
3132 0 1 THE WITN;ESS: Well --
2 JUDGE COLE: Three-qua rters, maybe.
3 THE WITNESS: No, it's much smaller than 4 that. i 5 We are only talking about,this small area right 6 here.
b
/
7 (Indicating.)
8 JUDGE COLE: I was referring to a distance 9 along the length of the weld from the beginning of the 10 weld to a point where' the imperfection is shown.
11 THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.
12 JUDGE COLE: The second one is where, sir,
( ) 13 about maybe two inches?
14 THE WITNESS: Yes.
15 (Indicating.)
16 JUDGE COLE: Along about a five-inch weld?
17 THE WITNESS: An inch and five-eighths, 18 inch-and-a-half.
19 JUDGE COLE: So the scale is not accurate 20 here on the picture?
21 THE WITNESS: No, no.
22 JUDGE COLE: All right, sir.
23 BY MR. GALLO:
24 Q For the record, I would ask, again, Mr. Vannier, looking 25 at Mr. Vogt's key, he shows a slag condition of O
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
-. ~ ._a . . _~ . .= ..
3133 O 1 approximately 3/32 of an inch; is that correct? -
2 A Yes.
3 Q Is that condition, as indicated in Mr. Vogt's key, 4 reflected on Coupon 57 5 A Yes.
6 Q Does Mr. Vogt's key also show a second slag condition of 7 approximately 3/32 of an inch?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Is that shown on Coupon 57 10 A Yes.
11 Q Now, is it your testimony that you found an additional 12 slag condition besides those two on Coupon 5?
() 13 A Yes.
14 In my testimony?
15 Q No.
16 In your examination of Coupon 5 --
17 A Yes.
18 Q -- did you find an additional --
19 A Yes, yes.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, th,e --
21 BY MR. GALLO:
22 Q Do you have an opinion as to whether or not -- do you 23 have an opinion as to the reason the slag condition that 24 you identified is not on Mr. Vogt's key?
25 MR. GUILD: Objection.
l l
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 l
. _ . . . - - . -- -_ _ - - , _-. ~
m - 1
- 3134 I Q
1 There is -no 'fc3ndation for tihe wihness hiv'ing any 2 opinion on what someone he has never met years before-3 .did, uay-or observe. _
4 -- ,.
MR. GALLO: Let me ask the question
~
5 differently.
1
! 6 BY MR. GALLO:
7 Q Do you know or can you. determine from'your examination 8 of?this coupon before you today that that is the same 9 Coupoli 5 as used by Mr. Vogt? '
10 A I b411 eve it~is.
3 ^
11 Q Can you explain the basis for that judgment?
12 A Because the indications of glag that are evident on the O 12 coupon are in the eamet eenera1 1ecaeien 1eheueh his 14 isn't a scale drawing, as Mr.:.vogt's -key.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me.
16 I think this 13: the appropriate time. Let's get 17 this straight on the record.
18 Judge Cole pointed out to you -- and I think you 19 . agreed -- that the indication of slag in the key samp1e 20 shown about halfway or at about the midpoint of the weld 21 was acttia11y at about a quarterTpoint of the we1d;~isn't 22 that correct? ]
23 'THE WITNESS: We11,-then, perhaps, he was 24 talking about this one and he wasn't talking about this 25 one. There is one ,there, also.
O .
Sonntag RG9otting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60144 (U 2) 232-0262
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - . _ . - -mm__ _ ._- _ _ - _ , . . _
l 3135 O 1 (Indicating.)
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
3 BY MR. GALLO:
4 Q Which one of the coupons has the grinding on it?
l 5 A It's 13 and 14.
6 0 It is your testimony, also, already indicated, that the 7 base metal grinding was reflected on -- which coupon did 8 you attribute the base metal grinding to?
9 A I believe to both. Let me check.
10 Q All right.
11 A Base metal grinding in No. 14 and I also said grinding 12 marks on No. 13.
-( ) 13 MR. GUILD: I am sorry.
14 Can I have a reference to the gentleman's testimony 15 with respect to 137 16 MR. GALLO: Page 8.
17 MR. GUILD: I found it. Thank you.
18 BY MR. GALLO:
19 Q Can you tell me whether or not under the AWS Code these 20 grinding marks are considered a discrepant condition?
21 A These are acceptable.
22 Q Do I understand your testimony to mean that the grinding 23 mark is not a basis for rejecting the weld that they are l
24 associated with?
25 A It depends upon the depth of the grinding material in O
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 1
_ _m _ _- # __ - __m---
3136 i
() 1 relation to the thickness of the base material. l 2 Q How about these grinding marks; you said they were 3 acceptable. .
4 What does that mean?
5 A Now, that means they are less than a thirty-second in 6 depth.
7 Q And, therefore, are not a basis for rejection of the 8 weld?
9 A No.
10 0 Is that, perhaps, the reason that they are not reflected 11 in the Puckett test or the Vogt key?
12 MR. GUILD: Objection, objection.
( ) 13 There is no foundation for speculating why they are 14 or are not reflected in those tests, the documents.
15 MR. GALLO: All right.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We will overrule that
. 17 objection. .
18 Answer the question, please.
19 A I am sure that's why.
l 20 BY MR. GALLO:
l
! 21 Q What is the basis for your judgment in that regard?
22 A Evidently, they did not consider completeness as I did.
l 23 I was trying to consider completeness.
l l 24 So,if a condition was -- I think that a Level 3 l
l 25 should consider these things and mention them, as I did Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 l
3137 O 1 in Question No. 13. I took off one point for that, an 2 insignificant amount, but still I felt that it should 3 have been observod and --
4 Q I think you said that you --
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: No, no. Excuse me, Mr.
6 Gallo.
7 Let him finish the answer.
8 MR. GALLO: Yes, I apologize. I am sorry.
9 Go ahead.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: It should have been observed 11 and it should have been recorded, is that the answer?
12 A (Continuing.) In my opinion.
() 13 MR. GALLO: Have you finished?
14 THE WITNESS: Yes.
15 MR. GALLO: Please sit down.
16 BY MR. GALLO:
17 Q I believe in your last answer you said that they didn't 18 consider completeness.
19 Is that a fair characterization of your last answer 20 or part of your last answer?
21 A Yes.
22 Q What do you mean by completeness?
23 A If you give a Level 3 test and you have conditions that 24 they don't mention, even though they are acceptable, you 25 don't really know whether or not the gentleman evaluated Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 m._ -- ~ -
m _ _ . ,- .-
3138
)
1 them or not; and I guess that's what I meant by 1
2 completeness. '
3 So that in some cases I have noticed that Mr.
4 Puckett did say accept something but it's a flare bevel.
5 He did note that condition.
6 That's the type of completeness that I think a 7 Level 3 should be able to give, so that you know he 8 evaluated that condition.
9 Q He did it in one case but he didn't do it with respect 10 to the grinding marks?
11 A That's correct.
12 Q I see.
() 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me.
14 Did he do it in more than one case?
15 THE WITNESS: (No response.)
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You are referring now to' 17 evaluating acceptable conditions, indicating that there 18 may be an apparent discrepant condition but that it 19 really isn't discrepant, that it's acceptable; isn't 20 that basically what you are referring to?
21 THE WITNESS: Yes.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And did Mr. Puckett do it in 23 more than one instance?
24 MR. GALLO: Take your time and review.
25 THE WITNESS: May I review this?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
, (312) 232-0262
3139 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Certainly.
2 THE WITNESS: I don't know. I believe he 3 did. .
4 On the first page of Mr. Puckett's test, at the 5 bottom of the page -- my number is gone but -- it would 6 be Question No. 3, 3 and then 4.
7 BY MR. GALLO:
8 0 What document are you referring to?
9 A I am talking about No. 5.
10 JUDGE COLE: Applicant's Exhibit 5.
11 A (Continuing . ) Yes. Mr. Puckett says reject and then 12 he says undercut and spatter.
() 13 I am not sure'whether Mr. Puckett was rejecting for 14 spatter or not, because spatter is not a rejectable 15 condition.
16 So I think that, perhaps, he was throwing that in 17 letting us know that he evaluated that; but he had 18 rejected it for the undercut, but I don't know that that 19 is true. He did throw it in. It is an acceptable 20 condition.
l 21 MR. GALLO: That is all the Redirect I have 22 on the voir dire.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I just want to clarify the 24 answer given on the record, which really wasn't 25 verbalized, which was that when evaluating No. 5, when
(.-)
J Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
__m. c _ m_ <_ _ _ m - - - - - _-- z =- _- . _
3140 0 1 looking at weld No. 5 during the discussion here, when I 2 pointed out that of the two instances of slag that you 3 believe Mr. V'ogt referred to, neither of them was on the 4 midpoint of the weld.
5 You indicateh that then, perhaps, he was referring 6 to another instance of slag, which was at about the A
7 midpoint; isn't that correct, sir?
8 THE WITNESS: Yes.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And isn't it the case, sir, 10 that that instance of slag was neither considered by you 11 to be one of the original two instances of slag, those 12 are the ones mentioned in the key sample, nor was that
( ) 13 instance of slag in-the midpoint one of the two 14 additional points of slag that you indicated had been 15 missed; isn't that correct?
16 MR. GALLO: Have you got the question?
17 THE WITNESS: Could I ask for the question 18 again, please?
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You want the question asked 20 again?
21 THE WITNESS: Could I please.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I will rephrase it.
23 I believe that the case is when we asked where 24 those areas of slag are, you pointed to two that 25 represented what you believed were the ones referred to
~
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 1
3141 O 1 in the key sample and then you also indicated two others 2 that you believe were missed in the key sample.
3 Now, can't it be the case that none o'f these four 4 instances of slag that you pointed to were at the 5 midpoint and that after we pointed out to you that none 6 were at the midpoint, you indicated a fifth area of slag 7 at the midpoint?
8 Now, isn't that correct?
9 THE WITNESS: That's correct.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
11 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of 12 clarification that I would like to ask.
() 13 MR. GALLO: I have another question as well 14 but I will yield to my colleague.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild.
16 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 17 (Continued.)
18 BY MR. GUILD 19 Q Just for clarity, the grind mark that you take off for 20 on Mr. Puckett's evaluation -- strike that.
21 The grind marks not discussed by Mr. Puckett in his 22 test for which you deduct points, those grind marks 23 apply to coupons 4 and 5, do they not?
24 A You --
25 Q You take off points on 4 and 5 for grind marks not O
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
__m_.---__--._.__ -
. . _ mm_____-_--____ =_
3142 0 1 evaluated by Mr. Puckett; is that correct?
2 A 13 and 14. .
3 Q I am sorry. I stand corrected.
4 13 and 14?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Is that right?
7 A Yes. ,
8 '
Q All right. Now, it's the same grind marks for both 9 coupons?
10 A Yes, yes.
11 Q Because of the way the sample --
12 A Yes. -
() 13 0 -- is worked, it's'a vertical plate welded to a 14 horizontal plate and the grind marks are at the end of 15 the vertical plate and they apply to the welds on both 16 , sides of the plate; correct?
17 A Yes.
18 MR. GUILD: That is all that I have.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gallo.
20 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 21 (Continued.)
l 22 BY MR. GALLO l
l 23 Q Coupon 5, how many separate -- if that's the right 24 characterization -- instances of slag are there on that 25 sample that you can identify?
O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 i
I-_ -2 __---,m__...__. e __ _ . ~w ,
i
. 3143 .
1 A I can identify five areas.
2 Q How many of those five represent a rejectable condition?
3 A Three.
4 Q Three. Now, can you relate, if you can, because you 5 have already testified that the Vogt key is not per 6 scale -- can you relate any of those three to the Vogt 7 key?
8 A I would relate -- I would relate this one.
9 (Indicating.)
10 Q Now, where is that on the Vogt key?
11 A To this.
12 (Indicating.)
( ) 13 Q The witness is pointing to where on Coupon 5 in 14 relationship to --
15 A It's almost the midpoint.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Midpoint.
17 MR. GALLO: All right.
18 A (Continuing.) Then we go back over here and we have 19 one near this end.
20 (Indicating.)
21 BY MR. GALLO:
22 Q Where is that on the vogt key?
l 23 A That's near the left end.
24 Q Where is the third one on the coupon that represents the 25 nonacceptable?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262 l
m _m = _ .
3144 O 1 A The one that I pointed out before, that is in this area 2 here.
3 (Indicating.)
4 Q Is that between the two that are noted on the Vogt key?
5 A Yes, it is.
6 JUDGE COLE: Are they all about the same 7 size, sir?
8 THE WITNESS: Yes, they are.
9 JUDGE COLE: Thank you.
10 MR. GALLO: Thank you. That is all I have.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: So, in other words, you are 12 now referring to the two mentioned in the key, plus the
() 13 third one at the midpoint that you hadn't mentioned 14 either as being the ones in the key or the additional 15 ones missed in your original statement, but you refer --
16 but it's really the fifth one that you mentioned, isn't 17 that correct, the one in the midpoint as being 18 rejectable?
j 19 MR. GALLO: Does the witness understand that 20 question?
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I believe so.
22 THE WITNESS: I am afraid I don't.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, you don't. Okay. I 24 think the record is clear as it is.
25 Did you have another question, Mr. Guild?
( '
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~ . _ - = = _ , _ _e_
3145 O 1 MR. GUILD: Yes.
2 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 3 (Continued.) s 4 BY MR. GUILD 5 Q Counsel asked you whether or not there were -- of the 6 five instances of slag in Coupon 5, which of those were 7 rejectable; and you stated that three were, in your 8 opinion; correct?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Did you not also state previously that the other two 11 instances of slag should be evaluated, given the fact 12 that you identified three that were of 3/32 of an inch
() 13 in size or gre'ater?
14 A Yes, yes.
15 Q And is that your understanding of the weld acceptance 16 criteria?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Can you explain for the record why the acceptance 19 criteria wou1d call for the evaluation of the additional 20 two instances of slag, those not themselves rejectable?
21 A Because of the proximity of them to the 3/32 22 indications.
23 MR. GUILD: I see. Thank you.
24 JUDGE COLE: Mr. Vannier, just a couple of 25 questions.
Sonntaq Reporting Se rv ice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
, (312) 232-0262
-. - _ .-~. _ _ _. _
3146 O 1 BOARD EXAMINATION l 2 BY JUDGE COLE 3 Q Have you given practical tests to welding inspectors?
4 A Yes.
5 Q The coupons that are before you, are these the types of 6 coupons that would be used in giving a practical test to 7 a Welding Inspector at Level 2 or Level 3?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Is there, to your knowledge, a standard test given to 10 welding inspectors at Level 2 or Level 3?
11 A On the practical part, it's normally something developed i
12 on'the job or an actual installation on the job.
() 13 Q All right, sir. .
14 A So standard, no. Standard type, yes.
15 Q With the coupons that you have before you, sir, labeled 16 1 through 5 and 8 through 14, with your experience in j 17 giving practical tests to welding inspectors, have you 18 seen set-ups that are approximating this and have used 19 them -- and used them in welders' examinations?
20 A Yes.
21 Q I am looking at Applicant's Exhibit No. 5 and right 22 underneath Mr. Puckett's name the following words l
j 23 appear, " Weld inspection interpretation training per 1
24 Procedure 4.8.3, Rev F," and the date appears, 5-10-84.
25 Are you familiar with that, sir --
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
! ueneva, 1111nois 00144 l , (312) 232-0262 l
3147
(
1 A Yes.
l 2 Q -- what that procedure is?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Could you tell me about that? What is that?
5 A That procedure is the -- I have a copy of it here.
6 That is the Comstock inspection procedure.
7 Q All right, sir. I guess I don't know what that means.
f .8 A That means that Comstock developed a procedure that the 9 inspectors would use in their application of AWS D.l.1 10 to inspect welds; and that goes through a review cycle 11 of Commonwealth Edison and Sargent & Lundy and people 12 like that.-
() 13 That is the criteria, that is the instructions that 14 the inspector uses, to inspect welds.
15 Q All right, sir. Does the procedure specify the type of 16 examination, type of coupons that would be used in the 17 examination of a welder's qualifications or testing of a 18 welding inspector's capability to identify 19 discrepancies?
20 A Can I take a minute and review this?
21 Q Well, yes, sir, you can.
22 My question really is: Is this a standard test; 23 these coupons would be the identical kind of coupons 24 specified in that procedure, so that every Welding
( 25 Inspector at --
I (
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- _ . . -. ,. ,....m_. -
m ._ - ---mm..-. -- m m.. -
3148
\
O 1 A Not in the --
2 Q Let me finish the question, sir.
3 A I am sorry.
4 0 -- so that every Welding Inspector at Comstock would 5 take exactly the same test with the same Item No. 1 and 6 Coupon No. 2 and Coupon No. 5?
7 A Well, your Honor, that's not in that procedure. That is 8 in another procedure, which is 4.1.3; and the title of 9 that one is, " Qualification and training of QA/QC 10 pe rsonnel . "
11 That procedure says that you will take a general, 12 specific and. practical exam, and that's the procedure
() 13 that they reference-this type of a test.
' 14 Q That's not exactly my question, sir.
15 I am questioning not only as to the practical test 16 and whether these particular coupons represent a l 17 practical test that is the kind of test common to all i
! 18 welding inspectors at Comstock or on other sites --
19 A Yes.
20 Q -- but is it the same? Are they the same type of 21 coupons?
22 I mean, is Coupon No. 1 always the same in every l
l 23 test?
24 A No.
25 Q Do you happen to know at the Braidwood site and Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, Illinois culas (312) 232-0262
3149 1
1 specifically with Comstock whether they have used those 2 coupons for every welding Level 2 test?
3 A I know that they have not.
4 Q All right, sir.
5 JUDGE CALLIHAN: May I ask on that?
6 JUDGE COLE: Oh, sure.
7 JUDGE CALLIHAN: You have just said that 8 Candidate A might be tested with these coupons and 9 Candidate B with another.
10 Who selects the coupons?
11 THE WITNESS: The Level 3 should. I am not 12 sure that he did in all instances. The Level 3 should l
() 13 direct the test.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That is the Level 3 testing 15 a Level 2; is that correct?
16 THE WITNESS: A Level 3 testing a Level 2 or 17 a Level 3.
18 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Testing him to become a 19 Level 3?
20 THE WITNESS: Yes.
21 JUDGE COLE: All right, sir. I think you 22 have answered my question. Thank you.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Just to clarify it, I will 24 ask: None of the procedures specified which welds are 25 to be used in a practical test; is that correct?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
-- . _ . - -- m.- a ..:.+. w- =- -
3150 l
O 1 TIIE WITNESS:
No; that's correct.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: All right.
3 JUDGE CALLIHAN: I would like to come back to 4 No. 5 for just a moment.
. 5 Is 3/32 length of slag the limit for rejectability?
6 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.
7 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Thank you.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I take it all the i
, 9 questioning has taken place on the voir dire?
1 10 MR. GALLO: Yes, your Honor.
i l 11 As I understand, there is an outstanding objection i
12 on the basis separate and apart from the question of
( ) 13 chain of custody. There is an independent basis for, 14 objecting to foundation.
15 I think the lengthy voir dire and the Redirect on s 16 that has disclosed that the points identified, namely 17 the handling of the coupons by various individuals, the 18 rust that is on the coupons, the variances in the 19 various findings on Coupon 5 by Mr. Vogt and Mr. Vannier 20 and Mr. Puckett, really do not cast any doubt 21 independently that these coupons are not the coupons 22 that were used by Mr. Puckett in.his test.
l 23 The same goes for the same base metal grinding i
24 argument. I believe that there have been demonstrated 25 through voir dire no changed conditions or any other O
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
! ueneva, 1111nois eulae l (312) 232-0262
- . . . - _ - - - _ _ _ ._. - - _ , - ~
< 3151 O 1 kind of condition that would cast doubt that these were 2 those coupons, recognizing that I have yet to establish 3 the chain of custody for them.
4 So I would ask that the objection be overruled and 5 that the Vannier testimony be accepted into evidence ,
E 6 subject to later establishing the chain of custody.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. The testimony that we 8 heard with regard to the similarities and 9 dissimilarities between the key and Mr. Puckett's exam 10 on one hand and the samples on the other hand are .
11 circumstantial evidence which was offered by Applicant 12 to corroborate the direct chain of custody and used by
() 13 Intervenor to challenge the corroboration.
14 The Board accepts the evidence as such and to the l 15 extent the evidence weighs one way or the other, tending 16 to either corroborate or not corroborate that foundation 17 testimony, will be weighed by the Board when it makes 18 its determination.
19 So we accept this evidence on that basis, as 20 circumstantial evidence tending to either corroborate or 21 not corroborate the further foundation that will be laid 22 by Mr. Gallo.
23 24 C:) *"
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
. (312) 232-0262
_- _- ___..---s
5 ,
v .
l
' 1 O
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter Of: )
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY )
) Docket Nos. 50-456 (Braidwood Station, Units 1 ) 50-457 and 2) )
\
CONTENTION 2.C.
O TESTIMONY OF s
J. R. VANNIER April 1986 i
i .
l Centention 2.C.
Testimony of J.R. Vannier
.Q.l. Please state your full name, employer and present position.
A.l. My name is Joseph R. Vannier. I am employed by Sargent & Lundy as a Senior Quality Control Engineer.
Q.2. Please ' describe your professional and educational qualifications.
A.2. My resume is attached as Attachment 2.C.
(Vannier-1). Briefly, I have 37 years' experience in weld inspection and examinations. I am a certified Level III Inspector in visual weld i inspection and other disciplines including non-destructive examinations. I am certified nation-ally by the American Society for Nondestructive Testing (ASNT), and in the nuclear industry I have
! been certified as a Level III by Crane Company Sargent & Lundy, the Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company (as a corporate Level III) and by Common-l wealth Edison Company. I am a Certified Weld I
Inspector (CWI) by the American Welding Society.
I have served as a Level III Welding Inspector arbitrator on two nuclear power plant sites and l
l have trained and certified Level II and Level III l inspectors.
~ - -. _ - .. -
() 0.3. What a_-e your current responsibilities with respect to the Braidwood project, and when did they commence?
A.3. I began working at Braidwood in November, 1985 as an advisor'to B-CAP, sharing time between Byron and Braidwood. Currently, I am the Level III Welding Inspector arbitrator at both Byron and Braidwood. The Level III arbitrator makes the final professional determination in any disputes involving what code interpretation / application, acceptance / rejection criteria, etc., which may arise between other Level II and Level III inspec-tors. Additionally, at Braidwood, I have respons-ibilities for the overinspection and QCIRP programs.
{} Q.4.
A.4.
What is the purpose of your testimony?
The purpose of my testimony is to describe the results of my review in December, 1985, of the test coupons reflecting Mr. Worley Puckett's Level III welding certification practical examination.
Q.5. What are test coupons?
A.5. The term " test coupons" refers to weld samples with examples of acceptable and unacceptable weld quality. They are used to determine an individual's 1
ability to recognize discontinuities and to apply the acceptance criteria.
i W.--...___.--- -
() The coupons are not standardized, but are weld samples with purposely induced weld defects and characteristics requiring evaluation.
Q.6. Please describe the test coupons you reviewed.
A.6. I reviewed 12 test coupons which had been used to test Mr. Puckett. Two additional coupons had been used as well; they, however, are missing.
Q.7. From whom did you receive the test coupons and
-. where are they as of the date of this testimony?
A.7. I received the coupons from Mr. Irving DeWald of L.K. Comstock. They had already been in my possession for some time prior to this eva1.uation.
I had used them for demonstration purposes during a lecture.
Os Q.8. Please describe your examination *of the test coupons and state the conclusions you reached as to each.
A.8. Under LKC Procedure 4.1.3., a Level III must achieve a score of 100% on a practical exam. Mr.
Puckett, given full credit for the two welding samples that are missing, nevertheless would have scored only 74.20% according to my evaluation. In other words, Mr. Puckett missed more than 25% of the evaluations that should have been made. A Level III Inspector should be complete in his evaluations; Mr. Puckett's evaluations were not.
O b
---s-- --=.- -.-.. ,aw.me. s.,m..~ m u - eh -hen
_4_
() 0.9. How did you weigh the evaluations of the test coupons?
A.9. Each test coupon counts towards 1/14 of the total possible score of 100. I reduced the pos-sible score for each weld which was not adequately evaluated in accordance with the severity of the defect or characteristic involved. Where a coupon presented a number of defects, I decreased the value for each defect correspondingly.
Q.10. Please describe the first test coupon.
A.10. Weld number 1 is a 3/16" fillet weld 2-2/4" long. The weld quality is acceptable, and Mr.
Puckett accepted it appropriately. I gave him full'eredit for this coupon.
}
Q.11. Please describe the second test coupon.
7.-
A.11. Weld number 2 is a 3/16" fL11et weld X,-5/8" long. The weld has an unacceptable length of overlap and incomplete fusion 5/8" long. The weld also has some surface and included slag that should have been removed. Mr. Puckett did not evaluate the slag. I reduced his score by (-2.38) for that reason.
Q.12. Please describe the third test coupon.
A.12. Weld number 3 is an are strike type of condi-tion that is acceptable in accordance with the
( strict interpretation of the procedure. If the inspector rejects this indication, he should have a good reason for doing so. (It is the type of indication that most inspectors would like to reject.) Mr. Puckett gave a satisfactory reason for his decision to reject it, and accordingly, I gave him full credit for this coupon.
Q.13. Please describe the fourth test coupon.
A.13. Weld number 4 is an irregular flare bevel weld with 1/8 to 3/16" of fillet reinforcement.
There is some underfilling. The weld has uncc-ceptable undercut and slag. There are arc strikes and spatter adjacent to the weld which should be evaluated. Mr. Puckett did not evaluate the slag, which was just one of the conditions to evaluate.
! I reduced his score by only (-2.38) for that reason.
Q.14. Please describe the fifth test coupon.
A.14. Weld number 5 is a flare bevel fillet weld with 1/4" of reinforcement. It is 5" long. The i
weld has slag at the bottom toe which should have been removed prior to inspection. Mr. Puckett did not evaluate the slag, which was a major defect in this coupon, and he accepted this rejectable weld.
I I reduced his score by (-7.14) for these reasons.
1
- . - _ - -- ,1
() 0.15. Please describe the sixth test coupon.
A.15. Weld number 6 was not available for my evaluation, because the sample was missing.
Accordingly, I gave him full credit for it.
Q.16. Please describe the seventh test coupon.
A.16. Weld number 7 was not available for my evaluation, because the sample was missing.
Accordingly, I gave him full credit for it.
Q.17. Please describe the eighth test coupon.
A.17. Weld number 8 is a flare bevel groove weld 2-1/8" long with a 3/16" effective throat. The weld has a 3/32" fit-up gap which may increase the effective throat. The weld terminates in a crater p
(s
, 5/16" long which is not counted in the above weld length.
The test question required a flare bevel weld 2-1/8" long with a 3/16" throat. Therefore, the weld was acceptable. The crater is beyond the l specified weld length and need be evaluated only for cracks and undercut.
Mr. Puckett rejected the weld for insuffici-ent throat and unfilled crater. In order to l receive credit, Mr. Puckett should have explained 1
his answer. He did not. Accordingly, I reduced Mr. Puckett's score by (-7.14).
L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - - -
~
gm
(_) Q.18. Please describe the ninth test coupon.
A.18. Weld number 9 is a flare bevel fillet weld 2-1/8" long with a 5/16" x 7/16" reinforcement.
There is an arc strike and resultant crater at one end that should have been evaluated. Mr. Puckett did not evaluate the arc strike. Accordingly, I reduced his score by (-2.38).
Q.19. Please describe the tenth test coupon.
A.19. Weld number 10 is a 3/16" fillet weld 27 /4 "
long. It has unacceptable overlap with incomplete fusion 1-3/8" long. Mr. Puckett evaluated the coupon correctly. and I gave him full credit for it.
Q.20. Please describe the eleventh test coupon.
A.20. Weld number 11 is a 5/16" fillet weld 2-3/8" long. The weld is acceptable, and Mr. Puckett correctly accepted it. I gave him full credit for this coupon.
i Q 21. Please describe the twelfth test coupon.
A.21. Weld number 12 is an acceptable 3/16" fillet, welded "all around." It has an acceptable crater in one corner. Mr. Puckett correctly accepted this weld, and I gave him full credit for this l
coupon.
l O
i
. = _ - _
i l
\
Q.22. Please describe the thirteenth test coupon.
A.22. Weld number 13 is an acceptable full length 1/4" fillet weld. However, it does contain grinding marks and arc strikes that shou.'.d have been evaluated. Mr. Puckett did not evaluate the grinding marks nor the are strikes. Accordingly, I reduced Mr. Puckett's score by (-1.0) for that reason.
Q.23. Please describe the fourteenth test coupon.
A.23. Weld number 14 is a fillet weld with 3/16 to 1/4" of reinforcement. The weld ends in a crater and is 1/8" short of being full length. There is a base metal grinding adjacent to the weld which O should be evaluated. The weld quality is accept-able.
The test question calls for a 1/4" weld full length. Mr. Puckett correctly rejected the weld for siza, incorrectly for undercut, and did not evaluate the length or base metal grinding.
Accordingly, I reduced Mr. Puckett's score by 1
(-3.38).
Q.24. Is it your opinion, then, that Mr. Puckett did not demonstrate the ability in that test necessary to attain Level III weld inspector certification?
V 1
^
--.. ~ ~-a _ . - - ~
r .
i:
i
}
_9 A.24. I believe that these coupons were a good i
practical exam for a Level III weld inspector.
Mr. Puckett did not pass this test. In my opinion, he did not demonstrate the ability in that test
! necessary to attain Level III certification.
Q.25. Does this complete your testimeny?
A.25. Yes.
I 1
i O
I 4
l O
l .- _-.--- .
m , -
~
s . - ; m > ,
. . s.~ -
- , , s. s,
- s. . , ,
,_1 -
's * ,
. \
s -
n.
4 =
7 O ,
UNITED STATES'OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter Of: )
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY )
) Docket Nos. 50-456 (Braidwood Station, Units 1 1 50-457 and 2) )
O ATTACHMENTS TO CONTENTION 2.C.
TESTIMONY OF 4
J. R. VANNIER f
i April 1986 0
Attachm nt 2.C. (Vannier-1)
RESUME JOSEPH R. VANNIER TITLE: Senior Level III Q 3C. Engineer REGISTRATIONS: Certified welding inspector by the Society (AWS-CWI American Welding certificate No. /0061541).
S
, Certified Level III by the American i Society For Nondestructive Testing (RT, UT, PT, MT) certificate No. HA 786 (MT certificate expired).
Certified Level III inspector Sargent and Lundy Visual Welding, NDE and Vendor Surveillance (Mechanical)
Former Certified Level III inspector NDE, Visual, Mechanical and Welding by The Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company (Corporate Level III, acting).
l l Former Certified Level III with Blaw
(-) Knox Fcundry and Mill Machinery Company, Crane Company, Great Lakes X-ray Service.
Former Certified NDE Examiner Navships 250-1500-1.
Former Member, Board of Directors, Chicago Chapter, ASNT 1954.
RESPONSIBILITES: Mr. Vannier is loaned to clients by Sargent and Lundy to serve on their staffs as a Senior Level III and Senior Welding Inspector. Mr. Vannier serves l as arbitrator in third party decisions.
Mr. Vannier is responsible for the review and verification of client and l contractor quality control, welding l inspection and NDE procedures. He I witnesses and overviews tests and inspec-tions and evaluates the adequacy and
! completeness of the tests performed.
Mr. Vannier reviews documentation in order to insure compliance with applicable codes, standards and specifications.
(~T V
O x- EXPERIENCE: Mr. Vannier has 37 years experience in the inspection, quality control, and quality assurance fields. During much of this time he was in charge of moderate to large sized inspection groups and has trained, certified and supervised dozens of inspectors.
From May, 1983 until the present, Mr.
Vannier has served as a loaned servant Level III third party welding inspector arbitrator for Commonwealth Edison at two nuclear power plants.
From April, 1981 until May, 1983, Mr.
Vannier served as acting corporate Level III and certified welding inspector for Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company at their nuclear power plant. During this time, Mr. Vannier developed Level II and Level III training and certification programs and procedures. He trained and certified approximately 60 inspectors.
He also developed numerous quality control and quality assurance procedures.
O From June, 1978 until April, 1981, Mr.
Vannier worked at Sargent and Lundy as a quality control engineer developing a training program, doing vendor surveillance, as well as writing, reviewing and verifying quality control and nondestructive examination procedures.
From June, 1977 until June, 1978, Mr.
Vannier worked at Blaw Knox Foundry and Mill Machinery Company in East Chicago, Indiana as chief radiographer and super-visor of NDE training and certifications.
From June, 1973 until June, 1977, Mr.
Vannier worked at Crane Company, Chicago, l Illinois a producer of nuclear valves.
Mr. Vannier was chief radiographer, radiation safety officer and navships 250-1500-1 examiner.
t I
l t -
vo 1
) From 1959 until 1973, Mr. Vannier owned his own testing and inspection company, j Great Lakes X-ray Service and served as -
manager, Level III and supervisor working for clients such as Commonwealth Edison Company, Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, Northern Indiana Public Service Company, Illinois Power Company and others.
From 1948 until 1959, Mr. Vannier worked for Industrial X-ray Engineers and its subsidiary __"JNOM- Corporation," a testing JQPN and inspection company, serving as supervisor and eventually manager.
O O
l
_ __ ,_ _ .s -
3152 O 1 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, if I might just add 2 one point:
3 The foundation objection goes not just to the chain 4 of custody. It goes to the changed condition of the 5 coupons as well.
6 We believe that an independent grounds for 7 sustaining our objection to the admissibility of Mr.
8 Vannier's testimony is now the foundation evidence that 9 there, indeed, are significant dissimilarities between 10 the conditions of the coupons as observed today and the 11 conditions of the coupons as described in the Vogt key 12 and the Puckett exam.
() 13 I gather the Board has ruled on the ultimate 14 question of admissibility, but I wanted the record to 15 reflect that our objection went to that ground as well.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine. That is another L 17 matter that will be taken into account in the Board's 18 judgment.
19 Yes, that's right. Mr. Gallo, that's another 20 point. We are certainly not going to take custody of 21 this physical evidence which you have and which I assume 22 you will maintain and make available to future 23 witnesses.
24 MR. GALLO: As long as it's not subject to 25 collateral attack as to authenticity.
3
)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 u .__ _ _ _ _ -
e.-_ . .m - _
3153 O 1 JUDGE COLE: Or the provision for three 2 copies thereof.
3 MR. GALLO: We will, indeed, keep custody of 4 the coupons.and maintain them in an unchanged condition.
5 MR. GUILD: Judge, if I understand now that 6 the witness's testimony is to be admitted as the Board 7 has ruled, we believe that the testimony can't stand 8 without the foundation of the physical evidence being in 9 the record.
10 It's not my place to move it into evidence but I 11 believe that it's a critical element of the foundation 12 of the testimony that the physical evidence, on which,
().13 obviously, the Board and the parties have spent 14 considerable time in physical examination, be itself 15 part of the record of the proceeding.
16 I hate to consider your taking it back to 4 17 Washington with you, Judge, but I believe that that is a 18 material requirement for the testimony to be received.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That we take custody of
- 20 physical evidence?
l That the physical evidence itself' 21 MR. GUILD:
22 be a matter of record in the proceeding.
23 MR. BERRY: It is.
24 MR. GALLO: I would have no objection to 25 that.
O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
.. ._m____________.~.__- _
3154 O 1 Once the foundation is laid, I would mark them for 2 identification as Applicant's exhibits, offer them in 3 evidence and if there is no objection from Mr. Guild, we 4 would ship them to Washington to the Board's offices.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That's fine, as long as we 6 don't have to handle that.
7 (Laughter.)
8 Well, I believe the rules are that special 9
arrangements are made with physical evidence, assuming 10 that we guarantee the rights of the parties.
11 Fine. You may proceed now, Mr. Guild, to further 12 cross examine.
( ) 13 MR. GUILD: Did I understand that Applicants 14 had not of fered Exhibits 5 and 6 that had been marked 15 for identification?
16 MR. GALLO: I have not.
17 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, then, if they have 18 not been -- and Mr. Gallo so states Mr. Gallo has not 19 offered those in evidence -- I would assert an 20 independent then ground for objecting to Mr. Vannier's 1 21 testimony and would move to strike it; and that is that 22 the tests which Mr. -- the documents marked 5 and 6 for 23 identification, which Mr. Vannier, obviously, relied 24 upon for his testimony, are critical foundations for 25 that testimony.
O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 601J4 (312) 232-0262
3155 1 Further, Applicant's 5, Mr. Puckett's exam, cannot 2 be admitted in evidence through this witness, who is not 3 competent to sponsor a document that he did not author.
4 It is authored, apparently, by Mr. Puckett and authored 5 by Mr. DeWald.
6 Critical evidence about the significance of this 7 test is dependent upon the live testimony from the 8 authors of it.
9 What did Mr. DeWald mean when he wrote something on 10 the exam? What did Mr. Puckett mean when he wrote 11 something on the exam?
12 The same general principle applies to Applicant's 6 A
(_j 13 for identification, Mr. Vogt's ksy. Mr. Vogt derived 14 this key and Mr. Vogt, presumably, is-the only witness 15 who is competent to offer it in evidence.
16 Now, I heard Mr. Gallo state that he intended to 17 present Mr. Vogt to sponsor that document; but my point 18 now is that both of these documents are key foundations.
19 to Mr. Vannier's testimony; and absent their being 20 offered in evidence together with the coupons that are 21 the subject of his evaluation, Mr. Vannier's testimony
( 22 is fatally deficient for lack of foundation and on that 23 ground I would move to strike his testimony. -
24 MR. GALLO: Can I be heard, if it's 1
25 necessa ry?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. 1 Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 ;
.__ __ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ m. m - - - - - - - - -- )
3156 O 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, okay.
2 MR. GALLO: I would condition the 3 admissibility of the Vannier testimony not only on being 4 able to establish the chain of custody that I referred 5 to earlier but also being able to establish the 6 foundation and the admissibility of Applicant's Exhibits 7 5 and 6, as well as the coupons themselves.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, that's fine.
9 Clearly, Mr. Guild is correct with respect to 10 Applicant's Exhibit 5.
11 As to Applicant's Exhibit 6, it's probably 12 necessary as part of that circumstantial evidence.
() 13 So, fine. We accept your representation that you 14 will supply the necessary foundation for Exhibits --
15 Applicant's Exhibits -- 5 and 6, which are not now 16 admitted into evidence --
17 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, without --
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- but will travel along 19 with the transcript as though admitted into evidence.
20 MR. GALLO: Fine.
21 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, with that I would 22 ask leave to examine the witness from the documents
- 23 without waiving my objections as to their admissibility 24 or as to the absence of foundation reflected in those
! documents in Mr. Vannier's testimony?
( ) 25 i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262' L- _ _ _ ... _ .._ _ _ ___ _
3157 O 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Is there any objection to 2 that, Mr. Gallo?
3 MR. GALLO: No objection.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gallo, you did provide 5 copies for the Reporter, did you?
6 MR. GALLO: No. I am afraid I ran out before 7 I did. That's a deficiency on my part.
8 What I plan to do in the short term is to 9 confiscate the witness's copies when he is finished and 10 furnish them to the Reporter, if that's satisfactory for 11 the Reporter's purpose.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. That's fine.
() 13 The question as to whether Staff had any problem 14 with that last ruling?
15 MS. CHAN: No, the Staff has no problem,with 16 that ruling.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Continue, Mr. Guild.
18 MR. GUILD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Just to make it clear, you 20 have not waived your objections.
21 MR. GUILD: Thank you.
22 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 23 (Continued.)
24 BY MR. GUILD 25 Q Mr. Vannier, have you ever performed work as a welder?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3158 O 1 A Have I? Yes.
2 Q And can you state for the record what work that was, 3 please?
4 A I took welder training in 1943. I did a small amount of 5 welding at that time and then I transferred into '
6 fitting.
7 Since then it's just been sporadic. I have not
- 8 done job-type welding since then.
- 9 Q Have you ever -- then I take it that you have never 10 performed work as a certified welder in the construction l 11 of a nuclear power plant?
4 12 A No.
- - 0 13 o Have you verformed work as a -- I eake 1e, 1so, ehat 14 you have not performed work as a certified welder in the
- 15 Navy nuclear program?
l 16 A That's true, I have not.
17 Q You have, however, been certified as a we1 der inspector?
l 18 A Yes.
19 Q Now, I see in your resume attached to your prefiled 20 testimony that from April, 1981, until May, 1983, you 21 served as the Acting Corporate Level 3 and Certified 22 Welding Inspector for Cincinnati Gas and Electric 23 Company at their nuclear power plant. That's a quote 24 from your resume.
25 '
That is on Page 2 of your resume; is that correct?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, Illinois aulae l (312) 232-0262 l
E m .. . m _- _ .. - - - - - _. _ -. _ - - - .
3159 l
l O 1 A Yes.
2 Q What is, "their nuclear power plant," that you refer to 3 there?
4 A It was the Zimmer Nuclear Power Station.
5 Q I see. And in that capacity at Zimmer, you were 6 responsible for developing the Level 2 and Level 3 7 training and certification programs and procedures; is 8 that correct?
9 A I had nothing to do with procedures.
10 I was involved with a re-inspection program that 11 initiated after April 7, 1981; and although they had me i
12 as their Corporate Level 3 Welding Inspector, primarily
() 13 my functions were in non-destructive examinations and I i
14 was their Level 3 RT, radiographic, ultrasonic and that 15 type of thing and I did training and testing in those 16 areas, plus other functions.
17 Q I cee. Well, then your resume is incorrect where at 18 Page 2 it states that Mr. Vannier developed Level 2 and 19 Level 3 training and certification programs and .
20 procedures.
21 You did not do so?
22 A In non-destructive examinations, yes, I did.
23 Q In non-destructive examination of weldments?
24 A Yes.
25 Q And did that include X-ray?
l i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3160 0 1 A Yes.
2 Q Mag particle, ultrasonic, liquid penetrant tests?
3 A Yes.
4 Q- Did I miss any?
5 A I don't think so.
6 Q All right. You trained and certified inspectors and you 7 were responsible for t : procedures and program for 8 training and certifyla; inspectors in those NDE weld 9 inspection techniques?
10 'A I developed a master procedure for certification of 1
11 Level 2 and Level 3 personnel for Cincinnati Gas and 12 Electric Company.
() 13 Q Did you know Mr. Puckett at that time?
14 A Very remotely. I knew of him. I saw his signature on 15 papers; and, as I recall, we had two encounters, when I 16 went to ask for information from him.
l 17 Q Other than those two occasions, you did not know Mr.
I 18 Puckett?
19 A No. We were in different areas.
20 Q Were any deficiencies identified in the programs or 21 procedures for which you had responsibility when you 22 were the Level 3 at Zimmer?
i 23 MR. GALLO: Objection.
f 24 The question is vague. Deficiencies identified by
- 25 whom, what deficiencies?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
+ - ou % . ,mm,,,,,mM,m. - - JWL M ..,,g- _h - mm,,,, M
3161 O 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Overruled.
2 I think you understand the question.
3 THE WITNESS: Could you state it again, 4 please?
5 MR. GUILD: Sure.
6 BY MR. GUILD:
7 Q Were any deficiencies identified in the programs for 8 which you had responsibility at the Zimmer Nuclear Power 9 Plant?
10 A Were deficiencies identified by me in programs or --
11 Q By anyone.
12 A In my programs?
( ) 13 Q Yes, sir, in yo'ur program or procedures.
14 A Not to my knowledge.
15 Q No NRC findings of items of noncompliance in your areas 16 of responsibility?
17 A My primary purpose was to resolve deficiencies that had 18 been identified before my tenure on site.
19 MR. GALLO: Answer it yes or no.
20 MR. GUILD: Would you answer the question 21 directly?
22 BY MR. GUILD:
23 Q Were there any NRC items of noncompliance identified in 24 your areas of responsibility?
25 A No.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
-W---
main ew.m e g
-=% y _ . . _, ,- , _ _ _ _ _ N _ _ - - ,
3162 O 1 Q Now, when did you become certified as a Level 3 1
2 Inspector in visual weld inspections? I 3 A Let me ask: An AWS certification, you mean, the 4 national certification?
5 Q Yes.
6 A I believe it was 1977; but let me review my --
7 Q Please do.
8 A I am sorry. I don't have the exact date or year. It 9 was '77 or '78.
10 0 What capacity were you serving when you were first 11 certified as a Level 3 Inspector in visual weld 12 inspections?
() 13 A I was a quality control engineer with Sargent & Lundy.
14 Q ' Did you perform field inspection work as a Level 3 15 Visual Weld Inspector?
16 A Yes, I did vendor surveillance and if you call that ,
c 17 field, yes.
l 18 I would go into a vendor's plant and do field.
19 0 On what sort of weldments did you perform field 20 inspections?
21 A It could be piping, it could be structural 22 prefabrications and that type of thing.
23 Q Piping and structural?
24 A Pardon?
25 Q Piping and structural welds?
i O
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, illinois 60134 I
(312) 232-0262
~ .- _ _ _ = - _ .- .
n
3163 i
~
O l A Yes.
2 Q Have you continued to perform field inspections as a
~
3 Level 3 Visual since that time?
4 A Very heavily in the last three years.
5 There are two years there that I didn't do, it was 6 sporadic, it might be two or three a month or something 7 like that; but in the last three years, it's been 8 constant visual welding inspections in the field.
9 0 In what capacity have you done that?
10 A As what we call a Level 3 Arbiter or Level 3 Inspector.
11 Q At the Braidwood facility?
12 A At Byron and Braidwood.
() 13 Q Now, have you had an opportunity to review Mr. Puckett's 14 statement of. qualifications, his resume, if you will?
15 A No.
I 16 Q Are you aware of Mr. Puckett's background?
17 A Only that he is -- I understand that he is an ex-Navy 18 man.
19 Q Well, do you know whether or not, in short, Mr. Vannier, 20 Mr. Puckett is more experienced as a welder than you 21 are?
22 A I do not.
23 0 Do you know whether or not as a fact Mr. Puckett is more 24 experienced as a Visual Weld Inspector than you are?
25 A I do not know Mr. Puckett's background and resume.
l' i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 1
. . . _ _ -_ m _. . _n. - m---. - - m m _,u r %%.
i 3164 s
O 1 Q All right, sir. Now, who initially contacted you with 2 the charge of evaluating Mr. Puckett's weld test?
3 A A Mr. Randy Kurtz called me and told me'to get in touch 4 with Becky Lauer.
5 Q Ms. Lauer is a lawyer for Commonwealth Edison Company, I 6 understand?
7 A For Isham, Lincoln & Beale.
8 Q What did Mr. Kurtz say to you, in substance, when he 9 contacted you?
10 A He said to contact her about evaluating a Level 3 test.
11 Q And was that in December of 1985?
12 A Well, I am sorry. I don't recall. I don't recall the
() 13 date.
14 0 I think your testimony so states, but you don t have 15 independent recollection of that?
16 A I couldn't recall it.
17 t JUDGE GROSSMAN: I think it was towards the 18 end of 1985.
19 I believe that the December date was for '84 with 20 regard to receiving the weldments.
21 BY MR. GUILD:
22 Q On Page 2 of your testimony you state, "The purpose of 23 my testimony is to describe the results of my review in 24 December,1985, of the test coupons reflecting," et 25 cetera.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 m _.
3165 O 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I was speaking about the 2 testimony this morning.
3 That's in the prefiled testimony, that's correct.
4 BY MR. GUILD:
5 Q Is that true?
6 A Yes.
7 Q It was Decembe r ' 85?
8 A Yes.
) 9 Q Your recollection is refreshed having referred to your 10 prefiled testimony?
11 A Well, yes.
4 12 Q You contacted then -- did Mr. Kurtz explain to you any
() 13 more what your responsibility would be, what tasks you 14 were going to do?
15 A No.
16 Q You contacted Ms. Lauer then?
- 17 A Yes.
l 18 0 Can you describe the substance of your conversation with 19 Ms. Lauer?
20 MR. GALLO: Objection.
21 I am not privy to the discussion; but it's, 22 obviously, either covered by -- it's covered, rather, by f 23 the work product exemption, work product privilege, 24 talking about the development of testimony between
, 25 counsel and his witness appearing on behalf of i
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
_ . _ - .n
3166 O 1 Applicant.
2 The question was what was the substance of your 3 conve r sation. I am sure they talked about in the 4 substance of that conversation the development of the 5 testimony, the theory of the case as it applies to Mr.
6 Vannier.
7 MR. GUILD: They may or may not have, Mr.
8 Chairman; but that does not immunize the witness, once 9 he takes the stand, from reciting the basis for his l 10 testimony.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, that is correct.
12 Overruled. It is not a work product proper
() 13 objection. ,
14 MR. GUILD: Would you answer the question, 15 please?
16 THE WITNESS: Could you state it, please?
17 MR. GUILD: Sure.
18 BY MR. GUILD:
19 Q What was the substance of Ms. Lauer's conversation with 20 you at that time?
21 A That I was to evaluate a Level 3 test which I could 22 obtain -- it was Mr. Worley Puckett's test, which I 23 could obtain -- from Comstock.
24 Q Did she state to you the purpose for such an evaluation?
25 A No.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, 1111nois oulae
, (312) 232-0262
._-_w - . . . _.
3167 O 1 Q Pardon me?
2 A Jo.
~3 Q Did she use Mr. Puckett's name?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Did she describe who Mr. Puckett was?
6 A No.
7 Q Did you recognize the name when she --
8 A Of course, yes.
9 Q I am sorry?
10 A Yes.
11 Q I don't mean to --
12 A Yes.
() 13 Q -- press you with questions; but, please, listen to my i 14 question before you answer it.
15 A All right.
16 Q You recognized the name Mr. Puckett when she stated it 17 to you --
! 18 A Yes.
- 19 Q -- as the Mr. Puckett which you had known at Zimmer?
n 20 A Yes.
21 Q Did you subsequently learn why you were to perform such i
22 an evaluation?
i 23 A I don't believe I ever did know, really, why.
24 This is not an unusual thing for me to do. I have i
25 done this, I have evaluated tests at other sites, to see Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
' Geneva, Illinois 60134 232-0262 (312) l
~ + " -- ~ n in
~
-~~
N-- ~ es . * ....x. ..,-
m.
3168 O 1 if it was --
2 Q Well, I don't mean to be facetious, Mr. Vannier; but 3 have you figured it out as of today why you were asked 4 to perform this evaluation?
5 A Yes.
6 Q And you learned today, at least, that you were to be a 7 witness in this proceeding; correct?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Did you' learn that before today?
10 A Yes.
11 Q When did you learn that?
12 MR. GALLO: Objection.
, () 13 That is~ immaterial and irrelevant. ,
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Overruled.
15 MR. GUILD: When did you learn that, Mr.
16 Vannie r? .
17 A It was after I wrote my draft of this testimony.
- 18 I don't know when.
19 BY MR. GUILD:
20 Q Well, did you know that you were writing a draft of 21 testimony when you wrote it?
22 A I knew I was writing a draft, yes.
23 0 Of testimony?
24 A No, I did not realize it was testimony.
25 Q Did you have any understanding then of the purpose for O
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
, Geneva, Illinois 60144 (312) 232-0262
- ~~ .a- w. ..- _ - - - --- - -- - - --- . . - .-
3169 I
1 which you were making this writing?
2 A Again, it was to evaluate the Level 3 test of Mr.
3 Puckett.
4 0 All right. Did you understand that there was a
> 5 licensing proceeding pending for the Braidwood Nuclear 6 Station at the time?
7 A Yes.
8 0 You did?
9 A Yes.
10 Q And did you understand that there was any relationship 11 between the work that you were performing and that 12 proceeding?
( ) 13 A Yes.
14 Q When did you learn that?
15 A Through -- I can't give you a date, again.
16 Q Did Ms. Lauer inform you of that?
17 A Probably, yes.
18 Q All right. Do you recall whether she informed you of 19 that in your initial telephone conversation?
20 A I think she did not.
21 Q So it was at a later time?
, 22 A I believe so, yes.
23 Q And you can't recall today when that was?
24 A No, I can't.
25 Q Now, you had this conversation with Ms. Lauer and she O
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3170
~
0 l stated, in substance, that you were to evaluate Mr.
2 Puckett's examination and she told you how to obtain 3 that examination; correct?
4 A Yes.
5 Q How did you obtain that examination?
6 A I called Mr. DeWald of Comstock and explained that I was 7 to evaluate the Worley Puckett test.
8 Mr. DeWald and Mr. Simile brought the test and the 9 key sheet over to me.
10 Q You got a little ahead of me now.
11 A Okay.
12 Q But you called Mr. DeWald; correct?
() 13 A I called Mr. DeWald.
14 0 What, in substance, did Mr. DeWald say to you?
15 A Okay. He would bring it over.
I 16 Q A man of few words.
17 Did he say anything else that you recall?
18 A No. '
19 Q Okay. Did you say anything to him?
20 A No.
21 'Q And then what transpired?
22 A He brought the test over.
23 Q He and Mr. Simile?
24 A That was the next sequence of events.
25 Yes, Mr. Simile and Mr. DeWald.
O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 6U134 (312) 232-0262
, . _ - . - - . . . = - - .. -n -- -
3171
! (
1 Q He brought over -- did he bring over a Xerox copy of the 2 test?
3 A A Xerox copy, yes.
4 Q Well, did he bring over a non-Xerox copy, what you 5 understood to be the original of the test?
6 A No, no.
I 7 Q Have you.since seen an original of the test?
8 A Yes.
9 Q When did you first see the original?
10 A I saw it within the last few days.
11 Q But you evaluated from a copy; is that correct?
12 A Yes.
() 13 Q Do you have understanding that the original has
, 14 handwriting in red pencil on it?
! 15 A Yes.
16 Q Do you understand that that is not Mr. Puckett's
- 17 handwriting?
l 18 A Yes.
- 19 Q It is your understanding that is Mr. DeWald's 20 handwriting, the red pencil mark?
21 A Yes, I would think it would be.
22 Q And that, in effect, that is the grading of the test, 23 Mr. DeWald's evaluation; correct?
24 A Yes.
25 Q so you had the test in the form in which it's been O
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3172 O 1 marked as Applicant's Exhibit 5 for identification, and 2 that is a Xerox copy with all of the handwriting 3 appearing in --
4 A Yes.
5 0 -- black lettering?
6 A 'ic s .
7 Q Now, at the same time did they give you Mr. Vogt's key?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Did Mr. DeWald and Mr. Simile explain to you that 10 Applicant's Exhibit 5 was, in fact, a copy of Mr.
11 Puckett's test?
12 A Yes, they stated it was a copy.
( ) 13 Q All right. Did Mr. DeWald state that the handwriting 14 appearing on the document, aside from Mr. Puckett's, was 15 his own?
16 A No.
17 Q He didn't identify it?
18 A No.
19 Q How did you learn that it was Mr. DeWald's?
20 A It's easily deducible.
21 Q Can you explain why that is?
22 A Well, I look at the test and I see Mr. Puckett, for 23 example, on Exhibit 5 -- Mr. Puckett wrote, " Reject.
24 Incomplete fusion."
25 Q We are looking at Question 5 now?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3173
. O 1 A I am looking at Exhibit 5.
2 Q I see. Which item?
3 A The first page.
4 Q Yes.
5 A Question 2.
6 Q Quostion 2, thank you.
7 A This took some deduction on my part.
8 Q Okay.
9 A I deduced Mr. Puckett wrote, " Reject. Incomplete 10 fusion."
11 Then we see a parentheses or something that -- that 12 somebody else has added something.
() 13 Q How do you'know that it's someone else who has added.
14 something?
i 15 A Well, that was my deduction; and it's signed by S. F. D.
16 or something. It's somebody else's writing and it's 17 signed and dated.
18 0 You took that to be Mr. DeWald's initials?
19 A Yes, it looks like Mr. DeWald.
20 Q With.the date of August 26, 1984; correct?
l 21 A Yes.
22 Q Mr. Vannier, looking again at Applicant'a Exhibit 5 for 23 identification, Question 2, do you see a circle around 24 the word " reject"?
- 25 A Yes.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois bU1J4 (312) 232-0262
- . - . . .~ . . _- -. . ..
3174 9
1 Q Whose circle is that, to your understanding?
2 A I would have assumed Mr. DeWald did, because underneath 3 that you see "okay," and I assumed that that was his 4 4 grading method.
5 Q Ih3 you have any independent knowledge that that is the 6 case?
7 A No.
8 Q That's simply your deduction?
9 A That's a deduction, yes. ,
10 0 There is a word that say,n "one-third point," it appears?
11 A Yes. I 12 0 Whose writing is that?,
() 13 A I assumed that it was Mr. DeWald's.
14 Q All right,' sir. Then there is -- above the initials I.
15 F. D., 8-26-84, ( there is -- a check ma rk.
16 Whose check mark is that, do you know?
17 A I don't know. I assumed that was part of the same added
~
18 comments in --
19 0 You assume it was added by_semeone other than Mr.
20 Puckett, do you not?
i 21 A Yes.
22 0 Do you know who?
23 A No.
1 24 Q Look at the bottom question on the first page of 25 , Applicant's Exhibit 5, the one that should be numbered 4 I
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 601J4 (312) 232-0262
~ - .n m .2. m ,<-~c>. w - n, m -- _ . -
3175 O 1 but the-4 is simply obliterated?
2 A Uh-huh.
3 Q Do you see there there is a similar series of different 4 handwritings and markings on the test sheet?
5 A Yes.
6 Q All right. Again, a circle around the word " reject" and 7 an "okay" in the circle? -
8 A Yes.
9 Q You assume those were placed on the document after Mr.
10 Puckett wrote the answers?
11 A Yes.
12 Q And you assume they are by Mr. DeWald?
() 13 A Yes'.
14 Q Is that correct?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Now, beside the word reject, "R-E-J," there are the l
17 words, " undercut, s patte r"?
18 A Yes.
19 Q And the word " spatter" is lined through.
20 There don't appear to be any dates or initials by 21 the underlining -- the line through, are there?
22 A (No response.)
l 23 Q There do not appear to be any initials or dating by the l 24 line through?
25 A There is not. There is none, no.
l 7-)
V Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3176 O 1 Q Do you know who placed the line through the word 2 " spatter"?
~
3 A No, I don't.
4 Q Do you know whether it was Mr. Puckett?
5 A (No response.)
6 Q You don't know whether it was Mr. Puckett or Mr. DeWald 7 or someone else, do you?
8 A No.
9 Q So you are aware, are you not, generally, Mr. Vannier 10 that the test document that you performed an evaluation 11 on is not in the same form as it was when it was
, 12 completed by Mr. Puckett?
() 13 A Yes, I am aware of that.
14 Q That there have been alterations to the document made 15 after it left Mr. Puckett's hands, that was a deduction 16 that you reached?
17 A Yes.
18 Q And you surmised that some of those alterations were 19 made by Mr. DeWald but you can't be certain which ones 20 were, can you?
21 A I can't remember certain.
22 ,O And you can't be certain, in fact, whether all the 23 alterations were made by Mr. DeWald or whether they were l
24 made by someone else, can you?
l l A No.
} 25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l -
3177 O 1 Now, at the time you undertook.your task, as you stated, Q
2 you had both the Puckett exam, Exhibit 5, and the Vogt 3 key, Exhibit 6; correct?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Okay. And that's what was given to you by Mr. DeWald 6 and Mr. Simile?
7 A Yes.
8 Q And that was the same occasion when you, as you 9 testified earlier on the sort of preliminary 10 examination, you discovered that the coupons that you 11 had had for. training purposes were, at least according 12 to Mr. DeWald, the same coupons that Mr. Puckett tested
( 13 from; correct?
14 A Yes.
15 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, if we could take a 16 recess at that point.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine. Why don't we return
! 18 at 1:15.
19 (WHEREU PON, the hearing of the 20 above-entitled matter was continued to l
21 the hour of 1:15 P. M.)
22 l 23 i
24 CE) i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
3178 O
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
__________________x 5 :
In the Matter of: :
6 : Docket No. 50-456 OL COMM011 WEALTH EDISON COMPANY : 50-457 OL 7 :
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 :
8 and 2) :
__________________x 9
10 Met pursuant to recess, 11 Thursday, June 5, 1986.
1:15 P. M.
12
(
13 ,
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. We're back in 15 session.
16 We'll just note for the record that we were just --
17 we just received Applicant's brief in opposition to the 18 admission of the Parkhurst contention.
19 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, so that there's no 20 confusion there, the memorandum also addresses the 21 Hunter contention as well.
22 As you will see when you review it, we do not l
23 oppose the admission of the specific circumstances of 24 Mr. Hunter's termination as a Comstock QC Inspector as 25 an additional contention.
l Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3179 O 1 However, again without anticipating the document 2 too much, we do believe that the inclusion in the 3 contention of the attachment which is a letter that Mr.
4 Hunter wrote to management which deals with many issues 5 that are extraneous to the issue of QC harassment -- QC 6 Inspector harassment and intimidation should not be 7 pe rmitted.,
8 l ive now summarized briefly our position.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Also, basically you don't 10 oppose the continuing issue with regard to Mr. Hunter 11 except for suggesting certain limitations to that issue?
12 MR. MILLER : Yes, sir.
() 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
14 MR. MILLER: The other matter I'd like to 15 actually inquire into for a few reasons has to do with 16 scheduling for next week.
17 We do have subpoenas out to QC Inspectors. I don't 18 care whether we do this on the record or off, but we 19 ought to discuss what the Board and Mr. Guild feel are 20 the expected time durations for the witnesses before we 21 get to those inspectors so that I can give them some 22 advance notice as to --
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: It's just a matter of time.
24 Let's go off the record.
25 (There followed a discussion outside the
, gnnneng napnrefng garvica. r+a.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 k __ _ - - - _ _ _ . - _ - - _ ;_- -
l 3180 i O
1 record.)
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Back on the record.
3 We'll continue with Mr. Guild.
4 MR. GUILD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
5 CROSS EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. GUILD:
7 0 Mr. Vannier, I think that the examination before your 8 testimony was admitted, when we were looking at a number 9 of these specific coupons, reflects, does it not, that 10 there's a lot of judgment involved in evaluating the 11 acceptance criteria for a weld?
12 Would you agree?
() 13 A I guess there's judgment. The criteria is pretty clear.
14 Q But the application of those criteria in actual practice 15 requires judgment, does it no :?
16 A It requires inspector judgment.
17 Q And would you agree that of all the different -- I won' t 18 say "all," but among inspection attributes, including 19 but not limited to welding, such as the kind of 20 inspections one performs for terminations within the 21 electrical scope of work, configurations, perhaps 22 receiving inspection, that visual inspection of welds is 23 commonly denoted a subjective inspection technique?
24 A Yes, it is.
25 Q For example, I'm looking at the Comstock program Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3181
() 1 entitled " Quality Control Inspector Reinspection ,
2 Program." It's NCR 688 Supplement 1 -- actually, it's a 3 Commonwealth Edison NCR. I 4 A Yes.
5 0 Are you familiar with that?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Okay.
8 And in that -- in the QCIR, the term " subjective" 9 is defined explicitly with visual weld inspection alone 10 in mind as exemplary of what is a subjective inspection 11 technique?
12 A It is in the QC procedure, yes.
() 13 Q The definition there I'm reading and ask that you accept 14 is that subjective Type A criterion: "An inspection 15 whose inspection elements which, by their nature, have a 16 lower degree of repeatability due to their dependence on 17 human sensory qualities for determining acceptance or 18 nonacceptance."
19 Would you accept that as a definition of a 20 subjective inspection attribute?
21 A Yes.
22 Q And that is, as this definition goes on to state, 23 " applicable to visual weld inspection"?
24 A Yes.
25 Q, Denominated in the QCRP --
l snnntag naparti ng servi ca. r.t a .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- ._ - : _ .n - .-
.._ v _ . .
e -
3182
() 1 A Yes.
2 0 -- as a subjective inspection technique?
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: The answer to that is yes?
4 THE WITNESS: Yes.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Please wait until the 6 questions are finished, not just for Mr. Guild but with 7 Mr. Gallo, too.
8 BY MR. GUILD:
9 0 All right.
10 Now, you're certified as a Level III visual weld 11 inspector, and you've done visual weld inspection, as 12 you've testified.
) 13 Do you understand that'Mr. Puckett himself had 14 previously performed visual weld inspection prior to the 15 time he sought to be certified as a Level III?
t 16 A Yes.
17 Q All right.
18 And did you understand that Mr. DeWald, the 19 Comstock Quality Control Manager who evaluated Mr.
20 Puckett's test, had also been certified as a Level III 21 visual weld inspector?
22 A Yes.
23 Q And, further, that Mr. Vogt, V-0-G-T, the Comstock Level 24 III weld engineer or whatever his explicit title was --
25 '
that he, too, was certified as a visual weld inspector?
)
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3183
() 1 A I don't know about his certifications. I was told he 2 was their corporate Level III, I believe.
3 0 Level III weld inspector?
4 A Yes.
5 Q You understood that he was -- well, he performed the 6 duties as a Level III weld inspector; is that your 7 understanding?
8 A That was my understanding, yes.
9 Q Now, would you agree generally with me that among all 10 the three of you gentlemen -- you, Mr. Vannier; Mr.
11 Puckett -- actually, four of you: you, Mr. Vannier, Mr.
12 Puckett, Mr. DeWald and Mr. Vogt, all of whom have
, ( 13 reviewed what I'll accept for purposes of this l
14 examination are the same coupons -- that you diff er in 15 your professional judgments regarding the evaluation of 16 the weld attributes that you see reflected in these 17 coupons?
18 A To a minor degree, yes.
19 Q But you do indeed differ, do you not?
20 A There are differencei:, yes.
21 Q And those differences are not unexpected, are they?
22 A Excuse me?
23 0 Those differences are not unexpected, are they?
24 A They're not unexpected.
25 Q Do you agree that competent, qualified visual weld
)
l l
Sonntag Reporti ng Servi ce. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
._ __ _ .-_. , ==... _ _ _ _
3184 l O
1 inspectors can disagree even about whether a weld is 2 acceptable or rejectable?
3 A I don't feel they would on a Level III test.
4 0 That's not the question.
5 A Okay. .
6 Q Do you agree -- let me state it again.
7 Do you agree that even competent, qualified visual 8 weld inspectors can disagree about whether a weld is 9 acceptable or rejectable?
10 A They can disagree.
11 Q In fact, that's your job, is to arbitrate what are, in 12 fact, disagreements among qualified, certified visual
() 13 weld inspectors --
14 A Yes.
15 0 -- correct?
16 You wouldn't have a job if it weren't for the fact
- 17 that there is a need to arbitrate visual inspection 18 disputes; correct?
19 A That's part of my job.
20 Q All right.
23 Did you know, at the time that you performed your l
22 evaluation of Mr. Puckett's examination, that he had l
23 previously passed a visual weld inspection exam for the 24 Level III certification at Braidwood?
25 A I did not know that at that time, no.
Sonntaa Recortina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3185 O 1 You have since learned that?
Q 2 A I have subsequently learned it, yes.
3 Q Do you understand that that test was invalidated because 4 the test in the field, the field conditions that he 5 inspected to, happened to all reflect acceptable weld 6 attributes?
7 A That's what I heard, yes.
8 Q And on that basis, ostensibly, he was required to 9 perform a subsequent test?
10 A Yes.
11 Q And do you understand that ultimately Mr. Puckett took 12 the field practical that you evaluated, that which is
() 13 dated the 22nd of August, 19847 14 A That was not a field -- that was not what we considered 15 to be a field test.
16 0 I understand. I'm sorry.
17 A Okay.
18 Q I misspoke.
19 A practical test?
20 A Practical, yes.
l 21 Q Did you know how many additional tests Mr. Puckett j
22 performed, practical , tests, whether field or otherwise,
( 23 but practical tests between the time that he took the 24 test which he passed that was invalidated and the time 25 he took the August 22, '84, test?
)
senntag neporti ng service, r.e a .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- - . - - . - - ._- - nwn n _nw
l 3186 :
i 1 A No, but I heard he took one more.
2 Q And do you know whether or not -- are you aware whether 3 Mr. Puckett passed other tests, practical tests, between 4 the time of the initial test that was invalidated and 5 the final test of the 22nd of August?
6 A I'm not aware of that, no.
7 0 You were aware, were you not, when you performed the 8 evaluation, that Mr. -- according to Mr. DeWald's 9 evaluation, Mr. Puckett had been failed on the August 10 22, '84, test?
i 11 A Yes.
12 Q And you were aware of that because you had Mr. Puckett's
() 13 test of August 22nd with Mr. DeWald's -- what you 14 believe to be Mr. DeWald's notations on the test?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Do you know what score Mr. DeWald gave Mr. Puckett on 17 that test?
18 MR. GALLO: Referring to Applicant's 19 Exhibit --
20 MR. GUILD: Yes, Exhibit 5 for 21 identification, reflecting Mr. DeWald's evaluation.
22 A No, I'm not exactly aware. I -- I heard that it was 86 23 or 86 and two-thirds, I believe.
24 BY MR. GUILD:
25 Q And what's the source of your information?
Sonntac Recortina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
-= __-- -- -
- # -- -- m ---.-- m - - m . - m m
s 3187
() 1 Where did you hear that?
2 A I don't know where I heard it.
3 Q Did you make any attempt to evaluate the scoring from 4 the individual markings that appear by the answers on 5 Mr. DeWald's evaluation of the Puckett test?
6 A The markings on the test that I -- did I evaluate from 7 them?
8' Q No.
9 Did you try to add up in essence what Mr. DeWald 10 had done?
11 A I did not try to add up the score he had.
12 0 Is there a reason why you didn't do that?
~
13 A I had no reason to do it.
14 No, I didn't.
15 Q All right.
16 Would you agree with me that it's a bit difficult 17 to determine what score Mr. DeWald assigned for each of 18 these items?
19 A Yes. I see one-third point and one-third point and that 20 type of thing. To get the exact score, it would be 21 difficult for me to do that.
22 O It's difficult -- while Mr. DeWald's comments are as 23 they are, it's difficult to determine how he weighed the 24 results of his evaluation, since he doesn't list
{) 25 numerical points by each answer as you do in your sonntaa nennr ei no service, r,t a .
Genev a', Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3188 O 1 evaluation; correct?
'2 A Yes, that's true.
3 0 So you really can't tell, from looking at Mr. DeWald's 4 markings on the Puckett test, what score DeWald came up 5 with?
6 A I can't tell the score, no.
7 Q All right.
8 Now, isn't it a fact that the test requirements 9 under the Comstock qualification procedure called for an 10 essentially error-free examination, a 100 percent score?
11 A Yes.
12 Q So, in fact, any errors -- any answers that are
() 13 evaluated as wrong answers would result in a failing i
14 score?
t 15 A Yes.
16 Q And, in essence, the test is not scored on a scale as l
17 you evaluated it of zero to 100, assigning points per 18 answer; it's either pass or fail?
19 A That's true. >
20 Q So it's really irrelevant, is it not, whether Mr. DeWald 21 assigned a third point for a particular answer or a half 22 coint for another answer; the test by the procedure
/
23 simply isn't scored that way; correct?
24 A If there's questions that were f ailed, then the 25 candidate is reinstructed or whatever on the basis of
! O-Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
_ . _ - . _ - - - ~ = . ._ _ .-
- a -. - ._ _ _ _ n . _ -_ =
3189
(
1 that.
2 So one-third point -- what did he -- an overlap he 3 missed or something like that -- that would be used for l 4 an-evaluation of the candidate's abilities and what 5 additional training he needs.
6 Q You have to respond, if I can ask you, to --
7 A Yes.
8 Q -- my question as asked.
9 Now, there may be other reasons why one would be 10 interested in what the candidate got wrong; but am I 11 correct in my statement, Mr. Vannier, that the test 12 evaluation procedure simply does not call for assigning
() 13 a numerical score'of less than 100 to a test?
14 It's either pass or fail?
15 A Yes. .
16 Q So when you performed your evaluation and determined to 17 assign a value of 1/14 of 100 to each answer and partial 18 credit depending on the nature of the partial answer to l 19 each question, you were essentially making up a scoring 20 system of your own, were you not?
21 A I was.
22 Q Now, just for purposes of reference, Mr. Vogt, the Level 23 III corporate Comstock inspector who drew the key for 24 the exam -- Mr. Vogt himself would have failed, would he 25 not, because his evaluation of Coupon No. 5 failed to l
l Sonntag Reporti ng Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 3190 i
O fully describe the slag conditions that, in fact, exist 1
2 on that coupon if someone wanted to mark off as you 3 marked off for Mr. Puckett on that coupon?
4 A I believe he identified slag, so I don't think that 5 would be a failure.
6 But on the percentage of what he got correct, he 7 had already identified slag.
8 Q But he didn't identify all of the five instances of slag 9 that you've testified to that you, in your opinion, 10 believe are present in that coupon?
11 A But he did identify --
12 O Can you answer my question yes or no?
() 13 Did Mr. Vogt' identify each of the five instances of 14 slag?
15 A No, he did not.
16 Q Did he evaluate the two instances of slag that were of 17 smaller size than 3/32 of an inch?
18 A I don't see it on the test.
19 Q It's not there, is it?
20 A No. ,
21 Q In fact, he only shows two instances of slag greater 22 than 3/32 of an inch; and you identify three, do you 23 not?
24 A That's true.
25 Q Mr. Vogt, then, would have flunked the test because he Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3191 0 1 would have gotten less than a 100 percent score, as you 2 evaluated Mr. Puckett; correct?
3 A I would not have -- well, he may have. I was not -- I 4 was not scoring Mr. Vogt.
5 Q I understand.
6 A But on the basis of No. 5 that you're referring to, I 7 would not have flunked him or Mr. Puckett on the basis 8 of that question alone because had the two areas of slag 9 been evaluated, the other three -- that's already a 10 reject.
11 Now, on No. 5 on Mr. Puckett, he didn't identify 12 any areas of slag. Therefore, he took -- he lost
() 13 points. ,
14 0 Is your answer complete?
15 A That's my answer.
16 Q All right.
17 But if you follow the same f rame of evaluation that 18 you applied to Mr. Puckett, you would have deducted 19 points from Mr. Vogt's test score, would you not, 20 because he f ailed to identify and evaluate fully the 21 slag conditions that you believe are, in fact, present 22 in Coupon No. 5?
23 A But he would have made 100 percent -- he would have made, i 24 a full credit for that question.
l 25 Q So, nonetheless, your testimony is that even though he snnneng nonnreing servic._ r+ a _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
e n...- + .- _--_ . , . . _ - _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . m
i 3192 0 1 failed to identify all of the rejectable conditions in 2 Coupon No. 5 -- namely, at least one of the three, 3 because he only shows two -- and even though Mr. Vogt 4 failed to evaluate the two other slag conditions that, 5 your testimony is, should have been evaluated for 6 proximity to the 3/32 inch" slag conditions, nonetheless, 7 you would have given him full credit for the answer and 8 scored him 100 percent?
4 9 A No. That's not what I meant.
10 Q Could you explain what you meant, then?
11 A What I meant was as far as Question 5 was concerned and 12 there were no other considerations on any question in
() 13 the test, that would have been evaluated differently in 14 that case.
i l'5 I wouldn't have flunked him on a test where he had 16 already on the one question -- where he had already 17 identified slag, had there not been other factors l
18 involved in other questions.
19 Q I see.
20 A What we have -- it may be right or wrong. We have what 21 we call a gigging system. We gig for example, the 22 grinding that you referred to.
23 Q Yes. .
24 A I gigged Mr. Puckett one point. I would never have 25 flunked him on the basis of that.
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3193 O
1 Q I see.
2 A And that was simply, in my mind, to tell his relative 3 score that he made.
4 Q I see.
5 A I would never have flunked Mr. Puckett on the basis of 6 th at.
7 0 All right.
8 Would you have graded Mr. Puckett's exam less than 9 100 percent, then?
10 A On the basis of --
11 Q On the basis of the grind --
12 A He would have had -- he would have had -- it's
( 13 imperative that he get 100 percent to pass.
14 Q Right.
15 A So I would have -- my comment would have been 16 " acceptable grinding" or something like that. I would 17 have discussed it with him, but he would have passed the l
18 test, yes.
19 Q I see, I see.
20 So -- so you're distinguishing, as I understand now 21 your method of operation, your approach in your 22 testimony, from the approach that you would take in -
23 practice if you were actually evaluating an examination?
24 A Well, I never -- I never judged a Level III test simply 25 on the basis of pass or fail. There was always comments sonneag neparti ng service. r.t a . ;
Geneva, Illinois 60134 !
(312) 232-0262 l
3194 O
1 to be discussed with the candidate later on.
2 0 My question, though, is: What you've done in your 3 testimony is you' ve deducted points --
4 A Yes.
I 5 0 -- and you started f rom the premise that a candidate 6 must get a 100 percent score in order to pass the test.
7 Am I right about that premise?
8 A Yes.
9 Q You deducted points from 100 for Mr. Puckett, and you've 10 deducted points for such things as failure to evaluate 11 the grind mark and failure to evaluate the slag.
12 You would, I understand now, not have deducted
() 13 those points f rom Mr. Vogt's test, for example; you.
14 would have passed him if those were the only two 15 problems but would have indicated on his test as 16 comments that those were things he should have observed; 17 is that correct?
18 A Yes.
19 Q All right.
20 But you wouldn't have marked off points less than 21 100 for those -- those evaluations by Mr. Vogt?
22 A Yes. My problem is that Mr. Puckett identified no areas 23 of slag on that question.
24 Q Well, that's a separate point. I'm really asking about 25 methodology now, Mr. Vogt --
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
__- - - .= _
3195 O 1 A All right.
2 0 -- Mr. Vannier; excuse me.
3 The fact remains, though, as I understand it, 4 you' re telling me that you would exercise judgment 5 rather than simply take off points for any and all 6 deviations f rom perf ect evaluations; correct?
7 A State that again, please.
8 Q Sure.
9 You would -- in actually administering such a test, 10 knowing that it's pass-fail and anything short of 11 perfect, 100 percent, would fail the candidate, you 12 might gig that candidate, as you say, for a number of
~
k 13 things that were important observations but things for 14 which you felt it was not appropriate to give lesc than 15 a 100 percent score?
16 A Well, on the accept-reject criteria, I would base it en 17 the accept-reject.
18 Q You need to answer my question, Mr. Vannier.
l 19 Did you understand the question as I asked it?
20 A I'm sorry. I guess I didn't.
21 Q All right.
22 Do I understand correctly that f rom your testimony, 23 if you gig someone for some defects in their evaluation, 24 such as failure to evaluate the grind marks or failure 25 to evaluate all of the slag in Coupon 5, for example, O
Sonntag Reporti ng Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 m . ~ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ - -
3196 O you wouldn't fail that candidate?
1 2 You would, in fact, give him a 100 percent score, 3 but you would make notations on their test and discusa 4 those questions, if you will, with the candidate?
5 A Yes, that's true.
6 I guess I used a different format than Mr. DeWald 7 did. I'm used to -- I'm more used to grading on the 8 basis of my using a percentage or something like that of 9 the questions, noting all things that are there and then 10 judging it on the basis of that.
11 0 So you could note defects in a person's evaluation, 12 " defects" meaning less than perfection, less than a
() 13 wholly complete answer, and still give that person a 14 passing score on their test?
15 A On the accept-rej ect, yes.
16 Q All right.
17 So simply failing to note completely all of the 18 evaluation points for each of the questions on the exam 19 would not itself be a basis for flunking the candidate; l
20 is that correct?
21 A Not if he got the accept-reject correct.
22 0 Okay.
23 Now, when you say " accept-reject," you mean 24 distinguish the welds that were rejectable and the welds 25 that were acceptable?
! Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd. 1 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
.______._..m . _ _ -
3197 l
(
l A Yes.
2 Q Now, would you have given Mr. DeWald less than a 100 3 percent perfect score based on what he states on Mr.
4 Puckett's examination?
5 A Mr. DeWald using Mr. Vogt's key, you mean?
6 Q Well, we have to assume he used Mr. Vogt's key, but he 7 wrote his own comments on Mr. DeWald's examination, if 8 you take those as Mr. DeWald's answers, knowing, of 9 course, that Mr. DeWald performed this as a test.
l 10 A Well, I think I had -- I think I did have some 11 disagreement with Mr. Vogt or Mr. DeWald, whoever.
12 Q All right.
() 13 And those points of disagreement were points where 14 you would have gigged Mr. DeWald or Mr. Vogt, as you use 15 the term; correct?
16 A Yes.
17 0 All right.
18 And if you were using a 100 percent score and 19 taking points off for instances where you gigged Mr.
20 DeWald or Mr. Vogt, you would have reduced their score 21 from 100 percent, would you not?
22 A Of my evaluation of the test.
23 But again the accept-reject criteria is the 24 essential key to this.
25 Q I'll pursue that in a moment.
Sonntag Reporti ng Service. Ltd.
Gencva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3198 O 1 But you would have reduced their score from 100 2 percent, would you not, if you were grading them 3 assigned points?
4 A If I were grading them, yes.
5 0 And from that frame of reference, you would have flunk'ed 6 Mr. DeWald and Mr. Vogt if you were simply deducting 7 points f rom the 100 percent and if 100 percent were the 8 required score?
9 A If I were using that method, if I were using that 10 method.
11 Q Yes, okay.
, 12 But you don't normally use that method, do you?
() 13 A Which method?
14 Q The method you just described.
15 You usually use some judgment and decide whether or 16 not you're actually going to flunk someone for gigs, for 17 things that you disagree with them about for lack of 18 completeness, shall we say?
19 A I ask -- yes. I ask for completeness and --
l l 20 Q And if you don't get completeness, you don't necessarily 21 flunk someone?
22 A You don't necessarily flunk somebody, no, but the 23 accept-reject is essential.
24 Q All right.
25 Now, tell me what you mean by "the accept-reject,"
Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- ---r _ . _ = . _- - = , - - - _ , _
3199
, ()
1 as you're using it now.
2 A If -- if a discontinuity -- if an indication is evident, 3 then he should evaluate that as to acceptable or 4 rejectable.
5 If he fails to reject that which is rejectable and 6 has been evaluated as being rejectable, then that would 7 be cause for failure if you required 100 percent.
8 Q Now, would you agree with me that out of the 14 coupons 9 evaluated, there are two in which Mr. Puckett accepts 10 the welds which are determined by Mr. Vogt's key to be 11 rejectable?
12 A No. 5?
13 Q How about No. 5 and No. 97 -
14 Would you accept No. 5 and No. 9, too?
15 A Yes.
16 MR. GALLO: Well, wait a minute.
17 MR. GUILD: Take your time. I would like 18 your answer. I'm not trying to supply an answer for you 19 but just trying to save some time.
~
20 MR. GALLO: You need to start again and look 21 to see if you agree with counsel's question.
22 You've just accepted his answer without determining 23 for yourself whether or not he was correct.
24 MR. GUILD: Well, I don't submit that. he did 25 that at all, Mr. Gallo, but I would like the witness to
[}
snnnemg n parti ng servic . r+a.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 3200 O
1 take his time.
2 MR. GALLO: Can we have the question again?
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gallo, you're not 4 controlling the hearing here.
5 MR. GALLO: I apologize, your Honor.
i 6 THE WITNESS: It was Question No. 5 and No.
7 9.
l C BY MR. GUILD:
I l Are there any other questions where Mr. Puckett on his 9 Q 10 test identified an item as acceptable that, according to 11 the key -- according to your judgment, were rejectable?
12 A No.
i 13 Q All right, sir. Now, let's look at No. 5.
14 In your testimony, Page 5, Answer 14, you gave Mr.
15 Puckett no credit for this -~ this question; you counted 16 it completely wrong, didr.'t you?
17 A Yes.
18 Q That's when you reduced his score by 7.14, you took off 19 1/14 of the total score for this answer?
20 A Yes.
21 Q You state there that, "Mr. Puckett did not evaluate the 22 slag, which was a major defect in this coupon, and he 23 accepted this rejectable weld."
24 Now, is it your opinion, Mr. Vannier, that the slag 25 in Coupon 5 is indeed a major defect in this coupon?
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3201 l
O 1 A It's the major defect in that coupon, yes.
2 Q All right, sir.
3 Aside f rom the slag, is it a good weld, in your 4 opinion?
5 A 'It's -- it's an acceptable weld.
6 0 It meets acceptance criteria, aside from the --
7 A Yes.
8 Q Now, Mr. Puckett wrote by No. 5 on his -- he wrote I
j 9
- acceptable," "ACC."
10 Do we take it that that was Mr. Puckett's answer?
11 Is that right?
12 A Yes, yes.
() 13 0 Okay. ,
14 And do you agree that Mr. Vogt, who we've already 15 established failed to identify all of the slag on this 16 particular weld himself, states in his key -- this is 17 Applicant's Exhibit 6 for identification -- quote, " Weld 18 could possibly be acceptable after slag removal"?
19 A That's what Mr. Vogt said, yes.
20 Q Do you agree with Mr. Vogt's evaluation to that effect?
21 A It could possibly be, yes.
22 Q Okay. You took off full credit for this answer, as you 23 just testified.
24 Don't you understand that Mr. DeWald only marked 25 Mr. Puckett off a half credit for his answer on No. 57 Sonntag Reporti ng Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. . - _ _ . _ .- - -_ _ _ - , - - , , _. , n-
3202
() ~1 i
I'm looking at Applicant's Exhibit 5 for 2 identifiestion.
3 A I see the one-hcif there, yes, uh-huh.
4 Q Do you understand that that's what Mr. --
5 A Yes.
6 0 -- DeWald meant?
! 7 A Yes.
8 Q Do you know whether or not Mr. Puckett accepted the weld 9 on the basis that slag was not a rejectable condition 10 but could be removed in leaving the weld acceptable?
11 A ch, I would not know that.
12 Q All right. Let's turn to No. 9, the only other instance
() 13 in which Mr. Puckett accepted what you characterize.as a 14 rejectable condition. I'm looking at Page 7 of your 15 testimony.
16 Weld No. 9,, you state, Answer 18, "is a flare bevel 17 fillet weld, two and one-eighth inches long with a 5/16 i
18 by 7/16 reinforcement, l 19 "There is arc strike and resultant crater at one 1
20 end that should have been evaluated. Mr. Puckett did 21 not evaluate the arc strike. Therefore, I reduced his 22 score by minus 2.38."
23 Now, Mr. Puckett wrote that this was an acceptable 24 weld, did he not --
25 A Yes.
l l
l Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 h- _ _ _ .. - -
3203 O
1 Q -- No. 9?
l 2 A Yes.
3 Q Okay.
4 He wrote down, "But it's not a fillet; it's a flare 5 bevel."
6 A Yes.
7 Q He was correct in that evaluation, was he not?
8 A That's correct.
9 Q This is the trick question that you had previously 10 identified, isn' t it?
11 A I don't know whether it's trick or not, but yes, it is a 12 wrong symbol for that weld.
( 13 0 " Trick question" was your term, not mine.
- 14 You used that term, did you not?
15 A Yes.
16 Q So Mr. Puckett made the -- he identified the trick in 17 the question, if we can still continue with that term, 18 and correctly evaluated the error in the weld symbol and 19 so stated in his answer --
20 A Yes, he did.
21 Q -- correct?
22 A Uh-huh.
23 Q And you state in your testimony that Mr. Puckett was 1 24 flunked for -- was marked off on that because he did not 25
{) evaluate the are strike; correct?
i Rnnntag Rennrti ng Rorvi ce . LFd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~ .
3204 O
1 A Yes. -
2 0 Okay.
3 Now, do you see on Mr. DeWald's evaluation of Mr.
4 Puckett's answer, Applicant's Exhibit 5, the lettering 5 in what appears to be Mr. DeWald's handwriting, " Weld is 6 acceptable, ACC," period?
7 Do you see that?
8 A Yes, I do.
9 Q Do you know whether or not that reflects Mr. DeWald's 10 opinion that Mr. Puckett was indeed correct in his 11 evaluation that indeed the weld was acceptable?
12 A I would deduce, f rom what I see, that Mr. DeWald thought
( 13 ,
the' answer was incorrect, because he says " wrong" over 14 there.
15 0 Sure. That's true. He does say that.
16 A He says, " Arc strike near tack."
17 Now, the symbol for that weld -- they' re both --
18 all three of us identified that as a flare bevel fillet 19 weld.
j 20 Q When you say "all three," you mean you, Mr. Puckett and 21 Mr. DeWald?
22 A Myself, Puckett and Mr. Vogt.
23 Q Mr. Vogt, right.
24 A The fact that there is an incorrect symbol is not 25 relevant to this question, because it meets the Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3205 O 1 requirements for a fillet weld. So that was irrelevant, 2 as far as I was concerned, to the acceptance or 3 rejection of that weld.
4 I'm very happy that they both mentioned it.
5 0 It's acceptable, right, as a weld?
I 6 A It's acceptable except for the arc strike, which was a 7 rejectable condition.
8 Q Well, Mr. Puckett ef fectively identified the f act that 9 notwithstanding the trick, the incorrect weld symbol, 10 the weld was acceptable?
11 A Yes.
12 Q All right.
() 13 But your position is that he failed to reject the 14 item for the other reason, which wac the existence of 15 the arc strike?
16 A Yes.
17 0 But my question now to you is: Do you know whether or 18 not the words that appear in Mr. DeWald's handwriting, 19 " weld is acceptable," indicate that he agreed with Mr.
20 Puckett's evaluation that indeed the weld was 21 acceptable?
22 A No, I don't think so at all.
23 I think he's talking about -- you' re talking two 24 things: You're talking about the weld; and away from 25 the weld, you' re talking about the arc strike.
Sonntag Reporti ng Service, T,t d .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
__~ - - - - - _
._ _ _ ,,, c__m -s
3206
() 1 Are you simply speculating about what the significance Q
2 is of the words " weld is acceptable" on Mr. DeWald's 3 evaluation?
4 A No, I don't think so.
5 Q Do you have any independent knowledge --
6 MR. GALLO: Objection. He's arguing with the 7 witness.
8 He asked him to give an answer with respect to what 9 he thought those words of Mr. DeWald meant. He didn't 10 like the answer. Now he's arguing with the witness.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: He just got an answer, and 12 he's on another question, Mr. Gallo.
() 13 MR. GALLO: I don't believe so.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me.
15 Can the reporter please repeat that?
16 (The record was thereupon read by the 17 reporter.)
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That was a new question, "Do 19 you have any independent knowledge - "
20 MR. GALLO: Well, the n'rguing with the 21 witness is that he's asked the witness to accept the 22 premise that this is DeWald's language and what does he
- 23 understand it to mean.
24 He answered the question. He didn't like the 25 answer. Now he's attacking the witness.
I Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3207
() 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: He's asking what the basis 2 for the answer is.
3 The objection is overruled.
4 BY MR. GUILD:
5 0 What is the basis for your answer?
6 A The basis for the answer is what Mr. DeWald wrote in his 7 commentary.
8 Q You have no other independent basis, aside from that?
9 A I didn't, no.
10 Q Let's -- if you would indicate the arc strike, please, 11 on the coupon where -- Coupon No. 9.
12 A Weld No. 9 and the arc strike.
13 (Indicating.)
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: This?
15 (Indicating.)
16 THE WITNESS : Yes.
l 17 BY MR. GUILD:
l 18 0 Mr. Vannier, the are strike which you've indicated on 29 coupon No. 9 -- first of all, Coupon No. 9 reflects --
20 is that a piece of Unistrut?
21 A No. That's what we call a tube steel.
/
22 O Tube steel?
23 A Yes.
24 Q Okay.
25 It's a rectangular tube?
Sonntag Reporti ng Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~ .. . ~ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
3208 O 1 A Yes.
2 Q All right.
3 And it's welded along its longitudinal dimension to 4 the plate on which it sits; correct?
5 A Yes.
6 Q All right.
7 ,.nd the weld is the weld on the longitudinal axis 8 of the tube steel; correct?
9 A Yes.
10 0 The arc strike that you indicated is adjacent to the end 11 of the tube; correct?
12 A Yes, it is.
i
() 13 0 It is not adjacent to the weld that is the weld depicted 14 in Weld No. 9, is it?
15 A It's away from it.
! 16 Q Does it require, in your opinion, judgment to determine 17 whether or not, given the position of an arc strike, the 18 existence of an arc strike constitutes a rejectable 19 condition for the weld?
20 A It's a procedure requirement that arc strikes be 21 evaluated, yes.
22 Q But does it require judgment?
23 That's my question.
24 A Does it require judgment?
l 25 Q Yes.
O Sonntao Reporting Service, Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 L _ _ _ - ~
3209 O
1 A I don't think so.
2 I think the procedure clearly states that arc 3 strikes will be evaluated, and there is a criteria for 4 evaluation.
5 Q My question goes to the proximity of the arc strike 6 to --
7 A There's no dimension involved.
8 Q The proximity of the arc strike is not a consideration 9 of judgment, then, in evaluating whether the existence i
10 of an arc strike causes the weld to be rejectable?
11 A If you're inspecting a weld and you see an arc strike 12 adjacent to the weld or somewhere near the weld, it is a
() 13 -- it is a condition that you have to evaluate. That's 14 in their procedure.
15 Q That's not my question.
16 My question is: Is the proximity, the distance of 17 the arc strike f rom the weld in question, a f actor that 18 one must consider in exercising the judgment about 19 whether the presence of the arc strike constitutes a 20 rejectable condition?
21 A No.
22 Q Well, then, can an arc strike three f eet away f rom a 23 weld be a rejectable condition?
24 A Well, the inspector would be charged with the duty of 25 reporting it if he saw it, but --
)
snnntag napnrei ng service. r+ a .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- . - - - - _ - . _ _ .-- - n -
_n
l 1
3210 O
1 Q That's not my question, Mr. Vannier.
2 A Okay.
3 Q Does the presence of an arc strike three feet away from 4 a weld constitute a rejectable condition for that weld?
5 A It depends on whether he sees it or not.
l 6 0 Is it your testimony, as an expert weld inspector, that 7 there are circumstances in which an arc strike three 8 feet from a weld would constitute a rejectable condition 9 for that weld three feet away?
10 A Well, I hate to get hung up on three feet; but if I 11 inspect a weld and three inches away I see an arc 12 strike, which is quite normal, then I have to evaluate i 13 it.
14 Q That's not my question.
15 A All right.
16 Q My question goes to rejecting the weld.
17 If there's an arc strike that's three feet away 18 from the weld you're inspecting, are there any 19 circumstances under which the existence of that arc 20 strike could cause that weld to be rejectable?
l 21 A Not the weld.
22 Q All right, sir.
23 Then is there a question of proximity, distance of 24 the arc strike f rom the weld, that bears on the judgment 25 that one must make to determine uhether the existence of
)
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3211 0 1 an arc strike is a rejectable condition?
2 A I don't know of any given distance, no.
3 Q So is that a matter of judgment?
4 A It's a matter of -- it's a matter -- well, I can't look 5 at that weld without seeing that arc strike.
6 0 Yes, but is the distance of the arc strike from the weld 7 a matter of judgment that's relevant to the 8 determination of whether the weld is rejectable?
9 A I don't think so, no.
10 MR. GALLO: Could I have that last question 11 and answer back, please?
12 (The record was thereupon read by the l () 13 reporter.)
14 MR. GALLO: Thank you.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me.
16 We're dealing with physical evidence here, and I 17 think we ought to describe it in the record.
I 18 BOARD EXAMINATION 19 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
20 Q Now, I'm a layman and perhaps I'm wrong about this, but 21 it appears to me that the arc strike we' re talking about 22 has a gap -- there's a gap between that and the actual l 23 weld of about a quarter of an inch; is that correct, 24 sir?
l 25 A Yes, that's correct.
sonntag Reporti ng Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3212 0 1 Q And it's around the corner from the weld, the weld being 2 on the long axis and the arc strike being on the --
3 well, " axis" is the wrong word; on the short dimension?
4 A Yes.
5 Measuring it, it's a little bit less than a quarter 6 of an inch. It's closer to an eighth of an inch to the 7 closest two points.
8 0 We'll settle f or 3/16, I take it.
9 (Laughter.)
10 Does that sound right to you, sir?
11 A Yes.
12 CROSS EXAMINATION 13 (Continued) 14 BY MR. GUILD:
15 0 Is an arc strike normally considered a cosmetic or 16 workmanship defect?
17 A It's a -- not cosmetic particularly.
18 It depends upon -- there are arc strikes that are 19 acceptable, depending upon the depth of that arc strike 20 into the base material, and that's in accordanco with 21 this criteria.
22 So some could be cosmetic, simply a cosmetic thing.
23 Q All right.
24 Now, with respect to Weld No. 9 --
25 JUDGE COLE: I thought that's what we were Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois G0134 l (312) 232-0262 L _ . _ _ . _ . _w
3213 1
l
() 1 talking about. !
1 2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes.
3 MR. GUILD: Yes, right.
4 JUDGE COLE: Okay.
i 5 BY MR. GUILD:
I 6 Q With respect to Weld No. 9, Mr. Vannier, you gave Mr.
7 Pucke*: two-thirds credit for that -- that weld; is that 8 ca ct?
9 A Yes, that's correct.
10 Q And you marked him off the one-third because of, as you 11 state, his f ailure to evaluate that are strike?
i 12 A Yes.
} 13 0 All right.
14 Do you know whether or not Mr. DeWald gave Mr.
15 Puckett any credit for his answer to Weld No. 97
, 16 A I don't know. There's no markings to indicate on my l
17 Exhibit 5 to indicate.
18 I see " wrong" written there. I don't know what Mr.
19 DeWald did.
20 Q Well, you do know and had seen in his previous answers 21 that he gave him partial credit for other answers; 22 correct? 4 23 A Yes.
24 Q One-third point, for example, one-half, for example.
25 Do you deduce, from the f ailure to list any i
Sonntag Reporti ng Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 L . _ _ .. _ _ - __ -_w
3214 1
0 1 fractional credit, that Mr. DeWald took full credit off 2 for Mr. Puckett's answer to No. 97 3 A I'm sorry. I don't know, I don't know.
4 He said " wrong." I assume that he took credit off.
5 Q Okay.
6 It's your opinion, though, that Mr. Puckett should 7 have gotten two-thirds credit for that answer?
8 A That's my opinion.
9 Q All right.
10 So there are two instances out of the 14 coupons, 11 Coupon No. 5 with respect to the slag and Coupon No. 9 12 with respect to the arc strike, where, in your opinion,
() 13 Mr. Puckett accepted welds that were rejectable; is that 14 correct?
15 A That's correct.
16 0 All right.
l 17 Both of the welds in those cases, the weld in No. 5 18 and the weld in No. 9, were themselves acceptable welds, 19 absent the slag in one case and the arc strike in the 20 other?
21 A Slag is part of the weld. Slag is a condition on the 22 weld itself, so --
23 Q Are you changing your testimony now -- is the weld in 1
- 24 No. 5 acceptable absent the slag?
l-25 A The slag in -- Weld No. 5 does have slag, so it's a
[
( Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
_ .. _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . ._____ _ c - - - - _ _ _ _
3215 O
1 rej ectable weld.
2 0 Is it your testimony that absent the slag, the weld in 3 No. 5 would be acceptable?
4 A We'd have to remove the slag, but it could be.
5 Q In your answer yes to my question, then?
6 A If there were nothing underneath the slag that we could 7 see, it could possibly be acceptable, yes.
8 0 Well, is it your professional opinion that there is 9 anything rejectable likely under the slag that you 10 observe in Coupon No. 5?
11 A I don't know.
12 O You just don't have an opinion on that question?
13 A I -- no, I don't have an opinion, 14 Q All right.
15 Well, then, accepting your analysis, assuming that 16 the slag was removed -- and it's a matter of taking a l
17 hammer and chipping it off or using your fingernail in 18 removing it, isn't it?
l 19 A Yes.
20 Q All right.
, 21 It's generally -- slag is generally a surface l
22 condition that can fall off such as through the process 23 of dropping one of those coupons or banging the two 24 together; it might fall off ?
25 A Or it might be included.
sanneag papnreing servic . r.e a .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 I _ ~ - - . . , . . . _ _ . --- _.
l 3216
() 1 Q or it might be included?
I l 2 A It could be included slag, yes.
4 3 Q But do those appear to be instances of --
1 4 A Partially, yes. They're in the indentation at the toe 5 -- in the undercut toe of the weld.
6 Q Oh, I see, okay.
i 7 Well, did Mr. Vogt indicate that there was included 8 slag in --
- 9 A No. He couldn' t -- he couldn' t have told.
10 Q Did you indicate that in your testimony?
11 A No.
12 Q Oh, you didn't?
( 13 Well, did you' then give a complete description of
! 14 the slag condition you observed?
l 15 A I believe I did, yes.
16 Q But you didn't state that it was included slag?
17 A No, and nobody did.
18 Q You' re now str. ting --
19 A We' re not safing it's included.
20 Q You're not?
21 A We' re saying we have a condition that's in an 22 indentation.
23 Q So it's not included?
24 A So it's not, so far as we know, until we remove it.
25 Q Well, my question to you right now, Mr. Vannier, is:
)
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l- _ . _ _ _ _- - _ --=_ _ - - - _ _ _ -_
3217 l
(
1 What is your opinion?
2 Is that included slag in Coupon No. 5?
3 MR. GALLO: Asked and answered. Objection.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I don't believe he's 5 answered that.
6 MR. GALLO: He said you've got to remove the 7 slag to look before you know.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, he's asked his expert 9 opinion as to whether it is or it isn't.
10 MR. GALLO: At this point in time, I believe 11 he's answered that question.
12 MR. GUILD: I believe he's changed his answer
~
13 several times, and I'm entitled to --
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Let's have an answer as to l 15 whether it is or it isn't.
16 A We have one condition here that could very well be 17 included slag once I get the surface slag removed.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And in your opinion, is it 19 or isn' t it?
20 THE WITNESS: In my opinion, I don't know.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, okay.
22 BY MR. GUILD:
23 Q Now, did you note the probable or possible existence of l 24 included slag in your testimony where you describe the
{) 25 conditions?
Ennntag Reporti ng Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
_ = - - - -
3218 O 1 A No. I was simply noting the condition that existed.
2 Q You didn't note completely the condition that existed, 3 then, did you?
4 A No.
5 Q You should have scored yourself off a few points for 6 that, shouldn't you?
7 A I wasn't taking the test.
8 Q Fine.
9 Now, would you agree -- let's start again.
10 There are two cases, then, of the 14 coupons where 11 Mr. Puckett, in your opinion, wrote -- evaluated welds 12 as acceptable that contained rejectable conditions.
() 13 In Coupon No. 5, the rejectable condition, in your 14 opinion, was due to the presence of the slag; correct?
15 A Yes.
16 Q And you considered Mr. Puckett's answer to Question 5 or 17 evaluation of Weld 5 as deficient because he failed to 18 evaluate the slag; correct?
19 A That's true.
20 Q All right.
21 If the slag were removed and if the slag were not 22 masking a defect below the slag -- you used your 23 thumbnail and flicked it off, and it was okay below --
24 the weld would be acceptable, in your opinion, would it 25 not?
Sonntac Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. - . - _ , _ _ - - _- _ - , n .- n . _ - -
3219
() 1 A If there were nothing revealed by that removal, yes.
2 Q Such as a crack or -- l 3 A Yes.
4 Q All right.
5 And in the case of Weld No. 9, but for your opinion 6 about the existence of the arc strike, the weld in No. 9 7 would also be an acceptable weld, would it not?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Now, is it your testimony that Mr. Puckett -- strike 10 that.
11 Is it your testimony that if you were administering 12 this examination to a weld inspector candidate and you
() 13 didn't know who it was and the only deficiencies in 14 their evaluations that existed were the deficiencies 15 that you've described in Mr. Puckett's answer with 16 respect to Coupon 5 and coupon 9 -- is it your opinion 17 that that inspector would flunk the exam?
l 18 A Yes, if it were the same -- same results as Mr. Puckett 19 gave, yes, because in no case did he identify slag. I 20 questioned his ability to detect slag.
21 Q That's not my question.
22 Just those two coupons --
l
! 23 A All right.
l 24 Q -- the same results as with Puckett for those two l 25 coupons, all right; you don' t know anything else about Sonntag Reporti ng Service. Ltd.
! Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. ______=--_____.._,1.._.__
-,,.,,_._m
3220 l
() 1 the candidate, you don't know it's Mr. Puckett, and the 2 rest of the exam questions are answered appropriately.
3 Would you flunk that candidate for the answers that 4 Mr. Puckett gave for Coupons 5 and 9?
5 A Yes.
6 0 Would you flunk Mr. Vogt for the answer that he gave to 7 No. 57 8 A I didn't evaluate Mr. Vogt, but I -- for not identifying 9 five, instead of the two he did identify, I'm not sure 10 about that.
11 He did identify slag. Maybe he figured, well, the 12 whole toe. I don't know.
() 13 I would have'to -- if I were administering the test 14 -- I like to administer my own tests and see how the 15 candidate operates as he is evaluating things and see if 16 he actually recognizes everything that's involved.
17 Q So you can exercise some judgment'; correct?
l 18 A Well, I would -- probably, yes.
19 Q And you can't tell us today how you would exercise that 20 judgment with regard to Mr. Vogt if Mr. Vogt passed 21 everything else but failed to fully describe the slag in 22 Coupon 5 as, in fact, he did in the key?
23 A Yeah. The same -- the same as we said before: I 24 probably would not flunk Mr. Vogt for those two areae 25 that he missed.
Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd. ,
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3221
(
1 0 okay.
2 Would you -- would you flunk a weld inspector if he 3 just f ailed to evaluate explicitly, write it out, an 4 evaluation of the arc strike in No. 97 5 A I would flunk.him, yes.
6 Q All right.
7 So that would be enough to flunk them if they 8 didn't say anything about the arc strike?
)
9 A With 100 percent criteria, yes.
10 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Before you get to the next 11 subject, Mr. Guild --
12 MR. GUILD: Sure, Judge Callihan.
13 BOARD EXAMINATION 14 BY JUDGE CALLIHAN:
15 0 In this series of questions, there's been references to 16 two instances, 5 and 9, out of 14. I think that 17 appeared in the questions in several cases.
18 Do you agree with that?
19 I thought you only had 12.
20 A We only have 12 samples.
21 Q So it's two samples out of 12, really? -
22 A There's two samples missing.
23 Two out of 12, yes.
24 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Thank you.
[} 25 CROSS EXAMINATION snnneng nepnrei ng service. r.e a .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
--- -___- -_ =-_. . _ _ . -
_ = _ _ _ _ -
3222
() '
1 (Conti..ned )
2 BY MR. GUILD:
3 0 14 were the totai that were answered in the original i
4 test, and you're missing two coupons; correct?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Now, what I'd like to do, Mr. Vannier, is to ask you 7 some questions that are questions on the subject of 8 welding. Let me ask you this first:
9 " Assume the following: A welder qualified for 10 SMAW" -- that's an acronym.
11 Do you understand the acronym?
12 A Yes.
( 13 Q What does the acronym refer to?
14 A Shield and Metal Arc Welding.
15 Q All right, sir.
16 -
"a welder qualified for SMAW using E-6013 17 electrode is also qualified to weld with," and then 18 there are a number of choices.
19 Let me read the choices for you. You might want to j 20 write these down so that you can refer to them if it 21 would be helpful to you, but I'll read them to you 22 first.
l 23 MR. GALLO: Objection. I'm going to ask for 24 the questions as written out so he can properly 25 comprehend it and answer it.
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ - - --__..m.-,._.,_..m_
3223 O
1 MR. GUILD: I object to doing that, Mr.
2 Chai rman. I'd like to conduct the examination in the 3 way I choose.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: It's up to Mr. Guild. If 5 you find it's confusing, you can object at that time, 6 Mr. Gallo.
7 MR. GALLO: Well, I don't know of any rule of 8 law that requires the witness to turn into a I transcribing secretary for Mr. Guild's examination.
9 10 He's asking him to essentially sit there and write 11 the question. He ought to furnish the question to him 12 in some form that he can use to read.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: He's furnishing the question 14 to him orally, and he's asking him. If he wants to take j 15 notes, he can take notes of the answers so that he can 16 select the correct one.
17 Mr. Vannier, if you have any trouble at all, we can 18 help you either with having the question repeated or in 19 some other way.
20 Do you have a paper and pencil where you can do 21 that, sir?
i
- 22 THE WITNESS
- Yes, I do, yes.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: .Okay, fine.
- 24 Why don' t we try it this way? If there's any i
{) 25 problem, you can ask the Board for assistance.
l gnnntag Reporti ng garvice. T& d .
Geneva, I111noin 60134 (312) 232-0262
3224 O 1 MR. GALLO: I'm going to ask the Board to 2 reconsider, your Honor.
3 I consider it highly prejudicial to this witness 4 to, by virtue of this process, answer incorrectly a 5 question not 'because the witness doesn't know but 6 because of the rather inartful and clumsy system being 7 imposed by counsel in asking the questions.
8 If counsel wanted to do that, he could have typed 9 up his questions separately and given them one by one to 10 the witness. He'd have the same thing, we'd have the 11 same thing, and we'd be in business.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: The question isn't whether
() 13 you have a better way of doing it, Mr. Gallo. The ,
14 question is whether it's objectionable.
15 I don't see anything objectionable about it. He's 16 an expert witness. He's having a question put to him 17 that tests his expertise. He's permitted to take notes 18 of the answer, and there is just nothing improper about 19 it.
t 20 Proceed, Mr. Guild.
21 MR. GUILD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
22 BY MR. GUILD:
23 Q Let me read the question again, and please tell me to 24 slow down if I'm reading too fast, Mr. Vannier. I do 25 want you to have the complete question.
O Sonntaq Repor ting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 m __. _ . _ _ - , , _ _ _ =- ---- -__. w
. . = _ = _ _ . _ _ _
i 1 3225
() 1 "A welder qualified for SMAW using E-6013 electrode 2 is also qualified to weld with," and then there are five 3 choices.
4 The first is E-6010; the-second choice is E-7018; 5 the third is E-7024; and the fourth is E-6016.
- 6 Did I read those too fast?
7 A The last one, please?
8 Q Yes. It's E-6016 -- I'm sorry. That's four choices. I 9 can't count.
10 Did you get those four choices?
11 A 6010, 7018, 7024 and 60167 12 Q Right.
i
() 13 The welder qualified for SMAW using E-6013 -- he's 14 also qualified to weld with which one of those 15 electrodes?
16 A 6010.
17 Q All right.
18 The next question is, "Looking at a welder's supply 19 ,
of electrodes to see if there are two diff erent types of 20 weld metal mixed together in the tote box oven and the 21 welder using the proper weld rod is a part of visual 22 inspection; yes or no?"
23 A Yes.
24 Q " Checking the preheat temperature as required in the 25 welding procedure is a part of visual inspection; true
)
Sonntag Renorting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 m- -= . _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ . _ . . . . __,_.,__...~...__..,_.____._.._,_,_,m
l 3226 l
1 or false?"
2 A It can be, yes.
3 0 "When perf orming visual examination of safety-related 4 welds on seismic hangers and attachments, acceptance 5 criteria shall be in accordance to" -- now, you have to i 6 bear with me, because the choices require some citation 7 here.
8 AWS D1.1-75, Section Roman Numeral VI. That's the 9 first choice.
10 The second choice is ASME 3, Section NE, N as in 11 " Norman," E as in " Edgar."
12 The third choice is ASME 3, Roman Numeral III, 13 Subsection NB, N as in " Norman," B as in " boy. "
14 The last choice is AWS D1.1-75, Section Roman 15 Numeral V.
16 A Is that it?
17 0 Yes, sir. -
18 A Now I've got your choice of answers.
19 Would you state the question, please?
~~
20 Q I'd be happy to.
21 "When performing visual examination of 22 saf ety-related welds on seismic hangers and attachments, 23 acceptance criteria shall be in accordance to" -- and 24 then choose among those.
25
{) A Now, when you speak of " hangers," are you talking about Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3227 O cable pan hangers? Are you talking about pipe hangers?
1 2 Q Assume that this is a question that is asked of someone 3 who is performing visual weld inspection within the 4 Comstock scope of work.
l 5 A All ri'ght.
l 6 The acceptance criteria will-be stated in 815 of 7 AWS D1.1-75 but as indicated in the Comstock procedure, 8 which is an adaptation of that.
9 It will also appear in such things as weld profiles 10 and the section that talks about undercut, and so it's 11 in several sections.
12 Actually, it's in the procedure, which is taken
() 13 ,
f rom, AWS.
l 14 Q Are you unable to choose an answer among the four that 15 were given, Mr. Vannier?
16 I'd be happy to read them again, if it would be 17 helpful.
18 A No. I have them down here.
19 Section VI is the inspection section, but that does l
~
20 not give us the criteria.
21 Q Are you able to choose among the four in answer to the 22 question?
23 A No.
24 Q In your opinion, Mr. Vannier, the questions that I've 25 just asked you -- and by that I mean the multiple-choice Sonntag Renarti ng Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. - -__--_....n _
3228 O questions -- are those questions that a Level III weld 1
2 inspector who is qualified and competent should be able 3 to answer correctly?
4 A He should be able to either answer them or be able to 5 look them up, yes.
6 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, the questions I've 7 asked the witness are the questions of a multiple-choice 8 character --
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That Mr. Puckett missed on 10 his test?
11 MR. GUILD: No; that Mr. DeWald missed on his 12 test that are contained in Intervenors' Exhibit No. 17.
() 13 I have no further questions of Mr. Vannier.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Berry?
15 MS. CH AN : May Staff have five minutes, 16 please?
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, I'm sorry, Miss Chan.
18 We'll take a 10-minute recess.
19 (WHEREU PON , a recess was had, after which 20 the proceedings were resumed as follows:)
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We're back in session.
22 Miss Chan?
23 CROSS EXAMINATION 24 BY MS. CHAN:
25 Q Mr. Vannier, is there any difference between a weld made -
t Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1 3229 1 according to AWS Dl.1 at a nuclear f acility and that 2 made at a nonnuclear f acility?
3 A There's no differentiation in AWS Dl.l.
4 Was that your question?
5 Q Yes.
6 A Okay.
7 Q Does AWS Dl.1, ANSI 4526 or any LKC procedures require 8 that a person be experienced -- be an experienced welder 9 before she can be certified as a weld inspector?
10 A There is no requirement that I'm aware of.
11 Q Who determines the weld specifications for a nuclear 12 plant?
() 13 A The authorized -- the authorized engineer.
14 Q Does the AWS code or any other code requite the 15 authorized engineer to be a welder or a former welder?
16 A No.
17 Excuse me. Could you state that again, please?
18 Q Surely.
19 Does the AWS code or any other code require the 20 engineer that you mentioned in the previous answer --
21 A The engineer.
22 0 -- require them to be a welder or a f ormer welder?
23 A No.
24 Q Going back to your evaluation of Coupon 5, I believe, is 25 the slag -- is slag in excess of 3/32 of an inch Sonntag Reporti ng Servi ca. T,t d .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- .. = . - _ - __-- - _ .-- - _ .- .. ~ . , ,.
3230 O
1 acceptable under the AWS Dl.1 code?
2 A Under the AWS code, no slag is acceptable. Slag shall 3 be removed.
4 0 So a weld inspector cannot accept a weld with slag on 5 the premise that it would be removed later?
6 A Be cannot do that.
7 0 On Coupon No. 9, is the arc strike on the coupon a 8 rejectable condition?
9 A Yes, it is.
10 Q Can you describe for us what included slag in a weld is?
11 A Included slag is slag that displaces or takes the place 12 of sound metal.
( 13 If you were to have a solid metallic piece, the 14 slag would be displacing metal that you require for that 15 particular weld. ,
16 In other words, it's inside. It can be visible to 17 the exterior, but it's included and it's displacing 18 sound metal.
19 0 1s there any visual inspection method that you can use 20 to determine whether or not slag is included in the 21 weld? -
22 A Sometimes you can tell visually.
23 0 In the case of Coupon 5, is there any way to tell by 24 looking at the outside whether it's included?
However, there is -- there
{) 25 A It looks to be surface slag.
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd. '
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262
3231 0 1 is a -- slag can form as sort of a bridge over a 2 crevice.
3 In one case we have that condition. I don' t know 4 whether there's included slag or not.
5 Q What must be done in order to determine if the slag is 6 included in the weld?
! 7 A Take a steel brush and brush it or chip it or I can pick 8 it off with this, remove it.
9 (Indicating.)
10 Q You remove the slag?
l 11 A Yes, remove it.
l 12 Q I'd like to draw your attention to Mr. DeWald's
() 13 testimony, if your counsel can provide it to you, Page 1
i 14 41.
15 MR. BERRY: I can show it to the witness. I 16 have it, Joe.
17
- MR. GALLO: I can show it to him.
18 BY MS. CH AN :
19 Q On Page 41 -- that's Answer 28, the second paragraph in 20 the middle of the page -- Mr. DeWald is discussing the 21 need for hiring "someone on-site wi'th a thorough 22 understanding of AWS D1.1-1975 and its applications who 23 could take charge effectively and competently. "
. 24 And then in the next paragraph, he's discussing the ,
25 qualifications that he thinks this person should have or
)
Sonntaa R eno r ti na Service. T} d .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
m.. ...m._ m- n_ .n_n- n e m , .:.-~~
l 3232 O 1 what their responsibilities would be.
2 He says this inspector should "be able to identify.
3 additional problem areas, if any existed; provide" --
4 are you following me?
l 5 A I am now, yes.
6 MS. CHAN: Did you want to read it first and 7 then I'll ask you?
8 THE WITNESS: Out loud or to myself?
9 MS. CHAN: To yourself.
10 THE WITN ESS : All right.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Can you finish your 12 question?
- 13 BY MS. CHAN
14 Q Have you had a chance to read it?
15 A I have now.
1 16 Q All right. He's describing the responsibilities that
- 17 this prospective inspector would have, and he says it's i 18 "someone who would be able to identify additional 19 problem areas, if any existed; provide resolution and 20 develop corrective action; and be responsible for 21 training inspectors and interpreting the procedures, AWS 22 D1.1-197 5 and contractual specifications."
23 In your opinion, what would be the requirements and 24 qualifications necessary to fill that kind of a job?
25 A He would have to. have the experience required by ANSI Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- - - - __ __ m _
I 1
3233 i
l O
1 N-45.2.6. He would have to be experienced in his field.
2 He's not talking -- he's not talking about welding 3 per se, I don' t believe. So it could be an inspector
. 4 with experience, probably with a background in training 5 and instruction and in certifications, hopefully a i 6 person that has reviewed procedures and specifications; 7 that type of individual.
8 Q I see.
1 i 9 Based on your experience -- you've done a lot of l 10 training of inspectors and arbitrating code disputes --
11 are such inspectors of the kind that Mr. DeWald is 12 looking for scarce?
( 13 MR. GUILD: Objection. I don't believe
! 14 there's any foundation f or the question that he's done a
- 15 lot of code disputes, resolution of code disputes.
16 MS. CH AN : All right. I'll amend the 17 question.
18 BY MS. CH AN :
1 19 Q Your resume and your testimony state that you are an 20 arbiter of various kinds of disputes having to do with 21 welding.
22 -
Based on this experience, you have presumably met a 23 lot of inspectors; is that correct?
24 A That's,true. .
25 Q Are the . kind of inspectors that Mr. DeWald is looking
[} . .
gnnnemg napnrH ng Marwice. T d; Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3234
()- 1 for to fill his position common?
2 A They're not -- in my opinion, they' re not extremely
? 3 common, no.
l 4 Q And why is that?
5 A Because he's talking about identifying problems and then 6 finding the resolution.
7 That comes through experience, being able to use 8 the code and the reference material, being able to 9 perhaps talk to others that may have encountered similar 10 problems somewhere else.
11 It takes experience. It takes the background, the 12 education, the training.
- ( 13 I don't think that they are particularly common.
i 14 MS. CH AN : Thank you very much, Mr. Vannier.
15 The Staff has no further questions. ,
16 BOARD EXAMINATION 1
17 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
- 18 Q Mr. Vannier, could you explain what an arc strike is?
i 19 A An arc strike, to use my own words, is an inadvertent --
i 20 normally an inadvertent -- I hate to use " arc strike,"
i 21 but it's an inadvertent indication where perhaps the f
22 welder -- it can occur in several ways:
l l . 23 ,
A welder can slip and his electrode hit the base i 24 3 material and make a gouge or through some mistake or 25 ., some contact of the electrode with the material that was
[
1 .
Sonntaa ReDortino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
3235 l 1
0 1 not really intended; it was not really a part of that 2 weld; it wasn't intended -- it was not intended to be a 3 part of that weld.
4 A lot of it happens through accidents.
5 0 In other words, when there's work being done nearby the 6 weld, could that happen?
7 A That can happen.
8 It could be from an electrical cable.
9 Q But it is some way in which there's the electric current 10 that touches the area near the weld?
11 A Yes.
12 0 Or f ar f rom the weld, depending -- it can be anywhere?
13 A It can be anywhere.
14 Q Okay.
15 And what -- could you tell us what slag is, for the 16 record?
17 A Slag is a nonmetallic material. In the case that we 18 discussed, it could be included -- which would be 19 inadvertent. The welder certainly doesn't intend to i 20 include slag.
l 21 But it's an oxide coating that's formed in the 22 burning of the electrode, and it protects the ' weld ,
23 during the cooling process. It's a nonmetallic -- it's 24 a coating that can be chipped off.
I 25 Q Is this some sort of flux that's used?
[}
I Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
.-- -_=m 3236 i l
O 1 A Yes.
- 2 Q Can the -- is this similar to an arc strike where such a
- 3 deposit can be made while not welding that particular 4 weld --
~
l 5 A No.
6 Q -- or is it necessarily part of the process in which the 7 weld is created?
8 A It's part of the process. It becomes -- it's
) automatically deposited -- the sound metal is deposited, i
10 and the slag covers it. When that's completed, the slag 11 is removed.
12 Q Now, is it possible to put slag somewhere without making 13 a weld? .
i 14 A I don't know of any way that you could do that.
I 15 0 Okay.
4 1 16 I take it, though, with an arc strike, from what
, 17 you've told me, you can create an are strike without
! 18 even welding?
l 19 A Yes.
20 Q Do you have any way of knowing, from looking at No. 9, l
21 when that arc str'ike was created?
i 22 A I have -- I have -- yes, I believe I have.
23 I believe it was made when this -- when this was 24 tacked into position. This is at an angular position, 25 and I believe that there was a tack made there and that P
{)
l Sonntao Renortino Service, T,t d .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3237 l
l
~
(2) i 1 created this are strike type of condition at the time 2 that this sample was made up.
3 (Indicating.)
4 Q When you say it was tacked in there, do you mean when 5 the weld was made that relates to -- the No. 9 weld?
6 A Yes. You put -- they put this -- I believe they put 7 this into position, tacked it with this indication that 8 we're talking about and then made this weld; and they 9 purposely made it in the canted position.
10 0 Okay.
11 So you're saying that you believe the arc strike 12 was there first, and then the weld was made?
13 A I believe so. ,
14 Q Is it possible also that the weld was made first and the 15 arc strike was put in after? .
16 A It's possible.
17 Q Now, I notice Weld No. 8 is on that same tubing 18 material; is that correct?
19 A Uh-huh.
20 Q There's no indication, I take it, that both welds were 21 made at the same time, is there?
i 22 A You mean sequentially, one af ter the other?
23 0 or -- yes.
24 A There's no -- no, there's no indication of that. , ,
25, O Is it possible that the material could have been tacked'
{])
l Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
.- . . -- . - __~, . - - -. - - . _ . . -- .-
3238 l
O 1 and then Weld No. 8 made?
2 A Certainly.
3 0 And thereafter Weld No. 9 created?
4 A Yes.
5 0 Is it also possible that considering the trick nature of 6 the question with regard to No. 9, which you've 7 commented on, that someone being tested on Weld No. 9 8 might be shown that weld in such a manner that only the 9 front, only the weld itself, was showing and assume that 10 the entire test with regard to 9 related to the trick 11 nature of the depiction of Weld No. 97 12 A I don't believe so.
( 13 0 Now, why would that be, sir?
14 A Well, I think you' re saying that -- that this was 15 presented to the candidate in such a way that he could 16 not see the arc strike or see what?
- 17 Q Presented to him so he wouldn't see the arc strike, 18 which, I take it, is certainly possible f rom the 19 location of the arc strike.
20 A The -- the way that the test was given was the 21 candidates were given these samples, and he could handle
~
22 them any way he wanted to.
23 MR. GUILD: Objection, Mr. Chairman. The 24 witness is not competent to testify.
25 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: a. -
[}
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3239 O 1 You don' t have any knowledge of that, sir?
Q 2 A Just from Mr. Dominic.
3 Q So you don't have any first-hand knowledge of that?
4 A No. I was not there.
5 MR. GALLO: Was the question withdrawn, then, 6 your Honor?
7 Is the question withdrawn or is the witness 8 permitted to complete his answer?
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: There's no pending question.
10 He's indicated the basis for his -- the fact that he has 11 no knowledge, and that's -- is there a further answer 12 that's required, Mr. Gallo, that maybe you have?
() 13 MR. GALLO: Well, I thought the state of. the '
14 record was that the witness was giving an answer on the 15 basis of information he got f rom Mr. Dominic.
16 He was ..cerrupted by an objection. You asked him 17 the basis, and he indicated. Then you asked him if he 18 had any first-hand knowledge. He said no, and you 19 stopped.
l 20 I don't know what that means in terms of the l
21 question.
22 ,
JUDGE GROSSMAN : What it means is I don't 23 care to hear what someone else may 'have speculated on.
24 , MR. GALLO: So the question has been 25 withdrawn for that purpose?
Annntag Rannrh4 na Marwice, T.F A .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
__ _ . _..m_..__c~,.m... m ... _
I 3240 O There is no pending 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
2 question.
3 MR. GALLO: All right.
4 BOARD EXAMINATION 5 BY JUDGE COLE:
]
6 Q Mr. Vannier, you have supervised a lot of weld
! 7 inspectors' examinations.
8 With respect to the type of weld demonstrated in 9 No. 9, could you explain to me why it would -- it would 10 be probable or improbable that a weld inspector being 11 tested would observe the def ect at the -- at the end of l 12 the weld?
13 A I can think of no reason why it would be improbable.
4 14 Was that your question?
j 15 Q Well, probable or improbable.
16 You indicated that he probably would see it -- :
- 17 A Yes.
i 18 0 -- and you'd be surprised if he were to miss it.
19 Why is that, sir?
20 A Because it's so evident.
{ 21 I can' t -- I have this piece. I can' t look at Weld I 22 No. 9. I have to evaluate it f rom this end. I have to i
23 evaluate it f rom straight on, and I can' t look at it.
24 .
without seeing that are strike. , , l
. . j 25 (Indicating.) ,,
i j
i Sonntaa ReDortina Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 1 . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _
k
, 3241
! l i
O 1 So are you saying, sir, that the end portion of the weld j Q 2 is part of the evaluation that would be required, and i
- 3 his examination of the end part of No. 9 would reveal to 4 him the presence of that defect?
5 A Yes. He has to evaluate the end of the weld.
i j 6 Q And the defect is present in that part of the weld?
7 A They are not connected, as we said before. They're not i 8 connected.
i
! 9 But I'm looking at the end to see if there's a 10 crack or if there's other discontinuities, and I also
! 11 observe the arc strike.
12 Q Is it -- is it possible that the inspector, with these
! O 13 tese conditions, ins,eceing one we1d af ter another, some 14 of them on the same specimen -- that a defect removed l
i 15 from the immediate weld that he was observing -- he i 16 would not consider it part of that weld and would, l
} 17 therefore, not record it?
18 A If he did, I would think he would be incorrect.
l i 19 It's possible, of course, but I think he should
! 20 evaluate that the same way he would a weld in the field.
^
21 Q All right, sir. Now, No. 8 is on the other side of Weld 1
22 No. 9.
. 23 Would he have evaluated the defect at one end of 9 j 24 -- would he evaluate that along with 8, also, or is it j
25 too far removed?
l Ennntag Ranarting Harwice, ftd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
^ .- _ ~ - - . . _
d j 3242 i
i 1 A He could easily observe this, which is on this end of 2 the tube steel; and in that case, viewing Weld No. 8, he j 3 sees no are strike.
! 4 (Indicating.)
i 5 JUDGE COLE: All right, sir. Thank you.
6 BOARD EXAMINATION j 7 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN :
8 Q Excuse me.
9 Isn't the arc strike around the corner from both 8 l 10 and 97 11 A Yes.
12 Q Well, if he looked at every part of 8, why wouldn't he j () 13 , se's that, also?
l 14 A Because I'm looking at Weld No. 8. I'm looking at -- it 15 could be missed from 8.
! 16 It could not be missed f rom 9.
I
^
17 Q From what you said before with regard to questions asked j 18 by Mr. Guild, wouldn't it be improper for a weld 19 inspector not to take into account that arc strike when
]
l 20 he is inspecting Weld No. 87 i
i 21 I refer specifically to those questions about an i
j ,
22 arc strike being three and a half feet away or something
. 23 of that nature.
j 24 A I would think that he would not normally -- if he saw ,
25 this, yes, during his course of inspection.
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
! (312) 232-0262 .
3243
( )
1 (Indicating.) 1 2 It's so -- he cannot see it easily. You look, and 3 you can' t see it. It's around the --
4 4 0 Would you think a thorough inspector should see it?
5 A If you could envision this to be much longer than it is, 6 he very easily could not see it. It would not be a part 7 -- it would not normally be a part of his job to go 8 around and inspect the other end of it if it was a 9 considerable distance away.
10 In this case, it's four inches, I guess, something 11 like that, but further around the corner.
12 Q But in this case you would expect a thorough inspector
( 13 to see that?
14 A If he -- on Weld No. 9, yes.
15 Q And how about Weld No. 87 16 A No.
17 Q Now, is an arc strike a cosmetic kind of defect or is it 18 a substantial defect?
19 A It can be substantial.
20 It can be considered cosmetic, depending upon the 21 depth -- in accordance with their criteria, in 22 accordance with the depth of the arc strike in 23 relationship to the thickness of the-material that it's 24 impinged upon.
In this case, referring specifically to this are strike,
{) 25 Q Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3244 O
1 -
would you consider that primarily cosmetic?
2 A It's a rejectable condition because of the depth.
3 Q I'm sorry. It's what?
4 A It's rejectable because of the depth.
5 0 I notice when you rejected -- when you evaluated the 6 answer, you only took off one-third on that particular 7 answer.
8 A Uh-huh.
9 Q Does that show some sort of value judgment on your part 10 as to how substantive the def ect is?
11 A Yes.
12 The weld is acceptable. The arc strike was --
( 13 should have been observed, but the weld itself was 14 acceptable. He accepted it, yes.
15 0 Considering what you've described as the apparent 16 presence of that arc strike, would you say that it was 17 astounding that the inspector -- or Mr. Puckett, in this 18 case -- didn't notice it?
19 A If he was taking a Level III test, which he was, yes, I 20 would -- I would -- I was surprised, yes.
21 0 Well, why would a Level III test have anything to do l 22 with it? ,
23 Can' t anyone who is looking f or def ects -- wouldn' t 24 anyone notice that arc strike, even a layman like me?
25 A I would think you would, yes.
(
l Sonntac Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
, (312) 232-0262 -
- . ___ .. . - - _ _ - __ _ - _ - _ _ . - - - - ~ _ .
J 3245 O .
1 Q And so do you think it's astounding or highly unusual i
j 2 for someone being tested on welds to have missed 3 something as apparent as that arc strike?
4 A I'm surprised, yes.
4 ,
5 Q Now, you've indicated, with regard to slag, that you
! 6 didn't think that that could be added to a weld; and I'm
=t
! 7 not~sure I understand why.
8 I've suggested that perhaps it's similar to flux j 9 for a soldering operation, and I think I could add a 10 melt -- melt flux and add it to a soldering connection.
11 Wouldn't this be similar to that? <
12 A Without adding additional weld, I do not believe that 13 you could add this slag.
l 14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
j 15 JUDGE CALLIHAN: I have no further questions.
l j 16 JUDGE COLE: I have no questions. - -
f 17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gallo?
i
! 18 MR. GALLO: I'd like to give the witness back
{ 19 Applicant's -- his copy of Applicant's 5 and 6.
1 20 (Indicating.)
21 I now give the reporter the promised copies of 5 l
22 and 6. I'd better mark it, since the reporter has i
23 changed. Perhaps the Board would like to mark it.
! 24 Do you believe it's clear on the record that this 25 reporter will know which is 5 and which is 67 i
Ennntag Ratvirhi na M a r v i c a'. f} d .
. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3246 O 1 Oh, they are marked already. I stand corrected.
2 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Yes, they ' re marked.
3 MR. GALLO: All right. They were identified 4 earlier in the proceeding, and copies were not furnished 5 at that time.
6 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. GALLO:
8 Q Mr. Vannier, you were asked a long series of questions 9 by Mr. Guild about the grading system used for the 10 Puckett test.
11 Now, under the Comatock procedure, as I understand 12 your testimony, it was necessary to achieve -- or, in
() 13 this case, for Mr. Puckett to achieve 100 percent on his 14 test; is that correct?
15 A Yes.
16 0 And how was it determined whether an answer was correct 17 or incorrect, under the Comstock procedure?
18 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, if the witness is 19 interpreting the procedure, then I suppose he's 20 competent to do that.
21 But if the implication is he's interpreting how Mr.
22 Puckett's test was evaluated, I don't believe he is
, 23 competent to do that.
24 I'm not clear whether, given the prece< ling -
25 question, counsel is trying to get the witness to
)
Sonntaa ReDortino Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 ,
n . ., . . - .- _- - -
_ . - ~ . . . . . . .
3247 O
1 overreach beyond simply evaluating the procedure.
2 MR. GALLO: I'm just seeking to determine the 3 basis for determining whether or n5t the test results on 4 Applicant's 5 -- not the test results, but whether or 5 not the answers on Applicant's 5 were based on the weld 6 acceptance criteria or not.
7 I'll just ask the question that way.
8 BY MR. GALLO:
9 Q To your knowledge, Mr. Vannier --
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I ' m so r ry . I don't 11 understand the question now. I thought I understood the 12 prior one, but I don't understand this one.
(} 13 MR. GALLO: Well, I haven't asked the 14 question yet.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Maybe that's the 16 reason.
l 17 BY MR. GALLO:
1
! 18 Q To your knowledge, Mr. Vannier, was the Tom Vogt key,
- 19 which lists " accept" and " reject" af ter the various 1
) 20 answers -- was that based on the AWS weld acceptance l
l 21 criteria?
i
- 22 A I think it was based upon the Comstock procedure.
- 23 Q Do you'know what the procedure is based on?
i 24 A on the AWS code, D1.1.
! 25 Q What aspect of the AWS code?
)
)
i Ennntaa Re na r ki nn Marvice. Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3248 O Of the -- of several aspects: the 815 aspect; the 1 A 2 undercut procedure, which appears in another section; 3 and the weld profiles, which appear in the workmanship 4 area of the code.
5 0 Are these generally referred to as " weld acceptance 6 criteria"?
7 A Yes.
8 Q All right. Now, let's turn to your testimony, beginning 9 on Page 4; and at the same time, let's also refer to the l
10 Vogt key.
11 Now, with respect to Answer 10, as I understand 12 your testimony, you looked at the first coupon and found
() 13 the weld quality to be acceptable; is that correct?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Did the Vogt key find -- make the same finding?
16 A Yes.
17 Q And under your assessment of Mr. Puckett's test, you 18 gave him full credit; is that correct?
19 A Yes.
20 Q All right. Moving to the second test coupon, you found 21 that that weld had an unacceptable length of overlap and 22 incompleto fusion.
23 Are those bases for rejecting that weld?
24 A Yes.
25
{} Q And had Mr. Puckett noted those unacceptable conditions?
sonnEng neporting service. r. Ed .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3249 O A He noted incomplete fusion, yes.
1 2 Q Well, did he also note the unacceptable length of the 3 overlap? ,
4 A No, he didn't.
5 Q Did you score him -- did you reduce his score as a 6 result of that?
7 A Of the overlap?
8 Q Yes.
9 A No.
10 Q Why not?
11 A Because the conditions are so closely related.
12 Overlap, by definition in the procedure, is not
() 13 rejectable so long as fusion at the too can be 14 determined. So those are related conditions; and I felt 15 that perhaps Mr. Puckett, in his incomplete fusion 16 answer, was including the overlap, also.
17 Q I see.
18 Did Mr. Vogt's key show the incomplete fusion or 19 overlap?
20 A It shows the overlap --
21 Q All right.
22 A -- and incomplete fusion, also, and some more overlap.
23 Q Now, you say in your Answer 11 that, "Mr. Puckett did 24 not evaluate the slag."
25 Is the slag that you noted on Coupon 2 a rejectable Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
.,. ~ - . - ~ -- _ . ~ ~ _- , - ~ - _ - - -
3250 0 1 condition?
2 A Yes.
~
3 0 And does the Vogt key indicate that for Coupon 2 that's 4 a rejectable condition?
5 A Yes, he does.
6 Q Now, if Mr. Puckett had gotten every other answer 7 correct in this test but the one deficiency we're now 8 discussing, would he have passed or failed the test as 9 it was graded under the Comstock procedure?
10 A He would have failed.
11 Q Let's go to the next coupon.
12 I take it from your answer in Answer 12 that this
( 13 is a satisfactory weld situation and that -- and you 14 gave Mr. Puckett full credit for it; is that correct?
15 A I gave Mr. Puckett full credit.
16 ,
It's a condition, in my opinion; and in accordance l 17 with the criteria, it could have been acceptable. But i 18 Mr. Puckett gave me a reason for rejecting it, and I 19 liked his reason.
l 20 It's a sharp little are strike condition, and I'm 21 happy that both of them think it should have been 22 removed.
l 23 (Indicating.)
24 0 When you say "both of them," who is the other person 25 you' re ref erring to?
[}
I nnnnena nonera no nervice. r.r a .
! Genev a', Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 L- - . - . . _ _ - - . . . _ - . . = .
3251 l
O A Mr. Vogt and Mr. Puckett.
1 2 Q All right.
3 Going to Coupon No. 4, you say that, "The weld has 4 unacceptable undercut and slag. There.are arc strikes 5 and spatter adjacent to the weld."
6 A Yes.
i 7 0 Did Mr. Puckett identify the unacceptable undercut and i 8 slag?
l 9 A He identified the rejectable condition, undercut.
I 10 Q And you say he did not evaluate the slag; is that
- 11 correct?
l 12 A That's correct.
() 13 Q Did Mr. Vogt's key identify the slag that you found. as l 14 an unacceptable condition?
15 A Yes.
16 0 Now, let me ask you: If Mr. Puckett had gotten all the
)
17 other answers to this test correct, would he have failed 18 or passed this test, as it was graded under the Comstock 19 procedure, for failing to -- strike that. Let me ask 20 the question again.
21 If he had gotten all the other answers correct, 22 except in this instance he didn't evaluate or identify 23 the slag, would he have failed or passed the test under 24 the Comstock procedure?
25 A Yes. '
Sonntao Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
.. . .. . - . . _ .. w _ ... = - -x
3252 O 1 Q "Yes" doesn't answer my question.
2 Would he have failed or would he have passed the l 3 test under Comstock procedure?
- 4 A He would have failed. -
1 I' 5 0 Weld No. 5 -- I believe in your answers to Mr. Guild, 6 you indicated in some respects that you would have 7 gigged Mr. Puckett here and not really failed him for 1
8 one aspect of his examination of Coupon No. 5.
- 9 Can you identify for me again what that aspect was j 10 that you would have gigged Mr. Puckett for?
11 A Let me review Mr. Puckett's test.
. 12 Question No. 5 would have been cause for f ailure by O 13 Mr. Puckete. .
14 Q All right.
f 15 A Coupon No. 57 16 Q Coupon No. 5.
17 A Yes.
18 Q Perhaps I had it confused with another coupon. Let me 4
19 strike that last question and ask a different question.
20 Again referring to Coupon No. 5, you indicate that 21 Mr. Puckett did not evaluate the slag.
22 Can you tell me whether or not the slag defect was l
23 reflected on the Vogt key for Coupon No. 57 f ,
j , 24 A Mr. Vogt indicated two areas of rejectable slag greater 1
1 25 than 3/32 of an inch, 3/32 being the criteria in the
- snnnema nann r ei na servic.. r.r a .
Geneva', Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
= . . - --
3253 )
O 1 procedure.
2 Q All right.
3 If Mr. Puckett had obtained a correct answer with 4 respect to every other aspect of this test but this one, 5 for which you indicate he did not evaluate slag, would 6 he have passed or fai, led the test --
7 A He would have failed --
8 0 -- under the procedure used by Comstock?
9 A Be would have f ailed the test.
10 Q Now, you were asked some questions by Mr. Guild as to i 11 whether or not, if Mr. Vogt was taking the test and his 12 test results were reflected in his key -- whether his
() 13 examination with respect to Coupon 5 would have been a 14 basis for failure under the Comstock procedure. I 15 believe you answered it would not.
16 Is that your! testimony? Do I have a correct 17 recollection of your testimony?
l 18 A The other two areas of slag have to --
19 0 Wait a minute.
20 Do I first have a correct recollection of your 21 testimony?
, 22 A I believe so, yes.
23 Q All right.
24 And would ~you explain why it would not be a basis .
25 for failure?
O Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
% . g.1 whemNh h " Mh oth WP'9M h --'_A ,,,T -
N C2m, 4
3254 )
() 1 A The areas of slag that are 3/32 of an inch in dimension 2 or greater are rejectable, period.
3 The other areas of slag that are smaller are in 4 relation to what is already there.
5 If I may, I'd like to -- could I read from the 6 procedure?
7 0 Yes.
8 A There's some dimensions that I haven't committed to 9 memory.
10 " Individual slag inclusions with greatest surface 11 dimensions up to 3/32 of an inch are permissible 12 provided space between the adjacent slag inclusions is
() 13 larger than 9/32 and the total sum of all slag 14 inclusions does not exceed T in any 6T length of weld-15 where T is the theoretical throat size for fillet weld 16 and size of the weld for all other welds."
17 So those other conditions would have to be 18 evaluated in relation to the other slag that was there.
19 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the 20 witness to give us a reference for the document f rom 21 which he's reading?
22 THE WITNESS : Excuse me. It's Comstock, a 23 procedure 483, and it's Revision E. The paragraph I 24 quoted from is Subparagraph 3.2.3., ,
25 MR. GUILD: Thank you. - -
Sonntag Reporti ng Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. . = . - _ . . - - - --
3255 l l
l O 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Was that 4.8.37 2 THE WITNESS: 4.8.3, entitled " Weld 3 Inspection, Comstock Procedure."
i 4 BY MR. GALLO:
5 Q Did Mr. Vogt evaluate in his key the other slag ,
- 6 conditions you identified with respect to Coupon 5?
) 7 A No.
8 0 Why isn't that a basis, under the Comstock procedure, 9 for failing Mr. Vogt on this particular answer?
10 A In my opinion, because he had already rejected the weld i
11 for two indications, and he -- I don' t know. Perhaps 12 he --
() 13 Q I'm not asking you why he didn't get them all.
. 14 I'm asking you: Why isn't it a basis for failing 15 Mr. Vogt that he didn' t evaluate all the other aspects 16 in the examples of slag in Coupon 57 17 A Well, it depends on who is administering the test.
I 18 I personally don't like the fact that he did not l 19 identify the other three areas of slag.
20 Q All right.
21 Under my question, we'll assume that you're
! 22 administering the test.
- 23 A All right.
24 Q Strike that. I want to stick with the Comstock 25 procedure.
Sonntao Reportina Service, Ltd.
. Geneva, Illinois' 60134 (312) 232-0262
= ==- _,_~_-,_,_...-_____--_.,......,._.__._m_----._-_
i 3256 O 1 Under the Comstock procedure, to your knowledge, 2 why isn't this, his failure to identify and evaluate all 3 the examples of slag in Coupon 5, a basis for failure of 4 the test -- or, at least, failure of this answer?
5 A Well, I'm not sure it's not.
6 0 So you don't know?
7 A I think if you --
8 Q Do you need to refer to the procedure?
9 A I think if you evaluate -- pardon?
10 Q Do you need to refer to the procedure?
11 A Maybe I need to evaluate the coupen.
12 Q Well, take your time.
() 13 If the answer is you don't know, that's -- that's 14 an answer to the question. If you can come up with an 15 answer in a reasonable time and you need to just check 16 it, please do.
17 A And the question one more time, please?
18 Q Yes.
19 I asked you whether or not Mr. Vogt, in his key, 20 had evaluated all the examples of slag in Coupon 5 that 21 you had identified. You said no.
22 , I'then asked why r for purposes of this particular 23 question in terms of Coupon 5, that was not a basis for 24 Mr. Vogt failing this particular coupon examination, if 25 we interpret the key of the test.
O Sonntag Reporti ng Service. Ltd.
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 g
. - - -- . . - - , - - _ - _ - . _ - . . _ . _n _- _
3257
~
- (:)
1 A Well, Mr. Vogt is the only one that counted the areas of 2 slag, other than myself in our testimony today.
3 That's not in the written testimony, but we were 4 pointing that out today as we pointed out the 5 indications on that particular coupon.
6 MR. GUILD: I don't believe that was 7 responsive to the question, Mr. Chairman.
- 8 BY MR. GALLO:
9 Q Mr. Vogt indicates two examples of slag in his key with 10 respect to Coupon 5; is that correct?
l 11 A That's correct.
12 Q You found more than that on Coupon 5; isn't that
( 13 correct?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Mr. Vogt, in his key, rejected the weld in Coupon 5 16 because of slag; isn't that correct?
17 A Yes.
18 Q You also rejected the weld in Coupon 5 because of the 19 slag?
20 A Yes.
21 Q It is your testimony that you believe Mr. Vogt should 22 have evaluated the additional --
23 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chai rman --
24 BY MR. GALLO:
25 Q -- items of slag that you f ound?
[}
RnnnPag Reporti ng Marvice. T.t d .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 1 . . _ - ~ , , , . _ , , ~ . _ _ . _ . _ . , _ _ _ . . _ . . . _ . _ . - _ . . . _ . _ - . . _
3258 O MR. GUILD:
1 Objection. Mr. Gallo is leading 2 the witness beyond all reasonable limits.
3 It is his witness. He is simply not permitted to 4 supply the answer and ask for a yes or no question --
5 yes or no answer.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I don't think he's supplying 7 the answer.
8 You can continue with that line, Mr. Gallo.
9 He's trying to get an answer.
10 MR. GALLO: I've lost my train now as to 11 where I was in that.
12 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I do object.
() 13 The witness has stated he's incapable of answering 14 the question. He said, "I do not know."
15 It is improper for Mr. Gallo to supply the answer 16 to a witness who has said he does not know.
17 MR. GALLO: I am not supplying the answer. I 18 invited the witness to say that he did not know, and he 19 didn't accept the invitation and now doesn't understand 20 the question. I'm trying to reformulate it fcr him.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, it's very difficult 22 for the witness to answer that he doesn' t know, since 23 you're asking him why he would take a certain position.
24 MR. GALLO: I'm not asking him to take -- I ,
i 25 just want to know whether or not Mr. Vogt -- let me try Sonntag Ronnrti ng Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
_ ----n ,-r,.. .. .-,v,-_. -,,,,..w, ,,.-n = . ,. _
3259 1 it again one more time.
2 BY MR. GALLO: )
3 Q Assume that Mr. Vogt's key with respect to Coupon 5 is 4 an answer to a test question, all right?
5 A Yes.
6 Q And you have identified more examples of. slag in Coupon 7 5 than Mr. Vogt did; is that correct?
8 A Yes.
9 0 Why isn't that fact alone, if you know, the basis for 10 saying that -- or concluding that Mr. Vogt failed that 11 particular test question?
12 A Because he rejected the test -- he rejected the coupon.
() 13 Q Isn't it enough just to reject the coupon without --
14 even though you did not identify all the possible 15 defects?
16 A If he had said that was the only slag he could see, yes, 17 I would have to fail Mr. Vogt.
l 18 Q What did he say?
l 19 A He said he saw two areas, and he rejected the coupon.
20 Q Let's move off Coupon 5.
21 Coupon 6 and 7 were not available, and you gave Mr.
I 22 Puckett full credit in your evaluation of his test; is 23 that correct?
24 A Yes.
25 0 Coupon 8 -- with respect to Coupon 8, if I understand O
Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
j Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 E. . . _ _ _ _ _ _
. u ,
3260 I
($)
1 your answer on Page 6, you did not give Mr. Puckett j l
2 credit for his answer because he failed to explain his l l
3 basis for conciuding there was insufficient throat and '
4 unfilled crater; is that correct?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Now, how did Mr. Vogt treat this particular coupon in 7 his key?
8 A Mr. Vogt indicated that there were two areas of slag --
9 Mr. Vogt rejected the coupon. He indicated there is two 10 areas of slag greater than 3/32, and that's it.
11 Now, later on -- or Mr. Vogt also said -- for some 12 reason said, " Remove slag and weld would be acceptable."
() 13 Then it's been noted, " Slag has been removed. Fi t-up 14 and weld dimension. Accept."
15 I could not find rejectable slag on that coupon.
16 Q Did Mr. Vogt identify the insufficient throat or 17 unfilled crater that Mr. Puckett did?
18 A No, he did not.
19 Q Did you, in your evaluation,' find an insufficient throat j 20 and unfilled crater with respect to Coupon 8?
21 A No. There is a crater, but it's beyond the specified 22 weld length.
23 In accordance with the procedure 4.8.3, a crater 24 beyond -- or an indication beyond the specified length 25 need only be evaluated for cracks and undercut; and the
)
l Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
. . . . . - . . _ . . ~ ~ . . . ~ . _ . . . , _ . _ _ . ~ . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . _ . _ . . _ . . - . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~
3261 0 1 crater does not contain cracks nor does it contain 2 undercut.
3 0 So is it -- so, in your judgment, did Mr. Puckett fail 4 or pass this particular question on the test?
5 A Mr. Puckett failed it.
6 Q Did he fail it because he improperly identified an 1
7 unfilled crater or insufficient throat?
8 A Both.
l 9 0 Well, in your -- in your testimony, you say that, 10 nevertheless, you would have given him credit if he had 11 explained his answer.
12 Can you explain --
A
(_) 13 A Yes.
14 0 -- that, why he would have done that?
15 A Yes.
16 The -- one of the most difficult evaluations we 17 have on this type of welding is on a flare bevel weld.
18 A flare bevel is formed by a rounded-cornered tube steel 19 as it meets a flat condition.
~
! 20 (Indicating.)
21 When a welder looks at a flare bevel weld from his 22 vantage point, there's no way, really, that he can 23 determine the effective throat. He can only evaluate l
l 24 what he sees, and he's. not seeing the throat.
25 The throat -- the throat is in cross section. If
)
Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
x -
3262 0 1 you cut a little sample out like this, now you can see 2 throat. It's this distance f rom the root to the f ace.
3 (Indicating.)
4 0 You're pointing to a weld?
~
5 A Pardon?
6 0 Are you pointing to a weld?
7 A I'm pointing to a weld, just a sample.
8 So there has to be a judgmental evaluation by the 9 inspector that in this case this tube steel has a fit-up 10 gap, which is no't normal.
11 But it does give the advantage of getting added 12 penetration to the weld, so it is my opinion that it ,
() 13 does have proper throat. If you were to cut a sample of 14 it and you had it like this, you would see that it had 15 sufficient throat.
16 (Indicating.)
17 If Mr. Puckett said that there was insufficient l
18 throat because it's not welded out to the flat of the 19 tube steel, I would have accepted that because he would 20 have given me at least his reason.
21 Q Now, if Mr. Puckett had passed every other test question 22 except this one, would he have passed or failed under 23 the Comstock procedure?
24 A He would have failed.
25 BOARD EXAMINATION O
snnneag napnreing service. r,t a .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 r _ _.m _ _ - - - - - - -
3263 O 1 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
2 Q Excuse me.
3 If Mr. Puckett had said that this weld was 4 acceptable, would you have given him credit for 5 answering this properly?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Are you sure that he rejected this weld?
8 A He says, "Does not meet 3/16 inch ET," effective throat.
! 9 "There is also an unfilled crater."
10 So I guess he gave two reasons for the rejection 11 which I see there.
12 Q Well, I'm not sure that he didn't just comment on that
() 13 and accept the weld, because I see a line through the 14 "rej ect," and I really don' t know.
l 15 Is that -- is that a given that he actually 16 rejected that weld?
l 17 I'm not sure.
18 A Your Honor, everywhere else he's written " accept" or 19 " reject" on every other question, so you're saying you 20 think perhaps Mr. Puckett crossed that out?
21 Q I'm thinking perhaps that's right. I'm not saying that 22 he did. I don' t know.
23 A Then, in my opinion, he would have again failed because l
24 he didn' t answer the question. He didn' t accept or 25 reject as he was supposed to.
O Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 s .-- -
-- --n- - n.n .
3264 O 1 Q Well, if he crossed it out, I would assume he accepted; 2 but I really don't want to make any assumptions. The 3 only question I had is what you base your assumption on 4 that he rejected this.
5 You base it on the f act that he's got the " reject" 6 with that line through it, and you assume he rejected 7 it?
i 8 A And the comment.
9 0 Though you do accept the possibility that he might have 10 changed his mind, accepted it and nevertheless felt that 11 it was appropriate to comment?
12 You don't accept that?
( 13 A No, I don't.
14 I think he -- I think he had to answer the 15 question, and I think he did.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN : By the way, let me ask you a 17 question, Mr. Gallo: Could you tell me what the 18 relevance is of this particular grading system, which 19 your expert is presenting, to the question before us?
20 MR. GALLO: You mean -- when you say "this 21 particular grading system," you mean the numerical 22 system employed by -- by this witness?
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes.
24 MR. GALLO: This apparently is the system 25 used by him in grading tests, and I guess he was
[)
gnnntag n pnreing servic . r+ a .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3265 O 1 requested to come up with a numerical grade.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We're not concerned with a 3 numerical grade here, are we, Mr. Gallo?
4 Don't you think it's not only perhaps irrelevant 5 but somewhat confusing to us to have a numerical system 6 that doesn' t fit in with the question that we have?
7 MR. GALLO: Well, I came to that conclusion.
8 That's why my redirect is as it is.
9 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 10 (Continued) 11 BY MR. GALLO:
12 Q Weld Coupon No. 9 -- now, you've been asked a number of
() 13 times whether o'r not the arc strike that has been the 14 subject of many questions in connection with Weld coupon 15 No. 9, as well as some connection with Weld Coupon No. 8 16 -- whether that's a cosmetic defect or not; and I
! 17 believe you always answered that it's a rejectable 18 condition.
19 Now, I want to know whether or not it's a cosmetic 20 defect, yes or no, the one that's next to Coupon 9, 21 A Could you tell me what you mean by " cosmetic"?
22 Perhaps I'm misunderstanding that.
23 Q Do you understand the term " cosmetic" as used in the 24 welding field?
25 A A cosmetic defect is -- I think I do.
O 1 l
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd. l Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
l (312) 232-0262 l - . - - - - - _
. 1 3266 O All right.
1 Q 2 As you understand the term as it applies to the 3 welding field, is the arc strike next to Coupon 9 a 4 cosmetic defect?
5 A No.
6 Q Now, as I understand your testimony with respect to 7 Coupon 9, you noted that, "Mr. Puckett did not evaluate 8 the arc strike."
9 What did Mr. Vogt do on that score?
10 A Mr. Vogt rejected the weld, and he wrote, " Wrong weld 11 symbol for tube. Arc strike near tack over 3/32 inch."
12 Q Can you tell from that description whether or not it's
() 13 the arc strike that's been the subject of my previous 14 question about the cosmetic nature of that particular 15 arc strike?
16 A Well, it's -- if it's of those dimensions, it's not 17 cosmetic.
18 Q But is it the same arc strike?
19 A It's the same arc strike, yes.
20 Q Now, could you tell me, if Mr. Puckett passed every 21 other question except this one, whether or not he would 22 have passed or failed the test under the Comstock 23 procedure?
24 A He would have failed.
25 Q With respect to Weld coupon 10, you concluded that Mr.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
_ ___. _ ._ _ - ,_ _ _m m.s__., _ _.__m _
1 3267 ,
e O 1 Puckett's answer was correct.
2 Is that your testimony in Answer 197 3 A Yes.
4 Q That essentially it had an unacceptable overlap with 5 incomplete fusion; is that correct?
~
6 A Yes.
7 0 What did Mr. Vogt -- how did Mr. Vogt characterize this 8 particular coupon?
9 A He rejected it; " Overlap one and three-eighths inches 10 long."
11 Q Did he mention the incomplete fusion?
12 A No.
) 13 However, since he rejected the overlap, he had to 14 imply incomplete fusion because, as I said before, their 15 description of overlap that's rejectable indicates that 16 there's not fusion at that toe.
17 If you have -- you can have an overlapping 18 condition in accordance with their procedure; and if you 19 detect fusion at the toe, it's acceptable.
20 0 With respect to Weld No.11 -- maybe we'll speed this up [
21 -- and Weld No. 12, referring to Coupons 11 and 12, you 22 accepted Mr. Puckett's answer, and it's consistent with 23 ,, Mr. Vogt's answer on both of those; isn't that correct?
24 ~A Yes.
25 Q Now, on Coupon No. 13, you noted that, "Mr. Puckett did l
Sonntac Recortino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 r'- m- n orm 'M ~e ,[___ 'P_
3268 O
1 not evaluate the grinding marks nor the are strikes."
2 What did Mr. Vogt --
3 A Mr. Vogt --
4 0 -- do on that score?
5 A I'm sorry.
6 Q I'm sorry. Go ahead.
7 A Mr. Vogt accepted the coupon, accepted the --
8 Q Now, under your evaluation, was Mr. Puckett's failure to 9 evaluate the grinding marks and the arc strikes cause 10 for failing this answer?
11 A No.
12 0 So under the Comstock procedure, you would have passed
( 13 Mr. Puckett on this answer?
l 14 A Yes. .
15 Q Now, turning to Coupon 14, you say, "Mr. Puckett 16 correctly rejected the weld for size, incorrectly for 17 undercut, and did not evaluate the length or base metal i
18 grinding."
19 Did Mr. Vogt note these shortcomings as well on his 20 key with respect to Coupon 14?
21 A Mr. Vogt rejected the weld; "ISL one and three-quarters 22 inch. Not welded to end. Undercut" -- okay.
23 He accepted the undercut.
24 Q All right.
25 A Is that correct?
Sonntag Reporti ng Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- i 3269 l
() 1 Q Well, let me break it down.
2 Did he reject the weld for lack of the proper size?
3 A Mr. Vogt?
4 0 Yes.
5 A No.
6 0 Did he reject the weld because of the undercut?
7 A No, he did not.
8 0 What was the basis for his rejection of the weld on 9 Coupon 14?
10 A Incomplete length.
11 Q All right.
12 Now, let me ask you: If Mr. Puckett had correctly
() 13 answered every other question on the test except for the 14 evaluation that you show in Answer 23 with respect to 15 Coupon 14, would he have failed or passed the test under 16 the Comstock procedure?
l 17 A He would have failed on the weld length.
18 Q How about Mr. Vogt?
19 If we assume that his analysis. of Coupon 14 is a 20 test question and answer, would he have failed or passed 21 that particular question under the Comstock procedure?
22 A Well, Mr. Vogt rejected, the way I read his answer --
23 0 Well, can you answer the question first and then 24 explain?
25 Did 'he fail or pass the test under the Comstock O
Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
_ . - . - - ,_ _n - . -
l 3270 l
O 1 procedure?
2 A Oh, he would have -- he would have passed. ,
3 0 Even though he did not identify the undercut?
4 A Mr. Vogt?
5 0 Yes.
4 6 A Mr. Vogt did identify undercut.
7 Q Did he identify the --
8 A And he said, " Satisfactory. Not over 3/16 of an inch in 9 length," and something about " exceeding 1/32 in depth,"
10 but that's correct.
11 Q Did Mr. Vogt identify the lack of proper weld size?
12 A Of weld length, yes.
() 13 Q He did identify that?
! 14 A Yes.
15 Q And it's your testimony that he did identify -- did he
, 16 identify the base metal grounding -- grinding?
i 17 I'm sorry; Mr. Vogt.
18 A No, he didn't.
19 Q And why isn't that a basis for determining that Mr. Vogt 20 failed this particular question?
21 A The grinding is an acceptable condition.
22 Q Acceptable under the Comstock procedure?
1
- 23 A Yes. It's less than 1/32 in depth.
24 I'd like to -- may I --
j 25 Q Do you want to add something?
)
mem, .. .. . e 4 ,e m. 4e.. r.e a . !
Geneva', Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3271
() 1 A Yes, I would.
f 2 Mr..Vogt has "ISL one and three-quarter inch,"
3 okay. That's -- I assume that he meant by that, 4 insuffi'cient leg, L-E-G.
5 Mr. Puckett rejected the weld for the same 6 condition: Undersized filler. Again that refers to 7 either leg or throat.
8 Mr. Vogt also noted, as I did, that it's not weld
! 9 -- it's insufficient length, which is separate f rom weld
, 10 size. Mr. Vogt noted that, i 11 Mr. Puckett did not, and that is the condition that i 12 I think that Mr. Puckett should have noted that makes i
() 13 the weld rejectable.
14 It's also rejectable for insufficient leg or 15 undersize, whichever one you want to use.
16 Q Can you turn to Coupon 9, that coupon that had the slag 17 condition in it, Coupon 9. ,
18 A But Coupon 9 doesn' t -- it's the arc strike.
l 19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: 57 20 THE WITNESS: 57 21 MR. GALLO: 5. I' m so r ry .
22 BY MR. GALLO:
23 0 Is this the coupon, to your recollection, that you were 24 asked a number of questions by Mr. Guild about included 25 slag?
O .
Sonntao Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3272 O 1 A Yes.
2 O I believe you answered that you could not determine the 3 weld in Coupon 5 in its present condition -- whether or 4 not it contained included slag.
5 Is that a correct statement of your testimony?
6 A That's correct.
7 Q Dut it's possible it could; is that your testimony?
8 A It's possible, yes.
9 O In taking these tests for Level III certification, what 10 type of def ects are to be noted on the test when one 11 conducts the -- or takes the test and does the visual 12 examination?
() 13 A (No response.)
14 Q Do you understand the question?
15 A Not quite.
16 0 All right, all right, fair enough.
l 17 Is the test candidate expected, in your 18 ' prof essional opinion, to identify for test purposes both l
19 known defects or obvious defects and possible defects?
20 A Yes.
21 Q Now, is this one condition we're talking about here, the 22 possibility of included slag in Coupon 5, a possible 23 defect?
24 A Well, two of them are defects.
25 Q But the possibility of included slag.
l O l
Sonntaa R eco r ti na Service. Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 l
% ---____.-_-__m
_ ,,__m-_,.---m m
3273 l
l O 1 A I'm sorry. I lost you.
2 Q Is the possibility -- is the possibility of included 3 slag in Coupon 5 the type" of defect that should have 4 been noted in connection with this particular test?
5 A I don't think you should note it, possibly because it 6 was rejectable in itself. He should have rejected it 7 for that condition.
8 0 Well, in your evaluation, shouldn't you have noted that 9 possibility?
10 A No.
11 0 Can you explain why not?
12 A Because, again, what I see is the only thing I can
() 13 evaluate. I cannot speculate' upon those things which 14 are hidden from my sight.
15 Q You were asked four questions by Mr. Guild from a test 16 -- actually, it was Intervenors' Exhibit 17 -- and his 17 last question was, "Are these the kinds of" -- and I'm 18 paraphrasing now; I don't mean to mischaracteri e the 10 questions; if I do, I'm sure Mr. Guild will correct me 20 - "Are these the kind of questions that a Level III 21 inspector is expected to be able to answer?" I believe 22 your answer was, "Either answer or look them up."
23 Do you recall that testimony?
24 A Yes, I do.
! 25 Q What do you mean by "look them up"?
\
l Scnntac Recortina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262 L._..__- - - _ - -
3274 0 1 A I think that we' re talking about a Level III. I don't 2 think that we can readily expect every Level III to 3 remember everything that's in the code and the standards 4 and the specifications, but I do think that he should 5 know where to find the answers.
6 So there may be many occasions when he has to look 7 up the answer, because if he relies upon his memory, 8 there may be some problem.
9 0 Well, do you know whether or not it's appropriate, when 10 taking the test that Mr. Guild referred to -- whether 11 it's appropriate to have the code available to look up 12 the answers?
() 13 A Well, that depends upon -- I suppose upon the way the 14 test is conducted.
15 If a candidate is told, "You're going to have a 16 closed-book test," I assume that he has time to prepare 17 himself; and I don't know if we're talking about a 18 closed-book or open-book.
19 I'd prefer the open-book. I would just as soon 20 have the man be able to find the answers and interpret
! 21 them properly, as opposed to having him commit 22 everything to memory, which I don't think is reliable.
23 0 So your answer, "Look them up," would apply to an 24 open-book test; correct?
25 A Yes.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 L . _ - z __%
3275 O 1 MR. GALLO: I have no further questions.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild?
3 MR. GUILD: Could I ask for a brief recess?
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Sure. Let's take 10 5 minutes.
6 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which 7 the proceedings were resumed as follows:)
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We're back in session.
9 Mr. Guild?
10 MR. GUILD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
11 RECROSS EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. GUILD:
() 13 0 Mr. Vannier, I just want to clarify, if we can, it least 14 based on what information we have available to us, what j
15 the source of some of these entries are on Mr. Puckett's 16 test or what we believe to be Mr. Puckett's test.
17 Do you have that one?
18 A I have -- this is Mr. Puckett's?
19 Q Yes.
20 Turn to the first page, if you would. I'm showing 21 you the document which is the original -- which appears 22 to be the original of the document that counsel supplied 23 to me, and it has indeed some markings in red ink which 24 appear to be Mr. DeWald's handwriting; correct?
25 A Yes.
O Sonntac ReDortina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
-3 ~- , - - - - - - ., .m__-
3276 1
1 Q If you would follow through,' the circles around " reject" i
2 in No. 2 -- are those in red ink?
3 A They're in red.
1 4 Q And the circle around No. 3 and No. 4 also in red ink?
5 A They ' re in red.
6 Q All right.
7 The circle around No. 5 is in red ink, is it not?
4 l 8 A Yes.
9 Q The word "okay" under No. 6 is in red ink?
10 A Yes.
- 11 Q In No. 8, the line through the word "REJ" or " reject" is 12 in red ink, is it not?
() 13 A Yes, it is.
14 Q In No. 10, the line through the words " incomplete i 15 fusion" -- is that in red ink as well?
16 A Yes, uh-huh.
17 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, Counsel inf orms me 18 that if Mr. DeWald is recalled, perhaps we can get it l 19 from the horse's mouth exactly what this is.
20 But I didn't want the record to be confused on the 21 question of what was Mr. Puckett's and what was not, at 22 least based on the information we have available.
23 BY MR. GUILD:
24 Q Now, I understood you to say, Mr. Vannier, that you took l 25 into account Mr. Puckett's failure to explicitly
()
Ronntag Renor ti ng Service . Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 L-, _
-m- -
. _ . _ - - - = . _ _
l 3277 O 1 evaluate in his answer arc strikes -- strike that. Let 2 me try again.
3 I thought I understood you to say that you took 4 into account the fact that not just in one instance but 5 in all instances Mr. Puckett failed to explicitly c
6 evaluate arc strikes; is that correct?
7 A (No response.)
8 Q Do you recall that testimony?
9 I'm paraphrasing it, obviously. It's not in your 10 prefiled testimony, but I recall you answering a 11 question earlier on cross examination of --
12 A I thought I said " slag."
() 13 Is that not correct?
14 0 Well, you tell me, sir. I may well have forgotten or 15 misunderstood your answer.
16 A He failed to evaluate slag, I think, in all cases.
17 Q All right.
18 Are you aware that he, in f act, evaluated arc 19 strikes in at least une case?
20 A Yes, and it was Coupon No. 3 --
21 Q Yes.
22 A -- or Sample No. 3.
23 Q On Sample No. 3 he made the remark that the -- let's see 24 specifically what it says.
25 He made the remark "could mask stress risers" with O
Sonntac Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
_ .=- - _ ~ - - _ _ - - _ ..-
3278 1 respect to an arc strike; correct?
2 A Yes.
3 Q I thought I understood you to say that you thought that 4 was a -- reflected a knowledgeable observation or words 5 to that effect.
6 A I thought it was an acceptable explanation, yes.
7 Q So you didn' t mean to say that Mr. Puckett demonstrated 8 a general inability to observe arc strikes, did you, or 9 evaluate their significance?
10 A No.
11 Q When, if at all, would an arc strike be cosmetic, as 12 that term is used in the welding trade?
) 13 "A Well, I guess what we all understand by " cosmetic" --
1 14 that it does not require further action. I guess we' re 15 all talking about that. It doesn't require any 16 mechanical action to remove it or to evaluate it or to 17 repair it.
18 That would be a cosmetic -- in my understanding, a 19 cosmetic discontinuity similar to spatter, which nobody 20 likes; but it's acceptable if it's tightly adhering and 21 doesn't interfere with the mating of parts and things 22 like that.
I 23 (Indicating.)
24 Q But I'm talking about arc strikes now.
25 A Yes, sir.
O Sonntag Reporti ng Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. _ - - - - - . , ,,- ,n - .. - n ..-- - -
~
3279
() 1 0 When would arc strikes be cosmetic, if they would at 2 all?
3 A When they would not require further action, as I said 4 before.
5 Q That's sort of a circular action.
6 What I'm asking, I guess, is: Can you describe an 7 arc strike that is cosmetic?
8 A When it's not rej ectable.
9 Q And when would an arc strike not be rejectable, Mr.
10 Vannier?
11 A When it's not -- when it met the conditions of the 12 criteria -- and I'm not being evasive.
() 13 For example, when it was less than 1/32 inch in i
14 reduction.
15 Q 1/32 is the standard?
16 A It's the criteria for material up to three-eighths of an 17 inch, I believe.
18 Again, that's approximate. I could look up the 19 thickness of the material, but it varies with the 20 thickness of the material.
21 Q Well, what was the measurement appropriate for arc l
22 strikes as it applied to the material in question and 23 the test coupons here?
24 A 1/32 inch would have been maximum.
25 Q Maximum for arc strike?
O Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
- - - - - ~ . , -- .- _ , - - -
l
i 3280
(
1 A The depth, that's correct.
2 0 The depth of an arc strike?
3 A Yes.
4 Q An arc strike is more or less a crater in the base 5 metal? .
6 A In this condition it was. It can be a deposit --
7 0 On the base metal?
8 A -- on the base metal or a foreign material. Those are 9 other considerations. ,
10 Q But when you' re talking about for purposes of when an 11 arc strike is cosmetic, it's a crater we' re measuring, 12 and it's of a depth not to exceed 1/32 of an inch;
() 13 correct?
14 A Yes.
15 Q All right.
16 Now, how do you determine whether the crater of the 17 arc strike exceeds 1/32 of an inch?
18 A We measure it.
19 Q All right.
i 20 You do that with a measuring device?
l 21 A Yes.
22 Q And what is that measuring device?
23 A There are several.
I 24 May I?
25 Q Yes.
I Rnnnknq Regnrf4nq Rorvice. Tk a .
! Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3281 O
1 A There's one here that -- these are very hard to -- for 2 one thing, you can use a scale with a very fine point on 3 it, and I can demonstrate it.
4 I don't know whether everybody can it see it or 5 not, but you stick the point down into the resultant 6 crater, slide the bar down until it meets the base 7 metal, and then take a reading.
8 (Indicating.)
9 Q Okay.
10 A There is another device I have, which is -- has two 11 little points, which you gentlemen cannot see, I'm sure.
12 (Indicating.)
() 13 But I can bring them around or whatever you want.
14 One is 1/16 of an inch deep or in length, and you put 15 that down inside the crater or the undercut. The other 16 one is 1/32 of an inch, a little projection on the end 17 of this.
18 (Indicating.)
19 Q All right.
20 So they're mechanical measuring devices?
21 A Yes.
22 0 And are they read with the eye?
23 A They're read with the eye.
l 24 Q All right.
25 And do two inspectors ever differ in their reading Sonntaa Recortina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- _ _ , ,, _ .,_. _ .- ....., _ - , _ ...- _ _ _w-
3282 O 1 of one of these mechanical measuring devices -with their 2 eyes?
3 A They could.
4 Q And is -- could they differ about whether or not an arc 5 strike is equal to or less than 1/32 of an inch?
6 Is that within a reasonable tolerance of where 7 people might have a difference in their measurement?
8 A If it was very close to 1/32, yes, they could.
9 Q Have you encountered, in the course of your work as an 10 arbitrator of inspections, people who differed in their 11 inspection decisions in the measurement of arc strikes?
12 A Yes, I have.
() 13 0 All right.
14 Among competent, qualified inspectors?
15 A They ' re certified inspectors.
16 Q Now, I was a little unclear about your answer to Mr.
17 Gallo's questions recently with regard again to Coupon 18 or Weld 5. This was a question about whether or not, 19 having identified as you did, there was a possibility of 20 included slag; that that identification was not 21 necessarily a matter that should have been written in i
22 the test answer.
I 23 That was your answer, was it not?
24 A Yes.
25 Q And I believe your answer to Mr. Gallo was to the effect Sonntag Reporti ng Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
_ _ . -_----,_,--.m--- -
3283 l
O 1 that, you know, it's matters of possibility or matters 2 that are speculative and not things that you'd write 3 down, or words to that effect.
4 Was that your answer?
5 A Of speculation?
6 Q State again why, in your opinion, it was not appropriate 7 to note the possibility of slag inclusion.
8 A Well, the slag itself was rejectable, so I don't care 9 what it masked. They should remove it and then evaluate 10 it.
4 11 Q But the -- your observation of the f act of possible slag 12 inclusion reflected that that slag in particular needed
() 13 to be evaluated; correct?
14 A Yes, yes.
15 Q Why, then -- I'll ask it differently.
16 Isn't that a fact that is significant and should be 17 noted on the inspection result -- in this case, the test 18 -- so that the person who is evaluating the test knows 19 that the candidate noted the f act that there was a 20 possibility of slag inclusion?
21 A No. I think the slag was rejectable, and that in itself 22 is what was required.
23 Q Okay.
24 Do you agree that the location of the slag and its 25 size was a fact that should have been noted?
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
-_- , .._ ~ . _ _ ~ . . . - - . . . . . . . . .
3284 1
() .
1 A Whether or'not - ,I'm not evading your question.
2 You mean you should note the criteria?
~
3 Q Note where the slag appears in the -- in the weld, the
'4 location of- the slag and its size:
5 A And it should have been part of the candidate's answer, 6 you mean?
7 Q Yes.
, 8 Do you agree with that?
I 9 A> I believe in this case, had Mr. Puckett rejected it for 10 slag, 'that would have been acceptable. I mean, Mr. --
11 -
yeah, Mr. Puckett.
12 Q I thought your testimony was that -- to the eff ect that
( 13 you believe that 'the candidate should indicate the 14 presence of slag and reflect where that slag was 15 .
located.
16 >A Well, in my opinion, he should have rejected it for 17 slag. Whether or not he located -- indicated the 18 locations are not important, just so long as he rejected 19 it for the slag.
20 Q Well, I'm af raid you've lost me, then, because I 21 understood you to' say that the f ailure to have listed 22 slag that was of a rejectable character was a deficiency i
i 23 in Mr. Vogt's analysis of Coupon No. 5.
l l 24 Isn' t that your testimony?
2E A I thought my testimony was that Mr. Vogt did note two l
L
- Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
1 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3285 l
l 1 indications of slag that were rejectable.
i 2 Q And he missed several other indications --
3 A Yes.
4 Q -- correct?
5 A He missed three others.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild, I don' t think 7 this is a profitable line of questioning, really. It's j 8 just going to take some time.
9 MR. GUILD: Well, I didn't mean for it to be 10 in this detail, because I f rankly thought I had the 11 answers clear on the record, but they seem to be 12 changing.
() 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I don't think they were 14 clear the first few times around with regard to that 15 point, and I don't see how it's going to get any better.
16 MR. GUILD: All right, sir.
l 17 BY MR. GUILD:
18 Q Mr. Vannier, you stated that you are f amiliar with the 19 Comstock weld inspection -- weld inspector qualification 20 procedure; correct?
21 A I have reviewed it, yes.
22 0 Under that procedure, is it permissible to take the 23 written Quality Control Inspector examination with an 24 open book?
! (~g 25 A I'm sorry. I don' t know. I've never administered that V
Sonntac Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3286 O
1 test.
2 Shall I look it up for you?
3 Q That's quite all right.
4 On the -- if I ask you to assume that the Comstock 5 written test was to be taken with a closed book, in 6 effect, without recourse to the code or procedures, do 7 you agree that the questions that I asked you earlier 8 this af ternoon were questions that should have been 9 answerable by a Level III weld inspector without l 10 resorting to research or looking at the book?
11 A No, I don't think so, unless he was prepared in advance 12 with some -- some explanation, "You're going to be
() 13 tested closed-book," and some way it could be indicated 14 so he could prepare himself.
15 I hate to see somebody rely strictly on their 16 memory on questions like that.
17 Q Even for purposes of taking a test?
18 A Well, if they take a test, they prepare for it. So then 19 they know whether it's going to be open-book or closed, 20 don' t they?
21 Q Well, did you prepare for being questioned about the 22 Comstock weld inspection procedures today?
i 23 A I reviewed them.
24 Q All right, sir.
(
25 A Today?
Sonntag Reporti ng service. Ltd_
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
_ .._ .____ _ ---- --_ _ _ _.-._____ _.m._.m
3287 O Not today.
1 2 Q For purposes of your tectimony --
3 A Yes.
4 0 -- in this proceeding.
5 A Yes, yes.
6 MR. GUILD: I see.
7 That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
8 BOARD EXAMINATION 9 BY JUDGE CALLIHAN:
10 Q Is there any instance, in your experience or by your 11 procedures, where a convex arc spatter is other than 12 cosmetic?
( 13 A Yes.
14 Q And under what conditions?
15 A Under the conditions of foreign inclusions -- an 16 inclusion of foreign material is one.
17 Q Into the base metal?
18 A Pardon?
19 Q Into the base metal?
l 20 A Yes. That's one.
21 Q Does the 1/32 limit hold in that instance as well as in 22 the concavity?
i l
23 A No. There's no -- there is no criteria for -- you' re 24 talking about a proj ection --
25 0 Yes.
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 i
3288 O
1 A -- if it projects above the base metal? l 2 I don't believe there's a criteria for that.
3 Q Not a dimensional criteria?
4 A Not a dimensional criteria.
5 Q But there may be a judgmental criteria?
6 A There's a judgmental criteria, yes.
7 JUDG E CALLIH AN : Thank you.
8 BOARD EXAMINATION 9 BY JUDGE COLE:
10 Q Mr. Vannier, in response to a question concerning slag, 11 you indicated that the slag should be removed and the 12 weld should then be inspected.
() 13 Do you reca,11 that, sir?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Who should remove the slag; the inspector or somebody 16 else?
17 A It's normally removed by craf t -- what -- well, 18 inspectors are craf t people now, too. It's normally 19 removed by others.
20 However -- and I can' t exactly tell you how 21 Comstock does their thing -- normally inspectors are 22 issued -- as part of their equipment -- picks, brushes 23 and things like that for those minute or small areas 24 that might be rejectable so that they can remove those 25 for their inspection without calling a crew of people
[}
snnneng n pnrei ng servic.. r.e d .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3289 O back to do that for them; these insignificant areas and 1
2 things like that.
3 They do -- I'm not sure about Comstock. I think 4 they do carry those tools with them, and that's normal.
5 Q All right, sir.
6 Now, the slag that you observed on No. 5 -- is that 7 the kind of slag that would have been removed by a pick 8 and a wire brush?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Obviously, the inspector who was tested, using that, did 11 not remove the slag?
i 12 A That's true.
13 JUDGE COLE: Okay. Thank you.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Miss Chan?
15 MS. CH AN : The Staff has no further questions 4
16 for the witness, 17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You don ' t --
f 18 MR. GALLO: No questions.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Fine. The witness is 20 excused. Thank you for testifying, Mr. Vannier.
I 21 (Witness excused.)
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Are you calling your next 23 witness, Mr. Gallo?
24 MR. GALLO: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Miller is 25 going to call the next witness. If we could have a Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
- (312) 232-0262 4
-m
~~mm*=-- re + s e ,*m w a ,_ . eswza m e m v er_ -- -- m-- - -- - --
i 3290
(
1 moment, I'll go out -- l 2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Sure. l 3 MR. GALLO: -- and advise him.
4 (WHER EUPON, a recess was had, after which 5 the proceedings were resumed as follows:)
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Miller, please call your
! 7 next witness.
8 MR. MILLER: Yes. I call Mr. Anthony Simile 4
9 to the stand.
) 10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Simile, would you stand 11 please, and raise your right hand?
12 (The witness was thereupon duly sworn.)
() 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Please be seated.
4 14 ANTHONY SIMILE 15 called as a witness by the Applicant herein, having been 16 first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
I
, 17 DIRECT EXAMINATION 18 BY MR. MILLER:
19 Q Mr. Simile, would you state your name for the record, 20 please?
21 A. Anthony Simile.
22 Q By whom are you employed?
23 A Comstock Engineering.
24 Q What is your present position about Comstock i
j 25 Engineering?
)
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3291 O I'm the General QC Supervisor.
1 A 2 Q And what is your current business address?
3 A Pardon me?
4 Q Your current business address?
5 A The Braidwood nuclear station.
6 Q Mr. Simile, do you have before you a document which has 7 21 numbered pages and a cover sheet which is entitled 8 "Rorem Subcontention 2.C., Testimony of Anthony T.
9 Simile"?
10 A Yes, I do.
11 .
Q That 21-page document consists of questions and answers.
12 By whom were the answers prepared, sir?
() 13 A By myself.
14 Q Are there any changes or corrections you wish to make at 15 this time?
16 A Not at this time.
17 Q Are they accurate and complete, to the best of your 18 knowledge?
19 A To the best of my knowledge.
20 MR. MILLER: Attached to the testimony are 21 three attachments. .
22 Your Honor, at this point I ask that the testimony 23 of Mr. Simile, together with the attachments, be bound 24 into the record, the testimony as if read and the t
25 attachments accompanying the testimony in the record.
{)
Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- .__~-- _ - _ - - - . - - . _ . . - _
3292 0 1 There is a motion to strike that has been filed 2 with respect to portions of Mr. Simile's testimony.
3 MR. GUILD: M r . Chai rman --
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, Mr. Guild?
5 MR. GUILD: -- aside f rom the motion to 6 strike, we would object to proceeding in evidence, for 7 the purpose of establishing the truth of the contents, 8 one of Mr. Simile's attachments, which is an August 7, 9 1984, transmittal and attached Nuclear Regulatory 10 Commission inspection report.
11 I have no objection to it being received as an 12 exhibit to the extent that Mr. Simile's testimony is 13 that he acted on this document or was aware of this 14 document or relied upon it.
15 But I would object to the inspection report coming 16 in through Mr. Simile f or more general purposes.
17 MR. MILLER : Your Honor, it seems to me that 18 this document, which is an attached inspection report of 19 the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission,. should 20 come under one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule.
21 I agree with Mr. Guild that Mr. Simile cannot 22 provide an evidentiary foundation for even the
! 23 authenticity of the document, but I don' t understand Mr.
- 24 Guild's argument that there is anything about this 25 document that is not authentic.
Sonntaa R eno r ti na Servlce. Ltd.
! Geneva', Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
3293 O
1 This being so, it seems to me that we ought to 2 admit for all purposes at this time.
3 MR. GUILD: No, sir.
4 Mr. Chai rman, I believe that the Commission 5 precedent is that Commission documents are not 6 receivable in evidence without the tendering of a Staff 7 witness to sponsor those documents.
8 To the extent that there are substantive facts that 9 are to be proven by an NRC inspection report, the NRC 10 Staff is obligated, as I understand the case law, to 11 tender a witness who can stand cross examination on 12 those matters.
( 13 It simply is not proper for Commonwealth Edison 14 Company to put an NRC inspection report in evidence 15 through Mr. Simile or some other person who may have 16 received that report or read it or commented on it. It 17 is not proper to put it in.
18 It is hearsay in its classic form to the extent 19 that Mr. Miller seeks to offer it to prove the truth of 20 the matters asserted in that document.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Miss Chan?
22 MS. CH AN : May we have a minute to consult, 23 please?
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Sure.
25 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I might add, before Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~ . . . - - . _- _ --
3294 O Staff finishes conjuring up -- arriving at its position, 1
2 that if this is a matter that the Board would entertain 3 admitting, I believe it's a question of some moment that 4 may affect the rest of the proceeding; and I ask that it 5 not be considered lightly on the basis of a tangential 6 tr ea tment.
7 This witness' testimony is obviously not centrally 8 dependent upon this document. I would seek an 9 opportunity to brief the question. I believe that the 10 authority is pretty clear that the Staff must present a 11 witness to sponsor an inspection report.
12 I don't have the authority at hand or I would have
) 13 cited it, but I would be prepared to brief the question.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Miss Chan?
15 MS. CH AN : Could the Board defer the ruling 16 so we can think about it overnight?
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I'm sorry. Can we defer 18 ruling until you think about it overnight?
19 MS. CH AN : Yes.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. That's fine. That ' s 21 acceptable to us.
22 Do you object to that?
23 MR. MILLER: Oh, no, sir.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN : I don't think your testimony 25 depends that much on the report.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
_ _ _ . _ . _ - _ _ _ ____ l
=_-
3295 l
n v
1 MR. MILLER: Perhaps Mr. Guild could 2 enlighten us as to the authority on which he bases his 3 arguments.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: He said he doesn't have it 5 right now or else he would mention it to us.
6 MR. MILLER : Oh, okay.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: ,It's basically hearsay.
8 It's opinion as to substance. The objections are pretty 9 clear on their f aces.
10 Now, as to the authority, I don't have the 11 authority, either; but the objection is pretty clear.
12 MR. MILLER: I agree.
13 But as I understood it, Mr. Guild's statement was 14 not just that it was hearsay -- because it's covered by 15 one of the well-recognized exceptions to the hearsay 16 rule -- but there is a Commission ruling saying that 17 Staff documents must have a witness to sponsor it.
18 If he could enlighten us --
19 MR. GUILD: I could tell you what I think it 20 is, but I think that's probably not any more helpful 21 than what you might do on the spur of the moment.
22 MR. MILLER: If I read the case, I may recede 23 from pressing the point with Mr. Guild; that's all.
24 MR. GUILD: I'll be happy to provide my 25 speculation on direct, Mr. Miller.
)
Sonntao Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 L - - . - - - .__
- _ _ _ _ _- - . . - . _= .
k 3296 t
O 1 MR. MILLER : Fine.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine. We'll reserve i 3 judgment on that, and Mr. Guild -- have you finished 4 with your --
5 MR. MILLER: Yes, sir.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
- 7 Mr. Guild, you can begin with your -- well, we 8 haven' t admitted the testimony yet, and yo,u have some --
l 9 MR. GUILD: There's a motion to strike --
t 10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes.
11 MR. GUILD: -- portions of Mr. Simile's l 12 testimony, Judge. That appears at Page 6 of the
() 13 pleading that's entitled "Intervenors' Motion to Strike 14 Certain Portions of Applicant's Profiled Testimony,"
15 April 28th.
16 Would the Chair like me to go through these?
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes. Why don't we go 18 through them?
19 MR. GUILD: Answer 10 appears to be the first 20 matter. I believe the relevant portion begins with the 21 last line on Page 6, "I was told that," et cetera.
22 MR. MILLER : Your Honor, this is not offered 23 for the truth of the matter stated but simply to provide 24 a background as to Mr. Simile's understanding of what 25 his assignment was.
Sonntag Repor ti ng service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3297 O JUDGE GROSSMAN: It's acceptable for that 1
2 purpose.
3 MR. GUILD: All right, sir.
4 Answer 14, a similar argument. It's hearsay; and 5 to the extent it's offered to prove the truth of the 6 matters asserted, we would object and ask to strike.
7 MR. MILLER: It is not so off ered.
8 MR. GUILD: We have no objection for it being 9 offered to demonstrate simply what Mr. Simile was told.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, actually with 14, 11 there's no need to limit the answer; but it really makes 12 no difference because the only matters in there were
() 13 with regard to what was told, but it does not establish 14 any other underlying fact.
15 That's fine. Let's go on to 16.
16 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir.
17 MR. MILLER: I believe that the motion is 18 only with respect to one sentence. on Page 13.
19 MR. GUILD: It appears to be a repeat of what i
20 he previously said, "I was also inf ormed at the time,"
21 et cetera.
Y
- 22 MR. MILLER
- Again, it's not offered for the 23 truth of the matter stated but simply as to what Mr.
24 Simile's understanding was at the time that he arrived 25 at the Braidwood site.
l Sonntac Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 3298 O
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Well, that's fine.
2 It's acceptable for that purpose.
3 MR. GUILD: Question and Answer 17 -- the 4 point , I guess, your Honor, is that to the extent that 5 Mr. Simile is speaking beyond his own personal knowledge 6 and is~ speaking for what the NRC inspector said or did 7 or concluded, it is hearsay.
8 MR. MILLER: Well, your Honor, I suppose that 9 this is technically correct.
10 However, Mr. Puckett has been deposed and has 11 verified that t?.s is, in fact, an allegation to be 12 raised. The NRC inspection report that deals with Mr.
13 Puckett's allegations deals with this specific instance.
14 I don't know whether your Honor wishes to reserve 15 ruling to see whether or not this is connected up by 16 later testimony of other parties, but it seems to me 17 that this is really hypertechnical to assert that ,
18 something that one of the key witnesses in this 19 proceeding says about an improper welding is hearsay at 20 this point, and to strike the testimony is just 21 improper.
22 I would also state that --
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, assuming that there's 24 no misrepresentation with regard to the hRC inspector 25 concurring with Mr. Simile's position, I don't see that
' q\m-Annntag ReparH ng Marvice. thd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 t -
3299 O
1 it's objectionable.
2 It offers Mr. Simile's opinion, basically, and 3 indicates that that opinion was concurred in'by the 4 inspector or they both had that same opinion.
5 Is there any question as to that, Mr. Guild?
6 MR. GUILD: I simply can' t answer that 7 question, Mr. Chairman, what the NRC inspector's opinion 8 is; and I think that's the point of the objection.
9 I don't argue when Mr. Simile expresses his 10 opinion. It's when he expresses the NRC's opinion that 11 I --
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. We'll accept this 13 only to the extent that it reflects Mr. Simile's opinion 14 but no further as to what the NRC inspector's opinion 15 was.
16 MS. CHAN: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman?
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes.
18' MS. CH AN : Mr. Schapker will be on the stand, 19 and he can be cross-examined at that time whether or not 20 he concurs in this opinion.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That's fine. Thank you. I 22 appreciate your telling us that, Miss Chan.
23 MR. GUILD: Question and Answer 18, the same '
24 reasons; again, "The NRC investigator," et cetera, 25 " reported that," et cetera.
[}
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1 3300 (2) 1 As to Mr. Simile's own opinion, he's available for 2 examination. As to the NRC inspectors, we don' t believe 3 that Mr. Simile is competent to state the NRC position.
4 MR. MILLER: Well --
] 5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Simile, did the NRC 6 investigator speak to you personally about Mr. Puckett's 7 claim?
8 THE WITNESS: Yes, he did. I accompanied him 9 on this investigation on the stainless steel.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, we won't accept it for 11 the purpose of indicating what Mr. Puckett alleged but 12 only as the basis for -- only for the purpose of showing
() 13 that this is what Mr. Simile investigated on the basis 14 of what the NRC inspector told him.
15 MR. MILLER: I assume that at some later I
16 point when Mr. Puckett takes the stand -- and, in fact, 17 verifies, as I expect him to do, that this was one of 18 his concerns -- that any restriction on the use of the 19 testimony will then disappear.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, the point is we all l
21 know that he raised some concern about bi-metallic 22 welds; but until he gets on the stand, we don't know 23 whether he associated those welds with the stainless 24 steel junction boxes.
25 I think we ought to reserve accepting hearsay i
1 Mnnntaa Report 4no Marvice. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- - . ~ . - - _ . - , . _ . ___ _
_ _ -_~
3301 4
0 1 testimony on that.
l 2 MR. GUILD: Question and Answer 19 -- I j 3 understand the Board's prior rulinos to reject 4 essentially the position we take in our motion on j 5 ultimate issue --
j 6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes. It doesn't appear to 7 me that there's anything objectionable here.
8 Certainly there's a basis for cross examination and 9 probing the opinions here, but nothing with regard to 10 admissibility.
l i 11 MR. GUILD: Yes.
! 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: So we deny that objection.
O 13 .
Sim11ar1y for Mr. Sim11e's Answer so. 20, we don'e 14 accept the objection.
15 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir.
! 16 On 22 we recede from our compound objection.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine.
la And the same for 23, I take it?
19 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir.
j 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And the same for 247
) 21 MR. GUILD: To that extent -- ,
1
! 22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, let me read the last 23 paragraph.
24 MR. GUILD: We would press that objection, 25 Mr. Chairman. It's clearly -- it's clearly hearsay, at Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd. ;
Geneva, Illinois 60134 )
(312) 232-0262 ,
. . _ . -. -.. -. _ = _ . .. - - - -
i 3302 C:)
, 1 least to the extent it's attempting to establish what, i
j 2 in fact, the inspectors did believe; what, in fact --
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I'm sorry. What does that j 4 paragraph start with?
! 5 MR. GUILD: It's Page 20, the last paragraph 6 extending on to Page 21: "Several Comstock QC 1 '
7 Inspectors complained," et cetera, "Their main complaint i 8 was," "They did not believe," et cetera.
9 MR. MILLER : Well, your Honor, I think that 10 the complaints were personally received 6y Mr. Simile, 11 and he acted on them.
! 12 Whether or not the complaints -- if the -- if the
)
~
13 objection is that the complaints themselves may not be 14 factual, I -- I guess I have no objection to stating 15 that we don't assert them for the truth of the matter 16 stated but simply for what was expressed to Mr. Simile 17 and what he did about them.
l 18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
19 Mr. Simile, are you following along with us here?
i 20 THE WITNESS: Yes.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Are these matters that were i 22 brought to you directly by the QC Inspectors or did you 23 hear this f rom another party?
l
! 24 THE WITNESS: These were brought to me i
25 directly f rom the inspectors.
[}
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3303 O 1 MR. GUILD: That's not apparent f rom the f ace 2 of the testimony, but I believe that he is competent not 3 to speak to the substance of what they said but -- not 4 to establish the substance -- the truth of the substance 5 of what they said, but that they said it to him. That's 6 fine.
7 The problem with the language, though, on --
.8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: The top of 21, the first 9 sentence, "They did not believe"?
10 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir. Their belief s -- he's 11 not competent --
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: When you say that, you are
( 13 indicating that they expressed the opinion that their 14 talents were not fully utilized; is that correct?
15 THE WITNESS : Yes.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. With that correction, 17 we still have that last paragraph to consider.
18 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, again to the extent 19 that it reflects, now that we understand, Mr. Simile's 20 knowledge of these complaints transmitted to him from l
1 21 the inspectors, no obj ection.
22 To the extent that Mr. Simile's testimony is 23 attempting to establish what those complaints were, in 24 fact, we do object as hearsay.
25 MR. MILLER: I don't think Mr. Guild and I 1
Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
- (312) 232-0262 l
3304 O
1 have really any disagreement. I don't see that there is 2 really a characterization, but it does indicate what his 3 understanding of the inspectors' complaints were.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN : I think it gives his l
5 opinion.
6 I'm concerned about the first sentence there. Mr.
7 Simile is speaking on behalf of Comstock, and I'm not 8 sure that he is a person who adopted that procedure or 9 what his knowledge of that is.
10 Do you see that sentence saying, "Comstock assigned 11 inspectors to this inspection because it was called for 12 by the licensee procedure"?
13 TH E WITN ESS : Yes.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: How do you know that, Mr.
15 Simile, that that's why Comstock did that?
16 THE WITNESS: This procedure was a supplement 17 to an NCR, which -- we sat down with CECO and went over 18 how the supplement was going to be performed, which did 19 call for five of our inspectors to be working in 20 conjunction with five S & L engineers.
l 21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: There was a written 22 procedure that indicated this?
23 TH E WITNESS : Yes.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Okay. With the comments 25 made by Mr. Guild and Mr. Miller, we accept this
{)
Sonntag Repor hi ng Servi ce. Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 t _ _. --
=__ _
3305 O 1 question and answer, then.
2 So you've moved to have the --
3 MR. MILLER : I now move that it be .
4 incorporated into the record as if read.
$ JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. With the limitations 6 ,
that we've expressed here, we admit the testimony and 7 exhibits and direct that they be bound into the 8 transcript at this point.
9 10 11 12
() 13 14 ,
15 16 17 18 19 i
20 21 22 23 24 C)
Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- -.-x _ - _ = .:_.-----
O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter Of: )
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY )
) Docket Nos. 50-456 (Braidwood Station, Units 1 ) 50-457 and 2) )
ROREM SUBCONTENTION 2.C.
TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY T. SIMILE O .
O April 1986 NG rn .. .,_m
Q.l. Would you state your name please.
}
A.l. Anthony T. Simile.
Q.2. Who do you work for and what is your position with that company?
A.2. I work for Comstock Engineering, Incorporated
("Comstock") . I am currently serving as their General QC Supervisor at the Braidwood Nuclear Generating Station ("Braidwood").
Q.3. When did you join Comstock at Braidwood?
A.3. I came to Braidwood in August of 1984 as a Welding Supervisor for Comstock. I have been the General QC Supervisor for about one year.
Q.4. Would you describe, generally, what your job responsibilities were as Welding Supervisor for Comstock.
A.4. I had overall responsibility for the welding program.
This included development and implementation of welding and inspection procedures, qualification of welders, supervision of welding inspectors and implementation of the welding inspection program.
Q.5. What are your current responsibilitics as General QC Supervisor?
A.S. As General QC Supervisor, I have overall respons-ibility for inspection activities with regard to Cc= stock work on Unit I. The Comstock welding supervisor, electrical supervisor, mechanical supervisor, special project supervisor and second shift supervisor all report directly to me.
,- 0.6. Would you crief.y describe your professional y backgrounc,.
A.6. After ser ing i? Viet Nam, I was discharged from the army in Oct ber, 1971. Shc rtly af ter my discharge I began working in the nuclear industry.
My first job in the nuclear industry was at the Beaver Valley N clear Station during the period 1972 to 1976. I started at Beaver Valley as a Weld Data Technician and progressed to Senior Weld Inspector during my tenure at the site.
From 1976 through 1978, I was with Walworth Valve Company. During that period I served as i
Walworth's resident Weld Inspector. From Walworth Valve I went to Energy Consultants and served as O its Senior Inspector for Vendor Surveillance until late 1979.
After leaving Energy Consultants I went with Spec Consultants. I worked with Spec Consultants from 1979 through 1982. I began with Spec Consul-tants as a Quality Engineer and completed my employment at Spec Consultants as its QA Manager.
From 1982 to 1983, I returned to Energy Consult-ants with responsibility for marketing their quality assurance and quality control programs to companies in the nuclear field.
i
. In 1983 I started with Comstock at Perry l
(:) Nuclear Generating Station. My first position at Perry was as a QC Engineer. During the period I was at Perry, I became Comstock's Level III Weld
} Inspector. In August, 1984, I was transferred to j the Braidwood Station as Welding Supervisor.
i j Q.7. You mentioned that at Perry you were a Level III 4 Weld Inspector. Have you been certified as a Level III Weld Inspector in other positions that you have held?
I A.7. I first became a Level III Weld Inspector for f Spec Consultants. I was also certified as a Level III Weld Inspector for Energy Consultants. As i
l I previously mentioned, I then became a certified i
Level III Weld Inspector at Perry. For some 4
O period of time after my arrival at Braidwood, I was occupied with analyzing the adequacy of the current welding program, revising welding procedures 1 and reorganizing the inspection effort at the site. However, when time permitted, I also com-
. pleted Level III certification at Braidwood.
- Q.8. In the course of your professional experience,
! have you become familiar with and worked with the various codes governing welding?
I A.8. Yes. I have substantial familiarity with the i
j American Welding Society Code ("AWS"), the American a
! Society of Mechanical Engineering ("ASME") Code f
4 i with respect to welding and the ANSI standards with respect to welding.
(])
I a
r -
r-----.e.,,n~,e-----,,,-,---.,,-,,--..n.. ,,,..----.-~--n--,,-~~.n,-. .,---n- ~ ~ - . - - - - - , - , - , - - - , - - - - - , - , ------e, - - - - -,
. _ - --- . .- - . . - - - _ . . - . - . __ ~_
i i
i j Q.9. Would you tell us what contention your testimony 2
relates to.
}
q A.9. Rorem, et al. Contention 2 as amended by Attach-I ment B to the Frelearing Conference Order dated i August 1, 1985. As admitted, this Contention,
)
j which deals with allegations of harassment of L.K.
i Comstock Quality Control. Inspectors, states:
i j ~
Contrary to Criterion I, " Organization" of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, and 10 C.F.R. Section i 50.7, Commonwealth Edison Company and its electrical j contractor, L.K. Comstock Engineering Company have i failed to provide sufficient authority and organiza-J tional freedom and independence from cost and
- schedule as opposed to safety considerations to j permit the effective identification of and correc-
! tion of quality and safety significant deficiencies.
j -
Systematic and widespread harassment, intimidation, i retaliation and other discrimination has been J directed against Comstock QC inspectors and other j employees who express safety and quality concerns l
]
() by Comstock management. Such misconduct encourages the identification and correction of deficiencies t 8
in safety related components and systems at the
! Braidwood Station.
3 Instances of harassment and intimidation j include at least the following:
! 1. At various times since at least August,
! 1984, including in March 1985, more than twenty-l five (25) Comstock QC inspectors have complained
! to the NRC about harassment and intimidation by Comstock supervisors. Such harassment and in-l timidation has been carried out or participated in i
! by QC Manager Irv DeWald, Assistant QC Manager l Larry Seese, QA Manager Bob Seltman and QC Super-l visor R.M. Sakalac. (sic)
Such harassment included widespread pressure l to approve deficient work, to sacrifice quality l for production and cost considerations and to i knowingly violate established quality procedures, i Harassment and retaliatory treatment included threats of violence, verbal abuse, termination of
(:)
E I employment, transfer to undesirable jobs or work j in areas where quality deficiencies could not be noted, assignments to perform burdensome or menial "special projects" and other adverse treatment.
Such discriminatory action was taken because of j the victim's expression of quality or safety concerns. Former Level II QC inspector, John D.
Seeders, has knowledge of these widespread instances of harassment. By letter of August 17, 1984, .
Seeders complained to the NRC, Edison and Comstock management regarding instances of harassment j directed against him. Subsequently, Mr. Seeders was involuntarily transferred to the position of Engineering Clerk in retaliation for his expres-1 sion of quality concerns. Such assignment was i
intended by Comstock to keep Mr. Seeders away from sensitive work areas. Although QC Supervisor, R.M. Sakalac was finally terminated in 1985 for his mistreatment of QC inspectors and other misconduct, the effects of his harassment remain j uncorrected and systematic harassment continues at
- Comstock to the present. (sic) The existence of j widespread harassment impugns the integrity and j
effectiveness of on-going corrective action
- programs designed only to address other widespread
. QA failures at Comstock.
! 2. Comstock management, including QC
] Manager, Irv DeKald and Corporate QA Manager Bob i Marino, harassed, discriminated and retaliated
) against, and ultimately terminated Level III QC i Inspector Worley O. Puckett because Mr. Puckett
! made numerous complaints about safety and quality deficiencies which he identified in the course of
) his duties at Braidwood.
1 I Mr. Puckett was hired by Comstock in May, l
1984 in the newly created position of Level III QC i Inspector whose duties included conducting a
! review of Comstock procedures, tests requirements l for the more than 50 Level II QC Inspectors, review of the Level II's inspection work, and the
- resolution of inspection disputes. Mr. Puckett i was highly qualified with 20 years' nuclear Navy
- and nine years' nuclear power experience. See, l Resume, Exhibit B. During the course of his
! employment with Comstock Mr. Puckett was shocked
- j by the widespread deficiencies in procedures,
- qualification of welders, and material trace-j ability deficiencies. He ultimately recommended a j
complete stop work order for-all welding activity i
I i
l
to permit e f fective c orrective action. See, Memos of August 10 and Aug'st 17, 1984, Exhibits C and j
D. .
~
Finally, he war..ed QC Manager Irv DeWald that "we.are approaching a complete breakdown in our QC program." August 22, 1984 Memo, Exhibit E.
Puckett was subjectei to harassment and retalia-tion because he raised these safety and quality concerns and was terminited on August 27, 1984 by l
DeWald on the pretext that he should have scored
, higher than his 86% on a qualification test. He
, filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor, alleging violation of the employee protec-tion provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S C. 5851. Letter, September 5, 1984, Exhibit F. The U.'S. Department of Labor Area' Director sustained Mr. Puckett's complaint findin~g unlawful discrimination by Comstock against Puckett and ordered relief. Notes of Decision, November 6, 1984, Exhibit G. Mr. Puckett presented his case at a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge on Comstock's appeal. See, Complainant's' Pre-Hearing Exchan'ge, Exhibit H. Comstock settled Mr. Puckett's claim before putting on its case. The terms of
/*% _. settlement are subject to a non-disclosure agree-1 (-) -
ment betvaen Comstock and Mr. Puckett.
Q.10. Describe the circumstances that brought you to BraidWood.
A.10 I was' contacted on Friday, August 24, 1984 by the 1
corporate management of Comstock in Pittsburgh concerning a transfer to Braidwood. At the time that I was contacted, I was acting as the Level III Weld Inspector.at Perry Nuclear Generating F Station.
i
. I reported to the corporate offices in Pittsburgh on Monday, August 27th for the purpose of discussing what my role would be at Braidwood.
I was told that the person serving as the Level
()
r I- _ - . __ _ - . _ _.. .
O III Weld Inspecter at Braidwood, Worley O. Puckett, had raised se/eral ccncerns about the program, but had 'aeen unable or ur.willing to resolve the problems.
I was told that I would be reporting to Braidwood on Tuesday, August 28th, and that my job was to investigate and resolve the issues raised by the current Level III weld inspector.
Q.ll. Describe generally the types of welding being performed by Comstock at Braidwood when you arrived on the site.
A.ll. The only welding process being utilized by Comstock at Braidwood was the shielded metal arc weld process ("SMAW"). This process was used to weld both carbon and stainless steel. The welding of
{} carbon steel materials was in accordance with two welding procedures; Comstock QC Procedure 4.3.3 for the use of E7018 electrodes and Comstock QC Procedure 4.3.3.1 for the use of E6013 electrodes.
Procedure 4.3.3 was used for all structural welding and 4.3.3.1 was used for cable pan welding.
Stainless steel welding was completed in accord-ance with Procedure 4.3.14. No stainless steel welding was being done at the time of my arrival.
Stainless welding had been stopped pending resolu-tion of a, procedure qualification question raised by Mr. Puckett.
O V
t . u-. .- m.L
rx Q.12. When were you made aware of Mr. Puckett's concerns
(_) about Comstock's welding program at Braidwood?
A.12. Upon my arrival at'Braidwood, I was informed of Mr. Puckett's cone. erns and was provided with copies of the documents on which Mr. Puckett had recorded his concerns. A copy of the documents provided to me is attached as " Edison Exhibit, Contention 2.C. (Simile - Group 1) . "
Q.13. What was your understanding of the concerns raised by Mr. Puckett.
A.13. His first concern involved the welding of gal-vanized material pursuant to AWS Code D.l.1-75 instead of AWS D.l.3. AWS D.l.1 is the structural steel welding code. AWS D.l.3. is the structural
() welding code for sheet steel. 'Mr. Puckett insisted that procedures used for welding galvanized steel material A446 to A36 must comply with AWS D.l.3.
rather than AWS D.l.l. The procedures in place at Braidwood at the time had been developed in accor-dance with D.l.l.
Second, I understood that Mr. Puckett had l raised a question about the stainless welding procedure. He had noted that the procedure was only qualified in one welding positien and therefore, wce not properly qualified for use in all positions that welding took place at Braidwood. Stainless n
O s- welding had been completed in the vertical, hori-zontal and overhead pcsitions. The stainless welding procedure was originally qualified in only the vertical position.
I also learned that Mr. Puckett had raised questions about validity of the welder qualification records, but from what I understood, he had never identified a..y specific problems with those records. It was my understanding that he felt there were inconsistencies in some of the records.
Finally, I understood that Mr. Puckett had been asked to resolve an NRC concern about the traceability of the electrodes used for welding at
(-
V) Braidwood. The NRC had found that some of the filler metal withdrawal slips had not been properly completed, and Mr. Puckett had been asked to determine the extent of the problem and recommend solutions.
Q.14. What, if anything, were you directed to do about the matters raised by Mr. Puckett?
A.14. While in the corporate offices on August 27th I was told that my role was to review the concerns raised by Mr. Puckett; determine if changes in the procedures or program at Braidwood were required; and if changes were required, to make the neces-g- sary changes to resolve any problems existing at V
the site.
.0-Upon my arrival at the site I was directed by Irv DeKald, Comstock's QC Manager, to review the velding procedures, the welder qualification records and the welder qualification procedures for any problems that may exist. If there were problems identified upon my review, I was to resolve those p.oblems. At the time I arrived at the site, two NCR's had already been generated in connection with the welding program. NCR No. 3145 dealt with the stainless steel welding procedure qualification question and NCR No. 3099 dealt with welding of galvanized material A36 to A446 pursu-ant to procedures qualified under AWS Code D.l.1
() instead of D.l.3. NCR 3099 had been closed out by the time I arrived on site.
Q.15. What steps did you take to investigate the adequacy of the welding program at Braidwood?
A.15. In order to evaluate the adequacy of the welding program at Braidwood, I reviewed the welding pro-cedures pursuant to the requirements of AWS D.l.1-75 and the Sargent & Lundy Specification No. L-l 2790. The welder qualification records, the welder qualification procedures (Comstock QC i
Procedure 4.7.1) and the procedures governing the traceability of weld filler material (Com-stock QC Procedure'4.3.10) were each reviewed i
() in accordance with the requirements of AWS D.l.l.
1
-11 l
O Q.16. What have been the results of your investigation?
A.16. The results of my initial investigation were reported to Comstock's QC Manager in a memorandum dated September 13, 1984. A copy is attached as
" Edison Exhibit, Contention 2.C. (Simile - 2) . "
Summarizing the results of my investigation, the concern raised about the welding of A36 to A446 material using procedures developed in accordance with AWS Code D.l.1-75 were disposi-tioned in NCR 3099. It was determined that the applicable welding code for both structural and sheet steel welding at the time the Comstock A contr'.ct was signed for Braidwood was D.l.1-75.
(_j AWS D.l.3 was developed as a separate code for sheet steel in 1978, but the AWS code provides that the code applicable at the time of contrac-ting remains the applicable code.
In general, I determined that the welding procedure in place at Braidwood was adequate, but more cumbersome than necessary. As a result, I revised welding procedures Nos. 4.3.3 and 4.3.3.1, deleting unnecessary and repetious materials and simplifying the presentation of necessary material.
For example, the original set of procedures had all of the procedure qualification records appended.
While these documents are necessary to establish procedure qualification, they are of no use to the welder in performing his tasks. In the revised procedures, the procedure qualification records were deleted from the procedure and put in a separate file in the quality control records department. As a second example, a uniform prefix was adopted for all welds using a specified electrode. In the revised procedures, all joint details with the prefix "A" were specified for the use of the E7018 electrode, all joint details with the prefix "B" were for the E6013 electrode and stainless fillet weld procedures were designated with the prefix "C." As a result of the revisions made, the number of pages contained in the weld procedure was cut by two-thirds.
I did determine that the stainless welding procedure, QC Procedure No. 4.3.14, was not properly qualified in all positions. The problems result-ing from the unqualified stainless weld procedure were dispositioned in NCR 3145. The disposition is that all horizontal and overhead stainless steel welds installed using the unqualified procedure are to be removed. The weld procedure was revised and properly qualified. All reworked I
% aMm _a_ ~mm 4 a _m - a e and M = ._b
welds are to be replaced using the qualified procedure.
The revised procedure was renumbered QC procedure 4.3.3.2. It applies only to fillet welds and is qualified in all positions in which stainless welding is required on the site.
As I testified earlier, I was also informed at the time of my transfer to Braidwood that Mr. Puckett had expressed concern over the welder qualification records, but to my knowledge he had not identified specific problems. Not knowing the nature of his concerns, I performed a review of all welder qualification records for technical I) compliance with the requirements of the AWS code, i.e., that the records reflected that all tests required by AWS had been successfully completed by each welder. There were some minor discrepancies found in the qualification records during this review and NCR 3710 was generated to disposition these discrepancies. None of the discrepancies l called into question the compentency of the welders.
Therefore, all work performed by these welders was
, dispositioned "use-as-is."
Subsequently, Mr. Puckett provided NRC with a list of specific concerns about welder qualifica-1
.- - ~. --...m,.- - - - - - - - - - - _ , . . , , , , . . . .
() tion records. These allegations involved instances )
where the forms contained minor discrepancies from procedural requirements, e.g., a required signature was entered before weld test results had been confirmed by the independent laboratory. I had not inspected fer these type of errors during my review of the qualifications for substantive compliance with AWS D.l.1. These allegatiens have each been investigated and dispositioned under NCR's 4649 to 4656 and 4795. These NCR's are now closed.
NCR 3275 was generated concerning the filler metal withdrawal form issue. This NCR was generated as a result of a concern raised by the NRC in the Summer of 1984. The problem that was identified involved the reported use of E7018 electrodes for cable pan welds. Sargent & Lundy had specified E6013 electrodes for these welds. Upon further investigation, it was determined that the heat numbers shown on the filler metal withdrawal forms were traceable to valid certification papers, the filler metal tensile strength of both E7018 and E6013 electrodes exceeded the requirements of D.l.1-75 and the welders making the welds were qualified on both electrodes. Thus, no hardware problem existed as a result of the dccumentation
(])
error.
() In addition, steps were taken to prevent recurrence of the documentation problems found.
The hanger fabrication installation procedure was revised, introducing a traveller system to the program. The procedure for storage, issuance and control of filler metal calls for daily return of
. electrodes to a centrolled area and documentation of the weld installation record number on the filler metal withdrawal form. With this procedure in place, a clear record exists of where each electrode that is withdrawn is utilized.
Q.17. Mr. Puckett also alleged to NRC that he had observed a 1/4" plate welded to unistrut on which the welds violated AWS D.l.1, paragraph 8.8.5.
(,s) This paragraph provides that " Fillet welds deposited on the cpposite sides of a common plane of contact shall he interupted at the corner common to both welds." Did you investigate this allegation?
A.17. Yes. I accompanied the NRC inspector in his investigation of this allegation. We visited the fabrication shop to observe the assembly of these units. We found that the design drawings for these units require two full length fillet welds running parallel to each other in a single plane along opposite sides of the plate. The drawings also require one full length fillet weld running perpendicular to the two previously described welds O
n V in a parallel plane. We found that the fabrication shop did properly interrupt the welds at each corner common to two welds. The welds were not run con-tinuously around the corner. However, because of the fact that the plate is relatively thin, the full length welds do touch at the common corners.
This application is in accordance with the design drawings and the AWS code.
Q.18. Mr. Puckett has also alleged that Comstock has made bimetallic welds without having a bimetallic weld procedure and without qualifying its welders to do bimetallic welds. Have you investigated this issue?
A.18. I am aware of no bimetallic welds performed by
(} Comstock at Braidwood. The NRC investigat'or, following up on Mr. Puckett's allegation, reported that Mr. Puckett claimed the bimetallic welds were associated with the stainless steel junction boxes within the reactor building. I personally investi-gated the subject junction boxes and found that all welds to the boxes are stainless steel to stainless steel welds. It is my conclusion that there were no bimetallic welds performed by Comstock at Braidwood.
O
() 0 19. In his August 22, 1984 memorandum attached as part of Simile - Group 1, Mr. Puckett said that Comstock is " dangerously approaching a complete breakdown in our QC program." Based upon your investigation of the program, was Mr. Puckett's assessment correct?
A.19. No. In August, 1984, Comstock had welding pro-cedures and a procedure qualification program in place at Braidwood which met the requirements of AWS D.l.l. These precedures were adequate for all welding being conducted at the site, with the exception of the stainless steel procedure qualif-ication problem discussed above.
Also the welder qualification procedure, Comstock QC procedure 4.7.1, was in compliance
() with the requirements of AWS D.l.l. Welders were being properly qualified under that procedure.
Finally, the weld inspection procedures and the program implementing those procedures was adequate to assure that the welding done met the quality requirements of AWS D.l.1 and Sargent & Lundy Spec. L-2790.
Based on these facts, I think Mr. Puckett's suggestion that the welding program was approach-ing a complete breakdown is wholly unfounded.
A V
Also in the August 22, 1984 memorandum, Mr.
('~) 0.20.
Puckett suggested that all welding should be stopped pending a "ccmplete review of [Comstock]
procedures, wel:ers caalification and welders filler metal withdrawal forms." Was this an appropriate suggestien by Mr. Puckett?
A.20. No. My basis for saying that a general stop work order was not warranted is premised largely on the facts listed in response to the previous question.
These facts point to the conclusion that, on the whole, the welding and quality assurance program of Comstock in August, 1984, was adequate and in compliance with applicable codes. Admittedly, I recommended and implemented some changes to improve the program. However, these programmatic changes
(} were made to simplify and streamline the program, l
not because I found substantial breakdowns or deficiencies in the program that was in place.
Q.21. Before coming to Braidwood, have you during the course of your employment at Comstock had respons-ibility for investigating and identifying program deficiencies at nuclear power station construction sites?
A.21. I was responsible for the welding program at the Perry Nuclear Generating Station. It was my responsibility at Perry to insure that all pro-cedures were proper, and all welders and inspec-tors were qualified. It was part of my job to O
investigate, identify and rese~_ve prograr defici-encies.
Q.22. Has anyone ever attempted to restrain you from conducting a full and complete investigation or inquiry concerning the sufficiency of the welding program at Braidwood or any other nuclear construc-tion site where you were employed by Comstock?
A.22. No. I have always had the freedom to identify, investigate and report any deficiencies in these welding programs.
Q.23. Have you ever been harassed by anyone because of your investigation of the adequacy of a welding program at Braidwood or any other site at which you were employed by Comstock?
A.23. I have always had full cooperation from the quality and the construction side in investigating and resolving welding program issues. Comstock's
() position has always been to encourage personnel to identify problems, to act to correct deficiencies and to take necessary steps to prevent recurrence.
Q.24. Let me ask you to address one final topic. At least one QC inspector testified during his deposi-tion about his dissatisfaction with a Sargent &
Lundy walkdown project which you were supervising and to which a handful of inspectors had been assigned. This was a special project which teamed Comstock QC inspectors with Sargent & Lundy engineers for the purpose of documenting the as-built con-figurations of cable pan hangers. He testified that his dissatisfaction stemmed in part from the nature of a checklist the inspectors had been told to use. Please describe.the project, the check-list (s) involved and any controversy that developed during this program.
A.24. The Licensee issued a revised cable pan hanger walkdown inspection procedure in June, 1985, as
() part of its disposition of two Licensee NCR's.
(} A copy of the precedure is attached as" Edison Exhibit, Contention 2.C. (Simile-3) . " Under this procedure, Comstock was given certain respons-ibilities for inspection, documentation and gathering of data for an engineering evaluation of the cable pan hangers.
The procedure required that Comstock Level II QC Inspectors be paired with Sargent & Lundy j engineers to walkdown the cable pan hangers com-paring the hanger as-built configuration to Sargent & Lundy drawings of the hanger. The inspectors were provided with a checklist of attributes to be reviewed. Any differences bs/ between the drawing and the hanger configuration were noted and the differences were evaluated by Sargent & Lundy for engineering significance. If the actual hanger configuration was approved by Sargent & Lundy, the Sargent & Lundy drawings were modified to reflect the as-built configuration.
The modified drawings were returned to Comstock QC to assure that the modified drawing included all differences found during the walkdown.
Several Comstock QC inspectors complained about the program. Their main complaint was that the work required of them in this walkdown was
(} work more appropriate for a Level I inspector.
() They did not believe their talents were being fully utilized. The other complaint expressed was that the inspectors were not being asked to inspect welds on the hangers. The stated reasons for this complaint was that it kould be more efficient to inspect these welds during the current walkdowns than to have to conduct a separate inspection at another time.
Comstock assigned inspectors to this inspec-tion because it was called for by the Licensee procedure. The inspectors' complaints did not raise any question about the quality of the
~
engineering review being conducted under this
(\ procedure, and therefore gave me no reason to question the direction given to Comstock by the Licensee's procedure.
t i
C:)
l l
i
- - -e =c.~--x 2.- . a-
4er i L. K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY, INC. Eraicwooo 4.11.1
- NONCONFORMANCE REPORT C4/ Sht I of I SYSTEM NONCONFORMANCE REPORT NO. /d5 DATE I-2u _Od INSPECTION CRITERIA: DWG. r_' / c REV. . '/o SPEC. / 7 ' C^
4ROCEDURE: u.J.fd c o/,7/.EL OTHER . ' /.'
LOCATION ,_ /n ITEMIS) DESCRIPTION o_ re ? 1- 0 a E do .3 ?
DESCRIPTION OF NONCONFORMANCE: L.sc.C t.o ILc N2cC Cc/u 4/ 4. 3. /4 /S 42aAl l E o n.1 a n.: t Y T oi 5La da S e 4 e a n,., .D . t . I OZAua 2d S To Af A ?CcC5.c{u 122 2i C. mt , C'oid a sd At t,
- T Jr 'PL z i &
- a su 5 e+ i s T: f. i U.1 L u i,u. ,2LI~ D I.s S.2 v...-
P.Coc.J clu.22. w as. a.u.a t,r, m Firs m D,,04 .s a y , 2. 7, _s ,a.3,2 G. mz/pLic mLt c/s .S 1:n 2.% TD C.a2f.ca. 5 }gs L. p,:pg hg,w:, r,a ig .7%;. 5,u AL: Tui d' A:Be ?no; + p.sp ag gyu_a g;, ,5g q, g gg _ 4. 3 ,4 ,_ , g. , g ,
c n; t_ e
'T>. E., ,S t ?=s e M a nu . OI . s Q ~ ,5;,u.s k E.G 26 C E G T'a M w ;'y u Pa, }im .
Q E.r. O t. I TA M : .S.23 NUMBER OF HOLD TAGS APPLIED dio CC INSPECTOR N. DATE 8-Jd Pf/
10 CFR 21 PROCEDURE 3.1.3 YES N /
REPORTABLE ITEM CONCURRENCE BY Q.C. MAN AGER W
USE. AS IS REWORK REJECT OTHER RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION:
EXPLAIN JUSTIFICATION:
ego nmeWC pg5 'tIV
[ q 31 CI,M '.5 -GMO5m '5 DATE COMSTOCK PROJ. MGR/ DESIGNEE ACTION TO PRECLUDE REPETITION:
DATE COMSTOCK PROJECT MANAGER (OR DESIGNEE)
CLIENT CONCURRENCE WITH DISPOSITION: (COMMENTS)
CECO CA SUPV. DATE CECO FIELD ENG. DATE CECO PRCJECT SUPT. DATE O
TITLE C AIG. D ATE REV.DATE F C A M *e B R l P4 E P AR E') AP8AC=~D QEVISED E
PROCEDURE 5/18/79 14 ROM AJT IFO 03/01/84 l Edison Exhibit, Subcontention 2.C.
(Simile-Group 1) ,_
a f
' L K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY,1NC. A
- 2"# N '~ " '# QA SECT j
~
- t. v t 9. h - < -l a. A E 4 . 3 i 4 . .t G,uccis<4d G,a A ci u ,c, a n,mg es k mL % c.2.L.L.5.5 T%e d T<L ~T%t w i.C.5 a.?" TuETz.55t u,%
- c. o z .a s s e t. r, c M ice 4 a r. 4 ,2 ce .c.2 c i2 c ric.-f n e n c a m i s G. u- t i 7; e -4 u mt.;mi+cd % ;c.r e s.: n .
. C..*
- .. , Y2
.a fy ;P.
,,, o : e - 's-$g u a'J7,'ah~ q?, j @Yo.
?(y'id y hfu l
O JAS 3
4
':0 : Irv. DeWald Augus t 22, 1984 FROM: W. Pucke tt O
Irv:
Over the past few weeks I have been performing a preleminary review of cur Weld Procedures. In addition tc the ones that I have already recommended stop work on i.e all stainless and A36 to A446 using E-7018. There are at least five others that were incorrectly qualified. These being all the procedures involving galvanized Asm A446. 'Ihe afore mentioned procedures were qualified using the cryteria of AWS Dl.1 1975 and it should have never been done. AWS Dl.1 cryteria was never intended to be used to Weld materials less than an 1/8" thickness our heaviest guage unistrut is 12GA which is .105 all of our procedures that invclve A-446 should have been qualified using the cryteria of D.1.3 which has r. completely different set of test requirements and a completely different set of essential varaibles. In addition to these pro-cedures that I can assure you are not qualified there are so many inconsistancies in the remaining procedures that we are using that I'm sure their qualification ,
would be considered indeterminate. I'm aware of the impact it would have but I strongly recommend that all weldings be stopped and that and all out effort be started to do a complete review of our procedures, welders qualification and welders filler material Withdrawal Forms and once the magnitude of our problems have been determined we can better address our non-compliances and formulate a plan that will bring us back under the codes and specifications we should be working too.
Irv I work for Cemstock too and I speak from a lot of experience with the Procedures being what they are and the moral of the QC Inspectors being what it is we are dangerously approaching a complete break down in our QC Program.
I think you are aware of this and I'm sure neither of us would want this to happen.
Sincerely ,
- a ,b . e , G . - ;. __
Worley O. "Puckett WOP /pb cc: R. Seltrann O
- - - - - . - me m - 4 % ..a - en a a e sea,m- A
p '
~
L. K. Comstock & Company, Inc.
O .
Memorandum To: L.X.C. Sucervision office: Braidwood From: F. Rolan suWeet: NCR 83099 Date: 08/17/94 Control No. : C84-08-50 You are directed to STOP immediately all welding of ASTM A-36 to ASTM A-446 material using E7018 elec
- ode until weld procedure 4.3.3 is qualified in accordance with n's 1.1 1975 Sect. 5, Part B.
Also, stop all welding operations on s taini ss steel until welders are qualified in all positions as indi ated or ...emo a um of August 15, 1984 from Irv DeWald (84-05-15-016 g
F. Rolan Project Manager Attachments FR/dp
. cc: D. Bryant I. DeWald J. Klena l B. Seltmann i
Area Managers Area General Foremen file I
A I i
o 'th # i 1
,, . L K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY,INC. Eraewoeo 4.11.1
~
NONCONFORMANCE REPORT
~~
SYSTEM VADT0"$ Sht ! of 1 NONCONFORMANCE REPORT NO. ?aso DATE 09I '94 INSPECTION CRITERIA: OWG. VA#T0"5 R EV. ? & D T 07'S SPEC. 1-2700 PRCCEDURE: 4.3.3. nr e c OTHER N/A ITEM (S) DESCRIPTION LKC 4.3.3. Dei. C LOCATION 3 ? A tdt,'00D DESCRIPTION OF NONCONFORMANCE: LKC does not have a procedure to veld ASE A-36 to ASTM A-446 using E7Q18 ele::rede. A weld procedure has never been qualified in accordance with A*.;S D1.1 1975, Sect. 5, Psre 3 for these =aterials.
All work previously done to procedure 4.3.3 using ASTM A-36 to ASTM A-446 is indeterminate.
NUMBER OF HOLD TAGS APPLIED 2 OC INSPECTOR .bh. -@ ATE 8' /7-8f 10 CFR 21 PROCEDURE 3.1.3 YES [ NO REPORTABLE ITEM CONCURRENCE BY O.C. MAN AGER USE.AS.lS REWORK REJECT OTHER RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION:
- EXPLAIN JUSTIFICATION:
~.l'4 ? @,f f( 3.5 ?,.f
,:. h Y A aa, '. . a .n
'}y ' ?,,)- :> - - -.. 'Vh ~ h) $
- SL DATE COMSTOCK PROJ. MGR/ DESIGNEE ACTION TO PRECLUDE R EPETITION:
DATE COMSTOCK PROJECT MANAGER (OR DESIGNEE) l CLIENT CONCURRENCE WITH DISPOSITION: (COMMENTS)
DATE CECO OA SUPV. DATE CECO FIELD ENG. DATE CECO PROJECT SUPT.
O PREPARED /P AQV f D REvtSED TITLE QRIG. D ATE REV DsTE E
FORM N84.
IFD PROCEDURE 5/18/79 14 ROM AJT 03/01734
_..-...-...s - - -
m - s..w w -.% , e- s. . , s w un. a
4 k.--
19^
O comstock engineering, Inc.
. Memorandum i
T. Rolan of t;ce: Braidwood To h:,m::. DeWald Welding Qualifications G Procedures Auerust 15, 1984
$g One.
, control No: 84-05-15-01 In reference to W. Puc.kett's cbservation and concerns with our present Welding Procedure, there are definite inconsistancies in the Stainless Steel Weldir.g Procedure which are: .
- 1. A) ne welders are not qualified in all positions as the .
SG position was used for the Initial Qualification.
B) ne welders have to be qualified in the 2G Horizontal Position to be qualified for all positions.
C) he procedure that was qualified in the' SG position does not qualify a B1.Metalic Weld.
~
Exa:ple: SA-240 Type 304 Stainless Pla'te to SA312 Type 304 Stainless Steel Pipe, or SA312 Type 304 Stainless Steel Pipe to any grade
( Carbon Steel Plate.
- 2. A Weld Qualification Procedure has to be done for welding ASTM-A36 to AS M A446 using E7018 Electrodes.
o
- 3. Se above mentioned Welding Qualifications for the welder and procedure has 1.o be accomplished in order to bring our procedures BP 4. 3. 3 and BP 4. 3.14 into compliance with AWS Dl.1 Specifications.
4 .' I5 view of the above mentioned problems I reconunend that all stainless Steel Welding be stopped until such time as Item #1 has been corrected.
- 5. Se Carbon Steel Welding Procedure should be qualified as soon as possible.
O
- - - m ,._ ._-,_--__- _ . - , -- - - _
F. Folan - centrol No: 04-05-15 cen tinued Paga 2 For any further required information W. C. Puckett should be contacted.
He is presently getting the Qualification Process set-up for the ASTM A36 A446. -
Attachment 3 Raspectfully, 1
w o % _x I. F. DeWald Quality Centrol Manager Iro/pb -
cc: W.O. Puckett R.3Seltmann QC File QC Mgr. File i
M e
1
- i i
e e
i e
e i
, _- mm
sa r. .ts' 8 C'. CS )
..pgy. g$ #0.3 Om == Nonc be %.s, Inc. . DW9cet, PA 1 $C6 g;4.t ..
ar . p a s a r.. . *t :
/. f
( -
L K. COMSTCCK & COMPANY, INC.
READ 3 ,) REPLY [ ,::.:::.,, ,.f,[
c w ,
I w.
Dr_ww em 2 -i.5-2 4 a c. M a n ac.1 2. .. wueC: 2 c.wuza b, F,s a : a L 1. . d. [.s M S ho.*, ' ) . 5la P w a 2.C..
- = . _
3
- - ' --== -av '
3 pap-: n j . ;_s a c Qg__Sp~ , ,j bi j__ ; } ( n g
- 1 <
i acui; rc na:.d r v .,z u.9 m;h %Lw%S Coessaicias wn mias l
9 PukLa.u.s,. z a.ubea aa,+. . w h .itz Pac ~da.=_s m.d n ts e,at_;ric.c. .rh _sE // Pr~.wms.adies .s-A e mac m a ////
1
-T~;.s o a L2.. w ~ ~,P!;-usa . kr=.t_m.t a - ,aa u.s1-.2 as:
- .515.L1,,Esf32.M.L . ; A ' 'W4Ca aE, A 3f.n_ 'Ia" A AM M 5M E* lE/2 ~~~' ' N G.-
scNED -
- O- O. b- I T
T t" 7 3
r I s' SIGNtc DATE l
a
'N RECElvtR: WRITE REPLY, CETACM STUB. KEEP PINK COPY, RETURN WHITE CCPY TO SENDER.
.....m.-
O !
I i
1 o .
- . - - - - ..r.. y--
- - L. K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY, INC. Era w,coe 4.11.1 NONCON'FORMANCE REPORT
- l' A ' T O'.'
Sn 1 o* 1
, SY3 TEM
"~ ' A!!ACF.MI':T A' t "s c e .acr -/c;
- DATE O NONCONFORMANCE REPORT NO.
O DWG. l'i?
- n'*9 REV. S'2 ? T AS-SPEC. 1- Ton INSPECTION CRITERIA:
- - " OTHER "'A PRCCEDURE: ' 3.' .
ITEMfS) DESCRIPTION 'E i .3.3 0 e .- C LOCATION 3 0 i !'1'.*T DESCRIPTION OF NONCONFORMANCE: I.KC does not have a procedure te veld ASTM A-36 to ASTM A 446 using E7013 electrode. A weld procedure has never been cualified in accc:danc e with A*.*5 01.1 197 5, Se::. 5, Par: 3 for these =a:erials.
All verk previously d:ne to pr:cedure 4.3.3 using ASDi A-36 :: ASD: A l.4 6 is indeter=inate. gi, s i,a WP tg NUMBER OF HOLD TAGS APDLIED 2 ,0@.!i [SPE Q %b f .. CATE ?* /7 fV
- . 2 . ..y .
~
10 CFR 21 PROCEDURE 3.1. .,t YES
- j *'^ M. _ _
p :. -). .
y -
REPORTABLE ITEM CONCU3 Rfh.c?f.CLt' SAN AGER
_ h.?.l1.& ' .
T N USE. AS-IS REWORK ] REJECT OTHER RECOMMENDD f5 EXPLAIN JUS IdWwTTON:
Pa.A,7 u=3 23e=_.2 3 s ;a.7 7 a r= , _ p,;: c3, G.CHD\Tce
- DE:Sa Ci m A* =>v E. 6 %=rt- s x w e, .a 3.:.:. s%. ~s
- ~
WiE.LCMMC, ci: A % To A- 44 Gee N F'c'~_r 23esacio.u:, "'s -m a 4 e.svtm pE.t:
e-PAhE.TEc d 5 PE.C.a Atr :> oa WP6 % ;W _.2 *W38 u P g.=: c.m c..e .
l -- 1O.- IW DATE 8:!. 22 m A COMSTOCK PROJ. MGR.DESIG:*EE h v +- > N /
- N ,.A w m ACTION TO PRECLUOE REPETITION: g___. A . EO 66 M'~d b ~
- N S E.E 6 c i 3"c WTW EE.A% E*.SvN:_: D.
L_ DATE 8:b.2 2 8,4 COMSTOCK PROJECT MANAGER (OR DESIGNEE) b )O @
CM.e c) L/ 4A%t:
CLIENT CONCURRENCE WITH OtSPOSITION: (COMMENTS)
M J4?7CE.5 VATA T*rd a.bn bt a%S6TtCNA,i.,o0 iu00 As NbCA;Q t>4 hO dan ~ND ::Sl"D.lf 4 ATiMt%133 N h? N aSIM3 PVU4 ADD Sl7,3l$4.; R MTh ON 6l44%. . FiiAD tt To Cc64Tiwt. AATT A O is wet Tb 6E LuB t#ts 433. s.h tit. A
,% Aygg . n ,
N n. r A !. . / A s h /Ab%l}!( ~ ' 'VWt . 9~t " U- Mvh h d b 5 . 9. mll!:
CECOOAyUPV. DATE /jECO cf ELD ENG. DATE 5CJEd7SL C DA7 O -
23m'. N5n
? Appa0.i; Aiv:SI"; . tr i l 7. ~. L . ' i I. 04 I ,
- 1. r. I J , 8 i : ,
- OM 1
AJT IFO l PROCEDURE 5 13/79 I ;.3 d g: 14 l
l
h N Als Ll .
REVi{\'{$,D, INT. M '
'DATE CORRECTIVE ACTION COMPLETED O
Oa o.uk RESPONSIBLE COMSTOCK FIELD REPRESENT 4.TIVE s.23.,4 DATE D vih U DamadM O. C. VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIO*.
REJECT OC INITI AL/D ATE REASON FOR REJECTION.
ACCEPT REMARKS / ACTION TAKEN:
n N'"Od bd OC INSPECTO P
' k d Mbg DATE NONCONFORMANCE CLOSED
'/Ohd DA M -- d T - M (/ .
REVIEWED CC MGR/ DESIGNEE .
COPIES: COMSTOCK PROJECT MANAGER I COMSTOCK ENGINEERING DEPT.
Q. C. RECORDS FILE edi,). 4 e , f,0. *.s d
k 1 .s.z.u r C \. m t'g S h I. 8, &
vpau.Mco 3u O N T _i 0 2,; O. O a 7 E SE. CATE ,
- ,p.. . .,3 =
AP8 ROV E E . : S i ~,
PREPARED E PROCECURE 5/18/79 l 1.: ,
ROM AJT IFD ,
03,.0.. ...o. ,
NCR 3275 .
Sheet 4 l t gy Conmod Engineering, Inc.
0 Memorandum R. Saklak Office: Braidaced To.
W. Puckett
Subject:
Pod Slips Date Aueust 17 1994 Control No:
W 84-08-15-14 4 g a/f7' During the period of tire that I was doing Pasearch en Neld Rod Slips for the months of May, June and July of 1982 it occured to re that the problers we were having during the afore mentioned period could possibly be generic through other periods, so I performed a spot check on the Rod Slips Issued in Decerber 1982, Septerber 1983, January 1984, June and July 1984 and during this period the pr ble= did persist, however not as prevelant in the year 1984. In additien during the period prior to May 1982 Heat Nu=bers for I-6013 electrode were not entered on the weld filler material with:.8.rawal for=. I also took a sarpling of heat nurbers off of these previously issued Rod Slips to see if they could be traced to doc =entation the Heat lot nu=bers in the Research of Twelve separate heat n=bers I was successful in all but three heats 40157441 and 40159011 for E-7018 and 35202061 for E-6013.
It would be :mf suggestien at the very earliest convenient tire that a more thourough review be performed on all the Pod Slips so as to have an in-house identification of any major problers we may have.
Faspeetf ully ,
u.u .C W. O. Pucke tt l
WOP /pb cc: QC File
' QC P.gr. /
MCEly59 s
- E01TP: O LXco4mf- h) 7:. cm 47 Q S
. : . m. ,.-
i i
S R 3275 Y Sheet 5
.f.f. . . .
~~
Comstock Engineering, Inc.
Memorandum Office: Braidwood To: R. Saklak from: W. Puckett Rod Slips Date: April 15, 1994 Suoject:
Control No: 84-05-15-14
/
In regards to Weld Rod withdrawal Fer=s dated '.setween 5/25/87 C'< pj/' g' and 7/22/83, the main concern involves three heat nu=bers 411P4161 and 40259001 for E-7018 and 2D209508 for E-6013.
N.R.C's concer.. was that the Weld Fod withdrawal For:s referenced a type of Rod i.e. , E-6013 but the heat nurber listed for the material is documented as being E-7018. I prefor:ned extensive research on these Rod Slips with the follcwing results.
l.,
2e three heat nur6ers afore rnentioned are goed heat nu=bers traceable to valid certifica ion papers.
- 2. We ec=penents on which they were used, the filler strength :neets or exceeds the strength requirements.
O 3. he welders making the welds were qualified to use either filler.
4 ." We have an obvious procedure violation which could be aleviated in the future by a thorough Indoctornation of the craf: tool rec = weld red issue clerk.
- 5. A non conferr.ance report should be initiated listing the heat nurbers and types involved and a outline of the procedural violat. ion. .
Pespectfully,
._., , c k . b - -
W. O. Puckett WOP /pb .
l l
cc: QC File g *g
' %lflc$y .
til p 8
"N L
4M
' *** ATTACFr.:NT A Orces ab oa )
. . cary:A room en - Als.ho Benau Fams, Inc. . Nimom, PA 15124 Pag e 5 of 5.. r . . , . t..:.. ,s
. .. a vso.
L K. COM5TOCK & COM.DANY, INC.
F /O07
" ~ ~ '
REPLYx) unasst g, ,u
- * * (
READg.k/. -
l lm....ECESSARY F
1
-- s 2-s.3-24 w y - DrwaL a ei.Tt swtCr 2rr.a uuz.ad flsi.: s n G C. MA a +a 52 ... . ._
L L.t. Cs u.s fae u: .
) slap wa2c .
3
' ? .*CI?.V : A Ca P ' =* *T'n Al T.}.$ 4A C $E sPau 1i bll l} c 13
~ .
- . I?
ADEdlt f'( An.; 6ML u.$ f t.)l}t-1 % / bicd.S 0.sn.' SL2n.1546 s L.) ~~/ nim &
- PieoU a.u.s. r ca.a)-ea. Ac ,e #. v.-m F. :7Lz . Pac ~ 1. m a.wd -ra ha
. 4af._s'7 > n. '1' A .5lr ll. 0~~" ^ Mms.&icG .5N P usaec u n)ls ll
.s
-r~ ;.s . a a 6a. an -~,?%zo _cas_ nu. w-,:oa o,.1w
- s Vet _2:1.o=2nu. w ' m 'e_ca. ak a n. Ta A 44
. s.
< <M&. E .7b2 =~! " l2.edG .
sore --' A- C. b"
....=
j -.
- S- S-YO -AN-0:F G A-- 3001 V T F01 F0Wf~ 0 N 0 N _Y i I
j sicato 3t i
CUVS UU$y.U. E .
J RECEIVER: WRITE REPLY, DETACM STUB. KEEP PINK CCPY, RETURN WHITE CCPY TO SENDER.
S W "W O 1
O 1
g ,, -. , , .
.N L K. Cut.'.a. . v ..' .( a vu :w: .s. .. .
- . -s G, vaatar
- - 5 READ .a .: . y R: :.3 LY i... s.S - "
to AEFLv
.~= ee I MECESSA81Y
%ar.,,-a. - s. . . . - . + -.- c u ... , , , .
V ..
.1 / ~ - ,- 4. .a 'a b "'Z - !" 4 g ', 1 -
DATE f.i ,.'. A. > 4 <r. i- / d . . S'.;BJECT 4 -- * * ' ' ' J '. - e -
l la s.. . . . 5 'l~4. u. It, 'l. .*. I bl 5 ' / 44 - t '7-sc.
- ' ' ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " " ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - ' ' ' '
~~ T
~ ' '
/""..'..,a...'"''''"""
e .
g iv.,
y I J * - J
-t L t- o .h tut :' s. .' .a. A.. . . id :. . ,f , Tot. oo ir, ** T se t t. L., e s s s-I
. l o . 's r. Tu 2: E
- u. / , / u : o ... - o . c. i. ~../ , ', ' 4'. '. I */ o 'v C 4-t2 Ex
~
- i~,o e o?.~.: ts. lw ,* ~ .
i
~
i C. t . .ll $.o.,./..l./,-It'.
o *o . .$ o! $b1 (~s.
- bl.. o, i 1. C, / / ? '~ 1 -s t 8 j
. .. n o ,
r, s 4 / ,. t ?
t . . . . .: ...e .t. .- t :.a. . _ .. ; - in . .t , ,, L t e
1 i .:. , l , . , . c . / 6 . c c . c es
'~ '
5 t 'i - i. C I .v.=,~ - ~ ., - . -= u.m. .: - =me so.sc.e.u-
. .- ---==..m.-,. .-
h.i. 7 c.<+r- : & -< s- / !.
yc i... .t~u c c < r,e,,s.! .:rt du 7 n.:a.s i- m >c
{
i _-
1 P M
- Nes ' ,7 / >~' **, c ot 7 cs o f f s- '
d.:. u /'s.s .2%~. // s.4.*c's // e d /Ja e 4 I
Vs= l'</.6.s. 5 n /<'E.4's/s.'/ f / 8 4 u a l' ??'& pst ::: c Es.jp.<< .g. , W A 'S <
/S y'c p ~ 72%,3+~cid',,d'sj- st- .-%cr .?7n c c ,.jiw,4A' ,,
na OuM~s
,c'.,.:s .S a / 'm' ' ' mL .'~~c L M ~ n J ' "
s n.<a 6 e i- s77.ec is sic aca . _ - narg
~
Nf'* "' r wMpy j , ,,/-L '
y
( _
,= -, ,. ,_ - :,... . ., .. -- - . , . = - - _ , :,,y . uu -
RECEIVER: WRITE REPLY. DETACs4 STUS. KEEP PINK COPY, RETURN WHITE COPY TO SENDER.
t A
f I e rP
.s asc UNIT E D STATES ,
. %/,,
d' '. NUCLEAA AEGULATORY co",tMisslON ..
O5
! ,, ; nacies in .' l q vos ecosevnt acao . , ,/l -
j s ,c,, /.:j
. es c~ c w ~. u.iuois . u, g , . . ,i
% , J. . ' q-f,,gg 7 GB4 3;ag I i i E9.ygG900 _ _ _
, %di.u;,,
Docket No. 50 456 -
Docket No. 50-457 - IfCg&[3
- -) NM ,[
Comonwealtn Edison Comoany~
ATTN: Mr. Cordell Reed 34 M W g,COMstgg,'
Vice President Ear. M Post Office Box 767 M Chicago, IL 60690 s'1 g 6 ,,, , g .',,
Gentlemen:
46Y This refers to the routine safety inspection conducted by Messrs L. G. McGregor and R. D. Schulz of this office on June 5 through July 6,1984, of activities at Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, authorized by NRC Construction Permits No. CPPR-132 and No. CPPP-133 and to the discussion of our findings with Mr. D. Shamblin at the conclusion of the inspection.
The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies areas examined during the inspection. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a selective examination of procedures and representative records, observations, and O interviews with personnel.
Gil During this inspection, certain of your activities apoeared to be in non-compliance with NRC requirements, as specified in the enclosed Appendix.
A written response is required.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter anc' the enclosure (s) will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room unless you notify this office, by telephone, within ten days of the date of this letter and submit written application to withhold information contained therein within thirty days of the date of this letter. Such application must be consistent with the re-cuirements of 2.790(b)(1). If we do not heer from you in this regard within the specified periods noted above, a cecy of this letter, the enclosure (s), and your response to this letter will be placed in the Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter (and -he accompanying Notice) are not subject to the clearance procecure of Ihe Office of Manzgement and Buoget as required by the Pacerwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
~
. A*h%
.s
,X...,G r , ,, -
(. N. 2u ,.
3
- 1. ;.t 23 diHW O P e: SOCK
- 5.\ t'm.; m . . d@ :*' n .t
< : , io Y' ' & . .. '
it .m;/ g, . , c .g .
~
E.',z.x x. w ,J
4
() Ccemenweal:n Edison Cce:ary 2 We will' gladly discuss any cuestic s you have concerning tnis inscettion.
Sincerely,
.=~'8.'.7/'
. L' 45U l
R. F. Warnick, Chief Projects Branch 1 ;
l
Enclosures:
- 1. Appendix, Notice of Violation
- 2. Inspection Recorts No. 50-456/84-13(CRF),
No. 50-457/84-13(DRP) cc w/encls:
D. L. Farrar. Director of Nuclear Licensing M. Wallace, Project Manager D. Shamblin, Constructicn Superintendent :--
J. F. Gudac, Station '
Superintendent --4
- s. C. W. ec hroeder, Licensirg and Comp.iance Superintendent DMS/ Document Control Desk (RIOS)
Resident Inspector, RIII '
Braidwood .
Residert Inspector, RIII Syron Phyllis Dunton, Attorney General's Office, Environmental Control Division _j ,
Jane Whicher, Esq. ,-
I I
l l -
l
_ , _ . ~ . -y - , - _ _ . .
O l Accendix NOTICE OF VIOLATION Comonwealth Edison Company Docket No. 50 456 Docket No. 50-457 As a result of the inspection conducted en June 5 through July 6,1984, and in accordance with the General Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions, (10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C), the folicwing violations were identified:
- 1. 10 CFR 21.31 states, "Each individual, corporation, partnership or other entity subject to the regulations in this part shall assure that each procurement document for a facility, or a basic comoonent issued by him, her or it on or after January 6,1978 specifies, when applicable, that the provisions of 10 CFR Part 21 apply."
Contrary to the above, procurement documents, numbers 252162, 254434, 259782, 262155, 265347, and 270934 did not specify that the provisions of 10 CFR Part 21 apply for heat shrink tubing recuired to be in O =# a'i "= ~4** tt:5 383-t$74 <ar 94 "s r=d4 *4o" "' 'oc^ "v4r=== "ts-
.}
This is a Severity Level V violation (Suppl'ement II).
- 2. 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion IX, states in part, " Measures shall be established to assure that special processes, including welding...are centrolled and accomplished...using Qualified procedures in accordance with applicable codes, standards, specifications, criteria, and other special requirements."
Sargent and Lun'dy drawing 20E-0-3251, Revision AC and L. X. Comstock '
Procedure 4.3.3 dated January 29, 1982, require the use of E60 series weld rod for cable pan welds.
Contrary to the above, nine L. K. Comstock filler metal withdrawal authorization fonns documented the release of E7018 weld rod for cable pan welds between May 25, 1982, and July 28, 1982.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement II).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CF2 2.2?'.,; : m required to submit to this office..within thirty days of the dae- oy , Motice a written statement or explanation in reply, including for a;r.1 4 .ii' noncompliance: (1).cor-rective at: tion taken and the results "-' b 0- f," corrective action to be O ..
/.;;endi x ?
i taken to avoid further ncncomoliance; and (3) the date when full com::liance j
will be achieved. Consideration may be giver to extending. your response time for good cause shown.
i g e e n 9,* n** , ,A
,AA [ f k VIlbmh R. F. Warn 1ck, Cnief Datec Projects Branch 1 i
i 9
e 4
1 .
. .~
~i t
...J..s-j
,*:: t
.4 i
~J 1
- 7
.1
'."*****%l 1
I ._
1 i
0 e
t
O U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATCRY COMMISSICN REGION III Report No. 50-456/84-13(DRP); 50 457/SA-13(DRP)
Docket Nos. 50 456; 50-457 Licenses No. CPPR-132; CPPR-133 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection Conducted: June 5 through July 6, 1954 Inspectors: L. G. McGregor R. D. Schulz Approved By: W L ,
/~/02, /cNJ Projects Section IA D&te /
Inspection Sumary Inscection on June 5 throuch July 6,1984 (Recort No. 50 456/84-13(ORPh 50-457/84-13(ORP))
Areas Insoected: Routine, unannounced safety inspection of licensee action on construction deficiency reports and bulletins, plant tours, preventive main-tenance, spent fuel storage racks, pipe supports, procurement, cable pan supports, audits, and reactor coolant pump supports. The jnspection consisted of 164 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors including 4 inspector-hours onsite during off-shif ts.
Results: Of the nine areas inspected, no item of noncompliance or deviations were identified in seven areas, two items of noncompliance were identified in the remaining areas, failure to specify the application of 10 CFR Part 21 to procurement documents (paragraph 7) and failure to control weld rod for cable pan welding (paragraph 8).
O .
DETAILS
- 1. Persons Contacted Comonwealth Edison Comoany (CECO)
M. Wallace, Project Manager C. Schroeder, Licensing and Compliance Superintendent
- 0. L. Shamblin, Construction Superintendent
- T. Quaka, Quality Assurance Supervisor L. Tapella, Engineer
- L. M. Kline, Licensing Compliance S. Hunsader, Quality Assurance Supervisor G. Fitzpatrick, Assistant Manager Quality Assurance Corporate
- J. Purra::c, Engineer M. Curinka, Engineer
- C, J. Tomashek, Startup Superintendent N. Tomis 0AD Supervisory Engineer J. Enger, Senior Buyer R. Milne, Field Engineer X. Steele, Electrical Supervisor E. R. Netzel, Quality Assurance Supervisor
- T. Ronkoske. Engineer
- R. Wrucke, Licensing Engineer
- M. Gorski, Engineer O- o ^ Boone. Sns4neer q
Phillies Getschow Comoany (DGCol
.~,
T. G. O'Conr.:r. Site Manager J. Carlson, Quality Control Sucervisor L. J. Butler, Assistant Quality Control Supervisor M. Galloway, Assistant Proje:t Engineer J. Strong, Quality control Technician .
R. Tesmond, Quality Control Level II L. K. Comstock and Comoany, Inc. (LXC)
- I. Dewald, Quality Control Manager L. G. Seese, Assistant Quality Control Manager Site R. M. Saklak, Quality control Supervisor i
l R. Brown, Lead Inspector Mechanical l R. Frisby, Level II Quality Control Inspector
- R. Seltman, Quality Assurance Engineer f Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory (PTL) i T. Frazier, Assistant Site Manager R. Vanderhyden, Construction Encine -
l I
In addition, a number of other
- 2.- :.m sonnal wera contacted.
' Denotes those personnel attenc og :.n exit interv4 2w.
2 ,
- 2. Ucensee Action on Previcus'v Ide W 'iec Items
- a. 10 CFR 50.55(e) Items (Closed) 456/81-02; 457/81-C2: During the stressing of a tendon on 4
the Braidwood Unit I containme-t, a thread failure occurred between the shop ancherhead bushing ard the stressing adapter due to both the lack of full thread engagement and undersi:ed ancherhead threads.
Analysis showed tnat the.in-place stressed anchorages are acceptable.
Corrective action for unstressed anchorages included a checkpoint in
- the stressing procedures to assure full thread engagement and measure-ments of all anchorage components prior to stressing.
' (Closed) 456/82-02A; 457/82-0ZA: Fifteen fire damcers may not close due to a deficiency in the fusable link. The defective links have been replaced. All future dampers will be checked for proper link installation.
(Closed) 456/82-11; 457/82-11: A potential preblem existed with regard to rigid snubber strut pins. Subsecuently, tensile testing resulted in no deformation of the pin material and no pins tested were found to have low yield strength, in addition, the pin is not considered to be a critical hanger component.
(0 pen)456/83-15;457/83-15: Pacific Scientific-(PS) nubbers supplied with capstan springs may be defective and fail during a seismic event.
Subs.equent testing and metallurgical evaluation revealed that the t a =49" 's "c r = "t d' d <4c4 ec7-O ="#66 r> =#4 However, a PS letter dated February 10, 1984 recomended that "due to the various potentially harsh environments on usage some snubbers micht "t= "4 ta r experience, these snuboers be the first to be inspected duri.ng nomally scheduled plant inservice or maintenance inspections." The inspector was unable to detemine that the licensee had perfomed any evaluation or scheduled any of the snubbers for the first plant inservice or maintenance inspectien. This item will remain open until the licensee addresses the PS recomendations.
- b. IE Bulletins (Closed)IEBulletin83-01: Failure of Reactor Trip Breakers (Westinghouse 08-50) to Open on Automatic Trip Signal. The inspector examined the licensee's action relative to the reactor scram breaker failures to determine whether a timely response was sent to the NRC, if the response addressed the appropriate technical questions, and whether the required actions had been accomplished. The Braidwood desian incorocrates four 05-416 rather than 08-50 breakers. In resp 6nse to Bulletin 83 01 the licensee has received Westinghouse .
-dhange Notic2 (83) 823 which includes a procedure for changing.thef .
J '#uh'dcrvolto3e f.rb assembly, mounting instructions and trip 0% A_ad .
' fore:: :neeu for the breakers. The corrective action reco NMeLb >
che.? ma- .rarturer will be ccmoleted by the licensee before twl.1,be' . . .
& M .3. c .4 : #;ha creaker maintenance program for confor-ina tol,.'. ,,
"re.c:...-@; Wn:v0heuse program will be implemented. ...
O 3
[
<.,_m,_._,_v._--, - - _ _
,_ ___,._ - _..__ _ ,.__.,w. _
c.y_. . _ - . _ . _ _ _ , _ _ , ,, ,,.,_, , .c _., , - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . - - . . . . _ _ _ _ , , , , . . , , _ ,
(Closed) IE Bulletin 83-C5: Nonconferming Material Su;: lied by Tube 4 Line Corporation. The licensee has reviewed the list of purchasing and receiving comoanies given in Attachments 2 anc' 3 of the bulletin and in addition has reviewed station purchasing records for material which may have been sucplied by Tube Line. The search of records has shown that four 3-inch 150 pound RF W/N flanges -were supplied to the Braidwood Station by the Joliet Valve Co. Two of these flanges were installed in the Boric Acid System and two were installed in the Containment Spray System. One flange has subsecuently been removed
' from the Containment Spray System and the remaining three flanges will be replaced upon receipt of new flanges.
(Closed) IE Bulletin 83-07: Apparently Fraudulent Products Sold by
' Ray Miller, Inc. The licensee has addressed the subject bulletin by a review of corporate purchasing procedures with respect to the problems encountered with Ray Miller, Inc. and Tube Line Corporation (Bulletin 83-06 response). The licensee has reviewed the purchasing records for Braidwood Construction and Braidwood Operations Departments with no indication that material was purchased from Ray Miller, Inc.
CECO reviewed its Quality Assurance procedures for review of purenase documents and found them to be adecuate.
..y (Closed) IE Bulletin 83-08: Circuit Breakers with An Undervoltage Trip in use in Safety-Related Applications Other Than the Reactor Scram System. A review completed by the CECO Braidwood technical staff has concluded that W type 08, W type DS and GE type AK-2 with undervoltage trip attachments are not used in safety-related a;;1ica-tions, outside the reactor scram system.
5.d No items of noncompliance or ceviations were identified.
1
- 3. Plant Tours .;
, .:n The inspectors observed work activities in-progress, comoleted work, and i
plant status during general inspections of the plant. Observation of work j
included high strength bolting, safety-related pipe welding, anchor bolts, structural welds, and cable trays in the containments and auxiliary l
building. Particular note was taken of material identification, noncon-forming material identification, housekeeping, and ecuipment preservation.
Craft personnel were interviewed as such personnel were available in the work areas.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4 Preventive Maintenance The maintenance program for mechanical and electrical ecuipment was reviewed to assure that pump shafts were being periodically rotated, rotating ecuip-atent wasilubricated, ecuipment was properly covered for protection from.
onstrtiction act.ivities, knsulation resistance testing was performed for- -
.. .w rators and heat'Es W g loplied to electrical items, and desiccant.
41cor-innif itor's';,or :itrdgen purges were used to mainta n prcper um c ty . i h if .
[T
'4
, . - - - - , - --- - - . - - , - - - .- . . - . - - - . - . . _ , . . . - - - ----.---,_,.,___,.,,n. , - . - . - - ~ - - - , , . , , - , , - , - - , - . - - , - - , v-,,, -,e - - - - - ,
i levels. The following ieces cf installed ecuipment and their associated 6 records were examined for tne applicable elements stipulated above:
2CC01PA, Component Cooling Pumo and Motor 1C501PA, Containment Spray Pume and Motor
. 2C501PA, Containment Spray Pump and Motor
. 2AP73E. 480 Volt Switchgear Panel 2AP17E, 480 Volt Switchgear Panel
. 2RC01PB, Reactor Coolant Pump and Motor
. 2FWO1PA, Auxiliary Feedwater Motor
. 2CV04AA, Letdown Heat Exchanger 2FC01P, Spent Fuel Pit Pumps
- . 2SX01PB, Essential Service Water Pump
, OWOO1PA, Main Control Room Chilled Water Pump 0 WOO 1PB, Main Control Room Chilled Water Pump 1RH01PA, Residual Heat Removal Motor ISIO1PA, Safety Injection Motor 2SIO1PA, Safety Injection Pump and Motor 2CV01PB, Centrifugal Charging Pump 2RH01PA, Residual Heat Removal Puep The inspector noted that the equipment was poorly covered for protection from construction activities. This is considered an open item (456/84-13-01; 457/84-13-01). .-
A review of Fhillips, Getschow Co. Procedure, PGCP-37, Revision 1 Equipment
! Surveillance, revealed that ecuipment was divided into three categories:
. .g:,3
. " Category A" - rotating ecuipeent which requires periodic rotation
'4 and lubrication 4
. " Category B," - recuires protective purge gas prior to attachment of piping systems
,, .7, '.}
. " Category C" - other safety-related equipment.
I Phillips[GetNcSow Co. quality control inspectors perfomed surveillances I of mechanical equipment, but their inspections mainly involved documenta-tion checks and were on a limited, random basis, not being extensive enough to assure that all mechanical ecuipment was properly maintained by the craftsmen. Although, based on the NRC sample inspection, craft records and maintenance appeared adeouate, the mechanical ecuipment quality -
assurance organization needs to establish an inspection program to verify adequate craft attention to the preventive maintenance function. Fucther-more, the inspector could not find inspection or surveillance records docu-menting that mechanical equipment quality control inspectors had witnessed .
anyeshaf' rotations or lubrications. Pending licensee review of this grea.,.
l -
incled r... corrit: ring the examination of all mechanical ecuipme.nt to4as; mp y.
i i
th c th- Non .:e. has been properly maintained; and subsequc vfRC. c.cvi.>%.-. . ;.
me.-hanh ' exiwent maintenance will remain unresolved (d56/F.-13-R;. .. -
.. a 457/34-1 2 02).
l .
5 1
- , , - - ,--_,-,4r- ,_.-. ---,,,_,,_,_y---,_-_-_._.e-- y #,,,, y.. ,,_ . - . , , , . _ , . . . , , ,
,,y--,.m.-_,---,,--- . _ _ , - . - , - - - - , . ~ - - - m-,,,-r,._,-.--- - , - - -
4 The only mechanical iters that recuired gas purges, as stipulated in FGCF-37, were the accumulators ard the c trol room refrigeration units. Vapor inhibitors or the coating of internal parts was not a part of the mechanical contractor's preventive aintent9ce program. Options, especially for heat exchangers, employed by the nuclear industry include:
. Maintaining purges as long is possible prior to start-up and incorpora- ,
tion into plant systems, ar: making piping connections last. l 1
. The use of humidity indicators attached to or inside components.
l
. Desiccant used as vapor inhibitors.
Internals specially coated by manufacturers for long term storage.
. Vapor inhibitors, such as Cortec VCI-319, used for extended storage periods since the inhibitors can be flushed from the system (water soluble).
Humidity conditions can become extremely high for equipment stored in place as a result of concrete pours or other systems being flushed. The inspector has requested the licensee to assess the importance of these options considering the length of time items have not been in service.
Pending licensee assessment, this issue will remain open (456/84-13-03; 457/84-13-03). i
.q .
The electrical contractor's (L. K. Comstock) preventiv'e maintenance program was reviewed, including Procedure 4.10.2, Receiving and Storage, Revision A, O. and the inspector identified the following issues:
- = .** j
. Although Procedure 4.10.2 recuired that electrical equipment be checked to assure that heaters were properly working, L. K. Comstock did not have a list of the equipment that required heaters and. the L. K. Comstock quality control inspector did not document which equip-i ment was being checked for heaters.
1 The licensee did have a list of maintenance required for electrical equipment, such as covers to protect the equipment and the use of motor winding heaters, but this list was not included in any proce-dure nor was objective evidence provided to the inspector documenting that manufacturer recomendations for maintenance were included in this list. L. K. Comstock's quality control organization was not aware of the licensee's list.
The inspector has recuested the licensee to review the electrical equipment maintenance requirements, taking into consideration manufacturer recomenda-tions and/or Sargent and Lundy recomendations. Subsecuent to this raview and the conclusions reacned, the licensee snould acdress L. K. Smstcck's in assuring the maintenance of electrical equipmant. ~ .x responsibil including the q ey,u4Q ty control inspection function. .
,- g g y .
O 6
The NRC will review the electrical aintenance program a#ter:
O -
The 24censee eete =4nes the eee=uecx of the eiectricei e=#4:=ent maintenance program,
. The licensee conducts quality control inspections, if recuirec,
. The licensee detemines L. K. Consteck's responsibility in assuring maintenance of electrical eiquipment.
Pending these licensee actions and NRC review, the electrical ecuipment maintenance program will remain unresolved (456/84-13-04; 457/84-13-04).
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
i 5. Soent Fuel Storace Racks The contractor that fabricated the 6x5 and 6x6 spent fuel storage racks
, was NUS Corporation. The inspector reviewed Specification F/L-2743, New And Spent Fuel Storage Racks dated January 7, 1976 through Amendment 2 dated June 28, 1983, and NUS Corporation Specification 5106-M-200 Revisien C, which was approved by Sargent and Lundy on January 13, 1978. These two documents established the fabrication recuirements for the storage racks.
The following drawings delineated the dimensional recuirements and weld details: y n!
. 5106M 2000_ Revision 2
. 5106M 2001 Revision 7 .
5106M 2002. Revision 8 O
-9 After reviewing'these drawings, a 6x5 rack and a 6x6 rack were examined for confomance to the drawings recuirements, including:
44 i'
. Width and length dimensions
. Component dimensions - (shear plates, collar bars, corner succor plates, module support plates, support beams, and gusset plates)
. Separation dimensions
. Structural welds - (gusset plate to beam welds, plate to beam welds, gusset plate to support plate welds, collar bar to support plate welds, and shear plate welds)
One rack's flare plates at the end of the alignment box were damaged and one rack's support beams, (quantity of two), were defomed. The inspector identified these racks to the licensee and the licensee dccumented these conditions for resolution. Pending licensee evaluation and corrective action if necessary, and NRC review, the acceptance of these two spent fuel -
storage-racks wi1' remain unresolved (456/84-13-05; 457/84-13-05). "
It was noted, t:- tha :: elds attaching the 79" long collar bar to. nc, < . ze. -
3" x 37" s c . .h:~ .were not symetrical . The pieces wert conne'ctaf ' = -. F:s. "
.by 9" long N G s ..1 tu ends, and 3" long intemittent welds with ceater: "- ~
7 1
1
)
l
ranging fecm 5 1/2" to 8 1/2". The nspector was unable to identify this particular weld detail en :ne crawin.s to determine weld scoe: acility.inis n
U Pending this information teing sucpi ed to MC and subsecuent review, weld detail will remain an open item (456/84-13-06; 457/84-13-06).
The fabrication documentation was reviewed and the inspector identified the following items, whict the licensee is presently investigating and evaluating for resciution:
welding procedure cualifications as reouired by specificatinn F/L-2743,
' identified as being used for specific welds or components,were not available for review.
welder cualifications as recuired by specification F/L-2743, were not available for review.
penetrant material test reports, as required by specification 5106-M-200, were not avrilable for review.
NUS Visual Weld Inspection Procedure 763, Revision 1, was not available for review.
4 the majority of the visual weld inspection records for the root and completed welds, as recuired by specification 5106-M-200, were not available for review.
joint prepa' ration inspection records for dimensional and cleanliness conformance, as recuired by specification 5106-M-200, were net available or review.
(] .
surface roughness and interior edce inscection records, as recuired by specification 5106-M-200, were nnt available for review.
. penetrant est reports did net identify the specific comconents penetrant tested, ner if both the applicable root and final passes were inspected, as recuired by NUS Procedure 761, Revision 5, and specification 5106-M-200.
the inspector was unable to trace the certified material test reports for the collar bars, as recuired by specification 5105-M-200, for the majority of the storage rack assemolies.
The inspect-e was unable to trace the certified material test reports for the welo.ng materials to the specific joints or components, as required by specificatiens 5106-M-200 and F/L-2743.
Penetrant Test Repert, dated March 22, 1979, shop order #3913, was
- not traceable to a spent fuel storage rack assembly serial number.
The licensee stated that they believe adecuate documentatien dces exist,. -
but" f t my not. bt filed on site. Pending licensee inustigation and..ss-- f"'- . ,
mit'tal of addittenal' documentation to the NRC at tha Braidwood . site O 8
review, decurentat on acce: tam 11ty 'cr the scert fuel s:craie racks will remain an unresolved issue ('E5/8 07; 457/8c *2-07).
O No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
- 6. Pioe Suceerts Twenty pipe supports were exanined fer conformance with the drawing requirements. Attributes checked included:
. Configuration
. Weld details
. Dimensional tolerances and offset gaps
. Location
. Correct compenents Identified below are the installed component supports which were examined, the type of support, location, and if applicable, an engineering change notice (ECN), which revised the installation:
Support Tyoe location ECN No.
M-15XO904 A X M sway-strut containment 81 16559 M-1SX08038X - rigid containment #1 12196 M-1CV05020R W. rigid containment #1 M-1CV05022X . 0 sway-strut containment #1 M-1CV05027R ,. Q rigid containment #1 M-ICV 05021X S containment #1 M-1CV05099X %j sway-strut sway-strut containment #1 O M-1CV05023R M-1CV05024R H sway-strut
.< sway-strut containment 81 containment 71 M-1CV05025X sway-strut containment #1 M-1CV05026R .) rigid containment #1 M-1CV54004X .' sway-strut auxiliary building M-1CV54005R m- rigid auxiliary building M-1CV01028X ! rigid auxiliary building M-1CC03073R 9'" rigid auxiliary building M-1CC03136R sway-strut auxiliary building M-1CC03150X -
sway-strut auxiliary building 15907 M-1CV54001R rigid auxiliary building M-1CV54003X sway-strut auxiliary building M-1CC02136X sway-strut auriliary building i No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
- 7. Procurement Procurement documea.ts specifying material for the electrical discipline . .
wer'e ch.ub%r *..chnier.1 adecuacy, CA progran recuirements,10 CF4dl.g. - .ff provisii:.9s..f90tification of items, and if the supplier was orthe A - .;e c -
approvst b.idlaas tist.. In addition, Comonwealth Edison matfrie.ttee.pk a '#.-
Q 9
insrection re: orts and documeatatice, such as certified material test reports and certificates of conformance, were reviewed for confermance to the pencurement documents. The following purchase orders and their !
associated receipt inspection documentation were examined:
Purchase Orde No. Vendo- Pecduct Tvoe 728208 Northerr Ill . Steel ASTM A36 plate 249282 Northern Ill. Steel ASTM A36 plate 26fa83 Haggerty Steel Structural Steel 259707 Haggerty Steel Tube Steel, Plate 256493 Haggerty Steel Tube Steel, Plate 252162 Raychem Corp. Heat Shrink Tubing 254434 Raychem Corp. Heat Shrink Tubing 259782 Raychem Corp. Heat Shrink Tubiro 262155 Raychem Cor:. Heat Shrink Tubing 265347 Raychem Corp. Heat Shrink Tubing 270934 Raychem Corp. Heat Shrink Tubing 276436 Raychem Corp. Heat Shrink Tubing 256523 Raychem Corp. Heat Shrink Tubing 272787 ,j Raychem Corp. Heat Shrink Tubing The procurement documents and receipt inspection records were in accordance with regulatory recuirements with the exception of six orders placed with Raychem Corporation. The heat shrinkable tubing was ordered under the requirement that documentation shall include a certificate of compliance certifying that the material had been tested to the recuirements of IEEE 383-1974 for aging, radiation, and LOCA environment, as stipulated O by Sargent and Lundy drawing 20-E-1-3503, dated February 1,1979, and L.K. Comstock Procedure 4.3.9, Cable Temination Installation, Para-graph 3.11.5 - Lug to Sus Connection, 416CV and 6900V Connections. The certification for aging, radiation, and LOCA environment was received for all the Raychem Corp. purchase orders delineated above. However, Raychen Corp. orocurerent documents, numbers 252162, 254434, 259782, 262155, 265347, and 270934 did not contain statements that 10 CFR Part 21, " Reporting of Defects And Noncompliance", applied to these heat shrink tubing orders.
10 CFR 21.31 Procurement Documents states: "Each indivicual, corporation, partnership or other entity subject to the regulations in this part shall assure that each procurement document for a facility, er a basic comconent issued by him, her or it on or after January 6,1978 specifies, when appli-cable, that the provisions of 10 CFR Part 21 apply."
Detailed below are the procurement documents and their date of placement:
Procurement Document No. Date of Placement 252162 02/02/81 254434 - 08/03/81 259782. 01/22/8."
.262155 . 04/14/62 06/23/P7 4 26F347'
- 27tJ34 11/22/92 O
10
1
. i 2 . l Failure to specify tn.' ::lica: :n of 10 CFR Part 21 to inese : ocure .ent
- documents is a viola
- 1c cf 10 CFR 21.31 (456/84-13-CS; a57/54-13-08).
- 8. Cable Pan Suecorts
- The structural supp rts for te- cable sans located in the auxiliary building i
.were examined for confc-: ance to the crawings, including configuration, dimensions, and weldir; cetails. Detailed below are the cable pans and their applicable supports:
Cable Pan Suceert I.D. Tyee
! 21752J H-181. H-189 unistrut 21750J H-188 unistrut/breced 21747J H-185, H-186, H-187 unistrut/H-186 braced 21746J H-183, H-184, H-185 unistrut/H-183 braced j 21779J H-160 tube steel 21777J H-170, H-171 unistrut 21772J H-137, H-138 tube steel /H-137 braced 21773J H-175 unistrut 21764J , . H-142 unistrut 21765J -',' H-140 unistrut/ braced
. .a Documents utilized in the examinations included:
1 . Sargent and Lundy drawings 20E-0-360 series and 20E-0-380 series for welding details.
. Sargent and Lundy drawing 20E-0-3751, Cable Pan Gereral Notes and Installatien Details.
4
. Sargent and Lundy drawing 20-E-03278 for ccnfiguration.
. Sargent and Lundy Hanger List for dimensional recuirements.
4 Subsecuently, the inspector reviewed L. X. Comstock inspection reports for
' these cable pan installations, and Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory inspection reports that documented a 10: overview weld inspectien. Procedures reviewed included L. K. Comstock Procedures 4.8.3, Wald Inspection and 4.3.10, Storage, Issue and Control of Welding Material. Inspection reports were in accordance with procedure recuirements and the weld rod was found to be l
stored in accordance with the procedure requirements, including even tem-perature adherence. However, the inspector discovered that weld rod was allowed to be stored evernight in the portable rod even heaters, instead of j ,
being returned to the issue stations. There are approximately one-hundred portable overs and quality control does not assure that these ovens are plugged in at night and furthennore, surplus weld rod should be returned l to the issur stations in crder that it may be signed out to a specific l
l 1
O t 11 l -
a: plication /cocoone.t for traceability control. The ins:ector discussec
[
s"s these points with the licensee and the licensee has decided that all surplus weld red must be returned to an issue station after the days sh ft, to facilitate optimum weld red control. L. K. Comstock was notified of the licensee's decision and therefore, the inspector considers this issue closed.
Over .i00 filler metal withdrawal authorizrtion foms, which document the release of weld red for electrical installations, were reviewed for the months of May 1982 throuen August 1982. This was the time frame the cable pans were installed. The filler metal authorization forms were specific as to the use of the weld rod, specifying one of the following on each fom:
. conduit hangers
. . cable support
. cable pan
. switchgear
. junction box hancers a ~
However,khe foms did not specify the specific component the red was used cn and only listed general building locations, such as Auxiliary Buildinc, elevation 463 feet. Nine filler metal withdrawal authorization foms documented the assienment of E7018 weld red for cable pan welding, even though SargeIt and Lundy drawing 20E-0-3251, Revision AC and L. K. Comstock Procedure 4.3.3, dated January 29, 1982, recuired the use of E60 Series weld red for cable pan welds. Detailed below are the nine foms documenting the release of E7018 weld rod, by heat number, for cable pan welding:
Date of . Designated Recuisition ~~. Area Heat No. Class sd 5/25/82 Auxiliary Bldg., 383' 411P4161 *E6013 5/25/82 . . .J Auxiliary Blde. 411P4161 *E6013 5/26/82 1 Auxiliary Bldg. 411P4161 *E6013 6/9/82 ~i Auxiliary Bidg., 383' 411P4161 *E6013 6/10/82 ~
', Containment el, 426' 411P4161 E7018 6/11/82 Auxiliary Bldg., 426' 421P4461 E7018 6/22/82 Auxiliary Bldg. , 426' 40259011 E7018 7/13/82 -
Auxiliary Bldo. , 463' 4C259011 *E6013 7/28/82 .
Auxiliary Bldg., 439' 40259011 E7018
- Heat numbers 411P4161 and 40259011 were actually E7018 weld red 'as the inspector reviewed the material certifications. The rod issue attendants apparently thought these heats of rod were E6013. Note that the same heats, 411P4161 and 40259011, were handed out as both E6013 and j E7018 weld rod. (,
. /
Failve to control the use of weld rod for cable pan welding i. a/vieletion uf 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion IX (456/84-13-09; 457/ m i:-09).
O 12
- 9. Audits Com.cnwealth Edison recent site . audits were reviewed. Past NRC inspection findings identified deficiencies in the Braidwood Site audit program with regard to depth of audits and corrective acticn. The recent audits revealed significant improvement in audit technique, dtsth, identification of problem areas, corrective action, and actions to prevent recurrence. The audits met the regulatory requirements and were carried out with the purpose of identifying and correcting any deficiencies that could affect the safe operation of the plant. The audits reviewed and area covered are detailed below:
Audit Dates Area Disciolice 6/11/84-6/16/84 Calibration, Measuring and HVAC Test Ecuipment Storage HVAC QC Inspections HVAC Welding / Weld Rod Control HVAC 4/17/84-4/27/84 Receiving and Material Piping Control Piping
. _ Storage Piping
. . . Housekeeping Piping
.-- Corrective Action Piping
- Small Bore Pipe
- Piping Piping / Support Layout Piping A .0;]) Support Installation Piping U 4 Material Traceability Piping 4/16/84-4/23/84 , Identification and Control Electrical
- of Ecuipment and Components QC Inspector cualifications Electrical
.9 Electrical Welding / Weld Rod Control
.... w . Re-inspection Program Electrical 1
i The audits included both documentation (software) and installation (hardware) inspections, t .
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
1
- 10. Inscection of Reactor Coolant pumo Suecorts The inspector reviewed Sargent and Lundy design drawings No. $1107, 51109 i
" Reactor Coolant Pump Support" Plan Elevation 393'2" and Teledyne Brown Engineering Drawing No. 22287 " Byron /Braidwood Station N.5.5.5. Support Framing Reactor Coolant Pump Lateral Support Erection" and noted dis-crepancies between the as-built condition and the designed lateral su: pert.
This lateral support modification affected .iust reactor coolant pump . -
number 2 in un-its.one and two. The inspector recuested documentatinn to
" substantiate the nonc:nfomance which resulted in the t.10dificatien, the O
13 l
, , , - - - - ,.,,,----n- ,, ,--_
- ,._,.n.,,.,.n - - - - - - - , , , _ _ , , _ , , , . _ , . , _ _ , _ _ , . , ,
Engineering Charge Nctice, the Cesien Chaage review and a::-Oval, material specifications, cuali#ied -elcing crocecu-es, Cuality Centrol records and 1 O. inspections, and welder c*.alifications. Accitienally, the inspector will 1 determine if this modificatien was also installed on the Byron reactor coolant pumos. This mattaa is considered an unresolved item and will be reviewed curinc future ins:ections (50 456/Ec-13-10; 50-457/54-13-10).
- 11. Open Itens Open items tre matters whi:h have been discussed with the licensee, which will be reviewed fur-her by the inspector, and which involve some action on the part of the NRC or licensee or both. Open items disclosed during the inspe: tion are discussed in Paragraphs 4 and 5,
- 12. Unresolved items Unresolved items are matte-s about which more information is recuired in order to ascertain whetmer they are acceptable items, items 'af noncompliance, or deviaticrs. Unresolved items disclosed durino the inspection are discussed in Paragraphs 4, 5 and 10.
- 13. Exit Interview
.J
~
The inspector mit with li:ersee representatives (denoted under Persons Contacted) during and at tne conclusion of the inspection on July 6, 1984 The inspector sunr.arized the scope and findings of the inspection.
The licensee acknowledged the information.
. , .Ed I .
\ .. y
.lj a
. .a
..., . a 1
-- . ~4 .
- T A
i
, la
.,,,---_._.-.,,,y-,_ ~ . . _ , - - _ _ _ . . , _ , , , _. _,
b . %%
' k., e 7
~~
Comstock Engineering, Inc.
Memorandum To: Irv. DeWald Office: September 13, 1964 Fr:m: Anthony T. Simile Sutiect: Worley Puckett Concerns Date: Septerber 13, 1994 Control No 84-09-13-04 A review of L.K. Comstock's Weld Procedure Qualifications and Welders Performance Qualifications has been performed, due to the concerns of Mr. Worley O Puckett as stated in his letter to Mr. Irv :: ewald dated August 22, 1984.
Due to this review the following information is being presented:
- 1) Stainless Steel Welding.
i A) The Stainless Steel Procedure (4.3.14) has been qualified in the SG position only. Paragraph 3.3.1 of Procedure 4.3.14 states welding shall be performed in the SG c,r SF positions. Welding was performed in O other positions.
The Procedure must be qualified in all pcsition which welding will take place.
B) Stainless Steel Welders Performance Qualification.
- 1) The welders were qualified in the SG position and the performance qualification record shows the welders as qualified in all positions.
An additional test in the 2G position is required for the welders to be qualified in all positions.
- 2) The welders performance test was performed on 3" Sch 40 pipe, A312-TP 304. The performance qualification record shows thick-ness range qualified as . unlimited.
Per AWS D 19'S table 5.26.1, the thickness range qualified by a 3" Sch 40 coupon is .263 to .674.
t Edison Exhibit, Subcontention 2.C.
(Similie-2)
I
^
Irv DeWald Septe=be r 13, 1994 Control No: 84-09-13-04 Pace 2 - centinued
( .
- 2) C) The welding of stainless steel was stopped August 17, i 1984, and will not continue until the above listed tests are completed.
i 4
' D) NCR 3145 was written August 24, 1984 addressing these problems .
- 2) The welding of A36 to A-446 with E7018 has been resolved per the
, disposition of NCR 3099. The Procedure has been revised adding A-36 material
- 3) Comstock memorandum 84-05-12-12 dated May 12, 1984, addressed Procedure Qualification between AWS D.1.1 and AWS D.1.3. This memorandum was sent to CICo for clarification of the welding requirements. ECN 22767, has been issued and clarifies the welding requirements. ECN 22767 states, welding shall be in
' accordance with the requirements of AWS D.1.1 At the option of the contractor, where base metals thinner than 1/8" are to i
be welded, the requirements of AWS D.1.3 r.ay be applied in lieu of AWS D.1.1 welders may be qualified to either ASME B & PV code Section IX, AWS D.1.1 or AWS D.1.3. ,
- 4) A review of the Procedures did show some inconsistencies of which
.) C were previously addressed by Sargent & I. undy on their Welding Procedure Review, dated June 6, 1984. The necessary corrections were made and tie procedures sent for approval.
- 5) A) A review of the welders qualifications showed some inconsist-encies which are listed below.
- 1) Brand Name of electrodes not given.
r
- 2) Wrong Material spec listed for base metal. (i.e A-106 GrB listed for A36 Plate) .
I 3) Wrong Specification number listed.
(i.e SFAS.1 for AWS AS.1)
The inconsistencies listed above are minor in nature and do not affect the integrity of the tests or qualif-i ications. The necessary corrections will be completed by November 15, 1984.
B) Five welders were qualified by Mr. Worley Puckett between August 7,1984 thru August 14, 1994. Mr. Puckett was not i
l Certified as an Inspector through this time period,N2R 3276 was j
j written September 12, 1984 addressing this problem.
4 i
i 4
w- . - ,---+,---------,,,,-nn,--w--------- ----<---,,e -,---,,,,ar, . .,m-- --r--~m_n-- ~,-row -mn. -
, -r -
-ww - -r---- -- -- --
Irv DeWald Septe =be r 13, 1904 Centrol No: 84-09-12-04 Page 3
- 6) A concern was addressed by the NRC cn. Docket 50-546, 50-547 regarding Control or Weld Filler Metal Withdrawal. NCR 3275 was issued addressing the problem with the old withdrawal tabs.
Procedure 4.3.10 has been revised to correct the concerns as noted in the above listad Dockets.
The infomation presented in this report does not substantiate a complete breakdown of L. K. Comstock's Welding Program nor L. K. Coastock's QC Program and a stop work is not warranted.
If there are any further questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 458-2801 ext 2430 or 2432.
Sincerely,
<si 6 Anthony T. Si:ule ATS/pb O
O
J Comm:nwealth Edis:n Co. / +
s Braidwood Station YJ LM Z / 11R 1, Box 81
, v Braceville. IL 60407 Telechene 815/458 2801 June 27, 1985 BR/PCD 85-563 L. n. Comstock and Ceepany, Inc.
, Braidwood Nuclear Power Station Bracev111e, IL 60407
~~
M Attention: Mr. I. DeWald W.3 Q.C. Manager b' - a-
.g I
qo. --
Subject:
Braidwood Station - Units 1 & 2 i
CICo NCR's 708 & 709 Supplement j
References:
(a) March 8, 1985 letter BR/PCD 85-216, D. L. Shamblin to V. E.
l Vahle, I. DeWald and F. Rolan (b) March 21, 1985 letter BR/PCD 85-247, D. L. Shamblin to W. E.
i Vahle, I. DeWald and F. Rolan j (c) May 21, 1985 letter BR/PCD 85-450, D. L. Shamblin to I. Dewald (d) May 29, 1985 letter BR/PCD 85-464, D. L. Shamblin to I. Dewald O
Dear Mr. DeWald,
i e
! Attached is the revised Cable Pan Hanger Walkdown supplement. The change was discussed and agreed to by Project Field Engineering /Sargent & Lundy, Project Construction Department, and L. K. Comstock Quality Control. This revision is issued to more accurately reflect the implementation of the System control Cable Pan Hanger inspection and is approved for use.
Please contact L. J. Tapella, Project Construction Department on extention 2404 with any questions concerning this instruction.
i
! _ hc_J!.L. E @ -
i D. L. Shamblin Proj. Construction Superintendent Braidwood Station
( LPr/kje (1877a) j O
?. ni$'"
- ^;eran
- 5. Hunsader
"""** TN m s' * /" NN"9 h "#
F. Shallwani
+
i Edison Exhibit, . - -
Subcontention 2.C.
' W~Un-11
Issu) Dato 3/8/85 Revision No. 4, Dated 6/26/85 System Control Pan Hinger Inspection CECO NCR's 708 & 'iO9 Supplement 1.0 gggps.
1.1 This instruction applies to the inspection /walkdown by L. K.
Comstock & Co. (LKC) of installed safety related cable pan hangers.
Hangers to be inspected are doctmented by S&L.
2.0 Purpose 2.1 The purpose of this instruction is to provide direction and delineate the responsibilities cf LKC for the inspection, documentation, and gathering of data for engineering evaluation.
3.0 References 3.1 CECO. NCR's #708 and #709 3.2 LKC Procedure 4.8.12, " Inspection of Seismic Class I supports / Hangers Aux Steel and Miscellaneous Components" 4.0 General O ,
4.1
=er9edrawings hanger t = ' ar'.C co Co w111 ><oviee 'KC wita 1 41 14= 1 ce=1e e-4.2 PCD will provide craft support or other assistance to LKC QC and S&L personnel as requested / required.
4.3 The LKC QC manager is responsible for providing certified QC inspectors to implement this instruction and ensure its implementation.
4.3.1 LKC QC personnel who will perform the required inspections shall be certified as a Level II Welding Inspector, configuration inspector, or both as needed. LKC QC weld inspectors will provide weld maps of any installation as requested by S&L.
4.4 Inspections performed by LKC shall be in accordance with Reference 3.2. Except as noted in this supplement.
Note: LXC craft is to retorque bolted connections (except CEA's and pan hold down bolts). LKC QC is to verify that the required type of bolt was used and record the bolt type on the individual cable pan hanger drawing and Form #7. If the bolt is ASTM 307 and a plain head, reference Ceco NCR 692 on the Form 87.
O (1877a) l
. . _ , . . . , _ _ _ _ ~ . , , _ . _ _ . _ _ _ , , . _ _ _ .
_ - _ , -,, , _ , _ , - - , , . ., - - _ - - _ , . . - , _ , _ _ . . . _.,e..- -_ .
Iscus Date 3/8/85 Revision No. 4 Dated 6/26/85
() 4.5 LKC QC shall provide dimensional inspection results, for "as built' hangers, to individual cable pan hanger drawings and provide as-built information to S&L for use in the engineering evaluation of cable tray supports.
4.6 Attributes which will be examined during the inspection /walkdown are listed below. Any connection which is inaccessible, will be indentified on the Rev. O drawing and returned to S&L prior to performing any inspection.
A) Connection Type B) Plate Sizes C) Member Sizes D) Bracing Orientation / Location E) Hanger Location / Orientation F) Beam Stiffener Installation G) Cable Pan Hold Down Detail Used (D-18 only)
H) Bolted Connections I) Physical Damage 4.6.1 Other items to be examined by S&L during the inspection /walkdown are:
A) Separation (PI-BB-77)
B) Clearance (No metal to metal contact)
C) Unidentified Loads
()
D) Weld Presence and Length E) Strut Manufacturers control Number Note: These activities will be performed by S&L per PI-BB-85.
5.0 Instructions 5.1 LKC QC shall be responsible for performing the following activities.
i
, 5.1.1 Verify the "As-Built" information utilizing Rev. 0 l
drawings and attach a copy of the drawing or any other j supporting information to the inspection report (Form B7, attached).
5.1.2 Mark each drawing noting the differences between the
' Rev. O drawing and the as built condition. The marked up drawing will be attached to the Form B7.
l 5.1.3 Sign and date the inspection form and the marked up copy of the Rev. O drawing. Inspection forms and the marked drawings are not to be signed by the review Level II Inspector at the time of the initial inspection (see paragraph 5.2.3b).
O (18774)
n,,--..--,---n- , , - . , - . , . . - - . . , , - , - , _ , . - - - , - - _-
l Issu2 Date 3/8/85 Rsvisicn No. 4. Datsd 6/26/85 Note: The Form #7 will only be signed in the Remarks
() section Note 1, as shown on the attachment.
5.1.4 Identify and record on the Rev. O drawings any outstanding
. ICR's. L. K. Comstock is to maintain a copy of all documents issued during the walkdown.
5.1.5 In cases where an additional sketch clearly showing the "As-Built" condition is needed, LKC shall provide S&L with sufficient information and maintain adequate traceability of the document to the hanger in question. h additional corrections / clarifications will recuire reverification by the S&L personnel and LKC OC inspector.
Chances recuire initial and datina.
5.1.6 "As-Built" information to be verified / recorded on the Rev. O drawing shall include but not be limited to:
A) Connection Type B) Plate Sizes C) Member Sizes l
D) Bracing Orientation / Location E) Hanger Location / Orientation F) Beam Stiffener Installation G) Bolt Type and Vendor Identification H) Cable Pan Hold Down Detail I) Physical Damage 5.1.7 If beam stiffeners are required and are not already called for on design drawings , proper notification shall be provided to Sargent & Lundy on the Rev. O drawing by l
recording the measurements. S&L will provide direction to
- G. K. Newberg of any required stiffener installations.
5.2 Upon completion of the S&L hanger evaluation, direction will be provided to LKC in accordance with existing s&L procedures. ,
5.2.1 All Rev. A drawings will be reviewed by LXC Prior to distribution, per LKC Procedure 4.2.1. LKC QC will notify LKC Engineering upon completion of their review and satisfactory incorporation of the red lined comments.
l 5.2.2 Any hanger that requires rework af ter the issue of the Rev. A drawing, S&L will provide design doctaments/ direction as to the changes needed. (ECN's' or revision to the drawing.) The QC Inspector reviewing the i
Rev. A drawing will issue an ICR for any rework required i
by S&L, and will update the Forn 87 by marking the l
appropriate attribute (s) reject and listing the ICR No. in the Remarks section.
O (18774)
- '~~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ **
Issus Dato 3/8/85 Ravisicn No. 4, Dated 6/26/85 l
l 5.2.2.1 The Form s7 will then be signed in the QC Inspector section and forwarded to another Level O II Inspector for review per para. 5.2.3c.
5.2.3 Hangers that do net require rework and have differences noted on the Rev. 3 drawings, require review by LKC QC..
5.2.3a LKC QC will compare the marked-up (Rev. 0) drawing to the Rev. "A" issue.
5.2.3b LKC QC Level II Inspector assigned to review the Rev. A drawing will ensure that all differences on the Rev. O drawing that fall outside the
' allowable tolerances for cable pan hangers and hanger details were incorporated. This review will be accomplished by signing in the Remarks section of the Form #7 (see Attachment 1). If all differences have been incorporated into Rev.
A, the inspector will sign the QC Inspector section of the Form #7 signifying proper incorporation of the " Redlined" and final acceptance of the hanger. Rev. A drawings will be attached to the original hanger package.
Note: The allowable tolerances include:
A) The general notes on the 0-3273 series drawings.
- 8) For containments, location dimensions are taken from structural members and not design grid O reference columns.
i j 5.2.3c A Level II Inspector will review the
' documentation for completeness and sign the Level II Review section of the Form #7.
5.2.4 For cases where the Rev. A drawing does not incorporate the Rev. O redlined differences, including physical j damage, Exhibit "A" shall be prepared in accordance with this program. Exhibit "A" forms will be logged to assure closure.
6.0 Documentation I 6.1 Documentation originated by LKC shall be processed / maintained by LKC in accordance with LKC Procedure 4.13.1. Documentation originated as a result of the inspection will be held in suspense until such time that LKC QC verifies acceptability of the Rev. A drawing.
6.2 For cases where installed hangers have dimensional differences and are outside primary tolerance, L. K. Comstock will issue an McR.
Upon incorporation of the differences into the Rev. A drawing or an ICR has been issued and completed, the NCR can be closed.
O (1877a) a 9
.,,c--__..c._. . - . . _ , , , . ~ , ,._-,,,,m,, . _ . - - . _ _ _ _ . . , _ , _ , . - -
BRAIDb'00D 4.8.12 QA SECT L. L COMSTOCK & COMPANY CON r IC.Un AT ION INSPECTIow CHCCrtTST OwG. try.
Support / Hanger Type NO. D(TATt Misc / Component (describe)
I L'ocation (81dg.)_ _Coord.
.I Conduit / Tray 10 Cley.
Drawing No. Rev.
[CN's/FCA's' AIR ( ) N/A CTR's Inspection Status [ ] In-Process [ ] Final ACC RCJ N/A
~
3.1.1 Traveler properly completed l () [] []
3.1.2 Clevation per design (within tolerance) () [] []
Location per design (within tolerance) V [] [] []
3.1.3 3.1.4 Proper Materials / Hardware used .0\ [] [] []
f <
3.1.5 Hgr./ Comp. Dimensions -Are Within
, t
/ I,VAllowable Tolerance [] [] []
3.1.8 Solts tightenec in a~ccordance with Engineering Documents And Procedure Requirements [] [] []
Solt Type Torque Wrench No. Due Date Torque Value 3.1.9 Special Bolting for Sliding Connections 3.1.9.1 Holes are the Proper Size [] [] []
3.1.9.2 Holes are Clean and Aligned [] [] []
3.1.9.3 Solts are Insta11ec Properly () () ()
Torque Wrench No. Due Date Torque Yalue RCMAR'KS: CECO NCR's 708 & 709 Syste= control Pan Manaer Inseeetien. IXC NCR ?oL9.
- 1. This Jor: 7 verifies field confor=ance with the /attached redlined revision 0 of the above design draving.
- 2. Revision A of the above design draving correction incorporates the attached redlined revision O. t3ves C3no / !
/
Reviewed 8y /
Level II Inspector Date QC. Inspector Date ,
vir a ..,c. oars navision Pop p
- as*n.co ,,...... .cy,3co M RR RV3 Pnocteung 05/27/80 jg 7
ATTACHMEh"; 1 Page 2 of 2 O
INSTRUCTIONS FCR COMPLETING FORM #7
- Configuration Inspection Checklist for Ceco NCR 708 & 709 Supplement
- 1. All of the applicable information above the Remarks section is to be filled in by the walkdown inspector.
. 2. Note 1 in the Remarks section is to be signed and dated by the walkdown inspector.
- 3. NOTE 2 is to be signed and dated by the QC inspector reviewing the Rev. A drawing to the Rev. O drawing.
- 4. After reviewing the Rev. A drawing to the Rev. O drawing, the QC inspector performing the review will sign the QC inspector portion of the Form 87.
S. Another Level II QC Inspector will review the documentation for O completeness and sign the Reviewed By section of the Form #7.
Special Note: The Form #7's initiated prior to the date of inplementation of Revision 2 of this supplement, were completed and signed in the QC Inspector block on the checklist. This signature verifies field conformance with the attached redlined Revision 0, of the as built design drawing. These checklists will be closed at the appropriate time based on Hanger / drawing acceptance and signed on the Level II block of the checklist. The " reviewed by" statement will be lined out initialed and dated. These checklists will then be reviewed in accordance with Item 5 above.
(1877a) t
3306 l O
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I think at this point it's 2 also time to recess for the day.
3 Will you have some further direct in the morning or 4 will you --
5 MR. MILLER: No, sir.
6 What I was planning on doing is, at the conclusion 7 of Mr. Guild's cross examination, although there's 8 really no reason why it couldn't be prior to his cross 9 examination, to point out for the benefit of the Board 10 and parties that Mr. Simile has brought with him copies 11 of the weld procedures, extracts from the Sargent &
12 Lundy specifications and copies of the AWS code and to O 13 ' state that I have really no objection and would
~
14 encourage the Board and the parties to examine Mr.
15 Simile on some of the subjects that have been of 16 interest to the Board with prior witnesses.
17 I didn't plan on any further direct examination 18 along that line because it seemed to me that the Board's 19 questions were really quite focused on certain specific 20 topics.
21 If the Board believes it would be useful, I'd be 22 happy to do so simply to identify some of the documents.
23 Maybe I ought to do that for the record, and I will do 24 that first thing tomorrow morning so that we have them
() 25 identified for the record.
Sonntag Reporti ng Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3307 O
1 I will simply mark them for identification and then 2 perhaps we can decide jointly how many, if any, should 3 be actually introduced as exhibits.
4 JUDGE GROSSNEN: I think that would be 5 helpful to have you pinpoint what we'll be looking for.
6 Thank you.
7 MR. MILLER: Thank you.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: So we will recess until 9:00 9 o' clock tomorrow morning.
10 (WHEREU PON, the hearing of the 11 above-entitled matter was continued to 12 the 6th day of June, at the hour of 9:00
( 13 o' clock A. M.)
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
- I rs 25 u
Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
0
- b E E eis m. cx E T-T DATE R-22-8V Weld Inspection Interpretation Training per Procedure 4.8.3, O' Rev. F, 5/10/84.
Evaluate the samples in accordance with the procedure require-ments and the weld symbols below.
-TN 3
Accept Rej ect
/
^
- 1. [ 1/8 V 2.25 Y'
O
/
\
Gil yacomsl5T5f~a D iod OG Y
/ It% y f3 u
.i
- 2. g,/ 1/8 / 2.25 o/L
.)
g.2.V64
(yS & m n % TO U.n.20s b LlECIXd me s Tyg4 04 ssep i,co, Gm^'
>gY
,zlJ I s To ac. 2eucoec . ,
d i
' aeJ v.nac)cA. cut N i l
d 1>B '
in l og . st. ,e O
I p*\ ;
4
__\
)
B b N Page 2 Q
- 5. [(1/4) b
- E o 3/16 [4.75 - ps N
9
@W[ eh p f
7 Y To* f qp#
1'
$ 7 b fy '
- 6. [ 1/4 [/ ( AaC.
ok O
y Evaluate Base ggJ. 6454 NE/AL GoaGf
^ Slet6 o uGn._ b .,
- 7. [ 3/16- [ M S.w-eq 's2.
I I
" " Yh " 7"##~
I
- 'O ##
i s 81.0 c n a cawi>ILO c&fE2
{2-1/8 8* [(3/16) 1 l
MELD 85 k._c_q i a stE.
& 8 - 2.6 - 9H I
i
i .
Page 3 O ;
p u . g u,/ j/j g o { g ri//s f i /j g ggg g g fg_7,g (
9.
l 1/4 8svu.
^^*c n ryyc x-Arte .5772i <L p x s ,. -
Y & 8-26-94 4,7 s e o s.s n c. ,
/ ggj- n a,v M :! "= ~ ied N
10.
[ 1/g /.
6/4 /h,,dod# .
M l'-961'r )
O
[5/16 [
- 11. 2
$k 12, 3/16 / .
oP'I .
I O
~ -~ . - _ - ~ - _ . . _ _ _ . _ -- . , _ _
h Page 4 l.
1
[ 3/16 [ AC[C.
'l -
14* [ 1/4 / H c. M M ~rv evD I .b fkor V/d. &ns rmy war oW4 %
g/ \Zst /yq"
),
lb7 ,
1/8 [
- 16. Porosity Evaluate h Weld t
l Evaluate Tuck
- Other Side i '
- 17. (3/16) (
O l
Qipe . C pat "~E h
O. v. r. 3 as , e @ ope h
rep.<exe/>d ad #e "WW sp.m b h dea n k ep t- . Raya
[g V2.zb x l
f lhh' b
\ 30
'r i
w
- 2. [ [aaf X i: Tl \
%f* 1/r e/t O
.A '
- */ 1 S '**
.A .4. &
2 .
t
.t Z'f y/c caer h "J oe /L
J% J s
, em
< ~~-
f~
9: :/ y p ., y c a
..-1
- g. A
% _s,
~>
D' l V -
. '3
' ji.*y '
. b ' *. '
0.
'u4k y C_
er / w t x D g 7 g.,s. "P%"
(p tA N$"2 Cut.J ?* **
- W ;m pem n e s.t. afew y fld. en cWo6 L .
j l sl&
A A E'$2 (o / Ml 4 t. 2- y 'k ~~ i O , 2na/e s::e V A*'t > Ez~ m- m" 7
l ta /
Q )
se: e- -% L eaf n i. . . .
l^ 4 >%" .CL; 7 &
(ffjf(2r _
~
g j
(=
w A A P
sm us w a-O
- F. r - u p ( w u b e.~ s , o a j, e'
+
d# 4e# '
l 3 / 4Wre * % " p p' m . ,_ a _
O A54 - m"
/p;L b,f$V -
a g/ & /2 5 7
+
i l
v l
- ' . . - , ,_____m
. . . - . ..._.4.._,_~
- 5. . . . .. .
eg p .
)
e 84 !2 0' y C DrM M/ t gf,_n
~
fam%
.o - % k 7
tr y y/s om /Se "97 7 %. 'Abf
>O yy a 4 .d- z" .k
& sa n y - A.
- v. n.q x ra w e. c.a uccL a Gr.a bs - 9" C
e hN "
k f M .A *7+e O
e+ ,
J
's , ' * .-
=_______ ,
NO PAGE NUMBER CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER l
O This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STNTES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the raatter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING: BRAIDWOOD STATION i UNITS 1 & 2 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (EVIDENTIARY HEARING)
DOCKET NO.: 50-456/457-OL PLACE: JOLIET, ILLINOIS DATE: Thursday aUNE 5,1986
, were held as herein appears, and that this is the original i transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
- lsigttbNN4 wD 7 i (TYPED) G. AtT6n Sonn
- Official Reporter l Reporter's Affiliation l
1 4
0 i
NO PAGE NUMBER CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STNTES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING: BRAIDWOOD STATION UNITS 1 & 2 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (EVIDENTIARY HEARING)
DOCKET NO.: 50-456/457-OL PLACE: JOLIET, ILLINOIS DATE: Thurs day JUNE 5, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
( si_c_t I d41/A f f uu
( "'YP ED ) Nancy J. IIonp official Reporter Reporter's Affiliation 1
O s