ML20198R560
| ML20198R560 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 06/04/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#286-518 OL, NUDOCS 8606100117 | |
| Download: ML20198R560 (218) | |
Text
. ..
ORIGINAf_
O UN11ED 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: 2834 - 3050 i DATE: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 1986 bf l
4 l
l ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Official Reporters 444 North CapitolStreet Washington, D.C. 20001 8606100117 860604 (202)WM
^oo " o
- o" 88A' momos couucz
2834 O
V 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 12 s ,/ Wednesday, June 4, 1986. 60426 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 21 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
22 JUDGE A. DIXON CALLIHAN, Membe r ,
23 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 24 Washington, D. C.
() 25 APPEARANCES:
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2835 1 On behalf of the Applicant:
2 JOSEPH GALLO, ESQ.
ELENA Z. KEZELIS, ESQ.
3 Isham, Lincoln & Beale 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, ESQ.
TIMOTHY WRIGHT, ESQ.
11 12
' O- 13 14 15 16 17 18 l 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
([J i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2836 1 EXHIBIT INDEX Marked Received Withdrawn Applicant's Exhibit No. 4 2946 2946 2954, 2962 2
WITNESS INDEX 3
TESTIMONY OF JAMES GIESEKER 4
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) 5 BY MR.. GUILD 2847 BY MR'. BERRY 2886 6 BOARD EXAMINATION BY JUDGE GROSSMAN 2897 7 BY JUDGE COLE 2910 BY JUDGE CALLIHAN 2916 8 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GALLO 2927 9 BOARD EXAMINATION BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: 2963 10 RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. GUILD: 2965 11 TESTIMONY OF JAMES TAGGART LOUDEN 12
{/j
- 13 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GALLO: 2973 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 14 BY MR. GUILD: 2978 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: '
2981 15 CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. GUILD: 2985 16 BY MS. CHAN: 2996 BOARD EXAMINATION 17 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: 3003 BY JUDGE COLE: 3010 18 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: 3017 BY JUDGE CALLIHAN: 3018 19 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: 3022 BY JUDGE COLE: 3025 20 BY JUDGE CALLIHAN: 3026 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. GALLO: 3026 BOARD EXAMINATION 22 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: 3039 BY JUDGE COLE: 3039
- 23 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: 3041
- RECROSS EXAMINATION 24 BY MR. GUILD
- 3041 BY MS. CHAN: 3045 25 REDIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) i O BY MR. GALLO: 3046 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
i - _ _ - - -
2837 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. We are back in 2 session. The 13th day of hearing is convened.
3 We left with Mr. Guild cross examining.
4 MR. GUILD: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
5 A brief off-the-record discussion preceded the 6 opening of the record. We understand that Applicant may 7 have a position, proposed stipulation, with respect to 8 some foundation objections that we had raised by our 9 motion to strike regarding Mr. Vannier's testimony.
10 Mr. Vannier is fast approaching, and I just want to 11 ask on the record whether Applicant intends to make such
~ 12 a proposed stipulation and when we might anticipate it, i'
13 MR. GALLO: Judge Grossman, the Intervenors 14 have interposed two objections with respect to Mr.
15 Vannier's testimony.
16 One is as to general relevance. The other ,
17 objection is with respect to a lack of foundation being 18 laid in terms of the test coupons that were used by Mr.
19 Vannier to, essentially, re-grade Mr. Puckett's test.
20 That was his field practical test.
21 The objection is that there is no showing that the 22 coupons evaluated by Mr. Vannier are the same coupons 23 that were used by Mr. Puckett during his test; and I am 24 able to establish through another witness, a Mr.
() 25 Dominique, who worked for Comstock, now works for BESTCO Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
L 2838 O
1 but at the time worked for Comstock and was the Training 2 Coordinator, that he gave Mr. Puckett the test and, 3 essentially, that the coupons that were given to Mr.
4 Vannier were the same ones that Mr. Puckett used during 5 his test.
6 It's that series of events that I will -- well, 7 that I could show by calling Mr. Dominique as a 8 foundation witness; and I would hope that I could 9 demonstrate it to the satisfaction of Intervenors so 10 that we could stipulate that the foundation exists and 11 the objection would be withdrawn.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, that sounds fine. I Os .
13 don't think we are called upon to do anything.
14 If you have the necessary foundation, you are 15 certainly entitled to put the witness on and supply it.
16 MR. GALLO: Well, we will. Mr. Dominique is 17 going to come to the hearing room today. I have never 18 met the man.
19 As soon as I have an opportunity to talk to him and l 20 confirm the facts that I have related to the Board, I i
21 will try to contact Mr. Guild to see if we can't handle 22 the matter formally.
23 MR. GUILD: That would be fine, Judge, i 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Before we get onto the
() 25 witness, too, we have just gotten the response to Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2839 O
1 Applicant's motion in liminae with regard to the Puckett 2 settlement agreement; and I have -- my in camera 3 enclosure and I have -- asked my fellow Board members 4 not to read that, even though they have opened it 5 inadvertently.
6 Maybe we ought to have some argument on that. Are 7 you prepared to handle that, Mr. Gallo?
8 MR. GALLO: I have not seen the Intervenors 9 response. I am not sure what the issue is.
10 I understand our pleading and how we want to limit 11 the extent of the settlement.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I just have a few questions 13 of Intervenors; and that is, that relates to the 14 question of relevancy.
15 What is relevant about -- Mr. Guild, what is 16 relevant about -- the fact that, even assuming that 17 Applicants thought that they were going to lose the 18 Department of Labor case -- what is relevant to us --
19 about that?
20 MR. GUILD: I will ask Mr. Wright to address 21 that.
22 We take a relevance position in the response to the 23 motion in liminae. Our belief is that the settlement 24 agreement is relevant.
() 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Wright.
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2840 1 MR. WRIGHT: Yes, Judge Grossman.
2 I think it's relevant not only for the four corners
, 3 of the settlement agreement itself but the events and 4 the circumstances surrounding the settlement, which we 5 allude to in our motion.
6 There was a series of events that led up to the 7 actual negotiations and the actual settlement. We feel 8 that those are very relevant and they really speak to a 9 weakness in Comstock's position in regard to the Puckett 10 situation on harassment and intimidation and retaliatory 11 firing.
fw 12 We feel that the settlement is relevant in that,
(-) 13 No. 1, for completeness, so that you can see what the 14 whole events were and the embodiment of those events in 15 the settlement itself.
16 We feel the summary terms of the settlement are 17 also indicative of a weakness in Comstock's position 18 that could lead this Joard to believe that Comstock 19 themselves felt that they were, in fact, liable for 20 retaliatory discharge, harassment and intimidation.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That's my question.
22 Let's assume that at the beginning they thought 23 they could win the case and then later they thought they 24 would lose it, and rather than lose it, they decided to
() 25 throw in the towel -- I am assuming the facts as best I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ,
Geneva, Illinois 60lT4 (312) 232-0262
_L ~ .a-!
2841 O
1 can for your position.
2 What if they thought they might lose or they would 3 lose the case? How is that relevant to us when we have 4 a decision to make as to whether their case is strong or 5 weak?
6 Why should we be influenced at all by what they 7 thought about their case or what the Department of Labor 8 thought about their case?
9 We have to decide on the basis of the facts.
10 MR. GUILD: Judge, our belief that there is 11 legal significance and factual significance to the
,f s 12 determination made by,the U. S. Department of Labor in i
13 Mr. Puckett's retaliatory discharge claim.
14 It's independent of the evidentiary question that 15 is presented by this particular motion, so we don't ask 16 the Board to decide that at this point but just to 17 address your more general question of relevance.
18 Of course, the outcome that was extant at the time 19 of the Area Director's motion was in Mr. Puckett's 20 favor. They found that he, indeed, had been engaged in 21 a protected activity within the meaning of the Act and 22 that he had been discharged in retaliation for engaging 23 in that protected activity.
24 The company, as they had a right to do, filed a
() 25 request for an appeal, filed a request for a hearing Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2842
/~T U
1 before the ALJ.
2 Puckett puts up his case at the DOL proceeding 3 before the Administrative Law Judge; and at that point 4 settlement negotiations are entered into and the matter 5 settled, reflected in the documents in camera.
6 !t's our belief that, essentially, that reflects
, 7 that Comstock withdrew their appeal.
8 The status then of the proceedings is that the 9 decision below, in effect, is the determination -- the
- 10 final determination -- and it is in Mr. Puckett's favor.
11 We intend later in this proceeding to ask the Board g-) 12 to attach significance to that outcome, so for
%)
13 evidentiary purposes, it's our belief that, as Mr.
14 Wright argued, the settlement agreement has relevance to 15 the Board weighing the circumstances, the total 16 circumstances in which Comstock receded from their 17 appeal, weighing the total circumstances of the DOL's 18 determination, in effect, in Mr. Puckett's favor and as 19 an indication of weakness of position.
i 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, you already have in 21 the record the fact of the DOL having come out with a 22 favorable decision.
23 We can certainly take official notice of that if l
l 24 it's not in the record, but my impression is that 25 somewhere it is.
1
(])
Sonntag Reporting Servi _ce_, _
Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 c
2843 O
1 MR. GUILD: It is. It is an evidence 2 exhibit.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And they settled out from
- 4 under that without going any further.
5 The settlement agreement doesn't contribute to 1 6 those facts. You know, those are established facts.
i 7 Now, what you are, basically, asking us to do is to 8 defer to the opinion of Applicant with regard to its 9 litigating strength; but I don't see how that has any 10 relevance to our making our decision, which we just have 11 to make on the basis of facts.
- 12 If those facts were presented to the ALJ at the 13 Department of Labor and no decision was made, you are 14 just going to have to present those, the same evidence, 15 to us. There is no way out of that.
16 I am not going to -- we are not going to defer to 17 the opinions of the parties which have no standing or to 18 what they may have assumed was the opinion of the ALJ, 19 which has no standing here, either.
- 20 MR. GUILD
- No, sir.
1 21 We believe, though, that the determination by the
- 22 Department of Labor does have status and we certainly 1
23 have not taken the position so far in this case that 24 this Board should not inquire fully into the facts of l
() 25 Mr. Puckett's complaints and the facts of his l
Sonntag Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2844
(~h G
1 termination.
2 We have, obviously, spent considerable time 3 discussing those issues on the record, so it's hardly
, 4 this party's position that the Board should be 5 foreclosed from looking into those facts themselves.
6 We think that it's a question of how many bricks 7 there are in the wall, the wall constituting the 8 totality of the facts and circumstances that the Board 9 will have to weigh when considering Intervenors' 10 position on the Puckett matter.
11 We think one of those building blocks, one of those 12 bricks, is the settlement agreement.
4 13 We have not offered it in evidence. We are simply 14 responding defensively to the Applicant's position, 15 which is that this Board should be foreclosed from 16 considering one of those building blocks.
17 We don't mean to attach, you know, central 18 significance to it. We just believe that when time 19 comes for findings in this case, we don't want to be in 20 a position where Applicants argue that the absence of
- 21 the settlement agreement in evidence is a critical flaw 22 in the factual case supporting Intervenors' position on 23 the Puckett discharge.
24 It is really a defensive posture, admittedly, one 25 that we don't think -- we are not trying to attach
/)
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2845 O
- 1 greater than life significance to but simply for the
, 2 reasons stated in our pleading believe that the Board 3 should not foreclose consideration of the settlement 4 agreement, certainly not at this stage, on the basis of 5 Applicant's motion in liminae.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. You are in a position ,
i I 7 where there is a public policy against admitting 8 evidence with regard to settlement agreements, which is j!
9 embodied in a rule of civil procedure, Federal -- I am j!
} 10 sorry -- Federal rule of evidence; and you have to make i
11 some showing as to why we would go contrary to.the 12 public policy.
0, 13 So the least you would have to show is some
) 14 relevance, which I really don't see, you know; and let's 1 15 assume that, as I have, that Applicant thought that it i 16 was going to lose. For all Applicant knows, while it i 17 may have thought it had a five-percent chance, the ALJ
, 18- might have come down in its favor if it had pursued the l-19 litigation.
] 20 So it really amounts to asking us to defer to i
i 21 someone else's judgment when we have the responsibility l 22 to make our own independent judgment.
23 MR. GUILD: I don't think it's an either or 24 question, Judge; and that's essentially the position we
-() 25 try to argue in our pleading, in that you should simply
}
- Sonatag_ Reporting service. Ltd.
! Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
2846 1 consider it as one fact among others, certainly not to
~
2 the exclusion of this Board making its own independent 3 judgment on those facts. That's not our position at 4 all.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. We are not going to 6 rule on it right now, so we might just as well go on to 7 the hearing and continue with your examination of the 8 witness, unless there is some other preliminary matter 9 that should be heard.
10 Is there anything, Mr. Gallo?
11 MR. GALLO: Well, I would just say in 12 response to the exchange between the Chairman and Mr.
13 Guild, I think, Judge Grossman, you characterized 14 adequately Applicant'c position and we need to advance 15 no other argument on that.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine.
17 MR. BERRY: Mr. Chairman.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes.
19 MR. BERRY: Nothing the Staff has heard here 20 this morning has caused it to retreat from the position 21 expressed in its pleading.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine. Why don't we proceed, 23 Mr. Guild.
24 MR. GUILD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
() 25 Good morning, Mr. Gieseker.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2847 O
1 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
2 CROSS EXAMINATION 3 (Continued.)
4 BY MR. GUILD 5 Q Let's talk about John Seeders for a little bit more, 6 please.
7 You were a participant in the decisions to either 8 terminate or transfer Mr. Seeders; and I take it fairly 9 that you agree with the outcome, do you not, that is the 10 decision that Mr. Seeders either be terminated or 11 transferred?
- 12 A Yes.
13 Q And, in fact, of course, he was transferred after 14 consideration of Mr. Shamblin's advice to Mr. DeWald; 15 correct?
16 A That's correct.
17 Q Is it fair to conclude that your support for that 18 outcome of the decision to either terminate or transfer 19 Mr. Seeders was based on your agreement that Mr. Seeders 20 wac at fault with respect to the calibration -- the tool 21 calibration -- problems?
22 A I was aware that there were problems in the calibration 23 area and accepted Comstock representation that Seeders 24 was part of that problem, yes.
() 25 0 All right. Did you make any independent determination Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2848 O
1 yourself, Mr. Gieseker, aside from what you accepted by 2 way of Comstock's representations, any independent 3 determination that Mr. Seeders was, in fact, at fault?
4 A At the time of the 9-28 meeting I can't remember exactly 5 if I had reviewed any additional documents other than I 6 was certainly aware of the general calibration problems.
7 In preparation of testimony, I have since reviewed 8 the audit report, which indicates Mr. Seeders and 9 Comstock responses and the research done by the three 10 Comstock inspectors and feel that, certainly, the 11 problems or some of the problems, at least, that were 12 occurring in the calibration area did occur during Mr.
13 Seeders' responsibility for calibration.
14 Q Well, that may be a different matter now.
15 The problems occurred while John Seeders happened 16 to be on the job, right, during the period when he was 17 the calibration inspector?
18 A Right.
19 Q My question to you is: First let's limit it to the time 20 when you were a participant in the decision to take 21 adverse action against Mr. Seeders, and that was in the 22 late September, 1984, time frame.
23 At that time did you just accept representations by 24 Comstock; is that your testimony?
() 25 A Yes.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2849 O
1 Q So you may have reached a more definitive view but that 2 would be later as a result of further review after the 3 fact?
4 A That's correct.
5 Q Mr. Seeders was responsible for performing calibration 6 inspections; correct?
7 A That's correct.
8 Q And as part of the calibration inspection procedure, for 9 initiating documentation as called for by that procedure 10 with respect to the calibration inspections?
11 A Yes.
12 Q The tools that were being calibrated, these were tools 13 that are used by the craft in the field, are they not?
14 A Yes; and, in addition, QC Inspectors.
15 0 Taking, for example, torque wrenches: The torque 16 wrenches, that's a tool that a craftsman uses to install 17 a bolt; correct?
18 A That's correct.
19 Q Mr. Seeders didn't install bolts, did he?
20 A No. The use of the torque wrench by the QC Department 21 would be for a post verification of the torque.
22 Q But the torque wrench was used by the craft in the first 23 instance to install bolts in the field?
24 A Right.
() 25 Q Now, do I understand correctly that under the Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. _ _ - _ . _. _ ~_ _ _ _-. _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . ._ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _
l t
2850
- l' calibrations procedure at the time, once an
) 2 out-of-calibration condition was identified, Mr. Seeders 3 would initiate a document that would direct the Project 4
4 Manager, Mr. Rolan, to control the out-of-calibration 5 tool and to keep it from being used in the field for 6 work, pending evaluation and disposition of the i
j: 7 out-of-calibration condition?
8 A I am not familiar with that document, I guess. I would
}
l 9 have to look at the procedure again.
- 10 Are you speaking of an ICR or --
11 Q Well, perhaps an ICR; but let me ask you to turn to Mr.
L 12 Seltmann's attachment to his testimony. It's Seltmann O 13 3.
2 14- It's Mr. Seltmann's September 25, 1984, memorandum i
15 on the subject of the tool calibration program, 4
16 addressed to Mr. DeWald.
i I 17 A I don't have that attachment.
18 MR. GUILD: Could I ask counsel to make a l 19 copy available, please?
) 20 MR. GALLO: It's Exhibit Seltmann 3?
21 MR. GUILD: Yes, it is.
22 MR. GALLO: Do you want the witness to just i I
23 familiarize himself?
.i j 24 MR. GUILD: No. That's all. -
() 25 BY MR. GUILD:
}
- j. Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
j Geneva, Illinois 60134 j (312) 232-0262 4
r - + +rw y -- - - - - ~s.-%-- .-----s----, s----. ,e-------,-~,,--- ,e -e-.-m-w-p+w------,---.-meeme----,..er e, we _. _ ,,we,----.+e
2851 l
l /~
1 Q I am going to direct your attention, Mr. Gieseker, if I 2 may, to a quote from the or recitation of the relevant 3 portions of the Comstock calibration procedure, 4.9.1 t 4 that is contained in that memo.
5 If you look at the first page of Mr. Seltmann's 6 9-25 memo, do you see that quoted language at the bottom 7 of the page?
8 A Okay. The two paragraphs, 3.3.7 and 3.3.7.1?
9 0 Yes, sir.
10 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, Chairman of the 11 Board, it's Seltmann 3.
g 12 It's the multi-page memorandum to Mr. DeWald about d 13 the calibration program, the first page.
14 BY MR. GUILD:
15 Q All right. Now, there Mr. Seltmann quotes Rev C from 16 Procedure 4.9.1.
17 To the best of your knowledge, Mr. Gieseker, is 18 that the relevant procedure that governed tool 19 calibration work in effect at the time that Mr. Seeders 20 was performing this work?
21 A To the best of my knowledge.
22 Q Now, I notice that if you look at 3.3.7, it states there 23 that the Inspection Correction Report will identify the 24 items which have not been calibrated, denote the date of 25 calibration expiration and -- this is the operative
(])
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2852 O
1 language -- direct the Project Manager to remove the 2 equipment from service and to return the equipment 3 immediately to the warehouse for storage.
4 Doesn't that language indicate that it's the 5 responsibility of Mr. Rolan, Project Manager, to control 6 -
the out-of-calibration tools?
7 A Yes.
8 Q If you turn in Mr. Seltmann's attachments several pages 9 further -- I am not certain whether it has a different 10 number; I gather not. It's an ICR.
11 This is an ICR that is attached to a Seese 12 Septembe r 21, 1984, memo, which has a Bates number of 13 2001 at the bottom.
14 A Yes.
15 Q Do you see that?
16 A Yes.
17 MR. GALLO: Is there a question?
18 MR. GUILD: If the members of the Board are 19 trying to find the document, I am waiting.
20 BY MR. GUILD:
21 Q That ICR, just by way of example, on the form at the top 22 of the page says, "From John Seeders to Frank Rolan"?
23 A That's correct.
24 Q Frank Rolan is the Comstock construction site Project
() 25 Manage r , is he not?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2853 (v~)
1 A That's right.
2 Q And it's, in effect, directing Mr. Rolan to control this 3 particular tool; correct?
4 A Yes. The ICR is addressed to Mr. Rolan and -- yes.
5 Q And, in fact, then as the ICR reflects, the corrective 6 action in this instance is corrective action that is 7 indicated about midway down the page by an Oscar Larson, 8 who is the construction representative; and he fills in 9 a blank in this particular ICR,' " Corrective action 10 taken, quote, all research completed. LKC number," et 11 cetera. "Not used in the field since date of last 12 calibration."
O 13 Signed Oscar Larson, construction representative, i 14 9-17-84.
I
- - 15 So it's the construction side representative who in 16 this instance performs the research to determine whether 17 or not that particular tool was, in fact, used in the 18 field since the date of last calibration; correct?
19 A That's correct.
20 0 And to the best of your knowledge, is that the customary i
21 practice -- was that the customary practice during Mr.
22 Seeders' time -- that it would be a construction 23 representative who would do that aspect of the 24 calibration, the tool calibration program?
() 25 A That's right.
, Sonntac Reportino Service, Ltd. ,
Geneva, Illinois 60134
, (312) 232-0262
2854
<3 b
1 Q Isn't it a fact, Mr. Gieseker, that one of the 2 corrective actions that was taken to prevent recurrence 3 of the tool calibration problems after Mr. Seeders was 4 punitively transferred --
5 MR. GALLO: I am' going to object.
6 MR. GUILD: Let me state the question.
7 MR. GALLO: I am sorry.
8 BY MR. GUILD:
9 Q -- was that problems with control of tools or issuance 10 to the field of uncalibrated tools were dealt with by 11 providing for quality control management of the tool 12 crib to assure that tools that were not in calibration O 13 were not, in fact, used in the field?
14 MR. G ALLO: I object to the question, the 15 form of the question, use of the t.e.rm, " Punitively 16 transferred."
17 There is no foundation for the statement by 18 counsel.
19 MR. GUILD: I think it's an accurate 20 question, but that is not the point of my question.
21 I will recede from the term and say that Mr.
22 Seeders was involuntarily transferred.
23 Can you answer the question?
24 MR. GALLO: I object to that.
(} 25 I am not sure he was involuntarily transferred, l
! Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 1
2855 1 either.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Overruled.
3 I think that is pretty well established.
4 MR. GALLO: Well, I would take exception, 5 Judge Grossman.
t 6 It won't be established until Mr. Seeders is 7 called.
- 8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gallo, you know you 9 don't have to take exceptions here. They are automatic.
, 10 That is just arguing a ruling.
11 Do you understand the question?
s 12 A Yes, sir.
O 13 Part of the corrective action of NCR 3419 was the 14 establishment of a hold area inside the tool crib; and 15 that hold area would be used to control nonconforming 16 instruments, tools, you know, until they were 17 recalibrated. <
3 18 BY MR. GUILD: '
( 19 Q And that was because you had identified problems with
! 20 the craft, essentially, failing to control uncalibrated l
21 tools as they were obligated to do under the calibration 22 program?
23 A That's what -- yes.
24 0 Was any punitive action taken against any -- against Mr.
() 25 Frank Rolan, the Project Manager, or any -- member of Sonntag Reporting Servich _ktf. I
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 232-0262 (312)
- - - _ . - - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ . .-. = __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
2856 O
x/
1 the construction side, the craft, for deficiencies in 2 the tool calibration program?
3 A There was --
4 MR. GALLO: I object to the form of the 5 question.
6 I don't know what the word " punitive" means in 7 terms of the use by counsel.
8 MR. GUILD: I don't think it's necessary to 9 the question, Mr. Gallo.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Overruled.
11 The witness can answer the question. If he doesn't 12 understand something, he can ask for an explanation.
g-)
V 13 A I wouldn't characterize it as punitive action, but the 14 persons responsible for the tool crib were re-trained to 15 the procedures.
16 BY MR. GUILD:
17 0 Well, were any of them involuntarily transferred or 18 terminated?
19 A Not to my knowledge.
20 0 Was there any disciplinary action at all taken against 21 any craft person or against Mr. Rolan, the Project 22 Manager, for their culpability for deficiencies in the 23 tool calibration program?
24 A Not to my knowledge.
() 25 0 Was there any disciplinary action of any sort taken Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2857 O
1 against anyone else, aside from Mr. Seeders, as a result 2 of identified deficiencies in the tool calibration 3 program?
4 A No. The -- no, and let me explain my answer.
- 5. Mr. Seeders was the only person doing calibration 6 at-that time.
7 Had there been additional people in the calibration 8 area, also performing calibrations, we would have had to 9 address their performance, also; but they had -- nobody 10 . was working in that area that was still on site.
11 Q Was an'y action taken against Mr. Saklak?
12' He wac Mr. Seeders' supervisor in the calibration 7-
\_/
13 area.
14 '
A No.
15 Q How about Mr. Phillips, who was Mr. Seeders' lead?
16 A No.
, 17' Q Mr. DeWald, who was next in the chain of command and as 18 the record reflects, the only person up the chain who 11 9 was, in fact, certified in calibrations?
20 A No.
21 ~ Q No odo else aside from Mr. Seeders?
22 A That's correct.
23 Q Do you know whether there was any evaluation of Messrs.
24 Phillips, Saklak and DeWald's work performance because
() 25 of their involvement in the calibrations area?
Sonntag Repotting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2858 1 A I don't know of any.
2 MR. GALLO: Mr. Guild, are you finished with 3 Seltmann 3?
4 MR. GUILD: Yes, I am. Thank you very much.
5 BY MR. GUILD:
6 Q Let's talk about Mr. Puckett, Mr. Worley Puckett, Mr.
7 Gieseker.
8 I take it that you were not on the site for a long 9 time where you had your first involvement with Mr.
10 Puckett?
11 A That's correct.
12 Q You weren't on the site over the period of time that Mr.
'^'
13 Puckett was working as the Level 3 Weld Inspector for 14 Comstock, May-August.
15 You came in in August?
16 A August 6th.
17 0 I think, principally, you said you attended this August 18 22nd meeting in which the resolution of the NCR 3099 was 19 discussed?
20 A That's correct.
21 Q And had you had any prior personal contact with Mr.
22 Puckett?
23 A No, sir.
24 Q So you hadn't discussed what Mr. Puckett's concerns were
/" 25 or what the basis was for the position that he was V)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2859 1 taking at that meeting, other than in that meeting?
2 A That's correct.
3 Q Now, on Page 22 of your prefiled direct testimony with 4 respect to that meeting, you state, "Mr. Puckett, 5 however" -- this is the first lines of the page. "Mr.
6 Puckett, however, had taken the position that the 7 problem was extremely serious," et cetera.
8 Now, this has to do with the unqualified weld 9 procedure, the A-36 to A-446 issue; correct?
10 A Correct.
11 Q Now, when you state that Puckett had taken the position
- 12 that the problem was extremely serious, that's not based 13 on any personal knowledge you have, because you hadn't 14 talked to Mr. Puckett prior to that meeting; right?
15 A That's correct.
16 That was based on a memo written to Mr. DeWald by 17 Mr. Puckett.
18 Q So that's based on your interpretation of what Mr.
19 Puckett said in a memo addressing this problem?
20 A That's correct.
21 Q And that's your judgment; the " extremely serious" is 22 your judgment about what Mr. Puckett's position was?
23 A Extremely serious, because he recommended a stop work.
24 Q But my point is: The judgment that Puckett took the i
() 25 position that the matter was extremely serious, that is Soantaa Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois 60134
! (312) 232-0262
2860 O
1 your judgment, the use of your judgment?
2 A Yes, sir.
3 0 Based on the action that Mr. Puckett took?
4 A That's correct.
5 Q And that action being the stop work recommendation?
6 A That's right.
7 Q And you recite that in the meeting you proposed the 8 resolution that, in effect, cured the nonconforming 9 condition, the nonconforming weld procedure, by adding 10 A-36 to the three PQR's that did not have A-36 on them; 11 correct?
g-) 12 A Right.
^
13 0 And that that resolution satisfied Mr. Puckett by the 14 appearance of his acquiescence at the time of the 15 meeting, in any event?
16 A Right.
17 Q Now, there isn't necessarily anything inconsistent, is 18 there, Mr. Gieseker, with Mr. Puckett taking the 19 position reflected in the memo that you saw, and that is 20 that no work should continue utilizing those 21 nonconforming procedures until the procedures were 22 properly qualified, and the acquiescence in your 23 decision as the Commonwealth Edison client 24 representative that the way the problem should be
(') 25 resolved -- the nonconformance resolved -- was by Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
.. -- .. _ _ .=. _ . _ . - -
2861
(~)
V 1 directing that the procedures be revised to specify the 2 absent material, the A-36 material?
- 3 A Well, it's my opinion that Mr. Puckett should have 4 realized that the process that he was concerned about, 3
5 the A-446 to A-36 weldment, was, indeed, qualified by 6 the qualification for A-36 to A-500 and, indeed, there
- 7 was not a hardware concern, and that there was not a 8 stop-work condition there.
9 Q Well, did Mr. Puckett say to you that he believed that 4
10 the procedure could not be qualified or could not be --
11 the procedural deficiency could not be remedied in the
- 12 way that you suggested?
- 13 A I understood from the engineering representation on the 14 NCR that we were being asked to qualify the -- stop the i 15 work until we qualified the procedure.
[ 16 O Stop the work until the deficiency was cured, and that l 17 deficiency could be cured by any number of ways, and the l
l 18 way you chose to cure it was to make the change to the 19 PQR's; right?
20 A That's right.
21 Q And it was your judgment that the change could be made 22 to the PQR's, and that having made the change to the 23 PQR's, work could then proceed utilizing those welding 24 procedures?
() 25 A That's right.
Sonntaq Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 i '
2062 O) s_
3 Q Did you provide --
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me.
3 Mr. Gieseker, you still haven't answered that 4 question of whether Mr. Puckett disagreed with your 5 resolution of the problem.
6 Did he indicate any disagreement with your adding 7 the A-446 material to the qualification list?
8 THE WITNESS: No, sir; but he did also then 9 raise at the same meeting a concern about, "Shouldn't we 10 be using a different weld procedure to qualify" --
11 excuse me, welding code, that being the 1.3 Code instead 12 of the 1.1 Code.
13 MR. GUILD: I want to talk about that issue, 14 too.
15 MR. GALLO: I have an objection.
-16 I believe the witness was attempting to answer your 17 question, Judge Grossman, and he was cut off by Mr.
18 Guild.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: But, Mr. Gallo, he was 20 giving more than an answer to that question.
21 And it was not my question. I was just asking the 22 witness to answer the question that had already been 23 posed to him that he hadn't answered.
24 The answer, I take it, then, is that he didn't
(} 25 voice any objection to that resolution but then he also Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2863 O
V 1 brought up the question of which procedure should be 2 utilized; is that correct?
3 THE WITNESS: Which code, yes, sir.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: All right, which code, fine.
5 Mr. Guild.
6 BY MR. GUILD:
7 Q In fact, to be specific, the resolution was to specify 8 the A-36; that was the absent material; correct?
9 A Yes, sir, on the PQR's.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I am sorry. It was the A-36 11 not'the A-446.
12 MR. GUILD: Right.
O. 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I am sorry. I misspoke.
14 BY MR. GUILD:
15 Q But the point of the answer is the same, that he voiced 16 -- he, Mr. Puckett, voiced -- no objection to that 17- resolution; correct?
18 A No, not at that meeting.
19 There was a -- the next day at the procedure review 20 meeting he expressed continuing concern on the 21 qualification, that we were using the wrong code.
22 Q Okay. Now, that's the second issue.
23 Mr. Puckett expressed the judgment that the more 24 appropriate code to qualify this procedure and, perhaps, 25 others for welding thin-gauge material at Comstock was
(])
Sonntag Reportina Service,_.Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2864 (m
i %/
1 the newer AWS D 1.3 Code, which was specifically 3
2 promulgated to address the welding of thin-gauge 3 material; correct?
4 A Well, I understood that to be -- Mr. Puckett's concern 5 to be -- stronger than that.
6 He indicated to me that we didn't have an 7 alternative; that it was mandatory, in effect, that we 8 should go to the 1.3 Code; and, in effect, it was 9 incorrect or somehow inappropriate that we continue to 10 use the 1.1 Code.
11 Q Well, inappropriate, didn't you understand, because now 12 there was a better mouse trap: There is a better O 13 vehicle for specifying how, according to the codes and 14 stand rds body that provides guidance in the area -- and 15 that's the American Welding Society -- there was a 16 better vehicle fot specifying how you go about welding i 17 thin-gauge material?
l 18 MR. GALLO: Objection. Asked and answered.
19 The question assumes a premise that is contrary to 20 the witness's last answer.
21 MR. GUILD: I don't believe it is, Mr.
22 Chairman.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me. Mr. Reporter, i
24 could you repeat the question?
l
(} 25 (The question was thereupon read by the I
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 6Df34 (312) 232-0262
2865 O
1 Reporter.)
2 MR. GALLO: I hesitate, Judge Grossman, to 3 point out in front of the witness the additional aspect 4 of his answer which is contrary to that, the question 5 posed by Mr. Guild. ,
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gieseker, can you answer 7 the question that is posed?
8 A Again, it was my understanding from Mr. Puckett that he t
9 was saying it was wrong to use the D 1.1 Code; and 10 that's simply not -- it's simply not the case. It's 11 not.
12 It's --
' O 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I believe the question asks 14 you whether, in your opinion, there was anything wrong 15 with Mr. Puckett advocating the use of the subsequent 16 code, which relates to thinner gauge material more l 17 specifically than the prior code, which, apparently, 18 treated all the material the same.
19 Now, was there anything wrong with Mr. Puckett 20 advocating the use of the newer code?
21 THE WITNESS: There is nothing wrong with him 22 asking that or indicating that; but, again, I don't 23 think that he was just advocating it. I think he was, j 24 in my opinion, saying that it was -- we were -- it was Q 25 mandated that we had to use the 1.3.
Sonntag_ Rep _prting Se rvice, Ltda
! Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2866 O
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: All right, fine.
2 Mr. Guild.
3 BY MR. GUILD:
4 Q Do you know whether or not Mr. Puckett was aware that 5 the relevant Sargent & Lundy specification made it 6 optional with the contractor to use either the 7 pre-existing D 1.1-75 code or the later AWS D 1.3 Code?
8 A I don't know if he knew that or not.
9 I would expect him to know that as the Level 3 10 Welding Engineer over there.
11 Q That, in fact, was the contractual provision or the 12 specification: It was to that effect, was it not, that
\
13 there was an option?
l 14 A I believe so, right.
15 Q And -Comstock chose the option of sticking with the old 16 model, the older code, D 1.l?
17 A That's correct.
18 Q And still does?
19 A Certainly.
20 0 When you say at Page 22 of your testimony that the f 21 following day at the Procedure Review Board, Mr.
22 Puckett, once again, raised the same problem, by that 23 you are referring one more time to the fact that he had
! 24 advocated the D 1.3 Code again?
l
() 25 A Again, I felt that he was saying to me that, "This isn't l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 i
n ..-- , , . - -
-, -.- ,,, ,. , , ,,,,..,-.-,-,.,-n.-, , , - - , , ,
2867 O
1 the right way to solve this problem. The right way to 2 solve this problem is to use the 1.3 Code."
3 Q Right.
4 A And so, I guess, I am saying that he felt that, while he 5 accepted us putting the minor procedure revision into 6 effect, that, again, he thought the real solution to the 7 problem was use of this later code.
8 Q All right. And his continued advocacy of the later code i
9 is the basis for your characterization on Page 23 that 10 Mr. Puckett's behavior was erratic in this instance; is 11 that correct?
12 A Yes, this is the incident that I am talking about.
()~
13 0 Well, wasn't, in fact, Mr. Puckett just being consistent
- 14 with the position that he had argued, and that was that 15 it was, perhaps, acceptable for the client, embodying 16 you, Mr. Gieseker, Commonwealth Edison Company, to 17 resolve this problem on an ad hoc basis, make the 18 clerical change in the PQR's, but that consistent with 19 his belief and his opinion, you ought to be requalifying 20 these things under the D 1.3 Code?
21 A Again, I felt that he was being -- he wasn't accepting 22 what I thought was quite evident in the welding --
23 excuse me -- in the electrical specification, that we 24 had the option; and that he, again, was making a 25 st ronger statement, that it was incorrect to stay with
(])
Sonntag Reg _orting Service, Lt.d.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2868 O
1 the 1.1 Code and, indeed, we were mandated to go to the 2 1.3 Code; and that's what I could not understand.
3 0 Well, you didn't at that time have in hand Mr. Puckett's 4 August 22nd memorandum to Mr. DeWald, did you?
5 A No.
6 Q And you have since seen that; right?
7 A Right.
8 0 Again, in that memorandum he advocated to Mr. DeWald 9 privately that, basically, you ought to requalify all of 10 the Comstock welding procedures to the D 1.3 Code; 11 correct?
12 A Yes.
13 0 And they ought to stop welding work and do that? They 14 ought to do the job right, in his opinion?
15 MR. GALLO: Objection.
16 Mischaracterizes the Puckett August 22nd memorandum 17 to Mr. DeWald.
l 18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, he is asking Mr.
l
! 19 Gieseker if that is his understanding of what Mr.
20 Puckett was advocating.
l 21 MR. GALLO: I would ask whether Mr. Gieseker i
22 needs the Puckett memorandum to make sure his memory is 1
i 23 correct.
24 MR. GUILD: Well, I really am not trying to 25 test whether or not he can remember every line of the (O~T
! Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 6 Dill l (312) 232-0262
2869 O
1 Puckett memorandum. The Puckett memorandum is in 2 evidence.
3 The question is what the witness's understanding is 4 unprompted by the memo.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: The objection is overruled.
6 Will the Reporter please re-read the question for 7 the witness to answer?
8 (The question was thereupon read by the 9 Reporter.)
10 MR. GALLO: Well, I am not sure that's a 11 question, your Honor.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gieseker, is that your O- 13 understanding of Mr. Puckett's position?
14 A I would have to read the memo again. I don't remembe r 15 the word "right" in there.
16 MR. GUILD: Well, I will just proceed.
17 BY MR. GUILD:
18 Q The point, though, Mr. Gieseker, is that you know that 19 Mr. Puckett understood that requalifying these 20 procedures to the 1.3 Code would require a significant 21 commitment of effort on the part of Comstock?
22 It's a major job to requalify these procedures, 23 wouldn't it be?
24 MR. GALLO: Objection. That's two questions.
() 25 The first question was does Puckett know that and So.Dntas_RepArling_Servico _Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2870 O
1 the second question is dees Mr. Gieseker know that. s 2 It's a compound question, different.
3 Objection to the form of the question.
4 A I don't know if Mr. Puckett --
5 MR. GALLO: There is an objection on the 6 floor. You have to wait until the Chairman rules.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Overruled.
8 Let the witness answer the best way he can.
9 MR. GALLO: Well, which question is he 10 answering, your Honor, the Puckett question, what Mr.
11 Puckett knew, first?
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Will the Reporter please 13 re-read that question?
14 MR. GUILD: Let me try again. I will try to 15 rephrase the question, Mr. Chairman, to expedite this.
I 16 BY MR. GUILD:
17 Q First, as a matter of fact, it requires substantial 18 commitnant of effort, would it not, to requalify i
! 19 Comstock's procedures to the D 1.3 Code?
l 20 A Yes.
21 Q And, in your opinion, do you acknowledge that Mr.
22 Puckett understood that when he made the recommendation?
23 A I don't know that. I, again, would assume that he knew 24 it with his experience in the welding area.
25 0 You assume that he knew there was a difference between
(])
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 66134 (312) 232-0262
._,. - - .. -. ~__ . . - - . - . - - - . . . . . - . -
2871 3
- 1 making a clerical change to the three PQR's and 2 requalifying the procedure to a new welding code?
3 A Ce rta inly.
- 4 0 That was apparent from the discussions, that he knew to 5 requalify the procedure would require more time and
. 6 effort than simply making the clerical changes?
j 7 A Again, I don't know what he was thinking.
i 8 It's certainly clear to me.
9 Q Do you doubt that it was clear to Mr. Puckett at the 4
10 time based on the facts that you know?
i
! 11 A No. He should have understood that.
i
, 12 0 Isn't it the case then, in effect, Mr. Puckett was 13 saying, "It's all well and good that you cleaned up this 14 particular problem, this inconsistency or error in your i
{; 15 welding procedure for this particular -- for these 16 particular materials; but this inconsistency is a j 17 symptom of a larger problem, that being that you should i
18 requalify your procedures to the new AWS D 1.3 Code"?
19 A That is, I guess, my basic problem, is that it's not.
20 There is no fundamental reason to upgrade to the code.
. 21 The 1.1 Code that we were using and the procedure
, 22 qualifications were, indeed, producing adequate welds.
i 23 The 1.3 upgrade wouldn't have produced any better
! 24 weld than was being produced under the code that we were 25 working to.
)
l
(])
l SonntAg_Reparlingle nice _,_Ltd.
! Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
2872 0
O 1 0 That's your opinion, Mr. Gieseker.
2 My question really goes to whether or not your 3 understanding of Mr. Puckett's position was that he was 4 simply continuing to advocate that you bite the bullet, 5 in effect, that you do the harder job of requalifying 6 the procedures to the more recent code.
7 Isn't that what you understood his position to be?
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild, I think we have 9 exhausted this area. We really ought to move on, 10 because that question has been asked in a number of 11 forms.
12 BY MR. GUILD:
O 13 Q On Page 23 you acknowledge that Mr. Puckett's concerns 14 regarding the stainless steel welding were, indeed, 15 valid; that in one instance welders had not qualified 16 the 2 G position and they needed to requalify?
17 A That's correct.
i 18 0 That was a procedural deficiency that had not been i
19 identified before Mr. Puckett identified it, was it?
l 20 A Well, the -- yes.
21 Q And he identified an additional stainless steel welding 22 procedural problem that was a lack of qualification of a i 23 procedure for bimetallic welds and he was accurate in 24 that as well, but for the fact that your position was
() 25 there were no bimetallic welds performed within Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2873 O
1 Comstock's scope of work; right?
2 A That's correct.
3 Q Were you aware that Mr. Puckett had been informed that 4 there were, indeed, bimetallic welds being performed in 5 the field at Comstock?
6 A No, I was not aware of that.
7 0 In any event, while he was correct in the latter point 8 about the bimetallic welds, since there were none to be 9 performed within Comstock's scope of work, no corrective 10 action was required?
11 A He wanted to qualify the procedure, that we wouldn't 12 have been required to use.
s) 13 Q That's what I mean. There was no need to qualify the 14 procedure, although he was correct in his technical 15 position, but there was no need to qualify such a 16 procedure because you didn't intend any bimetallic 17 welds?
18 A But I believe he was asking us to qualify a procedure to 19 do bimetallic welds but there was no reason to do that 20 because we weren't performing any bimetallic welds.
21 Q All right. I don't understand there being any 22 disagreement.
23 A Okay.
24 0 There is no need for corrective action because you 25 weren't going to be making any bimetallic welds?
O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genevar-I-1-Hnois-60H4 (312) 232-0262
2874 O
1 MR. GALLO: I will stipulate that the answer 2 is yes.
3 BY MR. GUILD:
4 Q Now, were you aware that Mr. Puckett's previous work had 5 been at the Zimmer Nuclear Power Plant?
6 A (No response.)
7 Q Let me ask you: Were you aware of that fact at the day 8 of the meeting, August 27, 1984, when you participated 9 in the decision to terminate Mr. Puckett?
10 A Yes, I had heard that he had worked there.
11 Q How had you heard that?
12 A One of the persons that was working in the project 13 management area, I talked with him.
14 Q And who was that person?
15 A Mr. Orlov.
16 Q That was George Orlov?
17 A Yes.
18 Q 0-R-L-O-V; correct?
I 19 A Yes, I believe that's a correct spelling.
i 20 Q And Mr. Orlov had himself -- he was working on the 21 Braidwood construction assessment program as the Deputy 22 Director at Braidwood; correct?
il 23 A Right.
4 24 0 And he was on sort of loan to Commonwealth Edison 25 Company from a job shop or --
f}
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2875 O
1 A Consultant, yes.
2 0 -- consultant?
3 And he still is at Comstock -- I mean is at 4 Braidwood, is he not?
5 A Yes, sir.-
6 Q Mr. Orlov, before coming to Braidwood, had himself been 7 just departed from Zimmer; correct?
8 A I believe so.
9 0 Where he had worked on a number of corrective action 10 programs similar to BECAP?
11 A I don't know his assignments there, but he did come from >
12 Z imme r .
O 13 Q Did you understand that in Mr. Orlov's capacity at 14 Zimmer working on corrective action programs there, that 15 he had occasion to deal with Mr. Puckett, who was 4
16 responsible for welding activities at Zimmer?
17 A Not specifically. I just knew that George was from 18 Zimmer and he indicated he knew Mr. Puckett.
19 I didn't ask under what capacity.
20 0 Well, when did you first converse with Mr. Orlov-21 regarding Mr. Puckett?
22 A I can't really remember. It was before the -- I just 23 bumped into him in the hall and we --
24 MR. GALLO: The question is when.
() 25 A (Continuing.) I believe it was before the meeting with Sonntag Rep 3rting Servicat_htd,
! Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4 2876 2 1 Mr. Shamblin and Mr. DeWald on Mr. Puckett; but on that 2 I can't --
3 BY MR. GUILD:
4 Q Before Mr. Puckett was -- the decision was made to 5 terminate Mr. Puckett?
6 A Right. I can't remember a specific date, though.
7 0 Was it before the two meetings with respect to the 8 nonconformance involving the A-36 and A-4467 9 A No.
10 0 So it was in the intervening couple of days; is that 11 right?
12 A Well, I don't know how many days there were; but, yes, tO 13 it was in between that.
14 Q As I recall, the meetings were on August 22nd and 23rd 15 involving the nonconforming condition and the A-36 and 16 A-446; and then you met on the 27th of August, 1984, and 17 decided to fire Mr. Puckett.
18 A Okay, yes.
19 Q So it was in those intervening several days when you 20 talked to Mr. Orlov?
21 A I believe so.
22 0 And isn't it a fact that Mr. Orlov at that time stated 23 to you, in substance, that he knew Mr. Puckett from 24 Zimmer and that he didn't feel, based on Mr. Puckett's 25 Zimmer experience, that Mr. Puckett was the appropriate
(])
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
~
, Geneva, Illinois 60T34 1
(312) 232-0262 L
j 2877 O
1 person for the Comstock Level 3 and you ought to get rid i 2 of him?
1 3 A He did not have a very high opinion of Mr. Puckett, 4 that's correct.
5 Q Well, didn't he, in fact, in substance, advocate the 6 point that I just made?
7 A I can't remember specifically if he said that we should 8 terminate him or not.
9 Q But he definitely stated that, in substance, in his i 10 opinion, Mr. Puckett was not the appropriate person for 11 the Level 3 job at Comstock?
12 A Again, I don't know if he specifically said the Level 3 13 job at Comstock; but he did cartainly have a very 14 negative impression of Mr. Puckett's capabilities.
i 15 Q And he communicated that negative impression to you?
16 A Yes, sir.
l l 17 Q All right. Did you inquire of Mr. Orlov any of the i 18 bases for his negative opinion on Mr. Puckett?
19 A No. It was just a brief conversation.
20 Q Did you inquire of Mr. Orlov whether he had taken his --
21 had communicated his negative opinion on Mr. Puckett in 22 a formal way, such as by writing, documenting a 23 memorandum to Comstock and Edison management regarding 24 Mr. Puckett?
() 25 A No, I didn't ask him that. He didn't indicate that.
sonntag_ Rep _orting Servicen Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2878 1 Q Do you know, in fact, whether or not Mr. Orlov has ever 2 seen fit to commit to writing his negative opinion about 3 Mr. Puckett?
4 A I am not aware of it.
5 Q Are you aware of whether Mr. Orlov had shared his 6 opinion about Mr. Puckett with any others who were 7 involved in the decision to terminate Mr. Puckett, say, 8 Mr. Shamblin?
9 A I don ' t know.
10 Q You don't know whether Mr. Shamblin was aware of Mr.
11 Orlov's views?
12 A I don't know. I can't remember.
O 13 Q Do you know whether or not Mr. DeWald was aware of Mr.
14 Orlov's views?
15 A No, I don't know.
16 Q Did you discuss Mr. Orlov's opinions of Mr. Puckett with 17 anyone --
18 A I don't believe so.
19 0 -- prior to the time that Mr. Puckett was terminated?
20 A No.
21 Q At the time that you participated in the decision to 22 terminate Mr. Puckett, Mr. Gieseker, August 27, 1984, 23 did you understand, in substance, that Mr. Puckett had 24 ve ry direct experience, if you will, with the NRC, the 25 Nuclear Regulatory Commission's enforcement policy
(])
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2879 1 through his -- through his, Mr. Puckett's -- Zimmer 2 welding experience on subjects that were directly 3 relevant to the subjects that you were discussing at 4 Comstock?
5 A No.
6 Q You don't know whether or not then Mr. Puckett's 7 experience with the NRC at Zimmer formed a basis for his 8 recommendations to take more programmatic corrective 9 action at Comstock?
10 A No.
11 Q Now, you are aware that the NRC conducted an inspection 12 as a result of Mr. Puckett's -- well, I was going to say 13 Mr. Puckett's concerns or allegations, but I will 14 rephrase the question.
15 Are you aware that the NRC conducted an inspection 16 of issues that were raised by Mr. Puckett?
17 A Mr. Schapker from the NRC about a year later, I believe 18 -- it was probably in the fall of '85 if my memory 19 serves me correct -- was reviewing a number of 20 allegations in the welding area.
21 Q Were you aware that Mr. Schapker was inspecting on 22 subjects that Mr. Puckett had risen?
23 A I concluded that from what he was looking at.
24 0 How did you do that? How did you reach that conclusion?
25 A Well, they didn't give me the name of the inspector; but
(])
S o n nt alg_ Reno tting_Stry_i c_e.,_htL Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) '232-0262
2880 0
1 it seemed to be all the same areas that --
2 Q You could tell from the subject matter that it was Mr.
3 Puckett's experience that was the basis for Schapker's 4 inspection?
5 A Yes.
6 Q At that time, almost a year later, Mr. Puckett had been 7 terminated, he had been replaced in the Level 3 position 8 by Tony simile and a lot of water had gone over the dam 9 with respect to the welding program.
10 Many changes had already taken places correct?
11 A Yes. We were very, very happy with Mr. Simile. We 12 think he has done an excellent job for us.
13 Q That's not exactly the point of the question, but I am 14 glad you volunteered that.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes. You shouldn't really 16 volunteer.
17 THE WITNESS: Excuse me.
18 BY MR. GUILD:
19 Q Mr. Simile addressed and provided for the correction of 20 a number of problems in Comstock's welding program 21 during the period that intervened between the time of 22 Mr. Puckett's departure and the time that Mr. Schapker 23 came and inspected on those subjects?
24 A Yes.
() 25 Q Changes were made, for example, in the program for Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2881 .
O 1 welder qualifications; correct?
2 A Yes. That procedure was enhanced.
3 I don't exactly know all the specifics that were --
4 Q And changes were made in the Comstock program for the 5 control of weld filler material, welding rod?
6 A That's correct.
7 Q And changes were made in a number of welding procedures?
i 8 A Right. Mr. Simile describes that latter one, the j 9 welding procedures, in his testimony, also, there.
10 It was -- basically, my interpretation of that was 11 he was simplifying it. He combined -- whereas, before 12 we had one procedure for 70-18 and one for 60-13, he O 13 combined -- it into one procedure and eliminated a lot 14 of the unnecessary paper.
15 So, to my review, it made the procedure a lot 16 cleaner.
17 Q All right. So Mr. Simile, in fact, adopted rather 18 programmatic changes in the welding procedures, not just i
l 19 clearing up clerical errors or omissions or i
! 20 inconsistencies but rewriting the welding procedures?
t l 21 A Right.
l 22 Q Mr. Schapker, nonetheless, a year later identified a l
l 23 number of items of noncompliance that were in areas that 1
24 Mr. Puckett had previously identified; correct?
l ,
25 A Well, as I recall -- I will have to look at my testimony
(])
! Eonnt a g_Repsriing_Egryice.,_Lt d .
l Geneva, Illinois 60134
- (312) 232-0262
2882 0
1 here where I was talking about that.
2 Q Pages 25 and 26 and following.
3 A Right.
4 Q Looking at Page 25, inspection for 85-09, that was the 5 Inspection Board, was it not?
6 A Right, by Mr. Schapker.
7 Again, he was identifying some problem with the 8 welder qualification records but it was problems in 9 welder qualification records that were early in time, 10 like '79 through '81.
11 Q But those were issues that or those were problems on 12 welder qualification records of the sort that Mr.
13 Puckett had raised concerns about, were they not, errors 14 and inconsistencies in welder qualification 15 documentation?
16 A No. These were minor administrative errors.
17 I can't remember exactly what Mr. Puckett -- how he 18 characterized his problems with the qualification 19 records.
20 0 Well, that's not really the point of my question as to 21 how he characterized them.
22 I suspect Mr. Puckett didn't call them minor 23 administrative errors; but the subject matter is the 24 same as the subject Mr. Puckett raised concerns about, i
l () 25 and that was errors and inconsistencies of welder Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, IT1Tno7s 60134 l 232-0262 (312)
2883 r^N V
1 qualification records?
2 A Well, I guess I don't know.
3 Mr. Simile, I know, looked at the qualification 4 records when he did come on site in the fall of '84 and 5 found some problems and resolved them.
6 Then when he assisted Mr. Schapker in his review of 7 the records, they came upon some additional concerns.
8 Q Right. That's my point.
9 In the intervening year Mr. Simile was in charge, 10 he made a lot of corrections or changes, some in areas 11 that Mr. Puckett had identified; but, at least, as to 12 the issues that Mr. Schapker identified as items of 13 noncompliance, those were problems that Mr. Simile in 14 the year that intervened had not identified correct?
15 A That he had not identified, right, yes.
16 0 Do you know whether or not Mr. Schapker, the NRC 17 Inspector involved, had participated in welding 18 inspections at the Zimmer Plant during Mr. Puckett's 19 tenure?
20 A I don't know that.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me. Off the record.
22 (There followed a discussion outside the 23 record.)
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Back on.
(~) 25 BY MR. GUILD:
\s Sonntag_8cpotting_Sgtvice,_Ltd, ___
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2884 O
1 Q You don't know, Mr. Gieseker, I take it, then, that 2 issues that were identified by Mr. Schapker as minor 3 clerical errors at Braidwood were treated as much more 4 significant -- the basis for much more significant items 5 of noncompliance, including civil penalty items, at 6 Zimmer?
7 A That's correct, I do not know that.
8 Q And, in fact, you still have underway, do you not, a 9 review of the welder qualification packages, the issue 10 raised by Mr. Puckett back in 1984?
11 At least as of the date of your testimony being g- 12 prefiled, you had that review underway?
~'
13 A Yes.
14 Q Still finding errors and inconsistencies and problems 15 with the welder qualification records?
16 A Right, minor clerical problems, the same type as we 17 identified when Mr. Schapker -- when Mr. Simile assisted 18 Mr. Schapker, 19 0 The same type as were identified by Mr. Puckett back in 20 '84?
21 A Well, again, I don't know exactly what he identified in 22 '84, so --
23 0 And has that review been completed as of this date?
24 A I am not positive.
() 25 0 I am sorry?
Sonntag Reporting _ Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2885 O
1 A I am not positive.
2 MR. GALLO: You mean you don't know?
3 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
4 BY MR. GUILD:
5 Q In addition, you make reference to another NRC 6 inspection, and that is identified as leading to 7 Inspection 85-21 and 85-22.
8 In those inspection ceports or that inspection 9 report -- it's a single report -- the NRC identified a 10 number of items of noncompliance that reflected issues 11 raised by the 24 Comstock inspectors in March of 1985?
12 A Again, they were -- the report was to review -- the NRC i
O. 13 inspection, excuse me, was to review those concerns; 14 and, yes, we did have some items of noncompliance.
15 Q And that was an inspection conducted by Messrs. Mendez 16 and Neisler of the NRC?
17 A That's right.
18 MR. GUILD: Thank you, Mr. Gieseker.
19 I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
' 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Berry.
21 MR. BERRY: Can I take a break first?
22- JUDGE GROSSMAN: Certainly. Let's take a 23 ten-minute break.
24 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which 25 the hearing was resumed as follows:)
(};
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2886 (s
d 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We are back in session.
2 Mr. Berry 3 CROSS EXAMINATION 4 BY MR. BERRY 5 Q Mr. Gieseker, the August 22nd meeting that you referred 6 to in your testimony, could you tell us who chaired that 7 meeting?
8 A With Mr. Seeders?
9 Q No. I believe this was the meeting with Mr. Puckett.
10 A I am sorry. Yes, I did.
11 Q Now, you were asked some questions by Mr. Guild about
,f-12 Mr. Puckett and I believe he had asked you, Mr. Puckett 13 -- strike that.
14 At the meeting, this meeting, did Mr. Puckett --
15 what exactly did Mr. Puckett say at this meeting?
16 A Well, I can't remember exact words; but I opened the 17 meeting, explaining my unde ~rstanding of the problem that 18 was indicated on this NCR 3099 and suggested a 19 resolution.
i 20 There was some discussion. Mr. Louden spoke and 21 then there was a concern -- I believe this was from Mr.
22 Puckett -- about the applicability of 1.3, the 1.3 Code; 23 and Mr. Louden responded to that, and then the meeting 24 was adjourned.
() 25 O Mr. Puckett, did he mention his previous experience at Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 2887 i
1 Zimmer with the NRC at this meeting?
2 A No, not to my recollection.
3 Q Mr. Orlov, what exactly did he say to you in your 4 conversation with him about Mr. Puckett?
5 A Again, I can't remember specifics.
6 He just gave me the impression that he did not have 7 very high feelings of Mr. Puckett's capabilities.
8 0 When you say you don't remember, are you saying you 9 don't remember today what he told you or you don't 10 remember if he told you anything at the time?
11 A I don't remember -- oh, I am sorry. We certainly did 1 12 talk.
Om 13 I don't know what the specific -- giving any 14 specific examples of why he felt that Mr. Puckett wasn't 15 qualified or technically adequate.
16 Q You have had an opportunity, have you not, to observe 17 Mr. Puckett's successor?
18 A Yes, Mr. Simile.
19 Q Have you had an opportunity to form an opinion regarding 20 Mr. Simile's abilities?
21 A Yes. I have a very high opinion of Mr. Simile.
22 I think he has done an excellent job for us. He 23 has demonstrated very good knowledge of the Code and 24 just general good problem-solving capabilities.
I
(} 25 He is also very, in my opinion, popular with the
- Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
[ Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 1 , . . -
2888 p
1 inspectors. Gets along well with the troops, so to 2 speak.
3 Q Was Mr. Puckett popular with the inspectors?
4 A I don't really know.
5 0 In your testimony it's your opinion that -- subsequent 6 to the August 22nd meeting, your opinion regarding Mr.
7 Puckett's usefulness as a Level 3 Inspector diminished, 8 I guess.
9 I wonder, if you would contrast, if you will, for 10 the Board and the parties, Mr. Puckett and Mr. Simile?
11 A Again, I only had those particular incidents that I
-s 12 dealt with Mr. Puckett; but, in my opinion, he did not
(_) 13 understand the specifications or the code and was not a 14 problem solver.
15 Mr. Simile, on the other hand, is, as I mentioned 16 earlier, excellent in both of those. He has a very good 17 understanding of the code, certainly understands our 18 electrical specification and its requirements and has 19 proceeded to really do a good job; and any problems that 20 have come up, he has handled very excellently, in my 21 opinion.
22 O How did Mr. Puckett's concerns come to your attention?
23 A Originally, I believe it was Mr. Shamblin came out of 24 'io office and said that'Comstock had stopped work in 25 the welding area and that to resolve it we had to
(])
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2889
13 there a standard, a procedure or is there some mode of 14 operation for correcting that particular type of 15 violation?
t 16 A Certainly. The nonconformance is a legitimate way to 17 correct that, identify the problem and then have it 18 corrected.
19 0 What are the mechanics involved in making the procedural 20 correction that you allude to?
21 A In this case it was simply adding the, quote, unquote, 22 A-36 to one line on the procedure qualification sheets, 23 in addition to the other base metals, A-500, whatever 24 the base metals are.
(~') 25 0 Who would do that?
G' Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 6HI34 (312) 232-0262
2891 1 A Comstock. Typically, the Quality Control Department in 2 this case because they govern or control welder 3 qualifications.
4 Q And who precisely in the Comstock organization would do 5 that?
6 A Okay. Ultimately, the responsibility, obviously, would 7 be the QC Manager, in this case Mr. DeWald; but, 8 typically, the person responsible for welding would do 9 it.
10 0 The person that held Mr. Puckett's position?
11 A Right, if they had a Level 3.
12 If they didn't have a Level 3, it could be whoever k_) 13 their person responsible for welding would be.
14 I should also mention, if you are asking me the 15 administrative question of who actually corrects it, I 16 believe the procedures in total are controlled out of 17 the -- a t that time the Quality Assurance Department, so 18 that's who has the master procedure.
19 So, you know, physically who put A-36 on the master 20 copy, it could have been somebody in the QA Department 21 based on recommendation from the QC Department.
22 Q Now, pending the implementation of the action that you 23 just described, what, if any, effect does that have on 24 the activity that is affected, in this case A-36 to
~~ 25 A-446 welding?
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 1
2892
(' _/
1 A In this case, absolutely none.
2 We felt that there was absolutely no problem with 3 the field to continue welding, and so we said, Start 4 welding and use the PQR to perform the welding to and, 5 in parallel, revise the procedure and have A-36 added to 6 the PQR."
7 Q Could an NCR have been written to address this, what you 8 characterize as a procedural violation?
9 A Should it have been?
10 I felt it was appropriate to write an NCR.
11 Q Had an NCR been issued, could welding of the A-36 to the 12 A-446 have continued pending the disposition of the NCR 13 or not?
14 A Certainly.
- 15 0 Work could have -- well, could work also have been 16 stopped pending the disposition of the NCR?
17 A Could work have also been stopped or --
18 Q Well, just so I am clear: You have a violation.
19 Is it true that you can take one of two actions:
20 that you can issue an NCR and work continues pending the 21 disposition of the NCR or you can issue an NCR or a stop 22 work, a stop work order, stop work, pending the 23 implementation of an action necessary to correct the 24 violation?
() 25 Is it true that you have those two options?
! Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
. - , - - - - _ ,_ r _ _ _ ~ . _ _ _ , _ --- - , _ . - -
7 . _ _ . . _
2893 l l
1 1 A Yes, in this case I agree.
I 2 Q Now, what determines or what factors determine which of 3 those options should be taken in a case like this?
4 A It's judgment. My basic judgment is the fact that it's:
5 Is the quality of the work in the field going to be 6 affected?
7 That's a judgment that we used, in this particular 8 case, to say that work could, indeed, continue.
9 Q Who in the Comstock organization -- whose judgment in
- 1. 0 the Comstock organization would, I guess, be important 11 in making this determination?
12 A Well, certainly, the QC Department in their review of 7s d 13 the NCR and then also the Engineering Department, who 14 has the requirement to disposition the NCR and recommend 15 the corrective action and action for the non-occurrence.
16 Q In this case Comstock had a Level 3 Weld Inspector.
17 Is it the Level 3 Weld Inspector -- is his judgment 18 -- in making the determination as to whether work should 19 be stopped pending' implementation of the corrective 20 action or work should continue pending the 21 implementation of the corrective action?
l 22 A Well, in this case it certainly would be important, 23 because you have to determine -- that would probably be 24 one of the main inputs to determine if continuing the
() 25 process would affect quality of work or quality of Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 I
(312) 232-0262
. \
2894 1 hardware in the field.
2 Q Mr. Gieseker, is this something that a person, you, just 3 know or do you take courses particularly in reference to 4 the judgment?
5 Where do you learn to, I guess, make these types of 6 judgments, to know when you should stop work or when you 7 should continue?
8 A Basically, in the nuclear industry we get continuing 9 education in the QA annual and its implementation and 10 the CECO quality procedures; and, certainly, there is a 11 great degree of experience that is required, also, in a 12 decision like this.
O 13 My point is in determining if, indeed, the process 14 will affect the quality of work in the field, I believe 15 that is primarily experience-based, that decision.
16 Q You have worked on other nuclear sites, have you not?
17 A Yes.
18 Q You have worked, I guess, and interfaced in dealings 19 with quality control organizations at other sites?
20 A Yes.
21 Q Have they had a position akin to Mr. Puckett's position 22 at Comstock?
23 A I worked at LaSalle previously to Braidwood; and, yes, l 24 they had a welding -- for the electrical contractor they i
() He was also a member of 25 had a welding supervisor now.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2895 O
1 the QC Department.
2 So it was a position very similiar to Mr.
3 Puckett's.
4 Q You mentioned that one of the things you look for in 5 this Level 3 Weld Inspector is good judgment?
6 A Yes.
7 0 Okay. If a person, say, passed his tests, passed the 8 Level 3 qualification test, passed the practical 9 examination test, the written test, satisfied the 10 experience and all of the other qualifications under the 11 ANSI Standards but had poor judgment -- let me strike 12 that.
13 Page 24 of your testimony relates to the meeting 14 that took place and discussed Mr. Puckett's continuing 15 employment with Comstock and mentions that Mr. Puckett 16 had failed in his attempt to obtain Level 3 17 certification and didn't have -- his understanding of 18 the code was less than, I guess, yoa had hoped.
i 19 The question to you is: Had Mr. Puckett been 20 successful in achieving his Level 3 certification, in 21 obtaining the Level 3 certification, would the result l
22 have been any different?
23 A Well, it certainly wouldn't have beec eny different in 24 my opinion.
(} 25 My opinion was on the particular occasions I had to Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2896
-s b
1 deal with him, I didn't even discuss his qualifications.
2 I didn't even know the status of it.
3 So, in my opinion, his ability to resolve problems 4 was not based at all on his certification level or 5 non-level.
6 0 It is customary at Comstock to participate in personnel 7 meetings involving employees of its contractors?
8 A You mean Commonwealth Edison?
9 Q Yes.
10 This August 27th meeting that you had with Mr.
11 Shamblin, Mr. DeWald to discuss Mr. Puckett's work
- 12 performance, is that customary? Do you generally do 13 that?
14 A No, not generally.
15 Q Could you tell us what prompted this particular meeting?
16 A Well, to my understanding, Mr. Shamblin had a personal 17 concern, in that all the different problems were 18 occurring at Comstock, and was getting personally 19 involved in them and had, indeed, reviewed or been sent 20 Mr. Puckett's resume earlier in the spring, because he 21 had granted additional QC Inspectors to be added to the 22 QC Department; and now Comstock was wanting to let one 23 of those go.
( 24 It's my opinion that that is why they involved Mr.
i I
(} 25 Shamblin.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2897 O
1 Q Do you recall if there was any conversation given to 2 just the idea of demoting Mr. Puckett?
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me.
4 Could you speak up, Mr. Berry?
5 BY MR. BERRY:
6 Q Do you recall if there was any conversation given to the 7 idea, say, of demoting Mr. Puckett to a Level 2 8 Inspector at that meeting discussed?
9 A No, I don't remember any discussion of that.
10 MR. BERRY: Thank you, Mr. Gieseker 11 BOARD EXAMINATION
~3 12 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN G 13 Q Now, Mr. Gieseker, do I understand correctly that Mr.
14 Puckett, prior to the meeting to discuss his concerns, 15 had already had initiated the paper required to bring 16 those concerns on the record, so to speak?
l l
17 A If you are talking about NCR 3099 --
l 18 0 Well, I am talking about that, plus the other concerns i
19 that he had raised, concerns being the A-36 material, 20 the use of the older procedure, the bimetallic welds, l 21 all of those problems that were the subject of the 1
22 conference with Mr. Puckett.
23 A The only way I can answer that, Judge, is that the only 24 record I saw was -- at the time was -- NCR 3099 and that
(
l 1
(} 25 was not signed by Mr. Puckett.
Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
! Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2898 j
l 1 I don't know what involvement he had in generating i l
2 it; but afterwards I -- that was at the time. Okay? l 3 Now, there are memos to Irv that initiated the stop 4 work, which indicate that it was Mr. Puckett's, where he 5 brought that to Mr. DeWald's attention.
6 Q Well, you understood at the time, didn't you, that Mr.
7 Puckett's position was that he couldn't personally 8 initiate any paper?
9 A At the time, no.
10 Like I said, I had never met Mr. Puckett before the 11 day of the meeting, so I didn't know that he could or 12 could not. I didn't know that concern.
13 Q Was it your impression that paper had already been 14 initiated or not with regard to these concerns?
15 MR. GALLO: Judge, I think the witness may be 16 having trouble with the use of the word " paper."
17 I know I do. I am not sure what the reference is.
18 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
19 0 Well, do you understand what I mean by " paper"?
20 A No, I guess I don't, Judge.
21 I am assuming that you mean the stop work and the 22 NCR 3099.
23 Q Well, either an NCR, an ICR or a stop work in 24 conjunction, I guess, with either an NCR or ICR.
25 A Right.
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 I (312) 232-0262
2899 1 Q Was it your understanding at the time of the conference 2 to discuss these concerns that paper had actually been 3 initiated or that it had not?
4 Could you tell me now what your recollection is?
5 A Yes, paper had definitely been issued, because we had a 6 copy of -- the original, excuse me, of the NCR 3099 that 7 I had been given to resolve.
8 Q Okay. Now, was it your testimony now that Mr. Puckett 9 as an acting Level 3 Inspector had some formal role 10 under the company's procedures with resolving the paper 11 once it had been initiated?
12 A With resolving the paper?
r' s
13 Q Yes.
14 Once the NCR had been initiated, did Mr. Puckett, 15 as an acting Level 3 Inspector, have any formal role in 16 the organization with resolving that NCR?
17 A The -- let me explain the situation. I believe I can 18 make that clear.
19 After the item of noncompliance -- excuse me.
20 After the nonconformance is identified, then the 21 Engineering Department is the department that proposes 22 the corrective action and action to prevent recurrence.
23 That is reviewed and agreed upon by Commonwealth 24 Edison and project construction and quality assurance.
25 The NCR then goes back and is implemented, whatever Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneve r-I-llinci a 60134 (312) 232-0262
2900 O
1 the corrective action is; and then that corrective 2 action is reviewed by the Quality Control Department for 3 acceptance.
4 MR. GALLO: The question is: What role did 5 Mr. Puckett play in any of this?
6 A (Continuing.) In the resolution after he initiated 7 nonconformance, he didn't play any role.
8 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
9 Q There is no role for him in the procedure?
10 A (Indicating affirmative.)
11 Q Now, once an inspector or someone in QC, whether he is 12 Level 1, 2 or 3, believes that he has encountered a Os 13 problem, whether it's easily resolved or difficult to 14 resolve, isn't he obligated to initiate the paper, that 15 is the NCR and/or the ICR or whatever other formal kind 16 of document you might have?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Does he have the option, once he identifies the problem, 19 to decide not to initiate that paper?
l 20 A No.
l 21 Q And, certainly, once he has identified the problem and 22 has initiated the paper, does he have any authority to 1
f 23 withdraw that paper?
24 A Does he?
25 No.
f I
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 601T4 l
(312) 232-0262
t 2901 l
l .
.. O l
! l Q Now, if I understand correctly your testimony, you 2 indicated that you had this conference with Mr. Puckett 3 and he seemed to agree with your position, that is yours 4 personally and the other people present, that the 5 matters that he had brought up could be resolved in a 6 manner that you suggested?
7 A Yes.
8 Q And included in that would be adding the A-36 material-9 to the procedure that you had at that poin't; is that 10 correct?
.11 A Yes.
12 Q Now, would it make any difference to you or any of the
.O 13 other participants in that conference whether Mr.
14 Puckett agreed with your means of resolution or 15 disagreed with that?
16 A Well, the entire reason for the meeting was to resolve 17 this concern; and if he didn't agree or still had some 18 open concerns, certainly, we would have wanted to 19 address them at the time of the meeting.
20 Q What difference did it make whether Mr. Puckett agreed 21 with you or not?
22 It was out of his hands as to resolving that 23 question, anyway, wasn't it?
24 A Right, unless he could offer some additional 25 understanding of the problem that we didn't have that we
(])
Sonntag Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2902
\_s 1 hadn't addressed.
2 Q But the only way you could resolve it was to formally 3 take some action to resolve it once it had been raised; 4 isn't that correct?
5 A That's correct.
6 Q Now, if I understand correctly from what your testimony 7 indicates or, perhaps, it's some other testimony, that 8 Mr. Puckett the next day or very shortly thereafter 9 seemed to say that he will acquiesce to the resolution 10 if someone would put in some paper which indicates that 11 the matter is resolved by adding the A-36 material to 12 the procedure?
13 A Right. At the meeting that occurred that afternoon to 14 resolve the NCR, we decided for PCD, myself, to author a 15 memo to Comstock giving the interpretation of the code 16 and the fact that welding could, indeed, continua; and, 17 in parallel with that, we revised the procedure and 18 submit the procedure revision.
19 Q Now, whether Mr. Puckett agreed with you or disagreed 20 with you, that's the only option that was available to 21 the company, to the organization, in resolving the l
l 22 problem, wasn't it, to issue some paper which said, "We
. 23 resolve it by taking this step"; isn't that correct?
24 A Well, yes. The logical answer in this case was that.
(} 25 I guess what I would consider an illogical approach i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2903 O
1 is we could have just re-qualified all the procedures to 2 A-446 to A-36, which wasn't required.
3 That would have been another way to resolve it but 4 it would have been inappropriate, in my opinion.
5 Q So you resolved it in an appropriate manner; is that 6 correct?
7 A Yes, sir.
4 8 Q Did Mr. Puckett indicate that he wouldn't accept that
, 9 resolution?
10 A No, no. He indicated the additional concern or the same 11 concern -- I don't know which -- that 1.3 Code was the 12 one that we should be using but did, indeed, voice no
(-
O) 13 more concerns than that.
14 Q So, in other words, he was saying, "I have done my job.
r 15 I have initiated these concerns and it's now out of my 16 hands. You are supposed to resolve it; and if you put 17 something down in writing which resolves it, that's 18 going to be the resolution"; isn't that correct?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Now, you have indicated with regard to the option of 21 stopping work or not stopping work when there is a 22 nonconforming condition, that you would exercise your 23 judgment with regard to whether the quality of work in 24 the field would be effected?
25 A Yes.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2904 0
1 Q Well, if there would be a perpetuation of or a 2 duplication of or a replication of that nonconforming 3 condition, whatever it is, by continuing the work in the j 4 field, doesn't your judgment necessarily have to be that 5 you have to stop work?
6 MR. GALLO: Objection -- point of i
7 clarification, I should say, Judge Grossman.
8 The question is directed towards the A-36 issue,
! 9 that item of nonconformance, the fact that A-36 was not 10 listed on the procedure? That's the premise of the 11 question that you are asking?
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, you certainly can O 13 refer to that as an example and, basically, that is one 14 of the items I have in mind; but I understand you have 15 agreed that until the A-36 material was added to the i 16 list, that it was a nonconforming condition.
- 17 THE WITNESS
- The procedure was technically 18 inaccurate.
19 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
20 Q Okay. You can refer to that; but, nevertheless, I still 21 want an answer to the question of whether, when you are 22 going to perpetuate or replicate or duplicate or in any
! 23 way continue the addition of those nonconforming 24 conditions, whatever it is, doesn't your judgment
(} 25 necessarily have to be that the quality of work in the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 .
2905
[')
x_/
1 field will be effected?
2 A No. My judgment is if I allow the process to continue, 3 it has to be: Will quality hardware be ef fecte.' in the 4 field? That's what I have to make the judgment on.
5 In this case the judgment should have been made 6 that, no, the quality of the work in the field will not 7 be effected and, therefore, it is not a stop-work 8 condition.
9 0 In other words, you are saying now that you believe it's 10 a personal judgment that the quality of the work won't 11 be effected, notwithstanding that, according to the 12 procedures, you are adding a nonconforming condition;
!")
(_/ 13 and you are saying now that if, in your personal 14 judgment, that nonconforming condition doesn't adversely 15 affect the quality of work, you can determine to 16 continue adding those nonconforming conditions; is that 17 right?
18 A In using this example, there is -- again, I am repeating 19 myself; but the nonconforming condition was a minor 20 procedure violation, which had no effect on the quality l
21 of work in the field.
22 0 But under the procedure, it was a nonconforming 23 condition at that point, until you added A-36 material?
24 A Right.
, 25 Q And you are saying that you can, nevertheless, exercise Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 50134 (312) 232-0262
2906 O
1 your personal judgment and say, "Even though under our 2 procedures we are adding nonconforming conditions, in my 3 personal judgment, those nonconforming conditions aren't 4 adverse -- aren't being adverse -- to the quality of 5 work in the field, and, therefore, we can continue 6 adding nonconforming conditions"; is that what you are 7 saying?
8 A Yes, with a clarification: I did not feel that we were
- 9 adding nonconforming conditions to the field.
10 Q. Well, you may have assumed that you were going to change 11 the circumstances so that later on they would be i
- 12. considered not nonconforming conditions; but at the 13 present time they were nonconforming conditions, weren't 14 they?
15 A Well, maybe I can give you an example to clarify what my 16 understanding is.
17 Let's assume that we were using -- the procedure 18 said no matter how thick the steel is, you don't have to 19 use preheat or didn't address it.
20 The code requires for a specific thickness of
! 21 material that a certain level of preheat is required.
1 22 If you don't apply that preheat, then the weld that i
I 23 you would apply is, indeed, indeterminate and would i
l 24 eventually either be removed or the procedure would have 4
l
(} 25 to be upgraded and required with the use of preheat.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2907 N
1 Now, if the situation had been that the procedure 2 didn't require preheat, then we would absolutely stop 3 the work in the field, because now we know that the work 4 that we are doing in the field will, indeed, be affected 5 by this lack of preheat and we would stop that process 6 because we know we are doing inadequate work in the 7 field.
8 We would stop the process until the procedure was 9 upgraded and the correct requirements added in it. So 10 now, indeed, the procedure will provide adequate 11 hardware in the field.
12 In the case that we are talking about, this
.r'y (J 13 addition to procedure had absolutely no effect on the 14 field and, therefore, there was absolutely no reason, in 15 my opinion, to stop work.
16 And it should have been obvious to Mr. Puckett, 17 that this condition was, also, one which was minor in 18 nature and should not have been stopped.
19 0 Okay. I am just trying to understand your position. I 20 am not trying to convince you otherwise.
21 A Okay.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: But I did want to find out 23 whether you could rely on your personal judgment as to 24 how the quality of work would be effected,
! 25 notwithstanding that procedurally, until you make any
. (
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ceneva, Il1insis-60M4 (312) 232-0262
2908
(~~'
1 changes, the condition that you are going to be adding 2 to would be a nonconforming condition.
3 If I understand your answer, it is yes, that you 4 can; and that's fine.
5 By the way, is the Staff going to offer any 6 testimony with regard to this particular issue, as to 7 whether, when there is a procedural nonconformance, it's 8 appropriate for the company to use its personal judgment 9 and decide to disregard whatever nonconformance there 10 is?
11 MR. BERRY: Just a second.
12 Your Honor, I am not sure at this time whether that 73 O 13 precise question raised by the Chairman is addressed in 14 Mr. Schapker's testimony, but we will look into it.
15 If it's not, we will endeavor to assist the Board.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Pardon?
17 MR. BERRY: Assist the Board.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. I think it would 19 assist us in having some discussion of that from the 20 point of view of the NRC.
21 B'I JUDGE GROSSMAN:
22 Q Now, with regard to Mr. Puckett's concerns about the 23 bimetallic welds, if there were no bimetallic welds 24 being created by construction, why would his concerns 25 have any significance?
(])
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60T34 (312) 232-0262
2909 fs
(_)
1 A I don't -- I agree. I don't understand why the question 2 was brought up.
3 0 What difference would it make to the company whether he 4 believed that bimetallic welds were being done 5 improperly or not being done improperly? Can you see 6 any?
7 A Well, yes. Simply, we wouldn't want him to go out there 8 and spend the money to qualify a proceed that we didn't i
9 need to qualify because that's not welding that we would 10 be doing in the field.
11 Q Well, then, wouldn't your resolution to whatever paper 12 he had initiated just be a paper that said, "There are t'
(_) 13 no bimetallic welds and, therefore, whatever was brought 14 up is resolved"?
15 A Yes, certainly; and I might add I would hope that he 16 wouldn't generate the piece of paper.
i 17 0 Well, if he thought that there were bimetallic welds, 18 wouldn't it be proper for him to initiate the paper?
19 A Right, if he assumed it or thought it or how he l 20 investigated, I don't know, yes.
I 21 O And if he, in fact, thought that there were bimetallic i
22 welds being done improperly, wouldn't it have been 23 improper for him not to initiate paper?
24 A Certainly.
l l 25 JUDGE COLE: Just a couple of questions, Mr.
l
(
l f Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genevag Illinois- 60134
, (312) 232-0262 i
2910 O
1 Gieseker.
2 BOARD EXAMINATION
, 3 BY JUDGE COLE 4 Q Why did he think there were bimetallic welds on the site 5 that were going to be required?
6 A Again, I don't know what his basis was.
7 All I understood him to say was, "We are performing 8 bimetallic welds in the field and we don't have a 9 proceiure that is qualified."
10 0 Could it be that he considered A-36 one of the metals 11 involved in the bimetallic weld?
12 A I hope not, but I don't know. A-36 -- he could have. I
() 13 don't know. I don't know.
14 Q What do we mean by " bimetallic"? It couldn't be 15 different kinds of steels? It is dissimilar metals or
~
16 what?
17 A It's typically stainless steel to carbon --
18 Q All right, sir.
19 A -- in the electrical area.
1 20 In the mechanical area it probably -could involve 21 much more, much different types of metals.
I
{ 22 In the electrical area that would be the --
. 23 typically would be the -- extent of it.
f 24 Q All right, sir. I want to ask you some questions about 25 Page 22 of your testimony, sir, specifically about the O
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genevar-I-1-14r.ci a 60134 1.
(312) 232-0262
2911 s
1 Procedure Review Board, which you mention in the first 2 full paragraph on Page 22 of your testimony.
3 First, sir, do you know anything about the 4 procedures or mechanisms that are used to change or 5 modify a procedure?
6 A Yes.
7 Q All right, sir. Could you describe that procedure for 8 me?
9 A Certainly. Obviously, in the Comstock framework.
l 10 If a problem is identified in a procedure, 11 whatever, through various means, using the procedure, a 12 new requirement coming out, whatever, the procedure is O)
- s. 13 the Engineering Department controls the procedures, like 14 I said before, actually controls it -- excuse me -- the 15 QA Department controls the masters of the procedure.
16 'The Engineering Department gets the procedure and 17 is responsible, typically, for initiating the revision 18 of the proced6te, the wording.
19 If it's an inspection procedure -- that was for a 20 field procedure.
21 If it's an inspection procedure, typically the QC 22 or QA Department may actually make the suggested 23 changes.
24 Once that is made, then there is what is called a 25 review board, in which case at this particular time of 7-V Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois- 60134 (312) 232-0262
2912 1 the project, the Edison Company, both project 2 construction and quality assurance, Comstock production, 3 Comstock engineering and Comstock QC QA would all meet 4 in resolution of the -- excuse me -- in review of the 5 procedure and then agree, iron out any minor wording 6 problems or concerns.
7 At that time the procedure would be routed through 8 the Comstock house for official signature, and those 9 signatures include the Production Superintendent, the 10 Quality Control Superintendent or Manager, the QC 11 Manager and also the Engineering Department head.
12 Once the procedure is signed by those four people, (G/
_ 13 it's submitted to CECO project construction.
14 We get the procedure and review it; and if we agree 15 on it, we submit the procedure to our site QA 16 Department.
17 If they agree on the procedure, also, then the 18 procedure is interim approved and the contractor can 19 then start working to that procedure while the procedure 20 is officially submitted downtown for Sargent & Lundy 21 review, which is our architect engineer.
22 When that review is received, the procedure is 23 returned back from Sargent & Lundy quality control 24 division; and they coordinate any departments that are 25 required in the Sargent & Lundy house to review it.
O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genevar-Hlinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
., 2913 1
1 After that is done, then they return the procedure 2 to CECO Quality Assurance, who returns it to me, and 3 then I officially give the procedure back to Comstock 4 for Status 1, which is, "no conditional use. "
,& Q All right. That is very helpful, Mr. Gieseker.
6' How long does this procedure take, on the average?
7 A Oh, I would say one to two months.
8 Q All right, sir. In your testimony at Page 22 you 9 indicated, "The procedtire revision," which I assume 10 refers to or pertains to NCR 3099 and the inclusion of 11 'A-36 on a list of permissible weld materials; is that 3
12 , correct?
O 13 i. E cuee me. where are you 1eekine en the pege2 1
14 'O Okay. Two-thirds of-the way down-the page, there is a 15 = sentence that begins, "The prdchdure revision was to be 16 accomplished by the next day."
i 17 A Right.
18 0 Was my description of what you were talking about there 19 correct?
20 g Does th a L c;ainito the A-36 and the inclusion of 21 that on the list in the procedure --
22 A That's correct.
r 23 Q -- as a p'ermissible material --
24 A Right.
! 25 0 -- welded to the A-446?
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
) Genevag Illinois 60134 l
(332) 232-0262 I --- __ _ ________ _
2914
(
l A Right.
4 2 Q All right. Your sentence states that the procedure 3 revision was to be accomplished by the next day.
4 It was not accomplished the next day, was it, sir?
5 A What I mean by that is the revision submitted to the
'6 review board by the next day and that review board, 7 indeed, was the one that was held the next day.
8 Q Did they, in fact, approve that procedure?
9 A Right. We approved the revision at the review board and 10 then the procedure was walked through the four Comstock 11 people that I mentioned, walked through the PCD house 12 and the QA house and given, granted interim, so the
- ]\- 13 procedure can now be used; and it was submitted to 14 Sargent & Lundy for review, also.
15 Q How long did that take?
J 16 A That took -- I don't remember. I think the procedure 17 was walked through, as I mentioned, which would just be s
18 a matter of hours.
l 19 Q All right, sir. So rather than the time of the 20 procedure which you indicated to be one or two months, 21 this took place in something of a matter of hours?
22 A Right.
I 23 Again, the one to two months that I am talking 24 about is just a normal procedure. It's an everyday 25 revision for whatever occurs. It's put in the mail, 1 .
4 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois G0134 (312) 232-0262
2915 0
Q l it's not walked through. It's sent to Sargent & Lundy.
2 It could take one to two months.
3 Q So in spite of Mr. Puckett's opinion as to how that 4 should have been handled at the Procedure Review Board, 5 it was handled differently than he thought it should ,
6 have been handled; is that correct?
7 A No. He didn't have any problem with the revision 8 process.
9 What he raised, again, at the review board was 10 that, again, we should be using and qualifying this 11 process to 1.3 instead of the -- excuse me -- the 1.3 12 Code instead of the 1.1.
O)
\_ 13 That would have taken, as Mr. Guild pointed out, a 14 whole week qualification of the welders and the weld 15 procedures.
4 16 Q I understand that, sir.
17 So his problem wasn't with the A-36 inclusion at 18 that particular meeting of the Procedure Review Board; 19 it has to do with the application and use of the newer 20 welding code?
21 A Right. Again, I think that he was still under the 22 impression that the problem should be resolved not by 23 adding the A-36 to the POR but, indeed, going ahead and 24 using this new code.
I 25 JUDGE COLE: All right, sir. I understand Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Ill inoi4--60-13 4 (312) 232-0262
2916 U--,e ~
2933 e
N/
1 What was the basis for your judgment that the welds 2 were acceptable or were proper under this procedure that 3 technically hadn't been qualified for A-36?
4 A Well, the procedure that they were using, the 5 attachments that they were using to perform the A-446 to 6 A-36 welds, was the procedure that the PQR's, attachment 7 HO -- I don't remember the other ones, that referenced 8 the A-36 -- excuse me -- the A-446 to A-500.
9 Therefore, that they were being done under the 10 correct PQC. The PQC, in essence, had a minor problem, 11 in that the base metal was not listed.
12 Q How did you know the problem was minor? How did you On 13 know that the weldment in the field under this PQC
(/
14 wasn't inadequate?
15 A My experience in interpretation of the code, that the 16 existing process that was being used did, indeed, 17 govern.
18 0 What was there in the code that convinced you of that?
19 A Well, there was a paragraph in the code, 5.5.1.1, I 20 believe, and also the list of qualified mat'e rials, which 21 is another -- prequalified materials, which is another 22 -- section of the code.
23 0 What did those sections of the code convey to you that i 24 was pertinent to this particular question?
! 25 A Basically, it says that if you qualify a material to a r Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genevag -I111nois 60134 (312) 232-0262 i
2934 k
1 base material, that qualification also governs if you 2 use another base material that is listed in this table 3 and has a tensile strength less than, I believe, 50 kips 4 and also less than the material that you qualify to.
5 In essence, it's saying that the weldability of the 6 two base metals is, in essence, the same. Therefore, we 7 will allow -- the code will allow -- you to use this 8 second process, in our case, the A-36 to A-446, without 9 doing an additional procedure qualification; and that 10 the qualification you did use, in our case A-446 to 11 A-500, was sufficient to govern both of those processes.
12 0 You mentioned, I believe, in answered to Judge 13 Callihan's question that -- strike that.
14 If I understood your answer right now, you are 15 suggesting that of the three materials involved in this 16 question, two materials on the PQC are somehow bracketed 17 to A-36; is that correct?
18 A No. What bracketed the A-36 is the A-500.
19 The A-446 is a material that is not listed in D 1.1 20 as a prequalified material. Therefore, what would be 21 required under that code is the qualification to use 22 that material.
23 Comstock did, indeed, do that qualification. That 24 was the A-446 to A-500.
25 I wasn't at the site at the time but it's very Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genevar-H-H w ie 601-34 -
(312) 232-0262
_ . _ . . ._. ... . . . .-_..-- _ _ _ _ _ - . _ - . = . . - .. -- - _ - .
2935 l
1 understandable for the original qualification to be done 2 A-446 to A-500, because that then would automatically
- 3 qualify you to use the A-36 material.
, 4 So it was a smart, if you will, procedural 5 qualification for using the D 1.1 Code.
6 Q Why would the classification of A-446 to A-500 7 automatically qualify the welding of A-446 to A-36?
8 A Because of the procedure, the paragraph in the code that 9 I mentioned, the two paragraphs, the fact that the code l 10 allows you to use -- to weld another base metal if it i i
- 11 meets the requirement of that paragraph and if that base
- 12 metal is listed in this second paragraph that I -- or
- 13 second section, rather, which is 10.2.
14 Q Do you know whether A-500 has a greater or lesser 15 tensile strength than A-367 16 A It's greater.
l 17 Q Do you know that for a fact? ,
- 18 In answer to Judge Callihan's question, I think you
! '19 indicated you weren't sure what the tensile strength of 20 what A-500 is?
! -21 A I am not exactly sure what the number of the 500 is.
22 I am definite that it's greater than A-36.
j 23 MR. GUILD: I understood the witness to say 24 that he wasn't sure what the tensile strength of A-446 25 was.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genevar -4141nois-60134 (312) 232-0262
-_ . . . - - . - . - - _ - - _ - _ - _ _ - - _ . ~ . _ . - - - _ .
2936 4 O 1 THE WITBESS: Right. I thought the -- my --
2 well, we could look it up in the code, that's probably 3 the best way; but my recollection is that it's around 46 i
4 or 47 kips, in that range; and A-36 is 36. I definitely 5 know that relationship.
6 BY MR. GALLO:
{ 7 Q When you say 46 kips, that's for which material?
!- 8 A A-500.
l 9 Q How did -- strike that.
i 10 Did the difference in tensile strength between 11 A-500 and A-36 influence your judgment as to the l 12 significance of the nonconforming condition?
13 A Yes, especially when looking at the '75 code; and to i
j 14 explain:
j 15 The paragraph requires that the second base metal
! 16 that you would add or be qualified to use has to be a i
j 17 lesser tensile strength than the one that you qualified.
l 18 In later versions of the code, that has been even 19 more simplified, in that they have grouped the materials 20 similar to the ASME Code.
21 In a later version of the code, the tensile 22 strength of A-36 and A-500 would not have been relevant 23 in and of the fact that they were in the same P group.
24 Q So the existing PQR's that Comstock was using covered 25 A-36; it just wasn't reflected in the PQC; is that it?
O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Oenevar -I-1-14noie--M134 (312) 232-0262
2937 1 A That's correct.
2 Q Let's turn to your testimony on Page 6.
3 You were asked a series of questions by Mr. Guild 4 about Mr. Seeders' August 17th letter and your first :
5 meeting with Mr. Seeders.
6 At the bottom of Page 6 you indicate that Mr.
i 7 Seeders had indicated that there was low morale.
8 Do you recall the series of questions from Mr.
i 9 Guild about, "Are you aware where the pressure came from
- 10 that you testified to or where Mr. Seeders believed the l
l 11 pressure came from that was imposed on QC management and 12 passed on through QC supervision to Mr. Seeders and 13 others"?
14 Do you recall that?
15 A Yes, sir.
j 16 0 I believe you testified that Mr. Seeders indicated that 17 the pressure came from Commonwealth Edison or CECO; is i 18 that correct?
s 19 A Again, I think you --
20 0 Yes or no.
! 21 A Yes.
22 Q Did Mr. Seeders identify in your meeting with him, 23 either on the 17th or when you next met with him, any 24 individual at commonwealth Edison that he thought was 25 accountable for this pressure?
I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genevaritidncis 601-34 (312) 232-0262
2938 r
by 1 A No.
2 0 In your testimony you indicated that, nonetheless, 3 pressure was imposed on Comstock, and particularly the 4 QC Department, because of a series of problems that had 5 to be solved by Mr. Shamblin.
6 Do you recall that testimony?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Was the pressure you described in your testimony then 9 your perception of the pressure as you saw it at the 10 time or was it Mr. Seeders' perception of the pressure, 11 that is the source of the pressure?
12 A well, Mr. Seeders indicated that there was a backlog of V 13 inspections, I believe, or something like that; but I 14 believe it was my perception after talking with Mr.
15 Shamblin.
16 Q How did this pressure that you described in your 17 testimony manifest itself in terms of being imposed on 18 Comstock's QC management?
19 A Well, there was a number of items that had to be --
20 problems that had to be -- resolved.
21 Mr. Shamblin had met with Comstock on a number of 22 occasions and established management tools to resolve 23 those problems, if you will, and reviewed the manpower, 24 then established schedules by which the items could be 25 resolved and then tracked it to see if the management Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genevar-I-1-1-inoic 60-144 (312) 232-0262
2939 i
O)
\-
1 tools that had been implemented were, indeed, working, 2 to see if any additional problems had arisen or needed 3 to be addressed.
4 Q You said that Mr. Shamblin met with Comstock.
5 Was it the production side of the house or the
- 6 quality control side of the house he met with?
7 A I believe it was both.
} 8 Q So he met with Mr. DeWald, among others; is that j 9 correct?
, 10 A Oh, certainly.
11 Q Can you give me an example of these management tools you f
12 refer to?
j ( 13 A Very simply, once we or once Comstockedetermined exactly j 14 the number of backlog inspections, then there was --
15 when that was determined, it was then resolved how many 16 inspectors were needed to implement the completion of 1
17
- the backlog inspections in addition to keeping current 18 work done.
19 Those inspectors -- those number of inspectors --
20 were then hired or attempted to be hired by Comstock and I
l 21 then a schedule was established to track how the backlog T
! 22 was being implemented.
j 23 Mr. Shamblin asked for weekly updates to assure l
l 24 himself that the process was, indeed, being resolved --
1 25 the problems were, indeed, being resolved.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genevar 111nois-601-34 (312) 232-0262
2940 3
m
(_)
1 Q This was a schedule to eliminate the backlog that was 2 present at Comstock?
I 3 A Right. I believe we have talked --
4 Q I believe you have identified a number of backlogs?
5 A Right.
t l 6 Q Could you explain that?
7 A Okay.
8 Q For which particular backlog was a schedule established?
9 A Mr. Seese, I believe, also talked about it. He was the 10 one that was in charge of the schedules.
11 But I believe there is a schedule of the backlog, 12 certainly, the ICR/NCR backlog are two that come to my 13 mind right now.
, 14 0 In the interchange between Mr. Shamblin and Comstock, 15 just how were these schedules established?
i j 16 A I wasn't there.
17 The only thing that I know --
18 0 Only answer the question if you know.
19 A I wasn't there.
20 Q All right. Was the scheduling technique and the status 21 review the mechanisms that you had in mind as the 22 pressure being placed on QC management or were there
, 23 others?
24 A Well, certainly, that was part of it.
1 25 Just the number of problems that had to be resolved 4,
(
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genevar-I-Itinois--601-34 (312) 232-0262 i
l 2941
()
en 1 and the following of those problems by the PCD 2 Department -- following the resolution of those problems 3 is probably thp more complete statement.
4 Q I understand. I believe it was your testimony that, in 5 answer to one of'Mr. Guild's questions, while this 6 pressure existed, you didn't consider it undo pressure; 7 was that your testimony?
8 A Certainly.
9 0 Well, can you explain your understanding of the 10 dif ference between undo pressure and pressure?
11 A Well, undo pressure, in my opinion, would simply be 12 establishment of unreasonable or unattainable schedules p)
(. 13 and' accepting no excuses why that unreasonable schedule
~
14 had not been made.
15 0 In your experience in dealing with the resolution of 16 these problems, how apuld you characterize the schedules 17 that were established?
18 A I believe they were fair schedules.
19 ,
Indeed, as we worked with the schedules, we 20 proceeded to add more and more people to the Comstock QC 21 Department as we needed and in many' cases schedules were 22 amended to allow more time to. complete inspections.
23 0 Were the extensions requested by Comstock?
24 MR. GUILDL Obj ect' ion .
25 I believe the witness is now getting quite far O
a ,-
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois--44134 -
(312) 232-0262
2942
~
) !
i 1 beyond what is apparent on personal knowledge. ,
2 Mr. Gallo elicited the fact that he wasn't present 3 when the schedules were prepared and, therefore, had no 4 personal knowledge of how they were prepared and I think f
5 it follows that his last several answers are based on 6 something other than his personal knowledge.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Did you say that you didn't
- 8 have personal knowledge of that, Mr. Gieseker?
9 THE WITNESS: It depends on the time period, t
10 your Honor.
11 Certainly, after I joined the Braidwood project, 12 some of these programs were ongoing at that time; and
, () 13 since then we have added QC Inspectors and, also, in ,
14 some cases extended the schedule.
15 So I can't speak for when I wasn't here' but I
! 16 certainly can speak for after I did arrive on site.
{ 17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gallo, you will have to i
18 be a little more specific about what you are asking i
i 19 then.
! 20 MR. GALLO: All right.
! 21 BY MR. GALLO:
22 Q Mr. Gieseker, can you explain why you didn't personally 23 investigate the allegations made by Mr. Seeders in his l
24 letter of August 17th at or about the time of your 25 meeting with Mr. Seeders on August 17, 1984?
, Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev&, Illineis 00134 (312) 232-0262
2943 O
1 A Right. The meeting, basically, confirned to me that the 2 problems that Mr. Seeders was talking about was the ones 3 that he had indicated in his letter to Mr. DeWald; and 4 knowing that, I felt it was Mr. DeWald's and Comstock's 5 responsibility to address Mr. Seeders' concern.
6 0 Well, then, why did you meet with him?
7 A Because he had requested it, and I also wanted to make 8 sure that, indeed, there weren't additional concerns 9 other than his letter, what he had indicated in his 10 letter.
11 Q You were asked some questions about the meeting on 12 Septembe r 28, 1984, by Mr. Guild.
[~)
sf 13 I believe that's the date that the question of Mr.
14 Seeders' employment standing was considered by Comstock 15 and representatives of Ceco; is that correct?
16 A That's correct.
17 Q Now, did you have available to you at that time the 18 report written by Mr. DeWald with respect to the matters 19 raised in Mr. Seeders' August 17, 1984, letter?
20 A No.
21 Q I show you a document that is entitled -- well, the 22 subject is, " Review of J. Seeders' letter dated 23 8-17-84." It's dated September 25, 1984, signed by Mr.
24 DeWald. It's a one-page memorandum.
73 25 Attached to it are ten additional pages under the U
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinoi-s-64134 (312) 232-0262
9 2944 1 heading, "J. Seeders' letter of accusations and 2 concerns."
3 The document contains Bates Stamp No. 2012 through 4 2023.
5 I ask if you have seen that document before?
J A Yes, sir.
7 0 Can you identify it for me?
8 A Well, as I mentioned in earlier testimony, Mr. DeWald 9 indicated at that meeting that he had completed his 10 review of the letter and was ready to issue the report; 11 and this is the report that he issued.
12 0 Is this the report that I referred to in my earlier
'(m_) 13 question about whether or not you had this available to 14 you at the September 28th meeting with Comstock people 15 discussing Mr. Seeders' standing --
16 A That's right.
17 0 -- as an employee?
18 A Yes.
19 Q How do you know that? How do you know that this was the 20 report that I was referring to? How do you know this is 21 the DeWald report?
22 A Oh, Mr. DeWald signed it; and that is Mr. DeWald's 23 signature, in my judgment.
24 Q When did you first become aware of this report?
25 A At the meeting we talked about, where Mr. DeWald Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illincis 50134 (312) 232-0262
2945 4
(,
1 indicated he had completed the report.
2 Some months earlier he had been asked by Mr.
3 Shamblin to generate a review of the seeders' letter.
4 Q So the report that I have been referring to was 5 discussed at the meeting of September 28th but you 6 actually didn't get a copy of it at that time; is that 7 correct?
8 A Yes.
9 Again, Mr. DeWald -- yes.
10 Q Now, when did you, to the best of your recollection, 11 receive a copy of the DeWald report?
12 A It was shortly after that meeting, around that same time
() 13 frame.
14 MR. GALLO: Can we go off the record a
- 15 moment, your Honor?
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Sure.
17 (There followed a discussion outside the 18 record.)
19 MR. GALLO; Can we go back on the record.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, we are back on the 21 record.
22 MR. GALLO: Your Honor, I would like to mark 23 for identification as Applicant's Exhibit No. 4 the j 24 one-page memorandum of Mr. DeWald, dated September 25, 23 1984, and indicated as subject, " Review of J. Seeders' g-)s
\_
Sonntag Reporting carvice, Ltd.
! Geneva, Illinore 6013a (312) 232-0262
2946 V
1 letter dated August 17, 1984," and the ten pages 2 attached to it under the heading, "J. Seeders' letter of 3 accusations and concerns."
4 I would like to have that marked as Applicant's 4.
5 -JUDGE GROSSMAN: So marked.
6 (The document was thereupon marked 7 Applicant's Exhibit No. 4 for 8 identification as of June 4, 1986.)
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Did you move to have it 10 admitted?
11 MR. GALLO: I will at this time.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I am sorry. I was just 13 asking whether you had.
14 MR. GALLO: I haven't moved yet.
15 I will at this time move to have it admitted into 16 evidence.
17 (The document was'thereupon received into 18 evidence as Applicant's Exhibit No. 4.)
19 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, we have an 20 objection to the document being received for all 21 purposes, for general purposes.
22 It's obvious that what it is is Mr. DeWald's 23 recitation of what other people told him.
24 It is, obviously, hearsay to the exteIl that 25 Applicant seeks to admit the document to establish the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illincic 50134 (312) 232-0262
l l
2947 l O
1 truth of the matters that are contained in those 2 secondhand or hearsay statements.
I 3 If Mr. Gallo's offer is based not on proving the l 4 truthfulness of the substance of the matters contained 5 in the docunent but to demonstrate that simply such a 6 report was compiled and that, indeed, is the document 7 that Mr. Gieseker later received as that report, I have 8 no objection to that extent.
9 MR. GALLO: Well, I am going to offer it, 10 Judge Grossman, for those purposes and the purposes that 11 this represents the impressions and understandings of 12 Mr. DeWald.
O(_/ 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, you say for those 14 purposes and the impressions of whom?
15 MR. GALLO: The impressions of Mr. DeWald, 16 the author of the report.
17 MR. GUILD: Well, in that event, Mr.
18 Chairman, I --
19 MR. GALLO: I would not offer it for the 20 truth or falsity of whether one of the inspectors said 21 thus or so.
22 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, the problem then is 23 that Mr. DeWald, of course, has left the stand.
24 I don't have any objection to the document coming 25 in if I have an opportunity to the extent, on Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinoi4- 60134 (312) 232-0262
2948 O
1 reflection, necessary to probe what Mr. DeWald's 2 impressions may have been that are founded upon this as 3 a document in evidence; but absent that opportunity, I 4 believe Applicant has lost its chance to put in a 5 document showing Mr. DeWald's impressions, since he is 6 not on the stand.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Does Staff have an opinion 8 that it wishes to express on this?
9 MR. BERRY: I think Staff would agree with
-10 the point just made by the Intervenor.
11 To the extent that the evidence is offered for Mr.
12 DeWald's impressions, his impressions, and Mr. DeWald
() 13 has left the stand and hasn't been questioned on it, I 14 guess the Staff would object to the admission of it for 15 that purpose.
16 For the other purpose listed by Mr. Gallo and Mr.
17 Guild, the Staff has no objection.
t 18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. The --
[ 19 MR. GALLO: Judge Grossman, I guess I can a 20 cure the objection by indicating that I would make Mr.
21 DeWald -- if it came to pass that either the staff or 22- Mr. Guild had questions that they wanted to put to Mr.
23 DeWald, to recall him, we wouldn't object to that.
- 24' MR. BERRY
- Well, with that understanding --
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: The Board will admit the
)-
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genevs, Illineis 50134 (312) 232-0262
2949 1 doc ument , limited to the purpose of indicating this 2 witness's, that is Mr. Gieseker's, understanding after 3 he read this document.
4 If, Mr. Gallo, you wish to also use the document to 5 show Mr. DeWald's understanding of matters expressed in 6 here, you would then have to ask the Board.to allow you 7 to recall Mr. DeWald.
8 Hopefully, you won't feel that it's important and 9 we won't have any extra time, because I would estimate ,
10 that it would take a considerable amount of time to have 11 Mr. DeWald testify to that and then to have him cross .
12 examined.
/~T
(_) 13 So, you know, the option is yours. If you want to 14 go further than the limited purpose of having this 15 witness's understanding --
16 MR. GALLO: I understand the Board's ruling.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: All right.
18 BY MR. GALLO:
19 Q Mr. Gieseker, did you at the time you received the 20 report have occasion to read it?
21 A Yes.
22 Q Have, indeed, you read it?
23 A Yes.
24 Q Have you read, in particular, the excerpts of the 25 interviews with the various inspectors?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, 1111noi4-60134 (312) 232-0262
2950
(,j' 1 A Yes.
2 O Is it your understanding after reading those excerpts 3 that the inspectors interviewed believed that they had 4 been the subject of harassment and intimidation are from 5 the QC Department?
6 MR. GUILD: Objection, Mr. Chairman.
7 There are limits to the amount of leading that Mr.
8 Gallo should be permitted to do.
9 I understand we are trying to move through this; 10 but when it's planting the answer with the witness, 11 calling for a yes or no answer, I believe that is beyond 12 the bounds of permissible Redirect.
(~x
( 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Would you read --
14 MR. GALLO: I will rephrase the question.
15 BY MR. GALLO:
16 Q Do you recall a question from Mr. Guild yesterday that 17 asked ycu whether or not you were aware that the 18 Intervenors excerpted by Mr. DeWald -- that is the 19 inspectors who were interviewed by Mr. DeWald and 20 excerpts of those interviews appearing in this report --
21 reflected indications of harassment and intimidation by 22 the Comstock QC Department?
23 Do you remember that question being asked by Mr.
24 Guild?
25 A No, I don't. I am sorry.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneve, Illinois 50134 (312) 232-0262
2951 i
~(
l JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gallo, how much' longer 2 .do you estimate you are going to take with this witness?
'3 MR. GALLO: I would think at'least another 4 half hour.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Then we ought to i 6 break for lunch now.
1 7 Before we do, I just want to mention to Mr. Guild 8 that we are going to allow Recross but that it ought to 9 be directed only to new matters raised in the 10 examination since the last cross and that we.do not
. 11 . consider trying to get the witness to re-characterize i .
12 something that he has already characterized on cross ~ and
). 13 re-characterized on Redirect as new matters and that you
! 14 really ought to -- first of all, it's usually 15 unprofitable to try to do that.
- 16 Secondly, it really isn't the purpose of having i
17 Recross,.to see if you can get the witness just to l
18 re-characterize. You really~ought to concentrate:on new l -19 matters that are brought up.
l 20 So we.will break until 1:30 and then we will f
- 21 continue with Mr. Gallo's Redirect.
22 (WHEREUPON, the hearing of the 23 above-entitled matter was recessed to the
( 24 hour of 1:30 P. M.)
I
! 25
- (I -
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
1 Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 L
2952 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD V
__________________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 Met pursuant to recess.
11 Wednesday, June 4, 1986.
1:40 P. M.
h
, 13 14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We're back in session.
15 During the extra time you took f or lunch, I 16 understand you've had some negotiations.
17 Is there anything you wish to report to the Board 18 at this time, Mr. Gallo?
19 NR. GALLO: Well, my understanding of Mr.
20 Guild's position is not wholly clear. I would ask him 21 to react to the presentation that was made in the last 22 15 minutes.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: If you're not -- if it's not 24 ripe for discussion, that's fine. There's no urgency, 25 as I see it.
(])
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2953 1 MR. GUILD: I just want to state for the 2 record that we're pursuing the question of the chain of 3 custody of certain welding test coupons; and while I'm 4 not wholly satisfied, we're going to talk some more 5 about it.
6 I think one way or another we can either supply Mr.
7 Gallo -- we' re going to waive Mr. Gallo supplying the 8 additional testimonial basis or enter into a l
9 stipulation. We're moving ahead on that.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That's fine.
11 By the way, Miss Reporter, I prefer " ripe" to come g3 12 out " ripe" on the record this time.
\-) 13 Mr. Gallo, proceed with your redirect.
14 MR. GALLO: One matter, Judge Grossman. I'm 15 embarrassed to report that Applicant's Exhibit 4, which 16 was admitted for a limited purpose, has already been 17 admitted into evidence. Therefore, I withdraw 18 Applicant's Exhibit 4 in its limited purpose for which 19 it was admitted.
i 20 The same document was admitted into evidence in 21 this proceeding as a part of Mr. DeWald's testimony.
l 22 It's Attachment 2.C., DeWald 5.
23 Therefore, there was no need to make the offer that l 24 I made with respect to Applicant's 4.
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Okay, fine.
(])
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 L
2954 fs U
1 We'll order that the document be withdrawn and that 2 the record be -- at this point that the record reflect 3 that Applicant's Exhibit 3 is the last document marked 4 and/or admitted on behalf of Applicant and that any 5 further document for Applicant will be Applicant's 6 Exhibit 4.
7 JUDGE COLE: Mr. Gallo, that was Exhibit what 8 to Mr. DeWald's testimony; 3?
9 MR. GALLO: 5.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: 5.
11 BY MR. GALLO:
gy 12 0 Mr. Gieseker, you were asked some questions about the
\.J 13 items of noncompliance identified by the NRC Staff 14 during some inspections --
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me. I'm sorry.
16 I didn't mean to interrupt your question, Mr.
17 Gallo, but it occurs to me that we have another reporter 18 here, and I believe that other document has already 19 flown the coop.
20 We'll go off the record now.
, 21 (There followed a discussion outside the 22 record.)
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Back on the record.
l l 24 I'm sorry, Mr. Gallo.
l MR. GALLO:
25 That's quite all right, your
(])
i Ronntag Reporti ng Servi ce. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2955 1 Honor.
2 BY MR. GALLO:
3 0 You were asked some questions I believe this morning 4 about the items of noncompliance that are discussed in 5 your testimony --
6 A Yes.
7 0 -- beginning on Page 26; in particular, an item of 8 noncompliance identified by the NRC inspector by the 9 name of Schapker.
10 Which inspection is this that you refer to on Pages 11 26 and 27 of your testimony?
g- 12 A 85-009.
' V) 13 0 Can you explain your understanding of the item of 14 noncompliance that Mr. Schapker identified in 85-009?
15 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chai rman, I object. It's 16 beyond the scope of proper redirect.
17 The witness has stated in his direct testimony what 18 his -- what the item of noncompliance is as he
! 19 understands it. He's essentially being asked simply to i
20 repeat his past testimony.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Has this been asked and 22' answered already, Mr. Gallo?
23 MR. GALLO: I'll rephrase the question.
24 BY MR. GALLO:
()
25 0 You were asked some questions about clerical problems Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2956 O
1 and clerical errors being identified by Mr. Schapker; is 2 that correct?
3 A Yes.
4 0 can you identify for me the nature of these clerical 5 problems or clerical errors that were discovered?
6 A Well, basically they were -- one example was a signature 7 that occurred on the welder qualification report, which 8 in our review was -- the gentleman wrote down the wrong 9 date, misdated.
10 It threw into question whether or not the QC 11 Inspector had signed it before or after a review of the 12 welder coupons by the Pittsburgh Testing Lab, which was 13 the independent test lab on-site that was required to 4
14 review welder coupons.
15 The other type of things are clerical errors, 16 signing and dating or crossing out, signing but not 17 dating, that type of item, white-outs, use of colored 18 ink.
19 0 And what were, if any, the corrective actions taken with 20 respect to these clerical mistakes?
21 A Comstock identified them on noncompliance -- excuse me; 22 nonconformance reports, and they have a procedure which 23 they facilitate these type of administrative changes and 24 they corrected a document according to that procedure.
() 25 0 I believe you testified that these clerical errors Sonntag Reporti ng Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2957 A
V 1 continued over time during the time of Mr. Simile's 2 tenure with Comstock and thereafter and even after Mr.
3 Schapker's issuance of his inspection report; is that 4 correct?
5 A No, sir. I didn' t mean to imply that I f elt that they 6 had continued.
7 Mr. Simile, when he first came on, reviewed the 8 welder qualification reports and identified some 9 inconsistencies that were clerical in nature.
10 When Mr. Schapker visited approximately a year 11 later, they again looked at the welder qualification 12 reports. The ones that they found a problem with were 13 predated the time period after Mr. Simile took 14 responsibility, and that time f rame was -- of the 15 problems were basically '79 to '81, where the dates of 16 the -- that -- of the welder qualifications where they 17 found some additional clarification --
18 0 Now, when did Mr. Simile arrive on the job?
19 A I believe it was August 29th or 30th of 1984.
20 0 And when did Mr. Schapker conduct his inspections that 21 were the subject of 85-009?
22 A It was in the fall of '85.
23 0 The fall of '65 24 And they looked at -- one of the focuses of the 25 inspection were these inspector qualification or (v~)
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2958 O
1 certification reports?
2 A Yes; welder -- no. Excuse me. It's welder 3 qualifications.
4 0 Welder qualification reports.
5 And do you know the period of time that was 6 involved when these particular welder qualification 7 reports were issued?
8 A Yes. Mr. Simile -- I' ve talked with Mr. Simile, and the 9 ones that they looked at when Mr. Schapker was in was 10 approximately 1979 to '81, those -- those reports when 11 they had the problems.
12 Now --
O 13 Q Go ahead.
14 A -- Mr. Simile's review that occurred af ter -- that's 15 still going on now -- has reviewed all welder 16 qualification records.
17 0 When you say "all," across what period of time are you 18 referring to?
19 A Well, from when he started the -- the -- when he started 20 the review back to Day 1, all the welder qualifications 21 that we have on record.
22 Q Do you recall when he started the review, the 1 23 approximate date?
24 A No, no.
25 0 Do you recall the year?
(])
Ronntag Reporti ng Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2959
/^\
V 1 A Well, he did some of them in conjunction with Mr.
2 Schapker.
3 0 In what year?
4 A In the fall of '85.
5 0 And when you say "back to Day 1," what are you referring 6 to?
7 A The start of the project, which would be through the 8 Ernst contract.
9 0 So that the clerical mistakes covered by Mr. Schapker's 10 inspection report occurred in '79 and '80; is that your 11 testimony?
12 A Well, right. They were represented to me by Mr. Simile t.
13 as being earlier reports in the '79 to '81 time f rame.
14 0 Mr. Gieseker, did you have occasion, since your 15 testimony yesterday -- late yesterday afternoon, to meet 16 with Mr. Doherty for the purpose of discussing the 17 status of NCR 3419?
18 A Yes.
19 0 And without telling me what was discussed, can you tell 20 me what the purpose of the discussion was?
21 A Just to find out what the latest status of NCR 3419 was.
22 0 Did he convey that information to you?
23 A Yes.
24 0 Can you tell me what is the current status of that NCR?
() 25 A Comstock has written a revision to the NCR and submitted Sonntag Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2960 O
1 that revision for informal review by Edison prior to 2 officially issuing the revision, and it involves the 3 dispositioning of the NCR.
4 It clarifies -- basically it goes down by tool 5 types, I believe, and gives a recommended clarification 6 to the dispositioning of the items.
7 0 Now, I believe it's your testimony that the NCR was 8 originally issued in October of '84; is that correct?
l 9 A Yes.
i J 10 0 And can you explain just what you mean by the term that
. 11 revision is being issued to the NCR at this time -- or, 12 at least, being proposed?
O 13 A Okay. The Engineering Department again --
- 14 Q From what organization?
15 A Excuse me; for L. K. Comstock.
16 -- was ir.plementing the disposition that was 17 approved on the original version of 3419.
! 18 In doing that, they found different ways or better L 19 ways to implement that corrective action. So they've 20 asked us to review their -- what will be their
( 21 recommendations to change that dispositioning.
l
- 22 0 And it's your testimony that that was submitted to l
l 23 Commonwealth Edison recently; is that correct?
24 A Yes.
() 25 0 For what purpose?
t Annntao R e no r t i na Service. Ltd.
' Geneva', Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2961 O
1 A Just a preliminary review and comments before it was 2 issued to us officially.
3 0 Will this -- to your knowledge, will this revision cause 4 you to take any action with respect to the 50.55(e) 5 determination that you made in this matter back in 1984?
6 A We'll have to make another 50.55(e) evaluation when we 7 review this revision, yes.
8 0 And why is that?
9 A That's part of our requirement when we review the 10 disposition.
11 0 Do you have any information at this time upon which to 12 make such a re-evaluation?
)
,_)
13 A No.
14 0 And what will you need, in order to make the 15 re-evaluation, in the way of information?
16 A We'll have to look at the revision to NCR 3419.
l 17 0 And have you had time to do that?
18 A No.
l 19 MR. GALLO: Can we go off the record a l
l 20 moment, please?
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Sure.
22 Off the record.
23 (There followed a discussion outside the l
- 24 record.)
i l
() 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Let's go back on the record.
Sonntac Reportino Service, Ltd. ,
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2962 O
1 I'm going to reverse what I just had said about 2 Applicant's Exhibit 4.
J 3 We will continue to have that exhibit identified as 4 Applicant's 4, though we are having it withdrawn from 5 the record, so it's no longer received in evidence.
6 But, nevertheless, it remains marked as Applicant's 7 Exhibit 4; and any later exhibits will be marked after 8 that, starting with Applicant's Exhibit 5.
9 Fine. Mr.. Gallo, continue.
10 BY MR. GALLO:
11 Q Mr. Gieseker, I show you Intervenors' Exhibit.31 --
s 12 actually, it's the next-to-last page on that exhibit.
13 It's a memorandum from Mr. Puckett to Mr. DeWald, dated 14 August 22, 1984. This copy has handwriting on it which 15 --
I assume that is probably the handwriting of someone
! 16 other than Mr. Puckett.
j 17 MR. GALLO: Is that clear on the record, your
- 18 Honor?
19 MR. GUILD: As I recall, Mr. Chairman, that l
l 20 was identified by Mr. DeWald as his handwriting.
21 MR. GALLO: (Indicating.)
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Yes.
23 BY MR. GALLO:
I 24 0 You had testified, in answer to Mr. Guild's questions,
()
25 that -- and, indeed, the Board's questions -- that you Sonntag Reporti ng Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
v 2963
(
l had characterized Mr. Puckett's position on the 2 application of the D1.3 code in lieu of the Dl.1 code as 3 Mr. Puckett's belief that it was required or mandatory.
4 Do you recall that testimony?
5 A Yes.
6 0 Had you read, prior to the time of the Puckett meeting 7 that we referred to -- and when was that meeting again; 8 August --
9 A 22nd, I believe.
10 Q Had you seen at that time Mr. Puckett's memorandum of 11 August 22nd, the same date, to Mr. DeWald on that very 12 subject?
O 13 (Indicating.)
14 A No, sir.
15 0 You had not?
16 A I had not.
17 MR. GALLO: That's all the redirect I have, 18 your Honor.
19 BOARD EXAMINATION 20 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN :
21 0 Mr. Gieseker, which element of the organization is 22 responsible for adding materials to the PQR list?
23 A The POR is an attachment to the -- in the Comstock 24 Company, their welding installation procedure. The
() 25 Engineering Department typically is the one that Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2964 A
V 1 generates the procedures and the procedure revisions.
2 As I mentioned earlier, I believe the originals are 3 controlled and issued by the Quality Assurance 4 Department; and the procedure revisions are signed by 5 those four departments that I indicated earlier, which 6 would have been the Production, Quality Control, Quality 7 Assurance and Engineering Departments.
8 0 But the Engineering Department initiates the addition of 9 materials to that list?
10 A Yes, normally, yes.
11 Q Is the purpose of the list as an advisory to craf t and 12 QC or is that a mandatory list?
13 In other words, do they work to that list or do 14 they just take that list under advisement when they are 15 working out in the field?
16 A They work to the list.
17 Q Do you believe that the purpose of the list is to i 18 prescribe exactly what materials can be used or are 19 craf t and QC Inspectors permitted to merely refer to the j 20 list and then decide on their own which materials are 21 appropriate?
22 A No. It's intended to prescribe the ones.
23 0 It seemed to me that before we recessed for lunch, you 24 seemed to have forgotten completely what kind of l
(] 25 clerical errors were raised by the Staff Inspector --
Sonntag Reporti ng Servicp. Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 l
2965
/~T V
1 that's the NRC Staff Inspector --
2 A Jerry Schapker, yes.
3 0 Okay.
4 -- and that when you came back from lunch, you 5 recall that.
6 I may be mistaken, but I believe you must have 7 refreshed your recollection during lunch.
8 Is that correct?
9 A No. I didn't talk about it during lunch, no.
10 0 Well, I just want to make sure that what you' re 11 testifying to now is what you recall and not just 7s 12 something that you referred to.
\_] 13 If you refreshed your recollection, that's fine.
14 But we want to make sure that you' re talking f rom your 15 own recollection now, refreshed or otherwise, and not 16 that you are just repeating what you've seen on a 17 document.
18 Do you understand?
1 19 So I'm really asking you to tell me whether it is 20 your own recollection.
21 A It is my own recollection.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine.
23 Mr. Guild, recross with regard to new matters?
24 MR. GUILD: Yes, Mr. Chai rman.
25 RECROSS EXAMINATION
(])
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2966 O
1 BY MR. GUILD:
2 O Did you learn from Mr. Doherty the nature of the better 3 ways to implement the corrective action with regard to 4 the calibration NCR 3419?
4 5 A Not specifically; just generally that they had listed 6 the tool types and had resolved each of the concerns by 7 different tool type.
8 Q Did you learn f rom Mr. Doherty whether indeed they had 9 identified instances where uncalibrated tools had been 10 used in the field?
11 A No.
12 0 And, again, that's the information that you need to make
' (' 13 a determination as to the significance of the 14 deficiency?
15 A Yes.
16 -Q Did Mr. Doherty give you a projection of when they l
17 expected to have that matter completed?
18 A The -- no, not a specific projection.
19 Q Mr. Gieseker, would you turn, please, to the attachments 20 to Mr. Simile's proposed testimony?
21 Do you have that?
22 One of those attachments is Nonconformance Report 23 3099, the matter we've discussed with respect to Mr.
24 Puckett and the --
() 25 A I have Mr. Simile's testimony, but not any of the Sonntag Reporti ng Service. T.t d .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2967 e's O
1 attachments.
2 MR. GUILD: Could I ask counsel if they could 3 make that available to the witness, please?
4 MR. GALLO: Which attachment is that?
5 MR. GUILD: I'm going to ask him about the 6 NCR 3099, and there's a stop-work directive from Mr.
7 Rolan that precedes that in the stack of paper.
8 MR. GALLO: He has that.
9 MR. GUILD: It's all Group 1, I believe. All 10 right.
11 Do you have the NCR in front of you, Mr. Gieseker?
12 THE WITNESS: Yes.
O 13 MR. GALLO: Just the first page of the NCR.
14 Is that your understanding?
15 MR. GUILD: I'm sorry. Let's look at -- yes, 16 3099. It's a -- it's the version of the NCR that has 17 your name on it, Mr. Gieseker, under the client 18 concurrence block. It's probably further along in the 19 group exhibit.
20 MR. GALLO: We can't seem to find it, i
l 21 MR. GUILD: It follows directly behind the l
22 DeWald Read and Reply Memo. ' ' .
23 MR. GALLO: All right. We've got another 24 copy that has it.
(} 25 THE WITNESS: I've got it.
l Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2968 (v~h 1 MR. GALLO: Oh, you've got it? Okay.
2 THE WITNESS: Yes, I have it.
3 MR. GUILD: All right, sir.
4 BY MR. GUILD:
5 0 Now, is that your signature that appears in the client 6 concurrence block?
7 A Yes.
8 0 And it appears to bear a date of 8/23/84; correct?
9 A Yes.
10 MR. GALLO: It looks like "22" to me.
11 BY MR. GUILD:
12 0 I see two dates. There's an 8/22 and an 8/23.
13 They're both by your name?
14 A Yes.
15 0 That reflects actions that you took as a result of the 16 two meetings that you discussed in your testimony, the 17 August 22nd and August 23rd meetings?
! 18 A Yes. The -- tl.e August 22nd meeting -- right, yes.
l 19 0 Okay.
j 20 Now, can you explain something for me here?
j 21 I see it says essentially that, per the meeting on 22 8/23, field is to continue to weld to Attachment H for 23 the weld sizes indicated in Attachment H; correct?
24 A Yes.
() 25 0 And that is essentially the resolution that you had i
l Sonntag Reporti ng Service. Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
9 t
I 2969 I ,
h([)
1 agreed was appropriate that welding could continue in 2 the field?
3 A Yes.
- 4 0 All right.
5 And then it continues. It says Attachment 0 is not 6 to be welded until approved by CECO in Rev. D of 4.3.3.
7 A Yes, s 8 0 What is the reference to Attachment O?
9 A The Attachment O had an additional concern about a weld 10 size,.I.believe --
i 11 Q All right.
12 A , -- and that wasn't approved. So we wanted them to not O 13 weld that weld size.
.14 Q. All right.
15' Did that relate to this nonconformance?
16 A .It related to the Attachment O.
17 0 Well, did Attachment O relate to this nonconformance?
18 'A Yeah. Attachment o also was a. -- I believe had the same 19 concern about listing A-361 material.
20 0 All right.
21 In addition to the A-36' concern,-there was an 22 additional concern?
23 A Yes, yes.
l 24 0 What was that additional concern? i 25 A The weld size :that the procedure was approved to do.
(]}
. Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
.(312) 232-0262 >
A __
2970 O
1 Q What was wrong with that or discrepant about that?
2 A Well, the procedure -- if my memory serves me correct, 3 the procedure qualified the use of a weld that was 4 larger than the size that was being deposited in the 5 field.
6 0 All ri gh t.
7 And as to that specific weld-size question, no 8 welding was to be performed, per that Attachment H, 9 until that revision had been approved by CECO?
10 A Right.
11 Q So as to that type of welding, that work was to stop?
12 A Was to remain stopped.
O 13 0 Right, okay.
14 Now, if you would, please, several pages before, 15 there is Mr. Rolan's stop-work directive, dated 8/17/84.
16 A Yes.
17 0 All right.
18 Now, this stop-Work directive was the directive 19 that was prompted by Mr. Puckett's recommendation to Mr.
20 DeWald and Mr. DeWald's, then, recommendation to Mr.
21 Rolan; correct?
22 A Yes.
( 23 0 Okay.
- 24 And it directs that work stop on the A-36 to A-446
() 25 welding; correct?
Sonntag Repor ti ng Service. Tid .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2971 0
1 A Yes.
0 And, in addition, that all stainless steel welding stop?
2 3 A Yes.
4 0 Now, did your disposition of the NCR 3099 have any 5 effect on the resolution of the stop-work directive as 6 to the stainless steel welding?
7 A No.
8 0 So that stop-work directive remained in effect, did it 9 not?
10 A That's right.
11 0 And that stop-work directive remained in effect because 12 you had an unqualified stainless steel welding procedure 7-s 13 that had not been qualified with 2G position; is that 14 correct?
15 A Yes.
16 0 And no further stainless steel welding was to be 17 performed until that procedure was requalified in the 2G 18 position?
19 A Yes. Let me clarify the reasons for that.
20 The procedure was indeed qualified in the SG, so 21 technically what should have been done is that they 22 should have ascertained that indeed the field was using 23 the unqualified position, the unqualified 2G position.
24 What they should have specifically said is, " Don't 25 weld in the 2G position. " It was -- we didn ' t have a J
(])
Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2972
(~T v
1 concern about the stop-work in the stainless area 2 because the stainless steel welding is a very, very
, 3 minor part of our work and it didn't impact anything.
4 So we just said, "Let's resolve this first problem 5 with the A-446 to A-36, and since it won't impact 6 anything, we'll just handle the stainless steel problem 7 later," because it's, like I said before, an extremely 8 small amount cf our work. It's very limited work.
9 0 I see.
10 But you reached the judgment then, given those 11 considerations, that the stop-work was indeed 12 appropriate for the stainless welding -- at least, in i
f'-'
3) 13 the 2G position?
14 A In the -- yes, in the unqualified position.
15 0 And, in fact, you wound up having to go to the field and 16 rework welds that had been done in the 2G position that 17 had not been qualified?
~
j 18 A Right. There was another NCR that was generated for 19 that.
l 20 MR. GUILD: All right, sir.
l l
21 Mr. Chairman, that's all the questions I have.
t 22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine.
23 Mr. Berry, anything with regard to new matters?
24 MR. BERRY: No, your Honor.
l I
(} 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Mr. Gallo, with regard to I
Sonntaa R eno r ti na Service. Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 1
2973 O
1 what --
2 MR. GALLO: No questions.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Fine. Thank you, Mr.
4 Gieseker. You're excused.
5 (Witness excused.)
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gallo?
7 MR. GALLO: May I have a moment to collect 8 our next witness?
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Certainly.
10 MR. GALLO: He's out in the anteroom.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We'll take a five-minute 12 recess.
13 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which 14 the proceedings were resumed as follows:)
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We're back in session.
16 Could you stand and raise your right hand, sir?
j 17 (The witness was thereupon duly sworn.)
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Be seated.
i -19 Mr. Gallo?
( 20 MR. GALLO: Thank you, your Honor. ,
21 JAMES TAGGART LOUDEN 22 called as a witness by the Applicant herein, having been 23 first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
! 24 DIRECT EXAMINATION l () 25 BY MR. GALLO:
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262 L
2974 O
1 Q Mr. Louden, would you state your full name?
2 A James Taggart Louden.
3 0 By whom are you employed?
4 A Sargent & Lundy.
5 0 Did you have occasion to prepare testimony for this 6 proceeding?
7 A Yes.
8 0 I show you a copy of a document entitled " Contention 9 2.C., Testimony of James Louden," dated April,1986, 10 containing answers to 19 questions, and ask if these are 11 the answers that you prepared as part of your testimony 12 in this proceeding.
13 (Indicating.)
14 A Yes, these are.
15 0 I see attached to the testimony af ter the last answer an 16 attachment that's identified as Louden Attachment 1.
17 Is that your resume?
, 18 A That's correct.
19 0 Was this document prepared by you?
20 A Yes.
21 0 The last page is a Xeroxed copy of a diploma.
22 Can you tell me what that is?
23 A That's my degree in metallurgical engineering from the 24 Illinois Institute of Technology.
() 25 0 That's a Xerox of that degree?
Sonntag Repor ting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2975 O
1 A Correct.
2 0 Are there any additions or corrections to your 3 testimony?
4 A Yes. There's a correction on Page 5, the bottom 5 paragraph, the third line.
6 0 Give everybody a chance to get there.
7 All right. Go ahead.
8 A "AWS" should be the designation there. It's "ASW."
9 0 So you're correcting, in the third line in the last 10 paragraph on Page 5, the letters "ASW" to read "AWS"; is 11 that correct?
12 A That's right.
13 0 Are there any other corrections?
14 A Yes. On the top of Page 6, the third word, top line, 15 "three" -- I'm correcting that to "two."
16 0 So it would read, "There are two reasons why," et 17 cetera?
18 A And then a period af ter " irrelevant." Delete the next 19 four words.
20 MR. GUILD: I'm sorry. What was that, now?
21 THE WITNESS: That would be "two" instead of 22 "three" for the reasons and then a period at the --
23 after " irrelevant."
24 MR. GUILD: After --
/~ 25 BY MR. GALLO:
C)'
Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2976 1 Q Are you striking the words "to the NCR involved"?
2 A Yes.
3 0 Now, Mr. Louden, can you explain why you are changing 4 your testimony from, "There are three reasons," to 5 instead read, "There are two reasons"?
6 A Well, in re-evaluating that top of Page 7, that 7 paragraph at the end, this really just re-establishes or 8 reconfirms Reason No. 1 on Page 6 in this paragraph.
9 I am referring to later editions of AWS D1.1 code 10 after 1975 were even more lax in permitting 11 qualifications to one material in the group being good 12 for all Group I materials.
13 0 So as I understand your testimony, do you consider this 14 paragraph at the top of Page 7 to be an independent 15 reason -- a reason independent of the one indicated at 16 the top of Page 6?
17 A No, not independent. It's really, I think, confirming 18 or elaborating on Reason No.1 that is shown on Page 6.
19 0 And how did you treat the item you discuss at the top of i 20 Page 7 at the time you wrote your testimony?
l 21 A Well, I was thinking in terms of later code would also
, 22 be another reason to show that the A-446 material not 23 being listed in the code; the question could be handled l
l 24 as a -- as another reason.
l
() 25 It just doesn't, I think, really establish itself Snnntag Reporti ng Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2977 O
V 1 or stand by itself as another reason.
2 0 This was a third reason at that time; is that right?
3 A Yes.
4 0 Did you reconsider that position as of today? Is that 5 it?
6 A Yes.
7 0 You also indicated that you wanted to withdraw or strike 8 the words, quote, "to the NCR involved." They're the 9 last four words in that first sentence at the top of 10 Page 6.
11 Why do you want to make that change?
12 A Well, the question that really precedes these reasons (7s)
'd 13 given here pertains to Worley Puckett's probable reason 14 for not being able to accept A-446 qualification.
15 While the NCR is indirectly involved, I don't think 16 this really is necessary for explaining that 446 in 17 Paragraph 10.2 and AWS D1.1 code problem.
18 0 so this is in the nature of a clarification of your 19 testimony?
20 A Yes, a clarification.
21 0 Are there any other additions or corrections?
22 A No.
23 0 Is your testimony, as corrected, accurate and complete, 24 to the best of your knowledge and belief?
() 25 A Yes.
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2978 1 MR. GALLO: Your Honor, at this time I would 2 like to offer into evidence the testimony of James 3 Louden, including Attachment 1, into evidence and have 4 it folded into the transcript at this point as if read.
5 There were no prefiled objections to Mr. Louden's
- 6 testimony.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Any objection, Mr. Guild?
8 MR. GUILD: May I voir dire the witness?
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You certainly may. Proceed.
4
, 10 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. GUILD:
12 0 Mr. Louden, the purpose of your testimony is stated on
)
('JA 13 Page 2, and that is to describe the meeting you attended 14 on August 22, ' 84, with Mr. Puckett.
15 A Yes.
16 0 Had you -- had you spoken with Mr. Puckett, prior to 17 that August 22nd meeting, concerning his -- regarding 18 his concerns about the Comstock welding program?
19 A No.
20 0 Is your testimony, then, founded upon what Mr. Puckett 21 said during the meeting of August 22, 1984/
22 A Yes.
23 0 Aside from what Mr. Puckett said during that August 22nd 24 meeting, is there any other basis for your testimony at 25 Page 5, Answer 12, the second paragraph, where you
(])
Sonntag Reporti ng Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2979 1 state, "I also recall that Mr. Puckett believed," et 2 cetera?
3 A My recollection isn't clear exactly as to what his 4 problems were on the A-446 --
5 0 Listen to my question. Excuse me.
6 My question was: Aside from what Mr. Puckett said 7 during that meeting, is there any other basis for your I
8 testimony at that point where you state, "I also recall 9 that Mr. Puckett believed"?
10 A Well, I think -- in looking through the testimony of Mr.
11 Puckett, I think he states the same reason.
12 0 You're talking about testimony after the August 22nd 13 meeting?
14 A That's right, yes.
15 0 All right.
16 Further on Page 5 in that same paragraph, you 17 state, "I believe that his concern stemmed from," et 18 cetera.
19 Again, is there any other basis for your testimony 20 there, aside from what Mr. Puckett said at the August l 21 22nd meeting?
l 22 A I think just at the meeting -- what was at the meeting.
23 0 All right.
24 The last line of that same page, Page 5, "I feel
() 25 that this is why he brought up AWS D1.3."
Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 1
2980 m
1 Aside from Mr. Puckett's statements at that i 2 meeting, was there any other basis for your testimony in 3 that regard?
4 A No.
5 0 Page 6, oh, about a third of the way down the page, the 6 line begins " strength conditions"; and a sentence 7 followed, where you state, "Mr. Puckett probably 8 believed that all three of the base metals," et cetera.
9 Again, aside from what Mr. Puckett said at the 10 August 22nd meeting, is there any other basis for your 11 testimony in that regard?
12 A This is what I'm -- I'm speculating might have been Mr.
13 Puckett's problem with accepting D1.1 code for 14 qualification of A-446.
15 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chai rman, I would move to 16 strike those portions of Mr. Louden's prefiled testimony 17 beginning with the Page 5 testimony, Question and Answer 18 -- actually, beginning in the middle of the page with 19 the sentence and paragraph beginning, "I also recall 20 that Mr. Puckett believed," continuing through Page 7 of 21 his testimony, through and including Question and Answer 22 12.
23 I move to strike on the grounds that, first, l
24 there's clearly inadequate foundation for that 25 testimony. It is pure speculation what Mr. Puckett
(])
Sonntag Repor ti ng service. Ltd.
Gerova, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2981
)
1 believed or what probably was his concern.
2 The witness, in fact, does describe what happened 3 at the meeting. That is the purpose of his testimony.
4 That he's competent to say and does say.
5 But to the extent that he merely speculates about 6 the motives or mental processes of Mr. Puckett, I 7 believe that the t'stimony e should be stricken.
8 It's clearly not relevant what Mr. Louden believes 9 Mr. Puckett meant or intended or what his concerns were; 10 and I believe that we've established by voir dire that 11 there is no other basis for the witness' testimony to 12 that effect except the words he heard at that meeting, 13 which, in fact, at Page 5 he states were very little.
14 He says Mr. Puckett "said very little at the meeting."
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I'm not happy with the 16 answers that I heard on voir dire, because they seem to 17 be somewhat inconsistent.
18 I'm going to voir dire the witness now.
19 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 20 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
21 Q Mr. Louden, with regard to these matters that Mr. Guild 22 just ref erred to, you didn' t actually hear Mr. Puckett 23 express these beliefs at the hearing -- at the meeting, 24 did you?
I'd
'u/
25 A I don't have any recollection.
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2982 0
1 This was one day that I lef t where I was working to 2 attend a meeting, and it happened some time ago. I have 3 recollections of some things, but others I don't.
4 0 You actually have reviewed a number of documents, and 5 you believe now that you understand what Mr. Puckett's 6 position was with regard to these matters --
7 A Yes.
8 0 -- and you are offering your opinion as an expert as to 9 the resolution of these matters?
10 A Correct.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Mr. Guild, I don't believe 12 that -- with this explanation, I don't think that O" 13 there's any problem with the testimony except to the 14 extent that you wish to challenge the witness as an 15 expert to offer his opinion on these matters.
16 I don't think that there's any question but that 17 the testimony can't be used for the purpose of 18 indicating what Mr. Puckett stated at the conference.
19 The only thing that these sections can do is bring Mr.
20 Louden's opinion in as to the resolution or significance 21 of the issue f rom the expert point of view.
22 MR. GUILD: I don't have any problem with 23 tackling that if that indeed is his testimony.
24 His testimony is not that, as I read it. It is not 25 him expressing an opinion on the resolution of these
(])
Sonntag Repor ti ng Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2983
<~s U
1 issues.
2 It's him expressing an opinion about what Mr.
3 Puckett's belief was and what Mr. Puckett's concern was 4 and, on that foundation, then countering what that 5 purported or supposed or speculated belief might be and 6 undercutting it.
7 Now, I think that if the record strong man is here 8 -- and that is what Mr. Puckett's purported belief is --
9 then demolish the strong man. The strong man remains a 10 phantom and a strong man because the witness is simply 11 incompetent to testify what Mr. Puckett's belief was.
12 I have no problem inquiring of the witness as to 13 the foundation for his opinion evidence, but that really 14 is not the substance of his testimony.
I 15 JUDGE GROSSMAN : But the ruling that we' re 16 issuing now is that the testimony will not be allowed to 17 represent what Mr. Puckett's belief was at that meeting.
18 To the extent that that is substantiated some other way, 19 that's fine; but otherwise his testimony can't represent 20 that.
21 It can,only represent what this witness' opinion is 22 of the issues that he believes were the subject of that 23 meeting. These objected-to portions only represent hio 24 expert opinion on that, so that's what the Board's 25 ruling is.
(])
Sonntaa Reporting Servicgt_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2984 O
1 Mr. Berry, did you wish to be heard on this a 2 little?
3 MR. BERRY: Mr. Chai rman, the Staff will be 4 represented with respect to this witness by Miss Chan.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Oh, Miss Chan, please?
6 MS. CH AN : The Staff does not oppose the 7 admission of this document subject to the conditions 8 just discussed by the Board.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. So that's admitted 10 with these limitations in there.
11 Mr. Gallo, you may continue.
gg 12 MR. GALLO: The witness is available for V 13 cross examination, your Honor.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild, you may i
15 cross-examine.
i 16 Just in case, my colleagues don't recall my saying 17 that this is admitted subject to the limitations. If I 18 haven't said that, I say it now.
19 Mr. Guild, you may continue.
- 20 i
i 21 22 23 24 l )
s Sonntag Repor ting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
.. -s.
/
V 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) )
()/
s- CONTENTION 2.C.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES LOUDEN l
April 1986 i
i
r-Contention 2.C.
() Testimony of James Louden Q.l. Please state your full name, employer and present position.
A.l. My name is James Taggart Louden. I am employed by Sargent & Lundy as the Supervisor of the Metallurgy and Welding Section of its Quality Control Division, and have held that position since 1977.
Q.2. Please describe your professional and educational qualifications.
A.2. My professional and educational qualifications are reflected in my resume. (Attachment 2.C. (Louden-1)).
Q.3. What are your current responsibilities with respect to the Braidwood project, and when did I~' they commence?
V)
A.3. Since September 4, 1984, I have been Sargent &
Lundy's Draidwood on-site Quality Control ("QC")
representative. In that capacity, I provide technical assistance and consultation for the site on issues regarding metallurgy and welding.
In August, 1984, I was working as Pullman Sheet Metal's Welding Engineer under Sargent &
Lundy's " loaned servant" program, and, accordingly, I was on-site then as well.
Q.4. What is the purpose of your testimony?
O
A.4. The purpose of my testimony is to describe a V
meeting I attended on August 22, 1984 with Mr.
Worley Puckett regarding L.K. Comstock ("LKC")
welding procedures. CECO had called me and asked me to attend the meeting and provide technical assistance.
Q.5. What was the purpose of this meeting?
. A.S. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss LKC NCR
- 3099, which dealt with the welding of A36 material to A446 material.
Q.6. Who else attended this meeting?
A.6. In addition to Worley Puckett and Jim Gieseker, I recall that Tony D' Antonio of Ceco, Larry Tapella of CECO, Irv DeWe.ld of Comstock and Stu Kleven of Sargent & Lundy were present as well. Other individuals were present, but I did not know their names.
0 7. Please describe the discrepancy documented in LKC NCR #3099.
A.7. The discrepancy documented in LKC NCR #3099 was stated to be that LKC had not qualified a procedure to AWS Dl.1-1975 ("the Code") for welding A36 materials to A446 materials. LKC did have a Procedure Qualification Record ( " PQR" ) which qualified a procedure for welding A500 material to A446 material in accordance with AWS D1.1-1975.
Q.8. Does any industry code prohibit welding A36 materials to A446 materials?
A.8. No.
1 x Q.9. What was the significance of an LKC POR qualifying
, ) the welding of A500 material to A446 material under AWS Dl.1-1975 with respect to LKC NCR 3099?
A.9. A PQR is considered to be evidence that welds made in accordance with that specific procedure can meet the intended application and prescribed standards. Very simply, the issue was whether LKC's PQR for a procedure welding A500 base metal to A446 base metal could also be relied on by LKC as qualification for welding A36 base metal to A446 base metal under AWS Dl.1-1975, or whether the latter should be qualified in a separate PQR.
Q.10. What was your opinion regarding this issue?
A.10. It was my opinion that A36 base metal could be welded to A446 base metal based on the POR which
~ had qualified the A500 to A446 weldment under AWS Dl.1-1975.
Q.ll. What was the basis for your opinion?
A.ll. The basis for my opinion was AWS Dl.1-1975. Both the A36 and A500 base metals are listed in paragraph 10.2 of AWS D1.1-1975 as approved steels. Table 4.1.1 of that Code provides that A36 has a minimum specified yield point of 36,000 psi.
With respect to A500, Table 4.1.1 of the Ccde
)
provides that A500 also has a minimum specified yield point of less than 50,000 psi. (46,000 psi for Grade B, square or rectangular shaped tubing, O
~
the material involved here.) Under paragraph
'['- 5.5.1.1 of AWS Dl.1-1975, qualification of a welding procedure established with a paragraph 10.2 base metal which has a minimum specified yield point of less than 50,000 psi, satisfies the qualification of a welding procedure for welding any other paragr. 10.2 material that has a minimum specified yield point equal to or less than the material used in the procedure qualification test.
As I mentioned above, both A36 and A500 are approved 10.2 materials. A500 was the material used in LKC's PQR to' qualify the procedure for welding to A446 material. A36 was the material hs ,j LKC was using to weld to A446 and which was the subject of the NCR in question. Because the original qualification (A500-A446) involved a base metal (A500) listed as approved in paragraph 10.2 of AWS Dl.1-1975, and because that base metal has a minimum specified yield point which is greater than that of the A36 material, but less than 50,000 psi, the PQR also qualified the welding of A36 to A446.
Q.12. Was this opinion expressed at the meeting on August 22, 1984?
O
N A.12. Yes. I do not recall specifically whether I b
expressed it, or whether someone else did. As I recall, Worley Puckett stated that it was wrong to be welding sheet metal (A446 base metal) to AWS Dl.1-1975, and that such welding should be done to AWS Dl.3 instead. I responded that although AWS Dl.3 is the current industry code appropriate for sheet metal, this code did not exist prior to 1978. Sargent & Lundy's design and specification was based on AWS Dl.1-1975, the only appropriate code in existence when Sargent & Lundy developed the designs and specifications for Braidwood.
LKC's adherance to that code for the duration of that project was acceptable, since it is the contractor's option to adopt subsequent codes or to adhere to the code in effect when the original contract was issued.
I also recall that Mr. Puckett believed that the PQR which qualified A500 to A446 should not have been qualified under $3@(Dl.1-1975, but rather, under Dl.3, a later code. In other words, his position was that the PQR we were discussing was itself wrong. Although he said very little at the meeting, I believe that his concern stemmed from the fact that A446 base metal is not listed in AWS Dl.1-1975, paragraph 10.2, f-] although A36 and A500 are. A446 base metal is kJ discussed in AWS Dl.3, and I feel that this is why he brought up AWS Dl.3.
There are 2 ee reasons why the absence of A446 from paragraph 10.2 of AWS Dl.1-1975 is irrelevant. todhe-NCR -luvviveth The first is based on the provision I mentioned earlier --
paragraph 5.5.1.1 of the Code. It provides, in effect, that when a POR is established with a base metal listed in 10.2, that PQR then qualifies the procedure for welding any other 10.2 base metal, so long as that other base metal meets the yield strength conditions I described above. Mr. Puckett probably believed that all three of the base metals involved had (A500, A36 and A446) to be listed as approved in paragraph 10.2 of AWS D1.1-
- 1975 before the Code could apply. In my opinion, that is a faulty interpretation of the code.
The second reason why it is my opinion that Mr. Puckett's position was wrong is that I believe he may have overlooked a key provision in AWS Dl.1-1975. That provision is paragraph 8.2.3., which provides that when a steel other than those listed in paragraph 8.2.1. is to be welded (i.e.,
A446), the welding procedure must be qualified in accordance with Code requirements and such other requirements established by Sargent & Lundy. That is precisely what LKC's PQR for A500 to A446 did.
As with paragraph 10.2, A36 and A500 are both listed as approved in paragraph 8.2.1. as well.
- Finally, for the past number of years AWS Dl.1 has considered A500 and A36 to be both Group I materials, and the qualification of any Group I material qualified all Group I materials.
In the 1975 version of Dl.1 there were no Group numbers, but AWS considered welding procedure qualification for an approved material (A36 and A500 were both approved) that had a minimum specified yield strength less than 50,000 psi as qualification for all other approved materials provided their minimum specified yield strengths did not exceed that of the tested material. As I stated above, A36 and A500 both have minimum specified yield strengths of less than 50,000 psi, and A36 has a lower specified yield than A500 Grade B.
Q.13. What decisions, if any, were made at this meeting?
A.13. All of us present at the meeting, including, I thought Mr. Puckett, agreed that LKC's welding procedure would be revised by merely adding A36 to the materials that could be welded to A446. Its procedure had listed A500, but did not list A36.
Q.14. Was that the extent of your involvement regarding this issue?
A.14. Yes.
Q.15. In your opinion, was Mr. Puckett's concern regarding A36 material valid?
O
A.15. From a procedural viewpoint it was not correct to weld A36 to A446 unless LKC's welding procedure identified A36 as well as A500. Nevertheless, all that needed to be done was to revise the procedure by adding A36 to the materials already listed.
Q.17. In your opinion, were the revisions necessary to satisfy Mr. Puckett's concern?
A.17. It was not necessary to requalify the welding procedure using A36 test material, since A36 and A500 are both AWS Dl.1 materials listed in para-graph 10.2 of the Code and both have a minimum specified yield less than 50,000 psi. It was merely necessary to add A36 material to the list of materials in the welding procedure.
() 0.18. What role did you have, if any, in dispositioning of NCR #30997 A.18. My role was merely advisory.
Q.19. -Does this complete your testimony?
A.19. Yes.
O
UNITED STATES OF AMERICT NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i In the Matter Of: )
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY )
' ) Docket Nos. 50-456 (Braidwood Station, Units 1 ) 50-457 and 2) )
() ATTACHMENTS TO CONTENTION 2.C.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES LOUDEN 1
i f
l I
- April 1986 (v')
1
, Attachment 2.C. (Louden-1)
~. =. .~. ..
- - s er_=
. . e....=
CF a n ..= = a . . - . .
(-~ .
w 171 Nanti Telephene Park Forest, Illin0is 60466 Area Code 312 747-1973 Birthdate: September 22 10, ,' ,' F.a*.*.4
. ed.2 ".. l d..'a. n i
Experience Record Sarcent & Lundy ,
Enrineers Chicago . Illinois ,
Jan. 1977 Surerriver of Metallurr" Sectien. Supervision cf to meta- urrical staff involves control of work flow, present assiennent of projects and field trips, initial approval of overtite, tenitoring staff performance and takinc final technical decisions unresolved by staff. Other duties described below.
3{ 1972 to Weldinc Yetallurri?i. ~he first year and a half, ~;-
s, ) 1977 function was to provide weldinr and netallurgy assistance to fossil fuel and nuclear power plant projects.
Specifically, the review of special process procedures (i.e., welding, heat treatment,' etc.), tid Frcpesal re-views, ta erial substitutions, deviations from specifi-cations, resolution of shop and field fabrication ;rcilets, and failure analysis on operating stations. Additienal duties progressed to include training of new personnel, welding and metallurgy portion of field personnel training, videotaping of "Nelding Seminar" training prorrar for project management staff, company representative on various A-1 subconcittees of ASTM, weldinc and metallurgy input on internal meenanical, structural and electrical standard specifications, and reconnend Sargent & Lundy position en NRO Regulatery Guides that involve welding and tetallurry.
Graver Tank East Chicagc . Indiana 1971 to Sanier '.cliine Enrineer. lutie at Graver were te reduce 1972 ccsts tnrougn development of improved welding processes, perform tests required for industrial and governnent ccdes er specifications, trouble-shoot welding problems in the shop and field, prepare welding procedures to ASMS and AFI codes, and provide metallurgical and welding censult-(, ation to sales and, cost departments.
l Resure of Janes T. icuden pare 2 Specifically, I worked on the de celettent of the ;;rtatie electroslag process for AFI tanks, subterred are weldinr processes, complete preparation and testing cf Inarpy " ."
notch impact test specimens including netch traverse i studies to determine the critical (lowest value) notch location for heat-affected zone specimens and statistical analysis of impact results through the use of a eceputer.
radiographic examination of laboratory welds, and ASXE Section III nuclear procedures for the welding cf con-tainment liners. .
Sciaky 3res.. Inc.
Chicago, Illinois 1963 to e.'e l d i ne Enrin e e r. Respensible for all san;1e werk
. 1971 feasitility . studies of cor .ercial TIG and MIO welding applica*iens. In this area, worked with electronic engineer who developed first solid state TI3 weldin-control, collaterated with transformer enrineers te develop
+,a first singl,e phase-dual
- o. e. . . . c . .,. . . a a. a.... a . . . , n. . , .
secondary MIO weldinz
. .. c- .s. . . . . . ..
Worked in the field with automotive technical center toward the acceptance of the new single-phase "I" equi;-
nent.
- selve
( ,l e ., a. 4 ... Made ...
. . .. . .. .+. . ~ ~Aa ar.d service
- ' ~
1.'A a c a trips V.' =' '
.d. .' ".e-to. cust0 Conw . a.4 a***
.. a.
er's, plants
..s...a p.*** 4 .". aU *.c A. 3.-......
.... v c *..' " A.
C...s.
...e...,"..
...e . ., .*. ". .a " ' -- *
- . *. . - c . a. e. d-.-. . a. v e. ' ^ -r. .*. ". *. e. . ' " . w e .'--.
d ' ".e , e. ". a. .*.
, e , .a . . .s ..e c e a. ,. . .>.. - . s e c. ,..':es .a= ."..*
.c . e s..... . . , . n. , -.....s.
, .c.. .. .As w ,. .,.a. .s..- -
..o..n..<o.
- e. .. ... .
Wrcte equipment specificatiens, provided tetallurrical consultation to Electron Beam Welding Department, coordinated ITV-lance Missile E3 welding protran and worked with Sundstrar.d Corporati0n tecling engineers in the deve10; ten
- cf the first high production Electron Bear Welding machine.
Worked on aerospace sample programs, plasma are develop-ment, narrow gap MIG welding equipment, "Ess0" prccess MIC welding pipe development and research centracts.
Remincton Arts Company (Now EESA)
Park icrest, Illinois 1962 to -
Metallurriet. Responsible for quality of all heat treated 1963 parts, estatlished heat trea* pro:ess specificati:ns f:r atmosphere hardening, temperinc, carburizing and arten-itridinr. ~
Also investigated prcduction pretle.~.s and assisted design engineers on selection of new materials.
g' s nesane cf Janes .2..woucen Fage 3
/ \
\ b v .. .
I.,_ . 2. fsetlogg Cni cago , ' Illinoi s 1960 to Senior Metallurrist. Controlled pro ducticn .;ro;e ss 1962 quality, estatlisned~ process and material specificaticns, investigated new' methods of fabrica'icn and .?.aterials.
Responsible for resolution of production problems.
Materialswereferrousandnon-ferrous.
. . . . . Acte Steel Cenrany .t(Now Interlake Steel)
'~'
Riverdale, Illinois
~
195S to Assistant Process Metallurcist. Responsible for sar'plinc ,
1960 testing and inspecting steel strip in accordance with G e ". e .-*. . . ..a. .*. +. e. , ec..'a a..
. +'o .et . . i .".
. a. e. *.i . c. a +.8 c . c '.
. -".."".a.*.4...
e .
p
. o w. .' e. ... e , an d
.- ar.a.' "v, o.8 e e. o .'s~ c "w e. *. -... . a. .". . . ; .' a ' . . +w e .
. r .
lo, ,ck to ". o ^. " a .' a '. .* ". a. c.'.""e._.*.. -
n' .' *w e.." . a +. e '. + c. a. .b.oaa .'
- u. . o. w .-P. -r c. " - " e. .
1955 Recorde.2 process. data as chaerver in -hot and cel -r:lling tills. q Determined thickness of hot dir and elettroplated steel, performed chemical. e.nalysis of steel, and analyzei annealing;furnacc m
gas attespheres'as' Chemical ~atcratory A e..+ . .; ., .ta ,... .= e. .co- .. a.a e y a. f. +w ..e . . . e , , e .>.,. ... , .C n.* --. s .w a , +... .e an.a .
7 ne+wa-.1 .g. -.a.w4 y... . e A. ...s. a. . r.c.w.... + 4 . ae .f. S. t. c. ....g 7 . . r
.r a. a .- s w... -.*.a. ... .. .
. e... ..: C.: L...
fm I "-
t t/ Education '
Ju .e 19.e,.- ,~..:.,.
.. .. . s ,.,.4....=.
n-
. .=..sn,,,..,
. .. s .. +:
. .. n.caec, .r ; , . . :
- . c., .
se s .-a. a. .t ..,
= :
[*. a. ,w a . . . e 5 .n.a .p .e.a e v...e;,- ,
s e , e 9. T. '. n .C* * ~. n...*:
3 a . . . .! .c..s..
. 4 '. , 4,
.. .w.4:
c . . e. s-w. a, .b.a.
r ., . . , . . .
. . ar. . -
- a. a.v. a. --q...a .y a. r. e w.ea,. . + 6 .).. a. .: . . c.w..... .:,
,a y ,. +.: C .
14 n
Futlications Co.a"+.5.",. -c.' *=.a."...ir.
.. w . a '. yay ".a. . ". =. . .i . .g w o .- k. y . ac..'c . .. c. ." . c.,
Air Force contract. Technical Report AEML-TE-66-7L
" Development of Manufacturing Methods for TIS .seldinc.
Faper presented at Anerican %elding Society meeting in 1966.
Author e r article on high, production Electrc:t
~
Eear welding T.achine in Sciaky_ C.arazine. .
Professional Societies Member of American Weldig.~ Co ciety ( AWS)
/3 3 Mer.ter of American Society-for Met 3 s (1 ASM)
. s.
U .-- - ,
Raferences ._
Personal refergnees available on request. -
,p**
/
\
l
- 9
. SARGENT & LUNDY Resum2 1 of 3 James T. Louden P
Title , _ . , _ _ Supervisor, Metallurgy and Welding Section Quality Control Division Education Illinois Institute of Technology - B.S. Metallurgical Engineering - 1958 Responsibilities Mr. Louden supervises and coordinates all activities of the Metallurgy and Welding Section, assuring that all work is performed in accordance with company policies and client requirements. He continuously reviews National Codes, Standards, and Regulatory Guides to provide technicalinput and recommend changes to Sargent & Lundy Specifications, Standards, and Procedures.
Experience Mr. Louden has extensive experience in quality control, welding, and metallurgy. Mr. Louden is currently assigned to a nuclear power plant construction site as a welding and materials specialist. He is providing technical support to a construction assessment team and is assisting in the resolution
'- of nonconformance and insta!!ation problems.
Before this, he has reviewed welding procedures, resolved
([V i ( metallurgy and welding problems in tne shop and field, and has provided materials selection, welding. and metallurgy services to Sargent & Lundy project management on many fossil- and nuclear-powerec station projects.
Prior to joining Sargent & Lundy in 1972, he was a senior welding engineer with a tank manuf acturer, and a welding engineer or metallurgist for other firms.
Memberships American Society for Testing and Materials
- A-1 Committee," Steel, Stainless Steel, and Related Alloys"
- Subcommittees A01.09, A01.10, A01.lS, and A01.22
\
l 970,375 i 00535 i
i
- o. .-'6 Selected Experi2nce Record 2of3 SARGENT E LUNDY James T. l.ouden O{(
Power Plant Design Projects Rated Gross Operating Assignment Statmn - Unit M MV Date(s) Chent Assignment Date(s)
Braadmood 1.2 Nuclear !!73 1987/1984 Commonwealth Temporary field assign. 12 83 to present (each) Edison Company trent to review structarat steel traveler's from A%5 DI.! code comphance, recommending specific QJabf1Catton test reqairements as appbcable;
- to serve as welding engineer for HVAC contractor; to work on constra: tion assessment program as a eeading and materaals spe:aabst Zimme 1 Nu: lear 839 Suspended The Cin:innati Cas & Review of all soecial 10 73 to 186 Electrac Company processes p o:ecares (weldang. heat treating.
etc.) plas temoorery field assignment to re.
solve weleer nonconfor.
mances Quad Cities 1,2 N uclear 85* 1972 Common ealth Review of welding and 2 75 to 12 83 (each) Edaen Company metallurgy procecares; resolation of field f abracation prob 6 ems Drescen 2.3 N o: lea. 850 1971 Commonwealth Review of welding and 2 75 to 12 83 (ea:n) Ed. son Company metallurgy procecures; resolution of field iabracation problems Zion 1,2 Nuclear 1C85 1973/1976 Commonwealtr Review of weldang and 175 to 12 83 (ea:n) Edison Company metallurgy procedares; resolution of field f abrication problems La Salle 1,2 Nuclear 1122 1982/198r. Commonwealth Review all shop and 176 to 12 83 (each) Edaon Company faeld welding procedates; resolve contractor weldsng problems; review NRC Regulatory Guides, pertinent NUREG and IE bulletins; attended G.E. Bn meetmas to ensure state.of-the. art knowledge on IC5CC Schahier 17 Coal & 393 1983 Northern indsana Review all shop and 12 79 to 2 8)
Oil Pubiac Service field welding procedures; Company resolve shop and field j f abrication problems l
l lOL
< 970,375 040585
P, n .
6 SARGENT 8 LUNDY MeM Ecrienc- Reccrd 3 of 3 James T. Louden Power Plant Design Projecta. Continued
, ' Rated .
- '~ Gross Operating 5tation - Unit Fuel MS Date(s) Assignment CLent Anirnment Date(s)
['. ,
[ g -- ,
Marble Ha! 1 - Nuclear !!75. Carteelled Pubhe Service i
INPO evaluation of 10-12 to 11-82
. , .. 'f, Ind6ana nuclear power plant construction progra n Byron 1.2 Nuclear !!?) 1985'1987 Commonwealth Review of welding and 8 73 to 6-78 Brascwood 1.2 (each) 1987/1988 E4tson Compa9y metallurgy procecares; resolution of shop and
. field f aerscation problems O<
an
.( 970,375 040585 l
N ILLINOIS INSTITCTE OF TECHNOLOGY i
BY AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE FACULTY HEREBY CONFERS ON JAMES - T LOUDEN THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF - SCIENCE IN METALLURGICAL ENGINEERING WITH ALL THE HONORS RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES THERETO PERTAINING GIVEN AT CHICAGO ILLINOIS THIS SIXTH DAY OF JUNE NINETEEN-HUNDRED AND FIITY EIGIIT J,pd L ka f m i m n.o ,.n....oi.o e , n on...
Os ca gy,,,e.
y
- 9. i. Leee m hxn
,..s oem p g.h. O ~
M ..c...... 1 (De)g
~
- % j U '~
g g g
2985 1
I u)
(~N 1 MR. GUILD: Thank you, Mr. Chai rman.
2 CROSS EXAMINATION 3 BY MR. GUILD:
4 Q Mr. Louden, at the time of the August 22nd meeting that 5 you state a description of which is the purpose of your 6 testimony, you were not' assigned to welding matters at 7 Comstock, were you?
8 A That's correct, I was not.
9 0 You were, in fact, assigned as a loaned servant from 10 Sargent & Lundy to Pullman Sheet Metal, the HVAC 11 contractor at Braidwood?
12 A Correct.
O 13 0 Now, how did you come to attend the August 22nd meeting, 14 -then, if that was beyond the scope of your then duties?
~
15 A I had received a call from Tony D' Antonio, Edison's QA 16 personnel, and he had posed the question to me on the 17 code.
18 0 I'm sorry; on the code?
19 A On the code on the AWS D1.1-75.
20 0 And what question was that?
21 A That question had to do with the qualification of A-500 22 Grade B to A-446 sheet metal: Would that also be 1
23 qualified for A-36 to A-446 sheet metal?
[
24 My answer to him was yes.
l
(} 25 0 Did Mr. D' Antonio say anything else?
l l
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
2986 1 A No.
2 I think what happened is that later I got another 3 call -- I think this was Mr. Gieseker -- stating that 4 they wanted my presence at a meeting that af ternoon, in 5 which we would discuss and resolve the qualification 6 situation.
7 0 And did Mr. Gieseker tel) you anything else at that 8 time?
9 A I can't recall.
10 Q Did either Mr. D' Antonio or Mr. Gieseker mention Mr.
11 Puckett's name to you?
12 A Yes, I think Mr. Puckett's name was mentioned.
O 13 0 By whom?
14 A Probably Mr. Gieseker.
15 0 In what context? What was the substance of Mr.
16 Gieseker's statements regarding Mr. Puckett to you?
17 A All I can . remember is that he was the individual that 18 was maintaining that it was not qualified.
I 19 0' So Mr. Gieseker stated in sub;tance to you that Mr.
20 Puckett's position was that the A-36 was not qualified 21 to the D1.1-7 5 code?
( 22 A That's right.
23 0 And is that in part the basis for your statement of what 24 the issue was in the meeting: what Mr. Gieseker told
() 25 you?
I Sonntag Repor ti ng Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2987 1 A And also the NCR. That's NCR No. 3099.
2 0 Right.
3 But you understood that the issue involved was 4 whether the AWS Dl.1 code required the welding procedure 5 to be requalified, since the A-36 had not been listed in 6 the PQR?
7 A That's correct. That was the issue.
8 Q As you understood it?
9 A Yes.
10 0 As you described the meeting, the resolution proposed by 11 Mr. Gieseker was that the POR be amended -- PQR's, 12 plural, be amended to list A-36 and that no O 13 requalification was to be required; correct?
14 A I believe that was a topic that was discussed, and I 15 might have said that you would change the procedure.
16 Q My questien was: That was the outcome, was it not?
17 A The outcome actually was the procedure was changed to 18 show A-36.
19 Q Did I not state it correctly the PQR's were changed to l
20 add A-36?
21 A The PQR's basically stand as they are. This reflects 22 what was actually done.
23 Then the procedure page, which would have the PQR's 24 as backup support, would be the document you would
() 25 change.
Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2988 s
d 1 0 Well, isn't it the PQR page that lists the material, the 2 base metals?
3 A What was qualified, yes.
4 0 The A-36 was added on the PQR pages?
5 A I believe it was to the procedure page.
6 0 That's your understanding now?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Never th el ess, is it your understanding that the 9 procedure was changed in the body of the PQR and there 10 was not a requirement to requalify the welding 11 procedure?
g 12 A Right.
13 0 And Mr. Puckett appeared to acquiesce in that 14 resolution, did he not?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Mr. Puckett did not argue, did he, that Dl.1 required 17 that the procedure be requalified, did he?
18 A No. He had no arguments regarding the qualification to 19 D1.1-75.
20 0 All right, sir.
21 Now, I'm looking at your resume.
22 Bef ore you came to Braidwood in -- from October, 23 1973, through January of 1984, where were you working?
i 24 A I worked at Braidwood starting December 7th,
() 25 approximately -- on or about that date -- and I was Sonntag Repor ti ng Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2989 O
1 working at that point for the structural contractor.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: What year, sir? What year 3 December 7th?
4 THE WITNESS: December 7, 1983.
5 BY MR. GUILD:
6 Q Perhaps you misunderstood my question.
7 Where were you employed f rom October,1973, through 8 January of 1984, according to your resune?
9 A Oh, with Sargent & Lundy.
10 0 And where were you assigned?
11 A Well, basically the Chicago office.
- 12 0 Did you work on a nuclear power plant?
13 A Yes.
14 Q And what plant was that, sir?
15 A Zimmer.
16 Q The William H. Zimmer facility; is that correct?
17 A Yes.
18 0 And you were assigned to Zimmer for a period of 11 19 years, were you?
20 A No, no. We worked on many different plants. I worked l 21 on Zimmer. I worked on LaSalle. I worked on a number l
l 22 of fossil jobs, also.
j 23 0 Well, you worked at Zimmer over a pericd of 11 years, 24 didn' t you?
() 25 A Off and on, yes.
l l Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
- i. -
.n -
2990 (1) i 1 0 And you worked on welding procedures at the Zimmer plant i 2 over that period of time, did you not?
3 A Yes.
4 0 Was Sargent & Lundy the architect engineer for Zimmer?
5 A Yes, they were.
6 0 And in your capacity working on welding issues at 7 Zimmer, did you have responsibility for reviewing the 4
8 Zimmer welding program and procedures?
9 A Yes.
10 0 And approving those welding programs and procedures?
11 A Yes.
12 0 And you are aware, are you not, that the NRC found b 13 significant numbers of items of noncompliance in the 14 Zimmer welding program and procedures?
15 MR. GALLO: Objection. I believe that the 16 question is irrelevant to this proceeding insofar as 17 this witness' testimony is concerned.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: The witness has offered 19 expert testimony, and this goes to his expertise.
20 Overruled.
21 A Mainly the problems were with the qualification of the 22 welders.
23 BY MR. GUILD:
24 Q Well, do you dispute my characterization that the NRC
() 25 found widespread problems in the welding procedures and Sonntag Reporti ng Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4 2991 1 program?
2 A There were problems in the welding procedures; but as I 3 recall, there were a lot of them through misapplication 4 of them.
5 0 But you were responsible, as a representative of the 6 architect engineer, for reviewing the adequacy of their 7 welding program, were you not?
8 A All right; but if I review a procedure and say it's 9 acceptable and then you go out there and use it 10 incorrectly, do I get the blame for that?
11 0 Really, it's a rhetorical question, I suppose; but do 12 you believe that you have no responsibility to determine 13 the adequacy of a program's implementation?
14 Is it okay once the procedure leaves your desk?
15 A First of all, let's get it straight that the contractor i 16 has the responsibility to make the procedure proper.
17 We offer a service to review these procedures and 18 make sure that they also, besides meeting the code, meet 19 Sargent & Lundy's detailed or specification 20 req ui rement s.
21 But the contractors have th a procedures that meet 22 the code. That's -- that's a must.
23 0 But you're an architect engineer, and you have to review 24 th e --
() 25 A You're talking about construction management, and we did Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2992 0
1 not have that at Zimmer.
2 0 Let me ask more directly, then.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN : By the way, let's not 4 interrupt each other here. Mr. Guild is permitted to 5 complete his question, and you're permitted to complete 6 your answers.
7 THE WITNESS: Sorry.
8 MR. GUILD: Sorry, Mr. Louden.
9 BY MR. GUILD:
10 0 Let me ask the question I was trying to ask a little 11 more directly.
gg 12 Is it your belief that your responsibility ended G 13 when you were working for Sargent & Lundy at Zimmer, 14 now, at the point where you reviewed and approved a 15 procedure?
16 A Yes.
17 0 You had no responsibility, then, for the implementation 18 of that procedure?
19 A No.
20 0 Okay.
21 Were you responsible for reviewing and approving 22 the Zimmer program for weld filler material control?
23 A No. That was more QA.
l 24 I probably did have some reviews. I think in the i
25 later stages they sent in a whole bunch of documents i
(]')
i Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2993 O
1 that we never had gotten to begin with, and I may have 2 looked at it near the end of the job.
3 0 Well, can you be more direct about it?
4 Were you or were you not responsible for reviewing 5 the Zimmer filler metal control program and procedures?
6 A No, I wasn't.
7 0 You were not.
8 So you had no responsibility for any deficiencies 9 that existed in that program or procedures?
10 A No.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Excuse me.
12 Did you say QC wrote the program for that at 13 Zimmer?
14 THE WITNESS: Kaiser Engineers wrote that.
15 BY MR. GUILD:
16 0 They didn't submit it to Sargent & Lundy for your 17 review?
18 A I don't believe it was submitted until late in the job.
j 19 0 Af ter they submitted it late in the job, was it then
! 20 your responsibility to review and approve their weld 21 filler metal control program?
22 A Well, of course, we would review it and make sure that 23 it met the code requirements, but again the 1
24 implementation is not S & L's charge.
() 25 0 So once it lef t your desk af ter it was acceptable in Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2994 O
1 writing, that was the end of your responsibility?
2 A Correct.
3 0 okay.
4 But as to that point, were you responsible for 5 reviewing the adequacy of the program and procedures for 6 filler metal control?
7 A For making sure that it meets code requirements, yes.
8 0 Yes, all right.
9 And you approved it, I assume; correct?
10 A I have no specific recollection, but I think I probably 11 have.
12 0 All right.
'~'
13 And did you have responsibility for reviewing and 14 approving the Zimicer program and procedures for welder 15 qualification?
16 A No.
17 0 You didn't?
l 18 A No.
19 0 Why, if I might ask, was that an exception?
i 20 A That would be a -- that would be a jobsite function, and 21 I was working out of the Chicago office.
f l 22 0 But the architect engineer was not -- I don't mean you 23 personally, Mr. Louden, but did Sargent & Lundy have l
24 responsibility for reviewing and approving the Zimmer 25 welder qualification program and procedures?
l
(])
l i
Snnntag Repor ti ng Service. T,t d .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
.= _
l 2995 O
1 A No.
2 0 So you' re not limiting your answer just to yourself 3 personally?
4 A That's right.
5 0 Sargent & Lundy lef t that program and procedures to 6 someone else?
7 A That would be handled at the jobsite, and the utility 8 would do that.
9 0 And so it would not be -- fine.
10 Are there any weaknesses or deficiencies in the 11 Zimmer welding program, Mr. Louden, for which you accept 12 responsibility?
13 MR. GALLO: Objection. I don't believe it's 14 been established on this record that such deficiencies 15 or his characterization of them, in fact, do exist, 16 unless the Board is going to take judicial notice of a 17 Commission order.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We will take official notice 19 that there were some problems at Zimmer, so you may 20 proceed.
21 MR. GALLO: Well, I'll object to the question 22 at this point that it's vague. ~It seems to me that to 23 expect the witness to answer the question as posed is 24 really unfair, since he has to recall his notion of what 25 the deficiencies are that are being referred to.
(])
Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1 l
l 2996
)
o)
\_
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Well, what, Mr. Gallo, is 2 unf air about an expert witness recalling deficiencies in 3 his past work?
4 MR. GALLO: He wasn't asked if he recalled 5 any. He was asked if he was responsible for any of the 6 deficiencies.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Well, that amounts to the 8 same thing.
9 Overruled.
10 MR. GALLO: Do you have the question?
11 THE WITNESS: Could I have that question read 12 back?
O 13 MR. GUILD: I'll rephrase it.
14 BY MR. GUILD:
15 0 Are there any deficiencies in the Zimmer welding 16 program, Mr. Louden, for which you or Sargent & Lundy 17 accept responsibility?
18 A No.
19 MR. GUILD: I have no further questions.
t 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN : With regard to --
21 MR. GUILD: That completes my examination.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Okay, fine.
23 Staff? Miss Chan?
l 24 CROSS EXAMINATION 25 BY MS. CH AN :
(])
Sonntag Repor ti ng Servi ce. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
2997 1 0 Mr. Louden, in your testimony you went through a 2 reasoning process which took into account Paragraph 10.2 3 of the AWS Dl.1-75, which lists -- here. I'll give it
- 4 to you.
5 MR. GALLO: What page of his testimony?
6 MS. CHAN: It begins on Page 2 and continues 7 on the answer to -- Answer 9, 10 and 11.
8 MR. GALLO: I'm sorry. What was the 9 question?
10 MS. CH AN : I haven't finished the question 11 yet.
12 MR. GALLO: Oh, I'm sorry.
13 BY MS. CH AN :
14 0 In your testimony you went through a reasoning process 15 that took into account Paragraph 10.2 of AWS D1.1-75, 16 which lists A-36 and A-500, as well as Paragraph 17 5.5.1.1, which allows welding of base metals listed in 18 Paragraph 10.2.
19 Why did you do this? Why did you undertake this 20 interpretation?
21 A I'm not sure if I understand the intent of the question, 22 but what we had was a qualification that was using one 23 of the code materials, A-500, to a noncode material; and 24 from there, you're going to another code material to 25 that noncode material.
( })
l l
Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 L
._ , ~. - - - - -
2998 l
i 1 Now, you have to link up or establish the 2 connection between the A-500 and the A-36; and that's 3 established through Paragraph 10.2, which lists all the i
4 code materials that are considered prequalified, and 5 then Paragraph 5.5.1.1, which tells you the rules for 6 qualification and how one gets you to the other.
7 0 Can you explain "noncode material," please?
8 A A noncode material would be one of those materials that 9 would not be listed in 10.2. A-446, the sheet metal i 10 material involved in this case, is not one of the listed 11 materials.
12 0 In your testimony you went through this interpretation i
13 of the code in order to demonstrate why certain 14 materials could be welded to others.
15 Is this a process, this reasoning process -- is 16 this a process that you would expect a Level III weld f
17 inspector to employ?
18 A Yes.
r j
19 0 And why is that?
l 20 A Well, that would be his job.
21 0 In your opinion, could this kind of technical expertise 22 or interpretational skill be determined by reviewing a 23 person's resume or conducting a personal interview?
24 A I don't think by looking at the resume necessarily, but
() 25 possibly and probably in the interviews.
Sonntag Repor ti ng Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 2999 m
U 1 0 What kind of questions would you ask in an interview to 2 be able to determine whether this person could make such 3 an interpretation?
4 A Well, I'd ask questions about the AWS D1.1 code in 5 general, covering qualification, covering electrodes, 6 covering joint requirements, testing.
7 0 When you mention " qualification," would that be under 8 the AWS Dl.1 code?
9 Would you understand the Level III inspector to 10 know that it would be that code?
11 A Yes.
12 O Would you anticipate that an on-the-job evaluation might O 13 be a more valid way to evaluate someone's skills in 14 these areas?
15 A Definitely.
16 Q Are you f amiliar with the position that Mr. Puckett had 17 at L. K. Comstock?
18 A I am, through looking at some testimony, yes.
19 0 On the basis of your experience in the industry, what 20 skills would you judge to be important for a Level III 21 inspector in this position to have?
, 22 A Well, I think code knowledge would be essential.
23 0 Interpretation of that code, also?
24 A Yes, yes.
25 0 How about application of that code?
(])
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i.
3000 O
1 A Well, application of the code as well, sure.
l 2 0 Is " code knowledge," as you use the term, derived from 4
3 experience or some academic training?
4 A Basically, experience.
! 5 0 Did you know Worley Puckett before the August 22nd 6 meeting?
7 A Yes.
- 8 0 Had you had any opportunity to work with Mr. Puckett?
9 A Very limited on the Zimmer project, but I worked with a 10 lot cf people that worked with Mr. Puckett.
11 0 Is that where you met Mr. Puckett: at Zimmer?
12 A Yes.
' O 13 0 In the course of that meeting, did Mr. Puckett say
! 14 anything about his experience at Zimmer?
15 A No.
j 16 MR. GALLO: Point of clarification: The 17 reference to "that meeting" -- do you mean the meeting 18 at the Braidwood site?
19 MS. CH AN : The August 22nd meeting.
20 MR. GALLO: Thank you.
I 21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We understand that to be the l
i 22 meeting that the answer referred to.
I 23 THE WITNESS: That's what I understood.
! 24 MS. CH AN : Excuse me. I didn't hear your l
25 answer as to whether or not he mentioned --
(])
{
Ennntag Reporti ng Service. T,t d .
Geneva, Illinois 60134
( (312) 232-0262
3001 O
v 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN : The answer was no.
2 MS. CH AN : Oh, thank you.
3 BY MS. CH AN :
4 Q Did he mention anything about his dealings -- previous 5 dealings with the NRC --
6 A No.
7 Q -- at that meeting?
8 Did he say anything in the meeting which indicated i 9 that he disagreed with your interpretation of the code 10 application?
11 A Not so far as disagreeing with my interpretation of the
- 12 code application of qualification, but he did question 13 that Dl.3 should be the code that would be used.
14 Q Did he say that he thought the D1.3 should be applied?
15 Did he say that during the meeting?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Did you give him an explanation as to why that code did 18 not apply?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Did he accept your explanation?
21 A He appeared to.
22 O Going back to your observations of Worley Puckett at the 23 Zimmer site and your experience or what you know of his 24 performance in the -- at Braidwood, have you had an 25 opportunity to form an opinion as to Worley Puckett's
(])
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l l
3002 p
O.
1 performance on the job?
2 MR. GUILD: Objection. Mr. Chai rman, it's 3 clearly beyond the scope of the witness' prefiled 4 testimony.
5 If he was going to be offered as opinion evidence 6 on Mr. Puckett's qualification, then clearly Intervenors 7 should have had notice that that was the subject.
8 I understand the NRC Staff not to have taken on Mr.
9 Louden as a witness for their case; so it seems to me 10 that they're clearly limited to the scope of his direct 11 testimony, the purpose of which is this August 22nd 12 meeting.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. As far as going 14 beyond the scope, we've allowed that so that no one has 15 to recall a witness.
16 However, I think the question lacks foundation.
17 From what the witness has said, his involvement with Mr.
18 Puckett at Braidwood was limited to this particular 19 matter here.
20 Now, you've asked a question that goes -- that 21 assumes that he had some foundation for judging Mr.
22 Puckett, and I believe he's already negated that.
23 So I don't -- the opinion just doesn't have any --
24 wouldn't have any foundation.
25 MS. CH AN : That's fine, your Honor.
(])
sonntag nonnrH ng servico. r.t a .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3003 1 I have no further questions.
2 BOARD EXAMINATION 3 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
4 0 Now, I'm not sure I understood whether you were saying, 5 Mr. Louden -- I thought you were -- that notwithstanding 6 that the PQR does not specifically permit the welding of 7 two named or numbered materials to each other, the 8 welder and subsequently the QC Inspector can interpret 9 other parts cf the procedure -- that is, AWS D1.1-1975 10 -- and determine on their own that those two materials 11 can be welded to each other.
12 Is that your testimony?
13 A No.
14 What I'm -- what I'm saying, Judge, is that the 15 procedure would address the materials that would be 16 involved in the welding, and the procedure qualification 17 records would tell you what the actual materials were.
18 So you could have an actual PQR that would show 19 A-500 Grade B to A-446, yet your procedure page might l 20 show you're welding A-36 to A-446.
21 0 Well, now, which page is it that permitted the welding i
22 of A-500 to A-446?
23 Which portion of that AWS Dl.1 permitted that?
24 A Well, you had to qualify that. The code didn't
(} 25 necessarily permit A-500 to be welded to A-446, because Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
3004 e
b 1 A-446 was not a code-listed material; again, Paragraph 2 10.2.
3 0 I see.
4 There was a portion, though, that listed A-446 5 which could be welded to code-approved material; is that 6 it?
i 7 A That would come through Paragraph 8.2.3, where materials 8 other than those listed in the code may be qualified.
9 0 Okay.
10 And the material that was not listed in the code 11 that could be qualified in joining the A-446 to A-500 12 was the A-446; is that correct?
I) 13 A That's right.
14 0 And is that Section 8.2.3 which did not have A-36 15 listed?
16 A That 8.2.3 paragraph permits you to qualify other code 17 -- other materials than those listed in the code.
18 0 Well, did it have a listing of materials there, such as 19 A-446?
20 A Not in 8.2.3. The listings of materials are in 21 Paragraph 10.2.
22 0 Well, then, was A-446 listed in 10.2?
23 A No.
24 MR. GALLO: I don't mean to interrupt, but 25 don't you have the code there before you?
(])
Sonntag Repor ti ng Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3005
/~T V
1 Why don't you show the judge what you're testifying 2 to?
3 May the witness approach the bench?
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Certainly he may.
5 THE WITNESS: This is the 10.2 paragraph with 6 all of the listings of the code materials in >'1.1-7E.
7 (Indicating.)
8 MR. GALLO: Speak loud so the reporter can 9 hear you.
10 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
11 Q Now, in this section which you're referring to, which is 12 10.2, is A-500 listed?
O 13 A Yes.
14 0 Fine.
15 That's in 10.2.1.9; is that correct, sir?
16 A That's correct.
L 17 Q Now, is A-446 listed?
18 A No, sir, it is not.
19 Q Now, is there a section which permits the welding of the 20 approved materials in Section 10.2 to A-446?
21 A Paragraph 8.2.3 would do that.
22 (Indicating.)
23 0 Well, my perusal of 8.2.3 does not indicate any listing 24 by number of A-446; and I take it, then, there is no
() 25 listing of A-446 anywhere in this --
Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3006 1 A It's not listed anywhere in the Dl.l.
2 0 Well, let's -- you can return to your seat.
3 In looking at your answer to Question 15, it says, 4 the first sentence, "From a procedural viewpoint, it was 5 not correct to weld A-36 to A-446 unless LKC's welding 6 procedure identified A-36 as well as A-500."
7 I'm just reading that. That says that.
8 Why would it be appropriate to weld A-446 to A-500 9 if A-446 is not also identified?
10 A Oh, that was taken for, granted, Judge, on that; that, of 11 course, we were talking A-446.
~ 12 There would be three materials that would have to
\
13 be listed: A-36, A-500 and A-446.
14 0 And how many materials were listed?
15 A At the time it was just A-500 to A-446, just the two.
16 0 I thought you just told me that A-446 was not listed.
17 A In the code.
18 MR. GALLO: Your Honor, I don't mean to --
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Fine, Mr. Gallo. If you can 20 help, we appreciate that.
21 MR. GALLO: I have a feeling that there is 22 confusion here as to a listing in the code in the 23 various sections indicated by the witness as compared to 24 a listing of the same materials in the PQR, which is a 25 difrerent document that's not a part of the code.
(])
Sonntag Reporti ng Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3007 O
1 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
2 0 Well, now, which code was A-446 -- was A-446 listed in 3 the code?
4 A It's not listed in AWS Dl.l.
5 0 I see.
6 Where is it listed?
7 A It doesn't have to be listed. Paragraph 8.2.3 is a 8 paragraph that allows you to qualify materials other 9 than those listed in the code.
10 0 Well, now, sir, I understood you a few minutes ago to 11 say that A-446 was listed somewhere.
- 12 Is that correct or incorrect?
13 A If we were talking about the procedure, perhaps?
14 Q Perhaps we were.
i 15 Where would that be listed, then?
l l 16 A That would be in the PQR.
17 0 In the PQR?
l 18 A Yes.
19 0 Was A-36 listed in the PQR?
i 20 A No.
l 21 Q Was it proper for welders and -- just welders to weld 22 materials not listed in the PQR to A-500?
23 A Perhaps I could answer your question by a little 24 explana ti on.
25 The welder, I believe, would normally not even get
(])
Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
s
. s 3008
~,
t :
(,j 1 the. procedure qualification records, the PQE's. He 2 would'get a procedure, and on that procedure the 3 materials to be welded would be identified.
4 Those would be the materials he would be allowed to 5 weld.
6 0 Well, would it be proper to list on the identification 7 of materials a material such as A-36, which is not 8 listed in the PQR?
9 A Yes, it would be -- it could be.
10 Q Well, let me ask you, then, why you cay, "From a 11 procedural viewpoint, it was not correct to weld A-36 to 12 A-446 unless LKC's welding procedure identified A-36 as 9 13 well as A-500."
14 A I'll try to explain that sentence.
15 The procedure was qualified for A-500 to A-446, and 16 the procedure listed only those two materials to be 17 welded.
18 But it was being used also for welding A-36 to 19 A-446, and it never showed that on the procedure. It 20 should have showed it.
21 Q Well, why should it have showed it if you didn' t -- if 22 you weren't restricted to welding only what's shown on 23 the list?
24 A No. You do have to weld only the materials shown on the
(] 25 procedure.
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3009 1 0 So it would be improper for a welder to weld what was 2 not shown on the list?
3 A Yes.
4 0 would it also be improper for a QC Inspector to approve 5 a weld of materials not shown on that list?
6 A Yes.
7 0 And so both the welder and the OC Inspector were 8 required to work f rom that list; isn't that correct, 9 sir?
10 A That's correct.
11 0 And it would be improper to expect either a welder or a 12 QC Inspector to disregard that list and make his own S
\I 13 interpretation of what should be entered on a list that 14 was not on the list at that time; isn't that correct?
15 A Correct, He should weld just those materials that were 16 on the list.
I 17 0 Or, in the case of a QC Inspector, approve just those l 18 materials shown on the list?
19 A Yes, correct.
l 20 0 And if a QC Inspector found that materials not shown on 21 the list had been welded together, he would have -- he l
22 was obligated under the procedures to submit some paper 23 with regard to that, was he not?
24 A Yes.
25 0 If he just ignored that and did not submit paper, he t
i l
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3010 1 would have been following an incorrect procedure; isn't 2 that correct?
3 A That's right.
4 0 Could he disregard the materials listed on that list and 5 assume that the list would be revised to include a 6 material that is not yet included on that list?
7 A He could.
8 Q A QC Inspector, now?
- 9 A He shouldn't, but I guess he could.
10 0 He could have done it, but it would have been improper 11 for him to do it?
12 A That's right, it would have.
13 Q Now, we've had some testimony on this, and I just want 14 to make sure that there's an agreement on that: that it 15 was up to the engineers to revise the procedure to 16 include additional materials on the list, rather than 17 the QC Department or any other department at -- of 18 Braidwood or any other organization; is that correct?
i 19 Was it up to Engineering to initiate a revision of
! 20 the list?
21 A Normally I guess I would say that would be Engineering, 22 yes. I'm not that familiar with Comstock's program.
, 23 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Okay.
24 BOARD EXAMINATION l
(} 25 BY JUDGE COLE:
Sonntag Reporti ng Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3011 1 Q Mr. Louden, I have just really one question. I hope I 2 can simplify the question that I have.
3 The PQR's, the procedure qualification records that 4 we' re talking about today -- the PQR's pertaining to 5 welding are supposedly based upon the welding code that 6 would apply; is that correct, sir?
7 A Yes.
8 Q And the welding code that applies here is AWS Dl.1-1975; 9 is that correct, sir?
10 A Yes.
11 Q So that if a PQR would have some deficiencies in it for 12 whatever reason, should one go back to the supposed 0 13 basis of the POR to correct that deficiency?
14 A (No response.)
15 Q Does that question make any sense to you, si r?
16 A I think yes, you could go back to make corrections on a 17 PQR or you may have to requalify.
18 0 In your view, sir, considering the situation of the 19 A-500, A-36 and A-446, I want to make sure I understand 20 your testimony, sir. You've quoted certain sections of 21 the 1975 code, and I want to make sure my understanding 22 is correct.
23 The Table 10.2 lists two materials as qualified for 24 use: A-500 and A-36.
25 A Right.
1 Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1 3012 1 Q Under Paragraph 8.2.3, you can qualify to weld other 2 materials that are not listed in Table 10.2 by using 3 some -- a procedure that's identified there --
4 A Yes.
5 0 -- and that procedure was accomplished with material 6 A-446 for welding to A-500.
7 Are we in agreement that that was accomplished?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Now, there's another section of the code that then 10 permits you -- when a demonstration is made between one 11 10.2-listed material and another material, a material X, 12 that would then permit you to take that material X and 13 weld it with another 10.2-listed code material; is that 14 correct, si r?
15 A Yes.
16 Q And is that the essence of your testimony, the 17 demonstration of the qualification of the use --
18 A Yes.
19 0 -- of A-36 for welding A-446?
! 20 A That's it exactly.
21 The A-500 qualification to A-446 was not only good 22 for itself, that combination, but was also good to weld 23 A-36 to A-446.
24 0 or any other material listed in Table 10.2, providing 25 some qualifications are made with respect to its yield
(])
Sonntag Reporti ng Service. T.td .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3013 f~\
V 1 strength?
2 A Again, yes, the yield strength being necessary.
3 0 And you didn't have a problem of meeting the 4 qualifications of yield strength; so in your view, it 5 was a demonstration of the permissiveness of welding 6 A-36 to A-446 made by your examination of the code?
7 A Yes.
8 0 How do we consider these kinds of omissions, sir?
9 Are these -- are these errors on somebody's.part, 10 when a material isn't listed, where you can go back into 11 a record and make a demonstration using as a 12 demonstration the basis upon which the standard was O 13 made?
14 A I think we would call them a procedural or a QA-type 15 problem, as opposed to a code problem.
16 You could violate the procedure but not necessarily 17 violate the code.
18 0 How important do you consider those kinds of departures 19 from ideality, let's say?
20 A The procedural, not really significant in terms of 21 effect on design.
22 The code violations are the ones that are 23 significant.
24 0 So your basis for serious deficiencies -- you go back to 25 the original code and make your determinations?
(])
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3014 J
1 A Yes.
2 0 Are there a lot of problems like this with respect to 3 qualified procedures?
4 Is this a common kind of a problem, this problem 5 that we have with the A-36?
6 A It's not too common in AWS D1.1 because most of the time 7 the contractors are using prequalified procedures and 8 staying with the materials in the code. >
9 0 All right, sir.
10 The newer code, the D1.3 code, ,is designed 11 specifically for welding thinner materials; is that 12 correct?
13 A Yes.
14 0 Why was that necessary if the 1.1 was satisfactory?
15 A (No response.)
16 0 Let me first say: Is the 1.1 satisf actory for welding 17 thin materials?
18 A D1.1 has been used on previous jobs and could be used i 19 for the corapletion of Comstock's contract on this job.
20 AWS DI.1, as I pointed out, gives you prequalified
! 21 status for those materials that are listed in there, but
! 22 none of the sheet metals are listed.
l 23 So when you want to start using it for sheet metal, l
24 you're going to have to end up doing qualifications for
() 25 all those sheet metals, and the qualification Sonntag Repor ti ng Service. I,t d .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3015 O
1 requirements in Dl.1 are more stringent. They ' re 2 tougher testing requirements, for example, than in AWS 3 D1.3.
4 0 All right, sir. I guess I don't have an understanding 5 of what would be involved in a qualification procedure 6 if they were to demonstrate qualification under 1.3.
7 Could you just briefly summarize that?
8 A I could give an example.
9 If we had two sheet pieces of A-446 sheet metal, 10 10 gauge, you would make a groove weld butt joint and, in 11 AWS D1.1, you would have to do a radiograph. We're 12 talking about nondestructive volumetrically examine the
'~
13 weld, 14 You would have to do tensile tests on it -- this 15 would be basically across the weld -- to prove that the 16 weld strength meets or exceeds the strength of the base 17 metal.
18 Ycu'd have to do bend tests; and if you did a 19 partial joint penetration, there would be cross sections 20 to show how much effective throat or penetration you've 21 got on the material.
22 In 31.3 the only tests that are ever done is a bend 23 test. You simply weld the pieces up and then bend it 24 until ustally the sheet metal breaks, because the sheet
() 25 metal is always quite weak compared to the --
Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
3016 O
V 1 Q You said under Dl.3 all you do is a bend test?
2 Is that what you meant to say?
3 A Yes. It's the only test.
4 0 I guess I didn't understand what you meant, then.
5 We were talking about the qualification test, and 6 you said they've got to make welds; they've got to do 7 some nondestructive testing.
8 A I'm talking about AWS Dl.1 there. The testing 9 requirements of AWS Dl.1 are more thorough, stringent --
10 however you want to look at it -- than D1.3.
11 0 Well, then, it wouldn't be as hard to make a 12 demonstration under Dl.3, would it?
O 13 A It wouldn't.
14 Q Then why do you say you have to go through a lot of 15 qualification procedures?
16 A For AWS Dl.1, you would have to do all that testing.
17 Q And they've already done it?
i 18 A They've done it, yes.
19 0 I got the impression from an earlier witness that there 20 would be a lot of requalification that would have to 21 take place if they were to go to 1.3.
22 A Oh, yes. It's a different code, and the test on AWS 23 DI.3 is a bend test that would be different than AWS l-24 Dl.1 destructive tests.
(} 25 0 All right, sir.
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
.,.r.,-e. -~..--,-e-- -n -an-- - - - - , -e----- ---,-.,,.,,,,,-m , , , , , , . . - .,,,.,n, , , --,,,--,,..-n.,-w.,--.-,-r--,,--, , . - - , . - - - , -
3017 O
1 So it would just be a different test, and it 2 wouldn't be in addition to what they've already done 3 under 1.l?
4 A Yes.
5 0 All right, si r.
6 There have been some revisions of Code Dl.1-1975.
7 Wasn't there a 1979 revision?
8 A Yes, sir.
9 0 When a revision comes out, does anybody -- for example, 10 if someone is committed to adopting and using Dl.1, if 11 it's subsequently revised, as it has been revised in 12 1979, is it then necessary to comply with the revision 13 as of '79 or do you stick with the '75 version?
14 A It's not necessary to update. Our specification 15 actually required it to be the code in effect at the 16 time of contract, which would put it to the 1975 code.
17 0 So they would have it -- they would then have an option l
18 or would they still be obligated to stick with the 19 earlier code?
20 A We put in the option in the specification that they 21 could go to AWS Dl.3 if they so desired.
22 JUDGE COLE: All right, e.' r . Thank you.
23 That's very helpf ul.
24 That's all I have.
() 25 BOARD EXAMINATION Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3018 1
I
( l BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
2 0 I'm not sure I have my terminology correct, but I 3 believe you indicated that the applicable code sections 4 permit you to qualify the welding of one material to 5 another; is that correct, sir?
6 Is that the right terminology?
7 A Yes.
8 Q And the way you would qualify the welding of one 9 material to another is by listing those materials in the 10 POR; is that correct?
11 A Yes.
12 0 And so that's a critical step in permitting first the O 13 welder and then the QC Inspector to first weld and then 14 approve the joining of the two materials; the fact that 15 af ter the code permits the qualification of the welding 16 of one material to another, the POR implements that by 17 listing those materials; isn't that correct?
18 A Yes.
19 0 And the listing of the materials in the POR is an 20 engineering function; is that correct?
21 A Yes, yes.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Okay.
23 BOARD EXAMINATION 24 BY JUDGE CALLIH AN :
() 25 0 Would you please summarize or paraphrase or even read, Ronntaa R eno r ti na Service. Ltd.
Ge5eva', Illi5ois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
3019 O
1 if it isn't too long, from AWS D1.1-1975 Paragraph 8.2.3 2 to give us a feel for how one can extend the information 3 in the citations in Paragraph 10.2 to other materials?
4 A Reading from 8.2.3, "When a steel other than those l 5 listed in 8.2.1" -- and this is~a material listing 6 similar to 10.2 - "is approved under the provisions of 7 the general building code and such steel is proposed for i
8 welding construction, the weldability of the steel and 9 the procedure for welding it shall be established by 3 10 qualification in accordance with the requirements of 11 5.2," and that basically is what had to be done with the 12 A-446 material.
13 If A-500 was the only material involved in it, l 14 there would not had to have been a procedure i
15 qualification, because it would be listed in 8.2.1.
16 0 Are there properties or characteristics or compositions j 17 of materials -- a pair of materials, say -- to allow 18 their qualification in their welding one to the other?
l 19 I think, to start this off, in the case under 20 discussion, tensile strength is a property to be 21 considered; is that true?
i
- 22 A Yes. In this code, it happens to be yield strength.
23 0 All right, yield strength.
! 24 Are there other properties that must also be I
() 25 considered for qualification?
l i
l Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
3020 1 A Not by this code.
2 O Is AWS D1.1-197 5 an American National Standard?
3 A I didn't hear the last part.
4 0 Is it an American National Standard?
5 A It is now, sir.
6 At the particular time when it was issued, it was 7 not.
8 0 Did it have a predecessor? s D1.1-1975 itself a 9 revision of an earlier staadard?
10 A Yes.
11 The 1.1 code first came out in 1972.
s 12 0 I think you've answered my question -- my next question, k_) 13 but I'll say it anyhow.
14 You, for example, in 1972 and '73 with Sargent &
15 Lundy, even were concerned with welding.
16 Back in those days, you designed to the predecessor 17 of D1.1-197 5?
18 A Design would be to AISC or the American Institute of 19 Steel Construction, and AISC references you to the AWS 20 for the welding.
21 0 And that was maybe in the 1972 version of 1.1; it could
^
22 have been?
23 A Yes, it could have been.
24 0 Let's consider for a moment the function of standards.
() 25 Let me introduce this by a very common example, and then Sonntag Repor ti ng Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3021 1 I'll ask my question.
2 American National Standard C-something is the 3 electrical -- household electrical standard, as you well 4 know.
5 When that is adopted by an entity such as a City 6 .and made a part ofg its building code, it becomes law.
7 Do you agree with me on that statement?
8 A Yes.
9 0 Now, is there any comparable transition for the welding 10 standards -- and we'll still talk about D1.1 -- that 11 makes it a legal requirement for a design or a 12 construction of some kind of hardware?
O 13 A At that time I don't think it was for any State.
14 Presently there are a couple States I believe that 15 do make it legal, but not Illinois.
16 0 I see.
17 Do you know if any of the D's, the 1.1 or the 1.3, 18 are cited in reg guides?
19 A They are not.
20 0 Your counsel this morning committed you to answer a 21 question I had. I don't want great detail, but my 22 question concerns the composition of the three 23 substances in question: the 446 and the 36 and the 500.
24 How do they -- do they differ grossly in
(} 25 composi tion ?
Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd. j Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3022 1 A Chemical composition-wise, no, they do not.
2 All three materials can be considered low-carbon 3 steels.
4 0 About what is the composition?
5 A About 30 carbon maximum; manganese, .90 and less; 6 phosphorus and sulfur, usually .04, maximum.
7 0 A little bit of each of those elements in each of the 8 subject substances?
9 A Yes.
10 JUDGE CALLIH AN: Thank you very much.
11 BOARD EXAMINATION 12 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
O 13 0 I'm not sure again that I'm using the correct term; but 14 I believe, in answer to Judge Cole, you indicated that 15 the basis for qualifying sheet metals under Dl.3 relates 16 to the bending capability, is that correct, sir, or was 17 there a similar --
18 A It's a bend test. That's all that's done. You weld the 19 two pieces together, and then you bend; and that is your 20 test. That's all.
21 0 okay.
22 Does that bend capability have some relationship to 23 the yield strength of the material?
24 A I think it does.
() 25 I think the sheet steels that we use -- and most Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3023 1 are probably used in the code -- are low yield compared 2 to the weld metals, which would be like 60,000 minimum 3 yield; so you would always get failures in the sheet 4 metal.
5 0 Is there some direct proportion between the bendability 6 or bend capability -- or whatever the phrase may be --
7 and the yield strength of the sheet metal?
8 A Yeah.
9 I think if you had real high yield strength sheet 10 and used a low-strength filler metal, then the failure 11 would occur in the filler metal.
12 0 Well, are we talking now about those kinds of materials 13 where you have a high yield strength?
14 A Higher than the base metal -- or higher than the weld 15 metal, yes.
16 0 So you' re saying there is a direct proportion; and so if 17 you were lacking a yield strength, you could estimate 18 one by the bending capability of the material; is that 19 so?
20 A Not for engineering purposes.
21 0 Oh, you couldn' t do that?
22 A No. We have to use materials that have specified 23 minimum properties, and we would have to go with actual 24 tensile tests on it.
() 25 0 So is it the bend capability, then, some sort of Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
- (312) 232-0262 l
3024 O
1 independent. kind of physical property, that is 2 independent from yield strength?
3 A No. It's strictly a test to check the weld. If the 4 weld is able to withstand the bending in AWS D1.3, then 5 that weld is acceptable.
6 0 Regardless of what the yield strength of the material 7 is?
b A Yes.
9 0 Well, then, it seems that under the revision of 1978 --
10 that is, D1.3 -- there was an entirely different basis 11 for determining the qualification of sheet metal than 12 there had existed under the original Dl.1; is that so?
O 13 A Yes, that's correct.
14 0 Well, then, in the industry there apparently was som<
15 determination that it was more appropriate to use the 16 bending capability for determining qualification than to 17 base it on a yield strength; is that so?
18 A Well, I think the bend test in AWS D1.3 is because sheet 19 metals are not that high strength, and so they figured 20 they didn't need to give it as severe testing as they do 21 in AWS D1.1.
22 The weld metals that you' re welding on these sheet 23 metals are significantly higher in strength than what 24 the sheet metal is.
25 0 I take it there must have been some discussion in the
(])
Sonntag Reporti ng Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3025
/
b 1 industry, before they would have dropped the standards 2 relating to yield strength in favor of a bend test, as 3 to which was the appropriate one -- the appropriate test 4 to use for joining sheet metal?
5 A I would say yes, that they must have discussed and 6 probably came to the conclusion that with the 7 low-strength sheet metal and the high-strength weld 8 metal that you' re using, that it's not all that 9 necessary to have tensile tests as you do in Dl.1 but 10 that a simple test, such as the bend test, might be 11 sufficient.
12 BOARD EXAMINATION 13 BY JUDGE COLE:
14 Q Mr. Louden, you mentioned, in your answer to Dr.
15 Callihan's questions on a qualifying procedure under 16 8.2.3 -- when you read that section out, you referred to 17 metals listed in Table 8.2.1. You said "a similar table 18 to Table 10.2."
19 Is A-500 listed in Table 8.2 -- or Paragraph or 20 Table 8.2.1?
21 A Yes, it is.
22 O Is A-36 also listed?
23 A Yes, yes.
24 Paragraph 10.2 is a more complete listing of all
() 25 the materials in the code, and 8.2.1 lists those that Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
E 3026 i 1 would basically be building steels.
! 2 For example, there's a pressure vessel steel, 5237, 3 that you wouldn' t find listed in 8.2.1, but it would be 4 in 10.2.
1 5 0 All right, sir.
6 So they're in both tables anyway?
7 A Yes.
8 JUDGE COLE: All right. Thank you.
9 BOARD EXAMINATION 10 BY JUDGE CALLIH AN:
11 0 Coming back to 1.3, how old is it?
12 Did it have a predecessor or is it a relatively new i 13 standard?
14 A It's relatively new. It came out in 1978.
15 0 It's been through its five-year revision, do you know?
16 A They revised it in '81, and that's the last change.
17 JUDGE CALLIH AN: So it's current.
18 Thank you. ,
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Mr. Gallo?
20 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. GALLO:
22 0 Mr. Louden, what is the purpose of the bend test under 23 Dl.37 24 A This is a test ' o accept the weld that you have made as
() 25 qualifying in procedure.
Sonntag Reporti ng service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
3027 O
I 1 You're talking about qualifying a welding procedure?
Q i 2 A Yes.
3 0 Is the bend test to then test the weld itself or to test 4 the adequacy of the material?
5 A It's designed to test the weld itself.
6 0 And you actually weld two pieces of material together, I 7 is that right, and then bend it?
8 A Yes.
9 0 How do you know whether or not you passed the test?
10 A Well, they give you the criteria; and in the code it 11 says that if the sheet metal fails, the weld is 12 acceptable.
O 13 Q Does that mean you continue to bend the test sample 14 until either the weld breaks or the material breaks?
15 Is that what you' re saying?
16 A Yes.
- 17 0 If the material breaks first, the weld procedure is I
18 deemed to be acceptable for purposes of the bend test?
19 A Correct.
20 0 Now, is that the only test required by D1.3 for --
21 A That's the only test.
22 0 Now, as I understood your testimony -- let me ask you 23 directly: The test requirements under D1.1 -- do they 24 require a bend test as well?
- 25 A There is a bend test for the groove weld, in addition to I
Sonntaq Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3028 O
1 the tensile tests.
2 The bend test that would be done for the groove 3 weld in Dl.1 is different. This is a more severe bend 4 test. This is bent 180 degrees over a fixed radius and 5 actually involves quite a bit of strain on the weld 6 metal.
7 0 Well, if you were to attempt to qualify sheet metal 8 under Dl.1, would the bend test that you've just 9 described be applied and qualified -- the sneet metal 10 under Dl.l?
11 A Yes. It would have to be done if you qualified Dl.l.
12 0 It's a -- a more vigorous bend test would have to be 13 employed; is that your testimony?
14 A Yes.
15 In fact, I think what I'm also trying to point out 16 is that the tensile test is also the better of all of 17 these. It gives you an idea that you know for sure that 18 that weld meets and exceeds the strength of t'ne base 19 metal.
20 0 So a tensile test is required under Dl.l?
21 A For a full penetration groove weld.
22 0 And if you were qualifying a sheet metal material like 23 A-446 under Dl.1, would you have to do tensile testing 24 as well?
i
() 25 A Yes.
l Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262
3029 O
1 0 What kind of testing -- how is a piece of material, 2 sheet material, tested for tensile strength under D1.1?
3 A Well, you take the two sheets, weld them together, and 4 then you go across the weld direction and take specimen 5 -- strip specimens out. There are dimensioris given for 6 the tensile specimens in the code.
7 You machine them to those dimensions. Then they 8 are tested in a tensile machine, and you record the 9 strength.
10 0 And how does the -- how are these samples or strips, as 11 you indicated -- how are they tested on a tensile 12 machine?
13 A To destruction.
14 Q Are they essentially pulled apart until they --
15 A Yes.
16 0 Is the yield point recorded on this tensile machine?
17 A For the weld qualification, you don't have to record 18 yield.
19 0 All right.
20 Now, under D1.1, you've described -- we're again 21 talking about qualifying sheet metal under that version 22 of the code -- you described a bend test that would be 23 applicable, and you described tensile tests that would 24 be applicable; is that correct?
() 25 A Yes.
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3030 1 Q Are there any other tests that would be required?
2 A There would be cross section tests.
3 If you had a partial penetration groove weld, you 4 would do a cross section and determine what the 5 eff ective throat is by basically cutting in three 6 different places where you would look to determine the 7 weld metal as distinguished f rom the base metal and then 8 measure the eff ective throat.
9 0 Are there any other tests that would be required?
10 A Well, I mentioned also for that groove weld there's a 11 radiograph required as well.
12 What this is is -- this is an X-ray, if you want, 13 only often it's used -- an isotope is used. You 14 essentially X-ray the joint and make sure that there are 15 no defects.
16 The code has requirements for what it would have to 17 meet in terms of that X-ray.
18 0 Based on your testimony that you've just testified to, 19 Mr. Louden, it would appear -- at least, for sheet metal 20 -- that it would be easier to qualify it under Dl.3 than 21 it would under Dl.l .
22 Is that a correct understanding of your testimony 23 or --
24 A Well, I think it would be easier -- if you were starting
~h (J 25 at the starting point and had the option to go one way Snnntag Repor ti ng Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3031 1 or the other, yes, it would probably be easier.
2 But the -- if a company has already got all its 3 procedures, all its testing and everything done to Dl.1, 4 they would probably figure it would be easier to stay 5 with Dl.1.
6 0 Well, let's test that.
7 If I understand your testimony, the only thing that 8 would have to be done would be to conduct another bend 9 test.
10 Am I right in that assumption?
11 A You would have to do the bend test for AWS D1.3, but now 12 you would have to change all your procedures, also.
13 0 Well, car. you explain just what procedures would require 14 changing?
15 A Well, your welding procedures, your inspection 16 procedures. I should point out, too, that inspection to 17 AWS Dl.1 I think is more stringent than D1.3.
18 But you would change inspection procedures. You 19 would change welder qualification procedures.
20 0 Well, would you have to requalify the welders?
21 A You'd have to requalify welders. You'd have to 22 requalify procedures.
23 Q So it's more than just conducting another bend test; is 24 that correct?
() 25 A Yeah, it's more than that, because you've already had Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Genova, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3032 1 them qualified and now you're going to do it all over 2 again.
3 What's the purpose, unless you could say that 4 you're getting a better quality product out of it?
5 Q Now, I want to ask you -- follow up a little bit on the 6 questions asked by the Board.
7 The procedure qualification -- PQR, the PQR -- that 8 stands for " procedure qualification record"; is that 9 , correct?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Is that the documentary evidence of whether ot not a 12 qualification exists to weld two or more materials?
13 A Yes.
14 0 Now, if one went to -- wanted to weld A-446 to A-500, 15 would any testing be required before you could issue a 16 PQR?
17 A The testing would depend on the type of joint that you 18 were going to do, yes.
19 0 would testing be required under the AWS Code Dl.l?
20 A Yes.
21 Q And was that, in fact, done in the case of Comstock?
22 A Yes, it!was.
23 Q So they had a POR that was for A-446 and A-500; is that 24 correct?
() 25 A That's correct.
sonntag__Repo r ti ng s e rv ice . Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3033 1 Q Now, there's been a lot of testimony about the listing 2 of materials on the POR and then what was done with that 3 list.
4 It's not clear from your previous testimony -- at 5 least, to my understanding -- whether these two 6 materials, A-446 and A-500, were on the f ace of the POR 7 or on some other portion of the document.
8 Can you explain that?
i 9 A Well, they were on the PQR, of course. The PQR should 10 state exactly what you did, so they would be on that.
11 They were on the procedure, but the procedure was 12 also being used to weld A-36 to A-446.
()
13 0 Now, is the procedure -- is that the welding procedure 14 you're referring to?
15 A Yes. That would normal y be the only thing the welder 16 would be getting to look at.
17 0 Now, is a welding procedure a document separate f rom the 18 PQR?
19 A Yeah.
20 0 Is the welding procedure attached to the POR?
21 A It is for review.
22 For example, when it's submitted to Edison and S &
23 L for review, we would have to check the PQR and make 24 sure it supports the weld.
25 But when it's issued to the welder in the field,
(])
Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. . . - _ _ - - - _ ~ _ .
2 i ,
3034 t
()
j 1 all.he needs is the procedure.
- 2 0 He needs the welding procedure?
- f. 3 A Yes.
i
., 4 Q And how is the welding procedure issued to the welder in
+
5 the case of ComstoEk?
6 A I couldn't,tell you that. I'm not familiar with 7 Comstock. ,
1 i .
8 0 So is your testimony as to how this works based on your i ,
l 9 general experience --
]
10 A Yes. )
i
- 11 0 -- and not particularly in the case of Comstock?
l 12 A The other contractors plus other jobs. That's --
- C) 13 Q All right.
14 Would the qualified materials -- that is, the A-446 15 and the A-500 -- appear on the welding procedure?
j 16 A Yes.
I 17 Q So when the welder was asked or told or instructed to I
! 18 weld A-446 to A-36, A-36 was not on the procedure?
19 A Right.
20 Q And when the welder went ahead and did the welding, he i
j 21 was taking an action contrary to what ,the procedure
- 22 indicated; is that correct?
l 7
23 A Yes.
! 24 Q And do you know whether or not that, in fact, occurred
() 25 at Comstock?
I l Sonntaa Recortino Service, Ltd.
( Geneva', Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3035 o
U 1 A I have no personal knowledge, no.
2 0 Well, do you have any other basis or knowledge with 3 respect to that f act?
4 A Well, this was the basis in the meeting that -- this was 1
5 the charge: that it was being used to weld A-36 to 6 A-446.
7 0 This was Mr. Puckett's point?
8 A Yes.
9 0 So Mr. Puckett had identified this nonconforming 10 condition; that is, the welders welding using a 11 procedure that didn't cover one of the materials being 12 welded?
13 A Yes.
14 0 He brought that to the attention of Comstock, and that 15 was the subject of the meeting?
16 - A Yes.
17 The -- the way it was brought to their attention I 18 think was that he told them they had to requalify the 19 procedure, and that was why we had a big meeting on it.
20 0 And then your advice was sought as to whether the 21 requalification was necessary?
22 A Yes.
23 0 And you concluded it was not, for the reasons stated in 24 your direct testimony?
() 25 A Correct.
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~
- 3036 s -
J 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me. If this is 2 another topic, why don't we take a ten-minute break 3 here.
4 (WHER EU PON, a recess was had, after which 5 the proceedings were resumed as follows:)
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We're back in session.
7 Mr. Gallo, can you start your question again, 8 please?
9 BY MR. GALLO:
10 0 Going back to my question about what materials are 11 listed on the PQR, you had indicated -- I think it was fs 12 your testimony that 446 would be listed on the PQR as 13 well as A-500 --
14 A Yes.
15 0 -- is that correct?
16 Now, if you wanted to weld A-36 to 446 and we 17 wanted to be procedurally correct, would we add the 18 listing, the A-36, to the welding procedure or to the 19 POR itself?
20 A To the procedure.
21 Q Now, why is that?
22 Why wouldn't you add it to the PQR itself?
23 A Well, the POR really should tell you exactly what you 24 did to qualify that procedure, and you didn' t use A-36.
25 You used A-500.
(])
Snnntag Reporti ng Service. T.t d .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3037 b(s 1 Q You mean they tested A-500 and A-446?
2 A That's right.
3 Q So it was appropriate to list those two?
4 A That's right.
5 Q But it was not appropriate to list 36 for what reason?
6 A Well, it wasn't used.
7 0 You mean it wasn't tested?
8 A It wasn't tested, yes.
9 Q And, therefore -- well, let me rephrase that. Strike 10 that.
11 So having determined, in your judgment, that the 7s 12 procedure -- that the PQR was satisf actory for welding 13 446 to A-36, it was simply a matter of providing that 14 instruction to the welder; is that it?
15 A That's right.
16 Q And how was that done?
17 A By changing the procedure.
18 0 The welding procedure?
19 A Yes.
20 0 Does the -- I have a general question on the -- Mr.
21 Guild asked you a number of questions on the AWS code 22 and your qualifications -- or he asked you a number of 23 questions on your qualifications and asked you, in 24 particular, about certain matters at Zimmer.
() 25 My question to you is first a preliminary question:
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3038 0
1 Does the AWS code cover welding as well as welding 2 qualifications -- strike that; welding qualifications as 3 well as welder qualifications?
4 A Yes.
5 0 They're two separate aspects, are they?
6 A Not necessarily separate. They go hand in hand.
7 0 Well, I mean, under the code, are the requirements 8 spelled out separately?
9 A Yes, yes.
10 Q And do you consider yourself an expert in the 11 requirements under the AWS code for welding?
12 A For welding and materials.
,13 Q Do you consider yourself an expert for purposes of 14 welder qualifications?
15 A We don't normally deal so much with welder 16 qualifications.
17 I think I'm very familiar with it, but I would say 18 welding procedure qualifications, welding requirements 19 -- welder qualification is I think more a jobsite 20 function than what S & L has normally done as an -- as 21 an office.
22 0 What's the answer to my question?
23 A I would say welding procedures and the materials, but 24 not necessarily welding qualification of the welder.
() 25 0 You mean welder qualifications?
Sonntag Repor ti ng Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3039 O
1 A Yes.
2 MR. GALLO: That's all I have.
3 BOARD EXAMINATION 4 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN :
5 Q Mr. Louden, at this time was the company perf orming 6 groove welds with the A-36 to A-500 material?
7 MR. GALLO: Your Honor, I assume by " company" 8 you mean Comatock?
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Yes, that's what I mean.
10 A The procedure in question is A-500 to A-446.
11 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN :
l 12 Q But there were also, were there not, welds that were 13 joining A-36 to A-500?
14 A There probably were, but that wasn't the procedure in 15 question. Those would be prequalified.
16 Q Okay.
17 But in any event, the welds that we're talking 18 about -- were they groove welds?
19 A The A-500 to A-446 --
l 20 Q Yes.
i 21 A -- was not a groove weld. It was a fillet weld.
22 0 And how about the welds involving A-36?
i 23 A That would be also a fillet weld.
I 24 BOARD EXAMINATION i
() 25 BY JUDGE COLE:
l Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262 L
3040 4
1 Q Mr. Louden, Mr. Gallo asked you a question about A-36 2 and the procedure qualification record.
3 You indicated that it would be improper to put A-36 4 -- just enter that into the procedure qualification 5 record, because that's actually really a summary of what 6 you did to qualify material; and unless you ran any --
7 conducted any tests on it, it shouldn't be in there; is 8 that right?
9 A That's correct.
10 The PQR should really just represent what you did, 11 not what you can do with it.
,- 12 0 All right, sir.
t 13 Would it have been appropriate to list A-36 -- to 14 add A-36 to the list of materials in the welding 15 procedure, without doing anything else?
16 A Yes.
17 0 Why do you say that, sir?
18 A Because the A-36 was qualified through the A-500 to 446.
19 Q So you could list any and all of the materials that were 20 listed in Table 8.2.1 or in -- listed in Table 10.2; 21 just add that to the welding procedure without making 22 any additions to the procedure qualification record?
23 A Provided that they did not exceed the yield point of the 24 A-500 Grade B.
/~l V
25 JUDGE COLE: Understood, sir. Okay. Thank Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3041 O
1 you.
2 BOARD EXAMINATION 3 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
4 Q And whose responsibility was it to add materials to the 5 weld procedure?
6 A (No response.)
7 0 Was that an Engineering, QC, craft -- whose 8 responsibility was it?
9 A Welding engineer, I guess I would say.
10 0 The Engineering?
11 A Yes.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild, do you have any 13 cross exam?
14 MR. GUILD: Yes, briefly, Mr. Chairman.
15 RECROSS EXAMINATION 16 BY MR. GUILD:
17 0 Did Sargent & Lundy specify for Comstock at Braidwood i
18 that A-36 was a material that was to be employed within l 19 Comstock's scope of work?
l 20 A These would be referenced on the drawings or in the 21 specification, and A-36 was a material that would be 22 likely to be in beams, structural components.
23 Q So the answer is yes?
24 A Yes.
() 25 0 Okay.
Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3042 d,/~
1 And did Sargent & Lundy review the Comstock weld 2 procedure in question that f ailed to list A-36 as a base 3 material properly to be welded?
4 A They would have reviewed the procedure that would have 5 shown that it was being used to weld A-500 Grade B to 6 A-446, and they would have noted that it was properly 7 qualified, yes.
8 0 Well, wouldn' t it also, then, have been Sargent &
9 Lundy.'s responsibility, having specified that A-36 was a 10 base material to be welded in the field, to have assured 11 itself that Comstock indeed had a properly qualified 12 welding procedure submitted to Sargent & Lundy, approved 7s b 13 by Sargent & Lundy, for welding that base material, 14 A-36?
15 A No.
16 It's the company's responsibility to put down on 17 the procedure what they are going to use it for. If f 18 they don' t put down the right materials, well, then, l
19 they can' t use it where they wanted to use it.
20 Now, if they put down A-36 on there and they have a l
21 qualification for the A-500 to A-446, we'll review it 22 and we'll see that it is indeed qualified and give them 23 an approval on it.
24 But if it doesn' t show A-36, we don' t know that
()
25 it's going to be used for A-36.
Sonntag Reporti ng Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3043
(
1 Q So you just review it and submit it to them?
2 A That's right.
3 0 So in that case the procedure on the face was 4 appropriate and approvable and was approved?
5 A Yes.
6 0 And it wasn't Sargent & Lundy's responsibility to be 7 cognizant of the fact that Comstock had not, in fact, 8 submitted any procedure that would have permitted it, 9 given the explicit language of the procedure, to have 10 welded to the A-36 base metal that was specified on the 11 Sargent & Lundy drawings or specifications?
s 12 A Well, they did have procedures for A-36 and all the 3
b' 13 other prequalified materials, sure.
14 Q But not the one in question here?
! 15 A This one in question, no.
l
.16 0 And it wasn't Sargent & Lundy's responsibility to have 17 identified the absence of this particular procedure that i
l 18 was being used in the field?
19 A No, it wouldn't be.
20 0 A-446 is a sheet metal, galvanized sheet metal; correct?
21 A Correct.
22 Q And it's a material that is listed and treated 23 explicitly in the AWS DI.3 code, which is intended to l 24 govern thin-gauge materials; correct?
i
() 25 A Correct.
I Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3044 1 Q And would you agree that the AWS Dl.1 code was not 2 intended explicitly to govern the welding of thin-gauge 3 material, material of less than a quarter-inch 4 thickness?
5 A No, I wouldn't agree with that.
6 Q How about one-eighth-inch thickness?
7 I misspoke.
8 A Then I would say yes. In later years, 1979 and later, 9 they did come out with that statement in their code.
10 But in 1975, no, there was nothing that said that 11 there was any thickness limitation on the low end.
12 O In later years after '75, the AWS, American Welding 13 Society, explicitly acknowledged that the Dl.1 code was 14 not intended for welding materials thinner than one inch 15 in thickness?
16 A Well, they did at that time, because there was a Dl.3-78 17 that came out in 1978.
18 Q Right.
l 19 A So they couldn't have said that in 1975. There was no 20 code to go to.
l 21 0 Yes.
l 22 But af ter the Dl.3 code came into effect, it was l
23 then explicitly stated by the American Welding Society l
24 that it, the Dl.3 code, was the code that was intended l 25 for use with thin-gauge material, material of a
(
l l
l Sonntag Reoor ti ng Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
3045 1 thickness thinner than one-eighth-inch?
2 A Yes.
3 MR. GUILD: That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Miss Chan, did you have 5 anything on the new matters?
6 MS. CHAN: I have a follow-up brought on by a 7 question that Judge Grossman had asked.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Proceed.
9 RECROSS EXAMINATION 10 BY MS. CH AN :
11 Q In your response to Judge Grossman's question about how g3 12 a change in the WPS would be initiated, you said that it
~'
13 would go to Weld Engineering for resolution; is that 14 correct?
15 A Yes.
16 0 You had said that when they add the extra material to 17 the base metal -- that would be Weld Engineering -- it 18 would determine whether or not this should be added to 19 the list; is that correct? '
20 A Yes.
21 Q Are you familiar with Worley Puckett's duties and 22 responsibilities at Braidwood?
23 A only through reviewing some testimony.
24 Q He was hired as a Level III weld inspector in LFC's QC 25 Depa r tment.
{}
i Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
! Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3046 1 Given this information, would the responsibility 2 for making the change in the WPS fall within the 3 responsibility of Worley Puckett's position?
4 A From the testimony that I recall reading, I think that's 5 what they were relying on him to provide, was the code 6 expertise.
l 7 MS. CH AN : The Staff has no further questions 8 for the witness. Thank you.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Mr. Gallo?
10 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 11 (Continued)
, 12 BY MR. GALLO:
13 0 In 1978 and '79, did the American Welding Society 14 indicate, to your knowledge, that it was inappropriate 15 or improper to continue welding sheet steel one-eighth 16 of an inch or less under D1.1?
l 17 A In terms of working to an older code, no, it would not 18 be improper.
19 You actually would be, I think, committed to stick i
20 with the older code if that's what you had contracted l
l 21 for.
1
( 22 0 In '79 or '78, the American Welding Society -- strike 23 that.
24 Did the American Welding Society offer any opinion,
() 25 to your knowledge, on that point in '78 or '79?
Sonntag Repor ti ng Servi ce. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. . =
3047
,n-1 A I don't recall if it's '78 or '79, but I do recall in a 2 conversation with Dr. Moss Davis, the secretary of AWS
, 3 -- and I was questioning him about later code use -- his 4 respense --
5 MR. GUILD: Objection, Mr. Chairman. If this 6 is being sought to establish the truth of what we' re now 7 going to have a witness recite as hearsay, what was told 8 to him, it's clearly objectionable.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I assume in the question 10 that you were referring to some publications or official 11 positions --
12 MR. GALLO: Yes, your Honor.
)
'" JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- and apparently the answer 13 14 -- well, if you have information with regard to that, 15 then the question is appropriate and your answer would 16 be.
( 17 BY MR. GALLO:
18 0 The question is: Are you aware of any published opinion I
! 19 of the American Welding Society on the question of the 20 use of older versions of the AWS code notwithstanding 21 the promulgation of Dl.37 22 A I understand that there's an official inquiry of that 1
23 same question that AWS has published; and the basis is 24 that you would work to the code committed to it, the
() 25 contract date, but that you may update to a later Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3048
\>
1 edition at the option of the contractor or regulatory --
2 0 This is an interpretation of the American Welding 3 Society?
4 A Yes. I believe that's official.
5 0 Do you know when that was issued or offered by the 6 American Welding Society?
7 A I talked with Randy Kurtz at Sargent & Lundy about it, 8 but I don' t know when the actual --
9 MR. GALLO: All right. That's all I have.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Fine. The witness is 11 excused.
12 Thank you for testifying, Mr. Louden.
13 THE WITNESS: You're welcome.
14 (Witness excused.) ,
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN : I don' t know what your 16 pleasure is, Mr. Gallo. We don' t have much time to 17 begin a witness.
18 Do you wish to?
19 MR. GALLO: Well, I would suggest that, your 20 Honor, maybe in the ordinary case we put on the next 21 witness and get his testimony introduced into evidence 22 and perhaps rest until the next day.
23 But in this instance there's some controversy over 24 the admissibility of Mr. Vannier's testimony, and the
[) 25 argument or the activity surrounding it may take longer v
Snnntag Repo r ti ng Service _. T,td .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3049
-e Gi 1 than 5:00 o' clock.
2 So I wouldn't be averse, unless the pleasure is 3 otherwise by either the Board or Mr. Guild, to recess 4 until the morning.
5 MR. GUILD: May I just suggest that if we 6 could take the few minutes between now and 5:00 o' clock, 7 the parties perhaps can do some more talking on the 8 question dispute. I think the time would be usefully 9 spent, and I suggest we recess until the morning.
10 JUDGE COLE: We may eventually save more 11 time.
12 MR. GUILD: Indeed.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fe do have one matter, and 14 that is that motion in limine. We might just as well 15 dispose of that.
16 We will sustain or agree to Applicant's position on 17 that. We don't see any relevance in what the opinions 18 of counsel are as reflected in the settlement agreed to, 19 and even if there were not a public policy against use 20 of settlement agreements or a public policy in favor of 21 se ttl ement s.
22 In this case there is also that public policy; and 23 the f acts basically here f all right within the intention 24 of the rule, the rule of evidence, which embodies the 25 public policy in that the Applicant saw some good reason I"/N x_
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3050 7-m
(,)
1 for settling the case and settled the case.
2 The fact that it did settle that case should not be 3 used to its detriment in any way, so we will grant that 4 motion and deny Intervenors' position on that.
5 Now we'll recess until 9:00 o' clock tomorrow 6 morning.
7 (WHEREUPON, the hearing of the 8 above-entitled matter was continued to 9 the 5th day of June, at the hour of 9:00 10 o' clock A. M.)
11 13 14 15 16 i
l 17 i
l 18 l
19
(
20 21 22 23 l 24
[' '; 25
\J Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
NO PAGE NUMBER CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER i
D)
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITCD 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: ,
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sigt) I /
( TYPED ) G . All
/
Official Reporter Reporter's Affiliation V