ML20199K561
| ML20199K561 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 03/07/1986 |
| From: | Schapker J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#386-895 OL, NUDOCS 8607090190 | |
| Download: ML20199K561 (189) | |
Text
GATED COoESMNM?t143 a-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION D
3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD EO
'l ?2:27 g
...............__x h5hj Il 6
In the matter of:
Docket o
g 7
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY 50-457 0 C.-
8
[Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, 9
Units 1 and 2]
VOL. II 10
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 11 Isham, Lincoln & Beale 12 Three First National Plaza n2 '
/V) i 13 51st Floor l
14 Chicago, Illinois 15 March 7, 1986 16 Deposition of:
JEROME F. SCHAPKER 17 called for examination by Counsel for Licensee, Commonwealth 18 Edison, pursuant to notice, taken before Garrett J. Walsh, 19 a Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of Virginia, when 20 21 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
22 1G25 I Street, N.W.
293-3950 Washington, D.C.
s
/
1 8607090190 860307 PDR ADOCK 0500 6
[
\\
144 1
were present on behalf of the respective parties:
2 3
APPEARANCES:
4 For the Licensee Commonwealth Edison Company:
5 MICHAEL MILLER, ESQ.
6 Isham, Lincoln & Beale 7
Three First National Plaza 8
Chicago, Illinois 60602 9
10 For the Intervenors BPI, et al.:
11 ROBERT GUILD, ESQ.
12 KIM MORRIS 13 109 North
Dearborn,
Suite 1300 14 Chicago, Illinois 60602 15 16 For the NRC Staff:
j 17 GREGORY ALAN BERRY, ESQ.
i 18 Office of the Executive Legal Director 19 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 20 Washington, D.C.
20555 1
21 I
22 i
l i O l
145 1
CONTENTS O
\\_s 2
3 Witness:
Examination by:
Page:
4 JEROME F.
SCHAPKER Mr. Miller 146, 301 5
Mr. Guild 185 i
6 Mr. Berry 298 7
8 EXHIBTS Page:
9 Exhibit No. 11:
211 10 Document entitled, " Procedure 11 Tracking Sheet," Procedure No.
4.1.3, 12 Revision B, 8-2-83.
/']
13 Exhibit No. 12:
239 NJ 14 A memo from Mr. Wilde to 15 Mr. Norelius and Mr. Spessard concerning 16 allegations.
17 Exhibit No. 13:
294 18 Document made available by counsel 19 for NRC Staff in discovery.
20 Exhibit No. 14:
305 21 Procedure 4.1.3 with an implementation 22 date of 10/3/83.
O
--.---,--a e
,--.,-,,..-.,,-----.-,,e, e
1 146 1
PROCEEDINGS 2
[10:04]
3 Whereupon, 4
JEROME S.
- SCHAPKER, 5
having previously been duly sworn, resumes the stand and 6
further testifies as follows 7
EXAMINATION 8
BY MR. MILLER:
9 Q
Back on the record.
Mr. Schapker, I remind you that 10 you are still under oath.
I would now like to turn to 11 Allegation M, which is found at page 16 of Puckett Deposition 12 Exhibit 4, Inspection Report 8509.
l
}
13 Now, at the very bottom of the page, under the 14 heading:
NRC Review, there is an indication that you 15 interviewed the welder test booth inspectors named by the 16 alleger.
Can you identify the two individuals who you I
17 interviewed?
18 A-I believe it was Mr. Wicks, and the other 19 individual, I don't recall his name.
20 Q
John Minor?
21 A
I believe that is correct.
I think it was Minor.
I 22 Q
Mr. Puckett in any event had specifically identified i
l
\\
l l
147 1
those individuals to you?
O
-2 A
Yes.
3 Q
All right.
Now, I would like to call your attention 4
to Schapker Deposition Exhibit 10, which is Comstock Procedure 5
4.7.1.
Turning to paragraph 3.10 of that procedure, there is 6
a reference to the witnessing of welds during a welder 7
qualification test.
8 A
Yes.
9 MR. GUILD:
What was the reference again, please?
10 MR. MILLER:
3.10.
11 MR. GUILD:
Thanks.
12 BY MR. MILLER:
[ Continuing]
13 Q
Is that the procedure that you reviewed in
)
14 connection with your inspection of this item?
15 A
Yes, it is.
16 Q
Did Mr. Wicks and Mr. Minor tell you that they were 17 present continuously while a welder qualification test was 18 being performed?
19 A
They told me that they were present in accordance i
20 with the requirements of the 3.7.1 procedure to witness the 21 test.
I 22 Q
And what did you understand those requirements of O
L I
,_---n-
.
148 1
the procedure to bc?
1 2
A Well, as I read the procedure it says that they will 4
3 be present to witness welding process, position of weld, 4
electrode,-and et cetera.
5 Q
Well, does that -- do you interpret paragraph 3.10.1 6
of Procedure 4.7.1 as requiring a weld inspector to be present 7
continuously?
8 A
No, I don't.
j 9
.Q Did you observe personally any welder qualification 10 test being administered while you were on site?
11 A
Yes, I did.
12 Q
All right.
In his deposition, one of the concerns
( )
13 that Mr. Puckett expressed is without a quality control
(
14 inspector present, it was possible that a welder who was being 15 asked to weld in the vertical position could take the coupons 16 and do it in a horizontal position.
17 First of all, Mr. Schapker, did you observe any 18 welder qualification test being conducted which involved a 19 test in the vertical position?
20 A
I don't recall the position that the weld coupon 21 was in at the time.
22 Q
Do you know how the coupons were arranged for a test O
l
149 1
in the vertical position?
O
(_ /
2 A
They would be -- how they were arranged?
3 Q
Yes, sir.
Let me ask the question a little bit 4
differently.
5 In order for the test to be conducted in the 6
vertical position, the coupons have to be positioned in such a 7
way so that the weld can be performed vertically, is that 8
right?
9 A
That is correct.
10 Q
All right.
And it is a fact, is it not, that the 11 coupons are clamped to a post or some other vertical support 12 in the test booth during the time that the vertical position
( )
13 test is being administered, is that correct?
14 A
That is true.
15 Q
What -- based on your experience, how are the test 16 coupons affixed to this vertical post or column?
17 A
They are normally tack welded to the post, or put in 18 a fixture that clamps them in place.
19 Q
So that if -- just for a basic hypothesis, I take it 20 that a horizontal weld is easier to perform than a vertical i
21 weld?
22 A
Yes.
O
150 1
Q So, if a welder taking the test wanted to --
2 vertical test wanted to make things easier on himself he would 3
either have to remove the tack welds or unclamp the coupons 4
from this fixture or post, and lay them down while he did a 5
horizontal weld, is that correct?
6 A
If he laid it down he would be doing a flat weld, 7
but yes, that is essentially what he would have to do.
8 Q
Did Mr. Wicks or Mr. Minor tell you what their 9
routine was, if you will, during the administration of these 10 welder qualification tests, that is how often they came in and 11 out of the test booth facility?
12 A
They said they regularly monitored the welder 13 qualification testing.
14 It was common practice for them to go into the 15 booth, make sure the welder had his coupon fastened in the 16 correct manner as per the requirements of the procedure, and 17 make sure that he was using the proper electrodes and fill i
18 out the Form 88 in accordance to what he was welding, and i
l 19 once -- and check the fit-up of the coupon and make sure l
everything was in order, and then watch the welder initiate, 20 21 probably, the first pass.
22 And then from then on he would spot check the O
151 1
welder's activities.
2 Q
So, you just intermittently looked in on him?
3 A
Yes.
4 Q
How long did one of these tests take to complete?
5 A
Well, it varies with the ability of the welder, and 6
the type of test he is taking, and it may take up to four to 7
five hours to weld out a test, depending on his ability.
It 8
may take a day for some people.
9 Q
The last sentence on Page 17, under the heading NRC 10 review of this Allegation M, states that one inspector did 11 indicate, and so on.
12 Do you see that sentence?
( )
13 A
Yes.
14 Q
First of all, do you recall the name of the 15 inspector who voiced that concern -- or voiced that 16 displeasure?
17 A
Well, it was one of the two.
I am trying to -- I 18 believe that was Mr. Minor.
{
19 Q
Did you ask him specifically whether he regarded i
20 this -- these inspections that he was required to do in the 21 field while he was also assigned to the welder qualification 22 area as being a safety concern?
I l
l O
?
152 1
A No, I asked him directly if he considered the 2
activity that he had to do in the field would affect in any 3
way on the safety or the results of the coupons that were 4
produced by the welder qualification -- in the welder 2
5 qualification area.
t 6
And he said he didn't consider it a safety concern.
7 He said his only concern was he just voiced displeasure to 8
management that he had to do both jobs.
9 Q
Did he indicate in any way to you that the quality 10 of his inspections, either in the welder qualification area or 11 in the field when he was being assigned to do both had 12 suffered in any way?
i 13 A
No, he said that he performed the required
{
14 inspections as required in procedure 4.7.1.
And he felt that t
j 15 they were adequate.
16 Q
Again, in this NRC review section on Allegation M l
17 you say that you reviewed more than one hundred welder 18 qualification records which documented a QC inspector 19 performed the required inspections.
20 Again, was this the same hundred welder 21 qualification records that was referred to earlier in your i
22 inspection report?
l0
153 1
A I believe I selected a sample at a different time
\\s /
2 period.
It could have been some of the others.
I was looking 3
for a different sample there.
4 Q
I think we will pass Allegation N.
Let me ask just 5
a question or two about Allegation N on Page 17.
The word, 6
' intimidated,' appears in the second line of the allegation.
7 Is that your characterization or Mr. Puckett's 8
characterization of this event?
9 A
I would have to check the previous deposition.
10 Q
See if this might be of assistance.
11
[Mr. Miller passes document to witness.]
12 In his deposition, Mr. Schapker, Mr. Puckett with
( )
13 respect to this allegation, page 311 states:
I don't know if 14 I said it just exactly like that.
I believe what I said is 15 that it could have been intimidation inasmuch as they were 16 having problems there that didn't have to do with the job 17 itself, but were salaries and things of this nature.
18 The sentence continues.
4 19 In any event, in your inspection report, my question l
20 to you is:
The word, ' intimidated,' your characterization of 21 activity that is discussed there.
I 22 A
I believe that was the NRC's characterization at O
i
I 154 1
that time of his concern in that area.
/"s k_
2 Q
When you got this allegation for inspection, what 3
did you understand ' intimidation' to mean?
4 A
My understanding of intimidation?
5 Q
Yes, sir.
No, no.
That was not my question.
Let 6
me sharpen it up just a little bit for you again.
7 In your role as an inspector looking into these 8
allegations, your primary concern, was it not, is to whether 9
or not these allegations led to violations of the regulatory 10 requirements or had some effect that would compromise the 11 safety of the power plant; is that correct?
12 A
That's true.
(
}
13 Q
Is it also correct that the intimidation is of 14 concern to the NRC only insofar as it may lead to a failure to 3
15 meet regulatory requirements?
16 A
That's correct.
17 Q
All right.
Now, do you have an opinion as to 18 whether any statements that may have been made by Comstock's I
19 corporate quality assurance manager to the effect that he had 20
-- made by two inspectors telling him that he had twenty 21 people ready to take their place would have an effect on their 22 meeting regulatory requirements in the course of their O
155 1
inspections?
2 A
No.
3 Q
No, you don't have an opinion or no --
4 A
No, I don't think it would effect an inspector's 5
performance.
f 6
Q Would you tell me the basis for that conclusion?
7 A
Well, if the intimidation, so-called intimidation, 8
was in the matter of higher salaries, that would have nothing 9
to do with the performance of the inspector.
10 Q
In your experience, Mr. Schapker --
11 A
It's --
12 Q
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off.
,Q) 13 A
Go ahead.
14 Q
Had you finished your answer?
l 15 A
Yes.
l 16 Q
In your experience, Mr. Schapker, are disputes about 17 salary an occurrence at nuclear power plants besides 18 Braidwood?
19 A
I don't have any knowledge in that area.
20 Q
Okay.
All right.
Now, I would like to move on to 21 Allegation O.
First of all, are full penetration welds a weld 22 that is commonly performed by Comstock in the performance of O
i 156 4
i 1
its work at Braidwood?
i 2
A It's a less common weld performed by Comstock, the most common being fillet welds and flare bevel grove welds.
3 1
4 Q
Now, is there any requirement in the AWS D l 1 code 5
which mandates inspection of full penetration welds by i
6 specific inspection method?
7 A
Yes, visual inspection.
i 8
Q Can you identify for me which paragraph of the AWS 9
code?
10 A
I believe that's Section 6.6 of AWS D.l.1.
r 11 Q
Are you referring to Paragraph 6.6.3 of the AWS 12 code?
(
)
13 A
Yes.
l 14 Q
Turning to Paragraph 8.15 of the AWS code, that is a 15 paragraph that is referred to in Section 6.6.3 and 8.15.1
)
16 states that all welds shall be visually inspected; is that 17 correct?
i l
18 A
Yes.
)
19 Q
Then, Paragraph 8.15.2 talks about welds that are 20 subject to radiographic or magnetic particle testing in l
21 addition to visual inspection?
22 A
Yes.
I l
- O l
l 1
.,---,.e--w-w-7,,,--y g.,,,-w.,,,,,,.---y w-
,,g...,,m--,
en_, - - - - ~ _ -,.-w_,,-.-w,,,_
e,_-,em
.-- - - - -me---
,,,,,.,,,a,,,,n-~.m..-a--
w..-a,,
157 1
Q My question, Mr. Schapker, is under what 2
circumstances would talde be subject to radiographic or s
3 magnetic particle testing in addition to visual inspection 4
under the AWS code?
l 5-A As specified in the AWS code under Paragraph 6.6.4 6
t 7
Q That is 6.6.4 says that the specifications may
/J on dthad i A h
i i
8 require visuai-testing?
l 9
A Yes.
10 Q
Now, did you review the controlling document which-11 specified the type of non-destructive examination that would 12 take place for welds performed by Comstock?
13 A
Yes, I did.
14 Q
And what is that document, sir?
15 A
That's Sargent & Lundy's specification L2790.
I 16 Q
Did you assure yourself that the specification that 17 you looked at was the one that was in effect during the time 18 that Mr. Puckett was employed by Comstock at the Braidwood 19 site?
1 20 A
Yes, I did.
21 Q
And what did you conclude from your examination of I
22 that specification?
I l
I l O
158 1
A I concluded that at that time non-destructive 2
examination was not required for full penetration welds.
3 Q
When you say non-destructive testing, you mean --
4 A
Any examination other than visual examination as 5
required by AWS 1 -- D.l.1.
6 Q
Do you recall when the -- well, let me strike that.
7 Your paragraph in your inspection report you reviewed, NRC 8
review of Allegation 0, indicates that there was an amendment 9
to the Sergent & Lundy specification.
10 A
Yes.
11 Q
Do you know why that amendment was made?
12 A
As a result of NCR 2648, dated June 19th, 1984.
(
13 Q
All right.
That NCR refers, does it not, to certain 14 discrepant welds on riser collars?
15 A
Yes, that's true, 16 Q
In your judgment, Mr. Schapker, would an acceptable I
17 disposition of that NCR simply continued visual examination of 18 those welds?
19 A
Would that have been acceptable?
20 Q
Yes, sir.
21 A
Yes.
22 Q
All right.
Let's move on to Allegation P.
And I O
-,.,---------.-,--..,,,----,,...-,.-,._.-..-..,..,..,,-e,_-,..-.-----....-,,_..n,
159 1
would like to consider that in connection with Allegation K.3 4
\\_,)
2 which is found on Page 15 of Inspection Report 85, since 3
Mr. Puckett has established on the record that the two 4
allegations deal with the same individual.
5 A
I'm sorry.
Which one are you on now?
6 Q
Well, it's Allegation P and Allegation K.3.
First 7
of all, it's correct, is it not, that the individual whose i
8 welds you looked at in connection with investigating this 9
allegation were inspected by Mr. DeWald; is that right?
10 A
Yes.
11 Q
What review, if any, did you do to attempt to 12 ascertain whether Mr. DeWald had, in fact, inspected 1000 I
(
}
13 welds per day?
14 A
I questioned the Level III welding inspector, Tony 15 Simile, about this occurrence, purported occurrence, and he 16 stated that this had been reviewed or looked into, and the 17 welds had not been inspected over a period of one day but over 18 a period of time.
19 Q
Did Mr. Simile tell you which records he reviewed to 20 come to that conclusion?
21 MR. GUILD:
I believe it's been established that 22 Mr. Similar said he looked into any records.
1 I
I i
i
160 1
BY MR. MILLER:
2 Q
Well, let me ask you this.
Did Mr. Similar tell you 3
how he came to his conclusion that these had been inspected 4
over a period of time rather than one day?
5 A
I don't recall.
6 Q
Other than talking to Mr. Simile, Mr. Schapker, did 7
you make any independent review of records or conduct any 8
further investigation into this matter?
9 A
As in my inspection report on Allegation P, the 10 allegation on 1000 welds being inspected by this individual, 11 it was purported to be in a non-safety related area.
It did 12 not raise a concern.
The issue of the areas where this
)
inspector had made inspections in safety-related areas was my 13 14 concern, and that's where I did my inspection.
15 Q
That's discussed under Allegation P in Inspection 16 Report 85-09.
17 A
Yes.
18 Q
Now, just as a matter of fact, based on your 19 experience, Mr. Schapker, do you believe that it is possible 20 for a weld inspector to inspect 1000 welds a day?
21 A
No, I don't.
22 Q
For welds that are done within Comstock's scope of OV
161 1
1 work at the Braidwood plant, do you have an estimate as to a 2
range of weld inspections that could be accomplished during 3
the course of a day?
4 A
Number of individual weld inspections?
5 Q
Yes.
6 A
I would be guessing, but it would be much less than 7
1000.
8 Q
In excess of 100?
9 A
That would be more accurate.
Not in excess, I don't 10 think.
i 11 MR. BERRY:
What was your last answer?
Not in 12 excess?
( )
13 THE WITNESS:
Not in excess I wouldn't think.
14 BY MR. MILLER:
15 Q
Do any of the weld inspections at Comstock take 16 place in the shop, the fabrication shop, as opposed to in the i
17 field?
18 A
Yes, they do.
19 Q
Are those inspections of those welds usually more i
20 expeditious than actually inspecting welds once they're 21 fabricated in the field?
j 22 A
Yes, they would be.
i l
O
162 1
Q Do you have any estimate of what a range of number O
Is__)
2 of weld inspections for Comstock work might be for welds that 3
were fabricated in the Comstock shop?
4 A
Well, it would be considerably more than in the 5
field, but an actual estimate I couldn't really give.
I'd be 6
guessing again.
7 Q
Now turning back to your investigation into 8
Allegation P, the second paragraph of page 19 of Puckett 9
Deposition Exhibit No. 4 says that you selected a random J
10 sample of the welds that had been inspected by Mr. DeWald.
11 How large a sample of welds did you look at?
12 A
Actual welds I believe was in the number of -- that
)
13 were not painted -- numbered about 30.
14 Q
How many welds that you attempted to reinspect had 15 been painted?
16 A
The majority of them were painted; probably 75 17 percent of them that I looked at were.
18 Q
So that in your random sample you hope to get what, 19 100, 125?
20 A
Yes.
21 Q
Even though a weld is painted, are there still some visual inspection attributes that can be ascertained through 22 O
163 1
the paint?
I
)
\\,/
2 A
Well, it's not an accepted practice to inspect welds 3
through paint.
4 Q
I know that, but you can still --
5 A
But you can visually ascertain the general contour 6
of the weld and gain some type of credibility of the weld 7
itself.
l 8
Q Did you check for the general contour of the welds 9
that had been inspected by Mr. DeWald, even though it was 10 under paint?
11 A
Yes, the ones I looked at generally; it wasn't a 12 thorough inspection, it was just a general look-over.
Yes.
( )
13 Q
Did you find any deficiencies that were apparent to 14 you through the paint?
15 A
No.
16 Q
You've already -- I'm not going to discuss Allegation paragraph Q since that deals with another power 17 l
18 plant.
Turning to Allegation R, you previously discussed I 19 think the weld that -- detail that was the subject of this 20 allegation yesterday.
l 21 A
Yes.
22 Q
Can you describe for me what the technical basis for O
\\
164 1
the AWS Code requirement is with respect to there not being a 2
continuous weld over two planes of the surfaces that are l
3 joined?
1 i
4 A
No.
5 Q
Do you know whether or not it has anything to do I
6 with reducing fatigue loading on the weldment?
7 A
That's a definite possibility.
8 Q
Do you know whether there's any fatigue loading on
+
9 the unistrut welds where this detail is used at Comstock?
}
10 A
I do not know that, no.
j
}
11 Q
okay.
Mr. Schapkar, Mr. Puckett in his deposition 12 stated that a similar problem had been encountered at the
()
13 Zimmer power plant; that is, a continuous weld across two
{
14 planes of the surfaces to be joined.
Do you have any 1
15 recollection of that occurring?
\\
16 A
I'm not aware of it.
l 17 MR. GUILD:
Do you have a reference to what you had i
18 in mind?
19 MR. MILLER:
I'm sure I do.
Page 323.
i 20 (Pause.]
21 BY MR. MILLER:
22 Q
Mr. Schapker, do you have an opinion as to whether, O
,n-n
,r---
-,,-.,,m,
.-,-,,,--,,,ww,mm,w_m._
e m-w
--n,-,-m
4 165 1
for a welder who is joining these unistruts to the plate, or l
2 if this weld detail is used, as to whether or not it was 3
easier or more difficult for the welder to break his arc, if 4
you will, when he transferred planes, or whether it would be a
5 easier to just have one continuous weld across the plane?
l 6
A It would be easier to break the weld, the plane, t
7 otherwise, you would have to rotate the part --
8 Q
As he was welding?
9 A
As he was welding.
10 Q
Is that physically possible for a welder to do when f
i 11 he -- or would he have to have a helper rotate it while he --
i 12 A
Well, it would be possible if he had it in a-fixed 1
l ()13 position, I suppose, -- in a vertical position -- where he 14 could possibly weld it without breaking an arc.
But I didn't
)
15 see any indication of that.
i 16 Q
Did you look at the shop fabrication of these strut l
l 17 to plate weldments?
I i
l, 18 A
Yes, I did.
19 Q
Oh, so you actually observed some being fabricated i
20 in the shop?
21 A
They were being fabricated while I was present, yes.
22 Q
Did you tell anybody the reason for your stopping in i
O
166 1
to watch while this was being done?
or did you drop in and 2
stand and watch them while they were doing it?
3 A
No, I didn't tell anybody.
I just -- I came in to 4
observe.
I went into the shop to observe the unistrut to 5
plate weld itself, and to review the drawing.
6 Q
And it was just fortuitous that they happened to be 7
conducting some welding while you were there?
8 A
Yes.
S Q
About how many strut to plate welds did you observe?
10 A
I probably -- in the shop, I only looked at two or 11 three I believe.
12 Q
Was the same welder doing all two or three, or were 13 there different welders?
14 A
I don't know.
The parts that I had looked at were 15 welded, were completed.
16 Q
I see.
You didn't actually observe the welder doing 17 this, performing the weldment while you --
18 A
No.
No, I didn't.
19 Q
I'd like to go back for just a second to the weld 20 rod control matter that Mr. Puckett identified.
First of all, 21 let me be a little bit more specific.
Do you recall initially 22 that the concern was first expressed by the NRC Staff in an O
167 1
item of noncompliance regarding the use of E6013 weld rod, and (3
\\s /
2 the substitution of E7018 weld rod for that -- the other?
3 A
There was an unresolved item I believe in that 4
regard.
5 Q
I believe yesterday we identified as a deposition 6
exhibit NCR 3275, which has been marked for the record as 7
Schapker Deposition Exhibit No. 4 for identification.
Have 8
you reviewed the technical adequacy disposition of this NCR 9
insofar as it authorizes the interchangeability of the E7018 10 and the E6013 weld rods for use by Comstock at Braidwood?
'f 11 A
Yes.
12 Q
Do you agree that that disposition of the
( )
13 non-conforming condition meets the regulatory requirements?
j 14 A
Yes, it does.
15 Q
Mr. Schapker, there's testimony by Mr. Puckett that 16 the E6013 weld rod was used for thin-gauge metal weldments.
d 17 Do you know why the E6013 is used for such -- or is specified 18 for such applications?
19 A
Why E6013 is utilized for thin gauge metals?
20 Q
Yes, sir.
21 (Pause.)
22 Let me withdraw that question and ask another one.
O
I l
l 168 1
For thin gauge metals, is it easier for the welder to use 6013 2
rod than 7018 rod?
3 A
I believe that is a true statement.
4 Q
Is there any technical reason of which you're aware 5
that would preclude using E7018 weld rod on thin gauge 6
material?
7 A
No.
8 Q
Does the type of weld rod that is usad; that is, 9
E6013 and E7018, have any effect on the difficulty of 10 conducting a visual examination of the welds by a weld 11 inspector?
12 A
No.
)
13 Q
Mr. Schapker, in connection with your investigation 14 of Mr. Puckett's allegations, did you have occasion to review 15 a memorandum from Mr. Puckett to Mr. DeWald dated August 22nd, 16 1984?
It's previously been marked as Puckett Deposition 17 Exhibit No. 16.
18 (Witness reviewing document.)
19 A
Yes, I believe I have.
20 Q
I have a few questions for you on it.
First of all, 21 in about the first four sentences -- well, let's see.
There's 22 a sentenc.s that begins, "AWS D.l.1 criteria was never intended
i 169 1
to be used on weld materials less than a 1/8 inch thickness."
2 Now, --
3 A
Yes.
I i
4 Q
Is that an accurate statement of -- well, let me --
5 A
No, I don't think so.
6 Q
Okay.
The further question is, is there anything 7
that you can point us to in the AWS D.1.1 code which states 8
that it is not intended to be used on weld materials less than l
l 9
1/8 inch?
10 A
No.
I 11 Q
Now, the sentence goes on to say, "All of our j
12 procedures that involve A-446 should have been qualified using
(
)
13 the criteria of D.1.3."
What do you understand the reference i
14-to AWS D.1.3 to mean?
l 15 A
It's another code, AWS code.
i l
16 Q
Do you know when that code was first published?
4 i
17 A
I believe around 1981, '80 or '81.
18 Q
Do you know whether the Sargent & Lundy t
j 19 specification for Comstock work at Braidwood authorizes the 20 qualification of weld procedures and welders to the criteria 21 of AWS D.1.37 i
22 A
I believe it does now.
i i
I i
l
170 i
1 Q-And that's at the option ol the centractor, is it i
2 not?
^
3 A
Yes.
D.1.1, or D.1.3, and I believe it also gives 4
the option to qualify to ASME.
5 Q
Do you agree with Mr. Puckett's statement in the i
6 sentence that follows that, and I'm paraphrasing,.that these 7
procedures, the ones qualified to AWS D.1.1, are not 8
qualified?
j 9
MR. GUILD:
Which sentence are you referring to?
?;.
10 MR. MILLER:
It's the sentence that starts with, "In 4
f j
11 addition to these procedures that I can assure you are not 12 qualified."
()
13 BY MR. MILLER:
14 Q
Do you agree with his evaluation of the procedures, 4
l 15 based on your review?
i 16 A
No.
}
l 17 Q
Is it acceptable for -- well, let me back up. AWS i
j 18 D.1.3 in fact specifically addresses weld qualification i
j 19 procedures for thin gauge materials, does it not?
i 20 A
Would you repeat that?
l 21 Q
Yes.
AWS D.l.3 in fact specifically addresses weld 22 procedures for thin gauge materials; is that right?
I O
i t
1
- -,.. -. _. ~,. -.. -.. -.. -.. - ~ - -... -. - - -
\\
3 171
~
1 A
Yes.
2 Q
When that code was issued, did it require that 3
welding of thin gauge materials be accomplished in accordance 4
with it?
s 5
A Not to my knowledge.'
6 Q
Mr. Puckett asserts that the procedures are not j
7 qualified because they should be qualified, at least in part, i
8 to the criteria of AWS=D.1.3.
Based on your investigation L
l 9
into Mr. Puckett's allegations and your general background in I
10 welding and non-destructive examination, what does that tell 11 you about Mr. Puckett's familiarity with AWS codes.
12 MR. GUILD:
Let me object.
I think that paraphrase,
(
}
13 while I assume you intend it to be a paraphrase, is not an 14 accurate reflection of what Mr. Puckett's opinion is, as l
15 reflected in Exhibit 16 to his deposition.
And I would object i
16 to your premising your question seeking Mr. Schapker's opinion i
j 17 on an inaccurate paraphrase of Mr. Puckett's opinion.
)
18 MR. MILLER:
I'll stand by my question.
j 19 MR. BERRY:
If you remember the question and if you 1
l 20 understand the question, you may answer it.
l l
21 THE WITNESS:
I would say that Mr. Puckett has some l
22 confusion in regard to the codes.
l i
5 i
172 1
BY MR. MILLER:
2 Q
We spent yesterday and part of this morning, 3
Mr. Schapker, talking about each of the allegations that you i
4 investigated that were made by Mr. Puckett.
In Puckett 5
Deposition Exhibit No. 16 he says, in the first paragraph, 6
"I'm aware of the impact it would have but I strongly 7
recommend that all weldings be stopped..." and then the 8
sentence continues.
9 Based on your investigation of all of Mr. Puckett's i
10 allegations, do you have an opinion as to whether or not the 11 condition of Comstock's procedures and their compliance with 12 the AWS Code called for stopping of all welding?
\\
13 A
No.
I don't believe they did warrant it.
(Y 14 Q
Now, Mr. Puckett has -- I'm sorry?
I i
15 MR. BERRY:
I thought you were referring to him as 16 Mr. Puckett.
17 MR. MILLER:
No.
I did that once yesterday, and I i
18 apologized.
19 BY MR. MILLER:
i 20 Q
Anyway, Mr. Puckett alleges that he was terminated, 21 at one point he said, for making too many waves; in another 22 letter he referred to it as being too quality conscious.
Did O
173 1
you investigate the circumstances of Mr. Puckett's 2
termination?
3 A
No.
4 Q
In the course of your investigation, did you 5
discover any evidence that indicated that he was terminated 6
for raising quality-related concerns to Comstock management?
7 A
That would be a judgment on my part.
I don't 8
believe I could have made that kind of judgment.
9 Q
Well, Mr. Schapker, if you had uncovered such 10 evidence, wouldn't you have called it to the attention of your 11 management, at the NRC?
12 A
Yes, I probably would have.
( )
13 Q
And did you have occasion to report any such 14 evidence to your management?
15 A
No.
16 Q
Mr. Schapker, I think in an early part of the 17 deposition you said you had occasion to be with Mr. Puckett or 18 to meet him approximately a half a dozen times in connection 19 with your inspections at the Zimmer power plant.
These were 20 inspections that took place in the 1980-81 timeframe?
Is that 21 correct?
22 A
1981.
l O
174 1
Q At that time was there an organization within Region 2
III called the Office of Special Cases, or some such 3
description?
4 A
Yes, there was.
5 Q
And that was a group that was responsible for 6
inspections and investigations at, among other power plants, 7
Zimmer; correct?
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
And were you assigned to that office or department?
10 A
No.
11 Q
They just called on you es required for l
12 investigation?
(
}
13 A
Yes.
14 Q
When you, on your first -- I take it -- you said you 15 met Mr. Puckett on six different occasions.
I take it all 16 those occasions were at the Zimmer facility?
17 A
Yes, they were.
18 Q
On the first occasion, do you recall what L
19 Mr. Puckett's title was?
20 A
I believe he was project weld engineer.
21 Q
And to your knowledge, did he maintain that title i
22 throughout the times that you conducted inspections at Zimmer?
O
175 1
A No.
I believe he did not.
(
2 Q
What did his title change to, if you recall?
3 A
I don't recall all the title changes.
I know he was 4
replaced by Manford Godecki, and he worked for Mr. Godecki 5
during this period of time in some lesser role.
6 Q
To your knowledge, Mr. Schapker, did any employee of 7
Nuclear Regulatory Commission suggest to Mr. Puckett or any 8
other employee of Kaiser or any employee of Cincinnati Gas &
9 Electric that Mr. Puckett be replaced as the project weld 10 engineer?
11 A
I don't recall that.
12 Q
In the course of your inspections at Zimmer, did you
{J}
13 have occasion to review any of the activities for which 14 Mr. Puckett was responsible?
15 A
Yes.
16 Q
Did any of those activities involve the 17 interpretation of the AWS welding code?
18 A
Yes.
Primarily ASME but AWS was involved.
19 Q
All right.
Let me make the question a more broadly 20 based one.
21 Did you have any occasion to assess items of 22 non-compliance against Cincinnati Gas and Electric as a result 4
a
176 1
of misinterpretations or misapplications of welding codes that
(
2 were the responsibility of Mr. Puckett?
3 A
Yes.
4 Q
During the course of your inspections at the Zimmer 5
facility, did you have occasion to evaluate or inspect the 6
compliance of Kaiser or other contractors with the procedures 7
in place at that site that governed welding pursuant to the 8
AWS welding code?
9 A
Yes.
10 Q
All right.
I take it your answer would be the same 11 with respect to the ASME?
12 A
Yes, ASME, too.
Yes.
()
13 Q
At a point in time at the Zimmer facility, was 14 Mr. Puckett ever responsible for the creation and 15 implementation of those procedures?
16 A
Yes, at one time.
17 Q
And did you have occasion in your inspections there 18 to assess items of non-compliance against Cincinnati Gas and 19 Electric as a result of the failure by Mr. Puckett to conform 20 to the procedures that were in place at that facility?
21 A
Yes, we did issue some non-compliances.
22 Q
We've marked as Puckett Deposition Exhibit 30, O
177 1
Mr. Schapker, an NRC Inspection Report for the Zimmer 2
Facility.
It's Number 8210 on the Zimmer docket.
3 You are identified as one of the inspectors who 4
participated in that inspection, and there are in fact a 5
number of items of non-compliance with more than one example 6
for each item of non-compliance.
7 Looking, if you will, at the notice of violation, 8
Inspection Report 8210, can you identify for the record which, t
9 if any, of these items of non-compliance and the specific 10 examples were the results of your inspection activities?
11 A
Item 1.a of the Notice of Violation, 1.b, Item 3.
12 MR. MILLER:
Off the record.
( )
13
[An off-the-record, discussion ensued.]
14 MR. MILLER:
All right, on the record.
15 BY MR. MILLER:
16 Q
I think you have identified as items of 17 non-compliance Number 3 as being a result of your inspection.
18 Is there any others?
19 A
Yes, 1.a and b.
20 Q
Yes, sir.
What about -- any part of 4?
21 A
No.
I believe that was Mr. Gwynn's.
In addition, 22 Mr. Gwynn worked with me on these other findings that are
178 1
identified in conjunction.
v 2
MR. GUILD:
Just so we have it all at one place in 3
the transcript, if you could ask him to identify the other 4
items.
-5 MR. MILLER:
Oh, all right.
That would be fine.
6 BY MR. MILLER:
7 Q
I think you identified Mr. Gwynn as assisting you on 8
Items la, lb, 3.
Can you identify who is responsible for item
+
9 of non-compliance --
10 A
Number 2 is Mr. Gwynn, I believe.
Yeah, that Number 11 4 would be Mr. Gwynn, too.
12 Q
I realize that this was some time ago and your i
( )
13 memory has been shut down for awhile, but can you describe for 14 me what activities, if any, of Mr. Puckett's you investigated i
15 that led to the assessment of the first item of non-compliance 16 in the Inspection Report 8210?
l I
17
[The witness is looking through documents.]
18 MR. GUILD:
Off the record.
19
[An off-the-record discussion ensues.]
20 BY MR. MILLER:
(
21 Q
okay.
22 A
Page 27, at the top of the page --
I O
r
\\
7 -
179 1
COURT REPORTER:
I'm sorry, sir.
I can't hear you.
2 WITNESS:
I'm sorry.
At the top of the page, it 3
starts at the top of the page.
4 BY MR. MILLER:
5 Q
And the project welding engineer that is referred to 6
there is Mr. Puckett?
7 A
Yes, I believe that's true.
8 Q
The first complete sentence on that Page 27 of that 9
Inspection Report says that the inspector requested a copy and 10 so on.
Are you the inspector?
11 A
It was myself or Mr. Gwynn.
We did this inspection 12 in conjunction, together.
13 Q
Okay.
Do you remember who told you that the listing 14 was no longer controlled or in use?
15 A
I believe that was Mr. Puckett.
16 MR. GUILD:
Just for clarity, the question presumed 17 that it was Mr. Schapker who was told that.
Would you clarify 18 whether it was him or not?
19 MR. MILLER:
Yeah.
i 20 BY MR. MILLER:
21 Q
Do you know -- did Mr. Puckett tell you that 22 directly or is this what Mr. Gwynn reported to you?
O
180 i
1 Do you recall?
\\_-)
2 A
I don't recall.
3 Q
Okay.
All right.
Now, that's keyed back into 4
5 A
1.b.
6 Q
-- 1.b.
Well, I suggest that the findings there are 7
more closely analogous to item of non-compliance 2.b.
8 MR. GUILD:
It looks like the NRC has failed to 9
maintain an accurate listing of items of non-compliance.
10 WITNESS:
Yes, that's true.
I goofed on that one 11 didn't I?
12 BY MR. MILLER:
f~~T 13 Q
Well, I could never have follow these numbers d
14 myself.
Can you point us to the portion of the details of the 15 Inspection Report 8210 that deal with item of non-compliance 16 17 l
17
[The witness is looking through documents.]
18 I just note that my own review suggests that 19 Numbered Paragraph 4 on Page 29 of the details of Report 8210 20 apparently refers to a welder who has the symbols KGJ, who is 21 also the -- the welder is also identified in the item of 22 non-compliance 1.a.
l l
181 1
A What page is that?
2 Q
Page 29, sir.
3
[The witness is looking through the document.]
4 A
That appears to be the same relation,'page 29, 5
paragraph 4.
6 Q
All right.
On page 30, the paragraph that begins 7
"Results of that investigation - ".
There is a reference 8
there to the H.J. Kaiser project weld engineer.
That's 9
Mr. Puckett, correct?
10 A
I believe that's right.
11 Q
At this point in time, Mr. Shapker, do you know 12 whether there were any allegations of intentional
(
falsification of records, welder qualification records, at the 13 14 Zimmer site?
15 A
I believe there were.
16 Q
Did you ever investigate those allegations?
17 A
I don't recall.
l 18 Q
Do you know whether there was an investigation by a 19 Federal Grand Jury of those records?
20 A
No, I'm not aware of it.
l 21 Q
Mr. Shapker, I think you identified item of 22 non-compliance number 3 as also being something that you were
182 1
primarily responsible for?
}
2
[ Counsel handing document to witness.]
3 A
Yes.
4 Q
What involvement, if any, did Mr. Puckett have in 5
this item of non-compliance?
6 (Witness perusing document.]
7 A
I don't know if he was involved in that particular 8
item.
9 Q
Mr. Shapker, as a result of the Level III Item of 10 Non-Compliance, the one that's number one in the Notice of 11 Violation, did you or any other employee of the NRC make the 12 recommendation to management of Cincinnati Gas and Electric
()'
13 with respect to Mr. Puckett's duties or assignments?
14 A
I'm not aware of that.
15 Q
I'm asking two question.
Did you or anybody else?
16 A
I did not, and I wasn't aware of somebody else had.
17 That's possible.
18 Q
Mr. Shapker, are you generally familiar with the 19 qualifications for a level 3 weld inspector?
20 A
In accordance with ASME -- I mean, excuse me --
21 Q
ANSI 45 --
22 A
O
183 1
Q Yes, sir.
2 A
Generally, yes.
3 Q
could you just describe them for us, generally?
4 I apologize, I don't have the Reg guide handy here 5
with me.
6 A
There is -- I'd have to have ANSI 45.2.6 to go down 7
the guidelines, but generally it requires a certain amount of 8
education and experience.
9 Q
Does it also require a certain amount of 10 proficiency?
11 A
Yes.
12 Q
Do you know for what position Mr. Puckett was hired
)
13 by Comstock at the Braidwood site?
J 14 A
I understand he was hired to be level 3 weld 15 inspector.
16 Q
Based on everything you know about Mr. Puckett's 17 backgrounds and qualifications, experience, do you have an 18 opinion as to whether or not he's qualified at level 3?
19 A
Based on his experience and my knowledge of the 20 individual, I would say probably not.
21 MR. MILLER:
No further questions.
22 Do you want to take a break?
Do you want to break OV
1 184 1
for lunch?
2
[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m.,
the deposition recessed 3
for lunch, to reconvene at 12:55 p.m.]
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 c
11 12 j
14 i
15 16 i
17 18 1
19 20 21 22 O
,-,.,,--cc--
.___.-.---,._,-,,_--,...,_,--------,-.-,-.,,--,-.--_,-,-_,__,,-,-_,__,___,-,,,,,,_,...-nn---
,,,-n_---
185 1
AFTERNOON SESSION l
2
[12:55 p.m.]
3 EXAMINATION 4
BY MR. GUILD:
5 Q
Mr. Shapker, we met off the record, but for the 6
record my name is Bob Guild and I am counsel for the 7
Intervenors in the Braidwood licensing proceeding.
I have a 8
few questions for you with respect to your inspection work at 9
Braid';ood.
10 First, directing your attention to the statement of
].
l 11 qualifications that's been received as Shapker Exhibit 1 for l
12 identification.
1
[
} ~13 (Counsel handing document to witness.]
14 A
Yes.
i 15 Q
Turning to the third page, that's your attachment 16 showing the technical courses that you've attended or 17 participated in, correct?
18 A
Yes.
I 19 Q
Look through there for me please and tell me, what 20 of those courses dealt with instruction in the interpretation 21 of the American Welding Society code?
22 A
The ASME code?
i i
- O I
t
.-e-
.-,--.- ~-
-n,
,e,_..,w,,
_-.--,,m-.
,,.,_.n.,n-,, -. - _ - - - - - - -. -,-,, -
186 1
Q The American Welding Society.
2 A
The AWS code, okay.
3
[ Witness perusing document.]
4 The welding technology and codes at Ohio State 5
University.
6 Q
Let me catch up with you.
What year are we in?
7 A
That's in 1980.
8 Q
All right.
That's since you joined Nuclear 9
Regulatory Commission, correct?
10 A
Yes.
11 Q
And that was an 80 hour9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> course, correct?
12 A
Right.
( )
13 Q
Anything before 1980 on the subject of the American 14 Welding Society code?
15 A
AWS code --
16 No, not on the AWS code.
17 Q
Now work forward from 1980 and that welding 18 technology and codes course.
Are there any others, technical 19 courses or training in the American Welding Society code and 20 its interpretation?
21 A
Working forward?
22 Q
Yes, please, forward from 1980.
O l
187 1
A No, there wouldn't be.
i 2
Q Are there any other courses or formal training in 3
interpretation of the American Welding Society code that you I
4 have participated in that are not reflected in your statement 5
of qualifications?
6 A
Not formal training courses, no.
7 Q
Anything other than what's stated in your statement 8
of qualifications, with respect to the interpretation of the 9
American Welding Society code?
10 A
I don't believe so.
11 Q
Mr. Miller asked you some questions about various 12 certifications that you held in your previous employment.
And 13 I, as a lay person, didn't understand some of the terms you 14 used.
Maybe you could just tell me about them.
15 You used the initials ASNT with respect to 16 describing the commercial standard to which you were qualified 17 as a supervisor.
What does ASNT stand for?
18 A
American Society for Non-destructive Testing.
19 Q
And the ASNT TCIA that you referred to, in response 20 to Mr. Miller, you described as a commercial standard, is that 21 correct?
22 A
It's American Society for Non-destructive Testing y
r
188 1
standard.
2 Q
And what is the applicability of that standard?
3 A
It's -- ASME and AWS adopted this standard as 4
qualification requirements for non-destructive examination 5
inspectors.
6 Q
Does that non-destructive examination include visual 7
inspection, as well?
8 A
Not ASNT TCIA, no.
9 Q
What sorts of non-destructive examination are within 10 the scope of the ASNT standard?
11 A
Radiography, ultrasonics, magnetic particle 12 inspection, liquid penetrate inspection, eddy current
)
13 inspection, leak rate testing, that type.
(V 14 Q
What certification did you hold under the ASNT 15 standard for non-destructive examination, Mr. Shapker?
16 A
Radiography, ultrasonics, magnetic particle and 17 liquid penetrate testing.
18 Q
And was the level of certification that you had?
19 A
Level 2.
20 Q
Did you hold any certification in the visual 21 inspection of welds?
22 A
To the --
O
189 1
Q Is there a certification of visual inspection of (VD 2
welds that's governed by an ASNT standard?
3 A
Not ASNT, it's ASME.
4 Q
Have you been certified in the visual inspection of 5
welds pursuant to any code or standard?
6 A
The ASME.W #4V d h#fJ 7
Q And when did you hold that certification?
8 A
I believe it was in about 1974. (list N# N 9
Q That was when you worked for Babcock and Wilcox? v.2
""s
.d o -- L n+
.4 Ogg;,,;g, Yesf a a A
} La. - Deftr1me,f
- 0
- Othense,
~~
10 A
11 Q
And to what level were you certified in ASME visual?
12 A
Level 2.
13 Q
Were you certified as a visual weld inspector under 14 ar;y other codes of standards, aside from the ASME?
15 A
~He fu,
N AJ O 't2
=2 SO ' 'I* *
- I 16 Q
How long did you remain certified at level 2 under 17 the ASME for visual inspection of welds?
18 A
Through 1980, I believe.
19 Q
To the point where you joined the Nuclear Regulatory 20 Commission?
21 A
Yes.
22 Q
Did you perform work as a level 2 visual weld O
190 1
inspector, Mr. Shapker?
2 A
Yes, I did.
3 Q
And can you describe the nature of that work, 4
please?
5 A
I was an employce at Babcock and Wilcox Company for 6
the Nuclear Power Generation Division.
I inspected welds at 7
the B&W Nuclear Equipment Division in Mount Vernon and other 8
subcontractors throughout the country.
9 Q
What was your position when you performed those 10 visual weld inspections?
11 A
What was my position.
12 Q
Yes, what was your position?
}
13 A
Quality control surveillance specialist.
14 Q
I'm looking at your qualifications and you show the 15 position senior engineer.
Was that the same position?
16 A
Yes.
17 Q
And so while you were senior engineer, you performed 18 a visual inspection of welds?
19 A
Yes, I did.
20 Q
And was that weld inspection work part of your 21 regular duties?
22 A
Yes, it was.
O
191 1
Q Did you perform visual weld inspection on a dailp 2
basis?
3 A
No, not on a daily basis.
4 Q
How frequently, just give me a feel for --
5 A
Visual weld inspections in the ASME code is very 6
limited and most of the inspections would be to one of the NDE 7
processes, RT, ultrasonics, magnetic particle and liquid 8
penetrant examination.
9 Q
On what occasions then would you perform a visual 10 inspection under your visual certification?
11 A
On welds that only required visual examination by 12 the ASME code, would that occur.
(
)
13 Q
How frequently would that occur during the course of 14 your work?
15 A
Infrequently, I'd say.
Maybe once a week or 16 something to that effect.
17 However, it should be pointed out that the visual 18 inspection is required prior to application of other NDE in 19 most cases.
20 Q
Someone else did that visual inspection, other than 21 yourself?
When you did the other NDE, the mag particle or the 22 RT, someone else did the visual of those welds?
O
192 1
A No.
V
\\
2 Q
I'm sorry.
3 A
I'm saying that when another method is used, the 4
visual inspection is a prerequisite to the other NDE 5
processes.
Therefore, a visual inspection is actually 6
performed before the other NDE process has to be performed.
7 Q
And you would do those visual inspections, right?
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
And those visual inspections, would they be 10 independently documented or were those simply a step in the 11 process of performing another NDE?
12 A
They wouldn't be documented, they would be part of
/"'T 13 the other NDE process.
b 14 Q
So when you say that you did one infrequently, those 15 would be cases where the code did not call for other than a 16 visual inspection and you did that visual inspection?
17 A
Yes.
18 Q
That's what you're referring to?
19 A
Yes.
20 Q
I was a little unclear about a line of questioning 21 that again related to your certifications under the ASNT 22 standards.
O
193 1
A Yes.
2 Q
I thought I heard you respond to Mr. Miller that you 3
achieved a certification that was like a level 3, as the term 4
level 3 is used under the ANSI N.45 standard, but that the 5
level 3 equivalent certification was under the ASNT.
Is that 6
right?
7 A
Now which certification are we talking about, the 8
Navy Nuclear or the --
9 Q
I'm not clear.
Were you ever certified --
10 A
That was Navy Nuclear, yes, as a supervisor.
11 Q
What was that certification, that was equivalent to 12 the ANSI level 3?
13 A
That is -- on the second page, under supervisor 14 quality assurance representative, where the last sentence, the 15 period from 9-67 to 7-74.
It says qualified supervisor, 16 non-destructive examination RT, UT, MT, PT to Nav-Ships 17 250-1500-1.
18 Q
And the certification which you held was in a 19.
position of qualified supervisor?
20 A
Yes.
21 Q
That term is a term under the Nav-Ships standard?
22 A
Yes.
E 194 1
Q And is it equivalent to a level 3 under the ANSI N
2 N.45 standard?
3 A
Yes.
4 Q
Did you hold a qualified supervisor certification to 5
the Nav-Ships standard in the visual inspection of welds?
6 A
Yes.
7 Q
Is that separate and apart from the certifications 8
that you show on your statement of qualifications, page 2?
9 A
No, it is not included in there.
It should have.
10 Q
You should add visual to NDE including RT, UT, MT 11 and PT?
12 A
Yes, that's right.
(
}
13 Q
What is the standard for certification to the 14 qualified supervisor position under the Nav-Ships standard?
15 What are the requirements for that qualification?
16 A
I don't have a copy of 250-1500 here, so I can't 17 accurately describe that requirement.
18 Q
You can't recall the substance of the requirements?
19 A
Well, the substance of the requirements were 20 experience and training and testing, both written tests and l
21 practical tests, is how they achieved the qualifications under 22 250-1500.
Similar to ASNT TCIA.
It's very similar.
O
i 195 j
1 Q
And is it similar to the ANSI N.45 standard for 2
level 37 3
A It has no connection with ANSI 45 2 --
4 Q
The term I noted in my notes reflecting your-5 testimony in response to Mr. Miller was that it was like a 1
6 level 3 under the ANSI standard?
7 A
It should have been under the ASNT standard.
ASNT 8
TCIA.
j 9
Q So the qualified supervisor certification that you 10 held was like a level 3 under the ASNT standard?
i j
11 A
Yes.
12 Q
And not like a level 3 under the ANSI N.45 standard?
1
(
)
13 A
That's correct.
14 Q
Have you ever been certified as a level 3 under the 15 ANSI N.45 standards?
16 A
-Yes; Mo l
17 Q
Can you tell me about that?
2 18 A
Babcock and Wilcox Company, under 45 2.6, level 5',
l 19 dimensional inspector.
20 Q
What does a dimensional inspector do?
21 A
Measurement of components, dimensional requirements 22 that are required on components and set up of dimensional l
O
. - ~
I 196 1
inspections.
O.
2 Q
And you were certified to a level 3 under the ANSI 3
standard in dimensional inspection?
t 4
A Yes./ 0, la ve l 2_
1 5
Q And when did you achieve that certification?
6 A
Depending on my memory, I believe about 1975.
?
7 Q
With Babcock and Wilcox, correct?
8 A
Yes, it's not listed here.
9 Q
And how long did you hold that certification, the 10 level 3? (d k 11 A
Until 1980.
~
12 Q
Is there a reference that I could refer to,
(
) 13 Mr. Shapker, that would explain in more detail the duties of a 14 dimensional inspector?
Does the ANSI provide a description of l
15 what a dimensional inspector does?
16 A
I don't believe it does.
i l
17 Q
Is there some other code or standard that defines l
18 the duties of a dimensional inspector?
19 A
It's --
20 MR. BERRY:
If you know.
i 21 THE WITNESS:
I don't know of it right now.
22 l
t i O n
--__.-n,
.c,
197 l
1 BY MR. GUILD:
C 2
Q Is that a Babcock and Wilcox term, dimensional 3
inspector?
1
)
4 A
It is, in this case, yes.
5 Q
And it was provided for under their procedures or t
6 their program?
7 A
Yes.
8 Q
Have you held any other ANSI N.45 level 3 9
qualifications -- certifications, excuse me?
10 A
No.
11 Q
Have you ever been a code certified welder?
12 A
No.
13 Q
Have you ever done any welding work?
14 A
Yes.
15 Q
When was that?
16 A
By welding work, I have done welding, practical 17 welding.
18 Q
Explain to me what the extent of your welding 19 experience is please, Mr. Shapker?
20 A
Under training, Specialized Navy Nuclear Welding, at 21 Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, referenced in 1969 on 22 -- I mean Attachment 1 of my resume, page three.
O
198 1
Q And that's --
2 A
During that period of time, that included practical 3
welding in place at Knolls Atomic Power Lab.
4 Q
During the 80 hour9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> course in Specialized Navy 5
Nuclear Welding?
6 A
Yes.
7 Q
And how much welding did you do?
8 A
Days or --
9 Q
Days or hours?
10 A
Approximately one week of actual welding.
11 Q
What kind of welding did you do?
12 A
Stick electrode.
(
}
13 Q
What particular process?
14 A
Shielded metal arc welding.
15 Q
What p ticular material?
Mild 16 A
Maud s el electrode, the exact type I couldn't 17 recall.
18 Q
How about the base material?
19 A
Carbon steel.
20 Q
Pipe or plate?
21 A
Pipe and plate.
22 Q
Did you do any welding on stainless?
O
199 1
A No.
m 2
Q Galvanized?
3 A
No.
4 Q
What was the maximum thickness schedule that you 5
welded?
6 A
I believe we welded on three-quarter inch plate 7
material and schedule 80 pipe.
8 Q
Were you able to perform a weld that would meet 9
nuclear construction acceptance criteria on either the pipe or 10 the plate?
11 A
After considerable practice on the plate, I was able 12 to pass it.
( )
13 Q
How much practice did it take?
14 A
I guess the better part of the week.
15 Q
Okay.
How about on pipe welds?
16-A The week ran out, so I didn't get another chance to 17 do another pipe weld.
18 Q
Mr. Shapker, how does one establish the intent of 19 the American Welding Society code, as you used the term intent 20 this morning in response to Mr. Miller?
21 A
How did I use that response?
22 Q
The record will reflect how you used it, but let me O
200 1
see if I can paraphrase it and save some time.
You, at times,
~
\\_-
2 were asked questions about interpretation of the American 3
Welding Society code?
4 A
Yes.
5 Q
And oftentimes you had reference to the specific 6
text of the code version, edition that was in question.
And 7
you would make comments about what the intent of the code 8
was.
And I question it in that regard.
How does one 9
determine what the intent of the AWS code?
10 A
Utilizing your past experience and reading the 11 entire code.
Utilizing the code to the fullest.
12 Q
Is there any authoritative standard that establishes
( )
13 the intent of the code as you use that term?
14 A
That is a common vernacular utilized in the 15 industry.
16 Q
The term, ' intent?'
17 A
Yes.
18 Q
And you use it in the same fashion as it is commonly 19 used in the industry as best you know?
l l
20 A
Yes, I do.
21 Q
Again, let me repeat the last question -- the 22 preceding question.
Is there any authoritative source that
- O
201 1
establishes the intent of the AWS Code?
2 A
There are code committees which can be consulted on 3
questions about the code.
4 Q
All right.
Those code committees issue 5
pronouncements that provide guidance in the code intent?
6 A
Yes, they will -- they can.
7 Q
Do they 8
A Yes.
9 Q
So, just by way of example, if I were to turn to a 10 portion of the AWS D.l.1 Code and wanted to understand what 11 the. intent was of a code provision, where would I look for an 12 atD.oritative source explaining that intent?
(
)
13 A
I don't understand the question.
14 Q
Well, when you use the term, ' intent,' and you 15 characterize what the intent of the code is, are you relying 16 on your own understanding of what that intent is?
17 A
In this case, I -- in the example brought forth, 18 yes.
-19 Q
All right.
Is there any other source for intent 20 that you were relying on when you responded to questions 21 regarding the intent of the code?
Any official, authoritative t
22 explanation of the intent of the code, are were you relying I
(
i.
202 1
generally on your understanding of the intent of the code?
2 A
My understanding and my consultation with others 3
within the NRC.
4 Q
And have you identified where you have consulted 5
others with respect to the Braidwood inspections?
6 A
Yes, I have.
7 Q
Mr. Jacobson, for example?
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
Did you, in interpreting the AWS Code within the 10 scope of the Braidwood inspection activity, did you consult 11 any other sources other than Mr. Jacobson for code 12 interpretation?
()
13 A
I don't believe so.
14 Q
No other sources, for exe.mple, that -- a document i
15 from Code Committee, for example, that explained the code 16 intent 17 A
Not that I can remember.
18 Q
Generally, Mr. Schapker, take a moment to reflect, j
19 are you aware of any publications from a Code Committee that l
20 bear on the AWS Code interpretation issues involved in the l
21 Braidwood inspections?
22 A
I am not aware of them, no.
O l
l l
203 1
Q Mr. Schapker, what does the ANSI N 45 standard 2
require for the qualification as a Level III inspector?
3 MR. BERRY:
The witness was asked that and he 4
answered it.
5 WITNESS:
I answered that previously, I believe.
6 BY MR. GUILD:
[ Continuing]
7 Q
How about trying again.
8 A
Without the ANSI standard, I couldn't give you an 9
accurate description.
10 Q
You are talking about the substance of the ANSI 11 standard requirements for certification as a Level III quality 12 control inspector?
( )
13 A
A Level III is required to be a well qualified 14 inspector with a certain required amount of inspection 15 experience and educational background in order to certify him 16 at that high level of position.
17 Q
Okay.
How much inspection experience is required 18 for certification as a Level III?
19 A
As I stated before I do not have the ANSI standard 20 to reference that.
And I would not make that determination 21 without referencing the ANSI standard.
22 Q
I am interested at this point in testing your
!O l
204 1
recall, Mr. Schapker.
Can you recall how much inspection 2
experience is required for certification as a Level III?
3 A
No, I don't recall.
4 Q
can you recall how much education is required for 5
certification as a Level III?
6 A
No.
7 Q
You used the term, 'well qualified inspector.'
In 8
substance, how does the ANSI standard define that term with 9
that qualification?
10 A
Experience as a Level II inspector.
11 Q
Okay.
Does the ANSI standard provide any 12 qualitative standard for qualification as a Level III?
13 A
Qualitative?
)
14 Q
Yes.
Let's for the moment set aside years of 15 education.
Years of prior inspection experience.
And aside 16 from quantitative requirements, is there a qualitative 17 requirement for Level III certification?
i 18 A
Yes, there would be.
l 19 Q
And what is that, in substance?
20 A
You would be required to take certain examinations within the field he is qualifying to to prove his proficiency 21 22 in that area.
i l
1 O
4 205 l
1 Q
And what kind of exams are required under the ANSI J
2 standard for certification as a Level III?
3 A
Type of exams?
4 Q
Yes.
You just said you had to take certain exams to 5
qualify as a Level III?
6 A
Depending on the area he is qualifying -- if he was 7
qualifying to be a weld inspector, he would be expected to 8
pass the exams on the welding code.
9 Q
My questions right now are directed to what the 10 requirements of the ANSI standards are.
What does ANSI N 45 i
11 require by way of examination to qualify as a Level III l
12 inspector?
( ) 13 A
Without the ANSI standard I couldn't give you that 3
14 information.
15 Q
Do you know whether or not the ANSI standard 16 requires an examination for qualification as a Level III?
l 17 A
Does it require an examination?
i 18 Q
Yes.
19 A
No.
20 MR. BERRY:
No, it doesn't require, or it does 21 require.
22 WITNESS:
No, it doesn't require one.
f V
206 1
BY MR. GUILD:
[ Continuing]
2 Q
Mr. Miller concluded his questions of you, 3
Mr. Schapker, by asking your opinion of Mr. Puckett's 4
qualificatons.
You stated an opinion, and my notes say in 5
response to the question, and I will paraphrase, was 6
Mr. Puckett qualified as a Level III position at Comstock, and 7
your answer was, 'probably not.'
8 Is that your opinion?
9 A
Yes.
10 Q
Now, on what basis do you hold the opinion that 11 Mr. Puckett was probably not qualified for'the Level III 12 position at Comstock?
( )
13 A
I would base that on my past experience and 14 knowledge of Mr. Puckett and the results of this inspection.
15 Q
All right.
Now, I want you to identify specifically 16 in what respects, in your judgment, Mr. Puckett was probably 17 not qualified under the applicable ANSI standard?
18 A
Would you mind repeating that?
19 Q
Sure.
In what specific respects was Mr. Puckett 20 probably not qualified under the ANSI standard for the Level 21 III position at Comstock?
22 A
Knowledge of the code requirements.
O
l 207
'1' Q
All right.
What does the ANSI standard say with 2
respect to that specific qualification?
3 A
You asked for my opinion, and that was my opinion.
4 Q
Yes.
Now, I am asking you for the basis of your 5
opinion.
6 A
That is the basis for my opinion.
7 Q
And if you will try to answer the last question I 8
would appreciate it.
In what respect does the ANSI standard 1
9 for Level III certification call for a knowledge of code 10 requirements?
11 A
He has to be knowledgeable of the code requirements 12 in order to do the inspections properly.
.I
(
}
13 Q
Is that what the ANSI standard says?
14 A
Well, no, not directly.
But he has to be 15 knowledgeable in the area that he is doing the inspections.
16 Q
Is that what the ANSI standard says?
17 A
I am not quoting the ANSI standards.
I am para-18 phrasing the ANSI standard.
19 Q
I understand that, and I am interested in your 20 knowledge of the ANSI standard, and that is why I am asking 21 these questions, because it was your testimony, as I 22 understood, that Mr. Puckett in your opinion was not qualified O
i
__.,,,__._.---..m.e-e.
r-
---c'
'N
" " ^ "
- 208 1
to the ANSI standard for the Level III position, and again I 2
ask you in what respects was Mr. Puckett not qualified to the 3
ANSI standard, and if you could make reference to the ANSI 4
standard as you understand it, and then tell me in what 5
regards Mr. Puckett did not meet that standard?
6 A
As a -- I don't believe he had the time as an 7
inspector would be one aspect of his qualifications as 8
required by ANSI to be a Level III, 9
Q How does time does the ANSI standard require?
10 A
I don't recall offhand, but that was my impression.
11-Q And how much time did Mr. Puckett have as an 12 inspector?
Was it adequate in your opinion?
(
}
13 A
I don't have that information here available.
14 Q
Did you ever have that information?
15 A
I believe I read his resume.
16 Q
When did you do that?
17 A
Yesterday.
18 Q
Well, prior to reading his resume yesterday, were 19 you aware or familiar with the extent and scope of 20 Mr. Puckett's inspection experience?
21 A
No.
I only knew him as a weld engineer.
22 Q
So, the answer in short is you don't know in what O
1 l
209 1
regard Mr. Puckett did not have sufficient time as an 2
inspector to qualify as a Level III under the ANSI standard.
3 A
That is my opinion, yes.
4 Q
It is your opinion, but you don't know in what 5
regard he didn't have sufficient time as an inspector?
6 A
I didn't perform an inspection on his qualifications 7
as for a Level 3 inspector.
If I had, I would have used the 8
ANSI standard to perform that inspection, and I would have t
9 reviewed all his data.
1 10 Q
I just want to be very clear, Mr. Schapker.
You --
11 A
I was just expressing an opinion as to whether or 12 not he would be qualified as a Level 3.
(~')\\
13 Q
Yes.
\\
14 A
To make that determination, I would have to do an 15 in-depth study of his background, experience and review the 16 ANSI standard.
17 Q
And have you done any of those things --
18 A
No.
19 Q
-- with regard to Mr. Puckett?
20 A
No.
21 Q
So, there is no basis for your opinion other than 22 what you have identified so far?
210 1
A Personal opinion.
2 Q
Personal opinion?
3 A
Yes.
4 MR. BERRY:
I don't understand what he identified so 5
far.
What do you mean by that?
His testimony was --
6 MR. GUILD:
You will get your chance, counsellor.
7 If you want to ask some questions of the witness, that's fine.
8 MR. BERRY:
I think you are mischaracterizing the 9
witness' testimony.
You asked him the basis of his opinion, 10 and the basis of his opinion was that based on his personal 11 observation, his knowledge, his experience with him, and this 12 inspection report.
13 That's the basis of his opinion.
14 MR. GUILD:
All right.
15 BY MR. GUILD:
16 Q
In what other respects with Mr. Puckett, in your 17 opinion, probably not qualified as a Level 3 as those 18 qualifications are established by the ANSI N-45 standard?
19 A
I believe that sums it up.
20 Q
All right.
Did you review the L.K. Comstock 21 procedures with respect to the qualification of Level 3 22 welding inspectors?
O
I 211 1
A No, I did not.
2 Q
Have you reviewed them at all?
3 A
No.
4 Q
Do you know whether or not Mr. Puckett met the 5
requirements of the L. K. Comstock procedures for 6
qualification as a Level 3 inspector?
7 A
I do not know, no.
8 MR. GUILD:
I will ask the Reporter please to mark a 9
document entitled -- the first page, " Procedure Tracking 10 Sheet," Procedure No.
4.1.3, Revision B, 8-2-83, with a second 11 page attached.
12 (The document is marked Schapker
()
13 Deposition Exhibit Number 11 for 14 identification.]
15 MR. GUILD:
If the Reporter would, pass that 16 document to the witness, please.
17 BY MR. GUILD:
18 Q
Mr. Schapker, I show you a document that has been 19 marked as Exhibit 11, and it was obtained by Intervenors in i
20 discovery from the Applicant, and it purports to be Revision B l
21 to a Procedure 4.1.3, and the cover sheet to that procedure, 22 which you don't have, is entitled " Qualification, 1
- O I
l l
. - ~
212 1
Classification and Training of QA/QC Personnel."
It's an 2
L. K. Comstock and Company Document.
3 The cover sheet that you do have reflects that it 4
was implemented on October 3rd, 1983.
Do you know whether or 5
not this is the applicable procedure governing the 6
qualification of Level 3 quality control inspectors at 7
Comstock at the time that Mr. Puckett held that position?
8 A
I do not know.
9 Q
All right.
I ask you to assume that it was, and if 10 you know otherwise I would appreciate if you would tell me.
11 But that appears to be the revision applicable during 12 Mr. Puckett's tenure, does it not?
(
)
13 (No response.]
14 That was a question, I'm afraid.
It appears to be 15 the revision that was effective during Mr. Puckett's tenure, 16 does it not?
17 (The witness is looking at the document.]
t 18 A
10/12/83, yes, it appears to be.
l 19 Q
All right, sir.
Now, the page that I've made 20 -
available to you is Page 3 of 8, and there at Subpart 3.3.3, 21 there is a provision entitled " Level III."
22 Does that procedure appear to be consistent with the O
213 1
requirements of ANSI N-45 with respect to the qualification of 2
a Level 3 quality control inspector?
3 MR. BERRY:
You can take your time and review the 4
procedure.
5
[The witness is looking at the document.]
6 WITNESS:
Yes, it appears to be -- without the 7
benefit of ANSI 452.6, reviewing it, it appears to be.
From 8
memory, it appears to be in compliance.
9 BY MR. GUILD:
j 10 Q
All right.
I have a copy of the ANSI standard.
I'm
)
11 really not focusing on your opinion about the adequacy of the 12 procedure, but if it would help and you want to make a
(
13 V) comparison is there anything in there that you have a question 14 about as far as its compliance with the ANSI standard 15 requirements?
16 I would be happy to give you an opportunity to check 17 if you would like.
18 A
I don't have the ANSI standard.
19 Q
Would you like to look at it?
20 A
Yes.
21 (Mr. Guild provides the witness with a document.)
22 Q
All right.
O f
A aA h.
.h-f
.a.
1
...i.
- 4 4
,_aw, so.
+2._m.
J +.,
's
_._.e 4a 4
~
w t
214 1
A Yes, it complies with ANSI.
2 Q
All right, sir.
3 A
452.6.
l 4
Q All right.
Reading now from the L. K. Comstock 5
procedure, 4.1.3, Subsection 3.2.3, entitled " Level III," it L
a 6
is:
"To be considered for certification, a candidate must 7
satisfy one of the following requirements..."
I am going to 4
8 direct your attention to the first requirement.
9 That's at 3.2.3.1, and it reads:
Six years 10 experience in related test, examination, or inspection
{
11 activities as a certified Level II."
12 Do you know whether or not Mr. Puckett met that 13 requirement?
14 A
I don't recall.
I would have to review his resume.
l 15 Q
All right.
Or -- I continue to quote, 3.2.3.2:
16 "High school graduation plus ten years of related experience i
17 in related test, examination or inspection activities."
18 Do you know whether Mr. Puckett met that 19 requirement?
20 A
Not without reviewing his resume.
21 Q
All right.
Are you aware of Mr. Puckett's I
22 background?
l 4
- O
215 1
A Somewhat, yes.
A(_,)
2 Q
What do you know about Mr. Puckett's background?
3 A
That he was a welder in the Navy nuclear program, 4
Navy program.
5 Q
Do you know how long he did that work?
6 A
I think -- to the best of my recollection, it was 7
about twenty years --
8 Q
All right.
9 A
-- experience.
10 Q
Would twenty years experience as a Navy nuclear 11 welder represent at least " ten years of related experience in 12 related test, examination or inspection activities?"
()
13 A
No.
14 Q
All right.
Do you know anything else about 15 Mr. Puckett's background?
16 A
I know that he was a project weld engineer for 17 Kaiser.
18 Q
Do you know how long he held that position?
19 A
No, I don't.
20 Q
Do you know anything else about Mr. Puckett's 21 background?
22 A
I believe during that period of time, he wac an I
O
I 216 1
inspector -- well, I'm not sure in what discipline.
k->
2 Q
Do you know whether he was a certified inspector to 1
3 the ANSI standard?
4 A
No, I don't know that.
5 Q
Reading further in the Comstock procedure, 3.2.3.3, 6
"High school graduation plus eight years experience in related j
7 test, examination or inspection activities including at least 8
two years as a certified Level II and at least two years 9
nuclear experience or sufficient training to have a knowledge 10 of relevant quality assurance aspects of a nuclear facility."
11 Did Mr. Puckett meet that requirement?
12 A
I would have to review his background.
()13 Q
Do you know whether Mr. Puckett was a high school 14 graduate?
15 A
I believe his resume indicated that.
16 Q
Any reason to doubt that?
17 A
No, I have no reason to doubt it.
18 Q
All right.
Do you know whether he had at least two 1
19 years as a certified Level II experience?
20 A
No, I don't know that.
21 Q
Do you know whether or not he had at least two years 22 nuclear experience?
O
= -. -
217 1
A Yes.
He has that.
2 Q
All right.
Do you know whether he has eight years 3
experience in related test, examination or inspection 4
activities?
5 A
No, I don't.
l 6
Q All right.
3.2.3.4, associate degree plus seven 7
years of experience, et cetera.
Do you know whether or not 8
Mr. Puckett met that requirement?
9 I didn't quote it all.
You have the document in 4
{
10 front of you.
11 A
I believe he only indicated he was a high school 12 graduate.
I don't believe he had an associate degree.
(
)
13 Q
All right.
And the final provision, alternate 14 provision for the Level 3 qualification under the Comstock 15 procedure, 3.2.3.5, four years college degree plus, et cetera.
i 16 You have the document in front of you.
I
{
17 A
Yes.
18 Q
Do you know whether he met that requirement?
19 A
As I stated before, I believe he only indicated he 20 had a high school education.
{
21 Q
All right.
So, looking at the comstock procedure, 22 Mr. Schapkar, for a qualification as a Level 3, one that i
i!O l
i
218 1
appears to have been applicable during Mr. Puckett's tenure at O(s,/
2 Comstock, can you identify which requirements of the Comstock 3
Level 3 certification requirements Mr. Puckett did not meet, 4
in your opinion?
5 A
In my opinion, he probably would not have met the 6
eight years experience in related test, examination and 7
inspection activities.
8 And I do not know whether he was a certified Level 2 9
for two years or not.
I would have to review that.
10 Q
So, your opinion on Mr. Puckett's qualification as a 11 Level 3 is dependent on whether or not he met both of those 12 portions of the Level 3 certification requirement, correct?
(
}
13 A
Yes.
14 Q
Mr. Schapker, you responded to a series of questions 15 about contacts with Mr. Pat Gwynn, another NRC inspector?
16 A
Yes.
17 Q
Is it correct that you spoke with Mr. Gwynn twice 18 before you went to see Mr. Puckett in his home?
19 A
Once.
l' 20 Q
Once, all right.
And the second conversation was
(
21 after you met with Mr. Puckett?
22 A
Yes.
Believe it was.
It would have to be.
i
219 1
Q That was -- the second conversation was after you 2
had read Mr. Puckett's deposition in this proceeding, correct?
3 A
This deposition?
4 Q
Well, my notes reflect that you said you talked to 5
Pat Gwynn and told him that you had read Mr. Puckett's 6
deposition, and that Mr. Puckett had brought up the subject of 7
Mr. Gwynn.
8 A
Oh, yes, yes.
That is true.
9 Q
So, you talked to Mr. Gwynn once before you went to 10 see Mr. Puckett in Ohio?
11 A
Yes.
12 Q
Now, my notes reflect that you said -- you observed
()
13 Mr. Gwynn -- you had heard that through this anonymous phone 14 call Mr. Gwynn had been identified as responsible for 15 Mr. Puckett's dismissal, correct?
16 A
Yes.
17 Q
What did Mr. Gwynn say with respect to his 18 responsibility for Mr. Puckett's dismissal?
19 A
He indicated that he was not responsible.
20 Q
What did he say?
21 A
Well, I can't remember the exact wording, but it was 22 essentially that the conversation that Mr. Orlov contacted
-.. --_~
1 4
220 1
Mr. Gwynn to question -- to talk about Mr. Puckett's 2'
employment, previous employment at Zimmer, and his knowledge 3
of -- Mr. Gwynn's knowledge of Mr. Puckett's work record 4
there.
1 5
Q All right.
]
6 A
Mr. Gwynn told Mr. Orlov that he could not comment 7
on his previous work record there.
That if he wanted to get 8
that information he should contact his supervisor, his 9
previous supervisors at that location.
10 Q
Did Mr. Gwynn acknowledge to you that he had 11 provided any information to Mr. Orlov in that conversation?
12 A
No.
(
)
13 Q
Did he say that he had provided any additional 14 information, or that he had not?
i 15 A
I -- from the conversation we had, I assumed he 4
j 16 di'in't give him any information.
17 Q
All right.
Did Mr. Gwynn tell you that he discussed 18 the subject of the Mr. Gwynn's inspection activity at Zimmer 4
i 19 as it related to Mr. Puckett's area of work?
i 20 A
No, he didn't.
21 Q
Do you have available a copy of Inspection Report i
i 22 85097 l
l!(:)
1 i
l I
l 1
I 221 1
A Yes.
2 Q
Page 2, under Details, you had contact with 3
Comstock's welding engineer, Mr. Simile, did you not?
4 A
Yes, I did.
5 Q
Mr. Simile is now the Comstock Level III?
6 A
That is correct.
j 7
Q Did you review Mr. Simile's qualifications?
2 8
A I did not.
9 Q
Does Comstock have any other certified Level III I
10 quality control inspectors?
11 A
I do not know.
12 Q
Do you know whether or not Mr. DeWald is certified
()13 I
to Level III?
4 14 A
No, I don't.
15 Q
Do you know whether or not Mr. DeWald is qualified 1
16 for certification at Level III?
i 17 A
I don't know, no.
l l
18 Q
Do you know whether or not Mr. Seltmann is certified 19 to Level III?
20 A
No, I don't.
l 21 Q
Do you know whether he is qualified to Level III I
22 A
No, I don't.
O
t 222 1
Q Did you review the qualifications of any Comstock 2
quality control personnel?
3 A
Not for this inspection, no.
4 Q
Did you review them otherwise?
5 A
No.
6 Q
What was Mr. Simile's role in the inspection 7
activities that you performed regarding Mr. Puckett's 8
concerns?
9 A
He was Comstock's contact, my contact with i
10 Comstock.
To provide data and information that I needed.
11 Q
And did he provide data and information to you?
12 A
In my requests, yes.
}
13 Q
What data and information did Mr. Simile provide to 14 you?
15 A
Procedures.
I am trying to think of anything else.
16 Procedures, the weld procedures.
Weld inspection procedures.
17 Essentially, that is it.
18 Q
As we go through the report, if you recall other 19 data or documents that Mr. Simile provided for you, I would 20 appreciate it if you would identify those.
21 Mr. Schapker, were the L. K. Comstock personnel --
22 were the L. K. Comstock personnel aware of the subject of your t
O
223 1
inspection?
2 A
I believe they were, yes, after the entrance exam --
3 entrance --
4 Q
You had an entrance meeting with comstock people?
5 A
No.
I had an entrance meeting with the Licensee.
6 Q
Who was in attendance at that meeting?
7 A
I believe I have already indicated that.
8 Q
I apologize if you did.
It has been a long two 9
days. I am looking at my notes, and I show Mr. Kline, 10 Mr. Schroeder, Mr. Seltmann, and Mr. DeWald -- not sure about 11 Mr. DeWald.
12 A
Yeah, I am not sure about Mr. Seltmann.
I am not
)
13 sure that Comstock was at the entrance meeting at all.
14 Q
All right.
Are you sure about Mr. Kline and 15 Mr. Schroeder?
16 A
Yes.
17 Q
Any others?
18 A
That is all right now.
I think that is all I 19 contacted at that point.
l i
20 Q
What did you tell them about the subject of your 21 inspection, Mr. Kline and Mr. Schroeder, and whoever else was 22 there.
I 224 1
A I indicated to them that I had certain allegations 2
that I needed to review, and gave them the substance of the 3
allegations.
4 Q
Did you identify Mr. Puckett by name or position?
5 A
No, I did not.
6 Q
Were they aware of Mr. Puckett-by name or by 7
position as the source of the allegations?
8 A
Not that I know of.
9 Q
Your belief is that they were not aware that 10 Mr. Puckett was the source'of the allegations?
11 A
During the inspection, I am sure they became aware 12 of it, but nly by association; of the allegations 13 themselves.
14 Q
Don't you acknowledge, Mr. Schapker, that at least 15 the Comstock people would be aware immediately Mr. Puckett was 16 the subject of the inspection, that they are his allegations?
17 MR. MILLER:
I am going to object to the form of the 18 question.
I don't know how he can know what the comstock 19 people were aware of.
20 BY MR. GUILD:
[ Continuing) 21 Q
Would you answer the question, if you can?
22 A
They could have been, but I don't know that.
O L
i 225 1
Q What is your belief?
Do you believe that they knew 2
that Mr. Puckett was the source of the allegations?
i j
3 A
During the course of the inspection, I believe that 4
they may have cama to know that.
j 5
Q And how did they come to know that?
6 MR. BERRY:
I will allow the question.
If they came i
7 to know that.
It is has not been established that they knew 8
that.
The witness hasn't testified that, and with that caveat i
9 you can answer the question.
I 10 BY MR. GUILD:
(Continuing) 4 11 Q
Let's just be clear.
Your belief is that they came 1
12 to know that Mr. Puckett was behind these allegations, 13 correct?
I 14 A
I did not say that.
I said they may have.
{
15 Q
What is your belief then?
I will just ask it most 16 directly.
Do you believe that they were aware that I
17 Mr. Puckett was the alleger?
i 18 A
I have no reason to believe that they did or they 19 didn't.
1.
{
20 Q
so as far as you know, they may not have known that 21 Mr. Puckett was involved?
22 A
As far as I know.
O
. ~... - - -
226 1
Q They don't ever use Mr. Puckett's name to you in the 2
course of your inspection?
3 A
Not that I can recall.
4 Q
Did you ever discuss Mr. Puckett by name or position 5
with anyone?
6 A
Not that I can remember.
7 Q
May you have?
8 A
Wr.[c5 9
Q You did not discuss Mr. Puckett with anyone then?
4to. Yes,
Ar.
A' n "
w] A' U" N' ~.
10 A
11 Q
Did anyone volunteer any information about 12 Mr. Puckett during the course of your inspection?
13 A
No.
14 Q
When did you interview Mr. DeWald?
15 A
I didn't interview Mr. DeWald as an interview 16 process.
I talked to Mr. DeWald on a couple of occasions 17 asking for information.
18 Q
What did you ask Mr. DeWald?
19 A
Copies of procedures, or such as that.
20 Q
Can you be more specific?
21 A
You mean which procedures, or --
22 Q
No.
What specifically did you ask Mr. DeWald?
bo
227 1
A I don't remember specifically, but it was in the i
2 context of the inspection.
3 Q
can you tell me what the substance of your 4
conversations with Mr. DeWald were?
5 A
I don't recall.
~
6 Q
Can you recall the subjects on which you talked to 7
Mr. DeWald?
8 A
The subject was the content of the inspection.
9 Q
That is fine, Mr. Schapker, but we have spent almost 10 two days now talking about the content of the inspection, and 11 it would be helpful if you know, if you would be a little bit 12 more specific in your answer.
The subject of your~
()
13 conversations with Mr. DeWald?
14 A
I don't recall.
15 Q
Did you ask Mr. DeWald about his practices as a 16 quality control inspector, weld inspector?
l 17 A
No.
l I
18 Q
Were you aware that it was Mr. DeWald who was the 19 subject of the allegations regarding ineffective weld inspections and the one thousand welds per day allegation?
l 20 21 A
Yes.
22 Q
You didn't ask him about those subjects?
t l
228 1
A I don't recall asking him.
What would you expect 2
him to say?
3 Q
The truth perhaps.
But you didn't ask, did you?
4 A
No.
5 Q
Do you know what -- for what purpose L. K.
Comstock 6
employed the E 309 electrode?
7 A
According to their procedure, 4.3.14, I believe it 8
was employed for stainless welding.
9 Q
Do you know for what purpose they employed the E 10 309 electrode?
11 A
For welding stainless steel.
I observed him using 12 it in the field.
(
}
13 Q
You did?
For what purpose?
What application, 14 excuse me?
15 A
For the welding of stainless steel junction boxes in 16 the reactor building.
i 17 Q
What sorts of welds?
18 A
What types?
I
(
19 Q
Yes.
20 A
Fillet welds.
l j
21 Q
And what configuration and what sort of application?
22 A
It was the junction box to the stainless steel O
229 1
piping weld.
)
2 Q
Is this conduit, the piping?
3 A
I believe it was used as conduit, stainless steel.
4 Q
Was the conduit entering the junction box?
l 5
A Yes.
It's stainless steel pipe utilized as conduit.
6 Q
Okay.
Do you know whether the E-309 electrode was i
7 customarily employed for stainless welding --
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
-- at Comstock?
10 A
At Comstock?
11 Q
Yes.
$ er*-
12 A
54 was very little stainless welding done by
[
}
13 Comstock so this is the only instance that I knew of.
14 Q
Did you ask anyone in Comstock supervision whether 15 there were any bimetallic welds performed by Comstock?
16 A
Yes.
I asked Tony Simile, the Level 3 inspector.
17 Q
What did Mr. Simile say?
18 A
He said there was none.
19 Q
Did you ask whether there had ever been any 20 bimetallic welds performed by Comstock?
21 A
Yes.
22 Q
And you asked that of Mr. Simile?
O t
230 1
A Yes.
2 Q
And his answer?
3 A
No, that there were none.
4 Q
What were the circumstances under which Mr. John 5
Minor made the correction to the nonconformance report with 6
respect to the bimetallic welds?
7 A
I do not know the circumstances.
8 Q
How did you become aware that he had made that 9
change?
10 A
I asked him about it.
11
'Q Okay.
And what did you ask him, and what did he 12 say?
l
[
13 A
He said that he had made the change because he had l V) 14 found out there were no bimetallic welds being made.
15 Q
Did he tell you how he found that out?
16 A
No, he didn't.
I l
17 Q
Did you examine the NCR?
i l
18 A
Yes, I did.
i 19 Q
Can you identify that NCR?
20 (The witness is looking at the document.)
21 A
I'm not sure, but it may have been 3145.
I'm not 22 sure.
O
231 1
Q Are you looking on the reference on the inspection 2
report itself?
3 A
Yes.
4 Q
And what page, please?
5 A
Page 21.
6 Q
All right.
7 A
Under Allegation U, Conclusion.
8 MR. GUILD:
Is 3145 in evidence or been marked?
9 MR. MILLER:
I don't know.
I don't think we did it 10 in this deposition.
11 WITNESS:
I haven't seen it in evidence.
12 BY MR. GUILD:
( )
13 Q
What other subjects, if you know, Mr. Schapker, was 14 covered in that NCR aside from the bimetallic weld issue?
15 A
I really don't recall exactly what it was.
16 MR. GUILD:
Counsel, I would like at some point to 17 lay hands on Mr. Minor's correction, or that part of the NCR, 18 if that is the NCR.
I can't say I haven't laid my hands on it 19 before, because I can't recall.
i 20 So, I would ask that it be produced.
21 MR. MILLER:
Okay.
22 WITNESS:
I believe it is -- if you go to Page 4, e
' O
^-*---
232 1
Allegation B, it's referenced there.
2 BY MR. GUILD:
3 Q
All right.
4 A
I believe that it was part of that NCR.
5 Q
All right.
Do you know whether or not Comstock 6
employed other type electrode for the welding of stainless to 7
stainless, other than the E-309?
8 A
I think their procedure also references E-308.
9 Q
What are the differences in attributes between E-308 10 and E-309, Mr. Schapker?
11 A
Well, they are both in the same F number /A number 12 and can be used interchangeably.
But the E-309 is a little
(
)
13 more versatile welding rod, in that E-308 in certain 14 application has a tendency to be more martensitic, and the 15 E-309 is more -- tends more towards the austenitic --
16 Q
E-309?
17 A
Yes, which means it is more ductile.
18 Q
In your opinion, is the E-308 more or less 19 appropriate for bimetallic welds, stainless to carbon?
20 A
For bimetallic welds, because of the austenitic 21 properties of E-309, that normally would be used over 308, 22 although other weld rods could be -- other stainless rods
I 233 1
could also be used for bimetallic welds.
2 Q
I guess I'm confusing myself.
Which is more 3
appropriate for bimetallic, 308 or 3097 4
A 309 is more appropriate.
5 Q
Okay.
With respect to Allegation D, Page 6 of your 6
inspection report, Mr. Schapker, you were asked whether there 7
were errors and inconsistencies in the welding procedures at 8
the Zimmer Power Plant, and I believe you stated that there 9
were, correct?
10 A
Yes, there were.
11 Q
And I believe you stated that in your opinion the 12 errors and. inconsistencies at Zimmer were of a character that
/~T 13 U
could lead to misinterpretation or misapplication of the 14 procedures, correct?
15 A
Of the procedures?
16 Q
That's what I heard you say this morning.
Is that 17 correct?
18 A
Yes, probably.
19 Q
All right.
In what cases could the errors and i
20 inconsistencies that were identified in the Zimmer weld 21 procedures have led to misinterpretation or misapplication?
22 A
Well, depending on memory of the -- to the best of O
l l
(
l 234 1
my recall, as an example, one of the inconsistencies at the 2
Zimmer facility on weld procedures was the application of a 3
tungsten inert gas weld, TIG weld, commonly referred to, had 4
voltages beyond what could be utilized to make a quality weld 5
in the procedure.
6 That's just an example.
There were other items.
I 7
would have to review some of the past inspection reports to 8
give you more information in that regard.
9 Q
One inspection report that has been identified, 10 Mr. Schapker, on the subject of welding procedures at Zimmer 11 is 8210.
12 Do you have a copy of that?
13 A
Yes, I do.
14 Q
Are there any instances reflected in that report of 15 errors or inconsistencies in the Zimmer weld procedures that 16 in your judgment could lead to misinterpretation or 17 misapplication?
18 A
I believe the violations referenced in this report 19 were directed toward the welder qualification records and not 20 the weld procedures.
l 21 Q
No examples in 8210 are inconsistencies or errors of 22 procedure?
O
235 1
A Let me look through it.
There may be some that I 2
was not aware of.
t 3
[The witness is looking at the document.]
4 No, I don't see any on weld procedures per se.
5 That's primarily on welder qualifications.
6 Q
All right.
Can you recall any other 7
inconsistencies, examples of inconsistencies or errors in the 8
Zimmer weld procedures that, as you stated, could lead to 9
misinterpretation or misapplication?
10 A
Not without benefit of reviewing the inspection 11 reports, past inspection reports on Zimmer.
12 Q
All right.
The example that you did recall on that
(
)
13 was the TIG welding procedure?
14 A
Yes.
15 Q
And did I understand that part of that procedure had 16 voltages specified?
17 A
Yes.
18 Q
And those voltages were in excess of voltage that 19 could be used to perform an effective weld, TIG weld?
20 A
Yes.
21 Q
All right.
Could that inconsistency or error have 2
22 been employed in the field to perform work that would not meet l
O
236 1
acceptance criteria?
2 A
If the procedure was utilized as it was stated in 3
the procedure -- I mean, if the welding was performed in 4
accordance to that procedure, as it stated it, it would have 5
effected it, yes.
6 Q
All right.
Well, what was the weld -- what was the 7
voltage specified that, in your opinion, would have led to an 8
improper TIG weld?
9 A
I don't recall at this time.
But it is specified in 10 the inspection report.
11 Q
All right.
Whatever that voltage was, is that a 12 voltage that actually could have been employed in the field?
13 A
It was unlikely that would be employed in the field.
14 Q
For example,.a welding machine that would be used 15 for TIG welding has a limited voltage range that's -- at which 16 the machine is capable of producing power; isn't that correct?
17
[ Pause.]
18 Is that right?
19 A
Not necessarily, no.
There are adjustments.
20 Q
Well, I mean, there is a maximum output that the l
21 machine has.
22 A
Yes, but it could exceed the -- it could exceed the O
237 1
-- it could have exceeded or it is feasible that this could Ok/
2 have been welded this way.
s 3
Q Well, that's my question.
Could the equipment 4
physically have produced a voltage that was the voltage you 5
are referring to, inconsistent or error in the procedure?
6 A
There is no way for me to know that without knowing 7
-- being familiar with the equipment itself.
8 Q
So, you don't know the answer to the question?
What 9
I'm driving at, Mr. Schapker, is the error and inconsistency 10 that you identified as an example, is it one that could 11 actually have been employed in performing an improper weld in 12 the field, given the equipment and the welding parameters
(
}
13 could it have been employed in the field?
14 A
Yes.
15 Q
Was it an obvious error or inconsistency, the 16 example you have given?
17 A
It appeared to be obvious, yes.
18 Q
Would it have been obvious to a person who had 19 certified as a TIG welder?
20 A
Yes, I believe it would be.
21 Q
What was the cause of the error or inconsistency in 22 the Zimmer procedure that you used as an example?
O l
l
238 1
A What was the cause?
2 Q
Yes.
3 A
I do not know.
4 Q
Was it a clerical error?
5 A
I don't know about that.
6 Q
Did you perform the inspection involved?
7 A
I was -- as part of the inspection, I believe so.
8 Q
Do you recall when the inspection took place?
9 A
No, I don't.
Some time in '81 I believe.
10 Q
Was it before the 8210 inspection?
11 A
I don't recall.
12 Q
Let me show you a document that bears the date of
(~'i 13 September 6, 1984, from C. H. Wilde to Norelius and Spessard.
V 14 Can you identify that, Mr. Schapker.
15 A
Yes.
16 Q
What is that, please?
17 A
It is a memo from Mr. Chuck Wilde to Mr. Norelius l
18 and Mr. Spessard concerning allegations.
l 19 Q
Is that the document you referred to earlier as the 20 listing of the allegations that you relied on when you 21 undertook the inspection?
22 A
This is what it was prepared from, yes.
239 1
Q That is what was given you when you were assigned 2
the inspection?
3 A
I was given this with the allegations as formatted 4
in the report.
5 Q
Let me ask the court reporter to mark that, please, 6
as Exhibit 12 for identification.
7
[Above mentioned document is marked 8
Schapker Deposition Exhibit No. 12, 9
for identification.]
10 Do you have a copy of that of your own, if you know?
11 Now, was there another listing of allegations aside from the 12 document we have marked as 11 that was provided you, O) 13 Mr. Schapker?
D 14 A
The listing as it appears in the current inspection 15 report, yes.
16 Q
And that was contained on a document separate and 17 apart from Exhibit 12?
18 A
Yes.
19 Q
Can you describe that document, please?
20 A
It was a format of the inspection report with the 21 allegations listed in the format that they appear in the 22 inspection report now.
O
240 1
Q All right.
And you brought that document with you?
O k%s 2
A I no longer have that document.
It is incorporated 3
into the inspection report.
4 Q
Who was the author of that document?
5 A
I believe that was Mr. Ward.
Kevin Ward.
6 MR. GUILD:
Counsel, has that document been made 7
available?
8 WITNESS:
It no longer exists.
9 MR. GUILD:
It hasn't been made available then?
10 MR. BERRY:
I haven't seen it.
I don't think he 11 made it available.
I wasn't aware that it existed.
12 BY MR. GUILD:
[ Continuing]
l
( )
13 Q
Do you know what Mr. Ward employed in ccmposing the 14 listing of allegations?
15 A
From what I understand, Mr. Ward and Mr. Wilde --
l 16 Q
Yes?
17 A
-- went over this listing, composed the list of 18 allegations.
I 19 Q
By, 'this list,' you mean Exhibit 12, September 6th i
l 20 Chuck Wilde memo?
21 A
Yes.
Mr. Schapker, will you turn back to page 3 of 22 the details of 8509, the first paragraph under Section 2 O
241 1
begins:
On August 28, 1984, a former employee of the 2
L. K. Comstock Company, L. K..C.
at the Braidwood Nuclear 3
Station contacted the senior resident inspector, operations, 4
SRI, Braidwood, with information regarding the L. K. Comstock 5
Company.
6 What is the source c' that information, 7
Mr. Schapker?
8 A
I believe it is this memorandum here.
9 Q
Mr. Wilde's memo of September 6th?
10 A
Yes.
11 Q
That appears to be a quote from Mr. Wilde's memo, 12 does it not?
( )
13 A
Yes.
14 Q
Do you know whether or not -- first, the former 15 employee referred to is Mr. Puckett, is it not?
16 A
Yes.
17 Q
Do you know whether or not Mr. Puckett contacted the 18 senior resident inspector on August 28, 1984?
19 A
I understand that he did, yes.
.i
)
20 Q
How do you understand that?
21 A
The memorandum from the senior resident inspector 22 at Braidwood to Mr. Chuck Wilde.
O 3
,v.-
--m.--,,.--m..
.-___y
f 242 1
Q What memo is that?
2 A
Memo dated August 28, 1984, from L. McGregor, Senior 3
Resident, Braidwood, to Mr. Chuck-Wilde, Investigation 4
Coordinator.
5 Q
May I examine that a moment, please?
6 MR. BERRY:
It is Document 105 that was produced by 7
the Staff.
8 MR. GUILD:
Okay.
9 BY MR. GUILD:
[ Continuing]
10 Q
This document, Mr. Schapker, states as follows:
On 11 August 28,
'84, at approximately eight-thirty hours, I 12 received a note from an individual who works at the Braidwood j
[
13 site.
The note requested that the NRC call [ blank] at the 14 following telephone number [ blank] because it was very 15 important.
I placed the telephone call and received the i
16 following information from [ blank).
17
- The,
'I' refers to the author, and that is Mr. McGregor, 18 correct?
l 19 A
Yes.
That is true.
20 Q
The memo appears to reflect that Mr. McGregor 21 contacted Mr. Puckett then, does it not?
22 A
Yes, it does.
O
243 1
Q So, Mr. Puckett did not contact the senior resident
(
2 at Braidwood; the senior resident at Braidwood contacted 3
Mr. Puckett, correct?
4 A
That is apparently true, yes.
5 Q
And your inspection report is incorrect in the 6
respect that it suggests that it was Mr. Puckett that 7
initiated the contact?
8 A
That is true.
9 Q
Were you aware that error existed in your inspection 10 report?
11 A
No, I was not aware of it.
12 Q
Had you read Mr. McGregor's memorandum to Mr. Wilde
/~)
13 before now?
b 4
14 A
Yes, I believe I had.
15 Q
Let's return back to page 6 of that report.
Item D.
16 Do you know whether any of the -- strike that.
Do you know 17 whether there are any errors or inconsistencies either now or 18 at the time Mr. Puckett was at Comstock, in the Comstock l
19 welding procedures that could have led to misinterpretation or l
l 20 misapplication?
21 A
No, I don't.
I 22 Q
If there were errors in -- errors or inconsistencies O
l l
4 t
244 1
in Comstock welding procedures of a character that could lead 2
to misinterpretation or misapplication, would those errors be 3
significant in your opinion?
4 A
I would like you to repeat the former question.
I 5
don't believe I understood the question prior to this one.
6 Q
Sure.
I asked you before whether you were aware of 7
whether there are, or were, at the time Mr. Puckett was on 8
site, errors or inconsistencies in Comstock welding procedures 9
that could lead to misinterpretation or misapplication?
10 A
There were errors, as identified within the report.
11 They were addressed prior to the time of my inspection.
12 Q
Yes.
()
13 A
And addressed adequately.
14 Q
That wasn't my question.
My question was were any 15 of those errors of a character that could lead to 16 misinterpretation or misapplication?
Either the errors that 17 were identified, or errors that were not.
Errors in Comstock 18 welding procedures.
19 A
There were errors identified, yes.
20 Q
Mr. Schapker, focus on the question.
Were there any 21 errors in the Comstock welding procedures of a character that i
22 could lead to misinterpretation or misapplication?
I d
O
245 1
A Yes, there were.
~h
(\\_)
2 Q
All right.
Were such errors significant?
3 A
Significant in that the procedure had to be revised, 4
yes, and some corrective action taken where they were 5
misapplied.
6 Q
In your opinion, Mr. Schapker, are errors in welding 7
procedures that could lead to misinterpretation or 8
misapplication significant?
9 A
Yes.
10 Q
Concern, Letter e, small 'e' on page 6, please, 11 Mr. Schapker.
The text of that allegation is a quote from the 12 last item, Item 5, from Mr. Wilde's September 6, 1984 memo,
()
13 Exhibit 12, correct?
14 A
Yes.
15 Q
Is Mr. Wilde's memo, then, the source of that 16 characterization of that allegation?
17 A
That is apparent.
18 Q
All right.
Do you know whether or not Mr. Puckett 19 made that statement in the terms that are employed in 20 Allegation E.1, page 6?
l 21 A
I reviewed these allegations with Mr. Puckett.
22 Q
Yes.
l O
l l
l
246 1
A At his home on March 12th, and he did not change it i
2 in any way.
Did not make any changes to that.
He said that 3
was his concern.
4 Q
Did you ask him to make any changes to -- did you 5
ask him to review the statement of allegations?
6 A
We reviewed them as we discussed each allegation, 7
yes.
I read the allegation to him, and said:
Is this your 8
concern?
9 Q
Did he make any changes?
10 A
He expounded on some of the allegations, 11 Q
Did you tell Mr. Puckett that the text that you were 12 showing him or reading to him was the text of the allegation
( )
13 that would be reported in the inspection report?
14 A
No.
I put it in the context of, is this your 15 concern in this area.
16 Q
S o --
17 A
I didn't quote to him that this is what will be 18 probably as written up.
19 Q
All right.
You didn't provide Mr. Puckett a draft l
20 of your inspection report to comment on or to review, did you?
21 A
No.
22 Q
Did you provide Mr. Puckett with a draft of your l
O l
247 1
inspection outline, the format as you've used the term, for 2
comment or review?
3 A
No.
4 Q
Let's talk about the subject of weld filler material 5
control, Mr. Schapker.
Did you review the weld filler metal 6
control practices and procedures in place at Comstock at the 7
time that Mr. Puckett was employed?
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
Were they adequate?
10 A
I believe that's what my report says, states.
11 Q
Well, that's what I'm not clear about, 12 Mr. Schapker.
Were you characterizing the Comstock filler 13 material or control practices at the time of Mr. Puckett's 14 employment as adequate or after those practices were revised?
15 A
They were adequate prior and after.
16 Q
All right.
You were asked whether the AWS code 17 required traceability of filler metal by heat number to a 18 specific weld.
And I understood your answer was that AWS did 19 not require that, right?
20 A
Yes.
21 Q
Does Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 require 22 traceability of weld filler material to a specific weld?
i
248 1
A It requires traceability of all safety-related 2
material.
However, the method need not be heat numbers.
3 Q
All right.
Is heat number traceability an effective i
4 means of meeting the Appendix B requirement?
5 A
Yes, it is.
6 Q
All right.
7 A
Although it is not a requirement.
8 Q
All right.
At the Zimmer facility, was heat number 9
traceability for filler material required?
10 A
I believe in the area that I inspected at Zimmer, 11 which was ASME, it was required.
12 Q
Do you know whether it was required in non-ASME 13 welding or AWS welding, for example?
14 A
I don't recall.
15 Q
Okay.
Do you know whether or not welders were 16 required at the Zimmer facility to account for the weld rods 17 issued at the end of work?
18 A
I believe that the procedures did require they turn 19 in weld rods, yes.
20 Q
All right.
Did require accounting of weld rods?
21 A
I believe that it did.
To the best of my 22 recollection, they did.
O
249 1
Q All right.
For example, would accounting for weld (3
(_-)
2 rod include counting the number of rods of a specific type and 3
heat issued to a welder at the beginning of a shift and then 4
requiring that welder to return stubs for each rod censumed or 5
rods unconsumed -- and rods unconsumed at the end of the 6
shift?
7 A
That's one method.
8 Q
Do you know whether that was the method employed at 9
Zimmer?
10 A
No, I don't remember.
They could have used weight.
11 Q
Do you know what method was employed by Comstock at 12 Braidwood at the time Mr. Puckett was employed?
(
}
13 A
The weld rod was issued to the welder, and the 14 welder maintained control over the weld rod itself.
15 Q
Was there any accounting required for a weld rod 16 issued and consumed and not consumed?
17 A
I'm not sure.
i 18 Q
Do you agree, Mr. Schapker, that requiring specific 19 accounting for rods issued and rods consumed, rods not 20 consumed, provides enhanced weld rod material -- weld rod 21 control over a system that simply issues the rods and provides 22 that the welder control the weld material?
O
250 1
COURT REPORTER:
The welder control what, sir?
2 MR. GUILD:
The filler material.
3 WITNESS:
Naturally, it would be more enhanced, yes.
t 4
BY MR. GUILD:
5 Q
Do you agree that providing for traceability of weld 6
rod by heat number or lot number to the specific weld made 7
provides enhanced filler material control?
8 A
Maybe enhanced but.may not be a requirement of 9
Appendix B.
I 10 Q
What was Mr. Simile's role, if any, Mr. Schapker, in 11 the tracing of the weld rod heat numbers identified by 12 Mr. Puckett?
( )
13 A
I believe that I asked him to research their records 14 to see if they could supply the material certifications for 15 these weld rods.
1 16 Q
And what did Mr. Simile say?
17 A
That they would do that.
18 Q
And did they do that?
19 A
Yes.
i 20 Q
All right.
When did you ask them, and when did they 21 supply the certifications?
22 A
Somewhere during the course of the inspection.
I O
t
251 1
wouldn't have a date.
2 Q
And did you ask them Dty One and they provided them 3
Day One?
4 A
No.
It was -- I really couldn't recall exactly.
It 5
was a veri short period of time.
6 Q
Less than a day?
7 A
It could have been the same day, yes.
8 Q
All right.
9 A
I believe it was the same day that I requested it.
10 Q
All right.
Now, Mr. Schapker, counsel for the 11 Applicant has identified three certified material test 12 reports, Exhibits 5, 6 and 7 to your deposition.
13 Can you explain to me how those CMTRs are traceable 14 to the rod heat numbers that Mr. Puckett identified?
15 A
If I could reference my inspection report.
16 Q
Sure, please do.
17 (The witness is looking at a document.]
18 A
Okay, in the first case it is 40lS7441.
l 19 Q
Tell me what you are looking at please?
l 20 A
This is S 6.
i 21 Q
Deposition Exhibit 6.
All right.
The CMTR's.
And 22 you read the heat number from that CMTR?
! O
e a
252 1
A Yes, that is the heat number.
2 Q
All right.
Now, that correlates with which heat 3
that Mr. Puckett identified?
4 A
The same heat.
5 Q
I am looking at Mr. Puckett's memo of April 15, 6
1984, Puckett Deposition Exhibit 24. It is behind his February 7
6th transcript.
8 Did you find that document, the April 15 memo?
9 A
Okay.
The heat number of this reference is on 10 memorandum, Puckett Exhibit No. 25.
11 Q
25 or 24?
12 A
25.
(
13 Q
Okay.
25, and that is an August 17th '84 memo from 14 Mr. Puckett to Mr. Saklak, right?
15 A
Yes.
I 16 Q
And you are still referring to the CMTR that is I
17 Exhibit 6 to your deposition, correct?
18 A
Yes.
The first -- the first heat number he 19 references here is 401S7441.
20 Q
All right.
Which CMTR is that?
21 A
That is for a 7018 rod.
22 Q
And which exhibit number is that?
l l
l l
I l
i
.__m__
253 1
A That is Exhibit S 6; Schapker Exhibit No.
6.
2 Q
Either I have them numbered wrong or you do.
I am 3
looking at Exhibit 5 that appears to be 40lS7441.
l 4
A one is marked wrong here.
5 Q
We will never know who is right.
t 6
A Referring back to Exhibit 24, those are the heat 7
numbers that Mr. Puckett references that he had found.
l l
8 Q
Let me stock for a second.
I have Exhibit 5, which 9
is a CMTR -- Exhibit 5 to your deposition.
And it says 10 401S7441 for the heat number, correct?
11 A
Yes.
12 Q
Now --
(
}
13 A
And Exhibit 24 of Mr. Puckett stated:
The three
]
14 heat numbers aforementioned here are good heat numbers, 15 traceable to valid certification papers.
i 16 Q
Exhibit 25.
17 A
24.
That is the previous document you referenced.
18 MR. BERRY:
Those are not the three heat numbers.
19 WITNESS:
Those are not the three heat numbers he i
20 said he could not find; these are the ones that he did find, i
t-21 Puckett Exhibit 25 are the ones that he referenced 22 that he could not find.
l l
\\
254 1
BY MR. GUILD:
[ Continuing]
2 Q
So, 25 lists the heat number that he could not find, 3
correct?
4 A
Yes, according to this --
5 Q
And it lists 40lS7441.
6 A
Right.
7 Q
And you show a CMTR that says 40lS7441.
That is s
8 your Deposition Exhibit 5, right?
9 A
Yes.
10 Q
Your inspection report, Page 7, lists the heat 11 number that you found, that is listed as 40157441, which you 12 then explain as -- well, you don't --
l
(
}
13 A
It says that it was located, and conformed to the 14 specified material requirements.
15 Q
All right.
Where is CMTR 40157441?
i l
16 A
It is obviously another clerical error there.
17 Q
It is an error in your inspection report?
l 18 A
Yes, sir, that is an error in the inspection 19 report.
The NRC is human.
l 20 Q
So is Mr. Puckett, apparently.
21 A
I agree.
22 Q
That is Exhibit No.
5.
Now, how about the heat i
O t
255 1
numbers that Mr. Puckett identified, Exhibit 25.
2 A
Okay.
401S9011.
3-Q All right.
4 A
That was for 7018 material.
Weld rod.
5 Q
Is that traceable to a CMTR?
6 A
That heat number was not located, but heat number 7
402S9011 was located.
8.
Q And is that Exhibit 6 to your deposition?
9 A
Yes.
Somebody besides the NRC makes clerical f
10 errors.
11 Q
All right.
Now, in your inspection report you 12 describe your heat number as 40259011, page 7.
( }
13 A
Apparently my
'S' looks like a
'5' in my draft.
14 Q
And that is another error in your inspection report, 15 correct?
16 A
Yes, that should be an,
'S'.
402S90ll.
l 17 Q
Okay.
And that is Exhibit 6 to your deposition, and 18 that is the CMTR that you meant to reference, correct?
19 A
Yes.
t 20 Q
What about the third one?
21 A
35202061, which was for electrode type 6013, and i
22 that was identified as 3S202061.
O
256 1
Q All right.
That appears on CMTR Exhibit 7 to your 2
deposition, correct?
3 A
Yes.
4 Q
Now, in your inspection report, however, you show it 5
as 3520261, correct?
6 A
That is correct.
7 Q
And that is not the CMTR that you identified as 8
traceable to this heat number, is it?
9 A
3S20261.
10 Q
That is another error in your inspection report, is 11 it not?
12 A
Yes.
13 Q
Did Mr. Simile assist you in -- strike that.
What 14 information d'id you provide Mr. Simile that led to the 15 identification of the CMTRs?
16 A
What information?
17 Q
Yes.
l l
18 A
The heat numbers there were.
19 Q
Did you provide the heat numbers that are listed in 20 your inspection report at Page 7?
21 A
Apparently not.
22 Q
Which heat numbers did you provide Mr. Simile?
O i
-v-y-
257 1
.A The ones that are referenced by Exhibit 25.
2 Q
How do you know that?
3 A
Because I believe that is what I utilized for a 4
reference at the inspection.
5 Q
You recall having given Mr. Simile the Puckett 6
memorandum Exhibit 25?
7 A
I don't believe that I gave it to him.
I believe 8
that I gave him the heat numbers from the --
9 Q
So, you drew the heat numbers off of Mr. Puckett's i
10 memorandum, correct?
~
11 A
Either that, or I told him the numbers off of it.
12 Q
Did you copy the numbers accurately from
(
13 Mr. Puckett's August 17th memo, Exhibit.25?
14 A
I assume that I did, yes.
15 Q
Well, did you copy the numbers off of the CMTRs 16 accurately onto the draft of your inspection report?
17 A
I believe that I ild. yes.
18 Q
Do you know where sLa error occurred?
19 A
I have no idea.
20 Q
Let's turn now to Item f, page 8 of your inspection 21 report, and the subject of construction material 4
22 traceability.
Does 10 CFR, Part 50, Appendix B, require the l
i
258 1
traceability of materials or components by number to the point 2
of installation?
3 A
No.
4 Q
Does it require traceability of components or 5
materials to the point of installation?
6 A
Yes.
7 Q
If, for example, Mr. Schapker, a piece of material 8
that had a traceability number affixed to that material, say 9
painted on or wrenched on, it is cut such that a portion of 10 that piece of material no longer had a traceability number on 11 it was installed in the field, would the installation of such 12 an untraceable part of a material or component be consistent
/\\
13 b
with the traceability requirements of Appendix B?
14 MR. BERRY:
Mr. Schapker, dc you understand that 15 question?
Your counsel doesn't, but if you do, you can 16 answer.
17 WITNESS:
I think I know what he is driving at, but l
18 it is not clear exactly what he wants me to do.
I 19 BY MR. GUILD:
[ Continuing]
l 20 Q
What is unclear?
Maybe I can help you, and your i
21 lawyer, too, if it happens to work out that way.
22 MR. BERRY:
It is just that the question was so long O
l
259 1
and assumed so many things, I just kind of got lost in the
\\_-
2 middle.
3 BY MR. GUILD:
(Continuing]
4 Q
It is late, so let's concentrate.
I am waiting for 5
you.
Is it something I have misstated in the question, or 6
that you don't understand, or that I am being unclear about, 7
please tell me.
8 A
It is unclear to me.
9 Q
What is unclear, and I will try to rephrase it.
10 A
Repeat your question.
11 Q
I will make another stab at it.
If a piece of 12 material is traceable to the point of installation by a unique
(
}
13 number on a piece of material, but before installation the 14 material is cut.
Say, a piece of unistrut, and the unmarked 15 portion of that piece of material is installed, will that 16 practice violate Appendix B traceability requirements?
l 17 A
If there is no method to maintain that that material 18 is the required material intended for that function, it would 19 not be adequate, no.
20 Q
Is it generally acceptable that if a piece of 21 material is cut, the trace that the identifying number 22 would be transferred to the portion of material cut in order s
O
260 1
to maintain traceability?
2 A
That is not necessarily required.
There are other 3
methods to maintain traceability other than transferring the 4
numbers.
5 Q
All right.
Identify those methods?
6 A
Well, in previous experience that I have, like at 7
Marble Hill, the electrical contractor there maintained 8
traceability by using a stamp, like a control stamp, where 9
whenever material, after it received inspection, inspected, 10 they stamped the material.
11 Q
All right.
And how would traceability be maintained 12 under that system if the material was cut so that the stamp
( )
13 was on a part of the material and not on another part that was 14 to be installed?
15 A
If it was fabricated into like a hanger, as long as 16 the material they utilized to fabricate this hanger had the l
17 stamp prior to the fabrication of the hanger, there was 18 traceability to the component.
19 Q
Assume a circumstance where a piece of material is l
20 cut that has some traceability to that point.
I 21 A
Well, if it's cut away and there's no identification 22 whatsoever, then it wouldn't be traceable.
I l
O l
261 1
Q All right.
So, the material -- it would have to be 2'
a number transferred to the cut part under those circumstances 3
in order to maintain traceability?
4 A
Appendix B requires that the traceability be 5
maintained by some method described by a procedure, whatever i
6 method that may be, that provides assurance that that material 7
is the safety-related material intended for that function is 8
acceptable to the NRC.
9 Q
In response to Mr. Miller earlier, you described 10 systems at Braidwood and at Zimmer, and I believe you stated 11 that the Zimmer procedures required traceability by heat 12 number for materials, correct?
i ()
13 A
I believe I was referring to the ASME procedures 14 which was our primary inspection.
The experience at Zimmer 15 was on ASME.
16 Q
Do you know whether a non-ASME safety-related 17 components -- that heat number traceability was maintained?
i j
18 A
I believe that it was.
I believe that was part of
.l 19 their procedure, but I'm not certain.
20 Q
All right.
Do you agree that providing heat --
21 traceability by heat number represents an enhanced means for 22 compliance with Appendix B regarding traceability, over not 4
O l
262 1
using heat numbers?
b)
(s,
2 A
No, I don't.
3 Q
Why not?
4 A
Because, in my past experience in the transfer of 5
heat numbers, that there seemed to be a lot of laxity in 6
transfer of heat numbers and particularly in the area of 7
Zimmer and, therefore, it wasn't a -- necessarily an 8
enhancement.
9 Q
The procedure, as implemented, was not necessarily 10 an enhancement?
11 A
Right.
12 Q
Would you agree that a heat number traceability
[
}
13 procedure, if effectively implemented, provides an enhanced 14 means of traceability over not using heat numbers?
15 A
I guess you could draw that conclusion, yes.
16 Q
Look at G, Page 9.
Do you know who the quality 17 control inspector was, who was responsible for observing, 18 witnessing the qualification tests that Mr. Puckett observed?
19 A
I interviewed the inspector referenced in this 20 report which reported a -- did the inspection on the coupons 21 which were submitted for the welder qualification record, PQR, 22 procedure qualification record, as identified in my report in l
f m
y
---m-2 w
v
263 1
Allegation G.
2 Q
Yes.
But my question is:
Do you know who the 3
inspector was who was assigned to witness the qualification 4
tests that Mr. Puckett observed?
5 And that was the test described in Allegation G 6
where welds were made without -- where they tried to qualify a 7
test -- requalify a test -- where they sought to requalify a 8
procedure without preheat?
9 A
I don't know what tests Mr. Puckett observed other 10 than what he --
11 Q
Did you ask Mr. Puckett about that?
12 A
When we discussed this, I'm sure that I did.
13 Q
Do you recall whether you asked Mr. Puckett for more 14 details, and did he give you any more details?
15 A
Not any more than what is explained here.
16 Q
All right, sir.
Do you know whether or not 17 Mr. Puckett was accurate in his contention that the quality 18 control inspector did not participate in the welding procedure 19 qualification test that he observed?
20 A
I'm only knowledgable of the ones that I questioned 21 the inspector on that said that he had observed the procedure 22 of qualification test.
And I do not know if these are the O
264 1
same ones.
2 Q
All right.
3 A
However, the procedure of qualification record, 4
qualifications were performed and were witnessed by a QC 5
inspector.
6 Q
Well, the papers were signed that you observed?
7 A
Yes.
8 Q
But you weren't physically present to know whether 9
they, in fact -- in fact, whether those QC inspectors were 10 present?
11 A
The QC inspector attests that he did witness --
12 Q
He signed the paper?
, ()
13 A
Yes.
When I questioned the QC inspector, he 14 attested that he did witness the test.
15 Q
All right.
And he witnessed it to the extent that 16 you have previously testified; that is, that he didn't observe 17 the welding test continuously?
18 MR. MILLER:
I object to the form of the question.
19 It mischaracterizes the witness' earlier testimony.
l 20 BY MR. GUILD:
21 Q
Did the QC inspector tell you that he observed the 22 qualification test on a continuous basis?
1 265 1
A He attested that he witnessed the welding of the (s-2 test coupons throughout the process.
3 Q
On a continuous basis?
4 A
Well, whatever -- throughout the process, however 5
you - -
6 Q
Well, I'm trying to save time.
We can go back and 7
find it on the tape now.
I don't think I'm fabricating my 8
recollection of your previous testimony, notwithstanding 9
counsel's --
10 A
That was one of the qualification records I believe.
11 Q
All right.
My question is:
Did he, the QC 12 inspector, tell you that he continuously observed the test of
/
)
13 the welding procedure qualification test?
14 A
That's what he told me, yes.
15 Q
That he continuously observed it?
16 A
Yes.
17
[Brief recess.]
18 BY MR. GUILD:
19' Q
On Page 9 of your inspection report, Mr. Schapker, 20 under Item H relates to the subject of inconsistency in welder 21 qualification records.
22 As you testified, you in your review identified O
266 1
errors and inconsistencies in welder qualification records, 2
did you not?
3 A
Yes.
l 4
Q All right.
The notice of violation that is an 5
appendix to the transmittal for 8509 describes the violation 1
i 6
in question as follows:
It's 1[B].
"The welder 7
qualifications records exhibit numerous clerical errors and 8
omissions."
i 9
And did you observe, as that states, numerous 10 clerical errors and omissions?
11 A
There were quite a few.
12 Q
Exhibit 9 to your deposition is Comstock's
()
13 Nonconformance Report 3710.
Does NCR 3710 reflect in the 14 description of the nonconformance that, as I quote, a review i
15 of all welder qualifications was performed?
16 A.
Yes, it does.
17 Q
And this NCR was dispositioned April 29th, 1985 and 18 originated December 8th, 1984; was it not?
i 19 A
Yes.
I 20 Q
And that NCR then was initiated and closed prior to 21
.your inspection findings, was it not?
22 A
I believe it was.
O
267 1
Q All right.
Licensee did not identify then the i
2 numerous errors and omissions prior to your identification of 3
those errors in this inspection report, did they?
4 A
There were some errors that were not a part of 3710, i
5 that's correct.
6 Q
Well, 3710 only identifies three errors, does it 7
not?
6 A
Three type errors with numerous examples.
9 Q
All right.
But it identifies -- it fails to 10 identify errors of the type that you subsequently identified, i
11 correct?
12 A
That's true.
(
}
13 Q
Did any of the errors that you identified reflect 14 the alteration of welder qualification records?
15 A
The only one I observed, as recorded in my 16 inspection report, was the white-out of the previous 17 contractor and replaced with L. K. Comstock.
18 Q
All right.
And that's an alteration of the welder 4
19 qualification records in that respect?
i 20 A
I guess if you -- you could consider it that, I l
21 guess.
22 Q
Well, they whited out an entry on a welder d
268 1
qualification record and they entered something in place of 2
the original information, did they not?
3 A
Yes, but you could still tell what the original 4
information was.
5 Q
How is that?
6 A
By looking through the white.
7 Q
So, they didn't do a successful job of whiting out 8
the previous entry?
9 MR. MILLER:
Objection to the form of the question.
10 But go ahead and answer it.
11 BY MR. GUILD:
12 Q
The white-out didn't completely obscure the prior
[
}
13 entry which was the E.
C. Ernst identification, correct?
14 A
Yes.
15 Q
And you could tell that it said E.
C.
Ernst 16 originally?
17 A
Yes.
18 Q
Is use of white-out an approved practice on quality 19 documents at a nuclear power plant?
l 20 A
No, it's not.
l 21 Q
All right.
Have you observed noncompliances at the 22 Zimmer facility involving the use of white-out on quality
269 1
documents?
2 A
Yes.
3 Q
And were violations identified in that practice?
4 A
Yes, but they were of a different nature.
5 Q
And how is that?
6 A
In that the white-outs at the Zimmer facility were 7
in areas which effected the essential variables of the welding 8
parameters recorded in some instances.
9 Q
Such as?
10 A
Such as thickness of material, 11 Q
Were there any instances where violation: were 12 identified involving use of white-out in welder qualification
(
}
13 records at the Zimmer facility?
14 A
I believe that's what we just talked about.
15 Q
All right.
Thickness of material used to qualify 16 the welder; is that what --
17 A
Yes.
18 Q
-- you are speaking to?
19 A
Yes.
Yes.
I 20 Q
Any other instances at Zimmer where white-out was 21 used in your opinion for changes that reflected on essential 22 variables, as you use that term?
I O
270 1
A I don't recall offhand right now.
f~
k -)/
2 Q
Okay.
The change that -- the document that was s
3 altered that you found at Comstock was an Ernst welder 4
qualification record, was it not?
5 A
I do not know that.
6 Q
Well, you held it up to the light and it said 7
E.
C.
Ernst.
8 A
But it could have been the Ernst form that was 9
changed when -- to a L. K. Comstock form when Comstock assumed 10 the work as a contractor there.
11 Q
So you are saying it could have been filled out by 12 Comstock on what was formerly an Ernst form?
( )
13 A
Yes.
t 14 Q
But it was changed to make it appear as a Comstock i
15 form?
16 A
Yes.
I i
17 Q
Could it also have been an Ernst welder l
I 18 qualification record reflecting that the welder was qualified 19 by Ernst?
(
20 A
I don't know what the objective would be to
(
21 white-out Ernst if they had.
22 Q
Well, aside from whether you can identify what the l 0
271 1
objective would be or not --
2 A
It's feasibly possible.
3 Q
Do you know which it was in the cases that you 4
identified, an Ernst form that was changed to make it appear 5
to be a Comstock form and filled in by Comstock, or an Ernst 6
form filled in by Ernst and then changed to reflect Comstock?
7 A
I would have no way of knowing that.
8 Q
In the latter instance, the instance in which the 9
welder actually qualified by Ernst and the form showed that r
10 he qualified by Ernst, in that instance changing the identify 11 of the employer who qualified him would be a significant 12 alteration of that record, would it not?
( )
13 A
I don't -- I did not consider it a significant 14 issue, no.
15 Q
All right.
Is the procedure to which a welder 16 qualifies an essential variable, or to use another term, a 17 significant aspect of a welder qualification record?
18 A
As long as it meets the requirements of AWS-D.l.1, 19 it has no significance.
20 Q
So the procedure that the welder is listed as 4
21 qualified to on the welder qualification record is not a 22 significant record?
O
- - - +
272 1
A The procedure?
(~T) 2 Q
Yes.
s.
3 A
Yes, it's a significant record, yes, because that 4
records the procedure that he qualified to and gives you a 5
record of what procedure that the welder did accomplish.
6 Q
And it would be significant, wouldn't it, whether 7
the welder qualification documentation showed the welder as 8
qualified to E.
C.
Ernst or a Comstock procedure?
9 A
It could be significant, yes.
10 Q
All right.
And might a change in the records as to 11 the -- as to whether it was a Comstock or an Ernst procedure 12 be a change of such a character as to impact on the 13 qualification of the welder?
[
14 MR. MILLER:
Objection to the form of the question.
15 You may answer it.
16 WITNESS:
I really didn't understand it, I guess.
l 17 Would you --
1 1
18 BY MR. GUILD:
19 Q
All right.
The term I used in that question is a 20 term that you used.
You characterized, for example, the kinds i
21 of errors and omissions that occurred in welder qualification 22 records at Zimmer as being significant because in the words --
l g
i
273 1
the words I wrote down in my notes were, "They impacted on the 2
qualification of welders."
3 Is that a true statement?
4 A
Yes.
5 Q
All right.
Now, I ask you, sir, with respect to the 6
matter of Braidwood, if there were an alteration of the 7
procedure to which a welder was qualified such as qualified to 8
a Comstock procedure when, in fact, the record originally 9
indicated that he was qualified to an Ernst procedure, 10 wouldn't that, too, be an instance where the change impacted 11 on the qualification of the welder?
12 A
As long as both procedures meet the requirements of
(
}
13 AWS-D.1.1, it would not impact, no.
14 Q
All right.
So, it's not a significant -- that would 15 not be a significant alteration, in your opinion?
16 A
No.
17 Q
Would an alteration of the thickness of the material 18 to which a welder was qualified be an alteration of that 19 character?
In other words, an alteration which impacted on l
20 the qualification of the welder?
21 A
Yes, it would.
22 Q
Would an alteration of the type of material on which l
- O 1
b
1 274 1
a welder qualified be an alteration of that character?
In 2
other words, an alteration which would impact on the l
l 3
qualification of the welder?
l 4
A It could.
i 5
Q Do you know whether there had been any alterations 6
of Comstock welder qualification records which were of a 7
character that they could or would impact on the qualification 8
of the welder?
i 9
A No.
10 Q
Now, on Allegation I, Page 10 of your report, 4
11 Mr. Schapker, Mr. Miller asked you a series of questions and 12 at the conclusion of those questions, he asked you what your
(
}
13 inspection and conclusions reflected about Mr. Puckett's 14 knowledge of the AWS code.
15 Do you recall that?
16 A
He asked me several times.
May I review this?
17 Q
Sure.
18 (The witness is looking at a. document.]
19 A
Yes, I remember.
20 Q
All right.
Now, you said I believe in response to 21 Mr. Miller's questions to that effect that in this case, 22 Mr. Puckett apparently did not understand the AWS code.
O
-.--mr,.,w r
e_. - - - -.- - -. - - -,,,.,-.,.. -
vv-
,e-w-.---,ee..
v.,-%c-,-,-
-y-
- - - +
275 1
Is that your testimony?
'(O
-)
2 A
I believe I made that statement.
3 Q
All right.
I think you responded thereafter by 4
saying that that opinion was based on the assumption that you 5
understood what Mr. Puckett's concern was.
6 A
Yes.
7 Q
Do you know whether you understood Mr. Puckett's 8
concern on that subject?
9 A
On this Allegation I?
10 Q
Yes.
11 A
I believe I do.
Yes.
12 Q
Did you know whether or not Mr. Puckett was aware
( )
13 that a welder could requalify based on his previous 14 qualification with a former employer under the AWS code?
15 A
I do not know that, whether he knew or not?
16 Q
Yes.
l 17 A
I --
18 Q
Is your assumption in your opinion about 19 Mr. Puckett's code knowledge, that he was unaware of that code 20 provision?
l 21 A
No.
My assumption was on the -- that -- he says:
22 This procedure is not traceable to L. K. Comstock AWS code l
l O
276 4
1 procedure qualification records.
Procedure 471 is not O
\\~/
2 traceable to L. K. Comstock AWS-D.l.1, weld procedure 3
qualification records.
4 Q
Right.
5 A
That's what my assumption is based on.
6 Q
All right.
Well, in what respect don't you think 7
Mr. Puckett's concern reflects his -- a correct understanding 8
of the AWS code?
9 A
Well, he attests that a weld procedure qualification 10 record is required for AWS welder qualification procedures.
i 11 Q
And your position is that such a record is not 12 required?
(
)
13 A
Is not required by AWS.
ASME does require it.
14 Q
And you think that Mr. Puckett misunderstood that 15 the AWS code required such a welder qualification record?
16 A
Apparently.
17 Q
What's the basis for your belief that that was j
18 Mr. Puckett's interpretation of the AWS code?
19 A
My basis is this allegation.
20 Q
Does he say anything about the AWS code in his 21 allegation?
22 A
However, this procedure is not traceable to O
- _ _. -.,,. -,, _,,... - ~..,, - - -,. - - -, -
277 1
L. K. Comstock AWS-D.l.1, weld procedure qualification j
2 records.
3 Q
All right.
He refers to the records.
Does he state 4
that AWS, in his opinion, requires that there be such 5
traceability?
6 A
What else could he be referring to?
7 Q
How about Appendix B?
Did you ever ask him?
8 A
I went over all of these allegations with 9
Mr. Puckett.
10 Q
Yes, sir.
But did you ever ask him whether or not 11 his traceability concern on this issue was founded upon the 12 requirements of Appendix B?
)
13 A
There is no requirement of Appendix B that dictates 14 that a weld procedure qualification record be made for welder 15 qualification.
16 Q
That may be your view.
But did you ask Mr. Puckett 17 what the basis was of his traceability concern?
18 A
I repeat, I went over all these allegations as 19 written with --
20 Q
I understand you said that.
But did you ask him 21 that question?
22 A
I don't remember if I asked him that direct O
278 1
question, no.
2 Q
But your opinion about his lack of code 3
understanding is premised on the assumption that he believed 4
the traceability of qualification records was required by the 5
AWS code; is that correct?
6 MR. MILLER:
I object to the form of the question.
7 WITNESS:
Yes.
8 BY MR. GUILD:
9 Q
Did you observe an alteration of a welder 10 qualification record that changed the material on which the 11 welder qualified from A-106 to A-367 12 A
I believe that's documented in my report.
Yes.
( )
13 Q
Is the material on which a welder qualifies an 14 essential variable?
15 A
Material types, yes.
16 Q
This then was an alteration of an essential 17 variable.
18 A
No.
19 Q
Why not?
20 A
A-36 and A-106, either one will qualify the other
)
21 for welder qualification.
22 Q
Then maybe the conclusion which you reached, but O
_ _., _ - - ~ _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
279 1
this did reflect an alteration of an essential variable, did
)
2 it not; the material on which the welder qualified.
3 MR. MILLER:
I object to the form of the question.
4 You are simply arguing with the witness.
5 MR. GUILD:
There is an obvious inconsistency in his 6
testimony.
Is the specification of material on which the 7
welder qualified an essential variable?
8 WITNESS:
The types of material, yes.
9 BY MR. GUILD:
[ Continuing]
10 Q
A-106 and A-36 are types of material, are they not?
11 A
Grades of material.
12 Q
Is there a difference between grade and type?
)
13 A
Well, A-36 and A-106 are both the same type of 14 material.
15 Q
What is the difference in the grade?
16 A
Well, A-36 is plate, and A-106 is pipe.
17 Essentially, the material types are the same.
18 Q
All right.
It is -- is the character of the 19 material, pipe or plate, an essential variable in a welder 20 qualification test, Mr. Schapker?
i
~
21 A
Yes.
22 Q
This, then, was a change to an essential variable,
- O
280 1
was it not.
0)
(_s 2
A No, I don't believe it was, because the change was
-3 obvious on the record, and the previous material was still 4
literally observable.
It was an error on some part -- a 5
clerical error, or whatever you want to call it.
Material was 6
changed for whatever reason.
7 It was not an attempt by any means to change the 8
content of the welder qualification record.
9 Q
That is your opinion?
10 A
Yes.
11 Q
How was the change made, Mr. Schapker.
12 A
It was crossed through, and an annotation beside it,
(
}
13 or initial beside it.
14 Q
Whose initials was used?
Was it the originator of 15 the document?
16 A
No, I believe it was a clerk.
17 Q
Do you know who the clerk was?
18 A
No, I don't.
However, it is written up as a 19 violation in the inspection report, and would have to be 20 addressed by the licensee.
21 Q
Yes.
K.2, page 15.
You identify the entry of the 22 description of material referenced in Allegation 2, the one O
1 l
281 1
inch description, as an obvious clerical error.
2 What is the basis of your conclusion to that effect?
3 A
The basis of that conclusion was because the 4
supporting documents were part of the welder qualification 5
record.
The independent testing laboratory's documents showed 6
that it was actually 3/8th inch plate, and had been tested 7
according to those requirements.
8 Q
All right.
So, you identified there was an error?
9 A
Yes.
10 Q
How did you conclude it was an obvious clerical 11 error?
i 12 A
Whatever type error you call it, it was obviously a
()
13 mistake on someone's part; whether it was the inspector, or 14 clerical, clerk, or whatever, it was an obvious error.
15 Q
Would the listing of the one inch thickness on the 16 welder qualification record have allowed the welder to weld to 17 a greater thickness than if the record reflected plate 18 actually welded?
The coupon actually welded?
19 A
Yes, it could.
20 Q
And it was, therefore, an essential variable that 21 could affect the qualification of the welder, was it not?
22 A
The requalification of welders only requires 3/8th O
1
-____-___,_,__,_.__._.-..,_._r--
282 1
inch plate, provided the welder had performed the weld to a
(
2 one inch plate, or Schedule 80 pipe.
3 Q
Did you identify errors in welder qualification i
4 records with respect to the thickness of material in your 5
inspection at the Zimmer facility?
6 A
Yes, I believe we did.
7 Q
All right.
Did you ever identify items of I
8 noncompliance based on examples of welder qualification 9
record. errors of that sort at Zimmer?
i 10 A
Yes, we did.
11 Q
In the instances where you identified items of 12 noncomplaince based on such errors, did you in each instance
(
)
13 determine that there was no additional evidence that would 14 explain the basis for the welder qualification record error?
15 A
Yes, we did.
16 Q
And did you find any instances where you identified 17 that such errors in welder qualification records were obvious j
18 clerical errors, but nonetheless cited an item of j
l 19 noncompliance?
20 A
No.
I could characterize those errors that we --
I 21 you are talking about at Zimmer, the changes that we 22 discovered on the forms at Zimmer, on the welder qualification
!O 4
l 283 1
forms there, one record which was submitted to the State of 2
Ohio, one of the requirements of that State, stated that the 3
welder had qualified to a certain thickness of material, and 4
the other record that was on file by -- at the site, in the QA
~
5 vault had another thickness, and the thickness on the record i
i 6
that was sent to the State was changed.
Altered.
And that i
7 was the significance of that.
8 Q
But to be clear, you identified no instances at 9
Zimmer where further investigation would have led you to 10 conclude that the error was an obvious clerical error?
11 A
I believe that we did further investigation in that 12 area.
(
}
13 Q
I am not specifically talking about that one, but I 14 am asking you to respond generally.
Were there any instances 15 at Zimmer where you cited the violation for welder 16 qualification record error, that upon the review of further 17 evidence was clearly determined to be an obvious clerical 18 error?
19 A
I don't believe we ran into that, we had that kind j
20 of instance at Zimmer.
i 21 Q
You don't recall any instances of that sort?
f 22 A
No.
l l
[ O
284 1
Q All right.
We are getting there.
Mr. Schapker, do 2
you have a copy of inspection report for Zimmer facility 8210?
3 A
Yes.
4 Q
Let me find my page references.
I believe you j
5 testified that you and Mr. Gwynn worked jointly on the 6
identification of items 1-A, 1-B, and 3 of the Notice of 4
7 Violation.
8 A
I believe that is correct.
9 Q
Did you work with Mr. Gwynn on Items 4 and 2?
10 A
He may have consulted me about it.
I didn't do the 11 inspection.
i i
12 Q
All right.
(
}
13 MR. BERRY:
When you say that, that is referring to 14 Item 2 of the previous answer?
i 15 WITNESS:
Yes, Item 2.
What was the other one?
16 MR. BERRY:
4.
17 BY MR. GUILD:
[ Continuing]
18 Q
Were you present -- I am sorry.
I apologize.
19 A
I haven't looked at 4 yet.
20 Q
I apologize.
I 21 A
No, I didn't.
That must have been Mr. Gwynn.
22 Q
With respect to Items 2-A and B, do you have any l
i O l
- l 1
.-. ~. --?--
285 1
knowledge of circumstances that are reflected in those items 2
of noncompliance?
3 A
Circumstances?
4 Q
Yes.
4 5
A I wasn't present.
6 Q
Did you have any involvement in those items at all, i
7 2-A and B?
8 A
No.
9 Q
Do you know whether or not with respect to Item 2-A, 10 the item that mentions the project weld engineer that you nave 4
11 identified as Mr. Puckett, the issue involving the duplicate 4
12 qualification card.
Do you know whether or not Mr. Puckett or
(
} -13 others would cause or made available objective evidence that 14 verified the qualification of the welder who was issued the 15 duplicate card?
16 A
I am not aware of it, no.
During this period of 17 time that I performed these inspections on 8210, I was senior 18 resident inspector at Hartsville Nuclear Power Plant.
I 19 I did not work throughout this period as indicated 20 on the inspection report.
21 Q
Do you recall what period you did participate in the 22 inspection involved in Report 8210?
O e
g w --
=,ey 7
w,g-y--
---w-w--
,w-r,:
=
w-
--g vv -
4
286 1
A Probably for a one week period during that time 2
period.
3 Q
Do you recall what week that was?
4 A
No, I don't offhand.
5 Q
With respect to Item 1.a of the notice of violation 6
at Zimmer, did you investigate this item of nonconformance?
7 A
Yes, in conjunction with Mr. Gwynn.
8 Q
Were you provided any evidence indicating which 9
schedule of pipe -- to which schedule of pipe the welder 10 actually qualified?
11 A
I'm not sure.
I would have to review the report.
12 Q
Okay.
And do you know where it is in the body?
I
(
)
13 had a hard time tracking it down.
14 A
Okay.
15 (The witness is looking through documents.]
16 I believe that's the one that was on Page 29, Item 17 4.
18 Q
All right.
19 A
Yes.
It states in the bottom of this page, it says 20 that:
The 6-inch schedule 40 coupons were available in the 21 test shop at the time the qualification in question took 22 place.
The inspector stated that the objective evidence in O
_ =__-_
1 287 1
this case indicated that a 6-inch schedule 40 coupon was used 2
in the qualification and that alteration of the document 3
outside the requirements of ANSI 452.974 placed the welder 4
qualifications to all heavy weld procedure in doubt.
To the 5
heavy weld procedure in doubt.
6 Q
Do you know whether or not there was evidence made 7
available, Mr. Schapker, that all welders were being qualified 8
on the 5-inch schedule 160 pipe instead of the 6-inch schedule 9
40?
10 A
I'm not aware of it.
11 Q
Was there objective evidence available as to --
12 A
I wasn't aware of it at the time of the inspections,
)
13 and I wasn't made aware of it after the inspections.
So, I'm 14 not aware.
15 Q
Okay.
Do you know whether there was objective i
16 evidence available of the actual material thickness to which 17 the welder in question qualified?
18 A
According to the report, no.
19 Q
All right.
Do you know whether or not there were 20 X-rays made of the test coupons that were employed in the 21 qualification tests that were at issue in this item?
22 A
Some of them were X-rayed and some were bent tests,
288 1
yes.
2 Q
All right.
If there were an X-ray, would there be a 3
so-called reader sheet available reflecting the results of the 4
radiographic examination of the test coupon?
5 A
I believe they did have reader sheets attached in 6
some cases.
7 Q
All right.
And wouldn't the review of that reader 8
sheet indicate the actual thickness of material used in the 9
test coupon?
10 A
It could, yes.
11 Q
Well, if there were a reader sheet for welder KGJ, 12 the welder in question, and that reader sheet evidenced that
()
13 the welder actually qualified on the 5-inch schedule 160, 14 wouldn't that constitute objective evidence that the 15 alteration that you have described represented an 16 insignificant or simple clerical error?
17 A
lt could possibly, yes.
18 Q
Now, this Item 1.b of the notice of violation with 19 regard to the Zimmer facility reflects, as described, the 20 rewriting of thirty-two welder qualification records.
21 Did you investigate the circumstances represented in l
22 this item?
lO
289 1
A I believe I assisted in this, yes.
2 Q
You and Mr. --
3 A
Mr. Gwynn.
4 Q
-- Gwynn?
5 A
Mr. Gwynn, yes.
I think he did.
6 Q
I'm sorry?
7 A
I think he was primarily involved in that.
8 Q
Do you know why the welder qualification records 9
were being rewritten, Mr. Schapker?
10 A
I believe there were discrepancies in the original 11 records.
12 Q
What do you mean by discrepancies?
(
}
13 A
As described in the report --
14 Q
Looking at Page 30 of the report, Mr. Schapker, I 15 believe that's the detail.
16
[The witness is looking through a document.)
17 A
Okay.
It states in the report that this was 18 investigating an allegation that welder qualification records 19 had been altered by personnel on site as recently as March of 20 1982.
21 Q
Yes.
I'm asking you, do you know why the welder 22 qualification records were rewritten?
O
290 1
A No, I don't.
.2 Q
Was it brought to your attention, Mr. Schapker, that 3
the welder qualification records had been originally in a 4
handwritten form and that the rewriting was a typewriting of 5
the handwritten original records?
6 A
Okay.
I believe you are -- I'm not too clear on 7
this issue.
It appears that I remember some involvement in it 8
but I believe Mr. Gwynn was the primary inspector in this, as 9
stated in the -- this says:
In addition to the above 10 subsequent interviews of Licensee and contractor personnel i
11 prompted the resident inspectors to investigate an allegation.
12 So, apparently he --
( )
13 Q
Do you know whether these were simply typewritten 14 versions of originally handwritten documents?
15 A
The inspection report doesa't indicate that that was 16 the --
17 Q
I can read the inspection report as well, but do you 18 have any persoral knowledge of why these --
19 A
No, I don't.
I don't have any knowledge of why they 20 were being --
21 Q
Did you examine the documents yourself, 1
22 Mr. Schapker?
O
291 1
A I don't recall if I did.
2 Q
The statement appears on Page 30, it's the end of 3
the second full paragraph, the sentence reads:
The new 4
records were not signed by the record originator or 5
equivalent.
6 What do you mean by equivalent there?
7 A
I was not the author.
8 Q
You don't know what the word " equivalent" means in 9
that context, as used in the inspection report?
10 A
As described in a procedure, I would -- somebody who 11 is authorized to do such -- to make such changes in the QA 12 program procedures.
()
13 Q
Do you know whether these changes, the changes to 14 the welder qualification records, or the rewriting of the 15 records, do you know whether the accuracy of the rewriting was 16 attested to by quality assurance or quality control personnel?
17 A
No, I don't know that.
18 Q
The changes that you found at Braidwood to the 19 welder qualification records, Mr. Schapker, were they -- were 20 those changes signed by the record originator?
21 A
No, they weren't.
22 Q
Were they signed by quality assurance or quality l
' O L
1 292 1
control personnel?
2 A
No.
3 Q
They were signed by a clerk, weren't they?
4 A
Yes.
5 Q
Is that clerk authorized by procedure to alter 6
quality documents?
7 A
No.
And that's why a violation was issued.
8 Q
Was it a Level 3 violation that you issued for a 9
clerk altering quality records at Braidwood, Mr. Schapker?
10 A
I believe the inspection report references it as a 11 Level 5 violation.
12 Q
Yes, sir.
But you or your colleagues issued a Level
/%
13 3 violation for rewriting quality records at Zimmer, did you V
14 not?
15 A
That's not true, no.
16 Q
Well, that's what it appears from the face of the 17 inspection report.
l 18 A
There were many other examples within that violation 19 which --
20 Q
There are two subparts.
I don't mean to cut you 21 off, but I'm looking at the same paper you've been talking i
22 about now all day.
O l O 1
293 1
One part has to do with the duplicate welder 2
qualification card and one -- I'm sorry.
One part has to do 3
with the wind through on welder qualification record 4
reflecting different schedule pipe, and one part has to do 5
with the rewriting of the welder qualification records.
6 And that's it, isn't it?
It's a Level 3 violation, 7
correct?
8 A
That's what it states, a Level 3 violation, 9
Supplement 2.
10 Q
Do you know how extensive the alteration of records 11 are at the L. K. Comstock Company?
12 A
Not very extensive.
13 Q
Well, have you reviewed them?
14 A
Quite a large sample, yes.
15 Q
Well, isn't it a fact that there is a nonconformance 16 report that has been written after your item of noncompliance 17 was identified, your Level 5 item, and that Comstock is still 18 in the process of a complete review of their welder 19 qualification records?
20 A
That's true.
21 Q
So, it hasn't been determined how many changes, 22 errors or alterations there have been made in the O
l 294 1
L.K.C. welder qualification records, has it?
2 A
It is cited as a violation and will be -- and that 2
3 violation -- the NCR was I believe a result of that violation.
4 Q
Yes.
My only question is, we have not yet to 5
determine the extent of alterations, changes or errors in the 6
Comstock welder qualification records.
That process is 7
ongoing, isn't it?
8 A
It hasn't been completed by the Licensee, right.
9 The review has not been completed.
10 Q
Have you performed any follow-up on that item?
11 A
No.
12 MR. GUILD:
Let me have about two minutes.
And I
/)
13 think that will be it.
Let me double check.
kJ 14 BY MR. GUILD:
I 15 Q
Mr. Schapker, I want to show you a document and 16 first ask if you've seen that?
17 A
No, I haven't.
18 MR. GUILD:
I would like to have the Reporter mark 19 that.
It appears to be Number 13 for identification, please.
20
[The document is marked as 21 Schapker Deposition Exhibit 22 Number 13 for identification.]
O
295 1
BY MR. GUILD:
2 Q
This was a document that was made available by 3
counsel for the NRC Staff in discovery, and it's not a 4
complete copy but it appears to be written by Mr. McGregor, 5
the resident at the site.
It's Document 108 of the Staff 6
documents.
7 And, do you recognize the handwriting as that of 8
Mr. McGregor?
9 A
No, I don't.
10 Q
All right.
It is addressed to Mr. Warnicx.
Do you 11 know Mr. Warnick?
12 A
Yes, I do.
O 13 Q
Who is Mr. Warnick?
b 14 A
He's the Branch Chief for DRP.
15 Q
All right.
And does Mr. McGregor work for him?
16 A
Yes, he does.
17 Q
All right.
18 A
He is second level supervisor.
19 Q
Okay.
It's about Mr. Puckett, and it's to 20 Mr. Warnick, and it has got a date of August 28,
'84.
And it 21 states in part:
I would suggest that OI get involved in this 22
-- I'm sorry, it has been stricken.
I would suggest that OI O
I 296 1
get involved with this allegation.
Mr. Puckett stated he had
)
2 some documents to substantiate his statements.
He lives 3
twenty miles southeast of Cincinnati, et cetera.
4 All right.
Do you know what the reference "OI" 5
means?
6 A
Office of Investigations, I would assume.
Office of 7
Investigation is the NRC investigative team that investigates 8
wrongdoing.
9 Q
Do they investigate potential civilian and criminal 10 wrongdoing by licensees?
11 A
Yes.
12 Q
Mr. McGregor's note to Mr. Warnick appears to 13 represent a request that the Office of Investigations get 14 involved with respect to Mr. Puckett's allegations.
15 Do you know if any action has been taken on that 16 request?
17 A
I personally do not know.
l l
18 Q
Have you been iaformed of any action.by OI on 19 Mr. Puckett's issues.
20 A
No, I haven't.
21 Q
Have you discussed the matter with anyone in the 22 NRC?
O
297 1
A This is the first I have heard of it.
2 MR. GUILD:
That is all I have got.
That was my 3
only copy, so if you could make a copy.
4 MR. BERRY:
If we could take three minutes so I can 5
talk to Mr. Schapker.
6
[Short recess taken.]
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 I
O l
4
. =.
298 1
EXAMINATION
("'/
s (s-2 BY MR. BERRY:
3 Q
Mr. Schapker, you were asked a question by Mr. Guild 4
regarding Puckett Deposition Exhibit 30, which is a copy of 4
5 Inspection Report 8210 issued in connection with the Zimmer 6
Power Plant?
7 A
Yes.
8 Q
Do you recall, you were asked a question regarding 9
Notice of Violation 1-A and 1-B, and the report reflects the 10 security violation 3 attached --
11 A
Severity level?
12 Q
Level 3 violation attached to that violation?
13 A
Yes.
14 Q
Mr. Schapker, did you recommend Security Level 3 15 violation 16 A
No, I didn't.
17 Q
Does the inspector that performs the inspection, 18 does he make that recommendation?
19 A
He can make that recommendation.
However, it is 20 normally decided by management.
NRC management.
i 21 Q
Did you have any input into the determination as to 22 which security level violation should be attached to Violation l
' O
299 1
1-A and B in this report 8210?
2 A
No, I did not.
That was not my --
3 Q
All right.
Do you know how the decision as to which 4
security level violation is made or determined?
5 A
Severity level violation is determined by NRC 6
7 Q
Do you know if that enforcement policy is published 8
in the 10 CFR, under Code of Federal Regulations?
9 A
Yes, it is.
10 Q
Mr. Schapker, you were also asked some questions by 11 both Mr. Miller and Mr. Guild regarding a meeting that you had 12 with Mr. Puckett on March 12, 1984 at his home.
Do you recall 13 those questions?
14 A
Yes.
15 MR. MILLER:
1985.
16 WITNESS:
1985.
17 BY MR. BERRY:
[ Continuing) 18 Q
You were asked by Mr. Guild whether Mr. Puckett --
19 whether you asked Mr. Puckett if he agreed with your 20 formulation of his allegations.
Do you recall that?
21 A
Yes, I believe so.
22 Q
Did you ask Mr. Puckett if he agreed with your OV
300 1
formulation of his allegations?
2 A
Yes.
I gave him the opportunity to -- we went 3
through each allegation and commented on each one of the 4
allegations as I prepared them.
5 Q
Did you afford Mr. Puckett the opportunity to 6
explain or disagree or --
7 A
Yes, I did.
8 Q
-- or clarify or comment on your formulation of 9
these allegations?
10 A
Yes, I did.
11 Q
Did he indicate to you any disagreement with your 12 formulation of his allegation?
/
}
13 A
No, he did not.
14 MR. BERRY:
Thank you.
15 MR. MILLER:
I just have a very few questions.
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 O
301 1
FURTHER EXAMINATION O
2 BY MR. MILLER:
3 Q
I just have a very few questions, Mr. Sr 'nker.
4 First of all, Mr. Berry just asked you about your..volvement 5
in assessing the severity level for the Zimmer notice of 6
violation in Inspection Report 8210.
Did you have any input 7
into the assessment of Severity Level 5 with respect to the 8
items of noncompliance that you identified in your inspection 9
report 8509 at Braidwood?
10 A
Yes, I believe I recommended a Level 5.
11 Q
And on what basis -- Severity Level 5 in the NRC 12 enforcement policy is characterized I believe as one have
)
13 minor significance, or words to that effect?
14 A
Yes.
15 Q
Does that represent your overall evaluation of the 16 discrepancies involving qualification records that form the 17 basis for that item of noncompliance?
18 A
Yes, it is.
19 Q
Did you discuss the severity level for Inspection 20 Report 8509 with any other employee of the Nuclear Regulatory 21 Commission?
l 22 A
My supervisor and his supervisor both reviewed the
302 1
inspection report, and --
()
2 Q
That would be Mr. Danielson and Mr. Harrison?
3 A
Yes.
4 Q
Did any of them -- did either of them, in the course 5
of their review, discuss the severity level that you had 6
recommended with respect to the item of noncompliance?
7 A
No.
8 Q
Do you recall any discussion with any other NRC 9
employee regarding the severity level that was assigned with 10 respect to the Zimmer item of noncompliance of 8210, numbers 11 1-A and 1-B?
12 A
No.
(
13 Q
Do you know the management level of which the 14 severity level at Zimmer item of noncompliance was determined?
15 A
I believe it is indicated in the report.
Page 5, 16 the Appendix.
On Report 8210, Zimmer repcrt.
It is signed by 17 James G.
Keppler, the Region Administrator.
I i
18 Q
So, you believe it was Mr. Keppler who assigned
(
19 severity level in the Zimmer situation, correct?
20 A
I believe so, yes.
l 21 Q
Do you know why Mr. Keppler was involved in 22 evaluating severity level for the Zimmer inspection report O
303 1
while it never got involved with Mr. Harrison with respect to s
}
2 the Braidwood report?
m-3 A
I believe it was because of the significance of the 4
previous findings at Zimmer, which resulted in a civil 5
penalty, as described in the letter, at the beginning of the 6
inspection report.
7 MR. BERRY:
Page 2.
8 WITNESS:
Page 2, at the top of the first paragraph.
9 BY MR. MILLER:
[ Continuing]
10 Q
I hope I took my notes accurately, but Mr. Guild 11 asked you a specific question:
Do you know whether there are 12 any changes to the Comstock welder qualification records which
(
}
13 could impact on the qualifications for welders.
That is not 14 an exact quote, and I apologize.
It is my own handwriting, 15 but that is certainly the substance of the question.
16 Your answer to the question was:
No.
17 A
That is true.
18 Q
What I wanted to know is -- my question now is:
By 19 your, 'no' answer, did you signify that you had no knowledge 20 as to whether there were any changes, or did you mean to 21 signify that there were no changes which would impact on the 22 qualification of the welder?
(
304 1
A There were no changes that I observed that would 2
impact on the qualification of the welder.
3 Q
Now, finally, Schapker Deposition Exhibit 11 is the 4
cover sheet and one page from Comstock procedure 4.1.3 at 5
Braidwood.
6
.And on the second page, there is paragraph 3.2.3 7
which starts with the words, 'to be considered for 8
certification,' and so on.
Do you see that?
1 9
A Yes.
10 Q
Mr. Schapker, do you understand that the educational 11 and experience requirements that are specified in the 12 subparagraphs that followed, are the sole basis on which a
(
}
13 Level III inspector is certified by Comstock?
14 A
No.
15 Q
Are there other qualifications in addition to those i
16 educational and experience requirements which must be 17 satisfied?
18 A
We don't have the complete procedure here.
19 MR. MILLER:
I would like the reporter to rark this 20 document as Exhibit 14 for identification.
21 22 O
305 1
[ Document is marked Schapker 2
Deposition Exhibit 14, for identifi-3 cation.]
4 It appears to be the entire procedure 4.1.3, with an 5
implementation date of October 3, 1983.
I observe that the 6
cover sheet and the fifth sheet of the exhibit bear the same 7
bate stamp numbers as appear on Mr. Guild's -- well, the 8
exhibit that Mr. Guild introduced as Schapker Deposition 9
Exhibit No. 11.
10 BY MR. MILLER:
[ Continuing]
11 Q
Now, then, Mr. Schapker, I simply want to show that 12 to you and really, my only question to you, sir, is whether or 13 not you have seen that procedure before in its entirety?
14 A
No.
15 MR. MILLER:
All right.
I have no further 16 questions.
17 MR. GUILD:
That is all I have.
18 MR. MILLER:
Mr. Schapker, thank you very much.
You 19 have been patient with all of us.
20 WITNESS:
Thank you.
21
[Whereupon, the taking of the deposition concluded 22 at 5:20 p.m.,
this same day.]
O 9
306 1
CERTIFICATE OF DEPONENT 2
3 I, JEROME F. SCHAPKER, do hereby certify that I have read 4
the foregoing transcript of my deposition testimony and, with 5
the exception of additions and corrections, if any, hereto, 6
find it to be a true and accurate transcription thereof.
7 f
8 4
__,/,Q v,
9 JEROME F.
SCHAPKER 10 11 6 1/p c 12 DATE 13 14 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC f
15 Sworn and subscribed to before me, this the 8
16 day of hew 19 17 i
18 i
19 AllbA 14cY 20 NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR 21 My commission expires:
RComminiseEspimple.4q i
22 l
O
.O r
307 1
CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC
(
2 3
I, GARRETT J. WALSH, the officer before whom the 4
foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby certify that the 5
witness whose testimony appears in the foregoing deposition 6
was duly sworn by me; that the testimony of said witness was 7
taken by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or 8
under my direction; that said deposition is a true record of 9
the testimony given by the witness; that I am neither counsel 10 for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the 11 action in which this deposition was taken; and further, that I 12 am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel 13 employed by the parties hereto, nor financially or otherwise 14 interested in the outcome of the action.
15 16
/
(/
17 GARRETT J. WALSH 18 Notary Public in and for the 19 Commonwealth of Virginia 20 21 My Commission expires January 9, 1989.
22 l
L. lf OMSTOCK & COMPANY,INC.
QA SECT kffh 49 O Y
I 1.
js PROCEDURE TRACKING SHEET PROCEDURE NO. MI3 REVISION E
( B-z.-S 5)
INTERIM:
CECO INTERIM APPROVAL 9 f9 3
- Effective.
FINAL:
S & L/ CECO FINAL APPROVAL - i n. I 2 -91,%
- Effective
! l I
l
- IMPLEMENTATION DATE
- I h @,%
i l,,
SUPERCEDED BY REVISION _
C, APPROVED 8 14 - @-I lPine.1) h, g.g4}
- Effective
- Effective Date - The date Q.C. received approval.
- Implementation Date - The effective date plus fifteen working days.
FOR iWFORMATiON 3NLY
~
130000010.4 l
QAS I
7 y[.K.COMSTOCK & COMPANY, INC.
BRAIDWOOD 4.1.3 l
OA SECT 3'. 0 PROCED'URE 3.2.2.4 Four year college degree plus six (6) months experience in related test, examination or inspection activities.
3.2.3 LEVEL III To be considered for certification, a candidate must satisfy one of the following requirements:
3.2.3.1 Six years experience in related test, examination, or inspection activities as a certified Level II, or 3.2.3.2 High School graduation plus ten years of related exper-ience in related test, examination or inspection activi-ties, or l
3.2.3.3 High School graduation plus eight years experience in related test, examination or inspection activities including at least two years as a certified Level II and at least two (2) years nuclear experience or sufficient training to have a knowledge of relevant quality assurance aspects of a nuclear facility, or l
3.2.3.4 Associate Degree plus seven years of experience in related test, examination, or inspection activities I
including two (2) years nuclear experience or sufficient training to have a knowledge of relevant quality issurance i
i aspects of a nuclear facility, or l
l l
3.2.3.5 Four year college degree plus five years of experience in related test, examination, or inspection activities including two (2) years nuclear experience or dufficient training to have a knowledge of relevant quality assurance aspects of a nuclear facility.
l l
l FOR INFORMATION ONi_Y i
I 00000108 l
l PAEPAnto APPRovtD RE ve5ED TIT B.E o RIG. DATE REVISION PAGE l
DP JFD X2
AA N 3
A --- -- -
p* *8 4, UNITED ST ATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON h
d 7ssnoos t noAo ah f
atta cu.vu. itunois som u.....
September 6, 1984 MEMORANDUM FOR:
C. E. Norelius Director, Division of Reactor Projects R. L. Spessard, Director, Division of Reactor Safety FROM:
C. H. Weil, Investigation and Compliance Specialist
SUBJECT:
Al. LEGATIONS RE: WELDING BY L. K. COMSTOCK COMPANY AT BRAIDWOOD (50-456; 50-457) (ATS NO. RIII-84-A-0123)
On August' 28, 1984 a former employee of the L. K. Comstock Company at the Braidwood Nuclear Station contacted L. G. McGregor, SRI-Braidwood with information regarding the L. K. Comstock Company (Enclosure 1). On August 31, 1984, the fomer employee wicphoned Region III and spoke with C. C. Williams, Chief Plant Systems Section-DRS. TM. caller provided the following infomation:
,F L. K. Comstock Company welders have been welding SA-446 material to A-36
's #*
material; however, a weld procedure was not available. These welds were contrary to AWS D.1-1975 according to the alleger. A nonconfomance report (NCR) was eventually written (NCR No. 3099). Documents relating (q
to the problem are August 10 and 11, 1984 memoranda from the alleger to
'~ '/
I. DeWald and a August 22, 1984 sumary memo written by DeWald. The alleger questioned the qualification of the weld when joining SA-446 material to A-36 material, as SA-446 is not addressed in the AWS code.
2 1 The alleger contended the L. K. Comstock Procedure No. 4.1.14 was 9, #** 'O qualified to the SG weld position, but the procedure was used to weld all positions.
ec-or
,.j a d h The alleger stated that language inconsistencies exist within the 8
,4 procedure (e.g. instructions to use magnetic particle testing on stainlesssteel).
ce-"
,,p 3,) c.
The procedure was used to make bimetalic welds, but the procedure is not a bimetalic procedure.
- [> g b rocedure to qualify its welders for bimetalic welds.
l Bimetalic welds have been made, but L. K. Comstock does not have a p
Therefore, welders are not qualified to make bimetalic welds.
I#"A'd inconsistencies (e.g. decimal fraction conversion tables shown In general the L. K. Comstock weld procedures are filled with errors and t
0.750 = 32/32.
'** "' 5.
't.
L. K. Comstock Company does not have any weld filler material controls, as the procedure is only now being written.
EUAE TE0M M80LOSM M e
C. E. Norelius/R. L. Spessard September 6, 1984 "e )l(
Filler material withdrawal forms have inconsistent heat numbers. The alleger could not find any paperwork to bacK-up heat numbers in the possession of either L. K. Comstock or Phillips-Getschow.
Phillips-Getschow provides the filler materials to L. K. Comstock.
The alleger has found that L. K. Comstock Company does not have any 4e control of construction materials in tems of heat numbers or other traceability.
h )
Welds were made without the required preheat. A procedure was developed that did not require weld preheat, but quality control did not participate by observing the making of the weld coupon qualifying the procedure.
P %
The alleger has reviewed welder qualification records and has 7-8 pages 8,,.g of welders' names that have inconsistencies in their welder qualification records which make their qualifications indeterminate.
h,9f Many of L. K. Comstock field welders are qualified to L. K. Comstock Procedure 4.7,1.
However, the procedure is not traceable to L. K. Comstock J, s r,,.
3 weld procedure qualification records. The welders were originally tested
.) #
on Schedule 80 pipe, but the current procedure refers to test on plate.
JDI The alleger reviewed welder qualification records and found:
(gc,.:cun /hu ?h Welders took their qualification tests on I" plate, but no limiting
-off") a.
parameters were listed on their qualification records.
p."
Welders were tested en i" thick material, but records showed the welder with an unlimited thickness range.
e sete as)
-/
Welders were tested on 6" Schedule 80 Pipe, but welder records showed an unlimited thickness range. AWS D1 shows a lower range of O.187" thick, but actual welding is down to 0.105".
} " ' jf.'
Welders with rejected positions only took one test on retesting.
The alleger contended that the code required two retests, not one.
2" k 4 f.
Records showed that an unidentified welder had a rejected test on a
's Peu 1" thick plate and that the welder performed two additional tests on 0 ; ###
the same day. The alleger thought it was impossible and the record i
was wrong.
[ The alleger believes there are many instances of record falsification (e.g.):
0"<',3 /
hse 7$
An unidentified welder took three test coupons and got the results
'#" b all in one day. The alleger stated that this was administratively impossible; EXEMPT MGM MSCLOSERE
C. E. Norelius/R L. Spessard September 6, 1984
'O
'a em M
)'.
Face bend and root bends were done on 1" thick plate material which the alleger centended was physically impossible; Overheard that an inspector inspected 1,000 welds in one day. )The
+' 5*" d, /
alleger provided the name of a possible witness.(EIr444 0/it
)
2" 0J2$ The alleger reviewed the " Master Hamer Log" and found a welder was assigned welder stamp numbers 23 and 123, but two other welders were also assigned the same stamp numbers. The welders were W. Godsey, R. J. Murphy and K. VanDuyne. The alleger found other inconsistencies in the Master Hamer Log, but was prevented from making a formal finding because he was not certified in that area.
5 *J. Bob Wickes, a Level 2 Ouality Control Inspector, was responsible for the f
')q welder test booth. Wickes was also assigned to inspections in the fabrication shop and routine field inspections; consequently, no inspectors watched welder testing in the qualification booth. The alleger considered this to be inadequate control of the welder testing program and inadequate or no quality control involvement in the weld qualification test implementation.
M. Bob Marino, the L. K. Comstock Company's Corporate Quality Assurance Manager, intimidated quality control inspectors during discussions on O
compensation by telling the inspectors that he had twenty people ready to take the places of the inspectors.
Subsequent to C. C. Williams' conversation with the alleger, I telephoned the alleger to establish a mutually agreeable time for a personal interview. The alleger indicated that he would be willing to come to the Region III Offices during the week of September 10, 1984.
I informed the alleger that this was acceptable and that I would be in contact with him as to the specific arrangements for the interview. During this conversation the alleger indicated that he felt his had been improperly terminated from his employment with the L. K. Comstock Company because he had identified too many quality
"" concerns.
I informed the alleger that he had thirty days to provide a written
$s complaint to the Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division and I furnished the alleger with the address and telephone number of the Wage and Hour Division Area Office in Cincinnati, Ohio, as it was the office closest to his residence.
I also informed the alleger that if he decided to contact the Wage and Hour Division that they were obligated to inform the L. K. Comstock Company of the nature of his complaint and his identify; therefore confidentiality could not be assured. The alleger indicated that he was not concerned with the confidentiality of his identity and that he would be in contact with the Wage and Hour Administration. On September 4, 1984, Glenn A. Fierst, Area Director, Wage and Hour Division, Cincinnati,- Ohio, was telephoned and informed of the alleged discriminatory employment termination.
h'L
- ?.T ? f ff W._ T (E}J. W d.d.t.L,Vij N o.dl) kJJIt
.a
w C. E. Norelius/R. L. Spessard September 6, 1984 On August 31,.1984, R. L. Spessard, Director, Division of Reactor Safety (DRS) was apprised of the allegations. Spessard advised that the issue should be assigned to the Division of Reactor Projects (DRP) for resolution with the DRS providing technical support to DRP. On September 4, 1984, the matter was coordinated with E. T. Pawlik, Director. Office of Investigations, RIII.
It was decided that this matter would be recoordinated with 01:RIII after RIII has interviewed the alleger and obtained more specific information about the record falsification issues. Accordingly, this matter is assigned to DRP for resolution.
On September 5, 1984, the alleger was recontacted and arrangements were made to have the alleger visit the RIII Office for an interview. Arrangements were also made.to have a court reporter to be present for the interview.
It is requested that a DRP representative familiar with the Braidwood Facility and a DRS welding inspector be available for the interview. The interview is scheduled for 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, September 11, 1984 in Conference Room C.
Also, it should be noted that L. G. McGregor's request for a CAT inspection at Braidwood (second last paragraph of Enclosure 1) is not within the purview of the Region III Investigation and Compliance Specialist. On September 4, 1984, McGregor was telephoned and it was suggested that he contact the Director, DRP on the matter.
Charles H. Weil 6-Investigation and Compliance Specialist
Enclosures:
1.
8/28/84 memo, McGregor to Weil 2.
ATS Form cc w/ enclosures:
A. B. Davis c
D. H. Danielson W. L. Forney W. S. Little E. T. Pawlik R. F. Warnick SRI-Braidwood o
EXMPI EGliISCLOSW
Sc/4fKen yo$ %
hntainsidentityo' confidential source. D0 liOT DISCLOSE
'Wesek$
2f-8 c0.u r e d d w g T d 7f 0.E - yd A sh sW d
b.
FXr. 6%cbWML, kw aenw. dew >d 4 Ann 4 h oAd.~nb 4%.84 a
yo in Z. J d$ W-c2 Lie.
W PAL A
O w.O P ac Ae /f.
3'6 72.
S'p r,n 2 Grouz Road
- ~
Be-/ h e /, O h. o 9'S M o N#fk>to #
S/3
~7 3 9'- 61/O.
f& bo L
h.2 0 d
p s
pu u
? D tA o
fo c P R. 3 0. 7
- LE ' d Ng & }
h b{4 74
%$- MWtk VRe d b o
(L4/,wOng/-gas x.
M do e W
o A n %a.
u 4/
qM
.x~+ s w Anaso
<4 L u w.a y a,s4) 6 mn A
AsdaK.
foa"Ps!e.91.Itxorcontro....,
- E..
- % 8
- 1. lf A/Nd
- [d QA SECT n /.70M3TOCK & COMPANY,INC.
g r
r.
s PROCEDURE TRACKING SHEET PROCEDURE NO.
M. I '3 REVISION E
(S-z.-S3)
INTERIM:
CECO INTERIM APPROVAL 12-A3
- Effective.
FINAL:
S & L/ CECO FINAL APPROVAL -
in A 6 q
- Effective
- IMPLEMENTATION DATE t h-3-RA y
SUPERCEDED BY REVISION.
C, APPROVED 8 \\ 4 8f-l Final)
( g. gg.gg}
- Effective
- Effective Date - The date Q.C. received approval.
- Implementation Date - The effective date plus fifteen working days.
(
)
\\
)
ii2 0
13 0000104
'.' l..R COMSTOCK & COMPANY,INC.
BRAIDWOOD 4.1.3 QA SECT
+,
s 4.1.3
,/
QUALIFICATION CLASSIFICATION AND TRAINING OF QA/QC PERS0hTEL PAGE REVISION 1
B - 8/02/83 2
B - 8/02/83 3
B - 8/02/83 4
B - 8/02/83 5
B - 8/02/83 6
B - 8/02/83
' pan IRF0FMM!BN OE g lll 8
g O
Form #56 B - 8/02/83 Form #58 B - 8/02/83 Form #101 B - 8/02/83 7
40 APPROVALS:
DATE [ O h 3 L. K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY, INC. A
/
m e_
QU ]TY C01TWL MpNAGER
. 1
/.
DATE 1 83 L. K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY, INC.
PROJECT ' MANAGER' b
'(
L. K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY, INC.
b*
DATE F // [3
/
PROJ'ECT ENGINEER O
REV. B (8/02/83) 00000105 aas
,'t.. K.COMSTOCK & COMPANY. INC.
BRAIDWOOD 4.1.3 QA SECT QUALIFICATION CLASSIFICATION AND TRAINING
.n/
N OF QC PERSONNEL
1.0 REFERENCES
1.1 L.K. Comstock QA/QC Manual 1.2 American National Standards Institute N 45.2.6, 1978 edit ion.
1.3 10CFR50 Appendix B 2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 2.1 To assure that QC personnel performing inspections and creating permanent documentation are poperly qualified to perform their assigned functions.
2.2 To establish a method of certification of all QC Personnel as to their level of capability.
2.3 To indoctrinate QC Personnel in the Quality Assurance Program, procedures, codes and standards, functions and methods of operations, duties and responsibilities.
2.4 To establish and maintain a file of QC Personnel record through out the construction phase. } gy gg g7 g, j Q (,!, 2 [Q 3 !" f ,63 A E g gj;'s l I E? 3.0 PROCEDURE i p, g y 3.1 Qualification Level of Personnel 3.1.1 A Level I shall be capable of performing the inspections, exam-inations, and tests that are required to be performed in accordance with documented procedures and/or industry practices. The individual shall be familiar with the tools and equipment to be employed and shall have demonstrated proficiency in their use. The individual shall also be capable of determining that the calibration status of inspection and measuring equipment is current, that the measuring and test equipment is in proper condition for use, and that the inspection, examination, and test procedures are approved. l 3.1.2 A Level II shall have all of the capabilities of a Level I for the inspection, examination or test category or class in quest ion. Additionally, a Level II shall have demonstrated capabilities in planning inspections, ' examinations, and te +::; in setting up tests including preparation and set-up of related equipman t, as appropriate; in supervising or maintaining sur-veillance over the inspections, examinations, and tests; in G supervising and certifying lower level personnel; in, reporting inspection, examination, and testing results; and in evaluating the validity and acceptability of inspection, examination,gg4,06 test results. PAGE REVgSION 58 A E PA R E D APPR oV E D REve5EO TITLE ORIG. DATE DP IFD DP PROCEDURE 4-19-79 8/02/83 1 of 8
L. K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY, INC. BRAIDWOOD 4.1.3 OAsEcT ').O Pit 0CEDURE V 3.1.3 A Level III shall have all of the capabilities of a level II for the inspection, examination or test category or class in question. In addition, the individual shall also be capable of evaluating the adequacy of specific programs used to train and test inspection, examinations, and test personnel whose qualifications are covered by this procedure. 3.1.4 The minimum levels of capabilities for project functions are shown in Table 1. 3.2 Initial determination of capability shall be based on previous education and experience. The following basic requirements shall be used for establishing qualification levels and quality assurance assignments. Time spent as a craftsman installing same/similar material / equipment which was subj ect to programmatic Quality Control inspections shall count as related inspection experience. Time spent as an inspector using detailed inspection criteria, yet not exactly the same activity to be certified to perform, shall count as related experience. For personnel not meeting the education and experience requirements, the minimum 0.J.T. (on the job training) must be exceeded to the extent that is acceptable to the Level III.and withholding signatures on Form #56, until CECO QA's written formal acceptance is received. y 3.2.1 LEVEL I To be considered for certification, a candidate must satisfy one of the following requirements. 3.2.1.1 Two (2) years experience spent in related test, examination, or inspection activities, or a-3.2.1.2 High School graduation plus six months in related test, examination or inspection activities, or 3.2.1.3 Associate degree plust three (3) months experience in related test, examination or inspection activities. i 3.2.2 LEVEL II l l To be considered for certification, a candidate must satisfy one of the following requirements. 3.2.2.1 One (1) year experience in related test, examination, or inspection activities as a certified Level I, or i 3.2,2.2 High School graduation plus three years of related experience in related test, examination or inspection activities or I 3.2.2.3 Associate degree in a related discipline, plus one (1) 9 year related experience in test, examination or inspec-tion activities or
- M INRRMATiM DNiV PREPARED APPRov E O R E vt 'E D"
" * * " T i tLE' ' ' * * * ' OWC'. 6AYE " Af7fSIDN PAGE B 2 of 8 i DP IFD DP PROCEDURE 4-19-79
BRAIDWOOD 4.1.3 C. K COMSTOCK & COMPANY. INC. QA SECT 3'. 0 PROCEDURE -Q 3.2.2.4 Four year college degree plus six (6) months experience in related test, examination or inspection activities. 3.2.3 LEVEI. III To be considered for certification, a candidate must satisfy one of the following requirements: 3.2.3.1 Six years experience in related test, examination, or inspection activities as.a certified Level II, or 3.2.3.2 High School graduation plus ten years of related exper-ience in related test, examination or inspection activi-ties, or 3.2.3.3 High School graduation plus eight years experience in related test, examination or inspection activities including at least two years as a certified '.evel Il and at least two (2) years nuclear experience or sufficient training to have a knowledge of relevant qurlity assurance aspects of a nuclear f acility, or 3.2.3.4 Associate Degree plus seven years of exper:ence in relat ed t est, examination, or inspection activities including two (2) years nuclear experience or sufficient 9 training to have a knowledge of relevant quality issurance aspects of a nuclear facility, or
- 3. 2.3. 5 Four year college degree plus five years of experience in related test, examination, or inspection activities including two (2) years nuclear experience or sufficient training to have a knowledge of relevant quality assurance aspects of a nuclear facility.
FOR 1NFORMATIDW ONLY O 00000108 PR E PA R E D APPROVED REVISED TITLE ORIG.oATE REVISION PAGE j 3 3 of 8 l DP IFD DP . onnecniing 4/19/79
=- 1.. K. COMSTOCK C: COMPANY, INC. BRAIDWOOD 4.l.3 QA SECT ~. 3.0 PROCEDURE 3.3 FAMILIARIZATION PERIOD The extent of familiarization will be determined by the nature and scope of the work to be performed by the trainees. 3.3.1 The trainee will be indoctrinated for a period based on prior experience at the direction of the QC Manager. 3.3.2 The trainee will be indoctrinated as to the QC sections of this manual stressing the importance of records generation and maintenance. 3.3.3 The trainee will be given the QC Manual to read and to become familiar with all applicable procedures and have a working knowledge of the procedure for the installation and inspection of the work which he is going to inspect. The trainee wil.1 fill out Form #58, Familiarization Log for initial read / study of each procedure prior to inspections to that procedure and upon completion signify by signature and date. A Level II shall signify completion by the trainee by signature and date, also. 3.4 EYE TEST The Jeager J-1 Chart Test, the Ishihara Color Blind Test or approved equivalent test will be given to all Inspectors. These tests will be administered on an annual basis. 3.5 FIELD TRAINING 3.5.1 The QC Manager or a designated Level II or III will instruct I the trainee as to: l 1. Codes and standards. 2. The latest inspection methods, requirements and responsibil-l ities for his assigned inspection activity. l 3. Use of tools and equipment to accomplish the assigned I inspection activity. 4. Initiation and processing of the inspection reports on material, equipment required to complete the assigned inspection activity. S. Instructions on the proper course of corrective action to be taken in the event of a nonconformance or indeterminate I situation. 6. All training of personnel shall be recorded on Form #101, to be filed in the personnel file. l C FOR !NFORMATION ONLY 00000109 PREPARED APPROVED REVISED TITLE o RIC. D ATE REVISION PAGE B 4 of 8 W RFD FO pancfDURE 40M h
BRAI WOOD 4.1.3 ' L. K.lCOMSTOCK & COMPANY, INC. QA SECT 3' ..O PROCEDURE O' 3.6 TRAINING b 3.6.1 Training shall consist of at least: 1. One (1) hour of formal lecture for each area of certification per outline approved by a Level III Inspector. 2. At least eight (8) hours of lecture / demonstration for each area of certification per outline approved by a Level III Inspector. This shall include a question and answer period. 3. Proper data taking which shall involve the trainee spending at least 40 hours performing and documenting mock inspections for each area of certification, using the current checklist, (trainee to achieve 100% proper, accept /rej ect skills).. The checklist shall then be reviewed by a Level II or III Inspector to evaluate the Inspectors capability and retained in qual-ification file. 3.7 When the QC Manager or the designated trainer is satisfied as to the competence of the trainee as an Inspector, he will arrange for the trainee to complete a general test for each inspection activity and j a specific test using the checklist and inspection tools for all major types of different items to oe inspected. 4 3.7.1 The general Inspection Proficiency Test shall be a closed book 40 Question written exam derived from applicable procedures, and a specific / practical exam, using a checklist and inspection tools. All tests shall be approved by the Level III and ad-ministered by a Level II or above. .r-3.7.2 The trainee must achieve a score of 80 percent or above to ] achieve certification. 3.7.3 A grade of less than 80 percent will require additional training of the trainee and the training documented on Form #101. Additional training shall also include dis-cussion of incorrect results. 3.7.4 In addition a written test to demonstrate basic knowledge of QA programs and inspections will be given to each indi-vidual. This test shall be closed book. Upon satisfactory completion of test by trainee and af ter evidence of sufficient training has been documented, the QC Manager may initiate a Certificate of Qualification, Form #56 for Level I, II and III certification, provided the parameters of paragraph 3.8.1 are also completed. ?0R INFORMATiDN ONLY 00000110 PREPARED APP ROVE D REVISED TITLE ORIG. D ATE REVISION PAGE 5 of 8 DP IFD DP PROCEDURE 4-19-79 fg3
L. K. COMSTOCK G COMPANY. INC. BRAIDWOOD 4.1.3 QA SECT 3.0 - PROGDURE ) 3.8 Certification records shall include documented verification of education background and/or past experience. v 3.8.1 Verification shall consist of either, diplomas, previous certification papers, letter from previous employer, telephone memo or official transcripts. 3.9 CERTIFICATION 3.9.1 A Certification of Qualification will be maintained in QC Records that certifies the levels of capability each person has achieved. Certificate of Qualification, Form #56, will be kept on file with QC personnel records. 3.9.2 For personnel to be certified Level III, they must demonstrate the capabilities of a Level II Inspector for each area of cert-ification. This shall be accomplished in one of the following wisys : 1. Achieving a minimum grade of 80% on the " CECO administered test to demonstrate Level II capability." 2. Achieving a minimum grade of 30% on the Comstock established exams for each of the disciplines. [O 3. Having satisfactorily performed as a Level II, on site, for V the required amount of time, per the applicable education and experience _ requirements (Para 3.1). 3.9.3 The designated candidate for certification to Level III shall be submitted to the LKCE Corporate Manager, QA/QC Services for e-issuance of the Certificate of Qualification, Form #56. Requirements and documentation shall be in accordance with this procedure. Any additional candidates for Level IIIcertification shall be submitted to the IKCE Corporate Manager QA/QC Services for concurrence. 3.10 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 3.10.1 An initial evaluation of inspectors will be performed by the QC Manager within 30 days concurrant with the date of Certificaton of Classification. 3.10.2 Quality Control inspection personnel certified Level I and II who do not perform inspection and testing functions within a specific discipline during a one (1) year period shall be trained this and recertified in accordance with the rejuirements,of, *i 5 'P(jgh
- y,) '
[1 @ fd '" g M iE 'f (j [.y & fi ! procedure. =0 g gI yt r., Nf ., M YE#b IU-3.11' RE-CERTIFICATION i 3.11.1 The designated Level III shall perform the annual re-certification of classification and document it on Form #56 for Level I, II l and III's. 00000111 PREPARED APPROVED REvtSED TITLE oRIC. O ATE REVISION PAGE DP IFD DP PROCEDURE 4-19-79 B 6 of 8 8/02/83
BRAI N00D 4.1.3 L..K. COMSTOCK O COMPANY. INC. QA SECT '.3.0 PROCEDURE 3.11.2 If at any time it is determined that capabilities of an individual are not in accordance with the qualification specified for the job, that person shall be removed from that activity until such time as the required capability is demonstrated. 3.11.3 Recertification of the designated Level III shall be performed by the LKCE Corporate Manager QA/QC Services on a regular basis not to exceed three (3) years from the date of certifica-tion. Recertification shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of this procedure. G 4.0 TEST EQUIPMENT 4.1 As required. 5.0 FORMS / RECORDS The records of all QC personnel shall be maintained on file and as a minimum will be as follows: 5.1 Employment application and resume. 5.2 Eye test results. 5.3 DELETED 5.4 Documentation / Familiarization / Review Log Form #58. 5.5 Certificate of Qualification, Form #56. 5.6. Personnel Instruction Log Form #101. 5.7 Education and experience verification. if 00000112 enceanco apenovco nevisto virts onic,onre ngvislON F8ge 4/19/79 B 7 f 8 DP IFD DP PROCEDURE 8/02/83 ---r-
,~ L:.K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY. INC. BRAIDWOOD 4.1.3 QA SECT TABLE I i MINIMUM LEVELS OF CAPABILITY FOR PROJECT FUNCTIONS Level Project Function L-7. L-II L-III Recording Inspection, examination, and testing data
- X X
X Implementing inspection, examination, and X X X testing procedures. Planning inspections, evaluations, and tests; setting up tests including preparation and set-up of related equipment X X Evaluating the validity and acceptability of inspection, examination, and testing results. X X Reporting inspection, examination, and O testing results X X l Supervising equivalent or lower level I I personnel. X X f Qualifying lower level personnel X X Evaluating the adequacy of specific programs l used to train and test inspection, ,X [ examination and testing personnel. Qualifying same level personnel X When a single inspection or test requires implementation by a team or group, personnel not meeting the requirements of this procedure may be used in data taking assignments provided they are supervised or overseen by a qualified individual participating in the inspection, examination, or test. hp tyEADynTinM PN.d I!V il hu UEi.Gmi tun d nQ 00000113 PREPA RE D APPROVE o REvtSED TI TLE ORIG. D ATE REVISION Page B PROCEDURE 4/19/ 79 8 Of 8 DP IFD DP _, m _ _
PRAIDWOOD 4.1.3 CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFICATION j ~ L. K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY, INC. QUALITY CONTROL DEPARTMENT We hereby certify that the Employee, has shown proficiency and has the basic qualification to perform the duties in the catagories listed below and assume the full responsibilities of the position with a certified level of The following documents have been evaluated and are available for further examination in the L K. Comstock QA/QC Personnel File on site.
- 1) Resume, 2) Eye Examination Report, 3) Site QA/QC Mgr. Evaluation Report
- 4) Applicable Proficiency Tests
- 5) Education, Training and Experience q.
Category Tested Date Certified Expiration Date Cable Pulling Terminations Welding Receiving Insp. Tool Calibration Records Tumover l Conduit install. Tray installation 1 ) Equip. Install. i CEA's Hanger / Supports Elec. Penetrations l Cer,tified by: Certified by: Site QC Nanager or Designee Corp. Mgr. QA/QC Services pplicable 00000114 t y, ' i; PREPARED APPRoVEo REVISED TITLE ORIG. D ATE REv FORM NBR. ROM AJT DP PROCEDURE 01/04/77 8/$2/83 56
. L' E.COMSTOCK & COMPANY,INC. . BRAIDwooD 4.1.3 GA SECT D ADING L ARI TION LOG EMPLOYEE # ~ Page 1 of 6 TRAIN'i.E LEVEL II OR III VERIFIED DOCUMENT / TITLE REV i ~ DATE SIGNATURE LEVEI DATE FOR SinNATURE S&L STANDARD L-2790 10CFR50 Appendix B
- 18 Criteria 3
I AWS D1.1-75 j ) L. K.. COMSTOCK ENG QA MANUAL PROGRAM MANUAL INDEX QA MANUAL SECTION 1.0.0* POLICT STATEMENT QA MANUAL SECTION 1.0.1* QA/QC PROGRAM QA MANUAL e - SECTION 2.0.1* APPLICABILTT (DEF) QA MANUAL SECTION 3.1.1* REV. TO QC PROGRAM QA MANUAL D E _,,,,,,,,, g j g }. g g ye' QA MANUAL. q. q N, g jf f (;f'-(I7;g y JECIION 3.1.3* g9 i REPORTING OF DEFECTS, , { y ,13 , v. AND NONCONTORMMICE QA MANUAL SECTION 3.1.4* gggSygC. QA MANUAL SECIION 3.2.1* O ORGANIZATION FOR QA PROGRAM g PREPARED AFFROVE) REVISLD TITLE ORIG. DATE REVISION FORM # ~ ROM AJT BEB PROCEDURE 1/15/77 '58 U0000115
.= _ Q ,. LJC COMSTOCK & COMPANY,INC. ggg7nwoop t. 1.3 OA SECT ~ + ADING L ZATION LOG EMP OYEE # Page 2 of 6 TRAINEE LEVEL II OR III VERIFIED DOCUMENT / TITLE REV 1 DATE SIGNATURE LEVEI DATE FOR SIGNATURE 4 QC MANUAL SECTION 4.1.2* POSITION DELINEATIO1 QC MANUAL SECTION 4.1.3* QUAL / CLASSIFICATION ~ QC MANUAL SECTION 4.2.1* DWG & SPEC. DOC. CTP QC MANUAL SECIION 4.2.3* FIELD PROBLEM RPTINC PROCEDURE QG MANdAL SECTION 4.3.0 GENERATING WORK INSTRUCTIONS QC MANUAL SECTION 4.3.1 SAFETY RELATED COND. TN ET AT.f _ ATION 1 QC EWE SECTION 4.3.3 WELDING PROC. FOR . cwm i-i mnn -e i QC MANUAL SECIION 4.3.4 i BATTERY RACK & BATTERY INSTALLATI0h QC MANUAL SECTION 4.3.5 CABLE PAN INSTALL. QC MANUAL
- ='s'-
FOR INFCRMATION ONLY QC MANUAL SECTION 4.3.7 INSTALLATION OF CLAS i lE EMBED. ELEC. ITEM i QC MANUAL SECIION '4.3. 8 CABLE INSTALLATION FREPARED APPROVE] REVISED TITLE ORIG. DATE REVISION FORM # 8 83 ROM A.7T BEB ' TROCEDURE 1/15/77 B 58 aun 00000116 ,____.m_-, __r_,,,___m-_
- y',-
L K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY,1NC. BRATWOOD 4.1.3 QA SECT i
- R ADING L AR TION LOG MPLOYEE #
Page 3 of 6 TRAINEE LEVEL II OR III VERIFIED DOCUMENI/ TITLE REV DATE SIGNATURE LEVEI DATE FOR SIGNATURE QC MANUAL SECTION 4.3.9 C g g RMINATION & QC MANUAL SECTION 4.3.10 STORAGE AND CONTROL Or iMTDTNC MATERTAL QC MANUAL SF.CIION 4.3.11 STUD WELDING PROC. QC MANUAL SECTION 4.3.12 $$$ENNHGR QC MANUAL SECIION 4.3.13 I EQUIPMENT INSTALLA. j QC MANUAL j SECTION 4.3.14 ENLN Sb$ S*I QC MANUAL SECTION 4.3;16 RWR's QC MANUAL SECTION 4.3.17 PENETRATION INSTL, TERM & MATNTENANCE QC MANUAL SECTION 4.3.18 POWDER ACTUATED FAST - ENERS INSTALLATION se. m m %l l Q li Ppj ii,,,'j;g{,5)g QC MANUAL, SECIION 3.!]
- [; p,
[l A,} p g! g{ j, g* # 6 :]*,, is '[it 1 g (g( l1g f i.'". / ': 'f */s.; 4.3.19, ROUSEKEEPING 'AEYh k & PROT. OF SAF. REL. CLASS 1E CABLE QC MAliUAL SECIION 4.3.21 HEAT TRACING SYSTEMS INSTALLATION QC MANUAL, SECT. 4.7, 1 MAN. SHLDTD METAL AR: O WELDING FOR STRC.STL STAIN.STL QUAL PROC FREPARED APPROVE) REVI5ED TITLE ORIG. DATE REVISION FORM # ROM AJT BEB PROCEDURE 1/15/77 B $8 00000117
.g' L K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY,INC. 3.Ainuoan 4.1.3 QA SECT PC3ITION.: DATE STARTED NAME
- REQ'D READING FAMILIARIZATION LOG EMPLOYEE #
Page 4 of 6 TRAINEE LEVEL II OR III VERIFIED DOCUMENT / TITLE REV DATE SICNATURE LEVEI DATE 7t)R SIGNATURE yw m vn SECTION 4.8.1 INSPECTION OF CLASS 1E SAF. REL. CONDUIT QC MANUAL SECTION 4.8.2 MIG WELDING INSPECT. QC MANUAL SECTION 4.8.3 WELDING INSPECTION 1 l QC MANUAL SECTION 4.8.5, INSP b '; !N b. I QC MANUAL l SECTION 4.8.6 INSPECIION OF CON-CRETE IIP. ANCHORS
- O QC MANUAL SECTION 4.8.7, INSP.
1 OF EMBEDDED ELECTRI-j ('At TTEug QC MANUAL SECTION 4.8.8 l e - g g ALLATION QC MANUAL SECTION 4.8.9 CABLE TERM. INSPECT. i i QC MA!WAL SECTION 4.8.11 STUD WELDING INSPECT QC MANUAL f SECTION 4.8.12 D 2 &O M <l!S7 INSPECTION OF CLASS e D.N /?[ Yhb N 'e1 - t* 1E SUPPORTS /HA'fGERS f "*d vn :c :.r i ; U ;.y L,3 3, QC MANUAr. SECTION 4.8.13, INSP OF CLASS 1E EQUIP. gc MArwA1. SECTION 4.8.15, DWRG & SPEC. DOC. CTRL 'O INSPECTION PROC. FREFARED APPROVE ) REVISED IITLE ORIG. DAIE REVISIO.N FORM (1 Utus/DJ ROM AJT BEB PROCEDURE 1/15/77 B $8 ~ 00000118
'f; L. K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY,lNC. ggArnwoop 4,1,3 GA SECT i POSITION: DATE STARTED NAME
- REQ'D READING FAMILIARIZATION LOG EMPLOTEE #
Page 5 of 6 TRAINEE LEVEL II OR III VERIFIED l DOCUMENT / TITLE REV DATE SIGNATURE LEVEI DATEl FOR SIGNATURE QC MANUAL l SECTION 4.8.16 INSPECTION OF RWR's l QC MANUAL SECTION 4.8.17 b hbfkbNk QC MANAUL, SECTION l 4.8.18, INSPECTION hES N k IkhkMf.kh. QC MANUAL SECTION 4.8.19 QC HOUSEKEEPING INSP, QC MANUAL SECTION 4.8.22 PAINTING RELEASE PROC 4 l QC MANUAL SECTION 4.9.1 j . CONTROL OF MEASURIUC & TEST EQUIPMENT QC MANUAL c - C b b b C!R FAB. l PROCEDURE l QC MANUAL bhbTIb8'OhTORQU1: l WRENCH PROCEDURE QC MANUAL i SECTION 4.10.1 l HANDLING QG PMUA4 SECTION 4.10.2 RECEIVING /STORA,GE i 'h '. k 1-4 QC MANUAL E '#ss e4%3 VJ l JgL p, g n (fj; ',, j SECTION 4.10.3, REQ. ( FOR INST. CECO STOREI i EUIP/ MATERIAL i i QC MANUAL l SECTION,4.11.l* NONCONFORMING ITEMS O PREPARED AFFROVE] REVISED TITLE ORIG. DATE REVISION FORM e ROM AJT BEB PROCEDURE 1/15/77 5 58 l 00000119 l l
'k_. ) L. K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY,1NC. BRAinucoD 4.1.3 QA SECT . POSITION: DATE STARTED NAME
- REQ'D READING FAMILIARIZATION LOG EMPLOYEE i Page 6 of 6 TRAINEE LEVEL II OR III VERIFIED
/ E m DATE SIGNATURE LEVEI DATE FOR SIGNATURE QC MANUAL SECIION 4.11.2* CORRECTIVE ACTION i QC MANUAL SECTION 4.11.3 STOP WORK QC MANUAL SECTION 4.13.1* QUALITY CTROL RECORD 5 QC MANUAL SECTION 4.14.1 PROJECI QUAL. AUDITS yv tw.ua SECIION 4.14.2 i EXTERNAL AUDITS i l 4 a-l 4 l l l l l h yh h f 0 h l. l h i l 1 1 i' FREPARED APP ROVE] REV151.D TITLE ORIG. DATE REVISION FORM :/ ROM AJT BEB PROCEDURE 1/15/77 B 58 00000120
L. K. 0 3.'.'.STO C K L CO.*.'. par
- Y, I B. C.
e .(', PERSONNEL INSTRUCTION LOG
- .~
INSTRUCilON HAS EEEN GIVEN TO THE FOLLOWING PERSONNEL l.h, "V gy Name Titie Date Tomi: See:ifica:icn Remien No. of hours ~~- NA>I/ DEPT E}?LOYEE NO. NA>E/ DEPT EF2LOYEE NO. l d ~ e e E f(*: L 0 Y ??$ 555 Ys.' w c suo s 6 3 w y ig j.i g y O LEVEL II REVIEW 00000121 FRIPARED APPR O\\'!D P.IVl!!D TITLE OR;; DATE REV.DATE 7097.* NO. renonne sm cdon B RAB RR, BEB.:=. 4983 8/02/83 101 -.}}