ML20202A885
| ML20202A885 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 07/03/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#386-951 OL, NUDOCS 8607100152 | |
| Download: ML20202A885 (148) | |
Text
. -
)
ORIGINAL . ,
1
.oo .
JJN11ED STATES
. .NU CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'- DOCKET NO:
, -IN THE MATTER'OF:, . ,,
BRAIDWOOD STATION '
50-456/457-OL UNITS 1 62 .
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY .
.- . ~.
(E'VIDENTIARY HEARING)
LOCkTION: JOLIET, ILLINOIS PAGES: 657Q-0722 j
1 -
l DATE: THURSDAY, JULY 3,-1986
. . o . ,
/ .* ,
^/ (e ' - .
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
s OfficialReporters 444 North Capitol Street .
. Washington, D.C. 20001 1 (202) 347 3700 g$71$$og{ g g6 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE l T
-- - _ ~ _ _ _ - - _ - - ..- _
6576 Y.3W$
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY C.OMMISSION
~
~3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ,
4 - -
x
- 5 :
In the Matter of: :
6 : Docket No. 50-456 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY : 50-457 7 :
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 :
8 and 2) :
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x ...
10 Page: 6576 - 6723 11
,.s College of St. Francis
( ) 12 500 North Wilcox
Joliet, Illinois 60431 13 .
Thursday, July 3, 1986 14 .
15 The hearing in the above-entitled matter convened 16 at 8:00 A. M.
17 BEFORE: * -
18 JUDGE HERBERT GROSSMAN, Chairman 19 Atomic Safety and Li~ censing Board ~
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 20 Washington, D. C.
- 21 JUDGE RICHARD F. COLE, Member, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
.( , ,;
22 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commkssion Washington, D. C.
23 JUDGE A. DIXON CALLIHAN, Member, 24 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (q_j U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 25 Washington,.D. C.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 ]
6577 Os .
O 1 APPEARANCES:
^
2 On. behalf of the Applicant: .
3 MICHAEL I. MILLER, ESQ. .
JOSEPH GALLO, ESO.
~4 Isham, Lincoln & Beale-
'Three First National Plaza 5 Chicago, Illinois 60602 6
. On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory
.7 Commission Staff: ,
8 ELAINE I.'CHAN, ESQ.
GREGORY ALAN BERRY, ESQ.
9 "U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -
7335'Old Georgetown Road 10 . Bethesda, Maryland 20014 11 On behalf.of the Intervenor:
, 12 ROBERT GUILD, ESQ.
13 - ,
14 15 16 . . ,
17 -
18 19 20 21 P
22 -
23 -
24 o 25 -
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
6578' 1 EXHIBIT INDEX MARKED RECEIVED 2 Staff Exhibit No. 9 6579 -
~
Staff Exhibit No. 10
- 6629 .
3 Staff Exhibit No. 6 6637 Staff Exhibits Nos. 8 and 9 .
6637 4 Applicant's Exhibit-No. 76 6681 6721 -
Applicant's Exhibit No. 77 6716 5
T'ESTIMONY1OF.WORLEY O. PUCKETT 6 (Continued)
~
7 BOARD SXAMIIATION -
BY' JUDGE COLE: 6617 8
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)- 5 9 BY MR. BERRY: 6622 ,
10 , BOARD EXAMINATION (Continued) ,
BY. JUDGE COLE: 6623 11 BOARD EXAMINATION h 12 BY JUDGE CALLIHAN: 6646 13 BOARD EXAMINATI'ON
~
BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: 6653 14 -
BOARD EXAM'INATION
- 15' - BY JUDGE CALLIHAN: 6655 16 RECROSS EXAMINATION
- BY MR. MILLER: 6663 - .
17 -
BOARD EXAMINATION 18 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: . 6706.
19 RECROSS EXA.MINATION '(Contiinued)
BY MR. MILLER: 6708
- 20 ,
, RECROSS EXAMINATION
- 21 BY MR.. GUILD: 6708 22 RECROSS EXAMINATION
~
BY MR. BERRY: 6714 23 . . , .
RECROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) 24 BY MR. . MILLER: . .
671.6 2.5 4
, Annntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva,' Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
6579 O
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Thehearingisreconvened) 2 This is the 33rd day of hearing.
3 Mr. Berry, you can continue with your cross -
- 4 examina' tion. -
5 MR. BERRY: Thank you, your Honor.
6 Mr. Chairman, I'd like to have marked f6r 7 identification Staff Exhibit 9, the September 6, 1984, 8' letter from Mr. Weil to Mr. Puckett. ,
9 (The document was thereupon marked Staff s .
, 10 Exhibit No. 9 for-identification as95f 11 July 3, 1986.) ?'
() -
12 BY MR. BERRY:
13 Q This is a copy of the letter from Mr. Weil making the
- 14 travel arrangements that you indicated you received.
~
15' I direct your attention to the last sentence in the 16 first paragraph of-Exhibit 9, where it states that --
17 Mr. Weil states that he's enclosed a memorandum-18 pertaining to the Staf f's unde'rstanding of your ,
19 concerns.
20 Do you see that, Mr. Puckett?
7 21 A . Yes, I do. .
. -22 Q In the next. paragraph of Exhibit 9, Mr. Weil.indicasqg % -
23' to yqu that it would be of immense value to meet with 24 you personal'ly to discuss your issues, and he arranged O 25 for you to come to the Chicago area for your interview.
, Sonntag Reporting Service, Utd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
6580
('T Ri 1 Do you see that?
2 A Yes, I do.
3 Q Now, on the day before, September the 5th, you had 4 written to the Departme.nt of Labor, had you not?.
5 A I had written to the Department of Labor, yes.
6 0 Int.ervenors' Exhibit 25, where you had indicated to the' 7 Department of Labor that you had been contacted by the >
8 NRC and'they'd asked you to c'ome to the Region for an 9 interview -- do you have that, Mr. Puckett, Intervenors' 10 ,
Exhibit 25?
11 A Yes, I do.
( )- 12 Q I direct your attention to Page 2, the second page of
.13 that. It would be'the third full paragraph, starting 14 withi "I've been contacted."
15 MR. GUILD: Counsel, it reads, "I have been 16 contacted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission"?
17 MR. BERRY: Yes, that's the paragraph.
18 BY. MR. BERRY:
19 Q Now, you state in that paragraph that it's your belief 20 that based on thi.s interview with the NRC, a major 21 investigation would be forthcoming, do you 'not?
. - 22 A That's the statement.
23 Q Yes.
24 And you also expressed a belief'that the NRC 7-V) 25 investigation will -- would vindicate you? -
, Annntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, II.linois 60134 (312) 232-0262 -
6581 O
%/ -
1 A I thou.ght that it would, yes. ,
\
2 Q And you remember yesterday when I had asked you whether 3 you described all of your concerns, particularly your 4 concern about the welder failures, the welder 5 qualification tests -- I asked you if you described.
6 those fully to Mr. Well, and you said -- you indicated I
~
7 that you didn't because you weren't asked?
8 Do you remember that?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Now, Mr. Puckett, is.it not true that the NRC really 11 couldn't vindicate you or vindicate your actions unless
(]) 12 they were aware of the concerns that prompted you to
~
13 take those actions? <
14 ,
I brought those concerns that'were fresh to mind. I 15 ,
didn't e'laborate on any particular concern; but they 16 asked me questions and I gave them answers. I didn't
- 17 elaborate from there on.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Berry.
19 Are you referring again to the interview that was 20 transcribed? ,
c 21 MR. BERRY: Yes. I asked the witness if he 22 agreed that the NRC couldn't vindi'cate the actions that 23, he had taken unless they were aware of the concerns.that 24 prompted him to take those actions.
O 25 . That's my. question. N+
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva,' Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
_ _ - .. _ _ _ . - . _ . . - - - _ - - - - _ - _ . - - _ . ~ - . - . - . _ . . - -
D 6582 O
1 A (Continuing. ) Well, I'm trying to think of the words 2' and how to put it'.
3 But in my association with the Nuclear Regulatory 4 Commission at the Zimmer project, if there was a problem 5 with something, they would usually investigate it,.and '
6 in most cases, them being the experts and knowing what 7 to look for, they would almost always find more than .
8 just the things that were very obvious.
9 I-thought this would be the case at Braidwood as 10 well: That they would, in fact, investigate these 11 things.
12 I gave them names and dates.
(])
13 I would have thought that they could have went to 14 ,
those particular names and dates and found at least the 15 same information that I did.
16 BY MR. BERRY: .
17 Q So in other.words, Mr. Puckett, i'f I understand your 18 testimony, although -- although you thought the NRC 19 inspection would vindicate your actions -- strike that..
- 20. You thought the NRC inspection -- inspectors would 21 vindicate your actions even though they weren't fully e
. 22 you didn't tell them fully what all your concerns *.were?
.1 -
23 MR. GUILD: Objection, Mr. Chairman.
24~ JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes. I do think you're O 25 beating this t.o death even further than yesterday.
Ronntac RenorF{no Aprvice. Ttd.
~
Geheva', Illi5ois 60134 (312) 232-0262
, . . - - - - - . ~ -- - - _ _ - _
6583 O- - -
1 , Apparently he discussed almost all his concerns, 2 - 'from what I understand, and may have not discussed one 3 or,two.
4 But I don't see --
i 5 MR. BERRY: Well', your' Honor -- ".
6 .
JUDGE GROSSMAN:* -- how ,the paragraph that e ' .
- 7 you're referring to in his letter to the Department ~ 61
~
8' ,
Labor says anything about, "Every concern that I have."
You know, itj$ust.dodsn'thaveanyplaceinyour
~
9 10 . questioning. .
11 ,
MR. BERRY: Your Honor, the Staff just has a
(} 12 different view from the Board.
13 Now, I believe that that letter -- well, the, letter .
14' ,
speaks for itself; and it's the Staff's positidh that 15 that letter d'oes indicate tha't the witness was aware or
.z.-
16 dlid' harbor the belief that he would be -- that the Staff
. 17 inspection ~would look into the concerns and would 18 vindicate him. ,
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well,Mr.Berr[--
20 MR. BERRY: Well -- ,
~
21
- JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- I read this paragraph - ,
22 MR. BERRY: -- I only make the point, your 23
- Honor, just to' direct the witness' attention to'see 24 whether, in light of that, l'n light of his' desire.and' 25 his hope t; hat .the Staf f 1,nspection would' vindicate him, Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
6584
() .
1 -
. would it be,reasonabl'e to come to the NRC and not
,2 express fully and disclose fully all his concerns. -
3 That was 'hec Staff's only point in asking that 4 question.
- ~
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Berry, I just reread 6 part of yesterday's transcript.
7 It seems to me that you did ask him twice as to t
8 whether he raised that one particular concern that we 9 spent a good part of an' hour on yesterday, and he
~
10 answered that he didn't think he did. -
11 MR. BERRY: Okay.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And all y'ou can get is that
(]}
13 ,
answer, and that's all I would think you want to get.
14 MR. BERRY: Thank.you, your Honor.
Se l'5 BY MR. BERRY:
16 Q Now, Mr. Puckett, do you recall whether you told Mr.
17 Schapker, when he came~ to~your house on. March 12th to interview you, that your concern was -- your concerns'
~
18 with the second option under the.AWS code --liere again,
~
19 20 I'm talking about the failed. test -- did you tell Mr.
,
- 21 Schapher that that was your concern? ,
22 A Would you repeat the question?
. 23 I'm not sure that I understand exactly what you're 24 asking.
( 25 Q The question was:
Ronntaa Reoortino Service. Ltd.
~ '
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
6585
~
' ~
'O ...-.
,1
. When Mr. Schapker came tol your home on March 12, 2 1985, to visit to discuss your concern, did you indicate 3 to him that -- w'ith respect to the welders rejected 4 test, that they were -- that they were allowed to.
5 qualify with one test when there was no evidence.that
~
6 they had additional training or practice? Did you.tell 7 that to Mr. Puckett -- Mr. Schapker?
- 8 A Mr. Schapker had came over from Marble Hill for a
~
9' clarification of some of the items that I'had made 10 allegations about.
. C. .
11 I don't remember at this time if this was one of 12 the clarifications that he asked for.
13 He didn't cover,everything that I had made 14 allegations about; just certain items.
15 .Q Now, I direct your attention tio Page 11 of Applicant's 16 Exhibit 51 and Mr. Schapker's conclusion.
17 Doyouagreethat--withMr.Schapkertflat--
18 THE WITNESS: What page are you on?
19 MR. BERRY: Page 11 of the inspection report, ,
l- .
- 20 Applicant's Exhibit 51.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Give the witness.a 22 - little time to get to that document.
- 1 ,, ,
- 23 THE WITNESS
- Now, what -- which item'did you 24 want me to look at? -
.o' 25 MR. BERRY: I'd ask you if you agree with Mr.
l l
[ = Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 .
(312) 232-0262
. _ ._~ . _ _ .
6586 Q
1 Schapker's conclusi,on.
2 JUDGE GSOSSMAN: 'Which conclusion are you 3 talking about? .
4 There are two conclusions on tha't page.
. 5 MR. BERRY: Oh, I'm sorry.
6 ,
Under A'llegation J, Part 1, ",The welders were 7 tested on one-half inch thick material."-
8- A I can agree in part with what he's saying here about 9 qualification on one-half. One-half inch plate would, 10 . 1n. fact, give the welder unqualified -- unlimited 11 thickness for welding fillet welds.
O 12 sowever, my concern was that on his welder's 13 qualification test form - 'and I would ex'ect p on his 14 weld qualification form -- there was no reference that, 15 he could only do fillets. .
^
16 . By looking at his test record'and by 1ooking at his 17 welder's qualification card, the man could weld 18 unlimited thickness, groove welds.or any other type.
~
19 BY MR. BERRY:
l 20 Q And you would agree -- you'd agree that he,would be-l 21 qualified to weld unlimited thickness fillet because.
! 22 under the AWS code - .because that's permissible.under 23 the AWS code?
l ,,
24 A Yes, sir.
O 25 0- And in particular, that.would be Table 5.26.1 of the AWS Ronntaa Renortino Service, Ltd.
' ~
Gsneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 -
. ,:9, 6587 CZ) .
1 code that would authorize that;-isn't that correct?
,2 A I think so.
3 I would have to look at the code to see exactly the 4 numbers involved.
5 0 You should have the code in front of you.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN:- Well, that's okay.
7 He's already testified to this a number of times.
8 . MR. BERRY: 'All.right. -
9 BY MR. BERRY:
10 Q Mr. Puckett, if a person didn't -- if a person had a
~
11 question as to whether qualification on'the one-half 12 inch material qualified for unlimited thickness fillet (v~)
13 -
welding, he could easily have gotten that answer just 14 simply by referring to the AWS c'od'e; isn't that correct?
~
15 A I'm not sure of the question you're asking me again. '
16 Q I said 1f anybody had the question that you expressed in 17 Allegation 1 of Inspection Report 8509, they could have 18 gotten the answer to'that question simply by looking at 19 the AWS code?
20 MR. GUILD: Objection.
.
- 21 My objection is simply the witness has now given 22 testimony'that his concern with the qualification record
. , 4. , '
23 was not*1imited to fillet welds but unlimite.d thickness.
, 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Mr. Berry just wants I
l
(') 25 to know, i,n order to know whether he could determine
, Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
6588" O
1
whether~he could weld to unlimited thickness for fil-let 2 welds, someone would be able to receive that answer from 3 referring to the code. ,
4 Okay. That's fine.
5 MR. GUILD: Yes; but he -- excus.e me, Mr.
6 Chairman. .
7 He did characterize that as the witness' concern,
~
8 and the witness just got done saying this was not his
_ 9 concern.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I understand this is a 11 preliminary question; and the witness can an.swer that.
12
(]) A The individual inspector does not have readi access-to 13 the code. In fact, in most cases they are directed that 14 you don't inspect in accordance with the code. You 15 inspect in accordance with the procedures.
16 , The individual inspector, by going by'th.e code or 17 going by procedure, would not know that this man was not 18 qualified to unlimited thickness. He would --
19 MR. BERRY: I'm sorry. That's not the 20 question that I asked.
21 ,
BY MR. BERRY: -
22 Q My question was just a simple one, and it.is.on 23 Allegation 1 on Page 11 of the inspection- report, the '
24 allegation expressed under -- on that page is if O
25 somebody had that question, could not they receite an Ronntaa Menortina Eervice. Ltd.
~
Geneva, Illinois .60134 (312) 232-0262
C- .
,6589 1 answer to that question simply by referring to the AWS 2 code?
3 A You'mean myself? .
4 Q Anyone.
5 A Well, I did go to the' code to -- to see that.
6 The man -- by. qualifying on one-half inch plate-7 would not give him unlimited thickness for groove welds.
8 I agree that the man was, in fact, qualified 9 ' unlimited thickness on fillet welds; and if this had 10 been so listed on his welder's qualification. form and on 11 his weld qualification card, this~would not'have-been'a ,
O 12 concern.
13 Q 'Mr. Puckett, I direct your attention to Page 15 of 7 -
14 ,
Applicant's Exhibit 51, A11egatio,n 2..
15 This is another -- is this another example of-Mr. -
16 Schapker applying a double standard between,Braidwood 17 and Zimmer? ,
-18 A I don't recall having a problem at Zimmer based on the 19 Allegation 2 here. $
20 . However, it was very evident to me that this was ,
21 n'ot so. ,
22 Now, where a clerical mistake had been made, I .
23 didn't know. It could have been a clerical mistake or 24 it could have been a fabricated paper to give this man O 25 qualifications. . .
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 6590 i (O/
1 Q Do you believe - -
'2 A I did not know the reason. .
3 My concern was: Is that what the man's welder's .
4 qualification test record reflected?
5 Q Do you.believe that if this same thing happened at 6 Zimmer, the NRC would have viewed it more harshly?
7 A. Yes, I do.
8 Q And.you're aware that at Zimmer, the NRC.found that 9 altered weld records rendered indeterminate essential 10 variables? Are you aware of that? c
' ll' A Would you repeat the question?
12 Q That at Zimmer the altered weld records that the NRC
(])
13 found were of such' character that they rendered 14 indeterminate essential variables on the J.on the 15 welder qualifi' cation.
16 A I wasn't made to be knowledgeable of. all the conditions. ,
17 ,
I know that I was given a list of the' welders that 18 they requested to reqQalify, that:their records had been 19 considered indeterminate.
20 I know that in some. cases these records were --
21 basica'ly l had the same type of mistakes on them that was 22 . found at Braidwood. . _ ,
'l%.
23 .0 So you weren't -- were you or were you not aware that 24 the NRC -- that the NRC found that -- that the records, O 25 the altered records, at Zimmer were such that they Sonntaa ReDortina Service, Ltd.
Geneva,~ Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 i
6591
)
1 rendered indeterminate the essential variables in the 2 welders' records?
3 Did you know that or did you not?
4 A No, I did not know that.
5 Q Now, I direct your attention to Page 10 of the 6 inspection report. It's Allegation -- Allegation I.
7 A This is not word for word what the allegation was, but 8 the outline is there.
9 0 Do you agree with Mr. Schapker's conclusion and, in 10 particular, where -- where he concludes that it's not a 11 deficiency?
12- Personally I would not agree with Mr. Schapker; but it's
(]) A 13 not my place to make these decisions. It's his place.
14 If I were still at Braidwood and he made that
~
15 decision, I would have no choice but to accept it.
16 Q Mr. Puckett, isn't the only purpose of a qualification 17 test to demonstrate a welder's ability to produce a 18 sound weld?
19 A Yes, it is.
20 Q And the only difference between the E. C. Ernst 9.2 21 procedure and the Comstock 4.71 procedure was that one 22 -
was pipe and the other was plate; is that true?
23 A Yes, it is.
24 Q But for the purpose of determining a welder's ability to O 25 produce a sound weld, either would suffice under the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~ - . _ _ .-
6592 0
1 code, wouldn't it?
s 2 A Yes, it would.
3 0 A person experienced and knowle'dgeable in the AWS code, 4 he would know that -- he could be expected to know that, 5 couldn't he?
6 A- He should be, yes.
7 Q And if someone suggested that it was not proper under 8 the AWS code to use Comstock Procedure 4.7.1 to qualify 9 for stainless welding using E6013 electrode, they'd 10 simply be wrong, wouldn't they?
11 A Sir, I'm afraid somewhere along the line you've --
(]) 12. you're out of line.
13 EC013 electrode is not used fo'r welding stainless 14 steel.
15 0 Okay.
16 A You're not thinking of 6013. Th'at is a mild steel rod, 17 and that isn't used to weld stainless..
18 Q I direct your attention to Page 17 of the inspection 19 report. ,
20 This was a full penetration -- full penetration 21 welds --
22 A Which letter?
23 Q 0; Allegation O. ,
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: By the way, before I forget, O 25 ' I take it you're also going to address, when you put on 9nnntag Reporting .9ervice_. Ltd. ,
Geneva, Illinois 60134 1 (312) 232-0262 _ _
i
6593 l
()
i 1 the NRC people, the reason why it took two. weeks to get .l 1
2 this document mailed to Mr. Puckett when you had an 3 interview scheduled in which you were going to go over 4 this matter and in which, it seems to me, it would have 5 been profitable to have had the conclusions given to Mr.
6 Puckett before the interview so that you could have 7 gotten his commentary at that time?
8 That appears.to.be the sequence here: That when he 9 came to the , interview December 6th, this was still in 10 the ma~il to him, even though it had been completed two 11 weeks before.
12 MR. BERRY: That's my recollection as well,
({)
13 your Honor; and we will -- Staff witnesses will - 'you 14 know, to the extent they have knowledge, they'll~ address 15 that and explain 'that for the Board, 16 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, I should point out 17 th'at it was Applicant that issued the subpoenas for Mr.
18 Puckett's deposition, and I believe the December 6th 19 date was set jointly between ourselves, Mr. Guild and 20 Mr. Puckett to suit -- frankly, to suit Mr. Puckett's 21 convenience, at least in part.
22 I'm not even sure the Staff was. consulted about the -
~
23 setting of the deposition on December 6th, 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes. But I'm sure they had O 25 notice much in advance of December 6th that would have.
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
6594 l O
1 -
afforded them sufficient time to get the report to Mr.
2 P'uckett.
3 ,
MR. GUILD: And, indeed, they appeared, Mr.
4 Chairman, the Staff, at the deposition of Mr. Puckett.
5 MR. BERRY: A short answer is yes, the Staff 6 will consider the Board's question and the witnesses 7 will be prepared to address it.
8 BY MR. BERRY:
9 Q Now, Mr. Puckett, do you recall if you indicated 60 Mr.
10 ,Weil or Mr. Schapker that your concern with -- or at 11 least ond of your concerns with the full penetration 12
(]) welds was that they were made without backing strip?
13 A I don't recall whether I did or didn't.
14 Are we off of the -- the question that you had 15 previously asked on a cross-reference between the E. C.
16 Ernst procedure and the Comstock procedure?
17 Is this an entirely different question?
18 0 Yes.
19 A I don't recall if this was discussed or not.
20 0 Well,,now -- ,
21 A I didn't go into great detail. I just made the fact 22 that an outline -- I could have probably still been 23 there, you know, if I'd have wanted to elaborate on 24 every little item.
25 But they asked questions and I gave answers. I
, Annntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Ganeva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 .
6595
~1 didn't really dig into any of this in any great detail.
2 Q And that was at your interview? That's what.you're 3 referring to, during your interview?
4 A At, Glen Ellyn, yes.
5 0 You also brought documents to the the interview as well, 6 didn't you? ,
7 A Yes, sir, I did.
8 Q And the NRC had copies of those documents for their 9 information?
10 A Yes, sir. -
11 Q Mr. Puckett, if -- if the fu'll penetration welds -- if
(]) 12 they -- if they had been m'ade with backing strip,.would 13 'you agree then that only a visual examination was 14 required?
15 A No, sir.
16 Q Mr. Puckett, do you recall expressing a concern to 17 Mr. -- Mr. Weil, during your interview, that the 18 Comstock Procedure 4.-3.3 -- I believe that's the welding 19 procedure -- had from 7 to 13 WPS forms in it?
20 A I thought that I answered that question the last time, 21 sir.
22 Not this particular one;,but it's -- as I say, I 23 ,
gave him my concerns that there was. inconsistencies, and 24 I didn't elaborate.
O 25 They never asked about these particular items and I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
6596 !
, l
() -
l 1 never answered to them. l 2 Q Well, wasn't it your belief that this number,.this large
, 3 number of procedures - ' of WPS forms in the procedure ,
~
4 made it difficult for the QC Inspector to inspect for 5 amperage'and voltage? .
6 A Yes, sir.
7 Q And' welders at Comstock -- when -- they use the Form 19 i
8 and checklist in performing their postweld inspections, 9 don't they?
10 A Yes, sir.
. 11 Q And do you know if the Form 19 requires a QC Inspector
() 12 to inspect for amperage and voltage?
13 A To the best of my knowledge, it does not. It just says, 14 "In accordance with the procedure," and th'e procedure 15 outlines those requirements of doing the weld.
'16 Q Do you remember telling Mr. Weil in your interview that 17 the significance of'a welder who has a weld card stating 18 that he was qualified to the Comstock Procedure 4.7.1, 19 when, in' fact', he was qualified to E. C. Ernst 9.2, was
- 20 that it would allow him -- allow the welder to' draw weld 21 rod and to weld to a procedure to which he might not be 22 qualified?
23 A I may have said something to that effect.
24 Could I explain to you what -- what I was referring.
,O 25 to there?
I
- - Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
6597
~
O .
1 Q Yes. ,
2 A Some of the welders -- this was early -- that was
~
~
3 earlier ~on the project -- had qualified to an E. C.
4 Ernst procedure. They terminated, for one reason or the 5 , other, and they came back. Their requalifi' cation was to 6 Comstock procedures.
7 They -- their original qualification -- or 8 qualification card and their test record would give them 9 unlimited thickness, which I'm not really opposed to.
10 However, the tests that they took et Comstock would 11 not have given them unlimited thickness, and there was 12 no reference on their welder's qualificati~on card that
(])
13 their unlimited thickness really had come from an E. C.
14 Ernst procedure; the fact th.at, in fact, they did not 15 have unlimited thickness based on the fact that- their 16 test was on the six-inch Schedule'80 pipe and it had a-17 lower range to the thickness. .
18 O Mr. Puckett, at Zimmer, didn't K'aiser -- they had a 19 procedure which would. allow the welder to keep his 20 qualification current by welding in a given process for 21 which he was qualified at-least once every six months?
22 A Yes, sir -- every three months, sir.
23 Q And.a. welder could get weld rod just by producing a weld 24 card, couldn't he, at Zimmer?
O -25 A Yes, he could.
Ronntac Renortino Service. Ltd.
Geneva', Illinois 60134
) , (312) 232-0262 ,
6598 1 Q And the NRC, when they -- when.they inspected at Zimmer, 2 they said.that the issuance of the weld rod did not 3 demonstrate that a welder had requalified because there 4 was no assurance that the' weld rod -- that the welder 5 used the rod in a welding procedure?
6 A e ally have no knowledge of this particular item.
I r' It 7 wasn't brought to my atten.tio'n. -
8 Q While you were at - .while you were at Braidwood, 9 working for Comstock, did the procedur'e -- the procedure 10 ,
then in effect that allowed welders only to withdraw -- ]
11 to withdraw -- for welders to withdraw weld rod, they 12 had to have a signed Form 57.and authorized by their
(])
13 -foreman; is that true?
14 A That is so.
15 Q So weld rod -- the' procedures didn't allow weld rod to 16 be issued to a welder simply by producing a' welder 17 qualification card, did it?
18 A No, sir.
19- . But could I elaborate on.something I know to be 20 factual at Braidwood? ,
'21 Q Yes, yes. ,
22 A I had an occasion to check'into this particular item 23 that you're talking about now, th'e condition that you're f_ 24 talking'about.
(/ '
25 We have an individual that picks up t'he. weld rod l
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.'
Geneva, Illinois 60134 !
, ,312)
( 232-0262 1
6599
)
1 withdrawal forms at the end of each working day ar.d puts 1
~
l 2 them.in a log.
3 N
g, y, He is'aIlso the individua'l that weekly updates a 4 certain number of welders in the field. He actually 5 goes there, he witnesses that the welder is actually 6 making a weld and updates their qualifications.
~
7 In checking his record, I wanted to see just how 8' accurate this condition was and how accurate it seemed 9 to be.
10 So I pointed out a name on his list and I said, 11 "When did this man last' update his qualifications?" He
() 12 checked his. log that referenced it and he gave me a 13 date. So then we go to the log where weld rod was 14 withdrawn and checked the man's name there.
15 In checking the dates there, we could not see where 16 . this particular individual had drawn rod three months 17 prior to or three months after he had updated his ,
18 qualificahions.
19 However, the record reflected that he.had made a 20 weld on a particular. day and the other record reflected
~
21 tha't he had drawn no' filler material.
22 -
Now, I really don't know how this happened.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me.
. 24 Are you trying.to indicate that.the' control -- the actual c'ontrol over the weld rod material was not in.
25-Ronntaa Menortino Eervice. Ltd.
I Geneva', Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
6600
( - -
1 accordance with the proceduret 2 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. That's the only way 3 ~it could be.
~
4 JUDGE 'ROSSMAN:.
G Okay.
5 BY MR. BERRY:
6 0 I direct your attention to Page 7..of -- Applic. ant's 7 ExhJbit 51, Page 7 of the inspection report under the headi~ng " Conclusion."
8 9 I would ask you if you agree with Mr. Schapker's 10 statement that L. K. Comstock Company had adequate weld 11 filler material controls in place -- that would be in 12
(]) place during the time that you were employed at 13 Braidwood.
14 A You're talking -- .
15 MR. GUILD: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
16 That is not what Mr. Schapke'r is addressing. He's; 17 addressing a state of circumstances that existed after 18 Mr. Puckett -- the preceding paragraph references'an NCR 19 of Septemb'er 12, 1984; of. course, after Mr. Puchett 20 left. .
~
21 So Mr. Schapker's comments are about the state of 22 . affairs he found when he~ performed his inspection, not
~
23 that existed at Mr. Puckett's time.
24 MR. BERRY: Okay, fine.
7-V 25 I withdraw that question. .
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
6601 l 1 BY MR. BERRY: ,
2 Q Mr. Puckett, under the procedure, the welding procedure 3 in effect, 4.3.10, a welder could be disciplined if --
4 A Are you referencing to the procedure for withdthwing 5 filler material?
6 0 Yes.
7 A Well, then that wouldn't be a weld procedure.
8 I'm sorry, sir. You're talking about.the procedure 9 for withdrawal of filler material?
10 0 I'm talking about the procedure governing storage, issue 11 and control of the welding material.
12 Yes, sir, okay.
(]) A 13 0 I direct your attention to that. It's Applicant's 14 Exhibit 20.
15 That procedure reflects, does it not, Mr. Pucket't, 16 . that a welder could be disciplined if he used a weld rod 17 taken from the stub pail or designated receptacle, and 18 it's referred to as a dumpster? Is that true?
19 A Would you repeat the question?
20 0 Under this procedure, couldn't the welder be disciplined 21 if he used weld rod that he had taken from the dumpster 22 or the stub pail?
23 A Yes, he could be if it was noted that he had done so.
'24 They don't usually tell on themselves, though.
, . ()
i 25 (Laughter.)
l l
Ronntac Reoortino Service, Ltd.
~
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 ._ _
_ _ _ _ .-..._.-_..-._.---...-....-.--....--....-.-._w....-..-...~. .
6602 O ,
1 Q As a former welder yoursel'f, do you'have an opinion on i i
2 the likelihood of a welder risking disciplinary action l 3 by doing -- doing that?
4 A I would never do it myself; but I would think that yes, l 5 in some cases a welder may do this.
6 A hypothetical situation _would be that he nee'ded a.
7 couple of rods to complete a job, and he did,n't want to 8 go back to the weld rod withdrawal shack and wade
- 9 through a line just to get a couple of rods, and he 10 might very well take a couple of rods ~from a dumpster or 11 from another man's canister to complete this job.
12 A'd n you' don't think *-- and that could happen under - .
(]) O 13 strike that.
14 ' You don't think that's unreasonable -- at that tinie 15 I take it that would be one reason to do that, instead ,
16 of having to go back to the -- to the. shack to draw more .
17 rod?
18 A That could be one reason.
19 Q For that, a welder might sacrifice or jeopardize his 20 job?
21 A Yes, sir, he may very well do so, because the likelihood 22 of him being caught on something like that is virtually 23 nil.
24 Q Do you know of any instance where that occurred?
O 25 A No, I do not. .
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. -
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 ____ __ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
w .
. 6603
() . . ,
1 However, I do wonder how that particular welder 2 managed to' Update his qual'ifications and had never drawn ,
3 any filler material.
- 4 Q Did you mention that to Mr.. Schapker or Mr. Weil? ,
5 . A I don't recall elabor& ting on it, no. -
6 0 Okay.'
7 ,
Now, Mr.-Puckett', I would draw -- direct your 8 attention t.o Page 8 of Applicant's Exhibit 51,
~
9 Allegation F.
10 Yo'u d'isagreed with Mr. Schapker that the material 3
~
11 traceability program that Comstock had complied with
~ '
12
(]) : Criteria 8, didn't you?
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Could ypu ~ give him an 14 opportu'nity.to read-this?
15 THE WI,TNESS:
Can I r'ead this?
. e 16 MR. BERRY: Sure. Take,as much time as you 17 need, Mr.,P4ckett. .
18 THE WITNESS: Now, what is your question, 19 . sir?
20 BY MR. BERRY:
~
21 Q Do you agree with Mr..Schapker's conclusion?
22 A No, sir,.I do not. '
23 0 Is that because, in your opin;on, traceability by heat 7_
24 , numbers,is tequired?
V ' 25. A No,. sir, not necessarily; but from what I ca'h see in the Sonntag Reporting Service $td. ,
Geneva, Illinois 60134 '
{312) 232-0262
..-. . . .-. .... ...- ..- --..~ . , ......- - -.. .-. -. ..-- .
6604 1 reading of this, Mr..Schapker went to the QC Department 2 and/or CECO and asked them, "Do you have a good 3 procedure? Are you doing these things in accordance 4 . with and can you produce these documents for me?" And 5 they produced these documents and they satisfied what he 6 wanted to know. s 7 This doesn't say that this material isn't being 8 handled wrongly while it is.being fabricated', and that
~
9 there could possibly be a mix-up in this material when 10 it's being fabricated. That was my concern. ,
'll Q The report reflects also, doesn't it, in the NRC review,
() 12 Mr. Puckett,-that Mr. Schapker reviewed a random sample 13 of construction material that verified' traceability?
14 A Yes, sir.
15 I'm not saying that you couldn't go in the field 16 and find a piece of construction material that was i
17 installed that had a number on it, but my concern would 18 be: Is that the correct number that is on that 19 material?
~
20 0 Well, traceability by using the Material Receipt .
21 Reports, the MRR's, in your opinion, is that as 22 effective as traceability by heat numbers?
23 A The heat numbers or MRR -- it wouldn't matter which 24 number was on the piece per se. .-
O 25 My concern was, as I related, I think to Mr.; Miller
- . Son.. tag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. . . ~ . _ , _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - - _ - - _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ __._
l 6.605 ,
() -
J 1 in his questioning -- was that the material I seen 2 fabbed in the electrical fab shop -- th,ey would cut a 3 piece of material off of a -- say a piece of angle --
4 the angle that was in the rack had an MRR number on it, 5 which was perfectly .okay. -
6 But they may cut a six-foot section off of that and 7 then later cut it into smaller pieces, fabricate it all 8 up, then go back to the rack and.get. the MRR number and
.9 transfer it to all these little pieces.
10 - Now, in going back to that rack,'they have multiple 11 MRR numbers in the one rack, and a craftsman could very
() 12 well get a number'off of a piece that.was not, in fact, ,
~
13 the piece that th-is was cut off of and transfer that to 14 the pieces. This was my concern..
15 Q In other words -- .
16 A Common industry practices are that if you're going -to 17 . cut a piece of material off of another piece of 18 material, you transfer the heat number to this piece of 19 material, then you cut it.
20 The heat number is on both the piece that was left 21 in the rack and the piece that you cut off and are 22 takin,g to the bench to work.
23 Q Is that what was happening at Braidwood, to your 24 knowledge; that they'd cut the material first before O 25 they transferred the MRR number in.this case?
Ronntag poporting Rervice. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 ._
. 6606
-w U .. .
1 A Yes, sir.
2 Q And that's.what you told Mr. Schapker or Mr. Weil or 3 somebody from'the NRC?
- 4 A , I don't recall if they e.laborated, as we are here now.
- 5. Q Okay.
6 You testified previously that three heat numbers 7 that you wer,e unable to locate -- strike that.
8 That -- well, you testified.that three heat numbers 9 that Mr. -- Mr. Schapker indicates he located might not 10 necessarily be the same heat numbers that you were 11 looking for~ when you were doing your review.
12 I'm sorry, Counsei.
(]) MR. GUILD:
13 Are you on another subject now?
14 MR. BERRY: Yes.
15 MR. GUILD': ,Could you perhaps help us with a 16 reference to another part of the report?
17 MR. BERRY: It would be inspection report --
18 THE WITNESS: I thi.nk.you'll find this on 19 Page 7 at the-bott'om 'of the column.
20 MR. BERRY: Yes, that's correct.
21 BY MR. BERRY:
22 Q ,
Do you recall, Mr. -- Mr. Puckett --
23
'THE WITNESS: Would you rephrase the-
'24 question?
O 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I don't believe that you
, Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
6607
]
, 1 completed the question, Mr. Berry.
2 Could you, please?
3 BY MR. BERRY:
4 0 Well, I believe you testified, in response to a question 5 by Mr.. Miller, that the heat numbers that Mr. Schapker ,
6 indicates that he found might not necessarily have been 7 the same heat numbers th'at you- were looking for when you
~
8 were-doing your review.
9 A I don't recall saying that.
10 What I do recall saying is that I could-not find 11 these heat numbers; and these documents are a quality 12 document. .It's my understanding that quality documents
(]')
13 are supposed to be readily retrievable.
14 We did not have these in our QC vault that I could 15 find. They could n6t be produced for me by the peo,ple 16 that worked in the QC vault. ,
17 I went to the vendor that supplied us with the 18 rods, the other contractor, and they could not provide 19 me with any docum1ntation in reference to these 20 particular heat numbers.
21 Again, I went to CECO, and they could not produce 22 these documents for me or I couldn't find 'them myself in 23 their MRR file. .
24 That was my contention: There was three numbers O 25 and I couldn't find them. I was concerned with that.
I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
e I
, 6608 e
C>
1 Q My question to you -- and I direct your attention to 2- Page 8 under Mr. Schapker's conclusions, and it's the 3 last sentence, where Mr. Schapker" concludes tha.t the 4 three heats of weld rod which the alleger could not 5 locate were found due to obvious variations of the 6 recording or interpretation of the numbers / letters of 7 the identifying heat numbers.
8 My question to you is: .
9 Do you agree that Mr. -- Mr. Schapker found the
~ 10 heat numbers that you were looking for and were unable 11 to find?,
()
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me.
13 Wasn't this question asked and answered already 14 satisfactorily to your position, Mr. Berry?
15 . MR. MILLER: I believe so, your Honor.
16 MR. BERRY: Yes, I believe it was.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Then why are we doing it 18 again?
19 '
MR. BERRY: Okay. It was just a preliminary 20 que'stion, your Honor.
21 BY MR. BERRY: -
22 Q Mr. Puckett, do you know what information Mr. Schapker 23 relied on to ensure that he would be looking for the 24 same heat numbers that you were looking for?
O 25 A I could only assume that he would take the numbers that Sonntag Reporting' Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0-262
6609 1 I gave him and use those as a ready reference in what he 2 'as looking for.
w 3 Q Now, I want to direct your attention to Allegation R on 4 Page 20. This is th'e joint design.
5 A Yes, sir, it was.
6 Q Now, I just want to clarify -- I wadt to make sure I 7 -understand your position.
8 Did the S & L drawing itself conform to AWS Dl.1 9 8.8.5? ,
10 A There was no reference onto the drawing that reflected 11 - - how this particular weld was to be made.
.() 12 'It had the standard weld symbol reflecting the 13 standard fillet weld and the arrow pointing to the area 14 where this weld would be applied.
15 There was no reference 'on the standard weld symbol that this weld s'hould'txe all around.
16 17 However, it did have three arrows: One pointed to 18 the left side, one pointed to the.right side and one 19 pointed to the top. ,
20 Q So yoo don't know whether -- .
21 MR. GUILD: Excuse'me.
22 I don't believe the witness was finished with his answer.
23 24 A (Continuing.) My concern was that -- we were making
, ( 25 the same type of joint designs at Zimmer and we were -
[ Sonntag Reporting Service _. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 -
_ _ . ..-.-. . - . - - . . .. . --. . .- .__.______a-w.--=.=..
6610
) -
1 doing it the same way that it was being done at 2 Braidwood, and it was wrong; and S & L even had to admit 3 that this was, in fact, wrong.
4 BY MR. BERRY:
5 Q I,take it, then, you don't know whether the drawing --
6 the drawing conformed to 8.8.5? You don't know one way 7 or another?
8 A I would say that it.did not.
9 Q Consequently, the welds made pursuant to that drawing --
10 they'd violate the-AWS code, too, as well, wouldn't 11 they?
() 12 A Yes, sir, I would say so.
13 Q You were asked a question, I believe by the Chairman, as 14 to whether you knew the purpose of the AWS 8.8.5 15 requirement that the welds be -- be broken at the 16 corner.
17 Do you recall being asked that question?
18 A I remember the Chairman asking a question related to 19 this, yes.
20 Q , And I believe your testimony was that you weren't -- you 21 weren't sure what the purpose was?
22 A I never really --
23 Q It had something to do with' stresses?
24 A I never really looked into the engineering aspects of O 25 it, no.
Sonntag Reporting Service,-Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
.~.. _ ___. . _ . _ _ . . . . _ _ . . . . _ _ . = _ _ .m _. m - _. . _. m_.___... _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ .
4 6611
(:)
1 Q Do you know -- do you know where one would look to 2 ascertain the purpose of 8.8.5?
3 A I would'go to the Architect-Engineer, someone that.is 4 more familiar with the actual construction of the 5 components, and see if he could give me a ready reason
. 6 as to why 8.8.5 was applicable.
7 Q Did,you do that? .
8 A No, I did not. -
9 Q I believe, in response to a question asked of you by Mr.
10 Miller the other day regarding the qualification tests 11 of the welding procedure without the preheat -- I.
() 12 believe you had indicated that they used A588 steel on 13 the requalification test. You indicated you had some 14 problems with that.
~
15 A Well, I didn't say I had any problems. I said I would
~^
i 16 want to look at that in the code.
17 I haven't had the opportunity to do so; but at this 18 point, I really have no problems w~ith it. It is the 19 steel that's found in 10.2. There should be no 20 problems; but I would want to look into it.
21 Q A588 steel and A500 steel are the same+ type and grade of 22 material, aren't they?
23 A I would want to look at the code to confirm this.
L
! 24 I think the 588 has a higher strength factor.
O 25 Q Mr. Puckett, if the rea1 reason Mr. DeWald terminated sonntaa nanortina service. Ltd.
Ge5eva', Illinois 60134
- -_- _a . - .
(312) 232-0262
__ ._ _ _ _..m.-
- 6612 O
1 you was because he was persuaded -- or he believed that .
2, you didn't know enough about the -- you didn't.know the
'3 code, AWS Dl.1 code, well enpugh and he had questions --
4 he had' doubts over your ability to run the welding 5 program smoothly -- if that was his reason, in your 6 opinion, would that be an improper reason?
7 A Yes, it would. ,
8 MR. GUILD: Objection, Mr. Chairman.
9 That certainly supposes a fact that is definitely 10 not'in evidence. There has been no testimony by Mr.
11 DeWald or anybody that that was the stated reason.
() 12 The testimony reflects that the witness was told by 13 Mr. DeWald that he scored po6rly on a -- on a test, and 14 that that was the reason, and that'there was a 90-day 15 evaluation.
16 If, in fact, counsel is supposing a fact and 17 purports that fact is an accurate representation of the 18 stated reason for Mr. Puckett's termination, it's 19 inaccurate.
20 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, I don't know if the 21 question was asked in terms of the stated r'eason.
2[ In fact, Mr. DeWald's testimony is accurately
-23 characterized by Mr. Berry in his question.
24 JUDGE GROSSMANi Well, the reasons fluctuated
( 25 at different times; but the question is proper.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 .
(312) 232-0262 .
s_. - _ _ _ .__ . ... _ __ _ _ . _ - __.. _.._ _ _ __.___. .__ ___ . _. . __....._.-,. . _ _ -. _ ._
6613 Y
1 He's stated a hypothesis, and if he can later on
. 2 prove that hypothesis, I suppose the, question has 3 meaning here. '
4 The witness has already answered that question, and 5 5 I think there's no reason not to allow it.
o 6 MR. BERRY: If he answered the. question, I'd 7 like to hear it.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: The answer was "no."
9 BY MR. BERRY:
10 0 I believe you mentioned -- you testified earlier.that 11 - _ you respected Mr. Goedecke; is that true?
() 12 A Yes, sir.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: By thq way, did the witness 14 complete his answer to that last question?
15 THE WITNESS: Yes,'I did.
16 If I understood the question correctly, h6 was 17 asking me, if Mr. DeWald terminated me because he .
18 thought my knowledge of the code was inadequate and my 19 knowle'dge of inspection was inadequate, did I think that 20 he was wrong in this assumption.
21 I said yes, I think he was wrong in this -
22 assumption.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. That was not the 7- 24 question.
O E25 The question was that if that's the reason he 4
Ronntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva,. Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 ~G- - - , -.
._.____..._,.._____._.._r..._____.__._._..__m._.._.______._._.__..._.._____.._..__.___...
6614
() -
1 ,
terminated you, would that be a proper reason for 2 terminating you. , ,
3 I'm not sure that's the question, either, but --
4 THE WITNESS: Okay. If that's the question, p
5 then it's no, that is not a proper reason. ,
6 BY 101. BERRY: -
7 Q. Did you' respect Mr. Goedecke's judgment?
8 A Yes, sir, in most cases, I did.
9 Q How about in the welding -- the area of welding?
10 A Yes, sir.
11 Q Mr. Puckett, I want you to assume that -- in May of
() 2 1984, that Comstock was -- they were looking to hire a 13 Level III welding inspector with a thorough 14 understanding of the AWS Dl.1 code and its application, 15 and who could effectively administer the Comstock
~
16 welding inspection program.
17 Given that assumption, I'd ask you if -- in your 18 opinion, do you think you would have been offered that 19 position if Mr. Goedecke had been the Comstock.QC 20 Manager instead of'Mr. DeWald?
21 A I would not have applied to work for Mr. Goedecke.
l 22 Q A man you respected and admired?
23 A I. admired his knowledge and his position.
24 His methods.of.doing things was an entirely 42 .
25 different thing.
. Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
( 3-12) 232-0262 . _
6615 1
0 j 1 ,
He was not exactly honest with me. I could not J 2 work for the gentleman again. .
3 Q Finally, Mr. Puckett -- well, I'm not sure I got an 4 answer. Maybe I did; but was the answer yes or no?
5 In your opinion, do you think Mr. Puckett -- Mr.
6 Goedecke would have offered you the position?
7 A I have no opinion on that. I don't know.
8 0 Okay. That's fine.
9 You didn't request confidentiality from the NRC, 10 did you?
11 A No, I did not.
O 12, Ma. eEaar: Mr. Puckett, I thank you for yotar 13 patience and the Board.and'the parties as' well.
14 That completes my examination.
15 THE WI.TNESS: Thank you, sir. .
16 MR. GUILD:. 'Mr. Chairman, on that note, if I
, 17 mi~ghtjustaskthattherecordreflectthatwhilb 18 Counsel, of course, is c,orrect in the apparent 19 observation that Mr. Pucke'tt'did not request 20 confidentiality, curiously the Staff's identified 21 exhibits are all stamped " Exempt from disclosure, j 22 Contains identity of-confidential source, Do not 23 disclose," et cetera.
24 ,
For 'some apparently curious reason, they treated
'O 25 all these documents as somehow secret and exempt from
, ennnt-ng nannrH ng se rvi ce . r&d_
Geneva, Illinois 60134 .
(312) 232-0262 _ - . . . _ _ - , . _ -_-_
. . - . . . . . . ~ ...... . ...- .- - .- ..- - .. _ .. - -.. n -. - - - .- .. . . - . .._ - ....n. . _. . -
6~616 9
O 1 disclosure while~ I know of no request by Mr. Puckett for -
2 confidentiality.
3 MR. BERRY: I would point out that that's 4 common practice that the Staff generally --
5 MR. GUILD: Indeed it is.
2 6 MR. BERRY: -- that the Staff generally 7 stamps these allegations confidential and releases them 8 where appropriate. ,
9 MR. GUILD: Apparently it is, Mr. Chairman; 10 and th'at's cause for concern here when.the Staff takes a 11 position on another matter that items which.are suspect,
(]) 12 shall we say, as to confidentiality are being withheld 13 from disclosure of the parties.
14 -I simply brought that point up for the record with 15 respect to Mr. Puckett.
G 16 'I'm referring to the pending Office of 17 Investigations matter and the, Staff position with
- 18 respect to that subject.
. 19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I thought you'were making a 20 poi,nt about not releasing documents to the public that-21 may be in the public's interest to know.
22 MR. GUILD: Indeed I am, Mr. Chairman.
]
I 23 ,
JUDGE GROSSMAN: But I don't want to get into 24 a discussion of that at this point, so let's just 25 proceed with the hearing. -
Ronntag Reporting Rervice Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 _ _ _ _ _ - _
6617 1 JUDGE COLE: I have just a couple questions, 2 Mr. Puckett.
- 3 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
4 4 BOARD EXAMINATION 5 BY JUDGE COLE:
.6 Q The last question that Mr. Berry asked you concerning 7 Mr. Goedecke, you indicated'that you would prefer not to 8 work for Mr. Goedecke because he was not honest with 9 you.
10 In what way was he not honest with you, sir?
11 A Well, sir, at the Zimmer project, Mr. Goedecke was
() 12 always making promises to the people that worked for him 13 that just never came about, and he wanted to manipulate 14 people with promises.
15 As myself, he told me, "Worley, I'm going to give 16 you a lateral move across the board. You're going to 17 stay right up there in the chain of command. I'm going 18 to free you up to go to these lectures and seminars."
19 Howev.er, when the new chart came out reflecting the 20 chain of command, I.was all the way at t,he bottom of the 21 board, you know, and I. approached him about this and he 22 said, "Well, it doesn't mean anything."
23 But more often than not, Mr. Goedecke done these 24 things and said these things, and he just never really 1 25 carried thr.ough with tham, Sonntag Reporting Service,'Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 -
(312) 232-0262
r 6618 O
1 - It got to the point that the only thipg I could 2 depend on from Mr..Goedecke was the fact that his 3 knowledge of the code was exceptional. I.mean, he 4 Bidn't have to look at the code book. He could quote 5 it. It was as if he wrote the book.
6 I did respect him for his knowledge and for the 7 title that he held, but other than that, he is not the 8 type of person that I would want to work for. ,
9 Q All righ't, sir. Thank you. .
10 In response to a question earlier today also by Mr.
11 Berry, you found an apparent discrepancy in the record,s~
12 for filler material withdrawal for a welder that was
(~)
13 apparently requalified on a certain day and the 14 requalification would ob'viously have required the 15 withdrawal'of weld filler material; and in checking th.e 16 weld filler material withdrawal cards, you found that he 17 did not withdraw any weld filler material, and the 18 assumption might be that: Where did he get the-19 material?
20 So there's some discrepancy in the record there, -
21 sir.
22 What prompted you to make a check like that, sir.?
23 A Well, sir, again, as the Level III there -- and I was 24 nearing the completion of my qualifications -- there was O 25' going to be a gentleman -- the gentleman that was_ going Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ,
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 _
6619 O
1 in the field doing these testing inspections was going 2 to be working under my supervision.
3 Basically what I wanted to know was how he kept his 4 records and how accurate these records might be.
5 Now, he kept logs for both --~ weld ' rod filler 6 material withdrawal. He would pick up the rod slips.at 7 the end of the day and he would transfer this 8 information into.a log.
9 He also maintained a log reflecting that on a 10 particular day, he went into the field and actually 11 witnessed a particular welder doing a weld that would
(]) 12 update his. qualification for another three months from 13 that period.
14 In finding out how he maintained his log and if 15 these logs were, in fact, correct, I just used one name.
16 I pointed at a man's name in the log, one of the 17 craftsmen, and I said, "When did this man last update 18 his qualifications?"
19 He went into the log that reflected this, and he 20 ,
gave me a date. I said, "Now, you have a weld rod 21 withdrawal out?" He said, "Yes." I said, "Can I see 22 that?" He showed me that log, and I went to the same 23 date in this log, and it did not reflect that this 24 welder that had updated his qualifications had withdrawn O 25 any filler material there.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
o l
1 l
6620
() -
1 I further checked the log three months prior to 2 this and three months after, and the gentleman had not 3 drawn any-filler material.
4 As it turned out, this gentleman was a foreman, but 5 he had been qualified as a welder, and he wanted to 6 maintain his qualification as a welder because 7 occasio'hally they do, in fact, have layoffs, and if they 8 got to the point where they said, "Well, we don't need a 9 foreman. However, we could use a welder," then the man 10 would be qualified to go into the-field and weld. If 11 his qualifications was updated, he wouldn't have to 12 requalify.
({}
i3 0 All right, sir.
14 So your reason for check'ing these records wa.s to 15 make sure that you knew how these records werd 16 maintained and entered and how accurate they were; isn't 17 that correct?
18 A Yes, sir.
19 I think that being a good supervisor, you should l
20 know how everything in the department that you're going 21 to supervise works.
22 Q All right, sir. .
23 Did you then do anything further with what appeared 24 to be an ' apparent discrepancy or problem?
O 25 A No, sir, I did not.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134.
(312) 232-02_62
7 6621
() .
1 Q Did you think about what you might want to do in the-2 future about problems like that?
3 A Yes, sir.
4 I knew that the procedures were going to have to be 5 rewritten to -- to take this into consideration.
6 I was in the process of, you know, trying to think, 7 "Well, how can we write a procedure as foolproof as 8 possible to prevent this type of thing from happening?"
9 This was in the later stages of the project again, 10 . ,. 'the last month or'so that I was there. It was in'the 11 last month. It could very well have been within the 12 last two weeks that I was there.
(]) ,
13 I was very busy, and I was going from thing to 14 thing. I really never got anything.done with this.
15 Q Sir, is it that there was something wrong with the 16 procedure or just the way it was implemented?
.17 A Well, in most cases, you can have a good procedure, but 18 it. don't always mean that the people are going to go by 19 it; and that was probably the case here.
20 If -- the procedure instructed them basically on 21 how th'is was to be done and everything, the fact that l 22 the man had to requalify, the fact that the man had to 23 withdraw filler material. ,
~
24 Had the procedures been followed as they should l
() 25 have been, there would have been no problem. '
.: 1 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. I Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
1 6622 0
1 Q- All right, sir. Thank you.
2 MR. BERRY: Mr. Chairman --
3 JUDGE COLE: Excuse me~?
4 MR. BERRY: -- with the Board's indulgence, 5 can I just ask a clarifying question on this last one?
6 JUDGE COLE: Of course.
- 7. CROSS EXAMINATION 8 (Continued) 9 BY MR. BERRY:
10 Q Mr. Puckett, do you recall the name of the welder that's 11 involved here, the welder foreman?
][ 12 A No, sir, I don't. This has been some two -years ago.
13 0 I understand. -
14 Do you know who the QC Inspector was that was 15 checking the records?
16 A I know the man's face. I don't know his name. I'm 17 sorry.-
18 0 Is there anything -- anything you could add that might 19 help the NRC identify this discrepancy?
20 A Not off the top of my head, sir.
21 I would think if they checked his log and they 22 cross-referenceed as I d'd, i they would probably find 23 this particular item, along with possibly others.
24 Q Do you remember a time frame?
( 25 A No, sir, I do not.
Ronntac Reoortino Service. Ltd.
~
Geneva, Illinois 6.0134
_ (312) 232-0262 ._,
_ . . . . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ -_ - . _ . . . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . . .___m u . _ __._._ _ ______.._ ____ __
e 6623
~1 MR. BERRY: Thank you.
2 JUDGE COLE: Okay.
3' BOARD EXAMINATION 4 (Continued) 5 BY JUDGE COLE:
6 Q Mr. Puckett, yesterday you indicated, in response to a 7 question I believe by Mr. Miller, that you received no 8 verbal feedback on how you were doing at your job at 9 Comstock at the Braidwood s'ite.
~
10 Do you recall that, sir?
11 A Yes, sir.
() 12 Q Did you ever receive any written evaluations or -
13 ,
communications concerning how you were doing at 14 Braidwood?
15 A No, sir. That's why I was somewhat surprised.
16 I know the common practice is that you give a 17 person a verbal Teprimand and then you give him a 18 written reprimand an'd then, you know, if they are still
,_ 19 not doing as tley should be, they would-be terminated.
20 However, I received nothing. I was calle.d into the 21 office and I was terminated.
22 Q All right, sir. Thank you.
23 On Tuesday, in response to a question I also
- :2 4 believe by Mr. Miller, you were generally talking about '
(
25 Mr. DeWald's welds, and you traveled through an area Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 -
(312) 232-0262
s 6624 (3
\~J ~
1 with Mr. DeWald and he pointed out t' hat in a certain 2 area he had inspected all these welds, and during that 3 visit you observed some discrepancies. ,
4 You.were then asked,."Did you ever call these welds 5 to the attention of any of the Level II QC Inspectors"?
6 This-is at Transcript Page 6219. I don't think you 7 need to read it, unless you want to.
/
8 You indicated that no, you did not, and you felt
~9 that they would have been identified by something 10 else -- well, let me see. "I felt that these welds
- 11. .would have been identified and something would have been
()) 12 done about them once I was qualified."
13 A Yes', sir.
14 Q Now, sir --
15 A This -- I'm sorry. Go ahead.
16 Q I don't know what you would do once you'd become 17 qualified.
18 What would you, in fact, have done.after you became 19 qualified?
20 A Well, after I would have become qualified, I would have a
21 been there long enough whereas I'would have~ read and had 22 a good working knowledge of the inspection procedure.
23 On the first observation of these welds and some of 24 the discontinuities that I seen in these welds, I O 25 thought, "Is their inspection criteria this lax?"
, Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 -
6625 1 It was later, in reading the inspection procedure, 2 that I realized that some of the items that I had looked ;
3 at that had been accepted in the field were just down 4 right rejectable by procedure.
5 At this point I hadn't fully read the procedure and 6 understood just what the accept-reject criteria was.
7 Q All right, sir. Thank you.
8 Now, later on, after you indicated that you did not 9 bring this to the attention of any of the Level II QC 10 Inspectors, you indicated that the.-- this is on Line 11 14 -- you say, "The other inspectors were alre'ady having
() 12 the.ir problems with Mr. DeWald, and I'm sure they didn't 13 want to get invol'ved with it," meaning the discrepant 14 welds th&t Mr. DeWald had inspected.
15 Now, what kind of problems were the other 16 inspe'ctors having with Mr. DeWald, sir?
17 A Well, basically I would say that it was the lack of 18 communications or a lack of willfully wanting to 19 communicate by Mr. DeWald.
20 The inspectors tried to make concerns known to him, 21 and they.would essentially be ignored.
22 Q How much time had you spent at Braidwood when this event 23 took place?
24 Was this very early on or --
7_
U 25 A Yes, sir, it was very early on where I was just making Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. - _ _ _ . _ . . _ . .. . ... ...._m. __. . _ . - . . .
o 6626 O
~
1 tours of the plant, just looking it over.
2 Q So I wonder-how you would have come.to a co'nclusion like 3 that so early on, not really having had a chance to 4 observe Mr.-DeWald's interfacing with his men.
5 A Well, it was-the dissension in the inspectors 6 themselves; and if they had to go to the office and talk 7 to Mr. DeWald about these things, they pretty much would 8 just cringe, you know.
9 The inspectors I seen in there -- they would.come 10 in in the morning and get their paperwork together and
. 11 drawings and things, and it was just a great thing for
(]) 12 them to get out of the office and into the field.
13 Q. Is it fair to say that you got that impression fairly 14 early on?
15 A Yes, sir. '
16 Q All right, sir.
17 Just-one more. question, Mr. Puckett, more for my 18 personal information because of your experience in 19 welding. ,
20 Have you ever done any i'n-process inspection?
21 A Yes,. sir.
22 O What is it?
- 23 A In-process inspection means that you're inspecting while.
t .
24 the weld i.s actually being done; that is, you're there
() 25 to watch the welders before they' fit up a component, Sonntaa Reoortina Service, Ltd.
Geneva', Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1
, 6627 1 during the period of fit up, while the actual -- in 2 between while the weld is being done from the root pass.
~
3 throu'gh the cover as well as when the' actual weld is 4 being done.
5 The other phase is postweld. That's after the weld 6 has been done you go back and inspect what has been 7 .done.
8 0 If you are doing in-process inspections, are the 9 postprocess inspectionsLor post inspections necessary?
10 A No, sir.
11 Q Al1~right, sir.
12 In your opinion, which produces a better quality
(])
. .13 ' end product: The in-process. inspection or the post s
14 inspection?
15 A The in-p ocess inspection, sir.
16 Q And why is that, sir?
~
17 A Because you have a QC person that is monitoring this 18 practically at all times.
19 You have things to contend with, such as fit-up ,
20 requirements in some cases, that on a postweld 21 inspection the man ca'nnot verify that, in fact, this 22 fit-up cr'iteria that is stipulated on the drawings and 23 on the weld papers was actually there, because he wasn't 24 there to see.
25 On another subject that we discussed, preheat Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l' 6628
() l i
1 requirements -- some comp ~o.nents require preheat. Three !
2 months later, it's difficult for an inspector to go back 3 and verify that this component was' preheated.
4 If its greater in thickness than an inch and a 5 half, it requires this.
6 He goes into the field. He sees a component, a 7 piece of half-inch plate, welded to a piece of plate 8 that is two inches in thickness. The paper is asking 9 . him to verify that this was done in accordance'with.the 10 procedure. .
11 ,However, the procedure says that 150 degrees -
(]) 12 preheat should have been used, or whatever the case, and 13 ', he really can't verify this on a postweld inspection. ,
14 0 While you were at Zimmer, sir ~, what type of inspections 15 were they.doing: In-process or post or both?
16 A In-process, sir, on.all of your essential-type work.
17 They did some postweld inspect' ions on some of your 18 Class D stuff and some of your, nonessential structural 19 welding.
20 0 All right, sir. .
21 What about Braidwood?
22 A At Braidwood, I'm assuming that they done some.
23 in-process inspection.
24 However, there was a lot of work there that was O
25- done -- and this was all the backlog that they were Ronntaa Renortina Rorvice. Ltd.
Gedeva', Illi5ois 60154 -
(312) 232-0262
6629 1 concerned with -- was all going to'be postweld 2 inspected. Some of this work had been done for three to 3 six months.
4 JUDGE COLE: All right, sir.
5 I think that's all I have.
6 Thank you very much, Mr. Puckett.
7 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We'll take a ten-minute 9 break. .
10 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which 11 the hearing'was resumed as follows:)
() 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We're back in session.
13 Mr. Berry would like to offer some exhibits.
, 14 MR. BERRY: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
'15 'At thi s time the Staff would move into evidence 16 Staff Exhibits 6, 7,8, 9.
17 We would also ask that the transcript of the 18 September 11,-1984, interview be marked and admitted as 19 Staff Exhibit 10.
- 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN
- Well, we'll mark it as Staff 21 Exhibit 10.
22 (The document was thereupon marked
~
23 Staff Exhibit No. 10 for identification 24 as of July 3, 1986.)
O 25 MR. BERRY: And Staff would move it into Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
- Geneva, Illinois 60134
~
(312) 232-0262
___ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ __ ._ __ ____ _ ___ _ _ _ . - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _.. .._ _ _. ._ _ _____ y 6630 l l
( '
1 evidence.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Pardon? i 3 MR. BERRY: Staff would also ask that it be 4 received in evidence.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I have my doubts, even 6 without hearing objections from counsel, as to wholesale 7 inclusion in the record of something that is that 8 extensive. .
9 Would Staff -- I'm sorry. -
What is other counsels position on the. offer of 10 11 all these documents? .
() 12 Mr. G'uild3 ,
13 MR. GUILD: Well, I'm at somewh'at of a 14 ' disadvantage now, having from the Staff to reconstruct 15 exactly what all the exhibits are that Mr. Berry is 16 offering.
17 MR. BERRY: Staff Exhibit 6.is -- ,
18 MR. GUILD: I have the numbers down. It's 19 just a problem of finding them. '
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: The ones you'll have 21 problems with are 7 and 10. ,.,
4=
22 Exhibit 6 is a cover letter and the inspection 23 report, but it does not include the inspection report of 24 November 21, 1985.
25 JUDGE COLE: If you'd like to look at tho.se,
^ Ronntaa Renortino Servicem Ltd.
Geneva', Illinois 60134 .
(312) 232-0262 .
- . .6631 s
) . .
1 wehavg,ofsopiesohthesehere. ,
2 MR. GU$LD: ,
Thank you, Judge Cole'.
3 As I recall, the witness codidn't recall having 4 -
received Exhibit 6.
5 I don't h' ave any objection to it being received; 6 but, of course, the witness' testimony reflects that he 7 . didn't get it. -
8 7 -- I do obj ect to 7. It was not, .obvicusly, 9 pr,epared by the witness.
10 Counsel is certainly entitled 'to question from the 11 document, but I don't bel'ieve that it can come 'in other
.( l2 ,
th'anbNrough.'Mr.Weil,whoappa'rentlyisthe. author.,
13 ' .. although,.o'v.iously, b Mr, weil is recounting what from 14 , the text appears to 'be othe~r than first-hand
~ 15 in' formation. He's really collating information.from a
~
16- variety of*sourcps, including what appears to be Mr.
.' 17 McGregor's communication with,the witness as we11 as his s .
~
~ 18 own gommunication -- he, Mr. Weil's communication.
19 . JUDGE GROSSMAN: Before you.go further -- ,
20 ,
- have you =
completed y.our discussion of 7?
u 21 No, sir. '
MR. GUILD.:
. 22 - '
JUDGE GROSSMAN:- Okay. .
23 '
- MR.. GUILD: That's all right, Judge.
- f 24 -
. -If you' have something, I'd just as soon --
25 JUDGE G,ROSSMAN: . No, no. Complete your r 9
- , SonntagReportingServiceYLtd.
-Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312).232-0262
- -. . _ . _ _ _ _ _ ~ __ - __
- \
l 6632. 1 O
/
1 objection to 7. .
2 MR. GUILD: All right.
3 7 -- it clearly -- the substance of the document,.
4 even as recounting accurately what the witness said, is, 5 indeed, in dispute, and I would object to it being 6 received in evidence as establishing even that much; in 7 other words, what the witness ~said to the NRC Staff.
8 Mr. Weil is obviously the appropr.iate witness to 9 sponsor the document.
10 I don't believe it's appropriately received as an .
11 exception to the hearsay rule for -- as a business .
12 record or a government record, since there, indeed, are
(]')
13 ,
circumstances that cast-doubt on.the reliability of the 14 contents.of the docunent and the means by which it was 15 compiled.
16 Of course, it has, also, handwritings on it that 17 have not even been identified. -
18 That's my position on 7. .
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Miller, do you have a 20 . gosition on 6 and 7?
21 -
MR. MILLER: Yes, your Honor.
22 Certainly 6/ it seems to me, should'be accepted by 23 the Board without any question.-
~
24 Th,ere's no -- the witness simp 1y doesn't -- he 7-
~# '
obviously -- my.recolle'ction of his testimony',is that'he
~
25 ,
Ronntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
- Geneva, Illinois 601-34
-(312) 232-02'62
6633 o .
1 got the inspection report shortly after he returned from 2 the deposition in Chicago on December 6th.
3 The cover letter establishes the date that it was 4 sent, as the Chairman has observed.
5 It was just at the time --
6 MR. GUILD: I don't object to 6.
7 MR. MILLER: I beg your pardon. I'm sorry.
8 Let me go on to 7.
9 I believe that the-Board should accept 7 as, 10 indeed, it should accept these Staff documents, it seenis 11 to me, almost without exception. .
C , 12 The testimony has established what'ever errors in 13 transcriptions or qualifications the witness'has ov'er'
- 14 the accuracy of the document itself, and the Board is in -
'a p6sition, it seems to me, to evaluate what weight t'he 15 16 parties wish to put.on it. , .
17 -I thin!, that we are -- that 'this p'roceeding has 18 involved just very extensive,'quite hnical objections 19 to the receipt of documentary evidence from the.NRC ,
20 -
Staff t and I would again like to ejust . state my . position 21 that it seems to me 'thi's Board is 'urfiquely qualified to 22 ,
evaluate the reliability and trustworthiness.of these'
. 23 '
types of . doc'uments.-
~
24 To simply exclude them on technical svidentiary
~O 2'5 -
grounds I;think is erroneous. -
, n o
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. -
Geneva, Illinois 60134 '
(312) 232-0262
6634 O
1 I think that the Board can take account of the
'2 circumstances unde ~r which.they were prepared and the 3 ,
qualifications to various statements th,at are made in 4 the document b'y the witnesses who were examined on them.
5 But to exclude them and not have them form a part 6 of the evidentiary record I think is not proper in an 7 administrative proceeding.
8 So I would urge the Board to accept Staff Exhibit 9 .
- 7. . .
10 ,
JUDGE GROSSMAN:- 'Well, I'm. amazed to hear how 11 ~the priva'te bar'is.so mu'ch in. favor now of our_ loosen'ing
(]) 12 the rules of'.evid nce. We always hear the opposite. -
13 .- Eut there'have been a number of pr3blems pointed .
' ~
out with that document.'
~
14 ,
15"" The only point that,I can recall being made about 16 the document war with regard to one item that Mr.
17 Puckett did h'ot apparently ' identify to. th,e NRC at that time, and that poin't was made ad infinitum without the 18.
19 -
use of that document. -
' ~ '
20 As'to thefconte,nts.themselves of the dcrcument, o .21' ther.e is a large question as t'o what it is based on, 22 . . whether it was one person's report or one conversation 23 that was- reported, and I think we would want son.o 24 foundation testimony before we. bring that document in.
.()
25 . I'm sur.e Mr. Ber'ry will be well prepared'to, supply R6nntaa Renortino Service. Ltd; Geneva; Illinois 60134 '
'(312) '232-0262 ~
l 4
.. ._. - ~ ~ _ _ . . _ . ~ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _
6635
() -
1 that foundation, because the persons who compiled the 2 dc cument will be~ available for t'estimony.
3 So I don't see any purpose right now in receiving -
4 the document, and with all the problems we have with the 5 document, I think maybe we ought to have s-ome foundation 6 for it.
7 So we will not adwit at this time Staff's Exhibit 8 7. -
9 MR. BERRY: Your~ Honor, I would only point 10 out that -- Staff understands the Boar'd has ruled on e .. .
~
11 , Exhibit'7, but I would like to state Staff's position-
~
(]) 12 for th'e record.
13 Staff believes that this document is relevant; that
- 14. it is admissible, independently. admissible.
15 'It's' relevant because, for one thing, the witness 16 has identified that he received this document; that this 17 was the document used by the Staff and the witness in
- 18. discus. sing his concerns at the NRC.
19 The document reflects that -- it sets'forth'the
- 20 basis of the Staff's understanding of those concerns and 21 the witness' awareness of the Staff's understanding'of ,
l
~' '
22 those concerns. -
j ym. . .
23 We've h'ad testimony by the witnira now that 'this I
. t *.
24 document does not -- does not reflect -- 1) does not now O 12 5 reflect his pres'ent concerns; and I would -- I.would --
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
' Geneva, Illinois 60134 .
(312) 232-0262
- _ _ __ __ ' _ _____.'.. . .q .
\
6636 O -
1 I would submit that the argument there is that it's i 1 2 relevant -- is relevant as well for impeachment.
3 I also believe that -
- 4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Berry, isn't it true 5 that you've already established through the testimony 6 which concerns they are that you indicate were not 7 presented to the NRC?
8 ,
MR. BERRY:- Well, I mean, I didn't go through 9 each and every one of them because, you know.-- I didn't 10 go through each and every one of them, but I do
, 11 believe -- yes, the Staff indicated some of them, but-0 12 certainly not all of them.
13 . JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, do you think'it's
- 14 appropriate, then, since you haven't gone through them, 15 just to put in a blanket document, without having any 16 further testimony from the NRC-principals, that these 17 concerns actually weren't discussed, not having asked 18 Mr. Puckett about those -- .,
19 .MR. BERRY: Mr. Chairman --
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: .. Excuse me. ,'8 21 ' -- not having asked Mr. Puckett about those other
~
22 concerns?.
23 I don't think it is. ..
24 MR. BERRY: Again, the' Staff .- I'll just 25 state again the Staff just believes this document is --
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 6013.4 (312) 232-0262
l l
1 6637 l
(
l is admissible and should be received; but we'll accept 2 the Board's ruling and produce other witnesses that can 3 lay the foundations that the Board feels are necessary..
4 JUNGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Now we'll go on to 5 Staff Exhibits -- so Staf.f Exhibit 6 is received, but 6 Staff Exhibit 7 is not.
7 (The document was thereupon received 8 into evidence as Staff Exhibit.No. 6.)
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We'll go on to 8, 9 and 10.
10 Mr. Guild.-
11 MR. GUILD: I simply don't recall, with _
()
12 regard to 8, whether'the witness acknowled'ged recallin'g' 13 having received it. -
14 I don't object to its admission. ,
15 The transcript -- "
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: .I take it you do not either, 17 Mr. Miller? ,
~
18 MR. MILLER: No, I do not.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild, with' regard to 9?,'
~
20 MR. GUILD: .9? . .
21 No objection to No. 9.
~
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And yod neither', Mr'. Miller?
23 ,
MR. MILLER:' No, sir. -
24 I'm sorry.
C) 25 JUDGE GROSSM' A N: . Okay.
8 and 9 are received.
Sonntac ReDortlnc ~ Service , Ltd. -
. Geneva, Illinois' 60134 ~~
(312) 232-0262 ,
6638 O
1 (The documents were thereupon received 2 into evidence as Staff Exhibits Nos. 8 ,
- 3. and 9.) l 4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: How about Staff Exhibit 10?
5 MR. GUILD: That's the --
6 MR. BERRY: Transcript.
7 MR. GUILD: I do object to wholesale receipt 8 of that document, Mr. Chairman.
~
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: . I take it you do, too, Mr. _
10 Miller? -
11 MR. MILLER: I do, too.
() 12' What I'd like to suggest is that given the witness' 13 answers that he recalls the interview and that he 14 ' acknowledges that he was sworn in by the Court Reporter 15 at that interview, that if Staff would indi* hate, with 16 some specificity, what aspects of the transcript they 17 wish -- of 'the interv'iew they wish to introduce, I think 18 we could foc'us on them..
~
l'9 I agree: I think'there's a lot in there..that's .
either cumulative or irrelevant to this.
~
20 .
21 There may be some aspects of it, though, that are 22 pertinent to show a difference in position between what 23 Mr. Puckett testified to here today and what he 24 testified to in his interview.
O 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me.-
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
6639 '
~ ,
O
= .
1 Having thought further of this, I see more 2 objection to Staff Exhibit-10' than just the fact that it 3 is wholesale.
4 . Counsel have prepa'ed r for this. proceeding, I 5 assump, and should have been prepared to ask their
~~
6 questions in the presence of the Board.
7 I'm not sure that I would like to have a document 8 in which the Board cannot follow up with. questions or 9 other counsel. ,
10 I would absume whatever was pertinent was studied 11, by Counsel and Counsel'were, prepared to;questYon on. -
Q 12 After all, this. is not a case in which we have a-13 party before us'where this is an a~dmission'of a party .
14 opponent, and anythin'g that the transcript could be used 15.4 for sh'ould be used at the hearing itself in the why of 16 impeachment, refreshing recollection,.and not'as 17 . admissions.
18- ,
So .there is a pretty large objection to doing that.
19 Im sure Mr. Berry had done his homework and had
~ ~
20 asked the questions that'he intended to bring before the 21 Board when.he conducted his examination. "
22 Mr. Berry, do you want to sap anything further on 23 Staff Exhibit 10?
24 MR. BERRY: Yes.
o*
,. 26 The ' Staf f wotrid respectfully disagree.
sn n n t-n o nonortino service, r.ta .
Geneva', Illinois 60134 ' '
(312L 232-0_262. ;
9 66.40 O -
1 The Staff believes, again, that this document'is 2 relevant. It's relevant in its entirety to this .
3 proceeding.
4 It seems to me, your Honor, that there's now a 5 question in this proceeding as to whether the Staff
) 6 investigated Mr. -- the nature of Mr. Puckett's 7 concerns; and it's my belief that it would be -- that 8 it's relevant and would certainly be helpful for the
~9 Bo'ard to be aware of what the Staf'f uriderstood to be Mr.
4 10 Puckett's-concerns, the concerns tha.t they investigated.
~
11 Staff Exhibit 10 -- Staff Exhibit l'O reflects the 12 -
concerns brought to the Staff's attention by.Mr. Pucke,tt 13 and~that the Staff acted upon.
14 Staff would ask that -- for that purpose, that it's ,
.15 relevant and that it be received.
~
f 16 JUDGE'GROSSMAN: Well --
l
, 17 -
MR. BERRY: In ' addition to --
1 18' JUPGE GROSSMAN:' ,
Mr. Berry, with regar'd to 19 . that poirit, first of all, thats an . ancillary problem.
20 'That's not our main purpose here as to whether Staff did
~ '
21 its job.
22 We're 'really con,cerned with the operating licens~e.
23 That's a side igsue,. .
~ ~
24 ,
MR. BERRY: 'It's not'-. .
O 25 JUDGE GRUSSMAN: Mr. Berry,.please don't
( .
Sonntag Reporting' Service, Ltd. -
~
Geneva, Illinois 60134 -
(312) 232-0262 _ . _ . _ . . _ _ _ ._ _ _
_ - - _ - . . . . .. .._ . - - . . ....---- - . - - - . . . . - -. -. - - ,....- . =-
6641 1 interrupt me. I try not! to interrupt you when you !
2 speak.
3 The best persons to supply that positio'n with ,
~
4 regard to whether Staff did its job are the Staff 5 -
witnesses, and just to put t.his in wholesale really does 6 not a,ccomplish that purpose. -
7 But now you can continue further, Mr. Berry.
8 MR. BERRY: -I would*just -- I would'ju,st note 9 my exception. -
10 . JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine.,
11 . So we will not admit Staff Exhibit 10.
Q 12 I believe we've already indicated with regard.to 13 ,
which documents we are receiving: Staf f' Exhibits -6, 8 14 and 9..
15 ,
MR. BERRY: Mr. Chairman, wit [h the Board's 16~ leave, I'd also like to note for the record that during.
17 the recess,'the Staff served on Counsel for the parties 18 '. a copy of a May 14, 1986, memorand.um from Bernard W.
-19 Stapleton, Enforcement Specialist of the Enforcement
.W Investigation Coordination Stiff of Region;III, to the 20 .
21 ,
Region III files. The subject is Braidwood Alleged 22 Employment Discrimination Case.,, ,
23 We' just. served it on the parties.
24 , JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh. -
25 But not on the Board?
~
Roantaa Renortina Service. Ltd.
~ '
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 ,
. .- - . . . . . . . . . . _ - . ... .. .~. . . . . . . . . . . . - .
I 1
6642
)
1 MR. BERRY: , No. .
2 It's discovery.
4 3 But we have one for the Board if --
4 JUDGE GROS'SMAN: Mr. Berry, did you think the 5 Board wasn't interested in this? -
6 MR. BERRY: Not at all, y.our Honor.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Judge Callihan --
8 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairma,n'--
.. 9 ,
JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me.
l'0 ,
Mr. Guild? ,
11 . MR.' GUILD: Excuse me, Judge Callihan.
() 12 If I might just note,- I'm very distressed, o.f ,
13 course, not only with the substance of the document that.
14 ,I've just been handed but with the-fact t, 44hat I'm being 15 given.now a May 14, 1986, Staff document and today is 16 the 3rd of July. I 17 The witness has been on the. stand now for, days, and 18 Counsel all have been diligently preparing to litigate 19 this case,-and I just cannot understand why the Staff ,
' 20 sits on a document for a period of weeks, during which 21 time we've been in constant session, and discloses the
'22 ' document only at this late date.
23 -
JUDGE GROSSMAN:[ Not only that, but ib'seems ,
24 .to explain where Staff has been coming from with its
( 25
~
questioning, which I th' ink the parties and the Board had W 4 Sosntag Report.ihg Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
. - (312) 232-0262 ..
6643 1 a right -to know as far .as. t'he points abou't Mr. Puckett 2 -
being qualified or unqualified.
3 I am distressed myself --
4 - 2 MR. BERRY: Well,-your Honor -- -
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- as to the timing, and 6 even now not being prssented with a copy of that.
7 MR. BERRY: Your Honor, this document --
8 well, Staff Counsel, only as of late yesterday 9 afternoon, received authorrization to discl'ose this 10 document, and certainly-we've done that.
11 This document was disclosed well in advance of ,
12 testimony of any Staff witnesses;'and'I understand Mr.
[]) '
13 McGregor
-- strike 'that -- Mr..Little is competent to i
14 , speak to the matters addressed in thit memorandum, so s i
15 it's disclosed well.in advance. of his testimony.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: ,
Well, I don't even ,
17 understand'the basis for~ nondisclosure here, because -
18 apparently there wasn't an OI. investigation, and it was-
- 19 decided on May 14th that t'here wouldn't.lue.
20 .My understanding was~that only the OI 21 investigations were confidential;.and 'here we have a ,5.
22 clear finding that there wouldn't be an OI.
23 investigation, and actually-a. contradiction -- or 24 contravention ef,the official policy of the Commission O 25 that unless something is -specifically confidential under -
Sonntaa ReDortino Service, Ltd.
Geneva,~ Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 . _ . _
6644 1 that policy statement, that it's disclosed to the Boprd 2 and ;th'e parties. , . . -
3 Isn't'that correct, Mr.. Berry l, that that's what$ th'e 4 policy stdtement s,uggests,ought to be'done, and ,this-5 .
.doesn't fall.within that? .
6 MR. BERRY: My understanding --- my' 7 understanding is that is th,e p611cy -- what"the policy
~~ ~
8 statement says. I understand..
9 I would only point out that Staff Counsel -- Staff 10 ,, Counsel received author'ization to. disclose'this' document 11 yesterday af ternoon, and Staff Counsel 'has cilligently O
v 12 disclosed'that document.right after -- right after --
- 13 right after it obtained conspnt and' authorization _.t'o do .
~
.14 so. ,
~
15 ,MR . MILLER: Your Honor, might I just -
. ~
16 interject for a second, becausetI~believe I can shed 17 some. light on the reason why this may;have~been~ caught 18 up in Region 1II? ,
19 . You'll note that the.first paragraph refers to a
- 20. .
matter which occurrsd at the Byron facility.
21 -I am a little bit famili~ar with the substance of ---
22 of.tNat matter and know 'fhat that eventuated in a civil -
23 penalty.that-was just recently assessed against
~
24~ Commonwealth Edi' son Company.
O 25 I can't explaini nor would I try, as to why the Sonntag" Reporting Service, Ltd. ,
, Geneva, Illinois 60134 .
(312) 232-0262 _ _ _
~ _ . _ _ _ _ _. . _ _ __- -_--_ _ __ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _
. e -
e - s
- - 6645
.. - *~.
m y U. '
+
l' . Staff' chose to put two essentially'unrelaped matters in 2 the same memorandum; but the Johnson versus Transco,
,. . + . .
Inc., matter tha.t i,s r'eferred to_in the first paragraph,
~
3 .
4- which was not, in. fact, rlesolved until,-I believe, last .
5- webk,.may have been the-basis.~on =
which this' entire m, e ,
6 memor&ndum was withheld.
-*- ~7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, that may be the case.
o 8 But I think tb'e relevant question h'ere i'sn't'when ,.
9' Staff r'eceived the authorization to release'this, but l'b 'when, Staff received.an authorization not to release,
.. . .~.
11.. this, considering that it is in violation of the
~
{~ 12 Commission' policy to release ,this type.of mater,ial,with
~
13 -
regard to.what' we h' ave over here in this hearing.
l'4 Well, I don'.t think'we want to waste any time and 15 ' ksep Mr.' Fui:kett 'here any longer 'than he has to be,
.because he' inay be. called back.
~
16- -
17 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman --
18 -
JUDGE GROSSMAN: But, Mr. Guild, does it.
~
i 19 appear as though he.s going to be called back, any~way? -
l
-., .,2 0 MR. GUILD: ,
I hope not, Mr. Chairman.
~
21 The decision, obviously, from'the face of the
., 22 document *, was made April 10th on the Puckett matter, Jtnd
' ~,
23 aside from the question. of this particular piece of
- 24 -paper, I fi~nd.the' Staff's' failure.to .d.isclose the., fact - -
~
. 25 that-they.had made a determination in the Pucket,t ma.tter ,
Ronntaa ReDortino Service,'Ltd.
~
Geneva,. Illinois 60134 (312) 232'-0262
'6646 p . . 4 -
'V. ,. ,
1 on that date, prior :to the hearings even commeneing in .
2 - this case, inexcusable.
g 3 'I would ask.that the Staff be directed to search 4 . its files to deterdline whether or not at this date now,,' -
5 the' 3rd of July, we have, indeed --'the 'partie's hav*e, -
6 indeed, received a full disclosure of relevant materials
~
7 -
It, hat have been subject to long-standing discovery .,
8 . requests. ." [ -
9 ,
' JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I tihink that's **'.
~
10 apIropriate f at this point. ,
~
11' Except for the matters before the OI, I t,hink Staff 12
. ought to disclose whatever is in the files that should
~
- ~ .
13 ,
be disclosed to the parties and the Board.
- g ,
1.4 Qkay. W'e'll now proceed with the completion of the-15 -
Board examination of Mr. Puckett.
16' ' Judge Callihan?
l~/; . JUDGE CALLIHAN: Good morning again, Mr.
18' . Puckett. * ,
~*
19 THE. WITNESS: Good morning, sir. ,.
20 BOARD EXAMINATION .
BY JUDGE CALLIHAN: '
~
21- .
22 O I have a few. items intended for one or the other of two
. 23 ' porposes: One,.to clarify and educate me in some
- t 24 matters; and, sec6nd, pogsibly to help hhe record. ' '
O -.R5 At the dire risk of beating further on the ,
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd'.,
- T .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 v .e,..-v .e. ,.. , , _ , _ n_.
(31.2) 232-0262
.o .- e
- 6647
(:) *'
' ~
1- proverbia'l horse, I would like to return briefly to 2 . -Applicant's Exhibit 23, which is Revision D df Comstock 3 ,
, Procedure 4.3.3, if you can obtain a. copy, s -
4 ,
Would you again direct your attention to Attachment
.. ~ '
5 H. .
6 .- A I've got an earlier revision. I've got Revision E. I 7 . have a'later revision of it. a
- 8. ..
I don't think I have the earlier revision. -
9 MR. MILLER: 4.3.3, Revision D, Judge 10 . Callihan? .
11
' JUDGE CALLIHAN: Correct.
,) 1( ,
THE WITNESS: This superseded -- -
13 . -
MR. MILLER: Here. I'll just look over your -
14 shoulder. .
- 15. . (Indicating.) '!
,. 16 BY JUDGE CALLIHAN:
.. 17 Q If you will tur.n, please, Mr. Puckett, to Attachment H, 18 '
which is.about a. third-of the way through.the document.I-19 , , A Yes, sir. y.
20 0 This is back to the rather well discussed, overly
- 21. . -
discussed, perhaps, matter of w' eld materials A36 and A500 and A446.
22 ,
e * ~ '
23 A Yes, sir. f.
24 0, And I believe I'm. correct that there has been copious I h' '
25 reference to various weld codes, particu'larly Americdn-8 '
Ronntac Recortina' Service. Ltd.
Geneva', Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 -
- ~ _ -
e , - .
f ; ;.
- 6648 o
1 Welding Society Dl.lf-1975,' regarrding the selection of
^~
2 materials themselves: . -
'3 Do you agree that on.the ba' sis.of those',
explorat'iohs 1nto the' code anEl those Par'agrsph 5.2,pI.
~
4 ,
5 believe,andTab,l'e10hointsomething--Isaythatnot, '
6 really authoritatively, but just as a. patter of- - -
- n identification to'you. ~ '
7 -
8 Do you consider ,that on the basis of those 9 cross-references among those. tablee and texts, that,the ,
10 weldingofpa.insof,th'ese.threematerialswasqualifiedf 4 ,.
11 'A Well,. sir,. there's a good possibility that A446 --
(]
~
12 that's -- that's the materiai.that we're primarily -
13 concerned with. That is the matsrial that is not listed 14 in the D1.1 code anywhere. ,
. m 15 However, they had qual'ified a prdcedure, which isT .
16 this H that we're referencing ~to -- they'had qualified ~
17 the A446 to A500. That'seems to be a suitable .-
c 18 -
procedure. -
or ,
e -
19 My concern was, howpver: Is 'this procedure the ~
20 only one that they had.at the time suitable that they 21 could make a weld A446 to A500 or A367 .
22 Of course, at..t'he time Lt didn't'even reflect the ~ '
23 A36 on the procedure:
That was added at.- a lates da'te.
24 However/ this what we will refer to- as.a technigtg' l O
~
25 sheet, as it gives the technique; amperage and voltage ,
a# - .
- A Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. Y-k Geneva, Illinois 60134 .
. I
( 312') 232-0262 1 1
, . . u..
6649
' a
. f
,(VM . .' . ..
1 parrg6 that 'the ~m,at$erial is to be welded with, limits' 2 . this to a 'thre~e-sighths-inch -
minimum size- fillet' weld. ,
3 Q' All right.
4 -
- Now we've gotten to hhe point. I.di,dn't want'to
+ .* . .
. e
, 5. , bring up the. weld, mater 4al, base material, ,
6, , - identific'ation discussion at g'reate length, bu't 4 did 7
< want to cdmeJ t o; the . point which you .just rai$ed, which - ,
e 8 ,
is a typed irisert, if j may s'o characterize it, at inici 9 ,,, ,
of A.'ttadhment H, which, e'stabliphes:, as "you just said, a. .
,;ni,nimum size of a fillet wgld..
10' - ,
A
- ~*
11 A Yes, sir. ,
.. c-12 ' , Q' Now, my ques 2; ion ce.nters arounk that inher't. ,
~
What -is the autho'r'ity= fo'r that lirpitation?, Wh o --- "
13 .
o -
. . ..e s .
14 A 'The procedute qua.lificati~on itself was qualified us'ing a -
l l'5 weld thal'is greater than that. Th*e t'ests were l .
' '16 performed, ,
and they .says, "With. t-his amount of metal gori
~
17 -
these components, we have an acceptable component.
s.
' ~
18 I Howeter' if we . had a. lesser a'r.nount of .f-iller . material
' on .
19' these components, we cob 1d not justify that*we would-l' 20 .
sti.ll,have a, good prpcedure.
e,, . -
. 21 . . , Q Did that dimension derive fr.om examination of. coupons?
O ,
22
- A .Yes, sir, th*e actual qualifica, tion of the. procedure. ,
- . s i 23- 'These were the limits that were set. .
- ' 2,4 Q Wha't' weld roci staterial 'is used or requirec) in -- ,
E7018 filler niateria1.
~*
A 25 A ,
- R
= -
s n ,
( , Ronntag Renortin'g Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 -
. (
. (312)' 232-0262
- q
^
- u , 6650
, , 2 a <
~
.r~) , . .
qi- - .
- + -
> . a 2 s, , ,
', .1 -Q' -Is 'the dim.ensfon - "is the three-eighths-igch. dimension 2 ., as*a minimum a function of*the Weld rod material? .
.. 3 A ho, sir, other than the fact that the' material *is used i j
- 4. _ ,, ..
to make this dimeritien. . , ', H
~ -
. 9
- g. . ,, ,
5 0 .- I see. .
- 6 , *A ~
That is what the dipension derives f rom, the size and
-(
7 .* the amount of materialw that was used in -it. ' -
^
+ 8 . O So one mighti not say,-- mi.ght not say' Ia priori a' '
a
'9 differ.ent weld rod would Allow a different size weld?.
~
20- ,
A. The diff ereni:e 'in the weld rod would not. make a -
dif f e r efi' c e -- '.
11 '
, 12' '
e] '
O All right, fine.
- 13 A 3 ,in. the -- oth'er. tha,n the f act l'f 'fou use a larger -
. ~
14' size fill'er raaterial to make. this
16 0. Am.<*I correct in remembering that when this matter was. , '
~
17
. very thoroucfbly. discussed; our princi' pal objection, . ,
' 18 ,
which .had lesser ramifications,,which we don't w, ant ter 19 *reconstruc,t here'- ,your principal objection centered 20
- aroun'd, a three-eighths dimen'sion rather than the
.. 21 ' m.ater}als themselves? .
,. 22- A, Yes, sir. ,
, 3, *
. 23 Q All right. .
24 .. I would like,Fthen*, to look .f or a moment at several .
m 25 docufnents, 'and f or identificat, ion - andIthbk $
c d . -
Sonntag Reportfing Servicp,[,Ltd. ,
- Geneva, 1111nole culae -
. (312L
- 232-026.2 ,- ,
., ., wo. o. .
o . .
665g
. ,0 ' ,
O .- . .
, s.
1 needn' t dig t'hese out 'unl%fs you wish -- there's -
2 , y Applicant's Exhi, bit 52, which is.your note of August 8, e -
3 ,
1984, to Mr. DeWald, . concerning'- we.11, really -
4 - co'ncerni'ng the st.op-work pr'oblem. ,,
- 5 There.is Mr. Rol%n's, Sr., memo to Comst'ock
. 6 supervision, dated Augus,t 17th,, relating to the . _
' '- ~'
, 7- stop-work order. , ,
.y
- 8 , ,MR , GUILD: That's Exh,1 bit 54. ,
.9 i JUDGE . CALL,IH AN : Is there a copy,.Ms. Mil'ler?
. s .
. "10. Here.- Take mine. '
~*
. 11 .-
(Indicating.)
y Qv . .
12
.+
' MR. MILLER:
Thats all right, Judge . -
r' 13 . Callihan. I've got my own, and I believe the witne'ss -
. e.
- 14. .* . has - -
- a.
. , 15 . BY JUDGE CALLIH AN: .
16 . Q .The emphasis, th.ere, as a basis. f or, the stop-work ordes.,
. 17 '
to me seem's to be the weld rod matdrial, be.ca'use both of
' 18 M these documents that we've cite'd say - .you .say, for f
19 example, in Applicant'h Exhibi:t 52 -- and, inciclentally, c- . .
20* ,
I filled to day -- and.I apologize - t'at.the h othe~r d,ocument I cited is Applicant's Exhibi.e 54.
21 ,
. 22 ,
D'ut in 52 you say, "It is my recommendation that ' .
-w .e.. ,
23 .,
all welding be st:opped that inv81ves welding A36 'to A446'
~
n .
- '24 using E7018 el. ectr 6de."' -
- w .
v 25 Now, there's no mention anywhere here' of the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. -
Genevo,, Illinviu 60134
- 4. - (312) .232-0262 -
- e . .
= , .
-g
- 3. e '-
. . - . ., .. 6652 4
' ~ ~
O '* . . .
. 1, eighth-inch .- the three-eighths-inch minimum size. -
I' wonder why'the weld rod materiak was mentioned.
- ..' 2 e - . .
. 3. . blit the . dimension, whi' cit seems to be an important ~
. 4 factor, was not mentioned._ ,' ~ -
5 -
'A , Yes,. sir. *:
6 *
.Well,' approximately 99 perc'ent 'of the welding that
. 7 is done using,this procedure is for carbon steel and is-8 using, the E7018 elec't' rode..
The'. only o'ther type thai ,
~
'9 .they use i's ttie E7013 electrode -- the 6013' $1ectrode;
., ., . e a e *
'10 I'm sorry.. . . .
- 11 ., In' requesting.the stop-work order, 1.just' wanted',to O- 12 . stop..a continu'ing prob 1'ern..titat we had.on theap memos. '
.N/ . , s :
13 . There's not a lot of room to explain all of* th.e little
~ details and everyth1.ng. .However,.this had b.een
~
14' . .
l'5 - ,' explained.vprbh11y. .
16 -
Actually, the order should have been.just to say to T 4
,. 17 stop all weld,ing, and really,the mention of the 18 efectrode hasibly didn't eve'n.need to be there.
, 6 19 'O Just one further remark: ,
+
20 *
- If all the welding to.be ,done '- if*all the welding 21 to be done with these base materials with' Series 70.-- ..
' 22 . specifically, 7018 -- weldt rod were to be fgreater than 23+ -- be in size greater than three-eighths-inch', would
'N . .
, 24 , everything have been all righ.t'?~
- O
+ . . . .
- ,., 25 A. Yes, sir,' ,
e ,
Sqnntag Reporting Servi ~ce, Ltd...
- ueneva, 1111nois eulae n
, (312) 232-0262. 7 O
s - ..
. w 6653 0 .
However, come'of 1 he welding to do with the ;
2 components -- the*re Would not have been enough room on -
3- the comp,onent to accept a', greater size weld on' one s~ide 4'
of the leg. ,
5 'O I'said if --
- 1
, 6- A Yes, sir. .
. e 7 0 I premised this with a big "if."*
o -
.8 A Yes, sir. '
t Corftrarily ,. .is there any weld rod material th.at could 9 0 ,
4 10 '
have been u' sed even with --- without* the -
11 .three-eigh,ths-inch minimum constraint?
~ '
12 A ,
For th se particular procedutes? ,
Yes.
. 13 0 . ,
14 A No, sir.' .
- + -
15 0 okpy, all. right. . . ..-
16 gp - So to perhaps summarize ghat you just said, in ypui .
~
17 stop-work order ^ recommendation, the bas'ic cause was the
,, 18' dimension and'not.the weld rod? ,
19 A Yes, sir. .
, j 20 . All right. Thank you.
. JUD.GE CALLIBAN: -
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Are you finished with that 22 top [c? .
23 I h. ave a' question'.
24 JUDGE CALLIHAN: All right. - Go ahead.
o 25 -
BOARD EXAMINATION' .
u.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. -
Geneva, Illinois o0134
- , (312) ~
232-0262 l
~ .
,. o 6654
~ ' ~
>~ O.
1 BY JUDGE 'GROSSMAN: ,
2 4' You answered that question in the context of Jud ,e 3 ,
Ca111 hart referring you to Attachment H. ,
4 A- Yes, sir.
o . .
. 5 , 9. But, now, my understanding -- and perhaps I'm incorrect, .
6 ,
,- , is that the assumption was that H didn' t apply
~
'becaus'e o'f the three-ei*ghths-inch limitation, ' and the
,7 ,
8',
ma.in discussion that was had in the company was.with 9 ,
regard to Attachment O. ,
. . e 10 ,
Isn't that" correct?
l'1 A Yes,' sir. .
o . .
12 - ,
Attachment O was agreed on in the meeting with the Nonconf ormance Report -- that they wouldn' t use. iti; that O ,13 14 -
it; was at -that time not qualified at all*. So'it was e
15 more *or.less'-
- thef dropped ba,ck and said, "We will do ,
~ .
. y .
, 16 the welding in accordance with Attachment .H only." .
As you can sde her.e, it, gives a minimum' .' size to th'e 17 ,
~
18 fillet weld that was being*used. However, almost ,in all l
i .
19 . cases the.s'ize of. weld that was being,,psed on the .
20 component that was being insta11'ed usin,g this procedure, t, . 21 ,
was quar,ter-inch and three-sixteenths-inch size weld, as i 22 stipulated on the drawings. -
~ '
. 23 O Okay.. .'
- .24 .
But the points I wanted to get' to was:
The main .
'25 discussion, as I understood it, ,was with regargi to l* ,
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd;
. Geneva, Illinois bu144
- j (312) 232,-0262
. .~
6655
- e ..
1 Attachment O until it was dete.rmined that they would 2 abandon Attachment O and try to go under Attaphment H; .
. 3 isn't.that correct?
- 4 A Yes, sir. "
. 5 0 'And Attachment,O does actually specify E7018 as the ,
6 e. filler rod material, does it not?
'7 A Yes, sir., as does,Atta,chment B. ,
- B 0 Oh, does that, also? ,
9 A Yes, sir. ,
, i * ,
.' 10 .
JUDGB GROSSMAN: Okay, fine. ,
- #^
11 ,
BbARDEXAMINATION
'Q 12 ,BY JUDGE CALLIHAN:
13 D But I did have a question about Attachment O, if I may -
14 . pursue it','please.
15 , As the paper appears -- and I b,eli, eve th re was 16 some errors on'it concerning the weld symbol or .
17' . someth$ng like that. ,
18 , - . ,
Bet as'it appears in ,this. exhibit, for what type of
- 19 weld was Attachment O prepared? '
j
. . . l
, 20 A Attachment O was prepared to make a weld connecting-A446
~
21 . material to A500 material using E7018 electrode. q
'. 22
- ~
. This wogild be a . weld where they were attaching a
- e
- o , e 23 piece'of Unistrut, which is the A446 material *, to,a
- 24 -
piece ofl tube steel. However --
.O 25
.0 Was it -- excuse me.
o ,
, . . , Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ,
UEDEVA, 111.1n015 OU1J9 (312) 232-026,2 .
e .
.
- 6656.
a <
p . ,
V , .
1 A However, this was not limited to just tube steel. 'It 2 ,
sould be attached to.any kind of structural steel, had 3 .- Attachment* O been a good procedure.
4 -Q Was Attachment O for fillet welds,'also?
5 A It originally was submitted as a' flare bevel weld. It ,
- 6. was submitted and rejected as a flare bevel weld.
7 , It was* resubmitted ds a. fill.et weld, and it
- A 8
. received the' testing and inspection,s and was accepted as 9 a fillet weld.
10 O But it was in that conne.ction that ther.e was'an, 11 incorrect s'ymbol of something in Attachment 0 -- .
~ o 12 A Yes, si r .-
13 'O -- in that transition?
- 14 A 'Yes, sir. .
.c
. 15 0 ,
Think you. '
16.- The one-eighth-inch in ' Attachment 0 is-o ,
. 17 sa_tisfactory, I take- it? ,
.
- 18* A Yes, sir. That says that an eighth-inch is the minim ~um'
~
19 si,ze th'at can be accepte'd. Anything over that wou1d be 20 acceptable. .
21 0 Excuse me.' I should have gsaid a one-eighth-inch weld -
22 size.
23 . A ', Yes, sir. - . .
24 0= . Thank.you very mugh..
10 ' '
- 25 Now, this.is an httempt to' clarify for me, and
=
g ,
Sonntag* Reporting Service, Ltd. , ,
Geneva, 1111Dois bU1J4 '
'(312) 232-0262 -
6657 O ' '
~
1 perhaps for the record, an , entirely dif ferent matter.
a ..
2 This has to do with your. task in August of 1984 in 3
whichyou'.were,to,revgwwelderqualifications. .
. 4 We'were given Applicant.'s Exhibit 68,'which I'm 5 -
sure you recognize at your writing. I believe it was-6 pointed out.
(Indicating.) =
. 7,
. 8 A- Yes, sir. -
9 0 You no doubt recognize it, even f rom a distance? ,
. 10 .
, .( Indicating.)- ,
. 11 A Yes, sir. .
12 0 'Is this your record?
- 13 A Yes, sir. ,
. 14 . O This is your writing, by and large? .
9 -
. ..15 A Yes, s.i r . .
> 16 0 Interleaved is a typedl sheet.. -
17- . Does that have any -- is' tha't stiill you,r -- the s
re,s'lt of your investigation?
18 , u . ,
- - - 19 A Yes, sir. -
, 20 When I first st'arted 'the investigation, I had a 21 handwritten portion of this typed as well.
. , ~
22' O But 1.t',s all the*same report?
~~
23 -
A Yesf sir. .
24 0 Did you go abort this in an orderly ma,nner in going
~
x 25 -
through the cards and making your notes and -- ,'
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ~
. j Geneva, Illinuiu 60134 1 (312) 232-0262
- ~ c ~ \
~
6658
.1 A, I was going by' al habetical order. -
I was taking them by 2 al,phabet). cal, order.
, %
- e e
.. 3 0 This exhibit auffers from .having~ho page numbers.
However, if you do have a copy at hand --
, 4 ,
- g. *
'5 MR. MILLER: , .Here, Mr. Puckett. -
6' -
(Indicati.ng. )'
7 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. .
', 8 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: 4 . .-
4 9 0 -- you'll note that the first. sheet.be, gins With Mr. ,
. '10 ,
- Breese and Mr. Brockman. . ,, ,,
11 ,'The final sheet has' a gr~oup.of names. obliterated, ,
12 but they are apparently ,the E's and the G's.'
13' A' ' Yes, sir. ,
14 0 . Would you agree to that charactFrization?
15 A Yes, sir. *,
16 'O And then if 9ou leaf through, you'1.1, find'. lots of other o .
. .17 -
-- the names of lots of other gentleme'n. -
'As a matter of -
18
- fact, at some' place, the Sixth sheet in, there's a #
1 19, heading "N." -
l*- 20 - , How complete were your -- was your investigation,in
^
? ,
,21 '- ,
the time that'yos had to' spend ,on it?
22 k I don t know how they typecf -- I mean,' how t)iey put this
- 23 together.- I don't know if it's the way th"at i had it
- , 24
- together or even, when I put it together, that it was -
0 25 'all in order.
.I'm trying to'see where you're at and v
I e Sonnta'g Reporting Service, Ltd. ,
ueneva, 411nois eulse (312) 232-0262
4 er 66,59 o;
b -
A g .
1 -
what,'you're looking at. -
2 .'. I see a McSweeney, so we're in the M's there.
. N ..
3 ,, ,
Is that the second*name f rom the top, a J.
~
"4 McSweeney? .. .
5 0 Well, again, I don't think it's'..'fmportant, really. .
But was your -- was your revi'ew fairly complete?
~
6 7 .' .
Because I thirik I remember f rom, t;he " testimony --
r -
8 -
and I'm really asking for a check on my memory *-- that A' 9 you had gotten up somewhere to the J's and were never *
~
10 permitted -- -
- = .
11 - ... A ' Ye's, sir. It was an igcomplete. ..
review. ,
7 A . 12 '
,, These, again,. were just those peopie that I, looked ,'
V 13 .at, and I picked up the -- what I consideYed as being'
~
- 14 major diser.epan'cies on their welder qualification .
15 records. .
- w. -
l'6 Q ' But y,ou didn' t gat .an opportunit;y to complete your_ job?
17 .
A No, sir.. I was called f rom the vault and terminated
, 18 while.I was doing this r'eview.
,.- 19 On stila another matter for my ide'ntificatibn and
'd'. . ,
inf ormation, is' a' butt veld d full penet' ration weld?
20
. - .s '
21 A Not n.ecessarily, sir. Thaw s where you-abut two p.ieces
. e -
22 "* together ahd make g weld connecting them. !
23 ,Q Suppose you didn't groove it --
~ '
., 24 . N,* .Yes, sir,.' .
g *
- ~
.Q 25- 0* -- groove the' pieces.
,, , v .
( ~* . Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinvi. 6G134 . . . .l (312) 232 0262 *
)
. a
. t
- 6660 C' , - .
1 . A Yes, sir'. That's what .I'm saying. ,
2 ,
It doesn't' have to be.a full penetration weld. ,
7t 3 could be a. full penetration: weld or a. partial -
., 4- penetration weld .or just a -- just, a pass od the '
~
. - 5 surface, -holding the'two pieces together.
6 0 Applicant's Exhibit 49 was ---is an inspection report' 7 from Zimmer to which I think'you took some. exception.t'o R , some statements that may haye been -- by implication, at- '
9 ,
least - -attributed to you. ,
10 . ., MR. MILLER: Do you have 49', Mr'. Puc'kett?
'll It's '49.
JUDGE CALLIHAN:' '
~12' THE' WITNESS: I.msurekh'atit'sinhere. I
., 13' 'Just can't happen to fi,nd it. .
14 ,
MR.. MILLER: I'll take a look*. .
15 Here.
, 16 ,, ,
(Indicating.)
17 A. .Yesi sir,,I have a copy. ,], ".
18 BY.JpDGE CALLIHAN: ,- , ,
,19 Q When 'did you first see that inspecti.on report? ,
20 A *It was at the'last depositi.on 'that.I. had: with Mr. Miller
. 21 and Mr. Guild and Mr.. Berry. . ,,,
22 Q Did you have any opportunity -- when you were still at 23 , Zimm.er and relatively recently Sf ter the inspections did p '.
. 24 you have ad opportunity to, quote, " proofread" ,or check o-25 ,
your statements -- check tihe statements 'that were i
+ . . -
Sonntag'Reporti,ng Service, Ltd. _
- ueneva, 111Anois curse n
.' - (312). 232-0262
)
-r s- 6661 s i + ,
1 attriifuted'to you? .- .;
2 A No, sir,'I did not., *
'3 It's -- as I say, ' the. first time I seen it was many 4- years after Zimmer"-- well, really afher Zimmer bad . .
5 ,
. closed down and at the deposition.. . -
There was some dFscussion on a couple of occasion.s. of 6 0 ,
7 th'is, I guess, in-process inspection, really, where,a ,
,8 ,g1 w der and.an inspector more or 1,ess go hand in hand and
. 9, . do their jots -- -
10 A Yesg sir..
- 11 0 - . simultaneously or' consecutively. .. ,
12 -
You spoke, as I observed yesterday or Tuesday'-- ,
13 you spoke very s$rongly'against that proceis. .
14 ' , h, Agains,t the welder and the QC, man , going hand in hand?
15 0 Welt, the "in-process inspection" I think is probab'ly a
~ *
, 16 . better term. ,
17 . A 'No, sir'. I'm all for the, in-process inspection. - <
18
- It's the postweld inspection's that wohld' give me concern.
19 -
2'O ' 'O A11 ' right. I misunderstood. I'm sorry. , ..
- Do youT know the purpose of this hea' ring? #
21 .
22 5 Yes, sir. I guess it'.s to establish whether the' 23 .
,Braidwodd power plant should be issued an operating 24 license or not.* ,
25 0 Do you know what the titfe o,f this. body, which I won't .
, , Sdnntag Reporting Service,,Ltd. *
. ueneva, 11Alnois oviae
, (312) 232-O262 _ . - _ - _ - .__ ___ _ ..
. . . e.
- 4 6662 O. ,o 1 characterize as more than that, whic.h you've.been r ,.- -
- 2. addressing -- do you know what its title is?
3 ,
A No, sir, I really don't. -# ',
4' Q Would 'you disagree if it were said that. it is an At nic
. 5 Safety.and Licensing'Eoard? .
, 6 -
Will you accep't that? ,.
7 ,A. Yes, sir. .
8 0 That says, truly -- at least, to me -- that our concern' is the . saf ety of th*e plant.
9 - .
10 As~a matter of fact, the charter, if I may
. 11 paraphrase it, is something to the effect that it has to
.m 2 ' i'h'd *" ""Y * ""' * "'"id"~
.O . . 2 ." ** ' ** "". 2 ' '
.13' ,
here - can be operated without undue risk to the health- ,
. 14, and saf ety of the public or' any compromise of national.
- 15 security, or words to that effect.
- e 16 .
So I. just want to say on,e thing first: .that 17 ,
whereas we, hear your personal and personnel ma,tters, 18 still -+ and I make tha't without any chara6terization or I
'19 any comment I our prime concern is with safety of the, i 20' . opera. tion'of Brdidwood, if and wh'e'n.
! 21 That brings me to my question. I* guess my - 'our
, e .
! .22 lega'l colleagues would say those ' rem' arks. were the . .
, 23 *
. background or the foundation of my question, whi,ch . .. .
is; , *
'24 .
Is there anyplace *in your oral testimony *, in your' 25- deposition, in your correspond,ence and can you cite ,
Sonntag Reporting Service, LtdA i
- Geneva, Illinois ,e9144
', (312) 232-0262
- _w
6663
~
.O ..
1 specific examples where the subst)nce of your testimony c 2 ,
ca'n be* reflected into construction, procedures, , ,
~
3 ,
construction itself, that would compromise safety?
. 4
' Let me res' tate my question more simply:
'S Do you hav'e any knowledg'e of, specific instances ig.
6 ,
Braidwood where saf ety .is today* compromised because of ..
7 .,- the allegations which this Board is hearirig? .
.8 A No, sir., , .
. 9 JUDGE CALLIHAN: All right. Thartk you very .
10* .
muph, Mr. P'uck'ett, fdr coming to the hearing.
11 *
,,THE WITNESS: Thank you very much, sir.
, 12, * ,,.
JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr.' Millet, your rediyect'is.
within the scope,of Mr. Guild's cross.. examination and
- 13 -
14 ,
with regard to totally'new areas raised by Mr. Berry.
- 15. ., . ,
MR.' MILLER .
Yes,' sir.'
16 ' . RECRdSS. EXAMINAT. ION'
~
. 17' * *
, BY MR. MILLER:
< 18 Q, Mr. Puckett, ,Mr. .Guil.d began'his 'exdmination by . , ,
19 -
,ref erring you 'back t,o your, experiences at Ziminer, and ,
20 'that,'s where I'd like to start as well. . .
21 ' ~
.He showed y'ou.what'T believe was marked and .
,22 ,
received, in evidehce as Intervenors' Exhibi-t 46, ow'hich 23
- was dr. Sandlin's 1980 evaluation
- of you, Sind then'.there 3 a
- .- 24 is an Applicant's exhibit which was Mr. Sandlin's 1981 ,
25 evaluation ~of you. -
l . .
- Sonrttag Reporting Service,'Ltd.- .
weneva, AAAingin ouAag ,
, (312) 232-0262 ,
. D* .
.' 6664 o
c .
. Do y.ou recall those exhibits? '
. .. 1
' * ~
2 A Yes, sir. -
. . .s l And in both of *them you cjot I think what hou ref erred to
'3 -
0
. ~
4 as "htgh marks" f rom Mr. Sandlin; is t; hat' correct 7 ,
- 5 A Yes, si r.
. ,6
- 0 Mr. Sandlin was'the pro' ject manager E- .
) . ,
. 7 A Construction manager. . .,
8 0- -- construction mapager for Kaiser Engineering at
, s . .
. 9 .Zimmer; correct? ,
. . e.
.10 " A Yes, sir.
, .+
. 11' 0 To your knowledge, what backgrounct, if any, did Mr. /
Sandlin have in weld engineering, weld irispecition
-] * .
12 r
13 welding? . .
14' ,A I really don't know, sir. . ', ,
I 'thihk that you testified .that .when you. were -- when 15 0 ,
16 Mr. Goedecke became the Project Weld Manager, that was .
17 coincident with a lot of other changes in personnel that' 18 were taking place at the Zimmer pro' ject, includi% a new ,
19 ~ project manager; is that correct? , .
. . e v. .
Yes, sir.,,
,20
, , A- , ,
21 0 And I think you said that the managers were all being .
,22 changed because of problems that 'the Zimmer facility had
. 23 .
experienced; corr.ebt?. , - . . .
24 A That was the word that was being passed around the site,
.O
- ~
. 25 -
yes. ,
Sonntalg Reporting Service,'Ltd'.
6, ueneva, 1111nois ouAae, - -
, , (312) 232-0262 .
o . .
9 * .'
6665
~ , ,
O - .
.'0' 1- All right. U 3
- , s 2 ,
Now, I think that later on in the examination, when
~
3 ,
Mr. Guild showed you Inspection Report 8210 'f rom the -
4 Zimmer facility -- that's Applicant's Exhibit 49 .-- you .
5 said that' there had been nq findings.- by the.NRC, that 6' -
'were attributable to.you prior to this inspection .
. e ,
47, -
, report; is that correct?
8 A I said that I wasn't aware that'I had suffered no '
'. 9 repercus s' ion's. Nobody, called me in'and chewed'me out.
10 -
a.nd said, "You done bad here.".
. 11' - 0 Right, but my question'was: There: W.as no NRC ins'pection 12 find'ings of which y~ob were aware prior' to thia, 13 , ,_ irjspection report, Applicant's Exhibit 49? '
- 14 -
A .- Contributed,.to myself? ,
.15 . e Q Parddn? ,' , .
, 16 , A None that I'm aware of. . .,
. . 17 0 .' N ow , Mr. Puckett, were you aware th'at there was, 4' 18 $200,00.0 civil penaltiy. assessed against the Zimmer -
.19 , facility in 1981? ' '
, 20 A I never heard about a $200,000 penal ty . I only heard
' 21 ppout a $100,000 penaltiy for inhimidation of ,the lady DC 22 , ,
Inspel: tor'. , 3, , ,
. 23 O Were you~dware .that there'were stop-work ordera issued' 24 at, the Zimmer f acility that f apm time to time shut down O
25 .
construction? ,
a . . . .
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. '
, ,,, Gene a, 1111avio 60134
. )
312) 232-0262 , . ,
~
~' '
- 6666
., e Yes, sir.
- l' A ,
. =
2 0 Were you 'aw'are that the Nuclea'r Regulatory , Commission .
3 - -
.itself is' sued an order'to show'cquae why the '
4 -
constr,uotion permit 'sihouldn' t be'lif ted and itself -
5' suspended constructipn %n 19827 , ,
. 6 A, I wasn't,made awar, of this. ,
s . .
7* O 'Well, I'll represent tp you tha.t what I have here is the -
8 orti,er of th'e Ndt: lear Regulatory Commissilon.
It's found 8 *
- 9 . in the publ'ished, . r.eports .
at'16 NRC ,
1489. .
10
, (Indicati6g.)
11 MR. GUILD: . Do you have a date, Counsel?
12 4 . MR. .M, ILLER : The date of it is November 12, ,u
' 13 .'982.
1 14 ..o ,
.MR. GU,ILD: ,
Thank y,ou. .
15 BY.MR. MILLER:
a' ,.
16 0 There's a referertc,e in this published report of the *
'
- 17 Nuclear Regulatory Commission.tio something called the. - ,
18 " Quality. Confirmation Program" at Zimmer. , , ,
19 -
Are, you
- familiar with that, Mr. Puckett? I
' ' l 20 A Yes, sir. I know..that th'ey had one. ,
.- )
. l 21 ,O And', 1n fact, that.was a com,plete reinspection of all 22' the work that had'taken place'up to that date; isn't
- 'i
, . l
- 23 .
that right? .
It's' my.pderstandin'g that it was -- yes, that the
, 24 A
' O* 25 ,
client th'emse.1ves were sending'QC Inspectors in the '
i . . .
l,, -
Sonn, tag Reporting Ser'vic'e, Ltd.
Geneva, 1111nois. eu144 (312) 232-0262 .
, .. e,.
6667.
.* , 't ,,
O
~
'.ield .to.do this. - '
.. . 1 -
f '
4 , , .
j 2 '. Q And that part of the work that was being looked at was, , '
in f'act, the welding work that had been your' 3 -
. a
- 4 responsibility' den you .were 'Ch.ief Weld En'g.ineer f rom ,
e5 .
March pf 1978 until Mr.. Goedeck,e arrived in October of
~
6 -
- 1981; correct?- - -
4 , , ,
7'~
- A I'm assuming that they looked every .-- at everythiqq.
8 f rom the beginning of the. projec.t up urft'il the. present 9 , , dat'e. < .
,1b ., -Q All ' righ t. *
. . s .
11 . ' . Well, I take it, theh, that you were ,at'least' in.
J. 2. part responsible gr 'the NR'C's -- well,'let me .-- let me 13 strike the question. -
The NRC report, the report of,the five
- 14 .
15 . . Commissio6ers, refers to a. number of finding's of this
- o. .
16 * . Quality. Confirmation
- Program. I'd like to go do'wh them
' 17 and ask a some. of them -- and ask whether you were y
y' 18 . ' . aware of them. '..
l'9 Were you aware,..(or example, t, hat the Quality Conf.irmation Progr.am at Zimmer determined that wenids had'
' 2.0 21 , been performed using an, unqualified. welding procedure 22 -
for. welds greater than .864 o.f an inch? .
23'* . A I wasn't aware of this.
24 .
O, Were you aware thaE there .were -- there.was a findi.ng
-0.
25 -
f rom the Quality Confirmation Program. that ASME . ,
. Sonn, tag Reporting Servp ,Ltd..
- . ueneva, AAAinoza uu A.s e -
m
(.312) 232-0262
M . . o .
- .- . ,,' , *6668 a
. . e n .
1 structural weld and welder qualification defici'encies 2 ,
- existed? -
.. 3 ,
A Woui.d ygu repeat that, sir? , .
. 4 ', 0 Were you aware ,tha.t there was a finding in the Quality
- ~~
- 5 . Confirmation Program that there were ASME structural ,
6 ,
we.}d and welder qualification deficiencies f ourid?
Most of your structural welding i.s done in
- 7' A No,' sir.
8 accordance with AWS. -
e ,
9 Q Were you aware that -- -
',10 e *
. MR. GUILD: Excuse me, Mr. Mi11er.
. 11 '
'Could you give me -
a.refefence8from -
where you're' 12 '* readintj from? -
'3 1 MR. MILLER: I'm reading f rom Page 1491 of 14 ' Volume 16 of the NRC reports. .
15 BY MR. MILLER: '
16 * ,
0 ' Are you aware that the Quality Confirmati.on Program
' found welds perf ormed 'and welders not qualified f or the
~
17 18.
weld thickness ra'nge per - ASME requirements?
. 19 ,
,A 'Agai n , I was not made aware. of this. ' I don' t 'know when
.. 20 this was. ,
I mean,,you know --
21 .
JUDGE GROSSMAN: 'Exc'use me.
- 22 -
' Mr. Miller --
- 23 ,
A (dontinuing.') Was this welders that had been'on the 24 ,
project f or two weeks when it first opened?
'o-2,5 Was th,is welders that were supposedly qualified l
- ' o.
. ~
Sonn'ag t Reporting Service,' Ltd. '
. . Geneva, 1111nois culas
. (312) 232-0;!62
u .
.=
- - 6669 e- .-
O
~
- 1.
- during my tenure there that wis. welding during this -
e 2 ,
&t this time? ,
3' -
,,I'd not aware of that., I .didn' t see this.
's ~4, JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, Mr. Miller, are you
.. 5 intending to use this as evidence? -
6
- MR.' MILLER: Your Honor, I. don't believe I.
. g -
7 ', 'tiave to use thi,s as e'idence. v Iti s a publish ~ed report
., 8 by Th'is vert Commission. ,
'9 ,
.. JUDGE GROSSMAN':.. No. ,Th'ere is a question as e <
10 .
-to whether as it's appropriate, whether it's.rel'evant here.
You know, if you,want,to ask h'im questions about 11 .
12 ,,his background, you'.re stuck.with his answers, unless we' re goir;g to have an ancillary hearing on matters. th'at 13 .
14 -
are not. probative for this proceeding. -
. $ . .. . c 15 MR; MILLES: Well, yo.ur Honor, th,is' witness 16 . testifiedthatthereweretwostandards$mingapplied:
.17 ori'e, at Zimmer and one at Braidwood., . ,
18 .
I think I'm entitled, to explor'e his knowledge of * ,
19 the situation' at Zimmer so ,that he can evaluate and. so" 20 that the Board can have the. benefit *of the perspective
~ ' '
21 that this witness has on. t'he conditions at Zimmer and
, .. 22 .
the conditions at Braidwood. -
23 ', ,
6 JUDGE G, SOS $ MAN s Well, Mr. Miller, yo,u're, aware of the rules of, evidence as well as I. am,' and we
. 24 - .
25 are'having a $rolonged hearing right now. I* don't think
. Sonntag Reporting Servicer, Ltd. . , ,
ueneva, AAAinois ovia, (312) 232-0262' ..
+ .
6670
. i .. ,
()
v.
- a. -
~
1 .we 'ought to waive the rules in order to prolong it even
.'
- 2 further and have. hearings on ancillary matters.
. ,3 ,
The kinds of matters.that.you're raising now -- you
~
4- can ask' the witness a question .and he gives you' the- -
5 ' answer, and you' re stuck with ~ the' answer. .
6 ,
Actually; I don't know that what-you have to offer 7 has any relationship, anyway, because. there's no 8
spec.ificity as to who was involved.
9 But we're.not going to go further and accept as 10 evidence the mat'ters that you are reading into the.
, .u
- o. 11 . record nbw because you.couldn't put that evidence on.
A '
12 It's beyond the scope of this hearing to put that -
d e evidence on.
13 +
14 ,
- M'R. MILLER:- Your Hono'r, I don't believe that . .
15 this is evidence at all. These are findings by the 16 Nuclear Regulatory Commission., ~
. ,I 1 .
.17
- JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, but you' re asking .us to 18 accept .them as evidence herer and I'm saying that that's l l
19 beyond'the scope of this h. earing and we're not going.to have anotfer hearing.on Zimmer he're.
20 - -
- r .. .s 21, ,
MR. MILLER: 'I am not expecting to have s.
22 another.h' earing on'Zimmer, but -- l 23 -
JUDGE GRO$SMAN :.' Nor &re you permitted to go 4, .
b.eyond tihe witness' answers to.those questions that you 24* ,
L '25 '
pose.d-to him with regard to these ancillary matters..
'Sorintag Reporting Service, Ltd.
. seneva, Illinois .bulas . .
(312) 232-0262 l
6671 1
O 1 , MR. MILLER: Ye's, your Bonor. ,
l 2 I believe that I am establishing the. witness has 3 apparently no knowledge of these events.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That's right, and that's
~
5 all. That's as far as we go on that. ,
6 MR. MILLER: And in -other words, it's the 7 Board's ruling that the Board will not accept the
. 8 findings of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with 7 9 respect to the conditions at Zimmer?
~ '
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: In this proceeding?
11 MR. MILLER: Yes, sir.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Absolutely. -
13 We have enough trouble shortening this hearing 14 without going into Zimmer, and that's an ancillary 15 matter that you don't -- that.you can't offer proof of j 16 with regard to the particular hearing.
17 ,
.We can have many hearings going .on here, many, many 18 . hearings, and'it's my obligation not to waive the rules 19 of evidence to' allow that.
20 I think you' re as f amiliar with those rules as I l
21 am.
22 ,
MR. MILLER: .I do not believe that the rules 23 of evidence apply to the findings of this very 24 - Commission on a matter that was before them.
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: It's not a question of i
Sonntag, Report}.ng Service, Ltd.
ueneva, 4AAAnvie ovAa, (312) 232-0262
6672
~
I whether your proof is adequate; it's a question of 2 whether it's the kind of evidence that we want to get 3 into the hearing.
4 N ow , if it is that kind of evidence, I'm sure. we 5 can take official notice of that. That's not the 6 question. ,
j
,e ,
7 But 'it's a question of how far along this chain 8 we're going to go to accept evidence; and we're not 9- going to do it on ancillary matters.
10 MR. MILLER: You'r Honor, it seems to me that 11 there were two matters brought up on Mr. Guild's cross -
examination of Mr. Pucketty ,that bear' directly on this --
(} 12 13 well, perhaps three:
14 -
One, that he was -- the only 1,ssue that he was 15-
~
aware of where there was an NRC finding that involved.
16' his activities was Inspection Report 82.10.-
17 The other was that the NRC has -- and he said this 18 . repeatedly -- has two standards: one for Zimmer and one "
I 19 for Braidwood.
20 I believe that I am entitled to explore this 21 witness' . knowledge of the conditions at Zimmer and to 22 have this Board be aware of just what this witness' 23
.kgowledge is of the conditions at Zimmer so that. ^- ,
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And if you're going to go O 25 into...that matter, you' re stuck with the witness' answer, ,
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois bulse (312) 232-0262 . _
e
. 6673 1 unless we allow a further'. hearing on t'.he bacloground of ,,
f' ' the Zimmer reports aind .what it all means, and I don' t think"we want to hav,e another hearing like that. .
3 6
4 4 That 1s -- and that is the standard ruling on this 5' .
typ'e of evidence: that if you' re going to bring it upa 6 you' re stuck with the witness' answer and that's as far 7, as it gdes -- ,
~
MR. MILLER:
. 8 Your Honor -- ,,..
9 JUDGE GROSSMIN: -- and you can' t., bring in 10 -
further proof on this, because that amounts to another il kind of hearing on matters.that'really.aren't probative 12 here., .
'13- ,,
MR. MILLER:. I don't' propose to go any 1
14 . further than the witness' knowledge with respect to this 15 with' this witn.ess. -
i
~
16 .
It seems to 'me, when I geti to the NRC, I'm entitled i
~
17 to get into the conditions at Zimmer and the condi'tions '
f 18 at Braidwood.
^
l -
. . l 19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:- ,
No. We're not going to l 20 allow that.
21 ~ We have a long enough hearing on this. That's why I
22 the ruling is the way that it is. . You c.n only go so l
23 -
far.
~24~
- MR . MILLER: ' Your Honor, then this witness' O
testimony about the dif f erent standards that the NRC
~
25 ,
l Sonntag Repor' ting Service, Ltd.
. Geneva, Illinois 60134 .
(312) 232-0262 .- _ - . _ - _ .
6674 1 applied at Zimmer and at Braidwood should be stricken.
2- JUDGE GROSSMAN: I don't believe so. His 3 ' answer is that that was his understanding.
4 We'll have the Staf f people come up. and say,
- 5. probably, that they didn' t have a dif ferent standard. -
,. 6 But what you' re doing now is an entirely different 7 matter. You' re going 'into hi.s background; and when you' 8 ask' him questions on his background, on what he was -
'9 r'esponsible fqg, at Zimmer, that's as 'f ar, as you go, 10 without having another hearing on what happened at ,
11 Zimmer -- we're not going to have another hearing on 12 .that -- and what he was responsible f or at Zimmer.
13 - That's the Board's ruling.
14-
- So if you want to ask him the questions, that's 15 ,
fine; but we' re not accepting what"you' re reading into
[* '
16 .the record as evidence which we' re going to have a ,
17 prolonged hearing on.
18 It's not evidence. _W e' re not acceptinq it as .
, . 1 j 19 ,
evidence. - j
[
20 -
If it were probative, .we would probably take 21 ,- official notice'of it. .
~ P. !
l 22 MR. MILL,ER : Wq11, I agree with you. I think l
L 23 it's conclusive.
- l 24 . JUDGE GROSSMAN: But the rul,ing'is th'at-O^ 25 that's an ancillary matter that we' re not iaoing to go l l
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ,
Geneva, 1111nois eulse .
(312) 232-0262
6675 O -
1 into, .an'd we' re not going to accept what you read in as
~
2 evidence. --
3 But we will accept the que'stions and answers that 4
youposetothewitbess,.andIassureyouIbelieveI,W ,
m 5 on firm ground on this, Mr. Miller. ,
'6 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, I'm confident that 7' you are or. you .~wouldn' t be making the ruling that you, 8 are. -
9 But I just -- I will state for the record that I 10 believe that this Board is bound by the findings of. the-11 Nuclear Regulatory Commission in any proceeding, both as 12 precedent and as official notice.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And I' don' t dispute that we 14 could take official notice of it if we thought that it 15 was the. type of evidence .that was probative in this 16 proceeding. -
17 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman if I may make just 18 one additional point, Mr. Mill.er spent days attacking
~
19 Mr. Puckett's c6mpetence and his background and 20 exper'i ence, and his Zimmer background and experience 21 were the principal part of Applicant's attack. ,
22 Now, this counsel's -- this party's cross . .
l 23 examination was very narrow on that score and very .'
24 limited simply to rebutting or responding to the poitats 25 made by Mr. Miller.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ,
ueneva, AAAAnois ovAa.
(312) 232-0262 ,;
.. 6676
.: e
~'. - .
O 1 -
' I, don' t even hear anything to suggest that'within 2 the scope. of that examination, my examination, which was 3 .to the ef f ect of , "Were you ever found . derelict by the ,
4 NRC," in the fashion that Mr. Miller cited, I 5 understood, where a project -- the, Project Weld Engineer 6 or Mr. ' Puckett by name was cited in the NRC item of e
7 noncompliance. ,
8 The witness' answer das clear to that. ,
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: . Well, that's another point.
~
10 ,Now, . Mr. Miller attributed to you bringing .up this 11 report on Zimmer, and.I..wasn't s'ure ab'out that. '.
\
O 12 Are you saying dnow that ~ you did not brinig up this
()
13 .
Zimmer report and ask him questions on w $ er he was 14 personally involved in thi$?
- 15 I don't recall *. I'm as' king you.
16 -
MR."dDILD: I certain'ly did not examine the 17 witness in the L-- on th.e scope that Mr. Miller is -now ,
18 attempting to go. It's far beyond the limited 19 examination.that I engaged in on the subject.,
.- . s.
20 Mr.. Miller' puts the document bd' fore the witness and 21 says, "Isn't this, in effect, evidence that you were
, e 22 derelict in.your duties?" The witness responded.
23 That was 8210. That was marked. That was one 24 inspection report. .
25 '. I examined the, witness f rom that inspection report Sonntag-Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, 1111nois cul34 (312) 232-026.2
--]
.g
.. 6677-O -
1 because, as I recall, the ruling of the Chair at the time was 'that the witness should not volunteer an
'2
)
3 explanation and that should be saved for th,e adversary's 4'
examinabIon. I examined him on that, but that really ,
5 was ' the extent of the examination.
6 . ,
Now, the ' witness' examination at this point has 7 very little prpbative value because, as thi witness 8 himself has explained, the questions are
- ague v and 9
.unspecj.fic and not tied to him. They' re tied only to +
10 the most general references to welding. .
h 11 e
It',s appropriate, I think, that Mr. Miller ask
- 12 .
those que.stions and the witnessr"says, "I have no such . _
13 understanding," and then we pass f rom tpe'subje'ct;, .
14 - But I agree wholeheartedly with. the 6bservation 15 'that beyond simply whether the witness k*new or
. 16 '. understood, in response to these^1.imited questions, that o
.~ .
such ' findings have been made is imperinissible. It's a
, 1g -
18 collateral ancillary matter and simply should' not be the w 19 . subject of ggtensive groof in this prpceEding. l 1
.I 20 . Obviously, if Mr. Miller i.ntends to make such ,
.)'
21 proof, I wi11'certainly intend to join that issue; and 22 we will.have a protra,cted dispute ab'out what, in fact g ,
!- 23 .were the substantive findings on these ancillary , 4 .
l 24 ,
. matters. .
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
- 6
?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.'
ueneva, AAAinvis o v 1.> =
. -( 312) 232-0262
_ - -- = _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _- ___ _ _
' * ~
.n - O. , s- .
e >
6678
~
. . - . a 1
. . 4* - .
. 1 Mr. Miller, you...can proceed.with these ~
- questi~ong,
- l
. . u . .
2
, ..but the Board's ruling is that what -you' re reading inta -l
,.y. *a -
~_
,-~
3 ,
the record is. not ev,ide.nce ancf we' re 'not gbin'g to take ;
) '.4- fur'ther hearings on. the 5videnge of what. happened at I
'5 Z'immer.
M
, 6 -
MR. MILL,ER : ,Yes. .
, 7, ,
. BY MR. . MILLER: ,.
'8 ,
Q'. Mr. Puckett, the same NRC rep, ort says that in the %- ,
. < ._. . s 9 . Quality Confirmatipn Progrim, there,was'a reinspection -
10 . .
of structural steel welding. , .
Excus.e me,' sir.* I'm sorry to 11 .
MR. GUILD.: .
~
3 y. , ..
- y. - 12 interrupt"one more time.'. .
'. 13- -
I.t is net an NRC. report . It isp de' cision of the
, .. 14 .
Commis'sioders.
It'e n t analogous at all to an -
e 15 inspection rep e*rt.- d It's a misc,haracterization. - *-
f" ; -
.. ,~ '
.16 ..c.
JUDGE GROSSMAN: . I ' m. sor ry.. I ~ didp 6t ' -e .
?-
- 17" under, stand. - . _-
a ,
18 .
Did I. mishear'*or was' - it. mischara.,cterized"?
,, 4 ;. .
. l .9 ,
'~~
- MR. MILLER:
k may' have sYid "NRC repprt,"
- 20 but it is the decision of the five NRC Commissioners.
21 BY MR. MILLER: - -
,, m
,. ~22 O There's a ref erenc.e to the. Quality Conf.irmation i'rogram
.23 ~ that involved'; a look at structur,a1 st. eel weldi ng. ,g.
24 -
-}iow , fir'st of all, were you aware.bf that speciif'ic
'25 ~ aspect of the Quality Co,nfirmation Progfam at Zimmer? @
.. p 3 .
. . . +
c ... . .,.
' Sonntag Reporting'Sbrvice, Ltd. -
Gene'a,-111ino.is v c ul.5 4 ., ..
, (312) 232-0262 e. . .
~
.x
. O 667.9
, 1 A I know at times they did, in fact, look at'this stuff
~
, 2 ,
'out there, yes.
3 0 -And.the structural steel welding was un. der'your - ,was 4 your responsibility when y.ou were the Chief Weldi~ny Engineer; cor. rect?
5 .
~
, 6 A .'Yes, sir, as well,as the previous three weld engineers
- w. ,9,&; **7 ~ -
that were'*there before..myself.
. , . . i.
8 , Q Did anyone ever 'tell yoti, 'as recorded in this decision
- 9. ,
- of the'*five NRC Commissione'rs, that approximately,70
,, 4# - -
10 percent of the structural welds. were,be,ing rewo,rked to ,
11 make the velds ecceptable? .
o ~
- 12 A' Nol sir, nobo8y ever told me.enything lf.ke that. -
- 13 . O Now, Mr. Puckett, Mr? Guild asked 'you a litt19 bit about .-
14 *
-- well, he went back ,to this , Inspection'{teport 821'0.,
1s- .
and I just want to-ask you*a very-few questions.
3,6 .
- S -
The' item of noncompliance 'that you were aske.d .about
- 17 -- it's'the change to the 32 welde,r qualification s .
~
~18 .-
records -- do you . recall ' the ,exainination and gqperally 19 tee" subject matter?
- F
- 20 . A* Yes, sir. , , g ,.
21 0 . Okay. , g
. . . 1
, 22 -
- My gliestion to you isi .,That was ,the area -- or the )
. -o :
- 23. , issue, if you will, that led to an FBI investigation;
-24 correct?
\ .
. J* .
25 A I don't know if that'was the one that led to the FBI
. . 9^ ,
)
Sonntag Reporting Service,'_Ltd. ,
, ueneva, 1111noi s. ovAae ,
, "( 312) 232-0262 ,
l
= . .
. 6680 O. -
~
1 , $nves*tigation or not. -
2 0 Well, isn' t it' a f act that you* were inves.'tigated by the
- FBI in'conriection with this . issue because there was,some 3 ,
. '4 concern that there may. have. been falsification of '
e .
5 records?- ,
e, r .
6 A-I talked to some 'inve'stigators f rom the NRC. I don,'t 7 know if that's the same grohp or not.'
8' O No. , I was talking about the FBI, the Fe6eral Bureau of 9 . Investigation, Depart 5enti of Justice'. '
4 ,
10, 'You don't recall any interview with them?
11 - A No, sir. , ,,
12 0 Okay'.
Ur . '. .
13 . .. Mr.. Guild asked you abotft your qualification tests, 14 your . var'ious examinations at. Braidwood. You went ,
~
15 ,
through this history, and I,.believe your tiestimony was 16 .
. that 'thdre wasione practical examination where you did 17 . everything correctly except 'for f ailure to find the -
18 J welder's stamp. ,
O ,
s, ...
~ '
19 ,
Do you recall that?
- 20 A Yes, sir.' , y, f - . . ,
21 -
. Q &nd then ' that there was .another one that --- where you * ,
.. 22 got everything correct except that yo.u missed the i
~ l
~
23 identificatio'n pf the particular' weld detail. I
~
j 24 ,
Doyou recall that.? . .
0 -
,25 A' Yes, sir.
I wrote a' weld de. tail down: incorrectly.
.,Sonntag Reporting Service, Lt.d. .
O ,
ueneva, Allinois . oui 3e (312) 232-0262 -
s ._. . . .
o . .
e 66 S O
.~ 1 Q And it wks your recollection, when Mr. Guild was 2 examining you ~-- and it is today -- that those were two 3 separate practical, examinations? ,
4 . A Yes, sir. , , j 5 -
MR. MILLER: Okay.
6 -
I'd like, the Reporter to mark 'as Applicant's
. r 7 Exhibit 76 a mylti-page document. The first page, about
,hal,fwaydown,hasthesignatureof'Geor.ghNemeth,
,8' . s.
9 -
N-E-M-E-T-B, July 6th, and there are attachments to it.
'~
10 - --
(The document was thereupon marked 11 Applicant's Exhibit No. 76 for
'identifi' cation,as of July 3, 1986.)
~
Q' 12 13 BY MR. MILLER: . -
14 Q Mr. Puckett, first of.all -- wel-1, I.see'you're still 15 reading the' document, and I don' t mean to cut .you of f 16 from doing that.
17 , If you would read the first page up to Mr. Nemeth's
. . l 18 signature and then just take h look at the followirtg ;
i 19 pages just 'to . verify that your signature appears on l 20 them. .
. l 21 <.
Mr. Puckett, looking at the s'econd page of the ,
1 22 exhibit, can we agree that this was', if>.you 'will, the I
23 mock Inspectiori Correction Report.that you filled out 24 , af ter you completed y'our practical examination on the
'O 25 hanger in ques, tion? -
4 Sonntag Reporting Ser,vice, Ltd. ,
ueneva, AAAinois ovAas (312) 232-0262 -
. _ . . ~ . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . - . . . , . . . .
. - . . . ~ . _ . . . - - - . ~ . , . . . . . . . ,
~* +
. l e
6682
~ .
1 A Yes, sir. l 2 Q All right. -
3 The're you identi,fy no welder stamp for four welds ,
4 and -- well, it's actual' yl for eight welds that you say 5 that there was no welder's stamp; coriect? '
- ' '6 A Yes, sir.
~
7 Q And you identify both connections as,, DV-1207
. ~
8 A Yes, sir.- .. .
~
9 0 Al1 right.
- 10. ,
Have you ever seen the top page of this document '
11- before? e
+ i
. 12 A No,' sir. -
13 0 Well, it appears to be, does it not'-- do you recall
- 14 , whether Mr. Nemeth was the Level II Quality Control
. .g:
15 -
Inspector who graded your pract;ical examination that you
, 16 -
took on July 5th?
17 A It very well could have been. I really don't know.
e 18 Q Well, does it appear' f rom the comments, as you read them 19 -
in the second paragraph of the first page, that, in
. 20 fact, it was in just one practi' cal exam that ' yod' f ailed
- 21. to identify the proper connection and, in f act, were 22 , , unable to locate the welder's stamp?_
23 A It appears so, yes, sir. .
24 -
'O All right. .
- O 25 Now, Mr. Puckett, I think that you said that these.
~
- - Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
, , i ueneva, 1111Dois, eu144 -
(312) 232-0262
.g . _ . . . . . . . . - _ _ _ _ - _
, . - .. ~ . . ..
. s
. 6683' 1
- welder's stamps w6re really . tough to see -- or at least
~
2 you weren'~t able to ' locate them, obvi,ously.
- 3- A I along with two other'QC Inspectors.
4 ^Q Yes, sir. .
5 The function of thi's practical examination was 'to
- 6' a." weld inspector;
~
test your individual qualifications as 7 . correct?
A~
Ye,s , sir.
8 ,
9 0 And as I understand it,: you Were in the process of. .
10 ,
taking the test ~and;you hadn't located these welder's
- 11 *s taings; rdght?
12 A Yes, sir. 8 13 g.Q And just to check your own' eyeballs, you asked Mr.
14 Hunter and some other inspector to.gome over and see' 15 whether they could' find -
16 A Yes, si r .. .
17 Q .-- find the stamps? - -
18 ,
If Mr. Hunter had f ound the stamps, then you -
19- wouldn't have - you would'have agreed,with him, .
~
20 ,
probably, a'nd not written it up as a deficiency;
.21 ,
corrept? - -
2, ,
22 A Yes, sif. ,
23 Q Mr. Puck'etT, since it was supposed to b'e your , ,
- 24 qualifications,that were being-tested, do you think it
.,O 25 was proper that you asked another weld inspector to, if .
- a '
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
UCHEVS, 1111001b D U A .', 4 (312) 232-0262
.. .... . .. - -.. .. -.. . - - . a .. . .- ..
e -
.- . -6684-
~ '
O -
- 1 you will, help you out'during the course.of your
- 2' practical examination? .
i
- 3. A I did not ask him to help me out. ' I asked him to l 4 confirm something for me . ..
- 5 0 And if he had confirmed it, yiou would have change'd the 6 observation that you had previ.ously reached; right?. .
7 -A, If -I had actually seen weld stamps there., I Gould'have ,
8 admi,tted that at first I overlooked them, yes. -
'9 0 And you~wouldn't have shown it as a discrepancy and, a't .
10 least in that respect, you would have passed the ,
,- 11 practical examination, rather than f ailed; right?
If I had, in fact, seen weId s' tamps.and I had, in fact,
(] 12 A not inadvertenUy~ put 'down the prong conn'ectiqp number,
-13
~
14 there would have been an acceptable component there.
15 0 ' I' ' se e .
- 16 And if Mr.
Hunter had pointed out the weld stamps 17 to you ,and you had. again*1'ooked and, seen. it f or 18' '
yourself, why, y6u wouldn't have written it down as a 19 ' discrepancy; right?
20 A Yes, sir. '
11 ,0 Okay, ,
. o 2.2 . As f ar as you' re --- as f ar as you' re concerned, as 23 you s'it here today,' Mr. Puckett, that still would have 24 b'een, a test of your qualifications,as a weld. inspect 6r-O. 25 and not a test of yours and Mr. Hunter's qualifications a
Sonntag Reporting Service, Lt:d.
Geneva, Illinois eulse ,
(312) 232-0262
Y
^-
r.
. . 6685
- o. ..
1, as a weld inspector? ,
2 . A Well, I hadn' t thought much about it. It was my .
? handwriting ~ and all, yes. .
l
- o. 4 This was just a small portion of the overall 5 inspection. .
6 Q Now, Mr. Guild asked you ab'out the ciroumstanc,es under 7- which.you were asked to. perform this review of' th6 8 ,
welder recor'ds.
. . 9 Tha't- is', that Mr.' Seltmann and Mr. DeWald were. ,
10 together; Mr. jieltmann had p copy of the August 22,
- ~
- 11 .- ,
1984, memorandum that you had addressed to Mr. DeWald; 12 , ,and that he told you that you had to complete your 13 review of the wplder, qualification records and tihe weld 14 ,
procedures and the' filler, rod withdrawal slips wi. thin a 15 week, . .
i 16 A Yes, sir.
17" ,
Q At that meeting, Mr. Puck'ett, didyousayanythinkat 18 all .to Mr. Seltmann or to Mr. DeWald, since.he was
- 19 there,, 1n which you said, "I'm glad we're finally having
~ ^
l 20 ,
this. meeting. "This is why I sent the memo. In effect,
. 21 ' . I really didn't expect,you s to act on my #Itop-work or' der 22 '-- or stop work recommendation. Let's sit down and, in 4
23' effect, discuss this among ourselves"? , ,,
24 *A Their attitude wasn't that that's what the meeting was
~] 25 all about.
l
. Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
[ -
ueneva, IAAinois ov1a* .
(312), 232-0262
. . .. .. . . . . ~ . . - . . - . - . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
t r. .
4 v.a
.'A .
.. t e 6585 n
O .
1* dei *r attitude was to chew my bu t 'out and to 'give . - .
' ~~~
2 me an impossible task. - -
r' 3. Q Did you say that to them? ,
e -
4 A No. .
.. e 5 0 You just listened to Mr. Seltmann ahd took his direction 6 . to 5egin your review and lef t, correct?
No, sir. *
- 7 A , ,
8 He mentioned to me, as I'y . testified' o, that.Mr.
"9 .
Mar,'ino was very upset-concerning this memo. I think I .
10 , + may have related to him, "Well, that's okay, too, if -
, 11 . it's g'oing to get some kind
- of action. " .
t ,
Then he went ~on to tell me that I .had. the review to
~
12 46 . .
. 13 do. -
- 14 0 Well, did you understand that Mr. Marino was upset '
- 15. because you wrote the m,emo at all?
16 A That 'was my understanding -- -
17 O. -I' see. .
18 A - .that he was. upset because of the memo. -
19 ,0 And you didn't understand that he was upset because he
,..~ . .
l 20 had thought that they had a' functioning program at l
'21 ,Brai,dwood and, in effect,'you were'now saying that the
- 22. '
entire job.had to be shut down bepause of wh'at you ,,
. i
. 23 -
found? - .
1
- I 24 A I had no idea, other than the fact that he was' upset
)
25 about me w~riting the letter.. '
. . .4 ,
1 - *
- Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. I Geneva, 1111nois eulse l l .- (312), 232-0262 -
l
. . 6687
~
O . ..
~
j
. -1 .
Q- I'm trying to get it straight. I think I -- I think I- -l unde'rstand,'Mr. Puckett.
2 4,
~
3 'In Mr. Berry's exami' nation, he asked you about this 4 3- I' ve got the wrong one -- 3039. ,
5 I think' you testified that you disag, reed with the .
- 6. , disposition of 3099; and then you said, in effect, that e s , .
. 7 you had -- at tlie time that you saw it, yoit had not seen ,
8, ,the,].ast set. of. en'tries at t'he bottom of the. first page
, "9 ,
of the exhibit under 'the " client concurrence. "
10 A I don't recall th'at being there, no.
e 11 Q Okap. , ,
[ -12 And that now that you have seen the client ,
, 13 , concurrence, that you -- part of that NCR, tl}at you --
, T4 . well,'*that the disposition of .that NCR. is, in f act, in '
~
15 acc.ordance with your recommendation; is that correct?~ <
16 MR. GUILD: Objection. ,
17 ,
If counsel'is simply trying to lay, a foundation, 18, , restating wlfst the record already, ' c ows, I Rave no ,
s .
19 problem. The record will speak foc-itself. -
20 Butihhel.saskingfor'anotheropinion, I ask him 21
{- to show him the document.' ..
. 22 ,MR. MILLER: No, no. I'll be happy to 'show 23 him the document. . . .
24 The witness r- I understand the witness' t6stimony, l Q: 25 ,
I think.
It appears in a number of di-fferent places in
. 5 .
.o , , . , , _
Sonntag Reporting Ser.vice, Ltd.' ' *-
T Geneva, Illinoin 60134' ..
(312) 232-0262
6688
- 0. ,
. . . . ~
1 the tran' script to date, and~I really -'
2 JUDGE GROsSMAN: You're r'eferring now to 3 -
que'stiorrs by Mr. Berry on this? -
, .~' .
4 MR. MILLER: Yes. .
5 -
MR. GUILD: How about the exhibit' number? ,
- g, -. -
. a
.6 MR. MILLER: It's Applicant! s Exhibit 55.
7 (Indicating.) .
-s
+.
8 JUDG E..,G ROSSMAN':. Was thi.~s an area that -- my 9 ,,re' collection is that you covered this afea- on direct 4
- 10. MR. MILLER: I did,.your Honor, and the 11 vitness testified on'my examination that he was - *'tha.t ,
12
- the disposition of NCR 3099' was in accordancE w'ith his '
'13 -
recommen.dation.
~
-14 lie testified y,esterday with Nr. -- to Mr. Berfy's
~
15' question 'that he was not satisfied with the disposition 16 of NCR 3099 but then wenteon to explain that once he --
"17 that he hpd never'se.en 'the -- the b'ottom few entries a 18 ' '
under"the block " client concurr.ence with disposition."
19 I'just want'ed to mak'e certain'-- '
' JUDGE GROSSMAN: I thought he had already
. .* 2.0 21 said that in,respo,nse .to your questions, too. .
22 ,
BY.MR. MILLEIt : - .
23 -Q = Wel.l, is that is correct, Mr4 Puckett?
24 A Yes. We have a recommended disposition at the top.
25 That,.as far as I'm concerned, is the disposition.
Sonntag Report,ing Service? Ltd.
i Geneva,. .1.11nois' 0 01.$ 4 (312) 232-0262
.. *o
- e 6689 9
0 .
1 At the bottom. you 'have a' client's concurrence w'ith 2 -
the di'sposition. That's the portion that I do not 3 . recall seeing at our meeting. -
4 Q Okay. - . .
5 And until the ' client concurs with the disposi~ tion, 6 , no action can hg taken; correct? , ,
~, .
.7 A Yes, sir. -
8, , . MR . MILLER: .
.I seem to have misplaced my copy ,
9 of Applicant'E Exhibit.69, which now has the missing 10 ,
second page to it. -
e 11 J.UDGE COLE: ,Would you life to-borrow a , copy
'here, Mr. , Miller?
{J 12 *
~
13' -
JUDGE GROSSMAN: (Indicating.)
, 14 MR.' MILEER:' Thank you.
~
15 BY MR. MILL'ER :
16 -Q Mr. Puckett, when I showed this to you.tefore, it was
.It's the thir@ page of the exhibit. .
17 missing a page.
' ^
18 ,
. ' (Indi ca ti.ng . )
19 Just to ref r,esh your recollection, why don't' you 20 read to yourself everyth4ng under Audit Point 2.
21 . MR. GUILD: .Where does that begin, Counsel?
- I'see, on the second page.
2D ,
. 23 MR. MILLER: Yes.
24 MR. GUILD.: So it's the third page of the ,
'O ~ 25 -
exhibit, in fact? .
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois ,60134 (312) 232-0262 .
. . 6690' .
.e. -
1 MR. MILLER: Cor* rect. .
2 ,
'THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. .., .
a
} MR. MILLER:
All ~ right.
BY MR. MILLER:
, 4 -
5 Q Now, I thihk you'.11 observe that,the missing Page 2 has 6 the sentence that, in addition to eithe'r of the above 4 7 options for dispositioning the audit finding, a review' -
s 8 of all welders' files should be conducted to' assure that 9 ,
they are qualified to the.' applicable LKC procedure ~. .,
In your~ opinion, Mr. Puckett, was thati an 10 .
ll- appropriate way. of resolving the concern with respect'to O.2 '
.the - wdether welders qualified to the E. C. Erget 13 .s procedure had been properly qualified to the Comst,ock, 14 procedure? *
. 15 MR. GUILD: -
Excuse me.
~
16 ,
Was which a proper way; all three elements,or the 17'
- last element? ,
l' . . -
1,8 ~ .
MR. MILLER: Well, specifically the last 19 . element, the review of all welders' files.
l 20 lA N o', sir. .
I would want a cl'arification from wh.ever,made the
. 21 o 22 statement ~as to: 'Are you talking about all welder,s f rom '
the day the proj,ect started .up to the present or are you 23 .
. 24' ,
talking about current welder,s that are on' the project?
O 23 -
MR". MILLER: I p e'e'. .
Sonntag Re. porting Service, Ltd. _ _
c, Geneva, Illinois eulse
. (312) '232-0262 1
s *
, .~ .
e 6691 er- .
~
1 BY MR. ~MIIsLER:
2 0 It would only be the latter, all welders for :all time, e '
3 that would be an appropriate way of dispositioning this
~4 andit; right?
~5 A
- Well, that wou,ld be one disposition f or it, and'that's
'6 p'robably one that I would go with, yes. - -
~
7 O Now, Mr. Puckett, do you know an individual named d.
~
8 Nash, who is an employee of Comstock at Braidwood? ,
I ma'y know. the. f ace and yet not' 9 A I's.not's.ure tha,t I do.
~
, 10 -know the individual. '
So you don't know whether or not any complete review of,:
~
11 - O e < , .
12 -
welder s.' filest was conducted in acco'rdance with the-
.13 recommeiidation i_n that' audit file? .- -
14- A ~ To the ,best of my knowledge, they were not.
15 ,
Q All right. ! ,
16 . I believe you testified, in response to questions
- - ~
l _ .
i 17 by Mr. Berry with respect to the weld rod withdfawal l .
1$ form, that you made, if you will, a spot-check to try to
^
.19 determihe whether a wel' der's qualifications could be
' 9 9 . 2 0* . traced-back through his withdrayal of weld filler rod 21 mate' rial, and in one. case you found that it could not; 22 correct?
- 23 A Yes, sir.
. 2.4 0 All right. ,
25 id you make any check, other' than f or this dne -
- - Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ^
. Geneva, Illinois o0134
- O
( 312') 232-0262 .
~.- . .. .. .. . .- . . - . . . - . --. . . - . - - . . . - . . . , , . . . . . . . . . .
- ~
6f92
~
~
D 1 ' -
individual? ,
- 2 A No, I did not, not at this , time. -
3 I just, wanted to f.ind out from the individual how 4 he malntained his records and,how reliable they may -
5
' pgssib.ly be. ' ' +
6 'O All right. . .
s . . ,
2 7 And the individual that -- whose records you were reviewing was a -- the filler -- th'e weld filler grib *
. 8
~
. 9 material -- I'm sorry. I've gotten my'words mixed., ,
10 He was the individual who was in charge of the --
. 11 of' the issuance of weld rod for Braidwood -- for 12 . Comstock 'at Braidwood; is that right?
13 A Well, he was not in charge of this.
14 'The craftsman issued the filler material. At the 15 end of the working day, he would go.to the cribs and 16 _ pick up copies 6f those rod slips that had been issued ,
17 'during the day. <
18 Q Ahd this was a QC Inspector? . ,
[ 19 A Y's, e it was'. . .
t . .. _
20 Q All right* , ,
21 ,
Did yo'u have 'the opportunity, Mr. Puckett, to go 22, .back and check'th*e weld rod. withdrawal slips themselves 23 for the days in que.stion? ,
24 A N'o , sir, I did not;.
'O
,, , 25 0 So there may be, in ' fact, a weld rod withdrawal form, a e
= .
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Gen.evar, Illinois bU1J4 (312) 232-0262
. = . . , _ - - . .
s *
. 6693 O
- 1 , *
- Form S7, but it just isn't recorded on'the log; correct?
There is' that gossibility, yes, sir. *
'2 A . . .-
l' 3 Q All right. - .
4 I believe, in response to a question by Mr. Berry 5 *
-- he. was asking you some questions about Applicant's-
. W. .
6 Exhibit 53, which -is one of the memorargda that 'you wrote
~
'7 regarding the A36 to A446 ma'terial.
[ ~*'
8' My notes indicate that you said that at the time 9 that you wrote that memorandum, that- you were in the 10 pro's:es's of -- of either ordering or finding materials to
, .. . s
-,- 11 requalify the procedure; is 'that correct? ,
i , 12 A The stainless, yes. I was in the process of trying to 13 16cate material to requal' ify the stain 1'5sss ,
'It was the st"ainless steel proc'edure, not the A36 to
'14 0 l , 15 .
A446 piocedure? ' ,
. 16 , A O h', n'o . We'had maherial there for that.
17 0 Oh, okay, fine. Thank.you. -
i 18 JUDGE GROSSMAN:'. I was hoping you were not j 19 going to get into.this topic again. That's fine, .-
1 l
, 20 , MR. MILLER: No. I was,really trying to l .
21 c1arify my' --
l .
l o .
i 22 ,
JUDGE GROSSMAN: That's fine. Those pre l t.
23 appropriate questions..
'24 BY MR. MILLER: .,
l O 25 0 In response to gsome questions by Judge Cole, you s,tated
? .
~
~
l ,
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ,
Geneva, Illinuin 60134 f (312) 232-0262 -
$ ~
. 6694
- O .
. l' ,
that you never got any feedback f rom Mr. DeWald prior to ,
~ .-
s 2 your termination <
3, Mr. Puckett, I.d like.to show you a document that's 4
a portion of Intervenors' Exhibit 31, and it is an .'
~
5 AQgust 10, 1984, memorandum. ,
6 The top half is from you to Mr. DeWald,.and the' 7 bottom half is -- is your response -- I'm sorry --- is
^
8 Mr. DeWald's response. - .
9 MR. GUILD: What exhibit number is.that?
10 - . MR. MILL ER,: 31. .
,Is.it an Applicant's or an 11, ,
4 .
MR.,, GUILD: ,
^
- 12 Intervenors?? ,
., 13 MR. MILLER: Intervenors'.
14 BY.MR. MIL,L ER : , ,
15- O Mr. Puckett, you sen.t that memorandum te Mr. DeWald on
, . r 16 .
August 10thi did you not;? , -
a . .
17 A.. Ye.s , I d'id. .
18 Q All right, and he responded to -you on August lith.
19 ,
Di'd you r.egard Mr. DeWald's response as feedback on 20 your - , on your performance?
No, ,I dJdn'b, but I do,n't really recall seeing*this 21 A %.
22' . bottom portion.of'this, e 23 Q Xou sent Mr. DeWald a me.morandum on the 13th, which is
^
24 ' Applicant's Exhibit -- it's the Nugust.13th memorandum 25 -
-- or Spedd Letter from Mr. Puckett to Mr. DeWald, in Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd,
. ueneva, 111inois cul34 (312) 232-0262
+ .
6695 1 ". . which.y* ou agree.with Mr. DeWald 'that ih was your
- A '
2 responsibility to identify and,come up with solutions
,'3 concerning welding problems.
. 4 ,
A Yes, but I don't think that it related to this
'S ,
particular one here.
6 .
(Indicating.) .
~
7' , The* o'ne thiat' I .- that I had -- it was -- it' ',
8 - appeared -- the best I can recall, it had different 9 .
wording in it as .to, you know, my responsibilities.
10 Now, I can pretty well agede with what Mr. DeWald
< ~
11 - has got to say here. However, I can't say that I really
, w 12 seen this particular one.
13 .
(Indicating.) .
e
. 14. .
MR. MILLEh:
May I,h' ave just a' minute, Judge .,
15 ,
Grossman? ,
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: ,Yes.
l'h ' 'BY.MR. MILLER:
. ,18 'O Mr. Puckett,'let me gee if I can refresh.your
- ~
19 recollection. ,
20 At your deposition ,- , ,
21 - ,
JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, Mr.. Miller, though,
. s .-
' ~
22 aren't we' stretching this a little?
, 23 Your question was with regard to questions asked .
24 # about his overall evaluation,, and I don't read in this O~ 25 reply anything*1ike that. -
~
Sonntag Reporting" Service, Ltd. _ ,
uCHCVA, 11114Ulb UU1J9 ,
. (312) 232-0262 .
- 6696 s - .
Q -
1 I mean, it seems to;me that this reply relates to a 2 particular prolflem here a' nd says that it's his o
- 3 . . responsibility to find.a solution to it.
4 MR. MILLER: Well, Judge Cole's question, as
. s.
5 -
'my hotes reflec't -- niaybe. I just wrote it down wrong --
- 6 ,- was whether Mr. Puckett, prior to the time he was 7 terminated, had ever* gotten any feedback f rom Mr. DeWald 8 . concerning his performance. I b,elieve that was the ,
9 question. ,
10 '
JUDGE GROSSMANi What N's saying is this, is o.
11 , stretching it a little to talk about his' performance, .
, ,12 when all they' re discussing here is a particular problem 13 and Mr. DeWald is. saying, ,"It's your responsibility to
.14 find th'e' solution to the pr.oblem."
, g . .. ., '
, 15 , ,
,' , I don' t see any, kind of evaluation here.
16 ,
MR. MILLER: The word was " feedback."
- .
- w. .
l -
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Pardon? ~
18 '
- MR. MILLER: The word was " feedback," not 19- " evaluation," and I regard'thi~s as feedback. ,
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -
Yes, but' feedback on his job '
21 . performpnce, I believe. .
22 .
JUDGE COLE: Yes, '"that was the question, but
'23 I can see the point you' re trying tg makee Mr. Miller.
l 24 ' MR. MILLER: ,Now, then, let me try to ,
l . .
L . 25 - establish, if I can, that the August 13, 1984, l . . .
^-
( . .
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
- Geneva, Illinois bU1J4 .
(312) 232-0262 *
, ,, . 3 .-
6697
, l' .. memorandum that M(. Puckett wrote is, in fact, in ,
. '2 ' response to the bottom ' half of this August -- this
. y ..
3 August 10th memorandum from Mr. 'Puckett. v 4~ BY MR. MILLER:
5 ,
Q. Mr. Puckett, at.your deposition, at Page 104, I asked 6 you the followi.ng questions: .
~7 . "O .Mr. Puckett I show you a document tha't i.s
, . 8 marked as Puckett Deposition Exhibit No. '
9 10 for i' dent'ification and ask if you sent 10 I
that to Mr. DeWIld on or about August 1),
11 , 1984. ,
f 12 "A Yes. l 13 ~"O Had you had' any conver'sation" -- and . then
~ ~
14 -
dash - "first of all', I take it this is 15 in response to the bottom por' tion of the 16 documenE we have marked as Exhibit No.
. 17 9." .
18 I represent to the Board that.iT is the August --
19 that Deposition Exhibit No. 9' is the same ' memorandum
- 20 -
with Mr. DeWald's. response to.whi*ch I have been 21 refer, ring the witness. .
! 22 The witness' answer was "yls."
l*
23 Now, havin'g looked at your deposition -- I mean, 24 , having had me read it, does that refresh your
.C 25 recollection that the August 13th me'morandum was,- in ,
- s .
Sonntag Rep"erting Service, Ltd.
. Geneva, 111inois o0134
~
(312) 232-0262
6698 O
~
- c 1 f a.ct, a Tesponse to Mr. DeWald's comments regarding .your 9 2 responsibility to come up with solutilons to the ,-
3 -problems?
, 4 A This certainly Jiad been, and it's -- as I said, I was in 5
- the process of. getting the material to requalify the ,
6 procedure. as Mr'. DeWald aslied here. * -
7 ,
I don't disagree. with what Mr. DeWald is saying 8 there. -
I just said that it wasn't f resh in my mind -that
'~
9 . I had seen this particular item. I knew there was 10 -.. spm'ething similar tg this.
11 ,
I do agree that it .was my responsibilitiy, and I was 12 ,
in the process of doing this at 'the time, and I so
. 13 stated over here to.Mr. DeWald ,
14 Bowever, my~ concern was th'at during the period pf 15 , time that we were going through all' of this, there was 16 ,
welding taking place in the , field, as far.as I was 17 . ,
coricerned, that w.as' nonconf ormirig situations. '
18 I wanted'it to st.op, requalify the procedures or 9 ,
19 qualify th.e procedures and then go f rom there.
20 ,,
O And there's nothirig in your August 13,,1984, memorandum to Mr. DeWald that indic,ates that you've taken steps to 21 22 ,,, ordsr the material ,for requalification -- ,
23 A No, sir.
24, ,0 -- correct? .
i 25 Now, I^think*that.you stated to Judge Cole that s . .
1 Sonntag Reporting. Service, Ltd. I' Geneva, Illinois eU144 .
~
(312) 232-0262
. 6699 -
l O
\
l
~
1 when you observed these welds by Mr. DeWald that were 1
2' rejectable, in your opinion, that y'ou didn't take any l
~
3 further steps at that point in time because you didn't 4 know what the accept-reject' criteria were.. l 5 Do you recall th.at?
6 A Yes, sir.
7 Q All right.
8 Mr. Puckett, you , knew at the time, did you not, .
9 what.the visual welding acceptance criteria under AWS.
- ~
10 D1.1 were, didn't you? -
11 A Yes, I did. '
12 Sometimes the procedures changed that, as blirected
~
13 by L-2790. They'd give you a greater degree of undercu.t -
14 than what the code will allow, these type of things. -
15 As I sai.d', I wasn' t that f amiliar with our-16 inspection procedure at that time,~ and that was my 17 . concern: Is, in. fact, their fnspecti~on procedures going .
~ '
18 ,
to be this lax? ~
19 Q I see. .,
20 So then you did. havs an opportunity, at-a
'~
21 subsequent point' in' time, to look .at the L-2790 22 specification and determine what the criteria.were; 23 correct?
~
24 A Yes,. sir, and that's what I based my opinion on: that 25 some of the welds that I had looked at, based on the l
l Sonntag Reporti'hg Service, Ltd.
l' Geneva, II,linvis 6613^
(312).232-0262
_ o
. .o .
- 6700
() ' '
1 . acceptancecriteriaofnotL-2790--pardon,me--kut * -
2 ,
our . own' inspection procedure - ' that some of these ' welds-3 I w'ould have considered rejectable., . ,
4 O All right. ,
5 And'so it was somWhime-after.you actually observed 6 ' the welds in- the ' field that you came to ' the conclusion ,
that they were rejectable?
7 ~
8 A Y'e s , si r . -
~
9 Q All '. 'ri gh t.
10 A I mean, it was my.opiSion.- -
11 At the time I would have rejected them because the 12 very least criteria that'I inspect to is good. <
[~}
13 craf tsmanship, and I .did not see thig;,to be the case on.
~
+ 14 these.
15 0 I see. , ,
16 You didn't expect, when you'saw them, that there . '
17 would 'be anythingin. the 'L-2790 criteria thai wouldssAy,.
18 " Accept poor craf tsmanship," did you? -
, , 19 A' Well, I did not even ' consider L-2790 at the time. I was ,
- 20 considering our inhpection pr.ocedure, which' would be , ,
21 written based on the requiremen'ts of L-2790.
s 22 O Okay.
I 2'3 ' Well, I think you said that, you know -- again, in
~24 response toa question by Judge Cole - ..that. the other -
g.. .
O 25 - ,
inspectors had problems with Mr. DeWald; they cringed Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
. . Geneva, Illinois eulse ..
(312) 232-0262
J.g . r 6701 1
when they had to go into his office and so dn, and it 2 was for that reason that none of the other . inspectors 3 brought this problem to his attention; correct?
~
4 A Well, what I was saying'. is most of the ' inspectors 'would 5 just as soon be disassociated with.Mr. DeWald.
6 0 All right. .
7 A It .was the attitude that he projected to these , ,
8 inspectors if they went.to him with something of.a ,
9 ,
. personal nature or however, you know. I.t was just like; .
10 "I don't want to h&ar about it." ,
11 ' , 'So they got to the point where they 'didn' ti want to, 12 approach him about anything. ,
13 0 Well, do you believe that the inspectors would have
~
14 . failed' to wri.te up an ICR or an NCR-if they had been 15 shown a rejectable weld by .you and they 'had agreed w'ith
~'
'16 your. evaluation of-that weld?
17 'A No, sir. I think they .would h' ave written it up ,
, 1.8 rega.rdless.
19- , . They wouldn't probably have even looked to see who 20 . the inspector was, bdt the fact.that.it had peen'
~
21 inspected and. accepted -- I think they' would have 'still 22' written this up, yes, or possibly checiced to see if d
~
27 ,
maybe ther*e was '.paperw.ork in the works already, I
24 requesting rework of some of these welds.'
.~-< 25 0 As -f ar as you recall, you .never asked a certified' Level N@
Sonntag R.eporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 '4 1
.g. . . ~ . - . . . . .. . . . . - - . . .
. . - .3
- o -
o , .
. =
e -
~6742 -
o.. .
-i 1 II Inspectos to go.back and look at the weldg again with- )
2 you; correct? ,
3 A .I don't recall asking anybody to do this or I don't -
.. 4 .
4 recallgoingbacktothatparticularareaafter5. hat '
'.' 5 time. . ,
~
. 6 0 -
okay. - '
]
7 I think you stated that -- finally, that you ,
8 wouldn' t want to work f or Mr. Goedecke, because he
- s. .
9 didn'.t keep his promises; he said that- you were going tb
~
10 -
have~a . lateral move at Zimmer and, in f act, you wound up
. 11 with a demotion; correct?
- 12. A Yes,' sir. He spoke ,with a forked tongue. ,
13 . -Q Well, he kept some promises to.you, didn't he?
'14 He prom'ised you that you'd have-some seminars and 15 '
additional training?
16 A I requested these seminars cnd additional training, and-17 he approved.them. . . ,, '
i
- 18 0 All right. ,
19 -
Well, he~had told y'ou'that he was, going to app' rove
.~ ..
.' 20 ,
.them before - during your first evaluation period with
-21' him? - *#
22 A Yes, and, in fact, he'was the one that was constantly 23 98tingthkliteratureontheseminarsandshoingitto ,
24- me, okay
.]'
25 0 So to that extent, he kept his promise to you; right?
~
Son'ntag Reportiing Service, Ltd.
. u e n e v,a , Illinois eulse ,
(312) 232-0262
- . , ' ., o, !
.c 6703 I j
1- A To that extent, yes.. l l
2 Q And af ter.'the Zimmer job was over, you sent Mr. Goedecke ,1 3 a resume, didn't you? ,
l
, ,4 A Yes, he had a copy of my resume. -
5 0 And his position --
y
. 6 A I think he took it f rom the file.
7 Q When he was at. NPS, at that point in time? ' .
-8 A Yes. ,
9 It appears that Mr. Goedecke took my whole file, -
10 -
because it seems that some copies have shown up here' 11 that, as f ar as I know, he would be the olkly one that -
'+
- 12 would have these records. ,
13 0 Now, Mr. Goedecke, I'll represent to you and to th'e'
~
14 Board that those documents came f rom the files of Kaiser 15 ,
Engineers --
f 16
~
A Well, I don' t know. - -
17 Q -- to whom the subpoena was addressed' by the -Board at 18 our request.
19 But in any event, you had a ro'rdial-relationship 20 ,
with Mr. Goedecke while you were with him at Zimmer.;
21 correct? ...,
22 A I -- I spoke to him in a respectful manner, yes. ,
Hp was .
23 my supervisor.
, ~
And' you had a good employment relationship with Mr. ,
24 Q
\ -
25 Flaherty as well, didn' t, you? t-
'Sonntag Reporting " Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 *
- (312) 232-0262
- e 4
670.4
.o 1 A Yes, though I didn' t have mucfh interf ace with- him.
2 Q Finally, Mr. Guild asked
- you about your' employment ,
3 ,'statkis since y'ou' ve lef t -Braidwood, and you recounted a , ,
4 number of effoyts to obtain. employ' ment that hNve.:all 5 be'en unsu'ccesaf u). - = ~~
6 My question to you,. Mr. Puckett, is: ,
Do you h. ave ~ .
7 any fact or any inf ormation at all to suggest tha,t 8
anyone 4 rom Commonwealth Edison Company or L.. K.
9 Comstock has, in any way'kept, you f rom obtain*ing .
~ '
10 employment? . ,.
4 11 A I have no w.ay of knowing that.
- 12 MR. MILLER:
- J.udge Gr6ssman, this really
, e-
.13 raises a point that I'think I have to make now. ~
14 Th,at is,'I,would,ask that the witness' testimony a
- - c 15 with. respect to his efforts to gain employment and his 16 referen'ces to Commonwe,alth . .
Edison, during.the course of . .
J 17 his examination by Mr. Guild,,be stricken. ,
e .. '
18 Let me explain why. ,,,
l -
19 MR. GUILD: ,I'm sorry. Just to*be cleair, '
l 20 . references to.Commonwpalth Edison.in what regard?
21 MR. MILLER:. - Well, I think* tha,t he testified, ,
22 for example, that there was a midwest -- that he was --
23 he had sent his resum'e to some outfit 'that was hiring in 3
24 the midwest region -- that was hiring for nuclea'r power o 25 plants; end sinc,e Commonwealth. Edison was in the midwest A. -
L Sonntag Re~ porting, Service, Ltd. _
Geneve, 1111nois eu144 +
(312) 232-0262 '
.-___-----_--__--....---._-_a._, . 2 - . .. -. .
- - ~
r... .- r. . . ,
^
, d a . ,
.,- 6705
. ,s
, #. a 8 ..- . .
1 . region,.'he didir' t ' expect to be' hired.
Mr. Miller, T apprec'i 2 -
g ~ JUDGE GROSSMAN
=
- 3 that you showed restraint in not objecting wfien you
- 4
- thought you could have ' objected at that ti.me.
- 5 . I don't .think that thatt testimony is probative, and
~ '
6- . ,I don' t see how we could use ,it anyWay.
. 7 ,- r think Mr'. ' Guild might, try to make ,the point. that ;
~
the treatmenif of Mr.. Puckett was dif.f erent' thalf that of
.~ 8 ',.
9* Mr. Sakfak, but I don' t think.'there is any. evi.dence -that
~* " '
~
10 ,
' wouJ.d suggest tha.t. . . ,' ,. ,
. . .~ .. . . .
.11 *
, MR. MILLER: I just Want -- . ,
.- , . 4 12 ~ And so, I ' don' t think Giat we
] .
13
, JUDGE GROSSMAN,:
have to go fu'rther along that line. .'
.~ .
14 . .
'. MR .' , MILLER': Okay. '
._e O
15 As lo'ng as -- let me just state riny positicn, and. I . .
16 think,the Board,i.s agreeing with it. -
t - . . , . .
l 17 .
Since*w~e have the burden herg,..if"we now Have to e .
i 18 * . demonstrate.through e ,
General Dyn'amics and other- .
~19 co'rporations that, i.n f'acs, Commonwe,alth Edison Company.
l . .
! 20 .
had nothing to do.with Mr. Puckett's. failure to get .
l 21 employment, this.prdcesding will truly'become overly
~* 2'2 . extended.
~
~
~
t l '
'5 23
~
JUDGE GROS $ MAN: .Okay. ;a e
i
- p . 2.4 t
As I said before, we' re not. going to have Ancil.1,gg
,'j V -
25 -
proceedings,here. .
- 4 -
J, .
- e. .-
l..
~
Sonnta'g Reporting Service, Ltd. .
Geneva, niinois 60134
. (312) 232-0262 .. m
.. 4 3 _, ,
. n *' ,
3 , *
- - s. - - .w -
.' s.- .
, . . .
- 67.06-O' - .
a 1 . ,= No,,that is not your burden. I don' t' bplig that has probative value. 4 .
2 . l
.- . 1m 3 . You've completed yQur examin,atiori? .,
4 .
' MR. 'M'ILL ER : . I,have. l v . ,
5 . ~ JUDGE GROSSMAN : Okay. I have one question
,. ,6 -- or one'shbrt series of questions. - ,
7 .' BOA.RD EXA$.INATION
- y 8 *
- BY. JUDGE GROSSMAN: ,- .
. e .
g ~. . . .. , .
9 O W.ith regard to#the welder's stamp'not being on th'at~
welded component, pou would consider..that'a discrepant
~
10 .
11 - , condition,,wou{d 'you not, 'Mr. Puckett? ,
12 @ Yes, sir .
. . J. 3 , . Q Even though you w'ere not-the QC Ipspector that 14 W. originally' inspe.cted that, do you.believe
+- that you had - .
~
15
. an obliggition. to in, some way. have that d'i screpant ,
- , ~
- 16. .
condition taki tn into account? -
. S:
~
~
~~
17 A' - Sir, the c,omponept' that sI was inspecting. had not been
~ 18
, prey,iously inspected. They wanted to see how I wguld. i
, 1.9 . inspect 'it'. . fg -
I' '
$0
- I inspected.it. I,.foundthatt)erewasnowelders
. . i. .
,+
21 . stamp 'on, a component, and I verified this with ..two .8tiher 22
~
, , '~inspecto~rs. ; .
' ~
Then th'e man that, grid'ed'the test -- really,
~
23 h'e,.
e ... , ~ -
.4 24 -
went oug and inspected ttie comporie'nt for the' (irst time, .
- 25 really, and he made.-cout all'the documen.tAtion on the-
' - .,.~ .,.. .a l
4 _
- , .Sonntpag Reporting ,Ser'vice, L't d. - -
. . ==. ' Genev a , 11.t,1noi s e u.L.s e (312) 232-0262. .
m . . . ..
. - .,, g , _ _.
, .u. . .
..,9,
- y . ;
, 530y
, e ..
=
s
.. s 1
. . l 1
accept, ability gf the component. -
2 0 Okay. .
3
-Then assuming, as it was, it had not yet been, i
inspect 6d bbt you.saw some discrepant conqlition, wduid
~
4 -
~
5 -
you haire'consi.dered'it or did you consider
- it gpn -
. m .
6 .
obligation td have that discrepant condition taken into' s
7 account? * .
a.
, e, . ..
. 8 A Yes, sir. '
, . ) )..
J . .. .
9 0' And would you have conside~ red-it proper to have ignored,'
~>
. 10 . that discrepant' condition because it was also part of 11- -
.your examination at the time?
- 12 A I would not have ignored it.,
13 Q Oka'y.. ,- .
14 4 . And the way it would be taken into account is to -
15 have either an ICR or an NCR written up on that; i.s tha't 16 correct? *- .
17 A Yes,. sir. -
0 , And were you -- I' bel'ieve you've already testi~fi%d tha.t 18 ,
19 you yourself, according to what you. believed to be 20 ,
company ' policy, could not initiat'e that ICR or NCR *
- b 21 - . yoursel.f at tha.t time; is that so? .
'~
< .. n 22 .
A
' Well, 'I did, in f a'ct,
- ir}itiate one, but it was f or 23 , '
information purposes only. ',.
24 . Another inspector wa,s. going to be coming,back after O .
25 me and doing the -- the -- the inspection of the - '
, Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.,
. ueneva, AAAAno2s ovAas , .
(312) 232-0262 ,.
'.'~
6708
~
, se ,
' ~
1 -
component for record purpo,ses. :* -
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Mr! -- '
Could I' j ust --
3 MR. MILLER:' , . -
4 ' -
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
On.that topic? ~
, l
~
l 5- -
RECROSS EXAMINATION *
. I
) 6, , ,
(Continuing.) .
+-
1 7 ' ' ' BY',MR. MILLER: , .
( * , ,
8 0 That would have been Mr. N'emeth, r,ight, .the man who was 9 administering the practical examination
- to' you?
, s 10 A ~
I' would expeet s'o, yes. <-
~ '
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. ..
12 ' -
Mr. Guild.? .
13 ,
- RECROSS-EXAMINATION . -
14 -
B.Y MR. GUILD: .
, 15 +
g Mr. Pucketty I'm ' going to refer you back. again tio -the ,
16 - *, documents that.Mr. Miller'showed you, reflectin'g a s <
17 -
. practical exarir that you took. -
l'8 , , Do'you have that.in front of y'ou?
It's the document marked 76, and It has -Mr. -
~
. 19
. 20 Nemet h's handwriting on it. '
- . 21. A Yes, yes, I haktp it. -
22 Q Again, you didn't,see the first page, whi,ch was the 9.3 grading and comments by. Mr." Nellieth a'nd others? -
24, A No, I' don.'t recall seeing that. '
O - -
25 0 .At least, you didn'.t 'see it ,at,the time you were ' ,
=
. Sonntag-Reporting Service, Ltd. .
Geneva, Illinois eu144 (312) ~ 232-0262 ,
~....-.......n..- . . . . ~ . _ . . . . - - . . . . . . . . - . - . . . . -. - . ..
~. .
,g, , 670'9
' '?& .
. . r .
- s.
u sc O _
~
1 -
employed by- Comstock?
^
2 A . No,,I did not. "
. e. .
3 0 A1.1 right, sir. -
4 Now, lookingfonly at the ipspection checklist, 5 Which is the t'hird.pa.ge of the document, T direct y.our 6' attention to the " details inspected" section.
7 I only see one detail listed there. .-
~
8 -
Am I reading it correctly?
9 A Ye s;, *'si t.
And what was th Tletail that's listed th~ere?
10 , Q ,
11 A Just.~one second. Let me get to this area up h' erd. ,
12 7 DV-120.
13 0 And what's the r'est of the inf ormation that follows that 14 # '. DV-120 indication?
~
15 4 It is the reference to the drawing that this DV-120 is-16 . found on.
- E 17 0 All right, sir .
18 Now, wouldn' t you have to go out to the field and, 1 19- actually look at this installation or look at another --
20 -
look at the documents themselves.to. determine whether or
. 1 21 ,
not DV-120 was the correct or the incorrect detail for. .q this particular installation? - * '
,22 23 A Yes, you would. . . . l
- .s ,
~
24 'Q. All right. '
.. 2'S ,
,, And can you determine, based on looking at your
- J
, . i
- l
' l Sonntag Reporting Service,.Ltd. 1 Geneva,'111inois 00134 o. l
( 712) 232-0262 ~
._..______l
s . . u y
. . \
. -.c -
'l w ~
. . 1
' ^
6710 O
~
1 inspection checklist, whet'her er not you listed this'
. . . . . '. l 2 detail correctly or not? -
j 3 A You can' t really tell .by"looking at this. .
4 -
You could check the drawi,ng that is listed there. 1 5~ .Q All right, sir. >
6 Now, do -I.itnderstand correctly that identifying the-abBence fo' _ a welder's stamp is' a f act -- stri@e that --
~
7' 1
8 the existence of a welder's stamp on a component is a
~
9 fact that would be apparent to me, as a lay person who 10 has no knowle,dge-or training in weld inspection or .
11 interpretation o'f the AWS code or other regula' tory - c
- 2 O
reguiremenes2 13 A Now,.you're asking: Would it be apparent?
14 0- Yes.- ,
, 15 Is the existence or nonexi'stence of a welder's 16 .. stamp on a base metal ad,jacent to a weld a fact that.I,
- ~ .
17 would be able to determine visually, assuming I could . .
18 see -- ,
19 A Yes..
- 20 O -- without any training? ,
C .. .
21 A Sur*e. '- -
22 0- And I,take it that you passed the visual acuity -
23 -
. examin,ation, demdastratin,g that, you can see? ~ .
24 A- Yes, sir. -
25 O All right. ,
9 . .
~
. Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. -
.. Geneva, Illinois eulse .
(312) 232-0262 .
a "6711
.0 -
1 -
And you ' looked at these components', the base metal ,
2 *
' of- these c.omponents, and looked in the places where
'3.
these welder ID stamps should have been and did not ~see e [ ,
4 such stamps?. ~~
+
5 A *Yes, sir. ,.
6- '
Q ' Now, you' ve got Mr.. Nemeth - - what's purported to be Mr.
7 Nemeth's grading of your field practical. I mean, he 8 says,'in fact, that, "All eight field welds were welder 9
ID stamped..by - -
.130."- .
,1~0 ,
Now, . he says that -- or that is said on this ,
11 docuntent. . . 3
- ..s
- 12 Now, having seen this document and accepting-Mr.
13 Miller's position that tiiis is the grading for that
- 14, particular test, do you.now doubt what you saw or didn't q .
15 , see with your own eyes and that ,was the f act that there *- .
16 'was no weit'tler ID' stamps? . .
' -' 17 ' A No. There was no welder ID stamps on those welds at the
. l'8 . time I insp,ected them. .
, 19- 0 All right. ,
20 Judge callihan, Dr. Callihan, aske'd you some 21 ,
questions first about the A36-A446 issue, and let'me ask
- 22. tne further point on that.
23 -
'Do I' understand correct 1'y that it's a code s
24 requirement of the AWS Dl.1 code that the base, met $ tis to 25 .
+ be wel'ded' are -- must .be listed in the -- the weld , . .
' ~
. i
~
- ' - Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ' .!
- ueneva, An a noi s ovue (312) 232-0262 . .-
b e C) - , a '
- 6712 O.
1 ,
. procedure?,
- 2 A In the weld procedure, yes.
~
3 0 All.right. . _ .
4 -
And A36, until the. change, was not liated in .the -
. S 5- weld procedure? *
- . ?,
6 A No. .
7, . O And that was a violation of the AWS Dl.1 code, was,,it
~ '
8 . not?
9 .A Well,* i,t 'is a gray line the~re.- ,
- 10 But the materials -- all the materials that.1s
- 11 ,' going to be used using these technique' sheets _and~
~
3 12 ,
processes should have been listed, yes. ,
13 Q I' mean, it's another qdestion altogether wh' ether or not
, l'4 A36 was qualifie'd having -- A36 to A446 was qualified, 5, having qualified --
16 ,
JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me,'Mr.-Guild. -
17 Are we going to reopen this' whole question again?
18 a MR. MILLER: .
'Your Honor, this is the way;I-19 started my very first examination of this . witness.
20 . MR. GUILD:, I hope not,to, Mr. Chairman. .
t ,.
21' But it just se' ems to me that -- that the Judge's
- 22 question was, in'short, with refe'rence to a particular ,
23 -
attachment, "Wasn' t this your' pri. nary or only problem?"
24 -
. Tll e f act of the patte,r 'is I think, in' the revi.sion 25 prior to the revision that the judge was directing ,
the .
s Sonntag peporting Service, Ltd. c ueneva, 11pnors eulse
, , (312) 232-0262
6713-
, e *
~
.O . .
,1
, witness' , attention to - 'that was Rev. C -- there was an
- i
- 2. absence of the listing of the base material on each of ,
3 those attachN nts. Tha't was an -- ' "
' 4
- 4 JUDGE GROSSMAN :' I'm sorry I did this.
- - 5 This is all based. on Judge Callihan's question, so w .
,. 6 I guess you' re entitled to --
7' . MR. GUILD: 'It is. e 8
JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- ask that question. You
^
9 can ask it again and complete iti ,
10 ,
MR.. GUILD: .I'll just withdraw the question.,
I th, ink that the Chair's point is well 'taken
~
11 .
12 generally. A,s long as the record is clear on that 13 point, we.'ll leave it that way.-
14 BY MR. GUILD: .,
a 15 Q Judge Callihan asked you further about whether or not 16 you had specific knowledg,e of any saf ety -def ects at "
o- 17 Braidwood, and your answer wag you did not. -
18 A I mean, yob know that I contributed and' could say' that, 19 "Thi's' definitely is .a saf ety violation. " - '
g 20 There was a lot of things that could develop into 21 this, but to say that they would actually cause this --
-
- 22 -
I could not'say so. , -
23 0 All right, sir. . .
24 'And I teke it that' based"on'your hackg'r'ound and O. 25 . experience, you 'would agre'e with the conclusion that -
- **- Sonntag! Reporting Service, Ltd..
~
Geneva, Illinois .60134 .
-( 312) 232-0262
, a,. .w
, 6714 '
. f s , . _,
.o .
f,,
. 1, whether a nuclear power plant is safe, meets that
- 2 , ultimate standards,'is dependent on whether.or not there
,. 3 -
is an adequately designed and implemented quality
-&. g '
4 assurance system to assure safety? .
. 5 A . Yes. .
6 0 Do you, in your opinion,'believe, Mr. Puckett, that -
. 7 there was an adequate quality assurance s? stem designed
.8 ,and implemente'd'at L. K. Comstock to assure th'at ,
~9 Co,mstock's scope of work met applicable safety , ,
10 requirements? .
, 11 A No, I do not.
12 MR. GUILD: I have no further qu.estions. .'
. 13 Thank you.
~
14 . . ' JUDGE GROSSMAN: . Mr. Berry?. .
15 RECROSS EXAMINATION ** ',
16 BY MR. BERRY: -
17 Q Mr. Puckett, your opinion that you gave 'in res'ponse to Mr.' Guild 4 s .iast , question - is that based on the 18- '- ,
19 -
' matters we've discussed in this proceeding? , - .
20 A hell, on thos'e and my. own personal encounters when I was*
,9 21 there; I mean, based on the things that'you have seen ~
22 here and inconsistencies.
~ '
23 There's no one big thing there tha't's going to
,re,. .
24 cause any problem, but' the accum'ulation of all. of these O: ,
25 little things could very 'well, .in the end, be 'a big e ,-
SonntatJ Reporting Service', Ltd.' .
Geneva, Illinois eU144 '
(312) 232-0262 .
. \
w ., {
- . 6715 i
\
O- .-
~
. . I 1- problem. -
~l
' J2 O Well --' *'
3 A ,
We & Yknew f.iiat a component that has been installid in 4 - the field is - is only as good as, that? paper that has
' ~
- 5' .. documented how.and when and who installed'this e
)
6 d'
. component. ..
..s .
. "7 I've found problems with the paperwork ther,e thate 8 ift. fact, th'ey weren' t readi.ly, retrievable, and in some
.- e. .
9 cases thgy couldn't be found at all. ,
. 10 . So I was concerned with it, yes. .
' ~
11 <
Q ,
Are all the concerns' -- the basis f or that opinion -
.- . e .
- 12 d,id .yott make that known to the NRC? ,
~~
13 A .Yes, yes.- .
' 14 MR. BERRY: Thank you.-
Any further fo[los-ups?
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN.: -
16s - ,, . . MR. MILLER: Your Honor, I find that I
~
17 -
neglected to,show' the witness a document that was .
18- responsive to eIamina' tion I believe by y.ou and other [ C 19 members of~the Board. .
L
, 20 I'd like leave of the Board to do so. . .
21 ,
JUDGE GNOSSMAN: - Fj.ne . Do so, Mr. Miller.
~
22 - *- MR. MILLER:. I'd 141ke f or the' Reporter to
~
23 mark' as Applicant's Exhibit 77 a groupJ of documents, .the 24 first .page of which .is a Pittsburgh Testing Laborat'ory O .25 , ,
quality control document transmittal, dated July 6 7
. Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
. . ueneva, .4A11nois curae '
(312) 232-0262
l
' j 6716
. . j
~
., } , ,
1984. ,
,, , 2 ,
Attached to it' are four Pittsburgh Testing - i
~ .
3" Laboratory
- reports of welding qualificationry . to which 4 is atsached..a -- various attachments to the Comstock .
1 i
5 weld procedu're., They. are all Attachment 0, 01, 02, 03 6 - and 04. , ., .. i 7 -
+(The documents were,thereupon marked I
~.8 -
Applicant's Exhibit No. 77 for
~
9 . J ' identification as of July 3,1986.)
e 10- .
JUDGE GROSSMAN: ' Oliay . Mr'. Miller, why don' t 11 'you ask your question now and -
v- 12 -
--> ' RECEOSS EXAMINATION -
13 (Continuing.)
, 14 ,
BY MR. MILLER:
. ,15 , , ,
Q Mr. Puckent, first of all, have you ever seen.the
- i.6 documents that I have had marked as, Applicant's Exhibit '
17 77 before today? .
! .; 18, A Just a portion of them. .
.' 19 ,
The drawings in .the back -- this is a Xeroxed copy.
l
- 20 I have seen those.' -
! 21 - Q- All right,' sir. s 22 ,
C'an we agree that the; cover sheet, the transmittal ,
23 ffom Pittsburgh Testing Laboratories, references certain
. ., 2 4 reports by an NQ number; that' is, MWQ--530 through 5337 j . 25 A. Ye's, Dir. ,
4 i - -
. Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ,
peneva, Illinois 0U144
. .- (312) 232-0262 -
- ... _. _-. . - _ _ ~ .
. \
~
mm , ,
. 6-717 a - -
l
' ~
~ , , Dl 1 Q And that that corresponds to the Pittsburgh Testing l 2,
- Laboratory ' report numbers that' are shown in the' upper 3
e right-hand corner of the succeeding pag,es that are pn -
s.
4 ,
the Pittsburgh Testlpg Laboratory -- .
l 5 , A The upper right-hand corner? .
6 ,
O Yes, sir ,-- I'm sorry; not on the Comstock do$ument.
,, 7 A Yes, MWQ-530. , ,
8 Q And it gives a lab" number of, bht-8428? , -
!) . A kes, sir,. . >-
10 0 And that corresponds to the laboratory numbers on the-
,c .
11 sheet f rom the Comstock procedure BST-842.8 for , *
- 12 - Atta.chment 04; right?
13 A Yes, sir: .
- a. .
~
14 Q All right. ,
15 Looking at these documents, Mr. Puckett, does it 16 appear that Atta'chment 0, 01, 02, 03 and;04 was, -in _
17 fact, q,ualifieid.as a fillet weld'by Pittsburgh Testing 18 Laboratory on -- no latdi than -- well, on July 6,1984?
- 19 A Yes, sir. -
20' Q All right. ,
21' ~ And assuming that all the documents were kept' tocjeth,er -- well, at ,least the ' cover sheet shows the-22, i 23 " received" stamp of Comstock on July'9, 1984, does.it' d
24 not?
O 25 (Indicating.)-
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ,
. ueneva, 11 A 1.n o.A s ouAae .
(312) 232-0262
$718 1 A Thak's what the " received." stamp says. **
2 0. And having looked at' the. r-- at the' documents, are these',
. o 3
the . documents that' yo.u ultimately found in'.Asgust when
~
4 y.ou went'lookipg? -
I think yqu said,you f ound some of them at Sargent' 5
6 . & Lundy and - .
7 ,
A- Yes, yes. Ther.e was two , copies in Sargent & Lundy.
, 8 Q Th'at is, tyo of the test reports were in --
9 A Ye s'.
10 Q -- in Sargent & Lundy, and-two were i'n the Comstock 11
- vault'butjustmisfiled;isthatrighg?
- 12 A Yes -- well, they were ig the file. - ,-
13 0 Oh, they were in,'the file? - -
14 7A Yes. .
15 I had previously checked, and they had a different- ,
16 file in the back there. I was going through it, looking e . #
17 for something else, when I happened onto them.
18 0 Was the different file you found them in -- was it ..
. 19 ,
- someh"ow identified a,s an Attachment O document? '
20 A They were misfiled.
- 21 O Misfiled, okay.' , .
o . .
'. 22 But you did find them?
23 A J found' two cop *ies there, and there
. '.s was two copies that' 24' . came from Sarg'ent & Lundy, yes.,
O9 25 'MR. MILL'ER : I 'have no. further questions.
. Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. s
, Geneva, 1111nois culos * '
(312) 232-0262
, . e 6719 1 .
.' JUDGE GROSSMAN: Any further questions?
- er
- 2, '
MR. GUILD: I'm sort of puzzled g what the 3 ,
, point of the last line of questions was. ;
4 .
JUDGE G.ROSSMAN: I am, too, Mr. Miller.
5 , MR. MILLER:. I'd be happy to explain.
6 .. * ,
MR, GUILD: My only question is: Dbes he 7 . intsnd to offer these in evidence? .,
'8'- JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, he hasn't, so I assume 9 .at thi's point -- -
O -
10 MR. MILLER:
- I$ can't offer them through this 11 u, , ,
witriess. ,
e , ,
12
- MR. GUILD: Fine. . .
.13 '
MR. MILLER:. I probably could, since he did 14 say'that.these were the attachments that'he saw; but.I, 15 want to establish'that these were, in fact, the .
16 documents that the witness was looking for and -- -
17 . JUDG5 GRO8SMAN: And then you will bring- -
1,8 soineone on' to say that these do.cuments were in a certain ,
19 . place.at a' certaih time? .
4 20 .
MR, MILLER: iks. . .
2L I would like to offer Exhibit .76, which 'is Mr.-
22 ,, Puckett's. test w ith the cover sheet by'Mr. Nemeth.
MR. GUILD:*
. 23 -
. I object to the cover she,et
,- 24" .
coming in through this witness. -
e, -
,- . :e 25 -
The cover sheet piirports to reflect findings
- and, ,.
a ..
.i .
Sonntag., Reporting Service, Ltd. ,
ueneva, AAAznorm ouAa= .
(,312) 232-0262
. r -
6720 1
establish facts 'that are heatsay through a documerit the "
- 2 witness obvibusly disputes $., ,
3 The facts that are reflected on.the coves shget'can
'4 simply '- , simply .ca.nnot estgblish that this-was, in . - -
5 . fact, the condition f ound in the' field, through putting 6 ,- a ' piece of paper in through Mr 'uckett.
P .
7 MR., MILI,ER.: Well, Mr. DeWald's. testimony I
. 8 ,
discusses Mr. Puckett's practical examinations, sand I- .
i . T' ..
9 believe that there's a ' sufficient evidentiary foundation to qualifh this document for admission into evidence.
~
10 ,
11 ,
MR. GbILD: ' Not for prod'f of the substance,
- 12 Mr. 'Chairmang and 'that is that? there were no welde'r 13 .
stamp. -- ID stamps o'n t,hese particular compdinents and
' that the weld detail if incorrectly stated.
~
. 14 -
They cannot be ' demonstrated through 'a piece of 15 -
~
~
- '16 - paper of this sort through this witness. .
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I agree that there 18 -
,isn't sufficie.nt foundation for thi.s first page of'the
- 19 document; and so if' that's the point of the admission,
2 0 then it's not admitted.i .
21 Did y,ou wish to admit any other* portion'of the - ,
~
[ .
22 MR. MILLER : , Well, your Honor, certainly the
]' 23 remaining - ,well, the next two pages -- the .second page j .
2'4 ,
is signed by Mr. Puckett, and 'I believe thg third pSge. ,
. s
- 25 i's in his handwriting.
o Sonntag Reportin*g Service, Ltd. *
. Geneva, 1111nois eu1J4 .
( 3'1 2T .23 2-0 26 2 -
6721 O
_ 4 /
1 I v uId ask that at least those be admitted a.t this c,
. 2 , tim e .. , .
,. 3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Do you have 'any objection .to
'4 ; that, Mr. Guild?, ,
5~ MR. GUILD: -
No, sir, I have'no objection to
. . r
, ,6 =
, any of the rem,aining three pages. ,
7 .The las.t page Mr. Puckett didn't author, either,-
.8 but I don't, object to.~it., .
9, .
., JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Berry?. , ,
MR. BERRY:
10 .
No objection. -
11 , .
. . JUDGEGROgSMAN: Okay. We'll admit the last
.thgee pages of' what's been marked f or identificati.on a.s 12 . .
/ .. . .
- ,13 . Applicant's Exhibit 76,
- s . .. ':*
(The l'ast three pages'of' Applicant's 14 -
15 .
Exhibit No. ,76 for identification were . .
16 ' thereupon received in
- evidence as ,
17 Applicant's , Exhibit No. 76 in eviaence.)
I take 'it we.will have 18 -
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
19 Applicant's Exhibit 77 travel .with the record now, even
,20 t! hough it's not admitted, and Mr. Mi11er ,can supply the ' ,
21 * * . n'eceissary, foundation, at a later time.
22 With that, we'll adjourn the hearing until'9:00 23, o' clock on Tuesday. 4 2 4 '. - Off the record. -
> 'm ,, . . .
'+
25- g (There follo.wed a discussion outside the
~ '
Sonntag'Repo ging Service, Ltd.
ueneva, AAAAnoAs o v Ao g
..'(312). 23*2-0262
~
~ ~
4
- gygg l
- 9 . es
. s
.1 '. tecord.)~ .
- 2. J,UDG E .G ROSSMAN : , Back orb the record. .
l
~ '
. 3 Thank you very much, *Mr. Puckett, for testifying.
4 ., for us. We appreciated your coming here, and you are
. = -
. 5- . excused nqw from the hearing. -
6 ,
THE,WITNtSS: Tharik ' you very much, . sir.
(Witness excused.)
7 .
. . .a 8' '
(WHEltEdPON , a't the ' hour of 11: 45, A. M '. , -
. 9 . the hearing of the above-entitled matter
, 10 , .
was continued to the 7th day of'Julyr 11 1986, at the hour of 9,:00 o'c1'ock A. M. )'
- l'2
J ,
e .,
. 13 .
t * '
, 14 . .-
. v 15 * '
1,6 . . -
'* 17 3 18 g . . . .
19 '
t *
- 20.* -
22 ,
~~
'* ' . . 6
. 2$ .. . ,
. ~. .
24 -
,25 . .
Sonntag Report $ing Service, Ltd. * ,
'. . . Geneva, Illinois eu144 (312)' 232-026:2
e .
, - 2 .
e
~ .'_
. ' CERTIFICATE OF OFF,ICIAL-REPORTER'
.p Q - - .
~
This is to certify
- that th'e attached proceedingse bef' ore ..
. ,. the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR , REGULATORY COMMISS' ION n the,,
. . matter of: .
t Braidwood Station NAME OF PROCEEDING:
Units 162 -
Commonwealth Edison Company ..
- (Evidentiary Hearing) .
^ ..
+
- DOCKET ![0.:- 5'0-456/457-OL .
3 ' ~
PLACE: Joliet, Illinois ,
3O- DATE:
. Thursday, July 3, 1986
.. were held as :her,ein appears, and that this is'the original ,
transcript thereof for the file of th'e ' United. States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. .
- ( sigt ) . M 8 ( TYPED )' . ' Nan cy 'J . IO>h p .
O .
Officia'l Reporter .
. Reporter's Affiliation O e.
) g g g g D gg
- , e , f V .
. 4 e -
s' e .
.' *