ML20203L648
| ML20203L648 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 08/25/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#386-570 OL, NUDOCS 8608290031 | |
| Download: ML20203L648 (100) | |
Text
oRIGINA'_
UN11EU STATES O
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO: 50-456 OL 50-457 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2) t Z
LOCATION:
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS PAGES:
11013 - 11110 DATE:
MONDAY, AUGUST 25, 1986 l
. {/
U
?
/ L 0 I l
t I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC.
n OfficialReporters 444 North CapitolStreet 060E270331 a60 cS Washington, D.C. 20001 I' D H ADaa oso00.; '6 (202)347-3700 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE
11012 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
__________________x 5
In the Matter of:
6
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 8
and 2)
__________________x 9
Page:
11,013 - 11,110 10 United States Distirct Court House 11 Courtroom 1919 219 South Dearborn Street
(}
12 Chicago, Illinois 60604 13 Monday, August 25, 1986 14 The hearing in the above-entitled matter reconvened 15 at 2 : 00 P.
M.
16 17 BEFORE:
18 JUDG E HERB ERT G ROSSMAN, Chai rman l
Atomic Saf ety and Licensing Board 19 U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(
Washington, D.
C.
20 JUDG E. RICH ARD F.
COL E,
- Member, i
21 Atomic Saf ety and Licensing Board U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 22 Washington, D.
C.
23 JUDG E A. DIXON CALLIH AN, Member, Atomic Saf ety and Licensing Board i
24 U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
O 25 i
APPE ARANCES :
I Sonntag Reporting S erv ice, __ L td.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 11014 O
1 On behalf of the Applicant:
2 MICH AEL I.
MILL ER, ESQ.
3 MS. EL EN A Z. KEZ EL IS, ESQ.
Ish an, Lincoln & Beale 4
Thr ee Fi rat National P1az a Chica go, Illinois 60602 5
JOSEPH G ALLO, ESQ.
6 I sh an, Lincoln & B eal e 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.
W.
7 Washington, D.
C. 20026 8
On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staf f :
9 MR. GREG ORY AL AN B ERRY, ESQ.
10 EL AIN E I.
G AN, ESQ.
U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11 7335 Old Georgetown Road B eth esda, Maryland 20014 12 On behalf of the Intervenors:
14 15 16
^
17 18 19 20 i
21 7
l 22 i
l 23 24 Sonntaq Repor tina Service;_ Lid.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232 0262
--~
11015 O
1 RYH IB IT INDEX I. D.
RECE IV ED Applicant's Exhibit No. 4 9 11,067 2
Applicant's Exhibit No. 51 11,067 Intervenors' Exhibit No. 97 11,079 3
WITNESS INDEX TESTIMONY OF J EROME H.
SCHAPKER Page 4
CROSS EXAMINATION 5
BY MR. MILLER (Continuing. )
11,047 6
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. GUILD 11,069 7
8 9
10 11 13 i
14 l
15 I
16 i
l 17 l
18 l
19 l
20 l
21 22 23 i
24 l
25 i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11016 n
%.sJ l
JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
The hearing ~is reconvened.
2 This is the 55th day of hearing.
3 Do we have any preliminary matters?
4 MR. GUILD:
Yes, si r.
5 JUDG E GROSSMAN :
Mr. Guild.
6 MR. GUILD:
Yes, Mr. Chai rman.
7 I have several matters I want to bring to the 8
Board's attention, in whatever order the Chairman would 9
desi re.
10 Fi rst, Intervenors made a disclosure pursuant to 11 the protective order that was entered into last hearing 12 day, and pursuant to that order, we distributed some of 13 the docmnents in question to counsel for Applicant and 14 counsel for the NRC staf f.
I j ust wanted that reflected 15 on the record.
16 The second matter I wanted to bring bef ore the 17 Board was questions as to the most recent allegations 18 that have been disclosed by the NRC staf f, also under 19 protective order.
I am ref erring to -- it's' Regional 20 No. 7 9.
21 It's Intervenors' position that upon a review of 22 these documents, the matters that are contained in those 23 documents are clearly relevant and material to the 24 pending quality control inspector harassment contention,
(
25 and it is our intention to seek to pursue those matters Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
M d
11017 s
l 1
and obtain f actual inf ormation which we believe may lead 2
to the introduction of admissible evidence on those 1
3 questions.
4 We. propose to initiate inf ormal discovery with 5
respect to the subj ect matters of the two allegations, 6
79 -- a'nd I believe there is another number that's also 7
ref erred to in some of the earlier documents.
j 8
I would propose -- I am speaking sort of obliquely 9
about this matter, because it's subj ect to a protective j
10 order, but if more detail is required, I would ask that 11 we go into in camera session to take the matter up; but, 12 in short, Intervenors would request of the Board
(
4 13 authority to take the deposition of the subj ect of the 14 most recent allegation, and would ask that the parties l
15 commit to inf ormal discovery of documentary materials 16 and other matters that may be relevant to those two most i
17 recent allegations.
18 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
Do you know what 79 is?
19 JUDG E COL E:
Not of f hand.
20 I think this is another one.
21 (Indica ting. )
22 Let me see if I have it here.
1
[
23 MR. GALLO:
I used wrong numbers.
It',s 96.
24 As counsel pointed out, it's the regional number 25 for the most recent allegation filed
(
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
L Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1101E
\\
J l
MR. GUliD:
R3, 86-A 0096.
What was the other one?
t 3
MR. GUIL D:
I don' t have a nwnber, Mr. Gallo.
4 On the same s abj ect ?
5 MR. BERhY:
Same or similar subj ect.
6 MR. GUILD:
A similar subj ect; 79?
7 MR. BERRY:
Yes.
8 MR. GUILD:
You mean, Judge -- I am not clear 9
what the Board's numbers are.
10 I received copies of the documents that the Staff 11 distributed on these subj ects.
/}
12 MR. BERRY:
Yes, we made copies available.
13 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
We have copies.
14 MR. GUILD:
All right, si r.
15 JUDG E COL E:
Of 96.
16 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
W ell, is there any obj ection 17 to conducting that inf ormal discovery while the hearing 18 is proceeding, which I assume is what Mr. Guild has in 19 mind?
20 MR. GUILD:
Yes, si r.
21 MR. G ALLO:
Your Honor.
22 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
If there are none --
23 MR. G ALLO:
I was about to address that.
24 Am I understand Mr. Guild to suggest there is no 25 formal discovery with respect to docwnents and also Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11015
- O 1
discovery with respect to taking the deposition of, I 2
guess, both allegers; am I understanding correctly?
3 MR. GUILD:
Yes.
4 MR. G ALLO:
And, cer tainly, in principle, we 5
have no obj ections to undertaking that.
6 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
Mr. Ber ry ?
7 MR. BERRY:
G ener ally, Mr. Chai rman, the 8
Staff does not f avor discovery in the course of an 9
ongoing operating license proceeding.
i
)
10 I act not in a position to state at this time 11 whether the Staf f would oppose -- would oppose such a 12 request; but I would j ust note for the record that it's I
i 13 been the Staf f's position to -- not to conduct discovery 14 during -- while the hearing is pending.
15 That's all I could say at this time.
16 It appears that at this point Intervenor is 17 req uesting, es se nti ally, di scov ery betw een -- f rom the
{
'18
-- f rom the Applicant; and to that extent, I don' t think 19 we would obj ect; but I am not authorized to agree to any 20 discovery against the Staf f.
21 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
Of course, if the 22 inf ormation -- I am sor ry, this latest one, of course, 23 could not have been disclosed any earlier, it was 24 disclosed as early as possible; but I don' t see any 25 obj ection to whether or not you are authoriz ed to agree Sonntaq Reportina Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134
)
(312) 232-0262
4 11020 0
1 to it.
I can' t see any obj ection to having discovery, 2
as long as we are not delaying the proceeding; and, 3
chances are, that if we have the discovery as soon as 4
possible, we will obviate the need to have a i
5 continuance; so the Board will rule that we can proceed 6
with discovery on that.
7 MR. GALLO:
Does that include the Staf f as 8
well, your Honor ?
9 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
W ell, I don' t know what 4
10 discovery is going to be asked of Staff; but I would i
11 assume Staf f would have no obj ection to inf ormal 12 discovery, and I don' t believe that the depositions j
13 would be of anyone on Staf f; so I can' t see any 14 cbj ection.
l 15 MR. BERRY:
Yes.
16 As I indicated to the Intervenor, seeking to depose
~
17 the witness -- the person that the Intervenor has i
l 18 suggested that will be the subJ ect of the deposition, is 19 not a Staf f member, and to that extent, certainly we l
20 wouldn' t obj ect to the deposition going f orward; and, 21 also, we wouldn' t be adverse to inf ormal discovery; 1
j 22 although I would state that, with respect to these
(
23 all ega tions, that the Staff has produced its allegation l
24 th at --
25 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
You are going to have to i
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11021 I
speak up, Mr. Ber ry.
2 MR. B ERRY:
With respect to two allegations 3
under discussion, that we have been discussing, the 4
Staf f -- I would note that the Staf f has produced its --
S its documents, its records relating to that; so al~though 6
we don' t oppose any inf ormal discovery, I would j ust i
7 note that the Staff has provided such discovery already.
8 MR. GUILD:
J udges, bef ore the Board recesses 9
or --
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN :
To the extent that you have 11 already provided what you have to, there is obviously no 12 pr obl em.
J 13 If ther e is a probl em, on any further request by 14 Mr. Guild, you can bring it bef ore the Board.
15 So you can proceed with the discovery inf ormally, 16 except, of course, for the deposition, which will be a 17 formal discovery matter; however, you can dispense with
(
18 a Notice of Deposition, as long as everyone is agreeable 19 to the time and place.
20 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chai rman, one other matter 21 rel ated.
22 The Chairman spoke a moment ago about the I
23 disclosnr e, of the timing of the disclosure of this 2 /e matter.
[b h
25 We, of course, voiced for the record our Sonntag Reporting S erv ice.s Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0252
11022
%J 1
difficulties with the Staf f, what, in our view, was 2
tardy disclosure in this matter.
It goes back to June 3
of this year, and we received disclosure of the matter 4
in August.
5 But that may,not be in dispute.
I j ust don' t want 6
the record lef t with our agreenent to the Chair's 7
observation that disclosure will be timely.
8 JUDG E GROSSMAN :
W ell, I was ref erring to 9
this latest matter, which, I believ e -.
10 MR. GUILD:
Yes, ther e w as a mor e r ecent 11 do cum ent, a supplementation on the same allegation.
12 JUDG E GROSSMAN :
Okay.
I see.
i 13 But it began in early June.
14 MR. GUILD:
It did, yes, si r.
15 JUDG E GROSSMAN :
Okay.
16 Well, just f or the record, then, had there been a 17 more timely disclosure of the early matters, then, 18 perhaps, we wouldn' t.have this request at this late 19 date; but that's debatable.
20 Anyway, we had a hearing going, so let's proceed 21 with the new matters.
22 MR. G ALLO:
Excuse me, Judge G rossman.
23 Bef ore we leave this matter, I wonder if counsel 24 could have a bench conf erence on this point?
[h 25 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
Cer tainly.
- G Sonntaq Reporti_ng Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11023 1
Why don' t you approach the bench?
2 Do you want this on or off the record?
3 MR. G ALLO:
Let's have it of f the record, and 4
if necessary we will put it on the record.
5 (There f ollowed a discussion 6
outside the record. )
7 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
Let's put that on the a
recor d, then.
9 I won' t use his name.
10 We are back on the record.
11 Appa rently, the most recent alleger has indicated O
12 the substance of his complaints to a number of Edison 13 pe opl e, Comstock people and NRC persons; and it appears 14 as though there isn't very much confidentiality lef t; so 15 that it is the Board's opinion that there in no point to 16 our imposing any confidentiality on this matter.
17 We won' t mention his name on the record right now; i
18 but the matters that are relevant to the hearing can be 19 brought up publicly; and if there is any area that 20 requires confidentiality, when the specific matters be 21 brought to the Board, we will make that determination at 22 that time.
23 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chai rman, are we still under 24 our obligation under the protective order, with respect 25 to the NRC documents that relate to this matter?.
\\s /
Sonntag Reporting Service,_Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11024 1
JUDG E GROSSMAN :
Yes.
I believe, with regard 2
to that, the NRC staff would insist that you maintain 3
conf identiality, and I don' t see any reason wry we 4
should breach that confidentiality at this point, 5
because it deals with an ongoing investigation.
6 MR. GUILD:
Sir, as I recall, ny only problem 7
is this -- let me see if I can make it as narrow a 8
probl em as possi bl e, to get it resolved.
9 The Intervenors then are the only party that's 10 under a burden, practically speaking, to restrict access 11 to this.
12 Of course, Applicant counsel are still under a 13 protective order, but what they have j ust told you that, 14 in f act, all of the operating people, the management of 15 Comstock and Commonwealth Edison Company, know the 16 underlying f act; so they have no need f or access to the i
17 NRC memo -- memos to obtain kncaledge.
18 Intervenor is the only one whose only source at 19 this stage is the NBC memoranda; and it j ust doesn' t 20 seem to us, practically speaking, fair to hamper only 21 one pa rty, and particularly the party that has an 22 interest in pursuing this subj ect.
23 JUDG E GROSSMAN :
Mr. Ber ry.
24 MR. B ERRY:
Mr. Chai rman.
V[ \\
25 JUDG E GROSSMAN :
Yes, Mr. Ber ry.
Let's hear Sonntaq Reporting Service, htd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 t
t
-, -,,,, -.,,. ~. - - -, - -.,. -
---,-.--n r
, - - + - - -,
+,, - -
11025 1
from you on this.
2 MR. BERRY:
Yes.
3 It appears to the Staf f, Mr. Chai rman, we can' t --
4 we don' t agree with the Intervenors that they are 5
hampered by the terms of this protective order.
A As the B oa rd j ust r uled, that inf ormal discovery 7
can take place between the Intervenor and the other 8
parties, and to that extent, any docwnents in the 9
possession of -- relevant in the possession of the 10 Applicant, certainly would be -- would be produced to 11 the Intervenors.
12 The Board has also indicated that a deposition can 13 go f orward of an alleger and that, in that sense, the 14 Intervenor would have access to the f acts relevant to 15 this matter.
16
- The protective order only -- only -- only covers 17 the documents that the Staf f produced, that are subj ects 18 of an ongoing investigatior, and it only limits 19 disclosure to those parties outside the Intervenors' 20 legal counsel.
21 Staf f doesn' t -- doesn' t -- at this time I am j ust 22 not sure I understand as to how Intervenor would be i
23 hamper ed.
Both Mr. Guild and his legal team have access 24 to the material.
They will have other materials that
[\\
25 are -- to the extent any are produced f rom the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
G enev a, Illinois 60134 j
(312) 232-0262
d i
11026 N~ )
1 Applicant, they will still be able to depose the 2
alleger; so I really think at this point the benefit of 3
lif ting that protective condition are thusf ar outweighed 4
by the disadvantages.
5 There is an ongoing investigation; and I think at 6
this time it's j ust not necessary to renove that 7
restriction.
8 And I might add that the restriction under which 9
the Staf f produced the document, instead of asserting 10 any legal claims in the def ense of what they had to the 11 production of that document, we agree to produce it to 12 the Applicant and the Intervenor, based on the 13 understanding that it would be limited -- disclosure 14 would be limited to those parties who had the need to 15 k now, and we defined that as the counsel presenting the 16 case.
17 JUDG E GROSSMAN :
W ell, it appears right now 18 that there is no need for any further measures by l
19 Intervenor that would require disclosure of those f
20 document s.
21 If you have a specific item that you wish to pursue j
22 that would violate the protective order, why don' t you 23 come to us in the f uture on that; but it appears as l
24 though at the present time there is no need to publicize 25 the matters that you have received in camera f rom the l
Sonntaa Reportina Servige, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 L
(312) 232-0262
11027 4
1 Staff.
2 MR. GUILD:
Let me j ust put this as a 3
pr opo sal.
4 I asked counsel for Applicant whether or not they 5
were avare of whether Comstock and Edison management had 6
received a written list of concerns f raa the individual.
7 I understand that they represent that the 8
discussion was oral and that the concerns of the 9
individual, as Mr. Gallo explained at the bench 10 conf er ence, are memorlialized in some writing that has 11 not y et been prepared.
12 But if I can simply get a list of those concerns 13 and have those concerns treated as non-protected, 14 non-confidential matters, then I can utilize a variety 15 of non- -- of sources that are not limited to j ust 16 counsel to be able to pursue discovery and 17 inv esti ga tion.
18 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
Okay.
Mr. Gallo, when do 19 you expect to have that memorandum?
20 MR. G ALLO:
Sometime, I would estimate, 21 Thursday.
22 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
Okay.
Well, that's fine.
23 I don' t see any reason why you couldn' t pursue 24 what's going to be in the memorandum anyway.
25 MR. GUILD:
Fi ne.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 I
(312) 232-0262
11028 7xU 1
If that would be disclosed at the time of the 2
deposition, that would help greatly.
3 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
Okay.
And af ter that, if 4
ther e it. a need to know or to publicize something 5
further, you can come to the Board and we will act on 6
it.
7 Is there anything f urther?
8 MR. MILL ER :
Yes, your Honor.
9 Just, really, I think it's Applicant that runs the 10 greatest risk presently of running af oul of the 11 protective order, to the extent that we have and are 12 acting on inf ormation that has come to us outside the 13 scope of these documents.
14 I don' t see that there is any restriction on our 15 discussion of names, pl aces, people with whoever we need 16 to consult with, to --
17 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
Okay.
The Board agrees with 18 that, and there is no need to submit your memorandum in 19 camer a --
20 MR. MILL ER :
Okay.
21 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
-- when it's prepared on or 22 about Thursday.
23 MR. MILL ER :
Thank you.
24 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
Fi ne.
I 25 Why don' t we proceed to the next matter.
i Jonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
. =.
11025 O
1 Anything f urther?
2 MR. GUILD:
Yes, si r.
3 I have had conversation over the recess, Mr.
4 Chairman, with co,unsel for both NRC Staf f and Applicant 5
and spoke with the Chairman this morning by telephone.
6 The Intervenor has determined not to call as its 7
witness Mr. Robert Schulz, former Resident Inspector at 8
the Braidwood Station 9
Af ter conversation with Mr. Schulz and reflection, 10 counsel reached the f act that Mr. Schulz, as he 11 expr essed to me, was concerned that testimony he might b(N, 12 give in this proceeding would be the basis for some sort 13 of retaliatory action by his enployer, Tennessee Valley 14 Authority or by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with 15 whom he stated he has to work intimately.
16 I reached the determination that presenting Mr.
17 Sch ulz ' testimony under that cloud would not be 18 appropriate.
I made that position known to counsel for 19 the other parties.
As I stated to the Chairman earlier l
20 today, the other parties and I agreed that it would not 21 be -- it wouldn' t be inappropriate that the Board chose 22 to call Mr. Schulz as a Board witness, and I simply l
23 presented that position to the Chairman.
l 24 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
Okay.
The Board has
}
25 considered that, and if Mr. Schulz is a reluctant i
i Sonntaq Reportino Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11030 1
witness, I don' t think that we would require that he 2
testify.
3 The matters that he is aware of that may be 4
relevant here are not matters known to the Board; so 5
that if the parties don' t see fit to call him, I don' t i
6 think that the Board should take it on itself to do 7
that.
8 We would certainly have no obj ection to calling him 9
as a Board witness, if the parties actually have wish to 10 prepare testimony for him; but I don' t see that the 11 j
Board would want to undertake that on its own.
12 I am not sure that reluctant witnesses give the 13 best testimony; and if there is nothing profitable 14 that's going to come f rom that, I don' t -- we don' t ca re 15 to j eopardize his position, if that's what he f ears.
16 MR. MILL ER :
Your Honor.
17 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
And, of course, he's not 18 working f or NRC or the Applicant or Intervenor, so I 19 think we can say that saf ely that we don' t f eel that any 20 of the parties are directly or indirectly pressuring 21 him; but, nev erth el ess, unless the parties wish to have 22 him called, there is no reason wty the Board should do 23 it.
24 MR. MILL ER :
Your Honor, I have had some
(
25 conversations with Mr. Schulz myself.
i
-~
Sonntaq Reportina Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11031 A
k-)
1 Mr. Guild made his obj ections. ibout Mr. Schulz ' s 2
reluctance to appear as a witness the last time we were 3
together a week ago Friday -- perhaps it was on 4
Thursday.
5 I became concerned, f rankly, that Mr. Schulz' 6
perception might be that Commonwealth Edison somehow had 7
an interest in him not appearing and testifying; and I 8
called him to attempt, as best I could, to encourage him 9
to appear as Intervenors' witness.
10 In that telephone conversation, Mr. Schulz 11 indicated to me that his only reluctance was one of
/T 12 having sufficient notice in advance of the hearing so b
13 that -- a date that he was to come -- so that he could 14 make the necessary arrangements, both with his f amily 15 and at the j ob.
16 In the latter connection, I offered to ask 17 Commonwealth Edison Company to intercede with TVA to 18 make certain there was no problem with his getting the 19 appropriate leave of absence or whatever was necessary, 20 so he could, in f act, come here.
21 I assured him that all that the Applicant -- and as 22 far as I knew, all the other parties and the Board --
23 were interested in, was that he respond f ully and 24 truthfully to the questions that would be put to him;
[v h
25 and there was no interest in having him slant his Sonntaq Reportina Service, Ltd.
g Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11032 O
V 1
testimony one way or the other or, indeed, doing 2
anything other than in that regard to him.
3 I spoke with Mr. Schulz over the weekend, again, 4
and I think that he's a little conf used and by now just 5
perhaps a little irritated, not with -- not because of 6
coming to testify, but simply because really no one has 7
been able to tell him what the arrangements are.
8 I don' t -- I don' t believe that it makes a 9
diff erence who calls him, whether it be the Intervenor 10 or the Board, the Applicant's direct case is over, and 11 we don' t ask leave to reopen our. direct case in. order to O
12 call Mr. Schulz.
13 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
I' m sor ry.
14 You wish to take leave to --
15 MR. MILL ER :
N o, no, we do not ask f or leave 16 to reopen our direct case.
17 What I would like to reserve, how ev er, is the 18 following:
19 That f ollowing the close of Intervenors' case, we 20 might consider Mr. Schulz as a rebuttal witness f or the 21 Applicant, and will make the appropriate arrangements to 22 have a subpoena issued and get him here if, again, in 23 our j udgment, it is necessary to rebut any matters that 24 come out during the course of the Intervenor cr Staff 25 case.
Sonntaq Reportina Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~. -
1103d 1
I can' t represent to the Board one way or the other 2
whether that's likely; but I did want to state for the 3
record that my conversations with Mr. Schulz have been 4
of a somewhat different tone and character than the ones 5
that he had with Mr. Guild.
6 JUDG E GROSSMAN :
Mr. Ber ry.
7 MR. B ERRY:
I, too, Mr. Chairman, have had 8
contact with Mr. Schulz over the recess.
9
( Laughter. )
10 MR. BERRY:
It's like Applicant, unlike 11 Int erv enor.
Mr. Schulz indicated to me that his only 12 reluctance in this proceeding and appearing in this 13 proceeding was that he was -- had not been advised of a 14 date and time certain as to when he would appear.
15 I specifically asked Mr. Schulz whethcr he was 16 concerned about any retaliation, reprisal or any adverse 17 consequences and repercussions in his career, and he 18 assured me -- he assured me that he was not.
19 To be sure, Mr. Schulz did indicate that his 20 pr ef er ence, you know, that was not to testify, but he, 21 you know -- that he indicated that he would not contest 22 the subpoena, that he would appear, if he was -- if he
-23 was inf ormed of when and the time, the time and the 24 place of the appearance.
(
25 I had indicated to him that I thought that -- that Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 g
(312) 232-0262
11034 1
he would probably be called sometime during the week of 2
the 25th; and I did not advise him to hold up Tuesday 3
and Wednesday, which -- of this week, which would be the 4
26th and 27th; and I had stated to him that I would 5
inf orm Intervenor, I would relay to Intervenor the 6
substance of our conversation, and Intervenor most 7
likely would be in touch with him to make the final 8
arrangements f or that.
9 Subsequently, I was in contact with counsel for the 10 Intervenor, and I passed that inf ormation on to him.
11 Of course, Mr. Schulz is Intervenors' witness.
He
[N 12 was called by the Intervenors.
The Staff does not 13 intend and has no present plans to call Mr. Schulz as a 14 witness f or our case.
15 We have no obj ection -- and we assured Mr. Schulz 16 that the NRC had no obj ection to -- to his testifying in 17 this proceeding.
In fact, we encouraged him to --
18 encouraged him to come forward.
t 19 We had indicated to Mr. Schulz that the Board 20 expressed the view that he appeared to have important 21 knowledge on important matters, and that it would be in 22 all parties' interest to have -- to have the benefit of 23 his inf ormation in this proceeding.
24 So I would j ust like to state for the record there 25 that, again, the Staf f's conversations with Mr. Schulz Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 4
I 11035 O
1 have been of a different tone and tenor than apparently 2
his conversations with Intervenor.
3 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
W ell, Mr. Schulz may be more 4
reluctant with some parties than with others.
5 MR. B ERRY:
I will j ust note that f or the 6
record.
7 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chai rman, if I could j ust ask 8
counsel for the Applicant whether they are aware of any 9
representatives of Commonwealth Edison Company, other 10 than counsel, who contacted Mr. Schulz.
11 MR. MILL ER :
Yes.
s 12 In' one of the telephone conversations that I had 13 with Mr. Schulz, Mr. Wallace, the Proj ect Manager for 14 the B raidwood proj ect, was on the wire with me for a 15 brief portion of the comrersation.
I 16 I do not know Mr. Schulz personally, although I may 17 have seen him at a deposition, i
18 Mr. Wallace introduced me to Mr. Schulz on the 19 tel ephone, and listened to my_ representations about 20 Commonwealth Edison's interest in having Mr. Schulz come 21 and testify freely and f ully; in ef fect, seconded what I r
22 sai d, said that he wanted Mr. Schulz to be certain that 23 he understood that what I was expressing was the
)
24 position of Commonwealth Edison Company as well, and i
[
25 then Mr. Wallace got off the line.
t Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
i
,i Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11036 1
JUDG E GROSSMAN :
W ell. the way it stands 2
right now is that none of the parties appears willing to 3
take the risk of calling Mr. Schulz.
4 Fools rush in where and angeln f ear to tread, and I 5
don' t think the Board is going to take it on itself to 6
call Mr. Schulz, unless a party requests the Board to do 7
so; but it appears that there is an absence of any such 8
request, and, so, we will j ust let it go.
9 Did any of the parties wish to call Mr. Schulz ? We 10 will be quite willing to authorize the subpoena for him.
11 But that's up to the parties.
12 Or, if a party comes to the Board and asks that we 13 call hin as a Board witness because that party wishes to l
14 question him, but doesn' t wish to subpoena him itself, 15 we would be willing to do that, al so.
16 But we don' t have any such requests bef ore us so we l
17 will j ust let the matter drop until some party brings it 18 up in the f uture.
19 MR. MILL ER :
Your Honor, I j ust have one 20 inquiry in addition, and that is when we conclude with 21 Mr. Schapker, who the next witness will be.
22 MR. GUILD:
That's a -- Judge, I think there 23 are two choices, and it's really at the pleasure of the i
24 Staff, I think it is with their courtesy that we are 25 going with Mr. Schapker bef ore Intervenors have finished Sonntag Reportina Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11037 O
1 our case.
2 Either the choice is Mr. Weil, who I understand had l
3 some annual leave scheduled, or Mr. McG regor.
4 Mr. McG regor, of course, will be appearing by way 5
of Intervenors' subpoena or motion to compel his 6
attendance.
7 I understand that Mr. McG regor is available, since 8
he's returned f rom his leave, in the next day or so at 9
the conclusion of Mr. Schapker's testimony, but I will 10 leave it to counsel for the Staf f to elect.
11 JUDG E COLE:
My notes indicate that Mr.
12 McGregor would not be available between the dates of 13 August 13 th and 27th.
14 MR. GUILD:
He may be returning to work 1
15 formally on the 27th, Judge Cole; but I understood that 16 he was available earlier.
I had a conversation with him 17 my sel f.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, I understood from you, 19 earlier today, Mr. Guild, that we are not going to have l
20 any gaps in the testimony this week; so I will assume 21 that the parties can work that out among themselves.
22 MR. BERRY:
Well, the Staf f -- the Staf f has 23 made Mr. Schapker available, and Mr. Schapker is here in 24 the courtroom today and will be available until 25 compl eted, and at that point the Staf f's -- Staf f fully Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11038 s
j d.
1 expects Intervenors will pick up with their direct case 2
and we will either hear f rom Mr. McGregor or -- well, 3
now that Mr. Schulz is not going to be here, I guess Mr.
4 McG regor would be the next.
5 I am not sure if Mr. McG regor has returned f rom his 6
vacation or not.
7 That can easily be checked; but I guess the long 8
and short of it is that Staff wants to stand on its 9
rights and insist that Intervenor finish its case bef ore i
10 we put on any more witnesses af ter Mr. Schapker is 11 compl eted.
12 MR. GUILD:
We are prepared to do so, Mr.
13 Chairman; and I would only note that Mr. McGregor asked 14 that his counsel, Mr. Ber ry, or counsel for the Staff, 15 simply inf orm him when, and I said that I would pass on 16 that request to Mr. Berry, and I assume that we can work 17 it out among ourselves as to a time.
18 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
Okay.
Well, that's fine; so 19 why don' t we continue with the witnesses.
20 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, two other matters I 21 wanted to bring up.
I apologize for taking the time 22 bef ore the witness returns.
23 But the Staf f filed a motion today.
I am not sure 24 it's in the Board's hands ; but it's entitled, "NRC Staf f 25 Motion f or an Order in Liminae"; and I only received it 2
Sonntag Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11035
, - -U 1
an hour ago, but have not even had a cursory reading.
2 I should inf orm both the Staf f and the Board that 3
Intervenors intend to vigorously obj ect to the entry of 4
any such order.
5 Of course, it comes at a time that is rather 6
inopportune, since the Staf f, from whom such testimony 7
presumably would be elicited or the obj ectionable 8
testimony on the witness stand, and are likely to 9
continue to be on the witness stand through the balance 10 of the week.
11 I really, I guess, seek the Board's pleasure about T
12 this.
)
13 I think that we are entitled to -- to the 14 proscribed times to consider and respond to this, and 15 since trial counsel are engaged in this hearing, time is 16 difficult to find; but, obviously, disposing of this 17 motion is critical to permitting a free scope of inquiry 18 of the witnesses who are going take the stand in j ust a 19 manent, and those witnesses who f ollow thereaf ter.
20 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
Well, Mr. Berry, doesn' t the 21 Staff take the position that its conclusions are to have 22 some influence on the granting of the operating license 23 here?
24 MR. B ERRY:
Yes, Mr. Chairman, its 25 conclusions with respect to the matters in which it l
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11040
-s
\\
l inv estigated, and we have never -- we have never taken a 2
position that that wasn' t a subj ect f or inquiry.
3 JUDG E GROSSMAN :
That Applicant what?
4 You have never taken a position that what?
5 MR. BERRY:
We have never taken a position 6
that inquiry into the --
7 JUDG E GROSSMAN :
Okay.
)
8 MR. BERRY:
-- into the conclusions the Staf f 9
reached based on its inspections, based upon its
+
10 inspection activities, is not -- is not a subj ect f or 11 inq ui ry.
12 We have never challenged that; but we are opposed 13 to Mr. Guild regarding a f ree inquiry, and the Staff 14 views that a fishing expedition.
15 We don' t believe that j ust because the Staf f is a I
16 party in this case, the Staf f has conducted certain j
17 activities and it has proffered witnesses who have some
(
18 knowledge and inf ormation bearing on matters encompassed I
19 by Intervenors' contention, opens up the internal -- the 20 deliberative processes of the NRC staf f, and that the 21 inquiry into this proceeding, and I believe a motion in l
l 22 liminae that the Staf f filed that's bef ore the Board, l
23 reflects f ully, exactly what our position is.
24 It's a narrow position, your Honor.
25 All we are -- in essence, all the Staf f is really l
l Sonntaq Reporting Serv ice, Ltd.
I Genev a, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262 l
11041 1
requesting the Board is j ust to take notice and rule 2
accordingly that in an operating license proceecing, 3
that is the -- that the Applicant's has the burden of 4
pr oof, the Applicant's -- whose quality assurance 5
activities are in question, and that to the extent that 6
the Staf f has inf ormation -- inf ormation bearing on 7
those questions and in this forum, as conducted 8
inspection into the -- the matters comprising 9
Int erv enors' co ntention, that that's -- that's subj ect 10 of inquiry; but a wide-ranging, far reaching general 11 inquiry into the internal operations and workings of the 12 NRC Staff --
13 JUDG E GROSSMAN :
We haven' t in the past 14 allowed such a f ar reaching inquiry into the internal 15 workings of the NRC.
16 Where there is something internal that had an j
17 ef fect on the conduct of the inspections or 18 inv estiga tions, then I think it's appropriate to allow 19 some questioning on that.
20 I recall there was some questioning as to the 21 adequacy of the preparation f or some investigations at l
22 the last session.
23 Well, I think it's appropriate to inquire into i
24 that.
l 25 We certainly don' t intend to allow a general l
l Sonntaq Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
11042 m
1 inquiry into the functioning and internal operations of 2
Staf f.
3 The only internal matters that we do consider 4
appropriate are those that had some influence or may 5
have had some influence on the conduct of the 6
investigations.
7 MR. BERRY:
That is correct, Mr. Chairman; 8
and, indeed, I believe, with the witnesses Mendez and 9
Neisl er, that Intervenors probed extensively into the --
10 their inspection methodologies, the conduct of their -
11 inspections.
Staf f didn' t obj ect to that.
We regard 12 that as f air subj ect f or examination; and I believe our 13 position is a narrow one; and I don' t believe that we 14 are hamstringing the Intervenors, that we are 15 unnecessarily restricting the examination of any Staf f 16 witnesses.
17 This, again -- just stating our position -- that 18 the Staf f's inspection -- its report and its conclusions 19 reached af ter its inspection activity is open to r
20 question; but, f or example, trying to impeach the 21 credibility of a Staf f witness or Staf f individual, 22 impeaching the person as opposed to the message of the 23 testimony, I think is beyond the scope.
24 In this connection, I have regard to Intervenors' 25 Exhibit 90.
Sonntaq Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11043 O
V 1
The Board will note f rom -- if you will recall that 2
exhibit, there was maybe one paragraph in a twepage 3
memorandum that dven remotely beared on any matter that 4
was bef ore -- that's pending bef ore the Board in this 5
hearing; but, yet, the memoranda was replete with ot'her 6
suggestions of presonality abuse, employ ee 7
supervisor / subordinate grievances and disagreements and 8
things; and to that extent, that is, the Staf f would 9
obj ect to probing those matters that do not relate to 10 the adequacy of any inspection that the Staf f has 11 conducted; and the Board and Staf f has filed this motion 12 before the Board that we just have reason to suspect 13 that Intervenor Exhibit 90 is j ust going to be a prelude 14 to what we see f rom subsequent witnesses, and rather 15 than continue, just let me obj ect to that line of 16 examination.
17 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
If I understand correctly, 18 you are not challenging the relevance of the second 19 paragraph of Exhibit 90, is that it, but you don' t wish 20 to have the rest of it admitted?
21 Well, no, look at this exhibit.
22 MR. BERRY:
I believe it was Page 2, Mr.
23 Chai rman.
24 It was the first paragraph on the second page.
25 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
Well, I am looking at that, J
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 11044 1
too, and I can' t -- that is the one that you believe is 2
rel evant or --
3 MR. BERRY:
Remotely.
4 It's -- it's not totally irrelevant, but --
5 JUDG E GROSSMAN :
Well, we haven' t made a 6
practice of going through each document and determining 7
that only certain portions are relevant and excluding 8
the r emainder.
9 It appears as though, certainly, that top paragraph 10 on Page 2 is rel evant, and the second paragraph on Page 11 1 may also be relevant.
12 MR. BERRY:
N ow, the second paragraph on Page 13 1 is an example of what the Staff regards as a matter 14 beyond the scope of this proceeding.
15 The Staf f would obj ect to the relevance of the 16 matter reflected in the second paragraph on Page 1 of 17 Intervenors' Exhibit 90.
18 JUDG E GROSSMAN :
Well, no, I haven' t gone 19 through the Applicant's rebuttal case; but are
~
20 corrective action program matter included in your 21 rebuttal case?
22 MR. MILL ER :
No, si r, not the MTV program.
23 That's ref erred to on Page 1 of Intervenors' Exhibit 90 24 MR. GUILD:
Not that particular one, Mr.
[
25 Chai rman.
That relates to another part of the sub --
Sonntaq Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 11045
.O 1
another subcontention that's dismissed; but, of course, 2
the corrective action programs involved in the Braidwood 3
correction assessment program are, I understand, to be a 4
part of Applicant's rebuttal case.
5 JUDG E GROSSMAN :
W ell, at this point we don' t 6
know enough about the rebuttal case to determine whether 7
the second paragraph is or is not relevant; but, 8
cer tainly, since it appears to us that the paragraph on 9
Page 2 is relevant, we don' t see any reason why we would 10 exclude the rest of the document.
11 MR. MILL ER :
Your Honor, this is, in a sense,
.l 12 a 47pothetical discussion, since Intervenors' Exhibit 90 13
-- I don' t believe it was of f ered, at least our records 14 indicate that it was not admitted.
-15 MR. GUILD:
I think it was offered and I 16 think the request was pending because of the absence of 17 the sponsor of this document.
l 18 I hate to call Mr. Schulz simply to sponsor exhibit 19
-- Intervencrs' Exhibit 90; but I still would do so if j
20 necessary; but I guess Mr. McGregor, who is the apparent 21 recipient of the memo, may be able to authenticate the l
22 document or, as a matter of fact, if the NRC Staf f will 23 simply stipulate that it is indeed a true and accurate l
24 copy of the Staf f --
l 25 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
Well, we are not up to that
\\
\\
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 j
(312) 232-0262
11046 1%
1 step at this moment; so why don' t we proceed with the 2
witnesses.
3 We are taking your motion in liminae under 4
admisement, since there is no -- no need to act on it at 5
the moment; an_d we will have to make a determination on 6
a case-by-case basis on whether the matters are relevant 7
or not relevant; but we will certainly take into account 8
Staff's strong pref erence not to inquire into the 9
internal workings of the NRC.
10 MR. BERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
11 At this time, the Staf f would recall Mr. Jerome
N 12 Schapker, who is --
U 13 MR. GUILD :
Bef ore they go f orward, Mr.
14 Chai rman, I do have one other matter.
15 Applicant has filed a motion, under 50.57C, which 16 remains pending at this time.
17 Intervenors are working on that.
18 We may bring to the Board a request f or either some 19 additional time so we can work on it af ter hours or 20 should allert the Board at this point that we may be 21 requiring -- may be in need of some days where we can
[
22 take a pass on hearing so that we can prepare our 23 response to that motion.
24 I don' t have either request to make at this time to m
25 the Chairman; I would j ust like to have the Chair l
Sonntaq Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262 i
11047 1
understand that we have that motion.
It's been served.-
2 We are considering it.
We do oppose it, and desire to 3
be heard on the matter bef ore it's considered by the 4
Board.
I 5
JUDG E GROSSMAN :
Yes. 'Okay.
6 Why don' t we proceed with the witness who had been 7
called previously, I believe.
8 JUDG E COLE:
Yes.
9 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
Has he been sworn?
10 JUDG E COL E:
Yes, he has, 11 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
Fi ne.
12 Mr. Schapl:er, and I think Mr. Guild was -- Mr.
13 Guild was examining.
14 MR. GUILD:
No, sir.
15 MR. MILL ER :
I w as. '
i 16 JUDG E GROSSMAN:
Okay.
You were.
1 17 Well, why don' t you continue, then, Mr. Miller.
18 MR. MILL ER :
Thank you.
1 19 BY MR. MILL ER :
20 Q
Hello, Mr. Schapker.
21 Would you turn, pl ease, to Question and Answer 42 22 of your prepared testimony that appears on Page 20?
23 A
Yes.
24 Q
That question and answer, through Question and Answer 47 25 on Page 22, deals with the question of lack of adequate i,
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1104E O
1 preheat f or certain welds that were made by L.K.
2 Comstock; correct?
3 A
That's correct.
I 4
Q And in Question and Answer 44, you ref er to a 5
Nonconf ormance Report issued by L.K.
Comstock, No. 3 423, 6
Did your investigation, Mr. Schapker, disclose 7
whether or not there had been any other NCR's issued by 8
Comstock prior to the issuance of 3423?
9 A
Not to my knowledge.
10 MR. GUILD:
Could I ask the Reporter to read 11 that question back, pl ease.
12 (The question was thereupon read 13 by the Reporter.)
14 MR. GUILD:
Thank you.
15 BY MR. MILL ER :
16 Q
Were you able to ascertain, Mr. Schapker, whether or not 17 there had been any effort at qualifying a welding 18 procedure for material between one-and-a-half inches and 19 three inches without preheat, prior to October 12th of 20 19847 1
21 A
I don' t remember the particulars at this time.
That' s 22 why I investigated.
23 I know that the NCR 3423 identified the violation, 24 and took corrective measures.
25 0
Were you present, tir. Schapker, in the hearing room when Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11045
/
1 Mr. Puckett testified about the incident in which there 2
was an attempted qualification of the procedure without 3
preheat, without QC involvement, and that he told the 4
individual who presented him with the finished welded 5
coupons that that was simply not going to do, because --
6 in essence -- because of the lack of QC involvement?
7 A
Yes; and I believe he indicated that previous to that, 8
in that -- as part of his allegation.
9 0
Well, did you find any evidence, Mr. Schapker, that 10 during the time period when Mr. Puckett was employed at 11 the Braidwood site, which is approximately the months of 12 June, July and August,1984, that there was a procedure 13 qualified f or the welding of materials between an j
14 inch-and-a-half and three-inches thick, without preheat?
15 A
The PQR that I observed, as part of my inspection, I j
16 believe was qualified af ter that date, af ter the f act.
17 Q
Looking at the procedures that were in ef fect during the 18 months that I mentioned, were you able to tell whether 19 or not there was a requirement for preheat for materials 20 that were between an inch-and-a-half and three inches in 21 thickness?
22 A
I don' t recall those procedures at this time.
l 23 MR. MILL ER :
Could I have j ust one minute, 24 sir?
j 25 JUDG E GROSSMAN :
Sure.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1105C O
1 MR. MILLER:
Mr. Schapker, I call your 2
-attention to a document that's been received in evidence 3
as Applicant's Exhibit 10, which is the Comstock welding 4
procedure 4.3.3, Division C.
I call your attention 5
specifically to Section 3.8, and you are f ree to review 6
that.
7 (Indica ting. )
8 MR. GUILD:
Can I catch up with you?
Can we 9
find the procedure, Mr. Miller?
10 MR. MILL ER :
Oh, I' m sor ry.
11 Sur ely.
12.
MR. GUILD:
I found it, Mr. Chairman.
13 Thank you.
14 JUDG E COL E:
What number?
15 MR. MILL ER :
Paragraph 3.8 was what I 16 directected the witness' attention to.
17 JUDG E COLE:
Okay.
18 BY MR. MILL ER :
19 Q
Mr. Schapker, this is one of the documents that you 20 reviewed in the course of your investigation into Mr.
21 Puckett's concerns?
22 A
Yes, it is.
23 0
And by looking at that document, can you tell whether or 24 not there was any preheat required in that procedure for
(
25 materials between an inch-and-a-half and three inches in Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11051 1
thickness?
2 A
Yes.
3 Q
All right, si r.
4 What subparagraph do you find that requirement in?
5 A
3.4.1.
6 Q
So, then, can we agree that, through the effective date 7
of this procedure there was, in f act, a requirenent f or 8
preheat for materials between an inch-and-a-half and 9
three inches in thickness?
10 A
Yes, there was.
11 Q
Mr. Schapker, I am going to pass over momentarily most 12 portions of your prepared testimony that deal with 13 walder qualification records; and I would like to turn 14 to Page 37 of your direct testimony, Question and Answer 15 d5.
16 This is in your answer, quote, "I also inspected 17 welds that had been previously inspected by Mr. DeWald 18 in saf eQ(-related areas. "
19 My question to you, Mr. Schapker, is:
20 Do you recall the areas of the plant which you l
l 21 conducted this inspection?
22 A
It was in the cable spreading room, I believe, portions l
23 of it were, and other parts of the axillary building.
l 24 Q
Sir, approximately how much time did you spend looking 25 at the welds that were identified as welds that Mr.
l l
Sonntaq Reportina Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11052 i
1 i
1 DeWald had inspected?
2 A
Approximately, to the best of my recollection, I think 4
3 it took about a half a day looking at the weldW.
4 The day bef ore I researched the docmnents and so 5
forth, to locate the areas where he had inspected.
6 0
Could you describe for us how you went about researching 7
the documents so that you knew which welds to 8
investigate?
9 A
- Well, L. K.
Comstock was going through a reinspection 10 program, and they had several of these documents already 11 picked out to do reinspection on, and they were -- I 12 believe they were doing the reinspection'of all of those 13 welds, and I took a sample f rom those.
14 Q
What was the condition of the welds when you conducted 15 this inspection?
16 A
W ell, the maj ority cf them were -- were painted, because 17 they were already accepted welds; and I probably looked 18 at a total of 100 or so weldb, and approximately maybe 19 30 of them that were not painted which had been 20 reinspected by PTL, the independent testing lab.
21 Q
I think in your preceding answer you said that many of 22 them had been painted because they had been accepted, I 23 think that's what you said?
24 A
Yes.
(
25 0
Accepted as part of the reinspection program, si r, or --
Sonntag Reportina Service, Ltd, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11053
\\
l A
I don' t believe the reinspection program had been 2
completed on these welds at that time, I believe they 3
were j ust starting that.
I am not 'sur e.
4 Q
Well, let me ask the question a little bit more 5
di rectly.
6 When you said in the previous answer that those 7
welds had been accepted, by whom had they been accepted?
8 A
By Irv DeWald.
9 Q
Now, Answer 85 concludes with a sentence that indicates 10 that there was a review of the Pittsburgh Testing 11 Laboratory 10 percent overview inspections of Comstock 12 inspections.
13 How many Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory overview 14 inspections did you review?
15-A I don' t recall the exact number.
I would estimate about 16 25 to 30 documents.
17 Q
Were these PTL overinspection reports f or the same welds 18 that you physically observed in the field or were they 19 for diff erent welds?
l 20 A
It was -- it was j ust a random sample of the -- of the l
21 PTL reports.
It wasn' t anything particular to the ones 22 I had inspected, no.
23 Q
All right, si r.
24 I would like to move on to Question and Answer 92,
)
i 25 which appears on Page 40 of your prepared testimony.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11054 i
1 In about the middle of the answer you indicate that 2
you interviewed some of the QC Inspectors who raised 3
this concern about having to monitor the weld test 1
4 facility as well as conduct inspections in the shop and 5
field.
6 Could you state for the record the names of the 7
individuals whcm you interviewed?
8 A
Mr. Meyer and Mr. Wicks.
9 Q
The last sentence ref ers to an individual QC Inspector, 10 the one who voiced displeasure as having to do both 11 inspection and tests in the field.
12 Who was that?
13 A
I believe that was Mr. Wicks.
14 Q
The sentence goes on to say that he stated, as Mr. Wicks j
15 did, that his displeasure was of a work-related concern.
16 Would you describe what you mean by, " wor k-related i
i 17 concern"?
l l
18 A
He indicated that, to me, he said it did not af fect the 19 quality of his inspection.
He did the inspections in l
20 hecordance with the procedure.
l l
21 Hav ev er, he didn' t f eel that he should be required l
l 22 to do both of them, that type of inspection and do work 23 in the field, also.
24 Q
Did Mr. Wicks describe for you the occasion or occasions l
25 on which he was asked to do both inspections in the l
Sonntaq Reporting Servicet_Ltd, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11055 O
1 welder facility and in the field?
2 A
He didn' t describe them to me, no.
3 Q
What is your understanding of how many occasions Mr.
4 Wicks was asked to perform both the field inspections 5
and the -- and to monitor the welder test qualification?
6 A
I really don' t know.
7 0
I would like to turn, Mr. Schapker, to the questions and 8
answers that deal with the welder qualification records 9
that y ou r eview ed.
10 Mr. Schapker, ny first question is really dealing 11 with Question and Answer 59 on Page 26, and the answer 12 states that the records indicated that the welder was
(
'~
13 qualified to fillet weld, unlimited thickness range.
14 Could you describe for us in words what the record 15 stated with respect to the limitations, if any, on the 16 welders' qualifications?
17 A
Yes.
Welder qualification records for the welders who 18 had perf ormed weld on a half-inch-thick material had 19 documents into welder qualification records which 20 indicated that these were fillet welds, they were test 21 bed by TPL for fillet welds, and half-inch-thick 22 material for fillet welding qualifies it for unlimited 23 thickness f or fillets.
24
'O All right.
25 What is your understanding of the manner in which Sonntaq Reportino Service, Ltd.
'j Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11056 mU 1
an individual welder who, say, was limited to welding 2
fillet welds in accordance with his welder qualification 3
tests, would be controlled in terms of the types of 4
welds that he was permitted to make in the field?
5 A
On his welder qualification card.
6 Q
I am sor ry, sir?
7 A
Is his welder qualification card; that he was, by 8
procedure -- the welder qualification card would 9
indicate what he was qualified to weld to.
10 0
Did you look at any of the welder qualification cards, 11 carried by any of the individual welders?
s 12 A
There were some in the records, in welder qualification 13 records, copy of the cards.
14 Q
What limitation, if any, did -- well, did the 15 limitations appear on those welder qualifications, 16 copies of the welder qualification cards?
17 A
Yes.
18 Q
Let me turn to Question and Answer 62, which is f ound on 19 Page 28 of your prepared testimony.
20 Mr. Schapker, to your knowledge, are any groove 21 welds perf ormed within the Comstock scope of work on 22 material that is less than 187 inches in thickness?
23 A
No.
24 Q
I would like to, again, back up to the records changes 1
25 that you observed in the welder qualification records,
.)
Sonntag Reportino Service, Ltd.
I Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11057
()
4 1
and that starts with Question and Answer 51 on Page 23.
2 You characteriz e these changes as obvious errors.
3 What is the basis for your statement that the 4
errors are obvious?
5 A
Well, in the case of A36 for A106, where that ups --
6 where it was incorrectly changed, it also indichted 7
that, like if A36 was present -- and A106 was there 8
originally, A36 was substituted f or A106; however, on 9
the same document it would indicate that it was A106.
10 It was pipe that was being welded to; so, evidently, it 11 was an error, because A36 is plate and A106 is pipe.
12 Q
Well --
\\s.
13 A
However, both materials are equivalent; so it wouldn' t 14 af fect the qualification of the welder.
15 Q
In Mr. Puckett's testimony bef ore this Board, he 16 specifically had reference to what he referred to was, I 17 think, dif f erent standards that were applied to the 18 welder qualification record discrepancies at the Zimmer 19 plant and the welder qualification records discrepancies 1
i 20 that were found at the Braidwood plant and are the l
l.
21 subj ect of your testimony.
22 Mr. Schapker, in your prior assignments f or the l
l 23 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, did you have occasion to 24 review the welder qualification records that were 25 maintained at the Zimmer f acility?
l s
I l
f Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134
[
(312) 232-0262 L
h 1105E n
%/
1 A
Yes.
2 Q
All right, si r.
3 Did you observe discrepancies in those welder 4
qualification procedures and records at the Zimmer 5
f acility ?
6 A
Yes, I did.
7 Q
Mr. Schapker, I would like to show you a docwnent that's 8
been marked as Applicant Exhibit 49 for identification, 9
and it's an inspection report in the Zimmer docket that 10 cover bears the date of March 25, 1983.
11 (Indicating. )
(N 12
'You are identified --
\\
13 MR. GUILD:
Mr. --
14 MR. MILL ER:
I' m sor ry, I didn' t want to 15 interrupt.
16 MR. GUILD:
It's okay.
17 Go ahead.
18 MR. MILL ER :
Okay.
19 BY MR. MILL ER :
20 Q
You are identified in the cover letter in the cccend l
l 21 line as one of the individuals who conducted this 22 inspection; is that correct?
23 A
Yes.
i 24 0
Turning to the Notice of Violation, which is the fourth
(
'25 page of the exhibit -- at least that's where it begins Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11055 (O,,)
1
-- can you tell us which of the violations are the --
2 that are described, are a result of your inspection 3
activities?
4 A
Section 1, first page of the appendix, Section 1(a).
5 Q
Did you have any part in the inspection of the violation 6
that's described as No.1(b) in the Notice of Violation?
7 A
Not directly, no.
8 0
Who was responsible for that, si r?
9 A
Pat Gwynn.
10 0
Mr. Schapker, it's correct, is it not, that Notice of 11 Violation Item 1(a) ref ers to discrepancies in welder
/
12 qualification records you observed at the Zimmer b}
13 f acility ?
14 A
That's correct.
15 Q
First of all, Mr. Schapker, what responsibility, if any, 16 did Mr. Puckett have for the discrepancies that are 17 described in that item of the Notice of Violation?
18 MR. GUILD:
Which item are you referring to 19 now ?
20 MR. MILL ER :
1(a).
21 A
He had previously teen the engineer and was responsible 22 for some of these documents.
23 I am not sure what district responsibility he had 24 at all.
25 He was chief welding engineer at one point --
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 g
(312) 232-0262
1106C (Ol v'
1 MR. MILL ER :
All right.
2 A
(Continuing. )
-- at the Z immer f acility.
3 BY MR. MILL ER :
4 0
Can you describe, Mr. Schapker, the consequences of the 5
discrepancies in the welder qualification records that 6
led to Violation 1(a) at the Zimmer facility?
7 MR. GUILD:
Obj ection.
8
" Consequences. " There has been no f oundation 9
established that Mr. Schapker is in any position to talk 10 about what could happen to the Zimmer f acility or what 11 the af fects would be of any particular --
12 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
I think Mr. Miller is going 13 to rephrase the question.
14 MR. MILL ER :
I will be happy to.
15
" Consequences" is a kind of a vague term.
16 BY MR. MILL ER :
i 17 0
There is a ref erence in Violation 1(a) in Applicant's 18 Exhibit 49, to a qualification to Specification 3.1.21 19 H.
20 What did that -- what was your understanding of 21 that certification at the Zimmer f acility, fir. Schapker?
22 A
I believe that was f or heavy wall piping.
23 Q
What did your investigation at the Zimmer facility 24 indicate had occurred with respect to the welder 25 qualification records in connection with the individuals L
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1106]
O 1
who were qualified to that specification for heavy wall 2
thickness material?
3 A
Well, the welder qualification records that appeared 4
that, there were some changes made to those welders that 5
were qualified to the same procedure -- hatever, not the 6
heavy wall pipe -- were changed to make it appear that 7
they were qualified to heavy wall.
8 0
Why is it important that a welder be -- if it is -- that 9
a welder be qualified to weld specifically heavy wall 10 material?
11 A
It's -- it was an ASME code requirenent that they would 12 be qualified to the thicker material in order to perform 13 that weld.
14 Q
Mr. Schapker, what part, if any, did you play in 15 characterizing this item of -- this violation and 1(b),
16 if you had any part in it, as a Severity Level 3 item of 17 no n-compliance ?
18 A
My part was the investigation itself.
I did.
The Level 19 3 severity-level was determined by NRC management at 20 that time 21 Q
Was there any concern with respect to the integrity of 22 the welds that a welder was qualified in accordance with 23 the conditions that are set forth in Violation 1(a),
24 that might make --
25 MR. GUILD:
Obj ection.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
)
(312) 232-0262
11062 0
1 Concern as to what?
Concern f rom whom?
It's 2
vague.
3 MR. MILLER:
Well, concern by Mr. Schapker; 4
and I think I identified the source of the concern, that 5
' is the integrity of the weld.
6 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
I think the question is 7
directed towards whether there was any substantive 8
problems with the welds rather than merely the 9
qualification of the welders.
10 We will overrule the obj ection then.
11 A
Yes, there were some concerns, definitely; because of Q
12 the welders.
The records indicated that the welders O'
13 were not qualified to perform certain welds that they 14 may have performed; and there were other record 15 al t erations, too, that were significant; so there 16 definitely was some concern in that area --
17 BY MR. MILLER:
18 Q
Now --
19 A
, (Continuing. )
-- and could have --
20 MR. MILL EE :
I am sor ry.
Excuse me.
I didn' t 21 mean to cut you of f.
j 22 A
(Continuing. )
-- which could, in fact, have gone to the l
23 quality of the welds in the field.
24 BY MR. MILLER :
25 Q
Mr. Schapker, turning to your pre-filed testimony in l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 I
1
11062 1
this case, and beginning with Question and Answer 51, 2
continuing on through Question and Answer 82 cn Page 36, i
3 there are a number of different concerns expressed by 4
Mr. Puckett that you investigated with respect to welder 5
qualification records.
6 Were any of those discrepancies that, in your 7
j udgment, called into question the adequacy of the welds i
8 that were perf ormed by the welders whose records 9
contained those discrepancies?
10 A
None that I observed, no.
11 MR. GUILD:
I' m sor ry.
12 Could I have the answer?
\\
13 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
"None that I observed, no."
14 MR. GUILD:
Thank you.
l 15 THE COURT REPORTER:
Thank you.
16 MR. MILL ER :
If I might have j ust a minute.
17 JUDG E GROSSMAN :
Cer tainly.
18 MR. MILL ER :
I have no f urther questions of 19 Mr. Schapker.
20 JUDG E GROSSMAN :
Why don' t we take a 4
21 10-minute recess bef ore we go on to Mr. Guild's Cross 22 Examina tion?
23 MR. GUILD :
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
24 MR. MILL ER :
Your Honor, I' m sor ry.
25 I would like to move into evidence portions of l
4 E
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11064 1
Applicant's Exhibit 49, and I' m sorry, I did have j ust a 2
very few more questions with respect to -- necessary to 3
authenticate Applicant's Exhibit 51, which is the 4
inspection report that substantiates -- that Mr.
5 Schapker prepared in connection with Mr. Pucke tt' s 6
concerns that he investigated; but I could do that af ter 7
the recess, if you wish.
8 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
Okay.
Why do n' t w e do th at, 9
th en.
10 (Whereupon a recess was had, af ter which 11 the hearing resumed as f ollows:)
/
12 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
Continue, Mr. Miller.
13 MR. MILL ER :
Thank you.
14 BY MR. MILL ER :
15 0
Mr. Schapker, I would like to show you a document that's 16 previously been marked as Applicant's Exhibit 51 for l
17 identifica tion, and ask you if you ever saw that 18 document bef ore.
19 (Indicating. )
20 A
Yes.
21 0
Could you describe it f or the record, pl ease ?
i 22 A
It's an NRC reinspection Report f or Braidwood, 85009 23 0
Mr. Schapker, who prepared the body of the inspection 24 report?
25 A
I Uid.
I Sonntag ReporJing Servicb_ht;.d.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l-1106!
1 Q
Can you'tell us the circumstances under which the report I
2 was prepared?
3 A
An investigation of concerns expressed by Mr. Puckett.
4 MR. MILL ER :
Thank you.
5 Mr. Chai rman, at this time I would like to move l
6 into evidence Applicant's Exhibit 51.
7 As the Board's rulings on other NRC inspection 8
reportc, the document is not offered for the underlying 9
truth of the natters asserted, but, rather, to indicate 10 that these were the concerns that were investigated by 11 Mr. Schapker and that his conclusions were based on the 12 inf ormation that was available to him.
13 Simil arly, I would move into evidence, at least in 14 part, Applicant Exhibit 49 for identification, and the 15 portions that Mr. Schapker has identified were his 16 responsibility are parts 1(a), I believe -- Notice of 17 Violation part 1(a).
18 I believe that prior testimony by Mr. Puckett 19 establishes that the portion beginning at Page 29 of 20 details of that inspection report correspond to the 21 Notice of Violation Item 1(a), once again, not 22 necessarily off ered -- not off ered f or the truth of the 23 underlying data through this report, but, rath er, to 24 indicate that this is a matter that Mr. Schapker 25 investigated in his capacity as an Inspector and that Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 I
(312) 232-0262
11066
- O 1
these are the conclusions that he reached at the Zimmer 2
facility with respect to that item.
3 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chai rman, as to Applicant's 4
51, Mr. Schapker's report, as limited by counsel, I have 5
no obj ection to its admission.
6 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
Any obj ection?
7 MR. BERRY:
Just clarification, your Honor.
8 It's my understanding that the Board's ruling with 9
respect to the inspection reports was that to the extent 10 that reflect matters that were told to the inspector by 11 other persons, that certainly does prove -- does 12 establish that f act, so it only establishes that it was 13 said.
14 But to the other extent, there are a number of 15 factual matturs in there which the witness would have 16 direct personal knowledge of; and to the extent that's 17 corroborated by his testimony, it's -- you know, it' s 18 our view that that is admissible for its truth.
19 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
W ell, ther e w as no of f er 20 that f ar, M1. Ber ry.
21 As re understand the off er, it hadn' t gone that 22 far.
It's not obj ected to by Mr. Guild; and I assume 23 you are not obj ecting to it, so we will admit it under 24 those limitations.
25 MR. BERRY:
Then, Mr. --
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 11067 1
JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
With regard to -- that was 2
with regard to Exhibit 51, Applicant Exhibit 51.
3 Now, with regard to 49, Mr. Guild, do you have any 4
obj ection?
5 Mr.
GUILD:
N o, sir; but we would ask that 6
the entire document be received, understanding that the 7
general limitation applies to it with equal force and 8
that it doesn' t establish the f acts that are contained 9
in that document, it simply reflects the findings of the 10 NRC, and it's been attested to by this witness as 11 reflecting those findings; but I would not support its
(}
12 admission f or only the -- on the limited subj ect to V
13 which Mr. Miller has directed the witness.
I believe 14 that Mr. Schapker has successf ully authenticated the 15 entire document as being the NRC's report on the subj ect 16 that it purports to be, and I would ask that the entire 17 docwnent be admitted, not simply the portions 18 designated.
l 19 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
W ell, I don' t think we ought i
l 20 to try Zimmer here, as I believe I said maybe five or I
21 six times in the past.
22 What is the purpose of having this whole document 23 in, Mr. Guild?
24 MR. GUILD:
Well, si r, counsel selectively 25 examines f rom the document and, of course, there are l
Sonntag Reporting Servicef Ltd.
7 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 1106E s
L 1
other portions of that document that were examined with
}
2 respect to Mr. Puckett; so the f act that Applicant seeks t
3 to only - di rect. Mr. Echapker to Notice of Violation 1(a) l 4
shouldn' t preclude Intervenors f rom being able to rely 5
on portions of this docanent with respect to 1(b)and 6
2(a), which were also the subj ects of examination when i
7 Mr. Puckett was on the stand.
l 0
JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
W ell, do you have any i
j 9
obj ection?
l 10 MR. MILL ER :
I have no obj ection to that.
11 JUDG E GROSSMAN :
Okay.
12 MR. MILL ER :
In fact, I limited my of f er in
'N 13 anticipation of an obj ection f rom Mr. Guild, really, 14 since Mr. Schapker had only indicated his more direct f
15 relationship to 1(a), that there may very well have been 16 an obj ection on authentication of the remaining l
17 portions; but I have no obj ection.
18 JUDG E GROSSMAN :
Okay.
(
19 Mr. Ber ry, do you have any obj ection?
20 MR. BERRY:
No, Mr. Chai rman.
l 21-MR. GUILD:
I don' t question the authenticity l
l 22 of the document, Mr. Chairman; the understanding, of l
23 course, is that it doesn' t establish the truth of 24 matters it reflects, it simply reflects that this is a 25 finding of the NRC.
I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
i Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11065 i
+
1 1
JUDG E GROSSMAN :
'Okay.
2 Taking into account those limitations, we will 3
admit the entire document then; so we have the same 4
limitations with regard to document -- to Applicant's 5
Exhibits 49 and 51, and the entire documents are i
6 received in evidence.
7 (The documents pr eviously marked 8
Applicant's Exhibits Nos. 49 and 51 for 9
identification were thereupon received in i
10 evidence as Applicant's Exhibits Nos. 49 4
11 and 51.)
{
12 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
Does that conclude your 13 examination?
14 MR. MILL ER :
Yes, sir, it does.
l 15 Thank you.
I i
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN :
Mr. Guild.
j 17 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman.
18 CROSS EXAMINATION 6
l 19 BY MR. GUILD:
20 Q
Mr. Schapker, let me ask you to turn, pl ease, si r, to 21 your supplementary pre-filed testimony, Suppl emental j
22 Testimony of Jerome F.
Schapker.
23 Do you have that, si r?
24 A
Yes.
25 Q
When did you prepare that testimony, Mr. Schapker?
(
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 1
1 11070 0
1 A
Oh, approximately four weeks ago, I believe.
2 Q
All right, si r.
3 You prepared it during the pendency of this 4
4 proceeding; is that right?
5 A
Yes.
6 Q
Did you' prepare it in light of evidence that you had i
7 heard being an observer in the hearings part?
)
8 A
The purpose of the preparation was to answer the J
9 questions that came up by the Board --
1 10 Q
Yes.
11 A
-- during the hearing process.
12 Q
I understand.
13 I' m sor ry ?
14 A
During the process of the hearing.
15 Q
The answer then to my question is yes, you did prepare, i
16 in light of testimony that you heard; is that true?
l 17 A
To some extent, yes.
1 18 Q
And you have, then -- you were present, for example, 19 during the testimony of Mr. Puckett, and prepared your 20 testimony in part -- your supplemental testimony -- in 21 part in light of what you heard Mr. Puckett say from the 1
22 witness stand?
23 A
In part, ycs.
24 Q
All right, si r.
i 25 Now, let me direct your attention particularly to i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
a A
m r
11071 O
G 1
Page 2 of your pre-filed testimony.
2 Question 7 and 8.
1 3
What was the -- what was the question you were 4
asked to address with respect to the subj ect of the 5
applicability of ANS D1.3 to this proceeding, Mr.
6 Schapker?
7 A
As it is stated in there, is it applicable to the 8
Braidwood welding program for the thin gauge materials 4
9 for Comstock.
10 MR. GUILD:
I' m sor ry.
I j ust couldn' t hear 11 that last portion of your answer, si r.
12 I ask the Reporter to read it back.
13 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
Mr. Reporter.
14 (The answer was thereupon read 15 by the Reporter.)
16 BY MR. GUILD:
17 0
What relation does that question have to the testimony 18 in this proceeding that you heard, Mr. Schapker, if any ?
19 A
I believe this was a question that was raised by the 20 Boa rd.
21 Q
Did you hear the Board raise such a question, si r?
22 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
I believe we did, Mr. Guild, 23 ask f or the NRC's opinion with regard to the 24 applicability of N4 S Dl.3.
25 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, I would like to Sonntag Reporting Service,_ Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 11072
,0 \\
V 1
have the witness' understanding of the relationship 2
between this supplemental testimony and other testimony 3
in this proceeding that he's heard.
4 I agree, of course, that the Chair and Board 5
Members raised matters related to this subj ect.
6 BY MR. GUILD:
7 Q
Mr. Schapker, what relationship does this testimony bear 8
to Mr. Puckett's testimony in this proceeding, if any, 9
on this subj ect?
10 A
I believe that was a question that was raised by Mr.
11 Puckett.
T 12 O
All right, sir.
(b 13 A
The applicability of the AWS DI.3; and --
14 Q
Well, si r, the question -- I' m sorry.
I didn' t mean to 15 cut you of f.
16 Did you have more to say on that?
17 A
N o.
18 Q
All right.
19 The question that you -- that you asked yourself 20 and what is asked of you on Question 7 is, "Is AWS D1.3 21 the applicable standard at Braidwood f or welding thin 22 gauge materials?"
23 Now, is it your position that Mr. Puckett asserted 24 that ANS D1.3 was indeed the applicable standard?
25 A
He had indicated previously that l't was, yes, that it Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11072 O
V 1
should have been the one that they utilized.
2 Q
He indicated, in f act, that AWS D1.3 was the pref erable 3
code to apply and that he thought it was the more 4
appropriate code that should be used f or welding 5
thin guage material. and so recommended to his 6
management; isn' t that your understanding of Mr.
7 Puckett's position?
8 A
No.
My understanding was that he felt that it was not 9
proper to use AWS D1.1, and D1.3 was the code that 10 should have been used.
11 Q
You heard his testimony, which was not to that effect, 12 Mr. Schapker, and it was to the effect instead, was it 13 not, that if there were deficiencies in the existing 14 qualification -- the existing welding procedures or 15 qualifications to the D1.1 code, such that those 16 procedures were required to be requalified in any event, 17 that it was his recommendation under those circumstances 18 that the more contemporary D1.3 code be employed as it 19 bore on the welding of thin gauge materials?
20 A
That was not my understanding at the time that my 21 investigation of Mr. Puckett concerns.
22 Q
Yes, si r.
23 But was it your understanding at the time you 24 prepared this supplanental testimony, you heard Mr.
25 Puckett testify to that ef fect, did you not?
Sonntag Reporting Service, __Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 g
(312) 232-0262
11074 1
A I heard him testify to this effect at the -- at the 2
hearings, yes; but pr evious to that, I didn' t' -- he did 3
not express that in that manner.
4 0
All right, sir.
5 But your supplemental testimony was prepared in 6
light of your having heard Mr. Puckett's testimony?
7 A
It wasn' t prepared in light of Mr. Puckett's testimony, 8
it was prepared to answer questions raised by the Board 9
in regard to his testimony, I believe.
10 Q
All right, si r.
11 Well, in point of f act, it was sometime -- it was 12 Mr. Puckett's testimony on this subj ect and then you 13 prepared this supplemental testimony of your own; 14 correct?
15 A
Yes.
16 0
All right, si r.
17 Now, you state at Question and Answer 7, or Answer 18 7, that there is a code that is specified in the PSAR 19 and the FSAR and that that code is the AWS D1.1 code?
20 A
That's correct.
21 Q
All right.
Now, the FSAR and PSAR are amendended f rom 22 time to time, are they not?
23 A
That's true.
I 24 Q
Those snendments are filed with the Nuclear Regulatory 25 commission by the Licensee, in this case, commonwealth l
t l
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-026.2
11075 O
4 1
Edison Company ?
2 A
Yes, sir, they are.
When there are changes to be made, 3
they must be filed.
4 Q
And those docmnents, the PSAR and FSAR, incorporate 5
other documents by ref erence, do they not?
6 A
They can, yes.
7 0
Well, in the case of Braidwood PSAR and FSAR, don' t 8
those documents incorporate by ref erence certain i
9 specifications of the architect engineer, Sargent &
10 Lundy ?
11 A
Yes.
12 Q
And in the case of the welding program as it relates to 13 the electrical scope of work, they incorporate various 14 anendments to Sargent & Lundy's Specification L-2790, do 15 they not?
)
16 A
Yes, sir, they are snendments to the L-2790.
17 0
Those snendments are incorporated by reference as 18 mnendments, in effect, to the final saf ety analysis l
19 l
report and the preliminary saf ety analysis report; isn' t 20 that correct?
21 A
As long as they do not change the substance of what --
22 of the code commitment, yes.
23 0
Well, it's not a question, I guess --
l 24 A
Of the PSAR commitment, I should say.
25 Q
That's helpf ul; but --
l Sonntag Reporting Service,_Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 i
1
11076 C\\
V 1
A Or FSAR.
2 Q
Let me establish a question of f act first.
3 For B raidwood, Mr. Schapker, is it the case that 4
there have been, indeed, anendments to the Sargent &
5 Lundy Specification L-2790 and, in fact, those 6
anendments have been accepted by the Nuclear Regulatory 7
Commission Staf f as, in effect, snendments to the PSAR 8
and FSAR?
9 A
Not directly changes to the PSAR, FSAR, I don' t believe.
10 Q
Well, you may not have changed the actual document, but 11 is the ef fect of an snendment to the Sargent & Lundy
}
12 L-27 90 specification, if that specification is an
^
13 incorporated document in the FSAR or FSAR, isn' t it true 14 that amendments to that specification are themselves l
15 treated as if they amend the FSAR or PSAR? -
16 A
As stated in my testimony there, there is an exception 17 to the Braidwood FSAR standard, which has been approved 18 by NRC.
19 Q
Can you help me?
20 A
The first one divides that the deviations f rom the 21 provision of MIS Dl.1 are permitted if supported by 22 acceptable engineering evaluations.
23 0
You are looking at Answer 67 L
24 A
If the -- yes --
i I
25 0
All right.
Sonntag Reporting Servi _c_eg Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
b I
11071 b\\
v 1
A
-- sir.
2 And in that case, if the -- if the L-27 90 is 3
amended, that would be permitted,' as long as an 4
engineering evaluation was perf ormed.
i 5
Q But let me -- maybe I am just not communicating 6
ef f eetiv ely.
7 Mr. Schapker, you are aware, are you not, si r, that 8
L-2790 has been amended f rom time to time during the 9
course of the work at Braidwood't 10 A
Yes.
11 Q
Now, what is the status of those mnendments?
Since the 12 specification itself is an incorporated document in tha 13 FSAR and FSAR, what is the status of any unendments to 14 2790, as the NRC sees the specification?
15 Do you incorporate those?
16 A
They are incorporated to the specification, yes, by the 17 AE, ar chitect-engineer.
18 0
Isn' t it also the case, then, that you recognize that 19 the FSAR's ref erence to 2790 takes into account those 20 anendments?
1 21 A
Yes.
22 Q
Are you f amiliar with any amendments to L-2790 that 23 specify at Braidwood that the American Welding Society 21 D1.3 code is applicable for welding work within the L.K.
25 Comstock scope of work?
Sonntag Reporting Service,__ Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
11078 O
1 A
I believe there is a ref erence to D1.3 under the 2
inspection criteria in 2790.
3 0
Okay.
4 A
And I believe it also permits them to -- to qualify 5
welders under the D1.3 provision.
6 0
Were you aware of those facts when you prepared your 7
supplanental testimony?
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
Do you note those, in fact, in your testimony?
10 A
Not directly, no.
11 Q
Not at all, indirectly or directly?
12 A
Yes, sir.
13 Q
All right, si r.
14 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
By the way, Mr. Miller, let 15 me note again that you owe us some documents here, and I 16 think it's appropriate.
j 17 MR. MILLER:
You are going to get it.
f 18 HR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, I am looking for a 19 number, and I apologiz e, but I am somewhat at a losa 20 with trat.
21 JUDG E GROSSMAN :
What are we up to? There is 22 Intervenors 97.
23 MR. GUILD:
All right, si r.
24 set me ask, Mr. Chairman, this document be marked 25 for identification as Intervenors' Exhibit 97, please.
~
Sonntag Reporting Service; Ltd.
leneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1107S O
l 1
(The document was thereupon marked 2
Int erv enors' Exhibit No. 97 for 3
identification as of the 25th day of 4
August, 1986.)
I 5
BY MR. GUILD:
6 Q
Mr. Schapker, you have bef ore you a document that's a 7
memorandum from Mr. DeWald to Messrs. Mennecke and 8
Quaka, bearing a date of May 12, 1984.
9 Do you have that bef ore you, si r?
10 A
Yes.
11 Q
Have you ever seen this bef ore?
12 A
No, sir.
13 Q
The subj ect, Braidwood Welding Program Contract 14 Specifications, L-2790.
t 15 Let me direct your attention to the bottom of Page 16 1 of the document, under the title, "B ackground. "
l 17 If you look at the second full paragraph you read, 18
" Amendment 30 issued though S & L specifies L-2790, July l
19 14, 1983, adequate in accordance with NiS D1.3."
20 Do you see that, sir?
21 A
Yes.
22 Q
At the time you prepared your supplemental testimony, l
23 were you aware that that amendment Lo 2790 added welding 24 in accordance with AKS Dl.37 25 A
No, I wasn' t.
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
11080 1
MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, I wduld like to 2
direct the witness' attention to Applicant Exhibit 16.
3 This is L-2790, incorporating a number of anendments, I 4
believe, up through 39.
l 5
May I show the witness my copy, Judge?
6 JUDGE COLE:
Yes.
7 MR. GUIL D:
Mr. Chairman, may I show the 8
witness my copy?
9 JUDG E GROSSMAN :
Yes, certainly.
10 BY MR. GUILD:
11 Q
Mr. Schapker, I telieve your testimony is that you 3
12 reviewed L-2790 in perf orming your inspection 13 activities?
14 A
Yes.
15 0
I will direct your attention to that portion of the 16 specification, which is ref erenced to Mr. DeWald's memo, 17 and that is paragraph 401.19.2.
18 Do y cu see that, si r?
It's at the bottom of the 19 page.
I opened the document f or you to --
20 A
Yes.
21 Q
Would you read that provision of 2790, please?
22 A
It says AWS D1.3 welding shall conf orm to all 23 requirements of NRS Dl.l.
24 Q
All right, si r.
()
25 Had you reviewed that portion of Applicant's Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11081 l
\\
V 1
Specification L-27 90, the specification that was 2
incorporated by reference in the Braidwood FSAR and 3
PSAR, knendment 30 at the time you prepared your 4
supplemental testimony?
5 A
Yes.
6 Q
Were you aware of the provision that I asked you to read 7
for the record at the time you prepared your 8
supplanental testimony?
9 A
Yes.
10 0
You make no ref erence to that provision, do y ou, in' your 11 testimog7?
(N 12 A
(No Response. )
13 0
You don' t, do y ou, Mr. Schapkor?
14 A
I don' t recall.
15 I am looking at it.
16 0
okay.
17 A
No.
18 0
Are you aware, aren' t you, that Mr. Puckett only began 19 unployment at the end of May,1984, some weeks af ter Mr.
20 DeWald apparently authored this inquiry to Messrs.
21 Mennecke and Quaka?
22 A
Yes, I believe he started sometime around this date.
l 23 Q
Now, just sort of close the loop here.
24 Mr. DeWald's query, at the bottom of Page 16, his
'si 25 memor andum, it's been marked Intervenor Exhibit 97,
)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11082 1
ref erences the portion of L-2790 knendment 30 that I 2
asked you to read for the record, and states, "Although 3
the ANS Dl.3 was added to Paragraph 401.19.2 does not 4
specifically define the item slash components or 5
materials to be welded in accordance with AWS Dl.3."
6 Now, did you ever determine whether or not Mr.
7 DeWald's question regarding which materials were to be 8
welded under D1.3 was ever answered?
9 A
It was never a question.
10 Q
But you see it written here, don' t you?
11 A
This is the first time I have seen this document.
12 Q
You are not aware of the question bef ore today, nor the 13 answ er ?
14 A
(No Response. )
15 Q
You are not aware of Sargent & Lundy or Commonwealth 16 Edison Company ever specifying which materials were to 17 be welded pursuant to Dl.3 as appears to be Mr. DeWald's 18 question in this memo?
19 A
I haven' t seen the reply to this memo, no, if that's 20 what you are ref erring to.
21 Q
Have you seen any other statement of position by 22 Commonwealth Edison Company specifying which materials 23 are to be welded to Dl.3 by Comstock at Braidwood?
24 A
I have seen nothing indicating that they would utilize 25 D1. 3.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1 11083 0
1 Q
Or what materials should be utilized -- should be welded 2
to Dl.3, sir?
3 A
Yes.
4 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that 5
Interv enors' Exhibit 97 be received in evidence.
6 l
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Any obj ection?
7 MR. MILL ER :
No obj ection.
8 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
Received in evidence.
9 (The document previously marked 10 as Applicant's Exhibit No. 97 for 11 identification was therupon received in 4
(N 12 evidence as Applicant's Exhibit No. 97.)
13 BY MR. GUILD:
14 Q
Mr. Schapker, let's examine a moment the nature of the 15 recommendation that Mr. Puckett was making on this 16 subj ect.
17 Mr. Puckett, in effect, was recommending that if t
18 there were need to revise the procedures, the welding l
19 procedures at L.K.
Comstock, that it would be 20 appropriate to revise those procedures to the more l
21 contemporary code, that is, the D1.3 code.
22 In your opinion, Mr. Schapker, isn' t the Dl.3 code 23 the more appropriate code to be using f or the welding of 24 thin guage material, such as cable pan, galvanized sheet 25 and the kinds of thin metals that Comstock used in its Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11084 O
1 scope of work?
2 A
Not necessarily.
3 Q
That's a pretty saf e answer, Mr. Schapker.
4 Why don' t you explain what you mean, "not 5
ne cessa rily. "
6 A
Well, si r, the code of record was AWS Dl.1975, that the 7
AWS Dl.3 didn' t exist.
That was a perf ectly appropriate 8
code at that time, and the utilization of D1.1 is still 9
an appropriate code.
10 Q
All right, si r.
11 Well, now, I think we -- I f ollow you that f ar.
(N 12 You have got two codes, one is the Dl.1 code, and
\\
13 subsequently the American Welding Association l
14 promulgates the Dl.3 code, and they promulgated the D1.3 15 code year about 1978, 16 Is that a correct understanding on my part?
l 17 A
I believe that's correct.
18 Q
All right, si r.
19 1978, then, explicitly for the welding of thin 20 gauge metals less than 1/8th inches; that was a correct 21 understanding as well?
22 A
Yes.
i 23 Q
Now, do you agree with me, sir, that the L. K.
Comstock 24 Company, the electrical contractor at Braidwood, did a 25 3 arge amount of welding to thin gauge metals, within i
3onntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 11085 1
their scope of work?
2 A
Yes.
3 0
Such as galvanized cable pan material?
4 A
Yes.
5 Q
That's the horizontal raceways that hold the cable which i
6 Comstock pulls and terminates in its scope of work; 7
correct?
8 A
That's correct.
9 Q
And Comstock welding this thin gauge metal, they can 10 weld horizontal members on H-shaped hangers, and then to 4
11 hold those members to thin gauge galvanized material,
/'
12 don' t they ?
13 A
That's true.
14 Q
Now, if you were designing welding inf ormation f or the 15 L. E. Comstock Company, Mr. Schapker, and you were 16 starting with a clean slate, I ask you to assume that, 17 you had to revise the procedures or you had to write 18 them f rom scratch, one way or the other, and you had a 19 choice of welding -- of writing procedures to the Dl.1 20 code 1975, or the D1.3 code promulgated in 1978 and 21 thereaf ter, which code would you specify, Mr. Schapker, 22 to the welding of such material the thin guage material l
23 that was very commonly worked by the L.K.
Comstock 24 Company ?
25 A
I would utilize the code that was by contract obligated' l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illi nois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~ _ _ _ _. _.,. _ _ _ _
i 11086 O
1 to utiliz e, and it was the current code.
I would, of 2
course, use the D1.3.
3 Q
Now, you sort of gave me two types of answers.
4 A
W ell, AWS Dl.1, which ref erence the AWS D1.3 for thin 5
gauge materials.
6 Q
Yes.
~
7 A
The 1980 code variation, that is what I would utilize, 8
if that's what my contrct commitments were.
9 Q
All right.
10 Well, so if they are dealing with 1980 code and 11 af ter, you don' t really have an option, because Dl.1 12 incorporates D1.3 by ref erence, and say use D1.3 for 13 thin gauge metal if you are starting f rom scratch in 14 1980; correct?
15 A'
Yes.
16 Q
All right, si r.
17 I am lypothesizing f or you that you are starting 18 from scratch, but that you have a choice.
You have a 19 choice between Dl.1 or D1.3; and I am asking you, si~r, 20 as someone who has f ormed j udgment in this area, to tell 21 me what your opinion would be as to which code you would 22 choose for welding thin gauge metal for Comstock at 23 Braidwood?
24 A
I would use D1.3.
25 Q
Answer 8 to your supplemental testimony, Mr. Schapker, Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11087 O
1 states in part that, "Bef ore an Applicant can deviate 2
from a standard to which it has committed in its PSAR or 3
FSAR, it must first obtain authorization f rom the NRC to 4
do so."
5 Are you f amiliar with the NRC's authorization to 6
amend L-2790 to specify welding to the Dl.3 code?
7 A
Familiar -- excuse me?
8 Would you repeat that?
9 Q
Sure, I will be happy to.
10 Are you f amiliar with the NRC's P.uthorization to 11 Commonwealth EdiEon Company, the Licensee in this 12 proceeding, to amend its FSAR or PSAR, as they did 13 through anendments to L-2790, to specify use of a new 14 code, not Dl.1 but Dl.3 ?
15 A
I am not aware that they actually specified Dl.3.
16 0
Were you aware of any NRC authorization to make the 17 changes to D1.37 18 A
Yes.
As stated in my previous testimony, there are --
19 they are permitted to deviate from AWS Dl.1, provided 20 they are supported by acceptable engineering 21 ev aluations.
22 O
Yes, si r.
23 But maybe I am still not communicating.
24 I am looking at your 1.nswer 8, Mr. Schapker --
25 A
Yes.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11088 1
0
-- where is states in part, "It, " meaning the Applicant, 2
"must first obtain authoriz ation f rom the NRC, to do so. "
3 My question to you, si r, is:
4 Are you f amiliar with the NRC having -- first 5
having authorized Commonwealth Edison Company to make 6
the snendment to L-2790 to specify the Dl.3 code?
7 A
I am not aware of it, no.
If that's what you mean --
8 0
Yes, sir.
9 A
-- exactly.
10 Q
That is.
11 JUDG E GROSSMAN :
Excuse me, Mr. Schapker.
12 Are you saying that every time L-2790 was amended, 13 that the company went to NRC and obtained its 14 authoriz ation?
15 THE WITNESS:
No, I don' t believe that was 16 req ui red.
17 The FSAR permitted deviations, provided engineering 18 evaluations were made, acceptable engineering practice.
19 That's written in the FSAR.
20 JUDG E GROSSMAN :
Well, if I understand 21 correctly, L-27 90 is a standard which the Applicant 22 committed to in the PSAR and FSAR; is that correct?
23 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
24 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
And it's made numerous 25 changes to L-2790; and you say here that, in order to Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11089 J
l deviate f rom the standard, it must first obtain 2
authorization f rom the NRC to do so.
3 Did it receive authorization for each change in 4
L-27 90 7 5
THE WITNESS:
I believe it -- it -- changes, 6
as stipulated in the FSAR, they are permitted to -- to 7
deviate f rom versions of the AWS Dl.1, provided they do 8
engineering evaluations.
9 Now, based on that, they make a change to the D
10 L-27 90.
That's permitted by the FSAR, provided they do 11 acceptable engineering evaluations to make that change.
N 12 JUDG E GROSSMAN :
Whose engineering (G
13 evaluations are you talking about?
14 THE WITNESS:
I am talking about the architect 15 engineer.
16 JUDG E GROSSMAN :
Sargent & Lundy?
17 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
18 JUDG E GROSSMAN :
So that as long as -- well, 19 doesn' t it presuppose, when there is a change in L-2790, 20 that Sargent & Lundy has authoriz ed it?
21 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
22 JUDG E GROSSMAN :
All right.
23 Continue, Mr. Guild.
24 BY MR. GUILD:
[d
\\
25 0
Mt. Schapker, do you agree that the AWS Dl.1 code Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0263
11090 i
U,-~s 1
requires that a weldino procedure that is qualified to 2
that code specify the essential ~ attributes which are to 3
be employed in welding to that procedure, including 4
specification of the base metals to be welded?
5 MR. MILL ER :
Could I have that question 6
reread, please ?
7 A
The --
8 MR. MILL ER :
Excuse me, Mr. Schapker.
9 Could I have the question read, pl ease.
10s (The question was thereupon read 11 by the Reporter. )
O 12 MR. MILLER :
Thank you.
13 A
(Continuing. )
Yes and no.
14 MR. GUILD:
Please explain, sir.
15 A
(Continuing. )
Okay.
16 The ANS code does have a provision -- have 17 provisions within it that -- I don' t know the -- the 18 exact paragraph of f hand -- but certain materials are 19 listed in ANS Dl.1 which are considered prequalified, 20 and any of those materials combination will qualify to 21 any other materials in that group of materials.
22 In other words, if you specify A36 to A106, that 23 also qualifies you to weld A36 to A501, or whatever is 24 listed in the grouping.
)
25 In addition to that, there is another paragraph Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 11091 pO 1
which permits these groupings of materials to be welded 2
to materials which yield strengths that are less than 3
50,000 psi.
4 MR. GUILD:
I am going to interrupt you j ust a 5
se co nd, Mr. Schapker.
6 No. 50.
7 BY MR. GUILD:
8 Q
You are really reading a li'ttle bit too much into my 9
question, a little more than what I asked you.
10 I really asked you f or a more basic question, and 11
.that was whether, in your opinion, the D1.1 code 12 requires that a welding procedure that is qualified 13 though that code specify, the base metal, that are to be 14 welded under that procedure?
15 A
In the weld procedure specification.
16 0
Is that your answer, you are are saying "yes," in the 17 weld procedure specifications, or you do you understand 18 my question?
19 A
N4 S Dl.1 code ?
20 Q
Yes.
21 A
I don' t -- the weld procedure specification should 22 indicate the materials that are -- that are being welded 23 to, that's true.
24 Q
That's a requirement of the code, is it not?
[G h
25 A
I believe that's a procedure in the requirement.
I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~
11092 4
/T U
1 don' t believe that's a code requirement.
4 2
0 I may have misspoken and used an incorrect term in the 3
previous answer.
4 I said, " essential attribute," and what I meant to 5
say was " variable. "
6 What do you read that the Code requires that you 7
specify the essential variables in the procedure that 8
you are qualifying to the Code?
9 A
The essential variables?
10 Q
Yes.
11 A
Yes.
Os 12 Q
Pardon me?
13 A
Yes.
14 Q
And among those variables, wouldn' t you be required to 15 specify the base metals that you were welding?
16 A
As the Code specifies, those materials which are 17 considered prequalified by ANS Dl.1 may be used 18 interchangeably.
19 0
Could you answer the question more directly?
20 A
I don' t 1.now how.
l 21 Q
Let me try again.
l 22 In your opinion, does the AW$ Dl.1 code require 23 that a procedure that is qualified to that code specify 24 the base metals that are to be welded with that 3
25 procedure?
t Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
s 11093 1
A The -- no, I do n' t -- I -- I don' t believe that it 2
specifies that they have to be listed on the weld 3
procedure.
The PQR has to be qualified to the groupings 4
and materials.
5 0
In your opinion, daes the -- let's see if I can break it 6
down now.
7 By "PQR," you mean the procedure qualification 8
record?
9 A
Yes.
i 10 Q
All right.
11 And that's the documented evidence that a 12 particular procedure was qualified as is required by the 13 ANS code?
i 14 A
That's correct.
15 Q
All right.
16 For a time at Comstock those PQR's were part of the I
17 welding procedure.
j 18 They were the attachments to the welding procedure; 19 correct?
20 A
Yes.
21 Q
And it was a couple of those attachments that were the 22 subj ects of concern by Mr. Puckett; and you revieved 23 those, did you not?
24 A
Yes.
25 Q
Now, then there is the body of the procedure, and the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
11094 O
\\s/
1 body of the procedure is the text and narrative 2
descriptions of how one perf orms welding under that 3
procedure.
4 Now, those are two separate elements of a 5
procedure.
6 Now, let's be clear.
7 In your opinion, does the ARS Dl.1 code require 8
that you specify the base materials to be welded in 9
either the PQR or the body of the weld procedure?
10 A
Yes.
11 The PQR must indicate the actual materials that s
12 were utilized to qualify the procedure.
h 13 Q
All right.
14 A
And those combinations may also qualify other 15 combinations that are listed in AWS Dl.l.
16 Q
All right, sir.
17 And that's where you volunteered your earlier 18 answer about the way the code has prequalified materials 19 and the effect of being a prequalified material on 20 allowing welding to other prequalified material?
21 A
Yes.
22 Q
All right.
23 That's not exactly my question.
24 My question really is:
i 25 Is it required by the Code to even specify 4
Sonntag Reporting Servicet_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11095 O
1 anywher e, either the body of the procedure or the 2
procedure qualification record, those base materials 3
which you seek to qualify to the Dl.1 code, in your 4
opinion?
5 A
The PQR definitely has the materials listed that were 6
used f or the qualification.
7 You know, the WPS would analyze the combination of 8
materials that would be actually welded to in the field.
9 Q
Those are requirements of the American Welding Society 10 Dl.1 code?
11 A
Yes.
12 Q
Did the Comstock welding procedures meet those code
)
l 13 req uirements, in your opinion, Mr. Schapker?
14 A
The WPS did not list the A36 material.
15 0
In that regard, it was in violation of the requirements i
i 16 of the AWS Di.1 code, was it not?
17 A
Yes.
That ws,s a procedural violation.
l 18 It was not a technical violation.
l l
19 Q
Well, does the ANS code have a definition of a 20 procedural technical violation that you were using as 21 terms of art in your,last answer, Mr. Schapker?
22 A
Well, putting it into proper context.
23 Q
How about j ust answering that question first and I will l
34 be happy to let you explain.
l l
25 Is there a technical term of art in the AWS code l
l
[
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262 i' -..
11096 O
l 1
that distinguishes a technical violation f rom a 2
procedural violation?
3 A
Not in the ARS code, that I am aware 'of.
4 Q
So those are your terms that you are anploying to 5
characterize violations of the code?
6 A
Yes.
i 7
0 Thank you.
8 I didn' t nean to cut you of f.
I wanted that in the 9
record at this point.
10 Would you care to explain the rest of that point?
11 A
Yes.
/~'N 12 in order for the procedure, the WPS, to be 13 rectified, the PQR's were already in existence that 14 qualified the combination of A446 materials to A36 15 material.
16 But the f act that -- the only change that was 17 needed was the addition of the A36 material to the WPS, 18 not the PQR's; but of the WPS to reflect that.
19 0
What is the WPS again?
20 A
Weld procedure specification.
21 0
That's the actual specification of essential variables, 22 including base metals that are actually used in welding 23 to that procedure?
24 A
Yes.
25 Q
Now, of course, having listened to Mr. Puckett's Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11097 1
testimony, Mr. Schapker, are you aware, are you not, 2
si r, that there were a number of other problems with the 3
particular attachments, the PQ R' s, to the then current 4
Comstock welding procedure, which made it necessary to 5
requalify those?
6 A
You are speaking of Attachment 07 7
Q And Attachment H.
8 A
Attachment H?
9 What was the Attachment H?
10 Q
Yes, there were two attachments that -- that were 11 specified as the appropriate PQR's, which could be
(~'s 12 relied upon --
13 A
Yes.
14 Q
-- to qualify welding of A36 material; correct?
15 A
Yes.
i 16 Q
All right.
17 But there were other problems with those PQR's, l
18 that required correction bef ore you could use those l
19 PQR's to support welding to A36 or any other material; i
20 correct?
l 21 A, yes.
22 Q
And those problems were problems that Mr. Puckett l
23 testified to, you heard him testify to?
l 24 A
Well, Attachment 0 had previously been identified as by I
's l
25 Sargent & Lundy engineers in their review as needing j
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
. \\
1109E J
1 changes to the PQR's.
2 Q
Right.
3 A
And that was directed under the comment sheet of that 4
procedure, which was conditionally accepted by the AE, 5
Sargent & Lundy; and providing that the -- that Comstock 6
made the changes, the procedure would be approved.
7 0
All right.
8 Those changes had not yet been made at the time 9
th a t -- in question when Mr. Puckett made his stop work 10 recommendation; true?
11 A
According to my review, my inspection, those changes had 12 been made, I believe the date was, July of 1984.
13 Q
Well, had they been -- had they been approved f or,
i 14 impl ementation?
15 A
I am -- as f ar as the final approval by Comstock, I 16 mean, by all the parties, I don' t believe it had been; 17 but the -- as f ar as the actual PQ9 revision, -that had 18 been implemented.
19 Q
All right, sir.
20 But they hadn' t completed the required process, to l'
21 be able to be use to weld to that procedure; correct?
l 22 A
The r eviews -- yes, Sargent & Lundy review -- well, 23 let's go back to the status, the comment by Sargent &
v 24 Lundy, they were Status 2 comments, which actually 25 permitted Comstock to proceed, pending the changes.
l l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~.
11095 O
1 Q
All right, si r.
2 Af ter the changes were made; right?
3 A
Yes.
4 Q
That's the --
5 A
No, to proceed pending changes, yes.
6 Q
No, the changes under the Status 2, changes had to be 7
made.
8 If the changes were made, Sargent & Lundy approval 9
would serve to allow the use of that --
10 A
Right.
11 0
procedure?
12 A
Right.
13 Q
Now, so the status of the matter was that Mr. Puckett 14 had identified a failure of the welding procedure of 15 Comstock to specify a base metal that was, in fact, 16 being welded in the field, that was A36 to A446, and l
17 that, because of other problems with the procedures that 18 necessitated requalification, he recommended that f or 19 welding the thin guage material that was a large part of 2.0 Comstock's scope of work, that Comstock requalify those 21 procedures to the then current D1.3 code.
22 Now, is there anything in your opinion that is 23 wrong about that recommendation, Mr. Schapker?
24 MR. MILL ER :
I am going to obj ect to the form i
25 of the question.
s Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
4 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 11100 1
I believe that that is a mischaracterization of Mr.
2 Puckett's testimony and the memorandum that he wrote at 3
the time.
4 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
Could you repeat the 5
question, please, Mr. Reporter.
6 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, bef ore the Reporter 7
does that, I really intend this to be a hypothetical 8
queution.
9 MR. MILL ER :
Okay.
10 MR. GUILD:
And I treated it as a 11 hypothetical question; and I believe I am entitled to 12 ask a witness who has been offered to express somewhat
{
13 expert opinion a hypothetical question that presumes my i
14 set of facts, and I would ask that he answer the 15 question the way I have asked it.
16 JUDG E GROSSMAN :
Excuse me.
l 17 Could you repeat the question, now, Mr. Reporter, i
18 (The question was thereupon read i
19 by the Reporter.)
1 20 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
Well, let's assume that that l
21 was what Mr. Puckett had recommended.
22 Is there anything wrong with that, Mr. Schapker?
l 23 THE WITNESS:
No, I wouldn' t say anything I
24 wrong with it.
(
25 They -- I -- Iz(potheticaally, that would be an Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
11103 O
1 acceptable suggestion.
2 MR. GUILD:
All right, sir.
3 BY MR. GUILD:
4 Q
Now, in fact, what occurred was that Mr. Puckett.
5 recommended a stop work, which was -- which 6
recommendation was accepted by Mr. DeWald, his superior, 7
and by Mr. Rol an, the Comstock proj ect construction 8
manager, and work was stopped.
9 Do you understand that to be the case?
10 A
Yes.
11 Q
All right, sir.
12 Now, are you aware that Mr. DeWald was, himself, at g
13 the time a certified Level III Quality Control Inspector 14 in the welding discipline?
15 A
I wasn' t aware of that at the time of ny inspection, no.
16 Q
Are you aware of it today?
l 17 A
Yes.
18 0
Is recognizing the appropriateness of a stop work, in 19 your opinion, Mr. Schapker, a requisite qualification 20 for certification as a Level III Quality Control 21 Inspector ?
22 A
Recognition of what?
23 0
Of the appropriateness of the stop work.
24 A
I don' t have an opinion on that.
I don' t know the l
l 25 conditions of the -- that were involved in this at that l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
4 11102 Ci
\\~-)
j 1
time, you know, what predicated the stop work.
2 Q
All right, sir.
4 3
A Rather than Mr. Puckett's memo.
4 Q
All right.
5 Well, that's -- you are saying you have no opinion 6
about the stop work recommendation that was, in fact,'
7 made and adopted in the case of the A36 to A446; is that 8
true?
9 A
Do you have that 0?
10 Q
That was your last answer.
I 11 You have no opinion on that; is that true?
'h 12 A
Maybe you should rephrase it.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, Mr. Schapker, Mr.
14 Guild asked you a general question with regard to 15 whether a part of the qualification for a Level III 16 should be recognizing when a stop work should be 17 instituted, and you didn' t answer the question, because 18 you ref erred to the specifics, and indicated that in 19 that case, you are not f aniliar with the specifics.
20 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
21 JUDG E GROSSMAN :
W ell, now, at least give us 22 one answer, either the general or the specific.
23 Dc you know the specifics; do you have an opinion 24 as to whether a stop work should have been authorized in
)
25 that case?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11103 4
{}
N) 1 THE WITNESS:
N o, I didn' t think a stop work i
2 was necessary in that case.
3 MR. GUILD:
You do have an opinion?
4 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
You asked my directly.
5 Yes, if you are asking for my opinion whether it 6
was neces sa ry, I would say no, I didn' t think it was l
7 ne cessa ry.
I 8
JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
Okay.
Now, let's get back 9
to the original question as to whether, as in the j
10 general circumstances, a Level III should recognize 11 whether a stop work should be in instituted or not?
~'
12 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
13 JUDG E GROSSMAN :
Okay.
14 MR. GUILD:
Let's start with the latter 15 poi nt, the specifics first.
16 BY MR. GUILD:
17 Q
You are not f amiliar with the specifica, the l
18 circumstances under which a stop work recommendation was 19 made by Mr. Puckett, adopted by Mr. DeWald and Mr.
20 Rolan?
l l
21 -
A Other than the -- the -- my inspection review of this, 22 reading the member and so f orth.
l 23 I wasn' t there.
24 Q
All right.
l l
25 So earlier you declined to express an opinion about l
l I
Eonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11104 v) 1 the appropriateness of that stop work, and that was 2
because you didn' t have f amiliarity with those 3
circumstances : isn' t that correct, si r?
4 A
I neglected to offer an opinion as to whether Mr. DeWald 5.
should have recognized that.
Yeah, that's what I was 6
ref erring to.
7 0
You are volunteering an opinion about Mr. Puckett, but 8
you don' t know enough about voluntaring an opinion about 9
Mr. DeWald, accepting the recommendation as to the stop 10 work?
11 MR. MILL ER:
I obj ect.
I think that's a 12 mischaracteriz ation of what the witness' testified to 13 testified.
14 JUDG E GROSSMAN :
I am sor ry.
15 You will have to speak 'up.
16 MR. MILL ER :
I' m sor ry.
17 That's a miscarriage of what the witness has 18 testified to.
He's given his opinion as to the stop 19 work, he was asked about whether Mr. DeWald should have 20 recognized the appropriateness of the stop work order l
21 that Mr. Puckett recommended, on that he said he had no 22 opinion.
23 He was then asked the general question about 24 whether a Level III should be able to recognize the 25 appropriateness of a stop work recommendation, and he 4
Sonntag Retortina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l i
I
(
11105 l
N, /
1 answered that one af firmatively, and I think that Mr.
2 Guild is going back nd f orth f rom the specific to the 3
general to what Mr. DeWald should have recognized and 4
what Mr. Schapker's opinion is on the specifics, and I 5
believe that the questions are conf using and misleading 6
the witness.
Most of them have been asked and answered.
7 JUDG E G ROSSMAN :
Well, Mr. Miller, I 8
understand the witness to have offered an opinion as to 9
whether Mr. Puckett, as a Level III, should have 10 recogniz ed the appropriateness of a stop work order, and 11 now he's being asked whether Mr. DeWald, also being a
(
12 Level III, should also recognize whether a stop work is Y))
13 appropriate; and I don' t see anything obj ectionable 14 about that.
15 If he can distinguish between the two, well, he 16 certainly is entitled to; but if the Level III is what's 17 the critical factor as to whether it all ought to be 18 recogniz ed, whether the appropriateness ought to be 19 recogniz ed of a stop work, then he ought to answer to 20 that; so I am overruling the obj ection, and the witness 21 can answer.
22 Do you understand what's being asked of you?
23 THE WITN ESS:
I believe I answered that 24 prevlously.
25 JUDGE GEOSSMAN:
Okay.
And your answer is Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
j Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11106 OV 1
that you don' t know what f acts were available to Mr.
2 DeWald?
3 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
That -- other than the 4
memo.
5 I also stated that, yes, a Level III should 6
recogniz e -- should have recognized and necessitate, 7
whoever it was, a stop work order.
8 BY MR. GUILD:
9 Q
Do you know what f acts were available to Mr. Puckett 10 when he made his recommendation to Mr. DeWal d, Mr.
11 Schapker, the stop work recommendation?
12 A
What f acts were available?
13 0
Yes, si r.
14 A
From review of his memos and his testimony to the NRC, 15 yes.
16 0
All right, si r.
17 Well, you don' t know what was available to Mr.
18 dew al d, so you declined to express an opinion about the i
19 appropriateness of his recommendation, but you claim to i
20 know what was available to Mr. Puckett; is that true?
l 21 A
Because Mr. Puckett expressed his concerns in this 22 regard to the NRC, my sel f, perso nally, too.
l 23 0
I see.
l l
24 Do you know how many times Mr. Puckett had spoken l
25 to Mr. DeWald or other supervision about' his concerns l
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 j
(312) 232-0262
11107 f
I 1
with regard to welding of A36, the qualification of the 2
procedure for selding A36 to A446 material?
3 A
I don' t believe he specifically expressed how many 4
times, no, that he had expressed that.
5 Q
Did you see -- did you inquire about previous 6
conversations by Mr. Puckett with supervision on that 7
subj ect, bef ore he made the stop work recommendation?
8 A
I discussed this with Mr. Puckett at length, but I don' t 9
recall any -- no, I didn' t inquire directly; but he had 10 talked to his supervision about this.
No, I was 11 speaking, focusing on the concern itself, not what 12 predicated it.
13 0
All right, sir.
14 Do you know, for example, whether or not Mr.
15 Puckett had spoken to supervision on numerous occasions 16 about the matter bef ore he commited it to writing?
17 A
No, I am not aware whether he did or not.
18 0
Well, you know that he did ultimately, of course, commit 19 it to writing?
20 A
Yes.
21 Q
All right, si r.
22 Wouldn' t it be important f or you to, in expressing 23 an opinion about the appropriateness of the written stop i
24 work recommendacion, to know whether or not Mr. Puckett (R
25 had raised the concern orally numerous times before Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 1
1110E t
's-J i
l 1
putting the concern in writing?
2 A
No, I didn' t consider that important.
3 0
Not important in referring an opinion about the 4
appropriateness of the stop work recommendation.
5 A
(No Response.)
6 0
Was it more than in that respect, Mr. Schapker?
7 A
I don' t know how to --
8 Q
All right, si r.
4 9
Your testimony, your suppl emental testimony, on 10 Page 2, you are asked a series of questions -- you were 11 asked a question about stop work, and that is -- that is 12 Question and Answer 9.
13 Now, do I understand, in substance, that the NRC 14 doesn' t have any regulatory requirement that specifies 15 with particularity the circumstances in which a stop 16 work is appropriate?
17 A
Not directly, no; Appendix B, as referenced in my 18 testimony, addresses nonconf orming.
19 0
These measures -- and I am looking at your testimony, l
20 looking at Appendix B, Criterion 15, "These measures 21 shall include, " and continuing on f rom there.
22 Was it also true, Mr. Schapker, that it's up to the 23 Licensee and its delegates to determine what is 24 appropriate in order to implement Appendix B?
[)
25 A
Yes.
o Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
f 11105
-s r
i sm/
1 It must be addressed in that QA program.
2 Q
All right, si r.
3 And with respect to the stop work in issue here, 4
was to be addressed under the L.K.
Comstock quality 5
assurance program?
6 A
Yes.
7 Q
All right.
8 And you would look to the Comstock procedures, 9
would you not, among other sources, to determine what 10 measures were appropriate and when?
11 A
Yes.
12 Q
And to the extent that those procedures themselves still 13 didn' t establish with particularity when work should be 14 stopped, you would have to rely on the judgment of the 15 persons who were interpreting those procedures, would 16 you not?
17 A
Yes.
18 Q
And in this case, the persons who were interpreting the 19 Comstock program with regard to control of 20 non-conf orming conditions, stopping work, were Messrs.
21 Puckett, DeWald and Rolan, those persons who 22 participated in the stop work recommendation and i
23 decision; correct?
24 A
Yes.
I believe it was directed by Irv DeWald, whose 1
25 responsibility it was.
N Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
(
11110 1
Q All three of those persons, Mr. Puckett and Mr. DeWald 2
and Mr. Rol an, concurred in the decision to stop welding 3
A36 to A446, pending correction of the deficiency?
4 A
Yes.
5 Q
Wasn' t their decision appropriate, Mr. Schapker, as 6
appropriate is used within NRC regulatory requirements?
7 A
It appeared to be appropriate, but not necessary at the 8
time.
9 Q
I see.
10 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, this would be a 11 good stopping, point.
The hour is almost 5:00 clock.
12 JUDG E GROESMAN :
All right, fine.
13 Why don' t we adj ourn f or the day, and now let's --
14 of f the record.
15 16 (WHER EU PON, at the hour of 5:00 o' clock, 17 P.M.,
the hearing of the above entitled 18 matter of was continued to the 26th 19 day of August, 1986, at the hour of 9:00 20 o' clock A. M. )
21 1
22 23 24 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER O
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (B,raidwood Station, Units 1 and 2)
DOCKET NO.:
50-456 OL: 50-457 OL PLACE:
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS DATE:
MONDAY, AUGUST 25, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
/
s (sigt)
?f (TYPED)
GLEN SONNTAG Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTEJIS, INC.
Reporter's Affiliation O
~, - - -
,,,,. - - ~
-..