ML20205H493
| ML20205H493 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 08/15/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#386-445 OL, NUDOCS 8608200091 | |
| Download: ML20205H493 (82) | |
Text
OR\\@N O
UN11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
BRAIDWOOD STATION 50-456/457-OL UNITS 1 & 2 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY O
I.OCATION:
J0LIET, ILLINDIS PAGES:
10931 - 11012 DATE:
FRIDAY, AUGUST 15, 1986
/p 0 l O
\\
Ae-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
ogicialRqcrters 444 North CapitolStreet Washington, D.C. 20001 oee (202) 347-3700 7
W' NaIICN%EE COVERAGE l
10931 O
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
__________________x 5
In the Matter of:
6
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 8
and 2)
__________________x 9
10 P,e:
10,931 - 11,012 11 College of St. Francis 500 North Wilcox 12 Joliet, Illinois 13 Friday, August 15, 1986.
14 The hearing in the above-entitled matter reconvened 15 at 8:00 A.
M.
16 17 BEFORE:
18 JUDGE HERBERT GROSSMAN, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 19 U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20 JUDGE RICH ARD F.
COLE, Member, 21 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 22, Washington, D.
C.
23 JUDG E A. DIXON CALLIHAN, Member, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 24 U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
(:)
25 APPEARANCES:
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, IllTn61s 60134 (312) 232-0262
10932 O
I 1
On behalf of the Applicant:
2 MICH AEL I.
MILLER, ESQ.
3 ELENA Z. KEZ ELIS, E SQ.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale 4
Three First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60602 5
On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory 6
Commission Staff:
7 ELAINE I.
CH AN, ESQ.
GREGORY ALAN BERRY, E SQ.
8 U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7335 Old Georgetown Road 9
Bethesda, Maryland 20014 10 on behalf of the Intervenors:
11 ROBERT GUILD, ESQ.
12 O
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
(:)
25 S_onntag_ Repo rting_ Service,__Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10933 O
1 TESTIMONY OF JEROME H.
SCHAPKER Page 2
DIRECT EXAMINATION i
BY MR. BERRY 10946 3
PREFILED TESTIMONY OF 4
JEROME F.
SCHAPKER 10953 5
SUPPLEMENTAL PREFILED TESTIMONY OF JEROME F.
SCHAPKER 10959 6
CROSS EXAMINATION 7
BY MR. MILLER 10960 8
EXHIBITS 9
Marked Received 10 Staff Exhibit No.17 10943 11
(:)
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
(:)
25 i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illin~61s 60134 (312) 232-0262
10934 1
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
The hearing is reconvened.
2 This is the 54th day of hearing; and we lef t off at 3
the end of the last session with the offer of Staff's 4
Exhibit 17, the inspection report.
5 Mr. Guild challenges its admission.
6 Mr. Guild, I don' t think that there is very much 7
question but that we are going to admit the report.
8 Now, I understand you would like an opportunity to 9
attack the adequacy of the report, oral argument; but I 10 don't know that we want to entertain argument on that at 11 this point.
I don't know how much of the hearing time 12 we have to spend on that.
13 If there is a legitimate argument about 14 admissibility, we will listen to that; but you have 15 cross examined, and we understand what may be the 16 insufficiencies or inadequacies in the preparation, to 17 the extent that any exist; and I don't think that we 18 need entertain argument on that.
19 MR. GUILD:
Your Honor, I don't mean to do 20 that.
l 21 Let me, if I may, just point to one matter that was 22 alluded to briefly when I initially made my objection, 23 both to the admissibility of the inspection report and 24 to the testimony, the prefiled testimony of Messrs.
/}
Neisler and Mendez; and that is with respect to Federal 25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva,- Il1Tnbis 60134 (312) 232-0262
10935 O
1 Rule of Evidence -- I had the citation here just a 2
minute ago.
3 MR. BERRY:
703.
4 MR. GUILD:
Thanks.
That's right.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I am sorry.
Did you --
6 MR. GUILD:
-- Rule 7 03.
7 Let's assume for a moment that the gentlemen are 8
tendered, at least in some respects, as experts and are 9
asked to express an expert opinion.
10 I certainly understand that to be Applicant's 11 po sition.
They want to rely on opinion evidence given 12 by the gentlemen, and I assume the Staff does as well.
O 13 Their competence to testify as experts is another 14 matter that goes to the merits, and I won't argue that 15 point; but let's assume that they are tendered in part 16 as experts.
17 Let's assume their expert opinion evidence rests 18 upon, as I think it must, the interview statements made 19 to them by the declarants, who are not offered by the 20 party supporting that expert -- or proposing that expert 21 testimony, the QC Inspectors.
22 I think the point of the Advisory Committee note 23 says that while the modern view is experts don't have to 24
-- the party proposing an expert does not have to
(}
demonstrate the admissibility of the factual evidence 25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva 7 I11~inois-~60134 (312) 232-0262
~
10936 O
1 upon which the expert testimony rests, that the inquiry 2
appropriate is still the reliability of the factual 3
basis for the expert testimony.
4 And that's the point where the note makes the 5
observation about the modern rule not supporting 6
admissibility of so-called accidentologist testimony.
7 An expert in skid mark analysis, relying on 8
testimony from bystanders, comes in and tells you, as an 9
expert accidentologist, that so and so must have struck 10 so and so because they were traveling at an excessive 11 rate of speed, without demonstrating the admissibility 12 of the bystander eyewitness testimony.
O 13 I think we are in a directly analogous situation 14 here, where, essentially, Messrs. Neisler and Mendez 15 don't have to demonstrate the facts on which they rely, 16 and that is the statements that they purportedly 17 received from the interviewed QC Inspectors, but then 18 offer opinion evidence based on that, those 19 declarations, that they cannot themselves admit.
20 This goes not to the adequacy of the 21 investigations.
It does not go to the competence of 22 them as experts.
This goes, really, to the failure by 23 them to utilize generally-accepted and adequate methods 24 to memorialize the declarations, the interviews, to 25
{}
ensure that those interviews were conducted in a Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, IlTinWis 60134
~
(312) 232-0262
10937 O
1 consistent and reliable fashion.
2 The rule -- for example, the Advisory Committee 3
notes specifically suggest that the new rule is designed i
4 to facilitate the introduction of, say, survey --
5 opinion survey research; but the point of inquiry --
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Excuse me for a second, Mr.
7 Guild.
8 MR. GUILD:
Yes.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I don't understand that --
10 well, I think the Board has made its position clear in 11 the past with regard to these expert reports, that they 12 do not establish the underlying facts; that they are O
13 opinions of the experts and they will be accepted to the i
14 extent that they rely on a factual basis, which are 15 ordinarily the type of facts that are ordinarily relied 16 upon by those experts which allow them to give the f
17 opinion; but they are not proof of the underlying facts.
18 If, for example, the report relies on Fact A and 19 the testimony is that it was really Fact B but not Fact j
f 20 A,
the expert report is not going to establish that it 21 was Fact A.
22 MR. GUILD:
Yes, sir.
Now --
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
If the opinion is based on 24 that erroneous fact, well, the opinion isn't going to be
[}
worth very much, if anything.
25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva,~~IITinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10938
- o 1
i 1
MR. GUILD:
Yes, sir.
i j
2 I guess it's our position -- I agree with that visw 3
and I think, of course, there is an independent question about the establishment of the f acts on which they rely; 4
i 5
and the record will speak for itself on those questions, i
{
6 because, of course, there is testimony from the 7
inspectors themselves.
Of course, after the witnesses 8
here formulated their opinion, the QC Inspectors 9
testified.
t l
10 But my point only is this:
I think independent of l
11 the attack on the facts assumed, the rule does assume i
i 12 that there are certain kinds of expert opinion evidence O
i 13
-- and let's take the survey research -- opinion survey 14 research as an example -- where, because of the 15 demonstrated inadequacies in the scientific methods 16 employed in that research, that the opinion evidence i
17 itself is simply inadmissible, aside from whether one 18 could go out and attack the reliability, the facts on j
19 which the opinion reseachers rely, i
20 And that's what the point of the Advisory Committee i
21 note is as I read it.
It's simply that you are allowed 22 at this stage, as we are now, to attack the reliability 23 of the methodology employed by the expert in f
24 accumulating the data.
25 Here, essentially, I think it's demonstrable that Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Ge'niva,~Illin61s 60134 -
(312) 232-0262
._-__~._ _.-_, ____
10939 O
1 neither gentleman could recall the questions asked.
2 They did not preserve the questionnaires administered.
3 While they took notes of the interviews as 4
conducted, those notes were destroyed.
5 Only with great difficulty were they able to 6
remember even the names of the persons that they 7
interviewed, and in many instances they could not match 8
names with statements that were included either in their 9
testimony or in the inspection report.
10 Our position is that both on the basis that the 11 facts relied upon are not established in the record and, 12 also, as the Advisory Committee notes, Rule 703 suggests O
13 that because of the methodology employed in the failure 14 to maintain safeguards in the collection of that data on 15 which the expert opinion evidence is relied, the opinion 16 evidence itself should be excluded.
17 For that reason we think that inspection report 18 8521, Staff Exhibit 17, and the prefiled direct 19 testimony should not be received in evidence.
20 MR. BERRY:
May I be heard briefly, Mr.
21 Chairman?
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Sure.
23 MR. BERRY:
Staf f's position is that Staf f 24 Exhibit 17 should be received in evidence, that it is 25 admissible.
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
i Genevaf Illinois ~~60134 ~~
(312) 232-0262
10940
(~%
(>
1 I would like briefly just to respond to a couple of 2
points raised by the Intervenor.
3 Fi rs t, the rule the Intervenor cites, Rule 703, is 4
bases of opinion testimony by experts.
The rule states 5
specifically that if the opinion is based on facts of 6
the type reasonably relied upon by experts in the 7
particular field.
8 That's in particular what we have here.
This is a 9
Staff inspection report based on inspection of 10 activities and conduct and events that Staff inspectors 11 conducted, which is what they do.
12 This is the methodology employed by the inspectors, O
13 the same methodology used by Staff inspectors 14 investigating allegations and conducting inspections at 15 a nuclear power plant.
16 That fact, in particular, is significant with 17 respect to Mr. Guild's allusion to the accidentologist.
18 I note that the Advisory Committee rule which he 19 cites states that the reason that an opinion of a, 20 quote, accidentologist, as to the point of impact in an 21 automobile collision based on bystanders, is not -- may 22 not be probative, admissible, is because an 23 accidentologis t, that type of expert, generally does not l
24 rely on the opinion of bystanders, the observation of
! {}
witnesses, to establish the point of impact.
25 I
l l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l
~~~ Gen eva,~ ~I111n'ois-~~6013 4 ~ ~
(312) 232-0262 i
10941 O
v 1
The accidentologist, they look at skid marks and 2
things like that.
I think that analogy is just wholly, 3
wholly inapposite here.
4 I would also note that the conclusion reached by 5
the inspectors was reached on the basis of their 6
observations, their review, their inspections, the facts 7
that -- the facts generally recounted in the inspection 8
report and which have been the subject of extensive 9
testimony from the witnesses over the last two days.
10 I believe that there is substantial evidence in the 11 record setting forth the basis for the findings, the 12 factual matters observed and the conclusion based on O
13 those facts, on those observations.
14 To the extent that it's not -- well, we agree with 15 the Chairman that it would not establish the fact; and 16 the conclusion based on an erroneous fact is not worth i
17 very much.
18 Staff is prepared to take that risk.
It is our 3
19 belief that that conclusion is supported by the 20 testimony and by the facts of record.
21 We note -- also, as far as the report itself, we 22 would note that under Rule 803, Exception 8, it's a 23 public record and report compiled in the regular course i
24 of business by a government official who had a duty to l {}
conduct and to prepare the report and report the matters 25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva', I111nois-60134 ~~"
(312) 232-0262
10942 0
1 observed and report the matters reflected in that 2
report.
I 3
I would note, also, that, initially, Staff had 4
taken the position that the Staff inspection report 5
itself was admissible without the Staff witnesa to 6
testify.
7 The Chairman ruled that the report, a staff report, 1
8 would not be received in evidence without the author of 9
the report to sponsor it.
3 10 That's exactly the situation we have had here.
The 11 witnesses have been available for examination and the 12 subject of extensive examination on the facts and the O
13 matters reflected in that report, the conclusions 14 reached on it.
15 I believe any further alleged infirmity in the i
16 report should, at most, go to the weight of the report, 17 certainly not to its admissibility.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Is there anything further to 19 be said?
20 Mr. Miller, do you wis~n to be heard on that?
21 MR. MILLER:
No, your Honor.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN Okay.
The Board is going to I
23 rule that the report is -- and the Board is ruling that 24 the report is -- admissible and we will admit it at this
(]}
25 point.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva,~I111noIF~~60134~ ~
l (312) 232-0262
- - _. -..,. - - _ _. _ - ~ _
10943 O
1 Whatever arguments have been made by Mr. Guild will 2
be taken into account in our weighing the report.
3 (The document was thereupon received into 4
evidence as Staff Exhibit No. 17.)
5 JUDGE COLE:
Mr. Guild, did you also add the 6
testimony of these witnesses to your motion?
7 I believe you did.
You said that this morning.
8 MR. GUILD:
Yes, I did; but at the outset the 9
Board ruled on that question and I just wanted to 10 re-assert those grounds.
11 We went line by line through a number of questions, 12 and I asserted the same grounds objecting to their O
13 testimony.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
That's fine.
15 We would note that the witnesses were here and were 16 examined at length on whatever infirmities might exist 17 in the report, and it's all a matter of record.
18 I don't see that, aside from the rules of evidence, 19 any purpose would be served by excluding their written 20 report on the matter.
21 So let us go on to the --
22 MR. BERRY:
Mr. Chairman, we have to take --
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
-- next preliminary matter.
24 Mr. Berry.
25 MR. BERRY:
I don't have any preliminary
(}
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ~~
~
GenevaF Illinois ~60134~~~
(312) 232-0262
10944 O
1 matters.
2 I am prepared to call the witness, if I may have 3
one moment to find my colleague.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
Before that, let me 5
mention that we still have -- well, we have a number of I
6 matters pending; but one of them is the Godecke 7
deposition.
i 8
MR. MILLER:
Yes.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Now, I have in the past 10 glanced through this and I do see that there is some 11 expert testimony offered in there.
12 So I will ask Mr. Miller to go back to the drawing O
13 board, because we are definitely not admitting 14 deposition testimony of an expert nature.
15 If we get expert testimony, we want a live witness i
16 here; and I don't see anything in the rules that 17 requires or permits -- well, of course, the Board or a 18 court may determine on its own to, I suppose, make its 19 own rules; but there is nothing that suggests that we 20 ought to accept expert opinions of people who aren't 21 available to be cross examined; and, actually, I don't 22 even think that it would be permissible in court to I
23 allow that type of evidence.
24 So I think, Mr. Miller, you ought to make some
(}
effort to ascertain which parts are really expert 25
~~~Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva,' Illinois ~~60134 ~ ' '
j (312) 232-0262
10945 O
1 testimony and exclude that.
You can certainly make an 2
offer of proof, if you wish.
3 I would also say that there are collateral matters 4
that I don't think ought to be heard by the Board.
5 One thing that comes to mind is I don't see what 6
relevance there is to this proceeding that Mr. Puckett 7
had relatives working at Zimmer.
That's, perhaps, of 8
interest to someone but not to this proceeding.
9 So I think some effort ought to be made to filter 10 out extraneous material; and then, of course, we will 11 discuss what is left.
12 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, I am not in a 0
13 position to respond to the Board's observations with 14 respect to the introduction of depositions of expert 15 witnesses.
I am simply not prepared at this point in 16 time to address that.
17 But rather than simply -- if the Board persists in 18 that position after I have an opportunity to --
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
We will give you further 20 opportunity to argue the matter.
21 MR. MILLER:
I appreciate that.
22 If the Board persists in that position after 23 a rgum ent, I would like leave to see if I can track down 24 Mr. Godecke and have him appear live as a witness.
25 I believe that his testimony is relevant, material.
(}
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
--" Geneva, Illinois ~~ 60134
^ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
(312) 232-0262
10946 1
The man is clearly, at least on the basis of the 2
deposition and his resume, quite expert.
3 He has extensive personal knowledge of Mr.
4 Puckett's activities, both at the Zimmer facility and, 5
to a certain extent, through the telephone calls, what 6
Mr. Puckett was doing here at Braidwood.
7 But let me investigate that matter and I will 8
report back to the Board when we are together again week 9
after next.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
That is fine.
11 Do we have any preliminary matters further before 12 we call the witness?
O 13 (No response.)
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Fine.
Mr. Berry, why don' t 15 you call your next witness?
16 MR. BERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
i 17 At this time the Staff would call Jerome Schapker.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Schapker, please remain 19 standing, raise your right hand.
20 (The witness was thereupon duly sworn.)
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Please be seated.
22 JEROME H.
SCHAPKER 23 called as a witness by the Staff herein, having been first 24 duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
25 DIRECT EXAMINATION
{}
I
_ Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10947 1
BY MR. BERRY 2
0 State your full name and spell your last name for the 3
record.
4 A
My name is Jerome F.
Schapker, spelled S-C-H-A-P-K-E-R.
5 Q
By whom are you employed, Mr. Schapker?
6 A
I am employed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 7
Division of Reactor Safety, Region 3 office.
8 Q
And in what capacity?
9 A
I am Reactor Inspector, Mechanical.
10 Q
Mr. Schapker, do you have before you a document 11 en titled, "NRC Staff testimony of Jerome F. Schapker 12 regarding Bridget Little Rorem, et al., Subcontention O
13 2-C"?
14 A
Yes, I do.
15 Q
Does that document consist of 45 pages of questions and 16 answers and S pages of attachments?
17 A
Yes.
18 Q
Was that document prepared by you or under your 19 direction?
20 A
Yes, it was.
21 Q
Are there any changes or corrections you would like to 22 make to that document?
23 A
Yes, there is.
24 Q
Would you state those for the Board and the parties and
{}
speak slowly so we can follow along?
25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
--~~~ Geneva,~ Illinois ^ '60134
- ~ ~ ~
(312) 232-0262
10948 1
A Okay.
2 On Page 8, Answer 18, at the bottom of the page, 3
the second sentence, where it says, " acceptable," strike 4
" acceptable" and add, "prequalified."
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
That's the second line?
6 THE WITNESS:
The second line.
7 A
(Continuing)
After " material" in the same line, add, 8
"in AW S D. l.1. "
9 BY MR. BERRY:
10 Q
Mr. Schapker, let me stop you there and ask you why you 11 made that change.
12 A
To be more explicit in the words of the Code.
O 13 Q
All right, sir.
Are there any other changes?
14 A
Yes.
15 On the next line, the third line, the last word, 16 "not," strike that word and then the next line, in the 17 fourth line, add, after "been," the word 18
" conditionally."
In other words, it would read now, 19 instead of, "had not be approved," "that it had been 20 conditionally approved."
21 After " approved" add, "by Sargent & Lundy, the 22 architect-engineer."
23 0
Why did you make that change, Mr. Schapker?
24 A
Well, although the technique sheet had not been 25 approved, it is a true statement.
It's more accurate
(}
i
. _ _ _ _... _.Sonntag Reporting Ser.vice, Lt_d.___ _ ___
(312) 232-0262
10949 O
1 that it had been conditionally approved.
2 In other words, the conditions that were erroneous 3
in that technique cheet had been observed by the 4
architect-engineer and directed by the 5
architect-engineer that those conditions be corrected 6
prior to usage.
7 Q
Mr. Schapker, was that a fact known to you at the time 8
you prepared your testimony?
9 A
Yes, it was.
10 Q
Is there a reason why you didn't state that in your 11 original testimony?
12 A
It was an oversight.
O 13 0
All right, sir.
Are there any other corrections?
14 A
Page 29, the second line at the top.
After the word 15
" weld" strike the rest of the sentence there, "is able 16 to perform a fillet weld."
17 Add, " demonstrates his ability to make a fillet 18 weld to any thickness of material."
19 Q
What is the reason for that correction?
20 A
That more accurately describes the conditions.
21 MR. GUILD:
Could you repeat that correction, 22 Mr. Schapker, please?
23 THE WITNESS:
" Demonstrates his ability to 24 make a fillet welti to any thickness of material."
25 MR. GUILD:
Thank you.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva,' Illinois ~60134
- ~ - ~ ~ -
(312) 232-0262
10950 t
1 BY MR. BERRY:
2 Q
Mr. Schapker, is this a substantive change to your 3
testimony ?
4 A
No, it's not substantive.
5 Q
All right, sir.
6 A
And on the same page, Answer 64, the third line, after 7
the word " code" change the period to a comma and add, 8
"which corrects the inadvertent omission in the 1975 9
Code."
10 Q
Why did you make that change, Mr. schapker?
11 A
To describe the condition of the exclusion of the 12 footnote in the AWS D.1.1 1975 Code.
O 13 Q
All right, sir.
Are there any others?
14 A
Yes, there is one more.
15 on the attachment to the exhibit, Page 2 of the 16 attachment.
17 Q
That is your statement of professional qualifications?
18 A
Yes.
19 Under the first paragraph, second to the last line, 20 after the letters "P.
T., " I would add "V.
T. "
21 Q
What does v. T. stand for?
22 A
For visual weld examination.
23 0
Why do you make that addition, Mr. Schapker?
24 A
It was inadvertently lef t out --
25 0
Are there any other corrections --
{}
_. Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva,' I111nois" ~60134 -~----
^
~~~~~
(312) 232-0262
10951 1
A
-- as brought out in my deposition.
2 Q
Are there any other corrections to. the document we have 3
been discussing?
4 A
That's all.
5 0
Is your profiled testimony as corrected complete and 6
accurate, to the best of your knowledge?
7 A
Yes, it is.
8 MR. BERRY:
At this point, Mr. Chairman, I 9
would ask that the document entitled, "NRC Staff
]
10 testimony of Jerome F. Schapker, regarding Bridget 11 Little Rorem, et al., Subcontention 2-C," be bound in 12 the record and received as if read.
()
13 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, I am very disturbed 14 about the nature of the corrections that were made.
15 This is not the first time in this proceeding thnt 16 corrections are made that are not simply of a 17 typographical sort or monitorial sort but on extremely 18 technical issuen, make changes to testimony that have 19 potential effect, at least, which is hard to assess 20 sitting here spontaneously hearing them, on character 21 the of Cross Examination that has been in preparation 22 for some time.
23 The party offering the testimony clearly has an 24 obligation to provide more advance notice of changes of
{}
the character made here, clearly changes that should 25 4
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
1
_._ ____._._ _. Geneva,~I111noin'~60134
~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
(312) 232-0262
10952
()
I have been known for a long time by the witness and, 2
therefore, by the party offering the testimony.
3 There is simply no excuse to not making a change to 4
testimony where the changa was prompted by the 5
deposition of the witness that occurred in March of 6
1986.
7 MR. BERRY:
The witness has stated --
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, that change was not a 9
significant change.
10 The other changes may have some significance.
I 11 assume we are not going to -- are we going to finish 12 with Mr. Schapker today, do you believe, Mr. Guild?
13 MR. GUILD:
It really is in Miller's hands to l
14 a large extent, Mr. Chairman; but I don't know.
t 15 It's simply that I can't understand why counsel for l
16 the Staff didn't make these changes known to other I
17 counsel before putting the witness on the stand this 18 morning.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, the Board has 20 expressed its unhappiness with lith hour production of 21 documents and changes.
22 In this case, to the extent that it's necessary to 23 ask Mr. Schapker additional questions at some later t
24 time, we will have to make that process available.
{}
I would think Mr. Schapker will be here in the 25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.._____..____
i Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10953 (g~n 1
future and is not just observing up until his testimony.
2 Was that the case, Mr. Berry?
3 MR. BERRY:
I believe it's the witness's 4
testimony that none of the corrections that he has made 5
to his testimony are, in fact, a substantive change in 6
the previous testimony.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well --
8 MR. GUILD:
Then why make them, Mr. Chairman?
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
-- I am not sure about that, 10 Mr. Berry; but --
11 MR. GUILD:
Then I would object to them being 12 made in the first instance, Mr. Chairman.
O 13 There is an obligation to profile testimony.
A 14 witness certainly has to stand Cross Examination on the 15 testimony that is made.
16 If the changes are, indeed, not substantive, I 17 don't know why one has any justification for making 18 them.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Do you have any other 20 objections to the admissibility?
21 MR. GUILD:
I don't otherwise.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
We will admit the 23 testimony with the changes; and to the extent that it 24 becomes necessary to ask Mr. Schapker some additional 25 questions, he will be made available at a later date.
{}
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
_._.__ _.~ Geneva,~ Illinois ~~60134~~~~~
~
~ ~ - ~ ~
(312) 232-0262
l 10954 1
O 1
MR. BERRY:
That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
2 I think it's unlikely that Mr. Schapker will be 3
completed today, and we will probably resume with him 4
when we reconvene the week af ter next.
5 So Mr. Schapker will be available.
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 O
13 14 15 16 1
17 18 19 20 21 22 j
i j
23 24
!I 25 1
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
- ~~~~ Geneva, ~Illinolii~~ ~60134 l
(312) 232-0262
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
COMMONV'EALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-456
)
50-457 N
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF TESTIMONY OF JEROME F. SCHAPKER REGARDING BRIDGET LITTLE ROREM, ET AL. SUBCONTENTION 2.C Please state your name, position, and business address.
Q 1.
Al My name is Jerome F. Schapker.
I am employed by the Nuclear Commission as a Reactor Inspector in the Division of Regulatory Reactor Safety of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),
Region III, 799 Roosevelt Road, Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137.
l Please describe your responsibilities as a Reactor Inspector.
O2.
A2.
As a Renctor Inspector I am primarily responsible for performing inspections of plant materials and processes to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.
Have you prepared a statement of yoijr professional qualifications?
Q3.
A3.
A copy of my professional qualifications is attached hereto as 1
l Exhibit 1.
l 04.
What is the purpose of your testimony?
O i
,__3
__.,___.-~.7__.-_
1 {)
A4.
The purpose of my testimony is to address the. second part of Subcontention 2, which states:
2.
Comstock management, including
- QC Manager Irv DeWald and Corporate QA Manager Bob Marino harassed, discriminated and retaliated against, and ultimately terminated Level III QC Inspector Worley O. Puckett because Mr. Puckett made numerous complaints about safety and quality deficiencies which he identified in the course of his duties at Braidwood.
Mr. Puckett was hired by Comstock in May 1984 in the newly created position of Level III QC j
Inspector whose duties included conducting a review of Comstock procedures, test requirements for the more than 50 Level II QC inspectors, review of the Level II's inspection work, and the resolution of inspection disputes. Mr. Puckett was highly qualified with 20 years' nuclear Navy and nine years' nuclear power experience.
During the course of his employment with Comstock, Mr.
O-Puckett was shocked by the widespread i
deficiencies in procedures, qualifications, and
~
workmanship.
He identified numerous instances of improper construction procedures, improper qualification of welders, and material traceability deficiencies. He ultimately recommended a complete stop work order for all welding activity to permit i
effective corrective action.
Finally, he warned QC Manager Irv DeWald that "we are approaching a complete breakdown in our QC program."
Mr. Puckett was subjected to harassment and retaliation because he raised these safety and quality concerns and was terminated on August 27, 1984 by DeWald on the pretext that he should have scored higher than his 86% on a qualification test.
He filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor, alleging violation of the employee protection provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 USC 5851.
The U.S.
Department of Labor Area Director sustained Mr.
Puckett's complaint finding unlawful discrimination by Comstock against Puckett and ordered relief.
Mr..Puckett presented his case at a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge on Comstock's appeal.
5 O
Comstock settled Mr. Puckett's claim before putting on its case.
The terms of settlement are subject
. f-to a non-disclosure agreement between Comstock and Mr. Puckett. (citations omitted).
Did you investigate the matter referred to in the second part of QS.
Subcontention 2?
s A5.
Yes.
l Q6.
Are the results of your investigation documented?
A6.
Yes.
The results of my investigation is documented in NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50-456/85009; 50-457/85009.
i Q7.
What was the purpose of your investigation?
A7.
The PurPese of mv ir.vestinatien wa. te address the technicai O
concerns expressed by Mr. Puckett to determine whether regulatory requirements had been violated.
I was not assigned responsibility I
for investigating whether Mr. Puckett's dismissal from L. K.
Comstock Company (LKC) violated the provisions of 10 C.F.R.
S 50.7.
I you became involved in the investigation of Q8.
Please describe how Mr. Puckett's allegations.
The NRC Staff first became involved in this matter on August 28, A8.
1984.
During a telephone interview on that date,
Leonard McGregor, the Senior Resident Inspector - Operations (SRI) at Braidwood, was informed by Mr.
Puckett that he had been i
. terminated by LKC because he had raised several technical concerns.
On August 31, 1984, n'r. Puckett was contacted by the Region III N
Chief, Plant Systems Section, Division of Reactor Safety (DRS),
and provided further information to the Staff regarding his Mr. Puckett was interviewed on September 11, 1984 at concerns.
the Region IIII office by the Region III Allegation Specialist, Charles II. Well, and an NRC Reactor Inspector, Kavin D. Ward, concerning his technical concerns and alleged wrongful dismissal from LKC. That interview was transcribed.
O I was assigned to investigate Mr. Puckett's On February 25, 1985, allegations by my Section Chief, William Forney.
The allegations I was assigned to investigate had been prepared by Messrs. Weil and Ward from the information supplied by Mr. Puckett during the September 11, 1984 interview.
l Q9.
Mr.
Schapker, what did you do after you were assigned to l
investigate Mr. Puckett's allegations?
l AD.
I formuisted my inspection plan.
i Q10. What is an inspection plan?
An " inspection plan" is simply a device used to assist an inspector A10.
in accomplishing his inspection.
m.-----.---,-
. Q11. Ilow did you prepare your inspection plan?
All. My inspection plan already had been partially formulated by Mr. Ward. and Mr. Weil who had interviewed Mr. Puckett on September 11, 1984, at the Region III office.
Together they prepared the list of allegations as they appear in my inspection N
report.
I also prepared a list of documents and QA records which I would need to review.
I discussed the allegation list with Mr. Ward who turned over the list, together with the transcript of Mr. Puckett's interview and a copy of a September 6, 1984 memorandum from Mr. Weil to Richard Spessard of the NRC C' de as it applied Region III.
I also reviewed the AWS D1.1 1975 o
to Mr. Puckett's allegations.
O Q12. Did you discuss the allegations with Mr. Puckett?
A12. Yes. Following my initial visit to the Braidwood site on March 5, i
1985, I returned to Marble Hill Nuclear Power Station, which at that l
time was my assigned duty station.
Later during that week, I contacted Mr. Puckett and requested a meeting with him to discuss I informed him that I was willing to meet with him at his concerns.
a time and place of his choosing.
On March 12, 1985, I met with Mr. Puckett at his home for approximately four hours. During this interview I reviewed each of Mr. Puckett's allegations as they had been transcribed by Mr. Weil and Mr. Ward from his previous testimony.. in Region III on September 11, 1984.
I performed this interview to assure myself that the allegations I was to investigate fairly reflected his concerns.
Upon completion of the review of the
. allegations I asked Mr. Puckett if the allegations as. I had presented to him were accurate and if he had any additional concerns.
Mr. Puckett agreed that the allegations we had discussed reflected his concerns and stated that he could not think of any additional Mr. Puckett stated that he did not think his concerns s
concerns.
were of major significance, and added that he could have corrected all the problems he had brought forward if L. K. Comstock management would have let him do his job.
Q13. What else, if anything, did you and Mr. Puckett discuss during your meeting?
A13. We discussed a matter which appeared to relate to Mr. Puckett's dismissal.
Mr. Puckett stated that he had been informed by an anonymous source that an identified NRC inspector may have been involved in his dismissal from LKC.
I asked Mr. Puckett if he Mr. Puckett said it wished the NRC to pursue this matter further.
was not necessary, and was not concerned about this issue.
Consequently, I did not pursue this matter during my inspection.
Q14. Mr. Schapker, what did you do first after you arrived at the Braidwood site to investigate Mr. Puckett's concerns?
I held an entrance meeting with members of Applicant's staff, Mr.
A14.
Schroeder, and Mr. Kline, and informed them of the scope of the inspection.
Mr. Kline arranged a contact with L.
K.
Comstock Level III weld inspector, Tony Simile, from whom I obtained applicable procedures and quality records which were necessary to
. R.)
perform the inspection.
The initial inspection visit was comprised of gathering and ' reviewing weld procedures, inspection procedures, and quality records, such as applicable Nonconformance Reports, stop work
- orders, etc.
Shortly there after, I
contacted Mr. Puckett to arrange the interview described previously.
~
s Mr. Schapker, how many concerns did Mr. Puckett raise?
Q 15.
A15. Mr. Puckett raised twenty-one (21) concerns, some of which had Mr. Puckett's concerns were assigned to Region III riultiple parts.
Tracking Number RIII-84-A-0123 and are addressed in my inspection report.
O What was the substance of Mr. Puckett's first allegation?
016.
A16. Mr. Puckett alleged that LEC welders had been welding A-446 material to A-36 material even though a weld procedure was not According to Mr. Puckett, such welds were contrary to l
available.
l AWS D1.1-1975.
Mr. Puckett questioned the qualification of the since A-446 is weld when joining A-446 material to A-36 material, not addressed in the American ?'elding Society ( AWS) DI.1-1975 Mr. Pvckett also indicated that the technique sheet used by Cc i'c.
the welfur te r ake the r.lkgcd welic hrd bcn: rejectec. c.<'
tbt.r was not a valid procedura.
What did your investigation o'f this concern reveal?
Q17.
I Ali. In addressing this concern, I reviewed procedures, codes, and documents applicable to the concern and interviewed LKC personnel.
. O My review indicated that LKC issued a nonconformance report (NCR No. 3099), and subsequently a stop-work order.
The stop-work order, which was issued on August 17, 1984, halted the welding of A-36 to A-446 and all stainless steel, pending an engineering, review of this problem.
The NCR was later dispositioned "Use-As-Is."
s This disposition was based on an interpretation by the LKC, CECO's Lundy, Applicant's architect-engineer of engineers, and Sargent &
American Welding Society (AWS) Standard DI.1-1975, Section 5.5.
That provision indicates that A-36 steel is qualified for use with A-446 steel.
Consequently, welding. procedure specification, Attachment H, of LKC Weld Procedure 4.3.3 was revised to reflect that it was acce ptable to weld A-36 steel to A-446 steel, i
Subsequently, the NCR was closed and the stop-work order was t
lif ted.
The weld technique "O"
which was referenced in Weld Procedure 4.3.3 was requalified on July 2,1984 with acceptable test results.
What conclusion did you reach regarding the merits of Mr. Puckett's Q 18.
concern?
I confirmed that the weld procedure was in error in that }he A-446 A18.
materialin kWSDII base material was not expressly identified as a.
edure referenced a technique sheet that had me4-and the weld pr
$4rgenf1 Luridg, thdfah-c.n$nev.
I Condthenell these errors had no adverse effect on
s In Procedure 4.3.3 and concurred in the disposition of the NCR.
DO other words, the referenced base material, (A-446), while not l
m Q) specifically listed in the AWS D1.1-1975 Code, is qualified by virtue of qualifications performed pursuant to Weld Procedure 4.3.3, Attachment II, wherein A-446 to A-500 and A-36 to A-500 are qualified material combinations.
The chemical and mechanical properties of A-446 and A-36 are closely compatible and do not pose s
a weldability problem.
Although A-446 is not listed in the AWS D1.1-1975 Code, the Code does not require that only materials listed in the code be utilized; other materials are allowed at the discretion of the " Engineer" if qualified by weld procedure qualification (PQR).
Ilas A-446 material been qualified according to applicable procedure?
Q19.
Because, A500 to A446 had been previously qualified in LEC A19. Yes.
procedure 4.3.3 Attachment "H" and the base materials are less than 50,000 psi yield strength, the weld procedure did not require requalification.
As provided in Section 5.5, which states in part:
" Qualification of a welding procedure established with a base metal included in 10.2 and listed in 5.5.1.2, having a minimum specified yield point less than 50,000 psi (345 MPa) shall qualify the procedure for welding any other base metal or combination of those base metals included in 10.2 that have a minimum specified yield point equal to or less than that of the base metal used in the test."/
Q20.
h' hat was..Mr. Puckett's second concern?
Mr. Puckett was concerned that L. K. Comstock Weld Procedure No.
A20.
4.3.14 was qualified to the SG weld position, but the procedure was
. O' used to weld all positions.
The SG weld position is groove welding of pipe in a fixed horizontal position.
This position qualifies for flat (1G), vertical (3G) and overhead (4G) welding.
Mr. Puckett also stated that language inconsistencies existed within the For example, the procedure appeared to permit the use procedure.
s of a magnetic particle test on a stainless steel weld.
What did your investigation of Mr. Puckett's concern reveal?
Q1.
A21. In addressing Mr. Puckett's concern, I reviewed Weld Procedure and confirmed that the procedure was qualified to the SG 4.3.14 position.
Some welds were performed in the horizontal welding position (2G) for which the procedure was not qualified.
This nonconformance was identified by LKC in Nonconformance Report (NCR) No. 3145 dated August 24, 1984.
Mr. Puckett had indicated that he was the author of this NCR, but it was signed by a Level II inspector because Mr. Puckett had not yet been certified as an The corrective actions required by NCR quality control inspector.
3145 was the removal of the horizontal welds which had previously and requalification of the weld procedure qualification i
been made, (PQR) and of LKC welders to include the horizontal weld position.
Iforizontal welds were then remade in accordance with the revised the This activity was successfully completed and resolved PQR.
i deficiency addressed by Mr. Puckett.
I did not identify this deficiency as a violation because the deficiency already had been 1
identified and corrected by LKC in accordance with its Quality 5
Assurance Program.
. Q22. What if anything, did you learn regarding Mr. P.uckett's concern that -LKC weld procedure contained language inconsistencies?
A22. The language inconsistencies cited by Mr. Puckett involved the reference in Weld Procedure 4.3.14 to American Welding Society N
( AWS) DI.1-1975 Code, 13.7.2.4 (Cracks in Weld or Base Metal).
Mr. Puckett was concerned about the following statement in 13.7.2.4:
" Ascertain the extent of the crack by use of acid etching, magnetic particle inspection (MT), or other equally positive Because Weld Procedure 4.3.14 is welding for austenitic m eans."
stainless steel, a magnetic particle examination would not have been effective.
"Austenitic" stainless steel is not magnetic.
A magnetic particle test would not be appropriate to this kind of steel because austenitic stainless steel cannot be magnetized, a necessity for this test.to be performed.
Did you determine whether magnetic particle examinations had been Q23.
used in the inspection of austenitic stainless steel welds?
A23. Yes.
I reviewed a sample of quality documentation to determine whether the reference to 13.7.2.4 of the AWS Code had resulted in the inappropirate use of magnetic particle tests.
My sample review LKC Weld Procedure 4.3.14 is a welding indicated that it had not.
It is not an inspection procedure, procedure, used by welders.
1 used by LKC weld inspectors during their and therefore was not weld inspections.
4
' O
~ ~ ' ' ' ~ " * " -
. c
(
Q24. What, if any, conclusion did you reach regardin.g the merits of Mr. Puckett's concern?
A24. Mr. Puckett's concern was substantiated in that' I was able to confirm that Weld Procedure 4.3.14 appeared to permit the use of a riagnetic particle test in the inspection of austenitic stainless steel N
the lack of precision in the procedure did not weld s.
Q25. What is the basis for this conclusion?
A25. AWS D 1.1 13.7.2.4 is a general workmanship requirement for examination of a 1 type of welds, and is not applicable only to stainless steel.
Although the referenced portion of Weld Procedure 4.3.14 could be misleading to the lay person, it is not in error.
The procedure states that a " suitable method" be used to assure that cracks in the weld are removed.
A magnetic particle test is not a suitable method for austenitic stainless steel.
Therefore, another nondestructive examination (NDE) method, such as liquid penetrant examination, would have to be utilized.
Personnel who l
perform NDE on safety-related components are required to be qualified to SNT-TC-1A, the industry qualification standard.
To meet this standard, a person performing an NDE examination must be knowledgeable as to the appropriate NDE tests for the type of materials..being examined.
My review of LKC quality documentation revealed no instance in which a magnetic particle test was used in Moreover, there the inspection of austenitic stainless steel welds.
. O was no need for LKC weld inspectors to have performed any type of nondestructive examination on the austenitic stainless steel weld since the stainless steel welding performed to LKC Weld Procedure 4.3.14 only required a visual examination.
s Q26. Mr. Schapker, what was the substance of Mr. Puckett's third concern?
A26. Mr. Puckett was concerned that " bimetallic" welds. were made pursuant to a procedure that was not qualified as a bimetallic A " bimetallic" or dissimilar metal weld is one involving procedure.
different types of base metals.
Mr. Puckett stated to me during our interview that welders were welding carbon steel conduit to O
According to Mr. Puckett, these stainless steel junction boxes.
junction boxes were located in the reactor building.
What did your investigation of this concern reveal?
Q27.
A27. In addressing this concern, I located and inspected the junction boxes which Mr. Puckett had described and verified that they were the carbon steel conduit attachment to stainless steel.
- However, the junction box had not been welded but rather was mechanically however, an 8" Schedule 40 stainless steel attached.
There was, pipe welded to the junction boxes to support cables and I examined the junction boxes and confirmed that thermocouples.
all base metal within or to the junction boxes was stainless steel to I also stainless steel; no dissimilar metal welds had been made.
Neither interviewed several LKC personnel regarding this matter.
. O Tony Smilie, a' LKC Level III welding supervisor ncr the Level II to carbon steel weld. inspectors I spoke with knew of any stainlest welds mad.e by LKC welders.
Mr. Puckett also stated that welders had quslified to weld SA-312 s
steel to S A-312 steel but actually were welding SA-240 steel to SA-312 steel in the field. I confirmed that this was the case. This The base metals is not a violation of code requirements, however.
SA-240 and S A-312 are both Type 304 stainless steel material.
SA-240 is plate and SA-312 is its pipe equivalent. AWS DI.1-1975, 15.23.2.4 states that " Qualification in the 6G (inclined fixed) position qualifies for all positions groove and all positions fillet O
welding of pipe, tubing, and plate." Also, Paragraph 5.10.5 states
" Qualification on pipe also qualifies for plate."
Q28. What, if any conclusion did you reach regarding the merits of Mr. Puckett's concern?
I found no evidence l
l A28. I was not able to substantiate his concern.
that stainless steel to carbon steel welds (bimetallic) had been riade by LKC welders.
LI;C's procedures for stainless steel to stainless steel complied with AWS D1.1-1975 requirements.
Q29. What was Mr. Puckett's fourth concern?
A29. Mr. Puck.ett had a general concern regarding LKC's welding procedures.
According to Mr. Puckett, many of LKC's weld procedures were filled with errors and inconsistencies such as
. O decimal fraction conversion tables showing 0.750 = 32/32.
During our interview, Mr. Puckett emphasized that his primary concern in this regard was not with the adequacy of the weld procedures, but rather with ensuring that clerical and computational errors in the f
procedures be corrected.
j s
i Q30. What, if anything did your investigation of this concern reveal?
A30. In addressing this concern, I reviewed LK C's weld procedures.
I did note These procedures were generally accurate and adequate.
some instances of minor typographical errors of the kind described by Mr. Puckett. Ilowever, such errors were not prevalent.
O What conclusion did you reach regarding the merits of Mr. Puckett's Q31.
concern?
I substantiated his concern in that I did observe some errors of the A31.
type described by Mr. Puckett.
However, none of these errors affected the overall adequacy of the weld procedures or the quality 4
of the welding and all have been corrected in subsequent revisions of the procedures.
Q32. What was Mr. Puckett's fifth concern?
There were two parts to Mr. Puckett's fifth concern, both of which A30.
l related to weld filler material control.
hat was the substance of the first part of Mr. Puckett's concern Q33.
regarding weld filler material control?
y
-.,-.-_.__-,._7
,r_.
. O Mr. Puckett indicated that LKC did not have a procedure to control A33.
weld filler material during the period he was employed at Braidwood..
What, if anything, did your inspection of the concern reveal?
s Q34.
A34.
L. K. Comstock Procedure 4.3.10. " Storage, Issue, and Control of Felding Material," Revision C,
dated December 8,
1983, was in effect during Mr. Puckett's tenure of employment at Braidwood.
Consequently, it is not correct that there existed no procedural controlling weld filler material.
This procedure, however, was revised pursuant to NCR 3275 on September 12, 1984, to address problems identified by Mr. Puckett.
I reviewed NCR 3275 which identified weld filler material violations.
The disposition of this NCR required revision of the procedure to enforce additional requirements in the weld material issuance and control of filler metal and training of applicable personnel to the new procedure.
Q 35. What, if any conclusion did you reach regarding the merits of Mr. Puckett's concern?
A35. The concern was not substantiated in that LKC did have an adegnate weld filler material control procedure.
As a result of NCR 3275,
- however, this procedure was revised to include I reviewed these added additional weld material control measures.
measures,.and found that they further enhanced the control of weld filler metal.
Q36. Mr. Schapker, what was the second part of Mr. Puckett's concern regarding weld filler material control?
According. tc Mr. Puckett, weld filler material withdrawal forms had A36.
inconsistent heat numbers.
Mr. Puckett stated that he could not find any paperwork to backup heat numbers in the possession of N
either L. K. Comstock or Phillips-Getschow (Phillips-Getschow, the Applicant's mechanical contractor, provided weld filler material to LKC).
Q 37. What, if anything, did your investigation of this concern reveal?
A37. In addressing this concern, I reviewed a sample of weld filler material withdrawal forms (FMWF) from three different time periods, coverinF a three year time frame.
Included in this sample were withdrawal forms for E-7018, E-6013, and E-309-16 weld material of various sizes.
I reviewed 50 FMWFs and was able to trace to the referenced heat numbers to the appropriate certified weld material l
tests reports (CMTR). Mr. Puckett identified three heat numbers 401S7441 and for which he could not locate the applicable CMTRs:
401S9011 for E7018 electrodes, and 35202061 for E6013 electrode.
I was able to locate CMTR 401S7441 and confirm that the filler material conformed to the specified material requirements for E-7018 I could not 19eate CMTR 401S9011 but CMTR welding electrode.
402S9011 war, on file. The identification of heat number 401S9011 on the FMWF appeared to be a clerical type error in recording of the heat number on the weld rod issue slip; 35202061 was located as 3S202061 for 6013 weld rod.
The "S" was misidentified as a 5 on
i
. AU The FMWF's were handwriten at the time of filler metal the FMWF.
The similarity of the numbers and electrode types made issuance.
the clerical errors obvious.
Q38. What conclusions, if any, did you reach regarding the merits of N
Mr. Puckett's c6ncern?
My review of FMWFs over a three year period did not disclose any d
A38.
In some deficiency in the area of weld filler material traceability.
it was necessary for me to trace the heat numbers to the
- cases, Applicant's quality records vault since LKC did not have the CMTR in question in its records vault.
This was not unusual because LKC does not purchase its own weld rod for use at the Braidwood site, and therefore is not required to maintain these records.
What was the substance of Mr. Puckett's sixth concern?
Q39.
Mr. Puckett was concerned that LKC lacked control of construction A39.
It was materials in terms of heat numbers or other traceability.
Mr. Puckett's position that LKC was required to maintain heat numbers on all safety-related material.
Q40. What, if anything, did your investigation of this concern reveal?
A40. In addressing this
- concern, I
reviewed a
sample of LKC construction material (conduit, junction boxes, mechanical fasteners)
The material inspected was marked with a to verify.. traceability.
O
=eteri^2 receipt=== der (ana)-
'xc 9 error== receiot ia vecti a or all material received.
These inspections are performed pursuant to
. O LKC Procedure 4.10.2, " Receiving and Storage" and the results are to the Applicant's Quality Assurance Department (CECO submitted which is responsible for verifying that the material meets the QA)
CECO QA reviews requirements of the applicable purchase order.
4 certified material test' reports, certificates of conformance, and i
s other documentation to verify that the material meets applicable CECO QA also performs a physical inspection of the requirements.
Material Receiving material as required by Procedure SQI-06, Report (MRR) Processing."
After the CECO QA group's completes its review, LKC is authorized to release the material for installation in safety-related areas.
The MRR number is traceable to the applicable purchase order and quality records are initiated and O
maintained by Applicant.
Only safety-related components / material are required to be marked with the MRR identification number and identified for use in safety-related construction.
Q41. What conclusion, if any, did you reach regarding the merits of Mr. Puckett's concern?
Mr. Puckett was correct in that LKC did not maintain traceability of A41.
material with heat numbers.
However, there is no regulatory Criterion VIII of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, requirement to do so.
Appendix B requires measures be established for the identification and control of materials, parts, and components, including partially These measures shall assure that identifica-
~
fabricated assemblies.
tion of the item is maintained by heat number, part number, serial number, or other appropriate means, either on to the item or on
---.---....--.-__-,n.
.-.,-,.v.
. O records traceable to the item, as required throughout fabrication, erection, installation, and use of the item. These identification and control measures shall be designed to prevent the 'use of incorrect or defective material parts, and components."
Applicant's receipt inspection procedures are adequate to assure material traceability.
N This concern appears to have 1esulted from Mr. Puckett's previous J
employment at the Zimmer facility.
At that facility, the procedures of Kaiser Engineering, Mr. Puckett's
- employer, required identification by heat numbers to maintain traceability.
That procedure also complied with Criterion VIII of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B.
.!O What was the substance of Mr. Puckett's seventh concern?
Q42.
A42. Mr. Puckett stated that welds were made without the required l
preheat.
During our interview he told me that LKC had requalified its procedure to eliminate the preheat requirement.
According to I
l Mr. Puckett, this weld procedure qualification was not valid because it had not been witnessed by a quality control inspector.
Q43. Mr. Schapker, what is " preheat"?
Preheat is the temperature specified that the base metal must attain A43.
in the welding area before the weld is performed.
Preheat is utilized to reduce the cooling rate of the weld and heat affected zone of.the base metal to prevent hardening (martensite) which I
4 could lead to cracking of the weld.
Preheat also reduces the
. O chances of under bend cracking, caused by the presence of hydrogen in' welding.
if anything, did your investigation of this concern reveal?
044. What, A44. I confirmed that many welds may not have been preheated as required by applicable procedure.
On October 12, 1984, LKC j
issued Nonconformance Report (NCR) 3423 to address this NCR 3423 identified the violation of procedural violation, however.
questionable preheat documentation for welds which required preheat due to the thickness of the members being joined, that is in excess of 1-1/2".
LKC developed weld procedure qualifications (PQR) for those welds from 1"
to 3" thickness welded without O
preheat. Pursuant to NCR 3423, welds involving members in excess of 3" in thickness were removed and replaced utilizing the required I
preheat.
This rework, including the preheat of the weld, was inspected and documented by quality control inspectors.
Q45. What action did LKC take regarding welds 1 1/2" to 3"
in thickness?
A45. The Weld Procedure qualification without use of preheat was developed, as required in LKC NCR 3423, for joining members of 1" to 3".
This procedure qualification test provides adequate assurance that welds that were made utilizing this procedure with no preheat were sound and need not be replaced.
O
. O Q46. Was the qualification test witnessed by QC inspector?
A46. I interviewed the LKC QC inspector who was responsible for surveille.nce of the PQRs.
The QC inspector ettested that he witnessed the weldings of the test coupons throughout the process.
N However,
it did appear that this test was performed after Mr. Puckett's dismissal by LEC.
What conclusion did you reach regarding the merits of Mr. Puckett's Q47.
concern?
A47. Mr. Puckett's concern as stated that quality control did not participate in the weloing of the weld procedure qualifications was not substantiated.
Although welds may have been made without O
required preheat in contravention of applicable procedure, this violation had been identified and adequately dispositioned by NCR 3423.
What was the substance of Mr. Puckett's eighth concern?
Q48.
A48. He felt that inconsistencies in LKC's welder qualification records rendered indeterminate welder qualifications.
Q49. What, if anything, did your investigation of this concern reveal?
A49. My review identified some minor discrepancies in the welder qualification records.
O Q50. What was the nature of the discrepancies which you identified?
l
__ _ A50. Minor discrepancies such as incorrect changes of material grade
( A36. for A106), signatures not dated, and type of electrode not documented (i.e., E7018).
I also noted that some welder qualifi-cation records had been changed.
Some of these discrepancies had been identified in LKC NCR No. 3710; however, I noted other minor N
deviations which I brought to the attention of LKC.
Q51. How were the records changed?
Changes that I observed in the welder qualification records (WQRs)
A51.
were base meterial grade, (A36 for A106), and the " white out" of "E. C. Ernst Co. (ECE)" and substitution of "L. K. Comstock Co.
(LKC)."
O These changes were obvious errors which did not affect the welders A36 and A106 are the same types of material; A36 is qualification.
plate and A106 is pipe.
E. C. Ernst Co., the previous electrical centractor at Braidwood, utilized A106 pipe to qualify its welders while L. K. Comstock uses A36 plate.
Both are acceptable methods to qualify welders.
The " white out" of ECE was due to LKC utilizing the same type welder qualification form and changing the company name on the form.
The welder qualification by ECE were still valid when LKC assumed responsibility as stated in i
AWS DI.1 75, T 5.3.1.
Y I hat conclusion did you reach regarding the merits of Mr. Puckett's Q52.
concern?
__ A52. The welder qualification records did have some inconsistencies.
The minor clerical errors observed were readily obvious, some were f
Some of these originally. correct and had been improperly changed.
errors previously had been documented in LKC NCR 3710 and dispositioned adequately.
The errors which were not documented in s
NCR 3710 were identified in my report as an example of a violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B,
Criterion V (50-456/85009-01[DRS];
50-457 / 85009-01[DRS ]).
- However, none of the inconsistencies observed by me would have made the welder's qualifications indeterminate.
)
Q53. What is the basis for your conclusion?
O A53. The AWS D1.1(1975)
Code specifies the limitations of welding i
variables which effect the qualification of welders.
Changes to welder qualification records which do not affect these welding variables are not significant, and would not affect the welder's ability to produce sound welds.
The discrepancies in the welder qualification records did not violate these requirements.
What was the substance of Mr. Puckett's ninth concern?
Q54.
AS4. Mr. Puckett stated that LKC welders were qualified to L.
K.
Comstock Procedure 4.7.1, but this procedure was not traceable to Some of the I
LKC's AFS DI.1 weld procedure qualification records.
I welders were originally tested on Schedule 80 pipe, but the current procedure refers to test on plate.
. Q55. What, if anything, did your investigation of this concern reveal?
I reviewed L. K. Comstock Procedure 4.7.1, " Manual Shielded Metal A55.
Arc WeldJng (SMAW) for Structural Steel and ~ Stainless Steel Qualification Procedure," Revision 6, dated June 22, 1982.
The 3
purpose of this procedure is to qualify welders per AWS D1.1-1975 s
for groove and fillet welding using the SMAW process.
The a
procedure need not be traceable to L.
K.
Comstock welding i
The procedures because the procedure is not used in construction.
procedure is written to the requirements of Section 5 Part C of Accordingly, this procedure was intended only for AWS D1.1-1975.
use in qualifying welders.
These qualification tests are not intended to be used as a guide for welding during actual construction, but are specially devised tests to determine the welder's ability to produce a sound weld.
I also observed that the welder qualifications were performed on Schedule 80 pipe when E.
C. Ernst (ECE) was the electrical contractor (ECE 9.2).
L.
K.
Comstock subsequently revised the procedure to utilize plate in lieu of pipe for welder qualifications.
The use of pipe or plate for welder qualifications meets AWS D1.1 for the welding applications by The qualification of welders performed by E. C. Ernst, the l
l LKC.
previous electrical contractor, and LKC both comply with the AWS l
D1.1-1975 Code, T 5.3.1.
conclusion did you reach regarding the merits of Q56. What, if. any, Mr. Puckett's concern?
l
. A56. This concern was not well-founded.
It was not required that Weld Procedure 4.7.1 be traceable to L.
K.
Comstock weld procedure qualification records.
Q57. What is the basis for your conclusion?
s A57. AWS D1.1-1975, Section 5, Part C, speaks to a welder's ability to produce sound welds.
L.
K.
Comstock Weld Procedure 4.7.1 is method of qualifying its welders and is derived from the LKC's requirements listed in AWS.
In
- addition, According to AWS DI.1-1975, 1 5.23.2, Table 5.23 and 5.26.1, welders who qualify on Schedule 80 pipe are also qualified to weld plate within the thickness and positions for which they qualify.
Therefore, those welders who qualified per E. C. Ernst Procedure 9.2 also would qualify under LKC Procedure 4.7.1.
1 What was the substance of Mr. Puckett's tenth concern?
Q58.
A58. According to Mr. Puckett, welder qualification records indicated l
that LKC welders were qualified to weld with an unlimited thickness even though those welders had been tested on 1/2" thick
}
- range, material.
r l
What did your investigation of this concern reveal?
Q59.
A59. I reviewed welder qualification records for 75 current and past welders..
These welder qualifications records indicated that the
'a r ao a a a= 2iri a o= 2,2 thick materiai quaiified to fillet O
weld on unlimited thickness range.
1 i
^ O Q60. What if any conclusion did you reach regarding the merits of V
Mr. Puckett's concerns?
A60. I did not identify any deficiencies.
Mr. Puckett may not have recognized that under AWS DI.1-1975, Table 5.26.1, qualification on 1/2" plate qualified a welder to fillet weld with an unlimited s
thickness range.
The welder qualification test for fillet weld only is performed on 1/2" plate and qualifies the welder to weld fillet welds of unlimited thicknesses.
On the other hand, this qualification test does not qualify a weld to make groove welds of unlimited thickness range.
However, those qualifications were documented accordingly.
In O
some welder whose qualifications had expired requalified addition,
on,3/8" plate.
They had previously qualified on 1"
plate.
Pursuant to AWS DI.1, Paragraph 5.30 and L. K. Comstock Procedure 4.7.1,
" Welder Performance Qualification Tes t, "
Revisien C, dated November 26, 1984, requalification on 3/8" plate qualified the welder to perform welds, both groove and fillet, of unlimited thickness.
What was the substance of Mr. Puckett's second concern?
Q61.
Mr. Puckett's second conern regarding welder qualification records A61.
unistrut materials was that some LKC welders were welding on 0.105" in, thickness but were qualified only to a minimum thickness of 0.186."
if anything, did your investigation of thia. concern reveal?
Q62. What,
A62. Mr. Puckett's concern related to welders who had tested on 6"
Mr. Puckett was correct that the AWS D1.1-1975 Schedule,80 pipe.
Code, Table 5.2G.1 provides that welders qualified on 6" Schedule However, the 80 pipe are limited to a minimum thickness of.187".
s AV!S D1.1-1976 Code was amended so as to qualify the welder to an unlimited thickness for fillet welds.
In addition, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code Section IX also provides that welders who pass the required test for groove welds are qualified to make fillet welds in all thicknesses of material, all sizes of fillet welds, and all diameters of piping.
Furthermore, even the AWS D1.1-1975 Code, (Section 5.23.2, " Groove Pipe Test Welds," and Table 5.23) provides that welders qualifie,d to weld pipe-groove welds are qualified to weld fillet welds for the position qualified.
The welds on the unistrut material referred to by Mr. Puckett were fillet welds.
Q63. What, if any, conclusion did you reach regarding the merits of Mr. Puckett's concern?
A63. This concern was correct in that the AWS D1.1-1975 Code did specify a minimum thickness qualification for welders who qualify on However, this limitation was not intended to 6" Schedule 80 pipe.
include fillet welds as is made clear by the addition to the 1976 AWS Code reyision of the footnote specifying unlimited thickness for The vurve e or eiaer au iirie tiea te t i to ea ure O
tiitet eia -
i that the welder is capable of producing a weld that meets applicable O
acceptance criteria.
A welder who qualifies on 6"
chedule 80 Ikb (Afld
~
/ R m o n N M b h MJi le h Ib O t e h t a 4The
,al, piping groove weld
_ _. - c. f.. ~ 2 ;a c; w;;c.
of the footnote 3 in Table 5.26.1 1975, in my opinion, was an inadvertent oversight which was corrected in the 1976 edition of the AWS Code.
s QC4. What is the basis for your conclusion?
My previous experience relating to welder qualifications under the A64.
ASME code, and the addition of footnote 3 to Table 5.26.1 of the irl Code %)kKM cor(e.d5 NO lAddVeded om:53sbn AWS D1.1-1976 j
Me. (T~46 OddE-What was the substance of Mr. Puckett's third concern relating to Q65.
O welder qualification?
Mr. Puckett stated LKC welders who failed their qualification test A65.
were qualified if they passed a subsequent test.
According to Mr. Puckett, in such circumstances, the AWS Code required two retests, not one.
Q66. What, if anything, did your investigation of this concern reveal?
A66. I reviewed the AWS D1.1-1975 Code.
Paragraph 5.29.1.2 of the code states, "A retest may be made provided there is evidence that In this case a the welders has had further training or practice.
complete retest shall be made."
Neither LKC Procedure nor the AWS Cosie requires that the further training or practice be documented, and neither specifies how much training is required to qualify for this option.
I reviewed a sample of welder qualification i
_~.
~.. _. _ _ _ _ _ _. _, _ _.. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ for records, including those welders referenced by Mr. Puckett, No violations retest of welders who had previously failed the test.
of the AWS D1.1 or contractor procedure was evident.
Q67. What, if any, conclusion did you reach regarding the merits of N
Afr. Pucketts concern?
A67. Mr. Puckett's interpretation of the AWS Code requirement for welder qualification retest was incorrect.
Q68. What is the basis for your conclusion?
The AWS Code provides alternatives methods of qualifying a welder A68.
who previously failed a qualification test. The first option is stated in Paragraph 5.29.1.1, "An immediate retest may be made consisting of two test welds of each type on which the welder failed.
All retest specimens shall meet all the specified requirements."
The Therefore, other option is as stated above in Paragraph 5.29.1.2.
even if the latter method was utilized as alleged by Mr. Puckett, it would not violate the AWS Code.
The retest provisions of the ASME Code are similar to those It is common industry practice to utilize either described above.
It must be remembered option at the discretion of the contractor.
that the purpose of a welder qualification test is to determine whether _the welder is capable of making a weld that meets applicable acceptance criteria.
The decision as to whether a welder needs further training as opposed to welding two additional coupons
. If it is is usually based on the condition of the first coupon.
obvious that the welder needs additional training to pass the test then that. option is normally utilized.
If the welder had only minor discrepancies in the first test coupon then the contractor usually will require two additional tests with no further training.
s What was the substance of Mr. Puckett's fourth concern regarding Q69.
welder qualification records?
Mr. Puckett identified a welder qualification record that,showed that A69.
an identified welder had a rejected test on a 1" thick plate and that j
the welder later qualified by performing two additional tests on the According to Mr. Puckett, it,was physically impossible same day.
to make two welds on a 1" thick plate in ga single day, and, p
therefore the record must have been inaccurate.
did your investigati,on of this concern reveal?
Q70. What, if anything, I reviewed a sample of welder qualification records, including that A70.
of Welder No. 735, the welder identiffEd by Mr. Puckett as having welded (according to the welder qualification record), three 1"
~.
coupons in a single day.
My review of this person's welding qualification record revealed the following:
A weld test was I
performed by the welder on February 26,19d1 on 1" plate (LKC f
Form 88).
The lab test for this test c6apon was performed on PTL is March 5,.1981 by Pittsburgh Testing Laboratories (PTL).
O thetaaePeaaeattetias 16 aica Perror
- e Pa -lceite*caeaa r
j test, machros, etc.] of LKC welders' qualification test coupons.
W p
.f..
. According to PTL's test report, Welder No. 735's test coupon for qualification in the 3G position was completed by the welder and 1981.
The test coupon sent to P,TL for testing on February 26, was rejected by PTL on March 5, 1981.
Subsequent to March 5, 1981, Welder No. 735 took two additional tests to qualify for the 3G s
PTL Lab Test Reports BST 5683 and 5684 dated March position.
10, 1981, indicate that the results of these two tests were acceptable. My review of 75 other welders' qualification records did not reveal any additional record errors of this type.
could one get the impression from Welder No. 735's
()71. Mr. Schapker, welder qualification record that he may have taken three tests in a single day?
If one looked only at the signature date on LKC Form 88 (the A71. Yes.
welder qualification record).
This is because Welder No. 735's LKC I
Form 88 was signed on February 26, 1981, the date of the welder's first (and failed) test.
Q72. What, if any, conclusion did you reach regarding the merits of Mr. Puckett's concern?
Mr. Puckett was correct that the LKC Form 88 for Welder No. 735 A72.
was inaccurate.
However, PTL test records which accompanied Welder No. 735's LKC Form 88 provided independent evidence that the welder was properly qualified in the 3G position.
O
. O Q73. What is the basie for your conclusion?
It was obvious to me that the LKC Form 88 was signed prior to the A73.
final testing of the weld coupons in violation of Paragraph 3.10.4, of LKC Procedure 4.7.1 Revision C, July 18, 1980, which instructs the QC inspector to sign Form 88 after receipt of the test report N
from PTL, the independent tester.
(This was considered another example of a violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V (50-456/85000-01[DRS];
50-457/85009-01[DPS])).
- However, the
~
welder's qualification record was adequate in that there was independent evidence demonstrating that the welder had satis-factorily completed the welder qualification in accordance with the requirements of AWS DI.1-1975, Section 5, Part C - Welder Qualification.
Q74. ' What was the substance of Mr. Puckett*c eleventh concern?
hfr Puckett had three concerns relating to falsification of welding A74.
One of Mr. Puckett's concerns in this regard was that a records.
welder took three qualification tests and received his test results all According to Mr. Puckett, it highly unlikely, if in a single day.
not impossible, for test results to be received that soon, s
your investigation of this concern reveal?
Q75. What if anything, did The incident alluded to by Mr. Puckett is the one involving Welder A75.
No. 735 which I discussed earlier.
As I indicated, Welder No. 735 did not take three qualification tests in a single day; nor were the l
. Od three test reports for Welder No. 735 received from PTL on the same. day.
Q76. What, if any, conclusion did you reach regarding the merits of Mr. Puckett's concern?
s My review of LKC welder qualification records did not reveal any A76.
evidence of intentional falsification of welder qualification records.
Q77. What is the basis for your conclusion?
The alterations I observed in the welder qualification records did A77.
not effect the essential variables as addressed in the AWS D1.1 '75 code.
O What was the substance of Mr. Puckett's second concern regarding Q78.
falsification of welding records?
Mr. Puckett was concerned that face bends and root bends were A78.
performed on 1" thick plate material.
According to Mr. Puckett, it l
l is physically impossible to make a face or root bend on plate material of this thickness.
l Q79. Mr. Schapker, what are root bends and face bends?
Root and face bends are destructive tests of the welder's coupons A79.
to verify the soundness of the welds produced by the welder.
These tests are performed by sectioning the welders coupons per 4
the requirements of Section 5 of the AWS DI.1 Code and banding l
Face the coupons in fixtures or jigs as described in the Code.
i I
1 bends are those coupons with the face of the weld. oriented to the convex surface of the bend specimen and root bends are those oriented with the root of the weld toward the convex surface of the Once the specimens are bent as prescribed in the Code a bend.
visual examination of the convex surface of the bend is observed N
of cracks or others open discontinuities.
Those for appearance Root coupons having a discontinuity exceeding 1/8" fail the test.
and face bends are performed on the thinner of the test coupons, side bends are required for thicker specimens as prescribed in Table 5.26.1 of AWS D1.1 1975 Code.
Side bends are those coupons which after sectioning are bent with the side face of the weld oriented to the convex side of the bend. These are evaluated to the same requirements of the face and root bends.
Q80. What, if anything, did your investigation of this concern reveal?
No face I reviewed approximately 100 welder qualification records.
A80.
or root bends were observed to have been performed on 1" thick l
plate material. Mr. Puckett identified one welder qualification record with the alleged deficiency.
I reviewed that welder's qualification record and determined that the plate material used was actually 3/8" l
I not 1" as annotated on the LKC Form 88.
I was able to make this determination from a review of the PTL testing deta (bend test report) which identified the plate thickness to be 3/8".
This information was included in the welder qualification package.
4 O
% Q81. What, if any, conclusion did you reach regarding the merits of Mr. Puckett's concern?
A 81. The 1" thickness recorded on the LKC Form 88' was erroneous; however, this error did not effect the welder's qualification.
s Q82. What is the basis for your conclusion?
This test was performed for requalification and therefore qualified A82.
the welder to perform welds of unlimited thickness as permitted by the AWS DI.1-1975 Code, Paragraph 5.30.
What was the substance of Mr. Puckett's third concern regarding Q83.
falsification of welding records?
]
LKC QC inspector had inspected A83. Mr. Puckett had heard that an 1,000 welds in a single day.
What did your investigation of this concern reveal?
Q84.
i During our interview, Mr. Puckett told me that he had no personal A84.
knowledge of this matter but had heard that the inspector involved was Irv Dewald, (who is now L. K. Comstock QC Manager at Braidwood) and that the welds were located in the Turbine He also stated that he heard many of these welds were Building.
The accepted by Mr. DeWald when they should have been rejected.
turbine floor is located in the Turbine Building, which is a not a safety-related building.
O
- O Q85. What, if any, conclusion did you reach regarding the merits of Mr. Puckett's concern' Mr. Puckett had no personal knowledge of this allegation but had A85.
The heard this from other sources whom he could not identify.
Turbine Building is r$ot safety-related construction and therefore s
necessarily be inspected to the same criteria as plant would not areas which are important to safety.
I questioned Mr. Simile, the Level III weld inspector for LKC, who stated that there was an instance of more than 1,000 welds documented on a single inspection According to Mr. Simile, these welds had been inspected report.
over a period of several days.
This. was not impermissible under I
the LKC inspection procedures in effect during that time period.
O also inspected welds that had been previously inspected by
.There were no problems with Mr.. DeWald in safety-related areas.
In addition, a review of Pittsburg Testing Laboratory these welds.
10% overview inspections of LKC inspections did not reveal a (PTL) problem with Mr. DeWald's inspections.
What was the substance of Mr. Puckett's twelfth concern?
Q86.
A8G. Mr. Puckett was concerned about alleged discrepancies in LKC's The " Master Hammer Log" contains information Master Hammer Log.
A welder stamp is used to identify the regarding welder stamps.
Mr. Puckett's concern was that the same stamp maker of a weld.
was issued to different welders and sometimes number,sometimes different stamps numbers were assigned to the same welder.
=-
. O Q87. What did your investigation of this concern reveal?
A87. I reviewed the Master Hammer Log.
I did not find any instance in which a welder currently employed at Braidwood had been issued more than one weld stamp.
The Master Hammer Log, however, did indicate that the welder assigned welder stamp 23 was also assigned s
brass No.123 in the same record. However, the " brass" number is an-employee identification badge number and is not used to identifying a welder's work.
Q88. Did you identify any instances in which the same weld stamp number was assigned to different welders?
Weld Stamp No. 23, for example, was previously issued to a A88. Yes.
- However, welder who worked for E. C. Ernst, LKC's predecessor.
j the issue and surrender dates of Stamp No. 23 were recorded and therefore the welder who performed the work can be identified through inspection records.
There is nothing unacceptable about reissuing a weld stamp number to another individual after the previous welder turned in his stamp (layoff, resignation, change in jobs) so long as the dates of issuance and surrender are maintained and there are records reflecting the date when the welds were made and inspected.
I also reviewed stamp numbers for 50 other welders and verified that adequate traceability of the welders' weld stamp numbers was 4
maintained.
O
. O Q89. What conclusion did you reach regarding the merits of Mr. Puckett's concern?
A89. This concern was partially correct, but did not adversely affect the welder's identification records.
Although the stamp number may be issued to more than one individual, the Master Hammer Log records the issue and surrender date with the identity of the welder.
This, together with the inspection records, makes it possible to trace the individual weld to the appropriate welder.
In addition, LKC Procedure 4.8.3, " Weld Inspection," Paragraph 3.11, requires the weld inspector to verify, during his inspection, that welder i
identification is indicated by assigned stamp near the weld joint.
O osa. Wh t was the sudst nce of Mr. euckett's tairteenth concern?
A90. Mr. Puckett stated that a Level II inspector was responsible for the welder test booth.
Ilowever, this Level II inspector was also assigned to perform inspections in the fabrication shop and routine field inspections and thus, in Mr. Puckett's view, was unable to devote adequato attention to overseeing welder qualification tests.
Q91. What, if anything, did your investigation of this concern reveal?
A 91. I interviewed two welder test booth inspectors, Mr. Minor and Mr. Wicks, named by Mr. Puckett who were responsible for overseeing welder qualification tests.
l I
Although one of the inspectors indicated his displeasure at having O
to do inspections in the welder qualification area and in the field, 1
r - -.r
._,-,-----o-
..-,-,,-,e---.,.e
. O neither of the inspectors knew of any instance in which a welder qualification test was performed without the presence of a QC inspector,, as required by LKC Procedure 4.7.1. - In addition, I reviewed more than 100 welder qualification records which documented that a QC inspector performed the required inspections s
and recorded the applicable welding data on the welder qualification record.
Q92. What, if any, conclusion did you reach regarding the merits of Mr. Puckett's concern?
ADO. I confirmed that weld qualification test inspectors were also assigned to perform inspections in the fabrication shop and in the O
This is a common industry practice, however.
There is no field.
i need for, and the AWS Code does not require, a QC inspector to be present the entire period needed by the welder to complete the qualification test.
The QC inspectors I interviewed stated the required inspections were performed in accordance with the LKC procedure, and that they had no reason to believe the welders were cheating on their test; QC inspectors monitored the welders The QC inspector who periodically during the qualification test.
voiced displeasure at having to do both inspections in the test booth and in the field stated his displeasure was of a work related concern and not a quality concern.
Nhat was the substance of Mr. Puckett's fourteenth concern?
Q93.
i
. Mr. Puckett stated the L. K. Comstock Company's Corporate Quality A93.
Assurance Manager intimidated quality control inspectors during discussions on compensation by telling the inspector's that he had 20 people ready to take over their jobs.
s if anything, did your investigation of this concern reveal?
0 04. What, During our interview, Mr. Puckett stated that he was not present A94.
during the alleged discussion but had heard that the statement was made to QC inspectors who had complained that new QC inspectors were hired at starting salaries higher than those of many QC inspectors already employed by LKC.
O Q95. What conclusion did you reach regarding the concern?
not address this concern since a similar concern had been A95. I did previously investigated and closed in NRC Inapection Report Nos. 50-456/84034(DRP);
50-457/84032(DRP).
The inspection concluded that there was no intimidation.
i What was the substance of Mr. Puckett's fifteenth concern?
Q96.
A96. Mr. Puckett was concerned that full penetration welds were not subjected to nondestructive examination, but rather were accepted on the basis of a visual inspection.
What, if.anything, did your investigation of this concern reveal?
A97.
My review indicated that full penetration welds were made by LKC O
Q07.
on riser collar support assemblies, column bars within the riser
1 1 qO l
cable pans, main control board modifications, and equipment pads.
The. riser collars provide support for the vertical riser cable pans through floor penetrations.
During a CECO audit performed on April 30, 1984, Applicant's Quality Assurance auditors discovered the some of the riser collar assemblies were not installed and s
fabricated to the applicable design drawings.
Consequently LKC issued Nonconformance Report (NCR) 2648, dated June 19, 1984, to identify the discrepant riser collars and to implement corrective action.
The corrective action stated on this NCR was to rework the riser collars to conform to the latest design drawing and Engineering Change Notice (ECN) 24181.
I reviewed U
the referenced NCR and ECN and confirmed the corrective action was adequate to correct the deficiencies.
l Q98. What, if any conclusion, did you reach regarding the merits of Mr. Puckett's concern?
j A98. Mr.
Puckett's contention that the full penetration welds only required visual examination was accurate.
- However, the Architect-Engineer (sal) specification previously required only a visual examination (LKC Procedure 4.8.3, " Weld Inspection") which is consistent with AWS D1.1-1975.
Subsequent to NCR 2648, S&L amended specification L-2790, Paragraph 401.19.1, Amendment 42, to that require additional nondestructive examination be performed This change was O
an full penetration welds as of November 9,1984.
implemented on all new fabrication and installation utilizing full
. penetration welds and was intended to provide added assurance that the. full penetration welds meet applicable acceptance criteria.
Section 6.,6 of AWS D1.1-1975 only requires NDE for full penetration welds if specified by the engineer (AE) or owner.
s What was the substance of Mr. Puckett's sixteenth concern?
Q99.
A99. Mr. Puckett stated, that three days after he began work at Braidwood he observed the welding of a 1/4" plate to unistrut, which according to Mr. Puckett was not permitted under the AWS DI.1 1975 Code.
b if anything, did your investigation of this c ncern reveal?
Q100. What, O
A100. I observed welding activities in the field and fabrication shop and confirmed that such welds had been made.
I also reviewed ASW DI.1, Paragraph 8.8.5 which states, " Fillet welds deposited on the opposite sides of a common plane of contact shall be interrupted at the corner common to both welds."
i Q101. What, if any, conclusion did you reach regarding the merits of Mr. Puckett's concern?
A101. I did not confirm that the welds described by Mr. Puckett violated The welds were made pursuant to Architect the AWS D1.1 Code.
Engineer (S&L) Drawing 20-E-O-33931), Revision AE.
The sal Drawing..(20-E-O-3393D) specified 1/8" fillet welds for the full This weld conf!guration does not violate the 4
length on both planes.
AWS Code because there was not one continuous wcld, but rather 1
a three welds which sometimes butted up against each other.
Moreover, this configuration had been reviewed and app' roved by a 3
registered structural engineer.
I should add also that I conferred with John M. Jacobson, the s
Region III Staff metallurgist, regarding the interpretation of AWS t
D1.1-1975, Paragraph 8.8.5.
In this conference I described 'the i
above configuration in detail and the referenced SnL drawing.
i Mr. Jacobson agreed with my interpretation of the AWS DI.1-1975 t
- Code, 1
Q102. What was the substance of Mr. Puckett's next concern?
ensile tes.t A102. Mr. Puckett was concerned that LKC performed only a qualifying a procedure and had failed to perform a bend test.
in
- t if anything, did your investigation of this concern reveal?
Q103. What, A103. I reviewed the referenced procedure, which was generated for use on nonsafety-related aluminum welding (bus bars).
.4 did you reach regarding t$1e merits of Q104. What, if any, conclusion 1
Mr. Puckett's concern?
A104. The welding performed utilizing this procedure was not safety-related and therefore was not subject to the requirements for qualification specified in AWS' D1.1-1975 Code.
O m---
.-------------~e r-.,.,
. - - - - - - - -. - - - -.. - +
,-.-.-e--.
.-,,,s-_
. l Q105. Did Mr. Puckett have any other concerns?
A105. Yes. Mr. Puckett stated teat he was prevented from making a
" formal finding" because he was not certified, Q106. What, if anything, did your investigation of this concern reveal?
s A106. I confirmed that LKC procedures in effect at the time of Mr. Puckett's employment requried an NCR to be signed by a certified inspector.
Q107. What, if any, conclusion did you reach regarding the merits of Mr. Puckett's concern?
A107. In the course of my investigation of Mr. Puckett's concerns, I noted that several NCRs were prepared by Mr. Puckett and signed Mr. Puckett also supplied documents and by a certified inspector.
memoranda in which he expressed concerns, and in response to which LKC took corrective action.
Q108. Does this completc your testimony?
A108. Yes it does.
O O
Exhibit 1
~*
O
(
JEROME F. SCHAPKER 1
Organization:
. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Region III Office
~
Title:
Reactor Insp~ector D
Birth Date:
June 15, 1942 Bachelor, Liberal Studies, University of Evansville Education:
Technical Schools (See Attachment)
Experience:
Reactor Inspector, Region III - Reactor Safety Division, 6/85 to Present Engineering Branch.Section I,I, inservice (ISI) and Construction Inspection / Investigations - Specialty Nondestructive Examination (NDE), Welding Technology, and Quality Assurance. (NRC)
Senior Resident Inspector. Region III - Marble Hill Site, 4/83 to 6/85 Plans, supe'rvises, and conducts inspections O
Fabb,IN.
and audits of construction activities, special processes and nondestructive examinations to assure compliance with design specifications, FSAR commitments, and rules and A
i Serves as the lead NRC inspector regulations of the NRC.
supervising this site, represents the NRC to the licensee, state and local officials, and the news media. (NRC)
Senior Resident _ Inspector, Region II - Hartsville Nuclear t
(
9/81 to 4/83 Job duties the same as Senior Resident Power Station. TN.
Inspector at the Marble Hill Site.
(NRC)
Reactor Inspector, Region III - Engineering Support 1/80 to 9/81 Branch,SectionII, Inservice (ISI)andConstruction Inspections / Investigations - Specialty Nondestructive (NRC)
Examination (NDE) and Welding Technology.
Senior Engineer - Nuclear Power Generation Group, 7/74 to 1/80 Babcock and Wilcox, Lynchburg.VA.
Resident Engineer at B&W, Mt. Vernon plant. Nuclear Equipment Division (major components - reactor vessel, steam generators, Quality assurance duties, audits, pressurizers,etc.).
inspections, and NDE. Also performed inspections, l
witnessed testing of vendor suppliers of reactor coolant pumps, valves, heat exchangers, etc., and provided 5
technical services to the operating nuclear power l
facilities.
(Babcock and Wilcox) s
Jerome F. Schapker 2
9/67 to 7/74
' Supervising Qualit Assurance Representative - Department of Defense DCX!I, En%r Government Representative.
~
Responsible for quality assurance of vendors contract 2
technical requirements and establishment of QA program audit and inspection of special processes, and QC procedures in the manufacture of major navy nuclear components.
Supervision of five assistant QC representatives.
Qualified Supervisor - NDE; RT, UT, MT, PT,(to Nav-Ships 250-1500-1.
VT 1966 to 1967 Flight Line Aircraft Mechanic, Crew Chief - Perfonned inspections, trouLWHooting, repIiWng and servicing multi-engined aircraft and component systems. Perfonned duties of flight eng!neer in flight, U. S. Air Force, Continental Air ComarM, Civil Service position.
(ART) 1965 to 1966 Lab Technician - Assistant research engineer, duties consisted of: preparation, testing of various material combinations in polycarbonate plastics. Physical s
destructivetesting(impacts, bends,etc.).
(General Electric Company)
{
. 1964 to 1965 Machine Operator - Grain elevator operator and general laborer.
(General Foods Corporation) 1960 to 1964 Aircraft Mechanic - Crew Chief. Perfonned inspections, i
trouble shooting, repairing and servicing to multi-engined aircraft and component systems.
U. S. Air Force active duty.(USAF-SAC) l l
l l
I s
I I
s O'
Resu ne-J. Schapker At'tachment Technical Courses Course Title location-company course length-date Aircraft Mechanic Sheppard AFB, TX.
540 hrs.
1960 Acft. engine analysis Mtn. Home AFB, Idaho 80 hrs.
1960 80 hrs.
1962 Acft. Specialist Electronics Teletronic Tech.. Inst.
80 cr. hrs.
1965 Evansville, Ind.
Acft. Flight Engineer Bakalar AFB, Indiana 240 hrs.
1966 Quality Assurance DCASD. Indianapolis 80 hrs.
1967 Specialised training Knolls Atomic Power Lab.
80 hrs 1967 in Nuclear Components Schnectady, N.Y.
Statistical Quality DCA$D, Indianapolis 80 hrs.
1968 Control optical Alignment Babcockt Wilcox Co.
40 hrs.
1968 Navy Nuclear Nondest-
- Knolls Atomic Power Lab.
80 Mrs.
1968 ructive testing Specialized Navy NuclearKnolls Atomic Power Lab.
80 hrs.
1969 welding l
f Advanced Ultrasonics Bettis Atomic Power Lab.
40 hrs.
1969 i
ACN-4 Pittsburgh, Pa.
f.
l Special training in DCASR, Chicago 120 hrs.
197d Nondestructive testing ASNT Certification BabcockCWilcox Co.
120 hrs.
1974 kvel II RT,UT,MT,PT.VT 40 hrs.
1977 Recertification Tunda:nentals of Boiling US NRC, Bethesda, Md.
40 hrs.
1980 Quality Assurance US NRC, Atlanta, Ga.
40 hrs.
1980 Welding Technology US NRC, Ohio State University 80 hrs.
1980 and Codes Fundamentals of US NRC, Eathesda, Md.
40 hrs.
1980 Inspection
~
P ess zed Wa, r US NRC, Bethesdn, Md.
40 hrs.
1980 h
p,e Nondestructive Examina-tion, refresher US NRC, Rockwell International Electrical TechnoloD US NRC, Chattanooga, Tn.
80 M s.
9 82 and Codes Concrete Technology US NRC, Portland Cement Assc.
80 hrs.
1982 Csd $ des 6
10955 O
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
By the way, with 2
regard to that, as far as I know, we will be in 3
Courtroom 1919 for the session beginning at 2:00 o' clock 4
on August 25th, I believe it is.
5 MR. BERRY:
August 25 th, yes.
6 MR. GUILD:
That is Monday, Judge?
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Pardon?
8 MR. GUILD:
Monday ?
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
That's Monday, yes.
10 Now, I would hope some sort of arrangement could be 11 made with Mr. Schulz to appear at whatever time is 12 appropriate as far as the parties are concerned.
O 13 Have we heard anything further from him?
14 MR. GUILD:
I guess what I would suggest is 15 this, Mr. Chairman, if this is appropriate at this time 16 Perhaps, we could plan to complete Mr. Schapker, if 17 he is not done, so that I can have this week to have a 18 more definitive position.
19 I can tell you today we will plan on Schulz for 20 Monday afternoon but I don't want to be in a position 21 that I was in at the end of last week where I learned at 22 the lith hour that that is not going to be the case and 1
23 I am in a position where I have to inform the Board and l
24 parties and ask for accommodation.
l
[}
So I would prefer if we planned to resume with a 25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Gen evar Illinois ~ 6013 4 -~~~~ ~~~~---
(312) 232-0262
10956 O
1 witness that we can count on being present and plan for 2
Mr. Schulz to follow at a date certain some time later 3
in that week.
4 Then I will be able to report back to the Board and 5
parties with some more definitive idea when we start 6
back up Monday afternoon.
7 MR. BERRY:
That's acceptable to the Staf f.
8 I would prefer that once we start Mr. Schapker, 1
9 that we just complete him and then take Mr. Schulz and 10 Mr. McGregor next.
11 I would just only state again that the next Staff 4
12 witness after Mr. Schapker would either be Mr. Little or O
13 Mr. Well; and I would prefer strongly that Mr. Schulz 14 and McGregor go forward.
15 I don't want to be responsible for occasioning any 16 delay but I just think it's only fair to the Staff that 17 we hear from Mr. McGregor and Mr. Schulz before we 18 proceed with our witnesses.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, I don't want to take 20 any further time on this but I just want to say:
We 21 don't want to get caught with a gap in that next week's 22 hearing schedule.
23 If you don't have people to be heard, then we will 24 start later in the week, but there is no point to coming
{}
out to Chicago to sit by idly here.
25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
~ -
Geneva,-~I111no15~ 60134 --~
(312) 232-0262
10957 O
1 MR. GUILD:
We know we will have some people, 2
Mr. Chairman.
3 First we will have Mr. Schapker to complete.
We 4
will then have Mr. McGregor, who is due back from ; aave, 5
I understand, that week and is certainly currently in 6
the employ of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and s a 7
can be assured that he will be present.
8 Then we have Mr. Little and Mr. Well.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
Let me say with 10 regard to Mr. Schulz, I would think that the NRC could 11 take an active role in making him available.
12 I believe that their relations with TVA are O
13 somewhat cordial -- perhaps not completely.
14 (Laughter.)
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN But there should be some 16 arrangement that can be made.
17 MR. BERRY:
I am not certain what more the 18 NRC can do, your Honor.
19 It's my understanding that Mr. Schulz has received i
20 a subpoena, that there is nothing with his employer 21 preventing him from attending.
22 There is nothing that the NRC Staff has done to 23 preclude him or prevent him or discourage him from 24 testifying.
25 I don't --
j
)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva,~~ Illinois 60134 ---~~
(312) 232-0262
10958 O
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, I just hope that TVA 2
doesn't have the idea that it is with any reluctance 3
that the NRC would entertain his testimony here.
4 If that is the case, perhaps you ought to make it 5
clear to them that it is not the case, that NRC doesn't 6
not wish him to be here but that we are awaiting him 7
eagerly, since he has firethand knowledge of what the 8
NRC was doing at the site and, in a sense, is not a 9
dispensable witness.
10 So let's see if there is anything that can be done 11 both by Mr. Guild and the NRC.
12 Let's go on to Mr. Schapker now.
O 13 MR. BERRY:
Before we do that, Mr. Chairman, 14 there is an additional supplement to Mr. Schapker's 15 testimony that we need to discuss.
16 BY MR. BERRY:
17 Q
Mr. Schapker, do you have another document before you 18 entitled, "NRC Staf f supplemental testimony of Jerome F.
19 Schapker, regarding Bridget Little Rorem, et al.,
l 20 Subcontention 2-C"?
21 A
I do.
22 Q
Was that document prepared by you, under your direction?
23 A
Yes, it was.
24 Q
That document, are the answers given in -- are the
}
answers stated in this document true and correct, to the 25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ge n eva, ' Illin oi s ^ ' 6 013 4 ' - ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~-~ ~~~
"~
l (312) 232-0262
10959 i
O 1
best of your knowledge?
2 A
Yes, they are.
3 Q
I noticed that on Page 3 of the document, halfway 4
through the top of the first paragraph, there is a 5
handwritten notation on there.
6 A
Tha t's true.
That was lef t of f in typing.
7 MR. GUILD:
I am sorry.
I apologize.
8 Could you point out that correction again?
9 MR. MILLER:
It's the interdelineation "no."
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
He added a "no."
11 MR. MILLER:
About halfway down the page.
12 JUDGE COLE:
Line 12.
O i
13 MR. GUILD:
I see it.
14 MR. BERRY:
At this time, Mr. Chairman, I 15 would ask that Mr. Schapker's supplemontal testimony be 16 bound into the record at this point and received as if r
i 17 read.
l
{
18 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, I would only ask 19 the record reflect that the document was served on us 20 yesterday; and it, too, may require some additional l
21 preparation to be able to examine from it; but I have no 22 objection to its admission.
23 MR. BERRY:
That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
l t
j 24 That was why the Staff, as indicated, made the l
) {)
effort to produce it this week, because it is my 25 l
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genevar' Illinois -~ 60134 ~~
--~~~-
(312) 232-0262 L
10960 O
V 1
understanding that Mr. Miller would be going first, that 2
Mr. Schapker may be with us for some time and that we, 3
the parties, would have at least over the weekend and 4
the following week to study this.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Fine.
We will admit the 6
supplemental testimony and whatever additional time is 7
needed to examine Mr. Schapker will be made available.
8 MR. BERRY:
Mr. Schapker is now available for 9
Cross Examination.
10 11 12
' O 13 14 i
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 i
(:)
25 t
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
i
- Geneva,~~II'11nois-~60134 ~~
~-
(312) 232-0262
l O
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-456
)
50-457 (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY OF JEROME F. SCHAPKER REGARDING BRIDGET LITTLE ROREM. ET AL. SUBCONTENTION 2.C Q1.
Please state your name, position and business address.
Al My name is Jerome F. Schapker.
I am employed by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III as a Reactor Inspector. My business address is United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III, 799 Roosevelt Road, Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137.
Q2. Please describe your responsibilities as a Reactor Inspector.
A2. As a Reactor Inspector, I am responsible for performing inspections of plant materials and processes to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.
Q3. Have you prepared a statement of your professional qualifications?
A3. A statement of my professional qualifications already has been received in evidence.
Q4. What is the purpose of your testimony?
A4. The purpose of my testimony is to address the following questions and concerns raised by Atomic Safety and Licensing Board during the course of this hearing.
QS. Does architect-engineer (AE), have the authority to change unilaterally applicable construction or design standards and specifications?
AS. No. Section 50.34 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 50.34) requires an applicant to identify in its Preliminary and Final Safety Analysis Reports (PSAR/FSAR) all standards / specifications utilized in the design, construction and operation of a nuclear power plant which are important to safety. The PSAR and FSAR must be submitted to p
and reviewed by the NRC. Also, an applicant may not change any specifica-V tion or standard to which it has committed in its PSAR or FSAR without approval from the NRC.
- p Q6. What standard governs welding activities performed by the electrical contractor at Braidwood?
A6. The welding standard for electrical work to which Applicant has committed in the Braidwood FSAR is the AWS D1.1 Code. There are, however, two exceptions in the Braidwood FSAR to this standard, both of which have been approved by the NRC.
First, the Braidwood FSAR provides that deviations from the provisions of AWS D1.1 are permitted if supported by acceptable engineering evaluations. Second, the Braidwood FSAR provides that visual inspection requirements are based on guidelines stated in a document entitled " Visual Weld Acceptance Criteria for Structural Welding at Nuclear Power Plants" (NCIG-01, Revision 2) prepared by the Nuclear Construction Issues Group.
Q7.
Is AWS D1.3 the applicable standard at Braidwood for welding thin gauge materials?
A7. No. At the time Applicant submitted its PSAR in support of its application for a construction permit, the AWS D1.3 Code had not been promulgated. The Code specified in the PSAR and FSAR is the AWS D1.1.
Therefore, this is the " Code of Record" at Braidwood for the welding performed within Comstock's scope of work.
Q8. Must an Applicant comply with the most recent edition of the applicable code of record?
A8. No. An applicant may, but is not required to conform to the requirements O,
of subsequent revisions to the applicable code. However, as noted earlier, before an applicant can deviate from a standard to which it has committed in its PSAR or FSAR, it must.first obtain authorization from the NRC to do so.
In the event approval is obtained from the NRC to change a standard or adopt a new code, work performed pursuant to the previous standard or code need not be reworked. This is because a code is a working tool and changes are made frequently to clarify, simplify, or adopt new procedures as a result of experiences with the code.
Such changes would not affect the integrity of the product produced pursuant to an earlier edition of a particular code.
Revisions to the code are intended to produce the same reliable product utilizing simplified or expanded methods. A good illustra-tion of this point is the AWS D1.3 Code which applies to the welding of thin gauge material formerly perfurmed pursuant to AWS D1.1 Q9. Must work be halted whenever a nonconforming condition is discovered?
A9. The NRC's quality assurance regulations, (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B),
do not address specifically the questions of what work must be halted immediately upon the identification of a non-conforminq condition.
However, Criterion XV of Appendix B, requires that "[Mleasures shall be established to control materials, parts or components which do not conform to requirements in order to prevent their inadvertent use or installation.
These measures shall include, as appropriate, procedures for identification, documentation, segregation, disposition, and notification to affected
[
organizations." Criterion XV also requires that " nonconforming items shall be reviewed and accepted, rejected, repaired or reworked in accordance with
documented procedures." When a nonconformance (NCR) is issued it is normally required that the work on the affected components be stopped.
This is implemented by the issuance of a " hold tag (s)" attached to the affected component or assembly. The hold tag remains until action to correct the nonconformance is completed.
(See Paragraphs 3.3.2 and 3.3.10 of LKC Procedure No. 4.11.1).
If the nonconformance involves a process or procedure it may be necessary to stop work involving that process or procedure if the nonconformance could impair the ability of the affected structures, systems, or components to perform satisfactorily in service.
(fee Paragraph 2 LKC Procedure No. 4.11.3). A stop work order, however, would not be necessary if the nonconformance involved only a procedural or g
technical error havingAadverse impact on the affected structures, systems, or components. A case in point at Braidwood was the welding of A36 steel to A446 steel where A36 was not specifically listed in the weld procedure.
Since A36 was not specifically listed on the procedure then in effect, welding A36 steel to A446 steel technically was a violation of procedure.
But because, as noted elsewhere in my testimony, A36 to A446 is a qualified weld combination under ASW 01.1, this technical violation had no adverse impact on the structural integrity of the weld. Consequently, there was no need or reason to stop work pending completion of the action necessary to correct the nonconformance (merely adding A36 to the applicable welding procedures).
LKC Procedures 4.11.1 " Nonconforming Items" and 4.11.3 "Stop Work" are adequate to assure that materials, parts, or components which do not conform to requirements are not inadvertently used or installed and therefore comply with Appendix B requirements.
Q10. Mr. Schapker, why did the NRC assess a Severity Level III violation for the welder qualification record deficiencies identified at the Zimmer plant reported in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-358/82-10, but only a Severity Level V to the same type of deficiencies identified at the Braidwood plant by you?
A10. Severity levels for particular violations are assessed in accordance with the NRC's enforcement policy set forth in 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C.
The welding violations at Zimmer and Braidwood were subjected to the same enforcement policy. There was and is no double standard applied.
i As noted in the Regional Administrator's letter transmitting Zimmer l
Inspection Report No. 50-358/82-10, the Zimmer Level III citation was based on the findings documented in the referenced report and on previous i
i violations documented in NRC Inspection Report 50-358/81-13.
In general, the violations for which the Zimmer plant was cited in the referenced inspection reports involved violations of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)Section III and IX Boiler and Pressure Vessel Codes. The violation cited in the Braidwood report were violations of the LKC Comstock (LKC) procedures.
No code violations were identified. Code violations are potentially much more serious than procedural violations.
Finally, it should be noted that while the inspectors who perform a l
inspection frequently recommend the severity level utilizing the guidelines
' C set forth in the enforcement policy, the ultimate responsibility for determining the appropriate severity level is determined by Senior NRC management.
l
~
k.
Q11. Does the S&L Drawing 20-E-033930, Revision AE violate AWS D1.1, Paragraph 8.8.5 for fillet welds deposited on opposite sides of a common plane?
All. As noted in my report (NRC Inspection Reports No. 50-456/85009(DRS);
50-457/85009(DRS)), the configuration described in the S&L drawing does not violate the AWS DI.1 Code. Three welds are employed in the configuration.
Due to the T.hickness of the materials, unistrut and 1/4 inch plate, the welds when welded to full length, as directed by the referenced drawing, are interrupted near or touching at the point of the beginning and end points of the welds. The AWS D1.1 Code does not specify a dimensional requirement for the interruption of the welds on adjacent planes, only that the welds are to be interrupted at the plane interfaces.
Q12. Does this complete your testimony?
A12. Yes.
l O
O
10961-O
~ ~
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Guild -- I am sorry.
4 2
Mr. Miller.
3 MR. MILLER:
Good morning, Mr. Schapker.
4 My name is Mike Miller.
I am one of the attorneys l
5 for Commonwealth Edison Company.
6 CROSS EXAMINATION 7
BY MR. MILLER i
8 Q
Mr. Schapker, at Page 5 of your prepared' testimo y.,you 9
describe the manner in which you prepared o' investigate 10 Mr. Puckett's concerns.
/
.v 7
11 Af ter you reviewed the materials that are : described 12 in Answer 11, did you draw up a list of concerns?
O 13 A
A list of concerns had already been prepared by 'Ifr. Weil -
14 and Mr. Ward, and that was prepared frome the interview'
~
15 that was held at the NRC office with the Courtireporter.
l 16 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, I object to that t
~
l 17 last answer and move to strike.
r 18 The witness is obviously speculating, based on lack 19 ofpersonalknowledgeastothecircumstancesandt[e j
20 preparation of a document that he did not brepare 21 himself.
1 i
22 MR. MILLER:
We are going to have Mr. Weil 23 here.
I 24 BY MR. MILLER:
1 25 0
Is that what your understanding was, Mr. Schapker?
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva,~ Illinois 60134 -
l (312) 232-0262
10962 1
A Yes, that was my understanding.
2 Q
Now --
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
We will allow the answer as 4
it stands now.
5 BY MR. MILLER:
6 Q
Did you yourself personally look at the transcript of 7
Mr. Puckett's interview --
8 A
Yes, sir.
9 0
-- before you went to see him?
10 A
Yes, I did.
11 Q
Mr. Schapker, at Answer 16 on Page 7 of your prepared 12 testimony, you state that the substance of Mr. Puckett's O
13 first allegation was that Comstock welders had been 14 welding A-446 material to A-36 material even though a 15 weld procedure was not available.
16 I want to ask you precisely where you obtained the l
17 information regarding the specific points in that 18 allega tion ?
19 A
From the testimony I referred to that he gave at the NRC l
20 on September lith and my interview with him at his home 21 at a later date in March of '85.
22 Q
And it was on the basis of that understanding of the 23 concern that you conducted your investigation into the 24 concern; correct?
25 A
That's correct.
)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, IllTnois 6D134 (312) 232-0262 l
1-
~.
n 4
10963 O
1 Q
Mr. Schapker, were you present during Mr. Puckett's 2
testimony in this proceeding?
3 A
Yes, I was.
lQ All right, sir.
Now, at Pages 5397 and 5398 of the 4
i 5
transcript of this hearing, Mr. Puckett states -- let me 6
read it.
This is starting at Line 23 on 5397.
7 "He is coming back and saying the Code --
8 if the Code will allow the welding of Grade 9
A500 steel to A-446, if you have a qualified 10 procedure, would it also be qualified to weld 11 A-36 to A-446, and it would, as long as all 12 the other essential variables of the O
13 particular technique sheets to be used are
-14 met."
15 Now, I don't expect that you remember precisely l
16 those words; but do you recall generally, in substance, 17 Mr. Puckett's statement with respect to the 18 qualification of A-36 to A-446 material once there was a 19 procedure that qualified the welding of A-500 to A-446 20 material?
l 21 A
During his testimony?
22 Q
Yes.
23 A
Yes.
24 In any f your prior dealings with Mr. Puckett, had he Q
o
{}
ever suggested that that was a proper approach to the 25 4
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Ilrinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10964 a
1 qualification of A-36 to A-446 mat'erial?
2 A
No, he didn't.
3 Q
Now, Mr. Schapker, if Mr. Puckett had told you earlier, 4
that is if you had not heard this for the first time in 5
his testimony, what, if anything, would you have done 6
differently in terms of your investigation of Mr.
7 Puckett's concerns?
8 A
Well, I don't think it would have been a concern.
9 0
Why is that?
10 A
Because if it was -- if he attested that the A-500 to 11 A-446 was qualified and A-36 would also be qualified by 12 virtue of that, there would not have been a concern O
13 except in the procedural sense, that there was not a 14 procedure available, specifically A-36.
15 JUDGE COLE:
I am sorry, Mr. Schapker, I 16 didn' t understand what you said.
17 Did you mean A-36 to A-446 and A-36 to A-500?
18 I think you said A-446 to A-500 and that's not an 19 issue here, is it?
20 THE WITNESS:
A-446 to A-500 was an approved 21 technique sheet.
There was an approved PQR for A-500 to l
22 A-446 in the procedure.
l 23 There was no technique sheet on PQR that stipulated 24 A-36 to A-446.
25 JUDGE COLE:
All right.
Perhaps I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, IITfnois 6M34 (312) 232-0262
10965
-3 1
misunderstood you.
I am sorry.
2 THE WITNESS:
I guess I would like to clarify 3
that a little bit further.
4 MR. MILLER:
Please.
5 THE WITNESS:
The A-446 material and the 6
A-500 material has as a B2R that was included in the 7
procedure; and by the conditions of the Code, that also 8
qualifies A-36 to be welded with A-446 material.
9 The only discrepancy that would be noted there was 10 that there was not a WPS, a Weld Procedure 11 Specification, although a PQR was not required.
The 12 annotation of the A-36 material added to the Weld O
13 Procedure Specification should have been in the 14 procedure.
15 BY MR. MILLER:
l 16 Q
Mr. Schapker, you talked about WPS and PQR and I think 17 we ought to get out Applicant's Exhibit 10, which is 18 received in evidence, and ask you to point out to the 19 Board and the parties what you are referring to when you 20 refer to the WPS.
l 21 A
Okay.
Is that Exhibit 10?
22 Q
Yes.
23 A
This is the Weld Procedure 4.3.3.
24 Q
Revision C.
25 A
Revision C and -- let's see.
{}
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, I1Tinois-60134 (312) 232-0262
10966
(
I 1
It's not identified on a page number bu'c Attachment 2
H to that procedure.
It's about three-quarters of the j
i 3
1 way back into the procedure.
4 Yes, that's it, Bob.
5 Does everybody have it?
Okay.
Has everybody 6
identified that?
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Proceed.
8 THE WITNESS:
On the first page of that 9
Attachment H is the Weld Procedure Specification, the 10 WPS.
11 Now, the next four pages --
12 MR. GUILD:
Excuse me, just to be clear.
O 13 The first page is the WPS?
14 THE WITNESS:
Yes, it is.
15 The next four pages are the procedure qualification 16 records that support the WPS.
These are the actual 17 conditions of the welding that was performed and tested.
18 BY MR. MILLER:
19 Q
Mr. Schapker, you have concluded in your testimony that 20 the procedure -- well, in Answer 18 you said that the 21 procedure was in error, in that the A-446 base material 22 was not expressly identified as a pregualified material 23 and that the weld procedure referenced a technique sheet 24 that had been conditionally approved by Sargent & Lundy, 25 the architect-engineer.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva,~~I1 Tin 61s 601T4 (312) 232-0262
10967 1
That's the first sentence of Answer 18 of your 2
prepared testimony.
3 I wanted to ask you, still sticking with Attachment 4
H that you have identified in Applicant's Exhibit 10, 5
what was necessary to correct the error as you saw it in 6
the procedure?
7 A
The addition of A-36 material on the WPS would be first.
8 Q
Mr. Schapker, when you concluded that the failure to 9
have the A-36 designation on the WPS for Attachment H, 10 did you have in mind Paragraph 3.0 of the procedures, 11 specifically Paragraph 3.1.1, which specifies the base 12 metal to be used or that is specified in the procedures?
O 13 A
That's true.
l 14 Q
And do you know whether the references to the AWS code, i
15 Paragraphs 8.2 and 10.2, also include references to A-36 16 material?
17 A
Yes, th ey do.
L 18 Q
All right, sir.
So then while there was -- so, there l
19 was, in fact, then, a reference to A-36; it just didn't 20 say the words A-36, the number and the letter A-36, in 21 the Comstock procedure; correct?
l l
22 A
That's correct.
l 23 0
Now, in addition to Attachment H in Applicant's Exhibit I
24 10 --
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Excuse me.
}
/
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva rI1Tinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10968 O
1 Before we go further, I believe there was some 2
testimony about this three-eights minimum size fillet 3
w eld.
4 Is that what we are talking about now, welds that 5
were at least three-eights inch, Mr. Schapker?
6 THE WITNESS:
That's what was approved by the 7
NCR to continue work on, yes.
8 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, the --
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
In other words, Mr. Puckett 10 was not concerned at all with welds that were less than 11 three-eights inch minimum size; is that what you are 12 saying there?
O 13 THE WITNESS:
No, no.
i 14 I am saying the corrective action to lift the stop 15 work order at that time stated on the NCR that only 16 welds of three-eights inch and greater were allowed to 17 be welded until the approval of Attachment O.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
And Mr. Puckett was l
19 concerned, also, wasn't he, with -- and primarily, I 20 believe, with -- welds of less than three-eights inch 21 size; isn't that correct?
22 THE WITNESS:
Yes, he was.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
So that Attachment H 24 wouldn' t apply to his concerns, would it?
{}
25 THE WITNESS:
It did.
It did apply to his l
l l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, IllTnois 60131 (312) 232-0262
10969 0
1 concerns, in that there was a stop work order issued at 2
that time and --
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
But what I am --
4 THE WITNESS:
-- and they were not allowed to 5
proceed with welding of those welds until that 6
Attachment O had been approved.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, then you are saying 8
Mr. Puckett was correct and that the stop order 9
reflected that, in that Attachment H wouldn't have 10 permitted that type of weld, that type being less than 11 three-eights inch size; is that so?
12 THE WITNESS:
The Attachment O and Attachment 13 H,
both, neither designated A-36 material as being 14 approved material.
15 So in that case, both of them were in -- had not 16 been approved as proceduralwise, although they were 17 acceptable to the Code to be welded, l
l 18 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, what I understand you l
19 are saying now is that Mr. Puckett was also correct in 20 believing that there was some deficiency that had to be 21 corrected, because neither Attachment H nor Attachment O 22 mentioned A-36 material; is that what you are saying l
23 now ?
24 THE WITNESS:
Yes, in the Weld Procedure
{}
Specification they did not.
25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, I111nois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1 10970 (1) 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
But now I am saying 2
-- and I believe you agreed to that -- that there was 3
some further deficiency, at least with regard to 4
Attachment H, in that it didn't cover fillet welds of 5
less than three-eights inch size, which was also one of 6
Mr. Puckett's concerns; isn't that so?
7 THE WITNESS:
That was -- I learned of that 8
concern later, yes.
9 I had not at the time I investigated this concern.
10 I had no knowledge.
He never expressed that to me, 11 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, isn't it also correct 12 that the company hadn't pointed out Attachment H to you O
13 and that you didn't concentrate on Attachment H for that 14 reason?
15 THE WITNESS:
I concentrated on both l
l 16 Attachment H and Attachment O.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
But now --
18 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, I object to the 19 inference in the question that the company somehow 20 misled Mr. Schapker in his investigation.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
No, that was not the 22 inference.
The inference -- there was no inference.
23 The fact of the matter is that we heard testimony 24 about Attachment 0 before we heard testimony about 25 Attachment H.
{}
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Gensva, IITin6rs 60134 (312) 232-0262
10971 0
4 1
MR. MILLER:
Yes, your Honor.
2 I was going in alphabetical order.
I was about to 3
get to Attachment O.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
No, no, I don't mean now.
5 I meant in this proceeding, for some reason 6
Attachment H was not mentioned prominently in what had 7
occurred; and my assumption was that -- perhaps 8
incorrect -- was that because of the minimum size, it 9
was not relied upon.
10 Now, perhaps I am assuming that incorrectly; but I 11 assumed further that it wasn't pointed out to Mr.
12 Schapker and, therefore, he didn't concentrate on it; O
13 but if he tells me otherwise, I will certainly be 14 satisfied with it.
15 Was Attachment H brought to your attention at the 16 time you made your investigation?
17 THE WITNESS:
I reviewed the entire procedure 18 at the time of my investigation, Attachment H and 19 Attachment O.
l l
20 Attachment H and Attachment O BQR's qualified A-36 l
21 material to be welded to A-446 material.
22 The deficiency I noted was that the procedure, the l
l 23 W PS ' s, didn't so annotate the A-36 material as one of 24 the materials that they were welding in the field.
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, now, at the time you
[}
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva,11rinois-60134 (312) 232-0262
10972
()
1 investigated this, did you understand that Mr. Puckett's 2
-- that the welds that were in question were of less 3
than three-eights inch size?
4 THE WITNESS:
No.
He never expressed any 5
siz e.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I am not talking about Mr.
7 Puckett's expressions, but were you aware of the size of 8
the welds that were in question?
9 THE WITNESS:
I was aware of the size of the 10 welds that were in use in the field, yes.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
And you were aware at that 12 time that the welds were predominantly less than O
13 three-eights inch size, weren't you?
14 THE WITNESS:
Yes, I was, right.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
I am sorry to 16 interrupt, Mr. Miller.
17 JUDGE CALLIHAN:
Since we are interrupted, 18 Mr. Miller, with apologies, you are coming to Attachment 19 O?
l
.20 MR. MILLER:
I hope to, sir.
21 JUDGE CALLIHAN:
I will wait then.
I am 22 sorry.
23 BY MR. MILLER:
l l
24 Q
Mr. Schapker, would you turn to Attachment 0 in
[}
Applicant's Exhibit 10?
25 l
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva,- I1Tfnois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262 l
10973 h
1 Now, Mr. Schapker, my question to you is:
With 2
respect to any deficiency in terms of the procedure not 3
qualifying A-36 to be joined to A-446 material, is there 1
4 any distinction that you can describe for us between 5
Attachment O and Attachment H?
6 A
They would be identical.
They were both qualified for 7
A-446 material to A-500 material, the only difference 8
being the size of the welds.
9 Q
All right, sir.
Therefore, what is your conclusion --
10 A
And the -- well, also, one was multiple pass and one was 11 single pass weld, so the smaller one would be the --
12 0
In terms of the materials to be joined, sir, is there O
13 any difference between your analysis of Attachment H and 14 ?
15 A
No.
They are the same in terms of material --
16 Q
Now, le t's --
17 A
-- of the base materials and the weld rod material.
18 Q
Let me address the issue which Judge Grossman raised, 19 and that is the size of the weld that was qualified by 20 Attachment E as opposed to Attachment O.
I 21 I take it Attachment O applies to welds that are 22 less than three-eights of an inch in length; correct?
23 A
Yes.
24 Q
All right.
Focusing, again, just on the types of 25
{}
materials to be joined, was there anything, in your l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Gerieva7 IIrino~is-- 60134' (312) 232-0262
LO974 o
1 judgment, in Attachment 0 which would have precluded the 2
welding of A-446 to A-36 material?
3 A
The MR's at that time had been commented on by Sargent 4
& Lundy in regard --
5 Q
Mr. Schapker, I don't mean to interrupt you.
6 A
Okay.
7 Q
But I am trying to break this into pieces, if I can.
8 I asked you just to focus on the types of materials 9
to be joined.
10 A
Okay.
11 Q
Whether looking at Attachment 0, as you have it in 12 Applicant's Exhibit 10, there was any Code or procedural O
13 bar to the welding of A-36 to A-446 material.
14 A
No.
15 Q
Now, let's move on to the issue of whether or not the --
16 A
There was the -- excuse me.
[
17 Q
PQ R?
18 A
Procedurel bar, yes.
The only error was in the WPS, 19 that the A-36 was not added to the WPS, the same as in 20 Attachment H.
1 21 Q
All right, sir.
Now, with respect to the MR's that l
22 follow Attachment 0, in Applicant's Exhibit 10 there is, 23 in fact, another issue that was raised with respect to 24 the validity of the MR's; is that correct?
25 A
Yes, the fillet weld siz e, the size of the weld.
l l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
GinEVa, Il~llnois 6~0T3~4 (312) 232-0262 1
10975 O
1 Q
Yes, sir.
And what is the weld symbol for the PQR's or 2
on the PQR's that you have in front of you in 3
Applicant's Exhibit 10?
4 A
In Applicant's Exhibit 10, they are flare bevel welds.
5 0
All right, sir.
Do you know whether or not those welds 6
would qualify as flare bevel welds?
7 A
No.
They would be considered fillet welds.
8 Q
All right, sir.
I would now like to show you what has 9
been received in evidence as Applicant's Exhibit 23, 10 which is Revision D to Comstock Procedure 4.3.3.
11 I have opened the procedure to Attachment 0; and my 12 first question to you, sir, is:
O 13 Is this one of the procedures that you reviewed 14 when you were investigating these concerns?
15 A
Yes, it was.
16 Q
All right.
Now, in your Answer 18 you identify two, 17 what you characterize, as errors.
18 The second of the two errors is that the weld 19 procedure referenced a technique sheet that had been 20 conditionally approved by Sargent & Lundy, the 21 a r chitect-enginee r.
22 I ask you:
To which technique sheet do you refer 23 in that answer?
24 A
That was under attachment -- Applicant's Exhibit No.10, 25 I believe.
)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva FIllinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10976 O
1 Q
Yes, sir.
Which attachment, sir, could you tell us?
2 A
It was Attachment O.
3 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Miller, I hate to interrupt 4
but simply to clarify what a technique sheet is as he is 5
using it in his testimony.
6 THE WITNESS:
PQ R.
7 BY MR. MILLER:
8 Q
P3R and technique sheet are synonymous terms; correct?
9 A
In the application we are using here, yes.
10 Q
Now, the technique sheet or the P3R for Attachment O 11 that appears in Applicant's Exhibit 10, I think you 12 testified, had the symbol of a flare bevel groove weld; (1) 13 correct?
14 A
Yes.
15 0
would the deficiencies, if any, in the flare bevel 16 groove weld designation apply only to the joining of 17 A-36 to A-446 materials under those PQR's?
18 A
Would you repeat that?
[
19 Q
Maybe I -- you will have to forgive me.
20 I -- well, the technique sheet on its face in 21 Applicant's Exhibit 10 states that the materials are A.
22 S.
T.
M. A-446 to A-500B7 23 A
Yes.
24 Q
My question is whether the flare bevel groove weld was j {}
appropriately qualified for the joining of those two 25 l
l l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ge'neva,- IIITnWFs 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
10977 1
materials?
2 A
In Applicant's Exhibit 10?
3 Q
10, yes, sir.
4 A
No, they weren't.
5 Q
'Now, looking at Applicant's Exhibit 23, which is the 6
next revision -- I am sorry.
I went to the wrong spot.
7 Can you tell how the technique sheet had been 8
changed, if at all, by the time the next revision of the 9
procedure came along?
10 A
Yes.
It was changed to a fillet, to a fillet weld.
11 Q
All right, sir.
Just eyeballing it, can you tell 12 whether or not it's likely that those welds would have O
13 qualified as a fillet weld?
14 A
Yes.
15 Q
And what is your conclusion?
Jould they or would they 16 have not?
17 A
It says the PQR indicates that the laboratory tests 18 deemed them acceptable.
19 Q
All right, sir.
Mr. Schapker, in your prepared 20 testimony you refer to a conditional approval of the l
21 technique sheet, which we have identified as Attachment 22 0.
23 What is your understanding of the words, l
24
" conditional approval" ?
25 A
Conditional approval would be a condition that needed to
/}
l l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, I11'inois-60134-(312) 232-0262
10978 1
be corrected in order to proceed.
2 Q
And until it was corrected, could work proceed in the 3
field?
4 A
I believe under the Status 2 comments of Sargent &
5 Lundy, that is correct.
6 0
All right, sir.
When you interviewed Mr. Puckett, did 7
he describe to you the fact that he was responsible for 8
changing the flare bevel groove weld symbol to a fillet 9
weld symbol on attachments and resubmitting to the 10 independent testing laboratory to accept it?
11 A
No, he didn't.
12 Q
Did you have the procedure in front of you when you O
13 interviewed Mr. Puckett at his home?
14 A
No, I didn't.
15 Q
During the course of your interviews with Mr. Puckett, 16 did you identify any concern of his that thin-gauge 17 material should have been welded in accordance with the 18 procedure specified in the AWS D.l.3 Code rather than 19 the AWS D.1.1 Code?
20 A
Yes.
21 Q
Is that issue addressed -- well, it is addressed in your 22 supplemental testimony, is it not?
23 A
Yes, I believe it is, i
24 Q
As you sit here today, Mr. Schapker, what is your
}
understanding of Mr. Puckett's concern in August of 1984 25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
j Geneva,~IIIIndi~s 6'0134 (312) 232-0262
10979 O
I with respect to the applicability of the AWS D.l.3 Code?
2 A
Well, at the time of my interview with him and from his 3
previous testimony he had given to the NRC, his opinion 4
was that D.l.3 should have been used instead of D.l.1 5
for the thin-gauge material.
6 MR. GUILD:
Again, that's the witness's 7
understanding, of course, Mr. Chairman.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Pardon?
9 THE WITNESS:
That's what he conveyed to me.
10 MR. GUILD:
He is stating his understanding 11 of the witness's concern.
12 MR. MILLER:
Well, let me just ask.
O 13 BY MR. MILLER:
14 Q
Did you discuss this issue with Mr. Puckett when you 15 interviewed him at his home?
16 A
Yes, sir, I did.
17 Q
Can you reproduce for us in words what he said to you on 18 this issue?
19 A
The best of my recollection was that he felt that the 20 AWS D.l.1 was the incorrect code to be utilized and that 21 they were in error at Braidwood.
22 They should be qualifying these procedures to AWS 23 D.l.3.
He said D.l.1 should never have been used for 24 this material.
25 Q
Again, you were present during Mr. Puckett's testimony
{}
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Il'l'inois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4 10980 0
1 here and I would like to read some of his testimony on 2
this subj ect to you.
3 It's Pages 5463 and 5464 of the transcript.
(
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Excuse me, Mr. Miller.
5 I assume you are not intending these readings as 6
evidence in the case.
7 MR. MILLER:
They are, in fact, evidence in 8
the case.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Oh, was that admitted in the 10 case?
I 11 MR. MILLER:
This is Mr. Puckett's trial 4
i 12 tes timony.
(:)
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Oh, I thought you were i
14 referring to his deposition.
'15 MR. MILLER:
No, sir; no, sir.
We never got 16 to page 5,000 in any deposition, I am happy to say.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Was that true of the last 18 one that you read, also?
l 19 MR. MILLER:
Yes, sir; yes, sir, i
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I had heard you to say 21 deposition testimony; but if I -- perhaps I assumed that 22 and you didn't actually say it; but if you did, the 23 record will note that it was actual testimony.
24 MR. MILLER:
Yes, sir.
l 25 BY MR. MILLER:
{}
l l
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
1 Geneva, IITinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10981 O
1 Q
Well, I was examining Mr. Puckett from a document and 2
the question that I asked him was:
3 "What does the sentence mean that says, ' The 4
aforementioned procedures were qualified using 5
the criteria of AWS D.l.1 1975 and it should 6
never have been done'?"
7 And Mr. Puckett answered, "I explained what 8
was meant by the letter.
Okay ?
They should 9
have been qualified in accordance with D.1.3 10 after the 0.1.3 had been put out.
11 "O
So it's --
12 "A
Not necessarily, you know, before it was out.
O 13 They couldn't have very well done it.
14 "As you said, the D.l.3 Code didn't come 15 out until '78.
16 "What I was saying is there was 17 procedures there, that even though they were 18 qualified in accordance with D.l.1, they were 19 incorrectly qualified.
That was what this was 20 meant to convey.
21 "Q
When you say ' incorrectly' we should read for 22 that because of inconsistencies in the 23 procedure, in your opinion, they were 24 indeterminate.
{'}
25 "Q "
It's actually an answer, although it shows a l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva 7 Ill'inois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10982 I
e
%s 1
question.
2 "A
Yes, because of inconsistencies, I would 3
consider some of these procedures as being 4
questionable.
5 "O
And since the procedures, in your judgment, I
6 were going to have to be re-qualified, anyway, 7
w ell, then the ones that involved the 8
thin-gauge material should be re-qualified to 9
AW S D. l. 3 ?
10 "A
Yes.
i 11 "O
If the procedures had not had these, what you 12 referred to as, inconsistencies that make them
- ()
d 13 indeterminate, why, then it would have been 14 perfectly proper, would it not, to have f
15 continued to use the procedures as qualified 16 to AWS D.1.l?
{
17 "A
Yes."
18 Now, that's a rather long recitation on my part; 19 but do you recall, generally, the substance of Mr.
20 Puckett's testimony along those lines?
21 A
Yes, sir, I do.
22 Q
Had you ever heard Mr. Puckett express his opinion about 23 the applicability of AWS D.1.3 in those terms prior to 24 his trial testimony?
25 A
Not prior, no, he never expressed it in that manner.
{}
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Gen eva,-~I1Tfn51s 6~0134 (312) 232-0262
-.,c-
--e--,.,-
---,-we,,,-,--.,,-,--._w,-_
_.,-----,-, ewe
.---,,,_,----,,-,g-ww-4-m.,,,.,
e e+
.,-.,,-,.-,-,,_n-,w,,,--
10983 O
1 Q
If he had done so, Mr. Schapker, what, if anything, 2
would you have done differently with respect to your 3
inspection?
4 A
Well, I would have to ask him what his concern was in 5
the area of the procedure errors.
6 As f ar as the applicability of AWS D.l.3, that 7
would not change.
8 Q
Now, you, in fact, interviewed Mr. Puckett about --
9 well, Mr. Puckett did, in fact, have a concern that the 10 procedures had so many inconsistencies that they were 11 indeterminate; correct?
12 A
Yes.
I looked into that area, too.
(
13 Q
And that is described, is it not, in Answer 22 and then 14 again in Answer 29; is that correct?
15 A
Yes; and I guess the previous one with Attachment H and 16 0 would be added to that.
17 Q
All right, sir.
During his testimony here -- and I 18 haven't laid my hands on the transcript references --
19 but Mr. Puckett also stated that the welding procedures 20 were flawed because there were multiple welding 21 procedure qualification test records for the same types 22 of welds.
23 Do you recall that, sir?
24 A
Yes, I recall that.
25 Q
And I believe that he referred no Attachment E and
[}
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10984 l
(^)
.1 Attachment G during the course of his testimony.
2 Now, first of all, Mr. Schapker, could you describe 3
for us your understanding of what the differences are 4
between the PQR's that apply to the same type of weld in 5
the same position but as to which there is more than 6
one, what we would call, technique sheet?
7 A
W ell, there are welds that are made with single pass.
i 8
There are some that cre made with multiple pass.
There 9
are different types of materials.
Different processes 10 could be used for different PQR's, different amperage 11 and voltage settings.
12 Q
Let's focus, if we might, for just a second, on the O
13 dif ferent amperage and voltage settings.
14 You may have to help me here.
15 MR. GUILD:
Which document are you looking 16 at, Counsel ?
MR. MILLER:
I am looking at Applicant's 17 18 Exhibit 23.
i 19 BY MR. MILLER:
20 Q
Can we tell by looking at Sheets G-1 -- Attachments G-1 21 and G-2 whether they, in fact, cover the same type of 22 weld in the same position?
j 23 A
Let's see.
G-1 and G-2.
24 No, they do not.
One is flat and one is 25 horizontal.
{}
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, IITin6fs 6Dll4' (312) 232-0262
10985 U,
1 Q
All right, sir.
Have you found two that are flat?
2 A
Yes.
That would be G-1 and G-4 are both flat position.
3 0
All right.
Can you tell us and describe for the record 4
what the differences are between the two technique 5
sheets ?
6 A
Okay.
The amperage settings are different.
One has a 7
higher amperage setting than the other and the material 8
A-501 is also added to the G-4 where it's not on the 9
G-1.
10 Q
Just focusing on the difference in amperage settings, 11 Mr. Schapker, do you have an opinion as to whether or 12 not having two technique sheets, such as G-1 and G-4, O
13 which have variations in the amperage settings, would 14 cause the procedures to be indeterminate?
15 A
No.
16 0
Well, I have to --
17 A
They are both acceptable.
They have both been approved 18 and accepted.
19 The weld engineer could use these B2R's -- either 20 one -- to make his Weld Procedure Specification from 21 them.
22 Q
In your judgment, would the existence of multiple B3R's 23 for the same type of weld, joining the same material but l
24 with these variations in amperage that we have been
[}
discussing, be a basis on which to scrap the procedure 25 i
I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois-60134 (312) 232-0262
10986
(')
\\-
1 and do it all over?
2 A
No.
That is common practice, to have multiple PQR's to 3
validate your WPS's.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Why don' t we take a 5
ten-minute break here?
6 MR. MILLER:
Yes, it is midmorning, at least 7
on this day.
8 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which 9
the hearing was resumed as follows:)
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Are we ready?
11 MR. MILLER:
Yes, sir.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Resume, please.
O 13 BY MR. MILLER:
14 0
Mr. Schapker, what use is made of these PQR technique 15 sheets, as you understand it, by Comstock in the weld 16 inspection operation?
17 A
Well, a PQR is used to do -- to prepare a WPS, a Weld 18 Procedure Specification, where it dictates what the 19 welder will actually do in the field.
20 This, the PQR, actually qualifies that procedure; 21 and as long as the WPS stays within the essential 22 variables of that procedure, then that is the backup 23 document for that WPS.
24 0
And we just need a definition.
25
[}
" Essential variables," as you used that term, what Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, I1 tin 31s 60134 (312) 232-0262
10987 i
0 1
does that mean?
2 A
Well, the welding technique, the amperage, voltages, 3
materials.
4 Q
When a welder goes out to weld, does he take a WPS with 5
him to perform that weld?
6 A
No, no.
Normally, a WPS -- he is knowledgeable of the 7
WPS.
He may not have it with him.
8 It's available to him to review in the field.
9 Q
How does the welder know what sort of a weld to actually 10 perform when he is joining two types of materials?
11 A
He has the weld procedure available to him that's -- to 12 perform those welds.
O 13 0
What use, if any, is made of these Weld Procedure 14 Specifications or the supporting PQR's by Quality 15 Control Inspectors?
16 A
Quality Control Inspectors may review the WPS's, if they 17 are doing in-process inspections, to verify that they 18 are welding within the correct amperage and voltages and 19 so forth.
20 Q
As you used the words, "in-process inspection," how are 21 you using the terms?
22 A
While the welder is performing the actual welding.
23 0
In other words, the inspector is peering over his 24 shoulder as he actually is striking his arc?
25 A
Yes, and he is checking his amperages and voltages and
[}
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva 7 T1Tinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10988 O
1 seeing that they are -- that he is welding within the 2
requirements of the WPS, the Weld Procedure 3
Specifica tion.
4 Q
Let me just return for a moment to the question of the 5
applicability of the AWS D.l.1 Code.
6 In your supplemental testimony, beginning with 7
Question and Answer 5 and going through Question and 8
Answer 8, you discuss the standards that govern welding 9
activities performed by the electrical contractor at 10 Braidwood.
11 What documents did you review in the course of l
12 preparing this aspect of your testimony?
O 13 A
The Braidwood FSAR, the Final Safety Analysis Report.
14 Q
When you reviewed the FSAR, did you observe any 15 references to AWS D.1.3?
16 A
No, there was no reference to the AWS D.l.3.
17 Q
You note in Answer 6 that there are two exceptions 18 stated in the FSAR to the AWS D.l.1 Code as a standard.
19 First, is that there are deviations from the 20 provisions if supported by acceptable engineering 21 evaluation.
l 22 Do you know whether there has been any deviation 23 from D.l.1 in the form of explicitly adopting D.l.3 in 24 the Braidwood engineering documents?
25 A
Not to my knowledge.
{}
I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Gen eva,~IITinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l
,10989 O
1 Q
Your second exception deals with visual f rispection 2
requirements and refers to a document entitled, " Visual 3
weld acceptance criteria."
4 Is that sometimes known as VW'AC?
5 A
Yes.
6 Q
How recent was that change in the FSAR made, if you 7
know, Mr. Schapker?
8 A
I am not certain, but it's very recent.
9 Q
All right, sir.
Prior to the time that this second 10 exception that you have identified in Answer 6 was 11 adopted, what were the visual inspection require'ments 12 for weld inspections within Comstock's scope of work?
O 13 A
AWS D.l.1-75.
14 Q
Now, you know, do you not, that on the basis of Mr.
15 Puckett's analysis of the validity of the Comstock 16 welding procedure permitting the welding of A-36 to 17 A-446 material, he recommended that a stop work order be 18 issued; correct?
19 A
That's correct.
20 Q
All right, sir.
In Answer.9 in your supplemental 21 testimony, you conclude, in the last sentence, using 22 A-36 to -- the welding of A-36 to A-446 as an example, 23 that there was no need or reason to stop work pending 24 completion of the action necessary to correct the 25 nonconformance, pren, merely adding A-36 to the i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva 7 Irrin'ois 60134 (312) 232-0262
10990 DV 1
applicable welding procedures, close pren.
2 Now, it's apparent that you and Mr. Puckett differ 4
3 as to whether or not a stop work order should have been 4
issued; correct?
5 A
Yes.
6 Q
All right, sir.
Mr. Schapker, do you have an opinion as 7
to whether or not a Level III Weld Inspector should have 8
made the differentiation that you have described in your 9
Answer 9?
10 MR. GUILD:
Obj ection.
11 I mean, this is really a leading question that 12 simply supplies the obvious answer..
O 13 "Should a Level III have agreed with you," is Mr.
14 Miller's question, in substance; and I submit that that 15 is improper leading of the witness, who is not at all 16 adverse to him.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes.
I think, Mr. Miller, l
18 that you ought to try and phrase your questions a little l
19 more neutrally than that.
20 BY MR. MILLER:
21 0
When you interviewed Mr. Puckett, Mr. Schapker, what, if l
22 anything, did he say to you about the actual quality of l
23 the welds in the field that were being made joining A-36 l
24 to A-446 material?
l 25 A
He didn't really make any reference.
He didn't say Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Giiineva, I1Tfnois 6n134 (312) 232-0262
--.-.-..--.-J
- isi 10991 "a
x) 1 anything to me about the quality of the welds in the 2
field per se regarding A-36 to A-446.
3 He did say that he thought the welding was good 4
welding in the field, in general.
He thought they were 5
good welders and they were good inspectors.
6 Q
What, if anything, did Mr. Puckett say to you about the 7
way in which his concerns regarding the welding of A-36 8
to A-446 material -- as to how those concerns were 9
dispositioned?
10 A
Well, his opinion was that they should have been 11 approved -- should have been qualified under AWS D.l.3 12 and/or that the -- no, excuse me -- A-36 to A-446 O
13 material, that they were not qualified.
4
'14 He said to me at that time when I interviewed him 1
15 that these procedures were not qualified and, therefore, 16 they shouldn' t heue-been performing these welds in the 17 field and, in his opinion, it was a coda violation.
l 18 0
In your opinion, is it a code violation?
19 A
Definitely not.
l 20 Q
As you sit here'today, Mr. Schapker, do you personally 21 have any concern about the integrity of the welds that 22 were made joining A-36 to A-446 material prior to August i
23 of 1984?
24 A
No, I have no concern.
25
}
The error that was identified was a procedural Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, 11Tinois-60134 (312) 232-0262 i
10992 i
1 error and it was not a code error, and the materials 2
that were joined had no effect on-the materials that 3
were welded to.
4 Q
Mr. Schapker, once you understood the concern as 5
originally articulated by Mr. Puckett -- that is, that 6
he felt there should be a separate qualification of the 7
welding of A-36 to A-446 material -- how long did it 8
take you to determine whether or not this was 9
permissible under the Code?
10 A
Well, when I reviewed the procedure -- and with his 11 concerns, I didn't see a concern codewise.
12 You know, as far as timewise, it's kind of hard to O
13 base.
Maybe an hour or two, however long it took me to 14 review the procedure.
15 Q
Prior to the time that you -- had you reviewed the 16 procedure prior to this hour or two that you spent in 17 evaluating Mr. Puckett's concerns about the welding of I
18 A-36 to A-446 material?
19 A
Had I reviewed it when?
20 Q
Prior to the time you were evaluating Mr. Puckett's 21 concern about the welding of A-36 to A-446 material, or 22 was this your first time through the procedure?
23 A
Yes, it was.
This was my first time through the j
24 procedure.
l 25 Q
Did you have to refer to the AWS Code in order to reach
[}
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, IIIInois 6013~4 (312) 232-0262
10993 O
1 the conclusion that you have expressed in your 2
testimony?
3 A
I double checked the AWS Code, yes.
4 Q
Before you double checked the Code, did you have an 5
understanding of the Code's provisions on this subject 6
matter?
7 A
I wasn' t -- I wasn' t certain that A-446 material yield 8
strength was less than 50,000 P.
S.
I.,
so I had to 9
verify that.
10 However, at the time I talked to Mr. Puckett, he 11 was of the opinion that it was not qualified.
Now, he 12 didn't bring up the point about the yield strengths or O
13 anything like to that ef fect.
14 Q
All right, sir.
15 A
So I --
i 16 Q
You refer to Mr. Puckett's second concern, which 17 involves stainless steel welding.
This is the 18 qualification of stainless steel welding in the 5-G weld 19 position.
20 Do you know what Mr. Puckett's recommendation was 21 with respect to this discrepancy when he observed it 22 when he was an employee of Comstock at Braidwood?
l 23 A
Yes.
I believe I read a memo to the effect that he 24 would recommend a stop work.
25 Q
How extensive or limited was that stop work?
{}
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Il~1'inois-60134 (312) 232-0262
10994 1
A All stainless steel welding.
2 Q
Going back to your analysis which is found in Answer 9 3
of your supplemental testimony with respect'to the 4
circumstances under which a stop work should be issued, 5
could you describe how the stop work on stainless steel 6
welding fits in with that analysis?
7 A
Well, I believe a stop work could be in order for the 8
position that was not qualified; but as far as the other 9
po sitions, there would be no need to stop work in those 10 areas.
11 Q
Why is that, sir?
12 A
Because they were qualified.
O 13 Q
Now, in Answer 23 you discuss the magnetic particle 14 examinations that were a part of the stainless steel 15 Weld Procedure 4.3.14.
16 I take it that you are experienced in the conduct 17 of magnetic particle tests?
18 A
Yes.
19 Q
Would you just describe briefly for the record how a 20 magnetic particle test is conducted?
21 A
Well, magnetic particle test is conducted using a 22 current to magnetize the part and then a high 23 permeability powder is spread over the area of interest; 24 and if there are any flaws in the material, they will so
[}
appear in the -- as a result of the break in the 25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev~a', IIIInbi~s 6013~4 (312) 232-0262
10995 O
1 magnetic field.
2 In the case of stainless steel that is not 3
possible, because it's austenitic materials. and you 4
cannot magnetize austenitic material.
5 Q
What will happen to the powder when it's placed on the 6
stainless steel?
7 A
It would just fall off.
I mean, you won't receive any 8
indication at all.
9 Q
At Page 14 of your prepared testimony, you are 10 discussing in that Answer 27 that carries over from the 11 bottom of Page 13 the so-called bimetallic welds and you 12 identify at the top of Page 14 Mr. Simile and then you O
13 discuss certain Level II Weld Inspectors.
14 Could you identify for the record the Level II Weld 15 Inspectors with whom you spoke?
4 16 A
I spoke to approximately a dozen Weld Inspectors at l
17 random.
18 I did not -- I discussed this with them out in the j
19 field.
There were some that I discussed it with in the l
20 office.
21 I didn't specifically take down their names.
In l
22 the cases where I have, I really don't remember who they 23 were.
24 0
All right, sir.
(}
25 A
Although they were identified as Comstock Level II l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva a lTinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
10996 O
1 welders -- I mean Level II Inspectors.
2 Q
In Answers 29 and 30 you have discussed certain 3
discrepancies that Mr. Puckett identified for you in the 4
welding procedures and your evaluation of the 5
significance of those discrepancies.
6 I want to ask you whether you have had occasion to 7
perform inspections of welding procedures that were in 8
place at the Zimmer facility that was owned by 9
Cincinnati Gas & Electric?
10 A
Yes, I did.
11 Q
During the course of his testimony, Mr. Puckett on a 12 number of occasions referred to the similarity of the O
13 conditions between Braidwood and Zimmer.
14 You refer to one such instance in your supplemental 15 testimony, but I wanted to ask you specifically about 16 the nature of the discrepancies which you observed in 17 the weld procedures at Zimmer.
18 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, unless counsel's 19 position is that Mr. Puckett addressed this particular 20 su bj ect, I would object on the grounds of relevance.
21 I don't believe Mr. Puckett gave any testimony 22 about deficiencies in weld procedures at Zimmer and I 23 understood that to be the focus of Mr. Miller's 24 question.
- {}
25 MR. MILLER:
That is correct.
1 Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneifai~, IITinois 6D13~4 (312) 232-0262
10997 O)
(_
1 If you will give me just one second, I think I can 2
. supply the transcript reference.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
W ell, there were references 4
to Zimmer in the context of Mr. Puckett saying that 5
there was different treatment by the NRC of what was 4
6 occurring at Zimmer and what was occurring at Braidwood.
7 He also indicated that he didn't want the same 8
thing to happen at Braidwood that happened at Zimmer, 9
with the NRC shutting the plant down or taking drastic 10 action.
11 Now, is that the area that we are in?
12 MR. MILLER:
Yes, sir.
O 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Are those the areas that we 14 are in now?
15 MR. MILLER:
Yes.
16 MR. GUILD:
No.
My objection is narrow.
17 Indeed, there was testimony as the Chairman 18 observed.
19 Mr. Miller's question went not to the NRC findings 20 at Zimmer or even the areas that were the subject of Mr.
21 Puckett's testimony but went specifically to the 22 question of whether there were observed deficiencies in 23 the welding procedures at Zimmer; not other matters at i
24 Zimmer but welding procedures.
25 Now, if we are going to enter into this area -- Mr.
{}
i i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, I111nois-~60134 (312) 232-0262
10998
)
()
1 Miller may have, perhaps, a transcript reference.
j 2
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, Mr. Miller, the areas 3
that I mentioned are fair game; but, if, again, we are 4
going to be trying Mr. Puckett on what happened at 5
Zimmer, this is a collateral issue.
6 Now, if you want to go another few months and 7
re-try the welding situation at Zimmer, we will hear 8
argument on that.
9 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor --
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
But at the present time the 11 Board doesn't intend to do that.
12 MR. MILLER:
Yes.
At transcript Pages 5591 O
13 to 5592 Mr. Puckett said as follows:
14 "I might relate that most of the allegations 15 that I have made here to Mr. Schapker were the i
16 same type of allegations that were made 17 against us when I was working at the Zimmer 18 proj ect.
I didn' t want a recurrence of this."
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes, okay.
20 MR. MILLER:
"This is why these 21 allegations were made."
22 "So Mr. Schapker had previous experience in 23 evaluating these same sorts of allegations at 24 Zimmer; correct?
{}
"Yes, sir.
But after reading this, I would 25 i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, I1Tinois 6n134 (312) 232-0262
l 10999 f~
k-)J l
1 have the impression that Mr. Schapker had two 2
sets of rules:
one for Zimmer and one for 3
Braidwood."
4 That is the focus of my examination, your Honor, at 5
this time.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I have indicated that that 7
is fine.
8 I am asking you to exercise some caution --
9 MR. MILLER:
I will.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
-- in eliciting any answers 11 that relate to Mr. Puckett's performance at Zimmer, 12 because that opens up a whole new ball game; and I don't O
13 think we want to spend a few more months trying Zimmer.
14 And I take it the witness understands that, too.
15 Now, could --
16 MR. GUILD:
Just one more --
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Can we get a rephrasing of 18 that last question, so we don't have to search through 19 the tapes for it?
20 MR. MILLER:
Certainly.
21 BY MR. MILLER:
22 0
My question is specifically directed to your Answers 29 23 through 31, which dealt with inconsistencies in the weld 24 procedures; and I wanted to ask you, Mr. Schapker, 25
}
whether you have had occasion to observe inconsistencies
/
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
GenevaTI1Tinois 60134-----~~ ~-
(312) 232-0262
11000 O
1 in the weld procedures at the Zimmer facility as well?
L 2
MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, that's the basis 3
for my objection.
4 The citation into the record, of course, is a 5
general statement; and the only testimony that was 6
elicited from Mr. Puckett by any party had not at all to 7
do with weld procedures.
It had to do with welder 8
qualification records; it had to do with weld rod 9
control procedures at Zimmer and a number of other 10 areas.
11 What I hear is Mr. Miller is opening an entirely 12 new area, and that is weld procedures per se.
That is O
13 the specific question that he has asked.
That is the 14 specific reference that he is making in Mr. Schapker's 15 testimony.
16 If he opens it, it's simply going to be yet an 17 excursion into a new area.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I believe it was used in a 1
19 general sense, Mr. Miller.
20 MR. MILLER:
I just want to know the 21 comparative severity, so the Board can evaluate whether, 22 in fact, Mr. Schapker has, as Mr. Puckett alleges, two 23 sets of standards.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, I assume then that in
)
your question, when you said, " weld procedures," you are 25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ge'nifa, 11Trn51s 60134 (312) 232-0262 i
11001 ba 1
including all the areas mentioned by Mr. Guild now, such 2
as welder qualification records and all the other areas 3
that were referred to; is that so?
4 Let's get an understanding.
i 5
MR. MILLER:
Well, Mr. Schapker's 6
supplemental testimor./ specifically deals with welder 7
qualification issues; and it really is just on this area 4
8 of -- and, frankly, I believe that the main body of his 9
testimony deals sufficiently with the differences in the 10 weld rod control so that that need not be explored; but 1
11 this was one area --
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
So you are deliberately O
13 excluding all of those areas and you are centering --
14 MR. MILLER:
Yes, sir.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
-- and you are centering 16 right now on welding procedures?
17 MR. MILLER:
Yes.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
And Mr. Guild, you obj ect, 19 because that is one area that Mr. Puckett did not 20 compare; is that correct?
21 MR. GUILD:
I believe it's beyond the scope 22 of what is now within the case, Judge.
23 I am relying, of course, on my memory, but I have 24 heard nothing cited to the contrary.
25
[}
I think we are opening another area.
If Mr. Miller s
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva rIllinois 60134~
(312) 232-0262
11002 O
v 1
wants to do that, it's simply open and it's another 2
collateral area that I will pursue.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, do you agree, Mr.
4 Miller, that this was not an area mentioned by Mr.
5 Puckett?
6 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, Mr. Puckett on a 7
number of occasions made general statements.
8 I know from my deposition of Mr. Schapker that this t
9 is an area that he is knowledgeable about; and it seems i
10 to me that, since the integrity of the Staff inspection 11 ef fort has been impugned, frankly, by Mr. Puckett's 12 comments, that this is a fair line of examination.
O 13 I don't care to know the details of the Zimmer weld 14 procedures.
All I am asking for is a comparative 15 analysis of the severity of the deficiencies.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, Mr. Miller, my 17 understanding of the objection is that Mr. Puckett said 18 with regard to Areas A, B and C the NRC and Mr. Schapker 19 in particular treated the situation at Braidwood 20 differently than at Zimmer.
21 Now you are asking Mr. Schapker what the situation 22 was with regard to Area D and excluding Areas A, B and 23 C.
24 Well, I don't see that there is any relevance or 25 let's say -- forget relevance.
I think that is outside i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva ~, Illin61Y-~60134 (312) 232-0262
1 11003
)
()
I the scope of what is in the case and that we are getting 2
into an area in which we might have to recall Mr.
3 Puckett to discuss Area D.
4 Now, if it is outside of the areas that Mr. Puckett 5
had his complaints about, why are we listening to it?
6 So if you agree that that is the case, the 7
objection is sustained.
8 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, I --
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Now, if you wish to ask 10 questions on the areas that Mr. Puckett indicated that 11 the NRC treated the situation at Braidwood differently 12 than at Zimmer, we will certainly entertain those O
\\~'
13 questions.
I have indicated to you that that is what we 14 will do.
15 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, Mr. Puckett 16 identified problems that he was basing his assessment of 17 Mr. Schapker's evaluation of the Braidwood deficiencies 18 as follows:
the problems we had at Zimmer that Mr.
19 Schapker was involved in as well.
20 That is the specification of the range of issues l
l 21 that Mr. Puckett testified to were the basis for his 22 conclusion that there was two sets of standards.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
That wasn' t Mr. Puckett's 24 definitive statement as to the areas Ubat he was 25 discussing.
{}
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134--~~~-
l (312) 232-0262
11004 O
1 He discussed those areas and then he indicated that 2
Mr. Schapker treated those areas differently; but if 3
there is some definition of the areas, let's have some 4
questions in those areas.
5 MR. MILLER:
I am going to need just a 6
minute, your Honor.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Certainly.
8 MR. GUILD:
Before Mr. Miller does that, it 9
would be our desire, of course, if this is, indeed, a 10 new area -- and I believe it could be.
I could stand to 11 be corrected if there is a reference otherwise, because 12 I am relying on my memory -- Intervenors are at a O
13 significant disadvantage because we don't employ Mr.
l 14 Puckett.
15 In the event that this is a new area, we would seek 16 to recall him; but it's at considerable expense to 17 Intervenors that Mr. Puckett might be returned to so 18 testify and it would have to be done under compulsory 19 process.
20 I don't think it's f air that Intervenors be called 21 upon for another collateral matter to recall a witness 22 at that great expense.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I agree with that.
24 If we wish to open a new area that involves Mr.
{}
Puckett, then I would ask if he has to be recalled, that 25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
)
Gen eva,~IllindiW-~60134-(312) 232-0262
11005 OV 1
Applicant recall him.
2 MR. MILLER:
Well, your Honor --
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Now, I haven't said 4
definitely that the question you asked is outside the 5
area that Mr. Puckett was testifying to.
6 I have indicated that Mr. Guild suggests that and 7
you haven't indicated to the contrary.
Apparently, you 8
agree to that.
9 Now, if that is the case, then the questions are 10 objectionable; and if you open a new area, I think we 11 are going to have to have further testimony and I think, i
12 perhaps, Applicant will have to foot the bill for that; O
13 but I don't think that is significant.
I just think 14 that the extra time is significant.
15 But if you decide that the facts aren't as stated 16 in the argument, well, we will entertain further 17 discussion on that.
18 Why don't we take a ten-minute break now.
19 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which 20 the hearing was resumed as follows:)
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
We are back on the record.
22 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, I am going to move 23 on to another subject matter.
24 My research is inconclusive at this point in time;
{)
and rather than take a definitive position on that 25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
~ ~ ~ -
Genevai 111~1nois-60134~
(312) 232-0262 i
11006 O
1 subject matter, I will simply go on to something else.
2 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Miller 3
does, Mr. Berry caught me in the hall outside over the 4
break and asked what the status was of our protective 5
order that we had discussed on the record earlier.
6 What I proposed to him -- I believe it's acceptable 7
to other counsel -- is if counsel could agree on the 8
terms of an affidavit of nondisclosure, we would submit 9
that to the Board for approval, I understand not waiving i
10 any objections counsel may have had to the entry of a 11 protective order in the first instance; and that under 4
12 such an affidavit of nondisclosure, upon execution, O
13 Intervenors would disclose the documents in question.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
That is fine.
If that is 15 too wieldy a procedure, if you get the wording approved 16 within the next half hour, you can indicate in the 17 transcript that you agree to that and consider yourself 18 bound by it as officers of the Board, whatever the 19 phrase is for administrative hearings, that will 20 certainly be satisfied, t
21 MR. BERRY:
That is certainly acceptable and 22 preferable to the Staff.
23 Staff has probably the biggest interest in this.
24 We are presenting witnesses and would like to have
{}
access to the documents as soon as possible.
25 4
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
' Geneva, I11~1ndiH-~601'34--
~
(312) 232-0262
11007
/~}
(_/
1 So whatever would expedite the process, I am in 2
favor of.
3 MR. MILLER:
Are you suggesting that we 4
excuse the witness while we work this out?
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Do you want to work that out 6
right now?
Is that it?
7 Then I think we might as well.
The witness is 8
going to have to be back on Monday, anyway.
9 JUDGE COLE:
Monday a week.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Pardon?
11 JUDGE COLE:
Monday, a week.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes, Monday, the 25th of O
13 August.
This is probably going to take longer than --
14 there is no point to having him here.
Why don't we 15 recess now?
l 16 MR. MILLER:
Yes.
17 Before you do, your Honor, I would like to state 18 for the record that I hope early next week the Applicant 19 will be filing a motion under 10 CFR 50 57 C asking for 20 authority to conduct fuel load and zero power testing 21 for Braidwood Unit 1.
22 I really wanted to inquire of the Board as to their 23 locations next week, so we could make certain that the 24 documents are served expeditiously.
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
We will discuss it off the
{}
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Gen eva, I11~1nois 60134 -'-~ -' -
(312) 232-0262
J 11008 O
1 record then.
2 MR. MILLER:
Okay.
3 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, for the record, we 4
have discussed this to some degree; but Intervenors 5
intend to oppose such a motion and we will seek an
{
6 opportunity to respond to whatever papers Applicant 7
serves.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
Fine.
l 9
Why don't we recess now and we will come back on 10 the record when we have a stipulation?
j 11 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which 12 the hearing was resumed as followns)
(
4 l
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
We are back on the record.
14 I believe you have your stipulation, Mr. Guild?
15 MR. GUILD:
Yes, sir.
16 I believe what we have is an agreed-upon form of 17 affidavit of nondisclosure that I would read for the 18 record and would ask that the Board approve, with the 19 consent or on stipulation of the other parties.
20 Such an affidavit would ultimately be signed by the I
i 21 persons who would receive this confidential information, l
l 22 as the Board has prescribed in the protective order of 23 record.
24 The text then would read:
" Affidavit of 25 Nondis closure.
I, blank, being duly sworn, state that I
{}
1 r
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev&,~Illinbli~~60134~~~
(312) 232-0262 i
I
11009 O
1 understand the protective order entered by the Atomic 2
Safety and Licensing Board on the record in this 3
proceeding on" -- what day?
4 MR. MILLER:
Today's date is the 15th.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
August 13 th.
6 MR. BERRY:
No.
The day that --
7 MR. GUILD:
The day you entered the order on 8
the record, 9
MR. MILLER:
That would have been yesterday.
10 MR. GUILD:
"on August 14, 1986.
I agree 2
11 to be bound by all the terms and conditions of that 12 protective order.
O 13 "I further agree to protect f rom any disclosure 3
14 confidential information provided to me by counsel for 15 Intervenors pursuant to that protective order.
I will 16 disclose no such confidential information without 17 written consent of counsel for Intervenors or upon order 18 of the Licensing Board after notice to and opportunity 19 to be heard to counsel for Intervenors.
20 "The term, ' confidential information,' as used here 21 is understood to mean documents provided to me by 22 Intervenors' counsel, copies or facsimile thereof, or 23 the contents of such documents.
24 "It is understood that the general publication of
{}
such confidentici information may be grounds for seeking 25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
~Genevai I111nois~ 60134~~
(312) 232-0262
11010
( )
1 consent from Intervenors or authority f rom the Licensing 2
Board for disclosure of such confidential information."
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
Mr., Miller, you 4
assent to that?
5 MR. MILLER:
Well, I assent to the form of 6
it.
7 I do not assent to the protective order.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Right.
You have your 9
standing objection.
10 MR. MILLER:
Right.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
But as long as we have 12 ordered that it could only be disclosed -- the O
13 information would only be disclosed -- under a 14 protective order, you then agree to that form of 15 protective order?
16 MR. MILLER:
Yes.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
And you, Mr. Berry, too?
18 MR. BERRY:
Yes, your Honor.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
That is fine.
20 So you can now disclose those documents to Mr.
21 Miller and Mr. Berry, and anyone further will have to 22 sign the protective order.
23 MR. BERRY:
Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes, Mr. Berry.
25 MR. BERRY:
Ms. Chan, do you, also?
}
I i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l
--~~---
G e n ev a,~~I11~1noi s 6 013 4 (312) 232-0262
11011 r~V) 1 MS. CHAU:
Yes, we consent -- I consent.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
So Ms. Chan assents.
3 M S. KEZ ELIS:
I consent as well.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
And Ms. Kez elis.
5 MR. MILLER:
And as Mr. Gallo's alter ego, I 6
am confident that he will assent; and if he won't, I 7
won't show them to him.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
On the representation 9
that Mr. Gallo will assent to that, he can also receive 10 the documents.
11 Pine.
This session is concluded and we will 12 reconvene, unless we --
('>T
\\-
13 MS. CH AN:
Your Honor.
14 MR. BERRY:
Your Honor, I would represent 15 that Mr. Treby would consent to the terms of the 16 protective order, also.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
But until he does, 18
,vou will not --
19 MR. BERRY:
I will not show him the 20 documents.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Fine.
22 So we will reconvene, unless we hear otherwise, at 23 2:00 P.
M. on August 25th, at Courtroom 1919 in the 24 Dirksen Building, the Federal Building.
25
{)
(WHEREUPON, at the hour of 11:00, A.
M.,
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
GenevaFI11~1nois 60134--
(312) 232-0262
11012 0
1 the hearing of the above-entitled matter j
\\
2 was continued to the 25th day of August, 3
1986, at the hour of 2:00 P.
M.)
4 l
5 6
7 8
9 10
- l t
12 O
13 14 15 l
i 16 17 18 i
19 I
20 21 22 l
l 23 j
24 i
! O 25 l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, IllinWi~s 6~0134 (312) 232-0262 j
i
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 (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2) i DOCKET NO.:
JOLIET, ILLINOIS DATE:
FRIDAY, AUGUST 15, 1986 j
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 2
Regulatory Commission.
i (sigt)
(TYPED)
/
GLEN L.
SONNTAG Official Reporter Reporter's Affiliation a
O 1
__.. _. _.. _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __-. _ ___ __ _ _, _,_,__ _ _________ _____. _