ML20211C409
| ML20211C409 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 06/06/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#286-620 OL, NUDOCS 8606120309 | |
| Download: ML20211C409 (104) | |
Text
-
ORhG$E O
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
50-456 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Braidwood Station, Units 1 & 2)
O LOCATION:
JOLIET, ILLINOIS PAGES:
3308 3410 DATE:
FRIDAY, JUNE 6, 1986
/ff 0 l 0 i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
OfficialReporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 0606120309 060606 (202) 347-3M PDR ADOCK 05000456 T
PDR NAT!ONWIDE COVERACE
3308
(
lO 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD iO 4
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x 5
In the Matter of:
6
- Docket No. 5 0-456 OL
.O COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMP 1.in 50-457 OL 7
l (Braidwood Station, Units 1 8
and 2)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x 9
'O 10 Circuit Court of Cook County Sixth Municipal District 11 16501 S. Kedzie Parkway, Markham, Illinois 60426 O ()
Friday, June 6, 1986.
13 14 The hearing in the above-entitle'd matter reconvened i
15 at 9:00 A. M.
lO 16 BEFORE:
17 JUDGE HERBERT GROSSMAN, Chairman 18 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
- O U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 19 Washington, D. C.
20 JUDGE RICHARD F. COLE, Membe r, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1
21 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Washington, D. C.
JUDGE A. DIXON CALLIHAN, Member, 23 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
24 Washington, D. C.
25 APPEARANCES:
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
- C Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
'?'
3309 O
o i
1 On behalf of the Applicant:
2 MICHAEL I. MILLER, ESQ.
ELENA Z.
KEZELIS, DSO.
3 Isham, Lincoln & Beale I?
Three First National Plaza 4
Chicago, Illinois 60602 5
On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff:
6
?
ELAINE I.
CHAN, ESO.
7 GREGORY ALAN BERRY, ESQ.
U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8
7335 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20014 9
'O On behalf of the Intervenors:
10 ROBERT GUILD, ESO.
11 12
) (
13 14 15 O
16 17 18 lC 19 20 21 O
22 23 24
()
25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
~C Geneva, Illinois 60144 (312) 232-0262
0 3310 0
1 EXRIBIT INDEX Marked Received 2
Applicant's Exhibits Nos. 7 through 12 3324 3
O WITNESS INDEX 4
TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY SIMILE 5
6 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
O 7
BY MR. MILLER 3321 8
9 CROSS EXAMINATION O
10 BY MR. GUILD 3338 11 12 oo 13 14 15 0
16 17 18 o
19 20 21 6
22 23 24
()
25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
O ueneva, Illinois oulae (312) 232-0262
O 3311
()
1
- D 1
JUDGE GnOSSMAN:
The hearing is reconvened.
2 This is the 15th P'y of hearing.
3 Mr. Simile, you remain sworn, and I believe Mr.
4, Miller had finished with his direct.
j 5
MR. MILLER:
Well, your Honor, I, at the end 6
of the day, asked whether --
D 7
A VOICE:
You needed some lights?
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Off the record.
9 (There followed a discussion outside the
- D 10 record.)
11 MR. BERRY:
Mr. Chairman.
12 MS. CHAN:
Mr. Chairman, we have a procedural
~)
D 13 matter to take up if you want to discuss the --
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
There is a procedural 15 matter.
Please speak up to tell us about it.
Fine.
.D 16 MS. CHAM:
Yesterday we left off with:
Staff 17 was going to get back to you on the admissibility of the 18 inspection report that Applicant wished to introduce
,0 i
19 into the record as an attachnent to Mr. Simile's 20 testimony.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes, that is correct.
b 22 Did you wish to speak to that?
23 MS. CHAN:
Yes.
The Staff has reviewed it 24 and we have decided that under the Rules of Evidence,
()
25 Rule 803.8, the hearsay exceptions, the Puolic Records Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l
- O Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
9 3312 O
o 1
and Reports, of which we believe this inspection report 2
is one, can be admitted as an exception to the hearsay 3
rule and that it's not excluded, even though the i
O l
4 declarant is available as a witness.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Isn't this a records 6
exception?
O 7
MS. CHAN:
It's a public records exception,
-8 yes; and also under 902.5, that it's a somewhat 9
self-educating document; and the authenticity has been 10 admitted by the Staff and it can be received f or --
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes.
Undcr what -- pardon 12 me.
.o O 13 MS. CHAN:
So the long and short of it, the 14 document can be received into evidence and the Staff has 15 no objection.
O 16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
That concludes the 17 discussion on that.
18 The document is not admitted.
That exception does C
19 not apply to this kind of document.
20 If it.were some sort of certification of a filing i
. 21 or some other matter that does not state opinions and O
22 results of investigations, that exception to the hearsay 23 rule would apply and there might be the -- the other 24 exception with regard to business documents, which would
()
25 be similar.
1 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
!G Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3313
)
Cl)
D 1
But when we have a report here in which there is a 2
question as to the opinions stated therein, the 3
conclusions made, those exceptions definitely do not j
D 4
apply.
5 I take it, Mr. Guild, you haven't found the NRC 6
citation?
D 7
MR. GUILD:
It's being sought, Judge.
8 I can state and I told Mr. Miller that I believe 9
it's the San Onofre Appeal Board decision.
3 10 It was the basis for a decision on the same point 11 in the Catawba plant, in San Onofre and was reversed for 12 admitting Staff documents without a sponsoring witness.
O O 13 I am endeavoring to locate the decision in Chicago.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, I don't think it's 15 really important.
We can make that ruling right now.
3
~
16 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, I would just like to 17 state for the record that the hearsay exception 803.8 18 specifically seems to cover just this sort of an g
19 investigative report.
20 MR. GUILD:
803 what part?
21 MR. MILLER:
Sub 8.
O 22 It is a matter observed pursuant to duty imposed by 23 law, as to which matters there was a duty to report 24 under Subsection B of 8, or a civil action.
(')
25 Since this is a civil action, I think that the l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
C, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3 3314
()
- D 1
inspection report is properly characterized as factual 2
findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant 3
to authority granted by law.
1
-D 4
I understand the Board's ruling but I wanted to 5
make my views known for the record.
6 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, if I might --
O 7
MS. CHAN:
Your Honor, we would like you to 8
reconsider your ruling.
9 In addition, Mr. Guild --
O 10 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Excuse me.
Could you hold 11 on for a second while I read the -- I just found the 12 reference here.
This is for public records and reports, O Os 13 okay.
14 Are these documents which merely set forth the 15 activities of the officer or agency or matters observed
,0 16 pursuant to duty imposed or are there also conclusions 17 in here and opinions?
18 MS. CHAN:
There~are no opinions.
They are O
19 just findings.
20 They are the matters observed by the inspectors 21 during th'eir official inspections and this is their 22 official document reporting the matters that they were 23 inspecting.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Guild.
)
25 MR. GUILD:
'Mr. Chairman, the fundamental E
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
1 G
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3 3315 O
D 1
point here is really a question of confrontation and 2
cross examination.
3 These are matters in dispute.
These are the
- )
4 matters in controversy.
5 The Staff is an adversary in this proceeding.
If 6
the Staff were simply allowed to establish its case
'.)
7 without submitting it to cross examination and 8
confrontation through an exception to the hearsay rule, 9
there would be no need for an adversary process or
- D 10 adjudication.
The matters would be simply established 11 without the ability to contravene those conclusions.
12 We are here to determine, whether or not, in fact, DO 13 Braidwood meets the reasonable assurance standard.
14 The fact that the Staff is prepared to meet that, 15 it does not end the controversy.
'S 16 If the Staff's reading of the hearsay rule 17 exception would permit all of its case to come in 18 through inspection report, there would be no need for an O
19 intervention.
There would be no need for a disputed 20 hearing.
21 That I believe is the fundamental', rationale behind
'O 22 the decision that I cited to you; and, again, if the 23 matter still remains in controversy, I will seek an 24 opportunity to get the autority for the Board and to
.O q
(_j 25 argue the point further.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
O ueneva, Illinois bulae (312) 232-0262 t
l 3
3316 O
O 1
MS. CHAN:
Your Honor, the rule contemplates 2
that the declarant can be available as a witness and 3
still not be required to be produced to introduce it 4
into evidence; and whether or not the declarant is 5
available goes to weight which the Board can determine.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, I have to say that O
7 inspection report -- and I am looking for it right now.
8 MR. MILLER:
I believe it's attached.
It's 9
one of the attachments to Mr. Simile's prefiled 10 testimony.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
That's a problem.
12 MS. CHAN:
Your Honor, I would also like to O
O 13 point out that the Intervenor has introduced Inspection 14 Report 83-18 as part of their Exhibit 3 already in the 15 record without objection.
O 16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, if it was offered 17 without objection --
18 MS. CHAN:
It was admissible for all O
19 purposes, also; and so now for him to complain --
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
But now there is an 21 objection.
O 22 He may have wanted -- if there is no objection, I 23 don't see what the relevance is to this ruling.
There 24 is an objection here.
()
25 It really goes to whether there is anything stated Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
O Geneva, Illinois 60134
3317
)
J l
($)
O l
1 in the report that is an opinion or a conclusion or 2
support for one of the parties, other than a mere visual 3
observation and a statement of the official duties.
o 4
MS. CHAN:
Here is a copy of the inspection 5
report.
6 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, the key provision of 3
7 the report and the one that is pertinent, I believe, to 8
this issue is found at Page 12 of the inspection report 9
and discusses the weld filler rod -- well -- yes, weld
,J 10 filler rod material.
11 MR. GUILD:
It begins at 11 and 12.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
But the problem is -- I 3
13 don't know.
I will get to that part -- is everything in 14 here part of the inspection report, including the 15 statement on the August 7, 1984, letter that suggests 3
16 that certain activities appear to be in noncompliance?
17 MR. BERRY:
I am just finding it, your Honor.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
That's the first page that-O 19 was shown to me.
i 20 Looking at the appendix right af ter that, there are i
21 statements of violations which are conclusory, plus a D
22 severity level of the violations.
23
. Chi the next page there is a statement that no items 24 of noncompliance or deviation were identified in seven
()
25 areas.
Sonntag Reportilig Service, Ltd.
O Geneva, 1111nois eulse (312) 232-0262
3 3318 O
3 1
Now, these aren't visual observations, these are 2
conclusions; and the reason for the hearsay rule is that 3
you can examine a witness who makes statements like
.)
4 this.
5 This doesn't fit under the exception No. 8, which 6
is a mere observation and statement of official duties.
1 7
MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, I believe that 8
exception 8, 803.8, also includes evaluative reports; 9
and the comments to the hearsay rule, which I would like 3
10 to just read into the record, do, in fact, address the 11 very points that your Honor has raised.
12 First of all, the comments point out the O
'D 13 justification for the overall exception is the 14 assumption that a public official will perform his duty 15 properly and the unlikelihood that he will remember 9
16 details independently in the record.
17 Then it goes on to discuss what it characterizes as 18 the most controversial area of the public records 1
- S 19 exception, and it characterizes that as the so-called 20 evaluative report.
21 It goes on to state, "The disagreement among the
)
22 decisional-law has been due in part, no doubt, to the 23 variety of decisions encountered as well as the 24 differences in principle," and then there is a long
()
25 analysis of the cases.
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
9 3319 j
($)
1 It says, " Factors which may be of assistance in l
2 passing upon the admissibility of an evaluative report 3
includes timeliness of the investigation, the special m'
4 skill or experience of the official, whether a hearing 5
was held at the level at which it was conducted and 6
possible motivation problems in terms of the officer 3
7 giving," and it then goes on to say, "The rule assumes 8
admissibility in the first instance but with ample 9
provision for escape if sufficient negative factors are 3
10 present."
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
That rule permits us, 12 once we are satisfied that the author of the report is O
- O 13 available to respond to the report, to admit the report 14 into evidence notwithstanding that he is testifying; and 15 we are not going to deny that right to offer the report
- O 16 at that time.
17 The question now is whether the report is going to 18 go in in the absence of the persons authoring the O
19 report, who can be called upon to explain the report.
' 20 Later on when they are available and have been 21 questioned, we will apply that rule to admit the report, C:
22 notwithstanding that there is present testimony.
23 Now, that's the only way I can see any logic in 24 that rule, and so that 's the ruling.
()
25 Now, you are going to have to have the people here i
Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
O ueneva, 1111nois 6U144 (312) 232-0262
G 3320 O
O 1
to support the report.
We are not going to accept 2
conclusions stated in writing notwithstanding the 3
report.
G 4
So that's the ruling.
5
'Now, is there any other preliminary matter?
6 MS. CHAN:
No, your Honor.
O 7
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I have one question with 8
regard to the admissibility of the testimony, and that 9
relates to one sentence on Page 11, Mr. Simile.
O 10 That sentence is, "AWS D.l.3 was developed as a 11 separate code for sheet steel in 1978 but the AWS Code 12 provides that the code applicable at the time of Os -
O 13 contracting remains the applicable code."
14 Do you see that sentence, sir?
15 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
How do you know that, Mr.
17 Simile?
18 THE WITNESS:
This was from an interpretation O
19 from AWS.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
You received an 21 interpretation from them?
O 22 THE WITNESS:
No, I did not.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, how do you know about 24 the interpretation then?
()
25 THE WITNESS:
It was published in their i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
C.
- Geneva, 111nois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
D-3321 O
1 welding journal.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Where?
Do you have a 3
reference that we can --
4 THE WITNESS:
No, I do not.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Pardon?
6 THE WITNESS:
No, I do not.
G 7
MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, we can supply and 8
will supply, I think, through Mr. Kurtz or can supply 9
independently the welding journal.
3 10 Perhaps, if I could just ask Mr. Simile one or two i
11 more questions.
12 DIRECT EXAMINATION oO i
13 (Continued.)
14 BY MR. MILLER i
15 Q
Mr. Simile, would you describe for the record what the
'O 16 welding journal is?
17 A
The welding journal is a monthly journal published by 18 AWS, and in that journal there are interpretations put O
19 out by AWS.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
Well, this goes to 21 the point that I raised yesterday about having that 0
22 documentation rather than a discussion.
23 I consider this in here now merely the witness's 24 opinion but not sufficient to establish the facts that C ()
25 he states therein.
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
C, Geneva, 1111nois eulas (312) 232-0262
'O 3322 1
)
.O 1
MR. MILLER:
Well, all right.
I understand 2
the Board's observation.
3 We will provide the interpretation at the O
4 appropriate time.
We don't have it with us today, of 5
course.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
O 7
MR. MILLER:
May I just proceed with a few 8
questions of Mr. Simile on Direct to get the documents 9
before the Board and the parties; and I think, as I
- O 10 discussed yesterday, that may facilitate further 11 examination?
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Fine.
O ([)
13 MR. MILLER:
I would like the Reporter to 14 mark as Applicant's Exhibit 4 for identification --
15 JUDGE COLE:
Excuse me.
We are past that.
O t
16 MR. MILLER:
I am sorry.
17 JUDGE COLE:
We are at 7 now.
18 MR. MILLER:
Thank you.
10 19
-- Applicant's Exhibit 7 for identification a 20 multi-page document that bears on the first page the
(
21 legend in the upper right-hand corner, L-2790, Amendment
- 3 22 40, and the date 7-18-84.
23 As Applicant's Exhibit 8 for identification a i
24 document that -- one-page document -- that also bears
()
25 the legend in the upper right-hand corner L-2790, Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
- (,
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3 3323 0
1 Amendment 48 and the date November 4,1985.
2 As Applicant's Exhibit 9 for identification a 3
document that has a Sargent & Lundy Engineers block at 9
4 the top of the first page and in the upper right-hand 5
corner it states, " Standard Form 1701, Revision G, 6
Decembe r 20, 1977."
D 7
A multi-page document, on the first page of which 8
is a Comstock and Company, Inc., procedure tracking 9
sheet.
It is identified as Procedure 4.3.3, Revision C,
'o 10 ef fective -- and then underneath there is the date 11 January 17, 1984.
12 JUDGE CALLIHAN:
No. 10, Mr. Miller?
=0 13 MR. MILLER:
That would be No. 10.
Thank 14 you, Judge Callihan.
15 MR. GUILD:
Would you read the title?
'O 16 MR. MILLER:
Revision C to 4.3.3.
17 MR. GUILD:
Could you read the title, please?
18 MR. MILLER:
Yes.
It is titled, " Welding
.O 19 procedure for structural attachments."
20 Excuse me for one second.
I have misplaced a 21 document or two.
O 22 As Applicant's Exhibit 11 for identification a 23 d oc ument, the first page of which is titled, "L.
K.
24 Comstock and Company, Procedure No. 4.3.3, Revision F,"
- O ( )
25 and the date underneath December 5, 1984.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
lO Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
' ^)
3324 3
1 This has previously been marked as Puckett 2
Deposition Exhibit No. 17.
3 And, finally, a multi-page document, of which the 3
4 cover sheet says, Structural Welding Code.
The second 5
sheet says AWS D.1.1-75.
6 I believe that this has previously been marked a's 3
7 Puckett Deposition Exhibit 3 for identification.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
That was marked as 9
Applicant's Exhibit 127
'O j
10 MR. MILLER:
Yes, sir.
11 (The documents was thereupon marked as 12 Applicant's Exhibits Nos. 7 through 12 OO 13 for identification as of June 6, 1986.)
14 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, I understand that 15 the Board inquired, also, into the contract between 0
16 Commonwealth Edison Company and Comstock.
17 I don't have that present in the hearing room just 18 yet but I think it's on its way; and when it arrives, we O
19 will mark it also.
20 BY MR. MILLER:
21 Q
Mr. Simile, I am going to set before you documents that O
22 have been marked as Commonwealth Edison, Applicant's 23 Exhibits 7 through 12, for identification, and I want to 24 ask you some questions about them.
()
25 First of all, could you describe for the record Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
O veneva, Illinois ou13e (312) 232-0262 i
Q 3325
()
O 1
what Exhibits 7 and 8 are?
2 They are in inverse order.
3 A
Exhibit 7 is a revision to the Sargent & Lundy D
4 Specification L.2790.
1 5
shis revision shows previous revisions to the 6
specification, including Amendment 30, which Amendment
.3 7
30 was a revision to the specification where they first 8
began to talk about AWS D.1.1 and D.1.3.
9 Q
Now, to whose scope of work is Specification 2790 O
10 applicable?
j 11 A
To Comstock.
1 12 0
What is the date of the Amendment 30 to which you just
- o O 13 referred?
14 A
July 14, 1983.
15 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, before we get too O
16 far into this, I don't have the documents -- and I am 17 not complaining about that -- but, as I recall from 18 having looked at the document in question yesterday, it O
19 doesn't include Amendment 30.
20 The witncss's last answer about what Amendment 30 21 says is not based on a recitation of the document that O
22 is before him.
23 Since I do believe that on the question of 24 interpreting these documents, the documents themselves
(])
25 are the best evidence, I simply raise the point that Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
O Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l3 3326 9
1 that observation is hearsay and does not establish what 2
Amendment 30 to the specification says.
3 MR. MILLER:
Well, let me just ask one or two 3
4 more questions, if I might.
5 BY MR. MILLER:
6 0
Mr. Simile, there are, are there not, vertical lines
')
7 with numbers opposite them in the margin of the pages 8
from the specifications you have here?
I 9
A Yes, there is.
D 10 0
What is your understanding of what those lines and 11 numbers indicate?
12 A
This indicates that this paragraph was changed by es
, DU 13 Amendment 30.
14 0
In other words, there is a vertical line and then next j
i 15 to it a number, which you understand -- what do you I
16 understand that number to indicate?
17 A
The number says "Amd. 30" with a line, which would mean 18 that revision was Amendment 30.
iO 19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
Let me state for the 20 record that the Board doesn't have copies, nor do other counsel; and I expect that is because we asked you 21
!O 22 somewhat late in this hearing to supply that.
23 Just logistica11y, you have been unable to do that; 24 is that correct?
' ()
25 MR. MILLER:
That is correct.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
! 3 ueneva, 1111nols oulae (312) 232-0262
'3 3327
/~T V
O 1
We don't mean to deprive anybody of these 2
documents; but what I thought we might do is, once Mr.
3 Simile is finished describing them, perhaps, you might O
"4 even wish to take a brief recess and examine them; and 5
then if there does seem to be further questions
~
6 regarding the specific documents, they can be asked at O
7 that time.
8 Mr. Guild would certainly be --
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Have you had a chance to O
10 thoroughly examine these documents, Mr. Guild?
11 MR. GUILD:
No, sir.
Only briefly, the one 12 the witness is referring to.
.O O 13 If I could just raise the general point, as long as 14 we understand that Mr. Simile's identification of the 15 documents is not to be taken as establishing that is 0
16 what the documents stand for.
17 The point here is to get the documents in and then 18 the documents will speak for themselves; and, perhaps, O
19 Mr. Simile's opinion about the documents will stand as 20 his opinion and I won't raise any further objections; t
~21 but I would have a general hearsay objection otherwise.
O 22 MR. MILLE,R:
Well, eventually, Mr. Kurtz is 23 going to appear; and among his qualifications are being 24 in charge of, I think, Sargent & Lundy specification
()
25 writing branch or, perhaps, I am mischaracterizing; but, Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
c Geneva, Illinois bu144 (312) 232-0262
2 3328 O
3 1
in any event, there will be witnesses who can establish 1
2 the authenticity, if that is the issue.
3 MR. GUILD:
No, it's not a question of 3
4 authenticity.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
It's the contents.
The 6
documents speek for themselves.
3 7
What Mr. Guild is saying is that the witness can 8
give his understanding of what the documents are but 9
they won't replace or they won't be evidence as to the 3
1 10 contents of the document.
11 MR. MILLER:
I understand.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
They may assist us.
D O 13 MR. MILLER:
Fine.
I understand.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
15 BY MR. MILLER:
]3 16 Q
Now, then, turning to what we have marked as Applicant's i
17 Exhibit 8 for identification, Mr. Simile, could you l
18 describe what that document is?
O l
19 A
Exhibit 8 is another amendment to S & L Specification 20 L.2790.
21 Again, this page is from Amendment 48, which shows
'.Ii 3
22 a revision of Amendment 42, Amendment 42 revising the
'23 paragraph where they talk about AWS D.1.1 and D.1.3 and 24 clarifying it.
()
25 0
All right.
Following along, Mr. Simile --
i l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
C Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~
'~
3329 rby D
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Excuse me.
Why don't we 2
have 42, by the way?
I thought we had 40 and now 487 3
MR. MILLER:
Yes, sir.
The -- well, let me
.2 4
ask you the question.
5 BY MR. MILLER:
6 0
Mr. Simile, why did you bring with you Amendment 48
~
3 7
rather than Amendment 42?
8 A
Amendment 42 at the time I could not find or locate.
9 They are S & L specifications; and the o?.d D
10 revisions are turned in through our document control 11 process and I did not -- I just couldn't get it.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
oO 13 BY MR. MILLER:
14 0
Is Amendment 48 the current amendment to the 15 specification?
O 16 A
No, sir, I don't believe.
17 Q
Okay.
Turning to the next document in the stack, Mr.
18 Simile, that would be Applicant's Exhibit 9 for O
19 identification, could you describe your understanding of 20 that document?
21 A
The next, Exhibit 9, is Sargent and Lundy'c structural 2
22 standard specifications for welding and steel 23 construction.
24 It is Standard Form 1701, Revision G, dated
()
25 Decembe r 20, 1977, which is still the current standard.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
- a Geneva, Illinois cu1Je (312) 232-0262
g 3330
)
O l
1 Q
How, if at all, does that Form 1701 relate to the 2
Specification 2790?
3 A
2790 delegates Form 1701 to be used for our welding, and O
4 this talks about the standard specifications and 5
guidelines for what our contract should be used.
6 Q
The next document has been marked as Applicant's Exhibit 7
10 for identification.
8 Would you describe for the record and the parties 9
what that document is?
'O 10 A
Exhibit 10 is Quality Procedure 4.3.3 for welding 11 structural attachments using E 7018 electrodes.
1 12 This procedure was the procedure in place at the OO 13 time of May of '84.
14 0
Until what time?
For how long was the procedure 15 effective?
O 16 A
Until September of '84.
17 0
You described it as being the procedure that was l
18 applicable with E 7018 electrode.
O i
19 Are there other electrodes in use or were there 20 other electrodes in use in Comstock's scope of work 21 after April?
O 22 A
Yes, sir.
There was E 6013 electrodes and there was 23 also stainless electrodes D 308 and D 309.
24 Q
Did they have separate procedures for their use?
()
25 A
Yes, they did.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
O Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3
-3331 i
O 3
1 Q
For what type of material is the E 6013 electrode used?
2 A
The main purpose for the E 6013 electrode was for 3
welding galvanized material or regular carbon steel.
3 4
MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, I will just, again, 5
have a point of clarification:
6
,The witness's tenure in office began in August of 7
1984, so to the extent that his last answer was 8
regarding electrodes in use at a time preceding his 9
tenure in office, it, obviously, is not from direct s
10 personal knowledge.
11 I would just state that it's hearsay and 12 objectionable.
O 3
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, he was just explaining 14 the document now; and the document is going to speak for 15 itself.
3 16.
MR. GUILD:
I don't think the document says 17 anything about the other electrodes that Mr. Miller 18 asked the witness about.
The document only speaks to E 3
19 7018 electrode.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Sustained.
21 BY MR. MILLER:
3 22 Q
For what purpose -- well, what materials are covered t, 23 the specification that relates to the -- the procedures 24 that relate to the -- 308 and 309 electrode?
()
25 A
Stainless steel.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60144 (312) 232-0262
O 3332
()
O 1
MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, I have not brought 2
the -- I have not had supplied the procedures for E 6013 3
or stainless steel welding; but it appears to me that we O
4 probably ought to have those before the Board and the 5
parties as well and we will supply them early next week.
6 BY MR. MILLER:
O 7
0 Mr. Simile, would you turn to what has been marked 8
Applicant's Exhibit 11 for identification?
9 I ask you to describe that document, please.
10 A
Exhibit 11, again, is the welding Procedure 4.3.3 for 11 welding structural attachments using E 7018; and it's 12 Revision F, which.is the first revision that I revised 13 this procedure.
14 0
What is the effective date of that procedure?
i 15 A
The effective date is December 7,1984.
g 16 Q
Now, Mr. Simile, finally, turning to the last document i
17 that has been identified, Applicant's Exhibit 12 f or 18 identification, would you describe for the Board and the O
19 parties what that document is?
20 A
Exhibit 12 is the AWS Welding Code D.1.1 1975, which is 21 applicable to the Comstock contract.
O 22 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, I find that I have 23 extra copies of the welding code and of Revision C to 24 the procedure but I do not have extra copies of the
()
25 other ones.
I apologize for that.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
gs Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
O 3333 D
1 I would be happy to distribute to the Board and the 2
parties the extra copies that I do have of those 3
documents, if you wish them.
4 Some of them are kind of -- but why don't I --
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, I assume at some time 6
you will have sufficient copies of everything?
3 7
MR. MILLER:
Yes, sir.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Let me just ask the witness 9
again for those dates on -- I have A.7 as 7-14-83, that O
10 is Amendment 40 being effective 7-14-83.
11 Is that correct, sir?
12 THE WITNESS:
No.
Amendment 30 was effective
-)
D v 13 7-14-83.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Oh, I see.
15 THE WITNESS:
Amendment 42, I cannot give you O
16 the date.
I am sorry.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
That's Amendment 30.
I am 10 sorry.
I thought there was a 40, 42 and 48; but it's 2
19 30, 42 and 48, okay.
20 So 30 was effective 7-14-83 and Amendment 48 was 21 ef fective Novembe r --
3 22 THE WITNESS:
It's dated 11-4-85, and I don't 23 have the cover sheet.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
11-4-85, so that, I guess,
)
25 the critical one is the one iin between, isn't that?
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
O Geneva, Illinois bulse (312) 232-0262
13 3334 O
O 1
MR. MILLER:
Yes, sir.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
I understand that we 3
asked this at the lith hour, so you don't have that; but 3
4 that's the one that really is the most important one, 5
perhaps, because we don't know when Amendment 42 was 6
effective.
3 7
It was some time in between July 14, 1983, and 8
Novembe r 4, 19857 9
THE WITNESS:
I can tell you' approximately.
O 10 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
When do you believe that to 11 be?
12 THE WITNESS:
It was around October of '84.
'o O 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Why do you recall that date, 14 by the way?
15 THE WITNESS:
The clarification that was made
.O 16 in this procedure was at the time frame that I was 1
17 revising the welding procedure.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Was that in response to any O
19 of the issues brought up by Mr. Puckett?
20 THE WITNESS:
It was in response to the AWS 21 D.l.1 Code versus the AWS D.l.3 Code.
O 22 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
So it was a direct result of 23 the controversy that had arisen because of Mr. Puckett's 24 questions with regard to that?
'O 25 THE WITNESS:
It was a clarification in the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
'O Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3 3335 O
O 1
specifications.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
3 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, that really 4
concludes my supplemental Direct Examination of Mr.
5 Simile.
6 Let me hand to the Board -- I have run out of S
7 copies -- and the parties such copies as I have of, at 8
least, some of the documents.
i 9
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I' take it, Mr. Miller, you O
10 are not going to move the admission of these exhibits 11 today?
12 MR. MILLER:
That's correct.
O O
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
But you will allow the ones 14 that have been identified to go with the Court Reporter 15 and travel with the record at this point?
O 16 MR. MILLER:
Yes, sir.
17 And, I think, depending on the questioning, that it 1
18 may very well be appropriate -- I am sure it will be O
19 appropriate to move the admission of some of these 20 documents 'and it may be appropriate to move the 21 admission of all of them.
C) 22 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
The ones that aren't going 23 to be admitted then can be withdrawn.
24 MR. MILLER:
Off the record.
()
25 (There f ollowed a discussion outside the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
'()
Geneva, lilinois o0134 (312) 232-0262
i J
3336
- D 1
record.)
2 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, the witness is now 3
available for Cross, unless the Board feels it would be
,)
4 more productive to have a short recess while these 5
documents are looked at quickly.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Do you wish to look at those
- D 7
documents now, Mr. Guild, or don't you think you would 8
be prepared to?
9 MR. GUILD:
No, I don't think I would be i
O 10 prepared to examine from them.
11 I guess my interest is, it follows, I would like to 12 have the Board or Applicant or Staff, if they choose, to
- o O 13 elicit what they choose with regard to these documents 14 that have been put in and then reserve an opportunity to 15 examine the witness on Cross after he has, essentially, 4
16 added supplemental direct testimony.
17 These documents are, obviously, not, strictly 18 speaking, within the scope of his prefiled direct
- D 19 testimony.
I understand they are important.
The 20 witness's opinion about these documents is appropriate 21 to come in.
22 I just would like an opportunity to cross the 23 witness after he makes such testimony.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
My understanding is
()
25 you are not go'ing to complete the witness today, anyway; Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
O Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3 3337 O
1 is that true?
2 MR. GUILD:
Yes.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
So he will be available 4
first thing'on Monday afternoon for you to examine 5
directly on the documents, if you wish to examine him on 6
the documents; and that presumes that you will have 7
copies of all the documents available to you before 8
that.
9 Is it possible ---
- O 10 MR. MILLER:
I am inquiring as to whether or 11 not there is some place close by where we can get 12 quicker copies than the facilities that are in this 0O 13 building.
14 MR. GDlLD:
Off the record.
15 (There followed a discussion outside the O
16 record.)
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Let's go back on the record.
18 We have discussed the fact that we don't have 0
19 copies of these documents that have been identified, 20
. other than that one copy, and that we don't have copies 21 of-two other critical documents.
We don't have any O
~
22
' copies of Code D.l.3 and Amendment 42.
23 In addition, none of th'e,other parties, nor the
'24 Board, has had a chance to eramine the documents A.7
()
25 through A.'12, so that we will not examine Mr. Simile
+
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
O Geneva, 1111nois oulae (312) 232-0262
O 3338 O
1 with regard to the specifics of these documents, which 2
will, basically, be done after the weekend recess,
~3 beginning with Monday afternoon; but that Mr. Guild and "O
4-anyone else might ask general questions.
5 JUDGE COLE:
There is one question I have 6
about the exhibit's that were just identified.
O 7
Exhibit 12, one of the items that was mentioned by 8
Mr. Vannier was Section 8.2.1.
9 In the copy that we have, apparently, that O
10 particular section was highlighted with a yellow pen and 11 it obliterated the writing under 8.2.1, so I can't read 12 it.
O
- O 13 MR. MILLER
Well, I thank you for calling 14 that to our attention; and I see that there are other 15 highlights in the document.
- O 16 We are going to have to get clean copies.
17 JUDGE COLE:
I think particularly of the 18 sections that were referred to already, because they are O
19 the first ones I turned to.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
We will now proceed 21 with Mr. Guild's Cross Examination.
O 22 MR. GUILD:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
23 CROSS EXAMINATION 24 BY MR. GUILD
()
25 Q
Mr. Simile, let me see if we can establish some l
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
O Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
.3 3339
.O 1
chronology of events that relate to your employment at 2
Braidwood.
First, when you arrived at Braidwood, according to 3
4 your testimony, you were given a package of documents 5
that related to Mr. Puckett's concerns.
6 Those are identified as Group Exhibit 1 attached to O
7 your testimony, are they not?
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
And did I understand that you were given these documents
.O 10 on the day you arrived at Braidwood?
11 A
I believe it was the day I arrived.
12 Q
By Mr. DeWald?
'oO 13 A
Yes.
14 0
And that day when you arrived at Braidwood was Tuesday, 15 August 28, 1984, was it not?
O 16 A
Yes, sir.
17 Q
All right.
Are you aware that's the same day that Mr.
18 Puckett was terminated?
0 l
19 A
I believe he was terminated the day before.
20 Q
You believe he was terminated the 27th; is that right?
21 A
Yes.
O 22 Q
The 28th, the day you arrived, was Mr. Puckett's 90 day 23 anniversary date of employment.
24 Are you aware of that fact?
O 25 A
Yes, I am.
1 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
C)
Geneva, 1111nois evise (312) 232-0262
3340 O
O 1
Q N ow, it wasn't simply coincidence that you arrived to 2
take Mr. Puckett's job on his 90th anniversary date, as 3
you state, one day after he was terminated.
4 You had been hired for the Braidwood Level 3 5
position before Mr. Puckett was terminated, hadn't you?
6 A
I was notified on the 24th by our corporate office that O
7 there were welding problems at Braidwood and if I would 8
transfer to Braidwood.
9 As far as taking Mr. Puckett's place, that was not O
10 discussed nor mentioned.
11 Q
I see.
Well, what position did you understand on 12 Friday, the 24th of August, just before the weekend in OO a3 which you traveled to Pittsburgh and then to Braidwood 14
-- what position did you understand you were going to be 15 taking?
O 16 A
The position was never fully delineated as to title.
17 I did understand that I would be taking over the 18 welding program at Braidwood.
O 19 0
I see.
And did you understand that there was Mr.
20 Puckett, who was already in a position where he was 21 responsible for the welding program?
O 22 A
Yes.
23 Q
Did you deduce from those facts that you were going to 24 be taking Mr. Puckett's place?
()
25 A
I deduced from those facts that' I would be over ~Mr.
Sonnteo Reporting Service, Ltd.
'O Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
=>
~
3341 O
- )
1 Puckett.
2 O
The 24th of August then, Friday, you were contacted by 3
Comstock management and told that you would be working
- D 4
at Braidwood in that capacity; correct?
i 5
A Yes.
6 Q
Who contacted you from corporate management?
3 7
A Bob Marino.
8 Q
Mr. Marino, and can you identify Mr. Marino's position 9
for the record, please?
- D 10 A
He is our corporate QA Manager.
11 Q
Are you aware of whether Mr. Marino had a hand in 12 terminating Mr. Puckett's employment?
O D
13 A
No, I am not.
14 Q
All right.
Are you aware that on Sunday, August 26th, 15 Mr. DeWald graded Mr. Puckett's field -- well, his weld
- D 16 practical exam?
l 17 A
I was not here.
18 Q
Are you aware of that fact?
- P 19 A
I don't know what day he graded the practical.
20 Q
Have you ever looked at Mr. Puckett's practical exam?
21 A
I have looked at the practical, yes.
m~
22 I couldn't tell you which date it was graded on.
23 Q
Did you notice on the practical exam the date 8-26-84, 24 signed Irving DeWald?
()
25 A
No, sir.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
3 Geneva, Illinois 6u144 (312) 232-0262
~
O 3342
(
o i
1 Q
All right, sir.
Then you on Monday, August 27th, 2
reported to Comstock corporate headquarters in 3
Pittsburgh and there you were given the assignment to O
4 report to Braidwood the next day, the 28th of August; 5
correct?
6 A
Yes.
O 7
Q And with whom did you speak when you went to the 8
Pittsburgh office on Monday, the 27th of August?
9 A
I spoke with Bob Marino, Ernie Yockey.
O 10 0
I am sorry.
Can you spell the last gentleman's name for 11 the record?
A Y-O-C-K-E-Y.
( ) ' 12 O
13 Q
Who is he, please?
14 A
He is the Eastern Regional Manager for Comstock.
J 15 Q
All right.
Any others?
g 16 A
Reege Porter, who is -- I really don't know what Reege's 17 title would be; and Bob Seltmann was in Pittsburgh that 18 day.
O 19 0
Mr. Seltmann, the Quality Assurance Manager at Comstock, 20 Braidwood?
21 A
Yes, sir.
C' 22 0
And at that time did you understand that you were to 23 replace Mr. Puckett in the position that Mr. Puckett 24 held?
()
25 A
At that time I still understood that I would be taking l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
C Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262 l
3 3343 D
1 over the Welding Department and that I would be -- and 2
that I would be over Mr. Puckett, yes.
3 Q
It was still your belief on August 27, 1984, that Mr.
.)
4 Puckett was going to remain on site and be under your 5
supe rvision?
6 A
Yes, sir.
3 7
Q When did you learn that, in fact, instead of supervising 8
Mr. Puckett, you were replacing him?
9 A
I learned that Tuesday morning when I got there.
9 10 Q
Tuesday morning, August 28th, you learned that Mr.
11 Puckett had been fired the day before?
12 A
Yes, sir.
DO 13 0
All right, sir.
Now, you had previously served as the 14 acting Level 3 at the Perry nuclear site in the employ 15 of L.
K. Comstock; correct?
3 16 A
I served as a Level 3 at Perry, yes.
17 0
Well, your testimony -- and I apologize for not having 18 the specific reference -- used the word, " acting Level O
19 3."
20 Does that imply that you were in a capacity that 21 was not full time or fully empowered as the Level 3 or 3
22 is that simply a meaning I am reading into the word that 23 is not intended?
24 A
That's just a meaning you are reading into it.
()
25 0
You were actually the Level 3 Weld Inspector at Perry?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
'O Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
?
3344 O
3 1
A Yes.
2 Q
And how long did you work in that capacity?
3 A
I would say approximately a year.
I don't know exactly.
3 4
Q How long all together were you at the Perry facility at 5
Comstock?
6 A
For a year-and-a-half.
3 7
0 All right.
And before you became the Level 3 you held 8
another position?
I 9
A Yes.
'3 10 Q
Can you identify that position?
11 A
I was a quality control engineer.
12 My basic responsibility at that time was to develop O.~
D 13 and set up the turnover process of the documentation.
14 Q
All right.
Did you have any responsibility for -- in 15 that capacity as quality control engineer for -- field D
16 supervision of Levy 1 2 Quality Control Inspectors?
17 A
No, sir.
18 0
In your capacity as the Comstock Level 3 Weld Inspector o
19 at Perry thereafter, did you have any responsibility for 20 the field supervision of Level 2 Weld Inspectors?
21 A
Yes, sir.
O 22 0
And can you describe generally what that responsibility 23 was?
24 A
I was, basically, responsible for the welding program,'
()
25 the procedures, the training of the inspectors and the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
{}
Geneva, Illinois 60134 j
(312) 232-0262
'O 3345 O
O 1
maintaining of their certification.
2 Q
Did you have a direct supervisory responsibility for 3
those weld inspectors?
- O 4
A Yes.
5 Q
Was the position essentially the same -- the position at 6
Perry essentially the same -- as the welding supervisor 7
position that you ultimately took at Braidwood?
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
Now, Mr. Simile, have you ever worked as a welder?
O 10 A
No, sir.
11 Q
I guess it follows then that you have never been 12 certified as a welder for nuclear power plant j
OO 13 construction; true?
14 A
Never.
15 Q
Nor have you been certified to perform welding under the 0
16 Navy nuclear program?
17 A
No, sir.
18 Q
At the time you came to Braidwood in August of 1984, how O
19 many years of experience did you have as a Ce.tified 20 Welding Inspector, Visual Welding Inspector?
21 A
Over ten years.
O 22 0
All right, sir.
Now, during those ten years, did you 23 for that entire period actually perform field 24 inspections of welds?
()
25 A
For the majority of the time, yes.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
.O Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
-J-
p v-r r
e-~--
y
-v-
3 3346 D
1 Q
Can you give me an approximation of when during that ten 2
years you began the field inspection of welds?
3 A
When I began field inspections?
f) l 4
0 Well, perhaps I am presuming.
1 5
Was your field inspection of welds intermittent 6
throughout the ten-year period of time that you were a 7
Certified Visual Weld Inspector?
8 A
Yes, sir.
9 0
Can you identify the positions in which you actually O
10 performed field weld inspections?
11 A
As far as being a Welding Inspector?
12 O
Yes, the jobs.
3 ()
13 How about the jobs where you were doing actual 14 field weld work, field weld inspection work?
15 A
Beaver Valley.
9 16 0
That is a nuclear facility, the name of the facility; 17 correct?
18 A
Yes, sir.
3 19 Q
For what period of time did you do field weld inspection 20 at Beaver Valley?
21 A
The period of time that I was there was from '72 to '76.
S 22 O
Yes.
And did you do field weld inspection during that 23 entire period?
14 A
No.
I would say probably starting around '73.
()
25 0
Continuing through '767 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
O Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2 3347 m
]
O 1
A Yes.
2 Q
In what capacity did you perform field weld inspections 3
at Beaver Valley?
4 A
We were welding inspectors for Schneider, ' Incorporated, 5
who was the piping contractor on the project.
6 The ultimate quality control acceptance of our O
7 welds was through Stone & Webster.
8 0
So did you do construction-related inspection --
9 A
Yes, sir.
q.
10 0
-- as opposed to quality control inspection?
11 A
We were the quality control of Schneider; but it was 12 construction inspection, yes.
O 13 Q
You didn't perform the final visual quality control 14 inspection of the welds you inspected then?
15 A
We didn't have the final responsibility for the 0
16 acceptance, no.
17 Q
Some other Quality Control Inspector performed the final 18 visual of those welds?
O 19 A
Yes, sir, Stone & Webster.
20 0
Thereafter, after 1976, did you thereafter perform 21 actual field weld inspection work?
O 22 A
Yes, I did.
I worked for Walworth Company in their Ohio 23 plant, where they were making castings for valves.
24 My responsibility was a resident inspector, which
()
25 inspected weld repairs and NDE requirements.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
C.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
( 312)'
232-0262
O 3
3348 l
.O 1
Q For what application were these valves manufactured?
2 A
They were both nuclear and non-nuclear.
3 I worked for Energy Consultants as a Vendor O
4 Surveillance Inspector.
5 0
You are getting a little bit ahead of me now.
6 During what period of time did you perform the O
7 inspection of nuclear application welds for that 8
employer, Woolworth?
9 A
Walworth.
O j
10 Q
Walworth Company?
11 A
Yes.
12 I would say from '77 through '78.,
O O 13 0
About a year's period of time or less?
14 A
Yes.
15 Q
Less than a year or a year?
O 16 A
I would say a year.
17 Q
Okay.
And then -- I am sorry.
18 You began and answered your next employment at 19 which you performed field visual --
20 A
This was for Energy Consultants, and I was a Vendor 21 Surveillance Inspector.
O 22 0
What components did you inspect?
23 A
We inspected numerous components, valves.
24 0
Components for nuclear application?
()
25 A
Yes, sir.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
O Geneva, Illinois 60134 j
(312) 232-0262
D 3349
()
l3 1
Q During what period of time did you perform weld 2
inspection?
j 3
A Through the whole period of time.
- O 4
Q What period was that, sir?
l 5
A From '76 through '77 -- let's see.
'78 through '797 j
6
'79 through '82.
l0 7
0 I am sorry.
'79 through '82 is the answer?
8 A
Well, let me look here.
I 9
'78 through '79.
!O 10 0
All right, sir.
Did you perform visual weld inspections 11 in the field thereafter?
12-A Yes, sir.
O 13 0
When was your next employment in which you did that 14 work?
l 15 A
It was with Spec Consultants, from '79 through '82.
!)
1 16 0
What was the work that you inspected, the visual weld 17 inspections for them?
18 A
It was for a liquid natural gas project.
19 Q
A non-nuclear application?
J 20 A
It was non-nuclear.
H oweve r, it was code, yes.
21 O
It was what code?
!O 22 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Code?
23 A
It was ANSI B.31-B and ASME Section 9.
24 BY MR. GUILD:
()
25 0
Okay.
Thereafter, after '82?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
c, ueneva, Illinois cu144 (312) 232-0262
D 3350
(
- D 1
A Well, I was with Spec from '82 to '83.
2 Q
I thought I heard you say '79 to '82.
{
3 A
Right.
4 Q
What was your employment then after with Spec?
5 A
1 returned to Energy Consultants, in which I was I
6 involved with the marketing aspect of the nuclear
- D 7
industry, the QA/QC program.
8 0
I just missed the dates, Mr. Simile.
l 9
From '78 to '79 you were first with Energy
.O 10 Consultants in a capacity you described?
11 A
Right.
12 0
Then you went to the liquid natural gas project fcr what
- D s 13 period of time, sir?
14 A
With Spec, it was from '79 through '82.
15 0
All right, sir.
Thereafter now?
?O 16 A
'82 to '83 I was back with Energy Consultants with their 17 marketing.
t i
18 O
Did you do field inspection of welds in nuclear 19 applications during that ' 82 ' 83 period?
20 A
No, I did not.
21 Q
And then you went to work for Comstock?
- G 22 A
Yes, sir.
23 0
Thank you.
24 And did you perform field inspection of welds at
()
25 the Perry facility when you were employed by Comstock?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
O Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
9 3351 O
D 1
A On occasion.
2 0
Were you aware of complaints at Perry by Quality Control 3
Inspectors of harassment, intimidation or production 4
pressure?
5 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, I object to the 6
relevance of this inquiry.
3 7
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
You object to this?
8 MR. MILLER:
On relevance grounds.
2 9
He is now inquiring into awareness of incidents at 3
10 Perry.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Overruled.
He is asking preliminary questions.
D O 12 13 THE WITNESS:
I didn't understand your 14 question.
15 BY MR. GUILD:
3 16 Q
Were you aware -- strike that.
17 Are you aware of complaints of harassment, 18 intimidation or production pressure by Quality Control 3
19 Inspectors employed by L. K. Comstock Company at the 20 Perry nuclear plant?
i 21 A
I had -- I was aware of or there were rumors of it, yes.
3 22 0
Were you aware of such complaints during the time of 23 your employment at Perry?
24 A
Yes.
()
25 Q
And were any of those complaints directed at you, Mr.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
O Geneva, Illinois 50134 (312) 232-0262
iG 3352 O
O 1
Simile?
2 A
I don't know.
3 0
You are not aware?
4 A
No.
l 5
Q Are you a aware of whether any of those complaints were 1
lO by weld inspectors that were under your supervision 6
7 during your time at Perry?
l 8
A No, I do not.
9 0
Were you ever interviewed by the Nuclear Regulatory 10 Commission with respect to complaints of harassment, 11 intimidation or production pressure by QC Inspectors at 12 Perry?
-Q 13 A
One time.
14 0
Can you tell me approximately when that was, please?
15 A
(Indicating. )
O 16 0
Can you identify the NRC Inspector?
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I think the record ought to i
18 reflect that the witness shook his head no, that he
- O 19 can't.
20 MR. MILLER:
You do have to answer in words.
21 THE WITNESS:
I am sorry.
- O 22 BY MR. GUILD:
23 Q
Can you identify the NRC Inspector that interviewed you, i
l 24 Mr. Simile?
()
25 A
No, I cannot.
Sonntaq Reportino Service, Ltd.
- C.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3 3353
()
i
- D 1
Q Was it Mr. Schapker, who sits near you?
2 A
No, sir.
3 We are talking about Perry now right?
O 4
Q Right.
5 Do you recognize the names Neisler or Mendez as the 6
inspectors?
- Q 7
A No, not at Perry.
I 8
0 You met Mr. Neisler and Mr. Mendez at Braidwood?
9 A
I have met Mr. Mendez.
O 10 0
Mr. Mendez, and do you know whether it was Mr. Mendez 11 who interviewed you at Perry?
12 A
No, it was not.
oO 13 0
You did not meet Mr. Neisler, though?
14 A
No, I have not.
I don't think.
15 I would probably know him if I saw him.
16 Q
All right.
Now, are you aware of any complaints of 17 harassnent, intimidation or production pressure at the 18 Braidwood facility?
19 A
Yes.
20 Q
Can you identify -- tell me how you became aware of such 21 complaints first?
O 22 A
Strictly by rumor, I guess.
23 Q
Can you tell me what the source of that rumor was?
24 A
Mainly from the inspectors and their talk, and their
()
25 talking with themselves and eac other.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
lC Geneva, Illinois 0u1J4 (312) 232-0262
,9 3354 O
O 1
O You are talking about the. Quality Control Inspectors at 2
Braidwood?
3 A
Yes.
'O 4
Q And you were party to conversations at which inspectors 5
raised. facts regarding harassment, intimidation or 6
production pressures?
O 7
A I heard them talking about when they went over to the 8
NRC, yes.
9 Q
So you heard references to the March 29, 1985, O
10 complaints by the 24 Comstock inspectors to the NRC?
l 11 A
Yes.
12 0
Were you aware of any other complaints of harassment, OO 13 intimidation or production pressure at Braidwood aside 14 from that source?
15 A
I can't recall right now.
O 16 Q
All right.
Do you recall a complaint by Mr. R. D.
17 Hunter, a Quality Control Inspector at Braidwood, 18 directed at you, Mr. Simile, that you harassed Mr.
O 19 Hunter 7 20 A
No, sir.
21 0
Do you recall -- do you know Mr. Hunter?
.O 22 A
Yes, sir.
23 0
Mr. Hunter is a former QC Inspector at Braidwood, is he 24 not?
()
25 A
Yes, he is.
Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
l0 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3355 O
- D 1
Q Do you recall:
Was Mr. Hunter working under your 2
supervision as a weld inspector?
3 A
He was working under a supervisor that was under my
.D 4
supervision, yes.
5 0
Who was that supervisor?
6 A
I would say Ernie Baker right now.
}
7 Q
Did you and Mr. Hunter have any direct dealings?
8 A
Not normally.
9 Q
Do you recall an instance where you observed Mr. Hunter O
10 reading a newspaper?
4 11 A
Yes, sir.
12 0
And did you, in fact, initiate disciplinary proceedings p
O V i
13 against Mr. Hunter because you observed him reading a 14 newspaper?
15 A
He was given a verbal warning.
-O 16 Q
The answer to my question then is yes?
1 17 A
Yes, he was given a verbal warning.
18 Q
Did you, in fact, contact Mr. DeWald and seek Mr.
2 19 DeWald's initiation of a disciplinary action against Mr.
20 Hunter for reading a newspaper?
l 21 A
I talked to Mr. DeWald about the situation, and a verbal O
l 22 warning was issued.
23 Q
All right.
Are you aware that Mr. Hunter as a matter of 24 course reported to work an hour in advance of starting
()
25 time and that every day read the newspaper during that Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
O ueneva, Illinois 0U134 (312) 232-0262
3 3356
/~%
's_)
!O 1
hour before he started work?
2 A
Yes, sir.
l 3
0 Were you aware of that fact at the time that you llO 4
initiated disciplinary action against Mr. Hunter for 4
5 reading the newspaper?
6 A
Yes, sir, because he was not reading the newspaper the l
7 hour8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> bef ore work time.
8 The time Mr. Hunter was reading the newspaper was 9
during working hours.
10 10 0
When exactly was it, as you recall, that you observed I
11 Mr. Hunter doing this, what time of day?
12 A
I can't really right now.
I think it was in the
}
13 afternoon some time.
14 0
Your recollection is it was in the afternoon?
15 A
I am not sure.
- O
~
16 Q
Well, would it have been the morning?
17 A
It could have been but it was definitely af ter work 18 hours2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br />.
Work hours had started.
'O 19 0
And Mr. Hunter's work hours had started that day?
20 A
Yes, sir.
21 0
You are certain of that fact?
- O 22 A
Absolutely.
23 Q
How are you certain of that fact, sir?.
24 A
Because I wouldn't give him a warning or a problem if it
()
25 was before work hours.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
- C Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
C.
3357
()
0 1
0 Well, did you discuss the matter with Mr. Hunter when 2
you observed him in this activity?
3 A
Yes.
3 4
Q Oh, you did?
5 A
Sure.
i 6
Q What did you say to Mr. Hunter?
3 7
A I asked him what he was doing.
s 8
Q And what did Mr. Hunter reply?
9 A
He didn't say much.
O 10 0
Well, did he say anything to you?
11 A
I don't recall.
j 12 O
Do you recall ever -- were you aware of complaints by O
13 Mr. Herschel Stout that you harassed him?
14 A
In which way?
15 0
Well, are you aware of any complaints by Mr. Stout of j
16 harassnent in which you were involved, Mr. Simile?
17 A
I have not.
I can't recall any.
l 18 Q
Do you recall Mr. Stout complaining that you followed O
19 him, watched him, stood over his shoulder while he i
20 performed his inspection activities and that you did so 21 because you identified Mr. Stout as a union organizer?
'O 22 A
I did not f ollow anyone.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
The question is whether you 24 recall that Mr. Stout' complained about that.
()
25 A
(Continuing.)
Not that I know of.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
'O veneva, 1111nois aulae (312) 232-0262
?
3358 O
J 1
BY MR. GUILD:
2 Q
You are not aware of such complaints?
3 A
No.
D 4
Q Did you closely observe Mr. Stout?
5 A
I didn't closely observe any inspector as far as looking 6
over their shoulder or following them, in that sense, 3
7 no.
8 Q
Did you treat Mr. Stout any differently than you did any 9
other inspector in the respect of monitoring or 10 supervising his work or observing his -- observing him 11 on the job?
12 A
No, I,did not.
aO 13 Q
And you do not recall watching him as he performed his 14 inspection activities?
15 A
No.
I did go to the field quite frequently and cover 16 the field to see where the inspectors were.
This was 17 not directed at any individual.
18 0
Well, did Mr. Stout happen to be one of the people that 3
19 you observed when you were performing that activity?
20 A
I ran into Herschel, sure.
I run into a lot of them.
21 Q
Now, in your testimony, Mr. Simile, you acknowledge that O
22
-- if I can try to summarize what I understood f rom it 23 and ask you if this is a correct understanding:
24 You acknowledge that when you came on the job, you O
25 see a number of -- you eet documenes ref1ectine a number Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
O Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~)
3359 g
k D
1 of concerns, as you understood those concerns, by Mr.
2 Puckett; correct?
3 A
Yes.
3 4
Q And that you were charged with investigating those 5
concerns and taking whatever action you deemed 6
f appropriate?
?
7 A
Yes.
8 0
Including corrective action as you deemed apkJopriate?
9 A
Yes.
3 10 0
All right.
Now, do I understand your testimo'y fairly 11 that you identified a number of concerns by M. Puckett 12 7-)
that were, indeed, valid and took corrective actions?
,3
\\J 13 You made some changes in the welding progran ano 14 the procedures, in the control of filler material, in 15 the welding qualification area; but you reject Mr.
J 16 Puckett's characterization that these were serious 17 problems or problems evidencing a near breakdown?
18 MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, excuse me.
0 19 I think there are at least seven or eight questions 20 contained in that.
21 MR. GUILD:
It's an ef fort to summarize, Mr.
G 22 Chairman.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Do you agree with all of the 24 observations made by Mr. Guild or do you disagree with?
D r) 25 THE WITNESS:
I really don't understand what
(,
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
O Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- O 3360
()
0 1
he was asking.
l 2
What were you saying?
3 BY MR. GUILD:
- O 4
Q Was there something you didn't understand in particular, i
5 sir?
I am really trying to expedite the examination and 6
I am not trying to put words in your mouth.
7 Did you, in short, find a number of problems that 8
required corrections in the Comstock welding program?
9 A
I didn't find a number of problems, no.
O 10 Q
Did you find any problems, Mr. Simile?
11 A
Yes.
12 Q
Pardon me?
- O 13 A
Yes.
{
{
14 Q
Did you find more than one problem?
1 j
15 A
Yes.
.O 16 Q
Did you find a number of problems?
17 A
No.
18 Q
I see, I see.
Cr l
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Miller, I think that's 20 delaying the proceeding, because it didn't seem like it 21 was an unfair question.
It was just summarized.
.O 22 MR. MILLER:
But, your Honor, in the question 23 there were causal links between Mr. Simile's -- what he 24 did after he got there and Mr. Puckett's concerns.
()
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
My understanding of Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
O Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2 3361 i ()
1 the question was just a summary of whether he found a l
2 number of problems but he. considered them to be minor; 3
but, nevertheless, you have objected, the question is
'O 4
withdrawn.
We will go piece by piece here.
4 l
5 BY MR. GUILD:
i 6
Q Okay.
Now, Mr. Simile, just to sunmarize, Exhibit 2-C 7
reflects your investigation of Mr. Puckett's concerns, I
I 8
does it not?
9 It's a document attached to your testimony, O
10 September 13th memo f rom you to Mr. DeWald.
l 11 A
Yes, sir.
1 i
12 0
All right.
And does that document accurately reflect 10 13 the results of your investigation of Mr. Puckett's i
14 conce rns?
15 A
Yes.
- O i
16 Q
Doesn't that document reflect that you identified a 17 number of his concerns that were valid and took I
18 corrective action?
O 19 A
If you look at each individual item as being a number,
,20 sure.
21 Q
You stand by that document as reflecting the results of
.O 22 your review?
23 A
Yes.
I q
24 Q
Now, in your testimony beginning at Page 8, you identify
()
25 your understanding of Mr. Puckett's concerns, first that j
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
10 Geneva, Illinois oplJe (312) 232-0262
3 3362 g
LJ
._/
1 he was concerned about the applicability of D.l.3, the 2
AWS Welding Code, D.l.3, to Comstock welding procedures; 3
correct?
7
~
4 A
Yes.
5 0
You identified Mr. Puckett was concerned that the 6
Stainless Steel Welding Procedure was not qualified in 7
all positions; correct?
8 A
Yes.
9 0
You identified that Mr. Puckett had concerns about 9
10 welder qualification records, beginning at Page 9; 11 correct?
12 A
Yes.
, -)
13 0
You understood that Mr. Puckett had concerns about the 14
"-aceability of weld rod, weld electrode; correct?
15 A
Yes.
9 16 0
Now, you made a number of changes in the Comstock 17 welding procedures that you testified to; correct?
18 A
Yes, I did.
7' 19 0
All right.
You characterized those as changes to 20 simplify and clarify the procedures; correct?
21 A
Yes.
J 22 0
You, in fact, agreed that the Stainless Steel Welding 23 Procedure was not qualified in all positions and it had 24 to be re-qualified; correct?
ID (r) 25 A
Yes.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
3 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3 3363 I
($)
'O 1
Q And there was the need to identify field stainless steel 2
welding work that was nonconforming because it had been 3
performed under the unqualified procedure?
O j
4 A
Yes.
5 Q
And those stainless steel welds in the field were i
6 removed and replaced --
O 7
A Yes.
8 Q
-- after the procedure was re-qualified?
9 A
Yes.
O 10 Q
Now, you understood that Mr. Puckett had concerns about 11 welder qualification records containing errors and 12 inconsistencies, did you n,ot?
OO 13 A
Yes.
14 Q
Now, in your testimony you state, Page 9, "I etbo 15 learned Mr. Puckett had raised questions about validity
.O 16 of the welder qualification records but from what I
,i 17 understood he had never identified any specific problems 18 with these records."
19 All right.
Now, were you aware that Mr. Puckett at j
20 the time he was terminated was in the process of l
21 reviewing the welder qualification records?
O 22 A
I had understood at one time that he was reviewing them.
i l
23 Q
Did you understand that within a week of his termination i
24 Mr. Puckett'was assigned the task by Mr. DeWald of
()
25 reviewing all the welder qualification records?
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
X>
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
O 3364 O
O 1
A I knew he was assigned that task.
2 Time frame, I wasn't there, so I don't know.
3 Q
All right.
Well, did you understand that Mr. Puckett, 4
in fact, had undertaken that task and that he had 5
compiled a list of -- during the time that he had done 6
work on that task, identified inconsistencies and errors O
7 in the welder qualification records that he had an 8
opportunity to review?
9 A
No, I did not.
O 10 Q
Well, didn't you learn that fact when you and Mr.
11 Schapker ultimately -- when you accompanied Mr. Schapker 12 at his inspection?
gO 13 A
Yes, sir.
14 Q
And didn't you at that time learn that Mr. Puckett had a i
15 list of weld records that contained errors and 16 inconsistencies, a list that had been compiled during i
17 that last week on the job?,
I 18 A
Yes, sir.
4 19 Q
And so, in fact, you understood that Mr. Puckett, 20 indeed, had identified specific problems with the welder 21 qualification records?
20 j
22 A
only after Gerry, Mr. Schapker, had brought the list i
23 forward, yes.
24 Q
All right, sir.
()
25 A
When I did my initial review, I did not, i
Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
C, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
,f 4.
3365
.h-l O
1 Q
All right, sir.
Did you ask M'r. Puckett whether or not 2
there were ' identified errors and inconsistencies?
3-A I never met Mr. Puckett.
O 4
Q Do you know whether anyone else at L. K. Comstock asked 5
Mr. Puckett whether he identified any specific errors or 6
inconsistencies?
O 7
~
A I can't say for sure.
I wacn't there.
8 Normal processing or whatever is to turn over the 9
work' that you were working on, turn your procedures in.
10 0
Well, you were specifically hired to, among other
\\
11
. things, review the concerns Mr. Puckett had about errors
)
ano in' consistencies in welder qualification records?
12 O
J 13 A
Ye's, I was.
14 Q
But you made no effort to contact Mr. Puckett, did you?
15 A
No, I did not.,/
O 1C Q
Now, I believe your~ testimony reflects that you 17 perforced a review of welder qualification records but
_18 that the scope of your review, Mr. Simile, was 19 insufficient to identify all of the errors and 20 inconsistencies in welder qualification records that 21 reflected violations of Comstock procedures; correct?
3 22 A
Yes.
23 Q
You reviewed the welder qualification records only, as you state,' to determine whether they met your 24
()
25 interpret $ tion of the AWS D.l.1 Code requirements?
'Sonntag. Reporting Service, Ltd.
()
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
+
-2%w..
~%r~e.s 8.
m.
O 3366 O
O 1
A Yes, sir.
2 Q
And it wasn't until Mr. Schapker, long after Mr.
3 Puckett's departure and your hiring, conducted his O
4 inspection activities did the existence of additional 5
errors and inconsistencies, procedural deficiencies in I
6 welder qualification records, come to light?
O 7
A Yes, sir.
8 Q
And thereaf ter -- only thereaf ter -- did you embark on a 9
complete review of all the welder qualification records?
)
O i
10 A
I had performed a complete review initially.
11 Q
I see.
But a complete review with a scope of review or O(])
12 a standard of review to identify all errors and i
13 inconsistencies?
14 A
There was already a program in place prior to Mr.
15 Schapker's visit that called for the review of all those
,0 16 documents.
l 17 Q
Well, yes, there was a Quality Control Document Review 18 Program at Comstock because of errors and lO l
19 inconsistencies and deficiencies in quality documents l
20 that extended far beyond welder qualification records; i
21 correct?
(O 22 A
Yes.
23 Q
That's what you are referring to?
24 A
Yes.
lC O 25 0
But, nonetheless, you didn't embark on a review of Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
C Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3 3367 O
1 welder qualification records specifically to identify 2
all inconsistencies and errors until after the Schapker 3
inspection?
3 4
A Yes.
5 Q
Now, the NRC, as reflected in the inspection report that 6
is appended to your testimony, had identified problems b
7 with the traceability of weld filler material; correct?
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
As you stated in your preliminary examination by Mr.
3 10 Miller, there are two primary electrodes that Comstock 11 uses, one is E 7018 and one is E 6013; correct?
12 A
Correct.
D O, 13 Q
Those are the electrodes that are used for the carbon
)
14 steel welding at Comstock?
15 A
Yes.
2 16 Q
And one of them is used for the structural welding and 17 one of them is used for the thinner gauge, galvanized
\\
l l
18 cable pan welding; correct?
19 A
Yes.
20 0
I am doing this from memory.
21 Is it the 6013 that is for the galvanized cable D
22 pan?
23 A
Yes.
24 0
It's the 7018 that is used for the structural members?
- O 25 A
Yes.
{
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
5 Geneva, 1111nols. bu144 (312) 232-0262
9 3368 O
3 1
Q Is that specification because the 6013 has specific 4
2 properties that make it appropriate for use with a 3
galvanized material?
O 4
A It's easier to weld with for galvanized.
5 Q
For galvanized material?
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes, I think he added that.
3 7
BY MR. GUILD:
)
8 Q
You think it's easier to weld with for low hydrogen run?
9 A
No.
O 10 0
Is that because it's a low hydrogen run?
11 A
It is not.
12 Q
The 7018 is a low hydrogen run?
13 A
Yes, sir.
14 Q
The problem with the 6013 -- strike that.
15 The problem with the galvanizing is that the 16 galvanizing coating on the thin-gauge material can 17 interfere with weld quality, can it not?
18 A
Not necessarily.
19 Q
Well, if the galvanizing is not removed and gets into 20 the weld metal, it can interfere with weld quality, can 21 it not?
O 22 A
Not necessarily.
23 0
I am not asking whether it necessarily can, but can it?
24 A
It can at times.
()
25 However, we have qualified procedures using E 7018 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
L, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
=a 3369 0
1 electrodes with the galvanizing not removed.
2 O
Well, I know that that's your testimony or I know that's 3
the -- I know that's your testimony; but what is the lC 4
difference between the E 7018 and the E 6013 in terms of 5
their material specifications?
6 A
E 7018 is a low hydrogen electrode, where E 6013 is not.
b 7
E 7018, used on cable pan welding, is easy to weld 8
with.
However, it is a little bit of a hotter 9
electrode, which has to be controlled.
- D 10 Q
Does that create problems of melt through with a thin --
11 melt through or suck back with a thin-gauge material r3 12 such as a cable pan?
OU 13 A-It could.
However, E 6013 can do the same.
14 Q
But is E 6013 because of its material properties more 15 appropriate and, therefore, the specified rod to use 3
16 with thin-gauge galvanized cable pan?
17 A
I wouldn't say it'r more appropriate.
It is a -- it is 18 not as hot a rod as E 7018.
It is more difficult to
-O 19 weld with the 6013 as far as from a welder's standpoint.
20 Q
But there is less risk of suck back and melt through 21 with E 6013 on the thin gauge cable pan?
3 22 A
Probably.
I 23 O
And is that the primary reason why it's specified for 24 the cable pan welder?
()
25 A
I don't know.
Probably.
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
.O ueneva, 1111nois ovide (312) 232-0262
O 3370 f^.
O
'O 1
Q Do you have an opinion about why the 7018 is specified 2
for structural welding and the 6013 is specified in your 3
cable pan welding procedure, your thin-gauge material 3
4 procedure?
5 A
Probably for the melt through.
6 Q
All right.
The NRC in its inspection report that is 7
appended to your testimony identified a failure to 8
effectively trace through the weld rod withdrawal slips 9
the use of the E 7018 and the E 6013; correct?
O 10 A
Yes.
11 0
There were documents that reflected the inappropriate --
12 per procedure' the inappropriate -- interchange of the oO 13 wrong electrode for the specified application; correct?
14 A
I think the interchange was the wrong electrode for the 15 wrong heat number.
O 16 Q
Well, there was an error in the documentation?
17 IA Yes.
18 Q
E 7018 was shown as used where E 6013 was specified and O
19 vice versa?
20 A
A pt:4. of the problem was that the heat number was 21 shown.
E 6013 would be listed.
However, the heat
.3 22 number was for E 7018 or vice versa.
23 0
So there was interchange of the two materials, the two 24 weld rod?
O 25 A
Yes.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
O Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
Q 3371
(~h
%-)
O 1
0 Okay.
Were you aware that Mr. Puckett during his tenure 2
proposed a revision of the Comstock -- a programmatic 3
revision of the Comstock -- weld rod control and O
4 traceability procedures, so as to address not just the 5
NRC's identified problem but the general problem of 6
traceability of electrode?
O 7
A Are you asking:
Did he revise the procedure?
8 Q
No.
9 Are you aware that Mr. Puckett proposed the 0
10 revision to your, the Comstock, weld rod control and 11 traceability program?
12 A
I am not sure.
O O 13 Q
You know that Mr. Puckett believed that there should be 14 more close accountability for the issuance and use and 15 then return of weld rod?
O 16 A
As far as which aspect?
17 0
Well, do you know or do you have any knowledge of Mr.
18 Puckett proposing that such a revision be made to the 0
19 program?
20 A
I am really not'sure.
21 Q
N,ow, at the time you came on site, Mr. Simile, can you O
22 identify, briefly, the general procedure for control of 23
-- the general practice for control of -- weld filler 24 material that prevailed at Comstock?
()
25 A
When I arrived on site, there was a procedure revision Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
O Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
O 3372 O
D 1
that had just taken place that required --
2 Q
Let me stop you.
3 Do you know what the practice was for control of 4
filler material that prevailed prior to your arrival on 5
site?
6 A
I believe there was a question about the portable rod D
7 ovens being left out overnight.
8 Q
Now, what is a portable rod oven?
9 A
A portable rod oven is an oven that E 7018 is stored in.
3 10 It maintains the temperature and is taken to the 11 field for welding.
12 Q
All right.
Now, let me see if I understand correctly O
0 13 and I will try to summarize.
Again, if you have a.
14 problem with my summary, please say so.
15 Do I understand correctly that prior to your
.D 16 arrival on site, the practice was that a welder at the 17 beginning of a shift would check out a quantity of weld 18 filler material, weld rod, for use in the general O
19' applications for which he was to perform work during 20 that day?
21 A
Yes.
22 O
All right.
That the amount of rod and the type of rod 23 would be specified on weld rod withdrawal slips that had 24 the welder's name on it and were issued at the weld rod
()
25 issue station?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
O Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
?
3373 O
O 1
A Yes.
2 Q
That that welder then would be permitted at the end of 3
his shift to maintain personal control of his unused
'O 4
filler material in such a device as a field weld rod 5
oven?
6 A
Yes.
1) 7 Q
A portable oven?
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
And come back in the next day and use the stored 10 electrode in his portable oven to continue work?
11 A
Yes.
12 O
And that there was no specific accounting for weld rod O
O 13 consumed in the field at the time?
14 A
As far as number of rods?
15 Q
Yes, as far as number of rods.
i 1) 16 A
No.
17 Q
Was there a specific accounting for weld rod used in the 18 field at the' time?
O 19 A
You mean as far as counting the rods themselves?
20 Q
Yes, yes.
21 A
No.
i O
22 Q
Now, when a welder uses an electrode under the shielded 23 metal arc welding procedures employed at Comstock, is 24 there a stub that is left at the completion of the use O
25 of the' rod?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
'O Geneva, Illinois buA;4 i
(312) 232-0262
O 3374 l
()
O 1
A Yes, there is.
2 Q
And that stub is evidence that the rod, in fact, has 3
been used in the field to weld with; is it not?
O 4
A Yes.
5 0
And at the time that you came on site, what was the 6
practice with respect to the stubs thattwere left?
O 7
A The stubs would be thrown into stub pails in the field 8
that were locked and were for specifically disposing of 9
those stubs; and this was for all contractors, not just
'O 10 Comst ock.
11 Q
Was there any acccuntability for the stubs that had been 12 consumed?
O O.
13 In other words, did the welder have to take the 14 stubs that he had used and turn them back in to the weld 15 rod station to account weld rod for rod for the welds 0
16 that he consumed that day?
17 A
No, sir.
18 Q
If a welder had -- you may have answered this question O
19 but let me put it again for clarity.
20 If a welder had unconsumed filler material, not 21 stubs but whole rods at the end of a shift, did he have, O
22 to turn that rod back in and account rod for rod for the 23 unconsumed filler material?
24 A
At that time?
()
25 Q
Yes, sir.
l Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
'O Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3375 2
1 A
No, he didn't.
2 Q
He did not, all right.
3 Now, finally, at that time prior to your coming on 3
4 site, did the weld rod withdrawal slips trace the rod 5
issued by heat number and type to the specific component 6
in which the rod was to be used?
9 7
A At the time frame I came there it did.
8 Q
It did?
9 A
Yes.
O 10 0
Oh, it did.
11 So before you arrived on site, the practice was 12 that the weld rod withdrawal form gave a specific O
13 traceability by heat number and type of rod to the 14 specific cable pan hanger weld; is that your testimony?
15 A
At the time I came on site, the Form 57 had a particular 3
16 block for the hanger number or whatever was being 17 welded.
18 Q
The Form 57 is the weld rod withdrawal form; is that 3
19 correct?
20 A
Yes.
21 Q
Is that pursuant to the revision of the procedure that 3
22 you started to explain?
23 A
No, sir.
24 Q
So your belief is that there was specific traceability O
s 25 to the specific component during Mr. Puckett's tenure on Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
3 ueneva, Illinois culae (312) 232-0262
3 3376 O
O 1
site?
2 A
When I got there.
3 0
Well, was it during Mr. Puckett's tenure?
O 4
A I guess.
I don't know as far as his whole tenure.
I 5
would say yes.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Guild, whenever it's
- O 7
appropriate, we will take a break.
8 MR. GUILD:
This will be fine, Judge.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
A ten-minute break.
O 10 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which 11 the hearing was resumed as follows:)
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
We are back on the record.
gg C U 13 Mr. Guild.
14 MR. GUILD:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
15 BY MR. GUILD:
O 16 Q
Mr. Simile, if you would turn to Page 15 of your 17 prefiled direct testimony, please, sir.
18 There you describe the revisions or enhancements to O
19 the weld filler material control program and identify 20 the fact that you have introduced a traveler system for 21 the welding work; correct?
G 22 A
Yes, sir.
23 Q
And by " traveler," is that a document that travels with 24 the component that is installed that lists critical
()
25 data, such as the welder and the weld rod used?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
'3 3377 O
O 1
A It doesn't list the weld rod used, no.
2 O
It does not list the weld rod used?
3 A
No.
The --
3 4
0 I am sorry.
5 A
The weld installation record which accompanies the 6
traveler is given a unique ID number.
.D 7
0 Why don't you tell me what the' traveler is, then?
8 A
The traveler -- the traveler is the document that 9
travels with the component from when it is fabricated to O
10 when it is installed.
11 Q
All right.
You state there that with this new 12 procedure, you include documentation of the welding O.
O 13 installation record number on the filler metal 14 withdrawal form?
15 A
Yes, sir.
That is another form that accompanies the
.O 16 traveler, which is a weld installation record, which has 17 the pertinent information on it as far as the item being 18 welded, the procedure being used, the drawing, the C
19 welder's number, and that weld installation record is 20 given a unique ID number.
21 That unique ID number is placed on the weld G
22 withdrawal slip.
23 0
Your testimony goes on to say, "With this procedure in place, a clear record exists of where each electrode j
24
()
25 that is withdrawn is utilized."
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
C.
ueneva, 1111nois oulae (312) 232-0262
O 3378 O
O 1
Don't I understand from that statement that that is 2
an enhancement or change to your procedure that did not 3
exist before?
O 4
A Yes.
5 0
Well, sir, then perhaps I am just not following your 6
testimony correctly.
0 7
At the tine you came on the site, was there, 8
indeed, traceability from a specific rod issued to a 9
specific component utilized?
O 10 A
At the time that I come on, the weld filler metal 11 withdrawal slip had a spot on it for the item that was 12 going to be welded, it had' a place for the drawing O
O 13 number, who the welder was, how much rod was withdrawn 14 and so forth.
15 So a record per se was there, because the slip did O
16 show it.
17 Now, prior to that a lot.of the weld slips did not; 18 but at the time that I got there, the Form 57 did have Q
19 that.
20 Q
Now, let's put that in time a little bit.
21 Prior to when did the Form 57 weld slips not show 0
22 the specific installation in which the rod was used?
23 A
I would say probably early '83 and back.
24 Q
All right.
Now, isn't it a fact that even when you got
()
25 on the site, the weld rod withdrawal slip didn't show Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
O Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
O 3379 O
O 1
the specific welds for which the weld rod was used but 2
showed the general location where you were going to use 3
the red?
3 4
A It showed the hanger number or -- it didn't show the 5
specific weld, no, but it showed the hanger number or 6
what they were welding on.
3 7
0 Well, do you recall or are you aware that at any point 8
in time at Comstock the rod withdrawal form simply made 9
a reference to the general location, such as the O
10 elevation --
11 A
Yes.
12 0
-- and the grid coordinates?
.O 13 Yes.
14 When was that, if you know?
15 A
That time frame was probably ' 82 and back.
O 16 Q
And at that time it was not traceable even to the 17 component, let alone the specific weld?
18 A
That's correct.
O 19 Q
All right, sir.
20 Now, you testify at Page 15 about procedures being 21 revised to enhance the control of filler material.
Q' 22 Can you tell us when those procedures were so 23 revised?
24 A
I have them here with dates on them, if I can look at O
25 them.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
G ueneva, Illinois eulas (312) 232-0262
O 3380 0
O 1
O Yes, please do.
2 Why don't you start with the revision that you were 3
aware of at the time you came on site that was in O
4 process, please.
5 A
The first procedure that I have is 4.3.10.
6 0
4.3.10?
O 7
A Yes.
8 0
Okay.
9 A
Rev C, which the effective date was 12-8-83.
O 10 0
And was that the procedure in place.that permitted the 11 reference to a grid location for the installation 12 record?
O Os 13 A
Well, the form on this procedure has a block for hanger 14 support equipment number, building location, drawing 15 numbe r, revision number.
O 16 Q
Do you know what the practice was at that time?
17 Was it to make a grid reference?
18 A
I am not sure.
10 19 Q
When were the revisions made that are referred to in 20 your testimony, Page 15, Mr. Simile?
s 21 A
The revision effective date was 12-7-84.
!O 22 Q
And can you tell me what revision letter or number that 23 was?
24 A
Revision F.
()
25 Q
Now, what were the material provisions of that revision Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
O Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
'O 3381 O
O 1
as they affected the system of weld filler metal control 2
that you referred to in your testimony, Page 15?
3 A
For the Revision F?
.3 4
Q Yes.
5 A
With the Revision F in place, the drawing and item 6
number were eliminated off the form and the weld O
7 installation record number was added.
8 Being that the weld installation record number was 9
unique, it would tie back into the component that was O
10 being welded.
11 Q
How was that an enhancement of the traceability of weld 12 filler metal then, if it was?
'O O 13 A
It was a fail-Eafe system to where you could not write 14 the wrong hanger number, write the wrong drawing number, 15 write the wrong location.
You had one number to write.
O 16 That was the WIR.
17 Q
Were there any other material provisions of Rev F that 18 provided the changes and enhancements in the filler
-O 19 metal control program that are referred to in your 20 testimony?
21 A
Yes.
We also revised the procudure to include returning
- O 22 those portable rod ovens to one specific area every 23 night.
24 0
Okay.
Any other provisions that are material to the
()
25 changing of the system as you described?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
.Q ueneva, 1111nols oulae (312) 232-0262
9 3382 O
O 1
A No.
2 Q
Can you just briefly tell me when Revisions D and E were 3
effective?
O 4
A D was effective 9-11-84.
5 Q
How about E?
6 A
Rev E -- I don't have Rev E with me.
O 7
Q
'Some time between September and December of '84?
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
All right.
Now, can you tell me what the effect of Rev O
10 D was, the September,
'84, revision?
11 A
Some of the changes that were made, I could read them.
12 0
If you could just identify the -- what are significant, OO 13 in your opinion,.Mr. Simile, in terms of enhancing or 14 changing the control and traceability of filler metal, 15 please.
.O 16 A
One change that was incorporated was, "A Form 57 will be 17 required for each type and size of electrode and shall 18 be required for each welder.
A new Form 57" --
O 19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Could you slow up a little.
20 Even though you are reading, the Reporter still has 21 to take it down.
~O 22 A
(Continuing.)
"A new Form 57 will be required for each 23 day's welding activity, even if the activity is 24 continued from a previous day's work."
()
25 BY MR. GUILD:
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
O Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
n
~
3383
'O 1
Q Did that change require that the welder turn in the 2
unused electrode and then get a new issue with a new 3
Form 57 the next day?
-O 4
A Yes, it did.
5 Q
Did that abolish the use of the field rod ovens?
6 A
No.
The field rod ovens are still -- you mean the big O
7 rod oven?
8 Q
No.
I am talking about the portable rod ovens they used 9
in the field.
.O 10 A
No.
Portable rod ovens were to be returned at the end 11 of each working shift.
12 Q
All right.
So they were returned.
'O \\
13 And was all the rod then returned to -- was all the 14 rod then reissued the next day with a new Form 57, 15 including the rod that was in the portable oven?
O 16 A
Yes.
17 Q
And that change was effective with the Revision D of 18 Septembe r, '84?
O 19 A
Yes.
20 Q
Were there any other significant changes in the control 21 and traceability program, Rev D?
O 22 A
I really don't see anything else.
23 Q
All right.
Now, briefly -- do you have Rev E?
24 Can you tell what --
O 25 A
No, I: don.t.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
- O ueneva, Illinois oulae (312) 232-0262
- 3 3384 O
10 1
Q You don't?
2 A
No.
3 0
All right, sir.
- D 4
Then the portable rod ovens maintain the E7018 rod 5
in a heated condition, do they not?
6 A
Yes, they do.
j lO 7
0 All right.
And the E7018 rods, again, are the low 8
hydrogen rods; correct?
9 A
Yes.
O 10 0
And is the heated storage condition required by Comstock 11 procedure for the E7018?
12 A
It's required up until welding, and at that time the
.O O 13 electrodes can be out for a period of four hours.
14 Q
So they are taken out to weld with; but, otherwise, they 15 are to be maintained in a heated storage condition?
!O 16 A
Yes.
17 O
And what is the purpose of requiring, from a technical 18 perspective, the heated storage condition for the E7018 O
19 low hydrogen rod?
20 A
To prevent hydrogen cracking in the weld.
21 0-What happens to a rod.if it's not maintained in the
.O 22 heated storage condition, an E7018 rod?
23 A
It's susceptible to picking up humidity.
24 0
It picks up moisture; right?
O 25 A
Yes.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
- O Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 j
O 3385
()
0 1
Q What then happens to the rod in terms of its use in 2
performing welding?
4 3
A There is a possibility that it can create cracking.
3 4
The normal characteristic is you will get a rod of 5
porosity.
6 Q
Porosity and cracking because of the moisture in the
?
7 rod?
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
And were you aware of any concerns, Mr. Simile, that O
10 maintaining a rod in the portable ovens in the field, 11 prior to the revision of the procedure, might fail to 12 control the temperature at which the rod, the E7018 rod, oO 13 was stored?
14 A
I believe that concern was in -- well, I don't know if I 15 can say that.
O 16 Q
Just answer the question to the best of your knowledge, 17 Mr. Simile.
18 A
The NRC report identified that, yes.
O 19 O
The NRC report that is appended to your testimony?
20 A
Yes.
21 0
That it was a possibility, for example, that a rod that O
22 is -- well, let me ask you this:
23 The rod ovens, the portable rod ovens, were plugged i
24 into a standard electrical outlet, were they not?
()
25 A
Yes, they were.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
O ueneva, 1111nois culae (312) 232-0262
a 3386 O
O 1
0 What temperatures do they have to maintain, if you know?
2 A
250 degrees.
3 0
And it's a possibility that the power might go out to 3
4 that outlet, and, therefore, the rods would be in an 5
unheated, uncontrolled condition, overnight, say, for 6
example; correct?
'D 7
A There is a possibility of that, yes.
8 0
When you came on site in August of '84, Mr. Simile, did 9
you observe any problems with uncontrolled weld filler
..O 10 material?
11 A
No.
12 Q
Did anyone bring to your attention at that time concerns
'o O 13 about seeing filler metal lying around the site?
14 A
I can't recall.
15 Q
All right.
O 16 A
When I first --
17 0
Yes.
I am sorry.
18 Complete your answer.
O l
19 A
Well, no, I can't recall.
20 0
All right.
If filler metal that was not maintained in.
21 a -- it was E7018 -- maintained in a portable ~ rod O
22 oven -- now, the time when you camg on the site, August, 23
'84, rod not in a rod oven, it was E7018, or generally 24 rod that was lef t lying around, say, on a work bench or
,i
()
25 a work location or an individual craftsmans tool box, Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
)
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
Q 3387
()
3 1
that would be considered uncontrolled filler material, 2
would it not?
3 A
If it was laying around to be used?
3 4
Q No, sir.
1 5
If it was laying around without someone in physical 6
control of the material, would that be uncontrolled
.3 7
filler material?
8 A
Well, sure.
9 Q
Would that uncontrolled condition be a nonconforming O
10 condition, a violation of procedure?
11 A
If it was found.
12 Q
Even if it wasn't found, wouldn't it be nonconforming?
~O O 13 A
If it was used after it was laying around?
14 0
Well, let me take the case first where -- this is like 15 the tree falling in the woods with no one to hear it.
- D 16 There is rod lying around in the field.
Isn't i
17 that, in fact, a nonconforming condition?
l 18 A
E7018 laying out in somebody's box?
{}
i 19 Q
Let's take that as an example, sure.
20 A
Yes.
21 Q
How about E6013?
b 22 A
Yes.
23 Q
That would be uncontrolled as well, would it not?
24 A
Yes.
()
25 0
And that would be a nonconforming condition?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
- j ueneva, Allinois oviae (312) 232-0262
J 3388 O
D 1
A Yes.
~
2 Q
And it would be appropriate for the initiation of an 3
NCR, Nonconformance Report?
' D 4
A Sure.
5 Q
Now, at the time, again, that you arrived on site, given 6
that foundation, were you aware of any concerns about
?
7 uncontrolled filler material as we have just discussed?
8 A
Not that I can recall, because the procedure was in 9
place for the control of it.
- D 10 0
Well, yes.
11 And that's why uncontrolled material would be a 12 nonconforming condition, because there was a procedure
- D O 13 that said it should be controlled; right?
14 A
Right.
15 0
And you can't recall at this time any concerns, when you O
16 came on site, about uncontrolled filler material?
17 A
Well, the reason -- when I first got here, there was 18 already a procedure revision in progress, which I 4
19 believe was Rev --
20 Q
Rev D as in dog?
21 A
-- Rev D.
- O 22 So, no, because it was addressed and the procedure 23 was being revised or had just been revised.
24 O
All right.
Now, did the procedure revision, Rev D,
()
25 provide effective corrective action for the problems of Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
O Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3 3389 O
O 1
traceability and control of weld filler material, in 2
your opinion?
3 A
It provided adequate control.
O 4
The traceability of the electrode to the specific 5
item, we really locked in on the previous revision, l
6 which was something that really wasn't required.
O 7
Q So, in your opinion, as I understand your answer, Rev D, 8
the revision that was in progress at the time you came 9
on the site, effectively corrected any existing problems O
10 with the control of filler material?
11 A
Yes.
12 Q
The traceability issue was one that was another g
OV 13 question, and I understood you just to say that the 14 traceability was enhanced later but that enhancement 15 wasn't required?
O 16 A
Yes.
17 Q
Now, do you recall identifying further problems with 18 weld filler metal. control after the effectiveness of Rev
.O 19 D in September of 1984?
20 A
I don't recall at this time, no.
21 Q
Do you recall identifying problems with weld filler O
22 metal left lying around at work locations after the 23 adoption of Rev D in September of 1984?
24 A
Yes, there was one occasion where weld rod was found O
25 laying around.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
G ueneva, 1111nols culae (312) 232-0262
3 3390
()
2, 1
Q All right.
Can you identify ~that occasion?
2 A
I can't identify the time frame.
3 0
can you describe the circumctances the best you can?
3 4
A There was some weld wire found in some cable pan at a 5
work station.
Some of it was shielded metal arc 6
electrode, some of it was TIG electrodes.
7 Q
The shielded metal electrode was electrode that was used 8
within the Comstock scope of work, was it not?
9 A
And with other contractors, yes.
~3 10 0
Comstock works cable pans, does it not?
11 A
Yes, they do.
12 0
Could you identify the type of electrode, the SMAW DO 13 electrode that was identified?
i 14 A
I think it was 7018.
15 0
That is obviously electrode within your scope of work, D
16 is it not?
17 A
Yes, it is.
18 0
And how about --
3 19 A
It was also with the 7018 Heliarc weld.
20 0
That is the TIG?
21 A
Which is the TIG, which is not within our scope of work.
.3 22 O
Who does TIG work?
23 A
Getschow.
24 0
They are the mechanical contractor?
O 25 A
ves.
4 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
3 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
'O 3391 i
()
lO 1
Q Now, do you recall who brought this uncontrolled filler 2
metal problem to your attention?
3 A
Mr. Bowman.
O 4
0 Mr. Thurman Bowman?
5 A
Yes.
6 0
Who is Mr. Bowman?
O 7
A He is a Quality Control Lead Inspector for Comstock.
8 Q
Did Mr. Bowman initiate a Nonconformance Report on this 9
uncontrolled filler metal?
O 10 A
I believe he initiated an ICR, yes.
11 Q
Do you know whether it was an ICR or NCR?
12 A
I can't remember.
,O()
13 Q
He initiated -- in any event, you are aware he initiated 14 a document to identify this nonconforming object 15 deficient condition; correct?
.:O 16 A
Yes.
17 0
All right.
And did he bring this matter personally to 18 your attention?
O 19 A
Yes, he did.
20 Q
All right.
Do you recall Mr. Bowman telling you that he 21 was concerned about the misstoring of the weld rod in 4) l 22 the field as a general problem?
23 A
Yes, he did.
24 0
All right.
And do you recall that you told him that
()
25 simply destroying the rods in question was sufficient Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
)
'O ueneva, 1111nols oulae (312) 232-0262
3 3392 O
- D 1
and that there was no need to p'ursue the more general 2
concern about inadequate' control of weld filler 3
material?
3 4
A No, sir.
I told him, for this specific instance, to 5
destroy the rod, to get it out of the work area, to get 6
the ICR generated and that we would look into a l3 7
situational program to try and enhance it.
8 Q
Isn't it a fact that after Mr. Bowman brought this 9
general concern to your attention -- well, isn't it a 0
10 fact that Mr. Bowman said, in substance, to you that 11 Comstock had already claimed that they had solved the 12 problem of uncontrolled filler metal previously?
.O O 13 Do you recall him saying that?
14 A
No.
15 Q
Do you recall that, in fact, after Mr. Bowman raised
'D 16 this, his concern with you -- do you recall that, 17 although Mr. Bowman raised this general concern, you l
l 18 took no action on the matter and Mr. Bowman had to take O
19 the concern to the Commonwealth Edison Company Quality 20 First Program?
21 A
Yes, he did go to the Quality Fir'st Program.
O 22 We were taking action at the time that he had gone 23 to Quality First.
I guess it just wasn't timely enough 24 for him.
()
25 0
Well, had you communicated anything back to Mr. Bowman Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
- 3 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312)
?l2-0262
O 3393 O
O 1
about the action that you now state was in progress at 2
the time he'went to Quality First?
3 A
I can't -- I can't recall if I did or not.
O 4
Q All right.
And isn't it a fact that the action --
1 5
further action -- to control weld filler material wasn't 6
taken until after Mr. Bowman went to the Edison Quality 0
7 First Program with his concern?
8 A
Well, one program that we had in effect already was a 9
random surveillance of areas in the plant --
0 10 0
That's not my question.
11 Is it, in fact, true that the action taken to 12 correct the problem didn't occur until after Mr. Bowman O O 13 went to Quality First?
14 A
Yes.
15 Q
Do you know Mr. Richard Saklak?
3 16 A
Yes, I do.
17, Q
All right.
How do you know Mr. Saklak?
18 A
He was the Supervisor at Comstock when I arrived at 3
19 Braidwood.
20 Q
Mr. Saklak was the Supervisor at Comstock for the period 21 from August of '84, when you came on the site, August O
22 28th, until early April of 1985; correct?
23 A
Yes.
24 0
All right.
And what was your working relationship with
()
25 Mr. Saklak during that period of rime?
Sonntag Reporting, Service, Ltd.
O Geneva, Illinois ou144 (312) 232-0262
i
! 3 3394
(
,0 1
A He was a supervisor and I was a supervisor.
4 2
Q You were a supervisor over the welding inspections?
3 A
Yes.
- 3 4
Q And Mr. Saklak was a supervisor over other inspection 5
disciplines?
6 A
Yes.
- 3 1
7 Q
Did you become the general QC supervisor af ter Mr.
8 Saklak departed?
9 A
No; right before he departed.
.O i
10 0
Can you tell me when you became general supervisor?
11 A
I think it was approximately March.
12 Q
So you supervised Mr. Saklak for a period of time?
lO O 13 A
For approximately a month, yes.
14 0
All right, sir.
15 Did you have any relationship with Mr. Saklak aside
- D 16 from a working relationship?
17 A
Yes.
18 Q
Were you a friend of Mr. Saklak's?
G 19 A
Yes.
20 0
Can you describe the nature of your social or friendship 21 relations with Mr. Saklak?
O 22 A
We went out together.
23 Q
You socialized together?
24 A
Yes.
()
25 0
All right.
Can you give : a an idea of once a year, once Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
- G-Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
/
D 3395 O
O 1
a month, once a week?
l 2
A I would say at least once a month.
i 3
Q Did you happen to be in Mr. Saklak's car pool?
3 4
A Yes, I was.
5 0
And for what period of time were you a car pooler with 6
Mr. Saklak?
O 7
A From September until he lef t.
8 Q
During, essentially, the entire course of your 9
employment up until the time that Mr. Saklak left?
O 10 A
Yes.
11 Q
Well, did you have occasion, during your observation of 12 Mr. Saklak on the job and socially going to and from l
OO 13 work in the car pool, to observe Mr. Saklak's temper?
14 A
Yes.
15 Q
Did Mr. Saklak have a short temper?
O 16 A
He had a temper.
17 0
We all have tempers, I suppose.
18 But did he have a temper that was more acute, shall
'O 19 we say, than others, in your opinion?
20 A
I would say it was more acute when he lost his temper.
21 Q
He was expressive more than others when he lost his
- O 22 tempe r?
23 A
He was loud.
24 Q
'He was loud.
()
25 Did you have occasion to observe Mr. Saklak Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
S Geneva, 1111nois culde (312) 232-0262
'O 3396 O
O 1
engaging in abusive language -- use of abusive language?
2 A
I saw Mr. Saklak be loud with an inspector, yes.
3 0
I am sorry.
I missed that.
O 4
Be loud with an inspector?
5 A
Yes.
6 Q
Can you identify the instances in which you observed Mr.
0 7
Saklak using abusive language with an inspector?
8 A
What do you -- let me ask you this:
9 What do you mean by " abusive language"?
O 10 Q
Well, being loud, using strong language --
11 A
Well --
12 Q
Expressing anger toward an inspector, using strong, loud OO 13 language.
14 A
One occasion that I did observe was at the time of the 15 NRC CAT Team Audit.
We had an NRC Inspector in the 0
16 office with Mr. Saklak.
In the background were three i
17 inspectors goofing off, laughing, being loud, carrying 18 on.
l o
19 Mr. Saklak was trying to get through the audit.
j 20 The.NRC Inspector left; and at that time Mr. Saklak had 21 words for the three inspectors that were goofing off.
O 22 Q
A;nd you were present at the time?
23 A
Yes.
24 0
Who were the three inspectors that you say were goofing O
25 off2 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
O Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
\\
9 3397 3
1 A
The only one that I can remember is Mr. Lechner.
2 Q
Mike Lechner?
3 A
Yes.
J 4
Q Is Mr. Lechner still a QC Inspector at Comstock?
5 A
Yes, he is.
He is a Lead Inspector.
6 Q
You can't recall the two other gentlemen?
9 7
A No; because Mr. Lechner was probably the loudest, and he 8
is the one that most of the loud conversation was 9
directed to.
3 10 0
Okay.
What was the substance of Mr. Saklak's 11 contribution to that conversation?
12 A
He was very upset that they would be goofing off in the Os 3
13 office at the time of an NRC CAT inspection.
14 Q
And what did he say?
15 A
Exactly, I can't remember.
3 16 Q
Did he use --
17 A
He felt that it was very unprofessional for them.
18 Q
Did he use profanity?
3 19 A
Well, I think we all use profanity.
20 Q
Probably so.
21 But did Mr. Saklak on that occasion use S
22 profanities?
23 A
I can' t remembe r.
I know he was upset.
24 O'
And did he raise his voice?
()
25 A
Yes, he did.
lO Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, 1111nols bU144 i
(312) 232-0262 1
l l
~
3398
()
1 Q
Did he gesticulate, wave his hands about?
2 A
I think he did, yes.
3 Q
You can't recall the substance of what he said to Mr.
3 4
Lechner?
l 5
A I think the main thing that he was upset about was their 6
lack of professionalism with a major audit going on.
!D 7
0 I understand that to be the subject matter.
8 But can you recall the substance of what Mr. Saklak 9
said?
O 10 A
No.
11 Q
Did you observe any other instances of Mr. Saklak n
12 involved in an interchange with his subordinates, QC
.:O U 13 Inspectors, in which he was loud or abusive?
14 A
Not that I can recall.
15 Q
Did any concerns or complaints by QC Inspectors of Mr.
D 16 Saklak being involved in harassment, intimidation, loud 17 or abusive behavior come to your attention, Mr. Simile?
18 A
The Rick Snyder incident was brought to my attention,
-O 19 yes.
20 Q
You weren't a witness to that, were you?
21 A
No, I was not.
- O 22 0
What, if any, personal involvement did you have in that 23 incident?
24 A
When the incident happened, Rick Snyder and Mr. Nemeth
()
25 came to me.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
S Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3 3399 AV
.O 1
They did not tell me what took place.
They told me 2
of their problem and what I felt the necessary action 3
was.
9 4
0 And isn't it the case that you basically recommended 5
that they do what Mr. Saklak had in mind, and that was 6
to process the ICR in the fashion that Mr. Saklak had O
7 suggested?
8 A
Yes.
The situation at the time was that there were 9
procedure revisions that took place.
One procedure 0
10 deleted a requirement, the other procedure did not.
11 Q
And the revised procedure that deleted the requirement 12 for, in this case, calibrating rod ovens, had not become
.O 13 effective yet?
14 A
The procedure for deleting the calibrated welding 15 machines was the welding procedures themselves.
.O 16 Welding procedures had been revised deleting that 17 requirement, calibration procedure had been revised 18 deleting that requirement.
However, it was not back O
i 19 approved.
j 20 0
It was not effective yet; correct?
j 21 A
Yes.
'O 22 O
Yes?
23 A
It was not effective yet; that's correct.
24 Q
And notwithstanding the fact that the procedure revision
()
25 was not effective, you sided with Mr. Saklak and stated Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, 111inois cul3e (312) 232-0262
3 3400 0
0 1
that they -- expressed the position that it was 2
appropriate for Mr. Snyder to disposition the ICR 3
without following the then effective procedure of O
4 transmitting the ICR to engineering?
5 A
I think the situation was that Mr. Snyder --
6 Q
Can you answer the question yes or no?
O 7
A Well, I don't think it was a disposition part of the 8
ICR.
9 The question was whether he should write an ICR or O
10 not.
11 Q
That's what you understood the question to be?
12 A
Yes.
O, O
13 Q
I see.
All right.
14 A
Now, if he wanted to write an ICR because a welding 15 machine that he calibrated was out of calibration --
O 16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Who is "he" in this case?
17 THE WITNESS:
He was our calibration 18 inspector.
'O 19 BY MR. GUILD:
l 20 Q
Mr. Snyder; right?
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Snyder.
O 22 I just want to make sure that you are not referring 23 to Mr. Saklak on that.
24 BY MR. GUILD:
()
25 Q
Mr. Snyder; is that right?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
g>.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
2 3401 O
D 1
A Yes.
2 Q
Mr. Snyder found a weld machine out of calibration and 3
wanted, per procedure, to initiate an ICR?
- 3 4
A That's correct.
5 It was my opinion -- and Rick, Mr. Snyder, and Mr.
6 Nemeth talked to me, and it was my opinion, being that 3
7 it was deleted out of the welding procedure itself which 8
the work was being performed to, that it wouldn't be 9
required.
However --
O 10 Q
Although the calibration procedure had not yet been 11 revised effective?
12 A
Yes.
!O (
13 And at that time when Rick showed me that 14 situation, we took it to Mr. Seltmann.
15 Q
Seltmann disagreed with you and agreed with Snyder that
- O 16 the ICR should have been initiated and processed per the 17 then existing procedure that had not yet been revised?
18 A
That's correct.
O 19 Q
All right.
Now, that's the Snyder incident, and that l
20 was the extent of your involvement in it; correct?
21 A
Yes.
O 22 Q
Now, are there any other instances of harassment or 23 intimidation, abusive conduct, on the part of Mr. Saklak 24 that came to your attention?
()
25 A
I really can't think of any.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
- O ueneva, Illinois oviae (312) 232-0262
~
3 3402
()
o 1
Q All right.
You participated as a welding supervisor, 2
later as a general QC supervisor, in routine management 3
meetings at Comstock, did you not?
!3 4
A Yes.
5 Q
Did you go to weekly meetings with Mr. Saklak?
6 A
Yes.
- ?
7 0
With Mr. DeWald and Mr. Seltmann?
8 A
Yes.
)
9 Q
And through that vehicle, did.you become aware of Mr.
- D 10 Saklak on any occasion being upbraided or reprimanded 11 for harassing or intimidating or using abusive language 12 toward an inspector?
- D O 13 A
Yes.
14 Q
On what occasions did that come to your attention i
15 through that vehicle?
- D 16 A
There was a situation to where he had words with an 17 inspector.
I don't know -- I can't remember what the 18 situation was exactly.
- O 19 I know he lost his temper, he got loud; and it was 20 a situation to where he did not go through the Lead 21 Inspector at the time of giving direction to the
- O 22 inspector.
23 Q
Do you recall who the inspector was?
24 A
Frank Rolan, Franco Rolan.
()
25 Q
The son of the Comstock Project Construction Manager?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
lS Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
?
3403 O
D 1
A Yes.
j 2
Q And was that instance the subject of discussion at a 3
management meeting?
)
3 4
A Yes.
l 5
Q What was the substance of the discussion that you j
6 recall?
O 7
A The discussion was for the supervisors, did they have 8
the right to go directly to an inspector to direct work 9
or did they have to go through a Lead.
g 10 Q
That was Mr. Saklak's question?
11 A
It was not just his question.
12 Q
Did he raise the question as a result of the Rolan O s 13 incident?
14 A
I think I raised it.
15 Q
I see.
D 16 You were informed by Mr. Saklak about the Rolan 17 incident?
18 A
No, sir.
O 19 Q
How did you come to --
20 A
Well, it was discussed in the meeting that Mr. Saklak 21 had been given a warning when the incident was brought i
3 22 out.
23 0
We will start back.
24 Who raised the matter of Mr. Saklak's involvement
()
25 with Mr. -- young Mr. Rolan?
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
3 Geneva, 1111nois 0u1J4 (312) 232-0262
3 3404 1
O O
1 A
Mr. DeWald.
2 Q
What wac the cubstance of Mr. DeWald's statement at the 3
management meeting?
O 4
A That he had issued a warning to Mr. Saklak and for the 5
reason and what had happened.
6 Q
And what was the reason, as you recall?
3 7
A The reason was for not going through the Lead Inspector 8
to direct -- well, that was the reason.
9 Q
The reason was not for using abusive language or O
10 threatening or harassing an inspector; it was for not 11 using the chain of command?
I 12 MR. MILLER:
I am going to object to the form O0 13 of the question.
14 There has been no foundation laid that there were 15 any threats to Mr. Rolan.
O 16 MR. GUILD:
There has indeed been a 17 foundation, Mr. Chairman; but that's'not the point of 18 the question.
O 19 MR. MILLER:
Perhaps I missed something as to 20 when this foundation was laid.
21 MR. GUILD:
Well, if you recall -- and this O
22 really is not the point of the question; but if you 23 recall, Mr. DeWald testified that he, in fact, 24 understood Mr. Rolan had been threatened by Mr. Saklak;
()
25 that he would lose his certifications if the NRC found Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
1 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 m
. e, 3405 O
'3 1
out.
2 MR. MILLER:
Thank you very much.
3 That cures my objection.
3 4
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
You withdraw the objection?
5 MR. MILLER:
Yes.
6 BY MR. GUILD:
3 4
7 Q
What was the substance of Mr. DeWald -- I am sorry.
8 Strike that.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
You had a pending question.
D 10 It's entitled to be answered.
11 The criticism then was not about using the abusive 12 language -- or the reprimand was not concerned with O
13 that, but with the fact that he didn't go through the 14 chain of command; is that correct?
15 THE WITNESS:
Well, the reprimand was as a
- D 16 result of him reprimanding the inspector and his 17 loudness.
i 18 BY MR. GUILD:
!D 19 Q
Did Mr. DeWald state that the reprimand -- he was giving 20 a warning to Mr. Saklak because he had not gone through 21 the Lead; isn't that a fact?
3 22 A
Yes.
23 Q
Did Mr. DeWald state that Mr. Saklak was being 24 reprimanded for being loud and abusive toward an
()
25 inspector?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, 1111nois oulae
[
(312) 232-0262
O 3406 O
O 1
A Yes, that was part of it.
2 Q
He did say both of those things?
3 A
Yes.
O 4
Q And did he state that Mr. Saklak was being warned for 5
using loud and abusive language?
2 6
A I can't remember; but the whole situation that occurred O
7 he discussed with us, yes.
8 0
I see.
9 Now, that statement by Mr. DeWald then prompted you O
10 to raise the question about whether or not a supervisor l
l had to go through a Lead in order to direct an d
11 12 inspector?
9 ()
13 A
Yes.
14 Q
Did it prompt you to raise a question about whether or 15 not Mr. Saklak's use of abusive language was appropriate O
16 or inappropriate?
1 17 A
I think we discussed it, yes.
18 Q
Did you raise a question about that?
19 A
No, I didn't.
20 Q
Did anyone else raise a question about that?
21 A
The whole part of being. loud and yelling at an inspector O
22 was being talked about, so there was no-need to ask a 23 question.
24 0
I see.
()
25 You raised the question, then, about going through Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
)G Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
f l
3 3407 I ()
D 1
a Lead.
2 What was the outcome of your query on that subject?
3 A
We decided if the Lead was available, that the proper 3
4 chain of command was to go through the Lead.
5 However, we did have the right to direct an 6
inspector for work that was required.
D 7
Q All right.
Were there any other instances, again, now, 8
in the management meeting context, in which instances in 9
which Mr. Saklak had been abusive, harassing, 3
10 threatening to an inspector came to your attention?
11 A
In the management meeting?
12 Q
Yes, sir.
O.
HJ 13 A
I really can't remember.
14 0
All right.
I attempted to probe your recollection 15 generally about the subject, both inside and outside the 2
16 context of a management meeting.
17 I don't mean to exclude anything, Mr.' Simile.
18 Are you aware of any other instances involving Mr.
3 19 Saklak in which he used loud and abusive language or 20 harassed an inspector aside from those to which you have 21 testified so far this morning?
3 22 A
I can't remember -- really recall any.
23 0
Now, on the basis of the information that came to you, 24 then, through observation of Mr. Saklak and through your
()
25 participation as a manager in meetings in which Mr.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
23 ueneva, 1111nois culae (312) 232-0262
i G
3408
.i
- O ( )
1 Saklak's conduct was discussed, did you form an opinion 2
about whether Mr. Saklak's management style with n
3 inspectors was appropriate?
D 4
A I think that everybody's style is a little bit 5
different.
6 One thing with Mr. Saklak, he did have a bad temper lO 7
when he lost it.
8 However, a lot of these situations were created by the inspectors themse1Ves in taunting Mr. Saklak to lose 9
!O I
10 his temper.
I 11 Q
So what is your opinion about Mr. Saklak's management 12 style, then?
i WO 13 A
I don't think that -- as far as his management style, l
14 Mr. Saklak was very organized, he knew what he was 15 doing.
i) 16 As far as him losing his temper, it was a weak spot 17 that needed work.
18 Q
All right.
Did you ever counsel with Mr. Saklak
,O 19 regarding that weak spot, regarding his propensity to be 20 abusive towards inspectors, to lose his temper?
21 A
I talked to him about his losing his temper, yes.
O 22 0
When did you do that, Mr. Simile?
23 A
I know I talked to him after the Franco incident.
24 O
Mr. Rolan?
O 2s A
res.
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
!y Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3 3409
!O 1
Q What, in substance, did you say to him?
2 A
Well, I just talked about how he should try and restrain 3
himself and try not to lose his temper and to go_for a
- O 4
walk and count to ten and come back and then deal with 5
the situation.
6 Q
That didn't cure the problem, though, did it?
.O 7
A I guess it didn't.
8 Q
Did you ever talk to him after that about his j
9 management -- his weakness in his management style?
- O 10 A
I can't recall.
11 You know, we had a lot of discussions a lot of 12 times.
}
- O O 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Excuse me.
14 Let's take a five-minute break now.
15 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which O
16 the hearing was resumed as follows:)
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
Back on the record.
18 Since Mr. Guild started a new topic that will take
.O 19 more than the time we have available and he prefers to 20 start the whole topic at the next session, we will r
21-recess at this point and we will: reconvene at 2:00 0
22 o' clock on Monday at Joliet, St. Francis, l
23 We are now in recess.
24 (WHEREUPON, the hearing of the O ()
25 above-entitled matter was contihued to Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
lgj ueneva, 111inois ovl34 (312) 232-0262
3410
.0 1
the 9th day of June, at the hour of 2:00 j
2 o' clock P. M.)
3 0
4 5
6
.O 7
8 9
O 10 11 12 oO l
13 14 15 O
16 I
i 17 18 C
j 19 20 1
21 0
4 22
]
23 4
24 C O 25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
3 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER O
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
COMMONWEALTII EDISON COMPANY (Braidwood Station, Units 1 & 2) 1 4
I DOCKET NO.:
.i PLACE:
WASIIINGTON, D.
C.
DATE:
-FRIDAY, JUNE 6, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
1 1
(sigt)
(TYPED)
GLENN SONNTAG Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS Reporter's Af filiation, INC.
- 0
_