ML20211F608
| ML20211F608 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 10/27/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1383 OL, NUDOCS 8610310214 | |
| Download: ML20211F608 (112) | |
Text
- - - - -
ORlG$A" UN11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
50-456 OL 50-457 OL COMMONWEALT:I EDISCN COMPANY (Braidwood Station, Units 1 & 2)
LOCATION:
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS PAGES: 15,002 - 13,011 DATE*
MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1986 q> 0 I
,I i 0(
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
O Cffich:1 Reporters 444 >~ orth CapitolStreet Wasbngton, D.C. 20001 E
G 02) M m i,1610]10214 061027 I)N A l) D C K O*,000456 I'!)R NATIONWIDE COVERACE s
15802 z
i 1
1 2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f'
4 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i
i 5
- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;x 3
6 In the Matter of:
7
- Docket No. 50-456 i
1 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY 50-457 I
8 (Braidwood Station, Units 1 9
and 2)
_ _ ; _ ; _ ; ; _ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; _ ;x 10 t
11 Page: 15,802 - 15,911 United States District Court House l
13 Courtroom 1743 Chicago, Illinois 60604 14 j
Monday, October 27, 1986 15 j
16 The hearing in the above-entitled matter reconvened
\\
I 17 at 2:00 P. M.
i IP j
BEFORE:
19 i
JUDGE HERBERT GROSSMAN, Chairman l
20 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
21 Washington, D. C.
I 22 JUDGE RICH ARD P. COLE, Member, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board i
23 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
)
JUDGE A. DIXON CALLIH AN, Member, i
25 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, firinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
t 15803 4
1 Washington, D. C.
2 j
APPEARANCES:
3 l
On behalf of the Applicant:
4 JOSEPH GALLO, ESQ.
5 PHILIP P. STEPTOE, III, ESQ.
1 PETER THORNTON, ESQ.
6 DEAN ISAACS, ESQ.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale 7
Three First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60602 l
8 9
on behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff:
4 GREGORY ALAN BERRY, ESQ.
11 ELAINE I. CH AN, ESQ.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission O
12 7335 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20014 13 j
On behalf of the Intervenors i
14 ROBERT GUILD, ESQ.
15 i
16 i
17 i
i 18 19 20 f
21 1
22 l
23 j
24 25 1
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
j Ceneva, IIIlliiois 601T4 (312) 232-0262
+
l i
i 15804 i
4 l
1 i
1 l
1 EXHIBIT INDEX MARKED RECEIVED i
j 2
Applicant's Exhibit No. 165 15825 15850 l
)
3 Applicant's Exhibit No. 166 15834 15851 4
Intervenors' Exhibit No.185 15855 15856 I
5 i
i 6
7 I
8 1
1 I
9 t
4 10
?
i 11 t
i
}
12 1
13 l
14 15 I
l 16 4
17 I
18 4
i L
i 19 l
l 20 t
i 21 l
i i
l 22 l
t l
23 I
24 t
25 i
i l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ceneva7 IITf661s "'601T4
+
1 i
(312) 232-0262 l
i
i 15805 N
\\
)
V' 1
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE F.
MARCUS 2
ANTHONY J. D' ANTONIO FRED D.
FORREST 3
TONY C. FRAZIER BOARD EXAMINATION 4
BY JUDGE CALLIHAN 15806 5
REDIRECT EXAMINATION 6
BY MR. STEPTOE:
15823 7
RECROSS EXAMAINATION 8
BY MR. GUILD:
15853 9
BOARD EXAMINATION 10 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN 15889 11 REDIRECT EXAMINATION O
12 BY MR. STEPTOE 15892 13 BOARD EXAMINATION 14 BY JUDGE CALLIHAN 15892 15 TESTIMONY OF i
16 TONY C. FRAZIER 17 DIRECT EXAMINATION 18 BY MR. THORNTON 15897 19 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 20 BY MR. GUILD 15899 21 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION i
22 BY MR. THORNTON 15904 23 24 1
l
--)
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ceneva, Ifffnois 601T4 (312) 232-0262 j
l 15806 i V j
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
The hearing is reconvened.
i j
2 This is the 81st day of hearing.
3 Do we have any preliminary matters?
\\
4 (No Response.)
5 JUDGE GROSL.aN :
None.
}
6 We might then proceed with the witnesses, who I
j 7
remain sworn.
f 8
Mr. Steptoe, do you have something?
9 MR. STEPTOE:
No.
I was going to proceed.
i 1
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I think Judge Callihan has 1
I 11 some questions --
i j
12 MR. STEPTOE:
Okay.
I'm sorry.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
-- first.
f 14 JUDGE CALLIHAN:
Gentlemen, I have a few i
t 15 matters that fit in very appropriately with Friday's i
16 discussion, had not we recessed: and I guess it's Mr.
i 17 Forrest -- Mr. Frazier, if I remember, that I would like i
j 18 to address.
19 BOARD EXAMINATION 20 BY JUDGE CALLIHAN 21 0
In answer to one of Judge Cole's questions, I think you 22 said -- and I asked for confirmation -- that those items 23 addressed by PTL and/or Sargent & Lundy might have been 24 in the re-inspection or overinspection.
25 Were items that had been accepted or signed off or t
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
L Geneva, IITinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 15807 1
called or complete at that time, that is, items that 2
your group addressed, had been accepted as complete 3
4 A
(WITNESS FRAZIER)
That's correct, your Honor.
5 Q
Now, suppose, so that eny negative call by PTL, Sargent 6
& Lundy inspectors in the re-inspection program 7
reflected both on the craftsmen and on the earlier 8
inspectors, whomever that might have been, either 9
Comstock or Comstock predecessor?
10 A
(WITNESS FRAZIER)
That is correct.
11 0
That's true?
(
12 A
(WITNESS FRAZIER)
Yes.
13 0
Whether or not what then was done, a PTL inspector come 14 along and finds something amiss, so reports it, and in 15 your knowledge -- and maybe Mr. Marcus can add to this, 16 also -- what is the next action recording that 17 particular item?
18 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Well, the next action was to report 19 those deficiencies back to the contractors.
l 20 0
And this might have been Comstock, say?
i
{
21 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
That's correct.
22 O
Does that contractor then supposedly repair or redo, or 23 whatever was necessary, the item in question?
24 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir.
25 Q
Then what happened?
i l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15808 bU 1
A (WITNESS MARCUS)
Then they would report -- the 2
contractor would then report -- back to PTL and PTL, 3
during the first three years of the four-year period we 4
talked about, would go back and re-inspect that item in 5
the field.
6 0
So their re-inspection or their re-re-inspection, as the 7
case might have been, on items found deficient in your 8
re-inspection program, were ultimately signed off by 9
PTL7 10 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir; as being corrected.
1 i
11 0
So it brought those items to the same level as though
(
12 they had been favorably reviewed by PTL in the first 13 re-inspection program?
14 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir.
15 0
All right.
16 And, again, Mr. Forrest or Mr. Frazier, perhaps, 17 how many attributes were looked at by the PTL i
18 inspectors, let's say, in welding?
19 A
(WITNESS FRAZIER)
I believe we have a total of 26 20 attributes that we inspect for.
21 0
Now, how many of those would have been in any way 22 obscured by paint having been applied some time between 23
-- well, sometime prior to your re-inspection?
24 A
(WITNESS FRAZIER)
Well, depending on the thickness of 25 the paint, there could have been approximately five Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15809
%)
1 attributes that could have been missed, had the welds 2
been painted.
3 0
What attributes are those or, in general, what 4
attributes could have been obscured by the paint that's 5
been discussed at some length in these proceedings?
6 A
(WITNESS FRAZIER)
In general, I would say cracks, small 7
pores, porosity, incomplete fusion, slag, and, in some 8
cases, laminations in the base material itself.
9 0
I want to look for a moment at Intervenors Exhibit 184, 10 which came in on Friday, I guess, and as I remember or 11 as I understood -- and perhaps it is only I who suffers
('
12 from this -- there is some little confusion as to the
\\~ /
13 chronology and as to the chronology among the various 14 documents making up Intervenors' Exhibit 184, and 15 perhaps a little confusion as to which document preceded i
16 and, in effect, at any rate, preceeding others; and if 17 we might look, for example, at the second sheet, at 18 least as I have it in my copy of that exhibit, which is 19 a memorandum from Mr. D.A.
Brown to Mr. DeWald, dated on 20 August 13, 1984, and the first sentence, even, says 21 something to the effect, as I read it, that the 22 re-verification of the presence, the size and the 23 lengths of weld.
24 Is there an implication in that that -- well, let 25 me ask it.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15810 1
What does that first paragraph mean?
What are the 2
instructions?
3 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Judge Callihan, as you stated, in this 4
Intervenors' Exhibit No.184, there are documents in 5
this package that relate to different events.
6 Just as you correctly stated, the first document of 7.
the exhibit, which is dated November 24, 1981, stands by 8
itself.
It is not related to the other documents in the 9
package.
10 And what it is is an instruction to PTL, who was 11 performing an overinspection -- r.ot a first-line QC 12 inspection, but they are performing an overinspection --
13 and it is advising PTL that since it is an 14 overinspection, and that first-line QC inspections had 15 been done by the contractor previous to the PTL 16 inspection, that PTL can do those inspections through 17 paint, because it is an overinspection; and that's l
18 clearly the first document.
I, 19 The next three documents -- actually four documents l
20
-- come as a package.
21 In 1983, June of 1983, Mr. Doug Brown, f roin 22 Commonwealth Edison, the QA supervisor, had a 23 conversation with Mr. Corcoran, and at that time the 24 subject of the conversation was to do a weld presence 25 examination of welds on main control boards.
That weld v
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15811 1
presence examination was simply to get the size and the 2
lengths of the welds, which were on the main control 3
boards themselves.
4 Previous to that, first-line QC inspections had 5
been done of those welds.
6 They could not retrieve the QC inspection records, 7
and so an evaluation was being made of all the welds on 8
those main control boards; and the only characteristics 9
which the engineers were taking into account were weld 10 presence, that is, weld size and weld lengths.
That was 11 the nature of the conversation between Mr. Brown f rom i
12 Edison and Mr. Corcoran; and as part of that i
13 conversation, Mr. Brown informed Mr. Corcoran that they 14 can identify those welds with an asterisk that they were 15 inspected through paint, simply because they were weld 16 presence and weld size.
17 The August -- the next situation that happened was 18 in March of 1984, when Mr. DeWald, from Comstock, had a 19 QC Inspector in the vault examining documents which were 20 associated with the main control boards.
21 In the course of that examination, he determined 22 that welds were inspected through paint, and he called 23 that to Mr. DeWald's attention.
24 The welds that were identified as being inspected N
)
25 through paint were not the welds on the main control
+
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15812
)
J 1
boards, but were the welds on the attachment of the main 2
control board to the steel embedments of the building, 3
the seismic attachments to the building.
4 Clearly those welds cannot be inspected through 5
paint.
6 They were installed by Comstock.
They were seismic 7
attachment welds; and it's required that all these welds 8
be inspected in the unpainted condition if they were 9
used in the seismic analysis.
10 Mr. DeWald recognized that this was not acceptable 11 practice, and he contacted Mr. Brown.
They had a phone 12 conversation -- it's my understanding that they had a
(
13 phone conversation -- and Mr. Brown said, "Look, I never 14 intended to have the weld-downs, the attachment welds to 15 the building, inspected through paint.
My instruction 16 to Mr. Corcoran was only for those weld presence, weld 17 size inspections, which were to be done on the welds on 18 the main control boards themselves," and that was the 19 nature of the August,1984, memorandum, and that's the 20 first sentence which you questioned, that Mr. Brown was i
21 referring to; that is, earlier conversations to Mr.
22 Corcoran had only meant for Comstock to document the l
23 weld presence and weld size of those weld on the main i
l 24 control board, and if -- and if they were painted, then 25 to mark their records accordingly.
l i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 r
15813
{G 3
1 That was the purpose of the sentence.
2 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike 3
all of the witness' answer.
It's clearly hearsay.
It's 4
based on what his understanding is of -- I have no 5
objection to Mr. Marcus stating, in response to Dr.
6 Callihan's question, what his understanding is.
7 He certainly can't testify from first-hand 8
knowledge what Mr. Brown said to Mr. Corcoran or what 9
Mr. Corcoran understood from what Mr. Brown said to Mr.
10 Corcoran, unless, of course Mr. Marcus was present for 11 those conversations, and I understood from his testimony
/ 'N 12 last week that he was not.
b 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I take it this is just your 14 understanding from reading the correspondence; is that 15 what was intended, what your understanding is?
36 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Judge Grossman, my understanding of 17 the Brown conversation to Mr. Corcoran is based on my 18 interview with Mr. Brown of about two months ago.
19 My understanding of the -- of the conversation 20 between Mr. Brown and Mr. DeWald is based on my 21 interview of Mr. DeWald and Mr. Brown of about a month 22 or two months ago.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, we will only allow it 24 to the extent of the witness' understanding.
y
)
25 If it's a critical piece of evidence, the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 15814 r"~s.
1 participants in those conversations are available, Mr.
2 Steptoe.
3 MR. STEPTOE:
I understand that, Judge 4
Grossman.
5 I will review whether it's critical or not; and Mr.
6 DeWald is coming back, I believe, for one small piece of 7
testimony.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Fine.
9 BY JUDGE CALLIH AN:
10 0
Well, does this August 13, 1984, memo in any way say 11 that painted welds are to be inspected while still i
12 painted, only for presence, size and length, or is there d
13 a general instruction that welds having been painted can 14 still be inspected by the -- for the 20-odd attributes 15 that Mr. Frazier alluded to?
16 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
No, sir.
17 This memo is only referring to inspecting for weld 18 presence and weld size of welds on the main control 19 board through paint, because they had been previously 20 inspected.
21 The memo also makes the point that there was not 22 any intention for Comstock to do 36 visual weld 23 inspections for weld quality through paint; so it 24 re-emphasized the point that first-line QC inspection N
25 must be done in the unpainted condition.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262 j
r 15815 s
v 1
Q Is there anything in your records that defines the 2
condition of the weld during his first-line inspection?
3 Or, to say it differently, was the painting done between 4
the first-line inspection and the PTL inspection?
5 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Are you referring, again, to the main 6
control boards, Judge Callihan?
7 0
No, I am speaking general now.
8 This whole business of painting, it's been 9
discussed at some length.
10 If you want to segregate the welds, one from 11 another for some reason, by all means do so, but I am 12 seeking generalities.
13 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Generally, the first-line QC 14 inspection would be performed in the unpainted 15 condition, and then the paint would be applied to the 16 welds and, subsequently, those welds could be 17 re-inspected in an overinspection to re-verify those 18 attributes that are still available, or, in the case of 19 main control boards, that they could be re-inspected for 20 weld presence and weld size.
21 O
Was it generally the practice, then, at some time or at 22 any time during this re-inspection program, to remove 23 the paint prior to at least the final re-inspection?
24 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir, m
25 Q
Does anyone have any feel for the population of Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15816 l
1 1
once-painted welds -- and I will define that as meaning 2
before -- painted before the PTL re-inspection.
3 Has anybody got any feel for the population among 4
that group that was -- that had the paint removed?
5 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Judge Callihan, I -- I believe, in the 6
overinspection program, to the best of my knowledge --
7 and Mr. Forrest might want to comment on this -- that 8
during the overinspection program, for overinspection 9
purposes, I don't know of any welds that had to have the 10 paint removed.
11 Is that accurate?
12 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
I don't believe so, either.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I'm sorry.
I didn't hear 14 that last part.
15 Do you know of any welds that --
16 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Had to have the paint removed during 17 the overinspection program, because they were allowed to 18 be inspected through the paint.
19 Is that not clear?
9 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I don't understand.
21 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
Have we somehow gotten OCIRP 22 involved in this.
23 JUDGE CALLIH AN:
Excuse me.
24 Got what involved?
O i
25 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
QCIRP, the OCIRP re-inspection Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 f
(312) 232-0262
15817 M.
(O 1
program.
2 BY JUDGE CALLIHAN:
3 0
Well, I guess, to come to the end point of my question, 4
is simply this:
5 If one looks at Braidwood today, how many welds are 6
in place that were favorably inspected through paint?
7 Now, that's a very broad question, I know, but it 8
kind of gets to the thing that I am asking about.
9 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
To the best of my knowledge, there 10 would be none.
11 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Judge Callihan, it's clearly been the 12 policy at the site for the history of the site that all 13 the first-line QC inspections of weld must be done in 14 the unpainted condition.
i 15 0
Well, by "first line," I recognize the first weld done 16 af ter the craf tsman gets through for the first time with l
17 the job; is that what you are meaning by "first line"?
i 18 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
I mean yes, that's correct; the I
19 inspection that's done as soon as the work is completed, 20 yes, sir.
21 0
But there was a number of welds, deficient welds, found I
22 in the PTL/Sargent & Lundy re-inspection program; true?
l 23 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir.
l
[
24 0
Now, how many of those were painted?
I know it's a
(_
l 25 detail, but just a feel, but how many of those were
(
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 4-i y,
(312) 232-0262 L-
15818 O
i l
painted at the time of the PTL overinspection:
- Lots, 2
few, what?
3 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
Well 4
Q Excuse me.
5 Let me interrupt myself and interrupt you, with my 6
apologies.
7
-- and were not cleaned before the very last look 8
by somebody?
9 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Well, here, again, I hope this is 10 being responsive to your question.
11 But going through the steps, the welder puts the
(
12 weld on the hanger, so to speak.
13 When he's completed, the Comstock OC Inspector is i
14 required to inspect that weld in the unpainted 15 condition.
16 Now he is done with it and he turns that over to 17 PTL.
18 PTL selects f rom those welds to do an 19 overinspection.
i 20 If, by the time PTL gets out there, those welds had 21 been painted, that overinspection would have been done 22 through the paint.
23 If it was not painted, then it would have been done t
24 in the unpainted condition; but in any case, the
(
)
25 overinspection was another level of check.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
j Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
\\
15819 l.
D f
1 It wasn't required to accept those welds, it was 2
another layer of look that we had established on our --
3 on our -- just on our own, the Edi. son Company had 4
established that on our own.
5 It was not a requirement to do that.
6 0
But I understood Mr. Frazier to say that, in effect, a 1
7 goodly number of those painted welds were inspected and 1
8 favorably inspected without the removal of the paint?
f 9
A (WITNESS MARCUS)
In -- yes, sir, Judge Callihan.
10 In the overinspection program, which is what PTL 11 was doing -- they were doing this overinspection -- 7 12 percent of the 28,000 welds that were looked at were i
13 looked at in the painted condition, because the painter 14 got there before PTL got there; but it was a program 15 that was in addition to the requirements.
It was an i
i 16 overinspection program.
All of the welds that were done i
17 by Comstock were required to be inspected in the 18 unpainted condition.
19 Q
But the purpose of the overinspection program was to 20 check up on the Comstock -- well, really check up on the 21 Comstock inspection, and certainly maybe a little I
22 something to check up on the Comstock craftsmanship, i
l 23 and, if, albeit, that Comstock painted -- I beg your i
24 pardon -- Comstock inspected clean welds, you have just 1
25 said, as I understood you, that by the time PTL got i
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15820
('N
\\~,)
1 around, they were dirty or painted or something.
2 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir.
3 0
Does -- but, still, PTL Went ahead, if I understood Mr.
4 Frazier, and inspected them, paint and all?
5 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir.
6 0
And, lastly, the paint wasn' t removed, if I understood 7
correctly?
8 A
(WITNESS FRAZIER)
That is correct.
9 0
So they were inspected painted?
10 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir; in 7 percent of the cases, 11 that's true.
12 It was an overinspection.
It was not a 13 requirement; and so the 7 percent of that overinspection 14 work was performed in the painted condition.
That's 15 what our data shows.
16 0
Mr. --
17 A
(WITNESS FRAZIER)
If I might add to that, Judge 18 Callihan.
19 The -- in the 7 percent population that we i
20 overinspected through paint, we did not find all of l
21 those welds in that 7 percent acceptable, we were able 22 to identify unacceptable discontinuities in the weld 23 themselves.
There were rejected attributes within that 24 7 percent population.
25 0
Which you did find?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15821 U
1 A
(WITNESS FRAZIER)
Pardon me?
2 0
which you did find?
3 A
(WITNESS FRAZIER)
Yes, sir.
4 0
So some fraction -- it's possible that some fraction of 5
the 7 percent may have a deficient attribute because of 6
the paint?
7 A
(WITNESS FRAZIER)
Not because of the paint, they would 8
have been able to have -- to identify that a particular 9
attribute that they rejected it for.
10 0
Does a welder, in his inspecting, in his reporting, 11 separate out the attributes?
12 I will be specific in this case.
13 I think we have agreed that it seems like presence, 14 of cource, and size and length and so forth, do not 15 suffer in the inspection -- for the inspection process, 16 by the paint, those things you can inspect through 17 paint, but some of the other things, like cracks and so 18 forth.
19 Now, my question.
20 Does the welder -- I beg your pardon -- does the 21 inspector or would the inspector have said, "This has 22 been painted," with his asterisk.
"The weld is there, 23 the length is correct, but there may be some cracks, but 24 I don't know it because of the paint?"
b( )
25 A
(WITNESS FRAZIER)
The inspector, the overinspector Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15822
\\~-)
I would have identified a painted weld on his visual 2
inspection report.
He would have identified the size of 3
the weld, the length of the weld, and the fact that it 4
was painted, and any other attribute -- no, I don't want 5
to say "any other attribute" -- but any attribute that 6
he identified as deficient, along with the remark of the 7
8 0
So he might have designated potential defects, potential 9
defects, which he could not inspect because of the 10 paint, or would he have just said, "the weld had been 11 painted"?
(
12 (No Response.)
13 I guess I am asking about the detail of the 14 reporting, really.
15 A
(WITNESS FRAZIER)
That possibility does exist.
I -- I 16 don't have an example right offhand or I can't think of 17 an example right offhand.
18 JUDGE CALLIH AN :
All right.
19 Thank you very much.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Marcus, did you intend 21 to indicate that your understanding is that at no point 22 in time were first-line inspections ever made through 23 paint?
24 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir, that's correct.
I 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Steptoe?
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15823 p
1 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 2
BY MR. STEPTOE:
I 3
0 Mr. Marcus, let's just pick up on this.
4 Did the NRC staff ever identify any instances in 5
which first-line inspections were performed through 6
paint?
7 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes.
Yes, they did.
8 0
Well, you just answered Judge Grossman that at no point 9
in time was it ever done.
10 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Well, I was trying to say, Judge 11 Grossman, that the practice at the site was always in 12 place that first-line inspections are required -- of 13 welds -- are required to be done in the unpainted 14 condition.
15 There were isolated instances where that practice 16 was not followed, and there is the one instance which 17 Mr. Steptoe is referring to, dealt with NRC citation 18 where -- which was assessed because one inspector over a i
19 period of, I believe, nine days, did, in fact, inspect 20 welds through paint.
21 0
And, Mr. Marcus, who did that inspector work for?
22 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
That inspector worked for PTL, and he 23 was doing first-line OC acceptance inspection of 24 Napoleon steel.
I 25 0
Let's turn to Intervenors Exhibit 184, Mr. Marcus.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 15824
\\
l Do you have that before you?
2 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir.
3 0
Can you go to page AR-229, which is the third from the 4
last page?
It's a September 19, 1984, memo, from Mr.
5 Smith to Mr. Forrest.
6 Actually I should ask you this question, Mr.
7 Forrest.
8 What were the circumstances that prompted this 9
memo?
10 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
This was a result of the situation 11 that Mr. Marcus just alluded to.
12 As a result of those inspections identified, the 13 action done is that PTL initiated an NCR, which is 14 referenced on this memo, which was PTL NRC 191.
15 0
Now, there is an PTL NCR, there is also an NCR item of 16 noncompliance related to this incident?
17 A
I believe there is, yes.
18 MR. GUILD:
Does counsel have a reference to 19 that?
20 MR. STEPTOE:
I don't know.
21 It was one of the contentions in this case, Judge 22 Grossman, and we moved for summary disposition and we 23 did not -- we were not successful.
That's as far as I 24 can narrow it down.
S
)
25 MR. GUILD:
Is this the Napoleon steel item, Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15825 V
1 Mr. Steptoe?
2 MR. STEPTOE:
I think so, but I am not sure.
3 BY MR. STEPTOE:
4 Q
Just to follow up, Mr. Marcus, on the painted weld 5
questions by Judge Callihan, and also by Mr. Guild on l
6 Friday, Mr. Guild asked you how many welds, based on 7
your data and your records, were inspected through i
8 paint, and you said you had a tabulation.
9 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir.
10 MR. STEPTOE:
I ara going to hand you a 11 document that I would like to have marked for s
12 identification as Applicant's next exhibit, I believe 13 it's 165.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
That's correct.
15 (The document was thereupon marked 16 Applicant's Exhibit No.165 for 17 identification as of October 27, 1986.)
18 BY MR. STEPTOE:
19 0
Will you please identify this document for the record, 20 Mr. Marcus?
21 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir.
22 This document covers the four-year time period f rom 23 July, 1982, through June of 1986, and it shows the 24 overinspections which were performed by PTL of Comstock l
l 25 for that time period.
j 1
l l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15826
(N 1
It also shows the number of welds which were 2
inspected each month in the painted condition, the 3
numbers of weld which were inspected in the nonpainted 4
condition, and the total number of welds which were 5
inspected each month.
6 It also shows the agreement rate broken down by 7
painted, nonpainted and total.
8 MR. STEPTOE:
Now, I will just represent to 9
the Board that this document was made available during 10 discovery in July of this year.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Again, Mr. Marcus, what was 12 categorized as painted, was or were the inspection 13 reports by PTL on which there was some notation made as 14 to inspecting through paint; is that so?
15 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
17 BY MR. STEPTOE:
18 Q
Mr. Frazier, you said that -- on Friday, I believe --
19 that you personally gave the PTL overinspectors the 20 instructions to perform visual weld inspections through 21 paint.
22 Who told the -- those inspectors to make a notation 23 that the welds were -- were painted, in the remarks 24 section of their checklist?
N
)
25 A
(WITNESS FRAZIER)
I gave that instruction, in which I 2
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
15827 1
made them aware that the D.A. Brown --
2 THE COURT REPORTER:
I'm sorry?
The what?
3 MR. STEPTOE:
Just repeat yourself so that 4
the Court Reporter can hear.
5 A
(WITNESS FRAZIER)
I gave the instructions for the 6
inspectors to note any inspections through paint on 7
their reports when I also gave them the instruction that 8
they could perform inspections through paint for L.K.
9 Comstock work.
10 BY MR. STEPTOE:
11 0
Now, Mr. Frazier, what reason, if any, do you have for
(
12 believing that your inspectors follow your instructions 13 with respect to noting the presence of paint every time 14 on their checklist?
15 A
(WITNESS FOUR)
Well, first of all, there was no reason 16 for them not to make that notation on the report.
They 17 have absolutely nothing to gain by not making the 18 notation, if the situation exists.
19 Second of all, during the period of time in 20 question, from July of 1982, through approximately 21 January of 1984, I was personally reviewing the visual 22 inspection reports of the overinspections for Comstock, 23 and I noted on the reports that the inspectors were i
I 24 making this notation.
(
r's
)
25 So I had no doubt -- no reason to doubt that they i
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 1
(312) 232-0262
15828 I
weren't representative.
2 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, could I ask whether 3
the Reporter got the reference to the Doug Brown memo in 4
the first answering to the preceeding question?
5 THE COURT REPORTER:
That was what I didn't 6
understand the witness to say.
7 MR. GUILD:
Could I ask that the record 8
reflect that the witness' first answer referred to the 9
Doug Brown memo.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Is that correct, Mr.
11 Frazier?
12 A
(WITNESS FOUR)
That is correct.
13 MR. GUILD:
Thank you.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I'm sorry.
15 I also interjected that it's been a habit on the 16 part of some of the panelists, some of the witnesses, 17 that when the Reporter doesn't hear something and asks i
18 what was said, that witnesses give a further 19 explanation.
I just wanted to point out that the 20 Reporter is only asking for the words that he missed.
j 21 I'm sorry if that added to some of the confusion 22 here.
l l
23 BY MR. STEPTOE:
24 0
Now, Mr. Marcus, referring again to Applicant's Exhibit
(
25 165.
l l
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 60134
[
(312) 232-0262
s 15829
/^~%
\\~-
1 It shows agreement rates for both painted and 2
nonpainted welds.
3 What effect, if any, would it have on your 4
conclusions, if you threw away all the data for painted 5
welds and just looked at the nonpainted data presented 6
in this exhibit?
7 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Mr. Steptoe, when I analyzed the data 8
in preparation for this testimony, I looked at the data 9
on the basis of nonpainted, and compared that to the 10 overall -- for the data for the overall agreement rates, 11 and I see no substantial difference between the
(
12 conclusions which I would draw, the analysis I would 13 make, whether I was looking at the overall agreement 14 rates for the total population each month, including 15 painted and unpainted versus looking at the data only 16 for the unpainted welds.
17 My conclusions and analysis would have been the 18 same.
19 0
Let's move on to Intervenors Exhibit 183.
20 Mr.
D' Antonio, I am going to refer you to the last 21 page of this exhibit, which is a memorandum dated 22 December 12, 1985, to Mr. D' Antonio.
23 Let's just wait a moment so everyone has it.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I'm sorry.
25 Could you repeat what you said, Mr. Steptoe?
I was Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15830 U
1 busy reading my materials here.
2 MR. STEPTOE:
I was inquiring whether 3
everyone has it.
It's a copy of Intervenors' Exhibit 4
183, the last page.
5 BY MR. STEPTOE:
6 Q
Mr.
D' Antonio, can you explain what this letter is 7
about?
8 A
(WITNESS D' ANTONIO)
Yes, sir.
9 This letter was a request from PTL to CECO Quality 10 Assurance that, as a result of PTL having the sufficient 11 data-base for all of the affected Comstock inspectors 12 under the revised overinspection program, and also at 13 the time having a backlog of Comstock inspections that 14 were performed prior to June of 1985 at that time, that 15 they suspend the program for a period of time to perform 16 inspections on the backlog.
17 0
Okay.
Now, can you please explain to me exactly what 18 that backlog from comstock consisted of?
19 A
(WITNESS D' ANTONIO)
I believe we established last week 20 that prior to the June, 1985 time frame, there was a 21 certain population of requests in the PTL house that 22 were, in fact, a backlog and had to be inspected by PTL.
23 Certain of these were re-inspections that needed to 24 be perf ormed by PTL on inspections that were rejected 25 during their overinspection.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 f
(312) 232-0262
15831 Ch
\\mJ 1
In the second paragraph of this document, it refers 2
to the fact that PTL currently holds 64 open ICR's, and 3
that the ICR's were written to address Inspection 4
Reports that were previously rejected by PTL during the 5
overinspection.
6 Q
Now, I take it that there was a suspension as a result 7
of this memo; is that correct, Mr. D' Antonio?
8 A
(WITNESS D' ANTONIO)
Yes, sir.
9 Q
When was the overinspection resumed?
10 Mr. Forrest, can you tell me when was the 11 overinspection resumed?
12 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
The overinspection was resumed the 13 week of January 6th --
14 0
Okay.
So --
15 A
(WITNESS FORREST:
-- 1986.
16 Q
So it was not resumed on January 3rd as stated in this i
i 17 memo?
18 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
January 3rd was a Friday.
It was 19 resumed, actually, the following Tuesday, which is the 20 7th.
21 Q
Dr. D' Antonio, why wasn't this approximately two-week 22 period of suspension of overinspections addressed in 23 your testimony?
24 A
(WITNESS D' ANTONIO)
As I indicated when I answered the 25 question initially, because PTL did have a data base for l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
=
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15832 (V
~~%
1 this period of time on the affected Comstock inspectors, 2
we did not feel that it was necessary to identify the 1
3 fact that there was a suspension, as we did have data 4
that addressed the Comstock inspectors during the period 5
of December 16, 1985, through January 3, 1986.
6 Q
Mr. Forrest, I have a transcript,156 81.
7 You gave an answer -- I am referring specifically 8
to the second line of the transcript, the sentence 9
reads, "At the same time, you also can consider that the 10 contractors initially hadn't received those rejected 11 reports," and you go on to say that "they also had a
(
12 responsibility to track and close those items beyond the 13 records which I keep."
'14 Is that correct?
15 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
No, that is not.
16 In my answer, I was making the statement that the 17 contractors had received copies of those rejected 18 reports.
19 MR. STEPTOE:
Okay.
That's a correction of 20 what I believe is an error in the transcription, Judge 21 Grossman.
22 MR. GUILD:
I don't understand the nature of 23 the correction.
24 MR. STEPTOE:
There is a not -- there is a
(~
(
25 "hadn't" which should be a "had" in the transcript.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15833 O
\\
1 MR. GUILD:
They "had" received the reports 2
as opposed to "had not"?
3 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
That's normal practice.
4 JUDGE CALLIH AN :
What line was that, Mr.
5 Steptoe?
6 MR. STEPTOE:
It's the second line on Page 7
No. 156 81.
8 JUDGE CALLIHAN:
Okay.
9 MR. STEPTOE:
The word "hadn't" should be 10 "had."
11 JUDGE CALLIH AN :
Should be "had," not a 12 negative.
13 Thank you.
14 BY MR. STEPTOE:
15 0
Mr. Marcus, when Edison reduced the overinspection rate 16 for Comstock below 25 percent in April, 1985, do you 17 believe you violated a commitment to the NRC staff?
{
18 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
No, sir, I do not.
19 0
Why not?
20 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Because the -- there was no commitment 21 which required us to do 25 percent at all times.
22 The commitment to -- the statement which was made 23 to the NRC is that we were going to implement an 24 overinspection program with a goal of up to -- up to 25 25 percent, and at the time we made those statements, in i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 15834
(~'N v
1 March of 1984, with the NRC staf f, it was our mutual 2
understanding that, based on the results of the 3
overinspection program, we would either increase that 4
percentage or decrease it.
5 0
Well, did you ever -- did you ever, in -- have -- strike 6
that.
7 Do you know whether Edison ever clarified this 8
matter to the NRC staff?
9 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir.
10 0
At any subsequent point?
11 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir, I believe we have.
I' \\
12 MR. STEPTOE:
Mr. Marcus, I am handing out a 13 document which I would like marked as Applicant's 14 Exhibit 166, which is a letter dated December 26, 1984, 15 from Mr. Cordell Reed, Vice-President of Commonwealth 16 Edison Company, to Mr. Keppler.
17 It's a two-page document.
18 (The document was thereupon marked 19 Applicant's Exhibit No.166 for 20 identification as of October 27, 1986.)
21 BY MR. STEPTOE:
22 0
Could you please identify this document for the record, 23 Mr. Marcus?
I 24 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir.
l ('
(
25 This is a letter to Mr. Keppler of the NRC staff, l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15835 3
,V 1
dated December 26th, during which it discusses a meeting 2
which was held on November 26, 1984.
3 0
Okay.
What was the subject of that meeting?
4 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
The subject of the meeting was to 5
discuss the Braidwood SALP Report No. 4.
6 Q
Now, referring to the second page of this document, it's 7
entitled, Commonwealth Edison Company's Comments on 8
Braidwood SALP 4 Report.
9 I will refer you to Paragraph 7.
10 Would you please explain what this says?
11 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Paragraph 7 describes what our intent I
T 12 was in our earlier discussions regarding how the V
13 overinspection program would be implemented in regards 14 to percentage of overinspection.
15 As it states there, it says that our percentage of 16 overinspection will vary depending on the results of our 17 selected inspections.
18 It indicates that some overinspections have been 19 temporarily increased to 100 percent; likewise, 20 overinspection activity may decrease in selected areas 21 if warranted.
22 0
Mr. Marcus, return now to the results of the QCIRP, as 23 discussed in Intervenors' Exhibit 181 and was discussed 24 last week.
O)
(
25 What inference do you draw in those results, with i
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1 15836 O
N~-
1 respect to PTL, with respect to the performance of the 2
PTL inspectors?
3 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
I believe the inference that can be 4
drawn f rom the OCIRP data is -- as you know, the OCIRP 5
was performed for work that was completed prior to the 6
fall of 1982.
7 The inference that I believe we can draw is that 8
that data is that, subsequent to that date, the 9
performance of the PTL inspectors would be at least as 10 good and most likely better, based on the fact that 11 there has been extensive training, recertification of
('~'
12 those inspectors since 1982.
V) 13 0
Mr. Forrest, do you have an opinion whether the 14 performance of your inspectors would have improved or 15 gotten worse or stayed about the same, since the time 16 period covered in the OCIRP, that is, since the fall of 17 1982?
18 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
I think the quality of our 19 inspectors has dramatically increased since the fall of 20 1982, essentially due to the improvements that we have 21 made in our training program, the content and quality of 22 the training, and the additional steps that we have 23 taken, you know, with our whole overall certification 24 program.
O)
(
25 0
Mr. Frazier, I ask you the same question that Mr.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 15837 b)
\\~-
1 Forrest just answered.
2 What's your opinion?
3 A
(WITNESS FRAZIER)
I agree with Mr. Forrest, that with 4
the increase in the training, we have grading for 5
certification, plus, additionally, I have been able to 6
observe the inspectors in the field performing their 7
inspections, and, also, through certification.
8 0
Mr. Marcus, what inferences or conclusions, if any, did 9
you draw from the OCIRP results which showed that the 10 Comstock inspectors scored about 92 percent in the OCIRP 11 and the PTL inspectors -- PTL inspectors scored about 88
(
12 percent?
13 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
The PTL inspectors actually scored 14 about 88-and-a-half percent.
15 I feel that there is no significant difference 16 between the 88-and-a-half percent figure and the 92 17 percent figure.
Both were at about the threshold level 18 that we used in our analysis.
19 Q
Mr. Forrest, back to you.
20 You say your data base -- or Mr. Marcus' data base 21 covered the period, July,1982, to June of 1986.
22 For what periods did you have to backtrack through 23 the documentation system, using the Comstock transmittal 24 letter, to identify the Comstock inspector?
O k
)
25 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
That period would be from starting s/
c Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15838
(}
O 1
sometime in January of 1984 through May of 1985.
2 0
Why did it start in January of 1984?
3 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
In January of 1984, Comstock revised 4
their request system, or their notification system, to 5
us.
6 Prior to that point, I was getting a copy of the 7
Form 19 along with the request letter.
8 Af ter that point, their request letter was revised 9
to just give me the applicable information, and Form 19 10 was not attached.
11 Q
Okay.
So prior to January, 1984, the Form 19 was
(
12 attached to the Comstock transmittal letter?
13 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
Yes; and those were maintained on 14 file in the PTL office.
15 Q
Okay.
Now, in I think it was May of 1985, you said, l
16 that you no longer had to backtrack.
l l
17 Why didn't you have to backtrack for that period 18 on?
i l
19 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
When the revised OI program was l
l 20 implemented in June of 1985, we went into a system where 21 Comstock built into their program essentially a hold 22 point.
23 My inspector ~or my lead inspector would go to the 24 Comstock facility on a daily basis, he would go through l
l 25 the inspection reports that the Comstock inspectors had l
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
L Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15839 0
1 turned in the previous day.
After we made our selection 2
from that population, we would photocopy those 3
documents, and that's what formed the base of our 4
inspections.
5 MR. GUILD:
I'm sorry.
6 Photocopy which documents?
7 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
Of the Comstock inspection records.
8 BY MR. STEPTOE:
9 Q
How would you know who the Comstock inspector was on the 10 date that Comstock performed its inspection for the 11 period from June, 1985, on to the present?
()
12 Well, let me just withdraw that multiple.
D 13 How would you know who the Comstock inspector was 14 for the period f rom June,1985, to the present?
15 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
We would have the -- we would have 16 his checklist, the checklist that the Comstock inspector 17 signed and dated at the completion of the inspection.
18 Q
For June,1985, to the present?
19 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
That is correct.
I 20 0
Okay.
Was the name of the Comstock inspector entered l
l 21 into the computer?
22 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
Not directly.
23 We used -- there is a coding system.
It's an l
j 24 alphanumerical code that we use.
25 0
And did that alphanumerical code identify who the i
l Sonntag Reportino Service, Ltd.
l l
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
t s
15840 (M
\\J 1
Comstock inspector was?
2 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
That is correct.
3 Q
Mr. Forrest, referring to Intervenors' Exhibit 180, 4
which is the PTL Braidwood Good News Story.
5 You were asked about a statement which appears at 6
the bottom of Page 3, which states, "PTL began an 7
overinspection program on various contractor QC 8
activities."
That sentence appears under, " Phase 8, 9
Reorganization, October,1983, through November,1984."
10 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
Yes.
1,1 Q
Do you see that?
(s_ /
\\
12 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
Yes, I do.
13 Q
Can you tell me what is being referred to in that 14 sentence?
15 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
As we talked about last week, this 16 document was authored by Mr. Bank of my staff.
17 I talked to Mr. Bank about this statement.
18 He was referring to --
s 19 MR. GUILD:
Objection.
' 20 Mr. Chairman, I assume what we are now going to 21
' hear is what someone who is not a witness has told this s
22 witness and he is now recounting to us.
23 That's hearsay.
24 MR. STEPTOE:
Let me rephrase the question.
25 BY MR. STEPTOE:
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
a 15841 1%
1 Q
Mr. Forrest, what if any overinspecting programs began 2
during this time frame?
3 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
Besides our -- the overview program 4
that was in place at that time, there were several other 5
aspects of overview that we implemented during this time 6
frame.
7 One of those was a concrete expansion surveillance 8
program of the other contractors on-site.
9 During this time frame, we also initiated a 25 10 percent overview of welding of G.K. Newberg.
11 We also began a surveillance program of different
(
12 contractors' calibration activities.
13 0
Did the contractors being surveilled -- whose 14 calibration activities were being surveilled -- include 15 Comstock during this time frame?
16 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
Not directly, no.
17 0
Okay.
What do you mean by, "not directly"?
18 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
At that point, we began doing the
~
19 Comstock calibrations of their torque wrenches.
20 0
During this period of time?
21 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
Yes.
22 0
And how did that -- just so we are straight on it, what 23 were you doing?
24 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
We were performing the calibrations
(
25 of their torque wrenches f or them.
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15842 U
1 0
Is that an overinspection?
2 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
No, it was not.
3 0
Finally, Mr. Marcus, you testified, I think it's on 4
Friday, that the rate of agreement between the PTL 5
overinspector and the Comstock inspector is a measure of 6
the effectiveness of the Comstock inspector's 7
performance.
8 Do you recall that testimony?
9 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir.
I 10 0
You also testified that you did not assume that the PTL 11 overinspector was 100 percent accurate.
12 Do you recall saying that?
13 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir.
14 0
Mr. Guild asked you whether a possible interpretation of 15 agreement rates in your testimony might be that the 16 inspectors were agreeing on inaccurate inspection 17 judgment.
18 Do you recall that question?
1 19 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir.
20 0
Your answer was that that was a possible interpretation.
21 You also said, "I don't know if that reflects what we 22 were trying to achieve, though."
23 First of all, is it your interpretation that the 24 agreement rates in your testimony reflect the Comstock 25 and PTL inspectors agreeing on inaccurate inspection Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 I
(312) 232-0262 I
I l
15843 f~h 1
judgments?
2 MR. GUILD:
Objection.
3 Leading question.
4 I mean, it's clearly designed to have the witness 5
agree that that is the proposition.
6 Counsel is reading a prepared question and I 7
presume that it's anticipated that will, in effect, lead 8
to a prepared answer.
9 Well, there has got to be some measure of 10 spontaneity to witness' testimony, particularly now we 11 are talking about Redirect, af ter there has been a
(
12 weekend break.
It's obvious there is only limited 13 spontaneity; but it should be upon the basis of not a 14 canned question, I would say, judge.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Would you repeat the 16 question, Mr. Reporter.
17 (The question was thereupon read 18 by the Reporter.)
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
We will overrule the 20 objection; but please try to phrase your questions 21 neutrally; but we will overrule that objection.
22 You may answer.
23 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
No, that is not my position that I 24 feel that the two inspectors are agreeing to rejectable 25 items.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
15844 1
I said that it's possible that that could happen.
i 2
However, I feel it's highly unlikely that that 3
would happen.
l 4
The Comstock inspectors were qualified inspectors, 5
and the PTL inspectors were qualified inspectors, and I 6
have got no reason to believe why two separate sets of 1
7 qualified inspectors would uniformly reject -- fail to 8
reject the same item.
9 BY MR. STEPTOE:
10 Q
You also replied on Friday, that, "I don' t know if that 11 reflects what we were trying to achieve, though."
12 Mr. Marcus, what were you trying to achieve by v
13 presenting this data on agreement rates between Comstock 14 and PTL inspectors?
15 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Essentially, what we were trying to do 16 is to compare two different groups of inspectors, the 17 first group of inspectors being the Comstock inspectors i
18 who reported directly to the Comstock management; and in 19 the cases of inspectors where there were allegations 20 that they were subject to harassment and intimidation, 21 and because of that harassment and intimidation --
22 alleged harassment and intimidation -- their management 23 felt that there was a pervasive breakdown in the quality 24 of their work.
25 The second group of inspectors were the PTL Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15845 OQ 1
inspectors who had no involvement with the Comstock 2
management whatsoever.
3 The PTL inspectors reported within the PTL 4
organization to the PTL supervision; the PTL 5
organization reported to the Commonwealth Edison Quality 6
Assurance Department at the site on Braidwood, and the 7
Commonwealth Edison Quality Assurance Department 8
reported off-site to our corporate QA management.
9 Those were the two groups which we were looking at.
10 What we were trying to determine is that if this 11 alleged harassment / intimidation resulted in a pervasive
['
12 breakdown and that the Comstock inspectors were, indeed, D) 13 accepting work which was rejectable, then the second 14 group of inspectors, the PTL inspectors, not subject to 15 the same conditions, would have identified that change 16 in performance; and we assembled a large amount of data.
17 We looked at over 10 percent of the welds which were l
18 perf ormed in a four-year period, some 28,000 welds, and 19 over 30 percent of the components installed by Comstock, 20 and during that four-year period, we saw a continuous 21 pattern where the Comstock inspectors perf ormed at this 22 general acceptable level, threshold level, in the range 23 of 80 percent; and we found no change in that pattern, 24 other than the few isolated cases which I discussed at
(
25 length in my testimony.
l l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15846 m
1 MR. STEPTOE:
I have no further questions, 2
Judge Grossman.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Steptoe, do we have the 4
written PTL procedure for overinspection and the 5
checklist for the PTL overinspectors?
6 I don't see anything in evidence on that.
7 MR. STEPTOE:
If I put the checklist in?
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I am not asking you to put 9
it in right now; though, I am a little curious as to 10 why, since we have had such a thorough discussion of 11 PTL, that we don't have their procedures and checklists 12 at least identified.
13 MR. STEPTOE:
Well, I know that therc were 14 examples of the checklist in the record as exhibits.
15 With respect to the procedures, I think that the --
16 I should ask that of the witnesses, because I think the 3
17 written procedure that they used was the -- their own i
18 visual weld inspection procedure.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, Mr. Frazier, do you 20 have a procedure for PTL overinspection?
21 A
(WITNESS FRAZIER)
For PTL overinspection, yes, Judge 22 Grossman.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
You do have; but we don't 24 have that in the record?
T j
25 A
(WITNESS FRAZIER)
I do not have a copy with me right Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15847 OV 1
now.
2 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
I don't know if it's been submitted 3
as part of the proceedings or not.
I just don't know.
4 MR. STEPTOE:
Okay.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, I don't see it in the 6
record; and now let me ask you:
7 Do you also have overinspection checklists?
- And, 8
Mr. Steptoe, you have indicated that there are and you 9
believe they are in the record.
10 I don't know where they are.
11 Could you give me a reference?
12 MR. STEPTOE:
Well, if nothing else, that 13 there are some of those checklists attached to Mr.
14 Frazier's testimony with respect to Mr. Hunter, which 15 will be forthcoming.
16 A
(WITNESS FRAZIER)
Excuse me, Mr. Steptoe.
Mr.
i 17 Steptoe?
l 18 MR. STEPTOE:
Yes.
l 19 May I confer with my witness off the record for a 1
i 20 moment?
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes.
I was -- I missed a 22 couple of questions, because I was looking through this, i
l 23 looking for a checklist, and I didn't find one.
24 Talking about Mr. -- oh, I see.
With regard to 25 Hunter, I see, okay.
l 3'
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
\\
l 15848 O
~-
1 MR. STEPTOE:
I am so informed.
2 May I speak to my witness for a moment?
He's 3
beckoning to me.
He wants to tell me something.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes.
You can speak to your 5
witness, certainly.
6 (Whereupon a recess was had, after which 7
the hearing resumed as follows:)
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN :
Mr. Steptoe?
9 MR. STEPTOE:
Yes, Judge Grossman.
10 I think I better clear up this procedure matter on 11 the record with my witnesses.
()
12 BY MR. STEPTOE:
V 13 Q
First of all, Mr. Forrest, starting in 19 -- May or June 14 of 1985, what procedures did you have with respect to 15 your overinspection program?
16 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
We have a procedure in place that 17 directs the implementation of the overinspection 18 program.
19 0
Does it also -- is there also a procedure indicating how 20 your weld inspection shall be performed or how your 21 inspections shall be perf ormed?
22 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
Yes, it does.
23 0
That's the same procedure?
24 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
That is the same procedure.
)
25 Q
Okay.
Now, prior to your change in your program in June Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15849
\\\\
/
m l
1 of 1985, what procedures existed with respect to the 2
overinspection program?
3 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
Prior to June of 1985, we used our 4
visual weld inspection procedure.
5 It did not address the administrative aspects of 6
our overview program.
7 Q
For example, did it address how the sample was to be 8
selected?
9 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
No, it did not.
10 MR. STEPTOE:
Judge Grossman, if the Board 11 thinks it's appropriate, we will be glad to -- those
(
12 documents have been made available in discovery.
LJ 13 If the Board wants them as part of the record, we 14 will be glad --
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I don't know if we want them 16 as part of the record, but we certainly want to see 17 those documents.
18 We have heard a lot of testimony about the 19 procedures and the requirements.
We would like to have 20
-- but we haven't seen the documents.
i i
21 So we would like a copy of that, plus whatever 22 checklists PTL used.
23 MR. STEPTOE:
We can do that and supply that 24 in correspondence, and if the Board wants or parties O( )
25 wants to put it in evidence, we can bring back perhaps l
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 15850 DU 1
Mr. Forrest and get him to authenticate it, or perhaps 2
we can get it through stipulation.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
That sounds fine.
4 MR. STEPTOE:
I have two exhibits that I need 5
to move into evidence.
6 The first one is Applicant's Exhibit 165, which is 7
the printout for painted and nonpainted welds.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
And you are offering that?
9 MR. STEPTOE:
Yes.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN :
Any objection?
11 MR. GUILD:
No objection, Mr. Chairman.
12 MS. CH AN :
No objection from the Staff.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Received.
14 (Applicant's Exhibit No.165 for 15 identification was thereupon 16 received into evidence as Applicant's 17 Exhibit No.165.)
18 MR. STEPTOE:
The second exhibit that I am l
19 of f ering is Applicant's Exhibit 166, which is a letter l
20 from Mr. Reed to Mr. Keppler, containing Commonwealth 21 Edison Company's comments on the Braidwood SALP 4 l
22 Report.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Any objection?
24 MR. GUILD:
Could I have a moment, Mr.
25 Chairman, please?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 6D134
[
(312) 232-0262
f i
15851
&U 1
No objection.
2 MS. CH AN :
No objection f rom the Staf f.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Received.
4 (Applicant's Exhibit No. 166 for 5
identification was thereupon 6
received into evidence as Applicant's 7
Exhibit No.166.)
8 JUDGE CALLIHAN:
I guess I should direct this 9
question to Mr. Guild, and it's got to do with 10 Intervenors' 118.
11 MR. GUILD:
181, judge.
(
12 JUDGE CALLIHAN:
And maybe to involve Mr.
13 Steptoe as well.
14 It's an exhibit that Mr. Steptoe, I think, alluded 15 to a few moments ago.
16 MR. GUILD:
If I could have just a second, 17 Judge, I will find it.
18 The QCIRP document, Judge?.
19 JUDGE CALLIHAN:
That's correct.
20 On Page 3 of 23, there is an -- at least in my copy 21
-- an obliteration of many of the -- many of the data; 22 and I don't know whether this is highlighting that 23 didn't photocopy or whether it was --
24 MR. STEPTOE:
(Indicating.)
l (j 25 JUDGE CALLIHAN:
-- taken out for Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 15852
(~'s
\\v) 1 confidentiality reasons or what.
2 MR. STEPTOE:
Yes.
3 JUDGE CALLIH AN:
Maybe it's of no importance 4
whatsoever, but I think we ought to know.
5 MR. STEPTOE:
Judge Callihan, I was the one 6
who blacked out those and I blanked them out because it 7
was our position during discovery that the results f rom 8
contractors other than PTL were not relevant.
9 JUDGE CALLIHAN:
Thank you.
10 There have been some experience with yellow 11 highlighting that achieves the same end.
12 Thank you.
13 MR. GUILD:
And, Mr. Chairman, and Dr.
14 Callihan, I don't know what's been blanked out.
15 The context appears to suggest that it's just sort 16 of preliminary data to tell you how big the samples were 17 and that sort of thing.
There is a long line that may 18 be something else.
I can't really tell.
19 I did want the comparative results, and to the 20 extent that interpreting those comparative results rely 21 on the underlying data, since I don't know what that 22 data is, I guess I just can't say; but I guess what I 23 will suggest, if the underlying data is material to 24 understanding the comparative results, perhaps I would
)
25 leave it to Applicant to supply the underlying data.
J Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15853 1
MR. STEPTOE:
Judge Grossman, it's my 2
recollection of that long line that's blacked-out is 3
that it had information related to the results for other 4
contractors, and I don't think it's material to Mr.
5 Guild's comparison; but I will go back and double-check 6
that.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
That's fine.
8 Thank you.
9 Mr. Guild, recross?
10 MR. GUILD:
Yes, sir.
If I could have just a 11 moment.
12 RECROSS EXAMAINATION 13 BY MR. GUILD:
14 0
Well, sir, let's look at an excerpt from one of the 15 procedures that apparently did govern your 16 overinspection program.
This is only an excerpt.
It 17 happens to be the first page of what was identified to 18 me as Rev. 2, effective, apparently, May 25,1982, of a 19 PTL instruction sheet entitled, " Instruction Sheet For 20 Visual Inspection Of Welding to the AWS Structural 21 Welding Code."
22 Now, gentlemen, do I understand correctly that this 23 would represent, then, an excerpt from the instructions 24 that were applicable as of that date, to the 25 overinspection of the L.K. Comstock welding work?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15854
\\
\\
1 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
That is correct.
2 0
All right.
Well, look at 6.0, if you would, gentlemen, 3
6.1 in particular, under the heading, " Procedure," and 4
there it appears to read, " Weld to be visually inspected 5
shall be free of slag, dirt, paint or other foreign 6
material which could interfere with the inspection."
7 So that was, indeed, an instruction to your PTL 8
overinspectors who were performing overinspections of 9
L.K. Comstock welding work as of May 25, 1982?
10 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
That is correct.
11 0
So every time -- every time one of your inspectors went 12 out to inspect a Comstock weld, and they found that weld
]
13 not to comply with 6.1 in your own instructions -- I 14 take it to be a paraphrase of the AWS acceptance i
15 criteria on that subject?
It is a paraphrase of the AWS 16 criteria; isn' t it?
(
17 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
It is.
18 0
Every time your people went out to the field and 19 inspected a PTL weld and didn't reject it, per this f
20 element of your own procedure, your overinspector i
i 21 violated not only PTL's instructions to do visual 22 inspection of welding, but the American Welding Society 23 code requirement as well?
f 24 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
No, I don't believe so.
25 The direction that we received from Commonwealth l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
L Geneva, Illinois 60134
[
(312) 232-0262
15855 1
Edison, in regards to the Comstock overview program, we 2
essentially treated as an addenda to our inspection 3
criteria, even though it was not formally incorporated 4
into the instruction sheet.
5 MR. GUILD:
I see.
6 Mr. Chairman, could I mark this, please, as 7
Intervenors' Exhibit -- I believe it's 185, next 8
exhibit.
9 (The document was thereupon marked 10 Intervenors' Exhibit No.185 for 11 identification as of October 27, 1986.)
f'h 12 BY MR. GUILD:
G 13 0
Now, indeed, the company did make available to me a 14 whole set of the PTL instructions, at least the 15 instructions having to do with visual inspection of 16 weld.
I have them beginning in 1977 and going through 17 1986.
18 I picked one that was 1982, because it came after 19 the memorandum from Mr. Brown authorizing the visual 20 inspection of welds through paint from Comstock.
21 But the same provision, if not the same exact 22 language and substance, the same interpreted provision 23 from the AWS code appears in each of the successive 24 instructions, does it not?
25 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
That is correct.
q j
1 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
..,a
15856 v) 1 0
You made no amendment to your instructions, then, to 2
reflect in any way whatsoever the contra'ry direction 3
that you received from Mr. Brown with Edison QA., that 4
is, direction that you were authorized to inspect 5
through paint?
6 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
I believe I stated that a few f
7 minutes ago.
8 0
Well, I am not sure that you did; but is that true, 9
though, you made no changes to your instruction?
10 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
No; that direction was not formally 11 incorporated into the instruction sheets.
12 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that
(
13 Intervenors' 185 be received in evidence.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Any objection?
15 MR. STEPTOE:
No objection.
16 MS. CHAN:
No objection.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Received.
18 (Intervenors' Exhibit No.185 for 19 identification was thereupon 20 received into evidence as Intervenors' 21 Exhibit No.185.)
l 22 BY MR. GUILD:
23 Q
Now, gentlemen, apparently I blundered into one other 1
24 suspension period, that is, by reading a memorandum that i
(O) 25 was given to me in discovery, it appeared that there was a
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
f 15257 J
l a period not mentioned in your testimony -- I believe 2
yours, Mr.
D' Antonio -- during which the overinspection 3
by PTL of Comstock welding was suspended, and that's the 4
period referred to in Mr. Rufus' memo for a period in 5
December of 1985, December, 1985, January of 19867 6
A (WITNESS D' ANTONIO)
Yes, sir.
7 0
Were there any other suspensions of overinspection of 8
L.K. Comstock work now that we have not identified?
9 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
Not during the time frame of our 10 testimony, no.
a 11 0
I identify some that preceded your testimony, preceded
'(
12 summer of 1982, but aside from the instances identified 13 in those documents, the pre-June, 1982 documents, any 14 since June of 1982 that we haven't identified?
l 15 A
(WITNESS D' ANTONIO)
I am not aware of any.
16 0
Now, I was making a bit of a foray into this control l
17 board, main control board NCR, gentlemen, and I have to
]
18 say that it we.s -- I got lost.
19 This is an NCR that's not in evidence, but there 20 was a Nonconformance Report written -- it's not this one 21
-- there was a Nonconformance Report written to reflect 22 Systems Control Corporation's discrepancy identified in 23 the main control panel.
24 Mr. Marcus, are you aware of that, sir?
25 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l i
15858
\\
1 Q
Now, I am looking at a document that's -- well, it ties 2
3 Are those the NCR's in question?
4 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
I believe 235 is the NCR in question.
5 I would have to examine 544.
6 0
All right, sir.
7 Here is a document, a Sargent & Lundy document, 8
that bears a date of October 24, 1980.
9 Do I understand correctly that System Control 10 Corporation fabricated the main control boards and that 11 there were deficiencies in welding on those control 12 boards?
13 MR. STEPTOE:
Judge Grossman, if I may impose 14 an objection here.
15 I did not address this subject in my Redirect.
16 This is something that is not in response to the Board 17 rerobers' question with respect to this document.
18 Mr. Guild has just decided that he didn't go into 19 it deeply enough in his original cross and that --
20 MR. GUILD:
No, sir.
21 MR. STEPTOE:
-- he wants to expand the scope 22 again.
23 And I believe it's outside the scope of Redirect.
24 MR. GUILD:
I don't want to expand the scope 25 at all; but Dr. Callihan asked a question and it x
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 15859 NU 1
elicited a long answer from Mr. Marcus, that provided a 2
substantial opining about the Systems Control 3
Corporation, control board welding problems, the limits 4
of the authorization to inspect through paint for weld 5
size and weld length on those control panels; and it 6
seems to me that if the witness is allowed to -- given 7
that testimony in the record, that it's fair subject for 8
cross examination, Mr. Chairman.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Overruled.
10 BY MR. GUILD:
11 0
Systems Control fabricated the control boards and they 12 had welding deficiencies on them; is that correct?
13 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir.
14 0
All right.
15 Now, the document that I am referring to, a 1980, 16 October,1980 Sargent & Lundy memo, says, I quote, 17 quote, "It is a common practice for manufacturers of 18 control boards, panels and electrical equipment, 19 enclosures, to reference AWS D1.1 Structural Welding 20 Code in their welding procedure.
It was agreed that the 21 application of AWS 1.1 to the inspection of such 22 equipment is not appropriate."
23 MR. STEPTOE:
Could you please identify the 24 document you are referring from, so we can see it, Mr.
25 Guild, by Bates number?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15860 N
1 MR. GUILD:
A 2374 is what the last -- yes, it 2
appears to be it.
3 BY MR. GUILD:
4 0
Now, Mr. Marcus, the point of my question ist 5
That for the control panel we were talking about 6
welding that, at least in Sargent & Lundy's opinion, 7
didn't have to meet AWS standards in the first place; 8
isn't that a correct interpretation of Sargent & Lundy's 9
position?
10 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
I believe that is essentially correct, 11 that there was a question about the welds on the main 12 control board supplied by Systems Controls, yes.
13 0
The point of my question is, Mr. Marcus:
14 Sargent & Lundy's position was that those welds 15 need not have met the AWS welding code acceptance 16 criteria.
17 That's the operative effect of the language I just 18 read in S & L's opinion, isn't it?
19 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes.
That's the way I read this 20 document.
21 0
All right.
Isn't that Sargent & Lundy opinion, that's 22 the basis for authorizing the inspection of those 23 components, in violation of the AWS code requirements, 24 that is, inspecting them through paint for only length 25 and/or presence and size?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
c 15861 1
A (WITNESS MARCUS)
I don't believe that I can comment on 2
that directly.
3 Q
All right.
4 But you will at least agree that there is no 5
question but that the AWS welding code applies generally 6
to the L.K. Comstock scope of work; we are not talking 7
about Systems Control Corporation now, Comstock work?
8 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, that's correct.
9 0
All right.
10 And so there is no comparable waiver of AWS 11 requirements with respect to the inspection criteria for 12 the balance of the electrical scope of work, that is, 13 the work done by L.K. Comstock Company?
14 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir.
I believe that's correct.
15 My discussion earlier dealt with an analysis that 16 was being performed by Sargent & Lundy, whereby they 17 wanted to analyze the total amount of weld on those main
{
18 control boards, irrespective of the condition of the r
19 welds.
20 0
Yes.
21 All right, sir.
22 Now, turn one moment further to Intervenors' 23 Exhibit 184, please.
That's the back page of a 24 memoranda on the subject of inspection of welding l
25 through paint.
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
I Geneva, IITrnois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1 15862 i
t 1
Now, if you would, sir, look at the Corcoran memo 2
of June 13, 1983, to Mike Kast, subject: Inspection of 3
weldments having been painted prior to visual 4
inspection.
l 5
Do you see that?
6 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir.
J 7
0 All right.
8 Is there any limitation in Mr. Corcoran's memo of 9
his instructions that inspection through paint is 10 permissible, any limitation in that instruction 11 whatsoever, either to the main control panel or any 12 other specific program or components?
13 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
No, sir.
14 0
And, in fact, Mr. DeWald was apparently moved to seek 15 the clarification that he did by his memo that's the
~
16 preceding page of March 9, 1984, because he, in fact, l
17 found that, by the attached Form 19, in any event, as of 18 March 5,1984, Comstock inspectors were inspecting 19 non-control panel components through paint?
20 MR. STEPTOE:
Objection.
I 21 Judge Grossman, he can't have it both ways.
l 22 This calls for speculation as to what moved Mr.
23 DeWald.
24 If he's making the argument that that's hearsay, L
25 then this is hearsay.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
deneva, IITInois 60134 L
(312) 232-0262
15863 1
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, I will allow the same 2
kind of answer I allowed to your questions, and that is 3
as to the witness' understanding.
4 MR. STEPTOE:
Okay.
5 BY MR. GUILD:
6 0
DeWald does reference the fact that there were 7
inspections going on through paint, first-line QC 8
inspections, in his memo to Mr. Brown, does he not?
9 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir.
10 0
Quote, "This has caused inspections of painted welds to 11 be performed as indicated on the checklist," and the
(
12 next document is a checklist indicating inspections 13 through paint?
14 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir.
15 Mr. DeWald correctly called out that misapplication 16 of the instructions included in the Corcoran memo.
17 Q
Do you know how many instances there were of inspection 18 through paint by Comstock Quality control Inspectors, 19 aside from the instance, apparently, of Mr. Walters, on 20 the 5th of March, 1984?
21 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir, I have a general 22 understanding.
23 0
How many instances were there, as you understand them?
24 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
There is another memorandum which was (j
25 issued by Comstock that lists the control boards which Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15864 1
were found which had inspections of welds through paint 2
for those welds which were attachment welds to the 3
embedment plates, and that letter is not in this packet, 4
but it does exist, and I believe that it lists probably 5
about six or eight different control boards.
6 Q
All right.
7 That's limited to the control board attachments?
8 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir.
9 0
Do you know whether or not any other Comstock work was 10 inspected through paint, aside from the control board 11 attachments?
/N 12 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
I had conversations with the Comstock 13 QC personnel, their supervision.
They did a review and 14 the -- it is my understanding it was limited to the 15 attachment on the -- between the control boards and the 16 embedment plates.
17 We also did another review, Mr. Guild, and that was 18 to determine if, subsequent to March, 1984, the Comstock 19 QC Inspectors continued to issue ICR reports for those 20 cases when they were out in the field and they found 21 welds which they were performing first-line inspections 22 on, which had paint, and Comstock ran off for me a 23 computer listing which shows that, subsequent to 1984, 24 March of 1984, that the Comstock inspectors were issuing 25 ICR's for welds in the painted conditions at Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 15865 b
1 approximately the same rate as they were issuing ICR's 2
prior to March of 1984.
3 0
So I take it you conclude that Mr. DeWald's memo had no 4
effect on the practice of inspecting weld through paint 5
or documenting the inspection of welds that were found 6
to be in a painted condition?
7 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
No.
On the contrary.
Obviously, I 8
have left the wrong the point.
9 0
You just stated a fact, and I think you lef t the 10 impression that the memo had no effect; and it didn't, 11 did it?
12 MR. STEPTOE:
Are you referring to the DeWald 13 memo?
14 BY MR. GUILD:
15 0
The DeWald memo of March,1984, which I gather that's --
16 you looked at before and after that date; correct?
17 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes.
18 0
And I --
19 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
May I explain, please?
20 The fact that the QC Inspectors were issuing ICR's 21 was an indication that, when they were out there 22 performing their inspections, they were unable to 23 perform the inspections, so they issued an Inspection 24 Correction Report to get the situation corrected.
25 So, clearly, they were not inspecting welds through Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 i
15866 1
paint, either before or af ter March of 1984, with the 2
exception of the misapplication of the Corcoran memo to 3
the weld downs for the main control panel.
t 4
0 That's your conclusion f rom the facts that you just 5
recounted; correct?
6 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir.
7 Q
But you don't know that Comstock inspectors didn't 8
inspect weld through paint, either, before March, 1984, 9
or after March of 1984?
10 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
There is --
11 0
You don't know, do you?
12 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Well, Mr. Guild, I have a very high 13 level of confidence that that was the case.
14 Not only did Mr. DeWald and staff examine the 15 records to determine if there were any other cases -- I 16 don't know the extent of that examination -- but they 17 did a check of their records, we did a check of the 18 ICR's, both before and after March of 1984, and it 19 showed that the QC inspectors continued to call those 20 situations as deficient conditions that had to be 21 corrected.
22 0
Let me just be clear:
23 You infer f rom the writing of ICR's documenting 24 welds found in the field, in that -- that were in a 25 painted condition at the point where a QC inspector
(
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, I]11nois 60134 L
(312) 232-0262
15867 N
s 1
calls for inspection, that's what you are talking about, 2
right, ICR's that says, " Clean the paint.
I can't 3
inspect this weld," in effect?
4 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir.
5 0
You inf er f rom the writing of those ICR's, that at least 6
in those instances, inspectors did not inspect weld 7
through paint and instead documented the painted 8
condition and asked that it be cleaned?
9 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir.
10 0
All right.
11 You also inferred from those ICR's that in no
(
12 instances did inspectors find welds in a painted 13 condition and not issue an ICR, but, on the contrary, 14 inspected them in the painted condition?
15 A
(WITNESS MARCCS)
I could not infer they inspected those 16 welds in the painted condition.
17 Q
I understand; but do you know whether or not the 18 existence of ICR's written by some inspectors who found l
19 welds in a painted condition established as a fact that 20 other inspectors or the same inspectors in other 21 circumstances didn't simply inspect those welds in a 22 painted condition and not document that fact?
23 You don't know that to be the case, do you?
24 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Well, clearly, Mr. Guild, when the QC 25 inspector who is working for Irv DeWald in the Comstock
)
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262 i
Y
15868 N
\\
s 1
quality vault identified that these welds, the 2
weld-downs, were inspected through paint, he immediately 3
called it out as a problem.
It was clear to him that 4
that was a problem.
5 It was clear to Mr. DeWald that that was a problem; 6
and, in my mind, I have got a high level of confidence 7
that they clearly understand they cannot do first-line 8
QC inspections through paint; and the records seem to 9
support that position.
10 0
But all you know is what the records say, Mr. Marcus; 11 and I take it that you are not pretending to be
/ \\
12 omnipotent and be able to say what an inspector did that 13 they didn't write down?
14 MR. STEPTOE:
Objection.
15 Judge Grossman, that is argumentative.
16 He is trying to get the answer he wants and he is 17 not getting it.
18 MR. GUILD:
No, sir.
19 I am simply asking for a specific answer that 20 addresses the circumstances, the limits of the witness's 21 personal knowledge; and I think the limits of your 22 knowledge -- the witness's personal knowledge -- are 23 apparent, but the witness seems reluctant to acknowledge 24 that.
O l
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I think the witness can
\\~
~
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l l
\\
15869 1
(~ s 1
answer whether he knows or not.
2 MR. GUILD:
Yes.
3 BY MR. GUILD:
4 Q
Mr. Marcus, you don't know of your own personal 5
knowledge what the Comstock inspectors did or didn't do 6
by way of inspecting weld through paint?
7 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
That's correct.
The only basis I have 8
is what I explained to you.
9 0
All right, sir.
10 Let's talk a moment, Mr. Marcus, further about the 11 printout here of welds painted and welds not painted, 12 Applicant's Exhibit 165.
13 I take it f rom your answer that your view is that 14 there was no significant difference between the results 15 of inspsctions of the overview, the overview agreement 16 rates for welds that were painted and welds that were 17 not painted?
18 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir, that's correct.
19 0
Well, let's look at a month here.
20 This is my detailed analysis of last five minutes:
21 For February, 1984, it appears to me that, if you 22 look only at the non-painted welds -- excuse me, if you 23 look at the -- if you look only at the painted welds, 24 you get an agreement rate of 96.17 percent, which is 25 considerably above your 90 percent threshold; correct?
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
15870 C'N) v 1
A (WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir.
2 0
But if you look at the welds that were in the 3
non-painted condition for that same month, you got an 4
agreement agreement rate of only 87.69 percent, below 5
your acceptance criteria for subjective inspections?
6 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir.
7 0
Correct?
8 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir.
9 0
And if you average the two together, you get slightly 10 below your acceptance criteria, that is 89.34 percent, 11 if you take painted and non-painted f or that particular 12 month?
13 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes.
If you average the two together, 14 you get the 89.34, which is right at the acceptance 15 threshold which I discussed in my testimony.
16 0
All right, sir.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Why don't we take a 18 10-minute break?
19 MR. GUILD:
All right.
20 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which the 21 ear ing was resumed as follows:)
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Guild.
23 MR. GUILD:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
24 BY MR. GUILD:
)
25 0
Mr. Marcus, others on the panel, the lawyer asked you Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15871 1
some questions about inferences from the QCIRP results 2
for PTL.
3 I think you also said things looked up since then, 4
and everything looks better than the 88 percent, the 5
unacceptable showing that they made in the OCIRP.
6 Do you recall that testimony?
7 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir.
8 Q
All right.
i 9
Well, in effect, your work was also checked much 10 more currently and we have a measure of how effective 11 PTL overinspectors were, and that is by the inspectors 12 under BCAP, who looked at the quality of L.
K. Comstock 13 electrical welding work.
14 Are you f amiliar with what the BCAP CSR inspectors 15 found out about the quality of the welding work at 16 Comstock?
17 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
I am not.
18 0
Well, perhaps, this inf ormation doesn' t square with the 19 panel's opinion.
20 If I could ask you to take a look at Intervenors' 21 Exhibit 145.
22 Do you have that?
23 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
No, sir.
24 A
(WITNESS D' ANTONIO)
No, sir.
j 25 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
No.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 15872 U
1 A
(WITNESS FRAZIER)
No.
2 MR. GUILD:
Could I ask -- I would be happy 3
to share my copy with the witness.
4 MR. STEPTOE:
I only have one copy.
5 BY MR. GUILD:
6 0
This is a table that has been stipulated to.
7 It was offered by Intervenors as an exhibit showing 8
the percent discrepant welds found by CSR inspectors in 9
the Comstock part of BCAP.
10 MR. STEPTOE:
Judge Grossman, I am going to 11 object to the scope of this.
12 It is well beyond anything that I touched on in 13 Redirect.
14 MR. GUILD:
Well, I am sure --
15 MR. STEPTOE:
I talked about QCIRP.
I did 16 not talk about BCAP.
17 MR. GUILD:
I am sure it's different, Mr.
t 18 Chairman; but the fact that it contradicts the opinion 19 evidence that Mr. Steptoe sought to elicit about the 20 capability of the PTL inspectors doesn't make it l
l 21 inappropriate Cross Examination.
l 22 He sought the inferences generally about this.
l l
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
You did raise the l
24 issue of how ef fective PTL was, didn' t you, Mr. Steptoe, 25 and we did hear that just this afternoon, so it seems to Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l I
1 15873 Os V
1 me to be within the scope.
2 MR. STEPTOE:
Well, in the first place, CSR 3
is reprospective, also.
It goes through June 30, 1984; 4
and QCIRP is related to effective as of the fall of 5
1982.
6 So I am not sure that there is anything necessarily 7
inconsistent with the witnesses' testimony; but, also, 8
this is something that could have be brought up, should 9
have been brought up on the original Cross.
10 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, I was satisfied on 11 the original Cross with what I thought was the
~\\[J 12 commitment that they had made, that Edison was wanting 13 to extend the QCIRP results to more current inspections, 14 and I believe the inference that was sought to be drawn 15 from the OCIRP results and f rom Byron.
16 Now, on Redirect Mr. Steptoe says, "Well, is that 17 really what your judgment is about the quality of the l
I 18 PTL inspectors' work"; and they all said, "Oh, no.
Now i
19 on reflection we think that they have improved 20 considerably across the board and they are" --
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Fine, overruled.
You can l
22 ask the question and the witness can answer it.
23 BY MR. GUILD:
24 0
Mr. Marcus, in particular, you, having been the lead l Q) 25 witness on this question, as I understand Mr. Steptoe's Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
(
(312) 232-0262
15874 1
question -- do you have a document before you?
2 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir.
3 0
All right, sir.
4 Now, you aggregate -- I take it, when you express 5
an opinion about the agreement rate that you found 6
reviewing your data -- you aggregate all sorts of PTL 7
welds, regardless of components, into agreement rate 8
based on welding?
9 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir.
10 0
All right.
11 And I believe in your testimony on Page 16 you h
12 express the opinion that your data reflects an agreement
[G 13 rate of 92.56 percent for Comstock welding across the 14 board?
15 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir, I believe that's correct.
16 0
All right, sir.
17 Well, in the instances in which the CSR inspectors 18 inspected an historic sample of the L.K.
Comstock work, 19 they found results that appear to be at odds with your 20 PTL agreement rate.
21 Let me direct your attention first to the item of 22 cable pan.
23 There there were 605 welds re-inspected by CSR 24 inspectors, in which they found discrepancy rates of 25 11.2 percent.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15875 1
That would imply an 88.8 percent agreement rate, 2
simply the reciprocal of the -- not the reciprocal; I 3
mean to say the inverse percentage of the 11.2 percent, 4
100 percent minus 11.2 percent, 88.8 percent.
5 Correct?
6 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Correct.
7 0
In the instance of conduit hangers, the next population 8
where there was welding re-inspected, for 1,845 welds, 9
there was an 8.3 percent discrepancy rate or an l
10 agreement rate of 91.7 percent; correct?
11 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
(No response.)
l 12 0
That would be 91.7 percent, wouldn't that?
13 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
That's the way I read the data, Mr.
14 Guild.
15 0
And that's still below your finding, the PTL finding, of 16 92.5 percent, at least slightly.
17 For cable pan hangers, of 8,598 welds inspected, 18 there was a discrepancy rate of 14.4 percent, and that 19 would imply an agreement rate of only 85.6 percent, 20 would it not?
21 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir, that's correct.
22 0
And, finally, for electrical equipment, where there were 23 2,503 welds, a 13.2 percent discrepancy rate, that 24 finally implies an 86.8 percent agreement rate; does it
)
25 not?
I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
J Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262 i
15876
'g
]
v 1
A (WITNESS MARCUS)
All I can say, Mr. Guild, is that I am 2
just looking at this document and read back to you what 3
you read off the document.
4 Q
Yes.
5 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
I don't have any other basis for 6
making a comment on this.
7 0
Well, sir, I know that you are not familiar with the 8
document, and I ask you to accept, sir, that these are, 9
indeed, the CSR results for the Comstock re-inspection.
10 But the numbers do -- from these numbers we inf er 11 that the comparable rate of agreement is, as I stated in
('~')
12 the case of electrical equipment, 86.8 percent agreement V
13 rate if I asked you to assume that the numbers are, 14 indeed, what you purport them to be?
15 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
I don't know that I can comment 16 specifically.
17 I really don' t know what the basis for the numbers 18 are.
It's difficult for me to make a judgment by simply 19 looking at this exhibit, not knowing exactly what they 20 did in the CSR inspection.
21 O
Well, I am not asking you to make any judgment at this 22 point, except that I am asking you, only if you agree, 23 that the number of what I purport to be -- and that's 24 the percentage of welds found -- discrepant in the case 25 of electrical equipment, a 13.2 percent discrepancy g
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15877 w
k-s 1
rate, implies an 86.8 percent acceptance rate, does it 2
not?
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, Mr. Guild, I don't 4
really think that the questions are appropriate for the 5
witness.
6 You are just asking him to assume that the 7
percentages work out the way you say they do from your 8
exhibit, and then asking him whether that's different 9
than the other percentages.
10 MR. GUILD:
All right, sir.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
It's certainly appropriate 12 for your brief.
13 MR. GUILD:
All right, sir.
14 We31, I really was only asking and the only point 15 of asking the witness to do this was that the basis for i
16 expressing his results and agreement rates are in a l
17 percent of 100, positive, case instances in which there 18 is agreement; and the way this data is displayed is in a l
19 discrepancy rate.
20 They simply are the reverse of one another.
I l
21 think it's a matter of fact.
l 22 All right, sir.
23 BY MR. GUILD:
24 0
Well, you do know this much, don't you, Mr. Marcus:
\\
25 The CSR part of BCAP was done of work that had been 1
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
(
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
15878 V
1 final QC accepted by L.K.
Comstock, and that's the same 2
condition that applied to PTL's overinspection of the 3
Comstock work.
4 Are you aware of that, sir?
5 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir.
6 0
All right.
7 And that, at least to the extent that the backlog 8
for a particular piece of work, a particular weld, in 9
this case for PTL overinspection, was not on the order 10 of months or years, in all likelihood, PTL would have 11 had an opportunity through their sampling to have O
12 themselves overinspected that same weld and determined 13 whether or not through the sampling overinspection that 14 weld was acceptable or not?
15 MR. STEPTOE:
I object to the form of the 16 question.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN :
I'm sorry, Mr. Steptoe?
18 MR. STEPTOE:
I will object to the form of 19 the question.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN :
Could you repeat the 21 question, Mr. Reporter?
22 (The question was thereupon read by the Report' 1
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN :
Please rephrase the I
24 question, Mr. Guild.
25 MR. GUILD:
Certainly.
l l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 j
(312) 232-0262
15879 7m V) t 1
BY MR. GUILD:
2 0
In all likelihood, Mr. Marcus, PTL would have themselves 3
overinspected the components that were the subject of 4
BCAP before BCAP got to them?
5 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir.
I believe, in all 6
likelihood, PTL did overinspections of that work --
7 portions of that work.
8 0
So by the time CSR found the problem, in other words, 9
their discrepancy rates, rates of discrepant welds, 10 reflect two checks, both the Comstock check and the PTL 11 check, perhaps not of that same weld, since you only did
(
12 a sample inspection, but at least of the welding 13 inspection work?
14 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Well, Mr. Guild, I know that there are 15 hundreds of thousands of welds out there; and during the 16 testimony on the CSR inspections, we did examine a few 17 hangers, which were the subject of that testimony, to 18 determine if, indeed, PTL had looked at the same welds 19 on these -- I think there were six -- hangers.
20 And in each case we came to the conclusion that 21 what CSR looked at was not what PTL looked at.
22 0
Oh, I see.
23 So you anticipated my question and just didn't 24 present any testimony on this subject.
You actually O)
(
25 tried to find out whether or not PTL missed things that Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15880 k
1 CSR found rejectable.
2 Is that what you are telling me?
3 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes.
What I am saying is that we did 4
look at some hangers to see if there was a comparison.
5 0
And what is the number six?
6 That was the only instances where you found that 7
PTL had, in fact, previously inspected something that 8
came up in BCAP?
9 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
The --
10 0
You mentioned the number of six.
11 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
I said there were six hangers, I 12 believe, that were discussed, and we looked at these to 13 see if we had done overinspection on the same kind of 14 things that the CSR overinspector did.
15 And we did not come to that conclusion.
16 0
Okay.
I am just trying to be more clear on what you are 17 answering.
18 What were the six items that you had to review or 19 look at?
20 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
(No response.)
21 0
Where did they come from, Mr. Marcus?
22 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
I don't recall what those six are.
23 0
Where?
24 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
I don't have that with me, but there 25 were six hangers that were talked about in testimony by Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15881
'N
\\
l Mr. Kostal.
2 0
It was six of the many hangers that happened to be the 3
subject of Mr. Kostal's testimony?
4 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes.
5 0
Six in total?
6 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
I believe that's six.
7 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, I don't know where 8
this is going, so I won't pursue it on the record; but I 9
would ask ti at Applicant produce whatever it is that's 10 the basis for the witness's testimony that they have 11 done some comparison between the PTL results and the CSR
(
12 results.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
We won't take any further 14 time.
15 Now, Mr. Steptoe, please produce what it is the 16 witness has referred to.
17 MR. STEPTOE:
If I can clarify what they did 18 do, at my request, was this:
19 I think the hangers Mr. Guild chose at random l
20 during discovery were the six hangers mentioned,'and the 21 documentation relates to them.
22 We gave it to Mr. Guild at the same time I asked my 23 witnesses to look at it.
Those are the six that they 24 looked at.
R
)
25 So he already has those, those documents.
They are Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15882
\\U 1
the ones that you specifically asked for when you chose 2
at random the items f rom the Kaushal Attachment No. 4.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
That sounds adequate to me.
4 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, I have seen no 5
results of any comparison of the PTL results with CSR 6
results.
7 If there is any result beyond what's been given to 8
me, I ask that it be produced or ask to strike the last 9
response by the witness.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, why don' t you f ollow 11 up with another question?
(
12 Are there results that were tabulated with regard 13 to those six cases?
14 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
I don't believe there are any formal 15 notes, but I would like to refer this to Mr. Forrest, 16 who did this.
17 BY MR. GUILD:
18 0
Mr. Forrest, what did you do, can you tell us?
19 A
(NITNESS FORREST)
We received copies of the observation 20 packages.
21 In those cases, based on the weld maps that were 22 attached to the observation package, we looked at our 23 records to see if we did perform an overview on those 24 specific assemblies.
25 In some cases we had performed an overview on those Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 15883 1
assemblies.
2 We attempted to determine if any of the welds that 3
the BCAP inspector identified as discrepant, if we had, 4
indeed, perf ormed an overview on those same welds.
5 To the best of our knowledge, we did not perform an 6
overview on any of those welds that the BCAP inspector 7
found discrepant.
8 0
All right.
Sir.
9 And that's based on reviewing the weld maps and 10 reviewing your PTL inspection report, the checklist for 11 those particular components?
(
12 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
That's correct.
13 0
And you only looked for the six hangers that I happened 14 to pick out in discovery as a basis for questioning Mr.
15 Kostal; is that your understanding?
16 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
That is correct.
17 Q
You didn't do a more general review comparing CSR 18 results and the PTL results?
19 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
No, we did not.
20 MR. GUILD:
That satisfies me, Mr. Chairman.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Fine.
22 BY MR. GUILD:
23 O
All right.
So you would agree, wouldn' t you, Mr.
24 Marcus, to the extent that the CSR inspectors -- and you
)
25 may not have the knowledge to supply this assumption.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15884 v
1 But let me ask you to assume that CSR inspectors 2
were inspecting to the same ac'eptance criteria that the c
3 PTL inspectors were, they were looking at the same 4
things.
They were looking at the same physical 5
conditions, you know.
6 MR. STEPTOE:
Can we start again with that 7
question, please?
8 He put some " ors" in there and I am not sure what 9
the answer is going to be, but it would be -- I object 10 to the form of the question and ask that it be repeated.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN :
Well, you might as well 12 rephrase.
13 MR. GUILD:
I will be happy to.
14 What's the problem so I do not make it again?
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I don't know, either; but, 16 apparently, Mr. Steptoe missed something; and that's 17 fine.
18 Why don't you start again?
19 MR. GUILD:
All right, sir.
20 BY MR. GUILD:
21 Q
Mr. Marcus, I asked you to assume that CSR inspectors 22 used, in substance, the same acceptance criteria as PTL 23 inspectors.
24 They didn't inspect through paint, by the way, as l
's 25 far as I know, but let's assume they used the same l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
l-15885 i
r
{
1 acceptance criteria, not withstanding that fact.
j 2
Let's assume that they looked at the same work.
3 All right?
That they had the same -- they had samples 4
and they looked at the same universe or populations as 5
Comstock electrical welding.
All right?
6 And they expressed their results, or at least the 7
results have been expressed in terms of agreement rates.
8 All right?
9 Now, I am asking you to assume those facts.
10 If the CSR results show a lower agreement rate 11 between the CSR inspectors and the Comstock inspectors,
/
12 a lower agreement rate than between the PTL 13 overinspectors and the Comstock inspectors -- all right?
i 14
-- and we assume that the CSR inspectors represent the 15 standard of accuracy -- I ask you to accept that.
In l
16 other words, they are right.
l 17 Doesn't it follow, sir, that the CSR data, the l
l 18 agreement rate shown by CSE, demonstrate inaccuracy in 19 the PTL overinspectors' work?
20 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
No, sir.
I cannot -- I cannot draw 21 that conclusion.
22 0
Why don' t you tell me why you can' t draw that 23 conclusion, if I ask you to, given the assumptions that 24 I have asked you to make?
O 25 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Even including the assumption which l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
15886
(-
1 you gave, Mr. Guild, we looked at the Gerand textbook, 2
and there is a little table in that that showed the 3
difference in inspectors; that some inspectors would 4
always fail -- not fail, but they will fall to the high 5
side of rejecting acceptable work, more so than other 6
inspectors.
7 There is a table in there that shows that 8
difference, that each inspector has his own level of 9
calling out these attributes, as to whether they were 10 rejectable and acceptable.
11 This is even more important when you are talking 12 about subjective characteristics.
13 As I testified earlier, on the basis of my 14 first-hand experience, taking two highly-qualified 15 inspectors into the field, there is a basis for a 16 difference of judgment on the subjective attributes.
17 0
Okay.
18 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
So I can't assume that CSR inspector i
19 who may have been doing a very detailed call on all of 20 these inspections, was going to end up with the same 21 percentage rate as the PTL overinspector does, or vice 22 versa.
23 They should be approximately the same i
l 24 0
Well, first of all, why don' t you give me this new
! O()
25 citation to Gerand?
I have got to look that one up, Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l.
15887
/'N i
i U
1 too, Mr. Marcus.
2 Do you have that citation?
3 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir, I do.
4 I believe, Mr. Guild, it was in the packet which 5
you showed me.
6 0
Okay.
7 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
The chart which I am referring to is 8
12- -- Page 12-52.
9 0
All right, sir.
10 Do you happen to have a copy of that before you, 11 gentlemen?
[J
\\
12 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
It's Figure 12-4.
13 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, could I have a 14 moment to just look at the reference?
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes.
16 MR. GUILD:
Do you have a copy of it?
17 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir.
18 MR. GUILD:
Thank you.
19 BY MR. GUILD:
20 0
Well, Mr. Marcus, so your point is that there is 21 variability among inspectors?
l 22 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir.
23 0
All right.
24 Well, you can't have it both ways, Mr. Marcus.
25 Either comparing one inspector with another, as you I
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15888
' V 1
have using acceptance rates or agreement rates, rather, a
2 means something, because you assume that the second 3
inspector is correct, accurate, and the first 4
inspector's work is being measured compared to that 5
standard; or agreement rates don't mean anything, 6
because there is such variation in inspector performence 7
that you can' t compare one to the other.
8 Now, which is it?
9 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
I believe that the fact that we have 10 agreement rates, in the range of 90 percent, 11 demonstrates to some extent what Gerand is talking about 12 in Figure 12-4.
13 Q
You mean only to say that Gerand simply establishes the 14 point that there is variability among inspectors?
15 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Sure, I think that's it.
16 Q
He doesn't speak to 90 percent being a measure of 17 accuracy, does he?
18 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
I -- I don't know if he does or he 19 doesn't.
I didn't go that far into the text.
l l
20 I am simply pointing out the fact that we had 92.5 1
21 percent overall agreement rate.
l 22 Part of that correlation is due, to some extent, to 23 the variability among inspectors, as pointed out by 24 Gerand.
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Guild, I think we ought l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 j
(312) 232-0262
15889
~J
\\
l 1
to move on to another topic.
2 I think this is appropriate, again, for briefs; but 3
I don't think it's very productive right now as far as 4
examination goes.
5 MR. GUILD:
All right, sir.
6 BY MR. GUILD:
7 0
It is clear, is it not, Mr. Marcus, and others, that the 8
extent that CSR identified discrepancies, both after 9
they were QC accepted by Comstock and af ter PTL had 10 sample inspected the same inspection work, if not the 11 same welds, that CSR identified defects that neither 12 you, the PTL overinspectors nor the L.K. Comstock QC 13 Inspectors found in the first instance?
14 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
I could only speculate that that's 15 correct, sir.
16 MR. GUILD:
I have no further questions, Mr.
17 Chairman.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Excuse me.
Just a minute, 19 please.
20 BOARD EXAMINATION 21 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN 22 O
With reference to Intervenors' Exhibit 185, the 23 instruction sheet for visual inspection of welding, Mr.
24 Marcus, could you tell me whose instructions or E
25 procedures these are?
i r
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15890 0
1 Were these. items that were dictated by CECO or were 2
they PTL instructions or were they Comstock?
Could you 3
take a look at that and tell me?
4 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Yes, sir.
5 Intervenors' Exhibit 185 is a PTL inspection 6
procedure.
?
7 0
I understand that; but could you tell me who determined 8
what it was that PTL would be inspecting to or whatever 9
else goes into this instruction sheet?
10 Was it a unilateral determination by PTL?
11 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
Judge Grossman, let me comment on PTL 12 procedures in general.
13 I don't know that I can specifically comment on 14 Intervenors' Exhibit 185, but PTL procedures are 15 submitted to Commonwealth Edison for review and 16 approval.
17 So they would be reviewed by our Quality Assurance j
18 Department and our Engineering Department, so there I
19 certainly is Commonwealth Edison input and acceptance in 20 the PTL procedures.
21 I think Mr. Forrest would have to state whether 22 this particular document was sent through that review 23 cycle.
k 24 0
Well, Mr. Forrest, can you comment on my question and 25 also on what Mr. Marcus has indicated?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
_ - =
15891 1
A (WITNESS FORREST)
The scope of our inspection work is 2
established by a Sargent & Lundy procedure.
In S & L's 3
case it's 2850.
4 Okay.
Based on the requirements of 2850, this PTL 5
procedure was initiated and it went through a revieu and 6
approval process through Commonwealth Edison prior to 7
use.
8 0
Okay.
Who initiated this, you or S & L, PTL or --
9 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
PTL wrote this procedure based on 10 the requirements of their procedure and the requirements 11 of D.l.l.
12 0
Okay.
And then you submitted that to S & L or did you 13 work it out with S & L and then submit it to CECO or 14 what was the chronology of this particular document?
15 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
Af ter we initiated the document, it 16 went through the review process in Edison's side of the 17 house, so to speak.
18 Q
Okay.
Did S & L come into that at all or did you just 19 work f rom the documents you had with S & L?
l 20 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
We just worked with the documents 21 that we had from S & L.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN :
Okay.
That's fine.
23 Miss Chan.
24 MS. CII AN :
Staff has no questions at this f%
25 time.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
j l
15892 PN 1
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Steptoe.
2 MR. STEPTOE:
I just have one question, Mr.
3 Marcus.
4 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 5
BY MR. STEPTOE 6
0 Mr. Guild characterized in one of his questions to you 7
the results of OCIRP or PTL as unacceptable results.
8 Do you believe that the OCIRP results were 9
unacceptable?
10 A
(WITNESS MARCUS)
No, sir.
11 MR. STEPTOE:
I have nothing further.
12 JUDGE CALLIHAN:
I have one real 13 simple-minded question.
14 BOARD EXAMINATION 15 BY JUDGE CALLIHAN 16 0
I come back to the earlier remark about the number of 17 attributes looked at in a weld; and pick any case like, 18 for example, in Applicant's 165, which as a goal talked 19 about painted and non-painted, but I just pick that as 20 an example.
21 A PTL inspector, for example, looks at an item and 22 comes up with a conclusion it's rejected.
23 Now, considering the number of attributes, I guess, 24 the number that was enumerated earlier this af ternoon,
(
)
25 what is the basis for the rejection?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15893 1
DU 1
If one attribute is substandard, does that reject 2
the whole weld?
3 A
(WITNESS FORREST)
Yes, that does, sir.
4 JUDGE CALLIHAN:
Thank you.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Fine.
6 I guess we have nothing further for the panel.
7 We still do want that documentation that you agreed 8
to supply, procedures and checklist; but thank you very 9
much for testifying, and you are excused now.
10 (Witnesses excused.)
11 MR. STEPTOE:
Thank you, Judge Grossman.
[vh 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I take it Mr. Gallo is 13 taking over now.
14 MR. STEPTOE:
Mr. Gallo is taking over now.
15 MR. GALLO:
Could we have five minutes for 16 the changing of the guard?
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Certainly.
18 MR. GUILD:
Can we take 10 minutes?
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Certainly.
20 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which the <
21 earing was resumed as follows:)
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
On the record.
23 Mr. Gallo, could you call your next witness please.
24 MR. GALLO:
Gentlemen, I will defer to my 25 colleague, Mr. Thornton.
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15894 1
MR. THORNTON:
Before I do that, Mr. Chairman, 2
I have one preliminary matter.
3 I understand the Board raised a question last week 4
as to the current status of fuel loading in Braidwood 5
Unit 1.
6 I am informed that currently of 193 fuel assemblies 7
that will be installed in Braidwood Unit 1, 36 are now 8
installed; and that the company expectation is to 9
complete the fuel loading process in the unit on Friday, 10 October the 31st.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Thank you.
(
12 MR. THORNTON:
Mr. Chairman, our next witness v
13 is Mr. Tony Frazier of PTL.
14 He is the first in an series of five witnesses that 15 we are presenting on the R.
D.
Hunter termination issue.
16 We are not presenting the five witnesses as a 17 panel, Mr. Chairman.
18 I would ask, as a matter of convenience, that the 19 other witnesses be allowed to remain in the hearing room 20 while they were awaiting their turn to testify, unless 21 there is some reason to exclude them.
l 22 MR. GUILD:
Yes.
I would object to doing 23 that, Mr. Chairman.
24 I would ask that the others be excluded during the 25 testimony.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15895
,b 1
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Fine.
Those are the rules 2
that we have adopted.
3 I believe -- well, I don't know that there are any 4
rooms open.
5 MR. BERRY:
There is one right next door.
6 MR. THORNTON:
Mr. Chairman, I am about to 7
show Mr. Frazier a copy of his testimony and have him 8
identify it.
t 9
Before I do that, I am afraid I have to go through 10 a somewhat tedious process.
11 There are a number of attachments to Mr. Frazier's (U}
12 testimony; and on further consideration, I will not be 13 offering all of those attachments in evidence.
14 I would like to page through them with you and tell 15 you which ones I am not offering.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
That's fine.
17 MR. THORNTON:
There are initially -- and 18 these attachments are somewhat cumbersome because they 19 don't have page numbers on them, I am afraid.
20 In the attachmentments themselves there is 21 initially, one, two, three, four pages that deal with 22 Mr. Frazier's qualifications.
23 There are then -- there is then a PTL testing 24 report, visual weld inspection, that occupies five 25 pages.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
's(
15896 1
Following that, there are two pages headed, L.K.
2 Comstock & Company, Braidwood 4.11.2 QA Section, L.K.
3 Comstock Engineering, Inc., Inspection Correction 4
Report.
5 That's a two-page document.
I am not offering that 6
document in evidence.
7 MR. GUILD:
This is ICR 15008.
8 MR. THORNTON:
Thanks, Mr. Guild.
9 MR. GUILD:
Let me ask, Mr. Chairman:
10 Does counsel intend to offer these ICR's through 11 another witness?
' 12 MR. THORNTON :
I do not intend to offer them 13' in evidence, no, Mr. Guild.
14 The reason I originally included them in the 15 testimony was because we got these documents from Mr.
16 Frazier in relation to the Hunter matter.
17 On considerating it more fully, this Comstock 18 document is not something that is kept by PTL in the 19 ordinary course of its business like the other documents 20 in this package. -
21 All right.
Past those two pages that I am not 3
22 offering, there is a further page, a weld inspecting 23 checklist.
24 The following page is called, L.K.
Comstock 25 Company, Inc., Avoid Verbal Orders, No. 00 95 8.
(
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15897
\\
\\(' ~)
\\
\\_ /
l 1
I am deleting that page and not offering it in 1
2 evidence for the same reason.
3 Following that, there are six more pages of PTL 4
reports of individual weld testing.
There is then a 5
page headed, " third-party verification. "
6 Following that, there are another two pages of 7
Comstock ICR's.
It's called ICR No.15010.
I am not 8
offering those two pages.
9 That is -- no.
Af ter that there is a one-page weld 10 inspection checklist and there is another page, the 11 final page, in the whole package called, L.K. Comstock
[
12 Avoid Verbal Orders No. 01419.
I am not offering that
\\
13 final page.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
So what that amounts to is 15 your deleting the two ICR's and the two avoid verbal 16 orders?
17 MR. THORNTON:
Correct, Mr. Chairman.
18 TONY C.
FR AZ IER 19 called as a' witness by the Applicant herein, having been 20 first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
21 DIRECT EXAMINATION 22 BY MR. THORNTON 23 Q
Mr. Frazier, I showed you a document that consists of 24 six typed pages, with certain typed attachments.
25 I ask you if that is testimony you prepared for Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15898 p
1 submission in this proceeding?
2 A
Yes, it is.
3 0
Are there any corrections or additions that you wish to 4
make to the testimony?
5 A
No, there are none.
6 0
Is the testimony true and correct, to the best of your 7
knowledge?
8 A
Yes.
9 0
Do the attachments to your testimony correctly show what 10 they purport to show?
11 A
Yes.
(' }
12 MR. THORNTON:
Mr. Chairman, I would move the V
13 admission of Mr. Frazier's testimony and the attachments 14 thereto, subject to Cross Examination, for which he is 15 prepared.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Mr. Guild.
17 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, I object to 18 receiving in evidence the Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory 19 reports of visual weld inspection that are, indeed, 20 being offered.
21 They are documents which appear to be prepared by a 22 Mr. Nessen, who was the inspector who performed the 23 inspection of these components, I gather.
24 Perhaps, you would let me establish that, if I were 25 to voir dire the witness.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15899
\\%/
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Sure.
2 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 3
BY MR. GUILD 4
Q Mr. Frazier, I take it that the PTL reports of visual 5
weld inspection that are appended to your testimony were 6
prepared by Mr. Nessen, the Level II PTL inspector whom 7
you recounted performed the inspection of components in 1
8 question?
9 A
That is correct.
10 The inspector's name is Jessen, with a J.
11 Q
Jessen, I'm sorry.
I misspoke, f
12 J-E-S-S-E-N; is that correct?
(
13 A
That's correct.
14 Q
All right, sir.
15 And it is Jessen who prepared the PTL reports of 16 visual weld inspection that are attached to your 17 testimony?
18 A
That is correct.
19 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, it's apparent to me 20 that the reports reflecting the inspection findings of 21 Jessen are authored by Jessen and Jessen is not being 22 presented as a witness.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, do you wish to voir 24 dire, Mr. Thornton?
25 MR. THORNTON:
I am not sure it's necessary, Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15900 1
Mr. Chairman.
2 I guess my legal position is that I hear the 3
objection being made as a hearsay objection.
4 I do not believe these documents are hearsay.
I 5
think they were PTL business records kept in the 6
ordinary course of PTL's business.
7 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, they, in fact, 8
reflect not simply recounting normal business, they 9
recount findings that are the subject of the controversy 10 here.
They are the matters in dispute, they are the 11 conditions, the judgements.
12 We have heard testimony in the last panel about 13 just how subjective weld inspections are.
They are the 14 subjective weld inspection judgments of a man who is not 15 before us, who is not providing testimony.
16 It's Jessen's conclusions that are reflected on 17 those attachments.
He is not with us.
18 So I object on hearsay grounds.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Where is Mr.Jessen?
Is he 20 still with PTL?
21 MR. THORNTON:
You will have to ask Mr.
22 Frazier.
23 THE WITNESS:
No, your Honor, he is not.
24 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, as a matter of some O
i 25 import, given that the witness, by his own testimony, Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15901 C
,\\
1 lacks specific recall as to specific circumstances that 2
he observed in the field -- he has some recall -- but I 3
will direct the Board's attention to the testimony 4
pre-filed, Page 3 and Page 4, Page 4, middle of the 5
page, the witness' testimony reads, " Hunter had 6
inspected the weld on Hanger 12-H-1 through paint, but I 7
cannot now remember the observations which led to that 8
conclusion."
9 The only detailed information about presenting any 10 of this testimony is Jessen's inspection findings.
11 I can read those.
I presume Mr. Frazier, of
(
12 course, did read them.
13 I don't question the fact that Mr. Frazier worked 14 with PTL and probably has closer knowledge of those I
15 documents than anyone else in the hearing room, but that 16 does not substitute for personal knowledge of those 17 inspection results.
That is what is at issue here, and 18 Jessen simply can't supply the missing foundation.
19 MR. THORNTON :
As to the last one, Mr.
20 Chairman, I think it's not well founded because, in 21 fact, we have not included the checklist to which Mr.
i 22 Guild alludes.
We are not attempting to further missing 1
23 recollection of Mr. Frazier by supplying that checklist.
l l
24 We have only two of them, and that's not among them.
l ( )
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
The objection not only goes i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 15902 O
v 1
to the documents, but also to the testimony.
2 I see that Mr. Frazier relies heavily on Jessen's 3
conclusions; and that's, basically, the substance of his 4
testimony with regard to what PTL did.
5 Is Jessen available to you?
6 MR. THORNTON:
I don't know what the story is 7
on that, Mr. Chairman; but if I could hold aside from 8
that, I don't agree with your characterization of Mr.
9 Frazier's testimony.
10 What specific answers were you looking at?
11 My understanding of his testimony is that it's 12 based essentially on his own viewing of welds that 13 Jessen showed him and his own conclusions as a Level III 14 welding inspector, based on that viewing.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
I am looking at the 16 bottom paragraph on Page 5 and the continuation on Page 17 6.
18 Well, it seems to me as though -- and, 19 incidentally, also looking at Page 4, the top portion, 20 which refers to Jessen's inspection.
21 MR. THORNTON:
It refers only to the dates, 22 as far as I read that paragraph, your Honor.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes, okay, that's fine; but 24 it's primarily the earlier reference that I had in mind,
(
25 and I think that's objectionable.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 f
(312) 232-0262
15903 OV 1
If you are going to rely -- well, I do think that 2
Mr. Guild has a legitimate point as far as that portion 3
goes, and the results of Jessen's inspections as 4
document d.
5 MR. THORNTON:
I guess I have two responses 6
to that point, Mr. Chairman.
7 The first one is that regardless of whether it is 8
proper to exclude these reports on the basis Mr. Guild 9
suggests, they are certainly the type of documentation 10 that Mr. Frazier, as an expert, is entitled to rely on 11 in forming his opinion.
I think that's fairly clear
(
12 under the Federal Rules.
(
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, I really do not agree 14 with that.
l 15 The type of materials that an expert can rely on l
16 are materials that are established in the field of 17 expertise, not the particular documents that are the 18 subject of the issue.
That's not the type of material 19 that I read the rules as allowing an expert to refer to.
20 MR. THORNTON:
I guess I don't understand 21 that distinction.
22 My understanding -- and why I am offering that 23 argument -- my understanding is that as a Level III, Mr.
24 Frazier typically and habitually in the course of his I
25 business makes judgments on these very matters, by Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 15904
+
O V
1 relying on documents of this type.
2 That is one purpose for the existence of these 3
documents.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, has he made a judgment 5
with regard to the particular welds that Jessen made his 6
judgments on?
7 MR. THORNTON:
We are up to my second 8
response.
9 I believe it might be appropriate as to the 10 paragraph at the bottom of Page 5 and on the top Page 6 11 that your Honor is pointing to to conduct some voir dire 12 examination of Mr. Frazier.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, go right ahead.
14 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 15 BY MR. THORNTON 16 Q
Mr. Frazier, I direct your attention to your testimony, 17 the part of Answer 9 that the Chairman has been 18 discussing.
19 In particular, I refer to the last two sentences on 20 Page 5 that deal with hanger 2-HV-14.
21 Could you tell us:
When you went out to the field 22 with Jessen and looked at hanger 2-HV-14, did you form 23 the opinion that a Comstock inspector had inspected 24 welds on that hanger through paint?
25 MR. GUILD:
I object.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, IT11nois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 15905 OV 1
Mr. Chairman, the opinion is stated in the 2
testimony; but the point is that, to the extent it 3
relies on the documents by Jessen, there is no 4
foundation for that part of his testimony.
5 MR. THORNTON :
It's a preliminary question 6
and that's what I am attempting to lead to through voir 7
dire examination.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN :
Okay.
Continue with your 9
voir dire.
10 MR. THORNTON :
I am attempting to elicit the 11 basis for that opinion.
f}
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes.
V 13 BY MR. THORNTON:
14 Q
Do you have the question in mind, Mr. Frazier?
15 A
Yes.
16 Q
What did you base that opinion on at that time?
17 A
I based the opinion on the appearance of an inspector 18 symbol that was adjacent to a number of welds that had 19 paint, and they were also rusted.
20 0
Did you have Jessen's inspection report available to you 21 when you made that examination in the field?
22 A
No, I did not.
23 0
When did you first see the inspection report in 24 question?
( )
25 A
It was probably -- I can't say specifically, but I would Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
1 15906 V
1 believe that it would have been on March 24th when I 2
actually reviewed the document.
3 0
When you were preparing this testimony, did you again 4
review Jessen's inspection?
5 A
Yes, I did.
6 0
When did you develop the reasoning on the basis of 7
Jessen's inspection report that occurs in the last two i
8 sentences on Page 5 and the first sentence on Page 6?
9 A
In reviewing the information for the testimony, I noted i
10 that Jessen had inspected 56 welds on hanger 2-HV-14; 11 and in review I also noted that the Comstock Form 19 had 12 indicated that only 40 field welds had been inspected on
}
13 this particular component.
14 MR. THORNTON:
Mr. Chairman, that concludes 15 the voir dire.
16 It's apparent to me --
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, Mr. --
18 MR. THORNTON:
It's apparent to me that he is 19 not basing his opinion on the state of this hanger on f
20 Jessen's inspection report.
21 MR. GUILD:
May I do some --
l l
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Let me just say this, Mr.
i i
23 Thornton:
i 24 To the extent that there are answers that relate to l
25 Jessen, to the extent that these lay the foundation for I.
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
h Geneva, Illinois 60134
/-
(312) 232-0262
1 15907 O\\v!
1 Mr. Frazier's going to the field and performing whatever 2
work he performed, it's not objectionable.
3 But to the extent that it adopts Jessen's 4
conclusions and he relies upon those conclusions, it 5
appears objectionable to me.
6 I don't see how we can examine Mr. Frazier with 7
regard to Jessen's conclusions.
8 If he wants to offer his own conclusions on the 9
basis of conducting inspections after Jessen did, in his 10 work reviewing Jessen's work, well, I don't see anything 11 objectionable about that; but I don't think it's
(
12 possible to impeach Jessen's conclusions through this 13 witness; and it wouldn't be fair to let him just voice 14 Mr. Jessen's conclusions, whether they are in 15 documentation or in his own narrative answers.
16 Mr. Berry, do you have a position on this?
l 17 Ms. Chan?
18 MS. CHAN:
The Staff disagrees with the 19 Applicant in that these are business records and that 20 the witness can rely on it to the extent that he's used 21 them to draw his conclusions and that the question of 22 whether or not he can rely or his reliance goes to the 23 weight given Mr. Frazier's testimony and not to its 24 admissibility.
\\
( )
25 MR. BERRY:
Just in that connection, Mr.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15908 Os
\\
s V
1 Chairman, I will just note that this same subject has 2
come up in this proceeding before.
3 My recollection is that during the testimony of Mr.
4 Puckett, when Applicant sought to introduce a document, 5
I believe, that had been authored by Mr. Simile -- and 6
this was after Mr. Simile had testified -- Applicant, to 7
my recollection today, took the position that they have 8
taken now and the Staf f supported that position.
9 I believe there was extended discussion on that, 10 and I would just note that, if my recollection of the 11 way the Board ruled is true, it is appearing to rule in
(' '
12 this connection here, although I believe that this would A-s 13 probably be an appropriate time for reconsideration on 14 that, but I would point out that the Board has taken 15 this position consistently throughout; but the Staff 16 does agree with the Applicant, that the document should 17 be admitted.
The witness should be entitled to rely 18 upon it.
It appears to be prepared in the ordinary 19 course of business and constitute a business record; and 20 that if there is any infirmity or any question or 21 inference at that can be drawn from the witness' lack of 22 knowledge of certain matters reflecting in the document, 23 should go to the weight.
24 We have raised this position before, to the 25 Chairman, and it wasn't accepted before, and we would Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15909 1
just ask the chairman to reconsider it, but the ruling 2
that the Chairman appears to be contemplating, well, 3
staff would just point out would be consistent with its 4
earlier rulings on this proceeding.
5 (There followed a discussion 6
outside the record.)
7 MS. CH AN :
Your Honor --
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes.
l 9
MS. CHAN:
Perhaps, since it's so close to 10 5:00 o' clock, that the Board might wish to consider this l
11 overnight.
(
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, it doesn't seem as 13 though we need any additional time on that.
14 I think the Board is going to rule consistently 15 with what it has ruled before.
I 16 When we have direct opinion testimony in the form 17 of documentation or someone testifying regard to those 18 discussions, we want the witness here for an 19 examination.
20 The only reason that I have any hesitation about 21 ruling that way is that it didn't seem like such a 22 profound kind of conclusion that we might not accept 23 some hearsay on it; but, nevertheless, it's what's 24 directly in issue here and it just would not be 25 appropriate to allow second-hand testimony on what is Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
15910
- rs 1
the crux of the matter here.
2
-But even though we don't allow that, apparently you 3
have a number of other witnesses who can testify 4
directly on their opinions, and it doesn't seem to me 5
that this testimony is critical to your case on this 6
issue, Mr. Thornton.
l 7
MR. THORNTON :
I would add --
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN :
So I will just make our 4
9 ruling here, that to the extent that there is any 10 reliance on Jessen's conclusions, we won't accept those i
11 opinions; so Mr. Frazier is going to have to testify as
(
12 to his own opinions, not relying on Jessen's opinions.
13 MR. GUILD:
Mr. Chairman, I don't have any 4
14 objection to the inspection reports being identified as 15 they have been.
I do have objection to them being 16 admitted into evidence through this witness.
That was i
17 what caused all of this controversy.
4 l
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Yes.
Our ruling goes to the i
19 inspection reports being admitted into evidence -- well, 20 we will allow the inspection reports, but not for the 21 conclusions contained therein.
(
22 To the extent that you want to use them as a 23 foundation for Mr. Frazier getting involved in his i
l 24 particular function, that's acceptable; but no further 25 than that.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 1
i 15911 bU 1
MR. THORNTON:
Well, I understand your 2
ruling, Mr. Chairman, to go beyond the Inspection i
3 Reports to portions of Mr. Frazier's testimony.
4 Has the Chair been able to identify any part of the 5
testimony accept the three sentences we have been 6
talking about, as to which that ruling would extend, 7
because I am not able to identify any additional 8
portions.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN :
I don't know of any offhand, i
10 and we will put the burden on Mr. Guild to find anything 11 additional there.
/~'
12 MR. GUILD:
And I will make that review, Mr.
V) 13 Chairman, over the evening.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Okay.
Fine.
i 15 Why don't we adjourn until 9:00 o' clock tomorrow 16 morning.
17 (WHEREUPON, at the hour of 5:00 o' clock 18 P.M.,
the hearing of the above-entitled 19 matter was continued to the 28th day of 20 October,1986, at the hour of 9:00 4
21 o' clock A.M. )
22 23 24 N
I 25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
N NO PAGE NUMBER CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Braidwood Station, Units 1 & 2)
DOCKET NO.:
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS DATE:
MONDAY,' OCTOBER.27, 1986
(']j m
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
- /
(sigt)
/
(TYPED) Glenn L.
Sonntag Official Reporter Reporter's Affiliation OV