ML20211H508
| ML20211H508 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 10/30/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1455 OL, NUDOCS 8611050170 | |
| Download: ML20211H508 (207) | |
Text
.
OR G iAL 9t UN11ED STATES 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-456 OL 50-457 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ,
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2)
~_
C yy LOCATION: CHICAGO, ILLINOIS PAGES: 16375 - 16581 DATE: THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1986
/ / O\
bh p ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
OfficialReporters 444 North CapitolStreet Washington, D.C. 20001 tm i : v> o : -
(202)347-3700 a: r ,
Fl Em ' ' '
NATIONWIDE COVERAGE
I 16375 fX U
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '
n 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x 5 :
In the Matter of: :
6 : Docket No. 50-456 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY : 50-457 OL 7 :
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 :
8 and 2) :
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x 9
10 Pages116375 - 16581 11 United States District Courthouse
-s s Courtroom 1743 ,
12 219 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604 13 Thursday,. October 30, 1986.
14 15 The hearing in the above-entitled matter reconvened 16 at 11:00 A. M.
17 BEFORE:
18 JUDGE HERBERT GROSSMAN, Chairman 19 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 20 Washington, D. C.
21 JUDGE RICHARD F. COLE, Member, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 22- U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
23 JUDGE A. DIXON CALLIHAN, Member,-
24 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 25 Washington, D. C.
i
! Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
! Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16376
, -A v
1 APPEARANCES:
2- On behalf of the Applicant:
3 MICHAEL I. MILLER, ESQ. -
JOSEPH GALLO, ESO.
4 PETER THORNTON, ESQ.
i Isham, Lincoln & Beale 5 Three First Nationa] Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60602-6 On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory 7 Commission Staff:
8 GREGORY ALAN BERRY, ESQ.
ELAINE I. CH AN , ESQ.
9- U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7335 Old Georgetown Road ..
10 .Bethesda, Maryland 20014 i
11 On behalf of the Intervenors:
12 ROBERT GUILD, ESQ.
13 14 15 16 17 18
- 19 20 21 '-
22 23 24 1
'N I
s_,) 25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. l Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 l 1 l
16377 G.
v 1 EXHIBIT INDEX Marked ' Received 2 Applicant's Exhibits Nos. 168, 169, 170 and 171 16507 16579 3
Applicant's Exhibit No. 5 16579 4
Applicant's Exhibit No. 6 16580 5
TESTIMONY OF DANIEL L. SHAMBLIN 6' (Continued) 7 CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) 8 BY MR. GUILD: 16379 9 CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRY: 16428 1 10 CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) 11 BY MR. GUILD: 16437 12 I~
k-')
m CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) 13 BY MR. BERRY: 16440 14 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GALLO: 16451 15 BOARD EXAMINATION 16 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: 16457 17 BOARD EXAMINATION BY JUDGE CALLIHAN: 16458 18 BOARD EXAMINATION 19 BY JUDGE COLE: 16461 20 BOARD EXAMINATION BY JUDGE CALLIHAN: 16465 <
21 BOARD EXAMINATION 22 BY JUDGE COLE: 16469 23 RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. GUILD: 16470 24
>- TESTIMONY OF 25 JEFFREY DOMINIQUE
'Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16378
~N i
-1 PAUL GERALD KOSIENIAK IRVING FRANK DE WALD 2
DIRECT EXAMINATION
- 3 BY MR..GALLO: 16502 l 4 P' refiled testimony of Jeffrey
! Dominique, Paul Gerald Kosieniak 5 and'Irving Frank DeWald 16513 4 6 CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. GUILD: 16513 7
BOARD EXAMINATION
'8 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: 16549 9 BOARD EXAMINATION BY' JUDGE COLE: 16553 10 BOARD EXAMINATION 11 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN 16557 i
O 12 13 BOARD EXAMINATION BY JUDGE CALLIHAN: 16559 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
> 14 BY MR..GALLO: 16561 I ,
15 RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. GUILD: 16572 16 l
17 18 l
19 i
! 20 21 ;
22 I 23 l l
24 s_
l' Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16379 f I
\__.)
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: The hearing is reconvened.
2 This is the 84th day of hearing.
3 We concluded yesterday's session with cross 4 examination of Mr. Shamblin by Mr. Guild, and we'll 5 continue with that now.
6 Are there any preliminary matters?
7 MR. GALLO: Your Honor, I just wish to 8 announce that I concluded this morning that Mr. Minor's 9 testimony would be unnecessary, and we are withdrawing 10 that. Mr. Guild was apprised about an hour ago.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
,s l i 12 Anything further? No?
V 13 Mr. Guild.
14 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr.
15 Chairman.
16 CROSS EXAMINATION 17 (Continued) 18 BY MR. GUILD:
19 0 Mr. Shamblin, you testify in your prefiled testimony 20 that you employed a number of measures to assure
~
21 yourself that the quality of work at L. K. Comstock, the 22 quality of work by Comstock Quality Control inspectors, 23 did not suffer as a result of the production pressure 24 that flowed from meeting the backlogged inspection 25 deadlines.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16380
(}b i
%.J l Do you recall that testimony, sir?
2 A Yes.
3 0 And I take it that your bottom-line conclusion was that, 4 from whatever sources you did rely on, there was no such 5 adverse impact on the quality of work performance by the 6 Comstock inspectors?
7 A I concluded that the quality of work being performed by 8 the Comstock inspectors was quality work.
9 0 There was no adverse effect from production pressure?
10 Did you conclude that, sir?
11 A I don't believe there was any undue production pressure 12 on the Comstock inspectors to complete the backlog of 13 work.
14 0 Well, sir, that's not exactly responsive to my question.
15 What I'm really focusing on is the work itself.
16 I ask you again: Did you conclude that there were 17 no adverse performance effects on the quality of the 18 Comstock inspectors' work performance from the
-19 production pressure that existed?
20 MR. GALLO: Objection. I'm not sure that, in 21 the context.of the question being asked, the witness has 22 testified or there's any evidence in the record that 23 this witness believes that production pressure existed 24 at the time of his review of the quality of the work at (b) 25 Comstock.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4 16381
[
U l
1 MR. GUILD: Well, I think he's already
.2 . testified to that, but the record will speak for itself.
3 It's not necessary to --
4' JUDGE GROSSMAN : Okay.
5 Mr. Gallo, the answer'to the question doesn't 6 . depend -- he can give the answer. I don' t see that the 7 question suggests one way or the other.
8 MR. GALLO: Well, if I understand-the
.9 question.right, if he answers it yes, then he's 10 conceding that there was production pressure. If he
- 11 answers it no, he's conceding there was production i 12 pressure.
13 That's.the aspect of the question that I believe 14 lacks foundation.
15 MR. GUILD: The foundation I think is 16 established, Mr. Chairman, but the witness is certainly 17 capable of quibbling if the foundation is not something t
18 he agrees to.
, 19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, Mr. Gallo is 20 suggesting that there's a trick question involved.
21 Miss' Reporter, could you repeat that question?
22 (The question was thereupon read by the 23 Reporter.)
i 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Why don't you rephrase that f 25 question? i i
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 j
> 16382 N.
i 1 The' answer could be interpreted, with an 2 affirmative answer, as.the witness agreeing to 3 production pressure.
4 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir.
5 BY MR. GUILD:
6 0 Well, youaSo agree that there was production pressure; 7 you just quibble with the question of whether-or not it 8 was undue?
~
9 I thought we established that yesterday, Mr.
10 Shamblin: There was pressure to meet the backlog 11 deadline.
12 You acknowledge that, don't you?
13 A There was pressure to get the work completed on schedule 14 and in a quality manner.
15 0 All right, sir. Understood. Now, that's your view.
16 Did you determine whether or not there were any
~17 adverse performance effects on the Comstock QC 18 inspectors' work as a consequence of that pressure?
19 A I determined that the work was being done in a quality 20 manner out there, from the different indicators that I 21 had; therefore, their performance was not being 22 affected.
23 0 All right, sir.
24 So the answer to my question is yes, you did 73 25 conclude there were no adverse performance effects f rom Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16383
(~N.\
1
'\ j 1 that pressure?
2 A If you're looking for a yes or no answer, 1 guess I'd 3 have to say yes.
4 0 All right, sir. Thank you.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Miss Reporter, would you 6 read back that answer, please?
7 (The answer was thereupon' read by the 8 Reporter.)
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I understand your 10 reluctance to answer the question to suggest that you 11 didn't tie in production pressures to your conclusion; 12 you merely concluded that there was no adverse quality
(
13 but that you-didn't consider production pressure when 14 you made that determination.
15 Is my. understanding correct?
16 THE WITNESS: Okay. I think I understand the 17 question a little bit better now.
18 By the indicators I-had, which said that quality
'19 work was being done out there, I did not feel that there 20 was production pressure being'put on the -- put on the 21 individuals.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, okay.
23 So you, then, did conclude -- you did take into s 24 account the question of production pressure, and you did
( 25 ' conclude that production pressure did not have an i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
^
16384
/^N 1 't V
1 adverse effect on quality?
2 THE WITNESS: It was a tough job that we had 3 to complete out there. I mean,.that was recognized 4 going up front into this thing.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. I'm not trying to get 6 you to explain it further. I'm just trying to establish 7 what it is' iou were' saying in the record, and I think 8 it's clear now.
- 9 _THE WITNESS: Okay.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild?
11 MR. GUILD: I don't think it is, Mr.
12 Chairman.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh.
14 BY MR. GUILD:
15 0 You acknowledge there was production' pressure. Let's 16 get that absolutely clear now.
17 You're not retreating from that acknowledgment of 18 yesterday and then five minutes ago, are you?
19 A Mr. Guild --
20 0 Please answer that question directly, sir.
21 A No.
22 0 You agree there's production pressure, don't you?
23 A In the context of there was a difficult job to complete 24 out there, some people may have felt that there was 7_s 25 production pressure.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16385 7
.__J l I did not feel that there was production pressure.
2 I did feel that we had a difficult job to complete out 3 there. That's the context that I will en that there 4 was -- that there may have been production pressure.
5 0 Well, you acknowledge, don't you, Mr. Shamblin, that 6 production pressure, as it's important here, has to do 7 with the person who perceives that pressure?
8 A Yes.
9 0 All right.
10 You acknowledge that people may have perceived 11 production pressure, Comstock QC inspectors?
12 A A person may have perceived that.
(xs ')
13 0 All right, sir. I understand.
14 Now, in your prefiled testimony at Page 21, in 15 response to Question 24, you state, in addition, on the 16 basis of your personal observations in the field, quote, 17 "In no case did I find any evidence of poorly inspected 18 work."
19 Do you see that?
20 A Yes.
21 0 And does that accurately reflect your opinion?
22 A The work I looked at, yes.
23 0 Now, let me direct your attention, Mr. Shamblin, to
, 24 Intervenors' Exhibit 145 in evidence.in this case. This 25 is a document that reflects the stipulated results of Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l.
16386 o
1 the BCAP CSR inspections for the electrical scope of 2 work. -
3 (Indicating.)
l 4 Now, have you ever seen this document.before, sir?
l )
5 A I don't recall seeing that document.
l' 6 0 All right, sir.
I I
7 Now, what's displayed on this document, among other 8 things, is the results of the CSR inspections of the 9 Comstock inspectors' work; that is, work that h'ad been j 10 final QC-accepted by'L. K. Comstock and that was then I 11 subject to the BCAP CSR reinspection.
l Og 12 In the column that's headed " percent ~ discrepant D 13 . items in sample," there the results of BCAP's review of l
j l 14 the Comstock work are reflected.
I 15 In the area of cable, the cable category, 60 16 percent of the items inspected were discrepant. In the 17 area of cable pan, 64.4 percent of the items inspected 18 were discrepant. In the area of conduit, 59 percent of l
19 the items were discrepant.
20 In the area of tw& it hangers, 56.4 percent of the 21 items inspected wtte 6;c;repant. For cable pan hangers, 22 86.9 percent of the items inspected were discrepant. In i
23 the area of electrical equipment installation, 71.7
-24 percent of the items inspected by the CSR reinspectors 25 were found discrepant.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16387
.)
/N s- ,
1 Now, again, Mr. Shamblin, those are' items that were 2 found 100-percent acceptable by the final QC inspection 3 by the L. K. Comstock inspectors.
4 Now, sir, doesn't that data suggest that, in fact, 5 there was adverse work performance by the Comstock 6 inspectors?
7 MR. GALLO: Objection. As I underttand this 8 exhibit, it is a document created by Intervenors.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I don't want the 10 witness prompted here, so let me see if I can cover what 11 your objection goes to, Mr. Gallo.
12 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest we 13 excuse the witness before we have any further discussion 14 of Mr. Gallo's objection, if he has one he wi'shes to 15 press?
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We can, then.
17 Why doesn't the witness then leave the room.
18- (Witness excused.)
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN : What I wish to say is that I 20 would just define " discrepant" as having one or more 21 discrepant conditions on the ittm.
4
'2 Does that cover your objection?
23 MR. GALLO: That covers one of the 24- objections, q j 25 The.other is that there's no showing f rom this Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16388 Q
kv) 1 exhibit that it covers the span of time that Mr.
2 Shamblin was concerned with in terms of making his 3 reviews when he made his walk-throughs at the plant.
4 I understand the only purpose of this exhibit is to 5 try to demonstrate, in terms of using it for Mr.
6 Shamblin's cross examination, that while he walked 7 through the plant and saw nothing, in fact, in the cable 8 area, 60 percent discrepancies existed and.somehow he 9 missed them and so~on --
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild?
11 MR. GUILD: Mr. Gallo --
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I'm sorry. Did you finish?
13 MR.-GALLO: No.
14 -- and as a result, he should have noted these 15 items as inconsistent with his testimony.
16 There's no showing on this exhibit that the work 17 that's covered by these discrepant items covers the 18 period of time that Mr. Shamblin was in the field.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gallo, I understand that 20 the BCAP program, CSR program, purported to be a 21 representative type of study; and I would assume that 22 you would wish to reconsider that second part of your 23 objection if you're.now suggesting that BCAP was not fy 24 representative of all the time periods in which the work 25 was done.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134-(312) 232-0262
l l
16389
( 's !
! ) <
\_ / I l
1 I don't know that you would wish to pursue that. l 2 MR. GALLO: Well, I'm not suggesting that the l l
3 BCAP data is not representative, but isn't the issue j 4 here what the actual condition was when Shamblin was out 5 in the field? Isn't that what this is being used for?
6 Isn't this an irrelevant exhibit for that purpose?
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gallo, I think the 8 question is clear. The point that Mr. Guild is 9 attempting to ascertain is whether or not that study in 10 any way contradicts the conclusions.
11 I don't see that you've raised any. objection that I'~s) 12 has to do with the relevance or any --
D MR. GALLO: Well, I think the witness ought 13 14 to be advised of the apparent assumptions.that underlie-15 this exhibit.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, and the assumption that 17 I'm suggesting is that a discrepant condition is one or 18 more discrepancies with regard to each item.
19 MR. GALLO: And apparently it's a 20 representative sample covering the period of time when 21 he was out in the field.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gallo, we're going to be 23 here until Christmas if we' re going to quibble over s 24 everything. I don't see that you pointed out anything
, 25 that relates to what's objectionable.
J Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312). 232-0262
16390 v
1 What exactly is your grounds for objection?
2 MR. GALLO: 'I think that for the purpose this 3 exhibit is being used, it's irrelevant. As I understand 4 it --
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN:. Okay. That's overruled.
6 Mr. Guild, is there any problem with resolving the 7 first part of that objection by indicating that 8 " discrepant" means one or more discrepancies with regard-9 to each item?
10 MR. GUILD: I have no problem with that, Mr.
11 Chairman.
12 The only other point I'd make is that Mr. Gallo
(~)'\
\.
13 cuts my question much too narrowly. I'm not focusing 14 solely on what Mr. Shamblin observed himself personally 15 in the field. He testified about the measures that he 16 used over a long period of time to ensure quality, not 17 simply his own observations.
18 With that understanding,-Mr. Chairman --
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Do you wish to rephrase the 20 question?
21 MR. GUILD: I'd be happy to do that, Mr . -
22 Chairman.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Why don't we' call Mr.
, _ 24 Shamblin back in.
E h I 25 BY MR. GUILD:
O Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16391
('Ns iw/ )
4 1 0 Mr. Shamblin, let me rephrase the question and see if we 2 can at least understand our terms here.
3 You're familiar generally with the BCAP program 4 that was conducted at the Braidwood facility, are you 5 not?
6 A Generally I'm familiar with it, yes.
7 0 And you're familiar that it is a sampling program that 8 purports to represent the conditions of construction 9 generally in the plant?
10 A Yes.
11 0 All right, sir.
f~')
V 12 And you' re f amiliar with the fact that there were 13 items selected for BCAP sampling and they were defined 14 according to various construction populations.
15 For the electrical area, they're the six that I 16 mentioned to you: cable, conduit, conduit hangers, et 17 cetera?
18 A Yes.
19 0 All right.
20 Now, in your testimony I think you stated generally 21 that it's your belief that over the period of time for 22 which you have been responsible for construction at 23 Braidwood as Project Construction Superintendent, that 24 you have used a variety of measures; from those 25 measures, you have assured yourself that there's been no Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262-
16392
)
(U 1 adverse effect on the work performance of Comstock 2 inspectors from production pressure?
3 A I assured myself that the quality of the work being done 4 was good quality.
5 0 All right, sir.
6 And-you assured yourself that the Quality Control 7 inspectors at L. K. Comstock were doing quality _ work?
8 A That's right.
9 -Q All right, sir.
10 Now, with reference to Intervenors' Exhibit 145, I 11 want to point out that the term " discrepant" indicates I~')
b 12 the existence of a rejectable condition, one or more 13 rejectable conditions, for an item.
14 One or more~ rejectable conditions for an item 15 sampled indicates, as that data is displayed, that the 16 item is deemed discrepant.
17 Now, with that in mind, sir, I read for the record 18 and read for you the results, the percent discrepancies 19 for the various categories, all right, sir. You have 20 the document before you.
21 Now, I ask you, sir, whether or not the results of 22 the BCAP CSR inspection, the discrepancy rates displayed ,
23 on that exhibit, are at odds with your conclusion that 24 the BCAP -- excuse me -- are at odds with your 25 conclusion that:the Comstock-Quality Control inspectors Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16393 I
(~' 1 (s. H J
1
, 1 .did. quality work.
i 4
2 A I don't believe they are.
3 0 Sir, are they at odds with your conclusion that there j 4 was -- let me get the language precise, if I may. I 5 walked away from my document. Excuse me.
6 Are the BCAP CSR results for the Comstock work at 7 odds with your conclusion that there was no poorly 8 inspected work by L. K. Comstock?
9 A In'the instances that I observed, no, they're not at 10- odds.
11 0 All right, sir.
12 Well, aside from the instances that you answered,
(
13 wouldn' t you agree, sir, that the results of the CSR j 14 inspection indicate that there~were indeed instances of
- 15 poorly inspected work in the L. K. Comstock scope of 16 work?
17 A Based on that data, there may -- there would be 18 instances of poorly inspected work that would have gone 19 throughout the whole time period prior to June 30th, I I 20 think, 1985 --
21 0 Yes.
22 A -- for which that~ data is.
23 0 June 30, 1984?
24' A '84. Excuse me.
. 25 0 That was the cutoff date for BCAP?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
! Geneva, Illinois 60134 I (312) 232-0262
'16394
{N 1 A Yes.
2 O Final QC-accepted --
3 A .Right.
4 0 -- as of June'30, 1984?
5 A Right.
6 Q All right, sir.
- 7. Let me direct your attention further to the column 8 on this chart, Intervenors' Exhibit 145, with respect to 9 weld discrepancies.
10 I take it that you were including, in your general 11 opinion about the quality of Comstock work, the quality 12 of the weld inspection work done?
13 A Yes.
14 0 All right, sir.
15 I point out for you, sir, on the exhibit the 16 results of the CSR reinspection that reflects that for 17 cable pan, there were 11.2 percent discrepant welds 18 found; for conduit hangers, 8.3 percent; cable pan 4
l 19 hangers,14.4 percent; and for equipment installation, 20 13.2 percent discrepant welds.
21 And that, too, is at odds with your conclusion that i 22 there was quality work being performed by the Comstock 23 inspectors, is it not? l l
24 A I don't believe it is.
,_s 25 0 All right, sir.
l l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i- 16395 V
1 That does indeed reflect that there was, to use 2 your language again, poorly inspected work; the CSR 3 results in the welding area reflect poorly -inspected 4 work?
5 A That data there may -- may give you that conclusion.
6 0 Yes.
7 A The work that I looked at and the indicators that I had 8 led me to the conclusion as I stated in my prefiled 9 testimony.
10 0 Yes, but the conclusion- reflected in the CSR data is at
- 11 odds ~with your conclusion to that extent, is it not?
l 12 A It may be at odds with my conclusion.
- 13 O And finally there's the column on this exhibit entitled 14 " notable percent, notable items in sample."
15- Are'you generally familiar with the term " notable" 16 as that term was used in BCAP?
17 A I don't recall.
j 18 0 All right. " Notable" was. defined as discrepancies for 19 which the capacity reduction factor, the R value, was 90 20 percent or lower. In other words, there was a 10 21 percent or greater reduction in capacity. All right.
22 Now, are you familiar with that use of the term 23 " notable"? l 24 A Yes.
25 0 Okay.
i
, (J Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. l Geneva, Illinois 60134 '
(312) 232-0262 i
16396 O'
t 1 V
1 Categorizing discrepancies as " notable" using that 2 definition, the results of the CSR inspection'of the 3 Comstock scope-of work reflect that of the items in the 4 cable pan population, 8.9 percent had notable 5 discrepancies.
6 For ' con'duit, 8.2 percent had notable ' discrepancies.
7 For conduit hangers, 21.1 percent had notable 8 discrepancies. For cable pan hangers, 53.1 percent of
! 9 those items had notable discrepancies. In- the equipment 10 population, 41 percent of those items had notable 11 discrepancies.
12 That data reflects that the Comstock inspectors did
( not perform quality work, does it not?
13 i
14 'A That data may reflect that sometime in the whole job 15 period Comstock inspectors may not have performed 16 quality work.
17 0 Yes.
18 And it reflects that, again, using your term, in 19 those instances displayed in the CSR results, that there 20 was -poorly inspected work by the Comstock inspectors, 21 since they missed those defects found later by CSR?
i 22 A At some point in time in the job, they missed those 23 instances that the CSR inspectors identified.
j i
24 0 All right, sir.
(^N 25 Now, recognizing that that data is as you've Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 I (312) 232-0262
i 16397 '
("y l
\
V)
I 1 acknowledged, you don't know, as you sit here today~, Mr.
2 Shamblin, whether that quality of work reflected in the 3 CSR reinspection is a product of harassment, J
4 intimidation, undue production pressure or any other 5 particular cause, do you?
6 A Correct.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me.
8 Just to clarify, you understood that the reduction 9 was 10 percent or more or was it more than 10 percent?
10 I forget. It was more than 10 percent rather than 11 90 percent, as Mr. Guild started to say?
12 THE WITNESS: It was more than 10 percent.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Right, okay.
4 14 MR. GUILD: A notable item -- if counsel can i
15 help me be precise, because I don't want to mislead the 16 witness -- is the figure 10 percent or more reduction in 17 capacity or is it more than 10 percent? Could someone 18 help me?
l 19 MR. MILLER: More than 10 percent.
l 20 MR. GUILD: More than 10 percent, counsel 21- informs me.
22 BY MR. GUILD:
23 0 So that the R value, Mr. Shamblin, would be less than 90 24 percent, if Mr. Miller's recollection is the correct 25 one?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) '232-0262
16398 i
V 1 JUDGE COLE: Or less'than .9.
2 MR. GUILD: Less than .9, Judge Cole says.
- 3 JUDGE GROSSMAN
- You understand that, sir?
4 THE WITNESS: Yes.
9 5 BY MR. GUILD:
6 0 And you understood it that way when you answered the 7 question, sir?
8 A Yes.
9 0 Now, indeed, although Applicant asserts that one can 10 make . generalizations of the BCAP results to- the quality 11 of construction for the whole plant, the BCAP results
(~ T 12 may not be representative for a variety of reasons.
V 13 Let',s focus on one.
14 BCAP did not cover the whole span of construction 15 but only looked at work that was final QC-accepted ~as of 16 June 30, 1984.
+
17 Work was done af ter that point,. of course.
18 A That's correct.
19 0 A substantial part of the plant's work was done after 20 that point in time?
21 A Yes.
22 A Of course, we've talked already yesterday about the 23 backlog that existed as of June 30, 1984, and wasn't i 24 eliminated -- backlog of Comstock QC inspections -- l 25 until September of 1984.
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16399 A
t \
1 A Yes.
2 0 And we've already talked about not until March of 1985 3 -did the 24 inspectors go to the NRC.
4 But you're aware, are you not, of complaints of 5 production pressure by Comstock inspectors that didn't 6 stop in March of 1985 but extended into 1986, much more 7 recent complaints of production pressure by Comstock 8 inspectors?
9 A I'm aware of a complaint by an individual inspector.
10 0 Well, you're aware of complaints, first, by Mr. Martin, 11 a cable pulling inspector, an inspector who had been on (J%.
12 13 the site for many years, who complained in 1986 of production pressure?
14 A I don't believe I'm aware of Mr. Martin's complaint of 15 production pressure.
16 0 Are you familiar with Mr. Martin's complaints in the 17 spring of 19867-18 A Would you be more specific?
19 0 Sure. I'd be happy to.
20 Mr. Martin --
21 MR. GALLO: Could we approach the bench?
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I'm sorry, Mr. Gallo?
'23 MR. GALLO: Could we approach the bench?
- 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Certainly.
( 25 MR. GALLO: Let's excuse the witness.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
' 16400
(%
_/
1 (Witness excused.)
2 MR. GUILD: I thought Mr. Martin testified in 3 open. hearing on all'these matters.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I thought Mr. Martin had 5 waived.
6 MR. BERRY: That was my recollection, too.
7 MR. GUILD: In fact, Mr._ Martin was the one 8 who said that it was the NRC that had made the error in 9 treating all his stuff as in camera, and they had to go-10 back'and do that all over again.
I 11 MR. MILLER: I do recall that, but I don't 12 know what the NRC's view is of maintaining the 13 confidentiality of its investigation. We have not 14 discussed this with --
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, he's not asking about 16 an NRC inspection. He's asking about Mr. Martin.
17 MR. BERRY: The only point --
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Wait. I'm sorry.
19 MR. BERRY: The point we've maintained on 20 that -- I believe it was settled.
21 It went to disclosure of the documents, the NRC 22 documents that we produced to the parties. It's those 23 documents that we've maintained should be excluded from 24 the public record in this proceeding.
) 25 In one case I know we did allow an in-camera l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. I Geneva, Illinoi s 60134 l (312) 232-0262 f .
16401
\
.Q)
~
exhibit of one of the documents f rom the files, but just
~
2 unrestricted disclosure of underlying documents relating 3 to investigations that are pending we have objected to.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: But Mr. Martin testified in 5 open hearing, didn't he?
6 MR. BERRY: Yes.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And he indicated that he 8 didn't wish to --
9 MR. BERRY: That's correct.
10- JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- have confidentiality, so 11 we'll just bring the witness back.
~12 Excuse me. Is there still some reservation?
13 MR. MILLER: No.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Was there a pending question 15 or had you not completed it?
16 MR. GUILD: I'll just rephrase it, Mr.
17 Chairman, if I might.
18 BY MR. GUILD:
19 0 I think, Mr. Shamblin, you had asked, before we excused 20 you, for me to be more precise or specific about Mr.
i 21 Martin; and I was going to ask you about specific facts, 22 sir.
23 You're aware Mr. Martin had been performing cable 24 pulling inspections for Comstock in the spring of 1986 25 and that when he asked for additional help to complete a l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16402
,W
?
U) 1 cable pull inspection, he was taken off of cable pulling 2 inspections and assigned to another shift?
3 A I don't recall that, Mr. Guild.
4 Q That never came to your attention?
5 A No. I don't recall that.
6 0 Were you aware that Mr. Martin made a complaint to the 7 NRC?
8 A No.
9 0 All right, sir, fine.
10 A The only instance I'm familiar with Mr. Martin is his 11 instance with Mr. Krone.
12 0 All 'right, sir. Well, the Krone matter came shortly 13 thereafter, but that wasn't the focus of my questions.
14 You're not aware of the instance of him being taken 15 off cable pulling because he had requested assistance in 16 completing an inspection?
17 A I don't recall that.
18 0 All right, sir.
19 Are you aware of complaints made by Gregory 20 Archambeault, also a cable pull inspector, made in the 21 spring of 1986, the summer of 1986, about production 22 pressure?
23 A It came to my attention that a second shift cable pull
, 24 inspector by the name of Mr. Archambeault had some
, (s 25 concerns.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16403 O
^O 1 It came to me through one of my staff, who got it 2 from the General Electric MCIS Project Manager, that an I
3 individual had come to him with some concerns and was 4 willing to bring those concerns to us after -- after he 5 had talked to Mr. Cartelli from GE-MCIS, yes.
6 0 And you're aware that Mr. Archambeault expressed 7 concerns about production pressure?
8 A I think that was amongst the things that he had 9 expressed concerns about, yes.
10 0 And were you also aware that he expressed the concern 11 that adverse personnel action was taken against him - -
l (h
\~sY 12 the refusal to transfer him off of second shift to first 13 shift -- because he had made complaints and gone to the 14 NRC?
15 A I understand that was one of his concerns, yes.
16 0 All right, sir.
17 Now, in addition, are you aware that Mr.
18 Archambeault maintained that he was not speaking only 19 for himself but that there were a number of other 20 inspectors that he knew of who shared his concerns about 21 production pressure?
22 A Yes, I understand Mr. Archambeault did state that, and I 23 also had other inspectors come in to me and say that Mr.
24 Archambeault was not speaking f or them.
( 25 0 Well, sir, are you aware that Mr. Archambeault went to Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16404
'D
~
1 the trouble of composing a nonscientific questionnaire 2 and circulating it among inspectors and adducing 3 responses that, in fact, confirmed, on a number of 4 particulars, the same general concerns that he had 5 expressed?
6 MR. GALLO: Objection. That's not a fair 7 characterization of the record as it pertains to the 8 answers to those questionnaires.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, you pointed that point 10 out to the witness. Now it's up to him.
11 MR. GALLO: Well, there's no foundation that i
12 the witness ever read the questionnaires.
13 MR. GUILD: That's the point of the question.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, that's what the 15 question is, Mr. Gallo.
16 I'm'not suggesting his answer, but you pointed out 17 a possible trap for him. With that in mind, I think he 18 ought to answer the question, because he's aware now of 19 what he may stumble into.
20 Now, I don't think I ought to answer the question 21 for him, and I don't think you ought to answer the 22 question for him.
23 MR. GALLO: Well, your Honor, it seems to me 24 that this process of cross examination needs to go by 25 the rules, then.
)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 ,
(312) 232-0262 l
L 16405 fN 1 )
a 1 MR. GUILD: Can we excuse Mr. Shamblin?
2 MR. GALLO: May we have one. question at a 3 time?
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Shamblin, could you?
5 MR. GALLO: You don't need to excuse him.
6 MR. GUILD: Yes, there is a need to excuse 7 him.
8 MR. GALLO: I'm not going to express any 9 specifics.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Shamblin, you're 11 excused, please.
12 (Witness excused.)
13 MR. GALLO: Since we started this morning, 14 Mr. Guild has assumed a number of premises and his 15 questions have contained a number of compound aspects to 16 them which I have not objected to.
17 But as a result of the fact that they contain 18 compound aspects or they assume premises that we don't
- 19. know whether or not the witness is aware of, the witness 20 is led into these traps, to use your characterization, 21 your Honor.
22 I think the questions ought to be asked one at a 23 time by the numbers: first as to his knowledge and then g 24 what the witness thinks about that.
I 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, Mr. Gallo, this is an
- O l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16406 V
1 adverse witness. If there is a trap in the question, I 2 believe you' ve pointed it out.
3 Is there a second trap or have you pointed out what 4 you think might have been a trap?
5 Once you've pointed that out to the witness, what 6 further protection does he need?
7 If he agrees with that premise, he can say it. If 8 he disagrees, he can say that, too. I don't want to 9 - suggest to him what he does. You've already pointed out 10- what he ought to look for. How can you complain about 11 that?
12- He is an adverse witness. This is'a hostile 13 examination. If at any time you think there is a trap, 14 well, you can object and we'll make sure the witness 15 doesn't stumble. We think that's been taken care of 16 here.
17 MR. GALLO: All right, your Honor.
18 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I simply note that 19 I differ with Mr. Gallo's characterization that we 20 should disregard somehow the witness' answers this 21 morning because the questions have been fraught with 22 traps that somehow the witness -- that misled the 23 witness.
24 If counsel had a question before on the floor that i
- 25 he found objectionable on those grounds, he has waived
\
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. 1 Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 :
l
16407 t i 1 his objections; and I maintain there was no such 2 objectionable question in the first instance.
3 He can't undo this morning's cross examination by 4 these glib' comments that he's just made for the record.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Let's not pursue it any 6 further. I assume Mr. Gallo objected when he felt there
- 7. was a need, and we've ruled accordingly.
8 MR. GUILD: The last point is that counsel's 9 last objection did suggest an answer.
10 I would ask that in the future, if counsel has an 11 objection of that character, that he simply first rise n
(b \
12 13 and ask that the witness be excused so the answer is not suggested for the witness, 14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I think that's the only fair 15 course to take.
16 He's your witness. He's obviously adverse and 17 hostile to Mr. Guild's position, so there shouldn' t be 18 any suggestions.
19 If you think there is a trap, we'll hear about it 20 and we'll try to take that into account, as we have with 21 the point of the discrepancies; that is, one or more.
22 That's the only way we can handle that fairly.
23 Please get the witness.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We did have a pending
~Q 25 question.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. 16408 v
1 Do you wish to restate it, Mr. Guild?
2 ,
MR. GUILD: I'll be happy to try, Mr.
3 Chairman.
4 BY MR. GUILD:
5 0 Are you aware, Mr. Shamblin, that a number of inspectors 6 responded by answering Mr. Archambeault's questionnaire 7 and agreeing in general with concerns that he had 8 expressed about production pressure?
9 A I don't recall the specifics of the answers to the 10 questionnaire. I read them, but I -- I don't recall 11 them. There was like 14, 15 questions on the 12' questionnaire.
13 In general, what I recall is that there were a wide 14 variety of answers on those questionnaires.
15 0 All right, sir.
16 You recall very vividly that a number of inspectors i
17 apparently told you -- one or more inspectors apparently 1
18 told you that Mr. Archambeault didn't speak for them.
19 That you recall?
l 20 A Yes.
21 0 But you don't recall whether or not there were l
l 22 inspectors who agreed with Mr. Archambeault?
23 A There may have been inspectors that agreed with Mr.
s 24 Archambeault on those questionnaires. I don't recall.
25 0 You don't recall?
{
l l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
! Geneva, Illinois 60134 1 (312) 232-0262
16409
'{
l A I don't recall a number -- the number of them.
2 I will agree with you that there may have been some 3 inspectors on those surveys -- I think there was six, 4- seven, eight. I don't recall'the number of surveys that 5 there was, but I do recall there was a wide variety of 6_ questions and a wide variety of answers.
7 There may have been some inspectors who agreed with 8 Mr. Archambeault.
9 Q But that agreement doesn't. stick 'in your mind as 'does 10 the statements made to you that others did not -- were 11 not to be spoken for by Mr. Archambeault?
12 A It was a simple statement. Inspectors came to my 13 office, very vividly, and said, "Mr. Archambeault does 14 not speak for us."
) 15 0 Who came and told you that, Mr. Shamblin?
16 A I don't recall their names at this point in time, but it l
1 17 was at least two inspectors.
18 I also did meet with the stewards on each one of
, 19 the shifts, and some of the stewards on each one of.the 20 shifts said, "Mr. Archambeault does not speak for us." l 21 Q I see.
l 22 And who said that?
l 23 A I think Mr. -- one of the night shift stewards. I don't l
- t .
24 recall his name.
l 25 Q How about Mr. Nemeth? Is that who it was?
j Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. j
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
{
(312) 232-0262
16410 O
U 1 A I don't recall whether it was Mr. Nemeth or -- it was 2 three guys from the night shif t that I met with, and I 3 don' t recall their names.
4 0 Are you aware that Mr. Nemeth, the night shif t steward, 5 urged Mr. Archambeault to pursue his complaints both to 6 the NRC and to management?
7 A No.
8 0 Maybe you weren't getting the same answer from Mr.
9 Archambeault.
10 Did you ever consider the possibility that when 11 you, a senior manager of the company, asked a line 12 worker for his or her opinion, that you may not get a
(
13 complete and accurate response?
14 A That possibility exists, yes.
15 0 That they may tell you what thef think you want to hear?
16 A That possibility exists.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Just to clarify the record, 18 by the way, when I referred to the witness as " hostile 19 and adverse," that's not a reflection on the character 20 of his testimony; only his position as a company ,
1 21 employee and being in that position of an adverse, j 22 hostile witness.
23 MR. GALLO: I take it the Board would agree 24 that Mr. Shamblin is no more hostile and adverse than
) 25 any other Applicant witness.
l l
1 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 l 1
16411
.Y l (Laughter.)
- 2 JUDGE GROSSMAN
- That's correct. I'm not at 3 all attempting to reflect on the character of his 4 . testimony.
5 MR. GALLO: All- right.
, 6 MR. GUILD: I'll stipulate that Mr. Shamblin 7 has been very friendly to me both on and off the record.
8 He's a fine fellow.
9 (Laughter.)
10 BY MR. GUILD:
11 0 But you're at least_ aware, Mr. Shamblin, that complaints Ih 12 of pressure, cost and schedule pressure, on Comstock V Quality Control inspectors have extended over a long 13 14 period of time; essentially, since you came on the site 15 and up until the present time?
16 A Mr. Guild, yes, there have been complaints by 17 inspectors.
18 0 Now, Mr. Archambeault, for one -- you don't consider him 19 to be a union agitator, do you?
20 A I would not -- I would not want to characterize what I 21 consider Mr. Archambeault. I don't know his views on 22 the union at all.
23 0 All right, sir. Mr. Archambeault was hired on in 24 January of 1986.
25 Now, your testimony in substantial part stands for Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16412 b
U 1 the proposition that you interpreted a lot of these 2 complaints f rom Comstock inspectors as simply motivated 3 by trying to advance the interests of the union back in 4 '84 and '85.
5 A That's correct.
6 0 Well, Mr. Archambeault wasn't doing that, was he?
7 His complaints came in the spring of '86.
8 MR. GALLO: Objection. He's arguing with the 9 witness. I believe he's gotten an answer to that 10 question.
11 MR. GUILD: I don't think so.
12 BY MR. GUILD:
13 0 Isn't that true, sir: Mr. Archambeault couldn't have 14 been motivated by that motive because his complaints 15 came long after that matter was resolved, in 19867 His 16 complaints came in 19867-17 A If your question is that Mr. Archambeault was not 18 involved -- his complaints were not motivated by union 19 agitation, I would have to agree with that, because the 20 union was in place by that point in time. Mr.
21 Archambeault came after the union was in place.
22 0 Yes.
23 A I don't recall what Mr. Archambeault's motivation was.
24 0 would you question his motive, other than as sugge.-ting
) 25 that his complaints were motivated other than by his Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois. 60134 (312) 232-0262
a 16413 b
k 1 concerns'for quality?
2 A I would question his motives, yes.
3 Q -I see, I see.
4 What ulterior motives ~ exactly do you think that Mr.
5 Archambeault had for making his complaints, other than
, 6- concerns for quality, Mr. Shamblin?
! 7 A Oh, they could be for lengthening out the job.
8 0 What do you understand --
f 9 A They could be for tryit; to cause trouble for the job.
f- .
10 0 I see. I tried to interrupt -- and I apologize -- but 1
11 only because I thought I asked you what his complaints f
12 were, and then you said "they could be."
i
! 13 Do you have a belief as to what Mr. Archambeault's
~
14 motives were, aside f rom the motive of being quality l 15 conscious; not speculation, but a belief as to what his 16 motives were?
l 17 A No, I don't.
18 Q Now, I understand that these matters came to you, but 19 they came to.you in August of 1986, didn't they?-
l- 20 A I believe that's about the time they came to me, yes.
21 0 And after you had these complaints, you didn't mount an
!. 22 investigation of these complaints, did you? ,
- 23 MR. GALLO
- Point of clarification: We're 24 talking about Archambeault's complaints?
25 MR. GUILD: Yes, Archambeault's complaints.
2 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
j Geneva, Illinois 60134 j, (312) 232-0262
16414 l
l()
1O l
( 1 A Yes, I did.
I 2 BY MR. GUILD:
l 3 0 Oh, you did? In August of '86?
I 4 A That exact night that they came to me, they came to me I
! 5 about 6:00 o' clock one night from Mr. Dougherty.
l 6 I immediately asked Mr. Dougherty to meet with Mr.
T 7 Archambeault and to get into the situation. l 8 0 Oh, I see. That was the meeting that Mr. Archambeault 9 sought.
l 10 He's the one who initiated that meeting, didn't he?
11 Didn't you understand that?
hv 12 A Which meeting are you talking about?
13 0 The meeting with Edison representatives. l 14 Didn't it come to you that Mr. Archambeault had 15 been seeking a meeting with Comstock and Edison l 16 management to air his complaints and try to get them I 17 resolved?
18 A Mr. Guild, I'd have to go back and refresh my memory j
19 with respect to the exact sequence of meetings.
l 20 0 Understood.
21 A I'm going to give you my best recollection of that 22 night.
l 23 I was in my office in and around 6:00 o' clock or 24 so. Mr. Dougherty came in and said that an inspector --
( 25 and he didn't say by name -- had gone to Mr. Cartelli at
)
I i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16415
(~'s
\J 1 General Electric with some concerna.
2 I immediately asked Mr. Dougherty, "We need" --
3 "I'd like to find out those concerns because I'd like to 4 act on them, find out what they are and get them 5 resolved."
6 - I charged Mr. Dougherty with meeting that night 7 with General Electric and the inspector to find out the 8 concerns.
9 once the concerns were found out, I charged Mr.
10 Dougherty and I think Jim Gieseker was available at that 11 time and Jerry Groth, who was one of my assistants, to 12 get into these complaints and get them resolved, find 13 out what's -- do an investigation of them, try to get 14 them resolved and get an answer to the individual.
15 0 All right, sir.
16 A I didn't want this thing to languish for very long. I 17 wanted to get the issues up on the table and get them 18 resolved.-
19 0 All right, sir.
20 And you understand that these gentlemen met with 21 Mr. Archambeault, whether at his request or at yours, 22 and that they had a meeting and that meeting was 23 ultimately remorialized in a memo that Mr. Gieseker and 24 Mr. Dougherty wrote?
) 25 A That's correct, and there was a meeting --
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 6bl34 (312) 232-0262
16416 r~~N
( \
U 1 0 You've seen that memo?
2 A There was a meeting I.think within a day. I don't 3 remember the exact sequence, but I- think it was within a 4 day or two days.
5 They met with Mr. Archambeault. They met with 6 other people. They -- and Jim and Mike put down, in a 7 . memo -to me, their meetings, their view of the situation.
8 0 All right, okay, and that memo is a matter of record in 9 this case.
10 Now, what I had in mind, Mr. Shamblin, as far as 11 your response, was you sat down and had a meeting with 12 Mr. DelGeorge, with Mr. Maiman, with other managers at 13 Commonwealth Edison Company, to decide how you were 14 going to stem this tide of likely future complaints by 15 craft and Quality control personnel.
16 You had that kind of meeting, didn't you?
17 MR. GALLO: I'm going to object at this 18 point. I believe we've now strayed well beyond the 19 scope of this witness' rebuttal testimony.
20 Inquiries into managemt :t meetings at Commonwealth 21 Edison concerning the general question of inspector 22 harassment and complaints of intimidation are beyond the 23 scope of this witness' rebuttal testimony.
24 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, it really has to do O() 25 very simply with whether Edison management, in the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16417
[
l' person of Mr. Shamblin or anyone else, takes these 2 things seriously.as bearing on quality -- which I
'3 maintain that the record casts doubt on - or whether 4 they take them really as a concern about cost 'and 5 scheduling.-
6 I would suggest, sir, that the witness' response 7 was to meet with other managers to figure out how they 8 could stave off the effects of these complaints on cost 9 and scheduling, not to investigate quality implications.
c 10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I don't want to get 11 into the polemics here, but Mr. Shamblin has very broad 12 testimony. I don't think that that would exclude
(
13 management discussions of the same conclusions that Mr.
14 Shamblin offered here.
15 So I'd overrule the objection.
16 BY MR. GUILD:
17 0 Mr. Shamblin, you did have such a meeting, did you not?
18 A We had a meeting to discuss how we could handle --
19 better handle situations such as this in the future, how 20 we could resolve -- to address things such as getting e 21 these issues up on the table and resolving them.
22 0 Anticipating last-minute allegations; right?
23 A Yes, sir.
24 0 Allegations that you believe may be motivated by trying ps
() 25 to stretch the job out?
4 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
- (312) 232-0262
16418 p
1 'A- That is a possibility in this business. It's happened 2 in the past at other nuclear plants that are --
3 0 Let's put it this way: It's your belief that it's 4 -happened in the past at other nuclear plants?
5 A That,is my belief, yes.
6 0 That the motives of people raising quality and safety 7 complaints at those other plants were to stretch the job 8 out and not because of true concern about quality?
9 A I'm sure that my view is that people who have raised 10 complaints -- they have raised them for a wide variety 11 of reasons, all the way from truly legitimate to truly 12 nonlegitimate.
( Well, now, let's turn back the clock a 13 0 All right, rir.
14 bit.
15 Now, as I understand it, before you got to 16 Braidwood in your position of Project Construction 17 Superintendent, you worked at the LaSalle facility; 18 correct?
19 A Yes, sir.
20 0 And you held the position there, before you came to 21 Braidwood, of project coordinator, did you not?
22 A Yes.
23 0 And your duties there were coordination and preparation 24 of schedules and budgets for the LaSalle project?
25 A That's correct.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16419 1 Q Now, I take it that you demonstrated effective and 2 capable work performance in that capacity?
3 A Yes.
4 0 Al'1 right.
5 And, thereafter, you held the position of Project 6 Construction Superintendent at the LaSalle facility?
7 A Correct.
8 0 And with an intermediate position in the engineering 9 management area, you thereafter took Mr. Cacero's job as 10 Project Construction Superintendent at Braidwood?
11 A Correct.
12- Now, did you know a man named Richard Saklak?
( Q 13 We've mentioned him before.
14 I take it you did know him?
15 A When?
16 Q Mr. Saklak.
17 A Did I know him when?
18 0 Well, did you know Mr. Saklak at any point in time 19 personally?
20 A I met Mr. Saklak personally in the fall of 1984. I know 21 who he is.
22 0 You're aware that Mr. Saklak worked at LaSalle?
23 A No, I'm not'-- excuse me.
24 I read on his resume, in preparation for the O( ) 25 hearings, that he worked at LaSalle --
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) ~23 2-026 2
I 16420 1 0 I see.
2 A -- but I did not know him at LaSalle.
~
~3 Q All right, sir. He came to Braidwood and worked for 4 Comstock.
5 Are you aware that Mr. Saklak's first job function 6 at Comstoc'k was in the cost and schedule area?
7 A I think I had read that on his resume, yes.
8 Q And are you aware that Mr. Saklak was sent upstairs to 9 the Quality Control Department to -- I'm going to 10 paraphrase -- straighten out the mess up there or clean 11 up the zoo up there?
12 Those are Mr. Saklak's words, and I am paraphrasing 13 them.
14 A I'm not aware of that.
15 Q. Mr. Saklak~ ultimately'became the supervisor of Quality 16 Control inspectors at L. K. Comstock?
17 A Yes, he did.
18 0 And be supervised in various capacities Quality Control 19 inspectors f rom the summer of 1982 until his termination 20 in April of 1985?
21 A Correct.
22 Q And I take it that, as we've agreed, you're aware of-the 23 circumstances under which Mr. Saklak ultimately was 24 terminated?
Yes.
) 25 A Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16421 A
s s N- Y 1 0 All right.
2 Now, before his termination, did you have'any 3 dealings with Mr. Saklak?
4 A- Personal dealings, no, I did not have any personal 5 dealings with Mr. Saklak.
6 I met.him once at a -- at a social function. Maybe 7 I said hello to him in the offices or in the halls. But l
8 I don't recall any personal dealings with Mr. Saklak.
9 'O I mean work-dealings with him. j 10 A No, I don't recall any work dealings with Mr. Saklak, 11 either.
12 0 Now, Mr. Saklak has been the subject of wide-ranging
(
13 complaints by his subordinates, by Quality Control 14 inspectors, as to Mr. Saklak's temperament.
15 Are you aware of that, sir?
16 A Yes.
17 0 And that he's generally characterized -- even one of 18 your witnesses, Mr. Hii, who is to come in, says that he 19 was hot-tempered.
20 Did you know Mr. Saklak to be hot-tempered?
21 A I have learned, through reading the information, that he 22 had a temper on him, yes.
23 0 Yes.
l 24 And that he was f requently abusive and threatening, 7, l k) 25 verbally threatening, toward his subordinates?
l l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
4 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- - .. . -. . . = . .-
16422 1 A I've learned that he has at times used abusive language.
2 0 And, of course, ultimately he made the threat to Mr.
3 .Snyder that I characterize as a " death threat" -- it's 4 sort of conditioned; it sounds like he was a lawyer --
5 "If beating were legal, you'would be dead." That's the 1
6 language we've agreed was used in our discussion 7 yesterday, that threat.
4 8 A- He stated those words.
9 0 All right, sir.
10 And are you aware.that Mr. Saklak ever made 11 physical threats of violence to anyone else, other than .
12 Mr. Snyder?
13' A No,-I'm not.
14 0 How about Mr. Hii? Are you aware of Mr. Saklak 15 threatening Mr. Hii?
16 A -No, I'm not.
17 0 All right, sir.
18 Well, more particularly, did any complaints about 19 Mr. Saklak's work performance as a supervisor to the 20 effect of his temper, his threatening manner, ever come 21 to your attention, Mr. Shamblin, before the 22- circumstances that led directly to his termination in j 23 March and April of 1985?
_s 24 A Well, the incident with respect to his incident with l
25 John Seeders.
1 i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ,
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 f _ _ _ _ _ __
16423 1 Q Oh, I see.
2 That did come to your attention?
3 A Yes, through John Seeders' letter, yes.
4 0 Right.
, 5 You read the Seeders letter; and, of course, you 6 took no action against Mr. Saklak for that incident, I 7 take it?
8 A I had the John Seeders letter investigated, and the 9 results of that investigation indicated that there was a 10 question'with respect to the credibility of that letter.
11 Q Right.
m i 12 A I took no action against Mr. Saklak.
-l 13 0 All right, sir. So Mr. Saklak's behavior had come to 14 your attention in the fall of '84'through the Seeders 15 incident.
16 Had Mr. Saklak's behavior otherwise come to your 17 attention, other than the' Seeders incident and then the 18 incident that led to his termination?
19 A I don't recall.
20 0 It's fair, I guess, to infer --
21 A I do --
22 0 I'm sorry?
23 A Now I do recall. I'm sorry.
24 I think there was an incident -- and I don't know O)
( 25 the specifics. It was sometime in the late fall of 1984 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
j -16424 1 where there was an incident with Saklak, but I don't 2 recall the circumstances of it.
3 I learned about that at the time of'the March, 4 1985, incident with Mr. Saklak.
5 0 All right.
6 You learned that Mr. Saklak had had a history of --
7 had had a history on the job, ano you learned that just 8 before he was terminated?
9 A I learned that -- again, I stated that I learned -- I 10 learned of the John Seeders incident with Mr. Saklak.
11 I learned in March, 1985, with respect to an 12 incident that had happened in the fall, late fall, I 13 .think it.was, of 1984; and then the incident that 14 happened in March of 1985 with respect to Mr. Saklak.
15 0 Yes.
~16 A Those are the incidents that I have knowledge of at that 17 point in time with respect to Mr. Saklak.
- 18. O All right, sir.
19 And I tak'e it it follows, then, that while you 20 learned of the '84 incident in 1985 just before his 21 termination, aside from the John Seeders incident and 22 the incident that finally led to his termination, Mr.
23 Saklak did not otherwise come to your attention -- his 24 behavior did not otherwise come to your attention during 25 the course of his employment?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 I
16425
(
U 1 A No adverse behavior of Mr. Saklak came to my attention.
2 0 Well, are you aware, as you sit here today, that, in 3 fact, Mr. Saklak received virtually the highest 4 commendation by his management during the entire course 5 of his employment at Comstock?
6 A I'm not aware of that, no.
7 Q He's. rated as excellent, effective, aggressive, an asset 8 to the team; words to that effect?
9- A No. ,
10 0 Do you have any belief or knowledge that Mr. Saklak wab 11 rated otherwise than excellent, effective?
12 A No. - t 13 Q All right, sir.
14 Well, does what you now know about Mr. Saklak cast 15 into doubt, in your mind as you sit here today, Mr.
16 Shamblin, the effectiveness.of your sources of 17 information about that gentleman during the course of 18 his years of employment at Comstock?
19 A- No, it doesn't, Mr. Guild.
20 Q Have you ever had occasion to question the work 21 performance -- in terms of support for quality; 22 conversely, production pressure -- those two qualities 23 -- have you ever had an occasion to question the work s 24 performance of Mr. DeWald during the course of your
\j 25 tenure at Braidwood?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
, 16426 1
1 A No, I_'ve never had the occasion to question Mr. DeWald's i 2 work' performance. I've always found Mr. DeWald to be a 3 hard-working, caring, quality-orientated individual.
4 0 And he didn' t exult production pressure over quality?
5 A I did not find Mr. DeWald.to exult production pressure 6 on individuals.
7 0 All right, sir.
8 How about Mr. Seltmann? Have you ever had occasion 4
9 to consider Mr. Seltmann's work performance, adverse 10 indications of Mr. Seltmann's work performance, again on 11 the. question of quality versus quantity?
i 12 A I have found Mr. Seltmann to be very quality-orientated 13 and not to put quality above -- he put quality above 14 schedule.
15 0 All right, si r '.
16 Let me ask you the same question about Mr. Seese.
17 A I have had very limited experience with Mr. Seese; only i
18 in-view of meetings once in a while.
19 0 You've had no occasion to question his work performance 20- in that respect?
l 21 A I've never had any occasion.to question his work
~
22 performance.
23 0 All right, sir.
24 How about Mr. Tuite, T-U-I-T-E?
! N 25 A I have had very limited -- in fact, no work-related Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16427
\ \
V 1 experience with Mr. Tuite. .
2 I know him. I've talked to him in the -- at the 3 job, but I know him mainly on a social-type basis, to 4 talk.
5 0 You've had no occasion to question his work performance 6 with respect to quality?
7 A No occasion to question his work performance, no, sir.
8 Q How about Mr. Revels, Mr. Harry ~ Revels?
9 A I've had no occasion to question his work performance, 10 either.
11 'O All right.
( 12 How about Mr. Joe Hii, Jr.?
13 A I have no -- I think Mr. Hii is right there in the 14 courtroom; and to be quite frank about it, that's the 15 first time I've ever met -- I know who Mr. Joe Hii, Jr.,
16 is.
~17 Q Have you had any occasion to question his work 18 perf ormance?
19 A No.
20 0 How about Mr. Lechner, Mr. Mike Lechner?
21 A. I don't even know who Mr. Mike Lechner is by face, so 22 I've had no occasion to question his work performance.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me. Was that other 24 incident you heard of the Franco Rolan incident?
25 THE WITNESS: Judge, I don't recall exactly Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16428 i 'N 1 what it was, okay?
2 I'd have to -- it was brought to my attention that 3 there was another incident, when we were doing the
, 4 Saklak investigation in March, 1985, in the fall with 5 respect'to Saklak, okay?
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I was just trying to jog 7 your memory if that were the instance.
8 THE. WITNESS: No, it -- no.
9 BY.MR. GUILD:
10 0 I take it, Mr. Shamblin, consistent with your last 11 series of answers, you've never had occasion to request 12 whether the individuals.I've just mentioned to you --
(
13 and I'd be happy to list the names again if it would 14 help -- have ever engaged in acts of harassment, 15 intimidation or have exerted undue production pressure ,
16' on Comstock Quality control inspectors?
17 A I have not questioned that they've done this.
18 I don' t believe they have done it, either.
19 MR. GUILD: All right, sir.
20 Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Berry?
22 MR. BERRY: Good morning,.Mr. Shamblin.
23- CROSS EXAMINATION
_s 24 BY MR. BERRY:
( 25 0 Mr. Shamblin, you've testified that as, Project Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16429 O
1 Construction Superintendent, you're ultimately
-2 responsible for all of the site contractors; is that 3 correct?
4 A That's correct.
5 0 Can you --
6 A Excuse me, Mr. Berry; for all the site contractors that 7 report to me.
8 There are other site contractors that report to 9 other departments on the jobsite.
10 0 The site contractors that report to you -- that's the 11 electrical contractor, the HVAC contractor?
15 A Yes, those two contractors report to me.
13 Q And the mechanical contractor?
14 A The piping erection contractor, yes.
15 Q Can you give us an estimate of how many employees or how 16 many persons would be employed by various contractors 17 over which you're responsible?
18 A At the present time, Mr. Berry, it is approximately 19 4,700.
20 0 And how about back in March of 1985? Was it more than 21 that or less than that?
22 A It was less than that, Mr. Berry. I would venture it 23 was over 4,000 or close around 4,000.
24 I don't think it was -- we peaked out, I think, at 25 -- in the contractors around 5,100. March of '85 I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 23 2
.__ _ _ --.__ _ __.... _ _ . . _ _.__-0262. _ . _ _ . .
16430 l l
h l
^<--) .
I think it was over 4,000, but I don' t know if it was up l 2 to 4,600 at that point in time.
3 0 out of 4,600 people, how many people do you think you 4 can stay on top of and have a familiarity with their 5 background and their performance?
6 A Not very many, Mr. Berry.
7 I try to stay on top of my staff, my direct staf f
, 8 working for me, and key contractor-employees in the 9 major contractors. I try to stay on top of them.
10 I know many of .them f rom - past jobs that we've 11 worked together on, so I have. a f amiliarity with many of 12 the individuals.
( Do you know Mr. Saklak was the supervisor of inspectors?
13 0 11 4 A Yes.
15 0 Can you give us an estimate as to how many people would l
16 hold an equivalent position within all the other 17 contractors over which you had responsibility? How l 18 large a group would that be?
r 19 A A comparable position of supervisor of inspectors -- and )
20 the titles vary with respect to each contractor --
21 probably on the order of 10 individuals at that -- that d
22 level of supervisory inspectors. l l
4 23 There would be individuals above them up through 24 the ranking of positions similar to what Mr. Seltmann l 25 would hold at this point in time, I would think, the top l
1 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. l y
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 1 J
16431
.(.
U 1 quality man on the job.
2 JUDGE COLE: I'm sorry. I didn't understand 3 that answer.
4 I thought it was with respect to Mr. Saklak, and 5 you said there are 10 that ar'e equivalent to Mr.
6 Sel tmann.
7 THE WITNESS: Excuse me. There are 10 that 8 would be equivalent on the job, as a rough estimate, 9 equivalent to Mr. Saklak.
10 Above Mr. Saklak's position of a supervisor of 11 inspectors, there are othsr individuals-that, within (N 12 each organization, going up the chain to the top man, 13 are equivalent to Mr. Seltmann, Mr. Seltmann today being 14 the quality -- top quality man on the job for L. K.
15 Comstock.
16 Each one of the contractors would have 17 safety-related work that would have a similar position 18 to Mr. Seltmann.
- 19 So there are -- I guess the thrust of my answer,
~
20 the direct answer to Mr. Berry, was 10. I'm just trying 21 to state that there are other individuals above Mr.
22 Seltmann -- I mean, Mr. Saklak, also, that supervise 23 inspector pcsitions.
t l _s 24 JUDGE COLE: Not included in your 10?
25 THE WITNESS: No; in addition to the 10, Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
! Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16432
s (d
1 okay?
2 JUDGE COLE: Okay. Thank you.
3 BY MR. BERRY:
4 0 I'd like to clarify and tie up some loose ends, Mr.
5 Shamblin.
6 You testified that initially Mr. Rolan and Mr.
7 DeWald and possibly Mr. Seltmann were on the team 8 originally assigned to evaluate the Comstock inspectors' 9 concerns brought-to Quality First.
10 Do you recall that?
11 A Yes, I do.
12 0 Why was Mr. Rolan and DeWald and Mr. Seltmann assigned 13 to that team?
14 A At that point in time, the way our Quality First set-up 15 was, there were three types of concerns that could be
'16 generated f rom the Quality First Program data base 17 interviews or any Quality First concern.
18 There is what's called a security concern: An 19 individual has a concern with the security on the job; 20 for example, the tools are being stolen.
21 There is a management concern classification, and 22 then there's a quality concern, okay?
23 The Quality First concerns that were emanating from 24 the data base interviews of Comstock QC inspectors in
_s 25 February of 1985 were of all three types. :
I l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16433 h
G 1 The two that were specifically here to be 2 investigated by me, which were assigned to me and which 3 ~ I formed a team for, were classified as management 4 concerns.
5 In and amongst them they dealt with issues with pay 6 -- Factor 1. management' concerns extensively dealt with 7 issues of pay, concerns against - "I don't like'Mr.
8 Rolan. I don't like Mr. DeWald."
9 The other one dealt specifically in the area of 10 training, and they were -- again, they were classified 11 as management concerns, those two -- two what I call 12 " blue folders," records of concern.
(
13 So to get to the answer to your question, the 14 reason I had Mr. Rolan, Mr. DeWald and Mr. Seltmann and I
15 then others on my staff in on the investigation was I 16 would need them to answer certain aspects of the 17 complaints or concerns listed in the -- in the whole 18 list of concerns. Mr. Rolan had to answer questions 19 like why the pay structure was changed.
20 0 Mr. Shamblin --
21 JUDGE COLE: Could you use the microphone, 22 Mr. Berry?
23 I'm having trouble hearing you.
s 24 BY MR. BERRY:
( 25 0 Mr. Shamblin, how did you learn that the Comstock N
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16434 h
1 inspectors had visited the offices of the NRC on March 2 29, 1985?
3 A Mr. Berry, I received a phone call -- I think it was 4 from Mr. Maiman or Mr. Fitzpatrick; today it escapes my 5 min'd who I received the phone' call from -- that there 6 was going to be a meeting in the NRC residents' office 7 at 1:30 or 1:15.
8 I was told to go to that meeting, and that is where 9 -I first learned that these individuals had gone to the 10 -- there were two groups of individuals that had gone to 11 the NRC: a group in the morning and a group in and 12 around noon.
13 0 Now, Mr. Shamblin, I believe there's been testimony in 14 this proceeding that a meeting was held the following 15 Monday, April 1, 1985, with the L. K. Comstock 16 inspectors.
17 Do you recall that?
18 A Yes, I do. !
19 0 Did you attend such a meeting?
20 A Yes, I did.
l 21 0 can you tell us what transpired at that meeting? l 1
22 A At that meeting -- first of all, myself and Tom Quaka -- I l
23 we requested a meeting with the Comstock inspectors.
_, 24 At that meeting I spoke for the Project 25 Construction Department, and Mr. Fitzpatrick spoke for Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
16435
( T
(~ J 1 the site Quality Assurance Department.
2 I spoke, and at that meeting I informed the Quality 3 Control inspectors at that meeting that we had received 4- a listing -- we had received f rom the NRC a series of 5 complaints.
6 We also had the two previous blue folders or 7 listing of complaints. We had -- we were going to look 8 into those, also.
9 We elicited -- I asked them, if there were any 10 other complaints that they may have, to bring those 11 forward to whoever they may choose to bring them forward
()
kJ 12 to; that we would like to hear them so we could 13 investigate those complaints, get the complaints up on 14 the table and resolve them.
15 Mr. Fitzpatrick then got up -- I think I also 16 stated that -- and again I'd have to go back to my notes 17 of the meeting, because I did make some notes of the 18 reeting -- that we expected Comstock to, as part of our 19 contract with them, to enforce their Policy Statement 20 1.1.0; that, again, quality personnel are free from 21 production pressures.
22 I spoke, and then Mr. Fitzpatrick got up and spoke.
23 What he said essentially paralleled what I said:
24 that if they didn't want to bring their complaints to b)
( 25 their management, they were free to bring their Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16436 O
D 1 complaints to our site Quality Assurance personnel; they 2 were tree to bring their complaints to our Quality First organization.
3 4 I don't know if he said -- I don't recall if he 5 said they were free to bring their complaints to the 6 NRC..
7 0 Mr. Saklak wasn' t at that meeting, I take it?
8 A Mr. Berry, I don't recall whether he was or was not at 9 that meeting. It was my -- oh, excuse me. I'm sorry.
10 Mr. Saklak was at -- at that point in time, was not 11 at that meeting, that's correct. He was on a -- I call 12 it an " administrative hold."
13 We had -- over the weekend I had -- Friday, I think 14 it was, I had asked Comstock not to bring Mr. Saklak 15 back on the jobsite.
16 So yes, he was not at that meeting.
17 0 Do you recall whether that was communicated to the 18 inspectors at that meeting: that Mr. Saklak had been 19 suspended and was not returning?
20 A I'm sorry, Mr. Berry. I don't recall. I'd have to 21 refresh my memory in that area -- on that issue.
22 -Q All right.-
23 Shifting gears --
l 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN : If you' re going on to l
i 25 another topic, maybe we ought to recess for lunch, I
l l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
__-._J
l l
I 16437 )
l Os V
l 1 unless you -- how long do you think you have?
2 MR. BERRY: Five minutes, perhaps 10.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Perhaps 10?.
4 Why don't we break for lunch, and.we'll return at 5 1:30.
6 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, bef ore we leave, I 7 neglected to ask Mr. Shamblin about a couple of names of 8 Quality Control supervision at Comstock. It was 9 inadvertent on my part.
10 I ask leave to put the questions to the witness. I 11 can either do 'it now or I can do it on our return.
' fh V
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Why don't you do it right 13 now?
14 CROSS EXAMINATION 15 (Continued) 16 BY MR. GUILD:
17 0 .Mr. Shamblin, do you recall the line of questioning 18 asking whether. work performance of a variety of Comstock 19 supervision had ever come to your attention?
20 A Yes, I recall that.
21 Q All right, sir.
4 22 Now, I ask you whether or not any adverse work 23 performance on the part of the following three 24 individuals ever came to your attention:
p.
25 Mr. Ken Worthington?
(-
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
F~
16438 1
O 1 A Yes. Mr. DeWald in' March or April -- I forget -- 1985, 2 was not pleased with Mr. Worthington's work performance.
3 When he reorganized his department, he -- one of the 4 reasons he took away some of Mr. Worthington's duties 5 was some displeasure with his work performance. It 6 didn't --
7 0 Any concerns'regarding harassment, intimidation or 8 production pressure --
9 A No, no, no.
10 0 -- regarding Mr. Worthington?
11 A' No.
12 Q All right, sir.
13 Mr. Daryl Landers, the same question?
14 A Mr. Landers -- I have no reason to question any of his 15 work performance.
16 0 And, finally, Mr. Tony Simile?
- 17. A I have no reason to questien any of Mr. Simile's work 18 performance. In fact, I think Mr. Simile is an 19 excellent individual -- excellent quality individual.
~
20 0 No concerns regarding acts by Mr. Simile of production 21 pressure or harassment, intimidation --
22 A No. I don't have any concerns with respect to Mr.
23 Simile with respect to production pressure or 24 harassment.
25 MR. GUILD: Thank you.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1 I
16439 s
1 I apologize, Mr. Chairman.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: All right, fine.
3 Why don't we break until 1:30, 4 (WHEREUPON, the hearing was continued to 5 the hour of 1:30 o' clock P. M.)
6 7
8 9
10 11 b 12 13 14 15 16
, 17 l
18 19 20 21 22 23 ,
i 24 l i
25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262 )
1
- 16440 i
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 1 4 e
- __-____________.__X
.5 :
In the Matter of: :
6~ : - D ocke t No. 50-456 OL COMMONWEAiTH EDISON COMPANY : 50-457'OL l- 7 .
- i. (Braidwood Station, Units 1 :
! 8 and 2) :
a _ _ _ _ _._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x-9.
- 10 Met pursuant to recess.
- j. 11 Thursday,-October 30, 1986.
l .
.1:30 P. M.
- 12 1 13 i- JUDGE GROSSMAN
- Fine..
I 14.
I Mr. Berry, continue, please.
! 15 i' . CROSS EXAMINATION.
16 (Continued) 17
'~
BY MR. BERRY: !
18 l- 0 Mr. Shamblin, . let me direct your attention to Page 25'of l 19 your --
I- 20'
' JUDGE GROSSMAN: Did you turn your microphone 21 on, Mr. Berry? i 22 i MR. BERRY: Yes, I did, Mr. Chairman.
l 23 l
BY MR.. BERRY: i 24
.Q Mr. Shamblin, I want to direct your attention to Page 25 1
25 l of your prefiled direct testimony, and that would be the a
- Sonntag Reporting Service. L td .
i Geneva,-Illinois 60134 ,
(312) 232-0262 l
16441 v
1 first three sentences in the top of Page 25.
2 A Yes, sir.
3 Q You-state there that in your view, management was 4 becoming isolated from the inspectors because it was 5 perceived as uncaring and as no't supportive of their 6 needs.
7 I'm going to ask you:
13 Was it your opinion that management was uncaring 9 and not supportive, if you had an opinion?
10 A I found that management was trying to cope and solve the 11 difficult situation that was present at that point in i
- (O ) 12 time in the summer, in the environment they had to 13 operate-in with the large workload, the changing 14 regulation, the regulatory environment, and they were 15 having to -- to spend an exceedingly large amount of 16 time on those issues versus what I call walking in the 17 field, finding out what's happening with the inspectors, 18 the interplay between the inspectors.
i 19' They tried, but their attention was directed 20 towards the external forces'and the environment at that
'21 point in time.
22 To be -- let me.give -- a couple of examples being 23 we had an INPO review at that time in the summer. We
, 24 had to direct attention to that. That was a two, l
( j 25 three-week review. There was auditing going on at that sonneag naporeing servico, r.ea .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 16442, gs-1 point in time. The.NRC was doing a lot of -- NRC l
2- Inspectors were spending a lot of time at the project.
l 3- So'my -- what I found is while management had.to l 4 focus their-limited time on those things -- those l i
a
~
j 5 things, they weren't able to f ocus on -- on the l l
l 6 individual, the inspector. l 7 That's how I got my perception that they were being l
l 8 perceived as uncaring and not supportive of the I 9 inspectors' needs.
l 10 (Indicating.)
11 As of -- it happens to me at times. In all 12 honesty, I have to focus on some -- some issues, and 13 I'm -- on a personnel matter, an employee may get slid 14 for a day or'two.
-15 Q Thank you.
l l 16 Do you recall yesterday you mentioned, in response L 17. to a question from Mr. Guild, that part of your opinion l
l 18 as regarding Mr. Puckett was based on information that L
19 you had received from Mr. Orlov?
20~ Do you recall that?
21 A Yes, sir.
22 Q Could you tell me why there was no mention of Mr. Orlov 23 and that information in Answer 39 of your testimony?
24 A Because it really didn't affect, in any great degree, my 25 action with respect to Mr..Puckett, and in preparing my Sonntag Reporting Service, T td .
Geneva, Illinois 60134
. ( 312 ) 232-0262
4
'N /
1 16443
\
t
-1 testimony, I' couldn't remember exactly when I ' received
. 2 that.information.
i
-(Ind ica ting . )
~
3
}
- _ 4 I don't --?k don't remember whether I' received it 5 before the actioniwith respect.to Mr. Puckett's
. 6 termination or after, so I just didn't -- don't remember-7 when it.was.
I 8 I know I received the information. I don't 9 remember when, 10 (Indicating.)
f ll Q .It wGs Mr. Simile that replaced Mr. Puckett --
l
~
12 A Yes, he did'.
13 Q. -- is that correct?
14 Now, I believe you testified, in response to a' 15 question from Mr. Guild and also I believe in your 16 prefiled direct. testimony, that you had reviewed Mr.
17 Puckett's resume, and on appearance, that nothing 18 occurred to you to question his ability or his 19 qualifications to fill the position for which he was 20 hired?
21 A At that point in time,.yes.
22 Q Now, after Mr. Puckett was replaced and the position was 23 of fered to Mr. ~ Simil'e, did you undertake any ef' fort or .
s 24 take any action to assure yourself'that Mr. Simile was 25 qualified or would be capable for that position aside gnnneag nopnreing garvico, raa.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
' (312) 232-0262
16444 Oi s i (v/
1- from viewing his resume?
2- A No, I didn't.
3 Q Did you tell -- well, how did you -- how did you know or 4 what was the basis for believing tsat Mr. Simile would 5 work out any better than Mr. Puckett?
6 A I guess.I -- I did -- I just didn't think of that issue.
7 Comstock proposed him as a replacement,.and I 8 reviewed his resume, it appeared to be reasonable, and I 9 approved it.
10 I didn't -- I don't remember -- I know I reviewed 4
11- his resume, but I don't remember exactly what his resume (n) s- '
12 said.
13 As it turned out, Mr. Simile is an excellent 14 quality. individual. .He's turned out to be an excellent 15 welding individual, he's turned out to be an excellent.
16 supervisor, in my view.
17 (Indicating.)
18 Q Do you recall whether Comstock management indicated to 19 you, shared with you, any information that they may have 20 had which led them to believe that Mr. Simile would be a 21 good candidate for that position?
22 A Mr. Berry, .I don ' t recall that. Okay?
1 23 Q Now, I believe also.in your testimony you state that
.\
, x 24 rather than terminating Mr. Seeders, that he was j i ). 25
,,_,/ transferred.
I Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd. I Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
16445 O-
'G 1 And was that your recommendation?
2 A' Y e s', it was.
3 My -- my recommendation was to Comstock that they.
4- consider transferring Mr. Seeders to their Engineering 5 Department. It was.to Comstock's management that was my 6 recommendation.
7 -(Indicating.)
8' Q I guess just to complete the record, let me ask you:
9 Why d'idn't Mr. Puckett receive that same. treatment?
' 1 10 A There was, in my view,.a basic difference betwe'n e Mr.
11 Puckett's qualifications, his -- and his position in the C 12' 'Comstock organization and Mr. Seeders.
(
13 Mr. Seeders was being transferred to a 14 clerical-type position, lower -- a much lower rate of 15 pay.
16- There were positions opening in that -- in that 17 area, and I -- I also felt that, you know, it was a good 18 thing to do for this guy. I got a moment of softness, I 19 would say, in my view, under what I would recount the 20' situation.
21 Mr. Puckett -- in my view, he was purported to be 1 l
22 a -- came to us as a top-notch manager. He got quite a l
23 high salary in the organization. !
l s 24 He turned out to be, one, not a good manager. He
\ 25 turned out to be not being able to really solve l
sonneng nannreing servino, r.ea _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- - . . _ _ _ _ . - . - , _ - . . . - _ . , , . _ - _ _ _ . . . . _ _ , . . .1
16446 v
1 . problems, not being -- in the -- in a peer review type 2 of situation, where I would expect peers get together, 3 they meet, they discuss th issue, they work on the 4 4 issue, come to a common -- :ome to a solution, and in my 5 expectation, he would be adle to function in that 6 position.
7_ He met -- he went-through a situation -- an 8 instance like that, the meeting, he would -- there was a 9 resolution reached, then all of a sudden, he turns 10 around and says.like the meeting never happened.
11 In my view, it -- he couldn't function with his O
12 peers. He wasn't interested in really solving the j
13 problems.
14 (Indicating.)
15 Q Okay.
16 Were you aware, Mr. Shamblin, that originally Mr.
17 Puckett had come to comstock applying for a Level II 18 position?
19 A I found that out in preparation for this testimony, yes..
20 Q Had you known that at the time, would that have affected 21 your determination?
22~ JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me.
23 Mr. Reporter, could you repeat the question before 24 this.
\
( 25 (The record was thereupon read by the ,
l l
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois- 60134 (312) 232-0262 i
16447 1 Reporter.)
2 BY MR. BERRY:
.3 Q Had you been -- had you been aware,-Mr. Shamblin, that 4 that was.the case, that originally Mr. Puckett was 5 ~ applying for a Level II position,-would that have 6 influenced your determination as to whether.or not he 7 should be transferred?
8 A I don't really see where it has a bearing.
9 Mr. Puckett may have' applied for a Level II 10 position, but he accepted a position as a Level III, 11-with a salary commensurate.with that -- with that' 12 position.
j 13 I don't really see -- we would be speculating
'14 ' whether -- at this point in time, whether he was a Level 15 II, whether it would have affected my -- my judgment.
16 Q Now, with respect to Mr. Seeders, as I understand, I 17 guess a rough sequence of events was in August of 1984, 18 Mr. Seeders wrote a letter to Mr. DeWald and a copy to i
19 your predecessor, Mr. Cosaro.- Shortly after that, they I
20 received the letter. Mr. DeWald undertook an 21 investigation of the concerns expressed by Mr. Seeders 22 in'his letter. Then September 25th, Mr. DeWald issued a 23 report on his investigation of Mr. Seeders' concerns; 24 and on September 27th, a few days after the report was 25 issued, Mr. Seeders was transferred.
Ronntag Renorting Marvice, Ltd_
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i-16448
(~
\ .
1 The question to you is:
2 Did it ever occur to you or did it cross your mind 3 that there may be some connection between the letter Mr.
4 Seeders had written and the_ action that was proposed by 5 Comstock to transfer or terminate him?
6 A That did cross my mind, Mr. Berry; but.the -- in the
'7' se'quence of events, the investigation of Mr. Seeders'
,. -8 letter by both Mr. DeWald and Jim Gieseker looking into 9 it happened in -- in the time frame of August 17th 10 through the -- I think the first part of September, and 11 I had been verbally advised of the results of that.
O
\ 12 I remember taking Mr. Seeders' letter and making
\_.-)
13 notes on it with the verbal results. Okay. That -- and 14 I had come to the conclusion that the issues in Mr.
15 Seeders' letter had been adequately addressed and that 16 the credibility of Mr. Seeders' letter was suspect.-
- 17. What . -- Mr. DeWald 's September 25th transmittal was 18 an after-the-fact transmittal of that whole sequence.
19 What they came to me with, they came with the --
20 with -- the possible termination of Mr. Seeders was 21 based on the instance, as I can recall, of the area of 22 calibration and his performance in the calibration area, 23 and that was the basis for the proposed termination.
24 (Indicating.)
( 25 Q Well, a number of times, Mr. Shamblin, you've stated Sonntag Rnporting Marvien, T, t d .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16449 i ' - (V i
{ 1 that Mr.. Seeders' credibility.was suspect and there were 2 -holes in Mr. Seeders' letter,1and I'm not quite sure I I 3 understand"what you mean by that.
4 I was wondering if you could give me'an example of
- j. 5 what you mean by his credibility was suspect.
) 6 A I think -- I think in the one case I can. The case I 7- can remember, he states 30 people left the job, and --
-8 in the first part of his letter. I happen to have his 9~ letter here.
'10 As it turns out from the investigation that was 11 done-by Mr. DeWald, it was -- it was 6 people that left 12 .the job.
13 There was -- the rest -- the other parts of the 14 investigation -- of the letter where Comstock had looked 15 into it had refuted or put a different story --
16 different light on the exact statements in here, and 17 that's how I came to the conclusion that there was --
18 Mr. Seeders' credibility within this letter was suspect.
.19 (Indicating.)
20 0 Okay.
- 21. Would you agree -- Mr. Shamblin, I gue.ss another 22 way to characterize what you are saying is that based on 23 the evidence that you obtained or learned from Comstock, 24 that it was more persuasive or believable, the Comstock 25 version, than Mr. Seeders'?
sonntag nonnreing garutc.; r.ea .
j Geneva, Illinois' 60134 (312) 232-0262
16450 L-V 1 A It'was based on that, I would say, yes, and also Mr.
l 2 .Gieseker's look at the -- at the_ incidents -- at the
! 3 letter.
t 4 Q Then finally, Mr. Shamblin, I'm going _to ask you if the 5 actions that are documented in the October 10th memo to 6 Mr. Wallace that's attached to your'prefiled testimony 7 were prompted, at least in part, by the NRC?
8 A In part,- they were, Mr. Berry.
9 I had been advised by-Mr. Bob Schulz, the 10 resident'-- construction resident inspector at that i
11 time, that there were some morale problems with -- with 12 Comstock inspectors, and that it was -- CECO's 13 management should look into that, and-that was a task I
14 which I was undertaking, attempting to prove through the
]
15 actions listed in this letter, both on an -- through 16 time going back in the -- in the -- when I first took 17 over, and in this period, the morale situation at the I 18 .Comstock -- with the Comstock inspectors.
19 (Indicating.)
20 0 Do you recall when Mr. Schulz advised you?
4
- 21 A It was -- it was after -- shortly after the John
, 22 Seeders' letter, I think Mr. Schulz went out and talked 23 to the inspectors.
24 0 I believe there's been testimony in this proceeding that
_, 25 such a meeting took place around September 21st or 22nd f
Sonntaa Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16451
.kO]
l' or something.
I 2- Does that sound about right?.
( 3 A I would say it would have to be back -in the August time 4- frame when I was first approached by -- August -- late 5 August time frame when I was first approached by Mr.
- 6 Shultz.
i 7 MR. BERRY: Thank you.-
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gallo.
', 9 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 10 BY MR. GALLO:
'll Q Mr. Shamblin, let's look at Mr. Seeders' letter.of 1
12 August 17, '84, Intervenors' Exhibit 23, and in 13 particular the second paragraph of that letter.
14 Mr. Guild asked you several questions yesterday 15 with respect to it, and my question to you is -- as I
- 16 read that second paragraptr, Mr. Seeders is referring to i' 17 the fact that Mr. Seltmann wishes him to complete a-1
, 18 review of calibration records that apparently Mr.
19 Seeders was undertaking at' the time. Mr. Seeders' 20 characterization is less flattering than mine.
l 21 (Indicating.)
i 22 And my question to you is:
i 23 Was that.particular matter -- that is, the review
-w 24 of calibration records that Mr. Seeders was k 25. undertaking -- a part of the backlog items that you set nnnn e ng nonnr e i ng noru t ca; r.ea _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (l (312) 232-0262
- -. ~. .- -- . . _ -. __
i 16452
!O '
L?(_-)
i 1 priorities for in.May and June of 1984?
2 'A- No, it wasn't.
i.
l 3' O Could you explain why not?
~
j 4 .A This issue came'up after I had set the -- the first-5 priority of getting the backlog of uncompleted 6 inspections.done. >
! 7 (Indicating.)
- j. 8 Q Well, as I understand your direct testimony, you had i 9- established, as Priorities 4, 5 and 6, the completion of d
~
10 certain reinspection programs; is that' correct?
11 A Yes.
()
12 0 Was this -- was this particular matter among those j 13 activities?
14 A No, it wasn't among those activities when I established 15 that -- when I established those priorities.
i
{ 16 (Indicating.)
i 17 Q' In response to a question today from Mr. Guild, you 18 indicated that at or about the time that Mr.
19 Archambeault had made his complaints to the NRC, that '
i 20 several inspectors -- I think you said two -- indicated r l'
l 21 to you that Mr. Archambeault did not reflect their i
, 22 views.
l l 23 My question is:
- 24 Did you seek out these inspectors or was it vice ,
l, \
j 25 versa?
l i i Sonntaa Reoortina Service. Ltd.
~
! . Geneva, Illinois 60134 1
(312) 232-0262
16453
- [
V 1 .A They came to -- to me. I did not seek them out.
- 2. Q Okay.
I 3 They c'ame to your office?
- . 4 'A To my office.
5 Q Do you have Intervenors' Exhibit 145?
6 I guess you don't.
7 A I don't.
3 8 0 I believe you testified, in response to a question from 9 Mr. Guild, that the CSR data that is reflected in 10 Exhibit 145 may be at odds with your conclusions that 11 you testified to in your testimony, your direct rebuttal 12 testimony, concerning the quality of the work.
13 What additional information, if-any, would you need 14 before you could make a judgment on that point?
15 A I would have to review the significance of the -- of 16' this data, of the -- how significant were the inspection 17 discrepancies in order to make an informed judgment on 18 my conclusion in my testimony.
19 (Indicating.)
20 Q Do you mean significant from a design standpoint?
21 A No. Significant from a standpoint of -- of, indeed, the 22 inspection attribute that was missed.
23 If I could use a simple abstract example. If I've 24 got a black chalkboard and I've got to inspect.that and 25 say whether that ch'alkboard is black, if there was a Sonntag Renorting Servico, T. t- cl _
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16454 O
\\_-)
1 pinpoint dot -- chalk mark on there, that's one thing, 2 from an inspection standpoint, that's missed, versus a 3 scratched line chalk mark on that chalkboard, and that 's 4 what I mean from a significant standpoint.
5 (Indicating.)
6 I'd have to see the data'and see how significant 7 the -- what was placed on that inspection.
8 0 Well, if -- how would you characterize a crack in a t- 9 weld?
i 10 A I would characterize a crack in a weld as significant, 11 as a significantly-missed inspection attribute.
/~3 12
( j Q And how would you characterize an arc strike?
13 A I would not characterize that as significant as a 14 missed -- as a crack in the weld.
15 Q And is it your testimony that you would have to get an 16 understanding of the nature of the defects in the terms 17 you have just described for which column of Exhibit 145?
1 18 A. I would say I'd have to get it for -- I think it would j 19 be the percentage discrepant items in the sample and 20 percent notable items in the sampic.
21 Q Just those two columns?
22 A Also, it could apply to the percent discrepant welds.
23 Okay.
! 24 As I understand the data, as I -- here is that
( ,/ 25 it's -- if there's a hundred items on a -- on a -- a l
Sonntag Reporting Service, T, t d .
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
+
.16455 W
\~,/
)
1 hundred inspection items on a.particular component, if 2 one of them is wrong or discrepant,'it counts -- it --
3 . the way it's counted, -it counts the whole component as 4~ wrong. ,
5 0 Mr. Shamblin, I have Intervenors' Exhibit 26, which is 6 Mr. Puckett's resume, and I'm going to show it to you.
7 (Indicating.)
8 I want to direct your attention in particular to 9 the paragraph at the bottom of the first page that has 10 under the caption -- that appears under the caption, 11 " September, 1975, to the present," and ask you to -- to
( ) 12 read the second sentence out loud, please, starting-13 right there.
14 (Indicating.)
15 A "Present responsibilities include initiating and writing 16 procedures and supervising of the input of historical 17 weld documentation into a computer data base at the 18 William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Plant."
19 Q Now, at the time that you reviewed Mr. Puckett's resume 20 for consideration as to whether or not you would concur 21 in the decision of Comstock to hire.Mr. Puckett, what 22 did you understand was the nature of the procedures that 23 are referred to in that sentence?
gs 24 A Since we were looking for a Level III welding t
25 individual, I understood the nature of the procedures to Ronntag Naporting Servico, f FA .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16456 t%
>VI l' be the ability to write welding procedures.
2 Q There's been testimony in the proceeding that the 3 procedures being referred to in this sentence are, in 4 fact, procedures for developing and supervising the 4
-5 input of historical weld documentation into a computer 6 base and not weld procedures per se.
7 .Do you understand that distinction?
8 A Yes.-
9 Q Now, if you had understood that that was what that
, 10 sentence meant at the time that you were reviewing the
-11 Puckett resume prior to concurring in the decision to 12 have Comstock hire Mr. Puckett, would that have changed
\- Y 13 your opinion in any way with respect to his 14 qualifications?
15 A If I had understood that that's what that meant and he 16 did not have the ability to write welding procedures, it 17 would have changed my opinion.
18 (Indicating.)
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me.
20 Could you repeat the answer?
21 (The answer was thereupon read by the 22 Reporter.)
23 MR. GALLO: I have no further questions.
24 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I have some 25 recross.
Sonntag Reporting Service _. Ltd.
. Geneva, Illinois 60134
_ ~ . _ . . _ - _ _ . _ . - _ _ _ , _ _ . .
(312) 232-0262
16457 s
'l- BOARD EXAMINATION 2' BY' JUDGE.GROSSMAN:
3 Q Well, Mr. Shamblin, if he didn't have the ability sto 4 write weld procedures, whatever it said on his resume, I 5 take it'you wouldn't have hired him?
6 A Excuse me,-sir?
7 'MR. GALLO: I was here to give him this in 8 . case he needs it.
9 (Indicating.)
10- BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
11 Q _If Mr. Puckett did not have the ability to write weld L 12 procedures, regardless of what it said on his resume, 13 you wouldn't have hired him; isn't that correct?
14 A I'm -- I guess I don't understand your question, 15 actually.
16 Q Well, the question that I thought Mr. Gallo posed to.you 17 was if 'you knew, at the time that Mr. Puckett was 18 referring to historical weld data, would you have hired 19 him, and you answered that if you knew he referred to 20 that and he did not have the ability to write weld 21 procedures, you wouldn't have hired him.
22 A Yes.
23 Q And what I'm saying is:
24 Regardless of what he wrote on his resume, if you 1
25 only knew or thought, at the time you hired him, th'at he nnnneag napnrting servica, r.ea .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16458
(~~b b
1 did not have the ability to write weld procedures, that 2 fact alone, or your believing that that were the case, 3 would have been sufficient for you not to hire him 4 regardless of what was on the resume?
5 A Correct.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
7 BOARD EXAMINATION 8 BY JUDGE CALLIHAN:
, 9 Q There's been remarks, Mr. Shamblin, somewhere back in 10 the record, of instances of craftsmen objecting to calls 11 by inspectors.
f~"
12 One example I can think of is some derogatory 13 language in a note allegedly posted by a craftsman in a
'14 conspicuous place and discovered by Mr. Martin in the 15 course of his inspection activities.
16 Can you comment on management's, and I limit it, of 17 course, to the Applicant in this case, experiences and 18 efforts and success in preventing craftsmen from being 19 critical and, well, to use the common word, harassing 20 inspectors because of what the craftsmen may deem to be 21 wrong calls or at least criticisms of the inspectors' 22 actions?
23 A Judge, we're dealing with people here in the -- in a job gs 24 like this, and we're dealing with a craftsman who feels
\ 25 that he went through an apprenticeship program, he knows Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~16459
( i 1 how to do the job right,. and he goes- out and does his 2 work. Then along comes another individual, a quality 3' . person,-who says, "No, .you did something wrong."
4 (Indicating.)
. 5 By virtue of that, we end up setting up somewhat-of 6 a conflict situation.
7 My job, as the manager of the -- the construction 8 manager is to work to eliminate that conflict situation
- 9 and give -- give equal weighting to both parties.
10 Throughout my experience, .I feel I have been very 11 strongly pro quality; and I have personally, in many
( ) 12 cases, explained to craftsmen why we have Quality 13 Control Inspectors; what their function is in the -- in
! 14 the -- in the scheme of things in this business; that 15 this. guy is just doing his job; that there -- explaining 16 to the -- and I've also explained the same thing to 17 Quality Control Inspectors in why a craftsman may feel 18 that he's -- call it reverse harassment.
19 I've heard craftmen say, "I'm being harassed by the 20 Quality Control Inspectors." Okay.
21 So I've had to explain to both of those parties 22 'this -- this balance -- okay'-- thin checks and balances 23 and what each function is.
24 I've also told them that in this whole scheme, I l
_,, 25 consider there is a third party in this thing, and 1 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
-t 16460 f
sg
\ -
1 that's the Engineering Department -- okay -- and his --
2 his function very simply in.this triangle _is he 3 determines the requirements, the construction guy puts 4 it in according to the requirements, and the quality guy 5 verifies that the construction guy puts it in in 6- accordance with the requirements.
7 Now, in situations it gets black and white. The 8 construction. guy didn't meet the requirements. The 9 quality guy says, You didn't meet that. It says that 10 here. You.go" - "You've got to meet them."
11 In some cases, it could happen that the requirement 12 is impossible to meet, . so the -- in that -- then the
. 13 construction guy says, "I can't meet it," or, you know, 14 '"You are telling me something that's impossible."
{; 15 Then that's the time I tell them,'"We've got to go
! 16 back to the Engineering Department and let's.get a 17 clarification of the requirement, a redefinition of the i
~
18 requirement, so we can get the- two parties working 19 harmoniously together."
i' 20 If, in the end, there does result a situation where i
- 21 an individual construction craf t guy does not accept the i 22 function of the quality guy and he does do harassment ;
f 23 and he will not accept it -- okay -- he just -- after l gx 24 explaining things to him, then I have had to take -- go l
25 to the situation of terminating employment of those --
l l
Sonntaa Reoortina Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 t
l.._ . _.
_.. _ 232-0262
_ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ (312) _ _ _ _ _._ . _ ,_. _ ._. _ _ _ _ _ , .J
16461
~~
x
!' 1 of those individuals --
4 2 (Indicating) i-
'3 MR. GALLO: What individuals are you 4 referring to?
5 THE WITNESS: I'm referring to the craft i 6 individuals. Okay.
t 7 A (Continuing.) -- because that individual does not
, 8 accept the function of that quality individual. in
! 9 this -- in this scheme of things of how we have to --
10 how we build these plants.
11 I hope I've been responsive to your question.
12 (Indicating.)-
]
1 13 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Thank you very much.
I 14 BOARD EXAMINATION
, 15 BY JUDGE COLE:
- 16. O Mr. Shamblin, on Page 13 of your testimony, prefiled 17 testimony, in the middle of the second paragraph, you 18 . refer to Field Change Requests and also you make a 19 statement there that the number of ICR's and NCR's being 20 generated were also reduced by issuing Field Change 21 Requests where appropriate instead of improperly issuing 22 ICR's or NCR's.
23 Sir, were there improperly issued ICR's and NCR's?
24 A The context of the statement is -- is we -- when youogo s,
25 out to install a component and you go out there and you Ronntag RonnrFing Aprv{co,_ LFd_
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16462
.f %
\ -
\ _/
s 1 find out it doesn't work -- okay -- it won't fit, you 2 have -- the way the rules are set up is you should get a 3 Field Change Request to make -- to change the design-to 4 make it fit and.get the engineer to change his design to 5 make it fit there.
6- (Indicating.)
7 What was happening was the craft bypassed the Field 8 Change Request system. He stuck.it in there as best as 9 possible. The inspector came along and said, " Hey, it's 10 not in accordance with the design," wrote an ICR, NCR.
11 So my thrust in that action item in my letter, r
l'2 which this testimony was prepared, was, "We need~to
..%\ ))
13 put" - "get that into the crafts' head that that is a 14 no no. You've got to stop, get the Field Change 15 Request, put it in" - "which changed the design, put it 16 in and" - "and then go on completing it."
17 .(Indicating.)
18 That would eliminate the generation of new ICR's 19 and NCR's in that case.
20 Q All right, sir.
21 So it wasn't an improper ICR or NCR; the inspector 22 was doing his job when he wrote it because he had to 23 call it?
i x 24 A You are correct, the inspector was doing his job. It
(, 25 was an improperly -- it was not an improperly-issued i
Sonntag Reporting Service Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) '232-0262 . - . -
l l
16463
\
\.
1 ICR, NCR. The inspector was doing his job.
2 Q He had no choice, did he?-
, 3 A That's correct, hechad no choice; and he -- and I would 4 expect him to write an ICR, NCR in that case.
5 I was attempting by this -- the action item, Judge, 6 comes from my exhibit in the back here, my June 9th 7 letter, Shamblin Exhibit 2, Action Item 6.
'8 Q All right, sir, I understand.
9 A Okay.
10 Q Now, with respect to Field Change Requests, this is also 11 not a function of the Quality Control. Inspector; is that
- (v ) 12 correct, sir?
13 A Field Change Request, no, is not a function of the 14 Quality Control Inspector.
I 15 0 All right, sir.
16 So that the QC Inspector wouldn't be issuing Field 17 Change Requests instead of improperly issuing ICR's or 18 NCR's?
19 A No, he would not.
Il 20 0 This is somebody else's job?
21 A It's the craft or the engineering person's 22 responsibility to issue the Field Change Request.
- 23 Q All right, sir. Thank you.
24 On Page 21 of your testimony, sir, at the bottom of s 25 the first full paragraph on that page, the last sentence sonntaa nonnreino sorutco. r.ea .
Ge5eva', Illi5ois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
16464
- (s .
(_-
!~
l -of that paragraph, you state, "In no case- did I find any
- j. 2 evidence of poorly-inspected. work," and I don't 3 understand how you would go about looking for 4 poorly-inspected work.
5 How did you go about that, sir?.
6 Do you mean to say you found no evidence of 7- poorly-constructed work that was not undocumented, or 4 8 what do you mean and how did you do .that?
6 9 A Well, in certain cases in my field walks, the time I
- 10 spend in the field, I would look over the shoulder of an
)
i inspector or he'd walk away and I'd go look at the work,
'll 12 and that's how I would know in those cases that that
-13 work had just been inspected.
14 (Indicating.) -
i j 15 And I ~did not find any cases of -- when I looked at 11 6 it after him, from my knowledge, that I judged that i j 17 there was -- that the inspection was done poorly. ,
18 (Indicating.)
19 0 I guess I still don't understand.
l 20 ~ You went and looked at'the work, but how do you 21 know what the inspector did with respect to that work?
! 22 Did you look at his inspection sheet to see whether 23 he found any flaws?
s H24 A Now, I would look at his -- in the cases where I looked i j 25 over his shoulder, I would look at his inspection I Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16465 ges
(
1 sheets. In the case where I didn't look over his 2 shoulder ,: if it was a hanger, I surmised that he was 3 looking at. configuration or welding. Okay.
'4 Those would be the two attributes for a hanger that.
5 are-most prevalent on it, a configuration inspection and 6 a welding inspection.
7' Q How do you know it was not poorly inspected by doing 8 that, sir?
9 A It met the -- the welding appeared to be good --
4 10 good-quality welding and met the welding requirements.
'll The hangers appeared to meet the basic. design dimensions 12 of the hangers..
13 (Indicating.)
14 JUDGE COLE: All right, sir. Thank you.
15 That's all I have.
16 BOARD EXAMINATION 17 BY JUDGE CALLIHAN: ,
18 0 I would like to return for a moment to one of Judge 19 Cole's questions. This was back with the Field Change 20 Request and ICR's and NCR's.
21 Now, it's not quite clear to me, at any rate, from 22 your responses, as to which comes first, so let me play 23 back what I think and you tell me where I'm wrong.
24 An inspector, quite properly, finds a deficiency.
25 At that time, does he write an NCR or an ICR, and Annneag napnreing norutca, r. t a .
j Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16466 h.
U 1 if so, how does a Field Change Request get woven into 2 this chronologically?
- 3 A The sequence of events -- let me explain it this way:
4 If I'm. going to put a -- connect a hanger to the 1 5 wall -- let's say this is the hanger to the wall, and I~
6 -go out there to put it in, and all of a sudden I find 7 this pipe running through this location where that 8 hanger is supposed to come out from the wall.
9 (Indicating.)
10 The craftmen is -- when he finds-that situation is, 11 by procedure, supposed to get a Field Change Request to
- 12 move that hanger either -- away from that location. In 13 other words, it won't go in that location.
} 14 (Indicating.)
15 Let's say he -- he didn't do that, he didn't -- and 16 the situation I was finding in some instances was that l 17 he wasn't doing that. He put it in -- he may have put 18 it in cockeyed, at an angle, to go in, and the inspector 19 came along and says, " Hey, that hanger is supposed to be i
r 20 there, but it's supposed to be horizontal. It's in at 5 He writes up an ICR or an NCR -- or an NCR.
21 an angle."
22 Okay?
23 Q Pine so far.
( 24 A Okay. 'That's the -- that's the sequence of events.
25 Q Now, who has issued, in that sequence, if anybody, a l
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva,-Illinois 60134
[ (312) 232-0262
'16467 1 Field Change Request?
2 A 'The craftsman has -- has issued -- has taken -- has made 3 a request for a field change. He has initiated the 4 document. He has sent it through the engineering 5 organization to get approval to move that hanger from 6 that location, so engineering -- the document initially 7 filled ~out was by the craftsman, turned'into ,
i 8 engineering. Engineering says, "I approve you moving i
9 that hanger." They issued it back out. It's like.a new 10 design drawing. ,
,11 Q Is it before inspection?
( ) 12 A Before inspection.
13 Q It's before inspection?
- 14 A Yes, sir.
15 Q .But is it true, then, that change hasn't trickled down 16 to the inspector?
4 17 A In a -- in the --- by the time that inspector gets to 18 that hanger that was installed to that Field Change-19 Request, he should have had that Field Change Request in 20 his inspection package saying that that -- that-hanger
, 21 is now to be installed to the Field Change Request in s 22 lieu of the original design drawing document, so he 23 would perform his inspection to that Field thange gs 24 Request.
- 25. (Indicating.)
Sonntag Reporting Morvice. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l I
l 16468
)
s I
("N
\ l V
1 Q And he would not have, therefore, issued an ICR or NCR?
2 A If the -- yes, if the installation was installed 3 correctly to that' Field Change Request, he would not, 4 then, have issued an ICR, NCR.
5 0 So the sequence is issuance by engineering of the Field 6 Change. Request?
7 A Yes.
8 Q And if everything moves along on schedule, there would 9 be no ICR?
10 A That's right.
11 What was happening, again, was that they were
\ 12 They (G 13 bypassing -- not getting the Field Change Request.
would go ahead and put it in how.they thought it would
! 14 be possible in certain cases, and then they would --
.i 15 engineering -- QC would come look and say, "That doesn't 16 meet the drawing," write the ICR, NCR, then creating i
1 17 these ICR's, NCR's.
18 That was adding to the population of ICR's, 19 NCR's -- open ICR's, NCR's at that point in time.
20 Q So there are two possible causes:
21 One, nobody asked for a Field Change Request and 22 the craftsman went ahead and put it in as he saw fit; 23 and second, even if there had been, there may have been 24 a delay in getting that change down to the inspector's
- (N) 25 package?
4 Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1 16469 4
1 A I don't think-we had a problem with getting the Field 2 Change Request down to the inspector's packages. .I <
$ 3 don't;really recall having that kind of nroblem.
4 It could'have existed where the -- essentially what
, 5 the inspector would have done is done his inspection to 6- the original design drawing instead of the Field Change 7 Request.
. 8 Q So you sort of pointed your finger back at the craftsman 9 for --
10 A Pardon?
11 Q. I say you have in a way pointed your finger back to the 4
12 craftman for going ahead and doing it his way and not 13 getting the paper work --
l 14 A That's right.
15 O' -- issued?
i 16 A And -- and'I wanted to stop that practice.
17 BOARD EXAMINATION 18 BY JUDGE COLE:
- 19 0 In the instance where the craf t did use the appropriate 1
20 procedure of filing for a design change, then the 21 request for inspection to QC would not go forward until 22 after they got the documentation back from engineering l
23 and the. approval?
24 A Yes.
- 25 JUDGE COLE
- Okay, i
4 Annntaa DanorF{na Morvlcp_ T. Fd _
Gedeva', I1115ois 60134 '
(312) 232-0262
l
, 16470 Os l
U j l' 1 JUDGE CALLIHAN: That's a good point.
l 2 Thank you. l l \
l 3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild.
l l 4 MR. GUILD: Thank you, Mr.. Chairman.
5 RECROSS EXAMINATION f 6 BY MR. GUILD: l f
7 Q Now, Mr. Shamblin, when I asked about Mr. Puckett's 8 resume, you didn't say anything to me about 9 misinterpreting the language that Mr. Gallo directed i 10 your attention to, did you?
11 A At that point in time, no.
. 12 Q Let's look at the' resume and just see how carefully you 13 read it either over lunch or when you first considered 14 Mr. Puckett's employment --
l 15 MR. GALLO: May I look at it over his 16 shoulder?
( 17- MR. GUILD: Sure.
18 BY MR. GUILD:
I 19 0 -- application.
I l
20 The fact of the matter is, under " Summary of 21 Qualifications Above," we list the first position, which 22 is the most current, Lead Historical Weld Inspector 23 Supervisor; correct?
24 A Yes.
25 0 All right.
Sonntag Reportino Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 16471
,g 1 And under that position, it says, "For compiling i 2 information from historical weld documentation for input 3 into computer data base"?
4 A Yes.
5 Q I read it in full, did I not?
n 6 A Yes.
7 0 It doesn't say anything about writing welding procedures 8 there, does it? l 9 A No.
10 0 The position directly below that, the next preceding 11 position, Project Weld Engineer / Chief Welding Engineer, 12 " Responsibilities include the supervision of the Welding 13 Engineering Department, writing and qualifying
'14 procedures for welding and post-weld heat in accordance 15 with ASME Section 9, AWS Dl.1 and ANSI B131.1," et 16 cetera?
17 A Yes.
18 Q All right.
19 Now, you read all of that over lunch, didn't you?
20 A No, I didn't.
21 0 Oh, you didn't read that again?
22 You just read the bottom part over lunch?
23- A I didn't read this over lunch.
fs 24 Q Well, did you discuss this matter with your lawyer over 25 lunch?
sonntag napnreing service; rwa _
Geneva, Illinois 60134
{ __
(312) 232-0262
16472 N 1 v
1 A No, I didn't.
2 O You just thought of this when you came back in here at 3 the -- at the resumed session?
4 MR. GALLO: No. I thought of it.
5 MR. GUILD: Mr. Gallo. Oh, he's going to 6 volunteer he thought of it.
7 BY MR. GUILD:
8 Q All right, sir.
9 Well, did you read that upper portion when you 10 first considered Mr. Puckett for the Level III?
11 A I read Mr. Puckett's whole resume, and at the -- when I 12 considered him for approving his employment, and it was 13 my understanding that we were getting a person that f
14 was -- could function in the position of a Level III 15 Weld --
16 0 Yes, sir.
17 A -- Inspector and write procedures.
18 0 Yes, sir, that's your testimony, and I understood you to
- 19. say that.
4 20 But you read the whole resume when you considered 21 his application, did you not, including the part I just
.22 - pointed you to?
23 A Yes.
24 Q And that's accurate to the best of your-knowledge and
\
25 belief, isn't it?
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16473 0
1 A His whole resume, yes.
2 O All right, sir.
f 3 You haven't changed your mind about that over 4 lunch, have you?
5 A I guesa I don't understand the question.
6 Q Well, sir, you answered.before lunch that you believed 7 that it was accurate. You answered after lunch, when 8 Mr. Gallo asked you the questions, to suggest that, in 9 some respects, Mr. Puckett had misrepresented his 10 position or that you misurderstood it, in any event.
11 A I think --
12 Now, is it your position now that Mr. Puckett accurately (O} Q 1 13 stated his background and experience, to the best of 14 your knowledge, in that resume?
15 A I think Mr. Gallo's question was --
16 Q No.
17 How about answering this last question.of mine?
18 A What was your question again?
19 0 And that is:
20 Is your position, as you sit here now, that Mr.
~21. Puckett accurately stated his background and experience 22 in that resume?
23 A I think that~Mr. Puckett stated -- accurately stated his gx 24 background and experience. ,
t
( )s 25. But it was my -- my understanding at that point in gnnneng nonnreing servico, r. e a .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 _ _
16474 r y
'I Y O
1 time that I was getting a person who could do welding 2 procedures and inspections; and I think that was the 3 question I asked -- I answered for Mr. Gallo.
4 Q I see. All right.
5 That -doesn't have anything to do with the resume; I
6 that has to do with what you understood from Mr. DeWald 7 .and Mr. Gieseker?
8 A That's what I understand from reading the resume -- I 9 read Mr. Puckett's resume at that point in time -- I was 10 getting a person who could do weld procedures and 11 inspections.
(a' 12 13 Q I see.
But you concluded, on the basis of DeWald 's and 14 Gieseker's statements to you, that that's not what you 15 got?
16 A That's right.
17 Q And that's the basis for concurring in their 18 recommendation to fire Mr. Puckett?
19 A That's correct.
20 Q Now, let's talk about Intervenors' Exhibit 145 a moment.
21 Now, I guess we understand there are some 22 . inspection decisions that are more important than 23 others, I gather, is what you are telling us?
lgx 24 A Mr. Guild, I'm saying there's a difference between-a --
j _,) 25 in my hypothetical example, a single little dot on a l
l t
Sonntaa Reportino Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16475 N
, 0 1- chalkboard and a scratch -- and a big line on a 2 chalkboard --
3 Q Right.
1 4 A -- from the standpoint of determining whether that 5 chalkboard is black.
6 -Q Right.
7 We 're. not . talking about chalkboards here. We're 8 talking about a nuclear power plant --
9 A Okay.
10 0 -- and we're talking about components in the electrical
. 11 scope of work.
O 12 And do I understand your testimony to reflect your
\ j 13 assessment that some inspection judgments are more 14 important than others?
15 A I'think you should understand my inspection -- my 16 testimony to state that in the -- in the inspection 17 area, that some of the attributes are of a subjective 18 . nature, and you can get 10 different people to look at 19 these subjective attributes and get probably not a i
20 hundred-percent agreement amongst those.110 inspectors.
-21 Q I see.
22 Well, in the welding area, you call that 23 subjective.
~x 24 In all other areas, you call those objective, I
( ,) 25 take it?
Monntag Reporting Aprvlgo, TFA.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 '
(312) , 232-0262
_ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ o
16476 x
V "1 A Yes.
2 Q. All right.
3 A But even in the objective area, there--- there -- you 4 can have measuring errors, especially when you get down 5 to measuring things and you have a tolerance of plus or 6 minus an eighth of an inch, and you put your ruler up 7 there. You could probably get the same 10 people who 8 measure something and probably have some diversity with 9 respect to, "Is it within plus or minus an eighth" --
10 0 I see.
11 A -- given those close -- those close calls.
I see.
]-12 O 13 Well, you understand, don't you, that BCAP only set 14 out to look at potentially design significant 15 attributes?
16 A BCAP set out to look at all the work. Okay.
17 Q Well, they looked at all the work, but their design 18 checklists weren't necessarily as expansive as the 19 original acceptance criteria for the work? BCAP derived 20 its checklists utilizing the guide of potentially design 21 significant attributes?
22 A Okay.
23 Q Do you agree with that?
~x 24 A Yes, I do.
( ,) 25 0 All right.
Sonntag Reporting Service, r, t d . ,
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 _
l l
16477 l q\a> ,
1 So they are looking, by definition, at the more 2 important. attributes than as compared to what the 3 original QC acceptance criteria was for the work?
4 A I don't -- you know, I -- my knowledge of it is there's 5 not a -- not a big difference between potentially design 6 attributes and the whole QC inspection'.
7 At least my interpretation was, going through the 8 BCAP program, I saw --
9 Q All right, sir.
10 A -- not a big difference between the two.
11 Q If there's any difference at all, it's in the direction 12 of looking at the more significant rather than the less 13 significant?
14 A Yes.
15 Q You would agree with that, wouldn't you?
16 We are only looking, therefore, at the BCAP 17 attributes when we look at the data in Intervenors' 18 Exhibit 145?
19 A ~ (Ind ica t ing . )
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: The answer is yes to that?
21 A (Continuing.) Yes, yes.
.22 Sorry.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
24 BY MR. GUILD:
25 Q When Mr. Gallo asked you the question, you said, "Well, i
Sonntaa Reoortina Service. Ltd.
Geneva', Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16478
, ,W,.
\ \
1
- Q 1 for example, cracks in welds are more important than arc 2 strikes" --
3 A Yes.
4 0 -- correct?
5 All right, sir. Well, you are familiar with the f
~
6 fact, aren't you, that failure to identify an arc strike 7 makes an item -- a weld, if there's an arc strike 8 adjacent to the weld, rejectable in the L. K. Coms t oc k '
9 acceptance criteria?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Or at least it's-required that the inspector note the 12 arc strike and evaluate it for acceptability?
O' 13 A I believe that is so.
14 Q All right, sir.
15 And you are also familiar with the fact that when 16 Mr. Puckett took his Weld Inspector Level III qualifying 17 test, that your Mr. DeWald would have flunked him for 18 having failed to identify an arc strike?
19 A I'm not familiar with that.
20 Q Well, sir --
21 A I didn't --
22 0 -- wouldn't --
4 23 A I've never reviewed Mr. Puckett's weld test.
gs 24 Q Yes, sir.
- 25 Then you-would agree, would you not, that as you Sonntag Reporting Servico Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4 16479 1 characterize those attributes, cracks versus arc 2 strikes, you call an arc strike insignificant, and you ,
3 would agree with me that it's inappropriate to -- to 4 flunk a Weld Inspector on his qualifying test.for.
- 5 failure-to identify an insignificant attribute like an 6 . ash. strike?
~
7 A I: don't know if I -- I -- I called an arc strike 8 insignificant.
9 I said there's a difference between an arc strike 4
- 10. - and a crack. Okay.
11 Q All right, sir.
( 12 Well, how about answering the question, the 13 substantive question?
14 A What's your question?
, 15 0 Would you agree that it's inappropriate to fire Mr.
- 16. Puckett for failure to identify an arc strike on his -
17 practical exam?
- 18 A If that was the only basis for firing an individual, 19 it --
i 20 Q. ' Good.
~21 A -- I would have to agree with you that it would be l 22 inappropriate. '
23 Q Great.
fs 24 Now, Mr. Gallo asked you whether or not you thought 25 that John Seeders, in his August, '84, letter was l
I sonntag Reporting servico_ Ltd_
Geneva, Illincis 60134 l
L (312) 232-0262 ,. . _ . . - - . . _ . - . . - . - -.
)
a 16480
%l
\
l referring to backlog work when he talked about Mr.
2 Seltmann pressuring him about the audit, and I think you 3 stated, no, that was not part.of your backlog 4 assignment.
5 Is that accurate?
6- A I think I stated that that was not part of the first 7 priority listed item, the backlog of uncompleted 8 inspection work.
9 Q All right, sir.
10 Well, now, I made the connection between backlog 11 and the Seeders reference to the audit because you made 12 that connection first.
13 Look at Page 19 of your testimony, Answer 23, the 14 last sentence of'the -- yes, the last sentence, "It
- 15 seemed to me that Seeders was really complaining about-
- 16. the type of stress that normally exists whenever a 17 priority task such as reducing the backlog is 18 addressed."
19 A Yes, sir.
20 Q You did say that, did you not?
21 A I said, "Such as reducing the backlog."
- 22. Q I now understand.
23 So you were simply drawing an analogy between x 24 Seeders' task of working on the audit assignment under
( ,) 25 Seltmann and the stress that he complained of there and Sonntag Reporting Enrvien, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 1
16481
( 'N ' )
\~-] l i
-1 the backlog? You weren't suggesting that they were one !
2 in the.same task?
3 A The task that.I understood John' Seeders to do was not a 4 backlog -- he was not working on the backlog type of 5 work. Okay.
6 The task that he was working on was in the
' 7 calibration area, and it may have been, to him, a
~8 stressful job.
i-
.9 Q It wasL-- it may have been, as you state, a priority 10 task, such as reducing the backlog? ,
11- A Yes.
m 12 Q :All'right, sir.
.V) 13 So it's analogous to the backlog if it isn't the 14 backlog?
15 .A It could be analogous to the backlog.
16 Q All right, sir.
17 A 'There's a lot of jobs.that can be analogous to the 18 backlog.
19 Q. Now, in response'to Mr. Berry's question, you 20 acknowledged.that your actions embodied in the October 21 memo to Mr. Wallace -- that's the pizza party and the 22 kitchen and the instruction to Mr. DeWald to hold the 2
23 talk about quality -- that that, in part, stemmed.from 24 Mr. Rob'ert Schulz, the NRC Resident Inspector's urging; 25 correct?
f Sonntag Reporting Service, T. t d _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16482 U
1 A In part, it stemmed from Mr. Schulz saying that since 2 the issue was a morale issue, he could not get into that 3 issue. That was up to Commonwealth Edison management to 4 get into that issue.
~5 Q But he urged you to get into it, didn't he?
6 A I don't specifically recall him saying -- urging me to 7 get into it.
8 He was presenting the situation as it was presented 9 to -- his perception of the situation.
10 Q All-~right, sir.
t 11 Do you believe your actions, as reflected in your
.(-~n g
v) 12 13 October memo, were effective in addressing the problems.
that existed at Comstock at the time?
14 A I believe that they were; and as I stated in my October 15 memo -- I stated that while we were -- won't be able to 16 satisfy every individual, I believe that my -- the 17 actions that were taken were responsive to the-concerns.
18 Q Yes.
19 Well, sir, let me show you Intervenors' Exhibit 42, 20 and this is a March 29, 1985, memorandum authored by 21 that same individual, Mr. Schulz, along with Mr.
22 McGregor, and it's a memorandum to Mr. Warnick and Mr.
23 Weil, the superiors of Mr. McGregor and Schulz, and x 24 refers to complaints of March 29th by a number of
(,,). 25 Comstock inspectors.
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16483 N--
- 1. (Indicating.)
2 Have you seen this memorandum before?
3 There are two of them stapled together, so I've got 4 my hand between the two.
5 (Indicating.)
6 Looking at the top one, Mr. Shamblin, have you seen 7 the top one before?
8 A I think this was attached to a -- an affidavit o'r 9 something.
10 0 It was attached to a filing that Intervenors made in 11 this case?
F)
\ j 12 A Yeah, I think that's what it was, some time ago. Okay.
V 13 0 All right, sir.
14 Well, I want to direct your attention to the last 15 page of the first March 29th memo, again, by Mr. Schulz 16 and Mr. McGregor, and there the statement.is made, "It 17 appears at first glance, with the information we have 18 received, that a shutdown or other" - "or some other 19 aggressive action of the electrical work may be 20 necessary to establish the quality of past work and the 21- quality of the ongoing work." Quote, "The lack of 22 action by CECO.QA in that area needs to be addressed
~
23 along with CECO management's slowness or inability to j 1
- ~. 24 take corrective action. The Resident Inspectors j
\ 25 appraised CECO management last fall of the problems in l
1 Ronntag Rpporting Rorvico, T. F d _ ;
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16484 !
V 1 L. K. Comstock Quality Control Department."
2 Now, that appears to suggest that it was Mr.
3 Schulz' opinion that your action in October of '84 was 4 not,-indeed, effective in addressing'the problems that
-5 existed, at least as seen by the NRC?
6 A I think there may be an Inspection Report record of Mr.
7 Schulz' opinion at that point in time in the fall; and 8 also Mr.'Schulz stated t'o me after he -- at the meeting 9 he was at where the transfer of Mr. Seeders was brought 10 up, that he felt that Commonwealth Edison Company was 11 adequately addressing the morale concerns that were p) 12 happening at Comstock, and he also stated to me -- and I 13 showed him my memorandum here, after I put it 14 together -- at that point in time, he felt that we were 15 adequately addressing the concerns at L. K. Comstock.
16 Q Well, assuming --
17 A- Hold on. I'm not done.
18 0 I'm sorry. Go ahead.
19 A I did -- that very point did come up in the conversation 20 that we started at -- with the NRC on March 29th.
21 I had the Region on the phone, and that very
- 22. . statement did come up, and at that time we took issue 23 with that statement; that we -- that we were and had 24 been adequately and fully addressing the L. K. Comstock g w's
(,)
1 s 25 QC Inspector concerns throughout the whole time period.
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16485 ;
pn .
N~
, .1 Q Well, so-at least by-the time of March, 1985, Mr. Schulz 2' and Mr. McGregor seemed to have taken the view-reflected-3 in this memo, and that is, that your actions were not 4 effective?
5- A That's what that appeared to be, Mr. Guild. ,
6 Q And they said that to you when you met with them --
7 A That's right.
8 0 -- talked to them in March of '857 9 A That's correct.
10 Q 'Well, Mr. Shamblin, with respect to Mr. Schulz and Mr. 4 11 McGregor, the two inspectors that were critical of your O 12 effectiveness, they are gone, aren't they?
13 MR. GALLO: Objection.
14 We are now going well beyond the redirect and the 15- questions asked by counsel for-the Staff.-
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: It appears that way to me, 17 'too, Mr. Guild.
18 MR. GUILD: Well, Mr. Chairman, it seems to 19~ me that if Mr. Shamblin wants to have it his way, which 20 is that he does what the NRC suggested and takes credit 21 for having following the directions and suggestions of '
22 the resident inspector, which is the testimony he i
23 volunteered in response to Mr. Berry, then he ought to j l
x 24 have to own up to the fact that when Schulz and McGregor !
i
( ) 25 were critical of the company, on the other side of the ,
l
! l l
Sonntag Reporting Rorvice, T, t d .
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 j (312) 232-0262 j
16486 Q-N~,)'
1 coin, in March, that criticism resulted, I would 2 suggest, in,.at.least at that point in time, if not 3 causation, in the departure of both of those inspectors 4 from the site, and I believe --
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. I don't think this is 6 the appropriate witness for that.
7 It does go beyond what we've heard here.
8 MR. GUILD: All right, sir.
, 9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes.
10 BY MR. GUILD:
11 Q Now, I was going to ask you directly:
12 You told Mr. Berry that'the reason that you 13 suspected Mr. -- strike that.
14 The reason you characterized Mr. Seeders' 15 credibility as suspect was because when he said 16 approximately 30 inspectors had left the site in 17 response to morale problems, you said the number really 18 turned out to be only 6?
19 A That -- I said that was an example of'one of the reasons 20 why I suspected his credibility --
21 Q Yes.
22 A -- in that case.
23 Q Well, that was not the heart of Mr. Seeders' complaint, 1
x 24 was it? That had nothing to do with the two instances
() 25 of harassment and intimidation, production pressure that Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
4 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 -. . _ - - .. . _ - _ - -_
, .~ - , .- . . - - - - - - - . - . . - - - -
3-
~16487' l
1 he talked about?
2 A. And I think . I also said that 'there were other areas 3 within the letter, as a result of the investigation that
~
4 was conducted, that led _me to believe -- to question the 5 credibility of Mr. Seeders' letter.
6 Q Why don't you tell me what those were now?
7 . Aside from whether he could count accurately and 8 ascribe reasons for why 30 or 6 left the site over a 9 period of time, what else in the letter was the basis 10 for.you concluding that Mr. Seeders' credibility was 11 suspect?
I -12 A I think I stated yesterday in my cross examination J
13 . testimony the incident with Mr. Seltmann.
14 When Mr. Seltmann's side of the story was heard, 15 that caused me to question Mr. Seeders' credibility.
16 Q All right, sir.
17 Now, that wasn't based'on reading the letteri that 18 was based on what.Mr. Seltmann told you?
.19 A That was based on hearing Mr. Seltmann's side of the 20 story.
21 Q All right, sir.
22 Let's talk about Mr. Puckett a moment.
23 You gave Mr. Simile rave reviews in response:to Mr.
24 Berry's questions about-him.
( ,j 25 Did you know, at. the time that you approved the Sonntag Reporting Servico. Ltd_
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16488
('n 1 Puckett termination, that Mr. Simile had already been 2 identified as Mr. Puckett's replacement?
3 'A I don't recall that, no. -
4 Q You don't recall?
5 A No, I -- I don't recall it, and I don't think I was 6 aware.
7 Q Do you recall whether or not, in the very same meeting 8 in which you discussed the Puckett termination, that 9 DeWald and whoever else was present said that they had a d
10 -man waiting in Pittsburgh that they told days before was 11 going to replace -- was going to come to the Braidwood i
12 O( } site --
13 A No.
14 0 -- and that is Mr. Simile?
15 A No.
16 Q Well, so when exactly did you get around to making your
~
17 review of the qualifications of Mr. Simile and approving 18 his hiring?
19 A I don't remember. I'm sure it was in the --~that time 20 frame.
21 Q Yes, sir.
22 Well, do you know that Mr. Simile arrived on the 23 Braidwood' site -- now, my memory is a little bit foggy gq 24 on this from the record -- but it was either the day Mr.
) \
( / 25 Puckett was terminated or the next day?
Sonntag Reporting Service _. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16489 y y.
5 V) 1 If Puckett was terminated on a Monday, Simile 2 arrived either-that day or the next day, the Tuesday.
3 Did you know that, sir?
4 A No'.
5 Q Well, if he arrived the next day, you must have already 6 approved his hiring, hadn't you?
7 A Well, not necessarily, Mr. Guild.
8 I'm sure that there have been instances where 9 Comst'ock has taken action, and I'am unaware of it, in a 10 personnel move, . bringing on individuals, an 11 after-the-fact type of a sit'uation --
12 O Yes.
13 A --
the promotions of -- I think one of the exhibits you 14 showed me, where they reorganized their QC Department, I 15 think the letter in and.of itself said, "We had taken 16' this action and not formalized this action."
17 Q. Yes.
18 A Okay.
19 0 Well, maybe this in an action by Comstock, a personnel 20 action they didn't make.you aware of as well?
21 Apparently you didn't know that Mr. DeWald had 22 .already selected Mr. Simile to replace Mr. Puckett when 23 DeWald came to you and said he wanted to fire Puckett?
. 24 A Yes, sir, it could be. It probably was.
( 25 Q You just don't recall?
Sonntag Roporting Servico_. Ltd.
j Geneva, Illinois 60134-
{ (312) 232-0262 _ ,. - .. . . . . -
16490 (V
1 A I don't recall.
~2 Q Well --
3 A I don't have much of a memory -- much a recollection of' 4 the actual -- Mr. Simile coming on the job and the 5 circumstances.
6 I -- I'm sure I reviewed his resume, but I really 7 can't remember reviewing his resume, also.
8 Q -If you knew, at the' time that DeWald recommended firing 9 Puckett, that he had'already planned who Puckett's 10 replacement would be, the whole series - ..the series of 11 moves, with moving Puckett, replacing him with Simile, 12 would that have affected your decisions to so readily 13 concur in the Puckett termination?
14 MR. GALLO: Objection.
i 15- The hypothetical is irrelevant to.the case. It 16 has --
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, we've heard discussion 18 about his approving Simile, and that was not brought up 19' by Mr. Guild, so Mr. Guild is certainly entitled to --
20 MR. GALLO: My objection is, the hypothetical 21 circumstance that is posed by Mr. Guild is irrelevant to 22 the issues.
23 MR. GUILD: It is not, Mr. Chairman. I 24 maintain it demonstrates the -- it goes to the motive Fy s, 25 that Mr. DeWald had in terminating Puckett and goes to l~
l l
- Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16491
(\
\\J )
l the thoroughness or lack thereof which Mr. Shamblin --
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Overruled.
3 It seems to me to be within the scope of Mr.
4 Berry's cross examination.
5 BY MR. GUILD:-
6 Q. Would that have affected your decision, Mr. Shamblin, if 7 you knew that fact?
8 A Hypothetically, I can't -- I really don't know.
9 Q All right, sir.
10 A My~ decision to concur with the termination of Mr.
11 Puckett was based on the evidence that was presented to gm
(%./ ) 12 me by Mr. DeWald and Mr. Gieseker.
13 Q Yes.
14 A- If -- if the evidence of Mr. Simile, as you contend, was 15 supposedly waiting in the wings, I would have had to 16 take that into account at that point in time --
17 Q It must have cast some doubt --
18 A -- but today to say it would have affected my judgment 19 or not, I could say yes and I could say no to that.
20 0 I understand. I just want an honest answer.
21 A And that's the honest answer.
22 I would have to evaluate it in the context of that 23 point in time --
yx 24 -0 All right, sir.
s s
( ,) 25 A -- happening at' that point in time.
Sonntag Reporting Enrvico, Th d _
Geneva, Il' inois 60134
( 312) . 232-0262
16492
/K 1 0 .All right, sir.
2 A .I believe.that I went into the reasons and the 3 justification for the termination very thoroughly.
4 Q Yes, sir. You were very confident responding' to your 5 lawyer's question, that knowing whether Mr. Puckett's 6' la'st job at Zimmer involved writing procedures would 7 certainly have influenced your determination to hire or 8 not hire Mr. Puckett, but you are less certain now how 9 my proposed new fact would have entered into your 10 decision?
11 MR. GALLO: Objection.
12 He's arguing with the-witness.
13 MR. GUILD: No, sir.
14 It's an apparent contradiction, it seems to me, in 15 the witness' willingness to take a_ position on analogous 16 facts.
17 MR. GALLO: He can argue that in his brief.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes.
19 Okay, that is a matter for argument, Mr. Guild.
20 MR. GUILD: All right, sir.
21 BY MR. GUILD:
22 Q. Were you aware of the fact, at the time you acquiesced 23 in the DeWald decision to fire Puckett, that the day gs 24 before, Sunday, the 26th of August, DeWald graded the
-i
( ,/
'} 25 Puckett field practical test and determined that Puckett Sonntag Repor ting Service _. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 16493 1 had failed the test?
2- A No.
3 Q Would the fact that Mr..Puckett had made'up his mind to 4 replace -- excuse me.
5 Would the fact that Mr. 'DeWald had determined to
. 6 replace Puckett with Simile -- had contacted Simile the 7 preceding week and then had flunked-Puckett's practical 8 test by grading it on Sunday, the. day before-he came to' 9 you -- would those facts have altered your willingness ,
i 10. to acquiesce in- the termination of Mr. Puckett?
11 A I think I stated, in response to a similar question
~
12 earlier, that I would have to take it in the context of-(O) '
13' what was -- of the environment, the situation at that 14 point in time.
15 Hypothetically, I could answer, again, yes or no to 16 'that --
l 2
-17 Q All right, sir, understood.
18 A -- to that question.
19 It's the same answer.
20 Q All right,-sit.
21 Let me ask you a question that may be a little 22 easier.
23 The facts I have just proposed, sir,~could -- would 24 t' hey cause you to -- to . suspect. the credibility of what 25 Mr. DeWald and Mr. Gieseker were telling you had you snnneng napnreing garvica, r.ea .
J Geneva, Illinois 60134
} (312) 232-0262 -
16494 fN l known them at-the time th'ey presented.you with the 2 Puckett termination recommendation?
3 A I think .they may have caused me to ask a question.with 4 respect to that, "Were your motives for doing this 5 action above board" --
15 Q Or were they, in fact --
4 7 A -- and --
8 Q. Excuse me.. Go ahead. Finish your answer.
9 A -- and I think -- I don't recall specifically, but I was 10- assured that their motives were above board for taking 11 the. action they were taking.
12 Q .By them?
G 13 A By them?-
r 14 .By what they stated; by my working relationship 15 with them; knowing -- by thei~r -- by their credibility; 16 by -- and I don't believe that they would take a 17- . retaliatory action against an individual. I believe-18 they had -- they would take action based on a very sound 19 basis.
.20: 0 I see.
21 And that's based on your long working experience 22 with those two gentlemen?
23 A It's based on my working experience with them and 24 knowing them, yes.
's
_,) 25 Q Yes, I. understand.
! i l
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva,- Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. . - ~ .. . ._. -. . . . . . - - - . . . .
16495
-1 Now, Mr. Berry asked you about th'e is51ation of the 4
4 2 Comstock management.-
3 .You referred to changes in regulatory environment l 4 that, in part, spawned what'you observed, the management 5 isolation.
6 Now, those changes in regulatory environment 7 ' reflected, in-part, the NRC finding widespread quality 8 assurance problems at tNe Braidwood Station in 9 Inspection Report 8309'in May of.19847 i
10 A They reflected:the fact that the NRC had'some concerns
.11 with respect to Braidwood,1 yeah. !
P . it . .
l 12 Q ' Including concerns with rebpect to.Mr. DeWald's own 13 operation, the L. K. Comstock Quality Control 14 Department?
15 A They had some -- I think it's a matter of record, the 16 hRC concerns with respect to Comstock's organization, 17 yes.
18 Q All right, sir.
19 What exactly did George Orlov tell you about Mr.
20 Puckett, to the best of-your recollection as you sit 21 here today?
22 A To the best of my recollection, Mr. Orlov stated that 23 Mr. Puckett was a primary cause for many of the welding i gs -24 problems that they had got -- Zimmer had gotten into.
25 0 Can you recall anything else that he said to you?
Ronntag Reporting Aprvico, T. F A .
- l. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) -232-0262
16496 p.
's
. \, ))
1 A No.
2 (Indicating.
3 Q Did Mr. Orlov appear to be aware of Mr. Puckett's 4 position at the Braidwood f acility --
5 A Yes --
6 0 -- when he told you this?
7 A -- he was.
8 Q Mr. Puckett was already on site as a Level III at that 9 poin t?
10 A Mr. Orlov came on site in February, 1985, I think it 11 was, and he was on site throughout the summer of 1985.
12 Q Have you got the year now?
13 A Excuse me.
4 14 1984.
4 15 0 Zimmer was shut down in January of '84; Mr. Orlov came 16 over in February of '84; Puckett came on in May of '84?~
17 A Correct.
18 Q So Orlov was there when Puckett came on.
19 My question, though, is:
20 ' When Puckett said to 'you what you just recounted, 21 you can't remember the exact time that happened, but I 22 want to know:
23 Was it -- was it after Mr. Puckett was on board at x 24 Comst ock as a Level III?
, -(, 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I think you misspoke and Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 _ . ._ _ . _ , . , . . .
16497
.f"y
, i 1 said Puckett.
2 You meant when Orlov said that.
3 MR. GUILD: Yes, that's what I mean.
4 BY MR. GUILD:
5 0 When Mr. Orlov said those things about Puckett that 6 you -- that you have just related, was Puckett already 7 at Comstock?
8 A Yes, I would say he was.
9 Q Didn't .Mr. Orlov suggest that you get rid of Mr.
10 Puckett?
11 A No, I don't remember him stating that.
m 12
} Q Didn't Mr.'Orlov say, in substance, that-Mr.-Puckett was 13 going to cause you problems at Braidwood and you should 14 get rid of him?
15 A I don't remember him stating that.
16 Q Do you remember him making any recommendation at all?
17 A No, I don't.
18- Q Well,'what was the purpose for Mr. Orlov simply dropping 19 this rather critical, whether accurate or not, 20 disparaging information about Mr. Puckett's background?
21 A I don't know.
22 I think he must have been talking to somebody and 23 found out that this' individual was on the jobsite.
g-( 24 Q And he came and sought you out --
25 ~A Yes, sir.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 i
l.
- 16498 I
N l \
\v
.1 Q -- and put'this bug in your ear?
i 2 A I had contact with George Orlov on many different l 3 issues.
]
4 He was the -- l I 5 O I'm working on this issue right now.
6 I know he's a busy man; but let's talk abont the l
7 Puckett issue right now.
8 A Okay.
J 9 Q He sought you out and put this bug in your ear about his 10 low opinion of Mr. Puckett's background at the Zimmer 11 facility?
12
( A Yes'.
N, 13 Q What action did you take?
14 A I filed it away.
15 Q In your head?
16 (Indicating.)
17 A In my head.
18 Q All right.
19 Did you give Mr. Puckett an cpportunity to confront
-20 this disparaging'information from Mr. Orlov?
21 A No.
22 MR. GALLO: Objection.
23.
~
This whole confrontation aspect was entertained 24 yesterday by Mr.. Guild in his questioning.
25 I understand the question has been answered; but I Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262-
16499 p-
- \ )
, \s/
1 would suggest that further questions along those lines 2 'are repetitive.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Wasn't-that brought up 4 subsequent to Mr. Guild's questioning?
5 MR. GALLO: Well, Mr. Berry did reraise the 6 question, yes; but now Mr. Guild, I maintain, is 7 repeating himself from yesterday.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild.
9 MR. GUILD: I don't want to do that, Mr.
10 Chairman, and --
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: If they are asked and
\
12 answered, that's one thing --
, V 13 MR. BERRY: I only asked --
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- if that's what the 15 objection is, but he's already --
16 MR. BERRY: Mr. Chairman --
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, Mr. Berry.
18 MR. BERRY: -- I only asked.in this 19 connection why there was no mention, in his testimony, 20 the information of Mr. Orlov. I didn't probe the 21 subject.
22 MR. GUILD: Understood.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
x 24 So it does seem that you are getting beyond the --
() 25. MR. GUILD: Understood, Mr. Chairman.
Sonntag Reporting Service Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16500 b_
\ T V
l- That's all I have,HMr. Chairman.
2 Thank you.
~3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Berry.
4 MR. BERRY: I have no more recross.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gallo.
6 MR. GALLO: No questions.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Thank you, Mr. Shamblin.
8 You are excused.
. 9 THE WITNESS: You are welcome.
10 (Witness excused.)
11 JdDGE GROSSMAN: Why don't we take a 10-break 12 now.
N 13 Tell me who is coming on first.
14 MR. GUILD: I think the proposal is to bring 15 them on as a panel, Judge, and that's okay by me.
fl6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, it is.
17 MR. GUILD: We can get them'done quickly that 18 way.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That's fine.
20 MR. GUILD: Before we go further, can I have 21' an understanding, I am not prepared to go forward or at 22 least to complete Mr. Hii, who I understand would follow 23 this panel?
24 It's now 3:00 o' clock by my watch, if that's the 7s
) 25 correct time.
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262- - -
J 16501
' (%
V )'
3 1 What I was going to suggest -- I guess we don't 2 need to be on the record, but --
1 3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Why don't we go off 4 the record.
5 (WHEREUPON , a recess was had, after-the 6 hearing was resumed, as follows:)
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gallo, please call your 8 next' witnesses.
9 MR. GALLO: Your Honor, at this time I would 10 .like to call Messrs. Dominique, DeWald and Kosieniak to 11 the stand.
(x_- -
12 I believe that only Mr. DeWald has~ testified 13 previously.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Right.
15 Will the other .two please stand, raise your right 16 hands.
17 (The witnesses were thereupon duly 18 sworn.)
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Please be seated 20 Mr. DeWald, you remain under oath.
21 A (WITNESS DE WALD) Yes, sir.
22 MR. GALLO: May I proceed?
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, please. l s 24 JEFFREY DOMINIQUE
(,, 25 PAUL GERALD'KOSIENIAK I
Sonntag Reporting Service, T. td . )
j Geneva, Illinois 60134
[ (312) 232-0262 ]
16502
.\v) 1 IRVING FRANK DE.WALD 2 called as witnesses by the Applicant herein, having been x
3 first duly sworn, were examined and testified as follows:
4 DIRECT EXAMINATION 5 BY MR. GALLO:.
6 Q Mr. Dominique, would you state your full name --
7 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Jeffrey Dominique --
8 Q -- and business address for the record?
9 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Jeffrey Michael Dominique, 10 Braidwood Station,-Braceville, Illinois.
11 Q Mr. Kosieniak, would you state your-full name and O
! I 12- business address for the record?
N.)
13 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) My name.is Paul Gerald Kosieniak 14 and my company's at 55 East Monroe.
15 Q Speak up.
16 MR. GUILD: Yes, both you gentleman are a 17 little noft-spoken. We can't hear you.
18 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) My name is Paul Gerald Kosieniak 19 and my company is based at 55 East Monroe in Chicago.
20 MR. GALLO: You are really going to have to do 21 better than that.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I think --
23 MR. GALLO: You are going to have to boom it
" 24 out.
')
1g_,, 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- that gentleman is --
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312)- 232-0262 - -- -,-.- - -. .- . . _ .
1 l_
16503
,=
l we'll have to have one sit up here where you can put-2 that microphone much closer, sir. I think you are the
- 3 one that'we would like up there.
- - 4- Is there any problem with your being separated from .;
5 your colleagues here?
6 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) (Indicating.)
c 7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: No. Okay.
- 8. BY MR. GALLO:
9 Q Mr. DeWald, would you state your full ~name and business 10 address for the record, please?
'll A (WITNESS DE WALD) Irving Frank DeWald. I work for-12 Comntock Engineering, -Incorporated, Braceville --
.13 Braidwood Nuclear' Power Plant.
14 MR. GALLO: Your Honor, at.the time that --
H15 the reason for calling these three witnesses is to take 16 care of some unfinished. business with respect to the-17 testimony of Mr. Russ Vannier.
18 At the time of Mr. Vannier's testimony, it was 19' conditionally accepted into evidence on.the basis ~that 20- the physical evidence be admitted on the basis of a 21 proper foundation, and the evidence that I refer to is,.
22 first of all, these coupons-that are located here in 23 front of'the Reporter, as well as Mr. Puckett's test 24 that was graded by Mr. DeWald on August 26, 1984.
,, ) 25 One of the other items that was used during the Monntag Rpporting Rorvice, T td .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16504 jx
\ T G
1 Vannier testimony was Applicant's Exhibit 6, which was a 2- key prepared by Mr. Vogt, V-0-G-T, for purposes of 3 grading the Puckett test, but I don't believe that th'at 4 particular document is central to the admissibility of 5- the testimony of Mr. Vannier.
6 It is the purpose of these three. witnesses to lay 7 the~ foundation for the weld. coupons which were used by
.8 Mr. Puckett in his testimony and the test itself.
9 I guess I would like to -- I'm going to ask that 10 these exhibits be ma'rked.
-11 They currently do not have -- that is, the weld r
(O LJ
). 12 coupons do not have exhibit numbers.
13 If they are received into evidence, Applicant will 14 undertake to package them up and ship them to Washington 15 so that they are available as a part of the record, and 16 so that the Reporter -- neither the Reporter nor the 17 Board has that task.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I don't think we want to 19 handle that in Washington, either, unless it's i 20 necessary.
21 Will it add'anything to the narrative?
22 MR. GALLO: Well, if they are admitted into 23 evidence and the foundation is laid for the Vannier x 24 testimony and they are not kept as a part of the case k ) 25 docket, it seems to me that that would be an Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 - - . . . , .___ - .-
ar \ .
16505-fN t \
--Q 1 i'mperfection in the record.
2 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I would agree that 3 these are matters in dispute. We do maintain our 4 position; and hopefully will prevail on that position.
5 I suspect, one way or the other, the physical
'6 evidence ought to be a matter of record in this 7 proceeding.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: ' Okay.
9 MR. ~GALLO: Following along those lines, I 10 would like to have -- what is the next Applicant's 11 exhibit number?
12 MR. THORNTON: 168, I believe.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Applicant's Exhibit 168 is 14 next.
15 MR. GALLO: Yes.
.16 I would like to have marked . for identification as 17 Applicant's Exhibit 168 the rectangular coupon that 18 shows on it Weld Coupons Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
19 Off the record.
20 (There followed a discussion outside the 21 record.
22 MR. GALLO: Back on the record.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Back on the record.
~y 24 MR. GALLO: Let me redescribe Applicant's j_ ( , ) 25 Exhibit 168 as a rectangular -- or, rather, square metal Ronntag Ronorting Aprvico. LFd_
Geneva,' Illinois 60134
'(312) 232-0262
16506 O-
..\ L Al 1 coupon that has on it Weld Nos. 1 through 5.
2 I would ask that that be identified as Applicant's 3 Exhibit 168, and that the Reporter, when he gets a 4 chance -- would put a little sticker on that when he has
.5 a chance.
6 I would ask that Applicant's Exhibit 169 be marked 7 with respect to an almost square coupon that has on it 8 Weld Nos.'8 through 12. . This particular coupon is 9 . distinctive by the fact that one corner has been cut 10 off, been sawed off, and this particular coupon should 11 bear the identification Applicant's Exhibit 169.
j 12 MR. GUILD: Are you going to include the L-13 sawed-off portion?
14 MR. GALLO:- Yes, I'm going to give that a 15 separate exhibit nLiber, as Applicant's Exhibit 170, and 16 .this is a singularly small item, again, metal. It's the 17 sawed-off portion of Applicant's Exhibit 168, and it's 18 about three inches long and an inch-and-a-half wide with 19 a vertical piece of two inches welded to it.
20 I would like to --
21 MR. THORNTON: Sawed off of 168, Joe?
22 MR. GALLO: I'm sorry.
23 MR. THORTON: Sawed off of 169 instead of 168.
-4 :24 MR. GALLO: Thank you.
1, 25 Sawed off of Applicant's Exhibit 169.
Sonntag Reporting Service Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. . . -- . ._ - . . - .. ~ ..
1-16507 fw
?q J\\
1 ~I- would like to identify that small piece as 2 Applicant's Exhibit 170.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -And-does that have any
- 1. '
-4 coupon on it?
! 5 MR. GALLO: That has-no number on it, it has 6 no weld number on it. It's a part of Weld No. 12, but' 7 the 12 appears on Applicant's Exhibit 169.
1 8 Finally, I-would like-to have marked for
~
9 identification as Applicant's Exhibit 171 a rectangular
- 10 . coupon that has on it Weld Nos. 13 and 14, and~have that j 11' marked,_as I indicated, as Applicant's Exhibit 171.
12- JUDGE COLE: Numbers 13 and 14, Mr. Gallo?
v
, 11 3 MR. GALLO: Yes, 13 and 14.
< 14 As the Board will recall, at the time of Mr.- ;
15 Vannier's testimony, he did not. get -- or at least at q
- l. 16 the time that the coupons were provided for him for 17 evaluation purposes as a basis for -his testimony, he did i- 18 not have coupons with the Nos. 6 and 7, and they are not
?- 19 .among these, either.
I
- (The materials were thereupon~ marked 20 !
T 21 Applicant's Exhibits Nos. 168, 169, 170 22 and 171 for identification as - of October I l 23 30, 1986.)
! 24 MR. GALLO: All right.
l l
- 25 Returning to one.last item, and that's the test
- i. 1 1
.1 nnnneno nannreinn norutca. r+a.
J 4 Geneva, Illinois 60134
_. _ ._ _ . _ _ . (312[ 232-0262 ;
. . . . . - .. . _ - - ~__-__-
16508 1
\
l graded by Mr. DeWald, Mr. Puckett's test, that already
'2 has been marked as Applicant's Exhibit No. 5 -- not 3 received, but marked with that number.
4 BY-MR. GALLO:
5 Q I show you, Mr. Dominique -- strike that.
6 Have you had occasion to prepare testimony with 7 : respect ~to the matter involving these coupons and the 8 test in this proceeding?
- 9. A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes, sir.
. 10 0 I show you a six-page document and ask if that's the 11 testimony you have prepared for this proceeding.
( ) 12 (Indicating.)
13 A: (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes, that's all mine.
! 14 Q Is it accurate and complete to the best of your 15 -knowledge and belief?
-16 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes.
17 Q Mr. DeWald, did you have occasion to prepare testimony 18 for this issue?
19 A (WITNESS DE WALD) Yes. i
- 20 Q I show you a two-page document and ask if that's the 21 testimony you prepared.
i 22 (Indicating.)
23 A (WITNESS DE WALD) Yes, it is.
24 Q Is it accurate and complete to the best of your g 25 knowledge and belief?
Sonntag Reporting Service._ Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 16509 T
1 A (WITNESS DE WALD) Yes.
2 Q Mr. Dominique, did you have occasion to prepare 1
3 testimony for.this. proceeding.
4 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) I'm Paul Kosieniak.
5 Q Did I say Dominique? I apologize.
6 Mr.-Kosieniak, you are right. Your name is Mr.
'l 7 Kosieniak.
8 Did you have. occasion, Mr. Kosieniak, to prepare 9 testimony for this proceeding?
10 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) Yes, I did.
11 Q. I show you a three-page document that bears the title O
12 " Testimony of Paul G-Kosieniak" and ask if this is the S C j i 13 testimony you prepared.
14 (Indicating.)
j 15 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) Yes, it' is.
16 0 Is-it accurate and complete to-the best of your 17 knowledge and belief.
[ 18 A- (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) Yes.
- 19 MR. GALLO
- At this time, your Honor, I'd 20 like to introduce into evidence the testimony of Mr.
21 DeWald, Mr. Kosieniak and Mr. Dominique and have it
~
22 folded into the transcript as if read.
- 23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild.
i 24 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, just as a matter of 25 voir dire, I would ask that the witnesses be asked the 3 1
Eonntag Reporting Aprvico, LFM.
Geneva, Illinois 60134-(312) 232-0262
t 16510 6
\'y 1 question live from the stand that appears -- that asks 2 them to identify the physical evidence --
3 MR. GALLO: Yes, I'll be glad to do so.
4 .MR. GUILD: -- since the prefiled testimony 5 simply doesn't reflect whether they were asked that.
6 MR. GALLO: Yes.
7 BY MR. GALLO:
8 Q Mr. Kosieniak, Question 3 of your testimony indicates --
9 the question is:
10 Do you have your testimony in front of you?
11 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE)' Yes.
( 12 O Will you turn to Question 3-on Page 2.
13 MR.-THORNTON: Dominique.
14 MR. GALLO: All right.
15 If I call you the wrong name, correct me, please.
16 BY MR. GALLO:
17 Q All right.
18 Mr. Dominique, are you at --
19 MR. BERRY: It's Question 4.
20 BY MR. GALLO:
21 Q It really isn't Page 3, it's --
22 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Page 2.
23 Q -- Page 2 -- Question 4 at Page 2 of your testimony.
24 I asked you there, "I show you four marked" -- or, gx k 25 "four steel configurations which have been marked as Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 _ - - - - -
l 16511
~ (%
\ 1 d
1 Applicant's Exhibits."
2 "Can you tell me what they are," and you say, "Yes 3 .I call them coupons," Land you continue.
4 Looking at the coupons that have been aarked as 5 Applicant's Exhibit 168 ~ through 171, are those the
- 6. coupons referred to in Answer 4?
7 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes, they.are.
8 Q And Mr. Dominique -- I'll do it again -- Kosieniak, 9 looking at Page -- it is, indeed, Page 2 of your 10 testimony, Question 3, "I show you four pieces of steel 11 with weld samples on them which have been marked as qO j 12 Applicant's Exhibits.
%J 13 "Do you recognize them," and your answer is~, "Yes.
14 These are the coupons that Mr. Vannier and I picked up 15 from Jeff Dominique."
16 Looking at what has been marked as Applicant's 17 Exhibit 168 through 171, are those the coupons you refer 18 to in Answer 3.
19 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) Yes.
20 Q Mr. DeWald, Mr. Dominique's testimony indicates that you 21 provided him with the coupons that he has identified as 22 Applicant's Exhibits 168 through 171.
23 Can you tell me whether those are the coupons that s
s 24 you provided to Mr. Dominique?
( 25 A (WITNESS DE WALD) Yes, they are.
sonntag nnpnreing snrvien_ rha.
! Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. -. . .= .-
(
16512
,.Q 1 MR. GALLO: I would now renew my of fer that 2 .the testimony be folded into the record as if read.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild.
4 MR. GUILD:' Subject to cross examination, Mr.
5' ' Chairman.
6 MR. BERRY: No objection, Mr. Chairman.
7 . JUDGE'GROSSMAN: Okay. The testimony is 8 ' admitted and will be inserted in the transcript as 9 'though given at hearing.
10 11
-f 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 l l
22 !
I 23 24 l 1
25 l l
Sonntag Rpporting Service, LFd_
Geneva,. Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
'( a 4
T
'/
's UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: )
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-456
) 50-457 (Braidwood Station, Units )
1 and 2) )
TESTIMONY OF JEFFREY MICHAEL DOMINIQUE Q.l. Please state your name, your employer, your position and your business address.
O V
A.l. My-name is Jeffrey Michael Dominique. I am employed .
by MCIS as a Level II QC Inspector. My business address is Braidwood Station, Braceville, Illinois.
Q.2. What is the purpose of your testimony?
A.2. The purpose of my testimony-is to describe how I came into custody of the weld test coupons used for Mr. Puckett's August 22, 1984 mock weld practical test. I will also tell how these coupons were used while in my custody and to whom I gave them.
Q.3. Please describe your initial work experience at
- ]'- Braidwood?
.(:-)
\s' A.3. I first reported to work at' Braidwood on July'16, 1984 as the Training Coordinator for L.K. Comstock.
I worked as the Training Coordinator until about April 1985 when I requested a transfer into inspect-ions. Comstock approved my transfer but asked that I stay to train my successor as Training
-Coordinator, Mr. Dave Cordy. From April 1985 to around mid-July 1985, Mr. Cordy and I worked together as Training Coordinator.
Q.4. I show you four steel configurations which have been marked as Applicant's Exhibits. Can you tell me what they are?
O' A.4. Yes, I call them coupons. They consist of steel plates to which pieces of plate and tube steel have been welded. These coupons are 3 of the 4 coupons that were used to test weld inspectors during my_ tenure as Training Coordinator. The weld inspectors were required to evaluate the quality of the welds against the requirement of the weld procedures for a test called a " mock practical welding examination."
Q.5. Please explain your reference to "3 of the 4 coupons."
v,
A.S. We used four coupons for testing weld inspectors.
You only have shown three of them. These are:
- 1. The coupon with weld samples marked 1-S;
- 2. The coupon with weld samples marked 8-12; and
- 3. The coupon with weld samples marked 13-14.
The fourth coupon with weld samples marked 6-7 is not among the coupons you have shown me. I should also point out that at the time these coupons were used for test purposes, weld sample 12 was not cut in two as its present condition indicates. Weld
)'
sample 12 was cut in two after the coupons were no longer used by Comstock to test weld inspectcrs.
0 6. Were the coupons I have shown you in your custody during your tenure as Training Coordinator?
A.6. Yes, within the first week of my arrival on site in mid-July, 1984, Mr. Irving DeWald, the OC Manager for Comstock, gave me these coupons, as well as the coupon with weld samples marked as 6-
- 7. He told me that these four coupons were to be used for conducting mock practical welding examinations.
0.7. How many weld inspectors took a mock practical test using the weld coupons given to you by Mr.
(~~3 DeWald during your tenure as Training Coordinator?
m J
.' \
l l
- m kh X-J A.7. I would estimate the number to be between 15 and 20-inspectors.
Q.8. Were these coupons used for Mr. Puckett's mock practical exam?
A.8. Yes. I was in the room during Mr. Puckett's exam and observed that he was being tested with the four coupons given to me by Mr. DeWald.
0.9. You stated earlier that Mr. DeWald gave you the coupons when you first arrived on site. What did you do with them at.that time?
A.9. I stored the coupons in a locked two door gray q cabinet in the OC Training Room. I kept the key
%/
to the cabinet locked in my desk.
O.10. Did you ever surrender custody of the coupons?
A.10. Yes, while I was Training Coordinator, Mr. DeWald came and told me to turn the weld coupons over to Sargent=& Lundy ("S&L"). Later that day, two gentlemen came to me and said that they were from S&L and were there to pick up the weld coupons.
One of the gentlemen was Mr. Kosieniak who I knew because he had previously been loaned to Comstock by S&L. I do not remember who the other sentlemen i
from S&L was.
c - , , , - ..- --n.< . , - - - . - - , , - - - , - - - - - . , - - - , . , , . - - , . . -. - - - - - , ., ,
Q.11. Did you give them these coupons?
A.ll. Yes, I gave them the coupons, including both pieces of weld sample 12.
Q.12. When did S&L pick up the coupons?
A.12. I cannot remember exactly. It would have to have been between November 4, 1984 and April 1985.
0.13. How do you know it was in that timeframe?
A.13. It had to be after November 4, 1984 because Mr.
Vogt and Mr. Simile used the coupons that day for demonstration in a class for inspectors. It could
[l not be'after April 1985 when I left my position as Training Coordinator.
Q.14. Looking at the coupons today, can you see any alterations to the coupons from the time they left your custody?
A.14. The only alteration I see is that the weld defects have been identified on the coupon. These markings were not there during my custody.
O.15. I show you what has been marked as Applicant's Exhibit 5, do you recognize this?
A.15. Yes. It is a copy of Mr. Puckett's practical test
(;
t >
which he took using the coupons. I recognize Mr.
Puckett's printing; however, the notations in
a-red ink were written by Mr. DeWald. These notations were not on the test when I saw it last.
Q.16. Prior to preparing this testimony, when did you see the test?
A.16. I saw it on the day Mr. Puckett took his exam. My assistant gave Mr. Puckett's exam to me and I took it up to Mr. DeKald's office so that Mr. DeWald could score it. This was the procedure followed for all the welding examinations. I would take them up and lay them on a certain part of Mr.
DeKald's desk. When he had scored the tests, he would return them to me.
Q.17. Did he ever return Mr. Puckett's examination to you?
A.17. No. The last time I saw Mr. Puckett's exam was when I took it to Mr. DeWald's office.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: )
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-456
) 50-457 (Braidwood Station, Units )
1 and 2) )
TESTIMONY OF PAUL G. KOSIENIAK s _) 0.1. Please state your name, your employer, your position and your business address.
A.l. My name is Paul G. Kosieniak. I am currently employed by Sargent & Lundy Engineers as a QC Engineer and am a certified Level III visual weld inspector. My business address is 55 E. Monroe, Chicago, Illinois.
Q.2. What is the purpose of your testimony?
l A.2. The purpose of my testimony is to describe the circumstances under which Mr. J.R. Vannier and I came into possession of certain weld coupons which Comstock had used for testing their QC weld inspec- I tors.
1
l-i
?
0 3. I show you four pieces of steel with weld samples on them which have been marked as Applicant's exhibits. Do you recognize them?
A.3. Yes, these are the coupons that Russ Vannier and I
_ picked up from Jeff Dominique.
Q.4. When did you pick them up?
A.4. It was during the time I was working on the Material Traceability Verification Program, late 1984 to April 1985. I cannot be more precise that that.
Q.5. What were the circumstances that caused you to pick up the coupons from Dominique?
,re\
f i
w/ A.S. Mr. Vannier, who I had worked with since 1979, asked me whether I knew of any sample weld coupons on site. I knew that Comstock had these coupons because during my certification as a Level II weld inspector for Comstock they had tested me with them. Mr. Vannier and I went to Comstock and asked a few people where the coupons were. We were told to talk to Mr. Dominique and he showed us these coupons. Mr. Vannier and I carried these coupons back to Mr. Vannier's office and left the pieces there.
4
- ~3-0.6. Have you ever picked up coupons from Mr. Dominique at any other time than the one instance you have described?
A.6. No.
9
a UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: )
)
' COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY )
) Docket Nos. 50-456 (Braidwood Station, Units 1 ) 50-457 and 2) )
TESTIMONY OF IRVING F. DEWALD 0.1. Please state your name, your employer, your posiion and your business address.
A.l. My name is Irving F. DeWald. I am employed by i \
' x__/ Comstock Engineering, Incorporated as Manager, Quality Control Department. My business address is Braidwood Station, Braceville, Illinois.
Q.2. What is the purpose of your testimony?
A.2. The purpose of my testimony is to identify _the mock practical test taken by Worley O. Puckett on August 22, 1984.
Q.3. I show you a document that has been marked as Applicant's Exhibit 5 and ask if you can identify the document for me.
A.3. Yes. That is the mock practical test taken by Mr.
(~N Puckett on August 22, 1994.
U
1 1 0.4. Please describe the circumstances under which you came into possession of Mr. Puckett's test.
A.4. I found the test on my desk in the special tray provided for training matters.
0.5. Did you grade the test?
A.5. Yes. I graded the test on August 26, 1984. My signature to that effect is written in red ink on the test. The handwriting in red ink on the rest of the test indicates my grading comments and evaluation.
('~ )
~
0.6. What did you do with the test after it was graded?
\-)
A.6. The test was filed in Mr. Puckett's certification folder. I don't remember whether I filed it or gave it to someone else for that purpose.
0.7. Prior to the writing of this testimony, when was the last time you saw the Puckett test?
A.7. In early June 1986, when I was requested by counsel to provide the test in connection with Mr. Vannier's testimony.
l l
O
\ '1 y
l l
l
16513
- f. k, -
i \- / ,
^
1- JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr.-Guild.
s.
l 2 MR. GUILD: Yes.-
! ~3 CROSS EXAMINATION _
\
! 4~ BY MR. GUILD:
I' 5' Q Well, Mr. Dominique, you identified those coupons, but 6 you are sitting 15 feet away from them, aren't you?
- 7 A' (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) I looked at them at break right i
8~ before we~ began.
- 9 Q Well, you looked at the ones that are sitting right i.
10 there?
11 (Indicating.)
Y t .12 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes. .,
\
13 0 You can't see them from where you are sitting, can you?
i 14 Can you see them well enough to.know that those are
)
j 15 the coupons in question or that over the break'I didn't f- 16 bring some-other coupons in and put them there?
- 17 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Well, I was in.here.
-18 Q You guarded them over the break?
19 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes.
20 0 ~ Mr. Kosieniak, you are at least 10 feet away from these 21 coupons, and you said these are the right coupons.
l 22- Can you see them from where you are?
[ 23 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) Yes, I can.
1 j 24 'O Can you tell that they are the right coupons from where
\, 25 you are?
i Sonntaa Renortina Marvice. T.t d _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 .
__ _.._m _. . .. . _ . _ ._. . _ . . . . . . - ._ _
L s
[ 16514
.Jh* '
l' A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) Yes, I can, j'
~
2 Q~ .Anybody's eyes.are better than mine; but you are looking.
. ,. ~
~
- ~3 at some rather detailed things from quite a distance.-
1 I 4 .You wouldn't perform a weld inspection from five.
h 5 feet away, would you?
U '
i
! 6 .A (WITNESS-KOSIENIAK) No, I.wouldn't.
I 7 Q -You.wouldn't know that the -- you can't see the undercut'
" L 8- that I'm po'inting to on Weld 14 from where you are ,
i 9 sitting, can you?-
10 (Indicating.)
{
11 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) No.
4
( 12 Q You can't see an arc strike I'm pointing'to on Weld 8 13 from where you are sitting,,can you?
14- (Indicating.)
15 A - (WITNESS KOSIENI AK) No.-
{
l 16 Q Can you see Weld 5 from where.you are sitting?
i 17 A. (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) I can't even see what its welded j
18 to. i i '
! 19 O Mr. Dominique, you can't see those things from where you l 20 are sitting,.can you?
1 j 21 , A (WITNESS . DOMINIQUE) No.
j 22 Q Well, you gentlemen seem rather quick to agree that
{ 23 these are the coupons in question. I i
24 Let's test this hypothesis a bit.
{fs f 25 Mr. Dominique, you relate that Mr. DeWald gave you a
k l'
Sonntag Reporting Service. L td .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 . l
16515
\ \
W]
) 1 some coupons when you became the Training Coordinator 2 and that you kept them in your present -- in your 3 custody?
l
-4 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) That's correct.
f 5 0 Okay. l 6 But -- and you believe them to be the coupons that 7 are -- have been marked as Applicant's Exhibits that are l l
8 before us sitting over here on the clerk's bench?
l 9 (Indicating.)
10 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Those are the coupons.
11 Q Well, they are not all the coupons, are they?
(~
(v ) 12 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) No, they aren't.
13 Q You-didn't say that in your testimony, but there are --
14 at least there's one more piece that has a couple of 15 welds on it that aren't here?
16 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) In my testimony, I did say that 17 one is missing.
18 Q Yes, you did. You are right. You are absolutely right.
f 19 But you didn't say that now when you just k
20 identified these coupons?
21 This is not all of the coupons that were given to 22 you by Mr. DeWald?
23 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) You asked me if those were the 24 coupons that we were referring to as the exhibits. I
) 25 said yes, they were.
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
) Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
1 16516
(~i ' s :
1 Q These are not all the coupons-you got from Mr. DeWald, 2 are they? .
i 3 .A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Those are not-all that I got from 4 Mr.'DeWald.
5 Q All right, sir.
6 You put all of them under lock and key; that's your f
7 testimony,~isn't it?
8 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) That's correct.
9 Q All right.
10 And you, by yours testimony, suggest that you i 11 maintained control over those ' coupons?
12 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) That's correct. ,
13 Q Now, Mr. Kosieniak, you and Mr. Vannier subsequently 14 went and got the coupons from Mr. Dominique?
15 'A' (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) Yes, we did.
16 Q Well, did you get these coupons?
17 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) Those four.
i 18 Q Well, now, we got three and a little piece of a third.
19 You got four or you got three?
20 (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) Those four.
A i
- 21 Q Well, wait a minute now.
-22 You got -- which coupons and which welds did you 23 get when you got them from Mr. Dominique?
, 24 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) The four pieces that are shown i 25 there are the ones that we picked up.
i' Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16517 v
1 (Indicating.)
2 Q- How about the piece that's not here?
3 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) We didn't pick that up.
4 Q You didn't get it?
5 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) No.
6 Q Are you sure you didn't pick it up? J 7 MR. GALLO: You have to speak up, Mr.
8 Dominique --
9 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) Kosieniak.
10 MR. GALLO: -- Kosieniak.
11 MR. GUILD: Mr. Kosieniak.
12 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) Those are the four pieces that we 13 picked up.
14' BY MR. GUILD:
15 0 The pieces that Mr. Gallo has had marked are the only 16 pieces that you pick up?
i 17 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) Right.
18 .Q And they are three coupons and a fourth piece that was 19 sawed from one of the coupons; that is, sawed from Weld 20 12 --
21 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) Right.
22 0 -- correct?
23 All right, sir. Now, my question is, Mr.
24 Kosieniak:
25_ What did you do with the coupon that was marked Sonntag Reporting Service, T, rd .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
t 16518 U
1 Weld 6 and 77 2 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) There -- there wasn't any Coupon 6 3 and 7.
4 Q- You didn't get a Coupon 6 and 77 5 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) We didn't carry 6 and 7 over. We 6 carried those four pieces.
~
7 Q Well, Mr. Dominique, you got the weld coupons, the three 8 principal ones we have 'ere. h 9 Again, of course, Weld 12 has been sawed off, since 10 it was used as a test coupon; correct?
11 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) (Indicating.)
C\
t 12 You've got to say yes or no so the Reporter can pick you Q
13 up.
14 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Oh, I'm sorry.
15 Correct.
1.6 0 .Okay, okay.
17 But you got one additional coupon that had Welds 6 18 and.7 on it?
19 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE)- Correct.
.20 Q And you put it, along with the three that are present, 21 under lock and key?
22 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) That's correct.
7 23 0 Well, did somebody break into your locked cabinet to gx 24 steal -- a'nd stole 6 and 77 f.
l
,) 25 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) No.
l l
, Ronntaa Monortina Rorv{co. Ltd_
l Geneva', Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
__ .- . _ - . = . _ _ . . . _ . . . . .. --
e# '.
16519
, ' (G\
- 1 Q Did 6 and 7 vanish into thin air?
2 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) I would have to say at this time I~
3 yes.
-4 Q I see.
5 Yor don't know what happened to 6 and 77 t
2 6 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) I have a feeling I know what 7 happened to it, but --
8- Q But you don't know?
9 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) -- I can't say for.sure. l 10 Q 'All right.
11 You have a feeling, but that's not' exactly knowing 12 what happen ~ed to 6 and 77 13 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) That's not exactly knowing what 14 happened to 6 and 7; correct.
j 15 Q All right.
16 Well, does whatever your feeling is, Mr. Dominique, i
17 suggest that you didn't maintain effective control over i
18 the coupons in question?
19 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) No. While the coupons were being 20 used, all of them were in my custody and stayed in my 21 custody.-
22 O Well, that's not exactly completely responsive to my i
23 question, because you maintained that you had control
- . ,y 24 over all of the coupons from the time you got them from 25 Mr. DeWald until the time you passed them along in the Sonntag Reporting Servico__ Ttd_
> Geneva, Illinois 60134 l., _ . . - - . . . . . _ _ _ . _
(312) 232-0262 . - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . , _
16520
,- x t j,
,/
1 chain of custody to Mr. Kosieniak and Mr. Vannier here.
2 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Coupon 6 and 7 disappeared 3 during -- or after the testing was completed on all 4 inspectors and before they came and picked them up.
5 0 All right, sir.
6 Well, now, you surmise that because I take it when 7 inspectors took tests, they tested on 6 and 7? You know 8 that for a fact?
9 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Right, all coupons were placed in 10 front of the inspectors while they were testing.
11 Q Right.
rm.
12 Now, they were able to opt out of two, I guess, is L/ )
t 13 that right, two welds?
14 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Pardon?
15 Q They were able to opt out of two welds? When they took 16 the test, they only had to do 12. out of 14?
17 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) I t -- it varied. The number that 18 they had to do varied with the --
19 Q All right.
20 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) -- whoever issued the test.
21 Q In the case of Mr. Puckett, Mr. DeWald, it was'12 out of 22 14?
23 A (WITNESS DE WALD) Correct.
. 24 Q All right.
.(~')
( j 25 But you gave them 6 and 7 in all cases? They could Sonntag Rep'orting' Service. L td .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16521 rs k )
V 1 choose among 6 and 7?
2 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes.
3 Q All right.
4 Well, how did 6 and 7 get out of your. locked 5 cabinet?
6 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) I had to pull them out for the 7- corporate people from Comstock to review them.
8 JUDGE COLE: To what, sir?
9 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) To review them.
10 BY MR. GUILD:
11 O To revi~ew them?
(-~~} 12
\ A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes.
13 Q For what purpose?
-14 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) I have no idea.
15 0 Well, who were the corporate people from Comstock?
16 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Tom Vogt.
17 Q Tom?
18 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Vogt.
19 Q V-O-G-T?
20 A (WITNESS .DOMINIQUE) Yes.
21 Q Mr. Vogt, the author of the key to the test?
22 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) That's right.
23 0 All right.
24 And did you do that after Mr. Puckett took the gs 25 test?
i l
sonntaa nonoreino sorvico. r+ a _
t Geneva', Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
16522
(~b) i v
1 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Oh, yes, that was long after he 2 took the test.
3 Q And did you do that after Mr. Puckett was terminated?
4 He wLs terminated within days of taking the test.
5 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) I would have to say yes.
6 Q All right.
7 And did you do _that -- by "that," I mean make the 8 coupons available to the corporate people forlwhatever 9 purpose they were going to review them.
10 Did you do that after Intervenors filed their 11 harassment and intimidation contention in July of
( ) 12 1986 -- '85 -- excuse me -- July 18, 1985?
13 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) July of 1985?
14 Q Right.
15 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) No, I don't think so. I could not 16 have.
17 0 You could not have.
- 18 You were no longer' in the Training Coordinator 19 position?
20 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) That's correct.
21 0 So you infer that you must have given the coupons to 22 whomever was responsible for the disappearance of the 23 coupon containing Welds 6 and 7 some time before you 24 left the Training Coordinator position --
O 25 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) That's correct.
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
a _
16523 1 0 -- because that's when you ceased having custody of 2 them?
3 .That's what you can -- that's the latest date at 4 which you can pin down when you gave- these coupons to 5 Messrs. Kosieniak and Vannier?
6 A (WITNESS'DOMINIQUE) That's correct. ;
7 Q. All right.
18' So you didn't maintain control of the coupons 9 during the entire period of time from when Mr.. DeWald 10 gave them to you and when you. passed them over to 11~ Vannier and Kosieniak?
v) b 12 You maintained control only to the extent that,
~13 through some fashion unknown to you, the coupon
'14 containing two welds was lost?
15' A - (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) It's' missing now.
16 Q All right, sir.
17 Well, who ~- what else did Mr. Vogt do with the 18 coupons besides lose Welds.6 and 7?
19 MR. GALLO: Objection; irrelevant. l l
20 MR. GUILD: It's relevant, Mr. Chairman.
'21 I think the witnesses are responsible for supplying 22 the foundation which is, I think, getting shakier and 23 shakier here; and I want to know if he knows what Mr.
^4 Vogt did aside from losing the coupon with the Welds 6 25 and 7.
nonntag naporeing marvica; r.ea .
j1 Geneva, Illinois 60134
[. (312) 232-0262 .
16524
\
g(G
'l . JUDGE GROSSMAN: What he did with the other 2 coupon?
3 MR. GUILD: Yes.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: If he knows, he can answer 5 that.
6 Do you know, sir?
7 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Which coupon are you referring to?
. 8 MR. GUILD: I'm referring to the ones that
~
9 are now before us, the remaining coupons with the 10 remaining welds, the welds that are absent.
11 .BY MR. GUILD:
O g j 12 0 .What did Mr. Vogt do when these coupons went out of your 13 control?
14 They were in Vogt's control or someone else's 15 control because you don't know what Vogt did with them.
16 He lost one coupon.
17 What did he do with the coupons that remained, if-18 anything?
19 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Only one coupon was taken from the 20 training room. These all remained .in the training room 21 and were still under my custody the entire time.
22 (Indicating.)
23 Q He took only the one with 6 and 7 on it?
fy 24 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) That's the only one that g ,) 25 disappeared during the time.
Sonntag Reporting _ Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 ._- __ _ _ . . . . _ . . _ _ . . _ . . _
16525 p-g
'\ 's
)
1 Q That's the only one that disappeared, but that wasn't my 2 question.
3 What lid Mr. Vogt do to these, if you know?
4 A- (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) He and Tony Simile reviewed 5 them -- okay -- and when they went down to -- when he 6 had a discrepancy on the review, that's when I had to 7 follow the coupons at one time. He did take the one 8 ' coupon down. They went to the fab shop and cut it --
9 0 'Okay.
10 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) -- but it was never .ou t of my 11 possession.
~
( f 12 0 You lost me a little bit there.
13 Let's backtrack a little bit.
14 Vogt and Tony Simile did something with the 15 coupons.
16 What exactly did they do.with them?
17 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) They were discussing the coupons.
18 Whether they were discussing an inspector's exam 19 or -- or the coupons themselves, I have no idea, because 20 I don't interfere in that kind of stuff.
21 Q You don't interfere.
22 But you know that Vogt and simile were doing 23 something with the coupons? ..They had the coupons s 24 phisically before them?
l ( 25 A. (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes, they did .-
r Sonntaa Reporting Service. T. F A .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 - - , . - _ _ - . _ - _ - _ - .
16526 "N
1 Q And where was that?
2 A' (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) In the training. room.-
3 Q And they had some -- at that-point, something. caused 4 Vogt and Simile to cut No. 12?
5 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE)~ That's correct.
6 Q Did they do that in the training room?
7 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) No, they didn't. They did it in 8 the fab shop.
9 Q Oh, I see.
'10 Then the coupon that ccntains Welds.8 through 12
~
11 left your custody?
( 12 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) No, they didn't.
13 Q Well, what did you do? Did you cut it?
14 A (WITNESS-DOMINIQUE) No. I walked to the fab shop 15 where they cut it.
16 Q But it left.the training room? You followed them down 17 to watch them cut it?
18 'A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) That's correct.
-19 Q Okay.
4
^20 Now, what'else did they do?
21 So they cut 12.
22 What else did.they do?
23 They cut 12 and they lost 6 and 7.
~x 24 What else did they do?
() 25 A. (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) That's it.
Sonntag Reporting Service Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- ac_ : I 16527~
- - D
.d
'l Q. Did -you watch. them?
j 2- A- (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes.
i .
- 3 .. Q The whole time they had the coupons?
i- 4 A -(WITNESS DOM'INIQUE) Yes. l i- .
5 Q Then where did 6 and 7 go? ;
) '6 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) I have no idea'.
7~ Q I guess you didn't' watch them then, did you?
i- 8 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE)- They must have taken it with them. i 1- ~
j .9 Q You must have turned your back or something when they 10- disappeared 6 and 7.
l=
4 j ll' A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) It's possible.
I 12 6 and 7 was a small coupon.
$ 13' Q. Well, I trust you,.but'I've never seen 6 and~7 because
~ ~
14 it's not: here.
i 15 You don't know how they got 6 and-7'by you?
16 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) -I have no idea, no.
-17' JUDGE GROSSMAN:- Excuse me.
- 18 I thought you had said in a low voice, "I think 19 they took~6 and 7."
4 20- Did you say that?
h , :21 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes, I believe they did take 6 and-f 22 7.
. :23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, okay. ,
- i. .. .
- 24 You had your back turned. I wasn't sure you heard ,
f 25 that.
t i.
j nanntag neporting nervice r.va .
1
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16528 i
(x
(. )
k/m ,
1 MR. GUILD: I heard that, Mr. Chairman.
2 BY MR. GUILD:
3 Q So your belief is Mr. Simile and Mr. Vogt are 4 responsible for the disappearance of 6 and 7? You 5 don't know that, but you surmise that?
6 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes, I do.
7 Q Okay.
8 Now, isn't'it possible, Mr. Dominique, that if Mr.
9 Vogt and Mr. Simile.were quick enough to get 6 and 7.by 10 you, that -- and they cut.12, that they might have done 11 something else to the coupons that are lef t?
rr 1:2 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) No. Those coupons are exactly as
(
.y )
13- .they appeared when I was testing the inspectors with 14 .them other than the writing on them and the one is cut.
15 0 Are they exactly the way they were when Mr. Puckett took 16 his test?
17 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) In my opinion, yes.
18 0 Well, are you -- you didn't answer quite as confidently 19 to that last question.
20 Are they exactly the way they were when Mr. Puckett 21 took the test, Mr. Dominique?
22 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) The reason I can't answer 23 confidently is because I already stated they are not
~x 24 exactly the way they were when he took his test.
( ,) 25 There's writing on them and one's been cut.
-Sonntag Roporting Sorvico_ T. Fd _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16529 (M
\ )
LJ 1 Other than those two things, in my opinion',.those 2 are exactly the way they were when all-inspectors took 3 their test.
.4 Q All right, sir.
5 Well, now, I am not a Weld Inspector and never took
.6 a test on these coupons, but these coupons aren't even 7 exactly in the same condition as vwhen I saw them last 8 at the beginning of this proceeding.
9 They couldn't possibly.be the same -- in the same 10 condition they are in when Mr. Puckett took his test.
11 They are rusty now.
< ~s
( ) 12 They were less rusty when he say them?
13 A (WITNESS .DCMINIQUE) They were rusty when I had them, 14 also.
- 15. O Well, don't you acknowledge that they are more rusty as 16 they sit.here today than they were when they were --
17 than in May of this year -- I think it was May -- June? I 18 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) It depends how the metal.is kept.
19 0 Well, it may or may not depend on that; but my question 20 to you is:
21 As a matter of physical character, do you know 22 whether or not they are rustier today, as they sit here 23 in October, than they were in May or June of 1986 when l l
gx 24 they first were presented and offered in evidence in l k, 25 this proc'eding?
sonntag nnporting snevico, twa . l l
Geneva, Illinois 60134
( 312)' 232-0262 l
s 16530
('~y 1 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Knowing how carbon steel oxidizes, 2 I would say, by the minute, they are rusting, sir.
3 Q All right, sir.
4 Well, then, yod don't dispute my observation that 5 they.are noticeably more rusty, even to a lay person, 6 today in October than they were in May or June?
7 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) .Those appear the same way as when 8 I tested the inspectors with them. They had l- 9 approximately the same amount of rust.
10 Q I see.
11 So you don't notice any more rust today than when 12 you tested inspectors' back in '847 13 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) _ Very little more.
14 Q Any more?
15 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE). Very little'.
16 I would be an idiot to say none because metal 17 oxidizes and oxidation is rust.
18 Q Right. I understand that.
19 So as a matter of. physical phenomenon, they are-20 going.to be rustier today than they were; but I'm asking 21 you:
22 As a matter of visible-condition, do you 23 acknowledge, sir, that .they are visibly rustier to' day 24- than they were in 1984 when you used them to test
( 25 inspectors?
Sonntag Reporting Service Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
h.,
16531 m
- Ih i
v l' lA' (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) No, I don't believe'they are any 2 rustier at this time.
3 Q Now, -let' me ask .the other gentlemen 'here.
4 Mr. Kosieniak, in your opinion, sir, are'these j 5 coupons in the same condition.today, in October of 1986, 6' as th'ey were at:whatever point in time -- you are not 7 quite clear -- you took custody of them from Mr.
8 Dominique?-
9 .A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) When we carried them back to Russ' I
10 office, I did not notice any writing on them as there is J-1: 11 n'ow ; only the weld numbers.
12 I see.
(
Q
- 13 So that the writing was added afterwards?
l 14 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) Apparently it appears'so.
15 Q Okay..
t h 16 And who added the writing?
17 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) I have r.o idea.
18' Q~ You didn't, I take it? I a
'19 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) No, no.
t j 20 Q Now, but the writing wasn't there.
21 In what other respects, if any, are these coupons, i r . l 22 as they sit here today, different.in condition than they1 o 23 were when you picked them up from Mr. Dominique? l f l 24 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) That I don't know. I don't know.'
l [~ l
\
25 0 You are not aware of any other differences?
t e
i sonntag nopnreing garvica, raa _
' Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l a
16532
.j%
T T
\s/
1 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) No.
2 0 .Would you come down from the stand, please, and examine 3 them carefully and consider your answer, and tell me 4 whether or not, as you -- as'they sit here today, you 5 observe any conditions that are different than -- aside 6 from the writing which you have already identified, 7 sir -- than the condition in which you picked them up 8 from Mr. Dominique?
9 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) None.
10 Q All right, sir. Thank you.
11 Mr. DeWald, your lawyer gave you a shot at 12 identifying these coupons, and lot's not leave you out.
13 Are these coupons in the same condition that --
14 today as they were in when you gave them to Mr.
15 Dominique?
16 A '(WITNESS DE WALD) I would they are.somewhat rustier.
17 0 Somewhat rustier. All r ight.
18 Any other differences in condition, Mr. DeWald, 19 between the time -- the condition they were in when you 20 gave them to Mr. Dominique in, I believe his testimony 21 reflects, early 1984 -- is that right, Mr. Dominique?
22 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Mid-1984, mid-1984; July 16, 1984.
23 'O July of '84. All right.
s 24 Mr. DeWald, would you come over and examine them,
( ,) 25 please, and tell me if you identify any differences in Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
, 16533 N s '
1 physical condition today as compared to the condition 2 they were in when you gave them to Mr. Dominique at that
- j. 3 time?:
4~ A (WITNESS DE WALD) Well, you have the writing on here, I
S that I don't know where11t came from, and they were cut.
6 Q And No. 12 was cut?
7 A (WITNESS DE WALD) Yes.
8 Q And 6 and 7 are missing, of course?
9- A (WITNESS DE WALD) Yes.
10 Q Any other differences in condition?
11 A (WITNESS DE WALD) I have to really look them over.
12 Q Take a moment, please, and look and tell me.if you 13 identify any dif ferences, because, of course, the
! 14 question of whether or not these. reflect the condition 15 that Mr. Puckett observed when he took his test is 16 dependent on some very. fine detail here.
17 A (WITNESS DE WALD) From what I can -- by looking at-18 them, yes, I would say they are in the same type of -
I 19 condition, the welds themselves.
- 20 Q Well, anything else, sir?
- 21 Is there .any dif ference in condition in these 22 coupons today as compared to the time when you gave them 23 to Mr. Dominique and he took rustody of them?
gw 24 A (WITNESS DE WALD) Th2y look the same.
1 25 0 All right.
\
f Annntag nonnreing Roruico; r+a _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 16534~
(~%
O) 4 l' You see no difference?
2 A (WITNESS DE WALD) (Indicating.)
3 0 Well, do you see'any difference?
4 I'm not trying to --
5 A (WITNESS DE WALD) I don't.know. There seems to be no 6 physical difference.
7 0 .All'right, sir.
8 Now, gentlemen, let's look at what has been 9 identified as Applicant's Exhibit 5. That's Mr.
10 Puckett's test.
11- Do you have'a copy of.that before you, either --
12 any of you gentlemen?
, (/)
N, 13 A (WITNESS DE WALD) Yes.
14 MR. GALLO: I'll give them the original to 15 use.
16 MR. GUILD: That would be fine. Fine.
17 BY MR. GUILD:
18 Q All right, 19 Now, I'm looking at Welds -- at a coupon that bears 20 the numbers 13 and 14. It's a rectangular coupcn and it
, 21 has a vertical plate attached to it.
22 Would you turn to wsid -- and there are no other 2
23 welds on that coupon, are there, Mr. DeWald, Mr.
24 Dominique? One coupon, two welds?
25 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) That's correct.
1 Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinoi's 60134
.- _, - - , - . . _ . . . __--__~_-
.(312) 1232-0262 -_ _ .-,. _
d 16535 N
1 O' One plate welded vertically to the. horizontal coupon?
'2 A -(WITNESS DOMINIQUE) That's correct.
3 Q All right. 1 4 Do the other gentlemen agree with that as well?
5 A (WITNESS DE WALD) Yes.
6 A '(WITNESS KOSIENIAK) 'Yes.
-7 0 So this coupon would be evaluated in association with 8- Weld 13 and114, would it not? .Is that right, sir?
9 A (WITNESS DE WALD) I didn't evaluate the welds-per.--
0 per the-way you are looking at it.
11 I looked at Mr. Vogt's key and.tried to do an'
- 12. objective evaluation through Mr. Vogt's key.
('N}
, 13 Q Well, that's not exactly my question, because I'm 14 looking at the physical' condition of.the coupons, Mr.
15 DeWald.
16 Now, if Mr. -- if I were Mr. Puckett and I were
- 17 taking a test, I would be using your test and I would 18 answer Questions 13 and 14 using this coupon, would I i
t 19 not?
20 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) That's correct.
21 Q All right.
22 Does everybody agree with that?
. 23. A. (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) Yes.
i 24 A (WITNESS DE WALD) Yes.
25 Q Okay.
Sonntag Renorting Rorv{co, TFd_
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
_ . _ - - _ . . ~ . . _ _ . _
i 16536.
r~'~.
\ i V
1 Now, turn to Mr. Vogt's key. Let's not 's tart 2 with -- Mr. -- Mr. Vogt's' key is Applicant's Exhibit 3 6, and let's look at Weld.13 and 14.
4- All right. Now, what is Weld 13 described as, Mr.
5- Dominique?
I 6 Mr. DeWald, why don't you answer this question, 7 please?
.8 What's Weld 13 described as on the Vogt key?
1 9 A (WITNESS DE WALD) Quarter-inch fillet weld.
10 Q All right, sir.
11 And what -- what, if any, defects or what, if any, b,] 12 notable or rejectable conditions are noted in Mr.-Vogt's 13 key in association with Weld No. 14?
14 A (WITNESS DE WALD). Insufficient leg, 1-3/4 inches long.
15 0 All right.
16 Anything else?
17 A (WITNESS DE WALD) It says -- he says there's undercut 18 on-the coupon, which is satisfactory.
19 Q All right.
20 Anything else, notable or rejectable conditions?
21 A (WITNESS DE WALD). Not welded to the end.
22 Q All right, s i r '.
23 Now, 13 is the other weld associated with this 24 coupon.
( ) 25 And what kind of weld is it, Mr. DeWald?
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Ganeva, Illinois 60134
.(312) 232-0262
1 16537 N
-\ \
&l 1- A (WITNESS DE WALD) Quarter -- 3/16. inch fillet weld.
2 Q All right, sir.
3 And are there ~any notable or rejectable conditions 4 on Mr. Vogt's key associated with Weld 13?
5 A (WITNESS DE WALD) No.
6 0 'All right.
7 Now, the other gentlemen -- Mr. Dominique, do you 8 agree with Mr. DeWald's assessment of the key with 9 respect to Weld 13 and 14?
10 MR. GALLO: I don't believe the witness has 11 had a chance to follow that.
in
) 12 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) It says it's -- Vogt's key says 13 it's accept --
14 Q 13 is acceptable?
15 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Does that say reject?
16 Yes, 13 says acceptable.
17 0 Okay.
18 Now, with respect to this coupon, do you notice any i'
19 'other physical conditions that are notable or rejectable 20 on this coupon that are not noted on the Vogt key, 21 showing you the physical evidence now, the coupon?
t 22 (Indicating.)
23 Mr. DeWald, do you see any?
24 A (WITNESS DE-WALD) No.
(s
(_, 25 Q I'm pointing right at it.
Sonntag Reporting Snrvico, TJ d _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 312) 232-0262 _ , . _, ,-. ,
. .. . .. - . . - . - . ~ . - . ~ ~ _ . ~ . . . - . - - ...
~r 4
16538 r V' 1 (Indicating.)
i i 2 Do you see:any, Mr. Dominique?
1 3 A- (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) I am not qualified to say.
4 Q' Uh-huh.
5 Mr. Kosieniak, do you see any physical conditions i
6 of the coupon that shows Weld 13 and 14 other than what V
e '7 Mr..DeWald just read from the Vogt key?
- 8 A' (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) I don't.have a copy of the Vogt i
9 key. -
! 10 0 Why don'.t' you show him ~ the' Vogt' key and tell me whether 11 or not you see any physical conditions on that coupon
-12 that are not reflected in the Vogt key.
f 13 A ;(WITNESS KOSIENIAK) No. 13 is acceptable.
I 14 .Can I have your question? !
2.
- 15 0 Yes.
i 16 Do you see any physical conditions on that ' coupon, i
17 the coupon associated with Weld 13 and 14,1 that-are.not h 18 noted in Mr. Vogt's key in association with Weld 13 and l 19 14 ?.
.20 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) 'No.
l 21 Q Well, sir, do you see an' arc strike?
!' 22 There's a -- the words " arc strike" are written on l 23 the coupon next to Weld 13, aren't they? In very large l
24- letters, it says " arc strike"?-
y , ) 25 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) Oh, .it's off -- it's off the weld.
j Sonntag Reporting Servica_ T. t d _
i Geneva, Illinois 60134
~
~
1 _ _ .,- _ .._,-
16539
/~
( N. -
\,,)
1 You'said with the weld.
2 0 Well, on the coupon.
3 Ih) you see anything on the coupon?
4 You see an arc strike, don't you?
5 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) Yes.
6 Q That's not on Mr. Vogt's key, is it, for Weld 13 and 14?
7 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) No.
8 Q Mr. DeWald, do you see Mr. Vogt's key mentioning an arc 9 strike in association with Weld 13 and 14?
10 A (WITNESS'DE WALD) Where are you talking about the are 11 strike, sir?
t'%
.12 0 Yes, sir, I'll show you.
'13 It has'-- where it has written on the coupon now, 14 " arc strike."
15 Do you see the words " arc strike" associated.with 16 No. 13? ,
17 A (WITNESS DE WALD) Yes, sir, that's acceptable.
18 Q Do you see an arc strike? !
19 A (WITNESS DE WALD) I see the written words. ;
20 0 Do you see an arc strike physically written on this 21 coupon?
1 22 A (WITNESS DE WALD) Yes, sir, yes, sir.
23 Q Do you see Mr. Vogt noting an arc strike by Weld 13?
24 A (WITNESS DE WALD) No, sir, he did not.
7s
( 25 0 All.right.
l l
sonntag noporeing sorutco, r.ea _ j Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
I 16540 p.3 b
1 Anything else? t 2 -Now, I gave-you a h' int-there.
3 Now, anything el.se physically.about this coupon 4 that Mr. Vogt does not note that is a notable condition, 5 Mr. Kosieniak?'
.6 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) No, I d on ' t --
7 0 I'm showing it to you right here.
8 (Indicating.)
9 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) I'm trying to use my bifocals.
10 Excuse me.
11 Q Okay.
s 12 Do you see'that white line right there?
\
13 (Indicating.)
14 What does that indicate, Mr. Kosieniak?
15 I'm giving you -- giving you a hint now.
16 .A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) Apparently looking at the grind i'
17 mark.
18 Q There is-a. big grind mark across the end of that plate, i
19 isn't there?
20 A (WITHESS KOSIENIAK) (Indicating.)-
21 0 It's a very prominent grind mark, isn't it?
(
22 A -(WITNESS KOSIENIAK) It's a grind mark.
l 23 Q Pr ominen t?
( s 24 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) It's a grind mark.
I k ,) 25 0 I mean, my vision is terrible. I can see it.
! Sonntag Reporting Service Ltd.
{ Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
k e 16541
.r b
1 MR..GALLO: He's arguing with the witness.
i 2 He said'it's a grind mark.
l 3 BY-MR. GUILD:
- - 4 Q~ Would you agree it's prominent?
5 It's not -- it's not-not an insignificant grind ,
6- mark,-is it?
7 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) It's a grind mark.
8 Q Mr. DeWald, do_you see a prominent grind mark there on -
9 the end of that plate?
10 A (WITNESS DE WALD). I see a grind mark.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN:- Let's use the word
( ) 12 " apparent."
13 Is it an apparent grind mark?
14 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) Yes, sir.
15 BY MR.-GUILD:
16 Q Mr. Dominique,'do you see an. apparent grind mark there?
17 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes, yes, it is.
18 Q In fact, it's indicated by a white line, isn't it?
.19 It makes it real easy to see.
20 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes, it is.
21 Q Now, does Mr. Vogt's key show a grind mark for Weld 13 22 and 147 23 Mr. DeWald, do.you see any indication of a grind 24 mark noted by Mr. Vogt's key for Weld 13 and 14?
25 A (WITNESS DE WALD) No, there isn't.
r gnnneng nannreing noruico, r. e a .
p Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) -232-0262 j
16542 s s
\
, s.
1 Q Do you, Mr. Kosieniak?
2- A (WITNESS ~KOSIENIAK) No.
3 0 When did the grind mark and the arc strike get on the 4 coupon associated with Weld 13 and 14, anybody on the 5 panel?
6 A (WITNESS.DE WALD) It's always been there.
7 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) They've always been.there.
8 Q Ch, they've always been there?.
9 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes, they have.
10 Q How do~you know they've always been there?.
11 JL (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) When you look.at something day in
' Im J 12 and day out for several months, I can easily say it's D
13 always been there.
14 0 Well, do you know whether that grind mark was there.when 15 Mr. --
16 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes, it was.
17 Q- You didn't even hear my question, Mr. Dominique.
18 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) When Mr. Puckett took his test, yes
. 19 it was.
20 0 It was?
21 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes, it was.
22 Q Ucw about that a.c strike?
23 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes, it was.
- 24 Q But you didn't note it on the vogt key?
25 MR. GALLO: Objection.
l l
__ Sonntag Reporting Service. L td .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16543
-t %
1 The witness is not the author of the Vogt key.
l 2 BY MR. GUILD:
3 0 It's not noted on the Vogt key, is it, either of those l -4 conditions?
1 l 5 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) No,, it's not. !
f L 6 -Q Now, Mr. DeWald, you graded'Mr. Puckett's test here. l I'
7 Did you note, in Applicant's Exhibit 5, a grind 8 mark or an arc strike in association with Weld 13 or 14?
9 A (WITNESS DE WALD) No, sir.
19 Q All right.
11- Now, why was Sample 12 cut -- Weld 12?
l 12 A (WITNESS.DOMINIQUE) Me?
13 Q Anybody.
14 Do you know?
'15 A (WITNESS DE WALD) I don't know.
16 Q Mr. DeWald, you don't know.
17 Mr. Dominique, you don't know, either?
18 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) It was cut because of a L
19 disagreement. That's all I know.
20 Q And someone told you that?
21 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) No. I was there when the 22 disagreement took place.
23 Q Okay.
24 So you observed a disagreement?
b)
( 25 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) . Yes, sir.
nonntag naporting noruico; r.e a _
j Geneva, Illinois 60134
} _ __
(312) 232-0262
16544 V
1 Q. And observed some cutting?
2 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes, sir.
3 Q' Was the -- I take it that at the point it was cut, it 4 was no longer used.to -- to perform certification tests 5 for welders?
6 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Correct.
7 Q Now, Mr. Dominique, Mr. Kosieniak, neither of you 8 gentlemen remember when you exchanged custody of these 9 coupons?
10 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) The exact date, no.
11 Q Well, you are not even close, are you, Mr. Dominique?
O 12 You 5ay it happened between November-and April --
s D;
-13 November,84,.and April, '857 14 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) That's correct.
15 Q That's. a pretty long period of time. That's five 16 months.
17 Now, I take it -- I take it you didn't control.
18 these coupons carefully enough to even write down when 19 you passed them on to someone else?
20 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) I controlled the coupons extremely 21 well.
.22 0 Well, did you write down when you passed them on to 23 someone else?
24 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) No, I did not.
(j 25 0 Okay.
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16545 i
N i y . . -
1 And Mr. Kosieniak, your memory is no better, is it?
2 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) No, sir.
3 0 -And I take it that you didn't control these coupons 4 carefully-enough to write down when you got them?
5 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) No, I did not.
6 Q And I take it that once you got them, once they fell 7 into somebody else's hands, you didn't make any record 8 of who you gave.them to or what they did with them, did 9 you? ,
10 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) No.
11 Q And you don't even know who put the writing on them or I
Ng
) 12 when?
13 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) No, I don't.
14 Q Now, Mr. DeWald, y'o u graded Mr. Puckett's test, and you 11 5 graded Mr. Puckett's test after you had already decided 16 to fire him, didn't you?
17 MR. GALLO: Objection.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: On what grounds, Mr. Gallo?
19 MR. GALLO: On the. grounds it's outside the 7
20 scope of this foundation testimony --
21 MR. GUILD: Then I move to strike --
22 MR. GALLO: -- the motivation for grading the 23- test.
24 .
It, on the premise made, has nothing to do with y_,) 25 .whether or not it's Mr. Puckett's test, and that's the i
gnnneng nopnreing norvino; r. e a -
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I
,a l
16546 i N--l ;
1 only purpose this witness is being offered for.
2 MR.-GUILD: Well, then I move to strike his 3 . testimony where he says-that he graded the test. i 4 Let'me make very specific reference, because if Mr.
5 DeWald's testimony is going to stand for anything more. ;
6 than identifying a piece of paper, I'm going to insist 7 on the right to ask him about the' grading of the test.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I don't think we can 9 construe the' testimony that narrowly, Mr. Gallo.
11 0 This is within'the area.. 'The question ought to be 11' answered, then.
( 12. )(R . GALLO: Well, your-Honor, I.certainly 13 have no objection to questions'about the grading process 14 -and that sort of thing; but the question that was posed 15 _obviously goes to Mr. Guild's theory o'f the case on 16 getting rid of Mr. Puckett.
17- It seems to me that's divorced from this issue.
18 MR. GUILD: It goes.to the~ integrity of the 19 evidence, Mr._ Chairman; and I suggest'that the test 20 graded by Mr. DeWald, using Mr. Shamblin's language as 21 most charitably as I can, is of suspect credibility and
' 22 it's of suspect credibility because of the circumstances 23 under which it was graded.
24- JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
- ( ,/ 25 I understand that you don't object to-questions Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois. 60134 (312) 232-0262
16547 hg.
V 1 that relate to the grading. You just don't want to 2 reopen the whole question of'the firing of Mr.
3 Puckett --
4 MR. GALLO: Exactly.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- and -- okay.
'6 This particular question happens to relate to 7 grading, and so I assume you are withdrawing your 8 objection to this one and just putting.us on notice that 9 we shouldn't allow a wholesale excursion into the area 10 of the Puckett firing, is that correct, Mr. Gallo?
11 MR. BERRY: Well, as I recall the question, h
V
\ 12 it was, "You graded the test after you decided to fire
- 13. Mr. Puckett, didn ' t you?"
14 It seems to me that that goes to the essence of my 15 objection.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I believe he's 17 attacking the credibility of the grading -- or he's
- 18 setting up the foundation for that, not just a wholesale
-19 excursion into the area of the firing of Puckett.
20 So we'll overrule the objection, then, and we will 21 keep in mind that we are having a limited cross 22 examination.
23 MR. GUILD: Understood, Mr. Chairman.
s 24 Would.you answer that question, Mr. DeWald, please?
k) 25 A (WITNESS DE WALD) Would you repeat the question?
?
Ronntag Roporting Morv{co. T. Pd _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16548 N'
\N.s l 1 BY MR. GUILD:
2 Q Yes, sir.
3 You graded Mr. Puckett's test after you had already 4 decided to fire him?
5 A (WITNESS DE WALD)- I didn't fire him until the 28th. I 6 graded the test on the 26th.
7 Q Yes, sir.
8 But you- had already decided to fire him?
9 You graded the test on Sunday, 'the -26th, you fired 10 him two days later.
11 You had already contacted Mr. Simile and arranged 12 for Mr. Simile to replace Mr. Puckett, hadn't you?
13 A (WITNESS DE WALD) No, sir, I never contacted Mr.
- 14 Simile.
15 Q Mr. Simile was contacted. You are aware of that, aren't 16 you?
17 A (WITNESS DE WALD) That I'm aware of.
~18 Q He was contacted before.you graded the test, wasn't he?
19 A (WITNESS DE WALD) Yes.
20 Q All right, sir.
21 So you had already made up your mind to fire Mr.
22 Puckett when you graded his test?
23 A (WITNESS DE WALD). It was in my mind. I had not fired 24 him yet.
25 MR. GUILD: All right.
Sonntag Reporting Service. L td .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. . . . _- . . . _ _ . ~ -- .- _. . . . .
i-3 b 16549
-bi Ay
-l ~ Bk) further questions.
~
=2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: No.further questions?
~
. 3 MR. GUILD: No, sir,.Mr. Chairman.-
f 4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Berry.
5 MR.:' BERRY : Staff-has no questions.-
6 BOARD EXAMINATION 7 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
8 Q Mr. DeWald, when you graded Mr. Puckett's paper, did you 9 know that-there was that grind mark and the arc strike?
10 A (WITNESS DE WALD)- There are-various which looks like 11 inconsistencies on those. tests, sir.
( )-12 Those arc strikes and the grind marks were 13 evaluated - by Mr. Vogt toiensure that -the inspector
~
~
14 .taking those could identify a rejectable item or an 15 . acceptable. item.
16 They meet the criteria, and'that's the reason th'at
~
17 they were not logged or written on his key.
18 I used the. key to do a very objective look at what 19 the individual had written on his paper instead of going 20 to the coupon and grade an individual on my perception 21- of.what I saw on the coupon.
22' Q But now .I see that - ' I don't see it right now, but my 23 recollection is that there are conditions that are noted
- 24. here that are satisfactory, but'they are merely noted so
(
25 that' the satisfactory condition can be determined; isn't Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) -232-0262 j
~
1 16550 if~~;
- 11. that so?!
2 ~ A' (WITNESS'DE WALD) Yes, sir.
3- ' These conditions noted are in the weld area next or
'4 adjacent to it or.along the_ leg of the weld.
5 0 -And so you-are saying these two1 conditions,-the arc 6 strike'and the grinding, might not have been on the weld 7 .itself, and, therefore, might not'have been' appropriate 8 to consider in taking this practical?-
9 A- (WITNESS DE WALD) No, sir.
They are not a rejectable 10 item or deficiency item, and they were outside of the
- 11. weld area, so, therefore, I ---again, I surmise as to 12 why they were not written, but they weren't adjacent to 13 or within the weld.
14 (Indicating.)
15' O Well, what I'm asking is what' significance that;has to 16 .the test, the fact.that they were not on the weld 17 itself.
18 What significance is there to that?
19' A- (WITNESS DE WALD) .This is a similar type of condition
~
20 that a Weld Inspector may meet in the field, and if he 21 sees this type of condition, that.he would be able to 2:2 determine whether this condit' ion is acceptable or this 23 condition is rejectable..
s 24- And I believe, again, that's why Mr. Vogt
(/ 25 specifically put those various things, such as arc Sonntag Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
-(312)~ 232-0262
= . - . - - .. . . - _ . -- . - . . - . . . . . - . . . - . . _ - .- .-
l' 4 16551
{A ,
- i. -
i L.1 strikes and the. grind marks, in different areas, so that
, -2 the -inspector --- he was sure that the ' inspector -could j_ '3 dif ferentiate between the weld area acceptable and a
.4 rejectable discontinuity such as'that.
5 (Indicating.)-
6 Q Mr. Kosieniak, are you familiar with acceptable and 7 rejectable welds?
8 A (WITNESS KOGIENIAK) 'Yes, I am, your Honor.
9 0 'Is a-condition such'as the arc strike or the --
10 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) Grind.-
11 0 -- or thelgrind not a ~ significant condition with regard 12 to determining the acceptability. of that weld because 13 those conditions are not on the welds themselves?
14 'A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) I don't- know exactly, your Honor, 15 but I'd have to look at the Comstock procedure to figure 16 that out.
.17' Q Is there some area of judgment, then, as to.how close
.18- 'or --
19 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) With the grind mark, you would 20 probably have to measure the depth. With the arc 21 strike, you would have to visually look at it. l 1
22 0- Well, I'm not-talking about the imperfection itself as )
23 to the significance of that. I'm talking about the 24 location now. l
( 25 Is there some judgment that has to be made, then, Ronntag Reporting Rorvico_ T. td .
Geneva,' Illinois 60134 (312) -232-0262 J
l i
16552
^
("~s
, \
\.- / )
l 1 as to whether the imperfection is close enough to the ;
2 weld to be judged?
3 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) Again, your Honor, I don't know.
4 I'd have to .'ook at' the procedure.
5 Q Mr. Dominique, can you tell me that?
6 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) No, I can't.
7 0 What information would you have to have?
8 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Cer tification in welding, 9 probably.
10 (Laughter.)
11 -Q I see.
p].
g U
12 -You - just don't have the background for that?
13 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) I have the background for welding,-
14 but I don't have the certification on this job site.
11 5 Q Well, I'm not asking you for a -- forgive me -- a 16 definitive answer based on your certification.
17- I'm asking for your judgment now.
18 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) It -- it depends on what project 19 you are working on.
20 I've worked on projects where it can be very, very 21 close and other projects where the distance can be 22 further.
23 It depends on which project you are working on and 24 how stringent they are on that project. It varies from
( ,) 25 project to project.
Sonntag Reporting Service __ Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
= --.
i 16553 m
i-1 Q Okay.
2 So in some projects,-if the. arc strike is close, l
3 .they may still not consider that as part of ~ the' judgment
- 4 call for.the weld itself;'is~that'right?
i l 5 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE). That's correct.
f 6 Q And other projects, that would be considered-part of the 3
l 7 judgment call?
I 8 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) ~ Yes, sir.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
10 BOARD EXAMINATION 11 BY JUDGE COLE:
a g 12 'Q Sir, Mr. Dominique, have you evaluated the arc strike
. .13 and.the. grind mark yourself personally, the arc strike
. 14 and grind mark associated with the coupon that has Weld 15- 13 and 14 on it?
16 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) You'mean an actual evaluation on 17 .them?
?
18 No.
- i 19 0 Weren'.t you involved in training classes using these l
- 20 coupons?
21 'A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) I was the Training Coordinator for
] 22 the project at one time, yes.
J
~
23 Q But you did not get involved in the actual. evaluation of 24 those welds? l
! ( -
25 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) No, sir, I did not. ,
l Rnnntna DonnrfInn Rorv4ro. T fd - ,
Geneva', Illinois 60134
~ '
L .-- ..
_____,,_,__,l
16554 v
1 Q Are you familiar with the' people that did?
2 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes, I am.
3 Q Are you familiar with their evaluations of that grind 4 mark and those arc strikes?
5 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) No, sir, I'm not.
6 Q Are'you. familiar with why the fabricator of those 7- coupons put the grind mark and the arc strike on?
8 I thought you indicated that it put on for a
-9 reason.
10 A- (WITNESS DOMINIQUE). I don't remember.
11 Did I say they were put on for a reason?
O')
s G'
12 Q Or was that someone else that said that?
13 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) I'm probably sure.they were put on 14 for a reason; but I don't recall me saying that to you.
15 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I think that was 16 Mr. DeWald's surmise about why Mr. Vogt put those on, 17 but I don't believe it was a matter of personal 18 knowledge of any of the witnesses.
19 BY JUDGE COLE:
20 Q Well, maybe I'll ask Mr. DeWald if he knows anything 21 further about the grind mark and the arc strike on the 22 coupon.
23 A (WITNESS DE WALD) Again, this is one of the things 24 that Mr. Vogt had put on there.
( ,j 25 Why he had them on there -- a summation, it's Sonntag Reporting Service. L td .
Geneva, Illinois 60134-(312) 232-0262
~
16555 i:
\_J 1 possibly a distraction from the weld to ensure that the 2 inspector understands the acceptable / rejectable 3- criteria.
4= If he was to' evaluate those arc strikes, they would 5 not -- have no effect on the weld, and they were 6 acceptable. There was no base metal reduction.
7 If you evaluate the grinding marks, the base metal 8 reduction on.the grinding marks would be insignificant 9 depending upon the thickness of the metal of which the 10 grind marks were on.
11 Q So you would have .that -- the criteria that would be 4
. 12 used for that are contained in your weld inspection l 13 specifications?
l
'14 A (WITNESS DE WALD) Yes, sir; and it's in the 4.8.3 of 15 the -- 4.8.3 of the welding inspection procedure, which 16 gives the criteria for arc strikes as to being 17 acceptable or whether rejectable, and also for base 18 metal reduction, which is a way it would be explained in j
! 19 the procedure as -- which would be applied to a grind 20 mark.
21 (Indicating.)
22 Q Now, sir, with-an inspector taking that exam, is it the 23 obligation of the inspector to esaluate that. arc strike 24 and that grind mark as part of the examination?
25 A (WITNESS DE WALD) According to Mr. Vogt's key, it Ronntag RonnrFlna Rervice; LFA_
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 ;
- . . ~ _ .
16556 b3-U 1 would not be.
2 Q. Well, how do you know if the only thing he noted there were d'efects and you indicated that they might be
~
3 4 imperfections, but they passed the requirements, so they 5 wouldn't be on the key as a reject' item, would they?
6 A (WITNESS DE WALD) No, sir. Now, he.does have on the 7 key a 1, satisfactory. It's a place of undercut on Weld 8 No. 14, which is an over 3/16 of an inch in length,.and 9 4, area embed excess of 1/32 of an inch.
10 I can't make out what.his word is here right 11 offhand.
( 12 Not over 3/16 of an inch in length for area, and 13 I'm not sure what that word is. That's --
14 MR. GALLO: Which.
15 JUDGE COLE: Which exceeds 1/32 in depth.
16 A (WITNESS DE WALD) Which exceeds 1/32. It's not over 17 .3/16, so it's acceptable.
18 That's part of the criteria.
19 BY JUDGE COLE:
20 0 So I guess I lost something there, Mr. DeWald.
21 Does that pertain to the depth of the grind or 22 .something?
23 A (WITNESS DE WALD) That's to the depth of the undercut.
24 0 .On the weld?
\
\ ,). 25 A (WITNESS DE WALD) That's adjacent to the weld.
- Sonntag Repor ting Se rv ice _. L td..
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16557 i.sl
~
1 Q But he makes no reference to the grind or the --
2 A (WITNESS DE WALD) No, sir, no, sir, he doesn't.
3 0 -- or the arc strike?
4 A (WITNESS DE WALD) No, sir.
5 Q Mr. Dominique, during your tenure as the Training 6 Coordinator for welding inspectors, you indicated that 7 you had custody of the test coupons; right, sir?
8 JL (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) That's correct.
9 0 And you indicated that you had the four coupons which 10 contained Welds 1 through 14; correct?
11 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Correct.
(%/
12 0 Were those coupons the only coupons'that were used 13 during your tenure as Training Coordinator?
14 JL (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) To the best of my knowledge, yes.
15 0 And these coupons were not modified or changed in any 16 way during your tenure as Training Coordinator?
17 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) No , sir, they were not.
18 Q Except for the time when the piece of Weld 12 was cut 19 off?
20 A (WITNESS ~DOMINIQUE) Right, which was after all testing 21 was completed.
22 JUDGE COLE: All right, sir.
23 Thank you.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I'm sorry, Mr. Dominique, I s
7s
( _, ) 25- forget to ask a question.
Annneng nopnreing snruten; r.ea .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
16558 i : r~
\
L s' i
1 BOARD EXAMINATION 2 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN 3 .Q You indicated that Weld 12 was sawed off because of a 4 disagreement.
5 A disagreement between whom?
6 A- (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Tony Simile and Tom Vogt.
7 Q Oh, you heard them disagreeing about something?-
8 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes, sir, I did. They.were rig'ht
- 9 behind me talking about it.
10 0 Was there a mention of Mr. Puckett's name in this~
11 disagreement?
12 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) No, no.
13' .-I -
I can 't -- I can't recall who the 14 disagreement -- if there was even an individual involved 4 15 on the disagreement.
16 I tisink it was just about the weld itself when Mr.
17 Vogt was down for an audit.
18 That's the -- that's the only part I remember.
19 O Okay.
20 But let me ask yout 21 Was Mr. Puckett mentioned at all during'the time 4
22 that Mr. Vogt and Mr. Simile were in there and taking i 23 part -- taking the welds and examining them?
24 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) I don't remember Mr. Puckett or
, ) 25 -any other inspector's name being mentioned.
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16559 px
)\
l O' So you don't know that they were in there because of the 2 Puckett matter?
3 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) No, I have no idea why they were i 4 disagreeing.
5 Q No. I'm not talking just about their disagreement.
6 But with regard to the entire visit that they had, 7 you don't know that Mr. Puckett'was mentioned at all?
8 A' (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) No, Mr. Puckett was not mentioned.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine.
10 BOARD EXAMINATION 11 BY JUDGE CALLIHAN:.
(v 12 Q Let us turn for a moment again to 13 and 14. This is 13 going to be a very difficult question.
14 To your knowledge, does Mr. Vogt's key -- let's 15 eliminate all the -- suppose.that you -- and I will 16 address this individually, because each of you is, in my i
17 recollection and knowledge, a qualified Weld Inspector.
18 Suppose you went out to the field and saw 13 and 14 19 in the condition in which they allegedly are here now l
20 with shortness of weld, with arc strike, with grind 21 marks and so forth, and you have the task of doing first 22 line inspection of each of-those welds. l 23 What would be your call as they stand today?
24 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) For 13 and 14? l l
b(,)/ '25 r
JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me. l l
l snnneng naporeing servica_ raa_ )
Geneva, Illinois 60134
_ . _ _ _ _ ~ _ - . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _
(312) 232-0262
-16560
.U 1 Do you mean with regard to the arc strike and the 2 grind?
3 JUDGE CALLIHAN: As it stands, as it stands.
-4 Then my next question is going.to be why do you
- 5 make the call as you did.
6 JUDGE COLE: So you are asking them to 7 inspect the weld and --
8 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Yes.
9 JUDGE COLE: -- make a report?
10 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) I'd first have to get a copy of the 11 procedure.
12 BY. JUDGE CALLIHAN:
13 Q You would have to do what, sir?
14 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) I'd have to get a copy of the 15 procedure to find out.
16 0 You can't go further than that.
17 Mr. DeWald,.how would you call 13 and 14 as they 18 now stand?
.19 A (WITNESS DE WALD) I would say the arc strikes are 20 acceptable.
21 I would have to measure the base metal reduction to i 22 whatever the requirements are in the procedure on the 23 grind marks. I would have to put a fillet gauge on the 24 welds to ensure that the size are over.
1 b
25 I have not sit down and evaluated it, what you 4 Sonntag Reporting Service Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 1 16561 4
V 1 asked me, against-Mr. Vogt's key.
2 .Q Mr. Dominique, how would you call these if you just met 3 them fresh out in the field?
4 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) I would have to go with what Mr.
5 Kosieniak said. I would have to have a copy of the 6 procedure with me.
7 You have to, anyhow, as an inspector. You have to 8 have your checklist and your procedure. You read what 9 the procedure requires. If it's there -- you check it 10 yes or no if it's there or not there, so without the 11 procedure or the checklist --
(v) 12 13 (Indicating.)
JUDGE COLE: And tools?
-14 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) -- and tools to make the 15 evaluation -- you can't make the evaluation.
16 BY JUDGE CALLIHAN:
17 0 And in the interval -- these items have been in 18 existence, in your custody, somebody else's custody, so 19 forth -- you haven't made any evaluations of the various 20 attributes?
, 21 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) No, sir, I haven't.
22 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Thank you.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gallo.
24 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 25 BY MR. GALLO:
sonntag popnreing snevico, r.ta .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 -
(312) 232-0262
Ar 4 -.h ' = - E4 w45+ - - ,h4 ----5 % - .Cd At e uma . m e& J4d.d 4, _m__L._ - 4-4 i
1 Q. Mr.'Dominique, in your-testimony-in Answer 12, you 2 indicate that on November 4, 1984, Mr. Vogt and Simile 3 used the coupons that day'to -- for a demonstration in a 4 classroom for inspectors.
5 Do you recall that testimony?
6 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE') ' Yes, I do.
7 Q The disagreement you referred to between Vogt and 8 Simile, do you know whether it took place before or 9 after that date?
10- A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE)' I do believe it took place af ter 11 that date.
12
( Q Now, looking at 13 and 14, I believe you both 13 testified -- that is, Mr. DeWald and Mr. Dominique 14 testified, with respect to Weld 13 and 14, that the_ arc 15 strike that is near -- not on, but near Weld 13 and the 16 grind-mark that is at the end of 13 and.14 were there at 17 the time, first, Mr. Dominique, when you had custody of 18 this particular coupon; is that correct?
19 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes, they were.
20 0 was the arc strike and the grind mark there when you 21 gave them to Mr. Dominique, Mr. DeWald?
22 A. (WITNESS DE WALD) Yes, I believe they were.
'23 Q Do you have any doubt.on that score?
24~ A (WITNESS DE WALD) No.
25 O Do you have any doubt on that score, Mr. Dominique?
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262'
16563 p)
\
x_- -
1 A (WITNESS D0'M INIQUE) No.
-2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I believe you said to Mr.
3' Don.inique .
4 You meant to Mr. Kosieniak, didn't you?
5 MR. GALLO: No. Dominique and DeWald.
6 I think I got it right this time.-
.7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, okay. I'm sorry.
8 I just want to make the record clear.
9 MR. GALLO: Thet's all right. I've been the 10 worst offender on that one.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I wasn'.t referring to your (Ju 12 13 question to'Mr. DeWald.
question to Mr. Dominique.
I was referring to your 14 MR. GALLO: No. I intended to ask Mr.
15 Dominique.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. As long as you are 17 certain, that's fine.
I 18 MR. GALLO: Yes.
19 BY f*R. GALLO:
20 Q Now, let's return, Mr. Dominique, to the time of the
- 21 disagreement between Vogt and Simile.
- 22 As I recall your testimony in answering questions i
23 to Mr. Guild, they asked you for.the coupons so that 24 they could review them; is that correct?
(_ 25 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes, yes.
nnnneng nopnreing norutco, t. e a .
Geneva,' Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
if f 16564-.
J 1 Q And did ' you retrieve them for them from the cabinet?
2 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes,'I did.
- Did y'ou give them _t'o them?
~
3' Q 4 A- ;(WITNESS DOMINIQUE) I set them in the training room on 5~ a table.
6 (Indicating.)
7 Q And what did you do next?
8 A (WITINSS DOMINIQUE) I'went back to work at-my desk.
9 Q And what did Mr. Simile and Mr. Vogt do at that point?
10 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) They started looking over the 11 coupons'real close, the welds and --
[v ) 12 Q How far is your desk from the table there where you 13- placed tue coupons?
14 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) About.six feet.
15 Q All right.
16 At some point, did you observe that Vogt and Simile 17 finished reviewing the coupons?
18 A' (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes.
19- Q What happened at that point? -
20 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) We put them back in the cabinet.
21 Q You put them back into the cabinet.
22 At what point in time did you take Weld Coupon 12 23 _to the fab shop for cutting?
24 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) It was within the next day or two.
25 Q Oh, it was after that time?
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~ _ . -. . .- - . . . . . ._-._ .
16565 m
4 U
1 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes, yes.it was.
$ 2 Q. So you put the - on the day that they made the. review, 3- the coupons, including 6 and 7, were returned to the 4 cabinet; is that correct?
f 5 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) That's true.
6 Q And did you lock it at that time?
- 7 'A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes, I did. 1 8 Q- And did Simile and.Vogt return a short time thereafter?
9 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes; within a day or two.
10 0 Okay.
11 And what did they ask of you?-
i 12 A (WITNEFS DOMINIQUE) They asked to pull the one plate 13 oti t . They wanted to take it out to the fab shop.
MR. GUILD:
14 Can you keep your voice up, Mr.
! 15 Dominique?
16 I can't hear what you are saying.
4
! 17 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) They asked to take the on,e plate
?
v .
j 18 out of the cabinet, which I did, because they wanted to-
- 19 take it down to the fab shop.
1 =20 BY MR. GALLO:
21 Q Now, which plate is 'that?
i
[ 22 % (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) The plate -- I believe it's 8 j 23 through 12, something like that.
24 Q Was it this one?
i
{ g 25 (Indicating.)
l i
snnntag nopnreing garutco; r.e a .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16566 i- 1 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes, it's that one.
2 Q 'The'one that.was cut?
3 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Right, right.
4 Q And what did you do?
5 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) I pulled it out of the cabinet and 6 gave it-to them, and when they walked with it, I shut 7 the cabinet back up and walked.to the fab shop.
8 (Indicating.)
9 'O You walked with them to the fab shop?
10 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) To the fab shop.
4 11 Q Where were the other coupons at this point'in time?
[v} 12 A (WITNESS-DOMINIQUE) They were still in the cabinet.
13 Q Now, did you leave the cabinet locked or unlocked?
14 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) I locked it. ,
15 Q -Before you went to the. fab shop?
16 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes, I did.
17 Q All right.
18 And what happened when you got to the fab shop?
4 l 19 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) They got an electrician down there 20' or whatever -- whoever to cut the coupon.
21 Q And that's this piece -- this small piece that has been 22 identified'as an Applicant's. exhibit?
23 (Indicating.)
24 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes.
k j 25 Q And then what happened?
Sonntag Reoorting Service, T, td .
d Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16567 T >
{
l~ A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) And then they carried it' back up 2 to the training room and further evaluation was done up 3 there.
I 4 (Indicating.)
5 Q Were you involved in that evaluation?
I 6 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) No, I wasn't.
7 Q Where did the evaluation by Vogt and Simile take place?
l 8 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) In -- it. started out in the 1 9 training room, but they went elsewhere. .They left the 10 ~ plate behind and they went elsewhere.
11 MR. GUILD: I'm sorry.
12 I can't hear the witness. ,
1 13 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) It started out in the training l
14 room, but they went elsewhere. They -- they left the 15 plate behind. They went elsewhere. They continued i i
16 discussing it.
l 17 BY MR. GALLO: l 18 Q~ Now, when you~say -- I'm sorry. Are you finished, are 19 you finished? l 20 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes. I 21 Q When you say they left the plate behind, what do you
( 22 mean?
23 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) They left it in the training room.
~
24 Q Well, by this time, the plate was in two pieces?
, 25 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Correct.
l nannyng nognryIng norv4eo s. v a .
Geneva, Illittois 60134
)
(312) 232-0262
s 16568 l (~~s t
G ')
i 1 Q Did they leave both pieces in the training room? .
I l l 2 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes, they did. 1
'3 Q And what happened to the pieces after that time?
l l 4 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) I put them back in the cabinet.
5 Q Now, did any occasion arise when Mr. Simile and Mr. Vogt 6 asked for Coupon 6 and 77 1
- 7 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) No. '
l 8 Q Well, I~ thought you testified, with respect to questions l l
9 from Mr. Guild, that -- that you had -- you believed
~
10 that Mr. Vogt was responsible for carrying off 6 and 7.
11 Did I misunderstand that testimony? l O.
-( 1 12 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) No, you didn't.
GI 13 0 Well, can you explain -- I guess my. question said Simile 14 and Vogt.
I 15 A. (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Well, I had a key to the large 16 gray cabinet, but I wasn't the only individual with the 17 key -- I was the only one with the key to that cabinet.
F 18 I was not the only individual with a key to my desk, l
19' which is where I kept the key for the -- for the l 20 cabinet.
21 O I see, I see.
22 So you think that -- well, to follow through:
23 -What made -- 5: hat was your belief that Mr. -- do 24 you believe that Mr. Vogt took the key from your 25 cabinet -- from your desk and removed 6 and 77 Sonntag Reporting Service. I, t d .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16569 g
i i
'\_ '
1 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) In between the time that they had 2 their discussion and the time that I gave the coupons to 3 Mr. Kosieniak, 6 and 7 was missing, but my -- my desk 4 was never -- whenever I came in in the morning, it was 5 still locked up, so somebody who'had a key, who's in 6 corporate or.whatever, bigger than me, got into my desk.
7 Q You just inferred that from the circumstances?
8 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) That's my opinion.
9 Q I understand.
10 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) I didn't want to embarrass 11 anybody.
(n)
N._/
12 Q Now, Mr. Kosieniak, you remember picking up the coupons 13 with Mr. Vannier, don't you?
14 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) Yes, I do.
15 Q What did you do with them -- what did you and Mr.
16 Vannier do with them after you left Mr. Dominique's 17 office at the training center?
18 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) We carried the coupons back to 19 Russ' office.
20 0 And where was Russ' office?
21 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) Back at the S & L --
22 Q At the Braidwood site?
23 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) At the Braidwood site.
24 Q And you are referring to Mr. Vannier?
O( ,) 25 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) Russell Vannier, yes.
Ennntag popnreing soruico, t. e a .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
f
[ 16570 g)
'V
, 1 Q And when you arrived at Mr. Vannier's office,.what did.
l 2 you do with the coupons?
l 3 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) We placed them down and that was l
l 4 it.
1
! 5 .Q In the office some place?
I 6 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) Yes, we placed them down in the 7 office, and then I left Russ Vannier's office.
{
8 Q Fine.
l 9 Mr. Kosieniak, with respect to your excellent j I
10 vision from the eight or so feet that you are from where l l
11 the coupons are located, did you, prior to taking the l eN 7 l g ) 12 witness stand here today, just during. the recess -- .id x_/ j 13 you have the opportunity to observe these coupons prior l l
14 to me asking you the question on the stand whether or l
15 not these were the coupons t' hat you testified to in your !
16 testimony? l l 17 A (WITNESS KOGIENIAK) Yes, I did.
18
~
0 Turn to your testimony, Mr. K9sieniak, at Question 3, 19 and the question is, "I show you four pieces of steel 20 with weld symbols on them which have been marked as 21 Applicant's Exhibits.
22 "Do you recognize them," and you say, "Yes. These 23 are the coupons that Vannier and . picked up from 24 Dominique."
O, 1
( j) 25 I ask you:
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16571
- r- ;
.\
l Were the coupons before you _ when this question was 2 posed?.
3 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) No.
.4 Q They were not?
4 i 5 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) They were not.
6 Q Did you have occasion to review the coupons in i 7 connection with the development of your testimony?
8 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) One time at the site.
9 I can't remember. It's been about two weeks ago.
10 1) Do you recall that the coupons were before you at the --
11 at -- at the time when you were working on your 12 testimony?
i (O
- 13 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) Yes.
14 Q And this was at the site?
15 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) Yes.
16 Q And were those the ones that were there?
17 (Indicating.)
}~
18 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) Yes.
19- Q I'm pointing to Applicant's Exhibits --
f 20 A (WII' NESS KOSIENIAK) Yes, they are.
21 Q. You are certain about that?
22 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) Yes, I am.
23 0 What did you do at that time with respect to the 24 coupons?
5 25 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) Just looked at them.
Ronntnq RonnrFing Rorvico: T. t d -
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16572
{]
- e l Q. Did you examine them?
2 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) I.just looked at the four coupons.
3 That was it.
4 Q For purposes of Question and Answer 3?
5' A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) Oh, yes, yes.
6 Q Now, Mr. Dominique, did you-have occasion, during the 7 recess, prior to taking the stand, to look at those 8 coupons as they sit there now prior to my_asking you 9 whether or not those were the coupons that you 10 identified in your testimony?
11 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes, sir.
O)
(V 12 Q And turning to your testimony --
q 13 A_ . (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Page 2.
14 Q -- Page 2, Question 4, where I say, "I show you four 15 steel configurations. Can you tell me what they are,"
16 did you have occasion, in preparing the answer to this 17 question, to review those coupons at that time?
18 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes.
19 Q And were those the coupons that I'm pointing to, 20 Applicant's Exhibits, that you reviewed at that time?
21 (Indicating.)
22 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes.
23 MR. GUILD: That's all I have.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild.
k 25 RECROSS EXAMINATION Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 .
16573
.O c ! i
\s /
4 1 BY MR. GUILD:
2 Q Gentlemen,.would you turn to the Vogt key, please. ~That 3 is Applicant's Exhibit 6. Look at Weld 6, if you would, 4 please.
5 Do you have that?
i 6 Is Weld 6 an acceptable weld?
4 7 A (WITNESS DE WALD) As indicated.
8 Q Yes.
9 Do you other gentlemen agree that Mr. Vogt shows it 10 an an acceptable weld?
11 A (WITNESS DOMINIQUE) Yes.
,-~
) 12 A (WITNESS KOSIENIAK) Yes, sir.
(
l 11 3 0 All right.
14 Now, but Mr. Vogt notes there is an arc strike and 15 undercut for that weld, does he not?
16 A (WITNESS DE WALD) He does.
17 Q And that's the significance of the AS -- A/S and U/C,
. 18 arc strike and undercut; yes?
19 A (WITNESS DE WALD) Correct.
20 Q All right.
21 Well, why would Mr. Vogt have noted the i
22 . satisfactory arc strike, in association with Weld 6, but 23 not have noted the satisfactory arc strike and grind 24 mark in association with Welds 13 and 147 k 25 A (WITNESS DE WALD) I have to look at the weld.
Sonntag Reporting Snrv{cn_. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16574
\w ,-l 1 Q Well, we can't do that, can we, because Weld 6 is gone;
~2 correct?
3 A (WITNESS DE WALD) Correct.
4 MR. GUILD: That's all the questions I have.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Berry.
6 MR. BERRY: No questions.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gallo.
8 MR. GALLO: No questions.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
10 I take it you are renewing your of fer now to admit 11 these physical exhibits?-
MR. GALLO:
( ) .12 I renew my of fer to admit the 13 weld coupons which have been identified as Applicant's 14 ~ Exhibits 168 through 171 as well as the test graded by 15 Mr. DeWald, Applicant's Exhibit 5.
16 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman --
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
18 MR. GUILD: -- we object to the admission of 19 both pieces of evidence.
'20 Let's talk about the physical evidence first.
21 First, whatever probative value any of this has, 22 which is certainly Applicant's call, but assuming 23 Applicant presses the relevance of any of.this on the 24 Puckett termination issue, which I understand them to i
\ 25 do, because they've of fered this rebuttal testimony, Sonntag Reporting Service. L td .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16575
)
sJ l then we are. pressed to take the position that I take 2 now, and that is that the physical evidence is of 3 unreliable -- such unreliable character that this Board 4 should not admit it as supporting the testimony of Mr.
5 vannier.
6 It is, indeed, essential foundation to Mr.
'7 Vann'ier's testimony.
8 But the chain of custody behind the -- these.
9 coupons is ragged at best.
10 Applicant wanted-us to stipulate to this testimony, 11 and yet we now find that even when they present 12 foundation testimony, they acknowledge that two of the 13 coupons are missing -- or two --'a coupon with two welds 14 is missing, and don't even tell us why it's missing 15 until pressed on cross examination, and the answer, 16 aside from surmise, is they don't know.
17 The witness who claims to have maintained control 18 of the physical coupons can only speculate that someone 19 violated the security of his cabinet, stole a key from 20 his desk or took a key from his desk, got into the 21 cab ine t , took the coupons and departed. He doesn't know 22 that to be a fact.
23 The fact of the absence of those coupons is clear 24- evidence of a failure to maintain reasonable control
( .
25 over these physical exhibits.
Monntag Dannrting Marv{co. LFd_
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
, _ _ . . ~ _._ . ._ . ._. . _ . . . _ . - . . . ~ _ _ _ . _ _ . _
16576 O
V i
1 Further, they're in an obviously dif ferent 2 condition than they were in at the time Mr. Puckett took i 3 the test. A number of differences in condition are i
j 4 conceded by Applicant.
! 5 The difference in condition as to the indications-6 of the discrepancies obviously bears on the ability of i
7 Mr. Vannier to review those coupons and form his opinion 8 about the Puckett test.
.l 9 Mr. Puckett took the test on the coupons in a 10 condition, we hear, where there was nothing but numbers 11 on the coupons.
12 Mr. Vannier evaluated the coupons when there was i '13 numbers and written descriptions of the apparent ,
i 14 . discrepant conditions, or at least the physical I 15 conditions; and I think the record should reflect, for 16 example, that by 14 it says, " excessive grind, 17 incomplete weld, undercut"; by 13 it says, " arc strike."
i j 18 Similarly, there are the noted conditions by each of the
, 19 welds. That is not the condition in which Mr. Puckett i 20 took the test.
J 21 Further, the fact of the failure to maintain a l
l 22 reasonable control of these physical pieces of evidence i
23 casts down on whether or not these witnesses are 24 competent to support testimony that the coupons have not 25 been altered since they were the subject of Mr.
I~
j Sonntag Reporting Service. L td .
! Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16577 U
1 Puckett's test in respects that are not reflected -- or 2 not acknowledged by the witnesses.
3 We simply don't know.
4 We certainly-know that they are rustier than we saw 5 them in May or June of this year, a fact that even 6 the -- a fact that the witnesses were reluctant to 7 acknowledge but acknowledged ' when pressed. That's the 8 physical evidence.
9 On the -- on the DeWald test -- the Puckett test, 10 graded by Mr. DeWald, I simply believe, notwithstanding 11 the fact Mr. DeWald identified the document -- and we l 12 don't dispute the authenticity of the document. I don't 13 dispute that that's Mr. DeWald's handwriting or he 14 graded that test -- the probative value of that test is 15 so undermined by the circumstances of Mr. DeWald's 16 grading of that test that to attach value to it, to 17 treat that as relevant and admissible evidence under the 18 circumstances that Mr. DeWald concedes -- and that is, 19 he had formed the opinion that Mr. Puckett should be 20 terminated prior to grading that test -- so undermines 21 the probative value of that evidence -- that is, the 22 test evidence -- that we believe it's inappropriate to 23 admit, whether relevant -- it may be relevant, but its 24 probative value is undermined by prejudice tc 7.
\
(, 25 Intervenors' position.
Ronntag Unporting Rnrvlen; Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 j
16578
\
'a) 1 Given the circumstances of its preparation, the 2 integrity of that test, we believe, is called into 3 question.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
5 Mr. Guild, with regard to the relevance matter, I 6 think that's a matter for you to brief.
7 We're only concerned with the question now of 8 whether we have a sufficient foundation to admit those 9 exhibits and, consequently, the exhibit of the test, 10 which is Applicant's 5, and the vannier testimony.
11 Mr. Dominique's recognition of the exhibits as
() 12 13 being the ones that were used for the testing, together with the other testimony, is sufficient to lay a 14 foundation for the exhibits' admissibility.
15 As to how conclusive the testimony is with regard 16 to those being the same welds or being in the same 17 condition that they were in when Mr. Puckett took the 18 test is a matter of credibility and weight and something 19 that can be argued on brief, but the foundation -- we 20 don't have to determine whether there was an unbroken 21 chain of custody when we do have that testimony of 22 recognition by Mr. Dominique.
23 So we'll determine that there is a sufficient 24 foundation to admit those documents; and how far you O( ,) 25 wish to impeach the credibility and the weight of those Sonntag Ecgorting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16579 O
V 1 documents you can do on brief.
2 MR. GUILD: Understood, Mr. Chairman.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: So we're receiving those 4 physical exhibits and we are -- let'me see what we 5 actually ruled on Applicant's Exhibit 5.
6 We hadn't taken any action.
7 I take it you are of fering 5 and 6?
8 MR. GALLO: No; just 5.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Just 5 and not 10 Applicant's -- and not the key sheet sample answers?
11 MR. GALLO: No.
12 I anticipate -- if Mr. Guild has no objection, I'll x
13 offer it, but if he'c going to object to its 14 admissibility, I will not offer it.
15 Let's find out. I'll offer 6.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Let's admit 17 Appilcant's Exhibit 5 and these physical exhibits which 18 are numbered Applicant's 168 through 171.
19 (The materials were thereupon received 20 into evidence as Applicant's Exhibits 21 Nos. 5, 168, 169, 170 and 171.)
i 22 MR. GUILD: May I have a moment, Mr.
23 Chairman?
24 MR. GALLO: I believe that Mr. Guild and I --
25 counsel for the Staff has not been privy to this i
Sonntag Reporting Servico, Ltd_
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 !
16580 th 5
)
\~ ~/
1 conversation.
2 Mr. Guild and I have agreed that 6 can come in on 3 the basis that it was used by -- and relied upon by Mr.
4 DeWald in grading the test, but not --
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
6 MR. GUILD: But not for the accuracy of Mr.
7 Vogt's opinion with respect to the --
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine.
9 With that limitation, we'll admit 6.
10 (The document was thereupon received in 11 evidence as Applicant's Exhibit No. 6.)
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: At this point, we have s
13 nothing further with these witnesses, so we'll thank you 14 for testifying, the three of you, and you are excused 15 from testifying now.
16 (Witnesses excused.)
17 MR. GALLO: Does the Board wish to reconvene 18 in the morning with Mr. !!il?
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes. >
20 Why don't we adjourn now until 8:00 tomorrow l 21 morning and then we can tackle Mr. Illi. l 22 (WIIEREUPON, at 4:45 P. M., the hearing of 23 the above-entitled matter was' continued 24 to the 31st day of October, 1986, at the (j 25 hour of 8:00 A. M.)
Sonntag Reporting servico. r. td .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16581 -
1 4
2 i
3 l 4
- 5 I 6 1 7 1
- 8 S
4 9 i l 10 ;
l i 11 12 13 14 ,
l 15 t
I 16 r
17
. 18 19 20 I
21 4
22 23 '
l 4 .
I 24 25 i i
i !
nnnneng nonar&Ing noruten; r.ea -
i Geneva, Illinois 60134 j-.-_.,.--_ ._
(312) 232-0262
- - _ _ _ . _ . . _ . . . _ _ = _ _ _ _ . _ . .
NO PAGE NUMBER ,
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER
) This is to certify that the attached proceedings b'efore the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
]
I NAME OF PROCEEDING: COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Braidwood Station, Units 1 & 2) i
)
DOCKET NO.: 50-456 OL, 50-457 OL PLACE: CHICAGO, ILLINOIS f
I '
- A 9 DATE: THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original !
j transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear i Regulatory Commission. ,
(sist) dM6/ OW)
(TYPED) f (Y
! Official Reporter a-l Reporter's Affiliation i
I i i
!O 1
i l i !
i i
. - . . _ .. . . . . _. . . . .