ML20211K401
| ML20211K401 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 11/06/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1617 OL, NUDOCS 8611170161 | |
| Download: ML20211K401 (203) | |
Text
, ORGNAL UNH ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTEE OF: DOCKET NO: 50-456 OL 50-457 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2)
(
LOCATION: CHICAGO, ILLINOIS PAGES: 16710 - 16912 DATE: THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1986 7q,0\
'(
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, LNC.
h CFR:L:s Reporters 444 North CapitelSteet Washington, 'D.C. 20001 8611170161 8611C6 (202) 347-37C0 PDR ADOCK 05000456 T PDR N ATio.NWIDE COVERACE
i l
! l
< 16710 .
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l l 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l t
I 4 In the Matter of: :
6 : Docket No. 50-456 OL l l COMMONWEALTE EDISON COMPANY : 50-457 OL !
7 :
2 (Braidwood Station, Units 1 : l 8 and 2) : )
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- . _ _ _ _x ;
l 9
! 10 Pages 16710 - 16912 l 11 United States District Courthouse
! Courtroom 1743 I 12 219 South Dearborn Street !
! (\s-)/ Chicago, Illinois 60604 i j 13 Thursday, November 6, 1986. x l
14 l 15 The hearing in the above-entitled matter reconvened l
16 at 9:00 A. M. !
17
! BEFORE:
18 .
JUDGE HERBERT GROSSMAN, Chairman 19 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission J
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 CALLIH AN, Member, 24 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulstory Commission I
O 25 Washington, D. C.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i
! 16711 l
l 1 APPEARANCES:
2 On behalf of the Applicant:
3 MICHAEL I. MILLER, ESQ.
i PHILIP P. STEPTOE, III, ESQ.
l 4 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza 5 Chicago, Illinois 60602 i
6 On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff:
7 GREGORY ALAN BERRY, ESQ.
8 ELAINE I. CHAN, ESQ.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9 7335 Old Georgetown Road
! Bethesda, Maryland 20014 10 On behalf of the Intervenors:
! 11 ROBERT GUILD, ESQ.
13 14 l 15 16 17 18 19 20 i 21 22 23 24 25 j O(_>
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
)
(312) 232-0262
.- .- . _ =_ .. .- . -_ _ . - . _ = ... . - . . ..
1 16712 1 EXIIIBIT INDEX Marked Received
! 2 Intervenors' Exhibit No.188 16808 16841 3 Intervenors' Exhibit No. 1 89 16845
, 4 Intervenors' Exhibit No.190 16878 16895
, 5 6
7 8
, 9 i
4 10 11 12 13 14 l
15 16 ,
l 17 18 l 19 l
20 l
21 22 23 24 25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 l--.--.. - - , . . . - - - - . - . - - - - - - - - - - _ .
-~
'v' 1 TESTIMONY OF LOUIS OWEN DEL GEORGE 2 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. STEPTOE: 16715 3
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 4 BY MR. GUILD: 16718 5 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION BY MR. STEPTOE: 16735 6
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. GUILD: 16738 8 Prefiled testimony of Louis Owen DelGeorge 16740 9
CROSS EXAMINATION 10 BY MR. GUILD: 16741 11 CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRY: 16895 g~i
, 12
(/ BOARD EXAMINATION 13 BY JUDGE CALLIHAN: 16902 14 BOARD EXAMINATION BY JUDGE COLE: 16905 15 16 17 18 i 19 l 20 21 22 23 l 24 l
I
(~'s) 25 (wJ t
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60'134 (312) 232-0262
16714 C'
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Good morning. This is the 2 87th day of hearing.
3 Do we have any preliminary matters? None?
4 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman --
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild?
6 MR. GUILD: -- I have some exhibits that are 7 in production, and they're being photocopied -- or being 8 composed and photocopied as we speak.
9 I want to avoid a delay. I informed the Applicant 10 that if they want to take up the offer of the testimony 11 first and my motions with respect to that, that would be 12 fine by me.
13 I'd ask if we could take a brief recess if 14 necessary at that point before my cross begins so that I 15 can get these documents.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That's fine.
17 You may proceed, Mr. Steptoe, calling your next f
l 18 witness.
19 MR. STEPTOE: Judge Grossman, our next 20 witness is Louis O. DelGeorge. I ask that he be sworn 21 at this time.
22 (The witness was thereupon duly sworn.)
l 23 LOUIS OWEN DEL GEORGE
(
24 called as a witness by the Applicant herein, having been 25 first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
~
Geneva, IITrnois 60134 (312) 232-0262
)
16715 1 DIRECT EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. STEPTOE:
3 Q Mr. DelGeorge, would you state your full name for the 4 record?
5 A Louis Owen DelGeorge.
6 Q By whom are you employed and in what capacity?
7 A I'm employed by Commonwealth Edison Company as an 8 assistant vice-president responsible for engineering and 9 licensing activities.
10 0 Have you prepared a document entitled " Rebuttal 11 Testimony of Louis O. DelGeorge on Rorem QA 12 Subcontention 2, Harassment and Intimidation"?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Now, this document originally was filed in November, and 15 it has gone through -- there have been some revisions.
16 Excuse me.
17 It was originally filed in August, and there have 18 been some revisions to it since that time, have there 19 not?
20 A Yes, sir.
21 MR. STEPTOE: I'll state to the Board that 22 those revisions are included in the document which was 23 just handed out; but just to be clear, the most recent 24 revisions were forwarded to the Board on November 3,
( 25 1986.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1
16716 O
1 BY MR. STEPTOE:
2 Q Mr. De1 George, would you just identify the pages on 3 which those revisions took place?
4 A The revisions are -- relate to Pages 17,19, 26, 3 8 and 5 41.
6 Q And what was the reason for those revisions?
7 A If we could refer to Page 17, a reassessment by me of 8 the CSR data base required a modification to the number 9 of Comstock inspectors referred to, in response to 10 Answer 15, that were captured or included within the CSR 11 ,
data base.
12 0 Mr. DelGeorge, why did you perform that reassessment of 13 the CSR data base?
14 A To assure that my response to this question was 15 accurate.
16 0 okay.
17 And is that result f rom the S & L October,1986, 18 recount of weld discrepancies and discrepant welds?
19 A As it turns out, it is my opinion that it did not result 20 from the work that Sargent & Lundy has done.
21 In fact, it was a result of the data base change 22 that took place in late September of 1986 and had just 23 not been previously reflected in the modification to my 24 testimony.
25 0 Okay.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16717 i
1 In general are the modifications to your testimony 2 a result of the data base changes that have been made by a
3 S & L?
4 A No. In fact, in general the reasons for the changes in 5 my testimony are attributable to that intermediate 6 change that took place in late September.
7 0 Okay.
8 Let's go on to Attachments 2C De1 George-1, 2, 3, 4, 9 5 and 6, which are the graphs attached to your 10 tectimony.
11 Who prepared these graphs?
4 f\ 12 A These graphs were prepared for me by George Orlov, based 13 on a sorting of the CSR data base.
14 0 Okay.
15 And do they accurately reflect the CSR data base l 16 which has been put into evidence yesterday as Attachment 17 2C Kaushal-4 Revision 2?
( 18 A I believe they do.
19 I should point out at this point that with respect 20 to these graphs, to the extent they have changed, they 21 are generally -- those changes are generally the result 22 of the data base modification resulting f rom the 23 reassessment done by Sargent & Lundy in the welding 24 area.
25 0 One more point, Mr. DelGeorge:
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ,
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16718 v
1 At Question and Answer 6, there's a question, "What 2 have you done to prepare this testimony"; and as of 3 August,1986, you give an answer.
4 You have also been in this hearing room f requently, 5 have you not, since August of 1986?
6 A Yes, sir.
7 Q Have you listened to some of the testimony that was 8 given in this case since that time?
9 A Yes, sir.
10 MR. STEPTOE: I have no further questions --
11 well, one further question.
12 BY MR. STEPTOE:
(G~) Mr. De1 George, as modified, is your testimony accurate, 13 0 14 to the best of ycur knowledge and uelief?
15 A Yes, sir.
16 MR. STEPTOE: Judge Grossman, I move that the 17 testimony of Louis O. DelGeorge be admitted into the 18 record as if read.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild?
20 MR. GUILD: First, Mr. Chairman, if I could 21 just have a clarifying question with regard to Mr.
22 DelGeorge's change, the first change alluded to.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Certainly. You may voir 24 dire.
() 25 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16719 1 BY MR. GUILD:
2 Q Mr. DelGeorge, you alluded to a September reassessment.
3 Was that a reassessment that made further 4 allocations of CSR inspection results to L. K. Comstock 5 inspectors?
6 A It affected the allocation of reinspection results to Ls 7 K. Comstock inspectors, and I believe it was discussed 8 in the testimony provided by Mr. Orlov --
9 0 Yes.
10 A -- a few weeks ago, 11 Q Yes.
12 That was based on errors in the original allocation 13 among Comstock inspectors; for example, cases where 14 multiple inspections had taken place, but only a single 15 attribution was made?
16 A That may be the case.
l 17 My recollection, with respect to the specific j 18 inspectors that were -- that af fect my testimony, is ,
19 that it related to the -- specifically to the electrical 20 equipment population and the way in which the electrical 21 equipment deficiencies were attributed to inspectors in
- 22 that population.
23 I don't recall specifically whether there were l
i 24 errors in allocation between inspectors, as opposed to a 25 change in the way deficiencies were counted with respect i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Ilfinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- - _ . . _ ~ -
16720 n
v 1 to a specific inspector.
2 Q Well, let be more precise, then.
3 What accounted for the change at Page 17 cf your 4 testimony?
5 A The original data base that I had reviewed identified 6 that 20 of the 24 Comstock inspectors that had made 7 their concerns known to the NRC in 1985 were captured by 8 the data base prior to the end of September of 1986.
9 A reassessment of the data af ter the changes that 10 were, as I said, discussed by Mr. Orlov indicated that 11 one additional inspector did not perform work that had 12 previously been allocated to him.
13 I am not certain as to the reason for the 14 re-allocation.
15 Q So one inspector who was identified as among the 24 l 16 dropped out?
! 17 A That's correct.
18 0 Who was that?
j 19 A Mr. Gorman.
! 20 MR. GUILD: All right.
i 21 Mr. Chairman, Intervenors object to receiving Mr.
22 DelGeorge's testimony in general on grounds that Mr.
23 DelGeorge apparently is being tendered as an expert l
24 witness 'sithin the meaning of Federal Rule 702.
25 There is, of course, no formal tender and no formal Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
{ (312) 232-0262
l 16721 O
v
! 1 tender required. Perhaps I could inquire, as a 1
2 preliminary matter, whether my understanding is accurate 3 that Applicant tenders Mr. DelGeorge as an expert within 4 that rule.
5 MR. STEPTOE: That's correct.
6 MR. GUILD: Mr. DelGeorge is not appropriate 7 -- Mr. DelGeorge's testimony is not appropriate to be i
8 received, in our view, as expert testimony, Mr.
9 Chairman.
10 The federal rule clearly permits the receipt of 11 expert testimony where, in the judgment of the Licensing 12 Board, that testimony will' aid the trier of fact.
13 The federal rule has a very liberal view of what 14 " expertise" consists of within the meaning of the rule 15 on expert testimony. However, what is really at issue 16 here is the opinion evidence that Mr. DelGeorge offers.
17 Now, we certainly have no objection to Mr.
18 DelGeorge offering opinion evidence as a lay witness, as l
19 a lay witness who has certain background and experience.
20 As a lay witness, his opinion evidence, therefore, is 21 going to be judged as the opinion evidence would be of 22 any other lay witness.
i 23 But the testimony of Mr. De1 George page after page i
l 24 after page is replete with opinion evidence that is 25 characteristic only of an expert and, therefore, is j
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l L Geneva, Illinois 60134
( (312) 232-0262
J 16722 0
1 being offered as if Mr. DelGeorge had expertise that was 2 greater than a lay person.
3 The most striking contrast and the point where this 4 objection we think is most telling is where one compares 5 and contrasts Mr. DelGeorge's testimony with the 6 testimony of Dr. Frankel.
7 Take Dr. Frankel as an example of someone who, 8 aside from whether his expert testimony should be 9 credited or not, is clearly the type of testimony that 10 is traditionally offered as expert testimony by a person 11 who -- at least on the face of his background, training 12 and experience -- appears to possess the requisite
(
, 13 expertise to express, at least in general, expert 14 testimony of the character expressed.
15 The Board should be aware that Dr. Frankel's 16 testimony is focused on very narrow points of expertise; 17 and this is not accidental, in the judgment of I
18 Intervenors. This is because as to points other than 19 those narrow points, the subject of Dr. Frankel's 20 testimony, he simply lacks sufficient expertise to offer 21 expert opinion evidence. At several points Dr. Frankel 22 makes that acknowledgment: "I am not an expert.
23 Therefore, I can't express opinions about something 24 involving nuclear construction," for example.
( 25 What happens here is the areas where Dr. Frankel l
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, fl'linoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 16723 O
1 concedes that, as a statistician, he is not an expert to 2 offer opinion evidence, wholesale we see Mr. DelGeorge 3 being offered as the source of expertise, 4 inappropriately, we believe, for the following reasons:
5 Mr. DelGeorge, of course, as his prefiled testimony 6 reflects, is indeed a partisan in this case. Mr.
7 De1 George appears to have primary responsibility within 8 Applicant's organization for obtaining an operating 9 license for the Braidwood nuclear facility. He is the 10 director of nuclear licensing. He clearly has 11 responsibility for the areas involving the subject of 12 this hearing.
13 But he is not, by any stretch of the imagination, 14 someone who can express dispassionate and objective 15 expert opinion evidence about these subjects.
16 I'd like to direct the Board's attention in 17 particular, by way of illustration, to Page 38 of Mr.
i 18 DelGeorge's prefiled direct testimony.
19 Page 37; excuse me. Give me one second, Mr.
f 20 Chairman.
21 Pardon me. It's Page 36, Question and Answer 33.
i l 22 Note in particular where Mr. DelGeorge offers the 23 following opinion, quote, "I believe with an extremely l 24 high degree of confidence that no significant adverse 1
25
) trends actually exist in the population f rom which the l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262
16724 l l
1 samples were chosen." !
2 Well, note that this opinion is stated with respect 3 to a point where Dr. Frankel himself, using his 4 expertise as a statistician, disclaims explicitly the 5 ability to attach any significance to the data that he 6 observes.
7 If you recall, Dr. Frankel showed an attachment in 8 . his prefiled testimony reflecting a scatter diagram to 9 which he attempts to fit a curve. He applies standard 10 statistical measures to the fit of that curve and 11 determines that the data, in effect, exhibit no 12 significant trend from a statistical standpoint.
13 Now, that's Dr. Frankel expressing an opinion based 14 on his expertise.
15 Mr. DelGeorge inappropriately, we believe, based 16 not on expertise, based not on expertise as the Federal 17 Rules contemplate, then seizes upon what an expert can't 18 testify to and expresses the opinion, "I believe with an 19 extremely high degree of confidence," et cetera.
20 Now, that's simply an example.
21 What's going to happen is Mr. DelGeorge's 22 testimony, in that example and dozens of others which I 23 will cite, will be a matter of record in this case and 24 will be cited by Applicant as not simply the opinion of 25 the nuclear licensing director of Commonwealth Edison Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, IITInois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16725 A
U 1 Company but the opinion of a man who has been qualified 2 as an expert.
3 We believe opinion evidence from Mr. DelGeorge, 4 because of his lack of qualifications, because of his 5 interest in this matter, because he expresses opinions 6 on matters that are not subject to expert opinion 7 evidence that will aid the trier of fact in this case, 8 should not be received.
9 Let me simply make references for the record, 10 please, to the points I have in mind.
11 At Page 6 Mr. DelGeorge expresses opinion evidence 12 in Answer 5, the middle of the paragraph: "It is my 13 opinion that the data f rom these two repeat inspection 14 programs can be used to reliably evaluate what effects,"
15 et cetera.
16 Page 10, Answer 8, the second paragraph: "It is my 17 judgment, based on my familiarity with," et cetera; 18 expert opinion.
19 Page 11, Answer 9: "I would expect those results 20 to show two things," et cetera; expert opinion.
21 Page 12, the middle of the page, second paragraph:
22 "I would expect some correlation"; again, expert 23 opinion.
24 Page 13, Answer 10: "I have concluded that: (1)
( 25 LKC QC inspections were effective, and (2) there is no Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, IIIInois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16726 O
N--
1 apparent relationship," et cetera.
2 Page 14: "The overall agreement rates for the work 3 subjected to repeat inspection are, in my judgment, 4 acceptable." That's at the end of the second sentence, 5 the first paragraph there.
6 Page 15, Question 13: "In your judgment, is it 7 reasonable," et cetera. It seeks an opinion !
8 inappropriately.
9 Page 20: "My determination of how much information 10 is sufficient to allow trending is a qualitative
! 11 judgment, unlike Dr. Frankel's calculation," et cetera.
12 Page 21, Question 18, seeks opinion evidence: "To 13 the extent there is sufficient CSR data to permit 14 trending analysis, did you observe any trends?" It i 15 seeks an inappropriate opinion f rom this witness.
- 16 Page 29, Question 23
- "Dr. Frankel testifies that, l
l 17 in performing his analysis, he only used the items from 18 the CSR sample which were selected using random j 19 sampling." I'm paraphrasing. "Have you reviewed the I 20 remaining non-probability portion," et cetera. It seeks l
21 an opinion.
22 Page 33, Answer 28, the last paragraph: "Because 23 of the size of the PTL overinspection sample," et i
l 24 cetera, "I believe this data base can be used to
( 25 evaluate changes"; inappropriate opinion evidence.
l l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Il11nois 6UIT4 (312) 232-0262
16727 V) 1 Page 36, Question 33: "What conclusion, if any, do 2 you draw from Dr. Frankel's testimony that there is a 3 slight linear trend?" I've already referred to that 4 opinion evidence in Answer 33.
5 Page 43, Question 37: "In your opinion, does the 6 fact that the PTL overinspections are not a probability 7 sample preclude its use in assessing Comstock QC 8 Inspector performance?" It seeks and elicits opinion 9 evidence.
10 Finally, at Page 49, what indeed expresses an 11 opinion on the ultimate issue in this case, the 12 testimony beginning, "On the basis of the facts 13 contained in this hearing record which I have reviewed,"
14 et cetera, "I conclude that" there are no harassment and 15 intimidation effects.
16 Mr. Chairman, as the record reflects, Mr. De1 George 17 is a manager of Commonwealth Edison Company. We believe 18 he's a lay witness. We believe he's appropriate to 19 consider as a lay witness. His testimony should stand 20 on foundation -- should have a stature that is no 21 greater than that of a lay witness.
22 Mr. De1 George also, of course, is a lawyer. But 23 the fact that he's a lawyer doesn't give him any 24 expertise. Perhaps if there were fewer of us lawyers 25 involved in reviewing nuclear safety issues, we'd have Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, IITi~nols 60134 (312) 232-0262
16728 J l
()
1 safer nuclear power plants.
i 2 The fact of the matter is, though, it's 3 inappropriate for Edison to be able to put in, in the 4 guise of expert opinion testimony, the testimony of a i
5 partisan, of a man who is a manager, of a man who has 6 line responsibility for assuring that the Braidwood 7 Station receives the operating license that, of course, 8 is the subject of this proceeding.
9 We think that couching Mr. DelGeorge's testimony as 10 expert testimony simply substitutes for the 11 unavailability of offering such evidence through someone 12 who indeed does possess the expertise, who indeed does 13 possess the absence of interest, the requisite 14 independence and expertise to offer such opinion 15 evidence.
16 It's inappropriately offered through this witness.
17 We believe the testimony should not be received for that 18 reason.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Steptoe?
i 20 NR. STEPTOE: Judge Grossman, let me address
! 21 the point of Mr. DelGeorge's affiliation with 22 Commonwealth Edison Company.
23 First, under the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 24 601 -- it's entitled " General Rule of Competency" -- the 25 relevant portion says, "Every person is competent to be
)
Sonntag Heporting Service, Ltd.
l
, Geneva ,-~~Illinoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
16729 A
N ,]
1 a witness except as otherwise provided in these rules."
2 A note of the Advisory Committee on the Rules 3 states --
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I don't think we have to 5 spend time on this. I don't believe that his position 6 in the company disqualifies Mr. DelGeorge f rom being an 7 expert witness.
8 That certainly goes to whatever weight, as far as 9 Mr. Guild would want to brief that in the findings. But 10 certainly it's not a disqualifying matter that Mr.
11 DelGeorge is employed by the Applicant in this case.
12 The big question is whether -- and I understand Mr.
d 13 Guild does not object to Mr. DelGeorge giving the 14 testimony. My understanding is that he merely objects 15 to Mr. DelGeorge being considered a statistical expert, 16 because I believe those portions of the testimony that 17 were cited by Mr. Guild go to statistical matters.
18 Mr. Guild I think is not disputing the fact that 19 Mr. DelGeorge may give the company's position on that, l 20 including the opinion of the company, but that he 1
21 shouldn't hold himself out as a statistical expert to 22 offer this in the guise of expertise.
23 I'll have to say I'm inclined to agree -- but I'll i 24 hear further on that -- that we can't consider him a
, 25 statistical expert; that he has an engineering i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illfhois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I I l
16730 G
1 background as well as a legal background, but that he is 2 competent to give the company's position and to have us 3 consider those positions or those opinions on the 4 merits, without the backing of any claim of statistical 5 expertise for that.
6 But I'll hear further from you, Mr. Steptoe.
7 MR. STEPTOE: All right, Judge Grossman.
8 I think that Mr. DelGeorge is a competent engineer.
9 His direct testimony indicates he's received substantial 10 training in engineering.
11 Mr. Guild has not purported to probe what 12 background Mr. De1 George has in statistics. I think you
(
13 will find, if those questions were raised, that Mr.
14 De1 George does have a familiarity with statistics.
15 Moreover, if you think that a statistician has the 16 answers to analyzing the results of these reassessment 17 programs, I think you're mistaken.
18 I think Dr. Frankel was very clear on this point:
19 that particularly when you deal with non-probability 20 samples, that is not a job for a statistician. In fact, 21 he says so on Page 8 of his prefiled testimony:
22 "Non-probability samples are somewhat more difficult to 23 use than probability samples, for the purpose of making 24 inf erences to a large population."
MR. GUILD:
'() 25 Is that Dr. Frankel?
- Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. i j Genevai IIITnois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16731
/3 b
1 MR. STEPTOE: Yes.
2 "This is because the adequacy of a non-probability 3 sample is not assured by the sample selection method, 4 but instead must be evaluated by an individual or 5 individuals who have substantive knowledge and 6 experience related to the quantities under study"; that 7 is, Mr. DelGeorge.
8 Mr. De1 George is not himself offered as a 9 statistical expert, but he is offered as an expert in 10 the design and ' aview of reinspection programs as 11 someone who is competent to take the results of 12 something that a statistician does and factor it in with f(
13 his substantive knowledge of the quantities under study 14 and come to an expert conclusion.
15 I believe that you will find, when Dr. Frankel gets 16 here, that he will be the first to disclaim the limits 17 of what his expertise is.
18 One needs an expert, one needs somebody with 19 engineering expertise, with expertise in the review of 20 the results of programs like this, to make sense out of 21 them and to see what the numbers tell you.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I hear what you' re 1 23 saying, Mr. Steptoe, and it appears to me as though i 24 there may not be any dispute.
( 25 You agree that Mr. DelGeorge is not a statistical t
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, III1nois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16732 1 expert, and I believe Mr. Guild is willing to accept Mr.
2 DelGeorge's opinions as offered for matters of judgment 3 and opinion as far as they relate to engineering and the
, 4 company's position.
1 j 5 But it appears to me he disputes only his use of i
6 any claim to statistical expertise for what may be l 7 statistical matters.
8 If that's the case and we're all agreed that he's 9 not a statistical expert, I would think that we would i
10 accept his testimony and, to the extent that we may i
l 11 decide tha.t some of it may require statistical 12 expertise, that his testimony may not be worth that much l 13 on those areas.
14 To the extent that we find that statistical l
15 expertise is not needed but the engineering expertise is l
16 sufficient, we'll weigh those portions.
17 Have I misrepresented your position, Mr. Guild?
18 MR. GUILD: I don't think you've 19 misrepresented it, but maybe you've misunderstood it, 20 perhaps slightly. Let me just be clear.
21 Of course, now it is understood that the concession 22 has been made by Applicant that Mr. DelGeorge is not a 23 statistical expert. That did not appear in anybody's 24 testimony. That appeared only by inference in Dr.
25 Frankel's testimony that Mr. Steptoe cited.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, IITrnois 60134 (312) 232-0262
?
16733 r"N f I v
1 I appreciate that, and now I have a little better 2 understanding of what the limits of Mr. DelGeorge's 3 expertise are now.
4 Nevertheless, using the rubric of engineering 5 expertise, in the absence of statistical expertise, of 6 What 11r. DelGeorge has to say we think is an 7 inappropriate basis for qualifying his testimony as 8 expert testimony for the following reason:
9 This Board has to make judgments about this record.
10 They have to make judgments about the facts in this 11 record, the appropriate inferences to be drawn f rom the f' 12 facts in this record.
13 To say that Applicant, through presenting Mr.
14 DelGeorge, in place of the Board reaching these i
! 15 conclusions, can simply rest on what, in effect, is 16 proffered as the expert testimony of this witness we 17 think is inappropriate.
18 Indeed he has knowledge. Indeed his knowledge is f 19 going to have to either support or not support his 20 testimony. I look forward to talking with him about the 21 substance of his testimony.
22 My concern is that by cloaking him with expertise, 23 in effect, on matters that are beyond eit'ner his 24 qualification or the qualification of any expert, in
( 25 effect, Applicant is asking an expert witness to provide Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, IIIInois 60234 (312) 232-0262 f
1
(
\
l l 16734 i
l 1 what is appropriately the province of this Board; that i
e is, drawing inferences f rom the f acts in this record. l l 3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I think that we can't i
4 make a blanket ruling at this point but that, having l
i j 5 heard the arguments, it's up to us to distinguish for 6 ourselves, when we get the proposed findings, as to how 7 much of the testimony can be accepted as within Mr. ,
8 DelGeorge's expertise and how much is basically in the
! 9 province of statistics, for which we would not accept j 10 Mr. De1 George's opinion as being expert opinion but as l
- 11 being only an opinion of the company, as an informed i
12 officer of the company.
13 So the ball is really in our court -- not right 14 now, but ultimately -- to see how much of the testimony 15 would be acceptable,as given per se as an expert within 16 the field of expertise. I think that's as far as we can 17 go right now.
18 Mr. Steptoe, do you have a disagreement with that?
19 MR. STEPTOE: I don't have a disagreement 20 with what you said, Judge Grossman; but Mr. Guild made a 21 reference to a concession, so I'd better make it clear 22 what we' re conceding and what we' re not conceding.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You're certainly not 24 conceding any more than you have to.
25 (Laughter.)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Il1Tnois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 16735 1 MR. STEPTOE: That's it. We are not i
2 conceding --
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You are not making a blanket 4 concession that Mr. DelGeorge is not versed in l 5 statistics?
6 MR. STEPTOE: That's correct.
} 7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: But if you're going to want 8 to get more of this opinion testimony accepted by the
- 9 Board that goes into statistical evaluations, I think 10 it's going to be up to you to disclose or to determine
- 11 Mr. De1 George's expertise in those particular areas.
12 As of now, all you've shown is the engineering and 13 the legal background. If there's any further background 14 of Mr. De1 George's that would bolster his judgments
! 15 here, then I think it's up to you to bring that out.
! 16 MR. STEPTOE: I think I'd better do that, i
l 17 then, Judge Grossman.
h
- 18 May I do some additional voir dire?
}
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Certainly.
20 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. STEPTOE:
22 0 Mr. DelGeorge, would you describe what background, if 23 any, you have -- what education or background, if any, 24 you have with respect to statistics?
25 A I have one undergraduate course in experimental methods Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
i Geneva, IITI~noi s 60134 j (312) 232-0262
rf I
J 16736 O
1 that dealt specifically with the review of experimental 2 data and the statistical treatment of data cf that type.
l I
I 3 As well, I've taken one graduate-leve] course in 4 engineering statistics at the Bettis Atomi: Power f 5 Laboratory.
6 In addition, throughout my engineering career, I l
- 7 have had occasion to review, for purposes of identifying
. 8 trends, the results of many programs.
9 In my experience at the Bettis Atomic Power
- 10 Laboratory in the design of support structures for a 11 nuclear fuel core, I was responsible for the design as f~'\
G 12 well as the evaluation of the adequacy of that design 13 after fabrication.
14 That entailed a review of configuration data with 15 respect to those components to determine whether or not 16 the manuf acturing process for the component was under 17 control and the ultimate quality of the product was 18 within the accepted design basis that we had set.
19 I have also had experience at Commonwealth Edison 20 with respect to a number of programs, some of which are 21 referred to in my testimony, where I was called upon to 22 review the results of programs, one program of which is 23 very -- the Byron Quality control Inspector Reinspection 24 Program is very closely related to the kind of review
() 25 that I've done in this case to determine the consequence Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, TITrnois 60134 (312) 232-0262
(,
16737 l
1 of that data with respect to inspector -- the j 2 effectiveness of Quality Control Inspectors.
J 3 Q Okay. Mr. Guild referred to a number of opinions which 4 you' ve given in your testimony.
l 5 Are any of those opinions statistical in nature?
6 A It seems to me that whether or not they are may be l
l 7 better judged by others.
i 8 In reaching those opinions or conclusions myself, I I
9 was not thinking in statistical terms. My intent'was to l
10 perform an engineering evaluation of the data base that 11 was presented to me to determine whether or not there f
j I~ \ 12 were any significant engineering trends apparent in that N -) \
13 data base.
14 My general educational experience and work
{ 15 experience may have been influenced by some of the l
l 16 training and past reviews that I have been exposed to.
17 To the extent I relied on what I had learned in a 18 statistical sense, that may be factored into my opinion.
19 But I did not at the outset intend to make statistical 20 judgments.
21 MR. STEPTOE: That's all I have, Judge 22 Grossman.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. I don't think that we !
24 have to make a dispositive ruling now. :
f 25 It appears to me offhand -- and maybe the Board Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneia, TIlinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1 16738 3
1 1 Members concur; maybe not -- that what Mr. De1 George has 2 is some statistical background that's useful to an 3 engineer. But I wouldn't say that his formal training 4 of one undergraduate and one graduate course would 5 really qualify him per se as a statistical expert.
6 But we'll certainly take into account his 7 statistical background of what is useful to an engineer 8 as part of his engineering background anyway, and we'll 9 just have to evaluate his testimony on that basis.
10 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, if I might have one 11 brief question by way of voir dire on this point.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Sure.
13 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 14 BY MR. GUILD:
15 0 Mr. De1 George, on Page 3 of your prefiled testimony, 16 sir, you make reference to your participation in, quote, 17 "the development of numerous construction verification 18 programs developed to address questions raised 19 concerning the adequacy of construction activities."
20 I take it the Byron reinspection program was one of 21 those?
22 A Yes, sir.
23 0 All right.
24 What were the others that you had in mind in that
( 25 reference, sir?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
r I
16739
('
1 A I have been involved in the development of programs at i
2 the LaSalle County Station with respect to the 3 verification of structural steel configuration.
4 In addition, at LaSalle County Station I've been 5 involved in the development of a program to verify the 6 adequacy of the weld quality and configuration control 7 for heating, ventilating and air-conditioning, HVAC, 8 supports.
9 I might point out at this point that those are very 10 similar to electrical component supports.
11 I have been involved in reviewing the results of a f~'N 12 similar program at Byron Station with respect to 13 structural steel configuration and also the Byron 14 Quality control Inspector Reinspection Program.
15 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I understand the 16 Board's ruling and the Board's position on this matter.
17 With that understanding, I would simply want to ask 18 the Board to note that we reserve our right under Rule 19 703, which relates to bases of expert opinion evidence, 20 at the conclusion of my cross examination of Mr.
21 DelGeorge, to seek by motion to strike portions of his 22 testimony which are not based on matters appropriately 23 the basis for expert opinion evidence.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That's fine.
25 Mr. Berry?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I~
l 16740 1 MR. BERRY: With the understat:. dings expressed 2 by all the parties, particularly the Board Chairman, the 3 Staff has no objection.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I'm sorry. Your mike just 5 went out.
6 MR. BERRY: We believe it is proper for a 7 witness to present the company's position.
8 As I said, with the understandings that have been 9 reached by the Board and by Applicant and Intervenors, 10 with that understanding, it's acceptable to the Staff as 11 well. We have no objection to Mr. De1 George's testimony 12 being received in evidence.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine. Then we'll admit Mr.
14 De1 George's testimony on the basis that's just been 15 discussed.
16 17 l
18 19
, 20 21 22 23 i
24
( 25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262 L _ _ . _ . _ _ - - - - .
'e f) 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) )
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF LOUIS 0. DEL GEORGE (ON ROREM Q.A. SUBCONTENTION 2)
(Harrassment and Intimidation Mals M t 1986 O
V
O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
( NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-456
) 50-457 (Braidwood Station 'Jnits 1 and 2) )
TESTIMONY OF LOUIS 0. DEL GEORGE (ON ROREM Q.A. SUBOONTENTION 2)
(Harassment and Intimidation)
Q.1. Please state your full name for the record.
A.I. Louis Owen Del George.
,_ Q.2. Who is your employer and what is your occupation?
i:
\- ' A.2. I am employed by Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO) in its Corporate Offices in Chicago, Illinois.
I am an Assistant Vice-President, responsible for Engineering and Licensing activities.
Q.3. What are your responsibilities in this position?
A.3. In this capacity, I am responsible for all engineering activities related to the Company's operating nuclear reactors at Dresden, Quad Cities, Zion and LaSalle County Stations, as well as, Byron Unit 1. The engineering organization that reports to me maintains functional oversight of the engineering activities related to the reactor facilities under construction.
The purpose of this oversight is to provide for the
N/ uniform application of Commonwealth Edison's engineering procedures at both our operating nuclear plants and nuclear plants under construction.
In addition, I am responsible for all nuclear licensing activities for the Company's operating nuclear facilities and for the nuclear reactors which Commonwealth Edison is currently constructing at Byron and Braidwood.
Q.4. Please state your education and professional experience.
A.4. I received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Engineering Science from the Illinois Institute of Technology in 73 1970. I also received a Juris Doctor degree from the
() Chicago Kent College of Law of the Illinois Institute of Technology in 1977.
I began my professional career at the Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory in 1969 where I held various positions of increasing responsibility related to the design and fabrication of nuclear reactor internals.
While employed at the Laboratory, I was appointed to the Shock and Vibration Design Review Committee which assessed the adequacy of vibration-design practices for all pressurized water reactor plants designed at the Laboratory, including the Shippingport facility.
I also attended the Laboratory's Reactor Engineering 9
I l
l 1
i g School which provided graduate level instruction in the design of nuclear power systems.
In 1974, I joined Commonwealth Edison and have held positions of increasing responsibility in the Station Nuclear Engineering and Licensing Departments. In connection with my engineering experience, I managed numerous backfit projects related to the Dresden and Quad Cities Stations between 1974 and 1978.
In connection with my licensing experience, from 1978 to 1981, I was responsible for all licensing activities related to the LaSalle County Station including development of the Company's response to all
(~N; NRC questions concerning design and construction V
activities. In addition, I participated in the development of numerous construction verification programs developed to address questions raised concerning the adequacy of construction activities.
l In July, 1981, I was appointed Director of Nuclear 1
1 Licensing for Commonwealth Edison at which time I l assumed responsibility for all licensing activities related to the Company's nuclear facilities both l operating and under construction. 'In this capacity, I participated directly in major decisions affecting the licensing of Braidwood Station including management meetings and enforcement conferences requested by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
j gg l
In January, 1983, I assumed the position of assistant to the Assistant Vice-President of Engineering and Licensing with primary responsibility for coordinating all Company positions affecting the licensing of Byron Station, including hearings before the Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board. I gave testimony to that Board in March, 1983 and July, 1984 on matters related to Commonwealth Edison's nuclear licensing activities and the Byron Quality Control Inspector Reinspection Program, (QCIRP) which I helped develop. I directed Commonwealth Edison's review of that Program and its results, and I directed the 7, preparation of the report documenting those results
(_)
and the Company's conclusions.
In November, 1983, I assumed my current position of Assistant Vice-President. In this position, I am responsible for all engineering activities at Dresden, Quad Cities, Zion, LaSalle County and Byron Unit 1.
This responsibility includes the direction of all safety related modification work at those facilities.
I am also responsible for managing communications between Commonwealth Edison and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This responsibility involves directing those Edison employees who have any contact with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and assuring that all O g questions raised by that agency and directed to any Commonwealth Edison nuclear facility are understood, thoroughly reviewed and effectively answered. In this regard, I and the licensing personnel reporting to me, review Commonwealth Edison's commitments to the NRC Staff to ensure that the Company's actions are adequate and responsive to the NRC Staff's questions or concerns. In this capacity, in 1984 I coordinated the efforts of several Commonwealth Edison senior managers who developed the Braidwood Construction l
Assessment Program (BCAP). Subsequently I monitored the implementation of that program by means of monthly
(} technical reviews which I directed, and in which those same senior managers participated.
Since March 1985, I have been responsible for directing all Commonwealth Edison's technical and licensing actions in connection with litigation of the quality assurance contention raised by intervenor Bridget Rorem, et. al.
Q.5. Mr. Del George, what is the purpose of this testimony?
A.S. The purpose of this testimony is to show how the results of the BCAP Construction Sample Reinspection 2 (CSR) and the results of the Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory (PTL) Overinspection Program address the claims of pervasive production pressure and harassment 4
1
1
($)
{ and intimidation of L.K. Comstock (LKC) QC inspectors which have arisen in this proceeding. The CSR and the PTL overinspection program were conceived, designed and carried out independently of each other, and for reasons unrelated to intervenors' claims of production pressure, harassment and intimidation. Nevertheless the evaluation documented in my testimony is based on the reinspection data compiled in these two programs.
It is my opinion that the data from these two repeat inspection programs can be used to reliably evaluate what effects if any the alleged pervasive production pressure, harassment and intimidation had on the
() ability of LKC QC inspectors to identify quality prob. ems, to initiate, recommend or provide solutions to any such problems, and to verify implementation of such solutions.
Q.6. What have you done to prepare this testimony?
A.6. In general, my preparation for this testimony entailed a review of the harassment contention submitted by intervenors in this proceeding, the regulations applicable to the conduct and activities put in issue by that centention and information relevant to the alleged harassment. That information included:
- 1. Deposition transcripts of all L.K. Comstock (LKC)
QC inspectors identified by intervenor as having been involved in the specific activities included in the contention, and testimony before this Board given by these QC inspectors at the time my testimony was prepared.
- 2. The BCAP Program document and the results of the BCAP Construction Sample Reinspection related to LKC.
- 3. The Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory overinspection program and the results of those overinspections for the period from July, 1982 to June 1986.
- 4. Inspection checklists employed by LKC, BCAP and PTL related to electrical construction activities at
/~'S Braidwood.
V
- 5. Construction verification programs, with which I was involved at other nuclear sites, for related construction activities.
- 6. Rebuttal testimony prepared by other Commonwealth Edison witnesses in connection with this proceeding.
Q.7. What is your understanding of intervenors' claims with respect to L.K. Comstock QC inspector performance?
A.7. It is my understanding that intervenors claim "there is historic, tangible, powerful and pervasive production pressure at the Braidwood facility" (Guild at Tr. 7903-4), that this pressure was manifested through acts of harassment and intimidation by QC management of QC inspectore, and that these specific gg Og acts as well as the general management climate affecting the LKC quality control function provide a sufficient basis for inferring that "there have been effects of such pressure and harassment and intimidation" (Guild at Tr. 7934).
Most of intervenors' allegations in this case involve Mr. R. Saklak and I. De Wald, who assumed their QC management positions in July, 1982 and August, 1983 respectively. The most specific allegations of undue pressure, harassment and intimidation involve the alleged imposition of production quotas during the reduction of the LKC QC
(~ , backlog in 1984, the transfer of inspector J. Seeders L) in the end of September 1984, the termination of inspector W. Puckett in August, 1984 and the R. Snyder incident on March 28, 1985 which led to 24 LKC QC inspectors making allegations to the NRC on March 29, 1985. Intervenors characterize these specific allegations as " fitting into a larger scheme" caused by production pressure from Commonwealth Edison (Guild, Tr. 7908).
It is my understanding that the~intervenors urge this Licensing Board to infer that the alleged production pressure, the alleged lack of independence from cost and schedule considerations, the alleged i incidents of harassment, intimidation and retaliatory 1
1
'* treatment have had a deleterious effect on the adequacy of QC inspections. Intervenors argue that this presumed deleterious effect on QC inspections precludes licensing the Braidwood facility (Guild at Tr. 7903, 7912).
Q.8. How do the results of the CSR and the PTL over-inspections pertain to intervenors' claims?
A.8. Both the CSR reinspections and PTL overinspections provide the results of a large number of repeat inspections of LKC QC accepted work. These repeat inspections were produced by qualified inspectors independent of the LKC QA/QC organizations. The extent of the deficiencies found through these repeat bT inspections can be used as a measure of the effective-ness of the original LKC QC inspections. In addition, since this data spans the entire time period of electrical construction at Braidwood, variations over time in the reinspection results can be used to trace the impact, if any, on inspector performance of the events which intervenors characterize as improper production pressure, harassment and intimidation.
I Intervenors' witness Dr. Arvey has recommended a reinspection of some sort directed towards the hard-ware installed and QC inspected by LKC. Dr. Arvey appeared to indicate that a sample reinspection g program should provide a clear indication of the
_9 l
l
\ _ _ - _
existence of a true problem, if harassment and intimidation occurred and through " observational learr.ing" in the work place reduced the effectiveness of QC inspector performance. In response to a question from Judge Callihan, Dr. Arvey stated that he did not know enough about the hardware to give an opinion on how such a reinspection program should be designed and implemented. (Tr. 4433) However, Dr. Arvey opined that if a 10% random sample of hardware items (consisting for example of 1000 welds) were reinspected and 30 percent of those welds had "significant defects," that would be a clear indication that additional remedial action should be undertaken. (Arvey, Tr. 4436)
It is my judgment, based on my familiarity with the electrical hardware at Braidwood and my experience in the design and review of reinspection programs, that the CSR and the PTL overinspection program are adequately structured and have generated sufficient information to provide a reliable answer to intervenors' claims. I explain the reasons why I believe the CSR and the PTL overinspection program together are adequate for this purpose later in this testimony.
Q.9. Based on intervenors' claims and the testimony of intervenors' experts Dr. Ilgen and Dr. McKirnan, what would you expect the results of the CSR and PTL overinspections to show?
A.9. I would expect those results to show two things:
unacceptable work; and trends or variations of the results over time which could be correlated with periods of intense production pressure and acts of alleged harassment and intimidation.
If, as has been alleged, the production pressure on LKC QA/QC was " historic, tangible, powerful and pervasive," and as a result impaired the effectiveness of LKC QC inspections, the CSR and PTL overinspection results should identify numerous significant defects in the LKC QC accepted work. For example, intervenors' witness Dr. McKirnan contends that (V') individual events of harassment and intimidation involving disincentives to quality inspector performance will " anchor" the employees criterion for good or bad work, and that the resulting " quantity over quality" values anchored in the workplace would
" lower the performance standards of the quality control inspectors generally, such that the norms differentiating ' good' from ' bad' work may become less clear" (McKirnan at 12). Dr. McKirnan infers that inspectors as a class or presumably in subclasses would " generally understand that the standard of quality for passable work is becoming lower".
(McKirnan at 12) e~S e Intervenors' consultant Dr. Ilgin has provided prefiled testimony which suggests that the inspector work force as a whole vas subjected perhaps unconsciously through " observational learning" to a model for behavior that promoted " quantity over quality". He remarks that he would be surprised "if the inspection behavior of at least some of the inspectors was not affected by the pressure" (Ilgen at 21). Dr. Ilgen goes on to say that the quality of actual workmanship, in this case the effectiveness of inspector performance, is an obvious behavior trace evidencing work behaviour. (Ilgen at 24)
Second, I would expect some correlation in time between acts of harassment and poor inspector performance as revealed by the repeat inspection results. In his deposition, Dr. McKirnan predicted that the inspectors' " anchor" (i.e., their performance standards) would move in response to events such as the discharge of Mr. Saklak. (McKirnan Dep. Tr.
136-140, 204-209). Dr. Ilgin indicated in his deposition that it would be useful to examine the results of a sample reinspection program to determine whether the quality of Comstock QC inspection, plotted
! as a function of time, could be associated with alleged episodes of harassment. (Ilgen Dep. Tr.
72-76).
Q.lO. Mr. DelGeorge, please summarize the conclusions you have drawn from the results of the CSR and PTL repeat inspections.
A.10. Based on my review of the CSR reinspection data and the PTL overinspection data, I have concluded that:
(1) the LKC QC inspections were effective, and (2) there is no apparent relationship between LKC QC inspector performance, as reflected by the variation over time in the CSR and PTL results, and the incidents of alleged harassment and intimidation and the periods of alleged intense production pressure described in the testimony presented to this Licensing Board.
(.
(')h Q.ll. Mr. DelGeorge, what is the basis for your conclusion that the LKC QC inspections were effective?
A.ll. One basis for this conclusion is the results of the CSR as described by Dr. Kaushal, Mr. Kostal and Mr.
Thorsell. The most important result of the CSR is that there were no design significant discrepancies in the electrical work. This means that whatever the work climate was at LKC, the QC inspectors did not ignore or overlook important construction defects.
Moreover the nature and rate of occurrence of dis-crepancies identified in the CSR, as discussed by Mr. Kostal and Mr. Thorsell, does not appear to me to be unusual, based on my own experience at Byron and elsewhere.
g i
gs/ The PTL overinspection data provides a supporting basis for my conclusion. Although there are no engineering evaluations of discrepancies comparable to those performed for the CSR, the overall agreement rates for the work subjected to repeat inspection are in my judgment acceptable. Over the four-year period from July 1982 through June 1986, 92.56% of the welds which LKC QC inspectors found to be acceptable were also found to be acceptable by PTL overinspectors.
When the results of S&L Level III inspections performed in the last year are taken into account, the agreement rate increases to 93.28%. The agreement rate for objective (non-welding) work overinspected by O PTL from June 1985 through June 1986 is 95.98%, which I also consider to be acceptable. These results are comparable to the results for the reinspection of the same hardware attributes at Byron, where those results have been accepted as adequate.
Q.12. How did you calculate agreement rates for purposes of your review of the CSR and PTL data?
A.12. I calculated agreement rates in two ways. For the CSR, where the results have always-been presented on an inspection point basis, I defined the agreement rate as being the number of inspection points determined by the CSR inspections to be acceptable l
divided by the total number of inspection points
i l
l I
i
(* reinspected in the CSR for the same period. In addition, for CSR weld reinspections I also calculated agreement rates on a weld basis, that is, as the number of welds found acceptable by the CSR divided by the total number of welds reinspected in the CSR for the same period. This latter definition of agreement rate is the same as that used by myself and by Mr. Marcus in reviewing the results of the PTL overinspections for welding.
Q.13. In your judgment, is it reasonable to use these agreement rates as measures of Comstock QC inspector performance?
A.13. Yes. Calculating agreement rates on an inspection point basis allows one to focus on the numerous judgments which a QC inspector is required to make in inspecting a hardware item. However, presenting the agreement rates on a weld basis is also useful because it allows one to compare the CSR results with the PTL overinspection results displayed in the attachments to Mr. Marcus' testimony.
The approach I have taken, which focuses on agreement rates, assigns to the original LKC inspector responsibility for each discrepancy identified by the CSR or PTL inspector. In my experience with reinspec-tion programs, the cause of such discrepancies is not always attributable to the performance of the original I l
(l
('
~
QC inspector. For example, procedural or inspection practice enhancements between the original inspection and the reinspection, design document clarifications after the original inspection, and to some extent the effectiveness of the reinspector's performance can all affect the actual acceptance rate of the original inspector. My review of the CSR and PTL programs indicates that each of these mechanisms was present to some small degree. Each of these other effects, though individually small, collectively add a measure of conservatisn to the assignment of all observed discrepancies to the original LKC inspector. It is
(} for these reasons that I believe that the agreement rates presented in my testimony and in the testimony of Mr. Marcus and Dr. Frankel provide a reasonable measure of LKC QC inspector effectiveness.
i Q.14. Mr. Del George, please describe how you reviewed the CSR and PTL data to determine whether there was any relationship between LKC QC inspector performance and the allegations of harassment, intimidation and production pressure which have been made in this case.
A.14. My review of both data bases took the following form.
i First, all repeat inspection results were sorted by the date of the original LKC hardware inspection. In this way the number of LKC inspections and the corresponding agreement rates between the original LKC inspection and the CSR reinspection could be displayed
P as a function of the time the original inspection was '
i done. These agreement rates were used as a measure of the effectiveness of the LKC QC hardware inspection activity as a function of time. I then performed a review of the data, considering: (1) performance of all inspectors as a group; (2) performance of inspection sub-groups (i.e., subjective and objective attribute inspections); (3) performance of the complaining inspectors as a class (i.e., those identified inspectors who expressed concerns to the NRC on March 29, 1985 about the existence of harassment or intimidation); and finally, (4) performance of individual inspectors.
O Q.15. Of the class of 24 LKC inspectors who expressed concerns to the NRC Staff on March 29, 1985, how many did inspections which were reinspected in the CSR and overinspected by PTL?
A.15. A total of of these 24 LKC inspectors were included
- in the CSR sample. This includes 18 of the 20 weld inspectors who made allegations on March 29, 1985, and I
,Y of the 4 inspectors t'ho were not certified as weld /
inspectors.
A total of 20 of the 24 LKC inspectors were captured in the PTL overinspections. This includes 19 of the 20 weld inspectors and 1 of the 4 inspectors who were not certified a veld inspectors.
O Ot Q.16. Mr. Del George, do you have any graphs which illustrate the variation over time of the CSR results?
A.16. Yes. Attachment 2C (Del George-1) has two graphs.
The top one shows the number of inspection points sampled in the CSR versus the time the corresponding Comstock QC inspections were performed (by calendar quarter). The bottom graph shows the CSR agreement rate, calculated on an inspection point basis, for the same time periods.
Attachment 2C (DelGeorge - 2) is in the same format. It shows agreement rates versus time for the CSR inspection point data for all welding sampled.
Attachment 2C (De1 George - 3) also shows agreement 7-
'~
rates versus time for all welding sampled, but on a weld basis rather than an inspection point basis.
Attachments 2C (DelGeorge - 4) and (DelGeorge - 5) show the agreement rates versus time for all of the complaining LKC weld inspectors, on an inspection point basis and on a weld basis, respectively.
Eighteen of the 20 weld inspectors who made allega-tions to the NRC Staff are represented in these fi gure s .
Attachment 2C (DelGeorge - 6) shows the number of CSR inspection points for the class of complaining inspectors for both welding and non-welding l inspections.
l
f i
( J g{ , In fact, as the bottom graph shows, two of the complaining LKC QC inspectors are responsible for most of the non-welding inspections, performed by this class and captured in the CSR.
The format in which these attachments are prepared helps one to judge whether there is sufficient data so that varia'tions in the CSR results from one time period to another are meaningful.
Q.17. In your opinion is there sufficient
~
these graphs to trend the effectiveness of L. Kinformation in Comstock inspections as a function of time? .
A.17.
The CSR reinspection data base is quite large. In the case of the CSR data, 733 hardware equipment items were reinspected,
'< including more than 10,000 welds and 276,000 separate inspecticn peints distributed over the entire per:cd covered by the CSR sample. The CSR
/
resulted in the repeat inspection of the work of k
1#
inspectors, of which,54'So vere welding inspectors. As /
previously indicated, of the 24 inspectors who made #
allegations to the NRO on March 29, 1985 had some of their work reinspected under the CSR program. Thus I believe it agreement is reasonable to evaluate variations in the rates over ti$e for all CSR electrical inspections, as shown in Attachment 2C (DelGeorge - 1).
When one starts focusing in on subsets of the CSR data, for example, welding inspections only, or the O
~19' Revised Del George Testimony
\
( inspections performed by the class of complaining inspectors, the quantity of data is smaller and more caution has to be used in examining variations in agreement rates from one time period to another.
My determination of how much information is sufficient to allow trending is a qualitative judgment, unlike Dr. Frankel's calculation of the coefficient of variation for purposes of his testimony. In making this judgment, I considered the number of inspection points or welds in adjacent time periods, the variation in these quantities over time, and the number of LKC QC inspectors whose work was
() represented in the sample for each time period.
In my judgment, there is sufficient data for the cumulative sample of all CSR electrical inspections as represented by Attachment 2C (DelGeorge - 1), and for the subgroup of welding inspections, as represented by Attachments 2C (DelGeorge - 2) and (DelGeorge - 3), to support analysis of variations in agreement rates. I am less confident about the sufficiency of the data for the class of complaining inspectors, as shown in Attachments 2C (DelGeorge - 3), (DelGeorge - 4) and DelGeorge - 5). Attachment 2C (DelGeorge - 6) demonstrates that there is insufficient data to support analysis of trends in non-welding inspections l performed by the complaining inspectors.
l l .
.I
\ Q.18. To the extent there is sufficient CSR data to permit trending analysis, did you observe any trends?
A.18. No. In my review of the CSR data, including Attachments 2C (DelGeorge - 1 to DelGeorge - 5), I did not find any apparent trend attributable to the alleged undue pressure, harassment and intimidation claimed by intervenors to have occurred at Braidwood involving the work activities covered by the CSR.
Moreover, this finding is supported by the testimony of Dr. Frankel whose analysis identifies no statistically significant trend in agreement rates derived through the CSR inspection program. I have
,, reviewed Dr. Frankel's testimony and I believe his approach, including his method of combining construction categcries and the levels of significance used in his calculaticns, is appropriate.
Q.19. Dr. Kaushal testifies that the CSR cnly included reinspection attributes which (1) were required by applicable codes and standards, (2) could potentially have an effect on the item's ability to perform its safety-related functions and (3) are currently observable. How, if at all, do these limitations affect the usefulness of the CSR results in assessing Comstock QC inspector performance?
A.19. In my opinion, the usefulness of the CSR data is derived from its predefined scope and distribution in time. Because the effectiveness of QC inspector performance is at issue, an evaluation of that l
effectiveness requires first an assessment of the character of the inspection activity at issue and then a measurement in understandable terms of the signifi-cance of deviations from defined inspection criteria.
My previous experience with the evaluation of inspector effectiveness through hardware reinspection indicates that inspection activities are divisible into two primary types, subjective and objective. A subjective inspection involves an inspection that cannot be truly measured and is dependent upon senses and judgment. An objective inspection involves an inspection element that can usually be quantified or measured. Examples are: material, size, shape, r~'s traceability, dimensional configuration, etc. If a
\-)
reinspection program is defined in such a way that these subjective and objective inspection activities are adequately surveyed over time, inspection effectiveness can then be assessed. The design of the CSR sample addressed these considerations.
Furthermore, it is both reasonacle and appropriate to direct the reinspection effort at those construction attributes having the potential for an 1
effect on a hardware item's ability to perform its i
i safety-related function. In such a way the attributes 1
! of significance to the safe operation of the nuclear l
facility can be assessed, and be assessed in a l
l 1 l
1 l
O( quantitative manner. Directing the focus of activities in thic way may exclude from consideration non-safety related work activities from reinspection, and might limit the inferences that can be drawn with respect to such ancillary activities. However, where the question to be answered is whether a nuclear facility can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public such a limitation is of no consequence.
In addition, a limitation of reinspection activities to these attributes observable at the time of reinspection, though having the effect of reducing
(') the construction population subject to reinspection, does not affect the inferences to be drawn from the reinspection effort if: (1) the population actually reinspected includes construction attributes of the type no longer observable which were inspected by persons having both observable and unobservable work, such that some of their work remains subject to reinspection, and (2) where the sub-population of work no longer observable is not related to the q stion that has precipitated the reinspection effort in a manner different than the work that is observable.
Having reviewed the CSR data base and those attributes excluded from reinspection under the CSR, I
()
find no measurable limitation on the usefulness of the
CSR data for assessing collective QC inspector effectiveness for the period covered by the CSR. In this regard, the CSR sample limitations are not unlike those in the Byron Quality Control Inspector Reinspec-tion Program. Certain work activities are either not accessible or not recreatable at the time of a reinspection. In this regard, this minor limitation in the CSR is equivalent to that identified and accepted in the Byron Licensing Board's October 16, 1984 Supplemental Initial Decision with respect to non-recreatable attributes addressed in the Byron QCIRP. Moreover, there is no basis for concluding
{} that harassment and intimidation would have a different effect on the limited number of unreinspect-able or non-recreatt.ble inspections because such inspections are typically identical in character and were in fact performed by the same inspectors for whom l observable inspections were reinspected.
! A possible exception is the case of in-process inspections such as verification of weld preheat.
However, such non-recreatable attributes are typically first inspected because of the greater likelihood that
- work deficiencies not detected in-process would result in physical hardware damage. For examplc, because weld preheat is itself required to reduce the 9
l __ _ __
- 3) potential of weld shrinkage cracks, a design signifi-cant consequence of a deficient in-process inspection of such an attribute would be manifested as a weld crack which itself would be manifested and observable by the reinspector. Moreover, such in-process inspections are often subjected to redundant owner oversight, reducing further the potential for inadequate in-process review. An example of such an in-process inspection is cable pull force, for which CECO site QA monitors the contractors set-up for all f
cable pulls not made by hand. (Cable pulls by hand i are unlikely to cause damage.) For these reasons, the
- limitation attendant to the inability to reinspect such in-process attributes is not significant.
Q.20. Dr. Kaushal also testifies that certain CSR reinspection observations were declared " invalid" or "out of scope." How, if at all, does the exclusion of these items affect the usefulness of the CSR recults ,
in assessing Comstock QC inspector performance? !
A.20. I do not believe that these exclusions affect the usefulness of the CSR results. Repeating the point made previously in response to Question 19, the usefulness of such reinspection data is dictated by the scope of coverage of the program and the distribu-tion in time of the attributes actually reinspected.
Having reviewed the LKC observations declared
" invalid" or "out of scope", I have identified only
s
,d one reinspectable inspection activity that has been precluded frem evaluation either generally or as a function of time. That activity is cable pan hanger configuration which, because of a 100% walkdown effort then being conducted by Sargent & Lundy in conjunction with LKC QC personnel, fell outside the CSR scope.
The characteristics of this specific inspection activity are typical of other LKC objective activities actually reinspected under the CSR. Moreover, a review of the LKC inspector certification records for the period covered by the CSR indicate that only ~ Nd LKC QC inspectorjvho did field inspections and whose cd.hkt%u-verk sae Areinspected under the CSR we.ue, tz s certified in
{} cable pan hanger configura:icn only. In fact, most inspec:crs certified in that area aise held welding inspection certifications, among others, for which the underlying inspecticn work was reinspectable and was reinspected under CSR.
of the 24 inspectors who expressed concerns to the NRC on March 29, 1985, 20 were previously certified in and conducted welding inspections. As previously stated, 18 of these welding inspectors are captured by the CSR data base. onlyjhofthese24inspectorswere not reinspected within the CSR sample for some work activity.
Moreover, each LKC construction activity Revised De1 George Tcstimony
'( and each area of field-installed hardware inspection certification as a class was reinspected under the CSR sample.
Q.21. Mr. Del George, Dr. Frankel testifies that, based on his review of the CSR data, there is not a statistically significant difference between the discrepancy rate for L.K. Comstock QC inspectors prior to July 1, 1982 and after July 1, 1982. Why is July 1, 1982 a significant date (if it is) for purposes of deternining whether harassment and ir.timidation may have affected the work of the Comstock QC inspectors?
A.21. Based upon my review of the Intervenors' harassment and intimidation contention, as well as the record in this case, I understand that intervenors contend that Mr. R. Saklak had a pervasive deleterious influence on the overall inspection system during his tenure.
Therefore, after consultation with Dr. Hulin, who will also be submitting rebuttal testimony in this case, I recommended that the significance of this date, which was the date on which Mr. Saklak assumed the poc1-of QC Supervisor for LKC, be statistically evaluated with respect to the effectiveness of LKC inspector l performance as manifested by the acceptance rate as a l
l function of time deduced from the CSR data.
Q.22. Mr. Del George, Dr. Frankel also testifies that he
- finds no statistically significant difference in the l CSR data between the error rate prior to August 1, 1983 and after August 1, 1983. Why is August 1, 1983 a significant date 'if it is) for purposes of determining whether harassment and intimidation may have affected the work of the Comstock QC inspectors?
}
I
O
( A.22. On the basis of a similar review as was described in response to Q.21., it is my understanding that intervenors contend that Mr. I. DeWald had a pervasive deleterious effect on the overall LKC QC inspection system. Therefore, after consultation with Dr. Hulin, I recommended that the statistical significance of this date, which was the date on which Mr. DeWald assumed the position of QC Manager for LKC, be evaluated with respect to the effectiveness of LKC inspector performance as manifested by the acceptance rate deduced from the CSR data.
In this regard, it is also worth noting that one of
() the primary objectives that Mr. DeWald testified he devoted himself to upon assuming his position was the elimination of the LKC inspection backlog that existed in the Fall, 1983. Mr. DeWald's management initia-tives in late 1983 through the Fall, 1984 when the major backlog item of hanger weld inspection was i
eliminated, are alleged to have demonstrated an interest in quantity of inspections to the detriment of the quality of those inspections. For this reason, a review of the relat4.ve effectiveness of welding inspection before and after August 1, 1983 should manifest a downward trend in inspector performance after August 1, 1983 if, as has been alleged, a 1
()
pervasive environment of harassment and intimidation through the setting and enforcement of welding inspection quotas by Mr. DeWald and his management subordinates existed and, in fact, affected inspector effectiveness.
Q.23. Dr. Frankel testifies that, in performing his analysis he only used the items from the CSR sample which were selected using random sampling. Based on Dr. Kaushal's testimony, this means a portion of the total CSR sample was excluded. Have you reviewed the remaining non-probability portion of the CSR sample for any changes in Comstock QC inspector performance over time which might be attributable to harassment or intimidation?
A.23. Yes.
Q.24. How did you go about performing this evaluation?
() A.24. I described in response to Q.14. how I reviewed the CSR data to evaluate the effectiveness of LKC QC inspector performance. As part of that process, I reviewed the non-probability portion of the CSR sample as well as the combined random and non-probability sample data. I made a comparative evaluation of the shape and distribution in time of the data sorted in this manner to identify any apparent differences in the form of or trends manifested by the data. On this j
basis, I was able to develop certain engineering judgements with respect to the possibility of any changes in QC inspector performance manifested by the non-probability portion of the CSR sample which might ll be attributable to harassment or intimidation.
Q.25. What did you conclude?
A.25. I have concluded that the non-probability portion of the CSR sample does not manifest any visible changes which might be attributable to harassment or intimidation. Specifically, the shape and absolute value of the data defined by acceptance rate as a function of time displays only minor differences from that provided by the random portion of the CSR sample, and no trends that I believe are attributable to harassment or intimidation.
Q.26. Have you reviewed the CSR results for individual 7- Comstock inspectors to determine whether there were
(_) any changes in an individual'c performance over time, which might be attributable to harassment or intimidation?
A.26. Yes. However, in general, there is not sufficient CSR data to examine the effectiveness of individual inspector performance. This is due to the fact that individual inspectors did not have a sufficient number of inspections reinspected in multiple consecutive time intervals to allow for meaningful trending of the results.
Q.27. If there isn't sufficient CSR data to examine inspection performance on an individual basis, what value, if any, does the CSR data have for purposes of determining whether harassment and intimidation occurred?
A.27. Although quantitive conclusions with respect to
\,
C individual inspectors would be difficult to support, O( this fact alone does not preclude reliable conclusions being drawn from the CSR data with respect to whether harassment and intimidation occurred at LKC during the time period covered by the CSR; and perhaps of greater importance, whether harassment and intimidation if it did occur diminished the effectiveness of QC inspector performance.
The intervenors here contend that events and conditions within the LKC quality control department brought about by specific named individuals with the knowledge and at least unvoiced support of QA/QC management generally, created a pervasive and
() debilitating atmosphere of harassmen'. and Intervenors rely on the fact that 24 intimidation.
LEC QC inspectors went to the NRC on March 29, 1985 with such complaints. Although an event involving Mr. Saklak that occurred on March 28, 1985 was the event that triggered the complaints by these inspectors, intervenors would have us believe that LKC QC management had for a considerable time, i.e., at minimum during the tenure of Mr. Saklak as QC l
l Supervisor and Mr. DeWald as QC Manager, promoted inspector production over inspection quality. Because this alleged pressure on inspectors is alleged to be i pervasive, data on group performance covering all work I
activities, the welding activity separately or the
(' )
(
work activity of the class of 24 inspectors should manifest any deleterious effects produced by such pressure. The CSR data base is sufficient to make an engineering evaluation of these three performance parameters.
Q.28. Mr. Del George, turning to the PTL overinspection results presented by Mr. Marcus, in your opinion what value, if any, do they have for assessing whether the performance of the Comstock QC inspectors was adversely effected by alleged harassment and intimidation?
A.28. The PTL overinspection results are also instructive with respect to whether the effectiveness of LKC QC inspectors was adversely affected by the harassment
() and intimidation which is alleged to have occurred.
This data base consists of reinspections performed by PTL of generally 10% of all welding that was QC accepted by LKC tetween July, 1982 at Mr. Saklak's arrival and June, 1936; and generally 10% of all objective hardware inspections performed by LKC between June, 1985 and June, 1986. This data base is described in greater detail by Mr. Marcus.
With respect to welding inspections, 19 of the 20 welding inspectors who expressed concerns to the NRC on March 29, 1986 were reviewed under the PTL overinspection program. The number of welds reinspected in the period reviewed is 28,422 overall, ll cnd 11,311 for the class of inspectors who made
, ~ .
\ allegations to the NRC on March 29, 1985. This represents an extremely large though not technically a randomly selected sample. The PTL weld overinspection
. sample reinspects the work of 100 LKC inspectors. The PTL non-weld overinspection conducted over the past year reinspects the work of 45 LKC inspectors, including 5 of the class of 24 and contains a total of 4,650 elements.
Because of the size of the PTL overinspection sample and the methods for selecting the sample, which are described by Mr. Marcus, I believe this data base can be used to evaluate changes in the effectiveness
{} of LKC QC inspector performance as measured by the agreement rate between the results of the original LKC inspection and the PTL overinspection.
Q.29 What evaluations, if any, have you made of the PTL overinspection results?
A.29 I have reviewed the overinspection data for welding for the period July, 1982 through June, 1986; and the non-welding data developed for the period June, 1985 through June, 1986. I have compared that data to the data generated by the CSR program. I have reviewed the data from the standpoints of inspection activities as a class, i.e., welding (subjective) and non-welding (objective), the performance of the class of 24
{}
(
inspectors who made allegatiens to the NRC Staff on
I 1
> 1 March 29, 1985, as well as the performance of individual inspectors. I have assessed the data in light of my knowledge of similar data developed at other Commonwealth Edison construction sites involving I,
similar activities.
Q.30 What are the results of your review of the PTL overinspection data for all LKC inspectors?
A.30 My review did not identify any apparent trends or changes in the data that support intervenors' claims of undue pressure, harassment or intimidation of LKC inspectors. Although occasional changes in agreement rates were identified, there appeared to be no confirmatory indications or trends linking these
{)
changes to the alleged misconduct which intervenors contend existed and caused deleterious effects. This leads me to conclude that changes in these agreement rates are isolated and unrelated.
Q.31 What are the results of your review of the PTL overinspection results for the class of 24 LKC inspectors who made allegations to the NRC Staff on March 29, 1985?
- A.31 The results of my evaluation of these inspectors are the same as for all LKC inspectors. In particular, as l
shown in At+.achment 2C (Marcus-4), the agreement rates i
for the months preceding March 29, 1985 for this group are uniformly acceptable.
4
- _ - - - - , .y,r, .--._,--__.e -_ .__m - . _ , .
l
/Q k>
r Q.32 Have you evaluated the PTL results for individual inspectors?
A.32 Yes. The data was sorted for review by Mr. Marcus and I in such a way that we could, for each inspector whose hardware inspections were reinspected, review which inspectors were captured by the PTL sample, in what months an inspector's work was originally inspected and how many inspections were reinspected as well as the number of rejects identified by the overinspector in that month.
My review of this PTL data indicates that of the 100 weld inspectors whose work was overinspected, sufficient data exists to make a reliable assessment
() of the effectiveness of the performance of 78 of those inspectors. The limited amount of data available (less than 50 welds reinspected) precludes drawing definitive conclusions for the remaining 22, although Mr. Marcus' testimony addresses the three inspectors out of this group of 22 whose agreement rates were less than 90%. Of those 78 inspectors for whom sufficient data does exist, it is my opinion that the PTL overinspection data demonstrates the acceptability of the work of 75 inspectors. The performance of the remaining 3 inspectors is either unacceptable or is deficient in a way that requires remedial action.
Those three inspectors are Messrs. Asmussen, Arndt 9
i
( and Hunter. Mr. Marcus and I performed this analysis jointly. I have reviewed the discussion reported in his testimony and I agree with it.
The small number of inspectors whose~ work appears questionable does not detract from the strength of the conclusions otherwise drawn with respect to the effectiveness of QC inspector performance as a class.
In fact, the known inspector-specific deficiencies are themselves generally isolated and dissimilar and suggest no common cause. In addition, my review of the QC inspector testimony in this case suggests no obvious causal link between these isolated
() deficiencies and the alleged undue pressure, harassment and intimidation.
Q.33 What conclusion, if any, do you draw from Dr. Frankel's testimony that there is a slight linear trend of improving inspections in the data?
A.33 This conclusion by Dr. Frankel is instructive for a number of reasons. First, the PTL data base is entirely independent of the CSR data base. Because j Dr. Frankel has reached similar conclusions with respect to both, I believe with an extremely high degree of confidence that no significant adverse l
l trends actually exist in the population from which the i
two samples were chosen.
C)
L
O
'N_) Second, the quantitative assessment by Dr. Frankel confirms my own engineering evaluation of the PTL data. My review did not identify any apparent trends or changes in the data that support intervenors' claims of alleged undue pressure, harassment or intimidation of LKC inspectors.
Q.34 Are the results of the CSR and the PTL overinspec-tions consistent?
A.34 Yes. By way of foundation, I have previously testified that I reviewed the inspector checklists used to implement both of these programs. Although there were minor differences in these checklists, they 7- are equivalent in terms of substantive inspection V It is my impression that the CSR attributes.
measurement techniques and acceptance criteria are sometimes more conservative than those employed by LKC. Furthermore, I have reviewed the sampling techniques used under both programs and as I previously testified, I conclude that each individually provides a reliable indicator of the i effectiveness of LKC QC inspection activity.
After reviewing each data base individually as I have previously discussed, I attempted to determine whether on the basis of a comparative analysis any material differences existed. The composite mean agreement rate from the PTL welding data base is
(
I
y_, about 93% and from the CSR welding data base is about
( ) o /
, . . The fact that the PTL agreement rate is greater 7 than the CSR agreement rate is not surprising to me.
First, as Mr. Kostal testifies, the weld discrepancies identified in the CSR included a very high percentage of insignificant deficiencies. Second, the CSR was conducted long after most of the LKC inspections which were reinspected, while the PTL overinspections were generally performed soon after the LKC inspections.
The agreement rate between contemporaneous inspections performed using equivalent procedures would be expected to be higher. Finally, there was intense oversight of the CSR inspections by CECO, the IEOG and the NRC Staff, which contributed to the very conservative inspection results produced by the CSR.
Q.35. Does the fact that prior to June, 1985 the overinspections only applied to welding affect the value of results in determining whether the alleged harassment and intimidation of Comstock QC inspectors affected their performance?
l A.35. In my opinion, the fact that prior to June, 1985 the PTL overinspections only applied to welding does not affect the value of the overinspection results in
! determining whether the alleged harassment and l intimidation of LKC QC inspectors reduced the effectiveness of their performance. First, as I have observed previously, most of the inspectors who have O
l
expressed a concern upon which the intervenor contention rests have been welding inspectors.
Because of the extremely large percentage of inspectors in this single certification class who expressed concern, the intervenors' psychologists' testimony strongly suggests that:
- 1. There exists a pervasive occupational learning model in the LKC weld inspection area that promotes quantity over quality.
- 2. This class of inspectors as a group, whether or not acknowledged or known by them, should have been influenced through occupational learning, with a resultant reduction in the quality performance norm for the class.
As previously stated, the PTL overinspection results do not show any reduction in the quality of Comstock inspections over time. This is true even though, as Mr. Marcus' testimony indicates, the monthly agreement rate figures are quite sensitive to poor performance by individual inspectors.
Moreover, although I have no expertise in industrial psychology, my experience with the review of inspection activities leads me to conclude that welding inspections may in fact be a more sensitive indicator of any real negative effects due to l
production pressure or other harassment and d
intimidation where such effects would lead to a reduction in the quality values of the QC inspector work force. Because weld inspections are subjective and by their nature amenable to a greater degree of qualitative judgement by an inspector than are most objective hardware inspections; if a reduction in quality norms were to occur, a shift in performance
! might occur and be less obvious to the sensibilities of the individual inspector who is relying on qualitative judgement to make inspection decisions.
Moreover, in the case of a subjective inspection, an inspector may be influenced to err non-conservatively where he knows the decision is recognized by others as judgemental. Welding reinspections should therefore be able to detect a shift in the performance of the original inspectors as a class. The PTL overinspection program demonstrates that no such shift in performance occurred.
Q.36. Does the gap in the PTL overinspection data in October and November 1982, the minimal amount of data for November and December of 1983 and May of 1985, and the fact that the PTL overinspection results have not been compiled for period prior to July 1982, significantly affect the value of this data base in assessing the performance of Comstock QC inspectors?
l A.36. In my opinion, taken collectively, this limitation does not have a significant effect on the value of the 4
summmma 0
K/ PTL data base in assessing the effectiveness of LKC QC inspector performance.
First, July, 1982 was chosen at my direction as the starting point for purposes of the review. Review of the the CSR welding information indicate that no statistically significant difference exists in the inspected welding data base before and after July, 1982. Because none of the PTL data for those early years had been compiled in a computer data base, the extensive expense and more importantly the extensive time necessary to compile the pre-July, 1982 data was judged by me to be unnecerrary. My decision was also influenced by the fact that July, 1982 was the time at which Mr. Saklak assumed supervisory oversight of inspection activity for LKC and could have affected b d weld inspection activity. This daty also precedes all the time periods of specific production pressure identified by the intervenors. The PTL data base has been developed and used to assess inspectien effectiveness from July, 1982 through June, 1986. In my opinion, the lack of analysis of PTL data prior to July, 1982 has no material effect on the review undertaken by Commonwealth Edison.
Second, the total time after July, 1982 during which very limited or no PTL overview data was
(} generated is very short; involving only 5 months of the 48 months from July, 1986 to June, 1982 that were assessed. Based on my knowledge of the record developed in this case, there were no specific events of harassment or intimidation affecting either the ,
welding area or other LKC inspection areas in those time periods. Had there been such an event, a review of the trends in the data before and after these short gaps would still be instructive as to any affect on performance due to such an event. This is particularly true of the data for May, 1985 which followed soon after the March 29, 1985 allegations to the NRC by 24 inspectors concerning harassment and intimidation concerns. In that case, the entire period prior to the event was overviewed by PTL and the data is available in this study. Moreover, as
- Mr. Bowman (Tr. 6830-32) and other QC inspectors have i
testified, the March 28, 1985 incident that preceded the report to the NRC really represented a culmination of concerns that had allegedly been growing for some months. A review of the data in the period prior to April, 1985 should be instructive as to any developing impact on inspector effectiveness that might have i occurred. As previously stated, the PTL results for the months preceding April, 1985 show no such impact.
Furthermore, intervenors' witness Dr. Ilgen testified that once such an effect is anchored, it is not easily
modified. In discussing the perceptions developed by an inspector based on personal observations or discussions with other employees, Dr. Ilgen indicates that these perceptions " die slowly". He goes on to say, "It is often not enough to simply make some minor change of course, and certainly not enough to merely proclaim such changes" (Ilgen Prefiled at 17). With this intervenor testimony in mind, I believe that the 1 month period in May, 1985 for which very little PTL overinspection data is available is of no material significance; especially where PTL overinspection ,
results for an extended period from June, 1985 to
(} June, 1986 are available and show no adverse trends in the effectiveness of LKC QC inspector performance.
Q.37. In your opinion, does the fact that the PTL overinspections are not a probability sample preclude its use in assessing Comstock QC inspector performance?
A.37. No. Because of the fact that the PTL overinspection program typically covered 10% or more of all work done, including for a substantial period 10% or more of the work of all inspectors, the sophistication of a 4 probability sample was not necessary to perform engineering trending of the reinspection results. In other words, the extensive sampling of almost all work, generally covering all inspectors over an i
O( extensive period of time diminishes the need for more refined sampling techniques.
The fact that intervenors allege the existence of a pervasive debilitating environment covering the period after July, 1982 which, if it did exist, should have affected the LKC QC inspectors as a class, also reduces the need for a refined survey tool to determine the existence of a substantial problem. If such a pervasive problem did exist, the extensive sample used in the PTL overinspection program would have identified it.
Furthermore, in my view, the actual sample chosen
() has some features that are also used in formal random sampling programs which increase its reliability. All the inspection work on a given inspection request was within the population subject to the sample.
Moreover, the selection of a specific report or inspection within an inspection request was not biased
. in a way that work activities as a class, or inspectors as individuals, or time periods of potential interest were excluded.
Q.38. The PTL results for certain inspectors do not seem to be continuous. That is, not cvery weld inspector was overinspected every month. Have you tried to ascertain why?
A.35. Prior to June, 1985 the PTL overinspection program did l llh not require that each inspector be reinspected
. (
i
! IN ')
,s regularly, even when the inspector had performed inspection work. So it is unsurprising that this observation can be made. In addition, very few inspectors were certified in only welding or some other sole inspection activity. Most inspectors had and used more than one of their certifications.
Furthermore, as has been made clear through QC inspector testimony, redefinition of task priorities often resulted in inspectors rotating between various inspection activities. I believe these circumstances I
caused the observed gaps in the overinspection sample for individual inspectors.
() Q.39. Would you compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of the CSR and the PTL overinspections in assessing whether the performance of the Comstock QC inspectors was adversely affected by alleged harassment and intimidation?
A.39. By way of summary, the CSR inspection and PTL overinspection data bases both provide relevant and I believe dispositive evidence that the effectiveness of LKC QC inspector performance was adequate throughout the period of LKC's involvement at Braidwood. The CSR data, developed as it was based on engineering judgement and statistical sampling methods, provides an extensive sampling of all previously inspected work activities from the start of LKC work through June 30, 1984, at which time all of the persons alleged to have 1
O( harassed or intimidated employees had been at the site for almost 1 year and before which many of the events related to alleged production pressure involving the backlog had occurred. The CSR data base ends at June, 1984 and does not cover the period when other specific alleged acts of intimidation or harassment occurred.
I do not believe this limitation significe.utly affects the strength of conclusions drawn from the CSR data for the reasons discussed in response to Q.21., Q.22.,
and Q.27. As discussed in response to Q.26., the CSR data is of limited use in assessing individual inspector performance. However, as further developed
() in response to Q.27., this limitation has minimal significance.
The strengths of the PTL data base are in its sheer size. Its focus on the welding area, which is arguably the area most prone to the debilitating learning model which intervenor's psychological witnesses conclude existed allows for an extensive review of this area. Although the PTL sample is not a probability sample, its size and distribution in time outweigh the effects of this limitation. In addition, t;.e PTL data base allows a more extensive inspector specific assessment for the welding area, which itself l
't L
i
\q J provides confirmation of conclusions otherwise drawn from the CSR and PTL data bases for all weld inspectors as a class.
Q.40. Mr. DelGeorge, in response to Q.10. you stated that there is no apparent relationship between Comstock QC inspector performance, as reflected in the variation over time in the CSR and PTL inspection results, and the incidents of alleged harassment and intimidation and the periods of intense production pressure described in the testimony in this proceeding. Hov can you reconcile this conclusion with intervenors' claims.
A.40. In my opinion, there are three alternative ,
explanations for the fact that the results of these two independent repeat inspection programs do not manifest a negative impact on QC inspection activities
() of the type hypothesized by intervenors.
First, the alleged undue production pressure, and the alleged acts of harassment and intimidation were not perceived by the LKC inspectors as requiring them to sacrifice quality for quantity, and therefore would have had no effect.
An alternative explanation is that pressures normal
~
to the construction work environment did exist; that sporadic instances of management labor dispute did in fact occur; and that some QC inspectors may have believed that LKC management was encouraging them to j sacrifice quality for quantity. However, the absence of any significant trends in the CSR and PTL repeat 9
inspection data demonstrates that the LKC inspectors did not allow these perceptions to compromise the effectiveness of their inspections.
The final possibility is that the alleged undue production pressure and acts of harassment and intimidation of LKC QC inspectors actually took place and had an effect on the quality of inspections which was constant over time. Although in my opinion this alternative seems furthest from the facts of record, nevertheless, even accepting this third alternative explanation, the adequacy of the LKC QC accepted work can be and is established by the CSR and PTL repeat
() inspection data. The CSR data demonstrates with a high degree of reliability that LKC work as inspected by the LKC QC department was acceptable. Through June, 1984 the results of the CSR effort support with high confidence the conclusion that no unidentified programatic design significant problem existed in the LKC work scope. The PTL data base extends this conclusion for the LKC welding area, though not statistically, through June, 1986 and for a more limited period for all other QC inspected work. Those results, which are based on an extensive amount of data, lead me to conclude that the combination of conservative design, good LKC craft labor performance O
and the LKC QC inspections have produced work which was adequate and remains adequate at this time.
On the basis of the facts contained in this hearing record which I have reviewed, including the CSR and PTL data, as well as my review of the conditions and events which together comprise the environment in the LKC QA/QC department, I conclude that the persons and organizations performing quality assurance functions for LKC had sufficient authority and organizational freedom to identify quality problems; to initiate, recommend, or provide solutions; and to verify implementation of solutions. Those LKC persons and
() organization had sufficient independence from cost and schedule when opposed to safety considerations to assure the effective implementation of the LKC quality program.
Q.41. Does this conclude your testimony?
A.41. Yes.
Attachment 2C (Del 1) i i CSR REINSPECTION RESULTS FOR LKC j All Populations, All Samples, Welding and Non-Welding
!' =000 40000
- Number of Inspection Points ;
30000 [30000 20000- -20000 l
10000 -10000 l
l 100 0
EhE
~ , . ' , ' . , ,
'u
_hl v i . " ~ m . m .
b 3
a
,m m,,
hl h!b b o, ,l u ,
, ,m -, ,m 0
-100 3
! 90- -90 E n-70-elg
-70 H~ M h l c E m-ey i a- -e j 30- -30 g a0 -a0 ::
10-0
-10 0
l a
suerteri < i a i s i 4 i<iaiai4 i < iaisi4 i <iaiai4 i <iaisi4 iniai 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 W
1 m Attachment 2C (Del # -
CSR REINSPECTION RESULTS FOR LKC All Populations, All Samples, Welding Only 4oooo _. __ __- - .._.._ _ _..______. _ _ _
-moo Number of Inspection ~ Points -
"" -3' "
! sooo0- -foooo o
V//Arna b bA 0 j 100- , ,
i i ,
-100 3
'; 90- -9o E m-70-af3
-7o i
- u- e) e; E m-
- ! E 40- -do j 3o- -so 5
-ao. .ao g to-o--- - - - - '- '- -' ---'- - - - - - - - -- - ' -
-10
-o
{
di j QuarterI 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I i 1 2 I 3 1 4 I 1 1 2 I 3 I 4 I 1 I 2 1
! 1979 190o 1981 1982 1983 1984 1
g
^"""~*
^O O c ** %
l CSR REINSPECTION RESULTS FOR LKC
) All Populations, All Samples, Welding Only "I ~
Nuiiiber of Welds ."
\
1500- -1500 1000 1000 500- g -500 0 0 100- ,,
-100 90- ,, ,
-90 ,
-80 %
j 80- '
1
! 70- -70
! 60- -60 g 50- -50 g g m- -m g 30- -30 20- -20 Q
- 10- -10 Quarteri i 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 3I4 1 2 3 4 1 1 2 3 1 4 1 1I2T3T4T1 I 2 1 1979 1900 1981 iME 1983 1984
~ -
W,.
attac%e 2c coa e c g4[
l CSR REINSPECTION RESULTS FOR LKC l
24 LKC Inspectors, All Samples, Welding Only
- 2000o 20000 J
Number of
- Inspection Points {
1500o- -15000 10000 h10000 5000- ! h5000 i
l ,
- E Bll Bi:ra a II:,
j 100- , , ,,
-100
! 90- Inspection Point ! -90 80-Agreement Rate -80 70- -70
$ 60- #
3 so- -50 2 4o- j 30- i -30 20 l -20 1o- -10
[ 0 QuarterI 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I iI 2 I 3 I 4 i 1 i a1 3 1 4 i i 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 1979 1980 1981 1M2 1983 1984
~ ~
Wr
~~*-""~
l 1 0 'O CSR REINSPECTION RESULTS FOR LKC j 24 LKC Inspectors, All Samples, Welding Only
! 2o00 acoo
- Number of Welds :
~
1o00- -1000
- g .
l ,o..
- _ i meL.Ba, .,00 90- Weld Agreement Rate ,,
-so
,o. ..o 70- -70 l
T 60- -60
-50 f50-g so- -no so- -se 20- -20 10- -s0 ouartert i1 2 1 3 1 4 I i 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 3I4I1I2 i3 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 3 I 4 I i 1 2 I se sono sees snee sees see4
~
T O
" "T>'
CSR REINSPECTION RESULTS FOR LKC i
j 24 LKC Inspectors, All Samples
! aoooo aoooo
- Number of Inspection :
Points Welding -
l 15000 5 -15000 i
10000- -1o000 sooo. .sooo o
WA V/A b .
i aooco- -acoco l l Number of Inspection '
l Points Non-Welding '
l 15000- -15oo0 io.coj .1..
i4IlilIi11Il1
!icoco 5000 22 Insp. ' sono e
ME n- -
,- liiii@ - . _
3 GuarterI i1 2 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 I 1 1 2 I 3 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 3 I 4 1 1 1 2 I 3 1 4 1 1 1 2 I 1979 1900 imi iMa 1983 1984 W-
16741 O
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I take it that concludes 2 your direct examination.
3 Mr. Guild?
4 MR. GUILD: My direct examination?
5 MR. STEPTOE: Yes, it does conclude my direct 6 examination.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: There should be a period 8 after that.
9 (Laughter.)
10 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, if we could stand 11 down briefly, I'm still awaiting those exhibits. Then 12 I'll be prepared to cross-examine.
(
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine. So we'll take a 14 10-minute recess.
15 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which 16 the proceedings were resumed as follows:)
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We're back in session.
18 Mr. Guild?
19 MR. GUILD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
20 Good morning, Mr. DelGeorge.
21 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
22 CROSS EXAMINATION 23 BY MR. GUILD:
24 Q Now, what is your present title with the company, sir?
25 A I'm assistant vice-president in the nuclear area.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, IIITnois 60134 (312) 232-0262 f
l 16742 l fi b
1 0 Is your title formally Assistant Vice-President for 2 Nuclear Licensing?
3 A No, it isn't.
4 0 I saw a name tag on the wall at the company's ,
5 headquarters building, and it raid "Vice-President of 6 Nuclear Licensing." I assumed that was your position.
7 A I believe, if you'll check that tag again, it is 8 incorrect and is out of date. It may still hold my 2
9 title f rom a few years back when I was Director of 10 Nuclear Licensing.
11 0 You are still responsible for nuclear licensing, I take O
NJ 12 it?
13 A Yes.
14 0 And that includes for the licensing of the Braidwood 15 f acility; that is, the operating license for which this 16 proceeding is being conducted?
17 A Yes.
l 18 0 And I take it, as you state in your prefiled testimony, l
19 being not only an engineer but a lawyer, you are aware 20 that in order to get a license, you have to establish 21 that the plant has been constructed in accordance with 22 regulatory requirements?
{
i 23 A Yes.
l 24 0 And it's your job to see that the NRC is persuaded that
- 25 the Braidwood Station has been indeed constructed in s_
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Ilfinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I
/
16743 V
1 accordance with those regulatory requirements?
2 A It's my job to assure that the NRC has sufficient
. 3 information in order to complete their review 4 responsibilities.
5 0 And the scope of that review is to assure that it meets 6 regulatory requirements; that is, the Braidwood Station?
7 A Yes, sir.
8 0 Well, you'd concede, would you not, Mr. DelGeorge, that 9 you are not really in a position to offer a 10 dispassionate judgment on the question of whether the 11 Braidwood Station meets regulatory requirements; it's 12 your job to persuade the NRC that it does?
( No, sir, I wouldn't concede that.
13 A 14 0 Well, it is your job to persuade the NRC that it meets 15 the regulatory requirements?
16 A It's my job to provide the NRC with sufficient 17 information so that they can complete their review 18 within the responsibilities that they hold.
19 0 I see.
20 Well, would you concede that -- you are a lawyer by 21 training, Mr. DelGeorge.
22 Would you concede that you have an interest in the 23 matter in which you are testifying?
24 A Well, first with respect to the foundation for the 25 question, I am both an engineer and a lawyer by Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16744 1 training.
2 With respect to whether or not I have an interest, 3 I have a responsibility for communicating information 4 with respect to the adequacy of our plants.
5 I believe that this testimony represents an 6 extension of that responsibility.
7 0 Well, you've taken a consistent position outside of the 8 scope of your expert testimony here, proffered expert 9 testimony, that the Braidwood Station indeed does meet 10 regulatory requirements, have you not?
11 A Yes, sir. Based on my knowledge of the plant, the 12 people that have built it and the controls that have 13 been placed on it, I do hold that opinion.
14 0 Yes, sir. As you stated, it's your task to assure that 15 the Braidwood Station is licensed, receives the 16 operating license that's the subject of this proceeding.
17 Now, as a lawyer, wouldn't you acknowledge that 18 that responsibility that you have for nuclear licensing 19 represents an interest that affects your testimony here?
20 A I'm not sure that it -- I don't believe that it does, 21 and again I guess I'd like to go back to the foundation 22 for the question.
23 I don't consider it my task to get a license. I 24 consider it my responsibility to provide information to 25 the NRC upon which they can conduct an adequate review Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, IITinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 16745 1 so that they can exercise their responsibilities under !
2 the nuclear regulations.
3 0 All right. So let me back up a moment.
4 You've been responsible for licensing matters at 5 the Braidwood Station, construction-related licensing 6 matters, for some period of time, have you not, prior to 7 this proceeding being initiated?
8 A I have been involved with the licensing activities at 9 Braidwood, that's correct.
10 0 All right, sir.
11 You'd concede, wouldn' t you, Mr. DelGeorge, that 12 should it be determined by this Licensing Board that the 13 Braidwood Station fails to meet regulatory requirements, 14 that Edison, your company, has not demonstrated that
- 15 Braidwood Station meets those regulatory requirements, j 16 that would adversely reflect on your work performance as 17 the nuclear licensing -- as the person responsible for 18 nuclear licensing?
19 A I'm not sure that that's true.
20 0 Well, do you believe it to be true?
l 21 A Well, it would depend upon the basis given for our l 22 failure to meet regulatory requirements.
I 23 0 Do you believe it could be true?
I l 24 Let's put it that way.
25 A It is a possibility.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, I'llinoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
16746 1 The probability, however, is one that I couldn't 2 attach any value to.
3 0 All right, sir.
4 But it might happen that, should this Board reach 5 an adverse determination, that might reflect adversely 6 on your job performance?
7 A It is a possibility.
8 Q All right, sir.
9 Would that represent an interest, a legally 10 cognizable interest, that bears on your testimony here, 11 that possibility?
12 A It would, and I think the limited possibility that that 13 may present just creates even more, in my mind, an 14 understanding of the responsibility I have in providing 15 truthful, accurate, complete information.
16 0 Yes, sir.
17 of course, whatever influence might exist from that 18 interest is not influence that is necessarily within 19 your power to eliminate?
20 You are who you are as you take the stand, Mr.
21 De1 George?
22 MR. STEPTOE: I object to the form of the 23 question. I don't understand it.
24 MR. BERRY: The Staff would join in that
( 25 objection. We don't understand the question.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, IITFriois 601T4 (312) 232-0262
M 16747 O 1 1 MR. GUILD: I apologize. Let's see if I can 2 be a little more lucid in my question.
3 BY MR. GUILD:
4 0 You didn't give up your job to take the stand and be a [
5 witness in this proceeding, Mr. DelGeorge, did you?
6 A No, sir.
7 0 So whatever influence your position may have, the 8 interest you have in the position that you hold, 9 whatever influence that may have on you -- that 10 influence bears on your testimony today?
11 A Yes, and I think I've tried to characterize the 12 influence as I perceive it. ,
i 13 0 Understood.
It is one of an understood responsibility. '
14 A 15 0 All right, sir.
16 You'd concede, would you not, Mr. DelGeorge, that 17 if we applied the same standards of independence that 18 were used to define the relationship of, say, the f i
19 Independent Expert Overview Group in the BCAP program, l 20 you, Louis DelGeorge, would not meet those standards of i
i 21 independence?
l 22 A I am an employee of the company and, as such, would not 1 23 fulfill the same criteria that were imposed with respect i
I 24 to the Independent Expert Overview Group, that's 25 correct.
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. i Geneva, Illinoi s 60334
- (312) 232-0262
~ . . - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _
16748 N~-
1 0 All right, sir.
2 Well, you don't qualify as independent within the 3 meaning of the term " independent" as used in application 4 to the Independent Expert Overview Group?
5 A I'm not sure that I understand what that means, but it 6 is true that I am an employee of Commonwealth Edison.
7 To the extent that makes me fall outside of the 8 independence criterion that was imposed for the IEOG, 9 then I would accept that.
10 0 There are additional factors; among them, for example, 11 you have been involved intimately in matters relating to 12 the licensing of the Braidwood Station for a period of
(
13 years before you undertook your testimony here?
14 A That is true, but I don't understand the relationship 15 between that fact and the testimony that I'm providing 16 here.
17 0 But for purposes of whether you'd qualify as 18 " independent," within the meaning of that term as used 19 f or the IEOG, your past involvement with Braidwood 20 Station would eliminate you as an independent person, as 21 that term is used in BCAP?
22 A I don't agree with that, sir.
23 0 Well, sir, you've been involved for years with the 24 Braidwood Station licensing, haven't you?
25 I have had an involvement for a number of years, that's
( A Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, IIffnois 60f34 (312) 232-0262 f
1 16749 1
O 1 Correct.
2 But that -- but my involvement has not, to my 3 recollection, been one related specifically to an 4 assessment of the effectiveness of Quality Control 5 performance at Braidwood.
l 6 In that sense, my previous activities are, in 7 effect, independent of the testimony that I'm giving i 8 now.
9 0 Well, that may be some comfort and some measure of l 10 independence, but the real focus of my question is:
i 11 If you compare the standards of independence that 12 BCAP used in identifying the Independent Expert Overview 13 Group and, to paraphrase, one of those standards is, as 14 you stated, affiliation with Commonwealth Edison 15 Company, you wouldn' t meet that requirement.
16 You have been affiliated with Edison; correct?
17 A Yes, sir.
18 0 Secondly, the requirement was that you not -- the entity l 19 not be involved in the -- not have any prior involvement
- 20 in the design, engineering or construction or Quality 2
21 Assurance activities for the Braidwood Station.
22 You wouldn't meet that requirement, either, would 23 you?
l 24 A And that's where I think we are not in agreement.
y 25 0 okay.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva ,~~IffInoi s 60134
~
I l (312) 232-0262
16750 0
1 A My understanding of the criterion with respect to the 2 IEOG is that they would be uninvolved with activities 3 subject to their review within their responsibility as 4 the BCAP IEOG.
5 I have not been involved in the construction 6 activities with respect to the electrical contractor at 7 Braidwood. I have not been involved with the design 8 activities with respect to the electrical contractor at 9 Braidwood, nor have I been involved with the oversight 10 or control of the inspection activities with respect to 11 the electrical contractor at Braidwood.
12 In that sense, I believe I am independent of the 13 activities being reviewed 1.ere.
14 MR. GUILD: May I have one moment, Mr.
15 Chairman, please?
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Sure.
17 BY MR. GUILD:
18 0 Well, Mr. De1 George, let me direct your attention to the 19 BCAP program document, June, 1984, Page Roman V-2.
20 Again the subject is the qualification of the 21 Independent Expert Overview Group.
22 There I read, quote, "The Independent Expert 23 overview Group members will be free of any significant 24 contacts with Commonwealth Edison Company. They will 25 not have participated in the design, construction or Sonntag_ Reporting Service, Ltd.
Cineva, ~f1TI~nol s 60T34 (312) 232-0262 f
16751 v
1 Quality Assurance activities related to the Braidwood 2 Station or with Braidwood site contractors within the l 3 past five years," period.
4 So you wouldn't meet that qualification, would you?
5 A There are a number of qualifications within the comment 6 you just made, and I think I have accepted the fact that J
] 7 my involvement with commonwealth Edison would not allow 8 me to answer the question, "Yes, I'm independent."
9 I have a difference of opinion with respect to the 10 other attributes that you just referred to in that 11 statement.
12 0 Well, I don't mean to beat a dead horse, Mr. De1 George, 13 but let's ectablish what we can agree to and what we i
i 14 cannot agree to.
l 15 You gave me an answer a moment ago that suggested 16 it would be acceptable for the IEOG, applying the term 17 " independence" to them, if they were independent of the 18 activities that they were working on. By that
. 19 definition you said, "I am independent, since I haven't 20 been involved in reviewing electrical Oc Inspector j 21 activities," et cetera.
22 A I haven't been involved in design, construction or Oc 23 activities and have had no oversight or control of the i
24 electrical contractor at Braidwood.
j 25 My only involvement with respect to that contractor l
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
1 Ceneva, 111Tnoin 60T34 (312) 232-0262
16752 m
(
l has been in the review of data such as this, which I am 2 presenting for purposes of my testimony here.
3 0 All right, sir, all right.
4 Well, Mr. DelGeorge, you were responsible for 5 reviewing the items of noncompliance identified by the 6 NRC, alth respect to the electrical contractor, 7 contained in Inspection Report 8309 and communicating 8 the company's position on those matters to the NRC, were 9 you not?
10 A That's correct.
11 0 And --
12 A I did communicate the company's position, and I did 13 review the company's response prior to its being 14 submitted.
15 But there were responsible managers in the 16 construction disciplines within Commonwealth Edison that 17 were responsible for preparing those positions.
18 My responsibility was directed at assuring that 19 their review of the questions and concerns presented by 20 the NRC Staff were properly responded to.
21 0 Well, sir, the company's report that represented the 22 work of many people working for you went out over your 23 signature, didn't it?
24 A No, sir.
( ) 25 The people to whom I made reference, who would have Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva,~IllTnois 60174 (312) 232-0262 f - -- -
16753
/N
\
1 prepared that response, who were in substantial part 2 responsible for the assessment made and the preparation 3 of the information presented to the NRC, did not work 4 for me.
5 0 The report went out over your signature, Mr. De1 George.
6 A Yes, it did.
7 0 The July, 1984, report said such things as, "Here are 8 the improvements that are going to be made in the L. K.
9 Comstock Quality Control Department," among other 10 things.
11 That went out over your signature, didn't it?
12 A Yes, it did.
(
13 0 And that represented your judgment that there were l
14 adequate responses by Edison to assure that whatever 15 problems had existed in the Comstock Quality Control 16 Department were corrected?
i 17 That's a paraphrase, but that's the position you
! 18 took, isn't it?
19 A That is the position that Commonwealth Edison Company 20 took that I sponsored with my signature and which I
- 21 satistled myself, through the normal conduct of reviews 22 within the company, was correct.
23 0 All right, sir.
24 My only point, Mr. De1 George, is that you're not 25 dispassionate and uninvolved in these matters as you Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
~
Geneva, Iflinois 60T34 (312) 232-0262
16754
\
1 take the. witness stand; you' re intimately involved in 2 matters relating to the Braidwood Station, including 3 being intimately involved with matters of past problems 4 in the L. K. Comstock Quality Control Department?
5 A I won't deny my involvement in some fashicn, and I think 6 we've discussed to some extent the degree to which I've 7 been involved.
8 0 Yes.
9 A I don't believe -- I believe that I can be 10 dispassionate. Maybe a better way to say that is that I 11 believe I have been objective in my review of this 12 matter.
(
13 But again we may have a different opinion as to my 14 involvement with the electrical contractor at Braidwood.
15 In my opinion, I have had little contact and no 16 oversight of the electrical contractor at Braidwood.
17 0 All right, sir.
18 Whatever involvement you had, it was enough for you 19 to feel comfortable making whatever assurances you made 20 in Edison's July, '84, response to the NBC's Inspection
]
i 21 Report 8309 on those subjects?
22 A Yes. But that communication was in large part in 23 reliance upon information presented to me by other 24 Commonwealth Edison officials, including the Quality l 25 Assurance Department for Commonwealth Edison.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illliiois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16755 O
1 0 I assume including the Quality control Department and 2 directly for L. K. Comstock?
3 A That may be the case, but I had no direct contact with 4 that department at the time the response was prepared.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me.
6 Mr. De1 George, it seems to me as though you're 7 saying that your function was only limited to 8 communicating things to the NRC that people in the 9 company told you.
10 Is that a correct understanding?
11 THE WITNESS: In large part, Judge Grossman.
12 But the responsibility of the Licensing Department 13 within Commonwealth Edison, for which I had 14 responsibility, is to assure that the questions 15 presented by the Staff have, in fact, been answered and 16 to provide a level of assurance that those answers are 17 true and correct, to the best of our knowledge.
18 We do not -- just because of the size of that 19 department, we do not prepare those responses nor are we l
- 20 in a position to validate every statement made within 21 them.
22 We do rely on the functional departments that are 23 responsible for the work brought into question, and in 24 that sense we communicate the position established by
( 25 those departments.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
! Geneva,~~ITlinois 66134 i (312) 232-0262
1 16756 A
1 I won't deny that I will, by signing any letter 2 that I submit to the NBC, stand up for the position that 3 we take. It is a company position and one which I 4 share.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, you've just said that 6 it's your responsibility to determine that the 7 statements are true and correct.
8 Now, what if the NRC had some complair.L and the 9 company people gave you some response to give to the NRC 10 that these problems had been corrected and were no 11 longer problems?
12 Wouldn't you then have to make some judgment as to I
13 whether those statements are true and correct so as to 14 transmit them to the NRC?
15 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: If you determined that they 17 weren't true and correct, wouldn't it be your obligation 18 to go back to the company and tell them that they have 19 to correct what the problems are and take the necessary 20 corrective action and then give a further statement that 21 you can determine is true and correct?
22 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
23 In the particular case of the inspection report to 24 which Mr. Guild made reference, 8309, I did, in fact,
( ) 25 address additional questions to the Project Manager for Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, IIITnois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16757 O
1 the Braidwood site to assure myself that the answers 2 that had been provided were not only accurate to the 3 best understanding of the discipline engineer 4 responsible for the contractors but that they had 5 received a managemrtit review at the site.
6 It was on the basis of that management review at 7 the site that I then had sufficient confidence to 8 process the response to the NRC.
9 I was not in a position -- nor was the one nuclear 10 licensing administrator responsible to me -- to validate 11 every statement made in that report.
12 We did have to rely on other managers, but I
- 13 satisfied myself that the review conducted at the site ,
14 was thorough and that the people who were offering those j 15 responses to me were people in whom I had trust.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, now, if we were to 17 determine that any of those responses that you sponsored 18 to the NRC were incorrect, wouldn't that reflect badly 19 on your past performance?
20 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
22 BY MR. GUILD:
23 0 Now, Mr. De1 George, you set out what your purpose is in t
24 offering this testimony at Page 6. There you refer to
() 25 your conclusion; that is, the conclusion that you, in i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, 11Ti~nois 601T4 (312) 232-0262
16758 O
1 reliance on the PTL and CSR overinspection data, among 2 other things, rebutted the Intervenors' contention that 3 harassment, intimidation and production pressure had 4 adverse work performance effects among Comstock Quality 5 Control Inspectors.
6 That's the task you set out for yourself, is it 7 not?
8 A My task was to determine whether or not there was an 9 effect. My conclusion was that there was not such an 10 effect.
11 O I see.
12 So you had an open mind on the question when you 13 set out; and that was to find out whether or not we were 14 right, whether or not Intervenors' concerns had merit?
15 A Yes, sir.
16 0 All right.
17 And I take it that if I asked you, you'd tell me 18 that you set out dispassionately to probe that question?
19 Did you set out dispassionately, Mr. De1 George?
20 A I set out objectively.
21 I'm not sure I understand what " dispassionately" 22 means. I'm not a passionate person by nature.
23 (Laughter.)
24 0 By that I mean When you set out, did you have in mind 25 what the answers were going to be before you started the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, 11TInois M134 (312) 232-0262
\
16759 v
1 process?
2 A No, sir, I did not have the answers in mind.
3 0 Well, Mr. De1 George, you didn't have in mind that you 4 would set out to show that there had not been adverse 5 work performance effects from harassment and 6 intimidation?
7 A As I previously indicated, my purpose was in determining 8 what effects, if any, were apparent, given the two data 9 bases that we reviewed.
10 0 Sir, that's not exactly responsive to my question.
11 My question is: Did you not set out to -- strike 12 that.
13 Didn't you set out to demonstrate that there had 14 been no adverse effects of harassment and production 15 pressure on Comstock inspectors?
16 A I will admit that it was my hope that I could 17 demonstrate that.
l 18 0 Hight.
19 A But again when I set out on this task, it was to 20 determine what effects, if any, did exist.
21 0 Yes.
I
! 22 Well, having that hope in mind, though, Mr.
i 23 De1 George, I take it that you might have missed a few l 24 methods of empirical demonstration that indeed
() 25 Applicant's concerns were well founded?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
- deneva,~~1TITnois 60134
[
(312) 232-0262
16760 s
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Intervenors' concerns.
2 MR. GUILD: Intervenors' concerns, yes, Mr.
3 Chairman.
4 A I may have missed some empirical techniques, but I don't 5 believe that the fact of a miss was related in any way 6 to my initial hope as to the outcome of the review.
7 BY MR. GUILD:
8 0 Okay. Well, let's find out.
9 We've got a phenomenon which I can identify as a 10 cause; and that's harassment, intimidation and 11 production pressure. Let's call it " production 12 pressure." We've got an effect, and that's work
(
13 performance effects.
14 Now, in order to measure empirically that cause and 15 that effect, we'd have to have some kind of empirical 16 measurement of both the cause and the effect, would we 17 not?
18 A I'm not sure that that's true.
19 0 Well, did you set out to identify all possible relevant 20 empirical measures of both cause and effect when you set 21 out on your task of measuring?
22 A The suggestion that one needs to establish an empirical 23 basis for the cause is, I think, at odds with my 24 testimony, because there was a presumption on my part 25 that the events alleged to have indicated harassment, Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ceneva, IITin61s 601T4 (312) 232-0262 f
16761 1 intimidation or production pressure were assumed by me 2 to be a valid indication of harassment, intimidation or 3' production pressure.
4 So I did not test or seek out additional empirical 5 data to establish the cause.
6 Q Right.
7 A What I tried to do was to review existing empirical data 8 from two separate sources to assess if one could 9 determine whether or not there were apparent trends in 10 the data base with respect to the performance of work by 11 QC Inspectors that could then be related to the assumed 12 -- for purposes of the argument, the assumed harassment, h'
G 13 intimidation and production pressure.
14 0 Let's start with the first proposition first, and that's 15 the cause.
16 Now, I've read your testimony. Your testimony 17 reflects that you decided that you would look at J
18 inspections before July of 1982 -- June of 1982 --
19 excuse me -- and inspections after June of 1982 and see 20 what the acceptance rates -- how the acceptance rates 1
21 compared f or those two periods. That's the period 22 before and after Mr. Saklak was hired.
23 That's one thing you did; right?
24 A That's one thing that Dr. Frankel did in part in 25 reliance on a recommendation from me.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva IIT1inois 60T34 l
(312) 232-0262
16762 a
1 0 All right, sir.
2 A I have -- I looked at the results provided by the CSR 3 and PTL data base throughout the period f rom late 1978 4 through June of 1986.
5 0 You looked at the period -- you and Dr. Frankel together 6 looked at the period before and after Mr. LeWald came on 7 in August of '83 and compared the agreement rates for 8 the period before and the agreement rates for the period 9 after?
10 A Dr. Frankel does that.
11 I do not in my testimony make a specific statement 12 with respect to periods before and af ter that date. I
( have, however, looked at the results before and after 13 14 that date.
15 0 Yes.
16 And you opined that the period during 1984, when 17 there was the most severe backlog of Quality control 18 inspections at L. K. Comstock, is when you would expect 19 under this hypothesis to see the effects of production 20 pressure?
21 A Yes, sir.
22 0 Okay.
23 Now, aside from doing those things, did you make 24 any other effort to empirically measure production l
25 pressure?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262
4 16763
- O 1 By that I mean harassment, intimidation and 2 production pressure.
3 A Well, in this context. I'm not sure what it means to 4 make an empirical assessment.
5 But what I did do is to reread the deposition 6 transcripts from all of the Quality Control Inspectors.
7 Q I'm going to interrupt you, Mr. De1 George, and I 8 apologize for doing so, f 9 My question is focused. It's not everything you ,
10 did. My question is simply:
11 Did you make any empirical measurements of 12 harassment, intimidation and production pressure?
13 A Before I could answer the question, I would ask that you 14 define what you mean by " empirical assessments."
15 0 Well, if someone were performing a social science 16 empirical study and one were going to measure the 17 effects of some stimulus -- let's say, the 18 administration of electric shock -- to a laboratory 19 animal, we would certainly want to be able to 20 empirically measure that cause, that stimulus.
l 21 We would measure it perhaps in a variety of terms:
22 voltage, amperage.
23 Now, using in this case, in our effort to test 24 Intervenors' hypothesis, production pressure as the -
25 cause, I ask you, sir: In that sense, did you make any Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
- (312) 232-0262 ;
- i. . _ - . . _ . _ _ _
16764 q
,h 1 efforts to empirically measure production pressure?
2 A I don't know how I can draw a direct comparison, but it 3 is my belief that I did investigate the alleged causes -
4 of harassment, intimidation and production pressure.
5 0 All right, sir.
6 It's clear you did not empirically measure that 7 phenomenon; can we agree on that?
8 A Well, I don't know what statistic or parameter it is 9 that I would be measuring.
10 0 Indeed you don't.
11 A I did count -- I did locate in time. I did evaluate the IN 12 events identified in this record --
U 13 0 Yes.
14 A -- associated with harassment, intimidation and 15 production pressure.
16 0 But you didn't empirically measure that phenomenon, did 17 you?
! 18 That's a pretty simple question, and it seems to me 19 it calls for a straightforward answer.
20 A That may be the case in your mind, sir, but I just don't 21 understand the question.
t 22 I'm not in a position to answer because I don't l
23 know what it would take to provide an empirical data l
24 base in response to that.
25 0 Indeed.
l l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I l
16765 N/
m .
l l
1 And not knowing what it would take, you can assure 2 us, can't you, Mr. DelGeorge, that you didn't do what I 3 asked?
4 You did not identify an empirical measure of 5 production pressure?
6 MR. STEPTOE: Well, I object to the form of 7 the question.
8 The witness has said several times that he doesn't 9 understand what the term is that counsel is using. Now 10 counsel is saying, "Since you don't understand what I'm 11 saying, you didn' t do it. "
12 I think counsel should be more specific.
( Okay. That's sustained.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
14 He claims not to understand that question, and 15 perhaps you can --
16 MR. GUILD: I think the record will be clear, 17 Mr. Chairman, that the witness says that he doesn't 18 understand how he would go about doing that, having 19 defined the term. I believe not knowing how he would go 20 about doing it establishes, by inference, that he didn't 21 do it.
22 I'll try again because I do want to get this point 23 clear if I can.
24 BY MR. GUILD:
i 25 Q Do you have a scale of production pressure that you have Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16766
/^s 1 adopted, in terms of orders of magnitude of production 2 pressure, that you use as the causal force that is 3 considered against which effects -- that is, work 4 perf ormance ef f ects -- are measured?
5 A I believe I do, and it's a simplistic one.
6 0 Indeed.
7 A If an event of alleged harassment, intimidation or 8 production pressure occurred, it should have an effect.
9 It's 100-percent effective.
10 0 What is the unit of measure that you've adopted, then, 11 in your simplistic efforts to empirically measure
/ \ 12 production pressure, Mr. DelGeorge?
13 A It's just 100-percent effectiveness. If the event 14 occurred, it is a harassment event that should produce 15 negative results.
16 0 I see, okay. Now let's see if we can figure out what 17 the actual causal links are.
18 Do you assume, for purposes of your analysis, that 19 that 100-percent effect will happen an hour after the 20 act of harassment takes place, for purposes of your 21 analysis?
22 A I didn't make an assumption of one hour. I think my 23 assessment was more macroscopic than that.
24 I did, however, expect it to occur subsequent to
( ) 25 the event taking place.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16767 s
1 Q Cause would take place first; effect would take place 2 second. That's logical.
3 But you don't know whether it took place an hour 4 later.
5 How about a day later? Would the effect of 6 harassment take place one day after the 100-percent 7 assumed effect occurs -- assumed cause occurs?
8 A Again, my analysis was not as microscopic as that. The 9 data base provided would not have allowed that kind of 10 inference to be drawn.
11 I think it is f air to say that I did look at events 12 on a quarterly basis.
(
13 0 Indeed, that's what you did look at. You looked at a 14 three-month basis.
15 That's how you measured in your bar graphs using 16 agreement rates: comparing one quarter to another 17 quarter; correct?
18 A Yes, sir.
19 0 All right.
l 20 And you did that for large groups of inspectors and 21 large samples of items, did you not?
j 22 A I did it for groups of inspectors that were aggregated i 23 in that period and for samples of items that were i 24 aggregated in that period.
l 25 0 Yes.
I i Sonntao Reporting Service, Ltd.
} Geneva, Illinois 60134
[
(312) 232-0262
16768 1 And you opined in your testimony that, in your 2 opinion, to do otherwise, to use disaggregated data, was 3 inappropriate, because of the small sample sizes, for 4 the CSR data?
5 A With respect to certain aggregations that I attempted, 6 that's correct.
7 0 Yes. I mean, for three of the aggregations you 8 attempted, you determined the sample sizes were too 9 small.
10 For the data reflecting the aggregation of all 11 inspection points and the aggregation of all welding, 12 you determined, in your opinion, that the data was 13 sufficient to compare those results, agreement rates, on 14 a quarterly basis?
15 A Yes, sir.
16 0 All right.
17 Now, returning to our cause-and-effect connection, 18 we've agreed that your assumption is that effects 19 followed cause. You say you don't know whether they 20 followed by a day or an hour.
21 Do you know whether they followed -- did you assume 22 that they followed by a week?
23 A I didn't make that assumption.
24 0- Did you assume that they followed by a month?
[V 25 A I didn't make that assumption.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
q Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 .
1
16769 1 Q All right, sir.
2 Did you assume that they followed by three months?
3 A I made no assumption as to when the effect would 4 manifest itself --
5 0 I see.
6 A -- whether it be an hour, a week or three months.
7 0 I see.
8 A What I did do was to assess whether or not there was, 9 within a period of a quarter, any event demonstrating a 10 deleterious effect on the performance of the Quality 11 Control Inspectors whose work was assessed within that I ,s 12 quarter.
O) 13 0 Yes.
14 A And to the extent such a deleterious effect could be 15 observed, a judgment could be reached as to whether or 16 not there was a cause associated with that apparent 17 effect.
18 0 Yes.
l 19 And you aggregated the data -- that is, the effect t
20 data that you used, the agreement rate data -- in the 21 fashion we've just agreed to: You aggregated it for all 22 inspection points, and you aggregated it in another case 23 for all welding?
24 A Yes, sir.
( 25 0 And you aggregated it over the quarterly period of time Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
16770 C\
U 1 that you display in your bar graphs?
2 A Yes, sir.
3 0 All right.
4 You, therefore, don't show data for more 5 disaggregated groups of inspectors, individual 6 inspectors or disaggregated periods of time in part 7 because the data -- the sample sizes are too small?
8 A That's correct.
9 Q Now, then, again you looked, turning finally to the 10 eff ect that we' re testing the hypothesis on, at the 11 effect of work performance.
12 I think we've agreed that you used, as a measure of
(
13 work performance, agreement rates; that is, the rate at 14 which the reinspector or overinspector, in the case of 15 PTL, shows by his result agreement with the work of the 16 original Comstock inspector?
17 A Yes, sir.
18 0 All right.
19 And you define " agreement rate" as the relationship 20 between the defects found by the second inspector and 21 100 percent?
22 A Well, I think it's just the inverse of that: The 23 agreement rate is the exception found by the reinspector 24 and the total number of items originally accepted by the N
25 original inspector.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 f
16771 O
1 O If, just by way of example, the overinspector or 2 reinspector finds 10 percent defects, that suggests a 90 3 percent agreement rate?
4 A Yes, sir.
5 0 We'll return to that subject in a moment.
6 Now, in shouldering this task -- that is, testing 7 Intervenors' hypothesis -- again with the hope that the 8 results would bear out your past belief that there were 9 no failures to meet regulatory requirements at 10 Braidwood, you looked at two phenomena:
11 Those are whether or not there was generally 12 effective work performed by the Comstock inspectors and,
[V'T 13 secondly, whether or not you could identify any 14 correlations, any trends, in the data that you reviewed 15 that correlated with acts of harassment, intimidation 16 and production pressure?
17 A Yes, sir.
18 Q All right. Let's talk about the first point first.
19 Now, you concluded that in the absence of what you 20 characterize as design-significant discrepancies, having 21 found no design-significant discrepancies in the 22 samples, that evidenced that the performance of the L.
23 K. Comstock Quality Control Inspectors had been 24 acceptable; correct?
O)
( 25 A Yes. I believe f rom the f act that there are no Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16772 g
1 significant discrepancies as characterized by this 2 design significance review --
3 0 Yes, all right.
4 A -- that the performance of the inspectors were adequate.
5 You know, whether we choose the word " acceptable" 6 or " adequate" -- clearly there were deficiencies 7 identified, and I don't want to suggest any denial of 8 that.
9 The fact that there were no significant 10 discrepancies is defined by design significance.
11 0 Yes.
12 Well, of course, you don't make any concession in 13 your prefiled testimony that there were any adverse 14 performance effects from any cause on L. K. Comstock 15 inspectors, do you?
16 You don't acknowledge any adverse performance by 17 the Comstock inspectors in your prefiled testimony, do 18 you, Mr. DelGeorge?
19 A Well, the reporting of results I think itself is 20 evidence of that performance.
21 0 Yes, sir. Well, that's a matter of how one interprets 22 those bar graphs of yours.
23 But there is nowhere in your narrative testimony, 24 is there, Mr. DelGeorge, any acknowledgment of adverse 25 performance by the Comstock inspectors?
i l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16773
. ,m (V
I 1 A I don't believe that's true.
2 I think I do make some specific statements about 3 certain specific inspectors related to my review of the 4 PTL data base.
! 5 O Indeed you do, and I stand corrected. I'm glad you 6 pointed that out.
7 You mentioned three instances where the agreement 8 rates were -- I'm not using your term -- unacceptable; 9 correct?
10 A Where the performance was unacceptable based on the 11 review.
12 0 The performance was unacceptable as measured by
(
13 agreement rates?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Laying those aside -- that is, Mr. Asmussen, Mr. Arndt 16 and Mr. Hunter; correct?
17 A Yes.
18 0 -- you don' t acknowledge anywhere else that there was l 19 any adverse performance by Comstock inspectors in your 20 narrative direct testimony, do you?
21 A That's correct.
22 0 All right.
l 23 At Page 13 I direct your attention to Answer 11.
24 That is the question which says, "What is the basis for 25 your conclusion that LKC QC inspections were effective?"
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16774 1
0 1 A I'm sorry. Could you give me that reference again?
2 O Yes. It's Page 13, Answer 11.
3 A Okay.
4 0 There you refer to the conclusion by Dr. Faushal, 5 Messrs. Kostal and Thorsell, Sargent & Lundy men, that, 6 having evaluated the discrepancies found by the BCAP for 7 the electrical populations, none of them were, in their 8 judgment, design-significant.
9 That's the reference you make there?
10 A Yes, sir.
11 0 All right.
12 Now, in the course of the L. K. Comstock Company's
(
13 management of their Quality Control Program, did they 14 evaluate the performance of their inspectors on the 15 basis of whether or not they identify or fail to 16 identify design-significant discrepancies, Mr.
17 DelGeorge?
q'18 A I don't know.
19 0 You don't know?
20 A I have no knowledge that that was done, but I have no 21 specific knowledge of the nature of the review done by 22 the Comstock organization of their individual people.
23 0 It's certainly not your belief that they did that, is 24 it; that Comstock management evaluated their inspectors' 25 job performance on the basis of whether they identified Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 f
16775 l 1 or failed to identify design-significant discrepancies?
2 A I guess I wouldn't have expected them to.
3 Q No.
4 In fact, it's not even within the scope of a 5 Quality Control Inspector's responsibility, let alone 6 qualification, to identify a design-significant 7 discrepancy or a nondesign -- to distinguish a 8 design-significant discrepancy, is it?
9 A I would agree that it is -- it would be difficult for an 10 inspector to distinguish a design-significant l 11 discrepancy --
12 Q Right. It would be -- I'm sorry.
13 A -- in every instance.
14 Q Well, inspectors don't make engineering evaluations in 15 the field, do they?
16 They' re not supposed to; it's inconsistent with l
17 their responsibility, is it not?
18 A That's true, but I do believe that inspectors can 19 identify major or gross discrepancies which are likely 20 to be design-significant discrepancies.
21 So there's a relationship between their 22 capabilities and the question that you ask.
23 0 There may or may not be, but you certainly wouldn't 24 expect to measure an inspector's performance by only 25 whether he or she identified design-significant Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, IflTnois 60134 (312) 232-0262
-- . - - .-_= . _ - - - _ - _ _ _ _ . , _ _ . - -_ -. -_ - - _ - .-. . - - - -
- -= - - _ _
c 16776 f
d 1 discrepancies?
2 A I agree with that, and that's one of the reasons that 3 that's not the only characteristic that I rely on in my 4 testimony.
5 0 Yes.
6 In fact, the question of whether a discrepancy is 7 design-significant is uniquely in the province of an 8 engineer to evaluate based in part on the inspector's 9 findings but also based on a variety of other data and 4
10 expertise that is not immediately known to the Quality 11 Control Inspector?
12 A That is generally true, yes.
13 0 All right, sir.
14 You're aware, are you not, for example, that when 15 L. K. Comstock tests its Quality Control Inspectors to 16 determine whether they are qualified to perform 17 certified Quality Control inspections, the measure of 18 qualification is whether or not they can effectively 19 inspect to established acceptance criteria?
20 A Yes.
i 21 0 All right.
22 And in those e.ces where an inspector fails to 23 identify conditions that are rejectable pursuant to 24 those acceptance criteria, Comstock can and has flunked C
( )\ 25 or f ailed to qualify an inspector on the basis of that Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 66134 (312) 232-0262
16777 V
1 performance?
2 A That has been the practice after a specific point in 3 time at the site, yes.
4 0 Well, you know, of course, of the case of Mr. Worley 5 Puckett, who was hired as a Level III. You probably sat 6 through Mr. Puckett's testimony in part.
7 You're aware of Mr. Puckett's case, where Mr.
8 DeWald determined that he had failed his mock practical 9 weld inspection exam because of the failure to identify 10 a number of conditions specified in the Comstock weld 11 inspection acceptance criteria?
12 A That was -- that is correct as to the practical exam.
13 0 So you didn't measure inspector performance in your 14 direct testimony here by the standards of inspector 15 performance that are applicable to measure inspector 16 performance at L. K. Comstock, did you?
17 A Well, I'm not sure that that's correct.
18 First of all, your reference is specifically, I 19 believe, to the requirements for a practical examination 20 and the acceptance criteria with respect to the results 21 of a practical examination at Comstock.
22 I have indicated earlier that the practice for 23 Comstock has not been the same through time. There was, 24 for example, at the outset of the Comstock work, no b)
( 25 requirement for a practical examination.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16778 p
1 0 I see.
2 A The requirement for 100-percent acceptance rate on the 3 practical examination was introduced sometime in the 4 1981-1982 time f rame. So the practice has not generally 5 been the same.
6 Moreover, I don't believe that the acceptance 7 criteria on the practical examination necessarily 8 reflects the expectation of Comstock or Commonwealth 9 Edison as to the performance of the individual generally 10 with respect to his work in the future after that 11 examination is taken and acceptably passed.
12 Clearly, when we certify an inspector, we establish 13 a higher threshold to satisfy ourselves that an 14 individual has been properly trained and has the 15 necessary experience to perform work responsibly.
16 0 I see.
17 A I don't know that any of us -- end that includes myself 18 -- would expect that everyone would perform work 19 perfectly throughout his tenure at the site. That's one 20 of the reasons we recertify people on a periodic basis.
21 The general site acceptance criteria with respect 22 to practical examinations is 80 percent, and that has 23 typically been my experience with respect to such exams 24 at other plants.
25 Comstock is somewhat more restrictive in their Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 J
16779 m
us 1 procedure. As I say, that was implemented until '81 or 2 '82.
3 0 I see. Well, that's all helpful information but 4 somewhat tangential.
5 The fact of the matter is, Mr. DelGeorge, that when 6 Commonwealth Edison Company provided that PTL perform 7 overinspections of field Quality Control Inspectors' 8 work, Comstock included, they measured the work 9 performance of those Quality Control Inspectors not on 10 the basis of whether there were design-significant 11 defects identified or not identified but on the basis of f'\ 12 whether the original QC Inspectors found or failed to b 13 find conditions that were rejectable pursuant to the 14 established acceptance criteria?
15 A That's correct.
16 0 All right.
17 And CSR, in perf orming its reinspection program, 18 used checklists derived specifically for BCAP; but those 19 checklists followed the acceptance criteria of either 20 the AWS Dl.1 welding code or the visual weld acceptance 21 criteria of the NCIG?
22 A That's not correct.
23 0 Which one did they use?
24 A The AWS code.
4
() 25 0 So they didn't use some standard of whether or not the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, filTnois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16780 m
1 inspector failed or succeeded in identifying a 2 design-significant defect, did they?
3 A Well, I think I have to disagree with you on that point.
4 First of all, one needs to recall that the CSR 5 reinspections were not contemporaneous with the original 6 inspections performed by the Comstock inspectors. As 7 such, CSR was looking back over an extended period of 8 time, over which the Comstock procedures had changed.
l 9 It would have been very difficult to implement a 10 program whereby the inspection of the particular item of 11 interest was reinspected with the exact identical 12 inspection criteria imposed at the time.
[/')
13 The Comstock procedures were formulated on the 14 basis of the AWS code, as were the CSR procedures. My 15 review of those procedures has led me to conclude that 16 they are, for all practical purposes, the equivalent.
17 There are minor differences, but they are, in my 18 view, equivalent.
19 Q All right, sir.
20 Well, that's a long way of saying that the answer 21 to my question is yes, CSR used the acceptance criteria, 22 not the measure of design significance, to measure the 23 performance of Quality Control Inspectors?
24 A They did use -- well, no, that isn't correct, either.
25 The CSR was not focused on inspector performance.
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16781 J
1 It was focused on the quality of the underlying work --
2 0 All right, sir.
3 A -- being reviewed.
4 0 Let me stop you.
5 Recognizing that fact, you measured the quality of 6 underlying work, in the case of welding, according to 7 the AWS welding acceptance criteria?
8 A That's correct.
9 0 In your testimony, you used those CSR measurements --
10 agreement rates derived from those measurements to 11 measure Comstock Quality Control Inspector work (n
(
12 performance?
13 A I believe that's correct, but could I have the question 14 read back just to be sure that I have it in mind 15 correctly?
16 (The question was thereupon read by the 17 Reporter.)
18 A (Continuing.) Yes, as an indicat or of the 19 effectiveness of the Quality Control Inspector.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Why don't we take a i
21 10-minute break.
22 Mr. Steptoe, I think you should talk to the witness 23 about trying to get more direct answers. I really don't 24 think that it should take half an hour, first, for the fv 25 witness to agree that an adverse determination here Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1 i
16782 1 w ,
%s 1 might be a reflection on his responsibilities, to begin 2 with. There are simple questions and answers.
3 Nor should it take half an hour to determine that 4 design significance is not one of the attributes with 5 which originally one would test the effectiveness of a 6 QC Inspector.
7 Now, perhaps I'm misrepresenting it. But in my 8 judgment, it just seems as though we're spending a lot 9 of time on points that are not really debatable, unless 10 we want to turn this into some sort of debate.
11 I just don' t think we want to spend all that time 12 on things that aren't important and things that we could 13 probably agree to in a much shorter time.
14 Now, if you wish to say something about that, Mr.
15 Steptoe --
16 MR. STEPTOE: I'm sorry, Judge Grossman. I 17 just have a totally different impression of the witness' 18 answers.
19 But I will speak to him. I do want to speed this 20 hearing up as much as we possibly can, but I have to 21 disagree with the implications. But I understand that 22 each listener hears things differently.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine. Let's take a 24 10-minute break.
25 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 16783 O
\
1 the proceedings were resumed as follows:)
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild, please continue.
3 MR. GUILD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
4 BY MR. GUILD:
5 Q Mr. De1 George, let's look at some other measures of 6 Comstock Quality Control Inspector work performance.
7 Let me direct your attention to Applicant's Exhibit 8 181, which is a corrected version of Intervenors' 9 Exhibit 145, displaying percentage discrepant welds, 10 discrepant items and notable items in the BCAP CSR 11 electrical populations.
12 THE WITNESS: I don't have a copy of that.
13 MR. GUILD: Let me make one available to you.
14 (Indicating.)
15 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
16 BY MR. GUILD:
17 Q Now, the corrections have been made to this document, I
, 18 understand, to reflect the recounts of welds and weld --
1 19 excuse me -- weld discrepancies and discrepant welds 20 performed by Sargent & Lundy.
I 21 Now, sir, in your opinion, looking at the data 22 here, the column " percent discrepant items in sample,"
23 those are items where one or more sample -- sample items 24 where one or more rejectable condition was identified by f() 25 BCAP as rejectable, according to their acceptance Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16784
N (J
N 1 criteria.
2 Now, do those data, sir, in your opinion, reflect 3 acceptable work performance by the L. K. Comstock 4 inspectors?
5 A I don't believe this -- these values provide sufficient 6 information to draw a defensible conclusion.
7 0 You simply don't know how to answer my question from 8 these data?
9 A No, sir.
10 My answer is that, having reviewed this data, I 11 don't believe one can draw a defensible conclusion with 12 respect to the quality of the underlying work based on 13 this -- these numbers.
14 0 The work performance of the Comstock inspectors?
15 A That's correct.
16 0 I see.
17 Do the data reflected in the " percent discrepant i 18 items in sample" column, in your opinion, reflect any 19 unusual work performance by Comstock inspectors, as you j 20 use the term " unusual" at Page 13 of your testimony?
21 A Well, given what I know of the discrepancies which serve 22 as the basis for the calculated values in that column, I 23 don't -- again, I don't believe there is a basis for 24 reaching that conclusion.
25 0 I see. Well, let me ask you the same question with j
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 16785 I respect to whether these data exhibit, in your opinion, 2 adverse work performance by the Comstock inspectors; 3 again, the " percent discrepant items in sample" data.
4 The same answer?
5 A Yes, sir, that's true; and it's based on my knowledge of 6 the nature of the discrepancies upon which these values 7 were calculated.
8 0 Let's look, then, at some other data on this exhibit.
9 Let's look at the far right-hand column, " percent 10 notable items in sample."
11 You are f amiliar with the term " notable" as it was I h 12 used in the CSR reinspection, are you not?
13 A Yes, sir.
14 0 All right, and " notable" is used the same way for this 15 data.
16 From the data exhibited in that column, 8.9 percent 17 notable items -- that is, for the case of cable pan --
18 of the items in the sample -- that is, 90 items -- 8.9 19 percent of those 90 items exhibited one or more notable 20 discrepancies.
l 21 Now, with that understanding, does the data that i 22 appears in the column " percent notable items in sample,"
23 in your opinion, Mr. DelGeorge, exhibit acceptable work 24 performance by L. K. Comstock inspectors?
25 A My answer would be the same, sir.
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
i
! Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
~ -. .. . - _ _ - - . _ _ - _ _
16786 m
)
1 I guess I would have to refer back to your comment 2 earlier that, given the f act that a QC Inspector is not 3 privy to what type of discrepancy constitutes a 4 significant or an insignificant discrepancy, it's 5 difficult for me to use this index as a basis for 6 assessing the performance of a QC Inspector.
7 0 Well, that is right, and that's fair enough.
8 But in a different context, Mr. De1 George, I was 9 asking you about design significance; and that's an 10 engineering evaluation. The " notable" characterization 11 is simply a reflection of the magnitude of the 12 discrepancy in very obvious terms, such as reduction in 13 weld area.
14 You understand that to be the case, don't you?
! 15 A Yes, sir.
16 0 All right, sir, i
17 And you'd agree with me there that " notable" is a 18 reflection of conditions that, generally speaking, are 19 much more apparent within the scope of an inspector's 20 field of responsibility?
21 A No, sir, I wouldn't.
22 O All right.
4 23 So your answer is the same with respect to the data 24 in the " percent notable" column: You don't have enough 25 information to express an opinion about those data?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 16787 im (v) 1 A I have an opinion, and it's that this index cannot be 2 used to assess inspector performance.
3 Perhaps an example would be helpful in this regard.
4 0 That's quite all right. Perhaps your lawyer would like 5 to ask you a follow-up question, Mr. De1 George, on that 6 score.
7 Let's turn to a column that perhaps we can agree 8 on, since you don't like any of this data, Mr.
9 DelGeorge, and that's discrepant welds.
10 You, in fact, use that measure in your own 11 testimony, do you not: welds inspected and welds found (d T 12 13 A to be discrepant?
Yes, sir.
14 O All right.
15 Now, let's look at that data. For the populations 16 in which there are welds included, cable pan, we had 11 17 percent discrepant welds; conduit hanger, 8.3 percent 18 discrepant welds; for cable pan hangers, the corrected 19 value is 18.4 percent discrepant welds; and equipment is 20 15.9 percent.
21 Now, sir, for those data, do they, in your opinion, 22 exhibit acceptable work performance by the Comstock 23 inspectors?
24 A Again, sir, for reasons that I base on my understanding s
25 of the nature of the discrepancies that provide the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, IllTnois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16788 (V
1 bases for these numbers, I don't think you can draw a 2 defensible conclusion without more facts.
3 0 I see.
4 Well, then, let me ask you whether or not they 5 exhibit, in your opinion -- that is, again the " percent 6 discrepant welds" data -- any unusual work performance, 7 as you use the term " unusual" at Page 13 of your 8 testimony.
9 The same answer?
10 A That's -- my answer would be -- would be the same; and 11 it's because one needs to have a better definition of 12 the nature of the discrepancies which form the basis for
(
13 these ratios, these percentages.
14 0 I see.
15 Finally, do those data -- that is, " percent 16 discrepant welds" -- in your opinion, exhibit any 17 adverse work performance on the part of Comstock 18 inspectors?
19 The same answer there, too?
20 A You say "any adverse work performance."
21 I don't want my answers to suggest that the 22 existence of deficiencies is acceptable. That's not my 23 position.
24 0 Well, let me ask the question directly. I appreciate 25 you wanting to be careful in your answer.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ;
Geneva, Illinois 60134 ,
(312) 232-0262 l J
16789 (3
\s / j 1
1 Do the data " percent discrepant welds" reflected on i 2 Applicant's Exhibit 181 exhibit, in your opinion, any 3 adverse work performance on the part of Comstock 4 inspectors?
5 A To the extent the discrepancies which form the basis for 6 these ratios are attributable to comstock inspectors, 7 then they do represent some measure of the performance 8 of the inspectors and may have -- I want to be sure I 9 address the specific words that you used in your 10 question.
11 Do they have any adverse effect? I believe they -- ,
I 12 0 Do they exhibit any adverse work performance?
D) 13 A Given the conditions that I previously mentioned, these 14 ratios could exhibit an adverse effect.
15 0 I see. All right, sir.
16 Now, I assume that you're being consistent in your 17 testimony, Mr. DelGeorge, that to the extent that you 18 tell me that these data -- that is, the data that appear 19 on Applicant's 181, formerly Intervenors' Exhibit 145 --
20 that these data are insufficient to base opinions on, l
21 you would have told us, would you not, if any of the 22 data that you relied on in forming your opinions were 23 similarly insufficient evidence on which to base 1
24 opinions?
() 25 A Yes.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16790 Ns 1 Now, I believe I did do that in a number of 2 instances in my prepared testimony.
3 0 I take it you believe you did it in all instances where 4 you are aware that there were insufficiencies in your 5 data on which to found opinions?
6 A I attempted to do that, yes.
7 0 All right, sir.
8 Now, at Page 38 of your prefiled testimony, Mr.
9 DelGeorge, you exhibit two values; and I'd like to 10 simply first clarify what the derivation of those values 11 is.
12 Beginning at Page 37, the last sentence, "The
(
13 composite mean agreement rate f rom the PTL welding data 14 base is about 93 percent and from the CSR welding data 15 base is about" -- I believe 85 percent is the corrected 16 value; is that right?
17 JUDGE COLE: What page is this, Mr. Guild?
18 MR. GUILD: Pages 37 and 38, Judge.
19 JUDGE COLE: Thank you.
20 A Yes, sir.
21 BY MR. GUILD:
22 0 All right.
23 Now, first of all, what is a " composite mean 24 agreement rate," as you use that term, Mr. DelGeorge?
25 A Well, it is the cumulative average over the entire Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
- (312) 232-0262
16791 O
1 duration of the review performed under PTL 2 overinspection and the CSR reinspection activity.
3 0 I see.
4 A So it is the mean of the entire data base for CSR and 5 PTL.
6 0 All right, sir.
7 If you look at Applicant's Exhibit 181, formerly 8 Intervenors' 145, the data for discrepant welds, the 9 " percent discrepant welds" column, does your 85 percent 10 value shown at Page 38 for the CSR welding data reflect 11 the mean of the discrepancy rates that appear on this 12 exhibit?
13 A It should be consistent.
14 If one were to weight the percent discrepant welds 15 by the number of welds of a particular construction 16 category and sum those weighted values, it's my 17 expectation that that collected ratio would be 18 equivalent to the value that I've reported in my 19 testimony.
20 0 All right, sir.
21 That's what you mean when you use the term 22 " composite mean agreement rate"?
l 23 A Yes, sir. It considers all of the construction 24 categories for which welding was an attribute.
25 0 It weights them appropriately, the different categories l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16792 b
V 1 in which welding was evaluated in CSR, for example?
2 A Well, so that we' re clear on this, the 11.2 percent for 3 cable pan hanger welding on Exhibit 181 --
4 4 Q Yes.
5 A -- is representative of 605 welds.
6 Q Right.
7 A The 8.3 percent for conduit hangers is representative of 8 1,854 welds.
9 It's not enough to just take the average between 10 11.2 and 8.3 to determine what the cumulative average is 11 for cable pans and conduit hangers.
12 0 All right.
13 A one needs to weight that ratio -- or that percentage 14 before that combination is made in order to get an 15 accurate reflection of the cumulative average.
! 16 It's on that basis that I made my prior statement.
17 0 It would be the total number of --
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me.
19 Why do we have to go into the intricacies of 20 weighting if what you' re saying is you just add up the 21 total number of welds and the total number of discrepant 22 welds and just divide the two?
23 Isn't that what you' re really saying?
24 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, except that the total 0
25 number of discrepant welds is not identified on this l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1 l
16793
N x
1 exhibit.
2 BY MR. GUILD:
3 Q Exactly.
4 That's what you did; right?
5 A Yes, sir.
6 0 Now, in your opinion, Mr. DelGeorge, does the 85 percent 7 composite mean agreement rate found by the CSR sample 8 exhibit acceptable work performance by the Comstock 9 inspectors?
10 A If the only basis for drawing a conclusion was the 85 11 percent number, I would say no.
(\s /) 12 However, given my understanding of the underlying 13 deficiencies that together constitute that value and the 14 distribution of the deficiencies as a function of time, 15 I have reached the conclusion that that value is not 16 surprising to me and that it does represent an 17 acceptable value.
18 Q All right, sir.
( 19 Well, " surprising" is sort of one of those l
l l 20 qualities that depends on the eye of the beholder, I
{
j 21 suppose, Mr. DelGeorge.
! 22 Is it unusual, that result, that 85 percent figure, 23 " unusual" as you use the term at Page 13 of your direct 24 testimony?
() 25 A It was my view, in reviewing that number, that it was Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16794 p)
(v 1 consistent with what I had expected it to be, based on 2 past evaluations of similar data.
3 0 All right, sir.
4 Therefore, not unusual?
5 A Yes, sir.
6 0 Finally, does that 85 percent composite mean agreement 7 rate for CSR welding exhibit any adverse work 8 performance on the part of Comstock inspectors, in your 9 opinion?
10 A As a composite number, no.
11 I don't think you can -- I have not concluded, 12 based on a review of that number alone, that there is --
13 that there has been adverse performance on the part of 14 Comstock QC Inspectors.
15 0 That's not exactly my question, Mr. DelGeorge, because 16 you told me a moment ago that you considered other 17 information -- I appreciate the fact that you did -- in 18 arriving at your conclusion that the work was, 19 nonetheless, acceptable.
20 But does the 85 percent composite mean agreement 21 rate exhibit, in your opinion, any adverse work 22 performance?
23 A To the extent it is not 100 percent, it exhibits a 24 potential adverse effect. I think that the real 25 question is one of degree of significance, and my Sonntag Reporti.ng Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 66134 (312) 232-0262 f
l 16795
[ \
'O 1 previous answers were premised on that.
2 0 I see.
3 Now, again at Pages 37 and 38 of your testimony, 4 you are asked whether or not the CSR and PTL 5 overinspections are consistent.
6 You note there that they concluded that there were 7 differing composite mean agreement rates; that is, one 8 of 93 percent for the PTL overinspections and one of 9 only 85 percent for the CSR.
10 You conclude that those results are consistent --
11 A Yes, sir.
()
U 12 0 -- in short?
13 Now, one of the interesting bases for your reaching 14 that conclusion, Mr. DelGeorge, is the last sentence of 15 your Answer 34, Page 3 8.
16 I quote: " Finally, there was intense oversight of 17 the CSR inspections by CECO, the IEOG and the NRC Staff 18 which contributed to the very conservative inspection 19 results produced by the CSR. "
20 That's your testimony; correct?
i 21 A Yes.
22 0 All right.
23 Well, sir, you acknowledge by that testimony, don't j 24 you, Mr. De1 George, that inspection work performance,
( 25 inspector agreement rates in this case, the conservatism Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
16796 O
t <
%J l of Quality Control Inspectors' work performance, is 2 influenced by, in this case, intense oversight; correct?
3 A Yes.
4 0 Well, sir, don't you r.cknowledge also that inspector 5 work performance could be influenced by intense pressure 6 from, say, the Commonwealth Edison Company Project 7 Construction Department, if it existed?
8 A I've never denied that possibility.
9 0 I see.
10 So implicit in your recognition that such pressure 11 -- either from oversight or production pressure, if it fT) 12 existed -- might influence inspector work performance is 13 a recognition that inspectors' work is affected by 14 pressure from management?
15 A No, sir. Implicit in my statement is the fact that 16 inspector work performance may be affected by pressure 17 from management --
18 0 If it exists?
l 19 A -- and depending on the nature of the pressure imposed.
20 0 I see.
21 But you recognize, do you not, that the work 22 performance of Quality Control Inspectors can shift, as 23 it did, according to you, in the 10 percent range 24 between the PTL composite mean results and the CSR 25 composite mean results f rom such influences as pressure i
! Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. , , - - - - - . ,-, - -- ~ . - - . - . - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - )
1 l
I 16797 m
1 on the job?
2 A Again, so long as we have a common understanding of what 3 we mean by " pressure on the job," I think that it is 4 fair to say that while there is always pressure on the 5 job, undue pressure or excessive pressure can have an 6 effect on the performance of individuals.
7 0 Yes.
8 It can have the effect on the composite performance 9 of large numbers of inspectors performing large numbers 10 of inspections; and, in your opinion, it did on the PTL 11 and CSR weld inspections?
12 A My statement was with respect to the CSR weld 13 inspections.
14 0 As compared to the PTL?
15 A Yes, sir.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me just for a second.
17 Is this sentense actually correct: that there was 18 intense oversight of the CSR inspections by these 19 groups --
20 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- or was there oversight of 22 the calculations, basically?
23 THE WITNESS: No, sir. There was intense 24 oversight of the inspection activity specifically, as 25 well as the other activities that fell within the BCAP Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16798 i
U 1 program.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN : Did any of these groups --
3 CECO, IEOG or the NRC Staff -- actually go out in the 4 field?
5 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, they did.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, okay, fine.
7 THE WITNESS: The Commonwealth Edison Quality 8 Assurance Department had a site-specific QA team with QC I
9 Inspectors who -- and I believe testimony was given by 10 Mr. Smith with respect to that oversight.
11 The IEOG also participated with inspectors in the 12 field, monitoring both ongoing work and past work
(
13 performed by CSR inspectors. Those results are recorded 14 in their report.
15 The NRC I think, evidenced by the -- not the least 16 of which is the CAT team inspection, where they 17 reviewed, as a part of their inspection at Braidwood, 18 the completed CSR inspections and made comments with 19 respect to those inspection activities. Dr. Kaushal 20 indicated that that resulted in a reassessment of the 21 inspection activities within the BCAP CSR before they 22 were continued.
23 You may recall that there was reference made to a 24 midpoint look that was stimulated in large part by 25 findings made by the CAT team for the NRC.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 6D13 4 (312) 232-0262
I I i 16799 l O
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: The NRC Staff actually went 2 out in the field?
3 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine.
5 BY MR. GUILD:
6 0 Well, Mr. DelGeorge, you acknowledge that there was 7 pressure in one direction on the CSR inspectors; you 8 believe it was positive, I take it.
9 Is it possible that there was pressure in the other 10 direction on. the PTL inspectors; that is, that the PTL 11 inspectors' agreement rate is as high as it is because 12 they were under pressure to agree with the inspection 13 findings of the Comstock inspectors whose work they were 14 overinspecting?
15 MR. STEPTOE: I object; lack of foundation.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Overruled. The witness can 17 answer that question. I don't think it requires a 18 foundation.
19 A No, sir. It is my opinion that no such converse 20 pressure existed, based on my understanding of the 1
21 conduct of that program.
22 In fact, overinspections subsequently performed by 23 additional Level III Inspectors not of the PTL 24 organization have concluded that the overinspection 25 activity of PTL is generally conservative with respect
- Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
16800 1
y' s
1 1 to its welding overinspections.
2 BY MR. GUILD:
3 0 That's not really responsive to my question, Mr.
4 De1 George.
5 My question is: Is it possible -- I understand j 6 your opinion to the contrary, but is it possible there 7 was pressure driving the PTL agreement rates up, as well 8 as the pressure that you identified driving the CSR 9 agreement rates down?
10 A For the reasons I've already stated, I do not believe 11 that such a possibility exists.
12 0 All right.
(
13 Is it possible that lack of comparable 14 qualifications and competence on the part of the PTL j 15 overinspectors drove the PTL agreement rates up?
16 MR. STEPTOE: I'll object to the form of the 17 question.
18 Comparable to what?
19 MR. GUILD: Comparable to the CSR. That's i 20 the basis for the question, the CSR inspectors.
21 A To the extent that were the case, such a possibility 22 would exist.
23 My review of the qualifications of the individuals l
24 who performed the PTL overinspections for which data is 25 included in my data base for review doesn't lead me to i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
' Ceneva,~1IIITF61s 60TT4 l (312) 232-0262
16801
/#h
\
l conclude that that would be a problem.
2 BY MR. GUILD:
3 0 All right, sir.
4 I take it that when you express that opinion, 5 you're also aware of the results of the Quality control 6 Inspector Reinspection Program for PTL at Braidwood?
7 A Yes, sir, I am.
8 0 You took those into account in expressing that opinion?
9 A Yes, sir, I did.
10 0 Okay.
11 I take it that, Mr. DelGeorge, when you express 12 your belief as to the reasons for the disparity in
(
13 agreement rates between PTL at 93 percent and CSR at 85 14 percent, you are unable to quantify specifically what 15 accounts for the 8 percent disparity, attributing one 16 reason or the other?
17 A Well, I've attempted in a qualitative way to make that 18 comparison in my testimony.
19 0 Yes, but you haven' t quantified that or --
20 A Well, I have -- I have attempted to.
- 21 Specifically if one were to look at the agreement 22 rates calculated on the basis of welds accepted versus 23 welds inspected for the overlapping periods -- that is, 24 the periods reviewed both by PTL and by Daniels under 1
() 25 the CSR reinspection program -- the relationship between Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
! Geneva, fl~1inoi s 60134 1
(312) 232-0262
16802 1 those two ratios is much closer.
2 I have concluded f rom that that these ratios are in 3 large part time-dependent.
4 The ratio calculated for PTL -- the cumulative 5 agreement rate for the overlap period, for PTL, between' 6 June of 1982 -- excuse me -- July of 1982 and June of 7 1984, which is a period also reviewed by Daniels under 8 the CSR -- the cumulative agreement rate for PTL in that 9 period was 90.05 percent.
10 The cumulative agreement rate in the same period, 11 based on the CSR results, was 88.97 percent, a
(~}
V 12 difference of only about 1 percent.
13 In fact, to me, this reinforces what appeared to be 14 a slight trend identified statistically by Dr. Frankel, 15 which shows that the agreement rates under the CSR in 16 the period prior to mid 1982 are lower than in the 17 period after mid 1982.
18 It's also reflective of the fact that the PTL 19 agreement rates improve subsequent to the period June, 20 1984. There is, in fact, an increasing trend; and for 21 the overlap periods, the two programs identified a very 22 similar result.
23 0 Let's work backwards, Mr. DelGeorge. That was a 24 mouthful.
Oj 25 Dr. Frankel, who is the statistical expert,
(
Sonntag Reporting Service, _ Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
s 16803 0
1 acknowledges that any such curve upward -- a " slight 2 upward trend," in his jargon -- is statistically 3 insignificant?
4 A He makes that point.
5 0 He does make that point, doesn't he?
6 A Yes.
7 0 All right, sir.
8 And I guess still you haven't told me whether or 9 not you have quantified empirically the effects of the 10 intense oversight pressure that you identified on the 11 CSR inspectors.
(L 12 A I indicated that I had qualitatively assessed that.
13 0 Right.
14 A I have not quantified it.
15 0 And I take it that's not because you're holding on to 16 some information you haven't shared with us yet; it's 17 because you don't know how to quantify the results of 18 that intense oversight pressure; is that true?
19 A That's correct.
20 0 Now, we've talked about Part 1 of your testing of the 21 harassment, intimidation and production pressure 22 hypothesis; that is, the work performance generally, 23 whether it'c effective or acceptable or unusual or 24 whatever term you want to use.
( 25 The second half of your analysis, Mr. DelGeorge, Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. l 4 Geneva, Y11Tnois 60134
{
(312) 232-0262 1
16804 1 has to do with looking, based on measures you and Dr.
2 Frankel and Mr. Marcus use, for any correlation between 3 work performance effects and harassment, intimidation 4 and production pressure; correct?
5 A Yes, sir.
6 0 All right.
7 Now, the basis for measurement that you use in 8 making that search for correlations is agreement rates; 9 correct?
i 10 A Yes, sir.
11 0 And you define " agreement rates" on Page 14 of your
- ('h 12 prefiled testimony; correct?
13 A I know it's been defined in this testimony. If you can 14 direct my attention --
15 0 Sure. It's Question and Answer 12, Mr. De1 George: "How 16 did you calculate agreement rates for purposes of your 17 review" --
18 A Yes, sir.
19 0 You express the judgment at Page 15, in answer to 20 Question 13, that it is appropriate to use such 21 agreement rates to measure Comstock QC Inspector work 22 performance?
23 A I believe the question was whether it was reasonable, 24 and I concluded that it was reasonable.
25 0 All right.
s Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, IITinois d61T4 (312) 232-0262
16805 O
1 I take it that, as a corollary, you believe it's 2 appropriate, too?
3 A Given my experience, this is an index that, to me, is 4 reasonable. Depending on how we define these words --
5 I'm not a semanticist -- I guess it's appropriate, also.
6 0 Well, the point of all this exercise, Mr. De1 George, is 7 to dispassionately determine whether or not there is 8 data to support Intervenors' hypothesis of adverse work 9 performance effects from harassment, intimidation and 10 production pressure, is it not?
11 A Yes, si r .
12 0 All right.
13 And in that context, is it your opinion that, using 4 14 " agreement rates" as you've defined those terms, 15 agreement rates are appropriate to test that hypothesis?
16 A Well, I don't mean to take issue with you, but -- maybe 17 I shouldn't.
18 I think they're appropriate based in large part on l
19 the fact that the index is one that I have used before 20 and that it has been reviewed by technical members of 21 both Commonwealth Edison, the Staff and other experts to 22 whom I've had access; and it has been their conclusion i 23 that inferences can be drawn on the basis of such a i
l 24 comparison.
25 For that reason, I believe that the use of r
j Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, If1Triols 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 16806 l 1 agreement rates defined in this way is both reasonable
- 2 and appropriate.
q 3 0 All right, sir. Well, none of those experts are with us 4 right now, Mr. DelGeorge, and I'm afraid the buck is on S the witness stand before you.
6 I take it that you hold the belief --
7 A Yes, sir, I do.
8 0 -- that those agreement rate measures are appropriate 9 here; correct?
10 A Yes, sir.
- 11 MR. GUILD
- Mr. Chairman --
l 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Do you want to break for s
13 lunch?
14 MR. GUILD: -- I'm told that it's almost i
15 noon.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. That's fine. Why 17 don't we return at 1:15.
I j 18 MR. GUILD: Thank you.
19 (WHEREUPON, the hearing was continued to 20 the hour of 1:15 o' clock P. M.)
21 22 2) i i 24 i
\
l l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
' Geneva, HITnois 60131 (312) 232-0262
16807 i 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x 5 :
In the Matter of: :
6 : Docket No. 5 0-456 OL COMMONWE ALTH EDISON COMPANY : 50-457 OL 7 :
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 :
8 and 2) :
x 9
10 Met pursuant to recess.
11 Thursday, November 6,19 86.
1:15 P. M.
12 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild.
14 MR. GUILD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
15 BY MR. GUILD:
16 Q Mr. DelGeorge, before the luncheon recess, we were 17 talking about your reliance on agreement rates as a 18 measure of Comstock Quality Control Inspector work 19 pe r f or mance .
20 By the use of that measure, you assume that the 21 overinspector or reinspector's inspection is accurate, 22 do you not?
23 A Yes, sir.
24 Q All right.
25 And you attribute the rejectable findings, the Sonntaq Repor tina Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
[__ (312) 232-0262
16808 1 discrepancies found by the overinspector or reinspector, 2 to the original Comstock inspector?
3 A Yes, sir.
4 Q All right.
5 And I believe you expressed the opinion in your 6 testimony such an attribution may not be warranted in 7 all cases, and in some, in your belief, has a 8 conservative ef fect on use of agreement rates?
9 A Yes, sir.
10 Q Okay.
11 Well, let's talk about what influences agreement 12 rates, Mr. DelGeorge.
13 We've prepared a table. This is a document of 14 three pages I have placed before you, Mr. DelGeorge.
15 (Indica ting . )
16 MR. GUILD: Mr. Cha,irman, I'd ask that the 17 document be marked for identification as Intervenors' 18 Exhibit 188.
19 (The document was thereupon marked 20 Inte rvenors' Exhibit No.188 for 21 identification as of November 6,1986.)
22 BY MR. GUILD:
23 0 The document is entitled " Table No.1." Table No. 2 24 follows and the third page reflects a sample 25 calc ula tio n. .
t Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd. ;
j Geneva, Illinois 60134
! (312) 232-0262
16809
/^'i>
NJ 1 The first table is entitled, " Agreement Rates as a 2 Function of Craf t Error Rate, QC Inspector Accuracy, and 1 Overinspector Accuracy. "
4 If you will look on the first table, Mr. DelGeorge, 5 the X axis of this matrix is entitled "QC Inspector 6 Accuracy Rate" and displays various accuracy rates: The 7
79, lowest, in the bottom, 5 0 pe rcent; the highest, the top, 8 90 for 90 percent; craft error rate in percent across 9 the horizontal axis,10, 20 and 30 percent -- all 10 right -- and the data that's displayed in the body of 11 the matrix is identified as agreement rates.
A 12 All right. Now, the explanation that appears in (V) 13 the narrative on the first page, which also applies to 14 the second page, is that the agreement rate data 15 displayed to the lef t of the slash mark is based on the 16 assumption that items found defective by the QC 17 Inspector in the first inspection are repaired and 18 reinspected. They stay within the sample.
19 The agreement rates to the right of the slash mark 20 assume that the items found defective by the original QC 21 Inspector are removed from the sample, are not 22 reinspected by the overinspector.
23 N ow , can we agree, Mr. DelGeorge, in general, that 24 the va riations in the accuracy of the craf t who performs y ,) 25 the original construction work that's being sampled will Sonntaq Reportino Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
(
1 1 influence the accuracy of the Quality control Inspector 2 inspecting that work?
3 A I'm not sure that I can agree with that. l 4 Q All right, sir.
5 Can we agree that the accuracy -- the error rate --
6 excuse me -- of the craf t will influence the accuracy of 7 the overinspector?
8 A I don't believe that the product quality or the craft 9 error rate will influence the -- again, your term, with 10 respect to --
11 Q Accuracy.
12
( A -- the accuracy of the inspector or the overinspector.
13 I don't believe that to be the case.
14 Q All right, sir.
15 Well, let me ask the question somewhat differently.
16 Will that factor -- that is, the craft er ror 17 rate -- influence the agreement rate, in your opinion?
18 A Of what?
19 0 Well, the agreement rate as you used the term agreement 20 rate.
21 A I believe that the product quality, which is the inverse 22 of the craf t error rate that you make reference to --
23 that's the way I'm thinking of it --
l l 24 Q Sure.
- 25 A --
can af fect the agrer. . ..... at might be l Sonntaq Reporting Se rv ice , L td .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16811 I
LJ 1 developed.
2 0 All right, sir.
3 Let's test that hypothesis a bit here.
4 Now, can we agree, also, that the accuracy of the 5 first inspector -- that is, the Comstock inspector in 6 these cases -- will have an influence on the agreement 7 rate?
8 A Aga in , under what circumstances?
9 I'm not sure we're together yet with respect tc 10 that.
11 Q I don't know whether we are or not. I don't know 12
[J) whethe r we will eve r be.
13 The question, really, is one that --
14 A I don't unde rstand the question.
15 0 All right, sir. Le t me t ry aga in .
16 Let's control for all other variables and say that 17 the craf t error rate -- strike that.
18 Let's control for all other variables and say that 19 the accuracy of the original Comstock inspector varies.
20 All right.
21 Will that va riation influence the agreement rate, 22 the agreement rate being the term that you used, the 23 value that you used in your testimony?
24 A Yes.
( ,) 25 0 That's essentially what you assume when you use the SonnlaheAqtt ing Se rv icquhtd .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 16812
('D
'\vl 1 agreement rate as a measure of accuracy?
2 A Yes, sir.
3 Q All right, sir.
4 So that's a va riable, the accuracy of the original 5 inspect or .
6 Now, we've agreed that the craf t error rate can 7 influence the agreement rate. That's two variables.
8 Now, the third va riable that's included --
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me. Wait.
10 I'm not sure he did admit that, did you?
11 THE WITNESS: I think I took issue with an fv 12 aspect of what had been said previously, and I am not 13 sure that what was just said --
14 BY MR. GUILD:
15 Q Let me repeat it.
16 Do we agree, Mr. DelGeorge, that the craf t error 17 rate can influence the agreement rate?
18 A I believe I did say that there could be an influence on 19 the agreement rate.
20 0 Okay, right.
21 And finally, can we agree that the accuracy of the 22 overinspector can influence the agreement rate?
23 A Yes, si r.
24 Q All right.
( 25 Now, again, for purposes of your use of this data,
.Sonnt ag Repor ting _Se rv i_ce; _ Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16813 s
1 you assumed the accuracy of the overinspector?
2 A Yes, si r.
3 Q All right.
4 Now, those a re three va riables now we've 5 identified. One is the craft error rate, one is the 6 accuracy rate of the first inspector and one is the 7 accuracy rate of the overinspector.
8 Now, what I ask you to do is look at the table --
9 let me ask you to turn to the third page of this 10 doc ument.
11 All right, sir. Now, an example of the 12 calculation that has been used to derive the data 13 displayed on this exhibit is contained on the third 14 page.
15 We assume that there are 100 attributes in the 16 sample; that is, sample size. We assume that the craft 17 has an error rate of 20 percent.
18 In this case, we're talking about welds. There's 19 100 welds; that there will be 20 defective welds out of 20 100.
21 We assume that there is an accuracy rate by the 22 first QC Inspector -- an error-detection rate of 70 23 pe rce nt, and we assume that there is an accuracy 24 rate -- an error-detection rate by the overinspector in 25 the case of the data that's the subject of your Sonntag_EspElinglely_ Lee, Ltd.
j Ge neva , Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
-. ~ _ - . . _ _ _ _ - __ .-- . .. - _ . - ~. - -
, l l
16814
,O V
1 testimony -- that would be the CSR and the PTL 2 inspector -- of 90 percent.
3 All right, sir. There are two cases shown here, j 4 and the cases are A -- well, they are not -- the cases 5 are A and B.
6 One case is where the initially-found defective 1
i 7 welds are removed from the sample and not reinspected l 8 and the second case, B, where the initial --
i j 9 initially-identified defective welds are repaired and 10 returned to the sample.
11 Step 1, the sample calculation contains the 20 ;
- 12 defective welds. That is a result of multiplying craft i
- 13 error rate times the -- as a result of -- excuse me.
j 14 Strike that.
4 15 As a result of multiplying the craf t error rate, l
16 which is 20 pe rcent, times the QC error-detection
- 17 rate -- that's the accuracy of the first inspector. In 18 this case, that is 70 pe rcent -- the QC Inspector will 19 identify 14 percent of the sample as defective -- he 20 will find 14 rejectable welds.
i '
21 Do you follow me that fa r, Mr. DelGeorge?
I 22 A Yes, sir.
j I 23 Q All right.
j 24 Now, Case 1, the defective welds a re removed f rom 25 the sample. They are not reinspected. ;
i i
So_ nata _ g_Reporlipo Se rvice, Ltd. !
4 Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262
i' 16815 i
i \ .
i
- 1 Assume the 14 welds are removed from the sample and 2 not reinspected. The overinspection now contains 86 l 3 welds,100 less 14, of which 6 are defective.
4 The overinspector, in BCAP's -- in your testimony's j 5 terms, the PTL and CSR inspector find 90 percent of 6 those remaining 6 defective welds which are in the i 7 population, the sample -- excuse me -- subject to the I 8 ove rinspection. That's 5.4. 5.4 defective welds 9 comprise 6.2 pe rcent of the overinspected sample i 10 compa red to 100 --
1 11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me a second.
- 12 Compared to a hundred, Mr. Guild?
f 13 MR. BERRY : Compared with 86.
14 MR. STEPTOE Compared to 86.
I
- 15 Tile WITNESS
- It's compared with 86.
! 16 MR. GUILD: Well, I stand corrected.
1 J 17 Thank you.
4 18 BY MR. GUILD:
l I 19 0 -- compa red to 86, and that produces an agreement rate 20 of 93.8 pe rcent; again, the first case where the --
! 21 where the defective welds were removed from the sample.
I t 22 The second case, B, assumes that the 14 defective l
23 welds found by the first inspector, with a 70 percent l
i 24 accuracy rate, are repaired and reinspected. They are l
l 25 again back 1.. the sample. The overinspector, who has a I
i
! SonntAS_ Rep _91 ting Se rv1.qca Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262
~_ _ _ - _ _. - _ - - _
16816 V
1 90 percent accuracy level, finds 5.4 percent of the 6 2 defective welds. The 5.4 discovered defective welds 3 con. prise 5.4 pe rcent of the overinspected sample. The 4 overinspector's reported agreement rate is 94.6 percent.
5 All right. Now, in the way the data is displayed 6 in the table, the 93.8 percent agreement rate -- that 7 is, when the welds initially found rejectable are 8 removed from the sample -- will be to the left side of 9 the slash mark; the 94.6 pe rcent agreement rate -- that 10 is, for welds which are repaired and returned to the 11 sample -- are at the right side of the slash mark, f) v 12 and -- I 'm sor ry . I stand corrected.
13 The value -- the A and B are reversed in the 14 display on the first two charts. That is, the Case B, 15 where the defective welds are repaired and subject to 16 the overinspection, they are returned to the sample.
17 That appears on the left side of the slash mark and 18 that's what it says in the text on the first page.
19 Now, with that calculation in mind, Mr. DelGeorge, 20 if we look at the case of an inspector --
21 MR. STEPTOE : Excuse me.
22 Counsel, are you going to ask Mr. DelGeorge whether 23 he agrees with those numbers?
24 MR. GUILD: I haven't asked the question yet.
25 If you would just be patient with me, Mr. Steptoe, Sonntaq Reporting Se rv ice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16817 r~3 N,]
1 we will get there.
2 BY MR. GUILD:
3 0 In the case of an inspector who has an accuracy rate --
4 L. K. Comstock Quality Control Inspector with an 5
accuracy rate of 50 percent, Mr. DelGeorge, and a craft
^
6 error rate of 10 percent, with an overinspection 7 accuracy of 90 percent, wouldn't that reflect an 8 agreement rate, depending on whether we're going to 9 include the rejected welds in or remove them from the 10 -
sample, of 95.5 pe rcent or 95.3 pe rcent?
11 , MR. STEPTOE: I ask that if -- that the hv )' 12 witness be allowed -- if the witness is being asked to 13 ,
perform a calculation, I ask that he be given enough 14 time to do it.
15 BY MR. GUILD:
- 16 Q Let's take the case -- let's take the case -- let me 17 withdrew that question, Mr. Chairman.
18 Let's take the case of the example that was -- the 19 sample calculation that I just went through.
20 Do you agree with the mathematics, Mr. DelGeorge?
21 Did you follow that sample calculation, sir?
22 A Yes.
23 0 All right.
24 Are the mathematics correct to the best of your
,) 25 knowledge, to the best of your belief?
Sonntag Reporting Servita, Ltd.
- Geneva, Illinois 60134
[ (312) 232-0262
16818 V
1 JUDGE GROSSM AN: Did you say that was a craft 2 error rate of what on this one?
3 MR. GUILD: In the sample, the third page, 4 Mr. Chairman, the craf t error rate is 20 percent. There 5 are 20 percent defective welds out of 100 welds in the 6 sample.
7 BY MR. GUILD:
8 Q Do you agree with the mathematics, Mr. DelGeorge?
9 MR. STEPTOE : I make the same request, that 10 Mr. DelGeorge be allowed to check it.
11 MR. GUILD: I'd be more than happy to allow G
12 him to do that.
}
13 BY MR. GUILD:
14 Q Would you do that, Mr. DelGeorge.
s 15 MR. STEPTOE: Do you have a calculator, Mr.
l 16 DelGeorge? ')
17 THE WITNESS: Not with me.
18 MR. STEPTOE : May I hand the witness a 19 calc ulator?
20 (Indica ting. )
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Certainly.
22 A I get the same result --
23 MR. GUILD: All right, sir.
I 24 A (Con tin uing. ) -- for the sample calculation.
/'"N .
(_ ) 25 BY MR. GUILD:
i Sonntaq Reporting Se rvice , Ltd. L Geneva, Illinois 60134
) (312) 232-0262
16819 q
l Q All right, sir.
2 Now, that sample calculation, therefore, reflects, 3 does it not, Mr. DelGeorge, given the assumptions that I 4 have asked you to make, that where the original 5 ins pect or , the Comstock Quality Control Inspector, had 6 only a 70 percent accuracy rate, that the agreement rate 7 that you would display, again given these assumptions, 8 would be approximately 94 percent?
j 9 A Given these assumptions, that's correct.
10 Q All right, sir.
s 11 Now, can we agree that a 70 percent accuracy rate f)
%/
12 for a Comstock inspector -- that is, in the case of 100 13 welds, finding the defective welds only 70 percent of 14 the time -- that that is an unacceptable work 15 performance -- that reflects unacceptable performance by 16 a Comstock inspector?
17 A Yes, I would agree with that.
j 18 Q All right, sir.
19 And yet given the assumptions that I have asked you 20 to make, they are correct, that unacceptable performance 21 would be masked with a 94 percent agreement rate, would 22 it not?
23 A If the assumptions that are to be made are limited to
, 24 those that you have suggested, there is the possibility 25 of that being masked, that's correct.
Sonntaa Reportina Se rvice, Ltd.
Ge neva , Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16820 m
1 Q All right, sir.
2 Now, I've asked you to assume a 90 percent 3 agreement rate -- I'm sorry -- 90 percent accuracy rate 4 in this example for the overinspector.
5 It's your belief, is it not, that the -- in the 6 case of the CSR inspectors, as you testified, their 7 accuracy rates are higher than the accuracy rates for 8 the original Comstock inspectors?
9 A I have said that the accuracy rates for the Comstock --
10 for the CSR inspectors are more conservative -- are 11 conservative in the sense that they will more likely 12
( overcall discrepancies than not, and given that as an 13 assumption, I think it's also t rue that their 14 accuracy -- well, I'm not sure that it's fair to draw an 15 inference one from the other.
16 I believe that the CSR inspectors are performing 17 work conservatively, and as a result will, in many 18 instances, identify what would otherwise be truly 19 acceptable work as discrepant, and in that sence, I 20 don't know how to characterize their accuracy.
21 Q Well, if accuracy is a measure of the ability to 22 identify rejectable conditions, is it your belief, 23 consistent with your testimony, Mr. DelGeorge, that the 24 ove rin spect ors , the CSR inspectors, were more likely to 25 identify rejectable conditions than the original Sonntaa Reporting Se rv ice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312t 232-0262 - - -
4 16821 N-s/ ,
i I i 1 Comstock inspectors?
2 A I'm not sure that I would say that they are more likely.
I 3 They are at least as likely. ,
4 Q All right, sir; all right, sir.
t 5 Now, do you believe that there are inherent levels 6 of inaccuracy in Quality Control Inspector inspection 7 pe r formance?
- 8 A Yes.
9 Q Do you believe that they are on the order of 80 percent; 10 by that I mean, 80 percent accuracy finding both ;
11 rejectable conditions correctly or accurately and also N
12 identifying acceptable conditions accurately?
13 A I am familiar with that index, and I would agree that i 14 that is probably representative of inspection activities 15 ge nerally.
16 I'm not sure to what extent one could say that it 17 is, in fact, representative of nuclear inspection 18 activities where the environment is unique.
- 19 0 It might be better than 80 percent accuracy for nuclear 20 inspectors, would you expect?
21 A I think it's more a function of the specific activity in 22 question.
23 Certain activities, where the call upon the 24 inspector is relatively straightforward, I would expect
! 25 the agreement rate to be higher, and for other l
! Sonntac Reportina Se rvice, Ltd. L Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16822 1 activities that are more complex and subject to more 2 qualitative judgment, there is the possibility that it 3 could be lower than that.
4 Q I see. All right.
5 I take it you have not done any quantitative 6 measure of the accuracy of Quality control Inspectors at 7 B raidwo od , other than --
8 A I'm sorry. I didn't hea r that.
9 0 I take it you have not made any qualitative measure of 10 the accuracy of Quality Control Inspectors at -- strike 11 that.
(- 12 13 Let me try one more time. Have you made any quantitative measure of the accuracy of Quality Control 14 Inspectors at Braidwood?
15 A This assessment is one attempt at evaluating that 16 accuracy rate.
17 There have been other assessments of Quality 18 Control Inspectors at Braidwood.
19 Q Yes, I know there are.
20 But do you have a value in mind?
21 I asked you generally whether you will agree with 22 80 pe rcent. You said it may or may not be 80 percent.
23 It might be higher than that for nuclear inspectors.
24 Have you made a study to establish an accuracy 25 level for Quality Control Inspectors at Braidwood?
Sonntaq Reporting Se rv ice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16823 fV 1 A I have not made a study, no.
2 Q All right, sir.
3 If there is a base line expectancy of accuracy --
4 that is, on average, a level of accuracy to be 5 expected -- would you agree that, in testing the 6 ha r as sment, intimidation and production pressure 7 hypothesis, one would expect to see accuracy levels 8 reduced below the expectancy -- the normal expectancy?
a 9 A Yes.
10 0 All right.
11 And does it follow, also, Mr. DelGeorge, that if,
( 12 as you believe, the CSR inspectors were more 13 conservative in their judgments, perhaps more accurate, 14 that they would at least have the normal level of 15 accuracy and perhaps might have an accuracy level better 16 than normal?
17 A Yes.
18 Q And would you agree, also, that there is a level of 19 inaccuracy -- a defect rate, if you will -- that is
.20 present in the performance of craft work at the l
l 21 Braidwood facility, such as welding?
22 A Yes.
- 23 Q It's obviously not a known quantity- in advance, is it?
l l 24 A That's correct.
25 0 All right.
i Sonntaa Reporting Se rv ice , Ltd.
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 16824 m
\
l But there is some level of error to be expected in 2 the performance of safety-related construction 3 activities?
4 A Yes.
5 MR. GUILD: If I may have a moment, Mr.
6 Chairman.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Sure.
8 BY MR. GUILD:
9 Q Mr. DelGeorge , now, I ask you to take a look at the two 10 tables that are marked for identification Intervenors' 11 Exhibit 188.
O 12 Again, the first table assumes a 90 percent
(}
13 accuracy for the overinspector, the second table assumes 14 an 80 percent accuracy for the overinspector.
15 Now, would you agree, sir, assuming that the 4
16 calculations -- the math is right, and again, making the 17 same assumptions as the input data being assumed --
18 would you agree, sir, that the agreement rate uniformly 19 is higher than the accuracy rate for the original QC 20 Inspect or?
> 21 I don't mean to say uniformly. I should say 22 always. It's always higher; it's not a uniform
! 23 proposition at all.
i 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Unive rsally.
i
( 25 MR. GUILD: Unive rsally.
Sonntaa Reportina Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l_ _
16825
'w, 1 Thank you.
2 A Yes, sir.
3 MR. GUILD: All right, sir.
4 Mr. Chairman, I would certainly invite the parties 5 to check Intervenors' math, and we certainly could well 6 be wrong on the mathematics.
7 This is intended as an example. The math is really 8 not the critical element here.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, there's one critical 10 element that we haven't gotten to, and that's what this 11 is based on, what the assumptions are based on.
12 MR. GUILD: Indeed.
[v) 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I don't know the text.
14 I'm sure Mr. Steptoe does.
15 MR. GUILD: I'm sorry?
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: The text from which you 17 de rive these figures.
18 MR. GUILD: Well, that's an excellent point, 19 Jud ge .
20 That aside, the first point -- and that is, the 21 mathematics -- I would certainly invite the parties, the l
22 Board, if they would like, to check our math.
23 But on the basis of the math being accurate and l
l 24 accepting any corrections necessary to that math, we b
( / 25 would of fer this document in evidence at this time.
l l
Sonntac Reportino Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16826 1 I'd be happy to address your last point, if you 2 like, but I wanted to of fer the document with the 3 unde rstanding that the math is believed to be accurate 4 by lawye rs here, but it's certainly subject to check.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Steptoe.
6 MR. STEPTOE: Not by one lawyer here.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I'm sorry.
8 You will have to speak up or turn your mike on.
9 MR. STEPTOE: The math is not accurate by one 10 lawyer here, Judge Grossman.
11 The one example we went into, notwithstanding my w
i 12 witness having done a calculation, I think there's a V
13 rounding error; but the more significant point is that 14 there is absolutely no evidentiary foundation for the 15 assumed -- the assumptions that are used in this table.
16 Now, if Mr. Guild has a point to make, he can argue 17 it in his brief; but failing having an expert witness 18 here to say that assumptions are 10 percent, 20 percent, 19 30 pe rcent craf t error rate or that these QC accuracy 20 rate assumptions have some relationship to anything that 21 goes on at Braidwood, he can't get in into evidence.
22 There's not a proper foundation.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Is Dr. Frankel going to 24 establish the foundation for this, Mr. Guild?
( _) 25 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I believe that two Sonntaq Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16827 s
v 1 points can be made -- no, I don't believe Dr. Frankel 2 will.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I'm trying to guess where 4 you got this from.
5 Why don't you just tell us.
6 MR. GUILD: All right, sir.
7 It's derived by making assumptions; and I believe 8 the assumptions are supported by the record.
9 The assumptions are three, and those are, first, 10 that, at least in terms of numerical assumptions, those 11 are an accuracy rate for the first inspector, an
~
) 12 accuracy rate for the overinspector and a craft error 13 rate.
14 Now, we have assumed a variety of values, the 15 values are intended to cover a range of possibilities, 16 and demonstrate that there is, as the witness 17 acknowledged, a universal relationship, although not 18 uniform, and that is that agreement rates are a little 19 higher than the accuracy of the first inspector.
20 The point, though, is to demonstrate, with a 21 variety of assumptions, about levels of craft error.
! 22 Those levels of craf t error range from a 10 percent i
23 error rate to a 30 percent error rate, with various l
l 24 range of assumptions about the accuracy of the original 25 inspector, ranging from 50 to 90 percent accuracy, and Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16828
,3 1 of the overinspector, in one case, 80 pe rcent, the 2 second table; in the first table, 90 percent; that the 3 mathematics demonstrate that the agreement rate that 4 will be the product of those assumptions is universally 5 higher than the original accuracy rate and in the range 6 of values that Applicant has found as a result of CSR.
7 Now, I would suggest that the record already well 8 reflects that the ranges of values assumed by 9 Intervenors are supported.
10 No one has a precise number for what the accuracy 11 of the originators were, the overinspectors or the craft O
12 error rates.
(}
13 We'd be happy to run these calculations with any 14 assumed values that the parties or Board wishes to 15 s ug ge s t.
16 I'm simply not aware of the definitive statements 17 of what those values are. -
18 I know that there's been a range testified to. For 19 example, accuracy of inspection, the 80 percent figure 20 is cited by a number of witnesses f rom Mr. Juran's 21 handbook on quality control.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That's not my problem, Mr.
23 Guild, and maybe I'm missing something that's very 24 simple, but I don't find any basis in the record, any
( ,) 25 fou nda tion, for assuming that the formulas that you use Sonntaq Reporting Se rvice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
-. _ _ = - - . _ -
16829 p
1 are appropriate or correct; that if you assume a certain 2 craft error, if you assume a certain QC Inspector 3 accuracy and if you assume a certain overinspector 4 accuracy, that you would get a final figure of anything 5 that you depict in your tables.
6 MR. GUILD: Well, I believe that's 7 established through the witness; but if that's not 8 clear, I'd be happy to ask the further foundation 9 questions, Mr. Chairman.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That's fine, 11 MR. STEPTOE : Before we go on this, I should 7"N 12 say my problem is that I think these are unsupported I
}
13 ass umptions .
14 I don't know where in the evidence -- where in the 15 record there is any support for craft error rates of 10 16 pe rce nt, 20 percent, 30 percent or any other number.
17 (Indica ting. )
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I don't have a problem 19 with that.
20 If Mr. Guild can demonstrate that you can find, for 21 example, a 95 pe rcent agreement rate, and that could 22 reflect, as an example, a 70 percent craf t error 23 rate -- or, actually, a 3 0 pe rcent craft error rate and 24 a QC Inspector accuracy rate of 70 percent, I don't O( ,/ 25 think that he has to supply those particular figures.
Sonntaa Reportina Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16830
!' 7\
<J l If he just shows his final figure and he can say, 2 either inductively or deductively, "You can use these 3 figures as a basis for arriving at that final figure,"
4 he's made his point. That's efficient.
5 But the problem I have is with that formula that he 6 based it on being appropriate.
7 Do you f ollow what I'm saying?
8 You may disagree. I don't mind you disagreeing. I 9 just want you to follow what I'm saying.
10 MR. STEPTOE: I follow what you are saying, 11 and I disagree, and I appreciate you don't mind that I 7i I,% .)
12 disagree.
13 Thank you.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, okay.
15 MR. GUILD: Le t me t ry t o --
16 MR. STEPTOE: But I really think this is 17 argument and not evidence, Judge Grossman.
18 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Mr. Guild --
19 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir, Judge Callihan.
20 JUDGE CALLIHAN: -- before we go too far, 21 would you look first at Table 1 --
22 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir.
23 JUDGE C ALLIHAN: -- and look at your sample 24 calculation 2a5 and correlate the two, please.
(,) 25 MR. GUILD: You've lost me there, Judge.
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16831 l'%
1 JUDGE CALLIHAN: All right.
2 Table 1 --
3 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir, I've got Table 1.
4 JUDGE CALLIHAN: -- the sample calculation, 5 which is Page 3 of your epistle --
6 MR. GUILD: I f ollow you, yes, sir. The --
7 JUDGE CALLIHAN: -- Population 2a5.
8 MR. GUILD: Got you. Yes, I've got you.
9 THE WITNESS: If I could be of assistance, I 10 think the error in rounding that my lawyer referred to 11 is the fact that the 93.8, calculated to 4 significant
( ~) 12 figures, is really 93.72 and should be rounded to 93.7, 13 which I believe is the value contained in the matrix 14 provided by Inte rvenor.
15 MR. GUILD: I'm informed that that's correct, 16 it was a rounding error, and the 93.7 is the value that
! 17 appears on the first table.
i 18 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Which way do you want to
! 19 make it?
20 There's an inconsistency, and I think we ought to 21 ge t inconsistencies out first.
22 So which way are you going?
23 MR. GUILD: 93.7 is the accurate rounding of 24 that numbe r.
( ,j 25 JUDGE CALLIHAN: So your sample calculation l Sonntaa Reporting Se rv ice, Ltd.
Ge neva , Illinois 60134 j (312) 232-0262
.hm, a-a,m- m. -
, s,a m.J 6m,_. -a4- - -
16832 1 Item 2a5 should be 93.7?
2 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir.
3 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Thank you.
4 MR. GUILD: Yes.
5 And if you would look at Table 1, Judge, under the 6 vertical column for the 70 percent QC Inspector accuracy 7 and the 20 percent craft error rate, you will see the 8 value is 94.6 and 93.7.
9 That's the same calculation with the rounding done 10 prope rly.
11 JUDGE CALLIHAN: In some instances, you give O*
s 12 agreement rates to two significant figures; in other
'J 13 cases you give them to three.
14 Is that of any importance?
' 15 For example, in Table 2, the 90/20 point right of i
16 the slash is 98.
17 MR. GUILD: Yes. It should be three -- three 18 significant. It should be a zero.
19 JUDGE CALLIHAN: A zero?
i 20 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir.
l
! 21 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Thank you.
22 MR. GUILD: In both cases.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild, why don't you 24 come up and make that correction right now on l b)
(, 25 Inte rve nors ' Exhibit --
l I
I Sonntaa Reoortina Se rvice. Ltd.
I Ge neva', Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1 16833 q
l MR GUILD: On the record copy, Judge?
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- on Intervenors' Exhibit 3 188 on the Reporter's copy.
4 That is on the third page, changing the 93.8 5 pe rcent to the 93.7 pe rcent.
6 MR. GUILD: Thank you, Judge.
7 And I'm also correcting the first page to add the 8 .0 in the two places I just mentioned to Dr. Callahan, 9 the .0 for the upper left figure in the matrix and 98.0 10 for the one below that.
11 JUDGE COLE: And do it on Table 2, also.
12 JUDGE CALLIHAN:
(a) 13 the 5 0/20 point, I ass ume, is 90.0?
If you are going that far, 14 MR. GUILD: That's correct, Judge.
15 JUDGE CALLIHAN: If you want to go still 16 further, on Table 2, that 90/20 point is 98.0, I 17 presume? Table 2, 90/20, the second --
18 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir, that's correct, 98.0 it 19 should be.
20 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Thank you.
21 MR. GUILD: Thank you.
22 BY MR. GUILD:
23 Q Mr. DelGeorge, let's talk about this calculation some 24 more, please.
25 Now, again, turning to the sample calculation, Sonntaa Reportina Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16834
/N.
1 please, if we have a -- I asked you to assume that there 2 are 20 percent defective welds. We're talking about 3 welds here just by way of example. There's a craft 4 error rate of 20 percent, so the craft has performed 20 5 percent deficient welds, defective welds in the sample.
6 There are 20 there.
7 The question is:
8 Are they going to be identified and in what 9 proportion, given the accuracy of the inspection and the 10 overinspection, and what level of agreement rate will be 11 reflected for craft error rate and two levels of 12 inspector accuracy, the 20 bad welds?
13 The first inspector has a 70 percent accuracy rate.
14 He will find 70 percent of those 20 defective q 15 welds, will he not, given those assumptions?
16 A I ' m s or ry . I didn't hear the number.
17 0 Yes.
18 20 percent defective welds are 20.
19 70 percent accuracy, he will find 70 percent of the
- 20 20 defective welds?
21 A Yes.
22 Q And those are 14 in number?
23 A Yes.
24 Q All right.
25 There are, therefore, 14 defective welds that are Sonntaq Reportina Se rvice, Ltd.
, Geneva, Illinois 60134 232-0262 (312) . . _ . . _ _-_- . - - - - .
16835 O
1 found.
2 All right. Let's take the second case -- that is, 3 B at the bottom here -- the 14 defective welds are 4 repaired . Say, for example, ICR's are written by the 5 original Comstock inspector, the ICR's are processed, 6 craft goes out and fixes the defective welds.
7 Okay. In the second case, Case B, the 14 welds, 8 let's say, a re on a hange r. They've been fixed. They 9 are now part of the sample of 100 welds, say, on that 10 hanger that will be overinspected.
11 All right. In that second case, the overinspector, f% 12 who has a 90 percent accuracy rate, will find there are
( }
13 6 defective welds remaining from the original 20, the 14 first guy -- the first inspector having found only 14 of 15 them.
16 The second inspector, the overinspector, will find 17 5.4 of those welds, given a 90 pe rcent accuracy rate, 18 will he not?
19 A Yes, si r .
20 Q All right.
21 5.4 -- the defective welds represent 5.4 percent of 22 the overinspected sample, because the 100 welds are 23 still in the sample, and that is associated with a 94.6 24 pe rcent accuracy rate, is it not, given those
() 25 as sumptions?
Sonntac Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 16836
~
l A Well, the difficulty I have in -- the number calculated 2 in the way that you suggest it be calculated would, in 3 fact, be 94.6.
4 0 Yes.
5 A The problem I have is in the identification of that 6 bottom-line number as an accuracy rate.
7 0 That's an agreement rate I mean to say. I --
8 A I think there's a distinct dif ference between the 9 accuracy rate for the original inspector and the 10 agreement rate between inspectors.
11 Q I misspoke.
(8 12 I mean to ask you, sir:
}
13 The 94.6 percent would be the agreement rate 14 resulting given those assumptions, would it not?
15 A Yes.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
17 And I take it all the other numbers, if the 18 mathematics have been 'done correctly, would reflect that 19 same logic here?
f 20 THE WITNESS: If done correctly, I would
- 21 ass ume so, yes, si r.
I 22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
l 23 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, we renew our 24 request that we admit the document.
25 MR. STEPTOE: The same objection as before, Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
- k. '
i ,
16837
/"
t
- 1 Judge Grossman
- No foundation.
1 2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Berry.
I '3 MR. BERRY: Staff is not objecting to the 4 receipt of the document.
5 It appea rs to the Staf f, Mr. Chairman, that the 6 document is relevant; and I take it Intervenor is y 7 of fering this document to impeach the weight to be 8 accorded to the results of the PTL overinspections, the 9 other affirmative evidence presented by the Applicant.
10 It's my --
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine.
12 MR. BERRY: It's my understanding that that 13 would -- that this is a material matter, and that i
14 ext rinsic evidence on a material matter is admissible.
15 Ordinarily extrinsic evidence, if it was collateral, ,
< 16 would not be.
- 17 You know, this document, Intervenors ' Exhibit 188, 18 appea rs to the Staf f to just be evidence of fered by the 19 Intervenor which, if true, would tend to contradict or 20 certainly detract from the weight to be accorded to the r
l 21 evidence presented by the Applicant.
22 For that reason, I would think it would be i
23 admissible, without intimating any weight to be attached 24 to this evidence by the Boa rd.
! 25 Also, I would think, Mr. Chairman, that this i
l Sonntaa Reportina Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 I (312) 232-0262
16838 p\
I I V
1 doc umen t, Intervenors' Exhibit 188, also is an aid in 2 understanding the position that Intervenors are taking.
3 I think it's clear that they've been -- that 4 they've questioned the results of the PTL inspection, 5 the CSR inspection, this whole notion of the agreement 6 rates, and I think now we can see their position and 7 understand why they've raised the question on it, and I 8 think that's reflected in Intervenor Exhibit 188, also.
9 And for that reason, I believe it would be helpful 10 to have it in the record to understan6 the party's 11 po sition.
12 Again, the Staf f is not objecting to the receipt in
}
13 evidence of Intervenors' Exhibit 188.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild --
15 JUDGE COLE: Mr. Guild, there 's anothe r 16 assumption in here, and I don't see it stated and I 17 don't recall whether you said that or not, and that's a 18 100 percent overinspection rate is ass'umed in here.
19 Is that your intention, sir?
20 MR. GUILD: It really only is with respect to 21 this particular item.
22 We' re taking an item, not a general rate, and it 's 23 just by way of example, using 100 as a round number for 24 purposes of cla rity, Dr. Cole.
( / 25 It certainly doesn't mean to suggest that a 100 Sonntaq Reporting Se rv ice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16839
(~h V
1 percent overinspection rate of PTL of any sort or CSR, 2 if that's your --
3 JUDGE COLE: I mean, I'm thinking about how 4 this might be used; and if you are going to then
- 5 correlate this with what has happened here with the 6 inspections and overinspections, the assumption of 100 i 7 percent overinspection might not necessarily apply, so, 8 consequently, the way these numbers are calculated might 9 not directly be applicable to the situation at hand.
, 10 MR. GUILD: I'm not certain --
11 JUDGE COLE: But with that understanding, I 12 see how you get the numbe rs, and I think it is, in fact, 13 the calculation with the assumptions clearly stated; and 14 if it applies, it applies, and if it doesn't, it 15 doesn't.
16 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir.
17 I'm not real clear on what the concern is; but what 18 it means to represent is just, by example, of 100 items,
! 19 and you could take a hanger with 100 welds on it or you
- 20 could take 100 welds that somehow otherwise happened to
! 21 be the subject of inspection. It's simply an example.
22 JUDGE COLE: I understand.
23 JUDGE GROSSM AN: It could be 100 of the i
24 sample welds that were inspected?
s 25 MR. GUILD: Exactly.
1
> Sonntaa Reportina Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l i
16840 g-( /
V 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I would think that it would 2 apply to whatever number you wish to apply this to.
3 MR. GUILD: Welds happens to be the unit of 4 measure by example; but it could be 100 of any attribute 5 that was subject to inspection judgment.
6 I mean to make it analogous to what Mr. Juran uses 7 when he talks about inspector accuracy. They apply to 8 any inspector judgment, as I understand the concept.
9 JUDGE GROSSM AN: Okay.
10 Without saying much more, I don't even view this as 11 extrinsic evidence. I think it relates to the internal A
12 logic of the witness' position.
(}
13 It's a table based on whatever logic has been used, 14 and it's certainly usable for that, nor do I think it 15 just goes to the weight. It gives possible alternative 16 suggestions to what figures could have gone into 17 producing an agreement rate on which the witness has 18 testified, so there are alternative bases for arriving 19 at that particular agreement rate, and as long as the 20 logic is clear, we can accept those alternative bases; 21 and it goes to more than the weight. It goes to 22 possibly a full explanation or alternative explanations 23 for the same conclusion.
24 So certainly it's admissible and can be used k,) 25 however the parties wish to use it in their proposed Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16841 p
1 1 findings.
2 So we'll receive Intervenors' Exhibit 188.
3 (The document was thereupon received in 4 evidence as Intervenors' Exhibit No.
4 5 188.)
6 BY MR. GUILD:
- 7 Q Now --
1 8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Hold on for a second.
9 MR. GUILD: Sure.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild, you may proceed.
11 MR. GUILD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
12 BY MR. GUILD:
! 13 Q Now, Mr. DelGeorge, it is true, is it not, sir, that in 14 your review of the CSR data -- that is, the agreement 15 rates that are the subject of your testimony -- you did l 16 not control for variables in the error rate by the 17 craf t smen?
l i 18 A That's correct. That underlying value was not 19 iden tifiable .
20 0 All right, sir.
l 21 Nor did you control for variation in the accuracy 22 of the original QC Inspectors?
23 A That's correct.
24 Q And, finally, nor did you control for variations in the O
(,,)
i 25 accuracy of the overinspectors?
l Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
1 16842 t }
}
l A Well, that's correct; and having said that, when you say 2 we did not -- having admitted that we did not control 3 for that value, the value was not identifiable in 4 advance.
5 I think it is true -- well, I don't agree that this 6 is an accurate representation of accuracy of inspection, 7 because I think it does depart f rom the suggested method 8 of reviewing such accuracy in Juran.
9 Given the information that was available to us, I 10 believe that we performed the assessment in a manner 11 that is reasonable, as is said in my testimony, and 12 consistent from Juran, from which I think you attempted
('a) 13 to draw this algorithm.
14 Q Well, don't presume too much, Mr. DelGeorge.
15 But the fact of the matter is, to the extent that 16 variations in craf t error rates, accuracy rates by 17 Quality Control Inspectors, or accuracy rates by 18 overinspectors exist, you don't know what influences 19 those variables had on the agreement rate data that you 20 evaluated in your testimony?
21 A I don't know -- not knowing them in edvance, I don't 22 have specific knowledge as to what the influence might 23 be.
24 Q Yes.
s
/
( ) 25 Now, you and Dr. Frankel review the agreement rate Sonntaa Repor tino Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16843 1 data , CSR, PTL, over time to test the Intervenors' 2 hypothesis rega rding harassment, intimidation, 3 production pressure, and determine whether or not there 4 are discernible trends and variations in agreement rate 5 that you attribute to that phenomena?
6 A That's correct.
7 Q All right.
8 A Excuse me.
9 You make reference to that phenomena. I'm not sure 10 what --
11 Q Production pressure, harassment, intimidation.
O} 12 Now, if you would, sir, turn to the attachments to 13 your table.
14 The first attachment, the ba r graph, reflects, for 15 the period of time in question -- and that extends from
, 16 the first quarter of '79 through the second quarter of 17 '84 -- the numbe rs of inspection points for all samples, 18 welding and non-welding?
19 A Yes, si r.
20 0 And its data is displayed on a quarterly basis?
21 A Yes, sir.
i 22 Q DelGeorge 2 reflects the numbers of inspection points 23 for all samples over that period for welding only?
24 A Yes, sir.
25 Q And DelGeorge 6, your last ba r graph -- I'm sorry. I
- Sonntaa Reportina Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
k 16844 O
! I see.
2 DelGeorge 6 reflects the CSR inspection points, ,
i
~
3 both welding and non-welding, for the 24 Comstock i 4 inspectors that you identify as the complaining
?
[ 5 inspectors?
j 6 A Yes, si r.
. 7 Q Now, those are, in offect, the sources of data from l 8 which you derive the agreement rates, are they not?
9 A Those inspection points, yes, have associated with them 10 some number of discrepancy points which are then used as l
j 11 a basis for determining the agreement rate.
MR. GUILD:
( 12 Yes.
13 If you would give me a second, Mr. Chairman. I'm 14 looking for a document.
3 15 Mr. Chairman, if I could have a moment, please.
16 I'm finding a document here.
l 17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You wish to take a break j 18 n ow?
- 19 MR. GUILD: If you can just let me have a i
i 20 moment, I think I can put my hands on it.
)
l 21 BY MR. GUILD:
I 22 Q Mr. DelGeorge, let me show you a ba r graph here --
- 23 (Indica ting . )
j 24 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I'd ask that this
\ 25 document -- it's entitled "CSR Reinspection Results For I
1 s
! Sonntao Reportina Se rvice , Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134
) (312) 232-0262
16845 7
('d) 1 LKC, All Populations, All Samples, Welding and 2 Non-Welding -- be marked for identification as 3 Intervenors' Exhibit 189.
4 (The document was thereupon marked 5 Intervenors' Exhibit No.189 for 6 identification as of November 6,1986.)
7 BY MR. GUILD:
8 Q Now, Mr. DelGeorge, the bar graph that's placed before 9 you was prepared by Intervenors, and it is derived from 10 the DelGeorge attachments that I just identified.
11 If you would, sir, turn to DelGeorge 1 again, (m) 12 please.
13 Again, that is the total inspection points, all 14 samples, welding and non-welding.
15 And would you agree, sir, that the total -- the 16 size of the bars depicted on Intervenors' Exhibit 189 17 -
accurately reflects the bar graph that's depicted in 18 DelGeorge l?
. -19 -
It's simply a tracing is what it is.
20 MR. STEPTOE : Well --
21 A Well, I'm not sure that's true.
22 - '
MR. STEPTOE: Well, I'm going to object
~
23 unless the witness is given the time to do a careful 24 ,
r r.v i ew .
25 MR. GUILD: Would the witness like to place a Sonntaa Reporting Se rv ice , L td .
, , Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16846 1
/
1 copy of Inte rvenors' 189 over DelGeorge l?
2 I think that the answer to my question ~is ;eadily '
3 discernible from simply doing that.
4 THE WITNESS: Does this purport to be a 5 tracing of Rev 2 of DelGeorge Exhibit 1, because if it 6 is, I don't believe it's accurate?
7 MR. STEPTOE : Neither do I, Judge Grossman.
8 BY MR. GUILD: ': ' , 4 9 Q You revised your ba r graph, didn't you? J ,
10 A Yes, sir, 11 I think that was indicated at the outset of my ,
f\
J 12 testimony today.
13 0 Would you take -- you have -- you have DelGeorge Rev 1, 14 Mr. DelGeorge?
i N 15 A Rev 0?
16 I think this corresponds to the initial bar graph 17 included in my testimony prefiled in August of '86.
18 0 Well, I'm --
19 A At least it would be appear to be close to that.
s 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: It appears to me to l
21 cor respond to Rev 1 -- DelGeorge 1 -- I'm sor ry - ,and 22 that may be Rev 0.
l 23 Is that so?
24 THE WITNESS: Yes, si r, I believe so.
l j b)i
\, 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Are the changes that you l
l
! Sonntaq Reporting Se rv ice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
t
, 16847 f
V 1 have to Rev 2 significant from this?
2 I don't think we want to spend too much time 3 redoing this whole thing if the changes are not 4 signi ficant, and I think we'd just as soon go ahead.
5 Is there any problem with that?
6 MR. STEPTOE: Well, Judge Grossman, I think 7 you are asking the wrong person whether the changes are 8 significant.
9 It's Mr. Guild's cross examination. I think he's 10 t rying to --
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Let me put it this way:
12 Are they significant from a point of view of a bar 13 graph?
14 THE WITNESS: I can't be sure, your Honor. I 15 haven't looked at the data in this way.
16 You know, it could be insignificant for most 17 purposes and have some significance for another purpose, 18 depending on what Mr. Guild plans to use it for. I'm 19 just not certain.
l 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine.
21 Why don't we use this right now, and we'll put the 22 onus on Mr. Guild to redo this later on with the 23 revisions in mind and have those revisions submitted to f
24 Mr. Steptoe for his approval after, of course, he f')i
(, 25 consults with his expert.
i Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
( 3'12) 232-0262
16848 G
1 Mr. Berry, do you have a problem?
2 MR. BERRY : I don't have a problem with that.
3 I just want a clarification, Mr. Chairman, that 4 we' re looking at Attachment 2C DelGeorge-l.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, in the top graph.
6 MR. BERRY: Okay, fine.
7 JUDGE GROSSM AN: Well, there's, obviously, 8 more information in there, but we' re talking about the 9 outlines of the --
10 MR. BERRY : The top part.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: --
of the ba rs rather than (a 12 13 everything that goes into the bars, and that should correspond to that top graph.
14 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I'm looking at --
15 I'm working from a document that has August 8, 1986, on l
16 it. It reads, " Attachment 2C DelGeorge-l. "
l 17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, that's --
18 MR. GUILD: It's DelGeorge 1.
19 N ow , indeed, I understand there is a revision to 20 this reflecting the new weld count.
l 21 I'd be more than happy to submit a revised document 22 to reflect that.
23 JUDGE GROSSM AN: Yes, okay.
I 24 MR. GUILD: It's the same data, but it may
[~'
( ,)\ 25 change -- there may be some variation to the revision.
i Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16849 i
1 If I may, I'd like to proceed in my examination.
2 I apologize for not incorporating the revised data.
) 3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. We'll make our 4 definitive ruling on this now.
5 We'll let Mr. Guild use this, even though it's 6 Revision 0, the original one, and then we'll have him 1 7 subsequently revise it, according to the revisions, and 8 have that go to Mr. Steptoe for his approval of the 1
9 r ev isions.
10 Of course, whatever objections you have to what's 11 being examined on now with regard to Revision 0 would 12 apply, of course, to the Revision 2 graph.
)
! 13 But proceed, Mr. Guild.
14 MR. GUILD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
15 If you may have a moment, Mr. Chairman.
. 16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Sure.
17 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to lay f
18 hands on DelGeorge Rev 2 so we can eliminate the 19 possibility that what I believe to be very minor changes 20 in this document have any af fect on this depiction
, 21 that's significant in my examination.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, if that's so, then we 23 wouldn't require that you put a revised exhibit in.
24 It would certainly simplify things for us.
25 MR. STEPTOE: Excuse me.
Sonntac Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16850
\.)
1 Was this document prepared just by tracing --
2 totally by tracing f rom Attachment 2C DelGeorge-67 3 Whatever revision you used, you took --
4 MR. GUILD: Well, there's a different scale 5 for a couple of the revisions, if that's the trick to 6 your question, Mr. Steptoe.
7 MR. STEPTOE : Well, it wasn't meant to be a 8 trick, but my point was --
9 MR. GUILD: No, it was not.
10 The answer was it was traced from DelGeorge-1 and 11 derived from the other DelGeorge exhibits with the scale 12 changes.
v 13 Mr. Chairman, let me proceed in my examination, if 14 I might.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Sure.
16 MR. STEPTOE : Well, I guess -- I think I 17 understand what the Board is trying to do.
18 I think there may be -- this chart may be 19 substantially misleading for reasons unrelated to the 20 revision that's being used, and based on cursory 21 examination, I'm concerned about that.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, okay.
23 Well, what we' re saying is we'll certainly 24 entertain those objections now; but the other q,,) 25 objections, I think, can be overcome.
Sonntaa Reporting Se rv ice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16851
{
/~) v
'a 1 MR. STEPTOE : Well, can we use --
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me.
3 Let me --
4 MR. STEPTOE: Just for demonstration, I'll 5 show you what conce rns me.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, okay. Certainly.
7 MR. STEPTOE : If you look at Intervenors' 8 Exhibit 189, which, I guess, is the graph, if you look 9 at the first quarter of 1984, there is a -- the next to 10 the last bar there, if you look at the cross-hatched 11 section, which is supposed to be weld, complaining (v\ 12 inspectors, it looks like there are approximately 10,000 13 inspection points attributable to that cross hatching; 14 yet if you go to DelGeorge -- well, if you go to 15 DelGeorge Attachment 2C, No. 6, Revision 0, you 'll find 16 that there are about 8,000 identified inspection points 17 for that same period, and if you go to DelGeorge 6, 18 Revision 2, you will find that there are about 4',000, 19 4,500 inspection points, so that we have a real mismatch 20 here.
21 MR. BERRY : Could we go off the record for 22 one second, Mr. Chairman?
23 MR. GUILD: Let's do this:
24 What we would like -- I would like to proceed with
( 25 this examination.
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd. .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
Ii 16852 m
1 I apologize. It was inadvertent that I didn't see 2 the revisions were incorporated.
3 So that there's no possibility for suggestion that 4 the witness is being misled by my examination, I would 5 respectfully request that we recess. We will make a new 6 chart. We will incorporate those revisions in the 7 method that I just described, derivation of those 8 charts; and I would like to proceed with the examination 9 at that point.
10 I fear that doing otherwise is simply going to 11 undermine the value any answers the witness might give
. 12 on the assertions that somehow he was misled by use of 13 an incorrect depiction.
14 And I apologize again for having inadvertently 15 failed to incorporate that data; but it's important to 16 my examination that I do this accurately.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, Mr. Steptoe is 18 objecting not on the fact that the revisions weren't 19 incorporated, but on what he believes to be an error
! 20 based on scale, because some of the other charts were at 21 a dif ferent scale and then the items were taken out of 22 scale.
23 Were then assumed to be on the same scale and put 24 in incorrectly? .
i h)
( 25 MR. GUILD: That's not the -- that's not what
! Sonntaa Reportino Se rvice, Ltd.
! Geneva, Illinois 60134
( ~
16853
,a
(
i v'
1 I understand either from Mr. Steptoe or to be the case.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Why don't I suggest now that 3 we'll take a recess and you and Mr. Steptoe go over 4 this, find out where you have the problems, and I think 5 we still want to proceed today as though we have no 6 problem and just get all the ducks in a row of f the 7 record and come back.
8 I don't think that the -- I think you could 9 probably skirt the inaccuracies in the testimony.
10 You don't believe so, Mr. Guild?
11 MR. GUILD: Not from what I hear of -- I O}
t 12 don't think there are significant -- there are some 13 changes, but I don't think there are any errors that are 14 significant; but I don't want the record in the state 15 that it's in right now where Mr. Steptoe says that the 16 witness is going to be misled. That's his prediction.
- 17 It makes anything he might say about this document, 18 uncorrected, of no value, and it's --
19 JUDGE GROSSM AN: Well, I think you can phrase 20 your questions, " Assuming that such and such accurately 21 reflects this area, reflects what's on chart such and 22 such, aren't your conclusions."
23 I don't see that they are insurmountable problems, 24 and I am trying to find a way of speeding this up.
25 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman --
Sonntaa Reportino Se rvice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 16854 O) i Ns 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I don't believe Mr. Miller 2 wants us to delay because of a bar not being drawn 3 exactly correctly when we can do that off the record and 4 submit the revised drawing.
5 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir, I'll be happy to do 6- that.
7 Maybe we could have perhaps a brief recess, and 8 I'll consult with counsel for Applicant and see if we 9 can reach an understanding.
10 I'm still conce rned by Mr. Steptoe 's rema rk.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. We'll tak'e a 12 15-minute recess now, and longer if necessary.
Ox--
13 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which 14 the hearing was resumed as follows:)
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
16 Back on the record.
17 I understand Mr. Guild has 10 or 15 minutes' worth 18 of questioning before we get back to that exhibit, which 19 we haven't gotten yet.
l l 20 So, Mr. Guild, why don't you just continue.
21 MR. GUILD: All right.
22 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
23 BY MR. GUILD:
l l 24 Q Mr. DelGeorge, could I ask you to look at Intervenors' 25 Exhibit 158, please. This is an excerpt f rom the BCAP l Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16855 1 program doc ument.
2 The reference is --
3 A I'm sorry, sir. I don't have it 4 I now have a copy.
5 Q The reference is Pcge Roman II-3 of the BCAP program 6 doc ument, that portion of the BCAP program document 7 describing the CSR sample and selection criteria.
8 Do you have that before you?
9 A Yes, sir.
10 0 Now, at first there's a statement made at the bottom of 11 that page about the basis for the sample size. That is,
} 12 the statement is made that, for large populations, a 13 sample size of 60 supports a 95 percent confidence 14 level, 95 percent reliability level; correct?
15 A Yes, sir.
16 0 All right.
17 The statement then goes forward on the following 18 page, Roman II-4. At the top it reads, "Since the work 19 activities in the plant are non-homogeneous, it is not 20 appropriate to utilize a rigorous statistical sampling 21 approach for the CSR. "
22 Do you see that, sir?
23 A Yes.
24 Q All right.
25 Now, I want to talk a moment about the respects in Sonntaa Reportina Se rvice, Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois 60134
( (312) 232-0262
i 16856 m
1 which the work activities in the plant -- those are the 2 work activities subject to the CSR for electrical 3 popula tions -- are, indeed, non-homogeneous.
4 First of all, there are different kinds of 5 electrical installa tions.
6 There are, for example, cables and conduits and 7 cable pan hange rs.
8 That is one respect in which items in the 9 electrical area are non-homogeneous?
10 A That's correct.
11 Q All right.
[)
'O 12 And in recognition of that fact, you break the 13 electrical area of the CSR work down into construction 14 categories; six to be precise?
15 A Yes, sir.
16 0 All right.
17 But those six categories themselves are 18 non-homogeneous with respect to the work activities that
< 19 are reflected in those categories; would you agree?
20 A Well, that depends on what you consider to be an index 21 of homogeneity.
22 Q Yes, it does.
23 But homogeneity -- for purposes of sampling, as 24 that term is used in the BCAP program document, you 25 would agree, would you not, that even within the sample Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
16857 O \
(
1 BCAP CSR construction categories, there is a lack of 2 homogeneity?
3 A There is a lack of identity; but, again, I guess I 4 prefer that you define for me what you mean by 5 homogeneity.
6 Q Well, I mean what you mean, Mr. DelGeorge, and I'm 7 quoting from your own document, which is the BCAP i 8 program document.
9 And I mean homogeneity within the meaning of the 10 term used on Roman II-4, since the work activities in 11 the plant are non-homogeneous; homogeneity in that O 12 sense, sir.
13 A But recall, sir, that that reference is made to the 14 plant as a whole, and it's not been broken down in the l 15 refined way as you have just suggested in your question.
16 0 That's why I'm asking the question, sir.
17 And within a population category such as cable pan 18 hange rs, the work activities are non-homogeneous, are 19 they not?
l 20 A Again, the work activities that you are referring to now I
21 are craft work activities?
22 0 Work activities as the term " work activities" is used in 23 your document, Mr. DelGeorge, Page Roman II-4, the BCAP l 24 program document, Inte rve nors ' Exhibit 158.
O)
(, 25 A I don't mean to be dif ficult, but, again, that statement Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 t (312) 232-0262
i 16858 m
(gb 1 refe rs to plant activities as a whole and has not been 2 broken down to a specific statement with respect to 3 cable pan hange rs, as you have suggested in your 4 question, and I'm not sure that I can extend this 5 comment to respond to your question without a better 6 definition of what it is you are asking.
7 0 No, sir.
8 Well, I want to use your terms, because I don't 9 want to have you answering a question that I'm not 10 asking, Mr. DelGeorge; and work activities as the 11 term work activities is used in the BCAP program 12 doc ume nt, in the language just quoted.
(J) 13 Now, using that definition of work activities, 14 applying it within the electrical populations, will you 15 agree that those work activities are non-homogeneous?
16 A Within the population -- the entire population of 17 electrical work, I would agree, yes.
18 Q Now, that's not what I was asking about.
, 19 A That was the question that you asked me.
20 You changed the question.
21 Q I don't believe it was; but I'll be happy to ask it 22 aga in --
23 A Okay.
24 0 -- more clearly.
25 Within each of the CSR electrical construction Sonntag Reportino Se rvice, Ltd, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
E 16859 O
O 1 categories -- let's take, for example, cable pan 2 hange rs .
3 Will you agree that the work activities in that 4 construction category are non-homogeneous?
5 A They are not all -- each work activity is not identical, 6 and to the extent that's the equivalent of 7 non-homoge neous, I would agree with that statement.
8 You've referred to this document as my document, 9 and I have to admit that I don't take any editorial 10 responsibility for that particular statement, so I can't 11 speak to the intent of the original author with respect
( 12 to that phrase.
13 My understanding is as I have just described it.
14 0 Well, that's not my document. It's Commonwealth Edison 15 Company's program document describing what you were 16 going to do in the BCAP CSR sample process.
17 You agree with that, don't you?
18 A Yes, the statement is contained in the Commonwealth 19 Edison document.
20 What you are asking is that I interpret that 21 statement, and what I have attempted to say is that 22 having not written that statement, I'm not in a position 23 to provide .you with a definition any better than the one 24 that I have already provided.
25 0 Well, a little curious, Mr. DelGeorge, because you are Sonntaq Reportino Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134
( (312) 232-0262
e 16860 nV 1 the so-called expert witness of Commonwealth Edison 2 Company telling us we should interpret the BCAP CSR 3 sampling results and reach the same conclusions that you 4 opine about in your testimony, and you are telling me 5 that you don't understand what the meaning is of the 6 terms used in Edison's BCAP program document.
7 MR. STEPTOE : I object.
8 That's argumentative, Judge Grossman.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I don't think there's 10 a question pending.
q 11 BY MR. GUILD:
12 0 All right, sir.
13 Let's take an example.
14 Cable pan hange rs come in non-uniform sizes, don't 15 they?
16 A Yes, sir.
17 0 So as to size, the cable pan hanger population is 18 non-homogeneous; would you agree with that?
19 A It's not identical.
20 0 Well, sir, do you understand homogeneity to suggest 21 anything other than identity?
22 A I think there are potential implications that go beyond 23 that inte rpreta tion. l l
I 24 0 Well, why don't you tell me what homogeneity means to l 25 you, Mr. DelGeorge, so that we can be absolutely certain l l i
l Sonntaq Reporting Se rv ice , Ltd . l Geteva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16861 7-( !
v 1 that the words that appear on this document have a 2 common meaning.
3 A Well, I could conceive of General Motors expecting that 4 every car that they produce of a particular model is 5 homogeneous, and I think we would all agree that having 6 received dif ferent ca rs supplied by General Motors of 7 that same model, that we wouldn't necessarily have 8 gotten the same product.
9 So the fact that it has identity doesn't 10 necessarily mean that it's, in fact, identical.
11 0 Well, that's helpf ul .
("'N V)
- 12 13 But what does homogeneity mean to you with respect to the BCAP sampling process, sir? How did you mean 14 homogeneity with respect to the use of that term in the 15 BCAP program for sampling purposes?
16 A That's my point: I didn't define this.
17 The work activities that I have addressed myself to 18 in my testimony are specifically related to the work 19 activities associated with quality control inspection.
20 Q Unde rs tood .
21 Now, Mr. DelGeorge, just help me.
22 How do you believe the word " homogeneity" is used 23 with respect to the BCAP sampling program, CSR sampling?
24 If the answer you is don't know, please just state 25 that, sir.
Sonntaq Reportina Service, _Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16862 y\
( )
Nj 1 A I guess I don't -- I don't know now and I don't have any 2 present recall as to what the specific meaning of that 3 term was.
4 Q All right, sir.
5 Cable pan hange rs come with di fferent numbe rs of 6 welds on them, don't they?
7 A Yes, sir.
8 Q Some with only a few welds and some with many welds?
9 A Yes, sir.
10 0 Some with hundreds of welds, some with maybe tens of 11 welds?
12 A Yes, sir.
(GO')
13 Q All right.
14 Some with welds that are of varying dimensions, 15 some with welds of various sizes and various lengths?
16 A Yes, sir.
17 Q All right.
18 The cable pan hanger population is non-homogeneous 19 with respect to the numbe rs of welds and dimensions of l 20 welds that exist on individual hangers; would you agree 21 to that?
22 A Yes, sir.
23 Q There are standard details, connection details, DV-7, I 24 for example, a DV-22, that represent standard means for
/
( ,/ 25 connecting various members in cable pan hangers.
Sonntaa Reportina Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1 16863 m
(Q l Those don't occur in a homogeneous fashion 2 throughout the cable pan hanger population, do they?
3 A I don't know what you mean by " occur in a homogeneous 4 fashion."
5 There are --
6 Q Let me be more precise then.
7 There aren't the same number of DV-7's in the same 8 place on every cable pan hanger in the cable pan hanger 9 population; would you agree with that?
10 A I don't understand the question.
11 Q A DV-7 is a standard detail connection.
A
(\ j} 12 If you --
13 A Yes.
14 0 -- we re to assume it 's a standa rd detail connection, 15 would you agree that the incidence of DV-7 connections 16 is not uniform throughout the cable pan hanger 17 popula tion?
18 A Well, I've alrecdy indicated that every hanger in the 19 plant is not the same, and I think it's -- I would agree 20 that every hanger in the plant does not necessarily have 21 a DV-7 connection in it, and if that's --
22 0 Yes, that's the question.
23 A -- if that's the intent of the question, then I would 24 agree -- I would agree that every location, every O
(j 25 hanger, does not have -- is not homogeneous in the sense Sonntaq Reporting Se rv ice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16864 O
1 that you have stated.
2 Q All right, sir.
3 Some hangers may have no DV-7 connection, some 4 hange rs may have more than one DV-7 connection, for 5 example?
6 A Yes.
7 Q And if I asked you that same question about any number 8 of standa rd details, DV-22's, the answer would be the 9 same, would it not?
10 A Yes, sir.
11 Q Some hangers have diagonal braces, do they not?
( 12 A Yes, sir.
13 0 Some hangers do not?
14 A That's correct.
15 Q Some hangers have more than one diagonal brace, some do 16 not?
17 MR. STEPTOE: Judge Grossman, could we move l
i 18 ahead?
! 19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Pardon?
I 20 MR. STEPTOE : Could we move on?
i 21 This is not the point -- this is pointless.
I 22 JUDGE GROSSM AN: Well, Mr. Steptoe, it's 23 necessa ry to get to the particulars, if there's no
! 24 agreement on the general question, and there wasn't, so i
! 25 that Mr. Guild has to go into particulars.
! Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262
16865
'N 1 If there had been agreement on the fact that there 2 was non-homogeneity, there wouldn't have been need for 3 this, but there wasn't, and so this is necessary.
4 THE WITNESS: Could we have the question?
5 MR. GUILD: Would you read it back, please.
6 (The question was thereupon read by the 7 Rep orte r . )
8 A That's correct.
9 BY MR. GUILD:
10 0 And I could ask you questions of the same sort for each 11 of the electrical populations, Mr. DelGeorge, and in 12 some respects, unique to those populations, they, too, 13 lack homogeneity in the same -- in the sense that I have 14 been asking you about cable pan hangers, for example?
15 A In the sense that you have been asking, yes, that's 16 correct.
17 Q Yes. All right.
18 Now, would you agree, sir, that the differences in 19 the hangers -- the dif ferences in the items of the 20 populations may have a bearing on the accuracy of the 21 quality control inspection of those sample items?
22 A Yes.
23 0 Some items are more complex in the sample, and they may 24 or may not have an influence on the level of accuracy of 25 the Quality control Inspector inspecting that item?
Sonntag Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16866 4
O 1 A Yes.
4 2 0 All right.
3 Now, if you would, sir, look at the same document 4 that I directed you to ea rlier, Inte rvenors ' Exhibit 5 158, Roman II-4, the second full paragraph on that page.
- 6 It begins, "Even though the populations."
7 Do you see that, si r?
j 8 A Yes, sir.
9 0 All right.
i 10 "Even though the populations of the construction 1
11 categories are non-homogeneous, engineering judgment 12 indicates that sample sizes in the range of those 13 discussed earlier in this section will support a 14 conclusion about the quality of the work with high 15 confidence.
16 "This engineering judgment is based upon the 17 conservatism of the sample bias in the large number of 18 categories into which the reinspection program will be 19 divided.
- 20 "The sample sizes selected for the work categories 21 will be at least as great as those which would be i
22 suggested for a random sampling of a homogeneous 23 population to conclude, with 95 pe rcent confidence, that
- 24 at least 95 percent of the population is defect free."
25 All right, sir. Now, it is your understanding, is 1
Sonntaa Reportino Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 1 (312) 232-0262
_ _ . . ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ -
16867
- v j 1 it not, Mr. DelGeorge, consistent with that last 4
- 2 statement that I read, that even despite the absence of 3 homogeneity in these populations, that for each of the ,
i 4 electrical populations, the random number -- the random 5 sample size was selected consistent with the program 6 document statement that I have just read?
7 A I believe that to be correct.
8 Q All right.
9 And to that size sample -- 60, that is the size, is 10 it not, the sample size number?
11 A I'd have to refer to the document, but I believe that's 12 in the range of what was --
, 13 0 If you look at the preceding page, the number stated is 14 60.
- 15 That is the number discussed for homogeneous large
- 16 populations, 6 0?
17 A Well, it says for a large population, the number would 18 be dif ferent depending on the population size.
19 Q All right, sir.
20 But 60 is that number, as it not?
21 A For which?
22 Q Rega rdless of the size of population, so long as it's a l 23 large population?
24 A So long as it's a large population, that's correct.
i y 25 Q All right, sir.
Sonntaa Reporting Se rv ice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16868
_/ y (V s 1 All of the CSR electrical categories are large 2 populations within the meaning of that term, are they 3 not?
4 A Yes, I believe so.
5 Q All right.
6 So you started with a base of 60, and the 60 were 7 the 60 that were selected using a random sampling 8 method, were they not?
9 A I believe so, yes.
10 0 All right.
11 But then, because of the lack of homogeneity, you O)
(
%./
12 added an additional engineering judgment sample?
13 A If that's a question, yes.
14 Q You did, did you not?
15 A Yes, sir.
16 Q All right.
17 And in part, that engineering judgment sample in 18 some instances consisted of further sampling --
19 samplings that were selected using a random sampling 20 method?
21 A That's correct.
22 0 All right.
23 In addition, they may have included items that were 24 sampled using subjective engineering judgment, taking
[,, \
( ) 25 into account the incidence of past deficiencies and Sonntaa Repor tina Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16869 m
s 1 perhaps more-highly-stressed components?
2 A Yes, si r --
3 0 All right.
4 A -- among other reasons.
5 Q Among other things.
6 Now, let me ask you, sir, to turn in Dr. Frankel's 7 prefiled testimony -- do you have that, sir?
8 A Yes.
9 Q -- to Page 4.
10 Do you have that, sir?
11 A Yes, si r.
12 0 The question that appears there, Question 5, states, 13 "Can you define the terms probability sample, 14 non-probability sample and random sample," and Dr.
15 Frankel goes on.
16 First he states, "A probability sample is a sample 17 that is selected by a procedure that gives each element 18 in a defined population a known calculable non-zero 19 probability of being included in the sample."
20 Now, do you agree with that definition, sir?
21 A Yes, sir.
22 Q All right.
23 Then Dr. Frankel goes on, and I won't read that --
24 the document's before you - "The term random sample is 25 of ten used in three different ways," and he states those Sonntaq Reportino Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 16870 N
1 ways, Page 4 and continuing on to Page 5.
2 And do you agree with Dr. Frankel's definitions of 3 random sample, the term " random sample"?
4 A Yes, sir.
5 0 All right.
6 Now, if I could get you, please, to turn to Page 29 7 of your own testimony. All right, sir.
8 There the statement -- Question 23 reads, "Dr.
9 Frankel testified that in performing his anal) sis, he 10 only used the items from the CSR sample which were 11 selected using random sampling."
() 12 13 He asks you -- or you were asked, then, whether you have reviewed the non-probability samples, and you 14 answered that you have, and you go on to provide 15 testimony about that review --
16 A Yes, sir.
17 0 -- correct?
18 All right. Now, my question, sir, is:
19 What did Dr. Frankel review?
20 Did Dr. Frankel review a probability sample as he
'I 4
21 defined the term probability sample in his prefiled 22 testimony?
23 A I think that question is best directed to Dr. Frankel.
- 24 0 Well, you can bet I will ask Dr. Frankel that same i 25 question; but I'd like to know, first, how you divided J
Sonntaa Repor tina Se rv ice, __ Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16871 s
1 responsibility as you understand it.
2 Do you understand that Dr. Frankel reviewed a 3 probability sample as he defines that term?
4 A I believe the random sample chosen within the BCAP CSR 5 constitutes a probability sample as defined by Dr.
6 Frankel, and my understanding is that he reviewed that 7 randcm sample on the basis that it was, in fact, a 8 probability sample.
9 0 Oh, I see. All right, sir.
10 You, of course, reviewed the non-probability 11 sample.
( 12 Now --
13 A Well, just by way of clarification, I have, in my 14 review, looked at both data bases within the CSR, both 15 the random and the --
16 0 Indeed, for dif ferent purposes.
17 But at this point in your testimony that I just 18 referred to you -- referred you to, you were reviewing 19 the non-probability sample; correct? That is, Page 29, 20 Answer 23, and following?
21 A Yes, sir.
22 Q All right, sir.
23 Now, here's my problem: l 24 Inte rvenors' Exhibit 15 8, the exce rpt f rom the BCAP O)
\, 25 program document, makes clear that the CSR populations i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16872 1 to be sampled are non-homogeneous, and that, therefore, 2 as stated, "It is not" -- I'm quoting now - "It is not 1 3 appropriate to utilize a rigorous statistical sampling 4 approach for the CSR."
5 Now, did you inform Dr. Frankel, Mr. DelGeorge, 6 that there was a lack of homogeneity within the CSR 7 sample populations?
8 A I didn't need to inform Dr. Frankel, because he was 9 intimately involved in the development of the BCAP 10 samples.
11 Q Well, I'm sure.
fJ 12 13 But did you inform Dr. Frankel that hangers -- for example, cable pan hangers had dif fering incidence of l
14 size, numbers of welds, numbers of differing kinds of 15 details , for example?
16 A I did not so inform him, but I am of the opinion that he 4
17 was aware of that fact.
i j 18 Q All right, sir.
1 19 You informed Dr. Frankel, then, that the CSR sample a
20 populations -- in this case, the electrical
- 21 categories -- were non-homogeneous in the respects in 22 which we've discussed that term this afternoon?
l 23 A Again --
1 3 24 0 You believe he understood that?
25 A Yes, sir.
i Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16873
./%
i \
Tj 1 0, All right.
2 And, therefore, it's your belief that when Dr.
3 Frankel was using the term " random" to describe the 4
4 1. p'o'rtion of BCAP that he reviewed, that he correctly a
5 interpieted that to mean a probability sample?
l -
6 A I'm not sure exactly what that question asks of me.
~
7 I believe Dr. Frankel reviewed the random portion
- ^'8 of tho- CSR data base because of and on the basis of his 9 belief that it constituted a valid probability sample.
, 10 0 All right, sir.
11 And you, as you sit here today, believe, as Dr.
.( 12 Frankel defines that term, that the CSR sample, that 13 _ portion selected on the basis of using a random number 14 table, the 60 or perhaps more than 60, if further sample
- 15 items'were selected using that method, constitutes a 16 sample, quote, "That is selected by a procedure that 17 gives each element in a defined population a known 18 calculable non-zero probability of being included in the 19 sample?"
l 20 A Yes; and I hope we have a common understanding of the 21 word " element."
22 0 Well, that may be another point of non-understanding.
t 23 Let me ask the question this way:
l 24 What is the known calculable probability of a DV-7 25 connection being sampled in the cable pan hanger 8
Sonntag Reporting Servict, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
t J
j 16874
-s 1 electrical population? ,
- 2 A I don' t know.
t 3 Q Is that a known value?
4 A I don't know.
5 Q Do you know whether or not there was an 6 identification -- a calculation of the incidence of any 7 of the elements in the electrical population that I used 1
8 by way of example when I asked you about homogeneity
- 9 this af ternoon? l 10 A I don ' t kn ow.
11 Q Do you know whether or not Dr. Frankel knew -- Dr.
l(
12 13 Frankel had a value for the probability of a DV-7 connection being sampled in the cable pan hanger 14 population, for example? l 15 A I don't know.
l 16 Q Now, why don't you tell me how you understand Dr.
i 17 Frankel uses the term " element" in his definition of a 1
18 probability sample. ,'
i 19 A Well, it 's my unde rstanding, in using the cable pan. ,
20 hange rs as an example, that all of the cable pan hange rs 21 were identified in a way that they could be sampled 22 using a random number technique, and a sample was 23 selected f rom an identified population randomly. ,
! 24 0 Yes.
25 And how is element used in that example?
I i
Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
(
s 16875 e
x 1 A Each hanger assembly in the list to which the random 2 number was identified was an element. That's my
~3 unde rstanding.
4 0 I see.
5 So element and item are synonymous as you 6 understand the use of the term " element"?
7 A I believe that to be the case, yes.
8 Q Item in the sense of X number of cable pan hangers, X 9 number of items in the population?
10 A Yes, sir.
11 Q And since each of those items was assigned a number and
\
,.. 12 then a random number table was used to select from those 13 numbers, each item had an equal chance of being 14 selected; is that your position?
15 A That's my understanding, yes.
16 Q All right, sir.
17 And that's the sense in which Dr. Frankel defined 18 the CSR randomly selected sample as a probability 19 sample, 20 A That 's my unde rstanding.
21 Q Despite the variation in big hangers and little hangers, 22 hange rs with five welds or ten welds, hange rs with a 23 hundred welds, that variability was not taken into
-s 24 account in the random selection sample process; correct?
i s
(_,) 25 A Well, again, you would have to address that question to Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
- (312) 232-0262
f 1
16876 m
1 Dr. Frankel, who was involved in making those judgments 2 at the time.
3 I don't know specifically what he did or the BCAP 4 Task Force did in that regard.
5 It gets back to the discussion we had earlier about 6 the interpretation of what homogeneous or 7 non-homogeneous means with respect to the work activity 8 in question.
9 Q All right, sir.
10 Well, you don't understand that there was any 11 account taken in the BCAP sample selection process --
(N 12 that is, the at-random aspects of that -- for hangers of
( }
13 dif ferent configuration, size, complexity, do you, for 14 example?
15 A Well, I think there was account taken of that.
16 Whether or not it was taken in the random sampling, 17 I'm not certain; but the engineering judgment sample was 18 intended to capture within it complicated supports.
19 0 Yes, sir. Well, that's another factor.
20 But in terms of the random aspects -- that is, the 21 sample portion that you and you believe Dr. Frankel to 22 characterize as a probable -- probability sample --
23 excuse me -- do you understand that there was any 24 account there taken of the distinctions and variations 1
(
O). 25 among items in the population?
Sonntaq Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
16877
/T k,,j 1 A Not having been involved in that specific aspect of the 2 work, I don't know how it was done.
3 MR. GUILD: All right, sir.
4 Mr. Chairman, that's about all I can do until we i
5 get the --
i 6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I believe Mr. Orlov is back 7 with the documents.
8 MR. GUILD: Excellent.
9 May I have just a moment, please, Mr. Chairman.
10 Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to proceed.
11 JUDGE GROSSM AN: Sure.
12 BY MR. GUILD:
13 Q Mr. DelGeorge, you have before you a document that's the 14 corrected version of what has been marked previously as 15 Intervenors' txhibit 189?
16 A Yes, sir.
17 MR. GUILD: All right.
18 Mr. Chairman, I'd ask this be marked for 19 identification as Intervenors' 190.
20 It bea rs the title, "CSR Reinspection Results for 21 LKC, All Pop's" - "All Populations, Samples, Weld and 22 Non-weld."
23 (The document was thereupon marked 24 Intervenors' Exhibit No. 190 for
,) 25 identification as of Novembe r 6,1986. )
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16878 jo 1 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate 2 Applicant making the corrected exhibit.
3 I'd ask that Applicant stipulate that it reflects 4 the -- it's derived f rom the data depicted in Mr.
5 DelGeorge's attached exhibits.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Is that correct, Mr.
7 Steptoe, the Revision 2?
8 MR. STEPTOE: It's derived from the same data 9 that's -- that's correct, Judge Grossman; and I don't 10 have any problem stipulating as to the numbers.
11 Under the circumstances, given the fact that Mr.
12 Orlov had to prepare this hastily, I'd like to have the 13 freedom to have him check it one more time overnight.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Why don't you stipulate now 15 if you ever find, and I won't even restrict you to 16 overnight, there are some inaccuracies here, you can 17 always come back and ask us if you can retract that 18 stipulation and then correct it.
19 MR. STEPTOE : Thank you, Judge Grossman.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Why don't we, though, since 21 that last part was not fully entered here, correct the 22 Reporter's copy, also, and put in for those hatches all 23 the way over to the right, those slopes, that it's 24 non-weld non-complaining.
,) 25 Why don't we --
Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16879 s
1 MR. GUILD: I'll write that on the Reporter's 2 copy if that's acceptable, Mr. Chairman.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes.
4 BY MR. GUILD:
5 0 All right.
6 Mr. DelGeorge, I take it that you believed -- in 7 testing Intervenors' hypothesis -- that is, the 8 hypothesis that production pressure, harassment and 9 intimidation had af fected work performance of 10 inspectors -- determined to evaluate the work 11 performance of the 24 inspectors who were identified as i
I V) 12 13 A those who complained to the NRC in March of '85?
That was a part of the review I conducted, yes.
14 Q Yes.
15 And you attempted to segregate the data for that 16 group of inspectors and reviewed that?
17 A Yes, sir.
18 Q And that's what's, in part, depicted on this exhibit; 19 correct?
20 A Yes, sir.
21 Q All right.
22 For the complaining inspectors, the 24 inspectors, 23 there are, in fact, only 19 of the 24 reflected here; 24 correct?
) 25 A That's correct.
Sonntag Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16880
/)
LJ l Q All right.
2 For the complaining inspectors, you also 3 distinguished their welding inspection and their 4 non-welding inspection?
5 A Yes, sir.
6 Q Okay.
7 And non-welding would include what's been referred 8 to as the objective inspection attributes; cable 9 pulling, for example?
10 A Yes, sir, 11 Q All right.
O}
( 12 And then you are able to distinguish the sample 13 sizes for welds over time; that is, the number of 14 inspection points sampled for each quarter over the 15 period of time within the scope of the CSR sample?
16 A Yes, sir.
17 Q And that's depicted on what's been marked as .
18 Intervenors' Exhibit 190?
l 19 A Yes, sir.
l i 20 Q All right.
21 Now, the variable that you were testing for was 22 changes in agreement rates over time; correct?
l 23 A Yes, sir.
l ,,
24 Q All right.
() 25 And on the assumption that if there were ef fects of i
Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16881 f
O 1 acts of harassment, you would see some measurable effect 2 of those acts of harassment in the agreement rates over 3 time?
4 A Yes, sir.
5 Q All right.
4 6 Now, the measures that you used over time -- well, 7 Dr. Frankel takes this CSR data and he looks at 8 agreement rates on the average for the period before and 9 after Mr. Saklak was hired, June of 1982; correct?
10 A Yes.
4 11 Q And Dr. Frankel also looks at the average agreement 12
( rates comparatively for the period before and after 13 August of '83, when Mr. DeWald became Quality Control i
14 Manage r?
15 A Yes, sir.
16 Q All right.
17 Now, looking at your exhibits, the results, it's j 18 generally your conclusion that you could discern no 19 trends from those results attributable to harassment, 20 intimidation or production pressure?
21 A Yes, sir.
22 Q And that also is your understanding of what Dr.
l 23 Frankel's conclusion was?
24 A I believe Dr. Frankel's conclusions are consistent.
l 25 They may have been stated in a dif ferent way.
l l
l Sonntaq Reporting Se rv ice , Ltd .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 16882 m
1 Q Well, Dr. Frankel compared the average agreement rate 2 for the period before and af ter the point in question, i 3 the Saklak hiring and the DeWald hiring, and found that 4 the difference was statistically insignificant?
5 A That's correct.
6 Q Now, on the basis of the lack of variation, then, the 7 lack of trend exhibited in those agreement rates, you 8 concluded that Intervenors' hypothesis -- that is, the 9 hypothesis that harassment, intimidation and production 10 pressure had adversely af fected work performance -- was 11 invalid?
O' 12 A That was one element that contributed to the conclusion gY 13 that I ultimately reached, which you stated, yes.
14 Q Yes. All right, sir.
15 Now, what I want to determine, Mr. DelGeorge, is i
16 whether or not you controlled for other variables, aside 17 from harassment, production pressure, that may have 4 18 had -- may have determined the CSR agreement rates that 19 you concluded showed no trend or variations.
20 Let's look at the data displayed on Intervenors' 21 Exhibit 190.
22 Now, I notice that for the periods 1979, 1980 and 23 through the first quarter of 1981, there is nothing but 24 welding in the CSR sample; correct?
25 A That's correct.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16883 1 Q All right.
2 And there is no welding for the complaining 3 inspectors, the 19 of 24 sampled? '
4 A In that period, yes, that's correct.
5 Q All right, sir.
6 And into the second quarter of 1981, almost all of 7 the inspection points are for welding, still welding by 8 non-complaining inspectors; would you agree with that, 9 sir?
10 A Through the second quarter of 1981, yes, that's correct.
11 Q All right.
12 For the second quarter of '81, there is only what 13 appea rs to be 2,500, say, inspection points that are 14 non-welding; would you agree with that?
15 A In what period, sir?
16 Q The second quarter, '81.
17 A That's approximately correct, yes.
18 Q All right, sir.
19 Now, looking at the non-welding, would you agree 20 that for the last period shown on your chart, the data 21 is primarily -- strike that.
22 Would you agree that the non-welding, the objective 23 sample data, appears primarily in the latter half of the 24 CSR sample period?
) 25 A Yes, sir.
Sonntaa Reporting Se rvice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16884
/~n V) 1 Q All right, sir.
2 Would you agree, also, that the -- strike that.
3 Mr. DelGeorge, would you agree, sir, that after the 4 complaining inspectors' data begins to appear -- and 5 that is in the second quarter of 1981 and thereafter --
6 that the proportion of data for complaining inspectors 7 and non-complaining inspectors varies for each quarter?
8 A The variance being between complaining and 9 non-complaining?
10 Q Yes, sir.
11 Once there is any data for complaining f'% 12
} inspectors -- again, the second quarter of '81 -- it is 13 proportional -- that is, the proportion of data for 14 complaining inspectors as compared to non-complaining 15 inspectors varies for each quarter?
16 A It does vary; and I'd have to look at it a lot more 17 closely to say whether it varied for every quarter, but 18 it appea rs to vary for most quarters, yes.
19 0 All right, sir.
I 20 Would you agree that the proportion of welding to 21 non-welding inspection points for each quarter varies 22 f rom qua rter to qua rter af ter non-welding begins in the 23 second quarter of 1981?
24 A They are not identical. In some cases, they are 25 relatively close, but they do va ry, yes.
Sonntaa Reportino Se rvice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16885
/~
U 1 Q In some cases, they are not relatively close?
2 A That's correct.
3 Q Now, you agree, don't you, that the accuracy levels of 4 Quality Control Inspectors may vary between welding and 5 non-welding inspections?
6 A When you say " accuracy level," are you, in fact, 7 referring to the inspector specific accuracy level or 8 are you talking about agreement rates?
9 Q Well, let's take them one at a time.
10 Let 's start with the base phenomenon that you were 11 trying to measure, and that's accuracy.
12 You would agree that accuracy may vary between --
13 accuracy rates may vary between welding and non-welding 14 inspection?
15 A They may va ry.
16 Q And you would also agree, would you not, that to the
- 17. extent that agreement rates capture accuracy -- whether 18 they do or not, lay that aside -- those agreement rates 19 may themselves va ry between welding and non-welding?
20 A They may.
21 Q Well, in fact, you have used a differing measure for at 22 least review of overinspection results for welding 23 versus non-welding, because of the recognition that 24 there may be a variation in the accuracy levels of
( j 25 inspection for subjective as opposed to objective Sonntaa Reporting Se rv ice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16886 m
s_s 1 inspections?
2 A Well, those differences are attributable to what we 3 believe to be the potential for non-agreement associated 4 with the different kinds of inspection, welding versus 5 non-welding --
6 0 Yes.
7 A -- and is not necessarily reflective of an expectation 8 with respect to the underlying accuracy of the 9 inspection performed by the first line inspector.
10 Q All right, sir.
11 But since you can only measure -- or you have only
() 12 13 measured accuracy by way of agreement rate -- that is, the extent to which the overinspector's result agrees 14 with the previous result -- the net ef fect is that, in 15 terms of agreement rates, you recognize that there is a 16 dif ference between welding and non-welding inspections?
17 A Yes, sir.
18 Q All right.
19 You expect a lower agreement rate for welding, the 20 subjective inspection, than you do for objective 21 inspections?
22 A Yes, sir.
23 0 You've used, for example, for other purposes, a 24 screening value of 95 percent for objective inspections
, 25 overinspected and a 90 percent screening value for Sonntaa Reporting Se rv ice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16887 i
(3 \
'N /
1 subjective or welding inspections to recognize that 2 variance between the two?
3 A Yes, sir.
4 Q Now, you also, in your own hypothesis, testing process, 5 assumed that there would be a different accuracy level 6 between the 24 complaining inspectors and the 7 non-complaining inspectors, did you not?
8 A Well, as I had indicated earlier, that was not an 9 initial assumption on my part.
10 We did test the performance using this methodology 11 of that class of 24 to determine what, if any, trends I., 12 D) 13 there might be, but I don't know that I assumed at the outset that there would be a dif ference between the 14 complaining inspectors and the non-complaining 15 inspectors.
16 0 Well, you at least advanced it as a hypothesis.
17 I take it that you had an open mind on the question 18 and used it as a hypothesis because you believed there 19 might be some basis in fact to expect a dif ferent level 20 of accuracy or rate of accuracy for the complaining 21 inspectors as compared to the others, did you not?
22 A Just so we're clear, it was my opinion that, given the l
23 expression of concern made by this class of inspectors, 24 that the potential existence of harassment, at least as
\ 25 alleged, was greater with respect to that class than l
l i
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16888
,m 1 might have existed for any other inspector who had not 2 raised a complaint --
3 0 All right.
4 A -- and that is what led us to evaluate -- led me to 5 evaluate the specific class of inspectors separately.
6 Q Yes. All right, sir.
7 Well, in point of fact, you can't be certain that, 8 indeed, it was the non-complaining inspectors who were 9 more likely to exhibit the ef fects of production 10 pressure, since they didn't take the initiative to 11 complain?
12
( A I wouldn't have made that assumption, and that's why j 13 we -- why the review that I did included the remainder 14 of the inspectors.
15 Q All right, sir.
16 But in any event, those who suf fered the ef fects of 17 production pressure might exhibit dif ferent agreement 18 rates reflecting different levels of -- rates of 19 accuracy from those who did not suf fer from production 20 pressure, whoever they may be?
21 A Yes.
22 Q All right.
23 Now, I take it that there are also variations in 24 the type of work that was going on over the period of s ,) 25 time that the CSR sample was taken.
(
l Sonntaa Reporting Se rv ice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16889 (A)
%)
1 For example, I understand that cable pan hanger 2 installation and inspection took place before cables 3 were pulled.
4 Isn't that generally the case?
5 A Yes.
6 Q You have to have a cable pan hanger and a cable pan to 7 put a cable in, don't you?
8 A Yes, sir.
9 Q All right.
10 And that phenomenon is reflected by Intervenors'
- 11 Exhibit 190, in the fact that the welding inspection
("Ni 12 points fall predominantly in the early part of the sd 13 period, and the non-welding, which would include cable 14 pulling, fall in the latter portion?
15 A Yes.
16 0 So the work activities that are being sampled varied 17 significantly over the time being sampled, at least in 18 terms of the variability between welding and 19 non-welding; correct?
20 A Well, you have chosen the word "significantly."
21 There is, in fact, a dif ference, and the 22 distribution is, I believe, descriptive of the way in 23 which the work was actually conducted at the site.
I 24 Q All right, sir.
g ,f 25 Now, did you inform Dr. Frankel of any of the Sonntaa Reportina Se rvice, Ltd.
Ge neva , Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16890 m-1 variations in, let's take, construction activities over 2 time that took place during the CSR sample period?
3 A I did not personally advise Dr. Frankel, but I know him 4 to have been intimately involved with the conduct of the 5 BCAP activity, and I believe him to have been aware of 6 that fact.
7 Q All right.
8 And was he aware, for example, that the welding 9 activities predominantly took place before June of 1982 10 as opposed to after June of 1982; that being, of course, 11 the date which he chose as the point of dif ferentiation 12 for the two periods compared?
- O) 13 A He was given a copy of my figures, and I am aware that 14 he reviewed those figures, so I might be -- I guess I 15 have to assume that he was aware of the distribution of 16 welding as a function of time.
17 Q How did Dr. Frankel control for that variable, if he 18 did, Mr. DelGeorge?
19 A Again, I think you are going to have to ask Dr. Frankel, 20 because I don't know specifically.
21 Q Are you aware of whether he controlled for that variable 22 at all?
23 A I don't know.
24 0 Are you aware of whether he controlled for the variable y ,j 25 in the variation in welding activities before and after l
, Sonntaq Reporting Se rvice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
16891 1 August of '83?
2 That's the other point in time that he uses for the 3 comparative periods.
4 A I don' t know.
5 Q Did you inform Dr. Frankel of your opinion that there 6 might be variation in the agreement rates or accuracy
- 7 between welding and non-welding inspections?
- 8 A As a matter of fact, Dr. Frankel was advised by me of 9 that fact in the summer of 1984, before this activity 10 was even begun, based on a prior --
11 0 So he knew that fact?
( 12 A -- working relationship.
I 13 Yes, sir.
1 14 Q All right.
j 15 Now, do you know whether or not -- strike that.
i 16 Do you know whether or not Dr. Frankel controlled 17 for variability in agreement rates between welding and 18 non-welding inspections?
- 19 A I don't know.
20 0 Well, sir, you advanced the conclusion, Mr. DelGeorge, 21 that the lack of variation in the agreement rates over 22 time, the lack of apparent trends, is explained by the 23 absence of harassment, intimidation and production i 24 pressure.
) 25 Having failed to control for these variables, if,
, i Sonntaa Reportino Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
- (312) 232-0262
{
l l
16892 l s
\%#
2 1 in fact, these variables were not controlled for, how do 2 you know that the lack of variation or lack of trends )
l 3 was not caused by variations in the incidence of welding l 4 versus non-welding inspection, sampling for complaining 5 inspectors ve rsus non-complaining inspectors, or some 1
6 other variability that's in the data that's reflected in 7 Intervenors' Exhibit 190?
8 A Well, if, by controlled, you are asking whether or not 9 we provided some weighting factor within my Figure 1 to 10 account for those potential variabilities, we did not, 11 but because of those potential variabilities, we did, in 12 fact, assess each class of inspection activity and each
(
13 class of inspector, there being two, those who had 14 complained and those who had not, separately, and those 15 are provided in other figures within my testimony.
16 Q Yes, sir, i 17 And those --
18 A That information was, in fact, provided to Dr. Frankel, 19 and I know him to have reviewed it.
20 Q Yes, sir.
21 And those are the samples which you have concluded
> 22 are too small in size on which to found any opinion 23 evidence?
24 A Well, the statement that I made earlier and which is 1 25 reflected in my testimony is that with respect to Figure l
Sonntaq Reporting Se rvice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 16893 f\
, V 1 6, that being a specific reference to the distribution 2 of inspection points for the class of 24 over the period 3 of the CSR, there was insufficient information, in my 4 opinion, to draw defensible conclusions because the 5 majority of the work associated with that work activity 6 was attributable to a very small number of inspectors.
7 Q Yes.
8 A I had, as I indicated in my testimony, less confidence 9 in the data base associated with certain other sorts of 10 the data and higher degrees of confidence with respect 11 t o --
12
\ } Q Yes, sir.
13 A --
Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3, that being the 14 cumulative inspection points as a function of time for 15 welding and non-welding, the cumulative inspection 16 points as a function of time for welding only and the 17 cumulative welds as a function of time for all 18 inspect o rs .
19 At least for those three --
20 Q Yes.
21 A -- I have a relatively high degree of confidence that 22 there is --
23 Q Suf ficient data --
24 A -- suf ficient data; and with respect to the class of 24, O)
\ ,, 25 in the welding area, I also believe there to be Sonntac Reportina Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16894
,{}
\~ /
1 s ufficient data.
2 But clearly there isn't as much data available, and 3 so any confidence level that I have assigned relative to 4 the first three assessments would be somewhat lower --
5 Q Well, the --
6 A -- and that's --
7 Q Yes. I unde rstand.
8 A -- that's stated in my testimony.
I 9 0 Unde rstood, unde rstood.
10 MR. GUILD: If I may have a moment, Mr.
11 Chairman.
( 12 Mr. Chairman, that concludes my examination.
13 JUDGE GROSSM AN: Mr. Ber ry.
14 MR. GUILD: If I haven't, I meant to of fer 15 Inte rveno rs ' last two exhibits, 189 and 190.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: 189 and 190?
17 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir.
c 18 MR. STEPTOE: I object to 189. I don't 19 object to 190, Judge Grossman.
l i 20 MR. GUILD: Let me ask that 189 simply be l
l 21 marked and travel with the record.
l 22 I'd like it to be included in the record, Mr.
23 Chairman, but I don ' t of fe r it .
1 24 I'll withdraw the of fe r.
O
\g_ ,/ 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild really hasn't had Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16895
[ \
V 1 an opportunity to verify 190. He's done 189 to his 2 satisfaction, and so I think we'll really -- I think we 3 really ought to admit both of them.
4 Is there a problem with that, Mr. Steptoe?
5 MR. STEPTOE: Yes, Judge Grossman.
6 I don't believe there has been any testimony by 7 anyone Intervenors' Exhibit 189 is accurate.
8 In fact, it was based on an old --
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
10 Why don't we just have it travel with the record, 11 then, unless Mr. Berry has some other objection.
( 12 MR. BERRY : No objection from the Staff, Mr.
13 Chairman.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine.
15 So we'll admit 190 and have 189 travel with the 16 record even though not admitted.
17 (The document was thereupon received in j 18 evidence as Intervenors Exhibit No.
19 190.) l 20 CROSS EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. BERRY:
22 Q Good af ternoon, Mr. DelGeorge.
23 A Good afte rnoon.
24 Q I just have a couple questions for you.
25 Directing your attention to Answer 34 of your Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
}
Geneva, Illinois 60134
[ -_
(312) 232-0262
16896
%s 1 prefiled testimony --
2 A Sir, could you give me a page reference?
3 Q Yes.
4 A I think I have it. Page 37.
Well, Page 38 is where I'm going to direct your )
5 0 6 attention to; and that is, Mr. Guild, at -- you 7 responded, in connection with questions from Mr. Guild, 8 that there had been -- your testimony states that there 9 was intense ove rsight of the CSR inspections by CECO, 10 IEOG and the NRC Staff.
11 Could you just explain for us, if you could, what f 12 do you mean by " intense"? I mean, how do you (s
13 distinguish intense inspections -- intense ove rsight 14 f rom just oversight?
15 A Well, I think the testimony of Mr. Smith speaks directly 16 to the characteristics of the oversight with respect to 17 the CECO inspections that I make reference to; and the 18 reason I consider that to be intense is that the 19 overinspectors f rom Commonwealth Edison were very 20 aggressive in their review of the BCAP Task Force 21 inspection work force.
22 There were numerous tests in a large population of 23 work reviewed by that CECO QA inspection force, and I 24 considered that activity to be an intense one.
O)
N, 25 It wasn't just a casual one. The QA Department Sonntaq Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16897
(, )
'x./
1 made it very clear that they would be making continuous 2 reviews of the CSR work activity.
3 With respect to the IEOG, again, there were very 4 senior individuals looking over the shoulder of CSR 5 inspect o rs .
6 It's one thing to have an overinspector come at 7 some point later in time and review an inspector's work.
o That is normal oversight -- and I think we've had 9 testimony in this proceeding to indicate that inspectors 10 take very seriously that level of oversight -- but to 11 have an overinspector standing over your shoulder as you
(,%. ') 12 are making a call, I think, represents intense 13 oversight, and that took place as a part of the BCAP 14 activity.
15 I consider any oversight by the NRC to be intense; 16 and I know in particular that the CAT Inspection 17 activity was a very aggressive one. The scheduling for 18 the CAT was based in part upon the recognition that the 19 CAT inspectors would take account of work being done by 20 the BCAP inspectors, so there was a planned oversight 21 that was, in my view, somewhat of an extension of the 22 normal Staf f activities.
23 Beyond that, I know for a fact that Mr. Gardner j 24 regularly overlooked work being done by CSR inspectors.
25 And by way of a reference back to my previous l
l Sonntaa Reporting Se rv ice , L td .
I Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
[
16898
('~'N Q) 1 discussion, I consider that to constitute a more intense 2 level of oversight when the reinspector is, in fact, 3 looking over the inspector's shoulder as he's conducting 4 his work.
5 Think about your father looking over your shoulder 6 as you are doing some activity for him. I think that 7 has an ef fect that's somewhat different than when your 8 father might be out of the house.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We understand that word 10 ove rlook to mean ove rview.
11 MR. BERRY : Okay.
Os i 12 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
(V 13 BY MR. BERRY :
14 Q Mr. DelGeorge, would it change your conclusion -- would 15 it af fect your conclusion any if it turned out that, 16 say, for example, with respect to the NRC, that there --
17 throughout the CSR inspection program, the majority of 18 it, there was one NRC Inspector devoted, dedicated, to 19 that task, and he overlooked or looked over the 20 shoulders of the CSR inspectors on a periodic basis?
21 A It wouldn't have a substantive ef fect on my conclusions 22 because of the nature and intensity of the remaining 23 oversight activities.
24 Q On Page 47 of your prefiled direct testimony -- I'm 25 sorry.
Sonntaq Reporting Se rv ice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16899 (q
1 On Page 49 of your prefiled direct testimony, in 2 the first full paragraph, starting with the words, "On 3 the basis of the facts contained in this hearing," you 4 go on to recount your review -- you state, "as well as 5 my review of the conditions and events which together 6 comprised the environment in the L. K. C. QA/QC 7 De pa r tmen t . "
8 Could you explain for me just what are the 9 conditions and events comprising the environment to 10 which you are referring?
11 A Yes, si r .
4
( ) 12 As I indicate in my testimony, I reviewed a large 13 portion of the evidentiary record for this proceeding 14 and factored into my review of inspector performance 15 such things as the changes in number of inspectors 16 within the Comstock organization and the training 17 program attributable to -- or that took place as a 18 consequence of that increase in inspectors.
19 I took into account -- or at least considered the
'i 20 pay scale changes that took place at Comstock. I took 21 into account the interaction between the Comstock QC 22 organization and Commonwealth Edison that was alleged to 23 reflect a condition of excessive pressure by l
l 24 Commonwealth Edison as well as the specific acts of N j) 25 alleged harassment identified by the QC Inspectors in l
Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16900 D
(b 1 this proceeding.
2 Q Thank you.
3 Finally, Mr. DelGeorge, just so there's no 4 misunde rstanding on my part, could you explain for me 5 again what do you mean by an agreement rate?
6 I mean, what is an agreement rate?
7 A An agreement rate is the rate at which a reinspector or 8 overinspector agrees with the product of the work 9 presented to him, and that product is a combination of 10 the underlying work product of the craft as well as the 11 QC Inspector, since the information -- or the items
( ) 12 presented to the overinspector or the reinspector have 13 been QC accepted.
14 So the degree to which that overinspector or 15 reinspector finds the product of fered him to be 1
. 16 acceptable, he reaches agreement with the first line i
17 inspector, who, in effect, made that item available to 18 him for overinspection.
19 Q Aga in , just so, then, I'm clear:
20 Say, for example, you had a weld -- I mean, you had 21 a piece of equipment, a hanger that had 10 welds on it.
22 The first inspector accepted 8 welds and rejected 2.
23 The second inspector or the overinspector came along, i
l 24 reviewed all 10 welds. They were acceptable -- all 10
( 25 welds were acceptable to the overinspector.
1 Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
) (312) 232-0262
. .- . .= _ .
16901
~
v 1 Would the agreement rate be 80 percent, inasmuch as 2 they agreed on 8 of the welds and and disagreed on 2?
3 A I'm not sure that the overinspection or reinspection 4 activity was conducted in a way that that case would 5 have presented itself.
6 To the extent the reinspection or overinspection 7 came close enough in time to find a condition where the 8 first line inspector had both accepted and rejected 9 items within the sample to be reviewed, those portions 10 of the item that were not acceptable would be 11 identifiable.
m 12 So it's not clear to me that they would -- that --
(}
13 I believe that the reinspection would have included the 14 8 items.
15 The further apart in time you get between the 16 original inspection and the reinspection, different 17 things can happen, the defects that you identified could 18 be r paired; but the only items of fered to the 19 reinspector are acceptable items, so I don't see that 20 scenario taking place.
21 Q Alli 'r igh t .
i 22 Well, just let me cover all the bases.
l 23 If the original inspector accepted all 10 welds, 1 24 they were all acceptable, and the overinspector came 25 along, examined the same 10 welds and found only 8 of l
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16902
/O ,
'N ]
1 them acceptable, 2 of them in the overinspector's view 2 should have been rejected, would that be an agreement 3 rate of 80 pe rcent?
4 A Yes, sir.
5 MR. BERRY: Thank you.
l 6 Tha t 's all I h ave .
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Steptoe -- oh, I'm 8 sorry.
9 JUDGE COLE: That's okay.
10 BOARD EXAMINATION 11 BY JUDGE CALLIHAN:
(O Q
4 12 Q Mr. DelGeorge, just for my clarification, would you 13 define items which you used in your testimony?
14 For example, some places we find reference and 15 values for inspection points and then there is a number 16 of 200-some-odd thousand separate inspection points.
17 Elsewhere we find items, so forth.
18 Now, tell me, please, to which attribute or to 19 which observation those ter. s apply as you have used 20 them in your testimo?y.
21 A I make reference, sir, to items in the context of the 22 733 sampled items within the BCAP CSR, and those items 23 would have included runs of conduit, runs of cable pan, 24 cable pan hangers, conduit supports, electrical
- (q ) 25 equipment installations, including junction boxes and Sonntaa Reportino Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
s I
16903
.}-
I things of that sort.
i 2 Each of those -individual ' items have associated with
~
- 3 them a number of inspection attributes.
i~ <
4 In the case of a cable pan hanger, it has both j 5 welding attributes and what we've referred to as
.6 objective attributestor configuration attributes.
1 7 Those attributes -- in the case of a weld, there 8 being 17; with respect. to configuration, there being a i 5 l, 9 number slightly less' than that but on the order of 10 to i* a
- 10 12 -- those attributes would have been aggregated, and j," 11 they are what I refer to as .inspedtion points; in other 9,
12 words, the points at' which an inspector must make a
!)
'9, i h 13 decision as to the' acceptability, the product quality, 14 that he's reviewing. 1
[ 15 I .have also looked at agreement rates on the basis 16 of the. number of welds accepted 'by Comstock QC -
17 Inspectors, and rather than reviewing -- on a more
. .L .18 refined basis, using inspection points associated with r u 19 welding, I've aggregated the inspection points
- , .0 associated with the welds, and whether there was 1 21 discrepancy on the weld or 17 discrepancies on the weld, c
22 that discrepancy was counted as a discrepant weld, a 23 discrepant entity, and so there were -- the items are o
24 construction items, the inspsetion points are inspection f
s 25 decisions associated with attributes of the construction i
i Sonntaq Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16904 O
\s_ /
1 items and the welds are separate individual welds 2 associated with construction items.
3 Q Let me play that back, at least one instance, please.
4 Cable pan hange rs, one item?
5 A A cable pan hanger would be one item.
6 Q Okay.
7 Now, there may be 10 or more welds on that hanger.
8 An inspector looks at each of those welds for 17, I 9 think you said -- like 20 different attributes --
10 A Yes, sir, 11 0 -- true?
( ) 12 Now, so that's 170 observations, we'll call them.
13 17 attributes, 10 welds? $
14 A 170 inspection points.
15 Q Now, those are inspection points?
16 A Yes, sir, for welding.
17 Q For welding.
18 And you have in here some place a number of 19 like -- 280,000 I think --
20 A Yes, sir.
21 0 -- you use?
22 I'm not sure.
23 A 270 --
24 0 It's on Page 19 of your testimony. 276,000 separate 25 inspection points.
l Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
l Gen eva', Illinois 60134 l
(312) ___
232-0262
16905 O
1 So those are individual observations; true?
2 A They are individual attributes for which an inspector 3 had to make a distinct decision.
4 Q And in my terminology, then, a single weld would 5 entail -- and I use your numbe r -- 17 inspection points?
6 A Yes, sir.
7 Q 17 attributes?
8 A Yes, sir.
9 Q That's a unique example in my terminology.
10 JUDGE CALLIHAN: All right.
11 Thank you very much.
( ) 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Steptoe -- oh, I'm 13 s or ry .
14 JUDGE COLE: Just one or two questions.
15 BOARD EXAMINATION 16 BY JUDGE COLE:
17 Q On Page 20 of your testimony, Mr. DelGeorge, the first 18 full paragraph on that page, the first sentence reads, 19 "My determination of how much information is sufficient 20 to allow trending is a qualitative judgment."
21 I'm not sure -- I think I know what you mean there, 22 sir, but do you mean suf ficient to be able to identify 23 trending, is that what you meant, or why did you use the 24 word " allow" there?
{y'N,) 25 A Well, sir, it may be easier if I can explain to you what Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16906 m
1 led me to that conclusion, and then we can decide 2 whether it was an appropriate word.
3 But, for example, in order to establish a trend, 4 one must have confidence that an interpretation of the 5 statistics in the adjoining time intervals have a 6 relationship that justifies drawing a distinction 7 between the two time steps.
8 If, for example, there were two inspection points 9 in Time Step 1 and 1 of those inspection points was 10 found discrepant, whereas in the second time step, there 11 were 2,000 inspection points and 1 inspection point was (n
d 1
12 found discrepant, I would not be, in my view, allowed to 13 trend the dif ferent discrepancy agreement rate, which 14 would be 50 percent in the first time step and some very 15 high agreement rate in the second time step, because 16 there is no equivalence of the data.
17 There has to be some ability to weight the data, so 18 it would -- that's really what I intended by the use of 19 the word " allow. "
20 0 That's helpful, and it tells me why you used that word.
21 It also is what I thought you meant by that.
22 But there might be a trend in those small numbers, 23 but you wouldn't be able to identify it because the 24 statistics wouldn't permit you to do so?
(
'N ,, 25 A And, again -- that's t rue; and I am not, again, trying Sonntaq Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16907
./'~N i 1 V
1 to make statistical judgments.
2 Trending in itself is not something I think that is 3 a science, it's more an art; and we have had to make 4 some judgments about how much data constitutes adequate 5 data for purposes of trending reviews of this type.
6 Q All right, sir.
7 On that page, you refer to analysis of variations 8 in agreement rates, and my question to you is, sir:
9 What do you mean there when you use the term 10 " analysis of variations"?
11 Are you referring to statistical tests and analyses
, 12 to identify and analyze variations, or just what are you 13 referring to there?
14 A No, sir. A ga in , I have relied on Dr. Frankel's 15 statistical assessments to provide variations in the 16 context of statistics.
17 My review has been limited to what I would call an 18 engineering review of changes in the data where the data 19 base, in my opinion, justifies the assessment.
20 They are more macroscopic in nature and didn't rely 21 on analytical techniques. That is inherent, in part due 22 to the fact that I have aggregated both the engineering 23 judgment data base and the random sample data base for 24 purposes of conducting my review; and classical 25 statistical tests for varicbility are extremely Sonntaa Reportina Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16908 m.
1 difficult to implement where one can't say that the 2 entire data base is randomly selected and, in fact, a 3 probability sample.
4 0 Well, are you talking there about your analysis of the 5 variations in agreement rates, sir?
6 A Yes, sir. I use that as an engineering term rather than 7 a statistical term.
8 Q All right, sir.
9 On Page 21, in response to Question 18, you state 10 that you did not find any apparent trend attributable to 11 alleged undue pressure, harassment and intimidation.
b; 3
12 I would like to get a better feeling for how you 13 made your determination that you did not find any 14 apparent trend.
15 Was it a visual study of the information contained j 16 on your attachments or what else was included in that, 17 sir?
18 If it was that -- well, what was it? What did you 19 do?
l 20 A That's, in pa rt, what I did.
21 I have also plotted, as a function of time, the
- 22 specific events that have been identified in this record l
23 to attempt to identify correlations between the 24 occurrence of an event and changes in the performance of
< ( 25 individuals or the class of inspectors generally.
Sonntaq Reportino Se rvice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16909 OV 1 It has been my view, based on representations made 2 by the Intervenor, that in this case we have a situation 3 wherein production pressure has had a pervasive ef fect 4 on the performance of QC Inspectors.
5 For that reason, I have accepted the premise that 6 there has been such pressure, and I have looked for 7 trends in the data macroscopic -- macroscopically to 8 identify such a pervasive ef fect, and I've been unable 9 to do that.
10 In the case of the PTL data base, where we have 11 more information on an inspector specific basis, the
( ) 12 review has been more microscopic in nature, and one can 13 attempt a correlation between specific events that have 14 occur red where a specific individual has indicated that 15 at a particular point in time he has been harassed or 16 intimidated, whether or not true, to determine whether 17 or not that's had any ef fect on his performance.
18 I was unable to identify any correlations in l 19 performing that assessment.
20 Q All right, sir.
21 Now, with respect to this last point you made, 22 where you did not find any correlation with respect to 23 an individual inspector or any individual inspector, l
j l 24 that specific data that you looked at there is not b
N,_ ,/ 25 contained in the exhibits except in a combined form, is Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
i 16910 J l
( )
% .j' 1 it, sir?
2 A That's correct.
3 The information with respect to the PTL data base 4 has been introduced as a part of Mr. Marcus' testimony; 5 and both he and I have done a detailed review of the
- 6 results with respect to specific inspectors as a 7 function of time where the intervals of interest were 8 one month, and I have, in the way that I just described, 9 compared that data base to what I'll call the harassment 10 data base that's been developed in this record, and not 11- identified a correlation between the two.
O; g 12 JUDGE COLE: All right, sir.
13 Thank you.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Steptoe, can you tell me 15 how long you expect to take on redirect?
16 MR. STEPTOE: Probably half-an-hour to 45 17 minutes, Judge Grossman.
! 18 If I'm allowed overnight to frame my questions and l
l 19 to study some of these new exhibits which have come in, l
20 I will go promptly.
l 21 I know it won't go more than an hour for sure.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. I expect --
23 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman --
24 JUDGE GROSSM AN: Yes.
25 MR. GUILD: -- before we break, Mr. DelGeorge t
Sonntaq Reportina Se rvice, Ltd.
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
16911
\ ~~
1 has volunteered that he has a new piece of work that's 2 the basis for his testimony.
3 I would ask that Applicant produce whatever 4 analysis he has done of a time line of harassment that 5 is the foundation for his last answer to Dr. Cole's 6 question.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Can we have that tomorrow, 8 then, Mr. DelGeorge?
9 THE WITNESS: I can make one copy of it 10 available today.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine.
12 I take it, then, Mr. Guild may have another hour or 13 so, then, of recross; but, in any event, we have a 14 witness lined up, if --
15 MR. STEPTOE: Dr. Frankel will be here 16 tomorrow.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, he will be?
18 MR. STEPTOE : Yes.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, okay. I hope we can 20 start with him.
21 I hope you are going to be prepared for that, Mr.
22 Guild.
23 MR. GUILD: I will be, Mr. Chairman.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine.
) 25 We'll adjourn until 8:00 tomorrow morning.
Sonntag Regorting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~ -- .- - . . . .
4 16912 e
1 MR. STEPTOE: Thank you, Judge Grossman.
{
- 2 (WHEREUPON, the hearing of the
- 3 above-entitled matter was continued to 4 the 7th day of November,1986, at the 4
5 hour of 8:00 A. M.)
6 i
7 i
8
, 9 1
- 10 I
11 12 i-l 13 l 14 15 16 17 i
l 18 1
i 19 i
20
\
l 21 i t I
22 23 24 i
j -
25 l Sonntaq Reportino Service, Ltd.
j Geneva, Illinois 60134
- (312) 232-0262
NO PAGE NUMBER CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER S
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING: BRAIDWOOD STATION UNITS 1 42 COMMONWEALTil EDISON (llEARING)
DOCKET NO.: 50-456/457/0L PLACE: CIIICAGO, ILLINOIS DATE: TilURSDAY , NOVEMBER 6, 1986-were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sigt) ,!h[LM0 M9P/
(TYPED) b Official Reporter Reporter's Affiliation