ML20212P393
| ML20212P393 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 08/26/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#386-597 OL, NUDOCS 8609030114 | |
| Download: ML20212P393 (227) | |
Text
s ORIGINAL (N
~
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. 1 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-456 OL 50-457 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2)
,?
LOCATION: CHICAGO, ILLINOIS PAGES: 11111 - 11335 DATE: TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 1986
/ /0 1 -
d(
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
n OfficialRepakrs 444 North CapitolStreet Washington, D.C. 20001
, (202) 347-3700 NATIONWTDE COVERAGE
d 4
! i i l l 11111 l
! I i i
! t i' 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [
l f 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t I
- 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD f i
4
__________________x ;
5 :
l In the Matter of: : ;
! 6 : Docket No. 50-456 OL f j COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY : 50-457 OL l
! 7 : !
l (Braidwood Station, Units 1 :
! 8 and 2) : i j _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x (
i 9 l I l 10 Page: 11,111 - 11,335 l
! 11 United States District Court House f Courtroom 1919
, 12 219 South Dearborn Street I Chicago, Illinois 60604 l 13 Tuesday, August 26, 1986. i l 14 [
15 The hearing in the above-entitled matter reconvened .
r 16 at 9:00 A. M. ;
17 BEFORE:
18 l JUDGE HERBERT GROSSMAN, Chairman l 19 Atomic Safety arid Licensing Boa rd ;
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 20 Washington, D. C.
l JUDGE RICHARD F. COLE, Membe r ,
21 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ;
l l
22 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission !
! Washington, D. C. :
23 JUDGE A. DIXON CALLIHAN, Membe r ,
24 Atomic Safety and Licensing Boa rd ;
I
- l. 4 25 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
l l
l l Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd .,
8 Geneva, Illinois 60134 :
(312) 232-0262 l
. . . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . . - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . , _ _ _ _ _ . . . ~ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ -
i 11112 k
1O i
[ l APPEARANCES:
l' j 2 On behalf of the Applicant:
I f 3 MICHAEL I. MILLER, ESO.
J JOSEPH GALLO, ESQ.
l 4 ELENA Z. KEZELIS, ESO.
j- Isham, Lincoln & Beale
- i. 5 Three First National Plaza l Chicago, Illinois 60602 a
6 \
On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory l
- 7 Commission Staff
- i
! i i 8 ELAINE I. CHAN, ESQ. '
I GREGORY ALAN BERRY, ESQ.
9 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -
l 7335 Old Georgetown Road j f 10 Bethesda, Maryland 20014 <
- j. 11 On behalf of the Intervenors.
12 ROBERT GUILD, ESO.
! 13 .
I
! 14 i l !
15 l f 16 i i I 17 l l
! 18 !
l I l 19 ! >
t l
20 l 21 !
!' l 22 l i
23 e ,
P 24 25 Sonntag Reporting Se rv ice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. . . . . . ~ . ~ . . . . - . . . . - - - - - . . - . - - . . _ - _ . - . . _ _ . - _ - _ , _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
i i i !
i 11113 i r
s- '
i till c
- j. 1 WITNESS INDEX -
1 -
! 2 TESTIMONY OF JEROME H. SCHAPKER (Continued.) i I !
3 CROSS EXAMINATION 11,116 i BY MR. GUILD (Contin uing . ) j i 4 :
! REDIRECT EXAMINATION 11,302 !'
i 5 BY MR. BERRY-
\ -
l 6 BOARD EXAMINATION 11,311 l l BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: l i
l 7 i' RECROSS EXAMINATION 11,313 !
I 8' BY MR. MILLER: i l I i 9 !
! 10 '
I I l 11 !
13 14 ,
l i
15 e i
16 e 17 l l
18 ,
19 20 i l
21 l t
i 22 5 l
. 5
, f 23 '
i 24 25 l l
Sonntaq Reportinq Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
( (312) 232-0262
11114
\
l JUDGE GROSSMAU: ,The hearing is reconvened.
2 This is the 56th day of hearing.
3 Are there any preliminary matters before we proceed 4 to Mr. Schapker?
5 MR. BERRY: Mr. Chairman.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Berry.
7 MR. BERRY: Could I have just one moment to 8 consult with my counsel?
9 I think we may have some information relating to 10 Mr. McGregor.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Certainly.
f~h; 12 MR. BERRY: Mr. Chairman, I made some t
d 13 inquiries of Mr. McGregor's availability.
14 Apparently, he has returned from his vacation, he L
15 is in the vicinity and we are making the effort to 16 contact him to make sure that he knows that he should be i
17 present this afternoon.
18 I understand Intervenors have had some previous i
19 contact with him over yesterday evening and indicated 20 that Mr. McGregor had indicated to the Intervenor that 21 he was just waiting for the authorization from his boss;
- 22 and I just sent Mr. Gardner out to make sure there is no 23 mix-up in communications, that Mr. McGregor is aware 24 that we expect him this afternoon.
) 25 So we expect that he will be available in the Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 11115 7-1 courtroom af ter the luncheon hour.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Reviewing the 3 t ranscript . of yeste rday , it appears to me as though I' 4 did cut Mr. Berry off short on the question of how 5 limited the admission of Applicant's Exhibits 49 and 51 6 ought to be.
7 In line with our previous rulings, I agree and the 8 Boa rd agrees with Mr. Berry, that to the extent there 9 are matters in those Staff investigation or inspection 10 reports of which the witness has direct knowledge --
11 and, of course, he is subject to examination being on
(,
\g) 12 the stand -- that the admission of the exhibits ought to 13 include those matters of which he has direct knowledge.
14 Now, is there any problem with that, Mr. Guild or 15 Mr. Miller?
16 HR. MILLER: No, sir.
17 MR. GUILD: No, sir, I don't believe there 18 is.
19 I think that is consistent with your earlier 20 ruling. I don't think there is any difference.
21 MR. MILLER: I may have misstated.
22 I intended to take the full extent of the Board's 23 prior rulings into account in my statement and, perhaps, 24 I unduly circumscribed it in my statement.
_ y 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I take it that all the i
Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 j (312) 232-0262
11116
-s
)
g/
1 parties are agreeable to that?
2 Mr. Berry, that does reflect the points you had; is 3 that correct?
4 MR. BERRY: Yes, it does, Mr. Chairman.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Why don't we continue then 6 with Mr. Guild's examination of Mr. Schapker, who 7 remains sworn.
8 MR. BERRY: Good morning, Mr. Schapker.
9 THE WITNESS: Morning.
10 CROSS EXAMINATION 11 (Continued.)
i 12 BY MR. GUILD d
13 Q Let's start at the beginning, sir, and let me ask you 14 some questions about how you came to conduct the
. 15 inspection that is the subject of Inspection Report 16 8509, Applicant's Exhibit 51.
17 Now, the report itself, of course, is dated 18 November 21, 1985.
19 Mr. Puckett was employed at L. K. Comstock during 20 the* s umme r of 198 4.
21 Is that your understanding?
22 A Yes, sir.
23 Q And he was terminated in August of 1984 and had his 24 initial contact with the NRC in that month; isn't that
/
25 correct?
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11117 (v )
1 A I believe that's correct, yes, sir.
2 0 Your report wasn't published, though, for more than a 3 year after Mr. Puckett brought his concerns to the NRC; 4 correct?
5 A Yes.
6 0 Now, you commenced your inspection activities, at least 7 according to the transmittal letter and the detail 8 portion of your report, beginning March 5th of 1985.
9 Is that correct?
10 A Yes.
11 0 And that day on which you began your inspection
,n. .
12 activities ir. still some months af ter the point when Mr.
( }
13 Puckett left the employ of L. K. Comstock Company and 14 brought his concerns to the NRC.
15 Now, Mr. Schapker, I want to focus on why, the 16 reason why there was this gap of many months from 17 August, 1984, until March, 1985, when you started your 18 work, and an even longer gap before you completed it.
19 When did you first learn of Mr. Puckett's 20 communication with the NRC, Mr. Schapker?
21 A I believe it was some time the latter part of February 22 of '85.
23 0 I see. So you had no prior knowledge, no knowledge in 24 the August, Septembe r, Octobe r , Novembe r, Decembe r,
/,s
( ) 25 1984, time frame?
Sonntaa Reportinc Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 232-0262
. J3 23 _
11118
-p i I V
1 A No, sir.
2 0 All right, sir. How did you first learn of the 3 existence of conce rns by Mr. Puckett?
4 A Through the Regional Office.
5 0 All right, sir. Can you tell me who in particular 6 brought those concerns to your attention, sir?
7 A Mr. Duane Danielson.
8 Q What position did Mr. Danielson hold?
9 A He is a Section Chief in the Region 3 office.
10 Q Did you work for him at the time?
11 A No. I worked for William Forney at the time.
12 However, I was on loan to Mr. Danielson for this.
13 0 I see. When you hea rd f rom Mr. Danielson about these 14 concerns, what, in substance, was told to you about the 15 subject of your work, the subject of this inspection 16 assignment?
i l
17 A To investigate the allegations that were brought forth 18 by Mr. Puckett.
19 Q All right. Well, Mr. --
20 A The technical concerns that he had.
21 Q Yes, sir, Mr. Schapker.
22 These weren't allegations, were they?
23 A (No response.)
24 Q Allegations is a term of art in NRC parlance, isn't it, s
25 that has ve ry -- you know, a fairly precise meaning; I
Sonntaq Reportinq Se rv i ce , Ltd. )
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11119 v
1 and, as you used the term " allegations," in NRC 2 parlance, were the Puckett technical concerns 3 allegations, sir?
4 A Allegations or concerns, however you want to represent 5 it.
6 0 Well, sir, I guess it's not really my question -- a 7 choice for me to make.
8 I am asking you: Is there an understanding that 9 you have as an NRC employee that allegations have a 10 specific technical meaning?
11 A There is nothing specific about it.
What are allegations, as you understand the term, Mr.
[j
\
12 O 13 Schapker, in the NRC parlance?
14 A They are expressions or concern of either wrongdoing or i
15 technical issues that the person takes difference with.
16 0 They are concerns brought to the attention of -- that an 17 individual outside the Agency brought to the Agency?
18 A Yes.
19 0 Is that consistent with your understanding of the term?
20 A Yes, sir.
21 Q All right, sir. When you were assigned the Puckett 22 matters, was it your unde rstanding that Mr. Puckett had i 23 initiated the contact with the NRC and brought these i
,_ 24 so-called allegations to the NRC's attention?
()
i s 25 A That was my understanding, yes.
i i
Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11120
,s
( )
v 1 Q All right, sir. Well, you since have learned otherwise,
- 2 haven't you?
3 A Well, I understand that Mr. Puckett was contacted by the 4 Senior Resident Inspector, yes, but through another 5 person.
6 0 In fact, Mr. McGregor, who was at that time the Senior 7 Resident Inspector at the Braidwood site, lea rned from 8 another source that Mr. Puckett had been discharged the 9 previous day and that he might have information 10 regarding problems in the L. K. Comstock welding 11 program, as well as concerns about the retaliatory 12 nature of his termination; and that he, McGregor,
[V\
13 according to this source, should contact Mr. Puckett for 14 information Mr. McGregor might need in the performance 15 of his inspection duties.
16 Isn't that your understanding of the sequence of 17 events?
18 A My understanding was that another party left a note for 19 Mr. McGregor to contact Mr. Puckett in regard to some 20 concerns that he, Mr. Puckett, had with L. K. Comstock i
21 welding, yes.
22 Q All right. And, in fact, it was the Nuclear Regulatory
{
23 Commission that initiated the contact with Mr. Puckett; 24 Mr. McGregor called Mr. Puckett at his home?
25 A Yes, we did.
Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 11121 (3
!,gJ 1 0 Well, we didn't.
2 Mr. McGregor did; right?
3 A Mr. McGregor did, representing the NRC. We didn't.
4 Q All right, sir. And it wasn't as an allegation arises 5 -- as you use the term " allegation," it wasn't a contact 6 made by a former employee to the NRC saying, "I have 7 allega tions. Please go out and investigate these 8 things."
9 Puckett did not contact the NRC; the NRC contacted 10 him; correct?
11 A Yes.
(J~
) 12 13 0 You didn't know that at the time you undertook your assignments, nor did you know it up through the time you 14 completed your inspection report and wrote your prefiled 15 testimony in this case, did you?
16 A Oh, yes, I was aware of it when I wrote my prefiled 17 testimony.
18 Q Oh, you were. All right, sir.
- 19 When did you first become aware of the fact that it 20 wasn't Mr. Puckett, that it was the NRC that took the 21 initiative in contacting Mr. Puckett, instead of the 22 other way around?
23 A I believe it was at our -- at the deposition, my 24 deposition.
O
) 25 0 I see. All right, sir.
Sonntaq Reporting Se rv i ce , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 11122 i
,, 1 1 And at that time you were shown a document that was 2 prepared by Mr. McGregor, the Senior Resident Inspector, 3 that memorialized his call to Mr. Puckett at Mr.
4 Puckett's home?
5 A Yes.
6 O All right, sir. But at the time you conducted your 7 inspection and wrote your inspection report, it is true 8 that you were under the belief that Mr. Puckett had 9 initiated the contact with the Agency, instead of the 10 other way around?
11 A Yes. He didn't indicate otherwise.
~s
) 12 Q Pardon? I missed this.
s_/
13 A He didn't indicate to me othe rwise.
14 Q Mr. Puckett didn't tell you otherwise, and so you 15 assumed that was the way things were?
16 A Yes.
17 Q All right, sir. Well, he didn't lie to you, did he, and 18 maintain --
19 A No, no.
20 0 All right, sir. So in February of 1986, some months 21 after Mr. Puckett's tenure at Braidwood and after his 22 retaliatory discharge and after the Senior Resident 23 Inspector initiated the contact with Mr. Puckett and 24 documented his concerns, you got assigned the job of
) 25 conducting this inspection?
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134
( (312) 232-0262
11123 O
1 A Februa ry of '85, yes.
2 Q February of '85. All right, sir.
3 Now, when you were made this assignment, were given 4 this.pssignment, Mr. Schapker, did you have any concern ,
I 5 regarding the extreme length of time that had transpired 6 between the date --
l 7 MR. BERRY: Objection.
8 BY MR. GUILD: l 9 0 -- the date at which Mr. Puckett had left the employment 10 and raised these concerns, the date on which the Senior 11 Resident had documented them and the date on which the 12 Agency, you, were starting to conduct your inspection 13 activities?
14 MR. BERRY: Objection.
15 Objection to the form of the question, " extreme
! 16 length of time."
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, Mr. Guild is nct 18 offering evidence.
19 Overruled. The witness can answer.
20 A No. I raised no immediate concern in my mind.
21 BY MR. GUILD:
22 0 Well, I appreciate that is a helpful answer; but the 23 question I asked directly was:
24 Did you have any concern about the length of time 25 that had transpired at the point you were given this Sonntaq Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11124' O
1 assignment, whether you raised one or not?
2 A No.
3 Q All right, sir. Now, did you make any inquiry about why 4 no one at the Agency had acted on Mr. McGregor's 5 documentation of the Puckett concerns over this period 6 of time?
7 MR. BERRY: Objection. Irrelevant.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Overruled.
9 THE WITNESS: Which document was that, sir?
10 MR. GUILD: The memorandum that Mr. McGregor 11 prepared of his telephone conversation with Mr. Puckett.
12 A I think, as I stated previously, I wasn't knowledgeable 13 of that document at that time.
14 BY MR. GUILD:
15 0 All right, sir. Well, I stand corrected. That's 16 appropriate.
17 You were aware during the time that you -- well, at 18 the point where you were assigned this inspection, that 19 Mr. Puckett's employment had been terminated the 20 previous August, weren't you?
21 A Yes, I was aware that he had been dismissed, yes.
22 Q And that it had occurred the previous August?
23 A Approximately that time, yes.
24 Q All right. That is now my question.
25 Did you make any inquiry at that time as to the Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11125
/
I (v%
1 reason why there had been no Agency follow-up between 2 the time of Mr. Puckett's dismissal and the February 3 time at which you were assigned the inspection?
4 A I had no reason at that time to question it.
5 0 And you did not?
6 A No.
l 7 Q All right, sir. Now, you knew that Mr. Puckett had l
8 maintained that his termination by L. K. Comstock was in 9 retaliation for having expressed quality concerns about !
l 10 the welding program?
11 THE WITNESS: Excuse me. I didn't catch all O 12 of that.
}
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Could the Reporter repeat 14 that, please?
15 (The question was thereupon read by the
! 16 Reporte r . )
l l 17 A I believe he expressed that, yes.
18 BY MR. GUILD:
19 Q And you knew that at the time you were given this j 20 inspection assignment.
21 The first opportunity you had to familiarize 22 yourself with whatever documentation the region had on 23 the matter, you knew what Mr. Puckett's claim was 24 rega rding his retaliatory discharge?
s 25 A Yes.
Sonntao Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l l
11126 p
U 1 0 But you didn't inspect that issue, did you, sir?
2 A I was not assigned to inspect that issue, sir.
3 0 All right. Who was assigned to inspect that issue, Mr.
4 Schapker?
5 A I do not know that, sir.
l 6 Q Well, do you have any knowledge that anyone with the ;
7 Nuclear Regulatory Commission was assigned to inspect to 8 the issue of the circumstances and motive for Mr.
9 Puckett's discharge by L. K. Comstock?
L 10 A No.
i 11' Q In fact, you are aware today, aren't you, Mr. Schapker, j 12 that no one with the NRC inspected on that suLject and 13 the NRC reached a determination that they would not L 14 pursue that question?
l l 15 A No, I don't know that, sir.
1 i 16 0 Are you familiar with the series of documentation 17 reflecting an Allegations Review Board meeting that 18 reached, in substance, that conclusion?
l l
19 A No, sir.
20 0 Are you familiar with the fact that an Allegations l 21 Review Board met on'the subject of Mr. Puckett's j 22 discharge, reached a conclusion not to pursue the l
23 matter? i
]
24 A That's standard policy, yes.
1 25 0 I am not asking you --
(
3 Sonntaa Reportinq Se rv ice , Ltd.
? Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
t c.
f i
l 11127 ;
i l ' /' \
' / \, ?
i L i/m i
l ,
1 A I don't know in particular on this one if -- what -- I i i
L 2 wasn't a part of that review board, so I am not i
[ 3 knowledgeable about it.
4 0 You have no knowledge that t here was such an action (
t 5 taken? l I
l 6 A No, sir.
7 Q They didn't invite you to the review board, Mr. !
l i
8 Schapker, even though you conducted the inspection 9 activities involving Mr. Puckett's so-called technical 10 issues? l r
11 A I was not involved, no, sir. ;
t
) 12 0 I see. All right. (
l \s_/
13 In any event, you didn't perform any inspection to j 14 Mr. Puckett's conce rns rega rding his retaliatory ;
15 discharge; and during the course of your inspection, you l l
l 16 had no knowledge that anycne else was going to be l l
17 looking into those issues; isn't that correct?
18 A That's correct. l l
19 Q And I take it it's true that you are not an >
l 20 investigator, as the NRC uses the term investigator; you I i
21 are an inspector with an engineering background? l l
22 A That's true.
l 23 0 And your task was to look at a number of technical l I
24 issues raised by Mr. Puckett involving the welding l
(~'N y / 25 program?
i l
l Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd. i Geneva, Illinois 60134 !
(312) 232-0262 l u_ _
11128 b)
\- ) -
1 A That's correct.
2 Q Now, when you began your -- when you got this inspection 3 assignment, what documentation did you have available to 4 you, Mr. Schapker, that was the basis for formulating 5 your inspection plan?
6 A 1 had the transcript from the NRC interview that was 7 performed in September at the regional -- at the region.
8 0 All right.
9 A And a memo from Chuck Well, I believe, to Chuck Norelius 10 that detailed the conce rns.
11 Q All right, sir. Let me show you a copy, Mr. Schapker, 12 of NRC Staf f Exhibit 7 that has been ma rked in this
[a) 13 proceeding.
14 It's a Septembe r 6,1984, document. I believe it's 15 from Mr. Weil to Mr. Norelius.
16 Is that the memorandum that you just referred to in 17 your last answer?
18 A Yes.
19 0 Now, did the copy you had to work from have the 20 handwritten marginal notations on it, Mr. Schapker, when 21 you got it?
22 A No.
23 Q Can you identify those?
24 A I don't believe so.
25 0 Can you identify those writings?
Sonntaq Reportina Se rvice, Ltd.
j Geneva, Illinois 60134
[
(312) 232-0262
f I h '
I i
4 l 11129 I f 8 lO 1 1 Are those yours? r
- 2 A No, those are not mine. l l
l 3 Q Do you recognize the handwriting?
l j 4 A No, I don't.
5 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, it's not mine. !
l 6 MR. BERRY: I would represent that is the 7 handwriting of Mr. Weil.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Weil's. i i 9 MR. BERRY: Yes.
i l 10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Is there any problem with I i
! 11 counsel accepting that representation? {
12 MR. GUILD: No, sir, particularly since Mr.
13 Weil is anticipated to be called by the Staff. ;
14 He can certainly establish that for the record one l l
15 way or the other.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Miller, just so it !
17 doesn't slip through the cracks, you don't have any j i
18 problem accepting that representation, do you?
19 MR. MILLER: No, sir, I don't.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
21 BY MR. GUILD: i 22 Q All right, sir. Mr. Weil is described in this 23 memorandum as the investigation and compliance 24 specialist. I 25 Now, do I then understand correctly that he l l l
l Sonntag Report ino Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 E _____
r-1 i
s i-l-
I t
11130 1 1
1 i
I j 1 processes allegations that are received by the Agency at j f 2 the regional level? l l
j 3 A Yes. !!e is an Allegations Coordinator.
4 0 And he is not assigned to perform inspections in the l l
\
j 5 field, is he, Mr. Well? {
6 A That's correct.
l 7 0 Ile, essentially, tracks allegations, manages the paper !
8 flow and oversees the -- well, monitors the assignment l t
9 of allegations to field inspectors for follow-up. !
10 Is that a fair description of what you understand I f
! 11 he does?
12 A Yes. {
l 13 He also reviews the reports. !
l 14 Q lie reviews the draft reports?
I
- 15 A Yes. ;
i 16 0 He makes comment on them from time to time? l 17 A Yes.
18 0 All right, sir. Mr. Weil is not a technical person, is 19 he? i i
20 A No, sir.
l 21 Q Mr. Weil is not a Welding Engineer, is he? l l
22 A No, sir. j i
23 0 lie is not a welder, is he? l
'24 A Not that I know of.
25 0 All right. Ile is not someone expert and versed in the l
Sonntaq Reporting Se rv ice , Ltd. l
,j Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 l
11131 I i Q ,)
1- American Welding Society Code, the D.l.1 and D.1.3 Code, 2 is he?
3 A I don't believe so.
4 Q But it was Mr. Weil who prepared the September 6, 1984, 5 document, marked Staf f Exhibit 7, on which you relied, 6 summarizing Mr. Puckett's technical welding concerns?
7 A I believe he had assistance in that with Mr. Kevin Ward.
1 8 Q I don't see Mr. Ward's name on it.
9 Do you know whether or not Mr. Ward wrote the 10 document?
I 11 A Prom my understanding and discussions with Mr. Ward,
) 12 Chuck Weil and he both went through the transcript and a
13 selected these items out of the transcript.
14 0 Mr. Ward told you that?
15 A Yes.
16 Q All right. Now, do you know whether Mr. Ward wrote the 17 doc ument?
18 A No, I don't know that.
19 Q Mr. Wa rd, the record should reflect, was, in fact, a 20 technical person.
21 He worked with you, for example, at Zimmer in 22 conducting inspections to the Zimmer weld program; 23 correct?
24 A Yes.
y j 25 0 And Mr. Ward sat with Mr. Weil when Mr. Weil conducted Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I' 11132 l }'
'% J l the transcribed interview that you also had reference 2 to, the interview with Mr. Puckett?
3 A That is correct, he did.
4 Q Did Mr. Ward or Mr. Weil conduct the examination of Mr.
5 Puckett?
6 A I believe they both asked him questions.
7 Q Oh, they did?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Did you conclude from reading the document that Mr. Weil 10 was the primary questioner?
i 11 A I believe so.
(n)
'% /
12 O For example, Mr. Weil was the one who conducted the 13 examination of Mr. Schapker on the subject of the first 14 allegation, and that was the A-36 to A-446 issue and its 15 relation to the appropriateness of the D.1.3 Code?
16 Mr. Weil asked those questions, didn't he?
17 A I would have to look at the transcript. I am not sure 18 of that.
19 0 All right, sir. You just don't recall one way or the 20 other?
21 A I don't know who asked the questions. Both Kevin Ward 22 and Chuck Weil were both present.
23 0 Were both present?
24 A Yes.
tw. 25 0 At least the transcript reflects and says that they were Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11133 N
1 both there; right?
2 A They were both there.
3 0 Well, you weren't there to watch, were you?
4 A No, I wasn't there.
5 0 I wasn't there, either; but we both rely on it saying on 6 the transcript that both of them were there?
7 A Yes; and my discussions with Kevin Ward.
8 Q And Mr. Ward confirmed that he was there and told you?
9 A Yes.
10 0 All right, sir. So you had the transcript and you had 11 Mr. Weil's s umma ry?
12 At least it bears Mr. Weil's name, the Septembe r 6, (V) 13 198 4, s umma ry.
14 A I also had an inspection plan, inspection report plan, 15 f rom Mr. Kevin Wa rd that he had prepared.
16 0 Ward and Weil worked on the inspection plan, did they 17 not?
18 A Yes.
19 Q And that was provided to you? You didn't write --
20 A I think Mr. Ward actually made the inspection plan 21 itself.
22 Q How do you know that, sir?
23 A Because that's what he represented to me --
,._ 24 Q I see.
() 25 A -- when he turned it over to me.
Sonntaq Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11134
(.-
]
1 Q You got this plan given to you by Mr. Wa rd --
2 A Yes.
3 0 -- at the same time as you were assigned this inspection 4 in Februa ry of '85; correct?
5 A Yes.
6 Q So you didn't write your own inspection plan; you just 7 worked to a plan that was given to you by others?
8 A I -- no. I did make some changes to it after I 9 interviewed Mr. Puckett.
10 Q I see. Did you write your own plan?
11 A I used this plan and based -- and just expounded on it.
7-12 But you worked from Mr. Ward's plan?
(v) O 13 A Yes, yes. It was right from the transcript.
14 Q Okay. So you were assigned the inspection in February 15 of '85 and you got these documents you have just 16 described, prepared by Mr. Weil and Mr. Ward.
17 And the next thing you did was you went and talked 18 to Mr. Puckett; correct?
19 A I visited the site first.
20 0 Oh, you did?
21 A Yes.
22 Q All right. You visited the site.
23 What did you do there, Mr. Schap'ce r?
24 A On my initial visit I had my Antranc: meeting with the
( ) 25 Licensee and I also met with Comstoc k and gathered some Sonntaa ~ Reportino Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
[ .
11135 (y
\ )
ss 1 procedures and other records that I --
2 Q I see. All right, sir.
3 A -- used in my operation.
4 Q Now, you visited the site and the Licensee, Commonwealth 5 Edison Company, assigned an individual to coordinate 6 with you and help you in your inspection activities.
7 Who was that, sir?
8 A Mr. Tony Simile, with Comstock.
9 Q Mr. Simile?
10 A Yes.
11 Q And Mr. Simile was -- he held what position with L. K.
12 Comstock Company at the time?
(Jm)
'm At that time he was the Level III Weld Inspector.
13 A 14 0 I see. That was, in fact, the position that Mr. Puckett 15 had held just prior to Mr. Puckett's termination; is 16 that your understanding?
17 A That's my understanding, yes.
18 Q And, in fact, Mr. Simile succeeded Mr. Puckett?
19 A That's my understanding, yes.
20 Q All right, sir. Now, Mr. Simile was aware, was he not, 21 that you were inspecting concerns raised by Mr. Puckett?
22 A Initially, I am not sure of that; but I am sure as the 23 issues were brought forth, he was, yes.
,s 24 0 Well, let's face it, Mr. Schapker:
() 25 How long do you think it took Mr. Simile to figure Sonntan Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
7 i >
,5a m s-
^L '
\'
1
[' ,
, t 11136
, N
,.e
(' ._
f .,
s fg -
a '-
3 1 out that Mr. Puckett was the subject of your inspection, 2 even if you didn',t use the word or the name, "Worley Ky Puckett"?
St 4 A Probably on my second visit.
5 Maybe he did not know the first time I was there.
N 6 0 But he figured out pretty quick, didn't he?
$ J7 A I am sure he did, yes.
s s 8 Q All you had to do was tell him that one of the things --
- 9 A I asked for memos and records that pertained to Mr.
b' s 10 % '
Puckett's activities, so I am sure that --
3
-11 Q p Did you ask for those memos on the first visit?
g n '
l ') 12 A. , I don't recall if it was the first visit or not.
\.__/ *
,, 13 .
I, don't believe so.
\ t y .14 Q What_did you ask for on the first visit, if you got 15 d oc ument s ?
16 A Just some procedures, weld procedures and some records I 17 wanted tio take back with me to review.
18 Q ' hat r'e cords were those, sir?
19 $ Well, Iomeant. weld procedures, those type of records.
20 0 Well, did you ask for anything other than Comstock
[' 21 welding procedures on the first visit?
.2 A Hul Lhot I can recall at this time.
^
" 2'. Q All;right. Were you provided any documents that bore 24 Mr. ?uckett's name or involved Mr. Puckett's issues,
[~)
(v 25 aside from welding procedures, on your first visit?
la Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
,_ + <~- u - . . - . --- -yn .*
t 11137 s.
'\ /
1 A I don't believe so, no.
.2 Q Now, you got a copy of Comstock's welding procedures.
3 Did you get a copy of Procedure 4.3.3?
4 A Yes, I am certain I got a copy of that.
5 0 All right. Welding procedure for structural 6 attachments.
7 Did you review Revision C?
8 I am showing you a document that has been marked as 9 Applicant's Exhibit 10 in evidence.
10 A Yes.
11 Q All right, sir. Did you obtain a copy of Rev C to the (n)
\._ /
12 Comstock Welding Procedure 4.3.3 on your first visit?
~
13 A I believe so. I believe I had several copies of -- just 14 not C but I believe I had later revisions, also.
15 Q And it had, in fact --
h6 A And earlier revisions.
17 0 So you had a numbe r of revisions, but you also had among 18 those Rev C?
19 A Yes, I am sure I had Rev C.
20 Q Rev C was in effect during Mr. Puckett's tenure at 21 Comstock, the revision that contained the PQR's that 22 were the subject of our discussion yesterday, the 23 Attachments O and H?
24 A Yes, the later revisions had those.
N y ) 25 0 And the later revisions had them, too?
Sonntaa Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
L 11138 k
s__/
1 A Yes.
2 Q But Rev C did?
3 A .Yes.
4 Q And the Rev C were the ones they had the problems with; 5 right, sir?
6 A Yes.
7 Q So you had Rev C to 4.3.3 on your first visit; and I 8 take it you read'it, did you not?
9 A I don't recall exactly when I first reviewed those 10 procedures.
11 It was -- it could have been -- because at the tine 12 I was assigned to Marble Hill site and I returned to
( -)
s_
13 this site. I did some review. Whether it was on that 14 particular procedure, I don't recall.
15 But I made arrangements at that time when I 16 returned to meet with Mr. Puckett to discuss some of his 17 concerns.
18 Q Can you give me an estimate, Mr. Schapker, of when you 19 first went to the site?
20 A March 5th.
21 Q All right. Better than an estimate.
22 When did you go see Mr. Puckett at his home?
23 A I believe it was March 12th.
24 Q All right, sir. Now, you had Rev C to Procedure 4.3.3 l
) 25 at the time you visited Mr. Puckett in his home but you
- Sonntaa Reportina Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11139 i <
'd 1 didn't carry that procedure with you and have it before 2 you when you discussed Mr. Puckett's concerns, did you?
3 A I believe I had it with me.
4 I don't believe it came forward, though, no.
5 0 All right, sir. You didn't go through the procedure 6 with Mr. Puckett and direct his attention to Attachments 7 0, Attachments H to the body of the procedure.
8 You didn't look at the procedure with Mr. Puckett 9 and discuss what his technical concerns were with that 10 procedure when you met with him at his home, did you?
11 A We discussed his concern in regard to A-446 to A-36, not
) 12 in particular to that.
(/
m.
13 You know, I didn ' t kn ow. I didn't have the 14 procedure out at the time we were just discussing his --
15 when he was explaining to me what his concern was.
16 Q But you didn't review the procedure with Mr. Puckett at 17 that time, did you?
18 A No, I don't believe I thought it was necessary at the 19 time, because it was pretty plain to me what his concern 20 was.
21 0 Well, Mr. Schapker, I am going to ask you to listen to 22 my question, please, and try to be responsive to my 23 question. I will give you an opportunity to explain 24 your answer.
b
( j 25 But the fact of the matte r is you did not review Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11140 1 the procedure, whether you thaught it necessary to or 2 not, with Mr. Puckett?
3 A As I stated before, I don't believe -- I don't know if I 4 reviewed the procedure prior to that meeting, no, I 5 don't, or during the meeting.
6 MR. BERRY: Mr. Chairman, can I ask that the 7 witness be directed to answer my questions?
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Schapker, the question 9 is whether you revicued those procedures with Mr.
10 Puckett at the meeting.
11 A (Continuing.) No, I didn't.
12 BY MR. GUILD:
13 0 In fact, you never reviewed those procedures with Mr.
14 Puckett, did you?
15 A Not with Mr. Puckett, no.
16 Q Mr. Schapker, did you familiarize yourself with Mr.
17 Puckett's qualifications, his background, his i 18 experience, at the time you performed your inspection? .
19 A I had some knowledge of his background.
20 0 Where did you obtain that knowledge from, Mr. Schapker? l 21 A At the Zimmer facility. I did inspections at Zimmer.
22 O I see. So you had personal knowledge of Mr. Puckett 23 from having seen him and dealt with him at Zimmer?
24 A Yes.
I 8
( !
25 0 I see. In the course of your inspes:tions at Braidwood, Sonntaq Reportinq Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11141
</
1 did you, for example, review Mr. Puckett's resume?
2 A No.
3 Q Did you ask Mr. Puckett to detail or summarize, for that 4 matter, his background and -experience?
5 A No.
6 Q Did you seek out any other records or evidence of Mr.
7 Puckett's background and experience during the time you 8 conducted your inspection activities here?
9 A No, I didn't.
10 0 The record reflects Mr. Puckett was formally a Chief 11 Petty Of fice r in the United States Navy.
f% 12 You know that to be the case as you sit here today.
g )
v 13 A I know that now, yes.
14 Q And you know, as you sit here today, that Mr. Puckett 15 was qualified in some of the most difficult 16- safety-related welding procedures in the fabrication of 17 nuclear components for naval ships?
18 A No, I don't know that.
19 0 You don't know.
20 Do you dispute that, sir?
21 A I don't dispute it, no.
22 Q You know he performed welding work and supervised the 23 work of other welde rc who welded to ve ry high levels of 24 certification in the United States Navy on nuclear
((.)
,/ 25 components?
Sonntaa Reportinq Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11142 b
U 1 A I don't know that, either, sir.
2 .Q Do you dispute that?
3 A No.
4 Q And that in the course of his duties he performed and 5 supervised welding work to various technical standards 6 that were applicable to the work that was being 7 performed, Navy nuclear standards?
8 A I don't know that, either, sir.
9 0 Do you dispute that?
10 A I don't dispute it, no.
11 Q And that af ter his retirement from the Navy, Mr. Puckett 12 worked in the commercial nuclear power program, (J) 13 including the -- well, he worked at the Zimmer facility 14 and you saw him there?
15 A Yes.
16 Q And in that capacity he had experience in the fields of 17 quality control and weld engineering?
10 A Yes.
19 0 Do you have any doubt, as you sit here today, Mr.
20 Schapker, that Mr. Puckett was an extremely experienced 21 and well qualified welder?
22 A Welder?
23 0 Yes.
24 A No, I don't know that.
() 25 Q Do you have any doubt that he was?
Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I' )
l 11143 I l
/N I
\~ /
1 A I don't have any doubt, no.
2 Q Now, I gather from your testimony that you questioned 3 Mr. Puckett's qualifications in the area of quality 4 control?
5 A Quality control?
6 Q Yes.
7 A No, I don't question it.
8 Q I see. All right. Now, let's talk about you a little 9 bit, Mr. Schapker.
10 Have you ever done any welding on nuclear power 11 plants?
O 12 A No. I was never a certified welder.
(}
13 0 I take it you have never done any welding in the Navy 14 nuclear propulsion program, have you?
15 A Only welding schools to familiarize myself with welding.
16 0 All right, sir. And those welding schools are reflected 17 in the attachment to your testimony, are they not, your 18 resume?
19 A Some of them are, yes.
20 0 I see. Do you have a copy of your testimony before you?
21 I am looking at the last page of your attachment to
. 22 your testimony, Mr. Schapker.
23 A Yes.
24 Q Do you have that before you?
O 25 A Yes.
Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11144
/ s 1 \
\s' 1 Q. I see a training course in specialized Navy nuclear 2 welding at the Knolls Atomic Power Lab in 1969, 80 3 hours.
4 A Yes.
5 0 What other experience and training did you have in the 6 Navy nuclear welding program?
7 A Well, prior to that, in 1967, I attended a school at the 8 Babcock Wilcox Company on nuclear fabrication and 9 performance in welding under the direction of one of the 10 other inspectors.
11 Q Is that a schooling that is not listed on this resume?
(/)
w 1:2 13 A
Q It's not listed, no. It was on-the-job training.
How many hours of nuclear welding did you have there, 14 sir?
15 A Oh, approximately two wer.ks.
16 Q All right, sir. Then since you joined the Nuclear 17 Regulatory Commission, you have had a number of courses 18 that relate to the inspection of welding activities?
19 A Yes.
20 Q And I see one where you had 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> at Ohio State, 21 1980, in welding technology and codes?
22 A Yes.
23 Q And you had a refresher course of 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> in 24 nondestructive examination; correct?
25 A Yes.
Sonntaq Reportinq Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11145 (O
\ )
v 1 Q Did you have any other training since you joined the 2 Agency in welding as it applies to nuclear power plant 3 components?
4 A Since I joined the Agency?
5 Q Yes, sir.
6 A No, sir.
7 0 Would you agree, Mr. Schapker, that Mr. Puckett was a 8 much more experienced welder than you?
9 A It appears that he was a much more experienced welder, 10 yes.
11 Q Would you agree that Mr. Puckett was much more
[J
} 12 13 experienced in the interpretation and application of welding codes as they applied to commercial nuclear 14 power plants?
15 A No, sir.
16 Q You think you had more experience than he?
17 A Yes, sir.
18 Q I see. You agree, don't you, that the welding in the 5
19 Navy nuclear p ogram, while to a naval ships standard, 20 is to a standard that is equivalent to code level?
21 A Yes, sir.
22 Q If you take into account Mr. Puckett's 20 years in the 23 nuclear Navy as a nuclear welder, would you agree that 24 Mr. Puckett has fa r more experience in interpreting 25 codes and standards that are applicable to nuclear grade Sonntan Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11146 I
/ \
1
'\ l l' welding than you did?
I 2 A No, sir.
l 3 Q I see. All right, sir.
I 4 Do you have any other experience that is not shown l l
l 5 in your resume that you were considering when you make 6 those compa rative judgments, Mr. Schapke r?
7 A I have 19 yea rs of nuclear welding experience, beginning l 8 in 1967, when I joined the Department of Defense under l
9 the Navy nuclea r welding program.
10 0 That is reflected in the --
11 A And in that experience, it was primarily interpretations O) t
\J 12 of codes and standa rds.
13 Q All right. That's the experience you are relying on 14 when you say you are more --
15 A A nuclear welder can be qualified within a six-week 16 period.
17 Q Well, yes; but Mr. Puckett did nuclear welding work for 7
18 20 years or more.
19 A That's true. But a nuclear welder does not have
! 20 knowledge of codes and standards in his application of 21 nuclear welding.
22 Ile only works to a procedure.
23 0 Well, sir, do you have any question that Mr. Puckett had 24 had knowledge of codes and procedures in application?
25 A Yes, I did have questions, yes --
x_s' Sonntaq Reportino Service, Ltd.
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11147 N r%.
1 O I see.
2 A -- based on my experience with him at Zimmer and based 3 on my experience in this report.
4 Q I see. Do you have any reason to believe Mr. Puckett 5 was not given the very highest evaluations in his 6 experience in the nuclear Navy in his application of 7 applicable procedures and standards to the work that was J
8 performed then?
9 A I have no knowledge of that, sir.
10 Q Did you ever review Mr. Puckett's performance 11 evaluations at the Zimmer facility?
( 12 A No, I didn't.
13 I have seen them subsequent to that but not at the 14 Zimmer facility.
15 Q You have seen theai since you have been observing this 16 proceeding, have you not?
1 17 A Yes.
18 0 But you hadn't seen either of those at the time you 19 performed your inspection activities that is the subject i
- 20 of your testimony here?
21 A No, sir.
22 Q Mor had you made any other inquiries, as you have just 23 stated, into Mr. Puckett 's back gr aund and 24 qualifications?
b
( j 25 A No.
Sonntaq _ Reportino Se rvice, Ltd.
4 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
(--.-.------- _ . _ _ _ _
} !
i-j i
11148 j e
i l 1 Q All right. Now, you interviewed a number of Comstock l 1 i j 2 managers. l
! f f 3 You interviewed Mr. DeWald, did you not? j l
4 A Ve ry briefly, yes.
5 0 Well, in fact, you only spent ten minutes interviewing !
6 Mr. DeWald; isn't that true? I i
7 A Yes, I believe that is true, approximately, i l .
} 8 0 Did you perform an evaluation of Mr. DeWald's background l I l 9 and experience? j i
l 10 A No, sir. ,
I i 11 Q Did you perform an examination of Mr. DeWald's 12 qualifications?
j 13 A No, sir, j i i l 14 0 Of course, as you testified yesterday, you weren't even l
! l l 15 aware that he was certified as a Level III Quality ,
I l 16 Control Inspector in the welding area? f
! I j 17 A No, I wasn't. j i i l 18 Q You were aware that he was the Quality Control Manager, !
l l- 19 were you not? l l l 20 A Yes, I was aware of that, j l
i 21 Q All right, sir. Now, you began your inspection l l
22 activities then in March of 1985. ;
l 23 You weren't looking at the welding program in !
24 March, 1985, that was the welding program that Mr.
25 Puckett faced when he hired on in May of 1984, were you?
I Sonntaq Reportina Service, Ltd. '
3 Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 {
[
l l
11149 e
h 1 A I was looking at his concerns at the time that he was 2 present on the site, yes. I was looking at those 3 procedures, yes.
4 0 Well, sir, you may have been able to look at some paper 5 work that dated back that way; but the first person that 6 you were assigned to deal with was Mr. Puckett's 7 successor, Mr. Simile; correct?
8 A lie was to assist me in my i'nspection, yes, in order to 9 gather the documents that I needed.
1 10 0 lie was designated as the coordinator for the Licensee; 11 was he not?
12 A Yes, right.
13 0 All right, sir. And Mr. Simile, you were aware, were 14 you not, undertook the duties of Level III at about the I 15 time Mr. Puckett departed the site in August of 1984?
16 A Yes.
17 0 And there had been considerable water under the bridge 4
38 be tween August, 1984, and March of 1985 when you 19 undertook your inspection?
i 20 A I guess you could summarize it as that, say that, 21 speculate that.
22 What do you mean by, " water under the bridge"?
23 0 Let's tc.ke some exampics.
4 24 For example, Mr. Schapker, there have been several 25 revisions to, first, the Comstock welding procedures i
Sonntan Iteportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11150 0
1 between the time Mr. Puckett lef t the site and the time 2 you undertook your inspection?
3 A Yes.
4 Q And revision, at least one, of the procedures for 5 control of weld filler material, another subject of your 6 inspection, between the time Puckett was there and the 7 time you undertook your inspection reports?
8 A Yes.
9 0 There had been, in short, quite a considerable number of 1
i 10 changes that had been made to the Comstock welding
! 11 program since the time Mr. Puckett left the site up
, 12 until the point when you undertook your inspection 13 activities.
14 You learned that, didn't you?
4 15 A There were revisions to the procedures, yes.
16 " Considerable changes," I wouldn't speculate they 17 were considerabic.
18 0 Well, I am interested in yorr opinion.
19 You don't believe they were considerable changes at 20 the time you undertook the inspection?
21 A That's a vague term, too.
22 There were revisions to the procedures to enhance 23 the procedures, yes --
24 0 I see. And --
25 A -- and then make changes that needed to be changed, as Sonntaq Reporting Se rv ice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11151 10 L) 1 an example, the 4.3.3 where the A-36 was added to the 2 procedure.
3 0 In fact, Mr. Simile and others who followed Mr. Puckett 4 completely scrapped and rewrote 4.3.3 and used a 5 completely different format, where, for example, the 6 PQR's were no longer treated as quirks of the procedure 7 but were kept as quality documents, evidencing the 8 qualification of the procedure?
9 A In that sense, yes.
10 0 That was a pretty fundamental change to the welding 11 procedure, was it not?
I f 12 A Yes. That was an enhancement of the procedure, yes.
13 0 And that took place before you got to the site?
l l 14 A Yes.
l l 15 0 And you were aware, were you not, that the site had, in l
l 16 fact, taken a number of actions because there were l
17 problems that had been previously identified by Mr.
18 Puckett and they had taken those actions by the time you 19 got there?
20 A Yes, there were some.
21 Q For example, Mr. Simile had conducted a partial review l
l 22 of welder qualification records because Mr. Puckett had l l
23 identified errors, inconsistencies and changes in those l 24 records? l 25 MR. MILLER: I am going to object to the form l
Sonntaq Reportinq Se rv ice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11152
_ f3
\ ]
w/
1 of the question.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Was that your understanding, 3 Mr. Schapker?
4 A Yes.
5 BY MR. GUILD:
6 Q A review which you later learned was not complete and 7 which required further work because of more details Mr.
8 Puckett made known to you about problems with the welder 9 qualification records; correct?
10 A some that Mr. Puckett observed and some that I observed, 11 yes, f) x_/
12 0 And, in fact, as you sit here today, you know that even 13 as late as April of 1986, Comstock had yet to complete 14 their review of and correction of errors, 15 inconsistencies and changes in welder qualification 16 records?
17 A April of '86 this is.
18 Yes, they were -- from my understanding, they were 19 -- revising the procedure to do this review; and that 20 was the cause of the delay in it.
21 0 Well, they kept finding more problems with the welder 22 qualification records every time they expanded the scope 23 of their review, did they not?
24 A I don't know if they expanded it any further.
O '/ 25 0 Well, sir --
\x Sonntaq Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l -.
11153 O
1 A I said they hadn't completed it.
2 Q They hadn't completed it as of April of 1986; is that 3 correct?
4 A Yes.
l 5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Is that because they were 6 finding additional problems as they went along, Mr.
! 7 Schapker?
l 8 THE WITNESS: Not that I know of, no.
9 BY MR. GUILD:
l 10 0 Do you know why they didn't complete it?
l.
f 11 A I know they did two dif fe rent reviews.
12 One review Mr. Simile did initially and then 13 another review followed up by several other Weld 14 Inspectors who had to complete the QA document review as 15 required by the procedure.
l l
16 O Are you aware, Mr. Schapker, that, in fact, Mr. Simile 17 simply didn't identify all the problems that there were
, 18 with' the welder qualification records when he performed h 19 his initial review? j
! 20 A I don't know the scope of his initial evaluation, so I I l I j 21 don't know. I 1
22 He, obviously, didn't find all of them, no.
l 23 0 Are you aware that some of the problems that he didn't 24 find were problems that he wasn't looking for, so he, 25 indeed, had a scope of review that was too narrow and Sonntaq Reportinq Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
[
i 11154 l I
j 1 failed to find problems for that reason? '
l 2 .A That could be.
I i j 3 Q Are you aware that, in~ fact, on the other side of the l
1 4 coin, there were some problems that he was looking for
, 5 thrt were within the scope of his review but he, l
[ 6 nonetheless, failed to identify in his initial review of l
[ 7 welder qualification records? l l j
! 8 A That is possible, yes. l 1
- l. 9 0 Well, did you sit here in the courtroom and listen to l I 10 Mr. Simile talk about this subject?
( {
I l' 11 .A I believe I listened to part of his testimony.
l 12 I don't know if I was here for this, for this part l 13 or not. l l
14 Q Do you recall Mr. Simile reviewing the series of I l l l 13 Nonconformance Reports that, in substance, establish l l l 16 exactly the points that I just made? i l i I 17 Did you hear that? l l
18 A No, I didn't.
l 19 Would you repeat that? Could you repeat the last !
20 question? l l
21 MR. GUILD: I am sorry. Could the Reporter j 22 read it back?
l 23 (The question was thereupon read by the l l
24 Reporter.) j 25 A (Continuing.) Yes, I did hear that.
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 -
(312) 232-0262 i
\
\
11155 0
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Why don't we take a 2 ten-minute break, Mr. Guild?
3 MR. GUILD: That would be fine, Mr. Chairman, 4 at this point.
5 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which 6' the hearing was resumed as followst)
[
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We are back in session.
8 Mr. Guild, please resume.
9 MR. BERRY: Before we do that, Mr. Chairman, 10 I just have two other matters that I would just bring to 11 the Board's attention as to keeping the parties 12 informed.
13 Over the recess, I learned that Mr. McGregor has 14 been contacted and is in the process of making himself I I
15 available. In fact, he should be here after the 16 luncheon recess.
17 Also, as I noted before, the Staff does intend to 18 present Mr. Weil as a witness; and to that end, we 19 prepared profiled testimony for him.
20 I am hopeful that we will have that testimony and 21 make it available to the parties, if not this afternoon, 22 by the morning session tomorrow.
23 Also, Mr. Chairman, now that we have dispensed with 24 Mr. Schulz, at least for the time being, and Mr.
25 McGregor is the next witness, I believe the prospects Sonntan Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
r- ~-- - - - ~--
[
L ,
11156 l 10 t
i l 1 are good that we will complete Mr. McGregor, if not by l
! j 2 the close of business tomorrow, certainly early 4 3 Thursday; and to that end, I would and Staff would ,
l 4 propose to offer Mr. Little as its next witness.
l l 5 The reason for that is Mr. Little, I am informed,
! i 6 has a commitment for the following week. I understand I i
7 his son is starting college and he would like to take 8 him to his school and things. !
l l 9 So I would on that point change the witness line-up
{
t i
I 10 and present Mr. Little before Mr. Well. '
l j 11 JUDJE GROSSMAN: Is there any problem with 12 that, Mr. Guild?
l 13 MR. GUILD: Not that order, Judge, no.
! l l .14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: So I take it we will go to j l I j 15 the end of the week this week, contrary to what you l 16 suggested informally to me, Mr. Guild, this morning?
l I
17 MP. GUILD: Well, again, I don't have any ,
I I 18 objection to the order; and I don't have any problem if ;
19 we can stand down a day next week and address this ;
l l 20 business. l l
21 It really doesn't matter to me one way or the l l . !
j 22 othe r, Judge. !
I 23 JUDGE GROSSMAM: What you have requested is l
24 that we either end early this week or start late next ,
I 25 week; is that so?
l l
I Sonntaq Reportinq Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
(
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ =. _ _ _ _
11157 i
l 1 MR. GUILD: Yes. l l
2- JUDGE GROSSMAN: I suggest that you take that 3 up with counsel; and whatever you agree to, the Board 4 could certainly abide; but please tell us in advance. I I
5 So we will let the parties work that out.
6 Fine. Are we ready to resume with Mr. Schapkor?
7 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir.
l l 8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Please do. I 9 BY MR. GUILD: l l
10 0 Mr. Schapker, let's talk about some details of the j
, 1 l 11 inspection that you did conduct. !
12 I understand that you essentially used the 13 September 6,1984, weil memo as the statement of the l
l 14 issues that you were inspecting to; is that correct, !
l I 15 sir? l I
i i 16 A Essentially, along with or supplemented by my interview j
( )
j 17 with Mr. Puckett. !
l
( 18 0 All right, sir. Well, help me t Can you identify any j 19 point at which you changed the statement of issues from !
20 the September 6,1984, memo based on what your interview !
I l 21 with Mr. Puckett disclooed? ;
22 A Do you want me to go through? j l
l i j 23 0 If you could, yes. !
r l 24 Can you identify instances where you made those 25 changes? l r I
! l Sonntaa Repor.tino Service, Ltd.
' Geneva, 1111noin 60134 f (312) 232-0262
- - ==__ - --- __ _ _ _ ._. .. .. .. .
11158 O l 1 A Allegation C. J l
2 O You are looking at your inspection report now, sir?
f l l
3 A Yes.
l 4 0 All right. l l
5 A On Page 5. j 6 Q Page 5, the details, yes, sir.
, I 7 It appea rs to me that that is a direct quote from
[
0 Item 1-C on Mr. Weil's September 6th memo and then you !
9 added a couple of contences to it; correct? ,
i 10 A Yes, and in "NRC" explained the interview.
11 0 Well, in what way, if any, did the supplemental !
12 sentences that appear at Page 5 under Allegation C alter 13 the statement of the issue that you had f rom Mr. Well? :
14 A It didn't alter it. It gave me a specific area to work 15 in.
16 0 By "arca" what do you mean, sir? l t
i l 17 A Well, the Alleger informed me that the referenced welds 18 were junction boxes within the reactor building.
19 Q I see. That in down in the NRC review portion of the ,
i 20 document?
{
21 A Yes, f
22 What I am referring to, sir, 10 your statement of the !
0 23 luouco that you inspected; and the question ins 24 In what way did you nodify thone issues from their 25 statement in Mr. Weil's September 6th memo? l Sonnton Reportino Service, Ltd. ;
l Geneva, Illinoin 60134 !
(312) 232-0262 l
i 11159 O
1 A They weren't changed.
2 Q They were not changed?
3 A No.
4 0 You added details based on what you had found in the 5 field and based on what you found in talking to Mr.
6 Puckett?
7 A Yes.
S Q But the statement of the issues rely on the formulation 9 of Mr. Weil's September 6th memo, do they not?
l 10 A Based on that and my review with Mr. Puckett, they did 1
11 not change.
12 0 I see. Now let's look at some of those details, sir.
13 Start with the one you just mentioned, the I 14 bimetallic welds.
15 It is true, is it not, that there was not a 16 procedure for binetallic welds that was qualified for 17 use by the L. K. Comstock Company; correct?
- 18 A That's true, i
. 19 0 And the issue really came down to the question of
! 20 whether or not there were, in fact, bimetallic welds 21 being performed by the Comstock Company?
22 A That's correct.
23 0 And you could find no evidence that there were; is that 24 your conclusion?
25 A Yes.
i Sonntaq Reportinq Service, Ltd.
i Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11160 O
1 Q Well, Mr. Puckett never maintained that he ever -- that 2 he gerformed a bimetallic weld, did he?
3 A No.
4 0 Ile never maintained that'he saw a bimetallic weld in the 5 field, did he?
6 A Not that he saw it himself, no.
7 0 lie maintained only that his concern about the absence of 8 a bimetallic weld procedure was based on information 9 that came to him f rom othe rs.
10 That someone else had come to him, a QC Inspector 11 in point of fact, and expressed the concern to him as 12 the Level III; correct?
13 A That's true.
14 Q And you went to the horse's mouth, so to speak, and the 15 horse's mouth in this case was -- was it Mr. Miner?
16 A Yes.
17 0 Mr. Miner stated to you that, indeed, he had brought the 18 concern to Mr. Puckett and had initiated the 19 Nonconformance Report, since Mr. Miner himself was at 20 that time certified as a Level II and Mr. Puckett's 21 certificationc were still pending?
22 A Yes. Mr. Puckett, I believe, wrote the details of the 23 NCR; Mr. Miner signed it.
24 0 You understood that Mr. Puckett wrote the details based 25 on information given to him by Mr. Miner?
Sonntaq Reportino Se rvice, Ltd.
}
Geneva, Illinois 60134
[ (312) 232-0262
i 11161 O
1 A I believe, yes, sir.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That's what Mr. Miner told 3 you, is it?
4 THE WITNESS: Yes.
5 BY MR. GUILD:
6 0 Now, there are, of course, more than a single --
7 bimetallic: The term bimetallic is generally understood 8 as not simply welding two different grades of metal but 9 welding dissimilar grades of metal, particularly 10 stainless steel and carbon steel?
11 A Yes. Dissimilar is more accurate.
12 0 In fact, Comstock works with both stainless and carbon 13 steel, stainless to a much lesser extent?
14 A Much lesser, yes.
15 0 They don't do structural welding -- well, they don't 16 weld to stainless steel structural members as a rule, do 17 they?
18 A No.
19 0 And they don't weld to stainless pipe as a rule? They 20 don't weld any stainless pan, do they?
21 A Other than to the junction box that is used as. conduit, J
22 which is stainless pipe.
23 0 Indeed. Well, the junction boxes that Comstock welds, 24 some of those are stainless steel junction boxes, are
- 25 they not?
Sonntaq Reporting Service,_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- , 11162 7 ~x ,
( } - ,
N- / - , _,
1 A Yes. , 3 2 Q And some of the conduit that they use, that Comstock 3 uses, is ca rbon steel conduit, is it not?
4 A Some of it, yes, but not welded to these junction boxes.
5 0 Well, that's another matter; but, in fact, there is 6 conduit that is made out of carbon steel and there are 7 junction boxes that are made out of stainless steel and 8 there is a joint that-is performed between the carbon 9 steel conduit and thc- stainless steel junction box, not
~
10 a weld joint but a joint?
11 A A mechanical joint.
[j v
12 0 It's a mechanical joint, that's what you observed when 13 you performed this inspection; correct?
l 14 A Yes. '-
15 0 All right, sir. But if there werc"a welded joint 16 between the conduit and the stainless steel junction 17 box, it would have to be performed to a duly qualified 18 bimetallic weld procedure, would it not?
19 A Yes, if there were.
20 Q And the -- I am sorry. .
21 A If there were.
22 0 If there were; and there would have to be welders who 23 were duly qualified to weld to that procedure?
24 A Yes.
25 Q And isn't it, in fact -- strike that.
v Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
N I
, 11163
}
L.,/
1 Wasn't it Mr. Puckett's information that he 2 conveyed to you, not firsthand knowledge but information 3 that had come his way by cthers, that the installations ,
4 of concern were, in fact, stainless steel conduit -- I -
5 mean stainless steel junction box to conduit s
6 connections, welded connections?
7 A Yes.
8 0 You found no evidence yourself of that having taken 9 place?
10 A Not carbon steel to stainless, no.
11 All right, sir. Where -- ]
Q .-
7m
)'
12 A Stainless to stainless.
(J) 13 I am sorry?
0 14 A Stainless to stainless.
15 Q You found evidence of stainless conduit welded to .a .
16 stainless junction boxes? q 17 A Yes. i 18 Q And you found evidence of carbon conduit mechanically 19 connected to stainless junction boxes? ,
20 A Yes.
,a 21 Q Can you tell us what kind of mechanical connection did;'
22 you find was used in that case?
a .
23 A Uniseal, Hub Appleton. \'
24 0 Those are trade names? -
/ ~
\s_ 25 A Yes.
Sonntaq Reportinq Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 3 v.
w.
3 ig_ ?
, ,' 11164 e'"~*x x
j +-
x-f Q What kind of a nechanical connection is that, sir?
2 A It's a fastener type, screw-on type mechanical joint.
3 Q Does it make a threaded connection?
( 4 I 'A' Yes.
5 Q *You th'rtgd the conduit, the end of the conduit --
6 A 'Yes.4 ,,
x s
-- adh, essentially, put a nut on the inside of the
~
7 Q' '
s.
8 ,, junction box with some kind of washers and gaskets and 9/ join it together?
. :) ~
.10 A Tes. _
11 Q All right, sir. ,Now --
t
[x_ > b_ 12 JUDGE'GROSSMAN: Excuse me.
13 -,
- Were the c,onnections between stainless boxes and 14 stainless conduit ., generally welded?
N 15 s. THE WIJNESS: In this application they were i >
16 welded, yes, stair >1ess to stainless.
' ? b 17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Was the distinction between 18 welding and' mechanically connected based solely on the 19 fact that one wasfstainless to stainless and the other 20 was stainle.s to ca'rbon steel?
21 In other words, was it uniformly done one way with 22 etainless to stainless?
23 : THE WITNESS: Yes.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And was it uniformly done
(
) 25 the other way with carben steel to stainless?
wJ .
y
( '
Sonntaq Reporting Se rv ice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illin91s 60134 f:. ,
(312) 232-0262
11165 w.
i )
V 1 THE WITNESS: Yes. There were no carbon to 2 stainless steel welds.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Were there --
4 THE WITNESS: There were no carbon steel.
5 They were all mechanical attachments if they were carbon 6 steel.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Was it the same the other 8 way a round: With stainless to stainless it was always 9 welded?
10 THE WITNESS: In this application it was, 11 yes, the ones.I observed.
12 BY MR. GUILD:
(O')
13 0 Well, are you aware of any other applications?
14 A No. It 's ve ry limited.
15 MR. JUDGE COLE: What do you mean, "very 16 limited"?
17 THE WITNESS: I fuehn IL's very limited 18 applications of stainless steel junction boxes.
19 MR. JUDGE COLE: Thank you.
12 0 BY MR. GUILD:
21 Q They didn't have many stainless steel junction boxes?
22 A Yes.
23 Q Where did they use stainless steel junction boxes, if 24 you know, Mr. Schapker?
x ,) 25 A In the reactor building.
Sonntac Reportino Se rvice , Ltd .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11166 7
I ) *
\_s>
1 Q In the reactor?
2 A Yes, in the reactor.
3 0 Is it correct that the stainless steel junction boxes 4 have a superior environmental qualification?
5 A Yes. They are in the refueling pool area, so that's the 6 purpose of them being stainless steel.
7 0 They don't corrode or rust?
8 A Yes.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me.
10 Is it apparent from looking at the boxes connected 11 to the conduit that the conduit is carbon or stainless
/-m 12 and, simila rly, ' that the junction boxes are stainless or (N- )
13 carbon?
14 Can you see that just by a visual inspection?
15 THS WITNESS: I would say generally, yes.
16 The carbon steel would be galvanized.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: So it would be shinier than 18 the stainless?
19 THE WITNESS: No. The stainless would be 20 shinier and the galvanized a dull finish, but it may not 21 always be that readily apparent. It may take a little 22 extra care to tell that.
23 But, generally, I would say it would be apparent.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Are you satisfied that you r
( ,h) 25 inspected all of the junction boxes that could have been Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd, Geneva, Illinois 60134
. (312) 232-0262
i
(
f 11167 le l
1 the subject of Mr. Miner's complaint?
I l l 2 THE WITNESS: Yes, based on his description I l
! 3 and his admittance that later on he found that there
( 4 were none. He concurred that there were no bimetallic i
i :
i 5 welds himself. '
i :
i
- 6 BY MR. GUILD
- l l
l 7 .Q He inferred, Mr. Schapker? l I <
l l 8 A He concurred.
I 9 0 That there were none? ;
i l l 10 A That there were no bimetallic welds. !
, i l 11 Q And, as you state in your testimony, he, Mr. Miner, made 12 a -- strike that.
l 13 Mr. Miner, indeed, made a correction to the i 14 Nonconformance Report at a later date to delete the ,
i t
! 15 reference to bimetallic welds? I 16 A Yes.
17 JUDGE CALLIHAN: What is your experience with
! 18 bimetallic welds at Braidwood? !
l 19 Did you find any?
h 20 THE WITNESS: No, I didn't find any I 21 bimetallic welds at Braidwood as far as L. K. Comstock; ,
i l 22 and I quantioned the Level III Weld Inspector and ;
J I
23 several Level II's, other Level II's, who had no
! 24 knowledge of bimetallic welds.
25 BY MR. GUILD: l f
l i l Sonntaq Renorting Service, Ltd. l
- ' Geneva, Illinois 60134 l I
(312) 232-0262 ;
11168 t i .
- l 1 Q You questioned Mr. Simile?
2 A Mr. Simile and several other inspectors in addition to 3 Mr. Miner.
4 Q Do you know whether or not there are any bimetallic 5 welds pe rf ormed by othe rs, othe rs aside f rom Comstock, 6 at Braidwood?
7 A Yes, I am certain that there is, yes.
8 Q In what sorts of applications, if you know, Mr.
9 Schapker?
10 A Well, bimetallic welds would have to be performed in the 11 reactor.
7,,
l } 12 The reactor is a carbon steel vessel and the piping LJ 13 is stainless steel, so in that application, the reactor 14 coolant piping, it would be a bimetallic weld.
15 Normally, that is performed by the vendor as a 16 buttery and --
17 Q I am sorry. As a what?
18 A As a buttery application.
19 It's an application of stainless steel material, so 20 that it can be field welded and not be a dissimilar 21 metal weld.
22 In other words, the vendor applies what is 23 described as a buttery on the end of the nozzle where
,s 24 the pipe would fit up; and then there is a -- instead of l 25 a dissimila r metal weld, you have a stainless to Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
t 11169
/
Iv]
1 stainless weld.
2 O What material is used to perform that buttering, Mr.
3 Schapker?
4 A Stainless. That is a dissimilar weld. It could be 5 stainless; it could be Inconel. In some applications 6 they use Inconel.
7 Q Are there other applications that you are aware of at 8 Braidwood where bimetallic welds are performed, 9 stainless to carbon, carbon to stainless?
10 A I believe in the fuel pool there may be some areas where 11 they would use carbon steel to stainless.
( ') 12 Q Is the liner plate in the fuel pool stainless steel?
%J 13 A Yes, that's all stainless steel.
14 Q Are there carbon steel attachments made to that liner 15 plate?
16 A Yes.
17 Q And those would be bimetallic welds?
18 A Yes, they could be.
19 Q All right, sir.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me.
21 Who is responsible for installing these 22 vendor-connected bimetallic welded materials or 23 equipment?
24 THE WITNESS: You are talking about the
,q
( 25 reactor?
Sonntaq Reporting Se rv ice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11170 iv]
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes.
2 THE WITNESS: That wculd be the NSS supplier, 3 the nuclear system supplier, such as General Electric or 4 Westinghouse.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Would Comstock --
- 6. THE WITNESS: Comstock would not, no.
7 Comstock would have nothing to do with any of these i
8 applications.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: With any of the bimetallic 10 welded materials that --
11 THE WITNESS: No.
,, m 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- that you discussed now?
(v) 13 THE WITNESS: No, none of them.
14 BY MR. GUILD:
15 Q How about let's talk about the other contractors on the 16 job.
17 Phillips Getschow is the mechanical contractor.
18 They do piping work among other things.
19 Are you aware of Phillips Getschow performing any l.
20 bimetallic welds?
21 MR. BERRY: Objection, your Honor, to the 22 relevance of this.
23 Phillips Getschow's welding activities is not an
, 24 issue in this case and the witness did not inspect I
( )s 25 Phillips Getschow's welding activities.
Sonntaq Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11171
/ \
N~ Y 1 I would object on relevance, your Honor.
2 MR. GUILD:- I don't intend to --
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We will allow the question 4 but I don't think we will allow too much exploration of 5 this area.
6 Are you aware of any of Phillips Getschow?
7 A I am not aware of any, no.
8 BY MR. GUILD:
9 Q Did you look when you performed this inspection?
10 A Do, I did not look.
11 0 Are you aware of any bimetallic welds performed within n
( ) 12 Gust K. Newberg scope of work?
%J 13 They are the structural contractor.
14 A No, I am not aware of it.
15 Q All right.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me.
17 With regard to the vendor-installed items 18 containing bimetallic welds, I take it if any repairs 19 were necessa ry, the vendor would make those repairs; is 20 that so?
21 THE WITNESS: No, not necessarily.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Would Comstock ever repair 23 those?
24 THE WITNESS: No, Comstock would not.
I (j 25 It would be the piping contractor, which would be Sonntag Reporting Se rv ice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11172 7
(v) 1 Getschow.
2 BY MR. GUILD:
3 0 Well, the piping contractor if we were talking about the 4 nozzle to coolant p', ping?
5 A Right.
6 0 But it would be some other contractor if it were another 7 application?
8 A It could be, but not -- there is none applicable to 9 Comstock.
10 0 1 hat's the question, Mr. Schapker.
11 Who does the bimetallic welding involved in the (v ) 12 fuel pool?
13 A In the case of Braidwood, I am not certain who had that 14 contract.
15 It wasn't Comstock, though, I know that.
16 Q All right, sir. Lastly, are you aware of whether 17 Pullman Sheet Metal, the HVAC contractor, performs any 18 bimetallic welding at the Braidwood site?
19 A No, I am not aware of any.
20 Q All right, sir. Now, who installs electrical equipment 21 at the Braidwood site?
22 A Comstock.
23 Q Do they install all electrical equipment?
24 A The majority of the electrical equipment, I believe, is
()
f 'N 25 installed by Comstock.
Sonntaa Renortino Se rvice, Ltd, Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11173
( )
'w/
1 Q Okay. Well, who installs the minority of electrical 2 equipment if it's not installed by Comstock?
3 A Well, pumps and valves and electrical e:1uipment of that 4 sort are not installed by Comstock.
5 0 Who installs them?
6 A Well, it would be Phillips Getschow or it could be 7 Newberg ~in some cases, I guess.
8 O A13 right, sir. And isn't it true, also, that there are 9 cable trays that utilize hangers that are shared with 10 the HVAC contractor, Pullman Sheet Metal?
11 A Yes, I believe that is true.
,s 12 Isn't it true that there are in many instances pieces of (v ) Q 13 equipment, other installations, where there are 14 multi-jurisdictional work performed?
15 By that I mean where it's not clearly segregated 16 electrical, mechanical, HVAC but the contractors work 17 together on what may be a single piece of equipment or 18 installation.
19 A I -- I guess I don't understand the premise of the 20 question.
21 Q Well, I am not asking you to fathom : hat.
22 Do you understand the question itself, Mr.
23 Schapker?
24 A No, I guess I don't.
()
25 You say several contractors work together?
Sonntaq Reporting Se rv ice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 11174
,m i i
\m /
1 Q Let's take a pump, sir. The pump has a motor in it.
2 The motor is electrical.
3 A Yes.
4 Q But because a pump has a motor doesn't necessarily mean 5 that the electrical contractor installs the pump?
6 A Yes, that's correct.
7 Q The pump may be installed by both Phillips Getschow and 8 Gust K. Newbe rg?
9 A Yes.
10 Q And it may be also installed with some ef fort by L. K.
11 Comstock that performs the electrical work?
o
[V \ 12 13 A
Q Yes.
Comstock has to run the wires to the pump?
14 A They do the terminations.
15 Q You have to run the conduit to the junction box that is 16 associated with the pump?
17 A Yes.
18 Q And on the other end of the spectrum, there are hangers 19 in the Braidwood facility where both electrical cable 20 tray and heating, ventilating and air-conditioning duct 21 work both run?
22 A Yes.
23 0 And some portions of those hangers may be welded by L.
24 K. Comstock and some portions of those hangers may be
( ) 25 welded by Pullman Sheet Metal?
Sonntag Reporting Se rv ice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 ,
(312) 232-0262
11175 i /
N_ /
1 A Yes, I guess that's true.
2 Q Those are just two examples -- there may be others --
3 where there is multi-jurisdictional work on a single 4 component or single piece of equipment. By that I mean 5 more than one contractor, more than one discipline 6 performing field work on a single piece of equipment or 7 installation.
8 That happens, does it not?
9 A Yes. It's --
10 Q Do you know whether or not, Mr. Schapker, there was any 11 bimetallic welding performed by a contractor other than
-s s
.[ j 12 L. K. Comstock on a piece of equipment or installation
%J 13 that was also within L. K. Comstock's scope of work?
14 MR. MILLER: I would object, your Honor.
15 Aga in , the relevance of this to the issues before 16 the Board is so marginal that I don't think that it's --
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Overruled.
18 THE WITNESS: Would you mind repeating it?
19 MR. GUILD: Would the Reporter read the 20 question back?
21 (The question was thereupon read by the 22 Reporter.)
23 A No.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You don't know or there
/ \
i x ,) 25 wasn't any?
Sonntaq Reporting Se rv ice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
a 11176 7
\ ]
v 1 A (Continuing.) There wasn't any.
2 BY MR. GUILD:
3 Q Did you look at all of them, Mr. Schapker?
4 A (No response.)
5 Q You didn't look at all of them, did you?
6 A No.
7 Q So you can't say with certainty whether there was or 8 there was not; you just don't know?
9 A I am basing it on the observations that I made in the 10 inspection.
11 Q Yes. And that inspection was limited, sas it not?
( ) 12 A Yes. The inspection -- all inspections are limited.
'\s' 13 0 All right, sir. And you are only testifying based on 14 the limits of that inspection, are you not?
15 A Yes.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Are you saying now, Mr.
17 Schapker, that you know that there wasn't any wire 18 pulled by L. K. Comstock to any equipment installed by 19 another contractor that had bimetallic welds?
20- THE WITNESS: No, I wouldn't say that.
21 That's possible.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I would assume that,is 23 within the scope of the question that Mr. Guild asked 24 you as to whether with regard to any equipment as to
(%
is v) 25 which there is joint jurisdiction, so to speak, between Sonntaq Reporting Se rv ice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I-11177.
.(
$ l ss' 1 Comstock and some other contractor --
2 THE WITNESS: Yes, they would.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- there were bimetallic 4 welds.
5 Wouldn't that be an example?
C THE WITNESS: It's possible there were 7 bimetallic welds performed by another contractor, yes, 8 and Comstock routed their terminations -- routed cable 9 and terminated to a component. That's possible, yes; 10 but that wasn't the issue as far as the inspection was 11 conce rn ed .
f~n
(\. j) 12 JUDGE GPOSSMAN: But Mr. Guild was excluding 13 from the question the possibility that L. K. Comstock 14 was responsible for the welding.
15 THE WITNESS: I didn't inspect the other 16 contractors to verify if they had bimetallic weld 17 procedures, no. That was not at issue.
18 I was only looking at L. K. Comstock's procedures.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Are you certain that if 20 there was any repair necessary to any of the bimetallic 21 installations in which Comstock had some jurisdiction, 22 not to weld but to do some other or perform some other 23 function, that Comstock personnel didn't take it on 24 themselves to make the repairs to the bimetallic joints?
( \
( ) 25 THE WITNESS: No, they would not be Sonntaq Reporting Se rv ice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11178 (uj )
1 authorized to do that.
2 They have to work within thei'r contract provisions, 3 which, if they are to pull cable and terminate, that 4 would be the extent of their work in that area.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: So you could assume that --
6 THE WITNESS: If they observed that there was 7 a cracked weld or something like that, they would have 8 to report that to the applicable contractor or the 9 Licensee.
10 BY MR. GUILD:
11 Q Now, Mr. Schapker, if one were to perform a bimetallic m
12 weld, carbon to stainless steel, would one employ a
( }
13 particular sort of electrode?
14 A There are several electrodes they could employ, yes.
15 Q Nhat are those, sir?
16 A Well, basing on my recollection, E309.
17 I think E312 is another one that is used for 18 bimetallic welds.
19 Q All right, sir. Are there any others that come to mind?
20 A There are some others. They don't come to mind.
21 Q Were any of those electrodes employed qualified to be 22, used in the L. K. Constock welding program?
23 A Any of those electrodes?
24 Q Yes.
(,.-) 25 A Not for bimetallic welds, no.
Sonntaq Reporting Se rv ice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11179
]
&_.)
1 Q That wasn't my question.
2 Were any of those electrodes qualified to be used 3 for any welding within the Comstock welding program?
4 A Yes. E309 was qualified in, I believe, Weld Procedure 5 4.3.14.
6 Q All right, sir. For doing what kind of weld, if you 7 know?
8 A Stainless to stainless weld --
9 Q Are there any othe r --
10 A -- together --
11 O I am sorry.
(p) w/
12 A -- together with E308, E308 and 309.
13 Q And have you --
14 A They are both --
15 Q I am sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt.
16 A They are both given an FA numbe r, so they are very 17 closely related.
18 0 What is the distinguishing feature between E308 and E309 19 electrodes, Mr. Schapker?
20 A Well, E308 - you mean as far as why E308 wouldn't make 21 a good bimetallic weld or --
22 0 If that is a distinction in your mind, sir.
23 A Well, E309 makes a better combination of bimetallic 24 welds, because it is more austenitic than the E308; and fh y ,j 25 during the dilution of the base material, the carbon Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illineis 60134 (312) 232-0262
11180 t'
's. )
1 steel to the stainless steel, you have some tendency for 2 the weld to be martensitic.
3 So with E308 that would be -- it's not as good a 4 combination. Martensitic welds are more fragile, are 5 less tough than austenitic welds.
6 Q stainless steel is an austenitic material; is that 7 right?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Now, would you as a person who is expert in these areas, 10 Mr. Schapker, draw any inference at all from the use of 11 E309 electrode, that it was likely being employed for (m i
( 12 the welding of carbon to stainless steel?
%)
13 A No, I wouldn't.
14 Q Would you think it appropriate to specify E309 for 15 welding stainless steel to stainless steel?
16 A Yes, very appropriate.
17 Q Would you think it any more appropriate to specify E308 18 electrode for welding stainless steel to stainless 19 steel?
20 A It depends on the materials, the type of stainless 21 steels you are attempting to weld.
22 0 All right, sir. Now, you acknowledge that E309 as 23 compared to E308 is a more appropriate electrode to 24 utilize for making bimetallic welds because of its rh I \ 25 austenitic character?
( j/
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11181 I
\
vl 1 A Yes, in the application of bimetallic welds, yes.
2 Q All right, sir. Do you have any --
3 A Dissimilar welds.
4 0 I am sorry.
5 A Dissimilar welds.
6 Q Dissimilar welds, all right.
7 Do you have any knowledge why L. K. Comstock 8 Company would specify the use of such an austenitic 9 electrode if they weren't going to be performing 10 bimetallic welds?
11 A I believe they qualified the procedure to E309.
n
\ 12 Well, that is a fact; but is that --
( 0
\_-)
13 A Stainless to stainless procedure.
14 0 Yes. And it's qualified to use for stainless to 15 stainless, the --
16 A Yes.
17 Q -- E309; but that wasn't my question.
18 My question was: Do you have any knowledge of the 19 reason why Comstock specified E309 for performing 20 stainless to stainless welds?
21 A They specify E308 or E309, either, in their procedures, 22 so either one could have been used, utilized.
23 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, could I ask for 24 some help?
/,,,')
(_,/ 25 I would like a responsive answer to my question.
Sonntaq Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I I
L 11182 l
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes. The question is really i
2 why they used E309 at all for stainless to stainless.
3 THE WITNESS: I assume they qualified the 4 procedure with E309 because they had that E309 available 5 to them.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, was E308 more 7 appropriate --
8 THE WITNESS: E308 was --
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- more appropriate for 10 stainless to stainless than E309?
11 THE WITNESS: Not necessarily, no.
12 E308 or E309, as I stated before, were very 13 similar.
14 E309 does have better applications for bimetallic 15 welds.
16 , JUDGE GROSSMAN: But as to stainless to 17 sta inles s , they are both equal?
18 THE WITNESS: Yes -- well, they can both be 19 used and qualified as a weld.
20 Yes, they are.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, for the Comstock 22 applications --
23 THE WITNESS: Equal as far as Comstock 24 applications for stainless to stainless weld, yes.
25 BY MR. GUILD:
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11183 p,
( ,
) -
s
% s' 1 Q Equal only because they qualify both of them; is that 2 right?
3 A Equal in any respect.
4 Q I see. You --
5 A As far as the material quality, I would say they would 6 be equal in that application.
7 0 In what application?
8 A The application utilized by L. K. Comstock.
9 Q Stainless to stainless?
10 A Stainless to stainless, yes.
11 Q And your assumption is that the only reason that
,m
( 12 Comstock specified E309 -- the only reason they
}
13 qualified their stainless procedure to E309 was because 14 they had some on hand?
15 A No. I believe it had 308 and 309 on hand.
16 0 Okay. So they included both, because they had both on 17 hand, including E309?
18 A No, no. That's not the reason for the initial.
19 They used this material because it's a correct 20 material to make this application. In other words, the 21 stainless steel that they welded together was best 22 utilized with this type of material, this weld rod E308 23 or E309, 24 Q But it wasn't limited to any particular kind of f
25 stainless steel, was it?
( )
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11184
[ l l
% ,/.
1 A No; but I am sure that -- I believe it was limited. I 2 am sorry.
3 Type 304.
4 Q To what, sir?
5 A Type 304.
6 Q Only?
7 A In the weld, yes.
8 Q Is it your opinion that's the most appropriate electrode 9 to use for that type of stainless steel?
10 A Yes, either electrode would be appropriate.
11 Q The question, sir, is: Is it your opinion that E309 is
/-m y
/ 12 the most appropriate electrode to use for that material?
b' 13 A E308 or E309 are appropriate, either one.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Equally appropriate?
15 THE WITNESS: Equally appropriate.
16 BY MR. GUILD:
17 0 Then, again, let me try the question that started this 18 rather convoluted line, Mr. Sch apke'r .
19 Do you have any knowledge as to the reason why L.
20 K. Comstock specified E309 electrode for welding 21 stainless to stainless?
22 A Because it was an appropriate electrode.
23 0 Equally appropriate?
24 A Equally appropriate for E308 or E309.
/
( ) 25 Q And it just happened to be the appropriate electrode for Sonntag Reporting Se rv ice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 I
11185
,m 1 welding bimetallic welds, carbon to stainless?
2 A Well, it's appropriate but it's not the only appropriate 3 material for making bimetallic welds, either.
4 Q No, sir. It just happens to be the only one that L. K.
5 Comstock uses in this program?
4 6 A They didn't make any bimetallic welds so they didn't use 7 it in the plant for bimetallic welds.
8 They utilized it for stainless to stainless.
9 Q As fa r as you know. All right, sir.
10 You understood that Mr. Puckett had a concern about 11 control of weld filler material at Braidwood, did you
( 12 not?
\--
13 A I believe that's addressed in here, yes.
14 O And your statement of the issue which you inspected is 15 contained at Page 6 of your inspection report, the
-16 details of your inspection report, Applicant's Exhibit 17 51, unde r E, Allegation l?
18 A Yes.
19 Q And you write there, "L. K. Comstock Company does not 20 have any weld filler material controls, as the procedure 21 is only now being written."
22 A Yes.
23 Q Now, that is, in fact, a statement of the issue that you 24 took directly from a quotation from Mr. Weil's September
) 25 6, 1984, memo?
Sonntaq Reportinq Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 232-0262
_ 33 23 - . - ,-
11186
%./
1 A Which was -- I believe it was taken from the testimony 2 given by the Allege r at the time of the September 3 interview at the NRC Office, Regional Office.
4 Q That is your understanding?
5 A That is the way I read the transcript.
6 Q All right, sir. And it's your understanding that that 7 was the basis for formulating this list of concerns, 8 including this particular concern; correct?
9 A Yes.
10 Q All right. Now, do you seriously believe, Mr. Schapker, 11 that it was Mr. Fuckett's position that there were no i
p) 12 weld filler metal controls in place at Braidwood during V
13 his tenure?
14 A That's the way he stated it.
15 Q Well, sir, I understand that is your position that.is 16 the way he stated it.
17 My question to you is not that, sir, it's another; 18 and that is:
19 Do you serious believe as you sit here today that 20 Mr. Puckett took the position that there were no 21 controls of weld filler metal in place at Braidwood as 22 you framed the issue in your inspection report?
23 MR. BERRY: Objection.
24 The question calls for -- the question is asking y ) 25 Mr. Schapker, as he sits here today, does he understand Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
,.n i 1 V
1 that Mr. Puckett took a position back in September.
2 I believe that the question is -- there is no 3 foundation for that, there is no basis for that 4 question.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Overruled.
6 A Well, from listening to his testimony I had a different 7 opinion.
8 BY MR. GUILD:
9 Q And the opinion that you understood from listening to 10~ his testimony was that he believed that whatever weld 11 filler metal control procedures were in place at
(
n} 12 13 Comstock were either themselves ineffective or being ineffectively implemented?
14 A That's what he stated in his testimony, yes. l 15 0 All right, sir. Well, at the time you performed your 16 inspections, though, you understood Mr. Puckett's 17 concern to be that there were no procedures in place at 18 all for control of weld filler metal?
19 A That was his statement.
20 Q Yes, sir, that is what you say his statement was.
21 My question to you is --
22 A I have to base my inspection on his statements.
23 Q My question -- j 24 A And I felt personally myself that there were controls,
) 25 that he probably felt that they were inadequate or Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11188 a
.\s /
1 weren't up to his par, up to par as far as he was J
2 concerned.
3 Q I am sorry. I --
4 A That's what I based my inspection on. I reviewed all of 5 the procedures rega rding that.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me.
7 Could you repeat the answer, please?
8 (The answer was thereupon read by the 9 Repor te r . )
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I am not sure from your 11 answer that you included in your inspection of this item
/' s
( ) 12 the fact that Mr. Puckett might have been dissatisfied
~~ J 13 with the adequacy of the controls.
14 Did you inspect --
15 THE WITNESS: Yes.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- to that point, also?'
17 THE WITNESS: Yes.
18 BY MR. GUILD:
19 0 Then you simply misstated Mr. Puckett's true concern 20 when you used the language that appea rs at Page 6 of 21 your inspection report, which states, "L. K. Comstock 22 Company does not have any weld filler material 23 controls"?
24 MR. BERRY: Objection.
I 25 BY MR. GUILD:
(wJ Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 11189
,+
/ i j
1 Q Isn't that true, sir?
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, he can answer the 3 question. I am sure he can handle it.
4 A The allegation is a direct quote cut of the transcript 5 from the Alleger.
6 BY MR. GUILD:
7 0 That is not my question, sir.
8 Could you respond to my question, Mr. Schapker, 9 please?
10 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, I think the witness 11 has responded that the premise contained in Mr. Guild's
,-m 12 question is simply a false one, (a) 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes. I think you are being 14 -argumentative now, Mr. Guild.
> 15 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, the --
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: The witness's answer is that 17 he stated the question the way he understood Mr. Puckett 18 to have stated it; but that, nevertheless, he inspected 19 also to inadequacies in the control procedures.
20 Is that a fair statement, Mr. Schapker?
21 THE WITNESS: Yes.
22 MR. GUILD: I appreciate the schedule.
23 Let me try one more question on this line.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, I am not denying
/%
k) 25 further questioning on this line, but the repetitious Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11190
( i
'% J 1 questioning became argumentative on that particular 2 point.
3 MR. CUILD: Let me t.ry one more. I hope this 4 isn' t unduly a rgumenta tive.
5 BY MR. GUILD:
6 0 Is it your belief, Mr. Schapker, that you fairly recited 7 Mr. Puckett's -- the substance of Mr. Puckett's concern 8 on Page 6, Allegation C-1 of your inspection report?
9 A At the time I formulated this, yes; 10 0 Well, did you change your mind during the course of your 11 inspection?
[ ) 12 A Not during the course of my inspection, no.
\s ,/ -
13 Q Well, when did you change your, mind about whether you 14 fairly summarized his concerns?
15 A Well, his testimony was somewhat different.
16 0 In what respects was his t.estimony different, Mr.
17 Schapker?
18 A Well, he stated at that time, his testimony here before the Board, that he was concerned about the adequacy of I 19 20 the procedure, not that there just wasn't any procedure.
21 Q When you talked to Mr. Puckett, did he give you any 22 reason to believe that the testimony he gave from the l 23 witness stand in this proceeding did not reflect the 24 concerns that he held when he was employed by L. K.
O
( ,) 25 Comstock Company rega rding weld filler material?
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
5 s I'N t 11191
( \
\~l .)
} ,;
1 A I can only tell you what he told me and what he told the ' I,,f 2 NRC, and this is what his concern reflected at-that 3 time. [
v" 4 Q Well, did Mr. Puckett lie to you, Mr. Schapker, and tell 5 you that there were no procedures at all or did, in .,
6 fact, he tell you that he questioned the adequacy of /g i.
7 those procedures, sir?
8 A He didn't make any statement as far as the adequacy of gg, -
- c ,,,
9 the procedures at that time. ,
10 He just said in the context of this statement that 11 the procedure was just now being written- that he was
, ,h
[)
v 12 writing procedures at the time that he left.
13 Q Did you ask him -- +
14 A The weld filler control procedures.
ec.
15 Q I am sorry. I am sorry. Complete your answer.
1 16 A That they didn't have any weld control procedures. That 17 he was just writing them when he left.
18 Q Did you ask him whether there was a procedure that i~
19 specified in any respect the control of weld filler ,
20 material at the point where he initiated writing 21 procedures for this subject?
22 A No, I didn't. He was pretty explicit.
t 23 0 Well, you subsequently lea rned, did you not, Mr.
24 Schapker, that after Mr. Puckett left the site, they
,/~ 1
( _,]1 25 identified a nonconforming condition with respect to Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- q y,'
- r- l
', 1 4
-l
- tu ,
11192 y ' s l1
.r.s f y
,( 't Y ~ ;; . ,
i- ,
1 v +
1-
~
1 this very subject, the adequacy of the program for 2 < n controlling weld filler material, and that is cited in h' g- ^
'~3 l. your inspection report, is it not?
Y , ,
t 4 Yes.
- af gy, e
3 5 -
Qs Do you know whether or not that NCR was based on Mr.
. . t! 6 Puckett's findings with respect to the inadequacies of 6i ,
4 7
- the filler ' metal control program?
, 3 I . A- I believe it was based originally on the findings of J
9 another NRC Inspector.
10
- O Well, Mr. Shhulz did an inspection and found some
, %(ff.'
7 o
\ 11 j problems of weld --
,"x ;\ ,
12 A Yes, Mr. To kettxdid a follow-up on that and the NCR was (O 1 13 '<
.. later formulated out of those.
s
' 14 , ., JUDGE GROSSMAN: Did Mr. Puckett develop any c.. 0 15 further concerns than Mr. Schulz had found originally?
, i, 16 THE WITNESS: Yes. 'I believe he had some 17' b concerns that there were certain certified material test 7
1 s's 18' N c, reports that he could not find.
. y s
.19' ' '
i JUDGE GROSSMAN: riere these further concerns 2 . 20 by Mr. Puckett reflected in NCR 3275?
7 2i '
THE WITNECS: This was addressed. I don't 22 ,
remembe r if it was in this pa rticular NCR.
23 But those concerns were addressed to Mr. DeWald by 7,
24 Mr. Puckett on a memo', and these certified material test
/ T- i t, j 25 ', reports were located,' and I reviewed those.
x.s 2. ,
t I
L .
Sonntca Reporting Service, Ltd.
76m eva , Illinois 60134 t (312) 232-0262
= _
11193
/ ;
\ ]~
v 1 That's in another part of the inspection report.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, you treated that as a 3 separate issue in your inspection?
4 THE WITNESS: Yes, it's a separate issue.
5 MR. GUILD: It's Page 7, Mr. Chairman, the 6 next allegation.
7 I am going to get to that one in a moment.
8 BY MR. GUILD:
9 Q Mr. Schapker, is it your contention that Mr. Puckett 10 added nothing,to what Mr. Schulz's findings had been, 11 nothing that served as a basis for the Nonconformance (m) xs 12 Report that was originated in September after the 13 departure?
14 A I don't know if he added anything to that or not.
15 Q Did you look? Did you try to determine whether he did 16 ,
in your inspection?
17 A The focus of my inspection was whether there was 18 adequate weld control procedures at the time of his 19 employment.
20 Q So the answer is no to my last question, sir?
21 A Reread the question.
22 Q The question -- I will try again -- is:
23 Did you seek to determine whether or not Mr.
24 Puckett had been responsible for identifying any of the e
/% t
( ) 25 conditions that were ultimately documented in the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. !
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 l l
1
- 11194
(
,N l i I i
%/ ,
{
1- Nonconformance Report that you cite here? l r
2 A No. l l
3 Q You didn't give him credit for any in your inspection j l 4 report, did you? l
' l 5 A It's not the intent of my inspection, sir. l I
6 Q You didn't, did you?
7 A No. !
f 1 )
! 8 Q All right, sir. But you stated.his concern as if his i l
9 concern was as to the existence of any program at all? ;
l 10 A (No response.) !
i 11 Q Did you substantiate Mr. Puckett's concern in this area, l 4
(s)
N_-
12 Mr. Schapker? l l
13 A No. j
{ ;
j 14 Q Did you ask Mr. Puckett what his concerns were in the l
- i l 15 area of weld filler metal control when you interviewed i i~
16 him, Mr. Schapker?
17 A Yes.
18 0 What did he tell you?
i 19 A He stated that they didn't have any controls. !
I l 20 0 Did you follow up with what he meant by that? Did you 21 ask him any more questions, sir?
22 A He said he was just now formulating the procedure 23 himself and they didn't have adequate controls.
24 0 Right. They didn ' t have adeq' tate cont rols, he was 25 formulating an improved procedure to make it more f L l
!. Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
) ~
C _. _ _. - - . . _ . . . . . . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ __ _._ _
11195 y-N 1 a dequa te .
2 Did you ask him what the inadequacies were that he 3 identified?
4 A He didn't state that he was formulating a procedure to 5 make it more adequate.
6 He just said he was formulating a procedure that 7 weld --
8 Q Did you'ask him what he was formulating a procedure for, 9 Mr. Schapker?
.10 A For weld control.
11 Q Did you ask --
-p) g 12 A Materials.
s -
/
13 0 -- what the elements were of the procedure that he was 14 formulating?
15 A No.
16 Q Did you ask him why he was formulating a procedure for 17 filler material control?
'. 8 A I assumed it was part of his job.
19 0 I take that to mean you didn't ask him; you made an-20 assumption?
21 A Yes.
22 Q Did Mr. Puckett -- did you ask Mr. Puckett who was 23 responsible for controlling weld filler material at the 24 time he reviewed the program in the spring and summer of ps 25 1984?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Th d .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11196
,~,
f )
\__/
l- A No.
2' Q Did you ask him whether or not there was any quality 3 cont rol involvement in the control of weld filler 4 material at the time Mr. Puckett reviewed the program in 5 '84?
6 A No.
7 Q Did you ask him whether or not there was effective 8 documentation of the issuance of weld filler material at 9 the time Puckett reviewed the program in '84?
10 A No.
11 Q How about traceability of filler material to specific 12 installations 'in which the filler material was to be
[mv)-
13 used in '84?
14 A No.
15 Q How about the control of unused filler material after it 16- had been issued to the field, returned by a craftsman to 17 some control station or other; did you ask him about 18 that?
19 A No.
20 Q Did you ask him whether or not there was control of 21 stubs or consumed filler metal used in the field?
22 A No.
23 0 Do you know whether Mr. Puckett had any concerns in 24 those areas, Mr. Schapker?
f, t 25 A He didn't convey those to me at the time, no.
x- l Sonntaq Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
(
, 11197 l
? )
x_/
1 Q You heard him talk about those subjects when he 2 testified in this proceeding, didn't you?
I 3 A Yes. In this proceeding is the first time I have heard 4 it.
l L 5 0 Uh-huh. Did you have any involvement in reviewing the
[
6 filler material control program at the Zimmer facility, 7 Mr. Schapker?
f 8 A No.
9 O Do you have any familiarity with what program they had 10 there?
i 11 A Vaguely.
/~~'s
( 12 0 Are you aware, for example, that ultimately at the ms )
13 behest of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the 14 Licensee at Zimmer employed a program of requiring rod 15 for rod count of filler metal issued, consumed and 16 returned?
17 A Yes.
-18 0 You agree, don't you, that that would provide for 19 enhanced filler metal control over a system that makes 20 no effort to account rod by rod for metal -- filler l 21 metal -- issued, consumed and returned?
22 A That is an enhanced program, yes.
23 Q That is an enhanced program that didn't exist at 24 Braidwood at the time Mr. Puckett worked there as a
/', s
( ,) 25 Level III and doesn't exist at Braidwood today, does it?
l Sonntag Reportinq Se rv f.ce , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinoia 60134 (312) 232-0262 l
.-. .- - - - - - - - -~
i
.I h
l 11198 7
,n
! f 1 i
j 1 A That's true.
I' ,
j 2 You know, it's not a requirement.
l y 3 Q Not a Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirement?
4 A That's right.
h 5 0 Well, in fact, there is no Nuclear Regulatory Commission
[ 6 r equi rement , other than the provision of Appendix B that ,
P
[ 7 you cite in your inspection report -- [
i t l 8 A Yes. !
l l 9 Q -- other than the requirements that are imposed on an ad 10 hoc basis, Licensee by Licensee, as was the case at I
[ 11 Zimmer, where the NRC prompted the enhancement o^ the l (O
%./
- 12 filler material control program there? j 13 A That was prompted due to the failures that were 1 l
- 14 addressed ea rlier -- j l
l 15 0 Uh-huh, I see. You didn't --
16 A -- of their program. t 17 Q You didn't prompt any enhancement of the weld filler l l
18 control program at Braidwood, did you, Mr. Schapker?
i 19 A No. It had already been accomplished with my i 20 inspection. {
21 Q Well, the NCR at issue that you cite in your inspection l i
22 report, that had happened, hadn't it?
{
I 23 A Yes, j
~
24 0 But they never adopted a program that provided rod for l
( ) 25 rod accountability, did they, at Braidwood?
l
(
i l
L Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. !
Geneva, Illinois 60134 I (312) 232-0262
l L
l 11199
' ( I-1 A No.
l 2 0 And, in fact, you have since learned, after you k; -3 published this inspection report and based on the l
4 testimony in this proceeding, that problems with weld 5 filler material control continued even af ter the l 6 origination of the Nonconformance Report in September of 7 1984?
8 A I don't recall that.
9 Q Is that you do recall that?
10 A I don't recall it.
11 Q Oh, you don't recall that.
f gp}
v
. 12 Did you hear the testimony of Mr. Simile on this 13 subject?
14 A I think I was present for part of Mr. Simile's; but-I 15 didn't -- I don't think I was present for all of his 16 testimony.
17 Q Are you aware of concerns expressed to Mr. Simile by
. 18 Comstock Quality Control Inspectors af ter Mr. Puckett's 19 time about failure to adequately implement the program 20 for filler material control?
21 A No.
22 O Let's talk about the separate allegation that you were 23 the n --
24 JUDGE GROSSMA!!: We are moving on to another
-l 25 allegation now?
Sonntati Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva. Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
__m. . .___. . .. , _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
t L
! l i ;
t 11200 i i Ltill i- {
l' 1 MR. GUILD: We are, sir. !
t l
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Why don't we take our (
l l
3 luncheon break? l i \
[' 4 We will return at 1:15. l i
! 5 (WHEREIIPON, the hearing of the i
j 6 above-entitled matter was continued to f 7 the hour of 1:15 P. M.)
4 8 ,
i l 9 i 10
!- l 11 o
! 13 i 1
! 14 !
l ;
15 l ;
l 16 l i
17 ,
l i 18' '
l 19 l l :
20 !
21 l 22 '
l 23 ,
i 24 i 25 i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 [
(312) 232-0262 j
11201
(~~h Q ,)
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR RIGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
__________________x 5 :
In the Matter of : :
6 : Docket No. 50-456 OL COMMONW EAL TH EDISCN COMPANY : 50-457 OL 7 :
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 :
8 and 2) :
__________________x 9
10 Met pursuant to recess.
11 Tuesday, August 26, 1986.
1: 20 o' clock P. M.
(N 12 13 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : Okay. We are back in 14 se s si on.
15 Mr. Guil d, please continue.
16 MR. GUILD: Thank you, Mr. Chci rman.
17 BY MR. GUILD:
18 0 Mr. Sch apker, bef ore the recess, you had directed our 19 attention to a related allegation, the subj ect of weld 20 rod control, and that was an allegation that appears at 21 Page 7 of your inspection report, Applicant's Exhibit 22 51, under Allegation 2 on this subj ect.
23 Could you turn to that portion of your report, 24 pl ease ?
25 A Yes, si r.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinoi s 60134 I
(312) 232-0262
11202 0
1 Q Now, Mr. Puckett told you, did he not, that as part of 2 his duties, he attempted to review a number of weld rod 3 withdrawal slips, and in order to determine whether or 4 not those alips accurately reflected the weld rod issued 5 as shown on those slips, he attempted to trace the 6 identifying numbers, the heat numbers, the lot nunbers, 7 back to source docmnents to see whether or not the chain 8 of tr ace abil ity co ul d be co nf i rm ed --
9 A Yes.
10 0 -- cor r ect ?
11 A Yes.
12 Q All right.
13 And in perf orming this sampling of the adequacy of 14 the traceability of weld rod, he traced a number of them 15 back to documents on file in the Comstock quality 16 assurance, quality control vault, and f or a number of 17 slips, he was unable to find documentation in the 18 Comstock vault, tracing the rods shown as issued, back 19 to a Certified Material Test Report; correct?
20 A Ye s. I said he tried tracing them back to Comstock and 21 Phillips G etschow. Phillips Getschow is the supplier.
i 22 Q All right, si r.
l 23 Let me ask you this question:
24 At the outset, you would agree, wouldn' t y ou, th at 25 the Comstock quality assurance program should have Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinoi s 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
. ..... _- - - - - _ _ =
11202
()
'O 1 provided f or ready retrievability of the CMTR's or other 2 source documentation f or the weld filler material that 3 was being used by the Comstock program?
4 A As since they obtained their materials f rom Phillips 5 Getschow, they depended on Phillips Getschow's records 6 to reflect that.
7 0 I see.
8 So the f act of the matter was that Comstock's own 9 records did not, in a ready-retrievable or any other 10 fashion, document the source of the filler material that 11 Comstock itself was using.
/N 12 That's your understanding?
b 13 A That's my understanding, yes. They were Phillips 14 Getschow or the Licensee Q A vault.
15 O So not only weren' t they rea@r retrievable at L.K.
16 Comst ock i n thei r own Q A v aul t --
17 A They weren' t in existence at all.
18 Q They had to go to some other source to find them?
- 19 A There were copies of some of them available in the L.K.
20 Comstock vault; but I don' t believe in every case.
l i 21 0 Well, why are there copies in some cases and not copies 22 in others, if they had a program that was being applied 23 in a consistent f ashion, tir . Schapker?
24 A I can' t answ er that. si r.
25 0 Why were the copies there that you happened to see?
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
a
[ 11204 o
i V
1 Why were the copies of the Q A vault at Comstock the ;
i i 2 ones you did find?
3 A I don' t know that.
l 4 Q They just happened to be there?
l 5 A That's a possibility that somebody had brought them 6 there.
7 Q Wer e they --
i 8 'A For whatever reason.
9 Q Did you complete your answer?
- 10 A For whatever reason.
11 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : Somebody brought them there?
2 12 TH E WITN ESS : Somebody would have retrieved l 13 them and put them in the vault f or some reason, maybe.
l 14 They were applied to some nonconf ormance report or 15 something to that ef f ect.
16 BY MP. GUILD:
- 17 Q Were they original documents, the ones you did find in j 18 the Comstock vault?
19 A N o, I believ e they were copies. ;
! 20 0 Xerox copies of or photocopies?
21 A Yes.
< 22 0 Were they certified photographic copies?
23 A They were copies of the Certified Material Test Reports, 24 yes. They weren' t certified themselves, no.
25 Q So th ey j ust w er e -- wer e -- th ey wer e ca s ual co pi es i
) Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinoi s 60134 j (312) 232-0262
11205 1 made of what appeared f rom the copy to be once an 2 of f icial docmnent ?
3 A Ye s.
4 Q They themselves were not of ficial: record documents, .
5 though?
6 A Yes.
7 Q okay.
8 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : Excuse me.
9 There was no systematic record keeping with regard 10 to that, was there?
11 TH E WITN ESS : That was Phillips Getschow's
(h 12 responsibility in that area.
13 JUDG E GROSSMAN : But Comstock had no 14 gystematic record keeping?
15 THE WITNESS: Right.
16 BY MR. GUILD:
17 Q So you had to go beyond Comstock's own Q A records, and 18 one source was Phillips Getschow's records, since that's 19 where Comstock obtained its weld filler material?
20 A That's where they obtained their filler material, from 21 Phillips G etschow, yes.
22 0 I see.
23 And in some cases, even going back to Phillips
, 24 Getschow, you couldn' t find the source documentation or 25 Mr. Puckett couldn' t find the source documentation;
(
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
l l
11206 l
1 cor r ect ?
2 A That's what he indicated, yes.
3 Q And in those cases, did Mr. Fuckett indicate or in some 4 cases did he indicate that he went back one more step
'; 5 and that was to Commonwealth Edison Company's quality 6 assurance records to see whether Edison had on file 7 CMTR's or other source docunentation f or filler metal?
8 A N o, he didn' t.
9 Q He did not?
10 A He did not.
11 Q All right.
12 But you did?
13 A Sir?
l 14 Q You did?
15 A Yes, I did.
16 Q All right, si r.
17 You went first to Comstock and you f ound some of 18 these in normal photocopies f or some weld rod heat 19 numbers; correct ?
20 A Yes, I believe that's true.
21 Q And in some cases, you went to Phillips Getschow's 22 records and f ound the source documents there?
s 23 A N o, I went directly to the Licensee's Q A vault.
24 0 I see.
() 25 So you slipped Phillips Getschow's step and went Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
G enev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11207 l
t G
1 directly to the Licensee's vault?
2 A Yes.
3 They are ultimately responsible f or those records, 4 so --
5 Q And you f ound some CMTR, Certified Material Test 6 Reports, in the Licensee's vault?
7 A Yes.
- 8 Q All right, si r.
9 Now, you had some assistance in your search, did 10 you not?
11 A Yeah, from the clerks in the vault, yes.
- 12 Q You had assistance f rom Mr. Tony Simile, didn' t you?
~'
13 A In the case of the three CMTR's that Mr. Puckett could 14 not find, yes.
15 Q All right, si r.
16 With Mr. Simile's assistance, going back to the 17 source at Comstock, I mean at commonwealth Edison 18 Company, you f ound some CMTR's which you believe closed 19 the loop and r eflected source documentation f or the 20 missing heat or lot numbers that Mr. Puckett had brought 1
21 to your attention?
22 A Yes.
23 Q And those missing heat and lot nanbers are documented at 24 Page 7 of your inspection report?
l } 25 A W ell, there were some errors in the inspection report in
\J l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
G enev a, Illinoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
1120E (v)
1 recording those numbers, as was brought out in our 2 testimony at -- previously.
3 Q Yoe' re ref erring to your deposition testimony?
4 A Deposition, yes, testimony.
5 0 All right.
6 I brought to your attention a number of errors that 7 you made in your inspection report, when I showed you 8 these docenents during your deposition, cor rect ?
9 A That I or someone made, yes.
10 0 All right, si r.
11 Well, in short, Mr. Schapker, you yourself made
/}
12 some transposition or copying errors in your inspection 13 report in recording the heat numbers f rom these CMTR's, 14 did you not?
15 A That's true.
16 Q And let's look at some of these now.
17 There are three documents introduced and marked in 18 your deposition as Schapker Doposition Exhibits 5, 6 and 19 7. ,
- 20 Now , let's look at -- and I am looking at your i
21 inspection report on Page 7, under " Findings. "
22 Towards the bottom of that paragraph --
i i 23 MR. MILL ER : Excuse me, Mr. Guild, those are l
l 24 Hearing Exhibits also; and I was wondering --
25 MR. GUILD: Oh, are they really ? I' m sor ry.
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 L_ .. _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . - _ . . - _ _ _ . _ _ - . _ -
i 11205 '
i 1
1 I didn' t recall that.
2 We can ref er to them that way.
3 MR. MILL ER : I am looking f or my list of 4 exhibits.
5 Excuse me.
6 It's -- they were together as Applicant's Exhibit 3
7 67.
8 MR. GUILD: Thank you. All right.
9 BY MR. GUILD:
10 Q So, Mr. Schapker, indeed these have been received in i'
11 evidence as Applicant's Exhibit 67, a three-page 2 12 exhibit.
13 The first page is marked Schapker Deposition 14 Exhibit 5, the second page Deposition Exhibit 6, and the 15 third page Deposition Exhibit 7.
16 You have those bef ore you?
I 17 A Yes.
l
{
18 Q All right, si r.
19 Now, I am looking at the body of your inspection 20 report, about halfway down that paragraph, reads, "The 21 NRC Inspector research f or these heats disclosed the 22 f ollowing: 4015 7441 CMTR was located and conf ormed to 23 the specified material requirements f or E7018 welding 24 el ectrode. "
25 Mr. Schapker, you did not, in f act, locate a 4015 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1121C b
D 1 77 -- excuse me, 4 015 7 441 CMTR, did you?
2 A N o, it was 401S 7441.
3 Q All right, si r.
4 A Apparently the 5 looked like -- the S looked like a 5.
5 Q All ri ght.
6 Was that your error, Mr. Schapker, in transposing 7 that number to your inspection report?
8 A It could have been. I am not sure.
! 9 Q Okay.
10 A It could have been a typing error. I don' t knw that, 11 either.
i 12 Q Did you make the error when you first draf ted your
{
13 inspection report, sir?
14 A I don' t believe so, no.
15 Q Did you make the error when you copied the number off of 16 the CMTR in the first place?
4 17 A Not to my knwledge, no.
18 Q Did you make the error in proofing the draf t inspection 19 report af ter it was typed and you reviewed it f or typing I
20 errors?
21 A I could have. It could have been in the end or it could 22 have been in the final.
4 23 Q Did you r eview your inspection report f or typing errors?
24 A Reviewed it, yes.
25 Q All right, si r.
- Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
4 uenev a, Illinoi s cu134 j (312) 232-0262
1121]
A 1 So the error took place at some point and you don' t 2 know when -it took place?
3 A That's right.
4 Q All right, si r.
5 You know, the findings of your inspection continue.
6 Af ter the semicolon in that sentence I was reading, i
7 quo te, "4015 9011 was not located, but 4025 9011 for 8 7018 was on f il e. "
9 Mr. Schapker, you did not, in f act, find a 4025 10 9011, did you?
4 11 A No, that's another one with an S, 402S 9011.
12 Q That's the same number that appears on Schapker Exhibit 13 Exhibit 67 14 A Yes.
15 Q I take it your answer would be the same if I asked you 16 the same questions about the manner in which this error 17 occurred?
18 A Yes.
i 19 Q You j ust don' t know how it occurred?
20 A Correct.
21 Q All right, si r.
- 22 Continui ng.
23 4015 9011 is undoubtedly a typing or clerical Q(pe i
24 error in recording of the heat number on the weld rod 25 issue slip.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
i G enev a, Illinoi s 60134 l (312) 232-0262
11212 0
1 Now, you made another error there, too, didn' t you?
2 A H ow ?
3 Q Well, sir, which is it? What's the error?
4 Did you correctly transpose the number or correctly 5 -- did you correctly copy the number 4015 9011 from a 6 source document reflecting Mr. Puckett's concerns?
7 A It was a memo -- .
8 Q Okay.
9 A -- th at Mr. Puckett addressed this.
10 Q Well, is it 4015 9 or 401S 97 11 Which one is it, Mr. Schapker?
12 A Without the document, I am not sure at this point, no.
i 13 Q All right.
14 One of them has to be an error, doesn' t its 15 otherwise, it wouldn' t be the right CMTR that appears to 16 be identified as Schapker Deposition Exhibit 6, a 17 portion of Applicant's 67.
18 A It could have double -- it could -- both of them could 19 have been w rong.
20 0 Both of them?
21 A It would have been -- the 1 and the 5 could have been.
i 22 0 All right, si r.
23 Continuing f urther.
24 3520 261, quoting f rom in your inspection report i
25 now , was l oca t ed a s 3 S20 261 f or 6 013 wel d r od.
- Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinoi s 60134 (312) 232 0262
1121:
t/
1 The S was obviously misidentified as a 5.
2 A Yes.
3 Q All right, si r.
4 A Missed an O.
5 0 Well, you didn' t find that CMTR, did you?
6 A I f ound this one here, yeah.
7 (Indica ting. )
8 0 Well, you f ound a CMTR that had a diff erenct nunber, and 9 the number is on Deposition Exhibit 7, a portion of 10 Applicant's 67, and the number that you actue.11y have on i
11 that CMTR reads, 3 S20 2061, you dropped a z ero, didn't 12 you?
13 A A zero was missing, yes.
14 Q And you don' t know where that error occurred, either, 15 t(ping, editi ng, transposing the numbers in the first 16 instance ?
17 A That's true.
18 0 But you concluded pretty readily, Mr. Schapker, that all 19 these errors that you note in your inspection report --
20 not the errors we have j ust talked about, but the 21 reading 5's f or S's and l's f or 2 's, you concluded that 22 those were undoubtedly typing or clerical-type errors, 23 did you not?
24 A Just as my special report also have obvious clerical or 25
( typing errors made.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
G enev a, Illinoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
- =- - . . .
~
i 11214 O'
1 Q All right, si r.
2 And you f ault Mr. Puckett f or not having identified 3 those typing or clerical errors when he performed his 4 review, but y et you yourself, si r, didn' t identify any 5 of those errors in the course of publishing and editing 6 this inspection report?
7 A I didn' t f ault Mr. Puckett f or not finding them, I don' t 8 believ e.
9 Q All right, si r.
10 A I j ust reviewed the data that was available and 11 concurred that these errors had -- were obvious, and 12 were not detrimental.
j 13 Q Well, there is no critical implication, then, from your l 14 conclusion on Page 8, the three heats of weld rod which 4
15 the alleger could not locate were found, two with 16 obvious variations of the recording or interpretation of 17 the numbers, slash letters. I have the identifying heat 18 num ber s.
- 19 You didn' t mean any negative implication towards 20 Er. Puckett f rom that phrase?
21 A Definitely not.
22 0 111 right, si r.
23 Now, Allegation F contained in your inspection 24 report, Mr. Puckett expressed a concern to you, did he 25 not, to the ef f ect that he believed the Comstock program Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinoi s 60134 l (312) 232-0262
11210 (O
v
)
1 for traceability of materials used in their electrical 2 installations was deficient?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Did Mr. Puckett advocate that there had been heat number 5 trace ability, that plates and material, f or example, be 6 marked with the original heat number bef ore it was cut, 7 so that you could maintain heat number traceability on 8 the cut part?
9 A Yes.
10 Q And that was not a requirement of the Comstock QA 11 program, of course, was it?
12 A That's correct.
O, 13 0 Would you agree with me, Mr. Schapker, that providing 14 for heat number traceability on cut parts of material 15 provides f or an enhanced traceability over the system 16 that is in place at comstock?
17 A Not necessa rily, no, si r.
18 Q All right, sir.
19 Was such a program providing f or heat number 20 traceability maplq(ed at the Zimmer f acility ?
21 A Yes.
22 Q And, of co ur se, once a part was cut, unless the heat 23 number were previously marked on the piece to be cut, 24 you would have no assurance that the cut part, in f act, 25 came f rom the same traceable heat number source, would
(
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, niinoi s 60174 (312) 232-0262
11216
\ /
1 you?
2 A Their program provided that assurance, yes, it did, 3 Q Well, do they have some kind of invisible number or 4 magic symbol that helped you trace it to the cut part, 5 Mr. Schapker?
6 A They identified it with an MRR ntimber, materials Z 7 number, unique to that.
8 Q I' m sor ry ?
9 A Unique to that part.
10 Q How did you idontify the part as associated with that 11 unique number, if there was no number placed on that 12 part bef ore you cut it?
( 13 A The number was on the part, it was an MR number on the 14 part.
15 JUDG E GROSSMAN : B ef or e it w as cut ?
16 THE WITNESS: Yes.
17 BY MR. GUILD:
18 Q There was a number pleced on the part bef ore it was cut?
19 A MRR number was placed on the part.
20 Q And the MRR number was on the original piece bef ore it 4
21 was cut?
22 A Once it was f abricated into a component, then the MRR 23 number was -- it was not necessary for the MRR number to 24 be there.
25
( 0 So it wasn' t --
4 I
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
11211 1 A Because it was f abricated into an identifiable component 2 at that point.
3 Q .I see.
4 So the number wasn' t placed on the parts f rom --
5 A The --
6 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : Excuse me.
7 Let him finish the question, Mr. Sch r.pker.
8 BY MR. GUILD:
9 Q So there was not a unique identifying number placed on 10 all parts f rom the point of issuance of the material 11 from storage to the poin'. of -- of installation of that 12 component in the plant?
13 A There is a Q -- there is a procedure which indentifies 14 the components, parts, per by MRR number, and the -- and 15 these are controlled until installation by these MRR 16 control numbers.
17 Q But not f or each part --
18 A Each component is that are not installed, each part is 19 identified in the field or what? I don' t understand.
20 Q Perhaps we are j ust not communicating, Mr. Schapker.
21 But you' re not saying that each part that was used 22 to f abricate a component is traceable by unique number, 23 either MRR number or heat number, are you, in the 24 Comstock scope of work at Braidwood?
25 Yes.
( A Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
G enev a, Illinois 6U134 (312) 232-0262
1121E
/O
\v) 1 Q Why don' t you explain how that works, as you understand 2 it, then?
I 3 A Well, the parts are -- upon receiving, are marked with a 4 unique MRR identification number, and when they go into 5 the f ab shop and so f orth, that number is readily 6 visibl e.
7 0 Okay. That gets us to the f ab shop.
8 Then what happens?
9 A Then they fabricate the component, and that component is 10 uniquely identified by --
11 0 That wasn' t my question.
12 A -- hanger number and, you Know.
13 Q Mr. Schapker, just listen to my question, if you would.
14 Are all the parts of that component uniquely 15 identified on the part by heat or MRR number on the 16 part?
17 A No, it's not necessa ry for it to. be.
18 0 I see.
19 Have you ever been out to Braidwood and seen 20 hangers af ter f abrication lying around not installed?
21 A Yes.
22 O Have you ever seen people pick up a hanger that's been 23 fabricated and has been lying around and cut it up and 24 use portions of the hanger for other installations?
25
( A No, I hav en' t.
Sonntag Repor ting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, . IIITnois 60134
- (312) 232-0262
11215
\,
7_
G 1 Q Do you believe that could happen, given the system of '
2 traceability that's employed at Braidwood by Comstock?
3 A 1 doubt it.
1:
4 Q Why not? ,
5 A Because it's controlled.
6 Q By wham?
7 A It ' s -- by th e co nt r actor , under procedural i
8 req ui r ement s.
9 Q Mr. Schapker, have you ever seen the f ab shop at L.K.
10 Comstock? ^
11 A Yes, I have.
h 12 O Have you ever noticed that outside the fab shop there (d 13 are a series of wooden pallets, and which are stored 14 under the alenents, pieces of plate and angle iron and 15 tube steel for use in f abrication?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Have you ever seen partially-fabricated hangers and 18 components lying on those same pallets out there?
19 A Yes, I hav e.
20 0 And you still don' t believe it's possible that someone l
21 could go out, walk out the door of the f ab shop and pick l 22 up a partially-completed component and use it in whole l
23 or in part to f abricate another component and thereby i 24 circumventing the limited material traceability program 25
( that you have j ust described?
l l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l G enev a, Illinoi s 60134 i (312) 232-0262
- 1. .
3 t .I
- 1122C 3 .
a ,
1 A No, I don' t think so, si r.
'2 Q All right, ; si r.
3 And you don' t believe that heat number traceability 4 for each part of a component, f rom point of the h 5 issuance, f rom the warehouse or storage, to actual 6 installation in the field, as was done at Zimmer, is an 7 enhanced system ov,er ti.e erstem that you have just 8 described at' Cosht.ock Jat B raidwood?
9 A It definitely wadh' t at Zimmer.
10 ' Q Well, that was because the progr'am wasn' t implemented 11 -
properly, was it?
('N 12 .A That's correct, if it's implemented properly, yes; but 13 as long as this program is implemented properly, it is 14 <
also a good program to control these materials.
15 .Q Maybe we are still not communicating, Mr. Schapker.
16 If implemented properly, won' t you agree that the 17 heat nwnber traceability program used, for example, at 18 Zimmer, is an enhanced program over the MRR program you 19 have j ust described at Comstock?
20 A I -- I think they are equal.
21 Q I see.
j!2 Did Mr. Puckett discuss the subj ect with you, Mr.
, 23 Schapker?
24 A Yes.
25
( Q Did he advocate to you enhancements of the system he il 4
,!L .
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
F O G en'!v a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1122]
1 observed at Comstock at Braidwood?
2 A No, he j ust -- he said to me that they didn' t utiliz e 3 heat numbers f or traceability, and I believe he got that 4 because of -- the requirements at. Zimmer were that way, 5 answering that the requirements at Braidwood would be 1
6 the same. That's not necessarily true.
7 Q Oh, I see.
8 Did you ask him why he -- why he thought the heat 4 9 number q/ stem was the system that they ought to f ollow 10 at B raidwood?
11 Did you f ollow-up on that?
- 12 A WW7 13 Q Yes.
14 A I missed the first part.
15 Q Did you ask Mr. Puckett why he believed heat nunber 16 traceability was advisable at Braidwood?
l 17 A No, I never asked him why, that I can recall.
s l 18 Q All right, si r.
19 Now, you --
20 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : Excuse me.
21 Do you mean, this traceability, material 22 traceability program that you mentioned at Zimmer, was 23 that always in ef fect at Zimmer or was that some new 24 req ui rement ?
25 THE WITNESS: As f ar as I know, it always has Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 11222 i
-~q i (s- i l
1 been their method, methodology, to my knowledge of it.
2 I don' t know when it -- they could have changed, 3 but f rom the file that I was involved in, it had always 4 been the requirement f or their program.
5 BY MR. GUILD:
6 Q Mr. Schapker, you interviewed Mr. DeWald f or 10 minutes?
7 A I talked to Mr. dew al d, but I didn' t do an interview.
8 Q It wasn' t an interview.
9 All right, si r.
10 You talked to him for 10 minutes.
11 Did you talk about the subj ects that were related 12 to your inspection?
13 A Yes.
14 Q All right, si r.
15 You spent the whole 10 minutes talking about 16 subj ects related to your inspection?
17 A In some cases I j ust requested documents and --
l l 18 Q Did y ou --
l l 19 A --
and things of that nature.
20 Q Did you speak to Mr. DeWald about his own past 21 experience as a Level II welding inspector at Braidwood?
l 22 A No, I didn' t. I wasn' t aware that he was at that time.
23 0 I see.
24 Well, si r, I thought I understood that you 25 testified --
(
- Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
! Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
11222 O
1 A I take that back.
2 Yes, I understand that he was a weld inspector; but 3 prior to that time I didn' t. I don' t know that.
4 Q All right.
5 A He was -- I was knowledgeable. that he had been --
6 previously been a weld inspector, because that was one 7 of the allegations --
8 Q And did you ask Mr. DeWald about his prior work as a 9 Level II weld inspector during this 10-mint.te talk?
10 A No.
11 Q All right, si r.
12 But you testified in response to Mr. Miller that 13 you conducted a sample reinspection of Mr. DeWald's weld 14 inspection work?
15 A Yes; in saf ety related areas.
16 Q All right, si r.
17 Now, I think you said that you looked at about 100 18 of his welds; is that right?
19 A That's an approximate, yes.
20 Q And did you document the welds you looked at?
21 A I did at that time, yes.
22 Q Have you retained the documentation of the welds you 23 looked at?
24 A No.
25 Q So you can' t tell me what hangers you looked at, what Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
. Genev a, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
11224 N
i C--
1 particular details of what hangers, or what you f ound by 2 way of the visual condition of the welds you looked at?
3 A I can tell you generally what I found in the conditions 4 of th e w eldb.
5 0 Can you tell me specifically what you f ound?
6 A No. Like I said, I didn' t maintain the documents af ter 7 the inspection report was f ormulated, I discarded all 8 these documents.
9 0 I see.
10 And about 30 of those welds were welds in an 11 unpainted condition?
12 A Yes.
13 Q Is that your testimony?
14 A Yes.
15 Q That means that 70 of of those welds were in a painted 16 co ndition?
17 A That's true.
^
18 Q You know, is it your opinion, Mr. Schapker, that the NH S 19 Dl.1 code prohibits perf orming a visual weld inspection 20 of a weld that's in a painted condition?
21 A As I stated bef ore, I actually didn' t do inspection, per 22 se, of these other welds that were painted, I observed 23 th em, but I did not do an inspection. The only thing I 24 looked f or was contour and siz e.
25 0 That's help.
)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11225 l'(
l So you didn' t perf orm duplicate --
2 A Just on the 30 that were -- do not have paint on then.
3 Q That did not have paint.
4 All right. On the 70 you more or less eyeballed 5 them?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Is that true?
8 A Yes.
9 Q All right, sir.
10 And is that -- you can' t call that observation or 11 q(eballing a visual inspection because there are certain 12 rej ectable conditions that yott wouldn' t be able to 13 detect with the unaided eye in: welds that were in an 14 unpainted condition?
15 A That's true.
16 Q You might not find cracks?
17 A True.
l 18 Q You might not find porosity?
19 A Right.
20 Q You might not be able to detect rej ectable undercut?
21 A That's right, l 22 0 Ov erlap?
23 A Pos sibility .
24 Q Lack of fusion?
25 A Yes.
( Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262 1
11226 1 Q All right, si r.
2 Now, these -- I did gather f rom your testimony in 3 response to Mr. Miller that these were more or less a 4 grab sample that you took, because there were some 5 DeWald inspection documents that had been pulled for 6 another purpose; is that true?
7 A All of his inspections had been pulled, yes.
8 Q And you did a grab sample f rom those?
9 A I took a sample f rom those, yes.
10 Q Well, it was a sample in an unscientific sense, was it 11 not?
12 You reached in --
13 A Random sample sample, yes.
14 Q Random in a non-scientific sense, Mr. Schapker, did you 15 use a random number, for exmnple?
16 A No, I randomly just selected them from the --
17 Q Pile of the papers?
18 A -- f rom the pil e, yes, si r.
19 Q But as a random sample?
20 A Yes.
21 0 You are aware there is a difference between a random 22 smmpling and a statistical sente?
23 A I sur e am.
24 Q You didn' t purport it to be a random sample in a 25
( statistical sense?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois bu134 (312) 232-0262
11221 1 A No, si r.
2 Q All right, si r.
3 And you said that one of the places you remember 4 looking was in the cable spreading room; is that right?
5 A Yes, I believe that was.
6 0 Okay. .i 7 A One part of it, the utility building, the auxiliary
. 8 building.
9 Q I am sor ry ?
10 A Parts of the auxiliary building.
11 Q Was it in the upper cable spreading roon or the lower
( 12 cable spreading rocm or both?
13 A The lower, below the control room.
14 Q Below the control room, all right.
15 A Yes.
16 Q All right, si r.
17 And would you describe what the lower cable 18 spreading room looks like, when you -- looked like when 19 you perf ormed this inspection?
20 A It was f ull of cable trays and hangers; pretty 21 congested.
22 0 All right, si r.
23 Is it correct that the lower cable spreading room 24 as well as the upper cable spreading room where cables 25 come in f rom the reactor and other portions of the i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
ll22E 1 pl ant, and they all meet f or termination in the control 2 room, either above or below, depending upon which cable 3 spreading room you are in?
4 A Yes.
5 Q And it is a j ungle in there, is it not?
6 A You could describe it that way, yes.
7 0 of hangers and cable pans and cables running through 8 penetrations, either in the case of the lower spreading 9 room, up into the control spreading room, and down if 10 you are in the upper cable spreading room; correct? ;
11 A Yes; but most areas are readily accessible, with some 12 dif f iculty.
13 0 Sanetimes you have to do a lot of climbing, do n' t y ou?
l 14 A Yes.
15 Q Sometimes you had to do some crawling?
16 A Right.
17 Q I take it you did some of both?
18 A I certainly did.
19 Q Now, you didn' t find any rej ectable welds of Mr.
20 dew al d' s, did you?
21 A That's cor rect.
22 Q And you looked at about 30 that were in a ;
23 fully-inspectable condition; correct?
24 A Yes.
25 0 The 30 that you looked at, did you perf orm a complete i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~
11225 '
O 1 visual inspection, as a visual inspection is defined 2 under the AWS Dl.1 code?
3 A Yes, I did.
4 Q And did you document the results of those complete 5 visual inspections?
6 A I took notes.
7 Q Did you --
8 A I didn' t make a -- I wasn' t doing a quality inspection 9 for L.K. Comstock.
10 Q No, si r. You were j ust doing a quality inspection f or 11 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
N 12 A (Indicating. )
13 Q Did you complete a form such as contained the data --
14 such as the PTL overview sheet?
15 A No, si r.
16 Q I am sor ry ?
17 A N o, si r.
18 Q You didn' t make any notations of weld lengths, weld 19 siz e?
20 A Just in my notebook, yes --
21 Q Well --
22 A -- I did.
23 Q Did you record the weld sizes and weldling f or each of 24 the welding that you observed of the 30?
25 A Yes.
[O)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
G enev a, Illinois 60134 I
(312) 232-0262
11230 0
1 Q I see.
2 A We ref erred back to the drawings on those.
3 Q All right, si r.
4 And did you record the cleanliness of the welds 5 that you observed?
6 A If they were clean enough for inspections, yes.
7 0 I see.
8 A I mean, yes, si r. If I inspected them they were clean.
9 0 Or you wouldn' t have inspected them?
10 A Or I wouldn' t have inspected them, that's right.
11 The ones that had paint on them, I di dn' t r eally, 12 like I said before, do a detailed inspection on them.
13 0 Well, some of the weldb had been painted and were in a 14 painted condition, because the paint crew had come by 15 and painted the weld af ter it had received the final 16 visual by Mr. DeWald; correct?
17 A Well, either Mr. DeWald or whoever, yes.
18 Q All right.
19 And that's the 70, those were in a painted 20 condition?
21 A Yes.
22 0 All right.
I 23 What color paint did they have on them, do you l
24 recall?
25
( A G ray , you know , th e --
i l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11231 1 Q Is that the Galvanex?
2 A G alvane x.
3 Q And that is pretty apparent.
4 And the 30 that you looked at had been cleaned 5 because there was some reinspection program underway; 6 that's your understanding?
7 A Yes.
8 0 All right.
9 But they were welds that had previously received a 10 final visual inspection by Mr. DeWald or others and 11 presumably had been and at one time thereaf ter painted 12 in the same f ashion as the 70, with Galvanex, cor r ect, 13 if they were?
14 A May or may not have, I don' t kn ow, si r.
15 Sane of them appeared like they had been painted 16 and removed; others looked like they had never been 17 painted.
18 0 Let's talk about the ones that appeared that they had 19 been painted.
20 How could you tell that they had been painted, 21 appa rently ?
22 A W ell, you could see the Galvanex around the base metal 23 yet.
24 0 I see.
25 A Base material.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Uenev a, Illinoi s bu144 (312) 232-0262
)
11232 w
1 Q Did you find any Galvanex or other paint indications in 2 the body of the weldments that you looked at? j 3 A N o.
4 Q Not at all?
5 A (Indica ting. )
6 Q Is that an answer yes or no?
7 A N o.
8 Q There were influx of paint in the toe of the welds that 9 you looked at?
10 A N o, in the welds themselves.
11 Q How about along the toe of the weld?
12 A W ell, th at' s pa rt of the w eld.
13 Q Between the weld and the base metal at that time, did 14 you find any paint there?
15 A N o.
16 Q Pardon me?
17 A N o.
18 Q Absolutely --
19 A You would have to clean it out, you know, to determine 20 whether you had undercut, if that was true.
21 O Well, were they all perf ectly clean?
22 A They all looked clean, yes. They had been cleaned 23 thor oughly.
24 Q I see.
25 Had they been burnished clean?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Uenev a, 1111noi s bu144 (312) 232-0262
11233
[G 1 A Burnished?
l 2 0 Yes, Were they down to shiny metal as if they had used 3 an abrasive brush or disk on them?
4 A N o, th ey didn' t appe ar to be that w ay .
5 Q All right.
6 So they appeared to have been cleaned with a --
7 with a, say, a wire brush?
8 A I couldn' t really tell what the cleaning method was.
9 Q Did you find any of the non-painted welds -- by that I 10 mean the weldb that had been cleaned in whole or in part 11 -- that had not been cleaned suf ficiently for you to
{')
~'
12 13 perf orm a visual inspection, in your opinion, Mr.
Schapker?
14 A N o, I didn' t obse rv e any th at w ay .
15 Q None whatsoever?
16 A None of the 30 that I looked at.
17 Q Well, were there another 10 or 5 or 1 that were in a 18 partially-cleaned condition, but in a condition that was 19 not suf ficiently clean f or you to perf orm the visual 20 inspe ction, in your opinion?
21 A No; the rest -- the other -- besides the 30, the 70 were 22 all painted.
23 Q They were all --
24 A Coated, yes.
25 Q They were either completely painted --
Sonntag Repor ting Service, Ltd.
G enev a, Illinoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
1123d
[)
v 1 A Ye s.
2 0 -- or completely clean?
3 A Yeah, right.
4 Q All right, si r.
5 Now, you told me that -- you told Mr. Miller that 6 you also reviewed Mr. DeWald's PTL overview inspection 7 rates, did you not?
8 A Yes.
9 Q PTL, Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory overinspection --
10 A Recor ds.
1 11 0 -- r eco r ds ?
['} 12 A Yes.
O 13 Q All right, si r.
14 What records were those that you reviewed?
15 A W ell, PTL does an overview inspection of all of the 16 welder s, and they record on these f orms the results of 17 their inspections.
18 Q You mean to say all the weld inspectors not?
19 A All the weld inspectors, yes.
20 0 All right.
21 And they make -- they produce a form for each 22 overview inspection they perf orm; is that correct?
23 A For each group that they perf orm, I believe.
24 Q They get a checklist sent over f rom --
Ih 25 A They did a 10 percent overview?
U Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
u enev a. 1111noi s curse (312) 232-0262
1123E 1 Q They had a checklist sent he over f rom comstock, a Form 2 19, and f rom that checklist, they perf orm a sample 3 inspection; correct?
4 A Yes.
5 0 All right.
6 Let me snow you Intervenors' Exhibit 18.
7 This is j ust, by way of an example, in a part of 8 that exhibit, is a Mr. Yanketis' checklist f or 1,166 9 wel ds , that's a Form 19, or perhaps it's a Form 91 --
10 Form 91.
11 Did you r eview Mr. DeWald's checklists? They would
(}
V 12 have been Form 19 's.
13 Did you, in a similar format to Mr. Yanketis' ?
14 A Yes.
15 0 Okay. And what was the largest nunber of welds that you 16 found documented on a single DeWald checklist that you 17 went to the field and inspected, Mr. Schapker?
18 A I didn' t use this document f or my field inspection, I 19 just did as an overview inspection.
20 But I really don' t recall the nunber, the quantity 21 of the w elds.
22 Q Did you review any that docanented in excess of 500 23 welds ?
24 A Not that I recall.
l 25 Q Would that have -- would that have stuck in your mind if Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinoi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
1123E 1 you had a checklist that you would go out to the field 2 to look at that had more than 500 welds documented on 3- it?
4 A It may have. I do n' t --
5 Q As you sit here today, you can' t tell us whether or not 6 that would have been a f act that would have stuck in 7 your mind?
8 A It probably would have, yeah.
9 Q And it didn' t stick in your mind, though, did it?
10 A I don' t recall seeing one, no.
11 Q Okay. Can you give me any other estimate of what the 12 largest number of welds on a single DeWald checklist was 13 of the checklists that you inspected in the field?
14 A I don' t r ecall.
15 Q All right, si r.
16 Now, attached to this packet -- this is Intervenors i 17 18 again -- attached to the checklist are -- I am 18 looking at a PTL sheet that's entitled, " Report of
- 19 Visual Inspection of Structural Welding," and I ask you l
l 20 whether or not you reviewed any similar PTL reports f or 1
21 the DeWald weld inspections that you looked at?
l 22 A Yes, I believe this is --
L l 23 Q Is that the source document that you relied on when you l
l 24 reached a conclusion about Mr. DeWald's PTL 25 overinspection rej ect rate?
l \_
Sonntag Repor ting Service, _ Ltd.
uenev a, Illinoi s bu134 (312) 232-0262 l' . - . _ - - _ - . - - - _ - . - . . ._ __ - _. . . - _ - _ _ _ _ _
11237
^N 1 A Yes.
2 Q Now r did you look at any of those PTL reports of Mr.
3 DeWald's work now, for any of the field conditions that 4 you looked at, any of the 30 welds that you examined in 5 the field?
6 A N o, I didn' t particularly look f or that, no.
7 Q Do you know whether or not, for example, for any of the 8 installations that you observed in the field, PTL had 9 perf ormed an overinspection of Mr. DeWald and had f ound 10 rej ectable conditions that Mr. DeWald himself had f ailed 11 to identify?
12 A No. I didn' t use the same sample.
13 0 Well, whether you used --
14 A The PTL reports were diff erent f rom what the sample that 15 I looked at in the field.
16 Q All right.
17 But nonetheless, you didn' t look to determine 18 whether or not PTL had rej ected any of the work that you 19 yourself had looked at in the field; is that true?
20 A No, that's not true.
21 I -- when I reviewed the PTL documentation, they 22 were not the same hangers and welds that DeWald had 23 perf ormed that I observed --
24 0 I think we are probably not communicating.
() 25 A -
pr eviously.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
ll23E-f 1 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : I think you may have 2 missunderstood that prior question.
-3 I believe what you are saying now is that you 4 didn' t review any PTL overinspections on the same welds 5 that you inspected, those 30 welds.
6 Is that so?
7 THE WITNESS: That's right.
8 MR. GUILD: All right, si r.
9 That's helpf ul. Thank you.
10 All ri ght, si r.
11 BY MR. GUILD:
/"5 12 Q Now, of the PTL reports on Mr. DeWald that you looked U 13 at, did you identify any rej ectable conditions that Mr.
14 DeWald himself had f ailed to identify?
15 MR. BERRY: Could I have the question reread?
16 (The question was thereupon read 17 .
by the Reporter. )
18 A N o.
19 MR. GUILD: All right, si r.
20 BY MR. GUILD:
21 Q Did you examine any other PTL data regarding Mr.
22 DeWald's previous work as a Level II Weld Inspector?
23 A N o, si r.
24 0 Do you know what Mr. DeWald's acceptance rate was f rom i 25 time to time during the period in which he performed Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
uenev a, Illinois bu134 (312) 232-0262 l
11235
(~x
\
1 Level II work and PTL overviewed Mr. DeWald's work?
2 A N o, I didn' t review that data, if that's what you are 3 saying.
4 0 Was that -- did you ask to review that data, Mr.
5 Schapker?
6 A N o.
7 0 Were you aware that that data existed at the time of 8 your inspection?
9 A No, I wasn' t. I wasn' t aware of it.
10 Q Okay. How did you select the PTL reports of 11 overinspection of Mr. DeWald's work that you did rely on 12 in reaching your conclusions about the acceptability of 13 the DeWald inspections?
14 A Just a random sample of the overviews.
15 0 Again, a grab sample f rom a stack of papers?
16 A Yes.
17 0 Was it f rom the same stack of paper that was available 18 to you f rom which you chose your field inspections?
19 A N o, it was -- it wasn' t the same records, no.
20 0 W el l. , how did you come about getting the records that 21 you used f or your grab sample of the PTL reports?
22 A Fr om the Q A v ault.
23 Q Did you ask f or it and they provided it?
24 A I asked f or a -- I had asked f or the -- for the complete 25 inventory and selected f rom that, yes.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, 1111noi s 6U134 (312) 232-0262
1124C v
1 Q You asked Mr. Simile for the complete inventory of the
! 2 DeWald PTL reports? l 3 A No, I asked the QA clerks. l 4 Q And they provided you a stack of paper?
5 A Yes.
6 0 And you selected f rom that stack?
7 A Yes.
8 Q How many documents did you review from that stack of PTL
'i 9 reports?
10 A I think about 25.
11 Q None of them showed any rej ectable conditions?
12 A No, si r.
13 Q All right.
14 Let's talk a mcment about the Zimmer inspection 15 report which you had a hand in, Mr. Schapker.
16 I am trying to put my hands on it here.
4 17 Do you have a copy of that available to us, si r?
18 A Yes, si r.
19 Q All right.
20 I don' t seem to have mine at the moment.
21 Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
22 I have got it.
23 All right, si r.
24 Now, in your supplanental testimony, Mr. Schapker, 25 you talk about the Question 10, Answer 10, Page 3 --
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
G enev a, Illinois bu134 (312) 232-0262
l l
I 11241 l
{3 l
1 A Yes.
2 0 -- to compare the treatment at Zimmer and Braidwood; and l l
3 you, in the first paragraph -- the second paragraph of 4 the answer to Question 10, you start out with saying, 5 "As noted in the Regional Adminiatrator's letter," and 6 you go on to opine about what the basis was f or the 7 Level III violation cited against the Zimmer f acility in 8 Applicant Exhibit 49.
9 All right, si r.
10 But in the third paragraph of that answer, you say, 11 "It should be noted that while the inspectors who j 12 perf orm an inspection f requently recommend the severity 13 lev el, utilizing the guidelines set forth in the 14 enf orcement policy, the ultimate responsibility for 15 determining the appropriate severity level is determined 16 by senior NRC management. "
l 17 Well, was the Severity Level III violation cited at 18 Zimmer a determination of senior NRC management, Mr.
19 Schapker?
20 A Yes, si r.
21 0 You didn' t make that determination, did you?
22 A That's correct.
f 23 Q Now, I take it that you really are not competent to 24 testify on what basis senior NEC management made the 25 determination that led to the Level III violation at l
l
[ Sonntag Reporting Service, _ Ltd.
i ueneva, niinois c ul.s e (312) 232-0262 l
l 11242 O
V 1 Zimmer, are you?
2 A Yes, I believe I am competent.
3 0 Well, sir, you may have some insights that are better 4 than mine, but I don' t imagine you were able to put 5 yourself in a position to understand the mental 6 processes of the senior NRC management who, in f act, 7 made the decision?
8 MR. MILL ER : Your Honor, I think that's -- I 9 obj ect to the f orm of the question.
10 That's extr emely argumentative.
11 Mr. Schapker may very well have some basis other 12 than putting him in the shoes of the senior NRC 13 mana gement.
14 JUDG E GROSSMAN : I am sure he can handle the 15 question and indicate what bases those are.
16 Over ruled.
17 BY MR. GUILD:
18 0 Did Mr. -- did Mr. Keppler and you make the decision 19 together, Mr. Schapker, assuming Mr. Keppler was the 20 senior manager you are ref erring to?
21 A He was one of the many.
22 0 I see.
I
- 23 And were persons superior to Mr. Keppler involved 24 as w ell, to your knowledge?
f) v 25 A Pl ease ?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
G enev a, Illinois 6U134 (312) 232-0262
11243 J
1 Q Were people senior to Mr. Keppler involved as well in 2 that senior management decision?
3 A I -- I believe that could be true, yes.
4 Q All right.
5 Did you make your decision j ointly with them, 6 whoever they may be?
4 7 A I didn' t make the decision.
8 0 I see.
9 The decision was made by others?
10 A Yes.
11 Q And you, in your Answer 10, are interpreting what you 12 believe to be the basis f or their decision, a decision 13 made by others?
14 A It's my knowledge of it, yes.
15 Q Well, it's your belief, because your knowledge is 16 limited, is it not, si r?
17 A My knowledge is pretty thorough in regard to these 18 violations.
19 Q Well, then w ry don' t you tell me?
l 20 A I did the inspections.
. 21 0 start with identifying j ust who the senior NRC managers 22 are that you have knowledge of as participants in the 23 decision about the Level III citation at Zimmer, si r.
24 Mr. Keppler is one?
25 A Mr. Keppler, yes.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
\
11240 O
1 Q Okay. Let's go up the chain of command f rom M::.
2 Keppl er.
3 Who else do you know?
4 A I don' t know that above Nr. Keppler.- I only know in the 5 regional office who would be involved.
6 0 All right, si r.
7 So as to others, there may be others who made a 8 contribution to the decision. You don' t even know who 9 they are?
10 A I think the ultimate responsibility was Mr. Keppler's.
11 Q Mr. Schapker, all I am trying to understand, si r, is:
12 Is it the case that your knowledge may be extensive 13 on this matter, but that, indeed, it has limits and one 14 of those limits is that did you not make the decision 15 about the severity level because, as you say in your 16 testimony, it was made by senior NRC management.
17 Am I understanding the limits of your knowledge 1
18 cor rectly ?
19 A Based on NRC enf orcement policy, ri ght.
20 Q Okay.
l 21 A As described in 10 CFR 50.
t l 22 Q All right, si r.
l 23 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Excuse me, Mr. Schapker.
l
( 24 Do you know who made the ultimate decision in 25 Zimmer?
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
I uenev a, 1111nois eu134 (312) 232-0262
11245.
(~)
1 THE WITNESS: As described in the appendix, 2 it's signed by James Keppler, Regional Adninistrator.
3 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Do you know that he made the 4 ultimate decision or are you j ust assuming f rom the f act 5 that he signed it that he did?
6 THE WITNESS: No, I don' t know that.
7 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : Okay.
8 BY MR. GUILD:
9 Q Did you make a recommendation?
10 A It was his signature.
11 Q I' m sor ry . I didn' t hear the last answer.
12 A I am assuming f rom his signature.
13 0 All right, si r.
14 Did you, in f act, make a recommendation f or 15 treatment of Item 1(a) at Zimmer, Mr. Schapker, what 16 severity level it should be?
17 A N o, si r.
18 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Do you mean, did Mr. Keppler 19 discuss with you what entered into his thinking in 20 determining the severity level that he at least 21 recommended f or Zimmer, if he didn' t ultimately make the 22 decision?
23 THE WITNESS: Mr. Hunter did --
24 JUDG E G ROSSMAN : Mr. Hunter discussed this ,
25 with Mr. Keppler?
(
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ueneva, 1111nois eulse (312) 232-0262
a ll24E w
1 THE WITNESS: Yes. Mr. Hunter discussed it 2 with me, and I am sure Mr. Hunter discussed it with Mr.
3 Keppl er.
4 In the chain of command, Mr. Hunter was -- was the f
5 Section Chief.
6 JUDG E GROS 5 MAN : Did Mr. Hunter actually 7 discuss conversations that he had with Mr. Keppler 8 regarding this, with you?
9 THE WITNESS: We had some discussions, yes, 10 telephone conversations in regard to it, with Mr.
11 Hunter, indicating to me that they were going to issue a 12 Lev el III citation, yes.
i 13 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Did he tell in those e
14 discussions the basis f or Mr. Keppler's decision to 15 issue the Level III?
i 16 THE WITNESS: The basis was as described, 17 yes, as described in my testimony here. It was the 18 basis they told me.
19 JUDG E GROSSMAN : That Mr. Keppler had told 20 them these things?
21 THE WITNESS: That he had told me these 22 things, Mr. Hunter had told me these things.
23 JUDG E GROSSMAN : And you assuned that?
24 THE WITNESS: And management was intending to
! 25 issue a Level III citation.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
U enev a, Illinois eu144 (372) 232-0262
11247 1 JUDG E GROSSMAN : And you assumed that he and 2 Mr. Keppler were of one mind with regard to what went 3 into the determination of a Level III violation?
4 THE WITNESS: Yes. I knew that the regional 5 administrator would have to approve that.
6 BY MR. GUILD :
7 Q All right. So Applicant's Exhibit 51 is your report at 8 Braidwood.
9 Now, there the product of the application of the 10 Commission's enf orcement policy was a single Level V 11 violation f or multiple instances of deficiencies.
12 Now, who made the decision in the Braidwood case,
( 13 Mr. Schapker, was it senior NRC management?
14 A Senior to myself, yes.
15 Q Was it Mr. Keppler and perhaps others beyond the 16 Regional Administrator, such as in Washington?
17 A N o, it was a matter of policy. It's f or lower level 18 violations, such et this. The Branch Chief is the 19 appropriate 1e c).
20 0 That was Mt. a.c. ,larrison here, was it not?
21 A Yes.
22 0 So the ultimate decision to treat these matters in the 23 way they were treated at Braidwood was the decision of a 24 branch chief, Mr. Harrison?
() 25 A Yes.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genev a, Illinois 6U134 (312) 232-0262
t
(
11240 10
.h -
_1 Q And di'd you make a recommendation at Braidwood as to the 2 severity level that management senior to you, your 3 ' branch chief, should cite?
4 A .Yes, I did.
5 0 What severity level did you recommend, si r, at 6 Braidwood ?
?
7 A Severity Level V.
8 Q Hr. Harrison f ollowed your recommendation at Braidwood?
9 A Yes.
10 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Do you mean, is Mr. -- if 11 Mr. Harrison had recommended a Level III, would it then
(}
12 have gone to Mr. Keppler ?
13 THE WITNESS: I believe it would have, yes.
14 But, in this instance, it di dn' t -- th e -- if y ou 15 follow the guideline of NCR enf orcement policy, it would 16 not r equi re a Lev el III citation.
'- 17 BY MR. GUILD:
18 0 Did you give Commonwealth Edison Company, the Licensee, 19 any credit in your thinking at Braidwood, Mr. Schapker, 20 for self-identification of the items of non-compliance 21 that you identify ?
22 A Yes.
23 Q Which ones were those, si r?
24 A I believe in the items that weren' t identified as 25 non-compliance ?
s Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 6U134 (312) 232-0262
. . . -_ -. .- -_-.-..- - ~.
11245 '
1 C Well, let's start with items that were identified as 2 nonrcompliance.
3 A No, I di dn ' t -- I di dn ' t -- I cited them for the ones 4 that they were --
5 Q All right, sir.
6 So you didn' t apply the enf orcement policy to treat 7 as a lower severity level any cf the items you 8 identified as items of non-compliance, cited as Level V.
9 You didn' t treat -- you didn' t give Edison credit 10 s for having self-identified any of those items?
11 A N o, no.
12 Q All right.
13 Now, what items did you give them credit for 14 self-identifying?
15 A In the area of the stainless steel weld procedure.
16 Q That is because Mr. Puckett identified those problems; 17 right?
18 A Mr. Puckett was an employee of L.K. Comstock at that 19 time, yes.
20 Q I see.
21 So Mr. Puckett was the basis for giving Comstock 22 and Commonwealth Edison Company credit f or 23 self-identifying the problems with respect to the 24 stainless steel welding procedure?
, 25 A The stainless steel welding procedure had, yes. Not the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 6U134 (312) 232-0262
1125(-
0 1 welding procedure -- yeah, I' m sor ry.
2 The weld procedure and the welder qualificatio'n for 3 the 2G position, that was not qualified, yes.
4 Q All right, si r.
5 Are there any other matters where you gave the 6 Licensee credit f or self-identification in your 7 inspection?
8 A Not that I can remember.
9 Q All right, si r.
10 Well, did you consider the f act, Mr. Schapker, that 11 Mr. Puckett maintained that he was fired, that his i
l p 12 termination was in retaliation f or having identified 13 def iciencies, such as the deficiencies in the stainless 14 steel weld procedure for which you gave Commonwealth 15 Edison Company credit f or self-identification?
( 16 A Did -- what -- was I what?
17 Q Did you consider that, consider that f act, si r?
18 A N o, I didn' t consider that, not in my inspection.
19 It had no bearing on the technical issues.
20 0 It did have a --
21 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Excuse me.
l 22 You were going to identify other areas in which you 23 -- other items in which you gave Edison credit f or i 24 sel f-identif ica tion.
25 Could you do that?
i l
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ueneva, niinoi s bu134
- ( 312) 232-0262
1125]
W l THE WITNESS: I don' t remember anymore.
2 JUDG E GROSSMAN : Oh, okay.
- 3. BY MR. GUILD:
i' 4 Q Let me. understand this, Mr. Schapker.
5 Did anyone else conduct an inspection to -- to 6 establish f acts that were the basis f or applying the 7 NRC's enf orcement policy to the technical findings that 8 you made in your inspection report, aside from you?
9 A N ot -- I -- I do n' t kn ow .
10 Q All right, si r.
11 Well, the --
12 A I based it on my recommendation.
i 13 Q Pardon me?
14 A I believe it was based on my recommendation.
15 Q All right, si r.
16 Let me see if I can straighten this out.
17 The enf orcement policy of the Commission, as you 18 understand it, provides that where an item has been 19 self-identified by the Licensee, that is a fact to take 20 into acccont in determining two things, is it not, 4
21 first, whether the item should be cited as an item of j 22 non-compliance at all; isn' t that true?
23 A Yes.
24 Q And, second, if it's going to be cited as an item of 25 non-compliance, what severity level it should be treated Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ueneva, Illinoi s bu134 232-0262 (312)
11251 p) t U
1 as; isn' t that true?
2 A Yes.
3 0 All right.
4 Now, the f act of self-identification is, ther ef or e, 5 material to deciding whether a certain item is to be 6 treated as a non-complying item, and, also, whether it's 7 been treated as a certain severity level, say, a III or 8 a IV or a V; correct?
9 A Yes.
10 0 In this case, Mr. Puckett maintained that, as a 11 consequence of identifying deficiencies himself, such as 12 the stainless steel welding procedure deficiencies, he 13 was fired; but you made no determination on that f act, 14 did you?
15 A I was not directed to. That was not the intent of my 16 inspe ction.
17 0 I see.
18 And, again, as you have previously testified, as
, 19 far as you know, no one else made any determination on l 20 that f act, eith er, no one else at the NRC?
l 21 A W ell, based on my inspection, it appeared that he 22 overreacted in some cases.
23 0 Well, I appreciate your opinion on that score, but the
! 24 question really wasn' t that, Mr. Schapker, it was l
f)V 25 whether or not you know of anyone else who inspected to Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, 1111nois bu1Je (312) 232-0262
11253 kJ 1 establish the f act of whether Mr. Puckett was indeed 2 fired in retaliation for having identified deficiencies.
3 A I don' t know that that had been done or not, no.
4 Q Now, the deficiencies that you identified at Braidwood, 5 in the welder qualification records, were numerous, were 6 they not?
7 A There was quite a f ew of them, yes.
8 Q All right, si r.
9 And they included -- in addition to simply errors 10 and omissions -- they included changes that were not 11 made in an authoriz ed or accurate f ashion; isn' t that 12 true?
b(N 13 A Yes.
14 Q They included changes in the nature of whiteouts, 15 line-throughs and --
16 A Limited.
17 Q -- and handwritten annotations; correct?
18 A Yeah. Those were pretty limited.
19 Q And did you find out at Braidwood who made the changes i
l 20 in the nature of whiteout, line-throughs and handwritten 21 annotations?
22 A In the case of line out, I believe there was a -- there l 23 were initials that indicated that the clerk had done it.
l l 24 0 In the --
25 In the cases of the whiteout, no. That was -- the
) A i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11250 v
1 whiteout that I observed were whiteout of the previous 2 contractor, and LKC Comstock put in place of the 3 previous contractor's nane. That w.as not really 4 significant.
5 0 Well, it was significant only -- it was significant to 6 the extent that the records f ormally reflected 7 qualification to a procedure that was a procedure of the 8 prior contractor as opposed to the latter contractor?
9 A No, not necessarily.
10 It appeared that L.K. Comstock, when they took over 11 from E. C. Ernst, used E. C. Ernst's records, forms -- not
}
12 13 records, but their forms -- and they whited out the name and put theirs in and continued using their forms.
14 Q That was what you concluded f rom your review of the 15 papers?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Did you assume that that was what was done?
18 I take it that you weren' t in at the time to know 19 why it was done?
20 A No, I wasn' t there. I could see no other reason to do l
l 21 that.
l i 22 0 I see.
23 All right, now, let's talk about the line-throughs.
24 The line-throughs included line-throughs of l
j 25 essential variab] es and specifications of base materials Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. _
t ueneva, 1111nois eulsa (312) 232-0262
11250 1 to which the --
2 A Not essential variables; base materials, yes.
3 Q Base materials?
4 A Yes.
5 Q All right, sir.
6 And the base material is an essential -- not 7 variable -- an essential element of a welder 8 qualification document, is it not?
- 9 A I guess it's described in ANS as a limitation of a 10 variable, yes.
11 Q Ali right, si r.
12 But you have got to know what kind of metal the 13 welder was qualified to to establish what the scope and 14 nature of his qualifications are; correct?
15 A Well, not necessarily.
16 You know, the base materials may not indicate what f 17 the welder is actually qualified and what type of I
18 material he's qualified to; it's primarily the filler 19 material, be cause --
20 Q Well -- I' m sor ry .
21 A Because the -- you know, most codes allow you to use 22 carbon steel even to qualify stainless steel for a
- 23 welder qualification.
24 Q Well, si r, I don' t mean to miss the point or misstate 25 the point, but you f ound at Zimmer, for example, that s
I Sonntag Reporting Sarvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 6u134 (312) 232-0262 l . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . - _
11256 A
1 specifications of the type and schedule of material, 2 base material on which qualification was made, were an 3 essential element of the welder qualification record, 4 did you not?
5 A ASME, and that was an essential variable. That was the 6 thickness of the material.
7 0 All right, si r.
8 Well, whether it's ASME or A4S, specification of 9 the base material on which the welder qualifies is an 10 essential element of the record of that qualification.
11 Do we disagree about that, si r?
12 A Somew hat, yes.
13 0 Well, why don' t you tell me whether or not, in your 14 opinion, under AWS D1.3, is the specification of the 15 base material essential elements?
16 A It's not an essential variable of AWS, that's -- that l
l j 17 would af fect the qualification of the welder, if it was 18 a --
l 19 Q In the essential elements of quality control l 20 documentation?
I 21 A It's a procedural req ui rement, yes, that it should be
- 22 documented.
l 23 Q In your opinion, the AWS code doesn' t care one way or l
l 24 the other whether you list a plastic on the welder l
25 qualification record or aluminum or gold, it doesn' t Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. _
ueneva, Illinois 0 u1.5 4 (312) 232-0262
11251
(
o 1 matter?
2 A Of course it matters.
3 Q Well, when does it matter and when doesn' t it matter, 4 Mr. Schapker?
5 Isn' t the base metal on which the welder qualifies 6 always an essential element of the quality control 7 record of that welder's qualification?
8 A It's not an essential variable.
9 Q Yes. I didn' t use that term, and I really -- I am 10 trying to get you to address another matter.
11 A The essential variables is the only things that af fects 12 the qualification of the welder; so if it's not an 13 er,sential variable, it's not important to the 14 qualification of that welder.
4 15 Q All right.
16 And it's your testimony that the base metal ,
17 specification and the welder qualification record, 18 ther ef or e, is not important?
19 A In this case, in the case of the Comstock LKC welder
- 20 qualification records, two materials were listed where 21 the dLaims were made, A36 and R106, and both of them are 22 listed as acceptable prequalified materials in ARS Dl.l.
23 Q That's not my question, and I'll be happy to let you --
24 A Either one of them will qualify for any materials and l
25 weld under that code.
(
l
{
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ueneva, 1111nois bu134 (312) 232-0262
11250 d
1 Q How about if we listed plastic on welder qualification?
2 A Plastic was not listed.
3 'O Then that would be wrong, wouldn' t it?
4 A Yes.
5 Q And that would be contrary to the code, wouldn' t it?
6 A Yes.
7 Q All right, sir.
1 8 If it's gold, that would be contrary to the code, 9 and that would be wrong, wouldn' t it?
10 A Would be unreasonable, yes. It would be wrong.
11 Q All right, sir.
f I 12 So you looked at the nature of these changes and 13 you said, "W ell, hey. I know that both of these 14 materials are okay. "
15 So the clerk who made the changes at Braidwood 16 happened to have made the change to a material that 3 17 happened to be acceptable, and, theref ore, you, Mr. +
f 18 Schapker, determined it was unimportant?
19 A The reason f or the change was that L.K. Comstock
- 20 performed their test on plate, where the previous 21 co ntr act or, E. C. Ernst, perf ormed theirs on pipe, and l 22 that was the reason f or the changes being made; and the 23 clerk was directed by the QC Manager at that time to 24 make those changes.
25 0 All right, sir.
I i
! Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 1.
11255 ' -
I C '\
C' 1 Well, you said a mouthf ul, Mr. Schapker, and I ,
- 2 assume that all of just what you got done saying was 3 based on what someone told you?
4 A That's correct.
S Q You really don' t know why they made the changes, you are 6 just speculating or surmising about the reason for those 7 changes based on what someone told you?
8 A Based on my knowledge of it, yes.
9 Q Well, sir, you weren' t there at the time, were you? You 10 don' t have any personal knowledge?
11 A I didn' t observe the changes, no.
N 12 Q All right, si r.
13 Someone told you that they made the changes and the
. 14 circwmstances under which they were made?
15 A Yes.
16 Q And was that Mr. DeWald?
17 A No.
i 18 Q Who was it, sir?
19 A The clerk.
20 Q All right.
21 Who was that clerk?
22 A I don' t recall her name of f hand.
23 Q Was it Tonj a Rolan?
24 A I believe that's correct.
25 Q Okay.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
ueneva, 1111nois bu134 (312) 232-0262
_ _ _ _ _ _ , - _ . . . ~_ _ - _ _ _ . _ _
11260
?
\~.)
1 A That sounds right.
2 Q What did you do to corroborate?
3 Here Miss Rolan, who said she made these changes, a 4 clerk, she wasn' t a Quality control Inspector, was she?
5 A She said she made them as directed by the QC Manager.
6 Q That wasn' t my question, Mr. Schapker.
7 If you would j ust bear with me and we will try to 8 make this short.
9 She wasn' t a quality control inspector, was she?
10 A That's correct.
11 Q She wasn' t certified to perf orm quality control 12 inspections, was she?
b}
/
13 A That's correct.
14 0 Sir, she acted on the direction of someone else, at 15 least as she told you?
16 A That's correct.
17 Q And you trusted and relied on what she told you?
18 A I had no reason to doubt her.
19 0 Well, that's a curious matter, because you know at 20 Zimmer, people told you things and you had reason to i 21 doubt them there, didn' t y ou?
22 A Yes, si r.
23 Q All right.
24 But at B raidwood, when Tonj a Rolan, a clerk, told 25 you the circumstances under which she made a change to a l
! Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11261
~~ .
b) 1 quality document, you went no further, did you?
2 A Yes, I reviewed the -documents.
/
3 Q ' And you looked at them yourself ? j 4 A .Yes.
5 Q Did you go to the former quality control manager that 6 she asserted was the source of your direction to make 7 this unauthorized change?
8 A I had no need to.
9 Q You didn' t?
10 A No. After I reviewed the documents themselves, I 11 ascertained that there was no need to.
12 0 Okay. I see.
) I see.
.13 A There was no code violation.
14 0 I see.
I 15 Who was the quality control manager that ostensibly r
16 told Mrs. Rolan to make these changes?
17 A I don't recall.
18 Q Was it Mr. DeWald?
19 A It could be.
20- Q Was it Mr. Corcoran?
21 A It could have been.
12 2 0 Could it have been Mr. Brown?
23 A It's possible.
24 0 You didn't interview that person, I take it, whoever 25 that might have been?
Ronntag Reportlng Rervice. f,t d .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i l
11262- l
--/% !
\ l v r 1 A No. .
2 0 Okay.
3 A- I only . talked to the clerk.
'4 Q Now --
- i. 5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Do you mean, did you know at 6 the time which quality control manager' it was, and you l
7 have just forgotten now or didn't you know at the time?
8 THE WITNESS: I didn't know at the time.
- 9 MR. GUILD
- Did you ask at the time?
I 10 THE WITNESS: No. I saw no ,eed to at the 11 time.
LJ) 12 MR. GUILD: I see.
13 All right, si r.
- 14 Now --
1 15 THE WITNESS: If it had been an essential 16 variable, I would have researched it further.
I 17 MR. GUILD: I see.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Do you mean, are we talking 19- about the line-outs now or the whiteouts?
i
. 20 MR. GUILD: Line-outs.
21 THE WITNESS: Line-out with the initials.
22 MR. GUILD: So that you did have the two types I 23 of materials right there on the form.
l 24 THE WITNESS: Yes, they were both A36 and i
25 A106; and it was obvious to me that on the changes that l
Ronntag neporting Se rvice, Ttd. -
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11263
,/-
'i )
\ ,
)
1- the ones that reflected that there were plate, they were 2 actually A36 material, and the ones that were reflected 3 further information on the document reflected they were 4 pipe, they were A106. There was no doubt in my mind.
5 There were supporting documents, supporting evidence to 6 support that finding; so I had no doubt as to what type 7 of material was used.
8 BY MR. GUILD:
9 0 Well, that's interesting, Mr. Schapker, because at 10 Zimmer there was also supporting evidence, and you still 11 cited them with a Level III violation; isn't that true?
/m 12 A No, sir, (w/ )
13 0 Well, Mr. Schapker, you know I asked you this question 14 in your deposition, and it seemed to me your answer was 15 pretty doggone clear.
16 Looking at deposition transcript 287 and following 17 pages.
18 "Q . Okay. Do you know whether there was an 19 objective evidence available of the actual material 20 thickness to which the welder in question qualified, 21 this with respect to Notice of Violation Item 1(a)?"
22 A Yes.
23 Q Right.
24 "A. According to the report, no.
( ,j 25 "Q. All right. Do you know whether or not there Annntag nnporting Rnrufen. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- m. -
11264 i )
wd 1 were X-rays made of test coupons that were employed 2 in the qualification tests that were at issue in 3 this item?
4 "A. Some of them were X-rayed and some of them 5 were bent test" -- bend, B-E-N-D, I takeit?
6 A Yes.
7 Q All right. All right.
8 "If there were an X-ray, would there be a so-called 9 reader sheet," R-E-A-D-E-R, "available reflecting the 10 results of the radiographic examination of the test 11 coupon ?
12 "A. I believe they did have reader sheets attached
(
13 in some cases.
14 "Q . All right. And wouldn' t the review of that 15 reader sheet indicate the actual thickness of material 16 used in the test coupon?
- 17 "A. It could, yes."
j 18 A That's all true.
19 But the cases where they cited them, those weren't
=
20 evidence and they were not available, and that is why t
21 Zimmer took it upon themselves to have a very large 22 requalification program for all those that they could 23 not prove were or could not substantiate. ,
24 If you make reference to this report 8210, there is 25 a position statement taken on Page 31 of that report,
- nnnnenn nennr+4nn nervien. r& d .
1 G edeva', I1115ois 60134 (312) 232-0262'
11265.
O Q
I 1 and that so stated to the Licensee that if they could 2 provide substantiating evidence, that these were not 3 deficient -- deficiencies, that we would except ' those.
4 0 I see.
5 That completes your answer?
6 A Yes. In those occasions where they were cited there was 7 no supporting evidence and they could not supply any 8 supporting evidence.
9 Q Did you hear Mr. Puckett's testimony to the contrary, 10 Mr. Schapker, that, in fact, all you had to do was.go 11 look at the reader sheet for even the example that you 12 cited in Notice of Violation Item 1(a), and that it
( could have been determined what the -- with obj ective 13 14 evidence, what the actual thickness was of the test 15 coupon employed in that case?
16 A That's awful curious that that Cincinnati Gas & Electric 17 Company decided to requalify all those welders when they 18 had supporting evidence that they were qu .11fied.
19 0 That wasn' t my question, Mr. Schapker. It was a very 20 narrow one; and that was:
21 Did you hear Mr. Puckett's testimony with respect 22 to this particular item, the one you cited as 1(a) 23 A Yes.
24 0 -- as identifying a Level III violation?
( 25 A And I disagree whole-heartedly with Mr. Puckett.
Monntag Reporting Mervice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11266
( .
A/-
m 1 MR.. BERRY:. Mr. Chairman, can we take a brief 2 ' recess, Mr. Chairman?
'3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes. We will take 10 4 minutes now.
5 (Whereupon.a recess was had, after which
~6 the hearing resumed as follows:)
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Let's resume.
8 Mr. Guild.
9 BY'MR. GUILD:
10 0 Mr. Schapker, then I gather that one distinguishing 11 feature between the Zimmer situation and the Brsidwood 12 situation, as you now make these distinctions, is that O~_/ at Zimmer there was an absence of objective evidence 13 14 that certain changes, errors and omissions in the 15 quality documentation did not, in fact, evidence 16 violations of codes or regulatory requirements?
17 A That's correct.
18 Q All right.
19 And it's your position that you made a zealous 20 search for objective evidence at both sites, th a t --
21 A Myself and another inspector, yes, we certainly did.
22 0 All right.
23 A The -- the -- there was a meeting held in regard to 24 that, on July 15th, that's referenced in the Report 25 0210.
nnnnEng naporetng snevica,. r.Ed .
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
L' 11267 f~m 1s /
)
1 Q .The Zimmer report?
'2 A~ For Zimmeri
'3 Q Yes, yes.
4 A And that's under the position taken.
5 0 Okay.
6 A Paragraph; and that describes exactly what our position 7 was, as the Licensee subsequently could have provided 8 any evidence that our findings were erroneous, that 9 could have been provided before this report was issued, 10 which was issued several months later.
11- JUDGE GROSSMAN: July 15th, which year now?
THE WITNESS: This was 1982; and the report
( 12 13 didn' t -- wasn't published until, I believe, March 25 th, j 14 '83.
l 15 DY MR. GUILD:
I- 16 0 All right, sir.
17 The change that was made that's reflected at Page l
i 18 29, this is with respect to Item 1(a) at the Zimmer t
19 case, it was an obvious change, it wasn't it, ,a 20 lign-through?
. 21 A Which one are you referring to now, sir?
22 Q The change under 1(a) to the Ohio OlG form, it was a l
i 23 line-through, wasn't it i 24 A What page?
25 0 29, the same page you were just on.
l Monntag Repor ting Service, Ltd.
Genova, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
11268
- t L
i 1: A I was on Page 31.
2 Q I'm sorry.
3 Page 29, under Paragraph No. 4, it's relating to 4 Item 1(a), it reads, "The Ohio QlG form only had ,
-5 subsequently been changed, (line-through,) end paren, to 6 indicate qualification on a five-inch schedule 160," et 7 cetera.
8 It was an obvious change, wasn't it,- that had been 9 made by line-through?
'10 A Yes.
11 You have to read the whole paragraph to get the --
A 12 0 .Well I am focusing on the nature of the change.
()
13 It was a line-through, wasn't it, Mr. Schapker?
14 A Yes.
15 0 Was it initialed and dated by the person --
16 A No, I don't believe so.
17 0 okay.
18 A No, it had not been made in an approximate -- had not P
19 been -- the following sentence says that changes had not 20 been made in accordance with requirements of ANSI 21 45.452, 22 Q That could cover a multitude of sins, couldn't it, I am -
23 asking?
24 In the sense that it referred to -- it was not '
A 25 significant that tour and end date, it was not initialed i
Ronntag Reporting Mervice, f.td .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
e I
11269 zm 1
x._ / '
1 and dated.
2 Q Well, how do you know that, sir?
3 A Because I wrote it.
4 0 Well, sir, I asked you incidently whether it was changed 5 by line-through, and you said that it was, and then I 6 asked you independently whether it was signed, and you 7 said, "Well, I don't know," and then you looked further 8 all the language and said?
9 A Yes, I had to refresh my memory. It has been several 10 years ago.
11 Q Sure.
A
( ) 12 But, now, independentently referrin to what ANSI
\ ,
13 No. 45 may or may not require, you now recall that this 14 particular line-through also was signed, even though the 15 report doesn't say that?
16 MR. BERRY: That's not what he said.
17 MR. GUILD: Is that your testimony, Mr.
18 Schapker?
19 A I read the ANSI -- yes, I read the following, where ANSI 20 452.9 -- I know in that end what that refers to, in that 21 instance.
22 But these were just costed out and there is no 23 significance or date there.
24 MR. GUILD: I see.
/ \
() 25 A (Con tin uing . ) These are also changed to essential l
Bonntag Rcporting Service, f.td .
Genova, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1
~
I 11270
(~'y .
1 variables. ,
2 Q I understand your testimony to that effect, I think.
3 All right, sir.
4 Braidwood.you had -- do you have any changes in 5 essential variables there uat Braidwood?
6 A No, sir.
7 Q How about a change or reason just for false dating of 8 document reflecting when certain weld test coupons were 9 made?
10 A Errenous daing? I don' t he -- let's see.
11 Could you call -- recall my --
12 O Yes, I am looking at an item of non-compliance A, a 13 welder qualification is signed and dated prior to or at 14 the time of welders coupons by the independent testing 15 com pa ny, 16 A Yes, I had it's not an exceptional variable.
17 0 It's not an essential variable?
18 A No.
19 Q. The date on which the test was performed?
20 A Not nececcarily, no.
21 Q In this case it was a false date, this it wasn't?
22 A Yea, it was previous to the date that it actually had 23 been performed.
24 There were supporting documents, though, that
( 25 revealed that, the lab test reporta, nonntag neporting nervice, r td.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11271 0
1 Q I see.
2 You found -- you did research and you found 3 objective evidence that indicated that the false data 4 could be explained by other information?
5 A ' Data was readily available in the welder full 6 ' qualification records that didn' t require any additional 7 research.
8 0 The data that was -- that was made tvailable to you?
9 A The data of all the welder qualification records.
10 0 All right.
11 But in this case the data that was made available 12 to you was the basis for your conclusion that the error 13 or the false date was readily obvious?
14 A Yes.
15 0 Now, let's look at Zimmer. We have 1(b) item of 4 16 non-compliance, 32 welders qualification records had 17 been rewritten.
18 Now, that's one of the two bases for a Level III 19 item of noncompliance, is it not, Mr. Schapker?
20 A Yes.
21 Q Now, do you know whether or not, in those 23 instances 22 cited there, there was any objective evidence that would 23 establish whether or not the changes, alterations, 24 re-writings of the welder qualification records actually 25 reflected a violation of codes or regulatory Ronntag nepor ti ng Ha rvico, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11272 h
v 1 r equirements ?
2 A To my knowledge, it wasn' t, no.
3 Q There was no objective evidence as far as you know?
4 A To my knowledge, there was no obj ective evidence, yes.
5 Q Did you look for that objective evidence?
6 A I did not perform this part of the inspection.
7 0 So you are relying on information from others?
8 A Yes, from the other inspector who performed this.
9 0 Now, were these at the cases and the Zimmer-Braidwood?
10 A It was not -- there were no significant other dates, so l 11 it was -- we were unable to tell who had performed them.
1 O Well, weren' t you, in fact, able to tell that these were
/
12 0 i
N/)
13 retypings of handwritten qualification records that were 14 done under a very carefully specified procedure where 15 there was a Level III quality assurance person 16 responsible for reviewing the accuracy of the 17 transcription of the handwritten records?
4 18 A Are you talking about (b) now ?
19 Q Yes, sir, I am.
, 20 A As I told you before, I was not the inspector who 4 21 performed the inspection in this area. I only know this 22 by knowledge that I gained from the other inspector.
23 0 I see.
24 So you don't know whether my statement of
( 25 description of is true or not?
nnnntaa nannreina nervice. r.e d .
Ge 5 eva', Illidois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. -. _=. .. . .
11273 w/
{ l A From what the other inspector told me, those are not 2 true.
3 Q I see.
4 And that's relying on what the other inspector told 5 you?
6 A That's correct. There was changes that were being made 7 where there were no supporting documents for it.
8 0 Okay. How about looking at Page 30 of the details of 9 Zimmer inspection report, Mr. Schapker, Applicant's 10 Exhibit 49.
'll JUDGE COLE: 30.
b o 12 BY MR. GUILD:
13 Q Do you see the paragraph that begins with a word, 14 " review" of a sample, third or fourth down, depending on 15 how you counted in inches.
16 Do you see that, sir?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Do you see the last sentence were it reads,' "the
! 19 original records were retained in the weld engineering 20 files"?
21 A I see that; but I didn't prepare this part of the 22 inspection report.
23 0 You don't know whether that means that, in fact, in 24 these cases there was indeed objective evidence as to -
( j 25 the nature of the retypings that were made of the welder l
i Monntag Reporting Servico Ltd.
4 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
.. . .. .-. - . ~
11274
\
1 qualification records, since the originals were retained 2 in the welding engineering files?
3 A _Let's see.
4 I believe that the next paragraph describes the
! 5 violation that was cited.
6 _Q Yes; but that's not my question. My question -- do you 7 know whether or not --
8 A- I don't know, no.
i 9 Q All right, sir.
i 10 Nonetheless, whether there was or was not objective 11 evidence in the case that Item 1(b), it severed as one 12 of the two bases for the Level III violation cited
)
13 against the Zimmer Facility; correct?
14 A That and other previous citations.
l 15 Q All right, sir. l 16 Well, so, in fact, the decision to site a Level III
! 17 violation at Zimmer was based in part on its enforcement
- ! 18 history and past violations?
l 19 A That's correct.
+
20 0 Well, what f amiliarization did you undertake, Mr.
21 Schapker, with the enforcement history at the Braidwood 22 facility, in arriving at your inspection conclusions of 23 which you testified here?
24 A I had no previous open inspection items or anything, or
( 25 violations in regard to these circumstances that were i
Ronntaa Recortina Service. Ltd.
Geneva', Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11275 s
1 described.
2 0 Well, sir, did you familiarize yourself with inspection 3 8205 in which Commonwealth Edison Company, the Licensee, 4 was cited for a Level III violation, of $100,000 civil 5 pentalty, a break down in the quality assurance 6 insurance program?
7 A I was aware of that, yes.
8 Q I see.
. 9 Did you take that into account in reaching your 10 decisions here?
11 A Yes.
/g (b 4 12 13 Q I see.
Were you familiar with inspection report 8309 and 14 the recommendations by numbers. NRC staff feels that
- 15 Edison be cited for a Level II violation for the 16 cumulative items of non-compliance identified in that 17 inspection?
, 18 A I don't recall that one, no.
19 0 I see.
20 Were you familiar with past enforcement -- strike 21 that.
22 Were you familiar with past NRC inspection results 23 for the electrical contractor, the L.K. Comstock 24 Company, before you reached your conclusions documented
)
25 in this inspection report, 85097 Monntag Reporting Service Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
, = .
7 11276 s_.
1 A Generally,.yes. ,
2 My conclusion is based on inspection report. For I 3 considered the extent of the -- the violations that I 4 had seen.
5 0 W ell, sir.
6 A That I had observed; and that's the basis for my level 7 five citation, there were no code violations.
8 Q In'your opinion?
9 A There were no code violations, sir.
10 Q Mr. Schapker, did you familiarize yourself with the past 11 NRCLinspection history for the L.K. Comstock, that was
\
12 my question.
13 A I was aware of their passed history, yes, 14 Q, Okay. !!cw did you familiarize yourself with that past 15 history, sir?
16 When you reached your conclusions to site for a 17 Level V, in this inspection, did you read passed
~18 inspection reports,. sir?
19 A I -- yes, I wrote several passed hospital repor t --
20 0 All right.
21 A -- at Braidwood.
22 'O Can you identify' these reports by subj ect matter or any 23 more particularly?
24 A Well, therelis -- let's see.
25 I think there is one that is cited in my report.
nnnneng nnpnreing norvice, r+ a .
Geneva, Illinois 60134
, (312) 232-0262
11277
S (d
1 Q That's a report -- a reply by Mr. Neisler and Mr.
2 Mendez ?
3 A I reviewed that report.
4 In addition I reviewed a report written by Mr.
5 Jacobson, who had reviewed welder qualification -- I 6 mean weld procedure -- weld procedures at Comstock.
7 Q Did you review a report, in ea rly 1984, Janua ry,1984, 8 Mr. Schapker, that reflected serious problems with the 9 adequacy of. the Comstock quality control program to 10 maintain adequate inspection coverage of current 11 installation work, including work in the welding area?
(v ) 12 A No, I don't believe I did.
13 0 Were you aware of the existence of -- historically -- of 14 backlogs in the performance of quality control 15 inspections at Comstock at Braidwood?
16 A Yes, I was aware of that.
17 Q Do you know when those backlogs existed and what their 18 extent was?
19 A Vaguely. I am not certain of the' exact time period, but 20 81/82.
21 Q Were you aware of --
22 A It's my recollection.
23 0 Okay. Were you aware of the extent of the backlogs?
24 A They had quite a large number.
25 Q How many ?
Sonntag Reporting Service Y,t d .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1127E m
U 1 A I -- I don't recall the exact figure, but it was a 2 considerable number.
3 0 You have an understanding generally of the order of 4 magnitude of the inspection back logs at Comstock, 5 historically, what the maximum number was, for instance?
6 A No, I don't, I don't recall.
7 Q. Do you recall if it was a thousand or more?
8 A It ws -- yes, it was much more than that, as best as I 9 recall.
10 0 How much more?
11 A I don't know.
s 12 0 Do you know whether the NRC staff expressed doubts about
-- 13 whether Comstock's QC program was adequate to keep up 14 with quality control inspection requirements?
15 A Now, are you referring to an inspection report or what?
16 0 Yes.
17 A Which ene?
18 Q Sir, I am asking you generally whether you have any 19 awareness of --
20 A I am aware of some doubts expressed in some inspection 21 reports.
22 General, yes.
23 0 Did you ever discuss that matter with any other 24 inspectors during or before the conduct of your
/'~h 25 inspection, the subject of your testimony here?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Canova. T111 nni n 60134 (312) 232-0262
11279 D
Q l' A Yes.
2 0 With whom?
3 A I think I discussed it with Mr. Schulz.
4 Q Did you talk to Mr. McGregor about this subject?
5 A Yes, I believe -- yes, Mr. McGregor, too.
6 Q Did you ask him about past enforcement history or 7 inspection history with the electrical contractor?
8 A It was part of a general discussion. We discussed it, 9 yes.
10 0 What in substance did you learn from Mr. McGregor on the 11 subject of past inspection history with the electrical 12 contractor?
13 A I don't know whether it was specific to the electrical 14 contractor or just general, really.
15 0 Well, just generally, what did to Mr. McGregor 16 communicate to you, as you were conducting your 17 inspection here?
18 A No, he didn't express anything as I was conducting my 19 inspection.
20 0 How about before?
21 A This was just in the office, just rapping.
22 0 Okay.
23 A Talking in general.
24 Q Knowing --
25 A But also at a resident inspector meeting when I was Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Genavn T111 nni n 60134 (312) 232-0262
11280
/ T V
1 still assigned to Marble Hill.
2 0 Do you recall the substance of anything you learned from 3 Mr. LicGregor that was relevant to your inspection of the 4 electrical contractors' activities here?
5 A No.
6 MR. BERRY: I hope we have exhausted this 7 subject, Mr. Chairman. He seems to have spent an 8 inordinate amount of time.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I'm sorry, Mr. Berry.
10 MR. BERRY: I hope we have exhausted the 11 subject. It seems me that we are spending a lot of time
-'s 12 that what appears to be now a collateral matters, the
\-- 13 question initially was what was the basis for the 14 recommendation of a Level V violation, and that, you 15 know --
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: No, I think the subject 17 matter was more whether or not there was any difference 18 in the treatment of Braidwood and Zimmer, and I think 19 the questions were appropriate to that, since the 20 elements of what went into Zimmer were discussed, and 21 then Mr. Guild was asking whether those same elements 22 were taken into account in determining the level of 23 assessment enforcement against Braidwood, I haven't seen 24 anything outside that scope, Mr. Berry.
/'~'t 25 MR. GUILD: I am going to move on, Mr.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Conqua. T114 nni m 60114 (312) 232-0262
)l i
4-r t 11281' Le i
l-l 1 Chairman. .
I i
2 BY MR.. GUILD:
[
t i 3 0 'Mr. Schapker,. let me show you Applicant's Exhibit 72, I . ,
6 4 am not sure whether it's been received in evidence, but !
r _. l 5' it bears an identifying number.
l 6 It's a memo, apparently an NRC memo, _ August 28, ;
1 f '7 1984, from Mr. L McGregor to Mr. Weil, through Mr.. l l- l
- 8. Wa rnick, subject, concerns of a former L.K. Comstock l 9 Level III Weld Inspector.
{
F l 10 Now, this is a document that at some point before ;
I
[ 11 today you saw; correct? j I I 12 A Yes.
' 13 0 All right. -l j
~
l ' 14 But you hadn't seen it at the time you performed L' . .
I 15 your inspection that's the subject of your testimony? '
l l
! . 16 A That's correct. .l
[ t i
l 17 Q All right. !
t I 18 Now, this is the document-that reflects that, in l I . .
i 19 fact, Mr. McGregor, the resident,. contacted Mr. Puckett !
20 on the basis of, as it states here,7a note from an I l
21 individual who works at the Braidwood site? i I
22 A Right. '!
l 23 Q All right. -l l
' 24 It's Applicant's 72, Mr. Chairman. l
~ 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Thank you.
I i
i Sonntag Reporting Se rv ice , Ltd. !
Geneva, Illinois 60134 !
(312) 232-0262 !
l- !
i f i
! 11282 .
Ltill i
j 1 BY MR. GUILD: l l i 2 -Q Now, I apologize for asking you again, if I am, but can l l'
3 you pinpoint when you first saw this, was it at your ,
4 .
, 4 deposition? l 1 l 5 A I believe that's correct. That's correct.
l l
6 4
l 6 Q All right. I 1 l
} 7 So at the time you wrote your inspection report and {
t
- _ 8 performed your inspection, you hadn't seen this l l
j 9 document; and the document in part reflects Mr. l 10 McGregor's recommendations and evaluation he had ,
J 1 t i 11 received from Mr. Puckett, does it not? l 12 I am looking at it, it says, from L. McGregor.
13 It's the last several paragraphs on Page 2 of the I f
i t
- 14 document.
15 (Indicating.)
\ l i 16 A That's what it appea rs to say, yes. !
i ,
l
, 17 Q All right. <
l j 18 Now, if I can look over your shoulder here and look l 19 along with you. ;
{
20 Now, this was written, of course, appears to be l' 21 contemporaneous with the conversation that Mr. McGregor l l
22 had with Mr. Puckett. It's dated August 28, 1984. ;
I 23 You didn't get around to talking to Mr. Puckett l l 24 until the following March; but as of August 28, 1984, i 25 Mr. McGregor recites as f ollows:
i Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd. i k Geneva, Illinois 60134 i f
(312) 232-0262 !
l
11283
}
l ( )
\.- /
! l "I have talked with Mr. Puckett. He seems very 2 calm and very sure about the findings he-was reporting 3 to me.
4 He was assigned by the project -- he was assigned 5 as the project welding engineer at Zimmer and worked 6 very closely with the NRC to rectify the welding 7 problems there."
l 8 His statement to LKC was that, "You have the same 9 problems here at Braidwood, and I would like to help you 10 identify those problems and get a correct solution to 11 them."
, [m) 12 All right.
V 13 Now, at the time you finally got to see Mr. Puckett 14 in March of 1985, did Mr. Puckett communicate in 15 substance that he was interested in trying to help the 1 16 NRC get to the bottom of problems that he saw at 17 Braidwood that he believed were of the same character as 18 those he had seen at Zimmer?
19 A Not really, no, not when I interviewed him.
20 Q Do you think maybe the fact that no one bothered to get 21 back to Mr. Puckett from August of 1984, except, of 22 - course, for the interview they did at Region III, but no 23 inspector was assigned to work on these issues, until 24 you finally got to him the following year in March, l l
(N.
( ,) 25 might have had some ef fect on Mr. Puckett's confidence l Sonntaq Reporting Se rv ice , Ltd. l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
) !
- i. l l- i f' 11284 }
4 i l 4: I j 1 that the NRC was interested in solving these problems? l 4
j l~ 2 A No, I don't believe so.
l' .
i
! 3 0 All right, sir. l 1 l j -4 Mr. McGregor goes on, "As senior resident inspector ;
1 '\
l 5 at Braidwood, I would recommend NRC request the !
! l
! 6 construction assessment team from Headquarters to do a l l \
l 7 f ull examination of the electrical contractor, piping j i 8 contractor and the HVAC contractor now, immediately, and l 1
!. 9 that the independent design verification program be !
i
[ 10 continued by headquarters of Sargent & Lundy/ CECO 1
l 11 design, and design review work." i 12 Well --
! 13 A The record reflected, does it not, that there was no l i
l 14 immediate response to Mr. McGregor's-recommendation of f 15 any inspection of the electrical contractor, was there?
)
l 16 A I am not knowledgeable of that, no. j l .
l l 17 MR. BERRY: You nean from headquarters? l l
l 18 MR. GUILD: Well, sir, there wasn't any from j l '
19 anyone. August of 1984 came, Septembe r, Octobe r, l 20- Novembe r, Decembe r, Janua ry, Februa ry, and in Ma rch, you )
l 21 got around to talking to Mr. Puckett.
-22 BY MR. GUILD:
23 Q You are not aware of anybody in these intervening months 24 going out and looking at the electrical contractors' 25 program, the allegations raised by Mr. Puckett, are you?
Sonntaq Reporting Se rv ice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (3 23 232-0262 L _.__ _
l l
11285 l l
l l
l 1 A No, I am not aware of them, no.
l 2 0 All right, sir. l l
3 Last paragraph, Mr. McGregor again, to Mr. Weil. '
4 "Some of these allegations appear to correlate with !
5 John Seeders allegations of August 17, 1984, such as i 6 management alleged conce rn with quantity rather than !
7 thorough inspection efforts."
8 Were you aware, as you conducted your inspection, 9 of the concerns to that effect by Mr. Seeders?
10 A Yes.
- 11 Q Did you perform any inspection of Mr. Seeders' concerns?
l I
12 A No, sir.
l l 13 MR. GUILD: That's a?.1 the questions I have, l
! 14 Mr. Chairman.
15 MR. BERRY: Could we take a very brief l
16 recess, Mr. Chairman.? ;
( 17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Why don't we take five l
18 minutes.
19 MR. BERRY: Thank you, Judge.
20 (Whereupon a recess was had, l
l 21 after which the hearing resumed as
(
22 follows:)
l 23 l
l 24 1
! 25 l
l Sonntaq Reporting Se rv i ce , Ltcl.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1 11286
~
V JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Schapker.
2 THE WITNESS: Yes.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Referring, again, to your 4 - supplemental testimony on Page 2, Answer 8.
5 THE WITNESS: Yes.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: It's my understanding from 7 what you indicated yesterday that with~ regard to the 8 third sentence of Answer 8, starting with, "However as 9 noted earlier," et cetera, that you were indicating a 10 theoretical requirement of first obtaining authorization 11 from the NRC before an Applicant can deviate from a 12 standard rather than a practical requirement; that is, 13 that the Applicant always get authorization from the 14 NRC.
15 Am I understanding that correctly?
16 THE WITNESS: He -- yes, if the FSAR states 17 the requirement. If it allows the Applicant to deviate 18 from the requirement utilizing engineering evaluations, 19 then he doesn't have to go back to the NRC to get that 20 approved.
i 21 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Okay. So as a practical i
22 matter, the n , the Applicant really doesn't first go to
! 23 the NRC for authorization but actually does deviate from the standard that's already been said or indicates a 24 i
l b)
(, 25 deviation from the standard, and the NRC generally I
nonneng negarving nervice; r.v a .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11287 f~)
Q
'l permits that without the prior authorization; isn't that 2 so?
3 MR. BERRY: Mr. Chairman --
4 THE WITNESS: Not without the prior 5 authorization, no.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: . Okay.
7 MR. BERRY: Just for clarification, are you 8 referring to applicants in general or the- Applicant, 9 . Commonwealth Edison, in this proceeding?
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: W ell, I was referring to 11 what I understood the sentence to relate to, and that 12 was the general case, "before an applicant may deviate
(
13 'from a standard,"' and i understand that's what you had 14 .in mind, the general situation of an applicant deviating 15 from a standard; is that so? ,
16- THE ' WITNESS : In the context of. Comstock in .
17 the FSAR, they have approval to deviate f rom AWS Dl.l.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. So in other words, 19 Applicant here, that is, Comstock, actually then had a 20 blanket authorization to deviate with the assumption 21 being made that such deviation would be in accordance 22 with --
23 THE WITNESS: Except the Board hearing the 24 evalua tion.
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes.
sonntag neporting se rvice Ltd.
j Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11288
[ i V
1 So the answer is yes?
2 THE WITNESS: Yes.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: But now even taking into 4 account that blanket authorization that you discuss in 5 this sentence, I want to refer to the prior sentence 6 which indicates that "An applicant may but is not 7 required to conform to the requirements of subsequent a revisions to the applicable code. "
9 Do you see that sentence there?
- 10 THE WITNESS: Where an applicant can deviate 11 from a standard to which acts committed and FSAR and 12 must first obtain authorization?
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: No, no. I'm reading the 14 prior sentence here --
15 THE WITNESS: Okay.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- in which you refer to 17 subsequent revision to the applicable code.
18 Do you see that phrase in there, the end of the 19 prior sentence?
20 J UDG E COLE: It is the second sentence of 21 your Answer 8.
22 THE WITNESS: Begins "however"?
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: No; the sentence before 24 that.
25 JUDGE COLE: "An Applicant may" --
nonntag nnporting pa rv i co . r.ta _ __
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
~ . . . . . . .-
f 11289
,.(- -
4 1 THE WITNESS: Okay.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You see it refer.to l
3 subsequent revisions to the applicable code. You see-4 that phrase there?
i 5 THE WITNESS: Yes.
6 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Okay. Now --
I 7 THE WITNESS: . Yes.
- l. 8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You weren't intending in 9 your reference to subsequent revisions to include those 10 subsequent revisions to the applicable code as a i 11 deviation from a standard as you refer to in the third
^1 s 12 sentence, were you?
13 THE WITNESS: No, no. That's in context that .
14 as the code progresses the -- the Applicant can choose
, 15 to utilize the new code. However, it's not required
,. i.
16 that he do so.
l
. 17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: So with regard to subsequent i
18 revisions of the code, even as a theoretical matter, the 19 Applicant doesn't have to go to the NRC for prior l ,
20 authorization; isn't that correct?
21 THE WITNESS: That's correct in the case l
22 where a particular revision isn't so documented in FSAR.
23 -In some cases a code may be documented with the 24 year. In the case of AWS Dl.1 there is no documentation 1 /
i 25 as to the year. It's j ust AWS D1.1.
cnnnVnq nopnrfinq norv4eo; T. V A .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 l.. . _ , _ __ ._ ._ . .._ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ . - . _ . _ _ . . . . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ . , _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . , .
11290 f~^3 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: So that with any revisions 2 to that code, AWS Dl.1, there is no requirement for 3 prior authorization from the NRC even on a theoretical 4 basis; isn't that so?
5 THE WITNESS: That's correct in the case --
6 in this case because 75 code wasn't particularly 7 docuaented in the FSAR.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Now, you are f amiliar with 9 the testimony and documentation in general that we've 10 received in the case that AWS 1.3 was a subsequent 11 revision to AWS Dl.l. Aren't you generally familiar
( ) 12 with that testimony?
13 THE WITNESS: Yes.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And, in fact, was 15 incorporated by reference in AWS Dl.l.
16 THE WITNESS: Yes, I'm aware of that.
, 17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: So then there is no question 18 at all, is there, but that there was no requirement f 19 either theoretical or practical for Comstock here to go j 20 to the NRC for prior authorization if it intended to use e lI 21 AWS Dl.37 22 THE WITNESS: Yes. If they adopted the later l
23 version of the AWS Dl.1 code, yes, tha t's correct.
[
( 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That they would not have had
) 25 to go to the NRC?
, ,j I
i Ronntaa RecorFino Rervice. T.t d .
! Ge n eva', Illi5ois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11291
)/ N n,
L1 - ' TBE WITNESS: That's correct, right.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
3 JUDGE C ALLIH AN : Since this matter has come ,
, l4 up again, I would like to ask for clarification,. please.
i 5 Getting back to Answer 8 on Page 2 of your-6 supplementary testimony, in the-third sentence in the 7 context of these proceedings, what .in the third line do
.; 8 you mean by " standard" spelled with a small S?
{ 9 MR. GUILD: Judge, is that the sentence 10 beginning "however"?
11 JUDGE CALLIH AN: Correct; third sentence in 12 .A8.
L U 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And " standard" is found in l- 14- the third line.
t.
P 15 JUDG E CALLIH AN: The third line, yes, of the 16 answer.
I 17 THE WITNESS: Generally that refers to code l "18 r eq uir ement s. .
'19 JUDG E CALLIH AN: I beg your pardon?-
20 THE WITNESS: Code. A code that was adopted 21- by, you know, the FSAR by referencing a code.
22 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Give me some examples of 23' what --
24 THE WITNESS: ASME or AWS, as an example.
\
25 J UDG E C ALLIH AN : W ell, is Sargent & Lundy sonntag Reporting service. Ltd.
L Geneva, Illinois 60134
-(312) 232-0262
l 11292 l' L-2790 a standard in the context of the use of the word.
2 here?
3 T3E WITNESS: No.
41 JUDGE CALLIHAN: So does this refer, then, to 5 standard produced in some broad sense in industry?
6 THE WITNESS: Yes.
7 JUDG E CALLIH AN: So it could be an American 8 National Standard?
9 THE WITNESS: Yes, it could be.
10 JUDGE 'CALLIH AN: ~ And only that?
11 THE WITNESS: No. It could be,- like I said
'12 before, American Society for Mechanical Engineering
(
13 Standard Code, AWS, ANC.
14 JUDGE CALLIHAN: 'Are those not general 15- American National Standards?
16 THE WITNESS: Yes.
17 J UDG E CALLIH AN: I think there was some 18 -reference yesterday -- and I should have interrupted, no.
19 doubt, but I'am always reluctant to do that -- where at 20 least there was the implication in somebody's 21 phraseology.
22 The' implication that L-2790 was a standard, and 23 it's that that I wish to clarify, but now --
24 tHE WITNESS: As f ar as required approval 25 from the NRC, no.
sonntag Reporting service, T.td _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11293 1 JUDGE CALLIHAN: I beg your pardon?
2 THE WITNESS: 2790 is the Sargent &
3 Lundy's -- the architect-engineering specification.
4 JUDG E CALLIH AN: So 2790 is a specification 5 but not in your terminology a standard?
6 THE WITNESS: Right.
7 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Thank you.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Now, Mr. Schapker, in much 9 of your prepared testimony, the original testimony, you 10 indicated that there were only procedural irregularities 11 or inconsistencies in a lot of Mr. Puckett's allegations 12 but that these irregularities or inconsistencies had no (v) 13 significant ef fect on safe ty of the plant.
14 Is that a correct evaluation of your testimony?
15 THE WITNESS: Yes, tha t's true.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Is it your position that in r
17 those circumstances that Mr. Puckett should have ignored 18 those irregularities or inconsistencies?
9 19 THE WITNESS: No, si r .
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: He was justified, I take it, 21 then, in raising these concerns?
22 THE WITNESS: Yes; in raising the concerns 23 although I fail to -- he overreacted in many cases.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
) 25 THE WITNESS: He should have done a more i
sonntsg Reporting service t. E d .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
, . - - - . . _ - - . . . -. - . . _ - _ = - ._
11294 7-1 thorough job in investigating these.
2 It appeared to me that he just brushed the surface 3 of these problems and didn't do a thorough 4 investigation.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, weren't you aware or 6 am I mistaken on this of Mr. Puckett's allegation that 7 he was not given sufficient time to investigate these 8 matters and' that he was just giving you the extent of 9 what he was able to investigate or raise at the time you 10 interviewed him?
11 THE WITNESS: He only indicated that in
/m 12 regard to one of the welder qualification records. The (OI 13 rest of them -- it appeared that he had ample time.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That was your impression at 15 the time that you spoke to him?
16 THE WITNESS: Yes, oh, yes.
17 I think the only time that he had a time limit set 18 on him was in reviewing one of the welder qualification 19 records, and that was like the week before he was
- 20 terminated.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Now, going further with 22 regard to Mr. Puckett raising procedural irregularities 23 which may have had no significant effect on the safety I
24 of the plan, is it your position that if Mr. Puckett 25 raised these concerns, that the company was entitled to l nnnntng nnpor H ng nn rvi cn _ r+a.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 I
(312) 232-0262 .,
11295
, ,n I
7
-R,)\
1 retaliate against him?
2 THE WITNESS: No, that's not my --
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Would they have been 4 doing something improper if they had retaliated against 5 him for raising procedural irregularities that had no 6 significant effect on safety?
7 THE WITNESS: Definit ely.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, getting back to your 9 prior answer about Mr. Puckett not having investigated 10 these procedural irregularities sufficiently, was it to 11 determine whether they had a significant ef fect on
' O 12 safety of the plant?
(
13 THE WITNESS: fes, tha t's wha t --
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Now, even if he had 15 investigated further and determined that they had no 16 significant effect on the safety of the plant, shouldn't 17 he nevertheless have insisted on the procedural 18 irregularities being corrected?
19 THE WITNESS: Yes, si r, tha t's -- tha t's .
- 20 correct, but I don' t -- I didn' t feel that it require a 21 stop-work order.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: So your main --
23 THE WITNESS: The procedural change could 24 have been made without, you know, stopping work or --
/'
( 25 that's a pretty drastic measure.
sonntag napnreing servien. r+ a .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I
. 11296 X
r 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: So the main fault that you
. 2 find with Mr. Puckett's concern is not with the concerns l
3 themselves but with the fact that there was a 4= recommendation of a stop-work order in conjunction with 5- those concerns being raised;. is that so?
6 THE WITNESS: The fault I find in them is 7 that he -did not research them adequately to determine 8 what the real underlying problem was, whether it was i
9 safety significant or- not; and, you know, if it's not 10 safety significant, it definitely would require a 11 stop-work order.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, then again you are
(
13 resting on the fact that he recommended a stop-work 14 order, but you don't, as I understand your testimony, j 15 find fault with the fact that he raised these concerns i
4 16 and continued to hold these concerns out to the company 17 'whether or not they had any safety significance; isn't i
18 that correct?
19 THE WITNESS: Yes; but I felt it was his
! 20 responsibility to do a more thorough job in 21 investigating these concerns and to assure himself that l 22 they were not safety significant -- were or not safety 23 significant before recommending a stop-work order.
t 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Again, we come to the i-O 25 stop-work order.
1 Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11297
.(
w]
1 If he hadn't recommended a stop-work order, then I 2 take it you are agreeing that everything he raised which 3 you found was, in fact, a procedural irregularity should 4 have been raised and --
1 5 THE WITNESS: Yes.
6 JUDG E GROSSMAN: -- he should have insisted 7 on correcting those matters?
8 THE WITNESS: He should -- he should have i
~
9 made the changes appropriately, yes. I believe he 10 was -- had the means to do that.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, now, I take it if a
( 12 ther'e was a single concern that he raised that required 13 a stop work, then you wouldn't find any fault with 11 4 anything that he did, would you?
15 THE WITNESS: No. In the case of the -- the 16 stainless steel weld procedure was not qualified in one 17 po sition. Now, that -- that could justify a stop-work 18 order.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Only with regard --
20 THE WITNESS: That position, yes.
21 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Okay. But now let's assume 22 that he found some matter of substance, a single matter 23 of substance that covered all the welding that the 24 company did.
25 Wouldn't he have been justified then in requesting nenneng nnnnr ei ng na rvi no, r+a_
J Geneva, Illinois 60134
[ (312) 232-0262 j
l 11298
! I
- x. j 1 that stop work?
2 THE WITNESS: If it was safety significant, 3 yes, I agree with that.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Then you wouldn't find any 5 fault with anything that he did; isn't that so?
6 THE WITNESS: That's true, yes.
7 J UDG E COLE : Just one or two questions, Mr.
8 Schapker.
9 Begin on Page 2 of your supplemental testimony and 10 in consideration of your answer to Question 7 where you 11 talk about the code of record in the PSAR and the FSAR, n I would like to know what your basis is for your 12 (J)
\
13 response to Question 8, the answer stated in the second 14 sentence of Question 8, where you are saying, " Applicant 15 may but is not required to conform to the requirements 16 of subsequent revisions to the applicable code."
17 What is your basis for that response, sir?
18 Who says who will or will not require this, and 19 what's your basis for that answer?
20 THE WITNESS: Th e -- e xc u s e m e. Let me 21 review this. Question 7 and Question 8?
22 JUDGE COLE: No. Just look at No. 8. We 23 will come back to 7 later.
24 THE WITNESS: Okay. Oh, the -- the Code of
() 25 Federal Regulations requires that.
Ronntag Repor ting Se rvi ce. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11299
.(~N L.)
1 JUDGE COLE:- Do you have a reference in the 2 Code of Federal Regulations, sir?
3 THE WITNESS: Yes, I believe -- it's 10 CFR i 4- 54, I believe ,is the conditions of license. I.believe 5 that's part of it.
c 6 JUDGE COLE: All right, sir.
7 Now, let's focus on the words " applicable code".
8 In view of the fact ~that the PSAR and FSAR do not 9 reference the 1975 version of the AWS Dl.1, why would we 10 then say that AWS Dl.1 is, in fact, a code.of record?
11' What's your basis for that, sir?
l O 12 THE WITNESS: Well, the time the contract was
( j
~13 . led to Comstock, that was the code of record or code 14 that was -- that is the contractual . obligation of the ,
15 contractor named.
16 JUDG E COLE: Is it then that this was just an 17 oversight, that the contract documents or the PSAR or 18 the PSAR did not specifically refer to AWS Dl.1-1975.
19 Was that an cversight?
! 20 THE WITNESS: No. I -- in the PSAR, FSAR?
. 21~ J UDG E COLE : Yes.
22 THE WITNESS: I believe that was -- that --
23 the Licensee applied for that that way so they would 1
24 have the option.
25 JUDGE COLE: So they wanted the flexibility i ,
! Ronntaa Renortina Ma rv i ce . T,t d .
- G edeva', Illi5ois 60134 (312) 232-0262
-11300 ld 1 of selectively adopting any parts of subsequent 2- revisions of AWS Dl.l?
i .3 THE WITNESS: Yes, I believe so. Th a t ' s --
4 J UDG E COLE: All right, sir.
5 If they do selectively adopt parts of subsequent 1:
) 6 revisions to the American Welding Society Code Dl.1,
! 7 must they . document that acceptance or adoption of the i' 8 revised parts?
i j, 9 THE WITNESS: Yes.
10 J UDG E . COL E: How do-they do that, sir?
I 11- THE WITNESS: Wat's nonredocumented in 12 there; the L-2790 specification.
13 JUDGE COLE: All right, sir.
l 14 Did they, in fact, do that? Do you know?
I 15 THE WITNESS: nat AWS Dl.3 was adopted?
- 16 J UDG E COLE
- Yes.
i 17 THE WITNESS: No, not that I know of. It's
!. 18 referenced in the -- it's referenced in the 2790 f 19 document in the inspection criteria body, f
l 20 JUDGE COLE: All'right, sir.
i l 21 So would they today or would they have back in 1984
(
f 22 been permitted to use AWS Dl.3 with their PSAR and FSAR l
23 as it existed then and as their welding procedure would 24 indicate? Would they have been permitted to use AWS 25 Dl.3 without doing anything further?
Ronntag ReporH ng Rervice. Ttd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 I
(312) 232-0262
11301
( \
x.) l 1 THE WITNESS: Yes. They had that option.
2 JUDGE COLE: They could have just started 3 using AWS Dl.3 without doing. anything except sending a 4 welder out in the field and saying, "You are going to 5 use that procedure"?
6 THE WITNESS: No, no, sir. They would have 7 to make a change to the appropriate specifications.
l 8 JUDGE COLE: Do you know whether they did l
9 make any change to the ' specification?
10 THE WITNESS: Not to my knowledge in that, 11 JUDGE COLE: So it would have been contrary 12 to legitimate procedure had they done that without 13 making a change in the procedure?
14 THE WITNESS: Yes.
15 JUDGE COLE: All right. Thank you.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me.
17 Mr. Schapker, in these answers to Judge Cole's 18 questions, you are assuming that that section that I 19 referred to AWS Dl.3, which we saw in Amendment 30, 20 didn't, in fact, adopt AWS Dl.37 21 THE WITNESS: No. Tha t -- my r evi ew of tha t 22 indicated under the inspection criteria not that it was 23 actually adopted; that it indicated AWS Dl.3, if 24 utilized, would be inspected in the AWS Dl.3 25 r eq uir ement s. It didn't indicate that it actually had snnneag nannrH ng norvico, r+ a l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 ]
l 11302 l l
1 been adopted in the specification. In other words, that 2 sentence was a subpart of welding inspection.
3 I think-if we had the documents we could ---
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, now, wasn't Mr.
5 Puckett asking that the inspection criteria use' AWS 6 Dl.3?
P 7 THE WITNESS: He was requesting that the 8 procedures be qualified to Dl.3 thin-gauge materials.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: How do you inspect AWS Dl.3 10 when you don't produce the welds under the procedures --
11 THE WITNESS: You don't, sir.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- applicable to AWS Dl.37 3
13 THE WITNESS: You don't, sir.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well,- then, reading the 15 provision in that amended specification 2790, as you l
16 read it, there's an internal inconsistency, isn't there?
- 17 THE WITNESS
- There -- there appears to be, 18 yes.
, 19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, now, if you read that i
20 provision as having adopted . AWS Dl.3, there would be no 21 internal ~ inconsistency, would there?
22 THE WITNESS: Tha t's true.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Berry, Redirect.
24 MR. BERRY: Thank you.
,, ) 25 REDIRECT EXAMINATION Ronntag Repor ting Re rvien. T, td .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 32-0252
- i. -_.a.-__.__ _ _ _ . . . . _ . . ~ . _ _[_ . ._ , ,-_,n _ , _ , , , , -_
O :
s 11303
,C\ -
()
. 1 BY MR. BERRY:-
- 2. O Mr. Schapker, referring back to your supplemental 3 testimony ---
4 J UDG E COL E: - Is your mike on, Mr. Berry?
5 M R. BERRY: Yes.
6 BY MR. BERRY:.
7 0 -- who asked you to prepare this, Mr.-Schapker?
8 A You did, sir.
9 0 Who drafted the questions in that supplemental 10 tes timony ?
11 A You did.
Mr. Schapker, when did you complete -- when did you
( ) 12 - 0 13 answer the questions in your supplemental testimony?
14 When did you complete your answers?
15 A Completed it approximately two days prior to my first 16 day of testimony which was, what, a couple weeks ago.
17 Q The date tha t --
18 A And the --
19 0 - -you first testified on was. August 14th.
20 A The final typed version came out, I believe, the day 21 before my testimony.
22 Q Now, Mr. Schapker, I want to direct your attention to :
23 this Answer 10 in your testimony -- in your cupplemental 24 testimony. In the second paragraph the very last 25 sentence, it says -- starts, " Code viola tions are".
_ sonntag neporting service. r.ta .
t Geneva, Il-linois 60134 (312) 232-0262
.t o
'a o .)h;.
t 11304 1 -
i
- 1 Do you see that, Mr. Schapker?
2 A~ Yes.
3- "Q Mr. Schapker,-why are code violations potentially much 4 more . serious than the procedural violations?
i 5 A Because they can affect the reliability and the 6 component, be safety related to --
$ 7 Q Well, are all code violations equally. serious?
8 A No, : not all.
9 s 0 What would determine whether one code violation -- one 10 1 type of code violation, is more serious than another?
11 A The effect on the process or the component, what 12.
O. 13 detrimental ef fect it'would have to the entire component; in effect, its usage; its reliability; safety 14 significance.
15 -Q Do you recall -- Mr. Schapker, yesterday you were asked 16 ./ a question by Mr. Guild whether the response of Mr.
Rolan and Mr. DeWald and Mr. Puckett to'the failure to 17 18 _ list 'the A36 on the WPS was appropriate.
19 Do ou recall Mr. Guild asking you that question?
20 A Yes.
l21 Q He asked you the question -- he lumped them all 22 together. Let me take them individually.
4 23 ,
Do you believe Mr. Rolan's response was
] 24 appro priate ?
"25 A Yes, I do.
i
.i
.p snnntag napnreing snruice, r+ a .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11305 j"N ,
\
%/
1- Q Why is that, Mr. Schapkcr?
2 A- Because he responded to che QC manager's direction to 3' stop work.
4 Q Did you believe that Mr. DeNald's response was 5 appropriate?
'6 A Yes; because he took action based on Mr. Pucke tt's 7 concerns by taking that action to investigate the 8 problem.
9 .
O Well, would your answer be the same had you known that 10 Mr. DeWald was a Level III -- weld certified as a Level 11 III in welding?
4
( 12 A Well, at the time I didn't know and I wasn't aware of x_
13 that, but I think he took the appropriate action at the 14 time. If he had time to research the problem 15 themselves, I think he took an inappropriate action.
16 0 Well, should Mr. --
17 A Based on his position as a Quality Assurance manager, I 18 thought he took an appropriate action.
19 If he was a Level III Weld Inspector, he didn't 20 take appropriate action.
21 He should have researched the proble.n more 22 thoroughly and to see the significance of the safety 23 significance of it all, if there was any.
24 Q His last -- he listed Mr. Puckett.
25 Was Mr. Puckett's response appropriate?
Ronntag Repor ti ng Rn rvi ce. T.td .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11306 v
1 A ' Well, as I indicated before, I -- I didn't think that it 2 was. I -- I felt that he should have done more research 3 into the -- to this area and he could have determined 4
4 that it wasn't a safety significant problem and didn't 5 require stop work.
6 Q Mr. Schapker, throughout your prefiled testimony, you
, 7 'used the terms " allegations" and " concerns," sometimes 8 allegations, sometimes concerns.
9 Is there a reason for that?
- 10 A They are synonymous to me. They mean the same thing.
11 Q Mr. Guild asked you a question -- brought to -your I \ 12 attention that it was Mr. McGregor that first contacted 13 Mr. Puckett instead of Mr. Puckett contacting Mr.
14 McGregor.
15 Do you recall that?
3 16 A Yes.
i 17 0 What bearing did that have -- did that fact have on your i 18 inspection ?
19 A None.
20 0 Why not?
l 21 A My inspection was based on the allegations, the concerns l-22 that were expressed, not on who provided them or whether l
l 23 we go to the concerned person or the concerned person l
l 24 comes to us. That has no bearing.
25 Q Mr. Guild also asked you whether you checked the l
l l'
i Ronntaa Pecortina Service. Ltd.
l G eneva', Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
_ . _ . _ . __ . . _ _ . ._. . . _ , _ _ . . . _ . . ~ . . _ _ . .. _ _ _ _ __
/
11307 q
1 experience and the qualifications of Mr. Puckett and Mr.
2 DeWald and others within L. K. C. QC management.
, 3 Do you recall that?
4 A Yes.
5 0 Mr. Schapker, why didn' t you check into the experience 6 and qualifications of Mr. Puckett and Mr. DeWald and 7 others and L. K. C. QC management?
8 A Because their qualifications weren't an issue, and I 9 reviewed these concerns.
10 0 Mr. Schapker, is there a dif ference between, quote, 11 " nuclear welding," and, quote, "nonnuclear welding"?
12
( .
(Indica ting . )
13 A The welding processes are the same. The difference is 14 primarily the quality standards.
15 0 Mr. Schapker, did the -- was it the NRC that required 16 Mr. Puckett's employer at Zimmer to institute a weld rod 17 control on a rod-by-rod basis?
, 18 A I missed part of that question there.
19 Can you repeat that?
20 Q Yes. I would be glad to.
21 Did the NRC require Mr. Puckett's employer at 22 Zimmer to adopt a rod-by-rod system of weld rod control?
23 A No. The NRC didn't require that, no. That was adopted 24 by the Licensee in their QA program.
b\
(j 25 0 Mr. Schapker, I would like to direct your attention to i
Ronntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. .. . - . .- - - - . . - . - _ _ - . - - - . - . . = .
11308 p
1 Page 7 of your inspection report, which is Applicant's 2 Exhibit 51.
3 JUDGE COLE: This is Exhibit 31, Applicant's 4 51?
5 MR. BERRY: Yes; the 3raidwood inspection 6 report.
7 BY MR. BERRY:
8 Q In particular, I . direct your attention to the very first 9 paragraph on Page 7 entitled, "Th e N RC R evi ew " .
10 (Indicating.)
11 A Yes.
12 0 There's a sentence beginning with "The alleger may have i [V) been referring," and it goes on.
13 14 Do you see that?
15 A Yes, yes.
16 0 Does that reflect the NRC or you giving credit to Mr.
17 Puckett?
18 A Yes. I stated that the NRC was the result of the 19 alleger's concern addressed to L. K. Comstock.
20 Q So is it true of the fact that you did give Mr. Puckett 21 credit?
22 A Yes, sir.
23 Q Mr. Schapker, I'm going to show you a document, which is 24 Applicant's Exhibit 66.
(g 25 (Indicating.)
SonnEng Repor ting Se rvlen. T.Ed .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11309 W
! )-
'%.)
1 For the record, it's a memorandum from Mr. Puckett 2 to Mr. Saklak dated August 17, 1984.
3 I would ask you --
4 A Okay.
5 Q_ Had you seen, Mr. Schapker, that memorandum at the' time s
6 you were performing your inspection?
7 A Yes, I did.
8 0 Is this the memorandum from which you got the heat 9 numbers that you were trying to locate?
10 A That's correct.
11 Q Mr. Schapker, you were asked a series of questions by
' [) 12 Counsel for Intervenor regarding the items of
%J 13 noncompliance identified in your inspection -- Braidwood 14 inspection report, and the question I would ask you, Mr.
15 Schapker, is:
16 When an Inspector, an NRC Inspector, recommends a 17 severity level violation, what does he base it on? What 18 does he base that recommendation on?
19 A It's based on the findings of his inspection 20 essentially.
21 0 Well, is the NRC Inspector required to go back and 22 research the entire -- the history of that contractor or 23 that Licensee to determine -- to make that 24 recommenda tion ?
25 A No, sir. I snnntag neporting snrvico rra.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 j
11310
('}
C/
1 Q Whose job would that be, whose responsibility would that 2 be, if anyone's?
3 A Well, I would think that would be the section chief or 4 the project manager or people who review it who are 5 knowledgeable of past history of the Licensee.
6 Q Finally, Mr. Schapker, Mr. Guild asked you why you 4
7 didn't show Mr. Puckett a copy of Comstock Procedure 8 4.3.3 when you visited him in his home.
9 Do you remember that?
10 A Yes.
11 Q I believe you -- your answer was that there was no need I 12 to. I would ask you:
- \s_/)
13 Why was there no need to show Mr. Puckett a copy of 14 that procedure?
15 A Because he was pretty explicit on what his problem was ,
16 in the area of A446, A36 --
17 THE NOTARY: Excuse me. What was that 18 number?
19 A (Continuing.) He was pretty explicit in his opinion as 4 20 to what was incorrect in regard to that procedure 21 concerning A446 not being a qualified material under AWS 22 Dl.l.
23 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Excuse me. The numbers were 24 A36 and A446, 25 I think that's what you missed.
Ronntag Repor ting Service Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. . ~ - -
I 11311
-y 5 )-
%J
~
l' THE NOTARY: Thank you.
2 BY MR. BERRY:
3 Q Mr. Schapker, when you talked to Mr. Puckett in his home 4 regarding this particular subject, did Mr. Puckett f
5 indicate to you that he had a question regarding the 6 procedure, that it was a procedural concern.that he had?
7 A No. He only -- he said at that time that his concern I 8 was that AWS Dl.1 did not include A446 material. Then ,
9 therefore, the procedure should have never been 10 qualified in that manner, that it needed to be 11 requalified.
12 MR. BERRY: I believe that's all I have, Mr.
(
4 13 Chairman.
14 BOARD EXAMINATION 15 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
l 16 Q Mr. Schapker, going b'ack to the AWS Dl.3 item, reading 17 specification L-2790 as amended by Amendment 30, as you 18 read it, isn't it a fact that there is an internal 19 inconsistency between the weld procedures not requiring 20 adherence to AWS D1.3 and the inspection criteria j 21 adopting AWS Dl.3 reason enough to require a stop work 22 on all thin-gauge material?
- 23 A No, sir.
24 0 You mean you can inspect to one standard and weld to i
l O
's ,j 25 another standard, and there is no reason to stop work?
i snnntag nnnorting service, r.ta _
Geneva, Illinois 60134
( (312) 232-0262
Y
- 11312 O
1 A The way I understand that -- that sentence, that those
, 2 welds performed at AWS Dl.3 would be inspected at D1.3.
3 That does not mean it's permitted to weld at AWS Dl.1 4 and inspect at'Dl.3. That doesn't give that option. '
5 Q Well, what. does it do, then, with the inspection 6 criteria?
7 I thought you indicated that it adopted AWS Dl.3 8 with regard to inspection criteria.
4 9 A Dl.3 is utilized. That's --
10 0 So you are --
! 11 A D1.3 -- Dl.3 was not utiliz ed so, therefore, Dl.3 would 12 not be utilized. It would not -- D1.3 would not be used 13 for inspection criteria because --
j 14 Q So you are reading now into the sentence included in the 15 inspection criteria which adopts AWS Dl.3 a phrase that 16 says only with regard to weldments actually made or
- 17 produced under AWS Dl.3; is that it?
18 A Tha t's correct.
19 0 There isn't that phrase actually in that sentence, is 20 there ?
21 A Yes, I believe it is.
22 MR. BERRY: Let the record reflect that I 23 have placed a copy of Applicant's Exhibit 16 before the 24 witness.
25 (Indicating.)
i Ronntag Reporting Se rvice. Ltd.
4 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11313
, : f%.,
N,)
1 A (Con tin uing. ) Page 4.3.
2 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
e 3 0 The sentence we are referring to, of course, is 4 401.19.2, which_says, "AWS Dl.3 welding shall conform to
- 5 the requirements of AWS Dl.3. "
l 6 A Yes, th a t ' s _ --
7 0 And you are reading --
8 A That's a subparagraph of 401.19, which says, " Field
- 9 . welding inspection requirements".
10 0 . It's your po sition, then, that taking into account this
- 11 sentence here, which seems to be inconsistent with the l i 12 company's position, that all welding is done under Dl.1
(%)
13 is not cause for stopping work to iron out all those --
14 whatever inconsistency there is?
15 A This was never brought out by -- during my inspection, 16 and even at this point it still wouldn't be brought out,
. 17 no. This was not one of the alleger's concerns with 18 this document, to my knowledge.
19 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Mr. Miller.
20 MR. MILLEP: Thank you, Your Honor.
21 RECROSS EXAMINATION
- 22 BY MR. MILLER:
23 0 Mr. Schapker, Mr. Guild's examination yesterday began 24 with questions regarding the subject we were just ending 25 with, which is the meeting and the interpretation of i
nnnnrsg nonnrVing norv4ee; Tk A -
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11314 1 L-2790, and'I would like to begin my. Recross Examination 2 on that subject as well.
3 First of all, Mr. Schapker, do you luume whether or 4 not specification L-2790 is incorporated either 5 explicitly or by reference into the FSAR for Braidwood?
6 A No.
7 Q Now, assume with me for a minute --
8' JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me.
9 Was the answer that'you don't know or that it l 10 isn't?
a 11 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
12 BY MR. MILLER:
13 Q Assume with me for a minute that there is no either 14 explicit reference to specification L-2790 nor is there 15 any incorporation of the specification by reference and
- 16 that the only reference in the FSAR is that structural
. 17 welding will be performed in accordance with the AWS 18 Dl.1 code.
19 A That's what my review indicated, yes.
20 0 Did you -- did you look to see whether there was any 21 reference to specification L-27907
- 22 A Yes.
23 0 Did you find any, sir?
24 A No.
25 0 As you sit here today, do you have any basis for j Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
m, . . .. , . . - .- . . -- .. .- . - . - - . - .
m :
- 11315 O
i.
P Q
1 believing . tha t, in fact, specification L-2790 is either -
2 explicitlyLor incorporated by reference in.the FSAR for 3 Braidwood?
4 A. As I. stated before, not to my knowledge.
5 Q Well, I'm a little bit confused. I'll tell you the 6 source.of my confusion.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me.
8 Mr. Schapker, following up on that question and 9 answer by Mr. Miller, I take it, then, that any 10 amendment to L-2790 to incorporate a revision to AWS 11 D1.1 was really irrelevant to~ the NRC?.
12 THE WITNESS: That's correct. That was --
13 the FSAR specifically stated that AWS Dl.1 and did not.
14 specify what year.
15 JUDGE GROSSM AN: So tha t --
16 THE WITNESS: If the year had been specified, 17 then they would be tied to that particular version of-18 the code. However, in this case it was just stated AWS 19 D1.1 in general.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: So that if the company, that 21 is, Comstock, intended to adopt a further revision to 22 AW S Dl .1, it was f ree to do so without amending 23 specification L-2790, as far as the NRC was concerned; 24 isn' t that so?
25 THE WITNESS: They would still have to get nnnntag nopnr eing ne rvi co, r.Ea _
f: Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 11316 a )
c . y-1 the -- the ~ approval of. the Licensee to make a change.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, that's because of a 3 contract specification between --
-4 THE WITNESS: Righ t. -
4: 5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- Comstock and Licensee?
6 THE WITNESS: That's correct, that's correct.
] 7 As far as the safety significance, there is no safety 8 significance as far as which code was utilized, as far i
9 as the NRC is concerned.
., 10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: As far as your involvement, I
11- speaking from a point of view from the NRC, I take it I \ 12 you are not a contract expert involved in the dealings 13 between Comstock and Licensee; is that correct? -
1 14 THE WITNESS: No, sir.
15 -
JUDGE GROSSMAN: So as far as your
'16 involvement as speaking for the NRC, the amendment of 17 L-2790 would be totally unnecessary as far as Licensee
-18 or Comstock adopting a revision of AWS Dl.1; isn't that 19 correct?
20 THE WITNESS: They are committed to the QA 21 program.
j 22 Now, if the QA program stipulates it, these changes 23 will be made only authorized by the architect-engineer, 4
24 then in that case the architect-engineer would have to 25 approve it prior to making a change, yes.
Sonntaa_Recortina Service. Ltd.
l Geneva', Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262
e 11317 n
i O;.
1- JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, now, as'far'as'the NRC 2 is concerned, if Comstock went ahead and adopted.the ll- standards of the revised AWS Dl'.1, that is, one that 4 included AWS ' Dl.3, it could ~ do so without taking any 5 additional steps, as far as the NRC was concerned; isn't J
6 that so? .
i <
7 THE WITNESS: As long as they followed the l
-8 ~ requirements of the -- of the Quality Assurance program, i 9 that's correct, right.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: If they . interpreted any a
4 11 version of' L-2790 in effect at that time as adopting AWS
! 12 Dl.3, they could go ahead and follow that, couldn't
- \
13 they ?
14 THE WITNESS: That's correct. ,
- 15 JUDGE GROSSMAN
- Mr. Miller.
16 MR. MILLER: Thank~you.
j 17 BY MR. - MILLER:
[ 18 Q Let me.tell you the source of my confusion, Mr.
- 19 Sch apke r.
20 It appears in the transcript Page 11075 and again f
! 21 in the transcript Page 11077, and you were asked these
! 22 questions by Mr. Guild, and said, "Well, in the case of 23 Braidwood PSAR and FSAR, don't those documents 24 incorporate by reference certain specifications of the 25 architect-engineer, Sargent & Lundy?" And you answered, t
i Sonntag Reporting Service,, T,td .
Geneva, Illinois 60134
~
11318
.~s (x_ ).
/
1 "Yes."
2 I would like to ask you whether that is a correct 3 statement of 'your understanding of the FSAR.
4 A My -- I thought -- my recall was that referring to the 5 code, references to code.
6 Q Well, let me go on and let me lay it all out for you.
7 A Okay.
8 Q Page 11077 states -- Mr. Guild asked the question of, 9 "What is the status of those amendments," referring to 10 amendments L-2790. "Since the specification itself is 11 an incorporated document in the PSAR and FSAR, what is 12 the status of any amendments to 2790, as the NRC sees 13 the specification?
14 "Do you incorporate those?
15 "A They are incorporated to the specification, 16 yes, by the AE," comma, " architect-engineer."
17 The question:
18 "O Isn't also the case, then, that you recognize 19 the FSAR's reference to 2790 takes into account those 20 amendments?
21 "A Yes."
22 I would like, if you could for us, to reconcile the i 23 testimony that you just gave in response to questions to
! 24 me and the testimony that you gave yesterday to Mr.
't G uild.
j .g 25 4
nnnntag nnporting snevien. r.td .
Genova, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11319 p) t v
1 I recognize that we are dealing with' a series of 2 fairly intricate documents.
3 A With the -- the only explanation I can give, I guess, is 4 that I just didn't understand what -- that was not my 5 understanding at the time.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I take it.your testimony now 7 is that the FSAR is reference to AWS Dl.1 takes into 8 account all amendments to 2790 reflecting revisions of 9 ANS - D1. l?
i 10 THE WITNESS: Yes. It was not required to be 11 submitted to the NRC. I believe -- I thought when we 12 went through this yesterday that I explained it that the 13 FSAR stipulations stated that engineering evaluations 14 AWS Dl.1 was committed to. However, revisions stated 15 AWS Dl.1 could be adopted provided engineering 16 evaluations -- acceptable engineering evaluations were 17 performed.
- 18 JUDGE GROSSMAN
- Excuse me. Is it indicated 19 in the -- 'd 1
20 THE WITNESS: That would be indicated in the l
21 L-2790 spec.
. 22 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Is it indicated in the FSAR
! 23 whose engineering evaluations would be relied on?
24 THE WITNESS: The -- it doesn't specifically
/
\ 25 state, no. It states that acceptable engineering i
sonntag neporting service. r. E d .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11320 f~h Q
11 evalua tions. .
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, now, if - there ~ w'as ;a -
3 revision to AWS Dl.1 by the engineering society or 4 organization responsible for revising AWS Dl.1, isn't 5 that proof enough of an engineering evaluation 6' acceptable to the NRC?
THE WITNESS: That's correct; but it also 1
, 7
- 8 gives them a prerogative to do other additional things 9 in engineering evaluations and take exception to AWS 10 Dl.l.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
12 BY MR. . MILLER:
13 0 Mr. Schapker, let me just clear up, I hope, for the 14 record whether or not your current understanding 'that-15 specification L-2790 is referred to either directly or 16 incorporated by reference in the Braidwood FSAR? -
17 A Not to my knowledge, no.
j 18 0 Okay. Now, you talked -- you responded to some of the 19 Chairman's questions about the engineering evaluations
[
20 that were necessary, and I believe you testified that 1 21 those were the engineering evaluations conducted by 1
1 22 Sargent & Lundy; correct?
23 A Yes.
i 24 Q Judge Grossman just asked you a question about whether a
{ s ,) 25 change in the AWS code by the code committee would, in i
i Ronntaa Recortina Rervice. Ltd.
l Geneva', Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11321 O
1 fact, constitute a sufficient engineering evaluation so 2 that Comstock could go ahead and adopt the new code.
3 And do you believe that that would be acceptable 4 under the procedures in place with respect to approval 5 of changes to procedures at Braidwood?
6 A It would be acceptable to the NRC if they adopted the 7 later version of the code, that's correct, by the FSAR 8 PSAR.
9 However, the Quality Assurance Program would have 10 stipulations on what the contract can actually do.
11 Q Do you know what --
12 A Th a t ' s --
13 0 -- what organizations are required to prove changes in 14 procedures including, let's say, a change from one 15 version of a code to another version of a code?
16 (Indica ting . )
17 A In this case it's for L. K. Comstock, Sargent & Lundy 18 and CECO.
19 Q Now, Judge Grossman asked you about specification 20 L-2790, and it was the subject of Mr. Guild's 21 examination as well, and I would like also to call your 22 attention to Paragraph 401.19 and 401.18 as well.
23 This is -- this has been received in evidence as 24 Applicant's --
,OT
( ) 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: 16.
Ronntag Repor ting An rvl en. T,t d .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 j
11322
\ I s\ /
1 BY MR. MILLER:
2 0 -- Exnibit 16. You have your own version. ~ Good.
3 First of all, in Paragraph 401.19 do you find any 4 requirement for field welding inspection that references 5 the AWS D1.1 code?
6 A Yes. i 7 0 What paragraph is that, sir?
8 A Paragraph A.
9 (Indica ting. )
10 0 401.19.1.A?
11 A Yes. 401.19.1.A is also a reference. That would be B, 12 C and D, all of them.
13 0 Now, turning to 401.18, Mr. Schapker, what is your
. 14 understanding of that provision in specification L-2790?
15 A It states that welders may be qualified either ASME 16 following specification code Section 9 or AWS Dl.1 or 17 AWS Dl.3 requirements, so it gives them the option to 18 qualify welders to any of those code requirements.
I 19 0 Do you find anything in this portion of specification 20 L-2790 or any other portion of it that purports to 21 specify under which code weld procedures are to be 22 qualified?
23 A No.
24 0 I would like to show you a document that's been received 25 in evidence as Applicant's Exhibit 9. It is also a l
Ronntag Reporting Service _. Ltd.
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11323 q
- s, / -
j- 1 specification by Sargent & Lundy. It is the standard 2 specification for welding and steel construction, 3 Revision G, dated September 20, 1977.
4 (Indicating.)
- 5 My first question, Mr. Schapker, is:
i
!- 6 During the course of your inspection activities at l 7 Braidwood, did you have occasion to review that 8 document?
- 9 A Yes, I did.
10 0 Can you tell me whether or not that document has any 1.
- 11 reference to the code under which weld procedures are j 12 qualified?
i s_
13 A Yes; paragraph -- the second page, Paragraph 1.2.2.
14 Q All right, sir.
15 What code is referenced there?
l 16 A AWS Dl.l.
l 17 Q Mr. Schapker, do you understand the relationship between
[ 18 Form 1701, Applicant's Exhibit 9, and the specification i
19 L-2790, Applicant's Exhibit 167 l 20 A It's my understanding it's part of the 2790 21 specification.
l 22 Q That is your understanding that Form 1701 is a part of 23 the 2790 specification?
24 A Yes.
{
j\ 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me.
! MonnEna nennrkfna Rnrvice. Ltd. l G eneva', Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 11324
.e N_j 1 Mr. Miller, do we have a later version of 170l?
2 MR. MILLER: No, no, sir. You know, I think 3 the question came up earlier, and we established through 4 Mr. Puckett's reading list that this was the version of 5 1701 that was. in effect at the time that he was on site 6 at Braidwood.
4 7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Of course, this was I- 8 Revision G, which was adopted December 20, 1977 --
9 MR. MILLER: Yes, sir.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- before AWS Dl.3 was 11 entered into AWS Dl.1 --
[ \ 12 MR. MILLER: Yes, si r.
Q' 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- by the society or 14 committee that actually adopts; is that correct?
15 MR. MILLER: Yes, sir.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: All right.
17 MR. MILLER: That's my understanding of it.
, 18 BY MR. MILLER:
19 Q Now, Mr. Guild asked you yesterday, turning to his 20 question of the appropriate use of AWS D1.3, "If you 21 were starting with a clean slate and had a choice of 22 codes, would you pick AWS Dl.3 for thin metal?" You 23 answered, "Yes."
24 In giving that answer to Mr. Guild, did you take 25 account of the fact that welders and weld inspectors Annntag Reporting Rorvico,. T.Ed .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
, .. .~. .. - - . . - - .. . . .
11325
.g i
1 I would have been familiar with AWS Dl.1 prior to the time 2 that this change in the code had been made?
3 A No, I didn't.
4 0 Assume with me, if you will,.that there was a history at 5 the Braidwood site of welders and weld inspectors 6 performing their work in accordance with the 7 requirements of AWS D1.1 in the procedure to which they 8 were -- was the fact of reference to that code.
9 Let me ask you the same question that Mr. Guild did 10 taking -- although I want you to take-that circumstance 11 into account.
I 12 Again, if you were -- if you had the choice of
\m 13 going to AWS D1.1 and AWS D2H1.3, which code would you 14 pick for the welding engagement clearing?
15 A D1.1.
16 Q Why is that, sir?
17 A Well, it would be costly for one thing to requalify all 18 the weldings and procedures and so forth. It would 19 be -- wouldn' t enhance the quality of the welding, so I 20 would see no need to go through that.
21 Q Now, Mr. Guild then examined you about the fact about 22 A36 -- the welding of A36 to A446 material, and his 23 questions went to the issue of whether -- some of his 24 questionu whether or not the base metal is to be 25 specified in the procedure, nnnneng nnnnr eing ne rvi nn, r+ a .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 11326 i
O 1 V'
1 Do you recall that line of examination?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Now, Mr. Schapker, is it a code requirement that the 4 welding procedure list each and every material that is 5 qualified to the owner by that procedure?
6 A No, sir.
7 0 Now, I think that you and I together looked at Paragraph 8 3.0 of Revision C to Procedure 4.3.3 -- that's 9 Applicant's Exhibit 10 -- and specifically Paragraph 10 3.1.
11 In fact, Mr. Schapker, that paragraph incorporates 12
( ) by reference all the steels that are listed in the 13 reference paragraphs in the code, does it not?
14 A Tha t's correct.
15 0 In your opinion, is that an adequate identification of 16 the base metals that are qualified under the procedure?
17 A Yes, it is under the procedure.
- 18 Q Now, I think you testified yesterday in response to a i 19 question f rom Mr. Guild that the WPS, the weld procedure
, 20 sheet, did not list the A36 material in the version of
! 21 the procedure that you have; is that your recollection?
22 A Yes. I believe it listed A5 up to A36, yes -- no; I 23 mean -- yeah, that's correct, or -- no; A446 to A500.
, 24 Q B u t A3 6 --
25 A Was not listed, yes.
l l
- nnnntag nnporting nervica, r+a _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11327 g
i }
v 1 0 -- was not specifically identified by letter and number 2 in the WPS; correct?
3 A Right.
4 0 Can we agree that it is found in Tables 8.2 and 10.2 of 5 the AWS code that are incorporated by reference in 6 Paragraph 3.0 of the body of the weld procedure?
7 A Yes, it is.
8 0 Now, I think that you were asked this question by Mr.
9 Guild yesterday, and he pointed your attention to the 10 fact that the WPS did not list the A36 material. This 11 is from the transcript on Page 11095, and he asked this (n')
' w,/
12 question:
13 "In that regard, it was in violation of the 14 requirements that the AWS D1.1 code, was it not? "
15 "A Yes. That was a procedural violation. It 16 was not a technical violation."
17 What I wanted to ask you was to differentiate for 18 us, if you could, between a procedural violation and a 19 technical violation as it was used in response to Mr.
20 Guild's question.
21 MR. GUILD: Obj ection; asked and answered.
22 The witness gave an answer to that question. Mr. Miller 23 has it before him.
24 JUDG E GROSSMAN: I'm sorry. Mr. Guild, could
(
)
,/ 25 you repeat that?
snnntag nnnnrting snevicn r.ta _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 11328
(~\i
\
%)
1 MR. GUILD: Objection; asked and answered.
, 2 I asked Mr. Schapker that very question and got an 3 answer to that very question yesterday which Mr. Miller 4 may have before him in the transcript reference that he 5 is -looking at.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: But not only that, but my 7 recollection is that the second or third time you asked 8 it, it was objected to on the grounds that you were 9 being argumentative with the witness, but I may be wrong 10 on that.
11 MR. MILLER: I did have an objection about f
[/)
\._
12 13 Mr. Guild arguing with the witness, but I don't think it was on this portion of the testimony yesterday.
14 In any event, the transcript yesterday did not 15 reflect an explanation by the witness of what he meant 16 by the dif ference between the procedural violation and a 17 technical violation.
18 Mr. Guild went on to ask him whether those were 19 terms of art in the AWS code, and he said, "No, they 4
20 were not." And then he moved on to other matters.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. It was my 22 recollection that Mr. Berry had objected, but I stand i
23 corrected if the transcript indicates otherwise.
24 MR. DERRY: Do you have a page number?
- (O) ,
25 MR. MILLER: Yes; 11095.
nanntag nnporting nnruten, rea.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 ._
11329 L/
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: In any event --
2 MR. GUILD: I'll recede f rom the obj ections.
3 JUDGE GROTSMAN: Let's get a definitive 4 answer now as to the dichotomy between procedural and 5 technical, Mr. Schapker.
6 A Well, technical violation in the context that I put it 7 in yesterday I meant that it would involve the 8 requirement to requalify the procedure where the PQR 9 would have to be retested because of some deficiency in 10 that procedure.
11 A procedural-type violation is in this case where 12 it indicated in A446 was qualified to A500. The L
13 annotation of A36 to that WPS corrected that problem.
14 That's a procedural, and there was no requirement 15 to requalify the procedure. It was just an editorial 16 correction.
17 BY MR. MILLER:
18 Q Do you believe, as you sit here today, Mr. Schapker, 19 that failure to have the letter and numbers A36 and WPS 20 for Attachment H and Attachment o was a violation of the 21 AWS code?
22 MR. GUILD: Obj ection; asked and answered.
23 Now, that question was asked, and it was answered.
24 This witness particularly has a problem changing i 25 his answers when given the second chance, and I don't snnntag nnporting nnrvien, r.ta _
j Geneva, Illinois 60134
[ (312) 232-0262 _ _
y
4 11330
(~\
\w./ )
1 think it's proper to in this case or any other allow the 2 same question to be asked more than once.
3 MR. MILLER: Your Honor --
4 MR. BERRY: I obj ect to the characterization 5 of the witness' problem with previous testimony.
6 I think the record will reflect -- the record will 7 speak for itself on that.
8 MR. GUILD: The record indeed will.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me.
10 Miss Reporter, before we lose our place, could you 11 read the question that's been posed to the witness now 12 that's been obj ected to, 13 (The question was thereupon read by 14 the Reporter.)
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Overruled.
16 Answer.
17 A No. I -- I believe I indicated that I thought that was 18 a procedural violation and not a code violation.
15 MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I wish I could 20 represent to the Board that I only have a few more 21 minutes and I can finish this witness. I probably have 22 approximately another half hour.
! 23 I'm prepared to go forward on this except that the 24 Board -- I don't know 'whether there would be further
) 25 examination based on my Recross so far.
Ronn tag Repor d ng Se r* Lice, Ti td .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- - . . _ - ~ - .. - - .-_- - -_. .- . . - - . - _ - . -
J' 11331 i O
! 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: No. I don't think. we want i i :
} 2 to go any further tonight, but let me ask a question l' 3 right now of the ' witness.
4 With regard to Attachment H, I thought .you had
[ 5 indicated that it relates only to welds that were not ;
6 being produced here because of the minimum size 7 requirement; isn't that correct?
! 8 THE WITNESS: Oh, the Comstock produced-welds
!' 9 in' excess of three-eighths inches.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I thought the bulk of the f-11 welds we we re talking about was less than three-eighths.
I 12 Ti1E WITNESS: The bulk of them, yes. ,
) 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You consider it only a l 14 procedural violation to qualify welds that are 15 specifically excluded by that schedule and not a code
! 16 violation?
17 THE WITNESS: The PTUR only qualified welds 18 for a certain size, Attachment H.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, to the extent that we ,
20 are dealing with welds that were below the minimum 21 specified, if Attachment H was used as a justification, 22 wouldn't that be more than a procedural violation?
23 THE WITNESS: The NCR specifically addressed 24 that in the -- in tha t -- the lif ting of the stop-work. [
25 Only welds that were in excess -- or that were the nnnntag napnr eing ne rvi ca. r. t a .
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
) '
11332 arm (U)#
d /.
- I' 1 qualified by Attachment H were allowed to be continued 1 2 until Attachment 0 had been requalified.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: So the ones that were not 4 covered, then, by Attachment H, because Attachment H 5 excluded them, should not have been permitted; and if 6 they were, it would be more than a procedural violation; 7 isn't that so?
8 THE WITNESS: It was -- well, that one was --
9 Attachment. O was based on the comment by -- in regard to 10 the fillet weld size.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mell, I'm refer to you --
[V 'l 12 13 i THE WITNESS: The changes that had to be made to that; not in regard to the materials.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I'm referring now to 15 the use of Attachment H as a justification for the 16 welding. Now --
17 THE WITNESS: Tha t was --
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Now, if that had been used 19 to justify the welding --
20 THE WITNESS: It was, yes.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- and the welding was of 22 welds that were less than the three-eighths inch
- 23 minimum, that would be more than a procedural violation, 24 wouldn't it, if that were the justification; that is, O)
( 25 Attachment H without reference to Attachment O?
nnnntag neporting service, r.ta _ ,_
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
_.m. _ , _
11333
,i D.
1 THE Warntaa n Based on the -- on the 2 concurrence by Sargent & Lundy at the time that they 3 could proceed by -- when as a status to the Com Ed on 4 Attachment O, it was approved with Com Ed conditionally 5 approved.
6 In other words, they had to make the changes. Then 7 they could proceed.
- 8 JUDGE GROSSMAN
- But you are relying now on 9 Attachment 0; is that correct?
10 THE WITNESS: And H, H & O, yes. .
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, now, let us restrict
~N 12 ourselves to the reliance on Attachment H with regard to 13 welds that are less than the three-eighths inch minimum 14 contained as a limitation on Attachment H.
15 If with regard to those weldments the company or 16 Comstock relied upon Attachment H -- forget about 17 Attachment 0 -- that would be more than just a 18 procedural violation, wouldn't it?
19 THE WITNESS: No. They were -- Attachment H 20 was a qualification for a certain size weld, and they 21 could proceed with Attachment H for those size welds.
22 JUDG E GROSSMAN: With welds that were --
23 THE WITNESS: Were smaller th ey use --
24 Attachment O was applicable, yes, y ,/ 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Right; but if they had snnneag nopnreing narwica_ r+ a _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11334 t )
'v' l- relied only on Attachment H -- assume Attachment O were f
2 not available -- it would be more than a procedural 3 violation to rely on Attachment H with regard to welds 4 that were less than the three-eighths inch 5 specification, wouldn't it?
6 THE WITNESS: In that it was approved by 7 Sargent & Lundy as a conditional approval, as long as 8 they made the changea to that attachment, Attachment 0, 9 they could proceed; so, therefore, if, you know, these 10 changes which were made -- in my inspection report they 11 were made in July, they could have proceeded with the
()12 13 welding.
How ever, the NCR did restrict them from doing that 14 even though they did have conditicaal approval. The NCR 15 actually restricted them from continuing welding to 16 Attachment O which is the smaller size welds until the 17 approval from Sargent & Lundy and CECO were made.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I think the record is clear l
l 19 enough.
l 20 Continue, Mr. Miller. Oh, okay. I'm sorry.
l 21 We are going to break now. We will resume at 9:00
! 22 o' clock tomorrow morning. ;
23 (WHEREUPON, a t 5 :10 P. M., the hearing of 24 the above-entitled matter was continued
)
l (/
q, 25 to the 27th day of August, 19 86, at the i Ronntaa Renortina Aervice. Ltd.
GeEeva', Illi5ois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i >
4~ t
!. I i 11335 I
- - l hour of 9
- 00 A. M.) ,
4 2 i
i
! 3 L
I 4
l-
+
L r
5 6 ,
b i i 7-r, 8
t i 9 i f
- 10 i e 11 i 12.
- i. 13
. 14
! 15 i
16 ,
t, l 17 I 18 19 l
20 l 21 ,
22 r 23 i
i 24- l 25 l
i R n n n t-n n D o nn r t- 4 n a R o rtr i c o . T.t r1 -
Ged eva', I1115ois 60134 ,
[ (312) 232-0262
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER This is to certify that the enttached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING: COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2)
DOCKET NO.: 50-456 OL; 50-457 OL PLACE: CHICAGO, ILLINOIS LJ DATE: TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 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) /4 M-(TYPED) [/ [
GLEN SONNTAG Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS INC.
Reporter's Affiliation,
,O
\,)