ML20212Q323
| ML20212Q323 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 08/27/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#386-621 OL, NUDOCS 8609040203 | |
| Download: ML20212Q323 (214) | |
Text
ORIGINAL m, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-456 OL 50-457 OL COMM014 WEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2) f-LOCATION: CHICAGO, ILLINOIS PAGES: 11336 - 11548 l
i DATE: WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1986 s / 0I 1
1 0\\
\ .
,, ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
OfficialReporters 444 North CapitolStreet
'3609040203 860827 (202)347-3700 PDR ADOCK 05000456 l T PDR NADONWIDE COVERACE l
L
11336
-~
v 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
__________________x 5 :
, In the Matter of: :
6 : Docket No. 5 0-456 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY : 50-457 OL 7 :
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 :
8 and 2) :
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X 9
10 Page: 11,336 - 11,548 11 United States District Court House f-'3 6 e 12 Courtroom 1919 219 South Dearborn Street
\~s/ Chicago, Illinois 60604 13 Wednesday, August 27, 1986.
14 15 The hearing in the above-entitled matter reconvened 16 at 9:00 A. M.
17 BEFORE:
18 JUDGE HERBERT GROSSMAN, Chairman 19 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 20 Washington, D. C.
? 21 JUDGE RICHARD F. COLE, Member, 2 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 22 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
- 23 JUDGE A. DIXON CALLIHAN, Member, l s 24 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board i T U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j , ) 25 Washington, D. C.
i SonDtag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
r 11337 O
1 APPEARANCES:
2 On behalf of the Applicant:
3 MICHAEL I. MILLER, ESQ.
JOSEPH GALLO, ESQ.
4 ELENA Z. KEZELIS, ESQ.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale 5 Three First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60602 6
On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory 7 Commission Staff:
,8 STUART TREBY, ESQ.
ELAINE I. CHAN, ESQ.
9 GREGORY ALAN BERRY, ESQ.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 7335 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20014 11 g On behalf of the Intervenors:
k-- ROBERT GUILD, ESQ.
13 14 15 16 17 l
18 19 20 21 22 23
! 24 25 1 Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
\
i 11333 v
1 TESTIMONY OF JEROME H. SCHAPKER (Continued.)
4 2 BOARD EXAMINATION 11,340 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN 3 RECROSS EXAMINATION 11,352 BY MR. MILLER (Continuing.)
4 BOARD EXAMINATION 11,382 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN 5 BOARD EXAMINATION 11,384
!_ BY JUDGE CALLIHAN 6 BOARD EXAMINATION 11,385 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN 7 BOARD EXAMINATION 11,389 BY JUDGE CALLIHAN
, 8 RECROSS EXAMINATION 11,390 BY MR. GUILD 9 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRY (Continuing.) 11,424
, 10 RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. MILLER (Continuing.) 11,425 11 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
! ps BY MR. GUILD (Continuing.) 11,426
~ t 12
\ TESTIMONY OF LEONARD GEORGE MC'GREGOR l 13 DIRECT EXAMINATION I 14 BY MR. GUILD 11,431 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
! 15 BY MR. GALLO 11,498 I REDIRECT EKM4INATION
! 16 BY MR. GUILD (Continuing.) 11,503 I VOIR DIRE EXAMIbEION 17 BY MR. GALLO 11,539 REDIRECT EY. AMINATION i
18 BY MR. GUILD (Continuing.) 11,544 l
19 EXHIBITS ,
Marked Received 20 Intervenors' Exhibit 99 11,458 11,463 Intervenors' Exhibit 100 11,458 11,477 21 Intervenors' Exhibit 101 11,492 11,503 Intervenors' Exhibit 102 11,507 11.509 22 Intervenors' Exhibit 103 11,522 11,528 Intervenors' Exhibit 104 11,528 11,546 23 24 L 25 l
l Sonntag Reporting Service Ltd.
' Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 - . - - - - - . - - . - - . - _ -
l I.
'11339
.y- '
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: The hearing is reconvened.
2 This is the 57th day of hearing.
3 Does anyone have any preliminary matters before we 4 return to Mr. Schapker?
5 MR. GUILD: Yes, Judge.
6 I have a document that I would like to have marked 7 and of fer in evidence.
f 8 It's the checklist that Mr. Mendez found in the 9 performance of his inspection activities, the Dave 1 10 Thomas 1,215 weld' checklist.
11- It was supplied by the NRC Staff in a discovery I12 supplement after Mr. Mendez left.the witness stand.
I
(
13 I hope, without objection from the parties, I can 14 have it marked and received.
15 I think you got a copy, Mike.
! 16 MR. MILLER: I think we did.
17 MR. BERRY: The Staff will stipulate that is 18 the document that we received from Mr. Mendez and that f 19 he filed in the course of his inspection.
I 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Why don't we mark Fine. .
21 that as Intervenors' Exhibit 98? ,
l 22 MR. GUILD: Thank you, Judge.
o 23 (The docunent was thereupon marked 24 Intervenors' Exhibit No. 98 for 25 identification as of August 27, 1986.)
I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262
V g 11340 0 .
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I will ask whether the 2 parties have any objection to the Board's receiving 3 this. ,
4 MR. MILLER: No.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: None from Mr. Miller.
6 Mr. Berry?
7 MR. BERRY: No, your Honor.
- 8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine. This is then -
9 received.
10 (The document was thereupon received into.
1 11 evidence as Intervenors' Exhibit No. 98.)
12 MR. GUILD: I don't plan any examination of
)
13 the Staff witness on this subject at this time.
14 That's all I have, Judge.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Are there any further 16 preliminary matters?
17 (No response.)
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: There are none.
19 We will resume then the questioning of Mr.
l 20 Schapker, who remains sworn.
. 21 BOARD EXAMINATION 22 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN 23 Q Before I allow Mr. Miller to proceed, could I get a i
L 24 fuller explanation from you, Mr. Schapker, as to what T
25 the relationship is between Form 1701, which has been i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
, Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
{ l T
11341
\
V(~
1 received as Applicant's Exhibit 9, and Specification 2 L.2790, which is received as Applicant's Exhibit 16, if 3 you can.
4 A It's my understanding as part of the L.27 Specification 9 Form 1701 is the standard specification for welding and 6 steel construction, Sargent & Lundy spec.
7 Q That is 2790?
8 A That is 1701.
9 0 Oh, 170l?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Now, how does that differ from L.2790?
- f-~s
) 12 What is the relationship between the two of them?
(d 13 A 2790 is the contract specification to the contract and I 14 believe 1701 is the reference document for standard 15 specification in welding and steel construction included 16 in 2790.
17 0 Well, now, which document prescribes the method to be 18 used in the welding of materials?
19 A They both make reference to welding materials in the 20 specs; but the -- I think the Form 1701 is more explicit 21 in the direction of the welder requirements.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Miller, let me ask you:
23 Have we had an exposition on the relationship 24 between 1701 and 2790 by any of the witnesses so far?
25 MR. MILLER: I believe that there have been Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
-. = .- -
t 1
11342 4
d 1 explanations, very early in the proceeding, by Mr.
2 DeWald and, perhaps, Mr. Seltmann and, perhaps, Mr.
3 Simile.
I 4 But I will represent to the Board that the entire
-5 situation with respect to the contract and the 6 relationship of the contract about which the Board has
)
7 specifically inquired, these specifications and the AWS 8 Codes, are going to be the subject of Mr. Kurtz' 9 rebuttal testimony.
.10 I am not -- I said Mr. Kurtz. I may be incorrect
{ 11 on that. He may not be the authoritative Sargent &
12 Lundy individual with respect to these matters.
13 But there will be someone presented by Applicant j 14 who will be in the position to respond to questions 15 regarding the relationship of these various documents, 16 at least from the Applicant's point of view.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
l 18 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
l 19 Q Now, in another area, Mr. Schapker, you indicated that 1
20 Mr. Simile was your contact with the principals, that is 21 the Licensee and Comstock -- and I take it Sargent &
22 Lundy -- in your inspection of the matters raised by Mr.
23 Puckett.
24 Is that correct? ,
j 25 A He was my contact representing L. K. Comstock only.
Sonntaq _ Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l ,
(312) 232-0262
11343 gs L) 1 Q Okay. Were there other contacts then?
2 A Oh, yes.
3 0 Who did you speak to in Edison and who did you speak to 4 in Sargent & Lundy?
5 A I don't recall their names, offhand; but I spoke to two 6 or three people f rom Sargent & Lundy and also CECO 7 Engineering.
8 Q CECO Engineering?
9 A Yes; and --
10 Q Did they --
11 A -- and CECO Production Control and Quality Assurance 12 Depa r tmen t.
13 Q Now, in speaking to the people at CECO Engineering, did 14 you indicate to them the scope of the problems that you 15 were inspecting to?
I l 16 A In the area of interests for that particular item I was 17 inves tigating, yes. That was the intent.
l 18 0 Were they aware of the fact that you were investigating 19 or examining the question of the Application of AWS l
20 D.l.3?
21 A Oh, yes.
22 Q I take it then they presented you with -- and you asked 3
i 23 them for all the documents related to that, did you?
24 A Yes.
25 That's when I reviewed L.2790 and Form 1701.
Sonntaq Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
d 11344 a
1 Q .Did they also present to you requests that they made of
-2 the American Welding Society and the responses received 3 from the American Welding Society with regard to the i 4 application of AWS D.1.3?
^
5 A Yes. I reviewed the ANS '76 Code revisions.
'6 I believe that was when I spoke to'the CECO 7 engineer, weld engineer.
8 0 Well, I am not speaking now of the code revisions.
9 I am speaking now of interpretations that were 10 requested by CECO Engineering of the AWS Society with 11 r e ga rd t o AWS D . l . 3.
[ 12 Did they --
l
- 13. A No.
14 Q They did not give you those materials?
- 15 A No.
16 Q Are you' aware of those items at this moment, items that
! 17 had been presented to us during the course of this 18 hearing?
l l
19 A Yes, I am now.
l 20 Q Do you consider these matters relevant to your 21 consideration of the problem?
22 A At the time I felt I had enough material to make a 23 j ud gment.
24- Q Well, at the time you didn't know that --
25 A Based on the '76 Code revision and the --
l Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
' Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. . - - . _ _ . - _ _ _ ~ .
11345
,m N
1 Q Well, at the time you didn't know that these 2 interpretations existed, did you?
3 A At the time I didn't know there were interpretations, 4 no, requested -by CECO or Sargent & Lundy. No, I didn't 5 know that.
6 0 You didn't even know that the interpretations existed, 7 did you, whether or not requested by CECO?
8 A (No response.)
9 0 or did you?
10 Were you aware of --
11 A I reviewed the Code, the '75 and '76 Code; and the 12 revision to the '76 Code explained that the -- okay.
(
13 Maybe I am talking about the wrong subject. I was --
, 14 0 Well, okay. Let me show you what I am referring to.
15 These are exhibits marked as Board Exhibits 3, 4 and 5, 16 and let me ask you -- maybe you have not yet seen these.
17 Why don't you take a few minutes and look at them?
18 A I am familiar with the Welding Journal, since I am a 7
19 membe r of that.
20 I was a member of the American Welding Society in 21 1984 and I received this journal.
22 0 Mr. Schapker, we are not holding you responsible for l
23 knowing eve rything that has ever been published in 24 professional journals in your field.
l h)\
(, 25 The question really isn't whether you did Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. i Geneva, Illinois 60134 L (312) 232-0262
11346 fm g
1 everything you should have but whether the relevant 2 documents were presented to you when you indicated the 3 nature of your inspection and in particular these 4 documents which I am showing to you now.
5 A I didn't question the applicability of AWS D.l.3 to 6 CECO.
7 Q Well, wasn't that one of the questions that you were 8 asked to inspect to that was raised by Mr. Puckett, as 9 to whether AWS --
10 A Based --
11 0 -- let me finish.
12
( -- whether AWS D.l.3 was applicable to the welding?
13 A Based on my inspection at the time, I determined that 14 AWS D.l.3 was not applicable because 1701 document so e i
15 stated that AWS D.l.1 was the applicable. l 16 Q Well, you have heard testimony -- and I believe that you 17 indicated you agreed with that testimony -- that I 18 subsequent to a certain date AWS D.l.3 was incorporated 19 into AWS D.l.l.
I 20 Isn't that so, that you agreed with that?
21 A That's true; but it was n ' t incorporated in the i
22 specification, the 2790 spec, which is the contract 23 document to the contractor that states what code 24 provisions he is to operate under.
I 25 0 Well, apparently, that was your conclucion; isn't that L Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
11347 4
p
. 4 V
1 so, Mr. Schapker?
2 A Yes, that was my conclusion on inspection.
3 Q Did you conclude that before you began your inspection?
4 A No, no. This was part of my inspection. I didn't 5 review the Sargent & Lundy L.2790 spec and the Form 1701 6 until my inspection.
7 0 Well, now, I assume when you went to the CECO 8 Engineering people you hadn't yet reached your 9 conclusion, had you?
10 A That's true, right.
11 Q And you asked them for all the relevant documents f' x
. 12 relating to that area, did you not?
13 A Yes -- well, I don't ask, "Give me eve rything that you 14 have."
15 I just ask, "Where can I find certain elements?
16 Where is it specified that AWS D.l.1 is the Code that i
17 the contractor is held to be liable for?"
18 Q Did you also indicate that you were interested in the l 19 applicability or non-applicability of AWS D.1.3 to the 20 welding and inspections at Braidwood?
21 A I believe I did, yes.
22 Q And wasn't it apparent to the people that you spoke to 23 that you were inspecting to the question of the 24 interrelationship of AWS D.l.3 to AWS D.l.l?
25 A I believe, to the best of my recollection, I asked l
Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
- Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
-O~ -
11348 p) c 1 several questions, not just in regard to the AWS D.l.3 2 but also the change from the '75 to '76 Code 3 representing the -- I am t rying to remember the document 4 in AWS D.1.1, the table.
5 There is a table reference that was changed, where 6 the fillet welds of any size were qualified by the 7 welding of -- Schedule 65, I believe.
8 Q Okay. So you are indicating that you had pointed out to 9 Comstock Engineering that you were interested in a i
10 further edition of D.l.1 for some other reason; but --
11 is that so?
12 A Yes.
3 13 Q But you had certainly made it apparent to them that you 14 were interested in the relationship of D.l.3 to D.l.1, i 15 didn't you?
16 A Well, I am not sure that I specifically questioned for 17 any documents that they had in relation to that.
18 I was asking for information as far as D.l.3 to the 19 contract document, which was L.2790 and what was stated i
20 in that specification as far as AWS D.l.1 versus AWS
! 21 D.l.3.
! 22 Q Well, let me understand this --
l l 23 A That was my prima ry --
l 24 0 When you went to the people at Comstock and CECO, you 25 didn't let them know that you were interested in any l
! Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 60134 j (312) 232-0262
11349 1 docunents other than the ones that' you specified 2 yourself in advance of inspecting to that problem.
3 Is that how you went about it?
4 A No, I wouldn't' state it that way.
5 I would expect that any documents that they could 6 provide me with to aid me on my inspection, I would 7 expect them to supply.
8 0 Well, now, again, I believe you have answered in the 9 affirmative -- and maybe I am wrong -- but I believe you 10 have indicated that ycu told them that you were 11 interested in the interrelationship between AWS D.l.3 12 and D.l.l.
13 Is that so?
14 A I don't know if I said it in those terms; but I am sure 15 that that was --
16 Q Conveyed to them in some way?
17 A Yes, yes.
18 Q That they understood that?
l, 19 A I would think so, yes.
20 Q Okay. Now that you have looked at what has been marked 21 as Board Exhibits 3, 4 and 5, which, apparently, were i 22 not known to you until this hearing -- is that correct,
! 23 by the way?
, 24 A That's correct.
25 0 -- do you think that those are items that are relevant Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11350
,a 1 to the inquiry?
2 Whether or not they supply the exact answer that 3 you want, don't you think they are related to and 4 relevant to what you were sent to inspect to?
5 A Yes. Well, this one, B-3, and B-4 appear to be the 6 other thing I was referring to, Table 526.1 in the '75 7 edition, which is material of unlimited thickness.
8 0 I am referring to Inquiry No. 3, in Board Exhibits 3 and 9 4, Board Exhibit 3 being what was requested by the QA 10 Welding Engineer at Braidwood and Board Exhibit 4 being i 11 the response of the American Welding Society, which
> 12 includes in the reply to No. 3 a reference to a 4
\m))
13 published interpretation, which is found in Board 14 Exhibit 5.
I 15 A Yes.
16 0 Now, were any of these items-brought to your attention
! 17 at that time?
l i 18 A Verbally and through the review of the code, the code 19 itself.
l l 20 Q You mean verbally, the company officials --
21 A Right.
( 22 0 -- told you certain things?
23 A Yes. I discussed this.
l 24 Q Did they inform you as to the fact that there was a y
j 25 specific written request made to the American Welding i
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 .
(312) 232-0262
11351
-s G
1 Society?
2 A No.
3 Q Did they inform you of the fact that there was a 4 published position taken by the American Welding 5 Society?
6 A No.
7 Q Okay. Now, getting back to the question which I asked 8 you, which I don't think is answered:
9 Don't you believe that Inquiry No. 3 and the 10 published position of the American Welding Society has 11 some relevance to the question that you were inspecting A l 12 to?
(d 13 A It would have aided, yes.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Mille r.
15 MR. MILLER: May I inquire, your Honor, is 16 the Board conce rned that Applicant was less than candid l 17 with Mr. Schapker during the course of his l
18 inves tiga tion?
l 19 If that is so, then we ought to present some 20 evidence in that regard and I guess we would be prepared 21 to do so if that is a co cern, that somehow we have 22 withheld materials from the NRC during the course of 23 this investigation.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Miller, we are now 25 examining the witness as to what he actually did in l
. Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 L (312) 232-0262
11352 h
[~'J
(~-
1 inspecting and what he considered, to determine, first 2 of all, the quality of his inspection report, and, l
3 secondly, if there is anything lacking, to find out why 4 it is.
- 5 Now, we are not accusing anyone of anything.
6 Whatever shoe fits, of course, you know, it will just 7 have to be worn; but the point is it appears to this 8 Board Member, anyway, that these interpretations are 9 relevant to the question and they certainly should have 10 been taken into account in inspecting to the issue 11 rai, sed by Mr. Puckett with regard to AWS D.l.3.
[s\
12 Now, why they weren't taken -- the inte rpretations L) weren't taken -- into account, I don't know; but we 13 14 certainly want to establish whether or not they were; 15 and, apparently, they weren't.
16 Now, if there is an explanation as to why they 17 weren't taken into account, certainly we would 18 appreciate hearing this from whatever parties can offer 19 us information on that; but we certainly aren't going to 20 ignore the interpretations when we have to decide the 21 question as to the applicability of AWS D.1.3.
22 Now you may proceed, Mr. Miller.
23 RECROSS EXAMINATION 24 (Con tin ued. )
fq )\ 25 BY MR. MILLER:
Sonntaa Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
_ - _ _ .. _ . - _ - - - -=.
11353 n
1 Q Mr. Schapker, do you have Board's Exhibits 3, 4 and 5 2 before you?
3 JUDGE COLE: I can provide him with them.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
5 A Yes.
6 BY MR. MILLER:
7 Q Were you present -- I believe Mr. Kurtz on one of his 8 rather brief visits to the witness stand provided these 9 and they were marked as Board exhibits.
10 Were you present when Mr. Kurtz testified with 11 respect to these documents?
[J
\ 12 A I believe so.
13 Q All right, sir. Now, looking first at Board Exhibit 3 14 and --
15 A Excuse me, sir. I don't believe I was here for Kurtz.
16 I think that's why I missed this.
17 Q Looking at Board Exhibit 3 and Board Exhibit 4, which 18 were the specific inquiry raised by the Commonwealth 19 Edison Welding Engineer and the response by the American 20 Welding Society and calling your specific attention to 21 Inquiry 3, my question is whether the inquiry and 22 response changes any conclusion that you have reached .
23 with respect to the applicability of AWS D.1.3 to i 24 Comstock's scope of work at Braidwood?
\
l _,) 25 A No, sir.
6 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 y (312) 232-0262
4 J & ' 6-- - * *4 F a L
11354
. O 1 Q Now, I'think you testified in response to a question 2 f rom the Chairman that you were,- in fact, a member of 3 the American Welding Society in 1984 and received its 4 journal.
4 5 And I quite agree that no one is sugnesting that 6 you be familiar with all aspects of professional 7 journals, but let me ask whether or not you recall 8 having seen the interpretation that is referred to in.
9 the journal and that has been marked as Board Exhibit 5
[ 10 just during the course of your routine or casual review 11 of the journal when you received it?
() 12 13 A
0' It's always been my inte rpretation.
Sir, my question is:
! 14 Do you recall having read that issue of the 15 journal, say, cover to cover and specifically having 16 read that inte rpretation?
L 17 A Well, I normally don't read it cover to cover, I assure 18 you; but the interpretations I usually pay particular J
l 19 attention to.
l ~
[ 20 Q I see. Do you have a specific recollection as you sit I
i 21 here today of having read that interpretation when you
-22 received your copy of the journal?
i 23 A I can't. I would say that I did read it but I can't --
l That's quite 24 I don't have a specific recollection, no.
] 25 sometime ago. ,
h' Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 L
(312) 232-0262
11355 O
1 Q Just looking at the inte rpretation itself that is 2 c6ntained in Board Exhibit 5, does that have any effect
-3 or does it cause you to change any conclusion that you 4 have expressed here with respect to the applicability of 1-5 AWS D.l.3 to Comstock's scope of work at Braidwood?
6 A No.
7 Q Now, day before yesterday, Mr. Schapker, Mr. Guild was 8 asking you some questions about the circumstances under a
9 which Mr. Puckett made what he has now characterized in 10 his testimony to this Board as a recommendation that c
11 procedures be requalified to the D.l.3 Code and he 12 characterized the status of the situation in August of
(.
! 13 1984 as follows, and it's found at Page 11,099 of the 14 transcript.
15 His question was as follows:
f 16 "O So the status of the matter was that Mr.
l j 17 Puckett had identified a failure of welding 18 procedure of Comstock to specify a base metal 19 that was, in fact, being welded in the field, 20 that was A-36 to A-446, and that because of 21 the other problems with the procedure that l 22 necessitated the requalification, he I
23 recommended that for welding the thin-gauge 24 material that was a large part of Comstock's I b 25 scope of work, that Comstock requalify those j
l l
l Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
L Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262
11356
(~\
l procedures to the then current D.l.3 Code.
2 "Now, is there anything, in your opinion, 3 that is wrong about that recommendation, Mr.
4 Schapker?"
5 I raised an objection; and your answer, which is at 6 the bottom of Page 11,100, is, "No, I wouldn't say 7 anything wrong with it." You said, "They -- I --
8 hypothetically, that would be an acceptable suggestion."
9 Now, I would like to show you a document that has 10 been received in evidence as Applicant's Exhibit 56, Mr.
11 Schapker. It's a memorandum from Mr. Puckett to Mr.
12 DeWald and it's dated August 22, 1984.
(
13 Is this a document that you reviewed during the 14 course of your investigation into Mr. Puckett's 15 concerns?
16 A Yes, I believe it was.
17 0 When you first -- when did you first read that document, 18 if you can remember, sir?
19 A The early part of my inspection.
20 Q Do you remember whether it was before or after your 21 visit to Mr. Puckett?
22 A Oh, it was after.
f 23 Q All right. ,
j 24 A I don't think I had any of these documents.
( ,
25 0 When you reviewed this document for the first time, Mr.
l l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11357 O
i Q 1 Schapker, what, if anything, did it indicate to you 2 about Mr. Puckett's views regarding the continuation of 3 welding by Comstock at Braidwood on August 22, 1984?
4 A It appeared that he wanted to stop work in all areas.
5 0 All right, sir. Now, you previously testified that the 6 A-36 to A-446 welding that was going on in August and 7 earlier was not a situation that warranted, in your 8 j udgment, a stop work.
9 Is that correct?
10 A That's true.
- 11 Q You have also testified that with respect to the I 12 stainless steel welding, the qualification in the 2G (s) 13 position, that, in fact, that did warrant a stop work 14 for welding in the position that was not qualified; 15 correct?
16 A Correct.
17 Q You have testified that the problems with the weld 18 qualification procedures, the miscellaneous sorts of 19 discrepancies that Mr. Puckett described to you that you 20 identified, did not, in your judgment, justify a stop 21 work.
22 Is that also correct?
23 A That's correct.
24 0 And I believe you have also testified that the welder 25 qualification discrepancies that you obse rved did not Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
f~
11358 (V\ .
] 1 justify a stop work.
2 Is that also correct?
I 3 A That is t rue.
4 Q Is it also correct that the problems with weld rod 5 control and material traceability did not, in your
?
! 6 judgment -- do not, in yout j udginent, constitute a basis 7 for stop work; is that right?
- 8 A That's correct.
i 9 Q Now, Mr. Puckett in that memorandum sort of envelopes' i 10 many of these issues and then throws in the question of 11 whether the procedures were qualified to the right code.
12 That is, I believe the words are that the procedures f
j 13 were qualified to the AWS D.l.1 Code and it never should 14 have been done.
l 15 Now --
i 16 A That's true.
,! 17 Q Now, my question, Mr..Schapker, is: -
! 18 Taking into account all of the discrepancies that
(
19 are identified in that memorandum, including the j l
20 applicability of the AWS D.l.1 Code to welding of
{ 21 thin-gauge material, do you believe that it was
! 22 appropriate to institute a stop work at Braidwood for ,.
23 the Comstock scope of work taking all the discrepancies 24 together and throwing in there the D.l.1 versus D.1.3 25 issue as well?
Sonntao Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11359 1
1 A No.
f
[
2 Q Would you tell me why not, sir?
L 3 A There were no -- there was no affect to the quality of 4 the weld.
5 The deficiencies that are described on this memo 6 were erroneous in many ways; and if I --
7 JUDGE COLE: You mean they weren't 8 deficiencies?
9 THE WITNESS: Yes, many of them weren't 10 def iciencies .
11 There were no code violations for certain. There
() 12 13 was no ef fect to the quality of the welding going on in the field with the procedures that were being utilized.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: By the way, Mr. Miller --
15 have you finished your answer?
16 THE WITNESS: Yes.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Are we going to go back over 18' everything that he has already answered on Direct?
19 MR. MILLER: No, sir.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fin e .
21 BY MR. MILLER:
22 Q Mr. Schapker, when you interviewed Mr. Puckett, what, if 23 anything, did he tell you about his intention when he 24 wrote that memorandum?
25 A The memorandum really never came up.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11360 (A
v
)
1 Q I see. You did not discuss the memorandum itself with 2 him when you interviewed him?
3 A No. I didn't have the memorandum at that time.
4 Q Did Mr. Puckett tell you that he had, in fact, 5 recommended an overall stop work at Braidwood?
6 A Yes, I believe he did.
7 Q Did Mr. Puckett ever tell you in substance that when he 8 made that recommendation to Mr. DeWald, that he really 9 didn't expect Mr. DeWald to stop the work; that this was 10 just a way of stimulating, if you will, a conversation 11 with Mr. DeWald about the problems that Mr. Puckett had 4
()
v 12 13 discovered?
MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I object.
14 If that is intended to be a characterization, a 15 full and complete characterization of what Mr. Puckett's 16 testimony was, I believe it's inaccurate and misleading.
17 If it's intended as a hypothetical, I have no 18 problem with that.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, overruled. He can ask 20 that question.
21 If it doesn't conform to the testimony, the answer 22 won't be worth anything.
23 MR. GUILD: Thank you.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Could you answer that, Mr.
\
) 25 Schapker?
r/
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
A I-11361 V
1 A No.
2 BY MR. MILLER:
3 Q Mr. Guild went on with his examination of you with 4 respect to the issue of stop work and related it to some 5 specific NRC requirements in Appendix B.
6 Do you recall that line of examination generally?
7 A No, I don't.
8 Q Okay. I think he referred you to Criterion 15, 10 CFR 9 Appendix B, the one that speaks . of the Licensee taking 10 appropriate action.
11 Do you recall that?
12 A
) Yes.
13 0 Okay. And he again called your attention to the stop 14 work with respect to welding of A-36 and A-446 material, 15 and I believe that you testified that the stop work with 16 respect to the welding of A-36 to A-446 was appropriate i
17 but not necessary.
18 As you used the word " appropriate" in that answer, l
- 19 would you tell us what it means?
2 20 A I felt that the contractor took the appropriate i
21 corrective action at that time as far as dealing with 22 the problem.
23 In other words, they lidn't push it under the rug.
24 They immediately stopped work to find out if they did 7_
(,)
l 25 have a technical issue at hand.
l Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- - -. .. - - ~
l 11362
'O V
1 Q All right, sir. In your opinion, would some lesser 2 corrective action -- by lesser I mean short of stopping 3 work -- have been appropriate as that word is used in 4 Criterion 15, 10 CFR Appendix B?
5 A Oh, yes. As I stated before, I didn't think a stop work 6 was necessary.
7 The only thing that was really necessary is to 8 correct the procedure, and that was done.
9 Q Mr. Guild then asked you some details about the way in 10 which you conducted your investigation.
11 He asked you whether you had reviewed, for example,
( ) 12 Mr. Puckett's resume; and I think you said that you had 13 not but that you were familiar with Mr. Puckett's 14 background from your work at the Zimmer facility.
15 Could you describe for us what your understanding 16 of Mr. Puckett's background is from your work at the 17 Zimmer facility?
18 MR. GUILD: Objection, Mr. Chairman.
19 Do we really want to range as widely as the 20 question seems to invite the witness to range on this 21 question?
22 It was a volunteered answer. The question that I 23 asked was a narrow one. It had to do with whether or 24 not Mr. Schapker reviewed Mr. Puckett's background and 25 qualif ica tion s. He stated ne did not.
Sonntaa Repor1_ing Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 11363 I .
U 1 We established on the record what Mr. Schapker's 2 contact with Mr. Puckett was at the Zimmer facility.
3 Mr. Miller's question sort of . invites recounting 4 much more broadly than anything that has been touched on f
- 5 so far about the Schapker and Puckett dealings at 1
- j. 6 Zimmer.
7 I am perfectly prepared to respond if we want to Y
8 open the door but I think it's not proper.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Miller, my recollection i
- 10 of the witness's answer was that he had ve ry limited i
! 11 contact with Mr. Puckett'at Zimmer -- perhaps I am
()
4 12 mistaken -- and it was a ve ry limited knowledge.
- 13 Now you are inviting him in your question to tell i !
j 14 you everything that he knows about Mr. Puckett's work at
, '15 Zimmer from whatever sources, and that invites a hearing l
16 on collateral matter here that I don't think ite want to
! 17 indulge in.
i 18 Now, am I incorrect, Mr. Schapker, about your
! 19 limited contact with Mr. Puckett and knowledge of his 20 activities at Zimmer directly?
( 21 THE WITNESS: Yes. I believe I may have l 22 talked to Mr. Puckett a half dozen times at Zimmer.
! 23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And you really didn't have i
! 24 very much personal knowledge of his competence or his 25 activities there, did you?
?
)
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. ,
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11364
)
%d 1 THE WITNESS: Other than what I observed from 2 my observations.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I am not trying to offer any 4 answers to you, but that was my recollection of the way 5 you testified.
6 I just want to point out that if you are going to 7 open the door to every kind of item that he has learned 8 about Mr. Puckett --
9 MR. MILLER: I really -- I will sharpen the 10 question, Mr. Chairman.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
12 BY MR. MILLER:
13 Q Mr. Guild asked you yesterday whether you would agree 14 whether Mr. Puckett was more experienced than you in the 15 interpretation and application of welding codes, and 16 your answer to that was a rather emphatic no.
17 Do you have a basis on which to judge Mr. Puckett's 18 expertise in the interpretation and application of 19 welding codes?
20 MR. GUILD: Objection.
21 Now, again, this clearly doesn't cure the problem 22 of the last question, because, frankly, questions that 23 were asked on my Cross Examination of the witness went
,_ 24 to experience and not a general characterization of l ) 25 expertite.
Sonntaq Reporting Service,_Ltd.
) Geneva, Illinois 60134
[ (312) 232-0262
I.
11365 f- y i /
v 1 I got the answer and I have to live with the answer 2 that Mr. Schapkar gave, which was that he disagreed with 3 the premise of my question, which was that Mr. Puckett 4 had more experience on that score.
5 Now, if Mr. Miller wants to open a different door 6 -- and that is expertise -- we then, I suggest, invite a 7 far-ranging inquiry into examples of Mr. Puckett's 8 interpretation of various codes at Zimmer.
9 I am happy to do that, but I think it's clearly 10 beyond the scope of the examination.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: No, I don't believe in this 12 case it is beyond the scope. I recall the question and answer.
13 14 We will overrule the objection and allow the 15 witness to give whatever basis he had for responding the 16 way he did to your question, Mr. Guild.
17 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, it wasn't my 18 question.
19 The new question was not experience, it was 20 expe r tise. Mr. Miller's word was expertise now, and he 21 is asking for a basis for a question on expertise.
22 I will respect the Chair's ruling, of course; but 23 it really is a different question. It will require a l
l 24 dif ferent line of response.
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We will maintain our ruling.
4 Sonntaq Repor ting _Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11366 1 You may answer the question, Mr. Schapker.
2 THE WITNESS: Would you repeat it, please?
3 MR. MILLER: I ask the Reporter to read the 4 question.
- 5 (The question was thereupon read by the 6 Reporte r. )
7 A Well, my experience in talking to Mr. Puckett at Zimmer 4
8 and discussing code matters and, also, the results of my 9 inspection on these matters.
10 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike 11 that last answer to the last question.
d( 12 13 It simply invites now an unmanageable, unlimited range of inquiry into what on earth Mr. Schapker means 14 by this overbroad response.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I agree with you, Mr. Guild, 16 it is going to open it up; and, Mr. Miller, you are 17 opening it up.
18 But we have it there and we will allow you to ask
- 19 your questions, Mr. Guild; and if you are in a hurry, 20 Mr. Miller, I don't think this is the way to --
21 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, I am a little bit
- 22 ,
confused, because the Chair asked Mr. Schapker a
, 23 question as to whether or not he took account of the 24 fact that Mr. Puckett maintained that there was a 25 retaliatory motive.
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11367 (Os_,)
1 Le t 's se e . I think the precisc question was the 2 company had been improper if they retaliated against him 3 for raising procedural irregularities, and Mr. Schapker 4 said yes.
5 Now, it seems to me that the issue which is before 6 the Board is whether or not there was a basis for 7 terminating Mr. Puckett that had nothing to do with his 8 raising conce rns, be they procedural irregularities or -
9 something that would go beyond procedural 10 irregularities, and goes precisely to Mr. Puckett's 11 competence as a Level III Weld Inspector at Comstock.
12 That is the issue that is before the ' Board and it 13 is the issue on which we will ask the Board to make 14 findings.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, Mr. Miller, I didn't 16 understand that you were asking your question within the 17 scope of that question that I asked when I ruled in your 18 favor.
19 If you are going to rely on my question affording 20 you the scope to ask that question you just asked now, 21 we will change the ruling. I don't see that that is 22 related in any way to the question that I asked.
23 If you are now going to use my question to re-open I
24 the whole question of Mr. Puckett's ccmpetence, y 25 including what he did at Zimmer, we ace going to be here Sonntaq Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
- . . . - . .. -. . . - - . . ~ . . -
o 11368 1 till Christmas; and I don't believe that my question g 2 affords you that basis.
3 Are you arguing that that is the basis?
l 4 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, I believe that Mr.
1
! 5 Guild opened it up, because he asked and he has
! 6 attempted to portray with his questions and answers with
! 7 Mr. Schapker that relate to his experience first as a 8 welder, as a Quality Control Inspector and then to his l 9 experience in interpretation and application of welding 10 codes.
f 11 He has raised the issue. It is not something that
- 12 I raised on my first Cross Examination, and it seems to
- 13 me that that bears, also, on the Chair's question.
l 14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, Mr. Mille r, I am i-j 15 offering you some free advice.
i
- 16 Mr. Guild asked the question and got an unfavorable f 17 answer. If I were trying the case on 'the other side, I i 18 would be happy with that answer and I wouldn't ask one
- 19 question too many.
l 20 Now you want to inquire into the basis for his 21, answering that question favorably to you, and that's 22 opening it up again for Mr. Guild to come back; but, l 23 nevertheless, we allowed that question. We are allowing i 24 that answer.
25 Now we are going to allow Mr. Guild to go into the l .
i l
l ,
j Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 11369 O -
1 background of that answer, and ' that's the Board's 2 ruling. . We-have already made our ruling.
3 And I understand what is happening.here; but I am ,.
4 just telling you, Mr. Miller, that your open-ended 5 questions like that, raising every other issue that has 6 already been raised in the hearing on your Recross 7 Examination of a very limited Cross Examination is not 8 , the way we are-going to end this hearing expedi'ciously; 9 but you may proceed. '
i- 10 The question has been asked and the question has 11 been answered.
j 12 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, let me add only i '13 this point s 4 14 I need Mr. Puckett in order to fairly respond to j 15 facts that are far beyond my knowledge and that is what 16 went on at the Zimmer facility in the mid or early i 17 1980's; and this is exactly the problem.
- 18 I have one witness on the stand who has some ,
j 19 firsthand knowledge of that. I have no technical
!' 20 assistance or even Mr. Puckett's direct aid, since he is i
21 in Ohio and not in my employ.
! 22 I really believe, in fairness, if this is now a 23 matter of record, that at the Applicant's expense Mr.
l 24 Puckett should be returned and we should have the l
l 25 privilege of allowing him to address these matters which i
J Sonntag Reporting Setvice,__Ltd. .
l-Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. _ . __ _ _. . _ _ _ _ . __ _ _ _ _ _ -~._ _
s i
?
11370 2
O s_- ,
! 1 relate to his personal knowledge of facts at Zimmer that
[ 2 are now at Applicant's behest put back on the record.
i 3 It's simply unfair for Intervenors to be burdened i with having to defend on a line of facts that we simply 4
5 are unable to muster given our resources and the limits j 6 of our expertise.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, let me ask you, Mr.
{
8 Mille r: Are you determined to have. a hearing on what 9 happened at Zimmer and Mr. Puckett's involvement in l
10 Zimme r?
11 MR. MILLER: No, I am certainly not 12 determined to do that, your Honor; but it seems to me
(
[ 13 that -- well, my questions were going to get very t
j 14 quickly to Braidwood and Mr. Schapker's opinion with ,
j 15 respect to Mr. Puckett's experience and expertise in
! 16 interpreting codes and standards on the basis of his
! 17 inspection at Braidwood; and I agree that that is i
! 18 certainly more relevant than the Zimmer issue.
j 19 Now, if I could have the last question and answer 1 20 read back, I would like to find --
l-21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine. Mr. Reporter, could i 22 you please?
{ 23 (The record was thereupon read by the f 24 Reporte r. )
1 j 25 BY MR. MILLER:
i i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11371
/ \
V 1 Q Mr. Schapker, when you say your inspection on chese -
2 matters, you are referring to the inspection at 3 Braidwood?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Would you tell us what your opinion of Mr. Puckett's i
6 expertise in the interpretation and application of 7 welding codes is?
8 MR. GUILD: Objection. The same objection, 9 Mr. Chairman, as before.
4 10 It simply opens the door, it's a new line, it's 11 beyond the proper scope of Recross Examination.
12
- JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, restricting your
[Oh 13 answer to Braidwood, we will allow the answer.
14 But, again, Mr. Miller, it seems to be a broad 15 enough question to invite a repetition of the entire l 16 testimony that the witness has given with regard to the 17 items he covered in his inspection report, because those 18 are the items that he discussed with Mr. Puckett on
- 19 which he believes that he has a superior opinion than 20 Mr. Puckett; and that's how open-ended the question is.
21 I really don't think that it is proper to prolong 22 the hearing by asking those kinds of questions.
23 MR MILLER: Well, I --
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Nevertheless, I will allow q ,) 25 the answer and we will take as long as we have to to i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11372 i
[)'
\v 1 complete the case.
2 Now, do you want that question repeated again, Mr.
3 Schapker?
4 THE WITNESS: Yes.
5 (The question was thereupon read by the 6 Reporter.)
j 7 A In regard to the Braidwood inspection, in many areas Mr.
) 8 Puckett failed to recognize code provisions that allowed 9 certain deviations that he thought were discrepancies.
) 10 BY MR. MILLER:
11 Q And those are covered in your direct testimony and in
( ) 12 your inspection report?
13 A Yes.
I 14 MR. GUILD: I move to strike, Mr. Chairman.
! 15 It's simply ove rbroad. I am incapable of 16 manageably recrossing on everything that is in his i
17 inspection report and his testimony.
i 18 That's, obviously, what the last question and 19 answer compel me to do if this matter stays of record.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We will overrule it.
21 Continue, Mr. Miller.
! 22 BY MR. MILLER:
{ 23 0 You are generally aware, are you not, of the position i fs 24 for which Mr. Puckett was hired at Braidwood?
i
( 25 A Yes.
t Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I 11373 1 Q What is your understandirg of the familiarity with the 2 application and interpretation of welding codes which is 3 required of a Level III Inspector at Comstock?
4 MR. GUILD: Objection, Mr. Chairman.
5 There have been no questions asked about Mr.
6 Schapker's opinion as to the qualifications for this 7 Level III position. ,
8 It's simply beyond the scope of either his Direct 9 Examination or any Cross Examination.
10 MR. MILLER: Well, your Honor, I believe that 11 this does get to the question that you asked with 12 respect to retaliation, what would have been proper with 13 respect to or improper with respect to a termination of 14 Mr. Puckett.
15 You asked one set of circumstances where Mr.
16 Schapker agreed with you that the termination would have
( 17 been improper.
I
- 18 I believe that it is fair for me to explore l 19 circumstances and ask Mr. Schapker's opinion, if he has
- 20 one, as to whether or not the termination would have 21 been proper or improper as well.
22 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that 23 the Chair's question was --
1 i
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes. Okay, fine. Mr.
25 Guild, you don't have to argue it further.
i
! Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3 11374 O
V 1 I think this is about the fourth general question 2 asked that opens the door to the entire direct case put 3 on by this witness; and we are going to overrule it --
4 we are going to sustain the objection and overrule the 5 question, which I understand to be what do you think 6 could have justified firing Mr. Puckett and --
7 MR. MILLER: No, sir. My question is going 8 to be a very precise one.
9 It is whe the r Mr . Puc ket t 's -- whe the r , in Mr.
10 Schapker's opinion, Mr. Puckett's lack of expertise in 11 the application and standards -- in the lack of the 12 interpretation of codes and standards would have been a 13 grounds for termination.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I don't even think 15 that Mr. Schapker holds himself out .to be an expert in 16 t'he area of what company management should consider in 17 hiring or firing a Level III.
18 Do you hold yourself out to be knowledgeable or 19 expert in that area, Mr. Scha'pker?~
20 THE WITNESS: No, sir.
i 21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: The objection is sustained.
22 Go on to another question, Mr. Miller.
23 BY MR. MILLER:
l 24 0 Mr. Schapker, the Chairman's question asked would the l \ 25 company have been improper if they retaliated against
/
l f
{
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
L Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
[
h i--
11375 1 Mr. Puckett and if they terminated him because he raised 2 these procedural irregularities. Your answer was yes.
3 Do you have an opinion as to whether or not Mr.
1 4 Puckett was terminated simply because he raised these 5 procedural irregularities?
6 MR. GUILD: Objection, your Honor.
4 7 Mr. Schapker very clearly said one thing he did not i
8 inspect,to, which probably is what is important in this 9 case, is the circumstances of Mr. Puckett's termination.
) 10 It's something no one inspected to f rom the Region, Mr.
1
- 11' Chairman.
12 I don't know where Mr. Miller thinks he can come up
\
13 with this as now properly within the scope of Recross 14 Examination.
1
., 15 Aside from the question of whether or not it simply 16 calls for multiplying by several times the necessary 17 further examination of this witness, it clearly is
- 18 beyond the scope of anything this witness has testified 4
19 to.
t-20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I believe Mr. Guild is j 21 correct in this point.
! 22 Mr. Schapker, didn't you indicate that you didn't i 23 inapect to the question of whether he was properly or 24 improperly terminated but only inspected to the
( 25 technical issues raised?
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i t
2 11376 g-~ .
. V 1 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: 'And this question, 3 basically, is outside the scope of what your work was, 4 wasn't it?
l 5 THE WITNESS: Yes.
I 6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Sustained.
7 Next question, Mr. Miller.
1 8 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, then would the Board
! 9 consider striking Mr. Schapker's answer to your j 10 question, which really went to the circumstances under l
11 which Mr. Puckett was terminated?
l
() 12 13 I am being cut off. I, obviously, respect the Board's rulings, I have no choice; but it seems to me 14 that the question-that was asked yesterday goes to the 15 ve ry same issue.
16 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, may we take a
! 17 moment and simply examine the transcript, because I 18 think this is not a matter that needs to be in dispute?
f l 19 Perhaps if I could confer with Mr. Miller on it.
1 Fine.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Why don't we take a l 21 recess?
! 22 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which 23 the hearing was resumed as follows:)
l 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Let's go back on the record
~
?
- 25 now.
l l
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
. Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
b -11377 1 Mr. Reporte r, we have had '- all right. We are 2 back on the record.
3 We have had a discussion off the record with regard 4 to the Board's line of questioning, the Chairman's
- 5. questions beginnir.3 with, I believe, Page 11,294 through 6 11,298.
7 In the Chairman's opinion, there was some 8 implication that could be read into Mr. Schapker's 9 inspection report that, perhaps, the company was b 10 justified in terminating Mr. Puckett.
11 The Chairman's questions were directed to whether 12 those -conclusions could be read into the report or how 13 far,. basically, the report went with regard to Mr.
14- Puckett's termination. .
15 It appears to the Chairman that the questions and 16 answers eatablished that the witness was not reaching 17 any such conclusions in his report as to whether Mr.
18 Puckett was rightfully or wrongfully' terminated.
19 As I read this transcript, I do not see any 20 question of that kind asked to Mr. Schapker, that is, 21 asking his evaluation of whether Mr. Puckett was 22 rightfully or wrongfully terminated.
23 My understanding of the scope of his inspection was 24 that question was outside the scope, that he only 25 inspected to the technical matters; and I don't see any 1
Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
__o
1 l
i-I 11378 1 justification or any reason why we would wish to have 2 that witness explore the area of wrongful or rightful 3 termination; and I don't think he is competent to of fer 4 an opinion on that, f !
5 So we will hear further argument from Mr. Miller on 6 this.
7 MR. MILLER: Well, your Honor, I believe that 8 the answers to the question taken together with other 9 testimony in the case could serve as a basis for a 10 finding by the Board -- and it may well be put forward 11 by Intervenors -- that Mr. Puckett's concerns were, in 12 fact, procedural irregularitiec and that he was
! 13 terminated for raising them and that there is an NRC 14 witness who has testified that in those circunstances, f
15 the termination would be retaliatory and wrongful.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Miller, if you want to
- 17 ask the witness whether his report reached the
! 18 conclusion you are stating might be read into his report 19 and testimony or whether his testimony reached such ,
20 conclusion, you are certainly entitled to ask that j 21 question and we won't deny that question; but if the 22 answer is that he didn't, we are not going to allow a 23 further question asking for his speculation in that 24 matter.
25 So if you wish to ask that question, go right l
! Sonnta_g_ Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
p
-11379
/~N -.
1 ahead.
j2 BY MR. MILLER:-
i 3 Q Mr. Schapker, have you reached any. conclusion as to 4 whether or not Mr. Puckett was wrongfully terminated by 5 Comstock at Braidwood because of the raising of'a series 6 of what might be characterized as procedural 7 irregularities in the welding program there?
8 A No, I didn't.
9 Q 'fou have not reached any conclusion?
10 A No, I haven't reached any conclusions in that regard.
11 MR. MILLER: Shall I move on now, Mr.
12 Chairman?
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, please.
14 BY MR. MILLER:
15 Q Mr. Schapker, you were asked yesterday by Mr. Guild with 16 -
respect to self-identification of what turned out to be 17 items of noncompliance, what credit the NRC gives for 18 the self-identification by a Licensee.
19 Do you recall that line of inquiry?
20 A Yes.
21 Q I think that on transcript Page 11,252 Mr. Guild asked 22 you the question, "Now, the fact of self-identification 23 is, therefore, material to deciding whether a certain 24 item is to be treated as a non-complying item, and, 25 also, whether it's been treated as a certain severity Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l l
l 11380 l 4
1 level, say, a III, a IV or a V; correct," and you 1
2 answe red, "yes."
]
3 I would like to show you Appendix C to Part 2 to 10 1
4 CFR Part 50 and ask if we can agree that )
5 self-identification is not a basis for mitigating a 6 severity level III item of noncompliance.
7 Let me see if I can -- yes, if you will look at --
8 in the version of 10 CFR I have it's at Page 135, under 9 the subheading, " Notice of Violation."
10 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I guess I would 11 stipulate that 10 CFR says what it says, and that Mr.
) 12 Schapker's gloss on 10 CPR is not going to either
[/
N_-
13 buttress my position or Mr. Miller's, and we will just 14 rely on what the document is.
15 MR. MILLER: Okay. That is fine.
16 BY MR. MILLER:
17 Q Can we agree that it is limited to severity level IV and 18 V?
19 A Yes.
20 0 Now, during the course of that examination, Mr. Guild 21 went back to the specification of base materials in 22 welder qualification records. That was the general 23 subject matter of the examination.
24 He asked you whether or not in a welder
) 25 qualification record a base metal or a base material of l
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinsis 60134 (312) 232-0262
, _ s e
11381
(
\
v 1 plastic, gold or aluminum would be satisfactory.
2 I would like to call your attention to -- well, let 3 me ask a question, first of all. -
4 Is there any limitation, based on your 5 recollection, in the AWS Code D.l.1 to the type of
- 6 material on which a welder may be qualified?
7 A Yes, those listed in the AWS D.1.1 Code.
- 8 Q All right, sir.
9 A That includes --
10 0 I want you to take a look, if you would, at Applicant's ;
11 Exhibit 12 for identification, which is 'the AWS D.l.1 12 Code.
! 13 I am calling your specific attention to Page 58, 14 which is headed, "Part C, welder qualification," and I 15 would ask you whether there is a specific provision of 16 the code that makes the limitation that you have just i
17 described?
18 A Yes, on Page 58, Paragraph 5.16, Subparagraph 5.16.1.1.
I 19 Q What is the limitation as expressed there?
20 A It states, " Qualification established with any one of 21 the steels permitted by this code shall be considered as j
22 qualification to weld or tack weld any other steels."
23- Q So it's got to be steel in order to be qualified --
24 A Yes.
25 0 -- at least; correct?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
L Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11382 r\
l A Right.
2 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, if I could have just 3 a minute, I may be through.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Certainly.
5 MR. MILLER: I have no further questions of 6 this witness.
7 MR. GUILD: My copy of your exhibit is 8 missing Page 58. I just fout4d that out.
9 (There followed a discussion outside the 10 record.)
11 BOARD EXAMINATION f)
%d 12 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN 13 Q Mr. Schapker, you were asked by Mr. Miller if the AWS 14 interpretation, had you known about it, would have 15 changed the conclusion in your report that AWS D.l.3 was 16 not applicable and you answered no.
17 Isn't that correct?
18 A Yes, sir.
19 Q Now, looking at the AWS interpretations which are before 20 you, in particular the answer to that third question, 21 which incorporates in it the published statement, do you 22 inte rpret the inte rpretations by the AWS as preferring 23 the use of AWS D.1.3 as opposed to continuing the use of 24 D.l.1 as adopted prior to AWS D.1.37 25 A No.
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
3 Geneva, Illinois 60134
/ (312) 232-0262
11383 (D
b 1 0 You don't see any preference of one over the other; is 2 that it?
3 A No, sir.
4 0 Is there any indication as to when one should be used 5 rather than another? You don't see that in there?
6 A In the interpretation?
7 Q Yes. .
8 A No, sir.
9 Q Well, I guess, obviously, if you don't see any 10 pr e fe rence , it wouldn't affect your conclusion.
l 11 Is that why your conclusion would remain the same?
l 12 A Yes, sir.
l l 13 Q Well, let's refer to Board Exhibit 5,and the reply in l 14 inte rpretation D.1-84-015 and I read the second sentence t
l 15 -- and, perhaps, you haven't read this; and I read it.
I , 16 It states, "However, when requested by the i
17 contractor, the Committee recommends to the engineer 18 that the provisions of the current AWS D.l.3 be 19 permitted in lieu of the editions specified in contract 20 d oc unent s . " l l
21 Now, do you see any preference as to use of one or 22 the other in that sentence?
23 A No, sir. l 24 Q Now, that refers to a circumstance in which there is a
( 25 code edition specified in the contract documents; isn't Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ceneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11384
-s 1 that correct?
2 A Yes, sir.
3 Q Do you see any implication in the answer here as to any 4 preference that .might exist where there isn't a code 5 edition specified in the contract?
6 THE WITNESS: Could you repeat that question?
7 (The question was thereupon read by the 8 Reporte r . )
9 A No.
10 BY JUDGE GROSSM AN:
11 Q Now, you have heard some testimony in the case and,
[Vb 12 13 perhaps, read some testimony in the case with regard to the AWS consideration of AWS D.1.3.
14 Have you drawn any conclusions from what you may 15 have heard at the hearing or read in the testimeny as to 16 whether the Society had any preference as to the use of i 17 AWS D.1.3 where there is no edition specified in the
! 18 contract?
19 A No, sir.
i 20 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Can I ask him something?
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, sir.
22 BOARD EXAMINATION 23 BY JUDGE CALLIHAN i 24 0 Mr. Schapker, I am a little bit surprised to learn that O
l
) 25 there is no version of 1.1 specified in the contract.
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
b 11385 d
1 A It is specified.
2 Q Have you yourself examined the FSAR and confirmed that 3 the reference is just to D.l.l?
4 A Yes, sir.
5 0 And not to any particular version or not to any 6 particular revision?
7 A That is correct. As written in my testimony, with the 8 exceptions.
9 JUDGE CALLIHAN: In the material that we 10 have, I venture to say, sometimes one finds, perhaps in 11 a particular context, I must admit, reference to the N
12 1975 r evision. In other places, as pointed out, it's 13 just to 1.1.
14 So I feel that there is -- I can't quote chapter 15 and verse off the top of my head, but I feel there is a
( 16 little inconsistency here and I just wanted to confirm 17 what your knowledge is in view of that.
18 Thank you.
19 BOARD EXAMINATION 20 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN 21 Q Now, continuing along this line, I believe yesterday in 22 referring you to contract Specification No. L.2790, the 23 provision 401.19.2, you indicated that that provision i
24 relates only to the --
25 A Inspection criteria.
l l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
- (312) 232-0262
1 l
l
)
)
11386 i
ges l 1 Q -- the inspection criteria; but that the actual welding 2 specs are contained in Form 1701, which has been 3 admitted here as Applicant's Exhibit 9.
4 Isn't that correct, sir?
5 A Yes, that's t rue.
6 Q Now, you have examined, of course, Form 1701 to 7 determine whether there is any dispositive conclusion 8 that can be drawn as to whether AWS D.l.3 should be used 9 or not, haven't you?
10 A I did that at the time of my examination.
11 0 To your knowledge, is there any reference in Form 1701,
~~
- 12 as admitted here as Applicant's Exhibit 9, to any 13 particular edition of AWS D.l.l?
14 A No, sir.
15 Q There isn't any; is that correct, sir?
16 A That's correct.
17 Q And so we are dealing -- is it your conclusion then that 18 we are dealing with a circumstance in which the welding 19 is not specified to any particular edition of AWS D.l.l?
20 A 'Yes, sir, that's what is in the PSAR, FSAR.
21 Q And that is your conclusion?
22 A Yes.
23 Q Now, if there were some preference indicated by AWS, I
24 that is the society or the committee that inte rprets the (Q,) 25 AWS standards for which version of D.l.1 should govern, I
Sonntaq Reporting Se rvice, Ltd. _j Geneva, Illinois 60134 I (312) 232-0262
1 11387 p
O 1 in the absence of any contract specification to a 2 particular edition, would your conclusion in examining 3 this issue be the same as what preference is exercised 4 by the AWS, the society?
5 A (No response.)
6 Q Well, maybe I complicated it.
7 Do you understand the question? -
8 A The -- I guess I don't.
9 Q Okay. You have indicated that you don't see any a
10 preference demonstrated by --
11 A Right.
12 0 -- AWS in the absence of a specification to a particular 13 edition of AWS D.l.l.
14 A Right.
- 15 Q Now, if the society had indicated a preference, would 16 you have relied upon that in concluding whether AWS l 17 D.l.3 should be applied or should not?
l l 18 A Well, a preference, I don't know if I can rely on just a ;
l 19 preference. ,
i l 20 If it was so dictated by the code, then I would .
l 21 have to rely on it, yes.
22 0 What if taere were an interpretation that indicated in 23 the absence of any specified edition?
24 A Oh, in that case, yes, I would.
25 Q Then you would rely upon --
I l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-02G2
I (
11388 e
f "N 1 A If they gave an interpretation that said it should be 2 updated to the latest code, yes, then I would have to 3 provide that.
4 Q In other words, if their position were in the absence of 5 a reference to the specific edition, that the current 6 code should govern, you would conclude in accordance 7 with that inte rpretation; is that so?
8 A Yes. I believe the contract commitments between the I
9 Licensee and the contractor was 1975 code.
10 0 That there was a reference to the 1975 code?
11 A I believe it's their contract commitnent at the time the (r)
V 12 contract was let.
13 Q That specifically mentions the 1975 code?
14 A That's my understanding.
15 Q Are you referring to a general provision in there, 16 which, I assume, is what is generally included in a 17 contract that refers to the latest issue of the 18 standards at the time of adopting the contract?
19 A Yes, sir.
20 Q Not, though, specifically to the 1975 code?
21 A Yes.
22 Q I am sorry. Let's get it straight.
23 A Yes.
24 Q You are agreeing that it's not a reference specifi; ally 25 to the 1975 Code?
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232=0262
. _. .. ~ .- . _ _ _ _ .
4 ? -
i i
11389 I
1 A That's correct. i 2 Q But that it does refer to the latest ~ issues of standard 3 specifications, is that correct, at the time of the 4 contract?
5 A At the time of the contract, yes.
6 Q And, in particular, I take it you are referring to 7 contract Specification L.2790, provision 107.7; and I 8 will just show it to you and ask you if that is the --
i 9 'A Yes, sir.
10 Q Okay. Now, have you had experience with reviewing i 11 similar contracts between other contractors at nuclear s
i 12 sites?
13 A Yes, sir. The specification is identical to the one 14 where I am a Senior Resident Inspector at Marble Hill 15 site.
16 Q Well, to your knowledge, is this a standard provision 17 that is entered into for construction jobs like this?
18 A Yes, sir.
19 JUDGE CALLIHAN: I return then, Mr. Schapker,
- i. 20 to my question of a moment ago, which I will concede was 21 addressed to the FSAR.
22 BOARD EXAMINATION 23 BY JUDGE CALLIHAN 24 Q The implication is, from the discussion that you just 25 had with the Chairman, that the contract called for the
+
~
Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd. i Geneva, Illinois 60134 1 (312) 232-0262 [
11390
(%
V 1 1975 ve rsion.
2 Was that the one in effect at the time of the 3 contract?
4 A Yes, sir.
5 0 So by implication it's there.
6 Further, I ask in regard to Board Exhibit 3, which 7 is the request by the Applicant to the American Welding 8 Society for an interpretation, that request addresses a 9 table, and I quote, "In the 1975 edition of AWS D.l.l."
10 Is that, in your opinion, further information on 11 the revision principally under discussion here?
t'h
- 12 A Further, yes, sir. Yes, it would be.
13 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Thank you.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild.
15 MR. GUILD: We are back to Staff, aren't we?
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: No. I think it's time for 17 your Recross and we can take our break now.
18 Why don't we take ten minutes?
19 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which 20 the hearing was resumed as follows:) -
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild.
22 MR. GUILD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
23 RECROSS EXAMINATION 24 BY MR. GUILD 25 0 Mr. Schapke r, I borrowed Mr. Mille r's copy of 10 CFR --
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
j Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
f 11391
- s 1 actually, Ms. Kezelis' -- and I am not going to ask you 2 what it says; but having consulted it again, I note that 3 I misspoke when I included level III's in the list of 4 severdty level violations for which self-identification 5 is a relevant question.
6 But I am looking at Page 148, under Section A of 7 Appendix C of Part 2,10 CFR. There there is the 8 reference to what Mr. Miller's last line of questions 9 referred to, "Because the NRC wants to encourage and 11 0 support Licensee initiative for self-identification and 11 correction of problems, NRC will not generally issue a 7-t ) 12 Notice of Violation for a violation that meets all the
, \s_/
13 following tests. "
14 You have a copy before you, sir?
15 A Yes, sir.
16 Q Okay. Now, that's the portion of the enforcement policy i
17 that you were referring to when I asked you the 18 questions about the relevance of self-identification, is 19 it not?
l 20 A Yes.
21 Q And you said you took into account the fact that l
l 22 Licensee got credit for self-identification of problems 23 with stainless Steel Welding Procedure in determining l 24 that; although that represented an item of 25 noncompliance, you would not cite them for that item, i
Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
[ (312) 232-0262
11392 O
V 1 because, among other reasons, they had self-identified 2 it?
3 A Yes, sir.
4 Q And, of course --
5 A And took corrective action.
6 0 All right, sir. And, of course, as Mr. Miller correctly ,
7 pointed out, the second prerequisite for non-enforcement i 8 is or for waiving enforcement is, two, it fits severity 9 level IV or V?
10 A Yes.
11 Q All right, sir. So if it, in your opinion, was a p} 12 severity level III violation, of the same severity level 13 as was determined to exist at Zimmer, whether or not Mr.
14 Puckett identified the concerns and his identification 15 was imputed to'the Licensee, whether or not Edison got 16 credit for his identification, you would have had no 17 choice but to cite them for the level III violation; 18 isn' t that t rue?
19 A If it met the level III criteria, yes.
20 0 All right, sir. And, of course, if it met the level III 21 criteria, you could consider mitigation of that civil 22 penalty, if you decided to impose a civil penalty, for 23 prompt identification and reporting, among other 24 reasons, which is referred to at Appendix C, Part 2B,
( ) 25 Page 136, of Ms. Kezelis' version of 10 CFR?
Sonntaq Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11393
'N
]
v 1 MR. MILLER: It's her copy of the official 2 document.
3 (Laughte r. )
4 MR. GUILD: It's the official document which 5 is the property of Ms. Kezelis.
6 MS. KEZELIS: You are welcome.
7 BY MR. GUILD:
8 Q Is that a correct interpretation --
9 'A What page is that, please?
10 JUDGE COLE: 136.
11 MR. GUILD: 136, please.
, 12 BY MR. GUILD:
13 0 -- you can mitigate a civil penalty for, among other 14 reasons, prompt identification and reporting by the 15 Licensee?
16 A Yes, sir.
i 17 Q And that, in effect, is self-identification as well?
18 A Yes.
i 19 Q All right. But as your testimony reflects, you didn't 20 look into the question of self-identification beyond the 21 point of crediting Edison for Mr. Puckett's l 22 identification of the Stainless Steel Welding Procedure 23 deficiencies?
24 A I don't unde rstand the question.
(O,j/ 25 Q You didn't cite them for level III, so you didn't have l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
. _ _ . . . . _ _ _ ~ . _ _ __ _
(312) 232-0262
11394 s
1 to look into whether or not the civil penalty should be 2 mitigated?
3 A That's t rue, yes.
4 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, before I forget 5 this point, I think I incorrectly numbered the Thomas
- 6 weld inspection checklist.
7 I show my notes' listing this as 97 and I believe it 8 should be 98.
9 MR. BERRY: I believe it was marked as 98.
10 JUDGE COLE: You marked it as 98.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes. 97 was the DeWald memo O} 12 to Mennecke and Quaka of 5/12/84.
13 MR. GUILD: Fine. That's my error.
I 14 BY MR. GUILD:
15 Q Now, Mr. Miller referred you to Applicant's Exhibit 56, l 16 Mr. Schapker, and that's Mr. Puckett's personal note to l
l 17 Mr. DeWald of August 22, 1984.
l 18 Do you have a copy of that before you?
j 19 A No, sir.
20 MR. GUILD: Perhaps I could ask counsel to 21 share one with the witness.
22 MR. BERRY: Yes.
23 BY MR. GUILD:
l 24 Q Do you have it now, sir?
25 A Yes.
l
[ Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232
--. -.-.___-__ ~~ ___.._.._ _ _ _ _.__._ _ _-0262_ . _ , _ - . . . _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . - _ _ . .
I ,
11395 O
1 Q Your testimony was that you didn't have this when you 2 talked to Mr. Puckett and didn't discuss it with him, 3 although you discussed generally with him the fact that 4 he had made recommendations of the sort contained in 5 this note to Mr. DeWald; is that right?
6 A Yes.
7 Q All right, sir. Now, Mr. Puckett's testimony reflects 5 that this was in the nature of a personal note, not 9 intended for general circulation or as a quality 10 document.
11 It's a copy to Mr. Seltmann, who is the QA Manager; 12 but as it appears and states, "Irv," and it's not on
)
13 Comstock letterhead. It was an informal communication 14 between an employee and his manager.
15 Did you understand that to be the case?
16 MR. BERRY: Objection?
17 A I --
18 MR. BERRY: Understand that to be his 19 testimony or understand that to be the fact?
20 That's confusing.
21 BY MR. GUILD: .
22 Q Did you understand that to be fact?
23 A No, I don't understand that to be fact.
24 I understand it's his testimony.
( j 25 Q Do you have any reason to dispute that representation by Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 I 232-0262
- l. ._. . _ . -_______________-_]
i 11396
\]
1 Mr. Puckett, that that is the circumstances of writing 2 this communication?
3 A I considered it unlikely.
4 0 Unlikely?
5 A Yes, sir.
6 Q So you didn't believe him?
7 A It just seemed odd to me that it was a personal note 8 instead of a communication, an official communication I
9 expressing his conce rns.
10 Q So I gather that your belief that Mr. Puckett was not 11 speaking truthfully in that regard certainly colored 12 your interpreta. tion of this document then?
13 You interpreted it as an official communication, 14 did you not?
15 A At the time I reviewed it, yes, and during my 16 inspection; but I had not heard his testimony at that i 17 time and he never made any reference to that prior to 18 that.
- 19 0 All right, sir. And as you interpret it in answer to
! 20 Mr. Miller's questions, you inte rpreted the document in 21 light of your understanding of the document as an 22 official communication?
23 A Yes, sir.
I 24 Q All right, sir. Well, let's look at it a moment.
25 The language that Mr. Miller mentioned to you reads i
l Sonntac Reporting Service, Ltd. ,
L Geneva, Illinois 60134
[ (312) 232-0262
F l l
l l
11397 7'^N I k ,)
m 1 as follows: i 2 "The aforementioned procedures were 3 qualified using the criteria of AWS D.l.1-1975 4 and it should have never been done. AWS D.l.1 5 criteria was never intended to be used to weld 6 materials less than one-eighth inch in 7 thickness. Our heaviest gauge unistrut is 8 12GA, which is .105. All of our procedures 9 that involve A-446 should have been qualified 10 using the criteria of AWS D.l.3, which has a 11 completely dif ferent set of test requirements (N 12 and a completely different set of essential
}
13 variables."
14 Now, sir, do you think that Mr. Puckett knew at the 15 time the Braidwood job began, at the time Comstock 16 initiated its responsibilities under the contract, that 17 the D.l.3 Code didn't exist?
18 A It states here in his memo, "AWS D.l.1-1975."
19 Q Could you respond to my question, Mr. Schapker, please?
20 A That is a response.
21 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I ask that the 22 witness be directed to respond to my question.
23 JUDGO GROSSMAN: Yes, please answer the 24 question directly.
25 THE WITNESS: I didn't understand the Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
.(312) 232-0262
+4
+
11398
(--
N.
1 question.
2 JUDGE GltOSSMAN: Could you repeat the 3 question, Hr. Reporter?
4 (The question was thereupon read by the 7
5 Reporte r. )
6 A (Continuing.) I wouldn't know if he knew or not.
7 BY MR. GUILD:
8 Q Did you ask him, sir, af ter you read this document and 9 drew certain inferences from it?
10 A I didn't have this document at the time that I 11 inte rviewed him.
12 You didn't re-contact him after you read the document 1
( Q 13 and drew whatever inferences you drew from it?
14 A No, sir.
15 Q You didn't ask him the question that I just posed to 16 you?
- 17 A No.
18 Q So you don't know whether he knew whether the D.1.3 Code 19 was in existence at the time Comstock undertook the work 20 at Braidwood?
! 21 A I don't know that.
l 22 0 All right, sir. Mr. Puckett uses the word "never" in 23 this sentence I read to you, "never intended."
f l
! 24 Do you think maybe, perhaps, Mr. Schapker, now l 25 hearing that Mr. Puckett intended this as a personal Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
L Geneva, Illinois 60134 r (312) 232-0262
11399 7..
( I
\_)
1 note to his boss, Mr. DeWald, to Irv, that when he used 2 the word "never," Mr. Puckett knew that Mr. DeWald knew 3 and both of them understood that what he meant was that 4 emphatically now that the D.l.3 Code was available, now 5 that there was a need to correct these defects in the 6 welding procedures, that they should emphatically 7 requalify the procedures to the D.l.3 Code for welding 8 of the thin-gauge material?
9 MR. MILLER: I am going to object to the form 10 of the question, insofar as it purports to represent Mr.
11 DeWald's unde rstanding of Mr. Puckett's memorandum.
12
( JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, he is asking the -
13 witness for his understanding of what Mr. Puckett meant 14 by using that phrase, "never intended."
15 MR. MILLER: There was a long preamble in 16 which there was a representation as to what Mr. Puckett 17 intended that may or may not be consistent with his 18 testimony and also as to what Mr. DeWald understood, and 19 I do not believe that that is supported by the testimony
(
l 20 of Mr. DeWald in this proceeding.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, the objection is 22 overruled, because he is asking as to what the witness 23 unde rstood was meant by the phrase, "never intended,"
24 and it was asked in a leading manner, which he is 25 entitled to do.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
. Geneva, Il l in oi s 60134 (312) 232-0262
i f
11400 l
f l
s_ -)
1 So please answer the question.
2 MR. BERRY: I have a separate objection, Mr.
3 Chairman.
4 Asking him what he understood, understood at the 5 time, the witness has testified to that.
6 If he is asking what he understands in light of Mr.
7 Puckett's testimony as Mr. Guild has recounted, with 8 that in mind, what he understands this to mean now, that 9 would cure my objection.
10 MR. GUILD: Yes. I want to know what the 11 witness understands now today as he sits on the stand.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: He is asking for the
(
13 witness's opinion now, that is fine.
14 Is it all right as long as that is clarified, Mr.
15 Berry?
16 MR. BERRY: Yes.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine.
18 A My opinion hasn't changed.
19 MR. GUILD: Excuse me one minute, please, Mr.
20 Chairman.
21 MR. BERRY: Could I have the last answer read 22 back?
23 JUDGE COLE: He said, "My opinion hasn't 24 changed."
/ \
( ) 25 BY MR. GUILD:
I Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
$2 5 U262
V 11401
,m (V )
, 1 Q Do you agree, Mr. Schapker, that after the D.l.1 Code 2 incorporated the D.l.3 Code by reference, that the 3 American Welding Society explicitly observed that the 4 D.l.1 Code was not thereafter intended for materials 5 less than one-eighth inch in thickness?
6 A Yes, when that change was made to the code.
7 Q All right, sir. Now, you have examined, have you not, 8 in the preparation of your inspection report, the 9 revision of the Comstock Welding Procedure 4.3.3, Rev C, 10 Applicant's Exhibit 10, and the subsequent revisions to 11 that procedure that were adopted after Mr. Puckett was 12
( fired?
13 A Yes, sir.
14 Q And you will agree, won't you, Mr. Schapker, that there 15 were some pretty substantici changes made to that 16 welding procedure in those later revisions?
17 A Change in format, yes, sir.
18 0 Well, sir, I am holding the two documents. The latter i 19 is Applicant's Exhibit 11, and it consists of two 20 revisions to 4.3.3, Revision F, December, 1984, and I 21 believe it's Revision F in a final form. I guess there
- 22 are two versions.
23 Do you have Exhibit 11 before you?
24 A I have Exhibit 10.
25 0 Sir, I want to ask you about Exhibit 11 ct the moment.
Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva. Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4 ~.? Y s 11402
, a i
i 1 Perhaps I could ask counsel to -- that's all right. .
Let 4 2 me just show you my copy, if I may.
i 3 You have got Exhibit 10, which is the 4.3.3, Rev C,
! 4 do you not?
, 5 A Yes.
6 0 And that's the edition that Mr. Puckett had available to 4
7 him and which was the subject of his concerns; correct?
8 A Yes. ,
9 0 All right. Now I show you Applicant's Exhibit 11.
10 Would you agree with me, Mr. Schapker, that among i
11 other things, the document. is only a small fraction of 12 the volume of pages, the thickness?
-r() It's only a portion 13 of the thickness of the predecessor revision? '
14 They scaled it down in size considerably, didn't J
15 they?
- 16 A Yes.
i 17- Q They eliminated the PQR's, didn't they?
i 18 A In the procedure, yes.
19 Q All right, sir. Now, Mr. Miller pointed you to Rev C of
- 20 4.3.3, the portions of the procedure at 3.1 that relate
- 21 to base metal.
22 Do you see that?
i 23 A Yes.
- l. 24 Q And that's where Mr. Miller's interpretation and I think I
("'N ,
j l
( ) 25 yours, as you agree 6 with him, was that by a series of l
l
! Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
- Geneva, Illinois 60134
[ (312) 232-0262
s.
11403
~
s.
1 incorporations by reference and resorts to dif ferent 2 references in the AWS Code, by reference, without 3 stating explicitly, Comstock's procedure, in effect, 4 states the base metals that are to be welded under that 5 procedure; correct?
6 A Yes, sir.
7 Q Now, if you are going to reach that same conclusion that 8 both you and Mr. Miller reached and you were a welder at -
i 9 L. K. Comstock, you would have to read 3.1.1, then go 10 get out your AWS D.l.1-1975 and resort to the- two
, 11 paragraphs that are referred to there to know what metal i
[b
^ %, l 12 you are supposed to be using; right?
13 A That's correct, sir. That's why the change was made to 14 the WPS.
i 15 Q That's why you understand the change was made to the 16 WPS? You didn't make the change, did you?
l 17 A No; but I reviewed the documents attributed to that
- 18 change, the NCR and so forth.
l l 19 0 And that's your understanding of why the change was 20 made?
l 21' A That's what I was also told, .yes.
22 Q But I -- fine.
23 Now, when you ge t to Rev F, December, 1984, ,
24 revision to the procedure adopted after Mr. Puckett's
,) 25 time, do you see 3.1.1?
Sonntaq Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
l- Geneva, Illinois 60134
(' (312) 232-0262
11404 V
1 Do you have a copy of that?
2 A No, sir.
3 0 I am going to show you mine. ,
, 4 There it states, "The base materials for each 5 prequalified welding and qualified welding procedure 6 shall be as specified on Attachnent 2."
7 All right, sir. Let me then direct your attention
, 8 to Attachment 2, and that is Page 14 of 14 of that 9 procedure, that revision to the procedure; and do you 10 see there, sir, a listing of, among other things, A. S.
11 T. M. A-36, the first line?
l
() 12 13 A
Q Yes.
And also an explicit listing of all the other base 14 metals that are to be welded under 4.3.3, Rev F?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Don't you understand that revision to reflect the 17 deficiency in the previous revision of the code, that is 18 Rev C, the revision that was the subject of Mr.
19 Puckett 's conce rns --
20 A No, sir.
21 0 -- with respect to the absence of any listing of base 22 met als?
l 23 A No, sir.
24 Q Do you acknowledge it's, at least, an enhancement of the N
) 25 procedure to have an attachment that explicitly lists Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. , ._ . _ _ - - _ _ - . . - . . . .. _ - _ - = - _ _ - _ - _ . - . .
11405
^'i
[G 1 the base metals?
2 A The, base metals were listed on the WPS's in the previous 3 editions except for A-36.
4 Q Except for A-36?
5 A Yes. That was the error. That was the error in the
! 6 procedure, yes, sir.
7 Q Do you agree that it's at least an enhancement of the 8 procedure to have an attachment that lists the base 9 metals that the welder and the Weld Inspectors are to be 10 working with under the procedure?
11 A As I stated before, the procedures did have the base 12 metals listed on the WPS's prior to that.
(
13 The only exception to that was in the case of the 14 A-3 6 o n th e c ombina tio n of A-3 6 t o A-4 46.
15 0 I see. So -- well, let me get you to answer my 16 question.
17 Do you agree that it's an enhancement or not?
18 A Not necessarily, no. As long as it's listed properly in i 19 the WPS's, it makes no difference.
20 Q So it's not an enhancement?
21 A Not necessarily. It's the same.
22 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I --
23 A (Continuing.) It's the same. It doesn't make any 24 difference.
O
() 25 BY MR. GUILD:
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd. ,
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i ' i
~
11406 fm
(
s_
1 Q So it's not an enhancement; is that your testimony, sir?
2 A It's equal.
3 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I really hate to be
- 4 difficult; but I am going to be trying to work with the I 5 record; and when the witness is asked a question that
! 6 . seems to fairly call for an affirmative or negative 7 response for an answer, an answer that says, "Not 8, necessarily'," is simply unresponsive.
9 I don't mean to be difficult but I would like an
! 10' answer 'that I can refer to that is clear.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine.
12 Mr. Schapker, I think you shouldn't let your
(
I-/c 13 personal opinions get in the way of answering the 14 questions.
! 15 If your answer =is, as you just stated, that it was f 16 equal, it's obvious that you are saying there is. no l
l 17 enhancement, so why don't you just answer directly, no, I
! 18 that there is no enhancement, if that is the --
l l 19 THE WITNESS: Okay. It's an enhancement if l
20 all the materials are listed in the procedure, that is
[
21 correct.
j 22 In the case of the previous procedure, they were 23 all listed on the WPS's with the one exception of the i
24 A-36 to A-446 material. That was the deficiency that c 25 was identified.
l l
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
5 Geneva, Illinois 60134 t (312) 232-0262
-' 2./m 11407
. s L
. \, .
1 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I ask the witness 2 try again.
3 THE WITNESS: That's not -- that's not a
- 4 pe rsonal opinion. That's technically correct.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: No, no.. The question asked 6 of you by Mr. Guild was: Was there an enhancement 7 because of the change?
~
8 Now, I wasn't trying to supply you --
9 THE WITNESS: Yes, there was an enhancr_aient, 10 because it corrected A-36 which is now listed in the 11 procedure and --
12 Okay.
( JUDGE GROSSMAN: So do we understand 13 your answer then to be that only in the case of that one 14 material that wasn't listed, there was an enhancement; 15 but, othe rwise, there was no enhancement?
16 THE WITNESS: Yes.
I 17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine.
18 BY MR. GUILD:
19 Q Under the previous revision, Mr. Schapker, if the welder 20 or the Weld Inspector who wanted to know the proper base 21 metals that were to be welded under 4.3.3 didn't resort 22 to the AWS D.1.1-1975 Code references, that welder or
. 23 Weld Inspector would have to leaf through each and every
, 24 one of. the multiple attachments to the procedure, the 25 WPS's and the PQR's to determine what base metals, Sonntaq Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
- 11408
-f V
1 indeed, had been qualified under that procedure; isn't 2 that true?
3 A He had to identify the joint that he was performing, l
l 4 yes, out of that procedure, that's correct.
5 Q Now, Mr. Miller asked you whether or not you thought Mr.
6 DeWald's and Mr. Rolan's response to Mr. Puckett's stop 7 work recommendation was appropriate.
I 8 With a similar question in mind, to Mr. Miller you 9 said, "Well, it was appropriate, because it showed they 10 didn't just sweep these problems under the rug."
11 Do you recall that testimony?
12 A Yes, sir.
13 Q Well, Mr. Schapker, are you confident, in fact, that Mr.
14 DeWald didn't just sweep the problems that Mr. Puckett 15 raised under the rug?
16 A It was apparent to me that he didn't.
17 Q I see. And if, in fact, the reality was that Mr. DeWald 18 had been engaging in a course of sweeping Mr.- Puckett's 19 concerns under the rug, that would affect your opinion 20 about the appropriateness of Mr. DeWald's response, 21 would it not?
22 A He made the appropriate response at that time for this 23 condition.
24 0 Could you answer my question, sir?
y ) 25 A I have to ask you to repeat it.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. )
) Geneva, Illinois 60134 I
[ (312) 232-0262 1
11409 ,
b O
1 Q Sir, I will t ry.
2- JUDGE GROSSMAN: That's all right. Mr.
3 Reporter, could you please repeat it?
4 (The question and answer were thereupon 5 read by the Reporter.)
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Schapker, could you
- 7 answer directly?
i 8 A Yes.
< 9 BY MR. GUILD:
i 10 Q All right, sir. If I ask you to assume, sir, that Mr.
11 Puckett had been raising a series of concerns since he 12 came on the job, concerns that were on the basis of only 13 a preliminary examination of various aspects of the 14 Comstock welding program, not an exhaustive analysis, 15 but that to each of his conce rns, Comstock's management, L
16 because it was under pressure by Commonwealth Edison 17 Company to address -problems with document backlogs and r
18 inspection backlogs, simply swept those concerns under 19 the rug, might Mr. Puckett's r.esort to a recommendation t
20 to stop work then have become appropriate?
21 A They might have. I have no knowledge of that, though.
22- 0 I see.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: These are only l 24 hypotheticals, Mr. Schapke r.
25 THE WITNESS: Yes.
Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11410 s_
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And we are only taking it as 2 that.
3 BY MR. GUILD:
4 Q The determination to recommend stopping work depends on 5 an evaluation of all of the facts and circumstances that 6 are relevant at the time that that recommendation is 7 made; wouldn't you agree?
8 A Yes, sir.
9 Q That among those facts would be whether or not some less 10 stringent measure could ef fectively achieve the 11 identification and corrective action for the deficiency 12
( ) that was identified; wouldn't you agree?
13 A Yes.
14 0 And if, in fact, a series of less stringent measures l 15 were tried and failed to ef fectively identify and l
l 16 correct deficiencies, resort to a stop work l
L 17 recanmendation would be an appropriate action, would it 18 not? i I
19 A It could. i l
20 Q But you don't know whether or not Mr. Puckett had tried 21 and failed to utilize other less stringent means to j 22 achieve the identification and correction of problems 23 that he found before he resorted to his stop work l 24 action, do you?
25 A He did not identify those to me.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
E 11411 O
1 Q Nor did you identify them through other means yourself, 2 did you?
3 A I did as thorough an investigation as possible to 4 identify these problems, yes.
5 Q You did an inspection, didn't you? You didn't do an 6 inves tigation?
7 A Inspection.
8 Q All right, sir. Now, let's turn to the knotty subject 9 of your dealings with Mr. Puckett at Zimmer.
10 Mr. Schapker, on this o 3re I am going to ask you a 11 series of questions that are designed to identify what
[d h 12 13 the basis is for the answers that you gave to Mr.
Mille r .
14 I may, Mr. Chairman, need to consider recalling Mr.
15 Schapker after I have had an opportunity to perform some 16 further investigation, obtain some additional I
17 information. I am not able to -- I may not be able to 18 fully complete this line of examination at this time.
19 fir. Schapker, you stated that, in part, your 20 opinion was based on -- the opinion of Mr. Puckett's 21 exper tise at Zimner was based -- on a series of 22 conversations you had; and I believe you identified that 23 there were approximately six such conversations?
24 A Yes.
25 Q Can you specify -- .
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11412
(
x 1 A Well --
2 Q I am sorry, sir.
3 A Go ahead.
4 Q Can you specify the time and subject of the 5 conversations that you had with Mr. Puckett at Zimner 6 which were the basis of your opinion?
7 A Time would be in the '8m to '82 time frame.
8 Q That was the entire time that you had anything to do 9 with Zimner, wasn't it?
10 A Yes, sir.
11 Q Can you be a little more particular about the time when
/ 12 you had conversations with Mr. Puckett?
C 13 A (No response.)
14 Q Let's take the first one first, sir.
15 A I would say early on in '81, January or -- let me see.
16 I am t rying to recall when the inspection -- the 17 early part of, the first quarter of '81, I guess, was 18 the first time I talked to Mr. Puckett.
i 19 0 All right. What was the subject of your conversation 20 with Mr. Puckett at that time?
21 A I don't recall the specific. It was in general to -- I 22 am sure, since I discussed something with him, it had to 23 do with welding, since he was the weld engineer at the l
24 time.
(O) 25 Q You assume that that was the subject, because of his Sonntaq Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, I111nois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11413 y-~ .
J l position at the time?
2 A- -Yes.
3 Q Do you have a specific recall of what the subject was?
4 A Not specifically, no.
5 Q Can you~ recall what the subject of code interpretation
! 6 was that you discussed with Mr. Puckett at that time, if
.7 any?
8 A Not specifically, no, I don't recall.
t 9 Q How about the second conversation you had with Mr.
4 10' Puckett; when did it take place?
11 A The estimate of a half dozen times is just that, a half
() 12 13 dozen estimate.
I don't recall each and every time I talked with 14 Mr. Puckett. That's just an approximate estimation.
15 Q How about recounting for me any other time you talked 16 with Mr. Puckett, Mr. Schapker, at Zimmer, in which you 17 had a conversation that formed the basis for your 18 opinion that you gave Mr. Miller?
a 19 A I believe in the investigation on 82.10, during that 20 time period I had discussions with Mr. Puckett as well 21 as his supervisors.
22' Q Well, let's talk about Mr. Puckett now, because that's 23 the conversations on which you based your opinion to Mr.
< 24 Miller.
25 A No. I also based my opinion, ~ I should say, on his -- on 4
}
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinoja 60134 j (312) 232-0262
11414 n%J 1 discussions with other people at Braidwood -- I mean at 2 Zimmer, too.
3 Q Oh, I see. Well, that expands the scope of my question 4 a little bit more, Mr. Schapker.
5 Why don't you first complete telling me about all 6 the conversations. that you had with Mr. Puckett and 7 then, if you would, tell me who you spoke with aside 8 from Mr. Puckett that form the basis for your opinion?
9 MR. BERRY: Mr. Chairman --
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, Mr. Berry, you are 11 going to object to that?
12 MR. BERRY: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Are you going to move that 14 we strike that part of the answer, so we don't get into 15 this collateral matter?
Ei3 16 MR. BERRY: Yes, sir.
l 17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That is granted.
18 We are striking a part of the answer that deals l 19 with discussing Mr. Puckett with other people. We are l
20 already far afield and we don't want to go any further.
21 MR. BERRY: Mr. Chairman, it's my j 22 recollection that the subject was first broached by Mr.
! 23 Miller. That he asked Mr. Schapker the question of his 24 prior familiarity with Mr. Puckett, and Mr. Schapker 25 indicated that it was at Zimmer and also at Braidwood. {
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262
l 11415 O
1 Then he asked him if he had an opinion on his ability to-2 interpret the code.
3 It is my recollection that the witness's opinion 4 was based on his inspection at Braidwood. The. initial 5 question encompassed his prior experiences and 6 familiarity with Mr. Puckett which encompassed Zimmer, 7 but it's my recollection that the opinion itself was
} 8 based on the results of his inspection at Braidwood.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: My recollection is that Mr.
10 Miller asked a very broad question as to what Mr.
11 Schapker based his opinion on that he was more qualified 12 than Mr. Puckett with regard to interpretation of the i) i 13 code and invited an answer which referred to discussions 14 with Mr. Puckett at Zimmer.
15 Now, I think Mr. Guild is entitled to examine as to 16 the specifics of those discussions to determine _ whether, l 17 in fact, they demonstrated or could be taken as support l
18 for that general statement that they demonstrated a l
i 19 superiority in Mr. Schapker's expertise over that of Mr.
20 Puckett.
21 So we are going to allow the questions. I am not 7
22 in favor of that exploration and I gave counsel ample 23 opportunity to withdraw the question, but it was not 24 withdrawn; and we will just go into these, this series 25 of questions.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
- (312) 232 0262
4 11416 v
1 1 It wouldn't be fair to do othe rwise.
2 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that 3 with the testimony elicited by Applicant in the . record 4 and the witness now adding that his opinion in part was 5 based upon discussions with others, that even with that
.6 supplemental answer stricken, that I am obligated to 7 probe whatever he now says was the basis for his opinion 8 of Mr. Puckett's qualifications.
9 I ask-that I be given leave to inquire of Mr.
- 10 Schapker who these others were and what the particulars 11 were of these conversations with them on which he bases
() 12 13 his opinion.
JUDGE GROSSMAN: No. We are striking that 14 part of the answer and we are not going to allow any i 15 findings based on that stricken answer nor any further 16 exploration of that area.
17 MR. GUILD: All right, sir.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: So proceed otherwise, Mr.
l 19 Guild.
l l- 20 BY MR. GUILD:
21 Q Mr. Schapker, you were unable to recall the half dozen f 22 conversations that you say you had with Mr. Puckett at 23 Zimmer that were the basis for your opinion; but I got l
l 24 you as far as recalling tne second one.
( 25 Could you now identify, please, when you had the Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11417 (mv) 1 second conversation with Mr. Puckett?
2 A I don't recall the specifics of any of those 3 conve rsa tion s .
4 Q Do you recall --
5 A It's a general opinion.
6 Q I am sorry.
7 A It was a general opinion. That's what it was meant to 8 be.
9 Q And you can't recall the basis for that opinion as you 10 sit here today?
11 A It had to do with some of the findings that are
[ 12 discussed in several inspection reports on Zimmer.
13 0 What I am asking you --
14 A One of them is 82.10.
15 0 What I am asking you to do, sir, is to recall, if you 16 can, what basis you have for your opinion regarding Mr.
17 Puckett's qualifications that is founded upon 18 conve rsations with Mr. Puckett, because that was your 19 answer to Mr. --
20 A Those conversations were a part of my inspection.
21 Q Yes, sir; but I am unable --
22 A That's what -- if you want references for basing my 23 opinion, I suggest you read the inspection reports.
24 Q No, sir. I appreciate the advice but I am afraid I am 25 obligated to ask you, sir, as a competent witness who Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134
[ (312) 232-0262
- . _ _ . _ _ . .- .. . . . -. .~ . _. _ _ . .
- -11418 i-L i.
N
- 1. sits on the witness stand what personal knowledge you .
~
2 have, as you sit here ~ today, of conversations you had
! 3- with Mr. Puckett that form the basis for your opinion
! 4 testimony.-
i 5 Now, would you recount them for me, if you have any 6 further recollection, please?
{ l j 7 A The basis for my opinion in the conversations was -
8- directly related to my inspections and those are well
- 9 documented in NRC inspection reports.
10 That's -- I. don't have any immediate recall.
'i 11 That's four years ago.
12 Q All right, sir. Perhaps, Mr. Schapker, you could have f
l' 13 hesitated to express an opinion then if you had no i
14_
recall, but you did express an opinion.
! 15 MR. BERRY: Objection.
l l 16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Sustained.
, 17 BY MR. GUILD:
18 Q What code provisions did you discuss with Mr. Puckett,
! 19 if you can recall any as .you sit here today, that were i
20 the basis for your opinion testimony about your superior' i
( 21 knowledge of the coue as compared to Mr. Puckett's?
,'l 22 A The ASME Section 9, Section 3.
I
- 23 Q Those are two big codes.
24 What provisions of those codes did you discuss with l .
25 Mr. Puckett?
l' Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 j (312) 232-0262
11419 0
1 A Welder qualifications.
2 Q Under which Code, sir?
3 A I believe that is identified in 82.10.
4 0 Under which Code, sir?
5 A ASME.
6 'O Which section, sir?
7 A Section 9.
8 Q What was the substance of your conversation with Mr.
9 Puckett on the subject of welder qualifications under 10 Section 9 of the ASME Code?
11- A I would have to review my report to refresh my memory.
() 12 13 O I have 82.10 here.
recollection, sir?
Would that refresh your It's Applicant's Exhibit 49.
14 Do you have a copy of that before you, sir?
15 A (No response.)
16 Q Do you have a copy of that report before you, Mr.
17 Schapker?
18 A Yes.
19 Q All right, sir. Take whatever time is'necessary to 20 refresh your recollection, if you can, with reference to I ;
21 that document.
f, 22 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could
- 23 suggest a luncheon recess at this point and, perhaps, 24 Mr. Schapker can go over the document then.
l 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes. We can recess until
! Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
- (312) 232-0262
f I
11420
/O
(- J 1 1:30.
2 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I ask that Mr.
3 Schapker not discuss his testimony with anyone over the 1
4 luncheon recess. I am happy to have him attempt to 5 refresh his recollection from the document.
6 I, otherwise, would like to continue with the 7 examina tion.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I understand that; and, Mr.
9 Berry, on this line of questioning, since we are in the 10 middle of it, not to discuss the testimony with him or 11 any of the other parties.
[V \ 12 13 Do you have any objection to that?
MR. BERRY: No, your Honor.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine. Let's recess with 15 that unde rstanding.
16 MR. TREBY: I have one inquiry to make.
17 Can we get an estimate, not that we wou]d hold 18 anyone to any estimate, but how long this is going to 19 continue?
20 The reason I raise that is that Mr. McGregor has 21 been subpoenaed and Mr. McGregor came here yesterday and 22 spent all afternoon here yesterday. He has been here i 23 all morning today.
24 This is really time that he was supposed to be on 25 leave and he had come back early in order to ace,ommodate Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11421 I
U
-1 the hearing; and if this is going to continue all day, I 2 guess we would like to know that now.
3 If it's going to be shorter, then, obviously --
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I hope he is not charged 5 with leave for the time he is here.
6 MR. TREBY: We will make sure he isn't; but I 7 think in fairness to Mr. McGregor, we should have some 8 feel as to how long this is going to continue.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes. Mr. Guild, do you have 10 an estimate?
11 MR. GUILD: I apologize to Mr. McGregor and I
(/)
s.
12 13 am pleased to hear the Staf f so concerned' about his well-being.
14 I have no idea, Mr. Chairman. I will do the best I 15 can to be expeditious but I really don't know what might 16 be the basis for Mr. Schapker's opinion.
17 I moved to strike the whole subject, so I would be 18 happy not to inquire into it at all, but I really can't 19 estimate how much time it will take.
20 This is the -- not the very last subject. It's 21 very close to the end. I will finish this one and we
. 22 will be done quickly, I promise.
23 JUDGE GROSSM AN: Perhaps during lunch counsel 24 should reconsider whether we want to strike that 25 testimony in which Mr. Schapker indicated that he relied Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
. _ _ _232-0262
-(312)
11422 O ,
1 on discussions in Braidwood.
2 We would be more than happy, since we don't think 3 that it's really relevant to this case and certainly not
,4 worth the time it's going to take if counsel will
, 5 reconsider and agree on striking that and we won't be l 6 going into this; but once --
7 MR. TREBY: Mr. Chairman, you mentioned .
8 Braidwood..
9 I believe you meant to say Zimmer.
10 JUDGE COLE: Zimme r . ,
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I am sorry. I meant Zimmer,
\
i 12 certainly, not the aspects dealing with Braidwood.
13 Okay. We will recess until 1:30.
14 (WHER EUPON, the hearing of the 15 above-entitled matter was continued to l 16 the hour of 1:30 P. M.)
1 17 18 19 20 1
21 I 22 23 l 24 25 Sonntaq Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l ~.
)
11423 1 UNITED STATES OF. AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x 5 :
In the Matter of: :
6 : Docket No. 50-456 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY : 50-457 OL 7 :
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 :
8 and 2) :
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x 9
10 ,
Met pursuant to recess.
11 Wednesday, August 27, 1986, 1:30 P. M.
12 13 14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We are ready to resume.
15 Has Counsel reached any agreement as to whether we 16 are really interested in Mr. Schapker's opinion of Mr.
17 Puckett?
18 - MR. MILLER: Counsel-haven't discussed it, 19 but on behalf of the Applicant, we would agree to -- I 20 don't know whether it would be technically proper, but 21 striking that portion of his answer to my question 22 insofar as it was based on his opinion from his 23 experience with Mr. Puckett at Zimmer.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine. So we are 25- striking that, and we won't have any reference to Zimner Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262- _
g
I 11424
'O
-/
l 1 or to any part of Mr. Schapker's opinion that may be 2 based on Zimmer.
3 Let 's proceed furthe r.
4 MR. GUILD: I have no further questions, Mr.
5 Chairman.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Anything on redirect, Mr.
7 Berry?
8 MR. BERRY: Just one question, Mr. Chairman.
9 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 10 (Continuing.)
11 BY MR. BERRY:
12 Q Mr. Schapker, do you have before you Board Exhibit 5?
13 A Yes, sir.
14 Let me direct your attention to interpretation Q
15 D1-840-1015 under the reply to that interpretation.
16 Do you see that?
17 A Yes, sir.
18 Q Do you see the second sentence that begins with 19 "however"?
j 20 A Yes.
21 0 Could you explain for the Board and Parties what you
! 22 understand that sentence to mean?
23 A That the engineer should allow the contractor, if he l
24 desires, to upgrade to the latest scope.
( 25 Q Mr. Schapker, is that a preference of the American l- Sonntaa Reoortina Se rvice. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11425
/^g
]
1 Welding Society, then?
2 A I don't read it as a preference. That is an option.
3 MR. BERRY: That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
4 MR. MILLER: I have just one question or two 5 questions.
6 ' RECROSS EXAMINATION 7 (Con tin uing. )
8 BY MR. MILLER:
9 0 Mr. Schapker, Mr. Guild examined you about . sweeping 10 problems under the rug by Mr. DeWald, do you recall that 11 line of examination?
( ) 12 A Yes.
13 Q Do you know what happened to the concerns that were 14 expressed by Mr. Puckett to Mr. DeWald and others after 15 Mr. Puckett was terminated?
16 A From my review of the concerns expressed by Mr. Puckett, 17 in every case they were addressed by the Comstock l 18 management and corrective actions was taken where i
i 19 needed.
20 0 Would you cha.racterize that action on the part of 21 Comstock management as sweeping these concerns under the 22 rug?
l 23 A No, sir, I wouldn't.
s 24 MR. MILLER: No further questions.
( ,) 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Certainly, Mr. Guild.
Sonntag_ Reporting Service Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11426 m
\
,/
1 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 2 (Continued.)
3 BY MR. GUILD:
4 Q Mr. Schapker, you do know that a lot of water went over 5 that dam between the time Mr. Puckett was -terminated and 6 the time you conducted your inspection?
7 Let me be more specific.
8 Mr. Puckett filed a coniplaint with the United 9 States Department of Labor maintaining that his
! 10 termination for raising these concerns had been 11 retaliatory.
O}
( 12 You are aware of that fact, aren't you?
13 A Yes, sir.
14 Q And the United States Department of Labor ruled in Mr.
15 Puckett's favor and concluded that indeed L. K. Comstock 16 Company had violated the employee protection provisions 17 of the United States Code and codes of the NRC i
18 regulations tracked that code and, in effect, the NCR's 19 own regulations in their termination of Mr. Puckett.
I 20 MR. MILLER: I object to the form of the
{ 21 question.
22 I don't believe that is an accurate l
23 characterization of the standard of the proceedings 24 before the Department of Labor.
s 25 BY MR. GUILD:
Sonntag_Reparting service. Ltd.
) Geneva, Illinois 60134
[ (312) 232-0262
11427
,m
. u()
1 Q You are aware there was a -- I will rephrase the 2 question.
3 You are aware there was an area director's decision 4 that found in Mr. Puckett's favor on his retaliatory 5 discharge complaint, aren't you?
6 A Not specifically, no. I was not aware that there was a 7 decision.
8 Q Are you aware that after taking an appeal from that 9 dete rmina tion , ultimately, the L. K. Comstock Company 10 entered a settlement with Mr. Puckett and they withdrew 11 their appeal?
(*j 12 A That's my understanding, yes, sir.
13 Q All right, sir.
14 And of course you are aware that Mr. McGregor l
15 called Mr. Puckett, and Mr. McGregor documented Mr.
16 Puckett's concerns; and, ultimately, the NRC conducted i
17 an inspection, yours, of all those conce rns?
18 You know those facts happened; right?
19 A Yes.
20 0 Well, sir, knowing all of those facts and being aware of 21 all that water that went over the dam, does it surprise 22 you in the least that Comstock finally got around to 23 addressing Mr. Puckett's conce rns?
24 A I don't know the dates of the Board hearings and all 25 that; but it appeared to me that they were pretty --
i Scnntag Rehorting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11428 O
b 1 they were responsive pretty close to the dates that Mr.
2 Puckett's concerns came about. I mean, a lot of the l 3 action was taken at the time he was still there.
4 Q I see. You are not aware of whether a number of these 5 actions took place only after Mr. Puckett filed a formal 6 public complaint with the United States Department of f
7 Labor, for which Commonwealth Edison and L. K. Comstock, 8 of course, received formal written notice?
9 A I am not aware of that, no, sir.
10 Q And 'if, in fact, those actions were taken only after 11 being formally notified that Mr. Puckett had asserted
() 12 13 that his termination was in violation of federal law, that would be a fact you would want to take into account 14 in reaching any judgment.about whether or not indeed 15 Commonwealth Edison Company and Comstock were responsive 16 to Mr. Puckett's concerns?
17 A They appeared to be responsive at the time he was there.
18 Q That is not my question, Mr. Schapker.
19 You would want to know whether or not they waited 20 until after they knew they were under the scrutiny of 21 the United States Gove rnment, the Department of Labor 22 and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission before they acted 23 in response to hie conce rns? You would want to knoW 24 whether that was a fact before you reached a judgment on 25 whether Edison and Comstock were responsive, wouldn't i
_._Sonntag RepDrting Serv 1ce, Ltd.
J Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262 l
l 11429 f%-
(V) 1 you?
2 A I only reviewed it in regard to the technical issues at 3 hand. I have no consideration for the -- whether Mr.
4 Puckett was fired --
5 Q Nor did you have any consideration for whether or not --
6 A I didn't finish my answer.
7 Q I'm sorry. I apologize. Please continue.
8 A (Continuing.) Whether it was unjustly or not.
9 Q Nor did you have any consideration whether or not Edison 10 or Comstock's responses were appropriate to Mr.
11 Puckett's concerns, did you?
12 A Yes, I did.
- '( I read the appropriate responses . .It was 13 just part of my inspection. It was documented in my 14 inspection report.
15 0 I see, Then yoit iust simply failed to take into account 16 whe ther or not the actions by Comstock and Commonwealth 17 Edison Company took place either before or after Mr.
, 38 Puckett had made a formal complaint to the NRC and the i 39 United States Department of Labor?
20 A That was not an issue of the inspection, no.
21 0 I see.
22 MR. GUILD: No further questions 23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Berry.
(
24 MR. SNOO: No further questions.
7-( 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine. Thank you ve ry much, Sonntag_ Reporting service. Y,td .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
f 11430 (s
1 Mr. Schapker, for testifying.
2 I assume that there is a good chance you will not 3 be recalled for anything.
4 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.
5 (Witness excused.)
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Now can we have an estimate 7 on time? I take it we are calling Mr. McGregor now?
8 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir, that was my intention..
j 9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Is it your expectation, Mr.
i 10 Guild, that will be completed with him today and 11 tomorrow?
12 MR. GUILD: Yes, I certainly hope so.
, ,J
- 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN
- We will ask you again 14 tomorrow.
i 15 MR. GUILD: Can I just have a few minutes to 16 straighten my notes?
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Sure.
18 (Whereupon a recess was had, after which 19 the taking of the deposition was 20 continued asfollows:)
21 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I am ready to go 22 f orwa rd.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Call your next witness, 24 please. ,
- 25 MR. GUILD
- If Mr. McGregor would come around Sonntag_ Reporting service. Ltd.
,~
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262. - -
1
l-11431
.y.O 1 to the witn'ess stand, please.
2 (The witness was thereupon duly sworn.)
3 LEONARD GEORGE MC GREGOR 4 called as a witness by the Intervenors herein,-having 5 been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as 6 follows:
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild.
8 MR. GUILD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
9 DIRECT EXAMINATION 10 BY MR. GUILD: ,
11 Q Mr. McGregor, sta'te your full name, please, sir, and 12 your work address for the record.
13 A Leonard George McGregor,-and my working address is f
l 14 Dresden Nuclear Power Plant, Route-1, Morris, Illinois.
15 Q By whom are you employed at the Dresden Station?
I 16 A I am employed by the Nuclear Regulatory Region III, l 17 Glenn Ellyn, Illinois
' 18 Q In what capacity do you work there?
19 A I am the Senior Resident Inspector at the power plant. ,
i
( 20 Q How long have you been assigned to the Dresden Station?
l 21 A Since September 1,1985.
L 22 Q Prior to your assignment at Dresden and prior to I- 23 September 12, 1985, where were you assigned?
24 A As a Senior Resident Inspector at Braidwood.
25 Q How long had you been assigned at the Braidwood Station,
! SonDtag Reporting Se rv ice, Ltd..
j Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 _ _ _
11432 b(_,/ ,
1 sir?
2 A Approximately four-and-a-half years.
3 Q Can you tell me when you were first assigned to 4 Braidwood?
5 A I was assigned to Braidwood in the early part of 1982.
6 Q Do you recall the month?
7 A It would be January or February. The very first --
8 ; I think it was in January.
9 Q Mr. McGregor, was there a representative of the Nuclear 10 Regulatory Commission before you assigned as a Resident 11 Inspector to the Braidwood Station?
( 12 A No, sir.
13 Q You were the first, then?
14 A Yes, sir.
15 0 And did you continue as the Resident at Braidwood from.
! 16 the time you began your assignment there in January or 17 February of 1982 until the time of your reassignment to l
18 Dresden in Septembe r,1985?
i
- 19 A Yes, sir.
20 Q Now, in your present position, Mr. McGregor, for whom do 21 you work? Who is your immediate supervisor?
l 22 A Mr. Duane Boyd.
23 0 Who?
24 A Mr. Duane Boyd, B-O-Y-D.
25 0 What position does Mr. Boyd hold?
i Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11433
(\ .
l A Mr..Boyd is the inspection chief in Region III for 2 numerous power plants. Dresden is one of them.
3 0 Who does Mr. Boyd report to?
4 A Mr. Bill Guild.
5 0 Can you spell the last name?
6 A Bill Guild.
7 Q Spell the last name for the record, please, sir.
8 A I don't know the correct spelling of his last name.
9 G-U-I-L-D, I think it might be.
10 Q All right, sir.
11 He is the branch chief; is that correct?
( ) 12 A That's correct.
13 Q In turn, who does Mr. Guild--?
14 A Guild.
15 Q Guild?
16 A Guild.
17 0 Who does Mr. Guild report to?
18 A Mr. Guild reports to Mr. Charles Norelius.
! 19 0 What position does he hold?
[
20 A He is the director of reactor -- it slipped my mind --
21 the DPR -- projects and reactors.
22 Q All r ight, sir.
23 In turn, where does Mr. Keppler, the regional 24 administrator, fit into that hierarchy?
/ 25 A Mr. Norelius works for Mr. Keppler.
i Sonntag Repor ting Se rv ice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262
11434
\s_/) '
1 Q All right, sir.
2 Now, at the time you were last assigned to 3 Braidwood Station to whom did you report?
4 A In September it was -- early August, it was Mr. Little.
5 Q Mr. Little.
6 And what position did Mr. Little hold at that time?
7 A He was a special position that he was appointed to as --
8 I think it was called director of the Braidwood -- it 9 slips my mind what his title was, but he was -- he was 10 the director of Braidwood projects.
11 Q Was that a special section chief position?
/
12 A In a sense it was a special position that he was (G}
13 appointed to.
14 0 All right, sir.
15 In turn, who did Mr. Little report to at that time?
16 A Mr. Norelius.
17 Q Mr. Norelius then to Mr. Keppler?
18 A Yes, sir.
19 Q Now, at the time -- during the course of time when you 20 were assigned to Braidwood, Mr. McGregor, did you have 21 responsibility for inspecting construction-related 22 activities?
23 A Yes, sir.
24 0 And after a point in time, were there additional 25 Resident Inspectors assigned to the Braidwood site?
Sonntag_ Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11435 1 A Yes, there was.
2 0 Who was assigned first as the second or additional 3 Resident Inspector?
4 A Mr. Bob Schulz was assigned in, I think, April of 1984.
5 Q At that point in time there were two residents, yourself 6 and Mr. Schulz, then, working at Braidwood?
7 A That's correct.
8 0 And was there a general division of responsibility or 9 labor between you and Mr. Schulz?
10 A To some extent, yes. I was -- I was the Lead Senior 11 with, basically, the operations and preop start-up
( 12 programs, with Mr. Schulz being senior construction 13 inspector.
l 14 0 I see.
15 Were there additional residents assigned to the 16 Braidwood site after you and Mr. Schulz?
17 A Yes, sir. There was an additional resident assigned, I 18 think, in December of '84.
19 0 Who was that, sir?
20 A Mr. Wayne Kropp, K-R-0-P-P, I think his name is.
21 0 At the time, then, when there was yourself, Mr. Schulz 22 and Mr. Kropp, how did you divide up responsibilities l
23 for inspection activities among yourselves?
l 24 A Mr. Schulz was basically responsible for Mr. Kropp's 25 inspection efforts.
Sonntag_ Reporting service, r,t d .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11436 O
1 I still remained the Lead Senior Resident Inspector 2 on site.
3 Q Did you divide responsibilities between operations and 4 construction among yourselves?
5 A Yes, sir.
6 0 Who was responsible at the point when Mr. Kropp came on 7 for the construction-related activities?
i 8 A Mr. Schulz.
, 9 Q So Schulz and Kropp worked on the construction side, and 10 you generally on the preoperational side?
11 A That's correct.
1 12 Q Now, I take it that at the time you were the sole 13 resident, Mr. McGregor, from time to time in your 14 inspection activities at Braidwood you would identify i 15 items of noncompliance or open or unresolved items?
16 A That's correct.
17 Q For auch items that you identified, did you retain 18 responsibility for follow-up and closure after Messrs.
19 Schulz and Kropp were signed to the Braidwood site ao i
20 Resident Inspectors?
21 A Through most of the time, yes, I was responsible for 22 follow-up and closure of items for noncompliance.
- l 23 0 In your experience, Mr. McGregor, is that the customery 24 approach that is followed when an inspector identifies 25 an item that that inspector retains responsibility for Sonntag_Repor ting Se rv ice . Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 -,
I 11437
( D
\, l s_s 1 follow-up and closure?
2 A Generally that's the practice, yes.
3 Q Now, in addition to the three residents that were 4 assigned -- maybe I presume too much.
5 Were there any additional residents assigned after l'
6 Mr. Kropp to Braidwood Station?
7 A I -- after Septembe r when I lef t, I haven't been in 8 contact with Braidwood. I think there is another 9 resident assigned, but --
10 Q Is there a Mr. Tom Tung an assigned at Braidwood, to 11 your knowledge?
[%J 12 A Well, Mr. Tung and I exchanged positions.
13 He was the senior resident at Dresden, and I took 14 his position over there. He took mine at Braidwood.
15 0 Up until the time you left in September,1985, the three 16 residents were yourself, Mr. Schulz and Mr. Kropp?
l 17 A That's correct.
18 Q Now, from time to time, were there additional inspectors f
f 19 assigned to perform inspection activities at the 20 Braidwood Station aside from the three residents?
21 A Yes, there were.
I 22 Q And generally under what circumstances, if you know, 23 would another inspector come to the Braidwood site, 24 other than the residents, to perform inspection
! 25 activ ities?
(
Sonntag_ Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11438 1 A Most of the -- most of the-inspectors that came to i '2 Braidwood were usually at the request of the residents 3 requesting help.
4 Also, regional inspectors would be assigned to j 5 conduct an inspection at Braidwood to fulfill part of f
i 6 the modular program, the inspection program, j 7 Q All right, sir.
i j 8 Can you describe just generally what the modular
, 9 inspection program is?
10 MR. TREBY: Mr. Chairman, I object.
11 I guess this is some background information, but I
- g 12 guess I really don't see what the procedures that are 13 followed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in
> 14 conducting its various inspection activities has to do
- 15 with the issues in this case, which were the allegations 1
16 of harassment and intimidation.
! 17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I assume this is background 1
1 18 leading up to why certain of the inspections involved 19 here were assigned away from or ancigned to others other >
20 than Mr. McGregor and Mr. Schulz and Mr. Kropp, !
21 including to the prior witness.
22 MR. TREBY: I assume that's the reason, too; 23 but I don't see what the relevance of that is.
24 MR. GUILD: It really is foundation, and I
( 25 intend to be brief on these natte rs and get to --
Sonntag_ Reporting service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
I l
I 11439 l
%/
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We have allowed a certain 2 amount of latitude on the foundation / background 3 questions, so we will continue that way; and if it gets 4 prolonged, then we will step in.
5 Continue, Mr. Guild.
6 BY MR. GUILD:
7 Q Mr. McGregor, would you briefly explain what the modular 8 system is that you referred to, please?
9 A Probably a better word for modular would be -- a 10 procedure might be more meaningful to most of the 11 people.
) 12 So these inspection procedures that the Commission 13 has on dif ferent areas, whether it's during construction 14 start-up or operation, these inspection procedures are 15 requirements in one aspect for the residents and 16 regional inspector'a to fulfill these inspection I 17 r equir ement s .
18 0 All right, sir.
1 l 19 In chcrt, ic there a requirement in the NCn'c 20 procedure to inspect certain subject matters or areas 21 that are referred to as modules?
22 A Well, the module programs address all aspects from the 23 time that the site is being prepared until the site is
- 24 prepared, whether it's electrical, mechanical, ,
25 operational, preoperational, site specific for i
i
! Sonntag_ Rep.or_ ting _Selv_icedtd -
! Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 . ,_ ... --
11440
/m (U) 1 preparation, earth movement, foundations, concrete, all i 2 the disciplines.
3 Q All right, sir.
4 Each of these subject matter areas is specified in 5 NRC inspection procedures, internal procedures?
6 A That's correct.
7 Q When you made reference to regional inspectors being 8 detailed to perform inspections under these modules, do 9 I understand you correctly that a certain regional 10 inspector might be detailed to look at an area that was 11 within his area of specialty or expertise?
( 12 A That's correct, sir.
13 0 With that as background, let me turn more directly to 14 the results of your inspection activities.
15 Are you familiar, Mr. McGregor, with an inspection 16 that was identified by number as Inspection 8205?
17 A Yes, sir.
18 MR. TREBY: Mr. Chairman, again, I object.
19 8205 has nothing to do with the incues in this 20 case, which deal with allegations made by QC employees 21 of Comstock and whether they had suf fered any harassment 22 'and intimidation and, if so, whether that had an effect 23 on the -- how they did their operations.
24 8205 is totally unrelated to that matter, and I
% ,) 25 don't believe that it's within the scope of this hearing Sonntag_ Reporting _ Service; Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
{
11441 n
I wJ l and not a proper subject for examination.
2 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, we have certainly 3 talked about this point in Mr. Treby's absence. He may 4 not be aware of prior rulings on this subject, but I 5 have reference directly to Intervenors' Exhibit in 6 evidence No. 86.
7 I, of course, don't mean to try the issues of 8205, 8 but I certainly mean to establish the matters that are 9 relevant to this contention and are within the personal 10 knowledge of Mr. McGregor.
11 You recall that letter was the transmittal letter rN 12 for the $100,000 civil penalty that was levied as a (v) 13 result of Inspection 8205 --
14 MR. TREDY: Again, Mr. Chairman --
15 MR. GUILD: -- a February 2, 1983, document 16 that has been received in evidence.
17 MR. TREBY: Again, Mr. Chairman, I object.
18 Again, this has nothing to do with the scope of 19 this proceeding. There may well have come into this j 20 proceeding some exhibit dealing with some prior fine or 21 violation that the company paid, but the issues of 8205 j 22 were one of the many issues that the Commission 1
i 23 determined were not appropriate matters of contention in l
7, 24 this proceeding, in which they issued an order
/ s
( ,) 25 dismissing those contentions.
i Sonntaglepotting_Sely_icca Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11442 O
1 I can see no purpose for discussing them at this 2 time,'either as background or for any other purpose.
3 It's just not within the scope of this proceeding.
4 MR. GUILD: I will be happy to repeat the 5 same arguments I made on this point when this document 6 was introduced in evidence. If the Chair desires to 7 hear argument on this, I will.
8 The fact of the matter is that the notificaton by i
9 the NRC that there was a Quality Assurance breakdown at i
10 the Braidwood Nuclear Station with the levy of a 11 $100,000 civil penalty as reflected in this hearing 12 exhibit is a matter that is of obvious relevance to the l 13 question of whether or not Applicant met its duties 14 under 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B to assure the quality 15 assurance as independent of cost and schedule pressure 16 and that the Quality control Inspectors of L. K.
17 Comstock Company were indeed free from harassment and 18 intimidation in order to do their job.
19 Again, I don't mean to try the issues of the steam 20 generator bolts here, but the fact of the matter is this 21 has been argued by Counsel for the NRC Staf f and they 22 have already been ruled against on this matter, and this 23 document has been received in evidence.
24 I don't mean to make the examination lengthy.
25 I don't think Mr. Treby ought to be allowed to Ronntag_ Reporting ServicaJtd-Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 11443
,c\
( )
C/
1 reargue points that the Staff has already advanced 2 along.
3 MR. TREBY: My recollection of the transcript 4 is that this document was introduced when Mr. O'Connor, 5 the president of the Company, was on the stand and it 6 was introduced for the limited purpose of showing that
/ De had some awareness of what was happening at the site 8 a. 3 that there had been a penalty essessed against the 9 Tampany for a Quality Assurance breakdown.
10 Just because this exhibit is admitted for that 11 limited purpose does not open it up to explore with this f~h 12 (a) witness information about this violation and the 13 assessments of fine.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild, are you going to 15 tie in this background to what happened subsequently?
16 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We will allow a certain 18 leeway as far as that goes on the representation of 19 Counsel that this is just background to the situation 20 that eventually occurred.
21 MR. TREDY: Well, I can appreciate that. I 22 just don't want to be sitting on my rights.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. We understand that.
24 MR. TREBY: I feel it's important for me to O) _,
25 set forth my views early on. I have not said that. I Sonntag_ Reporting _Scrvice,_Ltd. __
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11444 v
1 have not raised objections earlier. ,
2 MR. GALLO: Judge Grossman.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, Mr. Gallo.
4 MR. GALLO: I believe that the use that is 5 going to be made of Intervenors' Exhibit 86 is a 6 beginning of a litany of a comparison of McGregor 7 identified items of noncompliance and open items and 8 then of the comparison as to who closed it out and why.
9 I don't see that that whole line is relevant, and I 10 would support fir. Treby's objection.
11 It seems to me that we ought to get to the
( 12 inspection reports dealing with the harassment and 13 intimidation and to the extent that this witness was 14 involved with that activity. That is what is relevant, 15 and not just the general inquiry into the number of 16 items of noncompliance in other matters that he 17 identified during his tenure at Braidwood and then a 18 comparison of whether or not he closed them out.
19 I think that is an improper area for inquiry in 20 this proceeding.
21 MR. GUILD: Mr. Gallo presumes too much, Mr. t 22 Chairman, and I am prepared to go forward.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I'm sorry. I didn't catch 24 that.
25 MR. GUILD: lie presumes too much, Mr.
Sonn tag _ Rep or ting _ Serv _ ice,_itd -
) Geneva, Illinois 60134
[ (312) 232-0262
)
v 1 Chairman.
2 I don't think I have to give Mr. Gallo a road map 3 of where I am going except to suggest, as I do, that 4 this matter was relevant when it was admitted.
5 I intend a limited examination on it, and I do 6 intend this as background to examining the witness on 7 matte rs that have to do directly with the L. K.
8 Comstock.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine. We are overruling the 10 objections now.
11 We agree with Mr. Treby that he is not sleeping on
() 12 13 his rights and that if the questioning on these background matters becomes prolonged that he will 14 certainly have the right to renew his objection.
15 We are taking into account the fact that he has 16 already posed that objection and hasn't waived anything; i
17 so let's continue and make it as brief as we can on the 18 background materials.
19 MR. GUILD: All right, sir. I will do that.
20 There is a pending question. Perhaps I should just 21 restate it, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to do that.
22 BY MR. GUILD:
23 Q Mr. McGregor, are you familiar with Inspection 8205?
24 A Yes, sir, I am.
25 0 And the exhibit in evidence, 86, Intervenors 86, a Sonntag_ Reporting _Sarvica,_Ltd-Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l l 11446 O
1 Februa ry 2,19 83, letter, Mr. Keppler's transmittal to 2 Mr. O'Connor at Commonwealth Edison Company of that 3 Inspection Report and the notices of violation and the 4 $100,000 civil penalty associated with that reflects 5 that this safety inspection was conducted by you, L. G.
6 McGregor, during the period of time April 19th through 7 July 20,1983; is that a fact, sir?
8 A That's correct.
9 Q Were you the inspector, sir, who identified the 10 deficiencies in the Licensee's installation and 11 insulation inspection of mechanical safety related 12 equipment at Braidwood Station?
13 A Yes, sir.
14 0 was it on your findings and recommendation that the 15 $100,000 civil penalty was levied against Commonwealth 16 Edison Compenny?
17 A That's correct, sir.
18 0 Wasn't it also true, Mr. McGregor, that you and others 19 proposed to the NRC management that an additional item 20 of noncompliance, Level III item of noncompliance, be 21 levied for material false statements in regards to the 22 installation of mechanical equipment?
23 MR. TREBY: I would object.
24 Again, I see no relevance.
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Mr. Treby, I see some S o n n t ag_Re p o r ting _S e rYic e s._L td -
Geneva, Illinois 60134
. (312) 232-0262
l 11447 1 relevance.
2 There has been a question raised as to the 3 procedural -- possible procedural irregularity -- or 4 perhaps that's too strong a statement, but that there is 5 some, perhaps, other motive in assigning some of the 6 matters to persons who are not Resident Inspectors at 7 the site.
8 In particular, the prior witness was assigned an 9 inspection of matters that had been raised half a year 10 earlier by Resident Inspectors, and some question has 11 been raised as to why he was assigned that.
( 12 I believe these questions gutter that matter, and I 13 . would assume that it would be in the interest of the NRC 14 to establish that there was no procedural irregularity 15 in such assignments to the Nonresident Inspectors.
16 But IL is of interest to the Board and matters that 17 are relevant to the case to see whether the conclusions 18 reached by the NRC are impeachable. We would hope not, 19 but we would certainly allow some inquiry into that.
20 MR. TREBY: Well, again, I would respectfully 21 disagree.
22 I think that what assignments were made by the NRC 23 regional management are internal administration mattern 24 and are not relevant.
k, 25 What is relevant is whatever inspections were done Sonntag_ Rep o r. ting _Sc rvice.,_itd-Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11448 (O
V) 1 and what weight the Board wishes to give to those 2 insp'ections.
3 If the Board finds that it disapproves of the 4 methodology or the findings or that the inspectors who 5 did the findings didn't have a basis for making those 6 findings, then the Board is certainly entitled to give 7 whatever weight they want to give; but I don't think 8 that the Board is entitled to make inquiry into why 9 Inspector X did the inspection or Inspector Y did the 10 inspection.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, Mr. Treby, I don't see f) a 12 ,
how you can separate that question from the question of 13 the methodology used in inspecting to the matters that 14 are relevant to the case.
15 Now, if there is nothing there, let's find out 16 about it. If there is sonething there, then I think it 17 is relevant. So I overrule that objection.
18 Continue, Mr. Guild.
)
19 MR. GALLO: Your Honor, I would like to make l 20 it clear that the Applicant -- that we believe inquiry 21 in this nrea is a frollic and a waste of hearing time.
! 22 I would like to make a point and reinforce the 23 points that Mr. Treby made.
24 Let's assume the worst. Let's assume that Region
'((
r 25 III, for improper reasons, reassigned Mr. McGregor.
S onn t a g_ Rep or_t.ing _Se rv_iceJtd -
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11449 i !
\/ s 1 What is at stake here is whether the people that 2 wert assigned did a good job. His reassignment is 3 irrelevant to that question.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gallo, that is not 5 assuming the worst.
6 The worst would come closer to -- let's assume that 7 the region assigned the inspection to someone who they 8 thought would whitewash the allegations raised. Now, 9 that is a little worse, and that is more relevant to 10 what we have here.
11 MR. GALLO: You are not going to get that p)
(v 12 answer from this witness. You will heve to get it from 13 Mr. Schapker, Mr. Mendez, Mr. Neisler and the other 14 witnesses offered by the Staff.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I am not suggesting any 16 answer here; but I think in all fairness that if you are 17 going to rely to any extent on the findings of the NRC 18 inspectors that the Intervenors are entitled to examine 19 as to the methodology used in selecting examiners and in 20 compiling the inspection report.
21 I understand that that is what is being questioned 22 right now, and so we are taking into account the 23 arguments you made and we are overruling the objection.
s 24 Continue, Mr. Guild
/ N k,,) 25 MR. GUILD: I will rephrase the question.
Sonnt ag_ Rep or ting _ Service ,._L td- I Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11450 0
1 BY MR. GUILD: -
2 .Q The pending question was -- I will try again.
3 Mr. McGregor, is it true that there was, in 4 addition, a proposal that the Level III item of 5 noncompliance be cited against Commonwealth Edison 6 Company for a material false statement with respect to 7 the issue of the installation of mechanical-related 8 safety equipment?
9 A That is correct.
10 Q That item of noncompliance, however, was not -- that 11 recommendation was not followed by regional management?
12 A That's correct.
13 Q Mr. McGregor, to your knowledge, had Commonwealth Edison 14 Company ever been cited for a -- had a civil penalty 15 ever been imposed on Commonwealth Edison Company for 16 violation of NRC regulatory requirements on a plan under 17 construction prior to the items that you identified in 18 8205?
19 A I don't think there was.
20 Q All right, sir.
21 Mr. McGregor, was it your personal conclusion that 22 the findings made in 8205 indicated a breakdown in 23 Licensee's Quality Assurance Program with respect to the
- 24 installation of mechanical safety related equipment?
i F 25 A Yes, sir.
Sonntag_ Reporting Servict,J td.
) Geneva, Illinois 60134
[._ (312) 232-0262
11451 O
1 Q Mr'. Keppler's transmittal lette r -- and I will be happy l
2 to share it with you if you would like to refer to it --
3 states, in part -- this is Paragraph 2 on the first 4 page - "The result of the inspection indicates serious 5 weaknesses in your management control systems as 6 evidenced by breakdown in your Quality Assurance Program 7 as it relates to the insulation and installation %
8 inspection of mechanical safety related equipment."
9 Do you agree with that conclusion, Mr. McGregor?
10 A Yes, sir. .,
11 MR. GALLO: I guess I would move to strike
( 12 the last answer in question as being irrelevant and 33 beyond the confinea of the limited uses that Counsel 14 said he was going to put Exhibit 86 to.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Overruled.
16 BY MR. GUILD:
17 Q In his deposition testimony, Mr. McGregor, the regional 18 adninistrator, Mr. Keppler, expressed the opinion that 19 one reason why problems reflected in Inspection Report 20 8205 had not come to the NCR's attention sooner was that f 21 the region had not devoted sufficient resources to 22 Canmonwealth Edison Company, but that instead its attention had been diverted to other plants such as !
23 24 Zimner and Midland.
25 Now, sir, that is a paraphrase of his testimony in i S onn t ag _ Rep o r. ting.St.rtice ,_L td. :
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11452 ss _/
? his deposition, but I will ask you, sir:
2 Do you concur in that opinion? Do you agree with 3 that opinion?
4 MR. TREBY: I object.
5 We are just going down a line of all of the matters 6 which the Intervenors had wished to litigate in their QA 7 contention which has been ruled outside of this 8 proceeding by the Board -- by the Commission.
9 MR. GUILD: That is not the case, Mr.
10 Chairman.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Treby, I underttand this
) 12 as a line of questioning which will establish or attempt a
13 to establish Mr. McGregor's position as far as it was 14 known to the NRC at that time through matters trat 15 occurred then as a background to the question of why 16 other NRC inspectors were assigned certain tasks for 17 which they reached certain conclusions.
18 Now, I don't think that we are going to get through 19 with this hearing if we have to go through that 20 explanation each time the objection is posed, so I don't .
21 intend to.
22 We are going to allow this line of questioning 23 because of what I stated in response to tne last 24 objection.
b)
\ _, 25 You may renew your objections, and I just want to Sonnt a g _ Rep or. ting _Se rvlce ,_L td -
) Geneva, I111 nolo 60134
[ (312) 232-0262
i L
r 11453 S
G 1 make sure that you understand that we are giving full 2 weight to the arguments you raise, but I don't want to 3 hear -- we don't have enough time to hear those same 4 arguments for each question.
5 Overruled; and continue, Mr. Guild.
6 MR. TREBY: I don't want to prolong this, but 7 I have one last statement, and then I will not pursue 8 making all these arguments again; and that is that, 9 again, we are getting into the internal administration 10 of how Region III does its work.
11 The appeal board in the Waterford proceeding
( ) 12 addressed that question and said that that is not a 13 fruitful area for licensing boards to get into. That is i 14 not a matter that the licensing board can regulate or 15 the appeal board can regulate.
! 16 The issue in this case is:
17 Has the Applicant or its agent, Comstock, harassed 18 or intimidated certain QC workers; and, if so, did that 19 have an ef fect on the disclosure of deficiencies in the 20 work?
21 Ilow the Staff goes about doing its work has 22 nothing to do with that subject.
23 Now, I understand that what you are going to come i
j 24 back to me with is: But the Staff has put forth some 1
25 witnesses who have conducted some inspections and, based l
1
- Sonnt ag. R ep ortin g _Se rv_ ice.,_L td -
Geneva, Illinois 60134
)' 1312) 232-0262
11454 i
~_ /
1 on those inspections, the Staff says we have done such 2 and such, and we find that it does not have an effect on 3 whether or not deficiencies were found or not.
4 I say fine. Those witnesses and Mr. McGregor here 5 can be asked with regard to those matters, the 6 inspections, how they were perforned, what the findings 7 were, what the basis for those findings are, et cetera; 8 . but I don't think that it is profitable to look into who 9 was assigned to do the inspection.
10 Whoever was assigned, was the person who was 11 assigned. IIe either did it properly or he didn't do it
()
n 12 properly. If he didn't do it properly, then the Board 13 can give that due consideration in the weight that it 14 gives to that testimony.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Treby, I go along with 16 you up to a certain point, and that point is that the 17 assignment to particular individuals does or does not 18 have any impact on the methodology or is not related to 19 the methodology used in inspecting to those issues.
20 I just don't agree with that position.
21 If people are selected with the understanding that 22 they are opinionated in one way or another or people 23 are -- or antiselection is used because of some 7s 24 apprehension as to the resul':s that might be reached, I
[q ,) \
25 think that goes into the methodology used.
S o nnt ag _ Rc p o r ting _Sc rv.ic e ,_Ltal-Geneva, Illinois 60134 L (312) 232-0262
f I 11455 O
1 I assure you, Mr. Treby, we are not allowing any 2 inquiry into the internal workings of the NRC that are 3 unrelated to the inspection reports that were actually 4 written on the issues that we have involved here.
5 To the extent we are dealing with other reports, 6 they are only leading up to. That is my understanding, 7 and that is what the Board's rulings are based on, so we 8 don't intend to allow any inquiry into the technical 9 issues raised in Inspection Report 8205 or any other 10 report which has issues that are not before us now.
11 We are only allowing background inquiries into 12 those particular reports to determine whether there was 13 anything biased in the methodology used in the 14 inspection reports.
15 So we find that relevant there, and I think we have 16 it all out in the open.
17 We will entertain objections, but not any further 18 argument on the same matters.
19 We are overruling the objection.
20 Now, Mr. Gallo --
21 MR. GALLO: Judge Grossman, the Board's 22 ruling is doing exactly the opposite of what you have 23 just described.
24 Mr. Guild was permitted to ask a series of 25 questions about 8205 in relation to a recommendation of Sonntag_ Reporting Service,_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 11456 Os 1 a material f alse statement. He was permitted to ask 2 those questions, and answers were given.
3 Now I am forced to inquire into the underlying 4 aspects of that particular issue, because what is on the 5 record is a suggestion that this witness made that 6 recommendation to his people and for reasons unexplained 7 it wasn't adopted and reflected in 8205.
8 The negative inference that creates compels me to 9 go into what I consider to be a collateral matter, much 10 the same as the Chair took issue with my colleague Mr.
11 Miller this morning when we inquired into areas
( ) 12 concerning Zimmer and Mr. Schapker.
13 I think the parallelism is there, and I believe 14 that the Board should be consistent in its rulings.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, Mr. Gallo, because we 16 rule that some issue was a collateral matter, that 17 doesn't mean that any time you raise an objection saying 18 that this is a collateral matter that it's of the same 19 nature and that we are going to grant your objection.
20 We have heard your arguments. We have explained 21 the basis for allowing this testimony, and we will 22 overrule the objection and let Mr. Guild continue.
23 Please continue, Mr. Guild.
24 MR. GUILD: I will try to rephrase the 25 question so we don't have to read it back.
SonntagJteportinuerlice. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 L. (312) 232-0262
L 11457 p
1 BY MR. GUILD:
2 Q In deposition, Mr. McGregor, the regional administrator 3 Mr. Keppler was asked about this 8205 subject; and Mr.
4 Keppler there expressed the opinion, which I will 5 paraphrase, and that was that insufficient attention had 6 been devoted by the NRC to Commonwealth Edison Company 7 matte rs because, in his opinion, that attention had been 8 diverted to other facilities.
9 My question to you, sir, is:
10 Having been the resident at Braidwood and having 11 identified 8205, the 8205 issues, do you agree with that 12 opinion?
13 A Well, I can't speak for Mr. Keppler and the resources 14 that he had to do the inspection work within Region III; 15 but I do think that 8205 was a very important step, a 16 milestone in what was the construction process that.was i 17 going on at Braidwood. It did need or should have had i 18 more attention.
19 0 All right, sir.
- 20 Shortly after 8205 was published in February of 21 1983, did you have occasion, Mr. McGregor, to submit an 22 ARF, A-R-P, an Assistance Request Form, to the region?
23 A Yes, sir, I did.
24 Q I want to show you a series of documents, sir.
25 (Indica ting. )
S o nn t ag_Re p o r_ tin g_S cJLV. ICE,_L t d -
i Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11458 gS
( )
Nm/
1 MR. GUILD: I would like to ask that these 2 documents be marked as Intervenors' Exhibits 99 and 100 3 for identification.
4 (The documents were thereupon marked 5 Intervenors' Exhibits Nos. 99 and 100 for 6 identification as of May 2, 1986.)
7 BY MR. GUILD:
8 Q Mr. McGregor, I have placed before you a series of three 9 d oc ument s. The cover page bea rs a Ma rch 16, 1983, date.
10 It's from Mr. Hayes to Mr. Little.
11 The second page appears to repeat a portion of the 12 first document. At the bottom it has what is entitled (J
13 an Assistance Request Form, in handwriting signed by Mr.
14 Hayes.
15 The third page is a routing and transmittal slip 16 bearing the date 2-13-83, in handwriting with the name 17 J. G. Keppler at the bottom.
18 Now, sir, I direct your attention, first, to the 19 middle of these three pages, the second page.
20 Did you have occasion to submit an Assistance 21 Request, an ARF, to Mr. Hayes shortly before March 15, 22 19837 23 A As I stated in my deposition, the reinspection of 24 commonwealth Edison's work with relation to 8205 was not
( j 25 being performed; and at that time my section chief Mr.
Bonntag_ Rep or ting _Sc.ry_ ice.,ltd.
} Geneva, Illinois 60134
[ ._ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
(312) 232-0262
l 11459 (V
1 Hayes had restricted me from looking at Commonwealth 2 Edison's rework of the CAL that was issued in September 3 of '82.
4 Q What is a CAL, Mr. McGregor?
t 5 A Corrective Actions Letter.
6 It was in connection with 8205.
7 0 All right, sir.
8 MR. GALLO: Objection.
9 I don't know what question this witness is 10 answering, but it was not the one posed.
11 The question on the floor is did he submit an ARF
[)
v 12 to someone or other prior to March of 1983.
13 I don't know what question this witness is 14 answering, but he is not being responsive.
15 MR. GUILD: I am satisfied the answer is 16 responsive, and I believe the answer is in the 17 affirmative and he is now explaining the answer.
18 I would allow him to do so.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I accept it as such and 20 allow.
21 Overruled; and continue.
- 22 MR. GALLO
- Could I have the portion of the
- 23 answer read back? I want to hear where he said yes.
24 MR. GUILD: Let me simply ask the question 25 again so we can expedite this, if I may.
l 4
R o nn t aglep o r. Ling _Servlc e_,_L td.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11460 N
d 1 BY MR. GUILD:
2 Q Did you submit a request to Mr. Hayes for assistance 3 shortly after 8205 was published in the period of 4 time -- early part of March, 1983?
5 A I was trying to give some background to this, because at 6 the time I did not have a secretary, and I had 7 handwritten a memo to Mr. Hayes requesting that we 8 initiate an Assistance Form, a request for assistance, 9 to do so these inspections.
10 This particular memorandum was written by Mr. Hayes 11 with regard to the memorandum that I sent him -- or the
/N 12 note that I sent him.
')
(-
13 Q Mr. Hayes was documenting your request to him for 14 assistance?
15 A Yes, sir.
16 Q All right, sir.
17 Looking at that first page of the document, you l 18 appear on copy at the bottom along with a number of 19 other people along with Mr. Keppler and others, a March 20 16, 1983 memo:
21 " Attached is an ARF and supporting data relative to 22 follow-up inspections urgently needed at Braidwood 23 inspection."
24 These are -- I want to direct your attention to 25 Item 1:
SQDntag Reporting Service Ltd.
) Geneva, Illinois 60134
[_ (312) 232-0262
_ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ . - _ _ ._ ~ _ _ _
11461 s
1 "An evaluation of CECO's QA program and its 2 implementation and effectiveness relative to assuring 3 that site contractors" plural "were performing safety 4 related work now meet QA/QC requirements."
5 Does that embody the substance of one subject on 6 which you requested assistance, Mr. McGregor?
7 A Yes, sir.
8 Q Now, the second subject has to do with the more 9 particular subject of the 8205 inspection report, and 10 that is the installation of mechanical safety related 11 equipment, and I am not going to inquire into the
() 12 13 details of that subject.
The third document that is attached here that is 14 referenced in the last page of Mr. Hayes's cover memo, 15 here the reference is:
16 "You should also be aware of OIA's possible review 17 of both Region III and the Licensee's action in this 18 matter" paren "see attached copy of Keppler's note."
19 Indeed, the third page is a note, apparently f rom 20 Mr. Keppler.
21 Now, is OIA the Office of Inspector and Auditor, 22 Mr. McGregor?
23 A I believe it is, sir.
24 Q Is it a correct understanding that OIA, the Office of 25 Inspector and Auditor, performs investigations of Sonntag Repor ting _Se rvice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
T
- 11462 m
)
1 allegations of inte rnal wrongdoing within the NRC?
2 A I think that's correct, sir. .
3 Q All right.
4 Mr. Keppler's note -- or the note that is 5 apparently Mr. Keppler's third page reads, "I have 6 received indications that OIA may look into some of the ,
7 background of the Braidwood civil penalty case, 8- specifically to find out why we didn't have knowledge of 9 the problem soone r."
. 10 "Of interest is whether management may have stifled 11 the inspectors regarding earlier findings."
( ) 12 "I told Cummings that I felt the attention given to f 13 projects to other projects, eg. , Zimmer, was the real 14 reason we hadn't given much attention to Braidwood."
15 "Let me know if you hear an audit is starting."
16 Now, Mr. McGregor, did you get a copy of Mr.
(
17 Hayes's memo of Ma rch 16, 1983, with the attachnents?
18 A No, sir. If I -- if our records at Braidwood -- I think 19 our records at Braidwood would reflect, if anything, 20 only the first two pages.
21 0 The first two pages?
l Yes, sir.
22 A I was not aware nor was I sent the third I
23 page.
( 24 Q All right.
l 25 Now, what response, if any, was given to your l Sonntag Reporting Se rvice. Ltd.
t Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
l l
11463 1 Request for Assistance that you made to Mr. Hayes and 2 that he, in turn, transmitted to Mr. Little?
3 A I don't know of a response.
4 Q Were you provided any additional assistance to effect 5 the evaluation of CECO's QA program, its implementation 6 and effectiveness relative to site contractors 7 performing safety-related work?
8 A No, sir.
9 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that 10 Intervenors' Exhibit 99 that has been marked be admitted 11 in evidence.
12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Any objection? .
r 13 MR. GALLO: Objection.
f 14 MR. TREBY: I object, also.
?
- 15 JUDGE GROSSMAN
- On the same grounds that we 16 have heard before?
I
[ 17 MR. TREBY: That's correct.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Ove'rruled. ,
l -
19 Admitt ed.
20 (The document was thereupon received into l
21 evidence as Inte rvenors' Exhibit No. 99. )
t 22 MR. GALLO: I would like to offer a little 23 argument of why Page 3 is relevant.
24 It seems to me that -- I am referring to the page 25 that bea rs the signature of J. G. Kepple r.
t I
l
} Sonntag Reporting Service Ltd.
! Geneva, Illinois 60134 l__._ . . _ . _ , . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _
(312) 232-0262 ,
11464
~
l It seems to me that the subject matter of this 1
2 little note referring to a possible OIA audit, the 3 handling of a civil penalty under 8205 is so remote from 4 the Board's stated reason for permitting this t 5 questioni.ng that this shouldn't be admitted into i
6 evidence.
7 I would object to the whole exhibit, but in 8 pa r tic ula r , for the reasons I have given, Sheet 3 as 9 well.
-10 JUDGE CALLIHAN: So the argument is the same, 11 but in particular you object stronger -- more strongly
( 12 to the third page?
! 13 MR. GALLO: I think the third page, and by 14 its own wording, makes it clear. You don't have to rely 15 on lawyer argument. All one has to do is read the 16 document to see that there is no relevance to the 17 admitted area that the Board has permitted Mr. Guild to 18 emba rk upon.
( 19 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, it just astounds me l
20 that Applicant can make such an argument with a straight
- 21 face.
! 22 The fact of the matter is --
l L 23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild, continue.
24 MR. GUILD: -- we have, first, a finding that
\
) 25 there was a breakdown in Quality Assurance in the SQDntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
4 11465 V'
1 contract that happened to be looked at, 8205, the first 2 civil penalty for construction-related activity; the 3 inspector who makes the finding urging that there be 4 resources committed to take a broader look at the 5 adequacies of QA/QC programs in the plural in addition 6 to, presumably, the mechanical contract.
7 We then have evidence the regional administrator 8 suspects, for reasons that one might be interested in, 9 that the conduct of the region, in failing to find these 10 problems earlier, is being questioned.
11 Then we have the testimony of the sane inspector
( 12 that the Request for Assistance was indeed ignored, and 13 we wonder why there is a problem with harassment, 14 intimidation and production pressure on Quality control 15 Inspectors at the L. K. Comstock Company.
,i 16 I submit to you that it's because an inspector 17 asked for help and didn't get it. It is because the NRC 18 regional office didn't look hard enough when they should 19 have, and when the problems were first hitting them in 20 the face in 8205, they failed to take accurate account 21 of that.
22 That is a foundation indeed, Mr. Chairman, for a 23 series of questions which will follow which.' will rpflect 24 a basis for this Board drawing inferences 4tbout w q Mr.
25 Schapker was assigned to inspect the activities that he Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11466 (J3 l did; why Mr. Mendez and Mr. Neisler were assigned to 2 inspect the activities that they did and why, perhaps, 3 even Mr. Little will take the stand and say we have no
! 4 cause to worry about Quality Assurance problems at 5 Braidwood.
6 I hope I don't have to repeat that every tims that 7 Licensee, the Applicant, has a relevance objection; but 8 it seems to me this is really central to questioning 9 whether or not there is any reliability that should be 10 attached to the Staff's position in this case.
11 MR. GALLO: Mr. Chairman --
(O g) l 12 MR. TREBY: Mr. Chairman --
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Gallo and Mr.
14 Treby, we already argued this.
15 I allowed Mr. Guild to state his piece now because, 16 Mr. Treby, you have had three arguments on this matter; 17 and, Mr. Gallo, you have had three arguments, so I only 18 t,hought it fair to allow Mr. Guild to put everything he 19 danted on the record, too.
( 20 As I said, we already considered that. We made our 21 ruling. You are raising the objection again. We are 22 overruling the objection, and we are admitting the l
23 exhibit.
24 Let's continue.
f
(
25 MR. TREBY: But, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Guild has l Sonntag Repor ti ng Se rv i ce _. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11467 k
v 1 just indicated that his whole purpose here is to put the 2 NRC on trial. That was the subject we raised when the
, 3 whole question of whether Mr. McGregor should be 4 subpoenaed or not came up.
- 5 JUDGE GROSSM'N
A Excuse me, Mr. Treby. You 6 listened to the first part of what Mr. Guild said, which 7 was a discussion of this background; but he also 8 indicated how he intends to lead this into the selection 9 of the persons who 'were given a task of inspecting to 10 the complaints raised that we are dealing with here.
11 You ought to listen to the full of the argument;
() 12 13 but we have already discussed that.
We have made our ruling, and we were only wasting 14 time by repeating all the arguments, so let's just raise 15 the objections. If they are the same, indicate as much, 16 and let's go on with the hearing.
- 17 We don't want to spend time here with all the 18 arguments that we ought to hear on brief.
19 MR. TREBY: All right. Well --
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: For the Reporter, we have 21 admitted thic exhibit.
22 Mr. Guild, continue.
23 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman.
24 BY MR. GUILD:
I
(,,) 25 Q Mr. McGregor, I want to show you a September 6, 1983, Sonntag Reporting Se rvice Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 - . .- _ .- - - _ _ - _
11468 O
U 1 doc unent. It's from Mr. Hayes to Mr. Knopp.
Subject:
2 " Comments for second meetin'g with CECO on QA 3 communications and problems."
4 All right, sir. Now, shortly after the publication 5 of 8205 in Februa ry of 1983 -- well, strike that.
6 In 1983, Mr. McGregor, was there underway a 7 special Quality Assurance Inspection at Braidwood that 8 ultimately led in May of 1984 to the publication of 9 Inspection Report 8309?
10 A Yes, sir.
11 Q All right, sir.
( 12 Now, the document I have had placed before you 13 refe rs to a meeting with Commonwealth Edison Company.
14 I note that your name and Mr. Schulz' name appear 15 on the second page along with the names of several 16 others.
17 Do you recall ever having seen this memorandum i
18 before, sir?
19 A Yes, sir, I did -- I do.
20 Q Did you see it about the time it was written in 21 September of 1983?
22 A Yes, sir.
23 Q All right.
24 Reference is made in the first paragraph by Mr.
\ 25 Hayes, apparently, to a quote " Changing attitude on the SQnntag Reporting Service _. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 11469 f
\
s 1 part of CECO personnel towards NRC findings. Many, 2 especially in the corporate office,.have become very 3 defensive," and it goes on and gives some examples.
j 4 In the third paragraph there is the observation in 5 the first sentence, "Another changing attitude we have 6 noted concerns CECO's QA organizction. They have become
- 7 ve ry territorial. " I am quoting. " Attitude appea rs to i
8 be that once QA has done their programmed audits, they i
L 9 have done their job. Even if the audits identify 10 problems, QA appears to feel it's someone else's job to 11 assure ef fective and continuing corrective action and
'12
( further examples are given.
13 On Page 2, " CECO appears to have become very 14 sensitized and perhaps oversensitized to their public
! 15 image and as a result they dowaplay problems. The facts -
l 16 are not always disclosed. Their own findings as well as 17 responses to NRC findings are frequently stated in such 7
18 generalized terms or mischaracterized such that it is i
j 19 difficult to appreciate the real problem or eve,n i
l 20 conclude that a real problem exists."
21 Do you have any opinion, Mr. McGregor, in providing l
l 22 inputs to Mr. Hayes on the subject matter of this l
23 memorand um?
24 A I think I wrote a memo discussing some of these problems
( 25 to Mr. Hayes with relation to this subject.
Sonntag Reporting Se rvice Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 , , _ - - _ .
- -. . = . . -. . .= , - - _ - .. .__.-. . - - - - - - . .
11470 f'\
4 Q
l Q Do the portions of Mr. Hayes's memo that I have quoted i
2 from reflect your opinion about your dealings at the 3 time with Commonwealth Edison Company and their QA 4 people at Braidwood?
5 MR. GALLO: Objection.
, 6 I'm sorry. Did you finish your question?
^
7 MR. GUILD: Yes.
- 8 MR. GALLO: I think, again, this witness's t
l 9 agreement or nonagreement with the opinions reflected in j
10 this memorandum are irrelevant, and I would object to l 11 the questions on that ground.
() 12 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
being asked about his input.
I understood that he was
! 14 MR. GALLO: He was just asked whether he 15 agreed with the long recitation of sentences read by Mr.
16 Guild into the record.
17 JUDGE GROSSM AN: No, Mr. Gallo, he was not 18 asked that. He was asked whether he had input into any 19 of these matters that appear in this memorandum, and he i 20 indicated yes, he wrote a memorandum which contains some i
21 of these matters; and, therefore, he had input.
22 The objection is overruled.
23 MR. GALLO: Can we have the last two
! 24 questions and answers read back, please?
25 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I do intend to ask 11
_Sonntag Raporting Marvica, r.t a _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
11471 A
1 now what -- whethtr Mr. McGregor concurs with Mr.
2 Hayes's recitation of these attitude problems.
3 I will paraphrase what I have read as those 4 attitude problems, but I do intend to ask that question 5 and believe it's an appropriate question. It's based, 6 in part, at least, from the witness's own testimony on 7 Mr. McGregor's observations and memorandum to Mr. Hayes.
8 MR. GALLO: I would like to have the la3t two 9 questions and answe rs read back, please.
10 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, before the reporter 11 does that, can we stay on the record a moment.
() 12 13 If he is going to ask the Reporter-to read back the entire quotation from this document --
14 MR. GALLO: No. Subsequent to the recitation 15 of the -- my memory is that the last two questions do 16 not include the recitation that you made from the 1
17 letter.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: 'Go ahead and read it.
19 (The record was thereupon read by the l 20 Reporter.)
l 21 MR. G ALLO: I submit, your Honor, that your i
22 recollection of the record was incorrect.
23 I was objecting to that question which is asking
- 24 this witness about his opinion on whether or not he i
s 25 agrees with the statements in the letter.
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11472 1 There was no spending question about whether he had 2 written any memorandum.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes; but it came in the 4 context of his having written a memorandum that went 5 into the -- that was taken into account in the letter.
6 Now the question is whether what's stated in the 7 letter reflects his opinion that was expressed in the 8 memo. That is the way I understand it --
9 MR. GALLO: I would like --
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN- Excuse me, Mr. Gallo.
11 -- to establish the witness's position at that 12 time.
13 MR. GALLO: I would like to have the next 14 prior question ar.d answer read. I believe that it will 15 show that this witness did not testify that he wrote a 16 memorandum; that he simply said that he remembers 17 covering some of the matters in the memorandum with Mr.
18 Hayes, which I unde rstood to mean orally.
4 19 Now, the reason I am belaboring this point is the 20 unproper understanding. The record is vital to the 21 Chair's ruling on these objections; and if the Chair has
- 22 one understanding of the record and I have another, we
- 23 are never going to come to an agreement.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I believe it doesn't make any 25 difference as to the exact wording of the question, s_
l l
l snnnt ag napnr t i ng_ Ra rv i ca , r.ea _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i l
11473 m
1 because the entire topic is well known to both of us as 2 to whether the witness had established a position at 3 that time.
4 We have already ruled that we are going to allow 5 questions into that particular background matter, and 6 this follows along with it; so we are overruling the 7 objection and the witness can ar.swer the question.
8 MR. GALLO: Can I have the next ultimate 9 question read for the record back that was asked, the 10 question and answer prior to the one read by the 11 Reporte r .
() 12 13 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Certainly.
(The record was thereupon read by the 14 Reporte r. )
15 MR. GALLO: Thank you.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Let me also say, Mr. Gallo, 17 there is another relevance here in this document to what 18 we have before us, and that is as direct background to 19 the QA situation that existed immediately before the 20 period that we have involved in the proceeding.
21 Now, do you have further argument, Mr. Gallo?
22 MR; TREBY: Wait, Mr. Chairman. I have an 23 objection to that, because the issue here is the QA 24 situation with regard to the Comstock people.
- ( ,,/ 25 Intervenor Exhibit 100 does not mention the 1,
Sonntag__ Reporting service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l, 11474 N.-)
1 Comstock employees at Braidwood at all.
2 MR. GALLO: I was just about to make that 3 point.
4 It seems to me that the Board's ruling that would 5 permit inquiry by Mr. Guild under tne promise to tie it 6 into Comstock has to have some bounds.
7 This Exhibit 100 has, in various places, 8 references to the work at Byron. I mean, if there is 9 any clear indication of nonrelevance, it seems to me 10 that is it.
11 MR. GUILD: It seems to me when Commonwealth n
12 Edison Company comes before this Licensing Board and (G) 13 says one should have confidence that there is reasonable 14 assurance that their QA program has worked, and they 15 present witnesses who testify that there have been no 16 problems in their QA program, that is what Mr. O'Connor 17 said. There has been a perception of problems by the 18 NRC, lack of confidence by the NRC in their QA program; 19 but no problems, no problems.
20 We find that, in fact, there is evidence that this 21 document came not f rom the NRC Staff in discovery, Mr.
22 Chairman. We would never have known about this document 23 unless an anonymous source provided it to Intervenors.
l
,s 24 I think it reflects on Commonwealth Edison Company l ( ,),
25 and is wholly inconsistent.
Sonntag_ Reporting _ Se rv ice , Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11475 A
U 1 Ironically, we now have prior inconsistent 2 statements by the NRC Staff that go directly to impute 3 the reliability of the -position that they take in this 4 proceeding, and Mr. Gallo says it's irrelevant. Mr.
5 Treby says it has nothing to do with the issues in this 6 case.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gallo, I don't want the 8 record to be distorted here.
~
9 It is true there is a reference to Byron in t!a 10 letter. There are also references to Braidwood, and I 11 don't want the record to be misleading on that point.
O)
( 12 Now, we already overruled your objection, Mr.
13 Gallo. Why are we still arguing here?
14 MR. G ALLO: The Boa rd has --
l 15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: If you have something to say, 16 when you originally objected, you should have said it.
17 Now, we overruled that, and we are having further 18 a rgumen t. We are not going to allow that.
19 MR. GALLO: I am trying not to --
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, Mr. Gallo, but I am not 21 talking about the prior rulings. I am talking about a 22 ruling on this particular question. We overruled it, 23 and then you come up with another argument.
l 24 Put all your arguments forward at the same time.
25 We don't want to keep on arguing and rearguing the same Sonntag_ Reporting se rvice Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11476
(~
1 objection.
'2 Now, we overruled the objections, and the witness 3 can answer the question.
4 MR. GALLO: One last word.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: No, Mr. Gallo, you are not l 6 entitled to always have the last word.
J 7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Do you wish to have the 8 question repeated to you?
9 THE WITNESS: Yes. I think I have forgotten 10 it.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I'm sorry. You are going to 12 have to repeat it again.
I 13 (The question was thereupon read by the 14 Reporte r. )
15 THE WITNESS: Yes, they do.
16 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the 17 document which I have marked as 100 be received in 18 evidence.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You object, Mr. Gallo, for 20 the same reasons you have stated?
21 MR. GALLO: And an additional reason.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes.
23 MR. GALLO: The subject matter of this 24 memorandum is highly prejudicial to my client.
25 Mr. Hayes, as far as ,know, is not going to be Sonntag Reporting Serkice. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 11477 1
1 called as a witness. I have no af fected means to 2 interrogate the basis for these statements and these 3 judgments; and for that reason, I would object to the 4 admission of the Intervenors' Exhibit 100, in addition 5 to the array objections already made.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild, are you offering 7 this to establish the witness's position on this matter 8 or also Mr. Hayes's position?
9 MR. GUILD: I am offering it to establish 10 this witness's position, Mr. Chairman.
11 MR. TREBY: The Staff objects on the grounds 12 that this letter does not deal with QA/QC of the 13 Comstock electrical workers at Braidwood.
14 It is true, as the Board pointed out, that it does 15 talk about QA evaluation and follow-up on the mechanical 16 equipment installation at Braidwood, but that is not the 17 issue in this proceeding; and for that reason, the Staff 18 objects.
l 19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine. We will receive that 20 doc ument.
21 (The-document was thereupon received into
, 22 evidence as Inte rvenors' Exhibit No.
23 100.)
24 BY MR. GUILD:
25 Q Mr. McGregor, I show you what has been marked previously l
Sonntag Reporting Se rvice. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
( (312) 232-0262
11478
/m U
1 as Intervenors Exhibit 3 in evidence. It is a series of 2 documents with a cover that is entitled Specific Trouble 3 Report.
4 I represent to you it is a 55E report regarding 5 problems with the electrical contractor, L. K.
6 Comstock's quality document program.
7 Attached to that 55E trouble report is an 8 Inspection Report cover letter dated January 27,'1984, 9 and exce rpts from the Inspection Report.
10 Let me let you examine those documents for a 11 momen t , sir, and ask whether or not, first, you have 12 seen those documents, Mr. McGregor.
13 (Indica ting. )
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me. Do we have those -
15 document s?
16 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir, it's Intervenors 3 in
- 17 evidence.
18 BY MR. GUILD:
19 Q Mr. McGregor, I represent to you it's not a complete i
20 copy of that Inspection Report. It's only pertinent f
21 portions.
l ,
22 A I am aware of this report. This is the Inspection i 23 Report that was written.
24 Q All right, sir.
I 25 A I have not seen the front page to that.
( Sonntag Reportin_g Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l
(312) 232-0262 _ . , _ . - , _ _ .
11479
,O) v 1 Q That is the Specific Trouble Report?
2 A Yes, sir.
3 0 All right, sir.
4 Are you familiar with the circumstances under which 5 the Licensee, Commonwealth Edison Company, made the 55E 6 or the potential significant deficiency report on the 7 subject that is indicated on that form and, that is, 8 problems with L. K. Comstock's document review program?
9 A I was aware of the inspector's concerns; but at the 10 moment, it escapes my recollection of a SSE written with 11 regard to the Comstock files.
( 12 Q All right, sir.
13 Did you have occasion yourself to have any contact 14 with representatives of Commonwealth Edison Company on 15 the subject of Comstock's problems with Comstock's 16 d oc umen t --
17 MR. GALLO: Objection. Relevance. It is 18 irr elevan t.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Overruled.
20 BY MR. GUILD:
21 Q I will repeat the question. I didn't complete the 22 question, eithe r.
23 Did you have occasion to have any contact with L.
24 K. Comstock or representatives of Commonwealth Edison
,) 25 Company, Mr. McGregor, on the subject of the adequacy of l
SonntagAceting Se rvice. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11480 A
}
1 1 Comstock's quality document program?
2 A Yes, sir, I did, i 3 Q All right.
i 4 Did you have any contact with representatives of f 5 either Edison or Comstock in the early January or
- 6 January, 1984 time frame.on that subject?
7 A The time frame that I was thinking of was in late '82.
8 Q I see.
9 Well, tell me about late '82 first if you would, i 10 please. What was the nature of your contact with Edison 11 or Comstock on the subject of the Comstock document
( 12 program at that time?
j 13 A It was shortly af ter Mr. Wallace was assigned to the l l 14 site.
i 15 I think this was brought out in my deposition that 16 Mr. Wallace came into my office and asked me of problem
- 17 areas that I had seen or that he shouJd be aware of at l 18 the site. I don't specifically recall a conversation,
- j. 19 but words to the effect that from what little I had 20 looked into L. K. Comstock's audit assurance department, 21 there were serious problems in it and that I thought I
j 22 they ought to look into it, and that was basically the i i
- 23 extent of it. ;
24 Q All right, sir. That was in late 19837 25 A Yes, sir.
l .
Sonntag_ Reporting service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l i
11481 Y
l Q After Mr. Michael Wallace was assigned as project 2 manager?
3 A Yes, sir.
4 Q Did you understand at the time that Mr. Wallace was 5 conducting a general review of the principle 6 contractors' programs as a result of NRC findings that 7 later got published in 8205?
8 A Yes, sir.
9 Q All right.
10 Later, then, after 1982, do you recall any 11 subsequent contact with either Commonwealth Edison
(
) 12 Company or Comstock management on the subject of the 13 adequacy of Comstock's document program? Par tic ula rly, 14 I am directing your attention to any contact prior to 15 Edison m4 king the SSE filing that is reflected in the 16 documents before you.
- 17 A Well, I had spoken with Mr. Corcoran, QC manager of L.
18 K. Comstock, and I don't recall the time -- he was there 19 a year, so that would have been from -- I don't know 20 when he was hired.
l
! 21 Q lie left in approximately October,1983?
22 A Yes. I think it would probably have been in, say, the
( 23 spring of '83.
l 24 0 All right, sir.
25 What was the nature of your contact with Mr.
1 I
1 Sonntag_Repor_tingJe rvico Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
- _ _ _ ~_ _ .__
(312) 232-0262
L. k 11482 O
d 1 Corcoran?
2 A Well, I was interested in what efforts were being done 3 to -- to research their files, their records, Comstock's 4 record keeping procedures. ,
1 5 He -- I don't recall his comments, but he had a 6 program to address it.
7 Q He described that program to you in substance?
8 A No, he didn't.
9 Q He referred to it?
10 A He referred to it that they were setting up a number of 11 people to look into the records, and they were going to 12 write procedures, et cetera.
13 Q All right, sir. i 14 Mr. Corcoran, the record will reflect, left in the 15 f all of 19 83. The date October sticks in my mind, but 16 please don't take that for gospel.
I 17 Did you at some point become aware that Mr.
l 18 Corcoran had left the site?
I 19 A Yes. I don't recall the month, but I did go over to see f
[ 20 him one day and went in and they said he had been
! 21 released.
l '.
! 22 Q You said they told you he had been released.
l 23 Who was "they"?
i
( 24- A Irv DeWald. "
I l 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me. Was the date l
~l l Sonnt ag Report ing Se rvice, Ltd.
1 Geneva, Illinois 60134
?
(312) 232-0262 .
11483
('~\
G l~ really August of 1983 rather than October? Does anyone 2 remember from the record?
3 MR. MILLER: Octobe r .
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, it was. That is fine.
5 MR. GUILD: I believe Mr. DeWald was on the 6 site for a time before Mr. Corcoran actually departed 7 the site, although Mr. DeWald had taken over his duties 8 as Quality Control manager.
9 BY MR. GUILD:
10 0 In any event, Mr. DeWald informed you that Corcoran had 11 been released; is that right?
12 A Yes, sir.
13 0 All right.
14 Did you make any inquiries about the cause for Mr.
15 Corcoran's release?
, 16 A Yes, I inquired; and I don't recall the exact words, but i
17 it was ve ry mild. It was like, "He wasn't doing a 18 satisfactory job" or words to that effect.
19 Q All right.
20 From what source did you hear that?
21 A From Irv DeWald.
I 22 O All right.
- 23 Did you subsequently have any contact f rom Mr.
j 24 Corcoran? Did you hear from Mr. Corcoran?
25 A If memory serves me correct, he called my office l
Sonntag_Repor_ ting _Se rvice . Ltd. ,
Geneva, Illinois 60134
. . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ (312) 232_0262_
. . . . - - . . . . - . . - -.. -. - - -.-=.. - . . . . - - -.. -
,1-i 11484
\
l approximately -- I will guess three or four months after I
2 he had been released and wanted to know if -- if there-i l 3 had been any actions taken with his concerns.-
4 I told him I didn't know of his concerns, and he 5 related to me that he had called the Commission.
6 I had -- was led to believe or maybe misunderstood 7 him, but I was led to believe that he had called j 8 Washington, D. C., because he said he spoke to the duty l
)
9 officer or words to that ef fect; that he was fired and i
10 that he had evidence to show, I think, falsification of 11 records.
12 I told him that I wasn't aware of that and would f 13 check into it.
4 14 I subsequently called the enforcement coordinator 15 at the Region III, and they told me that they were 16 verifying it.
17 Q Who is the enforcement investor you talked to?
18 A Chuck Weil.
19 Q Mr. Well.
20 Did you hear anything further on the subject of 21 following up the conce rns of Mr. Corcoran?
22 A No, sir.
23 Q All right, sir.
24 Now, I turn you back to this document that is 25 before you. The excerpts are from an Inspection Report Sonntag_ Reporting service. Ltd. l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11485
\,l x.J 1 fr'om the transmittal page dated January 27, 1984. They 2 reflect an inspection conducted by Mr. R. S. Love and 3 o the rs .
4 All right. For the period October 31st through 5 Janua ry 13, 19 -- Octobe r 31, 1983, through Janua ry 13, 6 1984, were you one of the others that participated in 7 that inspection, Mr. McGregor?
8 A No, sir.
9 Q Do you know who the others were aside from Mr. Love?
10 A I -- n o , si r , I do n ' t .
11 Q All right, sir.
rm 12 Now, at Page 7 of the details of the report, (U) 13 "After recounting a series of what I will characterize 14 as backlogs in various installation inspections and 15 document reviews, there is an observation that reads as 16 follows:"
17 ,
" Based on all the foregoing observations, NRC 18 expressed concern in regard to the ability of the 19 CECO /L. K. C. Organizations to continue new electrical 20 construction activities at their current pace."
21 "In summary, the constraining conditions are as 22 follows," and then there is a recitation of the details 23 of the basis for that conclusion.
24 At about the time of this Inspection Report, that
! 25 is, January, 1984, were you aware of such a concern by i
Sonntag Reporting _Se rvice. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
.. _ - _ - .=. --
11486 g3 I
lV 1 the NRC, Mr. McGregor?
2 A Yes. I think I said in Mr. Love's excerpt with 3 Commonwealth Edison; and he advised me prior to the 4 execution of the report -- or his draft report at the
^
5 time and then, of course, we saw the report after it was 6 issued.
- 7 0 All right, sir.
8 Now, Mr. DeWald has been a witness in this 9 proceeding, and he testified that at the time he became 10 Quality Control manager at L. K. Comstock Company -- and 11 that was in fall of '83 -- I want to say August, but I'm 12
) a little foggy on the dates.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Let me refer you to Page 7 14 here --
15 MR. GUILD: Thank you.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- which says, "It was also 17 observed that L. K. C. employed a new QC manager as of 18 August 1, 19 83, third within one yea r.
19 MR. GUILD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
20 BY MR. GUILD:
21 Q At the time Mr. DeWald became QC manager, August, 1983, 22 according to his testimony in this proceeding, there was 23 a considerable backlog in the performance of Quality 24 Control inspections of installations at the electrical s ,/ 25 contract of 14,000 in number.
fiQnntag_Repor ting _Se rvicee Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
. _ . . _ __ ._ _. _____. -__ ~- _ ._. . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
11487 p
4 C
4 1 Were you aware, generally, at the time that there 4
i- 2 was a backlog of QC inspections at Comstock?
l 3 A Yes, sir.
4 Q Mr. DeWald also testified that there was a backlog in 5 the review of quality documents at the time he became QC
{ 6 manager, and that backlog was in excess of 100,000, and I
7 I apologize for not having the specific figure.
8 A I think it's about 175,000.
j 9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I'm sorry. The witness has 10 answered.
1 j 11 Have you heard that?
4 l 12 MR. GUILD: I didn't, Mr. Chairman.
l l 13 THE WITNESS: I think it was about 175,000.
14 BY MR. GUILD:
15 Q To your recollection, you were aware of a document l 16 backlog on that order; is that right?
! 17 A Yes, sir.
I 18 Q Mr. McGregor, did you share the concern of Mr. Love and j 19 perhaps the othe rs who performed this inspection about 20 Comstock's ability to maintain current with ongoing 21 installation work because of the stats, the backlogs?
li 22 MR. GALLO: Objections.
l
- 23 Irrelevant.
i l 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I'm sorry. Could you repeat ,
i l 25 the question, please, Miss Reporter.
4 I
I Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
3 Geneva, Illinois 60134 i (312) 232-0262
11488
, N~ /
1 (The question was thereupon read by the 2 Reporter.)
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Overruled..
4 A Yes, sir; and I would like to have a moment to explain 5 my answer.
6 Q Please do.
7 A Because in late '83, we are already talking about the 8 hiring Cold hydro, the unit, and at that time we were l l
9 talking about preparation for fuel load. )
I 10 I can't speak for Mr. Love, but, in my opinion, the !
l 11 amount of work that had to be done and the amount of l
[d 12 13 electrical work that had to be done -- the amount of the electrical work with relation to the cable pulling, the 14 installation of cable trays, let alone the backlog of 15 inspections, it would be hard to conceive anybody 16 could -- could continue on that pace to meet the testing 17 date and the Cold hydro and still clear your backlog of 18 inspections.
19 Q All right, sir.
20 Mr. Chairman, could I ask for an opportunity to 21 approach the bench?
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, certainly.
23 MR. GUILD: Off the record.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Let's go into chambers.
I
,,, 25 (WHEREUPON, a recess was had, after which sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11489 y
i !
LJ 1 the hearing was resumed as follows:)
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Back on the record.
3 During the recess it was brought to the Board's 4 attention that we had gotten somewhat lax, and the 5 sequestration ruled that we had been invoked by the 6 parties originally and that we had allowed persons of 7 the same organization to be present in the courtroom 8 while witnesses f rom that organization were testifying, 9 and in any event it became apparent today that in 10 particular Mr. Little was present when he is assumed to 11 be called as a witness.
/m 12 In order to maintain a uniformity of the rule that (v- )
13 we applied, we've decided to ask Mr. Little not to be 14 present during the testimony being given now, but we 15 will certainly allow him the opportunity after he is 16 cross-examined by the non-NRC parties to be able to then 17 read the transcript of testimony that has been given and 18 to prepare rebuttal.
19 During tha t time, of course, the case will go 20 forw a rd, and we will hear other witnesses; and when the 21 NRC Staff has fully prepared Mr. Little, he will be 22 called back for Redirect at which time he can of fer 23 whatever rebuttal he can be prepared for on the basis of 7,
24 the transcript that he has read.
-l N
( ,) 25 Does that take care of whatever is before us now?
nnnntag nnnnreing enruicn; Lea _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11490
(~
lx_/ I 1 MR. G ALLO : I would just like to note 2 Applicant's obj ection to the procedure outlined by the 3 Board insofar as it prohibits Mr. Little from reading 4 the transcript of this proceeding before he takes a 5 stand in support of his direct filed testimony.
6 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Fine.
7 MR. TR EBY : The Staf f also had objected to 8 the procedure, and that should be noted.
9 One other matter, and that is:
10 I assume with regard to Cross Examination, the rule 11 will be the one that the Board announced, which is that
/x (R.j') 12 Cross Examination is limited to the scope of Direct 13 Examination.
14 JUDG E GROSSMAN: My understanding is that he 15 would be cross-examined on other areas, but let me 16 understand what Mr. Guild has in mind on that.
17 It may be that he is only preparing Cross 18 Examination on the areas covered in Direct.
19 MR. GUILD: Well, Mr. Little's testimony 20 consists of one paragraph, Mr. Chairman, in toto. I am 21 searching my memory, but if memory serves, Mr. Little is 22 listed as one of the Intervenor witnesses who was to be 23 called as part of Intervenors' case in any event; and 24 that as we've done so far in this proceeding, instead of 7-( )
( ,/ 25 recalling witnesses several times sponsored by separate Sonnt,g nenarting Scruica, Lta.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 .- _
11491 I '\
V 1 pa r ties, that I will be allowed to present testimony in 2 the scope of my direct case through him as an adverse 3 witness.
4 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Well, if there's a technical
. 5 problem with this, we can always have Mr. Guild call Mr.
6 Li t tl e, and then there's no question but that the rule 7 of sequestration applies to Mr. Little, but I don't 8 think we have to go through those motions.
9 ,I think Mr. Guild will be given the opportunity 10 regardless of whose witness he is considered to examine 11 before Mr. Little reads the transcript and examine to r~N i l 12 the full extent of what his examination is intended to QJ 13 be, and then Staf f will have the opportunity to fully 14 prepare Mr. Little for Redirect or whatever you want to 15 call it, but the second round of Staff examination, the 16 first round being whatever written prefiled testimony is 17 offered.
18 So that's the Board's ruling on that, and I think 19 that's entirely dispositive.
20 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I stand corrected.
21 Mr. Little is not among those persons we identified as a 22 witness, so I assume I'm bound by whatever the scope of 23 his direct testimony is, and I will follow that 24 principle.
[,h
() 25 MR. GALLO: I'm sorry. I missed that, nnnnen g nonnr ei ng nn rui cn; r+ a -
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11492 7-
? I
'wJ l MR. GUILD: Mr. Little is not one of our 2 witnesses. I will be bound by the scope of his direct 3 tes timony .
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, then I think we just 5 wasted a lot of time, so let's' proceed with Mr.
6 McGregor.
7 MR. GUILD: I don't think we did, Mr.
8 Ch airman. I think there's an appropriate reason for 9 having taken the time.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, okay. Tha t's fine. We 11 won't go into that any fur ther.
,o 12 BY MR. GUILD:
(a) Mr. McGregor, I want to show you a document that's dated 13 Q 14 February 6, 1984 -- it appears to be your signature --
15 to Mr. Weil.
16 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I would ask this 17 document to be : narked as Intervenors' Exhibit 101 for 18 iden ti fica tion.
19 (The document was thereupon marked 20 Intervenors' Exhibit No. 101 for 21 identification as of August 27, 1986.)
22 BY MR. GUILD:
23 Q The subj ect: Alleg a tions at Braidwood.
24 Mr. McGregor, do you recognize this as a memorandum A
- ( ,) 25 that you prepared and signed?
Ronntag Repor H ng En ru f en, Ltd_
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11493
()
/%
1 (In dica ting . )
2 A Yes, sir, I do.
3 Q It has attachments to it consisting of four pages that 4 appear to relate to allegations regarding L. K. Comstock 5 Company.
6 Can you recount, pl eas e, the circumstances in which 7 these attachments were brought to your attention?
8 A Yes. I honestly don' t recall if it was Mr. Wallace or a 9 person on the Staff or if it was the QA department of 10 Commonwealth Edison, but they brought to my attention 11 these allegations or letters or whatever we wish to call them.
( -)
~.
12 They supplied me with a copy of these, and I 13 merely wrote a memorandum to Chuck Weil and faxed it up 14 to him for the Commission to act upon it.
15 0 All right, sir.
16 Now, the memo is dated February 6, 1984, and 17 recites that, "Today I received from Commonwealth Edison 18 copies of two letters. "
19 The attachments are those two letters, are they 20 not?
21 A Yes, sir.
22 Q When the note says, "today," does that reflect that on l
23 Februa ry 6, '84, Edison made these documents available 1 24 to you?
l (~x
(_, 25 A Yes, si r ,
l l cnnne,g nnnnreing enrutcn; rea-Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11494 -
,y (v
1 Q All right, sir.
2 Let's turn to the first of those, Attachment 1.
3 This is a note that is otherwise in evidence was 4 introduced through the testimony of Mr. Rick Martin, and 5 it is your und-erstanding, is it not, that Mr. Martin is 6 the subj ect of this memo?
7 A Pardon me?
8 Q Mr. Martin is the subj ect of this note. He is the 9 addressee, Opie?
10 A At the time I didn' t know Mr. Martin, or -- I guess I --
11 yes, it is. I'm sorry.
.ex 12 Q Your cover letter seems to reflect that?
(n.-)
13 A Yes.
14 Q Now, were you aware at the time you received this note 15 from the Edison people that the note had been found in 16 Septembe r of 1983, some months before it was provided to 17 you?
18 A No, sir, I wasn't aware that it was in September that 19 the note was found.
20 Q All right, sir.
21 Did Mr. Wallace or whoever it was with Edison who 22 gave you this note recount to you the circumstances 23 under which it had been brought to Edison's attention?
I 24 A No, sir, I don't believe so.
l
( ,)
f 25 Q Do you recall any of the substance of the explanation l
nnnne,g nnpnreing norvico,_ r. e a .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11495
/
^$
l G')
1 given you by the source of these documents that 2 Commonwealth Edison restores?
3 ,
A No, sir.
4 Q Is my understanding correct that the last three pages, 5 first, a handwritten letter; a copy of the front of an 6 envelope, marked Attachment 2; a newspaper artic1c with 7 a date, 8-3-83, and handwriting saying, " Note Comstock,"
8 over a headline reading, "Sid to hide A-plant data 9 rejected," and a Xerox of the back of the envelope -- is 10 it your understanding that those last three pages 11 represented a letter that had been received by O) g
%J 12 Commonwealth Edison?
13 A Yes, sir, tha t's correct.
14 Q The letter addressed to Frank Rolan at L. K. Comstock?
15 A Tha t's correct.
16 Q Did the source wFo provided you these documents recount 17 how these documents, Attachment 2, had come to the 18 attention of Commonwcalth Edison Company?
19 A Well, evidently one was mailed to Commonwealth Edison, 20 and the other one they told me they had found. I 21 believe it was attached to a hanger, if memory serves me 22 correctly, in the plant.
23 They didn't tell me when it was found or any of the 24 circrmstances behind it.
k ,, 25 0 All right. I think I'm being unclear.
Snnneng nnnnr'ing gnrutcn, tra; Geneva, Illinois 60134 (212) 222-0262
11496 tf~^)
v 1 The first attachment was what was attached to a 2 hanger; is that correct?
3 A Tha t's correct.
4 Q Now, Attachment 2 is the last three pages. That's the 5 letter -- and I'm looking at the first page of 6 Attachment 2. It says, " Attention Frank Rolan, 7 Braidwood Sta tion. "
8 The last page of the letter has a Commonwealth 9 Edison Company addressed Braidwood Station.
10 Do you know whether this letter was sent to Edison 11 or to Comstock or both?
A 12 A Well, I think, if memory serves me correct, the (G) 13 Attachment 2 is a letter that's written to Frank Rolan 14 and mailed to Frank Rolan.
15 Q I see.
16 A And then the last two pages was a letter that I -- and 17 I Xeroxed it. It's Attachment 3 -- I Xeroxed the 18 envelope to Commonwealth Edison, and in that was just 19 this note from -- cut from a paper.
20 Q I see. And so --
21 A I think the last two pages are one allegation or 22 whatever it is, and then there's the allegation of 23 however you wish to consider it, Attachment 2, to Frank 24 Rolan and then the allegation to Dearest opic.
7~
I
( ,j) 25 0 All right, sir.
nenne,g nnnn r H ng en ru t en, r+a Geneva, Illinois 60134 t (312) 232-0262
11497 r~'s
-! 1 G'
1 It appears that the newspaper article recounts the 2 Byron Licensing Board's doings in some respect.
3 Comstock, to your knowledge, Mr. McGregor, wasn't 4 doing work at Byron, were they?
5 A Tha t' c correct.
6 Q All right, sir.
7 Now, you transmitted this to Mr. Weil, this 8 transmittal note of February 6, 1984.
9 What did you hear by way of response f rom Mr. Weil 10 or others?
11 A Nothing.
O
- 'R)i 12 Q Do you know if any action was taken on any of the three .
13 separate matters, the separate allegations, if we can 14 call them that?
15 A I think -- I'm not sure on this, but I think Mr. Schulz 16 was asked to look into the problem that was addressed to 17 Opie. I'm not sure on that.
18 Q All right, sir.
19 A I guess that I should give some information on the 20 allegation coordinator at Region III.
21 It was the policy at the site that I had was to 22 when we received an allegation, regardless of what it's 23 content was, we would immediately notify Chuck Weil by 24 telephone and then supply him either handwritten or, if (O,) 25 the secretary was there, a typed report that same day, ennne,g nnnnreing _nnruicn; r. e rt Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11498 73
> 1 Q ,/
1 Then it is up to the investigatin board within the 2 region to assign this work. They could immediately call 3 the residents and ask them to follow up on it. Th ey 4 could assign another Inspector. They could call an 5 Inspector from another region.
6 That's their options on handling allegations.
7 Q We've heard reference in this proceeding about an 8 Allegation Review Board.
9 Is that what you are referring to?
10 A Yes, sir.
11 MR. GUILD: So, Mr. Ch ahrman, I would ask
/m 12 that Intervenors' Exhibit 101 be received in evidence.
(v) 13 MR. GALLO: Can I conduct some voir dire?
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Certainly.
15 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 16 BY MR. G ALLO :
17 0 Mr. McG regor, I take it the first sheet that has your 18 signature on it -- this is your handwriting; is that 19 correct?
20 A Yes, sir, it is.
21 Q Let me make sure I understand the attachments.
22 Your letter saye tha t, "I received from 23 Commonwealth Edison copies of two letters, one mailed to 24 Commonwealth Edison." Let's focus on that one.
(,) 25 Now, which one of the attachments is that?
gnnne,g nonnreing gnruicn, r + r1 ;
Geneva, Illinois 60134 i
(312) 232-0262
11499 l \
!v) 1 Is that Attachment 3?
2 A Right. The article that's cut out of the paper dated 3 8-3-83 " Note Comstock" and the envelope on the next 4 page, Attachment 3, was a letter that was sent to 5 Comstock -- I'm sorry -- was sent to Commonwealth 6 Edison.
7 0 So the article was in the envelope?
8 A Yes, si r , the article was in the envelope.
9 And then the second letter is the letter to Frank 10 Rolan.
11 Q And --
f)
%J 12 A And then the first page of Attachment 1 is a note that 13 was found out in the plant attached to a hanger, if I 14 recall correctly.
15 Q Let's look a t Attachment 1.
16 Attachment 1 appears to be a composite of three 17 different pieces of paper.
18 Is this the form that you received it in from 19 Commonwealth Edison?
20 (Indica ting . )
21 A Yes, sir.
22 Q You see what I mean --
23 A ris, sir.
.s 24 0 -- that the left margin appearu to be under a note
() 25 letterhead, "From the desk of Frank Rolan," and there n
nnnne.,g nn,nreing nnrufen, r+ <1 ;
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
3 11500 O
\v) 1 appears to be his initials at the end of the note, and 2 then the next two items to the right appear to be the 3 notes that you refer to in your letter.
4 A I think you are absolutely correct. The bold print --
5 it looks like magic marker. The two columns -- I think 6 that was the extent of the note.
7 Q Can you read the date that's in the middle of the page 8 on Attachment l?
9 A It looks like to me " September 19th of 19," and that's 10 all I can read.
11 Q If you have already answered this question, I apologize, (n)
LJ 12 but who provided this to you?
13 A Well, I think what actually happened was -- I just have 14 to assume Commonwealth Edison received the first letter 15 and evidently kept it. That would be the 8-3-03 letter.
16 Q So you believe --
17 A And then --
18 0 Go ahead.
19 A And then the -- I think what spur: ed on this whole 20 conglomeration of notes was the letter to Frank Rolan in 21 1-23-84.
- 22 Q But the source of all the papers were Commonwealth l 23 Edison?
i 24 A Yes, sir. And so at that time -- well, what was it, O
l l
() 25 February the 6th? Right.
Annn Eng Donn r F i ng Fo rtr i co ; T F rl .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11501 0
1 .
On February the 6th, commonwealth Edison said, 2 "Look. We've got some allegations that you ought to be 3 aware of," and they showed me, and I copied these
,4 allegations and related them.
5 0 Mr. McGregor, can you tell me -- looking at Attachment 6 1, is that your handwriting the actual word attachment 7 A Yes.
8 Q -- in Figure l?
9 A Yes, sir.
10 0 It's the same as Figure 27 11 A Yes.
12 MR. GALLO: Thank you.
13 Judge Grossman, I would have no objection if the 14 purpose of the submicolon of this into evidence is for 15 the limited purpose that Mr. McGregor was conveyed these 16 documents, these attachments, through Mr. Knopp up to 17 Mr. Well; but if they are admitted for the truth or 18 falsity, in particular the newspaper article, I would 19 object on that ground.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, the newspaper article 21 doesn't even relate t6 Braidwood, and I would assume 22 that is not the purpose.
23 I assume, Mr. Guild, that you are willing to have 24 it admitted under that limited purpoue?
25 MR. GUILD: For the purpose of showing what nnnntag nopnrH ng norutco; r.st _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11502 i o t (G1 !
\
1 Mt. McGregor transmitted to Mr. Weil for action.
2 MR. GALLO: I have no obj ection.
I 3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Treby ?
4 MR. TRESY: Staf f obj ects on the same grounds l
l 5 tha t we don' t believe it's r elevant. Particularly l t
6 Attachment 2 has nothing to do with Comstock workers at 7 the Braidwood site. Attachment 1 doesn't have that. In I
8 offect, it does deal with Comstock workers at the l l
9 Draidwood site, but It appears if it's harassment or :
10 intimidation that it is f rom craf t people as opposed to 11 QA/QC people, and we don't believe that it's within the :
l 12 scope of this proceeding.
i b JUDGE GROSS!!AN: Okay. I understand that l
l 13 l
{ i 14 this is being offered for the same purposes that we had l
15 lent the objections in the first place, and so we will 16 treat this consistently and admit it. ;
i 17 MR. GUILD: !!r. Chairman, excuse me, sir, !
l 18 but, you know, I don't know how warm we have to get for 19 Mr. Treby to be satisfied. l 20 Attachment 2 is addressed to Frank Rolan of 21 Comstock. That certainly is relevant to Comstock, and 22 Attachment 1 has been the subj ect of testimony in this l I
23 proceeding t' a t Mr. Treby has just missed having to do 24 with management's response at Comstock to harassment of sj 25 the Quality Control Inspectors, so these are more direct nnnnt,a nepareinn nnrvien- t *A l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11503 f)
N 1 and pertinent, of course, to the harassment condition.
2 lt should satisfy even Mr. Treby's obj ection of 3 relevance.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, just to offer replys 5 to arguments that we've heard once the ruling has been 6 made serves no purpose here except to delay the hearing, 7 so we will admit this document under the limited 8 purposes expressed by Mr. Gallo and agree to by Mr.
9 Guild noting the objections of Staff; but for the 10 reasons that we've already indicated, we are overruling 11 those objections, so let's continue.
O
( T 12 (The document was thereupon received into
\- /
13 evidence as Intervenors' Exhibit No.
14 101.)
15 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 16 (Continuing.)
17 DY MR. GUILD:
18 Q Now, let's look at attachment -- the newspaper article 19 that was transmitted to Commonwealth Edison Company 20 marked Attachment 3.
21 Now, the substance of that newspaper article indeed 22 relateu to Byron hearings apparently but talks about 23 charges of shoddy construction and lax inspection 24 practices. It talks about whistle blowers, and b)
(, 25 apparently there was some highlighting on the newspaper gnnne,g nnnnreing gnru4cn; r F ri -
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 11504
(
s /
%J l article that was transmitted to Commonwealth Edison; is 2 that correct, Mr. McGregor?
3 A Yes, sir.
4 Q All right. The highlighting is in a sentence that reads 5 in full, "They contended that many welds in the 6 electrical system were deficient in critical areas, 7 substandard concrete was used and inspection programs to 8 catch such flaws were sloppy."
9 It appears f rom my poor copy that "many welds" were 10 highlighted, " electrical systems" was highlighted and 11 " sloppy" was highlighted.
(A)
N~ ~/
12 MR. TREBY: I obj ect. I don' t find this at 13 all productive.
14 MR. GUILD: I haven't even asked a question, 15 Mr. Chairman.
16 JUDGE G ROSSMAN: Excuse me.
17 Let me first say interrupting, the Chairman recedes 18 from his comments as to whether or not this is 19 applicable to Braidwood.
20 Now, continue, Mr. Guild, and then we will hear an 21 objection from Mr. Treby.
22 MR. GUILD: All right, sir.
23 BY MR. GUILD:
24 Q Uow, at the top of the article, Mr. McGregor, it says s ) 25 " Note Comstock".
nnnn e ng nopnreing gnrufcn, rea-Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11505 A
I )
%_,1 1 of course, Comstock did the electrical work 2 including welding at Braidwood, did they not?
3 A That's correct.
4 0 Did you understand this note as reflecting the apparent 5 point f rom this anonymous author, source, that there 6 were indeed many welds in the electrical system that 7 were sloppy at Braidwood?
8 A .Well, that's what I ga thered by the person's' intent. 1 9 The thing that had me confused was the back of the 10 envelope, which is Xe roxed.
11 Right below Attachment No. 3, it says, "You better f
12 check the testing and field," and I. didn' t quite (w- )
13 understand what the man -- or the person -- I shouldn't 14 say man. I don't know who it was.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me. But you did 16 understand --
17 THE WITNESS: 'l e s , si r .
18 JUDGE GROSSMAU: -- that the writer was 19 referring to Comstock as perhaps creating the same kinds 20 of problems that the newspaper article indicated --
21 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
22 JUDG E GROSSMAN: -- were present at Byron?
23 TH E WITNES S : Yes, sir.
24 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Okay.
O N l
(j I 25 BY MR. GUILD:
rnnntag pn,nnrting gnrulen, Lta_
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11506 i i x__/
1 Q On the last point you made, Mr. McGregor, do you know 2 what " field" is as a term of art?
3 It has quotes around it.
4 A I don't know what the person is meaning by " field" with 5 quotations. I didn't understand that.
6 Q Fine. All right, sir.
7 In any event you are not aware of any response from 8 the region, Mr. Weil or others, to Attachment 3, th e 9 newspaper article?
10 A No, sir.
11 Q All right. Attachment 2, the letter to Frank Rolan.
A
( ) 12 Any response from Mr. Weil or region?
LJ 13 A Not that I'm aware of.
14 0 I think you had some understanding that perhaps Mr.
15 Schulz may have looked into the notes that were written 16 to Mr. Martin but you are not certain of that, I take it 17 it?
18 A That's correct, sir.
19 0 The record reflects, Mr. McG r ego r, that there was indeed 20 long af ter a response by regional people to the item 21 regarding Mr. Martin but not by Mr. Schulz.
22 MR. TR EDY : I object. It's not a question.
23 It's just a statement.
24 MR. GUILD: It is indeed just a statement.
() 25 JUDG E GROSSMAN: It's certainly not evidence, annnt,g nonnr ei ng no ru i cn; r+ c1.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11507 4
9 1 Mr. Treby, and we won't rely on that.
2 MR. GUILD: Moving on.
3 DY MR. GUILD:
4 Q I'll show you a memorandum, Mr. McG regor, addressed to 5 you and Mr. Schulz from Mr. Forney;
Subject:
Assignment 6 of Resoonsibilities.
7 It appears to bear a date of the March 27, 1984.
8 (Indicating.)
9 Now, sir, can you tell me whether you've seen this 10 before?
11 A Yes, sir, I have.
12 Q Did you receive a copy of it on about the date that 13 appears on its face, March of '84?
14 A Yes, si r.
15 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I asked that this 16 be marked as Intervenors' 102 for identification.
17 (Indica ting . )
10 (The document was thereupon marked 19 Intervenors' Exhibit No. 102 for 20 identification as of August 27, 1986.)
21 BY MR. GUILD:
22 0 Now, Mr. Schulz by this point had joined you as a 23 resident at Braidwood; correct?
24 A Yes, sir.
25 Q Did you at that time work for Mr. Forney?
Onnntig Pennr eing Service, Led; Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11508
/'N 1 Was he your section chief ?
2 A Yes, sir.
3 Q Mr. Forney, by this memorandum, appears to be assigning 4 responsibilities between you and Mr. Schulz and 5 designating you as the lead between the two of you 6 gentlemen.
7 Is that a correct understanding?
8 A Yes, sir.
9 0 The second paragraph reads, "Because of the status of 10 construction, the many past problems at the Draidwood 11 site and Leonard McGregor's f amiliarity to the issues, f) v 12 the licensee's organization and the licensee's 13 commitments and recovery program, he will function as 14 lead SRI. I expect the two of you to work closely and 15 harmoniously," et cetera.
16 Next pa ragraph: "Lon, you should spend 30 to 40 17 percent of your time on the MC 2513/2514 programs with 18 the remainer of your time devoted to MC 2512 activities 19 and managing office functions."
20 All r igh t, sir. Now, what's the reference to the 21 MC and numbers there, Mr. McG regor ?
22 A That reference 2513 is a reference to the modular 23 inspection program that we spoke about earlier with 24 regard to preoperational and the start of program, O)
(, 25 preoperational being 2515 and start up being 2514 annntag nnporting nnruinn. r. t a .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
{
l 11509 I program.
l 2 The 2512 program is the construction inspection l
l 3 modules or inspection procedures.
4 Q All right, sir.
5 Do I understand correctly, then, that some 60 6 percent of your time was to be devoted to the 7 construction-related activities by way of !!r. Forney's 8 direction --
9 A Yes, sir.
10 Q -- in the memo?
11 14r. Schulz was also to devote his time to those 12 conster.ction-reinted activities ?
13 A Yea, sir.
14 !!R. GUILD: 24r. Chairman, I asked that l
15 Intervenors' 102 be received in evidence.
16 JUDGE GROSS!!AN: Any obj ection?
17 !!R. TR EDY : Staf f objects on the same 10 grounda; not relevant.
19 !!R. G ALLO: Same objection.
20 J UDG E G ROSS!!AN : Admitted.
21 (The document was thoroupon roccived into 22 evidence ao Intervenorc' Exhibit No.
23 102.)
24 DY MR. GUILD:
25 Q Now, sir, in Auguut of 1984, I believe you atill were nn nn t a g u npt ri.in g nerulca f *1 ; -
t Genova, 1111 nolo 60134 (312) 232-0262
i ;
1 i
11510 ,
l O !,
l !
j 1 assigned to Braidwood in performing duties as reflected l 2 in the assignment of responsibilities, this memo from ;
3 Mr. Forney, Intervenors' Exhibit 102; is that correct?
4 A Yes, sir. ,
j 5 0 All right. Did a letter written by an L. K. Comstock l
l 6 Quality Control Inspector named John Seedora come to j t
j 7 your attention at about that time, August of 19847 !
8 A tiot to mine. i i
9 It did, I believe, come to Mr. Schulz. i 10 Q All right, sir. j l 11 Indeed, Mr. Schulz was listed by name on copy on j 12 that letter.
13 Did you become aware of the letter?
l l
14 A Yea, air, I did. I
[
15 0 All right. Did you ever read a copy of it? l l
I'm aure I glanced at it, but I don't recall -- I didn't '
16 A 17 fix it into my inapection program because Dob, !!r. ,
I f j 18 Schulz, was assigned to tir. Sceders' --
l l
i l 19 0 All right, sir. l l !
l 20 A -- contentions, i
l 21 Q All right, ai r.
l 22 Indeed, the record reflects through tantimony of l
I 23 othera that Mr. Schulz did cubacquently apeak with Mr.
24 Scedera and ultimately wrote and authored an inapection j 25 report on the uubject.
\ !
I [
! nnantag_RepnrH ng noroicc, r.ht i
! Coneva, Illinola 60134
- f. (312) 232-02G2
I f
11511 l l CN I (v) ,
i 1
1 Were you generally informed that Mr. Seeders had 6 I
l 2 raised concerns about harassment and intimidation about !
l 3 production pressure in this letter to Mr. Schulz ? ;
4 A Yes, sir. In fact, I recall Mr. Seeders coming into the 5 office and talking to Bob.
I i
6 I basically stayed out of it because Bob was in 7 construction, and frankly, I wanted to see how he would l
8 handle the allegation. l l
9 0 All right, sir.
l 10 Now, very shortly thereaf ter af ter Mr. Sceders' 11 letter to Mr. Schulz arrived, did you have occasion to 12 become aware of concerns expressed by another L. K.
13 comstock employee, former Level III Inspector Worley 14 Puckett? [
15 A Yes, sir.
16 Q Under what circumstances did Mr. Puckett's concerns come 17 to your attention?
18 A I'm confuuing myuelf with probably -- no, I gueou it did l l
19 happen.
20 It was either a message -- a note was either left l
21 in my office, but I'm thinking that a Comstock employee !
22 came in and handed the note to me and said, "Would you 23 please call this individual. It's important."
24 0 I sec. Let me show you what's been marked and roccived 25 in evidence as Applicant's Exhibit 71.
l nnnntng nnnnretng noruicn. r#,L Geneva, Illinois 60134
)
(312) 232-0262
[- _--
l ______.-.-____-.___.__________l 1 1
11512 l 1 It's an August 28, 1984, memorandum from you ;
i j 2 apparently to Mr. Weil and Mr. Warnick, and let me ask 3 you if you take a moment and examine that document and i 4 refresh your recollection.
5 (In dica ting . )
6 A Yes, sir. I'm familiar with the document. ,
f 7 Q All right. You wrote that document, I take it? I l
8 A Yes, si r. I l
9 Q Now, comcone, as you recall now, from Comstock came in l 10 with a note that asked you to contact Mr. Puckett at !
11 that phone number?
I 12 A Yes, sir.
13 Q Can you recall who it was that brought the note? f I l 14 A Ho, air. I didn't ask his name nor did he give it to 15 me. I l'
16 Q You placed a call to Mr. Puckett?
17 A Yea, sir, I did. ;
L la Q I take it you found him at that number in Ohio --
19 A Yea, sir.
20 0 -- at his home? !
l 21 Docu the memorandum that'a been received in j 22 evidence an Applicant's Exhibit 72 represent your 23 memorialization of that convernation with Mr. Puckett? l l
24 A Yoo, air. i 25 Q All right. Ilad you had any dealingo with !!r. Puckett Sonntag_ncparEing Snre!cn: r + ,1.
Geneva, Illinola 60134 (312) 232-0262
11513 0
1 when he was on site prior to his termination?
2 A No, si r.
3 0 !!ow long did the telephone conversation take place; do 4 you recall? Was it a matter of minutes or longer?
5 A It was quite lengthy because I asked him to -- I tried 6 to cunfirm everything he said and to repeat things so 7 that I could make notes from his conversation.
8 0 All right. You asked him questiona, I take it?
9 A Yes, sir.
10 0 All right. You recount the substance of what he had to 11 cay more or less on a narrative form, but I take it that 12 it was not a verbatim record of the two-way 13 conversa tion ?
14 A No, si r.
15 0 It was a record, was it not, of the substance of what he 16 had to say to you?
17 A Yea, sir.
18 0 The second page of that memo, if I might hold it a 19 accond, sir -- I guesu the third page of the memo has a 20 portion of the memo that appeara under the words "From 21 L. ticGregor," and I take it that partiin of the 22 memorandum 10 your evaluationa and concluolona with 23 regard to what !!r. Puckett had told you that you 24 transmitted to the region?
25 (Indica ting.)
l MQa d g g gQrFIng ResrvI(*a. f.P el _
L Geneva, Illinoin 60134 (312) 232-0262
11514 9
1 A Yea, air. We tried to advloe the Board as to our 2 thoughts.
3 0 The Allegation Review Doard?
4 A Yea, air.
5 Q Those who would decide how the region was going to 6 respond to this allegation?
7 A Yes, sir.
8 Q All right. You made certain recommendations that were 9 based on your conclusions with regard to Mr. Puckett's 10 concerno; correct?
11 A Yea, sir.
12 0 I'm looking at the accond peragraph under the words 13 "From L. !!cGregor. "
14 "As Senior Resident Inapector at Draidwood, I would 15 recommend t1RC requent the Construction Acaccament Team 16 headquartera to do a full exarination of the electrical 17 contractor, piping contractor and the IUAC contractor 18 now immediately and that the independent dealgn 19 verification program be continued by headquartera,
! 20 Sargent t. Lundy, CECO design and design review work."
t l 21 tiow, I take it that you were making thoce l
l 22 recommendations in part based on what !!r. Puckett had I
23 just told you but also in part of based on your 24 observationa and experience in the parformance of your j 25 work ao a Site Resident Inspector?
l l ,
comttag_ncpar e i nn naruice; LtA Geneva, 1111 nolo 60134 l (312) 232-0262
11515 A
(v) 1 A Tha t's correct.
2 Q Of course, Mr. Puckett was not doing work in the HVAC 3 area or the piping area?
4 A Well --
5 Q All right.
6 A That is the obligation or t hat is the charter of the 7 Construction Accessment Team, normally referred to as a 8 CAT team, and I expounded upon the CAT team, and they 9 address all of these areas; so I was requesting that the 10 CAT team, Construction Acacacment Team, come to 11 Braidwood along with the further continued headquarters O l work on the integrated design inspections that they were
( 12
%J 13 conducting at Byron and Braidwood.
14 0 All right, si r.
15 Now, in fact, did the CAT team f rom headquarters 16 come now, immediately, in August of 1984 to incpect the 17 areas that you recommended, including the electrical i
10 work?
4 19 A No, si r.
j 20 0 The memo concludea, paragraph, "Some of these 21 allegations appeared to correlate with John Seeders' 22 allega tiona of August 17, ' 04, auch no raanagement'c 23 alleged concern with quantity rather than thorough 24 inapection efforta."
25 I take it that that reficcto your general l
nanntag_RepnrH ng nnru kn, r+a Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11516
--~
! \
w./
l 1 understanding of what Mr. Seeders' concerns were?
2 A That's correct.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me.
4 When did the Construction Assessment Team come to 5 Braidwood, if at all?
6 THE WITNESS: I think they finished their --
7 they came in, to be very specific -- it was a split time 8 frame. It was two weeks in December.
9 They went back to headquarters for the Chrismas 10 holidays, and then they came back and finished the CAT 11 inspection the first two weeks in January, gs
( ) 12 BY MR. GUILD:
u-13 Q Of which year, Mr. McGregor?
14 A I ' m so r ry . It's '84 and '85.
15 Q Finished in January of '85?
16 A In January of '85.
17 Q Isn't it truc, sir, that the decicion was made to not 18 call the CAT team to come in in the f all of '84 because 19 the region wanted to give Commonwealth Edison Company --
20 MR. G ALLO : Obj e ction.
21 He is leading the witness with these kinds of 22 questions. It's his witness. It seems to me -- and the 23 reason I interrupted him was that he wouldn't tip the
,- 24 witness further as to what the answer would be.
/ i t (,/ 25 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Okay. Mr. Guild.
nnnneag nnporeing go ru i co f.F a _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
, 11517 i '.
, )
v 1 MR. G ALLO :' Make them nonleading questions.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild, try and phrase it 3 more neutrally. I know we are trying to save time here.
4 These matters that were covered in depositions? No.
5 Try and phrase that question more neutrally.
6 MR. CUILD: All right, sir.
7 The implication should not stand that somehow Mr.
6 McGregor, who is an employee of the Nuclear Regulatory 9 Commission, is a witness. That's under the control of 10 the Intervenors, Mr. Chairman.
11 JUDGS GROSSMAN: Well --
12 MR. GUILD: I think it's appropriate.
(v) JUDGE GROSSMAN: Of course he is not. He is 13 14 not either a hostile witness or a f riendly witness, 15 really.
16 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: So --
18 MR. GUILD: I'll try to rephrase the 19 question.
20 BY MR. GUILD:
21 Q The CAT team didn't come in the fall of ' 84, didn' t come 22 in August. They came later in December and January.
23 Are you astare first, tir. McG rego r, that in June of i
24 1984, Mr. Keppler and Mr. O'Connor agreed on the
(/-mN,)
l 25 performar.ce of the so-called Braidwood Construction I
nnnn en g nnpnr H ng no ru i co,_ r.FrL Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11518 m
( )
\/
1 Assessment Program to address past problems at 2 Braidwood?
3 A Yes, sir.
4 Q The BCAP program at the time you wrote your memo, August 5 28, 1984, was basically just getting off the ground?
6 A That's correct, sir.
7 Q All right. Did you hear back any explanation -- was 8 there any relationship between the timing of the CAT 9 team and the pendency of the Braidwood Construction 10 Assessment Program, to your knowledge?
11 A I think it would be f air to say that the Commission
( ) 12 wanted to examine some of the work that the BCAP v
13 inspection program was undertaking.
14 I think, if my memory serves me correctly, the CAT 15 team was scheduled to be on site in either June or July 16 of that specific year,1984, and I guess that's why I 17 said "now" in my reference that they were cancelled in 18 June or July, and so I asked, "Now, let's get the CAT 19 team out here to look at these problems."
20 0 All right, si r.
21 The fact of the matter is, Mr. McGregor, originally 22 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was going to send its 23 own inspection team, the Construction Assessment Team,
,_ 24 to do a wide-ranging examination of the quality of
()
/ 's 25 construction in Braidwood and do it in mid-1984 but Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd_
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11519 s
Cl 1 instead the NRC deferred to Commonwealth Edison Company 2- and allowed them to undertake and substantially perform 3 their own internal Braidwood Construction Assessment 4 Program before the CAT team went to Braidwood.
5 MR. TREBY: I object. Mr. Guild is 6 testifying. That's not a question.
7 MR. GUILD: It is indeed a question.
8 MR. TR EB Y : The fact of the matter le --
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: He is asking the witness if 10 that's the case, and I think we will save time for the 11 witness just to answer that. Whether it's leading or
,s
( ) 12 not, I don't see any harm.
w/
13 If it's not the case, the witners will say it. If 14 it is the case, he'll agree to it.
15 Was that the case?
16 MR. TREBY: He hasn't established any basis 17 upon which this witness would have such knowledge.
18 MR. GUILD: He is a Resident Inspector, Mr.
19 Treby.
20 J UDGE GROSSMAN: He will indi ca.tc if he 21 doesn't know.
22 Do you know what Mr. Guild stated is so?
23 THE WITNESS : As I said before, the
,_ 24 discussion within the Commission, as I recall it, was
( ,)
i s 25 that they wanted -- the CAT team wanted to look at the snnn eng p npn rH ng gn rui nn, ry a _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11520
! )
\s,s' 1 BCAP's inspection work and that's -- as I understood it, 2 that's why it was in June-July time f rame and later 3 assessed in December.
4 BY MR. GUILD:
5 Q But it was your recommendation August of 1984 that 6 notwithstanding the existence of the BCAP program that 7 the CAT team come now, immedi ately, to look at the 8 subjects you recommended?
9 A Yes, sir, that's correct.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me.
11 Do you know why it came in December rather than at
<^x 12 the end of August or beginning of September, as you
( )
\J 13 r equested ?
14 THE WITNESS: I think -- and I would just 15 have to suppose -- well, the time f rame for the CAT 16 inspection was best fitted into that window or that time 17 fraiae late December and early January. I don't believe 18 there was ample time to come later in the year, 1985, 19 and I'm not sure they were available for August, 20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: No, no. I'm asking why they 21 didn't come in August or September of 1984 as you had 22 requested that they come immediately then but instead 23 came later in December,
,_ 24 Do you know why that was the case?
I ')
I would have to guess that was
(_ / 25 THE WITNESS :
Annneng annorH ng snruico; r. e rl _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11521 i I x,/
1 time restraints.
2 J UDG E G ROSSMAN : I'm sorry. What?
3 THE WIUNESS: Time restraints on the CAT 4 team --
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
6 THE WITNESS: -- to get there in August.
7 They are doing other inspections in other 8 facilities in other regions, and their best time frame 9 to come to Braidwood was December, January.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. That's what you 11 believe, then?
,/ m
( j 12 THE WITNESS: That's what I believe, sir.
N/
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
14 BY MR. GUILD:
15 Q Mr. McGregor, did you get a response from Mr. Weil or 16 Mr. Warnick to the memorandum that you wrote August 28, 17 1984, with regard to the recommendations that you made 18 about an immediate CAT team visit and with regard to the 19 Independent Design Verification Program?
20 A No, sir.
21 Q Did you get any response with regard to Mr. Pu cke tt ' s 22 concerns in your recitation regarding technical issues 23 and also his concern regarding his retaliatory 7
24 dis charge ?
! i 25 A No, sir.
( ,j nnnneng unpnreing noruico, r+a-
'G e n ev a , Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11522
{ \
U 1 Q Did you get invited to the region to sit in on an 2 Allegation Review Board meeting to consider what the 3 appropriate NRC follow-up should be to Mr. Puckett's 4 concerns, either the technical concerns or his concerns 5 regarding his termination?
6 A No, sir.
7 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I've distributed a 8 document that I asked be marked as Intervenors' Exhibit 9 103 for identification.
10 (Indica ting . )
11 (The document was thereupon marked 12 Intervenors' Exhibit No. 103 for (x. s) 13 identification as of August 27, 1986.)
14 BY MR. GUILD:
15 Q This is an October 31, '84, document, Mr. McG regor, that 16 appears to be addressed to you and Mr. Schulz from Mr.
17 Forney.
18 Again, it's entitled, " Assignment of 19 Responsibilities," and it makes reference to the March 20 27, '84, memo that has been received as Intervenors' 21 Exhibit 102.
22 Do you recall receiving this memo from Mr. Fo rney ?
'23 A Yes, sir, I do.
_s 24 Q Now, this memo appe.ars to alter the assignment of y ) 25 responsibility among you and Mr. Schulz and also makes gnnntag popnreing gnrhico, r+a.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11523
\
~ ,,I 1 reiference to another Inspector named Ron Gardner, does 2 it not?
3 A Yes, si r, it.
4 Q Mr. Gardner is referred to in the bottom paragraph and 5 happens to be sitting here in the hearing room as well.
6 What position does Mr. Gardner hold today, if you 7 know?
8 A I believe it's a section chief for Braidwood underneath 9 Mr. Little. He is the director and, I believe, Mr.
10 Gardner is the section chief for Mr. Lit tle.
11 Q All right, sir.
(\
( ) 12 Mr. Gardner in that capacity supervised the w/
13 inspection at the residents at Braidwood?
14 A No.
15 At this particular time there was not structure of 16 the Commission at this particular time.
17 Q Wait a second. Let me be clear.
18 When I say "now," I mean now, today, August, 1986.
l 19 A Now, today, yes, sir.
l 20 Q All right. Thank you.
21 A At the time this was written -- and I don't recall when 22 Mr. Gardner was promoted. I think it was after I left 23 the site. The structure then was Mr. Little is the 24 Director. He had two Project Inspectors, Mr. Farber and
( ) 25 Mr. Pelke, working for him within the region, and Ron l
l Annntnc Wonnreinn An rui co _ r+ d _
Geneva, Illinois 6013/.
t (312) 232-0262
i i
11524 g .
/ \
i /
K./
1 was assigned to follow the BCAP inspection efforts at 2 Braidwood, which he did.
3 Q All righ t, sir.
4 This memorandum now, the October 31, '84, memo, to 5 you and Mr. Schulz from Mr. Forney states in part, 6 second paragraph, " Leonard will continue to be the lead 7 SRI with responsibility to manage office functions,"
8 which you are to manage," quote, "the remainder of the 9 time is to be devoted to inspection of MC 2513 and 2514 10 activities only."
11 Now, does that mean you are being directed not to s
( ') 12 inspect any construction-related activities, Mr.
LJ 13 McGregor?
14 A Tha t's correct.
15 0 " Bob has the sole responsibility for inspection of MC 16 2512 activities and should devote the majority of time 17 to MC 2512 procedures," et cetera.
18 Now, does that reflect that Mr. Schulz solely was 19 to do the construction-related activities?
20 A Yes, sir, it does.
21 0 Now, as of this date, October 31, 1984, Mr. McGregor, 22 did you retain any open or unresolved items or items of 23 noncompliance that you had identified which you were
,_ 24 still assigned to follow up enclosed that were
( ,)
/
25 construction related?
nnnneng angnrei ng snreicn, i.e a -
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
l' i 11525
~
\' l 1 A Yes, sir. The open items, unresolved items or items of 2 noncompliance remained with either Bob or myself, 3 whoever had identified them for closeout.
4 0 All right, sir.
5 Se you were not assigned to do any new 6 construction-related inspections, but you were still 7 permitted to follow up the older items on the 8 construction side which you had identified?
9 A That's correct.
10 Q All right, sir, 11 Now, the second to the last paragraph on Page 1 of
( ) 12 the exhibit talks about doing separate inspection
%/
13 reports, and it states, "This action will enhance my 14 ability to prepart a FY," tha t is, fiscal year, "85 15 performance appraisal which is reflective of your 16 individual abilities to prepare a timely, clear, con cise 17 report."
18 After Mr. Forney's direction, did you und Mr.
19 Schulz prepare separate inspection ?
20 A Yes, sir, we did.
21 Q Last paragraph: "Ron Gardner will continue to be 22 responsible for the overview / inspection of the Braidwood 23 BCAP activities. It is expected that BCAP activities 7,
24 will be the predominant inspection of past work
/ '\
( ,) 25 activities, as well as MC 2512 inspections of past work ennneng nnpnreing noruicn, r+a Geneva, Il.'inois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11526
( i
- j' 1 activities which will be performed by Division of 2 Reactor Safety personnel. "
3 Now, sir, do I correctly interpret that paragraph 4 as meaning that the region was going to rely primarily 5 on Mr. Gardner's inspection of BCAP as representing the 6 Commission's inspection of past work quality at 7 Braidwood?
8 A Did you say Ron Gardner solely or -- I'm sorry?
9 Q The BCAP inspection as the predominant basis for 10 inspecting past work quality at Braidwood.
11 A I would assume that's wha t the paragraph means because 12 we were directed to look at operations and ongoing
[J) 13 construction work only.
14 0 You and Mr. Schulz ?
15 A Tha t's correct.
16 Q It was someone else's responsibility to look at the 17 quality of past work, either Mr. Gardner under the BCAP 18 cubj ect or others?
19 A Yes, sir.
20 0 Now, of course, in addition to Mr. Gardner, there's a 21 reference made here: "As well as MC 2512 inspections of 22 past work activities which will be performed by Division 23 of Reactor Safety personnel."
_s 24 Now, what is the reference to Division of Reactor
( ,) 25 Safety personnel mean, Mr. McGregor?
conneng nnpnreing corvinn; r.ei Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11527 N,#
1 A I suppose one, if you consider that as the engineering 2 portion of the Region III specialist inspectors within 3 electrical, mechanical, the QA section, these inspectors 4 would then follow up -- would be assigned to come out to 5 the plant and follow up on past construction work.
6 0 All right. Does Mr. Schapker f all into that catecory?
7 A Yes, sir.
8 Q How about Mr. Mendez ?
9 A Yes, sir.
10 Q Mr. Peisler?
11 A Yes, sir.
( i 12 Q How about Mr. Muffitt?
L) 13 A Yes, si r.
14 0 Mr. Jacobson?
15 A Yes, sir.
16 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I ask that 17 Intervenors' 103 be received in evidence.
18 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Same obj ections?
20 MR. GALLO: Same obj ection.
- 21. MR. TR EBY : In particular, I would note that 22 one of the things that was talked about here is 23 performance. Certainly it's internal administrative 24 matters, but the same obj ection.
I,_ T
( ,/ 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Received.
l l cnnn eng nnnnrei ng en rui co, t.e a -
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11528 7
i \
L ,1 1 (The document was thereupon received into 2 evidence as Intervenors' Exhibit No.
3 103.)
4 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I have distributed 5 another document I asked be marked as Intervenors' 6 Exhibit 104 for identification.
7 (In di c v. ting . )
8 (The document was thereupon marked 9 Intervenors' Exhibit No. 104 for 10 identification as of August 27, 1986.)
11 BY MR GUILD:
['t) ) 12 Q Mr. McG rego r, it appears to be a memorandum for E.
13 Greenman, Deputy Director, DR P, from R. D. Schula and 14 Leonard McGregor, SRI's Braidwood; Subj ect: ACRS 15 Conferen ce, February 7, '85.
16 Have you seen this memo before, sir?
17 (In dica ting . )
18 A Yes, sir, I have.
19 Q Now, I take it the ACRS's are a reference to the 20 Advisory Committee on the National Safeguard?
21 A That's correct.
22 Q Do I understand correctly that the ACRS reviews the 23 operating licensa applica tion for power reactors, such 7, 24 as B raidwood f acility, and makes a technical advisory
/ h
( ,) 25 opinion about the appropriateness of granting that snnneng nopnreing enruico, r.Fa _
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11529 7
{V) 1 license ?
2 A That's correct.
3 Q Taking into account matters involving safety?
4 A Tha t's correct.
5 Q The first line of this memo -- well, first of all, who 6 is Mr. Greenman? Could you identify who he is?
7 A Mr. Greenman is the assistant to the Director of 8 Division Reactor Products, and Mr. Greenman is the 9 Deputy Director.
10 Q I see. Was he in your chain of command at the time this 11 memo was written?
( l 12 A Yes, sir.
\m / >
13 Q First line read, "The recent decision not to include the 14 Senior Resident Inspectors at the full committee meeting 15 but include the required presence of the BCAP Inspector 16 appears to indicate a continued overemphasis on BCAP in 17 relation to the SRI program which covers the entire 18 period of construction."
19 Now, could you describe the circumstances in which 20 you, it appears from this memo, learned of a decision 21 not to include you and Mr. Schulz in the full ACRS 22 committee meeting?
23 MR. TREB Y: Mr. Chairman, I would like to 24 nohe my objection now before we have this whole document 25 read into the record,
( )
ennneng nnnnretng snruicn; r+a-Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11530 I I V
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Tha t's fine. I expected 2 that. Fine. We are overruling that.
3 In the Board's view it seems to be coming more and 4 more relevant, but we certainly note your obj ection.
5 A Basically Bob and I were kept totally in the dark with i
6 regard to the ACRS conference meeting in Washington, D.
l 7 C., and at the very last moment -- I would say within a 8 few days of the ACRS meeting -- we found out that we 9 were not selected to be a portion of the Staff that went 10 to Washington D. C.
11 BY MR. GUILD: )
g'~x l
- ) 12 0 I'm sorry. The Staff? I
\J 13 A The Staf f tha t went to Washington, D. C..
14 Q I see.
15 How did you learn that?
16 Did someone in your chain of con. mand inform you of 17 this decision?
18 A No, sir.
19 Q All right. How did it come to your attention that you 20 were not being invited?
21 A I don' t know. To be honest with you, I think we 22 probably found out from the Licensee.
23 Q From Commonwealth Edison?
24 A Yes, sir.
7-s I \
\s , ) 25 Q They were there, weren't they, Commonwealth Edison ennneng nnnnretng snruico, r+d.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11531 i
v 1 Company ?
2 A I'm sure they were.
3 Q How did you learn that BCAP Inspector -- I take that to 4 be Mr. Gardner -- was to be invited?
5 A Well, Mr. Gardner was on the site daily, and I don't G recall -- I would assume that he told us he was going.
7 I might be mistaken. He might not have even told us 8 that. We found that out after the conference had been 9 conducted.
10 Q All right, sir.
11 You make a number of points about why you think (v ) 12 it's appropriate to have invited the Senior Resident 13 Inspectors because of their greater comprehensive 14 knowledge of site problems.
15 Did anybody discuss with you the relative merits of 16 whether you should be invited to go to the ACRS 17 committee meeting along with or instead of the BCAP 18 Inspector before the ACRS committee meeting took place?
19 A No, sir, there was no discussion on that.
20 Q Now, the middle of the paragraph, the sentence reads, 21 "Besides being a personal demotivating factor, it would 22 appear that our absence would not have a positive 23 influence on the future dealings with the Licensee "
24 Now, why, in your opinion, was such a decision of 7_s k _,) 25 personally demotivating influenced?
cnnneng nnnnreing gnruicn; nea Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11532 i
- 7. <
\. ,-
l 1 A Well, it was customary with the Commission that on 2 previous ACRS meetings -- and I think it was even one or 3 two cases -- the Senior Resident might have participated 4 in the presentation of information to the ACRS, but most 5 assuredly they were always a part of the Staff to advise 6 the Staff in their presentation of the inspection 7 ef forts a t Braidwood.
8 In this case we were totally ignored or forgotten 9 about or whatever.
10 Q All right, sir.
11 The second half of that observation is such a (m) v 12 decision your absence "would not have a positive 13 influence in our future dealings with the Licensee."
14 What's the basis for your opinion to that effect, 15 Mr. McG rego r ?
16 A Well, I guess what is being stated there is our absence 17 f rom the site, us going to Washington, D. C., the 18 monetary costs or our removal from the site for a couple 19 of days would not affect the Licensee of the inspection 20 efforts at the site.
21 0 I'm reading a sentence here. Let me see if I'm 22 understanding you correctly.
23 "Besides being a personal demotiva ting f actor, it
_ 24 would appear that our absence would not have a positive
\
(
( ,) 25 influence in our future dealings to Licensee."
nnnneng nopnrei ng nn ruico, r+a_
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11533 7
(%j )
1 I take that to mean that your absence. from the ACRS 2 meeting would not have a positive influence on your 3 dealings with Commonwealth Edison?
4 A Yes, sir, that's true.
5 Q What was the basis for that conclusion?
6 J UDG E GROSSMAN: What did you mean by that?
7 BY MR. GUILD:
8 Q What do you mean by that?
9 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
10 A Well, to be very honest with you, I didn't write the 11 letter; Mr. Schulz did.
12 All right, (v) Q 13 A He had it typed f rom himself and myself, but I do agree 14 with what Mr. Schulz wrote.
15 If we are the Senior Resident Inspectors at the 16 site; therefore, we are responsible for looking at these 17 probleas and laentifying the problems, which we had done 18 and continued to communicate with the Licensee, and rest 19 in mind that this is not -- the Licensee was just one 20 power plant.
21 They have had ACRS meetings on LaSalle and ACRS 22 meetings on Byron, et cetera, and there was an awful lot 23 of input with the Senior Residents at each of those
_s 24 sites; and now we come to Braidwood, and McGregor and
( ,) 25 Schulz are completely eliminated f rom the ACRS hearing.
ennne,g nnpnreing snruicn. r+a_
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11534
! )
J l I would imagine what is being stated there is the 2 Licensee now has the impression that the Residents don't 3 count.
4 Q You and Mr. Schulz ?
5 A Yes, sir.
6 MR. GALLO: Obj ection.
7 I will move to strike the witness' answer to the 8 last question.
9 The last phrase of his answer was:
10 "I would imagine that what was meant here was," and 11 then he explained.
n 12 All he is doing at the present time is guessing as (v) to what was in Mr- Schulz' mind when he wrote the 13 14 letter. It's nonprobative and you should be stricken 15 from the record.
16 THE WITNESS: I would disagree with that 17 because Mr. Schulz -- after we wrote the letter --
18 MR. GALLO: Obj ection.
19 THE WITNESS: We discussed it in --
20 MR. GALLO: Just a minute, Mr. McGregor. I 21 don't know who the Judge is hearing, but I don't think 22 it's Mr. McG rego r.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Mr. McG rego r, if you s 24 have a further explanation of that, we will listen to it t i $
( ) 25 and then we will make our ruling.
cnnne,g nnpnreing enruicn; rea.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11535
( I
%J l THE WITNESS: All right, si r .
2 As I said as you had previosly asked before he 3 interrupted me, Mr. Schulz had written the letter, and 4 he conf ronted me with that; and we sat down and 5 discussed it in great detail, and I agreed with every 6 point that he said in there.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: What you are saying now is 8 what your understanding is at this point?
9 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, tha t's correct.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Overruled.
11 BY MR. GUILD:
,<~3 12 I take it that that's your opinion as well as Mr. Schulz (v) Q has reflected in this memo; is that true, sir?
13 14 A Yes, sir. I'm sure Mr. Schulz will --
15 Q How, sir, the last sentence in the letter makes a 16 reference to the results of the first subcommittee. You 17 see that there?
18 "The monetary costs," et cetera, "seem 19 insignificant in relation to the importance of the full 20 committee considering the results of the first 21 subcommittee "
22 Now, sir, I t.ake it that the ACRS has before full 23 committee consideration of a license a subcommittee 24 meeting that also preliminarily reviews in this case the
.O.
( ,)
r 25 Braidwood license?
cnnneng nnpnreing enruicn, r+ a -
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l (312) 232-0262
11536
< 1
\.
v
]
1 A Tha t's correct.
2 0 All right. What were the results of the first 3 subcommittee on Braidwood as referred to in this memo, 4 if you know?
5 A Well, the first subcommittee was conducted in Joliet or 6 the outskirts of Joliet at the -- it's now known as the 7 Shorewood Inn Moted along I-55, and that was in March of 8 1983, and the subcommittee had mixed emotions or mixed 9 concerns about Bra'dwood and deferred the full committee 10 for an unspecified time.
11 Q All right, sir.
,m (J
) 12 13 In that following meeting with the full committee, it didn't take place for almost two years until in 14 February of 1985, then?
15 A Well, if memory serves me correct, a t the subcommittee, 16 the ACRS recommended the full committee be delayed until 17 May, I do believe, and the n --
18 Q May of what year, Mr. McGregor?
19 A May of 1983.
20 0 All right, sir.
21 A And it never came to pass. It kept being delayed and 22 delayed. I would presume it was because construction 23 and fuel load had not progressed as we anticipated it
,_ 24 to.
(j 25 MR. GALLO: Obj ection; move to strike "I gnnneng nonnretyg enruicn; r+ a Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11537 U
1 would presume," et cetera, f rom that point on.
2 MR. GUILD: I think I have the witness' 3 understanding, Mr. Chairman. Obviously it doesn't 4 establish the fact.
5 MR. G ALLO: I don't believe it's his 6 understanding at all. I take him literally when he says 7 he presumes. Tha t's something dif ferent than "I 8 understand".
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I don't see what importance 10 it has, 11 We will grant Mr. Gallo's motion to strike.
12 MR. GUILD: All right, sir.
[V) 13 BY MR. GUILD:
14 0 Now, sir, the first sentence of the memo makes the 15 reference to the continued overemphasis on BCAP in 16 relation to the SRI program, which covered the entire 17 period of construction.
18 Now, could you explain, please,_what you understand 19 f rom tha t comment? What does that comment mean?
20 A Well, the emphasis on the BCAP inspection resulted in --
21 or the BCAP inspection resulted in monthly Commonwealth 22 Edison meetings between the NRC Staff and Commonwealth 23 Edison, and the public was also invited to these 24 meetings.
\
{ \
25 The CAT team and their inspection was quite q ,j nnnnt,g nonnr H ng sn ev i co, r+ a _
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11538
/
n :
N- /
1 demanding in -- the CAT team leader was quite demanding 2 in they'd question the other Inspectors as, "What have 3 you done with BCAP," and, "What ef forts have you done in 4 BCAP," and, "What is BCAP showing us," et cetera, et 5 cetera. These are just a couple examples of the, quote, 5 " reference" put on BCAP.
7 There seems to be more highlighting of the BCAP 8 work than the inspecting efforts of the assigned 9 Inspectors at the region or the Senior Resident -- or 10 the Resident Inspectors at Braidwood.
11 Q All right, sir.
/N
( ) 12 Is that point, that overemphasis point, also v
13 reflected in the assignment of the BCAP Inspector to be 14 the primary source for inspecting past construction work 15 as compared to the Resident Inspectors?
16 A Yes.
17 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to move 18 to admit Intetvenors' 404.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Same objections?
21 MR. GALLO: Can I conduct voir dire?
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Certainly.
23 MR. TR EB Y: One addition on behalf of the 24 Staf f, and tha t is:
7,
( ,) 25 As Mr. McGregor has indicated, this document was gnnnenn nnnnreinn gorutco. r.t a .
G e5 ev a', Ill15ois 60134 L
(312) 232-0262
11539 l !
J l written by Mr. Schulz and while he has indicated he has 2 some sort of agreement, the document itself was written 3 by Mr. Schulz, and there has been no record developed 4 here as to how jointly they got together and did the 5 writing of it and stuff. Ile has indicated he agrees 6 with it now, but --
7 JUDG E GROSSMAN: I believe he went further 8 than that in that he indicated that he discussed that 9 with Mr. Schulz. At the time they went over it very 10 carefully.
11 If you want to develop further information on that, o
12 you are entitled to, also, voir dire, as Mr. Gallo is (v) 13 doing.
14 Mr. G allo.
15 MR. GALLO: That was going to be the purpose ,
16 of my voir dire.
17 If Mr. Treby wants to conduct it, that's fine.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, suit yourselves, 19 gentlemen. You can do it sequentially, just not at the 20 same time.
21 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 22 BY MR. G ALLO :
23 Q First of all, did Mr. Schulz sign this memorandum for 24 Mr. Greenman ? Do you know?
b\
(_) 25 A No, sir, I don't.
cnnneng nnpnreing enruten; r+a-l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11540
! )
', /
1 Q Do you know whether or not he sent it?
2 A No, sir, I don't.
3 Q Can you explain why your signature, at least your name, 4 doesn't appear as a signatory to this memorandum?
5 A No, I don't.
6 0 It doesn't bear a date.
7 Could you tell me when it was prepared by Mr.
8 Schulz ?
9 A If I recall right, it was shortly af ter the ACRS l 10 conference, which was conducted on Februa ry 7, 1985.
l 11 0 You believe it was after February 7, 1985?
s l 12 (v) A Yes, sir.
l 13 Q Do you --
l 14 A A few days after that date.
15 0 I believe you testified in response to one of Mr.
16 Guild's questions that you reviewed this memorandum with 17 Mr. Schulz ?
18 A Yes, sir.
19 Q It was at the time it was being written; is that 20 correct?
21 A Mr. Schulz draf ted the letter. He had it typed. He 22 brought it into me and asked me do I agree with it, and 23 we sat down and discussed this letter.
24 Q Did you go through the memorandum line by line?
O)
'N 25 A Yes, sir. And I do believe -- and I can' t recall the gonntag popnreing gn ru f en _ r. E d .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11541 fU'l 1 specific words, but I asked him to change one of the 2 sentences to tone it down somewhat.
3 Q Do you recall where that was?
4 A No, sir, I don't.
5 Q But you do recall that you asked him to tone it down?
6 A Yes, sir; and he had it retyped.
7 Q Did you agree to have your name be added up at the top 8 as being one of the individuals that the memorandum was 9 from?
10 A Yes, sir.
11 Q Do you know what happened to the memorandum after you tN 12 reviewed it with Mr. Schulz and he had it retyped?
()
13 A I don' t know. I assume Mr. Schulz sent it to the 14 office. I don't know.
15 MR. GALLO: Thank you.
16 I would object that on the grounds that there's no 17 foundation from which this particular exhibit can be 18 admitted into evidence based on this witness' answers to 19 my questions on voir dire.
20 While he has admittcd that he reviewed the document 21 with Mr. Schulz, his answers to Mr. Guild's questions as 22 to his views of what's stated in this exhibit might be 23 appropriate subject to the objections that we have on 24 relevance, but I don't think the document itself can be (O) 25 admitted itself as for representing the views of Mr.
cnnneng nnpnreing enruten,. r+ a _
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
1 11542
( )
v 1 Schulz necessarily. We don't know if it indeed was ever 2 sent.
3 JUDGE G ROSSMAN: Well, you may disbelieve 4 what the witness is saying, but I understand him to be 5 saying that it does represent his views. It did at the 6 time. He went over it very carefully with Mr. Schulz 7 and even changed or toned down a sentence.
8 MR. G ALLO: But being offered --
9 JUDG E GROSSMAN: If you have arguments as to 10 the witness' credibility or the f act that it's only a 11 joint effort and not an individual effort, you can 12 certainly raise those on brief, but the record is clear (Vn) 13 as to the foundation, and it is certainly adequate to 14 reflect his participation and input into the letter.
15 MR. GALLO: But I believe, Your Honor, that 16 104 is also being of fered for the proposition that this 17 was a communication f rom these two Resident Inspectors 18 to the Deputy Director and that the Deputy Director was 19 on notice of these views and no action was taken.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I don't know if tha t's the 21 case, but let me ask Mr. Treby whether this letter is in 22 the NRC files.
23 I have no idea how it was produced. I'm 24 speculating that it might have been one of the whistle
'O
( ) 25 blower documents made available to Intervenor.
nnnntag unporEing snruico. r+ t1 Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11543
,c v
1 MR. GUILD: It wasn't, Mr. Chairman.
2 J UDG E G ROSSMAN: Pardon?
3 MR. GUILD: It was not.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: But even in that case it 5 doesn't exclude that the fact that the letter is present 6 in the NRC files.
7 Is that the case, Mr. Treby ?
8 MR. TR EB Y: I guess I really don' t know 9 whether it's in the NRC files. I can tell you that we 10 wrote -- that we, being Staff counsel, wrote a letter to 11 Region III requesting them to check all of their files and make all relevant documents available recently in (j
\.
I 12 13 response to a question by the Board that we update all 14 discovery.
15 This was not a docum*ent that was produced to us, so 16 that's a presumption that is not in the files; otherwise 17 it would have been produced.
18 But I have no way at this time of telling you 19 whether it's in the files or not. I can check.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
21 Well, to the extent that we admit the document, we 22 won't admit it as representing a communication that was 23 actually passed on to anyone further in the NRC 24 including Mr. Greenman, but it represents the joint
( ,
) 25 thinking and effort of this witness and Mr. Schulz at gnnne,g nnnnreing gnrutcn; rFa; Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11544
- \
N..)
I tha t time as described --
2 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman.
3 JUDGE CROSSMAN: -- here.
4 Now, as to whether we actually admit the document, 5 if there's any further voir dire that Mr. Treby wishes 6 to conduct on the foundation of the document, you are 7 welcome to do it.
8 MR. GUILD: I have some myself, Mr. Chairman, 9 but after Mr. Treby is done, if I may be heard.
10 MR. TR EB Y: I have no further voir dire. I 11 believe Mr. Gallo covered everything, and my question f-12 goes to whether it was ever communicated, and Mr.
(x~~/)
13 McGregor doesn't seem to know the answer to that.
14 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Fine.
15 DIRECT EXAMINATION 16 (Continuing.)
17 BY MR. GUILD:
18 0 Mr. McGregor, was this purpose of it being communicated 19 to Mr. Greenman?
20 A Yes. I had reason to believe that Mr. Schulz was going 21 to submit it to Mr. Greenman.
22 Q All right, sir.
23 You agreed that it be submitted with the change 24 that you alluded to by Mr. Schulz to Mr. Greenman?
/ 'N
(,! 25 A Yes, sir, nnnntag nonnr ei ng no rui co, r.P a .
Geneva, Illinois 63134 (312) 232-0262
11545 7 ..
(
J l MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that 2 there is certainly no further need to want to 3 authenticate the document or to taake the factual proof 4 that the document reached Mr. Greenman's hands.
5 Just like any other writing, I can only tell you 6 that I put it in the mail box or that I gave it to 7 somebody with the intent that it is be transmitted to 8 its receipient.
9 I'm not obligated to prove that it actually got 10 there, and it would seem to me that we attach the 11 assumption the documents that are put into the channels (n) n; 12 for transmission get where they are to be -- where they 13 are directed, and it's certainly open to the Staff who I 14 submit never produced this document along with many, 15 many others in discovery that are very material to this 16 case.
17 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Well, Mr. Guild, that 18 presupposes that they have the document.
19 MR. GUILD: It does indeed, Mr. Chairman, but 20 there are many documents in this case that are relevant 21 that are on NRC file stationery that we've never seen 22 but for the fact that they come out of the blue in 23 Intervenors' hands, and I can't tolerate that, 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Tha t's true, and that goes p
(' ,)\ 25 to the point as to whether there should be any e nnneag ponnr ei ng sn rui nn, r. N1.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11546 g
- N l
v, 1 presumption drawn from the fact that NRC Staff attorneys 2 have not seen the documents so that, therefore, it's 3 probacly not in the NRC files.
4 We will not go as f ar as to make that presumption 5 on the basis certainly of what's occurred in the past 6 where they haven' t been privy to many documents.
7 We will ask that the NRC Staff attorneys ask the 8 remainder of NRC Staff, that is the technical people, to 9 search their files for this document in particular, and 10 we don' t make any assumption one way or the other as to 11 whether that documer;t is received. It only stands for (n) w 12 what we've already heard in testimony as to the 13 formulation of the document and whose opinions it 14 expresses. We don't make any determination as to 15 whether it was actually received, and we will expect to 16 hear further from NRC Staff.
17 So it's admitted under those limitations.
18 (The document was thereupon received into 19 evidence as Intervenors' Exhibit No.
20 104.)
21 JUDG E GROSSMAN: And I think it's appropriate 22 at this time to break for tomorrow.
23 MR. GUILD: May I ask one more question?
,s 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Certainly.
( ,)'
25 BY MR. GUILD:
snnneng nopnrH ng snruico i.e a .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
11547 (g)
~s 1 Q Mr. McGregor, did you ever hear any response back to Mr.
2 Greenman or others about your concerns regarding being 3- lef t out of the ACRS meeting?
4 A No, sir.
5 MR. GUILD: That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine.
7 We are adjourned for the day and now off the 8 record.
9 (There followed a discussion outside the 10 record.)
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We are back on the record
.O (v; 12 then, 13 MR. BERRY: Staff is distributing copies of 14 prefiled testimony of Mr. Weil to the Board and the 15 parties.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That's all. No further 17 commen t ?
18 I just want to know if we can release the Reporter.
19 MR. BERRY: Also --
20 JUDG E GROSSMAN: Oh, obviously not.
21 MR. BERRY: Also, Staff is also making 22 available to the Board and the parties a document, an 23 NRC document, dated April 24, 1984, f rom Mr. William J.
24 Dirk, Executive Director for Operation, the EDO, Office
( ,/ 25 Director and Regional Administrator, nnnneng nopnreing noruico, r+ a .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 , _ _.
11548 m
I
)
~/'1 1 There has been some questioning in this proceeding 2 as to why Staff recontacted Commonwealth Edison after 3 they received allegations from QC Inspectors, and this 4 memorandum reflects a policy by the Commission that may 5 bear on that matter, 6 That's all. You can release the Reporter now.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
8 We are adjourned, then, finally until tomorrow at 9 9 :0 0 o' clock.
10 (WHEREUPON, a t 5 : 10 P. M., the hearing of 11 the above-entitled matter was continued (A)
'mJ 12 to the 28th day of August, 1986, at the 13 hour of 9:00 A. M.)
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 N' j- 25 gnnneng nnnnreing enruicn; r+a .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER s '4 This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING: COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2)
DOCKET NO.: 50-456 OL; 50-457 OL PLACE: CHICAGO, ILLINOIS DATE: WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1986 j were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States-Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
e (sigt) 8/
(TYPED)
GLEN SONNTAG Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS INC.
Reporter's Affiliation, b4 i U
_ - - . . _ . _ . . _ . . _ _ . . . _ . - _ _ _ . . . _ - . . . . _ . . _.- ._. . . _ . . - _ _ . , . _ . _ . . . . - . - . _ . _ _ . - - . . _ , _ . - _ _