ML20214M428
| ML20214M428 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 11/26/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1798 OL, NUDOCS 8612030357 | |
| Download: ML20214M428 (115) | |
Text
_ --------
UR"G TAl ~
UNHED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO:
BRAIDWOOD STATI0t1 50-456/457-OL ,
UNITS 1 & 2 (HEARIllG) <
COMM0llWEALTH EDIS0t1 1
LOCATION: CHICAGO, IL PAGES: 18,292 - 18,405 DATE: WEilDESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1986 0I
/
\
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I Ofici.:1 Re;vrters 444 North CapitolStreet Washincton, D.C. 20001 sN; f,h(! ? \bbI; .. Gd2) 347-3700 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE
18292
\%j) 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICCNSING BOARD 4
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X 5 :
In the Matter of: :
6 : D oc ke t No . 5 0-4 56 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY : 50-457 OL 7 :
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 :
8 and 2) :
X 9
10 Pages 18292 - 18405 11 United States District Courthouse Courtroom 1743
[ 'N 12 219 South Dea rborn Street
(' ') 13 Chicago, Illinois 60604 Wednesday, November 26, 1986.
14 15 The hearing in the above-entitled matter reconvened 16 at 8:00 A. M.
17 BEFORE:
18 JUDGE HERBERT GROSSMAN, Chairman 19 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 20 Washington, D. C.
21 JUDGE RICHARD F. COLE, Member, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
, 22 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
23 JUDGE A. DIXON CALLIHAN, Member, 24 At omic Safety and Licensing Boa rd
/~N s U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
( 25 Washington, D. C.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ceneva, Illincic 5012d (312) 232-0262
18293
2 On behalf of the Applicant:
3 MICHAEL I . MILLER, ESQ.
PHILIP P. STEPTOE, III, ESQ.
4 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza 5 Chicago, Illinois 60602 6 On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staf f:
7 GREGORY ALAN BEBRY, ESQ.
8 ELAINE I. CHAN, ESQ.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9 7335 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20014 30 On behalf of the Intervenors:
11
_s ROBERT GUILD, ESO.
! 't 12 i
s/ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 q,)'
- Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ccacva, Illinoic 50134 (312) 232-0262
18294
(- -.
I 1
\g 1 EXHIBIT INDEX Marked Received 2 Applicant's Exhibit No. 186 18296 18296 3
4 TESTIMONY OF RONALD NELSON GARDNER (Continued) 5 6 CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. GUILD: 18300 7
REDIRECT EXAMINATION 8 BY MR. BERRY : 18304 9 RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. STEPTOE: 18315 10 RECROSS EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. GUILD: 18349 12 BOARD EXAMINATION g ) 13 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN: 18372 BOARD EXAMINATION 14 BY JUDGE COLE: 18379 15 BOARD EXAMINATION BY JUDGE CALLIHAN: 18382 16 RECROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) 17 BY MR. ST EPTOE : 18388 18 19 20 t
21 22 23 24 l
{)
(_-
25 Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ocncyc, Illincic 60134 (312) 232-0262
1
~
18295 m
U 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: The hearing is reconvened.
2 This is the 97th day of hearing.
3 We have some prelimina ry matte rs with regard t'o 4 exhibits. If there's agreement, we'll hear about.that.
5 If there 's no agreement, let's just hear about the no 6 agreement and we'll discuss it I believe after Mr.
.i 7 Ga rdne r 's t es timony. So we can cut that short if we 8 have to and complete it over the conference call.
9 MR. MILLER: I believe we have agreement, i 10 your Honor.
(
- 11 JUDGE GROSSMAN
- Oh, that's fine. Let's hear r
12 about-it.
- 13 MR. MILLER
- Mr. Guild and I have an 14 agre ement . I haven't yet discussed this with the Staf f,-
?-
l -15 but I'll --
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Staff is very agreeable..
17 (Laughte r . )
- 18 MR. MILLER
- Yes, they have been from the t.
19 ve ry beginning.
20 Intervenors and Applicant have agreed that the 21' transcript of each of the interviews that .c re taken of l 22 the seven Quality Control Inspectors on the second shift
- 23 cable pull inspections may be admitted as exhibit ;, and I
f _
24 Applicant will undertake to provide copies of all except 25 Mr. Kimble's, which was received in the record as an
(
i Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illincic 5013' i (312) 232-0262 L
19296 l i U
1 Inte rvenors ' exhibit.
2 There's a portion of Mr. Noble's exhibit -- or 3 inte rv iew. I think it would just be easier to reproduce 4 the entire interview and submit it as an Applicant 5 exhibit.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine. That will be 7 Applicant's Exhibit 186, and that will consist of all of 8 the interviers other than the Kimble interview.
9 MR. MILLER: Yes, sir.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And we are admitting that 11 right now.
/' i 12 (The document was thereupon marked V 13 Applicant's Exhibit No. 186 for 14 identification as of November 26, 1986.)
15 (The document was thereupon received into 16 evidence as Applicant's Exhibit No.186.)
17 MR. BERRY: Staf f has no objection.
18 (Laughter.)
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Is there anything 20 else?
21 MR. BERRY: I would only note again just 22 briefly, Mr. Chairman, that I believe that Mr.
23 Goedecke's designated transcript -- I believe there's 24 still some action Applicant has to take.
, f' 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes.
(KV)
Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Ccncva, Illincia 50134 (312) 232-0262
18297
(
I )
'%s
1 Mr. Mille r?
2 MR. MILLER: Yes, your Honor, and I apologize 3 to the Board and parties. My designations, which will 4 take into account the Chairman's comments -- which are 5 now, I'm sor ry to say, somewhat old -- will be in the 6 hands of everybody by next Monday.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: By next Monday?
8 MR. MILLER: Well, let's make it Tuesday.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. We ought to have 10 those in hand. Try by Monday. We're going to have a 11 conference call. If there are disagreements, we might
,/ '} 12 just as well cover that, also.
\' ,/
13 MR. MILLER: Yes, sir.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Why don't we tentatively 15 agree on Wednesday morning for the conference call?
16 MR. MILLER: All right, sir.
17 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I simply can't 18 review the Goedecke designations. That's a really thick 19 transcript. At le ast, I don't know what Mr. Miller is 20 going to designate.
21 But I hesitate to agree that ove rnight is 22 suf ficient time for Intervenors to form an opinion on 23 the appropriateness of the designations that Mr. Miller 24 is going to make.
/^
(\)
s_
25 MR. BERRi: I would note at this point, Mr.
Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
I Ceneva, Illincic 5013A (312) 232-0262
18298 l
1 Chairman, that I believe that Applicant initially 2 designated the Goedecke transcript. The Chairman and 3 the Boa rd reviewed it and dete rmined tha.t they 4 designated too much.
5 So Applicants now have the obligation of redacting, 6 if you will, parts of that transcript that I guess rely 7 on technical expert matters, which the Board ruled they 8 weren't going to accept without live tes timony.
9 So I believe all the parties have had an 10 opportunity to review the initial transcript, and what 11 we should be receiving from the Applicant is just a 12 scaled-down ve rsion of what we have received already.
13 So I would not think that it would entail a great 14 amount of work, and Mr. Guild --
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. That's my belief, 16 also. I th ink --
17 MR. GUILD: May I be heard, Mr. Chairman?
18 Excuse me, but, really, the Inte rvenors were 19 prepared to oppose and did oppose admission of any 20 portions of the Goedecke transcript.
21 When we received Mr. Miller's proposed de signa tion s , they were indeed ove rbroad. They included 22 23 just about everything of substance that Mr. Goedecke had 24 to say about Mr. Puckett, opinion evidence of all sorts, 25 technical, non-technical, a whole variety of matters.
Sonntag Reporting Se rv ice, Ltd. '
Ccncva, Illinois 50124 (312) 232-0262
18299
,Q f' i
't) 1 We had in draft form prepared a response to those 2 matters.
3 Now, I can't anticipate what he's going to send now 4 or what the necessity may be for Intervenors to 5 undertake some legal research and to review line by line 6 the designations he's going to make.
7 For Mr. Berry to suggest that, having joined this 8 issue months ago, somehow the burden on Intervenors is 9 going to be slight because it's a task that was 10 shouldered once upon a time does not reflect the task 11 that this counsel faces on this proposition.
[' 'i 12 I know the hour is late, but it's really not our 13 responsibility that the designations weren't made until 14 now.
15 I'd ask more than overnight to review those 16 matters. I think it 's inappropriate to prer r un to make 17 decisions on matters of importance given cuch chort 18 period of time.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, we'll discuss it on 20 Wednesday morning. If at that time it seems as though l
! 21 you need more time, having only received it the evening 22 before, we'll postpone a decision on that. But we'll
! 23 start talking about it on Wednesday morning.
24 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, we'll do our best to l (~K
[ ) 25 expedite it.
l N,- /
l l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Cencva, Illin cic 6013' (312) 232-0262
18300
/~s
/ \
\ l Ay 1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine.
2 MR. MILLER: I do apologize to the Board and 3 parties for not having attended to this earlier.
4 MR. BERRY : Can we have a time for the 5 conference call, Mr. Chairman?
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Why don't we make it at 7 10:30?
8 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Eastern time?
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes,10:3 0 Easte rn time.
10 Okay. Then we've concluded our preliminary 11 matte rs, and we can get on to Mr. Ga rdner again.
('g 12 Mr. Guild, do you have some closing questions?
' >l 13 MR. GUILD: I do, Mr. Chairman, very brief.
14 Mr. Ga rdner, good morning.
15 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
16 CROSS EXAMINATION 17 (Contin ued) 18 BY MR. GUILD:
19 Q In our last episode when you were last on the stand, you 20 and I had been discussing the subject of what was your -
21 scope of responsibility, what was your responsibility 22 with respect to reviewing the CSR sampling plan.
23 As I recall generally, your testimony was that you 24 were not responsible for reviewing or approving the CSR
,/
N 25 sampling plan; is that correct?
( ;
\_ '
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 00134 (312) 232-0262
18301 fx 1 A That's correct.
2 0 All right, sir.
3 A I did not approve the design of that -- of that sampling 4 portion.
5 0 All right, sir.
6 We were discussing the objective that is reflected 7 in the BCAP program document; that is, to design a 8 sample size, if random, that would be sufficient to 9 obtain a 95 pe rcent confidence level at 95 pe rcent 10 reliability.
11 Now, I take it, consistent with your last answer, 12 that you were not charged specifically with undertaking
(}/
\s-13 an evaluation of the appropriateness of the 95 percent 14 confidence level, 95 pe rcent reliability standard, 15 employed by BCAP?
16 A That's correct.
17 0 All right, sir.
18 And I take it further that you did not specifically 19 pe rform any such evaluation?
20 A That's correct.
21 Q It follows, does it not, Mr. Gardner, that if such an 22 evaluation were undertaken such as by this Board in this 23 case, the result might be to conclude that a 95 percent 24 confidence level, 95 pe rcent reliability, was not an rh 25 inappropriately high standa rd for use in the BCAP
(,1)
Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Ccneva, Illinois 00134 (312) 232-0262 f
t 18302 Q) 1 program?
2 MR. STEPTOE: I'll object to the form of the 3 question.
4 It has no probative value. I mean --
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes. I don't see how the 6 witness is competent to testify as to what the Board 7 ought to do.
8 MR. GUILD: Well, any person -- Mr. Chairman, 9 the n I' d -- f ine. Let me rephrase the question if the 10 basis of the objection is what the Board should do or 11 shouldn't do.
12 BY MR. GUILD:
13 0 Then someone -- anyone; this Board or another party, for 14 that matter -- who undertook such an evaluation -- that 15 is, an evaluation of the appropriateness of the 16 objective for confidence level, level of reliability --
17 might reach a conclusion different from the 95/95 1
18 employed by the --
19 MR. STEPTOE: Objection.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Mr. Steptoe still 21 objects, and it doesn't seem to me as though there's 22 anything tha t the witness can contribute to that. We 23 understand your point, Mr. Guild.
24 MR. GUILD: F in e .
rh f ; 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You can make it on your L./
Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Gcacva, Illincia 00134 (312) 232-0262
18303 Q/
1 brief, and that's fine. I don't see how Mr. Gardner can 2 contribute to that.
3 MR. GUILD: Pine.
4 I'd ask that the Board simply understand Mr.
5 Ga rdner 's statements about the appropriateness of that 6 level, given his preceding testimony, in light of your 7 ruling.
8 That concludes my examination.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. What we unde rstand 10 you're saying is that he had no part in approving that, 11 and we unde rstand that. Certainly it is up to the 12 Board, in the first instance here, to decide whether
/~ }
13 that was appropriate.
11 MR. GUILD: Fine.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine. Now --
16 MR. GUILD: That concludes my examination, 17 Mr. Chairman.
18 J UDGE GROSSMAN: Pine.
19 Mr. Steptoe -- oh, is it -- where are we now? Have 20 you --
el MR. STEPTOE: I crossed. Mr. Guild crossed.
22 I think it 's staf f's turn.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. I had forgotten that 24 ycu crossed already.
25 Mr. Be r ry?
('v j Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Gcncva, Illincia 50134 (312) 232-0262
18304
/
f )
%J l MR. BERRY : Can I have two minutes? I'd like 2 to consult with the witness briefly.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Ce rta inly.
4 (There followed a discussion outside the 5 record.)
6 MR. BERRY: We're ready to proceed, Mr.
7 Chairman.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine. Mr. Berry.
9 MR. BERRY : Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
10 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. BERRY:
,/ '} 12 Q Mr. Gardner, I want to direct your attention to Staff
'A '/
s 13 Exhibit 25, the NRC Inspection Report 8603.
14 A Yes, sir.
15 Q In particular, I would direct your attention to Page 2 16 of Section 1 of that report.
17 MR. GUILD: Excuse me.
18 Can I look on with the witness or counsel? What 19 was the reference?
20 MR. BER RY : Page 2 of Section 1.
21 BY MR. BERRY :
22 0 I want to direct your attention specifically, Mr.
23 Ga rdne r, to Paragraph D. I believe it 's an open item.
24 You answered questions on this by Mr. Guild.
/^\
\ 25 The report states that the I & E QA branch will
[
\
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illincic 50134 (312) 232-0262
18305 gm (v) 1 conduct a review of S & L discrepancy evaluations.
2 Do you see that?
3 A Yes, sir.
4 Q Do you know whether such evaluation discrepancies were 5 co nducted?
6 A Well I & E -- I & E Washington did do an inspection of S 7 & L activities, as was related to me by Mr. Little, who 8 contacted the Branch Chief of the QA section in 9 Wash ington.
10 0 I also note further on in that paragraph, Mr. Gardner --
11 MR. GUILD: Excuse me.
/ 'N 12 Just for clarity, is that an evaluation of Sargent
'~'] 13 & Lundy -- a review of Sargent & Lundy evaluations for 14 this facility, for Braidwood?
15 THE WITNESS: It encompassed general Sargent 16 & Lundy activities, I was told; more generic in nature 17 than site-specific, I would say.
18 BY MR. BERRY:
19 0 Further on in that same paragraph, Mr. Gardner, you 20 state that, " Based upon subsequent satisfactory I & E QA 21 branch reviews of S & L discrepancy evaluations (for 22 other facilities) and also based upon the extensive 23 Region III review of this matter, no additional 24 inspections of S & L BCAP review process are deemed Q 25 necessary."
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ocncva, Illincia 50134 (312) 232-0262
18306
/'"N I )
V 1 Can you tell us what extensive Region III review of 2 this matter took place?
3 A Yes, si r .
4 On Page 4 in the first part of the report --
5 MR. GUILD: Is that in the body of the 6 report?
7 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
8 A (Con tin uing. ) -- I mention a Table I, which I describe 9 to be a chronology of BCAP activities including Region 10 III inspection activities.
11 In Table I there is identified Inspection Report
(}
\'-'/
12 85018/85019, which occurred subsequent to the 13 identification of the open item, and also Inspection 14 Report 85054 and 85052, which also occurred subsequent 15 to the identification of the open item.
16 MR. GUILD: Excuse me.
17 Can I just ask the witness to help me find the 18 references that he's made here?
19 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
20 The first reference is on Page 10 of the report, 21 and the second is on Page 11 of the report.
22 A (Con tin uing . ) These two inspection reports document 23 Region III inspection activities rega rding review of 24 BCAP discrepancies.
(N 25 In pa r ticula r, 8518 and 19 documents review of
(
N.,/
)
Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Ccneva, Illincia 50134 (312) 232-0262 ,
18307
(;!
\
%d 1 Region III -- or by Region III of BCAP discrepancies in 2 the area of electrical supports at Sargent & Lundy and 3 provides the Region's assessment of those evaluations.
4 The other inspection report, the 8554 and 52, 5 provides additional information rega rding the evaluation 6 of BCAP discrepancies.
7 Those two inspection reports were I think the major 8 contributors to the statement in 8603 regarding the 9 extensive reviews of S & L evaluations.
10 BY MR. BERRY :
11 Q Mr. Gardner, did you author Inspection Report 8519 and
/~'N 12 8520?
,] 13 A It was 8518 and 19, I believe.
14 But no, I did not.
, 15 Q How about 8540 and 8539?
16 A No, I did not.
17 Q Similarly, did you author Inspection Report 8554/52?
18 A Not that I recall. I'd have to look at those to make l
19 sure, but I don't remembe r those numbe rs.
20 0 Do any of those inspection reports address the accuracy l
l 21 of Sargent & Lundy's structural calculations?
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I'm sorry.
23 Miss Reporter, could you repeat that question?
24 (The question was thereupon read by the l ("N 25 Repo r te r. )
(J)
Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Cencva, Illinoic 50134 (312) 232-0262
18308 t
- p.,
5v/
1 MR. BERRY: I meant " adequacy."
2 A Well, they do address the adequacy of supports. If you 3 want to include conduit or cable pan hanger supports as 4 structural members, yes, they did.
5 MR. BERRY: Mr. Chairman, we are not of fe ring 6 this evidence to prove the accuracy or the adequacy of 7 any structural calculations or other calculations by 8 Sargent & Lundy.
9 Just to be clear for the record, the purpose in 10 eliciting this testimony is just to establish that such 11 reviews were, in fact, conducted.
~
12 I believe the ques tion was raised on cross
' ~ '
13 examination whether anything was done for the NRC to 14 lo ok a t . Of course, Mr. Ga rdner is not the witness that 15 can speak to the accuracy and adequacy of that, but I do 16 believe he is competent to testify that such a review, 17 in fact, was done.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. It seems to me as 19 though, for as fa r as you 've gone, that testimony is 20 valid testimony.
21 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, so long as it's 22 unde rstood that Mr. Gardne r cannot further establish 23 that such reviews were extensive.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Wel l , the questions and O
( 25 answers speak for themselves. I haven't heard anything
\- ~
Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Ccncva, Illincia 50134 (312) 232-0262
18309 m
l I
\s /
1 beyond the bounds of Mr. Ga rdner's competence to 2 testify, and he hasn't testified to the extent that you 3 cuggest --
4 MR. GUILD: Fine.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- he might testify.
6 Mr. Berry apparently is not going any further in 7 that area, and that 's fine.
8 BY MR. BERRY:
9 0 Mr. Gardner, you were asked a question by Mr. Guild, I 10 believe, as to whether Canmonwealth Edison ever took the 11 position that the requirements of Part 50, Appendix B,
/' 12 did not apply to the BCAP program.
Y)T 13 Do you recall that?
14 A Generally, yes.
15 0 I want to show you, Mr. Ga rdner, a portion of 16 Commonwealth Eclison's response to an item of 17 non-compliance which you authored and there has been 18 some discussion on. It was an Inspection Report 8506.
19 It was about the 37 BCNr observations.
20 Do you recall that item of non-compliance?
21 A Yec, I do.
22 MR. BERRY: I would note, Mr. Chairman, that 23 this was a s umma ry disposition Item 12 F, and attached 24 to the Applicant's response to that, in support of t O)
(V 25 s umma ry disposition, they have attached a copy of their c
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ccncva, Illin oic S0134 (312) 232-0262
18310 i
a 1 response. It was also filed with the NRC in connection 2 with this item of non-compliance.
3 I don't have other copies for the Board and the 4 parties. I don't propose at this time to offer this as 5 an exhibit, but just to use it to show the witness.
6 BY MR. BERRY:
7 Q I would ask the witness if there is anything in that 8 response with respect to that item of non-compliance 9 that indicates that Commonwealth Edison's position is 10 that the requirements of Appendix B do not apply to the 11 BCAP program.
[N o :
12 (Indica ting . )
U 13 MR. STEPTOE: Could you identify what 14 attachment you're looking at?
15 MR. BE RRY : Yes. It is the Licensee's 16 response of May 6, 1985, to NRC Inspection Report Nos.
17 50-456/8506; 50-456/8506.
18 MR. ST EPTOE : That's an attachment to the NRC 19 Staff's Motion for Summary Disposition?
20 MR. BERRY: Yes.
21 MR. STEPTOE: Okay.
I 22 A Th rough my review I just conducted, I notice that -- and 23 it refreshes my memory -- that they did not agree that 24 there was an item of non-compliance. I do not identify 1 ('N 25 any position in their response indicating they did not (v)
Sonntag Reporting 2 O rvice, Ltd.
Cenr"~, Illincic 50134 1 232-0262
18311 O
V) 1 believe thct there could have been an item of 2 non-compliance.
3 BY MR. BERRY :
4 Q Mr. Gardner, typically how many Resident Inspectors does 5 Region III have at a nuclea r facility under 6 construction?
7 A It actually depends on the stage of construction.
8 Initially the Region assigns a Senior Resident for 9 construction first; and, of course, this also depends on 10 the numbe r of units unde r construction.
i 11 Assuming a two-unit plant, such as Braidwood, as I 12 stated, the Region would typically assign first a Senior
[~'}
s
'~'-
13 Resident Inspector for construction. Then as the work 14 load increased, they would add on a Resident Inspector 15 for construction.
16 Then as the site -- as one or more of the units 17 approached fuel load, an Operations Senior Resident 18 Inspector would be added. Then finally, the Resident i
19 Inspector for construction would be deleted and changed 20 to a Resident Inspector for operations as the NRC 21 recognizes the need for shif ting f rom a const ruction to 22 an operational mode.
23 Q There are three Resident Inspectors at Braidwood right 24 now; is that correct?
[O
\~_/
} 25 A Yes, there are.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illincic 60134 (312) 232-0262
18312 cm i i 1 Q And I believe Mr. Shamblin has testified that there are 2 approximately, if my memory serves me well enough, 4,000 3 employees working at the Braidwood site?
4 Does that sound about right to you?
5 A That sounds approximately correct.
6 0 You were asked the question by Mr. Guild on, I guess, 7 your suggestion or statement that you had made with 8 respect to the portrayal of the BCAP inspection results.
9 There was some discussion back and forth on what you 10 meant by a " balanced portrayal" on that subject.
11 Do you recall those questions?
12 A Yes, I do.
}
V 13 Q Mr. Gardner, do you recall whether at future public 14 mee tings -- whe the r Applicant, in fact, took your 15 suggestion to of fer a more balanced portrayal of 16 inspection results?
17 A Yeah, I believe they offered a more balanced portrayal 18 of inspection results.
19 You have to remember that at the public meeting, 20 there was only a limited amount of time that was 21 allotted for discussing the inspection results. I 22 didn't put a stopwa tch to t ry to make sure a total 23 balance was achieved, but I was satisfied that a more 24 balanced portrayal was given subsequently.
/'N
( ) 25 Q Mr. Guild asked you a question -- asked you whether you
\s /
Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Ceneva, Illinois 50134 (312) 232-0262
18313 1 ,
V 1 counted inspection reports -- strike that -- whether you 2 counted inspection points.
3 Do you recall that, being asked that question?
4 A He may have asked me that. I don't remember exactly 5 what --
6 0 I believe your answer was that you did not, and I would 7 ask you why.
8 Why didn't you count inspection points?
9 A I didn't see the counting of inspection points or the 10 representation of the data that BCAP was identifying to 11 be part of my function.
[~'N 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me. Is that 13 inspection reports?
14 MR. BERRY: Points.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That's what I thought you 16 meant. I heard " reports."
17 MR. BERRY : I said "r eports. " I meant 18 " points."
19 THE WITNESS: I understood " points" to be 20 unde r discussion.
21 A (Continuing.) Again, it was not my job to put the data 22 in an inspection point or any other basis besides 23 design-significant discrepancies. That's what I was 24 conce rned with.
A 25 BY MR. BE RRY :
[V)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illincir 50134 (312) 232-0262
18314
?mh
'L.)
1 Q I believe, Mr. Ga rdne r, you stated, in response to a 2 question from Mr. Guild and also in your testimony, that 3 the results of the BCAP program provide additional 4 assurance that -- or additional confidence of the 5 acceptability of past, ongoing and future construction 6 activities at Braidwood.
7 What do you mean by " additional assurance"?
8 A Just that.
9 There are a lot of things that the NRC uses in 10 evaluating the adequacy of construction of a plant. We 11 use the inputs from the Resident Inspectors. We use
[]
('
/
12 special inspections. We use evalua tions of Licensees '
13 programs and Licensees' QA programs and policies.
14 There are quite a few things that the NRC uses.
15 BCAP is an additional point of evaluation.
16 Q Finally, Mr. Ga rdne r, Mr. Guild brought to your 17 attention the fact that the NRC BCAP Inspection Report 18 8603, Staf f Exhibit 25, was not issued until June of 19 1986. I believe that you indicated, in response to 20 another of his questions, that your fieldwork had been 21 completed around February of 1986.
22 Do you recall those questions and answe rs on that 23 subject?
l 24 A Yes. My fieldwork was completed no later than February O
(v) 25 of '86.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Gencva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
18315 rN i i V
1 Q Do you know, Mr. Ga rdne r, why it took until June of 1986 2 to issue what's been marked and received in evidence as 3 Staf f Exhibit 25?
4 A Well, my best answer would be it took that long to get 5 the portion of the report together that was not my 6 portion.
7 I guess that would have to be in part due to the 8 f act that the Region was spending a considerable amount 9 of time in preparing for this hearing and conducting 10 inspections at other facilities and responding to other 11 requirenents.
[] '~'
12 MR. BERRY: Thank your, Mr. Gardener.
13 I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Steptoe?
15 MR. ST E PTOE : Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
16 RECROSS EXAMINATION 17 BY MR. STEPTOE :
18 Q Mr. Ga rdner, just to follow up on one point, I'm not 19 sure that your answer in the record will be perfectly 20 clear.
21 Your counsel, Mr. Berry, asked you about 22 Applicant 's response to the item of non-compliance in 23 8506 which dealt with 37 red-line observations being 24 improperly validated, and I'm not sure what your
) 25 response was, y-Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ccneva, Illinoic 50134 (312) 232-0262
18316
/
(3
%J
)
l Did Applicant state in that response that Appendix 2 B does not apply to the BCAP program?
3 A No. I ho pe I was n ' t u nclea r .
4 They did not state that Appendix B could not be 5 applied.
6 Q That's what I thought you meant, but I wasn't sure.
7 A I was afraid, afte r I said that, that I left a "not" 8 out. If I did, I inadvertently did that.
9 Q That was my conce rn, too. All right.
10 Now, Mr. Gardner, at Page 7 of your testimony, 11 Question and Answer 17 -- do you have that before you,
/^g 12 sir?
\) 13 A You said Page 10?
14 Q 7.
15 A Oh, s or ry.
16 Q At the bottom of the page, your answer to the question, 17 "Did Applicant ever make a commitment to the NRC not to 18 present the results of BCAP on the inspection point 19 basis" -- your answe r is, "No, not to my knowledge. "
20 A That's correct.
21 Q Have you changed your testimony on that score?
22 A No, I have not.
23 0 The reason I ask is that at Transcript Page 17713, you 24 answer in response to Mr. Guild, "I might be guilty of n
[V T 25 having misunde rstood that pa rticular comment. " You're j
Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Gcacva, Illincis 50134 (312) 232-0262
18317
,a
( )
w/
1 referring to the comment with respect to Page II-4 of 2 the BCAP program document that appears in Intervenors' 3 Exhibit 14 0. That was Mr. Kepple r 's lette r commenting 4 on the BCAP program document.
5 And then again at Page 17715, you said in response 6 to Mr. Guild's questions, "I may have -- if your 7 inte rpreta tion is correct, I may have -- misinte rpreted 8 it, because my interpretation was strictly regarding 9 design significance."
10 In making those statements, were you acknowledging 11 the possibility that you could be wrong or were you
/~'T 12 saying that you were wrong?
\']
13 A No. I was only agreeing that there could be another 14 interpretation. I continued to have the same 15 inte rpretation that I had originally.
16 Q All right. Thank you.
17 Now, prior to first hearing of Mr. Guild's 18 suggestion that Applicant had violated a commitment to 19 the NRC by presenting CSR results on an inspection point 20 basis, had you ever considered whether Applicant had 21 violated such a commitment?
22 A I don't recall having considered that, no.
23 Q Okay.
24 And to your knowledge, had Applicant ever taken the (Oj v
25 position that it had violated a commitment to the NRC by Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ccneva, Illinoic 5013' (312) 232-0262
18318
['N, 1
v 1 presenting data on an inspection point basis?
2 A Not that I'm aware of.
3 0 Was there any other party to the correspondence between 4 Mr. Keppler and Applicant?
5 MR. GUILD: Objection. That's vague.
6 What does that mean? A party other than who?
7 MR. STEPTOE : Applicant and the NRC Staff.
8 THE WITENSS: You're referring to which 9 particula r correspondence, now?
10 MR. STEPTOE: The BCAP -- the submission of 11 the BCAP program document, Mr. Keppler 's response to it 12 with comments and Applicant's response to Mr. Keppler's
[~'N 13 c omment s .
14 BY MR. STEPTOE:
15 0 Was there any other party in that correspondence?
16 A By "o the r pa r ty, " wha t do you mean?
17 C Well, if a commitment was made, was that commitment made 18 to anybody else othe r than the NRC Staf f?
19 MR. BERRY: Here is the document.
20 (Indica ting . )
21 A No, I'm not aware of any other party in that respect.
22 BY MR. STEPTOE :
23 Q Now, you attended all the BCAP public meetings r didn't 24 you?
A 25 A I believe so, yes.
l
[J)
\
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ccncva, Illincia 60134 (312) 232-0262
l 18319 im k
s_-
1 Q And data was presented there, at least in part, on an 2 inspection point basis, was it not?
3 A Yes, it was.
4 Q And Intervenors' representatives were present at several 5 of those meetings, were they not?
6 A Yes, they were.
7 Q And did you ever hear them say in those public meetings 8 that Applicant was violating the commitment to the NRC 9 Staff by presenting data on an inspection point basis?
10 A I don't recall that.
11 O Now, Mr. Gardner, you stated in response to Mr. Guild's
[~' 12 ques tion, probably also in response to my questions,
\'~'}/ 13 that after the midpoint look, the CSR inspectors were 14 instructed to take whatever time was necessary to do the 15 reinspections.
16 Do you recall that testimony?
17 A Yes, I do.
18 Q Who instructed the CSR inspectors to do that?
19 A I hea rd it at the Lead level. I didn't pursue it to 20 find out exactly what the source was.
21 Once I hea rd that their instructions were as 22 stated, I just -- I was satisfied at that point.
23 0 Well, I'm not asking you to name specific indiv id uals ,
24 but did those instructions come from CSR munagement?
1,O } 25 A Like I said, I'm not --
%./ '
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Cencva, Illincic 50134 1 (312) 232-0262 L
18320 I
/"'N'.
s/
1 MR. GUILD: Objection.
2 Mr. Gardner is certainly not competent to establish 3 as a matte r of fact where they c6me from. He's been 4 candid as to the extent of his belief and the source of 5 his information; but Mr. Steptoe simply can't elicit 6 competent evidence on the question as posed, which is 7 where, as a matter of fact, the instructions came from.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I believe the witness 9 was answering as to his limitations now, and we'll 10 overrule the objection and we'll allow the witness to 11 complete his answe r.
[\ 3 12 A (Continuing.) Right now, as far as my memory serves
- /
~'
13 me, I went to the individual CSR inspector traile rs.
14 This is where the Daniel inspectors and their Leads --
15 this is where they kept their working material and where 16 they functioned f rom.
17 1 asked them about the changes that were taking 18 place as a result of the midpoint look; and we discussed 19 some of the things that I talked about that you referred 20 to, such as having plenty of time, et cetera.
21 Aga in , whe n I hea rd tha t down a t that level, that 22 satisfied me that it was -- the information was where it 23 needed to be. I chose to take it f rom that point, 24 rather than going to the upper level of management and
( 25 having them tell me that they told the people at the k
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ocneva, Illinoic 60134 (312) 232-0262
18321 ry
\ ]
v 1 lower levels.
2 MR. STEPTOE: Okay.
3 BY MR. STEPTOE:
4 0 Did you ever -- Mr. Guild asked you whether you had ever 5 seen any memoranda or correspondence f rom Mr. Shevlin or 6 Dr. Kaushal or anyone like that instructing inspectors 7 to take whatever time is necessary to do their 8 inspections; and you said, no, you hadn't seen that. He 9 sa id , "I haven' t seen it, eithe r. "
10 Did you look for that? Did you conduct a 11 documentation review to look for such memos?
I' 12 A No, I did not.
\
' So should we draw the inference from your testimony that 13 Q 14 such memos do not exist?
15 A Certainly not.
16 Q At Transcript Page 17742 of your testimony, in response 17 to Mr. Guild's question, you stated that prior to the 18 midpoint look -- I want to say this carefully - you had 19 been hearing that there were some indications that the 20 CSR inspectors were expected to do a certain number of 21 inspections eithe r per day or pe r week or whateve r.
22 That's pretty close to being a quote.
23 Do you recall that testimony?
24 A Yes, I do.
(X 25 0 And then you went on to say that you reacted to that (v )
Sonntag Repor ting Se rv ice, Ltd.
Gencva, Illincia 00134 (312) 232-0262
i 18322 jq l
\ ,i 1 with sensitivity. Mr. Guild then asked you whether you 2 had made that observation -- that is, the observation 3 I've just been discussing -- in any of your inspection 4 reports, and you said no.
5 A That's right.
6 Q Do you recall that testimony?
7 A Yes. I don't recall making that -- identifying that in 8 an inspection report.
9 0 Okay.
10 Now, if you had determined that BCAP was enforcing 11 quotas on the CSR inspectors to perform a certain number
/T 5 i 12 of inspections either per day or per week or whatever, 13 if you had concluded that, would you have mentioned it 14 in your inspection report?
15 A Not n eces sa r ily.
16 0 What would you have done?
17 A I would have -- I would have taken what action I 18 considered necessary to see if it was an adverse 19 co ndition .
20 0 Is it your position, then, that the enforcement of 21 quotas on inspectors to perform a certain number of 22 inspections either per day or per week or for any other 23 time period is not necessarily an adve rse condition?
24 A That's correct. It depends. You can tell someone to do PN (v' ) 25 one inspection or t ry to do one inspection a day. I Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ce n e */a , Illin cic 50134 (312) 232-0262
18323
/~'N (q_,')
1 don't see that as an adve rse quota.
2 0 Okay. .s 3 Now, you said that you reacted to what you had been 4 hearing with sensitivity.
5 How did you react, sir?
6 A Aga in , I tried to find out whether or not there were any 7 problems that were occurring or any deficiencies that 8 were occurring in the reinspection area as a result of 9 what I considered to be a potential significant 10 co nditio n.
11 Q And what did you conclude?
[ 'N 12 A That, in fact, there was a problem, yes.
13 0 Okay.
14 And the problem is that -- and you documented that 15 problem in your inspection report?
16 A Yes, I did.
17 0 Now, did you ever talk to Mr. Shevlin about whether he 18 was enforcing quotas?
19 A I talked to Mr. Shevlin about the pace of his 20 inspectors ' work.
21 Q Well, you talked to him about the pace.
22 Did you talk to him about quotas?
23 A I may have. I don't recall.
24 Q Did you eve r talk to Dr. Kaushal about whe the r he was s
25 enforcing quotas?
%/
)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illincia 50134
) (312) 232-0262 l-
18324 A
( )
v 1 A No, I did not.
2 Q Did you -- what was the quota? If you found a quota out 3 there, what was the quota?
4 A I did not find a specific -- excuse me. I did not find 5 a specific quota at a number or a numerical value.
6 Q You identified a concern about the pace of inspections; 7 is that correct?
8 A And I heard that there may be quotas, and I heard it 9 from Quality Assurance. I heard that there was an 10 investigation, internal investigation, rega rding quotas, 11 by Quality Assurance.
/; 12 Q Did you ever follow up on that?
\'
13 A I allowed Quality Assurance to follow up on that. It's 14 their job.
15 Q Okay.
16 And did you ever find out what the results of that 17 were?
18 A The results I was told was that there may have been some 19 people -- or it may have been f rom a high-level in BCAP 20 -- di rections rega rding, quote or unquote, quotas.
21 I don't know if I want to use that term, but at 22 least an indicator that an expected number of 23 inspections would be performed, but that that matter had 24 been corrected.
(O v; 25 Q Okay.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ccacva, Illinois 50134 (312) 232-0262
18325 O
V 1 Now, are you satisfied that it was corrected?
2 A After the midpoint look, yes.
3 Q Well, do you have any question about the accuracy of the 4 inspection performed 5efore the midpoint look?
5 A Yes.
6 0 Okay.
7 And what did you do about that, sir?
8 A That's when I approached the BCAP director and, 9 inevitably, Mike Wallace and indicated that if the 10 Licensee did not take corrective actions, that the NRC 11 would.
[~'N g 12 Q Were you satisfied with the corrective actions?
GI 13 A Yes, I was.
14 Q I assume from that that you're satisfied with the 15 corrective actions taken with respect to the inspections 16 already performed?
17 A Yes, I am.
18 0 Now, Mr. Guild discussed with you the fact that at least 19 the initial schedule for BCAP had the project concluding 20 in December of 1984.
21 Do you recall that?
22 A I remember him asking me something about that, yes.
23 O Did that schedule eve r change?
24 A Oh, I believe it did, yes.
25 0 And, in fact, had that schedule changed by the time you Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Ill inoic 60134 (312) 232-0262
r 1
l l
18326 1
/~'N k_-
1 discussed with -- you had your meeting with Dr. Kaushal 2 in January of 1985 about the need for a nidpoint look?
3 A Well, I'm sure it had changed by then, since we were 4 past Decembe r, yes.
5 0 Were you kept informed of the changes as they occurred?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Okay.
8 And with respect to the conclusion expressed on 9 Page 12 of your testimony, in Answer 25, that BCAP was 10 satisfactorily implemented, does that conclusion take 11 into account the schedule which was f ollowed, with all
[h 12 its revisions?
13 A It takes into account the fact that BCAP was conducted 14 sa tis f act or ily. I wasn't that interested in schedule, 15 to tell you tle truth.
16 0 Okay.
17 Well, if you had concluded that the schedule which 18 was adhered to compromised the ef fectiveness of the BCAP 19 effort, would you have -- would you have expressed that 20 in your final BCAP report?
21 A Yes, I would have expressed that, and I do not think 22 that the schedule adve rsely af fected BCAP.
23 Q Let's go on to the three items of non-compliance that l
24 you discussed.
l l
C) i
\J 25 The first one was Inspection Report 8502, which was t
Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Ceneva, Illinoi: 60134 (312) 232-0262
18327 C%
N/ )
1 the Level I/ Level II issue. It was an inte rpretation of 2 ANSI Standa rd N4 5.2.6; right?
3 A When you say "the first one," you mean chronclogically 4 the first item of non-compliance?
5 0 I think that 's -- well, no. I'm sorry.
6 The first one I want to discuss is the one in 7 Inspection Report 8502.
8 A I believe that's 8506, the inspection report, 9 0 Well, in any event, I thought it was 8502, but --
10 A I believe I made it an unresolved item in 8502 and then 11 upgraded it in 8506.
Okay.
["'}
12 0 13 Now, I believe you testified that BCAP identified 14 it and Mr. Orlov told you about it and said that --
15 initially he said that BCAP was going to write an 16 obse rva tion.
17 A That's correct.
18 Q And then, later on, he said that BCAP would not write an 19 obse rva tio n .
20 A That's correct.
21 Q Did he explain at that time why not?
22 A Yes, he did.
23 Q And I take it that you disagreed with Mr. Orlov's 24 judgment on that issue?
I 25 A Yes, I did.
V Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Cencva, 1111ncic 50134 (312) 232-0262
18328
/~'s U
1 Q Did you at that time have any question as to whether the 2 judgment that Mr. Orlov was expressing was, in fact, his 3 judgment, his sincere judgment?
4 A I believe it was sincere. I'm not sure it was totally 5 his. I believe he got some interpretational help from 6 other people in CECO.
7 0 Let me ask you the general issue, not confined to 8502.
8 Did you ever conclude, as a general matter, that 9 the people in charge of BCAP were unwilling to write or 10 approve an obse rvation without your urging or expression 11 of concern?
N 12 A I don't know if I'd base 8502 on that.
)
13 At the time I had a conce rn that that might --
14 subsequent to that and with 8502 and 8506, I had a 15 conce rn; but now I do not have a conce rn that that 16 happened.
17 Q Moving on to 8506 and the red-line observations, it's 18 ha rd to know just what's been discussed and what hasn't, 19 because we've been through it on summary disposition and 20 in these hearings.
21 Would you describe what a red-line drawing is?
22 A My unde rstanding is that the contractor's QC peopic go 23 out with an isometric and determine if, in fact, it 24 represents the as-built condition in the field.
25 They make marks on the drawing which identify Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Ocacva, Illincis 00134 (312) 234-0262
18329 C'% *]
1 corrections to the dimensions, et cetera; and those 2 marked-up or red-line -- whatever you want to call them 3 -- drawings are attested to by QC as to their accuracy 4 and validity and are then sent to Sargent & Lundy for 5 evalua tion.
6 Q All right.
7 Now, the 37 red-line observations that were the 8 subject of the item of non-compliance -- what contractor 9 did they relate to?
10 A Phillips Getschow, I believe.
11 Q All right.
/~'N 12 Now, had BCAP initially issued an observation with 13 respect to the absence of QC signature on those 37 14 red-line observations?
15 I mean, had they issued an obse rva tion with respect 16 to this condition initially?
17 A Yes. They had issued at least 37.
18 0 okay.
19 And before the observations were sent to Sargent &
20 Lundy for their review and comment, had BCAP come to a 21 conclusion with respect to the validity, at least 22 initially?
23 A Yes, they had.
24 0 And what was that conclusion, that initial conclusion?
25 A That th ey were valid.
)
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Cencva, 1111ncic 60134 (312) 232-0262
18330 l
\- /
1 Q Okay, and later Sargent & Lundy came back with a 2 comment.
3 Can you just tell me generally what was the 4 substance of that conment?
5 A Well, the comment refe rred, I believe, to a meeting.
6 The comnent in general said that there was no real 7 requirement, in the procedures or in their own standards 8 or in their own design analysis, for QC to make a 9 signature on the drawings and, therefore, the 10 obse rva tions were invalid.
11 Q Subsequent to that point in time, was there a meeting
{}
12 with the Project Construction Department, Sargent &
13 Lundy and BCAP and Comstock -- I'm sorry -- and Phillips 14 Getschow with respect to these obse rvations?
15 A I'm not sure about the " subsequent to." I know there 16 was a meeting, and it may have occurred before S & L 17 completed their evaluation or right after. I'm afraid I 18 don't recall that detail.
19 0 Okay.
20 And as a result of that meeting, Mr. Shamblin wrote 21 a letter to Dr. Kaushal, which Mr. Guild asked you 22 about; right?
23 A I believe that's iorrect, yes.
24 0 And that 1ctter recommended that the observations be 25 invalidated?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ocneva, Il l-incic 6 04-M (312) 232-0262
18331 O
O 1 A I believe it did.
2 Q Yes.
3 And then at some point in time, did the IEOG come 4 into the picture?
5 A Yes. The IEOG wrote their own observation on this 6 matte r once they themselves read the S & L statement 7 regarding invalidation.
8 0 And what was IEOC's position?
9 A That the invalidations were incorrect.
10 0 And in response to the IEOG comment, did BCAP -- is that 11 when BCAP took the position that you referred to in your 12 ca rlie r testimony: that the obse rva tions would be 13 deemed invalid?
14 A Yes. BCAP Task Force wrote back a response to the IEOG 15 obse rvation, sta ting that they had taken certain actions 16 to change the checklist or instructions and that they 17 were in the process or would be invalidating the 18 observations.
19 0 Okay.
20 And at the t!,e that you identified -- and that was 21 the basis for your identification of an item of 22 non-compl iance ; that is, BCAP's expression that it was 23 going to invalidate those obse rva tions; is that correct?
24 A Well, I wouldn't have written an item of non-compliance 25 if the IEOG had not verbally told me that they accepted s
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
! Gen eva , Illinois 00134 (312) 232-0262
18332 l
1 that -- that they accepted that response, is what I 2 mean, because the IEOG I thought had an opportunity to 3 co ndu ct investigations rega rding their own obse rvations.
4 When I disagreed with the ERC's acceptance of the 5 Licensee's response to their objection is when I wrote 6 the item of non-compliance.
7 0 I see.
8 Do you recall whether the IEOG said, "We'll accept 9 it, but we're going to follow up"?
10 A It may have.
11 Q Now, do you know, prior to the time that you identified
(
\
12 an item of non-compliance, whether BCAP took any 13 measures to verify whether there was alternative l 14 documentation which would provide the necessary QC 15 approval of the red-line drawing?
16 A I know they stated in their response that the 17 identification of the stop-work order as being a 18 substitute -- excuse me.
! 19 0 Do you know whether there was any QA surveillance done 20 with respect to tlose stop-work orde rs?
- 21 A I know -- af ter I wrote the item of non-compliance, I i 22 was told by the Licensee, I think, in their response l 23 about come QA surveillance.
24 I was somewhat surprised and taken aback, since 25 when I read about the IEOG observation and I started I
l Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Ceneva, Illinoic 60134 (312) 232-0262
18333 f~%
(
v) 1 looking into this and I used the Senior Resident for 2 construction to aid me in interpreting site procedures, 3 et cetera, rega rding this matte r, I went to QA myself 4 and requested them personally to look into this.
5 At the time I did that, they had not indicated to 6 me that they had received any direction from BCAP to 7 conduct an independent review of this matter. In fact, 8 I requested QA to look at this.
9 This is my inte rpretation of what happened.
4 10 0 Was that BCAP QA that you went to?
11 A Yes, sir, BCAP QA and also the QA Manager.
12
(}
0 Well, do you know whether, in fact, a QA surveillance 13 had bee n -- was, in fact, pe rformed on this subject, 14 resulting in a surveillance report dated February of 15 1985, Februa ry 14th?
16 A I believe there was, yes.
17 0 tiow, once you identified that item of non-compliance, 18 did Applicant file a response to that?
19 A Yes, they did.
20 0 They filed a response in May of 1985, did they not?
21 A I believe that 's correct.
22 Q And as a part of that response, what position did 23 Applicant take with respect to the validity of the 37 24 red-line observations?
25
) A I believe that their statement was that the BCAP Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
seneve, Illincia C0134 (312) 232-0262
I i
18334 I
~~
's-- l 1 obse rvations remained valid.
l 2 Q Let's look at -- lets change the subject. Let's look {;
3 at Applicant's Exhibit 181, which is a modified ve rsion )
i 4 of Intervenors' Exhibit 145. l l
5 Do you have a copy of that in front of you, sir? l 6 A No, sir, I don't. i 7 MR. STEPTOE: Can you make a copy available ;
8 to him, Greg? [
i 9 MR. BERRY: Intervenors' 181? l t
10 MR. STE PTOE : Well, it 's Applicant 's 101. !
, i 11 MR. BERRY: (Indicating.)
}
'~
Now, I'd like to refer to the column marked " percent 13 Q
(
14 discrepant items in the sample," which is the second to j 15 the last column. f i
16 Are you with me? !
17 A Yes, sir.
l 10 0 Okay.
19 Now, can we agree that for purposes of this column, 20 a cable with one missing seg code label counts the same L 21 as a cabic with 20 missing seg code labels? [
22 A I wasn't involved in the prepara tion of this, but I !
23 assume that it would, yes, j 24 0 Based on your unde rstanding of the definitions being
('
25 used?
( :
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
-Ceneva, Il44n oia 5 41-34 (312) 232-0262
- r
t i I \
l 18335 l
I I (r) l O ;
E
) 1 A If my inte rpretation of the definitions is correct, yes.
2 0 All right.
3 Both cables would be counted as discrepant items; L 4 correct?
I :
5 A I would assume all discrepancies would be counted.
[ 6 O And any item with one or more discrepancies would be 1 .
L 7 counted as a discrepant item? !
8 A That's correct. j l
9 0 But I think in our previous examination, the previous !
[
10 questions I asked you, we didn't talk about cables.
11 We talkel I think about a large cable pan with one 12 discrepant -- a la rge cable pan hanger with many welds 1 13 and one of them was discrepant. We said that that would f i
14 count as one discrepant item; and a small conduit hanger l 15 with only four welds, one of which was discrepant, would 16 also count as one discrepant it em. j 17 Do you recall that question -- those questions and 18 an swe rs? [
L 19 A Well, I recall the subject, yes.
20 0 Okay.
21 I asked you whether you would rate the performance 22 of the inspector who missed the one weld on the conduit l 23 hanger the same as the performance of the inspector who !
I 24 minced one weld on the giant cabje pan hanger, and you (
r 25 said no, you would not. l s
f Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd. l
-Geneve, Il-linei 6013a ;
(312) 232-0262 I
18336 9
1 Do you recall that testimony?
2 A Yes.
3 0 Okay.
4 Similarly, here we have taken -- to take another 5 example, we have a conduit with one missing seg code 6 label and a conduit with 20 missing seg code labels.
7 Would you grade the inspector who missed the one 8 seg code label the same as the one who missed the 20?
9 A Well, I have a ha rd time -- of course, I don't grade 10 inspectors, and I don't know the criteria that's being 11 used here.
12 I would say obviously that it's apparent that an 13 inspector who misses one out of 20 is more negligent 14 than an inspector who misses all 20.
15 J UDGE CROS SM AU: Excuse me.
16 "Is less negligent," I believe you meant to cay. .
17 T!!E WITNESS: Yes, "is less negligent," your 18 liono r.
19 (La ugh te r. )
i 20 BY MR. STEPTOE:
21 0 You wouldn't say that both inspectors had made the same 22 number of mistakes, would you?
i 23 A Well, if you're talking about attesting to the fact that I 24 the seg code labels were properly installed, yes.
25 0 Okay.
Sonntag Reporting Se rvice, Ltd.
Octteva , - Il 1-itwie-60134 (312) 232-0262
. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - . . _ _ . _ _ . _ . . ~ . _ _ . . _ _ . _ . _ ... _ . _ _ ~
l- !
i I
l 18337 '
- O 1 So you'd say both inspectors -- the one who had i
2 missed one seg code label had made exactly the same !
3 number of mistakes as the one who had missed 20? !
l
! 4 A No.
l 5 I'm saying if you have a sign-off that says "seg l l
6 code labels are properly installed," if you miss one and l t
7 you sign that they are properly installed, then your i t
8 signa tur e is not correct. It's not correctly i 9 identifying the condition.
10 If you miss 20, it's also not correctly identifying l l
11 the condition. ;
i G 12 Q I see. i 13 A I would factor in that effect, though -- or into that 14 fact that one out of 20 is certainly less significant (
15 than 20 out of 20. !
16 0 So your answer depends in part on what it is that the ,
i 17 inspector is required to sign of f? l i
18 A Certainly. j l
19 0 Okay. Now, let's go to that.
20 When an inspector goes out in the field, he's given l 21 a checklist; right?
22 A That's correct.
p 23 0 And that checklict has things for him to sign off on.
l l
24 Is that what you're referring to as " sign-of fs"? i 25 A Yes, sir.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Ceneve --14-14nol4,---44124 r
l (312) 232-0262 !
i
t 18338
- O j 1 Now, we're talking no longer about BCAP inspectors; i
l 2 we're talking about the contractors or is this general?
3 0 ifell , I think it's a general question here.
l 4 A Okay, fine. l I
5 0 Is your answe r the same? )
6 A Yes.
7 Q Mr. Guild asked you, "Can we agree that it's appropriate 8 to expect that a Quality Control Inspector" -- strike
{
9 that. Let me go back to the point we were just !
10 discussing. l i
11 An inspector has a checklist. That checklist has l
12 nume rous items, nume rous places for him to sign of f.
13 In that generally true? t 14 A Cencrally, yes.
15 0 okay. ,
16 An inspector -- for example, a weld inspector --
17 may be given a checklist with 17 criteria, 17 things for 1 I l 18 him to check, including size of the weld. l
[
l l 19 11ould that be on his checklist?
20 A tie l l , I'd have to review the particular contractor'c {
21 ch ec klis t .
22 I would agree that there would be a number of 23 things that he'd have to sign for. l i
l 24 0 Okay. !
25 lle wouldn't be given a checklict that -- well, Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd. ,
Genevor--H-H no1+-6G1-3 '
(312) 232-0262 [
18339 9
1 let 's go back to Mr. Guild 's ques tion.
2 He said, "Can we agree that it's appropriate to 3 expect a Quality Control Inspector to identify 4 rejectable conditions as those conditions are specified 5 in the acceptance criteria that the inspector utilizes?"
6 You said, "That's correct."
7 Do you want me to repeat it for you? I read it 8 pretty fast.
9 A Yes. Go ahead. ReIAa t it, please.
10 Q "can we agree that it's appropriate to expect a Quality 11 Control Inspector to identify rejectable conditions as 12 those conditions are specified in the acceptance 13 criteria that the inspector utilizes?"
14 A Okay.
15 0 And you said, "That's correct."
16 A Okay.
17 Q Now, Mr. Gardner, are the acceptance criteria that an 18 inspector utilizco -- are they given on an item basis?
19 A It depends if you're talking about BCAP or not.
20 0 Well, let's talk about BCAP.
21 were any of the DCAP inspectors given acceptance 22 criteria for a cabic pan hanger that would allow them to 23 say, "This cable pan hange r is acceptable" or "not 24 ac cept able" ?
25 A No. It would be subattributes of that cable pan hanget.
Sonntag Repor ting Se tvice, Ltd.
Genevar-14-14 nel*--6Al-34 (312) 232-0262
18340 9
1 0 That 's generally t rue, isn't it: that inspectors are 2 given acceptance criteria that relate to attributes on 3 an item?
4 A That's correct; and when you finally sign the total 5 sheet, you're referring to the total item.
6 O Well, that's right.
7 There may or may not -- when we look at the total 8 checklict, all right, and see what he's checked ac 9 acceptable and what's not acceptable, we can reach a 10 conclu sion , for example, that whether -- first of all, 11 we can reach a conclusion whether those attributes that 12 he's acked to check of f are acceptable or not 13 acceptable; right?
14 A If we're evaluating the checklist, I think we can do 15 that.
16 Q And we can also look at it and come to the conclusion 17 that the item ao a whole 10 discrepant or 18 non-discrepant; that ic, it has one or more discrepant 19 items on it; right?
20 We can reach that conclusion?
21 A Afte r we do our innpection, yes.
22 O Yes.
23 But that conclusion that the item in discrepant or 24 not diccrepant in the outcome of the numerous judgmento 25 that the inspector is called upon to make in applying Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Genevar -I 1-H nel c 64144 (31 2) 232-0262
18341 1 the acceptance criteria to the attributes that he is 2 asked to inspect; isn't that correct?
3 A That 's t rue.
4 Q So going back to Applicant's Exhibit 181 and the column 5 that I referred you to earlier, " percent discrepant 6 items in the sample," is it fair to say that this 7 column, which says 60 percent of the cables are 8 discrepant items, represents an outcome of inspectors' 9 jud gment s?
10 A Are you asking me if the percent discrepant items in the 11 sample represents the outcome?
12 0 It's a way of looking at the outcome?
s 13 A I believe it is. It could be portrayed to be that way, 14 yeah.
15 0 It's one way of looking at the outcome.
16 But the inspector -- you won't find, for example, 17 in the BCAP inspection reports an inspection checklist la that says, " Cable pan hange r" -- well, let's use conduit 19 -
" Conduit 104 in its totality is discrepant or l 20 no n-dis cr epan t . "
21 You have to look at the reports and then reach the 22 outcome, come to the conclusion that it's discrepant; i 23 right?
- 24 A Yeah. You have to look at the inspection report. The V
) 25 inspection report will tell you whether there's a i
l
] Sonntag Iteporting Service, Ltd.
Gottever-+1-1-inc i s CG144 (312) 232-0262
18342 O
a 1 discrepancy or not.
2 0 That's right.
3 But the inspection report that the BCAP inspectors 4 signed didn't have a check box that said, "This item is 5 discrepant" or "non-discrepant"?
6 A Well, it did in that it had a number of attributes; and 7 if you look at the total inspection checklist list and 8 you see all attributes are ma rked as " acceptable," you 9 have to assume that the total item is acceptable.
10 If you cee one attribute that's marked "not 11 acceptable," you have to assume that there's at least 12 one discrepancy.
13 0 Right.
14 I mean, that's something you can derive from the 15 inspection checklist that the CSR created; right?
l 16 A That's correct.
17 0 And you may have to look at more than one checklist 18 because there may have been more than one CSR inspector 19 who looked at that item?
20 A That's correct.
21 O Now, isn't it also the case that the next column over, 22 "pe rcent notable items in the sample," also is a 23 representation of the outcome of the CSR inspections?
24 That is, it tells you nonething about the percent 25 of items which had at least one dicerepancy with more Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Genev+r-44-Mnel r 60144 (312) 232-0262
_ __ . - _ - _ _ - _- . . - =
l <
l
- 18343 l
! 1 than 10 pe rcent reduction in the capacity?
l j 2 A That's correct.
! 3 0 And then if we look at the space at the edge of f
4 Applicant's Exhibit 181, which is blank -- and I'll tell 5 you that maybe there should be a column there that would .
I 1 l 6 represent the number of pe rcent design-significant items !
1 !
7 -- there would just be zeros in that column, wouldn't l l
l 8 there?
l 9 A Yes, there would. l l
10 0 And that would be another way of looking at the outcomo '
11 of the CSR reinspections, wouldn't it?
[
12 A That's correct.
l 13 Q Okay.
14 Now, Judge Grossman asked you a question whether i
15 there were a number of inspection points which were such 16 eacy judgment calls that we'd hardly ever expect an f
! 17 inspector to miss them. i 10 Do you recall that examination?
19 A Yes, I believe I do.
20 Q You said yes, there were.
21 Do you have any particula r inspection points in l
3 i l 22 mind? i l 23 A Actually, seg code labels probably to me would come to ,
! I I 24 mind. ;
25 0 Oh, all right.
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Cuneve r-Rl-inei.; C&l-34 (312) 232-0262 j i
, . - - - - - - - - - - - . - _ _ - _ . - ~ . . - . _ _ . - . . - - - . _ - . - . - - - - . . -
)
18344 till !
1 And were there any instances of missing seg code 2 labels in the CSR -- in the CSR results? I l
3 A I believe there were nume rous instances. j 4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I'm sorry. I didn't hear ;
i 5 the answer. ;
6 (The answer was thereupon read by the 7 Reporte r . )
8 BY MR. STEPTOE: i l
9 0 You're not of the opinion, are you, that BCAP should not i 10 have looked to see whether there were seg code labels l l
11 mincing, are you? l t
12 A No, I'm not.
13 Q Okay. Now we have CSR results.
I 14 Are you of the opinion that for a balanced j t
15 portrayal, we just should have omitted -- one should ,
16 simply anit , from any presentation of inspection points j t
17 or discrepancy points, the fact that seg code labels l i
18 were missing? l 19 A No. !
i 20 Q Let's go back to Applicant's Exhibit 181 and this column I i
21 aga in ma rked "pe rcent discrepant it ems in the sample." l i !
22 The firct entry for cables indicates that 60 l l
23 pe rcen t of the cables have at leact one discrepancy; j 24 right?
l 25 A I believe that's what it represento.
[
Sonntag Repor ting Se rv ice, Ltd. j Ceneva r-I-1-14nolMG1-34 ,
(312) 232-0262
18345 0
1 Q So it shows that 60 pe rcent of the cables are less than 2 perfect?
3 A That's correct.
4 Q And similarly, the cable pan entry shows that about 64 5 percent of the cable pans were less than perfect?
6 A That's correct.
7 Q And 59 percent of the conduits were less than perfect?
8 A That's correct.
9 0 56 percent of the conduit hangers were less than 10 pe r fect?
11 A That's correct.
12 0 86 percent of the cable pan hangers were less than 13 pe rfect, and 72.5 percent of the equipment installations 14 were less than perfect; right?
15 A That's correct.
16 Q liow , from the standpoint of Appendix B, it's the 17 responsibility of QC Inspectors to identify rejectable 18 conditions; correct?
19 A That's correct.
20 Q Anytime they fail to do so, the item which had this 21 rejectable condition appea rs in this column; correct?
22 A That's correct.
23 Q From the standpoint of Appendix B, wouldn't you like to 24 see that, ze ro s in those columns?
25 A Certainly.
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, I11irtei:, 60144 (312) 232-0262
18346 O
1 0 That 's the standa rd in Appe ndix B, isn't it?
, 2 A That's correct.
3 Q All right.
4 Now, that would represent perfection, perfect 5 pe rformance by the QC Inspectors, wouldn't it?
6 A I don't know if it would represent perfection, because 7 you have to assume then that the reinspectors are 8 perfect.
9 Q Okay.
10 But if we assume ,that the reinspectors did a good 11 job -- and you're willing to assume they did that, 12 aren't you, Mr. Gardner?
13 A I'm willing to assume they did a good job, yes.
14 0 -- then you would say that the result of zero in each 15 column represents a pretty good -- well, you'd be 16 willing to say that the zero entry represents i 17 nea r-pe rfect pe rformance, at least by the Comstock 18 inspectors, if they achieved that result?
19 A If they had achieved that result.
20 0 Which, of course, they didn't?
21 A Which they didn't.
I 22 0 Would you ever -- apart from what Appendix B requires, 23 would you ever expect to see ze ros in those columns for
- 24 any weld performed reinspection orogram?
25 A No.
Sonntag Reporting Service, L t '! .
-Genever-H-HntHt a C ^ .H4 (312) 232-0M2
I 18347
('~
s /
1 Q Now, in response to a question from Mr. Guild, you 2 stated that you had never developed an acceptance 3 standard to provide an overall judgment of an inspection 4 group.
5 You went on to say that your own personal standards 6 are high, and you would expect that a good inspection 7 group would hava resulted in lower rates of discrepant 8 items than is shown in this column of Applicant's 9 Exhibit 181.
10 Do you recall that testimony?
11 A Yes, I believe I did.
12 O Okay.
13 Now, can you tell me whether you have any figure in 14 mind, othe r than ze ro, which would be used in 15 conjunction with this column to separate a good 16 inspection program from an average inspection program or 17 from a poor inspection program?
18 A No. I believe I said I don't have a ready set of 19 numbers to fill in the spaces for that. I only said 20 that I had a high -- a pe rsonal high expectancy of 21 performance.
22 O Well, you said that you didn't -- you had never created 23 an acceptance standard prior to the time that you spoke 24 on the stand.
25 Did you make up an acceptance standard on the Sonntag Repor ting Se rvice, Ltd.
Cenev*r-Illinoin 60131 (312) 232-0262
18348 O
1 stand? l)
F y 2 A No. But if I was ever requested to by the NRC, I could l I
3 do that. j i'
4 0 Okay.
5 Now, Mr. Gardner, you said, in response to one of i
6 my previous questions, that you would not expect to see l
l 7 zero discrepant items in the sample for any reinspection l l
8 program calculated in the manner shown in Applicant's j 9 Exhibit 181. !
10 can you explain why not? !
l l 11 A I just don't think it's, in the real world, possible to i
)
12 achieve.
13 Q Does the failure to achieve that zero figure mean that (
i' 14 regulatory requirements have not been met? ,
15 A No. i l
l 16 Q Okay, i i
17 In your direct testimony, you talked about the need ,
i 18 for a balanced portrayal of CSR reinspection results.
l 19 A That's correct. !
20 0 Okay.
21 Do you believe that -- and I believe you stated j 22 that Commonwealth Edison portrayed the CSR reinspection j l
23 results in those public meetings in a more balanced 1
24 fashion af te r you talked to them.
25 A That's correct.
! i
- l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd. .
4 Gerteve r--IM-in cis 60H4 l (312) 232-0262 ,
1 i
18349 CN U
1 Q Now, do you believe that Applicant's Exhibit 181, 2 standing alone, presents a balanced portrayal of the CSR 3 reinspection results?
4 A No.
5 MR. STEPTOE: No further questions.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild?
7 RECROSS EXAMINATION 8 BY MR. GUILD:
9 0 Well, in what respect did Commonwealth Edison Company 10 heed your suggestion, Mr. Gardner, after you made the 11 suggestion that they present the BCAP results in public
, 12 meetings in a more balanced fashion?
13 A I believe that was asked.
- 14 I think my answer was that the first time that this 15 at a public meeting or any forum in which data being 16 presented triggered a concern on my part regarding the 17 need for balance, it was my understanding that the data 18 was going to be presented solely on the basis of
( 19 inspection point numbers.
l 20 Since only limited amounts of presentations were l
21 being conducted due to obvious time constraints, I 22 stated to the licensee that because the public may be 23 unaware of inspection point data and how it could be gss 24 construed by all parties, that it would be best to s ,/ 25 present some data ~ that said, "We've completed 100 cable l
Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
(
__._312) 232-0262 __ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _
18350 J
l hangers so far, and we've issued 30 inspection reports 2 or discrepancy reports."
3 That type of data is what I was looking for.
4 0 And they did that?
5 A To my satisfaction, yes.
6 Usually if I was in a public meeting and I heard 7 something that didn't seem balanced, I'd ask a question.
8 I believe I did in at least one case: "Isn't it true 9 that you've had these many reports regarding these many 10 items?"
11 Again, I did not require the Licensee to do that.
O 12 I just requested that they do it.
13 0 So instead of expressing the results solely in 14 inspection points, they thereaf ter told you -- presented 15 an absolute number of items sampled and an absolute 16 number of discrepancy reports?
17 A I would not characterize it as being that they, you 18 know, followed a regimen of characterizations of data.
19 I would say they did it in a more balanced manner.
20 0 All right, sir.
21 Let me direct your attention to the BCAP final 22 report; that is, the report that was issued to the NRC l
l 23 reflecting the BCAP results, was it not?
24 A Yes, sir.
\ 25 0 And it's the report that was issued also to the public, Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134
.( 312) 232-0262
18351 1 portraying the results of the BCAP program's 2 reinspection and other reviews of the quality of 3 construction at Braidwood?
4 A That's correct.
5 0 It's a November,1984, document. I apologize; my copy 6 is marked up. Directing your attention to Page Roman 7 III-40, it's entitled "CSR reinspection results."
8 (Indicating.)
9 Take a moment, Mr. Gardner, if you would, and first 10 tell me if it is your understanding that that is the 11 correct reference for the portrayal of the quantitative p)
( 12 results of the BCAP CSR program.
13 A That provides the CSR reinspection results.
, 14 0 Yes.
15 Is there any other part of the report that provides 16 the quantitative results of the CSR inspections?
17 That is the page, is it not?
l 18 A Yes, sir, I believe it is.
19 0 Now, the data on that page is portrayed -- first there's l 20 a vertical column that lists each of the construction l
21 categories, is there not?
22 A Yes, sir.
23 0 And, of course, material to this proceeding are the l
l 24 electrical categories, and they are listed as the six
( 25 categories that we've been discussing?
l Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 l .__ (312) 232-0262
18352 O
1 A That's correct.
2 0 The next column, moving to the right, is " population 3 size."
4 A That's correct.
5 0 And is it your understanding now that that represents 6 the estimates of the population size as of June 30, '84?
7 Is that your understanding of what that column 8 represents?
9 A Yes, sir, I believe that's what that represents.
10 0 On an item basis; correct?
11 The number of, say, conduits, conduit hangers, et n
12
() cetera?
13 A That's correct.
14 Q The third column, moving to the right, states " total 15 reinspected," and those are the sample sizes also on an 16 item basis?
17 A Those are the items that were reinspected, yes, sir.
18 0 All right, sir.
19 Following to the right, " total inspection points,"
20 there for each of the construction categories, including 21 the electrical categories, are listed the total 22 inspection points for the total population?
23 A That's correct.
g~. 24 0 The next column to the right, " discrepant,"
k, 25 D-I-S-C-R-E-P, " reports."
Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
._ _. _- ,_,(312)_ 232-0262
18353 O
1 I take that to mean discrepancy reports?
2 A That's my understanding.
3 0 All right, sir.
4 Now, there really isn't any such thing as a 5 " discrepancy report," using " discrepancy" as a term of 6 art in BCAP.
7 It would be an observation, would it not?
8 A It would be an observation that has been evaluated and 9 found to be valid.
10 0 All right.
11 So that means a valid observation, using the BCAP
( 12 terms of art?
13 A That's correct.
14 Q That's your understanding as to what that column 15 depicts?
16 A Yes, sir.
17 0 All right.
18 The next is " insignificant discrepancies," and i 19 there's a number. I presume that's the number of 20 reports, valid observations, that reflect the 21 insignificant category evaluations.
22 A I believe that's what that means, right.
23 Q Moving further to the right, " notable discrepancies,"
24 again the number of valid observations determined to be l
\_,) 25 notable after evaluation?
l i
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 _ _ __ _ , _ _ _
18354
<x
%s 1 A That's correct.
2 0 And, of course, there are percentages shown for that 3 column.
4 Then there's a column of zeros, which is 5 design-significant discrepancies.
6 A That' c right.
7 0 Again, that's the Sargent & Lundy and BCAP evaluation of 8 the valid observations, reflecting their determination 9 of non-design significance?
10 A That's correct.
11 Q Now, do you see anywhere on this single page that
) 12 reflects the CSR inspection results depicted on a weld 13 basis?
14 A No, sir.
15 0 Either the number of welds inspected or the number of 16 welds found discrepant?
17 A It's included in there, but it's not specified.
18 0 The percentage in terms of the number of welds found 19 discrepant is not discernible from this data?
20 A That's correct.
21 0 Nor is it discernible the percentage of discrepant welds 22 that were notable discrepancies upon evaluation?
23 That's not discernible from this data?
24 A I doubt it, no, sir.
(s, 25 0 It's included, but not discernible?
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
. _ . _ _ . _ (312) _ 232-0262
18355 m
1 A That's correct.
2 Q Nor is it discernible, from looking simply at this data 3 for the population of, say, conduit hangers, what 4 proportion of the items sampled were found to be 5 discrepant; that is, what proportion of the items 6 reflected for each item one or more discrepant 7 conditions?
8 That is not discernible from this data, either, is 9 it?
10 A Well, for conduit hangers, of 133 items inspected, there 11 were generated 139 discrepancy reports.
G 12
() Q Right.
13 We know how many discrepancy reports there were 14 generated for the entire sample size, but we don't know 15 how to associate those discrepancy reports with a 16 particular sampled item, do we?
17 A No.
18 But looking at it, I would look at it that it ,
19 provides a less favorable light, since one would 20 probably assume that there were 100 percent items that 21 had at least one reject if you look at the data that i
22 way. ,
23 0 But that's not an accurate way to look at the data, is 24 it?
O 25 A No, but that could be discerned by any person that Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134
[ (312) 232-0262
18356 v
1 looked at it. In other words, it's less conservative in 2 presenting it that way.
3 0 It may be less conservative, but it's not accurate nor a 4 way that you or anybody else would interpret the data.
5 That's because you have to associate a specific 6 discrepancy with a specific item to know whether or not 7 that discrepancy indicates that that item contained a 8 rejectable condition?
9 MR. STEPTOE: I object to the form of the 10 question. There are at least two questions there.
11 MR. GUILD: No. It's a set of analytical O)
( 12 steps, and I asked the witness whether he would agree 13 that that's what one has to do in order to arrive at a 14 conclusion.
15 MR. STEPTOE: I don't want to inform the 16 witness of what my problem is, Judge Grossman, but that 17 wasn't the part of the question that I had the problem 18 with.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I don't want to have 20 the witness be excused.
21 MR. GUILD: Let me see if I can rephrase the 22 question. I don't know what Mr. Steptoe's problem is.
( 23 BY MR. GUILD:
i i f s, 24 0 In order to determine the percentage of items, sampled 25 items, in any one of the electrical populations, l
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262 -.
I 18357
)
v 1 percentage discrepant -- that is, using the same frame 2 of reference that was employed in the evaluation 3 displayed in Intervenors' Exhibit 145 as revised, 4 Applicant's 181 -- one would have to look at, as Mr.
5 Steptoe supposed, the checklists, plural, for each of 6 the items to determine whether or not looking at each of 7 the checklists for a single item there was reflected one 8 or more discrepant conditions on those checklists.
9 That's the way one would have to determine whether 10 or not a BCAP sample item was discrepant, as we're using 11 that term.
g ) 12 Can we agree?
%/
13 A Well, to me, to determine whether or not a BCAP item was 14 a discrepancy would be whether or not there was a valid 15 observation written against that particular item.
16 0 Indeed, that's right.
17 And one would have to associate the data for valid 18 observations on an item basis, item by item, to 19 determine the percent discrepant items, as we' re using 20 the term now?
21 A Okay.
22 0 one cannot discern that inf ormation f rom this table, the 23 BCAP CSR results, can one?
24 A I've -- no. I've never tried to do it, either.
25 0 One simply can' t do it? You simply can' t associate Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i I
l 18358 i g
~-
1 discrepancy reports with specific items discrepant?
2 They're just two columns of numbers that do not 3 necessarily relate?
4 A That's right. If you assume that there could be more 5 than one discrepancy report for each item, you cannot do 6 that.
7 0 Indeed, there are more than one discrepancy reports for 8 some items, and for some items there are no discrepancy 9 reports?
10 A That's my understanding.
11 Q It follows also that one can't determine the number of O
( 12 notable discrepant items in the sample from the way that 13 Edison has displayed the CSR results in the table before 14 you?
15 A No, I don't think -- the only thing they tell you is the 16 percent of notable discrepancies.
17 0 All right, sir.
18 To do that, one would have to know first the 19 observations, the valid observations, associated with 20 each item and then whether or not those valid 21 observations, after evaluation, had been determined to j 22 be notable, again for each item?
23 A That's correct.
24 O Now, can we agree that whether Intervenors' Exhibit 145,
(~x (m,) 25 Applicant's 181, standing alone represents a balanced l
Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232--0262
18359 m
[v\
1 portrayal of the BCAP results, that taken together with 2 the way Applicant has chosen to provide the results in 3 the BCAP final report, together they provide a more 4 balanced portrayal of the results than either standing 5 alone?
6 A Well, I'm afraid we're stuck with my definition of 7 " balanced," since it was my concern.
8 0 Indeed.
9 A And to my way of thinking, the data in the Exhibit III-4 10 was sufficiently balanced.
11 0 Okay.
) 12 Sufficiently balanced, in your opinion, Mr.
13 Gardner, despite the fact that it doesn't reflect the 14 results on a weld basis?
15 A Yes, sir.
16 I again was locking at balance from my point of 17 view. You have to remember that I was looking at the 18 far-right column f rom an NRC point of view, with only 19 the interpretation of whether or not they were 20 design-significant discrepancies.
21 O You weren't looking at the data for the purposes that 22 this Board is looking at it, perhaps, and that is to 23 evaluate the work performance of Comstock Quality 24 Control Inspectors?
O
( ,) 25 A That is correct.
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
18360
(~~) ,
V 1 Q I see.
2 Now, Mr. Steptoe asked you some questions about the 3 midpoint look, and you provided him perhaps information 4 he wasn't exactly looking for; that is, that you had 5 heard there was a QA investigation that determined that 6 there had been some measures of expected levels of 7 production. You called them " quotas" or " production 8 rates" or whatever.
9 Do you recall that testimony?
10 A Yes, sir.
11 Q And f rom what source did you hear that there had been
) 12 such an investigation by BCAP QA?
13 A From QA.
14 0 Can you identify a specific person who told you that?
15 A Not without risking being incorrect.
16 Q All right, sir.
17 You're hesitant because of a lack of precise 18 recall?
't 19 A That's correct.
20 0 All right, sir.
21 Have you ever -- did you ask that person or anyone 22 else for the documented results of such an investigation 23 or report by the QA people?
% 24 A No, sir.
25 Q Have you seen such a document?
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
(
.312)_ 232-0262 _
18361 1 A No, I haven't.
2 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, nor have I.
3 Understanding where we are in this proceeding, 4 nonetheless this is the Applicant's rebuttal case.
5 Applicant has heretofore never disclosed, to my 6 knowledge, the existence of any such investigation by 7 BCAP QA of the existence of quotas or work performance 8 standards -- work productivity standards for CSR 9 inspectors.
10 I, of course, believe that the existence of any 11 such expected levels of performance, be they quotas or 12 anything else, would seriously undermine the integrity 13 of the BCAP CSR program, notuithstanding, of course, Mr.
14 Gardner's opinion evidence.
15 We believe such a document, if it exists, should be 16 produced and would ask that the Board direct Applicant 17 to conduct a thorough search and to produce any such 18 documented effort by anyone, by BCAP OA or anyone else, 19 on the subject of work performance standards or quotas.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Steptoe?
21 MR. STEPTOE: Judge Grossman, the implication 22 is that Mr. Guild has done -- that Mr. Guild asked for 23 anything like that. He asked for all BCAP records. All i g 24 BCAP records were made available to him. He never 25 bothered in a year to come down to the site and review Sonntag Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
_ _. _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _(312)_ _ _ 232-0262
I 18362 h
O 1 those records. If he had, he would have found this 2 information.
3 Now, the last day of the hearing is a little late 4 for that. Moreover, this case --
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Moreover what?
6 MR. STE PTOE : Moreover, this case is about 7 harassment and intimidation of LKC Comstock QC 8 Inspectors, and the issue of whether BCAP inspectors 9 were initially going too fast is relevant only to the 10 extent that it casts doubt on the adequacy of the CSR 11 reinspections.
) 12 Now, we have had testimony from Mr. Gardner that 13 his ultimate conclusion is that those reinspections were 14 adequate, notwithstanding this information.
15 Now, I think Mr. Guild is stuck with that. If he 16 hasn't in a year's time ever gone down to look at those 17 documents, all of which were made available to him, if 18 he hasn't asked any of those questions of us, we can't 19 be blamed for his failure to do that work.
20 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, let's be a little 21 more --
4 22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me.
23 Mr. Gardner's opinion is not conclusive. I do want g s, 24 to say that.
k,, 25 But, Mr. Guild, what further do you have to say?
Sonntaa Regatting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
__.._ __ (312). 232-0262 _ _ _ _ _ _ . __ _ _ . _
l l
18363 l x/ i 1 MR. GUILD: First of all, this year that I've 2 been somehow inattentative to hunting this particular 3 peanut is a canard that really doesn't address the 4 issue.
5 Mr. Steptoe elicits this information during the 6 course of his own examination. It was never disclosed 7 before.
8 Now, if Mr. Steptce's position is that hidden among 9 hundreds of thousands of documents there is some 10 document that reflects the testimony Mr. Gardner has 11 made, I've certainly never been fairly apprised of its N
) 12 existence in the past.
13 Edison only made BCAP a part of its case in the 14 middle of this hearing, as the record reflects; and I 15 had come two weeks or less discovery opportunity to 16 prepare for this rebuttal case. That's the actual 17 window we have here.
18 Now, indeed, if Applicant, in providing indexes of 19 documents which they were allowed to do in answering 20 questions about BCAP, had simply identified the 21 existence in a reasonably clear fashion of some kind of 22 investigation of quotas in the CSR inspection effort, 23 then we could ask the question about whether or not my
- 24 failure to ask for such a document should be held
\s_, ) 25 against me.
Sonntag Reportino Service, Ltd.
)
Geneva, Illinois 60134
[ (312) 232-0262 . __ . . _ - . -
18364 V
1 No one has ever, to my knowledge, disclosed the 2 existence of any such document until Mr. Gardner's 3 testimony today.
4 I'm as unhappy as anyone to find the Pearl Harbor 5 File within two weeks of the end of the hearing and be 6 charged with the responsibility over Thanksgiving of 7 reviewing it for offering it in evidence.
8 I'm not any more happy about finding another piece 9 of evidence on the last day of the hearing.
10 The fact of the matter is, to protect my client's 11 interests, since the Applicant is relying on the CSR
/~
(~) 12 results which we've been relying on for a month and 13 there's some document that calls the integrity of that 14 into question, I think it's a piece of evidence 15 notwithstanding when we discover it, and I would ask 16 that Mr. Steptoe produce it.
17 MR. STEPTOE: Judge Grossman, a couple 18 things.
19 First of all, my understanding is that this 20 investigation related to the pace of the inspections, 21 and my understanding is the conclusion was that there 22 was no quota and it doesn't relate to a quota; it 23 relates to pace. But I haven't seen the document g 24 myself.
k.m, 25 The second point is that Mr. Guild says that BCAP Sonntag Rep.orting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) __ 232-0262 _ _ _ _ _
18365 O
V 1 was only put into play when we put in our rebuttal case.
2 In fact, the adequacy of CSR inspections and midpoint 3 look were in issue on summary disposition for months at 4 the beginning of this case, and this specific issue was 5 a contention. It's Contention Item 12 F.
6 Mr. Guild took Mr. Gardner's deposition on that 7 point. He took Mr. Orlov's deposition on that point.
8 He took Mr. Shevlin's deposition on that point and
- 9 walked out.
10 It's not correct to suggest that he only had the
- 11 opportunity to review the BCAP racords starting when we I
12 filed our rebuttal case and then only two weeks. That's 13 just wrong.
14 MR. GUILD: The record will reflect 15 Applicant's consistent position in this case that BCAP 16 was irrelevant, Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the i
17 existence of the contention subitem that was dismissed
- 18 prior to the hearing.
l 19 The fact that Mr. Shevlin was deposed on the 20 subject of a subcontention item and he didn't disclose 4
21 the existence of such a report and the fact that 22 Applicant didn't disclose it when they responded in 23 summary disposition I think casts doubt on the 24 believabi]ity of Applicant's position.
25 If Applicant is duty-bound to fully disclose Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
) Geneva, Illinois 60134
[ (312) 232-0262
1 l
1 l
18366 j l
O(N I material facts to this Board and there is an 2 investigation of the pace of BCAP, I wonder why 3 Applicant hasn't disclosed it to the Board heretofore if 4 indeed that issue was an issue that was pending for a 5 decision.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
7 We'll just rule that the report ought to be turned 8 over. We're not ruling on its admissibility. Please 9 turn it over to Mr. Guild.
10 If there is a report dealing with the pace or 11 quotas, and then the parties can determine whether it's, N
12 in their opinions, their respective opinions, relevant
)
13 enough or material enough to offer. We'll discuss that 14 Wednesday morning, also.
15 So as soon as possible, have the report turned 16 over.
17 MR. GUILD: One moment, Mr. Chairman. Excuse
- 18 me.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Sure.
(
i 20 Off the record.
21 (There followed a discussion outside the
- 22 record.)
i l
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Back on the record.
gs 24 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, may I proceed?
l k ,) 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes, please.
l l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 23 2-0 26 2 _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
18367 m
1 BY MP. GUILD:
2 0 Mr. Gardner, you talked about, after the midpoint look, 3 speaking with CSR inspectors and inquiring into what 4 instructions they had received.
5 Do you recall that testimony?
6 A Yes.
7 0 And eliciting from them statements which you understood 8 as reflecting that they had been instructed by someone 9 in supervision, their Leads or above, to take whatever 10 time is required to perform their inspections?
11 A That's correct.
O l 12 0 All right.
13 Now, you certainly were aware that BCAP management 14 had been informed of your concerns about the pace of CSR 15 inspections?
16 A Well, I knew they had as a result of the meeting I had 17 with Dr. Kaushal.
18 0 Indeed.
19 And at some point you documented those concerns in 20 an inspection report; that you were concerned about the 21 pace of -- that there had been a midpoint look and a 22 meeting to review the pace of CSR inspections?
23 A I don't believe I mentioned " pace" in my inspection 24 report. I just mentioned that there was a midpoint 25 look.
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
J Geneva, Illinois 60134 I (312) 232-0262
i 18368 (D
1 0 I'm trying to paraphrase what you said.
2 You may not have said anything specifically about 3 pace, but you said that there had been a review of the 4 accuracy or effectiveness of CSR inspections which you 5 -- which has been characterized as the " midpoint look"?
6 A Yes.
7 0 All right, sir.
8 Now, since BCAP management were aware of what your 9 concerns were on this subject -- that is, to do with the
. 10 pace of the BCAP CSR inspections -- isn' t it possible, 11 Mr. Gardner, that the CSR inspectors were also aware of
()
O 12 what the NRC's concerns were on this subject -- what 13 your concerns were on this subject?
14 MR. STEPTOE: I object to the forn of the 15 question; lack of foundation.
i 16 I have two different objections: I object to the 17 lack of foundation in the first part of the question, 18 and I object to the form of the question, "isn't it 19 possible?"
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I don't see anything wrong 21 with "isn't it possible," but let's hear the whole 22 question again, please.
23 (The question was thereupon read by the gx 24 Reporter.)
, 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I don't see anything Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
- - ._ _ . _ _ (312) _232_0262_ __
18369
,,~.
x-1 objectionable about that. Overruled.
2 You may answer.
3 A First of all, when I talked to Dr. Kaushal about the 4 midpoint look, I didn't really mention the fact that I 5 personally had identified the root cause of the problem.
6 I just told him that there was a problem that needed to 7 be fixed.
8 Independent of that, though, I did continue to 9 monitor inspectors' attitudes regarding pace and their 10 instructions regarding pace.
11 I was instructed that obviously -- the inspectors 12 knew, rather, that I was aware of the fact that they, to 13 my point of view, were going too fast or could have been 14 going too fast; and they were aware of that probably 15 before the midpoint look, since I had been asking them 16 questions about it.
i 17 MR. GUILD: All right, sir.
18 BY MR. GUILD:
19 Q Don't you recognize, Mr. Gardner, that your inquiry into 20 the instructions that those inspectors were receiving 21 af ter the midpoint look represented an inquiry that was 22 potentially threatening in character to those CSR 23 inspectors?
24 A In what way?
( ,) 25 Q Did you happen to, in your wait to return to the stand, l
Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
18370 O
1 listen to Dr. Hulin's testimony yesterday?
2 A I'm af raid I didn't pay that much attention.
3 0 All right, sir.
4 Dr. Hulin used the term yesterday " threatening" 5 when he was characterizing the character of certain 6 types of questions.
7 Let me state what my definition of " threatening" 8 is, which I believe to be consistent with Dr. Hulin's; 9 that is, a question that may be incriminating -- not in 10 a criminal sense, but may open the question -- a 11 question whose character may open the answerer or 12 responder to some kind of personal risk, personal 13 threat, a question such as, "Have ycu always done your 14 job right?" "Do you like your supervisor?"
15 Now, you recognize that questions of that character 16 asked of, say, a Quality Control Inspector might be i 17 perceived as threatening in that sense?
4 18 A That's correct.
19 Q All right, sir, i
20 Now, isn't it also possible that the CSR 21 inspectors, when they understood what your position was i 22 on the issue -- that you were concerned about the pace l 23 of CSR inspections -- might perceive a question by you
,. , 24 or questions by you af ter the midpoint look on that same l 25 subject as threatening?
l l c-
- Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
I Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
18371 1
\~
l A Well, there's two antwers to that, I guess. I'll give 2 you both of them --
3 0 Sure.
4 A -- if you don't mind.
5 One is that these inspectors were on loan to CECO 6 to perform the BCAP. They were not responsible for the 7 initial inspections. They had no -- they would have no 8 guilt except for their own lack of adequate 9 reinspections.
10 0 All right.
11 A They were under no -- that I could identify, they were O)
( 12 under no internal reward or they were not subject to an 13 internal reward for going fast; in other words, the 14 longer they took, the more money they would make, the 15 more time they would be on-site. The nuclear industry 16 is drawing to a close. Jobs are scarce. It behooved 17 them to actually go slow.
18 And the second answer would be -- is that my 19 questions were structured to be threatening. I intended i
20 for them to be threatening.
21 Part of my function is not to be one of the boys 22 but to be a regulator. I intended to let them know that 23 if I saw the pace affecting their work, that they were,
~ 24 in fact, threatened and that I expected them to give me l
25 forthright answers.
SonDtaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
._ (312)_ 232-0262
i k
18372
('~)
v 1 So there's two answers to that.
2 0 All right, sir. That's helpful.
3 Therefore, in the sense that you've used the term, 4 those questions may be perceived as threatening to those 5 inspectors?
6 A That's correct.
7 0 I take it that you -- I take it that you are not i
8 professionally trained as an industrial psychologist?
9 A That's correct.
10 0 Of course, neither am I.
11 We have to make judgments based on what we hear
) 12 f rom people, based on our own experience.
13 But you don't have any reason to dispute Dr.
! 14 Hulin's expert view, as an industrial psychologist, that 15 certain questions, because of their character as 16 threatening, may elicit answers that are not as l 17 forthcoming and accurate as others?
i 18 A I don't have the expertise to contradict Dr. Hulin, I'm l
19 afraid.
20 MR. GUILD: That's all the questions I have, l
l 21 Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. I have just one or 23 two.
24 BOARD EXAMINATION O 25 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
18373 V) 1 0 With regard to the questions that I had asked you and 2 that Mr. Steptoe then asked about items on a checklist 3 that wouldn't easily be missed, Mr. Steptoe asked you --
4 Mr. Steptoe suggested one about labels.
5 I believe you answered first about that item, and 6 then Mr. Steptoe followed up on that.
7 Do you recall that?
8 A Yes, sir.
9 0 Okay.
10 Now, that item, I take it, was not in any of those 11 instances in which it appeared to be discrepant; that
) 12 is, a missing label, a notable discrepancy; is that 13 correct?
14 A You mean any of the segregation code labels themselves 15 being significant?
16 0 Yes.
17 A The segregation code label that's missing can be 18 significant.
19 0 No. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have said "yes" so quickly.
20 I'm talking about the notable category in the BCAP 21 program; that is, with that 10 percent criterion, .9 or 22 less. I believe it was the Y category.
l 23 Is that correct?
gs 24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Which is the notable l
, ) 25 category? Mr. Guild, can you help me on that?
Sonntag Reporting Egtvice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 J
I (312) 232-0262
I 18374 1 MR. GUILD: I believe it's Y.
2 BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
3 0 Okay.
4 Now, that missing label -- would that have ever 5 been classified as a Y category item?
6 A Again, I didn't inspect in the area of classifying the 7 items into Y or Z categories. I can only tell you that 8 the missing segregation code label on a conduit, let's 9 say --
10 0 Yes.
11 A -- could be significant if it lends itself to allowing a p) q 12 cable of the wrong division to be pulled through that 13 particular conduit.
14 0 Oh, I see, okay.
15 A But in their terminology, I believe -- regarding 16 " notable," I believe they' re talking about capacity --
17 0 Yes.
18 A -- and not about electrical division or separations.
19 0 Well, my understanding is that when you say " capacity,"
20 you're not, then, restricting that category or that 21 categorization to welds, are you?
22 They did categorize things as " notable" or "not 23 notable" with regard to all of the six particular items 24 or categories; isn't that so?
25 A Well, I leave that answer to the Licensee.
Sonntaa R3 porting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
[1183 R3R-OR@2
18375 t
h v
1 But my understanding is that you' re talking more 2 about structural members and capacity versus like 3 cables --
4 0 Yes.
5 A -- and their ability to function.
6 0 Okay.
7 So your understanding is that using those criteria, 8 the missing segregation label would not be classified as 9 a notable?
10 A That's my understanding, yes, sir.
11 Q Okay.
) 12 Now, if there were a number of these items -- I'm 13 sorry -- a number of these inspection categories, 14 inspection points, that could not be or would not be 15 classified as notable, wouldn't the presence of these 16 particular inspection points then give an unbalanced 17 view, if we were looking only at attribution points or 18 inspection points in order to determine whether there 19 was a large or small amount of notable discrepancies?
20 A Well, I think you'd have to define clearly what you are 21 encompassing in your definition and your quantification 22 of " notable discrepancies" so as to preclude someone 23 misunderstanding what items could or could not even have s, 24 the potential to fall in that category.
25 0 Okay.
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
18376
/^N O
1 Now, I'm looking at a checklist, and this is a weld 2 checklist, I believe. I see a category of " unspecified 3 welds." I understand that to mean the presence of a 4 weld that's not called for in a drawing.
5 Would that be your understanding, too?
6 A Yes, sir.
7 0 Okay.
8 Now, is that the kind of item that would be a 9 common discrepant item?
10 In other words, would there be a number of 11 additional welds put on items that were not called for?
12 A I don't remember that one as being in the same category 13 as the code labels, where there were numerous 14 indications of code label problems.
15 I would say undersize, maybe. Specifically, 16 examples would be like the dimensional requirements.
17 To me a dimension is something that an inspector 18 should be able to verify easily and requires not a great 19 deal of training or intelligence or whatever. That's i 20 the kind of attribute that I would say could be -- would 1
21 go along with the code labels.
! 22 Again, I don't remember enough of the details of 23 percentages of findings regarding unspecified welds to 24 categorize it as something that was identified more s 25 often than others or not.
l Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
18377 (d>
1 Q Okay.
2 In other words, then, you would have to go over 3 each attribute to see whether that was a common 4 occurrence or an uncommon occurrence; you couldn't just 5 generalize and say that they are all of equal 6 possibility?
7 A Well, equal possibility, possibly; but whether or not 8 the results lend themselves to that conclusion, I don't 9 .know.
- . 10 You'd have to go over each of the subattributes and 11 develop data that would lend itself to which attribute
(N^
g 12 , was missed most often and then determine whether you x-- ,
13 think that was an attribute that should have been 14 missed.
15 I'm not sure exactly what point you're reaching 16 with this question, I guess.
17 0 Well, the question I have is whether, without making any 18 kind of judgment on the likelihood of having one 19 discrepancy versus another, cne could just look at a 20 whole list of potential discrepancies and say that by l 21 looking at inspection points alone, one could determine i
i 22 whether the inspections were adequate or inadequate.
l 23 So the question is, really: In your opinion, 24 without going into each inspection point to determine l b)
\ _, 25 whether it is one that is likely to be missed by an l
Sonnta_g.Japorting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinoin 60134
- - _ _ J 312) 232-9262 _ _ , _ _ , _ _
i 18378
[
1 incompetent inspector or one that even an incompetent l 2 inspector would not miss, could you just look at 3 inspection points to determine whether the inspections 4 were adequate or inadequate?
5 A Well, I'm certainly not an expert on inspection points.
6 One of the problems I had with inspection points, 7 when I was in the midst of doing the BCAP inspections 8 and I brought up the concern that I had about balance, 9 was that I did not want to take that much time from my 10 BCAP inspections to become an expert on inspection 11 points.
) 12 I just thought the data -- and I didn't think the 13 public, either, or anybody else subsequent to the BCAP 14 would be an expert on that, and that's why I felt the 15 balance was good.
16 I'm not that much of an expert on it. I don't know 17 that much about the inspection point data, how they 18 developed it. I haven't generated any conclusions.
19 I think you can take inspection point data and use 20 it in a realistic and acceptable manner. But before I 21 would buy into that and state that has been done here, I 22 would first want to go through it myself and understand i
23 their process and their procedures and talk to their g s. 24 people and then give you a basis for why I think that's
,/ 25 acceptable.
Sonntag Reporting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
._ -__,_ _ .___ _ --_ _ _ . _ .._312)
( ,232,-0262___ __. ___
18379 j
(j'~b
\
1 I believe it can be acceptable, and it may very )
2 well be. I just haven't gone into depth in reviewing 3 their methodology and evaluating whether or not they 4 followed that methodology in providing these numbers.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine. Thank you.
6 BOARD EXAMINATION 7 BY JUDGE COLE:
8 0 I just really have onc quection, Mr. Gardner. It has to 9 do with the applicability of 10 CFR 50 Appendix B.
10 To your knowledge, does Applicant have any 11 inspection or reinspection programs to which 10 CFR 50 p,V) 12 Appendix B doen not apply?
13 A No.
14 0 Is it reasonable to state that it's standard procedure 15 for NRC to be informed of inspection programs that the 16 Applicant is conducting?
17 A Yes. Let me give you a little addition to niy answer to 18 your first question.
19 The NRC typically looks at items that are 20 " safety-related," quote, items that are significantly --
21 could significantly af fect the saf ety of the plant.
l 22 There are portions of the plant that are designated 23 as non-safety, which the NRC does not see as a source of
. 24 threat to the puolic. In those areas we do not apply l (~
l 25 Appendix B.
l Sonntaa Reportino Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
_. _ - - _ . _ . - _ _ __ __. (312) 232.0262. . . . . _ - . _ . _
i 18380 Q
b 1 But certainly to the areas of the plant that are 2 what we consider to be safety-related or have 3 significant impact on safety, we do apply Appendix B.
4 Yes, the NRC is generally aware of all the ongoing 5 corrective action programs. We usually find that out 6 through direct communication or just through coming 7 across it by ourselves.
8 0 Is it f air to say that it's standard practice that the 9 Applicant or Licensee keeps you apprised of the progress 10 of these kinds of inspection, reinspection or corrective 11 action programs?
(~)
l 12 A Well, they don't tell us about every one, because for 13 every NCR that is generated, there's a potential for a 14 corrective action. We have -- they have logs of NCR's.
15 We can review those, et cetera.
16 The more significant items, such as 50.55(e), Part 17 21, a breakdown in their QA program resulting f rom a 18 stop-work order, things like that, and, of course, 19 obviously NRC enforcement items we are routinely 20 notified of by the Licensee.
l 21 0 All right, sir.
22 So with respect to certain kinds of actions, the 23 Applicant or Licensee would either inform you of the gs 24 actions that they' re taking -- that they take or plan to k__) 25 take on it; that information is available to you through Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
_ . _ _ _ . _ _ __ (312) _ 232-0262 _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _
T 18381
~
I the NCR files --
2 A That's correct.
3 0 -- or other files similar to that?
4 A That's correct.
5 0 Okay.
6 Now, with respect to NRC's participation in these 7 corrective action programs, is it fair to say that NRC 8 decides how it's going to participate in or evaluate 9 these kinds of programs?
10 A That's correct.
11 The NRC has set up methodologies for reviewing
) 12 these programs. For example, 50.55(e) 's require a 13 letter transmitting tha item to the Region. The Region 14 puts a number, a tracking system, on it. It requires 15 formal closure and an inspection report. Part 21's 16 follow a similar methodology.
17 Other items are reviewed by individual inspectors, 18 warranted to be significant and are made open or 19 unresolved items as they track them.
20 A number of these items, particularly the Part 21 21 -- excuse me. The 50.55's require periodic updates, 22 formal reports f rom the Licensee giving us their status 23 of the corrective actions they've taken, et cetera.
24 JUDGE COLE: All right. That's very helpf ul .
25 Thank you.
Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134
[ (312) 232-0262
1 18382 1 BOARD EXAMINATION 2 BY JUDGE CALLIH AN:
3 Q Mr. Gardner, I'd like to touch for a moment on basically 4 your participation in BCAP.
5 A Yes, sir.
6 0 In your testimony at Pages, for example, 5 and 6 and 13, 7 you list some of your responsibilities. I'll pick one 8 of those.
9 On Page 5 in the middle complete paragraph, the 10 middle paragraph, you cite reviewing personnel training 11 qualifications, reviewing audits and so forth; finally,
) 12 overviewing BCAP QA reinspections.
13 Just what was done under that responsibility?
14 A Well, the BCAP QA organization, as did the IEOG
. 15 organization, had their own group of inspectors. They
, 16 hired them in under PTL -- under the PTL contract, I 17 believe, and under their organization. But they were
- 18 strictly BCAP inspectors.
19 These inspectors were tasked with taking a l 20 percentage of the BCAP packages that had undergone
- 21 reinspection and performing their own independent l 22 re-reinspection of those BCAP sample items. What I I
23 would do is, as with the IEOG overinspectors, I would l 24 accompany BCAP QA overinspectors as they performed these 25 receinspections.
i i
SonntDq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
18383 r\
b 1 Now, if you want a broader answer as to how I 2 looked at the total BCAP QA -- but I thought you were 3 focusing on the BCAP QA overinspectors.
4 0 Have you just stid, in effect, that you went out in the 5 field with inspectors and watched them inspect?
6 A Yes, sir.
7 0 Is your background such that you have certifications and 8 qualifications as an inspector?
9 A As an electrical inspector, yes, sir.
10 0 Now, if one looked at this enumeration of your 11 responsibilities and duties -- and I pick the list on 3
12 Page 5 of your testimony again -- can you give a rough
, 13 breakdown of your effort and maybe integrate it over the 14 whole period?
15 I know this is a difficult thing, but how did your i 16 work break down?
17 I'm looking primarily at fieldwork, what you just 18 describe 6, and what categorizes paperwork.
i 19 A Well, the fieldwork didn't start until after the 20 beginning of 1985, when BCAP QA started performing the 21 field overinspections. That's about the time period.
22 It could have been in December of '84; but it was about 23 the end of '84, the beginning of '85, is when they s 24 started doing this. ,
\s_ ,/ 25 But f rom the beginning of my involvement with BCAP, 1
Sonntag Reportifig Service, Ltd.
' Geneva, Illinois 60134 i __
(312) 232-0262
18384
/%
1 I singled out ECAP QA as being an area that I wanted to 2 spend a significant amount of attention on. I looked at 3 their adherence to procedures, and I made sure that they 4 had people on their staff that were not only qualified 5 as far as training and education but also were people 6 that I thought were ready to perform in the manner that 7 a QA inspector -- QA people are required to perf orm.
8 That's my subjective analysis, and so I did that up 9 front.
10 Then later, as BCAP QA started retaining inspectors 11 of their own to perform overinspections, I was involved (O) 12 in reviewing their qualifications and certifications.
13 I was involved in their initial attempts at 14 developing the methodology that they were going to 15 ucilize in performing overinspections; that is, I'd go 16 out in the field with the BCAP QA overinspectors, talk 17 to them about what they were going to be doing, listen 18 to them and discuss with them as they evolved into the 19 final way in which they performed their QA 20 overinspections, go out in the field with them, as I 21 would the Daniel inspectors or the IEOG overinspectors, 22 and discuss their findings, try to understand what they 23 were finding, evaluate what they considered to be the s 24 significance of their findings; just spend time with l
25 them in the field overviewing them and also getting as Sonntas_ Reporting _ Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
18385
(b s/
~
1 much information out of their activities as I could.
2 O I feel that the primary interest that some of us have in 3 this is safety, and I think a contributing factor to 4 cafety is hardware. That was the basis for my question 5 of how much fieldwork you did.
6 Can you say 10 percent of your time was in the 7 field or 50 percent or can you put a figure on it?
8 A I would say it's between 10 and 50. I really didn't jot 9 down how much time. It was significant.
10 What I would do usually, besides the BCAP 11 ins pections , is I would use the expertise of the 12 residents to go out in the field with them.
13 On I think at least seven different inspection 14 reports, I utilized the Resident Inspectors' expertise 15 to verify that the conclusions that I was reaching 16 regarding the overinspections in my overview of the 17 overinspections was accurate.
18 I would take -- I would go out with the Resident 19 Inspectors and Senior Resident Inspectors and perform 20 inspections that were fairly similar and see if we were 21 coming up with similar results.
22 0 I see.
23 Changing the subject somewhat, there has been 24 discussion of the design of BCAP and tenure, as you 0 25 recall.
SAnnta_g_Bepatting Service, Lt6 J
Geneva, Illinois 60134 I (312) 232-0262
18386 A
s-1 Who, in your experience and knowledge and 2 recollection, designed the BCAP program, what entity?
3 Not what individual, of course.
4 A I guess when you say " design," you mean established that ,
5 the BCAP would be a three-element, et cetera, et cetera?
6 0 Yes.
7 A That would be Commonwealth Edison Company, as far as I 8 know.
9 Q And that was done when over your tenure?
10 A Before I started as a BCAP inspector.
11 Q Had you been a BCAP inspector at the time of the design O)
(,v 12 and would your responsibilities have necessitated input 13 into that design?
14 A Yes.
15 0 In what manner and to what degree?
16 A Well, I was involved in the review of the Midland CCP, 1
17 Construction Completion Program, which was probably a 18 program that had even greater dimensions than the BCAP 19 program.
20 I was directly involved. In fact, I was the 21 regional person tasked with the most responsibility for ,
22 reviewing that program and its design.
23 So I transposed that knowledge, and I would have 24 transposed that knowledge, and I did actually transpose 25 that knowledge into the review of the BCAP program.
Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
( 312 ) 232-0262
18387 O
C 1 Q And your responsibility would have been to put the 2 Commission's knowledge and responsibilities as sort of 3 an advisory -- in a sort of advisory manner to the 4 utility in this particular case, who you identified 5 earlier as the true designer?
6 A Well, if I had been asked to give input to the design 7 while the design was ongoing, I would have had to have 8 understood what type of role the NRC was playing in the 9 development of that design.
10 That would have had to have been established up 11 front so that I would have understood my role to be 12 either that of an adviser or that of a regulator.
13 I don't know. I'd have to understand that, to 14 begin with.
15 Q Do you have, off the top of your head, a figure of the 16 manpower invested in the BCAP program?
17 A You mean the number of people that were --
18 0 Well, the number of man-hours.
19 The August 8, 1984 -- August 30, 1984, letter from 20 the utility to Mr. Keppler has a figure in it someplace.
21 I guess that must have been, since it was '84, an 22 estimate of the input.
23 When it was all said and done, do you have a number 24 for the man-years invested in BCAP?
25 A No, sir, I don't.
Sonntaq Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
.. . - _ . _ _ . _ - - - - -- . _ _ _ . . ~ ._ . . . _ . - -
i 18388 I(g 4
1 JUDGE COLE: Thank you.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Berry?
4 3 MR. BERRY: The Staff has nothing further, i
4 Mr. Chairman.
1 5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Steptoe?
6 MR. STEPTOE: Just one question.
7 RECROSS EXAMINATION i 8 (Continued) i
- 9 BY MR. STEPTOE
t 10 0 You responded to Mr. Guild that you intended your 11 questions, in the case of inspectors, to be threatening; 12 you weren't one of the boys.
- 13 Do you recall that testimony?
14 A Yes, sir.
{
15 Q Do you believe you were such a threatening presence --
t
- 16 well, I don't want to ask it this way.
17 Could you characterize whether your communications 18 with inspectors were good or bad, the BCAP inspectors?
l 19 MR. GUILD: Objection, Mr. Chairman. " Good 20 or bad" -- it's vague; no probative value, q 21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I believe the gist of 22 the question is whether he had effective communication 23 with the inspectors, and we'll allow it in that sense.
24 Mr. Gardner, you can respond.
i 25 A Yes, I believe I had very effective communication with i
i
- Sonntag Reporting Service, Ltd.
j Geneva, Illinois 60134
'.-,.__._._ (312) 232-0262
18389 1 the inspectors.
2 BY MR. STEPTOE:
3 0 Were the inspectors afraid to talk to you?
4 A Not that I'm aware.
5 MR. STEPTOE: That's all I have.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild?
7 MR. GUILD: No questions, Mr. Chairman.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gardner, we appreciate 9 your testifying, and we appreciate the character of your 10 testimony.
11 It's obvious that you took pains to be forthcoming (v 12 and candid, and we do appreciate that. It's something that we should be able to expect from public servants, 13 14 and we don't get that very often, so thank you for 15 appearing here.
16 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
17 (Witness excused.)
I 18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I guess that --
l 19 MR. DERRY: I take it the Board is referring 20 to maybe what's going on in the White House right now.
21 I believe all the witnesses that the Staff has 22 produced have done their best to be candid and
! 23 forthcoming. I agree that Mr. Gardner has been i
. 24 exceptionally candid and forthcoming, but I believe that
( ,) 25 has been true of all Staff witnesses.
f S9nntag_ Reporting Servient Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 232-0262
. _ _ _(312)__ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _.
I 18390 O
1 I would just state that for the record. I take it 2 as a compliment for Mr. Gardner.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, it certainly was 4 intended as that.
5 (Laughter.)
6 But if you wish to construe it otherwise, it's 7 always up to anyone to do that.
8 I guess that concludes the testimonial portion of 9 the evidentiary hearing, unless something occurs in our 10 conference call that suggests otherwise.
11 We will not --
Mr. Chairman?
) 12 MR. GUILD:
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild?
14 MR. GUILD: Anticipating the Board a bit, I 15 would like to ask that the Board simply reflect on 16 Intervenors' objection to the closure of the record in 17 this proceeding until and unless Intervenors are allowed I
18 to pursue the matter that was apparently ruled on by the 19 Commission in their non-public order, which this party 20 has not had access to.
21 Since I understand that there is some 22 uncommunicated stricture against being any more 23 definitive, although I have received no such direction l
s 24 f rom anyone, I'll be vague, but I trust that the Board
\ 25 and parties understand my drift on this.
l l
Sonntag_ Reporting _Herylce_. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 I (312) 232-0262
~
l l
l l
18391 !
1
~~ ,
\~-)
1 (Laughter.)
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I don't know that there is 3 any stricture on you, Mr. Guild.
4 MR. GUILD: Well, Mr. Chairman, we, of 5 course, had moved to consider a contention about 6 allegations raised by the former Quality control Manager 7 at Comstock, Mr. Corcoran. The record will reflect what 8 proceedings have taken place on that issue.
9 We object to the closure of the record until we've 10 been afforded an opportunity to litigate that.
11 MR. MILLER: Along those same lines, I was
( 12 wondering whether there is some employee of the NRC in 13 this room who can use his or her good offices to shake 14 loose a copy of the opinion even af ter the required 15 protective agreement has been executed.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You haven't yet received the 17 opinion?
18 MR. MILLER: No, sir.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I think Staff ought to be 20 able to.
21 Do you have one with you, Mr. Berry?
22 MR. BERRY: No, I don't, Mr. Chairman.
23 (Laughter.)
24 MR. MILLER: Well --
25 MR. BERRY: I was not given possession of --
Sonntag Reporlim LService,_Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 f (312) 232-0262
l 18392 0
1 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Pardon?
2 NR. BERRY: I was not entrusted with 3 possession of that document.
4 (Laughter.)
5 I don't have a copy of it.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, it's --
7 MR. MILLER: I don't need to ask the members 8 of the Board for their personal copies, but we'll pursue 9 it.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Fine.
11 MR. MILLER: Your Honor, there are two other 12 matters that I'd like to raise before we conclude.
13 The first is that I would like to call the Board's 14 attention, although I'm confident they're mindful of it, 15 to that portion of Appendix A, Part 2, which, at least 16 in my reading of it, poses some obligation on the Board l 17 in the event that it has questions or uncertainties -- I 18 think " uncertainties" is the word that is used in 19 Appendix A -- at the conclusion of the record.
20 The portion of the Appendix A that I'm referring to 21 states, "If the uncertainties arise from a lack of
- 22 suf ficient information in the record, it is expected I
23 that the Board would normally require further evidence l to be submitted in writing, with opportunity for the 24 l
! 25 other parties to reply in open hearing for the taking of Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
' Geneva, Illinois 60134
( 312.) _ 23 2 - 0 2 6 2 _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ _. _ ____ _ _ _
18393 J
l further evidence as appropriate."
2 I simply inquire at this point in time as to 3 whether, in the Board's judgment, such uncertainties 4 exist that would require the submission of further 5 evidence.
6 Obviously, if they do, Applicant is prepared to 7 make such further evidentiary showings that may be 8 necessary to resolve this uncertainty.
9 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, I certainly would 10 object to Applicant getting essentially findings of 11 fact, conclusions of law, before the parties have had an
) 12 opportunity to submit findings of f act and conclusions 13 of law or to state that they have reached conclusions, 14 absent opportunity for the parties to do as the rules 15 permit us an opportunity to do.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, Mr. Miller, we're 17 certainly not going to meet your burden of proof. I 18 don't think that that contemplates that we review the 19 entire record at the conclusion of the evidentiary 20 hearing and tell you where we see any gaps.
21 You have your burden of proof. We'll read the 22 proposed findings, and we'll decide whether you've met 23 the burden.
24 As of now, I don't think the Board sees any area n/
s, 25 where there's a glaring omission of testimony or S_onp_taa Repo_rting Service, Ltd.
J Geneva, Illinois 60134 I (312) 232-0262
l 18394 O
k, 1 evidence that we can cure at the moment.
2 MR. MILLER: Well, I didn't mean to suggest 3 that I'm looking for guidance on how to try my case from 4 the Board. I believe we have borne our burden of proof.
5 I'm certainly not going to argue that here.
6 T. just call attention to that portion of the 7 Appendix A, Part 2, which does suggest that if there are 8 any, shall I say, spontaneous questions that the Board 9 believes are unanswered, it seems to me that there is 10 sone obligation on the Board to indicate that so that 11 the parties, all parties, can provide that evidence O)
( 12 going to those issues. If there are none, then --
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, we don't see any 14 obvious area like that, Mr. Miller.
15 MR. MILLER: The other matter that I'd like 16 to raise for the Board, since this does conclude the 17 testimonial portion of the record, is the question of -
18 the timing of the proposed findings. I have a proposal i 19 to make, which I'd like to state for the record.
20 That is, that Applicant would provide its initial 21 proposed findings no later than January 5,1987. That 22 is the Monday following the week of New Year's, if I've 23 looked at my calendar correctly.
i 24 I say "no later than January 5th" because I have 25 some bope that we will be able to improve on that date Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 i . _ (312) 232-0262 - _ - - - _ - _ _
18395 O
4 1 for filing.
li 2 Thereafter, the provisions that are set forth in 3 the regulation would govern. Intervenors' findings
- 4 would be due on the 15th, Staff's on the 25th and 5 Applicant's reply findings on the 30th.
- 6 Now, I haven't looked to see whether or not any of 7 those dates fall on a Saturday or Sunday. There may be 8 some minor adjustment that's required.
9 I fully intend to provide the other parties, the 10 Intervenors and the Staff, with portions of the proposed 1 11 findings that we are preparing as they are completed; 12 and I have reasonable confidence that there will be
- 13 submissions for their review prior to the time that the 14 complete findings would be due under the schedule that I 15 have proposed.
16 The schedule takes us to the end of January for the i 17 submission of all findings.
l 18 Now, this is quite a large record. In essence, I )
i 19 have requested, on behalf of all parties, that the 30 i
( 20 days that is formally set forth in the rules for the
! 21 Applicant to file his proposed findings be extended 22 briefly. The reason for that is it does coincide with j 23 the holiday period, and it seems to me that some l 24 reasonable accommodation to that ought to be made for 25 everyone.
SoDniag RepoLtina Service. Ltd.
l Geneva, Illinois 60134 f._.__._____ (312) 232-0262
l
]
18396 A
1
\~,]
1 I don't, for example, suggest that we take 30 days 2 from today, which would make our proposed findings due 3 December 26th, and then suggest that Intervenors and 4 Staff take the time set forth in the rules af ter that.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me. Refresh my 1 6 recollection.
7 Are the times stated in terms of days f rom the 8 closing of the record or do they --
9 MS. CHAN: Yes.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- depend on the submittals 11 of the parties before?
. 12 It's my understanding that it's the former; that 13 Applicant is given a certain number of days and 14 Intervenors and then Staff. If that's the case, Jet's 15 hear what that says.
16 MR. MILLER: Yes. It's Section 2.754 of the 17 Commission's rules.
18 After the introductory paragraph that says, "Any 19 party may or, if directed by the presiding officer, 20 shall file proposed findings of fact," and so on, it 21 says that, "The party who has the burden of proof shall, i 22 within 30 days af ter the record is closed, file proposed 23 findings of fact and conclusions of law and briefs in a 24 proposed form of ordered decision.
s_, 25 "Other parties may file proposed findings, Sonntag__Repntting Service. Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
_ _. 312)_
( 2 3 2 - 0 2 6 2_ _ , __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,_ _ _ _
, 18397 O
1 conclusions of law and briefs within 40 days after the 2 record is closed. However, the Staff may file such 3 proposed findings, conclusions of law and briefs within 4 50 days.
5 "The party who has the burden of proof may reply 6 within five days after the filing of proposed findings 7 and conclusions of law and briefs by other parties."
8 It has been my experience that our reply findings 9 typically are filed -- that as Applicant, we file one 10 set, and it is at the conclusion of the five-day period 11 af ter the last set of proposed findings are received
) 12 from other parties.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Guild, any objection to 14 the schedule proposed?
15 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir, absolutely, your Honor.
16 Applicant has a large number of counsel, as we 17 speak, already undertaking the preparation of findings.
18 Intervenors simply are unable, given the resources 19 available to us in terms of people power, to shoulder 20 the task until the record is closed in this case.
21 Applicant concedes that we're dealing with an 22 extraordinarily complex, extensive record in this case; 23 and I believe it's a disservice to the Board to not 24 provide the parties a fully adequate time to brief these
( 25 issues and proposed findings.
Son _ntaa Reporting Service. Ltd.
)
Geneva, Illinois 60134
[ (312) 232-0262
l 18398 1
1 Of course, two holidays come hereaf ter, and we have 2 been engaged in what I believe to be an expeditious 3 trial of this proceeding with virtually no break since 4 the early part of May.
5 We strongly believe that there ought to be two 6 elements included that Applicant is not suggesting in 7 their proposal:
8 First, that the amount of time available in 9 absolute terms to Intervenor be sufficient to 10 accommodate these things; 11 Secondly, that we be given an opportunity to
) 12 genuinely respond to the findings of the party that has 13 the burden. That's Applicant.
14 The 10-day rule contemplated by the rules in normal 15 cases is simply inadequate to do so. Mr. Miller 16 acknowledged that by saying that he wants 15 days from 17 the filing of our findings to reply to ours. The rules
- 18 would only give him five.
19 We believe that at least a period of -- and I said 20 this to Mr. Miller off the record. I proposed to him 21 that we'd be willing to sacrifice some time up f ront --
22 that is, the overall time -- and help Applicant's 23 interest, aid Applicant's interest, in getting 24 expeditious submittal if, in fact, the time added O 25 between the filing of his findings and the filing of Sonntaa Reporting Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
18399 O
1 ours is where we could make up the difference, because I 2 believe, as I've stated, that if we had his findings and 3 we had the time to digest them and evaluate them and 4 review the record in light of those proposed findings, 5 many matters may be subject to agreement, not 6 anticipating what findings he may serve on us.
7 But if matters are not in dispute, we don't want to 8 submit them. We don't feel the need to submit dual 9 versions of the same reality if one version will do.
10 I propose that the time for Intervenors' filing, if 11 we are going to file in the sequence that the rules call 12 for and the timing that the rules call for, that 13 Intervenors' findings be submitted 80 days af ter the 14 close of the record; that is, just doubling the amount 15 of time that the rules would contemplate.
16 Alternatively, I would suggest filing our findings 17 30 days after the date that Mr. Miller proposes to have 18 all of his done by; that is, the 5th of January. In 19 other words, Intervenors would file our findings that I
20 would be couched in light of his proposed findings on or l 21 before the 5th of February, recognizing a compromise and
- 22 accounting for the considerations I've just alluded to.
23 I am happy to agree to whatever sequences the Staff 24 and the Applicant want to propose for replying to them.
( 25 It makes no particular difference to me.
Sonntaq R epo r_ti nL _eSr v i c e , _ __ Ltd .
Geneva, Illinois 60134 E__ .
(312) 232-0262
l 18400 g
1 But I would like to have an opportunity to have 2 sufficient time, in general, and to have time to respond 3 to Applicant's proposal, in particular.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Berry?
5 MR. BERRY: One moment, Mr. Chairman.
6 Mr. Chairman, I discussed this matter previously 7 with my colleagues back in Bethesda, and we've agreed 8 that Staff would insist upon having the maximum amount 9 of time available to it under the regulations.
10 As I believe Mr. Miller has pointed out, the 11 regulations provide 50 days for the Staff; and I believe 12 that the posture that we' re in -- having gone 13 c1ntinuously most of the spring, summer and fall and now 14 approaching winter, having these findings coincide with 15 three holide"s -- I believe that the Staff would have to 16 insist on its regulatory rights, at least on its 17 regulatory rights, the 50 days to which it's entitled 18 under the regulations, and that's 50 days from the close 19 of the hearing.
20 I understand that if the hearing were to close 21 today, the schedule proposed by Mr. Miller would give 22 the Staff 59 days. I'll double-check thut. That 23 appears to be correct.
24 If we' re to close next week, if we close the 4th of k 25 December next week at the completion of the telephone 1
l i Sonnta.g Repottilig __ Service;_Lld.
Geneva, Illinois 60134
- _ __ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ . ._. _ _ .312)
( 232-0262
18401 0
1 conference, that would be roughly about 52 days.
2 I believe, Mr. Chairman, in light of the length of 3 the record that we have in this proceeding and the time 4 period in which the findings are going to have to be 5 prepared, that the Staff would insist on its regulatory 6 , time limit of 50 days specified in the regulations.
7 As far as Mr. Guild's proposal or even Mr. Miller's 8 proposal, we have not had an opportunity to discuss this 9 matter with either the Intervenor or the Applicant; so 10 I'm not really in a position to commit to anything other 11 than just, on their f ace, they don't sound wholly 12 unreasonable.
13 But I know what our position is that I am 14 authorized to commit to, and that is the time period to 15 which we are entitled under the regulations.
16 (Laughter.)
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Yes. I understand that you 18 won't give up any time,,and you're constrained to ask 19 for any additional time. So you just have to go by the 20 book on that. That's fine.
21 Okay. We'll set the time limits.
22 We're not closing the record now. It will be 23 closed probably on Wednesday, but Applicant's findings 24 by January 5th, Intervenors' 20 days after that. That's 25 the 25th.
Sonntaa Repoltting Servitta_Ltd.
) Geneva, Illinois 60134
[ (312) 232-0262
i 18402
,0 U
1 JUDGE COLE: That's a Sunday, by the way, so 2 we'll --
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: So then it's Monday.
4 JUDGE COLE: The 26th.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And Staff will have their 10 6 days that they want,10 days af ter January 25th -- or 10 7 days after January --
8 JUDGE COLE: 10 days after the 26th.
l i 9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Let's make it 10 days after 10 January 26th.
11 But, of course, if Staff finds that that's j 12 insufficient time, we will certainly be amenable to, oh, 13 extending that time. That leaves Applicant's reply 14 brief -- well, we'll give you the 15 days, Mr. Miller.
15 MR. MILLER: It would be 15 days from 16 Intervenors', whenever that is. I don't ask for 15 days 17 from the Staff.
- 18 JUDGE GROSSMAN
- Oh, okay. I misunderstood 19 what the rule is.
20 MR. MILLER: I really just wanted one set of 21 reply findings. I didn't want to have to file one set 22 five days after receiving Intervenors' findings and 23 another set five days after receiving Staff's findings.
24 I think it would just aid the process and, frankly,
]
25 make it more usable for the Board if we just have one S_onntag_Repor11nLErrslcedd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312). 232-0262 _
a i
18403 O
1 set of reply findings.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. That's fine. We'll 3 give you the 15 days instead of the five days, and 4 whatever that applies.to, that's up to you, Mr. Miller.
5 (Laughter.)
6 You're the one that's in a hurry.
7 MR. MILLER: Exactly.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: So you'll just be guided by 9 that.
10 MR. MILLER: I don' t have a 1987. calendar 11 with me.
() 12 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
he'll tell you what days.
Judge Cole has one, and 14 JUDGE COLE: If the Staff makes a filing on 15 February 5th and Mr. Guild makes a filing on January 16 26th, yours is 15 days af ter January 26th. Th'at'would 17 be February 10th.
18 MR. MILLER: Thank you.
19 And I take it that the former rules that we used 20 with respect to expedited service of documents on one 21 another would apply.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Which means that these are 23 received dates.
24 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chairman, can we simply make 25 them send dates for quick mail?
_Sonntpa Repot_ ting _SAryice, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 (312) 232-0262
i 18404 v
1 I'd like every day that I can get, but if they're 2 received the next day -- for example, on a Sunday I 3 simply can't get something out. That would back me up.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: A Sunday would make it 5 Monday anyway.
6 MR. GUILD: Let's make it Monday for a send 7 date, and I'll use Federal Express or Express Mail to 8 make sure you'll get it.
9 MR. BERRY: That sounds reasonable to the 10 Staff, Mr. Chairman.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Let's make those send 12 dates but Express Mail or whatever overnight service 13 that you can arrange. So we have the dates set.
14 Does that conclude what we have?
15 MR. MILLER: I think so, your Honor.
16 Mr. Guild and I have been talking off the record.
17 We will undertake -- that is, Applicant will -- to 18 review the status of exhibits and be prepared to check 19 with the other parties and with the Board on the 20 Wednesday conference call to make sure that we're all 21 together as to which exhibits have been admitted and 22 those which have simply been identified, just to avoid 23 any possible confusion.
i 24 I don't know. Perhaps along those lines, it might i
25 be a good idea to have the conference call recorded, Sonntao Reportino Ser_y_Lc_gt,_Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 1 (312) 232-0262
18405 p
G 1 stenographically recorded, to make sure we have a record 2 , of those matters.
,, -s 3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. That's fine. We'll 4 do that.
5' MR. GUILD: Mr. bhairman, Intervenors, of
- 6 course, as we stated earlier, intend to offer a number s
7 of documents f rom the Pearl Harbor File.
8 I'll premark those when I distribute them to the 9 Board and parties, an'd I understand we'll be heard on
- 10 the record on that conference call on the question of 11 those documents.
) 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That's fine. Okay.
13 MR. MILLER: Thank you.
) 14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. That concludes our l
! 15 session today and hopefully the evidentiary hearing in 1
L 16 the case. Thank you.
I <
, 17 MR. MILLER: Thank you very much.
~ 18 (WHEREUPON, at the hour of 10:45 A. M.,
i i, - 19 the hearing of the above-entitled matter 1
( 20 was adjourned.)
l l 21
! s L 22 l
- 23 24 l b)
(m, 25 l
's Sonntaa Reportina Service, Ltd.
Geneva, Illinois 60134 I. ;, _ _ _-..._ _.._._,._ _ __. ______ 13l2)_ 232-0262
i NO PAGE NUMBER CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER l 9
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING: BRAIDh'00D STATION UNITS 1 62 COMMONWEALTIl EDISON l
DOCKET NO.: 50-456/457-OL PLACE: Cl!ICAGO, ILLINOIS O' DATE: WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1985 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
l (siot) 84W/ N (TYPED) f h Official Reporter Reporter's Affiliation l