ML20214T465
| ML20214T465 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 09/29/1986 |
| From: | Miner J COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214T381 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8609300305 | |
| Download: ML20214T465 (8) | |
Text
.
en am cO7mESPONDEN%
4 00CKETED USNRC
~86 SEP 29 P12:19 0FFICE U SS. c
- 'Y 00CKt.Itg.'jii' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of:
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-456
)
50-457 i
(Braidwood Nuclear Power
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF JOHN MINER i
9300305 860925 ADOCK 05000456 g
PDR.
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF JOHN MINER g
Q.l. Please state your name, employer and present position.
A.l. My name is John Miner.
I am employed by GE-MCIS at Commonwealth Edison's Braidwood Station as a Level II QC inspector.
I am currently dispatched to L.K.
Comstock, and am responsible for welderfcertifications, the Comstock fab shop, and the welders' test booths.
Q.2. Please describe'your employment background.
A.2. I worked at Edison's LaSalle Station for Morrison Construction Company as a pipefitter prior to my employment with Comstock.
I becane employed by Comstock at Braidwood in February 1984, and attained certifications in welding, configurations, and CEA's.
Q.3. What is the purpose of your testimony?
A.3. The purpose of my testimony is to address NCR 3145 and the issue of bimetallic welds.
Two versions of that NCR, which have previously been marked as Applicant's Exhibit 58 and Applicant's Exhibit 59, are attached to my testimony as Miner-1 and Miner-2 respectively.
Q.4. Please describe the circumstances under which you issued (Minor-1).
A.4. Although I signed the NCR, I was not the individual who identified the items listed there as nonconformances, nor was I the individual who filled in the description of nonconformance.
Mr. Puckett was responsible for both.
. 4 Q.5. Are you aware that Mr. Puckett has testified that you approached him with a concern about bimetallic welds?
'A.S.
Yes, counsel for Edison advised me that he so testified.
I recall, however, that it was Mr. Puckett who approached me with that concern.
I personally was not aware of any bimetallic welding.
Because Mr. Puckett was to be our Level III for welding, I assumed he was right about the welding of bimetallic welds in the field and agreed to sign the NCR he wished to have issued.
Q.6. Please describe your involvement in (Miner-2).
A.6. I am responsible for the line-through in the description of nonconformance portion of that exhibit; my initials and the date I made that line-through appear on the left-hand margin'as " JAM 10-19-84."
Q.7. Whi did you make that line-through?
A.7.
The reason was very simple. _Once Mr. Simile arrived as our Level III for welding, he began evaluating our welding program and analyzing welding NCR's.
He and I discussed the issue of bimetallic welds, and I explained to him that I wasn't aware of any.
He asked me to investigate whether bimetallic welding was taking place, and I found none.
He later explained to me that neither he nor another QC inspector (Bruce Brown) had been able to locate any.
The only sensible way to remove that concern from the NCR was to cross it out.
Since I was the one to sign the NCR, I agreed that I should be the one to amend it.
--n
o 4
i t
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of:
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-456
)
50-457 (Braidwood Nuclear Power
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
ATTACHMENTS TO REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF JOHN MINER a
1 4
,-------.m...-.-,
,ww e--w-,r,
-,,,r,,-m-,
,,-----,--,m,,-m---w,---yv---g
--w-r---gw-.
--,e
-.w.,
-,,, -e,-
l
,.i
.)
L. K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY. INC.
Braidwood 4.11.1 NONCONFORMANCE REPORT
~
g r,
SYSTEM al/A Sht I of I NONCONFORMANCE REPORT NO. h/b DATE F-2#-P V lNSPECTI'ON CRITERIA:
- DWG, n ' /n REV.
, /n SPEC. I.17 Co PROCEDURE:
- -J-1 '/ c 0 /, '7/Ec; OTHER 1_' /o ITEM (S) DESCRIPTION uf pr,3 NPe e r Jn,0 7 LOCATION J/n DESCRIPTION OF NONCONFORMANCE: L.lc.C t.aLLQ hacc.Cdu.fi. 4. 3.14 $$ GaaL5foiN
$ M #A.25 85 rM Qa3LX 'I% L 5[.a bSb SibM.D l. l Sd'$ U.
- 105.5 TetA$ A U
c._ uriEd itu At t T%f_ 'Pasi#ibouS i+ is 7% bi LLSED lou. All'. DI.I.5..R T r.C 9s*Jat Ldu Q L s.uAL 4Ls.LALilo'LD ?s'rk Ta di s 2 S A.2 s 2. Ta S SLBog 3
L3lanz/nLic. wn.t.r.:/s.S A 2.46 T< a C.nGhoss > Sir.AL AGE &.ina undc isa To.or Mm.a ALL THE t.s.a ^ n c THA+ 14Aus Gnu.m Li/~iid 1L L.ec. 4.3.14 AantiF'oLJ iso c a LY n
T E. 5cm 'PosiMonu. Of.# DE.&u.i AES 2(= C SG Tb auat,rr nu. Pe.rifio,0.5 Gar. DI.I TA hl.i.S. 2.3.
NUMBER OF HOLD TAGS APPLIED dIo OC INSPECTOR DATE 8-2M-M 13 CFR 21 PROCEDURE 3.1.3 YES N
/
REPORTABLE ITEM CONCURRENCE BY Q.C. MANAGER d d^'
C RECOMMENDEb DISPOSITION:
USE.AS IS REWORK REJECT OTHER EXPLAIN JUSTIFICATION:
FOR REFERENCE ONLF COMSTOCK PROJ. MGR/ DESIGNEE DATE ACTION TO PRECLUDE REPETITION:
COMSTOCK PROJECT MANAGER (OR DESIGNEE)
DATE CLIENT CONCURRENCE WITH DISPOSITION: (COMMENTS)
CECO PROJECT SUPT.
DATE CECO FIELD ENG.
DATE 4
L PREPARE 3 APPRCViD REVISED TITLE ORIG. D AT E REY.DATE FORM NSR.
14 ROM AJT IFD PROCEDURE 5/18/79 03/01/84
_ - _ _... _ _._ g x. a
0 3/f3
$ n4 2oFE DE ~. c.1F L x. COMSTOCK & COMPANY,INC>
QA SECT]
u v.t_ 9,3~ #A u.>n. '4. 3. e 4 *.s s u aLiriEd G.a A uni A <au %imiss s.
s wnu. va o.a. L. ss %,a TaE Taicutts or rus Tz.sh c.au.%a li.c E.hLi AuALiFic.Afice IEE.4 2h20 IQ Epicc3 h a-l. ; k g a m m 0
, s e m-u ma.
~ a m: ua w,_m s..
c S
.e 0
L
, L. K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY, !NC.
Broidwood 4.11.1 NONCONFORMANCE REPORT e
9"
~
SYSTE M e w Sht i
of 8 g
N*
A DATE
-3a #*/
.I NONCONFORMANCE REPORT NO.
INSPECTION CRITERIA:
DWG.
s.'/A REV.
' /,.,
SPEC.
-'C.
PROCEDURE:
" J-i d c o /, M Sc.
OTHER ITEMIS) DESCRIPTION of A a 71- ?n 1-Mura.:-LOCATION m /s r
DESCRIPTION OF NONCONFORMANCE: l_. IL. C w it_c N2c.c_4.-/4.,a.3/_ '/. 3. / */ i.E ZI.ut_ s i.
~
e oC Q ed LY To.o& D La b.S e $ s b ru.
.D. l. I SnELL s.L e IEd._S TnAf A f k2.~ /'r 1-l,:.L12 2 f i
~
C.
- _aroLd Iid %tL_ Teor *. 'Pa 1.i + a t.1en L *t i s T h f. L t L C L a tru->2Lt'. il1.1 S2 T..- 'PO. 2c.!.e.l _i2 & 4.uA r. as A L., r, La P, ii. m D,,04 s,.a y, 2. n_ _s p_-3,2 fg-
....n__.--
-. ; a : ;
7
,, u..
,;,_,= a._.
~,, _,. _,,
^
j...pi.P{
,L_c 7%d w!.2'.ai.21 T%d I waud db A L,'s idc/ TL l_ c4:. 4. 3 f y m a n,j:,c y,,o u
T E h 'Pos i 4 i < u. Oi. I CEG u. Q.ES 2(2 B SG To h ae,,: f n,_4, L, y,c,e.
Q 2 7. ba. o 7'A tl_L _S. 23 y,a,s.
ge3.S NUMBER OF HOLD TAGS APPLIED
.a I o OC INSPECTOR -
av d A eDATE 8 2 49'/
A g(
NT )
10 CFR 21 PROCEDURE 3.1.3 YES REPORTABLE ITEM CONCURRENCE BY O.C. MANAGER W
(
h OTHER RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION:
USE.AS.lS REWORK REJECT EXPLAIN JUSTIFICATION:
/
CEfC/ 6j.L Pt X.ASIE. ACM1mE N ACL.pl!!ML ITY of N*C4.3fk M inTAA t E.D LOE.tNi:,,
COMSTOCK PROJ. MGR/ DESIGNEE b -
DATE *:rt.A BA A
V o.u.g s o.sg. '
ACTION TO PRECLUDE REPETITION: ftE. et-W-Y
S.T"SE' w E.c %
COMSTOCK PROJE' T MANAGER (OR DESIGNEE)
- )dh DATE *) 2 5 8 4 C
J c.w. e. r o. w.
K N
CLIENT CONCURRENCE WITH blSPOSITION: (COMMEN
'I~N NC S
"$""- 7/"
. a + A J @ - - / 3 '. ~
Q g A 4 i.sc. L z_ wm seu s
, _gt gu.
txc 4 A e M tita p + / m t
& ammu %"'$? $ $ % Y h
V.A cwwasm
.. i. ~
CpOf ROJECT SUPT.
DATE L'///Qd.fCECO QA SUPV. DATE' CECO FIELD ENG.
DATE 6
'c. 5%
h s
RED APPROVED REVISED TITLE ORIG. DATE REV.DATE FORM NBR.
E noneennoc s/in/7o 34
t.
.S a 4 2 c.? 2.
M c.2. W o Y, i K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY,1NC.
QA SECT
- u. v_i_ 9,2c_z Ma.,2E
'4..E e 4 oh a;, u a t., y, L.] G,2 p uu, u,w 7,,
g_
t, L:.a - c. ?.. c 2. L.x T%,s4 raz Ta,wtgy, a, rug ra p r
s (,,
~.T.u.3 J_ >.t. 6 u. A L. : F.c M ic.,e f c r.f 2, a,2 n,g g pi g g g g g
. <. u. t_
r. - - i
..sc,,v,4.ca wcm ec n.
FOR INFORMATIC:M.!Ti c
/
e e
L l
-. - - - -. -