ML20096H180

Proposed Findings of Fact in Form of Partial Initial Decision Re Welding Issues.Stiner Allegations Do Not Reflect Systematic Breakdown in Qa/Qc Program.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20096H180
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	09/07/1984
From:	Reynolds N BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:
References
OL, NUDOCS 8409110286
Download: ML20096H180 (82)

Text

'14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

?,(a:qTfn v nt In the. Matter of ) '84

) 10 A10:12 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-445 and COMPANY, et al. ) 50-,4 4 60c; m .

) w r .. o e, s c,vp ,

N (Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) (Application for Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Operating Licenses)

APPLICANTS' PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT IN THE FORM OF A PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION In accordance.with 10 C.F.R. 52.754, Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al. (" Applicants") hereby submit proposed findings of fact in the form of a partial initial decision on welding issues.

Respectf lly submitted, I

Nichola S. Reynolds Malcolm . Ph ilips, Jr.

William .

hrin BISHOP, LIBERMAN, COOK PURCELL & REYNOLDS' 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 857-9817 Counsel for Applicants September 7, 1984 OC 0 p B4y9 T;s03  ;

p-

,_ o

-i-TABLE OF CONTENTS I.. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. FINDINGS OF FACT - CONTESTED ISSUES . . . . . . . . . 2 A. Witnesses and Testimony . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1. CASE . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 ~. Applicants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3. NRC Staf f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 q B. Credibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 C. Contested Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- 19

1. Weave Welding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2;. - Downhill Welding .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . 35

3. Weld Rod Control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 45

4. Welding of Misdrilled Holes .r. . . . . . . . . 60

'5. Preheat Requirements . .. . .. . . . . . . . 72 III. OTHER MATTERS CONSIDERED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 IV. CONCLUSIONS . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 78 l

l'

ii s. )

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION

~BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC Docket Nos. 50N40 afWg;g 1

-COMPANY, et al. ) 50-446

)  :. .

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric )- (Application /' fors'~$yn Statior.,1 Units 1 and 2) ) , Operating Licenses')

PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION (Concerning Welding Issues)

I. BACKGROUND This is the'second Partial Initial Decision concerning

- . allegations regarding. welding ctithe Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station f ("CPSES") , Units'l and 2, raised by two witnesses of intervenor' Citizens Associations for Safe Energy'(" CASE"),-Darlene and.Henryf Stiner.- Theifirst, issued as a Proposed Initial Decision on1 July 29, 1983 (pp. 26-41), resolved all but four issues related to1their allegatio'ns, viz., weave welding, downhill

-velding, weld rod control and welding of misdrilled holes.1/' *

~

In response to objections to-the July 29,-19C3' Proposed

-Initial Decision filed on August 27, 1983, by Texas Utilities fl/f This first decision is based on testimony presented at

-hearings held ~on September 13, 1982, e.g., Testimony of Henry Stiner (CASE Exhibit 666) and Darlene Stiner (Case Exhibit 667)-received into evidence at'Tr. 4202 and 4124, respec-stively; Rebuttal Testimony of - C.. Thomas Brandt, et al.

(Applicants' Exhibit 141), received'into evidence at Tr. 4655; and NRC' Staff Exhibits 13 (at 98-99) and 178,- both received into evidence at Tr. 2336.

a S Electric Company, et al. (" Applicants"), by Memorandum and Order of September 29, 1983 at p. 24, the Board closed the issue of weave welding raised by the Stiners in favor of Applicants.

Subsequently, in a February 10, 1984 Licensing Board Order, the Board opened the weave welding issue for the purpose of determining if the Stiners welded on systems requiring Charpy impact testing.

To resolve these remaining open issues, hearings were hel'd on February 23, March 19-23, and April 24, 1984.- During these hearings, the Board expanded-the issues to be addressed to include allegations made by Mr. Stiner regarding preheat of reld joints (CASE Exhibit 919 at 9; Tr.10799, 10802, 10825). In sum, the welding issues raised by the Stiners which are the subject of this Partial Initial Decision relate to weave welding,. downhill welding, weld rod control, welding of misdrilled holes and preheat.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT - CONTESTED ISSUES A. Witnesses and Testimony .

1. CASE Mr. and Mrs. Stiner each provided testimony on welding issues addressed in the July 29, 1983 Partial Initial Decision, i.e., CASE Exhibits 666 and 667, respectively. In addition, they

' jointly sponsored testimony introduced at the second round of hearings on this issue (CASE Exhibit 919, received into evidence at Tr. 9979). However, major sections of this testimony were

..- :s 3-stricken,' including Attachment B of their testimony referencing a welding handbook (see e .g . , Tr . 9937, 9960, 10262, 10282, 10325, 10494, 11069).

The'Stiners were offered as expert witnesses with regard to welding activities at Comanche. Peak. In this regard, Applicants

-presented unrefuted testimony which reflected that Mr. Stiner was first-hired on December 5, 1979, and shortly thereafter underwent welder training. He was qualified as a structural welder on February 11, 1980.- Mr..Stiner's last day of work (for his first term of' employment) was November- 26, 1980. During this

^

approximately 41-week period that he was a structural welder, he was absent totally for six weeks and worked 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> or less during.an additional eight weeks. Mr. Stiner was rehired and was again qualified as a structural welder on June 22, 1981. He welded for approximately three weeks before he was again terminated. Mrs. Stiner was in a qualified welding position

'(though'not welding the entire time) from February 27, 1979 to August 3, 1980. (Applicants-Exhibit 177 at 5.)

While.the Stiners stated that-they were " certified to weld to both ASME and AWS Dl.1" (CASE Exhibit 919 at 1-2) , Applicants Lestablished that their qualifications were limited to only two production welding. procedures (Procedures.11032 and 10046) , one relating-.to'a portion of the ASME Code and one to a portion of tho AWS'Dl.1 Code.. Basically, these procedures qualified them to weld

~

with the shielded metal arc process only on low carbon steel

.,-m--v--,-+-y e- wpq ---eg,yygy y-* g. p y.9 - - -g y ip--=-qw---we=pgyvm,-v-9-wr-- . %p

-w 4-

_ material such as pipe supports, and not on pressure piping joints, stainless steels or with other processes such as gas tungsten arc. (Tr. 9981-82.) While Mr. and Mrs. Stiner's testimony was found.to have many inconsistencies (see Section II.B. , infra),

.they were accepted as welders with expertise within the limited areas of their qualifications, as noted above.

In addition, based on Mrs. Stiner's experience in quality control inspection of-welding.at CPSES (CASE Exhibit 667 at 7-14) ,

she was accepted 1as an expert witness.concerning quality control.

Neither Mr. nor.Mrs. Stiner was offered as an expert in metallurgy or any phase of engineering (Tr. 10255, 10774, 11047),

.and the. Board gives no weight-to their testimony with regard to issues relating to these disciplines (Tr. 10283, 10776).

2. Applicants Applicants _ presented 10 witnesses (as described below) to respond to the allegations of Mr. and Mrs. Stiner. These witnesses jointly sponsored testimony during.the.second round of hearings on these allegations. (Applicants Exhibit 177, received ,

into evidence at Tr. 9976.)

Messrs. S. Fernandez, I. Pickett, and A.M. Braumuller are

.three welders still employed at CPSES who were on Mr. Stiner's l

crews. Each welder has at least four years of welding experience at CPSES, and Mr. Braumuller has a. total of 28 years experience as l l

a welder. (Applicants Exhibit 177 at 3-4.) l l

. _ - . - . _ _ . ~,.,.._m., , . . , . , -_ , , - _ ~ , . . - , _ . .

..- a

- 5 ..

Messrs. F.E.-Coleman and C.R. Brown are two welding foreman.

assigned-to'Mr. Stiner's crews during his employment at CPSES. l The welding foreman was a non-supervisory technician who would

~

~

iconstantly monitor and assist the work of the five to 15 welders on his' crew. Mr. Coleman also worked as a welder in the same areas as Mrs. Stiner, and Mr. Brown welded in the same areas as Mr.-Stiner during Stiner's first term of employment. Messrs.

Coleman and Brown have- each been employed at CPSES for _ over four years in welding-related positions. Both are currently QC Level II inspectors. -(Applicants Exhibit 177 at 2.)

Messrs. J. Green and E. Ha11 ford were the foreman and-general foreman, respectively, over Mr. Stiner's crew during Stiner's second term of employment. Both have been employed at

.CPSES for approximately five years. (Applicants Exhibit 177 at 3.)

Mr. C.T. Brandt is the QA Staff Engineer at CESES. He was formerly Mechanical / Civil QA/QC Supervisor responsible for all non-ASME Mechanical and Civil Quality Control Activities and had overall responsibility for training, staffing and personnel .

development of Civil and Mechanical inspectors and-QA personnel, including Mrs. Stiner. He. has been employed at CPSES in QA/QC related work for four years. Mr. Brandt_is also a member of the

.American Welding Society. (Applicants Exhibit 141 at Attachment A.)

Mr. W. Baker, Senior Project Welding Engineer at CPSES.for six years, has over 28 years of diversified experience in the

-w 19'  % < ---w at fW't= t -'

W ww' ' ' 'F* Y 1'4 E "Y' N'"4 Y V --9"*---'W -f"" T 9t'" < F'7"' ' T"TN W P'

o i

~

welding Eindustry. His experience encompasses 15 years of pressure vessel and power plant construction. He is a member of the American Welding Society and currently a Senior Project Welding Engineer at Brown & Root. (Applicants Exhibit 177 at Attachment A.)

Mr. M. Muscente has 25 years experience associated with the design, engineering, fabrication, material selection, and examination and erection of engineered equipment and systems,

~

including pressure vessels, pumps and piping. Mr. Muscente is a member of the American Welding Society, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers and is a registered Professional Quality Engineer in California. He is currently the Manager of Materials Engineering at Brown & Root. (Applicants Exhibit 177 at Attachment B.)

~

' Applicants' witnesses Brown, Braumuller, Fernandez, Pickett, Coleman, Brandt and Baker are recognized by the Board as expert

. welding' witnesses. Applicants' witnesses Baker and Muscente are recognized by the Board.as expert witnesses in the area of metallurgy. Applicants' witnesses Brandt, Coleman and Brown are recognized by the Board as experts in quality control.

3. NRC Staff.

The NRC Staff presented the testimony of Messrs. W. Collins, L. Gilbert, D. Smith and R. Taylor. These witnesses jointly sponsored testimony provided during this second round of hearings on welding allegations. (NRC Staff Testimony on Welding Fabrication Concerns Raised by Mr. and Mrs. Stiner ("NRC Staff

. . . .. - . .. .~ .

l

. :w 1

7 --

l Testimony")L and . Addendum to Page 27 'of'NRC Staff Testimony on ' l Welding' Fabrication Concerns Raised by Mr. and Mrs. Stiner (" Staff

-Addendum"), both' received into evidence at Tr. 12146.).

Mr.' Collins-is a Senior Metallurgical Engineer with the. .

OfficeLof-Inspection and Enforcement, U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He has-approximately 25 years experience in

- metallurgy, 16 of which have been as a-technical advisor in the ,

^ area of metallurgyxand metallurgical problems relating to

' construction, testing and operation of nuclear. power plants. (N RC '

Staf f ' Testimony at 1 and Attachment' l.)

Mr.' Gilbert is a' Reactor Inspector responsible for inspecting nuclear power plants located in Region IV in the areas of< welding and nondestructive examination. He has 14~ years ,

- experience in welding and seven years experience as a Reactor Inspector. Mr. Gilbert;is a registered Professional Engineer in Quality Engineering in the State of California. (NRC Staff Testimony at 2 and Attachment 1.)

' Mr.oSmith is a. materials engineer responsible for the review

~

- offmaterials and fabrication-processes-used in the construction of nuclear power plants, as.well as the evaluation of material and Eweldmentzfailure ininuclear power plants. He has 17 years experience as a materials engineer, including four years with the Materials Engineering Branch of the. NRC. (NRC Staff Testimony at 2-3 and' Attachment 1.)

+

T" W '=' 4 - yT4-ts' '* 'ePW-9'tWTW TtW9---*-wet-*+a'y-t-g y'M"*rM--' -

• p --%e-~p-t'W T FF t w'-t t m--T-b@Mr-1Nett---ThF

.- t I

Mr. Taylor is employed by the NRC as a Reactor Inspector in the Division of Reactor Safety and Projects, Region IV. In this 1 position, he coordinates all safety-related ine.pection efforts  !

relative _ to the NRC Region and the site. Ife was assigned to Comanche Peak as Senior NRC Resident Inspector for Construction.

Mr..l Taylor is 'a registered Professional Engineer in the State of California. Prior to this, from 1976 to 1978, Mr. Taylor was the construction project reactor inspector at the South Texas

' Project. (Staff Exhibit 9.)

B. Credibility Prior to the' hearings, the Board determined that there were direct conflicts in the testimony of witnesses for CASE and the Applicants regarding important factual allegations. Accordingly, in an attempt to elicit accurate factual information with regard to compliance with welding procedurei and the quality assurance program involving welding _ the Board directed limited sequestration of all witnesses who would provide testimony on craf t activities at CPSES regarding these issues. The purpose of this sequestration was to prohibit communicatioa between the r . witnesses so that they would not know what one another had said at

. the time each testified. (Tr. 9916-17.)

Due to the extensive direct conflicts of factual evidence, the credibility of each witness was weighed carefully in

-evaluating the evidence in the record. Applicants' witnesses

_9_

provided credible and consistent testimony on direct and in response to the cross-examination questions of all pa'r ties. In addition, in response to cross-examination questions Applicants witnesses stated that they were instructed to tell the absolute truth.when testifying and that if their testimony reflected

. problems with the plant, it would not adversely impact them (Tr. 11518-9, 11652, 11703, and 11744-5). In short, the Board finds no inconsistencies from Applicants' witnesses which would

-call into question their credibility. The Board makes a similar finding.with respect to the Staff's witnesses.

However, the Board finds that Mr. and Mrs. Stiner's allegations must be considered in light of the manifest inconsistencies in their testimony, their demonstrated lack of credibility and expertise, and their numerous self-indictments in th'e record. Further, Mr. Stiner's past casts even greater doubt on the veracity of his testimony. To place Mr. and Mrs. Stiner's

. testimony in the proper perspective, and because we make numerous

~ ~

decisions below based on credibility, we first discuss a few examples of-those factors that we find to be indicative of Mr. and Mrs. Stiner's unreliability as witnesses.

1. Henry Stiner

a. Henry Stiner has been convicted of three felonies:

Theft (State of. Texas) in 1980 (Applicants Exhibit 183 previously received into evidence in this proceeding at Tr. 10,579); Robbery with a firearm (State'of Oklahoma) in 1979 (Applicants Exhibit 182, previously received into evidence at Tr. 10,579);

and Possessing Marijuane with the Intent to' Deliver

i (State of Arkansas) in 1976 (Applicants Exhibit 181, previously received into evidence at Tr. 10,579).

The Board finds that this is relevant evidence that

-bears heavily on the credibility of Mr. Stiner in this case. See Rule 609 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the accompanying notes thereto. When applying for a position at CPSES, Mr. Stiner was less than forthcoming on his job applications regarding his criminal record. On the Brown & Root job application there is a section regarding criminal convictions. Mr. Stiner stated that he did not fill it in on one application (however, it was checked no) and on another application he did not provide full disclosure of his criminal record (Tr.

4483-84, 4488-89).

b. Mr. Stiner's testimony had a tendency to expand as the proceeding progresses. For example, in earlier testimony filed in this proceeding Mr. Stiner stated that he performed welds on misdrilled holes only several times (CASE Exhibit 666' at 18) . . In subsequent testimony Mr. Stiner changed from several repair welds on misdrilled holes to-at least 20 or 30 such welds (CASE Exhibit 919 at 22) and during redirect examination Mr. Stiner testified that he performed hundreds of " plug welds" throughout the plant (Tr . 1067 2) . Mr. Stiner subsequently testified that he had performed 20 or 30 plug welds in a single day (Tr. 10699-70).

c. Mr. Stiner often contradicted his prior testimony.

For example, when asked why he did not have time to remove impurities in an alleged illegal weld that he testified took 2 minutes to complete, he stated that "there's not time when you're standing there trying to get these things done without QC catching you

. . . you barely have time to grind the surface back down before QC comes along and sees you doing a plug weld" (Tr. 10,685). Yet, when trying to respond to why no one was caught performing the many illegal welds he alleged were performed, he stated that he never saw a QC inspector when he was doing a plug weld (Tr . 1099 3 ) . - Finally, seeing the contradic-tion, Stiner reconciled the difference by stating, "Oh, I'saw lots of QC inspectors walking around when I was welding, but when I was doing something that was-out of procedure .. . I never did it when there was QC present, for sure" (Tr. 11,114). In addition, Stiner testified that there were not enough QC inspectors at Comanche Peak (Tr. 11115).

1 w * -- - c - +---v-- -9 g y-WT--T'+ '8'-75t *-'NN-t"TP'7"**-W-' "W N- '54yW W -'-- N V'N' '4' 'C T-N -*W--'T""'-'-

, : . .=

11 _

L '

~

(Ironically, Mrs. Stiner. testified earlier in this

proceeding that 1 while she was.a QC inspector she did

. not have enough inspections to keep her busy (Tr.

- 4141-42)).

d. Mr.'Stiner often.gave conflicting testimony. For n example, during. previous hearings, Mr. Stiner testified thatLhe never left.his weld rods out of the can. (Tr. 4301-02). When asked this question

-again_during.the March 1984 hearings he directly .

contradicted his previous testimony by stating that he did leave weld rods out of the can as much as any other' welder did' (Tr. ' 10856) . In attempting to explain-the' obvious inconsistency in his testimony, the following discussion occurred

-

BY MR. REYNOLDS:

Q. Do you have an explanation (for the inconsistency] ?

A. Yes, IRdo.. I believe at the time the line of questioning and the. manner that it was being.- the-line of, I call it

-: interrogation, was being handled, I-think maybe I-just misunderstood what you were-trying:to get to and in what reference you were.trying to actually set me up or whatever.f And that's probably the reasons-for ' the .inconsistr acies 'in the testimony there and now.

JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Stiner, your job'is never to -

figure out what the lawyer.is trying.to get to. If he asked you "do you put things into a rod can," you just answer- -

what 'the -truth is. You have no business

- trying.to figure out.what he's trying to

. get to.

I don't.unders.and that explanation.

Did you or did you not put these things into the ---leave your rods out of the rod can?-

THE WITNESS:- I'did leave them out.

JUDGE BLOCH: . Why do you think you said you -

didn't in the last testimony?

A += pw a -

7- g-- g >g- , .<p9+ 9*,,9. ,.,cg7,.- 9e, e, p.y9 , p. 9-ywwg,wm-we. ,py..y %gg.v- ,ppgg a.yfg cgwe.-g.g ppeg.-p 9%+m------- py-g.gm , w 9,,y-

l C.. i )

l s

~

THE WITNESS: 1.Like I say, I was in such a fog s - when I was-up here testifying the first time, that I'm liable to have actually said anything.--That's why I try'to;go back and: find allLthese inconsistencies.

But.I'm sure that I did skip over some of-them.that-I didn't catch, like,that one instance.. I would have clarified it if I saw it when I read through the transcript.

It's not that I intentionally lied.- It's just a case where at the time of the

. questioning it was not in my mind to grasp.  ;

'The Board Chairman noted at the time, and the Board

now finds, " that this seriously affects his credibility" (Tr. 10861).

e. As.another example, Stiner stated in his pre-filed testimony.that his work always looked good to QC and they-almost always ended up " buying it off" (CASE ExhibitL666 at 34; Tr. 10674). .However, during Mr.

Stiner's' cross-examination he stated that many of his welds were rejected (Tr. 11009).

f.- As another example,.Mr. Stiner initially testified

?that workers violated weld rod control procedures

- regardingfretention'of rods because "they are under so much pressure to.get the work done and get the hangers up thatJthey tryito do anything they can do to speed up. work" - (CASE Exhibit 919. at 19 ) .

c However, in response to an inquiry that appeared to bring'into-question /the logic.of such a position, Mr.'Stiner-reversed himself'and testified that he E did not hold out rods because he was.under time pressure (Tr . 11126-8 ) .

g. As another example, Mr.-Stiner testified that under

[

the direction of Cliff Brown and Jimmy Green, he c' performed a downhill' weld on a particular hanger in Ja -limited access ' area ~ (Tr.10622) . - Significantly, when Mr.'Stiner was confronted with conflicting

^

testimony regarding whether Mr. Brown could direct him to perform a weld, he testified that Mr. Brown 7 did not direct him to make-this downhill weld; rather Mr. Brown made the weld himself

'(Tr. 10967-75, especially pages 10967 (which references Tr. 10622) and 10975).

I .

h. .

As another example,- Mr. Stiner testified that while lue was " illegally" repair welding misdrilled holes L

$ p 9 swee-m '+ - p=#. y,pw-99g g, pg9-,3.,sg b gy-yg,,ww,y-gye , em - g-g w megr pgpg g _% 9 wyy g gy,m,,g.gg g,g , wy-pg y-y m , y,,p,.-e-,ga,y9%,+ggg,ggpg- gy p.g m. gg,

- 13.-

that Messrs. Brown, Coleman and Green stood watch for QC (Tr . 10 68 5-6 ) . Later however, he testified under cross-examination that only Fred Coleman had stood watch for him while he was repairing misdrilled holes (Tr . 11031) . Mr. Stiner testified that Mr. Brown never stood watch for him for QC

. inspectors in any ' espect (Tr. 11031). Mr. Stiner after being informed.by Applicants' counsel of.an inconsistency with previous testimony.then stated that Mr. Brown did stand watch for him once (Tr.

11032).

i. Mr. Stiner-also testified that it would take him approximately two minutes to perform a repair weld on a 1 1/4 inch hole in a two inch thick plate excluding blending of the weld and base metal surface (Tr . 10 69 8 ) . Further, Mr. Stiner' stated that it would-only take two weld rods to perform such a repair (Tr. 11158). Staff's witnesses testified that based on simple volumetric calculations it was not possible to do what Mr.

Stiner stated. They testified that disregarding all other factors, such as cleaning the weld surface, changing weld rods, or turning the member, it would take no less than 20 minutes and 20 to 25 weld rods to complete the weld on the misdrilled hole cited by Mr. Stiner. (Staff Testimony at 26; Tr. 12250-51.)

Based on independent testing Applicants verified the Staff's testimony (Tr. 11767-68).

j. Mr. Stiner testified that it was faster to weave weld than to perform a stringer (line) weld, and accordingly, supervisors directed welders to weave weld to accelerate production (Tr. 10863, 10896).

However, in response to cross-examination of earlier -

testimony, Mr. Stiner stated first that it took approximately the same length of time to perform a stringer and weave weld; next, that the stringer weld took longer; and finally, that the weave weld took much longer (Tr. 4361-63). In any event, testimony in the record reflects that it takes no longer to do a stringer bead weld than a weave weld (Tr. 11382, 11583-85).

k. In explaining how he knew that he was allegedly performing an illegal " plug weld" on ASME hangers, Mr. Stiner changed his position in mid-sentence as illustrated by the following discussion:

t

-+- , , , . - . - ,.,- , . ~ , ~ , ,.y-,,,.-..-e. - -.-.,. - -m, .e , , v. ---

/

4: *

- 14 -

JUDGE BLOCH: Do you ever know of having done one-(illegal ~" plug weld") that was an ASME support?

THE WITNESS: 'Yes, sir.

-JUDGE-BLOCH: How do you know it was an ASME support?

. THE WITNESS: Because it was a Class 3.

JUDGE BLOCH: Mcw did you know it was Class 3?

THE; WITNESS: LThe package numbers will -indicate on the end of the package number, A35R or A33R, an A32R.

JUDGE-BLOCH: They brought this material to you,-

, which wasian illegal weld, together with the pa'ckage that legally went with it, just to show

_you that.it was an ASME weld?

THE WITNESS: No, not to show me that the package --

.I_mean most of the time you know when you're

+

working in a_particular_ area,;according to what

class of hanger you're working on.

. 2. Darlene.Stiner la . With regard to her. testimony,_Mrs. Stiner apparently relied _ heavily on what her. husband told her. For l -example, Mrs. Stiner relied on Attachment B to her testimony-in responding to several questions

' .concerning why.- she believed and - testified that -weave welding caused excessive heat input.that would fresult in damage to the-parent metal (e.g., Tr.

10305-10). - However,~in subsequent cross-examination _ -

shel revealed that she had:not-even read Attachment B, but,rather her husband had' discussed-it with her and she agreed with_his views.on the subject. She stated that the Attachment related to her husband's testimony, not her testimony (Tr. ,

10542-45).

b. Mrs.-Stiner responds.to questions by significantly ,

,Joverstating the facts.. For example, she testified k that her supervisor told her that she "would be

fired" if she didn't accept a certain hanger (Tr.fl0276). However, in responding to another i

question, she related the substance of the l conversation which did not include a threat to fire

. her (Tr. 10276-77). The Board, cautioned Mrs.

i 4 )

i 4 1

- -E. + , n- n-,,,,,,--,.-wy .m...~,,,.% .. . ..-e *-.... . .c,,.nw.-.-,,ew,v-, ,,-,w,,m ,,.--,,---,-c..evn.-.-svm e s - ere,-==--r,

. y .+ , . . .

=,- - -. . . . - . ---

7.. ;e n ,

z Stiner.to not overstate.the facts (Tr. 10277). As another example she stated,that a QC inspector had the authority to. order that a' hanger be cut down.

f- However, based on other questions she admitted that e sheEdidn't know if an inspector had that authority

' (Tr .- 10 278 -79 ) . As.another example, she testified.

'that she knew her supervisor did not give weld rods she had found to Tom Brandt.- On further questions she admitted.that she did.not know (Tr. 10474-75).

As another example, Mrs. Stiner testified that "she is.sure" that Mr. Brown doesn't monitor his welders

.and watch:them'make their welds'so that he would know if they were weave welding contrary to a . procedures - (Tr . 10200). However, on cross-examination she testified that Mr. Brown was never her. foreman, she did not know he was a foreman

.and she was simply. speculating (Tr. 10291).

c. Mrs. Stiner testified that she never had any trouble with her-foremen while she was a welder, including

- Messrs. Stembridge and Andrews (CASE Exhibit 667 at 6). Mrs. Stiner further stated that her supervisors i~cluding> Messrs. Stembridge and Andrews ordered her. '

$_ .; perform illegal welds, risking her job. (Tr.

10236-38,'10541, 10529). The Board questions the consistency.of Mrs.:Stiner's. testimony; if a- .

mtpervisor ordered a welder n to routinely risk her b job in-order to perform unauthorized welds as alleged by Mrs. Stiner ,: it would - be _ logical to assume that.the welder _was having problems with the supervisor.

O d. Mrs.'Stiner testified.that. welders did not generally have and could'not easily obtain pencil. grinders (Tr . 10 28 5 -8 6 ) . - Other welders and foremen (Messrs. -

Pickett, Braumuller,_Fernandez, Coleman, Brown and

.even Mr. Stiner) testified that they had pencil-E grinders and, when asked, they testified that' pencil

-grinders were readily accessible in the areas in H which they were. working (Tr. 10614, 11469, 11547, I 11621-22, 11643, 11666).

e. . In her , testimony, Mrs. Stiner made one specific allegation regarding_ excessive weave welding by one

-of; Applicants' witnesses, Mr..Braumuller. However, this testimony was riddled with inconsistencies and L

misstatements. Significantly,- when testifying Mrs.

j; Stiner had notes allegedly made at around the same L time as the events in question. (The notes were not L admitted into evidence.) The Board notes below only

[

I l~  :

I'

w :.> s

- a few of the many inccnsistencies, contained in this testimony.

• - Mrs.'Stiner t'estified that on March 24,_1981,

~

while inspecting a companion hanger, she first noticed Mr..Braumuller making-excessive weave welds on hanger TWX-0397-14A35R (Tr. 10161,_  ;

10183-85). She testified that, she~ inspected the ~

i hanger' for a final inspection on- March 26 and again saw Mr. Braumuller weave-welding.on the hanger (Tr. 10156, 10164). However, in. earlier testimony she had stated-that her initial inspection .was on March 26 - and the final inspection occurred later (CASE Exhibit. 667 at 25; Tr.: 10185). - Mrs..Stiner provided a long

. explanation' attempting to reconcile the difference (Tr. 10185-89). At bottom, however, her. earlier testimony was, at best, incomplete.

Mrs. Stiner testified that after1her inspection

- on March 26, she returned on March 27 and wrote an NCR on the hanger' (Tr.10173) . -

Again, conflicting earlier _ testimony was presented that the NCR was not written until several_ days af ter the " initial" inspectionaof March 26. CASE Exhibit 667 at 25. This time Mrs. Stiner just- ~

-1 admitted that'the earlier testimony was wrong -

n (Tr. 10196). To summarize, at the conclusion of the hearing on February- 23,.1984, Mrs. Stiner's story was that she'had seen Braumuller weave H welding on the hanger on March:24 and 26, 1981, and had written an NCR on March 27. (Tr. 10196.)

When-the hearing reconvened'over three weeks-

- later, Mrs. Stiner, responding to'a Board question precipitated by an inconsistency, testified that she.had not seen Mr. Braumuller .

welding on the hanger on March 24; indeed, the-U first time she noted weave welding on the hanger

+ '

was on March 26, 1981 (Tr. 10454-56).

Significantly, immediately prior to this obvious

. inconsistency, Mrs. Stiner had made' corrections regarding this very testimony.

-

• Mrs. Stiner.. testified on.many occasions that she had.never approved the hanger due to her concern over-the. alleged weave welding (Tr. 10273). Yet,

- Applicants presented an Inspection-Report dated April 8, 1981 that_was signed-by her (Tr. 10266) indicating _that the hanger _was: satisfactory (Tr.

10263-64). Mrs. Stiner testified that while she

~ doesn't remember signing it, she may have (Tr.

n, r qs Nr

- * - < -

• pe a- yv> y- a,wy,,43-ep-gw e- er-e,w---y- yw-.+=-%.+%y--eq--'tMF-TP*7-

. v. i- ,

l 10273). She testified that she must have-signed

- . it under threat of being fired (Tr. 10265, 10261). . Later however, she. admitted that there was no direct threat of firing (Tr. 10276-77).

" - Mrs. Stiner testified that the NCR she had written had been voided and Applicants had no record of it. .The Board reminded Mrs. Stiner that even voided NCRs are given numbers.- Mrs.

Stiner did not know and could not find-the1 number even though she stated that she had written .it down. (Tr. 10144-45.) On the Inspection Report signed -by Mrs. Stiner _on : April 8 ~ regarding this 4 _ hanger, however, she had written "not applicable" under the section for listing outstanding tCRs.  ;

(Tr. 10267i)- She' reconciled the testimony-by stating that the NCR had been voided' and she had -

no number to put in the. box. However, she ._

. earlier testified that she had not'known what had happened to the NCR. (Tr. 10267.) Mrs. Stiner '

could not_ provide a satisfactory explanation as to.why_she wrote "not applicable" in this_section of the-. Inspection Report if ,she had reported an NCR which,'to the best of her knowledge, had not-been dispositioned (Tr. 10267-68). .

+,,<- -

131 this ~ record, Mr.- Stiner is shown to be a- convicted felon; Lfurther,-the. record demonstrates-that Mr. and Mrs. Stiner are

-individuals wh6 possess memories that_ produce different versions oof'the same' facts when questioned at different times and possess selective recall of facts and details favorable to their claims, '

accompanied by a failure of memory as to other facts regarding those claim's.2/

In1 addition,- the Board is troubled by Mrs. Stiner 's failure ttoLsupport'her allegations of widespread violations of welding-and 12/ 'While.many. additional inconsistencies are contained in their

. testimony (See e.g. , Tr. ~ 10744-58, 11153), the Board will not takesthectime to detail them. However, some additional inconsistencies in -their testimony are noted below in

' discussions'of specific allegations.

.L .

f l

~

l

. weld : rod control procedures.with numerous examples of NCRs or other reports reflecting.these deficiencies. Mrs. Stiner was a QC

. inspector l for several years during the period when these alleged wides'pread violations were being commit.ed. Based on her experience as a welder, she would noe. Known how these violations were' allegedly'being committed and allegedly concealed. Clearly, from her testimony she did not feel-constrained or under orders not Tto ? report .these violations; indeed, she testified reporting at least-one alleged violation of excessive weave welding and

, delivered unattended weld rods to her supervisor.on one occasion.

'If. there were widespread -violations, then why did Mrs. Stiner. not '

~ catch more of them and report them? Indeed, if she felt

- -  : constrained.about reporting-them, she clearly:would have written of their existance in her several books which she kept on every hanger she inspected and outside= concerns she had. While she~used herJbooks to provide testimony on the one hanger which.she alleged had: excessive' weave, welds made by.Mr. Braumuller, she did not indicate that the books reflected other like deficiencies.- The'

'only. conclusion that-the Board'can reach is'that Mr. and Mrs.

Stiner were " mistaken" as to the extent of their allegations Tu ik -concerning widespread _ violations of procedures.

Viewing the recordLtotally in favor of Mr. and Mrs. Stiner, theLBoard could find that they are merely forgetful witnesses who arefthus' generally unreliable. We decline to be so lenient. The

-Board'is_ deeply troubled that these witnesses would come before o ____ .,. . _ _ _ . , _ . . . - . _ . - _ . . _ - _ _ . _ . . _ . . _ . . _ _ _ . ~ _ _ _

. 4 this tribunal- (which is convened at great expense to Applicants and.to the taxpayers of this country to hear and decide important issues of public health and safety) and testify with such patent

inconsistency. The concept and validity of this entire administrative proceeding is dependent upon the credibility of the witnesses presenting testimony in it. To this end the Board Chairman carefully admonished each witness that they were to present.only truthful testimony. In consideration of the foregoing, the Board finds unequivocally, that the testimony of Mr. and'Mrs. Stiner is patently unreliable. Accordingly, their allegations will be given credence only where substantiated by

' independent, corroborative evidence.

C. Contested Issues-

.The welding issues raised by CASE and addressed in this Partial. Initial Decision relate to weave welding, downhill welding,Jweld rod control, weld repair of misdrilled holes and

. preheating of welds. In addressing each of these issues in the -

-context of.the quality assurance contention raised by the

-intervenor, the Board examined and weighed the testimony presented to determine if it' reflected systematic or significant violations

~

of the QA/QC program indicative of a breakdcwn in the program. In addition, in that resolution of many of the issues involved balancing conflicting testimony raising credibility issues, the Board attempted to address the probable impact on plant safety

' assuming the allegations were well founded.

a l'. 7 Weave Welding

. Weave welding as defined by Section'IX of the ASME Code is a weld with significant-transverse oscillation (NRC Staff Testimony.

~

at 4;: Applicants Exhibit 177 at 7) . The AWS Dl.1-1975 Code also

- definesialweave weld as a type of weld bead made with transverse

-Losci11ation. - Weave welding;may be distinguished from a stringer

' bead,-wh'ich is defined as a type of weld made without appreciable

- transverse' oscillation. (NRC Staff Testimony at 5; Tr. 12153.)

Neither:thefASME Code nor the AWS Code prohibits weave welding

(Applicants ' Exhibit- 177 at -7; NRC Staf f Testimony at 5; Tr.

11222)'. :Further, weave welding.is not in itaalf contrary to- -

applicable welding' procedures.used at' Comanche Peak unless the I b #~" final weave width is in excess of four times.the diameter-of the; weldirod being.~used. . For example, if-the welding material

specified

to be -used is.- 1/8 -inch diameter electrode, it .would be facceptable tosuse an oscillating' weld technique up to 1/2 inch-wide (fourftimes.the diameter of the: weld rod). (Applicants SExhibit 177Lat'7-8.)

CASE'siconcerns regarding weave welding were~ based on--Mr.

-t

- Land Mrs.'-Stiner's allegations-that although excessive weave welding 1I. was' contrary to: procedures at CPSES, it was. common

]h/ The. record reflects'that Mr.-and Mrs. Stiner's initial

- allegations were' based on a belief-that all weave welding, no

. matter.howislight-was unauthorized (Applicants Exhibit 177 at' L 17 -9 ; Tr .19991, .10589-90) . This seriously calls into question

.Mr.=and Mrs. Stiner's earlierLtestimony and indeed, the basis

for: CASE's-all'egations'regarding weave welding.

9 y g g. -,, g- ,y -,,-e y - .mp.,.,y...,s-.,, - . , .-,,,.,-q-y # ,--em, ,-++ ,, ++w m ,,,+%,, w-n,,i--p,.,,.,wwv,wyew,,,.-e,#w

21 -

practice and foremen even directed welders to use excessive weave

! weld widths (Tr. 4147-48, 4210-11, 11098-11103; CASE Exhibit 919 at 9-10).- Mr. and Mrs. Stiner were concerned that weave widths in violation of procedures could result in. excessive heat input into the weld joint (CASE Exhibit 919 at 5; Tr. 10305, 10591, 10785).A/

As' discussed more fully below, the record reflects that the

' allegations ' raised by Mr. and Mrs. Stiner regarding weave welding are-not reflective of. systematic or significant violations of the QA/QC program. In-this regard, no specific instances where violations were alleged to have occurred were substantiated. In any event, - the record _ reflects that even if Mr. and Mrs. Stiner had-violated procedures by welding in excess of weave width procedural requirements as they alleged, excessive heat input would-not have had a significant adverse impact on plant safety.

a.- Allegations of -Weave _ Welding Do -Not Reflect a Breakdown in-the-QA/QC Program Henry -and Darlene Stiner testified that excessive weave welding in violation of procedures was a widespread problem at CPSES '(CASE Exhibit 919 .at 6, 9,14) . Mr. and Mrs. Stiner testified that under the direction of their supervisors they had

.themselves welded and had observed others welding with weave widths in excess of procedural requirements. While they stated 4/ During the hearing, the Board expanded the issue of weave-welding to ' include the impact of heat input _ on weave weld joints (Tr. 9947).-

w ur ws- g- -w w 1

---

m -- Y -m -- -,w-- *Wt

.. w 4

that such-violations routinely occurred, they were only able to identify a few specific hangers where they believed unauthorized weave welding occurred. The two specific incidents identifiedE/

involved A. Braumuller, one of Applicants' witnesses who had previously testified that he had never performed weave welding in violation of procedures. (Applicants Exhibit 177 at 9; Tr.

11675.~) (The two specific incidents identified are addressed

'below.)

In response to'these allegations of widespread weave welding in~ violation of procedural requirements (i.e., where the weave width was over~four. times the diameter of the weld rod used),

Messrs. Fernandez,b[ Pickett and Braumuller (welders still remaining at CPSES who were on Mr. Stiner's crews) testified that neither they nor any other welder they have seen 'elded w using a weaving pattern in excess of.the bead width specified in welding

~

j5; /' Mr. Stiner alsoLalledged that Fred Coleman directed him to beat the flux off a rod, insert it into a weld gap and weave weld over it (CASE Exhibit 919 at 9) . However, he was not.

able to identify a specific hanger or weld which could be investigated. In any event, Mr. Coleman presented conflicting testimony (Tr . 11538 ) . Further, other welders who were under lir. Coleman on the same crew as Mr. Stiner, stated that Mr. Coleman had not given them similar

' instructions.and they had never heard of this being done at CPSES (Applicants' Exhibit 177 at 9).

6[ 'Mr. Stiner testified that Mr. Fernandez was not on his crew and had never welded in the same area as Mr. Stiner (Tr.

-10589). Subsequently, when asked if Mr. Fernandez ever performed an illegal weld, Mr. Stiner stated that Fernandez had; Stiner knew because he was welding in the same area (Tr. j 10675-76).- In any event, Messrs. Fernandez and Brown (Mr. 1 Stiner's welding foremen) testified that Mr. Fernandez was on the same crew under Mr. Brown (Tr . 11857 ; 11673).

y r  ; procedures. Furthe'r, :they testified that they had never heard a horemanorsupervisordirect'awelder.toperformsuchillegal welds.. (Applicants Exhibit 177 at 9.) All welders (in$1uding the y< Stin'er's) apparentlyfknew that intentional violation of procedures could: result in termination (Tr. 11729).1/

y Irr addition, Messrs. . Brown, Coleman, Green and Hallford (supervisors on crews over Mr. Stiner and/or welders in areas

1. :wherec Mrs. Stiner. welded) stated that th'ey had never heard any-supervisor direct a welder'.to perform illegal weave welding

'(Applicants Exhibit Ll77 at 9-11) .- Significa'ntly, Messrs. Brown nand Coleman (welding foremen on H. Stiner's crews) testified that

. they; monitored :each welder od their crews (including Mr. Stiner)

" ~

several . times a day. (Tr. 11464,.11534, 11541) and if any welders were:using excessive weave welding as.a practice (as alleged by.

, * -Mr. and-Mrs? Stine ), they;would have known about it (Applicants E hibit -177 - at 10; Tr. :11587) .

'7/-

Mr. and Mrs. Stiner alleged that wolders routinely violated procedures under . the direction of ' their foreman even though

.they' knew that:they couldcbe' terminated if they-were caught (Tr. 10284,'.10287-88, 10312-14). Mr. Stiner stated that the Jguidance he'w'as given by his foreman'was do not get caught (Tr . 10680 , 10897 ) . . In addition,.they stated that foremen q- and other welders-kept a c look out for.OC'to warn welders if JP G: was' coming' -(Tr . 11030-32, 11103). This is in direct conflict withLtestimony of welders presented as witnesses by

' Applicants who, whenl asked by the Board,' stated that,'in-L

'[ xf OJ essence, it.did not make sense-to intentionally violate

procedures if you . knew it could cost you your job (Applicants Exhibit 177 at 11; Tr.'ll729).- In view of the hundreds of welders .who have worked 'at the plant' it would seem likely that' if Mr.-- and Mrs. Stiner were correct, many of them would

., ~have made mistakes and been caught intentionally violating

"^ ' procedures.- The record does not reflect this.

m' <

~ '

'I t

i. ..

Mr. Baker testified.that.he was unaware of any instances of excessive weave welding which-had not been identified and appropriately dispositioned, and that if a welder was using excessive weave welding as a practice, Mr. Baker would have.found out about it. _Mr. Baker based his testimony on his personal observations of and discussions with welders coupled with the monitor'ing programs he administered in welding construction, e.g.,

welding technicians.who all reported to him and the welder

-inspection program. Mr. Baker testified that welding technicians (assigned to- each area of the plant where welding was taking place) continuously monitor the welders they are assigned. Mr.

Baker stated'that if any welder used excessive weave welding as a practice, it would have been detected by these technicians and reported to him. (Applicants Exhibit 177 at 12-13.)

Further, Mr. Baker testified that welding engineering (apart from QA/QC)Dalso conducted unannounced inspections of each active

' welder approximately every 14 days. (For-example, Mr. Baker testifiedfthat~during the short time Mr. Stiner was actively welding, he was inspected'15 times, and 'Mrs. Stiner was inspected During the

~

at least 28Jtimes during the period she welded.)

inspection, numerous areas are checked, including _the filler material,:the acceptability of the welding, progression of travel (uphill or downhill), bead. width, and weld rod control. Mr. Baker testified that to his knowledge, none of the inspections identified any concerns regarding excessive weave welding.

.e. 's-l, e J .

.I >253 -- ,

R ,Furth'er,'Mr. Brandt. testified that he was unaware of any instances of excessive weave. welding which: wore not identified and dispositioned appropriately, and if a welder did excessive weave welding'as'alpractice.(as alleged by Darlene and Henry Stiner), QC

~

would havelfound out about it and taken appropriate actions. Mr.

Brandt's't'estiE0ny was based.on his observations of welders in the splant, andchis discussions with numerous QC inspectors (who are

(, monitoring the welders) regarding this issue. (Applicants Exhibit as ',

,17 7 . a t .12 - 13 . )'

3 Thei.NRC Staff .inv'estigated thd allegations made by Mr. and Mrs. Stiner'regar, ding weave welding (NRC Staff Exhibit 178 at 11-13). Basedonhh'e-investigation,tfleStaffconcludedthat there was-no ev'idence to' support Mr. and Mrs. - Stiner 's allegations (NRC Staff Testimony at'11-12). t I)

While testimony reflected that alliwelders were trained on the ' appropriate weave width thatcould" be used -(see e.g. ,

Applicants Exhibit 177 L at 9,13; Tr. 9991,= 11297) , Mr. Stiner-

" testified .that he was. never told that weave welding in any fashion

}

Mi (even#below four times the weld material diameter) was I. unauthorized (Tr. 4211 andL10590). However, Mr. Stiner contradicted.himself by;sbating that when he was in training, one of thi Jindtructors '(Kenneth Golden) ' told him that weave welding was acceptable and~even at tines preferable (CASE Exhibit 666 at l9 ) . In additione ,in March 1980 Mr. Stiner attended a training class on CPM-6.9' (CASE Exhibit 666. at 8) which reflects a maximum 17 .

. *: o bead width'of four times the weld rod diameter (NRC Staff Testimony at-6). In short, despite the contradictory. testimony of Mr. Stiner,-the Board-finds that welders were properly trained on acceptable bead width.8/

Mr. Stiner testified that it was faster to weave weld than to perform a stringer. (line) weld, and accordingly, supervisors direct'ed_ welders to weave weld to accelerate production (Tr.

10863, 10896). However, in response to_ cross-examination of earlier-testimony, Mr. Stiner stated first that it took approximately the same length of time to perform a stringer and weave weld; next, that the' stringer weld took longer; and_ finally that the weave weld took much longer (Tr. 4361-63). In any event, testimony in the record reflects that depending on the preference of the welder, it takes no longer to do a stringer bead weld than

'a weave weld (Tr. 11382, 11583-85).

The. Board now turns to the two specific hangers raised by Mr . and Mrs. Stiner involving Mr. Braumuller where weave welding in violation of procedures was alleged ~to have occurred. The first incident was reported by Mr. Stiner who testified that he had to repair an-improper weave weld performed by an "inexperttm,cd" welder, A.M. Braumuller (Case Exhibit 666 at 8/ Applicants cestified that the bead width weld specified as

-acceptable in some welding procedures may have been confusing (Tr. 9991). Accordingly, these procedures are being changed to ,

remove confusion (Tr. 9992). However, it appears that the confusion, if any, was not widespread. Further, any confusion would have resulted in welders conservatively using less of a weave pattern than they could have used.

._ _ _ . _ _ - - - ~ . __ __, J

l11-12; Tr.(10591-94, 10597).E/ Mr. Stiner'had stated that while he: knew the exact hanger in question, he would not point out the hanger [for fear that it would " provide (Applicants] enough time to make sure;that this hanger was acceptable whenever it was inspected" - (Tr .- 10911-12). When the Board considered striking his s testimony, Mr. Stiner agreed to point out the hanger (Tr. 10916).

To alleviate Mr.-Stiner's apparent concerns, the Board accompanied Mr..Stiner to the CPSES site-to substantiate-the testimony (Tr.

'11023). Significantly, the hanger Mr. Stiner first identified was not welded on by- either Mr. Braumuller or himself. Mr. Stiner then' concluded the obvious -- that it was not the right hanger

-(Tr. 11023-24). However, an adjoining hanger did have the weld -

symbols of-both Mr. Braumuller and himself, and accordingly, Mr.

Stiner adopted it-as his hanger. However, the documentation for this' additional. hanger showed that Mr. Braumuller and-Mr..Stiner

-had welded on that particular support several months apart. -(Tr.

L 11024;: CASE Exhibit 968, received into evidence at Tr.11180.)

Further, the welds on the supports pointed out by Mr. Stiner were 9/' Testimony reflects that Mr. Braumuller has 28 years of

. welding experience, substantially more than Mr. Stiner

-(Applicants' Exhibit 177 at 4; CASE Exhibit 666A). In this regard, if it were necessary for another welder to continually: follow Mr.'Braumuller to correct his welds, as

alleged by Mr. Stiner (Tr. 4213), the Board questions why Mr.

Bra'umuller is .still a welder at CPSES. In addition, while

-Mr. Stiner testified-that because of his welding skills, he was used to correct the welds of less experienced welders (Tr. 10969-10972), Messrs. Coleman and Brown (two of his foremen) testified that he was just an average welder and was not used in this capacity-(Tr. 11467, 11473, 11539, 11586).

i I

e

- , - , , -, y e r . , , _ _ _ _ , . _ . _ . - - _

.-_4 --'

properly made stringer beads, well within the governing procedural-limits - (NRC 'Staf f Testimony at 14; Tr. ~ 12224) . In addition, the construction packages for the hangers reflected that none of the hangers Mr. Stiner pointed out was cut down or replaced (NRC Staff Testimony at 14). In any event, the hangers pointed out by Mr.

Stiner did'not require Charpy impact testing (NRC Staff Testimony

.at 13), and, as discussed below, even if there had been excessive weave welding-there would not have been an adverse safety consequence. In short, this incident does not support Mr.

Stiner's- testimony that he corrected excessive weave welding of Mr.'Braumuller. However, this incident does cast doubt on Mr.

Stiner 's credibility. When he was forced into pinpointing the location of a mysterious problem he stated positively that.he knew existed, he failed to do so.

The second specific incident was reported by Mrs. Stiner who testified.that-she observed Mr. Braumuller weave welding on hanger TWX-034-714-A35R at elevation 790 in the Auxiliary Building on March 24, 1981 and March 26, 1981 (Tr. 10161, Tr. 4149; Case Exhibit 667'at 24). This issue is thoroughly discussed in Section II.B., above, as it relates to -the credibility of Mrs. Stiner.

While this discussion casts substantial doubt on her credibility as:a witness as well as the accuracy of this specific allegation, documentation reflects that, in any event, Mr. Braumuller used a total ofL two rods on the hanger.on March 24 and five rods on the hanger on March 25, 1981 (Tr. 11790-91). (;

H e did not weld on the i

I

=

\

2 9 '- i hanger:on' March' 26,l1981 as alleged (Tr. 11791).)1E/

-Significantly, Mrs. -Stiner testified -that 17 to 18 weld rods would Enot have1 completed even one weld 'on. the hanger - (Tr.10149) .

.Accordingly,t if'Mr.LBraumuller'had weave' welded on the hanger as Mrs. Stiner' had alleged,~ he could .not have weave welded for- very

.long. !In=any; event, the welds on~the hanger did not require Charpyl impact' considerations and,.as discussed fully below, even

.if there haul been weave welding, there would have been no adverse

-safety c'onsequences. In short, due to the numerous Linconsistencies regarding Mrs. Stiner's testimony, coupled with testimony which reflects 1that; prior to these hearings Mrs. Stiner

felt that: anyf transverse oscillation, no matter how slight, was

'" illegal" L (see note 3,isupra), the Board does not view this incidentLas support for CASE's position.

Based on the _ evidence, the -Board finds that CASE's allegations regarding weave welding;do not' reflect systematic or

?

-, During cross-examination, CASE questioned'Mr. Baker as to the

, LyD/

~-' adequacy of~ weld filler' material documentation for this and

.other Class 5 hangers._ Specifically, CASE was concerned that1 l .because weld filler material log sheets were not numbered for-

! . Class :51 hangers ' (as they are for Class 1, 2 and '3 hangers) ,

there would be no'wayLof telling if any sheets were missing (Tr. 11942-43)~. Mr.. Baker testified.that this hanger package was taken-from the. official Company records and he had no

reason:to believe that it (as well as any other Class '5 hanger package) ~ was not complete l(Tr. 11978-79). Further, he testified that'there are:no code requirements regarding

. retention of such documentation for Class 5 hangers (Tr.

.11983). -Further, Mr. Baker stated that after the filler material is used, the weld filler: material log sheets for

[

-Class:5' hangers serve no' safety function (Tr. 11981-83).

CASE presented no conflicting testimony.

V h

F.

, -+, , - - - , , , , , . - , . . n--.--..--.-,--,~.-,..,..,-~.~n.--,, w.---~n,... -

^

significant violations of procedural requirements, and thus, do not reflect a breakdown in the QA/QC program at CPSES.- In addition, the Board finds that the specific incidents concerning

-excessive weave welding raised by Mr. and Mrs. Stiner either did not occur or, in any event, could not have adversely impacted plant safety.

In making these findings, the Board notes that the testimony regarding'this issue is in direct conflict. On the one hand Applicants' witnesses testified that they were not aware of any unreported weave welding in violation of procedures. These

- witnesses included welders who worked in the same areas as Mr. and

-Mrs. Stiner and who would have experienced the same working conditions that they did. 'Indeed, each of these welders has been at CPSES ' longer than either Mr. .or Mrs. Stiner. In addition, Applicants' witnesses included two of Mr. Stiner's welding foremen and'two of his other supervisors, all of whom would have monitored him and others on his crew. Finally, Applicants' witnesses included Messrs. Baker and Brandt who testified as-to direct and

' substantial oversight of welding by the welding engineering department'and OC personnel.

Significantly, while each of

-Applicants' witnesses was sequestered and thus did not hear the testimony of the others before testifying, there were no inconsistencies of.any moment in any of Applicants' witnesses' testimony.

l l

, .,. , . - . . .~ . . . - ..-.

o_. w.

31 -

1 On the other hand, Mr. and Mrs. Stiner testified that weave welding in-violation of procedures was widespread at CPSES.

However,.there were substantial inconsistencies in the testimony

.of both Mr. and Mrs. Stiner. In addition, the Board found significant'the failure of Mr. and Mrs. Stiner to point to more

instances of specific hangers where -violations occurred. Indeed,

.given Mrs. Stiner's allegations of widespread violations coupled with her' dogmatism in discussing the alleged violation she

-identified regarding Mr. Braumuller, the Board feels that if excessive weave welding was a widespread problem, Mrs. Stiner would have ' written a great many NCRs regarding this issue.

Further, the Board does not find credible Mr. and Mrs. Stiner's testimony - that the reason that -violations were not detected was that on each occasion a. foreman would stand watch for .(X:, risking

.not only.his job, but the job-of the welder as.well. If this actually occurred all the time throughout the plant, as Mr. and

-Mrs.:Stiner alleged, surely there would be numerous instances ,

where the welders would be caught and reported. We have nothing in the record to support such a conclusion.

b. Safety Implications of Allegations of Excessive Weave Welding Mr. and Mrs. Stiner stated that their primary concern

regarding weave welding was that it would result in excessive heat

' input into the parent metal resulting in damage (CASE Exhibit 919

.at~5; Tr. 10784).

4' .-

I l

l l

With. regard to CASE's concern,-Messrs. Muscente and Baker testified.that the type of steel Mr. and Mrs. Stiner were qualified to weld on was low carbon steel with a carbon content

.below 0.3 percent (Tr. 9997-98). Applicants testified that the vast majority of all carbon steel used at CPSES is low carbon

. s teel. . Further, Applicants testified that this material is extremely ductile, not susceptible to cracking or embrittlement, and heat input has essentially no effect on its strength. (Tr.

9998-99.)11/- Applicants testified that heat input during welding on these materials is only a factor when welding on materials that require Charpy impact testing (Tr. 10012).

Applicants testified that excessive heat on such materials may alter the fine grain structure (Tr. 10012). The NRC Staff testimony was consistent with Applicants in this regard (NRC Staf f Testimony at 7; Tr. 12156, 12178-82).

Applicants testified that only portions of two systems installed by' Brown & Root required Charpy impact testing, the main steam' and feedwater systems (Tr. 9996, 10100). Mr . and Mr s .

Stiner's qualifications would have only allowed them to weld structural attachment welds on these systems (Tr. 9996). To determine whether Mr. or Mrs. Stiner welded on these systems, 11/ Applicants testified that these characteristics were present in: low carbon steels, including A-36. Further, Applicants

. testified that due to the fabrication process for SA-500 tube steel (also a low carbon, unalloid steel), excessive heat input may cause some change in the mechanical properties and perhaps tensile strength. However,'these characteristics would be essentially the same. (Tr . 11926 -27. )

s : -->

33 -

Applicants' conducted a computer search of the welding documentation,of the. sections of the main steam and feedwater systems requiring Charpy impact considerations (Tr. 9996, 10013).

To_ verify that-this documentation contained all pertinent attachments to the systems, Applicants also conducted a

' cross- heck'of allithe drawings for the main steam and feedwater

systems andJidentified all of the. hangers attached to portions of those systems that_ required Charpy impact testing (Tr. 11765).

~

sFrom:these reviews, Applicants determined that neither Mr. nor Mrs. Stiner ' welded on materials requiring Charpy impact testing

~

-(Tr. 9996, 10012). Another computer check by Applicants of all.

systems welded on by Mr. and.Mrs. Stiner supported this conclusion (Tr. 9996). . While Mr. Stiner stated that he was sure-that-he welded on. systems requiring impact testing, he could not remember the hanger numbers or exact locations (CASE Exhibit 919 ' at _7-8) .

On.the basis ofLthis record the' Board finds that neither Mr. nor.

Mrs. Stiner. welded on material requiring Charpy impact testing.

To. illustrate worse case heat imput conditions, Mr. Stiner

-testified,that he observed hangers:on which the weld was in excess of-four times the weld diameter of the weld rod and the parent >

metal was heated so hot that four or five inches out from the weld

' it was:" blue tempered" (CASE Exhibit 919 at 8) . Applicants testified that this coloration was a surface condition which occurred:at 600'F ~(Tr. 10020). -Applicants attempted to simulate

-this condition using-the material Mr. Stiner alleged to have seen,

< 6

~s ix inch by;eight inch' tube steel, 1/4 inch thick (Tr. 10021).

~

~(In that- this material was tube steel, it was SA-500 low carbon steelc(Tr. 11927).) Applicants welded on this material continuously for 37 minutes using excessive weave beads. During the' test, interpass temperatures of over 150*F in excess of the 500*F specified by the procedure were achieved.1 ! The result Lwas a-blue ' ring on.the. surface 1 3/4 inches from the top of the

. weld. ' (Tr . 10 0 2 2 . ) ' Applicants testified that the excessive heat

-would not.have had an impact.on the characteristics of the base

~

material (Tr. 10021-25). Judge Bloch summarized Applicants' testimony in this regard as follows "...first, it is impossible to get that wide a blueness and second, if it did, it wouldn't matter anyway"-(Applicants Exhibit 178, 179; Tr. 10025). NRC Staff testimony supported Applicants' position in this regard (NRC Staff Testimony-at.8).

Applicants ~also performed a. test on low carbon SA-36 material where interpass temperatures of 750*F (250*F in excess of 12/- Applicants testified that they had conducted tests to determine if a welder could exceed the 500*F maximum'interpass temperature while following other normal procedural requirements (Tr. 10009). 'To: conduct the test, a welder'was instructed to weld as fast as'possible (stopping only to clean the weld and change electrodes) in order to reach the maximum interpass temperature (Tr. 10009). The results of'the test demonstrated that it was impossible for a welder welding under alliother procedural requirements to exceed the 500*F interpass F

. temperature ~ (Tr. 10008-10). While Mr. Stiner testified that he felt it was possible to exceed maximum interpass temperatures while welding using normal techniques, he admitted that he had

[' never attempted to conduct such a test with measuring devices; in short, his testimony was simply speculation (Tr. 11052-53).

l-

c) -o-

'the maximum interpass temperature) were achieved (Tr. 10015).

+' Specimens'were cut from the test plate and tested. These tests

! confirmed -the acceptability :of the material's important properties

[(Applicants Exhibits 178, 179; Tr. 10018).

-From the testimony, the Board finds'that even if Mr. and

~

- Mrs. Stiner.had made weave welds in violation of procedures, as

- alleged, that > it _ would. not ~have had an adverse impact on safe

operation of'the plant.

-2._' Downhill Welding _

- . Downhill welding -is an industry. term referring to welding in

. a vertical down direction. It is an industry accepted practice for manyj applications, and if properly performed will result in acceptable welds.. In this-regard, neither the ASME nor AWS Codes exclude'any particular-direction of progression. Rather, both v

Codes would allow the contractor to specify direction of travel.

While'the Codes.do not exclude uphill or downhill welding, the-Codes do. state that regardless of which direction of progression is selected-the welder _must be qualified to weld in that direction. . Brown & Root welding procedures do not authorize

s. ' downhill welding. However, welding procedures of other

- . contractors on site do authorize downhill welding. (Applicants

. Exhibitf177 at 15-16.).

CASE's concerns regarding downhill welding were based on Mr.

Stiner's allegations-that (1) "once metal has been welded on and cut on.with a: torch,.it builds up a magnetic field which causes 4

--i-,-.----...w 3,. .-. 6- , . - , .--. -- + - - . . ,w,,-...y-- ., ._--+,..,,w,...-,..r,,-,-ycy,--,,rve

-v'-r'*ir*.w*t*ww-***'.r*P -1'*

0 JJ arc blow" and to correct arc blow " lots of times, people will run a downhill weld instead of doing it correctly, because then-you're going in the direction of the magnetic field" (Tr. 4246-47) and (2) because of limited access conditions welders were at times directed to make downhill-welds instead of uphill welds (CASE Exhibit 191 at 15). Mr. Stiner contended that such downhill welds were contrary to procedures and could potentially result in trapped' slag-and' lack of fusion (Tr. 4247).

As discussed more fully below, the record reveals that the allegations raised.by CASE regarding downhill welding are not reflective of systematic or significant violations of procedural requirements. In this regard, no specific instances of downhill welding in violation of procedures alleged by Mr. Stiner were substantiated. In any event, even if isolated instances of downhill welding occurred, as alleged, the likelihood that it would have an adverse impact on plant safety is extremely remote.

~

a.- CASE's Allegations. Regarding Downhill Welding Do Not Reflect a Breakdown in the QA Program .

Mr. Stiner alleges that downhill welds were routinely made to correct for arc blowl3/ and, as directed by supervisors, in limited access conditions (CASE Exhibit 919 at 15) . While Mr.

Stiner stated that unauthorized downhill welding was common practice at CPSES, hc was only able to identify two specific instances 13/ Applicants testified that arc blow is a phenomenon sometimes encountered in D.C. arc welding where the arc is deflected due to:the deformation of the magnetic field'which is present in some form in all arc welding (Applicants Exhibit 177 at 15).

,n b

v -r

^

37 -

where'he alleged. downhill welding occurred.(Tr. 10607, 10622). E

?,With regardito arc blow, Applicants testified that contrary

/to 'Mr.c Stiner 's assertions, ; welding on metal or cutting it with a

torchsillinot' resultiin a magnet'ic field on _the base material.

.-t l

t In'anyTejant,arcblow:isnot. e caused.by-'the'basematerialbeing magnetized. - Applicants - testified that if proper grounding . is present arc blow is aiproblem only at elevated amperage rates, I susually above 250 amps.. -'(Applicants Exhibit 177 at 14-15.)

V' ApplicantsEfurther stated that because of the method of grounding l -

.used_at CP'SES, and:the small diameter. electrodes and-low amperage-J rangesiused ~ in the field -for vertical welding : (90-120 amps) , arc

~

~

blow 'forf vertibal weldinglis not a: problem at CPSES (11.; Tr.

.10085-86) ._ -However, Applicants . testified that due to a separate

! grounding' system.in the welding. training-facility, at one time arc blowfwas a problem in the training facility, but not in.the plant

?(Tr.-10085-88). . Mr. Stiner did not take' issue with this testimony.

, With regard to'Mr. Stiner's allegations that downhill welding was routinely performed in limited access situations under ithe direction of a supervisor,^ Messrs. Fernandez, Pickett'and .

b .

.].4/;; 'In ' addition to the two specific instances, Mr. Stiner states

generally that Messrs.HColeman, . Brown and Green (and other

' unnamed foremen) directed him to perform, or themselves made, downhill welds in limited access conditions (CASE Exhibit:919

- at'5;1Tr. 10607-20, 10622, 10624-26, 11489). . Messrs.

Coleman,: Brown and Green denied these allegations. (Tr.

l 11488,111716 ;; Applicants Exhibit 177 at 19.) Mr . Brown , ,

-however, testified that in restricted positions he had made

' welds: chat Mr.nStiner'could not make, but such welds were not

, -' downhill _-(Tr. 11488). <

f i

,w e*, - - . . - ,,,,-m.e,-.,:

- e...e-- ,,---,.,,,.c, .-,-,-..,wym ,,,e,--,--, ,w mr ,w,,n - m,-re.e e w-e- , m - , y 7 ,,.y m -m-,%yn,-

F l Braumuller- (welders remaining at CPSES from Mr. Stiner's crews) testified ,that'they had not welded or seen others weld. downhill in vio'lation of. procedures. Further, they testified that welders

~

knewidownhill welding was unauthorized and there was no incentive to do it; if caught it could mean the loss of the welder's

, certification or perhaps termination. (Applicants Exhibit 177 at

'18.) Irr this regard, Applicants testified that the welders at CPSES are trained'that downhill welding is not authorized. In addition,-the weld technique sheets used by all welders specify an upward progression. (Tr. 10130.)

Messr's. Brown and Coleman - (welding foremen on Mr. Stiner 's crews) testified that-they had never welded or seen others weld downhill.in violation of procedures. They-testified that due to their1close monitoring of welders on their crews (including Mr.

Stiner), if a welder welded downhill as a practice, they would have known about it . (Applicants Exhibit 177 at 19.)

Mr. Baker testified that based on his personal observations

'i n combination with numerous interviews with welders, welding

. technicians..-(including the results of the periodic unannounced welder inspections), fitters, welding. foremen, and construction supervision, he is unaware of any-information which would indicate that unautho'rized downhill welding on safety-related or Class 5 suppor'ts . occurred at CPSES. Based on his personal observations of welders and his review of pertinent records as.well as discussions with numerous' welders, foremen, fitters and QC inspectors, Mr.

L Brandt 'also testified that' he was unaware of information that

(

w - - - -

- r ey -. - _ , - , _ , . . -,,w.r.-e,. ,,-,m_-, ,.,_.,,_r_y.m_,._ _.,,g .m,. ..y, .-.m_..m, _,_,__,my, _ _ . _ _ , . , ,. , .

Lei a

[ '

I i

would indicate that such unauthorized downhill welding occurred at CPSES. . I(M. at:16-18.)

Significantly, Applicants' testified that.there was no

. situation where it'was easier to do a downhill weld than an uphill

~

weld . (Tr. 11488-89, 11854-57). NRC' Staff testimony of Messrs.

-Gilbert?and: Taylor supports Applicants' testimony (NRC Staff Testimony at 22).

The Board now turns to the two specific incidents of alleged downhill welding raised by Mr. Stiner. The-first involved another

-welder who' allegedly welded stainless steel lugs to a pipe using a downhill-weld (CASE . Exhibit 919 at.15) . Applicants testified that they performeo a computer search of all stainless steel. welds made

- by this other . weider (who .is no longer working at CPSES)~ and

. performed a record search to assure that in all instances where he welded stainless steel lugs to a pipe, proper QC inspections had been conducted. In addition, all such welds were again visually inspected to assure that there were no indications of downhill-welds. (Tr . 10 0 36 . )

In short, this alleged incident provides no ,

support forRMr..Stiner's allegations.

In the second incident, Mr. Stiner testified that under the direction of-Cliff Brown and Jimmy Green, he performed a. downhill weld. on a par ticular hanger in' a limited access area (Tr.10613,

?l0622).1 / However,'when Mr. Stiner was confronted with 15/ The' Board notes that while Mr. Stiner relates this incident

.in vivid detail in his oral testimony (Tr. 10612), in his Footnote continued on next page F

n.

--, .: , 1,c

\

l Econflicting: testimony regarding whether Mr. Brown could direct him i

.to perform a' weld, he reversed himself and testified that Mr. l

-Brown _did'not direct him to make this downhill weld, but rather 1k. Brown made the weld himself (Tr . 109 67-75 ) . The Board focused

.primarily on the following. exchange as indicative of Mr. Stiner's inconsistency in this regard:

BY.MR. REYNOLDS:

~

Q.' Mr . Stiner , on 'page 10,122 (10622] you state that you were instructed to downhill weld by Jimmie Green and Cliff' Brown?

A. What paragraph?

Q.- This is_ lines 10 through 13.

JA. That's correct.

Q.: Yet, you say on lines 19 and 20 that you didn't even know Brown was a foreman? Is that correct?

A. I think when-I said " instructed" I should have said "theyftold me to."

That'd probably have been the--

JUDGE ~BLOCH: As I understand the testimony, am I correct,.r.

M Brown had a kind of a responsibility -

to get things fixed up so they-could be bought-off.

Is-that correct? _That's-your testimony?.

THE ' WITNESS: . That-is correct.

JUDGE BLOCH: And that you sometimes had that responsibility, too?

(Footnote continued from-previous page earlier testimony (CASE Exhibit 666) Mr. Stiner did not ,

mention this downhill weld. In that in his earlier testimony le. Stiner discussed this- hanger in detail (although not this downhill weld), the Board questions why Mr. Stiner failed to relate this incident -(CASE Exhibit 666 at 35-36) .'

.o: a p THE WITNESS: -Yes,. sir.

JUDGE BLOCH: Now, when you had that responsibility, you sometimes told other welders how to help you do that?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE WITNESS: No, I never had the authorization to actually instruct a welder to go to another support and do something.

JUDGE BLOCH: Okay.

Did Mr. Brown ever have that authorization, to your knowledge?

THE WITNESS: Not at the time I worked there.

JUDGE BLOCH: .So what was he doing telling you what to do?

THE WITNESS: Like I say, the reason why he came down-there was because I couldn't crawl into the area; I couldn't crawl.into the space due to the--my chest cavity being too big; and he was much thinner than I am; and they went to get him to come down thare and do it.

And he tell me, he said, "Well you can do it, just run a downhill path."

And I said, "Well, I can't even get to it."

So, you know, he went out and did it.

That's what I mean by he " instructed" me is when he

-told me,."Well, you can do it, you know"--

[Tr. 10967, 10975.]

.In any event, Messrs. Brown and Green testified that they did not instruct Mr. Stiner to perform a downhill weld nor had they ever heard any other foreman direct any welder to perform a downhill weld in violation of procedures (Tr. 10037, 11715-16, 11753). In addition, pursuant to plant procedures, all such welds

, p.. . . ._ . .- -. . . .. .

m, g _ O > -I ,

_ , q

42 -

l l

'in' the: plant received the required QC- inspection and were found to

~

lbe_ acce ptable'.' The NRC Staff inspected the hanger in question and c

itestifindlthat without cutting the hanger-down and removing th'e paint'fi ywould be_ impossible to determine if a downhill weld was made.. However,.the_ Staff has testified that it.will require the

-  ! Applicants to: evaluate the hanger and provide. assurance that it is

? Esatisfactorylfor' service.- '(NFC Staff Testimony at 22-23.) In short, due to the-inconsistencies in Mr.. Stiner's testimony this 3

• ' incident provides no support.for CASE's position. The Board finds that the Staff action noted above is acceptable to provide-reasonable assurance that even if-this isolated incident did

~

Joccur, there will be no compromise of public health and-4

. safety.16/

4 16/c In.this regard, the Board has fulfilled its obligation to resolve the' contested issue. On the basis of the existing >

record'we-are satisfied that one11solated incident will not change our ruling on the issue of whether or not there is a breakdown in the,QA/QCiprogram. 'See e.g., Union Electric Company (Callaway' Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-740,<18 NRC 345, 346 ~

(1983). The protection of the'public health and safety

relative to one incident is a responsibility. delegated by the Commission to the NRC Staff. We can therefore' entrust the

. Staff toJcarry out its duties in conducting the required investigation and to inform the commission if some unexpected findings result. 'Similarly,-in Metropolitan Edison' Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB-729,17 NRC 814,c886-887 -(1983) the Appeal Board held that ~a Licensing Board may resolve =an issue in' controversy while directing the

'Staffito monitor a confirmatory test. The Appeal Board wrote.

- that if."the test fails to' confirm the Licensing Board's conclusions, we believe the Staff'must advise the Commission uof that fact: and cindicate what corrective actions are

contemplated. The Commission can chen consider at that time whether.it.is.necessary to accord the parties'an opportunity Footnote continued on next page

- ., _. . - - , , . . _ , _ _ , _ , _ - _ _ _ . . , _ . . . _ _ _ . . . , , - _ _ . - , _ - . _ _ . . . . . ~ . ~ , . . . , . - . -

7 -.

o. :,

l-Based on the record, the Board finds that CASE's allegations

.regarding downhill welding are not reflective of systematic or significant violations of procedures and, accordingly are not

~

indicative of a breakdown in the QA/QC program at CPSES. In addition, the Board finds either that the specific incidents of downhill welding alleged by Mr. Stiner did not occur or, in any event, that tnere is reasonable assurance that no adverse impact of safe plant aperation is implicated by these allegations.

In making these findings, the Board is cognizant of the direct conflicts in testimony between Applicants witnesses and Mr. Stiner. Based on the substantial inconsistencies in Mr.

Stiner's. testimony regarding this and other issues, as well as other factors set forth in Section II.B., above, the Board finds Applicants witnesses to be more credible.

Footnote continued from previous page to address the issue of necessary correction or changes."

(l? NRC -at 887. )

The current case is distinct from the case of Commonwealth Edison Company (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2),

ALAB-770, slip op._at 20-22 (May 7, 1984). In that case the Appeal Board remanded a Licensing Board decision for inclusion in the record of the outcome of QA reinspections and recertifications. The Appeal Board found those

-investigations to be " central" to a finding of a reasonable assurance that the facility had been properly constructed.

(Id. at 21.) Such is not the case here. We make our finding on the basis of the existing cecord.- The outcome of'the Staff's investigation of this point will not change the finding, and thus further hearings'and record would serve no purpose. See Southern California Edison Company (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-717, 17 NRC 346, 380 at n. 57 (1983).

e ;e -

- 44 _

b. ' Safety Implications of Downhill Welding

=

4 Mr. ' Stiner ' testified that his concern regarding downhill

. welding was that-slag runy be trapped and there may be a lack of Lfusi'on in'the weld-(Tr. 4247).

.While Applicants testified that the likelihood of downhill welding 11n violation of. procedures is extremely remote, they further_ testified that even if'it occurred the probability that it

~

would have an adverse impact on-the plant is virtually zero.

Applicants: testified that if a welder experienced in downhill

. welding made the weld, it would in all' likelihood be acceptable

~

~

from a structural standpoint. (As previously noted, downhill welding itself is not contrary _to any welding code.) However, if

~a welder was inexperienced, Applicants testified that his mistakes iwould:in all111kelihood result.in' obvious unacceptable visual

.ind'ications which'would'be detected by either the welding

). ..

. technician / foreman- (before QC inspection) or by the QC inspector during his inspection. -(Applicants Exhibit 177 at 18-20.) The (NRC Staff -supported this conclusion (NRC Staff Testimony at ,

c '20-21) E 1.

[17[ In cross. examination of Applicants and Staff witnesses, CASE

.- attempted to show1that downhill welds could be made faster than uphill welds, and because.of such speed there was a greater chance'for lack of fusion and slag entrapment (ge. .,.

Tr.'ll841-6). .However, the Board notes that Mr. Stiner s allegations regarding downhill welding only related to instances where uphill welding could not be performed due to limited' access or becauseaof arc blow. This would not cause accelerated welding speeds on downhill welds. Accordingly, such cross-examination is irrelevant to the issues before the Board.

. . - - .---____._..--___.-.~__.,,,_,_,-_.._,__m...,_._,._.,_--,,____._._, _

+ .

1

)

Mr.eStiner' attempts to refute this testimony by raising one.

instance where.. downhill welding lmay have adversely impacted the

~

istructural iintegrity of a weld, i.e., the weld which he alleged .

~ first that heLperformed and latter that Mr. Brown performed, as discussed abo've.- While Mr. Stiner's testimony on this weld-is of

?

. questionable reliabilityLin the.first instance, in any event, as previously;noted, the Staff.will satisfy itself that there is reasonable assurance that the hanger is acceptable.

Accordingly, from the record the Board finds that even if cthere were some downhill welds as alleged by Mr. Stiner, there is reasonable' assurance that'they would not adversely impact plant safety.

~3. Weld Rod Control

~

CASE's; concerns regarding weld rod control are based on allegations-byiMr. and Mrs. Stiner. Mrs. Stiner alleged three specific instances of alleged weld rod control violations:

(1) 'she wrote an NCR on a . welder: who she alleged had used two weld rods that had been checked out and not returned the day before (Tr. 4166); -

(2) -she alleged that on one weld 75' rods were reported to.

have been used when it should have only taken three to l four rods (Tr . 4164 ) ; and

. l(3)! she found two bundles of rods laying in the plant which

-she alleges were turned over to a QC supervisor who did it

^

not investigate'the incident but simply threw the rods in o the. trash (Tr . 4164 ) .

In, addition, Mr. Stiner raised one specific instance of alleged inappropriate weld rod control, i .~e . , that he welded hangers with i

, .-. - , . . - .. ~. -.-- _ .. . . ._. - _ - , , , . . . - . _ _ - . - , _ - . , . . - . - . ~ . , . - . _ , . - - .

%. - i:

n -~ rods'that:were checked out to others-in the crew (Tr. 4220-21).

~

From these specific ' instances and 'other general observations, Mr.

an'd Mrs. St-iner- allege that weld rod control violations were common

_ practice ~at CPSES.b /

'As discussed'more fully below, the record reveals that CASE's

. allegations.regarding weld rod control violations are not reflective

~

Jof a: systematic or significant1 breakdown in the 10A/QC program. In m ~

-this. regard, specific instances where violations were alleged.to occur'we'reLeither. unsubstantiated or were previously detected by QC and: corrected. In any event, the record reflects.that even if.

~

violations had occurred as alleged, the likelihood of an adverse

impact =on-safe plant operation is extremely remote.

a. . ' Allegations of Weld Rod Control Violations Do ' Not Reflect a' Breakdown-in the QA/QC Program rm -

. Applicants presented testimony describing the weld rod control program which the Board . adopts in these1 findings of fact, as follows

'(Applicants Exhibit 177 at 21-23):

T'he Brown & Root weld. rod control program at CPSES is governed D' byfa' construction procedure. The ' program is based on a daily ,

' system offaccountability where each welder is accountable'for

-alL weld material he uses on each shift.

l

- -At the start of each shift, the foreman signs and issues to

-each-welder one or'more weld filler material log ("WFML")

> sheets (s) .- (Prior to 1979, the form used was called a filler f material requisition form; it csntained essentially the same information~as:the WFML.) Each $FML specifies, among other things , n (l) the~ specific item or joint to be welded on,.

' s

' 18 s / - The issue of unplugged weld rod containers was also raised.

However,.in the July ~29,.1983 Partial Initial- Decision at p.

36,:the' Board ruled that this issue would have "no effect on the. safe operation of the plant."

f p' :V 4

- 47.-

J -

(2)1 the weld rod material type-and quantity requested.

, to perform the work, (3) the welding procedure to be

used, Jand i (4) the identification symbol of~the welder

doing:the work. .The welder then takes the WFML'to the appropriate issue station to draw the : weld rod material ifor.each: specific workfitem. The. distribution station attendant enters on the WFML the amount of material issued and-the heat number of the material. The attendant:also checks.the welder's symbol-against the

' ~

welder qualification: matrix'to assure that the welder is qualified for the welding. procedure listed and J  : verifies'that-the material requested is the correct

-type for use with-the procedure. In a separate

. accountability log, the station attendant lists the welder's symbol and container numbers he has been

-issued.

4 After obtaining the filler material,-the welder goes to

.his'workLstation to weld. It should be noted that-before a welder uses a weld rod, he checks it to assure

. that11t'is not' damaged. Damaged and used rod stubs are retained by'the welder.

- At the' conclusion of each shift, each welder must

, return to the issue-station to turn 1in any unused or 3s , damaged filler material'and to turn in all rod stubs FT -

Lwh~ich.he has used. The amount of unusedfand undamaged

- filler material is-entered on the WFML.. Unused rods, 1

rod stubs and damaged electrodes are counted and'where this' count-does not equal the number lof rods issued, b this:information is entered on a welder's' log which is periodically tracked by the distribution station attendant and reviewed.by' welding engineering to assure

' that there is no trend of-excessive rod stubs unaccounted.for. 'If a welder does'not turn in his .

filler' material at'the end-~of the shift, this can be a basis.for termination of the welder..

.In short', regardless of what area the. welder is welding

'in, at_the beginning and end of each' shift each welder

, . must go to:the issue station to disposition the material h'e ia using. In this way, filler material k - used is accounted for at- the beginning and end of each shift. If a welder' fails to turn;in his filler

, material at-the'end of his shift, an investigation is conducted to determine where it is. It should be noted

.that' this weld rod control program exceeds all ASME or

[ -AWS Code. requirements for. control programs.

4

> 4

F "

. Finally, the, Welding Engineering Department -inspects the rod distribution stations for compliance with these procedures every two weeks.

In' response to Mr. and Mrs. Stiner's. allegations that violations of the weld rod control program at CPSES are widespread, Applicants presented testimony of Messrs. Fernandez, Pickett and Braumuller (welders on Mr. Stiner's crews who also worked in areas. inspected by Mrs. Stiner) who testified that they had not themselves violated or seen others violate the weld rod control. procedures at CPSES. Further, they testified that if a welder. intentionally violated these procedures he would-be terminated;.thus, there was a great deal of incentive to adhere to these procedures.

Mr. Brown (a QC inspector who was also welding foreman over one of -Mr. Stiner 's crews) presented similar testimony. Mr.

Coleman (a QC inspector and a welding foreman over one' of Mr.

- Stiner 's crews and who also welded in the same areas as Mrs.

Stiner) stated that except for one incident, he-also had never observed violations of the weld rod control program. (Mr.

Coleman's exception related-to an instance where he had unintentionally failed to turn in a rod container; the rod shack attendant alerted his supervisor and the next morning Coleman was

- " chewed lout" by his foreman.) (Applicants Exhibit 177 at 31-33.)

Messrs. Brown's and Coleman's testimony in this regard is significant in that they closely monitored the work of all welders on their respective crews and would have been in a position.to I

.a ,

_ 49 _

notice violations if-they occurred (Applicants Exhibit 177 at 10; Tr. 11534). .

Messrs. Green and Hallford (foreman and general foreman over one of Mr. St'iner's crews) testified that they had not observed any violations of the weld rod control program, but they_were

. aware of one where QC noted a violation and the welder was fired immediately. (This incident is one raised by Mrs. Stiner and discussed below.)

Messrs. Baker and Brandt testified that based on personal observations of_ welders in the plant, as well as discussions with numerous welders, fitters, foremen, QC inspectors, welding foremen

_and. welding technicians, the weld rod control procedures at CPSES are, with very~few exceptions, strictly adhered to. In this regard Applicants testified that in addition to the inherent checks built into the rod control program (e.g., the counting of

~

returned rods and rod stubs to determine if any are missing),

other mechanisms that provide assurance that violations are detected in'clude the periodic inspections of each active welder .

-every 14 days (previously addressed), routine monitoring of welders by welding technicians / foremen and other supervisors, and OC inspections (during which weld rod traceability is checked) and surveillance. (Applicants Exhibit 177 at 33-4.)

The NRC Staf f presented suppor ting testimony regarding Applicants' weld rod control program. Further, the Staff testified that over the period of construction at CPSES, NRC inspectors have routinely examined the Applicants' welding l

l l

n

.e- ..

activities,-including weld rod control. With respect to weld rod

~

control, the inspections emphasized "whether the documented weld rod.was being used in a given weld under observation, and whether the weld rod was appropriate and' properly traceable." (NRC Staff Testimony'at 36.) The Staff testified that there were no identified findings indicating problems in these areas. In this regard, the Staff noted that what may appear to be a situation where a weld. rod has been abandoned, in reality may be where a welder has temporarily left his immediate work station for personal'or other needs. As part of the NRC's routine inspections, the inspector has observed apparently unattended-weld rods in cans, buckets, or. pouches and after remaining near these

" unattended" rods found.that welders did return to the work station in a matter of minutes. (NRC Staff Testimony at 36-37.)

The NRC Staff also testified that Brown & Root' Project Welding Engineering is required by the ASME-approved Brown & Root QA manual to maintain periodic surveillance of the rod issue stations and of welders to whom rods have been issued. This ,

requi'res surveillance of the rod issue stations every 14 days, and of the welder at least once every 10 working days. A sample of the records.of these surveillances has been reviewed by the Staff. The Staff found that the records were complete, the required surveillances were done, and no pattern of discrepancies or potential problems with either weld rod control or welder activities'was identified. In addition, the Staff testified that the Brown & Root QA Corporate Office conducted periodic audits of

.6

'O . D L

r the welder and weld rod issue station surveillances. The Staff reviewed one of. these audit reports, and it did not disclose any significant problems. -(NBC Staff. Testimony at 34-35.)

Mr. Stiner. testified that he received no training or indoctrinationLregarding weld rod control (Tr. 11140). However, he lattir contradicted himself by stating that his first foreman, Mr. Coleman, gave him indoctrination regarding weld rod control (Tr. 11146). In. addition, Applicants testified that after successful completion of.qualif.ication testing and prior to being released for production welding, each new welder at CPSES (including Mr. Stiner) was giv%en an orientation by welding engineering as to the requirements of the weld rod control procedure. Applicants testified that at this orientation the importance of filler material control at the facility was explained to the welder and the welder was informed that any willful violation of the procedure would result in immediate termination. This orientation was documented and the welder signed a form indicating his understanding. (Applicants Exhibit .

177 at 27-28.)

With regard to the threat of termination for weld rod control violations, ' Mr. Stiner testified as follows (Tr. 10853-4):

BY MR. REYNOLDS:

0.- What would happen if you were caught doing that (committing weld rod control violations) Mr. Stiner?

A. immediate termination.

I

E .

1 4 13 m ,

~ Q.: lWhat is the ! incentive for doing it?

A. . (The' incentive for doing it is, as I said before, the convenience.to the welder.

Q. .You would risk your job to avoid having to walk back to the rod shack for rods?

A.- Well,~as I have stated before,1the quality control

. program at Comanche Peak-is, you know, less than.

adequate-in the fact that they can't catch these

_ types of problems. So they can literally do it all-over the~ place andlthe quality control inspector has no way of knowing that it is being done.

JUDGE BLOCH: But.before, Mr. Stiner, you said that'the quality control people would wander around the plant and you would have ta) worry labout them and cover for your: welds. . Why wasn't.the same thing true for

- additional weld materials as-it was for your repair welds?-

THE WITNESS: Th'at is why.I say they always had somebody watching when they do this.

JUDGE BLOCH:- But why do you always have .tu) have someone watching.when you are_doing a repair weld but you don't worry at all about QC finding extra weld rod materials?

THE WITNESS: Well, you do worry about it. Like I said, it 'is reason for termination, you see. - 7 Mr. Stiner also testified that workers violated weld rod control procedures regarding retention of rods, even under threat-l-

of itermination, because "they are under so much pressure to get o

jyr the. work.done and get the_ hangers up that they try to do anything they can'do to speed up work" (CASE Exhibit 919 at 19) . However, in response to an inquiry that appeared to bring into_ question the p

logic of such a position, Mr. Stiner reversed himself and

testified that he did not hold out rods because he was under time i

+

,=

53 -

pressure (Tr. 11126-8). The Board finds Mr. Stiner's testimony on this issue to be' inconsistent and unreliable.

Mr. and Mrs. Stiner also testified that the accountability ptocess specified in the weld rod control program was ineffective. Specifically, they alleged that rod stubs were not counted or recorded by rod shack attendants (Tr. 10638, 10978-83).1E/ - However, Mr. Stiner testified latter that early in his employment he was told by his first welding foreman, Mr.

Coleman, that he had to " keep account of everything .. . don't lose none of your stubs ... because they may count them on you when you go back and if you don't have any they will write you up, you know." (Tr. 11146).

Applicants testified that rod stubs are counted (Applicants Exhibit 177 at 21-23; Tr. 11419-20, 11422, 11592, 11670), and

' introduced an example of the checksheets maintained by the rod shacks reflecting shortages resulting from such counts (Applicants Exhibit 185, introduced into evidence at Tr. 11975). Mr. Baker testified'that_the rod counts are monitored on a daily basis by .

the' rod shack attendant and reports are sent monthly to the piping

. general superintendent who reviews them for trendir.g purposos (Tr.

11892-93). Mr. Coleman testified that normally the attendants in the rod shack would take the rod stubs and pour them out of the 19/ Mr. Brandt testified that the practice of issuing a precise number of weld rods and counting returned stubs was not widely used at other nuclear. construction sites. Other nuclear construction projects which are in compliance with Code requirements merely issue rods by weight. (Tr . 114 22. )

.-- -- - , . ,- m . -.,-.-e, - , - - - - ,---,._m. ,.w.--+.,y n--,- , -r,. ,-, ,p- - - , ,.,e -r,,wwe y-

m

)

l stub can, count them and then throw them into a barrel (Tr.

11594). . However, Messrs. Coleman, Pickett and Braumuller  !

testified - that at busy times the attendants would take the stub cans and write the welders symbol on them and place them off to the. side; when the rush was over they would count the stube (Tr.

11594-95, 11637-41, 11684-85). Further, Mr. Brown testified that if a welder did not return his unused weld rods and stubs, the weld technicians would conduct an investigation (Tr. 11501-02).

Mr. and Mrs. Stiner raised four specific incidents of weld rod control _ violations. In the first incident, Mrs. Stiner testified that she wrote an NCR on a welder who she alleges had used two weld rods that had been checked out and not returned the day before (Tr. 4166). Applicants' witness Baker testified that Applicants' investigation of Mrs. Stiner 's NCR (#M82-0034) revealed that while the facts 'were substantially as Mrs. Stiner had stated, she did not discuss the resolution. In this case, i

Applicants testified that the welder had completed the weld the day before and intended to alert QC that an inspection was needed ,

the next day. The next morning the welder was assigned another task, drew his weld rods for the other task, and went back to the weld he had worked on the preceeding day to get a QC inspection.

For some reason he did some-more welding on the weld (perhaps he saw something he had missed) using two additional rods (either

-from his rods checked out for other tasks that day, or as Mrs.

Stiner alleges, from two rods he kept from the previous day). In

any event, the incident was uncovered in the QC inspection and an

.}K:R was written. The resolution of the NCR was that the welder was terminated immediately and the weld was ground out and replaced. (Applicants Exhibit 177 at 28-29.) The Board finds that this incident provides no support for CASE's position. If anything, it reflects that the QA program functioned properly and that violations of the weld rod control procedure at CPSES are taken seriously.

In the second incident, Mrs. Stiner alleged that 75 weld rods were used on hanger SI-0135032.S35R (Tr. 4164) . She alleged that that particular hanger should not have required more than three to four rods (Case Exhibit 919 at 20; Tr. 4165). Applicants testified that the Applicants' investigation revealed that only 50 weld. rods (not the approximately 75 that Mrs. Stiner reported) were issued. Further, the weld rod accountability log did not reflect that any rods were missing (i.e., the total number of

. unused rods, rod stubs and damaged rods turned in was 50). As to the specifics of the incident, records reflect that at 7:10 a.m.

on' April 9, 19'80, the date in question, the welder checked out 50 rods for the hanger. At 1:48 p.m. that same day he returned the

-roa can, unused and damaged rods and rod stubs. (Records indicate

-that there were no missing. rods.) The welder 'then checked out additional rods for another job using a separate WFML. At the end of the day he turned in the remaining unused rods, stubs or damaged rods. The welder could not remember the incident.

= .

e e

-(Applicants' Exhibit 177 at 29-30.) The Board finds that this incident ldoes'not raise a safety concern or provide support for

Mrs. Stiner's allegations.

In the third incident, Mrs. Stiner testified that she found bundles of unburned rods wrapped in a rubber band (Case Exhibit 919 at 20). Mrs. Stiner alleged that after she gave the rods to

-her supervisior, he threw them into the trash (Tr. 4165, 10206-07,

.10293-97, 10470-74). Mrs. Stiner stated, however, that she did not know if he later removed them from the trash (Tr. 10296).

~

Applicants testified that the two bundles of weld rod material were not immediately discarded without an investigation, as Mrs.

Stinet had indicated. Rather, the weld rod material was given to Mr. Brandt who subsequently turned it over to construction to assure that an investigation was conducted. -(Applicants Exhibit 177 at 30; Tr. 11459-60.) Based on the investigation, Applicants were able to. trace the rods to the organization which used them (not Brown & Root) and training was conducted to correct the situation (Tr. 11454-55).22/ The Board finds that this incident also reflects that the OA program was effective and appropriate corrective action taken.

In'the final incident, Mr. Stiner testified that his

~

supervisor was under a great deal of pressure to complete a 20/ Mr. Brandt testified that other 00 inspectors have at times also' discovered loose rods and reported them to their supervisors (Tr. 11426 ~i) wno assured that the incidents were investigated (Tr. 11440).

R . . _ , . _ _ , _ ._. ..,_.. _ ._.

..- o-

' ~

particular-assignment which Mr. Stiner described in detail. He stated that to accomplish this-the welders on the crew used rods checked out'to other welders to complete work. (Tr. 4220-21.)

Mr.. Baker. testified that the Applicants investigated the allegation and determined that welders from Henry Stiner's first crew remaining at Comanche Peak (Messrs. Picket and Braumuller) stated that no such incident occurred. Further, the welding

. foreman (P&. Coleman) on Stiner's crew at that time also stated that no such incident occurred. ~ In any event, even if the incident did occur, Applicants testified that all the welders on Stiner's crew would have been welding on the same material with the same type weld. rod. Thus,~while such action would have been a

' violation of procedure, Applicants concluded it would not have had an adverse impact on plant safety. (Tr. 4220 and 10648-50.) The Board finds that substantial and credible testimony from Applicants' witnesses reflect that the incident never occurred.

Eurther, even-if some welders.on that' crew exchanged rods, the likelihood that this would have had an adverse impact on plant -

safety is extremely remote.

-From the testimony, the Board finds that CASE's allegations

-regarding: weld rod control do not reflect systematic or significant violations of procedures indicative of a breakdown in

'the QA/QC program. In addition, the Board finds that there is reasonable assurance that the specific incidents of weld rcd u

s 7 : l control violations raised by Mr.- and Mrs. Stiner do not raise a

.significant1 safety concern.21/

b.. Safety Implications of Weld Rod Control Violations Mr. and.Mrs. Stiner raised as their concerns regarding weld rod'contro1~ violations, the possibility.that weld rods left out may absorb moisture and result in defective welds due to excess

__ porosity ~(CASE Exhibit 919 at 18; Tr.10648) . 'Also, they were

. concerned over the impact of welders exchanging weld rods (Tr.

.10640-41, 10650); however, in latter testimony, Mr. Stiner stated that this.was'not a safety concern (Tr. 11150).

.With regard to the first concern, Mr. and Mrs. Stiner

. testified that when weld ~ rods are kept - out and not controlled they can- absorb moisture '(Case Exhibit 919 at 19, 21; Tr.10283,10648, 10858, 11124). They stated that.E-7018 type electrodes'can be exposed- in 'an unheated atmosphere for not more than four hours

'(Case Exhibit 919 at 20;~ Tr. '10646) .

The NRC Staff. testified that if weld rods had been exposed tofambient air at CPSES for two to three days (such as alleged.

Lhere) the " worst-case.effect" would be porosity in the weld (which L. is due~ to. arc instability and off-gassing of water vapor) which (21/_'During direct examinat!.on of Mrs. Stiner, CASE attempted to raise in connection.with weld rod control, the new issue.of placement of welders' symbols adjacent to welds (Tr.10477-10494). 'Upon a representation by Applicants counsel-that such symbols would not be relied on to support the adequacy of the weld rod control program, the Board ruled that such

testimony was not admissible (Tr. 10494).

~

_ _ _ , _ _ - , _ _ _.~ .. _ .. _ .,.._.... ..__...- _. _ . _ _ _.. _ ,. _ ,. _ - _ _.

should tHe detected during the normal visual inspection by the I

. welder and QC '(NRC Staff testimony at 33, 35) .

Applicants conducted tests of E-7018 _ electrodes. (the electrodes used by-Mr. and Mrs. Stiner) which had.been stored for seven months in an open container in an uncontrolled atmosphere.

Using this -electrode, test specimens were welded utilizing a full

' penetration butt weld. Nondestructive and destructive examinations conducted on .he resulting specimen showed no rejectable ~ defects;Jfailure of the base material (not the weld material) cccurred at a. reading in excess of 70 ksi, the maximum requirements for any affected steels (most steels have a much lower requirement). In~short, even if weld material was left out for-2-3 days (as alleged by Mr. and Mrs. Stiner), the Board finds

~

that there is-little likelihood that this could have an adverse impact'on.th'e safety of the plant.

(Applicants Exhibit 177 at 27.)

With regard to the second concern, Mr. and Mrs. Stiner

alleged _that welders deliberately saved weld rods to loan out to other; welders so that these welders would not have_to get rods issued from the distribution stations (Case Exhibit 919 at 19; Tr.

10209-10, 10223, 10648-50). However, Mr. Stiner stated that this

-was_not a safety concern (Tr. 11150).

_ Applicants presented tes'timony'that'all' welding en safety-related low carbon and mild steels'at CPSES.which is of concern here (the welding to which Mr.

and-Mrs. Stiner referred in their testimony) uses the same electrode . -(weld rod) , _ E-7018. Thus, Applicants testified that the i- :_ _ . . _ _ . _ . . _ . . _ . - _ _ .,. . . . . . _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ . . _ . _ . . . . _ . - . . _ _ _ _ _ _

l possibility of a welder borrowing an electrode from another on his crew and getting the wrong electrode for the job was virtually nonexistent. Applicants further testified that, in any event, welders are trained to know that they can on: use the specific electrodes designated for that job. (Applicants Exhibit 177 at 26.) _The Board finds that even if some weld rod control violations such as alleged by Mr. and Mrs. Stiner occurred, there is reasonable assurance that they would not have a signficiant adverse impact on plant safety.

4. Welding of Misdrilled Holes Mr. and Mrs. Stiner alleged that under the direction of supervisors, welding of misdrilled holes without appropriate

-welding engineering authorization or proper QC inspection was common practice at CPSES (CASE Exhibit 919 at 22-23) . As discussed more fully below, the record reveals that allegations raised by Mr.'and Mrs. Stiner regarding welding of misdrilled holes are not reflective of systematic or significant violations of-procedural requirements. In any event, the record reflects that even if some misdrilled holes which were not properly authorized or inspected do exist, the likelihood that-they will adversely impact the safe' operation of the plant is extremely remote.

The numerous inconsistencies in Mr. and Mrs. Stiner's testimony called'into question their credibility on all issues

'(see Section II .B. , supra). On this issue we do not believe that yor - -

l I

1 61 -

Mr. Stiner's-testimony can be relied upon and accordingly, the Board gives.it no weight. The one overriding factor regarding the Board's decision involves Mr. Stiner's incredible statement that a 1 1/4 inch' hole in two inch thick material (on which he allegedly welded many_ times (Tr. 10683-84)) could be easily welded in about tw'o minutes (excluding the blending of the weld with surface material'(Tr. 10698-9)), and it would only require two weld rods

-to complete (Tr.'11158).

NRC Staff witnesses stated that it was impossible for such a hole.to be welded in two minutes or with the two weld rods as noted by kr. Stiner. The Staff testified that a simple volumetric calculation reflected that it would require 25 weld rods to fill the' hole. (Staff Testimony at 26; Tr.12250-51.) Further, the Staff testified that it takes approximately one Pinute to burn one weld rod:(Tr. 12250). Accordingly, even assuming that only 20 rods were required to fill the volume of the hole, it would take 20 minutes to simply burn the rods, not including the time

-required to change. rods or turn the specimen over (Tr. 12251-52).

Based on independent testing, Applicants testified that such a-hole would require approximately 20 weld rods to complete (Tr.

~

.- 11768).

Mr. Stiner's sworn testimony on this point is not even close to being accurate and reliable. The Board believes that any welder who had ever weld-repaired a misdrilled hole of this large size or smaller-would have been able to at least provide a response that was in the ballpark. In that Mr. Stiner was not y 4,e-g m ae,,- .= e-, e ,.& . ,-p---y_m-

, -- -m .

e- y+%-w 'ye--3 w-

.,_ . ,e able to do so, the Board questions whether'Mr. Stiner has ever performed a_ weld repair on a misdrilled hole. This, in

. combination'with'other inconsistencies noted in Section II.B.,

above,Jleads-the' Board to conclude'that on this. issue'Mr. Stiner's testimony;will be given no weight.

In'any event, Mr. Stiner's principal concerns are that

~

.misdrilled: holes were performed without proper authorization or QC

inspections, and may contain ' slag so as to call their structural integrity into_. question.22/ .These conce'rns are addressed below

'in? conjunction with the Board's discussion of Mrs. Stiner's

' allegations.

With regard'to allegations concerning widespread repair of misdrilled holes without1 proper engineering _ authorization or QC Linspection, Messrs..Fernandez,- Braumuller and Brown, who each were x

rwelders ors foremen in theisame areas as Mr. and Mrs. Stiner for an i extended (period of' time, testified.that they had never welded a

. misdrilled hole L( Applicants Exhibit 1177 at 38; Tr. 11479, 11690).

, ,Mr . : Coleman testified that he had' welded : some misdrilled holes - on- -

. cable: tray supports in-the cable spreading ~ room,~but that these-

^

, jhad all1been properly 1 inspected (Tr. 11542-53). Mr. Pickett also s ,-

fstated that he had welded a- few misdrilled holes -on cable tray a . supports;:in:the cable spreading room which had also been. properly p

M/LlIt should be-noted that individuals that Mr. Stiner

implicated:as having performed such welds or having directed

-him ,to: per form these welds have denied the allegation, viz. ,

. Messrs.-Coleman (Tr. 11540), Brown'(Tr. 11479), Pickett (Tr.

~

'll622) , Fernandez ::(Tr . .ll690) and Braumuller (Tr . 11690 ) .  ;

~~'

-...._...._L.,....._,...

... ...,.m.,, ,, ,._. ,,. . , . _ . . . , , , , , .

)

e ,

^

1 1

inspected by QC (Tr. 11625). Indeed, both Messrs. Coleman and Pickett testi.fied-that QC personnel were in the cable spreading rooms when the repairs were being made (Tr. 11543, 11625).

The testimony of both Messrs. Coleman and Brown that they had not_ observed-any unauthorized welding of misdrilled holes is significant in that they routinely monitored the work of the t

welders under them, including Mr. Stiner, and would have been aware of any problem which existed in this regard (Applicants

' Exhibit 177 at 10; Tr. 11480, 11534). Messrs. Green and Hallford, who have also'had welders under their supervision for an extended period of time at CPSES, provided similar testimony (Applicants Exhibit 177 at 41).

Applicants.further testified that there was little motivation to violate procedures by performing unauthorized welding on misdrilled holes, to do this could result in

-termination (Applicants Exhibit 177 at 41).

Both Mr. . Pickett. and Mr. Coleman stated that they were not sure what design documentation authorized their repair of the -

misdrilled holes in cable tray supports (Tr. 11544-45,

11647). I Applicants testified that these repairs were made in 23/ Mr. Coleman stated that he had no paperwork when repairing the holes (Tr. 11545), He stated that his foreman may have had the paperwork (Tr. 11545, 11787). In any event, the

. Board requested that Applicants provide it a report on this issue (Tr. 11786-87). By letter of April 27, 1984, Applicants provided to the Board and all parties a report '

which explained why separate authorization at that time was not needed to weld repair misdrilled holes on cable tray supports-in the cable spreading room. The Board is satisfied with the report.

A #

- accordance with a _ Design Change Authorization ("DCA") issued by

the ' design engineer. for the welding of these and other holes on

. cable ._ tray. suppor ts . (Tr . 10039).21/ Since these repairs were

non-ASME. repairs, only the DCA was needed, not an RPS (NRC Staff Testimony at;24; Tr._10137). The Staff further. testified that an

-Inspection' Report 812 12 (Staff Exhibit 178) determined that " plug

welds"'were,being_ utilized by welders in accordance with Brown &

f-

~ Root welding procedures (NRC Staff Testimony at 26, 30).

.With regard-to theLwelding. procedure used to make the repairs, Applicant.s testified that if the welds were authorized by engineering, welding procedures'10046 and 11032 could be used to repair AWS and: ASME ' welds, respectively (Tr._11393).. LAs previously noted, -a1 DCA had been authorized to repair misdrilled holes on cable tray; supports. Repair of~ pipe ~ supports:was not

> a'uthorized by this DCA. (Tr . .10040. ) In response to cross-examination;on1this-issue, Mr. Pickett verified'this by testifying that baseplates for pipe. supports which had misdrilled holes were

_ discarded ' (Tr . 11632-3). --

To determine.:UE the QC inspections. were being routinely performed on weld repair of misdrilled holes, Applicants. conducted

- a preliminar'y~ search of documentation for cable tray hangers in the cable spreading room and reported that- QC _ inspection reports -

24/- DCA '53471provided direction on which misdrilled holes needed

' .to be repaired.and authorized their repair (Tr.'11407). It should be noted that based on this DCA, Mrs. Stiner's testimony that all misdrilled holes needed to welded (Tr.

10506):is in error.

g h

9 iI o of over 450 misdrilled holes were located- (Tr.10038) . Applicants concluded that this reflected that misdrilled holes were being properly inspected by QC (Tr. 10039, 11401-07).

t Mrs. Stiner testified that she weld repaired misdrilled holes under orders many times (Case Exhibit 919 at .23) . However, she stated that she could only remember doing them on the " fab tables" in the turbine building (Tr. 10555). She' stated that while a couple of other welders who worked on the fab tables also made such welds '(she doesn't remember the names), she did not know what other welders in the field did ' (Tr. 10553-4). She stated that she made such welds under the orders of James Stembridge (her

' foreman),'and, though she was less sure, Clay Andrews (another foraman). (Tr. 10286-88, 10541.)- She stated that she thought it was improper because she was told to watch for QC (Tr . 10 529 ) .

The -record reflects that Mr. Andrews was Mrs. - Stiner's first

' foreman while she_was a welder; Mr. Stembridge replaced Mr.

Andrews and was her foreman for a fairly short period of-time.

('Tr.'4130 and 11782.) -

Applicants' investigated Mrs. Stiner's allegation by interviewing Mr. Stembridge (Mr.'Andrews no longer works at CPSES) and others associated with the incident (Tr . 11781-86 ) .

Mr.

Stembridge' stated that he had directed Mrs. Stiner to make  !

unauthorized repairs on three hangers that had misdrilled holes in  !

them (Tr. 11781) . Applicants testified that Mr. Stembridge had

-been a foreman in the small bore hanger fabrications area for l

. . - . - . _ . _ . . _ , _ _ . _ _ _ . . . . . - . . . . -.,,_,m,- - - . _ . _ _ _ __ - _.

't o-about four months when the incident occurred. Applicants

testified thaY'one day, seven hangers were sent from the fab shop to Mr. Stembridge to install, but three of them were wrong.

Applicants. testified that Mr. Stembridge stated that as a new foreman he tried to shortcut'the system. (Tr. 11782.) However, another foreman saw the activity and informed a QC inspector, Mr. Wilkerson. Mr. Wilkerson stated that he investigated and caught Mrs. Stiner-making unauthorized repairs. (NRC Staff Testimony at 28; Tr. 11782.) The hangers were subsequently scrapped and Mr. Stembridge was demoted to and remains in a non-supervisory position (NRC Staff Testimony at 28-30; Tr.

11786). Staff testimony supported the results of Applicants' investigation (NRC Staff Testimony at 27-30).

Applicants testified that Mr. Stembridge stated that this was an isolated case and he was unaware of any other instance where this has occurred. (Tr. 11783.) While it cannot be conclusively determined whether repair of misdrilled holes on other hangers were made on these fab tables, as alleged by Mrs.

Stiner, the fact that it was initially reported by another foreman would lead the Board to conclude that such activities were clearly not1 widespread or condoned. Further, the signal sent to other foremen by the' demoting of Mr. Stembridge would also be a clear indication that such activities would not be tolerated. This is particularly the case here because it was known that Applicants (Tr. 11786.)

~

came very close to terminating Mr. Stembridge.

1; *

-Applicants testified that, in any event, all.small bore hangers-- (which were the hangers fabricated or -modified on these fab tables) were subsequently cut down and replaced due to a change in design (Tr . 11785 -8 6 ) . NIC Staf f testimony confirms

~ this ' action ~ (Tr'. 12261-62, 11785).

Mrs.-Stiner stated that her concern with repairing mis-drilled holes is slag entrapment 5/ (Case Exhibit 919 at 22) .

She further stated that if slag were lef t in the weld it would be an improper weld - (Tr . 10497) . While she attempted to clean out as

-much slag as.possible with a chipping hammer, she testified that

- therez was still some lef t inside the weld2p/ (Tr. 10229, 10235, 10236, 10284).

Applicants testified that welding of a misdrilled hole is a relatively simple procedure (Applicants Exhibit 177 at 42; Tr.

11623). Further, Applicants stated that'it was very difficult to leave significant slag deposits because with low hydrogen 25( -Mrs. Stiner also stated that repair welds could not be traced -

because welders did not put their symbols on them (Tr. 10504, 10528-29, 10670-71). Applicants' witness Coleman stated that r

- he repaired misdrilled holes in accordance with procedures'and that included placing his welding symbol by the welds (Tr.

11545-46). Applicants' witness Pickett also placed his symbol n on the " plug' welds" he did in the cable spreading room (Tr.

11629). In any event, the allegation does not raise a safety Concern.

2f/ - Mrs. Stiner . testified _ that a pencil grinder was needed to t- ' clean slag completely out of a misdrilled hole, but there were none.available (Tr. 10285-10286, 10499). Other welders and foremen (Pickett, Braumuller, Fernandez, Coleman, Brown and l

even;Mr. Stiner) tectified that they had pencil grinders in l the- areas in which they . worked (Tr. 11469, 11547, 11621-22, 11643, 11666).

l

e- e electrodes, like those used at CPSES, the normal welding technique "provides assurance that slag remains fluid, floats to the top of the weldiand.is removed (Applicants Exhibit 177 at 36). The Staff testified' that if there were large amounts of slag entrapped, when

-the arc was struck much of this slag would be fractured into granulated form by the force of the arc and be floated to the top with succeeding passes (Tr. 12240). Applicants testified that it was very difficult to weld over unacceptable slag deposits using

normal welding' techniques (Applicants Exhibit 177 at 36, 37).

-Further, if the weld was not relatively free of slag, there would in all likelihood be unacceptable surface indications remaining on the face of the weld. Test techniques corroborated this.

(Applicants Exhibit 177 at 37, 39.)

To determine the impact of slag deposits in weld repairs of misdrilled holes, Applicants conducted an analysis of the effects of slag inclusions in a misdrilled hole on the strength of the

. material. Test specimens of SA36 plate material with a minimum tensile strength requirement of 58 KSI were prepared.

~

The I specimens were approximately eight inches in length and 3/8 inch thick,22/ and, in the area of concern, approximately 1.5 inches in width. A 3/4. inch diameter hole (which was to be welded) was

-drilled in the area of concern of each specimen. This hole, L

27/ lir. Stiner stated that this test was flawed because the specimens should have been two inches thick (Tr. 10683).

Applicants testified that the thickness was immaterial ir.

that the relevant parameter of concern (psi) was dependent u and corollated with the cross-sectional area (Tr. 11905-6).

p

_j

s' - o-69 -

'therefore, comprised 1/2 of the cross-sectional area of the test

specimen. (Applicants testified that in_ view of gage tolerance requirements under which a hole cannot be placed nearer than 1-hole diameter to the edge of-the material (here being 3/4 inch),

this configuration was extremely conservative.) (Applicants Exhibit-177 at'43-44.)

The hole in one of the specimens was properly welded and radiographed to assure that it was perfect. Applicants testified that after numerous attempts and using abnormal welding techniques, the hole'in the second specimen was welded with significant slag deposits remaining. (As previously noted, it is very difficult to weld over slag in a hole.) The second specimen was radiographed showing major slag inclusions throughout the weld, including one which was about 1/4 inch at its widest point, 1/2-inch in length and about 1/8 inch thick. Tensile = tests were performed on each specimen. The first specimen (with the good weld) failed at a tensile strength of 71,639 psi. Significantly, the failure occurred in the specimen material and not the weld-material- (i .e . , the weld material was stronger than the base mater ial) .

The second specimen (with major slag inclusions)

. ~ failed at a tensile strength of 69,918 psi, still significantly above the 58,000 psi required of the material. (Applicants Exhibit 177 at 43-44.)

In sum, Applicants testified that even when skilled craftsmen attempted to weld a worst case weld such that major slag me-e'-Tu-.- -

,yve- c -r--*y- --4 v,wes-g- -we----t*-5 -e-tyem-e --up e- W r - - - = - p- ee y

N

,g .y-

.l I

:s l

'inclusionsTwere present in th'e material, L the strength of the resultant weld was not significantly lower than the strength of

thelbase^ material,_and still well above the required strength.

' ~

ApplicantsL thus: stated shat even if some degree of slag was

! . present in a weld of a -misdrilled hole, as alleged by Mrs. Stiner, it:would not'have had a significant1 adverse impact on .the strength

?ofithe' material.

i s The1NR'C Staff supported' Applicants' conclusions and -

testified,that.the Brown.& Root' Welding Procedures 11032 and 10046 specified the use of E-7018 weldTrod, a low-hydrogen rod which s

produces a. weld with a tensile strength of approximately 70K psi, .

~

$ 'or about.10K' psi better than the tensile strength of the base 1

-material. - If the'" plug weld" was made well enough not to be cV -readily1 discernable after surface grinding, which was the case for bothEMr. and Mrs. Stiner, the Staff testified that-the weld and.

ithe surrounding base. material would be at least as strong as the Toriginal. base material before it was drilled. (Staff Testimony.at 2 6 '.' ) -

4 From-the-foregoing, the Board finds that Mrs. Stiner was

-? directed to perform unauthorized weld repairs of misdrilled holes-

. on.atlleast three hangers on the turbine building fab tables.

There is a direct conflict in testimony regarding whether this activity was limited.to.these three' hangers.- Mrs. Stiner I ' testified that she repaired'many misdrilled holes on the fab tables.- Applicants' candid testimony regarding the admitted d

4

,y-- -

, . - , -. ,.._,~.,....---------,-,_.,_..~.._,,,---,,,_.--_,--r-_,--,,.-x.,--r......,.,-

Sv; ^ of 71 -

~

incident of violation,: coupled'with the fact that the violation

~

was reported by another. supervisor (and not by Mrs. Stiner),  !

.provides strong support for Applicants' testimony that the one

, incident involving.the three hangers.was-isolated. Based on the general' lack - of credibility of Mrs. Stiner's testimony (See Section-II.B.,-supra), the Board finds that these incidents of Lweld! repair of misdrilled holes were isolated.

' .In'any event, in view of the testimony of Applicants and

~

~ Staff, the Board f finds that .most, if not all, hangers repaired by 1

- Mrs. Stiher on ~ the f ab' tables were subsequently cut down and .

replaced. -In addition, based on (1) Applicants testing which

, reflects that even large amounts of slag in the repair weld would not effect.the weld integrity and (2) Staff testimony that as long-

~

as the surface of the weld repair of a misdrilled hole was

acceptable (as both Mr. and : Mrs. Stiner stated) the weld would.

provide' acceptable' structural strength, the Board. finds that even if: some weld repairs of 'misdrilled holes were not properly inspected'and contained defects as alleged by Mr. and Mrs. Stiner, '

it would not adversely impact the safety of the plant.- In sum,

-the Board finds that the allegations raised by Mr. and Mrs. Stiner regarding weld repair of misdrilled holes do not reflect

' systematic or significant violations of procedures indicative :of a . -

6

-breakdown;inithe QA/QC programs. In addition,'the Board finds that there is reasonable assurance that, in any event, such

allegations-do not' raise a situation that would compromise public L

health and safety.

+

- ~ -m..

,# , . . _.~,,-.v._ -

.m. . - . ..<,.,.m ,__,.m.--c.,.,._m.-- - . . . . - - - , - - , - - - - - , . - , . - ~ . - . , , -

. .- - ._m s. . . . . m_-

, i

-p? .

l

~

l

-!72 -

l In making these- findings, the Board is mindful of the

~

Staff's Supplemental Testimony which reflects identification of three supports'in the-cable spreading room for which appropriate

~ inspection 1 reports have not -yet been found. However, the record supportsothe finding that weld cepair of misdrilled holes does not reflect a breakdown irr the QA/QC program at CPSES. If, however,

'the' Staff has evidence which reflects that the repairs of the.

ho'les~in the'three' supports (or .any other repaired holes

' discovered by: the -Staff) call into question the structural

. integrity of supports 3r structures in the plant, the Board

^

directs that'the Staff = report ^it to:the Board.- 'Th2.s delegation.is.

-consistentiwith pertinent case law on this issue. _See note 16, supra.

5.;CPreheat Requirements

' Preheat requirements are specified temperatures above which the parent: met'al surrounding a~ weld' joint must.be heated prior to

~

. beginningito_ weld (Tr. 10026). Brown & Root welding procedures,

~ '

however, requ' ire all weld joints - to be preheated to at least 70*F J(Tr.Jll8367).

3Mr. Stiner alleged that most of the hangers he worked on at CPSES "were not.pr.eheated." Case Exhibit 919 at 9. He latter

. testified that "all" hangers he worked on were not preheated (Tr.

'10824). Subsequently, he testified that he did preheat one nanger cand many he did'not-have to-preheat (Tr. 10826-8). Mr. Stiner t

testified that he was directed by his supervisor not to preheat in b

p 4 .. . _ . ~ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . . ,

_ _ _ . . _ . . , , _ . . . . _ . _ , . . . . _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ . , _ , . . . , , , _ , . . _ _ . . . _ . , , - , , . ~ . , , , . . - . . . . . _ , ,

d .

I order to speed.up production (CASE Exhibit 919 at 9) . He testified'that-failure to preheat was a common ~ practice at CPSES 1 (Tr. 10800, 10826). He~further stated that on many occasions he  !

~had welded without preheat when the temperature was below freezing (CASE. Exhibit 919 at 9; Tr.11084-5) .

As discussed more-fully below, the record reveals that Mr.

Stiner's. allegations regarding' preheat are not reflective of systematic or.significant violations of procedural requirements.

Further,.even if isolated events of violation of prehe'at

. requirements have occurred, the likelihood of an adverse impact on

plant: safety is remote.

.a. Allegations Regarding Preheat Do Not' Reflect'A Breakdown in the QA Program

-Mr. Stiner alleged that'he and others were instructed by their supervisors to make welds on Class 3 hangers without ipreheating in order to speed up production (Case Exhibit 919 at 9; Tr.-10800, 10826). .Mr. Stiner became a structural welder in

~

mid-February 1980 and was terminated.in late November 1980 .

(Applicants Exhibit 177 at 5). In short,.Mr. Stiner worked only a very few months at CPSES when he would have been required to

. preheat, in any event. The Board notes that Mrs. Stiner made no

allegations'regarding preheat violations.

In response to this allegation, Applicants' witnesses Brown (Tr. 11465, 11485), Coleman (Tr. 11535, 11604-05), Pickett (Tr.

11615, 11617, 11649), Braumuller (Tr. 11665), Fernandez (Tr.

11665) and Green (Tr. 11715) directly refuted it, saying they were

~

r

- l

.never instructed to violate, nor have seen anyone at the plant l v iolate, preheat requirements.

~ Significantly, Mr. Coleman was Mr.

Stiner's first welding foreman. Thus, he was Mr.-Stiner's foreman during the 'one winter Mr. Stiner welded at CPSES. (CASE Exhibit 666-at 10;, Applicants Exhibit 177 at.2; Tr. 11143.)

During this-time Mr.~Coleman testified that he monitored all welders on his crew - (including Mr. Stiner) to assure that preheat was accomplished - (Tr . 11535-37). Further, Applicants testified that-

.whenLthe temperature was cold there was: stepped up QC inspection

.acti' v ity to assure preheat requirements were met (Tr. 11214, 11610).

TMr. Stiner testified that one reason he did not preheat was

~

because pre-heac bottles (rosebuds) were not readily available.

Applicants ' witnesses Coleman _ (Tr . 11536-37), Pickett (Tr . 11617, 11643), Braumuller1and Fernandez'(Tr. ll668) statedL that these bottles-were.always available,'especially in cold. weather,_and that'if one was not in the immediate area it was easily. accessible

~

nearby. :Indeed, Mr. Pickett- testified that he remembers loaning-

'Mr. Stiner-his1 pre-heat bottle (Tr. 11643-44).

~

With regardsto Mr. Stiner's testimony that on many occasions

.he was. instructed to violate preheat requirements when the

--temperature was;below freezing (Case Exhibit 919 at 9), plant recordsireflect:that during-the short time that Mr. Stiner worked

at CPSES there were'only two~ days when the outside ambient temperature was below 32*F at - the beginning of work. Plant l l

l

]

~s- -w records reflect 1that on one of these days, Mr. Stiner was in

training andfdid not weld and on the other day he was welding in the turbine building.on.non-safety grade material. (Tr. 11761-3.)

From the testimony, the Board finds that Mr. Stiner's allegations 1regarding preheat-do not reflect systematic or significant violations of procedures indicative of a breakdown in the QA/QC program. In making this finding, the Board is aware of

~

the conflicting . testimony of Applicants witnesses and Mr. Stiner.

~

'However, in view of-the numerous inconsistencies throughout Mr.

Stiner's testimony which reflect seriously on his credibility, as noted in Section II.B., above, the Board finds that Applicants 1 witnesses are more credible.

b . .. Safety Implications of Allegations of Violation

-of Preheat Requirements Mr. Stiner's apparent concern regarding failure to preheat

is that porosityf(Tr. 10799) or "under. bead" cracking could occur (Tr . 10 8 02-03 ) . In this regard, Mr. Stiner relates an incident where he. failed to adequately preheat and the result was a visible .

crack ~down the middle of the weld. Mr. Stiner testifies that he ground out the weld and repaired ~it. (Tr.L10801-4.)

With regard to Mr. Stiner's concerns, Applicants testified that!in view of Applicants use of low-hydrogen electrodes, failure

to' preheat would not have had a significant adverse impact on the low; carbon ~ steels welded on by Mr. Stiner.or resulted in a hydrogen embrittlement related defect in the weld joint itself.

l However, given extreme conditions, restraint of the weld joint, bm

dl y

P s -

e

.'and. thick materials, failure to preheat may result in shrinkage

' stresses that7could impact the weldment and possibly the heat affected'zon'e of the' weld. . While the likelihood of a problem even

~

underithese conditions is remote, Applicants testified that if such'a weld ~was not adequately preheated to retard the cooling rate, excessive stresses could develop in the joint resulting in a

, wide-open,1 centerline crack of the weld. (Tr. 11820-38.) This

was apparently the type of crack that allegedly occurred when Mr. Stiner failed to preheat the one weld jo' int he described in his testimony (Tr. 10802-3). Significantly, this type of failure

~

-is. clearly visible andlwould result in-detection by the welder (with appropriate action such as that allegedly taken by Mr.

Stiner)ior the QC inspector during his final visual inspection of the weld.- In either-case, the resulting defect would be detected Land corrected.

With regard to Mr. Stiner's concerns regarding possible porosity in a. weld resulting-from lack ofLpreheat, if such a

~

condition'should occur Applicants have previously testified that

~

it would.also be. detected by the welder and corrected or'by QC-during their final visual inspection (Tr. 11897). In this regard, Applicants have testified that.the AWS and ASME Codes state that some1 porosity in a weld is acceptable. For example, for Class 3 welds, such as alleged to have been welded without preheat by Mr.

Stiner, the ASME' Code does not even address porosity as a visual

. accept / reject criterion, and.it is rejectable under.ASME

,. .. ,- . , , , , , . ~ - , . . . . ,.% ,, , ,,,.,,.-,.-_,._,-,,..,_,.,,,,,,,,,,,y..-~y,.,,,_,._-,,,,ry.,,;,.w,..,.m.,%_..

r.

' I4 go

~

subsection NF" construction only if a pore of porosity exceeds 1/16 of antinch (Tr". ~ 11215 ) . In addition, pursuant to the AWS Code-porosit'y is rejectable only to the extent that the sum of the-diameters ofLthe porosity exceeds 3/8 of an inch in any linear inch of weld, or 3/4 of an inch in any. linear 12 inches of weld.

cs y, (Tr.'11215). There has.been'no testimony that even implies porosity-of this magnitude.

-In sum, the Board finds that even if Mr.-Stiner had failed to preheat 1some weld joints as alleged, there is reasonable.

assurance.that this would not.have resulted in an a' dverse' impact on: plant' safety.

III. OTHER MATTERS CONSIDERED We have= addressed in this decision each of the remaining allegations by Mr.'and Mrs.~Stiner regarding the welding issues at Comanche Peak.which we perceive could have affected our

-determination as the adequacy.of the QA program or the safe operation'of.the plant. To the extent-CASE may have raised other questions, we have considered those also, and found they are either: without merit ' or are insignificant' and could not affect our

~

' determination'here.

<e_- .

'A r IV. CONCLUSION 1

l The Board concludes that the allegations raised by Mr. and Mrs. Stiner and addressed here (i.e., weave welding, welding of misdrilled holes, downhill welding, weld rod control and preheat) do not reflect a significant or systematic breakdown in the QA/QC program. The~ Board f'arther concludes that there is reasonable assurance that these allegations.are not reflective of any condition that could adversely impact the safe operation of the j plant.

h l-L-

o

_-____m

4 e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-445-2 and COMPANY, _et _al. ) 50-446-2 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) (Application for Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Operating Licenses)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the " Applicants' Proposed Findings of Fact in the Form of an Initial Decision," in the above-captioned matters were served upon the following persons by exprese delivery (*), or deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 7th day of September, 1984, or by hand delivery (**) on the 10th day of September, 1984.

Peter B. Bloch, Esq. Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. William L. Clements Dr. Walter H. Jordan Docketing &' Service Branch 881 West Outer Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 .

• Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Dean, Division of Engineering Architecture and Technology **Stuart A. Treby, Esq.

Oklahoma State University Office of the Executive Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Legal Director

~

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Mr. John Collins Commission Regional Administrator, Washington, D.C. 20555 Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Chairman, Atomic Safety and Commission Licensing Board Panel 611 Ryan Plaza Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Suite 1000 Commission Arlington, Texas 76011 Washington, D.C. 20555 l -

~ s

'4-

.n Renea Hicks,;Esqw *Mrs. Juanita Ellis Assistant Attorney' General President, CASE Environmental. Protection 1426 South Polk Street Division- Dallas, Texas 75224 P.O. Box /12548

_ Capitol Station' Ellen Ginsberg,. Esquire Austin, Texas 78711' Atomic Safety and' Licensing

~

Board Panel

'Lanny A.-.Sinkin U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 114 W. 7th Street Commission Suite 220 Washington, D.C. 20555 Austin, Texas'-78701 h Q Malcolm H. Phiiips, Jr.

'cc: Homer C. Schmidt

Robert Wooldridge,. Esq.

_ _ _ - _