Got a situation where we are spinning our wheels with D1.1 2002 procedure legend 4. The joint is a corner, single bevel CJP with a backup bar 2" thickness not ground flush. Basically, a box column with four seams, 100% UT to table 6.3. The code requires the middle half and bottom quarter to be evaluated with a 70 degree angle and the top quarter to be evaluated with a 60 degree angle. Surface "A" is so narrow that I can barely get 1st leg coverage with the 70 degree, however, I have enough distance to get legs 1 & 2 with the 60 degree. At the toe of the weld the 70 catches a class D indication approximately 9/16" deep on the first leg (reminder, cannot scan any further over the weld). The 60 degree on the 2nd leg catches this same indication at a slightly deeper depth and is rated as a class A. Here is the problem, technician "A" reported the 70 degree finding as per section 6.26.8 "FCM" and rejected the same indication with the 60 degree. Technician "B" on the other hand accepted the 70 degree finding as being nonrelevant and ignored the 60 degree rating as being in a region of the weld not to be evaluated with the 60 degree. This led to the site inspector to question the credibility of the inhouse UT inspectors and brought in technician "C" from an outside testing lab. Technician "C" reported nothing with the 70 degree but rejected the area with the 60 degree as a class A indication on the second leg at approximately the same depth. All three technicians have considerable experience with UT, working knowledge of both D1.1 & D1.5 and are SNT-TC-1A level II. Here is the ongoing argument. (A) The code interpertation is to evalute only thoses regions as perscribe in table 6.2 and the procedure legend by the appropriate angle. or (B) As per general note 3 of table 6.2 in conjunction with table 6.3 .  This is clearly a case where 1st leg evaluation of both angles is impossible.  The question that keeps popping up here is that if an indication that impedes the sound path on a particular angle at a depth not corresponding to the examination area of that angle causing a reflection of sufficient amplitude due to the orientation of the defect should it be ignored?   In this particular case, the outcome to satisfy the state was to map the indication and excavate the area to identify the defect. What was found was a 2 1/4" row of porosity with a crack down the middle.  Should'nt the areas of the upper middle half region, which are not accessible to the 70 degree because of plate surface accessibilty and weld profile, be evaluted with the 2nd leg of the 60 degree?  Any comments or past similarities welcomed.