ML20078P157

Testimony of Rl Dick Re Const Dept Involvement in Welding Inspector Concerns.Related Correspondence

ML20078P157
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	10/31/1983
From:	Dick R DUKE POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20078P153	List: ML20078P150 ML20078P157 ML20078P171
References
NUDOCS 8311030240
Download: ML20078P157 (18)

Text

s. J

~

i F y

{ ~g73 comrs?0CCE '.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OCCKUJD NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICF] SING .BOAtRD.58 In the Matter of ) ~ ~ ' ' " '

~)

DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos.' 50-413

) 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT L. DICK-Q. WHAT IS YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.

2 A. My name is Robert L. Dick. My business address is Catawba 3 Nuclear Station, P. O. Box 223, Clover, SC 29710 4 Q. WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT POSITION WITH DUKE POWER COMPANY, 5 AND WHAT IS THE NATURE OF YOUR JOB?

6 A. I am Vice President, Construction . I am responsible for the 7 construction of our generating facilities.

8 Q. DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND 9 QUALIFICATIONS, INCLUDING PRIOR POSITIONS YOU HELD WITH i- 10 DUKE POWER.

I 11 A. I graduated from North Carolina State College in 1949 with a degree i

12 in civil engineering. I went to work for Duke Power that same l

l 13 year in the Construction Department. In 1959, after working on 1

14 the construction of 13 coal-fired units, I was placed in field charge i 15 of all power-plant construction. I have served in this capacity 16 during the construction of seven coal-fired units , three 17 hydroelectric dams and generating stations , and the Oconee, 18 McGuire, and Catawba nuclear projects. In 1971, I was named Vice i 19 President, Construction.

B311030240 831031 PDR ADOCK 05000413 T PM .

1 I am a registered professional engineer in North and South 2 Carolina. I have served in responsible positions on two American 3 National Standards Quality Assurance Consensus Committees. I am 4 currently serving on the American Society of Mechanical Engineers 5 Boiler and Pressure Vessel Committee's Nuclear Power Subcommittee 6 and the Board on Nuclear Codes and Standards.

7 Q. DESCRIBE THE ORGANIZATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION 8 DEPARTMENT AT CATAWBA.

,9 A. The construction organization at Catawba is a matrix-type 10 organization headed by a' project manager. Five managers report to 11 the project manager. Their functions are as follows: The human 12 resources manager is responsible for the quality of the working 13 environment and for personnel administration. The materials 14 manager is responsible' for coordinating, expediting, receiving, 15 storing, issding, and maintaining all materials and equipment at the 16 site . The planning and control manager is responsible for overall 17 planning, coordination, analysis, and reporting for the site. The 18 engineering manager is responsible for all construction, engineering 19 at the site. Finally, the construction manager is responsible for all 20 craft activities-- i.e. , the physical construction of the plant.

21 Q. DID THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTRUCTION 22 DEPARTMENT DIFFER IN ANY SIGNIFICANT MANNER DURING 23 1981?

24 A. The most significant difference in the Construction organization in 25 1981 was the transfer of administrative responsibility for Quality 26 Control inspectors from the Construction Department to the Quality 27 Assurance Department.

~ ,

1 Q. DESCRIBE THE INTERFACE BETWEEN THE ' QUALITY ASSURANCE 2- AND CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENTS ON THE CORPORATE LEVEL.

3 A. George Grier, the corporate quality assurance manager, and I both 4 report -to Warren Owen , the executive vice president for 5 engineering and construction. We both attend Mr. Owen's regular 6 staff meetings. Matters which affect both departments are reviewed ,

7 during these regular staff meetings. In addition, Mr. Grier and I 8 attend regular project review meetings at which all phases of the 9 construction of the Catawba Nuclear Station are discussed. Trend

'10' reports which analyze the corrective action program are regularly 11 reviewed by Construction and Quality Assurance management. The 12 ' results of internal audits performed by the Audit Division are 13 discussed during exit meetings with Construction management. The 14 review and approval of quality assurance procedures contained in 15 the Duke Power Company Construction Department Quality 16 Assurance Manual involve both Construction and Quality Assurance 17 Management. The results of NRC inspection visits as well as 18 inspections by organizations such. as ASME are jointly reviewed by 19 Quality Assurance and Construction management. In addition, Nr.

20 Grier and I consult with one another whenever the need arises.

! 21 HOW DOES THE CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT ENSURE THAT THE Q.

l l 22 PLANT IS BUILT ACCORDING TO DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS AND 23 THAT VARIATIONS FROM DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS DO NOT 24 AFFECT PLANT QUALITY OR SAFETY?

25 A. The Construction Department has several ways to ensure that the 26 plant meets design requirements and that design changes do not

! 27 adversely affect quality or safety. We systematically train l

l 28 employees in all quality assurance and construction procedures that I

1 apply to their work--and _ in any revisions to those procedures.

2 Our document-control program ensures that our craftworkers use 3 only the latest, approved design documents and that unapproved or 4 outdated documents are not used.

5 6 As the work is taking place, it may become necessary to request a 7 design change because of an interference or other technical 8 problem . This is strictly controlled. The proposed change must be 9 documented on a Variation Notice and reviewed by construction 10 engineers . The change then would be allowed only if approved by 11 Design Engineering after a technical review. The change then 12 would be reflected in revisions to the design documents.

13 y 14 QA procedures require inspection of every safety-related item. If, 15 while the work is taking place or after the item has been completed, 16 the inspector finds it does not comply with design requirements,

'Ak 17 the discrepancy is identified. Our procedures then ensure that the 18 problem is resolved. We also have a trend-analysis procedure.

19 This ensures that we identify recurring problems and take action to 20 correct the causes of those problems.

21 22 Once a safety-related mechanical system is completed, it undergoes 23 extensive testing before it receives the required code or N stamp.

24 This is done in conjunction with the ASME's authorized nuclear 25 insoector. The N stamp certifies that the system meets ASME code 26 requirements and is correctly represented by the mathematical 27 models used to analyze the system under operational and postulated 28 accident conditions . Safety-related electrical systems undergo I similar testing. As a final check, all safety-related systems 2 undergo extensive preoperational and startup testing to ensure they 3 will perform as designed.

4 5 Finally , unlike most utilities, Duke does its own plant engineering 6 and construction. The work force includes experienced people, 7 with experience not only at the Catawba project but also at the 8 Oconee and McGuire Nuclear Stations . The engineering and 9 construction departments have built a fine working relationship with

~0 1 each other and with the nuclear production department. The close 11 proximity between the site and the General Office allows us - to 12 identify technical issues, review them thoroughly, and come to a 13 speedy solution that ensures design integrity.

14 Q. HOW ARE SIGNIFICANT OR SYSTEMATIC CONSTRUCTION 15 DEFICIENCIES IDENTIFIED AND RESOLVED BY THE 16 CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT?

1 17 A. The QA procedures used at the Catawba project provide a clear 18 method for identifying and resolving problems. In addition, there 19 is a separate procedure for documenting and resolving 20 nonconforming items, another procedure for significant corrective 21 action , and another for Variation Notices or design changes. The 22 Construction Department also uses a trending program to record l

23 and analyze recurring problems and thus eliminate the causes of l 24 these problems. These trends are evaluated monthly and action 25 taken when needed.

l l

l'- Q. HAVE YOU DETECTED SIGNIFICANT OR SYSTEMATIC 2 DEFICIENCIES IN CONSTRUCTION AT CATAWBA?

3 A. No. The reviews by Duke auditors, authorized nuclear inspectors, 4 ASME, NRC,- and the Self-Initiated Evaluation have pointed out a 5 number. of specifid items that warranted our attention. None of the 6 - findings , however, would indicate a breakdown in either our ,

7~ construction or our quality assurance program.

8 Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE 1981 SALP REPORT?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. THE' SALP REPORT RATES THE CATAWBA PROJECT "BELOW 11 AVEP. AGE," BASED IN PART ON CRITICISM OF THE QA PROGRAM.

12 IN YOUR VIEW, DOES THE SALP REPORT INDICATE THERE ARE 13 SIGNIFICANT OR SYSTEMATIC DEFICIENCIES IN THE 14 CONSTRUCTION OF CATAWBA?

15 A. No.

16 Q.

DOES IT I{DICATE THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT OR SYSTEMATIC'

'17 DEFICIENCIES IN THE CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT?

18 A. No, the SALP Report does not indicate there are significant or 19 systematic deficiencies in the Construction Department.

20 Q. .WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR YOUR VIEW THAT THE 1981 SALP l '21 REPORT DOES NOT INDICATE SYSTEMATIC DEFICIENCIES IN THE i

l 22 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE CATAWBA PROJECT?

~

23 A. The SALP Report is basically a rating based on the number of l 24 violations recorded during a certain period of time. It did not take 25 into account the level of activity at Catawba at the time. The NRC 26 confirmed this in a meeting I attended in August,1981 to discuss 27 . the SALP 1 Report. The report does say that performance at 28 Catawba is adequate.

l

1 Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY DUKE POWER 2 IN RESPONSE TO THE VIOLATIONS THAT %TRE THE BASIS FOR 3 THE SALP EVALUATION?

4 A. There was no action to be taken when the SALP Report was issued.

-5 The violations had previously been resolved when they were

6. identified.

7 Q. ARE THERE ANY ' CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT PROCEDURES 8 UNDER WHICH EMPLOYEES ~ MAY RAISE CONCERNS OR HAVE 9 MANAGEMENT REVIEW DECISIONS THAT THE EMPLOYEEt 10 DISAGREE WITH?

11 A. 'Yes. The first published recourse procedure for Construction 12 employees was implemented in June, 1976. A slightly -revised 13 procedure was adopted in May, 1979. It is currently in effect.

14 This procedure allows an employee to express any concern or 15 suggestion to successive levels of supervision. There is an 16 informal process that begins with the immediate supervisor and 17 continues to the project manager. This process involves one-on-one 18 discussions between the employee and supervision. A response is 19 given within two days at the first two levels, three days at the 20 second and third levels.

21 22 There is also a formal process that an employee may elect to use 23 instead of the informal process. In this process, the employee puts 24 the concern in writing and receives a written response. It begins

'25 with the second level of supervision above the employee and 26 continues to the president of the company. The response time for 27 the formal process ranges from three days at the first step to 20 28 days at the president's level.

1 Since the Construction Department has also followed the company's 2 technical-recourse procedure, this procedure allows employees to 3 express their views on any concern not resolved through discussion 4 with supervision. I receive a written copy of the concern, usually 5 from division management. I would then appoiht a group of at least 6 three technically qualified people to review the issue. (These 7 people cannot be from the employee's immediate . work group). The 8 group will review the issue and give a recommendation, and I will 9 give a written response to the employee within 30 days. An 10 employee who is still unsatisfied may request a review by the 11 executive vice president. He will rely on professional experts 12 either inside or outside the company and give a response within 30 13 days, 14 15 In February' 1981, the Construction Department began its employee 16 forum program. This program consists of regular meetings between 17 employees and higher levels of supervision. Key elements of the 18 meetings are open discussions and a chance to share ideas and ask 19 questions. To encourage people to feel relaxed, the immediate 20 supervisor is not present. Any topic may be discussed, and l 21 management must answer and follow up on ideas, questions , or 22 problems brought up in the meeting. Notes are taken by the L

23 secretary (a personnel manager) to ensure follow-up. The notes 24 omit names and are confidential. They are seen only by the l

25 chairman, the project manager, the Manager of Construction I' 26 Resources, and myself.

l l

l _ , _, -_ . _ __ _ ._

1 Employees are randomly selected for the forum and represent 2 different work groups. Our goal is to meet with at least 30 percent 3 of all employees annually.

4 5 In September 1980, the Construction Department implemented a 6 procedure on harassment. Our intent was to keep the work 7 environment free of any sort of intimidation. The procedure covers 8 harassment based on race and sex and any other action that singles 9 out an employee to his or her detriment. It provides a means for 10 employees who feel harassed to bring it to the attention of 11 supervision or Employee Relations. If warranted, Employee 12 Relations will investigate the allegations and make a report of its 13 findings . Disciplinary action depends on severity and ranges from 14 a written warning to termination.

~ 15

-16 Finally , we have an exit-interview procedure that gives all 17 terminating employees an opportunity to comment on anything they 18 wish . Each location does a monthly report to indicate potential 19 problems or concerns.

20 Q. HOW WERE THESE PROCEDURES COMMUNICATED TO 21 CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES?

22 A. These procedures were communicated to project supervision by 23 personnel managers. Supervision , in turn , communicated the 24 procedures to employees. In most cases, written guides and copies 25 of the procedures were used in the explanation to employees. All 26 supervision held scheduled employee meetings to explain the 27 procedures. Copies of the procedures were posted on bulletin 28 boards.

I 1 Q. DID THIS COMMUNICATION INCLUDE THE QC INSPECTORS?

2 A. Yes. The -QC inspectors were, administratively, in the 3- Construction prior _ to February,1981.

4 Q. WHAT IS THE CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT'S POLICY AND 5 PRACTICE WITH RESPECT TO THE EMPLOYEE'S ACCESS TO THE l

6 NRC TO EXPRESS CONCERNS OR RAISE TECHNICAL QUESTIONS?  !

7 A. It has never been the policy or practice of the Construction 8 Department to require our employees to express concerns or 9 questions to their supervision before going to the NRC. However,  !

10 we of course encourage our employees to express any concerns they 11 may have about the quality of work to their supervisors or any 12 level of management. We also have voluntarily posted a memo that 13 explains how an employee may contact the NRC. This memo was 14 dated April 25, 1977. (Attachment 1) 15 Q. WHEN DID 'YOU FIRST BECOME AWARE OF THE QUALITY OR

~16 SAFETY CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY WELDING INSPECTORS AT 17 CATAWBA?

18 A. To the best of my recollection, I first became aware of the welding 19 inspectors' concerns in early December 1981. They came to my

-20 attention through a copy of a letter from Gail Addis to Warren Owen 21 dated December 3,1981. I had earlier learned of some inspectors' 22 concerns relative to their role and relationship to Construction at 23 Catawba.

24 Q. WHAT DID YOU DO IN RESPONSE TO THESE CONCERNS 25 REGARDING THE ROLE AND RELATIONSHIP OF CONSTRUCTION 26 AND THE QA INSPECTORS?

27 A. I directed site project management to communicate through super-28 vision that the Construction Department " builds in" quality and

's.

1 Quality Assurance verifies it; that Construction employees should 2 by their actians show that - we take this seriously; and that no 3 intimidation, coercion or kidding of QA' inspectors would be 4 . tolerated.

5-6 In addition, I directed my general office staff to develop a -program 7 that would help instill pride in workmanship. This became our 8 . quality awareness program, the details of which were communicated 9 'to Mr. Owen in my memorandum of January 11, 1982. (Attachment 10 2.) See also Grogan memo (Attachment 3).

11 Q. WERE YOU INVOLVED IN THE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS TO 12 INITIATE THE VARIOUS TASK-FORCE INVESTIGATIONS?

13 A .' I do not recall being involved in these decisions . Mr. Owen 14 informed me of the actions he intended to take. However, to the 15 best of my recollection,. he did not solicit my opinion as to whether 16 -or not the various investigations should be undertaken.

17 Q. DESCRIBE YOUR INVOLVEMENT WITH THE INITIAL TASK FORCE, 18 WHICH IS NOW REFERRED TO AS TASK FORCE I.

19 A. Warren Owen informed me of the formation of the task force. I was 20 also present at a meeting in which he described the background and 21 charge of Task Force I. In early January, I met with Mr. Owen to 22 discuss the findings of the task force.

23 Q. DESCRIBE YOUR INVOLVEMENT WITH THE TECHNICAL TASK 24 FORCE.

25 A. After the decision to form a technical task force was made, I 26 recommended someone from the Construction Department to serve on 27 the task force. I was also present when the Technical Task Force

'28 presented its findings.

s 1 :Q. DESCRIBE YOUR INVOLVEMENT WITH LEWIS ZWISSLER OF-2 MAUAGEMENT ANALYSIS COMPANY.

3 A. I met with Mr. Zwissler at his request -in February 1982. To the 4 best of my knowledge, the only other time I came in contact with 5 Mr. .Zwissler was during a meeting in Warren Owen's office relating f

6 to the task force.

7 Q. DESCRIBE YOUR INVOLVEMENT WITH THE NONTECHNICAL TASK 8 FORCE.

9 A. At Warren Owen's request, I assigned Neal Alexander and Danny 10 Powell to work with that task force.

11 Q. WERE YOU INVOLVED IN IMPLEMENTING RECOMMENDATIONS BY 12 ANY OF THE TASK FORCES?

13 A. Yes, I was nvolved in implementing the recommendations of Task 14 Force I and the Technical Task Force.

15 Q. DESCRIBE YOUR ROLE IN IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS 16 OF THE TECHNICAL TASK FORCE.

17 A. I appointed Ray Hollins to coordinate action items from the task 18 force recommendations for the Construction Department. This 19 coordinator followed up on each action item and as each item was 20 completed, sent me a report for my review and sigi.ature. After I "I signed the reports, copies were sent to the QA Department.

22 Q. DESCRIBE THE ACTIONS TAKEN TO IMPLEMENT THE l 23 NONTECHNICAL TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS.

24 A. As I understand it, the Nontechnical Task Force recommendations 25 dealt primarily with the roles and relationships of various positions 26 within the QA department. As mentioned previously, I had already 27 communicated to Construction Department employees at Catawba the l 28 company's expectations regarding their role and their relationship

I with - Q A . I had also already begun- development of a quality 2 awareness program. The content of the completed quality 3 awareness program was communicated to Warren Owen in my 4 memorandum of January 11, 1982.

5. Q. WHY WERE QC INSPECTORS IN THE CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT 6 RATHER THAN THE QA DEPARTMENT?

7 A. I felt that the QC inspectors could adequately perform their 8 inspection function regardless of which department they reported to 9 administratively. Initially, I recommended that we should keep the

^10 inspectors ad.ninistratively in the Construction Department because I 11 felt the project managers were in a better position to staff and 12 schedule the inspection function , and thus make sure we had 13 enough inspectors to get the job done.

14 Q. WERE YOU INVOLVED IN THE DECISION TO TRANSFER THE QC 15 INSPECTORS FROM THE CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT TO THE QA 16 DEPARTMENT?

17 A. Yes, I made the recommendation to Mr. Owen.

18 Q. WHY WERE THE INSPECTORS MOVED TO THE QA DEPARTMENT?

19 A. My' initial concerns about staffing and scheduling for quality control 20 turned out to be unfounded. Since the inspectors were already 21 reporting functionally to Quality Assurance, I decided it would be 22 more efficient for them to report administratively to QA as well.

23 This was the basis for my recommendation.

24 Q. WHAT IS THE CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT'S POLICY WITH 25 RESPECT TO THE CRAFTS' WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE 26 QA DEPARTMENT?

27 A. The Construction Department's policy is very clear. We in the 28 Construction Department are responsible for the quality of our

.O I -work. No matter how effective an inspection program is, the 2 quality must be in the work itself, not in the inspection of that 3 work. Inspection merely verifies that the quality is there; it does 4 not add to it. The Construction Department, however, has a great 5 deal of_ respect for the Quality Assurance organization. We know 6 that QA has a job to do, and I have made it clear that I expect all 7 construction employees to work with QA employees in a professional, 8 adult manner. I have also made it clear that I will not tolerate any 9 harassment or intimidation of QA employees or the employees of any 10 other department. I am extremely proud of our past performance 11 and the fine working relationships that have existed between 12- Construction, Quality Assurance, and other departments in the 13 company .

14 Q. HAS CONSTRUCTION, BECAUSE OF A DESIRE TO COMPLETE THE 15 PLANT, PRESSURED QA. WELDING INSPECTORS TO GET THEIR 16 JOB DONE WITHOUT REGARD FOR THE TIME IT TAKES FOR QA 17 TO COMPLETE ITS REVIEW?

18 A. No. The Construction Department is mindful of the vital role of 19 Quality Assurance in the construction and operation of Catawba.

20 We respect QA's role, and make every effort to insure that the 21 inspectors are allowed to carry out their duties without pressure or 22 interference from craft.

23 Q. WHAT IS THE CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT'S POLICY WITH 24 RESPECT TO THE HARASSMENT OF EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING THE 25 HARASSMENT OF. QA EMPLOYEES BY CONSTRUCTION CRAFT 26 EMPLOYEES?

27 A. The Construction Department will not tolerate the harassment of any 28 employee by a Construction employee. Our policy specifically c ,

I forbids not only sexual or racial harassment, but harassment of any 2 kind . ' There is a similar corporate policy. A _ Construction 3 employee who is found to have harassed another employee from any 4 department would face disciplinary action and possibly termination.

5 Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH AN INCIDENT INVOLVING EDWARD 6 MCKENZIE AND LARRY JACKSON, A QA INSPECTOR--AN 7 INCIDENT IN WHICH HARASSMENT WAS ALLEGED?

8 A. Yes. I became closely involved ir. this situation right after it 9 happened and was kept up to date as the situation was 10 investigated. Since then I have ' reviewed the file.

11 Q. DESCRIBE THE INCIDENT AND THE ACTIONS THAT WERE TAKEN 12 BY THE CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT.

13 A. At Catawba in November 1981, there was a confrontation between Ed 14 McKenzie, a construction supervisor, and Larry Jackson, an 15 inspector. Jackson claimed that red markings on a grinding disc 16 used for stainless-steel pipe did net comply with applicable 17 construction procedures . Later, he alleged that McKenzie had 18 harassed him during the inspection, and Jackson complained to his 19 supervisor. Quality Assurance informed Construction of the 20 allegation, and each department conducted a separate investigation.

21 The investigation revealed that McKenzie claimed that the disc did 22 comply with the procedure and refused to give it to Jackson after 23 Jackson's inspection. The disagreement was carried to the Quality 24 Assurance office, where the two men shook hands and agreed that, 25 although . the disc was marked, its entire center was not painted red

-26 as required by the procedure.

27 L

?

1 The next day Jackson wrote an NCI identifying the stainless-steel 2 pipe on which the disc had been used. But then Jackson placed 3 the red tag to identify the pipe on the wrong section of pipe. This 4 resulted . in another heated discussion between Jackson and 5 McKenzie, and shortly after that, Jackson complained to the QA 6 Technical Supervisor.

7 8 The investigations concluded that neither McKenzie nor anyone else 9 had harassed Jackson. However, craft management informed 10 . McKenzie that his actions were inappropriate and would not be 11 tolerated in the future, and that McKenzie and his crew should take 12 a more positive approach in dealing with differences of opinion. In 13 addition, in December 1981 all construction supervisors at Catawba 14 were reminded in formal meetings that they were responsible for 15 maintaining a . positive working relationship between QA inspectors

-16 and Construction employees.

17 Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH AN INCIDENT INVOLVING G. R. JONES 18 AND MAX REEP, A QA INSPECTOR, IN WHICH HARASSMENT WAS 19 ALLEGED?

20 A. I have read the files, but was not directly involved in the matter.

21 Q. DESCRIBE THE INCIDENT AND THE RESULTING ACTIONS TAKEN 22 BY THE . CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT.

23 A. G. R. Jones, a Catawba welder, was lying on his back a few 24 minutes after lunch, and his pouch of welding filler material was

-25 hanging on a nearby structure. Max Reep, a welding inspector, 26 assumed that Jones was asleep , leaving the filler material 27 uncontrolled. Jones claimed he knew Reep was there and thought

28. Reep was joking about the ' ncontrolled material. When Jones u

a I realized that Reep was serious, he became angry and and jerked his 2 filler material away from Reep. An argument followed, and then 3 Reep went to his supervisor. Reep and his supervisor then went 4 to QA's employee relations section and complained of harassment.

.5 The Construction and QA employee relations group investigated the 6 incident and concluded that there was not harassment. Both Jones 7 and Reep were counseled about the need to improve working 8 relations. Jones was given an "A" violation (failure to follow 9 instructions) for not having control of his filler material.

10 11 I have found no evidence in these incidents that an inspector was 12 prevented from carrying out his inspection or rendering his 13 inspection report.

14 Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE NCI EVALUATION TEAM?

15 A. Yes 16 'Q. DESCRIBE THE CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT'S INVOLVEMENT 17 WITH THE NCI EVALUATION TEAM.

18 A. The NRC's resident inspector informed us of potential problems in 19 the way we were resolving Nonconforming Item Reports. He was 20 concerned that too many minor problems were being reported on 21 N CI's , and that some of the descriptions and resolutions were not 22 clearly written. Duke's quality assurance manager then formed a 23 team to address these issues and asked me to appoint two 24 Construction Department representatives, which I did. The other 1

25 team members were from Quality Assurance and Design Engineering.

26 27 28-i 4

a 1 I hereby certify that I have read and understand this document, and 2 believe it to be my true, accurate and complete testimony.

3 4

5 6 Robert L. Dick 7

8 9 Sworn to and subscribed before me 10 this day of October,1983.

11 12 13 14 Notary Public 15 16 Commission Expires