ML20082C142
| ML20082C142 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 07/08/1983 |
| From: | Wells J DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20082C119 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-83-434 NUDOCS 8311210478 | |
| Download: ML20082C142 (116) | |
Text
'
~
s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
, BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD IN THE MATTER OF: ) Docket Nos.
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ) 50-413 (Catawba Nuclear Station ) 50-414 Units 1 & 2) )
COPY
\
I, Barbara V. Haas, Commissioner and Notary Public, pro-ceeded to take the deposition of James R. Wells on the eighth day of July, 1983, beginning at 11:00 o' clock A.M. in the
( offices of Duke Power Company, South Church Street, Charlotte, l
North Carolina.
.i i
DEPOSITION OF I JAMES R. WCLLS
+
l s .
i w
440' Colvd Rd Associated m s ,, . ,
Chorlotte NC. zstta y {ourt porters 704 364.3,7s
'8311210478 830825 PDR FOIA AHLER983-434 PDR a _ _ _
Y l
f I j
i i . JAMES R. WELLS, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
I 2 EXAMINATION: (By Mr. Guild) 3 Q. .WouId you state your full name and business address for 4 the record, please.
1 5 A. James R. Wells. My permanent business address is Duke 6 Power Company, 422 Sotith Church Street, Charlotte.
4 7 Q. That's not where you're working now though, is it, sir?
8 A. I'm on temporary a==ignment to the Institute of Nuclear 9 Power Operations in Atlanta, Georgia.
j 10 Q. What is your business address there, sir?
I i 11 A. 1100 Circle 75 Parkway, Atlanta, 30339.
12 MR. GIBSON: .Mr. Guild, if I might interrupt, as I 13 understand, we will proceed under the same stipulations relat-
. -(
14 ing to objections to questions, that is, all questions are 15 deemed objected to except as to the form and the persons 16 present for Duke Power are Mr. Bell and Mr. Grier, and I'm
,i 17 appearing ar. counsel, and Mr. Jos and Ms. Levitas are here 18 for Palmetto. With respect to Mr. Wells, }un is, as he had,
! 19 indicated, on loan to INPO.3 Because of the confidentiality at j
20 agreement that Mr. Wells has had to execute.at INPO, we.will l
21 instruct -him not to answer any questions 'r' elating to his work-ll I
at INPO involving other utilities except[ to give'you~ some j- 22 f 23 general knowledge as to what he does $or 'INPO. We'll instruct t!
24 him not to go into any specifica consistent-with that pledge l! !
- 25 of confidentiality. You may procecd. Excuse me, I might also 2
h!
e i
\ $
t s
s l
s l {
1 note that the deposition is limited to welding inspection and 2 quality control and quality in welding inspection at catawba.
3 Q. ,
Mr. , Wells, my name is Roberi Guild, and I'm counsel for d Palmetto Alliance, and we are interveners in the operating 5 license procedure before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for ,
o Catawba Station. In that case, Palmetto has filed, and the 7 Licensing Board has accepted, for litigation what has been a referred to as contention 6 which questions the adequacy of 9 quality assurance in construction at Catawba. Are you gen-H) erally informed about that case?
" A. Yes.
12 Q. I'm going to ask you a series of questions in discovery 13 that relate to that subject, and these questions are designed ld for me to learn as fully and completely and accurately a is picture as I can of the facts regarding that subject. If I 16 ask a question that I'm not being clear in my question or 17 using a term that you don't know what I mean by, please stop 18)me. I will 1xt informal as best I can, so ask for clarification l'
if you see that you need it. Otherwise, the transcription of j 20 the deposition will- reflect my question, your answer, and I 21 will presume from 'that, you were responding to the question the 22 way it was asked. Let me show you a document, sir. - This is 23 a Duke Power Company response to a set of questions asked- by 24 Palmetto Alliance in discovery of this case and dated
{ 25 December 30, 1982, and I want you to take a moment and in that i
3 3
~
4 s
6
- s. .
- s. e . - %- .~E*-s . = _ , . . , , - -. . ..---+.,~,.,w. .- - , -ev y t*% .,%E,,,, +~ + _ . . . - . .f... g s gy . , - , .,.s-y. 4 ..'
i 2 1 i i i
W 1 response, examine the quoted text of contention 6 as originally 2 filed by Palmetto Alliance and as admitted by the Board, it's 3 the. indented single space quotation beginning at the bottom 4 of page 3 and extending to page 4. Take a few minutes and 5 look that over, sir. Have you seen Contention 6 before today?
i o A. No, I have not. .
7 Q. What is your present position with Duke Power Company, 8 Mr. Wells?
9 A.9 I'm Assistant to the Executive Vice-President for 10 Engineering and Construction.
11 Q. To whom do you report, sir?
12 A. Mr. Warren Owen.
i 13 Q. I understand that you're on loan to the Institute for
(, ,
1 14 Nuclear Power Operations in Atlanta.
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. What position do you hold with them at this time?
!i 17 A. There I am Manager of the Design Department within the l{
!? 18 Construction Project Evaluation Division of INPO.
- I il 19 ' Q . Do that again, Manager of Design Department for 20 Construction-- .
21 A. The Department is part of the Construction Project 22 Evaluation Division of INPO.
23 Q. Would you describe your duties in'that capacity with INPO?
24 A. The major duties of the Construction Project Evaluation i, 25- Division is to develop criteria for the evaluation of plants I 4
' ' :(
i i
1
I t
l
, I 9 1 under design construction, and then to go to the plant and i
2 ' evaluate them against these developed criteria. As Manager of 3 the. Design Department, I have approximately nine people who are 4 senior personnel from the various companies assigned there 5 who work on the design part of the total program.
6 Q. Do you participate in evaluations yourself?
7 A. Yes.
s Q. Have you participated in evaluations?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Did you participate in the 1982 evaluation of the Catawba 11 Station?
12 A. I did not partic'pate as a part of the INPO-- as part of 33 my INPO job. I was up here during'the evaluation to assist 3d in some of the logistics and was there during part of it, 15 but did not participate in the evaluation.
16 Q. What is the nature of your participation in the evaluation 37 in your present position?
18 A. It varies from one evaluation to the next. I have held 19 positions. I was Team Manager for the entire evaluation at 20 one plant. I was Manager for the design portion at one,-two 21 or three plants; and I have also participated just as 22 Evaluator. It's a practice of INPO to rotate people into the 23 various assignments at different evaluations.
24 Q. How many evaluations have you participated in?
25 A. Approximately eight. I would have to add them to make sure .
(
~
i i I
l
( l Q. For which evaluation were you Team Manager?
2 MR. GIBSON: We're going to instruct him not to give 3 you.the specific name of any plant that he has been involved 4 in the evaluation of. I think that's covered by my objection 5 and instruction not to answer, but, as I said, I think we will 6 limit his questions about INPO to general knowledge of what 7 he does in his job and not talk about other utilities.
a Q. I don't understand the nature of your objection.
9 MR. GIBSON: I understood your question to be: Which i
10 evaluation were you Team Manager of?
11 Q. That's right.
12 MR. GIBSON: Were you referring to a specific utility 13 evaluation?
(
14 If it's the way they do the evaluations.
Q.
15 MR. GIBSON: I'm instructing him not to get into which 16 utility evaluation and which--
17 What is the basis for your instruction, counsel, for the j Q.
18 record?
- l
'9 MR. GIBSON: First of all, it's not covered by the l
'O scope of this deposition. Second,.Mr. Wells has executed a a .
21 confidentiality ag'reement with INPO not to reveal to outside 22 sources the specifics of any of his duties as involved with j .
23 utilities, and we're going to honor that confidentiality 24 agreement.
25 If you're going to rely on a confidentiality agreement,-I
] Q.
- . 6 l
{
f l-U _ . _ _ _ _ . _ , , . _ . ___ - . , _ . ~ , . ._ - , _ . _ _ . m- , , ._ _ . .# . , -
l i
1 ask that you produce it for the record.
7 MR. GIBSON: We're not going to produce that agreement, 3 Mr. Guild. If you have questions about welding inspection at 4 Catawba, I suggest you proceed with those. If you have more
- 5 general questions about his involvement in INPO, I suggest you 4
6 proceed with those, but we'll not go into the specifica.
l 7 Q. Mr. Gibson, this is crazy. He can't tt11 me what plant 8 he evaluated? What on earth is there a confidentiality--
9 MR. GIBSON: I'm going to confer with Mr. Wells about 1
30 the matter. If your characterization about something being Il crazy is your opinion and you're entitled to your opinion.
i 12 It's my opinion and it's absolutely correct, counsel, and Q.
13 if you want to waste everybody's time with an objection--
Id MR. GIBSON: Do you care to make a speech or do you 15 care--
16 Q. No, I care for you to have the witne6s answer the question.
i l 17 That's what I care to have done, sir.
18 MR. GIBSON: Mr. Walls has advised me he is specificall:(
l l'
prohibited from revealing where he has gone, what he has evalu-20 ated, and in honoring that request, we are simply instructing 21 him not to answer those questions.
22 If you're going to allow any kind of confidentiality pledge Q.
23 by the witness, I would ask-- is it a written confidentiality 24 agreement, Mr. Wells, that you're relying on?
25 g, yes, 7
(.
t
l 9I 1 Q. Did you sign that agreement?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q .Does that agreement say you can't reveal the utility that f
f d you inspected to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the 5 course of a licensing case?
6 MR. GIBSON: Wait a minute, Mr. Guild. I think you 7 asked a different question. Go ahead and answer the question.
8 A. The agreement is very general in that any information 9 that you obtain by INPO, cannot be revealed exteriorly to INPO.
- u) They don't get into the details, specifics, but during the 11 instructions when we are there, we are instructed not to reveal
, 12 our schedule, where we go and where we have been, and the i
13 details of another utility's internal business.
(
Id Q. That wasn't the question. The question was what utility is were you Team Manager for in the evaluation you did? I 16 didn't ask you anything about your evaluation or what you
- j 17 found or who you asked or what you looked at. I asked you the
'i' un name of the utility you evaluated.
j 39 MR. GIBSON: He indicated that was one of the things he 20 was instructed not to reveal, and we are not going to allow 21 him to reveal that today.
22 My request is he produce. -If there's any such agreemen-
, Q.
23 that covers-- purports to cover the response to a question of 24 that sort, I ask it be produced so I can have it available l ls 25 when I take this issue to the' Board.
i 8
,' .(-
1
- i. __ _ _.
r -
o I
1 MR. GIBSON: Mr. Guild, we're not producing an agree-4 2 ment today. If you have some other questions for Mr. Wells, 3 please proceed.
4 Q. Who participated in the evaluation of the Catawba Station, 5 Mr. Wells?
6 A. This was what INPO called Self Initiated Evaluation. The 7 companies involved have the responsibility to name the team, a Many companies did it different ways. Duke chose to have a 9 team composed of Duke people and another sister utility, and 10 then it was rotated the same team did this other evaluation, il so the participants in the Catawba Evaluation were approxi-12 mately half Duke employees and half employees from a sister 13 utility.
I 14 Who were they?
Q.
15 A. I'm not sure that I can reveal. That's getting into the 16 other utilities and their business. I will discuss anything i
17 about Duke that you care about, but the other utility, I have 18 this constraint upon me, that's a legal and binding restraint
- j 39 that I feel compelled to follow.
ll 20 Q. This is a licensing case for the Catawba Station where the 21 issue of quality of construction of that plant has been raised, 22 sir, before a Licensing Board of the Nuclear Regulatory 23 Commission. Now, sir, I ask you again, who evaluated the 24 safety'of construction of the Catawba Nuclear Station?
25 MR. GIBSON: Mr. Guild, I will instruct him not to 9
b i
6
t J
T 1
answer. If the Board issues an order that Mr. Wells is to 2 provide that information, he will comply with that; but 3 absence some direction from the board on this matter, he is 4 not going to get into those areas.
5 Q. Sir, do you refuse to answer the question?
6 A. On the advice of my attorney, I would honor the confi-7 dentiality agreement I had to sign when I went to INPO. I 8 will be glad to discilss anything regarding the Duke involvement
' and that I know about at Catawba, but so far as revealing n) the confidential nature relating to other utilities in the 11 United States, I would have to go by the advice of my attorney 12 in that matter.
13 Q. You're refusing to answer the question.
(
Id Upon the advice of my attorney, I don't feel that I can A.
15 answer that question at this time.
16 I'm going to show you a document that has been identified Q.
17 in the deposition of a previous witness. It's a September 3, i
,i
! 18 1982, memo to file from Mr3 Grier. Mr. Grier, you understand, 19 is the present corporate Quality Assurance Manager for Duke l
20 Power?
.l
- j 21 A. Yes.
-; 22 I want to direct your attention to the third page of that Q.
23 memorandum, and that is Exhibit 6 to Mr. Bradley's deposition.
l
<i 24 Please' read that,' sir, if you would, read it for the record..
25 W. H. Owen made a brief statement in regard to INPO Self A.
I 10
(-
5
- - 4 2 . . _ _ .. . _ n _. _ m i
K 1 Initiated Evaluation to be conducted at Catawba in September.
2 He assured Kim Van Doorn that we would keep him informed of 3 the prog'ress of this evaluation and would share results with 4 him. G. W. Grier informed Howard Huggett of this requirement 5 on September 2nd.
o Q. Why can you inform Mr. Kim Van Doorn of the Nuclear 7 Regulatory Commission of the Self Initiated Evaluation and a its results, but you can't respond to a question on that 7 subject, as I have directed to you, Mr. Wells, in this licensing 10 proceeding?
11 MR. GIBSON: I object to the form of the question. He 12 may answer to the extent he knows. You said why can't you, 13 he has not informed the NRC, Mr. Guild, as indicated in that
(
Id paragraph. It says Mr. Owen is informing the NRC of something, 15 but he may answer to the extent he could answer it.
16 A. I can answer that. I did not inform the NRC as a result
,; 17 landundertheagreementthatIhavewithINPO, I could not.
19 Mr. Owen is not under that agreement. Of course, he has dif-19 ferent relations with the NRC, but I, as an INPO loan employee.
20 would not have the freedom of going to the NRC and giving them 21 anything.
22 But the results of the INPO Evaluation, including the Q.
23 identities of the Evaluators, could be made available to-the 24 NRC7 1
25 A. Mr. Owen is the executive of Duke Power and can do whatever l
11
('
e L -
I i I l -
' 1 i
g( i he felt would be necessary on the evaluation because it was his
! 2 Self Initiated, and he is not under that agreement with NRC.
3 He_can release anything he wants to release about the Duke 4 Power Evaluation. That's not covered under the INPO 5
confidentiality agreement.
e Q. Including the identities of the Evaluators from INPO?
7 A. There were not Evaluators from INPO.
l B Q. The Gtke Evaluators and the Evaluators from the so-called ,
9 sister utility?
10 A. I assume Mr. Owen could release whatever he determined.
11 I could not.
12 Q. You refuse to, is that correct?
13 A. Upon advice of counsel, I have'to follow my confiden-t' 14 tiality agreement with INPO that I have signed.
ie is Q. Which you stated under oath bars you from disclosing the I 16 identities of the Evaluators or the result of the evaluation?
j 17 A. I stated under oath that my interpretation of the agreement j 18 I signed would prevent me from naming another utility other 19 than Duke in any matter. That is my interpretation of the f 1 4 20 agreement I signed.
Q. You don't havd that agreement with you and counsel refuses J
21 22 to make it available; you don't have it available?
23 A. I don't have it here,'no.
24 Q. Who were the Duke participants in the Self Initiated T
25 Evaluation?
12 1 l
. l r
i i
T 1 !A. Mr. Huggett was the lead from memory. I could name two 2 or three. I'm not sure. There were eight or nine of them.
3 I'm sure the records could be available. I just don't remember d from memory. I know Mr. Wycke.
5 Q. Well, sir--
6 A. Several, I don't know the names.
7 Q. I would like you to tell me to the best of your recol-a lection counsel has refused to produce that document and
- unless you have a document in front of you that will refresh
'O your recollection, I have to ask you to the best you can based l'
on your recall.
12 To remember now, I have just to the best of my memory, as A.
33 I recall, Rob Adkins.
14 Q. Go down the list now, you said Huggett?
15 Howard Huggett.
A.
16 Q. Who is Mr. Huggett?
17 i;
A. He's an employee of Duke. He was at that time in the -
'8
- i Design Engineering Department.
i
'9 Q. All right, sir.
.f 20 i!s A. Mr. Tom Wycke was in the Design Engineering Department.
t 21 l Lane Freeze, who was in the Construction Department at Duke.
22 Mr. C. F. York was in Construction Department at Duke.
23 Mr. Ray Hollins is in the Construction Department at Duke.
24 Q. What did Mr. Hollins do?
i 25 ll A. I believe now he is the Manager of Construction Services.
13
(
gw.-.+.. - w. ~ . -. sy...e.- -
.ev_- e- .-,-o n . . - - + . . .w ~o . . ws.. ..,-n.s
._m . . ..,s -
l i
i o( l I can't be sure of that. There are several assignment 2 changes over the year, but I believe that's his present 3 position ~. From memory, that's all that I can remember right 4 now.
5 MR. GIBSON: I think you mentioned Mr. Adkins bafore 6 we started going through the list. That's one that you've 7 got.
8 Q. I don't have that.
9 A. Mr. Rob Adkins is in Quality Assurance Department.
10 H. L., I believe, is his initials.
11 Q. What does Mr. Adkins do?
12 A. I'm not sure right now. He was in the Engineering 13 part of the Quality Assurance, but'there have been several i
14
, changes within Quality Assurance since I left. I can't be 15 sure of his exact position right now.
16 Q. Describe the nature of the Self Initiated Evaluation.
17 A. The Self Initiated Evaluation is an evaluation of the
[
18 design and construction activities that relies greatly on
'f
! " the observation of actual work in progress to determine if the 20 work is being done in a manner that is acceptable and that 21 meets requirements. An evaluation relies less heavily on the l'
- 22 paper work, and it relies more on substance than form. Is
- 23 the work being.done in an acceptable manner; and if it's done 24 by a team of experienced people who observed the _ work and l
l' 25 interview people, talk to people, and review design activities ll; 14 ii
!I
a Y ' and draw conclusions as to whether or not the work is being i 2 done in an a:ceptable manner. ,
l 3
Q... What areas are reviewed?
4 A. All areas are subject to review. It depends upon the 5 team and the leadership as to which areas they go into; 6 obviously eignt or ten people over two weeks can't cover every- l 7 thing in design construction. So they use their judgment as a to what areas they pursue.
- Q. What areas were reviewed at Catawba in 1982?
'O A. I can't tell you from memory the areas that were reviewed.
O. Was Quality control Inspection reviewed?
12 A. Yes, it was reviewed, some parts of it.
'3 Q. Was the work of the Quality Ass'urance Department reviewed?
I
'd A. Yes.
15 Q. Was the work in Welding reviewed?
'6 A. Some of the Welding was reviewed. .You asked these questiona, j
l' I want you to understand when I say yes, I mean certain parts
'8 of that were reviewed. Obviously, did not review everything t
j
in Quality Assurance or everything in Welding or everything 20 in Design. But certain parts of all of those were reviewed, ;
yes.
22 Q. What did they review in the Welding area?
23 A. I cannot recall.
24 Q. In'what form are the results of the evaluation produced, r
25 Mr. Wells?
15
(
,j e ~%.. , ., , , , , . ,,
^ - - - - - - - " . mar %-
5' i A. There is an evaluation report generated.
2 Q. What is the nature of the report?
3 A. It lists the things that they looked at and the conclusions 4 they drew and what the Evaluator concluded about the area 5 that he looked at.
o Q. Does it make representations for corrective action?
7 A. There are several formats. INPO did not specify the 8 exact format, and it was up to them, the utilities I have 9 reviewed and I've reviewed twenty-three or twenty-four; some 10 made recommendations and some did not. I can't recall whether 11 the Duke one did.
12 Q. Do you know whether or not the evaluation reviewed the 13 identification and processing of c6nstruction deficiencies, 14 nonconforming items, et cete'ra?
15 A. From my memory, I cannot answer that. I just don't recall 16 if they looked into that. I don't remember that much specific 17 about the reports. I reviewed, as I said, at INPO, so many, 18 I reviewed all twenty -three or twenty-two or three, and I 19 can't remember the specifics about all of them.
20 Q. Tell me what you car, recall about the recults of the review 21 at Catawba Station'.
22 A. As I recall, all of the performance objectives and criteria 23 were concluded to be satisfactorily met. The Team had some 24 recommendations, I don't know if it was recommendations, but 25 some-items that they felt possibly could be improved; but the 16~
(
l i
=( l overall asseer.nent was that all performance objectives were 2 being met. Now that's my recollection without getting down 3 and reviewing the report again. It would be very hard to go 4 further than that on it.
5 Q. I would certainly be interested in having you review that 6 report; and at this time, I renew my request that the report 7 be made available so you could refresh your recollection.
8 MR. GIBSON: As I indicated earlier, that's not an 9 item at this time we are willing to make available as we 10 discussed at the end of the other deposition. You will identify 11 all those items, we will reconsider our position, and let you 12 know which items we will make available.
13 Q. I inform you at this time I would intend to question i
Id Mr. Wells on that subject and to the extent it's not available.
15 beyond today and you decline to make the report available, I 16 would ask that either the witness or the company bear the
'7 expense of making him available for further question.
16 MR. GIBSON: That's a matter that will have to be 19 resolved by the Board. Proceed with your questions.
20
'O. I just want you to understand my position.
21 MR. GIB30t[: I have heard it numerous cimes.
22 You're foreclosing another area of inquiry that the witness Q.
23 can't recall without reference to the document. .
24 '?Ut. GIBSON: Mr. Guild, the document will speak for 25 If you have any other questions abou3 itself if it's available.
- 17
(
4 I
I
_ _ . . -m __ _ _ _.____-_ _ - , -._m . -, m . . . - --
i i
i i
9 1 what he knows about the document, you can ask him. )
2 Q. What areas of improvement were suggested, recommended, or 3 what have you, in the Catawba evaluation, Mr. Wells?
4 A. I really can't recall. As I said, I was charged at INPO 5 with reviewing all twenty some, and they were right voluminous, 6 and I cannot recall the specifics without looking at the 7 particular document involved.
8 Q. Can you recall the areas?
9 A. No, I can't. They really run together when, in a period 10 of two or three weeks, you review twenty-two or twenty-three il documents. What was on one is on another. I just can't 12 recall. I would not be truthful if I said I could recall 13 from memory those items.
Id Q. Do you recall whether or not there were any recommendations is in the area of review and processing of construction deficien-16 cies?
'7 A. No, 1 can't; I'm sorry.
18 Can you recall whether there were any recommendations
- Q.
i for improvement in the area of welding?
20 A. No, I cannot recall.
21 Q. Mr. Welle, I would like for you, please, to describe for 22 me your job experience with Duke Power Company and when you 23 started with the company and the positions you have held and 24 when to the best of your recollection you advanced to those 25 positions.
18 4 -
d 4 4f 1 A. I will be glad to do that. I can recall that pretty 2 vividly. You have to remember that the position names within 3 Duke have changed over the years, so one job position namewise 4 would be different when I had it than it might be today.
5 Q. All right, sir.
6 A. I began my employment on July 1, 1957, at a coal-fired 7 construction, Coal fire generating plant at the Construction ,
8 Department as an Assistant Office Engineer. I held that 9 position till November of '66 at which time I was assigned to 10 the first nuclear project and was the Office Engineer for 13 awhile and then was Principal Field Engineer. The job titles 12 changed from time to time, but for the next five years, in 13 essence, I was in charge of the field' engineering at the nuclear
(
14 plant.
15 Q. Where was that, sir?
16 A. At Oconee. In March of '71, I was assigned to McGuire 17 Nuclear Station. The title was Assistant Project Engineer. !
I d In effect, I was in charge of the construction at the project l
j 19 in that job for a year until December of '71. From December
, 20 og 371 till February 1, 1974, I was Manager of Construction
" 2i Service in the Construction Department. . From February 1st of-22 '74 till my' assignment began at INPO on February 8th of 1982, 23 I was Corporate Quality Assurance Manager.
24 Q. What were your duties as Manager of Construction Services?
4 This was a new' position that since we~had so many jobs-25 g, I 19
(.
i i
, _ . _ . ~ __ ,, , . . _ _ .
a s( 1 going at the time, I was, in effect, the technical assistant 2 to Mr. Dick, who was the vice-President of Construction and 3 handled .for him the technical issues for all of our construc-4 tion work.
5 Q. How do you mean technical issues?
6 A. Well, I would deal with the job on construction-type 7 procedures, code related items. I was representing him on 8 several code committees, handled any interdepartmental work 9 with Design Engineering here or the Purchasing Department 10 for Mr. Dick during that two-year period, or a little more 11 than two-year period.
12 Q. Tell me, Mr. Wells, about your professional training and 13 experience prior to coming to work'for the company.
, /
14 A. I have a Bachelor's Degree in Civil Engineering and a 15 Master of Science in Civil Engineering, both from Georgia Tech 16 in Atlanta. I entered,right from school, I entered the 17 U. S. Navy in the Civil Engineer Corps, went to Officer i 18 Candidate School for two months, and then served about three
,1
! I? and a half years f.n the Navy' in the Civil Engineer Corps i
- 20 in Public Works and construction of Navy facilities. When I i
2' left the Navy, ILdorked for a year for a small contractor down <
22 near Charleston, where I got out of the Navy; and then in July 1, 23 1957, came with Duke Power in the Construction Department.
24 Q. When was the Quality Assurance Department at Duke Power j 25 organized, Mr. Wells?
.. 20 jk I -
l i
]
[ t I A. I was assigned to the job of Corporate QA Manager on l
i 2 February 1st of '74. We had a three-month transition period, 3 and.the official date of the organization of the Department 4 was May 1st of '74.
5 Q. There was no Quality Assurance Department before you were o assigned the position of Corporate Quality Assurance Manager?
7 A. That's correct.
l 8 Q. Was there a Quality Assurance program prior to the 9 organization of the Department?
10 A. Yes, there was. The program was in each department 11 involved,for example,the Construction Department'had its own 12 Quality Assurance program, the Design Engineering, and at that 13 time, the Steam Department, each had its own Quality Assurance
(
14 program.
15 Q. Who was responsible for the Quality Assurance program of 16 Duke Power Company overall? l i, 17 A. At that time?
la Q. Yes. ,
f,
': 19 A. Mr. Lee at that time was head of Engineering'and i
20 Construction Department. I' don't recall his title at this 21 time, but he was head of the Engineering Construction 22 Department; and in that role, was in charge of all Quality 23 Assurance for Engineering Construction.' Mr. Parker was the 24 head of the Steam Department and was responsible for- Quality 25 Assurance-activities within the Steam Department.
l 21
(
I c
\ 1 Q. I want to show you, it's a very poor copy, but this is the !
2 decision of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety 3 and Licehsing Appeal Board in the matter of Duke Power Company 4 William B. McGuire Station, Dockets 5369 and 5370. This is 5 ALAB 143, September 6, 1973. I will direct your attention in 6 that opinion to page 625 and it's footnote 11; and if you would 7 desire, read that footnote for the record. It's a little hard 8 to make out.
9 A. It's been two or three years since I had my glasses changed .
10 I'm not sure I can read this very small print.
Il O. I will read it for you, if you would like for me to.
12 A. Okay. That would be better if you would read it because 13 I could follow along.
14 All right. It says footnote 11, see testimony of Q.
15 Mr. Vassallo after transcript 3507 page 4 and transcript 3571, 16 3572, 3574, 3655, 3656, and the important part. Mr. Vassallo 17 also testified, and I will leave out the transcript referen':e, is that the staff's approval of the applicanc's current Quality
!! 3 Assurance organization was with the understanding that there 20 was going to be a separate corporato Quality Assurance Manager.
l l 21 The record reveals that that position initially is being filled 22 by the applicant's Vice-President for Engineering and 23 Construction who is acting in a dual capacity. The Regulatory 24 staff has the duty and responsibility to assure _that the 25 applicant appoints a separate corporate Quality Assurance 22 4
x
J IiManager in a timely manner. O therwise , the quote understanding if 2 unquote which the staff had in that regard, will not be 3 very meaningful. For thic reason, we believe that the 4 Corporate Manager for QA position should be filled as quickly 5 as possible with the period of one year, which commenced in o January of 1973,, being outside limit for such action. Are 7 you familiar with that decision? Have you ever seen that a before or heard that before?
9 A. I probably have. It's been ten years ago, and I was to involved and knew there was discussions about that; but to 11 say I have read that, no.
12 Q. Was it Mr. Lee who was then the Vice-President for 13 Engineering and Construction?
f 14 A. Yes, it was.
15 Q. Did he, at that time, also hold the position of Corporate .
16 Quality Assurance Manager?
17 A. For a period, he did. The snact dates, I can't say from 1 I
18 memory, but for a period of time during '73, he held that 19 position.
20 Q. Were you the independent full-time Corporate Manager for ,
21 Quality Assurance'that was appointed to replace Mr. Lee f.n 22 that position?
23 A. Yes, I was. I went into that job February 1, 1974, as I 24 previously stated.
25 Q. Why did Duke Power believe it appropriate, if it did,.for
- 23 i
i s
l I I Vice-President for Engineering and Construction to also manage 2 the Corporate Quality Assurance Department, Mr. Wells?
3 A, That was before my involvement as QA Manager. I cannot d answer why Mr. Lee felt it appropriate.
S Q. Do you have an understanding?
6 A. I don ' t know. No, I don't have any understanding of why 7 he felt it appropriate.
8 I want you to describe the circumstances, as you know Q.
- them, of your appointment to that position.
10 A. Well, I had, as you can see from your notes, a number of Il jobs within Duke, and it's always been that the person involved 12 would call you to his office or some place and ask that you 13 take that job and said that they had looked into the available
(
14 source of people and felt that that was the best for the is company and for you, and Mr. Lee asked me to do that, and that to is about all I can say of the circumstances.
17 Q. Did he explain at the time this po dtion was required to
]
l 18 be created by the Appeal Board of the Nuclear Regulatory l'
I Commission?
b 20
~
A. I was aware of that at the time of the commitments we 21 had made to establish a separate Quality Assurance. 7 22 Q. What was your opinion as to the appropriateness of having i
23 a separate Quality Assurance Department?
24 A. Management philosophies can vary from company to company.
25 I think it was a good move; however, even today, there are-y 24
(
_. _ _ _ . _ m...
- I a
9( I companies that are split and have a good success, so I personally 2 think it was a good move to do it, but I don't believe that's 3 the only way to have a successful Quality Assurance program.
4 Q. Do you know of nuclear constructors who have Quality 5 Assurance programs that are directed by the line construction?
$ A. Many organizations in the country. I personally don't 7 know of one that holds a dual job similar to Mr. Lee had today.
8 Back then there proba'bly was. I don't know of any.
9 Q. I'm trying to understand. It's your opinion it was better 10 to have a separate organization?
11 A. My opinion that on balance that offered some advantages 12 that the other would not, but I want to make it clear that 13 I feel many management structures could work and that the one i
i Id we arrive at is certainly not the only one that's acceptable is or satisfactory in my opinion. In my opinion, it was a good 16 ono. It probably was the best one in my opinion, but there 17 are many others that have worked before and since that tirac.
!l j
18 Q. What are the advantagea in your opinion to a separate l' organization of Quality Assurance?
} 20 A. I guess the biggest advantage is that you have some people -
? >
21 whose mind is free and' dedicated to do that job. It's not a 22 matter of they're more independent, I don't believe, I just 23 believe they have more time to do it. It's a time constraint 24 as opposed to independence, in my view, that makes'it more 25 desirable. 1
'25 -
l
-i I
.I
1 1
f 9I 1 Q. Are you familiar with the provisions of Appendix B to 10CFR 2 part 50?
3 A.- Yes,'I am.
4 Q. Are you familiar with the provisions of Criteria 1 with 5 respect to organization of Quality Assurance?
6 A. Yes, I am.
i 7 Q. 'fith regard to that criteria, the provision relating to 8 the QA organization, the persons and organizations performing 9 quality assurance functions, shall have sufficient authority H) and organizational freedom to identify quality problems, to 11 initiate, recommend, or provide solutions to verify implemen-12 tation of solutions. Such persons and organizations performing 13 quality assurance functions shall report to a management level Id such that this required authority in organizational freedom, 35 including sufficient independence from cost and schedule, when
'6 opposed to safety considerations, are provided. Do you 17 believe that the provision of independent quality assurance
~
- '8 organization has a significant contribution to neeting the
" requirement of that criteria?
l 20 A. That criteria said that persons. performing functions should 21 be suf ficiently independent. Certainly Mr. Lee, in his 22 position, reporting to the President of the company at that
. -23 time, was,.in my opinion, met, fully met, that requirement, 24 reporting to a level sufficiently high.
.l 25 You believe Mr. Lee had sufficient independence from cost Q.
26 )
(
j J
't '
and scheduling pressures to perform the quality assurance G(
l 2 function? )
3 Yes,. sir.
A .,
d Even when he was in charge of Construction and Q.
5 Engineering?
6 A. Yes, sir.
7 Q. You recognize that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8
didn't appear to agree with that?
- A. I'm not sure that they disagree with his independence, as
'O I said before. The reason I would think this was better is Il that the time to perform the job, certainly Mr. Lee's dedi-12 cation to quality is beyond question in the industry. Now 13 whether or not he has sufficient time to devote to it, I i
Id think it's a bigger concern than his independence. I don't is think there is anybody in the country more dedicated to quality ,
16 Q. Or more independent from cost or scheduling?
'7 A. Or more independent, yes.
ll
, l
'8
! Q. When you were assigned this position, what were the important tasks or responsibilities that Mr. Lee assigned to 20 you? .
21 A. Of course, all' the functions were being done at the time, 22 so primarily what it involved is a transfer of people from 23 the three departments, the Design Engineering, the Construction.
24 and the' Steam Department. The transfer of those people into 25 the QA and the combination of certain functions and the 27 1
,, ,w= a. - , . - - -. -- g --- 4 a' -g* - 4 e s = ***4 p ,m .m g = ~ % ,
J f I organization of the Department. We didn' t do anything differ-2 ent than had been done before because it had all been carried 3 on and handled in a very effective way, so it's just the same d people doing the same thing, just in a different department 5 and reporting to one central person instead of the three 6 departments. So my major function was to get the people in and assimilate them, and combine some of the functions that 8 were being done in the three different groups.
9 Do I understand correctly, Mr. Wells, that the people that Q.
10 joined the Quality Assurance Department upon its organization il were already performing exclusively Quality Assurance functions 12 in their various departments?
13 A. They were performing Quality Assurance functions, some-14 times not exclusively, and I might add, we brought people in
'S that were not in Quality Assurance functions from the different lo depar trents.
'7
.; Q.
So you did get some or pull some more people and some more
'8 2ime from the people that previously had QA responsibilities?
l A. Well.- we brought some new people in, yes. Then,on the 20 I other hand, there were a number of. people doing Quality 21 Assurance functions who stayed with their old department, so 22 on balance, we were doing the same thing. We weren't doing 23 any more or less, just with sometimes different people.
24 So, in your judgment, overall you don't think you had any Q.
25 more resources in terms of people?
28 i
i
/
, *( : A. We gradually built up more resources because we had, well, 2 right after that, Catawba started back up again, and we had 3 more work to do. Oconee Number 1 and 2 came on line, and we 4 had more work to do, so we didn't do anything differently, 5 but we had a little more to do and gradually got more people.
o O. Let me see if I'm reading you right. Lay aside the 7 increased Workload and the increased resources that came with a the workload, but at the time you organized the department, 9 if I understand you correctly, essentially you had no greater i 10 manpower resource, it was simply a transfer of functions and
! 11 people?
12 A. Essentially, that's correct.
13 Q. Approximately, or to the best 6f'your recall, how many 14 people were initially assigned to the independent Quality 15 . Assurance Department?
16 A. Ee have grown over the years, and I believe it was in
!(
17 f the neighborhood of in the seventies, seventies is my
't
- '8 , recollection.
19 Q. That did not include persons perforn.ing Quality Control
- ' 20 inspection functions?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. Where were they at the time?
23 A. Within the Construction. Department. They'were still in l 24 the Con'struction Department.
l 2s Q. Where th.y r.m.1n.e .ne11 c1ose to eh. ene of yo.r e.n.r.
'l 29
( -
N' q l
L
. _ . -___ . _ _ . _. , - .. - ~.i-,-._ _ , ... . . . .
, i
- i g .
a )
3^
1 in the position?
2 A. Yes, it was about a year, almost a year before I left 3 when they came over to the Quality Assuranca. I believe it 4 was in early '81.
5 Q. February of '81?
6 A. About that, which is about a year before I left.
7 Q. With regard to the QC function in construction, help me 8 understand during this period of time till February of '81 9 how the QA inspection function related to the work of the 10 Quality Assurance Department.
11 A. The function of the Quality Assurance relating to QC 12 inspectors were threefold, I guess. One was to provide them 13 with procedures to do their work by; second function relating i
ld to inspection was to certify inspectors to do the work, 15 provide certification for it; the third function would be
,. [
t:
- 16 to monitor by audits and surveillance the work of these
{
17 inspectors to insure they were performing inspections in an i' 18 acceptable manner.
19 Q. In what ways did the inspectors relate to the Construction 20 Department? .
l 5
- 21 A. Their relation' was.that the Construction would determine i
22 what they were to do and the schedule with which they were i
23 to do it was what work would be inspected today. They would
> l!
- 24 determine how long they needed to. work, whether they needed to i .
- [ 25 work overtime or work Saturdays or whatever.
They would deter-i i I.' .
30 l 1 F-ll '(-
1 8 ,
1
!L l lt i I ' . ,, . . = - - . . - . . : .:- . , , . . . , . .
. 4. _
I of 1 mine how many inspectors were needed,and they would determine 2 their pay scale.
! 3 0._ .Who supervised the inspectors in the performance of their 4 inspection work?
i '
5 A. They have supervisors within the Construction Department, -
6 first and second level supervisors are just as any craft would 7
i have.
a Q. Help me understand the structure. Who would the first 9 level supervisors over QC inspectors in Construction typically 1
10 be?
i l
11 A. By name?
1 j
12 Q. By title or essentially the job position. Would they be 13 an inspector?
t Id i
A. Usually there would be an inspector who had been pro-15 moted to a supervisor usually.
]
16 Would he usually exclusively supervise inspectors that Q.
17 the first level supervisor?
i li
}j 18 A. Yes.
i!
19 How about second level supervisor over inspectors, would
!! Q.
20 he be trained as an inspector?
21 A. Yes.
22 Would he typically supervise only QA inspectors?
Q.
23 Yes, A.
p 24 Q. Then the third level?
.' 25 A. I'm not sure there was a third level. The-second level o 31 .1 i
1 1
i depended on the size of the job. Catawba started out real 2 early. There may not have been a second level, but it's the 3 si,ze and number that depended upon the level; but as I recall 4 as far as inspectors and supervision, the first and second 5 level was really all there was, and then you get up, they 6 usually reported to some QA Engineer or QA Manager or something 7 of this.
8 Q. Where do they then go into the Construction chain of command?
9 A. They would go to the name, the title of the job changed 10 from time to time, but it was the equivalent to QC, Senior 11 QC Engineer or QC Engineer on the job who reported to the 12 Project Manager. The organization, of course, changed as the 13 job changed, but eventually the reporting line was to the 14 Construction Project Manager.
15 Q. He, the Construction Project Manager, supervised all other 16 craft as well as QC inspectors?
17 A. Yes.
i
' IB Was he the first. level supervisor who supervised other Q.
- 19 than simply Quality Control work?
?
20 .A. With who? ,
,F 21 Q. The Project Ma' nager.
22 A. He was not a first level supervisor.
23 Q. I understand that, but is he the lowest level supervisor 2d who had' responsibility for more than just QC inspection work?
i 25 Am I not being clear?
, 32 l
(
I '
'I I A. As I said, the organization changed over the years. You 2 are asking if there is someone between him and the QC that 3 is on the job? I don't believe there was. It's my recollectioa d was that there was not.
5 Q. Who is responsible for evaluating the job performance of 6 Quality Control inspectors during the period of time we're 7 talking about?
8 A. His supervisor.
9 Q. It would follcw the same chain of command as general
'O supervision?
II A. Yes.
12 Q. Up through Construction?
13 A. Yes.
1 14 Q. Who was responsible for supervisory review of the is inspection work that was performed?
16 A. The second level supervisor was responsible for the i 17 supervisor's under him for the review of their work as well as 18 all other aspects of supervision.
9 Q. Take an example as concrete as I can make it, tell me if 20 7 m misstating. I will try to frame this in a hypothetical 21 involving a piece of workmanship; and if I'm not stating it 22 correctly, please correct me. Let's take a welding exam.
23 Let's take an example of a weld that a welding inspector 24 determines is deficient. .The welding inspector determines that
- 25 it's appropriate to originate a Nonconforming Item Report for 33
l L
l l
'I I the deficiency. At the time prior to February of '81, who 2 l would be responsible for reviewing the validity of that 3 Nonconforming Item Report?
4 A. Mr. Guild, you will have to remember now that procedures 5 have changed over the years, and I can only give you what I 6 think, and the procedure may have changed even before '81 7 or even before I left QA; but as I recall, any nonconformance 8 was reviewed within the Construction Department up through
' their chain and their engineers and through their supervision.
10 It was then concurred with by Quality Assurance Department il persons and if he did not agree with it, then he would have 12 the right to refuse to accept it, and then other action 13 would have to be taken, but it was'first proposed up through 14 the supervision and through the Engineering and Construction is and when they said this is what we think it ought to be, 16 then Quality Assurance either would concur with it or disapprove i I7 it.
18 Did the Construction Department supervision have the Q.
<3 authority to void an NCI as you recall?
20 Well, NCI's were written; and if they were improperly A.
21 written, then, yes, at times it could be destroyed; but to 22 not in any way imply that the work was voided or wouldn't be-23 taken care of. It may have been'that it was written wrong 24 and needed to be reworded or some reason; but from time to 25 time, NCI's were voided for one reason or another.
{
- i. 34
'I T
- . _ . . . . . _ . ..m._
a T 1 Q. How about if it represented a disagreement between the 2 inspector and the supervision concerning the validity of a 3 nonconf6rmance as an NCI?
d At this point in time, we, in the Quality Assurance did A.
5 not get involved in it until it was up through their management 6 and presented to QA for concurrence, so I can't answer that 7 because it was not within my realm of responsibility.
8 At Q. I want to understand a little more about that then.
9 what point would a representative from Quality Assurance 10 Department be involved in that review, when would you, your 11 team, see the NCI and have an opportunity to review it?
12 When it was approved by the appropriate level within A.
13 construction and these . levels varied from time- to time, but t
Id we would see it and approve of it after they had looked at 15 it and approved it.
16 All right, sir, as you understand it, sir, could an NCI Q.
17 i be originated by an inspector during these times but not 18 be logged or have a number assigned to it and be voided by l'
l inspectors' supervision as not a proper treatment as a 20 Nonconforming Item?
21 A. I don't know the exact process over the years or when 22 I did not get into things are logged and when they aren't.
23 that detail.. I do know that these are changed over the period 24 of time as to when it's logged and when it's not. I think in 25 all honesty in that period of time, they did not work for QA
-. 35
(
l I
1 I ,
9[ 1 and that question would have to be properly asked to the 2 people that were supervising them because I just did not--
3 don't recall all of the details.
4 Q. Is it fair to say you're not aware of that practice either 5 did or did not occur?
6 A. As I said earlier, I was aware that certain NCI's were 7 Voided for one -reason or another, but I did not get into the 8 details of why.
9 Q. Do I understand you correctly as a matter of procedure 30 given the organizational structure of the QA Department under
- 11 you would not see those NCI's till they already passed review 12 of the QC inspection supervision?
13 A. When you say see, I don't know'that's the proper word.
(
14 Sometimes we may have gotten copies, but what I say is our J
15 final approval of.it is after it had been signed off by the 16 appropriate levels within our Department, our official approval j 17 of those or concurrence, I guess you might say.
is Q. I want to understand the best that you can recall as a j
19 matter of procedure and practice, would the QA Department 20 have had an opportunity to review a Nonconforming Item 21 prior to the QC in'spector supervisor determining that it was 22 invalid or valid?
, 23 A. The QA Department? All the way from the start had the '
24 opportunity to review at any time any quality related
{ 25 documents even through the period of time it was being prepared..
36-(-
.)
)
l 4
c_ . - . - .J, , . ..v.,- .
- -+-< m+---n Q - ~.---*;-~.~~~o~ -- -- ~ ,_ --
. _ . . . . . . ~ . - . . . . . . . _.
i
- [ t 'You have the. complete freedom to see it at any time. What 2 I'm saying is that the official approval came at a certain l 3 step in it after it had been approved by Construction, but we 4 frequently, on surveillances or audits, would look at some 5 even when they were half finished or any time, so when you say o we had the opportunity, QA always has the opportunity to see 7 any documents at any time.
8 Q. That word opportunity was your word not mine. I want to 9 know if it was a practice or procedure to do that review.
10 A. It was a practice to do surveillance as an audit but not 11 to review one hundred percent of them until the appropriate 12 time in the procedure which was after it had been signed by 13 the Construction people; but, yes, 'it was our practice to 14 review those from time to time during the regular audits is and surveillances.
16 MR. GIBSON: It's 12:15. Would continuing awhile enable l
17 you to finish Mr. Wells, or_do you contemplate taking a lunch t
j 18 break?
- ) 19 Q. I would like to finish Mr. Wells as quickly as possible, 20 but I'm not going to finish in ten or fifteen minutes and the 21 question is whether or not Mr. Wells' schedule is such that
- 22 he would like to take a lunch break. I would prefer, frankly, 23 to keep going.
24 MR. GIBSON: What I would suggest, if we can finish by 25 1:00, we'll do that. If you don't think we can finish by 1:00, 37
(
, ~. , , ,
. -- - .= . . . - _-. . __ _
j ,
V 1 we'll take a lunch hour.
2 Q. Let's take a lunch break.
3 -
LUNCHEON RECESS 4 Q. Mr. Wells, I want to show you a document. It's entitled 5 " Topical Report Quality Assurance Program," it's figure o 17.1-8, it's Amendment 1 to that report. Can you identify 7 that, sir?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Does that reflect the organization of the Quality 10 Assurance and Quality Control functions with the company at 11 the point in time when the Department was being organized in 12 19747 13 A. Yes, I believe that's' correct.'
14 Look at it with respect to the organization that appears, Q.
l 15 I believe it's some sort of a dotted box on the left of the 16 figure, and does that indicate the organization of the project?
17 A. Yes, that's my recollection that's correct.
l '8 Q. That would have been the organization at Catawba?
l 19 A. That was the organization at the start of the QA Department .
20 We had some changes from time to time, but that was the 1
21 organization that was at all projects during that period.
- 22 Q. Would that have been in 1974?
23 A. Yes.
24 Let's mark this Exhibit 1. Look at this chart here; and j Q.
25 if I can share it with you, who would have held the position of 38
(,
N 4
L*
I
=; 1 QA Manager Construction during that period of time?
2 A. I believe at the first, it was Mr. C. B. Aycock. We had 3 a , number of changes; and without a-chronology, I cannot from 4 memory recite, but he was the first one.
5 Q. How long was that position maintained?
6 A. That position was maintained, I believe, I left.
7 Q. So there was at the point where you left, there was a 8 QA Manager Construction?
9 A. Yes, although we might have changed the name of it. It 10 seems like we changed the name to QA Manager Project, but it 11 was essentially the same job; as I said earlier, we changed 12 the names from time to time.
13 Q. QA Management Project would have been the position held 14 by Mr. Larry Davison?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Did Mr. Davison take that position immediately after j
17 Mr. Aycock or was there someone else?
i j 18 A. There was an intermediate.
j 19 Q. Who was that before?
20 A. Between them was L. R. Barnes and Wayne Henty. Both had-21 that position.-
22 Q. First Mr. Barnes and then Mr. Henry?-
23 A. Mr. Barnes lef t the employ of Duke and came back again.
24 My memory is a bit fuzzp. I think it was Barnes and then
, 25 Henry. I believe that's the order.
39 :
l l
l l
l
_t,_
l i
! I 1( 1 Q. The dotted box indicated to be the field, what is the 2 significance of that little box there, can you tell me what 3 that mea'ns?
4 A. Well, that means that those positions were physically 5 located in the field at the site.
6 Q. At Catawba?
7 A. Well, at either project. Yes, at Catawba as opposed to 8 being in Charlotte.
9 Q. I understood from your description and other testimony 10 that the QC function inspector function reported to 11 Construction through the QC supervision that you outlined.
12 Help me understand how that's reflected in this organization 13 chart, if it is.
14 A. Of course, that's not reflected in here. The dotted and 15 dashed lines are the functional responsibilities, and I 16 believe we went over those in quite detail earlier.
17 Q. By functional, you have referenced to the manner in which 18 QC reported to Quality Assurance in the three functions that 19 you identified, is that right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. But there would be 2 the functions identified as reporting 22 to Construction would not be reflected in this organizational 23 chart, is that right?
24 A. I believe I outlined for you those items for which QA was 25 responsible and those items for which Construction was.respon-
. 40
\
l
/
( 1 sible, and that was the way they were lined up. We'd call 2 one administrative and one functional.
3 Q. .Let me give you a piece of paper, if I can, and to the 4 best of your recollection with reference to this diagram, and 5 I'm talking particularly about Catawba now, draw for me the o relationship between the Quality Control function that you 7 have outlined and the Project Manager in Construction, the a administrative reporting you have described earlier, if you
? would.
10 A. I don't know that I can from memory draw organization 11 charts. I would be glad to describe it as best I recall.
12 Q. If you can draw it out as best you recall, I would 13 appreciate the caveat that you're doing it from memory and to 14 the best of your recollection, but I would like to try to, is for comparison purposes, as best you can recall, Mr. Wells.
16 A. Let me explain this before I draw anything. As I recall 3
17 at one point in time, we had what was called a Project Engineer is who reported to the Project Manager and one of the jobs, the 19 Senior QC reported to the Project Engineer, and then that 20 title has been changed from time to time, and my recollection 21 is that the Senior QC at least in the later stages reported 22 directly to the Project Manager at Catawba. Now that's the 23 best of my recollection. I can't be positive without seeing 24 charts'and reviewing them back, but I don't know there's much 4 ,
!: 25 to draw. The matter of QC Engineer reporting to the Project
! 41 t (
i- .
. - - . - . . ,. 4- ,
i of 1 Manager is my recollection.
2 Q. If you could, I would like for you to show on that 3 graphically the chain from the Quality Control Inspector 4 up through the levels of supervision, as best you recall, from 5 that.
6 A.
I would be completely out-- because so many titles were 7 changed, and so many-- as I said earlier, at one time, we only 8 had first line supervision, and then we added a level as the 9 project grew. I would be glad to review any charts you might 10 give to me or anything, but I just don't feel comfortable 11 drawing charts from memory when they are so voluminous, the 12 charts are, and they changed quite frequently, the titles 13 and that sort, so to draw an organi'zational chart from memory, 14 I just don't feel comfortable, and I will be giving you the 15 correct information because I just can't remember.
16 Q. My problem, I guess,' Mr. Wells, is that none of the 17 organization charts that I have seen reflect the relationship i
, 18 between Quality Control and Construction that I have heard 2
lj 19 you describe and has been described in testimony of others 20 and that I understand to be the actual way that the Quality
,; 21 Control function was organized, and so I can't present you 22 with an organization chart that reflects that because there '
23 isn't one to the best of my knowledge. That's why I'm asking 24 you.if'you can to sketch one out for me. Your testimony is 25 that you can't do that?
, . 42 t.
~
l i
l i 1 A. My testimony is that I'm a little rusty on it this long.
2 It's been nearly ten years now. Some of these. And there have 3 been a lot of changes, and my testimony is that this reflects 4 the way it is and that this person here reported to the 5 Project Manager or maybe earlier to a Project Engineer.
6 Q. Who was this person here that you're indicating?
7 A. The Senior QC Engineer, administratively to either the a Project Manager or the Project Engineer.
9 Q. As opposed to functionally to the Project Senior QA 10 Engineer as shown on this chart?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. I want to show you a document, Mr. Wells, and ask if 13 you can identify that. Have you sden that before, sir?
14 A. Yes, I have seen this document.
15 Q. Would you identify what that is?
16 A. It's the NRC Licensing Assessment Report Nureg 0834.
17 Q. Are you familiar with that document?
j 18 A. I have seen it and was familiar with it. I see so many 19 NRC documents, I don't think I can recite from memory what's 20 in it, but I have seen it, yes, and I'm familiar with what it
' 21 is.
22 Q. I want to direct your attention to Appendix Page B1, and 23 there's reflected the assessment of the Catawba Station, is 1
24 it not', for that review period?
25 A. That's correct.
43
! (
i I
r e , - ,
~ - , - -
e
! l ,
'( l Q. Catawba there is shown rated below average along with, 2 I think, six other facilities, the Zimmer Plant, the Midland 3 Plant-- -
4 A. I can't testify about the others, because I don't recall.
5 It's my recollection that Catawba did receive for that period 6 the below average.
7 Q. Take a look at that report, if you doubt my statement, the 8 other plants are listed right along that way.
9 A. Yes.
H) Q. Yes and out of some fifty some plants under construction, il Catawba Units 1 & 2 for that period were rated among the 12 seven below average plants.
13 A. I don't believe-- I can't testify to the numbers that you 14 say. Of fifty, it was seven? I don't recall those numbers.
15 Q. Would you accept that subject to change?
16 A. Would I do what?
17 j Q. Would you accept that representation subject to change?
18 No, I do not.
A. That's not my recollection.
~
19 Q. What's your recollection.
20 A. That it was among the ones, but not seven out of fifty.
21
- I don't know how many. If they said it some place in there, 22
{ than that would be an official document, but it's not my 23
! recollection that those are the right figures.
24 i Q. Let's see'if I can refresh your recollection so we can be 25 talking about it right. Here's Table'2 to this same report tha 44 i
i A.-e,,, . .4 . - _ _- - - e-- ^- - . ~ - - - - -
w
=( i rates it. It lists the ratings of average facilities under 2 construction. Would you accept there are fifty-four units 3 sat.forth there as average, counting multiple unit sites as 4 multiple units.
5 A. Well, the numbers, for example, Calloway Unit 2 has never o been under construction. It was cancelled well before it 7 even got underway. Cherokee Units 2 & 3 the same. Many of a these units, your numbers, if it's on the record, then the
? record speaks for themselves, but I can't in this short period
- 10 say that there was fifty because I know,for example, Calloway 11 Unit 2 has never been a unit. It was committed, but it was 12 never started, so it had no record. I know the same with 13 Cherokee 2 & 3. I know the same with Phipps Bend, for example.
14 A lot of the others. Sharon Harris 3 & 4 were never started, 15 so I can't conclude that those numbers, if those numbers are 16 part of the record, then that's the record.
17 Q. I guess my point is Catawba did real bad in that rating, 18 and do you dispute that?
19 A. Yes, I absolutely dispute they did real bad. If you would 20 read the report, the NRC, it was my recollection stated that-23 Catawba was meeting all requirements of the NRC.
22 Q. By comparison, and that's the point of this document I 23 want to ask you about, sir, it was among the seven facilities 24 that rated below average; and as I counted, there are fifty-25 four individual units set out as average in the NRC's document, 45 p -
- .. i . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
3 I
i l '
1 not mine, and those represent twenty or thirty different
-(
2 facilities, and that's bad my any measure, isn't it?
3 A. . No , -sir .
4 Q. You disagree with that? You don't consider that a bad 5 rating for Catawba?
6 A. No, I don't.
7 Q. I'm interested in your opinion. Turning to Appendix B 8 Page 1, the first line of the rating, this is for an evaluation 9 period 9-1-79 to 8-31-80, Catawba facility displayed evidence 10 of weakness in the area of Quality Assurance including manage-11 ment and training. Were you aware of that rating?
12 A. Yes, I have read that.
13 Q. I want to understand what response did you, as head of 14 Quality Assurance, make to this rating reflected in that is finding by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
16 A. If you look at the dates of the periods covered, from
, 17 my recollection, the periods covered were about-- ended about 18 six months before that report was issued and covered the. pre-
!, 19 vious year approximately.
20 Q. Yes.
21 A. Therefore, the' items that were rated as needing corrective 22 action were anywhere from one and one-half years old to a 23 half a year old, somewhere in that range. It'was Duke's position.
24 during'the period that whenever we received a report from the 25 NRC, we took immediate corrective action to get it back into 46
\
. - . . . - - ~ . . . - . . ~ , . . - . - .
l l
s
( 1 compliance or to resolve the matter with the NRC; so as I 2 recall, there was no action dictated or necessitated by the 3 issuance of this report because the items were six months to 4 a year and a half old and had already been taken care of.
5 Q. So the response had already occurred prior to the issuance 6 of the report? ,
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Well, the deficiencies are identified and what I want to 9 understand is what the response was to the deficiencies, 10 whether it occurred at the time of this report or whether it 11 occurred six months or earlier before that, particularly 12 as they relate to the criticism of weaknesses in the area of 13 Quality Assurance, your area, what response are you aware was 14 taken, if any?
15 A. I believe I have said already that we took the responses lo as the reports came out from NRC during that period, and we 17 corrected the items as they occurred. This is a historical 18 report and required no action by the NRC_and required no action 19 by Duke because it was things that happened a year and a half 20 to a half a year earlier and had already been responded to 21 and action taken, so no action was taken as a direct result 22 of this report.
23 Q. You said that already. That's not the focus of my line 24 of questions. My focus now, Mr. Wells, is what you did in 25 response to the underlying findings, if you did anything. If
. 47
.(
l l
I 2( 1 you didn't do anything about those, tell me. What did you 2 do to respond to Quality Assurance weaknesses that were i
3 characterized by inadequate design reviews, procedures not 4 issued, specifications and commitments not translated into 5 procedure, audit programs not established, numerous items of 6 noncompliance, failure to follow procedures for activities 7 involving welding, concrete placement, design, Quality 8 Control inspections, records control, and electrical equipment 9 installation. What did you do about those things?
j 10 A. I have repeated it twice again, but I will say it again.
11 Q. I don't want to know as a result of this report what did 12 you do about the underlying findings?
13 A. We took corrective actions. There were many, many reports 14 issued during the period of the year and whatever action was is needed, we took it at the time it was found.
16 Q. I want you to tell me about the most significant actions
- j 17 you can recall; if you recall any actions at all, I want to l 18 know what they are. What did you do as head of Quality 19 Assurance to respond to the pretty wide range of criticism of I
20 Quality Assurance at Catawba?
21 A. I guess to ans'wer your question is that there were many 22 actions taken during the year that these reports came out. I
,j l 23 would not characterize any mie of them as being more significant 24 than most significant. I cannot recall specific actions. We i
25 could get back to the NRC Inspection Report. We have to answer
.. 48
(
l
. _ . _.. _~_ . m4 y i every one of them and they're a public record. NRC has those 2 and they are in a public room, and every one of them had to a be answered and we had to say what we did, so I cannot identify 4 anything specifically nor can I identify the most significant 5 one.
6 Q. Whatever action you took is reflected in the underlying 7 inspection report?
a A. In the response.
9 Q. Your response to that inspection?
10 A. Our response. We have to make a response to every 11 inspection report that has an action.
12 Q. Were any significant changes made that you can recall, 13 Mr. Wells, in the way the Quality Assurance program operated at 14 Catawba during that period?
15 A. No, during the eight years I was Quality Assurance Manager, 16 we had many changes through the years, through the eight years.
i 17 I would not characterize any one of them as being significant is or great. It was a gradual change we felt we could do things j 19 a little.more effective, or a little cheaper, or so ong . but 20 during that year, no, I can't say that we made any substantive 21 changes that I would consider real significant.
22 Q. Catawba received a relatively large number of items of 23 noncompliance when compared with other power facilities under 24 construction. Most of the items of noncompliance were attrib-25 uted to weakness in the licensing Quality Assurance and l:
L o. 49
! (
h 1
l
I s
,( 1 management overview process. How did you understand that l 2 finding by the Licensee Assessment Board of the NRC? ;
3 A. .I understood it that it was just a numbers game, that they a counted the numbers of various reports and noncompliance 5 items. You have got to remember just pure numbers are very 6 misleading. For example, a plant with only five or six hundred 7 people working at a particular stage may not have near as many as 8 a plant with four thousand working. You can't conclude that 9 the one with four thousand is a worse plant just because 10 they have more noncompliances. That conclusion doesn't, in 11 my view, it's not justified. Pure numbers.
12 Q. That's what you're saying they were using-as pure numbers?
13 A. They are using primarily numbers, yes.
14 Q. Were they using primarily numbers or exclusively?
15 A. I don't know about exclusively. Most of what they were 16 using was numbers like the number of noncompliance, the number j
17 of reportable instances that we reported, things of that sort t
- 18 that they counted up and used those numbers.
j 19 Q. What did you understand they were comparing?
20 A. There were, as my understanding, just raw numbers without 21 taking into account the status of the job.
22 Q. Raw numbers of what, sir?
23 A. Things that are in there, nonconformances, reportable
. 24 instances that we reported to'them, anything that they require 25 us to report to them.
~
- e. 50
(
- ~--
.._, .4 ._...~ ,.._, ... .
I 8
l b(
3 Q. It's your opinion that this was an invalid comparison becausel l l 2 it was based solely on raw numbers?
' 3 A. .I would not want to call the NRC report invalid. I would l 4 say there was a lot of numbers reported and the fair rating 5 or below average rating was based primarily on those numbers 6 and in my judgment, the numbers don't tell the whole story, 7 but I'm not going to accuse the NRC of a false report by any 1
8 means.
9 Q. Well, what I really want to understand is-- I appreciate 10 you being a tactful and not wanting to offend the NRC, but my 11 question is, is it valid or not valid or sort of valid, did
' 12 you take it as serious criticism or it's ridiculous, or it's 33 invalid comparison?
14 A. Every report we received from the NRC during my tenure of 15 work was seriously considered and not considered trivial, 16 and we answered it to the best of our ability and changed thing: s
! '7 if it dictated it, so I don't want to imply I regarded it 18 trivial. I do not believe that on balance that the Catawba 39 Station is below average of all the power plants. I think it's
~
20 a way they did the reports that made it show up below average, 21 not the quality od the work at the ' job.
22 Q. Well, it either reflects-- let's understand this way.
23 Thht conclusion and that comparison either reflects -badly on 24 Catawba, Mr. Wells, or it-reflects badly on the NRC, don't you 25 think? You can't have it both ways, can you?
51 t
-(
1 l
J
(~ 1 A. Oh, yes, that's not a valid conclusion in my view. For 2 this reason. NRC, the people that did this, had strict guide-l 3 lines pdt upon them, and they had very little discretion 4 review or opinion. It was just they put down the numbers and 5 if the numbers came out a certain way, then that's how they 6 had to report it, and it was not a judgment based on their 7 inspections that it was below average. It was just the numbers 8 came out that way.
9 Q. How did you understand that?
10 A. Because that's the way I read the report, and I have read 11 and discussed with them how they came up with it.
12 Q. Who did you discuss it with?
13 A. I have discussed it with the re'sident inspector down there
(
14 and with several of the inspectors that came up from Atlanta 15 office from time to time.
16 Q. That's what they told you?
17 A. They told me that it reflected the guidelines they received 18 from the I and E in Washington on how to prepare the SALP 19 report.
20 Q. They didn't think it was valid, 21 A. I did not say that.
22 Q. What did they think?
23 A. They were just following instructions of Washington. I 24 don't know they expressed an opinion except somewhere in the 25 report, they did state the opinion that Catawba was being built 52
-( -
r __ _ _
4 I ,
I
=( l in accordance with the regulations, and it was nothing there 2 that did not meet the NRC regulations.
3 Q...They said that a' bout all the below average plants, is that l 4 right?
5 A. I don't know. I know they said it about Catawba.
6 Q. They say it specifically about Catawba?
7 A. I know they said it about Catawba. I don't know about i
8 the other plants.
9 Q. Do you know whether it was specifically about Catawba?
10 A. No, I don't.
11 Q. Below average does not mean a facility was unsafe, whether 12 it's operation or construction should be stopped, the expected 13 performance level for a nuclear fadility is high and it i
14 should be rating of below average means the facility was not 15 meeting the full measure of these high expectations and that to relative to the population of nuclear facilities, performance 17 was judged less than desirable than other facilities, is that 18 the caveat you were referring to?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. of course, if they said otherwise, they wouldn't-- they 21 would follow from that, that they wouldn't be in the business 22 of licensing seven plants to operate, would they?
23 A. I don't know about that. It's beyond my capability to 24 answer'a question like that.
25 Q. But are you aware of the current status of some of these
. 53
(
- l
- l i
9( l other plants that Catawba was rated among below average with?
2 Are you aware of what the status of Midland, for example?
3 3 A. -I'm' aware of the number of plants through primarily hearsay 4 or reading in the newspapers or the trade magazines.
5 Q. You work for the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations 6 and evaluate plants, don't you?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. You learn from them what happens to plants like Midland?
9 A. Yes, I have read various things.
10 Q. Are you aware that Midland is under serious orders to--
11 for significant reinspection because of Quality Assurance 12 deficiencies?
13 A. The word serious I would delete, but I'm aware they are 14 under order to do reinspection.
15 Q. How about South Texas similarly?
16 A. I'm aware of the problems, as I said, primarily from 17 reading trade literature that's available to anybody, the 18 newspapers, the NRC reports, and so on that come out.
19 Q. Zimmer Plant, are you aware of the Commission's stop work 20 order at the Zimmer Plant?
J 21 A. I'm aware.
22 Q. One hundred percent reinspection of safety-related- -
23 A. I'm not aware of that detail whether it's a hundred or 24 what.
2 25 Q. Significant?
- 54
-(
l
i s {
i
( i!A. Some, yes, sir.
? Q. Take a look, Mr. Wells, the samo characterization the 3 NRC. appl-ied to Catawba for that rating period, significant
- 4 weakness in Quality Assurance applied to Zimmer and Midland 5 and South Texas and others?
4 3 A. I will agree that the NRC rated them the same.
7 Q. And you just reject that as an invalid conclusion that a they are in the same category?
9 A. I haven't said that. I don't know enough about all of 10 these other plants. As I said, only what I have read in the 11 papers. I do know up till the time I left of Catawba, and 12 I feel that it's being built in full accordance with our 13 construction permit, but as far as'the other plants, whether i
14 it's better or worse, I have no way of knowing except what I 15 read.
16 Q. Or accept the systematic assessment?
17 A.- That's what I say, which I read, which is in'the public 18 domain. This is in the public domain, anybody can read this.-
19 You can read newspapers, and you can read--
20 Q. That's not a newspaper. report.
Y '
j 21 A. No, that's NRC. As I say, I'm not in a position to judge
, 22 these other plants and compare them with Catawba.
23 Q. Well, I: guess I'm not really.asking you to do that. What-24 I'm asking you to do'is.either accept or tell me why I'm wrong 25 in at face'value seeing at that-period of_ time when you were 55-1 I
o
i
\
a i
i i( i in charge of Quality Assurance at Catawba, it was rated among 2 the worst plants in the country. Those plants are terrible, 3 not. Catawba, I'm asking you to characterize your own plant 4 as terrible. We all know, and it seems to be common knowledge 5 these days, what's happened since those dates to Zimmer and--
6 A. I don't know the TVA Watts-Barr Plant, it's rated in the 7 same way.
8 Q. That's true.
9 A. Washington Nuclear Project 2 I've never heard too much.
10 Q. It has its other problems.
11 A. Money problems, but everybody has that, I guess. I can't 12 conclude from this report that Catawba was in terrible shape 13 and neither did the NRC conclude that.
(
14 Q. They just put them in among some pretty rotten apples?
15 A. No, they did not. They said they were being operated in 16 accordance with requirements. It says here, all of them were.
17 Q. All of them including Zimmer?
18 A. That's what they said.
19 Q. They later found Zimmer was shut-- they shut construction 20 down there. You know that, don't you?
21 A. Yes, I was aware of that. They didn't find that on 22 Catawba though.
23 Q. Not yet, they sure didn't. What I want to understand, I'm 24 a lay p'erson. I'm not in the business of building nuclear plan :s 25 or running Quality Assurance Departments. I'm a lawyer, and 56 i
i
,( i I'm representing a client and we're concerned about this, and 2 I want the best of your ability, Mr. Wells, for you to tell 3 me_ whether I should just rest on your earlier response, which 4 says you don't think-- you think that's an invalid comparison 5 for the reasons you stated and that any action that was taken' o was taken long before this report was issued and nothing 7 was significant that stands out in your mind that responded a to that finding, and if there is anything else you can tell me 9 about what response you made that you know about, I would to love to hear about it.
11 A. For example, one of the things that went into the SALP 12 report, was how many items a utility reports to the NRC, and 13 some utilities-- the law and regulations on this is at least
( leave some room for judgment, and some utilities report more 14 15 than other utilities, but yet Duke has a practice of not hiding 16 anything. We don't hide anything from anyone, and we reported 17 things as reportable items to the NRC that perhaps some of 18 the others may not, which made us show up in the final which 19 really we were doing better reporting in some cases. I just 20 can't conclude that by the numbers they came up with, that this 21 indicated that C.at'awba Plant had serious deficiencies. That's 22 just my conclusion.
l 23 Q. Let's focus on that observation for a moment. One of the 24 Indicators of deficiencies in construction are historically 25 have been the use of the Nonconforming Item Report at Catawba,
- o. 57
~
(
_ . _q
\
l I correct?
mf 2 A. What's that question?
3 Q ,The Wonconforming Item, one f the devices that you have 4 used to identify construction deficiencies at Catawba, is the 5 Nonconforming Item Report?
I 6 A. Yes, 7 Q. And I understand from testimony of others that routinely
) -
8 now those NCI's are sent over to the NRC resident. Were they
)
9 done that way at the tims you were at QA? !
10 A. It's my recollection that he had access to anything that 11 he wanted to see,as he always does, but it's my recollection 12 that we didn't routintly send them to him unless he asked for 13 them. Then he could get anything he wanted.
I 14 Q. The identification of significant deficiencies provided l
i l 15 for in the processing of Nonconforming Item Report, correct?
16 A, yes, 17 Q. So one reviews the NCI to determine whether or not it's l
18 reportable under 55-E as a significant deficiency, correct?
19 A. Yes, that's correct.
20 Q. That's how that report would be made to'the NRC, correct?'
21 A. That's not the only way of reportable items that are 22 identified. <
23 Q. Help me understand othe'rs. I'araware of that. Are.there' -
24 other w'ays?
25 A. Well, anyone in Duke Power, if the.v, feel there's if signifi- ~
.. c, l ; /" 58 ,
l ( <!
t
'f.
'\ -
i bT K
I l
'( 1 cant safety item that should be reported, anyone is instructed 2 to carry it up through their supervision to get a judgment 3 ma,de. For example, some items are reported are items that are 4 in Design Engineering or come in from vendors that aren't 5 l. put on an NCI, so it's my recollection,at least back when I 6 was in there, that there were some items reported as 5055-E 7 or Part 21 that were not NCI's.
a Q. Would you agree that most of them were through the NCI 9 process?
10 A. I think most of them were.
11 Q. There has been testimony that the number of the procedures 12 have changed and that the number of NCI's used to be much 13 higher than it is now, at least let's say in the welding area, j
14 are you aware of that?
15 A. No, that's happened since I left that the procedures were 16 changed, and I have not been keeping track of whether they i
17 have gone up or down. I couldn't answer that.
la Q. Well, did you trend NCI's when you were--
19 A. We had a trending program, yes.-
20 Q. So you were aware from time to time whether the number of 21 NCI's were going ufp or coming down when you were there?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Was that one of those measures, numerical measures, of 24 the quality of construction of the Planc?
25 A. No, I don think so. In fact, the Plant was a lot more--
59 i
l 1 __. . __ __
i l
' l i a lot more NCI's might mean a better quality because that
[
2 means you're picking up on the things that other plants might 3 be missing; no if a plant has twice as many NCI's as another 4 one, it doesn't mean it's worse. It may well be better.
5 Q. I heard you say that. I want to understand. Is that one 6
of the numerical measures that is subject to Ndsleading 7 application because it's a numbers game that has to be con-a sidered in the context of what the standard you are using to 9 write something up, for example?
io A. Any number, yes, any number is subject to interpretation ii and is subject to being misleading if you don't know the 12 basis for which you use it, any number.
13 Q. But when you do a trend analysis of NCI's, you rely on
( numbers on the assumption that you're using a consistent i4 is basis of measurement, is that fair?
16 A. I guess, yes, we trend it, yes.
17 Q. If you make a change in the procedure that has an effect is on the basis of measurement, you would expect that would.be 19 something external to quality that would affect - the numbers, 20 don't you?
2i A. I don't unders'tand that question.
22 Q. .Let's say you.do something different because of procedure.
23 change, there are fewer items identified as NCI's and maybe 24 more items identified as through some process control device.
25 That wouldn't have anything to say about any change in the 60 I
l <
l 1
l
( 1 quality of work, it would simply reflect the change in pro-2 cedure, and you want to know about change in procedure to 3 understand the effect on the trend, wouldn't you?
4 A. Yes, if you change the method of counting, yes. I mean 5 the criteria, yes.
6 Q. I guess what I want to understand since your time we 7 talked considerably about changes and procedures that have a changed numbers, now what I want to understand in your experi-9 ence when you were at the company working in this area, were 10 there any changes in procedures that attempted to address this 11 numbers issue, that attempted to deal with the question of 12 whether or not you were simply creating a false impression to 13 the NRC about the quality of the pfant?
(
14 A. There were many changes made during my eight years. I 15 can assure you that no change was made just to make ourselves ,
16 look better. Frequently you change procedures to expedite 17 getting the work done in a more expeditious and safer way and 18 more economical way, and we all know that we're bogged down 19 with a lot of paper work and we work hard in our procedures to 20 cut down on the paper, hoping that_would improve quality, and 21 that was our goal,'not to prove we had less of something. That 22 never was a goal during the period I was there.
23 Q. Let's focus on the question of trying to be more efficient 24 and cut down on paper work. What kind of changes were made 25 in this procedure.for identifying construction deficiencies that.
61 i
. , . . . - . . - . _ _ _ . _ ___ - . . . . . - . . - - , . ~ . . _ - . . . _ . . _ . . . _ . . . . , . , _ _ . .
d I accomplished that goal when you were there?
2 A. I don't believe we had made in that particular area much 3 ch'ange d'uring the period I was there. There were some changes d in how the paper was routed, hoping to be a little more 5 efficient, maybe cutting down on the numbers of copies that 6 go around and things of that sort; but to my best recollection, 7 during the period I was there, we made no substantive change 8 to the NCI program.
9 Q. How about procedural changes to the NCI program that had H3 any significant effect on the numbers of NCI's when you were 11 there?
12 A. I don't believe that we had made any changes that would 13 affect the numbers.
(
Id SHORT RECESS (2:35 p.m.)
15 CONTINUING EXAMINATION: (By Mr. Guild) (2:45 p.m.)
16 Q. Mr. Wells, were you aware of any opinion on the part of 17 persons in management that Welding Inspectors at Catawba during 18 the period of time you were in Quality Assurance were writing
~
19 too many NCI's?
20 A. No, I was not , aware that management was worried about them 21 writing too many'NCI's I don't believe.
22 How about an opinion on the part of Mr. Davison in that Q.
23 Welding Inspectors at Catawba were writing too many NCI's?
24 Were you aware of that?
25 I don't remember anything with Mr. Davison, no, not A.
- 62 k.
l l
I !
, i
{
( l 'especially.
2 Q. Anything generally about him expressing that opinion?
3 A. .No. - You know, you're asking in general, and everyone is 4 worried when you get too many NCI's, and you want to do some-5 thing to reduce, so you don't have as many, but I don't recall o anything about Mr. Davison or anybody.
7 Q. Well, there has been testimony subsequent to your tenure, 1
a Mr. Wells, that Welding Inspectors were writing Nonconforming 9 Item Reports for minor deficiencies that were readily correctible ;
10 by the craft identified in the course of a preplanned inspection .
Il I think that's the best characterization I can remember.
12 Perhaps Mr. Grier, were you aware of the opinion that that was 13 an occurrence at Catawba? -
i~
14 A. Yes, and there's nothing wrong with that. The purpose is of the inspectors in the QA program is to assure that the 16 product that we build meets the requirements, and if we can 17 develop ways that would cut down on paper or cut down on time, la in my opinion, that makes the plant safer when you do that.
19 No plant is safe just because you have tons of paper.
20 Q. But you're aware of an opinion that Welding Inspectors 21 were writing too many NCI's?
22 A. No, I was not aware of that. As I said, I was aware of an 23 effort to assure the quality and cut down on some paper and 24 let them spend a good bit more of their time inspecting than 25 generating paper because paper never buys you much quality, so
. . 63
(
____________________-___________m_ _ _ _ _ - _ . - _ - _ _ _ _ _ .
_ _ .m-. . . . .
- l
-( 1 we work hard to try to say that if it can be fixed right on 2 the spot, then there's no use to generate papers, and that's 3 been a practice ever since 1974 when we set up the Department.
4 Q. The paper we're talking about here is a Nonconforming--
5 A. Any kind of paper.
6 Q. I want to talk about this one. ,
7 A. If it can be corrected without the necessity of writing a 8 Nonconformance, this happens all the time, this happened all 9 the way back.
10 Q. Were you aware of efforts to try to get the Welding 11 Inspectors to utilize other means to correct problems other 12 than writing NCI's?
13 A. I was aware of that no different than I was aware of
(' 14 concrete eight years ago. There has always been an effort.
15 I was not aware of any effort to try to get them to pass over 16 shoddy work. I have no-- I don't believe there has been any 17 effort to try to convince them they ought to pass something 18 that's unsafe or not right. If it's a matter of just correct-19 ing or eliminating paper, reducing paper, sure, I was aware of j
20 that all along.
21 Q. Let's focus on this specific point now. NCI's in welding.
22 Are you aware that as a matter of course, Welding Inspectors 23 utilize Nonconforming Item Reports to document deficiencies 24 in weld'ing that were found during the preplanned inspection?
25 A. I was aware that had been done, yes.
- 64
-= -. . . . . - . . . . . - . . .
I i
, I
( 1 Q. And that they were not using process control devices 2 to document those deficiencies or the R-2A Form, R-2 procedure 3 to document those deficiencies, are you aware of that?
4 A. I don't understand the question. There are many ways for 5 a Welding Inspector to inspect his work and get it corrected 6 when it's not right. One of those ways would be simply to 7 inform the welder and he makes the change and there's no a paper work needed. This is common practice all over the 7 country. It's done everywhere, and, yes, I was aware that's 10 an effort to do that and, to me, that promotes quality. If it an inspector can devote his time to inspecting instead of i
12 writing paper, and I was aware that is going on in the welding 13 and as well as other areas.
(
14 Q. How about doing that at the same time with complying with is the law, Mr. Wells, complying with the requirement to document 16 the causes of deficiencies and determine the appropriate 17 corrective action, Criterion 16 of Appendix B Quality Assurance 18 Criteria.
19 A. There's nothing in the law that prohibits an inspector 20 from correcting something on the spot and getting it fixed 21 and going ahead. That's common practice, and NRC knows this 22 happens, and it's used in every place I have ever seen nad 23 inquired. This is not against any law and not against 24 Criterion 16 at all in my opinion.
25 Q. Your answer is you're not aware that Welding Inspectors wero
. 65
(
i I '
I y I believed to be writing too many NCI's at Catawba?
2 A. I was aware that Welding Inspectors were being trained 3 to use o~ther methods where it would increase their effective-4 ness as an inspector.
5 Q. And write fewer NCI's?
6 A. Generate any fewer paper. Now if you're by that trying 7 to imply they were encouraged to cover stuff up, no, I was 8 not aware of anything like that. To do good inspections and 9 get it corrected with minimal amount of paper work and I
10 maximum amount of their eyes looking at the job to make sure 11 it's right.
12 Q. Was that your policy that Welding Inspectors should write 13 fewer NCI's and take care of the problems in other ways when
(
14 you were there?
15 A. My position was that you should handle everything in the 16 way to assure that it gets corrected and that nothing slips 17 by without being corrected.
18 Q. How about answering the question?
19 A. I can't answer that question.
20 Q. What is your policy?
21 A. My policy was~not per se you write fewer NCI's, no. My 22 policy was, as I said. Get things done in a more expeditious 23 way to assure quality is the main thing.
24 Q. That sounds fine,-Mr. Wells, but what I want to understand, 25 what was your policy with respect to this specific issue, that 66 -
t l 1
'I
. w -. I
~
o !
- ( l is, whether Welding Inspectors should write NCI's,more NCI's, 2 fewer NCI's, or whether they should identify problems in some r
3 other manner; and if in some other manner, I want to under-1
- 4 stand what it is, sir. I hear you telling me you think the 5 plant should be built right and you don't agree with the 6 implication that you read which is not intended that there 7 is something nefarious about that necessarily, but I want to a understand what you did, aside from the generalities and good 9 intentions, what you did, if anything; if you didn't do any-10 thing, tell me. On the issue of NCI's did you or did you not-it have any policy on the question of whether Welding Inspectors 12 should write fewer NCI's and take care of the weld deficiencies 13 in some other manner?
rf 14 A. That's a hard question to answer yes or no. My policy, as 15 I have said three or four times now, is I want to take care 16 of the problem in a way that assures it gets resolved. In 17 some cases, the,' need to write NCI's. In other cases, they 18 do not. And this is the judgment of their people and their 19 supervision as to whether or not an NCI should be generated; 20 but in no way do we say we are not going to write an NCI 21 because we don't want work.
i 22 Q. Did you have any policy.to address the situation of whether 23 Welding Inspectors should write fewer.NCI's?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Are you aware of whether Mr. Davison did while you were'
. . 67
(-
l
1 l there?
-(
2 A. I was not aware.
3 Q...How about Mr. Baldwin?
4 A. I'm not aware of a policy.
5 Q. How about a practice?
l l 6 A. You don't want me to say it, but I would say the same 7 thing. They had a practice to inspect the job with a minimal a amount of paper to get the job done and if that meant you 9 should cut down on some NCI's where another method was better 10 or more successful, that's what they were encouraged to do.
11 If that's the case, yes, they cut down on NCI's, but that 12 in no way detracted from the quality of the plant or their 13 inspection efforts. -
(
Id Q. Was it consistent with your policy that Mr. Davison and 15 Mr. Baldwin had the authority to verbally void Nonconforming to Item Reports that had been originated by Welding Inspectors?
17 A. Yes, any supervision in management has the responsibility la to exercise their judgment authority and make certain decisions l'
because they are technically qualified to make those decisions; 20 and in some cases, they voided NCI's, yes, within the 21 allowance of their job.
22 Q. How about whether it was consistent with your policy for 23 those gentlemen or others to verbally void NCI's and not
~
24 document that they had made those decisions or any decisions 25 regarding that nonconforming item?
e, 68 k
. _ _ -__ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ __ .---_.m. - - _ _
s
( 1 A. Yes, that was fine, if they did it in a proper way.
2 What do you mean by that, sir?
Q.
3 A. -Well', what I mean, if it was a valid NCI and they voided d it and tore it up, threw it away, that's not proper. But 5 if it was an invalid one, one that should be handled another 6 way, they would have that authority.
7 Without documenting it?
Q.
a A. Yes. If it was handled in another way. They didn't have 9 the authority to tear one up and throw it away and not do 30 anything. They had to get the problem resolved.
i Il Q. Did they have to document that they got the problem 12 resolved?
13 A. If it required documentation.
f Id Q. Wha t if it didn ' t?
15 If it didn't require documentation, then it would not have A.
16 to be.
17 Q. It was consistent with policy under you, Mr. Wells, or 18 Mr. Davison, or Mr. Baldwin, or others, to verbally void 39 NCI's that had been originated by inspectors-without documenting 20 they verbally voided them and before those NCI's had a number 21 issued for them o'r they had been' logged in?
22 A. If there was another way to handle the problem, yes.
23 Q. Even if.that problem wasn't' documented in any way?
24 A. Yes, if there's no requirement to document that problem.
25 Q. Why _were the positions of Welding Ir.spector reclassified in 1
! - 69 !
'k l l
u l
l
~
li Mf 1 July of '817 2 A. Duke Power has a very extensive pay analysis program that's 3 handled by our Personnel Department, and this is very extensive 4 and I don't understand all that they do, but it's external 5 competitiveness and internal equity within jobs and Personnel 6 Department recommendations to a committee who further 7 recommends to the Salary Committee of the company the wages, 8 and I had no direct input as to what the wages would be. I 9 had input as to what the content of the job was, so the questio n 10 you asked, why was it done, I guess it was done because the 11 Personnel Department made a study, and they is what it indi-12 cates.
13 Q. How about the job qualifications, the part you did know
(
14 about?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Why was the job qualification of Welding Inspector changed?
17 A. I was not aware that the qualification was changed.
18 Q. You didn't know that formerly Welding Inspectors had, as 19 a matter of practice, two years' experience as welders and
- 20 after the change,.they were required to have no experience 21 as welders?
22 A. This is a long story.
23 Q. Is that true, first of all? Is that the case?
24 A. I have to tell you the story. It's not yes or no.
25 Q. Fine. Do.
- 70
(
i
s l
[ l A. I was at Oconee in 1967 when there was not even Appendix B, 2 and the NRC made us commit at that time to have Welding 3 Inspecto'rs who either had a certain number of years as d inspectors or certain number of years as welders. During that 5 period, we had nobody around that had any years as inspectors 6 because we had no Welding Inspectors prior to that time, so 7 the only choice we had to meet the regulations was to put a welders in the job of Welding Inspectors, and, therefore, we 9 wrote up the qualifications along that line. As the years 10 grew along and we got people with Welding Inspector experience, 11 we changed the procedure because we could now find people that 12 we couldn't find in 1967, '68. That's the whole reason behind 13 it.
(
'd O. So, where did you find people who had experience as t
15 Welding Inspector. 'sut hadn't been welders if all your Welding to Inspectors were required to have previous craft experience?
17 A. You found them because there's a great mobility in the 18 nuclear industry. People move here and there and everywhere, l'
and we got some infusion from other jobs, we had our own 20 i training program being instituted also to set that up. In the 21 interim since 1967, there's various standards by the American 22 National Standards Institute and ASME that set qualifications 23 for inspectors, and these standards were adopted by the
.24 NRC or adopted by Duke and_ approved by the NRC, and these did 25 j not require you to be a welder in order to be an inspector; but 71
(
l
i i
i
( 1 they did require a certain amount of training and so on, so 2 we adopted those standards and then gradually changed over 3 to where,we could now have inspectors who had not previously 4 been welders.
5 Q. So your testimony is you substituted training for experi-6 ence in terms of qualifying?
7 A. Substituted training and experience in inspection for a 8 welder, for example, a Level 1 inspector follows along with 9 another one for a certain period of time under his direct to guidance and helps him and assists him; and in that way, he 11 takes courses, study, and examinations, and in that way he can 12 build himself up to be an inspector without having gone through 13 a route of a welder, and this is allowed by the standard.
i 14 Q. You started doing this.
15 A. We started doing that.
16 Q. When did you start doing that?
17 A. We started real early, but I believe that it was in '81 18 when we finally changed the procedures overall; I think that's 19 correct.
~
20 Q. What I want to understand is when did you start putting in 21 Welding Inspectors' at Catawba who were not required to have 22 prior welder experience?
23 A. I can't recall the date. It was in the period of '81, I 24 think.
25 Q. So it was when the job got reclassified, right?
. 72
(
- _ ,,, 7. . . _ .. . - _ - ~ - . _ . . . - - - . . . . - . . _ _ _ _ - . ._. . - _ . - - - -
i 1
Sb i A. Right, at one of our other jobs we had been doing it because 2 we had adopted that procedure there at one of our other 3 nuclear " jobs and then extended it to Catawba. I don't know d the time frame whether it was before or after the classifi-i 5 ' cation, no.
6 Q. But at Catawba, they were all formerly welders; and it was 7 at some other facility, that you gained the experience that 8 you could substitute experience as Welding Inspector and 9 training for welding experience, is that right?
10 A. At one time at Catawba, there were all welders. I can't il recall the date when that shifted over.
12 Q. You reduced their pay at the same time, the reclassification?
13 A. The pay program had nothing to'do with whether they were 14 welders or not. The pay program evaluated the job and set a 15 just pay for that job.
16 Q. It set-that pay on the basis of lower experience require--
17 ments for craft?
38 A. I don't know. I did not participate in how they set the 19 pay.
20 Q. You don't know?,
21 A. I don't know.
22 You don't know whether the pay followed the reduction and Q.
23 experience requirement that'you do go by?
24 A. No, I don't know the time frame'there.
25 What was the significance of experience as-an NDE Inspector Q.
4 4
- , e - , n
.-...- . ~ . ~ . . . . ~ . . - . - - -
w.
i I
if I with respect to qualifications to be a Welding Inspector?
r 2 A. Would you ask the question? I'm not sure I know how to 3 answer 1t. I don't know what the question is you're asking.
4 Q. Did you credit experience with use of nondestructive 5 examination techniques to be a Welding Inspector?
6 A. Well, nondestructive is a method of inspecting welds.
7 There is visual and radiography.
8 Q. We're talking Welding Inspectors when we're talking about 9 visual inspectors, correct? That's what you call someone 10 that does visual inspection of welds, you call them a Welding ,
11 Inspector at Catawba?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. NDE uses nondestructive techniques to examine welds? They
(
14 are not called Welding Inspectors, they are called NDE or 15 radiographers?
16 A. I think that's correct.
17 Q. Do you understand the question now?
18 A-. You said can you use some time as an NDE to qualify for 19 Welding Inspector.
20 Q. Is that what you said when you said prior experience as an 21 inspector, does that qualify?
22 A. I would have to read in the ANSI' standard carefully. I have not been involved in that for almost-two years now and
~
23 24 I do know it requires certain number of months' experience, 25 whether or not you can count NDE, I can't answer that without
. 74
! l i
'I I I reading the standard.
2 Q. You don't remember whether or not at Catawba you gave credit 3 for.NDE experience when you reclassified the Welding Inspector d
position?
5 A. No, I don't know, I just don't remember.
6 Q. Do you agree that someone who has not only had experience 7 as an incpector but who has also served as an experienced i
a craftsman in an area he is inspecting is a more qualified i
9 inspector than someone who has never performed craft work and 10 only learned in classroom out of a book how to inspect?
11 A. No, I wouldn't make a sweeping statement as that. Any experience along the line helps someone, and certainly, being
~
12 33 a welder helps a person to be an inspector. It gives him a 7
14 little more experience. However, so does a high school is education give them more. So if an excellent welder that could 16 not read or write and may not mak'e as good an inspector as 17 someone who never held a welding stick, but had the experience 38 to do the inspection,.so, no, I couldn't make the broad state-3' ment that the welder makes a better inspector.
20 How about if you hold all other things equal. What I want Q.
21 to focus on is exp'erience as a craftsman. I'm sure you have 22 some real stupid people who have'been welders who wouldn't be 23 qualified as a smart person that would be somebody or some-24 body Sdxi had been to high - school and someone who is blind, but i
25 I want to hold all those things equal and I want your' opinion.
1 i
L.n--~=._.__ _,_____=__:;_--
- . ,. , - - - - * ,. - + ~ - ~ - - . - - . 7 : -~;..,7 r :7.~. ~~ m- .,-- w r ; : w ;--. -
- i
- t l
I I 1 A. My opinion is that everything being equal, a welder--
everything being equal, a person who had been a welder would 2
3 probably make a better inspector, but that does not at all 4 meaa the person who has not been a welder is not an acceptable 1
5 inspector. I mean I hope that's clear. That experience 6 adds to their knowledge, yes, and everything were equal, I 7 would have to say that he would be a better-- you really find 8 everything equal, though.
j 9 Q. Almost never, I will agree with that; but if Duke is 10 committed to quality, as you say it is at Catawba, Mr. Wells, 11 why wouldn't you want the most qualified people doing something 12 as important as inspecting welds? Why wouldn't you want some-13 one who has experience as a welder over someone who only
(
I id learned how to inspect in a classroom or out of a book?
15 A. In my opinion, the welder making the weld is just as to important, maybe more important, than the inspector inspecting 17 the weld. Therefore, to pull a good welder out and make him 18 an inspector may indeed harm the project instead of helping i
l' it, so what we try to do is get the best qualified people for 20 all the jobs, and you could use the analogy that if you have 1
21 all Ph.D. teachers teaching first grade, you would have better 22 instructors; but still there are many fine.first grade teachers 23 that only have Bachelor Degrees. Many fine Welding Inspectors 24 that never touched a welding stick, and I don't see anything.
25 wrong with that.
n 16
.. . , . . . - . . _ _ . . _ , . . . . . . ~ -
s
[ '
O. I'm trying to understand the talk about the excellence 2 in the context of reducing what I perceive as reducing a very 3 concrete', tangible standard of an important job. What's the d problem you had that you didn't have enough qualified welders 5 and you wanted qualified welders serving as Welding Inspectors 6 to go back and be welders?
7 A. That wasn't the problem. There was no problem. You say a was that the problem? I wasn't aware there was a problem. We were simply trying to get the people to be inspectors that 10 met the ANSI standards and who could do the job.
33 Q. Why not the best?
12 A. We think we have the best. I'm sure that Duke has the
'3 best in the country.
d O. Why not the best with respect to the Welding Inspectors?
15 A. I'm not sure a welder would be the best.
16 Q. Tell me why not.
17 A. Because a welder may not have other characteristics you
'8 need.
" Q. Was that a case of the Welding Inspectors at Catawba?
20 A. I don't know. We had good Welding Inspectors at Catawba, 21 both before and after the policy. I don't conclude that it 22 was really any better before or after.
23 Q. But you do agree you reduced the qualification?
24 A. No, I do not.
25 Q. You cut the pay of the Welding Inspectors?
( 77
[ t A. I agree that due to Duke's Personnel Department analysis 2 of the pay, that there was an adjustment made in the pay.
3 Q. It w'ent down?
d It's my understanding, yes, sir.
A.
S Q. It didn't go up as fast or something like that?
6 A. Something like that.
7 It looks like it went down to the person?
Q.
a A. You could say it went down. If they didn't get as much 9 raise as the next guy, it went down.
10 As part and parcel of that, you required less experience Q.
11 in the sense you didn't require them to be welders.
2 We didn't require less experience. We required different A.
13 experience, not less.
i Id O. The market value for that position or the price you put is on that job was reduced, I mean, you were able to draw people 16 out of the market that you could pay less money, isn't that 17 true, to do that job?
18 A. That's the Personnel Department's job. I don't know.
19 That's one of the things they consider in setting pay, not 20 the only thing.
21 Q. They saved some.. money?
22 It's the external competitive-A. But only one of the things.
23 ness. It's one issue that the Personnel uses. I'm not 24 familiar with that. I'm out of my field when I talk about 25 l pay analysis, so you should ask someone else that.
e 78
- .-- . -. .~-.... - ... .__ . _ _ _ _ _
, I i
O. The internal equity business, what was the explanation 2 for the reclassification on that score, Mr. Wells, if you know?
3 A.' 'All 'I know is that we compare the job description of what d
the people would have to do and the Personnel took it frou 5 there, and I don't even know what other people make, so I
^ don't know the internal competi.tiveness. I knew within QA, 7 but as far as other parts of the company, I don't keep track a
of what they make. We have a department to handle that.
Q. How about internal equity as comparison with the Welding
'O Inspectors to the welding craft?
A. The welding craft was not under me, and I tried to keep 12 my nose out of that because that's not my job what they make.
Q. You were aware, weren't you, that the welders in many
'3
(
instances, that the welders had the qualifications as welders;
'S that the Welding Inspectors in many instances had equal
'6 qualifications to the welders to the craft they were inspecting plus they had the time and the grade as inspector, experience la as an inspector, and you add those two things together, in 19 anybody's books, and that requires you to pay them more-if 0
they have more qualification.
21 I may have the qualifications to A. I don't agree with that.
22 be the Chairman of the Board of Duke; but if I'm not there, 23 just because you have the qualifications doesn't mean you get 24 the pay. We pay them for the qualifications'for the job. If 25 they had more, that's good; but you can't pay somebody for 79
{
l
,. ~ ... . . . . . . . ,
3
, I !
1
[ 1 more than what they're doing.
2 Q. That's why you paid them less?
3 A. -We paid them for the job that was analyzed by professional 4 people who knew what they were doing to analyze the job to 5 determine what a fair pay for that job, and that is what they o were paid.
7 Q. The same people, the same qualifications, the job was a just written to call for less qualification than they had, 9 so their pay went down, isn't that what happened, or they 10 left the job?
]
11 A. Some of them, you say, were more qualified. Some of them 12 had different qualifications. In every job, you will find 13 some that are over-qualified for the job, and I'm sure we t
14 had inspectors who were qualified to be supervisors or even is higher level, but that was their job, and you paid them for 16 that job.
- 17 Q. You held the opinion, did you not, that a number of Welding 18 Inspectors were over-qualified?
19 A. I feel a lot of-- many Welding Inspectors are qualified to 20 be supervisors, certainly. ,
21 Q. Over-qualified for the job?
22 A. They are qualified for a higher job, if-that's what you 23 mean by over-qualified.
24 Q. Yes.
25 A. If you look around Duke, many people are qualified for the a 80
I l 1 f i 'next level. In fact, we have an extensive program to get 2 people qualified to be ready to move up when openings occur, 3 so, certainly, they were qualified for higher jobs.
d Q. 11r. Wells, what was your opinion of the work of Mr. Larry 5 Davison when you were at QA in Duke Power?
6 A. I feel Larry is a very competent individual. I worked 7 with him over a number of years, both in Construction and QA, a and feel he was very qualified.
4 9 Q. Are you aware of any criticism of Mr. Davison's work when j 10 you were in OA?
11 A. I can't recall anything. I guess all of us are criticized 12 from one time to another, but I can't recall anything.
13 Q. You don't recall any criticism of Mr. Davison?
-(
14 A. No.
15 Q. Any criticism of Mr. Davison by Welding Inspectors?
16 A. No, I don't recall any.
17 Q. How about Mr. Baldwin, what is your opinion of Mr. Baldwin' a 18 work?
19 A. I feel he is very qualified. I have known him for a number 20 of years. In fact, I hir,d him at Oconee..
21 Q. Are you aware of any criticism of Mr. Baldwin?
22 A. No, I have never heard any criticism. I have made a prac-23 tice during my term to go out and talk to people-around the 24 job, and I'm not aware of anything. I'm sure somebody at some-25 time said something about him, but I don't. recall anything.
e- 81
(;
-- , g - ~ - g
i l
! e i
' I Q. How about by Welding Inspectors at Catawba?
2 A. No, I don't recall any.
3 0._ .When did it come to your attention that Welding Inspectors 4 at Catawba had a number of concerns about the effectiveness 5 of the management support by Quality Assurance and various 6 concerns regarding their work?
7 A. I first became aware of it at the time of the pay announce-8 ment situation. I don't recall the dates. I believe that was 9 in July of '81 whenever that pay situation.
10 Q. Do you recall announcing that pay reclassification to the 11 Welding Inspectors yourself?
12 A. I'm not sure right now exactly how it was transmitted to 13 them. I know it was announced to them, but exactly whether I g
3d wrote a letter or told them or somebody else did, it's a little 15 fuzzy in my mind exactly how it got to them.
36 Q. That's been described as first level recourse letter.
17 There are many,more like that in the stack, Mr. Wells, have 18 you seen that before?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Addressed to you, wasn't it?
21 A. Yes.
22 From Welding Inspectors?
Q.
7 23 A. Yes.
24 Many Welding Inspectors?
Q.
25 A. Several.
O* 82 1
n-- - -. - - - -- , . . - , - --.- - - - . .- - . - - - ,- _ _ x-_____n
~ . . . -
I I
d '
O. More than two, more than three, many?
2 A. Yes. Many is your word. You say so. We had in the whole 3 de~partme'nt maybe over a hundred, and this may be ten or twelve.
d Q. Maybe fifty?
5 A. I don't recall the number. The number is here, I mean, 6 whatever it is.
7 Q. But you don't remember it being two or three, do you?
a I don't remember it being two or three.
A.
Q. If not--half of the entire department a substantial 30 number of people? Many Welding Inspectors?
II A. My words are some Welding Inspectors.
12 Q. I'm not trying to split hairs. You know as well as I know 33 it wasn't two or three.
Id A. That's correct.
15 Q. And that talks about a July 1st, '81, meeting with you?
16 A. Yes.
I7 Q. And do you remember that meeting?
18 A. Yes, I remember the meeting. I had a number of meetings.
Now I can't remember from one meeting to the other just exactly 20 what was discussed,. .
21 Q. Look at that ' letter and see if that doesn't come back as 22 an unusually significant meeting in your memory.
23 A. I remember it.
24
( Q. What happened at that meeting?
25 A. Well, they were just explained the pay program and.what was l
j 83
s i
i i done to adjust the pay.
(
2 l Q. Who explained that?
l 3 A ., Well, it says here that I was there, so I guess I did. As 4 I say, I held so many meetings, sometimes somebody from 5 Personnel, Ms. Addis, or sometimes I would, or sometimes 6 Bob Morgan would talk to them, and I may be there, but I 7 suppose, based on this letter, that I did. I don't recall a the specifics of, you know, two years ago.
9 Q. That meeting doesn't stick in your mind?
10 A. It sticks in my mind, but I held a number of meetings 11 with them, and that one doesn't jump out any more than a lot 12 of others.
13 Q. What was the circumstance of the meeting, if you can 14 recall?
15 A. Could you explain what you mean?
16 Q. How did it happen? Did you happen to be wandering around 17 the site?
18 A. No, we had made arrangements with Bob Morgan, who is the 19 man at the job, to set a time and place and we would meet 20 with him.
21 Q. You explained it to him?
l 22 A. Yes.
23 Q. How did they respond?
l 24 A. Well, there were a number of questions asked,and they sin-25 cerely felt that they were deserving of more pay. I think i
J. 84 k
l l
e
~
l I
a
[ 1 they were sincere in it.
2 Q. What was your response to those questions?
3 A.,
I tr,ied to explain to them the route it had gone through, 4 what we wanted Duke Power wanted to pay all of its employees 5 a fair rate of pay for the work they did, and I think I 6 explained to them we had great confidence in all of their work.
7 We had no problems with that, but that a pay analysis had been a made and this is what came out, and we were obligated to pay 9 them this.
10 Q. Did you tell them you would try to see if you could do 11 something about their concern?
12 A. Well, I told them that I would. No, I don't believe at 13 that time I told them I would try to do something about it.
14 I recognized within Duke we have a department that's very 15 qualified to analyze and set pay, and I think they have done 16 a fair job. I have never known them to be unfair, so I tried 17 to explain to them that this was done, and that it was the 18 way it was, and I don't believe I said at that time, I would 19 try to do something for them.
20 Q. You said the decision had been,made, and it was final in 21 your opinion?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Were they angry?
24 A. I would characterize it more disappointment than anger.
25 Everybody was disappointed. I am, and everyone else, at any 85 t
I l3....... . _ . _. lE _
-~ .~~.n.. .
s if 1 adverse circumstances maybe, but I don't believe they were 2 angry. I wouldn't characterize it as angry.
3 Q. Was 'this all Catawba Welding Inspectors together?
4 A. I can't recall whether we called them all together or had 5 separate meetings. At some time, it was such a large group 6 we held several meetings because it was a large number. I 7 can't remember whether they were all assembled at one time 8 or not.
9 Q. What happened with respect to the concerns by the Welding to Inspectors aft"r this July 1st meeting?
11 A. Well, they filed that appeal there. I mean the recourse, 12 and I wrote them a letter in answer to it, and then, I 13 believe, after that they went to third level appeal. I
(
I4 remember talking to a; number of them, and they said they are 15 not mad with me or Duke Power, but they feel the appeal process 16 is there, and they honestly felt they ought to get more money, 1.7 and they were going to take advantage of the appeal ;ocess.
18 They didn't seem angry to me, more disappointed.
19 Q. This was the second level of recourse? It went to whom 20 first?
21 A. First level war "?i a nat I answered. Second level goes, 22 if I recall the Duku rec l,scse process, goes to the. Personnel-23 Department,.and they look into it and answer that. Third level i 1
24 goes to the President of the company.
25 Q. You wrote them and responded to the first level, correct?
.. 86 i
, (-
a
i -
s d 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. You basically told them to confirm the earlier decision 3 wi_th regard to the pay?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. What was the response from the Welding Inspectors to that?
6 A. Here again as I said, one of them mentioned to me they 7 don't blame me, they understand the system; but they honestly 1
, a felc that their pay should be more and were going through the 9 third level appeal or second level and finally the third level.
10 I think it was a sincere feeling on their part.
11 Q. When did you first become aware that the Welding Intpectors 12 had concern about more than just pay reclassification?
13 A. Fairly soon after the pay. It'was nothing that I recall 14 before the pay issue, but after that and subsequent to that.
15 Q. How did those concerns come to your attention?
16 A. Well, I'm trying to think if we had any letter or anything, 17 Primarily it was through personal interviews with them during 18 the second level when Ms. Addis and I went and talked to some 19 of them and up through Bob Morgan and Larry Davison, who were 20 telling me. Most of it was by word of mouth, and I ' don't 21 recall anything inf the way of documented letters or anything 22 addressed to me.
23 Q. How about the word of mouth that came through Mr. Davison 24 and Mr.~ Morgan, how did that happen? What di d you hear through 25 them?
i - 87 h
_ .. m..... _ . . z. , _ _ - _ . - . . _
( 1 A. Well, I heard through them some of the things that they 2 told ue later that they felt-- primarily, what I heard is 3 that they were more qualified than the welders, had more {
4 experience, and, therefore, deserved more pay. That was the 5 major theme. As far as concerns, it didn't really come forth 6 very much until the second level when we went and talked to 7 them and then those began to come out.
8 Q. So through Mr. Morgan and Mr. Davison, you heard more of 9 the same, you heard already, which was they were concerned 10 about the reclassification?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Any technical concerns through Mr. Davison or Mr. Morgan?
13 A. Yes, through them, you know, s6me of the concerns that i
14 they expressed later we had heard they weren't getting support, 15 that they were-- Construction was really ruling the job, and 16 things of that sort, but not very specific at those meetings.
17 I had meetings along before this, and I would emphasize every-18 body in Ql. that my total ~ job was quality;'and at any time they 19 felt the quality of that job was suffering, I wanted to 20 personally know about it, and they,had my home phone number 21- and my office, and they could write me and bypass any level 22 if they felt something was unsafe on that-job, and I would 23 personally look into it and everyone of them was told that 24 .in meetings and all along, so, you know, I didn't really hear 25 a whole lot except just these generalities. You can handle 88
_ . - . . _ ...m..,_
i i
I g( 1 generalities, you know, it's very difficult.
2 Q. Nobody ever came to you and said they had safety concerns?
3 A. Nobody.
4 Q. Call you at home?
< 5 A. Nobody called me at home or the office.
o Q. How did you first learn of those safety concerns?
7 A. I say through Bob Morgan. They would come up with 8 generalities and then we would say we can't handle that, but 9 if it's a safety concern, get them to put it down and we'll to answer it. And then at these meetings on the second level 11 where we talked and they came out with a few specifics, but 12 even there it was very general, such as we don't get support 13 or Construction has the upper hand; things like that. Well,
-(
14 we kept asking if there's anything out there that's not right 15 we want to get it right, and very few specifics. I don't.
to recember any.
17 Q. How did the second level recourse come to your attention?
- 18 - A. Through Ms. Addis-in the Personnel Department.
19 Q. The letters from the inspectors?
20 A.- Yes, she got a letter, I believe. I'm a little fuzzy on d
21 how the second, but I believe it'J addressed to the Personnel; i 22 but I know she called me and we talked and got together-'at 23 the second level.
24 Q. She called-you and why did she call you? Why were youl 25 involved at i that point?
. 89
- (.
.. - ,. - e , ,,-w . - , .
_ __ i
_ 1 s
,( i A. Because it was the second level, and she wanted to discuss 2
it with me and find out what had gone on. We had many dis-a cussions.over that period of time.
4 Q. How did you determine that you should participate in 5 interviewing the inspectors?
6 A. I believe it was her suggestion because once it gets to 7 the second level, the Personnel Department's job is to handle a it; but they can ask whatever expertise, and as I recall now, 9 she asked me to go with her and we interviewed a good number 10 of them. I would do some, and she would some, and we would 11 discuss it afterwards so that we interviewed a good number. I 12 don't know if we did all of them, but a good number.
13 Q. Did you share the results of your interviews with Ms. Addis i'
14 and she with you?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Did you communicate those concerns expressed in the inter-17 views to your manager?
18 A. Yes, I believe there's a letter in the file. I was I? reviewing the letters I had written and prepared for coming in 20 here, and I believe there's a letter I wrote Mr. Owen 21 summarizing some o'f the concerns that they had.
22 Q. And one from Ms. Addis?
! 23 A. Yes, and she wrote one and I wrote one because we talked 24 to different people, you see.
25 Q. I will show you a document December 11, 1982, memo.
, 90
(
- . .. . , . . _ _ . , s, _- ..
r - - - -
t
( t A. Yes.
? Q. Does that document the interviews you conducted? l 3 A." ~Yes."
4 Q. Is that the documentation you were referring to?
5 A. Yes, that's the documentation. It was just a memo to the 6 file instead of a letter to Mr. Owen, but he received a copy 7 of it.
B Q. Let's mark that as Exhibit 2. That's a December 11, '81, 9 memo to the file. Its subject QA Department Employees, Second 10 Level Recourse. I want to show you a December 3, 1981, letter 11 to Mr. Owen from Ms. Addis. Is that the letter you referenced 12 to that was from her that reflected her interviews with the 13 inspectors?
14 A. Yes.
15 O. Are we talking about the same kind of communciation, 16 Mr. Wells, Ms. Addis is down here; Burr, Mr. Burr is a Welding 17 Inspector at Catawba or was, do you remember the name?
18 A. B-U-R-R?
19 Q. Uh-huh.
20 A. I don't recall that name, but he may. He was obviously 21 if she put it in there.
22 Q. I have had the feeling like I would be fired in order to 23 see the work was done right. I caught a bad weld and wrote a 24 NCI due to lack of fusion; technical support said no, but ANI 25 and NRC saw it and agreed. Then I heard Davison and Wells j 91
( l
i I
s
( 1 were going to investigate who talked to the NRC, and I didn't 2 talk to the NRC. That's the first one. Is that generalities 3 in- your o' pinion? Is that what you meant when you said they 4 were generalities?
5 A. Well, what I mean by that, I don't recall anything where 6 they said this is a bad weld and they have told me to accept 7 it, and I have got to accept it even though I know it's bad.
8 To me, that's specific, and we would do something about that; 9 but I don't see any of that in there.
10 That's not specific in your mind?
11 l A.
Q. Well, specific as in the eyes of the person, not specific 12 as the way I was talking about.
13 Q. It's not specific as far as you are concerned in the con-Id text you were using?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. That's just talking about pay. That's reclassification?
17 A. That's what we were down there to talk about. They chose 18 to talk about other things.
9 This guy is talking about a weld, lack of fusion, and Q.
20 the NCI.
21 A. Let me see if I could--
22 Q. You and Mr. Davison and the NRC. ,
23 A. I don't see anything in there where an inspector was told 1
24 by his supervision to inspect a bad weld. It said tech 25 support. That's in Construction Department. Said no. But they
, 92
(
. . . . . . -.-..s -
4 I
t
- 1, gf i have no authority to say no. They can say no all day, but 2 the Welding Inspector-- if Davison or I had told them to 3 accept the weld even though it was bad, I would consider that 4 specific, but I don't see that in here.
5 Q. That's not e technical concern in your opinion?
6 A. It's a technical concern of his, but it's rather general.
7 It doesn't get down to the kind of things that you can handle, just technical support said no. They don't have the authority a
9 to say no or yes. They can say no all day, but the weld still io has to.be fixed if the inspector thinks it does.
11 Q. Mr. Kirkland, he has shown at Catawba 11-24-81 1 12 Ms. Addis' notes say lack of support criticism of over-13 inspection. Last week I had a valid NCI. Five procedures
(
14 violated. I tagged the work and slipped the paper work in 15 my box on the way out. The work was wrong. My foreman has 16 been instructed if there is a way out, he gives in.
l.7 Construction raised cain, and I was Criticized. Is that is specific enough?
19 A. I don't see there where a weld was accepted over his 20 objection. I don't see that. A 1ot of generalities about 21 Construction did-this or that, but,;you know, I worked 22 Construction eighteen years. They are all going to. raise cain, 23 I mean, put up a fuss when their work is turned down, but 24 that d'oesn't mean a thing. Everybody does that. But'the fact 25 is that no bad work was accepted. Nothing in there to indicate 93
( .
l
.f s
(' I that bad work was accepted.
2 Q. Your memo on Exhibit 2 is what you communicated to your 3 supervision, Mr. Owen, about your results of your interviews?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. You don't have anything in here about NCI's?
6 A. I can't recall.
7 Q. Well,--
8 A. Do you see anything?
9 Q. No.
10 A. No, I don't see anything.
11 Q. Did they say the same kind of things to you as Ms. Addis 12 reported in her notes here?
13 A. That was done, you know, a year and a half ago, and that's
(
14 my recollection of what they said to me.
15 Q. A little different about her recollection of what they said to to her and what they said to you, at least if you conpare 17 the synopsis of remarks?
18 A. No, I don't see any great difference, different styles of 19 writing.
20 Q. This is December 11, 1981, and this reflects your inter-21 views. What happened with the second level recourse? I'm 22 sorry, what happened with the third level recourse?
23 A. Third level recourse?
24 Q. Yes.
25 Q. That's the letter that goes to the President, and he looked
, 94
(
1 l
L
1 'into it and wrote them an answer, and it's in the record. I-(
2 don't have a copy myself. ,
1 3 Q. Are you aware at the time you wrote your December 11, '81, i 4 memo to Mr. Lee, had directed Mr. Owen to appoint the first 5 Task Force to investigate the Welding Inspector concerns?
6 A. I was aware of the Task Force. I don't know that I was 7 aware Mr. Lee directe' Mr. Owen to do it or Mr. Owen did it 8 on his own nor do I remember the dates, but I did know there 9 was a Task Force appointed.
10 Q. Are you not aware that Ms. Addis met with Mr. Lee, this 11 memo of hers dated December 3rd, she met with Mr. Lee on 12 either December 3rd or.4th, and Mr. Lee issued a memo on 13 December 4th directing Mr. Owen to appoint a Task Force to i'
14 investigate the concerns?
15 A. Right now, I can't recall that. .I may have seen that let-16 ter, but at the present time, it's a little hazy in my mind 17 as to what triggers the Task Force.
la Q. What was your responsibility with the Task Force?
19 A. I had no responsibility except to respond to any questions 20 that they came and interviewed me, but I had.no-- they were 21 strictly reporting >to Mr. Owen on that.
22 Q. Did you have any further responsibilities with regard to 23 investigating the inspector concerns?
24 A. Just responding to Mr. Owen or to Gail Addis or to
! 25 Mr. Lee on questions and so on; but when it goes to the third
- 95
-(
9
-+. 3,.. _. , , y _ . , , _ , ., , , , , , , , , ,.
M*= - - - - . __
l I
, I
'( l level, then it's up to the President to take whatever action 2 he deems appropriate and it's out of the responsibility of 3 me at th'at time.
4 Q. Take a look at this memo now. It's dated the 12th of 5 December, 1981, but I think you will find that its date is 6 a mistake. Look at the attachment there, if you would. Look 7 at the last page of that and there is a date at the bottom, a isn't there, what's the date at the bottom of the last page, 9 Mr. Wells?
10 A. Well, obviously, in the letter here I said as requested il in the meeting of the 23rd and the letter is dated the 12th, 12 obviously one of those dates is wrong.
13 Q. What's the date on the letter?"
4 14 A. The 29th, so probably that was the 29th or, you know, I 15 can't answer why that date-- I can assure you there's no 36 deliberate intent to put any wrong date.
17 Q. I didn't suggest there was.
18 A. Just an error.
Q. And I think the dates probably of the cover letter is the 20 29th?
21 A. I would assume or either the next day or two days after.
22 Q. Does that reflect your recommendations to Mr.~Owen, I 23 believe?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Your recommendations on how to respond to the Welding
'96 ;
l
. _ _ _ _ w
I I
l il i Inspector concerns?
2 A. Well, it was some of our thoughts on it. There is some 3 ch'oices "here, and it reflects at the time,yes, it reflects
, 4 my views of what should be done and a couple of cases there 5 is alternatives here.
6 Q. Let's mark that as Exhibit 3. You set up certain Task 7 Force findings here, and the parenthetical is, assumptions a my part, I have not seen reports. The first one was no 1
9 evidence of unacceptable work being passed. You didn't know 10 they were going to find that, did you?
II A. Well, as I recall, they discussed with both me and Larry 12 Davison, and we could draw certain conclusions from what they 13 talked to us about, but till they made their report and we 3d read it, I guess it would have to be an assumption.
15 Sure enough they found no evidence of unacceptable work Q.
16 being passed.
17 A. That's what the report said. I think what they had given la us the results of the' report and just hadn't formulated it.
19 Q. They told you what they were going to find?
20 A. No, no, they told us what they.had found, but they just 21 hadn't written the letter yet. They didn't presume ahead of 22 time what they were going to find. This was a very competent 23 group of people.
24 Q. Who told you what they found?
25 A. We had several discussions. I don't recall, but they dis-
- 97 I k l
=( l cussed with me on several occasions, and they discussed with 2 Bob Morgan and Larry Davison on other occasions, and we kept 3 right abreast of what they were doing. We were right con-4 cerned and interested in what they were doing.
5 Q. Item 5 on the second page. I'm sorry, Item 6. Discontinue 6 practice of eerbally denying NCI's; if NCI is voided, do so 7 on copy of NCI. Did you say that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. I thought you thought the practice of verbally voiding 10 NCI's was okay?
11 A. I do think it's all right, but to arrest any concern, it 12 would just be another piece of paper to file, and I don't think 13 it's necessary but we were willing'to go the extra mile if
(
14 it takes it, to make sure everything is right.
15 Q. That was a concern of the inspectors?
16 A. Yes, I think it was; and in their mind, it may have been 17 valid in order to arrest any fear in their mind, then we'll 18 do somethings that, really, I don't feel are necessary.
19 Q. Organizational management, Number 1, Beau Ross. Transfer 20 to Oconee as Welding Inspector or transfer to QA to Tech 21 Services Group in Charlotte possibly Construction Welding, 22 question mark. Are those your words?
23 A. Yes, I signed the letter.
24 Q. Mr. Ross was a supervising technician at the time?
25 A. Supervising technician.
l l o- 98
(
l l
~
l
(
l Q. The first level welding inspector's supervisor?
[
2 A. Yes.
3 Q, .Why -d.id you recommend transferring Mr. Ross?
4 A. We just felt that for the management of the job, that it 5 would be better to make that transfer. The transfer is made 6 all the time in the jobs for the good of the people involved 7 in the job and everything.
6 Q. This is for Mr. Ross' own good?
9 A. We felt so, yes.
10 Q. Reasoning, it says remove Beau who management see as 11 block to communications. Did you see him as a block to 12 communications?
13 A. Beau Ross is a very talented pdrson, but there was a certaia
(
Id lack of communication between the people above him and the 15 people below him who were trying to resolve that as best we 16 could and still be fair to him because he was and is, in my
'l 17 opinion, a competent person.
18 Any connection between that recommendation and Mr. Ross Q.
19 having filed a large number of technical concerns?
20 A. I was not aware that Mr. Ross filed a large number of 21 technical concerns.
22
- c. You didn't know that?
23 A. No.
24 Q. No' relation to that?
25 A. No.
,. 99
(
l l
l cI 1 Q. You didn't know?
2 A. No.
3 Q.* Did 'you know he was outspoken?
4 A. Oh, yes, all of us are that way, a lot of us.
5 Q. Mr. Ross was that way?
I 6 A. Yes, sir.
7 Q. And you had authority to transfer him?
-l 8 A. I have authority to be-- somebody has authority to transfer i
9 anybody.
l IO Q. But in this case, Mr. Ross was outspoken, and you had the 11 power to recommend that he be transferred? You were his boss 12 and he was outspoken and you said that his communications leave --
i 13 he was a block to communications, dnd you were going to transfe r 14 him?
15 A. I don't think you draw the conclusion that because he was 16 outspoken, that was the reason. We didn't do it. - But the 17 reason we even proposed his transfer, it~ appeared to be a is block, some block of communication. If we. transferred every-19 body that was outspoken, we would be transferring nearly 20 everybody because a lot of us are outspoken, so_I don't think 21 that was the reason.
22 - Q. He wasn't more outspoken than anybody else?-
l t 23 A. Probably more than some, but a lot of people are outspoken.
Od C. R. Baldwin transfer to Tech Supervisor RT'and NDE.
Q.
25 Replace with A. E. Allum. Then the reasoning under-that one, loo
_( -
l l
l l
, _ j t
,( 1 says, removes Charles who inspectors see is a block to communi-2 cation. Inspectors had a lot of criticism of Mr. Baldwin, 3 don'.t you remember that now?
4 A. I don't remember. Larry Davison was at the time in charge 5 of that and made some of those recommendations to me, which I o accepted, and he was closer to Charles Baldwin than I was, and 7 he and I discussed these and I take full responsibility for 9 that, but I was basing it on the management level:s under me 9 and their recommendation.
10 Q. That was Mr. Davison's recommendation is what you're saying?
11 A. It was my recommendation based on Mr. Davison's input.
12 Q. But it was his idea that you're saying you relied on his--
13 A. I relied on it, but as many people that worked for me over 14 the years, I don't always take offhand what everybody says. I (
15 studied it and considered it.
16 Q. You did that here, but it was Mr. Davison's--
17 A. I believe it was his initial recommendation.
18 Q. That happened, didn't it? Mr. Baldwin was transferred?
19 A. If it happened, it was after I left.
20 Q. I understand that.
21 A. I understand some change was made, whether it was a direct 22 swap or not, I can't be sure.
23 Q. You understand Mr. Allum has been put over Mr. Ross?
24 A. I believe that I understand that. I can't say for sure 25 that I understand that. That's my understanding.
, 101
('
__.____._ -A
,(' i Q. So you wrote that set of recommendations towards the end 2 of December, and what happened next with respect to response 3 to the Welding Inspectors' concerns?
4 A. Well, I don't-- that was-- nothing particularly on that.
5 I guess the next thing is Mr. Lee's letter to them. I don't 6 recall the date of that, but I believe it was af ter that, 7 sometime in early or sometime in January.
8 Q. I want to show you a letter, well, there's some marks on o it probably not your marks, but it's a January 21, 1982, 10 letter, do you recognize that?
11 A. Yes, I remember it.
12 Q. Is that your response to their second level recourse?
13 A. No, that is not the response. The second level recourse
(
14 response was already earlier than January, '82.
15 Q. What is that document then?
16 A. This is in response to a letter to Bob Morgan from Carriker 17 and maybe others, I don't know, but it says here in receipt 18 of your letter to Bob Morgan, so that's a response to that.
19 It has nothing to do with the second level recourse.
29 Q. That's not recourse?
21 A. No.
22 Q. How about another one here. The same date. It's got some 23 marks on it. I suspect they aren't yours, but--
24 A. That's the same letter, essentially the same letter, 25 isn't it?
, 102
(
, I f
l Q.
( Take a look.
2 A. Yes, it may be a word or two changed and the first is to 3 him .specifically where this is to all the inspectors, but it's 4 the same context.
5 Q. That's a communication you sent to all of the Welding 6 Inspectors, right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Let's mark this as Number 4. The January 21, 1982, to all 9 the Catawba Welding Inspectors; and another. letter can you 30 idenhify that?
11 A. That's a letter Mr. Lee wrote to me at the same time he 12 wrote the third level response and sent it to the inspectors.
13 Q. What does it communicate? -
(,
id A. It communicates to me that he has looked into it and felt is that pay decision as made by Personnel is proper, and that 16 he wants us to support the inspectors and try to explain to them 17 why and try to continue the good relations with them is the 18 way I read that.
"7 Q. How do you understand the reference as follows that 20 special consideration will be given to any transfer request 21 initiated this week to Construction craft?
22 A. As I recall, a lot of inspectors made a point, if I'm not 23 going to get paid anymore, than I would rather be a welder.
24 And wha't Mr. Lee was saying to us, that if there was an opening 25 and they were qualified, we would transfer them to the welding
,,. 103-(
i.
That's no different than
$ il 1 if that's what they wanted to be.
1 2 Mr. Lee's policy on any people. If there's an opening and 4
3 the person wants to go there, that's Duke's practice, to try i
! 4 to get them there.
1
! 5 Q. He says special consideration will be given.
! 6 A. That means we would make an extra effort. We have got 7 hundreds of welders and, say, we don't have a slot, we have i
a three hundred, so what's 3017 We make room for them because j
9 we have turnover anyway, that's what I meant, I think, by 4
10 special consideration.
i i 11 Q. Did the Welding Inspectors take him up on that?
12 A. I left about that time, and it was my understanding that 13 one or two did, but I can't be surd.
I
(. I4 Q. Not many?
15 A. Somebody could answer that right off. I just am not 4
j 16 qualified to answer it because I was gone.
1 17 I will mark this one as Exhibit 5. Mr. Wells, within i Q.
+
your January 21st communication to the' Welding Inspectors, 18 l
help me understand what you mean by this first paragraph. _I 19 20 regret any misunderstandings that'may have occurred about our 21 concerns of past lack of support. What I intended and stated j
i 22 through myself and Larry Davison was that any specific concerns 23 about work items being incorrect was most certainly.investi-i 24 gated and proper action taken as well as answered to'you. What f
. 25 about that?
- 104 t
(
i
' s
( l A. I guess what I was trying to say to them, it's very 2 difficult to handle broad generalities about we don't get 3 support,' but I was certainly interested in quality and if they 4 would bring anything to my attention, that I could do anything 5 about, I would certainly do it all I could.
, 6 0. What do you think they misunderstood?
7 A. I think they felt honestly that they deserved more pay 8 and we weren't supporting them to get them more pay. That's
' my opinion as to what they thought.
H) Q. But, nonphysical acts such as statements or expressions of II opinion, could not be changed now by the very nature of them 12 and the fact they are already passed. How about that?
33 What did you mean by that?
(
'd A. If a person a year ago said something to them that all is inspectors are stupid or something that, you know, that 16 Construction workers generally say to anybody out there looking 17 over their work, I don't know how they can handle that. If
'8 something is current, we can do something about it. We'll
Generalities be glad to handle that. That's what I meant.
20 of the past, I don't know how to handle.
21 How about statements by you that they were over-qualified?
Q.
22 Well, I think they probably took that out of context or A.
23 what I have said the same as I say to you. Many of them are 24 fully qualified to be the next level up. Many of them do have i
- 25. more qualifications than cs a mimimum required for the job.
- a. 105 k
l
l l
I s
l c( O. They may have misunderstood that statement?
2 A. They may have. I can't ever tell how anybody takes some-3 thing. ,
4 Q. Finally, it's true in any work relationship, trust is 5 essential in accomplishing our objective in building Catawba 6 in a safe and efficient manner. I hope any trust you may have 7
lost in your supervision can be restored, and I intend to do 8 my best to do so. I want you to understand this and do your 9 part in helping me to accomplish this. J. R. Wells. Mr. Wells ,
10 you state there that you intended to do your best to do so.
11 This is January 21, 1982. You left two weeks later.
12 A. I left on February 8th.
~
13 Q. Three weeks later.
(
14 A. That's when I left, yes.
15 Q. Why weren't you there to do as you said here? To help to to try to restore that trust you said was important in Quality 17 Assurance work at Catawba?
18 A. Why wasn't I there?
I' O. Yes.
20 A. Because I received a new assignment from the company, a 21 new job, a new assignment.
22 Q. Did you leave voluntarily?
23 Yes, certainly. I'came to work with Duke voluntarily, and A.
24 I've been assigned-- you have a list there of all of the jobs; 25 I have taken all of them voluntarily. Otherwise, you have got
- e. - 106 k
. =
- _ i s
l l
( l the privilege in this country of going somewhere else if you j 2 don't like the company you're with.
3 Q.. .What- I want to understand, Mr. Wells, and I will use 4 nautical analogy. The ship is sinking and you're the captain 5 of the ship, Quality Assurance Department, all cain is breaking 6 loose here. You have Welding Inspectors all over the place 7 having big problems, and you write a letter that sounds real 8 sincere, and you're committed to do something about it, and 9 you abandon ship two weeks laters. Why? .
10 A. That's what I was assigned to do my job. I didn't abandon.
11 You have some misstatements.
12 Q. I want to understand that.
13 A. Your understanding, it wasn't about sinking. We have
( We have a few that were 14 four hundred and something employees.
is concerned about their pay. I would not characterize that as lo a ship sinking. Over the eight years, I have trained excellent 17 people in management roles under me, and I could have been gone. --
18 if I could have dropped off today and it would run right along 19 as anyone else in Duke, if you don't have it that way, you're 20 not a good manager. If you don't have it such that you could l 21 drop away today and it would run right along, you haven't done 22 a very good job. So it was certainly nothing unusual about me 23 being reassigned. I have been reassigned ten times in my i
24 twenty-six years with Duke, so I consider nothing unusual _about 25 that. I was sure that my successor who got all the files would 107
[ 1 follow through, just as I have done on jobs that I have taken 2 over from people. That's the nature of the work at Duke. You
~
3 commit to the department and then who takes your place follows d through on it. There's nothing unusual at all about that.
5 Q. Did you request an opportunity to work this problem through 6 as you committed to do in the memo to the Welding Inspectors?
7 A. I didn't. When the job is assigned to me in Duke, I assume a that management has looked at it and feel I am the best for 9 that job, and I didn't make any request one way or the other.
10 I took a job that was assigned and went with it, like I have 11 always done.
12 Q. How was that job assigned? Tell me the circumstances.
13 A. Like all other eight or ten jobs. My boss called me over
(.
Id and said they had a very important job at the Institute of 15 Nuclear Power and that he and Mr. Lee both were deeply involved 16 in setting up the new program. That they needed someone with 17 broad, not only Quality Assurance, but Construction background, is which I have, and he felt in looking around in the company, 19 that I was the best one to do that job.
20 Q. Mr. Owen you're talking about?,
21 A. Mr. Owen, yes'.
22 Q. Did you talk about any of the unfinished business with the 23 Welding Inspectors?
24 l A. Certainly we talked about.that. Well, after that, then I 25 stayed around during the whole month of February. I was back 108 k
l
l ,
I i
!.( i !in and out. I spent probably more than half of my time at 2 Duke during that month assisting my successor and talking to 3 Mr.. Owen-and so on, and from the transition, I didn't just drop 4 it and walk out.
5 Q. Are you aware of any criticism of your handling of the 6 Welding Inspector Concerns?
7 A. No.
a Q. Would you consider your transfer a promotion?
9 A. No, I have had many transfers within the company; about half 10 of what I have had have not been promotions.
11 Q. Is it a demotion?
12 A. I got some more pay and I got very good consideration, ar.d 13 I consider it a very good opportunity.
(
14 Q. So they paid you more in the position you hold now?
15 A. I'm not free to discuss pay. I have not been at any time 16 in the twenty-six years with Duke, been treated unfairly in 17 pay let me say it that way.
18 Q. That's not my question. You said you got more pay?
19 A. Well, I did not get more pay as a direct result of that job ,
20 I did not regard it as a promotion. The annual increase that 21 we get generally each year at a certain time, I received a l
l 22 pay increase as a result of that. It was not due to promotion.
23 This was not considered by me or Mr. Owen, I'm sure, as a i
1 24 promotion, but just a lateral assignment. Certainly not a 25 demotion.
, e 109 k
.. _. . ~ ._ _
l '
l
[
l Q. Did you remain at the same, I don't know what you call it, 2 Mr. Wells, but necessarily number job classification in Duke 3 li-ke in the government, G.S. 157 4 A. No.
5 Q. Did you remain at the same lateral level?
6 A. No, there's no numbering system like that in Duke. Every 7 job is analyzed and paid its own basis. There's no numbering 8 system with the management level people like there is with the 9 inspectors and craftsmen.
10 Q. But you got more pay when you got your annual raise there-11 after?
12 A. I would say this. I don't believe, and I will consult 13 with the attorney, I don't believe the subject of pay is
( 14 I would say that I was not hurt at germane in my opinion, is all in pay by this transfer. It was not a promotion. I did 16 not get a promotional increase, but as my time for increase 17 came up, I was treated just as fairly as I have ever been 18 treated in the company; beyond that, I just don't believe it's 19 appropriate to get into pay.
20 Q. I want to respect you and respect your privacy, but there's 21 maybe some interest that overrides your interest in privacy 22 in this matter, and I would ask you if you would tell me what 23 your rate of pay was before the assignment and after the 24 assignment?
25 MR. GIBSON: Objection. I will instruct him not to e., 110
( '
i i s
( t answer.
2 Q. Counsel, I think it's clearly germane. I will be happy to 3 work out any way of having the information available in a way 4 that looks out for Mr. Wells' privacy, but the point is, 5 Counsel, for the record, that Mr. Wells' credibility and truth-6 fulness and voracity, the validity of his opinion, his level 7 of interest in the proceeding, all of those matters are going 8 to be of central focus in the licensing case, and his rate of 9 pay and whether or not-- what level of remuneration he was 10 receiving before and after his transfer out of QA Corporate 11 Manager position bears on all of those points.
12 MR. GIBSON: Mr. Guild, I think he testified that his 13 pay was not reduced or increased and that he got an increase i 14 at the next general increase that was as far as it had ever been is as far as he was concerned. Is that a fair statement of what to your testimony was?
17 A. Exactly.
18 MR. GIBSON: So I instruct him not to answer that. If 19 you have other questions, move on.
20 Q. Mr. Gibson, again, I appreciate your expressing the opinion 21 about what that represents, but unfortunately Mr. Wells is not
. 22 the end of the matter on anything, and for the record, sir, I 23 would expressly request that'he respond to the question as 24 precise as I can frame it, and that is, what was his rate of pay 25 before when he held the position of Corporate Quality Assurance i .. 111 k
1
l I
.( i Manager and after his transfer.
2 A. It was exactly the same.
3 ,
MR. GIBSON: And I will instruct him not to answer 4 any further unless you want to ask him again whether there was 5 an increase or decrease, although I think he's answered.
6 A. It was exactly the same in the new job as the old job. Not 7 one Penny difference.
8 Q. Mr. Wells, when were you assigned to the position, the 9 permanent position, with Duke you now hold?
10 A. At the time that I was assigned to go to INPO, Mr. Owen 11 indicated at that time that my official title-- everybody has 12 to have a title, I guess, would be Assistant at that time 13 Vice-President. He was later promdted, so it was Assistant t
14 to the Executive Vice-President, and that was on or around 15 the first of February plus or minus a day or two.
1-6 Q. Did someone hold that position prior to you holding that?
17 A. No.
18 Q. This was a newly created position for you?
19 A. It was a new position, yes.
20 Q. Is there a plan for you to return to full-time work at 21 Duke, assignment a't Duke, in that position?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. When is that?
24 A. The 'first of August.
25 Q, of?
112 l
/
( 1 A. Of this year.
2 Q. Is there a job description of what your job will be when 3 yo.u. return to Duke?
4 A. I have not seen a job description.
5 Q. Have you discussed one? Do you know what your duties will 6 be when you return?
7 A. I have discussed with Mr. Owen over the year various things ,
8 and I will return in that position, but exactly what my 9 specific duties will be, I imagine it will change day to day, 10 so I don't know right now.
11 Q. Give me whatever understanding you have now of what your 12 job title will be when you return.
13 A. I have no understanding except I will return on the first-( 14 of August.
15 Q. Will you return to the position of Corporate Quality 16 Assurance Manager?
17 A. I have no idea what I will return as eventually. I don ' t 18 believe that's the plan. I-think the plans are for me to 19 return in the same job I now have.
20 Q. But you don't know what that job -is going to be?
j 21 A. I don't know what specific duties of that job will be.
22 Q. Mr. Wells, are you related by blood or marriage to any 23 other manager with Duke Power Company?
24 A. No, I'm not related to anyone at Duke Power Company.
75 Thank you. I appreciate your taking the time to answer Q._
,o 113 L
L.
i o
i my questions.
.['
2 EXAMINATION: (By Mr. Gibson) 3 Q.. Mr.. Wells, were you scheduled to have any meetings with 4 Duke Power Company officials regarding your job assignment on 5 this visit to Charlotte?
6 A. Yes, Mr. Owen had indicated that he wanted to talk to me 7 during the time I was up here about the specifics of the job.
e Q. Were you able to have those meetings with Mr. Owen?
o A. No, I was not.
I to Q. Are you aware of anything that would cause you to question i 11 whether the Catawba Nuclear Station was safely built?
12 A. Absolutely nothing.
l 13 -
( 14 JAMES R. WELLS 15 16 l
1 i
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
, 114 k '
9
^ - -
l l
^
l
'[ I STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA )
) CERTIFICATE 2 COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG ) ;
3 -
4 5 I, the undersigned Commissioner and Notary Public, in and 6 for the State of North Carolina, do hereby certify that 7 James R. Wells was duly sworn prior to the taking of his a deposition.
9 I do hereby certify that the foregoing one hundred and 10 fourteen pages constitute a true and accurate transcript of Il the evidence given by the said witness as taken down by me 12 and transcribed under my supervisian.
33 This the third day of August, ~1983.
( 14 15 BARBARA V. HAAS 16 Commissioner and Notary Public My Commission Expires:
38 April 23, 1987 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 e 115 L
s gf ,
INDEX 2
Exhibit- 1 Page 38; Line 24 3
4 Exhibit 2 Page 91; L'ine 8 Exhibit 3 Page 97; Line 6 5
Exhibit 4 Page 103; Line 8 6
7 Exhibit 5 Page 103; Line 11 8
9 10 t 11 12 i
13 14 4 15 16
!f 17 ii
'j, is 19 20 t
I 21 i.
22 23 24 25 116
(.