ML20083G187

Affidavit of Sc Young Re Termination of Johnson Controls,Inc QC Inspector R Wade.Prof Qualifications Encl

ML20083G187
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	01/06/1984
From:	Young S CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20083G181	List: ML20083G178 ML20083G187 ML20083G196
References
NUDOCS 8401110164
Download: ML20083G187 (23)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

4 AFFIDAVIT OF STEVE C. YOUNG

(

8401110164 840106 PDR 0

ADOCK 05000440 PDR

4 January 6, 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of. )

)

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-440 ILLUMINATING COMPANY, ET AL. ) 50-441

)

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) )

AFFIDAVIT OF STEVE C. YOUNG County of Lake )

) ss:

State of Ohio )

Steve C. Young, being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:

1. I, Steve C. Young, am the Perry Nuclear Power Plant Quality-Assurance Manager for Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI). My business address is 10 Center Road, Perry, Ohio 44081. A statement of my professional qualifications and experience is attached as Exhibit A. I have personal knowledge of the mat-ters set forth herein and believe them to be true and correct.

mummis

2. I have reviewed the Amendment To Motion To Reopen The Record On Comstock Issues, dated December 8, 1983 (Amended Motion), filed by Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy (OCRE).

The Amended Motion attaches an article from the Lake County News-Herald, dated December 1, 1983, discussing allegations by a former JCI quality control inspector, Richard Wade. The purpose of this Affidavit is to answer the health and safety allegations discussed in the newspaper article cited by OCRE

3. The December 1, 1983 News-Herald article attributes the following allegations to Mr. Wade: (1) that "[bjefore he and others took certification tests to become inspectors, Johneon officials gave them answer sheets, hoping to certify inspecters who could not recognize faulty construction," and that "he and other workert were given the answers to dozens of tests that had to be passed before the men were certified as inspectors"; (2) that "he approved thousands of faulty welds that could lead to a serious nuclear accident at the plant";

(3) that " workers 'overwelded' thousands of joints on a hydrau-lic piping system that pushes control rods into a nuclear reac-tor," and that "[m] ore than twice the needed metal was used in the welds, so the piping is excessively stressed and could break, 'which could lead to a total meltdown'"; (4) that "he didn't come forward for fear of losing his job," and that "[i]f you even raise a question on something, you're done, you're finished, the same day"; (S) that, while he "was fired for

' incompatibility,'" and "he was told he did not get along with i

his bosses and fellow workers," Mr. Wade " thinks he was fired for raising too many questions at the plant"; and (6) thct .

"[w]orkers for Johnson and other contractors are routinely paid for many' hours they don't work and days they don't show up at the plant," and "[w] hen they do work, they create intentional, costly construction delays in an effort to prolong their jobs, which will be eliminated when the plant is complete." The al-legations discussed in the newspaper article are untrue. The facts are as follows.

Background

4. Under its scope of work at Perry, JCI is responsible for performing mechanical construction, and associated quality assurance and quality control, primarily in the area of process instrumentation and controls. Mr. Wade was hired as an

-in-process inspector (IPI). Among other things, the IPIs are responsible for visual inspection and liquid penetrant testing (PT) of in-process and final welding of pipe, tubing, supports and equipment. The welding performed under'JCI's scope of work is_ governed by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) and American Welding Society (AWS) Codes.

5. JCI' currently employs approximately 32 certified inspectors at Perry. As the JCI QA Manager, I am the senior site =officia1' responsible for these inspectors and for JCI's overall QA/QC program at Perry. I report to'JCI's Corporate QA

~ Director in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

6. Mr. Wade was hired by JCI on October 4, 1983, follow-ing detailed interviews at the site with three senior JCI QA/QC supervisors. (I did not personally interview Mr. Wade, but discussed the results of our interviews with Mr. Wade, and approved the decision to hire him.) Mr. Wade was terminated by JCI six weeks later, on November 15, 1983. Mr. Wade partici-pated in JCI's inspector indoctrination and training program

-for almost all of this period. He was certified by JCI, and approved by the Project Organization to perform inspections, on November 11, 1983. He performed inspections only on Friday, November 11, and Saturday, November 12. He was absent from work on Monday, November 14, and was officially terminated on Tuesday, November 15, for the reasons explained below. On the two days Mr. Wade performed inspections at Perry, he performed only in-process visual inspections of fillet welds on pipe, tubing, and supports in the Unit 1 reactor building. He inspected (and approved) a total of 16 welds. The welds have since been re-examined and found acceptable, as discussed below'. Mr. Wade's inspections did not involve any of the hard-ware concerns discussed in the News-Herald article.

7. JCI hires inspectors only after detailed interviews.

All. inspectors hired by JCI at Perry have prior nuclear QA/QC experience. After an inspector is hired, and prior to per-forming inspections, the inspector must successfully complete a comprehensive indoctrination and training program, which gener-ally lasts for 6-8 weeks. The program includes general

)

indoctrination and orientation; detailed classroom instruction; required reading covering applicable Codes, Standards, regula-tory requirements, and project procedures; eye examinations to verify satisfactory vision; open-book examinations to assure familiarity with JCI project procedures and procedure applica-tions; closed-book examinations covering visual inspection and liquid penetrant testing techniques; and supervised, in-the- -

field training and evaluation, which usually lasts two to four weeks. JCI's indoctrination and training program is documented in project procedures approved by the Project Organization.

JCI's program follows the general qualification and cer-tification guidelines prescribed in American National Standards Institute (ANSI) N45.2.6 (1973 Edition), entitled "Qualifica-tions of Inspection, Examination, and Testing Personnel for the Construction Phase of Nuclear Power Plants," and American Soci-ety for Nondestructive Testing No. SNT-TC-1A (June 1975 Edi-tion), entitled " Personnel Qualification and Certification in Nondestructive Testing."

8. Briefly, ANSI N45.2.6 provides that inspector cer-tification "shall be supported by appropriate measures such as education or training, testing, evaluation, and periodic review to assure the initial and continued proficiency of each person." The only area in which ANSI N45.2.6 recommends that employers administer written examinations as part of the 4

inspector certification process is in the area of proficiency testing for inspectors performing nondestructive examinations

(NDE). ANSI M45.2.6 recommends that NDE certification tests be devised "in accordance with the requirements of SNT-TC-1A." 7 SNT-TC-1A prescribes minimum qualifications for NDE personnel, based on three levels of qualification. SNT-TC-1A sets forth ~s in general terms those areas of physical and techr.ical qualifi- s s

cations which should be covered in written examinations for each of the three NDE qualification levels, and also addresses the grading of exams and the correlation of exam grades to J.he three certification levels. JCI's written certification exani-

~

nations covering visual inspection and liquid penetrant testing (the only NDE activities. performed by JCI inspectors), as well m ,

as JCI's eye examinations, meet the recommended standards of '

ANSI N45.2.6 and SNT-TC-1A.

. . The Allegation That JCI Officials Distributed Answer Sheets

9. Mr. Wade's charge, as described in the newspaper ar-ticle, that JCI officials distributed answer sheets to cer-tification tests, is completely without basis. The relevant facts are as follows.

10. As part of his indoctrination and training prior to taking closed-book, NDE certification examinations, Mr., Wade was required to take numerous open-book examinations. These examinations, administered to all new inspectors, are to assure familiarity with applicable project procedures. Inspectors take these open-book examinations at their own pace.

Inspectors notify the JCI training supervisor when they have

\

~

>L '

completed their study of particular areas of procedures (there I

are a total of 29 procedural areas, each covered by a separate open-book test.!, and then take the open-book exams corre-sponding to those arean. After a particular open-book test is completed, an ins'tructor reviews any incorrect answers with the inspector. The open-book tests are not required by the NRC or the Project Organization, nor are they recommended by any Code or Standard. The tests are used by JCI as an additional training device. Until concerns arose with Mr. Wade, as discussed below, the open-book tests were not proctored, al-though there were training supervisors in the general area where the tests were taken. Prior to the newspaper revelation that Mr. Wade obtained test answer sheets, the answer sheets were retained in an unlocked file cabinet in the office of Mr.

Bruce Chris ensen, a senior JCI que.lity engineer. Mr. Wade took his 29 open-book procedural tests between October 4, 1983, and October;,14, 1083. There were only two other JCI inspectors,'each of whom started work with Mr. Wade on October 4, 1983, who took open-book tests during this time period.

Subsequently, a third inspector joined JCI on October 17, 1983.

~ These -three inspectors were the only other inspectors who par-ticipated in JCI's indoctrination and training program in the same time frame as Mr. Wade.

11. There was one point during Mr. Wade's open-book testing, when JCI QA management became concerned that Mr. Wade might have improperly obtained open-book answer sheets. On

October 7 and Octcber 8, Mr. Wade asked to take an unusually large number of tests (he took eight tests on October 7 and seven tests on October 8). The large number of tests taken in such a short period raised suspicion in the minds of Mr. Wade's training' supervisors. Thereafter, in reviewing Mr. Wade's test results, the supervisors became concerned about some of Mr.

Wade's essay answers on one test, which were similar to answers contained on the supervisors' answer sheets for the test. The supervisors brought their concerns to me, and I called Mr. Wade to my offico on October 11, 1983. Mr. Wade's supervisors were also present in.the meeting. During this meeting, I asked Mr.

Wade whether he had obtained open-book answer sheets and he in-dicated that he had not. He stated that he was "a speed reader" and that he had " total recall." While I remained concerned, I could not prove that Mr. Wade had the test answer sheets in his possession. Also, the fact that these were open-book tests meant that Mr. Wade did have access to the proce-dures in order to answer questions. (We had reviewed the open-book test results of the other new inspectors, and their answers did not suggest that the other inspectors had the test answer sheets.) I asked Mr. Wade if he would agree to retake the particular test which we were questioning him about. He

-agreed to retake the test, and performed well on the re-examination. Mr. Wade completed the remainder of his open-book tests by October 14, 1983. After my meeting with Mr.

Wade, and at my direction, Mr. Wade's and the other new

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . - - -- )

v .-

' inspectors' open-book tests were 100% proctored, and there was no evidence during subsequent testing that Mr. Wade, or the .

other new inspectors, possessed open-book answer sheets.

12. After Mr. Wade completed his open-book tests, he par-

-ticipated in in-the-field training from October 14 to October

25. Thereafter, Mr. Wade participated in two days of. classroom

~

instruction in visual and PT inspection techniques. On October 26,.1983, he-took the first of two required closed-book NDE

. certification examinations. (The closed-book examination answer sheets were also retained in Mr. Christensen's office file, which was not locked.) The test was proctored. Mr. Wade failed-the' exam. He studied, took the exam again, and passed.

He successfully completed a second required NDE certification exam,.which was proctored, on November 3, 1983. All test

.results were reviewed by JCI training supervisors, and there was no evidence that Mr. Wade (or the other new inspectors tak-

ing NDE certification exams in the same time frame) used answer sheets. Subsequent to the NDE' exams, Mr. Wade received addi-tional on-the-job training.for approximately one week, after which he was' certified by JCI, and approved by the Project Or-ganization to perform inspections, on November 11, 1983.

13. The first time JCI learned that Mr. Wade possessed copies of the answer sheets for some of the closed-book and open-book tests was on December 1, 1983, the day of the News-Herald story. JCI' learned through the Project Organization, following a meeting they had with the NRC' Staff, that Mr. Wade l

a .. . _ _ - _ - _ - -

possessed copies of test answer sheets and provided copies to the NRC Staff. After confirming that the answer sheets Mr. .

Wade gave to the NRC were, in fact, copies of actual answer sheets,'JCI, under Project Organization supervision, immediately discontinued all inspectar testing, rewrote the closed-book NDE certification exams, and committed to conducting NDE re-examinations of all JCI inspectors and super-visory personnel. JCI also committed to re-inspecting all work of any inspector who failed the re-examinations. The re-examinations, conducted under Proj ect Organization supervi-sion, have now been completed, and all JCI QA/QC inspectors and supervisors scored passing grades. JCI is also revising all open-book tests as an extra precaution. All open-book and closed-book answer sheets have been placed in JCI's QA document control center limited access files. All future open-cook and closed-book tests will be 100% Proctored by JCI supervision.

14. I have personally investigated in detail Mr. Wade's serious charge in the News-Herald article that JCI officials distributed the answer cheets to Mr. Wade and other inspectors taking certification tests with Mr. Wade. The charge is total-ly false. In personal discussions with me (without their su-pervisors present), all three inspectors taking tests during the time of Mr. Wade's indoctrination and training, have denied

~that answer sheets were made available by supervisors or other-wise used by.the inspectors. The inspectors all expressed anger over the charges in the News-Herald etory, both because w

i they believe the charges to be false, and because they believe there is an implication in the newspaper story that the other .

inspectors used answer sheets. During these discussions, one of the inspectors did state to me that Mr. Wade had used answer sheets in the presence of the inspector during one open-book test during the October 4 - October 14, 1983 time period in which Mr. Wade took his open-book tests (the inspector did not know how the answer sheets were obtained), and that Mr. Wade had offered the test answer sheets to the inspector, who re-fused to use the answers. The inspector told me he became fearful that he would be blamed for using the answer sheets, and immediately left the trailer. JCI has reviewed again the test results of the three inspectors who were tested during the same period as Mr. Wade, and can find no suggestion that answer sheets were used by the inspectors. JCI's Corporate QA Director and I have also carefully interviewed Mr. Wade's training instructors and supervisors, and we are completely satisfied that these supervisors did not furnish Mr. Wade with the test answer sheets. I have worked closely with most of the supervisors in question for two years or longer, and have never had occasion to question their integrity. Based on my investi-gation, I can only conclude that Mr. Wade, acting alone, im-properly obtained the test answers. I believe the corrective actions undertaken by JCI should assure that similar unethical conduct, undermining JCI's testing and certification program, cannot be repeated.

L- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _

Approval of Faulty Welds

15. The News-Herald article quotes Mr. Wade as stating ,

that "he approved thousands of faulty welds that could lead to a serious nuclear accident at the plant." Again, the charge is

- without basis. As I have indicated, Mr. Wade performed visual inspections of only 16 welds during the two days he performed inspections at Perry. In response to the newspaper article, each of the sixteen welds, approved by Mr. Wade, have been re-examined by certified' inspectors from JCI and the Project Organization's Construction Quality Section (CQS) and found to be acceptable.

16. The News-Herald article also quotes Mr. Wade as al-leging that workers "overwelded" hydraulic piping system joints. Mr. Wade never performed inspections of hydraulic piping system joints. The area qt'estioned by Mr. Wade does not even fall within JCI's scope of work (the hydraulic piping system welds in question are the responsibility of Pullman Power Products). Mr. Wade never raised a question with JCI su-pervisors concerning the adequacy of hydraulic piping system welding. Thus, I am not aware of any basis Mr. Wade might have for the charge stated in the News-Herald article.

Mr. Wade's Alleged Fear of Coming Forward

17. Mr. Wade's allegations, printed in the News-Herald story, that "he didn't come-forward for fear of losing his s job," and that "[i]f you even raise a question on something,

you're done, you're finished, the same day," are without any basis. All new JCI QA/QC inspectors are instructed on the ne-cessity of reporting and documenting any safety concerns. This is the job of inspectors, and JCI supervisors continually stress in discussions with inspectors the importance of this duty. In addition, posted in JCI's Quality Engineering office trailer, and throughout the plant, is NRC Form 3, entitled

" Notice to Employees," which clearly notifies workers of their right to contact the NRC with safety concerns; or the Department of Lnbor, in the event employees believe employers are discriminating against them for reporting safety concerns.

(JCI has received no Department of Labor discrimination com-plaints from Mr. Wade or any other employee.) Also posted in the JCI Quality Engineering trailer, and throughout the plant, is a Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company poster entitled "A Reminder," urging all employees to contact their management, CEI, or the NRC directly, with any safety concern. Mr. Wade repeatedly passed these notices during his six weeks of employ-ment at Perry.

18. JCI also trained Mr. Wade and other new inspectors in the use of JCI's QC Inspection Question Sheet, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B. The Question Sheets are distributed to all JCI QA/QC personnel at Perry for use in documenting to senior JCI QA management procedural questions or concerns (in addition to those items formally documented through JCI's cor-rective action system). All Question Sheets, containing the 4

inspector's problem description, and the inspector's F

" recommended solution," are reviewed by me, the JCI Corporate QA Director in Milwaukee, and by JCI Engineering, as well as by the Project Organization (CQS). A response is documented by upper management on the original Question Sheets, and returned to the originating inspector. In addition, in most cases, JCI quality engineers personally discusse the Question Sheets, including recommended solutions, and management's responses, with the inspectors. In 1983, Perry QA/QC personnel filed over 100 Question Sheets with JCI QA management. All have been, or are in the process of being, responded to by JCI QA management.

Mr. Wade never utilized the Question Sheet form during his six weeks at Perry. Nor did he ever initiate any formal corrective action, or raise with any JCI QA/QC supervisors any of the issues discussed in the News-Herald article. JCI has only ter-mint.ted six inspectors (including Mr. Wade), out of approxi-mately 66 inspectors, since JCI began performing safety-related work in 1978. There were two other inspectors terminated in 1983 (one in March and one in April). There were two termina-tions in 1982, and one in 1981. All six inspectors have been terminated for good cause, and there is no evidence in the newspaper article, or anywhere else, that JCI has improperly terminated any of these six inspectors for. raising safety concerns.

Mr. Wade's Termination

19. Mr. Wade is quoted in the News-Herald article as ,

stating that "he thinks he was fired for raising too many questions at the plant." This is untrue. First, as I have stated, Mr. Wade raised no safety-related questions during his six weeks of employment at Perry. As documented in Mr. Wade's personnel file, Mr. Wade was terminated for failing to pass his 90 day probationary employment period with JCI. All new JCI inspectors are subject to special supervisory scrutiny during the 90 day probationary period, to assure that they have the necessary competence and attitude to carry out their inspection duties. Mr. Wade failed to pass probation because of a had at-titude toward his work, failure to follow work instructions,

'and absences from his assigned duties for periods of up to four hours (in these instances, Mr. Wade was either off-site without permission, or on-site and in an area where his training super-visors could not locate him). A summary of the facts leading to Mr. Wade's termination is as follows.

20. During his final week of in-the-field training and immediately prior to Mr. Wade's final certification, Mr. Tom Skidmore, Mr. Wade's second shift inspection superintendent,

-received a number of complaints about Mr. Wade from Mr. Wade's supervisors and other second shift inspectors. On sevaral occasions, Mr. Wade could not be located by his training super-visors.for extended periods during the second shift. In addition, Mr. Wade indicated to several supervisors, including

_______.______._J

s Mr.'Skidmore, that he had'significant QA/QC experience and that h'e did not need to be trained because he already knew every- .

thing. (Regardless of an inspector's prior experience, i t is, of' course, necessary to learn JCI's procedural requirements ap-plicable to Perry.) Several of the second shift inspectors complained to supervisors that Mr. Wade was nncooperative, and they indicated a preference not to work with him. (None of the complaints had anything to do with health and safety concerns expressed by Mr.' Wade. He exp'ressed none.) Finally, Mr. Wade returned late from lunch during most of this week, by periods of.approximately 15 minutes to as much as several hours. Mr.

-Wade's supervisors were concerned about these problems; howev-er,-because of Mr. Wade's apparent technical experience and expertise,'and his successful completion of JCI's certification program, Mr. Wade's supervisors decided to permit Mr. Wade to be. certified while continuing to closely monitor his perfor-mance.

21. On Friday, November 11, Mr. Wade's first day as a certified' inspector, Mr. Wade was again late returning to work after lunch. There were no significant problems with Mr. Wade on his second day of inspection work, Saturday, November.12.

-On Monday,. November 14, Mr. Wade did not report for work, and called Mr. Skidmore during the shift to say that he was sick.

RMr. Skidmore questioned Mr. Wade's excuse, and asked Mr. Wade

'to.come.to_the site to meet with him, which Mr. Wade agreed to do. .The meeting was attended by the JCI second shift lead

inspector, Mr. Jeff Bevan, who was concerned about Mr. Wade's attitude and conduct over the previous week. Mr. Wade was rude and unprofessional throughout the meeting. Mr. Skidmore asked Mr. Wade about the various problems that had occurred with Mr.

Wade during the week. At one point, Mr. Skidmore asked Mr.

Wade about a particular incident the previous week, in which Mr. Wade's training supervisors had been unable to locate Mr.

Wade for several hours. Mr. Wade refused to tell Mr. Skidmore where Mr. Wade had gone. At another point in the meeting, Mr.

Wade made an angry statement that "he was going to kill" anoth-er second shift inspector. Based on Mr. Wade's conduct in the meeting, and because of unresolved concerns over Mr. Wade's conduct over the previous week, Mr. Skidmore concluded that Mr.

Wade should be terminated. He informed Mr. Wade of his deci-sion, and asked him to return the following day to pick up nis last pay check. After the meeting, Mr. Skidmore called me at home to inform me of his decision, and I concurred that there was good cause to terminate Mr. Wade. Mr. Wade was officially terminated the following day, November 15, 1983. (On November 16, 1983, Mr. Wade called Mr. Skidmore at his home, asked to speak to Mr. Skidmore's roommate, and stated to Mr.

Skidmore's roommate, "If I could get Skidmore to swing at me, I'd kill him." The incident was reported to Perry Plant Secu-rity.) In short, Mr. Wade was terminated, during his proba-tionary period, because of serious questions over his conduct and attitude, and not because he raised any safety concerns.

Remaining Allegation _s

22. The News-Herald article quotes Mr. Wade as stating that workara for JCI and other Perry contractors " create inten.

tional, costly construction delays in "an effort to prolong their jobs, which will be elimi:'.ated when the plant is complete." The article contains no further details, and 1 am not aware of any basis for the charge. Mr. Made approved the few welds he inspected while at Perry, and never complained to his supervisors of intentional, or any other, construction problems. JCI's QA/QC staff is, of course, not concerned about any " construction delays" that might result from their inspec=

tion work. Finally, I am not aware of the basia for Mr. Wade's general charge in the newspaper article that "(s]ecurity at the plant is appallingly bad." Although I am not responsible for

• Perry plant security, my experience has been that JCI's QA/QC personnel are carefully monitored by security guards While sn-taring and exiting the ?arry Plant. I know of no security lapses that have resulted in QA/QC de'd ancies by JCI or other contractors.

lY.., &= c*

' Steve C. Youn J Subscribe and sworn to before ma this L day of January, 1984.

01/1M sti JT2 lum AJA&

NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires

/ / - / > -/ f J f 10/Nf;E R!P"33, Notary PuMic State of Ohio. Lake County 18- I My comm. exp. Nov.12,1988

- _- __ - _-__-- _ __-_ _ _ _______ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ l __ _ __ _ _ _ _

EXHIBIT A -

January 4, 1984

. _ RESUME

~

~

STEVE C. YOUNG PROJECT QA MANAGER - JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.

SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION DIVISION EXPERIENCE , ,

Codpany: Johnson Controls, Inc.'- 1982 to present Perry Nuclear Power Plant Perry, Ohio Function: Project QA Manager - Responsible for the overall direc-tion and administration of the Quality Assurance Engi-neering'and Quality Control Inspection activities. Pre-pare, review and approve the procedural program for all ASME and safety related activities performed on the ~

project site.

Company: Johnson Controls, Inc. SECD-Power West _ 1981 - 1982 Function: Project QA Manager.- WPPSS Nuclear Projects 1/4. Respon-sible for the overall direction and administration of the Quality Assurance Engineering and Quality Control Inspection activities. Prepare, review and approve the procedural program for all ASME and safety related activi-ties performed on the project site. Maximum work force, 10 Quality Engineers and 25 Quality Inspectors.

Company: WSH/Boecon/Geri - 1981 4 Function: Assistant Project Engineering Manager - WPPSS Nuclear Project 2, responsible for all engineering aspects in-cluding Field Engineering, technical and design, subcon-tract administration and procurement with a full compli-ment of approximately 200 people. Responsibilities re- ,

volved primarily around management planning and owner / .~

A/E interface.

Company: WSH/Boecon/Geri - 1980 - 1981 Function: Corporate Quality Assurance Audit Manager - Responsible .

for planning, documentation, scheduling and implementation of the Corporate Quality Assurance Audit Program to insure internal and external compliance of applicable procedures, specifications codes and regulatory requirements as con-cerned with ANSI, 10CFR and ASME. Developed the program for QA auditing in accordance with ANSI N45.2.12 and the Lead Auditor Training and Certification Program in accor-dance with ANSI N45.2.23.

~ -

~

Company: Plemco'Ltd. - 1979 - 1981 _

r Puin; tion: Project Engineering Manager,.U.S. Oil and Refining Co.

Responsibilities _ included evaluation and recomunendation' for all mechanica1' piping, ' civil, electrical and instru-

! _- mentation design, f abrication .and : field erection.- Pre-pared the necessary. installation and control procedures utilizing design specifications to assure proper instal-lation. Was delegated signature approval authority of the President and Chief Executive Officer. Provided costs and similar information:for projects bidding and _

scheduling. Responsible for new facilities and~ equip-ment to be listed in the U.S. Oil and P.efining Co., fuel oil hydrotreater, catalyti.c reformer, sulphur recovery .

and waste water treatment. JThis included equipment lay-out, equipment evaluation, cost estimating and budgeting cost controls, production analysis, labor relations and CPM scheduling. Directly responsible for the adminis-tration of employees in excess of 100.

Company: Burns and Roe, Inc. ' 1977 - 1979

-Punction: Sr. Quality Assurance Engineer - Systems WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2 - Duties included administrative reporting of activities related to -nonconformances; directing the on-site audit program of approximately twelve (12) prime contractors and their sub-tier contractorst administra-tion of reporting, coordinating and evaluating reportable deficiencies as they applied to 10CFR Part 21 and 50.55 (E).

Other duties included preparation / review / evaluation of the combined WP?SS/B&R Project Quality Assurance Program and Control Procedures; coordination of NCR inspections and reporting and client corporate audits. Authored some technical papers for indoctrination and training of QA/QC personnel.

Company: Phillips-Getschow Co. - 1975 - 1977 -

Function: Quality Assurance Engineer - Lead Auditor Employed as Quality Assurance Engineer, Lead Auditor and Vendor Sur-voyor, responsible at a corporate level for Dresden NPS, Braidwood NPS, Seabrook NPS, Kewaunee NPS, Point Beach NPS, Quad Cities NPS and Collins Fossil PS. Certified Level III Visual Inspector (piping, welding, component supports and instrumentation) in accordance with ANSI N45.2.6 also certified Lead Auditor in accordance with ANSI N45.2.23. Duties included as a minimum the follow -

survey and qualify the q'ality system programs of ing: u service suppliers, material suppliers and manufacturers, review and approve procurement specifications and purchase orders originating in the Home Office', review and.as-certain resolution of nonconformances. Review customer's design specifications and insure that procedures and in-structions were available to field personnel to assure that all work conformed strictly to the requirements of ' .

the ASME Code and customer requirements, maintain required standards of knowledge and experience for Quality Inspece..

tors and conduct training programs as necessary to in-doctrinate Quality Inspectors in Qu.ality control functions and workmanship standards, provide assistance to all

personnel as required for interpretation of procedurco, 'o specifications, and instructione r and assure that all hSME- Code requirements were met by monitoring, audit,. or surveil-lance. -

Company: Power Systems, Inc. 1974 -- 1975 Function: Mechanical Quality Control Inspector, for the Donald C.

Cook, NPS. - Responsible for inspection and documenta-

' tion of piping, w.elding, mechanical systems hangers -

~

- and testing of Class.1, II, and III safety related sys- -

tems.

Company: -

inited Engineers and Construction - 1973 - 1974 Function: Quality Control Engineer in training. This training in-cluded all phases of Nuclear Quality Assurance and ,

Quality Control activitias as follows: set up perma-nent documentation to assure that all critical systems and structures were manufactured and installed accor-ding to applicable codes and standards. Conducted frequent audits of inspection processcc for =csiplete-ness and adequacy at the Sales NPS. Also, periodically

- conducted audits to examine adherence to approved pro-cedures and effectiveness of a quality system. Re-viewed and reported on applicable specifications, amendments and revisions prepared by the responsible engineer prior to issue.

Company: Bechtel Corporation - 1969 - 1973 Function: Field Engineer, South Point Nevada Power Station. As-signed to South Point Fossil Power Station, Southpoint, Nevada for field design of small bore, 2" and under piping and hangers. This activity included field lo-cation and marking, and seismic snalysis. _

EDUCATION 1980 Columbia Basin College 1978 Columbia Basin College 1974 Lake Michigan College 1973 Forty Hours NDE Level II RT Forty Hours NDE Level II MT & PT Dupont Corporation Chestnut Run, Delaware

~

, ~1970 Copital Radio cnd Electronico Instituto

~

of Technology, Washington, D.C.

~

_--- Nuclear Instrumentation and Control Tech-

- nology/~(gorrespondence) -

1969 -

Tul~sa University School of Engineering

~ - -

O e

O

~

mm-

EXHIBIT B Q.C. INSPECTION QUESTION SHEET PKG.NO.

DATE NO.

ORIGINATOR ORGANIZATION PLANT BLDG] AREA REFERENCE DOCUMENTS PROBLEM 1

=

RECOMMENDED SOLUTION ,

SIGNATURE DATE

RESPONSE

BY SIGNATURE DATE O.A. MANAGER CONOURRENCE SIGNATURE DATE PROCEDURE REVISION REQUIRED YES NO PROCEDURE NO.

.