ML20085K851

Testimony of WO Henry Re Quality or Safety Concerns Expressed by Welding Inspectors.Certificate of Svc Encl. Related Correspondence

ML20085K851
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	10/17/1983
From:	Henry W DUKE POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20085K835	List: ML20085K833 ML20085K851
References
NUDOCS 8310210192
Download: ML20085K851 (9)

Text

~

s Applicants' Exhibit, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION "

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

~

In the Matter of )

)

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

) 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

TESTIMONY OF WAYNE O. HENRY 1 Q. STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.

2 A. Wayne O. Henry, Duke Power Company, 422 South Church Street, 3 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242.

4 Q. STATE YOUR PRESENT POSITION WITH DUKE POWER COMPANY 5 AND DESCRIBE THE NATURE OF YOUR JOB.

6 A. I am QA Manager, Technical Services. My primary responsibility is 7 to develop, modify, review and maintain the Company's Quality 8 Assurance procedures.

9 Q. DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL ' EXPERIENCE AND 10 QUALIFICATIONS, INCLUDING PRIOR POSITIONS HELD WITH DUKE 11 POWER COMPANY.

12 A. 1967 Graduate U.S. Naval Academy, Commissioned. Ensign, 13 USN.

l 2

14 1968 Graduate U.S. Navy Nuclear Power School, 15 Bainbridge, MD. Graduate U.S. Navy SIC Reactor, 16 Windsor, CT. Qualified as Engineering Officer of 17 the Watch ' and licensed ,to operate the SIC reactor 18 1969 Graduate U.S. Navy Submarine School, New London, 19 CT.

8310210192 831017 PDR ADOCK 05000413 T pm

6 1 1969-1972 Officer on board USS Nautilus, SSN571, Qualified z Engineering Officer of the Watch , Officer of the 3 Deck underway and  % port, Diving Officer, 4 Qualified in Submarines. Served as Reactor Controls 5 Officer, Auxiliary Division Officer, 1st Lieutenant, 6 Weapons Officer, Nuclear Weapons Safety Officer.

7 1972-1978 Joined Duke Power Company as Engineer-Associate, 8 later promoted Assistant Design Engineer, and 9 Design Engineer, all within the Design Engineering 10 Department.

11 1979-1981 QA Manager, Construction.

.12 ' Dec. , 1981 MBA, University of North Carolina, Charlotte.

13 Feb., 1981 QA Manager, Technical Services.

14 Member, American Nuclear Society ,

15 Member, American Society of Mechanical Engineers 16 Registered Professional Engineer, State of North 17 Carolina.

18 Q. WHEN DID YOU FIRST BECOME AWARE OF THE QUALITY OR 19 SAFETY CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY WELDING INSPECTORS AT 20 CATAWBA?

( 21 A. I became aware of the nature of the welding inspector concerns l

l 22 upon reading the Task Force I Bcport in December, 1981, or 23 January, 1982.

24 Q. WERE- YOU INVOLVED IN THE MA,NAGEMENT DECISIONS TO 25 INITIATE THE VARIOUS TASK FORCE INVESTIGATIONS?

l 26 A. No.

t l 27 'Q. DESCRIBE YOUR INVOLVEMENT WITH THE INITIAL TASK FORCE, 28 WHAT IS NOW REFERRED TO AS TASK FORCE I.

! L ,

i t

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

1 A. I had no involvement with Task Force I.

2 Q. DESCRIBE YOUR INVOLVEMENT WITH THE TECHNICAL TASK 3 FORCE.

4' A. My involvement with the -Technical Task Force was as follows: At 5 the request of J. R. Wells, I agreed to allow L. M. Coggins, who is 6 on my staff, to serve on the Technical Task Force and to make him 7 available in order to complete the work of the Task Force. I also 8 knew the approximate schedule under which the Task Force was 9 working. I worked on formulating the Management Implementation 10 Plan, and I carried out the actions assigned to me to implement the 11 ' recommendations of the Technical Task Force.

12 Q. DESCRIBE YOUR INVOLVEhENT WITH LEWIS ZWISSLER OF 13 MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS COMPANY.

14 A. I worked primarily as an administrative coordinator with Mr.

15 Zwissler to assure that he had office space, clerical help ,

16 transportation and ready access to all people he needed to 17 interview.

18 Q. DESCRIBE YOUR INVOLVEhENT WITH THE NONTECHNICAL TASK 19 FORCE.

20 A. I had no involvement with the Nontechnical Task Force. However, 21 I was aware that the group was carrying on its work. I also 22 attended meetings and training sessions which may have resulted 23 from the recommendations of the Nontechnical Task Force.

24 Q. WERE YOU INVOLVED IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 25 RECObDENDATIONS BY ANY OF THE TASK FORCES?

26 A. Yes. I was involved with implementing the recommendations of the 27 Technical Task Force.

s 1 Q. DESCRIBE YOUR ROLE IN IMPLEMENTING THE RECObDIENDATIONS 2 OF THE TECHNICAL TASK FORCE, INCLUDING YOUR ROLE IN 3 THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 4 USED. TO IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE TECHNICAL 5 TASK FORCE.

6 A. My role involved (1) reviewing recommended items whose 7 implementation might require QA procedural modifications , (2) 8 reviewing QA procedures associated with these recommendations, 9 and (3) satisfying myself as to the adequacy of those procedures I 10 reviewed, making modifications as necessary.

11 Q. ARE YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR l>EVELOPING PROCEDURES 12 ASSOCIATED WITH NCI'S AND OTHER MEANS FOR IDENTIFYING 13 AND DOCUMENTING CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCIES?

14 A. Yes. .

15 Q. EXPLAIN THE RELEVANT PROCEDURES AND THE REVISIONS TO 16 THESE PROCEDURES.

17 A. The relevant procedures are Q-1, R-2, and various procedures 18 which contain process control inspection points. Revisions to Q-1 i 19 are described in the testimony of L. R. Davison (page 33), which I

! 20 have reviewed and subscribe to. The R-2 procedure was not 21 changed as a direct result of the Technical Task Force 22 recommendations. Revisions to R-2 are described in the testimony 23 of L. R. Davison (pages 36-37), which I have reviewed and 24 subscribe to. .

, 25 Q. DESCRIBE THE CHANGES IN PROCESS CONTROL PROCEDURES AS l

26 A RESULT OF THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS?

27 A. Yes. The significant changes are described in the testimony of L.

l R. Davison (page 33), which I have reviewed and subscribe to. In 28

I addition, procedures F-9, M-21, and M-51 were changed to 2 incorporate Task Force recommendations.

3 Q. ,PLEASE EXPLAIN THE PRECISE CHANGES IN PROCESS CONTROL 4 PROCEDURES.

5 A. QA Procedure F-9, Rev. 6 was revised to require craft to review 6 process control documents prior to be' ginning work, to ensure that 7 there were no conflicts between process control documents and the 8 design drawings. Craft was also to check the process control to 9 make certain they understood the instructions, and identify any 10 discrepancies to Construction Technical Support.

11 QA Procedure M-21, Rev. 13 was revised to clarify the 12 requirements for verification of filler material on structural steel 13 welds requiring NDE. Prior to Rev.13, there was a space on the 14 Form M21-A for the inspector to sign which indicated the 15 acceptability of the filler material used in the joint. Since this 16 inspection was conducted periodically, the inspectors felt that their 17 signature in this block was misleading, indicating 100% inspection.

18 The M-21A form and procedure were revised to clarify that filler 19 material verification was a periodic inspection point, not 100%

20 verification . Also , QA Procedure M-21, Rev. 14 was revised to 21 require random inspection where nonsafety related welds are 22 attached to safety related structural steel.

23 QA Procedure M-51, Rev. 6 was revised to add additional 24 spaces for welding inspectors to sign when non-Code welds were 25 cut-out and rewelded after they had been accepted by an inspector.

26 Q. HAVE THERE BEEN OTHER CHANGES TO QA PROCEDURES AS A 27 RESULT OF THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS?

-g .

. 1 A. Yes.

2 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THESE CHANGES.

3 A. In the material control area, QA procedures H-4 and H-5 were 4 revised, as follows:

5 a) Both H-4 and H-5 were revised to clarify the fact that they 6 only apply to QA Conditions 1 and 4.

7 b) H-5 was revised to clarify the point that craft is responsible 8 for making. sure they do not make material identification 9 markings inaccessible prior to inspection by QA.

10 c) H-5 was revised to allow fabricated assemblies to be identified 11 by piece number after fabrication inspection by QA.

12 ' d) H-5 was revised to provide requirements for separate 13 identification for special properties.

14 e) H-5 was revised to require transfer of markings prior to 15 cutting material.

16 f) ,H-4 was revised to clarify the requirements for NDE piece 17 mark traceability.

18 g) H-4 was revised to preclude material issued for non-Code 19 applications from being returned to stock for Code work 20 without QA approval.

21 Also, QA Procedure L-80, Rev. 13 was revised to add weld 22 acceptance criteria for rounded indications (porosity) detected 23 visually.

24 Finally, QA Procedure QA-107 was initiated to provide for ,

25 immediate changes to QA procedures .

26 Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE NONCONFORMANCE EVALUATION 27 TEAM?

-- - ~

.w ---.yw - .,n , .,~sv- , - , - . . r-,w.- ,,v,,,.v.,, nave,.,m.,- .-----,m-,na, .m---,,-,--,.,--.,-,e.-.-,-e-.,

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR ROLE IN THE NONCO' JRMANCE 3 EVALUATION TEAM.

4 A. I had no role in the NCI evaluation team. I was not a member of 5 the team and did not attend their meetings. I was at times asked 6 to supply information if the team needed additional information on 7 specific NCI's.

8 9

10 11 I hereby certify that I have read and understand this document, and 12 believe it to be my true, accurate and complete testimony. ,

13 14 15 '

16 Wayne O. Henry 17 18 19 Sworn to and subscribed before me 20 this day of October,1983.

21 22 23 24 Notary Public 25 26 Commission Expires r 7- , - ,,, . . . - - , . . - . , , . -

- ~ - , _

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION k[

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING Bd@3RIE 20 A10:53 In the Matter o'f ) ObbkiIb~b/[L

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

) 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Applicants' " Testimony of William Bradley and Testimony of Wayne O. Henry" in the above-captioned matter have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 18th day of

~

October, 1983.

• James L. Kelley, Chairman

• Richard P. Wilson, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Attorney General Panel State of South Carolina U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 11549 Washington, D.C. 20555 Columbia, South Carolina 29211

• Dr. Paul W. Purdom

• Robert Guild, Esq.

235 Columbia Drive Attorney-at-Law 2 Decatur, Georgia 30030 P. O. Box 12097 Charleston, South Carolina 29412

• Dr. Richard F. Foster Palmetto Alliance P. O. Box 4263 2135 Devine Street Sunriver, Oregon 97702 Columbia, South Carolina 29205 Chairman

• Jesse L. Riley Atomic Safety and Licensing 854 Henley Place Board Panel Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission '

Washington, D.C. 20555 Chairman Henry A. Presler Atomic Safety and Licensing 945 Henley Place Appeal Board Charlott'e, North Carolina 28207 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

Washington, D.C. 20555 C/1360538

e.

• George E. Johnson, Esq. Carole F. Kagan, Attorney Office of the Executive Legal Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Director Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq. Scott Stucky ,

Anne W. Cottingham, Esq. Docket'ing and Service Section Debevoise & Liberman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20036 Don R. Willard Karen E. Long Mecklenburg County Assistant Attorney General Department of Environmental N. C. Department of Justice Health Post Office Box 629 1200 Blythe Boulevard Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Charlotte, NC 28203 f b W, .,

' Albert V. Carr, 'Jdt MA-Ronald L. Gibson Duke Power Company P. O. Box 33189 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 (704) 373-2570 b

i

• Designates hand delivery on October 17, 1983.

C/1360538 .