ML20087N588

Testimony of Lr Davison Re Langley Allegations Pertaining to Alleged Harassment of Welding Inspector L Harris

ML20087N588
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	02/22/1984
From:	Davison L DUKE POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20087N559	List: ML20087N565 ML20087N574 ML20087N577 ML20087N582 ML20087N584 ML20087N585 ML20087N588 ML20087N594 ML20087N599 ML20087N602 ML20087N605 ML20087N609
References
FOIA-84-48 NUDOCS 8404040060
Download: ML20087N588 (4)

Text

. . . _. __ -_ _. _ _

l l

. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

1 )

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

) 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

TESTIMONY OF LARRY R. DAVISON CONCERNING MR. LANGLEY'S ALLEGATIONS PERTAINING TO ALLEGED HARASSMENT OF WELDING INSPECTOR LINDSAY HARRIS 1 Q. STATE YOUR NAME.

2 A. My name is Larry R. Davison. My business address, job 3 description, and statement of professional experience ugi 4 qualifications are a.et forth in my previously filed testimony.

5 6 Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH AN INCIDENT INVOLVING WELDING 7 INSPECTOR LINDSAY II!I RIS AND CRAFT FOREMAN TOM 8 MULLINAX?

9 A. Yes. I was informed by QC Supervision, Charles Baldwin, that a 4

10 steelworker foreman, Tom Mullinax, had threatened to knock out the 11 teeth of welding inspector Lindsay Harris. I was told this occurred 12 when Mr. Harris had rejected some work on the personnel air lock l l

13 because of lack of proper preheat. .The craftsman involved had felt '

14 they had the proper preheat. I am not aware of any incidents of 15 this nature involving Mr. Langley.

l l

n 8404040060 840222 PDR FDIA GARDE 84-48 .PDR. -

- l 1

1 Q. WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER YOU BECAME AWARE OF THIS 2 SITUATION?

3 A. I don't recall all the people I notified of this incident; but I do 4 recall notifying the Craft Superintendent at that time, Mr. Cecil 5 Wall. Mr. Wall's position was four levels of supervision above Mr.

6 Mullinax. I told Mr. Wall that this type of thing could not be 7 tolerated and I asked him to look into it and let me know what he 8 did about it. .

9 10 Q. WHAT DID MR. WALL DO ABOUT THE INCIDENT?

11 A. To the best of my knowledge he investigated the incident. Shortly 12 after that Mr. Wall called me to a meeting he had set up in his area 13 conference room to discuss the incident. I do not remember 14 everyone who was present for this meeting, but I believe that 15 members of craft supervision above Mr. Mullinax, and Charles 16 Baldwin, Technical Supervisor over Welding Inspection, were 17 present. We met and discussed the information Mr. Baldwin and I 18 had about the incident, and all basically agreed on what had 19 occurred, and that clearly the foreman needed to be counseled.

20 After this discussion, Mr. Mullinax was brought into the room and 21 he described the incident. Mr. Mullinax stated that he had not 22 threatened Mr. Harris , but had made the statement to him that if 23 he continued to call craftsmen liars, he would get his teeth knocked

^

, 24 out. He indicated he told Mr. Harris this simply .to warn him of .

25 what might happen if he continued to give people the impression 26 that he was calling them liars. Mr. Mullinax stated that he was l 27 very upset emotionally when he made the statement.

9 1 After Mr. Mullinax described what happened, Mr. Wall reprimanded 2 Mr. Mullinax and told him in no uncertain terms that this type of 3 statement from him to any inspector would not be tolerated; that 4 Mr. Mullinax was responsible for his crew's actions in this type 5 situation; that statements like that from them would not be 6 tolerated; and that Mr. Mullinax's position as a supervisor, and

, 7 quite possibly his job with Duke Power, was on the line if this typa 8 incident occurred again. _.

9 10 Q. DID YOU AGREE THAT THE ACTION TAKEN WAS SUFFICIENT?

11 A. Having witnessed this clear disciplining of Mr. Mullinax by Mr.

12 Wall, I was satisfied that appropriate action had been taken, an'd 13 that Mr. Mullinax understood what was ezpected of him. I was also 14 satisfied that the inspector in question and others would not let 15 incidents such as this affect their carrying out their inspection 16 duties .

17 18 Q. IN YOUR VIEW, DID THIS INCIDENT REPRESENT A PATTERN OF 19 THREATS OR HARASSMENT DIRECTED TOWARD THE INSPECTORS?

20 A. Having been responsible for QC inspection at Catawba, since 1974, I 21 believe the number of incidents such as this have been very few 22 compared to the number of times craftsmen and inspectors must 23 interact. As with any inspection situation, there is potential for 24 disagreement and confrontation. Given the hundreds of thousands 25 of inspections performed at Catawba and the small number of 26 occasions where the interaction between inspector and craftsman 27 have reached this level, I believe that Catawba has an excellent l 28 record in terms of QA relations with craft. I know management has.

l l L

I taken prompt action when such situations did occur and I believe 2 inspectors have always felt free to perform their duty. For all

]:.

3 these reasons, I believe there is no significance to Mr. Langley's 4 allegation.

e>

4 i

I 4-

• '# - " ' ' m. ,p.