ML20090K056
| ML20090K056 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 10/18/1983 |
| From: | Henry W DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| A-015, A-15, NUDOCS 8405230605 | |
| Download: ML20090K056 (7) | |
Text
_.
Af Applicants' ExhibiW y
e,
/0 M UNITED STATES OF AMERICA N
9 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION D00 crco BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING ' OARD 2 ) 19h ' -
ei
$bn /;5 In the Matter of
)
W\\
JN
)
,'h
-r w DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. )
Docket Nos.
50- 1 g
~)
50-414 l
(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, i
9 Q.
DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL-EXPERIENCE AND i
10 QUALIFICATIONS, INCLUDING PRIOR POSITIONS HELD WITH DUKE t
11 POWER COMPANY.
I 12 A.
1967 Graduate U.S. Naval Academy, Commissioned Ensign, 13 USN.
14 1968 Graduate U.S.
Navy Nuclear Power
- School, 15 Bainbridge, MD.
Graduate U.S. Navy SIC Reactor, 16 Windsor, CT.
Quahfied 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.
O
$ M O!b 3 o
_ ~. -,
'r 1
1969-1972-Officer on board USS Nautilus, SSN571.
Qualified 2
Engineering Officer of the Watch, Officer of the 3
Deck underway and in
- 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 22 upon reading the Task Force I Report in December, 1981, or i
23 January, 1982.
j 24 Q.
WERE YOU INVOLVED IN THE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ' TO 25' INITIATE THE VARIOUS TASK FORCE INVESTIGATIONS?
l 26 A.
No.
!O 27 Q.
nESCRI E YOUR INvOtvEmENr WITH TnE INIT1At risk rORCE, 28 WHAT IS NOW REFERRED TO AS TASK FORCE I. L__
.s 1
A.
I had no involvement with Task Force I.
O 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 4
11 recommendations of the Technical Task Force.
1 12
'Q.
DESCRIBE YOUR INVOLVEMENT WITH LEWIS ZWISSLER OF 13 MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS COMPANY, 14 A.
I worked primarily as an administrative coordinator with Mr.
0 1
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 INVOLVEMENT WITH THE NONTECHNICAL TASK i
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 4
25 RECOMMENDATIONS BY ANY OF THE TASK FORCES?
26 A.
Yes.
I was involved with implementing the recommendations of the 27 Technical Task Force. i
+i
.k 9
y l
1 Q.
DESCRIBE YOUR ROLE IN IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS 2
OF THE TECHNICAL TASK. FORCE, INCLUDING YOUR ROLE IN i
3' THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN f
4 USED TO IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE TECHNICAL j
5 TASK FORCE.
('
6 A.
My role involved (1) reviewing recommended items whose 4
i 7
implementation might-require QA procedural modifications, (2) 8 reviewing QA procedures associated with these recommendations, j
9 and (3) satisfying myself as to the adequacy of those procedures I 10 reviewed, making modifications as necessary, j
11 Q.
ARE YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR DEVELOPING 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.
I 17 A.
The relevant procedures are Q-1, R-2, and various procedures i
j 18 which contain process control inspection points.
Revisions to Q-1 19 are described in the testimony of L. R. Davison (page 33),.which I 1
20 have reviewed and subscribe to.
The R-2 procedure was not l
21 changed as a
direct result of the Technical Task Force l
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 26 A RESULT OF THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS?
O 27 4.
Yes.
The si,nificant chan,es are described in the testimony of t.
28 R. Davison (page 33), which I have reviewed and subscribe to. In __
_~, _. _
.q-
=
p
? v l
I c
s 1
- addition, procedures - I-?,
M-21, and M-51 were changed to t.P.O 4
2 1 incorporate Task Force recommendations.
'l s
s Q.' '
c Xl PLEASE EXPLAIN THE PRECISE CHANGES IN PROCESS 3
t A
4 i, PROCEDURES.
y 5
A.
QA, Procedure F-9, Rev 6 was revised to require craft to review e
5 4q 6
process control documents prior to,beginning work, to ensure that 7I there were no conflicts be' tween process control documents and the
(,
/
8i design drawings.
Craft ;was also to check the process control to k
9 make certain they understood the instructions, and identify any 10 discrepancies to Construdion Technical Support.
s
- 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 i,
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 I 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 q
12
' attached' to safety related structural steel.
j
- 23 QA Procedure M-51, Rev. 6 wa's revised to add additional 1
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.
cx 26 Q. ' HAVE THERE BEEN OTRER CHAECES TO QA PROCEDURES AS A
, 27 RESULT OF THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS?
3 1
)
f.
.ep s
+
b 1
A.
Yes.
O 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 (
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.
g 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, QA1 Procedure L-80, Rev. 13 was. revised to add weld 22 acceptance criteria for rounded fr,6 cations (porosity) detected 23..
- visually.
24 Finally, -QA. Procedurs 4/..,, ' was initiated to provide for i
25 immediate changes to QA procedures, i
26 Q.
ARE. YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE NONCONFORMANCE EVALUATION l.
[
]m 27 TEAM?
i t dy ux -
J' 1
A.
Yes.
O 2
Q.
PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR ROLE IN THE NONCONFORMANCE 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 l
l 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 Wayne O. Henry 17
~
18 19 Sworn to and subscribed before me 20 this day of October,1983.
i 21 22 23 24 Notary Public 25 26 Commission Expires 1
l l
0. _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - - _ - - _ _
't i
l i
1
/ /
b
/
b
/
/
j? $ / 4l. l /
jl n//
e
?
f.h
!m
,y c
/
?g N'
/
- W Oi /
k'
/
/ /
ll l
V
/
/ / 'l / ',
,?
dl /
/
/
/ /
a F' i s !
/ /,'
/ / s
/,/
,~ /
l' S,. /1/ l/ '.'/,/
j ay 6
/e
/
i e
,s /
./
/
s c} '
/
j
- e,,j%
y
"' N l
8 C
$s' q
l
\\
O 1
..