ML20090K073
| ML20090K073 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 10/21/1983 |
| From: | Morgan R DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| A-018, A-18, NUDOCS 8405230619 | |
| Download: ML20090K073 (20) | |
Text
,
g-/0 Applicants' E bItyi i 60 g g/
L UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g
occ: ra b
.,,'.R.3 ) G M > $
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~J j-0 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ff ggggg7 3g 3
/j A snav:cc raAncIIp' Q
s:cy-nac b
In the Matter of
)
y DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al )
Docket Nos.
50-413
--)
50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT A. MORGAN i
i 1
Q.
STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.
2 A.
My name is Robert A. Morgan, and my business address is Catawba 3
Nuclear Station, P.O. Box 223, Clover, South Carolina 29710 4
Q.
STATE YOUR PRESENT JOB POSITION WITH DUKE POWER 5
COMPANY AND DESCRIBE THE NATURE OF YOUR JOB.
6 A.
I am the Senior Quality Assurance Engineer, responsible for l
7 managing and directing the Quality Assurance engineering and l
8 technical support functions during construction of the Catawba 2
9 Nuclear Station.
In my job as Senior QA Engineer I have four f
10 supervisors reporting to me who are responsible for 1) mechanical, 11 welding and nondestructive examinations; 2) civil, electrical and i
12 instrumentation; 3) support / restraints; and 4) records / status.
In 13 these areas we specify inspection instructions for the inspect;on 14 groups to use in their jobs and we provide answers and evaluations i
15 to questions, deficiencies, audit items and nonconformances as they 16 arise.
We perform a final review of inspection records to insure 17 the requirements are met as the inspections are completed and we 18 maintain a status of inspections complete for the turnover process 19 to the Nuclear Production Department. We are the primary project
(
20 interface for project audits performed both internally by Duke 21 Power auditors and externally by NRC, INPO and ASME audit rs.
8405230619 831021 PDR ADOCK 05000413 O
l 1
Q.
DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFI-2 CATIONS, INCLUDING YOUR PRIOR POSITIONS HELD WITH DUKE 3
POWER.
q 1
4 A.
I have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil Engineering from i
5 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and I am a Registered Professional 6
Engineer in North and South Carolina.
I have been employed by 7
Duke Power Company for thirteen years and have worked in Nucler, j
8 Construction, Engineering and Quality Assurance since my 9
employment.
From June 1970 to September 1974, I was assigned to 4
10 work at Oconee Nuclear Station in the Construction Department's 11 technical support group.
I was responsible for coordinating 12 technical support activities for the reactor buildings.
Upon the 13 completion of Oconee, I was reassigned to work in the Design 14 Engineering Department.
I worked in design from September 1974 j
15 to September 1975 as a structural engineer.
I was responsible for 16 designing structural steel for areas of McGuire and Catawba Nuclear 17 Stations.
I was reassigned in September 1975 to the Quality l
l 18 Assurance Department at Catawba, where I am now employed as 19 Senior QA Engineer.
I have provided a resume of my work 20 experienced marked as Attachment #1.
21
-Q.
DESCRIBE THE FUNCTIONS WITHIN QA ORGANIZATION AT THE l
22 CATAWBA SITE WHICH YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR.
i 23 A.
The QA Engineering functions are divided into the following 24 disciplines:
j 25
- 1) Mechanical, Welding and NDE 26
- 2) Civil, Electrical and Instrumentation 27
- 3) Support / Restraints
4 1
- 4) Records / Status f
2 I have attached a chart to my testimony as Attachment #2 which 3
reflects the organizational structure at Catawba that reports to me.
4 Q.
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE FUNCTION OF QA ENGINEERING.
5 A.
Within the overall Quality Assurance Program, the QA Engineers are 6
responsible for:
7 Providing inspection requirements on process control documents 8
and in construction procedures; 9
Providing Technical Support for inspection groups on codes, 4
10 standards and regulatory requirements; 11 Providing documentation review requirements for the QA 12 records group; 13 Processing, evaluating, approving nonconforming item reports Initiation, or review and approve construction procedures and 14 15 determine inspection requirements as necessary; 16 Primary interface on the project with the Resident NRC 17 inspector and Region II inspectors on NRC questions and open 18 ftems; i
19 Interface with Departmental Auditors and outside auditors i
20 (ASME, INPO and JUMA) to answer QA program questions; 4
21 Interface with the Construction Department to resolW 22 inspection, procedural, and technical issues; 23 Interface with Design Engineering Department as necessary to 24 resolve questions relating to design specifications, drawings 25 and regulatory commitments; 26 Preparation of QA procedures or revisions as necessary; i
27 Verification of QA completeness of systems and structures for 28 turnover to Nuclear Production; __
OV 1
Providing training to inspectors or QA Technicians as 2
necessary as it relates to an inspection and documentation 3
requirements; and 4
Preparing weekly reports for management concerning the status 5
of work items and advising management of any developing 6
trends.
7 The QA Engineers are graduate engineers because of the technical 8
evaluations required in this position.
9 J. C. Shropshire is the QA Engineer in the mechanical, welding and 10 NDE area.
Joe has been at the Catawba project since February 11 1979, has a Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil Engineering, and is 12 a Registered Professional Engineer.
13 K.
W.
Schmidt is the QA Engineer in the civil, electrical and 14 instrumentation area.
Ken has been at the Catawba project since 15 September 1981, has a Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical 16 Engineering and is a Registered Professional Engineer.
17 T. A. Barron is the QA Engineer for Support-Restraint.
Tommy i
18 has been at Catawba since May 1976 and in this position since 19 September 1982, has a Bachelor of Science Degree in Mechanical 20 Engineering, and is a Registered Professional Engineer.
21 The QA Supervisor in the Records / Status area is responsible for:
22 Final documentation review of QA program documents, which 23 is performed in accordance with requirements specified by QA 24 Engineers; 25 Providing materials release logs for special materials (i.e. pipe 26 and weld material);
I l
27 Providing a listing of certified personnel (i.e., welders and 28 inspectors); ___
1 Administration of the QA data base programs and the 2
automated process control system; 1
3 Collection, storage and retrieval of project generated QA
\\
4 records until turnover to Operations QA; and l
5 Providing records status to QA Engineers on systems and 6
structures.
7 S. C. Broom is' the QA Supervisor for Records / Status. Susan has l
4 8
been the supervisor of this area since June 1981, and has a 9
Bachelor of Science Degree in Business Administration.
10 Q.
HOW DID THE QA FUNCTIONS REPORTING TO YOU DIFFER 11 DURING 19817 1
i 12 A.
In December 1981, I was in position of Project QA Engineer.
13 Attachment #3 is an organization chart for this time frame.
The 14 following areas _ repor'ted to me:
15
- QA Engineer - Mechanical / Welding /NDE l
16
- QA Engineer - Civil / Electrical j
17
- QA Engineer - Staff 1
18
- QC Engineer - Mechanical 19
- QC Engineer - Civil / Electrical
]
j 20
- Technical Supervisor - Welding 21
- Technical Supervisor - NDE 4
22
- QA Supervisor Records 23 As described earlier in this testimony, I outlined the responsibilities 24 of the QA Engineers. The only change in that outline is that prior 25 to December 1981, surveillance of QA program activities was. a i
26 responsibility of the QA Engineers.
This responsibility changed 27 December 7,1981, when K. W. Schmidt was assigned responsibility i
28 for this activity...
l 1
The responsibilities of the QC Engineers and the Technical 2
Supervisors are the same. Their responsibilities are:
Supervision of the Supervising Technicians 3
Ensuring that all inspectors are certified i
4 Coordination of all inspection activities 5
i Monitoring the inspection program to insure that inspections 6
7 are conducted in accordance with the applicable QA 8
procedures, codes and specifications Maintaining status of inspection activities to insure that the 9
10 construction schedules can be met Development of inspection techniques and methods 11 Maintaining current on QA inspection requirements and pro-12 4
13 viding training as necessary Resolving QC inspection questions and concerns 14 15 Interface with Construction Department to resolve inspection 16 quesdons 17 Interface with internal and external auditors to resolve in-18 spection questions.
This activity also includes interface with 4
19 NRC inspectors and Authorized Nuclear Inspectors i
20 Administration of Radiography Safety Program (Technical 21 Supervisor NDE only) 22 Interface with Level III inspectors as necessary to resolve 23 inspection questions 24 The position of Technical Supervisor and QC Engineer require a 25 technical knowledge of inspection techniques and
- methods, 26 familiarity with codes, standards and regulatory requirements
i 1
Q.
EXPLAIN THE ROLE OF THE QA ENGINEERS AS A PART OF THE 2
OVERALL QA PROGRAM.
3 A.
The QA Engineers provide the technical and procedural expertise 4
for the project QA organization.
If this expertise is not available 5
on the project the QA Engineers have ready access to the project 6
Design Engineers and Corporate QA offices.
7 Q.
DESCRIBE THE ROLE OF THE QA ENGINEER IN THE RESOLUTION 8
OF NONCONFORMING ITEMS WHILE YOU HAVE BEEN SENIOR QA 9
ENGINEER.
'O A.
The QA Engineers are responsible for the following activities in the 11 processing of nonconforming item reports:
12 Initial review for correctness and validity 13 Assignment of NCI's evaluations to the appropriate department; 14 Writing dispositions and corrective actions for QA related 15 items; 16 Evaluation and approval of dispositions and corrective actions 17 written by the Construction Department; 18 Evaluation and approval of corrective action steps for 19 Nonconforming Item Reports resolved by Design Engineering; 20 Assignment of Reportability evaluations to appropriate 21 departments; 4
22 Evaluation of significance and assignment to perform 10CFR50, 23 Appendix B, Criterion XVI evaluations on project resolved 24 nonconforming item reports; and 25 Performing final reviews of NCIs to determine that all actions 26 have been completed.
27 The initial review and validity check, is a very important step in 28 the process.
At this point the QA Engineers verify that the facts.
i 1
1 of a nonconformance have been provided and documented in 2
sufficient detail so that a proper evaluation can be performed.
I j
3 During this review process, the QA Engineers on occasion determine 4
that a nonconformance report is invalid.
When this occurs the QA 5
Engineer calls in the originator of the NCI to discuss the reasons
[
I 6
for the invalidation.
Sometimes at the point the originator gives 7
more facts and the document is processed as a nonconformance, but 8
if no new facts are provided, the document is marked invalid. The 9
main reason a report is invalidated is because the QA Engineers are 10 more familiar with the QA procedure requirements than the i
11 inspectors.
This is because in most cases the QA Engineer either 1
l 12 wrote the requirement or participated in the writing of the 3
l 13 requirement.
When the QA Engineer determines the nonconformance 14 to be invalid, he states the reasons on the original document, which i
15 is filed in the QA records vault.
16 Q.
IS THERE ANYTHING IMPROPER OR INCONSISTENT WITH A j
17 SOUND QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM FOR A QA ENf"NEER OR i
j 18 OTHER SUPERVISOR TO REVIEW AN NCI WRITTEN BY AN
]
19 INSPECTOR AND VOID THE NCI BECAUSE IN JUDGMENT THE l
20 ENGINEER OR SUPERVISOR, THE NCI SHOULD NOT BE WRITTEN.
21 A.
It is not improper to void or invalidate a nonconformance report.
[
22 QA procedure Q-1 specifically requires that this step be performed 23 if a true nonconformance does not exist.
The QA Engineers and 24 the other supervisors who were authorized to perform initial review l
25 of nonconfonnance reports are technically and procedurally qualified 26 to make this determination. In many instances, an inspector who is 27 seeking guidance from his supervision discusses the facts of a 28 problem with his supervisor before he documents the situation on
.g.
i
I the nonconformance report form.
The supervisor provides the 2
guidance needed to all of his inspectors when questions arise. This i
i 3
is a very important aspect of the supervisor's job. In cases where 1
4 an inspector disagrees with his supervisor or is unable to get an 1
5 answer to the questions raised, he has a responsibility to carry his 2
6 concern to the next level of supervision and higher until he has i
7 received a satisfactory answer.
In all cases where an inspector 8
wrote a nonconformance report and obtained a serial number the 9
document was processed and filed in the QA records vault.
Since 10 the commencement of the project site surveillance, internal audits i
11 and external audits (NRC, ASME, INPO) have reviewed our 12 nonconformance process and have never identified
" verbally 13 voiding" of nonconformance reports as a problem.
14 Q.
WHAT OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE TO A WELDING INSPECTOR WHO 15 BELIEVES THAT A SUPERVISOR MADE AN INCORRECT JUDGMENT i
16 IN INSTRUCTING HIM TO AVOID AN NCI?
I 17 A.
It is the inspector's responsibility to advise his supervisor that he 18 disagrees and wants to discuss the problem with the next level of i
j 19 supervision, and higher, until he receives a satisfactory answer to
}
4 20 his concern.
Since July 1982, a Quality Recourse procedure has l
21 been in place to properly document the actions of recourse. Prior 22 to July 1982, the same basic process existed, but it was not 23 documented to the same extent as the requirements in the quality l
l 24 recourse procedure.
The other options available to the inspectors 25 were to talk to a QA Engineer, an auditor or the NRC.
Although l
26 these options are available, it has always been preferred that they 27 work directly with their supervision to resolved their concerns.
iO
{
1 Q.
WERE YOU INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS WHICH SET THE PAY i
2 CLASSIFICATION FOR INSPECTORS?
3 A.
No.
4 Q.
WERE YOU INVOLVED IN RELATING THE DECISION OF THE l
{
5 CORPORATE PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT CONCERNING THEIR PAY i
6 CLASSIFICATION TO THE WELDING INSPECTORS.
7 A.
I was responsible for getting project QA supervision together i
l 8
for the announcement of the general increase.
My manager, 9
Mr. Davison came from the Charlotte Office to make the j
10 announcement to the supervision.
11 Q.
WHAT WAS THE RESPONSE OF THE WELDING INSPECTORS TO 12 THIS PAY CLASSIFICATION?
f 4
13 A.
They were upset with the decision.
They felt that their job had l
l 14 been improperly evaluated.
The inspectors acted professionally a
i f
f 15 about the decision and advised us that they would follow the 4
i l
16 company's recourse procedure, i
I 17 Q.
WHEN DID YOU FIRST BECOME AWARE THAT THE WELDING 18 INSPECTORS AT CATAWBA HAD EXPRESSED CONCERNS THAT
[
19 APPEARED TO AFFECT THE QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION AND l
20 SAFETY OF THE PLANT?
l~
21 A.
It was in December 1981, prior to the ' final decision on the pay I
i i
22 recourse, and at the time Task Force I was established.
i 23 Q.
DESCRIBE YOUR INVOLVEMENT WITH THE INITIAL TASK FORCE, 24 WHAT IS NOW REFERRED TO AS TASK FORCE I.
25 A.
My involvement with this Task Force was Administrative.
I was 26 also responsible for arranging a work location for the Task Force l'
27 members and arranging for the inspectors to be interviewed.
=
i l
O' 1
Q.
DESCRIBE YOUR INVOLVEMENT WITH THE TECHNICAL TASK 2
FORCE.
3 A.
My involvement was to make arrangements for the Task Force i
i 4
members to obtain specific information about the technical concerns.
5 This was accomplished by arranging for the inspectors to meet with 6
the Task Force members to discuss their concerns in detail.
7 My next involvement with the Technical task force was the I
8 discussion of the evaluation of the concern with the individual 9
inspector and supervisor.
At this time, the inspector was given 10 the opportunity to review the evaluation of his concern with the 11 Task Force.
The Technical Task Force worked independent of the l
12 Project QA organization, and their evaluations of the concerns were s
13 not discussed with QA management.
14 Q.
DESCRIBE YOUR INVOLVEMENT WITH LOUIS ZWISSLER OF 15 MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS COMPANY.
{
16 A.
I was interviewed by Mr. Zwissler in February 1982.
I made l
17 arrangements for Mr. Zwissler to interview other supervision and i
18 inspectors at the project.
19 Q.
DESCRIBE YOUR INVOLVEMENT WITH THE NONTECHNICAL TASK 20 FORCE.
21 A.
I had no involvement with the nontechnical Task Force.
22 Q.
WERE YOU INVOLVED IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 23 RECOMMENDATIONS ISSUED BY ANY OF THE TASK FORCES?
1' 24 A.
Yes.
25 Q.
DESCRIBE YOUR ROLE IN IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS 1
26 OF THE TECHNICAL TASK FORCE.
27 A.
I was involved with implementation of Technical Task 28 Force recommendations in four areas:
l l
. = -
1 1)
More Expeditious Procedures Changes 2
A new QA procedure was implemented which allows a " quick i
3 change" in procedures.
This new procedure provides the f
f 4
necessary mechanisms to change a procedure by calling the QA l
5 Technical Services Division and upon approval by the 6
Corporate QA manager, have a new procedure requirement in 7
effect within minutes if time is a real factor.
Procedures 8
revised or initiated in this manner are distributed and 9
effective like all other procedures.
This procedure has been 10 used 26 times and is an asset to our QA Program.
I 11 2)
Institution of " Train the Trainer" - Intent of Procedure 12 Program l
13 When a QA procedure is changed it is evaluated by QA j
14 Management to determine what type training is be required.
15 The " Train the Trainer" program requires that the project QA 16 organization assemble. affected QA supervisors for training by i
i 17 the individual who wrote or made the procedure or revisions.
i 18 Since this program was implemented we have had 20 sessions I
l 19 and each session was a success.
Information and questions i
j 20 were exchanged by both the procedure author and the l
21 supervision responsible for implementation.
By providing this 22 first hand exchange of procedure intent, we have reduced the 23 possibility of confusion on procedure intent.
24 Additionally the author of the procedure performs an audit after procedure implementation to ensure that the intent 25 IO 1
is being followed.
The implementation reviews have provided 2
management with valuable data concerning effectiveness of 3
implementations.
4 3)
Expansion of Procedures Comment Circle 5
Since QA procedures affect all supervision, a stronger effort 6
was instituted to obtain comments from all affected first line 7
supervision.
The new method in use allows submission of 8
informal handwritten comments which are forwarded to the QA 9
group responsible for writing the procedures.
Since l
10 implementation of the new
- program, valuable procedure 11 comments have resulted in more workable and clearer 12 procedures.
13 4)
Establishment of Periodic Meetings with Construction 14 and QA to Discuss and Review Problems 15 The recommendation made by the Task Force was to hold 16 periodic meetings with Construction for the purpose of 17 reviewing problems in using process control procedures. This 18 recommendation was expanded by QA and Construction f
19 management to include periodic meetings of all technical areas.
20 Q.
DESCRIBE YOUR ROLE IN IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS 21 OF THE NONTECHNICAL TASK FORCE.
22 A.
I attended training sessions along with my supervisors and 23 employees conducted by C.
N.
Alexander on our new Quality j
24 Recourse procedure and new Ilarassment procedure.
25 Q.
HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE PRIMARY CONCERN OF THE 26 WELDING INSPECTORS?
27 A.
The primary concern that the welding inspectors had was that l
28 management had not supported them.
I interpreted that to mean I
l. _.
~-
a i
1 that we had not supported them on pay, and we had not always i
2 supported their decisions on inspections.
The inspector's concerns 3
had previously been discussed with their supervision, and the 4
inspectors were given answers to their questions.
There was a 3
5 communications problem between the inspectors and their 6
supervisor, and the first line supervisor and the second level 7
supervisor.
8 Q.
THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY THE WELDING INSPECTOR WERE 1
9 INITIALLY CHARACTERIZED AS CONCERNS AFFECTING THE t
1 10 QUALITY OF WORK OR THE SAFETY OF THE CATAWBA PLANT.
11 IN YOUR VIEW, DID THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY THE WELDING 12 INSPECTORS AFFECT THE QUALITY OR THE SAFETY OF THE i
13 CATAWBA PLANT?
[
l 14 A.
No.
I do not believe that the concerns affected the quality or j
15 safety of the Catawba plant.
The inspectors knew they could not i
16 accept any work which they felt was improperly performed, and I 17 do not believe that the inspectors accepted any improper work.
f l
l 18 Q.
IN YOUR VIEW, DID THIS EXPRESSION OF CONCERNS BY THE 4
19 WELDING INSPECTOR INDICATE THAT THERE WAS A BREAKDOWN l
\\
l 20 IN THE QA PROGRAM AT CATAWBA OR THAT THE QA PROGRAM 21 WAS NO LONGER WORKING AT CATAWBA?
l 22 A.
No.
Their expression of concern did not represent a breakdown, it l
23 represented a communication problem.
The QA organization is 24 structured to audit and check the program effectiveness.
These l
25 independent verifications have insured that the program has worked i
26 properly.
27 Q.
HAS PRESSURE FROM THE. CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT OR 28 ANYWHERE ELSE EVER INFLUENCED YOUR PROFESSIONAL !
l
r
\\
.g 1
JUDGMENT IN MAKING DETERMINATIONS CONCERNING WHETHER 2
CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCIES IDENTIFIED BY INSPECTORS i
g, s
3 SHOULD BE APPROVED OR REJECTED? I 4
A.
'No.
In every job there is pressure but in no way has pressure 5
been n /a ter in any decisions I have made concerning the quality i
s 6
of work at Cetawba.
4 l
7 I hereby' certify that I have read and understand this document, and
,ae 8
believe it to be my true, accurate and e>mp? ate testimony.
A' 9
()tdei b IU6V V I
12 Robert A. Morgani
\\..
a 13 o
14 s
O 15 Sworn to and subscribed before me 16 this S R1 day of September,1983. s 17 s
18 I-J e
e fMy w /[Nf/dd >d' 19 20 Notary Pubuc ;
21 Commisbon Expires NE VM '/, /978 4i 22 3.
4.
(,
t
(,
h h i 4
5 1
hj i
b f.
g g
^
I
' i, ',
- (g t
's i
<t
~s i
. (4, gk.
d
h Attcchment #1 RESUME ROBERT ALEXANDER MORGAN
- +
PERSONAL:
Duke Power Company P. O. Box 223 1*
Clover, SC 29710 FORMAL EDUCATION: Virginia Polytechnic Institute:
BSCE 1970 ADDITIONAL TRAINING:
Structural Design - AISC Basic Metallurgy - ASM Corrosion Control - Carboline Ccmpany Wastewater Treatment Course - Clemson University
[.
Water Treatment Course - Clemson University Dynamics of Motivational Management - Success Mgt. Institute Cathodic Protection - Harco Corporation Nuclear Coatings Seminar - Carboline Company QA And QC in Concrete Construction - ACI i
Engineering Economics - NCSU/ Duke Power Company Welding - Metallurgy, Quality and Inspection - University of Tenn.
Professional Engineer Refresher - Clemson University Mechanical Shock Arrestors - Pacific Scientific Company Grouting Seminar - Gifford Hill Company ASME Section lli NF - ITT Grinnell s
Alternate Analysis Typicals - Duke Power Company Miscellaneous Management Courses Sponsored by Duke Power (Mgt. Development, Mgt. Graduate, Effective Ngt.)
Audit Program Training - Duke Power Company Various QA Program Training - Duke Power Company PROFESSIONAL INVOLVEMENT: Registered Professional Engineer - S.C. 7232 N.C. 8580 Member - ASME Inactive ' Level ill Structural Inspector Lead Auditor l
Licensed Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator 1
Licensed Water Treatment Plant Operator WORK EXPERIENCE:
June 1970 - May 1973 - Assistant FleId Engineer assigned to the Civil Engineering Section at Duke Power Company's Oconee Nuclear Station, responsibilities included Technical Support and Quality Assurance Functions in the following areas:
l
. Reactor Building Containment Construction
. Transportation and Erection of Major equipment
. installation of Major Equipment internals into primary system
.Auditl'ng and Inspection of Concrete Placement and Structural steel erection t
s
.t:evelopment and implementation of Protective Coatings Program V
.0peration of Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants (Applicant was Ilcensed in both).
l;fi
(2)
.Fleid design when required
. Write and review Quality Assurance Procedures when required May 1973 - September 1974 - Associate Fleid Engineer - Office Section, Oconee Nuclear Station, responsibilities included:
. Distribution and filing of Correspondence and Quality Control Records
. Review of Manufacturer's Certification Reports for compilance with appIIcable specifications
. Document Control Program
. Receiving inspection Program
. Calibration Program
. Preliminary construction Plant layout for Perkins Nuclear Station September 1974 - September 1975 - Associate Engineer, Duke Power Design Engineering Department assigned to the Structural Section, responsibilities included:
. Plan and rigid frame analysis
. Structural Design for various areas of McGuire and Catawba Nuclear Stations
. Writing Design Specifications September 1975 - May 1977 - Quality Assurance Engineer - Civil and Electrical, Duke Power Company, Catawba Nuclear Station, responsibilities included:
.Six months assignment at McGuire Nuclear Station working with QA Program i
at McGuire
. Placing inspection and documentation requirements on all documents t
O relating to Nuclear Construction
. Review of all completed documentation to assure compliance with specified requirements
. Surveillance of work activities for compilance with code and procedural requirements
. Review / approval of Noncor.formance Reports
. Primary interface with NRC inspectors at project
. Training of QC Inspectors
. Keeping QA Management advised of project problems
. Supervision of Engineers and Technicians May 1977 - February 1981 - Project Senior Quality Assurance Engineer, Duke Power Company, Catawba Nuclear Station, responsibilities expanded to include:
1
. Supervision of Two QA Engineers
.QA Engineer Civli and Electrical
.QA Engineer Mechanical, Welding, and NDE
. Functional responsibility of Project inspection Program February 1981 - September 1982 - Project Quality Assurance Engineer Duke Power Company, Cstawba Nuclear Station, responsibilities to include:
. Supervision of QA Technical Supervisors and QC Engineers who were responsible to assure that QA Inspections are in accordance with QA Program l
. Supervision of QA Engineer, Surveillance and scheduling - This position was i
responsible 'to insure surveillance-was~ conducted on project activities and that QA was on taiget for scheduled commitments
. Supervision of QA Engineers as previously described i
i
=
(3) l
. Supervision of QA Records Supervisor. This position was responsible to Insure that QA records were given a final review and were being stored O'
and protected in accordance with requirements.
. Supervision of Employee Relations. This position was responsible for main-taining an effective employee relations program on site and providing Administrative Services for the Project QA Organization September 1982 - Present - Senior Quality Assurance Engineer - Projects, Duke Power Company, Catawba Nuclear Station, responsibilities include:
i
. Supervision of QA Engineers who are responsible for the QA Engineering and Technical Support functions at the project.
. Supervision of QA Records Supervisor who is responsible for final review of temporary storage of Project QA records.
()
Attachment #2 b"
O PRESENT QA ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE w c4 Me.eg.
L R Dawson Flooming Supe.
Empt Aest.
Sww. Supe.
Isopecten Sept.
Sr. 04 Eag.
E. B. Radier 8 M Home H L. Alkwis W G Goodman R A Morgan M
M.
Asses. GA Eng.
1sch. Sept.
Tech. Sept.
Tech. Sepe.
J N Warren A E Allem F S Bui9m C R Saldunn Seps. Res. Seps. Inset Serv. inst. Says.1esh.
Sepe.ied Sept 1sch.
Seps. leth Serv. Tech. Sups. Tech. Serv. isch. Sepv. loch Seps. loch. Sept. Tech. Sepe.1ock.
Bos. C.
Clos Elast.
Elec.
eneset pipeg stenger Eqmp.
Weld.
Weld.
IIDE Weed.
Weld.
C D Hessu A L Payne J E Wedde# y 1 Boulme J N Twner J H Colema C2 Bearden G t Hoss W L Sdierd J R Ftted R L Harrs W D Catie S W Ledford B W Deaten plac.
CleE Elest.
Elect Ilonger Egelp Weld.
Weld.
IISE Weld.
RT Weed.
Weed.
Ines.
Inse.
In6f.
Insp.
seep.
enes.
sney.
see,.
ses,.
leep.
huse.
leep.
Insp.
e.,,,
E
- 04. Eng. Nengers
- 04. Sepv. Records g,gg, i A Barron S C Broom K. W Schmd J C Shropstwe "8*'
C
l 3 m
(
l 1
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE - DECEMBER '81 l
l i
l Prel. 04 Eng H A Morgan l
l l
,orsemesi Cleets
" 8'"
M
/RT 04 Eng. C/ Ell 04Eng.M/W/W g
OA Eng.
Tech. Supv. W Asee. 04 Eng. C/E
'm/u H D Mason J C Stwooshwe 3 g g,'g,,-
K W yw _
. f _N Warren,_
,_ _ T A Barren __
C.R Bal S C Broom Supe. Tech. Serv. Tech.
Supe. Tech. Supv. Tech. Supe. Tech.
Sept. Tech. Supe.IscIL Supv. Tech Supe. Tech.
DestL Eng.
Eng.
WsM.
WeM.
Elect.
Civu Paping Mens.Egelp Chute M.
Vech.
! W D Cabe J R Pettd G E Rest 8 W Deacon S W Ledford R JBoehng C V Sherdt J N Twner PD Orshpie I '
i.e me,.
i.e.
i.e i.op.
i.e
~
~
C,e,,,
4m l
O l
t l
i
/
c i
r %
/
/ /
6
/
i'
'?-
/ /
s' K
e/ u.?',,e / xi,
/
G n
- '/
J' 4,9 g y ls :'
i M
Y
/.
? <n,i c.
8 O' cy /,
,v E.. '
i Dr l / /
+
/
+
/
,+
ci
/
/ / /
",. /
i a'
/
/
t
/ %
/ /
'/ l
,t, s,
,/} /
/
i
.i
/
l t
4-
[
[
ky e
/
,c,
/
l
/ W
,3' cy /
3c tS C
I i
l l
---