ML20090K163
| ML20090K163 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 10/21/1983 |
| From: | Baldwin C DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| A-020, A-20, NUDOCS 8405240075 | |
| Download: ML20090K163 (11) | |
Text
.
Applictnts' Exhibit p-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA e
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. )
Docket Nos.
50-413 4
-)
50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station,
)
4 Units 1 and 2)
)
l TESTIMONY OF CHARLES R. BALDWIN j
1 Q.
STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.
2 A.
My name is Charles R.
Baldwin, and my business address is f
3 Catawba Nuclear Station, P.O.
Box 223, Clover, South Carolina i
i 4
29710 5
Q.
STATE YOUR PRESENT JOB POSITION WITH DUKE POWER 6
COMPANY AND DESCRIBE THE NATURE OF YOUR JOB.
7 A.
I am a Technical Supervisor in the Quality Assurance Depa.rtment 8
responsible for welding inspection and nondestructive examination 4
'9 during construction of the - Catawba Nuclear Station.
I am 10 responsible for ensuring that all welds arc inspected by-welding 11-inspectors and that all radiography and nondestructive examinations 12 are performed by qualified and certified inspectors in an efficient 13 and timely manner according to applicable QA procedures, design 14
- drawings, design specifications, and governmental and safety 15 regulations. I must ensure that the necessary number of inspectors 16 are available to complete the inspections and tests according to 17 construction schedules, t
18 I must work closely with the Supervising Technicians to assign 19 welding inspectors, radiographers and nondestructive
/~T i
.20-examination inspectors, and provide technical expertise in the 21 resolution of questions raised by inspectors.
Interfacing regularly 8405240075 831021
.PDR ADOCK 05000 G
. ~
~.
(D 1
with Design Engineering, Construction Technical Support and Q
2 Quality Assurance and contact with NRC representatives is required 3
from time to time to review compliance with Quality Assurance 4
procedures.
5 I am responsible for ensuring that all Supervising Technicians 6
and inspectors are properly trained in applicable QA inspection 7
procedures, Design Engineering specifications, design drawings and 8
governmental and safety regulations.
I am also responsible for 9
scheduling inspector training with the Training Department, 10 initiating, maintaining, an.f updating inspector certifications of all 11 inspectors and radiographers in my assigned area.
12 I also serve as the site Radiation Protection Officer.
During 13 audits by outside regulatory agencies, I am responsible for 14 providing information and documentation concerning compliance with 15 State and Federal regulations.
This responsibility includes 16 conducting periodic radiation Safety Inspections throughout the 8
17 construction project and making written report on the inspection 18 findings.
After examining and evaluating the inspection results, I 10 am responsible for determining the resolution of existing and 20 potential radiation safety deficiencies.
21 Q.
DESCRIBE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND 22 QUALIFICATIONS, INCLUDING YOUR PRIOR POSITIONS HELD 23 WITH DUKE POWER.
24 A.
I graduated from Westminster High School, Westminster, South 25 Carolina in 1957.
I took Industrial Arts Courses in high school 26 which included welding and basic metallurgy.
4.. __. -
1 I attended Berry College, Mt. Berry, Georgia. My courses at 2
Berry included Shielded Metal Arc and Gas Welding, Mechanical 3
Drawing, Castings and Basic Metallurgy.
4 I also completed a course of study in Mechanical Engineering 5
through International Correspondence Schools, from 1964-1966.
6 I completed a course of study in Mafinetic Particle, Liquid 7
Penetrant, and Radiographic Examinations of welds as outlined in 8
the American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Recommended 9
Standards for Inspector Certification, SNT-TC-1 A, offered by 10 Babcock and Wilcox Company, Barberton, Ohio, September, 1968; 11 completed a course on Basic Metallurgy by the American Society of 12 Metals,
Pendleton, S.C.,
- May, 1972; completed Duke Power 13 Company's Supervisory Developmenc Program, June,1973; completed 14 Supervisory Training, Dynamics of Supervision, presented by 15 Success Motivation Institute, Inc., October,1973; attended seminars 16 on ASME Section V and ASME Section XI codes in Miami, Florida, 17 June,1974; completed 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> training in Ultrasonic Examination of 18 Welds, 1974; completed required training and examination and was 19 certified as a Welding Inspector, 1976; completed Duke Power 20 Company's Management Development Program,
- May, 1978; and 21 attended Industrial Radiation Safety Seminar, North Carolina State 22 University, November,1979.
23 I was employed with Duke Power Company Construction 24 Department at the Oconee Nuclear Station July 25, 1967 as a Quality 25 Control Inspector.
I was transferred to the Welding Inspection and 26 Nondestructive Testing Section of the " Quality Control Department 27 after completing training in Radiography, Magnetic Particle and j_
28 Liquid Penetrant Examinations.
I served as an inspector in these _
I disciplines until I was promoted to Supervising Technician, Welding 2
Inspection and Nondestructive Examinations, June 1,1971.
3 I also served as the Level III Radiography Inspector Examiner.
)
4 The responsibilities of the Radiography Examiner included 5
developing procedures and Techniques for radiographing welds in 6
accordance with applicable codes and specifications, resolving 7
technical questions concerning radiography, and training, examining 8-and certifying radiography inspectors in accordance with 9
applicable codes.
While serving as the Radiography Examiner at l
10 Oconee, Station, I was responsible for supervising a complete 1
11 review and evaluation of all radiographs.
j 12 I was transferred from Oconee to Catawba Nuclear Station as a 13 Supervising Technician (first line supervisor) November 15, 1975.
14 My duties included supervising inspectors perfonning welding 15 inspection, nondestructive examinations of welds, radiographic 16 inspections of welds,
inspection of controlled documents and 17 receiving inspection of safety related materials and equipment.
i 18 I
was promoted to Technical Supervisor (second level 19 supervisor) Welding Inspection and Nondestructive Testing, July 1, 20 1976.
1 21 I have also served as the Welding Inspector examiner ' at 22 Catawba.
The responsibilities in this position included training, 23 examining and certifying welding inspectors in accordance with 24 established procedures as well as developing and adopting ' the 25 program to specific applications.
26 Q.
DESCRIBE THE. FUNCTIONS WITHIN THE QA ORGANIZATION AT i
4,
4
____________________________-________,r--
(
1 A.
I am responsible for ensuring that all welds are visually inspected, 2-nondestructively examined by Ultrasonics, Magnetic Particle and 3
Liquid Penetrant, examinations and radiographically inspected by 4
qualified and certified inspectors in accordance with the Quality 5
Assurance procedures 6
At present, there are three (3) Supervising Technicians (first 7
line supervisors) and one (1) Inspector Clerk reporting directly to 8
me.
Bill Deaton and Stanley Ledford are Supervising Technicians 9
responsible for welding inspection crews.
W.
D.
Cabe is the 10 Supervising Technician responsible for radiographic inspections.
11 Q.
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THESE CREWS.
12 A.
The inspectors on these crews perform all visual, magnetic particle 13 and liquid penetrant inspections of welds required by procedures, 14 process control, design specifications, and design drawings in both 15 Unit I and Unit 2 Auxiliary Buildings and Unit 1 and Unit 2 16 Turbine Buildings.
W.
D.
Cabe is the Supervising Technician 17 responsible for all radiographic inspections.
18 Q.
HOW DID THE QA FUNCTIONS REPORTING TO YOU DIFFER 19 DURING 1981?
20 A.
Prior to May 1981, I was responsible for all welding inspection, 21 nondestructive examination, document control inspections, and 22 radiographic inspections as Technical Supervisor for all areas at the 23 Catawba site.
I had four (4) Supervising Technicians and three 24 (3) document control inspectors reporting directly and 25 approximately sixty-five (65) Welding Inspectors, Radiographers and 26 Nondestructive Testing Inspectors reporting indirectly to me.
I 27 was also serving as Welding Inspector Examiner, and Radiation 28 Protection Officer during this period. _ - _ _ - _
k 1
1 In May,.1981, Art Allum was transferred from Cherokee to the 2
Catawba site.
The responsibility for radiography, non-destructive 3
examinations, and document control inspectors was shifted from my 4
responsibility to Art Allum.
I maintained responsibility for all I
5 welding inspectors.
i -
6 In January, 1982, Art Allum and I exchanged responsibilities.
7 I became responsible for radiography, nondestructive examination, I
8 and document control inspectors. Since January 1982, two crews of 9
welding inspectors have been assigned to me, and responsibility for 10 document control inspectors has been transferred to another 11 supervisor.
12 Q.
EXPLAIN YOUR ROLE AND THE ROLE OF THE CREWS REPORTING 13 TO YOU AS A PART OF THE OVERALL QA PROGRAM.
14 A.
My role as Technical Supervisor is to direct and supervise - the 15 Supervising Technician to ensure the required inspection are 16 performed and documented in accordance with the QA Program.
17 The Supervising Technicians role is to directly supervise the 18 inspectors. The inspectors role is to do the required inspections 19 and to document the results of their inspections in accordance with 20 the QA Program.
21 Q.
DESCRIBE THE ROLE OF THE TECHNICAL SUPERVISOR IN THE 22 RESOLUTION OF NONCONFORMING ITEMS WHILE YOU HAVE BEEN
-23 A TECHNICAL SUPERVISOR.
24 A.
I am: not involved in the resolution of Nonconforming Item Reports.
t 25 From February 1981 to January 1983, I was involved in processing i
26 NCIs by performing the technical. review.
This review was 27 necessary to evaluate the discrepancy identified by the inspector to 28 determine whether it in fact wasa nonconforming item; to determine
)
- - l
~s 1
that the NCI Report was the appropriate means of documenting the 2
discrepancy; determine if the. problem had been described 3
accurately and completely; and to direct the inspector on 4
documenting or resolving the discrepancy in another manner in 5
accordance with the Quality Assurance Program when it was 6
determined the NCI Report was inappropriate.
7 If it was determined that the Nonconforming Item Report was 8
inappropriate, my responsibility was to instruct the l'.spector on 9
how to appropriately handle or document the discrepancy.
1 10 Q.
IS THERE ANYTHING IMPROPER OR INCONSISTENT WITH A 11 SOUND QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM FOR A TECHNICAL 12 SUPERVISOR OR OTHER SUPERVISOR TO REVIEW AN NCI 13 WRITTEN BY AN INSPECTOR AND VOID THE NCI BECAUSE IN 14 THE JUDGMENT OF THE TECHNICAL SUPERVISOR OR OTHER 15 SUPERVISOR, THE NCI SHOULD NOT BE WRITTEN.
16 A.
There is nothing improper or inconsistent with a sound Quality 17 Assurance Program for a Technical Supervisor or other supervisor 18 to verbally void a written NCI Report if it is determined to be 19 inappropriate or can be resolved by another means within the i
20 Quality Assurance Program.
Supervisors have the responsibility to 21 exercise this kind of judgement in the normal course of 22 implementing the QA Program.
In the normal course of carrying 23 out their inspection duties, inspectors have questions about specific 24 items of workmanship, and are usually directed by supervisors on 25 the appropriate actions to be taken.
It was not uncommon until 26 recently for inspectors to document -their questions on an NCI form
(
27 prior to discussing the questions with their supervisors.
Providing 28 verbal directions' to the inspector is the same in the instance where.
y 1
the question is documented on s NCI, as providing verbal 2
directions where the question is not documented on an NCI form.
3 All inspector concerns involving verba}1y voiding NCI's and e
?
hi 4
other technical concerns of the inspectors were identified,and 5
investigated by'the Technical Task Force.
The Task Force found 6
that the decisions of the supervisors were correct from a technical
~
7 3
standpoint, and no rework was required as a result of the inspector 8,
colicerns as determinet by the. Technical Task Force.
3 9
Q.
WHAT OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE TO A WELDING INSPECTOR WHO 10 BELIEVES THAT A SUPERVISOR MADE AN INCORRECT JUDGMENT
/ 11 IN II4STRUCTING HIM TO yOID AN' NCI? '
12 Prior to the initiation of the' Quality Recourse ~ Procedure in.
13 July,1982 inspectors were encouraged to take their concerns to the s.
14 next level of supervision, aind to upper management until the 15 c'oncern was satisfactorily answered.
16 Q.
DESCRIBE YOUR INVOLVEMENT WITH THE INITIAL TASK FORCE, 17 WHAT IS NOW REFERRED TO AS TASK FORCE I.
18 A.
I 'Was interviewed by' Task Force I and was asked to describe my 19 ro'le as Technical Supervisor and my involvement in verbally voiding 20 Nonconforming Item Reports written by Inspectors.
I discribed my 21 role as I have described it in this testimonN.
l 22 Q.
DESCRIBE YOUR INVOLVEMENT WITH THE TECHNICAL TASK i
s
!~
^
23 FOR CE,.
- 5 4,
\\
l 24 A.
. I had no -involvement with the Technical Task Force.
They were 25 assigned the task of reviewing, evaluating, and making a
26 recommendations from the welding inspectors point of view.
I was
'27-not interviewed, and no information was: requested from me.
y
(" '
l c
1 b
, ' if;
.\\
4
[V3 1
Q'
' DESCRIBE YOUR INVOLVEMENT WITH LEWIS ZWISSLER OF 2
MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS COMPANY.
p 3
A.
I was interviewed by Lewis Zwissler and was asked to describe my 4
Technical background and qualifications, the responsibilities of my
~5 position as Technical Supervisor and my opinion of the adequacy of 6
the Quality Assurance Program.
My involvement was limited to 7
responding to Mr. Zwissler's questions.
8 Q.
DID YOU HAVE ANY INVOLVEMENT WITH THE NONTECHNICAL 9
TASE FORCE?
10 A.
No.
I had no involvement with the Nontechnical Task Force.
11 Q.
.WERE YOU INVOLVED IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 12 RECOMMENDATIONS ISSUED BY ANY OF THE TASK FORCES?
E1 13 A.
No.
I was not involved in determining how those recommendation 14 would be implemented.
My involvement in implementing the
, 15 recommendations of the Task Forces would have been as a result of
'16 QA Procedural revisions that might have been made as a result of 17 Task Force recommendations.
I compiled with these procedure 15 revisions just as I have complied with prior revisions.
.19 ' ' Q.
HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE PRIMARY CONCERN OF THE
.i 20 WELDING INSPECTORS?
21 A.
I feel the primary concerns of the inspectors resulted from 22 supervision failing to adequately communicate to the inspectors their 23 role as welding inspectors, and failing to clearly describe to the 24 inspectors how to control and document discrepancies, particularly 25 where supervision made' decisions based on their technical 26 expertise.
The basis for the. supervisor's. decisions was frequently D) -
27 not accepted by the inspectors.
b
_p.
a,,
k'
> :l !
l 1
Q.
THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY THE WELDING INSPECTOR WERE 2
INITIALLY CHARACTERIZED AS CONCERNS AFFECTING THE 3
QUALITY OF WORK OR THE SAFETY OF THE CATAWBA PLANT.
4 IN YOUR VIEW, DID THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY THE WELDING S
INSPECTORS AFFECT THE QUALITY OR THE SAFETY OF THE 6
CATAWBA PLANT?
7' A.
In my view, the concerns expressed by the welding inspectors did l
8 not affect the quality or the safety of the Catawba Plant.
These i
I 9
concerns resulted from the inspectors failing to accept technical 10 directions given to them by their supervision.
This was due in 11 part to supervision failing to communicate to the inspectors the 12 boundaries of the inspector's responsibilities and authority.
13 Q.
IN YOUR VIEW, DID THIS EXPRESSION OF CONCERNS BY THE 14 WELDING INSPECTOR INDICATE THAT THERE WAS A BREAKDOWN 15 IN THE QA PROGRAM AT CATAWBA OR THAT THE QA PROGRAM 16 WAS NO LONGER WORKING AT CATAWBA?
17 A.
In my view, these concerns did not indicate that there was a 18 breakdown in the QA Program or that the program was no longer 19 working.
The concerns did indicate a need to communicate better 20 to the inspectors.
In my view, the QA Program at Catawba has 21 been implemented.
22~
Q.
HAS PRESSURE FROM THE CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT OR 23 ANYWHERE ELSE-EVER INFLUENCED YOUR PROFESSIONAL 24 JUDGMENT IN MAKING DETERMINATIONS CONCERNING' WHETHER 25
' CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCIES - IDENTIFIED BY INSPECTORS 26' SHOULD BE APPROVED OR REJECTED?
O 27 A.
There are always pressures in any position of. responsibility, U
28 particularly supervisory responsibility. From my-perspective, these 1',
,-.c-
_,L.,
O 1
pressures never overcame the obligation to make the correct 2
professional decisions while implementing the QA Program.
These 3
pressures have never caused me to accept any work that in my 4
professional judgement did not meet the applicable standards.
5 6
7 8
9 I hereby certify that I have read and understand this document, and 10 believe it to be my true, accurate and complete testimony.
11
/ _.
nh - -D 14 Charles R. Baldwin 15 16 17 Sworn to and subscribed before me 18 this
.? /
day of September,1983.
19 i
- 0. L n. B-20 Notary Public 23 24 Commission Expires 7- / 2. #
) t
4=aA 1
0 i
i l
/
/ //
@c
/
/
,' /
/
Q
<o
/ /
f
-]-
f
/, / l Q
l$
? J' &, * ' /,/
G7 l
h Q,
,/
- Y
/'
Y l
l
' j' y
y
/ /
y '/ / :,/
<}
//
,,7
/
l h
',hg, v
s/ /
"c e
cy l
9
-