ML20090K165
| ML20090K165 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 10/21/1983 |
| From: | Allum A DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| A-021, A-21, NUDOCS 8405240077 | |
| Download: ML20090K165 (9) | |
Text
__
/
Applicants' l#0 W
E5
[O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S7 Docr.n U
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
~
k D
MM2)1c343 _
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BO'ARDecc723a3 Q
$0 N i$c " $
N g.
In the Matter of
_g\\i DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. )
Docket Nos.
50-413 i
)
50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
TESTIMONY OF ARTHUR E. ALLUM 1
Q.
STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.
2 A.
My name is Arthur E. Allum, and my business address is Catawba 3
Nuclear Station, P.O. Box 223, Clover, South Carolina 29710 l'
4 Q.
' STATE YOUR PRESENT ' JOB POSITION WITH DUKE POWER 5-COMPANY AND DESCRIBE THE NATURE OF YOUR JOB.
6 A.
I am a Technical Supervisor in the Quality Assurance Department 7
responsible for the mechanical inspection section during construction 8
of the Catawba Nuclear Station.
This includes piping configuration 9
inspection, - torquing inspections, pipe cleanliness inspections, 4
J 10' calibration of mechanical test e_quipment, storage inspections, 11 housekeeping inspections, valve assembly inspections, mechanical 12 alignment and hanger inspections.
13 Q.
-DESCRIBE YOUR PROF 2SSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND
~
14 QUALIFICATIONS,- INCLUDING YOUR PRIOR POSITIONS HELD 15 WITH DUKE POWER.
16.
A.
-I have attached a resume to my testimony - which describes my l
- 17 experience and qualification in detail.
Prior to joining Duke Power 18 Company in 1977, I was in the United States Navy for twenty 19-
. years.
While in the Navy. I served as Director of the 20 Nondestructive Testing of Metals School;. Director of the Naval Sea j.
21 System Command Test-Examiner Certification Agency; electrician,
$[M O
G tT
=--w=r 1wy--
t
-,--ge e rr s=
=
e---
g e
.-4 pyM w---w-w-MW--
'vpist
-'e y usege-Wy
1 welder, and operator on diesel and nuclear powered submarines; 2
and served on submarine tenders as hull repair officer, planning 3
- officer, nondestructive testing officer, nuclear systems repair 4
officer, quality assurance officer, and radiation protection officer.
5 Q.
DESCRIBE THE FUNCTIONS WITHIN THE QA ORGANIZATION AT 6
THE CATAWBA SITE WHICH YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR.
7 A.
I am responsible for three groups of inspectors, the mechanical 8
equipment group, the piping group, and the hanger group.
I am 9
responsible to see that the inspectors in these areas are properly 10 trained and certified to perform the required inspections.
I am 11 responsible for seeing that there are sufficient numbers of 12 inspectors to perform the inspections in a timely manner, and to 13 ensure that the inspectors understand and carry out their 14 responsibilities in accordance with the QA Program requirements.
15 Q.
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE FUNCTION F EACH OF THE GROUPS 16 THAT REPORT TO YOU, BEGINNING WITH THE MECHANICAL 17 EQUIPMENT GROUP.
18 A.
The equipment group inspects the installation and repair of 19 components and machinery.
They perform ':aechanical equipment 20 calibration, housekeeping inspections, and storage inspections. The 21 piping group inspects piping configuration, and performs cleanliness 22 inspections, as well as system pressure. tests and patch tests. The 23 Hanger group inspects the installation of hangers in accordance l
24 with design drawings.
25 All three groups are ensuring that equipment, piping, and i
26 hangers are installed and tested in accordance with design 1
p 27 specifications and the QA Program. 1
4 T
__A_.
O 1
Q.
HOW DID THE QA FUNCTIONS REPORTING TO YOU DIFFER Q) 2 DURING 1981?
3 A.
During the first part of 1981, I was at the Cherokee Nuclear 4
Station site.
On May 25, 1981, I was transferred to Catawba, 5
responsible for radiography, nondestructive examination, document 6
- control, and receiving inspection.
I was also the Radiation 7
Protection Officer.
In January 1982, I assumed responsibility for 8
welding inspectors.
Later I became responsible for an NDE 9
inspection crew, and one of the welding inspection crews was 10 transferred to another supervisor.
In June 1983, I became 11 responsible for the group that presently report to me.
12 Q.
EXPLAIN YOUR
- ROLE, AND THE ROLE OF THE GROUPS 13 REPORTING TO YOU IN THE OVERALL QA PROGRAM.
14 A.
Our role is the same as all QA Inspection groups.
We are 15 responsible for seeing that all items and systems inspected are in 16 accordance with the proscribed standards and procedures.
We 17 identify items that are not in compliance with the applicable 18 standards and procedures to ensure that appropriate corrective 19 action is taken.
20 Q.
DESCRIBE YOUR
- ROLE, AND THE ROLE OF THE GROUPS 21 REPORTING TO YOU IN THE RESOLUTION OF NONCONFORMING 22 ITEMS WHILE YOU HAVE BEEN A TECHNICAL SUPERVISOR.
23 A.
The groups currently reporting to me do not have a role in the 24
' resolution of NCI's.
Our job is to identify items that require 25 corrective action.
Resolution of the NCI's that might result from 26 the items we identify is handled b'y QA Technical Support, b]/
l
/
27 Construction Technical Support, Design or other engineering areas 28 of the company.
l,
l
1 Q.
IS THERE ANYTHING IMPROPER OR INCONSISTENT WITH A 2
SOUND QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM FOR A TECHNICAL 3
SUPERVISOR OR OTHER SUPERVISOR TO REVIEW AN NCI 4
WRITTEN BY AN INSPECTOR AND VOID THE NCI BECAUSE IN 5
THE JUDGMENT OF THE TECHNICAL SUPERVISOR OR OTHER 6
SUPERVISOR, THE NCI SHOULD NOT BE WRITTEN.
7 A.
There is nothing improper about having supervisors perform a 8
technical review of NCI's which might void that NCI if it was 9
improperly initiated.
In the past, inspectors have written NCI's 10 that were improper, incomplete, and poorly described. This led to 11 the decision a few years ago to have a technical review to eliminate 12 unnecessary NCI's.
The technical review by supervision cut down 13 on the improper NCI's and caused NCI's to be better written. The G
14 judgement to void an NCI is based on procedure information, often U
15 with the input of QA technical personnel.
16 All inspectors have been instructed and are required to 17 generate a Quality Recourse if they feel the action to void an NCI 18 is improper.
As indicated by the lack of rework resulting from the i
19 investigations of the welding inspector concerns, the actions taken 20 by personnel performing these technical reviews were proper.
In 21 addition to the inspection performed by the QA inspectors, we have 22 random inspections by the Authorized Nuclear Inspectors (ANI),
23 surveillance inspections by the Level II audit team, the NRC and 24 various industry groups.
Our program has worked in the past, 25 and we continue to do everything possible to ensure that it l
26 continues to work.
! O) l \\" ;
l
3 1
Q.
WHAT OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE TO A WELDING INSPECTOR WHO BELIEVES THAT A SUPERVISOR MADE AN INCORRECT JUDGMENT 3
IN INSTRUCTING HIM TO VOID AN NCI?
l 4
I.. A welding inspector or any inspector who thinks a supervisor made 5
an incorrect judgement voiding an NCI is required, and encou: aged 4
6 to pursue a Quality Recourse to get the matter satisfactorily 7
resolved.
Prior to adoption of the Quality Recourse procedure, 8
employees were encouraged to pursue questions of this nature 9
through supervision to get their questions answered satisfactorily.
10 Q.
DID YOU HAVE ANY INVOLVEMENT WITH THE INITIAL TASK 11 FORCE, WHAT IS NOW REFERRED TO AS TASK FORCE I.
3 12 A.
I had no involvement with Task Force I.
13 Q.
DID YOU HAVE ANY INVOLVEMENT WITH LEWIS 7.WISSLER OF O
14 MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS COMPANY, THE TECHNICAL TASK FORCE 15 OR THE NONTECHNICAL TASK FORCE?
16 A.
No.
My only involvement was sitting in on meetings between the l
17-Technical Task Force members and inspectors where the Task Force 18 members explained what was done with respect to each concern.
19 Q.
WERE YOU INVOLVED IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 20 RECOMMENDATIONS ISSUED BY ANY OF THE TASK FORCES?
21 A.
Yes.
I was responsible for having some training done on 22 procedures that were unclear to the welding inspectors. I was also 23 responsible for having some reinspections performed.
24 Q.
HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE PRIMARY CONCERN OF THE 25 WELDING INSPECTORS? -
26 A.
The welding inspector concerns were. a means of drawing the 27 attention of upper management to the importance of their job and to 28 show that the welding inspectors pay should not have. been-
, 4
I reclassified.
I believe that if the pay issue had not come up, the 2
concerns would not have come up.
3 Q.
THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY THE WELDING INSPECTOR WERE 4
INITIALLY CHARACTERIZED AS CONCERNS AFFECTING THE j
5 QUALITY OF WORK OR THE SAFETY OF THE CATAWBA PLANT.
6 IN YOUR VIEW, DID THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY THE WELDING 1
7-INSPECTORS AFFECT THE QUALITY OR THE SAFETY OF THE l
8 CATAWBA PLANT?
9 A.
No.
I do not believe that these concerns affected the quality or 10 the safety of the Catawba plant. When the concerns were reviewe.d 11 by qualified members of the -Task Force, no technical inadequacies 12 were found and there was no reqnired rework or redesign.
The
{
13 concerns were reviewed independently and without input from i
14 management.
15 Q.
IN YOUR VIEW, DID THIS EXPRESSION bF CONCERNS BY THE 16 WELDING INSPECTOR INDICATE THAT THERE WAS A BREAKDOWN 17 IN THE QA PROGRAM AT CATAWBA OR THAT THE QA PROGRAM 18 WAS NO LONGER WORKING AT CATAWBA?
19 A.
No.
The concerns did not indicate a breakdown in the program.
4 20 The program worked then and it works now.
The fact that the
,i 21 concerns were all investigated assuming the worst possible 22 condition, that is the concerns were all true and valid, shows our i
23 intent to ensure that Catawba is being built in accordance with the 24 QA program.
25 Q.
HAS PRESSURE FROM THE CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT OR 26 ANYWHERE ELSE EVER INFLUENCED YOUR PROFESSIONAL
?.7 JUDGMENT IN MAKING DETERMINATIONS CONCERNING WHETELR T
.. ~ - -..,....
n
.n..,.,. _ -,,., -. -,.
n,
,.c.,
n
,,.en a v
1 CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCIES IDENTIFIED BY INSPECTORS
^
\\
2 SHOULD BE APPROVED OR REJECTED?
3 A.
Absolutely not.
There has never been an occasion when I have 4
been pressured directly or indirectly to not identify an item that 5
does not meet applicable standards and procedures. If a deficiency 6
is identified by the inspectors, or anyone else, it is investigated 7
without regard to schedule, pressure or anything else.
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 qy 16 Arthur E. Allum 17 18 19 Sworn to and subscribed before me 20 this 2/
day of September,1983.
21 b b.
3 m
l 24 y
Notary Public 25 26 Commission Expires 7, /2 //
j i
L.
Attachm:nt 1 Personal:
(
Arthur E. Allum
- Rt.1, Box 159 Blacksburg, S.C.
29702 E'ducation:
Washington High School, Washington, Pa.
1957 Additional Training:
US Navy Electrician Mate Class "A" and "B" Schools US Navy Submarine School US Navy Nuclear Power School US Navy Submarine Repair Welding School US Navy Nondestructive Testing of Metals School Professional Involvement:
Member of the Board of Directors, Charlotte, Section American Society for Nondestructive Testing (ASNT) 1 Visual Committee Member, National ASNT Ultrasonic Personnel Qualification Committee, National ASNT Radiography Personnel Qualification Committee, National ASNT Work Experience:
i 6-83 to present - Technic'al Supervisor Mechanical - Catawba Nuclear Station - Duke Power Company - Responsible for the inspection of all mechanical systems and components, housekeeping inspection, storage i
inspection, hanger inspection and mechanical equipment calibration.
Responsible for the QA organization at Cherokee Nuclear Station.
1-82 to 6 Technical Supervisor Welding - Catawba Nuclear Station -
Duke Power Company Responsible for all welding inspection and nondestructive examination at Catawba including structural, piping and hangers.
Responsible for training of inspectors and scheduling of work force.
Responsible for the QA organization at Cherokee Nuclear Station.
5-81 to 1 Technical Supervisor / Radiation Protection Officer Catawba Nuclear Station - Duke Power Company Responsible - for Document Control inspection, receiving inspection, radiography, nondestructive examination.
Radiation Protection Officer.
Responsible for the QA organization at Cherokee Nuclear Station.
2-80 to 5 -Technical Supervisor / Radiation Protection Officer Cherokee Nuclear Station - Duke Power Company Responsible for - the total Quality Control Inspection at Cherokee including welding, mechanical, electrical, document control, receiving, civil, nondestructive examination, radiography, and coatings.
lO
, V 4
e
R:suma Arthur E. Allen Page 2
'f~h G
8-77 to 2-80 '- Technical Supervisor / Radiation Protection Officer Cherokee Nuclear Station - Duke Power Company Responsible for welding nondestructive examination, radiography and mechanical inspections.
E-9/ Warrant Officer W-1 ' - '
Enlisted E-1 6-57 to 8-77 CWO-3/ Commissioned Officer 02E - 03E - US Navy - Stationed on various diesel and nuclear powered submarines as an electrician, welder, and operator.
Served on submarine tenders ~
the Hull Repair Officer, as Planning Officer, Nuclear Systems Repair Officer, Nondestructive Testing Officer, Quality Assurance Officer and Radiation Protection Officer.
Served as the Director, Nondestructive Testing of Metals School and Director of the Naval Sea System Command Test Examiner Certification Agency.
i
\\ a'
2
._A_
i A
.e__
~. -
a s
._a e
O
/i Ii / //
d
!?
/
/ /
y d c: 3/ l/ / *<v j /
i e
g j }/ /
0/
y l;%u 3 i / N'a /
s 3l 3
~0
I jf e Mg u:
.a
/
s v e
i c/
c j
3 5
l/.I
/ -~
,->i
/ / / /
i i
i
/
/
l r
i
/ /
s
', j lj ?/
.,' l
,! l j'
/(
t
/ /
i ~
1 Q
e;
,'Q l
G
'l l
l
,_Qj
(
e a
c :'
'l 1
l l
'l
'l e!
- l 1
1