ML20090K205

Applicant Exhibit A-31,consisting of Testimony of Jm Rockholt Re Welding Inspector Concerns

ML20090K205
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	11/04/1983
From:	Rockholt J DUKE POWER CO.
To:
References
A-031, A-31, NUDOCS 8405240091
Download: ML20090K205 (14)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _. . _ . _ _ _ _ _

Y ,

,,'RC 3 DOcm l UNITED. STATES OF AMERICA

.9 sg NUCLEAR-REGULATORY COMMISSIONY f,!/iR 2:3 ggg E h' BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIN BOAILDDQ

% csc:-::ac /3

//

In the Matter of - )

)

DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-413 (Catawba Nuclear Station,

--)) 50-414 Units 1 and 2) )

TESTIMONY OF JOHN MYER ROCKHOLT 1 Q. STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR WORK ADDRESS.

2 A. John M. Rockholt, Duke Power, Catawba Nuclear Station, P.O. Box i

l 3 223, Clover, SC 29710.

i 4 Q. WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT JOB WITH DUKE POWER COMPANY?

4

! 5 A. I am. a Welding Inspector A. I work anywhere on the Catawba k 6 Project, but I am primarily assigned to #2 Reactor Building.

7 Q. SUMMARIZE YOUR EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS, INCLUDING 8 OTHER NON-DUKE JOBS, EDUCATION, CERTIFICATIONS, AND 9 COMPANY SPONSORED COURSES AND TRAINING.

10 A. I have 14 years welding experience in all phases of welding. I

11 have 3 years of technical college at York Tech in Industrial 12 Engineering, and several management schools' while in the military 13 service. I worked as a Welding Supervisor with Marley Cooling 14 Tower Company, and Welding Supervisor with FMC Link Belt. I 15 completed a Labor Relations Course while at York Tech and had an 3 16 advanced Labor course with . FMC, _ which included ' Company-Union 17 Relations and Employee Relations. I have been working for Duke 18 Power Company for approximately 7 years in Lpositions associated 19 with welding (about 5 of those years 'as an inspector).

20 'Q. WHAT 'OTHER JOB POSITIONS-HAVE YOU HELD WITH DUKE POWER

'21 COMPANY?

e405240091 ppR ADOCK 05000 831104 1

4

. . - _ _ _ _ -. ._ _ _ _ _ -.._.~..u.._._-. . _ . . ._.m.._

. -1 A. I was a welder in the Construction Department before becoming an O

h 2 inspector.

3 Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH .WHAT IS COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS 4 THE WELDING INSPECTOR CONCERNS WHICH WERE EXPRESSED IN 5 LATE 1981/EARLY 1982?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THESE CONCERNS 8 WERE?

9 A. These were concerns brought up by several welding inspectors that 10 clearly show that there was a breakdown in communication between 11 inspectors and middle management. It shows the lack of support 12 for the QA Program as it was designed to be by several individuals 13 in middle management.

14 Q. DID YOU EXPRESS ANY CONCERNS AS A WELDING INSPECTOR TO 15 ANY OF THE TASK FORCES OR TO DUKE POWER MANAGEMENT?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. TO WHOM DID YOU EXPRESS YOUR CONCERNS?

18 A. To the best of my knowledge, I talked to Task Force I, the j 19 Technical Task Force, the Non-Technical Task Force, Gail Addis 20 and Lew Zwissler.

21 Q. WERE YOUR CONCERNS WRITTEN?

. 22 A. Yes.

23 Q. DESCRIBE EACH DOCUMENT WHICH CONTAINS YOUR EXPRESSION 4

24 OF CONCERNS, AND INDICATE WHO IT WAS SUBMITTED TO.

25 A. I subn.itted a one page handwritten statement which is attached to 26 my Testimony as Attachment A. I also submitted a letter to Mr.

27 McCracken on October 27, 1981 which discussed my concerns. This 4

28 letter is included in Attachment A. I submitted the statement to my

- - . - , .. ,- ., , ,- . - - - , -~ -

1 q 1- supervisor. In addition, my concerns were also contained in a 2 March 9,1982 letter to George Grier and a January 12, 1982 letter 3 to Mr. Bradley. These two letters are attached as Attachment B.

4 Q. DID YOU FEEL FREE TO EXPRESS ALL OF YOUR CONCERNS?

5 A. I expressed all my concerns but I did not feel free because of fear 6 of retaliation from Larry Davison, Charles Baldwin, Mr. Wells, Mr.

7 Owen, and Art Allum. Retaliation comes in many and variable ways 8 ranging from suppression of job opportunities to threatening of 9 one's job.

10 Q. DID YOU EXPRESS ALL OF YOUR CONCERNS?

11 A. No , the attached documents express all my concerns except for a 12 concern I have regarding potential retaliation against me affecting 13 promotion potential, transfer potential, and even retention of my i 14 job.

4 15 Q. HAVE YOU DISCUSSED YOUR CONCERNS WITH ANYONE ELSE?

16 A. I have discussed my concerns with Bob Morgan, Art Allum, Debbie 17 Ensley, Barbara Horne, Hap Sifford, Beau Ross, John Bryant, Mr.

18 Wells, and several other Duke Power representatives. All of the 19 above are involved in the concerns in some way. I also talked with 20 a reporter from Charlotte Observer and the NRC during their 21 investigation.

22 Q. DO THE DOCUMENTS ATTACHED TO YOUR TESTIMONY REFLECT 23 YOUR WRITTEN CONCERNS?

24 A. These documents reflect all my concerns that could possibly have 25 been detrimental to nuclear safety, 26 Q. ARE ALL OF YOUR -CONCERNS INCLUDED IN THE DOCUMENT

27 ATTACHED TO YOUR TESTIMONY AS ATTACHMENT A?

l

[]

v 1 A. No. The documents attached to my testimony as Attachment A

'2 includes all of the concerns I had at the time of the Task Force

.3 investigations. I have additional concerns which have arisen after 4 the - Task Force. These concerns are set forth in a set of 5 documents attached to my testimony as Attachment B. These 6 documents are a January 12, 1982 letter to Mr. Bradley, and a 7 March 9, 1982 letter to George Grier. I have attached these 8 documents to my testimony as Attachment B. The documents 9 attached as Attachment- A and B, taken together, reflect all of my 10 concerns except for my previously mentioned concern regarding 11 retaliation and its possible effects on job advancement, job security, 12 and transfer potential.

13 Q. PLEASE SUMMARIZE AND EXPLAIN WHAT YOU WERE TRYING TO 14 COMMUNICATE BY YOUR CONCERNS.

15 A. I was trying to inform Duke management that they have a 16 communications breakdown, as well as a definite and intentional 17 deterioration of the QA program here at Catawba. Examples of this 18 deterioration in the QA Program are lack of support for the 19 program from QA management, reducing the incentive to attract and 20 retain the top qualified people, and reducing required qualifications 21 and pay.

22 Q. WERE YOUR CONCERNS INVESTIGATED BY TIIE TASK FORCES?

23 A. -Yes, but I am not sure as to what degree. I do not beheve that 24 the Task Force members were qualified to conduct their 25 investigations as to my job and implementation of QA procedures as 26 they were designed to be and I was trained to do. How can a bird O

V 27 investigate the living habits of a fish?

1- Q. DID YOU' ATTEND ANY MEETINGS WITH TASK FORCE AND/OR QA 2 MANAGEMENT MEMBERS WHERE THE TASK FORCE FINDINGS, 3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WERE DISCUSSED?

4 A. Yes, there was one meeting where we were told the concerns had

[ 5 been divided into two classes, technical and non-technical. There 6 was another .neeting with Larry Coggins where I was told that my j 7 concerns did not reflect violations of procedures. I took the QA 4

8 and Construction Procedures and showed them where my concerns

9 were direct violations of the procedures. They said they would get 10 back with me. While they have not talked with me directly on these 1 11 concerns, I believe that they did discuss them with my supervisor 12 who has talked with me about them. However, I am still not

13 satisfied.

14 Q. WERE THERE ANY CHANGES MADE IN THE QA PROGRAM AFTER 15 THE WELDING INSPECTOR CONCERNS AND THE TASK FORCE

[

1 16 INVESTIGATION OF THESE CONCERNS?

l 17 A. Yes, i 18 Q. DESCRIBE THE CHANGES OF WHICH YOU ARE AWARE IN THE QA ,

19 PROGRAM.

20 A. More attempts are being made to show support for the inspectors.

21 Some procedures have been changed. In some cases the procedure 22 was changed and what was a violation of procedures is no longer a

23 violation. NCI's are no longer thrown in the trash can, and there 24 has been a change in QA Management to put George Grier in the 25 Job, who is more qualified than his predecessors.

26 Q. TO WHAT EXTENT HAVE THESE CHANGES ADDRESSED ISSUES

'V 27 RAISED BY THE WELDING INSPECTOR CONCERNS AND TO WHAT

-q 1 EXTENT HAVE THESE CHANGES ADDRESSED YOUR PARTICULAR

'")

2 CONCERNS?

3 A. In some areas we have better commitment to positive communication.

4 Q. THE WELDING INSPECTOR - CONCERNS HAVE BEEN 5 CHARACTERIZED AS CONCERNS ABOUT THE QUALITY AND 6 SAFETY OF CONSTRUCTION AT CATAWBA. DO YOU AGREE WITH 7 THAT CHARACTERIZATION?

8 A. No. Our concerns came about by a general concern of the Welding 9 Inspectors about the lack of support we were getting in our attempt 10 to implement the program as it was designed to be and we have 11 been trained to do. We recognized and brought forth problems that 12 were heading towards the deterioration of the QA Program. These 13 concerns, left unaddressed, could have been the landing pad for 14 more problems had they not been brought out and addressed. This 15 plant is going to be safe and this is due in part to the concerns of 16 the Welding Inspectors.

17 Q. DID THE EXPRESSION OF YOUR CONCERNS INDICATE YOUR 18 BELIEF THAT THERE WAS A BREAKDOWN IN THE QA PROGRAM 19 OR INDICATE THAT THE QA PROGRAM WAS NO LONGER 20 WORKING?

21 A. Yes. The QA Program was breaking down bad, but I do not  !

l believe that it affected the safety of the plant. The QA Program 22 23 was working in so far as being sure the plant was safe. I feel that 24 the company did not want people in positions who really down deep 25 know their jobs, but would rather fill the jobs with people the l 26 company can completely control and program. An example of this O

g 27 was the removal of Rick Rouse from the job of Senior Techniciar.

28 and replacing him with Billy Gillespie. Another example is the

1 removal of the requirement of prior craft welding experience to 2 become an inspector and taking people with no craft experience and 3 training them to address problems as management wants them 4 addressed.

5 Q. DID YOUR CONCERNS REFLECT A BELIEF ON YOUR PART THAT 6 THE CATAWBA PROJECT IS NOT BEING CONSTRUCTED SAFELY?

7 A. No , but had these concerns not surfaced and been addressed, I 8 believe that the situation possibly could have deteriorated to the 9 point where safety could have been jeopardized. Inspector morale 10 was and still is very low.

11 Q. IN YOUR VIEW, HAS THE QA PROGRAM BEEN EFFECTIVE WHILE 12 YOU HAVE WORKED AS AN INSPECTOR AT CATAWBA?

13 A. In some areas yes, but, in other areas no. QA has often given in f 14 to construction pressure. Morale is low and this has to affect one's 15 job.

16 Q. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY DEFICIENCIES IN CONSTRUCTION OR IN i

17 THE QA PROGRAM WHICH WOULD CAUSE YOU TO QUESTION 18 WHETHER CATAWBA IS SAFELY BUILT?

19 A. No! But there could have been; but I must say no!

20 Q. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO YOUR 21 TESTIMONY?

22 A. I feel that Duke missed a great opportunity to show everybody 23 concerned that, "yes, we had a problem but due to the integrity of 24 our employees we discovered the problem, addressed the problem, 25 corrected the problem and have learned from the problem." Instead 26 of this, I sincerely feel that many of us have been harassed and O held back because of the concerns brought forward.

V 27 I personally 28 have been denied transfer and possible promotion. Beau Ross was

-n ~ ~ , , - --- ,

'l given a bad evaluation because of the support he gave us in our 2 concerns. For a long time he was the only support we had. Art 3 Allum was against Beau and his crew all the way. Why can't 4 management see? We were just doing our job . Is it good 5 management policy to harass people for a job well done?

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 n

14

/Ln Ny~epockholt Am A'Mb5 25 4

O 16 17 Sworn to and subscribed before me 18 this 2 7 4 day of September,1983.

19 ,

f '? %'s ,

' M 33tA 22 'T L Notary Pnblic 23 24 Commission Expires [$//'/,/96

(

htuimzdA ._

i October 27, 1981 Mr Tom McCracken

Subject:

Employee Recourse Step 2

Dear Mr McCracken:

This letter is to inform you that I would like to pursue Step 2 of the Employee Recourse procedure as I cannot accept Mr. Wells' letter to me dated October 24, 1981, in which Mr. Wells stated that the position analysis by which I am working is considered an accurate description of my present duties.

The position analysis committee could not have done an in-depth study of my duties as a welding inspector and come up with justification to reduce my pay scale or wage grade.

This move on the Company's part not or.ly can but will seriously affect the quality of the work done here at Catawba because the incentive to be an inspector has been taken away and top qualified men are not going to seek a job which O- pays less money. In a short time many craft senior men will be making a higher hourly wage than an inspector and will have nq where near the responsibility l or pressure on them.

I sincerely hope you will give this matter your deepest consideration.

Respectfully,

? ..

O y -w=, - , .. .--- -

(Form 184 (5 76)

O Dev./Stati:n Unit File No.

Subject ATTACHh!ENT A By Date L. ,

eet No._of Problem No. Checked By Date i 1 _ a, n - N - - ~ . :-

l l l IF W o.-7. 19 1A l .-

ankm-% (.r6 \-r m-s c c. \\ el E sse-LPA.2 .\ nic sw l l h sm d-I . + ,L4 II c W AW2 W ,. ,.s h k  % & We -

l I L  % ad R m a % rs.

l I .c esf<- e. - i 2% Am h m A ~ m II (Ostk hun -nn i we \M .c 2M l1 -h ucx G ec& wd ,n n d ce s l I & A ha-R b:i mxi oeAh

, L AA' II  % c t Ah n a k m'. -tm c.c Rt

,, W. 4 II W 5?...+ ,C TE W G , ~ ',+ use d a os0 s -

II II -

DIFttb a t. is e Whw mbs s. s, L c<c .

M cJtt 'm am " e i s.o e sd ae.ce s L J 6k .A mb /+ .

-k -ms L..c A G bd . T. h b-L- cGU A s.'

ll Ashi c m #4 T L,e l. A IdSt u b L -s e, II dmh 4 wh. 6 A- cM x4 u w t .

Il ,, : e< -c, J :- m Ns C m c A -36 .w ok -

lI d m ktT 2% ( wh61 e e fech & bv II ckcA h\ A X A n .s < d 1% s e' _ '

,. s lI acc, .dh . : s; om A s't x _ uM r h ,

l l -

m idsh i%ML M- s e +cs; A. %d L'm l l C,' A M h _. 114. , ~s Wtb l l c uh .s 1 4 v_A 1 t i.L w& % , ,

h-hdd l l ude .

( & ,,- t m W t.A % ac. A ,~ 2,.m II c A A. dus. M M il.e tv u sh' Ah, L'a MMt as,s II 1 L .-

%1 n .,< ., imA s l Il  % <16 d it A w ,-4 td a e. am. b n Wle ao@bj lI u n L.c'ik k . / '

V

)l I !_

l Ai -

us . w i 6 A a s. 4.x . 6.6 n o. N <6 iiv ~m <Caes II B dit, o LA J v% Re <dwa tre ee ADtt,l'idts i

l I n drid 9c, 4 h-4 . me. d ', u c l. o s a L&

1. ioW l

l l

l b Clk m G.lc s si cN< 'ed M4h de 1M6 Ydl tidt w

. , ATTACHMENT B

-March 9,*1982 ,

Dear Mr. Grier,

I am writing this letter to let you know that I wish to pursue i the Employee Recourse Procedure. I feel that the company has done the QC welding inspectors in general and myself in specific a grave Injustice.

4 Upper management keeps telling us that they want us to trust them and have confidence In them, but I find this very hard to do when at every i turn i find things being done that I feel are wrong. J l

Just this morning it was confirmed that Cindy Crimminger would be I taking over William T. McClure.'s job on the surveillence team. She will l- be going to a labor grade 11. Why was the job not offered to a welding ,

Inspector who would most definately have more experience and be able to l

do a more effective job with less training in a shorter time. Is this good company policy?

I have stated in past letters that sometimes I feel that the company I

does not want people in positions who really down deep know their job '

but that they would rather fill the jobs with people they can control,

, be it right or wrong.

! How can Cindy pull surveillance on my job? She has no experlence. This move just supports my above statements.

} l believe there may be another reason for placing Cindy In this job and

! that is to help fulfill the company's affirmative action program of placing minorities in professional positions. But then again, I feel the company did not look at the entire scope of Duke Power Company affirmative action policy because this policy also encludes Veterans of the Vietnam war l era of which I am one. Was I considered?

I also believe there may be another reason why I wasn't considered for

, or offered this job, and that goes back to the statement I.arry Davison

! made to me on 1-12-82, to the effect of if I didn't do everything exactly as he laid them down that I was headed for real problems. (See my l 1etter to Mr. W.H. Bradley dated 1-13-82) is this one of those real

. problems he referred tof i ,

! Bob Morgan said Cindy was more quellfled than any of the people considered for the job. I not only don't believe she is more quallfled I don't believe she is as qualified as me. But then I probably wasn't conlidered for the job because along with doing my

Job very well, I don't lay down and play dead when I feel something i is not right.

As a last item of intrest I would ilke to remind the company that

, .* age 8, Section 4 of the non-exempt salary policies says that any employee who was red-lined would be considered for promotion or transfer i

I have had both a transfer and a promotion denied in the last month.

• I was red-lined, Cindy was not. Is this in line with company policy?

Some people may refer to me as a cry baby, or dissatisfied employee, or even troublemaker, but I want to assure you I am none of the above, but rather a very concerned employee who pays close attention to the little things.

I would like to say that i enjoyed the last conversation I had with you and I must say you present an air of confidence and trust which we have long been without. I sincerely hope you will look into these concerns and get back with me. Even though I believe you will, I am not asking you to agree with me, but just to be considerate of my concerns.

You make the decision and I will abide by it.

Respectfully Submitted i '

il h John M. Rockholt i

}

4 4

O I

l

- -a-. - - , ,. - , . , , - - - . , , - , , . , - - , , - - , - , - ,,,,--,-v,-m--+,,-,r-,_e-,,,--

-w~,,,,w-- r-,-e - , , , -,,, , - - ,_ -wr--- n

~- _ _ - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - _ - - ...- _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _

ATTACHMENT B i

. January , 3, 1952 1

l l

I l t't. V H. $radley 4

' Duke Fower Company Persennel Department j Charlotte,, N. C.

1

Dear Mr. Bradley:

1 4

On this date,1/12/82, I discussed some of the problems which have affected my job, with Bob Morgan. I believe Bob to be receptive,- but he is not in a 3 position to help. I told him I wanted to.see Varren Owen. He said he would have j: to inform Larry Davidson and Mr. Wells. I sold him 0.K. , but that I didn't really 2

wish to talk with either one of them because I feel like they are* part of the problems that the Q.C. Inspectors have. ~

Bob Morgan called Charlotte but Mr. Vells had left for Arizona and Larry Davidson was en route to Catcwba. Bob informed me when Larry arrived and I had to talk with him. I told Larry that i felt he was one of my biggest problems because j: he had already stated that he did not and would not support me on the issue of our general increase but that he would support me on Technical issues. 1 In-j formed him that according to past practices he had not supported us and that I I

didn't feel that.he should expect me to believe he would support me now.

! Larry said the pay issue was one ball game and would be handled in accordance with the Employee Recourse Procedure and any matter of a Technical nature would wlthout a doubt be handled through him. I informed Larry that I didn't have l

any confidence in him and wished to talk to Mr. Owen. Larry, at this point told me that it would be done according to the way he had layed down and he hoped I

that I realized the seriousness of not.doing this way. I told Larry that i

' fully intended to do everything in a professional manner according to all Compcny

~

policies, but that I wanted to talk to Mr. Owen. Larry told me that if I didn't do as he said that I was headed for real problems. He said he wanted te make sure I understood that. I told Larry i questioned deelstons ' that had been made j

by himself and others and I wanted to assure myself that people above Mr. Wells were aware of the overall situation.

j i str.cerely believe that Larry Cavidson was threatening me with my job if I i didn't do everything his way even though I feel he is a big part of our problem and is trying to cover up many items that he does not want to reach upper l management because many; decisions made would look bad on him.

4

I fully believe our Q.C./Q.A. Program to be adequate in all areas if followed,

' but I don't believe it has been followed and can produce proof'to substaniste It.

I feel that Larry Davidson's track record proves that he doesn't deserve

'the. trust he is asking for.

4 e

-. 6.H. Bradley ,

~Page 2 Jc-ucrv 13, 1 82 _

\

In conclusion, all I am asking for is for Mr. Owen to investigate the problems and make Judgment and decisions according to what ccmes out of the investigation. I believe that this would be beneficial to myself as well as all Duke Power here at Catawba, and I sincerely hope that Mr. Davidson will not terminate me because of my sincere concern for the problems of lack of support we in Q.C. Welding have experienced, l.must re-emphasize the fact that the statements made by Larry Davidson lead me to believe that my job could be in 1,

Jeepardy because i don't agree with him.

Sincerely,

{l^ E iQ ,

John M. Rockholt 4

4 e .es T

i

-l l

l i

l 4

I i

. .+ _ , . _ . - . . ~ _ - ..rmm, . . , ,,,-.,,.y.....,,.r,,._ ,..,.,,.m-..m_.m.._,_,.. _, _, - - . , . . _ . _ __. . _.

- - ~

, _ s _ , - --

O t

/

N /

a9 /

? / l'l /

i

m i  ; <

c c-

/ t J- /

, qi /3,/ , n E. . &r o c / g,b ,

j 0, . a> /

6'

, /

q ' .. /

. i

~Wlr //

g mi ,

- j

.)' sf, .(A .

+

~, ,i s- ,-, ., /

/i

, y e r l

gh ' -' /

/

N I

/ , J i /

\

/

,':' '/

,' //'/

/ !

~/

.t

/ ",

j i s

,/ j

.' ',p) k i

~ -

r' #

4 s /

., ,4 '

G- A 4

1 i

i 1

l i

l 0

. _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ -