ML20090K280
| ML20090K280 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1983 |
| From: | Bumgardner T DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| A-071, A-71, NUDOCS 8405240125 | |
| Download: ML20090K280 (8) | |
Text
4 Applicants' Exhibit
//
gn k?>g
[J/[
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION x p, BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING kDARDUC%D h
i = m m8a In the Matter of
)
dgfag
{
umna DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. )
Docket Nos. 4 413 Q,
\\
)
\\'
(Catawba Nuclear Station,
)
Units 1 and 2) -
)
TESTIMONY OF TOMMY ~ BUMGARDNER 1
Q.
STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR WORK ADDRESS.
2 A.
Tommy Bumgardner, Catawba Nuclear Project, P.O.
Box 223, 3
Clover, SC 29710.
4 Q.
WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT JOB WITH DUKE POWER COMPANY?
i 5
A.
QA Welding Inspector Level II, Liquid Penetrant Inspector Level II, 6
Magnetic, Particle Inspector Level I.
My job is to make sure that 7
craft fits and welds to Duke's procedures.
8 Q.
SUMMARIZE YOUR EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS, INCLUDING 9
OTHER DUKE AND NON-DUKE
- JOBS, EDUCATION, 10 CERTIFICATIONS, AND COMPANY SPONSORED COURSES AND 11 TRAINING.
12 A.
Graduated from Kings Mountain High in 1969, then took welding at i
i 13 Gaston College in 1969.
Took a job with Lithium Corporation in i
14 1970 as a welder.
Then in February, 1977 was hired by Duke 15 Power as a welder.
Transferred to Welding Inspection in June, 16 1978.
I was trained in school by Duke Power Procedures for 3 17 weeks and spent 90 days as a learner, then advanced to inspector 18
' after 90 days. trial. Advanced to Inspector A on February 4,1980.
O hh[oSN!3 G
N i
1 Q.
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH WHAT IS COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS 2
THE WELDING INSPECTOR CONCERNS WHICH WERE EXPRESSED IN 3
LATE 1981/EARLY 1982?
4 A.
Yes.
5 Q.
WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THESE CONCERNS 6
WERE?
7 A.
There were basically two concerns.
The first involved problems 8
that had been found with materials identification, fabrication and 9
welding, and had been recorded on NCIs.
I did not believe that 10 the problems which were found were being investigated like they 11 were supposed to have been.
There was a lack of communication 12 between inspectors and higher management on the way the 13 inspectors were interpreting procedures.
Second, when problems 14 were found, higher management would not back us up on the 15 problem.
When we were in welding inspection school, we were 16 taught that the procedures were the way craft would have to 17 construct the plant, and we were to go right by the procedures.
18 Q.
DID YOU EXPRESS ANY CONCERNS AS A WELDING INSPECTOR TO 19 ANY OF THE TASK FORCES OR TO DUKE POWER MANAGEMENT?
20 A.
Yes.
21 Q.
TO WHOM DID YOU EXPRESS YOUR CONCERNS?
22 A.
My written concerns were turned in to QA supervisor, S. W.
23 Ledford, and on to higher management.
I talked with the Task 24 Force.
25 Q.
WERE YOUR CONCERNS WRITTEN?
26 A.
Yes.
h 27 Q.
DESCRIBE EACH DOCUMENT WHICH CONTAINS YOUR EXPRESSION v
28 OF CONCERNS, AND INDICATE WHO IT WAS SUBMITTED TO.
1 A.
Pay rate concerns submitted to S. W. Ledford, QA supervisor, and 2
on up to higher management.
Technical concerns submitted to S.
3 W.
Ledford, QA supervisor, and on up to higher management.
4 Q.
DID YOU FEEL FREE TO EXPRESS ALL OF YOUR CONCERNS?
5 A.
Yes.
6 Q.
DID YOU EXPRESS ALL OF YOUR CONCERNS?
7 A.
Yes.
8 Q.
DOES THE DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO YOUR TESTIMONY AS 9
ATTACHMENT A REFLECT YOUR WRITTEN CONCERNS?
10 A.
Yes, Attachment A is the letter I submitted to S.
W.
Ledford 11 regarding my technical concerns.
12 Q.
ARE ALL OF YOUR CONCERNS INCLUDED IN THIS DOCUMENT 7 13 A.
Yes.
14 Q.
PLEASE SUMMARIZE AND EXPLAIN WHAT YOU WERE TRYING TO 15 COMMUNICATE BY YOUR CONCERNS.
16 A.
I was trying to get a better relationship between inspectors and 17 higher management in QA on problems found in the field. All I was 18 wanting was to get them to investigate problems more thoroughly.
19 Q.
WERE YOUR CONCERNS INVESTIGATED BY THE TASK FORCES?
20 A.
Yes.
21 Q.
DID YOU ATTEND ANY MEETINGS WITH TASK FORCE AND/OR QA 22 MANAGEMENT MEMBERS WHERE THE TASK FORCE FINDINGS, 23 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WERE DISCUSSED?
24 A.
Yes.
My concerns were read to me by Task Force members, and 25 they investigated the problems and returned a answer for each 26 question that was asked and I believe that the answers were 27 suitable.
O-3--
1
~Q.
WERE THERE ANY CHANGES MADE IN THE QA PROGRAM AFTER 1
2 THE WELDING INSPECTOR - CONCERNS AND THE TASK FORCE 3
INVESTIGATION OF THESE CONCERNS?
4 A.
Yes.
5 Q.
DESCRIBE THE CHANGES OF WHICH YOU ARE AWARE IN THE QA 6
PROGRAM.
7 A.
There has been greater understanding between inspectors and 8
higher QA management.
Problems are investigated more thoroughly.
- 9 More procedures have been written to cover problems and 10 investigate the problems more thoroughly.
With regard to _ past 11 problems I had identified and felt were not thoroughly investigated, 12 the investigation process was explained to me.
I believe that if the 13 investigations were conducted as explained, and I have no reason to 14 believe they were not, these concerns were also resolved.
15 Q.
TO WHAT EXTENT HAVE THESE CHANGES ADDRESSED ISSUES 16 RAISED BY THE WELDING INSPECTOR CONCERNS AND TO WHAT 17 EXTENT HAVE THESE CHANGES ADDRESSED YOUR PARTICULAR 18 CONCERNS?
19 A.
The QA Department used to be separated from welding inspectors.
20 Now welding inspectors are a part of QA, and the problems are 21 investigated thoroughly. We are working like a group now.
22 Q.
THE WELDING INSPECTOR CONCERNS HAVE BEEN 23 CHARACTERIZED AS CONCERNS ABOUT THE QUALITY AND 24 SAFETY OF CONSTRUCTION AT CATAWBA.
DO YOU AGREE OR 25 DISAGREE WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION?
26 A.
I disagree.
I feel to the best of my ability that this plant is 27' constructed in a safe manner. _ -, -
1 Q.
DID THE EXPRESSION OF YOUR CONCERNS INDICATE YOUR l
\\
'v' 2
BELIEF THAT THERE WAS A BREAKDOWN IN THE QA PROGRAM 3
OR INDICATE THAT THE QA PROGRAM WAS NO LONGER
~
4 WORKING?
5 A.
I felt there were problems with the QA program, but not so as to 6
affect safety of the plant.
The Program was designed to work but 7
there was a lack of communication between inspectors and higher 8
tanagement.
We were taught to go by the book, but when 9
problems arose, we would be overridden because of different 10 interpretations and other investigations.
We appeared to have no 11
' support from management at times.
12 Q.
DID YOUR CONCERNS REFLECT A BELIEF ON YOUR PART THAT 13 THE CATAWBA PROJECT IS NOT BEING CONSTRUCTi'.D SAFELY?
14 A.
No.
15 Q.
IN YOUR VIEW, liAS THE QA PROGRAM BEEN EFFECTIVE WHILE 16 YOU HAVE WORKED AS AN INSPECTOR AT CATAWBA?
17 A.
Yes.
18 Q.
ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY DEFICIENCIES IN CONSTRUCTION OR IN 19 THE QA PROGRAM WHICH WOULD CAUSE YOU TO QUESTION 20 WHETHER CATAWBA IS SAFELY BUILT?
l 11 A.
No.
22 Q.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO YOUR 23 TESTIMONY?
24 A.
I _ believe that everything that has been inspected by me is right to 25 the best of my ability.
I feel that Duke Power has designed and j
26 built this job in an extremely safe manner.
O l
~
_ ~..
1 I hereby certify that I have read and understand this document, and 2
believe it to be my true, accurate and complete test' ony 3
l 4
5 vw A
l e
6 Tommy ya W 7
i 8
9 Sworn to and subscribed before me 10 this,fo /A day of September,1983.
11 i
3 A. J n, (L). b ha /*
14
'T Notary Publib i
15 l
16 Commission Expires //)mI
-f,
/993 1
/
a
- O I
l 3
s l
I s
I g
f l l
._.s.
,_-.~m..y.,_...
...-,,,..~,.._,,,,...,o.,,
,..r-,
y o.
r 0
@#df Sc'259 a.410 dw cA.
'Vts a altk1 5
a/4cX. leaf. cauda.a & AM met dd46. 7d Ja,0,xd,efuvd'7 L eA&
l A wkL 76 caeed / vat.awala A de mo&O o~ % &-
Lar, sua sn. -,a
.75 a c a w $w u idd.awWk e#d gs<. a
. add.acant s4:a, tXa-A ad B to k-p n re. Ao Tra M sa~
C h'd Q 3. N N ae{akad+alW y f
hl$'aW M
e
. w - a w n%ei a m - a % a>Ae.
ans y7 W, as% ada <aa u,We~l sa
+
c,<. H fouw W% &.
ages afzWe. % 7% 7b.ee Im
,, Gal &
fr
,' d O.
- W d2#.nou co,a ad
&x Laddd.,
y
-fo a%a. -th peath aan,6 M pin 4dA7d4 7
a A 4 a d m e 4. s s A,,
i 16z
\\ b & sex a.,aoMa. aAe. 4 <hs
.<A>'7Eadtiu AW)daaddd> dKu/. r
,& edsaia g M
f on.#,ayw.amk. d au &M 76 aV safor.74b prev xi (wi% -osos. dwas crAt oc gakf and do w e
data
- a s t A a a d A l) u
/
/W ad -f caud t
=
3
/'
.f
.ru.wSde ed d fet 7h y%u.i & d#d md 76 m a d a A., C L / M w ak e 7 r
/h.g/. 4 efabid.d fo W dat dw/
7va am-p,cix,cd. Addus:
a)WAadda L 4 7%d saw ekem-ne s
/44A M(WfneeYfo
,a d 7'o go a/ad wuf & H
- = L a y r.; ar M iv,,sa su-/asdas Men dou/at
.mwrlaeO a//t l.eesw s7Ake ## #L i
eswd /af madr b.aaah> orir).ax~
-duujL-/k A.ao a76.gant&,,mqs.
on /f /das ca<. Q y2y %&qi h/and a deZ*e a fAiks/q al+c/
- N q
D. a u x Y ~ & t%sa gre
-4
~pn a,4 n,p nwcm,a,n.&ur.
d A *' n
,q'd Adaa codsd Ja.> sd b.- andd -fad. aw, Mi AVS-r/ans -// dad A a.au 20 h p @e a s< h d o<- p p a n d,d o %..oc hspuo
.cd M7h M1e.e Mrfanyuda'
//MS G
i
O
\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\
- i
, * \\ {t
\\
i
\\
\\
\\
'c w
- -
- t.. I, c
~
T ty i
q Q
" '! t Pe r
)
m4 6
i ao M' '
e:S
,7~ '
, cf T.- a i
.n
.r.
1
\\,
p' s
t i
4 0
.